14 r-1748 childcaresubsidiesinmonroecounty (1)

8/9/2019 14 R-1748 ChildCareSubsidiesinMonroeCounty (1)

1/21

w w w .cgr.org

1 South Washington Street, Suite 400, Rochester, New York 14614

(585) 325-6360 • inf o@cgr .org

Prom ising Solut ions

Government & Education | Econom ics & Public Finance | Health & Human Services | Nonprofits & Comm unit ies

Child Care Subsidies in Monroe

CountyAn Analysis of Need, Availability and Trends

Updated May, 2015

Prepared for :Greater Rochester League of Women Voters

Prepared by:Erika RosenbergProject Director

© CGR Inc. 2015 – All Rights Reserved

http://www.cgr.org/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.cgr.org/


2/21

i

w w w .cgr.org

SummaryChild care is an enormous expense for families with working parents, especially those

with young children not yet in school and low incomes. For example, according toNew York State, a family needing full-t ime care for an infant under 18 months that

selects a day care center can expect to pay as much as $246 a week, or nearly $12,800

a year.1 That comes close to consuming the entire paycheck of a minim um- wage

worker, who will earn (before taxes) $16,640 in a year.

The child care subsidy program operated by counties in New York State aims to ease

that burden, helping to keep parents in the workforce and provide access to high-

quality care for their children. Yet in most parts of New York State, subsidies have

becom e less available over the past several years. From 2007 to 2013, the number of

subsidies dropped in 38 of New York’s 57 counties outside New York City, with an

average decline of 27%.

CGR and the Greater Rochester League of Women Voters chose child care subsidies as

the focus of our research effort in 2014, funded out of the Beatrice Bibby Endowment.

This study examines availability, need, funding and policies related to child care

subsidies in Monroe County, similar counties and in New York State as a whole. Key

findings include:

In Monroe County, the number of subsidies provided decreased by 17% from 2007to 2013.

Monroe County served 22% of potentially eligible children in 2013, com pared to20% statew ide, and higher than sim ilar count ies (Erie and Onondaga).

Adjusted for inflation, funding for subsidies has declined since 2007. Federal andstate funding declined 2% and local funding 5%.

As a group, Monroe County families receiving subsidies have grow n somewhatpoorer in the last few years. From 2011 to 2013, the number of families receivingsubsidies who had income below the federal poverty threshold increased 19%. Thisoutpaced the 6% increase in families with income from 100- 149% of povertyreceiving subsidies and decline of 11% in families with income at or above 150% ofpoverty.

The need for subsidies in Monroe County is largest in the City of Rochester butgrow ing fastest in som e suburbs. The number of children potentially eligible grew52% in Irondequoit, 31% in Henrietta and 17% in Greece from 2000 to 2008-12.

1 See New York’s study o f child care market rates, used to determine subsidy levels:goo.gl/jvHX3j

http://www.cgr.org/http://www.cgr.org/


3/21

ii

w w w .cgr.org

Statewide, the subsidy program lacks consistency and the ability to analyze andmonitor trends and need. Among local areas we studied, the share of eligiblechildren receiving subsidies ranged from 6% to 25%, and federal and state fundingper eligible child varied from less than $350 to nearly $2,000.

Serving all eligible families would be very expensive, but targeting low-incomefamilies with children of particular ages may be more feasible. National researchhas shown that only 50% of those eligible for subsidies are likely to apply forassistance, potentially making it possible to make progress closing the gap betweenneed and availability o f subsidies.



4/21

ii i

w w w .cgr.org

AcknowledgementsThis report would not have been possible without the generous support of the

Beatrice Bibby Endowment o f the Greater Rochester League of Women Voters. CGRwould also like to thank Carolyn Lee-Davis of the Children’s Agenda for sharing herinsights into New York’s child care subsidy program and Nancy Forgue, DeputyHuman Services Commissioner for Monroe County, for providing information andhelpful context on the operation of Monroe County’s program.

