be key

Advanc
ild Care Funding

Bipartisan Policy Center

ng a Wrong
ity in Ch
for American Ind

Righti
Equ

ian & Alaska

Native Families

il 2022

Apr
 

AUTHORS Linda Smith Sophie Rosen

Director, Bipartisan Policy Center's Project Associate, Bipartisan Policy
Early Childhood Initiative Center's Early Childhood Initiative

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Bipartisan Policy Center's Early Childhood Initiative is grateful to the Heising-Simons Foundation and the W.K. Kellogg
Foundation for their generous support of this work. The Early Childhood Initiative would also like to acknowledge the David and
Lucile Packard Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for their support of our ongoing work.

We would especially like to thank Dawn Ramsburg and the Department of Health and Human Services for giving the Bipartisan
Policy Center access to the Tribal CCDF Plans necessary for our analysis.

We are also thankful to Jennifer Rackliff and the National Indian Child Care Association, whose early thoughts on this topic
informed much of our work.

Finally, we would like to acknowledge BPC's Early Childhood Initiative staff, particularly Frances Einterz, for her thoughtful,
foundational contributions to this report from the very beginning, including data analysis and authoring several sections. We
would also like to thank Catherine Gonzalez, Ben Wolters, Nile Drochak, Maya Jasinska, Nicole Zelazko, and Anne Straith for their
help in pulling data, analyzing data, conducting research, and drafting certain sections.
 

Table of Contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 INTRODUCTION

10 Background

11 Structure and Function of Tribal CCDF Plans

12 Eligibility for CCDF Funds

13 Funding and the Role of the Child Count Declaration

14 Methodology

15 GENERAL DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS

19 CULTURALLY RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE CARE

22 COORDINATING WITH TRIBAL HEAD START

27 PREVENTING SUSPENSIONS AND EXPULSIONS

32 CCDF BACKGROUND CHECKS AND IMPLICATIONS
FOR TRIBAL LEAD AGENCIES

38 MARGINALIZED CHILDREN

44 SUPPLY BUILDING FOR UNDERSERVED CHILDREN

53 STATE COORDINATION

57 QUALITY IMPROVEMENT GOALS

60 477 TRIBES: TRIBES THAT DO NOT SUBMIT TRIBAL
PLANS

65 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

65 Congress

65 Federal Agencies

66 Requirements for Tribes

66 States

67 APPENDIX
Foreword

As some know, I worked for the Department of Defense (DOD) for many
years, but I began my career in early childhood on the Northern Cheyenne
Reservation in Montana where I set up a child care center in Lame Deer,
the tribal headquarters. Decades ago, tribal leadership understood how
important child care was to get-and keep-its members employed. The
tribe, just like DOD, knew then, what most businesses are just coming
to realize-that without child care-parents cannot work. But that is
where the similarities end. Unlike the support for military families,
Congress has failed in its responsibility to our first Americans. Not only
are American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) children more likely to
need services, but they are also less likely to receive them. DOD, with
the support of Congress, developed strategies and mechanisms to serve
military families wherever they were living-both on and off base.

Now, four decades later, we are not even close to meeting the need for AI/
AN child care on tribal lands much less those living off reservations. Still,
recent data shows that more than half of Indigenous children do not live on
tribal lands and thus do not have access to tribal child care or Head Start
programs. Furthermore, current AI/AN child care funding from Congress

is neither based on actual need nor a parent's proximity to child care, thus
leaving thousands of our most vulnerable children in potentially unstable,
unhealthy settings that do little to promote their optimal development

and support their parents in seeking and retaining employment.

As this report will show, Congress has not required federal agencies to
collect the data needed to fulfill its responsibility to AI/AN families.
Without that data it is easy for Congress to continue its laisse faire
approach of picking a random percentage to add to legislation. As this
report will show, it is time for policymakers at all levels of government
to recognize our collective responsibility to our Native children no
matter where they are so we can move forward to create more realistic
solutions. It's time to right a wrong and ensure our Native American
children have the same opportunities as all other children.

Linda K. Smith
Executive Summary

There are approximately half a million AI/AN children under the age

of 13 who potentially need child care so their parents can work. Nearly

half are below the age of five. Access to affordable, quality child care is a
challenge for most American families, but the challenges are greater for AI/
AN parents and compounded by the high unemployment rates, limited

job opportunities and lack of proximity to child care programs of any type.
Even though Native American children are more likely than all other
groups to be living in poverty (the poverty rate for AI/AN children is twice
the national average) as First Americans, they have not been a priority for
policymakers and are often an afterthought when it comes to Congress.

Without a clear understanding of the needs of AI/AN families, it is no

surprise that Congress continues to add random percentage-based set-asides
for Native communties to existing federal programs. The Child Care and
Development Block Grant (CCDBG) is the primary federal funding stream for
child care. Under CCDBG, there are two separate and distinct funding streams,
discretionary and mandatory funding that, when combined by the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS), form the Child Care and Development
Fund (CCDF). CCDF provides funds in the form of block grants to states, tribes,
and territories to help meet the need for child care among low-income families.

By law, HHS must allocate at least 2% of discretionary CCDF funding and up
to 2% of mandatory CCDF funding to tribes. In fiscal year 2020, this amounted
to $58.3 million in mandatory funding (a 2% set-aside) and $335 million in
discretionary funding (a 5.75% set-aside) for tribes. There is no evidence that
suggests these set-asides sufficiently meet the need in tribal communities.

To receive funding, each tribe must submit an application in the form of a plan
to HHS that includes their child counts and provides a description of their
child care programs, services available to low-income families, and assurances
and certifications statutorily required by CCDBG. Specifically, tribes must
describe how they manage their CCDF services, eligibility guidelines, priority
groups, provider payment rates, parental rights, program accountability, and
quality improvement activities. HHS then reviews each tribe's plan and, if
approved, the tribe receives CCDF funding until the next application cycle.
However, these plans have not been made publicly available and the child
counts are not used by Congress to determine topline funding levels.

In the Tribal CCDF Plans (hereafter referred to as Tribal Plans), HHS
takes a tiered approach to reporting requirements. This means that
medium and large tribes are required to submit more extensive
information than small tribes. HHS defines small tribes as those
receiving CCDF allocations of less than $250,000, medium tribes as
those receiving allocations between $250,000 and $1 million, and
large tribes as those receiving allocations of more than $1 million.

However, due to a lack of thorough, consistent data collection on

AI/AN populations, little is known about child care needs for AI/

AN families, including accurate child counts for all 574 tribes and
where AI/AN families reside. Where these families reside is critical
information because whether children live on or off tribal lands impacts
the amount of CCDF funding received by the tribes. As a result, little

is known about the true need for child care and the extent to which
current funding levels meet that need among AI/AN families.

What We Wanted to Know:

To the best of our knowledge there has been only one other comprehensive
analysis of child care on tribal lands that includes analyses of the

Tribal Plans. This lack of data on tribal communities drove the

Bipartisan Policy Center to try to understand the need for, and access

to, child care for AI/AN families. BPC wanted to understand:

¢ How tribes spend their CCDF dollars;

¢ General demographic information;

¢ How tribes incorporate culturally relevant care
into their early childhood programming;

¢ The extent to which tribal CCDF programs coordinate with Head Start;

¢ Tribal efforts to prevent suspensions and
expulsions in early childhood programs;

¢ How tribes conduct background checks for providers;

¢ Howtribes prioritize services for marginalized groups;

¢ Howtribes build the supply of care for underserved children;
e The extent to which the state and tribes coordinate; and

¢ Tribal quality improvement goals.
Methodology:

In the fall of 2020, the HHS Office of Child Care (OCC) graciously
provided BPC with access to 184 of the FY2019-FY2022 Tribal Plans.

BPC analyzed 88 plans from small tribes and 96 plans from medium and
large tribes. BPC worked with the National Indian Child Care Association
(NICCA) to evaluate which information in the Tribal Plans best supports
BPC's analysis and contextualizes the tribal child care landscape.

In addition, BPC reviewed other data as available and relevant,
including U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Labor (DOL), Department
of Education (ED), HHS, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), San Diego
State University, Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent
Health, First Nations Development Institute, the Center for Law and
Social Policy, and National Home Visiting Research Center data.

What We Learned:

Not only are federal programs for AI/AN families systematically underfunded,
but HHS and other federal agencies have not used the Tribal Plans to
incorporate the voices, experiences, and preferences of AI/AN people into
these federal programs. This was apparent in the lack of information

on culturally and linguistically appropriate CCDF-funded child care
programs within the Tribal Plans. For this reason, BPC recommends

that HHS be more conscientious in analyzing future plans so they can

be used to better serve tribes and provide more useful information.

In addition, BPC identified several other common themes
throughout our analysis of the Tribal Plans, including that:

¢ Because Congress does not use child count data to determine
tribal funding levels, not all eligible AI/AN children and families
can access the federally funded support they may need.

¢ There is a lack of coordination between tribal and state
agencies providing care to AI/AN children and between
tribal child care and tribal Head Start programs. This may
lead to duplication of effort, or the converse of children not
being served, particularly if they live off tribal lands.

e There are large gaps in the information completed in the plans making
comparisons difficult, especially among tribes of varied sizes. These mask
any gaps in funding needed for the programs that might help improve the
socioeconomic conditions of AI/AN parents and their ability to seek and
maintain employment when lack of access to child care may be a barrier.

* There are significant inconsistences in the reporting
requirements between the HHS administered CCDF
programs and tribes with 477 status. This makes it impossible
to evaluate the gaps in services and funding.

¢ The Tribal Plan requirements are extensive (180+ pages) and
frequently duplicative thus making it difficult to determine what the
programs are accomplishing and the effectiveness of the funding.
What We Recommend:

The following summarizes the recommendations in our report. The full report
provides a more detailed set of recommendations and the basis for each.

Congress:

1

Establish a data-driven method based on the actual number
of AI/AN children for determining funding levels set aside for
tribes rather than a flat percentage. This will ensure tribes
receive sufficient funding to effectively provide services.

. Add language in CCDBG that would authorize

tribes to access FBI fingerprinting.

Provide funding and technical assistance to support the implementation
of early childhood mental health consultants in tribal child care and Head
Start programs. This should include extensive coordination with the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).

Conduct oversight hearings on tribal child care and specifically examine
the extent to which HHS and the BIA coordinate oversight of the use of
CCDBG funds to support child care services and quality improvement.

Federal Agencies:

5.

The Census Bureau and Department of Commerce should work
with tribes and other federal agencies to ensure more accurate
data on this population. At a minimum, this should include
HHS, ED, Department of Agriculture, DOL, and BIA.

. HHS should streamline the Tribal CCDF Plan to reduce duplication

and ensure that child count data are submitted at the same time in
one document. HHS should ensure that Tribal Plans, including child
count data, and other basic demographic information are publicly
available so Congress and other policymakers can effectively set
funding levels based on the actual number of AI/AN children.

The HHS Interagency Task Force on Child Safety (ITFCS) on the

implementation of criminal background checks should address how tribes
access interstate checks and NCIC/NSOR compliance, and the impacts on
a Tribal Lead Agency's ability to comply with the regulatory requirements.

The BIA should make the 477 Tribal Plans publicly available

in an easily accessible, online database to promote greater
understanding of the program and allow tribes and policymakers
access to the data needed to make necessary improvements.
9. HHS should include an open-ended narrative section in the
Tribal Plans asking tribes to explain how their quality goals,
provider trainings, and curricula are culturally relevant for AI/
AN children in their programs. HHS should require tribes to
report on progress on these goals from one cycle to the next.

10.HHS should require all tribes to define underserved groups and how
they are prioritizing services to them, particularly children with
special needs and children experiencing homelessness. Additionally,
HHS should collect comprehensive data on cases of child abuse and
neglect in tribal communities so it may better understand, coordinate
with, and support tribes and inform specific policy recommendations
empowering the community to effectively address instances of abuse
and neglect as they arise. HHS should require tribes to describe specific
efforts taken to prevent suspensions and expulsions in tribal child
care centers and how they will reduce instances of harsh discipline.

Tribes

11. Tribes should coordinate CCDF-funded and Head Start programs to
reduce duplication; ensure better alignment of program standards and
policies, needs assessments and data collection, and monitoring efforts;
and ensure more culturally relevant services for children and families.

States

12.States with large AI/AN populations should recruit early childhood
staff who have a cultural understanding of AI/AN communities.

 
Introduction

 

BACKGROUND:

 

The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) is the main federal program
that provides child care subsidies to low-income children and families.' The
secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) must reserve at least 2%

of all CCDF federal funding for tribes and tribal organizations (henceforth
jointly referred to as "tribes"). Tribes receive
grants for a period of three years as part of

What are "small" versus this block grant program and are required
to apply by filing a Tribal CCDF Plan.

"medium/large tribes"?

Throughout the report, we Beginning in the fall of 2020, the HHS
refer to tribes as small, Administration for Children and Families
(AGF) and the Office of Child Care (OCC)
graciously granted the Bipartisan Policy
Center access to 184 completed fiscal
CCDF allocations a tribe year 2019-2022 Tribal CCDF Plans. BPC
receives: analyzed 88 plans from small tribes and

- Small: Receives less than 96 plans from medium and large tribes.

medium, or large. These
terms refer to the total

$250 mel el Tribal CCDF Plans (henceforth referred to
Medium: Receives as "Tribal Plans") have rarely been shared
between $250,000 and $1 publicly or analyzed. BPC's analysis of this
information provides a unique opportunity
to inform state and federal policymakers,
as well as tribes themselves, on how
than $1 million in funding best to support American Indian/Alaska
Native (AI/AN) children and families.

million
Large: Receives more

 

 

1 According to 25 USC 5304(I), "Tribal Organization" is defined as the following:

() "Tribal organization" or "tribal organization" means the recognized governing body
of any Indian tribe; any legally established organization of Indians which is controlled,
sanctioned, or chartered by such governing body or which is democratically elected
by the adult members of the Indian community to be served by such organization and
which includes the maximum participation of Indians in all phases of its activities:
Provided, That in any case where a contract is let or grant made to an organization
to perform services benefiting more than one Indian tribe, the approval of each such
Indian tribe shall be a prerequisite to the letting or making of such contract or grant;
and

(m) "construction contract" means a fixed-price or cost-reimbursement self-
determination contract for a construction project, except that such term does not
include any contract-

(1) thatis limited to providing planning services and construction management services
(or a combination of such services);

(2) for the Housing Improvement Program or roads maintenance program of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs administered by the Secretary of the Interior; or

(3) for the health facility maintenance and improvement program administered by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services.

