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new policies Structure of and clarity of policy information Documentation of eligibility requirements Outdated and confusing policies Existing policies outside of the Guide (recently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…

Examples of other policies needing clarification

Break in service need of parent vs. lack of child participation in program

Excessive Absences of Children

Terminations for minor infractions not impacting eligibility

Strengthening language in termination notices

Emergency closures

Waitlist management enhancements

Strengthen/ Clarify Documentation needed to verify:

self employmentsecond parent in Householdspecial needs of childspecial needs of parent

Streamline Review Process

Clarify Recoupment Process

Redraft Financial Assistance agreement

8

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.

9

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

10

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

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

12

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

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)

14

Proposed Timeline

Tasks Date

Convene Project Management TeamFinalize Table of ContentsIdentify immediate policy priorities

September to October

Assign and prepare first draft;Internal Review

October to November

Assign and prepare second draft;External review;Develop implementation plan, including translation of family documents as needed

November to December

Submit to Manual to EEC Commissioner submit regulation changes to Board for final review and approval

December to January

Update IAP application to be used for routine monitoring, eCCIMS, and other IT systems; post to Web site, eCCIMS, and other IT systemsProvider training and technical assistance

January /February 2010

15