We are also grateful to the Dyson Foundation and the Rauch Foundation for theirsupport, which allowed for additional data collection and analysis in the Mid-HudsonValley and Long Island regions of the state. In addition, members of the EarlyChildhood Development Init iative in Rochester and Winning Beginning New Yorkprovided guidance and advice.

Staff TeamErika Rosenberg was the primary researcher and author o f this report. Valuableresearch support and data analysis were provided by Michael Silva, Rachel Rhodes,Henry Druschel and Katherine Bell.



5/21

iv

w w w .cgr.org

Table of ContentsSummary........................................................................................................................................... i

Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................... iii Staff Team ..................................................................................................................................... iii

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

How the Subsidy Program Works .................................................................................................. 2

Methodology ...........................................................................................................................................3

Gap Analysis: Comparing Need and Availability ............................................................... 5

Spotligh t on Monroe County.....................................................................................................6

Funding Constraints Lim it Access ................................................................................................. 6

Families Receiving Subsidies Growing Poorer ......................................................................... 8

More Families Have a High Co-Paym ent ................................................................................ 9

More Children in Regulated Care ............................................................................................... 9

Local Area Need: Highest in City, Growing in Suburbs...................................................... 10

Funding Has Not Kept Pace w ith Inflation................................................................................11

Serving all Eligible Children Would Add Significant Cost .................................................. 12

Com pared to Other Counties, Monroe Serves More ...................................................... 14

Questions to Consider .............................................................................................................. 15



6/21

1

w w w .cgr.org

IntroductionChild care is one of the largest expenses facing working families, especially those withyoung children not yet in school. According to New York State, a family needing full-tim e care for an infant under 18 months that selects a day care center can expect topay as much as $246 a week, or nearly $12,800 a year.2 If that family has another child,say a 3-year-old, the cost goes up by $215 weekly, and totals nearly $24,000 annually.That’s far more than the total before-tax annual earnings of a minimum-wage workerof $16,640. Families can choose less expensive, home-based care, but the costs are stillsignificant, in this example, nearly $18,000 for registered family day care.

Subsidies aim t o h elp l i f t fam il ies ou t of poverty and m ake

high -qu al i ty chi ld care accessible to fam il ies that cann ot

oth erw ise afford it.

The federal government funds child care subsidies nationwide for low-incomefamilies. Subsidies are thought to serve the twin goals of providing a suppo rt for poo rfam ilies to lift themselves out of poverty through work and of making high-quality child care accessible to families who w ould likely be unable to afford it. In federal fiscalyear 2011-12, the Child Care and Development Fund made $5.2 billion available to thestates, territories and tribes, and 1.5 million children were served, according to the

federal Office of Child Care.3

In New York, nearly 132,000children under 13 receivedchild care subsidies in 2013.The state allocated about$738 million, mostly federaldollars, to support theprogram, and countygovernments spent at leastan additional $68 million.4

Yet, subsidies are reaching a

small share of families thatare eligible, and in many NewYork count ies, includingMonroe County, the number

2 See New York’s study o f child care market rates, used to determine subsidy levels:goo.gl/jvHX3j 3 http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ 4 Full local funding for subsidies is not easily obtained.

-80%-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

P e r c

e n t c h a n g e

i n

c h i l d r e n

s e r v e d

Counties

Subsidies Declined in Most

Counties from 2007-13

http://www.cgr.org/http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occhttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occhttp://www.cgr.org/


7/21

2

w w w .cgr.org

of subsidies provided to children has been falling. From 2007 to 2013, the number ofchildren served by subsidies dropped in 38 of New York’s 57 counties outside NewYork City, with an average decline of 27%, and they fell 17% in Monroe County. Thisoccurred as families were struggling through one of the biggest economic recessionsin the country’s history, which began in 2008.

With these trends in mind, CGR and the Greater Rochester League of Women Voterschose child care subsidies as the focus of our research effort in 2014, funded out of theBeatrice Bibby Endowment. This study examines availability, need, funding andpolicies related to child care subsidies in Monroe County, similar count ies and in NewYork State as a whole. The study aims to answer the following key questions:

What is the potential demand for child care subsidies, and how does that com pareto the availability?

