Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA's Military Partnerships

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships By Linda K. Smith Mousumi Sarkar

About NACCRRA NACCRRA, the National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies, is our nation’s leading voice for child care. We work with more than 800 state and local Child Care Resource and Referral agencies nationwide. These agencies help ensure that families in 99 percent of all populated ZIP codes in the United States have access to high-quality, affordable child care. To achieve our mission, we lead projects that increase the quality and availability of child care professionals, undertake research, and advocate child care policies that positively impact the lives of children and families. To learn more about NACCRRA and how you can join us in ensuring access to high-quality child care for all families, visit us at www.naccrra.org.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

About CCR&Rs There are approximately 800 Child Care Resource & Referral agencies (CCR&Rs) located in every state and most communities in the United States. Together they serve parents and providers in 99.3 percent of all populated ZIP codes. CCR&Rs provide three primary functions in their communities. They: 1. Help parents find child care. Choosing child care is one of the most important decisions families make. Local CCR&Rs help parents take the guesswork out of choosing care by providing:

u referrals to local child care providers,

u information on child care state licensing

requirements, and

u explanations of requirements and the

availability of child care subsidies.

2. Help build the supply of child care by:

u conducting community needs assessments,

u helping providers meet licensing

3. Help improve the quality of child care by:

u providing ongoing professional development

opportunities to child care providers and staff,

u supporting provider and program

accreditation,

u helping to create financial incentives for

education for providers, and

u advocating for better compensation for

providers.

In short, CCR&Rs help nearly 7 million families each year by providing child care referrals, consumer education, and financial assistance.

They work with their communities to identify child care needs and develop child care options, recruit and train nearly 500,000 child care providers a year, and create 450,000 new child care spaces annually.

requirements, and

u supporting providers by offering low-cost

or free training on diverse topics such as health and safety, child development, and sound business practices.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

i

Acknowledgements NACCRRA appreciates and acknowledges the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and the Department of Defense (DoD) for sponsoring initiatives designed to improve the quality of child care in this country. NACCRRA is grateful to have had the opportunity to help military families find high-quality child care and, in the process, help improve the quality of civilian child care.

We especially want to thank M.-A. Lucas, Director of Army Child and Youth Services, who was the first to support initiatives to help military families find child care in civilian communities if those families couldn’t be served on a military installation. We also want to thank Jan Witte, former Director of Child and Youth Policy for the Department of Defense, who joined with the Army in making these programs available to all military families. Others who were instrumental in the development and implementation of these efforts included Lisa Hamlin, Helen Roadarmel, and Mary Ellen Pratt of the United States Army, Barbara Thompson of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Mike Berger, Kathy Facon and Rhudine Wilkes of the United States Marine Corps, Greg Young of the United States Navy and Toni Koppen and Eliza Nesmith of the United States Air Force.

ii

NACCRRA is also grateful to the state and local Child Care Resource & Referral agencies (CCR&Rs) that helped establish Operation Child Care (OCC), a program in which individual child care providers from across the nation volunteered their services to support military families in need of respite care. More than 6,500 child care providers volunteered for this project. The OCC program set the stage for the partnership that developed between NACCRRA and the Military Services and provided the foundation for the projects described in this report.

NACCRRA would like to thank all of the CCR&Rs that participated in the various military-sponsored quality improvement projects or who helped military parents find child care through enhanced referrals. Without the CCR&Rs, these projects would not have been successful.

In addition, many NACCRRA staff contributed to the projects described in this report. Critical to the success of this project were Ollie Smith, Susan Perry-Manning, Bonnie Storm, Stacey Minott, Flor Philips, Betty Underwood, Jan Terhune, Caitlin McLaughlin, Jennifer Bump, Karen Moon, Beverly Schmalzried, Beverly Houston, Nicole Reid, Molly O’Keefe, Nicole Smidt, ShaRonne Byrd, Donald Valentine, Vonciel Little, and Paula Bendl-Smith.

Without their hard work and dedication, none of the achievements outlined in this report would have been possible.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

About This Report The Military Child Development Program has been recognized by Congress and the Executive Branch for its contributions to military families and as a model for the nation to follow in improving the quality of child care for civilian families. The transformation of the military program from what was once called the “ghetto of American child care” to a model for the nation has lessons that communities, states, and Congress should consider for the civilian child care community. Further insights into how these lessons can be applied to civilian settings have been developed during NACCRRA’s work with both military and civilian programs since 2004.

NACCRRA has learned that many of the military’s approaches to improving child care can be readily implemented in civilian communities.

Congress set the stage for the military’s success in improving its child care program by passing the Military Child Care Act of 1989. Policy makers should consider revisiting those requirements and using them, where appropriate, to reframe the requirements for the states when the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) is reauthorized. During the last four years, NACCRRA has worked with the Department of Defense (DoD) and the military services to make quality child care available to military members in civilian settings. This report examines the challenges and successes that NACCRRA, local CCR&Rs and the military services encountered in developing and implementing these programs.

Until 1998, military families’ access to financial support for child care services was limited to programs operated by and on military installations.

In 1998, when Congress acknowledged that the need for child care for military families could not be met entirely by on-installation services, it provided the DoD with the authority to enter into partnerships with non-profit organizations in order to expand access to child care for military families, especially those who didn’t live close enough to a military installation to use the on-site services.

Spurred on by the increased need for child care caused by the Global War on Terrorism, NACCRRA began several different projects designed to find and pay for child care for military families. Through these efforts, NACCRRA learned that there is a lack of quality child care options available to all parents in the United States. As we searched for high-quality child care for military families, we were confronted not just with a lack of quality child care, but with a marketplace that does not offer clear avenues for identifying quality care and with communities struggling to improve what does exist. We came face-to-face with what families using child care in this country deal with each and every day.

While we firmly believe that there are many more lessons to learn from the military model, this report will focus on what we learned about the condition of child care in civilian communities in hopes of informing the upcoming reauthorization of the CCDBG. As we call attention to what we learned about civilian child care, we will connect our findings to strategies that have been successfully used by the military to overcome these challenges. We will identify lessons from the military child care transformation that we believe can have significant impact on the quality of child care for all of America’s children.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

iii

Table of Contents About NACCRRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

About CCR&Rs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii About This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Figures and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Lessons Learned from Military/NACCRRA Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Issues and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Overview of Projects Implemented by NACCRRA with the Military Services . . . . . . . . . . 11

Operation Child Care (OCC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Operation Military Child Care (OMCC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Military Child Care in Your Neighborhood (MCCYN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Severely Injured Service Members’ Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Enhanced Referrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Quality Improvement Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Relationship of NACCRRA’s Work With the Military to Improving Civilian Child Care . . . . . . . 15

The Department of Defense’s Child Care Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Barriers to Meeting the Military’s Child Care Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Confusion over Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Child Care Aware® Is Helping Military Parents Navigate Civilian Child Care . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Lack of Child Care That Meets the Military’s Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Lack of Infant Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Implementing the Military Model in Civilian Child Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Brief Overview of the Quality-Improvement Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Implementing the Projects – Outreach Specialists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Implementing the Projects – Incentives for Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Implementing the Projects – Site Visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

iv

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Implementing the Projects–Caseload for Training and Technical Assistance Staff . . . . . . . 30 Implementing the Projects–Training Provided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Outcomes of the Quality-Improvement Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Provider and Parent Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Observations on the Quality of Child Care in Civilian Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Licensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Licensing Standards Are Minimal and Vary Widely from State to State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Oversight of Child Care Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Provider Education and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Health and Safety Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Criminal Background Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Addressing Children’s Developmental Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Accreditation of Child Care Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 There Are Few Accredited Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 The Number of Accredited Centers Is Declining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 There Are Too Few Accredited Family Child Care Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 There Are Few Accredited Programs (Centers or FCC Homes) in Most States . . . . . . . . . . 46

Child Development Associate (CDA) Credential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 The Consequences of the Lack of High-Quality Child Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Lessons Learned from Implementing the Military Model in Civilian Communities . . . . . . . 53 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Appendix A: The Military Child Care Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

TITLE XV—Military Child Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

SEC. 1501. Short Title; Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

SEC. 1502. Funding For Military Child Care for Fiscal Year 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

SEC. 1503. Child Care Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

SEC. 1504. Parent Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

SEC. 1505. Child Abuse Prevention and Safety at Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

SEC. 1506. Parent Partnerships with Child Development Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

SEC. 1507. Report on Five-year Demand for Child Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

SEC. 1508. Subsidies for Family Home Day Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

SEC. 1509. Early Childhood Education Demonstration Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

SEC. 1510. Deadline for Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

v

Appendix B: DoD’s Standards for Child Care Centers and Family Child Care Homes . . . . . . 79

State of Child Care Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

State of Family Child Care Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Appendix C: Program Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Appendix D: The Military Training System Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Appendix E: 1990 Crime Control Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

SEC. 231. Requirement for Background Checks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Appendix F: A Comparison of Two Federal Child Care Laws: The Military Child Care (MCCA) Act vs. the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG): Major Highlights . . . . . . . 89

Figures and Tables Table 1: Quality Improvement Projects Sponsored by the Military Services . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Table 2: Outcomes of Quality Improvement Projects (As of September 2007 for Army and Navy/Marine Projects and September 2006 for Air Force Projects) . . . . . . . . . 32 Table 3: Overview of State Child Care Regulations and Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Table 4: Number and Percent of Centers Accredited by State as of May 2008 . . . . . . . . 41 Table 5: Change In Center Accreditation Rates (May 2007 to May 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Table 6: Number and Percent of Accredited FCC Homes

by State (May 2007 to May 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Table 7: Number and Percent of FCC Homes by State with a CDA-Credentialed Provider (May 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Table 8: Parents’ Perceptions of Existing Child Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Figure 1: How Child Care Aware® Helps Military Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 2: Percent of Centers and FCC Homes Accredited (As of February 2008) . . . . . . . 47

vi

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Foreword In 2000, I went to work for the United States Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on a fellowship from the Department of Defense (DoD), where I had been a part of the building of the military’s child development program. My task in going to the Senate was to examine the lessons learned from the military’s approach to child care to determine their applicability for civilian child care. I wrote an article published in the May 2001 issue of Young Children that described the lessons learned from the military child care system and drew comparisons between the military structure and the federal, state and local governments. In that article, I specifically proposed an infrastructure that could attain a similar level of quality for the entire country.

Since coming to NACCRRA in late 2002, I have become even more adamant in my belief that simple policy changes can be made to improve the state of child care in America. These potential improvements could mirror what was done in the military child care system and could include minimum standards, routine inspections, screening of the work force and basic training tied to higher levels of competency and increased wages.

In 2003, as a result of the Global War on Terrorism, NACCRRA was awarded contracts with the DoD and the various branches of the military.

These contracts gave NACCRRA the opportunity to demonstrate that many of the basic requirements of the military system could in fact be applied in the civilian community and produce similar results — specifically higher-quality child care.

This report, Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships, takes these lessons learned and translates them into action steps that Congress, and the state governments can implement to turn around the current status of child care in the United States. As we look forward to the reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), I urge Congress to seriously study the military child care system and take to heart the lessons learned from a highly successful transformation — one spurred by the relatively simple, yet strategically important, requirements of the Military Child Care Act of 1989. It might be possible, even prudent, to allow at least one state the flexibility to pilot these lessons statewide, including the use of CCDBG funds to establish a “fair share” joint responsibility financing approach to child care across the board.

We have learned many things over the last four years. We have learned that by using the underlying goals and principles that the military used to improve its child care, it is not just possible, but highly probable that we can change the landscape of child care in a community. There are still many lessons to be learned from our work with the military, but it is my hope that Congress and state policy-makers can use this report to begin anew the discussion about how we can improve the quality of child care in the United States.

Linda K. Smith Executive Director

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

1

Executive Summary Shortly after the start of the Global War on Terrorism in 2004, the Department of Defense (DoD) and its various branches (the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps) realized that one of the key issues facing Service Members, especially those deployed overseas, was a shortage of child care, especially for families not living near a military installation. Even for families with access to a military installation child care program, waiting lists were common. The situation was even more urgent for National Guard and Reserve members who were being called to active duty. These families usually live in communities far from military installations. The nonmilitary parent in military families was suddenly faced with running a single-parent household, holding down a job, and making arrangements for child care. In addition, there was a growing need for short-term respite care for families with a deployed member, especially those who were not living near their extended families.

Since 2004, NACCRRA has conducted five major initiatives designed to help military families meet their child care needs. These include: u Operation Child Care (OCC): CCR&Rs and

local child care providers partnered with NACCRRA and the military to offer a voluntary respite child care program, Operation Child Care (OCC), which made donated child care available to families of deployed National Guard and Reserve members. This care was provided primarily to military members returning to the United States during their two-week Rest and Recuperation (R&R) leave.

and Reservists, living in communities away from military installations. Because the care was intended to be short term, the requirements for the program were designed to minimize the disruption for children and families during this stressful time. OMCC offered fee assistance to families as long as the care was in legally operating and licensed child care facilities.

NACCRRA used its already existing Child Care AwareÂŽ National Hotline to link families to child care and to fee assistance counselors. u Military Child Care in Your Neighborhood

(MCCYN): The military services realized that although many military families lived close to an installation, they were still unable to access military child care, because the installation programs were either full or too far away to be practical. MCCYN attempted to locate child care programs that met standards of quality established by the military services. This included the requirement that the child care program be licensed, inspected and nationally accredited (centers and family child care homes) or that the family child care provider have a Child Development Associate (CDA) Credential or college degree in Early Childhood Education or Child Development. These requirements mirrored the military requirements that programs be nationally accredited, that all child care staff receive training, and that all programs are inspected frequently.

u Operation Military Child Care (OMCC):

In conjunction with the military services, NACCRRA established a program to help Service Members being deployed in support of the Global War on Terrorism. The program provided fee assistance for child care to deployed members, especially National Guard

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

3

u Enhanced Referrals: Military families

frequently find the civilian child care landscape confusing. As a result, NACCRRA began contracting with local CCR&Rs to provide specialized referral services to all Service Members who needed help finding a licensed or a high-quality child care space. Through the Enhanced Referrals process, the CCR&Rs check vacancies and provide extra follow-up and support to meet the Service Members’ child care needs and to help them enroll in the fee assistance programs.

Project. Similar to ACCYN, this project sought to improve the quality of FCC homes. Projects were funded in 12 civilian communities. These projects most closely mirrored the military’s requirements in both standards and oversight. CCR&Rs provided training and support to FCC providers to help them complete the military’s 13 CDAbased training modules. The providers received quarterly on-site visits and technical assistance. FCC providers had the option of pursuing National Association for Family Child Care accreditation or the CDA Credential, but they were not required to do so in order to participate.

u Quality Improvement Projects: It was soon

evident that child care that met the DoD’s quality standards was scarce or unavailable in most civilian communities. Nationally, only 10 percent of child care centers and about 1 percent of family child care (FCC) homes are accredited. In addition, licensing standards in many states are minimal, and most states do not license all programs providing child care.

Few states inspect child care programs on a regular basis. Because of the lack of highquality child care, many Service Members could not qualify for the fee assistance the military was offering. As a result, the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps began working with NACCRRA to implement quality improvement projects in communities with the most need.

The projects offered training and support to providers to help them complete the required training and attain higher quality levels. The Army, Navy and Marine programs required the child care programs, centers and FCC homes to pursue accreditation. FCC providers also had the option to complete a CDA Credential instead of becoming accredited. The individual service projects are described below.

n Army Child Care in Your Neighborhood

(ACCYN).

The goal of this project was for CCR&Rs to work with highly motivated child care programs in their civilian communities to improve the quality of care offered, and to achieve national accreditation or a CDA Credential. CCR&Rs provided training and other support to staff members working in child care centers and FCC homes. ACCYN projects were conducted in 10 communities.

n Air Force Quality Family Child Care (QFCC)

n Navy/Marine Corps Quality Child Care

Project. The Navy and Marine Corps funded a joint project in the greater San Diego, California, area. Because of the high concentration of Navy and Marine families, many of whom are geographically dispersed throughout the southern California area, there was a need for high-quality child care for families permanently assigned in the area. As with the ACCYN and Air Force QFCC projects, the goal was to recruit and train child care providers willing to meet higher quality standards.

These projects provided NACCRRA with the opportunity to test whether the quality of civilian child care can be improved by applying some of the strategies used to improve military child care.

It also required that NACCRRA determine what requirements were in place and to document that the standards for child care in many civilian communities are lower than those required to protect children’s health and safety and facilitate children’s learning and development. Our work in communities made us even more aware of the complete lack of a systematic approach to improving child care in this country and the lack of direction and accountability for the expenditure of federal funds by Congress and the federal government.

4

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Summary of Accomplishments:

n In the Air Force-sponsored project, FCC

providers were not required to attain accreditation or earn the CDA Credential; however, 13 providers in this project attained NAFCC accreditation and 92 more are still working toward it, and 46 of the providers achieved a CDA Credential, with another 52 still in process.

NACCRRA’s partnerships with the military services have resulted in numerous accomplishments: u As of September 2007, 8,851 military families

with 10,320 children had received child care fee assistance through these projects and as a result of NACCRRA’s collaborations with CCR&Rs and qualified civilian child care programs. u NACCRRA, through agreements with local

CCR&Rs, developed high-quality spaces military parents could use.

n Of the FCC providers in the quality

improvement projects, 158 completed all of the 13 training modules, and the remaining FCC providers participating in the program are in the process of completing these modules.

n Fifteen FCC providers attained NAFCC1

accreditation as participants in these projects, and 72 earned the CDA Credential.

Another 145 FCC providers are in the NAFCC accreditation process and 99 are working toward earning a CDA Credential. Twentyone child development centers are in the process of attaining national accreditation.

1

u With the help of local CCR&Rs, NACCRRA has

provided nearly 2,500 enhanced referrals for child care to military parents. u NACCRRA initiated a policy of transferring

families calling Child Care Aware® to the local CCR&R via conference call. This “warm handoff” helps families who are confused about terms in the civilian child care community and frustrated with locating high-quality child care.

As a result, NACCRRA’s Child Care Aware® hotline helped nearly 17,000 military families navigate the world of civilian child care. u NACCRRA developed a parent education tool

called the “38 Indicators of High-Quality Child Care” to help parents and others understand what quality should look like, why certain standards are important, and what questions to ask when looking for child care.

NAFCC is the National Association of Family Child Care, and it accredits FCC homes.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

5

In addition to the partnerships established between NACCRRA and the military services, the most important partnerships have been those at the local level— between CCR&Rs in communities, military child care programs, and civilian providers.

Lessons Learned from Military/ NACCRRA Partnerships By working closely with the military services, child care resource and referral experts, child care providers, parents, and state child care administrators, NACCRRA has learned many lessons about the cost, quality and availability of child care to average families. These are summarized below.

Lesson One: There is not nearly enough highquality child care in the United States, even for families who can afford to pay the higher cost, including those military families eligible for the DoD fee assistance program.

Lesson Two: Unlike the DoD, the Department of Health and Human Services has little authority to enforce even the slimmest of requirements spelled out in the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG). States are given wide latitude to establish health and safety requirements and the ability to decide whether or not to enforce them.

Lesson Three: The high cost of child care is a barrier to improving the quality of it. Because child care already costs more than most parents can afford to pay, providers have little incentive to undertake quality improvement initiatives because they cannot pass the costs on to parents. This is especially true of accreditation or credentialing programs because these tend to be more expensive endeavors.

Lesson Four: Unlike the military, where the cost of quality is built into the way of doing business, quality in the civilian community is viewed as optional. Quality is not routinely built into every child care space.

6

Lesson Five: There are few, if any, prescreening requirements for those working with small children. Comprehensive background checks are not required, and there are no consistent qualifications or pre-service training requirements.

To add to the problems, providers are not consistently inspected.

Lesson Six: Parents, especially military parents, are generally confused by the state of child care and the terms used to describe it. Terms such as “licensing,” “certification,” “registration,” “legally exempt” and “accredited” all have different meanings in the different states, and may or may not mean that the program or provider has been inspected.

Lesson Seven: Parents across the income and socio-economic spectrum are unaware of the meaning of high quality. NACCRRA’s parent surveys consistently demonstrate that nearly all parents view their child care as high quality despite national research that shows that less than 10 percent of child care can be considered high quality.

Lesson Eight: Child care providers across the board are willing to accept higher standards if they receive support to meet the standards and some incentives to do so.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Lesson Nine: Most civilian communities lack a logical and clear-cut path for child care providers to undertake training that leads to higher standards of quality. Most who work in the field generally enter with nothing more than a GED or high school diploma at best, and the little training that is required is random and does not lead to higher levels of pay or recognition.

