Detailed Information on the
Child Care and Development Fund Assessment

Measuring and showing progress in achieving long-term performance goals.

Undertaking a series of activities to measure erroneous payments and improve grantee oversight.

Continue to provide record high funding levels for the Child Care Development Fund.

Measuring and showing progress in achieving long-term performance goals. Milestone: Work with federal agency partners to identify data sources.

Undertaking a series of activities to measure erroneous payments and improve grantee oversight. Milestone: Publish Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in Federal Register, pending internal approvals.

Undertaking a series of activities to measure erroneous payments and improve grantee oversight. Milestone: Publish Final Rule in Federal Register, pending internal approvals.

Measure: Reduce the percentage of TANF families with children that are exempt from work participation because child care is unavailable to one percent in FY 2009

Explanation:Measures the impact of the lack of available child care on TANF families' ability to work and become self-sufficient

Measure: Maintain the proportion of eligible children served through CCDF, TANF, and SSBG as compared to the number of children in families with income under 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Level.

Explanation:Demonstrates the eligible children receiving child care subsidies through all available federal funding sources. Target reflects maintaining the level of services over the baseline. Linked to the long-term employment outcome. Measure was changed during FY 2006 budget process to reflect proportion of children served rather than number.

Measure: Increase the proportion of regulated centers and family child care homes that serve families and children receiving child care subsidies

Explanation:Linked to the long-term employment outcome, this measures to what extent families have access to care that fits their employment and family needs. As an efficiency measure, it reflects the extent to which CCDF is well administered and provides timely, stable funding for providers.

Measure: Increase the percentage of young children (ages 3 to 5 not yet in kindergarten) from families under 150% of poverty receiving regular non-parental care showing three or more school readiness skills.

Explanation:Demonstrates how well quality child care settings, with the assistance of CCDF-funded quality improvement initiatives and Good Start Grow Smart activities, improve school readiness outcomes for low-income children.

Measure: Increase by ten percent each year the number of regulated child care centers and homes nationwide accredited by a recognized early childhood development professional organization from the CY 2000 baseline

Explanation:Meaures accreditation of regulated providers as a proxy for quality child care. Quality child care links to the long-term outcome of children's school readiness. Each year's target is a 10% improvement over the prior year's result.

Measure: Increase the number of States that have implemented State early learning guidelines in literacy, language, pre-reading and numeracy for children ages 3 to 5 that align with State K-12 standards and are linked to the education and trainig of caregivers, preschool teachers, and administrators.

Explanation:A proxy for quality child care, measures state participation in improving care settings, linked to the long-term outcome of school readiness for young children. Data on this measure is available only biennially.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) promotes economic self-sufficiency through child care assistance to enable low-income families to gain and maintain employment. It also promotes the quality of care to help children succeed in school and life.

Evidence: Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 USC 9801 et seq.), as amended, Secs. 658A & 658G: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/current/ccdbgact/index.htm; Child Care and Development Fund, Final Rule (45 CFR, Part 98), Sec. 98.1: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/current/finalrul/index.htm

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: Without child care assistance, many low-income families have difficulty finding affordable, accessible child care arrangements that make it possible to maintain employment and self-sufficiency. Given the high cost of child care, CCDF subsidies are particularly important for families transitioning from welfare to work'in light of TANF work requirements and lifetime limits on cash assistance. Subsidies expand parental access to a range of care options, including arrangements that promote child development and learning.