10
STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF TRIBAL
CCDF PLANS

 

The Tribal Plans are 238 pages of set forms with specific information tribes are
statutorily and regulatorily required to report. Tribal Lead Agencies submit their
plan, which serves as their funding application, to the appropriate ACF regional
program manager. The HHS secretary must approve the plan before funding

is allocated. HHS takes a tiered approach to the CCDF requirements. All tribes,
regardless of size, have the same standard application, but medium and large
tribes are required to submit slightly different and more in-depth information
than small tribes. The applications clarify which sections tribes must fill out
depending on their size. The OCC describes the requirements as follows:

Small tribes

They submit a shortened Tribal Plan that outlines how the tribe
intends to meet CCDF and federal requirements, including:

Defining CCDF leadership and coordination with relevant systems;
¢ Fulfilling health and safety requirements;
¢ Monitoring requirements for providers;

¢ Undertaking background checks, with the option to
propose an alternative background check approach;

¢ Fulfilling quality spending requirements (except infant
and toddler quality spending requirements);

¢ Establishing continuous quality improvements;

* Defining eligibility of Indian child, Indian reservation and service areas
as designated by a Tribe and approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs;

¢ Describing direct services if they provide them (small
tribes are not subject to the requirements to provide direct
child care services to children and families);

¢ Meeting the 15 percent administrative cap; and
¢ Undertaking fiscal, audit, and reporting requirements.
Small tribes have more flexibility than others because they are exempt

from the majority of CCDF requirements. This flexibility allows them to
focus their funds on health, safety, and quality spending. HHS allows tribes

to submit abbreviated plans to balance flexibility with accountability.

11
12

Medium tribes:

In addition to all the required reporting requirements for small tribes,
medium tribes must explain how they will use their CCDF funding to:

Provide stable child care assistance to families;
Ensure equal access to high-quality child care; and
Promote family engagement through outreach and consumer education.

Medium tribes are allowed the same exemptions as large tribes
but are also exempt from operating a certificate program.

Large tribes:

They are subject to the same reporting requirements as medium tribes.

All tribes, regardless of size, are exempt from the CCDF requirements to:

A vk WN

Ni

Maintain or implement early learning and developmental guidelines;
Maintain a consumer education website;

Have licensing requirements applicable to child care services;

Have a training and professional development framework;

Conduct a market rate survey;

Give priority services to children of families with very low family income
or in areas with significant concentrations of poverty and unemployment;

Spend at least 70 percent of mandatory funds on TANF-related families'; and

Complete the Quality Progress Report.

ELIGIBILITY FOR CCDF FUNDS

 

Tribes are eligible for CCDF funding if they are federally recognized and have a
tribal population of at least 50 children under age 13. If a tribe has fewer than
50 children under 13, they may apply as members of a tribal consortium.'
Twenty tribes are part of a consortium.

 

2 This is defined as families who are receiving assistance under a state program under

Part A of Title IV of the Social Security Act; are attempting through work activities to
transition off such assistance program; and are at risk of becoming dependent on such
assistance program.

A tribal consortium is a partnership between two or more tribes working together to
achieve a common objective, typically participating in self-governance.
FUNDING AND THE ROLE OF THE CHILD

COUNT DECLARATION

 

As part of their Tribal Plan, Tribal Lead
Agencies are required to submit a "child count
declaration." The declaration is a certification
from the tribe regarding the number of AI/AN
children under age 13 who reside on or near
the reservation or in service areas as defined in
the Tribal Plan. The child count is particularly
important, because it allows the HHS
secretary to determine how much funding
each tribe receives as its total CCDF allocation.

However, as this report will demonstrate,
it does not appear that Congress uses

the child counts to set top-level funding
levels for federal programs that support
AI/AN children and families.

A combination of tribes' discretionary
and mandatory funding, along with
tribal child count declarations,

The secretary of HHS
must reserve at least

2% of discretionary
funding for tribes and up
to 2% of any mandatory
funding. The total amount
each tribe is allocated is
based on a combination

of its discretionary and
mandatory funding, but

both funding streams are

calculated based on tribal
child count declarations.

determines the total amount each tribe is allocated. The total 2020
tribal allocation levels may be found on the ACF OCC website here.

¢ Discretionary funding: HHS must reserve at least 2% of discretionary
funding for tribes. To be eligible for CCDF funding, tribes must be federally
recognized and have at least 50 children under age 13. For these tribes,
CCDF funding consists of a base amount of $30,000 plus a per-child
amount of funding determined by the child count, up to 50 children.

¢ Mandatory funding: HHS may set aside up to 2% of any
mandatory funding provided by section 418(a)(3) of the Social
Security Act for tribes. Mandatory funding for tribes is based solely
on a per-child amount as determined by the child count.

Tribes that submit P.L. 102-477 plans (discussed later in this
report) must also submit a child count declaration, but they submit
their plans on a different cycle than the Tribal CCDF Plan.

 

13
14

METHODOLOGY

 

The landscape of tribal child care is diverse and the Tribal Plans
are lengthy. BPC selected certain sections of the plans to analyze.
Based on this analysis, we offer recommendations to

Congress for changes that can be made in the next reauthorization of
the Child Care Development Block Grant Act of 2014 (CCDBG); and

HHS to improve plans so they better serve tribes; and

Tribes to improve the administration of tribal programs.

BPC worked with the National Indian Child Care Association
(NICCA) to evaluate which sections of the Tribal Plans were best
suited for analysis to meet these objectives and developed the
following guiding questions for our evaluation below:

1

General Demographic Trends: What are the general demographic
trends among small, medium, and large tribes?

. Eligibility Requirements: How do eligibility requirements

vary between small, medium, and large tribes?

Types of Child Care Centers: What patterns emerge in terms of the types of child
care providers offered for tribes that differ in size and how are they funded?

Head Start: To what extent are tribes coordinating with
Head Start to deliver child care services?

Culturally Appropriate/Informed Care: To what extent are tribes able to
provide culturally informed and relevant child care services? To what extent
do they work with the state to incorporate culturally informed training?

. Marginalized Children: Which groups of marginalized children

are tribes prioritizing, and how are they doing so?

Background Checks: How do tribes perceive background checks and how
can policymakers better support the implementation of the checks.

Coordinating Services: What trends emerge in the external
programs that tribes coordinate with to provide services to children
and families? Are there any differences in the services that small,
medium, and large tribes decide to coordinate with?

Quality Improvement Goals: What patterns emerge in terms of the
quality improvement goals tribes identify as their priorities?

Figure 2 in the Appendix describes which sections of the Tribal CCDF
Plans BPC identified to answer these questions. BPC conducted a
combination of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of these sections
to inform the trends, findings, and recommendations discussed below.
General Demographic Trends

BACKGROUND:

 

BPC examined demographic trends among tribes to contextualize the AI/

AN children served by CCDF funding. Because the Tribal Plans do not

require tribes to submit comprehensive demographic information, the only
demographic information pertinent to our analysis within the plans was the
ages of children served with CCDF funding. As a result, we drew from a variety
of other sources including census and labor data and our own survey data.

As part of CCDF reporting, Tribal Lead Agencies are required to submit

a child count of the number of AI/AN children under the age of 13 who
reside on or near the reservation or in a service area, as defined in the
Tribal Plan. Although HHS uses these child counts to determine how
much CCDF funding each tribe receives, child counts are not publicly
available. Tribes did not include their child count declarations in the
FY2019-2022 Tribal Plans that BPC analyzed. However, HHS shared child
count data submitted independently during this application cycle.

Due to the lack of demographic information in the CCDF Plans, BPC examined
the U.S. Census Bureau database, which compiles information on tribes

using the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates.

In addition to the child count and ages of children served, BPC wanted

to understand other data related to the need for child care. This included
unemployment rates, average median household incomes, poverty levels, and
percentage of single-parent families with a female head of household. These
combined factors affect the family's need for and ability to afford child care.

As BPC examined the census data, we noticed inconsistencies that called the
accuracy of the information into question. For example, the Census Bureau
reported that six tribes had a O% unemployment rate. Given the economic
conditions of most tribal communities, this seemed highly unlikely. Census
data showed that the average median household income for tribes ranged
from $10,000-$182,500, with nine tribes having an average median household
income at or below $20,000. Finally, according to census data, 26 tribes

had a 0% poverty rate and 15 tribes had 100% poverty rates. This made the
validity of the Tribal Census data questionable. Therefore, we refrained from
using it and as a result, we make recommendations for data collection with
an emphasis on collecting accurate information from tribal communities.

Ages of children served: As mentioned, the only demographic information
found in the Tribal Plans pertinent to BPC's analysis was the ages of children
served with CCDF funds, to which 146 tribes responded (Section 4.1c for

15
16

Ages of Children Served

small tribes; Section 5.1.1 for medium/large tribes). CCDF funds can be
used to serve any range of children up to 13 years old. For this reason, the
Tribal Plans asked tribes to report their CCDF program eligibility criteria,
including a child's age. Figure 1 summarizes the age ranges of children
served by Tribal CCDF programs, as reported in the Tribal Plans.

Figure 1: The Age Ranges of Children Served by Tribal CCDF
Programs

Percent of Tribes Serving Each Age Range in CCDF Programs

Birth-6 years | 10%
Birth-9 years L 5%

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Tribes

Child count: The plans ask tribes to submit a child count and in particular
"the number of potentially eligible children who meet the Tribal Lead
Agency's definition of Indian Child and reside in the designated service area.
This was left blank in their CCDF plans. We later found that HHS required
them to submit the count separately during the past application cycle.

Depending on how the Tribes define "service area" is highly likely that
the child count data does not capture the significant percentage of AI/
AN people living off tribal lands especially members living in urban areas.
However, this data still provides a sense of how many children identify

as AI/AN, particularly in tribal lands. Across the 184 tribes included in
our analysis, the tribes tabulated 433,339 children. Table 1 summarizes
the number of AI/AN children across small, medium, and large tribes.

Table 1: Number of Children in Tribal Service Areas Based on
Tribally Reported Child Counts

 

 

 

Total Mean Median LSC Tate [-1
All tribes 433,339 2,355 708 51-52,060
Small tribes 29,961 340 244 51-1,678
Medium tribes 42,661 1,016 804 394-2,527
Large tribes 360,717 6,680 4,078 1,917-52,060

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
BPC estimated the average amount of CCDF funds per child by dividing
the average FY 2020 CCDF tribal allocations by the average child count
for small, medium, and large tribes, the results of which are summarized
in Table 2. Based on our calculations, all tribes have approximately the
same amount of funding per child within a margin of $67. However,

this amount is far below the average cost of child care in any state.

Table 2: Average Funding per Child, Based on CCDF Allocations

and Child Count Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Average CCDF Average Funding
Funds per Child
All tribes $225,643,732 $1,226,325 $520.73
Small tribes $17,381,182 $197,513 $580.92
Medium tribes $22,850,192 $544,052 $535.48
Large tribes $185,412,358 $3,433,562 $514

 

 

Unemployment Rates and Median Household Income: In 2016-
2018, the unemployment rate for AI/AN people was 7.8 %-nearly
double the national rate of 4.4%. AI/AN people residing on tribal
lands are more likely to be unemployed than AI/AN people living
elsewhere, with 11.4% and 6.6% unemployment rates, respectively.4

The median household income for AI/AN people is $49,906, compared
with $71,664 for non-Hispanic white households. There is no data with
any more specificity for either unemployment or median household
income that reflects the diversity of tribal communities.

Families below the poverty level: According to census date for 2017, AI/AN
people had a poverty rate of 26.8%, nearly twice the national rate of 14.6%. Given
the variations in poverty rates for AI/AN people, especially across the urban
and tribal lands divide, no reliable data with any greater detail is available.

BPC's Recommendations

The lack of reliable data hinders policymakers at all levels and contributes

to inequitable distribution of federal funds. We make the following

recommendations:

* The Census Bureau should work with other federal agencies,
including the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and HHS/ACF, and
tribes to ensure accurate data reporting on this population.

* HHS should require tribes to submit the child count data with
the Tribal Plans at the same time in one process. This would
streamline the submission process and ease tribes' administrative
burdens by removing duplication in what is being asked of tribes. It
would also make child count data easier to locate for each tribe.

 

4 "Tribal lands" refers to a federal or state American Indian reservation, or to an off-
reservation land trust, tribal statistical area, or Alaska Native village statistical area.

17
18

HHS should ensure that the tribal child count data are publicly
available so Congress and other policymakers can effectively set topline
funding levels based on an accurate accounting of AI/AN children.
Congressional access to accurate child count numbers would ensure that
funding set-asides for tribes are based on objective, tribal-specific needs.
This change, in turn, would help ensure that every AI/AN child receives
adequate assistance. HHS should require that basic demographic
information be added to the Tribal CCDF Plans to ensure accurate

data are available. Specifically, HHS Tribal Plans should include:

¢ The total number of individuals living on or near
the reservation or in a service area;

* The unemployment rate for individuals residing on
or near the reservation or in a service area;

« The median household income for each tribe;

¢ The median household income for single-parent,
maternal-led household in each tribe;

¢ The percentage of families below the poverty line in each tribe; and

¢ The percentage of single-parent households
below the poverty line in each tribe.

