.
Early Childhood Care and Education
Programs: Background and Funding
Karen E. Lynch
AnalystSpecialist in Social Policy
Gail McCallion
Specialist in Social Policy
March 18, 2010January 9, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40212
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
.
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
Summary
Federal support for child care and education comes in many forms, ranging from grant programs
to tax provisions. Some programs serve as specifically dedicated funding sources for child care
services (e.g., the Child Care and Development Block Grant, or CCDBG) or education programs
(e.g., the Preschool Grants Program and Infants and Toddlers Program funded under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA). For other programs (e.g., Temporary
Assistance for
Needy Families, or TANF), child care is just one of many purposes for which
funds may be used.
In many cases, federal programs target low-income families in need of child
care, but in the case
of certain tax provisions, the benefits reach middle- and upper-income
families as well. This
This report provides an overview ofa funding overview and brief background information on federal child care,
early education, and related programs, and their
current funding statuses (and tax provisions). The report begins with an update on
funding developments for FY2013 (including congressional actions on annual and supplemental
appropriations, possible sequestration, and the President’s budget request) and a summary of final
funding levels for FY2012. The report concludes with a six-year funding history and brief
descriptions for each of the early childhood programs and tax provisions discussed throughout.
Funding for many child care, early education, and related programs is provided each year as part
of the annual appropriations process for the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS),
and Education (ED). This report briefly summarizes funding requests for a selection of early
childhood care and education programs in the Obama Administration’s FY2011 President’s
Budget, which was released on February 1, 2010. In addition, this report reviews funding
developments in FY2010 and provides a six-year funding history for select early childhood care
and education programs and tax provisions that are discussed throughout this report
and Education (ED). (Note that certain early childhood programs and tax provisions receive
funding separate from the annual appropriations process.) For FY2013, funding for annually
appropriated programs has been provided—through March 27, 2013—by a government-wide
continuing resolution (P.L. 112-175), which generally maintains funding for discretionary
programs at their FY2012 rates, plus 0.612%. For FY2012, funding for most of these programs
was included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74). Compared to FY2011,
the FY2012 appropriations law provided increases for some early childhood programs, such as
the discretionary CCDBG, Head Start, and IDEA Grants for Infants and Families.
Several early childhood care and education programs have funding authorizations that have
already expired or are due to expire soon. The Child Care and Development Block Grant Act, for
instance, expired in FY2002. However, itthe discretionary CCDBG has continued to be funded through appropriations
legislation. Authorization
through annual appropriations laws. The authorization for many programs underin the No Child Left
Behind Act expired at the
end of FY2008, though they have alsobut these programs have likewise continued to receive funding. Head Start, however, was
reauthorized by the 110th Congress in legislation that was signed into law (P.L. 110-134) by the
President on December 12, 2007
funding. Mandatory child care and basic TANF grants are also due for reauthorization in the 113th
Congress, but have been temporarily extended through March 2013 by P.L. 112-175.
Congressional Research Service
.
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................1
FY2011 President’s Budget ..... 1
FY2013 Funding ...................................................................................................................1
FY2010 Funding Developments........... 1
Proposed Supplemental Appropriations .................................................................................... 1
Continuing Resolution ............................................................................................................... 2
Preliminary Congressional Action on Full-Year Appropriations ............................................... 2
Possible FY2013 Sequestration ................................................................................................. 2
FY2013 President’s Budget ....................................................................................................... 3
FY2012 Funding .............................................................................................................................. 5
FY2012 Appropriations ............................................................................................................. 5
FY2012 President’s Budget ...................3
FY2010 Appropriations.........................................................................................................3
FY2010 Budget Resolution ...................................................................................................4
Obama Administration FY2010 Budget.................................................................................4................. 6
Overview of Federal Early Childhood Care and Education Programs and Related Tax
Provisions ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Current Programs ..................................................................................................................9... 10
Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) ......................................................9 10
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) .......................................................... 11
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) ................................................................. 1112
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) .............................................................................. 12.. 13
Head Start ...................................................................................................................... 13
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I, Part A.... 13
Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program.................................... 13
The William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Programs (Even Start) ................. 14... 14
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I, Part A .................................... 15
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Programs ....................................... 14. 15
Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CAMPIS) .................................................. 16
Promise Neighborhoods .................................................................................................... 16
Race to the Top .................................................................................................................. 17 15
Tax Provisions ......................................................................................................................... 17 16
Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC) ................................................................................ 16. 17
Dependent Care Assistance Program (DCAP) .................................................................. 1618
Programs Funded in Recent Years, But Not Currently Funded ............................................... 18
The William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Programs (Even Start) .................. 18 17
Early Reading First ....................................................................................................... 17..... 19
Early Childhood Educator Professional Development ..................................................... 17. 20
Early Learning Fund/Early Learning Opportunities Act Program .................................... 1720
Tables
Table 1. Obama Administration’s FY2011 Budget Request for SelectStatus of FY2013 Appropriations for Selected Early Childhood
Care and
Education Programs, Compared to FY2010 Enacted Funding Levels and the
the Obama Administration’s FY2010 Budget Request FY2013 Budget
Request and FY2012 Enacted Funding Levels .........................................................................2.... 4
Table 2. FY2010 Appropriations for FY2012 Funding for Selected Early Childhood Care and Education Programs:
Funding Levels in President Obama’s Budget Request, as well as the House-Passed and
Senate Appropriations Committee-Passed L-HHS-ED Appropriations Bills, and the
FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117),
Compared to FY2011 Funding Levels.......................................................................................... 6
Table 3. Funding for Selected Federal Early Childhood Care, Education, and Related Programs,
FY2005-FY2010.............
Programs, FY2007-FY2012 ......................................................................................................... 7
Congressional Research Service
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
7
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 18..... 20
Congressional Research Service
.
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
Introduction
Several federal programs support child care, education, or related services, primarily for lowincome working families. In addition, the tax code includes provisions specifically targeteddesigned to
assist families with child care expenses. This report includes an overview of the Obama
Administration’s FY2011 Budget request (see Table 1) and an update on FY2010 funding
developments (see Table 2) for update on funding developments
for FY2013 (see Table 1) and a summary of final FY2012 funding levels (see Table 2) for a
selection of these early childhood care and education programs. ThisThe report also
provides a six-yearsixyear funding history (see Table 3) and brief descriptions of the various early
childhood-relatedfor these programs and tax related tax
provisions. In many cases, other Congressional Research
Service (CRS) reports are referenced as
sources for more detailed information about individual
programs.
Early childhood care and education programs due to be reauthorized in the 111th113th Congress include
the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) and programs Head Start, as well as programs
under the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLBA). All of these programs have continued to receive funding. The NCLBA
Behind Act (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). The NCLB programs include those funded under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) Title
I, Part A, as well as Early Reading First and Even Start. Programs for young children contained in
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (i.e., the Preschool Grants program and
the Infants and Toddlers program) are not up for reauthorization in the 111th Congress. This report
does not attempt to cover all issues connected with each of those reauthorizations.
FY2011 President’s Budget
The Obama Administration released its FY2011 Budget on February 1, 2010. As displayed in
Table 1, the FY2011 President’s Budget calls for significant increases compared to FY2010 for
two existing programs: Head Start (+$989 million) and the CCDBG (+$1.6 billion total, of which
half is mandatory and half is discretionary funding). The FY2011 Budget also calls for an
increase in the Dependent Care Tax Credit for families earning up to $113,000, though the effects
of this would likely not be seen until FY2012.
The FY2011 Budget proposes to maintain funding for certain early childhood programs
administered by the U.S. Department of Education (including both early childhood components
of IDEA) and to redirect funding from other programs (including Even Start/Striving Readers and
Early Reading First) into a broader literacy initiative, titled Effective Teaching and Learning:
Literacy. The literacy initiative would operate as a competitive grant program with grants
awarded by the U.S. Department of Education.
The FY2011 Budget does not explicitly re-propose the early childhood home visitation grant
program that was included in the Obama Administration’s FY2010 Budget.1 However, the Obama
Administration has issued Statements of Administration Policy (SAP) 2 that “strongly support”
passage of the House-passed (H.R. 3962) and the Senate-passed (H.R. 3590) health care reform
1
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, FY2010 Justifications of
Estimates for Appropriations Committees, May 2009, p. 122.
2
The Statements of Administration Policy on the House-Passed bill (H.R. 3962) and the Senate-passed bill (H.R. 3590)
are both available on the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/111/legislative_sap_date_first/.
Congressional Research Service
1
.
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
bills, both of which would establish a state grant program to support evidence-based home
visiting programs for low-income families with young children and those expecting children. 3
Table 1 displays the funding requested in the FY2011 President’s Budget for a selection of early
childhood care and education programs compared to the funding levels that were requested by the
President and enacted by Congress for FY2010.
Table 1. Obama Administration’s FY2011 Budget Request for Select Early Childhood
Care and Education Programs Compared to FY2010 Enacted Funding Levels and
the Obama Administration’s FY2010 Budget Request
($ in millions)
FY2010
President’s
Budget
FY2010
Enacted
FY2011
President's
Budget
CCDBG—discretionary portion (HHS)
2,127
2,127
2,927
CCDBG—mandatory portion (HHS)
2,917
2,917
3,717
b
b
b
Social Services Block Grant (HHS)
1,700
1,700
1,700
Head Start (HHS)
7,235
7,235
8,224
163
0c
0d
0
66
0d
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA)—Infants and Families (ED)
439
439
439
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA)—Preschool Grants (ED)
374
374
374
16
16
16
Home Visitation—mandatory (HHS)
124
0
Title I Early Childhood Grants (ED)
500
0
0
Early Learning Challenge Fund—
discretionary/mandatorye (ED)
300
0
625
Program/Provision
(Federal Admin. Agency)
Existing Programs
TANF (HHS)
Early Reading First (ED)
Even Start (ED)
Child Care Access Means Parents in School
(ED)
Proposed Programs
Not Specifiedf
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Notes: This table does not include estimates for related early childhood tax provisions. For these, see Table 3
or the sections summarizing the “Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC)” and the “Dependent Care Assistance
Program (DCAP)” later in this report. Note also that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title
I, Part A (ED) is not included here because it primarily serves school-age disadvantaged children, and because
reliable data on expenditures for preschoolers are not available. However, the U.S. Department of Education has
estimated that approximately 2% of Title I, Part A funds are used to support preschool services. These preschool
services are not separately funded under Title I, Part A, but rather are spent for this purpose at the discretion of
local educational agencies (LEAs). Preschool spending data are not collected. The Obama Administration’s
3
For additional information, see CRS Report R40705, Home Visitation for Families with Young Children, by Emilie
Stoltzfus and Karen E. Lynch.
Congressional Research Service
2
.
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
FY2011 Budget requests a total of $14.49 billion for ESEA, Title I, Part A funding in FY2011, the same level of
funding the program received under the FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117).
a.
The FY2011 President’s Budget also calls for an increase of $800 million in mandatory child care funding.
This increase is not displayed here because mandatory child care funds are typically pre-appropriated and
are thus not subject to the annual appropriations process.
b.
P.L. 109-171 pre-appropriated mandatory TANF funding for each of FY2006-FY2010. TANF funds ($16.5
billion annually) may be used for child care, but are not specifically appropriated as such. HHS reports that
states spent $1.6 billion in federal TANF funds for child care within the TANF program in FY2008 (the most
recent data available). The authorization and pre-appropriated funding for TANF will expire at the end of
FY2010. The FY2011 President’s Budget proposes to extend basic TANF funding for one year, FY2011. For
more information on TANF in the FY2011 Budget, see CRS Report RL32760, The Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions, by Gene Falk.
c.
The FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117) provided no funding for Early Reading First.
Instead, Congress incorporated Early Reading First funding into an Expanded Striving Readers Program,
which is intended to serve children from preschool through high school. The FY2010 Consolidated
Appropriations Act funded Striving Readers at $250 million (an increase of about $215 million from
FY2009) and reserved about 15% (or $37.5 million) for children ages 0-5.
d.
These programs would be included under the Administration’s proposal for a new competitive grant
program titled “Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy.” Under this proposal, there is no separate funding
provided for Early Reading First or Even Start.
e.
Under the FY2010 President’s Budget, funding for the Early Learning Challenge Fund would have been
discretionary. The FY2011 President’s Budget proposes mandatory funding for this program.
f.
The FY2011 President’s Budget does not specify a funding level for this proposed program, but the Obama
Administration continues to support legislative action to create such a program.
FY2010 Funding Developments
FY2010 Appropriations
On December 16, 2009, President Obama signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, into
law as P.L. 111-117. The measure provided funding for six of the 12 regular appropriations acts
for FY2010, including appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education (L-HHS-ED). On December 8, 2009, a conference report (H.Rept. 111-366) was
filed on the bill, H.R. 3288. The House and Senate agreed to the conference report on December
10 and December 13, respectively. The FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (see Table 2)
maintained level funding for early childhood care and education programs compared to funding
in the FY2009 Omnibus, with two exceptions. It provided an increase of $122 million for Head
Start in order to maintain the number of children served, and it eliminated funding for the Early
Reading First program (-$113 million) to instead focus on expanding the Striving Readers
program to serve children from preschool through high school. The FY2010 Consolidated
Appropriations Act provided $250 million for the expanded Striving Readers program, an
increase of roughly $215 million compared to FY2009. Of the total appropriated, about 15% (or
$37.5 million) will be devoted to children from birth to age five. Finally, the FY2010
Consolidated Appropriations Act rejected the Obama Administration’s proposal to eliminate
funding for Even Start ($66 million).
Prior to the passage of H.R. 3288, both the House and Senate had initiated the L-HHS-ED
appropriations process for FY2010. Although the full Senate did not pass a bill to provide LHHS-ED appropriations for FY2010, the Senate Appropriations Committee did report such a bill
(S.Rept. 111-66, H.R. 3293) on August 4, 2009 (see Table 2). The Senate Appropriations
Congressional Research Service
3
.
