The Child Care and Development Block
Grant: Background and Funding
Karen E. Lynch
Specialist in Social Policy
September 27, 2012
The House Ways and Means Committee is making available this version of this Congressional Research Service
(CRS) report, with the cover date shown, for inclusion in its 2012 Green Book website. CRS works exclusively
for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to Committees and Members of both the
House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation.
Congressional Research Service
RL30785
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

Summary
The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) provides subsidies to assist low-income
families in obtaining child care so that parents can work or participate in education or training
activities. Discretionary funding for this program is authorized by the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (as amended), which is currently due for reauthorization.
Mandatory funding for child care subsidies authorized in Section 418 of the Social Security Act
(sometimes referred to as the “Child Care Entitlement to States”) is also due for reauthorization.
In combination, these two funding streams are commonly referred to as the Child Care and
Development Fund (CCDF). The CCDF is the primary source of federal funding dedicated solely
to child care subsidies for low-income working and welfare families.
The CCDF is administered by the Office of Child Care at the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), and provides block grants to states, according to a formula, which are
used to subsidize the child care expenses of working families with children under age 13. In
addition to providing funding for child care services, funds are also used for activities intended to
improve the overall quality and supply of child care for families in general.
Discretionary child care funds are subject to the annual appropriations process. Full-year
appropriations for FY2013 have yet to be enacted. However, both the House and the Senate have
passed a six-month government-wide continuing resolution (CR) for FY2013 (H.J.Res. 117). The
bill, which has been presented to the President for his signature, would generally maintain
funding for discretionary programs at their FY2012 levels, increased by 0.612%. (In FY2012, the
discretionary CCDBG was funded at $2.278 billion, per P.L. 112-74.) Prior to passing the CR,
both chambers had initiated action on FY2013 appropriations for the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (L-HHS-ED). Both the Senate
Appropriations Committee-reported bill (S. 3295, S.Rept. 112-176) and the draft bill approved by
the House Appropriations L-HHS-ED Subcommittee called for increases in discretionary
CCDBG funding for FY2013. The Senate committee-reported bill would appropriate $2.438
billion (+7% from FY2012) in discretionary CCDBG funds for FY2013, while the House
subcommittee-approved bill would provide $2.303 billion (+1% from FY2012).
Mandatory child care funds are not typically included in annual appropriation bills. Mandatory
funds were directly appropriated (or pre-appropriated) for fiscal years 1997 through 2002 by the
1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), which enacted the mandatory component of the CCDF.
Temporary extensions provided mandatory CCDF funding into FY2006. On February 8, 2006, a
budget reconciliation bill was enacted into law (P.L. 109-171), increasing mandatory child care
funding by $1 billion over five years (for a total of $2.917 billion for each of FY2006-FY2010).
The authorization and pre-appropriations for mandatory child care funding were set to expire at
the end of FY2010, but a series of six short-term extensions maintained mandatory child care
funding at the same level ($2.917 billion) for FY2011 and FY2012. The most recent of these
extensions (included in P.L. 112-96) was scheduled to expire on September 30, 2012. However,
the FY2013 CR (H.J.Res. 117), includes a special provision to extend mandatory child care
funding through March 27, 2013.


Congressional Research Service

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
A Brief Legislative History.............................................................................................................. 1
Child Care Programs Prior to 1996 ........................................................................................... 1
Child Care Reforms of 1996...................................................................................................... 2
Authorization Status of Child Care Programs ........................................................................... 3
HHS Office of Child Care ............................................................................................................... 4
Program Rules and Benefits ............................................................................................................ 5
Goals.......................................................................................................................................... 5
Eligible Children and Families.................................................................................................. 5
Methods of Payment for Child Care Subsidies ......................................................................... 6
Parental Co-payments................................................................................................................ 6
Provider Payment Rates ............................................................................................................ 7
Activities to Improve Child Care Quality and Availability ....................................................... 7
Limitations on Use of Funds ..................................................................................................... 8
State Application and Plan............................................................................................................... 8
Parental Choice.......................................................................................................................... 9
Parental Access........................................................................................................................ 10
Parental Complaints................................................................................................................. 10
Consumer Education Information ........................................................................................... 10
Licensing and Regulation ........................................................................................................ 10
Health and Safety Requirements ............................................................................................. 11
Criminal Background Checks for Child Care Providers ................................................... 11
Restriction Against Supplanting State Funds .......................................................................... 12
Funding.......................................................................................................................................... 12
FY2013 Appropriations ........................................................................................................... 12
Discretionary Funding....................................................................................................... 12
Mandatory Funding........................................................................................................... 13
Possible FY2013 Sequestration............................................................................................... 13
FY2013 President’s Budget..................................................................................................... 15
Proposed Discretionary and Mandatory Funding Levels .................................................. 15
Reauthorization Proposal .................................................................................................. 15
FY2012 Appropriations ........................................................................................................... 16
Discretionary Funding....................................................................................................... 16
Mandatory Funding........................................................................................................... 16
FY2012 President’s Budget..................................................................................................... 17
Proposed Discretionary and Mandatory Funding Levels .................................................. 17
FY2012 Reauthorization Proposal .................................................................................... 17
FY2011 Appropriations ........................................................................................................... 18
Discretionary Funding....................................................................................................... 18
Mandatory Funding........................................................................................................... 19
FY2011 President’s Budget ..................................................................................................... 19
Proposed Discretionary and Mandatory Funding Levels .................................................. 19
Reauthorization Proposal .................................................................................................. 20
FY2010 Appropriations ........................................................................................................... 20
FY2010 President’s Budget..................................................................................................... 20
Congressional Research Service

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

FY2009 Appropriations ........................................................................................................... 21
ARRA Implementation............................................................................................................ 21
FY2009 President’s Budget..................................................................................................... 22
Additional Funding History..................................................................................................... 22
Allocation of Funds ................................................................................................................. 24
Discretionary Funds .......................................................................................................... 24
Mandatory Funds............................................................................................................... 24
Transfer of Funds from TANF................................................................................................. 27
Federal Enforcement...................................................................................................................... 27
Program Integrity and Accountability............................................................................................ 28
State Error Rate Reporting ...................................................................................................... 28
Error Rate Methodology and Recent Findings ........................................................................ 29
What Happens When Erroneous Payments Are Uncovered? .................................................. 30
2007 Final Rule on State Match Requirements ............................................................................. 30
Data Collection .............................................................................................................................. 31
Religious Providers........................................................................................................................ 31
Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations.......................................................................................... 32
Quality Rating and Improvement Systems .................................................................................... 32

Figures
Figure 1. Child Care Programs Before and After Welfare Reform in 1996..................................... 3

Tables
Table 1. Funding Trends in the CCDF, FY1997-FY2012.............................................................. 23
Table 2. FY2012 CCDF Allocations.............................................................................................. 25
Table A-1. FY2009 CCDF Allocations.......................................................................................... 34

Appendixes
Appendix. FY2009 CCDF Allocations (Including ARRA) ........................................................... 34


Congressional Research Service

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

Introduction
The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) provides subsidies to assist low-income
families in obtaining child care so that parents can work or participate in education or training
activities. Discretionary funding for this program is authorized by the CCDBG Act, which is
currently due for reauthorization. Mandatory funding for child care subsidies, authorized in
Section 418 of the Social Security Act (sometimes referred to as the “Child Care Entitlement to
States”), is also due for reauthorization. In combination, these two funding streams are commonly
referred to as the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). While this term is not found in
statute, it can serve as a useful catch-all when discussing the complex financing structure
underlying federal support directly targeted to child care subsidies. For the purposes of this
report, the term CCDBG will refer specifically to the discretionary funding stream, while the term
CCDF will refer to the jointly administered funding streams.
The CCDF is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and provides
block grants to states, according to a formula, which are used to subsidize the child care expenses
of working families with children under age 13. In addition to providing funding for child care
services, funds are also used for activities intended to improve the overall quality and supply of
child care for families in general. The CCDF is the primary source of federal funding dedicated
solely to child care subsidies for low-income working and welfare families.1
The FY2012 funding level for the CCDF was roughly $5.2 billion, which included about $2.3
billion in discretionary funds and $2.9 billion in mandatory funds. The Obama Administration’s
FY2013 Budget requested roughly $6.0 billion for FY2013 ($2.6 billion in discretionary funds
and $3.4 billion in mandatory funds), an increase of $825 million (+16%) over the FY2012
enacted funding level. Full-year appropriations for FY2013 have yet to be enacted. However,
both the House and the Senate have passed a six-month continuing resolution for FY2013
(H.J.Res. 117). The bill, which has been presented to the President for his signature, would
provide mandatory and discretionary child care funding through March 27, 2013 (see discussion
of “FY2013 Appropriations” for more information).
A Brief Legislative History
The current structure of federal child care programs and funding is most easily understood by
tracing its evolution from the system that existed prior to 1996, when the welfare reform law (P.L.
104-193) simultaneously repealed, created, and consolidated federal child care programs (see
Figure 1).
Child Care Programs Prior to 1996
Before 1996, four separate federal programs specifically supported child care for low-income
families. Three were associated with the cash welfare system, then Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC). At that time, families on AFDC were entitled to free child care. In

1 The second-largest source of federal support for child care is the Dependent Care Tax Credit, which is a
nonrefundable tax credit used to offset some of the child care expenses of working families with children under 13.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

addition, families who had left the AFDC rolls with employment were entitled to 12 months of
“transitional” subsidized child care. The third AFDC-related child care program targeted families
who, without a child care subsidy, would be “at risk” of qualifying for AFDC. These three
programs operated under three separate sets of rules, and targeted three separate populations.
Critics argued that mothers navigating their way through the welfare system faced unnecessary
complexity that could be alleviated with a more unified child care program.
All three of the AFDC-related child care programs were funded with mandatory money, and fell
under the same congressional committee jurisdiction (the Ways and Means Committee in the
House, and the Finance Committee in the Senate). AFDC Child Care and Transitional Child Care
were both open-ended federal entitlements (i.e., there was no limit on program funding), with the
federal share of payments to states based on the state’s Medicaid matching rate. The AFDC At-
Risk program, on the other hand, was not open-ended, but was instead authorized as a “capped
entitlement” to the states at an annual level of $300 million.
The fourth pre-1996 child care program for low-income families was the CCDBG. Established in
the CCDBG Act of 1990 (a component of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, P.L. 101-508),
the CCDBG was designed to support child care for low-income families who were not connected
to the AFDC welfare system. The CCDBG subsidized child care for children under age 13 whose
working family income did not exceed 75% of state median income (SMI), adjusted for family
size. In addition, it provided funds for activities to improve the overall quality and supply of child
care. Unlike the AFDC-related programs, the CCDBG was funded with discretionary funds
appropriated as part of the annual appropriations process. Authorizing legislation fell under the
jurisdiction of the Education and Labor Committee in the House (later renamed the Committee on
Education and the Workforce) and the Labor and Human Resources Committee in the Senate
(later renamed the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions).
Child Care Reforms of 1996
The 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) repealed AFDC and its three associated child care
programs. Like cash welfare, child care was no longer an individual entitlement to welfare
families. Instead of preserving three separate programs, the new law created a consolidated block
of mandatory funding under Section 418 of the Social Security Act. Like the earlier three
programs, this new block of funding was largely targeted toward families on, leaving, or at risk of
receiving welfare (now Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF).2 However, unlike
the three AFDC-related child care programs, each of which was administered under its own set of
rules, the 1996 law instructed that the new mandatory funding be transferred to each state’s lead
agency managing the CCDBG, and be administered according to CCDBG rules. The law
authorized and appropriated funding for the new mandatory child care program through FY2002.
In addition to creating the new block of mandatory child care funding, the 1996 welfare reform
law reauthorized the CCDBG through FY2002. This law also substantially amended the CCDBG

2 Section 418 of the Social Security Act requires that states spend at least 70% of their mandatory child care funds on
families receiving TANF assistance, families attempting to transition from TANF to work, or those “at-risk” of welfare
dependency. However, because the at-risk group is not defined as a distinct group from other working poor families
(the targeted group for CCDBG discretionary funds), the 70% target could, in practice, be met by spending all funds on
low-income working families with no connection to TANF (i.e., the requirement could be met by spending all of the
“earmarked” funds on “at-risk” families).
Congressional Research Service
2