What have recent trends been in the availability of subsidies? What are recenttrends in funding for the program?

Who is using subsidies in terms of age of children, family income level, and o thervariables?

How much variation is there among counties in who the subsidy program servesand how it operates?

How the Subsidy Program Works

The federal government is the primary funder of child care subsidies, distributingdollars to states through the Child Care Development Block Grant. States can addfunding to the pot and make many policies affecting the program’s operation,including deciding the income eligibility level. In New York, federal and state dollarsare distributed to count ies, which administer the program and make several additionalpolicy decisions, including sett ing a low er incom e eligibility level if desired. Count iesare mandated to provide some local funding for ch ild care subsidies, and someprovide additional funding as a policy and budget choice.

Families apply for subsidies and once determined eligible, choose a child care provider

if funding is available. Counties make payments to providers based on reimbursementrates set by the state following a market survey. Reimbursement rates5 were set in2014 at the 69th percentile (down from the 75th percentile in previous years) of ratesreported by providers and vary by type – center, home-based, etc. Some familiesreceive subsidies as part o f their Family Assistance (welfare) grant.

5 Technically, these are maximum reimbursement rates; providers may charge less.



8/21

3

w w w .cgr.org

The number of subsidies provided to families in any county w ill be driven by severalfactors, including the level of funding from the federal and state governments; thelevel of local spending; the reimbursement rates set by the state for various types ofcare; and the types of care chosen by parents (center-based care is more expensivethan home-based care).

A note about quality care: While the child care subsidy program was originallydeveloped primarily as a support for low-income working families, increasinglypolicymakers and advocates view it as critical to providing low-income children withaccess to quality care. Thirty-seven states provide higher reimbursement rates tohigher quality providers. In New York, counties have the option to provide enhancedpayments to accredited providers – Monroe is one of 10 count ies that do. But theselection of a provider is up to the parent.

Methodology

CGR compiled and analyzed data from state and local sources, in addition to the U.S.Census Bureau, and interviewed both state and local experts about the operation o fthe chi ld care subsidy program. In order to estim ate the overall potential need for childcare subsidies, CGR used data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Public Use MicrodataSample to determine the num ber of children under 6 and under 13 in householdsearning 200% or less of the federal poverty threshold6 w ith parents either working orlooking for work (therefore considered part of the workforce). Overall, the eligibilitythreshold for subsidies is 200% of the poverty level, though count ies have the ability toset a lower threshold based on the availability o f funding, and m ost have done so.7

This data was compiled and analyzed for 15 counties and 3 two-county areas, asdetermined by the Census Bureau’s PUMS geographic defini tions.

In addition, we requested detailed data from 12 counties and from the state Office forChildren and Family Services (OCFS), which administers the program at the state level,on the overall num ber of children served through the subsidies over the last severalyears, and various breakdowns of those total: by age, by income level, by type of care(center, home-based, informal, etc.). We also requested interviews with county officialsand w ith leaders within OCFS.

For the most part, counties told us their data systems did not allow them to easily

extract the data we requested. The state provided a similar response, and offered toextract the data if CGR paid for state workers’ time to do so. CGR purchased data onchild care subsidies broken down by family income, child care setting and level of co-payments. In addition, the state provided figures on total children receiving subsidies

6 Poverty thresholds vary by family composition and year. In 2014, the threshold for a four-personfamily was $23,850.7 See the Empire Justice Center’s report on policies/practices across the state: goo.gl/7gtO2R



9/21

4

w w w .cgr.org

in the years 2007-2013; though data for earlier years have been made available, a stateanalyst says those num bers are not considered reliable.

In terms of conduct ing in terviews, CGR was able to eventually make contact w ithofficials in most of the count ies; state officials declined our request.



