EEC Financial Assistance Regulation and Policy Reform

1. EEC Financial Assistance Regulation and Policy Reform November 2010

2. EEC Financial Assistance Regulation and Policy 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. • Beginning in December 2009, updated policies issued through EMBs were directly incorporated into the Guide, including an Amendment Log that identifies effective date, a summary and the prior policy that it amended or replaced.

3. EEC Financial Assistance Policy Guide – Table of Contents • Chapter 1: Eligibility • Chapter 2: The EEC Centralized Waiting List for Financial Assistance • Chapter 3: Documentation of Eligiblility • Chapter 4: Service Need • Chapter 5: Parent Co-Payments • Chapter 6: Reassessment • Chapter 7: Terminations and Reductions • Chapter 8: EEC Financial Assistance Complaint and Investigation Process Note: EEC Subsidy Regulations at located at 606 CMR 10.00 et seq.

4. EEC Financial Assistance: Challenges and Issues • As EEC providers, CCR&Rs and internal staff have used the Guide, issues were identified, including: • Documentation of eligibility requirements • Outdated and confusing policies • Existing policies outside of the Guide (recently added as “appendices”) • Misalignment with subsidy regulatory requirements • Capability to verify programs’ determination of financial assistance eligibility (fraud/waste/abuse)

5. Proposal: Update and Amend EEC Regulations and Policies • Many factors contribute to the necessity of 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) • 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 DCF staff)

6. 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

7. 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 or 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.”

8. 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)

9. 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 updating it by creating a red line version; and • reaching out to stakeholders (e.g., providers, R&Rs) to identify other problem areas that need to be addressed.

10. Overall approach: Prioritize what we can do now, and what can wait • Identified issues have been categorized into three groups: • “quick fixes”– pressing issues that need immediate attention and can be fixed through EEC policy clarifications • “long term fixes”- issues that will be addressed either through regulations changes and/or the development of data exchanges • Interagency work– enhance communication between/ among EEC, DTA, DCF and R&Rs. • The following slides detail the policies that have been updated, as well as those that require regulation changes, data exchanges or interagency work

11. Examples of other policy updates requested & status • Key • = Policy issue reviewed and updated • = Policy issue reviewed and requires regulation change to update

12. 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

13. Examples of Interagency Work to Enhance Communication/ Business Practices (DCF) EEC/ DCF MOU developed 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 • Enhanced communication for variance process • May need to create a DCF foster care voucher at IE rate vs. supportive rate • 6 month case continuity for DCF supportive families

14. Financial Assistance Policies RequiringRegulation Changes • Many identified changes can be made by revising the Policy Manual, however, 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 and failure to exhaust administrative remedies • Clarify appropriate grounds for appeal • Clarify documentation requirements • Clarify recoupment appeal process • Excessive absences • Require data checks to verify eligibility (e.g., DOR, RMV or other agency systems)

15. Proposed Regulation Promulgation Timeline