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

by modifying program rules such as income eligibility requirements, which were expanded from
75% of SMI (under pre-1996 law) to 85% of SMI (under the 1996 law).
The child care provisions in the 1996 law were designed to achieve several purposes. As a
component of welfare reform, the child care provisions were intended to support the overall goal
of promoting self-sufficiency through work. However, separate from the context of welfare
reform, the legislation attempted to address concerns about the effectiveness and efficiency of
child care programs. The previous four separate child care programs (the original CCDBG and
the three AFDC programs) had different rules regarding eligibility, time limits on the receipt of
assistance, and work requirements. Consistent with other block grant proposals considered in the
104th Congress, the child care provisions in P.L. 104-193 were intended to streamline the federal
role, reduce the number of federal programs and conflicting rules, and increase the flexibility
provided to states.
Figure 1. Child Care Programs Before and After Welfare Reform in 1996

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Authorization Status of Child Care Programs
The CCDBG Act has not been reauthorized since the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193),
which authorized the program through the end of FY2002. Although the program’s authorization
Congressional Research Service
3

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

has expired, the CCDBG has continued to receive discretionary funding in each year since
FY2002 through the annual appropriations process. Over the years, Congress has undertaken a
number of efforts to reauthorize the CCDBG Act (e.g., H.R. 4 and S. 880 from the 108th
Congress, and H.R. 240 and S. 525 from the 109th Congress), but reauthorization has yet to be
enacted. Most recently, on July 26, 2012, the Senate HELP Committee, Subcommittee on
Children and Families, signaled an interest in returning to CCDBG reauthorization efforts by
holding a hearing on this topic.
The 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) authorized and directly appropriated (or pre-
appropriated) mandatory child care funding for each of FY1997 through FY2002. Temporary
extensions provided mandatory child care funding into FY2006, when a spending budget
reconciliation bill was enacted into law (P.L. 109-171), reauthorizing and increasing mandatory
child care funding by $1 billion over five years (for a total amount of $2.917 billion for each of
FY2006 to FY2010). The authorization and pre-appropriations for mandatory child care funding
were set to expire at the end of FY2010, but a series of six short-term extensions maintained
mandatory child care funding at the same level ($2.917 billion) for FY2011 and FY2012. The
most recent of these extensions (included in P.L. 112-96) was scheduled to expire on September
30, 2012. However, the FY2013 CR (H.J.Res. 117), which has been presented to the President for
his signature, includes a special provision to extend mandatory child care funding at the
annualized rate of $2.9 billion through March 27, 2013.
HHS Office of Child Care
At the federal level, the CCDF is administered by the Administration for Children and Families
(ACF) within HHS. In October 2010, HHS announced the creation of a new Office of Child Care
at ACF with responsibility for administering the CCDF. The new office reports directly to the
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. According to an ACF press release, this
reorganization was intended to “elevate child care issues within ACF” and to “facilitate direct
collaboration” with other key early childhood programs and agencies (e.g., Head Start).3 In the
press release, Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families David A. Hansell noted that
early childhood development is a “key priority” for the Obama Administration. Hansell stated,
“The creation of an Office of Child Care will strengthen the quality of child care and maximize
the program’s effectiveness in achieving its dual goals of supporting employment for low-income
families and promoting healthy development and school success for children.”4
Prior to the October 2010 reorganization, the CCDF was administered by the Child Care Bureau
as a subcomponent of the larger Office of Family Assistance at ACF, which administers the
federal TANF program. The Child Care Bureau had been part of the Office of Family Assistance
since 2006. When moving the Child Care Bureau into the Office of Family Assistance in 2006, an
ACF publication noted that this organizational decision reflected the “close coordination
necessary” between child care programs and TANF.5 Previously, the Child Care Bureau had been
part of the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families (ACYF) since 1995.

3 HHS Press Release, October 4, 2010, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/press/acf-announces-new-office-of-child-care.
4 Ibid.
5 Children’s Bureau Express, Vol. 7, No. 4, May 2006, http://cbexpress.acf.hhs.gov/index.cfm?event=
website.viewArticles&issueid=74&sectionid=1&articleid=1141.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

Program Rules and Benefits
Federal law requires states to designate a lead agency to administer the CCDF. The
responsibilities of the lead agency are to administer federal funds, develop a state plan, and
coordinate services with other federal, state, or local child care and early childhood development
programs. States have tremendous flexibility in the design and operation of their child care
policies, but federal law establishes program goals and a set of requirements that states must meet
in order to receive CCDF funds.
Goals
The 1996 law established five goals for the CCDF. They include (1) allowing states maximum
flexibility in developing their child care programs; (2) promoting parental choice; (3) encouraging
states to provide consumer education information to parents; (4) helping states to provide child
care to parents trying to become independent of public assistance; and (5) helping states to
implement health, safety, licensing, and registration standards established in state regulations.
Eligible Children and Families
Federal law states that children eligible for services under the CCDF are those whose family
income does not exceed 85% of the state median. However, states have the discretion to adopt
income eligibility limits below this federal maximum, and all do. According to a summary of
state plans submitted to HHS, state income eligibility limits were expected to range from 37% to
83% of SMI in FY2011.6 Because child care funding is not an entitlement for individuals, states
are not required to aid families even if their incomes fall below the state-determined eligibility
threshold. Federal law does, however, require states to give priority to families defined in their
state plan as “very low income.”
To be eligible for CCDF funds, children must be less than 13 years old and be living with parents
who are working or enrolled in school or training, or be in need of protective services. States
must use at least 70% of their total mandatory CCDF funds for child care services for families
who are receiving public assistance under TANF, families who are trying to become independent
of TANF through work activities, and/or families who are at risk of becoming dependent on
public assistance. In their state plans, states must demonstrate how they will meet the specific
child care needs of these families. Of their remaining child care funds (including discretionary
CCDBG funds), states must ensure that a substantial portion is used for child care services to
eligible families other than welfare recipients or families at risk of welfare dependency.
Preliminary HHS program data (the most recent available) indicate that about 1.7 million children
received child care subsidies funded by the CCDF in an average month in FY2010.7 This would

6 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family
Assistance, Child Care Bureau, Child Care and Development Fund Report of State and Territory Plans FY 2010–2011,
p. 27 http://occ-archive.org/pubs/stateplan2010-11/index.html (hereinafter, CCDF Report of State and Territory Plans
FY2010-FY2011). Note that the SMI year used ranged across states from 2000 to 2010.
7 CCDF administrative data are available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/ccdf-statistics.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

represent an increase of about 56,200 children compared to FY2009, should the preliminary
FY2010 report hold constant after all data are finalized.8
Methods of Payment for Child Care Subsidies
Parents of children eligible to receive subsidized child care must be given maximum choice in
selecting a child care provider. Parents must be offered the option to enroll their child with a
provider that has a grant or contract with the state to provide such services—to the extent that
such services are available9—or parents may receive a certificate that can be used to purchase
child care from a provider of the parents’ choice. A child care certificate (also sometimes referred
to as a voucher) is an authorization form, letter, voucher, or other disbursement document
authorizing child care payments for the provider of the parents’ choice. The certificate may be in
the form of a check or other disbursement directly to the parent, but must be used for child care
services only. Under limited circumstances, payments can also be provided in the form of cash.
The 1996 law expanded the definition of “child care certificate” to allow the vouchers or
disbursements to be used as a deposit for child care services, if such deposits are required for
other children cared for by the same provider.
Parental Co-payments
The CCDBG Act generally requires that families contribute to the cost of care on a sliding fee
scale basis. However, federal regulations allow states to waive child care fees for families with
incomes at or below the poverty guidelines. According to a summary of state plans submitted to
HHS, nearly all states anticipated waiving fees for some or all families with incomes at or below
the poverty level.10 In addition, federal regulations allow states to waive, on a case-by-case basis,
contributions from eligible families whose children are in protective services or in foster care (or
whose children may need such services).11 HHS has suggested that a family’s fee should be no
more than 10% of its income.12 States may use this 10% limit as a guide in deciding the amount
of the fee, but are not required to do so. Federal statute requires that states take family size and
income into account when establishing co-payments, but states may also take other factors into
account, such as the number of children in care, whether care is full-time or part-time, or cost of
care. States have flexibility in establishing rules for counting income.

8 See Table 1 of the preliminary FY2010 CCDF data tables and Table 1 of the Final FY2009 data tables, both available
online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/ccdf-statistics.
9 45 C.F.R. §98.30(a)(1) states that a grant or contracted child care slot must be offered to parents “if such services are
available.” However, 45 C.F.R. §98.30(a)(2) requires that parents be offered a child care certificate (or voucher) “any
time that child care services are made available to a parent.”
10 CCDF Report of State and Territory Plans FY2010-FY2011, p. 34. According to this summary of state plans, only
four states (Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, and Wyoming) planned to offer no waivers whatsoever with respect to
copayments from families at or below poverty during FY2010 and FY2011.
11 CCDF Report of State and Territory Plans FY2010-FY2011, p. 34. According to this summary of state plans, only 13
states (Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington) planned to offer case-by-case waivers for child protective purposes.
12 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, 63 Federal Register
39960, July 24, 1998.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

Provider Payment Rates
States must establish payment rates for child care services that are sufficient to ensure equal
access for eligible children to comparable child care services provided to children whose families
are not eligible for subsidies. Essentially, payment rates are reimbursement rate ceilings (that is,
the maximum rate providers can receive for child care services through CCDF). Providers are
paid either the state’s established payment rate (i.e., reimbursement rate ceiling) or the actual fee
that providers charge to nonsubsidized parents, whichever is the lesser of the two. When
determining payment rates, states are not required to consider variations in costs based on child
care settings, age groups, and special needs (this was required prior to the 1996 law); however
many state plans do link payment rates to such characteristics and/or to regional variation. Some
state plans also link payment rates to quality of care provided. That is, some states may pay a
higher rate to a provider with a better quality rating than they pay to providers who fail to meet
specified quality standards.13
States are required to conduct a local market rate survey every two years to assess the price of
child care being charged. Federal regulations suggest that states establish payment rates equal to
at least the 75th percentile of the market rate to ensure equal access for eligible families. (That is,
HHS recommends that states set their payment rate ceiling at a level that, on average, equals or
exceeds the rate charged by three out of every four providers who responded to the local market
rate survey.) However, federal law does not require that payments be set at this rate, nor that
states use the most current market survey when setting rates. Instead, states must include a
summary of the facts they used in determining the sufficiency of their payment rates to ensure
equal access when they submit their state plans. According to a summary of state plans submitted
to HHS, state payment rates in FY2011 were expected to range (roughly) from the 8th percentile
of the current market rate survey to the 100th percentile across the country, with the majority of
states (42) using a tiered reimbursement system (i.e., issuing higher reimbursements rates to
providers based on certain criteria, such as meeting high quality standards, offering care during
non-traditional hours, or special populations).14
Activities to Improve Child Care Quality and Availability
Federal law requires that no less than 4% of expenditures made from states’ CCDF allotments
(discretionary and mandatory) be spent on activities designed to (1) provide consumer education
to parents and the public, (2) increase parental choice, and (3) otherwise improve the quality and
availability of child care (such as resource and referral services). States use quality funds for a
variety of activities, including professional development, licensing and monitoring, and
improving provider compensation.15 In addition, federal appropriations frequently target portions
of discretionary CCDBG funds toward quality improvement activities, including specific quality
set-asides in areas such as infant and toddler care, school-aged child care, and child care resource
and referral services.

