EEC Financial Assistance Regulations and Policies Reform

1. EEC Financial Assistance Regulations and Policies Reform • EEC Subsidy Regulations last updated in November 2006 • Policy Guide developed and released in July 2007 • “Question and Answer” document added to the Guide in 2008, • Several updates issued through EEC Management Bulletins (EMBs) and email messages from the Commissioner reflecting new or edited policies and instruction for providers to “reprint” selected chapters. • Access limitations to Income Eligible financial assistance beginning November 3, 2008 resulted in a number of other EMBs and memos to clarify and revise policies.

2. EEC Policy Guide: Challenges and Weaknesses • As EEC providers, CCR&Rs and internal staff have used the Guide, weaknesses were identified, including: • Ability to update and communicate changed or new policies • Structure of and clarity of policy information • Documentation of eligibility requirements • Outdated and confusing policies • Existing policies outside of the Guide (recently added as “appendices”) • Missing policies • Ease of finding needed information • Misalignment with subsidy regulatory requirements • Capability to monitor programs’ determination of financial assistance eligibility

3. Proposal: Update and Restructure the EEC Financial Assistance Guide • Many factors contribute to the urgency of restructuring and updating the Guide including: • Improper Authorizations for Payment (IAP) exercise results • Response from ACF regarding our State Plan • Unique challenges/ weaknesses identified due to recent fiscal constraints/ system restructuring • (e.g., ongoing closure of, or limited access to, EEC financial assistance and CPC transition) • Recent CCR&R Feedback • Confirms need to improve Financial Assistance Polices, including the Request for Review process, Recoupment procedure, and Documentation requirements • Raises other concerns regarding improving Communication (w/ EEC, DTA and DSS staff) and suggests Waitlist Management enhancements

4. Changes Required as a Result of the Improper Authorization for Payment (IAP) Project • Citizenship: EEC must verify the US citizenship or immigration status of children who receive CCDF-funded services* • All entities performing CCDF-funded child care subsidy assessments must obtain and maintain documentation of U.S. Citizenship of the child, before authorizing payment • Fees: EEC cannot categorically waive the fees. (e.g., per CCDF regulation if a teen parent earns enough must be assessed a co-payment). • Recoupments: IAP project highlighted some existing challenges in our regulations and policies in recouping funding improperly authorized

5. Changes Required as a Result of ACF Commentary on the Massachusetts 2010-2011 CCDF State Plan • In order to be eligible for CCDF-funded child care services, children must: • Reside with a family whose income does not exceed 85% of SMI; and • Reside with a parent or parents who are working, or participating in job training or an education program , or are receiving on need to receive protective services . • In reviewing the MA CCDF State Plan, ACF identified two instances where EEC regulations and policy may not align with these mandatory requirements: • Children with Special Needs – 1) allowing children to remain in care up to 100% SMI and 2) allowing a categorical waiver of the work, education and training requirement for families w/ children with special needs. • Parents with Special Needs – 1) allowing children to remain in care up to 100% of SMI, and 2) not clearly defining such families “in need of protective services.”

6. Changes Required as a Result of ACF Commentary on the Massachusetts 2010-2011 CCDF State Plan • CCDF regulations do allow states some flexibility: • Children residing in a family that is receiving or needs to receive protective intervention services may be eligible for CCDF-funded child care, if they remain in the home, even if the parent(s) is not working or in an education or training program. See 45 CFR 98.20(a)(3)(ii). • Additionally, states have the discretion to waive the 85% SMI limitation if a child is residing in a family that is receiving or needs to receive protective intervention services if determined necessary on a case by case basis. See 45 CFR 98.20(a)(3)(ii)(A)

7. Other Financial Assistance Policies Needing Clarification or Presenting Unique Challenges In addition to the issues identified through the IAP process and the ACF comments received on EEC’s state plan, EEC has been: • tracking questions/ issues as they arise, • spotting recurring issues through the Review/ Appeal process, • conducting a wholesale review of the manual; and • reaching out to stakeholders (e.g., R&Rs) to identify other problem areas that need to be addressed. Examples of identified issues…

8. Examples of other policies needing clarification

9. Overall approach: Prioritize what we can do now, and what can wait • Identified issues will be categorized into three groups: • “quick fixes”– pressing issues that need immediate attention and can be fixed through EEC policy clarifications • Interagency work– enhance communication between/ among EEC, DTA, DCF and R&Rs. • “long term fixes”- issues that will be addressed either through the Manual rewrite or regulations changes.

10. Examples of some “Quick fixes” • Policy Clarification to Reduce Subsidy Terminations for “Minor” Infractions • (e.g., failing to disclose change in service need that does not impact eligibility) • Break in Service Need Clarification • Lack of continuing service activity (parent) vs. lack of participation in child care program (child) • e.g., program, such as summer camp, closes causing gap in care before next program begins- not a “break in service need” • Notice of Termination Clarification – “at least two weeks” notice needed for any termination or reduction • include termination notice language in voucher end date notices

11. Examples of Interagency Work to Enhance Communication/ Business Practices (DTA) A review of DTA and EEC business processes is underway to review and adjust practices including: • Ensuring DTA authorizations comply with EEC requirements • Example: DTA staff authorize part time or full time child care for families that don’t meet the EEC minimum work/ education requirements • Ensuring better communication between DTA staff and R&Rs • Example: “1D” clients need to start paying fees when their cases close • if DTA staff would “cc” R&Rs on parent 1D letters should not only help reduce the number of requests for EEC reviews, but will also help minimize parent debt accrual/ EEC recoupments for parent fees

12. Examples of Interagency Work to Enhance Communication/ Business Practices (DCF) EEC/ DCF MOU is in development to address a range of issues including: • To ensure smooth transitions from Supportive Child Care to Income Eligible • Parents don’t understand EEC service need requirements, which creates stress for parents and increased R&R time to help parents produce supporting documentation • To ensure DCF Foster Parents have appropriate expectations regarding access to EEC financial assistance including service need • DCF is issuing 9S (supportive) referrals to foster parents b/c access is shut down • May need to create a DCF foster care voucher at IE rate vs. supportive rate

13. Financial Assistance Policies RequiringRegulation Changes • While many of the identified changes can be made by revising the Policy Manual, as discussed, some changes are necessary to EEC’s Subsidy regulations • “special needs” of parent and/or child definitions to ensure compliance with federal child care laws • Updates to EEC Review Process regulations • Dismissals for failure to prosecute • Dismissals for failure to exhaust administrative remedies • Clarify appropriate grounds for appeal • Clarify documentation requirements • Grant opportunity for appeal related to recoupment amounts • Others changes may be identified as we work through the policies

14. Proposal: Update and Restructure the EEC Financial Assistance “Guide” • Long Term Plan (By Jan/ Feb 2010) • Rework/ restructure the “Guide”– New Policy Manual will be structured based on the federal IAP exercise format, which will aid in clearer understanding of CCDF regulatory requirements and EEC monitoring requirements. • Note-other states’ policy manuals have been reviewed for best practices. • New title-- “EEC Financial Assistance Manual” • Promulgate improvements to subsidy regulations • Provide training • Short Term Plan • Identify immediate policy priorities (“quick fixes”) • e.g., clarify break in service policy, work with DTA on 1D issue, finalize recoupment procedures • Enhance communication (w/ CCR&Rs, DTA, DSS)

15. Proposed Timeline