Letter to Governor Brewer asking for relief from the waiting list

This letter was sent to Governor Brewer on December 16, 2010.

December 15, 2010

The Honorable Janice K. Brewer
Governor of Arizona
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Dear Governor Brewer,

Congratulations on your election victory.  Your leadership is critical as the State faces unprecedented declines in revenue and many competing and compelling needs for State support.  As you address these challenges, and prioritize funding, we urge you to consider both the immediate and future benefits to Arizona.  We urge you to continue to invest State funds in the Department of Economic Security (DES) child care subsidy, a program that allows Arizonans with children to work, creates jobs in child care, supports small businesses and community agencies, and is essential to the infrastructure that workers and employers rely on.  Child care is critical to the Arizona’s economy.

Click here to read the complete letter from the Arizona Child Care Association.

Subsidies for working poor are vital

Editorial from AZ Republic on July 27, 2010

Bill Berk – Tucson

Thank you for the attention you are bringing to the travesty involving child-care subsidies for the working poor (“State must not let subsidies die for those in need,” Editorial, Monday). The number of children currently on the waiting list can be counted. What can’t be counted is the number of children being left home alone or with unsuitable caregivers while their parents attempt to earn a living and support their families. The safety of all our children is at stake, yet the governor and Legislature seemingly turn a blind eye to the struggles of working parents as they try to better their lives.

Parents without access to safe, affordable and reliable child care are unable to work. Instead, they stop working and access more state-funded programs. While funding child care may seem expensive, the cost pales compared to supporting a family on welfare.

Preschools give jobless a hand

by Sonu Munshi – Jul. 17, 2010

The Arizona Republic

Imagine researching a company to a T, ironing your best duds for an interview and then taking your snotty-nosed toddler who is likely to cry or scream along to face a potential employer in an interview.

Peoria resident George Gormsen doesn’t have to imagine. The 31-year-old Web designer had the pleasure twice after he found himself in the unemployment market between November and June.

With his wife, Renee, working during the day, his daughter, Lorelai, now 14 months old, tagged along on interviews.

“That just didn’t look professional at all,” Gormsen said.

Shockingly, he didn’t land either position. He’s sure Lorelai’s presence was at least part of the reason.

But Gormsen is now back to work at a Peoria car dealership, and he can’t thank a Peoria day-care provider enough.

The Peoria dad was able to interview without Lorelai in tow, thanks to a free trial day at Sunrise Preschools.

The nearly 30-year-old Valley preschool, along with Tots Unlimited, another preschool and child-care center owned by the same company, is offering Interview Care, a free, no-strings-attached service to Valley parents of children ages 6 weeks to 12 years.

Dana Vela, president of Sunrise Preschools, hopes the offer of free licensed child care for unemployed parents to use when they go for an interview helps the community.

“There is a definite need out there,” she said.

The creative offer could have a longer-range benefit, helping to boost enrollment at a time when preschools are struggling as parents lose jobs.

The offer is open at all Valley locations on a space-available basis for an undetermined period.

Parents must make reservations in advance for up to four hours of care. Immunizations and other information are required.

State must not let subsidies die for those in need

Jul. 19, 2010 12:00 AM

The Arizona Republic

Child-care subsidies for the working poor are a rational response to a real need. This fact collided with a state budget deficit that required tough cuts. The crash left Arizona’s child-care subsidy program on life support.

It should not be allowed to fade away.
As the number of children being served shrinks and the waiting list of eligible children grows, Arizona needs to take a look at what can be done to preserve this program, which shows a commitment to things that are highly valued in our society: hard work and family.

For people with good-paying jobs, child care takes a big, but unavoidable bite out of the family budget.

For low-income earners, the cost of safe child care – as much as $5,000 to $8,000 a year per child – can be out of reach. Without a subsidy from the state, these working families can be forced to give up work or put children in unsafe settings.

Since February 2009, when Arizona imposed a waiting list for working families seeking child-care subsidies, the number of children in the state program went from about 48,000 children to 31,900 this April, according to the Department of Economic Security. If the waiting list is maintained, the number served will drop to 27,600 by December, says Steve Meissner, director of communications for the DES.