13 For example, North Carolina has a five-star rated license system for child care facilities based on program standards
and staff education. Each star level is associated with a different market rate, and as providers increase their star rating
they qualify for higher payment rates.
14 CCDF Report of State and Territory Plans FY2010-FY2011, pp. 23-26.
15 For more information on what states are doing with quality funds, see Chapter 2, pp. 36-47, of the CCDF Report of
State and Territory Plans FY2010-FY2011.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

Limitations on Use of Funds
Although the CCDF is a fairly flexible funding source for states, there are some limitations on use
of funds. For instance, federal regulations prohibit states from expending more than 5% of
aggregate CCDF funds from each fiscal year’s allotment on administrative costs. However,
regulations also specify that costs considered to be an “integral part of service delivery” should be
excluded from the 5% administrative cap. These activities include eligibility determination (and
redetermination), the establishment and maintenance of computerized child care information
systems, and determination of erroneous payments (including case reviews and the preparation of
error rate reports).
In addition, the CCDBG Act prohibits the use of federal funds for the purchase or improvement
of land or buildings, with a limited exception for sectarian organizations. The amendments of
1996 also added an exception for Indian tribes and tribal organizations with respect to
construction, though this is subject to the Secretary’s approval. Finally, the law states that, in
general, no federal CCDF funds be used for any sectarian purpose or activity, including
sectarian worship or instruction (more detail on this in the section on “Religious Providers”).
State Application and Plan
To receive federal funding for child care, states must submit an application and plan to HHS.
After an initial three-year plan, required by the original CCDBG Act in 1990, states are now
required to submit plans that cover a two-year period. State plans include detailed information on
many components of CCDF program administration, including state decisions about child and
family income eligibility criteria, state priorities in children served, sliding fee scales, provider
payment rates, and specific quality improvement initiatives. In addition, state plans must certify,
or assure, that their programs will include certain elements related to parental choice, parental
access, parental complaints, consumer education information, licensing and regulation, and health
and safety requirements.
In June 2011, HHS released the FY2012-FY2013 CCDF plan “preprint” (i.e., the form used by
states to meet biennial application and plan requirements).16 The FY2012-FY2013 state plan
preprint includes major changes—in both structure and content—compared to preprints from
prior years. In terms of structure, the FY2012-FY2013 preprint is laid out in three main sections,
rather than the seven sections required in previous years. The three main sections in the FY2012-
FY2013 preprint are (1) Administration (e.g., roles and responsibilities at the state level), (2)
CCDF Subsidy Program Administration (e.g., state rules governing the subsidy program,
including eligibility criteria and payment rates), and (3) Health and Safety and Quality
Improvement Activities.

16 The FY2012-FY2013 CCDF Plan Preprint and the accompanying instructions and guidance can be found in ACF-PI-
2011-03, issued on June 10, 2011, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/law/guidance/current/pi2011-03/pi2011-
03.htm.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

In terms of content, the FY2012-FY2013 preprint includes a number of requests for information
that are new and different compared to what had been requested in prior years. The most obvious
of these changes is in the section focused on health and safety activities and quality improvement
activities. This section now requires states to conduct a detailed self-assessment and goal-setting
process in four “component” areas. These components are focused on (1) licensing and health and
safety standards, (2) early learning guidelines, (3) quality improvement activities, and (4)
professional development systems and workforce initiatives. As part of the goal-setting process,
states are required to identify goals in each of
these component areas and then report on
Draft FY2014-FY2015 CCDF State Plan
progress toward achieving these goals in a
Preprint Available for Comment
newly required annual Quality Performance
On September 4, 2012, HHS posted a notice in the
Report (QPR). Appendix 1 of the FY2012-
Federal Register requesting comments on the draft
FY2013 preprint includes a template of the
CCDF state plan preprint for FY2014-FY2015.17
QPR and requires that states submit their first
Comments must be submitted to HHS within 60 days
of the publication of the Federal Register notice.18
annual reports (on activities conducted in
Once the FY2014-FY2015 preprint is finalized, states
FY2012) no later than December 31, 2012.
will need to submit their plans by July 1, 2013.
Parental Choice
Parents of children eligible to receive subsidized child care must be given the option to enroll
their child with a provider that has a grant or contract with the state program to provide such
services (when available19), or to receive a child care certificate or voucher that can be used with
a provider of the parents’ choice. State plans must include a detailed description of how this
parental choice provision is implemented. In addition, they must assure that the value of child
care certificates will be commensurate with the subsidy value of child care services provided
under a grant or contract, and that their payment rates for all subsidies will be sufficient to ensure
equal access for eligible children to comparable child care services provided to children whose
families are not eligible for subsidies. States may not significantly restrict parental choice among
the various types of child care providers, which range from child care centers to family homes.
Under the CCDBG Act, eligible child care providers can include individuals, age 18 and older,
who provide child care services for their grandchildren, great grandchildren, siblings (if the
provider lives in a separate residence), nieces, or nephews.
Recently, some questions have arisen about how parental choice protections in the CCDBG Act
interact with certain state initiatives that may require child care providers who receive federal
subsidies to meet minimum quality standards. Such requirements may be wrapped into state
Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS), which are tools used by a growing number of
states to systematically assess, improve, and communicate about the quality of early childhood
care and education programs (see additional information on such systems in the section of this
report entitled “Quality Rating and Improvement Systems”). For instance, a state might require

17 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, “Child Care and
Development Fund for States/Territories for FFY2014-2015 (ACF-118),” 77 Federal Register 53891-53892,
September 4, 2012.
18 A copy of the draft preprint (with changes from the prior preprint highlighted in blue) is available on the HHS
website at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/occ/fy202014_201520plan20preprint2009_07_12.pdf.
19 45 C.F.R. §98.30(a)(1) states that a grant or contracted child care slot must be offered to parents “if such services are
available.” However, 45 C.F.R. §98.30(a)(2) requires that parents be offered a child care certificate (or voucher) “any
time that child care services are made available to a parent.”
Congressional Research Service
9

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

child care providers to meet a specified minimum QRIS score in order to be eligible to receive
CCDF subsidies. In January 2011, in response to concerns about whether such policies might
interfere with parental choice protections, HHS issued a program instruction on parental choice
and QRIS initiatives.20 The program instruction stated that HHS would not consider parental
choice requirements violated by such policies unless a given state’s policy “significantly restricts
or will clearly have the effect of restricting parental choice.” However, HHS also reiterated that
state CCDF lead agencies must continue to ensure that families are able to choose from providers
of all types and in all settings.21
Parental Access
States must have procedures to ensure that child care providers receiving subsidies will give
parents unlimited access to their children and to providers while the children are in care. State
plans must include a detailed description of these procedures.
Parental Complaints
States are required to maintain a record of substantiated complaints made by parents, and to make
information about these complaints publicly available upon request. The state plan must include a
detailed description of how this record is maintained and made available.
Consumer Education Information
Under the CCDBG Act, states must collect and disseminate, to parents of eligible children and to
the general public, consumer education information that will promote informed child care
choices. At a minimum, the information must include information about the full range of
providers available, and health and safety requirements.
Licensing and Regulation
States must have in effect licensing requirements applicable to child care services provided within
the state, and state plans must include a detailed description of these requirements and how they
are effectively enforced. Federal law does not dictate what these licensing requirements should be
or what types of providers they should cover. The 1996 law specifies that this provision shall not
be construed to require that licensing requirements be applied to specific types of providers. The
conference report on the 1996 law further states that the legislation is not intended to either
prohibit or require states to differentiate between federally subsidized child care and
nonsubsidized child care with regard to the application of specific standards and regulations.

20 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Care,
Program Instruction CCDF-ACF-PIQ-2011-01, January 1, 2011, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/piq-
2011-01.
21 The HHS Program Instruction (CCDF-ACF-PI-2011-01) gives the following example: “a Lead Agency may
implement a quality improvement system that incorporates only licensed center-based and family child care providers.
In cases where a parent selects a center-based or family child care provider, the State may require that the provider
meet a specified level or rating within its quality improvement system. However, the policy must also allow parents to
choose other categories and types of child care providers that may not be eligible to participate in the quality
improvement system.”
Congressional Research Service
10

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

Health and Safety Requirements
States must have in effect, under state or local law, health and safety requirements that are
applicable to child care providers; and states must have procedures in effect to ensure that
subsidized child care providers (including those receiving child care certificates) comply with
applicable health and safety requirements. States must have health and safety requirements in the
following areas: prevention and control of infectious diseases (including immunization), building
and physical premises safety, and health and safety training. In addition, state plans must assure
that children receiving services under the CCDF are age-appropriately immunized, and that the
health and safety provisions regarding immunizations incorporate (by reference or otherwise) the
latest recommendation for childhood immunizations of the state public health agency.
Criminal Background Checks for Child Care Providers
Current CCDF law and regulations do not explicitly require that criminal background checks be
included as part of a state’s health and safety requirements. However, on September 20, 2011,
HHS released an information memorandum recommending that all CCDF lead agencies institute
comprehensive criminal background checks for child care providers receiving CCDF subsidies, as
part of their minimum health and safety requirements.22 The memorandum characterizes a
“comprehensive” criminal background check as one that includes (1) fingerprints checks of state
criminal history records; (2) fingerprints checks of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal
history records; (3) checks of state child abuse and neglect registries; and (4) checks of sex
offender registries. Notably, tribal lead agencies for the CCDF may be subject to certain
requirements in the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act (ICFVP). This
law requires background checks for federal and tribal agency employees who have regular
contact with, or control over, American Indian children.
In practice, all states subject certain child care providers to some type of background check.
However, there is great variation across states in terms of which providers are required to undergo
background checks (e.g., center-based staff, staff in child care family homes, relative caregivers)
and in terms of the stringency of the background check that is required (e.g., child abuse registry
check, state or federal fingerprint check, FBI background check). For instance, HHS reported that
as of February 2012, 40 states and territories required FBI fingerprint checks for center-based
child care providers, while only 31 states and territories required such checks for providers in
group child care homes.23
On September 19, 2011, before HHS issued the information memorandum on background checks,
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on federal and state laws related
to the employment of sex offenders at child care facilities.24 This report also examined 10 cases in
which individuals who had been convicted of serious sexual offenses were subsequently
employed or present at child care facilities. GAO found that in at least seven of these cases, the
offenders used their access to child care facilities to offend again. (GAO notes that these cases

22 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Care,
Information Memorandum CCDF-ACF-IM-2011-05, September 20, 2011, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/
resource/im2011-05.
23 Ibid. (See updated data in Appendix A.)
24 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Child Care: Overview of Relevant Employment Laws and Cases of Sex
Offenders at Child Care Facilities, GAO-11-757, August 19, 2010, http://www.gao.gov/assets/330/322722.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

focus only on individuals who were convicted of serious sexual offenses and cannot be
generalized to all child care facilities.)
In recent years, Congress has demonstrated some interest in requiring criminal background
checks for certain child care providers. For instance, several related bills have been introduced in
the 112th Congress, including S. 581, H.R. 1711, H.R. 1726, and H.R. 3829. However, no action
has been taken on these bills.
Restriction Against Supplanting State Funds
HHS requires states to assure that discretionary CCDBG funds will be used to supplement, not
supplant, state general revenue funds for child care assistance for low-income families. While this
is not a requirement in the CCDBG Act or accompanying regulations, federal appropriation laws
typically make this stipulation. For instance, this stipulation was included in the FY2012
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74).
Funding25
Discretionary CCDBG funds are subject to the annual appropriations process. The 1996
amendments to the CCDBG Act authorized funding through FY2002 at an annual authorization
level of $1 billion. Actual appropriations have typically surpassed the authorized level, most
recently reaching roughly $2.3 billion for FY2012 (see Table 1). In years since FY2002,
appropriations have been made without an authorization level.
Meanwhile, the 1996 welfare reform law provided pre-appropriated mandatory CCDF funding to
states from FY1997 to FY2002. The annual amounts of mandatory funding were $1.967 billion in
FY1997; $2.067 billion in FY1998; $2.167 billion in FY1999; $2.367 in FY2000; $2.567 billion
in FY2001; and $2.717 billion in FY2002. Because these funds were directly appropriated by the
welfare reform law, the mandatory CCDF funding does not generally go through the annual
appropriations process. Mandatory CCDF funding was provided through FY2005 (at the FY2002
rate of $2.717 billion annually) via a series of extensions; welfare reauthorization legislation was
debated in each of these years, without reaching fruition. Finally, on February 8, 2006, a budget
reconciliation bill (S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act), which included mandatory child care
funding provisions, was passed into law (P.L. 109-171). The law pre-appropriated $2.917 billion
annually for each of FY2006-FY2010. Since FY2010, mandatory funds have again been provided
through a series of extensions, as discussed throughout this section.
FY2013 Appropriations
Discretionary Funding
Full-year appropriations for FY2013 have yet to be enacted. However, both the House and the
Senate have passed a six-month continuing resolution (CR) for FY2013 (H.J.Res. 117). The CR