Evidence: The Carolina Abecedarian Project, executive summary: www.fpg.unc.edu/~ABC/new/N_executive_summary.htm; Primary Child Care Arrangements of Employed Parents, Findings from the 1999 Survey of America's Families, Urban Institute, 2003: www.urban.org/urlprint.cfm?ID-7763; Getting Help with Child Care Expenses, Urban Institute, 2003www.urban.org/Template.cfm?NavMenuID=24&template=/TaggedContent/ViewPublication.cfm&PublicationID=8256; National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families Substudy: Interim Report, Collins et all, 2000: www.abtassoc.com/reports/ES-NSCCLIF.pdf; Supports for Low-Income Families: States Serve a Broad Range of Families Through a Complex and Changing System, GAO Report, January 2004.; Bureau of Labor Statistics, stats.bls.gov/; Kith and Kin: Informal Child Care: Highlights from Recent Research, National Center for Children in Poverty, 2001: www.nccp.org/media/kkh01-highlights.pdf

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: As a block grant to the States, CCDF is designed to work within, rather than duplicate, the current child care system and related assistance programs. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, by eliminating three separate welfare-related child care programs, gave States the opportunity to develop a consolidated child care subsidy program under one set of rules. Furthermore, States are allowed to transfer up to 30 percent of TANF funds to CCDF, creating another incentive for States to develop one coherent system of assistance for families regardless of welfare status. The program's voucher approach supports parental choice of already established early care programs and takes advantage of market-based efficiences. Eight-eight percent of children are served by vouchers.

Evidence: Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 USC 9801 et seq.), as amended, Secs. 658E & 658G: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/current/ccdbgact/index.htm; Child Care and Development Fund, Final Rule (45 CFR, Part 98), Secs. 98.16, 98.20, 98.30, 98.42-43, & 98.50-51: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/current/finalrul/index.htm; GSGS Progress in Child Care Programs, February 2004Information on Head Start: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsbInformation on State Pre-Kindergarten Programs: nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003019; 21st Century Community Learning Centers: www.ed.gov/programs/21stcclcTANF direct expenditure data: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/tanfindex.htm; CCDF expenditure data: www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb/research/02acf696/overview.htm; ACF administrative data.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: Key components of CCDF program design--market based vouchers, State flexibility, leveraged funding, and quality dollars--all promote effectiveness and efficiency. There is no strong evidence that another approach would work better in achieving the program's goals.

Evidence: Child Care: States Exercise Flexibility in Setting Reimbursement Rates and Providing Access for Low-Income Children, GAO, September 2002CCDF State Plan Pre-Print FY 2004-2005 www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/current/ACF118/planpt.htmCCDF State Plan Pre-Print FY 2002-2003: www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/current/pi0103/planpt.htmChild Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 USC 9801 et seq.), as amended, Secs. 658E & 658G; Social Security Act, Title IV, Part A (42 U.S.C. 601-617), as amended, Sec. 418: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/current/ccdbgact/index.htmChild Care and Development Fund, Final Rule (45 CFR, Part 98), Secs. 98.16, 98.20, 98.30, 98.42-43, 98. 51, & 98.53: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/current/finalrul/index.htm

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: CCDF funds are well-targeted to support work for low-income families and improve the quality of child care. The program effectively targets parents who are working or attending training or education--thereby promoting work and self-sufficiency. States perform eligibility determinations to ensure that applicants are below income thresholds and meet other criteria. CCDF law and regulations are designed to ensure that CCDF expenditures do not supplant other State expenditures for child care.

Evidence: Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 USC 9801 et seq.), as amended, Secs. 658E & 658P: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/current/ccdbgact/index.htmChild Care and Development Fund, Final Rule (45 CFR, Part 98), Secs. 98.20 & 98.50-55: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/current/finalrul/index.htmFFY 2002 CCDF State Expenditures (From Appropriation Years 1997 through 2002): www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/research/02acf696/FY02chart.htmPercentage of Children Served By Reason for Care (FFY 2001): www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/research/01acf800/reason.htmACF 801 Administrative Data 'Child Care Eligibility and Enrollment Estimates for Fiscal Year 2001,' DHHS, ASPE/HSP (4/2003), based on Urban Institute's TRIM3 Child Care ModuleH.R. 4 Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: 1) Employment/Economic Self Sufficiency: Reduce the percentage of TANF families with children that are exempt from work participation because child care is unavailable to one percent in FY 2009; 2) Quality of Child Care and School Readiness Outcomes: Increase the percentage of young children (ages 3 to 5 not yet in kindergarten) from families under 150 percent of poverty receiving regular non-parental care showing three or more school readiness skills