Lesson Ten: There are no professional standards or caseload requirements for those who provide the training. This is especially critical since the vast majority of those caring for children have no formal education themselves. The caseload of trainers-to-providers matters, especially when onsite competency-based observations are required.

Issues and Recommendations When the DoD was directed by Congress and the White House to share lessons learned with the rest of the country, many questioned the relevance of the military experience to civilian child care.

Numerous arguments were put forth for why these lessons did not pertain. These included the lack of funding and the perceived ability of the military to “order” change and so on. However, we have learned from our four years of the Military/NACCRRA partnership that nearly all of the lessons ARE applicable to the civilian child care community and that by paying attention to the basics, change CAN occur.

As noted earlier, the Military Child Care Act (MCCA) is almost stunning in its simplicity. In crafting the MCCA, Congress paid attention to the basics, especially accountability, something completely lacking in CCDBG. Congress gave the DoD responsibility—in fact, the requirement— to oversee the enforcement of child care health and safety standards and to report life-threatening situations back to Congress. NACCRRA has learned that if Congress merely replicates many of the basic requirements of the MCCA in the upcoming CCDBG reauthorization, much is possible.

The single biggest “take-away” from NACCRRA’s experiences working with DoD is that Congress must exert a more aggressive role in linking quality to all federal child care expenditures.

Parents are parents — whether military or civilian — and they want the same things for their children.

They want their children to be cared for in safe and healthy places by adults who care about them and are trained to do their jobs. They want their children to learn while in this care. Parents want and expect that standards will be enforced and that the adults working with their children have had background checks. Based on the lessons learned and the insight of Service Members, NACCRRA calls for: Recommendation One: Congress should conduct hearings that focus on the quality of child care in the United States. These hearings should include an examination of the MCCA and the Crime Control Act of 1990 as compared to current CCDBG law to determine gaps in basic standards, oversight, training and the accountability of state governments for the nearly $11 billion in government funds they spend.

Recommendation Two: Congress should establish quality as a national goal for all children’s programs, but especially for child care. Child care is the setting where more preschool children spend their time than any other place outside of the home. In view of the need to ensure that children arrive at our nation’s public schools ready to learn, Congress should re-examine the messages sent to states about quality. Quality should not be considered an “add-on,” but rather a fundamental part of any child care program in order to adequately ensure that children are prepared for school.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

7

Recommendation Three: Congress should set clear expectations about what quality means and establish a floor for what is minimally acceptable.

As with the MCCA, Congress should establish minimum requirements for health and safety standards, require frequent inspections and require that states demonstrate these measures are in place. The Department of Health and Human Services should be required to notify Congress when states fail to establish minimum standards and should have the authority to withhold federal funds.

Recommendation Four: Congress should extend requirements of the Crime Control Act of 1990 to all paid child care workers caring regularly for unrelated children, and in the case of FCC homes, all adults living in the home, substitutes and teenagers over the age of consent.

Recommendation Five: Congress should establish minimum training requirements for all paid child care workers in the United States. No adult should have unsupervised access to small children without some basic training. To do less puts the safety and welfare of our youngest citizens in jeopardy.

Recommendation Six: Congress should support state efforts to create an infrastructure through which quality improvement projects can systematically be supported. Most states lack a comprehensive and systematic way of supporting child care workers, who generally enter the field with a high school diploma and no training, to achieve higher levels of competency. Although this infrastructure is developing in many states through the Quality Rating Improvement Systems (QRIS), Congress could support the development of this infrastructure by addressing the need for competency-based training and technical assistance to all child care programs and workers.

In order for the training and technical assistance to be effective, however, trainers and technical assistance specialists must have adequate qualifications and a caseload that allows them to provide the level of attention each provider requires. Congress should ensure that adequate funding is available for trainers and technical assistant specialists so that they are able to successfully fulfill their responsibilities.

8

Recommendation Seven: Congress should require states to inspect child care programs before they can take care of children and regularly thereafter.

NACCRRA’s work shows that parents assume this is happening. It is the responsibility of the government (state and federal) to protect the health and safety of its citizens. With nearly half of all children currently in programs that are not inspected, government is clearly failing on this front.

Recommendation Eight: Congress should require the Department of Health and Human Services, in conjunction with the National Academy of Sciences, to determine the cost of quality and report back to Congress. Based on the results of these findings, Congress should take aggressive measures to examine a cost-sharing approach that establishes a “fair share” approach to child care.

The federal share of the cost should be used to ensure that all children who need child care have access to programs that meet their developmental needs and adequately prepare them for school. As with the MCCA, Congress needs to direct states to develop sliding-fee scales that are similar to those of the military and help working parents afford high-quality child care. Even in families where both parents work, child care can cost more than mortgages, food and other major expenses.

Recommendation Nine: Congress should require that states receiving federal funds actively seek the input of parents on state policy decisions.

Congress should also authorize specific funds within CCDBG to be set aside to provide parents with consumer education on child care, so that they can understand the differences between the various types of child care available in their communities and accurately identify high-quality care. This will better enable them to make informed decisions.

Recommendation Ten: Congress should ask the Department of Health and Human Services to convene a working group of representatives from state child care licensing agencies and state child care administrators to discuss and reach consensus on licensing terms that can be used across the country. The working group should define terms such as licensing, certification, registration, etc., so that they have a standard meaning across state lines. This will go a long way toward eliminating confusion and will help parents make more informed choices.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Overview of Projects Implemented by NACCRRA with the Military Services As the United States military was increasingly being deployed overseas to fight the Global War on Terrorism, the lack of child care services became acute, especially for military families not living on or near an installation.

The families of military recruiters and deployed National Guard and Reserve members needed child care in order to cope with the increased demands placed on their families. Many military parents were turned into single parents overnight and needed child care support while a spouse was deployed or sent on missions away from home. As the number of deployed troops increased, so did the need for child care for the parents left behind. Given the sudden increase in the number of members deployed, the military services, especially the Army and the Marine Corps, found they could not meet this need entirely with the child care spaces available on their installations.

As M.-A. Lucas, Director of Army Child and Youth Services stated, “The more frequently one parent is absent, the more the family relies on child care; not just for care, but as a safe haven for the child and as a place that provides consistency for both the remaining parent and the child during times of stress.”

The projects that NACCRRA developed to help the military meet the increased need for child care services are described below.

Referral agencies (CCR&Rs), NACCRRA recruited more than 6,500 licensed and certified child care providers to donate child care hours to members of the National Guard and Reserve returning from Iraq or Afghanistan on two weeks of Rest and Recuperative (R&R) leave. This gave the Service Members time to take care of personal business and spend some time with their spouses. This program demonstrated the reach of CCR&Rs in the country and the ability of the network to respond quickly to the needs of military families. Based on the overwhelming response, the military services looked to NACCRRA to help meet the full-time child care needs of deployed Services Members.

Operation Military Child Care (OMCC) The military operates child care programs on its installations around the world. These programs provide hourly, part-day, and full-day care to children from military families. But some military families’ needs cannot be met by the installation programs. In addition, with the onset of the Global War on Terrorism in 2004, more than 120,000 Army National Guard and Reserve personnel were called to active duty. Because most of these Service Members did not have access to child care on military installations, the military decided to help them find child care in civilian communities.

Operation Child Care (OCC) As a first response to this need, NACCRRA partnered with the Department of Defense (DoD) to offer a voluntary program, Operation Child Care (OCC), which made respite child care available to families of deployed National Guard and Reserve members. With the help of its network of more than 800 state and local Child Care Resource &

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

11

Initially the military planned to provide fee assistance for child care to families using civilian (i.e., outside the installations) care, so that they would pay an amount similar to what parents were paying for child care on installations. Based on the quick response of CCR&Rs for OCC and NACCRRA’s experience in administering child care fee assistance to the Corporation for National Community Service, AmeriCorps and VISTA National Volunteer Programs, the military contracted with NACCRRA to administer this fee assistance program.

The United States Army was the first to contract with NACCRRA to 1) help parents find child care spaces in civilian communities through NACCRRA’s Child Care Aware® (CCA) hotline and referral system and 2) to administer a fee assistance program for deployed Army parents using civilian care.

Titled “Operation Military Child Care” (OMCC) and supported by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the program was quickly expanded to serve families in all branches of the military.

In an effort to provide maximum support to deployed families, the requirements for the

12

care provided by OMCC were limited to “legally operating” child care, a seemingly achievable standard. This assumed that programs were at least licensed and inspected. As the program expanded, we realized that “legally operating” was a deceptive term, and we needed to better understand exactly what the states were requiring.

Many of the lessons learned in this project focus on the limited supply of “licensed and inspected” child care in many of the states. This resulted in two major reports on the status of licensing in the states and the failure of some states to establish and enforce even the most basic health and safety standards. The first report, We Can Do Better: NACCRRA’s Ranking of State Child Care Center Standards and Oversight, revealed that nine states do not even inspect child care centers on an annual basis. NACCRRA’s second report, Leaving Children to Chance: NACCRRA’s Ranking of State Standards and Oversight of Small Family Child Care Homes, was published earlier this year. It revealed that only 10 states require everyone providing paid child care to unrelated children on a regular basis to be regulated and inspected.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

In September 2004 NACCRRA began a short pilot phase, and in February 2005 it began implementing the referral and fee assistance services for deployed Army Soldiers nationwide. At the same time, the DoD made the decision to provide the same services for deployed Service Members in all branches of the military, and the OMCC project was expanded to include this additional task. NACCRRA began to provide nationwide child care consumer education, referral, and fee assistance services to help activated National Guard, Reserve and Active Duty Service Members find, select, and help pay for local child care services

Military Child Care in Your Neighborhood (MCCYN) The military also asked NACCRRA to administer fee assistance for child care to Active Duty families who had enduring child care needs either because they lived in communities that were not within commuting distances to a military installation or they could not access installation child care due to long waiting lists. This program, known as Military Child Care in Your Neighborhood (MCCYN), helped eligible Service Members find high-quality child care within their communities and pay for the cost of such care. High-quality was defined as: u nationally accredited child care programs, u providers who had a Child Development

Associate (CDA) Credential, u providers with a degree in Early Childhood

Severely Injured Service Members’ Program (SIP) In February 2006, the DoD asked NACCRRA to provide a special fee-assistance program for severely injured Service Members. This program, known as the Severely Injured Service Members’ Program (SIP), was provided to families whose military member was severely injured, and as a result was being cared for in one of the military’s medical facilities. The families were generally living in temporary housing far from home. Child care was especially challenging. This program provided a glimpse of what families who need respite care or short-term care encounter.

Enhanced Referrals We quickly learned that civilian child care was very confusing to military families, and in order to find high-quality child care they needed additional help from local CCR&Rs to sort out the maze of civilian child care in most communities. Terms such as licensed, registered, accredited and certified frustrated parents, and in some cases left them feeling helpless. Through the Enhanced Referrals program, NACCRRA now works with local CCR&Rs to provide specialized and comprehensive parent consumer education and referral services to all Service Members who need help finding a licensed or high-quality child care space. The CCR&Rs check vacancies and provide extra follow-up and support to meet the Service Members’ child care needs and help them to enroll in the feeassistance programs.

Education or Child Development.

It quickly became apparent that there was a severe shortage of child care programs that met the military’s quality requirements. As a result, the Army and NACCRRA began a project to develop high-quality civilian child care spaces in select communities where there was a significant shortage of child care on the installation. Other projects with the United States Marine Corps, the Navy and the Air Force followed. These programs were focused on finding child care equivalent in quality to that on the military installation, or to recruiting and supporting child care programs that were willing to meet the military’s requirements.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

13

Quality Improvement Projects Having worked for more than two decades to improve the quality of child care available to military families, the military services were reluctant to provide fee assistance for military families to use lower quality child care for two reasons. First, Congress had authorized the use of public-private partnerships on the condition that the military quality standards would be used; and second, congress directed the military to set minimum standards for all child care available to all military families. Failing to comply with these requirements would have violated congressional intent and would undermine the military’s efforts to provide quality child care on installations. It soon became apparent that the lack of quality child care in civilian communities would be an obstacle in purchasing additional child care for military members.

It was also soon evident that child care that met the DoD’s quality standards was unavailable in most civilian communities. Nationally, only 9 percent of child care centers and less than 1 percent of family child care (FCC) homes are accredited. In addition, licensing standards in many

14

states are minimal, and most states do not license all programs providing child care. Few states inspect child care programs on a regular basis.

Because of the lack of high-quality child care, many Service Members could not qualify for the fee assistance the military was offering.

To address this issue, the four services contracted with NACCRRA to begin implementing these quality improvement projects in communities across the United States. The goal of these projects was to create high-quality child care spaces — spaces that had either earned national accreditation or, in the case of family child care (FCC) providers, were accredited or operated by individuals who had earned the CDA Credential — that would be available to military parents. The communities selected for the quality improvement projects were in areas where the military had the greatest need. NACCRRA worked with the local CCR&Rs in these areas to implement the military’s model of creating and maintaining high-quality child care. These Quality Improvement Projects implemented the military’s child care model for the first time in civilian communities.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps began working with NACCRRA to implement quality improvement projects in communities with the most need. The projects offered training and support to providers to help them complete the required training and attain higher quality levels. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps programs required the child care programs, centers and FCC homes, to pursue accreditation.

FCC providers also had the option to complete a Child Development Associate (CDA) Credential instead of becoming accredited. The individual service projects are described below. u Army Child Care in Your Neighborhood

(ACCYN). The goal of this project was for CCR&Rs to work with highly motivated child care programs in their civilian communities to improve the quality of care offered, and to achieve national accreditation or a CDA Credential. CCR&Rs provided training and other support to staff members working in child care centers and FCC homes. ACCYN projects were conducted in 10 communities. u Air Force Quality Family Child Care (QFCC)

Project. Similar to ACCYN, this project sought to improve the quality of FCC homes. Projects were funded in 12 civilian communities. These projects most closely mirrored the military’s requirements in both standards and oversight.

CCR&Rs provided training and support to FCC providers to help them complete the military’s 13 CDA-based training modules.

The providers received quarterly on-site visits and technical assistance. FCC providers had the option of pursuing National Association for Family Child Care accreditation or the CDA Credential, but they were not required to do so in order to participate. u Navy/Marine Corps Quality Child Care

Project. The Navy and Marine Corps funded a joint project in the greater San Diego, California, area. Because of the high concentration of

Navy and Marine Corps families, many of whom are geographically dispersed throughout the southern California area, there was a need for high-quality child care for families permanently assigned in the area. Like the ACCYN and Air Force QFCC projects, the goal was to recruit and train child care providers willing to meet higher quality standards.

Relationship of NACCRRA’s Work With the Military to Improving Civilian Child Care Throughout the implementation of all of these projects, NACCRRA maintained an interest in using the lessons learned to demonstrate that it is possible to improve the quality of civilian child care. We were also interested in confirming earlier reports, including ones published by The Urban Institute, The Rand Corporation and the National Women’s Law Center,* that argued that many aspects of the military’s approach to providing child care services could be replicated in civilian settings.

In particular, we were interested in testing whether some of the key aspects of the military’s approach could be implemented in civilian communities. The following components of the military’s program were of primary interest: u Having a single point of entry for helping

parents find quality child care, u The development of minimum fire, health,

safety and child abuse prevention standards, u The use of frequent inspections to ensure

compliance with minimum child care standards and provide support and training to child care providers, u Motivating providers to participate in training if

the training was linked to higher compensation or other incentives,

* De Vita, Carol J., Montilla, Maria. “Improving Child Care Quality: A Comparison of Military and Civilian Approaches.” Charting Civil Society No. 13. The Urban Institute, August 2003.

Zellman, Gail L. and Gates, Susan M. “Examining the Cost of Military Child Care.” Rand, 2002.

Campbell, Nancy D, Applebaum, Judith C. Martinson, Karin and Martin, Emily. “Be All That We Can Be: Lessons from the Military for Improving Our Nation’s Child Care System.” National Women’s Law Center. April, 2000.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

15

u Providing training on a continuum beginning

with orientation (pre-service) training and continuing from there, and u A shared cost model whereby parents and the

government share the cost of child care in order to improve the quality of child care and make care affordable to families.

n As of September 2007, 8,851 military

families with 10,320 children had received child care fee assistance through these projects and as a result of NACCRRA’s collaborations with CCR&R’s and qualified civilian child care programs.

n Through Child Care Aware®, NACCRRA has

linked more than 17,000 military parents with their local CCR&R and provided these parents with consumer education on child care.

n With the help of local CCR&Rs, NACCRRA

The purpose of this report is to now share lessons learned about child care in the civilian communities and what we have learned about applying the requirements of the military program in the broader civilian child care community. This report looks at the experiences of the military, NACCRRA, and local CCR&Rs, as well as the experiences of child care providers and parents participating in these programs. Finally, the report examines how the lessons learned from NACCRRA’s activities with the military services can be used to inform public policy at the federal level in order to effectively improve the quality of child care available in civilian communities across the United States.

“I know that there are high-quality programs in the community. Unfortunately, they are outnumbered by poor-quality programs that want to do better but don’t currently have the infrastructure and funding to achieve higher sustainable levels of quality. Because of the

has provided nearly 2,500 enhanced referrals for child care to military parents.

support of Army leadership, the Army has

n NACCRRA, through agreements with local

programs that are sustainable by applying

CCR&Rs, developed high-quality spaces that military parents could use.

been successful in achieving consistent, quality uniform, quality standards, and then providing consistent meaningful training and education to all of our caregivers. This creates an established platform to maintain the quality programs for children,” said Lucas.

16

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

The Department of Defense’s Child Care Approach The 1989 Military Child Care Act (see Appendix A) directed the U.S. military to establish child care standards that all military child care programs would be required to meet. The standards established by the military included pre-service and on-going training for child care workers, basic health and safety requirements, and regular oversight to ensure that the standards were being met. In fact, when NACCRRA scored all the states (including the District of Columbia) and the Department of Defense (DoD) on child care standards and oversight, the DoD ranked at the very top for its regulations for child care centers and came in 4th for its regulations on family child care homes (see Appendix B for details on scores and strengths and weaknesses of each setting).

These requirements exceed licensing requirements for centers in all states and for family child care homes in all but three states. The DoD has successfully implemented these requirements not just nationally but in military installations around the world. In fact, in 1997 the military child care programs were designated by both the Executive Branch and Congress as “models for the nation.”

Military families, as a result, have come to expect high-quality child care, and these expectations are routinely met at prices they can afford. The U.S. military has been able to achieve a high level of quality by adhering strongly to the standards that were mandated.

But key to achieving and maintaining these standards has been the support, in terms of training, on-site technical assistance and mentoring that the military provides to all child care workers in its system. In addition, the system does not just set training goals and guidelines, but also rewards providers with higher pay for reaching those milestones. The combination of provider support and increasing compensation has created a professional child care workforce, which additionally helps with recruiting and retaining staff in the field. It is a model that the civilian sector could adapt and replicate to create a professional child care workforce so that all parents in the United States have access to high-quality child care and all children are cared for by well-trained providers.

In general, the U.S. military requires: u All child care centers and family child care homes to be licensed;

u All programs to be inspected before licensing and on a quarterly basis;

u Quarterly visits to be unannounced;

u Center caregivers to have a high school diploma or GED; u Pre-service training in first-aid, CPR, child abuse identification, fire and other health and safety practices prior to working alone with children;

u 24 hours of annual training; u State and federal background checks with fingerprints;

u Staff inspecting these programs to have a Bachelor’s degree in a related field;

u Center directors and training specialists to have at least a Bachelor’s degree in Early Childhood Education or Child Development;

and requires background checks to be completed on persons age 12 years or older residing with family child care home providers and their substitutes and assistants;

u Programs to offer learning activities and opportunities to children and address various developmental domains.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

19

Barriers to Meeting the Military’s Child Care Needs As NACCRRA began to administer the fee assistance to military members using civilian child care through the OMCC contract, staff in NACCRRA’s subsidy department began to notice: u Parents were frequently confused about the

various terminologies used in the states to indicate a child care program’s licensing and accreditation status; u Parents could not find child care that met

the military’s standards and hence could not receive the fee assistance; u Infant child care was particularly difficult to find.

