the arkansas child and adult care food program: a study of...

1

The Arkansas Child and Adult Care Food Program:A Study of Factors

Associated with Program Participation

Yetunde A. Shobo, AnalystRichard A. Huddleston, Research and Fiscal Policy Director

Arkansas Advocates for Children & Families

Paper Prepared for the Food Assistance and NutritionalSmall Grants Conference

October 17-18, 2002

Economic Research ServiceUnited States Department of Agriculture

Washington, D.C.

2

Abstract

Participation in the Child and Adult Care Food program is declining in Arkansas as well as nationally. Various

factors have been identified as possible causes of the decline. The effects of these factors on participation are

examined in this report through different data sources. Administrative data on child care providers and their participation

in CACFP was obtained from the Division of Child care and Early Childhood Education, Arkansas Department of

Human Services. Data were collected during spring and summer of 2002 from child care providers in Arkansas.

This report summarizes findings from all these sources.

Keywords: the Child and Adult Care Food program, CACFP, child care, factors, tiering

3

Executive Summary

The Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) is a federal nutrition education and domestic food assistance

program. The program provides reimbursement for meals provided to children and adults in eligible child and adult

care programs. The intent of the program is to provide a nutritional safety net for low-income children.

In Arkansas, not all child care providers are participating in the program. Some providers are not eligible for the

program, and are of lesser concern to this study. However, there are other providers that are eligible but are not

participating in the program. The objective of this study is to identify factors hindering licensed child care programs

from participating in CACFP.

Administrative data obtained from the Arkansas Department of Human Services’ Division of Child Care and Early

Childhood Education licensing and nutrition database provides rich information for the study. It shows:

♦ Family day care homes (FDCH) make up the greatest percentage of CACFP participants (70%) even

though they constitute less than half of all licensed child care programs. FDCH are licensed to serve a

maximum of 16 children at a time.

♦ On the other hand, due to the difference in eligibility and participation rules child centers make up a minor

percentage of CACFP participants. Child care centers have greater capacities, but constitute around 13%

of all CACFP participants. Other types of child care program are considered in the study.

There are significant geographic variations in the occurrence of certain child care programs’ characteristics and

also in the manifestation of child care and CACFP need across the state. There is unmet child care need in every

area of the state, however there is significant geographic variation in the degree and concentration of unmet need.

♦ Family day care homes are concentrated in the delta or southeastern region of the state. The region as a

whole has lower child care capacity.

♦ Child care centers are concentrated in the central part of the state. The central and northwestern regions

have a higher concentration of providers and higher child care capacity.

♦ Also, the central and northwestern regions of the state are more heavily populated with children than the

delta. Hence, there is a higher child care need in these areas.

♦ However, low income children make up a higher percentage of children in the delta region hence suggest-

ing a higher need for CACFP.

♦ Therefore, child care need is higher in the central and northwestern parts of the state but the delta region

has higher CACFP need because of the high density of low income children.

In addition, a survey of all licensed child care providers was conducted by Arkansas Advocates for Children And

Families in the spring/summer of 2002. One of the general finding of the survey is that a significant proportion of

4

child care providers still do not know about CACFP. In addition, participants that do know about the program do

not know how to apply.

However, a number of providers are not participating in the program because they are not eligible. Most of these

tend to be for-profit programs and programs serving few low-income children. Other programs are not eligible

because they are participating in other federally funded meal program. Also, the survey result suggests that some

eligible programs that are aware CACFP are overwhelmed by eligibility and participation rules.

Factors such as program type, program size, days and hours of operation, perception of the administering agency

all affect providers’ decision to participate to varying degrees. While examining factors that limit participation, it is

imperative to examine factors affecting current providers’ from effectively operating the program. This will suggest

strategies that can be employed to reduce exit rate. Low reimbursement rates and a high volume of paperwork

required for the program are factors that current participants identify as of being of major concern.

Intervention strategies targeted at some of these findings will help reduce the number of providers exiting the

program while encouraging eligible non-participants to consider participating in the program. This will result in

better access to CACFP and more children in Arkansas will be able to benefit from the program.

5

1 Family Child Care Homes and the CACFP: Participation After Reimbursement Tiering

The Arkansas Child and Adult Care Food Program: A Study ofFactors Associated with Program Participation

IntroductionThe Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) is a federal nutrition program of the United States Departmentof Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service’s (FNS). The mission of USDA is to alleviate hunger and tosafeguard the health and nutritional well being of the nation through the administration of nutrition education anddomestic food assistance program. The program was established by Public Law 90-302 in 1968 as a 3-year pilotprogram. In 1972, congress reaffirmed support for this limited assistance by extending the program through 1975.Since then, the program has been available to provide nutritional assistance to children around the nation. Theprogram provides reimbursement for meals provided to children in eligible child care programs. Arkansas startedparticipating in the program in1970. Between 1970 and 1981, the program, known then as the Child Care FoodProgram, was administered by the Regional Office in Dallas. In 1981, Arkansas took over the administration of theprogram, the Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education (DCCECE) of Department of Human Ser-vices now manages the program. In 1987 the adult component of the program was added and the programbecame the Child and Adult Care Food Program. Currently, the program has over 1,085 child care providersparticipating in Arkansas.

In recent years, there have been changes on the federal and state level that have impacted participation rates in theprogram. Changes in reimbursement rates, state participation rules, and the economy have impacted child careproviders to cause serious consequences on children’s participation in the program. The effects of these changeson providers and the children they serve often vary by provider type. A two-level reimbursement system wasintroduced in 1996 to reflect the income of providers and the children they serve. This two-level reimbursementsystem may have been a disincentive to family day care homes (FDCH) serving children from middle-incomehomes because they received a lower reimbursement for meals served to them. This may have unfortunatelyresulted in the exit of some FDCH from CACFP and possibly from the child care business. However, the increasein female employment in the late 1990s created a high demand for child care. Also, the strong economy in the1990s also contributed significantly to the changes recorded in child care providers’ participation in CACFP.1 Allthese external factors could have had significant effect on a program’s decision to participate.

This report focuses on factors affecting child care providers participation. The study involves extensive data collec-tion and analysis. Data was collected from the US Census 2000, and DCCECE’s licensing and CACFP database.To complement this data, a mail survey of licensed child care providers was conducted in the summer of 2002. Thesurvey provides additional information that allows an in-depth analysis of the magnitude of the effect of variousfactors on licensed child care provider’s participation in CACFP. The report examines whether a child care pro-gram structure, type and providers’ perception of different aspects of CACFP influence their participation in theprogram. This report analyzes the effect of these factors on child care providers’ participation in CACFP. Arkan-sas Advocates for Children and Families conducted the study which was made possible by a grant from theSouthern Rural Development Center.