10/21

5

w w w .cgr.org

Gap Analysis: Comparing Need andAvailabilityStatewide in 2013, child care subsidies reached about 20% of all those who may havebeen eligible, according to our estimates. The gap was larger outside New York City,with about 14% of potent ially eligible children served. Within New York City, which hasinvested significant local funding in subsidies, 25% of potentially eligible childrenreceived subsidies.

Children

Served,2013

2007-13Trend

EstimatedNeed

Share of

Need Served,2013

State Funding2014-15

State

Funding,

per EligibleChild

Albany 1,816 7% 8,750 21% 12,665,097$ 1,447$

Chautauqua 1,050 -30% 5,652 19% 4,200,437$ 743$

Columbia & Greene 287 8% 2,971 10% 1,807,899$ 609$

Dutchess 915 12% 7,569 12% 6,993,359$ 924$

Erie 4,334 -30% 32,871 13% 24,336,843$ 740$

Jefferson & Lewis 386 -50% 6,793 6% 2,281,184$ 336$

Monroe 6,419 -17% 29,434 22% 36,259,399$ 1,232$

Nassau 4,919 55% 22,867 17% 44,065,330$ 1,927$

Onondaga 3,297 16% 18,543 18% 16,336,953$ 881$

Orange 1,101 3% 11,519 10% 6,948,345$ 603$Oswego 602 -6% 4,278 14% 2,387,615$ 558$

Putnam 112 27% 1,501 7% 900,437$ 600$

Rockland 1,119 3% 10,090 11% 8,465,441$ 839$

Saint Lawrence 547 -12% 5,482 10% 1,871,243$ 341$

Schenectady 1,067 -8% 6,200 17% 5,985,825$ 965$

Suffolk 2,659 -24% 27,108 10% 31,364,169$ 1,157$

Sullivan & Ulster 893 -17% 8,458 11% 5,593,632$ 661$

Westchester 3,035 10% 24,011 13% 27,775,594$ 1,157$

NYC 85,625 25% 337,221 25% 501,503,642$ 1,487$

NYS outside NYC 45,264 -10% 330,774 14% 292,567,767$ 884$

NYS Total 131,998 10% 667,995 20% 794,071,409$ 1,189$

Source: CGR analysis of data from U.S. Census Bureau and Office of Children & Family Services

Key Facts for Focus Counties

Notes: Need reflects children under 13 in families with parents working/looking for work and earning 200%

or less of poverty level. County data grouped together where necessary due to availability of detailed

Census data.



11/21

6

w w w .cgr.org

Among the 18 areas we studied (15 counties and 3 two-county areas), the gap wasgreatest in Putnam and Jefferson & Lewis Counties, where 7% and 6% of potentiallyeligible children were served (respectively). Several o ther areas were serving 10- 13% ofthe eligible population in 2013 – Colum bia & Greene counties, Dutchess, Erie, Orange,Rockland, St. Lawrence, Westchester, Suffolk and Sullivan & Ulster. In addition to NewYork City, the gap was smallest in Albany (21%), Chautauqua (19%), Monroe (22%),Onondaga (18%) and Nassau (17%).

Overall, the number of subsidies provided has increased 10% throughout the statebetw een 2007 and 2013. But that is largely because of a 25% increase in New YorkCity. Outside of the city, subsidies have fallen by 10% from 2007-13. The largestdeclines over that t ime period w ere in Chautauqua and Erie (both dow n 30%),Jefferson & Lewis (-50%), Suffo lk (-24%) and Monroe and Sullivan & Ulster (both down17%). The largest increases in subsidies were in Nassau (55%), Putnam (27%) andOnondaga (16%).

Overall , the n um ber of sub sidies provided h as increased

10% thro ughout the state betw een 20 07 and 2013. But th at

is largely because of a 25% incr ease in N ew Yor k City.

