Child Care and Early Childhood Education
More Information Sharing and Program Review by HHS Could Enhance Access for Families with Limited English Proficiency Gao ID: GAO-06-807 August 17, 2006Questions have been raised about whether parents with limited English proficiency are having difficulty accessing child care and early education programs for their children. Research suggests that quality early care experiences can greatly improve the school readiness of young children. GAO was asked to provide information on (1) the participation of these children in programs funded through the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) and Head Start, (2) the challenges these families face in accessing programs, (3) assistance that selected state and local entities provide to them, and (4) actions taken by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to ensure program access. To obtain this information, GAO analyzed program and national survey data, interviewed officials in 5 states and 11 counties, held 12 focus groups with mothers with limited English proficiency, and interviewed experts and HHS officials.
HHS's Child Care Bureau (CCB) did not have information on the total enrollment in CCDF programs of children whose parents had limited English proficiency, but data collected by its Office of Head Start in 2003 showed that about 13 percent of parents whose children were in Head Start reported having limited English proficiency. The most recent (1998) national survey data showed that children of parents with limited English proficiency were less likely than other children to receive financial assistance for child care from a social service or welfare agency or to be in Head Start, after controlling for selected characteristics. Eighty-eight percent of these children were Hispanic, and their results differed from Asian children. Analysis of data from focus groups and site visit interviews held by GAO revealed that mothers with limited English proficiency faced multiple challenges, including lack of awareness of available assistance, language barriers during the application process, and difficulty communicating with English-speaking providers. Some of the challenges that low-income parents with limited English proficiency experienced, such as lack of transportation and shortage of subsidized child care slots, were common to other low-income families. The majority of state and local agencies that we visited offered some oral and written language assistance, such as bilingual staff or translated applications. Agencies in the majority of locations visited also made efforts to increase the supply of providers who could communicate with parents. Officials reported challenges in serving parents with limited English proficiency, such as difficulty hiring qualified bilingual staff. Some officials indicated that additional information on cost-effective strategies to serve this population would facilitate their efforts. HHS issued guidance, translated materials, and provided technical assistance to grantees to help them serve children of parents with limited English proficiency. The Office of Head Start reviewed programs' assessments of their communities' needs and conducted formal monitoring reviews, but could not ensure that review teams consistently assessed grantees' performance on the standards related to language access. CCB reviewed states' plans on the use of CCDF funds generally and investigated specific complaints, but had no mechanism for reviewing how and whether states provide access to CCDF subsidies for eligible children of parents with limited English proficiency.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-807, Child Care and Early Childhood Education: More Information Sharing and Program Review by HHS Could Enhance Access for Families with Limited English Proficiency
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-807
entitled 'Child Care and Early Childhood Education: More Information
Sharing and Program Review by HHS Could Enhance Access for Families
with Limited English Proficiency' which was released on September 18,
2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
August 2006:
Child Care And Early Childhood Education:
More Information Sharing and Program Review by HHS Could Enhance Access
for Families with Limited English Proficiency:
Child Care and Early Childhood Education:
GAO-06-807:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-807, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
Questions have been raised about whether parents with limited English
proficiency are having difficulty accessing child care and early
education programs for their children. Research suggests that quality
early care experiences can greatly improve the school readiness of
young children. GAO was asked to provide information on (1) the
participation of these children in programs funded through the Child
Care and Development Fund (CCDF) and Head Start, (2) the challenges
these families face in accessing programs, (3) assistance that selected
state and local entities provide to them, and (4) actions taken by the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to ensure program access.
To obtain this information, GAO analyzed program and national survey
data, interviewed officials in 5 states and 11 counties, held 12 focus
groups with mothers with limited English proficiency, and interviewed
experts and HHS officials.
What GAO Found:
HHS‘s Child Care Bureau (CCB) did not have information on the total
enrollment in CCDF programs of children whose parents had limited
English proficiency, but data collected by its Office of Head Start in
2003 showed that about 13 percent of parents whose children were in
Head Start reported having limited English proficiency. The most recent
(1998) national survey data showed that children of parents with
limited English proficiency were less likely than other children to
receive financial assistance for child care from a social service or
welfare agency or to be in Head Start, after controlling for selected
characteristics. Eighty-eight percent of these children were Hispanic,
and their results differed from Asian children.
Table: Likelihood of Selected Outcomes for Children of Parents with
Limited English Proficiency, after Controlling for Other Factors:
Receipt of financial Assistance for child care;
Compared to similar children of parents proficient in English: All
children of parents with limited English proficiency: Less likely;
Compared to similar children of parents proficient in English: Hispanic
children of parents with limited English proficiency: Less likely;
Compared to similar children of parents proficient in English: Asian
children of parents with limited English proficiency: No significant
difference.
Head Start;
Compared to similar children of parents proficient in English: All
children of parents with limited English proficiency: Less likely;
Compared to similar children of parents proficient in English: Hispanic
children of parents with limited English proficiency: Less likely;
Compared to similar children of parents proficient in English: Asian
children of parents with limited English proficiency: More likely.
Source: GAO analysis of Early Childhood Longitudinal Study,
Kindergarten, Class of 1998-1999.
[End of Table]
Analysis of data from focus groups and site visit interviews held by
GAO revealed that mothers with limited English proficiency faced
multiple challenges, including lack of awareness of available
assistance, language barriers during the application process, and
difficulty communicating with English-speaking providers. Some of the
challenges that low-income parents with limited English proficiency
experienced, such as lack of transportation and shortage of subsidized
child care slots, were common to other low-income families. The
majority of state and local agencies that we visited offered some oral
and written language assistance, such as bilingual staff or translated
applications. Agencies in the majority of locations visited also made
efforts to increase the supply of providers who could communicate with
parents. Officials reported challenges in serving parents with limited
English proficiency, such as difficulty hiring qualified bilingual
staff. Some officials indicated that additional information on cost-
effective strategies to serve this population would facilitate their
efforts.
HHS issued guidance, translated materials, and provided technical
assistance to grantees to help them serve children of parents with
limited English proficiency. The Office of Head Start reviewed
programs‘ assessments of their communities‘ needs and conducted formal
monitoring reviews, but could not ensure that review teams consistently
assessed grantees‘ performance on the standards related to language
access. CCB reviewed states‘ plans on the use of CCDF funds generally
and investigated specific complaints, but had no mechanism for
reviewing how and whether states provide access to CCDF subsidies for
eligible children of parents with limited English proficiency.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that HHS help states explore cost-effective ways of
collecting data on the primary language of CCDF subsidy recipients and
that HHS develop means of reviewing how states provide access to CCDF
subsidies. In comments, HHS generally agreed with our recommendations
and provided additional information on its actions and plans to
implement them.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-807].
To view the full product, click on the link above. Translated report
summaries are available in selected languages at
http://www.gao.gov/translations/childcare.html For more information,
contact Cornelia Ashby at (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Children of Parents with Limited English Proficiency Were Less Likely
than Other Children to Participate in Subsidized Programs:
Parents with Limited English Proficiency Faced Multiple Challenges That
May Have Limited Their Children's Participation in Federally Funded
Child Care and Early Education Programs:
Selected Agencies Took Some Steps to Assist Parents with Limited
English Proficiency but Reported Challenges in Serving Them:
HHS Provided Assistance to Grantees on Serving Children of Parents with
Limited English Proficiency, but Gaps Remain in Its Program Review
Efforts:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Analyses of the Effects of Limited English Proficiency on
Child Care and Early Education Patterns:
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Characteristics of Data Sources Examined:
Table 2: Selected Characteristics of Site Visit Counties:
Table 3: Composition of Focus Groups:
Table 4: Differences in the Percentages and Odds of Receiving Any
Nonparental Care, by Parents' English Proficiency Status, Race or
Ethnicity, and Both, among Preschool-Aged Children:
Table 5: Differences in the Percentages and Odds of Receiving Financial
Assistance for Child Care, among Those in Any Prekindergarten Care, by
Parents' English Proficiency Status, Race or Ethnicity, and Both:
Table 6: Percentages of English Proficient Parents and Parents with
Limited English Proficiency, by Race or Ethnicity:
Table 7: Percentages of English Proficient Parents and Parents with
Limited English Proficiency, by Family Income:
Table 8: Percentages of English Proficient Parents and Parents with
Limited English Proficiency, by Education:
Table 9: Percentages of English Proficient Parents and Parents with
Limited English Proficiency, by the Number of Persons over the Age of
18 in the Household:
Table 10: Percentages of English Proficient Parents and Parents with
Limited English Proficiency, by Parents' Work Status:
Table 11: Percentages of English Proficient Parents and Parents with
Limited English Proficiency, by the Number of Different Types of Child
Care Used, among Those Using Care:
Table 12: Odds Ratios from Logistic Regression Models Used to Estimate
the Effects of Different Factors on the Likelihood of Receiving Any
Child Care, after Adjusting for Other Characteristics:
Table 13: Odds Ratios from Logistic Regression Models Used to Estimate
the Effects of Different Factors on the Likelihood of Receiving
Financial Assistance for Child Care, among Those in Any Care, after
Adjusting for Other Characteristics:
Table 14: Odds Ratios from Logistic Regression Models Used to Estimate
the Effects of Different Factors on the Likelihood of Receiving Center-
Based Care, among Those in Any Care, after Adjusting for Other
Characteristics:
Table 15: Odds Ratios from Logistic Regression Models Used to Estimate
the Effects of Different Factors on the Likelihood of Participating in
Head Start, after Adjusting for Other Characteristics:
Figures:
Figure 1: Size and Growth of Population of Individuals with Limited
English Proficiency, 1990-2000:
Figure 2: Flow of Funds Under CCDF and Head Start:
Figure 3: Relative Odds of Selected Outcomes for Children of Parents
with Limited English Proficiency Compared to Children of Parents
Proficient in English, for Hispanics and Asians, after Adjusting for
Selected Family Characteristics:
Figure 4: English and Chinese Versions of a Local Agency's Child Care
Quality Brochure:
Abbreviations:
ACF: Administration for Children and Families:
CBRS: Computer-Based Reporting System:
CCB: Child Care Bureau:
CCDF: Child Care and Development Fund:
CRADLE: Culturally Responsive and Aware Dual Language Education:
ECLS-K: Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-
99:
FACES: Family and Child Experiences Survey:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
HSNRS: Head Start National Reporting System:
LEP: limited English proficiency:
NACCRRA: National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral
Agencies:
NCES: National Center for Education Statistics:
OCR: Office for Civil Rights:
PRISM: Program Review Instrument for Systems Monitoring:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
August 17, 2006:
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley:
Chairman:
Committee on Finance:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Max Baucus:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Finance:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Education and Early Childhood Development:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
Children whose parents have limited English proficiency are at greater
risk of experiencing difficulties in school than children from English-
speaking households. Research suggests that quality early care
experiences can greatly improve the school readiness and future school
success of young children, particularly children at greatest risk of
failure. U.S. Census Bureau data from 2000 indicate that more than 1.6
million children age 5 and younger lived in households where no one
aged 14 or over reported English proficiency. Census data also show
that these children were more likely than other children to be from low-
income families. There is interest in how this population is faring in
accessing child care and early education programs that can ease
children's transition to school.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) administers the
two largest federally funded programs that support early childhood
activities. HHS's Child Care Bureau (CCB) provides block grants to
states through the Child Care and Development Block Grant, commonly
referred to as the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), to subsidize
child care for low-income children while their parents work or
participate in education or training activities. HHS's Office of Head
Start funds local grantees through its Head Start program, a
comprehensive program designed to foster healthy child and family
development and to help low-income children achieve school readiness.
States receiving CCDF block grants and Head Start grantees have limited
funds for these programs and employ priorities and waiting lists to
ration services. In fiscal year 2006, CCDF provided approximately $4.9
billion in federal funds to states and territories. In fiscal year 2004
(the latest year for which service delivery data were available),
states and territories received about $4.7 billion in federal funds and
served approximately 1.74 million children in their CCDF programs. In
fiscal year 2005, Head Start grantees received about $6.8 billion in
federal funding and served approximately 900,000 children. The majority
of individuals with limited English proficiency are immigrants--
individuals not born in the United States--although most children of
immigrants were born in the United States. Children must be U.S.
citizens or legal residents to receive CCDF subsidies, while a child's
immigration status is not a factor in determining eligibility for Head
Start. The parent's immigration status is not relevant for determining
eligibility for either program.
Organizations working on issues affecting children and parents with
limited English proficiency have raised concerns that these families
may have difficulties accessing federally funded child care and early
education programs. In this context, you asked us to answer the
following questions: (1) What is known about the participation of
children whose parents have limited English proficiency in child care
and early education programs funded through CCDF and Head Start? (2)
What challenges do these families face in accessing these programs? (3)
What assistance is provided by selected state and local entities to
facilitate access for these families? (4) What actions has HHS taken to
ensure that these families can access CCDF child care subsidies and
Head Start?
To address these issues, we used multiple data collection
methodologies. To determine the participation in federally funded child
care and early education programs by children of parents with limited
English proficiency, we reviewed HHS data from a survey of Head Start
participants and from a reporting system used by Head Start grantees.
To assess the reliability of these data, we interviewed relevant HHS
officials and contractors and reviewed documentation related to the
procedures for collecting and analyzing these data. We found the Head
Start survey data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this
report, and while we did not independently verify the data available
through the reporting system, we found no evidence to suggest that they
were unreliable. We also requested information from all 50 states and
the District of Columbia on their collection of language data for CCDF
subsidy recipients. To obtain information on the child care and early
education patterns of these children that could not be obtained from
HHS data, we analyzed national survey data collected in 1998 as part of
the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99
(ECLS-K), from parents of kindergarten children about their children's
experiences the year before. Specifically, we used a logistic
regression model to estimate the effect of parents' English proficiency
on children's child care and early education patterns, while
controlling for selected individual and family characteristics such as
race and parental education. ECLS-K, conducted by the National Center
for Education Statistics (NCES), was the most recent national dataset
that allowed us to examine child care and early education experiences
of children while considering the English proficiency of their parents.
We assessed the reliability of NCES data and found these data to be
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. To understand
the challenges that parents with limited English proficiency face and
what state and local entities are doing to assist them, we visited five
states (Arkansas, California, Illinois, North Carolina, and Washington)
and contacted 11 counties across these states. We interviewed state and
local officials administering CCDF and Head Start as well as local
child care and early education providers. We selected our site visit
locations on the basis of the size and growth of their population with
limited English proficiency, the presence of any initiatives focused on
individuals with limited English proficiency, and their geographic
location. We also conducted 12 focus groups in California, North
Carolina, and Washington with mothers who spoke Spanish and Vietnamese,
reported limited English proficiency, and had children aged 5 or
younger enrolled in child care who likely qualified for CCDF subsidies
based on their family's income and parental work and education
activities. Six focus groups were conducted with mothers whose children
received a government child care subsidy, and six focus groups were
conducted with mothers whose children were eligible for but did not
receive the subsidy. To determine what HHS is doing to ensure access to
its programs, we interviewed HHS officials from the Office for Civil
Rights (OCR), the Office of Head Start, and CCB, and reviewed relevant
documents, legislation, guidance, and other federal resources related
to language access. Appendix I contains more information about our
scope and methodology. Appendix II contains information on the
regression analysis of ECLS-K data that we conducted. We conducted our
work between July 2005 and June 2006 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
The most recent national survey data showed that in 1998, children of
kindergarten age whose parents had limited English proficiency were
less likely than other children to have received financial assistance
from a social service or welfare agency for child care or to
participate in Head Start in the year before kindergarten, after
controlling for selected individual and family characteristics such as
race and parental education. Eighty-eight percent of these children
were Hispanic, and the results differed between them and Asian
children. However, these data could not be used to assess their
likelihood of enrollment in CCDF programs because the survey questions
did not ask for the specific agency providing financial assistance.
Further, CCB did not have information on the total enrollment in CCDF
programs of children of parents with limited English proficiency
because it did not require states to collect and report any language
data from parents of children receiving federal subsidies, such as
their primary language or English proficiency. We found that 13 states
collected some language data from parents whose children received CCDF
subsidies, primarily to determine the need for interpreters or
translated forms. However, these data had limitations that reduced
their usefulness in assessing participation in CCDF programs by
children of parents with limited English proficiency. For example, 5
states made the collection of language data by caseworkers optional,
and state officials told us they could not guarantee that the
information was consistently collected. The Office of Head Start
collected some language data on the language spoken by Head Start
participants, which showed that about 13 percent of parents of the
approximately 900,000 children enrolled in Head Start in 2003 reported
speaking English "not well" or "not at all."
Focus group participants, state and local child care officials, and
advocates told us that parents with limited English proficiency faced
multiple challenges in accessing federally funded child care and early
education programs for their children. Analysis of data from focus
groups with mothers whose children were eligible for federal child care
subsidies revealed that some of them were not aware of the programs.
Parents also faced challenges during the application process, according
to focus group participants and state and local officials interviewed.
For example, some of them faced obstacles due to a lack of bilingual
staff or translated applications, especially for languages other than
Spanish. Additionally, parents reported difficulties communicating with
their children's English-speaking providers. Officials reported
shortages of providers with the language ability to serve families with
limited English proficiency. Parents' immigration status also presented
indirect challenges to the participation of children in federally
funded child care and early education programs. For example, local
officials and community advocates told us that some parents with
limited English proficiency may be reluctant to apply for fear of
exposing undocumented immigrant members in the household. Finally, some
parents with limited English proficiency experienced challenges that
were common to low-income families generally. For example, difficulty
finding care at nontraditional hours, lack of transportation, and the
limited number of subsidized child care slots available affected the
ability of these parents to access programs.