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
Committee-passed bill sought to maintain level funding for most early childhood care and
education programs compared to the funding they received under the FY2009 Omnibus
Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8). However, compared to FY2009 Omnibus funding levels, the bill
sought a modest increase for Head Start (+$122 million) and proposed to eliminate funding for
Even Start (-$66 million). Both the increase to Head Start and the elimination of Even Start
aligned with the Obama Administration’s FY2010 budget request. The Senate Appropriations
Committee-passed bill also sought to eliminate a separate authorization for the Early Reading
First program; instead, it added early reading programs to an expanded Striving Readers Program,
which would serve children from preschool through high school. This provision was included in
the conference bill, though at a different level of funding. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended funding of $262.9 million for the program in FY2010, an increase of $227.5
million over FY2009 Omnibus funding levels, while the conference bill ultimately funded the
Striving Readers program at $250 million.
On July 24, 2009, the House passed its FY2010 L-HHS-ED appropriations bill, H.R. 3293 (see
Table 2). The House-passed bill sought to maintain level funding for most early childhood care
and education programs compared to the funding they received under the FY2009 Omnibus
Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8), but sought to provide modest increases to three programs
compared to their FY2009 Omnibus funding levels: Head Start (+$122 million), Early Reading
First (+$15 million), and Child Care Access Means Parents in School (+$1 million). In contrast to
the Administration and Senate Appropriations Committee’s proposal to eliminate the Even Start
Program, the House-passed bill sought to continue the program with level funding ($66 million)
for FY2010. Prior to consideration by the full House, this bill was reported by the House
Committee on Appropriations on July 22, 2009 (H.Rept. 111-220).
FY2010 Budget Resolution
On April 2, 2009, the House and Senate each passed versions of a concurrent resolution on the
FY2010 budget (H.Con.Res. 85 and S.Con.Res. 13). After resolving the differences between their
respective versions, the House and Senate agreed on a conference report to accompany the
FY2010 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 13, H.Rept. 111-89) on April 29. The conference
agreement on the budget resolution did not specify funding levels for early childhood care and
education programs. However, it did include deficit neutral reserve funds for home visiting
programs in both the House and the Senate, and a deficit neutral reserve fund for the
enhancement of the dependent care tax credit in the Senate only.4
Obama Administration FY2010 Budget
Prior to Congress’ work on the FY2010 budget resolution, the Obama Administration released an
outline of its FY2010 budget on February 26, 2009.5 More detailed budget proposals were later
released by the Obama Administration on May 7 and 12. As displayed in Table 2, the FY2010
President’s Budget called for most of the existing early childhood programs to maintain the same
level of funding that they received in FY2009; only three of the existing discretionary programs
4
For more information on how deficit neutral reserve funds operate, see CRS Report RL33122, Congressional Budget
Resolutions: Revisions and Adjustments, by Robert Keith.
5
For more information about the FY2010 budget cycle, see CRS Report R40558, Major FY2010 Budget Proposals, by
D. Andrew Austin.
Congressional Research Service
4
.
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
were expected to receive an increase or decrease in funding levels under the President’s FY2010
request. Specifically, the budget proposed to eliminate funding for Even Start (-$66 million) and
to increase funding for Head Start (+$122 million) and Early Reading First (+$50 million).
In addition, the FY2010 President’s Budget called for the creation of several new programs to
support the Obama Administration’s “Zero to Five” agenda for early childhood care and
education. These newly proposed programs included:
•
Home Visitation: Capped mandatory funds would provide matching formula
grants to states, territories, and tribes to support the establishment and expansion
of evidence-based home visitation services for low-income mothers and pregnant
women. The initiative would give priority to models that have been rigorously
evaluated and shown to have positive effects on critical outcomes for families
and children. The program would also include a set-aside of not less than 5% for
training and technical assistance, research and evaluation, monitoring, and
administrative support. Both the House and Senate have passed legislation that
would fund home visitation programs for families with young children. For a
more detailed discussion, see CRS Report R40705, Home Visitation for Families
with Young Children, by Emilie Stoltzfus and Karen E. Lynch.
•
Title I Early Childhood Grants: Discretionary funds would be awarded by
formula to states, who would use funds to provide matching grants to Title I
Local Education Agencies (LEAs) that agree to invest American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5) funds in early childhood education. This program
would provide one year of funding to support the planning and implementation of
early childhood education initiatives. The Administration proposed to continue
funding these initiatives in subsequent years through the Early Learning
Challenge Fund. No legislation has been introduced in the 111th Congress to
enact this proposal.
•
Early Learning Challenge Fund: Discretionary funds would provide
competitive grants to states for development of state plans and statewide
infrastructure of integrated early learning supports and services for children from
birth through age five in order to raise the quality of publicly funded early
learning programs and improve school readiness among children. The House has
passed legislation in H.R. 3221, The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act,
that would enact this proposal; the Senate has not yet acted.
In addition, the Obama Administration’s FY2010 Budget called for discretionary funds to support
a new Promise Neighborhoods initiative to support competitive grants to community-based
organizations in developing comprehensive neighborhood programs to combat the effects of
poverty and improve educational and life outcomes for children and youth, from birth through
college and to career. 6 Although this initiative was not designed to focus solely on the early
childhood issues, it is likely that programs funded through this initiative would support at least
some activities related to early childhood care and education.
6
This initiative was funded at $10 million through the FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117). The
FY2011 President’s Budget calls for an increase of $200 million (for a total funding level of $210 million) in FY2011.
Given the vast scope of Promise Neighborhoods, this report does not discuss them in great detail. For more
information, see pp. G-15 to G-18 of the U.S. Department of Education’s FY2011 Justification of Appropriation
Estimates to the Congress, http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget11/justifications/g-sss.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5
.
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
Table 2 displays the status of FY2010 appropriations, including the FY2010 budget request from
the Obama Administration, the funding levels included in the House-passed and Senate
Appropriations Committee-Passed appropriations bills for FY2010, and the final appropriation
levels provided in the FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117).
Table 2. FY2010 Appropriations for Early Childhood Care and Education Programs:
Funding Levels in President Obama’s Budget Request, as well as the House-Passed
and Senate Appropriations Committee-Passed L-HHS-ED Appropriations Bills, and
the FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117)
($ in millions)
FY2010
President’s
Request
H.R. 3293
HousePassed
Bill
H.R. 3293
Senate
Appropriations
CommitteePassed Bill
Child Care and Development Block Grant—
discretionary portion (HHS)
2,127
2,127
2,127
2,127
Social Services Block Grant (HHS)
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
Head Start (HHS)
7,235
7,235
7,235
7,235
163
128
0
0
0
66
0
66
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA)—Infants and Families (ED)
439
439
439
439
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA)—Preschool Grants (ED)
374
374
374
374
16
17
16
16
Home Visitation—mandatory funding (HHS)
124
0
0
0
Title I Early Childhood Grants (ED)
500
0
0
0
Early Learning Challenge Fund (ED)
300
0
0
0
Program/Provision
(Federal Admin. Agency)
FY2010
Consolidated
Appropriations
Act
(P.L. 111-117)
Existing Programs
Early Reading First (ED)
Even Start (ED)
Child Care Access Means Parents in School
(ED)
Newly Proposed Programs for FY2010
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Notes: This table only includes programs that are subject to the annual appropriations process (or programs
newly proposed in the FY2010 President’s Budget). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I,
Part A (ED) is not included here because it primarily serves school-age disadvantaged children, and because
reliable data on expenditures for preschoolers are not available. However, the U.S. Department of Education has
estimated that approximately 2% of Title I, Part A funds are used to support preschool services. These preschool
services are not separately funded under Title I, Part A, but rather are spent for this purpose at the discretion of
local educational agencies (LEAs). Preschool spending data are not collected. The Obama Administration’s
FY2010 Budget requested a total of $12.992 billion for ESEA, Title I, Part A funding in FY2010. The Housepassed appropriations bill, H.R. 3293, would fund ESEA, Title I, Part A at $14.5 billion. The Senate
Appropriations Committee-passed bill, H.R. 3293, would fund ESEA, Title I, Part A at $13.792 billion. Ultimately,
P.L. 111-117, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, provided $25 billion in funding for the ESEA, of which
$14.49 billion is for Title I, Part A.
Congressional Research Service
6
.
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
Overview of Federal Early Childhood Care and
Education Programs and Related Tax Provisions
Table 3 provides historical funding levels for current early childhood care and education
programs (and related tax provisions) from FY2005 through FY2010. Brief descriptions of the
programs and provisions highlight the breadth of variation in purpose, target population, and
funding for these many early childhood initiatives.
Table 3. Funding for Federal Early Childhood Care, Education, and Related
Programs, FY2005-FY2010
(nominal dollars in millions)
Program/Provision
(Federal Admin.
Agency)
FY2005
FY2006
CCDBG—
discretionary portion
(HHS)
2,083a
2,062b
CCDBG—
mandatory portion
(HHS)
2,717e
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
2,062
2,062c
2,127d
2,127
2,917f
2,917f
2,917f
2,917f
2,917f
g
g
g
g
g
Programs
TANF (HHS)
eg
Child and Adult Care
Food (USDA)
2,134h
2,141h
2,172h
2,245h
2,452i
2,616i
Social Services Block
Grant (HHS)
1,700j
1,700jk
1,700j
1,700jl
1,700j
1,700
Head Start (HHS)
6,843am
6,786bn
6,888o
6,878cp
7,113q
7,235
Early Reading First
(ED)
104a
103b
118r
113c
113
0
Even Start (ED)
225a
99b
82s
66c
66
66
IDEA Infants and
Families (ED)
441a
436b
436s
436c
439t
439
IDEA Preschool
Grants (ED)
385a
381b
381s
374c
374u
374
16a
16b
16s
16c
16
16
3,462v
3,487v
3,020w
4,330x
3,750x
600v
1,170z
940w
770x
1,210x
Child Care Access
Means Parents in
School (ED)
Tax Provisions
Dependent Care Tax
Credit (Treasury)
Dependent Care
Assistance Program
(Treasury)
3,338v
y
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Congressional Research Service
7
.
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
Notes: This table displays currently funded federal programs and tax provisions only. Programs that were
funded in recent years but no longer receive funding are not shown. Two such programs include the U.S.
Department of Education’s Early Childhood Educator Professional Development Program (funded at roughly $15
million from FY2004 to FY2007, but not funded since) and the Early Learning Fund from the Early Learning
Opportunities Act, administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (funded at $34 million in
FY2004, $36 million in FY2005, and not funded since). Also of note, the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) Title I, Part A (ED) is not included here because it primarily serves school-age disadvantaged children,
and because reliable data on expenditures for preschoolers are not available. However, the U.S. Department of
Education has estimated that approximately 2% of Title I, Part A funds are used to support preschool services.
These preschool services are not separately funded under Title I, Part A, but rather are spent for this purpose at
the discretion of local educational agencies (LEAs). Preschool spending data are not collected. Total ESEA Title I,
Part A funding is $14.49 billion in FY2010. It was $14.49 billion in FY2009, $14.03 billion in FY2008, $12.84
billion in FY2007, $12.74 billion in FY2006, and $12.74 billion in FY2005.
a.
The omnibus appropriations law (P.L. 108-447) included an across-the-board rescission of 0.8% for the
discretionary programs included in Table 3. The numbers in the table reflect the offset. (For the smaller
programs, the use of rounding in the table masks the decrease in the actual appropriation.)
b.
This amount reflects the 1% across-the-board rescission that applies to discretionary programs included in
this appropriations act (P.L. 109-149).
c.
This amount reflects the 1.747% across-the-board rescission that applies under P.L. 110-161.
d.
In addition to the $2.127 billion appropriated in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8), the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5) provided an additional $2.0 billion in discretionary
funding for the CCDBG. Further, states transferred over $1.7 billion of their FY2008 TANF allotments to
the CCDBG, representing about 10% of the total FY2008 TANF allotment.
e.
Funding for TANF and the mandatory portion of CCDBG funding for FY2004 and FY2005 was provided (at
the FY2002 rates) through a series of temporary extensions.
f.
P.L. 109-171 provides $2.917 billion for mandatory child care funding in each of FY2006-FY2010.
g.
TANF funds ($16.5 billion annually) may be used for child care, but are not specifically appropriated as such.
HHS reports that states spent $1.6 billion in federal TANF funds for child care within the TANF program in
FY2008 (the most recent data available).
h.
Obligations (actual for 2002-2008), Department of Agriculture.
i.
Numbers represent estimated obligations as reported in the Obama Administration’s FY2011 Budget and
may be subject to change.
j.
Total SSBG appropriation amount shown (excluding supplementals), though not all SSBG funds go toward
early childhood care and education activities. In FY2007 (the most recent expenditure data available), $389
million in SSBG expenditures went toward child care services. In FY2006, the comparable figure was $220
million; in FY2005, it was $241 million; and in FY2004, it was $254 million.
k.
In addition to the $1.7 billion appropriated in the Labor, HHS, Education law (P.L. 109-149), the Defense
Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148) provided $550 million in supplemental SSBG funds, specifically targeted
for needs arising from the Gulf Coast Hurricanes of 2005.
l.
In addition to the $1.7 billion appropriated in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161),
the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009 (P.L. 110-329)
provided $600 million in supplemental SSBG funds, specifically targeted toward needs arising from major
disasters of 2008 as well as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
m. In FY2004, $1.4 billion was advance appropriated for the following year. In FY2005, $1.386 billion of the
$6.843 billion was advance appropriated for FY2006.
n.
Of the $6.786 billion (post-rescission), $1.389 billion became available in FY2007. In addition to the amount
shown in the table, the Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148) provided $90 million in additional
funding for Head Start, to be used specifically for grantees serving children displaced by Gulf Coast
hurricanes of 2005, and to help with costs of renovating Head Start facilities affected by the storms.
o.
Of the $6.888 billion, $1.365 billion became available in FY2008.
p.