Confusion over Terminology Ollie Smith, NACCRRA’s Chief of Subsidy, emphasized parents’ lack of awareness regarding the terminology used to describe a child care program’s licensing status based on her experiences dealing with parents applying for the fee assistance. According to Smith, “About 95 percent of all parents calling in for fee assistance think they have accredited care when all they have at best is licensed care, and in some cases they incorrectly think the provider is licensed . . .You have to tell them [the military parent] they don’t qualify because the provider is not accredited or licensed and they literally break down.”

Parents’ confusion over their child care provider’s licensing status is not surprising, as most states use terms such as certification, registration, licensing and exempt-care to define the different degrees of licensing status for providers, and often these terminologies have different meanings across state lines. For example, Arizona allows FCC providers to voluntarily register themselves in a state-maintained database if they are caring for fewer than six children. These providers are called “registered” providers, but they are neither inspected by the state or local government nor are they required to adhere to any standards

regarding health and safety set by the state. Arizona also has “certified” FCC providers, who care for six or more children. These providers are required to meet state standards and are inspected by the state. In most states these providers would be called “licensed” providers, but in Arizona they are called “certified” providers. So it is not surprising that a military family moving from Arizona to Delaware would think that a certified provider would meet the military’s requirements to provide fee assistance.

Unfortunately, in Delaware certification means that the provider has a piece of paper saying that he or she has agreed to adhere to the state’s regulations on FCC homes, but the state does not inspect to ensure that the provider is actually meeting those standards.

Child Care Aware® Is Helping Military Parents Navigate Civilian Child Care Child Care Aware® (CCA), NACCRRA’s hotline for connecting parents to their local CCR&Rs and ultimately to child care providers, has been helping to educate parents on civilian child care and helping them find the care they need. Staff members at CCA have been fielding calls from many military parents who have not qualified for fee assistance either because they were unaware that the care they were using did not meet the military’s requirements or simply because of the lack of accredited or credentialed child care in their area.

A common scenario, according to Nicole Reid, a Consumer Education Specialist with CCA, is that parents believe that they have accredited care when, in reality, they do not. Many parents are

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

21

unaware of what “accreditation” means and are uncertain about how to find out if a program is accredited. As Reid said, “Many parents will say, ‘Oh I know that my provider’s accredited.’ Or ‘My child attends a center that is like a school, so I am sure that they have their accreditation.’”

But on verification, she said, most of these programs turned out not to be accredited.

While discussing child care with parents, Reid said, often “they [the parents] do not have a clear idea of what accreditation really is. Many times they use the term interchangeably with licensing or consider them one and the same.”

CCA staff members not only help military parents understand the differences between the various terminologies in their state, but also provide them with information on what constitutes high-quality child care, and the type of care they need to use in order to receive the military’s fee assistance.

CCA staff members then connect military parents to their local CCR&R so that they can get the help they need to find child care in their community.

Figure 1 illustrates how CCA helps military parents find child care.

22

Because of the confusion experienced by military parents regarding the type of child care they needed to qualify for the military’s fee assistance, NACCRRA implemented the “Warm-Hand Off” option. CCA gave military parents the option to participate in a conference call between their local CCR&R and CCA staff. This not only relieved the parent of having to call another agency, but also allowed CCA staff to explain the parent’s child care needs and requirements to the referral specialist at the local CCR&R. This process cut down on the confusion experienced by many parents and accurately communicated to the local CCR&R referral specialist the type of child care the parent needed in order to qualify for the military’s fee assistance program. Because of this option’s success in reducing confusion among parents, CCA is now offering this service to all families in need of child care who are being referred to their local CCR&R.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

To help parents identify

of care because we are particularly cognizant

high-quality child care,

that so many of our families live off the

NACCRRA developed a

installation and now we’re really trying to reach

parent education tool

out to the Reserves who are not near a military

called the “38 Indicators

installation.”

of High-Quality Child Care” to help parents and others understand what quality should look like, why certain standards are important, and what questions to ask when looking for child care.

Rhudine Wilkes, Program Specialist with the Marine Corps’s Children, Youth and Teen Programs, pointed out that the lack of accredited and, in some cases, licensed child care had real consequences for families and children. “The Marine families have to have child care, so they are going about it by accepting care that might not be safest for the children,” she said.

Lack of Child Care That Meets the Military’s Requirements Finding accredited care, and in some states finding licensed and inspected care, is not always easy. Reid describes another case, where the family had initially qualified for the military child care fee assistance in a licensed child care program, as one of the parents had been deployed at the time. But once the deployment was over, the family needed to use accredited care in order to continue receiving the fee assistance. According to Reid, “She [the mother] understood she needed a different ‘type’ of provider, but didn’t necessarily understand what the difference was. We discussed what accreditation was, and that the local CCR&R could assist her in locating these providers. Between the parent and the CCR&R, and verifying with the accreditation organizations, it was determined that there was not any accredited care in the family’s area. The family lived in a rural area.”

As Barbara Thompson, the Director of the Office of Family Policy, Children and Youth at the DoD, said: “I’m hearing through the services how difficult it is to find accredited care to support Military Child Care in Your Neighborhood. The feedback is that even the centers that have been accredited are no longer even going to pursue accreditation with NAEYC* because it’s too difficult. That puts a real strain on the military system and expanding quality * National Association for the Education of Young Children

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

23

Lack of Infant Care The unavailability of high-quality care is especially acute for infant care. As Lucas said, “The real cost of quality infant care is so high that many community-based programs cannot or choose not to provide the spaces because they are unable to cover costs. This basic economic fact results in a significant lack of availability for infant care. The Army has long since acknowledged that we must support infant care because it directly supports mission readiness. If there is no care for these children, Soldiers are not prepared to fulfill their duties.”

The lack of child care spaces for infants has been an on-going issue for quite some time.

According to data provided by CCR&R State Networks, only 20 percent of child care spaces are for infants and toddlers. Of the 32 states providing this information, three reported that

less than 1 percent of the child care spaces in their states were for infants and toddlers; in eight states, fewer than 10 percent of child care spaces were infant/toddler spaces; and in only three states, more than half the child care spaces were infant/toddler spaces. In contrast, 48 percent of all requests for child care referrals are for infant and toddler care2, and data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau show that 57 percent of all mothers return to work by the time their children are a year old.3 “The local CCR&Rs cannot keep up with the demand for infant care. In most cases the providers who take in infants are not accredited.

As a result, these parents are not getting the fee assistance and they are paying the most,” said Ollie Smith.

NACCRRA. “Covering the Map: Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies Providing Vital Services to Parents Throughout the United States.” March 2008.

2

3

U.S. Census Bureau. 2006 American Community Survey.

24

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Implementing the Military Model In Civilian Child Care “We know that [visiting] is one key indicator of ensuring that we maintain the quality — having our annual inspections. I think it’s made all the difference in the world that not only do you know that somebody’s going to be coming unannounced to visit, but see what actually is happening in the experience of a child. But also it makes sure that anything that has been noted of not being high quality will be corrected.”

— Barbara Thompson, Director of the Office of Family Policy, Children and Youth, DoD A 2003 article in the Urban Institute’s “Charting Civil Society” series identifies the five factors relevant to civilian child care that contributed to the success of the military services’ child care programs. These five factors are: u “Training and education of child care providers; u Linkages between training and compensation; u Subsidies to assure affordable costs for parents; u Licensing and accreditation standards to improve

quality; and u Inspections and oversight to establish

The military services contracted with NACCRRA to implement quality-improvement projects to help military families have access to high-quality child care. Fee assistance (one of the components listed above) had already been established as part of earlier initiatives. In the quality-improvement programs, we focused on the four remaining factors: u Providers received training, on-site technical

assistance and other written or practical support needed in order to achieve qualityimprovement goals. Providers in these projects completed the military’s 13 child care training modules, which are based on the functional areas to obtain a CDA Credential, and received other training, as appropriate. They also received regular on-site technical assistance visits during which they could get the practical advice and support they needed. u Centers and FCC providers participating

in these projects received incentives, usually monetary, to encourage them to reach their training and quality goals. Sometimes these incentives were in the form of materials or program grants to buy and install materials in order to improve the quality of their child care programs.

accountability within the system.”4 As we considered how to work with civilian child care programs to help them achieve the quality expected by the military services, we focused on these variables.

De Vita, Carol J., Montilla, Maria. “Improving Child Care Quality: A Comparison of Military and Civilian Approaches.” Charting Civil Society No. 13. The Urban Institute, August 2003.

4

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

27

The Army and Navy/Marine Corps recruited both child care centers and FCC homes for their projects and required that all participating programs work toward achieving national accreditation; FCC providers could choose between achieving national accreditation or earning a CDA Credential. The Air Force-sponsored projects recruited only FCC homes and required the providers to complete the military’s 13 CDA-based training modules; pursuing accreditation or a CDA Credential was optional. All programs had to also complete the military’s two training modules on identifying, preventing and reporting child abuse before they could provide care to children from military families.

u Centers and FCC providers were expected to

meet certain quality standards in order to stay in the project. In the Army and Navy/Marine Corps-sponsored projects, centers were to achieve national accreditation or FCC providers could choose to earn the CDA Credential. The Air Force-sponsored projects included only FCC providers, which were required to complete the military’s 13 training modules, although they could pursue national accreditation or a CDA Credential if they so chose. u Centers and FCC providers received monthly

monitoring and technical assistance visits, and these visits were unannounced at least once a quarter. These visits were used not only to provide technical assistance and feedback to the providers, but also to assess if they were implementing and adhering to required standards.

Brief Overview of the Quality Improvement Projects

The quality improvement programs were implemented by contracting with local CCR&Rs. Each CCR&R was required to: u Hire an Outreach Specialist dedicated to the

program, who was responsible for recruiting, training and providing support to providers in the program; u Develop incentives for providers to complete

training and comply with the requirements of the program, or in other words compensating or rewarding the provider for achieving milestones in improving the quality of their programs; u Conduct monthly announced and unannounced

site visits to offer support to the child care programs and also to ensure that quality standards were being met; and u Provide training to providers so that

they could meet the required quality goals.

All branches of the military (Army, Navy/Marine Corps and Air Force) contracted with NACCRRA to implement quality improvement projects. These projects began in 2004 and 2005. The Air Force project ended in September 2006. The Army and Navy/Marine Corps projects are still continuing.

28

The Army-sponsored quality improvement projects were implemented in 10 locations and the Navy/ Marine in one. The Air Force-sponsored projects were implemented in 12 locations. (See Appendix C for a listing of all locations.)

Implementing the Projects – Outreach Specialists The projects were implemented by local CCR&Rs. Under the direction of CCR&R leadership, all of the projects used at least one staff person, an Outreach Specialist, to implement the project.

These individuals were dedicated to working with providers. The Outreach Specialists were required to have a Bachelor’s degree in early childhood

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

education, child development or a related area.

They also received additional training from NACCRRA on the military’s policies, the goals of the projects, their roles and responsibilities, techniques to use to observe and monitor child care programs, and how to provide support to these programs. Each Outreach Specialist had a caseload of about 15 to 25 child care programs, and each was responsible for: u recruiting providers; u ensuring that providers received the training

they needed to achieve their quality goals; u providing on-site technical assistance and

other support; and u visiting on a monthly basis to monitor and

offer feedback, as necessary.

At the end of the two-year period, Armysponsored projects had a total of 37 centers and 184 FCC homes participating. The Navy-sponsored project had three centers and 19 FCC homes participating. The Air Force-sponsored project had recruited 380 FCC providers, 233 of whom were still active in the project at the end of the two-year period, a retention rate of 61 percent. Providers left the program either because they could not meet the Air Force’s space requirements, health, fire and other safety standards or because of various personal/family reasons.

Implementing the Projects – Incentives for Providers Centers and FCC providers participating in these projects received incentives for completing training or achieving accreditation or earning the CDA Credential. Each location could design its own incentives, which ensured that the incentives reflected local preferences and complemented those already provided by existing programs. Most often these incentives were specific dollar amounts to complete specific training. But incentives also included paying for infrastructure improvements for their program, paying for insurance, or covering fees to get accredited or complete the CDA Credential.

NACCRRA conducted a survey with child care centers in the Army-sponsored quality improvement projects and another with FCC

providers in the Air Force-sponsored-quality improvement projects. Responses were received from 15 of the 23 centers in the program, and from 91 of the 206 FCC providers surveyed.

Both surveys asked providers how important the incentives were in motivating them to participate.

Five of the nine responding centers found them to be “very important,” and another said they were “somewhat important.” Among FCC providers, 58 percent said the incentives were “very important” motivators and another 26 percent indicated they were “somewhat important.” It should also be noted that many providers indicated that the most important incentive they received was not the money, but the free training and support — during intake, most providers mentioned the training and professional development opportunities as their key reasons for joining the project.

As one family child care provider, enrolled in the Air Force-sponsored project in San Antonio, Texas, said, “Learning and growth for myself, providing better quality care, and getting accreditation that I can’t do on my own were my reasons for joining this program.”

NACCRRA also surveyed the Outreach Specialists working on the Air Force-sponsored projects. Eight out of 10 of the responding Outreach Specialists said that they thought the incentives worked well in recruiting providers. In their opinion, the most motivating incentives were: 1) program grants for equipment and materials; 2) cash bonuses for completing training; and 3) access to paid liability insurance. Other incentives that rated high were access to free training and the opportunity to earn a CDA Credential.

Implementing the Projects – Site Visits Site visits were used to provide technical assistance to the child care programs and also to observe and monitor their progress. Outreach Specialists visited each program on their caseload at least once a month, and these visits were unannounced at least once every quarter.

Over the two-year period, centers and FCC providers in these projects received at least one visit per month, and these visits usually lasted from 60 to 90 minutes. The purpose of the visits was to assess whether or not the training was resulting in better practice and to provide feedback.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

29

Table 1: Quality Improvement Projects Sponsored by the Military Services Quality Improvement Projects

Army

Navy/Marine Corps

Air Force

10

1

12

Centers and FCC Providers

Centers and FCC Providers

FCC Providers

Number of programs participating at the end of two years

37 Centers 184 FCC Homes

3 Centers 18 FCC Homes

233 FCC Homes

Dedicated Outreach Specialist

Yes

Yes

Yes

Quality Improvement Strategies

Recruitment, comprehensive background check, screening for eligibility requirements,5 developing quality improvement plans, developing staff training plans, group and one-on-one training, on-site technical assistance and regular visits to monitor the programs.

Recruitment, comprehensive background check, screening for eligibility requirements, developing quality improvement plans, developing staff training plans, group and one-on-one training, on-site technical assistance and regular visits to monitor the programs.

Recruitment, comprehensive background check, screening for eligibility requirements, group and one-on-one training, on-site technical assistance and regular visits to monitor the programs.

Quality Improvement Goals

National accreditation or FCC Providers had option to pursue CDA Credential; FCC providers also had to complete the 13 DoD training modules and the two child abuse modules.

National accreditation, or FCC Providers had option to pursue CDA Credential; FCC providers also had to complete the 13 DoD training modules and the two child abuse modules.

FCC providers had to complete the 13 DoD training modules and the two child abuse modules.

Help with achieving accreditation or credential, program grants, free insurance, and free training and support.

Help with achieving accreditation or credential, program grants, free insurance, and free training and support.

Cash bonuses, program grants, free insurance, and free training and support.

Monthly with one unannounced quarterly

Monthly with one unannounced quarterly

Monthly with one unannounced quarterly

Number of locations Programs Included

Incentives

Site Visits

Implementing the Projects – Caseload for Training and Technical Assistance Staff NACCRRA prescribed a caseload for Outreach Specialists at the quality improvement sites so that they could provide adequate time and individual support to each participating child care program. Each Outreach Specialist was responsible

for up to 25 child care programs, although DoD policy allows caseloads of up to 40 FCC homes.

The caseload of the Outreach Specialist took into account the amount of travel he/she would have to do in order to complete the site visits.

Programs had to be located in specific areas, already serving military families or willing to do so by prioritizing a specific number of spaces for their use.

5

30

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Implementing the Projects – Training Provided All providers recruited in these projects received training on the prevention, identification and reporting of child abuse using the two child abuse modules developed by the DoD. In addition, FCC providers in the Air Force-sponsored program who did not already have a CDA Credential or national accreditation were required to complete the 13 DoD CDA-based training modules for FCC providers. In the Army and Navy/Marine-sponsored programs, FCC providers were not required to complete these 13 modules initially, as each locality could design its own training program. However, about halfway through the projects, this was changed and FCC providers were required to complete the modules.

Outreach Specialists in the various locations worked with providers to ensure that they completed the modules. Modules could be completed in group sessions, one-on-one sessions, or by self study. The Outreach Specialists were required to complete an observational assessment before providers could move on to the next module.

Staff at child care centers were required to complete only the two child abuse modules, and they needed to show progress toward accreditation or re-accreditation. For more details

on the military’s training model for child care providers, see Appendix D. Table 1 shows the similarities and differences between the various military-sponsored quality improvement projects.

Outcomes of the Quality Improvement Projects As part of the quality improvement projects outlined in Table 1 (see previous page), providers completed training, became accredited or earned the CDA Credential or made progress toward earning them. A summary of these accomplishments is provided in Table 2 (see next page). u 158 of the FCC providers in the projects

completed the 13 DoD training modules, and the remaining FCC providers participating were in the process of completing them. u In addition, 15 FCC providers attained

NAFCC accreditation and 72 earned the CDA Credential. Another 145 FCC providers are in the NAFCC accreditation process and another 99 are working toward earning a CDA Credential.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

31

Table 2. Outcomes of Quality Improvement Projects (as of September 2007 for Army and Navy/marine Projects and September 2006 for Air Force Projects) Outcomes

Total Programs Active Number of FCC Providers Completing the 13 Training Modules by the End of the Project

Army

Navy/Marine Corps

Air Force

Total

37 Centers 184 FCC Homes

3 Centers 18 FCC Homes

233 FCC Homes

40 Centers 435 FCC Homes

71 (39%)

7 (39%)

80 (34%)

158 (36%)

Accreditation of FCC Providers (number of providers) Entered program accredited

16 (9%)

0 (0%)

25 (11%)

41 (9%)

New accreditation in process

45 (24%)

8 (44%)

92 (39%)

145 (33%)

2 (1%)

0 (0%)

13 (6%)

15 (3%)

Achieved accreditation

CDA Credential Status of FCC Providers (number of providers) Entered program with CDA

51 (28%)

0 (0%)

59 (25%)

110 (25%)

New CDA in process

39 (21%)

8 (44%)

52 (22%)

99 (23%)

Achieved CDA

26 (14%)

0 (0%)

46 (20%)

72 (17%)

Accreditation of Centers (number of centers) Entered program accredited

9** (24%)

1 (33%)

10 (25%) Not Applicable

New accreditation in process

19 (51%)

2 (66%)

21 (53%)

Percentages are based on ALL providers active in the program at the end of the two-year period.

The Air Force included 12 sites and was completed by September 2006. FCC providers in this program were not required to attain accreditation or a CDA Credential, but many chose to do so.

The Army included 10 sites and Navy/Marine Corps had just one site; the first contract period for these projects ended in September 2007. The Army programs have been renewed for another two-year period, while the Marine Corps renewed its program for one more year. ** The program helped six of these accredited centers to complete the re-accreditation process.

u Although in the Air Force-sponsored projects,

FCC providers were not required to attain accreditation or earn the CDA Credential, 13 providers attained NAFCC accreditation and 92 more were still working toward it; 46 providers achieved a CDA Credential, with another 52 still in process.

u Although no new centers completed the NAEYC

accreditation process, a process that often takes more than two years, six of the nine centers entering the project with accreditation completed the re-accreditation process through the project. u Another 21 centers are in the process of

attaining accreditation.

32

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Provider and Parent Responses The FCC providers participating in the Air Forcesponsored projects were surveyed by NACCRRA. FCC providers without a NAFCC accreditation or a CDA Credential were asked how likely it was that they would have started the accreditation or the credentialing process without the project.

Half of these providers said it was unlikely, with 30 percent saying “not very likely” and another 20 percent saying “not at all likely.” In that same survey, 68 percent of the responding FCC providers rated the training they received as a part of the program to be “excellent” and another 25 percent rated it as “good.” The providers noted that the training caused them to change their room arrangements, incorporate curriculum and structure, change their communication practices with parents, follow more safety protocols and improve their business practices. In fact, the providers found the training they received so useful that 88 percent of them said they would be willing to take 24 hours of training annually, and many providers mentioned the training they received in the program as its biggest benefit.