State allocations for subsidies varied dramatically across the areas. Viewed as theamount of funding provided per eligible child, allocations made by the state rangedfrom less than $350 to nearly $2,000 per child. Allocations per child w ere more than$1,000 in Nassau, Albany, Monroe, Suffo lk, Westchester and New York City, comparedto $341 in St. Lawrence and $336 in Jefferson & Lewis counties. State allocations arebased on historical spending of subsidy dollars, specifically, a 5-year average. Anycounty that does not spend its allocation in one year may see its allocation reduced, ifit “rolls over” more than 15% of its funding.

Spotlight on Monroe County

Funding Constraints Limit Access

In 2013, 6,419 children in Monroe County benefited from subsidies to help pay forchild care, according to the data provided by OCFS. That w as dow n 17% from 7,734 in2007. Though w e do not include earlier data due to the state’s concerns aboutaccuracy, data CGR received from Monroe County for a prior pro ject showed highernumbers of children served in earlier years – 10,700 in 2002, 9,800 in 2003 and 9,300in 2004.



12/21

7

w w w .cgr.org

Those served in recent years make up about a fifth of the population of children inpotentially eligible families. According to Census Bureau estimates, about 29,400children w ere living in households where parents were working or looking for w orkand earning 200% or less of the poverty level.8 With the decline in the number served,the share served has fallen from about 26% in 2007 to 22% in 2013.

Due to funding constraints, Monroe County has not set i ts eligibility threshold at 200%of the poverty level in more than a decade.9 For the last several years, the eligibili tylevel has been 165% of the federal poverty level, according to county officials. Between2002 and 2006, the eligibility threshold fluctuated between 140% and 165%.

County officials note that one of the factors driving down the number of subsidiesprovided is an increase in the share of families choosing more expensive types of care.In 2003, just 25% of subsidies went to children attending centers, 30% went to childrenin home-based care, and 45% to children in “legally exempt” care. Legally exempt

providers are often family m embers or friends providing child care on an info rmalbasis – they are not regulated by the state as formal child care providers are.

In 2013, the share of subsidized children in legally exempt care was down to 25%,home-based care increased to 42% and center- based care increased to 34%.

In addition, the state-set reimbursement rates have outpaced inflation for some typesof care. From 2002 to 2014, the reimbursement rates for center-based care for infants18 months or younger increased 13%, even after adjusting for inflation, thoughincreases for home-based care were closer to inflation and the rate for legally exemptcare actually declined relative to inflation.

Since June 2013, the County’s program has largely been closed to new applicants,though officials say a few cases were opened in summer 2014 when projectionsindicated funding w as available. Prior to that, the county had been accepting andserving applicants for roughly the 15-m onth period beginning in March 2012. Thatfollowed a period of 16 months starting in October 2010 when the program wasclosed to new applicants.10

Yet, the County consistently receives thousands of applications: more than 3,400 in2012, 2,800 in 2013 and 1,500 through August of 2014. Monroe does not maintain awaiting list o f eligible applicants, as some counties do. The County’s approach to the

program has been to deny new applicants when funding is low rather than to removesubsidies from families currently receiving them, as other count ies have done.

8 This estim ate is derived from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey fo r 2008-12. Thebureau combines five years of responses to the survey to provide estim ates for smaller geographicareas and increase the precision of its estim ates.9 Technically, eligibility remains at 200%, but families at 165% or below are priorit ized for subsidies. 10 Information in th is section about Monroe County management of the program is from Nancy Forgue,Deputy Human Services Commissioner for the County.



13/21

8

w w w .cgr.org

The majority of children benefiting from subsidies participate in the “income-eligible”program affected by the eligibility levels – 60% in 2013 – w hich w as true throughoutthe state except in New York City. The remaining 40% in Monroe County receivedsubsidies as part of their Family Assistance grant. These proportions have not changedmuch over the last several years in Monroe County – in 2007, 57% of children w ere inthe low-income program.

Families Receiving Subsidies Growing Poorer

Analysis of data purchased from the state show s families receiving subsidies as agroup have become poorer, and more are paying relatively high co-payments forsubsidies. Increasingly, children receiving subsidies are receiving care in home-basedbut regulated sett ings rather than inform al care.