6

The Child and Adult Care Food Program in ArkansasTo further the mission of the Food and Nutrition Service of USDA, CACFP provides reimbursement for food andnutrition education to participating child care providers. Different child care providers such as Head Start centers,family day care homes (FDCH), child care centers, preschools, after-school and summer programs are eligible toparticipate in the program.

The major difference between CACFP and other USDA funded food programs is that a child’s participation istotally dependent on their child care provider’s willingness to participate. Every child in a participating-provider’scare is eligible for the program including the provider’s child (if enrolled in the program). Another important distinctionis that, reimbursement rates for Family Day Care Homes (FDCH) are decided by a host of factors such as parent’sincome, child care provider’s income, and other factors related to program’s location. Unlike most federallyfunded assistance programs, reimbursements for meals served in CACFP are not based solely on parents’ income.

The child care component of the program is limited to children up to age 12 except children of migrant/seasonalfarmers who can participate up to age 15. The program has undergone changes over the years with increasedfocus on its target population, low-income children. The program reimburses non-residential child care and adultcare providers for up to 2 healthful meals and a snack (or 1 meal and 2 snacks) for each child in their care.Reimbursement rates vary by meal type, program type, and income level of children in the program.

Reimbursement Rates for Meals Served in Centers, Family FDCH and After-school Programs2

Per Meal Rates in Whole or Fractions of U.S. Dollars All States Except Alaska and Hawaii

After schoolCenters FDCH

programs

Type of Meal Paid Reduced Free Tier 1 Tier 2Served Price

Breakfast 0.22 0.87 1.17 0.98 0.37

Lunch and0.20 1.74 2.14 1.80 1.09

Supper3

Snack 0.05 0.29 0.58 0.53 0.14 0.58

Table 1Source: United States Department Of Agriculture

2 USDA website. http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Care/ProgramBasics/Rates/CurrentRates.htm3 These rates do not include the value of commodities (or cash-in-lieu of commodities) which institutions receive as additionalassistance for each lunch or supper served to participants under the program. A notice announcing the value of commodities andcash-in-lieu of commodities is published separately in the Federal Register.

7

One of the significant changes in recent years has been the 2-tiered reimbursement for day-care homes based ontheir location or provider’s household income. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity ReconciliationAct (PRWORA) mandated this tiered-system in 1996. The intent of the tiered-system was to refocus the programon low-income children by reimbursing providers at a higher rate for serving low-income children. The tier of eachFDCH is determined by the “income” or “location” rule. The “location rule” allows FDCH located in low-incomeareas to be reimbursed at a higher rate. A low-income area is defined as an area where at least half of the childrenlive in families with incomes below 185% of the poverty guideline, or an area where at least half of the enrolledchildren in the elementary schools are eligible for free or reduced-price meals. The “income” rule allows low-income providers to be reimbursed at a higher rate, tier 1. Tier 2 providers are all those providers that do notqualify as Tier 1. A provider is considered low-income if the provider’s household income is lower than 185% ofthe poverty guideline. Each tier has a different reimbursement rate for each meal type. The reimbursement for Tier1 is similar to what FDCH were receiving prior to PRWORA.4 Tier 2 providers receive a lesser reimbursementrate although tier 2 providers can be reimbursed at tier 1 rate for children from low-income families.

Unlike FDCH, child care centers or other eligible agencies have different participation criteria governing CACFPreimbursement and administration. FDCH are licensed by DCECCE and sponsored by an independent agencythat assumes final financial and administrative responsibility for compliance with federal and state rules governingthe program. The sponsoring agency determines the tier for each day care home based on the “income” or “location”rule. On the other hand, licensed non-profit child care centers may participate independently or under the auspiceof a sponsoring agency. Licensed non-profit child care centers may be a public or private organization. Also, it maybe of any of the following provider type: day care centers, Head Start centers, and outside-school hours carecenters. These programs are reimbursed based on the eligibility of the children they serve in free/reduced-pricedmeals.5 For-profit centers can participate in CACFP if they receive Title XX funds for 25% or more of theirenrolled children or 25% of their licensed capacity, whichever is less.6 In other words, at least a quarter of thechildren they serve they serve must be low income as determined by their eligibility for Title XX dollars. If eligibleto participate, they receive reimbursement in a similar fashion to other non- FDCH programs.

USDA’s FNS administers CACFP through grants to States. The Department of Human Services’ Division ofChild care and Early Childhood Education administers the program in Arkansas. The Division is responsible forguarding against fraud and ensuring that the funds are used to fulfill its intended mission. To achieve this goal eachstate’s administrating agency has some accountability rules in place for participating programs. Arkansas requiresmandatory trainings, audits, and a surety bond for “covered organizations”. Covered organizations7 are programs:

♦ that have been declared seriously deficient8 or♦ that have been excluded from any DHS program under DHS policy 1088 but who have paid penalties and

funds owed in full, or♦ with a fiscal history of less than 36 months.

4 Family Child Care Homes and the CACFP: Participation After Reimbursement Tiering5 Providers are reimbursed at free, reduced or paid level depending on whether the child is living below 133%, 133 – 185% andabove 185% of federal poverty level. Also, see Table 1.6 Child and Adult Care Food Program: Child Care Centers Handbook, Arkansas Department of Human Services.7 Special Nutrition Programs: Child and Adult Care Food Program, Resource Packet8 Definition according to Special Nutrition Programs: Child and Adult Care Food Program, Resource Packet.

8

Surety bonds, valid for at least 3 years, in an amount of at least $25,000 or the organization’s total budget,whichever is more, are required for covered organizations. A $250,000 surety bond is required for coveredsponsoring agencies. Also, providers or sponsors with previous fraud incidents are barred from participating untilthey prove they can comply with the program rules.

Most of these state accountability measures have just recently been implemented. Various new federal initiativeswere implemented in the same time period. All of these have impacted the availability of child care and providers’participation in CACFP in Arkansas.