The majority of state and local agencies and providers that we
interviewed on our site visits took some steps to assist parents with
limited English proficiency, but officials reported challenges in
serving these parents. In all counties that we visited, agencies
offered some form of oral language assistance, although the scope of
this assistance varied and parents continued to experience challenges
when accessing services. For example, agencies in 5 of the 11 counties
visited had staff that could speak several languages; agencies in the
remaining counties had Spanish-speaking staff, although in one case,
the staff were not specifically assigned to work with program
applicants and had other responsibilities. Most agencies also made
available some written language assistance, such as translated
applications, although the scope of the translations varied as well.
For example, local agencies in one state used applications that the
state had translated into eight languages, while agencies in 2 other
states had state-translated applications only in Spanish. The majority
of agencies and providers also disseminated information in other
languages to raise awareness of their programs and services. Several
state and local agency officials told us that they did not extensively
disseminate information about their programs because their programs
were already operating at full capacity or had substantial waiting
lists. Agencies in the majority of locations that we visited had
initiatives to increase the supply of providers able to communicate
effectively with parents. For example, one local agency we visited,
which provided child care information to parents and worked with child
care providers in the community, offered training and other guidance to
Somali-and Russian-speaking women interested in opening family child
care homes. State and local officials cited several challenges in
serving parents with limited English proficiency, including
difficulties hiring qualified bilingual staff and the expense of
translating materials into multiple languages. Some officials that we
interviewed expressed the need for additional information on cost-
effective strategies to serve parents with limited English proficiency,
and several officials said it would be helpful to learn about provider
training in use elsewhere.
HHS provided a variety of assistance to grantees on serving children of
parents with limited English proficiency, but gaps remained in its
program review efforts. HHS's Office for Civil Rights conducted
outreach to states to help them implement guidance on access to HHS
programs by individuals with limited English proficiency and offered
technical assistance in identifying appropriate language access
strategies. The Office of Head Start provided assistance to increase
awareness of the Head Start program and to help grantees better serve
children of parents with limited English proficiency. The Office also
reviewed grantees' assessments of child care and early education
resources in their communities relative to the needs of their
communities' Head Start-eligible children. In addition, the Office
conducted formal monitoring reviews of grantees' compliance with Head
Start performance standards, including standards specific to providing
language access to children and parents with limited English
proficiency. An Office of Head Start official, however, told us that
the office could not ensure that its review teams consistently reviewed
grantee compliance with these standards, and in our prior work we found
that no mechanism existed to ensure consistency in the monitoring
process. CCB provided a variety of assistance to help states and child
care providers offer language access to individuals with limited
English proficiency, such as translating brochures. CCB officials told
us that because CCDF is a block grant, CCB's oversight of CCDF is
limited to reviewing states' CCDF plans and investigating complaints.
However, CCB does not require states to report in their CCDF plans how
they will provide language access for individuals with limited English
proficiency or have a mechanism for ensuring that eligible children of
parents with limited English proficiency are not inadvertently excluded
from receiving CCDF assistance because of their parents' citizenship or
immigration status.
To help agencies plan for and provide language assistance to parents
with limited English proficiency who may want to access federally
funded child care and early education programs for their children, we
recommend that HHS work with states to help them explore cost-effective
strategies for collecting data on CCDF subsidy recipients' language
preference or English proficiency. Once these data are available, HHS
may consider collecting information on existing cost-effective ways
that agencies could use to provide language assistance and to recruit
providers who speak other languages, as well as disseminating this
information in the locations where the data show the greatest need. To
provide opportunities for eligible children to receive federal child
care subsidies regardless of their parents' English proficiency, we
recommend that HHS develop and implement specific strategies to review
whether and how states provide access to CCDF programs for these
families. These strategies include the revision of the CCDF plan
template to require states to report on how access will be provided and
a systematic review of states' eligibility criteria to ensure that
states comply with HHS policies related to participation of children
whose parents have limited English proficiency.
In its comments on a draft of this report, HHS's Administration for
Children and Families (ACF) generally agreed with our recommendation to
help states explore strategies for collecting data on CCDF subsidy
recipients' language, and provided additional information on its plans
and actions toward implementation of this recommendation. ACF also
agreed to examine the feasibility of using the CCDF plan template to
ask states to report on how they provide access to parents with limited
English proficiency seeking CCDF subsidies for their children. However,
ACF did not address our recommendation that it systematically review
states' program eligibility criteria to ensure that states do not
inadvertently exclude otherwise eligible children of parents with
limited English proficiency from CCDF participation. In addition, ACF
submitted detailed comments on certain aspects of this report,
including comments related to our analysis of ECLS-K data.
Background:
Population Changes:
The population of individuals with limited English proficiency in the
United States has grown dramatically in recent years. The 2000 Census
shows that the number of people reporting that they do not speak
English well or very well grew by 65 percent, from 6.7 million in 1990
to almost 11 million in 2000. The data also show that while growth in
the population of individuals with limited English proficiency
continues in states along the border, such as California and Texas, it
is most rapid in other states. (See fig. 1.)
Figure 1: Size and Growth of Population of Individuals with Limited
English Proficiency, 1990-2000:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Census data. Copyright Corel Corp. All
rights reserved (mao).
Note: In our analyses of Census data, we categorized the population of
individuals reporting that they do not speak English well or very well
as those with limited English proficiency.
[End of figure]
As figure 1 shows, for example, the number of individuals who did not
speak English well or very well increased by more than 300 percent
between 1990 and 2000 in North Carolina and Georgia, and by more than
200 percent in states such as Nebraska, Arkansas, and South Carolina.
In 2000, 14 percent of children age 5 and younger in households below
the federal poverty level lived in linguistically isolated
households.[Footnote 1]
HHS Child Care and Early Education Programs:
The two largest sources of federal support for child care and early
education are CCDF and Head Start. CCB administers CCDF and the Office
of Head Start[Footnote 2] administers Head Start. Both entities are
housed within ACF. CCB provides block grants to states through CCDF to
subsidize child care expenses of eligible families. In contrast, the
Office of Head Start awards grants for the operation of Head Start
programs directly to local public or private organizations, school
systems, or Indian tribes. The flow of funds under CCDF and Head Start
is shown in figure 2.
Figure 2: Flow of Funds Under CCDF and Head Start:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis and Art Explosion images.
[A] These are examples of providers that parents may choose with CCDF
vouchers. Parents may choose any other legally operating provider
authorized by the state.
[End of figure]
CCDF is used to subsidize the child care expenses of low-income
families with children under age 13 and to improve the overall quality
and supply of child care. The goals of the program are to (1) allow
each state maximum flexibility in developing child care programs and
policies; (2) promote parental choice to empower working parents to
make their own decisions on the child care that best suits their
family's needs; (3) encourage states to provide consumer education
information to help parents make informed choices about child care; (4)
assist states to provide child care to parents trying to achieve
independence from public assistance; and (5) assist states in
implementing the health, safety, licensing, and registration standards
established in state regulations. The parent whose child receives child
care assistance may either enroll the child directly with a provider
who has a grant or contract from the state for the provision of child
care services or receive a certificate to enroll the child with a
provider of the parent's choosing. Parents may choose from any child
care legally offered in the state, which could include care provided in
child care centers, family child care homes, or by relatives or
nonrelatives in the child or provider's home. CCDF is a combination of
discretionary and mandatory funds. In federal fiscal year 2006, CCDF
provided about $4.9 billion in federal funds to states and territories.
In fiscal year 2004 (the latest year for which data were available),
the program served approximately 1.74 million children with federal
funding of about $4.7 billion. In addition, federal CCDF funds are
supplemented with state contributions, and HHS officials reported that
total federal and state expenditures for CCDF amounted to almost $9.4
billion in fiscal year 2004.
Congress gave states considerable flexibility in administering and
implementing their CCDF programs. States are required to submit
biennial plans to CCB describing their CCDF activities. States
determine income eligibility thresholds up to a federal maximum of 85
percent of the state median income. In their CCDF plans for federal
fiscal years 2004 and 2005, almost all states reported setting lower
income eligibility limits, with only 5 states at the federal maximum of
85 percent.[Footnote 3]
Because CCDF is a nonentitlement program--one with limited funding and
not necessarily intended to cover all eligible persons--states are not
required to provide child care subsidies to all families whose incomes
fall below the state-determined eligibility threshold, and states may
establish priorities for serving eligible families, such as
prioritizing families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF), in order to support their work efforts. States can augment
their CCDF funds with other funding sources, such as TANF, to increase
funding available for subsidies. States spent $1.4 billion in federal
TANF funds directly on child care in fiscal year 2004.[Footnote 4]
States may also transfer up to 30 percent of their TANF block grants
into their CCDF programs. In fiscal year 2004, the latest year for
which data were available, $1.9 billion in TANF funds was transferred
to CCDF. Funds transferred from TANF to CCDF must be spent in
accordance with CCDF rules. This is significant partly because the
effect of the child's or the parent's citizenship or immigration status
on the child's eligibility differs depending on the program. For
example, parents' immigration status may affect their eligibility for
child care assistance under TANF,[Footnote 5] whereas only the
immigration status of the child matters for determination of
eligibility for subsidies from CCDF. Although legislation authorizing
CCDF did not specify the effect of citizenship or immigration status on
program eligibility, HHS's guidance to state agencies indicated that
states should consider only the citizenship and immigration status of
the child when determining the child's eligibility for federal child
care assistance[Footnote 6]. Therefore, children who are citizens or
legal residents are eligible for CCDF subsidies regardless of their
parents' citizenship or immigration status.
States are also required to dedicate at least 4 percent of their CCDF
allotments to activities to provide comprehensive consumer education to
parents and to improve the quality and availability of child
care.[Footnote 7] States may use some of this quality set-aside to fund
child care resource and referral services that are available in every
state and most communities in the United States. These agencies provide
information to parents on finding and paying for quality child care,
offer training to child care providers, and frequently engage in
efforts to analyze and report on child care supply and demand in their
communities. Often, resource and referral agencies also manage the CCDF
subsidy program or are part of local organizations that administer the
subsidy in the community.
Head Start offers child development programs to low-income children
through age 5 and their families. The overall goal of Head Start is to
promote the school readiness and healthy development of young children
in low-income families. In addition to providing classroom programs for
the children, Head Start grantees provide or arrange for a variety of
services, including medical, dental, mental health, nutritional, and
social services. Children in families with incomes below the federal
poverty level ($20,000 for a family of four in 2006)[Footnote 8] are
eligible for available Head Start programs regardless of their or their
parents' immigration status. Head Start grantees must adhere to certain
performance standards, including standards related to providing
language access in Head Start programs. The Office of Head Start
reviews the performance of Head Start grantees on these standards using
a structured guide known as the Program Review Instrument for Systems
Monitoring (PRISM). In fiscal year 2005, Head Start was funded at $6.8
billion and served 906,993 children.
Ensuring Meaningful Program Access for Persons with Limited English
Proficiency:
HHS has responsibility for monitoring grantees' compliance with program
requirements. Through its Office for Civil Rights (OCR), HHS also
oversees compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964,[Footnote 9] which states that no person shall "on the ground of
race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." HHS has
issued regulations to recipients of HHS funds on implementing the
provisions of Title VI, including requiring an assurance in every
application for federal financial assistance that the program will be
operated in compliance with all requirements imposed under HHS's Title
VI regulations.
Moreover, Executive Order 13166, issued in 2000, required federal
agencies to prepare a plan and issue guidance to their funding
recipients on providing meaningful access to individuals who, as a
result of national origin, are limited in their English proficiency. In
August 2003, HHS published revised guidance pursuant to Executive Order
13166. The guidance states that Title VI and its implementing
regulations require that grantees take reasonable steps to ensure
meaningful access for individuals with limited English proficiency, and
the guidance is intended to assist grantees in fulfilling their
responsibilities to ensure meaningful access to HHS programs and
activities by these individuals. Under the guidance, grant recipients
are to determine the extent of their obligation to provide language
assistance services by considering four factors: (1) the number or
proportion of individuals with limited English proficiency eligible to
be served or likely to be encountered by the program or grantee; (2)
the frequency with which these individuals come in contact with the
program; (3) the nature and importance of the program, activity, or
service provided by the program to people's lives; and (4) the
resources available to recipients of federal funds and costs of
language assistance. The guidance states that grantees have two main
ways to provide language assistance services: oral interpretation,
either in person or via telephone, and written translation. Finally,
the guidance lays out elements of an effective plan of language
assistance for persons with limited English proficiency.
Monitoring compliance with Title VI and providing technical assistance
are functions of HHS's OCR. OCR enforces Title VI as it applies to
agencies' responsibilities to ensure access for individuals with
limited English proficiency. The mechanisms available to OCR for
ensuring that agencies comply with their obligations to provide access
include complaint investigations, compliance reviews, efforts to secure
voluntary compliance, and technical assistance.
Children of Parents with Limited English Proficiency Were Less Likely
than Other Children to Participate in Subsidized Programs:
The most recent national survey data showed that in 1998 children of
parents with limited English proficiency, 88 percent of whom were
Hispanic, were less likely than other children to receive financial
assistance from a social service or welfare agency for child care or to
participate in Head Start in the year before kindergarten, after
controlling for selected individual and family characteristics.
However, these data could not be used to assess their likelihood of
enrollment in CCDF programs because the survey questions did not ask
for the specific agency providing financial assistance. Further, CCB
did not have information on the total enrollment in CCDF programs of
children of parents with limited English proficiency because it did not
require states to collect and report any language data from parents of
children receiving federal subsidies, such as their primary language or
English proficiency. The Office of Head Start collected some data on
the language spoken by Head Start participants, which showed that about
13 percent of parents of the approximately 900,000 children enrolled in
Head Start in 2003 reported speaking English "not well" or "not at
all."
Children of Parents with Limited English Proficiency Were Less Likely
to Receive Financial Assistance for Child Care or to Participate in
Head Start:
National survey data from ECLS-K showed that in 1998, kindergarten
children of parents with limited English proficiency who were in
nonparental child care in the previous year were less likely[Footnote
10] than other children in child care to receive financial assistance
from a social service or welfare agency for that care, after
controlling for selected individual and family
characteristics.[Footnote 11] However, parents' limited English
proficiency had a different effect for Hispanics than for Asians in the
dataset.[Footnote 12] Specifically, as shown in figure 3, Hispanic
children of parents with limited English proficiency (who represented
88 percent of all children in the dataset whose parents had limited
English proficiency) were less likely than children of Hispanic parents
proficient in English to receive financial assistance for their care.
Among Asians, who constituted about 8 percent of all children of
parents with limited English proficiency, we did not find a
statistically significant difference in the receipt of financial
assistance for child care between children of parents with limited
English proficiency and other children. These results, however, cannot
be used to draw conclusions about enrollment in CCDF programs by
children of parents with limited English proficiency because the survey
questions referred to assistance from a social service or welfare
agency generally and did not ask specifically whether assistance came
from CCDF.[Footnote 13] Also, while ECLS-K data are representative of
the experiences of children in the year prior to entering kindergarten,
they cannot be extrapolated to children of all ages. (See app. II for
discussion of the methodology we used to analyze ECLS-K data and the
results of our analyses.)
Figure 3: Relative Odds of Selected Outcomes for Children of Parents
with Limited English Proficiency Compared to Children of Parents
Proficient in English, for Hispanics and Asians, after Adjusting for
Selected Family Characteristics:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of ECLS-K data.
Note: The numbers in this figure show how the odds of having a certain
outcome compare among children whose parents have limited English
proficiency and other children of the same race. For example, among
Hispanics, children of parents with limited English proficiency were
less than half as likely (0.44 times) to receive financial assistance
for their care than other children.
[A] Indicates that children of parents of that racial or ethnic group
and with limited English proficiency had statistically significantly
different odds (at the 95 percent level) of having that outcome
compared to children of parents proficient in English of the same race.
[End of figure]
Our analysis of ECLS-K data also indicated that after controlling for
selected individual and family characteristics,[Footnote 14] children
of parents with limited English proficiency were less likely to
participate in Head Start in the year before kindergarten. Again, this
result did not hold consistently across racial and ethnic groups.
Specifically, as shown in figure 3, children of Hispanic parents with
limited English proficiency were less likely than children of Hispanic
parents proficient in English to participate in Head Start in the year
before kindergarten. In contrast, children of Asian parents with
limited English proficiency were more likely than children of Asian
parents proficient in English to participate in Head Start.
While 1998 ECLS-K data showed that children of parents with limited
English proficiency were less likely than other children to receive
financial assistance for child care and to participate in Head Start in
the year before kindergarten, it cannot be concluded from these data
alone that the differences are due to language barriers in access to
programs. Other factors, such as the availability of child care and
early education programs in the areas in which members of different
language groups reside or access to support networks that provide
information about available programs may also explain this result. In
addition, since the time of the survey, HHS has taken steps to increase
the participation of minorities and children of parents of parents with
limited English proficiency, such as translating CCDF program brochures
and undertaking initiatives to raise awareness of the Head Start
program in the Spanish-speaking community. Furthermore, HHS officials
reported substantial increases in federal and state child care funding
since ECLS-K data had been collected, suggesting that these increases
may have increased program access for parents of children with limited
English proficiency.[Footnote 15] However, neither CCB nor the Office
of Head Start has more recent information on whether children whose
parents had limited English proficiency are more likely to access
financial assistance for child care and Head Start relative to children
whose parents are proficient in English.[Footnote 16] ECLS-K was the
most recent national dataset that allowed us to examine the receipt of
financial assistance for child care and the participation in Head Start
by children of parents with limited English proficiency in relation to
the participation of similar children whose parents are proficient in
English.