Of the $6.878, $1.389 billion became available in FY2009.
Congressional Research Service
8
.
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
q.
In addition to the $7.113 billion appropriated in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8), the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5) provided an additional $2.1 billion for Head Start (of
which $1.1 billion was explicitly directed toward Early Head Start expansion). Notably, the FY2009
Omnibus (P.L. 111-8) did not continue the previous practice of providing advance appropriations for the
next fiscal year in the Head Start appropriation. As a result, the full $7.113 billion included in the Omnibus
must be obligated in FY2009. In addition to funds from the Omnibus, FY2009 funding for Head Start also
includes $1.389 billion in funds that were advance appropriated to this account by the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
r.
Figures taken from the Department of Education table showing “FY2007 CR Operating levels.” The fourth
and final continuing resolution (CR) making appropriations for FY2007 was enacted February 15, 2007 (P.L.
110-5).
s.
Figure taken from the Department of Education FY2008 Budget Justification.
t.
In addition to the $439 million appropriated in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8), the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5) provided an additional $500 million for IDEA
programs for infants and toddlers.
u.
In addition to the $374 million appropriated in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8), the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5) provided an additional $400 million for IDEA
preschool grants.
v.
Prior tax year actual expenditures reported in (Internal Revenue Service) IRS publication 1304 Table 3.3—in
other words, $3.338 billion in tax credit claimed in tax year 2004.
w.
Amounts reflect estimates for tax year 2007 (FY2008), taken from the FY2010 President’s Budget.
x.
Amounts reflect estimates for tax years 2008 (FY2009) and 2009 (FY2010), taken from the FY2011
President’s Budget, and may be subject to change.
y.
Actual tax expenditures associated with DCAP are not reported/collected on/from tax returns.
z.
Amount reflects estimate for the prior tax year, taken from the FY2009 President’s Budget.
Current Programs
Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG)
The primary federal grant program funding child care is the CCDBG, which was created in 1990
and reauthorized (through FY2002) and substantially expanded in 1996, as part of welfare
reform.7 The CCDBG is overdue for reauthorization, and may be considered for reauthorization
by the 111th Congress. (Although the 109th Congress completed legislation to provide the
mandatory funding portion for the CCDBG through FY2010, the CCDBG Act itself, which
outlines the rules of the program, and includes the authorization level for discretionary funding,
awaits reauthorization. In the meantime, discretionary funding has been provided via the
appropriations process.)
The CCDBG is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and
provides formula block grants to states, which use the grants to subsidize the child care expenses
of families with children under age 13, if the parents are working or in school, and family income
is less than 85% of the state median. (In practice, most states establish income eligibility levels
that are lower than this federal threshold.) Child care services are provided on a sliding fee scale
7
For more information, see CRS Report RL30785, The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and
Funding, by Karen E. Lynch.
Congressional Research Service
9
.
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
basis, and parents may choose to receive assistance through vouchers or certificates, which can be
used with a provider of the parents’ choice, including religious providers and relatives.
States receiving CCDBG funds must establish child care licensing standards, although federal law
does not dictate what these standards should be or what types of providers must be covered. In
addition, states must have health and safety requirements applicable to all providers receiving
CCDBG subsidies that address prevention and control of infectious diseases, building physical
premises safety, and health and safety training for care givers. However, federal law does not
dictate the specific contents of these requirements.
The CCDBG is funded through both discretionary and capped entitlement (mandatory) grants
(referred to in combination as the Child Care and Development Fund, or CCDF). State
maintenance-of-effort (MOE) and matching requirements apply to part of the entitlement funds.8
States must use at least 4% of their total funds to improve the quality and availability of child
care, and according to statute, must target 70% of entitlement funds on welfare recipients working
toward self-sufficiency or families at risk of welfare dependency. However, because all families
falling below the 85% of state median income requirement can be categorized as “at risk,” the
70% targeting of the welfare or at-risk population does not necessarily mean welfare families
must be served. In theory, all funds may be used for low-income, non-welfare, working families.
However, state plans indicate that many states guarantee child care to welfare families. No more
than 5% of state allotments may be used for state administrative costs.
The FY2009 Omnibus (P.L. 111-8) provided $2.127 billion in discretionary funding for the
CCDBG, representing an increase of about $65 million above the FY2008 funding level. The
ARRA (P.L. 111-5) provided an additional $2.0 billion in discretionary funds to the CCDBG in
FY2009.9 These funds were made available for obligation through the end of FY2010, though
HHS elected to allocate all funds to states during FY2009. The ARRA specified that a sum of
approximately $255 million be reserved, out of the total appropriated to CCDBG, for quality
activities; this sum augments the 4% that states are already required to use for such activities. Of
the $255 million, nearly $94 million is reserved for activities designed to improve the quality of
infant and toddler care. The Obama Administration’s FY2010 Budget proposed to maintain the
FY2009 Omnibus level of $2.127 billion in discretionary CCDBG funds for FY2010. Congress
provided the requested funding, $2.127 billion, in the FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act
(P.L. 111-117). The FY2011 President’s Budget calls for $2.927 billion in discretionary CCDBG
funding for FY2011, an increase of $800 million over the FY2010 funding level. The Budget also
proposes to reauthorize the CCDBG based on five principles: (1) serving more low-income
children in child care programs that promote child development and school readiness; (2)
supporting parent employment and expanding access to high-quality care across child care
settings; (3) promoting continuity of care; (4) strengthening program accountability; and (5)
improving coordination across federal early childhood care and education programs.
Mandatory (or “entitlement”) CCDBG funding is pre-appropriated, and does not occur through
the annual appropriations process. Beginning in FY2003 through FY2005, a series of funding
extensions maintained mandatory child care funding at the FY2002 rate of $2.717 billion
8
For more detailed information on the CCDF financing structure and early spending trends (through FY2000), see CRS
Report RL31274, Child Care: Funding and Spending under Federal Block Grants, by Melinda Gish.
9
For more information, see CRS Report R40211, Human Services Provisions of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, by Gene Falk et al.
Congressional Research Service
10
.
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
annually. Funding for a longer, five-year period (FY2006-FY2010) was included in the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005, a budget spending reconciliation bill (S. 1932), which was signed into law
(P.L. 109-171) on February 8, 2006. This law provided $2.917 billion annually for each of
FY2006-FY2010. The Obama Administration’s FY2011 Budget requests $3.717 billion in
mandatory child care funds for FY2011, an increase of $800 million over the FY2010 funding
level. When combining this mandatory increase with the proposed increase in discretionary
funding, the FY2011 President’s Budget calls for a total funding level of over $6.6 billion in
FY2011, an increase of $1.6 billion over the FY2010 funding level for these combined funding
streams. In addition, the FY2011 President’s Budget calls for annual indexing of all mandatory
child care funds for inflation, beginning in FY2012.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
TANF, created in the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), provides fixed block grants for
state-designed programs of time-limited and work-conditioned aid to needy families with
children. 10 The original legislation provided $16.5 billion annually through FY2002, and after a
series of twelve temporary extensions, Congress included several welfare provisions (and
mandatory child care funding) in its spending budget reconciliation bill (S. 1932), which was
signed into law (P.L. 109-171) on February 8, 2006. The law maintains the TANF block grant at
$16.5 billion for FY2006-FY2010. The Obama Administration’s FY2011 President’s Budget calls
for a one-year extension of basic TANF funding.11 Child care is one of many services for which
states may use TANF funding. In FY2008 (the most recent year for which data are available),
HHS reports that states spent about $1.6 billion in federal TANF funds for child care within the
TANF program, and $2.6 billion in state TANF and separate state program (SSP) MOE funds.12
In addition, states may transfer up to 30% of their TANF allotments to CCDF, to be spent
according to the rules of the child care program (as opposed to TANF rules). The transfer from
the FY2008 TANF allotment to the CCDF totaled over $1.7 billion, representing about 10% of
the FY2008 TANF allotment.
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)
The CACFP provides federal funds (in some case commodities) for meals and snacks served in
licensed child care centers, family and group day care homes, and Head Start centers. 13 Child
care providers that are exempt from state licensing requirements must comply with alternative
state or federal standards. Children under 12, migrant children under 15, and children with
disabilities of any age may participate, although most are preschoolers.14 Subsidies provided to
day care centers, including Head Start centers, vary according to the child’s family income.
Subsidies provided to family and group day care homes vary according to average income of the
community in which the home is located. The CACFP is an open-ended entitlement, administered
10
For more information, see CRS Report R40946, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: An
Introduction, by Gene Falk.
11
Ibid.
12
For more information on states’ use of TANF funds, see CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements, by Gene Falk.
13
For more information, see CRS Report RL33307, Child Nutrition and WIC Programs: Background and Recent
Funding, by Joe Richardson.
14
On average, less than 2% of total funding has gone toward adult food projects.
Congressional Research Service
11
.
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
by the Department of Agriculture. Actual obligations came to $2.452 billion in FY2009. The
Obama Administration’s FY2011 Budget estimates that CACFP obligations will reach $2.616
billion in FY2010 and $2.729 billion in FY2011.
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)
The SSBG is an annually appropriated entitlement to states. Permanently authorized by Title XX
of the Social Security Act, the SSBG is a flexible source of funding that states may use to support
a wide variety of social services activities. States have broad discretion over the use of these
funds. There are no federal income eligibility requirements, targeting provisions, service
mandates, or matching requirements. In FY2007, the most recent year for which expenditure data
are available, the largest expenditures for services under the SSBG were for foster care services,
child care, and special services for the disabled. Approximately 13.7% of total SSBG expenditures
($389 million) were for child care services in that year, an increase from those made for child
care in FY2006 ($220 million). Title XX is a capped entitlement, and state allocations are based
on relative population size.15 It should be noted that although the SSBG has an entitlement
ceiling, appropriations may not always abide by it. For example, the ceiling in FY2001 was $1.7
billion; however, Congress appropriated $1.725 billion for that year, despite the ceiling.
Base funding for the SSBG has been held steady at $1.7 billion for the past eight years (most
recently, under the FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 111-117), with states retaining
authority to transfer up to 10% of their TANF block grants to the SSBG.16 However, during these
years, Congress has twice provided supplemental funding to the SSBG to support states in
responding to significant natural disasters. For instance, Congress appropriated $600 million in
supplemental SSBG funding for necessary expenses resulting from major disasters of 2008 as
part of the disaster relief and recovery component of the Consolidated Security, Disaster
Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009 (P.L. 110-329). In FY2006, Congress
provided an additional $550 million to the SSBG as part of the Defense Appropriations Act (P.L.
109-148), targeting these supplemental funds toward needs arising from the Gulf Coast
Hurricanes of 2005. P.L. 110-28, signed into law on May 25, 2007, extended the availability of
these funds for expenditure through the end of FY2009, as a good portion remained unspent prior
to the end of FY2007, and without legislative action, would have been returned to the Treasury.17
The Obama Administration’s FY2011 Budget proposes to maintain funding for the SSBG at the
$1.7 billion level, which is the amount Congress appropriated in the FY2010 Consolidated
Appropriation Act (P.L. 111-117).
15
Grants to Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and Northern Marianas are based on their share of Title XX funds
in FY1981.
16
Funds transferred from TANF to SSBG can be used only for children and families whose income is less than 200%
of the federal poverty guidelines. Under welfare reform law, states also may use SSBG funds for vouchers for families
that are not eligible for cash assistance because of time limits under the welfare reform program, or for children who
are denied cash assistance because they were born into families already receiving benefits for another child.
17
For more information, see CRS Report 94-953, Social Services Block Grant (Title XX of the Social Security Act), by
Karen E. Lynch.
Congressional Research Service
12
.
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
Head Start
Head Start provides comprehensive early childhood education and development services to lowincome preschool children, on a part- or full-day basis.18 After unsuccessful attempts in the 109th
Congress to reauthorize the Head Start program (whose authorization had expired with FY2003),
legislation reauthorizing the program through FY2012 was passed by the 110th Congress in
November 2007. That bill, H.R. 1429/H.Rept. 110-439, was signed into law (P.L. 110-134) by
President Bush on December 12, 2007.19
While the program was awaiting reauthorization, funding continued to be provided through the
appropriations process. Under current law, Head Start funds are provided directly by HHS to local
grantees, who must comply with detailed federal performance standards. The available data show
funded enrollment for Head Start in FY2007 to have totaled 908,412 children (10% of whom
were under age 3, and participated in Early Head Start).
The FY2009 Omnibus (P.L. 111-8) provided Head Start with an increase of nearly $235 million
over FY2008, resulting in an FY2009 funding level of almost $7.113 billion, including $2 million
reserved for Centers of Excellence in Early Childhood. In addition, Head Start received $2.1
billion from the ARRA (P.L. 111-5) in FY2009.20 These funds were made available for obligation
through the end of FY2010. The ARRA specified that $1.0 billion be distributed through the
regular Head Start formula (which covers increases for cost-of-living adjustments, quality
activities, state advisory councils, and expansions for Head Start and Early Head Start programs).
The remaining $1.1 billion was explicitly directed toward the expansion of Early Head Start
programs. The FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117) provided $7.235 billion
for Head Start, an increase of $122 million over the FY2009 Omnibus funding level. For FY2011,
the Obama Administration’s Budget calls for an increase of $989 million for Head Start, which
would fund the program at $8.224 billion. The increase in funding is intended to ensure that Head
Start programs are able to sustain services to the approximately 64,000 children estimated to be
served by ARRA funds in FY2010. The FY2011 Budget also proposes language to override the
statutory allocation formula for Head Start in order to target funds toward specific activities.21
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I, Part A
ESEA Title I, Part A, is the largest federal education program serving disadvantaged children,
particularly school-age children. After Head Start, it is the largest program providing early
education and care to young children. The U.S. Department of Education estimates that
approximately 2% of children served by Title I each year are preschoolers. Preschool services are
not separately funded under Title I, Part A—such spending occurs if local educational agencies
(LEAs) choose to use some of their Title I funds for this purpose. The FY2009 Omnibus (P.L.