A characteristic comment by an FCC provider about the training was: “The QFCC6 has allowed me to be much more confident in conducting my home day care as

Parents, too, found the quality-improvement projects beneficial and expressed satisfaction with the care their children received. They were pleased to have access to these child care programs and the financial help to pay for them. Following are some typical comments from parents using providers who have participated in these projects: “I think this program encourages learning and more productivity in the children at the daycare. Military families are unique in the way that their hours change, sometimes one of the parents are gone and without good child care, and it makes it much harder for the parent that is away or even for the parent left at home to care for the kids and juggle a full-time job.

With good child care that is just one less thing to worry about when you leave for work in the morning or when you leave on a deployment.”

“It amazes me more and more everyday how much my 2-year-old knows and how well she is socialized and plays with other children.

My 10-month-old is doing great and already walking with the help of the program and the toys provided.”

a business. The modules have reinforced and

“It has really helped my family and me

encouraged me to create lesson plans and fun

financially. I feel blessed that I was able to

activities with the children as opposed to just

find a program out there willing to help others.

“babysitting” them. I look at the QFCC as a

I really hope that this program will continue

technical school for home day cares.”

because I believe it is beneficial for everyone

Similar views were voiced by some of the staff from the centers participating in the Armysponsored projects. Of the 13 responding centers, five said they would have been unlikely to pursue NAEYC accreditation if it had not been for the support they received by participating in the project. A few of the center directors remarked that one of the biggest benefits of the project had been the training their staff received. “Employee training classes — this is a great benefit. Thanks!” said one center director.

[who is] a part of it.”

6

The Air Force-sponsored program was called QFCC or the Quality Family Child Care program.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

33

Observations on the Quality Of Child Care in Civilian Communities “The on-going issue is the lack of available

Licensing

quality care in communities across

According to the National Association for Regulatory Administration (NARA), state child care licensing regulations and monitoring and enforcement policies help provide a baseline of protection for the health and safety of children in out-of-home care. Licensing is intended to help prevent various forms of harm to children — risks from the spread of disease, fire and other building safety hazards, injury, and developmental impairment from the lack of healthy relationships with adults, adequate supervision, and developmentally appropriate activities. Most states have established rules for regulating child care operations to protect the health, safety, and well-being of children in care, largely by reducing the risk of injury, abuse, and communicable disease. In some states, state licensing agencies monitor child care programs to ensure compliance with minimum standards of care. A few also have responsibility for informing parents and the public about child care and about the histories of specific homes, child care operations, and child-placing operations in complying with minimum standards of care.

Some also view it as part of their responsibilities to provide technical assistance to providers on meeting minimum standards of care.

the country. We knew that there was a shortage of quality civilian care around our installations; however, we did not know firsthand the extent of the shortages across the country. This project has heightened our awareness of the varying standards among the state regulatory agencies.”

—Greg Young, Program Manager, Navy Child and Youth Programs, U.S. Navy

Since the start of the Global War on Terrorism, NACCRRA has partnered with the Department of Defense (DoD) and the military services to increase the number of child care spaces available to military families and to make this care available to them at a reasonable cost. Given the need to establish these spaces quickly, NACCRRA hoped to find quality child care spaces in civilian communities that could be used by military members. First, we looked for licensed centers and family child care (FCC) homes. Then we looked for centers or FCC homes that were nationally accredited and for program staff and individual FCC providers who had earned the CDA Credential.

While we were implementing these projects, we learned a great deal about the quality, or lack thereof, of child care in this country. This chapter summarizes what we discovered about the quality of child care in civilian communities, including what we learned about licensing, inspections, accreditation, and credentialing. We also include our and others’ views on the negative consequences of these deficiencies on this nation’s ability to support military families and other employed families.

Licensing Standards Are Minimal and Vary Widely From State to State As we strived to help the military services find child care for military families, we found the licensing standards in many states were minimal, and the vast majority of states do not license all programs providing child care. To better understand the individual

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

35

states’ licensing requirements, we recently scored and ranked the states7 on their child care licensing standards and oversight for both centers and small family child care homes. As detailed in We Can Do Better: NACCRRA’s Ranking of State Child Care Center Standards and Oversight, states, on average, scored 70 out of 150 points on the standards we used, which were based on the military’s standards. On average, states earned only 47 percent of the available points.8 The states’ scores for regulation and oversight of small family child care homes, as shown in “Leaving Children to Chance: NACCRRA’s Ranking of State Standards and Oversight of Small Family Child Care Homes,” were even lower, with states, on average, scoring 60 out of a possible 140 points (43 percent).9 Six states received no points because they either do not regulate small family child care homes or regulation begins only when the provider cares for more than six children.

As Lisa Hamlin, Chief of Army-Sponsored Community-Based Programs at the Army, said, “There’s such a disparity in licensing requirements from state to state that they [providers in the quality improvement programs] have much further to go from meeting their basic state requirements to achieving high quality. I believe that these programs are at a disadvantage because, in following what their state told them to do, which in some cases is so minimal, the gap to achieving quality may seem insurmountable. It is one of the reasons why it takes significantly longer in some communities for programs to successfully pursue and achieve national accreditation.”

Still, licensing is the first step in ensuring that child care programs meet basic standards to keep the children in their care healthy and safe. As Table 3 shows, not all states require that all programs be licensed. Twelve states exempt centers from being licensed, either because they are operated by a religious organization or they offer a religious curriculum. Forty states do not license all FCC providers — in these states providers must care

for more than one unrelated child for pay before being required to get a license. On average, FCC providers across the country can care for at least four children without being required to obtain a license, and in six states they can care for seven or more children for pay without a license; these unlicensed providers are not required to comply with any health and safety requirements.

Programs that are not licensed are not inspected by any state or local authorities to make sure that they are ensuring the health and safety of the children in their care.

Oversight of Child Care Programs Congress requires military child care programs to be inspected on a regular basis. However, in the states, even programs that are licensed are not visited or inspected very often. Eight states do not inspect child care centers even once a year; 27 states inspect FCC homes less often than once a year. In addition, nine states do not inspect FCC homes prior to licensing them, which means that no one is making sure that they are following the rules the state has established.

7 Licensing standards and oversight for child care centers and family child care homes were scored for each state, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), as the DoD has its own congressionally-mandated standards.

NACCRRA. “We Can Do Better: NACCRRA’s Ranking of State Child Care Center Standards and Oversight.” March 2007.

8

NACCRRA. “Leaving Children to Chance: NACCRRA’s Ranking of State Standards and Oversight of Small Family Child Care Homes.”

January 2008.

9

36

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

“It’s just too risky of a business to not have a clear oversight system. I think we may have better oversight in animal care than for child care in this country. I would think that this has to be a higher priority for states,” said Katherine Facon, former Chief of Children, Youth and Teens with the United States Marine Corps. She added, “I really was surprised at the wide variance of types of standards, the types of oversight. I’m a native Californian, and I had always thought that they had some pretty strict standards and that they had some good programs, and I was shocked to see that there was very little oversight.”

Besides surprise, staff at the military programs expressed concern about the low child care standards prevalent across the country. As Jana Helton, the Child and Youth Services Coordinator at Fort Riley in Kansas, said: “The things that concern me are the lack of standards and lack of inspections to enforce standards. There isn’t much required to become and remain a registered provider, which doesn’t seem commensurate with the level of responsibility they assume when young children are placed in their care. This establishes a high-risk environment for any family. The Army’s inspection process has been a major aspect of its ability to consistently maintain standards.”

Not only do states not require frequent inspections of child care programs, very few have enough staff to be able to conduct inspections on a regular basis. In only five states do inspectors of child care programs have a caseload of 50 programs or fewer, the number recommended

by NARA. On average, inspectors are responsible for 130 programs, which is more than double the recommended caseload.

very much help or support to an arguably very isolated group of people,” she added.

Provider Education and Training While inspection of child care programs is critical in ensuring that they are meeting minimum standards, another indicator of the quality of child care that is being offered is the provider’s education and training. Twenty-two states do not require the teacher in a child care center to have even a high school or General Educational Development (GED) diploma. Only one state requires the teacher to have a CDA Credential or an Associate’s degree; and one other state requires a state credential or completion of a one-year certification program.

Only 16 states require a high school or GED diploma for FCC providers, and three of these states require these providers to complete a state credential, CDA Credential, or some college courses.

Because the qualifications for caregivers in most states are minimal, the training they receive is very important for the well-being of the children in their care. Twenty-nine states have no pre-service training requirements for teachers in a child care center, and six states have no annual training requirements for them. Even less is required of FCC providers, who normally work alone at home and cannot rely on a colleague to help them in a crisis. In 40 states, FCC providers are not required

“The thing that I believe is a big difference between us [Air Force] and the states is the level of oversight that the individual homes get, in addition to the oversight that the entire system gets. I have a friend who is an outreach worker in a state, and she has a caseload of 300 homes, that in the military is just absolutely mind-boggling, that anyone would carry that kind of caseload,” said Eliza Nesmith, Chief of Airmen and Family Services for the Air Force. In comparison, she said, the Air Force requires monthly inspections of family child care homes, which she considers should be the minimum required. “I don’t know what form that licensing procedure takes, but it doesn’t provide

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

37

to have any pre-service training, and in 18 states, they are not required to have any annual training.* In six states, center caregivers do not have to be certified in first-aid and CPR. FCC providers, who usually are the lone adult with the children in their care, are not required to have first-aid and CPR certifications in 22 states.10 In addition, even states that require providers to complete pre-service or annual training often do not have any requirements regarding the training they should complete. Providers most often are required to complete a specific number of hours of training and no specific content is prescribed.

As Hamlin said, “Training requirements are minimal, and there is a lack of infrastructure to provide the necessary oversight. This often results in a lack of intentionality about the types and quality of training.”

Various studies have shown that training is instrumental in enhancing the quality of care children receive, especially in improving the quality of the physical environment in which children spend time. As Facon said, “I think what we’ve learned from the military is that staff training is imperative.

You don’t necessarily have to have someone who has a lot of experience, they just have to be passionate about working with children and be willing to learn, and if you provide a good training program you’re going to build professionals, and you’re going to retain a good quality staff.”

Health and Safety Requirements Military families expect their children to be in settings that protect their health and safety. This is not the case for a fairly large portion of child care in the United States. The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) requires states to certify that they have requirements to protect the health and safety of children in child care and procedures in place to ensure that child care providers comply. As noted earlier, many states are not inspecting child care programs regularly to ensure that they are meeting health and safety standards. And many states exempt a large portion of the child care programs from whatever standards they do have.

Additionally, very few states have all the basic health and safety requirements — such as SIDS prevention, diapering/hand washing, guidelines for disciplining children, dealing with illnesses and medicine administration — recommended by experts and required for military programs. Only eight states require child care programs to address all the basic health and safety requirements for child care.

Criminal Background Checks Very few states ensure that providers taking care of children do not have a criminal, child abuse or sexual offense record. Only three states require center-based providers to go through a comprehensive background check of state and federal records using fingerprints, and only one state requires this of FCC providers.

A comprehensive background check includes a check of state and federal criminal records using fingerprints, juvenile records (of persons under age 18 living with FCC providers), child abuse registries, and sex offender registries.

Requirements or background screening of military child care providers was established in the 1990 Crime Control Act (see Appendix E). No such requirement has been established for civilian providers, and most states fail to address this in a comprehensive manner.

Lucas described the background checks as the “first line of defense for children.” She expanded that, “having the background check requirement deters people initially and allows you to immediately screen out potential abusers.”

Open access by parents to their children while in care is extremely important. Still, states do not require parents to be allowed access to child care centers, and nine states do not require this for family child care providers.

Although child care in the United States is based on parent choice, very few states make it easy for parents to obtain reports of complaints and violations concerning child care programs.

These reports could help parents make better child care decisions and protect the health and safety of their children. Only 20 states post

*Source: National Child Care Information and Technical Assistance Center (www.nccic.org).

In two of these 22 states, FCC providers are required to have training in first-aid, but not CPR.

10

38

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Table 3: Overview of State Child Care Regulations and Oversight Standards Licenses all programs+

Centers (# of states)♣

FCC Homes (# of states)♣

39*

11

Oversight Number of child care programs assigned to each inspector for monitoring purposes is 50 or fewer

5 (129 programs per inspector on average across states)

Inspects programs before licensing

51

36

Inspects programs at least once a year

43

24

Education and Training Requirements for Center Caregivers and FCC Providers** Requires a high school /GED diploma

29

16

Requires some pre-service training (including first-aid and CPR)

49

34

Requires training in first-aid and CPR before caring for children

44

29

Requires some annual training.

15

43

4 hours

11 hours

11

Not Applicable

Comprehensive state and federal background checks of child care providers using fingerprints♦

3

1

Requires programs to address all aspects of basic health and safety of children in their careJ

8

8

Allows parents access to child care programs

45

42

Average hours of annual training required (across all states) Requires directors of centers to have a Child Development Associate Credential or an Associate’s degree or higher

Requirements Addressing Children’s Health and Safety

Reports of complaints against programs are available online

20

Requirements Addressing Children’s Development Requires programs to address children’s social, emotional, physical, cultural and other developmental needs.

13

5

Counts include the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Information for centers is based on the National Association of Regulatory Agencies and the National Child Care Information Center’s “2005 Child Care Licensing Study: Final Report,” December 2006. Information for FCC homes is based on NACCRRA’s “Leaving Children to Chance: NACCRRA’s Ranking of State Standards and Oversight for Small Family Child Care Homes,” March 2008. ♣

Nine states allow religious exemptions, and two states exempt programs that include religious education in their curriculum.

*

One state (Idaho) does not license any child care programs (centers or FCC homes).

+

**Other center staff working with children, such as aides, teacher’s assistants, etc., may have less education or training.

Comprehensive background check means checking the provider’s state and federal criminal history records, juvenile records (for juveniles living with FCC providers), and the child abuse and sex offender registries using fingerprints. Twenty-two states do not check state and federal records using fingerprints for center staff, and 23 states do not do so for FCC providers. ♦

J Includes basic health and safety standards such as SIDS prevention, diapering/hand washing, guidelines for disciplining children, dealing with illnesses and medicine administration, among others.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

39

reports of complaints against child care programs online.**

Massachusetts’ Story of Investing in Accreditation and Increasing Accreditation Rates

Addressing Children’s Developmental Needs

In the mid-1990s, Massachusetts funded a

It is important to keep children healthy and safe. But attention must also be paid to their developmental needs. Ninety percent of a person’s brain development occurs between birth and age 5. It is crucial that children receive the social, emotional, physical, cognitive and cultural tools they need during this period in order to achieve their maximum potential and be able to enter school ready to learn. Very few states require child care programs to address children’s developmental needs. Only 13 states have such requirements for centers, and even fewer (five states) require FCC providers to address these needs.

program called the Community Partnerships for

As Lucas said, “Adult-child interaction is one of the most important indicators of quality. For example, what are the providers doing while on the playground with children? Are they sitting talking to each other or are they teaching the kids how to pump on the swings? What are they doing in the classroom? Are they standing up around the edge of the room or are they sitting with children in their lap reading? It isn’t just a matter of what you’re paying them, it isn’t just a matter of what the ratio is, it is all of these indicators combined which create a quality program, and providing caring, appropriate interactions which support learning are critical.”

within three years of joining the Community

Accreditation of Child Care Programs Accreditation of child care programs (child care and school-age centers and individual FCC providers) by nationally recognized accrediting organizations is widely considered to be an indicator of quality in child care. The military also considers national accreditation to be a mark of high quality. As Wilkes said, “It is a process and it provides information to providers that they may not necessarily have. It may take a year or longer, but it’s a means of improving quality.” Some states require accreditation for the highest rating in their quality rating system for child care — four of the 15 states with currently operating quality rating systems require accreditation for the highest level of rating. When Congress passed the

Children. This grant program, awarded to a lead agency in a local community (city, town or group of towns), is designed to fund quality preschool for working families. Each community must have or form an Early Childhood Council of local stakeholders to advise the program coordinator.

The program has several components — quality building, comprehensive services, and fee assistance for families. Providers in the program were expected to obtain NAEYC accreditation Partnership. There is a line item in the state budget for accreditation — funded at $1.74 million last fiscal year. The main barrier seems to be the staff qualifications. But the state also has an early childhood scholarship program to help providers get their associate or bachelor degrees.

Military Child Care Act of 1989, it established the requirement for all military child care programs to meet the standards of national accreditation. By the late 1990s, 100 percent of military child care centers had achieved accreditation.

Child care centers can be accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), the National Accreditation Commission for Early Care and Education Programs (NAC) or by the National Early Childhood Program Accreditation (NECPA). Family child care (FCC) homes can be accredited by the National Association for Family Child Care (NAFCC). The National After School Association (NAA), until recently, offered accreditation for school-age programs.

There Are Few Accredited Centers In seeking to find child care spaces in high-quality programs for military children, we studied the

Shellenbarger, Sue. “Checking Up: State’s Reports on Child Care Centers Hit Web.” Wall Street Journal, May 29, 2008.

**

40

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Table 4: Number and Percent of Centers Accredited by State as of May 2008 Total Centers♌

NAEYC Accredited Centers

NAC Accredited Centers

NECPA Accredited Centers

Head Start Centers

Total Accredited Centers

Percent of Centers Accredited

1,995

98

1

0

34

133

7%

Alaska

221

15

0

0

18

33

15%

Arizona

1,855

258

45

8

35

346

19%

Arkansas

2,096

12

0

0

23

35

2%

California

11,054

773

2

10

183

968

9%

Colorado

2,777

105

0

0

82

187

7%

Connecticut

2,058

451

1

0

30

482

23%

Delaware

474

24

0

0

8

32

7%

District of Columbia

325

102

0

0

12

114

35%

Florida

10,371

619

181

14

84

898

9%

Georgia

3,103

309

0

5

34

348

11%

Hawaii

457

78

0

13

7

98

21%

Idaho

497

20

0

0

14

34

7%

Illinois

5,545

456

12

15

132

615

11%

Indiana

603

167

0

4

47

218

36%

2,008

105

0

0

26

131

7%

712

78

3

0

38

119

17%

Kentucky

2,246

142

5

0

49

196

9%

Louisiana

1,822

38

0

0

56

94

5%

701

68

0

0

15

83

12%

Maryland

1,481

121

0

2

44

167

11%

Massachusetts

2,585

1171

1

0

36

1208

47%

Michigan

4,830

229

1

1

89

320

7%

Minnesota

2,027

167

1

24

39

231

11%

Mississippi

2,208

34

0

0

23

57

3%

Missouri

770

135

2

12

30

179

23%

Montana

241

21

0

0

24

45

19%

Nebraska

892

75

0

0

24

99

11%

Nevada

407

27

2

3

11

43

11%

New Hampshire

1,151

48

1

0

6

55

5%

New Jersey

4,069

271

0

7

30

308

8%

New Mexico

670

76

1

24

35

136

20%

New York

3,592

323

1

2

200

526

15%

North Carolina

5,035

137

2

0

59

198

4%

North Dakota

130

10

0

0

16

26

20%

Ohio

4,303

292

15

17

69

393

9%

Oklahoma

1,795

80

11

54

38

183

10%

Oregon

1,389

37

0

0

30

67

5%

State Alabama

Iowa Kansas

Maine

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

41

Table 4: Number and Percent of Centers Accredited by State as of May 2008 Total Centers♦

NAEYC Accredited Centers

NAC Accredited Centers

NECPA Accredited Centers

Head Start Centers

Total Accredited Centers

Percent of Centers Accredited

Pennsylvania

4,824

358

0

3

76

437

9%

Rhode Island

413

53

0

0

8

61

15%

South Carolina

1,635

131

0

0

25

156

10%

South Dakota

424

5

0

0

18

23

5%

Tennessee

3,738

148

8

0

33

189

5%

Texas

9,190

364

15

8

102

489

5%

Utah

354

25

0

0

15

40

11%

State

Vermont

652

102

0

0

7

109

17%

Virginia

3,969

136

5

19

61

221

6%

Washington

2,016

114

6

0

54

174

9%

West Virginia

296

29

0

0

22

51

17%

Wisconsin

2,598

145

9

0

52

206

8%

Wyoming

343

44

0

0

13

57

17%

118,947

8,826

331

245

2,216

11,618

10%

Total

2007 data provided by CCR&Rs.

♦

Note: Accreditation numbers were obtained from each organization’s website.

availability of accredited spaces in the states.