CCB Does Not Collect Language Data on Children Receiving CCDF
Subsidies, and the Data in the 13 States that Collect Them Have
Limitations:
While CCB requires that states submit a variety of demographic
information in monthly or quarterly reports, such as information on the
race and ethnicity of CCDF subsidy recipients, it collects no
information on the language spoken by or the English proficiency of
parents whose children receive CCDF subsidies. CCB officials told us
that they had no plans to collect language data for those receiving
CCDF subsidies because they generally collect only information
specifically listed in the legislation authorizing CCDF. A CCB official
with responsibility for the demographic data collected from states and
officials from 1 state we visited told us that requiring states to
provide language data would create difficulties for states, such as
developing ways to identify individuals with limited English
proficiency. Despite the potential difficulties, various state and
local officials in states that do not collect this information,
including the official who cited potential difficulties collecting the
data, told us that having such data would help them evaluate program
performance.
While data on the receipt of CCDF subsidies were not available
nationally, 13 states collected some language data from parents whose
children receive CCDF subsidies.[Footnote 17] The specific type of data
collected and the manner in which these data were collected varied
among these 13 states, preventing comparisons among them on the extent
to which state CCDF programs were serving children of parents with
limited English proficiency. Officials in 10 of the 13 states that
collected language data told us that their states used the data either
to provide translated forms or interpreters to clients during the
application process or for planning or program evaluation purposes,
such as identifying areas with significant increases in the number of
individuals with limited English proficiency and to determine the need
for bilingual staff. State data, however, had limitations that
decreased their usefulness in assessing participation in CCDF programs
by children of parents with limited English proficiency. For example, 5
states made the collection of language data by caseworkers optional,
and officials in another 5 states told us that despite requiring
caseworkers to collect the language data, compliance with the data
requirements could not always be guaranteed. Officials in 8 of the 13
states that collected language data told us that they could benefit
from having more information on the collection or use of language data
or from learning how other states collect or use them.
Head Start Data Indicate That about One-Eighth of Participating
Children Have Parents with Limited English Proficiency:
The Office of Head Start collected some language data from the
approximately 900,000 children enrolled in Head Start and their parents
from two sources. First, the Office of Head Start interviewed parents
through its Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), a series of
longitudinal surveys of nationally representative samples of children
in Head Start. Based on the 2003 parent interviews administered, FACES
data showed that about 20 percent of parents of 3-and 4-year-old
children in Head Start[Footnote 18] reported that a language other than
English was most frequently spoken at home, and about 13 percent of
parents reported that they spoke English "not well" or "not at
all."[Footnote 19] Second, the Office of Head Start collected
demographic information on all 4-and 5-year-old children in Head
Start[Footnote 20] through its National Reporting System (HSNRS),
including information on the child's primary language. These data
showed that about one-quarter of children enrolled in Head Start in
Spring 2005 had a primary language other than English.[Footnote 21]
Parents with Limited English Proficiency Faced Multiple Challenges That
May Have Limited Their Children's Participation in Federally Funded
Child Care and Early Education Programs:
Results from our focus groups, which were composed of mothers with
limited English proficiency whose children were eligible for federal
child care subsidies, revealed that some participants were unaware of
the various federal child care and early education programs that may be
available to them. Parents with limited English proficiency also faced
challenges in the process of applying for programs and financial
assistance, such as lack of interpreters and translated materials. They
also encountered difficulties communicating with English-speaking child
care providers. Some of the challenges to program access that these
parents faced were the same challenges that many low-income families
face, including difficulty finding care at nontraditional hours, lack
of transportation, and the limited availability of subsidized child
care slots.
Lack of Program Awareness and Challenges during the Application Process
May Have Limited Program Participation:
Many parents with limited English proficiency were unaware of child
care assistance available to them. All six of the focus groups with
Spanish-speaking and Vietnamese-speaking mothers who were eligible but
not receiving subsidies revealed that the majority were unaware of the
assistance available. In addition, the mothers that we interviewed in
Arkansas and focus group participants in North Carolina also told of
misunderstandings and myths that some parents had regarding the
consequences of participating in government-funded programs. For
example, they had heard rumors that if they applied for child care
assistance, their child might one day be drafted into the armed forces
to repay the assistance they received.
Shortages of bilingual staff also presented challenges to parents with
limited English proficiency applying for subsidies for their children.
State and local officials and providers that we interviewed identified
the availability of bilingual staff as a factor that played a role in
the ability of parents with limited English proficiency to apply for
the subsidies. For example, subsidy administration officials in one
rural county told us that they sometimes had to ask clients to come
back because no staff were available to assist them in their language.
In three of the four focus groups with Spanish-speaking mothers with
subsidies, those who generally found the subsidy application process to
be easy cited the availability of bilingual case workers as a factor in
allowing them to apply for assistance successfully.
In addition to shortages of bilingual staff, the lack of available
translated materials also presented challenges to parents with limited
English proficiency. Some programs did not have application forms
translated into other languages, and local officials and parents
expressed concerns about the quality of existing translated materials,
saying that they were often translated by volunteers and that no
quality checks were done. For example, one community group
representative told us that volunteers had translated the Spanish forms
that the local subsidy administration office used and that no quality
controls had been applied, resulting in materials of such poor quality
that she advised parents not to request the Spanish version of the
application.
These challenges may be more acute for individuals with limited English
proficiency who speak languages other than Spanish. Local officials in
three states reported that there were limited services available in
languages other than Spanish. For example, local officials in
Washington said that services to smaller, more diverse populations,
such as African, Asian, and East Indian language speakers, were more
limited. In North Carolina and California, local officials also
reported that services for populations such as the Hmong were more
limited than for English or Spanish speakers.
Finally, although immigration status has no impact on Head Start
eligibility and only the immigration status of the child is relevant to
the determination of eligibility for CCDF subsidies, it nonetheless
created indirect challenges for some children of parents with limited
English proficiency. Local officials and community advocates told us
that citizen children of parents with limited English proficiency might
not participate in federal child care and early education programs
because of fear within the family of exposing undocumented immigrant
members in the household. Several officials told us that some of these
families were reluctant to provide personal information and were
inhibited from applying because of fear about how their personal
information might be used. In one case, we discovered a state that
improperly required a declaration of satisfactory immigration status
for every member of the household in order to apply for federally
funded child care subsidies, thereby potentially excluding some
children who are U.S. citizens and otherwise eligible for subsidies.
Officials in two states also told us that many parents with limited
English proficiency were paid in cash, making it difficult to verify
their income for eligibility purposes.
Parents with Limited English Proficiency Had Difficulties Communicating
with Providers:
Parents reported difficulties communicating with their children's
providers, and officials reported shortages of providers with the
language ability to serve families with limited English proficiency.
For example, officials at one local resource and referral agency that
we visited in the county with the most Spanish speakers in the state
told us that providers in the county did not have the capacity to meet
the needs of families with limited English proficiency. Spanish-
speaking mothers that we interviewed during a site visit to another
state complained that some programs advertise themselves as bilingual
when in reality they are not. Parents in focus groups also expressed
concern about their ability to communicate with their child care
providers. Local officials in one urban area that we visited said that
among the primary challenges faced by families with limited English
proficiency was the effect of the language barrier on the parents'
ability to communicate with their child care providers. They stated
this also made it difficult to ensure the same level of parent-provider
interaction for families with limited English proficiency as for other
families. For example, one provider with no bilingual staff said that
she had a child with a disability in her center whose parents were
limited in their English proficiency, making it difficult for staff to
communicate with the parents about the child's needs. These
communication difficulties had consequences in the classroom as well.
For example, one Head Start provider reported instances of therapists
and educators who were not trained to work with Hispanic families
inaccurately assessing the needs of children with language or cultural
differences.
Low-Income Parents with Limited English Proficiency Faced Some of the
Same Challenges to Program Access as Other Low-Income Families:
Low-income parents with limited English proficiency faced some of the
same challenges when attempting to access child care and early
childhood education programs as other low-income families. Across all
states visited, state and local officials as well as providers said
that many low-income families, especially families with limited English
proficiency, work nontraditional hours and have difficulty finding care
that meets their needs. For example, a resource and referral agency
official in one rural community said that the first shift at a local
employer begins at 5:30 a.m., while most providers do not offer care
before 6:00 a.m., and employees working second and third shifts face
even more difficulty finding child care. Lack of transportation,
especially in rural communities, also restricts the child care options
available to low-income families. Officials said that it can be
especially difficult for families with limited English proficiency to
navigate public transportation or call transit agencies for assistance.
In a previous report, we found that lack of English skills reduced
individuals' ability to access public transportation systems.[Footnote
22]
Parents in some communities also faced shortages of child care and
child care subsidies, especially for infants and toddlers. Officials
with resource and referral agencies and local subsidy administration
offices in 6 of the 11 counties that we contacted said that there were
shortages of infant care in their communities. In addition, because
funding for CCDF subsidies was limited, not all states provided
subsidies to all families who applied and met eligibility criteria. Our
prior work showed that 20 states did not serve all families who met
state-determined eligibility criteria,[Footnote 23] and three of the
five states that we visited (Arkansas, California, and North Carolina)
had waiting lists for CCDF subsidies. In five of the eight focus groups
with Spanish-speaking mothers (including both those receiving and not
receiving subsidies), participants identified waiting lists as one of
the difficulties they faced when seeking assistance for child care. In
the two other states that we visited (Illinois and Washington), state
officials said that although they did not maintain waiting lists, they
spent all of the funds available to them for CCDF subsidies. To manage
demand for the limited financial assistance available for child care,
states took steps such as giving priority to certain groups. For
example, in the three states we visited that maintained waiting lists,
two (Arkansas and North Carolina) set priorities for eligible families,
such as preferences for families on or coming off of TANF. In the
third, California, families on or transitioning off of TANF were
provided child care assistance through a guaranteed funding stream,
while funding for other low-income families was capped. Officials in
California told us that this system made it extremely difficult for low-
income families that were not in the TANF system to receive subsidized
child care. While prioritization of TANF families would affect all low-
income families, it may have additional implications for some children
of parents with limited English proficiency. Census 2000 data show that
82 percent of individuals with limited English proficiency are foreign-
born, and since immigration status is a factor in TANF eligibility,
children of immigrants who do not qualify for TANF would be less likely
to receive CCDF subsidies in those states that give priority to TANF
families. In 2005, we found that 17 of 20 states not covering all
applicants who otherwise met the eligibility criteria gave TANF
families priority for CCDF funds,[Footnote 24] consistent with CCDF's
goal of providing child care to parents trying to become independent of
public assistance.
Selected Agencies Took Some Steps to Assist Parents with Limited
English Proficiency but Reported Challenges in Serving Them:
The majority of state and local agencies and providers that we visited
took some steps to assist parents with limited English proficiency in
accessing child care and early education programs for their children.
Most agencies provided some oral and written language assistance,
although the scope of the assistance varied. Most agencies also
implemented initiatives to increase the supply of providers able to
communicate effectively with parents. Officials told us that they faced
several challenges in providing services to parents with limited
English proficiency. Some state and local officials indicated that
additional information on cost-effective strategies used by others to
serve this population would facilitate their efforts to provide access.
Selected State and Local Agencies Offered Language Assistance:
The majority of the agencies that we visited had taken some steps to
provide oral and written language assistance, such as interpreters and
translated materials, to parents with limited English proficiency. In
all 11 counties that we contacted, the local offices administering CCDF
subsidies and providing resource and referral services offered some
oral language assistance to clients with limited English proficiency
although the scope of the assistance varied. In 5 of these counties,
agencies had staff that could speak several languages, a fact that
officials said reflected the community they served. In the other 6
counties, agency staff had bilingual capacity for Spanish only, but
officials said the vast majority of the individuals with limited
English proficiency they served were Spanish-speaking. Although the
subsidy administration office in one of these 6 counties had bilingual
Spanish-speaking staff, these staff were not specifically assigned to
work with individuals applying for CCDF subsidies but were clerical
workers with other responsibilities. In most counties visited, child
care and Head Start centers had bilingual staff to help parents with
limited English proficiency enroll their children in the programs. For
example, an official in one child care center that we visited where the
majority of the families spoke Spanish said that all staff responsible
for enrolling families in the program spoke Spanish.
Several agencies that we visited also used telephone interpretation
services to provide oral assistance to clients with limited English
proficiency.[Footnote 25] For example, the subsidy administration
offices that we visited in Washington primarily used a state-contracted
telephone language line that connected agency staff with bilingual
telephone operators who could offer interpreting assistance in a
language spoken by the client. In an effort to help local agencies
serve clients with limited English proficiency in a cost-effective
manner, North Carolina was in the process of entering into a contract
for a language line that would allow local social service agencies,
including those administering CCDF subsidies, to provide oral language
assistance to clients if bilingual staff were not available on-site. A
state official told us that once the contract is awarded, the state
will make the service available to all local social service agencies at
a reduced cost.
Several agencies also coordinated with one another to share resources
for offering oral language assistance. For example, to help interpret
for their Russian-speaking clients, a resource and referral agency in
California with language capacity in Cantonese and Mandarin coordinated
with staff at another nearby resource and referral agency that had
language capacity in Russian. Subsidy administration officials in one
rural county that we visited told us that the local hospital had a
contract for the language line and they coordinated with the hospital
to make use of that service. However, we did not find efforts to
coordinate language assistance strategies among agencies in some
locations visited, and agency officials in a few locations said that
they could not always provide oral language assistance to clients with
limited English proficiency on their own.
The majority of agencies that we visited provided written language
assistance, such as translated subsidy application forms. Seven of the
11 subsidy administration offices contacted had subsidy applications
translated into Spanish. Local agencies in Washington, California, and
Illinois had applications that had been translated by the state.
Washington required its application for the child care subsidy to be
translated into eight languages,[Footnote 26] while California and
Illinois made applications available in Spanish and gave local agencies
the option of translating materials into other languages. Arkansas and
North Carolina had no translated applications at the time of our
visits, although officials in North Carolina said that the state was in
the process of translating the subsidy application into
Spanish.[Footnote 27] All of the resource and referral agencies that we
visited translated materials into Spanish, such as brochures containing
information on how to receive child care assistance and what to look
for when choosing a provider. A few resource and referral agencies also
made efforts to translate written information into other languages. For
example, as shown in figure 4, one agency translated a brochure on
child care quality into Chinese. However, some state and local
officials told us that their offices lacked the resources to translate
materials into other languages.
Figure 4: English and Chinese Versions of a Local Agency's Child Care
Quality Brochure:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Wu Yee Children's Services.
[End of figure]
The majority of local agency officials and providers that we
interviewed told us that they relied on agency staff and volunteers to
translate materials. For example, officials from a Head Start program
told us that their staff had translated materials about the program
into Spanish, Hmong, and Laotian. Officials at another Head Start
program told us that they relied on bilingual staff, parents of
children enrolled in the program, and Spanish-speaking volunteers from
the community health clinic to translate the materials. Some agency
officials told us that they also used outside contractors or other
resources, such as commercially available translation software, to
translate materials. Community group representatives expressed concerns
about the quality of translations done by the local agencies,
particularly in instances when volunteers or translation software had
been used.
Most local agencies and providers that we interviewed said that they
disseminated translated information to raise awareness of their
programs and services among parents with limited English proficiency.
Agencies and providers employed various mechanisms to disseminate
information, including using print and radio media and direct
distribution of informational materials in the communities where many
families with limited English proficiency reside. For example, some
resource and referral agencies and providers said that they advertised
their programs and services on Spanish-language television and radio
stations, and a few agencies had placed advertisements in the Yellow
Pages. Most of them also reported distributing information in various
locations in the community, such as churches, neighborhood markets, and
laundromats.
Despite these agencies' various outreach efforts, mothers in focus
groups, many of whom were unaware of the available assistance, said
that there was a need for greater information dissemination in their
communities. Spanish-and Vietnamese-speaking mothers in all 12 focus
groups indicated that disseminating information in their language would
help them learn about child care assistance and child care and early
education programs for their children. At the same time, focus groups
with Spanish-speaking mothers in California who were already receiving
the subsidies revealed their ambivalence about increased advertising of
certain child care programs because some of these programs already had
waiting lists. Some state and local officials also acknowledged that
they did little or no advertising because their programs were already
operating at full capacity or had substantial waiting lists.
Selected Agencies Took Steps to Increase the Supply of Providers Able
to Communicate Effectively with Parents:
Agencies in the majority of locations that we visited had initiatives
to increase the supply of providers who spoke other languages or to
offer training in other languages to existing providers. Some agencies
had come up with initiatives that focused on helping individuals
speaking other languages to enter the child care field. For example,
one resource and referral agency that we visited offered the classes
required for obtaining a child care license in Spanish, and another one
offered them in Cantonese. A resource and referral agency that we
visited in an urban county developed a program to help Somali-and
Russian-speaking women in the community obtain the training necessary
to become licensed family child care home providers. In four of the
five states that we visited, officials told us that selected community
colleges participated in efforts to increase provider capacity to serve
children of parents with limited English proficiency. For example, a
community college in Illinois offered early childhood education classes
in Spanish, while a community college in California coordinated with a
local resource and referral agency to offer these classes in Cantonese.
However, some officials said that such efforts were insufficient, and
in one state visited, an official from a university early childhood
education program said that she was not aware of any efforts in the
state to offer classes in other languages.
Many agencies that we visited also provided training to existing child
care providers who had limited English proficiency. For example, local
referral agencies in Illinois included bilingual individuals in the
technical assistance teams available to assist providers in improving
the quality of care.
Three of the five states that we visited used CCDF quality funds for
various provider initiatives related to language, such as offering
training to providers on working with families that had limited English
proficiency or translating materials into other languages.[Footnote 28]
For example, Arkansas used quality funds for training and technical
assistance to help providers understand cultural issues that families
with limited English proficiency face. California used these funds to
offer training to providers throughout the state on working with
children who speak other languages. Officials in North Carolina said
that while they did not have any projects funded with CCDF quality
funds that directly related to serving children of parents with limited
English proficiency, they had used some of the funds to translate
materials on child care health and safety practices into Spanish. Two
of the states visited--Washington and Illinois--did not use CCDF funds
directly on initiatives related to serving children of parents with
limited English proficiency or providers working with them. However,
both states used the funds to support other initiatives, such as the
work of resource and referral agencies, which included outreach to
parents with limited English proficiency in some of their efforts.