111-8) provided $14.49 billion for Title I, Part A, an increase of $46 million over the FY2008
funding level of $14.03 billion. The ARRA provided an additional $10 billion for ESEA Title I,
18
For more information, see CRS Report RL30952, Head Start: Background and Issues, by Karen E. Lynch.
For more information on the history of House and Senate provisions leading up to the conference-approved version,
see CRS Report RL33968, Head Start Reauthorization: A Side-by-Side Comparison of House- and Senate-Passed
Versions of H.R. 1429 and Current Law, by Melinda Gish.
20
For more information, see CRS Report R40211, Human Services Provisions of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, by Gene Falk et al.
21
For more information, see CRS Report RL30952, Head Start: Background and Issues, by Karen E. Lynch.
19
Congressional Research Service
13
.
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
Part A in FY2009. President Obama’s FY2010 Budget requested $13.0 billion for ESEA Title I,
Part A, a decrease of about $1.5 billion from the FY2009 Omnibus funding level. However, the
FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117) maintained the same level of funding
provided in the FY2009 Omnibus, $14.49 billion, for ESEA Title I, Part A. The FY2011
President’s Budget calls for ESEA Title I, Part A funding to remain level at $14.49 billion.
The William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Programs (Even Start)
Even Start programs are authorized by ESEA Title I, Part B, Subpart 3, and are intended to
integrate early childhood education, adult basic education, and parenting skills education into a
unified family literacy program. 22 These programs provide grants to states which then distribute
them to eligible entities (consisting of a local education agency (LEA) in collaboration with a
community based organization). Even Start services generally serve children aged 0-7 and their
parents. Even Start services must include adult literacy instruction, early childhood education,
instruction to help parents support their child’s education, participant recruitment, screening of
parents, staff training, and home-based instruction.
Even Start, first authorized in 1989, grew rapidly in its first years, but has been subject to
increasing criticism in recent years and has seen its funding decline in each year from FY2003
through FY2008, when the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161) provided $66
million for Even Start. Both the FY2009 Omnibus (P.L. 111-8) and the FY2010 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117) maintained the FY2008 funding level of $66 million for Even
Start, though President Obama’s FY2010 Budget requested no funding for the program. For
FY2011, the President’s Budget once again requests no funding for Even Start.
In advocating for the elimination of Even Start, the Obama Administration contends that this
program has not demonstrated effectiveness in improving child and adult learning outcomes
through the integration of the four core services of adult education, parenting education, parentchild activities, and early childhood education. The Administration argues that these conclusions
are supported by data from three national evaluations of Even Start.
Advocates of continuing Even Start programs argue that the goal of providing integrated family
literacy services to an extremely disadvantaged population is so important that these programs
should not be eliminated. Furthermore, they argue that a thorough study of the impact of
legislatively mandated quality improvements to Even Start is needed, as well as a concerted effort
to improve Even Start through implementation of model programs and technical assistance.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Programs
The majority of IDEA funding for special education and related services (approximately 90%)
goes to school-age children via grants to states. However, IDEA also authorizes two state grant
programs for young children: an early intervention program for infants and toddlers with
disabilities (IDEA, Part C) and a preschool program for children with disabilities (IDEA, Part
22
For more information, see CRS Report RL30448, Even Start Family Literacy Programs: An Overview, by Gail
McCallion, and CRS Report RL33071, Even Start: Funding Controversy, by Gail McCallion.
Congressional Research Service
14
.
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
619).23 The Infants and Toddlers Program serves disabled children from birth to two years of age,
and the Preschool Program generally serves children ages 3 to 5.
The Infants and Toddlers Program requires that states receiving grants create and maintain a
“statewide, comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary, interagency system that provides early
intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families.” Services focus
on children experiencing “developmental delay” with respect to physical, mental, or other
capacities, and their families. Services are detailed for each child and his or her family in an
Individualized Family Service Plan. Services are to be provided, to the maximum extent feasible,
in “natural environments,” including the home, with other infants and toddlers who are not
disabled.
States are eligible for Preschool Program grants under Section 619 of IDEA if they are eligible for
grants under IDEA, Part B, grants to states, and they make available free appropriate public
education to all disabled children 3 to 5 in the state. In recent years, all states qualified for and
received preschool grants under this section. Since Part B grants to states are used to serve
children with disabilities as young as three years of age (as well as school-age children), Section
619 is not so much a separate program as it is supplementary funding for services to this age
group. In general, the provisions, requirements, and guarantees under the grants to states program
that apply to school-age children with disabilities also apply to children in this age group. As a
result, Section 619 is a relatively brief section of the law, which deals mostly with the state and
substate funding formulas for the grants and state-level activities.
IDEA was reauthorized during the 108th Congress. IDEA, Part C, received $439 million in
funding for FY2009, an increase from FY2008 funding of $436 million. In addition, IDEA, Part
C, received $500 million in funding from the ARRA in FY2009. Meanwhile, IDEA, Section 619
was funded at a level of $374 million for FY2009, the same level it received in FY2008, and it
received $400 million in funding from the ARRA in that year. The FY2010 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117) maintained FY2009 Omnibus funding levels for both IDEA,
Part C ($439 million) and IDEA, Section 619 ($374 million). The FY2011 President’s Budget
proposes that funding for both programs be maintained at the same level in FY2011.
Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CAMPIS)
Authorized under the Higher Education Act amendments of 1998, and first funded in FY1999 at
$5 million, the CAMPIS program is designed to support the participation of low-income parents
in post-secondary education through campus-based child care services. Discretionary grants of up
to four years in duration are awarded competitively to institutions of higher education, to either
supplement existing child care services, or to start a new program. Funding for FY2009 was $16
million, compared to $15.5 million in FY2008. The FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act
(P.L. 111-117) provided level funding of $16 million for the CAMPIS program in FY2010, and
the FY2011 President’s Budget proposes keeping funding level again in FY2011.
23
For more information, see CRS Report RL31273, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Early
Childhood Programs (Section 619 and Part C), by Richard N. Apling.
Congressional Research Service
15
.
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
Tax Provisions
Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC)
The DCTC is a non-refundable tax credit for employment-related expenses incurred for the care
of a dependent child under 13 or a disabled dependent or spouse, under Section 21 of the tax
code. 24 Beginning in tax year 2003, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2001 (P.L. 107-16) increased the maximum credit rate to 35% of expenses up to $3,000 for one
child (for a credit of $1,050), and up to $6,000 for two or more children (for a credit of $2,100).
The 35% rate applies to taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of $15,000 or less. The rate
decreases by 1% for each additional $2,000 increment (or portion thereof) in income until the rate
reaches 20% for taxpayers with incomes over $43,000.25 Under the FY2011 Budget released by
the Obama Administration in February 2010, DCTC expenditures were estimated to be $4.330
billion for tax year 2008 (FY2009), $3.750 billion for tax year 2009 (FY2010), and $2.200 billion
for tax year 2010 (FY2011).26 Included in the FY2011 Budget is a proposal to increase the DCTC
for all families earning up to $113,000 a year, and to nearly double it for families making under
$85,000.27 The Budget proposes to make this provision effective for taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2010, which means that the results of increasing the credit would likely not be seen
until FY2012.
Dependent Care Assistance Program (DCAP)
Under Section 129 of the tax code, payments made by a taxpayer’s employer for dependent care
assistance may be excluded from the employee’s income and, therefore, not be subject to federal
income tax or employment taxes. 28 The maximum exclusion is $5,000. Section 125 of the tax
code allows employers to include dependent care assistance, along with other fringe benefits, in
nontaxable flexible benefit or “cafeteria” plans. Under the FY2011 Budget released by the Obama
Administration in February 2010, DCAP expenditures were estimated to be $770 million for tax
year 2008 (FY2009), $1.210 billion for tax year 2009 (FY2010), and $1.370 billion for tax year
2010 (FY2011).29
24
For more information, see CRS Report RS21466, Dependent Care: Current Tax Benefits and Legislative Issues, by
Janemarie Mulvey and Christine Scott.
25
These provisions are currently schedule to expire on December 31, 2010.
26
Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011,
February 2010, p. 211, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/spec.pdf.
27
U.S. Department of the Treasury, General Explanations of the Administration’s FY2011 Revenue Proposals, p. 15,
http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/greenbk10.pdf. Specifically, the FY2011 President’s Budget proposes to
permanently increase, from $15,000 to $85,000, the income level at which the credit begins to phase out. The rate
would then decrease by 1% for every $2,000 increment (or part thereof) in income until reaching 20% for taxpayers
with incomes above $113,000.
28
For more information, see CRS Report RS21466, Dependent Care: Current Tax Benefits and Legislative Issues, by
Janemarie Mulvey and Christine Scott.
29
Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011,
February 2010, p. 211, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/spec.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
16
.
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
Programs Funded in Recent Years, But Not Currently Funded
Early Reading First
The Early Reading First program, authorized by ESEA Title I, Part B, Subpart 2, supported local
efforts to enhance the school readiness of young children—particularly those from low-income
families—through scientific research-based strategies and professional development that are
designed to enhance the verbal skills, phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and pre-reading
skills of preschool age children.30 The program provided competitive grants to eligible local
educational agencies (LEAs) and to public or private organizations or agencies located in eligible
LEAs, with the Department of Education authorized award grants for up to six years. The
FY2009 Omnibus (P.L. 111-8) maintained the FY2008 funding level of $113 million for the Early
Reading First program. President Obama’s FY2010 Budget requested $163 million for the
program, an increase of $50 million over FY2009 funding. However, the FY2010 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117) provided no funding for Early Reading First. Instead, Congress
incorporated Early Reading First funding into an Expanded Striving Readers Program, which will
serve children from preschool through high school. The FY2010 Consolidated Appropriation
increases funding for Striving Readers to $250 million (an increase of about $215 million from
FY2009) and reserves about 15% (or $37.5 million) for children ages 0-5. The FY2011
President’s Budget does not request funding for Early Reading First.
Early Childhood Educator Professional Development
The Department of Education has provided competitive grants to partnerships to improve the
knowledge and skills of early childhood educators who work in communities that have high
concentrations of children living in poverty. Funding in FY2006 and FY2007 remained stable at
approximately $14.5 million, but FY2007 was the last year in which funds were appropriated.
President Obama’s FY2010 Budget did not request any funds for this program for FY2010, nor
were any funds appropriated in the FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117).
President Obama’s FY2011 Budget does not request funds for this program for FY2011.
Early Learning Fund/Early Learning Opportunities Act Program
This HHS program (referred to by both names), authorized by the FY2001 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-554), was last funded in FY2005 at $36 million. The FY2006
Appropriations Act included no funding for this program, nor has there been funding provided
through any of the continuing resolutions for FY2007-FY2009. When funded, the program
provides grants to communities to enhance school readiness for children under five, specifically
by funding efforts to improve the cognitive, physical, social, and emotional development of these
children. Although authorized at $600 million, FY2003 funding for the program was set at $25
million; FY2004 funding was set at $34 million (despite President Bush’s FY2003 budget
proposal to eliminate the program); and in FY2005, P.L. 108-199 included $36 million for the
Early Learning Fund. FY2005 was the last year in which this program received funding. President
Obama’s FY2010 Budget requested no funding for this program for FY2010 and no funds were
30
For more information, see CRS Report RL31241, Reading First and Early Reading First: Background and Funding,
by Gail McCallion.
Congressional Research Service
17
.
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
provided in the FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117). President Obama’s
FY2011 Budget does not request funds for this program for FY2011.
Author Contact Information
Karen E. Lynch
Analyst in Social Policy
klynch@crs.loc.gov, 7-6899
Congressional Research Service
Gail McCallion
Specialist in Social Policy
gmccallion@crs.loc.gov, 7-7758
18 I, Part A. The IDEA programs include the Infants and Families
program, but not the Preschool Grants program. In addition, mandatory child care and the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant are also due for reauthorization.
FY2013 Funding
Proposed Supplemental Appropriations
On December 7, 2012, the Obama Administration submitted a request to Congress for disaster
relief funding to support states affected by Hurricane Sandy. As part of this request, the
Administration called for Congress to provide supplemental appropriations for two funding
streams related to early childhood care and education: the Social Services Block Grant ($500
million) and Head Start ($100 million).1 On December 28, 2012, the Senate approved both of
these requests as part of a larger disaster supplemental package (introduced as an amendment to
H.R. 1).2 However, the House took no action on this bill, as amended by the Senate, prior to the
end of the 112th Congress.3 A press release on the draft Senate bill indicated that the Social
Services Block Grant (SSBG) funds were expected to be used primarily for child care costs
(including construction and renovation of child care centers), as well as health and mental health
services for affected children and families, while the Head Start funds were expected to support
approximately 265 Head Start centers damaged by the hurricane.4
1
Office of Management and Budget, Hurricane Sandy Funding Needs, Washington, DC, December 7, 2012, pp. 15-16,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/supplemental__december_7_2012_hurricane_sandy_funding_needs.pdf.
pdf.
2
H.R. 1 as amended by the Senate, pp. 76-79.
3
For more information on proposed FY2013 supplemental funding for disaster relief, see CRS Report R42869, FY2013
Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief: Summary and Considerations for Congress, coordinated by William L.
Painter and Jared T. Brown.
4
Senate Appropriations Committee, “Summary: Fiscal Year 2013 Disaster Assistance Supplemental,” press release,
December 12, 2012, p. 7, http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm.
Congressional Research Service
1
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
Continuing Resolution
Congress did not enact full-year appropriations prior to the beginning of FY2013. However,
FY2013 funding for annually appropriated programs (including early childhood care and
education programs) has been provided—through March 27, 2013—by a government-wide
continuing resolution (CR). The CR (H.J.Res. 117) was signed into law (P.L. 112-175) on
September 28, 2012, and generally maintains funding for discretionary programs at their FY2012
rates, plus 0.612%. The CR also maintains mandatory funding for annually appropriated
entitlements (e.g., the Child and Adult Care Food Program) at their current law levels. In addition,
the CR included a special provision extending TANF and mandatory child care funding at
FY2012 levels through March 2013 (these programs are typically funded outside of the annual
appropriations process).
