Child Care Subsidies in Monroe County

8/10/2019 Child Care Subsidies in Monroe County

1/19

Child Care Subsidies in Monroe CountyAn Analysis of Need, Availability and Trends

November, 2014


2/19

www.cgr.org

1 South Washington Street, Suite 400, Rochester, New York 14614

(585) 325-6360 [email protected]

Promising Solutions

Government & Education | Economics & Public Finance | Health & Human Services | Nonprofits & Communities

Child Care Subsidies in Monroe

CountyAn Analysis of Need, Availability and Trends

November, 2014

Prepared for:Greater Rochester League of Women Voters

Prepared by:Erika RosenbergProject Director

CGR Inc. 2014 All Rights Reserved
http://www.cgr.org/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.cgr.org/


3/19

i

www.cgr.org

SummaryChild care is an enormous expense for families with working parents, especially those

with young children not yet in school and low incomes. For example, according toNew York State, a family needing full-time care for an infant under 18 months that

selects a day care center can expect to pay $246 a week, or nearly $12,800 a year.1

That comes close to consuming the entire paycheck of a minimum-wage worker,

who will earn (before taxes) $16,640 in a year.

The child care subsidy program operated by counties in New York State aims to ease

that burden, helping to keep parents in the workforce and provide access to high-

quality care for their children. Yet in most parts of New York State, subsidies have

become less available over the past several years. From 2007 to 2013, the number of

subsidies dropped in 38 of New Yorks 57 counties outside New York City, with an

average decline of 27%.

CGR and the Greater Rochester League of Women Voters chose child care subsidies as

the focus of our research effort in 2014, funded out of the Beatrice Bibby Endowment.

This study examines availability, need, funding and policies related to child care

subsidies in Monroe County, similar counties and in New York State as a whole. Key

findings include:

In Monroe County, the number of subsidies provided decreased by 17% from 2007to 2013.

Monroe County served 22% of potentially eligible children in 2013, compared to20% statewide, and higher than similar counties (Erie and Onondaga).

Adjusted for inflation, funding for subsidies has declined since 2007. Federal andstate funding declined 2% and local funding 5%.

The need for subsidies in Monroe County is largest in the City of Rochester butgrowing fastest in some suburbs. The number of children potentially eligible grew52% in Irondequoit, 31% in Henrietta and 17% in Greece from 2000 to 2008-12.

Statewide, the subsidy program lacks consistency and the ability to analyze and

monitor trends and need. Among local areas we studied, the share of eligiblechildren receiving subsidies ranged from 6% to 25%, and federal and state fundingper eligible child varied from less than $350 to nearly $2,000.

1See New Yorks study of child care market rates, used to determine subsidy levels:goo.gl/jvHX3j
http://www.cgr.org/http://www.cgr.org/


4/19

ii

www.cgr.org

Serving all eligible families would be very expensive, but targeting low-incomefamilies with children of particular ages may be more feasible. National researchhas shown that only 50% of those eligible for subsidies are likely to apply forassistance, potentially making it possible to make progress closing the gap betweenneed and availability of subsidies.


5/19

iii

www.cgr.org

AcknowledgementsThis report would not have been possible without the generous support of theBeatrice Bibby Endowment of the Greater Rochester League of Women Voters. CGRwould also like to thank Carolyn Lee-Davis of the Childrens Agenda for sharing herinsights into New Yorks child care subsidy program and Nancy Forgue, DeputyHuman Services Commissioner for Monroe County, for providing information andhelpful context on the operation of Monroe Countys program.

We are also grateful to the Dyson Foundation and the Rauch Foundation for theirsupport, which allowed for additional data collection and analysis in the Mid-HudsonValley and Long Island regions of the state. In addition, members of the EarlyChildhood Development Initiative in Rochester and Winning Beginning New Yorkprovided guidance and advice.

Staff TeamErika Rosenberg was the primary researcher and author of this report. Valuableresearch support and data analysis were provided by Michael Silva, Rachel Rhodes andKatherine Bell.