State and local officials told us that despite efforts made, there was
a shortage in some locations of training opportunities for providers
who speak other languages. For example, officials across states and
counties that we visited cited examples of child care providers with
limited English proficiency who had attended training, such as training
required for licensing, although they could not fully understand the
course content because it was not available in their languages. An
official we interviewed told us that this could affect the quality of
child care they would offer to children because the training covered
critical issues, such as health and safety procedures.
Officials in Selected State and Local Agencies Reported Challenges in
Providing Services to Parents with Limited English Proficiency:
State and local agency officials, providers, and community college
representatives reported several challenges associated with providing
oral language assistance to parents with limited English proficiency
applying for child care and early education programs for their
children. Officials told us they faced challenges providing oral
language assistance because of the difficulties that agencies had
hiring qualified bilingual staff. Even when qualified bilingual
individuals were found, officials said that these individuals were in
very high demand and agencies could not always compete with other
organizations interested in hiring them. For example, some child care
and Head Start providers told us that they are losing qualified
bilingual staff to school districts that offer higher salaries. Rural
areas especially experienced difficulties hiring bilingual staff
because their pool of qualified candidates was smaller than in the
cities or virtually nonexistent. A few officials said that the lack of
reliable transportation in rural areas makes it difficult to recruit
staff from the cities. For example, a resource and referral agency
official in one rural area that we visited told us that her office's
bilingual staff had quit because they had difficulty getting to work.
Officials also cited difficulties with finding professional
interpreters and with the expense associated with hiring them when
agencies lacked bilingual staff of their own to offer oral language
assistance to clients.
Agency officials also reported challenges providing written language
assistance to parents with limited English proficiency. They said that
translating materials into other languages was expensive, particularly
for agencies that served clients from several different language groups
and had to translate materials into multiple languages. Local agencies
frequently relied on their own staff to translate the materials, but a
few officials said that this posed a burden on staff with other full-
time responsibilities. At the same time, state and local officials said
that contracting out for translations was expensive. Although state
officials acknowledged the expense associated with translating
materials into other languages, some states left local agencies to
shoulder the burden of translating documents on their own. For example,
state officials in California told us that the expense prevented the
state from translating applications into languages other than Spanish,
but local agencies had absorbed the cost of translating applications
themselves in order to meet the needs of program applicants who spoke
other languages.
In addition, officials said that providing language assistance or
training in other languages was not always cost-effective because of
the relatively small number of individuals that would benefit from such
efforts. For example, one resource and referral agency official told us
that the cost of ordering materials in Spanish was higher than the cost
of ordering the same materials in English because the materials had to
be purchased in smaller orders, thereby increasing their cost. Some
officials said that while they were able to offer language assistance
to larger language groups in the area, such as Spanish speakers, they
chose not to expand their assistance to include other language groups
because of the small number of individuals that would benefit from it.
Despite challenges faced, agency officials that we interviewed
expressed the need for effective and affordable ways to provide
services to individuals with limited English proficiency. Officials in
three states visited told us that they would benefit from having
additional information on cost-effective strategies to serve parents
with limited English proficiency. Several officials also told us that
it would be helpful for them to learn more about the professional
development opportunities for providers offered at other locations. For
example, officials in Illinois said that the state's current capacity
for provider training in Chinese was limited and that they would like
to learn more about any curricula developed in other states with larger
Asian populations.
HHS Provided Assistance to Grantees on Serving Children of Parents with
Limited English Proficiency, but Gaps Remain in Its Program Review
Efforts:
HHS issued general guidance, translated materials, and provided
technical assistance to grantees on serving children of parents with
limited English proficiency, but gaps remain in its program review
efforts. The Office of Head Start has provided assistance to increase
awareness of the Head Start program among families with limited English
proficiency and has monitored local programs' efforts to provide access
to these families by reviewing grantees' biennial assessments of need
in the communities they serve and by conducting formal monitoring
reviews of grantees. However, an Office of Head Start official told us
that the office could not ensure that its review teams consistently
reviewed grantee compliance with program standards related to language
access, and in our prior work we found that no mechanism existed to
ensure consistency in the monitoring process. CCB provided assistance
to help programs serve children whose parents have limited English
proficiency, as well as reviewed states' CCDF plans and investigated
complaints. However, CCB had no mechanism for reviewing how access to
CCDF subsidies was provided for children of parents with limited
English proficiency or for ensuring that these children were not
inadvertently excluded from the subsidies as a result of state
eligibility criteria that were inconsistent with CCB's program
eligibility guidance.
HHS Issued General Guidance to Grantees on Providing Access to Federal
Programs for Individuals with Limited English Proficiency:
In 2003, consistent with Executive Order 13166, HHS issued guidance to
federal financial assistance recipients regarding the Title VI
prohibition against national origin discrimination as it affects
individuals with limited English proficiency. The guidance was intended
to help recipients of HHS funds, such as agencies administering CCDF
subsidies and Head Start programs, provide meaningful access for
individuals with limited English proficiency. The guidance, however,
applied to all HHS programs and did not refer specifically to child
care or early education.
HHS' OCR provided outreach to potential beneficiaries of HHS programs
and offered technical assistance to grantees to help them comply with
the guidance. For example, OCR officials told us that they disseminated
information about serving individuals with limited English proficiency
at Hispanic health fairs, through recorded public service announcements
and interviews on Spanish-language media, and by giving presentations
before community service organizations. They also said that they
provided grantees with technical assistance in identifying appropriate
language access strategies. Regional OCR officials told us that their
offices served as a resource for local social service agencies,
directing them to less costly language access strategies, such as
sharing interpreter services, and providing information on available
resources and practices.
OCR also participated in the Federal Interagency Working Group on
Limited English Proficiency that developed, among other things, a Web
site devoted to serving persons with limited English proficiency
(www.lep.gov). The Web site serves as a clearinghouse, providing
information, tools, and technical assistance regarding limited English
proficiency and language services for federal agencies, recipients of
federal funds, users of federally assisted programs, and other
interested parties. It makes available a range of guidance and
information on offering language assistance through mechanisms such as
interpreter services and translated materials for clients with limited
English proficiency in the areas of health care, the courts, and
transportation. However, it does not include specific information on
providing language assistance in child care and early education
programs. In addition, CCB and Office of Head Start officials and
officials from several HHS regional offices told us that they were
unaware of the Web site.
OCR is required to investigate all complaints of alleged
discrimination, including lack of access to programs for individuals
with limited English proficiency. OCR officials told us that Title VI
violations in child care were rare. They said that when infractions do
occur, they try to reach a voluntary compliance agreement with the
state and conduct follow-up to ensure that the state takes corrective
action to comply with the terms of the agreement. For example, North
Carolina entered into a voluntary compliance agreement with OCR and
implemented a corrective action plan for providing access for program
applicants with limited English proficiency. A state official told us
that the state was in the process of translating the subsidy
application into Spanish as a result of this agreement.
The Office of Head Start Provided Assistance to Increase Awareness of
Head Start and to Improve Service Delivery and Conducted Limited
Monitoring of Language Access in Head Start Programs:
The Office of Head Start has provided a variety of assistance to
increase awareness of the Head Start program among families with
limited English proficiency. The office has twice hosted a National
Head Start Hispanic Institute, the goals of which included improving
outreach to Hispanic communities, developing methods to effectively
serve Hispanic children and families, and helping ensure positive
outcomes in language and literacy development for English-language
learners. A Head Start official told us that the needs of other
language groups needed to be addressed as well, and that the Office of
Head Start was considering how to replicate the institute for groups
that speak other languages. According to officials, the Office of Head
Start has several other initiatives to reach parents with limited
English proficiency, such as placing public service announcements on
Spanish-language media and distributing a brochure in Spanish informing
families potentially eligible for Head Start of the benefits of
enrolling their children in Head Start.
The Office of Head Start has also provided assistance to grantees to
better serve children of parents with limited English proficiency.
Recently, the office conducted a national language needs assessment of
second language and dual language acquisition to identify culturally
responsive, research-based strategies to improve outcomes for children
and families. It also developed a Culturally Responsive and Aware Dual
Language Education (CRADLE) training initiative that is designed to
support grantees in their efforts to find best practices for language
acquisition for the birth-to-3-year-old population. In addition,
through its English Language Learners Focus Group, the Office of Head
Start created materials for grantees working with second language
learners, including Spanish speakers who constitute the majority of
children in Head Start whose parents have limited English proficiency.
The Office of Head Start monitors grantees' efforts to provide access
for individuals with limited English proficiency by reviewing their
biennial community assessments and conducting formal on-site monitoring
reviews. Head Start programs are required to conduct a community
assessment at least once every 3 years, and the Office of Head Start
regional officials review these assessments for demographic disparities
between program participants and the population of the community to be
served. For example, programs with assessments showing large numbers or
proportions of language groups in the community that are not reflected
in the enrollees or the classroom teachers may be found out of
compliance with meeting local needs. Head Start programs are also
monitored by the Office of Head Start once every 3 years through the
PRISM process. Head Start programs are required to adhere to program
performance standards that define the services that programs are to
provide to children and their families, and on-site PRISM review teams
monitor Head Start grantees' adherence to the standards. Several of the
standards directly address interactions with children and parents with
limited English proficiency. For example, one performance standard
requires communications with parents to be carried out in the parent's
primary or preferred language or through an interpreter.[Footnote 29]
Another performance standard directs programs in which the majority of
children speak the same language to have at least one classroom staff
member or home visitor who speaks that language.[Footnote 30] The
contractor responsible for assigning bilingual reviewers to PRISM
review teams told us that about 17 percent of reviewers were bilingual
and that review teams requesting a Spanish-speaking bilingual
individual had one assigned 70 percent of the time.
A Head Start official with responsibility for the PRISM process told us
that given the vast number of regulations, however, it was impossible
to ensure that all of them were consistently reviewed in the course of
a 1-week review. In our previous work, we reported that ACF had no
process in place to ensure that its reviewers consistently followed the
standards while conducting on-site PRISM reviews.[Footnote 31] We
recommended that ACF develop an approach that can be applied uniformly
across all of its regional offices to assess the results of the PRISM
reviews and implement a quality assurance process to ensure that the
framework for conducting on-site reviews was implemented as designed.
HHS agreed with our recommendation, and Head Start officials indicated
that the Office of Head Start was developing new PRISM protocols and
training reviewers to add more uniformity to how grantees are assessed.
In addition, the Office of Head Start recently announced plans to
conduct follow-up reviews of grantees monitored through the PRISM
system in an effort to ensure that PRISM review teams did not miss
grantee deficiencies, such as in providing assistance to children and
parents with limited English proficiency.
CCB Provided Assistance to Help CCDF Programs Serve Children Whose
Parents Have Limited English Proficiency but Had No Mechanism for
Reviewing Agencies' Provision of Access:
CCB provided assistance to raise program awareness among parents with
limited English proficiency whose children may be eligible for CCDF
subsidies. Officials told us that CCB had translated a number of its
consumer education materials into Spanish, including the CCDF program
brochure and public service announcements informing parents where and
how to locate child care. In a targeted effort to reach Hispanic
families and providers, CCB also translated into Spanish a brochure
outlining what providers should know about child care assistance for
families. CCB, through a cooperative agreement with the National
Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA),
provides educational information to parents through the Child Care
Aware Web site (www.childcareaware.org). In addition, NACCRRA has
translated consumer education publications into Spanish, including a
publication on paying for child care, which it made available through
its Web site to resource and referral agencies nationwide. CCB
officials told us that they were also looking into translating these
publications into Chinese. CCB also sponsors a National Child Care
Information Center Web site (www.nccic.org), which offers information
on a wide range of child care issues, including a number of documents
that relate to serving children from families with limited English
proficiency.
CCB officials told us that they provided opportunities for agencies and
providers to share information, including information on serving
children of parents with limited English proficiency. For example, CCB
convened meetings of state CCDF administrators that, while not focusing
specifically on issues of limited English proficiency, covered topics
such as meeting the needs of diverse groups of children and parents. In
addition, CCB maintains an online forum for states to pose questions
and share ideas, which has been used to discuss such issues as
converting print materials into Spanish. CCB also offers child care
providers online access to training modules, practical strategies for
serving children and families, and interactive online chats in English
and Spanish through the Center on Social and Emotional Foundations for
Early Learning Web site (www.csefel.uiuc.edu).
While it has made efforts to assist states with serving the needs of
children whose parents have limited English proficiency, CCB has no
mechanism for reviewing how agencies provide access to CCDF subsidies
for eligible children of parents with limited English proficiency or
ensuring that these children are not inadvertently excluded as a result
of state CCDF eligibility criteria that are inconsistent with agency
guidance. CCB officials told us that CCDF is a block grant and CCB
receives no funding specifically for supporting monitoring activities.
As a result, CCB's oversight of CCDF is limited to reviewing states'
CCDF plans and investigating complaints. CCB, however, does not require
states to include assurances in their CCDF plans that state agencies
are providing access to CCDF subsidies for children of parents with
limited English proficiency. Regional officials told us that they had
complaint processes in place and would either review complaints or
refer them to OCR, but said that they were unaware of any complaints
regarding restricted access for individuals with limited English
proficiency. Officials in one region told us that states appeared to
understand the CCDF program eligibility criteria. Officials in another
region told us that while they interacted with states through phone
calls and occasional on-site visits, these contacts primarily focused
on the provision of technical assistance. Thus, these interactions were
not a systematic review of how states determine eligibility for federal
child care assistance.
On our site visit to Arkansas, we found that the state had eligibility
requirements that appeared to violate CCB guidance. Specifically,
although guidance to state agencies administering CCDF clarified that
only the citizenship and immigration status of a child was relevant
when determining the child's eligibility for federal child care
assistance, applicants for child care assistance in Arkansas had to
submit a declaration that the applicant (typically a parent applying to
receive assistance for the child) and all the other members of the
household were U.S. citizens, nationals, or legal residents. In
addition, the state's policy manual for the administration of CCDF
services indicated that the state would deny any applications for child
care assistance that were submitted by parents or custodians who were
neither citizens nor lawfully admitted residents. These requirements
have the potential of precluding children who otherwise met the
eligibility criteria from receiving federal financial assistance on the
basis of their parents' citizenship or immigration status. CCB
officials told us that they were unaware of the situation until we
brought it to their attention and that they were in the process of
discussing with state officials how to resolve it. They further noted
that they would investigate formal complaints brought to their
attention, which would include complaints about states requesting
unnecessary information on their child care subsidy applications and
adversely affecting individuals with limited English proficiency.
However, officials indicated that they had received no such complaints
from affected parties.
Conclusions:
Access to high-quality child care and early education programs helps
promote healthy development of children and can provide an important
support for parents as they pursue employment or education to secure
the family's economic well-being and avoid public assistance. The
resources available for nonentitlement child care and early education
programs, such as CCDF subsidies and Head Start, are limited and not
intended to cover everyone who meets eligibility criteria and is in
need of assistance. Consequently, agencies have to make choices about
who they will cover with the limited funds, employing strategies such
as prioritization of certain groups of applicants or waiting lists. At
the same time, federal, state, and local entities play important roles
in ensuring that parents' language ability does not preclude children
from being considered for coverage under these programs.
These roles are becoming especially important as the demographics of
many communities are changing rapidly and localities across the country
are seeing increased numbers of individuals with limited English
proficiency. While state and local agencies are making efforts to
address the needs of this growing population, they experience
difficulties offering language assistance to parents seeking to access
programs for their children and recruiting new providers with the
language ability to serve these families. However, without reliable
data on who is enrolled in their programs, state and local officials
may have difficulty determining the extent to which parents with
limited English proficiency have access to these programs for their
children and whether services need to be adjusted to accommodate
changes in the population served.
Although Congress provided states with flexibility in administering
their CCDF program grants, HHS is responsible for ensuring that states
adhere to the conditions of their grants and that they take reasonable
steps to ensure access to individuals with limited English proficiency.
Yet, HHS's existing methods for reviewing how CCDF funds are used by
grantees do not systematically assess how access for parents with
limited English proficiency is provided or identify state or local
policies that may adversely affect these parents' ability to access
programs for their children. HHS responds to complaints of any alleged
discrimination or agency actions that adversely affect the ability of
eligible children to access programs and services. However, HHS may
lack the tools to ensure equal access for children whose parents have
limited English proficiency if the parents do not bring complaints for
reasons such as language difficulties, unfamiliarity with how the
complaint process works, or fear about approaching government agencies.
Without a mechanism to systematically review access to CCDF-funded
programs for these families, HHS cannot provide all eligible children
with the same opportunity to participate in programs that would benefit
them and their families and possibly enhance their households' self-
sufficiency.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help state and local agencies plan for language assistance and
assess whether they provide meaningful access to eligible children,
regardless of their parents' English ability, we recommend that CCB
work with states to help them explore cost-effective strategies for
collecting data on CCDF subsidy recipients' language preference or
English proficiency and comparing these data with available information
on community demographics. Once these data are available, HHS may
consider collecting information on existing cost-effective ways for
agencies to provide language assistance and to recruit providers who
speak other languages, as well as disseminating this information in the
locations where the data show the greatest need.
To provide opportunities to parents with limited English proficiency to
access federal child care subsidies for their children, we recommend
that HHS develop and implement specific steps to review whether and how
states provide access to CCDF programs for eligible children of parents
with limited English proficiency, as well as provide information to
help states evaluate their progress in this area. Specifically, HHS
should:
² revise the CCDF plan template to require states to report on how they
will provide meaningful access to parents with limited English
proficiency seeking CCDF subsidies for their children, and:
² systematically review states' program eligibility criteria for CCDF
subsidies to ensure that states comply with HHS policies related to
participation by children of parents with limited English proficiency.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
ACF provided written comments on a draft of this report, which are
reproduced in appendix III. In its letter, ACF agreed with most aspects
of our recommendations and provided information on its actions or plans
that would support their implementation. In addition, ACF provided a
number of technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate.