Preliminary Congressional Action on Full-Year Appropriations
Before enacting the FY2013 CR, both the House and Senate had initiated actions on FY2013
appropriations bills for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education,
and Related Agencies (L-HHS-ED). The L-HHS-ED appropriations bill provides annual funding
for many of the early childhood care and education programs discussed in this report.
The Senate Appropriations L-HHS-ED Subcommittee approved a draft FY2013 bill for full
committee consideration on June 12, 2012. Two days later, the Senate Appropriations Committee
reported its FY2013 L-HHS-ED bill (S. 3295, S.Rept. 112-176), on June 14, 2012. The bill called
for increases, compared to FY2012 for several early childhood programs, including discretionary
funding for the CCDBG (+7%), Head Start (+1%), IDEA Grants for Infants and Families (+5%),
and Promise Neighborhoods (+34%). For more details, see Table 1.
The House Appropriations L-HHS-ED Subcommittee approved a draft FY2013 L-HHS-ED bill
on July 18, 2012. However, the bill was not marked up by the full committee and a detailed table
on programs that would be funded by the bill has not been made publicly available. Because no
formal bill was reported and funding levels for all programs are not publicly available, this report
does not include program-level detail on the House L-HHS-ED Subcommittee action.
Possible FY2013 Sequestration
Readers should note that FY2013 appropriations may be affected by automatic budget reduction
procedures (known as “sequestration”) authorized by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L.
112-25) and the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-177), as
amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240). The BCA, which was
signed into law on August 2, 2011, established a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction,
charged with the task of achieving at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over FY2012FY2021.5 The Joint Committee did not achieve this goal, triggering an automatic budget
reduction process, or sequestration, which the BCA scheduled to begin on January 2, 2013.
5
For a comprehensive discussion of the BCA, see CRS Report R41965, The Budget Control Act of 2011, by Bill Heniff
Jr., Elizabeth Rybicki, and Shannon M. Mahan.
Congressional Research Service
2
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
However, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which was signed into law on January 2,
2013, postponed the required sequestration until March 1, 2013. At that time, under current law,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is scheduled to cancel (i.e., sequester) a certain
amount of budgetary resources available for FY2013 by reducing non-exempt programs, projects,
and activities by a uniform percentage. OMB will determine what this percentage must be, based
on funding in place at that time, as well as the terms specified by the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended by the BCA and the American Taxpayer
Relief Act of 2012.
To address some of the uncertainty surrounding sequestration, Congress passed the Sequestration
Transparency Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-155), which was signed into law on August 7, 2012. This law
required the President, with the assistance of OMB and federal agencies, in consultation with the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees, to submit a report containing an estimate of the
uniform percentage reduction and dollar amount reductions for each account, and each program,
project, and activity within those accounts, required under the impending sequestration (which, at
that time, was scheduled to occur on January 2, 2013).
OMB released the sequester preview report on September 14, 2012.6 Using certain assumptions
required by the Sequestration Transparency Act, OMB estimated that the sequestration would
result in an 8.2% reduction in “non-exempt nondefense discretionary” funding and a 7.6%
reduction to most “non-exempt nondefense mandatory” programs.7 The report also identified
certain accounts that would be exempt from sequestration (e.g., mandatory child care, most TANF
funds) or subject to special rules. However, the majority of early childhood care and education
programs include at least some non-exempt funding which would be sequestered under current
law. Notably, the estimates and classifications presented in OMB’s report are preliminary and are
based, in part, on assumptions specified by the Sequestration Transparency Act.8 As OMB notes
in the sequester preview report, these estimates are expected to differ at the time of an actual
sequester, based on “changes in law and ongoing legal, budgetary, and technical analysis.” Thus,
the percent and dollar reductions estimated in the preview report should be considered illustrative
only; they will be revised in the event of an actual sequester based on OMB’s interpretation of
current law and the funding levels in place at that time.
FY2013 President’s Budget
The Obama Administration released its FY2013 request on February 13, 2012. As Table 1 shows,
the FY2013 President’s Budget called for increases over FY2012 funding levels for several
existing programs, including the CCDBG (+16% of combined mandatory and discretionary
funds), Head Start (+1%), IDEA Grants for Infants and Families (+5%), and Promise
Neighborhoods (+67%). The Administration’s budget also requested an increase for ED’s Race to
6
OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-155), September 14, 2012,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/stareport.pdf.
7
Ibid, p. 1.
8
For instance, the Sequestration Transparency Act stipulated that, in the absence of enacted regular appropriations
bills, the estimates in the sequester preview report should be based on the assumption that discretionary appropriations
for FY2013 would be funded at the same rate of operations as FY2012. However, the FY2013 CR (P.L. 112-175)
included an across-the-board increase of 0.612% for most discretionary programs, along with other anomalies. Thus,
the percent and dollar reductions estimated in the OMB report will need to be revised should the higher CR funding
level be in place at the time of a sequester.
Congressional Research Service
3
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
the Top (RTT) program (+55%), though it did not specify how much of the RTT funding would
be dedicated toward early learning.9 The FY2013 budget also called for an expansion of the
Dependent Care Tax Credit, though the full effects of this would not be seen until FY2014.
Table 1. Status of FY2013 Appropriations for Selected Early Childhood Care and
Education Programs, Compared to the Obama Administration’s FY2013 Budget
Request and FY2012 Enacted Funding Levels
(dollars in millions)
FY2012
Enacteda
FY2013
Request
FY2013 Senate
Appropriations
Committee Bill
(S. 3295 in the
112th Congress)
CCDBG—discretionary portion (HHS)
2,278
2,927
2,438
CCDBG—mandatory portion (HHS)
2,917
3,417
Social Services Block Grant (HHS)c
1,700
1,700
1,700
Head Start (HHS)
7,969
8,054
8,039
IDEA Infants and Families (ED)
443
463
463
IDEA Preschool Grants (ED)
373
373
373
Child Care Access Means Parents in School (ED)
16
16
16
Promise Neighborhoods (ED)
60
100
80
549
850
549
Program
(Federal Admin. Agency)
Race to the Top
(ED)d
b
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Notes: This table does not include estimates for related early childhood tax provisions, nor does it include
funding levels for pre-appropriated mandatory programs (e.g., Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, home
visitation), with the exception of mandatory child care, which is shown here to display the Administration’s
proposed increase for FY2013. Note that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I, Part A
(ED) is not included here because it primarily serves school-age disadvantaged children, and because reliable data
on expenditures for preschoolers are not available. However, the U.S. Department of Education has estimated
that approximately 2% of Title I, Part A funds are used to support preschool services. These preschool services
are not separately funded under Title I, Part A, but rather are spent for this purpose at the discretion of local
educational agencies (LEAs). Preschool spending data are not collected. The Obama Administration’s FY2013
budget requested a total of $14.52 billion for ESEA, Title I, Part A funding for FY2013, the same amount that was
provided in FY2012. The FY2013 Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill (S. 3295 in the 112th Congress)
called for $14.62 billion for ESEA, Title I, Part A.
a.
Discretionary funds in this column reflect the 0.189% across-the-board rescission required by P.L. 112-74.
b.
Mandatory child care funding is not typically provided in the annual appropriations process, but rather
through direct appropriations in authorizing laws. No mandatory child care funding was included in S. 3295.
c.
The funding shown here does not include the $85 million in mandatory funding for Health Profession
Opportunity Grants that was pre-appropriated for each of FY2010 to FY2014 in the Patient Protection and
9
ED first reserved a portion of its RTT funding for early learning challenge grants to states in FY2011, when the
annual appropriations law (P.L. 112-10) gave ED the authority to do so (see §1832). The report language (H.Rept. 112331) accompanying the FY2012 appropriations law (P.L. 112-74) indicated an expectation that the RTT will continue
to include a “robust” early childhood component and the FY2013 President’s budget indicates an intention to continue
to support early learning activities with the RTT.
Congressional Research Service
4
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
Affordable Care Act (ACA, P.L. 111-148). These grants are authorized within Title XX-A of the Social
Security Act (see Section 2008), which also authorizes the SSBG (see Section 2001).
d.
The report language (H.Rept. 112-331) accompanying the FY2012 appropriations law (P.L. 112-74)
expressed an expectation that the FY2012 RTT competition would include a “robust” early childhood
component, but did not reserve a dollar amount for these activities. Ultimately, ED reserved $133 million
for RTT-Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) grants in FY2012. Similarly, the FY2013 President’s budget and
the report on the Senate Appropriations Committee-approved bill called for some portion of the requested
FY2013 RTT funding (dollar amounts not specified) to be used to support the RTT-ELC.
FY2012 Funding
FY2012 Appropriations
On December 23, 2011, President Obama signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2012 (H.R. 2055, H.Rept. 112-331, P.L. 112-74). Division F of this law provided FY2012 funding
for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (L-HHS-ED) and
included an across-the-board rescission of 0.189% for most discretionary L-HHS-ED programs.10
As Table 2 shows, compared to FY2011, the FY2012 appropriations law provided increases in
funding for the discretionary CCDBG (+3%), Head Start (+5%), and IDEA Grants for Infants and
Families (+1%). The law provided a reduced level of funding for ED’s Race to the Top program
(-21%), but the report language (H.Rept. 112-331) accompanying the law expressed an
expectation that the FY2012 RTT program would include a “robust” early childhood component.
Prior to the enactment of the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74), temporary
funding for these early childhood care and education programs had been provided by three shortterm continuing resolutions (P.L. 112-33, P.L. 112-36, and P.L. 112-55). Before the passage of the
first FY2012 continuing resolution (CR), the House and Senate had initiated the FY2012 L-HHSED appropriations process. On September 29, 2011, a bill was introduced in the House to provide
year-long FY2012 L-HHS-ED appropriations (H.R. 3070). This bill would have maintained level
funding for most of the early childhood programs discussed in this report, though it would have
provided an increase for Head Start and would have eliminated all RTT funding. On September
21, 2011, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its bill to provide year-long FY2012
L-HHS-ED appropriations (S. 1599, S.Rept. 112-84). This bill would have maintained level
funding for most early childhood programs, but would have provided increases to Head Start and
IDEA Grants for Infants and Families (see Table 2).
Separate from the annual appropriations process, funding for Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) and the mandatory portion of the CCDBG was most recently extended—and
directly appropriated—by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (H.R. 3630,
P.L. 112-96, H.Rept. 112-399). This law provided level funding for these programs through the
end of FY2012 (September 30, 2012).11
10
Most of the annually appropriated early childhood care and education programs discussed in this report are funded
via the L-HHS-ED appropriations process. An exception is the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), which is
funded via the Agriculture and Related Agencies appropriations process (P.L. 112-55 for FY2012).
11
While this law maintains basic TANF funding at the $16.5 billion level, it does not provide FY2012 funding for
TANF “supplemental grants.” For FY2001 to FY2010, TANF supplemental grants were funded at $319 million per
year. For FY2011, TANF supplemental grants were funded at $211 million and expired on June 30, 2011. For
additional information on this and other TANF-related provisions in P.L. 112-96, see CRS Report R41781, The
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
FY2012 President’s Budget
The Obama Administration released its FY2012 request on February 14, 2011, before funding for
FY2011 had been finalized. Compared to final FY2011 funding levels, however, the FY2012
request would have increased funding for several existing programs, including the CCDBG
(+23% of combined mandatory and discretionary funds), Head Start (+7%), IDEA Grants for
Infants and Families (+12%), and Promise Neighborhoods (+401%). The FY2012 budget also
called for an expansion of the Dependent Care Tax Credit, though the effects of this would likely
not be seen until FY2013.
In addition, the FY2012 budget requested $350 million for a new Early Learning Challenge Fund.
The Obama Administration had previously requested funding for an Early Learning Challenge
Fund in the FY2010 and FY2011 President’s budgets.12 The proposed Early Learning Challenge
Fund was to provide discretionary competitive grants to states to improve the standards and
quality of early learning programs serving children from birth to age five. (As Table 2 shows, the
proposed stand-alone Early Learning Challenge Fund has not been enacted; however, Congress
has supported an “early learning challenge” component of the Race to the Top program,
beginning in FY2011.)
Table 2. FY2012 Funding for Selected Early Childhood Care and Education
Programs, Compared to FY2011 Funding Levels
(dollars in millions)
Program
(Federal Admin. Agency)
FY2011
Enacteda
FY2012
Request
FY2012
House
(H.R. 3070)
FY2012
Senate
(S. 1599)
FY2012
Enactedb
CCDBG—discretionary portion (HHS)
2,223
2,927
2,223
2,223
2,278
CCDBG—mandatory portion (HHS)
2,917
3,417
n/a
n/a
2,917
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
7,560
8,100
8,100
7,900
7,969
IDEA Infants and Families (ED)
439
489
439
444
443
IDEA Preschool Grants (ED)
373
374
373
373
373
Child Care Access Means Parents in School (ED)
16
16
16
16
16
Promise Neighborhoods (ED)
30
150
0
60
60
699d
900e
0
699f
549f
350e
0
0
0
Social Services Block Grant
(HHS)c
Head Start (HHS)
Race to the Top (ED)
Early Learning Challenge Fund (ED)—proposed stand-alone program
0
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Notes: The notation “n/a” means not applicable (for the mandatory portion of the CCDBG, this is because
funding is not provided through the annual appropriations process). The table does not include estimates for
related early childhood tax provisions, nor does it include funding levels for pre-appropriated mandatory
(...continued)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress, by Gene Falk.
12
During the 111th Congress, the House passed legislation in H.R. 3221, The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility
Act, that would have enacted this proposal, but the program was not included in the final (enacted) version of the bill.