CACFP ADMINISTRATION

USDA FNS

Division of Child Care andEarly Childhood Education

Child Care Centers Sponsoring Agency

Non-FDCH Child care programs FDCH

Study objective and limitation

The main objective of this study is to explore why day care providers participate or don’t participate in CACFP.This information is obtained from administrative data and self-reported survey results. Some survey respondentsare employees and, in some cases, not the actual decision-maker for their program. To the extent that the respondentis not the administrator for the local CACFP, the survey may not be an accurate reflection of factors hindering orencouraging participation. Very little could have been done to prevent this. However, in FDCH, there is littlechance of the questionnaire being completed without input from the child care director. This may result in betterestimates for FDCH than for large child care centers. Overall, the effect of this will be minimal, as it will most likelyaffect only questions demanding subjective responses, rather than factual program information.

There were 2 survey questionnaires. The survey questionnaires, though quite similar, were designed to reflectparticipation status. In administering the survey based on participating status of child care providers, about 5% ofrespondents were sent questionnaires that did not reflect their participation status. Since most of the questions aresimilar, the responses were adapted to the actual participatory status as stated by the provider. The reason for theDivision having the wrong participation status for some of these providers may be the time lag between a providerenrolling or leaving the program and when the information is entered into the database of the DCCECE database.

9

Also, the Division was in the process of changing its database in the period of this study and this may have stalledor hindered data entry into the old database.

This study of factors affecting providers’ participation was conducted from September 2001 to August 2002. Thestudy also involved data collection from the Division of Child care and Early Childhood Education, ArkansasDepartment of Human Services. DCCECE provided the administrative child care licensing and CACFP data usedin this report.

In addition to the administrative data, Advocates for Children And Families conducted a mail survey of licensedchild care providers in Arkansas in spring/summer of 2002. This provided additional cross sectional information onlicensed child care providers in Arkansas. The names and addresses of child care programs for the mail surveywere obtained from the Division of Child care and Early Childhood Education (DCCECE). In addition to theseprimary data sources, demographic and economic information from the 2000 Census were used in the analysis.

10

Child Care Need in Arkansas

Access to CACFP programs depends to a large extent on the availability of child care programs. In this section,we will explore both areas of need: child care and food assistance through CACFP. In some cases, counties inneed of child care also have limited access to CACFP; in other cases, this may not be the case. In the absence ofany direct data on unmet child care needs, we attempt to estimate areas of the state with the highest unmet need.We estimate this by using 4 demographic and socio-economic factors. Geographical information system analysis isprovided using estimates: of children living in single parent families, children living with employed caregivers, povertyincidence, and the ratio of child care capacity to the child population by area. Similar measures are used forestimating CACFP need. These estimates only provide a geographical comparison across the state. Past researchhas revealed that some children needing child care services lack access to child care services in most areas of thestate.9 There is unmet need in every area of the state. However, the magnitude of this need varies from area to area.

Most of the analysis in this study will distinguish between the delta, the central region and other parts of the state.Map 1 shows the state with the delta area highlighted. Various research have indicated the delta region has a highpercentage of its population living in extreme poverty.10 The area also has very few job opportunities with goodincomes and benefits. The central region (according to this report) of the state includes Pulaski, Saline, Lonoke,Jefferson and Faulkner Counties. This region has a high concentration of the state’s population and has better jobopportunities. The northwestern region of the state also usually reveals a common regional pattern with respect tomost indicators. Counties in the northwestern region (according to this report) are Benton, Washington, and Carroll.

Child care availability varies across the state. Parents in some parts of the state still have problems accessing childcare services. Counties with more low-income jobs, a high incidence of children with employed primary caregivers, a high incidence of children in single-parent families, and a high child poverty incidence are at a greater needfor child care. Too often, they have the least available to them. Although some Arkansas children receive child careservices from informal/unlicensed providers, the analysis in this report is based mainly on licensed child careproviders because no current information exist on the number of unlicensed child care providers in the state.

9 What Every Child Needs: Child Care & Early Childhood Education, Arkansas Kids Count Coalition Bulletin10 Nutrition and Health Status in the Lower Mississippi Delta of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, A review of ExistingData, The Lower Mississippi Delta Nutrition Intervention Research Consortium

11

Map 1

Child care need and poverty in Arkansas

According to the census 2000 survey, 25% of Arkansas children were in families living below 100% of the federalpoverty guideline. Families living in poverty are less likely to be able to afford to pay-out-of pocket for licensedchild care services. Arkansas assists parents with child care funds through programs targeted at needy families.Families can access child care assistance through the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Child CareDevelopment funds, Head Start, Early Head Start, Even Start, Arkansas Better Chance (ABC), and Early SpecialEducation program. However, due to limited child care programs and, at times, limited funds, these programssometimes have a waiting list. Families in need may therefore not be able to get their child care needs met immediately.

Poverty in Arkansas is concentrated in the delta region (see map 2) of the state, suggesting this area may not beable to attract child care providers. Some counties in the southern part of the state also show high poverty incidencein the 5 and under population. Jobs in this part of the state tend to pay low wages. Without subsidized child careservices, parents, especially sole care providers, may be less willing to accept such jobs. According to the 2000census, the median income for the state is $32,182. Map 3 shows only one delta county has a median income at,or above the state average. Counties with median income higher than the state average are concentrated in thecentral and northwestern part of the state. Licensed child care services are almost unaffordable for poor familieswho may need it the most to stay employed.

12

Map 2

Source: Table P87, Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3)

Map 3


13

Child care needs of single-parent families

Although 2-parent families require child care services at some point in time, single parent families are more likely tobe in greatest need. They tend to be the families least able to afford it. Research has shown that the percentage ofchildren in single-parent families, especially female-headed ones, living in poverty has grown nationally in recentyears.11 Also, the percentage of children living in single parent families continues to grow. In Arkansas, the numberof children living with single-parents has followed this national trend. Most of the increase in single-parent familiescan be explained by the increase in births to unmarried mothers and the increase in divorce rate in recent years.12

In Arkansas, the ratio of female-headed single parent family to those that are male-headed is 4 to 1. Single parentsare more likely to need child care services if they are working and have a child under age 5.

Percentage of "Own" Children living with Single Parent

9

12

15

1821

24

27

3033

1990 1999

US

AR Fig. 1


A child’s living situation is a significant determinant of their economic well-being. For a child, 5yrs and under, 51%of those in female-headed families are living below the poverty level compared to 25% in male-headed families,and 9% of those living with both parents. The delta region has the highest concentration of children living in singleparent families, and a high concentration of children in poverty.