In response to our recommendation that HHS work with states to help
them explore cost-effective ways of collecting data on the primary
language of CCDF subsidy recipients, ACF provided some additional
information on actions it has taken to help states in this area. For
example, it stated that in July 2006, CCB launched a technical
assistance initiative that will, among other things, disseminate
information to states on effective strategies to assist families with
subsidy access, including families experiencing language barriers.
Regarding our second recommendation, that HHS develop a mechanism to
review how states provide access to CCDF subsidies for children of
parents with limited English proficiency, ACF indicated that it will
examine the feasibility of using the CCDF plan template to ask states
to report on their efforts to promote access to these families.
However, ACF did not address our recommendation that HHS systematically
review states' eligibility criteria for CCDF subsidies to ensure that
states comply with HHS policies related to participation by children
whose parents have limited English proficiency.
ACF also submitted detailed comments related to our analysis of
national survey data collected in 1998 as part of ECLS-K. ACF noted
that ECLS-K data only provide information on children in the year
before kindergarten and that the analysis omits other variables that
may explain our findings, such as preferences for certain types of care
within ethnic communities and parents' immigration status. Our report
discusses these data limitations, and as is the case with any
statistical model, some of the factors with the potential to affect the
outcomes we examined could not be included because the data measuring
them were not collected. It is partly for that reason that we employed
multiple methodologies in addressing our research objectives, including
site visits and focus groups.
ACF noted that the data represent child care and early education
patterns for 1997 and that subsequent policy changes or increases in
federal and state child care funding, may have narrowed the gap in
program participation among different groups of children. However, we
found that some of the policy changes ACF cited were not consistently
implemented and ACF provided no more current data that would allow us
to ascertain the effects of these changes. As such, ECLS-K remained the
most recent national dataset that allowed us to compare children of
parents with limited English proficiency and similar children whose
parents are proficient in English with respect to their receipt of
financial assistance for child care from a social service or welfare
agency and their participation in Head Start.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of
this report to the Secretary of HHS, relevant congressional committees,
and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to
others upon request. In addition, the report will be made available at
no charge on GAO's Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215. Other contacts and major contributors are
listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
Marnie S. Shaul, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
In conducting our work, we employed multiple methodologies, including a
review of available data on participation of children in child care and
early education programs, state and county site visits, focus groups
with mothers who have limited English proficiency, interviews with
federal officials and national experts, and a review of available
legislation, guidance, and other federal resources. We performed our
work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards between July 2005 and June 2006.
Analysis of National Program Participation Data and State Data
Inquiries:
To obtain information on the participation of children whose parents
have limited English proficiency in child care and early education
programs funded through the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) and
Head Start, we obtained and reviewed the most recent program
participation data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), surveyed states about their data on CCDF subsidy
recipients, and analyzed national survey data available through the
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-
K). The relevant characteristics of data sources we examined are shown
in table 1.
Table 1: Characteristics of Data Sources Examined:
Source of data: CCB databases;
Programs covered: CCDF;
Scope of data collection: Enrollment or sample of program participants
(depending on state);
Availability of data on the language of program participants: None;
Ability to use the data to estimate participation rates by children of
parents with limited English proficiency: No;
Reasons why data cannot be used to estimate participation rates by
children of parents with limited English proficiency: CCB does not
collect data related to language in its monthly or annual reports from
states.
Source of data: State databases;
Programs covered: CCDF;
Scope of data collection: Enrollment or sample of program participants
(depending on state);
Availability of data on the language of program participants: Varies by
state;
Ability to use the data to estimate participation rates by children of
parents with limited English proficiency: No;
Reasons why data cannot be used to estimate participation rates by
children of parents with limited English proficiency: Approximately one-
quarter of states collect data;
their data have many limitations, and states collect data differently.
Source of data: NRS;
Programs covered: Head Start;
Scope of data collection: Enrollment, for all 4-and 5-year-old children
in Head Start;
Availability of data on the language of program participants: Child
speaks language other than English at home, child's primary language,
and child's English proficiency as determined by local staff;
Ability to use the data to estimate participation rates by children of
parents with limited English proficiency: No;
Reasons why data cannot be used to estimate participation rates by
children of parents with limited English proficiency: NRS data are
collected only from children enrolled in Head Start, so the
participation rate in the overall population is unknown;
Data are not available on the parents' English proficiency.
Source of data: FACES;
Programs covered: Head Start;
Scope of data collection: Sample of parents with 3 and 4-year-old
children in Head Start;
Availability of data on the language of program participants: Parent
self-assessment of language ability and language spoken at home;
Ability to use the data to estimate participation rates by children of
parents with limited English proficiency: No;
Reasons why data cannot be used to estimate participation rates by
children of parents with limited English proficiency: FACES data are
collected only on children enrolled in Head Start, so the overall
participation rate is unknown.
Source of data: ECLS-K;
Programs covered: Child Care assistance and Head Start;
Scope of data collection: Sample of children in kindergarten;
Availability of data on the language of program participants: Parent
self-assessment of language ability and language spoken at home;
Ability to use the data to estimate participation rates by children of
parents with limited English proficiency: No (for CCDF programs);
Yes (for Head Start participation in the year before kindergarten);
Reasons why data cannot be used to estimate participation rates by
children of parents with limited English proficiency: The survey
questions did not ask for the source of child care financial
assistance.
Source: GAO analysis of HHS program participation data, ECLS-K, and
telephone interviews with state officials.
[End of table]
We reviewed CCDF program participation data collected by CCB in the
reports that states are required to submit on CCDF subsidy recipients
but found that these reports did not contain any data related to
language from CCDF subsidy recipients or their families. CCB officials
confirmed that they do not currently collect any language data, since
such data collection was not listed in the CCDF authorizing
legislation.[Footnote 32]
We reviewed language data for Head Start participants available from
the Office of Head Start through the Head Start National Reporting
System (HSNRS) and the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey
(FACES). HSNRS, implemented in August 2003, is the nationwide skills
test of over 400,000 children aged 4 and 5 in Head Start, intended to
provide information on how well Head Start grantees are helping
children progress. The Computer-Based Reporting System (CBRS) was
developed for HSNRS to allow local Head Start staff to enter
descriptive information about their programs, including the demographic
characteristics of children assessed by HSNRS. We requested and
reviewed HSNRS demographic data from spring 2005 that provided
information on the primary language of children in Head Start. FACES is
a series of longitudinal surveys of nationally representative samples
of children in Head Start. We requested and reviewed fall 2003 FACES
data, which included about 2,400 parent interviews that provided
information on the languages spoken at home by Head Start families,
parents' self-reported English proficiency, and the availability of
Head Start staff to communicate with children and parents in their
preferred language.
To assess the reliability of Head Start data, we interviewed relevant
HHS officials and officials from Westat, a private research corporation
administering and analyzing HSNRS and FACES under a contract with the
Office of Head Start. In addition, we reviewed relevant documentation
and examined the logs of the computer code used to generate the data
provided to us. Because HSNRS data were collected only for 4-and 5-
year-old children in Head Start, they cannot be used to generalize
about all children in Head Start.[Footnote 33] The HSNRS data were
entered into CBRS by the staff of local Head Start programs. While we
did not independently verify these data, we did not find any evidence
to suggest that they were unreliable. As part of FACES, interviews were
held directly with parents of children in Head Start. While Spanish
interviewers were available, parents with limited English skills who
spoke other languages were required to provide their own interpreter.
Parents unable to participate in an interview in English or Spanish or
provide their own interpreters could not be included in the survey.
According to a Westat official, however, only three interviews could
not be conducted because of the lack of an interpreter. We determined
that FACES data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this
report.
Because the available agency data did not allow us to determine the
total participation of children of parents with limited English
proficiency in federal child care and early education programs, we also
analyzed survey data provided by NCES from ECLS-K, a national
longitudinal study focusing on following children's early education and
school experiences from kindergarten through 12th grade. We used data
from the fall 1998 base year survey of approximately 18,000 parents
with children in kindergarten. ECLS-K was the most recent national
dataset that allowed us to compare child care, financial assistance for
child care, and Head Start usage rates among children with parents who
had limited English proficiency and children whose parents were
proficient in English.[Footnote 34] Among other topics, ECLS-K asked
parents about their English proficiency, the languages spoken at home,
their child's use of child care in the year before kindergarten, any
financial assistance from a social service or welfare agency, and the
child's use of Head Start.[Footnote 35] The survey did not ask for the
specific social service or welfare agency providing financial
assistance for child care, so we were unable to make estimates about
the use of CCDF subsidies from this dataset. NCES had bilingual
interviewers available to conduct the survey in Spanish, Chinese,
Hmong, and Lakota if the respondent was not able to speak English and
no English-speaking member of the household was available. Slightly
more than 7 percent of the interviewers were conducted in a language
other than English. More information about our analysis of ECLS-K data
can be found in appendix II.
To assess the reliability of ECLS-K data, we reviewed relevant
information about the survey, including the user manual, data
dictionary, and steps taken to ensure the quality of these data, and
performed electronic testing to detect obvious errors in completeness
and reasonableness. We determined that the ECLS-K data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
We also contacted child care administrators in all 50 states and the
District of Columbia to determine whether any states collected their
own data on the language of CCDF subsidy recipients. We discussed data
collection with officials in 5 states in the course of our site visits
and contacted officials in the remaining 45 states and the District of
Columbia by e-mail. Of those contacted by e-mail, 40 states and the
District of Columbia responded. Overall, 12 states and the District of
Columbia collected some language data from parents whose children
received CCDF subsidies. We then followed up with officials in the
District of Columbia and all 12 states that reported collecting the
data on the language of CCDF subsidy recipients to ask questions about
the type of data collected, the methods by which the data were
collected, the challenges states faced in collecting the data, and the
purposes for which the data were used. We did not ask states to submit
their data to us because we determined that the differences in states'
data collection approaches and the limitations of state data would
preclude us from aggregating state data to produce national estimates
of CCDF subsidy use among children of parents who speak other
languages.
Site Visits:
To obtain information on the challenges that parents with limited
English proficiency face in accessing CCDF subsidies and Head Start and
the assistance provided to these families by state and local entities,
we visited 5 states--Arkansas, California, Illinois, North Carolina,
and Washington. We selected these states on the basis of the size and
growth of their population of individuals with limited English
proficiency as determined by our analysis of 1990 and 2000 data from
the U.S. Census Bureau, the states' geographic location, and the
presence of initiatives focused on individuals with limited English
proficiency as determined by our review of CCDF plans that states are
required to submit to CCB every 2 years. We visited 10 counties across
these states, as well as contacted officials in 1 county by telephone.
We selected counties with substantial numbers of individuals with
limited English proficiency or that have experienced a significant
growth in this population based on the analysis of 1990 and 2000 U.S.
Census data. (See table 2.) In choosing counties, we also considered
the proportion of residents living in urban and rural parts of the
county to obtain information on the experiences of families in both
urban and rural areas.
Table 2: Selected Characteristics of Site Visit Counties:
County: Washington County, Arkansas;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Number of
individuals with LEP (1990): 483;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Individuals with
LEP as a percentage of total population (1990): 0.5;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Number of
individuals with LEP (2000): 4,925;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Individuals with
LEP as a percentage of total population (2000): 3.4;
Percentage change in number of individuals with LEP (1990- 2000):
919.7;
Percentage change in proportion of individuals with LEP as a percentage
of population (1990-2000): 637.3.
County: Fresno County, California;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Number of
individuals with LEP (1990): 66,070;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Individuals with
LEP as a percentage of total population (1990): 10.9;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Number of
individuals with LEP (2000): 86,776;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Individuals with
LEP as a percentage of total population (2000): 11.8;
Percentage change in number of individuals with LEP (1990- 2000): 31.3;
Percentage change in proportion of individuals with LEP as a percentage
of population (1990-2000): 8.6.
County: Los Angeles County, California;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Number of
individuals with LEP (1990): 1,153,956;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Individuals with
LEP as a percentage of total population (1990): 14.2;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Number of
individuals with LEP (2000): 1,395,347;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Individuals with
LEP as a percentage of total population (2000): 15.9;
Percentage change in number of individuals with LEP (1990-2000): 20.9;
Percentage change in proportion of individuals with LEP as a percentage
of population (1990-2000): 11.9.
County: San Francisco County, California;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Number of
individuals with LEP (1990): 86,228;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Individuals with
LEP as a percentage of total population (1990): 12.5;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Number of
individuals with LEP (2000): 99,659;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Individuals with
LEP as a percentage of total population (2000): 13.4;
Percentage change in number of individuals with LEP (1990- 2000): 15.6;
Percentage change in proportion of individuals with LEP as a percentage
of population (1990-2000): 6.7.
County: Cook County, Illinois;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Number of
individuals with LEP (1990): 247,814;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Individuals with
LEP as a percentage of total population (1990): 5.2;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Number of
individuals with LEP (2000): 392,663;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Individuals with
LEP as a percentage of total population (2000): 7.9;
Percentage change in number of individuals with LEP (1990- 2000): 58.5;
Percentage change in proportion of individuals with LEP as a percentage
of population (1990-2000): 50.1.
County: Winnebago County, Illinois;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Number of
individuals with LEP (1990): 2,510;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Individuals with
LEP as a percentage of total population (1990): 1.1;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Number of
individuals with LEP (2000): 6,208;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Individuals with
LEP as a percentage of total population (2000): 2.4;
Percentage change in number of individuals with LEP (1990- 2000):
147.3;
Percentage change in proportion of individuals with LEP as a percentage
of population (1990-2000): 123.3.
County: Durham County, North Carolina;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Number of
individuals with LEP (1990): 1,330;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Individuals with
LEP as a percentage of total population (1990): 0.8;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Number of
individuals with LEP (2000): 8,886;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Individuals with
LEP as a percentage of total population (2000): 4.3;
Percentage change in number of individuals with LEP (1990- 2000):
568.1;
Percentage change in proportion of individuals with LEP as a percentage
of population (1990-2000): 442.6.
County: Sampson County, North Carolina;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Number of
individuals with LEP (1990): 377;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Individuals with
LEP as a percentage of total population (1990): 0.9;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Number of
individuals with LEP (2000): 2,618;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Individuals with
LEP as a percentage of total population (2000): 4.7;
Percentage change in number of individuals with LEP (1990- 2000):
594.4;
Percentage change in proportion of individuals with LEP as a percentage
of population (1990-2000): 451.2.
County: King County, Washington;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Number of
individuals with LEP (1990): 27,329;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Individuals with
LEP as a percentage of total population (1990): 1.9;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Number of
individuals with LEP (2000): 63,004;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Individuals with
LEP as a percentage of total population (2000): 3.9;
Percentage change in number of individuals with LEP (1990- 2000):
130.5;
Percentage change in proportion of individuals with LEP as a percentage
of population (1990-2000): 98.2.
County: Yakima County, Washington;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Number of
individuals with LEP (1990): 10,916;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Individuals with
LEP as a percentage of total population (1990): 6.3;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Number of
individuals with LEP (2000): 20,686;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Individuals with
LEP as a percentage of total population (2000): 10.2;
Percentage change in number of individuals with LEP (1990- 2000): 89.5;
Percentage change in proportion of individuals with LEP as a percentage
of population (1990-2000): 60.4.
County: Chatham County, North Carolina[A];
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Number of
individuals with LEP (1990): 297;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Individuals with
LEP as a percentage of total population (1990): 0.8;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Number of
individuals with LEP (2000): 2,243;
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP): Individuals with
LEP as a percentage of total population (2000): 4.8;
Percentage change in number of individuals with LEP (1990- 2000):
655.2;
Percentage change in proportion of individuals with LEP as a percentage
of population (1990-2000): 488.2.
Source: GAO analysis of data from the U.S. Census.
[A] We contacted officials in this county by telephone.
[End of table]
On each site visit, we interviewed various stakeholders in the child
care and early education field at the state and local levels, including
officials responsible for administering CCDF subsidies, representatives
of child care resource and referral agencies, Head Start officials, and
child care and early education providers, as well as officials from
community organizations and advocacy groups working with individuals
who have limited English proficiency.
Focus Groups:
To obtain information on the challenges that parents with limited
English proficiency face when accessing child care subsidies for their
children, we conducted 12 focus groups with mothers who had limited
English proficiency in California, Washington, and North Carolina. We
selected these locations in order to include both states with
historically large populations of individuals with limited English
proficiency (California and Washington) and a state experiencing a more
recent growth in this population (North Carolina)--based on our
analysis of data from the U.S. Census. GAO contracted with Aguirre
International, a firm specializing in applied research with hard-to-
reach populations, to recruit focus group participants through
community-based organizations, arrange facilities for focus groups in
locations familiar and accessible to the participants, provide
transportation to and from child care during the focus groups, moderate
the group discussions, and translate focus group transcripts. Focus
groups were conducted from January 2006 to March 2006.
Consistent with focus group data collection practices, our design
involved multiple groups with certain homogeneous characteristics. All
focus groups were conducted with mothers of children aged 5 or younger
enrolled in child care. These mothers also had limited English
proficiency as self-reported by potential participants during the focus
group recruitment process and were eligible for CCDF subsidies as
determined by family's income and parental work and education
activities. The focus groups varied by primary language spoken and
whether or not participants' children were receiving government child
care subsidies.[Footnote 36] Eight of the 12 focus groups were
conducted in Spanish and 4 in Vietnamese. We chose to conduct focus
groups in Spanish and Vietnamese because these two languages were among
the most prevalent languages, other than English, spoken in the states
of interest. According to 2000 Census data, Spanish was the language
most commonly spoken among these households in the states we visited.