Congressional Research Service
6
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
programs (e.g., Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, home visitation), with the exception of mandatory
child care, which is shown here to display the proposed increase. Note that the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) Title I, Part A (ED) is not included here because it primarily serves school-age
disadvantaged children, and because reliable data on expenditures for preschoolers are not available. However,
the U.S. Department of Education has estimated that approximately 2% of Title I, Part A funds are used to
support preschool services. These preschool services are not separately funded under Title I, Part A, but rather
are spent for this purpose at the discretion of local educational agencies (LEAs). Preschool spending data are not
collected. In FY2012, ED received $14.52 billion for ESEA, Title I, Part A.
a.
Discretionary funds in this column reflect the 0.2% across-the-board rescission required by P.L. 112-10.
b.
Discretionary funds in this column reflect the 0.189% across-the-board rescission required by P.L. 112-74.
c.
The funding shown here does not include the $85 million in mandatory funding for Health Profession
Opportunity Grants that was pre-appropriated for each of FY2010 to FY2014 in the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (ACA, P.L. 111-148). These grants are authorized within Title XX-A of the Social
Security Act (see Section 2008), which also authorizes the SSBG (see Section 2001).
d.
The final CR for FY2011 (P.L. 112-10) gave ED new authority to reserve a portion of its FY2011 Race to
the Top funding for competitive grants to states for the improvement of early childhood care and
education. ED used this authority to reserve $500 million for RTT “early learning challenge” grants.
e.
The FY2012 President’s budget was released before the final FY2011 CR was enacted. It requested $350
million for a stand-alone Early Learning Challenge Fund. Separately, the FY2012 budget requested $900
million for the RTT. While the RTT request did not indicate that a significant portion of these funds would
be used to support early learning, the request materials did indicate that ED was considering the idea of
making the improvement of early learning outcomes a priority in the proposed FY2012 RTT competition.
f.
The report language accompanying both the proposed Senate bill for FY2012 (S.Rept. 112-84, S. 1599) and
the enacted FY2012 appropriations law (H.Rept. 112-331, P.L. 112-74) expressed an expectation that the
FY2012 RTT competition would include a “robust” early childhood component. However, neither specified
an amount that should be reserved for these activities.
Overview of Federal Early Childhood Care and
Education Programs and Related Tax Provisions
Table 3 provides historical funding levels for selected early childhood care and education
programs (and related tax provisions) from FY2007 through FY2012 (the most recent year for
which full-year funding has been appropriated). The table is followed by brief descriptions of
these programs and provisions, highlighting the breadth of variation in purpose, target population,
and funding for these early childhood initiatives. This section concludes with a brief summary of
certain early childhood programs that were funded in the recent past, but do not currently receive
federal funding.
Table 3. Funding for Selected Federal Early Childhood Care, Education, and Related
Programs, FY2007-FY2012
(nominal dollars in millions)
Program/Provision
(Federal Admin.
Agency)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
2,062a
2,127b
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
2,223c
2,278d
Programs
CCDBG—discretionary
portion (HHS)
2,062
Congressional Research Service
2,127
7
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
Program/Provision
(Federal Admin.
Agency)
CCDBG—
mandatory portion (HHS)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
2,917e
2,917e
2,917e
2,917e
2,917e
2,917e
TANF (HHS)
f
f
f
f
f
f
Child and Adult Care Food
(USDA)
2,172g
2,245g
2,452g
2,543g
2,732g
2,758g
Social Services Block Grant
(HHS)
1,700h
1,700hi
1,700h
1,700j
1,700j
1,700j
Head Start (HHS)
6,888k
6,878al
7,113m
7,234n
7,560c
7,969d
n/a
n/a
n/a
100o
250o
350o
118p
113a
113
0t
0
0
Even Start (ED)
82q
66a
66
66
0
0
Early Childhood Educator
Professional Development
Program (ED)
15q
0
0
0
0
0
IDEA Infants and Families
(ED)
436q
436a
439r
439
439c
443d
IDEA Preschool Grants (ED)
381q
374a
374s
374
373c
373d
Child Care Access Means
Parents in School (ED)
16q
16a
16
16
16c
16d
Promise Neighborhoods (ED)
n/a
n/a
n/a
10
30c
60d
Race to the Top (ED)
n/a
n/a
u
0
699cv
549dw
Dependent Care Tax Credit
(Treasury)x
3,487
3,020
4,330
3,470
4,200
3,400
Dependent Care Assistance
Program (Treasury)x
1,170
940
770
1,210
840
1,350
Maternal, Infant, and Early
Childhood Home Visiting
Program (HHS)
Early Reading First (ED)
Tax Provisions
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Notes: The notation “n/a” means not applicable (e.g., the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting
Program did not exist prior to the enactment of health reform legislation in March 2010). This table displays only
those selected early childhood care and education programs or tax provisions that received funding (in at least
one year) between FY2007 and FY2012. Also of note, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title
I, Part A (ED) is not included here because it primarily serves school-age disadvantaged children, and because
reliable data on expenditures for preschoolers are not available. However, the U.S. Department of Education has
estimated that approximately 2% of Title I, Part A funds are used to support preschool services. These preschool
services are not separately funded under Title I, Part A, but rather are spent for this purpose at the discretion of
local educational agencies (LEAs). Preschool spending data are not collected. Total ESEA Title I, Part A funding
was $14.52 billion in FY2012, $14.44 billion in FY2011, $14.49 billion in FY2010, $14.49 billion in FY2009, $14.03
billion in FY2008, and $12.84 billion in FY2007.
a.
This FY2008 amount reflects the 1.747% across-the-board rescission required by P.L. 110-161.
b.
In addition to the $2.127 billion appropriated in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8), the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) provided an additional $2.0 billion in
discretionary funding for the CCDBG.
Congressional Research Service
8
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
c.
This FY2011 amount reflects the 0.2% across-the-board rescission required by P.L. 112-10.
d.
This FY2012 amount reflects the 0.189% across-the-board rescission required by P.L. 112-74.
e.
P.L. 109-171 provided $2.917 billion for mandatory child care funding in each of FY2006-FY2010. Funding
for FY2011 and FY2012 has been provided through temporary extensions, most recently P.L. 112-96.
f.
P.L. 109-171 provided basic TANF funding ($16.5 billion annually) in each of FY2006-FY2010. Funding for
FY2011 and FY2012 has been provided through temporary extensions, most recently P.L. 112-96. TANF
funds may be used for child care, but are not specifically appropriated as such. HHS reported that states
spent $1.4 billion in federal TANF funds for child care within the TANF program in FY2010 (the most
recent data available). In addition, states transferred $1.4 billion of their FY2010 TANF allotments to the
CCDBG. For more information on TANF in the FY2011 budget, see CRS Report RL32760, The Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions, by Gene Falk.
g.
The amounts shown for FY2007-FY2011 are actual obligations, as reported in subsequent President’s
budgets (e.g., FY2011 actuals are from the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2013 President’s
budget). The amount shown for FY2012 reflects estimated obligations, as reported in the FY2013 request.
h.
Total SSBG appropriation amount shown (excluding supplementals), though not all SSBG funds go toward
early childhood care and education activities. In FY2009 (the most recent expenditure data available), $391
million in SSBG expenditures went toward child care services. In FY2008, the comparable figure was $369
million. In FY2007, it was $389 million.
i.
In addition to the $1.7 billion appropriated in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161),
the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009 (P.L. 110-329)
provided $600 million in supplemental SSBG funds, specifically targeted toward needs arising from major
disasters of 2008 as well as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
j.
The funding shown for FY2010-FY2012 does not include the $85 million in mandatory funding for Health
Profession Opportunity Grants that was pre-appropriated for each of FY2010 to FY2014 in the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA, P.L. 111-148). These grants are authorized within Title XX-A of
the Social Security Act (see Section 2008), which also authorizes the SSBG (see Section 2001), but are not
targeted toward early childhood care and education activities.
k.
Of the $6.888 billion, $1.365 billion became available in FY2008.
l.
Of the $6.878, $1.389 billion became available in FY2009.
m.
In addition to the $7.113 billion appropriated in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8),
ARRA (P.L. 111-5) provided an additional $2.1 billion for Head Start (of which $1.1 billion was explicitly
directed toward Early Head Start expansion). The FY2009 Omnibus (P.L. 111-8) did not continue the
previous practice of providing advance appropriations for the next fiscal year in the Head Start
appropriation (meaning that the full $7.113 billion in the Omnibus needed to be obligated in FY2009).
n.
This figure reflects the fact that the Secretary of HHS invoked her 1% transfer authority (per section 206 of
Title II of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010) to transfer a portion of the FY2010 Head Start
appropriation ($1.103 million, or roughly 0.02%) to the Health Resources and Services Administration
(HRSA) in FY2010.
o.
Health reform legislation (P.L. 111-148) directly appropriated annual funding for each of FY2010-FY2015
($100 million for FY2010, $250 million for FY2011, $350 million for FY2012, and $400 million for each of
FY2013 and FY2014) for this newly authorized program.
p.
Figures taken from the Department of Education table showing “FY2007 CR Operating levels.” The fourth
and final continuing resolution (CR) making appropriations for FY2007 was enacted February 15, 2007 (P.L.
110-5).
q.
Figure taken from the Department of Education FY2008 Budget Justification.
r.
In addition to the $439 million appropriated in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8), ARRA
(P.L. 111-5) provided an additional $500 million for IDEA programs for infants and families.
s.
In addition to the $374 million appropriated in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8), ARRA
(P.L. 111-5) provided an additional $400 million for IDEA preschool grants.
t.
The FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act eliminated funding for the Early Reading First program to
instead focus on expanding the Striving Readers program to serve children from preschool through high
Congressional Research Service
9
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
school. In FY2010, Striving Readers received $250 million for the expanded program, an increase of roughly
$215 million compared to FY2009. Of the total amount appropriated, about 15% (or $37.5 million) was to
be targeted to children from birth to age five.
u.
This program was first authorized and funded by Title XIV, Sec. 14006 of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5), which provided $4.35 billion.
v.
The final CR for FY2011 (P.L. 112-10) gave ED new authority to reserve a portion of its FY2011 Race to
the Top funding for competitive grants to states for the improvement of early childhood care and
education. ED used this authority to reserve $500 million for RTT “early learning challenge” grants.
w.
The report language (H.Rept. 112-331) accompanying the FY2012 appropriations law (P.L. 112-74)
expressed an expectation that the FY2012 RTT competition would include a “robust” early childhood
component, but it is not yet clear what this will look like.
x.
Amounts reflect estimates provided in subsequent President’s budgets (e.g., DCTC = $3.02 billion for tax
year 2007 (FY2008), as reported in the FY2010 President’s budget; $4.33 billion for tax year 2008 (FY2009),
as reported in the FY2011 President’s budget; $3.47 billion for tax year 2009 (FY2010), as reported in the
FY2012 President’s budget; and $4.20 billion for tax year 2010 (FY2011) and $3.40 billion for tax year 2011
(FY2012), as reported in the FY2013 President’s budget).
Current Programs
Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG)
The CCDBG is the primary source of federal grant funding dedicated to child care subsidies for
low-income working families.13 The CCDBG has two funding streams. Discretionary funding is
authorized by the CCDBG Act of 1990, which is currently due for reauthorization. The CCDBG
Act was last reauthorized (through the end of FY2002) and substantially expanded by the 1996
welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193). Although the authorization has expired, the CCDBG has
continued to receive discretionary funding in each year since FY2002 through the annual
appropriations process. Mandatory funding for the CCDBG is authorized by Section 418 of the
Social Security Act, which is also due for reauthorization. Mandatory (or “entitlement”) CCDBG
funding is typically pre-appropriated by authorizing statute (most recently P.L. 112-96) and is not
generally part of the annual appropriations process.14 In order to receive their full allotments from
the mandatory CCDBG funding stream, states must meet maintenance-of-effort (MOE) and
matching requirements; there are no such requirements attached to discretionary CCDBG
allotments.15
At the federal level, these child care funding streams are jointly administered by HHS. The funds
are allocated to states, according to a formula, and are used to subsidize the child care expenses of
low-income working families with children under age 13. Federal law stipulates that eligible
families are those with a family income below 85% of the state median income.16 In practice,
however, most states establish income eligibility levels below the federal threshold. Child care
13
For more information, see CRS Report RL30785, The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and
Funding, by Karen E. Lynch.
14
The combined mandatory and discretionary CCDBG funding streams are sometimes referred to as the Child Care
and Development Fund (CCDF).
15
For more detailed information on the CCDF financing structure and early spending trends (through FY2000), see
CRS Report RL31274, Child Care: Funding and Spending under Federal Block Grants, by Melinda Gish.
16
The law requires states to direct 70% of mandatory CCDBG funds toward welfare recipients working toward selfsufficiency or families at risk of welfare dependency. However, HHS has determined that all families with income
falling below 85% of state median income can be categorized as “at risk.”
Congressional Research Service
10
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
services are provided to families on a sliding fee scale basis and parents may choose to receive
assistance through vouchers or certificates, which can be used with a provider of the parents’
choice, including religious providers and relatives. In addition to supporting direct services for
children, states must use at least 4% of their CCDBG funds (both mandatory and discretionary) to
improve the quality and availability of child care.
States receiving CCDBG funds must establish child care licensing standards, although federal law
does not dictate what these standards should be or what types of child care providers must be
covered. In addition, states must have health and safety requirements applicable to all providers
receiving CCDBG subsidies that address prevention and control of infectious diseases, building
premises safety, and health and safety training for care givers. However, federal law does not
dictate the specific contents of these requirements or how these requirements are to be enforced.
No more than 5% of state allotments may be used for state administrative costs.