From 2011 to 2013, the number of families receiving subsidies who had income below

the federal poverty threshold increased 19%. This outpaced the 6% increase in familieswith income from 100-149% of poverty receiving subsidies and decline of 11% infamilies w ith income at or above 150% of poverty. Monroe was one of only 13counties in the state in w hich the overall num ber of families receiving subsidiesincreased from 2011 to 2013.

Of total families receiving subsidies in Monroe County in 2013, 43% were families withincome at or below poverty, similar to the 46% in the state as a whole (excluding NewYork City). Just 13% of all families receiving subsidies in Monroe County had incomesat or above 150% of poverty, compared to 16% statew ide.

The trends in Monroe were different from its two most similar counties, Erie andOnondaga, both of which had declines in total families served from 2011 to 2013. Overthat time, Erie had an increase in families receiving subsidies with incomes at or above150% of poverty of 27%, with declines in the other two categories. Onondaga had alarge decline in the upper category (19%) and small increases in the other twocategories.

Below poverty 100-149% 150% and above Total

2011 826 920 344 2,090

2012 901 883 406 2,190 2013 986 976 305 2,267

Change 19% 6% -11% 8%

Income Levels of Families Receiving Subsidies



14/21

9

w w w .cgr.org

More Families Have a High Co-Payment

Families with income above the poverty level pay a co-payment or family sharetoward their child care costs. The share is calculated on the port ion of their income

that is above the poverty level, and families pay anywhere from 10% to 35%,depending on w hich county they live in. Monroe County has been at the maximumrate o f 35% for several years.

From 2007 to 2013, the num ber of families paying more than $99 a month tow ardchild care increased 20% and became a larger share of total families, rising from 18%to 24%. Families paying no co- pay decreased 11%, those paying less than $5 a monthstayed flat, and those paying between $5 and $99 a month fell 42%.

Those trends were in contrast to what happened throughout the state (excluding NewYork City). Statew ide, families paying no co-pay increased 8%, and families paying less

than $5 a month increased 4%, while those paying $5-99 a month decreased 10% andthose paying more than $99 a month decreased 16%.

Still, most families in Monroe County (64%) paid little to nothing as a co-pay in 2013,while 12% paid $5-99 a month. About 1,300 of the families receiving subsidies in 2013were also receiving Temporary Assistance (37% of the to tal).

More Children in Regulated Care

From 2007 to 2013, the num ber of subsidized children in Monroe County in informal

or legally exempt programs fell by 40%, follow ed by those in center-based programs,by 18%, while those in hom e-based programs increased 10%. This was similar to whathappened statewide,with informal caredeclining 30%.

Compared to thestatewide picture,Monroe families hadsomewhat moresubsidized ch ildren in

home-based care andless in center orinform al care. In 2013,41% of Monroe childrenwere in home-basedcare (compared to 36%in the state), 31% werein center-based care



15/21

10

w w w .cgr.org

(34% in the state), and 28% in informal care. (30% in the state).

Local Area Need: Highest in City, Growing in

SuburbsAlthough thepotential need forchild care subsidies isgreatest in the City o fRochester, need isgrow ing the fastestoutside the City. Asshow n in the adjacenttable, the number of

potentially eligiblechildren fell 9% in theCity of Rochesterfrom 2000 to 2008-12and grew 52% inIrondequoit, 31% inHenrietta and 17% inGreece, according toour analysis of CensusBureau data. The

estim ates for som e ofthe County’s smallertowns are less reliable,as denoted byasterisks in the table.

While nearly 16,000children in the City ofRochester couldbenefit from subsidies,almost 12,000 in the

suburbs are eligiblefor subsidies as well.11

11 For more information on poverty in Rochester and its suburbs, see the Rochester Area Community Foundation’s

recent report: goo.gl/ke1nNo.