In Washington, Vietnamese was the most commonly spoken language after
Spanish, and in California, Vietnamese was the second most commonly
spoken language after Spanish. We did not conduct focus groups in
Vietnamese in North Carolina because of the limited number of
individuals who spoke languages other than English or Spanish in the
state. Six of the focus groups consisted of mothers with young children
(ages 0-5) who were enrolled in child care and received a government
subsidy for that care; the other 6 groups consisted of mothers with
young children (ages 0-5) who were enrolled in child care and did not
receive a government subsidy for that care, but whose children likely
qualified for subsidies based upon their family's income and employment
or education activities. Table 3 describes the characteristics of the
group at each location and lists locations and dates for each focus
group conducted. The number of participants in each focus group ranged
from 6 to 13.
Table 3: Composition of Focus Groups:
Subsidized;
Language: Spanish;
Location: Yakima, Wash;
Date: January 31, 2006.
Subsidized;
Language: Spanish;
Location: Siler City, N.C;
Date: February 4, 2006.
Subsidized;
Language: Spanish;
Location: Siler City, N.C;
Date: March 2, 2006.
Subsidized;
Language: Spanish;
Location: San Jose, Calif;
Date: February 8, 2006.
Subsidized;
Language: Vietnamese;
Location: San Jose, Calif;
Date: February 11, 2006.
Subsidized;
Language: Vietnamese;
Location: Seattle, Wash;
Date: February 20, 2006.
Unsubsidized;
Language: Spanish;
Location: Yakima, Wash;
Date: February 20, 2006.
Unsubsidized;
Language: Spanish;
Location: Pittsboro, N.C;
Date: February 4, 2006.
Unsubsidized;
Language: Spanish;
Location: Pittsboro, N.C;
Date: February 18, 2006.
Unsubsidized;
Language: Spanish;
Location: Oakland, Calif;
Date: February 7, 2006.
Unsubsidized;
Language: Vietnamese;
Location: San Jose, Calif;
Date: February 9, 2006.
Unsubsidized;
Language: Vietnamese;
Location: Seattle, Wash;
Date: February 20, 2006.
Source: GAO analysis of focus group transcripts.
[End of table]
To help the moderator lead the discussions, GAO developed a guide that
included open-ended questions related to mothers' experiences finding
appropriate child care and attempting to access financial assistance to
help pay for the care. Discussions were held in a structured manner and
followed the moderator guide.
Focus groups involve structured small group discussions designed to
gain in-depth information about specific issues that cannot easily be
obtained from single or serial interviews. Methodologically, they are
not designed to provide results generalizable to a larger population or
provide statistically representative samples or reliable quantitative
estimates. They represent the responses only of the mothers who
participated in our 12 groups. The population of individuals with
limited English proficiency in the United States consists of many
cultural backgrounds and languages in addition to Spanish and
Vietnamese, and those and other factors may influence the experience
and attitudes of parents with limited English proficiency regarding
child care. Therefore, the experiences of other mothers may be
different from those of focus group participants. In addition, while
the composition of the groups was designed to include different states,
languages, and subsidy participation status, the groups were not random
samples of mothers with limited English proficiency.
Other Methodology:
To assess HHS's efforts to ensure access to its programs for parents
with limited English proficiency, we interviewed HHS officials,
reviewed documents and guidance produced by HHS for state and local
grantees, and analyzed relevant legislation. We interviewed officials
from CCB, the Office of Head Start, HHS's Office for Civil Rights, and
the five HHS regional offices that covered the states that we
visited.[Footnote 37] We also reviewed informational materials produced
by HHS to facilitate access to programs for individuals with limited
English proficiency and online resources pertaining to language access
that were available through HHS's and the Department of Justice's Web
sites. Additionally, we analyzed relevant legislation, federal
regulations, and reports from research organizations.
Finally, to obtain information pertaining to our research objectives,
we interviewed officials from various national organizations working on
issues related to early child care and education, as well as
organizations advocating on behalf of individuals with limited English
proficiency.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Analyses of the Effects of Limited English Proficiency on
Child Care and Early Education Patterns:
We analyzed national survey data collected in 1998 as part of the Early
Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K)
from parents of kindergarten children about their children's
experiences in the year before kindergarten. To conduct our analyses,
we used logistic regression models to estimate the "net effects" of the
parent's limited English proficiency on children's child care and early
education patterns. We defined parents as having limited proficiency in
English if the parent participating in the interview reported that a
language other than English was spoken at home, and if the respondent
him or herself reported speaking English either "not very well" or "not
well at all." We made this decision because we surmised that speaking
is one of the main channels through which information about child care
is communicated. Additionally, we made the decision to focus on the
English language ability of the parent participating in the interview
on the assumption that the respondent participating in the survey about
his or her child would have a primary role in child care decisions.
We considered the effect of the parent's limited English proficiency on
four outcomes. First, we looked at the effect it had on the likelihood
of their child receiving any type of nonparental child care in the year
before the child was in kindergarten, regardless of whether the care
was provided in a child care center (including a prekindergarten
program) or by relatives or nonrelatives in some other setting. Second,
we looked at the effect that limited English proficiency had on the
likelihood of receiving financial assistance from a social service or a
welfare agency to help pay for child care among those who did receive
child care. Third, we looked at the effect that limited English
proficiency had on the likelihood that the child care provided was in a
center-based facility (rather than care provided by relatives or
nonrelatives) because it has been suggested that children whose parents
have limited English proficiency may be less likely to receive center-
based care than other children. Fourth, and finally, we considered
whether limited English proficiency affected the likelihood of
participating in Head Start.
By "net effects," we mean the effects of limited English proficiency
that operate after we control for other factors that affect these
different outcomes and that are related to limited English proficiency.
The most obvious among these other factors is race or ethnicity. That
is, the probability of using any nonparental care, receiving financial
assistance for child care, having center-based care rather than some
other form of care, and participating in Head Start are different among
racial and ethnic groups, and English proficiency is vastly different
for some groups, particularly Hispanics and Asians, than for whites and
other races. As such, after looking at the difference between children
of parents with limited English proficiency and other children on these
outcomes, we used multivariate logistic regression models to re-
estimate this difference when controlling for the effect of
characteristics such as the child's race or ethnicity. The other
characteristics we controlled included household income (because of its
effect on eligibility for some child care assistance programs and Head
Start) and parental education(because previous studies have shown it to
have an effect on participation in child care and early education
programs). We also controlled for the number of persons over 18 in the
household and whether the parent or parents in the house were employed
because these can affect the availability of care givers in the home
and determine the need for child care and child care assistance outside
of the home. Another reason why we controlled for parental employment
status is that it is one of the factors considered for CCDF
eligibility. When we looked at the likelihood of receiving any care or
receiving that care in a center-based facility, as well as at the
likelihood of receiving financial assistance for care received, we
controlled for whether the family participated in Head Start, since we
surmised this may affect whether additional child care was needed.
Additionally, because we thought that being in multiple types of child
care may affect the likelihood of one of them being provided in a
center-based facility or being subsidized by an outside source, we also
controlled for whether the child received multiple types of child care
when we looked at the likelihood of a child being in center-based care
or receiving financial assistance for child care. Finally, when we
looked at whether financial assistance was received for the care, we
controlled for whether the care was provided in a center-based facility
on the assumption that the cost of care may be higher when it is
provided in a formal center-based setting. Additionally, other factors,
such as family preferences for a certain type of care and parents'
immigration status, as well as changes in the CCDF program and child
care policies within a particular state of residence may affect child
care and early education patterns of children. We partially mitigated
the potential effect of preferences for certain types of care on the
receipt of financial assistance for child care by controlling for
whether or not the child was in center-based care. However, we could
not include all factors that may have had an effect on the outcomes in
the analysis because the ECLS-K did not collect the data to measure
them.
An understanding of how to interpret the results of these multivariate
logistic regression models is facilitated by first considering tables 4
and 5, which estimate the effects of limited English proficiency, and
race or ethnicity, on the first two of these four outcomes. Tables 4
and 5 estimate how English proficiency and race or ethnicity are
related to receiving any nonparental child care and to receiving
financial assistance for child care (among those who received any
nonparental child care). It is important to note that these estimates
are unadjusted for other characteristics that are related to these
outcomes, such as education, income, and employment status. The top
section of tables 4 and 5 shows the effect of parents' limited English
proficiency on the two outcomes, the middle section shows the effect of
the child's race or ethnicity, and the bottom section shows the joint
effect of the two, or the effect of limited English proficiency within
each racial or ethnic category. We show these effects in each section
of the tables by first providing percentages of children of parents
with limited English proficiency and other children having a certain
outcome. We then calculate odds and odds ratios for the likelihood of
children within each of the two groups having these outcomes. Odds and
odds ratios are the measures used to describe effects that underlie the
logistic regression models we later employ to estimate net effects of
limited English proficiency while controlling for other factors.
Consider table 4, which provides percentages, odds, and odds ratios
related to the differences in receiving any type of child care across
children that differ by their parents' English proficiency, their race
or ethnicity, and both. We see in the top section that while
approximately 75 percent of children whose parents are English
proficient received some form of child care in the year preceding
kindergarten, the same is true of only 46 percent of children whose
parents have limited English proficiency. These percentages are derived
from weighted data in our sample that take account of the fact that we
are working with a sample that is not a simple random sample (where all
individuals have an equal chance of being selected), but one in which
children in some groups, namely Asians and Pacific Islanders, were
oversampled. They are based, however, on the unweighted number of cases
in our sample of 18,033 respondents (16,784 of them with parents
proficient in English and 1,249 with parents with limited English
proficiency), given in the third column of the table. The difference in
these two percentages is sizable, and statistically significant, and
would lead us to conclude that children of parents with limited English
proficiency are less likely to receive nonparental care of any form.
Table 4: Differences in the Percentages and Odds of Receiving Any
Nonparental Care, by Parents' English Proficiency Status, Race or
Ethnicity, and Both, among Preschool-Aged Children:
Parents' English proficiency status: English proficient;
No (%): 25.2;
Yes (%): 74.8;
N (unweighted): 16,784;
Odds on yes: no: 2.97;
Odds ratio: [Empty].
Parents' English proficiency status: Total: Limited English proficient;
No (%): Total: 54.4;
Yes (%): Total: 45.6;
N (unweighted): Total: 1,249;
Odds on yes: no: Total: 0.84;
Odds ratio: Total: 0.28*.
Total;
Parents' English proficiency status: [Empty];
No (%): 27.3;
Yes (%): 72.7;
N (unweighted): 18,033;
Odds on yes: no: [Empty];
Odds ratio: [Empty].
Parents' English proficiency status: Race or ethnicity;
No (%): [Empty];
Yes (%): [Empty];
N (unweighted): [Empty];
Odds on yes: no: [Empty];
Odds ratio: [Empty].
Parents' English proficiency status: White;
No (%): 21.8;
Yes (%): 78.2;
N (unweighted): 10,262;
Odds on yes: no: 3.59;
Odds ratio: [Empty].
Parents' English proficiency status: Black;
No (%): 29.5;
Yes (%): 70.5;
N (unweighted): 2,638;
Odds on yes: no: 2.39;
Odds ratio: 0.67*.
Parents' English proficiency status: Hispanic;
No (%): 39.7;
Yes (%): 60.3;
N (unweighted): 3,205;
Odds on yes: no: 1.52;
Odds ratio: 0.42*.
Parents' English proficiency status: Asian;
No (%): 29.6;
Yes (%): 70.4;
N (unweighted): 979;
Odds on yes: no: 2.38;
Odds ratio: 0.66*.
Parents' English proficiency status: Total: Other;
No (%): Total: 33.9;
Yes (%): Total: 66.1;
N (unweighted): Total: 989;
Odds on yes: no: Total: 1.95;
Odds ratio: Total: 0.54*.
Total;
Parents' English proficiency status: [Empty];
No (%): 27.3;
Yes (%): 72.7;
N (unweighted): 18,073;
Odds on yes: no: [Empty];
Odds ratio: [Empty].
Race or ethnicity;
Parents' English proficiency status: Parents' English proficiency
status;
No (%): [Empty];
Yes (%): [Empty];
N (unweighted): [Empty];
Odds on yes: no: [Empty];
Odds ratio: [Empty].
White;
Parents' English proficiency status: English proficient;
No (%): 21.7;
Yes (%): 78.3;
N (unweighted): 10,204;
Odds on yes: no: 3.62;
Odds ratio: [Empty].
Parents' English proficiency status: Black: Limited English proficient;
No (%): Black: 38.1;
Yes (%): Black: 61.9;
N (unweighted): Black: 34;
Odds on yes: no: Black: 1.62;
Odds ratio: Black: 0.45*.
Black;
Parents' English proficiency status: English proficient;
No (%): 29.2;
Yes (%): 70.8;
N (unweighted): 2,611;
Odds on yes: no: 2.43;
Odds ratio: [Empty].
Parents' English proficiency status: Hispanic: Limited English
proficient;
No (%): Hispanic: 60.8;
Yes (%): Hispanic: 39.2;
N (unweighted): Hispanic: 10;
Odds on yes: no: Hispanic: 0.65;
Odds ratio: Hispanic: 0.27*.
Hispanic;
Parents' English proficiency status: English proficient;
No (%): 32.4;
Yes (%): 67.6;
N (unweighted): 2,217;
Odds on yes: no: 2.09;
Odds ratio: [Empty].
Parents' English proficiency status: Asian: Limited English proficient;
No (%): Asian: 55.6;
Yes (%): Asian: 44.4;
N (unweighted): Asian: 974;
Odds on yes: no: Asian: 0.80;
Odds ratio: Asian: 0.38*.
Asian;
Parents' English proficiency status: English proficient;
No (%): 25.4;
Yes (%): 74.6;
N (unweighted): 753;
Odds on yes: no: 2.94;
Odds ratio: [Empty].
Parents' English proficiency status: Other: Limited English proficient;
No (%): Other: 46.0;
Yes (%): Other: 54.0;
N (unweighted): Other: 222;
Odds on yes: no: Other: 1.17;
Odds ratio: Other: 0.40*.
Other;
Parents' English proficiency status: English proficient;
No (%): 33.9;
Yes (%): 66.1;
N (unweighted): 976;
Odds on yes: no: 1.95;
Odds ratio: [Empty].
Parents' English proficiency status: Total: Limited English proficient;
No (%): Total: 33.7;
Yes (%): Total: 66.3;
N (unweighted): Total: 8;
Odds on yes: no: Total: 1.97;
Odds ratio: Total: 1.01*.
Total;
Parents' English proficiency status: [Empty];
No (%): 27.2;
Yes (%): 72.8;
N (unweighted): 18,009;
Odds on yes: no: [Empty];
Odds ratio: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of ECLS-K data.
* Denotes significance at the 95 percent level.
[End of table]
An alternative way to look at this difference is by calculating the
odds of receiving child care, which is the percentage of children who
receive child care divided by the percentage of children who do not. In
the case of children of parents that are English proficient, these odds
are 74.8/25.2 = 2.97, which implies that in that group, approximately 3
families use child care for every family that does not (or that 300
families do for every 100 families that do not). In the case of
children of parents that are not English proficient, these odds are
45.6/54.4 = 0.84, which implies that for them, approximately 0.8
families use child care for every family that does not (or that 80
families do for every 100 that do not). The ratio of these two odds, or
0.84/2.97 = 0.28, tells us that the odds on receiving any care are
decidedly lower for children of parents with limited English
proficiency than for children of parents that are English proficient,
by a factor of 0.28.
The middle section of table 4 shows the differences in the percentages
and odds of children receiving child care across racial or ethnic
categories. The percentages of children receiving child care in the
year before kindergarten are lower for minority children than for
whites, and these differences are reflected in the odds as well. Among
white children, about 3.6 children received child care for every child
that did not, while among blacks and Asians approximately 2.4 children
received child care for every child that did not. Among Hispanics,
approximately 1.5 children received child care for every child that did
not. Where variables have more than two categories, such as different
categories of race and ethnicity, we chose one category as the
reference category and calculated odds ratios that reflect how
different each of the other categories is relative to that one. In this
case, whites were chosen as the reference category, and the odds ratios
of 0.67, 0.42, 0.66 and 0.54 indicate how much lower the odds of
receiving child care were for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other
races, respectively, than for whites.
The bottom section of table 4 shows the differences in the percentages
of children receiving any child care across the joint (or combined)
categories of parents' English proficiency and the child's race or
ethnicity. Here we have calculated odds for each of the joint
categories, and the odds ratios, which indicate how different the odds
are across English proficiency categories, within each category of race
or ethnicity. We can see that within most categories of race or
ethnicity, children of parents with limited English proficiency have
lower odds of receiving any child care than children of parents that
are proficient in English, by factors such as 0.38 for Hispanics and
0.40 for Asians. The odds ratios for whites, blacks, and others were
based on very small numbers of children of parents with limited English
proficiency. Of the 1,249 children of parents with limited English
proficiency, only 34, 10, and 8 children are white, black, and other,
respectively, and these numbers are too small for us to assess whether
and how much they differ from children of parents that are proficient
in English.
In sum, table 4 indicates that children of parents with limited English
proficiency were less likely to receive any child care than children of
parents proficient in English. Some of this is due to the fact that
children of parents with limited English proficiency tend to be
Hispanic and Asian, groups that are less likely than whites to receive
child care. However, not all of it is due to race or ethnicity
differences, since among Hispanics and Asians the children of parents
with limited English proficiency were less than half as likely as
others within the same racial or ethnic group to receive any child
care.