25 For a detailed discussion of child care funding history and the financing of the CCDF, see CRS Report RL31274,
Child Care: Funding and Spending under Federal Block Grants, by Melinda Gish.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

would generally maintain funding for discretionary programs at their FY2012 levels, increased by
0.612%. (In FY2012, the discretionary CCDBG was funded at $2.278 billion.) The CR was
passed by the House on September 13, 2012, and by the Senate on September 20, 2012. It has
been presented to the President for his signature
Prior to passage of the CR, both the House and the Senate had initiated the FY2013
appropriations process for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education,
and Related Agencies (L-HHS-ED).
On July 18, 2012, the House Appropriations L-HHS-ED Subcommittee approved a bill for full
committee consideration. The full committee has yet to consider the bill, but as passed by the
subcommittee, the bill would provide $2.303 billion in discretionary CCDBG in FY2013.26 This
amount is roughly $25 million (+1%) more than the final FY2012 funding level of $2.278 billion.
The House subcommittee-approved bill would also maintain set-asides for child care resource and
referral and school-aged child care activities, a competitive grant for the operation of a national
toll-free hotline and website, and additional quality activities, including activities to improve the
quality of infant and toddler care.
On June 14, 2012, prior to action in the House, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported a
bill to provide full-year FY2013 L-HHS-ED appropriations (S. 3295, S.Rept. 112-176). This bill
would provide $2.438 billion in discretionary CCDBG funds for FY2013. This amount is $160
million (+7%) more than the final FY2012 funding level. The Senate Appropriations Committee-
reported bill includes a new reservation of $90 million for activities to improve the quality of the
early childhood care and education workforce. In addition, the committee recommendation also
maintains existing set-asides (e.g., for resource and referral programs and school-aged child care
activities, the national toll-free hotline and website, research and evaluation, and other quality set-
asides) at comparable levels to previous years.
Mandatory Funding
The authorization and appropriations for mandatory child care were scheduled to expire on
September 30, 2012. However, the FY2013 CR (H.J.Res. 117), as passed by both the House and
the Senate, includes a special provision to extend mandatory child care funding through March
27, 2013. The provision would maintain mandatory child care funding at the annualized level of
$2.917 billion, which is the same amount the program has received annually since FY2006. The
CR has been presented to the President for his signature.
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).27 The BCA established a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, charged with the
task of achieving at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over FY2012-FY2021. The Joint

26 Press releases and a draft of the bill released by the subcommittee prior to markup can be found on the House
Appropriations Committee website: http://appropriations.house.gov/subcommittees/subcommittee/?IssueID=34777.
27 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
13

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

Committee did not achieve this goal and Congress has not enacted legislation to repeal or modify
the automatic budget reduction procedures. As such, sequestration is currently scheduled to begin
on January 2, 2013. At that time, 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.
For BCA purposes, mandatory child care funding falls into the category of “non-defense
mandatory spending” and discretionary child care funding falls into the category of “non-defense
discretionary spending.” The mandatory child care funds are exempt from sequestration, but the
discretionary child care funds are not.28 This means that should sequestration go into effect in
January as currently required, a portion of discretionary CCDBG funding would be sequestered.
To help address some of the uncertainty surrounding sequestration, Congress enacted the
Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-155, signed into law on August 7, 2012). The
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 sequestration scheduled
to occur on January 2, 2013.
The report was released by OMB on September 14, 2012. Using certain assumptions required by
the Sequestration Transparency Act, OMB estimated that the sequestration would result in an
8.2% reduction (-$187 million) in discretionary child care funding.29 The report indicated that
mandatory funds would not be reduced, based on the determination that these funds are exempt
from sequestration.30
However, the estimates and classifications presented in OMB’s report are considered preliminary
and are based on the assumptions required under the Sequestration Transparency Act. According
to the report, “If the sequestration were to occur, the actual results would differ based on changes
in law and ongoing legal, budgetary, and technical analysis.” Notably, 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 are funded at the same rate of operations as FY2012. This assumption
is particularly noteworthy given that the continuing resolution for the first six months of FY2013
includes 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 be
revised should the higher CR funding levels be in place at the time of the sequester.

28 See CRS Report R42050, Budget “Sequestration” and Selected Program Exemptions and Special Rules, coordinated
by Karen Spar. For the provision of law exempting mandatory child care funds, see 2 U.S.C. 905(h).
29 Office of Management and Budget, OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-
155), September 14, 2012, p. 72, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/
stareport.pdf.
30 Ibid, p. 74.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

FY2013 President’s Budget
Proposed Discretionary and Mandatory Funding Levels
On February 13, 2012, the Obama Administration released its FY2013 Budget, which requested
$2.603 billion in discretionary CCDBG funds, an increase of $325 million over the FY2012
funding level of $2.278 billion (P.L. 112-74). The FY2013 President’s Budget would maintain
funding for set-asides typically provided within CCDBG appropriations (e.g., child care resource
and referral and school-aged child care activities, a national toll-free hotline and website, and
other quality activities, including those to improve the quality of care for infants and toddlers). In
addition, the FY2013 President’s Budget proposed to direct $300 million toward new state grants
to improve the quality of child care and for federal costs related to evaluations.
In addition, the FY2013 President’s Budget requested a $500 million increase in mandatory child
care funds, for a proposed FY2013 funding level of $3.417 billion for the mandatory portion of
the CCDF. Combined, the discretionary and mandatory funding increases would represent an
additional $825 million in child care funding (over the FY2012 enacted level) and a total CCDF
funding level of $6.020 billion for FY2013. HHS estimated that this increase would allow the
CCDF to serve about 70,000 more children than would otherwise be served.31 (However, this
figure is only an estimate; states have flexibility in how to use CCDF funding and could opt to
raise the average size of child care subsidies or improve program quality rather than use funds to
serve more children.)
The FY2013 President’s Budget also called for additional increases in mandatory CCDF funds in
future years: +$200 million in FY2014 (for a total mandatory funding level of $3.617 billion in
FY2014) and +$50 million in FY2015 (for a total mandatory funding level of $3.667 billion in
FY2015 and beyond). All told, the Budget proposed to increase mandatory CCDF funds by $7.2
billion over 10 years (FY2013-FY2022).
Reauthorization Proposal
The FY2013 President’s Budget called for a full reauthorization of both the mandatory and
discretionary CCDF funding streams. (The authorization for the CCDBG Act (i.e., discretionary
funding) expired in FY2002 and temporary extensions for Section 418 of the Social Security Act
(i.e., mandatory funding) are set to expire at the end of FY2012.)
The FY2013 President’s Budget outlined several principles for CCDF reauthorization, including
the following:
• Improving Quality: The Administration proposed increasing state spending
requirements related to quality activities (the CCDBG Act currently requires that
at least 4% of each state’s CCDF expenditures go toward quality activities, but
annual appropriations laws typically increase this amount). The President’s
Budget did not specify how much more than 4% would be required, but did
indicate that increased quality investments would support improvements in state

31 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), FY2013
Justification of Estimates for the Appropriations Committees, p. 52, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/
CCDF%20final.pdf (cited hereafter as FY2013 ACF Congressional Justification).
Congressional Research Service
15

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

health and safety standards as well as state implementation of Quality Rating and
Improvement Systems (see the section on “Quality Rating and Improvement
Systems” for more details on QRIS).
• Expanding Access: The Administration estimated that the proposal would
increase the number of children served in FY2013 by 70,000.32
• Promoting Continuity of Care: The Administration’s proposal would support
longer eligibility periods for families receiving child care subsidies (currently,
eligibility periods are established by states).
• Ensuring Program Integrity: The Administration’s proposal called for
additional resources for program integrity activities.
FY2012 Appropriations
Discretionary Funding
On December 23, 2011, President Obama signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2012 (H.R. 2055, P.L. 112-74), which provided $2.278 billion33 in discretionary CCDBG funding
for FY2012. This amount is roughly $56 million (+3%) more than the FY2011 funding level of
$2.223 billion. The FY2012 appropriations law also retained set-asides within the CCDBG for
certain quality activities, including activities to improve the quality of care for infants and
toddlers. Notably, the law included a reservation of roughly $1 million for a competitive grant 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. Funding for the
hotline, which had been provided (in one form or another) since FY2000, had been eliminated in
the previous year’s appropriation (P.L. 112-10). Prior to the enactment of P.L. 112-74, pro-rated
FY2012 funding for the discretionary CCDBG was provided by three short-term continuing
resolutions (P.L. 112-33, P.L. 112-36, and P.L. 112-55).
Before the passage of the first continuing resolution (CR) for FY2012, the House and Senate had
initiated the FY2012 appropriations process for L-HHS-ED programs. On September 29, 2011,
the House introduced a bill to provide year-long FY2012 L-HHS-ED appropriations (H.R. 3070).
This bill would have provided $2.223 billion in discretionary CCDBG funding for FY2012. On
September 21, 2011, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its bill to provide year-long
FY2012 L-HHS-ED appropriations (S. 1599, S.Rept. 112-84). This bill would also have
maintained discretionary CCDBG funding at the level of $2.223 billion for FY2012.
Mandatory Funding
For FY2012, mandatory child care funding was provided through a series of three extensions
(P.L. 112-35, P.L. 112-78, and P.L. 112-96). Each of these bills maintained funding at $2.917
billion. The most recent of these extensions was included in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job

32 FY2013 ACF Congressional Justification, p. 52, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/
CCDF%20final.pdf.
33 This amount includes the 0.189% rescission required by P.L. 112-74.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

Creation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-96). This law extended mandatory funding for child care through
the end of FY2012. Without legislative action, these funds will expire on September 30, 2012.
FY2012 President’s Budget
Proposed Discretionary and Mandatory Funding Levels
On February 14, 2011, the Obama Administration released its FY2012 Budget, which requested
$2.927 billion in discretionary CCDBG funds, an increase of $704 million over the FY2011
funding level (P.L. 112-10).34 In addition, the FY2012 President’s Budget requested a $500
million increase in mandatory child care funds, for a proposed FY2012 funding level of $3.417
billion for the mandatory portion of the CCDF. Combined, these two increases would represent an
additional $1.2 billion in child care funding (over the FY2011 enacted level) and a total CCDF
funding level of $6.344 billion for FY2012. HHS has estimated that this would allow the CCDF
to serve about 220,000 more children than would otherwise be served.35 (However, this figure is
only an estimate; states have flexibility in how to use CCDF funding and could opt to raise the
average size of child care subsidies or improve program quality rather than use funds to serve
more children.)
The FY2012 President’s Budget also called for additional increases in mandatory CCDF funds in
future years: +$200 million in FY2013 (for a total mandatory funding level of $3.617 billion in
FY2013) and +$50 million in FY2014 (for a total mandatory funding level of $3.667 billion in
FY2014 and beyond). All told, the Budget proposed to increase mandatory CCDF funds by $7.2
billion over 10 years (FY2012-FY2021).
FY2012 Reauthorization Proposal
The FY2012 President’s Budget called for a full reauthorization of both the mandatory and
discretionary CCDF funding streams. The FY2012 President’s Budget included broad principles
for reauthorization similar to those included in the FY2013 budget (discussed above). These
principles emphasized improving quality, expanding access, promoting continuity of care,
strengthening program integrity, and improving coordination across early childhood programs
through alignment of program goals and priorities.