6/19

iv

www.cgr.org

Table of ContentsSummary........................................................................................................................................... i

Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................... iii

Staff Team ..................................................................................................................................... iii

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

How the Subsidy Program Works ............ ............. ............. ............. .............. ............. ............. ....... 2

Methodology ...........................................................................................................................................3

Gap Analysis: Comparing Need and Availability ............................................................... 4

Spotlight on Monroe County.................................................................................................... 5

Funding Constraints Limit Access ................................................................................................. 5

Local Area Need: Greatest in City, Growing in Suburbs .......................................................7

Funding Has Not Kept Pace with Inflation................................................................................. 8

Serving all Eligible Children Would Add Significant Cost .................................................... 9

Compared to Other Counties, Monroe Serves More ....................................................... 11

Questions to Consider .............................................................................................................. 12


7/19

1

www.cgr.org

IntroductionChild care is one of the largest expenses facing working families, especially those withyoung children not yet in school. According to New York State, a family needing full-time care for an infant under 18 months that selects a day care center can expect topay $246 a week, or nearly $12,800 a year.2If that family has another child, say a 3-year-old, the cost goes up by $215 weekly, and totals nearly $24,000 annually. Thatsfar more than the total before-tax annual earnings of a minimum-wage worker of$16,640. Families can choose less expensive, home-based care, but the costs are stillsignificant, in this example, nearly $18,000 for registered family day care.

Subsidies aim to help lift families out of poverty and make

high-quality child care accessible to families that cannot

otherwise afford it.

The federal government funds child care subsidies nationwide for low-incomefamilies. Subsidies are thought to serve the twin goals of providing asupport for poorfamiliesto lift themselves out of poverty through work and of making high-qualitychild care accessible to families who would likely be unable to afford it. In federal fiscalyear 2011-12, the Child Care and Development Fund made $5.2 billion available to thestates, territories and tribes, and 1.5 million children were served, according to thefederal Office of Child Care.3

In New York, nearly 132,000children under 13 receivedchild care subsidies in 2013.The state allocated about$738 million, mostly federaldollars, to support theprogram, and countygovernments spent at leastan additional $68 million.4

Yet, subsidies are reaching

a small share of familiesthat are eligible, and inmany New York counties, including Monroe County, the number of subsidies providedto children has been falling. From 2007 to 2013, the number of children served by

2See New Yorks study of child care market rates, used to determine subsidy levels:goo.gl/jvHX3j3http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ4Full local funding for subsidies is not easily obtained.

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

Counties

Subsidies Declined in Most

Counties from 2007-13
http://www.cgr.org/http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occhttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occhttp://www.cgr.org/


8/19

2

www.cgr.org

subsidies dropped in 38 of New Yorks 57 counties outside New York City, with anaverage decline of 27%, and they fell 17% in Monroe County. This occurred as familieswere struggling through one of the biggest economic recessions in the countryshistory, which began in 2008.

With these trends in mind, CGR and the Greater Rochester League of Women Voterschose child care subsidies as the focus of our research effort in 2014, funded out of theBeatrice Bibby Endowment. This study examines availability, need, funding andpolicies related to child care subsidies in Monroe County, similar counties and in NewYork State as a whole. The study aims to answer the following key questions:

What is the potential demand for child care subsidies, and how does that compareto the availability?

What have recent trends been in the availability of subsidies? What are recenttrends in funding for the program?

Who is using subsidies in terms of age of children, family income level, and othervariables?

How much variation is there among counties in who the subsidy program servesand how it operates?

How the Subsidy Program Works

The federal government is the primary funder of child care subsidies, distributingdollars to states through the Child Care Development Block Grant. States can addfunding to the pot and make many policies affecting the programs operation,including deciding the income eligibility level. In New York, federal and state dollarsare distributed to counties, which administer the program and make several additionalpolicy decisions, including setting a lower income eligibility level if desired. Countiesare mandated to provide some local funding for child care subsidies, and someprovide additional funding as a policy and budget choice.

Families apply for subsidies and once determined eligible, choose a child care providerif funding is available. Counties make payments to providers based on reimbursement

rates set by the state following a market survey. Reimbursement rates were set in 2014at 69% (down from 75% in previous years) of rates reported by providers and vary bytype center, home-based, etc. Some families receive subsidies as part of their FamilyAssistance (welfare) grant.