2000 2008-12 Change Margin of Error

Brighton 379 561 48% *

Chili 490 605 24% *

Clarkson 144 225 57% **

East Rochester 220 263 20% **

Gates 577 991 72% *

Greece 2,140 2,501 17%

Hamlin 339 291 -14% *

Henrietta 661 867 31%

Irondequoit 967 1,468 52%

Mendon 111 199 80% **

Ogden 293 496 70% *

Parma 412 572 39% *

Penfield 459 489 7% *

Perinton 477 676 42% *

Pittsford 245 240 -2% **

Riga 101 124 23% ***

Rochester 17,351 15,841 -9%

Rush 42 23 -46% ***

Sweden 256 223 -13% **

Webster 501 826 65% *

Wheatland 88 117 34% **

Source: CGR analysis of Census Bureau data

Estimated Need for Child Care Subsidies

Children under 13 with parents in the workforce at/below 200% of

poverty level

Notes: Estimates derived for local areas based on actual countywide

shares of children under 13 with parents working or looking for work.

* Margin of error between 20% & 35% of estimate; ** margin of error

between 35% & 50%; *** margin of error greater than 50%.



16/21

11

w w w .cgr.org

Funding Has Not Kept Pace w ith Inflation

After adjusting for inflation, both federal/state and local funding for chi ld care subsidiesin Monroe County has declined over the last eight years. State funding declined 2%

and local funding 5%.

However, in 2009-10Monroe and severalother count iesreceived a large boostin funding due to thefederal stimuluspackage respondingto the economicrecession that beganin 2008. Monroe wasone of 8 counties toreceive a double-digitincrease in its stateallocation in 2009-10(16% in Monroe), andmore counties beganto benefit in 2010-11.

The state allocation of federal and state funding w as boosted again in the most recent

year, with a 7.5% increase. In addition to statewide advocacy for increased funding, theRochester Community Coalition led by the Rochester Business Alliance added childcare subsidies to itspriori ty list in 2014.The state allocation toMonroe Countyincreased 5% in 2014-15 (3% in inflation-adjusted dollars).However, the 2014-15allocation of $35.7

million w as still belowthe 2007-08 level of$36.3 million.

Local funding for childcare subsides peakedin 2009 at $9 millionand has since declined

$30,000,000

$32,000,000

$34,000,000

$36,000,000

$38,000,000

$40,000,000

2 0 1 3

D o l l a r s

State Allocation to Monroe CountyInflation-adjusted

Source: NYS Office for Children and Family Services

$-

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*

2 0 1 3

D o l l a r s

Local Funding for Child CareInflation-adjusted

Source: Monroe County budgets * Proposed



17/21

12

w w w .cgr.org

to just under $6 million budgeted in 2014 (inflation-adjusted dollars).

As discussed earlier, part of the county’s spending is mandatory. Monroe has thehighest mandated spending level outside of New York City at $4.2 million annually.Several larger counties have smaller m andates, including Nassau ($1.6 m illion), Erie

($1.3 million) and Westchester ($1 million). The level of mandated spending is based onchild subsidy caseload data from 1995.

In Monroe County, officials are urging the state to revisit its policy for determin ingeach county’s allocation of state funding, asking for a multi- year grant based onindicators of need, such as the poverty level. In addition, the county would like anupdate of the calculations for m andatory spending, as this is currently based on 19-year-o ld information.

Serving all Eligible Children Would AddSignificant Cost

As child care is such a large expense, and Monroe County is currently meeting about afifth of the potential need for subsidies, the cost to fill the entire gap is substantial.Based on CGR’s estimates, about 23,000 children in families with income at 200% orless of the federal poverty have parents working or looking for work and currently donot receive subsidies. This includes about 11,000 children ages 0 to 5 and 12,000ages 6 to 12. Providing subsidies to that entire group would cost about $199 million –with the amount split about evenly between the tw o groups. Considering that currentspending is about $42 million, this represents an enormous increase.