Evidence: Source of Data: TANF administrative data reports; National Household Education Survey (www.nces.ed.gov/nhes); GPRA FY 2005 Performance Plan and FY 2003 Performance Report

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: For the Employment/self-sufficiency measure, there is an ambitious target that by 2009, only 1% of TANF families are exempted from TANF work requirements due to the lack of available child care. This target is ambitious because it is expected that in the short-run the exemptions may increase as CCB works with OFA to refine the data source; efforts will be made to work with States on reporting and eliminating child care barriers. 2) Quality of care/school readiness measure - By 2011, 42 percent of the children ages three to five (not yet in kindergarten) from families under 150% of poverty receiving regular non-parental care, will show three or more school readiness skills, compared to the baseline of 32 percent in 2001. This target is ambitious given historical data trends and taking into account that CCDF exerts its influence on school readiness by improving the quality of child care through technical assistance, incorporating current research findings into CCDF administration, and guidance to States on how to spend their quality dollars.

Evidence: GPRA FY 2005 Performance Plan and FY 2003 Performance Report; Home literacy activities and signs of children's emerging literacy, 1993 and 1999 (NCES 200-26); School readiness skills of preschool-aged children in non-parental care arrangements: Analyses of NHES: 1999 and NHES: 2001; TANF Administrative Data

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: Employment and Self-sufficiency 1) Maintain the proportion of children served through CCDF, TANF and SSBG as compared to the number of children in families with income under 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. 2)Increase the proportion of centers and homes willing to serve families receiving child care subsidies.Quality of care and School Readiness 1)Increase the number of States that have implemented State early learning guidelines in literacy, language, pre-reading and numeracy for children ages 3 to 5 that align with State K-12 standards and are linked to the education and training of caregivers, preschool teachers, and administrators.2)Increase by ten percent each year the number of regulated child care centers and homes nationwide accredited by a recognized early childhood development professional organization from the CY 2000 baseline.

Evidence: Source Data: 1)GPRA FY 2005 Performance Plan and FY 2003 Performance Report2)CCDF annual aggregate and case-level administrative data reports3)CCDF State Plans ' Early Learning Guidelines section4)National Association of the Education for Young Children (NAEYC) Accreditation: www.naeyc.org/accreditation/naeyc_accred/info_general.asp; 5)National Association for Family Child Care (NAFCC): www.nafcc.org/accred/accred.html6)National School-Age Care Alliance: www.nsaca.org/accreditation.htm

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Baseline for the number of children dates to 1999. Maintaining this level is ambitious given level funding and inflation. By July 2004, ACF will establish denominators for this measure. Increasing the proportion of centers and homes willing to serve children receiving subsidies is a developmental efficiency measure included in the 2006 GPRA plan. It demonstrates how well CCDF is administered. Providers will participate only if reimbursements are adequate, payment processing is timely, and program requirements are well defined. Baseline information and targets will be available by fall 2004. Number of States meeting the early learning guidelines (ELG) measure would increase from a baseline of 3 in 2003 to 25 in 2007. Effectively implementing ELGs tied to professional development plans takes time-consuming collaboration and consensus-building across a broad range of constituents at State and community levels. Number of accredited programs would increase from a baseline of 9,535 in 2000 to 13,205 in 2005--an increase of 38%.

Evidence: FY 2005 GPRA Performance Plan and FY 2003 Performance Report; The Children's Foundation: www.childrensfoundation.net; ACF 800 Administrative Data; TANF Administrative data; CCDF State Biennial Plans.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Grantees and other key partners are committed to meeting the annual and long-term goals of CCDF. In recent years, CCB has circulated copies of draft measures for review and comment, and has conducted a number of conference calls and meetings with States to obtain their feedback on the CCDF performance measures. The CCDF State Plan reinforces grantees' commitment towards the program's long-term goals. The biennial plan, mandated by statute, is a public document that records and reinforces grantees' progress in meeting CCDF goals and requirements. Section 3.4.2, for example, asks States to describe how CCDF meets the needs of families receiving TANF, those attempting to transition off TANF, and those at risk of becoming dependent. The plan and its associated guidance are strategically adapted over time to highlight particular goals; for example, the FY 2004-05 plans contain a new section that asks States to report their progress in implementing the President's Good Start, Grow Smart early learning initiative (sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.3). This links directly to annual and long-term measures.