Nationally, only 10 percent of all early care and education programs are accredited, and the majority of them are accredited by NAEYC (see Table 4). In 24 states, fewer than 10 percent of all child care centers are accredited. Massachusetts has the highest rate of center accreditation, with almost half the centers (47 percent) accredited, followed by Indiana, where 36 percent of centers are accredited. The District of Columbia, which has a large number of federally funded child care centers,11 also has a high accreditation rate, with 35 percent of its centers accredited. But in Arkansas, Mississippi and North Carolina, fewer than 5 percent of centers are accredited.

To further complicate NACCRRA’s search for high-quality spaces for military families, many of the accredited programs are either part-day pre-schools, or Head Start programs that are not available to all military families.

The Number of Accredited Centers Is Declining Finding accredited spaces for military families in civilian centers is becoming even more difficult. In the past year, the number of accredited child care programs has declined significantly. Between May 2007 and May 2008, the number of accredited programs fell by 13 percent from 13,397 in May 2007 to 11,691 in May 2008 (see Table 5). The number of centers accredited by the main national accrediting body, NAEYC, fell by 24 percent. Some of the decline in NAEYC accreditation resulted in increases in the number of centers accredited by other accrediting bodies — the total number of centers accredited by these other organizations, including Head Start programs, increased by 57 percent. The number of centers accredited by NAC and NECPA increased from 375 in May 2007 to 576 in May 2008, an increase of 54 percent. The number of Head Start programs increased during the same period from 1,403 in May 2007 to 2,216 in May 2008 — an increase of 58 percent.

Federally funded and operated child care centers are required to be accredited, just as the military child care programs are.

11

42

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Table 5: Change in Center Accreditation Rates (May 2007 to May 2008) NAEYC Accredited Centers State

Alabama

NAEYC NAEYC Accredited Centers May 2007 May 2008 128

98

Other Accredited Centers (NAC/NECPA/HS)

All Accredited Centers

NAEYC Percent Change

Other Centers May 2007

Other Centers May 2008

Other Centers Percent Change

Total Centers May 2007

Total Centers May 2008

Total Centers Percent Change

-23%

66

35

-47%

194

133

-31%

Alaska

21

15

-29%

0

18

18%

21

33

57%

Arizona

356

258

-28%

129

88

-32%

485

346

-29%

Arkansas

35

12

-66%

21

23

10%

56

35

-38%

California

971

773

-20%

29

195

572%

1,000

968

-3%

Colorado

169

105

-38%

10

82

720%

179

187

4%

Connecticut

536

451

-16%

31

31

0%

567

482

-15%

Delaware

109

24

-78%

0

8

8%

109

32

-71%

District of Columbia

26

102

292%

0

12

12%

26

114

338%

Florida

860

619

-28%

302

279

-8%

1,162

898

-23%

Georgia

400

309

-23%

68

39

-43%

468

348

-26%

Hawaii

101

78

-23%

3

20

567%

104

98

-6%

Idaho

34

20

-41%

4

14

250%

38

34

-11%

Illinois

628

456

-27%

70

159

127%

698

615

-12%

Indiana

202

167

-17%

29

51

76%

231

218

-6%

Iowa

190

105

-45%

44

26

-41%

234

131

-44%

Kansas

112

78

-30%

16

41

156%

128

119

-7%

Kentucky

197

142

-28%

63

54

-14%

260

196

-25%

Louisiana

59

38

-36%

28

56

100%

87

94

8%

Maine

67

68

1%

7

15

114%

74

83

12%

Maryland

168

121

-28%

4

46

1050%

172

167

-3%

Massachusetts

1,411

1171

-17%

68

37

-46%

1,479

1208

-18%

Michigan

315

229

-27%

49

91

86%

364

320

-12%

Minnesota

215

167

-22%

4

64

1500%

219

231

5%

Mississippi

47

34

-28%

22

23

5%

69

57

-17%

Missouri

179

135

-25%

40

44

10%

219

179

-18%

Montana

30

21

-30%

1

24

2300%

31

45

45%

Nebraska

100

75

-25%

13

24

85%

113

99

-12%

Nevada

35

27

-23%

3

16

433%

38

43

13%

New Hampshire

56

48

-14%

18

7

-61%

74

55

-26%

New Jersey

338

271

-20%

31

37

19%

369

308

-17%

New Mexico

108

76

-30%

42

60

43%

150

136

-9%

New York

432

323

-25%

29

203

600%

461

526

14%

North Carolina

193

137

-29%

41

61

49%

234

198

-15%

North Dakota

31

10

-68%

5

16

220%

36

26

-28%

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

43

Table 5: Change in Center Accreditation Rates (May 2007 to May 2008) NAEYC Accredited Centers State

NAEYC NAEYC Accredited Centers May 2007 May 2008

Other Accredited Centers (NAC/NECPA/HS)

All Accredited Centers

NAEYC Percent Change

Other Centers May 2007

Other Centers May 2008

Other Centers Percent Change

Total Centers May 2007

Total Centers May 2008

Total Centers Percent Change -19%

Ohio

409

292

-29%

75

101

35%

484

393

Oklahoma

108

80

-26%

69

103

49%

177

183

3%

Oregon

55

37

-33%

0

30

N/A

55

67

22%

Pennsylvania

404

358

-11%

39

79

103%

443

437

-1%

Rhode Island

69

53

-23%

3

8

167%

72

61

-15%

South Carolina

146

131

-10%

57

25

-56%

203

156

-23%

South Dakota

6

5

-17%

2

18

800%

8

23

188%

Tennessee

210

148

-30%

98

41

-58%

308

189

-39%

Texas

498

364

-27%

82

125

52%

580

489

-16%

Utah

37

25

-32%

4

15

275%

41

40

-2%

Vermont

127

102

-20%

7

7

0%

134

182

36%

Virginia

210

136

-35%

29

85

193%

239

221

-8%

Washington

166

114

-31%

4

60

1400%

170

174

2%

West Virginia

44

29

-34%

2

22

1000%

46

51

11%

Wisconsin

238

145

-39%

14

61

336%

252

206

-18%

Wyoming

33

44

33%

3

13

333%

36

57

58%

11,619

8,826

-24%

1,778

2,792

57%

13,397

11,691

-13%

Total

There Are Too Few Accredited Family Child Care Homes Among FCC homes, nationally, only about 1 percent (1.10 percent) are accredited by NAFCC, the only national accrediting body for FCC homes.

Only in the District of Columbia are more than

44

one in 20 FCC homes accredited. In most states (33) fewer than 1 percent of the FCC homes are accredited. In addition, the number of accredited family child care homes is also declining. The number of accredited homes declined by 4 percent, from 2,110 in May 2007 to 2,025 in May 2008 (see Table 6).

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Table 6: Number and Percent of Accredited FCC Homes by State (May 2007 to May 2008) NAFCC Accredited Homes Number of FCC Homes♦

May 2007

May 2008

Percent Accredited (May ‘08)

Percent Change (May ‘07 to May ‘08)

Alabama

1,454

30

20

1.38%

-33%

Alaska

1,016

11

9

0.89%

-18%

Arizona

2,232

12

10

0.45%

-17%

Arkansas

797

3

6

0.75%

100%

California

38,132

456

348

0.91%

-24%

Colorado

3,521

20

24

0.68%

20%

Connecticut

2,720

5

6

0.22%

20%

Delaware

1,358

13

1

0.07%

-92%

201

1

18

8.96%

1700%

Florida

6,538

247

265

4.05%

7%

Georgia

5,619

76

64

1.14%

-16%

Hawaii

479

9

8

1.67%

-11%

Idaho

1,135

10

6

0.53%

-40%

Illinois

11,546

88

134

1.16%

52%

Indiana

4,416

55

61

1.38%

11%

Iowa

11,994

12

19

0.16%

58%

Kansas

6,918

38

37

0.53%

-3%

Kentucky

764

17

15

1.96%

-12%

Louisiana

3,472

3

3

0.09%

0%

Maine

2,037

46

51

2.50%

11%

Maryland

8,989

160

166

1.85%

4%

Massachusetts

6,965

160

85

1.22%

-47%

Michigan

10,567

61

46

0.44%

-25%

Minnesota

11,837

3

5

0.04%

67%

Mississippi

700

0

0

0.00%

N/A

Missouri

2,246

75

76

3.38%

1%

Montana

1,011

29

32

3.17%

10%

Nebraska

2,930

18

15

0.51%

-17%

Nevada

491

5

6

1.22%

20%

New Hampshire

689

4

3

0.44%

-25%

New Jersey

2,928

18

15

0.51%

-17%

New Mexico

6,716

10

10

0.15%

0%

New York

13,591

40

32

0.24%

-20%

North Carolina

3,938

64

52

1.32%

-19%

North Dakota

1,243

4

7

0.56%

75%

Ohio

6,693

44

55

0.82%

25%

State

District of Columbia

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

45

Table 6: Number and Percent of Accredited FCC Homes by State (May 2007 to May 2008) NAFCC Accredited Homes Number of FCC Homes♦

May 2007

May 2008

Percent Accredited (May ‘08)

Percent Change (May ‘07 to May ‘08)

Oklahoma

3,155

49

46

1.46%

-6%

Oregon

4,694

2

4

0.09%

100%

Pennsylvania

4,139

54

55

1.33%

2%

Rhode Island

844

8

7

0.83%

-13%

South Carolina

1,736

2

1

0.06%

-50%

South Dakota

1,003

1

1

0.10%

0%

Tennessee

1,236

30

37

2.99%

23%

Texas

15,875

38

65

0.41%

71%

Utah

1,486

3

5

0.34%

67%

Vermont

1,111

12

10

0.90%

-17%

Virginia

5,310

19

34

0.64%

79%

Washington

5,334

18

21

0.39%

17%

West Virginia

2,438

7

7

0.29%

0%

Wisconsin

6,632

19

18

0.27%

-5%

Wyoming

439

1

4

0.91%

300%

243,315

2,110

2,025

1.10%

-4%

State

Total

2007 data provided by CCR&Rs.

♦

Note: Accreditation numbers were obtained from each organization’s website. N/A indicates that there are 0 accredited programs in the state, with no change between May 2007 and May 2008.

There Are Few Accredited Programs (Centers or FCC Homes) in Most States It is difficult to find either an accredited child care center or FCC home in most states. Figure 2 shows the percentage of all programs combined (centers and FCC homes) accredited in each of the states. As the map illustrates, there are only four states (Connecticut, Washington, D.C., Hawaii and Massachussets) where the percent

46

of accredited programs is 10 percent or higher.

Most states would have even lower rates if Head Start programs were removed from these numbers. Head Start spaces are available only to families with the lowest incomes; therefore, these “accredited” spaces are not available to most families. As is evident from the map, in most states (36) fewer than 5 percent of child care programs are accredited — even giving the state “credit” for Head Start centers.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Figure 2: Percent of Centers and FCC Homes Accredited as of February 2008

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

47

Child Development Associate (CDA) Credential Another measure of quality in child care programs is how many of the staff employed in the program have earned the Child Development Associate (CDA) Credential or whether or not the FCC provider is a CDA associate. This picture is more encouraging.

According to the Council for Professional Recognition that awards the credential, there are more than 200,000 CDAs in the United States.

As a result of an increase in demand from many public and private employers for qualified, trained staff, the number of child care providers applying for the CDA Credential has grown to nearly 15,000 annually. Furthermore, 49 states and the District of Columbia incorporate the CDA Credential into their child care center licensing regulations.

In our search to find quality child care spaces for military families, we sought out CDA-credentialed FCC providers. As Table 7 indicates, they were also difficult to find in most states. Overall, 6 percent of FCC providers in the United States have earned the CDA Credential. In only 18 states are 10 percent or more of the FCC providers CDAcredentialed. In 16 states, fewer than 5 percent of the FCC providers are CDA-credentialed. Since many of the child care spaces in these family child care homes were already occupied by families, there were few vacancies available for military families.

The Consequences of the Lack Of High-Quality Child Care The shortage of spaces in accredited child care programs or ones with CDA-credentialed providers has implications for military families. In order to receive fee assistance for using child care outside the military installations, non-deployed military families must use a child care program that is either accredited or an FCC provider who has a CDA Credential. The families of deployed Service Members, i.e., those who are serving in places such as Iraq or Afghanistan, can qualify for the fee assistance if they use licensed and inspected child care. But the general lack of this type of care has posed problems for many military families, as the military currently does not have the capacity among the child care programs it operates to meet all of its Service Members’ child care needs.

48

Lucas identified the lack of quality child care as being a systemic problem, saying, “We [the Army] have been able to establish a systems infrastructure, and we were looking for a comparable system to partner with. Civilian child care programs are often not linked to each other and there are even fewer linkages between family child care and the center-based programs. The lack of a system or infrastructure makes it more difficult for all communities, and particularly for us to expand into the community.”

Nesmith summed up the military’s challenge of finding adequate quality care in civilian communities. “We knew that the level of quality as defined by the Air Force was not going to be the same,” she said. “So we had to look at what we thought would be a safe and healthy place for young children, for airmen to put their young children in. The developmental activities were not, quite frankly, as large a concern to us. We really had to take a deep breath and ratchet down our expectations about what we wanted in a home.”

Some Service Members acknowledged that the lack of child care options could adversely impact the military’s readiness in the field. The Navy’s Program Manager for Child and Youth Programs, Greg Young, said, “The reason this is such a concern is that lack of available, quality child care impacts our families and ultimately our Navy’s mission-readiness. Members are either being forced to use substandard care, bouncing between multiple providers to meet their unique duty schedule, sacrificing spousal employment opportunities, or activating family care plans.

Sailors are reporting to us that when they do not have consistent, quality child care that meets their unique duty schedules that they are missing work an average of anywhere from 9 to 15 days or more each year. This is compared to sailors who are utilizing military-operated child care or our partners. This creates significant problems for mission accomplishment, as it impacts not only members with children but those who have to accommodate for the manning shortages this causes.”

Helton from Fort Riley emphasized the importance of child care in retaining Soldiers. She said, “Our commanding general believes that if we don’t have the programs to support the Soldiers’ families, one of those being child care, then the family is not

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Table 7: Number and Percent of FCC Homes by State with a CDA-Credentialed Provider (May 2007) CDA Credential State

Number of FCC Homes♌

Number with CDA (May 2008)

Percent FCC Homes with CDA (May 2008)

Alabama

1,454

180

12%

Alaska

1,016

154

15%

Arizona

2,232

146

7%

Arkansas

797

241

30%

California

38,132

298

1%

Colorado

3,521

210

6%

Connecticut

2,720

382

14%

Delaware

1,358

22

2%

201

106

53%

Florida

6,538

866

13%

Georgia

5,619

567

10%

Hawaii

479

70

15%

Idaho

1,135

59

5%

Illinois

11,546

541

5%

Indiana

4,416

1,031

23%

Iowa

11,994

176

1%

Kansas

6,918

359

5%

764

253

33%

District of Columbia

Kentucky Louisiana

3,472

91

3%

Maine

2,037

217

11%

Maryland

8,989

247

3%

Massachusetts

6,965

1,270

18%

Michigan

10,567

432

4%

Minnesota

11,837

449

4%

Mississippi

700

43

6%

Missouri

2,246

392

17%

Montana

1,011

85

8%

Nebraska

2,930

22

1%

Nevada

491

57

12%

New Hampshire

689

4

1%

New Jersey

2,928

207

7%

New Mexico

6,716

53

1%

New York

13,591

968

7%

North Carolina

3,938

320

8%

North Dakota

1,243

57

5%

Ohio

6,693

548

8%

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

49

Table 7: Number and Percent of FCC Homes by State with a CDA-Credentialed Provider (May 2007) CDA Credential State

Number of FCC Homes♦

Number with CDA (May 2008)

Percent FCC Homes with CDA (May 2008)

Oklahoma

3,155

831

26%

Oregon

4,694

145

3%

Pennsylvania

4,139

309

7%

Rhode Island

844

31

4%

South Carolina

1,736

44

3%

South Dakota

1,003

81

8%

Tennessee

1,236

323

26%

Texas

15,875

988

6%

Utah

1,486

154

10%

Vermont

1,111

185

17%

Virginia

5,310

249

5%

Washington

5,334

321

6%

West Virginia

2,438

7

0%

Wisconsin

6,632

200

3%

Wyoming

439

18

4%

243,315

15,009

6%

Total ♦

2007 data provided by CCR&Rs.

Note: The number of FCC providers with the CDA Credential was provided by the Council for Professional Recognition.

going to move to a new duty assignment. If Army families aren’t supported and happy, the Soldiers don’t stay in the Army.”

Mary Ellen Pratt, Chief of Child Development Programs for the Army, reiterated that point by saying, “When child care is unreliable, it causes Soldiers to lose duty time because they must take off work to take care of children. It, therefore, impacts mission readiness, and the ability of spouses to go to work.”

In summary, there is a lack of accredited or credentialed child care in the United States, and licensing standards vary so widely among states that in many cases these standards do not even ensure the basic health and safety of children. This lack of reliable, high-quality child care can impact the retention and readiness of Services Members.

Military families need to be able to use child care

50

available in the civilian communities in which they live without having to compromise on quality.

As Thompson emphasized, “Our families live in all 50 states. We want to see an even playing field with quality, and that’s really hard . . .

I think we need a national child care policy, without a doubt. I think that this includes the standards of quality, as well as the funding policy so that it’s not so expensive.”

The lack of reliable, quality child care has contributed to the stress experienced by many military families and has placed the military in a bind, as it tries to accommodate the family and child care needs of its Soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen in this time of war.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Lessons Learned from Implementing The Military Model in Civilian Communities It is clear that high-quality child care is largely unavailable.

In addition, licensing standards vary widely and are minimal at best. Most states do not have adequate training or education requirements for providers, do not address basic health and safety requirements, and rarely oversee the programs on a regular basis. Moreover, most states allow large numbers of child care programs to operate without licenses — most of these programs do not have to meet any health or safety requirements, especially as they are not inspected.

Lucas says “The civilian child care community is struggling much like the Army did in the late 80s, early 90s. The Army child care program has been successful in building the systemic infrastructure which addresses sustainable quality, availability and affordability. Community-based programs have not been provided with the same level of

funding and attention, and historically have been offered only short-term fixes. We would like to partner with the communities to share our lessons learned by infusing technical assistance and quality improvement strategies as a first step.”

It is also clear that parents are often uninformed about the type of care they use. They assume that the place where they take their children every day is licensed and inspected on a regular basis. NACCRRA’s national poll of parents of children under age 6 found that 63 percent of parents believe that all child care programs are required to be licensed; 58 percent believe the government inspects these programs; 72 percent believe providers are required to be trained in first-aid and CPR; and 67 percent believe that providers must have a background check (see Table 8).12

Table 8: Parents’ Perceptions of Existing Child Care Standards

Percent Saying True Some or Most of the Time

All caregivers provide learning opportunities

83

All caregivers are trained in first-aid/CPR

72

All caregivers are trained to recognize or report child abuse

70

All caregivers must have a background check

67

All caregivers are required to have training in child development

65

All child care programs are required to be licensed

63

All caregivers are trained in child discipline and guidance

58

The government inspects all child care programs

58

NACCRRA’s poll of parents with children under age 6 was conducted from February 1-14, 2006. Interviews were completed with 592 parents. The margin of errors is ± 4 percent.

NACCRRA. “Parent’s Perceptions of Child Care in the United States: NACCRRA’s National Parent Poll.” May 2006.

12

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

53

Similarly, many providers are also confused about their status. They may have registered their business on a list and think they have a license. In one story recounted by Smith, a provider thought having a business license was the same as having a child care license.

By working closely with the military services, state child care administrators, child care resource and referral experts, child care providers, and parents, NACCRRA has learned many lessons about the cost, quality and availability of child care to average families. These are summarized below.

Lesson One: There is not nearly enough highquality child care in the United States, even for families who can afford to pay the higher cost, including those military families eligible for the DoD’s fee assistance program. Because the military services will subsidize the care only if it meets certain requirements (nationally accredited or CDA-credentialed), finding child care for military families has presented a real challenge, and in some cases has been impossible. The decline in the number of nationally accredited programs over the last two years has exacerbated the problem.

As a result, nationally accredited programs are a mere 6.7 percent of all child care programs, and this percentage has been declining in recent months. When programs that do not provide full

54

day/year-round care are subtracted (Head Start, part-day preschools) the number of nationally accredited programs is even lower, and families are confronted by long waiting lists, especially for infant care.