The final FY2011 CR (P.L. 112-10) provided $2.223 billion in discretionary CCDBG funding,
roughly $96 million (+4%) more than the FY2010 funding level of $2.127 billion.17 In a break
from recent annual appropriations, the final FY2011 CR eliminated a CCDBG set-aside for the
Child Care Aware toll-free hotline (typically funded at $1 million annually). Traditionally, Child
Care Aware staffed this hotline with child care consumer education specialists, who would
respond to questions from parents and child care providers about the elements of quality child
care and how to locate child care programs in local communities.18 The FY2012 appropriations
law (P.L. 112-74) provided $2.278 billion in discretionary CCDBG funding, roughly $56 million
(+3%) more than the FY2011 funding level.19 Notably, the FY2012 law reserved roughly $1
million for a “competitive grant” (i.e., not an earmark directly to Child Care Aware) for the
operation of a national toll-free hotline and website for the dissemination of child care consumer
education and to help parents access child care in their communities.
Mandatory (or “entitlement”) CCDBG funding is typically pre-appropriated, and is not usually
provided through the annual appropriations process. Beginning in FY2003 through FY2005, a
series of funding extensions maintained mandatory child care funding at the FY2002 rate of
$2.717 billion annually. Funding for a longer, five-year period (FY2006-FY2010) was included in
the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, a budget spending reconciliation bill (S. 1932), which was
signed into law (P.L. 109-171) on February 8, 2006. This law provided $2.917 billion annually for
each of FY2006-FY2010. Since FY2010, mandatory funding for child care has been provided
through a series of short-term extensions, the most recent of which (P.L. 112-175) maintains
mandatory child care funding at the same level through March 2013.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
TANF, created in the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), provides fixed block grants for
state-designed programs of time-limited and work-conditioned aid to needy families with
children.20 The original legislation provided $16.5 billion annually through FY2002, and after a
17
The FY2011 amount reflects the across-the-board rescission of 0.2% required by P.L. 112-10.
For more information, visit the Child Care Aware website at http://childcareaware.org/.
19
The FY2012 amount reflects the across-the-board rescission of 0.189% required by Division F of P.L. 112-74.
20
For more information, see CRS Report R40946, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: An
Introduction, by Gene Falk. See also, CRS Report RL32760, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions, by Gene Falk.
18
Congressional Research Service
11
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
series of twelve temporary extensions, Congress included several TANF provisions (and
mandatory child care funding) in its spending budget reconciliation bill (S. 1932), which was
signed into law (P.L. 109-171) on February 8, 2006. The law maintained the TANF block grant at
$16.5 billion for FY2006-FY2010. Since then, funding for basic TANF grants has been provided
through another series of extensions, the most recent of which (P.L. 112-175) maintains basic
TANF funding at the same level through March 2013.21
Child care is one of many services for which states may use TANF funding. In FY2011 (the most
recent year for which data are available), HHS reported that states spent about $1.4 billion in
federal TANF funds for child care within the TANF program, and $2.6 billion in state TANF and
separate state program (SSP) MOE funds.22 In addition, states may transfer up to 30% of their
TANF allotments to CCDF, to be spent according to the rules of the child care program (as
opposed to TANF rules). The net transfer from the FY2011 TANF allotment to the CCDF totaled
$1.6 billion, representing about 9% of the FY2011 basic TANF allotment.23
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)
The CACFP provides federal funds (and in some cases commodity foods) for meals and snacks
served in licensed child care centers, family and group day care homes, and Head Start centers.24
Child care providers that are exempt from state licensing requirements must comply with
alternative state or federal standards. Children under age 12, migrant children under age 15, and
children with disabilities of any age may participate, although most participants are
preschoolers.25 Subsidies provided to day care centers, including Head Start centers, vary
according to the child’s family income. Subsidies provided to family and group day care homes
vary according to the care provider’s income or the average income of the community in which
the home is located. The CACFP is an annually appropriated open-ended entitlement,
administered by the Department of Agriculture. Actual obligations came to $2.732 billion in
FY2011.26 The Obama Administration’s FY2013 budget estimated that CACFP obligations would
reach $2.758 billion in FY2012 and $2.917 billion in FY2013.
21
While this law maintains basic TANF funding at the $16.5 billion level, it does not provide funding for TANF
“supplemental grants.” For FY2001 to FY2010, TANF supplemental grants were funded at $319 million per year. For
FY2011, TANF supplemental grants were funded at $211 million and expired on June 30, 2011. No funding was
provided for TANF supplemental grants in FY2012. For additional information on this and other TANF-related
provisions in P.L. 112-96, see CRS Report RL32760, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block
Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions, by Gene Falk.
22
For more information on states’ use of TANF funds, see CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements, by Gene Falk.
23
FY2011 TANF financial data are available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/tanf-financial-data-fy2011.
24
For background information on CACFP, see CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of
Programs, by Randy Alison Aussenberg and Kirsten J. Colello. For a summary of the CACFP provisions in the most
recent reauthorization, see CRS Report R41354, Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization: P.L. 111-296, by Randy
Alison Aussenberg.
25
As the program name indicates, CACFP also serves adult day care providers. However, the vast majority of funding
is spent on child care settings. In FY2012, roughly 96% of funds were used for child care and 4% for adult daycare.
26
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year
2013, February 2012, p. 306, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/spec.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)
The SSBG is an annually appropriated entitlement to states.27 Permanently authorized by Title
XX, Subtitle A, of the Social Security Act, the SSBG is a flexible source of funding that states use
to support a wide variety of social services activities. States have broad discretion over the use of
these funds. There are no federal income eligibility requirements, targeting provisions, service
mandates, or matching requirements. In FY2009, the most recent year for which expenditure data
are available, the largest expenditures for services under the SSBG were for child care, foster care
services for children, and special services for the disabled. Approximately 14% of total SSBG
expenditures ($391 million) were for child care services in that year. The SSBG is a capped
entitlement, and state allocations are based on relative population size.28 It should be noted that
although the SSBG has an entitlement ceiling, appropriations may not always abide by it. For
example, the ceiling in FY2001 was $1.7 billion; however, Congress appropriated $1.725 billion
for that year, despite the ceiling.
Base funding for the SSBG has been held steady at $1.7 billion since FY2002.29 (Since FY2001,
annual appropriations acts have also included a provision stipulating that states may transfer up to
10% of their TANF block grants to the SSBG.30) However, during these years, Congress has twice
provided supplemental funding to the SSBG to support states in responding to significant natural
disasters. For instance, Congress appropriated $600 million in supplemental SSBG funding for
necessary expenses resulting from major disasters of 2008 as part of the disaster relief and
recovery component of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing
Appropriations Act of 2009 (P.L. 110-329).31 Previously, Congress had provided $550 million to
the SSBG in FY2006 as part of the Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148).32 These
supplemental funds were targeted toward needs arising from the Gulf Coast Hurricanes of 2005.
Head Start
Head Start has provided comprehensive early childhood education and development services to
low-income children since 1965.33 The program seeks to promote school readiness by enhancing
27
For more information, see CRS Report 94-953, Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding, by Karen E.
Lynch.
28
Grants to Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands are based on their share of Title XX
funds in FY1981, while grants to American Samoa are based on the relative size of their population compared to the
population of the Northern Mariana Islands.
29
Base funding for the SSBG does not include supplemental appropriations in response to major disasters, nor does it
include separate pre-appropriated funding for Health Profession Opportunity Grants. Funding for Health Profession
Opportunity Grants was pre-appropriated ($85 million annually for each of FY2010 to FY2014) by the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA, P.L. 111-148). These grants are authorized within Title XX-A of the Social
Security Act (Section 2008), which also authorizes the SSBG (Section 2001), but are not targeted toward early
childhood care and education activities.
30
Funds transferred from TANF to SSBG can be used only for children and families whose income is less than 200%
of the federal poverty guidelines. Under welfare reform law, states also may use SSBG funds for vouchers for families
that are not eligible for cash assistance because of time limits under the welfare reform program, or for children who
are denied cash assistance because they were born into families already receiving benefits for another child.
31
In November 2010, the President signed P.L. 111-285, extending the expenditure deadline for these supplemental
funds by one fiscal year (i.e., through September 30, 2011).
32
P.L. 110-28, signed into law on May 25, 2007, extended the availability of these funds for expenditure through the
end of FY2009.
33
For more information, see CRS Report RL30952, Head Start: Background and Issues, by Karen E. Lynch.
Congressional Research Service
13
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
the social and cognitive development of children through the provision of educational, health,
nutritional, social, and other services. Most children served in Head Start programs are three- and
four-year olds, but in 1994 Head Start was expanded to include an Early Head Start program,
which serves children from birth to three years of age. Head Start was last reauthorized by the
Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-134), which was signed into
law on December 12, 2007. This law authorized the program through the end of FY2012
(September 30, 2012).34
At the federal level, Head Start is administered by the HHS. HHS awards Head Start funds
directly to local grantees rather than through states. Programs are locally designed and are
administered by a network of roughly 1,600 public and private nonprofit and for-profit agencies.
Head Start agencies are required to comply with detailed federal performance standards.
The final FY2011 CR (P.L. 112-10) appropriated $7.560 billion for Head Start, roughly $326
million (+5%) more than the FY2010 funding level of $7.234 billion.35 The FY2012
appropriations law (P.L. 112-74) provided $7.969 billion for Head Start, roughly $409 million
(+5%) more than the FY2011 funding level.36 According to HHS, Head Start funding supported
slots for about 964,430 children in FY2011 and an estimated 962,120 children in FY2012.37 Early
Head Start programs account for roughly 12% of total enrolled slots in each of these two years.
Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program
In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA; P.L. 111-148, as amended
by P.L. 111-152) established the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting
(MIECHV) program under Title V of the Social Security Act.38 This program provides grants
primarily to states, territories, and tribal entities for home visiting services that (1) promote
maternal, infant and child health; (2) improve school readiness and achievement; (3) prevent child
abuse or neglect and injuries; (4) improve family economic self-sufficiency; (5) reduce crime or
domestic violence; and (6) improve coordination and referrals for community resources and
supports. Grantees must establish benchmarks in each of these areas and must demonstrate
improvement in no fewer than four of the six desired outcome areas within three years. The
majority of funding (a minimum of 75%) must be used to support a home visiting program model
that has shown sufficient evidence of effectiveness.39 However, grantees may use up to 25% of
their funds to implement home visiting program models that show “promise” of effectiveness.
Under any of these models, the services must be provided on a voluntary basis to families with
young children, including women who are pregnant and men expecting to become fathers.
34
For more information on the history of House and Senate provisions leading up to the conference-approved
reauthorization law, see CRS Report RL33968, Head Start Reauthorization: A Side-by-Side Comparison of House- and
Senate-Passed Versions of H.R. 1429 and Current Law, by Melinda Gish.
35
The FY2011 amount reflects the across-the-board rescission of 0.2% required by P.L. 112-10. The FY2010 amount
reflects the Secretary’s decision to transfer $1.103 million from Head Start to the Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA), pursuant to her 1% transfer authority under Section 206 of P.L. 111-117.
36
The FY2012 amount reflects the across-the-board rescission of 0.189% required by Division F of P.L. 112-74.
37
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, FY2013 Justification of
Estimates for Appropriations Committees, February 2011, p. 103.
38
For additional information, see the description of H.R. 3590 in CRS Report R40705, Home Visitation for Families
with Young Children, by Emilie Stoltzfus and Karen E. Lynch.
39
More information on such models can be found on the HHS Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness (HomeVEE)
homepage at http://homvee.acf.hhs.gov/.
Congressional Research Service
14
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
Further, among eligible families, priority for services must be given to those in at-risk
communities (as identified by a mandatory statewide needs assessment) and those with other
specified risk or need factors.
MIECHV funds are distributed by formula to all participating states. In addition, states may
compete for additional funds based on the strength of their program or their effort to develop a
strong program. While all states are eligible to participate, as of FY2012, three states (North
Dakota, Florida, and Wyoming) had discontinued operating the program. In such cases, the law
allows non-profit organizations to apply to operate the MIECHV program within the state. Funds
to tribal entities are distributed via competitive grants. At the federal level, the law specified that
this program was to be administered collaboratively by two HHS agencies: the Maternal and
Child Health Bureau at the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF).40 The law also directly appropriated (or preappropriated) five years of funding for this new program: $100 million for FY2010, $250 million
for FY2011, $350 million for FY2012, and $400 million for each of FY2013 and FY2014.41
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I, Part A
ESEA Title I, Part A, is the largest federal education program serving disadvantaged children,
particularly school-age children. After Head Start, it is the largest program providing early
education and care to young children. The U.S. Department of Education estimates that
approximately 2% of children served by Title I each year are preschoolers. Preschool services are
not separately funded under Title I, Part A—such spending occurs if local educational agencies
(LEAs) choose to use some of their Title I funds for this purpose. The final FY2011 CR (P.L. 11210) appropriated $14.44 billion for Title I, Part A, which is roughly $49 million (-0.3%) less than
the FY2010 funding level of $14.49.42 The FY2012 appropriations law (P.L. 112-74) provided
$14.52 billion for Title I, Part A, which is roughly $74 million (+1%) more than FY2011.43
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Programs
The majority of IDEA funding for special education and related services (approximately 90%)
goes to school-age children via grants to states. However, IDEA also authorizes two state grant
programs for young children: an early intervention program for families with infants or toddlers
with disabilities (IDEA, Part C) and a preschool program for children with disabilities (IDEA,
Part 619).44 The Infants and Families Program serves disabled children from birth to two years of
age, and the Preschool Program generally serves children ages three to five.
The Infants and Families Program requires that states receiving grants create and maintain a
“statewide, comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary, interagency system that provides early
40
HHS has located the program’s main homepage at http://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs/homevisiting/.
The ACA provided no funding beyond FY2014 and according to the Congressional Budget Office score for the ACA
(http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11307/reid_letter_hr3590.pdf), MIECHV funding
will drop out of the federal budget baseline entirely at that point.
42
The FY2011 amount reflects the across-the-board rescission of 0.2% required by P.L. 112-10.
43
The FY2012 amount reflects the across-the-board rescission of 0.189% required by Division F of P.L. 112-74.