By that time, the number of children who are eligible but are not allowed in the program will exceed 19,000. Currently, about 10,300 are on the waiting list, with an additional 4,000 eligible but not included on the list.

Bruce Liggett, executive director of the Arizona Child Care Association, says calling it a “waiting list” is a benign description that creates the impression of a “one child out, one child in” process.

In fact, for the working poor, the waiting list is really a turn-away list, he says.
Liggett says that if the number of children served continues to shrink, the program could lose federal matching money.

The state continues to face a deficit, and more tough decisions will have to be made. But preserving a program that includes a big federal match makes sense.

Moving children off the waiting list and into the program to maintain the current level of funding would be a good temporary solution. When economic times improve in the state, the goal should be to increase investment in a program that helps keep children safe while parents work.

Where Will the Children Go? Child Care Cuts Leave Families with Few Options

Posted: 06 Jul 2010 07:35 AM PDT

by Stephanie Robinson, Intern,

National Women’s Law Center

Many parents across the country are unable to work because they can’t afford child care for their children, and help with child care costs is likely to become even harder to get. At least 12 states have made cuts to their child care programs, even with the availability of additional federal child care funding through the economic recovery package. As the economic recovery funds are used up, some of these states will make additional cuts, and additional states will start making cuts, leaving many more low-income families without the child care assistance they need.

Arkansas used the economic recovery funding to provide child care assistance to over 12,000 additional children and as a result reduced its waiting list for assistance. However, 5,000 children remain on the waiting list, and that list is expected to double now that the state’s economic recovery funds for child care have run out. As a result, some families with very tight budgets will be forced to come up with a way to pay for child care on their own. Some families will have no choice but to use lower-cost child care that may not offer the early learning environment their children need to get a strong start. Some parents will lose their jobs when unreliable child care arrangements fall through or when they cannot find affordable child care at all. This could ultimately lead some parents to turn to welfare in order to support their families, despite their desire to work.

Meanwhile, in Arizona, 13,000 children have been placed on the state’s waiting list for child care assistance since February 2009, and the list keeps growing. The Arizona Child Care Association and Early Care and Education Consortium recently released a video showing what these cuts mean for Arizona families relying on child care and child care providers trying to stay in business. Child care centers and classrooms previously filled with children are now closed and empty because of a lack of funding to help families pay for child care. The average annual cost of center care in Arizona is $6,626 for a four-year-old and $8,505 for a one-year-old. Few low-income families can afford these costs without some sort of financial help.

Unfortunately, what is happening in Arizona and Arkansas is not unique. With many states cutting child care and other funding in order to close budget gaps, low-income families and child care programs across the country are struggling. And the number of families without child care assistance and the number of child care programs forced to shut their doors are likely to increase unless additional federal child care funding is provided.

Over 13,000 children denied by “waiting” list

In February 2009, the State began turning away all eligible families and placing them on a “waiting” (denial) list.  The Governor and legislature will turn away all eligible children until at least June 2011, dramatically reducing child care for low income working families.  As families struggle in the current economy to provide for and protect their children, the State has stopped helping low income parents who want to work but cannot afford child care.  Reducing child care support jeopardizes the safety of children and is having a serious negative economic impact: reducing employment and damaging small businesses and non-profits. 

FAMILIES WANTING TO WORK ARE BEING TURNED AWAY WITH NO END IN SIGHT.  “Waiting’ makes no sense; parents are denied child care at the very time parents need help to accept a job or keep working.  The State provides child care for families with ties to welfare and CPS, but is phasing out subsidy for new parents wanting to work to avoid welfare:

• Before the waiting list, 48,300 children received a subsidy versus 32,118 in March 2010
• With 16,728 fewer children, the total subsidy program has decreased by 34% already.
• Over 13,000 children have been placed on the waiting list with 15,000 projected by June 2010. 
• By June 2011, overall 50-60% fewer children will receive a subsidy.
• 23,000 fewer children from low income working families will receive subsidy, a 76% reduction.