34 Of the $2.927 billion, the President’s Budget proposed the following set-asides: $373 million (up from $284 million
in FY2011) for quality improvement activities, of which $137 million (up from $104 million in FY2011) would be for
activities that improve the quality of infant and toddler care; $26 million (up from $19 million in FY2011) for child
care resource and referral and school-age activities, of which $1 million (up from $0 in FY2011, as the final FY2011
CR eliminated this set-aside) would be to fund the Child Care Aware toll-free hotline; and $9.9 million (roughly the
same level as FY2011) for research, demonstration, and evaluation activities.
35 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), FY2012
Justification of Estimates for the Appropriations Committees, p. 49, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/olab/
ccdf.pdf (cited hereafter as FY2012 ACF Congressional Justification).
Congressional Research Service
17

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

FY2011 Appropriations
Discretionary Funding
The 111th Congress failed to pass a regular FY2011 appropriations bill for the Departments of
Labor, HHS, Education, and Related Agencies. Instead, discretionary CCDBG funding was
provided under a series of continuing resolutions (CRs) for the first half of the fiscal year until a
final (full-year) FY2011 CR was passed by Congress and enacted into law (P.L. 112-10) on April
15, 2011. The final FY2011 CR provided $2.223 billion36 in discretionary CCDBG funding; this
amount is nearly $96 million (+4%) more than the FY2010 funding level of $2.127 billion. In a
break from recent annual appropriations, the final CR eliminated CCDBG set-aside funding for
the Child Care Aware toll-free hotline (typically funded at $1 million annually). The Child Care
Aware toll-free hotline is a phone line staffed by child care consumer education specialists, who
respond to questions from parents and child care providers about the elements of quality child
care and how to locate child care programs in their communities.37
Seven short-term CRs provided temporary funding for the CCDBG prior to the enactment of the
final FY2011 CR. The first four short-term CRs for FY2011 (P.L. 111-322, P.L. 111-317, P.L.
111-290, P.L. 111-242) maintained discretionary CCDBG funding at the FY2010 level of $2.127
billion. The three subsequent FY2011 CRs (P.L. 112-8, P.L. 112-6, P.L. 112-4) reduced CCDBG
funding by $1 million, to the level of $2.126 billion. Under these three short-term CRs, no funds
were to be used be for the Child Care Aware toll-free hotline. HHS estimated that roughly
160,000 children might have lost subsidies in FY2011 if the annual funding level were to remain
at the rate provided by any of the seven short-term FY2011 CRs.38 In part, this is because none of
these CRs provided funding to sustain certain CCDBG increases provided by the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5).
Prior to the enactment of the final FY2011 CR, the House had passed alternative legislation (H.R.
1) to extend funding through the end of FY2011, which would have reduced discretionary
funding for many government programs, including the CCDBG. As passed by the House on
February 19, 2011, H.R. 1 contained $2.088 billion in discretionary funding for the CCDBG, a cut
of roughly $39 million from the program’s FY2010 funding level.39 Like the final CR, H.R. 1
included language stipulating that no funds be reserved for the Child Care Aware toll-free hotline.
HHS estimated that roughly 165,000 children may have lost federal subsidies if the CCDBG had
been funded at the level proposed in H.R. 1.40 However, on March 9, 2011, the Senate voted to
reject H.R. 1. On that same day, the Senate also voted to reject S.Amdt. 149 to H.R. 1 (in the
nature of a substitute). S.Amdt. 149 would have provided $2.437 billion in discretionary CCDBG
funding, an increase of $310 million over the FY2010 funding level. CCDBG funding under the
Senate amendment would have included $1 million for the Child Care Aware hotline.

36 This amount reflects the across-the-board rescission of 0.2% included in P.L. 112-10.
37 For more information, visit the Child Care Aware website at http://childcareaware.org/.
38 CRS correspondence with HHS, March 9, 2011.
39 In recent years, federal appropriations bills have targeted portions of discretionary CCDBG funding toward quality
improvement activities, including specific set-asides for infant and toddler care, school-aged child care, and child care
resource and referral services. H.R. 1 included no such set-asides and explicitly prohibited use of funds for the Child
Care Aware toll-free hotline.
40 CRS correspondence with HHS, February 24, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
18

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

Prior to the passage of the first CR, both the House and Senate had initiated the FY2011
appropriations process for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education,
and Related Agencies (L-HHS-ED) in the 111th Congress. The Senate Subcommittee on L-HHS-
ED Appropriations marked up and approved its proposal for FY2011 L-HHS-ED funding on July
27, 2010. The full Senate Appropriations Committee subsequently reported on the proposed
FY2011 funding bill (S.Rept. 111-243, S. 3686) on August 2, 2010. This bill would have funded
the discretionary CCDBG at $3.127 billion, an increase of $1.0 billion over the FY2010 funding
level and an increase of $200 million over the Obama Administration’s request for FY2011.
Separately, the House Subcommittee on L-HHS-ED Appropriations marked up and approved its
proposal for FY2011 appropriations on July 15, 2010. However, the full House Appropriations
Committee took no action on this legislation. Although no formal FY2011 L-HHS-ED bill was
reported in the House prior to the end of the 111th Congress, the L-HHS-ED Subcommittee
released a summary table indicating that the bill approved in subcommittee mark-up would have
included $2.827 billion in discretionary CCDBG funding (i.e., roughly $700 million above the
FY2010 funding level and $100 million below the Obama Administration’s FY2011 request).41
Mandatory Funding
In November 2010, Congress passed the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (H.R. 4783), which the
President signed into law (P.L. 111-291). This bill included a one-year extension of mandatory
child care funding at the level of $2.917 billion. This is the same level of mandatory child care
funding that has been provided since FY2006.
Prior to the enactment of P.L. 111-291, Congress provided mandatory child care funding in the
first FY2011 continuing resolution (P.L. 111-242). The CR provided mandatory child care
funding at a prorated FY2010 level until being superseded by the enactment of P.L. 111-291.
FY2011 President’s Budget
Proposed Discretionary and Mandatory Funding Levels
In February 2010, the Obama Administration released its FY2011 Budget, which requested
$2.927 billion in discretionary CCDBG funds, an increase of $800 million over the FY2010
funding level (P.L. 111-117).42 In addition, the FY2011 President’s Budget requested an $800
million increase in mandatory child care funds, for a proposed FY2011 funding level of $3.717
billion for the mandatory portion of the CCDF. Combined, these two increases would have meant
an additional $1.6 billion in child care funding for FY2011, for a total CCDF funding level of
$6.644 billion. HHS estimated that this would allow the CCDF to serve about 235,000 more

41 Available on the minority House L-HHS-ED Subcommittee website at http://democrats.appropriations.house.gov/
images/stories/pdf/lhhse/FY2011_LHHS_Summary_Tabel-07.15.2010.pdf.
42 Of the $2.927 billion, the President’s Budget proposes the following set-asides: $373 million (up from $271 million
in FY2010) for quality improvement activities, of which $137 million would be for activities that improve the quality
of infant and toddler care (up from almost $100 million previously); $26 million (up from $19 million) for child care
resource and referral and school-age activities; and $1 million (the same level as FY2010) to fund the Child Care
Aware toll-free hotline.
Congressional Research Service
19

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

children than would otherwise be served.43 (However, this figure was only an estimate; states
have flexibility in how to use CCDF funding and could opt to raise the average size of child care
subsidies or to improve program quality, rather than using funds to serve more children.)
The FY2011 President’s Budget also called for all mandatory CCDF funds to be annually indexed
for inflation beginning in FY2012. HHS estimated that this would increase mandatory CCDF
funds by nearly $11 billion over nine years (FY2012-FY2020).
Reauthorization Proposal
The FY2011 President’s Budget also called for reauthorization of the CCDBG Act and Section
418 of the Social Security Act. The FY2011 President’s Budget included broad principles for
reauthorization similar to those included in the FY2012 and FY2013 budget requests (discussed
above). The FY2011 Budget’s reauthorization proposal also acknowledged the Obama
Administration’s interest in expanding professional development opportunities for the child care
workforce and improving the monitoring of child care providers to ensure that children are in safe
and healthy environments.
FY2010 Appropriations
On December 16, 2009, President Obama signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, into
law as P.L. 111-117. The measure provided $2.127 billion in discretionary funds for the CCDBG,
reflecting the conference report (H.Rept. 111-366) filed on the bill, H.R. 3288, on December 8,
2009. The House and Senate agreed to the conference report on December 10 and December 13,
respectively.
Prior to the passage of H.R. 3288, both the House and Senate had initiated the Labor-HHS-
Education (L-HHS-ED) appropriations process for FY2010. Although the full Senate did not pass
a bill to provide L-HHS-ED appropriations for FY2010, the Senate Appropriations Committee
did report such a bill (S.Rept. 111-66, H.R. 3293) on August 4, 2009, which sought to maintain
funding for the CCDBG at the $2.127 billion level. Meanwhile, on July 24, 2009, the House
passed its FY2010 L-HHS-ED appropriations bill, H.R. 3293, which also sought to maintain
funding for the CCDBG at $2.127 billion. 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).
Separately, mandatory child care funding for FY2010 was provided by the Deficit Reduction Act
of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), which pre-appropriated $2.917 billion annually for each of FY2006-
FY2010.
FY2010 President’s Budget
In May 2009, the Obama Administration released the detailed FY2010 Budget. The request
proposed to maintain discretionary CCDBG funding at $2.127 billion in FY2010, the same level
of funding it had received under the omnibus appropriation in FY2009 (P.L. 111-8).44

43 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), FY2011
Justification of Estimates for the Appropriations Committees (hereinafter, FY2011 ACF Congressional Justification), p.
43, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/olab/fy2011_ccdf.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

FY2009 Appropriations
President Obama signed the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8) into law on March
11, 2009. The FY2009 Omnibus funded the discretionary CCDBG at an annual level of $2.127
billion in FY2009, an increase of $65 million above the funding level proposed in the FY2009
budget request submitted by President Bush.
Prior to the passage of the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Congress had passed two CRs
for FY2009 (P.L. 110-329 and P.L. 111-6). Both CRs funded the discretionary CCDBG at $2.062
billion, the level it had received in FY2008. The first of the two CRs (P.L. 110-329) was signed
into law by President Bush on September 30, 2008, and remained in effect until March 6, 2009.
The second CR (P.L. 111-6) was signed into law by President Obama on March 6, 2009, and
lasted until it was superseded by the FY2009 Omnibus on March 11, 2009.
In addition to annual appropriations contained in the FY2009 Omnibus, the CCDBG received
$2.0 billion in discretionary funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA) in FY2009. The ARRA was signed into law by President Obama on February 17, 2009
(P.L. 111-5). The ARRA specified that the CCDBG funds should be used to supplement, not
supplant, state general revenue spending on child care assistance for low-income families. The
ARRA also specified that a sum of approximately $255 million be reserved, out of the total
appropriated to CCDBG, for activities designed to (1) provide comprehensive consumer
education to parents and the public, (2) increase parental choice, and (3) improve quality and
availability of child care (such as resource and referral services). This sum augmented the amount
that states were already required by law to use for such activities (not less than 4% of the total
amount received by each state). Of the $255 million, nearly $94 million was reserved for
activities designed to improve the quality of infant and toddler care.
Separately, mandatory child care funding for FY2009 was provided by The Deficit Reduction Act
of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), which pre-appropriated $2.917 billion annually for each of FY2006-
FY2010.
ARRA Implementation
CCDF funding appropriated in the ARRA was made available for obligation by HHS through the
end of FY2010. However, HHS opted to provide states with their full allocations in FY2009,
nearly doubling discretionary CCDF allotments to states for that fiscal year. (The Appendix
includes state-by-state funding allocations from both the FY2009 Omnibus and the ARRA in
Table A-1.) CCDF grantees were required to obligate, or commit, their ARRA funds by the end of
FY2010 (September 30, 2010), but had until the end of FY2011 (September 30, 2011) to expend
their ARRA awards. HHS reported that states and territories had spent roughly 95% of their
ARRA allocations as of June 30, 2011.45

(...continued)
44 The Obama Administration’s FY2010 Budget also proposes maintaining mandatory CCDF funding at its pre-
appropriated level of $2.917 billion in FY2010.
45 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of
Child Care (OCC), ARRA CCDF Data and Summary, June 30, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
21

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

States reported spending the majority of CCDF ARRA funding on direct services (roughly 81% as
of June 2011). For instance, states used these funds to lower parental co-payments, increase
payment rates to child care providers, expand income eligibility thresholds, and add or extend
eligibility to parents searching for jobs. Some states also reported using ARRA funds to avoid,
shorten, or eliminate waiting lists for eligible children. According to HHS, cumulative state
spending on direct services for children (using ARRA funds) was sufficient to provide services
for an estimated 336,000 children.46 (This estimate includes both children who were already
receiving subsidies—but who may have lost their subsidies in the absence of ARRA—and new
children who were added to the caseload with ARRA funds.) In addition to spending on direct
services, states used ARRA funds to expand investments in quality activities. For instance, states
used ARRA funds to create or expand Quality Rating and Improvement Systems, support
programs targeted to infants and toddlers, and improve state and local health and safety standards.
FY2009 President’s Budget
Prior to the enactment of the ARRA or the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, the Bush
Administration released its proposed budget for FY2009 on February 4, 2008. The Bush
Administration’s Budget proposed maintaining both the discretionary and mandatory portions of
the CCDF at current levels ($2.062 billion and $2.917 billion respectively).
Additional Funding History
Beginning in FY1997, the treatment of CCDBG funding in the appropriations process was
changed to reflect states’ actual obligation of money for the program. Prior to FY1997, the funds
appropriated for the CCDBG only became available for obligation by the states in the last month
of the year in which they were appropriated. As a result, most of a given year’s appropriation was
actually obligated during the next fiscal year. With the enactment of the FY1997 appropriations
law, that practice was changed so that the CCDBG was officially advance funded by an entire
year. In other words, the FY1997 appropriation became available for obligation at the beginning
of FY1998 (rather than the end of FY1997). As a result of this change, only $19 million was
appropriated in FY1997 specifically for FY1997; this amount was added to funds previously
appropriated and available for obligation at the end of FY1996. The bulk of the FY1997
appropriation—$937 million—was to become available in FY1998. This practice of advance
funding continued in FY1999-FY2001, and is shown in Table 1.