 
Culturally Relevant and
Appropriate Care

BACKGROUND:

 

Each tribe has a unique culture specific to its people's history, yet these
histories are rarely represented in mainstream American culture. This
gap increases the need for tribes to pass down their languages, stories,
and traditions to younger generations-a process that occurs, in part, in
early care and learning settings where children regularly spend time.
BPC wanted to better understand the extent to which tribes provide
culturally informed care in their child care and early learning programs.

Although the Tribal Plans have no stand-alone section asking whether
or how tribes incorporate culturally relevant care into early childhood
programs, the plans do have sections that touch on culturally relevant care.

FINDINGS:

 

 

In the quality improvement section of the Tribal Plans, tribes indicated which
culturally relevant activities they incorporate into their early childhood
programs (Section 3.1.2(j)(1)). Of the 180 tribes that completed this section,

131 tribes (73%) reported they incorporate tribal language into child care
settings. One hundred and one tribes (56%) reported they partner with other
tribal language and culture departments to develop early learning curricula.

The Child Care and Development Block Grant requires all lead agencies,
including Tribal Lead Agencies, to describe how they support the training and
professional development of providers within their CCDF Plans (658E(c)(2)(G)).
The Tribal Lead Agencies must also ensure that the training and professional
development opportunities are culturally appropriate for AI/AN children.

As required by regulation, the Tribal Plans ask the tribes how they support
the training and professional development of their child care workforce
using CCDF quality funds. Specifically, the plans ask if and how these
training and professional development requirements apply to child care
providers who serve Indigenous-language learners (Section 3.2.1).

Of the 155 respondent tribes filling out the section on professional
development, slightly more than half (84 tribes) reported that their
training and professional development requirements were applicable to
providers caring for Indigenous-language learners. Medium and large

19
20

tribes (62%) were more likely than small tribes (44%) to report that they
offer this type of training and professional development support.

The Tribal Plans also ask whether the state contacted the Tribal Lead Agency
for input into how to make the state's training programs and professional
development opportunities more culturally relevant to AI/AN children
(Section 3.2.1(b)). Of the 178 respondent tribes, only 41 (23%) said yes.

Table 3 displays the number of tribes, by state, which were
contacted by the state about how to make training and professional
development opportunities more culturally relevant to AI/AN
children. Table 4 shows these responses by tribal region.

Table 3: Number of Tribes in Each State Contacted by the
State about Culturally Relevant Training

State Tn Lee i al Ct moran Cotto) male ad)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alabama o/1
Alaska 1/13
Arizona 2/13
California 6/28
Colorado o/1
Connecticut o/1
Idaho 0/3
Kansas 0/3
Louisiana 0/2
Maine 2/5
Massachusetts o/1
Michigan 2/10
Minnesota 5/10
Misslssippl o/1
Montana 2/4
Nebraska 0/3
Nevada 6
New Mexico 0/5
New York /2
North Carolina o/1
North Dakota 0/3
Oklahoma 7/16
Oregon 2/9
Rhode Island o/1
South Carolina 1
South Dakota 2/6
Texas 0/3
Utah 1/4
Virginia o/1
Washington 5/23
Wisconsin 0/3

 

 

 

 
Table 4: Number of Tribes in Each Region Contacted by the
State about Culturally Relevant Training

Region Number Number of Tribes Contacted by the State

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1(ME, RI, MA, CT) 2/8
2 (NY) /2
3 (VA) 0/1
4 (AL, MS, NC, SC) 1/4
5 (MI, MN, WI) 7/23
6 (LA, NM, OK, TX) 8/27
7 (KS, NE) 0/6
8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT) 5/18
9 (AZ, CA, NV) 9/47
10 (AK, ID, OR, WA) 8/48

 

 

 

 

BPC's Recommendations

The Tribal Plans do not explicitly ask how the Tribal Lead Agency ensures
CCDF-funded child care programs are culturally appropriate for AI/AN
children. HHS does not require the Tribal Plans to include a section on
making CCDF-funded child care culturally appropriate for AI/AN children.
This gap makes it difficult to assess the extent to which tribal child care
programs are culturally relevant for the children they serve. BPC offers the
following recommendations to incorporate more culturally informed care:

* HHS should add an open-ended narrative section to the Tribal Plans
in which tribes would explain how provider training and curricula are
culturally relevant to AI/AN children in their child care programs.

¢ States with large AI/AN populations should recruit staff
who have a cultural understanding of AI/AN communities.
Recruiting and retaining staff with a culturally appropriate
understanding of AI/AN communities would allow programs
to integrate AI/AN cultural values into state programs.

21
22

Coordinating with Tribal
Head Start

Throughout the Tribal Plans, there are multiple opportunities for tribes
to indicate the extent to which they coordinate with Tribal Head Start
programs. CCDBG and Head Start are two distinct federal programs.

In addition to providing programming to tribal communities, they
both supplement care in the mixed-delivery system of child care.

CCDBG provides subsidies to children from low-income families to help
them afford child care. Head Start is an early childhood development
program that provides educational, health, nutritional, and social services
for children from families with household incomes below the federal
poverty level and at no cost. Tribal Head Start programs, administered
by federally recognized tribes, also teach language and cultural practices
to help preserve the tribal heritage of participating families.

HHS allocates funds directly to Head Start grantees to serve children who are
at least 3 years old and to Early Head Start programs that serve children from
birth to age 2. Each year, HHS sets aside such sums as necessary to provide base
grants to Tribal Head Start programs. In FY2019, HHS allocated $320 million
to AI/AN tribal governments for Head Start and Early Head Start purposes. As
of 2022, federally recognized tribes administer 150 Head Start and 58 Early
Head Start programs. During the 2018-2019 program year, Tribal Head Start

programs (including Early Head Start) served 25,592 AI/AN participants.

Families and children are better served when Head Start and child care
programs can effectively collaborate. Unfortunately, Head Start and
CCDF frequently operate independently of one another even though

the populations they serve, and how, are similar with areas of potential
administrative and population overlap. Without coordination between
the programs, gaps or duplication of services exists, which may contribute
to inefficiencies. However, tribes are uniquely positioned to coordinate
between the two federal funding streams. Unlike states, tribes are the
recipients and administrators of both CCDF and Head Start funds.

As part of BPC's analysis, we gauged the extent to which
Tribal Head Start and CCDF-funded programs effectively
coordinate services under the tribal administrators.

FINDINGS:

 

 

The following Head Start analysis considered:

¢ Whether the tribe indicated that it has or
administers a Tribal Head Start program;

¢ Whether a tribe indicated that Head Start is listed
under its coordinating services; and

¢ To what extent coordinating with Head Start is
a quality improvement goal for tribes.

Although these are "yes or no" questions, the influence of Head Start policies is
pervasive throughout the Tribal Plans and is important to consider on a broader
scale. Alignment between Head Start policies and the way tribes administer
CCDF-funded programs is therefore a theme throughout BPC's analysis.

In the Tribal Plans, BPC found that 77% of medium and large tribes have
their own tribally operated Head Start Center, compared with 62% of

23
24

small tribes; 75% of tribes coordinate closely with Head Start (Section
17.1). Of the 25% of tribes that are not coordinating with Head Start,
24% of them indicated that improving coordination with Head Start
is among their main quality improvement goals (Section 3.1.2(d)).

BPC reviewed the responses of the 131 tribes that indicated they coordinate
closely with Head Start. BPC then identified themes pertaining to how the
CCDF-funded programs coordinated with Head Start (Figures 2 and 3). Table 5
provides expanded definitions for the terms used on the x-axis in Figures 2 and
3. Figures may exceed 100% because some tribes plan to use multiple methods
to address the suspension and expulsion of children from child care programs.

Table 5: Coding for How CCDF-Funded Programs Coordinate
with Head Start

yal Py S Taha (eya)

Information

CCDF-funded and Head Start programs share information
with one another and with parents about available services,
including referrals for parents to Head Start centers

 

Care

CCDF-funded and Head Start programs partner to provide
full-day, wrap-around child care services, particularly by
allowing families to simultaneously enroll in each and use them
as needed

 

Training

CCDF and Head Start providers attend the same training

 

Family engagement

The CCDF-funded and Head Start programs work together to
facilitate family engagement events

 

Reporting

CCDF-funded and Head Start programs coordinate to
monitor and submit reporting requirements to government
agencies and/or on needs assessments

 

Location

CCDF-funded and Head Start programs share spaces for
their services

 

Meetings

CCDF program leaders meet regularly with the Head Start
directors

 

Standards

CCDF programs are run according to Head Start standards or
follow some Head Start policies

 

Department

CCDF-funded and Head Start programs are housed under one
department to allow for easier, more effective coordination

 

Transportation

CCDF-funded and Head Start programs coordinate
transportation to bring children both to their early care and
education program

 

Culture

CCDF-funded and Head Start programs work together to
teach children in their programs about their language and
culture

 

Food

CCDF-funded and Head Start programs coordinate to
administer the Child and Adult Care Food Program or other
summer food programs

 

No description

 

 

The tribe indicates that they coordinate with Head Start, no
specifics are provided

 

 
Mechanisms to Coordinate with Head Start

Mechanisms to Coordinate with Head Start

Figure 2: Tribes Using Each Mechanism to Coordinate with
Head Start by Percent

Care

Culture
Department
Family Engagement
Food
Information
Location
Meetings
Reporting
Standards
Training
Transportation

No Description

as 35%.
Ma 5%.

En 7.

Dn sx

MN 6x

as 30%
a 15%
a 20%

sox.

Mm 5x

a 20%

Mm 2%

DN 3%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Percent of Plans

Figure 3: Tribes Using Each Mechanism to Coordinate with
Head Start by Number

Care

Culture
Department
Family Engagement
Food
Information
Location
Meetings
Reporting
Standards
Training
Transportation

No Description

as 46
ml 7

a >

ME 10

ME s

es 4
EE 20

en 27
DE 12

a 7

a 26

is

EE i0

0 10 20 30 40 50
Number of Plans

25
26

As demonstrated in Figures 2 and 3, Tribal CCDF and Head Start
programs primarily coordinate on the following issues:

1.

4,

Care (34.5%): CCDF-funded child care and Head Start programs coordinate

to provide comprehensive, wrap-around early care and learning services for
children. This may involve allowing families to enroll in both so they can
attend either program as needed, such as going to the CCDF-funded program
before and after Head Start. For example, children can attend Head Start

in the morning and child care in the afternoon so their parents can work.

. Information (30.4%): CCDF-funded child care and Head Start

programs share information about relevant training and resources
and coordinate the dissemination of information about services
available to parents. This includes the CCDF programs providing
parents with referrals to available Head Start programs.

Meetings (20%): CCDF and Head Start program directors meet regularly
to keep one another abreast of programmatic updates. The frequency
and content differ by tribe, but updates may include information

on slot availability, funding levels, and hours of operation.

Training (19.5%): CCDF and Head Start providers attend the same training.

BPC's Recommendations

Although a sizable portion of the tribes have both tribally operated Head
Start and child care, most are not actively coordinating with their Head
Start services, and the level of coordination varies widely by tribe.

Tribes should coordinate more closely with their
CCDF-funded and Head Start programs on:

¢ Creating a more culturally relevant curriculum;

¢ Executing family engagement events;

e« Administering the Child and Adult Care Food Program
and other summer nutrition programs;

¢ Conducting monitoring and data collection, as part of their
required reporting to state and federal government agencies;

* Conducting needs assessments;

* Aligning programmatic standards and policies; and

¢ Providing transportation to children enrolled in child care programs.
HHS should require Tribal Plans to describe how tribes intend

to improve the coordination between their CCDF and Head Start
programs and, if applicable, to explain why they do not coordinate

with Head Start. This requirement would encourage Tribal Lead Agencies
to actively seek to coordinate their CCDF services with Head Start.
Preventing Suspensions and
Expulsions

In recent years, officials at the federal, state, POTEET EES es

and local levels have made concerted efforts
to address high rates of harsh discipline,
especially in early childhood settings. Harsh
disciplinary practices include exclusionary
discipline such as expulsion or suspension,
corporal punishment, seclusion, and the use
of restraints. A national survey found that ina
single year, 50,000 children under the age of
5 were suspended and 17,000 were expelled.
Further, children of color and children with
disabilities were restrained or secluded at
significantly higher rates than their peers.
This was particularly true for AI/AN children.

AI/AN children make up less than 1% of the
preschool population but 9% of corporal
punishment incidents. In California, AI/

AN boys are 2.5 times more likely and AI/

AN girls are 3.7 times more likely to be
suspended in early childhood settings than
their same-age, same-gender peers. AI/AN
children compose 1% of the national student
population but account for 3% of restraint

and seclusion cases. From 2013-2014, AI/AN
children were the second-largest demographic
behind Black students to receive out-of-school
suspensions in the public school system.

CCDBG includes provisions requiring lead

agencies to describe how they intend to

address suspensions and expulsions in

their CCDF Plans. Notably, this differs from

Head Start because, according to the 2016 Head Start Program Performance
Standards, Head Start programs are prohibited from expelling a child for
behavioral reasons. These performance standards also "require programs to
prohibit or severely limit the use of suspension due to a child's behavior."

27
28

One source available to early learning systems to address disruptive behaviors
is the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA),
which is administered under HHS. SAMSHA's Office of Tribal Affairs and
Policy (OTAP) serves as the agency's primary point of contact for tribal
governments, tribal organizations, and other organizations focusing on AI/

AN behavioral issues. SAMHSA offers tribal consultations to provide advice on
AI/AN behavioral health concerns and provides technical assistance to assist
tribal communities in implementing community-based plans to support the
mental health of AI/AN people. SAMHSA also offers dedicated funding streams
for tribal communities. One grant program-the Planning and Developing
Infrastructure to Promote the Mental Health of Children, Youth and Families
in AI/AN Communities ("Circles of Care") -focuses on improving the mental
health of AI/AN children and families. These grants provide tribal and urban
native communities with resources to implement a holistic, community-

based system of care and increase the capacity and effectiveness of mental
health systems serving AI/AN communities. These grants are also intended

to reduce the gap between the need for and access to mental health services.