Evidence: Child Care and Development Fund, Final Rule, 45 CFR §98.16B CCDF State Plans; CCDF Report of State Plans FY 2002-2003 (Dec. 2002), CCDF Report of State Plans FY 2004-2004 (Draft)

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Since 2000, the ACF Child Care Bureau has used $10 million annually to implement a strategic research agenda designed to build a solid research infrastructure and yield timely, useful information for child care policymakers. Newly funded research and evaluation projects using rigorous experimental designs are yielding important evidence of the effects of child care subsidies on employment and other family outcomes and on improving the quality of child care available to low-income families and on learning outcomes in children. The National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families, a seven-year research effort in 17 States and 25 communities, examines policies and programs to meet child care needs of low-income families. In addition to ACF-funded research, a number of other sources examine child care policies and issues, include GAO reports and national household survey data.

Evidence: National Household Education Survey: 2001, National Center for Education Statistics, Department of Education: www.nces.ed.gov/nhes/.Child Care: States Exercise Flexibility in Setting Reimbursement Rates and Providing Access for Low-Income Children, GAO (September 2002).Child Care: States Have Undertaken a Variety of Quality Improvement Initiatives, but More Evaluations of Effectiveness are Needed, GAO (September 2002).Child Care: Recent State Policy Changes Affecting the Availability of Assistance for Low-Income Families, GAO (May 2003).Supports for Low-Income Families: States Serve a Broad Range of Families through a Complex and Changing System, GAO (January 2004).Review and Analyses of the Literature on Child Care Subsidies (Glantz et al., forthcoming).National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. (Abt Associates, Inc., Cambridge, MA.).

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: ACF is developing its 2006 budget request which integrates performance and budget information. However, ACF must be able to answer the question, "What does a marginal dollar buy toward the program's long-term or annual performance measures. It is not sufficient for ACF's budget to align programs and dollars by strategic goal, or to account for the full costs of CCDF. ACF must also show how it would expect CCDF performance to change as funding levels change.

Evidence: ACF Congressional Justification and Assistant Secretary's Testimony: www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/budget.htm; HHS Budget materials: www.hhs.gov/budget/document.htmThe FY 2005 Congressional Justification (pp. M-58 to M-77) included full cost tables in the Annual Performance Plan and Report section. These tables reflect the portion of the ACF Federal Administration account that is used for CCDF, and breaks out the CCDF budget by performance measure.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: CCB periodically reviews CCDF strategic planning efforts in order to correct deficiencies. The annual GPRA process and now the PART process provide ongoing opportunities for reassessment and making necessary changes. As a result of these efforts, CCB has established long-term outcome goals related to the CCDF's goals--supporting work and promoting school-readiness. Previously, the CCDF measures focused on outputs (e.g., number of children served) rather than outcomes. In the past, CCDF performance measures focused solely on meeting annual targets, while they now set goals for long-term outcomes as well. CCDF continues to implement baselines, targets, and timeframes for its measures. In addition, CCB continues to refine existing performance goals to make them more useful. For example, in response to comments from OMB through the PART process, the Bureau is revising its goal that measured the number of children served to instead look at the percentage of children served. In addition, CCB streamlined its approach to strategic planning by eliminating a number of performance measures used in prior years.