Using single-parenthood as a measure of child care need in Arkansas, the southeastern part of the state shows aconcentration of children in single parent families. To the extent that these parents are employed, this area of thestate may exhibit high demand for child care services. Maps 4 and 5 show the distribution of “own”13 children 5and under, and those under age 12 living in single parent homes, respectively. These are children living with onlyone of their biological parents. In Arkansas, 88% of children live with one or both biological parents. These areclassified as “own” children. Approximately 30% of “own” children live with only one parent. As shown in maps 2and 3, there is significant geographical variation in the prevalence of this living arrangement across the state. The

11 2002 Kids Count Data Book, the Annie E Casey Foundation.12 The Changing Faces of Arkansas’ Children, Arkansas Kids Count Bulletin.13 We use “own” children as opposed to all children because there is no information on “single-parenthood” for children in otherfamily types.

14

geographical pattern in the living arrangement of “own” children is quite striking. Most counties in the southeasternor delta region of the state have over 40% “own” children living in single parent families.

Although the preceding analysis seems to suggest that child care needs may be greater for this part of the state, theneed is contingent on the employment status of the parents. Unemployed parents have less of a need for child careservices. The delta region has less job opportunities. The jobs, when available, tend to be lower-income jobs andmay not yield enough income for parents to be able to afford unsubsidized child care services. Few single parentscan afford to accept such jobs without access to subsidized child care services or to informal child care services.Map 3 shows counties in the delta have the lowest median income in year 2000. Therefore, parents, especiallysole-household providers, in this region may least be able to afford to pay out-of-pocket for child care expenses.

Map 4


15

Map 5

Source: P36, Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1)

Child care needs of working parents

In Arkansas, 60.6% of “own” children 5 yrs and under, live in families with employed primary care giver(s)compared to 65.4% of all children (under age 18) according to the 2000 census. This means parents of youngerchildren are more likely to be unemployed, as younger children require more supervised care. However, since weare concerned about child care needs, we will focus on the population 5 yrs and under living with at least one ofboth parents. This population has the highest likelihood of needing child care services.

Children 5 and under in single-parent families are more likely to be living with a working parent. Of all children,ages 5 and under, in a single-parent family, 71.2% live in homes where their primary care giver is employed asopposed to 55% of children living with both parents.

Map 6 and 7 shows the distribution across the state. When we consider all children under 5 whose primary caregiver(s) are employed, there is a high concentration in the central portion of the state. However, when we considerthe subset of children living with only one parent, both the central and the western part of the state show a highconcentration. Only 5 counties in the delta have more than 60.6% of its population 5 and under in families wherethe primary care giver(s) is working. And even though the delta has the highest concentration of single-parentfamilies, only 4 counties in the delta have more than 71.2% of its 5 and under population in homes where theprimary care giver is employed.

16

Map 6


Map 7


17

Child care: program availability versus need

There are 3088 licensed child care programs in Arkansas. This includes after school programs, infant and toddlercare, sick care, pre-school programs and family day care homes. Arkansas has 680,369 children (under age 18),resulting in an average of 220 children per program. However, considering only the target population, the 217,545children ages 5 and under, there are 70 children on average per child care program. These are just averageestimates, not all children will need child care services although child care service is absolutely essential to childrenbelow age 5 with working parents.

As seen in Map 8, the availability of licensed child care providers varies across the state. It varies from 5 licensedchild care programs in Calhoun County to 532 in Pulaski County. The number of child care providers in Pulaski issignificantly higher than any other county; Washington County has the second highest number with 160 licensedproviders. Pulaski County has a high concentration of providers but the county also has a high concentration ofchildren. The county has 17% of child care providers and 13.4% of children in the state. Even though Washington,Benton and Jefferson Counties all have the same percentage of child care providers (5%), they have different childcare needs. these counties contain 5.8%, 6% and 3.3% of the state’s children respectively. As one would expect,there is a significant correlation between geographical concentration of children and that of licensed child careproviders.

Map 8

Source: Day Care System licensing report (DCPL21, DC-4194)

18

In the past sections we have attempted to estimate where the need is greatest in the state. In this section we attemptto match the need with the availability to present an estimate of possible unmet need. Just as the need varies acrossthe state, so does the availability. As a result, the availability of child care does not always match the need for it.Map 9 and 10 shows the density of children across the state by county. The central area of the state is home tomost of the state’s children. Over 13% of Arkansas’ children live in Pulaski County in particular. Not surprisingly,child care providers are concentrated in this central region of the state. The northwestern part of the state alsoshows a high concentration of children and providers. Thus, there is a correlation between counties with high childdensity and those with high child care program density.

Although there is a low density of children in the delta region of the state, child care needs may exist due to differentreasons. The demographic structure and the economic situation of families in the region make access subsidizedchild care a necessity for most employed parents. In addition, the ability to secure jobs that make it affordable forparents to secure licensed child care services is a challenge in the delta region. Even though the region has fewerchildren per child care programs. The programs in the area tend to have a lower capacity. Hence, when the needis compared to the total child care capacity of programs in each area of the state, different areas of need may beidentified.

MAP 9


19

Map 10


Map 11

Source: US Census Data Engine, powered by SRC, LLC

Maps 11 and 12 show the density of the child population and the concentration of providers at the zip code level.

20

Map 12


Child care: program capacity versus need

The preceding analysis was based mainly on program availability; however, child care programs have differentlicensed capacities for serving children. The Division of Child care and Early Childhood Education determines thecapacity of each program based on availability of manpower, facility size, the capacity of sanitary facilities and thereview by the Arkansas Department of Health.14 These criteria are used to determine the capacity of each licensedprogram annually. Family day care homes tend to have lower capacity because state regulation limits them to nomore than 16 children per site. Child care centers vary in size, from those serving 10 children to those serving over200 children. However, Arkansas has very few high capacity child care programs (see table 7).

Maps 12 and 13 compare the population of children 5 and under to the total capacity of child care programs intheir area. The state’s licensed child care programs have a total estimated capacity of close to 127,000. Thisconstitutes only 58% of the 5 and under population; this means, on average, there are 2 children for every childcare spot. Sixteen counties have a capacity higher than this average; surprisingly 6 of these are delta counties. OnlyPulaski County has enough child care capacity to serve all its population 5 and under. On the other hand, child carecapacity constitutes less than a quarter of the 5 and under population in 6 counties. Only one of these is a deltacounty. The western part of the state shows high unmet need. Nearly all the counties in this region have less than thestate average capacity to child ratio.