Lesson Two: Unlike the DoD, the Department of Health and Human Services has little authority to enforce even the slimmest of requirements spelled out in the Child Care and Development Block Grant. States are given wide latitude to establish requirements and to enforce or NOT enforce basic health and safety requirements. Unlike for the military, quality is not a congressional priority for civilian children. The most minimum of health and safety standards are not being met by a large portion of all child care programs in the United States, and many child care programs NEVER receive an inspection. Licensing requirements are minimal in most states, with little to no requirements for providers to complete training, meet basic health and safety standards and offer children a learning environment. Nearly half of all programs fall outside the licensing system meaning they never have an on-site inspection and do not even adhere to the most minimal licensing requirements. As a result, many military families have been unable to receive much-needed child care support.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Lesson Three: The high cost of child care is a barrier to improving the quality of it. Even with low standards, child care is expensive for parents.

Because child care providers cannot pass on the costs of meeting higher standards to families who are already paying more than they afford, there is little incentive for programs to seriously engage in quality improvement initiatives, let alone accreditation efforts. Many states are establishing quality rating improvement plans, but many QRIS plans lack the funds necessary to ensure appropriate training, technical assistance, and incentives for providers to actually reach higher levels of quality.

Lesson Four: Quality is viewed as optional in the civilian child care community and is not built into every space. The cost of quality for most of child care is viewed as “frosting on the cake;” it is not embedded in the standards and in the programs themselves. In fact, the cost of a high-quality space is unknown in most of the states, and therefore, communities that try to help families with the cost of child care find it difficult to determine a cost-sharing model that is reasonable. It is noted here that Congress mandated a 50/50 shared responsibility between the military services and the families. The government’s share is devoted to paying for such quality components as training, accreditation, incentives and inspections.

Lesson Five: There are few, if any, prescreening requirements for those working with small children.

Unlike the DoD, which was made to comply with the background screening requirements in the Crime Control Act of 1990, state requirements vary widely on this issue. Over half do not require a fingerprint check, and fewer than 10 states check sex offender registries. There are no preservice training requirements for most child care workers in the United States. Even the most basic of requirements (child abuse identification, basic sanitation and child discipline) are not required in many states. While the debate continues over the potential of the preschool years to prepare children to enter school ready to learn, almost no one has focused on the fact that 12 million children are entering school from environments where the workers have no real training.

Lesson Six: Parents, especially military parents, are generally confused by the state of child care, the terms used to describe it, and what constitutes quality. Neither are they active participants in the establishment of standards and oversight.

The requirements for child care vary widely among states and frequently within states. The inconsistency has led to confusion on the part of parents about how to access child care, what is meant by licensure, and how to define quality.

Because military families are highly mobile, they are confronted and confused with these inconsistencies, but so are civilian families. The states’ terminology for licensing and oversight are confusing even to child care providers. When providers tell parents they are “registered,” “certified,” “licensed,” or “credentialed,” parents do not have a clear idea of what these terms mean and as a result, they have little trust in any state oversight. The requirements for background screening of child care workers vary widely, and in many states, simple checks such as checks of sex offender registries, are not required. Many child care providers receiving federal subsidies are not required to be screened and are in some cases convicted felons.

Lesson Seven: Parents across the income and socio-economic spectrum are unaware of the meaning of high quality. Despite the fact that most parents, including military parents who are using non-military child care, believe that their care is high quality, much is not inspected, licensed and/or accredited. Only when the provider must produce an actual copy of the license or accreditation certificate does the parent realize that their care does not meet minimal standards.

In addition, 21 states allow child care providers to “self-certify” and be registered or licensed based on a provider’s self-evaluation using a checklist supplied by the state. This means there is no onsite inspection required. This is clearly bad public policy because child care providers simply do not have the understanding of the requirements to be both accurate and objective when grading themselves, and parents are misled about what licensing means. On-site evaluation by an outsider is important. There is truth to the statement that “you don’t know what you don’t know.”

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

55

Lesson Eight: Child care providers are willing to accept higher standards if they receive support to meet the standards and some incentives to do so. In locations where the CCR&Rs have been asked to implement the more stringent requirements of the military programs, CCR&Rs have been able to recruit and retain enough providers/programs to meet the agreements.

This is because they offer some form of incentive to comply with standards. When surveyed, providers report that they come in to the projects and are willing to comply with standards because of the incentives offered.

After they are in the programs, they report that they stay in because of the support system and training.

Lesson Nine: Most civilian communities lack a logical and clear-cut path for child care providers, who generally enter the child care profession with nothing more than a GED or high school diploma at best, to move to higher levels of quality. Neither is there a system for rewarding achievement at higher levels. Training and on-site technical assistance effectively move providers to higher levels of quality. Child care providers enrolled in the Air Force’s quality improvement program achieved national accreditation or CDA Credentials even when they were not required to do so. Of the active providers, 19 percent who entered the project without a CDA earned one while in the program, and another 23 percent were in the process at the time the program was evaluated. In addition, 3 percent received NAFCC accreditation and 22 percent were working on it.

56

Lesson Ten: The caseload of trainers-to-providers matters, especially when on-site competencybased observations are required. The DoD’s program establishes a maximum number of FCC providers to outreach workers (Training and TA Specialists) of 1:40. NACCRRA reduced the number to 1:25 because of the additional travel-time involved. Both the military model as well as the civilian Military Child Care in Your Neighborhood projects demonstrate that a critical element of systematic quality improvement depends on the qualifications and caseload requirements for the people who support quality improvement initiatives. CCR&Rs are not sufficiently funded to provide the higher levels of training and technical assistance needed to truly move quality to higher levels. To date, states have not provided the resources to meet any reasonable benchmark.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Recommendations NACCRRA asked the military’s child care leaders based on their experience, to recommend one thing to their civilian counterparts that is crucial to quality improvement. Without hesitation, all of them mentioned some combination of provider training, adequate oversight of programs, and increasing awareness among parents. Many of them urged state child care administrators to become the primary advocates for child care in their states and to actively support higher standards. Following are some typical responses: “In the Army, child care is called a ‘Force Multiplier.’

What this means is that Army leadership recognizes that child care helps reduce the conflicts between meeting mission requirements and parental responsibilities. I think we would all agree these links also exist in the private sector.

While the specific link may vary by community, based on the context, the community needs to identify and articulate its importance and the impact of not addressing it, whether it’s to school-readiness, delinquency, workforce, or unemployment.”

— M.-A. Lucas, Army

“Keep the quality of child care as the priority.

Examine and adopt the ‘best practices’ for improving programs as you continue to forge ahead securing and utilizing the resources necessary to implement quality child care programs.”

Greg Young, Navy “I think that they’ve got to do this better monitoring, whether it’s the individual who goes into the home, or the system that just has more monitoring overview, more interface with individual providers, whether it’s by web or by telephone . . . I think being more involved and being more in contact, more continual contact with providers.”

— Eliza Nesmith, Air Force “Be the best advocate for quality, and be the best advocate for children. They probably already are incredible advocates in their field, and are probably very tired of advocating with no action. But I think we’ve learned in our system that you have to stick your neck out and share the hard facts and get the stories of families, so that the leaders who are the decision makers can make things happen to help improve the quality of child care in their state. Just don’t give up, don’t stop trying, just keep pushing it.”

“I would think the staffing piece would be the most important piece [to create and maintain high-quality child care], that they’re able to pay their staff and train their staff to have high quality.

You could add onto their list of things to do is to be advocates of children. Public advocacy is needed with representatives and state legislatures because it is going to take a ground swell of voices.

Right now parents don’t have a voice, they don’t have time.”

— Kathy Facon, Marine Corps (formerly)

— Barbara Thompson, DoD “I would recommend more oversight and getting [the providers] nationally accredited.”

—Rhudine Wilkes, Marine Corps

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

59

When the Department of Defense (DoD) was directed by Congress and the White House to share lessons learned with the rest of the country, many questioned the relevance of the military experience to civilian child care. Numerous arguments were put forth for why these lessons did not pertain. These included lack of funding, the perceived ability of the military to “order” change, and so on. However, we have learned from our four years of the Military/NACCRRA partnership that nearly all of the lessons ARE applicable to the civilian child care community and that by paying attention to the basics, change can occur.

As noted earlier, the Military Child Care Act (MCCA) is almost stunning in its simplicity. In crafting the MCCA, Congress paid attention to the basics, especially accountability, something completely lacking in CCDBG. Congress gave the DoD responsibility — in fact the requirement — to oversee the enforcement of child care health and safety standards and to report life-threatening situations to Congress. Congress also required the establishment of basic health and safety standards, routine inspections and oversight, training and incentives for child caregivers, standards for training and curriculum specialists and parent involvement.

60

NACCRRA learned that if Congress were to merely replicate many of the basic requirements of the MCCA in the upcoming CCDBG reauthorization, much is possible (see Appendix F for a comparison of the requirements of CCDBG and MCCA). The single biggest “take-away” from NACCRRA’s experiences working with DoD is that Congress must exert a more aggressive role in linking quality to all federal child care expenditures.

Congress must give more authority to — and in return, expect more oversight from — the Department of Health and Human Services.

The second biggest “take-away” is that the public is largely ignorant of the current status of child care. Most parents face a limited array of affordable choices. Parents are parents — whether military or civilian — and they want the same things for their children. They want their children to be cared for in safe and healthy environments by adults who care about them and are trained to do their jobs. Parents want and expect that standards will be enforced and that the adults working with their children have had background checks. Based on the lessons learned and the insight of Service Members, NACCRRA calls for:

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Recommendation One: Congress should conduct hearings that focus on the quality of child care in the United States. These hearings should include an examination of the Military Child Care Act and the Crime Control Act of 1990 as compared to current CCDBG law to determine gaps in basic standards, oversight, training and the accountability of state governments for the nearly $11 billion in government funds they spend. u Discussion: Current law governing the

administration of billions of dollars in federal funds is surprisingly lacking in accountability.

On the other hand, the Military Child Care Act of 1989 mandated accountability and was amazingly simple and straightforward in its requirements. It required basic standards, quarterly unannounced inspections, minimum training requirements and accountability to Congress for failure to meet safety conditions.

The Crime Control Act of 1990 was very explicit about the need for background clearance for child care workers who work in federal programs, but it ignored all others. The Military Child Care Act focused very specifically on raising the floor, not establishing unattainable ceilings.

Recommendation Two: Congress should establish quality as a national goal for all children’s programs, but especially for child care. Child care is the setting where preschool children spend more of their time than any other place outside of the home. In view of the need to ensure that children arrive at our nation’s public schools ready to learn, Congress should re-examine the messages sent to states about quality. Quality should not be considered an “add-on,” but rather a fundamental part of any child care program in order to adequately ensure that children are prepared for school entry. u Discussion: While quality was a common thread

throughout the Military Child Care Act, quality is a “side issue” in CCDBG, with an insufficient amount of funds (4 percent) authorized. Furthermore, quality funds are used by states to support improvements in all areas of child care, including licensing and inspections, training initiatives and other quality enhancements. Although the research clearly shows that quality matters most to children from families earning low incomes, CCDBG does little to address the issue.

Recommendation Three: Congress should set clear expectations about what quality means and establish a floor for what is minimally acceptable. As with the MCCA, Congress should establish minimum requirements for health and safety standards, require frequent inspections and require states to demonstrate that these measures are in place. The Department of Health and Human Services should be required to notify Congress when states fail to establish minimum standards and should have the authority to withhold federal funds. u Discussion: Congress has done little to

ensure that children in this country are protected and receiving what they need to become productive citizens. Many protections were built into the Military Child Care Act. These were the result of children being placed in situations that led to child abuse and other serious injuries. In stark comparison, the Department of Health and Human Services has little authority to hold states accountable for basic standards or to even require minimal inspections. Congress has even taken steps to require better oversight of Head Start programs.

Recommendation Four: Congress should extend requirements of the Crime Control Act of 1990 to all paid child care workers caring regularly for unrelated children, and in the case of FCC homes, all adults living in the home, substitutes and teenagers over the age of consent. u Discussion: Congress has done little to ensure

the safety of children in child care programs funded by public dollars. On the other hand, Congress requires child care workers in military programs, programs sponsored by the General Services Administration (GSA) and Head Start staff to have comprehensive background clearances that include fingerprint checks. This simple requirement would go a long way toward improving the safety of very young children.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

61

Recommendation Five: Congress should establish minimum training requirements for all paid child care workers in the United States. No adult should have unsupervised access to small children without some basic training. To do less puts the safety and welfare of our youngest citizens in jeopardy. u Discussion: NACCRRA’s examination of

workforce preparations has revealed alarming facts. Most states require absolutely no preservice training or education of those being paid to care for preschool-age children.

Research has demonstrated that even minimal training can significantly improve the quality of adult-child interactions — the most important indicator of quality. CCDBG should be strengthened to ensure that all states establish minimum health and safety standards that apply to all child care programs including firstaid and CPR certification prior to working with children and require all child care workers to receive 40 hours of training before they work with children and 24 hours annually thereafter.

This training should include such basics as child guidance and discipline, and identifying and preventing child abuse. Furthermore, Congress should require that states regularly inspect all child care programs caring for children not related to them before they are allowed to care for children, and quarterly thereafter.

62

Recommendation Six: Congress should support state efforts to create an infrastructure through which quality improvement projects can systematically be supported. Most states lack a comprehensive and systematic way of supporting child care workers — who generally enter the field with a high school diploma and no training — to achieve higher levels of competency. Although this infrastructure is developing in many states through the Quality Rating Improvement Systems (QRIS), Congress could support the development of this infrastructure by addressing the need for competency-based training and technical assistance to all child care programs and workers.

In order for the training and technical assistance to be effective, however, trainers and technical assistance specialists must have adequate qualifications and a caseload that allows them to provide the level of attention each provider requires. Congress should ensure that adequate funding is available for trainers and technical assistant specialists so that they are able to successfully fulfill their responsibilities. u Discussion: The Military Child Care Act

established a requirement for “professionally qualified” training and curriculum specialists for all military child care programs. Child Care Resource & Referral agencies (CCR&Rs) each provide training and technical assistance to more than 500,000 unduplicated child care workers. The need is approximately twice the current number. Funding should be provided to adequately staff the CCR&Rs to do the basic training and technical assistance that can lead child care workers to higher levels, including community college work and credentialing programs. This model is used by the military, and it also worked successfully for Head Start.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Recommendation Seven: Congress should require states to inspect child care programs before they can take care of children and regularly thereafter. Parents assume this is happening.

It is the responsibility of the government (state and federal) to protect the health and safety of its citizens. With nearly half of all children currently in programs that are not inspected, government is clearly failing on this front. u Discussion: In the Military Child Care

Act, Congress saw fit to require quarterly unannounced inspections of all child care programs, yet it has set no comparable standard for states regarding civilian child care programs. Indeed, in several states, inspections are so infrequent as to border on the absurd. For example, in Michigan, family child care homes are inspected every 10 years; in California, child care centers are inspected every five years; and in New Jersey, centers are inspected every three years, and there is NO requirement to inspect small family child care homes. Each day, millions of children are placed in programs that have had no fire, health or safety inspections at all.

Recommendation Eight: Congress should require the Department of Health and Human Services, in conjunction with the National Academy of Sciences, to determine the cost of quality and report back to Congress. Based on the results of these findings, Congress should take aggressive measures to examine a cost-sharing approach that establishes a “fair share” approach to child care.

The federal share of the cost should be used to ensure that all children have access to programs that meet their developmental needs and adequately prepare them for school. As with the Military Child Care Act, Congress needs to direct states to develop sliding-fee scales similar to those of the military and help working parents afford high-quality child care. Even in families where both parents work, child care can cost more than mortgages, food and other major expenses. u Discussion: The current funding structure,

based on a purely “market-based” funding strategy, has failed to produce high-quality care, especially for the nation’s poorest children. Data show that current federal policy has allowed a system where nearly 40 percent of all child care programs fall outside the regulated system, and that more children than ever are being cared for by adults with fewer qualifications to do the job. This is because their parents either cannot afford the cost of regulated, quality

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

63

child care, or there is no such care available.

Legal providers are driven out of business by unregulated providers who charge less. In the Military Child Care Act, Congress established a shared-funding model between the government and the parents and required that the government’s share be targeted toward quality improvements. The cost of high-quality child care far exceeds the ability of most American families, especially families with an infant or with more than one child. Child care for an infant in many states costs as much as $14,600 per year and consumes as much as 16.5 percent of the median family income of a two-parent family income and over 50 percent of a singleparent family income. All military parents pay on a sliding scale based on total family income, but the average family is paying only one half of the cost of care. While the MCCA established a “shared responsibility” for child care and directed the DoD to develop fees based on total family income, CCDBG establishes fees at UP TO the 75th percentile of the market rate in the state. Although states are required by law to conduct market-rate surveys, Congress failed to require states to use them, thus leaving a large loophole that allows states to keep reimbursement rates low. This in turn undermines quality.

Recommendation Nine: Include parents in the development of child care policies. As with the Military Child Care Act, Congress should require that states receiving federal funds actively seek the input of parents on state policy decisions. Congress should also authorize specific funds within CCDBG to be set aside to provide parents with consumer education on child care, so that they can understand the differences between the various types of child care available in their communities and accurately identify high-quality care.

choice is ALL that parents want. This is simply not true. Yet, neither federal nor state policy discussions include parents in any meaningful way.

Recommendation Ten: Congress should ask the Department of Health and Human Services to convene a working group of representatives from state child care licensing agencies and state child care administrators to discuss and reach consensus on licensing terms that can be used across the country. The working group should define terms such as licensing, certification, registration, etc., so that they have a standard meaning across state lines. This will go a long way toward eliminating the confusion experienced by many parents and will help them make more informed choices. u Discussion: States use many terms to describe

their oversight of child care programs. These vary from licensed, certified, registered, and accredited to self-certification, licenseexempt, legally license-exempt and so on. As a result, parents are confused and frequently misinterpret the various terms to mean that programs are inspected, the workers are trained and have had background clearances. Nothing could be further from the truth. These terms are severely misleading to parents, and good public policy demands that they be clarified.

u Discussion: Extensive work with parents, in

both the military fee assistance programs and NACCRRA’s general work with parents, have demonstrated clearly that parents want and expect child care programs to be licensed and inspected, for workers to be trained and to have background clearances and for programs to provide learning opportunities for their children.

While parents do want choices within these parameters, current federal policies assume that

64

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Appendix A: The Military Child Care Act Public Law 101–189

military child development centers shall not be less than the amount of child care fee receipts that are estimated to be received by the Department of Defense during that fiscal year. Of the amount authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1990, $102,000,000 shall be available for operating expenses for military child development centers.

TITLE XV--MILITARY CHILD CARE SEC. 1501. SHORT TITLE; DEFINITIONS (a) SHORT TITLE- This title may be cited as the `Military Child Care Act of 1989’. (b) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this title:

(1) The term ‘military child development center’ means a facility on a military installation (or on property under the jurisdiction of the commander of a military installation) at which child care services are provided for members of the Armed Forces or any other facility at which such child care services are provided that is operated by the Secretary of a military department.

(2) The term ‘family home day care’ means homebased child care services that are provided for members of the Armed Forces by an individual who (A) is certified by the Secretary of the military department concerned as qualified to provide those services, and (B) provides those services on a regular basis for compensation.

(3) The term `child care employee’ means a civilian employee of the Department of Defense who is employed to work in a military child development center (regardless of whether the employee is paid from appropriated funds or non-appropriated funds).

(4) The term ‘child care fee receipts’ means those non-appropriated funds that are derived from fees paid by members of the Armed Forces for child care services provided at military child development centers.

SEC. 1502. FUNDING FOR MILITARY CHILD CARE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1990 (a) FISCAL YEAR 1990 FUNDING – (1) It is the policy of Congress that the amount of appropriated funds available during fiscal year 1990 for operating expenses for

(2) In addition to the amount referred to in paragraph (1), $26,000,000 shall be available for child care and child-related services of the Department other than military child development centers.

(3) In using the funds referred to in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall give priority to-

(A) increasing the number of child care employees who are directly involved in providing child care for members of the Armed Forces; and

(B) expanding the availability of child care for members of the Armed Forces.

