EEC REGULATION REFORM – Subsidy Revisions and Final Draft

1. EEC REGULATION REFORM – Subsidy Revisions and Final Draft April 10, 2012 Board Presentation

2. Why Amend the EEC Subsidy Regulations? • Factors contributing to the need to review and amend the Regulations include: • Identifying and Implementing Best Practices • Review regulations every 5 years (last updated in 2006) • Analyze other State child care subsidy laws and policies • Address unique challenges/weaknesses identified due to recent fiscal constraints/system restructuring (e.g., closure/limited access to EEC financial assistance, CPC transition, Voucher Reassessment) • Targeting/maximizing limited resources • Addressing user feedback/achieving efficiencies • Addressing Federal & State Oversight concerns • Reduce opportunities for Fraud, Waste and Abuse • Address Improper Authorizations for Payment (IAP) results • Respond to ACF regarding EEC’s State Plan • Align with ANF Task Force established to review MA public assistance programs • Ensure Program Integrity 2

3. Technical Regulatory Changes To ensure compliance with current laws/policies and aid in the interpretation and enforcement of the regulations • Family Size and Household Composition(codifies existing practice) • Clarifies verification of household members necessary for purposes of determining eligibility and establishing parent fees. • Data Sharing/Interfaces Authorization(new) • Authorizes EEC to request and/or provide information to/from other government agencies, contracted providers, other states and financial institutions for purposes of verifying eligibility. • Additional Documentation(codifies existing practice) • Authorizes providers and/or CCR&Rs to request additional documentation, if file indicates application inaccuracies/ contradictions. • Travel Time(codifies existing practice) • Requires applicants to present a minimum of 20 hours of service need before allowing travel time to be factored in.

4. Technical Regulatory Changes (cont’d) • Termination and Reduction of Services(amends current regulations) • Updates reasons for subsidy denial, reduction or termination to include submission of false or misleading information and/or documentation. • Review Process (codifies existing practice) • Clarifies scope of review. • Allows for termination of continued subsidized child care when it is determined that there is no genuine issue of material fact as presented by the parent in the Request for Review. • Clarifies the duties and expectations of the parties during the EEC Review Process, including the contents of the record. • Allows Review Officer to make a decision within 30 days or “as promptly as administratively feasible” to align with that of Hearing Officer and the Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure (801 CMR 1.02) in recognition of number of reviews received. • Allows for dismissal of a request for informal hearing when parent fails to prosecute his/her claim.

5. Substantive Regulatory Changes • Identity, Residency & Citizenship Status • Requires verification of applicant’s identity and residency, as well as the citizenship/immigration status of each child seeking assistance. • Child Support Enforcement Requirement • Requires single parent applicants to submit evidence of child support and/or cooperation with the Commonwealth’s Child Support Enforcement agency, as a condition of eligibility. • Child Attendance/Reimbursement Requirements • Requires children to regularly attend early education and care programs subsidized by the Commonwealth or risk termination and/or non-reimbursement. • Limitations on Self-Employment • Imposes restrictions on certain work-related service need activities, in particular, “at home” self-employment • Changes methodology for calculating service need – total earnings divided by minimum wage to establish amount of care needed. • Special Needs (Protective Services) • New definition of protective services to include parents and children with documented disability and/or special need; limits authorization period. • Eliminates child with special need as a single service need.

6. Formal and Post-Formal Public Comment Period • Formal public comment on the proposed amendments began on September 21st and ended October 21, 2011 with 6 public comment hearings conducted throughout the state. Approximately 150 individuals attended and over 50 individuals testified. Additionally, EEC received 42 written comments. • Post-closure of the formal public comment period, EEC analyzed and compiled the comments and suggestions. • On November 2, 2011, EEC staff held formal meetings with the Governor’s Council to Address Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence, as well as representatives from legal advocacy group, including Greater Boston Legal Services (GBLS) and the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute (MLRI). On December 20th, EEC staff met again with GBLS and MLRI to discuss their remaining concerns. • EEC continued discussions on the proposed amendments with the Procedures Working Team and other Executive Agencies, including the Department of Revenue’s Child Support Enforcement Division.

7. Summary of Common Themes from Public Comment Received by EEC Strong Opposition to the following topics: • Imposition of a Child Support Requirement on Single Parents • Impact on families experiencing domestic violence • Complexities and dangers of Family & Probate Court System • Approved Activity - Seeking Paid Employment • Prioritize care to parents who lose their jobs and care but have a qualifying service need in the following 12 months • Combining Service Need Activities - Limitations • Parents should be allowed to combine service need activities of seeking paid employment and special need of parent with other approved activities • Changes related to Special Needs Families • Time limits imposed on special need/disabled parents • Removal of the single service need for children with special needs/disabilities by requiring parents to work/educate/train • Verification of Citizenship/Immigration Status • Undocumented children are part of our communities and should not be denied access to early education programs

8. Summary of Common Themes (cont’d) Strong Opposition (cont’d): • Home-Based Self-Employment Restrictions • Potential impact on Family Child Care programs • Potential impact on school-aged children, especially during vacations and holidays • Hours of Education or Training for Service Need • Does not allow part time college students or others participating in education/training programs to count out of class time towards their service need. • Review Process • Regulations should not allow EEC to terminate child care services because parent violated policy of a provider or CCR&R • Should not be a prohibition on challenging EEC policy; should be specified time for a decision on review or appeal Support or Understanding for the following topics: • Child Absences provided that EEC Systems monitor/track absence data • Inclusion of Homeless Child Care Program, but sought clarification on HomeBASE

9. Child Support Enforcement Requirement

10. Parent with Disabilities/Special Needs

11. Children with Disabilities/Special Needs

12. Citizenship or Immigration Status Requirement for Children

13. Limitations on Self-Employment

14. Child Attendance - Absences

15. Education or Training as Service Need

16. Homeless Child Care Services Program

17. Denial, Reduction and/or Termination of Services and the Review Process

18. Regulation Promulgation Timeline 18