In 2014, the federal government promoted the use of Early Childhood Mental
Health Consultation (ECMHC) to reduce rates of exclusionary discipline, and
several states have begun implementing it. Since 2014, two randomized control
trials assessed ECMHC's effectiveness: one in Connecticut and another in Ohio.
Both trials, led by Dr. Walter Gilliam at Yale University, found that the program
significantly decreased the number of problem behaviors exhibited by children.

 

FINDINGS:

 

Small tribes were exempted from reporting the use of harsh discipline

in their Tribal Plans. However, medium and large tribes were required

to describe the Tribal Lead Agency's policies for preventing suspensions
and expulsions in CCDF-funded early childhood programs, The tribes
also had to detail how these policies were shared with families, providers,
and the public (Section 7.3.6). Of the 120 medium and large plans BPC
analyzed, only 55 (46%) responded, yet their plan still received approval.

As previously stated, 62% of small tribes and 77% of medium and large
tribes established their own tribally operated Head Start Center. Similarly,
75% of all tribes indicated they coordinate with Head Start. Despite

this, only four medium and large tribes reported in the Tribal Plans

that they follow Head Start's standards on suspension and expulsion.
These four tribes are the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Reservation in
Arizona, California Rural Indian Health Board, Redding Rancheria in
California, and Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs in Oregon.

In addition to these four tribes, another 10 tribes have policies that either
prohibit, or prohibit with a few exceptions, expulsions and/or suspensions from
their CCDF-funded early care programs. Although such policies are aligned

with Head Start, these tribes did not expressly state that they follow Head Start.

Figures 4 and 5 capture the recurring themes that arose in the

Tribal Plans of medium and large tribes regarding how they address
suspensions and expulsions. Table 6 provides definitions for the terms
used on the x-axis. Figures may exceed 100% because some tribes

use multiple methods to address suspension and expulsion.

Table 6: Coding for Tribes That Address Suspensions and

Expulsions

a) a1) lV TaTh aCe) a]

Conducts education &
outreach

The Tribal Lead Agency provides in-person
information on its policies directly to families and/or
child care centers

 

Coordinates with state on
policies

The Tribal Lead Agency defers to state policies or
works with the state on this issue in some capacity

 

Posts the pollcy publicly

The Tribal Lead Agency posts its policy on suspension
or expulsion publicly (webpage, community bulletin,
newsletter, etc.)

 

Describes policy without
implementation plan

The Tribal Lead Agency describes its policy but does
not explain how they implement/disseminate the
information

 

Early Childhood Mental
Health Consultation
(ECHMC)

The Tribal Lead Agency provides a mental health
behavioral specialist to intervene in cases of
challenging behavior

 

Training

The Tribal Lead Agency provides training to child care
providers

 

Professional development
encouraged

The Tribal Lead Agency encourages, but does not
require, providers to attend professional development.
The agency also does not explicitly state that it offers
training and education

 

Prohibited

Suspension or expulsion is not allowed

 

Policy under Development

The Tribal Lead Agency indicates that it is developing
its policy but does not yet have one

 

Allgned with Head Start

CCDF-funded child care programs follow Head Start
policies

 

 

No policy

 

 

 

29
30

Figure 4: Tribal Use of Mechanisms to Address Suspensions
and Expulsions by Percent

Mechanisms to Address Suspension and Expulsion

Conducts Education
and Outreach

Coordinates with
State on Policy

Posts the Policy
Publicly

Describes Policy without
Implementation Plan

Early Childhood Mental
Health Consultations

Training to Providers

Encourages Professional
Development

Prohibited

Aligned with
Headstart

Policy Under
Development

No Policy

Ma ox

13%
a +7:
16
En 19.
EEL
a 11

16
Ma ox
DN 13%
M2%

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percent of Plans

Figure 5: Tribal Use of Mechanisms to Address Suspensions
and Expulsions by Number

Mechanisms to Address Suspension and Expulsion

Conducts Education
and Outreach

Coordinates with
State on Policy

Posts the Policy
Publicly

Describes Policy without
Implementation Plan

Early Childhood Mental
Health Consultations

Training to Providers

Encourages Professional
Development

Prohibited

Aligned with
Headstart

Policy Under
Development

No Policy

a +
DE :
ae 20
a 10
ass «2
a >
a"
a 0
a 4
Ds :

Bi

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Number of Plans
As shown in Figures 4 and 5, the primary ways that tribes chose to implement
their suspension/expulsion policies fell into the following categories:
1. Post the policy publicly (47%)

2. Implement Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation (16%)

3. Encourage professional development (although not required) (11%)
4. Provide training to child care providers (8%)
5

. Conduct education and outreach (6%)

BPC's Recommendations

Overall, the Tribal Plans lack data on suspensions and expulsions. Although
most tribes report having a policy, they are not required to report the
progress they have made toward implementing or enforcing the policy. HHS
has taken steps to offer guidance and resources to lead agencies to reduce
suspensions and expulsions but the guidance is not specific to tribes. It is
unclear to what extent tribes have received direct guidance on this issue.

* HHS should also require small tribes to describe the Tribal
Lead Agency's policies for preventing suspensions and
expulsions in CCDF-funded early childhood programs.

* HHS should require tribes to describe specific efforts to prevent
suspensions and expulsions in tribal child care centers and
how they will reduce instances of harsh discipline. HHS should
also require tribes to report data on the number of suspensions and
expulsions in their CCDF-funded early care and learning programs.

* Congress and HHS should work together to ensure tribes have
sustained, dedicated funding and technical assistance to support the
implementation of ECMHC in tribal child care centers. This should
include extensive coordination with SAMSHA. Using ECMHC was
among the most popular methods utilized by tribes to address suspension
and expulsion. Due to a growing body of evidence on the effectiveness
of ECMHC, momentum is increasing to use and implement ECMHC to
address challenging behaviors in early learning centers. Implementing
ECMHC is an authorized use of CCDF quality improvement funds.

State and Tribal Lead Agencies can also use the American Rescue Plan's
COVID-19 stabilization funds to implement ECMHC. HHS should
provide technical assistance to tribes to ensure that they can effectively
implement ECMHC to reduce rates of suspensions and expulsions.

31
32

CCDF Background Checks
and Implications for Tribal
Lead Agencies

 

BACKGROUND:

 

While analyzing the Tribal Plans, BPC examined the extent to which tribes
conducted background checks on child care staff. Tribal Lead Agencies
frequently coordinate closely with the state to complete background checks

- but the state-level process has been fraught with issues since it was first
statutorily required. States have struggled repeatedly to implement the
background checks required by the 2014 CCDBG law. By May 2019, (the latest
date data was available for) only two states were in full compliance with the
background check requirements, even though all states were required to be in
full compliance by September 2020. As a result, in December 2020, Congress
passed the Child Care Protection Improvement Act of 2020. This legislation
requires ACF to chair an interagency task force to determine how best to
support states in implementing their required criminal background checks.

In BPC's analysis of the plans, we determined that Tribal Lead Agencies are
often dependent on state-level implementation or coordination with

the state to fulfill the background check requirements. A state's level

of compliance, as a result, often affects tribal compliance.

TRIBES AND BACKGROUND CHECKS:

 

To ensure children's health and safety, the CCDBG Act of 2014

tequired State Lead Agencies to establish policies and procedures to
conduct criminal background checks on all staff working in early care
and education programs. Although the statute does not explicitly extend
the requirements to tribes, federal regulation 45 CFR Part 98 determined
that Tribal Lead Agencies are required to conduct background checks

on staff members or prospective employees every five years. Current
child care staff, as well as applicants, must complete a background
check if they are working for child care providers that are:

1. Licensed, regulated, or registered under tribal law; or

2. Providers who are otherwise eligible to deliver CCDF services.
For home-based child care services, the background check
requirement applies to any adults residing in the home who are 18
years or older, but it does not apply to individuals who may be related
to all children who are receiving child care services in that home.

As mandated in federal statute and CCDF regulation (98.43(b))" a
criminal background check must include the following components,
unless the tribe has an ACF-approved alternative approach:

1, FBI fingerprint search;
2. National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR) search;

3. State criminal registry or repository check in the state where
the individual currently resides and in any other state where
the individual has resided in the past five years;

4. State sex offender registry or repository check in the state where
the individual currently resides and in any other state where
the individual has resided in the past five years; and

5. State child abuse and neglect registry and database check in the
state where the individual currently resides and in any other
state where the individual has resided in the past five years.

The CCDF regulation recognized that tribes would likely face complications
complying with the FBI fingerprint check requirement. Tribes

must be granted authority under federal statute to request FBI fingerprint
checks for child care staff. However, the CCDBG Act does not grant

tribes this authority. As a result, they may not be able to access the
appropriate data bases. Consequently, tribes are frequently forced

to coordinate with the state to complete FBI fingerprint checks in

addition to other background check requirements. Acknowledging this
difficulty, the final CCDBG rule (at § 98.83(d)(3)) allows tribes to describe
an alternative background check approach in their Tribal Plans.

When tribes are coordinating with the state on the background
checks, the Tribal Lead Agency's ability to meet the federal
requirements is automatically affected if the state is:

¢ Noncompliant with the statute;

¢ Operating under a waiver; and/or

¢ Otherwise unable to meet all the background check requirements.

33
34

FINDINGS:

 

 

Within the Tribal Plans, Section 3.2 is devoted to tribes' criminal background
check process. Within this section, BPC focused on the following questions:

¢ Whether the tribe has an alternative approach
for background checks (Section 2.3.2);

¢ Which background check requirements the Tribal Lead Agency
does not conduct, and the reason (Section 2.3.2a); and

¢ Adescription of the Tribal Lead Agency's alternative approach
to conducting background checks (Section 2.3.2b).

Of the 184 Tribal Plans that BPC analyzed:

¢ 4l tribes reported they do not have an alternative
approach to conduct background checks.

¢ Thirteen tribes without an alternative approach were
in states where tribes also reported that the state was
noncompliant or operating under a waiver.

* Notably, seven of the 13 tribes in Arizona (reported as
having a waiver) said they had no alternative plan.

¢ 139 tribes indicated they had an alternative plan for conducting background
checks. Almost every tribe that chose this option was operating in
a state that had a waiver at the time the plans were submitted.

* Four tribes did not answer whether they have an alternative
approach to conducting background checks.

The Impact of State Noncompliance

Tribes with an alternative approach to conducting background checks
frequently indicated that they were reliant on the state system. In the
Tribal Plans, many tribes stated that "when the state is in compliance,
then the tribe will also be in compliance." (Section 2.3.2(a)). If states

are unable to comply with the statutory requirements to complete the
background checks, then they are eligible to apply for, and receive, waivers
from ACF. At the time that these 2019 Tribal Plans were completed, tribes
reported that the following states were either noncompliant or operating
under a waiver for one or more background check requirements:
Table 7: Tribal CCDF Plans on State Noncompliance or Waiver Status for
Background Check Requirements

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

state check)

 

state check)

 

_ State sex State child
Ay beta ial
7 offender abuse and ne-
ihe diab Pte ale Ct tate
FBI or reposito "
: : NCIC NSOR bei : paalhd repository and database
bit: f le dehy check (includ- " :
. check (includ- check (includ-
inginterstate |. Aan
check) inginterstate inginterstate
check) check)
Alaska Does not con- No interstate No interstate No interstate
duct check check check
Arizona Waiver
California Uses TRUST- Waiver Waiver (no inter- | Waiver (no inter- | Waiver (no inter-
LINE state check) state check) state check)
Does not con- No interstate No interstate No interstate
Connecticut duct check check check
Idaho No interstate No interstate
check check
lowa Waiver Waiver (no inter- Waiver (no inter-
state check) state check)
. Noncompliant
Maine with NSOR
Massachusetts Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear
Waiver (nointer- | Waiver (No in-
Nebraska state check) terstate check)
South Dakota Waiver Waiver Waiver
Okiahoma Waiver
Oregon State does not No interstate No interstate No interstate
9 have access check check check
Washington Waiver (no inter- | Waiver (no inter-

 

Most frequently, Tribal Lead Agencies indicated the need for an alternative
plan because the states in which their tribes resided were unable to

fully complete the statutorily required interstate checks. For example,

at the time these 2019 Tribal Plans were completed, Alaska, Oregon,
Connecticut, and California were not conducting out-of-state criminal
registry checks or out-of-state child abuse and neglect checks.

Similarly, some states included in Figure 5 were noncompliant with

the NCIC/NSOR requirement, which made it difficult for Tribal Lead

Agencies to comply with this aspect of the background check.

 

5 Many tribes in California reported using TRUSTLINE. According to the plan filled out by Cloverdale Rancheria:
"TRUSTLINE is a database of nannies and baby-sitters that have cleared criminal background checks in
California. It's the only authorized screening program of in-home caregivers in the state with access to
fingerprint records at the California Department of Justice and the FBI."

 
Progress on State Compliance

Since the tribes submitted their plans, ACF
reported in January 2021 that two states

were fully compliant; 35 states had made
sufficient progress toward implementing their
background checks and received waivers; 10
states were placed on corrective action plans;
SR ene ee and four states received a notice of possible
have access to the state criminal noncompliance and possible penalty. Arizona,
systems. Instead, they used tribal Connecticut, and Massachusetts were three
aouet raeords f@ gacizelh Gar erie! of the 14 states that did not make sufficient
atelaoe progress on instituting their background checks.
Maine was also included on the list of states
receiving notice of possible noncompliance.

New Mexico:

No tribe in New Mexico reported
that the state was noncompliant in
any way, but five tribes indicated
they had an alternative plan for

completing background checks.

 

Exceptions: Outlying Tribes with Alternative Plans

Several tribes indicated they had an alternative approach for background
checks but did not point to any issues with state coordination or state
non-compliance. While these tribes were still not in full compliance
with the regulatory requirements, they all pursued a patchwork of
strategies to ensure the safety of the children. In many cases, the Tribal
Lead Agency specified that the tribe handled much of the background
check themselves or relied on outside vendors. For example, some tribes

36
relied on internal sources, such as the tribe's attorney general or tribal
detective unit, to implement fingerprinting and drug testing policies.