 

THESE PARENTS HAVE NO GOOD OR SAFE OPTIONS.  Families only seek State help with child care when they have no other options.  Without state assistance parents have no choice but to leave their children home alone or with siblings, or boyfriends, quit or reduce work hours, use caregivers who do not meet basic qualifications, or seek other more costly State aid to support their family.

CUTTING CHILD CARE COSTS MORE.  The cuts have increased unemployment.  Parents lose jobs when denied a subsidy and fewer children in care results in the elimination of teaching jobs. Employers do not hold low wage jobs for parents with no hope of getting off the turn away list. 

• At least 2,100 jobs in child care have been lost already.
• Over 3,000 child care jobs will be lost and over 4,500 total jobs will be eliminated.

 

PERMANENT DAMAGE TO CHILD CARE IN ARIZONA. Payment rates for providers who serve poor children have been pushed back to the cost of care in 2000 and parents’ required share of costs increased significantly. The dramatic decline of public support for child care jeopardizes the entire child care infrastructure that all working parents and employers rely on.  Reduced State support will continue to result in centers closing, particularly in low income neighborhoods.

  

We call upon the Governor and Legislature to find solutions to remove children from the denial list and serve all eligible low income parents who need child care assistance to work.  Protecting essential safety net work supports, allowing working poor families to place their children in safe settings is the right thing to do for children, families, and Arizona.

 

ACCA COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT LICENSING REGULATIONS

Overall, the membership of ACCA wants to commend DHS for the draft revision to the child care regulations.   In the interest of time, I will not list all the positive clarifications, simplifications, unnecessary regulatory eliminations, and improvements for the health and safety of children. etc.  Please know that this major effort by DHS staff over the past many months is appreciated.  

Once the regulations are finalized, child care facilities would appreciate and benefit from a complete, readable version, with the statutes included.  Building on the meeting notes and the summary that noted items that changed you provided, a crosswalk that describes in more detail the change, and summarizes areas in which there are several changes (e.g. both the definitions and regulations) would be helpful. These items will help facilities remain in compliance with the changes and be aware items that were eliminated.  

Below is a list of items that still require further clarification, or change, or should not be included in the regulations and comments.  

P 30   ACCA supports and acknowledges the importance of the clarification of current law and practice contained in the clarified definition of “compensation”.  This will eliminate future confusion and continue important health and safety protections for children.

P  9  # 59  There are questions about the meaning of “immediate”  particularly as related to “without restriction” in several sections of the regulations ( e.g. p 34, p 37, etc.).  There have been issues with locked entrances, new surveyors who did not yet have their key code, a reasonable amount of time it might take to reasonable get from a desk to a door, etc that should be allowed and clarified.

P 10   # 61 Infestation – we suggest use of the phrase “presence of  lice, pinworms, or other parasites” in the appropriate section(s) and deletion of the word in definition.

P 26  We note that the elimination of the requirement for on site inspections is a significant new efficiency.

P 30  The late filing fee amounts  need to be reexamined. 

P 37 The dated attendance record could use the defined word “documentation”

P 39 Wanting to verify that the addition of “emergency” did not add another drill.

P 45-46 The elimination of the roster and its inherent problems is good.  After finalized, we request the department to develop a model or list of considerations that would be considered as acceptable documentation policies and procedures.

P 46 There are questions about why a licensee would be required to report to DHS suspected or alleged about or neglect that does not involve the center staff or facility, since it has already been reported to authorities.

P 47 and p. 81 There may be a way to further clarify the DHS and Counties’ roles in terms of inspections.

P 50 the term “business management” may interpreted too narrowly; it should include administration of early childhood services (e.g supervision).  Consider making it consistent with p 55 c.

P 52 Should make it clear if there is no previous employer  (ARS 36-883)

P 53 “Development expectation”  Concern when staff are needed to work in another facility and whether they would be required to know each child’s detailed  expectations or those important for health and safety. 

