Cdf children and federal policy jan2014

1. FEDERAL ISSUES IMPACTING CHILDREN January 2014 Michele Stillwell-Parvensky msp@childrensdefense.org Policy Associate Children’s Defense Fund – California

2. www.childrensdefense.org/soac

4. Children in the Federal Budget

5. Source: First Focus, Children’s Budget, 2013

6. Sequestration/Automatic Cuts     $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts – $110 billion in cuts per year for the next decade – a 9% annual cut Split evenly between domestic and defense spending Exempted programs: Medicaid, Pell Grants, TANF (welfare), food stamps & Social Security Affected programs: Education, Head Start, public health, subsidized housing

8. Government Shutdown   After Congress failed to enact legislation appropriating funds for FY 2014, the federal government entered a shutdown on Oct. 1 Ended after 16 days with an interim appropriations bill Allowed federal spending at 2013 levels through early 2014  Extended debt limit and funding for TANF, child care and SNAP through early 2014  Made no changes to the benefits or timeline of the Affordable Care Act 

9. December Budget Deal    2-year, bipartisan budget that set overall discretionary spending levels for FY 2014 & 2015 Replaced $63 billion of sequestration cuts (evenly split between defense and non-defense spending) with alternative savings measures Not included Reduction to sequestration cuts FY2016-21  Tax reform  Extension of federal unemployment benefits 

10.

11. Omnibus Spending Bill    $1.1 trillion spending bill for Fiscal Year 2014 – aggregates all 12 regular appropriations bills Signed by President Obama on Jan. 17 Eases some of the cuts imposed by sequestration (but not all of them) and provides some money for new priorities

12. Early Education in the Omnibus  $1 billion (13%) increase for Head Start to restore funds cut by the sequester and include a COLA    Includes $500 million for Early Head Start expansion and Early Head Start-Child Care partnerships $250 million for competitive grant program for states to provide preschool to low-income families $154 million increase for Child Care and Development Block Grant to replace sequester cuts and increase funding – 22,000 more children

13. Key Elements in Omnibus     Restores $625 million in sequestration cuts to Title I education funding (still $103 million short of presequester levels) Exempts most federal health programs from cuts Increases funding for mental health services Funding for President Obama’s gun violence reduction plan Grants to help students get access to mental health services  Funding for background check system  Resources for school safety initiative 

14. Unemployment Insurance    Federal unemployment insurance provides benefits for the long-term unemployed after they exhaust their state benefits (26 weeks) – average benefit = $260/week Congress let federal unemployment benefits expire at the end of 2013 – 1.3 million lost benefits, and another 3.6 million will be affected in the next year Efforts to extend benefits have been unsuccessful

15.

16. SNAP (Food Stamps) Cuts     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – serves 48 million, including 21 million children (2.3 million California children) Benefits for almost all recipients were cut in Nov. 2013 - $29/month cut for a family of 3; $5 billion/year cut Republican-controlled House bill included $39 billion in cuts to SNAP over 10 years Congress is nearing agreement on a Farm Bill that will likely include a $9 billion cut to SNAP over 10 years – will come before conference committee soon

17.

18. Upcoming Budget Battles   In February, Congress will need to extend the federal debt limit FY2015 spending bills – development to start in the spring after President Obama offers his budget proposal

19. Legislation

20. Strong Start for America’s Children   Introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), Rep. George Miller (D-CA), and Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY) Grants to states to provide high-quality preschool to 4 year olds from families below 200% FPL, with a state match     States can use up to 20% to improve quality States can use up to 15% for care for infants and toddlers States would sub-grant to local education agencies or community early childhood providers that meet quality standards Grants to Early Head Start agencies to partner with child care providers to expand quality programs for children 0-3

21. Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Reauthorization    Bipartisan group of Senators introduced a bill to reauthorize CCDBG for the first time in 17 years Voted out of Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee – but no further movement Would require background checks of providers, increase the set-aside for improving quality and strengthen health and safety requirements

22. Additional Resources     Center on Budget and Policy Priorities www.cbpp.org First Focus www.firstfocus.net Center for Law and Social Policy www.clasp.org Coalition on Human Needs www.chn.org