FBI Fingerprinting

As discussed previously, CCDBG recognized that tribes would likely face
complications complying with the FBI fingerprint check. However, only
a few tribes reported challenges with FBI fingerprinting. Overall, it was

unclear to what extent the FBI requirement was a barrier for tribes.

Impact of COVID-19

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a majority of states are operating under
new waivers for specific portions of their background check system.

For example, many fingerprint locations have been closed due to the
pandemic, which affected states' compliance with CCDF requirements.

Notably, six tribes applied for background check waivers during the pandemic,
four of which were included in BPC's analysis.° These four tribes are based

in Alaska, Arizona, Montana, and South Dakota. Although their CCDF Plans
were completed before these waivers were in place, the explanations from the
four tribes were consistent with BPC's overall analysis. Tribes reported being
reliant on their respective states to meet the requirements. They largely said
that they lacked the capacity, and in some cases, even the authority, to fulfill
background check requirements. As a result, these tribes also reported that they
rely on third-party organizations to conduct national criminal database checks.

BPC's Recommendations

* As ACF's Interagency Task Force on Child Safety discusses
the implementation of criminal background checks, it should
consider how the state's level of compliance, particularly as
it relates to interstate checks and NCIC/NSOR compliance,
affects a Tribal Lead Agency's ability to comply with the
regulatory requirements. In its recommendations to Congress,
the task force should offer ways to improve the process.

¢ HHS should look further into alternative approaches to background
checks because Tribal Lead Agencies lack authority to access
FBI fingerprinting. HHS should conduct additional research and
outreach to understand the extent to which tribes face complications
complying with the FBI fingerprint checks. After doing so, HHS should
seek input from stakeholders, including Tribal Lead Agencies, on the
barriers they face in complying with regulatory requirements.

* Asstates continue to comply with the CCDBG statute,
they should ensure they are coordinating with Tribal
Lead Agencies in implementing the most robust
background checks for child care staff members.

 

6 Theremaining two tribes are P.L. 102-477 tribes, which are not required to submit
these particular CCDF Plans. 37
38

Marginalized Children

 

BACKGROUND:

 

In determining a tribe's child care needs, Tribal Lead Agencies
must consider underserved populations including infants and
toddlers, families experiencing homelessness, children with special
needs, and children in need of nontraditional hours of care.

Furthermore, Tribal Lead Agencies are required ($98.46(a))
to give priority for child care assistance to:

* Children from low-income families;

¢ Children with special needs (which can include any
populations as defined by the Tribal Lead Agency); and

¢ Children experiencing homelessness.

These requirements encourage tribes to determine how to expand
child care to marginalized groups who may face increased difficulty in
receiving care. Early identification, typically through developmental
screenings, are a critical aspect to serving children with special needs
or developmental disabilities. Developmental screenings help doctors
and families determine whether a child has any developmental delays
and, ideally, connects families with necessary resources and services.

CCDBG requires that lead agencies collect and disseminate information
on, and referrals to, developmental screenings. Lead agencies must
describe how families and eligible child care providers can utilize

these services for children receiving CCDBG subsidies or are at risk

of developmental delays (658E(c)(2)(E)(ii)). Tribal Lead Agencies must
provide this information to families during their CCDF intake process
and to providers through training and education ($98.83(c)).

Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a
federal grant program that assists states in implementing a statewide
early intervention program for infants and toddlers with disabilities. Black
and AI/AN infants and toddlers are slightly less likely to be served under
Part C than other racial groups. Compared with other groups, a smaller
percentage of AI/AN children receive Part C services in the home anda
larger percentage receive these services in community-based settings.

IDEA Part B Section 619, serving children ages 3 to 5, authorizes additional
preschool formula grants to states that provide free and appropriate education
available to all preschool-age children with disabilities. AI/AN and White
children are most likely to receive services under Part B Section 619.

Furthermore, AI/AN people account for some of the highest rates of
reported child abuse and neglect in the country at 14.3 cases per 1,000
children, compared with a national rate of 9.1 per 1,000. AI/AN child
sexual abuse is nearly six times the national average. The Child Abuse
and Treatment Prevention Act (CAPTA) is a federal law that provides
grants to states and tribes to support the prevention, assessment,
investigation, prosecution, and treatment of child abuse and neglect.
CAPTA consists of four main funding streams, which are distributed
to states on a formula basis and do not require a state match:

1. State Grants: These grants improve child protective services,
including reporting of child maltreatment, intakes, screenings,
investigations, case management, and trainings.

2. Child Abuse Discretionary Activities Grants: These grants fund research
and contracts at public and private agencies working to prevent child
maltreatment. The grants also fund technical assistance to states to
support the prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect.

3. Children's Justice Act Grants: These grants fund programs that
investigate, assess, and prosecute child abuse and neglect with a
focus on sexual abuse, child fatalities resulting from abuse, and
abuse of children with special needs or severe health issues.

4. Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants: These funds are
granted to the lead entity in each state, as determined by the governor,
who distributes the money to community-based organizations
working to prevent child abuse and neglect. One percent of funds
appropriated must be set aside for tribal AND migrant programs.

Although CAPTA has tribal-specific provisions detailing eligibility for
federal grants and focusing on AI/AN child abuse, tribes receive little
CAPTA funding. They are ineligible for the state grants and receive, on
average, less than $300,000 a year total from the appropriated CAPTA
funds. As with the Tribal MIECHV program, needs of tribal communities
go unaddressed. Only two of the 574 tribes receive funding while every
state receives some level of funding. Consequently, projects targeting tribal
child abuse and neglect largely go unfunded or underfunded, and tribal
communities often lack the money to address child maltreatment.

In 2013, Congress established the Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse
and Neglect Fatalities (CECANF). Among other recommendations,
CECANFE advised improving data collection on AI/AN child abuse

and neglect fatalities and integrating this data into a national

database for analysis and development of prevention strategies.

39
FINDINGS:

 

All tribes are required to disclose which underserved populations they
plan to help in establishing the tribe's child care needs (Section 1.7.2(a)).

All but three of the 184 tribes answered this question. The Tribal Plans
explicitly ask if tribes include infants and toddlers, families experiencing
homelessness, children with special needs, and children in need of
nontraditional hours of care, but the plans also leave an open-ended "other"
category for tribes to list additional populations. Table 8 summarizes
which populations the tribes reported when determining child care

needs. Percentages may exceed 100 percent because some tribes indicated
more than one population to determine their child care needs.

Table 8: Underserved Populations Included in Establishing the
Tribe's Child Care Needs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Percent of

Respondents Respondents
Homeless children 133 73%
Children with special needs 144 80%
Both homeless children and 120 66%
children with special needs
Nelther homeless children nor 25 14%
children with special needs
Infants and toddlers 172 95%
Children in need of nontraditional 71 39%
hours of care
Children from families involved 12 7%
with Child Protective Services
(CPS)
Children In foster care 16 9%
Children In custody of 10 6%
grandparents or other non-
parental relatives
Other 3 2%

 

 

 

 

 

Most tribes included homeless children, children with special needs,
and infants and toddlers when establishing their child care needs. The
most frequently written-in demographic were children in foster care.

Homeless children:

Medium and large tribes must report how they comply with regulations by
prioritizing services for homeless children, as defined in the Tribal Plans
(Section 5.3.2(b)). Of the 96 medium and large tribes, only 63 answered. Table
9 summarizes BPC's analysis of the specific ways that medium and large
tribes prioritized homeless children. The totals may exceed 100 percent
because some tribes reported using multiple methods to prioritize services for
homeless children. Small tribes were not required to respond to this question.
Table 9: How Medium/Large Tribes Prioritize Services for
Homeless Children

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of tT: [eo

Respondents Respondents
Walving some or all application 13 21%
materials for homeless families
Helping families find another 6 10%
provider when they move
Completely covering the family's 9 14%
copayment
Automatically enrolling the child 10 16%
with a provider
Placing the child on top of the 33 52%
waltlist
Famllles of homeless children 4 6%
can receive a portion of set-aside
funding to assist famlilles as
immediately as needed
Under development 3 9%

 

 

 

 

 

More than half of tribes reported that they place homeless children at the
top of their waitlist for enrollment in a child care program. Overall, these
methods focus on helping families by paying their child care costs or by
helping them enroll in a program in some capacity. Of note, four tribes
have emergency funds set aside to help families as quickly as needed.

Children with Special Needs:

As previously stated, developmental screenings are crucial to supporting
children with special needs. As required by regulation (98.15(a(9)), Tribal
Lead Agencies must report how they circulate information pertaining

to available resources and services for conducting developmental
screenings to parents and CCDF child care providers (Section 7.4.1(a)).
Small tribes are exempt from responding to this requirement.

Medium /large tribes must define children with special needs in the
Tribal Plans, but small tribes do not have to (Section 5.3.1(a)).

Only 64 medium and large tribes completed this section; 32 did
not. Table 10 summarizes how these tribes reported their approach
to distribution on developmental screenings and resources. The
totals may exceed 100 percent because some tribes described
multiple methods to disseminate this information.

41
42

Table 10: How Medium and Large Tribes Collect and
Disseminate Information on Developmental Screenings

at ao Percentage of
Respondents Respondents

Tribe works with state partners to spread 15 23%
information

 

Information about screenings is posted on 49 77%
websites, or in newsletters, newspapers,
handbooks, or other accessible places for
parents

 

Parents are provided information through in- 14 22%
person meetings, such as community fairs or
orlentations

 

The tribe works with outside partner 10 16%
organizations to disseminate information,
such as Child Care Resource and Referral

 

 

agencies

The tribe offers tralning to elther providers, 4 6%
parents, or both to learn about available

services

Every child is automatically screened upon 5 8%

entering one of the tribal programs

 

Surveys are conducted with providers, 1 2%
parents, or both to learn about the need

 

 

 

 

 

New policy that Is under development 6 9%

 

Nearly three-quarters of tribes publicly post information about developmental
screenings in writings for CCDF providers and families, making it by far

the most popular method. However, more than one-fifth of tribes provide
information verbally to parents during in-person meetings. Alongside
communicating with families directly, many tribes disseminate information on
developmental screenings by partnering with external organizations. Slightly
more tribes reported that they work with state partners (15) rather than with
other external organizations (10). These external organizations include child
care resource or referral agencies, state health centers, and local social workers.

BPC''s Recommendations

* HHS should require small tribes to report how they circulate
information on available resources and services for developmental
screenings to parents and CCDF child care providers.

¢ HHS should require all tribes to define underserved groups in their
Tribal Plans to gain greater clarity on priority groups, particularly
children with special needs. Although medium and large tribes must
define children with special needs, small tribes are exempt from this
requirement. Small tribes should also be required to define this group
because, under regulation, children with special needs can include any
populations as defined by the Tribal Lead Agency. Without defining children
with special needs, it is unclear which children small tribes are prioritizing.
HHS should collect additional data on child abuse and neglect in tribal
communities to better inform specific policy recommendations on how
tribes can address and prevent abuse. This data should become available
through a publicly accessible, national database and include a breakdown

of AI/AN children under tribal, state, and federal jurisdiction. This data
should also include information on how tribes are addressing abuse.

Congress should make tribes eligible to receive state grants so
tribes can strengthen their child protection services programs. A
portion of the funds available to states should be set aside for tribes.

Congress should base the CAPTA set-asides for tribes
on child maltreatment data and the tribal child count
data to ensure that all tribes receive sufficient funding
to effectively prevent child abuse and neglect.

In the next reauthorization of CAPTA, Congress should clarify
whether CAPTA assistance is being distributed equitably. Currently,
CAPTA requires an equitable distribution of CAPTA assistance

among the states, geographic areas of the country, and rural and

urban areas. Congress should include tribal communities in the
assessment of whether CAPTA funding is equitably distributed.

Congress should establish a commission to examine child abuse
and neglect prevention approaches in tribal communities and make
recommendations to Congress. This work will help inform policies
that can better support existing, culturally- relevant tribal policies.

 

43
44

Supply Building for
Underserved Children

 

BACKGROUND:

 

 

It is critical to expand child care for underserved children,
including for AI/AN children, who face increased difficulties
accessing care within an already volatile system.

 

A RECENT BPC SURVEY FOUND THAT 77% OF
AIJ/AN PARENTS WITH SOMEONE IN THEIR
HOUSEHOLD NOT WORKING SAID THAT CHILD CARE
RESPONSIBILITIES INFLUENCED THEIR DECISION
NOT TO WORK, INCLUDING 64% WHO SAID THESE
RESPONSIBILITIES SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCED
THEIR DECISION. ALTHOUGH ONLY 19% OF AI/AN
PARENTS WOULD MOST PREFER USING PARENT-
PROVIDED CARE AND 15% WOULD MOST PREFER
FAMILY CARE, 32% RELY ON PARENT-PROVIDED
CARE AND 23% RELY ON FAMILY CARE.

 

This reliance on informal child care partially results from a
lack of formal child care options such as a child care center,
Head Start, part-day pre-K, or a family child care center.

In the Tribal Plans, Tribal Lead Agencies must describe the methods
they are implementing to increase the supply and improve the quality
of care for the following groups of underserved AI/AN children:

e Children in underserved areas;

* Infants and toddlers;

¢ Children with disabilities; and

¢ Children who receive care during nontraditional hours.

Typically, fewer spots are available for these underserved groups

in child care programs, and those that are available can be more
expensive. Following the passage of the American Rescue Plan in
March 2021, ACF released guidance regarding how lead agencies
can increase the supply of child care for these populations.

Children in underserved areas:

The BIA estimates over one-half of the total AI/AN population live away
from their tribal lands, and more than half of AI/AN people (54%) live in
rural areas. According to 2021 BPC survey data, one-fifth of AI/AN parents
who reside outside of tribal lands live in rural areas. Both tribal lands and
rural areas are underserved, including by federal child care programs.