Analyzing by zip code reveals a similar finding. Although some zip codes in the delta have no child care programsto meet the child care needs of its children, such areas usually have few children and are close to others withrelatively high capacity. Therefore, the need for adequate transportation cannot be over emphasized in such areas.Similar to previous finding, the western part of the state has more zip codes either without a provider or with higherchild to capacity ratio.

14 Minimum Licensing Requirements for FDCH (PUB 001) and Minimum Licensing Requirements for Child Care Centers (PUB002) DCCECE, Arkansas Department of Human Services

21

Map 13

Source: Day Care System licensing report (DCPL21, DC-4194), US Census 2000

Map 14


22

In reality, not all children 5 and under will need child care services. To get a better estimate of unmet need, weexamine only the population 5 and under with working parent(s). This is the population with one parent working inthe case of single parent families or both parents working in the case of married couple families.

Own Children Living with Employed Caregiver(s) Population 5 Working and under parent(s) Percent

Married couple families 142,286 78,420 55.1

Single parent families 63,804 45,427 71.2

Total 206,090 123,847 60.1Table 2Source: Table P46, Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3)

Children in single parent homes are more likely to have employed primary caregivers. As seen in table 2, 71.2% ofchildren in single parent families have an employed parent while 55.1% of children in married couple families haveboth parents working. At least 60.1% of the population 5 and under in Arkansas will require child care services. Inaddition, children with unemployed parents too may need child care services from time to time. Unemployedparents seeking employment for example, may need child care services while attending job interviews.

Focusing on the population 5 and under with employed caregiver(s), there are less than 1 child care spot to everychild whose primary caregiver(s) is employed. This is a state average and there is significant variance betweencounties. Nineteen counties have a lower child care capacity than would be required to serve all of their 5 andunder populaton with employed care giver(s). The unmet need in the remaining 56 counties depends on the numberof children 5 and under with unemployed primary care-giver(s) and children of other ages (>5yrs) competing forchild care services. Also, children who are living with neither of their parents were not considered in this analysisbecause there is no information yet on the employment breakdown of the caregivers of such children. Analysis of“own” children focuses on 88% of Arkansas’ children. Map 15 shows the distribution of unmet/met need acrossthe state. Once again, the western part of the state shows high unmet need. The delta region and Pulaski Countyappears to have sufficient child care capacity to meet the needs of their populations 5 and under with workingparent(s).

23

Map 15


Summary of Findings♦ There is unmet child care need in Arkansas; the magnitude of need varies across the state.

♦ The highest concentration of unmet child care need is in the western part of the state.

♦ Families with children 5 and under in the central part of the state are more likely to be employed

compared to other parts of the state, for single parent families this is seen in the central and northwestern

counties

♦ Child care capacity in the delta appears almost adequate to cater to the need children with working

caregiver(s). Families with children 5 and under in the delta are more likely to have unemployed

caregiver(s) compared to other parts of the state.

All the above findings beg the question of child care need versus being able to pay for and access the

services.

24

Child and Adult Care Food Program in Arkansas

To participate in CACFP in Arkansas, a child care program has to be licensed. There are additional eligibilityrequirements set by the state and federal government. The number of providers and children participating in theprogram in Arkansas has fluctuated in recent years. Even though average daily attendance in the program grewsignificantly between 1996 and year 2000, most of the growth was lost in 2001. Since the late 1990s recorded aflurry of policy changes, it is difficult to determine which of the changes has had the most effect on participation.

Average Daily Attendance

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Arkansas 20,654 23,663 23,096 24,707 24,737 22,642

US 2,415,186 2,471,627 2,600,561 2,670,338 2,735,116 2,708,127

Table 3Source: Family Child Care Homes and the CACFP: Participation After Reimbursement Tiering

Although providers’ participation in CACFP has been gradually declining, the average number of children servedby the program has not been affected significantly. Table 3 shows average daily attendance in CACFP increaseduntil quite recently. Between year 2000 and 2001, average daily attendance dropped by 8.5% in Arkansas. Thenational decline was only 1% for this same period. The overall growth nationally is higher than the growth recordedin Arkansas. However, between 1996 and 2001, the overall growth in average daily attendance nationally was12.1% while Arkansas recorded only a 9.6% growth. The table also reveals unexplained fluctuation in the trend forthe state. This fluctuation may need further investigation.

Nationally 2.7 million children were served in fiscal year 2001; Arkansas served 23,759 or 0.8% of these. In thesame fiscal year, $1.5 billion was spent nationally; $16 million or over 1.1% of this was reimbursement to Arkan-sas’ child care providers.

25

Average Daily Attendance in CACFP in Arkansas

18000

19000

20000

21000

22000

23000

24000

25000

26000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Att

end

ance

Fig. 2Source: Family Child Care Homes and the CACFP: Participation After Reimbursement TieringWebsite of Food and Nutrition Service of USDA (http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/cccurren.htm)

CACFP need in Arkansas

Unmet child care needs have obvious implications for CACFP participation because only licensed providers canparticipate in CACFP. Are the 1,085 licensed child care providers currently participating in the CACFP sufficientto meet the needs of Arkansas’ children? Better still, how accessible is CACFP program in areas with the mostvulnerable population? Family day care homes constitute a significant proportion of the programs participating inCACFP. This is not surprising, as FDCH have less stringent eligibility requirements for licensing and CACFPparticipation. FDCH tend to serve more low-income children, the primary population focus of CACFP. Thesehomes are licensed to serve a maximum of 16 children. As will be shown later, child care centers tend to have alarger capacity but a lower CACFP participation rate.

To estimate the need for CACFP in the state, we compare the capacity of programs participating in CACFP to thetotal child care capacity (map 15). On average, CACFP capacity is only 37% of licensed child care programscapacity in the state. However, CACFP makes up less than 37% of child care capacity in around a third of countiesin the state.

The maps below reveal a surprising finding. Counties with higher unmet child care needs are not the same as thosewith the highest proportion of children lacking access to CACFP. Close to a fifth of child care providers arelocated in the central part of the state, also most of the state’s child population is concentrated in this area. How-ever, as seen in the map 16, less than 30% of children in licensed child care programs have access to CACFP in thecentral region of the state. Thirty-one to sixty-three percent of children receiving child care in the delta counties canaccess CACFP.