23. Thank you! Michele Stillwell-Parvensky msp@childrensdefense.org Children’s Defense Fund – California www.cdfca.org

Editor's Notes

In this presentation, I’m going to discuss some of the most important federal issues that impact California children.
I want to start with a quick note about a valuable federal resource that the Children’s Defense Fund just released last Thursday. The State of America’s Children 2014 is a comprehensive report on the well-being of children using the latest data available, including state-by-state data and data by race and ethnicity. This year’s report provides a 50 year snapshot of changes in child well-being since the War on Poverty was launched. The report addresses the whole child and contains data on child population, poverty, family structure and income, housing and homelessness, child nutrition and hunger, early childhood, education, child welfare, juvenile justice and gun violence. You can see the whole report online at www.childrensdefense.org.
Here are a few of the key statistics from the report, that illustrate what many of you see first hand – too many of our children are facing preventable poverty, hunger, homelessness, sickness, poor education and violence.Every 62 seconds a baby is born into extreme poverty. Every 3 hours and 15 minutes a child is killed by guns. These statistics are intricately connected to the federal budget and policy issues I’m about to go into – budgets are about priorities, and we need to be pressuring our policymakers into prioritizing our children and making the investments necessary to end child poverty, abuse and violence and ensure that all children have access to quality education (starting early) and health care.
Before I dive into the current federal budget issue, let’s take a quick look at how children currently fare in the federal budget.As you can see from this chart, spending on children (the orange area) accounts for a small portion – about 10% – of overall federal spending. The federal government funds over 180 different children’s programs – including child health, education, nutrition, income security, early education, and housing. This includes both programs that specifically target and exclusively benefit children (like spending on education) and programs that benefit both children adults (like Food Stamps or Medicaid).
I always like to include these charts from First Focus. Here’s a look at how federal spending on children has changed over the past 5 years – this doesn’t include the most recent appropriations bill from this month, which we will discuss. Between 2009 and 2013, federal spending on children declined by 2.7%, adjusted for inflation. You’ll see what there was a big drop in 2012, much of which reflects the phasing out of the temporary funding increases under the stimulus package of 2009 (ARRA). 2013 shows the effect of sequestration cuts. The decline is driven by reductions in discretionary spending.More than half the cuts were to education programs, which fell by $18 billion, or 27 percent. Steep declines also occurred in early education and care (12 percent), health (6 percent), and housing (6 percent).
Let’s start with a quick look backwards at some of the key budget developments that set the stage for where we are now.Sequestration refers to the automatic cuts were passed in the 2011 Budget Control Act basically as a backup in case a bipartisan “Super Committee” failed to agree on a deficit reduction package. The cuts were meant to be fairly unpopular in order to urge the Super Committee into action. However, they weren’t able to agree to a package, so $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts over 10 years went into effect March 1, 2013. The automatic cuts were split evenly between domestic and defense spending. Fortunately, many key programs serving vulnerable children and families are exempt from these cuts, including Medicaid, Pell Grants, TANF (welfare), food stamps, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, SSI, child nutrition programs. Most child care funding (about $7 billion out of $9 billion) is also exempt.Other programs serving children are NOT exempt – including education, Head Start, public health, and subsidized housing.Here you can see some of the large monetary impacts on children’s programs – but I know that many of you experienced the cuts to Head Start and child care first-hand.Generally, both Democrats and Republicans want to get rid of sequestration -- Republicans tend to dislike the cuts to defense. However, they’ve had trouble agreeing on what to replace the sequester with. Republicans wantevery dollar of across-the-board cuts to be replaced with a dollar of spending cuts. The White Housewants to replace sequestration with a package that includes equal amounts of revenue increases and spending cuts.
As we look to the future battles on reducing the federal deficit, it’s important to note that our deficit reduction efforts so far have relied much more on spending cuts than on tax increases. Of the trillions of dollars of deficit reduction enacted over the past few years, and large proportion of them have come through program cuts — most notably in the 2011 Budget Control Act and sequestration.