Evidence: Improvements to strategic planning can be seen by viewing prior year performance plans at: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/indexplan.htm

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) regularly collects information from State grantees, including: (1) biennial CCDF plans; (2) quarterly financial reports; (3) annual aggregate data about services provided; and (4) case-level data about the families and children served. These reports are analyzed to: ensure grantee compliance with programmatic requirements; track performance measures; identify grantee training and technical assistance needs; provide information to Congress and other stakeholders; and develop strategies for improved program performance including budget requests, research and TA efforts, and other initiatives.

Evidence: FY 2004-2005 Biennial CCDF Plans: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/report/formhelp/acf118/index.htm Financial Report (ACF-696): www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/report/formhelp/acf696/index.htm.Grantees use the ACF-696 to submit quarterly reports detailing their expenditures under CCDF. Aggregate Data Report (ACF-800): www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/report/formhelp/acf800/index.htm. On an annual basis, grantees submit unduplicated annual counts of children and families served; the methods of payment (vouchers, contracts, cash); the type and number of providers who cared for children; consumer education methods; and proportion of children reported who are funded through CCDF (pooling information).Case-Level Data Report (ACF-801): www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/report/formhelp/acf801/index.htm.Monthly or quarterly, at the grantee's option, States and Territories provide case-level data about the families and children served during the month of the report including demographics, family income and co-payments, and type of setting (and regulatory status). States have the option to submit sample or full-population data.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Federal managers are held accountable for results through the inclusion of relevant program performance measures in their performance plans and evaluations. To ensure that States comply with Federal CCDF requirements, ACF takes action, including disallowing inappropriately-claimed costs, delaying approval of CCDF plans until requirements are met, and investigating public complaints. States take action to hold subgrantees and State contractors accountable.

Evidence: FY 2003 Performance Contract for Associate Commissioner and Director of the Policy Division for the Child Care Bureau. Letter regarding disallowance of funds for Puerto Rico, dated September 22, 2003.CCDF Final Rule (sections 98.65-98.67). Available at: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/current/finalrul/index.htm.Because information about State performance is made available on the Child Care Bureau's website and through the Biennial CCDF Report to Congress, poor performance is highly visible. For instance, when a State fails to provide its share of the CCDF Matching Funds or does not obligate or expend its funds in a timely manner, this information is readily available to the public. See www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/research/02acf696/overview.htm and www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/congressreport/index.htm .

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: ACF rountinely awards funds available by the first day of each quarter to ensure timely obligation of Federal funds. Grantee obligation and liquidation periods are set in statute. Grantees submit expenditure reports showing unobligated balances. Grantees can use an On-Line Data Collection (OLDC) system that automatically identifies failure to comply with fiscal requirements. ACF staff also review financial reports to ensure that expenditures are properly reported and established spending time periods are met. However, ACF is not able to document that the level of erroneous payments from CCDF funds is not significant.

Evidence: Section 658J of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, as amended and Section 418 of Part A, Title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.SC. 601-617) available at: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/index.htm. Child Care Development Fund Financial Form ACF-696 available at: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/archives/pi9907/pi9907.htm. FY 2002 CCDF Expenditure summary available at: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/research/02acf696/overview.htm.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: Capped funding and administrative flexibility encourage grantees to develop programs and policies that maximize resources and respond to needs. CCDF voucher systems build on the existing child care market and promote parental choice. Grantees use funds primarily for direct services and activities to improve quality and access, with only limited administrative costs. A new efficiency goal (proportion of centers and homes willing to serve children receiving subsidies) measures the extent to which the program is well-administered and provides stable and timely funding for providers. Federal level efforts, including research and technical assistance, use competitive sourcing to increase efficiency.

Evidence: Administrative expenses are capped at 5 percent. See www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/research/02acf696/overview.htm.Child Care and Development Fund State Information Chart (05/15/02)' in the CCDF Report to Congress, submitted January 2003 www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/congressreport/index.htm.Child Care and Development Fund Report of State Plans FY 2002-2003 www.nccic.org/pubs/stateplan/index.html.'Competitive Discretionary Grants Program Lists: Child Care Bureau Research' Transmittal letter.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: CCDF partners with child care providers, Head Start, public and private early childhood education, health, nutrition, mental health, and parental employment preparation programs. In their CCDF plans, State CCDF Lead Agencies report collaborating with other programs. At the Federal level, the ACF Child Care Bureau works to further coordination--for example, by partnering with the Head Start Bureau and the Department of Education to implement the President's Good Start, Grow Smart (GSGS) initiative.