46 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
22

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

Table 1. Funding Trends in the CCDF, FY1997-FY2012
(dollars in millions)
Discretionary Funding
Advance Appropriation
Same Year’s
All Available
Mandatory
Fiscal Year
from Prior Year
Appropriation
Funds for FY
Funding
Total
1997 0a 19a 19a 1,967
1,986a
1998 937
66
1,002
2,067
3,069
1999 1,000 0
1,000
2,167
3,167
2000 1,183 0
1,183
2,367
3,550
2001 1,183
817
2,000
2,567
4,567
2002 0
2,100
2,100
2,717
4,817
2003 0
2,086b 2,086b 2,717c
4,803b
2004 0
2,087d 2,087d 2,717e
4,804d
2005 0
2,083f 2,083f 2,717g
4,800f
2006 0
2,062h 2,062h 2,917i
4,979
2007 0
2,062j 2,062j 2,917i
4,979
2008 0
2,062k 2,062k 2,917i
4,979
2009 0
2,127l 2,127
+
2,000l 2,917i
7,044m
2010 0
2,127
2,127
2,917i
5,044
2011 0
2,223n 2,223n 2,917o
5,140
2012 0
2,278p 2,278
2,917o
5,195
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using annual U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Administration for Children and Families budget justifications and appropriations legislation for
relevant years.
a. What appears in the table to be limited discretionary CCDBG funding in FY1997, and consequently, in total
funding, actually reflects a shift to advance appropriating of funds for the fol owing fiscal year. The FY1997
appropriation law provided $956 million for CCDBG, with only $19 million available immediately during
FY1997, and the remainder available on October 1, 1997 (the first day of FY1998). In earlier years the funds
appropriated for CCDBG became available for obligation only in the last month of the given fiscal year, and
therefore most of the appropriation for a given year ($935 million in FY1996) was actually obligated in the
following fiscal year.
b. The figure shown reflects the 0.65% “across-the-board” cut included in the Consolidated Appropriations
Resolution, 2003 (P.L. 108-7).
c. P.L. 108-40 extended mandatory funding for the CCDF through the final quarter of FY2003, at the FY2002
rate.
d. The figure shown reflects the 0.59% “across-the-board” cut included in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199).
e. P.L. 108-262 extended mandatory funding for the CCDF through September 30, 2004, at the FY2002 rate
(which was also maintained during FY2003).
f.
The figure shown reflects the 0.8% “across-the-board” cut included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2005 (P.L. 108-447).
g. P.L. 108-308 extended (and maintained) mandatory funding for the CCDF through March 31, 2005, at the
FY2002 rate. P.L. 109-19 extended (and maintained) the funding through September 30, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
23

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

h. The figure shown reflects the 1% “across-the-board” cut included in the FY2006 Defense Appropriations
Act (P.L. 109-148) that applies to discretionary programs funded by P.L. 109-149. Prior to the rescission,
funding was set at $2.083 billion. In FY2006, the Secretary of HHS invoked his authority (per section 2008
of the L-HHS-ED and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 2006) to transfer a portion of the CCDBG
appropriation—$1.417 million—to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. This transfer is not reflected
above; when including it, total FY2006 discretionary CCDBG funding would round to $2.061 billion.
i.
The Deficit Reduction Act (S. 1932/P.L. 109-171), provides $2.917 billion in mandatory CCDF funding for
each of FY2006-FY2010.
j.
FY2007 funding was provided via four continuing resolutions, the last of which was P.L. 110-5.
k. This amount reflects the 1.747% across-the-board cut included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2008 (P.L. 110-161).
l.
In addition to the $2.127 billion appropriated in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8), the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) provided an additional $2.0 billion in
discretionary funding for the CCDBG.
m. This amount includes the $2.0 billion in supplemental funds appropriated by ARRA.
n. This amount reflects the 0.2% across-the-board cut included in the final FY2011 CR (P.L. 112-10).
o. During FY2011 and FY2012, mandatory child care funds were provided by a series of temporary extensions
(P.L. 111-242, P.L. 111-290, and P.L. 111-291 provided funds for FY2011; P.L. 112-35, P.L. 112-78, and P.L.
112-96 provided funds for FY2012).
p. This amount reflects the 0.189% across-the-board cut included in the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations
Act (P.L. 112-74).
Allocation of Funds
Discretionary Funds
Discretionary CCDBG funds are allocated among states according to a formula that is based on
each state’s share of children under age five, the state’s share of children receiving free or
reduced-price lunches, and state per capita income. Statute requires that 0.5% of appropriated
funds be reserved for the territories, and between 1% and 2% be reserved for payments to Indian
tribes and tribal organizations. In addition, regulations allow HHS to reserve up to 0.25% for the
provision of technical assistance. States are not required to match these discretionary funds.47
Funds must be obligated in the year they are received or in the subsequent fiscal year, and the law
authorizes the Secretary to reallocate unused funds. Table 2 displays the FY2012 discretionary
CCDBG allocations.
Mandatory Funds
Federal law requires the Secretary of HHS to reserve between 1% and 2% of mandatory funds for
payments to Indian tribes and tribal organizations. In addition, federal regulations allow HHS to
reserve up to 0.25% for the provision of technical assistance. Once these amounts have been
reserved, the remaining mandatory funds are allocated to states in two components.
First, each state receives a fixed amount each year, equal to the funding received by the state
under the child care programs previously authorized under AFDC in FY1994 or FY1995, or the
average of FY1992-FY1994, whichever is greater. This amount equals $1.2 billion each year, and

47 45 C.F.R. §98.60(b)(1).
Congressional Research Service
24

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

is sometimes referred to as “guaranteed mandatory” funds. No state match is required for these
funds, which may remain available for expenditure by states with no fiscal year limitation.
Second, remaining mandatory funds (after distribution of the “guaranteed” portion) are allocated
to states according to each state’s share of children under age 13. States must meet maintenance-
of-effort and matching requirements to receive these funds. Specifically, states must spend all of
their “guaranteed” federal entitlement funds for child care described above, plus 100% of the
amount they spent of their own state funds in FY1994 or FY1995, whichever is higher, under the
previous AFDC-related child care programs. Further, states must provide matching funds at the
Medicaid matching rate to receive these additional entitlement funds for child care. If the
Secretary determines that a state will not spend its entire allotment for a given fiscal year, then the
unused amounts may be redistributed among other states according to those states’ shares of
children under age 13. Table 2 displays the FY2012 CCDF allocations for both the “guaranteed”
mandatory and the federal share of mandatory matching.
Table 2. FY2012 CCDF Allocations
(amounts in dollars)
Recipient
“Guaranteed"
Federal Share of
Discretionary
(State, Territory,
Mandatory
Mandatory
CCDF Funds
Total Federal-Only
Tribe, Other)
Funds
Matching Funds
(P.L. 112-74)
Funds
Alabama
16,441,707 25,484,429 42,841,727 84,767,863
Alaska
3,544,811 4,280,970 4,533,086 12,358,867
Arizona
19,827,025 37,307,731 56,867,397 114,002,153
Arkansas
5,300,283 16,247,112 28,143,488 49,690,883
California
85,593,217 207,709,074 244,004,509 537,306,800
Colorado
10,173,800 28,270,446 28,442,448 66,886,694
Connecticut
18,738,357 17,932,329 14,940,222 51,610,908
Delaware
5,179,330 4,636,743 5,529,727 15,345,800
Dist. of Columbia
4,566,974
2,327,366
2,962,184
9,856,524
Florida 43,026,524
89,449,030
121,009,572
253,485,126
Georgia
36,548,223 56,911,367 92,991,494 186,451,084
Hawai
4,971,633 6,939,734 7,682,628 19,593,995
Idaho 2,867,578
9,918,860
14,244,639
27,031,077
Illinois
56,873,824 70,174,515 80,078,508 207,126,847
Indiana
26,181,999 36,395,583 52,761,493 115,339,075
Iowa
8,507,792 16,557,231 21,097,600 46,162,623
Kansas
9,811,721 16,707,312 21,639,826 48,158,859
Kentucky
16,701,653 23,304,108 39,580,516 79,586,277
Louisiana
13,864,552 25,501,881 42,490,869 81,857,302
Maine
3,018,598 6,025,942 7,791,183 16,835,723
Maryland
23,301,407 30,266,985 27,564,114 81,132,506
Massachusetts
44,973,373 31,410,023 27,066,102 103,449,498
Congressional Research Service
25

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

Recipient
“Guaranteed"
Federal Share of
Discretionary
(State, Territory,
Mandatory
Mandatory
CCDF Funds
Total Federal-Only
Tribe, Other)
Funds
Matching Funds
(P.L. 112-74)
Funds
Michigan
32,081,922 51,729,851 70,025,126 153,836,899
Minnesota
23,367,543 29,153,539 30,690,970 83,212,052
Mississippi
6,293,116 17,152,272 33,334,909 56,780,297
Missouri
24,668,568 32,231,180 44,384,770 101,284,518
Montana
3,190,691 5,045,725 6,771,331 15,007,747
Nebraska
10,594,637 10,586,175 13,438,942 34,619,754
Nevada
2,580,422 15,187,223 16,530,472 34,298,117
New
Hampshire
4,581,870 6,242,320 5,353,209 16,177,399
New
Jersey
26,374,178 46,024,842 40,080,473 112,479,493
New
Mexico
8,307,587 11,827,222 20,077,317 40,212,126
New York
101,983,998
96,029,735
101,521,406
299,535,139
North
Carolina
69,639,228 52,212,878 76,128,077 197,980,183
North
Dakota
2,506,022 3,425,067 4,156,452 10,087,541
Ohio
70,124,656 61,123,541 80,388,630 211,636,827
Oklahoma
24,909,979 21,443,202 33,886,650 80,239,831
Oregon
19,408,790 19,605,090 26,225,420 65,239,300
Pennsylvania
55,336,804 61,742,863 69,645,391 186,725,058
Rhode
Island
6,633,774 4,920,780 5,621,733 17,176,287
South
Carolina
9,867,439 24,610,663 41,232,806 75,710,908
South
Dakota
1,710,801 4,664,249 6,221,279 12,596,329
Tennessee
37,702,188 33,930,530 52,889,987 124,522,705
Texas
59,844,129 157,929,475 242,999,338 460,772,942
Utah
12,591,564 20,664,662 27,265,984 60,522,210
Vermont
3,944,887 2,814,787 3,203,680 9,963,354
Virginia
21,328,766 42,013,365 43,445,456 106,787,587
Washington
41,883,444 35,813,947 39,115,017 116,812,408
West Virginia
8,727,005
8,705,065
14,361,718
31,793,788
Wisconsin
24,511,351 30,116,335 36,035,227 90,662,913
Wyoming
2,815,041 3,137,363 2,981,813 8,934,217
America Samoa
-
-
3,001,982
3,001,982
Guam -
-
4,295,676
4,295,676
N. Mariana Islands
-
-
1,904,992
1,904,992
Puerto Rico
-
-
32,512,899
32,512,899
Virgin Islands
-
-
2,188,914
2,188,914
Tribes 58,340,000
-
45,566,257
103,906,257
Technical
Assistance 3,097,405 4,195,095 5,695,782 12,988,282
Congressional Research Service
26