The next big development in the budget battles came of course with the government shutdown last October. A "funding gap" was created when the two chambers of Congress failed to agree to an appropriations continuing resolution before Federal fiscal year (FY) 2014 began on October 1, 2013. The Republican-led House of Representatives, in part pressured by conservative senators, offered several continuing resolutions with language delaying or defunding the Affordable Care Act. The Democratic-led Senate passed several amended continuing resolutions for maintaining funding at then-current sequestration levels with no additional conditions. Political fights over this and other issues between the House on one side and President Barack Obama and the Senate on the other led to a budget impasse.The impasse finally ended at 16 days with an interim appropriations bill that allowed the government to resume normal operations, but not before causing damage to the economy and taking a tool on families across the country. The bill generally matched what President Obama and Democrats were hoping for – it allowed federal spending at 2013-levels through early 2014, extended the debt limit and funding for TANF, child care and SNAP, and made no major changes to the benefits or timeline of the Affordable Care Act.
The deal to reopen the government still left the sequester in place, so it was just an interim step until the Senate Budget Chair Patty Murray and House Budget Chair Paul Ryan could bridge their considerable ideological differences to reach a deal – they finally did present a modest deal in Dec. The deal set the overall discretionary spending levels for FY2014 and 2015, but didn’t address funding levels for individual programs. The deal included $63 billion of “sequester relief”evenly divided between defense and non-defense spending. The sequestration cuts were not eliminated, but they were reduced. Instead of cuts of about $109 billion a year, the cuts will be $65 billion in FY 2014 and $91 billion in FY 2015. The sequester was partially replacedwith revenue raised from fees (on airline tickets and an increase in federal worker contributions to their pensions) and targeted spending cuts (for example, about $28 billion comes from extending cuts to Medicare providers an extra two years). On balance, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 accomplishes several important things for low-income people but also had a very large gap. One big plus is that it restores most, though not all, of the reductions imposed by the "sequester" over the next two years on discretionary programs such as child care subsidies, Head Start, job training, education, and child nutrition. The deal will allow for total domestic discretionary spending above FY 2013 levels, although still below FY 2012. A second plus is that with spending levels set for two years, we can return to a more typical budget and appropriations process, reducing the likelihood of further government shutdowns and enabling programs and state and local governments to plan ahead. And a third is that unlike some proposed plans, the deal leaves intact the key mandatory programs - such as Medicaid and Social Security - that are so important to low-income families.It would offset the cost of providing sequestration relief without imposing cuts in key programs that would harm vulnerable children and families, seniors, and people with disabilities. It includes fees and other provisions that would increase federal revenues — although it would close no tax loopholes and would make no changes to the tax code — rather than securing all of its offsetting savings from cuts in domestic programs.The biggest minus of this budget deal for low-income people is that it doesn't include an extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed. This isn’t the “grand bargain” that many were talking about - Ryan and Murray were able to come to agreement by setting aside the issues on which the two parties are furthest apart. This agreement does not include any tax-related provisions, and doesn’t addresses the sequester afterFY 2015. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=4061A total of $85 billion of total savings, and $23 billion in net deficit reduction. About $45 billion of that replaces sequestration cuts in 2014 and about $20 billion in 2015. That agreement set the discretionary spending levels for the next two fiscal years: $1.012 trillion in FY 2014 (up from the sequester level of $967 billion that was set in the Budget Control Act and a $26 billion increase over the current $986 billion level of spending in the continuing resolution) and $1.014 trillion in FY 2015.
The Murray-Ryan agreement provides $45 billion of relief from sequestration in 2014\. For non-defense programs, that halts a sharp downward trend in funding — which fell by 17 percent between 2010 and 2013, after adjusting for inflation — and restores a modest amount of the cuts. But you can see that spending levels in 2014 are still below 2012 (before sequestration) and well below 2010 (before the Budget Control Act).Also, the downward trend begins again the next year.Non-defense discretionary funding is slated to fall in 2015 nearly back to the 2013 level. And the deal didn’t address the sequestration cuts in 2016 and beyond, so 2016 funding will be back below the 2013 post-sequestration level.While this graph accounts for inflation, it understates the funding pressures that non-defense discretionary programs face given that many of them need additional funds to keep pace with population growth