Evidence: Information about the Child Care Bureau's technical assistance partnerships is available at: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/ta/index.htm.Information about the collaborative activities of States and Territories is available at: www.nccic.org/pubs/stateplan/index.html A summary of the Child Care Bureau's research efforts is available in the 2003 CCDF Report to Congress and on the Bureau's website: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/congressreport/index.htm and www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/research/ccprc/index.htm#idxov; GSGS-related coordination, Section 5.2.3 - State Plan for Program Coordination at www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/current/ACF118/planpt.htm#part5asiqacc. State CCDF Plan section on coordination with other governmental agencies: 2.1 - Consultation and Coordination www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/current/ACF118/planpt.htm#part1admin.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: ACF's financial management systems meet statutory and regulatory requirements and financial information is accurate and timely. Grantees report quarterly expenditure data. Under A-133 independent auditors examine grantees annually to determine compliance with financial and programmatic requirements. A new ACF initiative on improper payments is exploring the potential for establishing a child care error rate, and is producing documented "best practices" and technical assistance materials and recommendations for improved monitoring and administration.

Evidence: Fact Sheet: Project on Improper Payments in Child Care. States have implemented a range of approaches to control erroneous payments, including in the areas of prevention, identification of errors, and enforcement. ACF has 634 open audits as of April 2004; of those CCDF had fewer than 30 in the resolution process. There were material weakness findings in two States/Territories cited by the auditors, which were resolved. These findings were closed based on steps taken by the grantees to ensure that procedures were established to guard against repeat findings of material weakness.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The Bureau's efforts in support of the President's early learning initiative, Good Start, Grow Smart is one example of work with States to improve child care practices. ACF has implemented a new Online Data Collection system, with edits that automatically flag potential problems, to facilitate States' quarterly expediture reports. ACF provides technical assistance to help States meet administrative data reporting requirements. Where possible, ACF uses competitive sourcing to staff Federal level efforts.

Evidence: Child Care Bureau's Child Care Technical Assistance Network: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/ta/index.htm. Good Start, Grow Smart: Progress in Child Care Programs.ACF-696 Financial Reporting Form.Sample Documentation of ACF Monitoring of State Financial Reports.Sample Documentation of ACF Site Visits to States with Administration Data Collection Issues.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: While CCDF has strong oversight practices, the program lacks in-depth, on-site monitoring of grantee activities.

Evidence: Forthcoming GAO report on improper payments in CCDF.Sample documentation of ACF monitoring of data reports and on-site visits regarding data collection.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: Data on the activities and expenditures of CCDF grantees are collected on a regular basis and made available to the public through the Child Care Bueau's website, the biennial CCDF Report to Congress, and meetings with stakeholders, such as the Annual State Child Care Administrators Meeting.

Evidence: CCDF Administrative and Financial Data reported on the CCB website at: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/research/index.htm.CCDF; Biennial Report to Congress, submitted January 2003, www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/congressreport/index.htm; Calendar of Meetings, Child Care Bureau website, www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/ta/conf/index.htm

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: Progress is demonstrated to a small extent through the short-term measures. Trend information will become available for long-term measures later for the economic self-sufficency and quality of care/school readiness measures. Furthermore, independent research demonstrates progress in these areas.