Table 5 provides similar information with respect to the likelihood of
receiving financial assistance for child care, among those children
that received any care. Overall, children of parents with limited
English proficiency were less likely than those with parents proficient
in English to receive financial assistance (odds ratio = 0.60), though
most racial or ethnic minorities, except for Asians, were more likely
than whites to receive financial assistance when they received some
type of care. That is, while Hispanic children were twice as likely as
white children to receive financial assistance, and blacks and other
races were approximately four times as likely, Asians' odds of
receiving financial assistance were not statistically distinguishable
from those of whites (odds ratio = 0.70). Further, in the two groups--
Hispanics and Asians--that had sizable numbers of children of parents
with limited English proficiency, the effect of limited proficiency was
different. Among Hispanics, the odds of receiving financial assistance
were lower for children of parents with limited English proficiency
than for children of parents that were proficient in English (odds
ratio = 0.46), while among Asians the odds of receiving financial
assistance were not statistically distinguishable between children of
parents with limited English proficiency and children of parents that
were proficient in English (odds ratio = 1.95). Among the other groups,
the numbers of children of parents with limited English proficiency who
received child care in the year prior to kindergarten were too small
for us to be able to reliably detect any difference between them and
others in the likelihood of receiving financial assistance.
Table 5: Differences in the Percentages and Odds of Receiving Financial
Assistance for Child Care, among Those in Any Prekindergarten Care, by
Parents' English Proficiency Status, Race or Ethnicity, and Both:
Parents' English proficiency status: English proficient;
No (%): 93.2;
Yes (%): 6.8;
N (unweighted): 12,732;
Odds on yes:no: 0.07;
Odds ratio: : [Empty].
Parents' English proficiency status: Limited English proficient;
No (%): 95.8;
Yes (%): 4.2;
N (unweighted): 584;
Odds on yes:no: 0.04;
Odds ratio: 0.60**.
Total;
Parents' English proficiency status: [Empty];
No (%): 93.4;
Yes (%): 6.6;
N (unweighted): 13,316;
Odds on yes:no: [Empty];
Odds ratio: [Empty].
Parents' English proficiency status: Race or ethnicity: White;
No (%): 95.9;
Yes (%): 4.1;
N (unweighted): 8,173;
Odds on yes:no: 0.04;
Odds ratio: [Empty].
Parents' English proficiency status: Race or ethnicity: Black;
No (%): 85.4;
Yes (%): 14.6;
N (unweighted): 1,874;
Odds on yes:no: 0.17;
Odds ratio: 4.02**.
Parents' English proficiency status: Race or ethnicity: Hispanic;
No (%): 92.5;
Yes (%): 7.5;
N (unweighted): 1,976;
Odds on yes:no: 0.08;
Odds ratio: 1.90**.
Parents' English proficiency status: Race or ethnicity: Asian;
No (%): 97.1;
Yes (%): 2.9;
N (unweighted): 676;
Odds on yes:no: 0.03;
Odds ratio: 0.70**.
Parents' English proficiency status: Race or ethnicity: Other;
No (%): 85.1;
Yes (%): 14.9;
N (unweighted): 637;
Odds on yes:no: 0.17;
Odds ratio: 4.11**.
Total;
Parents' English proficiency status: [Empty];
No (%): 93.4;
Yes (%): 6.6;
N (unweighted): 13,336;
Odds on yes:no: [Empty];
Odds ratio: [Empty].
White;
Parents' English proficiency status: English proficient;
No (%): 95.9;
Yes (%): 4.1;
N (unweighted): 8,138;
Odds on yes:no: 0.04;
Odds ratio: [Empty].
White;
Parents' English proficiency status: Limited English proficient;
No (%): 100.0;
Yes (%): 0.0;
N (unweighted): 20;
Odds on yes:no: 0.00;
Odds ratio: 0.00**.
Black;
Parents' English proficiency status: English proficient;
No (%): 85.4;
Yes (%): 14.6;
N (unweighted): 1,861;
Odds on yes:no: 0.17;
Odds ratio: [Empty].
Black;
Parents' English proficiency status: Limited English proficient;
No (%): 73.1;
Yes (%): H26.9;
N (unweighted): 4;
Odds on yes:no: 0.37;
Odds ratio: 2.15**.
Hispanic;
Parents' English proficiency status: English proficient;
No (%): 91.5;
Yes (%): 8.5;
N (unweighted): 1,533;
Odds on yes:no: 0.09;
Odds ratio: [Empty].
Hispanic;
Parents' English proficiency status: Limited English proficient;
No (%): 95.9;
Yes (%): 4.1;
N (unweighted): 435;
Odds on yes:no: 0.04;
Odds ratio: 0.46**.
Asian;
Parents' English proficiency status: English proficient;
No (%): 97.5;
Yes (%): 2.5;
N (unweighted): 554;
Odds on yes:no: 0.03;
Odds ratio: [Empty].
Asian;
Parents' English proficiency status: Limited English proficient;
No (%): 95.2;
Yes (%): 4.8;
N (unweighted): 120;
Odds on yes:no: 0.05;
Odds ratio: 1.95**.
Other;
Parents' English proficiency status: English proficient;
No (%): 85.2;
Yes (%): 14.8;
N (unweighted): 629;
Odds on yes:no: 0.17;
Odds ratio: [Empty].
Other;
Parents' English proficiency status: Limited English proficient;
No (%): 100.0;
Yes (%): 0.0;
N (unweighted): 5;
Odds on yes:no: 0.00;
Odds ratio: 0.00**.
Total;
Parents' English proficiency status: [Empty];
No (%): 93.4;
Yes (%): 6.6;
N (unweighted): 13,299;
Odds on yes:no: [Empty];
Odds ratio: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of ECLS-K data.
* denotes significance at the 95 percent level.
** denotes significance at the 90 percent level.
[End of table]
The tables above showed the gross or unadjusted differences in
receiving child care and receiving financial assistance for child care
between children of parents with limited English proficiency and
children of parents proficient in English, and what those differences
look like when we control for or take account of race or ethnicity, the
factor with which parents' limited English proficiency is most closely
associated. However, limited English proficiency is associated with a
number of other factors that affect these two outcomes, as well as the
other two outcomes that were of interest to us, which were the
likelihood of receiving center-based care (as opposed to care from
relatives or nonrelatives in some other setting) and the likelihood of
participating in Head Start. Tables 6 through 9 show that the
percentages of children that are Hispanic or Asian, from lower-income
families, have less educated parents, and have three or more persons in
the household over the age of 18 are higher among children of parents
with limited English proficiency than among other children. Tables 10
and 11 show that the percentage of children that have their parent (in
single parent households) or both parents working and the percentage of
children that receive multiple types of care are lower among children
of parents with limited English proficiency than among other children.
Table 6: Percentages of English Proficient Parents and Parents with
Limited English Proficiency, by Race or Ethnicity:
English proficient;
Race or ethnicity: White (%): 61.5;
Race or ethnicity: Black (%): 16.8;
Race or ethnicity: Hispanic (%): 14.2;
Race or ethnicity: Asian (%): 2.5;
Race or ethnicity: Other (%): 5.0;
Total (%): 100.0;
N (unweighted): 16,784.
Limited English proficient;
Race or ethnicity: White (%): 2.6;
Race or ethnicity: Black (%): 1.1;
Race or ethnicity: Hispanic (%): 87.7;
Race or ethnicity: Asian (%): 8.3;
Race or ethnicity: Other (%): 0.4;
Total (%): 100.0;
N (unweighted): 1,249.
Source: GAO analysis of ECLS-K data.
[End of table]
Table 7: Percentages of English Proficient Parents and Parents with
Limited English Proficiency, by Family Income:
English Proficient;
Income (percentage of the poverty level): < 100 percent of poverty
level (%): 20.9;
Income (percentage of the poverty level): 100-200 percent of poverty
level (%): 23.2;
Income (percentage of the poverty level): >200 percent of poverty level
(%): 55.9;
Total (%): 100.0;
N: (unweighted): 16,784.
Limited English Proficient;
Income (percentage of the poverty level): < 100 percent of poverty
level (%): 55.4;
Income (percentage of the poverty level): 100-200 percent of poverty
level (%): 32.0;
Income (percentage of the poverty level): >200 percent of poverty level
(%): 12.6;
Total (%): 100.0;
N: (unweighted): 1,249.
Source: GAO analysis of ECLS-K data.
[End of table]
Table 8: Percentages of English Proficient Parents and Parents with
Limited English Proficiency, by Education:
English proficient;
Highest education level of parent(s) in the household: < High school
graduate (%): 7.8;
Highest education level of parent(s) in the household: High school
graduate (%): 27.2;
Highest education level of parent(s) in the household: > High school
graduate (%): 65.0;
Total (%): 100.0;
N (unweighted): 16,784.
Limited English proficient;
Highest education level of parent(s) in the household: < High school
graduate (%): 47.4;
Highest education level of parent(s) in the household: High school
graduate (%): 29.9;
Highest education level of parent(s) in the household: > High school
graduate (%): 22.7;
Total (%): 100.0;
N (unweighted): 1,249.
Source: GAO analysis of ECLS-K data.
[End of table]
Table 9: Percentages of English Proficient Parents and Parents with
Limited English Proficiency, by the Number of Persons over the Age of
18 in the Household:
English proficient;
Number of persons over 18: 1 (%): 16.1;
Number of persons over 18: 2 (%): 72.1;
Number of persons over 18: 3+ (%): 11.8;
Total (%): 100.0;
N: (unweighted): 16,782.
Limited English proficient;
Number of persons over 18: 1 (%): 8.5;
Number of persons over 18: 2 (%): 64.3;
Number of persons over 18: 3+ (%): 27.2;
Total (%): 100.0;
N: (unweighted): 1,249.
Source: GAO analysis of ECLS-K data.
[End of table]
Table 10: Percentages of English Proficient Parents and Parents with
Limited English Proficiency, by Parents' Work Status:
English Proficient;
Parents working: Not all working (%): 33.4;
Parents working: All working (%): 66.6;
Total (%): 100.0;
N (unweighted): 16,550.
Limited English proficient;
Parents working: Not all working (%): 63.7;
Parents working: All working (%): 36.3;
Total (%): 100.0;
N (unweighted): 1,220.
Source: GAO analysis of ECLS-K data.
[End of Table]
Table 11: Percentages of English Proficient Parents and Parents with
Limited English Proficiency, by the Number of Different Types of Child
Care Used, among Those Using Care:
English proficient;
Number of different types of child care used, among those using care:
One (%): 72.3;
Number of different types of child care used, among those using care:
Two or more (%): 27.7;
Total (%): 100.0;
N (unweighted): 12,732.
Limited English proficient;
Number of different types of child care used, among those using care:
One (%): 81.6;
Number of different types of child care used, among those using care:
Two or more (%): 18.4;
Total (%): 100.0;
N (unweighted): 584.
Source: GAO analysis of ECLS-K data.
Note: Each difference between families with limited English proficiency
and other families in tables 6-11, except for the category of high
school graduates, is significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
In tables 12 through 15 we show what the adjusted effect of parents'
limited English proficiency is on the likelihood of their child (1)
receiving any nonparental child care, (2) receiving financial
assistance for child care, (3) receiving center-based care, and (4)
participating in Head Start, when we estimate its effect using logistic
regression models to control for the effects of the other factors. In
the first two columns of each table, we show the unadjusted effect of
parents' limited English proficiency on each outcome across all racial/
ethnic groups, and what the adjusted effect looks like when we control
for race or ethnicity and other factors. In the third and fourth
columns of each table, we show the unadjusted and adjusted effect of
parents' limited English proficiency for Hispanics, and in the last two
columns we show those same effects for Asians. Separate analyses were
done only for Hispanics and Asians because, as table 6 shows, the
percentage of children of other races whose parents have limited
English proficiency was very small. For the adjusted models, we also
show the effects of the other factors that we controlled for, such as
income and education, on the four outcomes. In the case of variables
that have multiple categories (such as race or ethnicity, income or
poverty status, education, and number of persons in the household over
18 years of age), the odds ratios indicate how much more or less likely
the categories of families indicated are to have each outcome than the
reference (or omitted) category. The reference category for race or
ethnicity is white, the reference category for poverty status is less
than 100 percent of the federal poverty level, the reference category
for education is less than high school graduate, and the reference
category for the number of persons in the household over 18 is one.
Likelihood of receiving any nonparental care. Table 12 shows that
before adjusting for other factors, the effect of parents' limited
English proficiency on the likelihood of receiving any type of
nonparental childcare was negative and significant for all groups
considered together, and for Hispanics and Asians considered separately
(odds ratios of 0.28, 0.38, and 0.40, respectively). After controlling
for these other factors, the differences between children of parents
with limited English proficiency and other parents in terms of their
receipt of any type of child care were smaller for all groups
considered together and for Hispanics (odds ratios of 0.77 and 0.75,
respectively), but not statistically significant among Asians (odds
ratio of 0.85). While almost all of the control variables attain
statistical significance in the model that included all racial and
ethnic groups, the statistical significance of individual control
variables in the models including only Asian or Hispanic children
varies.
Table 12: Odds Ratios from Logistic Regression Models Used to Estimate
the Effects of Different Factors on the Likelihood of Receiving Any
Child Care, after Adjusting for Other Characteristics:
Limited English proficient;
All groups: Unadjusted: 0.28*;
All groups: Adjusted: 0.77**;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: 0.38*;
Hispanics: Adjusted: 0.75*;
Asians: Unadjusted: 0.40*;
Asians: Adjusted: 0.85.
White;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: Ref**;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: [Empty].
Black;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 1.19**;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: [Empty].
Hispanic;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.87**;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: [Empty].
Asian;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.81**;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: [Empty].
Other;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.86**;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: [Empty].
< 100 percent poverty;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: Ref**;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: Ref*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: Ref**.
100-200 percent poverty;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 1.09**;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 1.15*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 0.66**.
> 200 percent poverty;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 2.19**;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 1.96*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 1.88**.
< High school graduate;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: Ref**;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: Ref*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: Ref**.
High school graduate;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 1.44**;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 1.53*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 1.48**.
> High school graduate;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 2.26**;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 2.16*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 1.79**.
1 Person over 18;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: Ref**;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: Ref*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: Ref**.
2 Persons over 18;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.65**;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 0.72*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 0.83**.
More than 2 persons over 18;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.77**;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 0.89*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 0.81**.
All parent(s) work;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 3.16**;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 3.17*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 3.24**.
Head Start;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.38**;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 0.48*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 0.22**.
Source: GAO analysis of ECLS-K data.
* denotes significance at the 95 percent level.
** denotes significance at the 90 percent level.
Note: "Ref" refers to reference categories.
[End of table]
Likelihood of receiving financial assistance for child care. Table 13
shows that before adjusting for other characteristics, the odds ratios
estimating the effect of parents' limited English proficiency on the
likelihood of receiving financial assistance for child care were 0.60,
0.46, and 1.95 for all groups together, Hispanics, and Asians, although
the result for Asians was not statistically significant. While other
factors were significantly related to the likelihood of receiving
financial assistance for child care, controlling for their effects did
not markedly diminish the estimated difference between children of
parents with limited English proficiency and other children overall, or
for Hispanics or Asians. After other factors are taken into account,
children of parents with limited English proficiency were about half as
likely as others to receive financial assistance overall and among
Hispanics (odds ratios of 0.41 and 0.44, respectively), but among
Asians the difference was not statistically significant (odds ratio =
1.85).
Table 13: Odds Ratios from Logistic Regression Models Used to Estimate
the Effects of Different Factors on the Likelihood of Receiving
Financial Assistance for Child Care, among Those in Any Care, after
Adjusting for Other Characteristics:
Limited English proficient;
All groups: Unadjusted: 0.60**;
All groups: Adjusted: 0.41*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: 0.46*;
Hispanics: Adjusted: 0.44*;
Asians: Unadjusted: 1.95;
Asians: Adjusted: 1.85**.
White;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: Ref*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: [Empty].
Black;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 1.64*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: [Empty].
Hispanic;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 1.36*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: [Empty].
Asian;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.75;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: [Empty].
Other;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 2.73*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: [Empty].
200 percent poverty;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.18*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 0.25*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 2.83**.
< High school graduate;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: Ref*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: Ref*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: Ref**.
High school graduate;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 1.12*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 1.26*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 0.21**.
> High school graduate;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.92*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 1.23*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 0.37**.
1 person over 18;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: Ref*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: Ref;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: Ref**.
2 persons over 18;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.42*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 0.27*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 0.09**.
More than 2 persons over 18;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.51*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 0.21*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 0.09**.
All parent(s) work;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 1.31*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 1.13*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 1.66**.
Head Start;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 1.83*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 1.95*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 3.34**.
Center-based care;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 2.16*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 1.63*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 1.64**.
Multiple types of care;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 1.46*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 1.65*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 2.20**.
Source: GAO analysis of ECLS-K data.
* denotes significance at the 95 percent level.
** denotes significance at the 90 percent level.
Note: "Ref" refers to reference categories.
[End of table]
Likelihood of receiving center-based care. Table 14 shows that before
adjusting for other factors, the effect of parents' limited English
proficiency on the likelihood of receiving center-based child care
among those who received any type of child care was significant when
all racial/ethnic groups were considered together (odds ratio = 0.44),
and significant for Hispanics (odds ratio = 0.73) but not for Asians
(odds ratio = 0.92). None of the differences between children of
parents with limited English proficiency and other children were
statistically significant, however, after we controlled for other
factors.
Table 14: Odds Ratios from Logistic Regression Models Used to Estimate
the Effects of Different Factors on the Likelihood of Receiving Center-
Based Care, among Those in Any Care, after Adjusting for Other
Characteristics:
Limited English proficient;
All groups: Unadjusted: 0.44*;
All groups: Adjusted: 0.98*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: 0.73*;
Hispanics: Adjusted: 0.83*;
Asians: Unadjusted: 0.92;
Asians: Adjusted: 1.10*.
White;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: Ref*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: [Empty].
Black;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.98*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: [Empty].
Hispanic;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.61*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: [Empty].
Asian;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.77*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: [Empty].
Other;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.53*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: [Empty].
200 percent poverty;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 1.72*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 1.37*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 1.46*.
< High school graduate;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: Ref*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: Ref*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: Ref*.
High school graduate;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 1.36*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 1.17*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 0.59*.