Which brings us to earlier this month, when leaders introduced an omnibus spending bill – it’s called an omnibus because it aggregates all 12 individual appropriations bills. It passed through Congress with bipartisan support, and was signed by the President on January 17. The $1.1 trillion bill fleshes out the December budget agreement, and spells out the funding levels for specific initiatives and programs. It will ease some (but not all) of the cuts imposed by sequestration, while providing some money for new priorities. The omnibus takes some small steps in the right direction for children.The omnibus gave some programs significant boosts in funding relative to recent austerity levels – particularly early childhood programs.However, the final spending numbers included in the omnibus bill do not restore pre-sequestration funding levels to every program nor do they address several years of disinvestment that many domestic discretionary programs have experienced. Most programs will still receive less funding than they did before the sequester in 2012. When you adjust for inflation, First Focus estimates that the overall discretionary investment in children is $2.1 billion lower than FY2012. The bill also provides a clean extension through the end of the fiscal year for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF block grant). It also provides funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), ensuring that crucial program will continue without interruption this year regardless of whether Congress reauthorizes it as part of the Farm Bill. One of the benefits of the October budget agreement and this omnibus bill is simply that they avoid another government shutdown and provide programs with stability in funding.
As you likely heard, the omnibus did make some positive investments in early childhood, although they were smaller than the President’s Strong Start proposal. It’s a good sign that there is bi-partisan interest in early childhood investment. Head Start receives a $1.025 billion increase to restore funds cut by the sequester and allows for a COLA – a 13%increase over current funding and $600 million over its initial pre-sequester 2012 level. This funding includes $500 million for the expansion of Early Head Start, including the establishment of Early Head Start-Child Care partnerships. The partnerships will provide funds to new or existing Early Head Start programs to partner with child care providers to increase access to high-quality, comprehensive child care and early education for children from birth through age 3. $25 million is intended to support implementation of the Head Start designation renewal systemProvides $250 million in new funds for a proposal similar to President Obama’s Strong Start proposal. The bill would allow the Education Department and HHS to jointly administer a new $250 million competitive grant program through the end of the calendar year for states to develop or expand high-quality preschool programs for 4-year-olds from families below 200 percent of the poverty level Increases funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant by $154 million, replacing cuts made by sequestration and boosting spending $36 million over the presequester level (for a total of $2.36 billion in FY 2014). According to Senator Harkin, the increased funding will allow an additional 22,000 children to participate. The child care funding includes $296 million to increase the quality of care, of which $109 million is intended to improve the quality of infant and toddler care.
I’m not going to be able to go through every item in the $1.1 trillion bill that affects children and families and still get you out of here on time, so let me just mention a few of the key points:Restores $625 million in sequestration cuts to Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provides federal funding to schools serving low-income students. This increase is not sufficient to restore all funding for Title I, which still falls $103 million short of pre-sequester levels. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and state grants for improving teacher quality also received less than a full restoration. The Department of Education as a whole was funded at a level $740 million less than was enacted in FY 2013.Largely exempts most federal health programs from cuts, including Medicaid, and essentially freezes appropriations for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) at the reduced post-sequester level. However, the billavoided the most contentious restrictions proposed by conservatives.Increases funding for mental health services.In addition to $1.13 billion for mental health programs at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (a $200 million boost) and increasing the mental health block grant by $47 million, $115 million is allocated for programs in the President's “Now Is the Time” gun violence reduction plan. $15 million (of the $115 million) is set aside for mental health first-aid training to prepare teachers, police officers, and others to identify signs of mental illness and connect individuals with services. The spending measure would also fund 20 grants for states to advance comprehensive programs in 1,000 schools to refer students to needed mental health services.Includes a few provisions related to gun control, including: $60 million in additional funding for the background check system; and $75 million for a comprehensive school safety initiative (to research root causes and pilot grants to test new technologies and strategies to enhance school safety). Partially restores cuts to job training programs. Most workforce programs are restored to just under their FY 2012 funding levels. Restores cuts and increases funding for some key housing programs (rental assistance and homeless assistance grants)Programs that impact low-income college students are largely spared any funding cuts, with varied levels of restoration from pre-sequester levels. The legislation also reflects an increasing focus on completion in higher education. It provides $75 million for President Obama’s new “First in the World” grant program for higher education institutions to spur the adoption of innovative, effective strategies that improve affordability and completion for students.