If an effort to fill the gap were less universal and more targeted, the expense would below er. For example, if the goal were to serve children in families at or below thepoverty level, the cost w ould be less than half, about $90 million. And if we were toconsider how many child care slots are available in current programs, and fi ll those,

the cost drops toabout $60 million.

We must noteseveral caveats.Because we were

unable to obtaindetailedinformation aboutthe currentsubsidy program,we usedinformation from

Size of gap 0 to 5 6 to 12 Total

0-200% of poverty 10,975 12,040 23,015

0-100% of poverty 5,596 4,766 10,362Cost to fill gap

0-200% of poverty 99,684,991$ 99,231,207$ 198,916,199$

0-100% of poverty 50,822,534$ 39,283,746$ 90,106,279$

Capacity 3,581 2,337 5,918

Cost to fill unused slots 36,352,720$ 24,304,800$ 60,657,520$

Source: CGR analysis

Costs to Fill the Gap



18/21

13

w w w .cgr.org

our 2007 report on subsidized chi ld care to estim ate the share of current subsidiesgoing to children ages 0-5, 6-12 and in families earning 200% or 100% of poverty andbelow. Based on the 2007 report , these proportions were quite consistent from 2001to 2007, but it is possible the current proport ions are different.

In addition, our cost calculations are based on averaging the cost of care acrossdifferent sett ings and different age groups, and should therefore be t reated as roughestimates. The figures we used to calculate these averages came from the latest statestudy of child care market rates, mentioned earlier in this report. Data on the unusedcapacity within current child care programs came from the Child Care Council andreflects 2013.

Finally, these costs would be reduced depending on the share of eligible families whoactually applied for assistance. That proportion is likely to be just 50% of the totaleligible population, based on national research.



19/21

14

w w w .cgr.org

Compared to Other Counties, MonroeServes MoreCompared to the counties most similar to it , Monroe County serves a higher share ofchildren potentially eligible for child care subsidies. While Monroe served 22% ofpotentially eligible children in 2013, Erie County served 13% and Onondaga County

18%.

The number ofsubsidiesprovided hasdecreased since2007 in both

Monroe and Erie(down 17% and30%,respectively),while it hasincreased inOnondaga, up16%.

Both Erie andOnondaga have

current eligibility thresholds for low- income child care subsidies of 200% of the federalpoverty level, compared to 165% in Monroe. While Onondaga has maintained that fo rseveral years, in Erie County the eligibility threshold was lowered and subsidieseliminated for more than 1,000 children when the county budget was strained in2009-10. Since then, the county has not seen demand for the subsidies return, despiterecent efforts to publicize the program. County officials said they are not sure whathas happened to the families that lost subsidies. They are worried that m any put theirchildren in informal care, which may be lower quality.

In Onondaga, participation has gradually grown over the last several years. Countyofficials have shielded the program from major funding cuts, believing it to be

important in keeping working families in the workforce and off o f public assistance.However, the county did increase its co-payment level in 2011 to 35% from 25%, andco- payments are now a major challenge for families. Families with income above thepoverty level pay a share of that income, ranging from 10% to 35%, as a co-paymentfor child care costs. Count ies determine the level of co- payment, and Monroe hasbeen at 35% for several years. In Onondaga, one step county officials take to try tohelp families with a high co-payment is to recalculate the co-payment if there has

0%

5%

10%

15%20%

25%

30%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Estimated Share of Eligible Children Served

Monroe Erie Onondaga



20/21


21/21

16

reimbursement to child care providers meeting quality standards, New York does nothave a statewide system for rating the quality of providers (though a pilot programcalled QualityStarsNY was begun). Instead, the state allow s counties to pay higherrates for accredited programs, which tends to be a small share of providers.

As research and attent ion continues to focus on the importance of the early years insetting a good foundation for learning, and the benefits of reliable child care toworkers and employers, it is likely that New York policymakers will face increasedpressure to support quality care and education – which may result in changes to thesubsidy program.

14 r-1748 childcaresubsidiesinmonroecounty (1)

Documents