26

Map 16

Source: Day Care System licensing report (DCPL21, DC-4194), Special Nutrition Program unit, DCCECE

Map 17 provides greater detail on the population with possible CACFP needs. It compares the population ofChildren (5 and under) in poverty to the CACFP capacity. CACFP defines low-income as living below 185%FPL. This analysis uses 100% FPL because the estimates for 185% of poverty are not available. If using 100%FPL reveals a need, then using 185% FPL will only reveal more need.

In Arkansas, CACFP capacity can meet the need of only 45.4% of the population of children under 12 livingbelow 100% FPL (map 18) and 87.7% of low-income children 5 and under (map 17). It is not surprising that thedelta region shows a high CACFP unmet need for its low-income children since a high percentage of children in thedelta are low-income. Half of the delta counties do not have the CACFP capacity to meet the need of 37% of low-income children less than 12 years of age.

In conclusion, less than half of the total child care population can access CACFP. Most of the low-income childrenin the state cannot access CACFP. Although the program is targeted at low-income children, the program servesall children. In Arkansas, the capacity of programs participating in CACFP make up only 45.4% of the populationof children (under 12) below 100% FPL. Hence even the most needy children cannot access the program. TheCACFP capacity across the state is extremely insufficient to meet the need of its target population (children under12 living below 185% FPL) should all this population need this program. Although there are unmet needs in allareas of the state, the delta, due to its low family income has high need for CACFP. Counties in the delta show alow CACFP to child care capacity and a low CACFP to low-income children ratio. This finding of severe CACFPneed is because delta counties have more low-income children that are eligible for CACFP and more low capacitychild care providers participating in CACFP. This problem is, however, not limited to the delta. Many low-incomechildren across the state lack access to CACFP.

27

Map 17

Source: Special Nutrition Program unit, DCCECE, US Census 2000

Map 18

Source: Special Nutrition Program unit, DCCECE, US Census 2000

28

Family Day Care HomesFamily day care homes make up the largest proportion of CACFP participants in Arkansas. They comprise closeto 70% of CACFP providers even though they make up less than half of all licensed providers. Most of thechanges in the number of child care providers participating in CACFP can be explained by the changes in thenumber of FDCH. In 1978, public law 95-627 was enacted to encourage FDCH’ participation. The most signifi-cant aspect of this law on FDCH was the elimination of a means test or the establishment of a single reimbursementrate for each meal type served in day care homes. This resulted in a significant reduction in paperwork required ofFDCH thus encouraging participation, the desired goal. The other outcome of this law was the program slowlyshifted to serving more middle and high-income children since FDCH received the same reimbursement regardlessof the income level of children served. To correct this trend, 1996 PRWORA established the current two-tierstructure of meal reimbursement for FDCH.

Family day care homes are concentrated in certain parts of the state. In 10 counties they make up more than 60%of the child care programs. They make up the majority of child care providers in the delta counties. They are lesswidespread in the central part of the state.

Map 19


29

Map 20


According to the data available (see table 4), there has been significant fluctuation in the total number of licensedFDCH and licensed FDCH participating in CACFP. Most of the increase in the total number of licensed FDCH in1996 resulted from a state enhancement/improvement grant program. This provided an incentive for FDCH to belicensed and may have affected the number of those participating in CACFP. Also, some federal grants for capacitybuilding were made available to sponsors in this period. The number of licensed FDCH participating in CACFPincreased significantly between 1989 and 1993. Between 1991 and 1992, the number of licensed FDCH partici-pating in CACFP nearly doubled. However, in 1993 the number fell for FDCH participating in CACFP by close to200 while the total number of licensed FDCH nearly doubled in the same year. Since then the number of day careprograms participating in CACFP has been declining gradually except for the recent increase recorded in 1998.The number of total licensed FDCH shows more fluctuation. While the state grant program in the early to mid1990s may have encouraged FDCH to become licensed, onsite visitation to registered day care homes to ensurecompliance with licensing rules commenced around 1996. This may have resulted in the sharp decline from 1995to 1996. The trend in Arkansas is not representative of the national trend. Nationally, apart from a slight decline in1996, there were consistent increases in the total number of license FDCH throughout this period. Overall, thedata suggests the downward trend in CACFP participation by FDCH in Arkansas preceded the two-tier system.Other important factors must exist to explain this decrease.

30

Family Daycare Homes in Arkansas

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Family homesparticipating

Total familyhomes

Fig 3Source: Family Child Care Homes and the CACFP: Participation After Reimbursement Tiering

Family Day Care Homes’ and Sponsors’ Participation in CACFP

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Sponsors 11 13 18 23 24 22 18 19 16 17

FDCH 388 638 802 1156 1517 1330 1123 1107 989 1100participating

Total FDCH 583 590 959 1603 1603 3112 3056 1345 1559 1867

% Of FDCH 66.6 108.1 83.6 72.1 94.6 42.7 36.7 82.3 63.4 58.9participating

Table 4Source: Family Child Care Homes and the CACFP: Participation After Reimbursement Tiering

31

Analysis of Licensing and CACFP Database

Program characteristics and participation

The following analyses are based on information in the child care licensing and CACFP administrative databases.The child care licensing database is maintained separately from the nutrition program’s database. Although bothdatabases are kept by DCCECE, different units of the division are responsible for each database. However, bothdatabases contain similar fields like facility license number or program name. To the extent that entry error is at aminimum in both databases, entries can be matched to allow a deeper analysis. The licensing database containsmost of the provider information while the nutrition database gives an indication of programs’ participation inCACFP. As with any administrative data, there are some human errors. Also, both databases provide only cross-sectional data for the particular date on which each data request report was run.

As of May 2002 there were 3,088 licensed child care providers in Arkansas. Thirty-five percent or 1,085 of thesewere participating in the CACFP program. This is an unduplicated estimate. However, due to the way the data isentered and maintained in the agency’s database, part of the following analysis was conducted using unduplicatedcounts while other parts had to be conducted using duplicated counts. The duplicated count results in 3,483 childcare providers, indicating an estimated duplication rate of 13%.15 We will examine the effect of different character-istics of child care program on CACFP participation below.