Two other budget items I want to briefly discuss that affect vulnerable children and families.Even though the unemployment rate has dropped, long-term unemployment remains persistently high—an unfortunate legacy of the recession. Despite that, the renewal of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program was not included in the budget deal and expired at the end of last year. Federal unemployment insurance provides benefits for the long-term unemployed after the exhaust their state benefits, which last for 26 weeks in California. 1.3 million people lost benefits at the end of the year, averaging $260 per week. If Congress does not restore the program, another 3.6 million people will lose access to benefits by the end of 2014.Almost 850,000 Californians will lose access to federal unemployment through Dec. 2014. Nationally, about 3.6 million children will be directly affected by the lapse of benefits available to someone in their householdCongress had already acted to reduce the number of weeks of benefits available, and benefit levels were affected by sequestration cuts. There have been a few efforts earlier this month to restore the benefits, but they all failed to pass the Senate. http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/policy-brief/unemployment-insurance-reduced-child-poverty-during-great-recession
This graph illustrates why federal unemployment insurance is so critical, despite the slowly recovering economy. In November 2013, 37 percent of jobless workers—4.1 million people—had been out of work for six months or more. This is a much higher share than in earlier recessions. And unfortunately, the longer someone has been out of work, the harder it becomes to find a job.
The SNAP program is a critical lifeline for millions of children and families. The CalFresh program here in California serves 2.3 million children.In November 2013, Congress failed to renew the 2009 Recovery Act’s temporary increases to benefits, leading to benefit cuts affecting nearly all 48 million SNAP recipients. For a family of three, those cuts resulted in $29 less in benefits per month—a total of $319 for the fiscal year. Without the Recovery Act boost, SNAP benefits now average less than $1.40 per person per meal.Congress has yet to complete work on a 5-year Farm Bill reauthorization, which includes the SNAP program. The leadership of the House and Senate Agriculture committees are meeting to reconcile the differences between the Farm bills passed by the two chambers. The bill passed by the Republican-controlled House would cut $39 billion from the program over the next decade. The bill passed by the Democratic-controlled Senate calls for a $4 billion cut.Conferees have tentatively agreed to an $8.6 billion cut to SNAP over ten years; this would be accomplished by restricting coordination with the “heat and eat” program that boosts SNAP benefits for families receiving utility assistance. The cuts will affect approximately 850,000 households including many in California, who will see an approximately $90 reduction in their SNAP benefits. The full conference committee is expected to take up the bill this week.
Here we can see that both SNAP and Unemployment Insurance are critical anti-poverty programs. In 2012, the SNAP program kept 2.2 million children out of poverty and unemployment insurance kept 600,000 children out of poverty. Millions of other households received benefits that helped feed their children and improve their children’s nutritional intake, preventing hunger and major health problems for children. The cuts to the SNAP program, and the expiration of federal unemployment insurance will put those children at risk.
As we look to the upcoming budget battles, one key question is whether we have returned to a normal budget cycle, instead of the dysfunctional one we’ve had the past couple of years with lots of interim appropriations bills and threats of shutdowns. The fact that the Dec deal included overall spending levels for 2 years is a good sign, but we’ll have to see. We expect the next major fiscal battles will begin in February when Congress will need to extend the federal debt limit. Conservative Republicans will likely again use the debt limit as a political opportunity to call for large-scale spending cuts and deficit reduction, but it remains to be seen how effective that will be – it may be that constituents – and especially the business community – have had enough of the threats. Almost every major legislative initiative will likely struggle with suggested changes to or fiscal offsets culled from the ACA. The development of the FY 2015 spending bills providing agency funding beyond October 1 is slated to begin after President Obama offers his budgetary proposal this spring (which will probably be at least a month after the early February date by which it is “due”). As mentioned, less of the sequester cuts are restored in 2015, so spending will end up lower than they are this year. And there will be significant sequester cuts each year through 2023 unless Congress takes action to lift them. Republicans have been emboldened in their efforts to require that everything – even unemployment insurance that has traditionally been considered more of an emergency measure not needing an offset – be paid for, and that certainly includes restoring parts the sequester. With Republicans strongly united in opposition to new revenues, the list of acceptable pay fors is shrinking, making it more challenging to achieve significant new investments in children on a scale that we would like to see.