P 55 2.b. Typo? One too many “ more”

P 57 Confusion about C.1. b. use of term  “additional” staff member  

P 60 13 b. In addition to “original purpose” add “or safely for another purpose”

P 67 question – If a child falls asleep in a swing, staff should be required to remove the child in a reasonable amount of time. 

P 72  Questions about whether  3 minutes is sufficient time and whether 5 minutes would be better.

Wanting to verify that the nutrition standards requirements do not conflict with CACFP ( ie two different standards that could not be complied with)

P 81  #19 a. i. Want to ensure that there is no requirement for a “commercial” dishwasher.

P 86 Notification within 30 minutes is too short for a minor accident

P 93 B 5 Clarify that an placement in front of an “operating” air bag (some may be made inoperable. 

P 103 ACCA opposes the inclusion of the bicycle helmet requirement. We have no information about the frequency or severity incidents of head injuries in child care facilities, and are concerned about spread of lice, pinworms, or other parasites, and the cost.

Draft of New Licensing Regulations Available

Now is the time for everyone to take a very close look at the proposed changes to the licensing rules. Many areas have been clarified, several areas have been moved to other sections of the regulations, and some new items have been added. A work group, with significant representation from ACCA members, worked on this final draft. This is the last opportunity for everyone to provide “informal” comments directly to DHS. Comments are due by April 27, 2010. We would ask if you feel very strongly about any item that you let us at ACCA know also so we are aware of our members concerns. After April 27th, DHS will review the comments, perhaps make further comments based on these changes, and then issue a formal, legal notice of proposed rulemaking, hold public hearings, and ultimately present their final recommended changes to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council for final approval. These regulations could be implemented by December, or even as early as October if the ACCA legislation, SB 1315 passes.

Click here to View The Draft Rules.   

Unless you have been following every step of the process and want to see how it evolved, I recommend printing the 7 page Summary of Changes – it explains what has changed. Then, you can work with the April 2010 draft (it contains all the changes). Note; words and sentences with lines through them are being stricken or moved. Words and sentences that are underlined reflect sections that have been moved or are new.

Update on Senate Bill 1315

SB 1315 – Senate Engrossed

 

SB 1315 contains statutory changes and session law affecting both Child Care Centers (ARS 36-882) and Child Care Group Homes (ARS 36-897.01).  Provisions include:

• Requires DHS to conduct a study of its costs to license child care and to identify specific costs for:  the licensing and certification process, inspections, complaints, enforcement, training, technical assistance, and consumer assistance.

 

• The study shall analyze how the costs are related to the type and size of the facility and identify any other related costs that are included in the licensure fees. 

 

• DHS shall consult with representatives of licensed facilities in conducting its study.

 

• The study shall assess the efficiency of the department’s regulation of facilities and develop recommendations to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of its regulation without jeopardizing the health and safety of children.

 

• DHS shall submit a written report of the study findings and recommendations to the Governor and legislature by April 1, 2011.  We will change the date February 1, 2011.

 

• DHS shall adopt rules to streamline its health and safety regulations consistent with current law (36-883) by October 1, 2010.

 

• The revised rules are exempt from the formal rule making process for one year.

 

•  Based on the findings of its study and rules DHS shall adjust the fees if costs are significantly lower.

 

• DHS may refund or credit an overpayment.

 

• Instead of current 3 year license, licenses will be non-expiring but may still be revoked or suspended for cause or non-payment of fees.

 

• Changes the payment of licensing fees from every 3 years to annual payments.

 

PROBLEM – When converting from three year fees to annual fees, DHS states that there are insufficient funds for child care licensure for the next two years.  We may change the bill to allow DHS to convert to annual fees when funds are available and require the study to address transition issues

 

• Allows facilities to pay fees with installment payments based on procedures established by DHS.

 

• DHS shall review its actual costs to administer licensing at least every two years consistent with the current statutory requirement for regulation review.

 

CONCERN – Questions could be raised about the use of other funds to allow DHS  to reduce DHS fees.  We may add language that allow DHS to provide child care fee discounts

 

« Previous Page