Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Quinn’s office responds *** Art returned after police report filed
Next Post: State avoids contempt citation… for now
Posted in:
* A memo from Emily Miller at Voices for Illinois Children to the Department of Human Services’ Bureau of Administrative Rules and Procedures. All emphasis in original…
Voices for Illinois Children does not support the proposed rule change to the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) under 89 Illinois Administrative Code 50; 39 Ill. Reg. 9731. We fully endorse the comments made by the Ounce of Prevention Fund, Illinois Action for Children, and the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty law regarding concerns with every section of the proposed rule, and we add the following comment:
Voices strongly supports the vision laid out for child care by 305 ILCS 5/9A-11, which states that families with children need child care in order to work and recognizes the important role the state plays in helping low-income working families become and remain self-sufficient.
The department’s proposed rules severely and arbitrarily restricts access to child care in a manner that violates both the letter and spirit of state law.
Specifically, the limits on eligibility to 50% of the federal poverty level violate 305 ILCS 9A-11(a) and (b.) While the department is free to establish rules related to the eligibility of families for child care assistance, as of 2008, 305 ILCS 9A-11(b) expressly prohibits the department from reducing eligibility below 185% of the current year’s federal poverty level. A change to 50% of FPL requires a change to statute, and cannot legally be accomplished through the administrative rulemaking process.
In addition, 305 ILCS 5, Section 9A-11(b) requires that the department fund child care for families transitioning from TANF to work and families at risk of becoming recipients of TANF—two categories wrongfully excluded from eligibility in the department’s rule.
In fact, the reduction in eligibility from 185% of the federal poverty level (FPL) to 50% FPL put every low- and middle-income family at risk of becoming recipients of TANF because parents are forced to choose between having an enriching, safe place for their child to be and going to work every day.
Under new eligibility restrictions, a single mother with one child who works full time at minimum wage makes too much money to quality for assistance. Only if a single mother worked at an hourly rate just over $4 per hour could she still quality for child care assistance. Given the state’s minimum wage requirement (a requirement Voices fully supports an expansion of), it is a legal impossibility for a single mother of one to work full time for minimum wage and receive quality for child care. That is an unlawful and unwise change in public policy that sends our state backwards, and forces families to rely on more costly government services rather than become and remain self-sufficient.
In order to fulfill the stated purpose and spirit of the child care statute, it is unreasonable and unlawful for the department to restrict eligibility of CCAP in the manner contained in the rule.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments; we await your response.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 1:13 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Quinn’s office responds *** Art returned after police report filed
Next Post: State avoids contempt citation… for now
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Is there any chance of the Feds intervening?
Comment by Tournaround Agenda Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 1:17 pm
Governing by court order is something new to me.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 1:27 pm
Time to file a complaint and get the court order. (That is how we govern in Illinois these days under the brilliant leadership of the Rauner Administration–by court order.)
I know many daycare center owners that would love to join a class action, get this awesome program back on track, and get back to the business of providing low income children with safe, nurturing, and brilliant learning environments.
Comment by cdog Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 1:28 pm
They probably should have somehow addressed the fact that 305 ILCS 5/9A-11(b) begins with the phrase, “To the extent resources permit…”
Comment by Downstate Weed Chewing Hick Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 1:31 pm
===They probably should have somehow addressed the fact that 305 ILCS 5/9A-11(b) begins with the phrase, “To the extent resources permit…” ===
Yeah, but keep reading…
=== At a minimum, the Illinois Department shall cover the following categories of families===
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 1:33 pm
“D’oh”- Homer Simpson.
Comment by DuPage Bard Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 1:37 pm
@anon: “Governing by court order. . . ” Nature abhors a vacuum.
Comment by JackD Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 1:43 pm
Pay now or pay more…much more later. Who will pick up the tab for the expansion in TANF rolls if the cuts remain in place? Let folks keep their jobs!
Comment by Former State Employee Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 1:46 pm
Here comes the judge — again.
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 1:49 pm
The Illinois Department is authorized to lower income eligibility ceilings, raise parent co-payments, create waiting lists, or take such other actions during a fiscal year as are necessary to ensure that child care benefits paid under this Article do not exceed the amounts appropriated for those child care benefits. These changes may be accomplished by emergency rule under Section 5-45 of the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act, except that the limitation on the number of emergency rules that may be adopted in a 24-month period shall not apply.
Comment by Keep Going Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 2:04 pm
So, not only ill-advised and ill-conceived, but ill-legal. A trifecta!
Comment by Linus Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 2:13 pm
=== “To the extent resources permit…” ===
We used to add the phrase “subject to appropriation” on bills we didn’t have the funding to implement. You can’t quibble over the existence or lack thereof of an appropriation.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 3:00 pm
If multiple legal claims for payment are granted by orders from different judges, when do we get to the point where cases are consolidated and one judge is faced with what looks awfully like a bankruptcy proceeding? Who decides between competing demands for insufficient funds?
Time to settle.
Comment by walker Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 3:01 pm
Keep Going quotes another portion of the law. That and this other tidbit:
“Nothing in this Section shall be construed as conferring entitlement status to eligible families.”
Leads me to believe that Voices’ law argument doesn’t hold water.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 3:12 pm
CCDBG is getting reauthorized as we speak. The fed s are going to rip Illinois’ state child care plan to shreds.
Comment by Bob Lafollette Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 3:25 pm
The 185% FPL rule appears to be a benchmark for determining eligibility under “normal” circumstances, when DHS makes its regular annual adjustments to income eligibility levels and co-pays in rule. The 50% of FPL rule is specifically intended as an emergency measure to be invoked ONLY when DHS doesn’t have the funds to accommodate all applicants that would normally qualify. The emergency provisions were in the statute long before the 185% FPL benchmark was added in 2007 or so, and the GA did not remove them at that time. (However, SB 570 would remove those provisions.)
Comment by Secret Square Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 3:54 pm
@ Bob L
Who is CCDBG? Timeline of this? More details or link?
Thank you.
Comment by cdog Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 4:37 pm
I found the Child Care Development Block Grant summary. Will research more later.
Any additional info is appreciated.
Comment by cdog Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 5:00 pm