> High school graduate;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 2.45*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 1.94*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 1.15*.
1 person over 18;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: Ref*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: Ref*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: Ref*.
2 persons over 18;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 1.06*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 0.95*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 0.76*.
More than 2 persons over 18;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.64*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 0.78*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 0.23*.
All parent(s) work;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.39*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 0.33*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 0.51*.
Head Start;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.18*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 0.26*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 0.17*.
Multiple types of care;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 9.81*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 8.50*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 17.66*.
Source: GAO analysis of ECLS-K data.
* denotes significance at the 95 percent level.
** denotes significance at the 90 percent level.
Note: "Ref" refers to reference categories.
[End of table]
Likelihood of participating in Head Start. Table 15 shows that before
adjusting for other factors, children of parents with limited English
proficiency had higher odds of participating in Head Start when all
ethnic/racial groups were considered together (odds ratio = 1.39). The
same was true when Asians were considered separately (odds ratio =
3.81), but no significant effect of parents' limited English
proficiency was found for Hispanics (odds ratio = 0.98). After
controlling for other characteristics, children of parents with limited
English proficiency had significantly lower odds of participating in
Head Start when all racial/ethnic groups were considered together (odds
ratio = 0.67), and when Hispanics were considered separately (odds
ratio = 0.69), but significantly higher odds among Asians (odds ratio =
1.90).
Table 15: Odds Ratios from Logistic Regression Models Used to Estimate
the Effects of Different Factors on the Likelihood of Participating in
Head Start, after Adjusting for Other Characteristics:
Limited English proficient;
All groups: Unadjusted: 1.39*;
All groups: Adjusted: 0.67*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: 0.98;
Hispanics: Adjusted: 0.69*;
Asians: Unadjusted: 3.81*;
Asians: Adjusted: 1.90**.
White;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: Ref*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: [Empty].
Black;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 3.21*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: [Empty].
Hispanic;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 1.75*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: [Empty].
Asian;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 1.57*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: [Empty].
Other;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 2.69*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: [Empty].
200 percent poverty;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.18*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 0.22*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 0.18**.
< High school graduate;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: Ref*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: Ref*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: Ref**.
High school graduate;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 1.19*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 1.43*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 0.53**.
> High school graduate;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.71*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 0.90*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 0.46**.
1 person over 18;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: Ref*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: Ref*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: Ref**.
2 persons over 18;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.82*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 0.87*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 0.94**.
More than 2 persons over 18;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.74*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 0.91*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 0.60**.
All parent(s) work;
All groups: Unadjusted: [Empty];
All groups: Adjusted: 0.97*;
Hispanics: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Hispanics: Adjusted: 1.09*;
Asians: Unadjusted: [Empty];
Asians: Adjusted: 0.69**.
Source: GAO analysis of ECLS-K data.
* denotes significance at the 95 percent level.
** denotes significance at the 90 percent level.
Note: "Ref" refers to reference categories.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services:
Department Of Health & Human Services:
Administration For Children And Families:
Office of the Assistant Secretary, Suite 600:
370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20447:
Jul 2 8 2006:
Ms. Mamie S. Shaul:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Shaul:
Attached are comments of the Administration for Children and Families
on the Government Accountability Office Draft Report entitled, "Child
Care and Early Childhood Education: More Information Sharing and
Program Review by HHS Could Enhance Access for Families with Limited
English Proficiency" (GAO-06-807).
Should you have questions or need additional information, please
contact Shannon Christian, Associate Director, Child Care Bureau, at
202-260-2309 or Channell Wilkins, Director, Office of Head Start, at
202-205-8573.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Wade F. Horn, Ph.D.
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families:
Enclosure:
Comments Of The Administration For Children And Families On The
Government Accountability Office Draft Report Entitled, "Child Care And
Early Childhood Education: More Information Sharing And Program Review
By HHS Could Enhance Access For Families With Limited English
Proficiency" (GAO-06-807):
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
draft report on this important topic.
GAO Recommendations:
To help State and local agencies plan for needed language assistance
and assess whether they provide meaningful access to eligible children,
regardless of their parents' English ability, we recommend that CCB
work with states to help them explore cost-effective strategies for
collecting data on CCDF subsidy recipients' language preference or
English proficiency and comparing these data with available information
on community demographics. Once these data are available, HHS may
consider collecting information on existing cost-effective ways that
agencies could use to provide language assistance and to recruit
providers who speak other languages, as well as disseminating this
information in the locations where the data show the greatest need.
To provide opportunities to parents with limited English proficiency
for accessing Federal child care subsidies for their children, we
recommend that HHS develop and implement specific steps to review
whether and how States provide access to CCDF programs for eligible
children of parents with limited English proficiency, as well as
provide information to help states evaluate their progress in this
area. Specifically, HHS should:
* revise the CCDF plan template to require states to report on how they
will provide meaningful access to parents with limited English
proficiency seeking CCDF subsidies for their children, and:
* systematically review states' program eligibility criteria for CCDF
subsidies to ensure that states comply with HHS policies related to
participation by children of parents with limited English proficiency.
ACF Comments:
In prior years, the Child Care Bureau (CCB) has used the annual Child
Care and Development Fund (CCDF) appropriation for child care research
and evaluation to fund State Child Care Data and Research Capacity
Projects in a number of States (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin). While these projects did not
specifically focus on services to families with limited English
proficiency, they assisted State CCDF Lead Agencies in developing
greater capacity for policy-relevant research and analysis. Within each
project, the primary goal was to create a Statewide research
infrastructure to better understand child care needs, services, and
outcomes for families in the context of social, economic, and cultural
change. We will consider funding similar projects in the future, as
well as other efforts to capture relevant information on the supply and
demand of child care services. We are also planning to use other
research projects, including our multi-State evaluation of child care
subsidy strategies using experimental design, to address issues related
to serving families with limited English proficiency.
In July 2006, CCB launched a new technical assistance initiative
focusing on CCDF administration. Through a partnership between the
Urban Institute and CCB's National Child Care Information Center, the
project will provide State CCDF Lead Agencies with technical assistance
on strategies that promote child care subsidy access and retention. The
project will disseminate information about effective strategies
identified by the Urban Institute research in seven mid-western States,
as well as supplemental information provided by other States. The
strategies fall into eight key policy areas--one of which is assisting
parents with language barriers. Strategies in this area include making
documents available in other languages, using translators at local
offices, and using computer programs to track the native language of
clients. Other policy areas identified by the initial Urban Institute
research have an impact on services to all families, including families
with language barriers. These policy areas include linking subsidies to
other social service programs; improving customer service practices;
simplifying the application process; simplifying recertification
requirements; simplifying reporting requirements; minimizing subsidy
breaks; and assisting parents with fluctuating and non-traditional work
schedules. The technical assistance provided under this project will
focus on strategies that are practical and maintain program integrity.
CCB appreciates this suggestion and will examine the feasibility of
using the CCDF plan template for the next biennial cycle to require
States to report on efforts to promote access to parents with limited
English proficiency.
ACF Overall Comment on the Report:
We believe that the report could have benefited from additional
contextual discussion about the complex array of factors that impact
families' decisions related to child care. Factors such as family
preferences, child care supply, and immigration status-rather than just
the characteristics of the subsidy program itself may impact families'
choices and participation in the subsidy system.
The National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families (conducted by
Abt Associates for ACF) suggests that Hispanics often prefer a family,
friend, or neighbor provider because of the congruence with language
and cultural beliefs, and because they trust that the provider will
care for their children as they personally would. In addition, low-
income, minority populations tend to live in communities with a high
concentration of people with similar backgrounds. Social supports,
including child care by family, friends, and neighbors, are an
important component of many such communities.
Availability of formal care offered by providers that speak their
language and share their cultural beliefs is often rare in these
communities. Given that low-income, minority populations frequently
work in the service and retail sectors, many communities lack formal
providers who can provide care during the non-traditional and rotating
hours that these jobs typically require. Furthermore, research suggests
that recent immigrants are fearful of contacting social services
agencies, even when they are aware of their eligibility for benefits.
While the GAO report acknowledges immigration issues, the data from the
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-
K), do not allow GAO to control for "length of residence in the U.S."
or "immigration status."
In light of this complexity, we have serious questions about the
report's analysis of ECLS-K data. The ECLS-K information is outdated
(representing the situation in 1997) and limited to a narrow group of
children (reflecting only the year before children enter kindergarten).
Furthermore, the data do not allow GAO to control for a number of
potentially key variables that impact the likelihood of child care
subsidy receipt, including State of residence or geographic location,
CCDF policies (such as family co-payment, reimbursement rate) that vary
by State, the availability of State-funded pre-kindergarten programs,
family preferences regarding non-parental care, length of residence in
the U.S., and immigration status. We believe that the GAO report places
too much emphasis on the findings of the ECLS-K analysis (for example,
by devoting all of Appendix II to the analysis), without adequately
acknowledging its limitations.
Finally, it is unclear to us why the GAO report examines the impact of
limited English proficiency on the likelihood that the child care
provided was in a center-based facility versus a non-center-based
facility (such as Table 13 on page 61). A rationale for this analysis
and further explanation of the findings would have been useful. The
CCDF program promotes parental choice, enabling families to choose any
legally operating setting that best meets their needs.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Marnie S. Shaul, (202) 512-7215, shaulm@gao.gov Cornelia M. Ashby,
(202) 512-8403, ashbyc@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Betty Ward-Zukerman (Assistant Director) and Natalya Barden (Analyst-
in-Charge) managed all aspects of the assignment. Laurie Latuda, Janet
Mascia, Jonathan McMurray, and Ethan Wozniak made key contributions to
multiple aspects of the assignment. Alison Martin, Grant Mallie, Amanda
Miller, Anna Maria Ortiz, James Rebbe, and Douglas Sloane provided key
technical assistance.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The U.S. Census defines a "linguistically isolated household" as
one in which no person aged 14 or over reported either speaking only
English at home or speaking English very well.
[2] In June 2006, the Head Start Bureau was officially renamed the
Office of Head Start.
[3] National Child Care Information Center, "Trends in State
Eligibility Policies: A CCDF Issue Brief," Vienna, Virginia, July 2004.
[4] Partly as a condition of receiving federal funds, states also used
their own funds for this purpose. According to HHS, this brought total
federal and state child care expenditures under TANF to about $3.4
billion in fiscal year 2004.
[5] The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act, (PRWORA, Pub. L. No. 104-193) restricts access by some legal
immigrants to certain programs and denies access by illegal immigrants
to many government-funded programs. States can decide the eligibility
for TANF of most of the qualified aliens who arrived in this country
prior to August 22, 1996. Most of the qualified aliens who entered the
United States on or after August 22, 1996 are barred from receiving
TANF the first 5 years after their entry, although some states choose
to provide their own state-funded public assistance to such immigrants.
[6] The guidance states that "for implementing the verification
requirements mandated by title IV of PRWORA, only the citizenship and
immigration status of the child, who is the primary beneficiary of the
child care benefit, is relevant for eligibility purposes." U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children,
Youth, and Families. Log No. ACYF-PI-CC-98-08, November 25, 1998.
[7] In addition to the minimum 4 percent quality set-aside, annual
appropriations have provided funding for child care quality activities.
HHS officials noted, for example, that the agency's 2006 fiscal year
appropriation provided approximately $270 million for quality
improvement activities, including nearly $100 million to improve the
quality of infant and toddler care and approximately $10 million for
child care research and evaluation initiatives.
[8] Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 15, January 24, 2006, pp. 3848-3849.
Alaska and Hawaii have higher guidelines.
[9] 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et. seq.
[10] All differences reported were statistically significant at the 95
percent confidence level unless otherwise noted. This means that if no
difference actually existed in the population, we would only expect to
find a difference as large as the one found in the ECLS-K sample less
than 5 percent of the time.
[11] The characteristics we controlled for in the analysis of the
receipt of financial assistance for child care were race, household
income and parental education, the number of individuals over 18 in the
household, the presence of a parent who was not working, whether care
was provided in a center-based facility, whether the child was in
multiple types of care, and the child's participation in Head Start. In
our analysis, we treated receipt of center-based care and Head Start
participation as two distinct outcomes.
[12] Our analysis was limited to Hispanics and Asians because the
numbers of parents with limited English proficiency in other racial or
ethnic categories in the survey were too small to allow the same
analysis.
[13] We also examined differences in the likelihood of being in any
type of nonparental child care in general and in center-based care in
particular in the year before kindergarten. We found that, among
Hispanics, children of parents with limited English proficiency were
less likely to have been in nonparental child care than other children.
We did not find a significant difference in the use of nonparental
child care among Asians, nor did we find a significant difference in
the use of center-based care for either Hispanics or Asians.
[14] The characteristics we controlled for in the analysis of the use
of Head Start were race, household income and parental education,
number of individuals over 18 in the household, and the presence of a
parent who was not working.
[15] As mentioned earlier, ECLS-K collected information on the receipt
of financial assistance for child care generally (rather than the
receipt of CCDF subsidies specifically). Therefore, while the ECLS-K
data show that children of parents with limited English proficiency
were less likely to receive financial assistance for child care, these
data cannot be used to comment on the accessibility of a specific
program such as CCDF.
[16] According to an Office of Head Start official, there has been an
increase in the number of linguistically and culturally diverse
children and families served by Head Start in recent years. However,
this increase could result from the increase of the population of such
children and families in the United States generally.
[17] Two of the 5 states that we visited reported collecting their own
language data from clients. In addition, we surveyed the remaining 45
states and the District of Columbia, and 11 of the 41 states responding
to our e-mail requests for information reported collecting these data.
[18] According to HHS, 3-and 4-year-olds constituted 87 percent of
children enrolled in Head Start during the 2002-2003 program year. (See
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/research/2004.htm.)
[19] While this number appears similar to the percentage of children
aged 0 to 5 in low-income families that were in linguistically isolated
households as reported in Census 2000 (14 percent), the two cannot be
directly compared because they were collected in different years and
because the definition of limited English proficiency we used in
analyzing the information from FACES is different from the Census
definition of a linguistically isolated household.
[20] According to HHS, 4-and 5-year-olds constituted 58 percent of
children enrolled in Head Start during the 2002-2003 program year. (See
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/research/2004.htm.)
[21] The Office of Head Start also surveys grantees annually through
its Program Information Report (PIR). The PIR asks grantees to report a
variety of demographic information about children enrolled in their
programs, including the primary language of the family at home, but not
their need for language assistance. However, our prior work identified
limitations of PIR data. See GAO, Head Start: Better Data and Processes
Needed to Monitor Underenrollment, GAO-04-17 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 4,
2003), and GAO, Head Start: Comprehensive Approach to Identifying and
Addressing Risks Could Help Prevent Grantee Financial Management
Weaknesses, GAO-05-176 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2005.)
[22] See GAO, Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and
Oversight of DOT's Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited
English-Proficient Populations, GAO-06-52 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2,
2005).
[23] See GAO-05-667.
[24] See GAO, Child Care: Additional Information Is Needed on Working
Families Receiving Subsidies, GAO-05-667 (Washington, D.C.: June 29,
2005).
[25] Through a contract with organizations providing telephone
interpretation services, agency staff typically can dial a telephone
number provided by the organization and request to be connected to a
professional interpreter speaking a particular language. The
interpreter, proficient in both English and another language, listens
to the conversation between the staff and the client with limited
English proficiency, analyzes the meaning of the message, and conveys
the meaning to each side.
[26] Applications in Washington were available in Spanish, Chinese,
Korean, Russian, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Somali, and Laotian.
[27] In June 2006, a North Carolina official told us that the
translation of the CCDF subsidy application into Spanish has been
completed. Local agencies currently have access to the translated
document, and the North Carolina Department of Health and Human
Services is in the process of making both the English and the Spanish
versions of the document available electronically for their use.
[28] States are required to describe in their CCDF plans how CCDF
quality funds will be used, but are not required to use them for
initiatives focused on providers serving children of parents with
limited English proficiency.
[29] 45 CFR §1304.51(c)(2)
[30] 45 CFR §1304.52(g)(2). In fiscal year 2004, the Office of Head
Start found three programs in noncompliance with this performance
standard.
[31] GAO. Head Start: Comprehensive Approach to Identifying and
Addressing Risks Could Help Prevent Grantee Financial Management
Weaknesses, GAO-05-176 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2005).
[32] CCB collects data from states on the race and ethnicity of subsidy
recipients, but these do not allow for identification of CCDF
recipients speaking other languages.
[33] The Head Start program also serves children who are 3 years old.
[34] NCES started following a new cohort of children, starting at
birth, in 2001. However, the data on their experiences in the year
before kindergarten are not expected to be available until 2008.
[35] NCES attempted to verify enrollment for children whose parents
reported that they were in Head Start. While only about half of the
enrollments could be confirmed, NCES concluded that "families with
unconfirmed reports of Head Start participation by their children had
demographic characteristics similar to those of families with confirmed
participation in Head Start. This lends support to the notion that a
substantial proportion of these children had indeed attended Head Start
programs, even though their attendance could not be verified." (Source:
"User's Manual for the ECLS-K Base Year Restricted-use Head Start Data
Files and Electronic Codebook," NCES 2001-025.")
[36] During the focus group recruitment process, mothers were asked a
series of questions to ensure that it was likely that they were
receiving CCDF subsidies or eligible for them (depending upon whether
they were selected for the subsidized or unsubsidized groups), and to
screen out participants in other similar local programs such as state
preschool programs or local subsidy programs. However, states may use
multiple sources to fund their child care assistance programs, and
participants may not know whether the source of their assistance is
federal or state funds. Therefore, it is possible that some of the
government subsidies received by participants were not funded entirely
or at all by CCDF even though the recipients met the criteria for
eligibility.
[37] The regional offices that we contacted were: Region IV (North
Carolina); Region V (Illinois); Region VI (Arkansas); Region IX
(California); and Region X (Washington).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds;
evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