Tribal lands: As previously discussed, because congressional CCDBG funding
for tribes is not always based on child count data, the funding allotted is
inadequate. As a result, only six percent of eligible AI/AN children received
CCDBG subsidies between 2011 and 2013, the most recent available data.
Tribal Home Visiting, part of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood
Home Visiting (MIECHV) program, provides grants to tribes to support
families with children under 5. Home Visiting employs a multifaceted
approach to promote the well-being of participating families, including
educating parents on child development, providing guidance on achieving
financial self-sufficiency, and screening caregivers for mental illness.

Like CCDBG, Tribal Home Visiting funding is not based on child count data
and is subject to an arbitrary set-aside. Of the $400 million allocated annually
to MIECHV in 2018 through FY2022, only 3% is set aside for tribes, amounting
to roughly $12 million per year. As a result, in 2019, only an estimated 4,177 of
the 339,400 eligible AI/AN families received home visiting services. Limited

funding meant that just 23 of the 574 federally recognized tribes received

these grants, compared with all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Insufficient funding for tribal communities restricts AI/AN families' access
to child care. According to BPC survey data, only 15% of AI/AN parents living
on tribal lands received government assistance for child care expenses

over the past six months. Thirty-two percent of AI/AN parents living on

tribal lands must drive more than 15 minutes to access their child care
provider, and 32% also live at least 10 miles away from a child care program.
Generally, it takes more time for AI/AN parents living near a tribe to transport
their child to child care than those who do not live near their tribe.

Overall, 53% of AI/AN parents say child care responsibilities have affected their
ability to work over the past month. However, employed AI/AN parents living
on tribal land (68%) are more likely than those who are not (49%) to say child
care responsibilities have frequently affected their ability to work.

45
46

Rural areas: According to BPC's analysis of the child care gap in 35 states,
the supply gap is much higher in rural America than it is in other parts of
the country. Although urban communities generally have a higher need for
child care-BPC estimated 6,302,272 children need care in urban areas,
versus 1,988,434 children in rural areas-and thus a greater likelihood of
having a higher supply gap, rural areas still usually have bigger gaps than
urban areas. Urban areas had an average child care supply gap of 28.9%,
versus an average gap of 35.1%in rural areas. This child care gap comes at a
cost: BPC estimated that the economic impact of the gap in rural areas falls
between $32.79 billion and $49,93 billion (about $150 per person in th

BPC's survey of rural parents found that income, education, and town

size factor into the availability of child care. Rural parents with higher
levels of education and income are more likely to have access to a child
care center and part-day pre-K program in their community than lower-
income parents. However, parents in smaller towns must drive farther

to access child care. More than half (51%) of parents in towns with less
than 500 people say that they must drive more than 10 miles to get to a
child care program. Across town sizes, only 46% of rural parents say that
their community has a family child care home and only 46% say that their
community has a free public pre-K program; 7% report that there is neither
a child care center nor a family child care home in their community.

More than four in five rural parents (86%) who report that either they or
their spouse/partner is not currently working say child care responsibilities
influenced their decision not to work. That figure includes 64% who say
these responsibilities significantly influenced their decision not to work.

Infants and toddlers:

Child care is unaffordable for many parents, and care for infants

and toddlers is the most expensive. According to BPC survey data,
47% of parents say the maximum amount they can afford to pay for
child care each week is less than $200. This is considerably less than
the actual cost of child care for infants, which is over $300.

Children with disabilities:

In 2019, an estimated 4.3% of children in the United States have a disability,
according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Rates were highest among AI/AN
children at 5.9%. Three civil rights laws protect children with disabilities:
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

According to 2016 survey data, parents of children with disabilities
(34%) were more likely to experience difficulties finding child care than
parents of children without disabilities (25%). Parents of children with
disabilities (12%) were also more likely to say that a lack of available
spots was their main difficulty in finding care than parents of children
without disabilities (8%). In part due to this supply shortage, parents

of children with disabilities are more likely to rely on care provided by
relatives. Parents of children with disabilities are three times more likely
to experience job disruptions because of child care-related issues.

Children who receive care during nontraditional hours:

 

BPC'S NATIONAL SURVEY OF EMPLOYED

PARENTS OF CHILDREN UNDER 5 FOUND THAT
29% OF PARENTS NEED CHILD CARE OUTSIDE OF
TRADITIONAL WORK HOURS (ANYTIME BETWEEN 6
P.M. AND 8 A.M.,).'

 

Parents particularly need care in the evening, with 49% of these parents
needing care from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Similarly, 37% of AI/AN parents need child
care during nontraditional hours, including a quarter of AI/AN parents living
on tribal lands. More than half (53%) of these parents need care from 6 p.m. to 8
p.m. However, it is difficult to find child care programs operating during these
hours. During nontraditional hours, 38% percent of parents use parent-provided
child care, 27% rely on relative care, and only 11% use child care centers.

Due io the increased difficulty of finding child care for these underserved populations,
BPC examined how tribes expand care for such children and their families.

FINDINGS:

 

BPC analyzed how medium and large tribes build the child care supply for
children in underserved areas, infants and toddlers, children with disabilities,
and children in need of nontraditional hours of care (Section 5.3.4). Small
tribes were exempt in the Tribal Plans from responding to this section.

In this analysis, BPC coded the responses from the Tribal Plans and placed
them in similar categories to identify themes. Apart from expanding supply
for children with disabilities, BPC identified trends in how tribes enlarge
the supply across the different underserved populations and used the

same codes. Table 11 shows the codes BPC used and their accompanying
definition. Across all the analyses, the percentages may exceed 100%, as
some tribes indicated multiple ways they build the child care supply.

 

7 BPC surveyed both full-time and part-time employees.

47
48

Table 11: Definitions of Codes Used to Describe How Tribes
Build the Child Care Supply

Code Definition

Training

The tribe administers and/or connects child care providers
with training on how to best serve the underserved group of
children.

 

Tracking

The tribe tracks the number of providers providing care to
families in underserved areas.

 

Outside programs

The Tribal Lead Agency partners with outside organizations
to expand the supply of child care for the underserved group
of children.

 

Support

The tribe provides technical assistance and support
(including help achieving accreditation) to providers caring
for the underserved group of children.

 

Needs assessment

The Tribal Lead Agency conducts needs assessments
and outreach to determine the difference in the supply
and demand of care (the supply gap) for the group of
underserved children.

 

Payment

Tribes compensate providers at higher rates (differential
payment rates) if they provide care for the underserved
group of children.

 

Priority

The Tribal Lead Agency prioritizes placing underserved
children in available child care spots.

 

Community outreach

The Tribal Lead Agency conducts targeted campaigns to
increase the recruitment of child care providers and to
educate families on their child care options.

 

Incentives

The Tribal Lead Agency incentivizes providers to care for the
underserved group of children through purchasing materials,
buying equipment, and/or issuing financial incentives such as
grants to the providers.

 

Expand spots

The Tribal Lead Agency increases the number of spots in
classrooms for the group of underserved children.

 

Family

 

 

The Tribal Lead Agency expands family and home-based
child care.

 

 

Children in Underserved Areas: Table 12 shows how the
60-respondent medium and large tribes build the supply of child
care for children in underserved areas (Section 5.3.4(a)).

Table 12: How Medium and Large Tribes Build the Supply for
Children in Underserved Areas

Training

Tracking

Outside programs
Support

Community outreach
Needs assessment
Incentives

Payment

Priority

 
The most popular method of supply building for children in underserved
areas was through community outreach (50%), followed by partnerships with
outside organizations (17%,) or providing incentives to providers (15%).

Infants and Toddlers: Table 13 captures how the
58-respondent medium and large tribes build the supply of
child care for infants and toddlers (Section 5.3.4(b)).

Table 13: How Medium and Large Tribes Build the Supply for
Infants and Toddler

Training 31%

Outside programs 6 10%
Support 5 9%
Community outreach 22%
Incentives 26%
Needs assessment 2%
Payment 22%
Expand spots 16%
Nothing 2 3%

 

The most popular methods to expand supply for infants and toddlers were
either arranging or connecting child care providers with training (31%),
providing incentives to providers (26%), conducting community outreach
(22%), or administering higher payment rates for providers (22%).

Children in Need of Nontraditional Hours of Care: Table 14 summarizes
how the 58-respondent medium and large tribes expand the supply of child
care for children in need of nontraditional hours of care (Section 5.3.4(d)).

Table 14: How Medium and Large Tribes Build the Supply for
Children in Need of Nontraditional Hours of Care

Tralning

Support

Payment
Community outreach

Needs assessment

Outside programs

Incentives
Famlly
Nothing

 

49
50

The most popular methods tribes use to expand supply for
children in need of nontraditional hours of care are conducting
community outreach (29%), providing incentives to providers (17%),
or administering higher payment rates for providers (16%).

The most popular supply building methods for all three groups of
underserved children (children in underserved areas, infants and
toddlers, and children in need of nontraditional hours of care) are:

¢ Community outreach: Focused campaigns to recruit more
child care providers for these underserved groups and to
inform families about their child care options;

* Incentives: Providing grants and/or classroom materials and
equipment for providers serving these underserved groups; and

¢« Payment: Compensating providers at higher rates if they
provide child care to these underserved groups.

These methods are provider-focused, centering on recruiting and
retaining child care providers. The least common methods to expand
care are conducting needs assessments to determine the child care
supply gap and providing technical assistance to providers.

There were also notable differences in how tribes approached
expanding the supply of care for all three groups.

 

ALTHOUGH NEARLY ONE-THIRD OF TRIBES

(31%) PROVIDE TRAINING TO PROVIDERS TO
BETTER SERVE INFANTS AND TODDLERS, ONLY
ABOUT 10% OF TRIBES IMPLEMENT PROVIDER
TRAINING TO IMPROVE THE SUPPLY OF CARE FOR
CHILDREN IN UNDERSERVED AREAS OR IN NEED
OF NONTRADITIONAL HOURS OF CARE; 20% OF
TRIBES HAVE NO PLAN FOR EXPANDING CARE FOR
CHILDREN IN NEED OF NONTRADITIONAL HOURS OF
CARE; AND 3% HAVE NO PLAN FOR BUILDING THE
SUPPLY OF INFANT AND TODDLER CARE.

 

However, all the respondent tribes reported at least one method to expand
care for children in underserved areas. This may be indicative of the need for
HHS to provide more guidance to tribes on how to spend their money to serve
children in need of non-traditional hours of care and infants and toddlers.
hildren with Disabilities: Of the 96 medium and large tribes, only 63
responded in the Tribal Plans to how they build the supply of child care
for children with disabilities. The tribes used slightly different methods
to expand the supply, so BPC developed new codes for our analysis. Table
15 summarizes how medium/large tribes expand this supply of care.

Table 15: How Medium and Large Tribes Build the Supply of

Care for Children with Disabilities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of tata: (ee
Respondents Respondents
Provide enhanced reimbursement rates 20 32%
to providers who care for children with
disabilities
Offer technical assistance, such as 45 71%
training providers to care for children with
disabllitles and/or recrulting more providers
to care for children with disabilities
Prioritize children with disabilities on child 6 10%
care waitlists
Glve providers grants for faclilty upgrades 5 8%
to care for children with disabilities
Other (assist in implementing other 5 8%
accommodations as needed, or waive
copayments for families who have children
with disabilities)
Under development 3 5%

 

 

The most common method to improve both the quantity and quality

of care for children with disabilities is to provide technical assistance

to providers (71%), followed by issuing enhanced reimbursement rates

to providers (32%) and prioritizing children with disabilities on child

care waitlists (10%). Although technical assistance helps ensure that
providers are better equipped to care for children with disabilities, higher
reimbursement rates incentivize more providers to care for these children.
Furthermore, because it can be more difficult to find available spots for
children with disabilities, prioritizing these children on waitlists helps

connect these families with available spots as soon as possible.

51
52

Across all four underserved groups, tribes focused primarily on
providing direct support to providers to expand care. However,

 

ONLY 8% OF TRIBES OFFER GRANTS TO
PROVIDERS TO EXPAND CARE FOR CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES. AND TRIBES DO NOT CONDUCT
COMMUNITY OUTREACH ON CARE OPTIONS FOR
THESE CHILDREN, UNLIKE FOR THE OTHER THREE
GROUPS. MEANWHILE, 5% OF TRIBES PRIORITIZE
PLACING CHILDREN IN UNDERSERVED AREAS IN
OPEN CHILD CARE SPOTS, AND 10% PRIORITIZE
CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES,

 

but tribes do not prioritize either infants and toddlers or
children in need of nontraditional hours of care.

BPC's Recommendations

* Congress should base all Tribal funding including CCDBG, MIECHV,
and CAPTA on actual data including tribal child counts to ensure that
each tribe receives adequate funding to serve all eligible families.
Tribal lands are underserved areas that frequently do not fully benefit from
the federal programs created to help them. Grounding topline Tribal Home
Visiting funding in tribal child counts and allocating funds to each tribe
based on its child count would ensure that each tribe not only receives
money but also enough money to serve all eligible families. Until accurate
child counts are available, BPC recommends that the amount of Tribal
Home Visiting increases to serve all large tribes as defined in this report.
State Coordination

BACKGROUND:

 

The relationship between a tribe and the state varies based on the state in
which the tribe resides. A tribe and state may provide overlapping services
for AI/AN people, such as child care, meaning that coordination between the
two is necessary to ensure all families are receiving comprehensive support.

Of the 41% of AI/AN parents who use formal child care (a child care center, Head
Start, part day pre-K, or a family child care center), 21% use tribally operated
care and 20% use non-tribally operated cate frequently administered through
state governments. A clear majority of AI/AN parents prefer to receive child

care services from the tribe (56%). Because a significant percentage of parents
reside off tribal lands, it is important to maintain tribal-state coordination

to ensure that families have access to care no matter where they live.

More than half AI/AN people live outside of tribal statistical areas,® yet only
44% of AI/AN parents enrolled in a tribe say their or their spouse/partner's
tribe provides child care services outside of tribal lands. Tribal coordination
with the state helps AI/AN people living off tribal lands access the care they
need through the state, particularly if they cannot receive it from the tribe.