The number of subsidies provided to families in any county will be driven by severalfactors, including the level of funding from the federal and state governments; thelevel of local spending; the reimbursement rates set by the state for various types of


9/19

3

www.cgr.org

care; and the types of care chosen by parents (center-based care is more expensivethan home-based care).

A note about quality care: While the child care subsidy program was originallydeveloped primarily as a support for low-income working families, increasingly

policymakers and advocates view it as critical to providing low-income children withaccess to quality care. Thirty-seven states provide higher reimbursement rates tohigher quality providers. In New York, counties have the option to provide enhancedpayments to accredited providers Monroe is one of 10 counties that do. But theselection of a provider is up to the parent.

Methodology

CGR compiled and analyzed data from state and local sources, in addition to the U.S.Census Bureau, and sought to interview both state and local experts about the

operation of the child care subsidy program. In order to estimate the overall potentialneed for child care subsidies, CGR used data from the U.S. Census Bureaus Public UseMicrodata Sample to determine the number of children under 5 and under 12 inhouseholds earning 200% or less of the federal poverty threshold5with parents eitherworking or looking for work (therefore considered part of the workforce). Overall, theeligibility threshold for subsidies is 200% of the poverty level, though counties havethe ability to set a lower threshold based on the availability of funding, and most havedone so.6This data was compiled and analyzed for 15 counties and 3 two-countyareas, as determined by the Census Bureaus PUMS geographic definitions.

In addition, we requested detailed data from 12 counties and from the state Office forChildren and Family Services (OCFS), which administers the program at the state level,on the overall number of children served through the subsidies over the last severalyears, and various breakdowns of those total: by age, by income level, by type of care(center, home-based, informal, etc.). We also requested interviews with county officialsand with leaders within OCFS.

For the most part, counties told us their data systems did not allow them to easilyextract the data we requested. The state provided a similar response, and offered toextract the data if CGR paid for state workers time to do so. CGR expects to pay forand receive some of the data later this year. The state did provide figures on total

children receiving subsidies in the years 2007-2013; though data for earlier years havebeen made available, a state analyst says those numbers are not considered reliable.

In terms of conducting interviews, CGR was able to eventually make contact withofficials in most of the counties; state officials declined our request.

5Poverty thresholds vary by family composition and year. In 2014, the threshold for a four-personfamily was $23,850.6See the Empire Justice Centers report on policies/practices across the state: goo.gl/7gtO2R


10/19

4

www.cgr.org

Gap Analysis: Comparing Need andAvailabilityStatewide in 2013, child care subsidies reached about 20% of all those who may havebeen eligible, according to our estimates. The gap was larger outside New York City,with about 14% of potentially eligible children served. Within New York City, which hasinvested significant local funding in subsidies, 25% of potentially eligible childrenreceived subsidies.

Children

Served,2013

2007-13Trend

EstimatedNeed

Share of

Need Served,2013

State Funding2014-15

State

Funding,

per EligibleChild

Albany 1,816 7% 8,750 21% 12,665,097$ 1,447$

Chautauqua 1,050 -30% 5,652 19% 4,200,437$ 743$

Columbia & Greene 287 8% 2,971 10% 1,807,899$ 609$

Dutchess 915 12% 7,569 12% 6,993,359$ 924$

Erie 4,334 -30% 32,871 13% 24,336,843$ 740$

Jefferson & Lewis 386 -50% 6,793 6% 2,281,184$ 336$

Monroe 6,419 -17% 29,434 22% 36,259,399$ 1,232$

Nassau 4,919 55% 22,867 17% 44,065,330$ 1,927$

Onondaga 3,297 16% 18,543 18% 16,336,953$ 881$

Orange 1,101 3% 11,519 10% 6,948,345$ 603$Oswego 602 -6% 4,278 14% 2,387,615$ 558$