44
For more information, see CRS Report RL31273, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Early
Childhood Programs (Section 619 and Part C), by Richard N. Apling.
41
Congressional Research Service
15
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families.” Services focus
on children experiencing “developmental delay” with respect to physical, mental, or other
capacities, and their families. Services are detailed for each child and his or her family in an
Individualized Family Service Plan. Services are to be provided, to the maximum extent feasible,
in “natural environments,” including the home, with other infants and toddlers who are not
disabled. IDEA Grants to Infants and Families (Part C) were funded at $439 million in FY2011
and $443 million in FY2012.45
States are eligible for Preschool Program grants under Section 619 of IDEA if they are eligible for
grants under IDEA, Part B, grants to states, and they make available free appropriate public
education to all disabled children 3 to 5 in the state. In recent years, all states qualified for and
received preschool grants under this section. Since Part B grants to states are used to serve
children with disabilities as young as three years of age (as well as school-age children), Section
619 is not so much a separate program as it is supplementary funding for services to this age
group. In general, the provisions, requirements, and guarantees under the grants to states program
that apply to school-age children with disabilities also apply to children in this age group. As a
result, Section 619 is a relatively brief section of the law, which deals mostly with the state and
substate funding formulas for the grants and state-level activities. IDEA Preschool Grants (Part B,
Section 619) were funded at $373 million in both FY2011 and FY2012.46
Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CAMPIS)
Authorized under the Higher Education Act amendments of 1998, and first funded in FY1999 at
$5 million, the CAMPIS program is designed to support the participation of low-income parents
in post-secondary education through campus-based child care services. Discretionary grants of up
to four years in duration are awarded competitively to institutions of higher education, to either
supplement existing child care services, or to start a new program. CAMPIS received roughly $16
million in FY2011 and FY2012.47
Promise Neighborhoods
The Promise Neighborhoods program provides competitive grants to support communities in
developing and implementing comprehensive neighborhood plans to combat poverty and improve
educational and life outcomes for children. These neighborhood plans typically support a
continuum of services from early learning to college and career.48 They may cover a range of
issues, from improving a neighborhood’s health, safety, and stability to expanding access to
learning technology and Internet connectivity and boosting family engagement in student
learning. The Promise Neighborhoods program, which is administered by ED, was launched in
FY2010 with $10 million. ED used these funds to award 21 communities with one-year planning
45
These amounts reflect, respectively, the FY2011 across-the-board rescission of 0.2% required by P.L. 112-10 and the
FY2012 across-the-board rescission of 0.189% required by Division F of P.L. 112-74.
46
These amounts reflect, respectively, the FY2011 across-the-board rescission of 0.2% required by P.L. 112-10 and the
FY2012 across-the-board rescission of 0.189% required by Division F of P.L. 112-74.
47
These amounts reflect, respectively, the FY2011 across-the-board rescission of 0.2% required by P.L. 112-10 and the
FY2012 across-the-board rescission of 0.189% required by Division F of P.L. 112-74.
48
Promise Neighborhoods grantees are not required to focus specifically on early childhood, but many of the current
grantees selected “comprehensive local early learning networks” as a competitive priority on their applications.
Congressional Research Service
16
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
grants.49 Funding for Promise Neighborhoods has increased in each subsequent year, to $30
million in FY2011 (+199% from FY2010) and $60 million in FY2012 (+100% from FY2011).50
With FY2011 funds, ED awarded 15 new planning grants and five implementation grants.51 With
FY2012 funds, ED awarded 17 new grants (ten planning grants and seven implementation grants)
for a total of $34.7 million, and reserved remaining FY2012 funds for second-year grants to the
five FY2011 implementation grant recipients.52
Race to the Top
The Race to the Top (RTT) program was initially authorized in FY2009 under the State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5). Under
the RTT program, which received $4.35 billion in FY2009, competitive grants were awarded to
states implementing K-12 reforms in four areas: (1) enhancing standards and assessments; (2)
improving the collection and use of data; (3) increasing teacher effectiveness and achieving
equity in teacher distribution; and (4) turning around struggling schools. No new funding for RTT
was appropriated in FY2010, but the final FY2011 CR (P.L. 112-10) provided $699 million for
the RTT.53 Notably, Section 1832 of the final FY2011 CR also gave ED new authority to reserve a
portion of its RTT funding for competitive grants to states for the improvement of early childhood
care and education. ED used this authority to reserve $500 million for RTT-Early Learning
Challenge (RTT-ELC) grants and ultimately awarded grants to nine states.54 The FY2012
appropriations law (P.L. 112-74) provided $549 million for the RTT overall, which is roughly
$150 million (-21%) less than FY2011.55 The report language (H.Rept. 112-331) accompanying
the FY2012 appropriations law expressed an expectation that the FY2012 RTT competition will
include a “robust” early childhood component. ED ultimately reserved $133 million (24% of the
FY2012 funds) for RTT-ELC grants, which were later awarded to five states.
Tax Provisions
Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC)
The DCTC is a non-refundable tax credit for employment-related expenses incurred for the care
of a dependent child under 13 or a disabled dependent or spouse, under Section 21 of the tax
code.56 Beginning in tax year 2003, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2001 (P.L. 107-16) increased the maximum credit rate to 35% of expenses up to $3,000 for one
49
For more information on these grants, visit http://www2.ed.gov/programs/promiseneighborhoods/index.html.
These amounts reflect, respectively, the FY2011 across-the-board rescission of 0.2% required by P.L. 112-10 and the
FY2012 the across-the-board rescission of 0.189% required by Division F of P.L. 112-74.
51
Ibid.
52
Department of Education, “Secretary Duncan Announces Seventeen 2012 Promise Neighborhoods Winners in
School Safety Address at Neval Thomas Elementary School,” press release, December 21, 2012,
http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-duncan-announces-seventeen-2012-promise-neighborhoods-winnersschool-s.
53
The FY2011 amount reflects the across-the-board rescission of 0.2% required by P.L. 112-10.
54
For more information, visit http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/index.html.
55
The FY2012 amount reflects the across-the-board rescission of 0.189% required by Division F of P.L. 112-74.
56
For more information, see CRS Report RS21466, Dependent Care: Current Tax Benefits and Legislative Issues, by
Christine Scott and Janemarie Mulvey.
50
Congressional Research Service
17
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
child (for a credit of $1,050), and up to $6,000 for two or more children (for a credit of $2,100).
The 35% rate applies to taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of $15,000 or less. The rate
decreases by one percentage point for each additional $2,000 increment (or portion thereof) in
income until the rate reaches 20% for taxpayers with incomes over $43,000.57 Under the FY2013
budget released by the Obama Administration in February 2012, DCTC expenditures were
estimated to be $4.2 billion for tax year 2010 (FY2011), $3.4 billion for tax year 2011 (FY2012),
and $1.6 billion for tax year 2012 (FY2013).58
Dependent Care Assistance Program (DCAP)
Under Section 129 of the tax code, payments made by a taxpayer’s employer for dependent care
assistance may be excluded from the employee’s income and, therefore, not be subject to federal
income tax or employment taxes.59 The maximum exclusion is $5,000. Section 125 of the tax
code allows employers to include dependent care assistance, along with other fringe benefits, in
nontaxable flexible benefit or “cafeteria” plans. Under the FY2013 budget released by the Obama
Administration in February 2012, DCAP expenditures were estimated to be $840 million in tax
year 2010 (FY2011), $1.35 billion in tax year 2011 (FY2012), and $1.58 billion in tax year 2012
(FY2013).60
Programs Funded in Recent Years, But Not Currently Funded
The William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Programs (Even Start)
Even Start programs, authorized by ESEA Title I, Part B, Subpart 3, were intended to integrate
early childhood education, adult basic education, and parenting skills education into a unified
family literacy program.61 These programs provided grants to states, which then distributed the
funds to eligible entities (consisting of a local education agency (LEA) in collaboration with a
community based organization). Even Start services generally served children aged 0-7 and their
parents. Even Start services were required to include adult literacy instruction, early childhood
education, instruction to help parents support their child’s education, participant recruitment,
screening of parents, staff training, and home-based instruction.
57
These provisions were made permanent by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (H.R. 8), which was signed
into law (P.L. 112-240) by President Obama on January 3, 2013.
58
Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2013,
February 2012, p. 251, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/spec.pdf. Note that the
FY2013 budget estimates reflect an Obama Administration proposal to increase the credit for families earning between
$15,000 and $103,000 annually. However, the budget proposed to make this provision effective for tax years beginning
after December 31, 2012, meaning that the full effects of increasing the credit would likely not be seen until FY2014.
59
For more information, see CRS Report RS21466, Dependent Care: Current Tax Benefits and Legislative Issues, by
Christine Scott and Janemarie Mulvey.
60
Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2013,
February 2012, p. 251, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/spec.pdf. Note that, as
with the DCTC, certain provisions of DCAP law were made permanent by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012
(H.R. 8), which was signed into law (P.L. 112-240) by President Obama on January 3, 2013.
61
For more information, see CRS Report RL30448, Even Start Family Literacy Programs: An Overview, by Gail
McCallion, and CRS Report RL33071, Even Start: Funding Controversy, by Gail McCallion.
Congressional Research Service
18
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
Even Start was first authorized in 1989 and grew rapidly in its first years. However, the program
received increasing criticism and saw its funding decline in each year from FY2003 through
FY2008, when the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161) provided $66 million
for Even Start. Both the FY2009 Omnibus (P.L. 111-8) and the FY2010 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117) maintained the FY2008 funding level of $66 million for Even
Start, though President Obama’s FY2010 budget requested no funding for the program. For
FY2011, the President’s budget once again requested no funding for Even Start. The first four
continuing resolutions for FY2011 (P.L. 111-242, P.L. 111-290, P.L. 111-317, and P.L. 111-322)
temporarily maintained Even Start funding at the FY2010 rate of $66 million. However, the fifth
FY2011 CR (P.L. 112-4) provided no funding for Even Start. Likewise, none of the subsequent
FY2011 CRs provided funding for Even Start. The FY2012 appropriations law also provided no
funding for this program.
In advocating for the elimination of Even Start, the Obama Administration had contended that
this program had not demonstrated effectiveness in improving child and adult learning outcomes
through the integration of the four core services of adult education, parenting education, parentchild activities, and early childhood education. The Administration argued that these conclusions
were supported by data from three national evaluations of Even Start. Advocates of continuing
Even Start programs argue that the goal of providing integrated family literacy services to an
extremely disadvantaged population is so important that these programs should not be eliminated.
Furthermore, they argue that a thorough study of the impact of legislatively mandated quality
improvements to Even Start is needed, as well as a concerted effort to improve Even Start through
implementation of model programs and technical assistance.
Early Reading First
The Early Reading First program, authorized by ESEA Title I, Part B, Subpart 2, supported local
efforts to enhance the school readiness of young children—particularly those from low-income
families—through scientific research-based strategies and professional development that are
designed to enhance the verbal skills, phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and pre-reading
skills of preschool age children.62 The program provided competitive grants to eligible LEAs and
to public or private organizations or agencies located in eligible LEAs, with the Department of
Education authorized award grants for up to six years. The FY2009 Omnibus (P.L. 111-8)
maintained the FY2008 funding level of $113 million for the Early Reading First program.
President Obama’s FY2010 budget requested $163 million for the program, an increase of $50
million over FY2009 funding. However, the FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111117) provided no funding for Early Reading First. Instead, Congress incorporated Early Reading
First funding into an Expanded Striving Readers Program, intended to serve children from
preschool through high school.63 The FY2010 Consolidated Appropriation increased funding for
Striving Readers to $250 million (an increase of about $215 million from FY2009) and reserved
62
For more information, see CRS Report RL31241, Reading First and Early Reading First: Background and Funding,
by Gail McCallion.
63
Following their authorization in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the largest federal programs exclusively
focused on literacy were Reading First for students in grades K-3 and Early Reading First for preschoolers. Reading
First was last funded at $393 million in FY2008, but it received funding of approximately $1 billion each year between
FY2002 and FY2007. The Early Reading First program, a competitive grant program that was last funded in FY2009,
received approximately $100 billion a year in funding between FY2002 and FY2009. The Striving Readers program,
which began as a competitive grant literacy program for students in middle school, was refocused on broader literacy
programs for pre-K through 12th grade in FY2010; it received funding of $250 million in that year.
Congressional Research Service
19
Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding
about 15% (or $37.5 million) for children ages 0-5. No funding has been requested for Early
Reading First since the FY2010 President’s budget, and no funding has been appropriated for this
program since FY2009. No funding has been requested for the current or forthcoming fiscal year.
Early Childhood Educator Professional Development
The Department of Education has provided competitive grants to partnerships to improve the
knowledge and skills of early childhood educators who work in communities that have high
concentrations of children living in poverty. Funding in FY2006 and FY2007 remained stable at
approximately $14.5 million, but FY2007 was the last year in which funds were appropriated. No
funding has been requested for the current or forthcoming fiscal year.
Early Learning Fund/Early Learning Opportunities Act Program
This HHS program (referred to by both names), authorized by the FY2001 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-554), was last funded in FY2005 at $36 million. When funded, the
program provided grants to communities to enhance school readiness for children under five,
specifically supporting efforts to improve children’s cognitive, physical, social, and emotional
development. Although authorized at $600 million, FY2003 funding for the program was set at
$25 million; FY2004 funding was set at $34 million (despite President Bush’s FY2003 budget
proposal to eliminate the program); and in FY2005, P.L. 108-199 included $36 million for the
Early Learning Fund. FY2005 was the last year in which this program received funding. No
funding has been requested for the current or forthcoming fiscal year.
Author Contact Information
Karen E. Lynch
Specialist in Social Policy
klynch@crs.loc.gov, 7-6899
Congressional Research Service
Gail McCallion
Specialist in Social Policy
gmccallion@crs.loc.gov, 7-7758
20