The state also provides services for AI/AN people that tribes may not be able to
fully offer even for those living on tribal lands, largely due to a lack of funding
and lack of capacity.

 

ABOUT 68% OF ALL AI/AN PARENTS AND 72% OF
AI/AN PARENTS LIVING ON TRIBAL LANDS HAVE
RECEIVED SOME FORM OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
OVER THE PAST SIX MONTHS, AS SUMMARIZED IN
TABLE 16.

 

 

8 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, "Tribal statistical areas are statistical
geographic entities identified and delineated for the Census Bureau by federally
recognized American Indian tribes that do not currently have an American Indian
reservation and/or off-reservation trust land. A Tribal statistical area is intended to
encompass a compact and contiguous area that contains a concentration of individuals
who identify with the delineating federally recognized American Indian tribe. Tribal
statistical areas are also intended to be comparable to American Indian reservations
within the same state or region and provide a means for reporting statistical data for
the area."

53
54

Table 16: Types of Public Assistance Received by AI/AN Parents
in the Past Six Months

Percentage Percentage of
Cra AI/AN Parents

 

 

 

 

Parents on Tribal
Lands

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 36% 36%
(SNAP)

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 25% 34%
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)

Energy assistance 15% 12%
Supplemental Security Income or Social 14% 12%

Security Retirement, Disability, or
Survivor's Benefits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child support 12% 8%

Unemployment insurance 8% 8%

Financial assistance for child care 21% 15%
FINDINGS:

 

 

No section of the Tribal Plans addresses tribal-state coordination; rather,
coordination is more of an overarching theme that is addressed indirectly
throughout. For this reason, information about tribal-state coordination
has been discussed in other sections of BPC's analysis, including:

* Culturally Relevant and Appropriate Care: Whether the state
contacted the Tribal Lead Agency for input into how to make the
state's training and professional development opportunities more
culturally relevant for AI/AN children (Section 3.2.1(b)).

* Preventing Suspensions and Expulsions: The Tribal Lead Agency's policies
for preventing suspensions and expulsions in CCDF-funded early
childhood programs, and how these policies are shared (Section 7.3.6).

¢ CCDF Background Checks:
¢ Ifthe tribe has an alternative approach for
background checks (Section 2.3.2);

¢ Which background check requirements the Tribal Lead Agency
does not conduct, and the reason (Section 2.3.2a); and

¢ A description of the Tribal Lead Agency's alternative approach
to conducting background checks (Section 2.3.2b)

* Marginalized Children: How Tribal Lead Agencies circulate information
on resources and services for conducting developmental screenings
to parents and CCDF child care providers (Section 7.4.1(a)).

Table 17 summarizes data points regarding tribal-state coordination in these
previous sections.
Table 17: State-Tribal Coordination in Previous Sections

Data Point

Culturally relevant and 41 of the 178-respondent tribes said they were
appropriate care contacted by the state for input into how to make
the state's training and professional development
opportunities more culturally relevant for AI/AN

 

children
Preventing suspensions 8 of the 55-respondent medium and large tribes
and expulsions deferred to state policies on or worked with the state

to address suspension and expulsion

CCDF background checks 139 of the 184 tribes indicated they had an alternative
plan for conducting background checks. Tribes

that have an alternative approach to conducting
background checks said frequently that they relied on
the state system and that "when the state is in
compliance, then the tribe will also be in compliance."

 

 

Marginalized children 15 of the 64- medium and large tribes worked
with state partners to spread information on
developmental screenings

 

 

 

 

Another indication of coordination between the state and tribe is the
use of the state Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS), which
assesses the quality of child care programs. Use of the state's QRIS
means that the tribe and state are aligned in the standards they use to
determine the level of quality in early care and education programs.

In the Tribal Plans, tribes must indicate which QRIS system they used (Section
3.1.2(c)). In BPC's analysis of the QRIS systems used by tribes, we found that
45% (81 tribes) were participating in a state QRIS system. Of the 55% who

were not, only 7% (seven tribes) were implementing a tribal QRIS system of
their own. Of the remaining tribes 30% (28 tribes) say they were developing
one. 64 tribes were not using and do not plan to use any QRIS system.

Similarly, a sign of coordination between the state and the tribe is whether

the tribe uses the state's Child Care Resource and Referral agencies (CCR&R),
which help families locate child care options near their home or work. In the
Tribal Plans, tribes are required to report whether they use a state CCR&R
(Section 3.1.2(e)). Of the 180 respondent tribes, 100 (56%) used a state CCR&R.
Table 18 displays the number of tribes in each state that use the state's CCR&R.

Table 18: Number of Tribes in Each State Using the State's
CCR&R

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
California

Colorado

Connecticut
Idaho
Kansas

Loulslana
Maine

Massachusetts

 

55
56

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan 8/10
Minnesota 5/10
MisslssIppl 1
Montana 2/4
Nebraska 2/3
Nevada 1/6
New Mexico 4/5
New York 1/2
North Carolina 1/1
North Dakota /3
Oklahoma 13/16
Oregon 2/19
Rhode Island o/1
South Carolina 1
South Dakota 1/6
Texas 0/3
Utah 3/4
Virginia 1/1
Washington 15/23
Wisconsin /3

 

 

Using a state's CCR&R is indicative of coordination between the tribe and the
state, as it means that they use the same child care networks and communicate
on availability within that network.

BPC''s Recommendations

HHS should organize a roundtable with tribal leaders and
state administrators to encourage further communication
and allow tribes and states to explore how they can

best support one another in a formal way.

In states with significant tribal populations, HHS should require
that state administrators conduct annual check-ins with tribal
leaders, including the CCDF administrators, of each tribe in the
state. This would help ensure that AI/AN people who are not receiving
services through the tribe are receiving services through the state.

HHS should include a section of the Tribal Plan explicitly asking
the tribe to describe any tribal-state coordination. Tribes should
report the areas in which, and how, they coordinate with the state to
effectively deliver services to families and if the tribe is represented
on state advisory committees. They should also include areas in
which they would like to see more coordination with the state.

 
Quality Improvement Goals

BACKGROUND:

 

Tribes are required to spend a percentage (9% as of FY2022) of their CCDF
dollars on quality improvement activities.' In the Tribal Plans, tribes
must describe how they use quality improvement funds (Section 3.1),
with a further requirement stipulating that they use funds on at least one
of 10 allowable activities delineated in the Tribal Plans, as follows:

1. Supporting the training and professional
development of the child care workforce;

2. Improving the development or implementation of
early learning and developmental guidelines;

3. Developing, implementing, or enhancing a quality rating and
improvement system (QRIS) for child care providers and services;

4, Improving the supply and quality of child care
services for infants and toddlers;

5. Establishing or expanding a system of Child Care Resource and Referral
(CCR&R) services; assisting parents with finding and choosing a child
care provider; collecting and analyzing child care provider supply
and demand data; or providing training and support to providers;

6. Supporting compliance with requirements for licensing,
inspection, monitoring, training, and health and safety;

7. Evaluating the quality of a child care program, including
how programs positively impact children;

8. Supporting providers in the voluntary pursuit of accreditation;

9. Supporting the development or adoption of high-quality
program standards related to health, mental health, nutrition,
physical activity, and physical development; and

10. Supporting other activities determined by the Tribal Lead Agency to
improve the quality of child care services and which measurement
of outcomes is possible related to improved provider preparedness,
child safety child well-being, or kindergarten entry.

Within the Tribal Plans, all 10 of these activities are listed. Under each, there

 

9 The mandated quality set-aside increased from 8% in FY2020 and FY2021 to 9% in
FY2022.

57
are a total of 70 more specific sub-activities that tribes may select, in addition
to an "other" box that tribes may fill in with original activities. If a tribe plans
to spend its money on one of these 10 allowable activities, they must indicate
which of the more specific activities they will conduct within that goal.
Based on BPC's guiding questions, we examined the 10 goal subsets to better
understand tribes' quality improvement goals. Table 19 summarizes other
sections in the report where quality improvement goals have been discussed.

Table 19: Tribal Quality Improvement Activities in Previous
Sections

Data Point

Culturally relevant | Tribes may report which culturally relevant activities they

and appropriate will incorporate into their early childhood programs (Section
care 3.1.2(j)(1)). BPC found that:
e 131 tribes incorporate tribal language into child care
settings

e 101 tribes partner with language and culture departments
to build curricula

 

Coordinating with e Tribes can choose coordinating with Head Start as a quality

Tribal Head Start improvement activity (Section 3.1.2(d)). Of the 25% of tribes

that are not currently coordinating with Head Start, 24% of
them indicated that improving coordination with Head Start
is one of their main quality improvement goals

 

State coordination |e Tribes select which QRIS system they use (Section 3.1.2(c)).
45% of tribes (81 tribes) are participating in a state QRIS
system. 36% of all tribes (64 tribes) are not using and do not
plan to use any QRIS system

e Tribes also may select the status of their CCR&R (Section
3.1.2(e)), BPC found that 100 tribes (56%) use a state CCR&R

 

 

 

 

FINDINGS:

 

BPC's findings on tribal quality improvement activities are delineated in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Tribal Prioritization of Quality Improvement Goals by
Percent

Support Child Care as fT
a Business 24%

Coordinating with
Home Visiting S| 33%

Financial Assistance

tomect Licensing TTT 99,

Requirements

Conduct Monitoring

Visits of Providers TT ¢2:,

Incorporate Tribal
Care Settings 73%

Tribes Partner with

Language and Culture TT 56:

Departments on Curricula

Quality Improvement Goals

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Percent of Plans
BPC's 2021 survey of AI/AN parents found that they differ from parents
nationally because they frequently prioritize finding culturally relevant care
and curriculums when choosing a child care program. This emphasis on
culture carries into the tribal quality improvement goals. Three-quarters

(73%) incorporate tribal language into child care settings, and more than

half (56%) partner with language and culture departments to develop the
curriculum. Notably, 62% of tribes help ensure that providers are complying
with health and safety standards by conducting monitoring visits of providers.

However, the structure of the Tribal Plans makes it difficult to assess whether
tribes are achieving their goals because the tribes merely check boxes under each
quality improvement goal and do not detail what progress they are making.

BPC Recommendation:

HHS should require tribes to report on progress made on the quality improvement
activities that they focused on during the previous application cycle.

 

59
Eligible federal departments in
which tribes can consolidate funding:

1.
2.
CP
ao
5.
6.
7.
ie
VF

60

Interior
Education
Labor

Health and Human Services
Nolet iael a

477 Tribes: Tribes That Do
Not Submit Tribal Plans

 

BACKGROUND:

 

Congress passed the Indian, Employment, and
Training and Related Services Demonstration
Act (Pub. Law 102-477) in 1992 to reduce
unemployment within tribes, enhance

tribes' economies, and promote their self-
sufficiency by streamlining and integrating
workforce development programs that they
administer. Before the law's enactment,

oT TTS tribes lacked the flexibility to utilize federal

Energy
Homeland

funds, including funding for programs that
Ye ata prioritize tribal goals and support self-

Housing and Urban sufficiency. As a result of PL 102-477, tribes
Development that receive "477 status" (often called 477
Transportation tribes) can consolidate funding from 12
eS different federal programs, including those

Justice

 

from the Departments of Labor, Interior, and
Health and Human Services, into a single
integrated budget, as opposed to receiving
separate funding for specific departmental uses. The lead agency responsible
for approving a tribe's 477 application is the Division of Workforce Development
at the Office of Indian Services within the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

To receive 477 tribal status, a tribe must submit a 477 plan that serves as the
tribal application. The plan must specify which federal programs the tribe
proposes to integrate into a project to enhance employment opportunities
and provide training services to its workforce. Additionally, tribes must
specify how these programs and services will be integrated, which agencies
within their tribal government will be responsible for implementing

these, and what outcomes can be expected from the integration. Tribes

are also required to document foreseeable expenditures for their programs
and submit a single budget to the BIA. Finally, tribes must identify any
regulations they want exemption from to implement their plan more
effectively. Exemptions to regulations such as CCDF regulations must be
approved by the agency with oversight of the program, in this case HHS.

Plans are accepted on a rolling basis. The tribe's governing board must first
approve the plan, then submit it to the secretary of the Interior for review
and approval. If a 477 plan is approved, the
tribe retains 477 status for three years. It
is important to note that these plans, once
approved, are not publicly available. As

of November 2019, of the 270 tribes and

Programs and services eligible for

integration:

. vob training
tribal organizations that had submitted MATa on ola
477 plans, BIA reported it had approved . Employment opportunities
67. It is unknown how many tribes asked . Skill development
for an exemption for child care. According . Assisting Indian youth

to HHS reports, in 2021 CCDF funds were . Encouraging self-sufficiency
transferred from HHS to the BIA for 45 » Creation of job opportunities
tribes. Because applications can be accepted
on a rolling basis, this number may vary.

 

A 477 status increases tribes' flexibility for prioritizing and creating more
effective workforce development projects. The CCDF program under HHS

and Section 166 Supplemental Youth Services Program of the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) under the Department of Labor are two of the 12

federal programs currently eligible for integration into the 477 plan. A

tribe or tribal government can request that funding from these agencies be
consolidated into a single budget and plan if its intent is to promote workforce
development within the tribal community. In addition, 477 tribes have different
reporting requirements than non-477 tribes receiving CCDF funding.

Each year, 477 tribes are required to submit a Workforce Development Annual
Report to the BIA detailing their use of funds from all combined federal
programs, including financial, statistical, and narrative information. The federal
government is prohibited from requiring 477 tribes to submit expenditure data
on each separate program; it instead allows tribes to give a general account of
activities conducted with the combined funds. As a result, 477 tribes have few
reporting requirements pertaining to the spending of CCDF funds compared
with the plans submitted by non-477 tribes. In the Workforce Development
Annual Report, 477 tribes that receive CCDF funding are required to report
annual expenditures on child care services and quality improvement, the
number of children served, and a narrative report describing efforts made
toward ensuring high-quality child care. These tribes also submit a triennial
child count of the number of tribal children under the age of 13 residing within
the reservation and the service area as defined by the tribe, which is used to
determine the amount of CCDF funding sent to the BIA for each of the 477 tribes.