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

Recipient
“Guaranteed"
Federal Share of
Discretionary
(State, Territory,
Mandatory
Mandatory
CCDF Funds
Total Federal-Only
Tribe, Other)
Funds
Matching Funds
(P.L. 112-74)
Funds
Research & Evaluation
-
-
9,871,308
9,871,308
Child Care Hotline
-
-
998,110
998,110
Total
1,238,962,186 1,678,037,812 2,278,312,835 5,195,312,833
Source: Data are from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children
and Families (ACF), Office of Child Care (OCC), as published on the OCC website in May 2012. In estimating
al ocations, HHS used data from the fol owing sources: population under age 5 and population under age 13 from
the Census Bureau published in summer 2011; FY2010 participants in the Free and Reduced School Lunch
Program from the Department of Agriculture; and per capita personal income for 2006, 2007, and 2008 from the
Department of Commerce published in April 2010.
Notes: Al ocations are based on appropriated (and pre-appropriated) funding and do not reflect re-al otments
of current year funds.
Transfer of Funds from TANF
In addition to amounts provided to states specifically for CCDF, states may also transfer up to
30% of their TANF block grant allotment to the CCDF. Transferred funds must be spent
according to the CCDBG Act rules. The net transfer from the FY2011 TANF allotment to the
CCDF totaled nearly $1.565 billion (representing roughly 9% of the FY2011 TANF allotment).48
Nothing precludes a state from using TANF funds for child care services without formally
transferring them to the CCDF, in which case the CCDBG Act rules do not necessarily apply.
HHS has reported that in FY2011, states spent almost $1.352 billion in federal TANF money on
child care within the TANF program. (In addition, states reported spending $2.606 billion in
FY2011 on child care through state TANF and separate state program (SSP) MOE funds.)
Federal Enforcement
The Secretary must coordinate child care activities within HHS, and, to the extent practicable,
with similar activities in other federal agencies. The Secretary is also required to publish a list of
child care standards every three years, and to provide technical assistance to states. The Secretary
must monitor state compliance with the statute and state plans, and must establish procedures for
receiving and assessing complaints against a state.
Upon finding that a state is out of compliance with either the statute, regulation, or state plan, the
Secretary is authorized to require that the state reimburse the federal government for any misspent
funds, or to withhold the amount from the state’s CCDF allotment for the next fiscal year, or to
take a combination of these steps.
States also must arrange for independent audits of their programs, and must repay the federal
government for any funds that are found to have been misspent, or the Secretary may offset these
amounts against future payments due to the state. In addition, states are now required to complete

48 FY2011 TANF financial data are available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/tanf-financial-data-fy-
2011.
Congressional Research Service
27

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

a case review every three years to check for improperly authorized payments. This new mandate
is tied to “State Error Rate Reporting” requirements added to CCDF regulations in 2007.
Program Integrity and Accountability
In September 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on fraud in
five state child care assistance programs. GAO investigators posing as parents and child care
providers successfully billed for $11,702 in child care assistance for fictitious children. In
addition, GAO examined closed case studies of fraud and abuse and interviewed parents
waitlisted for child care assistance. GAO concluded that the five states under investigation lacked
controls over billing and child care assistance processes when dealing with unregulated providers,
leaving the programs vulnerable to fraud and abuse. However, GAO also noted that these results
cannot be generalized beyond the five states included in the investigation or beyond unregulated
child care providers. According to preliminary HHS administrative data (the most recent
available), unregulated child care providers constituted roughly 19% of all providers receiving
CCDF support in FY2010.49
In August 2010, prior to the release of the GAO report, HHS issued guidance regarding program
integrity and financial accountability under CCDF.50 The program instruction provided state lead
agencies with recommendations and resources for strengthening program integrity. It covered
topics such as the verification and documentation of child and family eligibility, mechanisms for
monitoring child care providers, and processes for recovering payments resulting from fraud. The
program instruction also highlighted state responsibilities in conducting case records reviews to
detect and reduce errors associated with eligibility determination, pursuant to the new regulation
on state error rate reporting issued by HHS in September 2007.
State Error Rate Reporting
Following the enactment of the Improper Payment Information Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-300), the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) identified CCDF as a program at risk of significant
improper payments.51 As with other “high risk” programs, HHS was required to complete
erroneous payment risk assessments for CCDF every three years. HHS took a number of steps to
respond to this mandate, culminating in the publication of new regulations, effective October 1,
2007, on state requirements for error rate reporting.52

49 See Table 4 of the preliminary FY2010 CCDF data tables, available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/
resource/ccdf-statistics.
50 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family
Assistance, Child Care Bureau, Program Instruction CCDF-ACF-PI-2010-06, August 26, 2010,
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/law/guidance/current/pi2010-06/pi2010-06.htm.
51 OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_default. Beginning with FY2010
reporting, rather than listing high priority programs in Appendix C itself, OMB stipulated that it would conduct an
annual re-evaluation of the high priority program list and notify agencies if any programs should be added or removed
from the high priority list for reporting purposes.
52 The new regulation was codified at 45 CFR 98 (subpart K). CCDF regulations are available online at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title45-vol1/pdf/CFR-2011-title45-vol1-part98.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
28

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

The new regulations specify that states must calculate, prepare, and submit to HHS a report of
errors occurring in the administration of CCDF grant funds. In this report, states must establish
target error rates (i.e., goals for reducing future errors) and discuss strategies for reducing error
rates. In addition, states must report on
• state error rates (defined as the percentage of cases with an error and expressed as
the total number of cases with an error compared to the total number of cases);
• percentage of cases with an improper payment (expressed as the total number of
cases with an improper payment compared to the total number of cases);
• percentage of improper payments (expressed as the total amount of improper
payments in the sample compared to the total dollar amount of payments made in
the sample);
• average amount of improper payment; and
• estimated annual amount of improper payments.
Error Rate Methodology and Recent Findings
The CCDF error rate methodology requires that states conduct a comprehensive review of a
random sample of case records to determine whether child care subsidies were properly
authorized to eligible families. The methodology focuses on administrative errors and improper
authorizations for payment made during the client eligibility determination process.53 States must
conduct these reviews and report their findings to HHS once per every three-year reporting cycle.
States are required to provide federal staff with access to, and the opportunity to participate and
provide oversight in, case reviews and calculations of error rates.
HHS uses a three-year rotation for measuring CCDF improper authorizations for payments. A
stratified random sampling method was used for selecting states, with approximately one-third of
the total of 52 states (50 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) selected to
participate in each year of a three-year cycle.
CCDF error rate data are released annually by HHS in the department’s Agency Financial
Reports.54 Annual error rates actually represent three-year weighted national averages comprised
of both over- and under-authorizations for payment. Most recently, HHS reported an FY2011
error rate of 11.2% ($636 million), down from 13.3% ($810 million) for FY2010.55 When netting
out over- and under-payments, the net error rate for FY2011 was 9.2% ($522 million). Notably,
the amount of improper authorizations for payment is not the same as actual improper payments
rendered. HHS has indicated that, in general, the amount of actual improper payments rendered is
about 17% lower, on average, than improper authorizations.

53 The CCDF methodology distinguishes between authorizations for payment and actual payments made to providers
for child care services rendered.
54 HHS Agency Financial Reports can be found at http://www.hhs.gov/afr/.
55 FY2011 Agency Financial Report, November 15, 2011, http://www.hhs.gov/afr/2011afr.pdf. The actual amount of
improper authorizations for CCDF payments identified during this three-year review cycle (bearing in mind only a
sample of case records are reviewed in each state) was $765,491. This amount includes $166,268 for Year One States,
$214,475 for Year Two States, and $384,748 for Year Three States.
Congressional Research Service
29

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

What Happens When Erroneous Payments Are Uncovered?
Regulations state that improper payments identified during the case reviews are subject to federal
disallowance procedures for misspent funds (that is, funds identified as having been improperly
spent will be disallowed for the purposes of federal reimbursement).56 Improperly spent funds are
subject to disallowance regardless of whether the state pursues recovery of such funds. Federal
rules require states to recover improper child care payments that occur as the result of fraud.
However, if the improper payment was not the result of fraud, as in cases of administrative error,
federal rules give states discretion as to whether or not to recover misspent funds. Recovered
funds may be used for activities specified in approved state plans, provided funds are recovered
within the applicable obligation period. If, however, funds are not recovered until after the end of
the applicable obligation period, recoveries must be returned to the federal government.57
2007 Final Rule on State Match Requirements
In 2007, HHS published a final rule (effective October 1, 2007) that revised existing CCDF
regulations on state match requirements. The purpose of the new rule was to increase state
flexibility in making expenditures toward state CCDF match requirements. To this end, the rule
amended requirements related to the use of public pre-kindergarten and privately donated funds.
First, the final rule increased the amount of public pre-kindergarten expenditures that may be
used as state match for CCDF. Previous regulations allowed that no more than 20% of a state’s
match requirement be fulfilled by public pre-kindergarten expenditures. Under the final rule, up
to 30% of a state’s CCDF match may come from public pre-kindergarten expenditures.
Second, the rule amended requirements related to the use of privately donated funds. Prior to the
new rule, CCDF regulations specified that privately donated funds would only qualify as state
match for CCDF if they had been transferred to (or were under the control of) the state’s lead
agency or a single entity designated by the state to receive donated funds. The new rule amended
previous regulations to permit states to designate multiple public and/or private entities as eligible
to receive donated funds. However, the rule required that donated funds be certified by both (1)
the state’s lead agency for CCDF and (2) either the donor or the entity designated by the state to
receive privately donated funds, as appropriate. In addition, the final rule maintained previous
requirements related to private donations, which specify that such funds (1) must be donated
without any restriction that would require their use for a specific individual, organization, facility,
or institution; (2) may not revert to the donor’s facility or use; (3) may not be used to match other
federal funds; and (4) shall be subject to audit.

56 HHS regulations specify, however, that extrapolations of estimated improper payments derived from random
sampling of total cases are not subject to disallowance.
57 For more information on CCDF obligation and expenditure rules, see CRS Report RL31274, Child Care: Funding
and Spending under Federal Block Grants, by Melinda Gish.
Congressional Research Service
30

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

Data Collection
Federal law specifies a set of data reporting requirements for states in the administration of their
CCDF programs. States must submit disaggregated data on children and families receiving
assistance to HHS every quarter, and aggregated data twice a year. The law further requires the
Secretary to submit a report to Congress once every two years. The most recent available
published report to Congress is for both FY2006 and FY2007.58 Select program data and statistics
are available for FY1998 through FY2010 (preliminary) on the HHS website.59
Federal law specifically requires states to collect the following information on each family unit
receiving assistance, to be included in quarterly reports: family income; county of residence;
gender, race, and age of children receiving assistance; whether the family includes only one
parent; sources of family income, separately identified and including amounts; number of months
the family has received benefits; the type of child care received; whether the child care provider
was a relative; the cost of child care; and the average hours per week of care.
Aggregate data to be reported every six months include the number of child care providers that
receive funding under this program, separately identified by type; the monthly cost of child care
services, and the portion that is subsidized by this program, identified by type of care; the number
of payments made by the state through vouchers, contracts, cash, and disregards under public
benefit programs, identified by type of child care provided; the manner in which consumer
education information was provided and the number of parents to whom it was provided; and the
total unduplicated number of children and families served by the program.
Religious Providers
Under the CCDBG Act, religious providers may receive assistance on the same basis as
nonsectarian providers. However, religious providers may use funds for construction assistance,
which is generally prohibited for other providers, to the extent such efforts are deemed necessary
to bring facilities into compliance with health and safety requirements. Use of funds for religious
activities, including sectarian worship or instruction, is generally prohibited under the CCDBG
Act. However, this prohibition does not apply to funds received by child care providers in the
form of child care certificates, if such sectarian child care services are freely chosen by the parent.
Child care providers that receive CCDF funding may not discriminate in their admissions policy
against a child on the basis of religion, with the exceptions of family child care providers (i.e.,
individuals who are the sole caregiver for children in a private home) or providers who receive
assistance through child care certificates. However, sectarian providers may reserve unsubsidized
slots for children whose families regularly participate in their organization’s activities, unless
80% or more of their operating budget comes from federal or state funds, including child care
certificates.
In their employment practices, child care providers receiving assistance under the act may not
discriminate on the basis of religion if the employee’s primary responsibility is working directly