Putnam 112 27% 1,501 7% 900,437$ 600$

Rockland 1,119 3% 10,090 11% 8,465,441$ 839$

Saint Lawrence 547 -12% 5,482 10% 1,871,243$ 341$

Schenectady 1,067 -8% 6,200 17% 5,985,825$ 965$

Suffolk 2,659 -24% 27,108 10% 31,364,169$ 1,157$

Sullivan & Ulster 893 -17% 8,458 11% 5,593,632$ 661$

Westchester 3,035 10% 24,011 13% 27,775,594$ 1,157$

NYC 85,625 25% 337,221 25% 501,503,642$ 1,487$

NYS outside NYC 45,264 -10% 330,774 14% 292,567,767$ 884$

NYS Total 131,998 10% 667,995 20% 794,071,409$ 1,189$

Source: CGR analysis of data from U.S. Census Bureau and Office of Children & Family Services

Key Facts for Focus Counties

Notes: Need reflects children under 13 in families with parents working/looking for work and earning 200%

or less of poverty level. County data grouped together where necessary due to availability of detailed

Census data.


11/19

5

www.cgr.org

Among the 18 areas we studied (15 counties and 3 two-county areas), the gap wasgreatest in Putnam and Jefferson & Lewis Counties, where 7% and 6% of potentiallyeligible children were served (respectively). Several other areas were serving 10-13% ofthe eligible population in 2013 Columbia & Greene counties, Dutchess, Erie, Orange,Rockland, St. Lawrence, Suffolk and Sullivan & Ulster. In addition to New York City, thegap was smallest in Albany (21%), Chautauqua (19%), Monroe (22%), Onondaga (18%)and Nassau (17%).

Overall, the number of subsidies provided has increased 20% throughout the statebetween 2007 and 2013. But that is largely because of a 25% increase in New YorkCity. Outside of the city, subsidies have fallen by 10% from 2007-13. The largestdeclines over that time period were in Chautauqua and Erie (both down 30%),Jefferson & Lewis (-50%), Suffolk (-24%) and Monroe and Sullivan & Ulster (both down17%). The largest increases in subsidies were in Nassau (55%), Putnam (27%) andOnondaga (16%).

State allocations for subsidies varied dramatically across the areas. Viewed as theamount of funding provided per eligible child, allocations made by the state rangedfrom less than $350 to nearly $2,000 per child. Allocations per child were more than$1,000 in Nassau, Albany, Monroe, Suffolk, Westchester and New York City, comparedto $341 in St. Lawrence and $336 in Jefferson & Lewis counties. State allocations arebased on historical spending of subsidy dollars, specifically, a 5-year average. Anycounty that does not spend its allocation in one year may see its allocation reduced, ifit rolls over more than 15% of its funding.

Spotlight on Monroe CountyFunding Constraints Limit Access

In 2013, 6,419 children in Monroe County benefited from subsidies to help pay forchild care, according to the data provided by OCFS. That was down 17% from 7,734 in2007. Though we do not include earlier data due to the states concerns aboutaccuracy, data CGR received from Monroe County for a prior project showed highernumbers of children served in earlier years 10,700 in 2002, 9,800 in 2003 and 9,300in 2004.

Those served in recent years make up about a fifth of the population of children inpotentially eligible families. According to Census Bureau estimates, about 29,400children were living in households where parents were working or looking for work


12/19

6

www.cgr.org

and earning 200% or less of the poverty level.7With the decline in the number served,the share served has fallen from about 26% in 2007 to 22% in 2013.

Due to funding constraints, Monroe County has not set its eligibility threshold at 200%of the poverty level in more than a decade.8For the last several years, the eligibility

level has been 165% of the federal poverty level, according to county officials. Between2002 and 2006, the eligibility threshold fluctuated between 140% and 165%.

County officials note that one of the factors driving down the number of subsidiesprovided is an increase in the share of families choosing more expensive types of care.In 2003, just 25% of subsidies went to children attending centers, 30% went to childrenin home-based care, and 45% to children in legally exempt care. Legally exemptproviders are often family members or friends providing child care on an informalbasis they are not regulated by the state as formal child care providers are.

In 2013, the share of subsidized children in legally exempt care was down to 25%,home-based care increased to 42% and center-based care increased to 34%.