In general, analysts and advocates are expecting more gridlock – we are clearly in an era of partisanship that had stalled most legislative initiatives, even on issues where there was bipartisan support. 2013 was one of the least productive Congresses in history. While Congress has finally been able to make modest progress of budget issues, the outlook for legislative successes for children looks rather grim. The Farm Bill will likely pass, but not much else. Partisanship will likely be heightened given the upcoming 2014 elections for the House and Senate.IMMIGRATION: The Senate last year passed comprehensive immigration reform with the support of 14 Republicans, establishing a 13-year pathway to citizenship for millions for immigrants in the country illegally. But the measure remains dead in the House.Many lawmakers privately see little chance for the passage of major immigration reform.House Republicans are too concerned about primary challenges from Tea Party-backed opponents to support back any bill that includes a potential path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.There appears to be little chance lawmakers will enact new gun controls or raise the minimum wage.With that said, I do want to talk about two pieces of legislation that you all might be particularly interested in.
http://www.nwlc.org/resource/strong-start-america%E2%80%99s-children-act-summaryThe Strong Start for America’s Children Act was introduced last November by Sen. Harkin, Rep. Miller, and Rep. Hanna, building off of President Obama’s proposal on early education. Both Sen. Harkin and Rep. Miller have announced they will be retiring this year, so advocates are really hoping that the bill will move this session. There’s a big effort right now to try to secure more Republican cosponsors as the bill will need bipartisan support to get through both the Republican-led House and the Democratic-led Senate. The good news is that the additional investments in early childhood in the omnibus bill indicate that there is some Republican support for the idea – and there’s also a great deal of bipartisan support from Governors across the country. In terms of the prospects of this bill moving this year – obviously we’re in an era of partisanship that had stalled most legislative initiatives, so it is hard to be too optimistic. 2013 was one of the least productive Congresses in history. A lot will depend on how much President Obama will use his political capital on the bill – and we should have a sense of whether it will be a top priority this year based on his state of the union remarks tomorrow.Some of you may have more expertise in the content of the bill than I do, but here’s a quick summary.The core of the bill is grants to states to provide high-quality preschool to 4 year olds from families below 200% of the federal poverty line. Once a state or locality has served all of its eligible four-year-olds, it can use federal funds to serve three-year-olds in families with incomes at or below 200 percent of poverty.States would continue to invest in preschool to draw down the federal grant. States must provide 10% matching funds in the first and second years and then it scales up until states are providing an even match in the 8th and following years. States that serve at least half of their eligible four-year-olds qualify for a reduced match rate. Up to 10%of prekindergarten funding already being provided by the state as of the enactment of the legislation may be counted toward the state matchThe amount each state could receive would be determined by a formula, as long as states commit to meeting standards will receive funding. States that are still building quality systems will be able to compete for grants to help them meet the criteria. States can use up to 20% of the grant to help improve quality, and up to 15 percent for high-quality early care and education for infants and toddlers below 200% FPL. States would direct the funds locally to child care, Head Start, local educational agencies or consortia of local school districts and community early childhood providers that meet the high-quality standards.Another separate set of grants would be provided to Early Head Start agencies to partner with center-based and family child care providers, particularly those receiving funds under the Child Care and Development Block Grant to expand high-quality programs for children from birth through age three. The purpose of the grant is to help them meet Early Head Start standards. Priority would be given to applicants that coordinate with other home visiting, child care, and prekindergarten programs in order to create a continuum of services from birth to school entry. The bill also expresses support for continuing voluntary home visiting programs to promote maternal and child health, improve school readiness, prevent child abuse and neglect, and to coordinate resources and supports for families.
http://www.firstfocus.net/sites/default/files/CCDBG%20Reauthorization%20Summary.pdfFinally, I want to briefly mention the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) since it’s particularly relevant to this group. As many of you know, CCDBG is long overdue for reauthorization to improve the program. There was a bill introduced last year to reauthorize that had bipartisan support. The bill required background checks or providers, increased the set-aside for improving quality, and strengthened health and safety requirements. The bill pass through the Senate HELP committee, but hasn’t moved since then.
I want to thank a few organizations that provide great information on the federal budget that I used in my presentation. I encourage you to visit their websites if you would like to learn more.
Questions?Great – if you have additional questions, please feel free to email me or visit our website at www.cdfca.org.Thanks again for being here, and for all the work you do on behalf of children every day!

Cdf children and federal policy jan2014

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to Cdf children and federal policy jan2014

Similar to Cdf children and federal policy jan2014 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Cdf children and federal policy jan2014

Editor's Notes