58 Annual reports to Congress are available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/reports-to-congress.
59 Select program data and statistics are available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/ccdf-statistics.
Congressional Research Service
31

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

with children in the delivery of child care services. However, in considering two or more
qualified candidates, sectarian providers may select an individual who regularly participates in
their organization’s activities. In addition, sectarian organizations may require employees to
adhere to their religious tenets or teachings and to rules forbidding the use of drugs or alcohol,
unless 80% or more of their operating budget comes from federal or state funds, including child
care certificates.
The welfare reform law of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) included a section on services provided by
charitable, religious or private organizations under the TANF program.60 This provision also
applies to child care services funded under TANF. The provision, commonly referred to as
“charitable choice,” is intended to allow states to provide services through charitable and
religious organizations, without impairing the religious character of these organizations or the
religious freedom of individuals who participate in the programs.
Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations
The Secretary is required by law to reserve between 1% and 2% of all child care funds (both
discretionary and mandatory), for payments to Indian tribes and tribal organizations. The
Secretary is required to allocate among other tribes and organizations any funds that an Indian
tribe or tribal organization does not use in a manner consistent with the statute.
Indian tribes and tribal organizations are required to submit applications to receive these reserved
funds. Applications must show that the organization seeking funds will coordinate with the lead
agency in the state, that activities will benefit Indian children on reservations, and that reports and
audits will be prepared. The Secretary, in consultation with the tribes and tribal organizations,
bears the responsibility for developing minimum child care standards that reflect tribal needs and
available resources that will apply in lieu of licensing and regulatory requirements otherwise
applicable under state or local law.61
Notably, while the CCDBG Act generally prohibits use of funds for construction or renovation of
facilities, the law does allow Indian tribes and tribal organizations to submit a request to the
Secretary to use funds for these purposes. The Secretary may approve the request after a
determination that adequate facilities are not otherwise available and that the lack of such
facilities will inhibit the operation of child care programs in the future. The Secretary may not
approve the request if it will reduce the level of child care services provided from the level
provided by the tribe or organization in the previous year.
Quality Rating and Improvement Systems
A growing number of states use CCDF quality funds to create or support Quality Rating and
Improvement Systems (QRIS).62 These systems are designed to assess, report, and improve the

60 For a discussion of this provision, see CRS Report RL32736, Charitable Choice Rules and Faith-Based
Organizations, by Joe Richardson.
61 These standards were first introduced in 2000, but were updated in 2005 and reissued as “voluntary guidelines.” A
copy of these standards can be found online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/occ/ms.pdf.
62 In March 2012, HHS reported that 25 states had a statewide QRIS with the five common elements discussed here.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
32

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

quality of early childhood programs. A QRIS can be used to rate providers against a set of
measures selected to determine program quality. Data collected by a QRIS may be used to hold
programs accountable for the quality of care they provide, to target technical assistance to
programs in need of support, and to increase parental understanding of the quality of different
child care programs. These systems often use simple three- or four-star rating scales to denote
program quality on specific measures, such as child/staff ratios and staff credentials.
While the key components (and benchmarks) of quality measured by QRIS can vary across states,
five common elements of these systems include the following:
• Standards: Research-based indicators of quality in early childhood settings (e.g.,
health and safety requirements, staff qualifications, staff-child ratios). Standards
are often linked to licensing and accreditation requirements.
• Accountability: Regular inspections are usually completed by trained observers.
Research-based assessments such as an Environment Rating Scale (ERS) and the
Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) may be used.
• Program Support: Providers may receive training, mentoring, or other forms of
technical and financial assistance to encourage providers to participate in the
rating system and to help their programs achieve higher levels of quality.
• Parent Education: Systems typically use simple rating scales (e.g., three- or
four-star scales or a point-based scale) that are easily understood by parents
seeking information on the quality of child care programs in their communities.
• Incentives: Financial incentives may be used to encourage providers to achieve
higher levels of quality. These may include tiered subsidy reimbursement (i.e.,
paying a higher reimbursement rate to providers meeting higher standards of
care), professional development grants to increase staff training and
qualifications, and tax credits for parents who enroll children in rated programs.

(...continued)
These states are Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin. For more information, see
National Center on Child Care Quality Improvement, Office of Child Care, Administration for Children and Families,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, QRIS in Statutes and Regulations, March 2012,
http://www.qrisnetwork.org/sites/all/files/resources/gscobb/2012-04-02%2011:56/Report.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
33

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding

Appendix. FY2009 CCDF Allocations
(Including ARRA)
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5), appropriated $2.0
billion in discretionary child care funds in FY2009. Although the ARRA made these funds
available for obligation through the end of FY2010, HHS opted to provide states with their full
allocations from the ARRA in FY2009, nearly doubling discretionary CCDF allotments to states
for that fiscal year. Table A-1 displays FY2009 CCDF allocations from all federal funding
sources, including the funds allocated to states from the ARRA.
Table A-1. FY2009 CCDF Allocations
(amounts, in dollars, do not include potential re-allotments)

Mandatory Funds
Discretionary Funds

Federal
Share
Recipient
“Guaranteed"
Matching
FY2009
Total
(State, Territory, Tribe, Other)
Mandatory
Funds
Omnibus ARRA Federal
Alabama
16,441,707
25,408,245
40,699,663
38,470,990
121,020,605
Alaska
3,544,811
4,063,825
4,269,912
4,036,095
15,914,643
Arizona
19,827,025
38,843,917
53,824,247
50,876,886
163,372,075
Arkansas
5,300,283
16,012,812
26,589,798
25,133,767
73,036,660
California
85,593,217
211,811,933
233,034,605
220,273,864
750,713,619
Colorado
10,173,800
27,529,729
25,720,747
24,312,305
87,736,581
Connecticut
18,738,357
18,178,031
14,478,449
13,685,624
65,080,461
Delaware
5,179,330
4,655,334
4,809,076
4,545,736
19,189,476
District of Columbia
4,566,974
2,596,430
2,841,092
2,685,517
12,690,013
Florida
43,026,524 91,403,553 111,433,225 105,331,254
351,194,556
Georgia
36,548,223
58,395,506
87,646,485
82,847,053 265,437,267
Hawai
4,971,633
6,473,217
6,822,298
6,448,715
24,715,863
Idaho
2,867,578
9,406,606
12,638,572
11,946,497
36,859,253
Illinois
56,873,824
72,660,972
78,046,369
73,772,628
281,353,793
Indiana
26,181,999
36,039,410
45,241,711
42,764,321
150,227,441
Iowa
8,507,792
15,992,058
19,170,605
18,120,842
61,791,297
Kansas
9,811,721
15,879,664
19,482,264
18,415,435
63,589,084
Kentucky
16,701,653
22,798,415
36,920,367
34,898,645 111,319,080
Louisiana
13,864,552
24,414,650
42,332,204
40,014,134 120,625,540
Maine
3,018,598
6,066,612
7,149,448
6,757,951
22,992,609
Maryland
23,301,407
30,454,015
25,433,096
24,040,405
103,228,923
Massachusetts
44,973,373
31,846,226
25,355,376
23,966,942 126,141,917
Michigan
32,081,922
54,088,623
62,080,653
58,681,179
206,932,377
Congressional Research Service
34

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding


Mandatory Funds
Discretionary Funds

Federal
Share
Recipient
“Guaranteed"
Matching
FY2009
Total
(State, Territory, Tribe, Other)
Mandatory
Funds
Omnibus ARRA Federal
Minnesota
23,367,543
28,427,578
27,609,193
26,097,341
105,501,655
Mississippi
6,293,116
17,475,750
32,778,293
30,983,387
87,530,546
Missouri
24,668,568
32,065,667
40,922,593
38,681,713 136,338,541
Montana
3,190,691
4,851,889
6,079,937
5,747,006
19,869,523
Nebraska
10,594,637
10,187,127
12,482,903
11,799,352
45,064,019
Nevada
2,580,422
15,305,948
15,144,641
14,315,336
47,346,347
New Hampshire
4,581,870
6,513,515
5,010,614
4,736,238
20,842,237
New Jersey
26,374,178
46,381,871
36,081,817
34,106,014
142,943,880
New Mexico
8,307,587
11,375,335
18,848,669
17,816,534
56,348,125
New York
101,983,998
98,195,618
102,392,553
96,785,640
399,357,809
North Carolina
69,639,228
50,968,578
71,455,992
67,543,134
259,606,932
North Dakota
2,506,022
3,180,045
3,854,955
3,643,862
13,184,884
Ohio
70,124,656
61,627,213
72,088,324
68,140,840
271,981,033
Oklahoma
24,909,979
20,598,914
31,905,779
30,158,651
107,573,323
Oregon
19,408,790
19,459,057
23,814,406
22,510,354 85,192,607
Pennsylvania
55,336,804
61,379,602
63,631,144
60,146,767
240,494,317
Rhode Island
6,633,774
5,136,805
5,526,768
5,224,128
22,521,475
South Carolina
9,867,439
23,947,853
38,420,103
36,316,257
108,551,652
South Dakota
1,710,801
4,446,971
5,776,337
5,460,031
17,394,140
Tennessee
37,702,188
33,464,276
44,361,712
41,932,510
157,460,686
Texas
59,844,129 154,440,610 227,298,219 214,851,599
656,434,557
Utah
12,591,564
19,457,466
23,661,260
22,365,594
78,075,884
Vermont
3,944,887
2,816,093
2,986,934
2,823,373
12,571,287
Virginia
21,328,766
41,548,889
40,086,857
37,891,741 140,856,253
Washington
41,883,444
34,566,445
35,283,281
33,351,204 145,084,374
West Virginia
8,727,005
8,682,904
13,803,056
13,047,215
44,260,180
Wisconsin
24,511,351
29,495,338
32,259,829
30,493,313
116,759,831
Wyoming
2,815,041
2,825,579
2,736,365
2,586,525
10,963,510
America Samoa
-
-
2,831,968
2,662,774
5,494,742
Guam
-
-
3,978,605
3,740,906
7,719,511
N. Mariana Islands
-
-
1,938,850
1,823,015
3,761,865
Puerto Rico
-
-
35,353,476
33,417,556
68,771,032
Virgin Islands
-
-
1,885,982
1,773,305
3,659,287
Tribes
58,340,000
- 42,541,620 40,000,000 140,881,620
Congressional Research Service
35

---

The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding


Mandatory Funds
Discretionary Funds

Federal
Share
Recipient
“Guaranteed"
Matching
FY2009
Total
(State, Territory, Tribe, Other)
Mandatory
Funds
Omnibus ARRA Federal
Technical Assistance
3,792,100
3,500,400
5,317,703
5,000,000
17,610,203
Child Care Awarea
-
-
1,000,000
-
1,000,000
Research & Evaluationb
-
-
9,910,000
-
9,910,000
Total
1,239,656,881 1,677,343,119 2,127,081,000 2,000,000,000 7,044,081,000
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS). In estimating allocations, HHS used data from the fol owing sources:
population under age 5 and population under age 13 from the Census Bureau, published July 2007; FY2007
participants in Free and Reduced School Lunch Program from the Department of Agriculture; and per capita
income for 2004, 2005, and 2006 from the Department of Commerce, published March 2008.
a. The FY2009 Omnibus (P.L. 111-8) included a $1 million set-aside for Child Care Aware, specifying that this
amount should come out of the $19 million targeted funds for resource and referral and school-age care
activities.
b. The FY2009 Omnibus also included $9,910,000 for research, demonstration, and evaluation.


Congressional Research Service
36

---