In addition, the state-set reimbursement rates have outpaced inflation for some typesof care. From 2002 to 2014, the reimbursement rates for center-based care for infants18 months or younger increased 13%, even after adjusting for inflation, thoughincreases for home-based care were closer to inflation and the rate for legally exemptcare actually declined relative to inflation.

Since June 2013, the Countys program has largely been closed to new applicants,though officials say a few cases were opened in summer 2014 when projectionsindicated funding was available. Prior to that, the county had been accepting andserving applicants for roughly the 15-month period beginning in March 2012. Thatfollowed a period of 16 months starting in October 2010 when the program wasclosed to new applicants.9

Yet, the County consistently receives thousands of applications: more than 3,400 in2012, 2,800 in 2013 and 1,500 through August of 2014. Monroe does not maintain awaiting list of eligible applicants, as some counties do. The Countys approach to theprogram has been to deny new applicants when funding is low rather than to removesubsidies from families currently receiving them, as other counties have done.

The majority of children benefiting from subsidies participate in the income-eligibleprogram affected by the eligibility levels 60% in 2013 which was true throughout

7This estimate is derived from the Census Bureaus American Community Survey for 2008-12. Thebureau combines five years of responses to the survey to provide estimates for smaller geographicareas and increase the precision of its estimates.8Technically, eligibility remains at 200%, but families at 165% or below are prioritized for subsidies.9Information in this section about Monroe County management of the program is from Nancy Forgue,Deputy Human Services Commissioner for the County.


13/19

7

www.cgr.org

the state except in New York City. The remaining 40% in Monroe County receivedsubsidies as part of their Family Assistance grant. These proportions have not changedmuch over the last several years in Monroe County in 2007, 57% of children were inthe low-income program.

Local Area Need: Greatest in City, Growing in

Suburbs

Although the potentialneed for child caresubsidies is greatest inthe City of Rochester,need is growing thefastest outside the City.

As shown in theadjacent table, thenumber of potentiallyeligible children fell 9%in the City of Rochesterfrom 2000 to 2008-12and grew 52% inIrondequoit, 31% inHenrietta and 17% inGreece, according to

our analysis of CensusBureau data. Theestimates for some ofthe Countys smallertowns are less reliable,as denoted by asterisksin the table.

While nearly 16,000children in the City ofRochester could benefit

from subsidies, almost12,000 in the suburbsare eligible for subsidiesas well.10

10For more information on poverty in Rochester and its suburbs, see the Rochester Area Community Foundations

recent report: goo.gl/ke1nNo.

2000 2008-12 Change Margin of Error

Brighton 379 561 48% *

Chili 490 605 24% *

Clarkson 144 225 57% **East Rochester 220 263 20% **

Gates 577 991 72% *

Greece 2,140 2,501 17%

Hamlin 339 291 -14% *

Henrietta 661 867 31%

Irondequoit 967 1,468 52%

Mendon 111 199 80% **

Ogden 293 496 70% *

Parma 412 572 39% *

Penfield 459 489 7% *

Perinton 477 676 42% *

Pittsford 245 240 -2% **

Riga 101 124 23% ***

Rochester 17,351 15,841 -9%

Rush 42 23 -46% ***

Sweden 256 223 -13% **

Webster 501 826 65% *

Wheatland 88 117 34% **

Source: CGR analysis of Census Bureau data

Estimated Need for Child Care Subsidies

Children under 13 with parents in the workforce at/below 200% of

poverty level

Notes: Estimates derived for local areas based on actual countywide

shares of children under 13 with parents working or looking for work.

* Margin of error between 20% & 35% of estimate; ** margin of error

between 35% & 50%; *** margin of error greater than 50%.


14/19

8

www.cgr.org

Funding Has Not Kept Pace with Inflation

After adjusting for inflation, the level of both state and local funding for child caresubsidies in Monroe County has declined over the last eight years. State funding

declined 2% and local funding 5%.

However, in 2009-10Monroe and severalother countiesreceived a large boostin funding due to thefederal stimuluspackage respondingto the economicrecession that beganin 2008. Monroe wasone of 8 counties toreceive a double-digitincrease in its stateallocation in 2009-10(16% in Monroe), andmore counties beganto benefit in 2010-11.