Program Type and ParticipationTo examine the effect of program type we use the duplicated count data. This is because most programs havemultiple license types. The different provider types are day care homes, day care centers, infant and toddler care,sick-care and school-age programs. For example an infant and toddler program may also be an after-schoolprogram. At most 13% of the programs have more than one license type since table 5 shows 3,483 program typesas opposed to the 3088 licensed child care programs. FDCH are the least likely to have multiple licenses henceusing the duplicated data may result in an under-estimation of this program type. The analysis reveals the likelihoodof the different program type to participate in CACFP. Participation rates vary significantly by type of program,from 0 in sick care and out-of-states programs to 73.8% in FDCH with less than 16 children. On the average,29.2% of the 3483 types of programs participate in CACFP.

In spite of the under-representation of FDCH due to multi-type programs, they are still the most likely to partici-pate in the CACFP program. FDCH make up 70% of CACFP child care participants even though they constituteonly 30.5% of all licensed child care programs in the state. This indicates FDCH are more likely to participate inCACFP compared to any other program type. This disparity in participation rate may be as a result of differencein participation and eligibility rules.

Approximately 68% of the 1,063 licensed FDCH participate in CACFP. FDCH with more than 5 children aremore likely to participate in CACFP; the probabilities are 0.7 in programs with less than 16 children compared to0.5 in those with less than 5 children. That is, 7 in 10 FDCH serving as many as 16 children will participate inCACFP compared to 5 in 10 of those serving less than 5 children.

Day care centers, for the purpose of this analysis, are child care centers providing care to children above 3 yearsof age. Day care centers make up a minor proportion of CACFP participants. Day care centers make up 13% of

15 Duplication rate= (3482-3088)*100/3088

32

CACFP child care participants. Only 10.8% of the 1,235 day care centers in Arkansas participate in CACFP. Itis not known whether the remaining 89.2% day care centers participate in other federally funded nutrition pro-grams. Those affiliated with elementary schools indicated in the survey that they participate in other federallyfunded nutrition programs.

There are 845 infant and toddler programs in Arkansas. These programs provide care to children birth to 36months. Approximately 15% of all programs categorized as infant and toddler participate in CACFP. They consti-tute 12.3% of total CACFP participants.

School-age programs are those providing child care services to children who are in kindergarten and above. Thisincludes programs providing before and after school care, summer and school holidays programs. There are 326of such programs in Arkansas. Around 15% of school-age programs participate in CACFP. They make up only4.7% of CACFP participants.

Sick care programs are separate services providing care for children who are too sick to attend day care, but whodo not have an infectious disease as defined by the DCCECE. The database shows only one child care programlicensed as a sick care program. The program does not participate in CACFP. Also, there are 13 out of stateprograms that are licensed to provide child care services to Arkansas’ children. None of these participate inCACFP in Arkansas.

Not % % ofProgram Types Participating Participating Total Participating Participants

FDCH (<16 children) 213 600 813 73.8 58.4

Voluntarily registered homes131 119 250 47.6 11.6with (<5 children)

All FDCH 344 719 1063 67.6 70.0

Day care Centers 1102 133 1235 10.8 13.0

Infant and Toddlers 720 125 845 14.8 12.3

School-age, after school278 48 326 14.7 4.7or summer program

Sick care 1 0 1 0 0.0

Out of state 13 0 13 0 0

Total 2458 1025 3483 29.2 100

Table 5Source: Day Care System licensing report (DCPL21, DC-4194)

33

Program Categories and ParticipationThe previous analysis examined CACFP participation using the type of child care provided (family day carehomes, day care centers etc.) and type of children served (infants and toddlers, schoolage, etc.). The Division’slicensing database includes another classification system. The classifications are Head Start, Center-based, home-based, church-operated, church-operated/exempt, employer-based, private non-profit, private for-private, publicnon-profit, and school programs. Each program is designated by the category that best explain what the programis about; hence multi-type programs are categorized as whichever category best reflects the program. This flawcomplements the duplicated data on provider-type. Although limited inference can be made using these categories,when both data are examined, it provides the upper and lower bounds for our likelihood estimates.

Head Start programs

Most Head Start centers participate in CACFP in a similar fashion to FDCH. The Head Start central offices act asthe program sponsor, thus assuming final responsibility for the administrative requirements of CACFP. There are20 Head Start, early Head Start and/or migrant/seasonal farm worker Head Start central offices in Arkansas. Thefollowing table shows only 2 head start programs participate in CACFP. In reality, many more Head Start centersare participating. This gross undercount can be explained by the fact that, in most cases, the CACFP databaseincludes only the central Head Start offices but not the individual Head Start programs. Furthermore, some HeadStart central offices have multiple categories; some may be categorized as non-profit, others for-profit and othersyet another category. To resolve this issue, the survey data is introduced. The survey reveals at least 8 of thesecentral offices have programs participating in CACFP. The eight central offices, representing more than 80 HeadStart programs serving over 7,000 children identified their program as a CACFP participant in the survey.

Center-based programs

According to this categorization, 12.3% of center-based programs participate in CACFP. They make up 10.6%of CACFP participants. Due to the single category used to identify each program, we have fewer programsidentified as centers compared to the previous table but they make approximately the same proportion of CACFPparticipants.

Home-based programs

Table 6 shows there are 1336 home-based programs. Although, this is significantly higher than the estimate in theprevious table, CACFP participants make up approximately the same proportions of licensed home-based pro-grams as identified above. However, they make up a larger proportion of CACFP participants, 83.8%. This is notsurprising as they are the least likely to be multi-type and therefore may have been under-represented in theprogram type table.

Church-operated programs

There are a total of 271 licensed church-operated child care programs in Arkansas. The church-operated exemptprograms are those that are exempted from paying the licensure fee. Altogether, church-operated programs makeup 2.9% of CACFP participants.

34

Non-profit programs

Seventy-three programs are categorized as non-profit; 43 are public non-profit programs while 30 are privateprograms. In total, non-profit programs make up 1.2% of CACFP participants. The data suggests public non-profit programs are more likely than private non-profits to participate in CACFP. Public non-profit programs aregovernment-run programs. As a result they are more likely to know about and be able to operate the program.

Private for-profit programs

There are 45 private for-profit child care programs in Arkansas. Only 3 of these participate in CACFP making up0.3% of CACFP participants. This is not a surprising finding. For-profit programs are less likely to be participatingin CACFP because they have more stringent eligibility requirements. Only for-profit programs receiving Title XXfunds for more than 25% of its enrolled children (or its licensed capacity) can participate in CACFP.