As described earlier, non-477 tribes receiving CCDF funding submit a biennial
CCDF Tribal Plan along with a yearly funding application to HHS. These plans
serve as the tribe's application for funding and have comprehensive reporting
requirements on child care services. For instance, tribes must specify which
child care programs and services the Tribal Lead Agency offers and how it
will implement these services to meet CCDF requirements, such as health
and safety, monitoring, and background check requirements. 477 tribes, on

61
62

the other hand, do not have similar reporting requirements. As mote tribes
apply for 477 status, it is important to consider how this may affect the quality,
avaliability, and health and safety of child care in tribal communities.

FINDINGS: 477 TRIBES' REPORTING
TRENDS FOR FY 2017

 

 

Given the lack of transparency around 477-approved tribal plans, it is
possible that more tribes submitted 477 plans but did not submit Workforce
Development Annual Reports. Our analysis was limited to publicly
available reports. Fifty-four tribes submitted Workforce Development
Annual Reports, with 29 reporting funding spent on child care services,

in FY2017, the latest year for which reports are publicly available. CCDF
data for 2021 show that funds for 45 tribes were transferred to the BIA

for child care. BPC cannot tell whether the number of tribes increased
from 2017 to 2021 or whether the reports for 2017 were sufficient.

In the financial reports, tribes specify where they allocated their 477-plan
funding. These reports ask tribes to indicate if they used the money to pay
for child care services and child care quality improvement. In analyzing
the fifty-four reports from 2017, two were incomplete and did not include
details on the spending breakdown. Of the remaining 52, BPC found that:

1. 29 tribes spent FY2017 funds on child care related services.

2. 15 tribes spent FY2017 funds on child care quality improvements.

477 tribes also submit a statistical report that includes the number of children
served by their child care-related services and facilities. Of the 53 tribes

in 2017 that submitted statistical reports, 19 did not list any children or
families served under the child care and development activities section. Five
provided either one sentence or no description of how they spent child care
funds in their tribal communities. Of the remaining tribes, several trends
emerged pertaining to how tribes invested funding in child care, including:

« Developing educational materials and resources to share
with families, educators, and communities;

¢ Providing professional development workshops,
trainings, and certification opportunities; and

¢ Offering subsidized care for working or low-income families.

477 status permits tribes to account for their funding via a single plan or
budget, and this streamlined reporting system eases tribes' administrative
burden. However, such flexibility makes it harder to monitor and account for
child care for non-477 tribes. As federal investments in child care continue
to increase, the BIA should offer more guidance regarding accountability

to determine which 477 tribes are to remain eligible for CCDF funding.
BPC's Recommendations

The 477 program enables participating tribes to support workforce
development opportunities that best meet tribally determined goals
and the needs of the communities they serve. However, to fully
understand the efficacy of the 477 programs, additional measures are
needed to ensure that federal funding is adequately and efficiently
spent in ways that benefit tribes and their communities.

 

HOW AND TO WHAT EXTENT TRIBES ALLOCATE
FUNDING TO CHILD CARE WARRANTS GREATER
ATTENTION WITHIN THE 477 PROGRAM TO ENSURE
THIS PRIORITY AREA IS NOT LEFT BEHIND AMONG
OTHER WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES.
ACHIEVING THIS GOAL WILL REQUIRE MORE
COMMUNICATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY BETWEEN
THE BIA, RELATED AGENCIES, AND 477 TRIBES,

AS WELL AS A MORE ADVANCED AND ORGANIZED
DATABASE THAT WILL ALLOW FOR BETTER
OVERSIGHT OF THE 477 PROGRAM.

 

BPC's Recommendations:

Congress should direct HHS and Interior to develop an
accountability system and require coordination between
ACF and the BIA to ensure reporting for 477 and non-

477 tribes are more consistent and transparent;

Congress should direct the BIA to establish guidelines
for withholding funding to 477 tribes that fail to
complete 477 plans and reporting requirements;

The BIA should issue clear reporting requirements for
477 tribes on how they use funds to support child care
services and quality improvement, including; and

¢ Assurance that tribes are monitoring the health and
safety of children and staff in child care settings.

¢ Adescription of direct child care services
offered within their communities.

¢ Adescription of how financial assistance is provided to families.

¢ Adescription of how they ensure all families, especially
families of children with special needs and other
vulnerable children, have equal access to child care.

63
64

To improve oversight and transparency, the BIA should publicly post
477 Plans on online. Because 477 plans are not public, it is impossible

to analyze the degree to which federal investments are achieving

their stated purpose. Published 477 plan data should include:

Number and list of tribes that applied to the 477 program that year;
Number and list of tribes that enrolled in the 477 program for that year;

Number and list of 477 tribes that received CCDF funding for that
year, including providing a Tribal CCDF allocations table;

Any approved tribal exemptions to CCDF guidelines; and

Tribes' narrative, financial, and statistical reports for that fiscal year.
Final Recommendations

BPC's recommendations are based on an analysis of 184 Tribal Child
Care Development Fund plans and related reports, such as those on the
477 Tribes. BPC also drew upon data available from the Census Bureau,
Department of Labor, and other reports noted in the Appendix.

CONGRESS

 

 

1. Congress should establish a data-driven method to set funding
levels for tribes that is based on the number of AI/AN children
rather than an arbitrary, flat percentage of federal funding. This will
help ensure that tribes can more effectively provide services.

2. Congress should amend the Child Care and Development Block
Grant to authorize tribes to access FBI fingerprinting.

3. Congress and HHS should provide funding and technical assistance
to support the hiring of early childhood mental health consultants
in tribal child care and Head Start programs. Implementation of
this should include extensive coordination with the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).

4. Congress should conduct oversight hearings on tribal child care and
examine the extent to which HHS and the BIA coordinate oversight of the
use of CCDBG funds to support child care services and quality improvement.

FEDERAL AGENCIES

 

 

5. The U.S. Census Bureau and Department of Commerce should work with
tribes and other federal agencies to ensure more accurate data is collected
on this population. At a minimum, this should include the Department(s) of
HHS, Education, Agriculture, Labor, and Interior (Bureau of Indian Affairs).

6. HHS should only approve plans when the Tribes
have completed all required information.

7. HHS should streamline the Tribal CCDF Plan submission process
to reduce duplication and should ensure tribal child count data
and other demographic information are included. Approved plans
should be publicly available so Congress and policymakers can
effectively set topline funding levels based on accurate data.

8. The HHS Interagency Task Force on Child Safety should review how tribes
access interstate checks and NCIC/NSOR compliance and examine the effects
on a Tribal Lead Agency's ability to comply with regulatory requirements.

65
66

9. The BIA should make 477 Tribal Plans publicly available
in an easily accessible online database, to promote greater
understanding of the program and allow tribes and policymakers
to have access to the data needed to make improvements.

10. HHS should include an open-ended narrative section in the
Tribal Plans asking tribes to explain how their quality goals,
provider training, and curricula are culturally relevant for AI/
AN children in their programs. HHS should require tribes to
report on progress on these goals from one cycle to the next.

11. HHS should require all tribes to define underserved groups and how
they are prioritizing services for them, particularly children with special
needs and children experiencing homelessness. Additionally, HHS
should collect comprehensive data on cases of child abuse and neglect
in tribal communities so it may better understand, coordinate with, and
support tribes. This data would inform specific policy recommendations
empowering the community to effectively address instances of abuse
and neglect as they arise. HHS should require tribes to describe specific
efforts taken to prevent suspensions and expulsions in tribal child
care centers and how they will reduce instances of harsh discipline.

12.HHS should provide guidance to states to support better coordination
between states and Tribal Lead Agencies in implementing
the background checks for child care staff members.

REQUIREMENTS FOR TRIBES

 

13. Tribes should coordinate CCDF and Head Start programs to reduce
duplication and ensure better alignment of program standards and
policies. The tribes should also coordinate with these programs on
needs assessments, data collection, monitoring efforts, and ways to
ensure more culturally relevant services for children and families.

STATES

 

14, States with large AI/AN populations should recruit early childhood
staff who have a cultural understanding of AI/AN communities.
Appendix

 

Appendix 1: Glossary of Acronyms

ACF: Administration for Children and Families
ACS: American Community Survey

ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act

AI/AN: American Indian/Alaska Native

BIA: Bureau of Indian Affairs

BPC: Bipartisan Policy Center

CACFP: Child and Adult Care Food Program
CAPTA: Child Abuse and Treatment Prevention Act
CCDBG: Child Care and Development Block Grant
CCDF: Child Care and Development Fund

HHS: Health and Human Services

IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Act

NCIC: National Crime Information Center
NICCA: National Indian Child Care Association
NSOR: National Sex Offender Registry

OCC: Office of Child Care

OTAP: Office of Tribal Affairs, Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration

QRIS: Quality Rating and Improvement System

SAMHSA: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
SNAP: Food Stamps or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

WIA: Workforce Investment Act

WIC: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program
for Women, Infants, and Children

67
68

Appendix 2: Data Collected from and Section of the

CCDF Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section of CCDF
Tent B tT Plan
Name of the Tribal Lead Agency 1.2.1(a)
Contact information of the Tribal CCDF administrator 1.2.2(a)
Definition of an "Indian child" by the Tribal Lead Agency 1.5.1
The reservation/service area, as defined by the Tribal Lead 1.5.2(a)
Agency
How the Tribal Lead Agency coordinates the delivery of 1.7.1
CCDF services with state, and if applicable, tribal agencies
and the results of those coordination efforts
Which underserved populations are included in determining 1.7.2(a)
the tribal community's child care needs
The health and safety standards used by the Tribal Lead 2.1.1
Agency for center-based care, family child care, and in-home
care
If the tribe has an alternative approach for background 2.3.2
checks
If applicable, which background check requirement(s) that 2.3.2(a)
the Tribal Lead Agency does not conduct, and the reason
The Tribal Lead Agency's overall plan or approach for 3.1.1
improving quality in child care
The quality improvement activities in which the Tribal Lead 3.1.2(a-g,j)
Agency is conducting
How the Tribal Lead Agency's training and professional 3.2.1
development requirements are appropriate, to the extent
practicable, for child care providers who care for children
who are Indigenous-language learners
If the Tribal Lead Agency has been contacted by the state for 3.2.1(b)

input on how to make the state's trainings and professional
development opportunities more culturally relevant for
Native American children

 

If the Tribal Lead Agency allows parents to choose center-
based home care, including a Tribally operated center; a
family child care home; and/or in-home child care

Small Tribes: 4.1

Medium Large
tribes: 6.1.1(a)

 

How the Tribal Lead Agency funds its direct child
care services

Small Tribes: 4.1

Medium Large
tribes: 6.1.1(c)

 

The ages of children served by the Tribal CCDF program

Small Tribes: 4.1¢

Medium Large
tribes: 5,1.1(a)

 

If the Tribal Lead Agency implements categorical eligibility

Small Tribes: 4.1¢

Medium Large
tribes: 5.1.2

 

If the Tribal Lead Agency uses state median income or tribal
median income to establish CCDF family income eligibility
limits

Small Tribes: 4.1¢

Medium Large
tribes: 5.1.5(b)

 

If the Tribal Lead Agency chose to set income eligibility
limits below 85% of the current grantee median income (only
applicable to medium/large tribes)

5.1.5((c)1)

 

How services are prioritized for children experiencing
homelessness (only applicable to medium/large tribes)

 

 

5.3.2(b)

 

 
 

The strategies being implemented by the Tribal Lead
Agency to increase the supply and improve the quality

of child care services for children in underserved areas (only
applicable to medium/large tribes)

5.3.4(a)

 

The strategies being implemented by the Tribal Lead Agency
to increase the supply and improve the quality of child

care services for infants and toddlers (only applicable to
medium/large tribes)

5.3.4(b)

 

The strategies being implemented by the Tribal Lead Agency
to increase the supply and improve the quality of child

care services for children with disabilities (only applicable to
medium/large tribes)

5.3.4(c)

 

The strategies being implemented by the Tribal Lead Agency
to increase the supply and improve the quality of child

care services for children in need of non-traditional hours of
care (only applicable to medium/large tribes)

5.3.4(d)

 

The Tribal lead Agency's policy to prevent the suspension
and expulsion of children from birth to age 5 in child care and
other early childhood programs receiving CCDF funds (only
applicable to medium/large tribes)

7.3.6

 

 

to medium/large tribes)

How the Tribal Lead Agency collects and disseminates
information on existing resources and services for
conducting developmental screenings (only applicable

7.4.1(a)

 

 

 

Appendix 3: Coordinating Services

Percent of Tribes that Coordinate with External Services

Public Health

Employment Services

Public Education

TANF

Child Care Licensing

Head Start

State Advisory Council on ECE
Statewide After School Network
Emergency Management
CACFP

McKinney Vento

Medicaid and CHIP

Mental Health Services

CCR&Rs, child care
consumer education

977.
$426
LL 93%
LL 92%
LN 722%

es 75°:
NN 40%

EN 23%
ee 72°

A 66°

ne 37°;

55°

es 73°

75°.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

69
   
 
 
 
  
   
  
 
 
 
 
   
 
  
    

' i'

Bipartisan Policy Center

1225 Eye St NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005

bipartisanpolicy.org

202 - 204 - 2400

The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) is a Washington, D.C.-based think tank
that actively fosters bipartisanship by combining the best ideas from both
parties to promote health, security, and opportunity for all Americans.

Our policy solutions are the product of informed deliberations by former
elected and appointed officials, business and labor leaders, and academics
and advocates who represent both ends of the political spectrum.

BPC prioritizes one thing above all else: getting things done.

YW @BPC_Bipartisan
f facebook.com/BipartisanPolicyCenter

(@  instagram.com/BPC_Bipartisan
' i'

Bipartisan Policy Center

1225 Eye Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20005