State funding was boosted again in the most recent year, with a 7.5% increase. In

addition to statewide advocacy for increased funding, the Rochester CommunityCoalition led by the Rochester Business Alliance added child care subsidies to itspriority list in 2014.The state allocationto Monroe Countyincreased 5% in2014-15 (3% ininflation-adjusteddollars). However,the 2014-15allocation of $35.7

million was stillbelow the 2007-08level of $36.3million.

Local funding forchild care subsidespeaked in 2009 at

$30,000,000

$32,000,000

$34,000,000

$36,000,000

$38,000,000

$40,000,000

2013

Dollars

State Allocation to Monroe CountyInflation-adjusted

Source: NYS Office for Children and Family Services

$-

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*

20

13

Dollars

Local Funding for Child CareInflation-adjusted

Source: Monroe County budgets * Proposed


15/19

9

www.cgr.org

$9 million and has since declined to just under $6 million budgeted in 2014 (inflation-adjusted dollars).

As discussed earlier, part of the countys spending is mandatory. Monroe has thehighest mandated spending level outside of New York City at $4.2 million annually.

Several larger counties have smaller mandates, including Nassau ($1.6 million), Erie($1.3 million) and Westchester ($1 million). The level of mandated spending is based onchild subsidy caseload data from 1995.

In Monroe County, officials are urging the state to revisit its policy for determiningeach countys allocation of state funding, asking for a multi-year grant based onindicators of need, such as the poverty level. In addition, the county would like anupdate of the calculations for mandatory spending, as this is currently based on 19-year-old information.

Serving all Eligible Children Would AddSignificant Cost

As child care is such a large expense, and Monroe County is currently meeting about a

fifth of the potential need for subsidies, the cost to fill the entire gap is substantial.

Based on CGRs estimates, about 23,000 children in families with income at 200% or

less of the federal poverty have parents working or looking for work andcurrently do

not receive subsidies

. This includes about 11,000 children ages 0 to 5 and 12,000

ages 6 to 12. Providing subsidies to that entire group would cost about $222 million

with the amount split about evenly between the two groups. Considering that currentspending is about $42 million, this represents an enormous increase.

If an effort to fill the gap were less universal and more targeted, the expense would be

lower. For example, if the goal were to serve children in families at or below the

poverty level, the cost would be less than half, about $100 million. And if we were to

consider how many child care slots are available in current programs, and fill those,

the cost drops to about $60 million.


16/19

10

www.cgr.org

We must note several caveats. Because we were unable to obtain detailed informationabout the current subsidy program, we used information from our 2007 report on

subsidized child care to estimate the share of current subsidies going to children ages0-5, 6-12 and in families earning 200% or 100% of poverty and below. Based on the2007 report, these proportions were quite consistent from 2001 to 2007, but it ispossible the current proportions are different.

In addition, our cost calculations are based on averaging the cost of care acrossdifferent settings and different age groups, and should therefore be treated as roughestimates. The figures we used to calculate these averages came from the latest statestudy of child care market rates, mentioned earlier in this report. Data on the unusedcapacity within current child care programs came from the Child Care Council andreflects 2013.

Finally, these costs would be reduced depending on the share of eligible families whoactually applied for assistance. That proportion is likely to be just 50% of the totaleligible population, based on national research.

Size of gap 0 to 5 6 to 12 Total

0-200% of poverty 10,975 12,040 23,015

0-100% of poverty 5,596 4,766 10,362Cost to fill gap

0-200% of poverty 111,416,368$ 110,604,711$ 222,021,078$

0-100% of poverty 56,803,557$ 43,786,299$ 100,589,856$

Capacity 3,581 2,337 5,918

Cost to fill unused slots 36,352,720$ 24,304,800$ 60,657,520$

Source: CGR analysis

Costs to Fill the Gap


17/19

11

www.cgr.org

Compared to Other Counties, MonroeServes MoreCompared to the counties most similar to it, Monroe County serves a higher share ofchildren potentially eligible for child care subsidies. While Monroe served 22% ofpotentially eligible children in 2013, Erie County served 13% and Onondaga County

18%.