Evidence: Child Care Eligibility and Enrollment Estimates for Fiscal Year 2001, DHHS, ASPE/HSP (4/2003), based on Urban Institute's TRIM3 Child Care Module. School readiness skills of preschool-aged children in non-parental care arrangements: Analyses of NHES: 1999 and NHES: 2001 Review and Analysis of the Literature on Child Care Subsidies; Abt Associates Inc.; in press. Child Care Subsidy Use and Employment Outcomes of TANF Mothers During the Early Years of Welfare Reform: A Three-State Study, Lee et al, Chapin Hall.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The goals to maintain the level of children served and increase the number of accredited child care providers were met in 2002 and 2003, respectively. A 2003 baseline has been established for the early learning guidelines measure. The efficiency measure--provider willingess to serve subsidized children-- is under development.

Evidence: GPRA FY 2005 Performance Plan and FY 2003 Performance Report CCDF annual aggregate and case-level administrative data reports TANF annual administrative data reports CCDF State Plans ' Early Learning Guidelines section National Association of the Education for Young Children (NAEYC) Accreditation: National Association for Family Child Care (NAFCC) National School-Age Care Alliance

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: While CCDF's efficiency measure is under development, the Bureau has documented a number of management practices in the CCDF program that have resulted in ongoing efficiency gains. The Bureau increased its use of technology, competitive sourcing, research findings on CCDF usage, and technical assistance to improve the administration of the CCDF program and management practices.

Evidence: Electronic submission of administrative data by grantees at: www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb/report/index.htmElectronic submission of fiscal data by grantees:New 696 Program instruction List of 29 distance learning programs for child care providers (Degree and Certificate Programs, Non Degree Programs)List of Child Care Bureau's technical assistance contractors (awarded through competitive sourcing) at www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb/ta/index.htmThe Child Care and Early Education Research Connections (website to disseminate research findings): www.childcareresearch.orgGood Start, Grow Smart: Progress in Child Care Programs (February 12, 2004)

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: CCDF is unique compared to other programs in having both self-sufficiency and child development as primary goals, and the program design is largely a market-based voucher program for parents rather than a grant program that awards funds directly to providers. Families receiving CCDF subsidies have a broader range of care options available compared to low-income families without subsidies, including higher quality or regulated care. Research demonstrates that market-priced care is generally priced beyond the means of low-income families. Among low-income children 0 to 6 years old 57% of subsidized familes used center-based care as the primary care arrangement compared to 39% of non-subidized families.

Evidence: TANF financial data: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofs/data/SSBG financial data: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/docs/reports.htm; CCDF financial data: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/research/02acf696/overview.htmThe State and Community Substudy of the National Study of Child Care for Low-Incomefamilies (Collins et al., 2002); National estimates of subsidy receipt for Children aged 0 to 6; What Can We Learn from the National Household Education Study?, Lippman, et al., 2004

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: ACF has commissioned several independent studies that demonstrate CCDF's program effectiveness and results. These evaluations are augmented by GAO studies, field-initiated studies, and national survey data that provide insight into patterns of child care utilization and the child care market. "Patterns of Child Care Use Among Low-Income Families" shows that for low-income families that must pay for care, subsidies significantly reduce out-of-pocket child care costs, thereby making child care affordable. In tracking TANF families in Maryland, Massachusetts and Illinois, Chapin Hall found that among families who began receiving child care subsidies within two quarters of becoming eligible, the probability of ending employment decreased by 25% in all 3 States.

Evidence: Review and Analysis of the Literature on Child Care Subsidies, Abt Associates Inc., in press.The first National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families interim report, 2000, focusing on State implementation of TANF and CCDF, is available at: www.abtassoc.com/reports/welfare-download/NSCCLIF.pdf; Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Report to Congress, Submitted January 2003, ACF, HHSChild Care: States Exercise Flexibility in Setting Reimbursement Rates and Providing Access for Low-Income Children, GAO, September 2002Child Care: States Have Undertaken a Variety of Quality Improvement Initiatives, but More Evaluations of Effectiveness are Needed, GAO September 2002Child Care: Recent State Policy Changes Affecting the Availability of Assistance for Low-Income Families, GAO, May 2003Supports for Low-Income Families: States Serve a Broad Range of Families through a Complex and Changing System, GAO, January 2004