(b) FUNDS DERIVED FROM PARENT FEES TO BE USED FOR EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION AND OTHER CHILD CARE SERVICES- (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), child care fee receipts may be used during fiscal year 1990 only for compensation of child care employees who are directly involved in providing child care.

(2) If the Secretary of Defense determines that compliance with the limitation in paragraph (1) would result in an uneconomical and inefficient use of such fee receipts, the Secretary may (to the extent that such compliance would be uneconomical and inefficient) use such receipts-

(A) first, for the purchase of consumable or disposable items for military child development centers; and

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

67

(B) if the requirements of such centers for consumable or disposable items for fiscal year 1990 have been met, for other expenses of those centers. (c) REPORT- (1) Not later than December 31, 1989, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report on how the Secretary intends to use the funds referred to in subsection (a), including how the Secretary intends to achieve the priorities specified in paragraph (3) of that subsection.

(2) If at the time such report is submitted the Secretary proposes to use the authority provided by subsection (b)(2), the Secretary shall include in the report under paragraph (1) a description of the use proposed to be made of that authority and a statement of the reasons why the Secretary determined that compliance with the limitation in subsection (b)(1) would result in an uneconomical and inefficient use of child care fee receipts, together with supporting cost information and other information justifying the determination.

(3) If the Secretary uses such authority after December 31, 1989, the Secretary shall promptly inform the committees of the use of the authority and of the reasons for its use.

SEC. 1503. CHILD CARE EMPLOYEES (a) REQUIRED TRAINING – (1) The Secretary of Defense shall establish, and prescribe regulations to implement, a training program for child care employees. Those regulations shall apply uniformly among the military departments. Subject to paragraph (2), satisfactory completion of the training program shall be a condition of employment of any person as a child care employee.

(2) Under those regulations, the Secretary shall require that each child care employee complete the training program not later than six months after the date on which the employee is employed as a child care employee (except that, in the case of a child care employee hired before the date on which the training program is established, the Secretary shall require that the employee complete the program not later than six months after that date).

68

(3) The training program established under this subsection shall cover, at a minimum, training in the following:

(A) Early childhood development.

(B) Activities and disciplinary techniques appropriate to children of different ages.

(C) Child abuse prevention and detection.

(D) Cardiopulmonary resuscitation and other emergency medical procedures.

(b) TRAINING AND CURRICULUM SPECIALISTS- (1) The Secretary of Defense shall require that at least one employee at each military child development center be a specialist in training and curriculum development. The Secretary shall ensure that such employees have appropriate credentials and experience.

(2) The duties of such employees shall include the following:

(A) Special teaching activities at the center.

(B) Daily oversight and instruction of other child care employees at the center.

(C) Daily assistance in the preparation of lesson plans.

(D) Assistance in the center’s child abuse prevention and detection program.

(E) Advising the director of the center on the performance of other child care employees.

(3) Each employee referred to in paragraph (1) shall be an employee in a competitive service position. (c) PROGRAM TO TEST COMPETITIVE RATES OF PAY- (1) For the purpose of improving the capability of the Department of Defense to provide military child development centers with a qualified and stable civilian workforce, the Secretary of Defense shall conduct a program as provided in this subsection to increase the compensation of child care employees.

The Secretary shall begin the program not later than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act. The program shall be in effect for a period of at least two years.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

(2) The program shall apply to all child care employees who— (A) are directly involved in providing child care; and

(B) are paid from non-appropriated funds.

(3) Under the program, child care employees at a military installation who are described in paragraph (2) shall be paid-

(A) in the case of entry-level employees, at rates of pay competitive with the rates of pay paid to other entry-level employees at that installation who are drawn from the same labor pool; and

(B) in the case of other employees, at rates of pay substantially equivalent to the rates of pay paid to other employees at that installation with similar training, seniority, and experience.

(d) EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE TEST PROGRAM FOR MILITARY SPOUSES – (1) The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a test program under which qualified spouses of members of the Armed Forces shall be given a preference in hiring for the position of child care employee in a position paid from non-appropriated funds if the spouse is among persons determined to be best qualified for the position. A spouse who is provided a preference under this subsection at a military child development center may not be precluded from obtaining another preference, in accordance with section 806 of the Military Family Act of 1985 (10 U.S.C. 113 note), in the same geographical area as the military child development center.

(2) The test program under this subsection shall run concurrently with the program under subsection (c). (e) REPORT ON COMPENSATION AND SPOUSE EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE PROGRAMSNot later than March 1, 1991, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report on the programs under subsections (c) and (d). The report shall include the findings of the Secretary concerning the effect of each of the programs on the quality of child care provided in military child development centers and the effect of the

spouse employment preference program on employee turnover at such centers. (f) ADDITIONAL CHILD CARE POSITIONS- (1) The Secretary of Defense shall make available for child care programs of the Department of Defense, not later than September 30, 1990, at least 1,000 competitive service positions in addition to the number of competitive service positions in such programs as of September 30, 1989. During fiscal year 1991, the Secretary shall make available to child care programs of the Department additional competitive service positions so that the number of competitive service positions in such programs as of September 30, 1991, is at least 3,700 greater than the number of competitive service positions in such programs as of September 30, 1989.

(2) The Secretary may waive the increase otherwise required by the second sentence of paragraph (1) to the extent that the Secretary determines that such increase is not executable. If the Secretary issues such a waiver, the Secretary shall promptly submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report on the waiver. Any such report shall specify the number of such positions waived and the reasons for the waiver.

(3) The additional positions provided for in paragraph (1), and the work-years associated with those positions, that are used outside the United States shall not be counted for purpose of applying any limitation on the total number of positions or work-years, respectively, available to the Department of Defense outside the United States (or any limitation on the availability of appropriated funds for such positions or work-years for any fiscal year). (g) COMPETITIVE SERVICE POSITION DEFINEDFor purposes of this section, the term `competitive service position’ means a position in the competitive service, as defined in section 2102(a)(1) of title 5, United States Code.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

69

SEC. 1504. PARENT FEES The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations establishing fees to be charged parents for the attendance of children at military child development centers. Those regulations shall be uniform for the military departments and shall require that, in the case of children who attend the centers on a regular basis, the fees shall be based on family income.

SEC. 1505. CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND SAFETY AT FACILITIES (a) CHILD ABUSE TASK FORCE- The Secretary of Defense shall establish and maintain a special task force to respond to allegations of widespread child abuse at a military installation. The task force shall be composed of personnel from appropriate disciplines, including, where appropriate, medicine, psychology, and childhood development. In the case of such allegations, the task force shall provide assistance to the commander of the installation, and to parents at the installation, in helping them to deal with such allegations. (b) NATIONAL HOTLINE- (1) The Secretary of Defense shall establish and maintain a national telephone number for persons to use to report suspected child abuse or safety violations at a military child development center or family home day care site. The Secretary shall ensure that such reports may be made anonymously if so desired by the person making the report.

The Secretary shall establish procedures for following up on complaints and information received over that number.

(2) The Secretary shall establish such national telephone number not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and shall publicize the existence of the number. (c) ASSISTANCE FROM LOCAL AUTHORITIESThe Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations requiring that, in a case of allegations of child abuse at a military child development center or family home day care site, the commander of the military installation or the head of the task force established under subsection (a) shall seek the assistance of local child protective authorities if such assistance is available.

70

(d) SAFETY REGULATIONS- The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations on safety and operating procedures at military child development centers. Those regulations shall apply uniformly among the military departments. (e) INSPECTIONS- The Secretary of Defense shall require that each military child development center be inspected not less often than four times a year. Each such inspection shall be unannounced. At least one inspection a year shall be carried out by a representative of the installation served by the center, and one inspection a year shall be carried out by a representative of the major command under which that installation operates. (f) REMEDIES FOR VIOLATIONS- (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any violation of a safety, health, or child welfare law or regulation (discovered at an inspection or otherwise) at a military child development center shall be remedied immediately.

(2) In the case of a violation that is not life threatening, the commander of the major command under which the installation concerned operates may waive the requirement that the violation be remedied immediately for a period of up to 90 days beginning on the date of the discovery of the violation. If the violation is not remedied as of the end of that 90-day period, the military child development center shall be closed until the violation is remedied. The Secretary of the military department concerned may waive the preceding sentence and authorize the center to remain open in a case in which the violation cannot reasonably be remedied within that 90-day period or in which major facility reconstruction is required.

(3) If a military child development center is closed under paragraph (2), the Secretary of the military department concerned shall promptly submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report notifying those committees of the closing. The report shall include-

(A) notice of the violation that resulted in the closing and the cost of remedying the violation; and

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

(B) a statement of the reasons why the violation has not been remedied as of the time of the report.

staff of the center, shall be responsible for coordinating the parent participation program described in subsection (b).

(g) REPORT ON COOPERATION WITH DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE- (1) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall study matters relating to military child care that are of concern to the Department of Justice. The matters studied shall include the following:

(b) PARENT PARTICIPATION PROGRAMS– The Secretary of Defense shall require the establishment of a parent participation program at each military child development center. As part of such program, the Secretary of Defense may establish fees for attendance of children at such a center, in the case of parents who participate in the parent participation program at that center, at rates lower than the rates that otherwise apply.

(A) Improving communication between the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice in investigations of child abuse in military programs and in the coordination of the conduct of such investigations.

(B) Eliminating overlapping responsibilities between the two departments.

(C) Making better use of government and non-government experts in child abuse investigations and prosecutions.

(D) Improving communication with affected families by the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, and appropriate State and local agencies.

(2) Not later than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the study required by paragraph (1). The report shall include recommendations on methods for improving the matters studied.

(3) Not later than nine months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to Congress a report evaluating the findings in the report submitted under paragraph (2).

SEC. 1506. PARENT PARTNERSHIPS WITH CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS (a) PARENT BOARDS- The Secretary of Defense shall require that there be established at each military child development center a board of parents, to be composed of parents of children attending the center. The board shall meet periodically with staff of the center and the commander of the installation served by the center for the purpose of discussing problems and concerns. The board, together with the

SEC. 1507. REPORT ON FIVE-YEAR DEMAND FOR CHILD CARE (a) REPORT REQUIRED- Not later than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the expected demand for child care by military and civilian personnel of the Department of Defense during fiscal years 1991 through 1995. (b) PLAN FOR MEETING DEMAND- The report shall include-

(1) a plan for meeting the expected child care demand identified in the report; and

(2) an estimate of the cost of implementing that plan.

(c) MONITORING OF FAMILY DAY CARE PROVIDERSThe report shall also include a description of methods for monitoring family home day care programs of the military departments.

SEC. 1508. SUBSIDIES FOR FAMILY HOME DAY CARE The Secretary of Defense may use appropriated funds available for military child care purposes to provide assistance to family home day care providers so that family home day care services can be provided to members of the Armed Forces at a cost comparable to the cost of services provided by military child development centers.

The Secretary shall prescribe regulations for the provision of such assistance.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

71

SEC. 1509. EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM (a) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM FOR ACCREDITED CENTERS- (1) The Secretary of Defense shall carry out a program to demonstrate the effect on the development of preschool children of requiring that military child development centers meet standards of operation necessary for accreditation by an appropriate national early childhood programs accrediting body. To carry out such demonstration program, the Secretary shall ensure that not later than June 1, 1991, at least 50 military child development centers are accredited by such an appropriate national early childhood accrediting body.

(2) Each military child development center so accredited shall be designated as an early childhood education demonstration project and shall serve as a program model for other military child development centers and family home day care providers at military installations. (b) PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION- Not later than April 1, 1990, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a plan for carrying out the requirements of subsection (a). (c) EVALUATION- The Secretary shall obtain an independent evaluation of the demonstration program carried out under subsection (a) to determine the extent to which the imposition of a requirement that military child development centers meet accreditation standards effectively promotes the development of preschool children of members of the Armed Forces. The Secretary shall report the results of the evaluation to Congress, together with such comments and recommendations as the Secretary considers appropriate, not later than July 15, 1992.

SEC. 1510. DEADLINE FOR REGULATIONS Regulations required to be prescribed by this title shall be prescribed not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

72

Revision & Codification of the Military Family Act and Military Child Care Act Public Law 104-106 SEC. 568. REVISION AND CODIFICATION OF MILITARY FAMILY ACT AND MILITARY CHILD CARE ACT. (a) IN GENERAL.—(1) Subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 87 the following new chapter: ‘‘CHAPTER 88—MILITARY FAMILY PROGRAMS AND MILITARY CHILD CARE ‘‘Subchapter Sec. ‘‘I. Military Family Programs 1781 ‘‘II. Military Child Care 1791 ‘‘SUBCHAPTER I—MILITARY FAMILY PROGRAMS ‘‘Sec. ‘‘1781. Office of Family Policy. ‘‘1782. Surveys of military families. ‘‘1783. Family members serving on advisory committees. ‘‘1784. Employment opportunities for military spouses. ‘‘1785. Youth sponsorship program.

10 USC 1177 note.

110 STAT. 330 PUBLIC LAW 104–106—FEB. 10, 1996 ‘‘1786. Dependent student travel within the United States. ‘‘1787. Reporting of child abuse. ‘‘§ 1781. Office of Family Policy ‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is in the Office of the Secretary of Defense an Office of Family Policy (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ‘Office’). The Office shall be under the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management and Personnel. ‘‘(b) DUTIES.—The Office— ‘‘(1) shall coordinate programs and activities of the military departments to the extent that they relate to military families; and ‘‘(2) shall make recommendations to the Secretaries of the military departments with respect to programs and policies regarding military families.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

‘‘(c) STAFF.—The Office shall have not less than five professional staff members. ‘‘§ 1782. Surveys of military families ‘‘(a) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of Defense may conduct surveys of members of the armed forces on active duty or in an active status, members of the families of such members, and retired members of the armed forces to determine the effectiveness of Federal programs relating to military families and the need for new programs. ‘‘(b) RESPONSES TO BE VOLUNTARY.—Responses to surveys conducted under this section shall be voluntary. ‘‘(c) FEDERAL RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS.— With respect to such surveys, family members of members of the armed forces and reserve and retired members of the armed forces shall be considered to be employees of the United States for purposes of section 3502(3)(A)(i) of title 44. ‘‘§ 1783. Family members serving on advisory committees ‘‘A committee within the Department of Defense which advises or assists the Department in the performance of any function which affects members of military families and which includes members of military families in its membership shall not be considered an advisory committee under section 3(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) solely because of such membership. ‘‘§ 1784. Employment opportunities for military spouses ‘‘(a) AUTHORITY. — The President shall order such measures as the President considers necessary to increase employment opportunities for spouses of members of the armed forces. Such measures may include— ‘‘(1) excepting, pursuant to section 3302 of title 5, from the competitive service positions in the Department of Defense located outside of the United States to provide employment opportunities for qualified spouses of members of the armed forces in the same geographical area as the permanent duty station of the members; and

stationed in the same geographical area as the nonappropriated fund activity for positions in wage grade UA–8 and below and equivalent positions and for positions paid at hourly rates.

President.

PUBLIC LAW 104–106—FEB. 10, 1996 110 STAT. 331 ‘‘(b) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations— ‘‘(1) to implement such measures as the President orders under subsection (a); ‘‘(2) to provide preference to qualified spouses of members of the armed forces in hiring for any civilian position in the Department of Defense if the spouse is among persons determined to be best qualified for the position and if the position is located in the same geographical area as the permanent duty station of the member; ‘‘(3) to ensure that notice of any vacant position in the Department of Defense is provided in a manner reasonably designed to reach spouses of members of the armed forces whose permanent duty stations are in the same geographic area as the area in which the position is located; and ‘‘(4) to ensure that the spouse of a member of the armed forces who applies for a vacant position in the Department of Defense shall, to the extent practicable, be considered for any such position located in the same geographic area as the permanent duty station of the member. ‘‘(c) STATUS OF PREFERENCE ELIGIBLES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to provide a spouse of a member of the armed forces with preference in hiring over an individual who is a preference eligible. ‘‘§ 1785. Youth sponsorship program ‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT. — The Secretary of Defense shall require that there be at each military installation a youth sponsorship program to facilitate the integration of dependent children of members of the armed forces into new surroundings when moving to that military installation as a result of a parent’s permanent change of station.

‘‘(2) providing preference in hiring for positions in nonappropriated fund activities to qualified spouses of members of the armed forces

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

73

‘‘(b) DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAMS. — The program at each installation shall provide for involvement of dependent children of members presently stationed at the military installation and shall be directed primarily toward children in their preteen and teenage years. ‘‘§ 1786. Dependent student travel within the United States ‘‘Funds available to the Department of Defense for the travel and transportation of dependent students of members of the armed forces stationed overseas may be obligated for transportation allowances for travel within or between the contiguous States. ‘‘§ 1787. Reporting of child abuse ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall request each State to provide for the reporting to the Secretary of any report the State receives of known or suspected instances of child abuse and neglect in which the person having care of the child is a member of the armed forces (or the spouse of the member). ‘‘(b) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘child abuse and neglect’ has the meaning provided in section 3(1) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5102).

‘‘1791. Funding for military child care. ‘‘1792. Child care employees.

110 STAT. 332 PUBLIC LAW 104–106—FEB. 10, 1996 ‘‘1793. Parent fees. ‘‘1794. Child abuse prevention and safety at facilities. ‘‘1795. Parent partnerships with child development centers.

‘‘1798. Definitions.

‘‘(a) REQUIRED TRAINING. — (1) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations implementing, a training program for child care employees.

Those regulations shall apply uniformly among the military departments. Subject to paragraph (2), satisfactory completion of the training program shall be a condition of employment of any person as a child care employee. ‘‘(2) Under those regulations, the Secretary shall require that each child care employee complete the training program not later than six months after the date on which the employee is employed as a child care employee. ‘‘(3) The training program established under this subsection shall cover, at a minimum, training in the following: ‘‘(A) Early childhood development. ‘‘(B) Activities and disciplinary techniques appropriate to children of different ages.

‘‘(D) Cardiopulmonary resuscitation and other emergency medical procedures.

‘‘Sec.

‘‘1797. Early childhood education program.

‘‘§ 1792. Child care employees

‘‘(C) Child abuse prevention and detection.

‘‘SUBCHAPTER II—MILITARY CHILD CARE

‘‘1796. Subsidies for family home day care.

year for operating expenses for military child development centers and programs shall be not less than the amount of child care fee receipts that are estimated to be received by the Department of Defense during that fiscal year.

‘‘(b) TRAINING AND CURRICULUM SPECIALISTS. — (1) The Secretary of Defense shall require that at least one employee at each military child development center be a specialist in training and curriculum development. The Secretary shall ensure that such employees have appropriate credentials and experience. ‘‘(2) The duties of such employees shall include the following: ‘‘(A) Special teaching activities at the center. ‘‘(B) Daily oversight and instruction of other child care employees at the center.

‘‘§ 1791. Funding for military child care

‘‘(C) Daily assistance in the preparation of lesson plans.

‘‘It is the policy of Congress that the amount of appropriated funds available during a fiscal

‘‘(D) Assistance in the center’s child abuse prevention and detection program.

74

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

‘‘(E) Advising the director of the center on the performance of other child care employees.

children who attend the centers on a regular basis, the fees shall be based on family income.

‘‘(3) Each employee referred to in paragraph (1) shall be an employee in a competitive service position.

‘‘(b) LOCAL WAIVER AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of Defense may provide authority to installation commanders, on a case-by-case basis, to establish fees for attendance of children at child development centers at rates lower than those prescribed under subsection

‘‘(c) COMPETITIVE RATES OF PAY.—For the purpose of providing military child development centers with a qualified and stable civilian workforce, employees at a military installation who are directly involved in providing child care and are paid from nonappropriated funds— ‘‘(1) in the case of entry-level employees, shall be paid at rates of pay competitive with the rates of pay paid to other entry-level employees at that installation who are drawn from the same labor pool; and Regulations.