The number ofsubsidiesprovided hasdecreased since2007 in both

Monroe and Erie(down 17% and30%,respectively),while it hasincreased inOnondaga, up16%.

Both Erie andOnondaga have

current eligibility thresholds for low-income child care subsidies of 200% of the federalpoverty level, compared to 165% in Monroe. While Onondaga has maintained that forseveral years, in Erie County the eligibility threshold was lowered and subsidieseliminated for more than 1,000 children when the county budget was strained in2009-10. Since then, the county has not seen demand for the subsidies return, despiterecent efforts to publicize the program. County officials said they are not sure whathas happened to the families that lost subsidies. They are worried that many put theirchildren in informal care, which may be lower quality.

In Onondaga, participation has gradually grown over the last several years. Countyofficials have shielded the program from major funding cuts, believing it to be

important in keeping working families in the workforce and off of public assistance.However, the county did increase its co-payment level in 2011 to 35% from 25%, andco-payments are now a major challenge for families. Families with income above thepoverty level pay a share of that income, ranging from 10% to 35%, as a co-paymentfor child care costs. Counties determine the level of co-payment, and Monroe hasbeen at 35% for several years. In Onondaga, one step county officials take to try tohelp families with a high co-payment is to recalculate the co-payment if there has

0%

5%

10%

15%20%

25%

30%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Estimated Share of Eligible Children Served

Monroe Erie Onondaga


18/19

12

www.cgr.org

been a recent, downward change in income. In some cases, parents give up theirsubsidy because the co-payment is too high, according to the county.

Questions to ConsiderOur research and analysis for this report leads us to several observations and

questions. We offer these below as food for thought for the local and state advocacy

and policy-setting community.

The a vai labi l i ty of and funding for chi ld care subsidies vary con siderably across

the state.

In the areas we studied, the share of eligible children receiving subsidies

ranged from 6% to 25%, and the state funding per eligible child varied from less than

$350 to nearly $2,000. While local decision-making and priority-setting should inform

the operation of the subsidy program, we do not see a factual or policy basis for such

extreme disparities.

The factors dr iving dec isions abou t state funding and the man dated local share

are rooted in historical spending patterns and m ay not ref lect current needs.As

Monroe County officials have noted, a formula for allocating state funds could

incorporate indicators of need, such as rates of poverty, numbers of potentially eligible

children, etc.

Neither cou nty nor state off icials are able to readily extract and an alyze detai led

data f rom data systems preventing them from effect ively mon itoring trends or

using data to understand current and em erging nee ds.

Both old and new state data

systems have been developed primarily for managing subsidy cases on a case-by-casebasis and do not allow for effective aggregation and analysis of data. This puts

policymakers, program operators, advocates and the public at an extreme

disadvantage when trying to understand who the program is serving and how it is

being run.

Providing subsidies for the entire eligible popu lation would be very expen sive bu t

there may be w ays to target addit ional subsidies to those m ost in need.

For

example, targeting families with income at or below poverty, or those with children 0-

3 are two potential strategies. Before setting such priorities, advocates and

policymakers in a community such as Monroe County should analyze and discuss therelative merits of targeting various slices of the eligible population and carefully weigh

the pros and cons, both to individual families and to the community as a whole.

The tension between qu al ity and cost of care is not easy to resolve but New York

is behind othe r states in tying sub sidies to qua lity care.Higher quality care is more

expensive and can therefore work against the goal of providing subsidies to as many

children as possible. However, improving access to high-quality care is a critical goal


19/19

13

for many advocates and policymakers. While many states provide higher

reimbursement to child care providers meeting quality standards, New York does not

have a statewide system for rating the quality of providers (though a pilot program

called QualityStarsNY was begun). Instead, the state allows counties to pay higher

rates for accredited programs, which tends to be a small share of providers.As research and attention continues to focus on the importance of the early years in

setting a good foundation for learning, it is likely that New York policymakers will face

increased pressure to support quality care and education which may result in

changes to the subsidy program.
http://www.cgr.org/

Documents

Child Care Subsidies in Monroe County