PUBLIC LAW 104–106—FEB. 10, 1996 110 STAT. 333 ‘‘(2) in the case of other employees, shall be paid at rates of pay substantially equivalent to the rates of pay paid to other employees at that installation with similar training, seniority, and experience. ‘‘(d) EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE PROGRAM FOR MILITARY SPOUSES.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a program under which qualified spouses of members of the armed forces shall be given a preference in hiring for the position of child care employee in a position paid from nonappropriated funds if the spouse is among persons determined to be best qualified for the position. ‘‘(2) A spouse who is provided a preference under this subsection at a military child development center may not be precluded from obtaining another preference, in accordance with section 1794 of this title, in the same geographic area as the military child development center. ‘‘(e) COMPETITIVE SERVICE POSITION DEFINED.— In this section, the term ‘competitive service position’ means a position in the competitive service, as defined in section 2102(a)(1) of title 5. ‘‘§ 1793. Parent fees ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL. — The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations establishing fees to be charged parents for the attendance of children at military child development centers. Those regulations shall be uniform for the military departments and shall require that, in the case of

(a) if the rates prescribed under subsection (a) are not competitive with rates at local non-military child development centers. ‘‘§ 1794. Child abuse prevention and safety at facilities ‘‘(a) CHILD ABUSE TASK FORCE.—The Secretary of Defense shall maintain a special task force to respond to allegations of widespread child abuse at a military installation. The task force shall be composed of personnel from appropriate disciplines, including, where appropriate, medicine, psychology, and childhood development. In the case of such allegations, the task force shall provide assistance to the commander of the installation, and to parents at the installation, in helping them to deal with such allegations. ‘‘(b) NATIONAL HOTLINE.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall maintain a national telephone number for persons to use to report suspected child abuse or safety violations at a military child development center or family home day care site.

The Secretary shall ensure that such reports may be made anonymously if so desired by the person making the report. The Secretary shall establish procedures for following up on complaints and information received over that number. ‘‘(2) The Secretary shall publicize the existence of the number. ‘‘(c) ASSISTANCE FROM LOCAL AUTHORITIES.—The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations requiring that, in a case of allegations of child abuse at a military child development center or family home day care site, the commander of the military installation or the head of the task force established under sub-Regulations.

Public information.

Regulations.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

75

110 STAT. 334 PUBLIC LAW 104–106—FEB. 10, 1996 section (a) shall seek the assistance of local child protective authorities if such assistance is available. ‘‘(d) SAFETY REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations on safety and operating procedures at military child development centers. Those regulations shall apply uniformly among the military departments. ‘‘(e) INSPECTIONS.—The Secretary of Defense shall require that each military child development center be inspected not less often than four times a year. Each such inspection shall be unannounced.

At least one inspection a year shall be carried out by a representative of the installation served by the center, and one inspection a year shall be carried out by a representative of the major command under which that installation operates. ‘‘(f) REMEDIES FOR VIOLATIONS.—(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any violation of a safety, health, or child welfare law or regulation (discovered at an inspection or otherwise) at a military child development center shall be remedied immediately. ‘‘(2) In the case of a violation that is not life threatening, the commander of the major command under which the installation concerned operates may waive the requirement that the violation be remedied immediately for a period of up to 90 days beginning on the date of the discovery of the violation. If the violation is not remedied as of the end of that 90-day period, the military child development center shall be closed until the violation is remedied. The Secretary of the military department concerned may waive the preceding sentence and authorize the center to remain open in a case in which the violation cannot reasonably be remedied within that 90-day period or in which major facility reconstruction is required. ‘‘§ 1795. Parent partnerships with child development centers ‘‘(a) PARENT BOARDS.—The Secretary of Defense shall require that there be established at each military child development center a board of parents, to be composed of parents of children attending the center. The board shall meet periodically with staff of the center and the commander of the installation served by the

76

center for the purpose of discussing problems and concerns. The board, together with the staff of the center, shall be responsible for coordinating the parent participation program described in subsection (b). ‘‘(b) PARENT PARTICIPATION PROGRAMS.— The Secretary of Defense shall require the establishment of a parent participation program at each military child development center. As part of such program, the Secretary of Defense may establish fees for attendance of children at such a center, in the case of parents who participate in the parent participation program at that center, at rates lower than the rates that otherwise apply. ‘‘§ 1796. Subsidies for family home day care ‘‘The Secretary of Defense may use appropriated funds available for military child care purposes to provide assistance to family home day care providers so that family home day care services can be provided to members of the armed forces at a cost comparable to the cost of services provided by military child development centers.

The Secretary shall prescribe regulations for the provision of such assistance.

Regulations.

PUBLIC LAW 104–106—FEB. 10, 1996 110 STAT. 335 ‘‘§ 1797. Early childhood education program ‘‘The Secretary of Defense shall require that all military child development centers meet standards of operation necessary for accreditation by an appropriate national early childhood programs accrediting body. ‘‘§ 1798. Definitions ‘‘In this subchapter: ‘‘(1) The term ‘military child development center’ means a facility on a military installation (or on property under the jurisdiction of the commander of a military installation) at which child care services are provided for members of the armed forces or any other facility at which such child care services are provided that is operated by the Secretary of a military department. ‘‘(2) The term ‘family home day care’ means home-based child care services that are provided for members of the armed forces by an individual who (A) is certified by the Secretary of the military

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

department concerned as qualified to provide those services, and (B) provides those services on a regular basis for compensation. ‘‘(3) The term ‘child care employee’ means a civilian employee of the Department of Defense who is employed to work in a military child development center (regardless of whether the employee is paid from appropriated funds or nonappropriated funds). ‘‘(4) The term ‘child care fee receipts’ means those nonappropriated funds that are derived from fees paid by members of the armed forces for child care services provided at military child development centers.’’.

(2) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A, and at the beginning of part II of subtitle A, of title 10, United States Code, are amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 87 the following new item: ‘‘88. Military Family Programs and Military Child Care 1781’’. (b) REPORT ON FIVE-YEAR DEMAND FOR CHILD CARE.—(1) Not later than the date of the submission of the budget for fiscal year 1997 pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the expected demand for child care by military and civilian personnel of the Department of Defense during fiscal years 1997 through 2001.

(2) The report shall include—

(c) PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ACCREDITATION REQUIREMENT.— The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives a plan for carrying out the requirements of section 1787 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a). The plan shall be submitted not later than April 1, 1997.

10 USC 1787 note.

110 STAT. 336 PUBLIC LAW 104–106—FEB. 10, 1996 (d) CONTINUATION OF DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO HIRING PREFERENCE FOR QUALIFIED MILITARY SPOUSES. — The provisions of Executive Order No. 12568, issued October 2, 1986 (10 U.S.C. 113 note), shall apply as if the reference in that Executive order to section 806(a)(2) of the Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1986 refers to section 1784 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a). (e) REPEALER.—The following provisions of law are repealed: (1) The Military Family Act of 1985 (title VIII of Public Law 99–145; 10 U.S.C. 113 note).

(2) The Military Child Care Act of 1989 (title XV of Public Law 101–189; 10 U.S.C. 113 note).

(A) a plan for meeting the expected child care demand identified in the report; and (B) an estimate of the cost of implementing that plan.

(3) The report shall also include a description of methods for monitoring family home day care programs of the military departments.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

77

Appendix B: DoD’s Standards for Child Care Centers and Family Child Care Homes

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

79

80

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

81

82

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Appendix C: Program Locations The following communities participated in these programs: Community

Installation

CCR&R

Colorado

All Army installations in Colorado

Child Care Connection, Colorado Springs (Fort Carson); Qualistar (state-wide)

Manhattan, KS

Fort Riley

Flint Hills CCR&R

Madisonville, KY

Fort Campbell

Audubon Area Community Services CCR&R

Fayetteville, NC

Fort Bragg

Child Care Solution

Maryland (statewide)

All Army installation in Maryland

Maryland Committee for Children, Baltimore

Watertown, NY

Fort Drum

Community Action Planning Council

San Antonio, TX

Fort Sam Houston

Family Services Association Smart Start Connection

El Paso, TX

Fort Bliss

YWCA CCR&R

Tacoma, WA

Fort Lewis

Washington State CCR&R

Greater Washington, DC

Fort Myer and Fort Belvoir

Washington Child Development Council

San Diego, CA

Camp Pendleton San Diego Naval Station Naval Base Coronado

San Diego County YMCA Childcare Resource Service

Fairfield, CA

Travis Air Force Base

Solano Family and Children’s Services

Yuba City, CA

Beale Air Force Base

Children’s Home Society

Lakewood, CO

Buckley Air Force Base

Family Resources and Child Care Education

Ft. Walton Beach, FL

Eglin Air Force Base Hurlburt Air Force Base

Okaloosa-Walton Child Care Services

Valdosta, GA

Moody Air Force Base

CCR&R of South Central Georgia at Tifton

Biloxi, MS

Keesler Air Force Base

Mississippi State University Extension Service

Omaha, NE

Offutt Air Force Base

Midwest Child Care Association

Nevada (statewide)

Nellis Air Force Base

State of Nevada, Child Care & Development Program

Fayetteville, NC

Pope Air Force Base

Partnership for Children of Cumberland County, Child Care Solutions

Oklahoma City, OK

Tinker Air Force Base

Rainbow Fleet CCR&R

San Antonio, TX

Randolph Air Force Base Lackland Air Force Base Brooks City Air Force Base

Family Services Association Smart Start Connection

Spokane, WA

Fairchild Air Force Base

Family Care Resources/CommunityMinded Enterprises

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Program Sponsor

Army

Navy/ Marine Corps

Air Force

83

Appendix D: The Military Training System Model The Department of Defense (DoD) Child Development Program provides a model for training providers in the civilian community. All child care center staff, schoolage program staff, and family providers are required to complete specific, competency-based pre-service and in-service training. Many military providers have continued beyond the training program to achieve a national Child Development Associate (CDA) Credential or an Associate’s or Bachelor’s degree. These requirements have resulted in a well-trained, stable workforce, especially when factoring in the rotation policies of the military (most of the providers are spouses of active duty personnel). While most providers move every three years, they continue their employment in a military center. And almost all DoD child care programs are nationally accredited — compared to only 8 to 10 percent of child care programs in the civilian community.

The DoD’s Child Development Program was not always the model that it is today. In the late 1980s, the DoD’s child care workforce resembled the current civilian child care workforce. It was largely untrained. There were no minimum training requirements, no incentives for completing training, and family child care and after-school providers were left out of the training altogether.

Recognizing that the only option to improve the quality of child care was to train the roughly 22,000 workers who did not have formal education, DoD developed a strategy to implement a structured community-based training program provided by college-educated trainers with degrees in early childhood education or child development.

New military child care providers are required to complete 40 hours of orientation training before beginning work with children. The orientation training includes child abuse identification, reporting and prevention, first-aid and CPR, health and sanitation, and parent and family relations. After completing orientation training,

providers can work with children under the supervision of someone who is fully trained.

Basic training in child care is required of the child care providers after the pre-service orientation, and this training is based on the CDA Competency Goals and 13 Functional Areas — Safe, Healthy, Learning Environment, Physical, Cognitive, Communication, Creative, Self, Social, Guidance, Families, Program Management and Professionalism. Each provider is given standard self-study training modules and deadlines for completing them at intervals along the training continuum. Providers receive wage increases as a reward for completing training and as an incentive to continue in training. Providers in all settings (child care centers, preschools, family child care, and after-school care) are required to complete a comparable training regimen.

After completing the basic child care training, all providers are required to complete annual training, and there are opportunities to move into management and training and curriculum specialist positions. DoD policy requires at least one training and curriculum specialist for every center and one professional staff member for every 40 family providers. Professional trainers must have a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree in early childhood education, child development, home economics, elementary education, special education or other field, as appropriate to the position.

“Train the trainer” workshops are provided to the training and curriculum specialists, including training on conducting on-site observations and competency assessments.

These trainers are also required

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

85

to receive annual training related to the latest techniques and procedures in child care and early education, child abuse prevention, program administration, and home visiting (the military equivalent of on-site technical assistance to family providers).

DoD has demonstrated that a “carrot and stick” approach to training works. Training is directly linked to advancement, and those who complete training get salary increases, bonuses and promotions.

Failure to complete training leads to dismissal.

86

The competency-based Military Child Care Training model has several features that make it extremely attractive as a model from which to build a national training system. The training curriculum is easy to complete and designed to cover all of the areas for the CDA Credential. Training is flexible but robust in its delivery method, with much of the instruction completed in the classroom or provider’s home on his or her own schedule. At the same time, the system provides elements of group instruction, mentoring and trouble-shooting. The curriculum and delivery methods have been well-tested and refined in military community settings, demonstrating positive outcomes for all types of providers.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Appendix E: 1990 Crime Control Act Child Care Worker Employee Background Checks, Crime Control Act of 1990 Public Law No: 101-647 Subtitle – Child Care Worker Employee Background Checks SEC. 231. REQUIREMENT FOR BACKGROUND CHECKS. (a) IN GENERAL- (1) Each agency of the Federal Government, and every facility operated by the Federal Government (or operated under contract with the Federal Government), that hires (or contracts for hire) individuals involved with the provision to children under the age of 18 of child care services shall assure that all existing and newly-hired employees undergo a criminal history background check. All existing staff shall receive such checks not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this chapter, and no additional staff shall be hired without a check having been completed.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the term ‘child care services’ means child protective services (including the investigation of child abuse and neglect reports), social services, health and mental health care, child (day) care, education (whether or not directly involved in teaching), foster care, residential care, recreational or rehabilitative programs, and detention, correctional, or treatment services. (b) CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECK- (1) A background check required by subsection (a) shall be– (A) based on a set of the employee’s fingerprints obtained by a law enforcement officer and on other identifying information; (B) conducted through the Identification Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and through the State criminal history repositories of all States that an employee or prospective employee lists as current and former residences in an employment application; and (C) initiated through the personnel programs of the applicable Federal agencies.

(2) The results of the background check shall be communicated to the employing agency.

(c) APPLICABLE CRIMINAL HISTORIES- Any conviction for a sex crime, an offense involving a child victim, or a drug felony, may be ground for denying employment or for dismissal of an employee in any of the positions listed in subsection (a)(2). In the case of an incident in which an individual has been charged with one of those offenses, when the charge has not yet been disposed of, an employer may suspend an employee from having any contact with children while on the job until the case is resolved. Conviction of a crime other than a sex crime may be considered if it bears on an individual’s fitness to have responsibility for the safety and well-being of children. (d) EMPLOYMENT APPLICATIONS- (1) Employment applications for individuals who are seeking work for an agency of the Federal Government, or for a facility or program operated by (or through contract with) the Federal Government, in any of the positions listed in subsection (a)(1), shall contain a question asking whether the individual has ever been arrested for or charged with a crime involving a child, and if so requiring a description of the disposition of the arrest or charge. An application shall state that it is being signed under penalty of perjury, with the applicable Federal punishment for perjury stated on the application.

(2) A Federal agency seeking a criminal history record check shall first obtain the signature of the employee or prospective employee indicating that the employee or prospective employee has been notified of the employer’s obligation to require a record check as a condition of employment and the employee’s right to obtain a copy of the criminal history report made available to the employing Federal agency and the right to challenge the accuracy and completeness of any information contained in the report. (e) ENCOURAGEMENT OF VOLUNTARY CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECKS FOR OTHERS WHO MAY HAVE CONTACT WITH CHILDREN- Federal agencies and facilities are encouraged to submit identifying information for criminal history checks on volunteers working in any of the positions listed in subsection (a) and on adult household members in places where child care or foster care services are being provided in a home.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

87

88

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

Appendix F: A Comparison of Two Federal Child Care Laws: The Military Child Care (MCCA) Act vs The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG): Major Highlights

MCCA

CCDBG

Workforce Training Workforce Training

The Secretary of Defense shall establish, and prescribe regulations to implement a uniform training program for child care employees as a condition of employment.

No requirement.

Training Timing

The Secretary shall require that each child care employee shall complete the training program not later than six months after the date on which the employee begins to work as a child care employee.

No requirement.

Training at a minimum shall cover training in: n Early

childhood development

n Activities

Training Content

and disciplinary techniques appropriate to children of different ages

n Child

abuse prevention and detection

n CPR

and other emergency medical procedures

Training and Curriculum Specialist/Coordinator

The Secretary of Defense shall require that at each military child development center at least one employee shall be a training and curriculum child care employee.

The Secretary shall require appropriate credentials and experience for such employees.

Minimum health and safety training appropriate to the provider setting. * No further explanation or instruction appears in the CCDBG law. State requirements vary greatly.

No requirement.

For the purposes of providing military child development centers with a qualified and stable civilian workforce: n Entry-level

Compensation Tied to Training and Experience

employees shall be paid at rates of pay competitive with other entry-level employees at the installation who are drawn from the same labor pool; and

No requirement.

n In

the case of other employees, shall be paid at rates of pay substantially equivalent to the rates of pay paid to other employees at that installation with similar training, seniority, and experience.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

89

MCCA

CCDBG

Protecting Children’s Safety

Background Check Requirements

All existing and newly hired child care staff must undergo a criminal history check, which includes a federal and state fingerprint check. Any conviction for a sex crime, an offense involving a child victim, or a drug felony may be ground for denying employment or for dismissal. Conviction of a crime other than a sex crime may be considered if it bears on an individual’s fitness to have responsibility for the safety and well-being of children.

No requirement. *While the Head Start Act requires a background check of Head Start staff, there is no background check requirement as part of CCDBG.

States certify that requirements designed to protect the health and safety of children are in effect.

Minimum Safety Protections

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe uniform regulations on safety and operating procedures at military child care centers.

Quality Benchmark

The Secretary of Defense shall require that all military child development centers meet standards of operation necessary for accreditation by an appropriate national early childhood programs accrediting body.

No quality requirement. Accreditation is a voluntary process. Currently about 9 percent of child care centers and less than 1 percent of family child care homes are accredited.

Inspections/Accountability

The Secretary of Defense shall require that each military child development center be inspected at least four times a year. The inspections shall be unannounced.

No requirement.

Compliance Effort and Sanctions

In the case of violations that are not life threatening, violations must be remedied at the end of a 90-day period beginning after the date of discovery. If the violation(s) is not remedied by that time, the center shall be closed until it is remedied. In the event of a closing of a military child care center, the Secretary must report the closure to Congress, including information about the violation, the cost of remedying the violation, and the reason why the violation had not been remedied.

Hotline to rReport Suspected Child Abuse or Safety Violations

90

The Secretary of Defense shall establish and publicize a national telephone hotline for individuals to report (anonymously if desired) suspected child abuse or safety violations at a military child development center or family child care home. The Secretary shall establish a mechanism to follow up on complaints and information received through the hotline.

*State standards vary greatly. Most state inspection requirements are weak.

Compliance certification is difficult in the absence of regular inspections.

No inspection requirement but requires states to have licensing requirements applicable to child care. States provide HHS with a detailed description of such requirements and how they will be enforced.

This information is required to be in the state plan, but there are no sanctions for noncompliance. *Since there is no requirement for inspections, it’s unclear whether providers comply with the state standards to the extent such standards exist. Certification of standards and enforcement is difficult in the absence of regular inspections.

No requirement. * States are required to keep a record of substantiated parental complaints and make such information public upon request.

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

MCCA

Parent Participation

The Secretary of Defense shall require the establishment of a parent participation program at each military child development center and at each military family child care home.

CCDBG No parent participation requirement. But parents are to have unlimited access to their children and to the providers caring for their children during normal hours of operation.

Affordability

Shared Funding Model to Make Quality Child Care Affordable for Families

It is the policy of Congress that the amount of appropriated funds available during a fiscal year for operating expenses for military child development centers and programs shall be not less than the amount of child care fee receipts that are estimated to be received by the Department of Defense during that fiscal year. In essence, a 50-50 cost-sharing arrangement.

The Secretary of Defense may use appropriated funds to provide assistance to family child care homes so that family child care home services can be provided to members of the armed forces at a cost comparable to the cost of services provided by military child development centers.

States establish and periodically revise a sliding-fee scale that provides for cost sharing by the families that receive assistance under CCDBG. *According to the most recent data available from HHS (2005), the median monthly income of families receiving CCDBG funded assistance was $1,283 or $15,396 a year. About 87 percent of families had income below 150 percent of poverty ($24,135 in 2005). In contrast, the price of child care for an infant ranges up to $14,647 a year; the price of child care for a four-year-old ranges up to $10,920. Child care for single parents and for families with more than one child is an enormous challenge.

Notes: Provisions were copied or paraphrased from the Military Child Care Act (Public Law 101-189), the Codification of the Military Family Act and Military Child Care Act (Public Law 104-106), the Crime Control Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-647), and the Child Care and Development Block Grant (Public Law 104-193).

Making Quality Child Care Possible: Lessons Learned from NACCRRA’s Military Partnerships

91

National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies 3101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 350, Arlington, VA 22201 Phone (703) 341-4100 Fax (703) 341-4101 www.naccrra.org Š 2008 NACCRRA (September) 436-0417