School-based programs

There are a total of 195 licensed school-based programs providing child care services in Arkansas. The datasuggests only 11 of these participate in CACFP. They make up approximately 1% of CACFP participants. Mostnon-participating school-based programs indicated in the survey that they are participating in the National SchoolLunch Program.

Not % % ofparticipating Participating Total Participating participants

Home- based 426 910 1336 68 83.8

Center-based 823 115 938 12.3 10.6

Church-operated 232 31 263 11.8 2.9

Church-operated8 0 8 0 0.0

exempt

All church-operated 240 31 271 11.4 2.9

School-based 184 11 195 5.6 1.0

Public non-profit 35 8 43 18.6 0.7

Private, non-profit 25 5 30 16.7 0.5

Private, for-profit 42 3 45 6.7 0.3

Head Start 226 2 228 0.9 0.2

Employer-based 2 0 2 0 0.0

2008 1085 3088 35 100

Table 6Source: Day Care System licensing report (DCPL21, DC-4194)

35

Participation by Program SizeSmaller programs have a higher likelihood of participating in CACFP. These programs tend to be FDCH. Eventhough FDCH are more likely to be unlicensed and may constitute a large proportion of informal care because oflicensing requirements, they make up a significant proportion of CACFP participants.Programs with less than 10 children are most likely to participate in CACFP. Participation rates drop for programswith 51 to 100 children and starts increasing again for programs with more than 100 children. However, there arevery few programs with more than 100 children in Arkansas hence they make up a small proportion of CACFPparticipants. Programs with less than 50 children make up close to 90% of CACFP participants.

10 and 11 - 50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201-300 300+ Totalunder

Not participating 387 881 482 148 67 29 8 2007

Participating 746 223 68 27 13 6 2 1085

Total 1133 1104 550 175 80 35 10 3087

% Participating 65.7 20 12.4 15.4 16.3 17.1 20 35

% of participants 68.9 20.4 6.3 2.5 1.2 0.6 0.2 100Table 7Source: Day Care System licensing report (DCPL21, DC-4194)

CACFP Participation by County and Zip CodeMapping child care availability and CACFP participation reveals some geographical pattern. County analysissignificantly masks the variation within each county. Using only the county participation information, we couldreadily conclude that all children in particular counties have good access to child care providers participating inCACFP. This would, however, not be a good measure of access to children to CACFP. The zipcode analysis ofCACFP participation shows a significant number of zipcodes around the state do not have any child care providerparticipating in CACFP.

Similar to the county participation map, there is a high concentration of CACFP providers in the central andnorthwestern part of the state. However, previous analysis in this report has revealed that the delta region has ahigher percentage of single and/or low-income parents who are at a greater need for CACFP. Ten of the sixteencounties in the delta have less than 44% of their child care providers participating in CACFP. In addition, mostdelta counties have less than 1.5% of all CACFP participants in Arkansas. On the other hand, most delta countieshave fewer children per CACFP participants.

A significant number of zipcodes across the state do not have a CACFP program. Most of these zipcodes aresparsely populated overall and therefore may have few children. This suggests there is a need for transportation toand from neighboring CACFP programs. However, parents maybe unaware of the program and those who knowabout the program may not be willing to drive the distance. The administering agency may need to target outreachefforts to providers located in particular counties or zipcodes so that the children who need the program can accessit.

36

Map 21

Source: Day Care System licensing report (DCPL21, DC-4194) & Special Nutrition Program, DCCECE

Map 22


37

Map 23


Map 24

Source: Day Care System licensing report (DCPL21, DC-4194), US Census 2000 & Special Nutrition Program, DCCECE

38

Map 25

Source: Day Care System licensing report (DCPL21, DC-4194), US Census 2000 & Special Nutrition Program, DCCECE

Summary of Findings♦ FDCH have the highest participatory rate, followed by day care centers, infant and toddler programs

and school-age program respectively. For-profit programs are the least likely to participate in CACFP.

♦ Smaller programs have a higher likelihood of the program participating in CACFP.

♦ Delta counties have fewer children per CACFP provider but these counties have a higher proportion

of children in low-income and single parent families. Therefore, they have significantly more needy

children compared to the other parts of the state.

♦ Just like the distribution of child care providers, CACFP providers are concentrated in the central and

western part of the state.

39

Survey of Factors Affecting Participation

The purpose of the survey of Arkansas child care providers was to identify obstacles to CACFP participation andto build on the findings from the administrative database analysis. The survey (see appendix for survey questionnaires)included questions on program characteristics, provider’s perception of CACFP, its administration and otherrelated issues. Respondents returned the survey anonymously and therefore cannot be linked to the administrativedata. However, survey data can be used to complement the administrative data.

The survey questionnaires were mailed to approximately 3,000 licensed child care providers in the state. Therewere two questionnaire types, one for licensed child care providers participating in CACFP and one for non-participants. To a large extent, questions in the questionnaires were similar for comparison purposes but two orthree questions were specific to their participation status. Of the 3,000 questionnaires, 932 were returned, 12 ofthese were incomplete and 12 were from central program offices/sponsors. The 12 central offices/sponsor responsesduplicate some of the individual providers’ responses. For this reason, the 12 questionnaires from the centraloffices/sponsors were not included in the analysis. The following analysis is based on the participation surveycompleted by 908 providers in spring/summer 2002. Fifty-nine percent or 534 of the respondents participate inCACFP. The analysis examines five main issues that could not be obtained from the administrative data.

Adequacy of reimbursement

Survey respondents were asked whether CACFP reimbursement rate for meals is adequate to cover the programcost. Reimbursement varies with program type and tier level (see table 1). Each respondent’s reply is based ontheir program’s food cost and reimbursement. Most child care providers currently participating in the programanswered this question while few non-participants responded to the question. This is not surprising because non-participants are less likely to be familiar with the method and schedule of payments

Forty-seven percent of those responding to the question reported that the current CACFP reimbursement isadequate to cover their cost. Forty-five percent say current reimbursement is not adequate, while 7% do not knowwhether it is adequate. Breaking this down by participation status, 50% percent of current participants thinkCACFP reimbursement is adequate while 48% think it is not adequate.

On the other hand, 33% of non-participants feel CACFP reimbursement is adequate, 34% think it is not while33% do not know whether it is adequate. CACFP participants are more likely to know about the adequacy ofCACFP reimbursement. Although the majority of the participant respondents think CACFP reimbursement isadequate, this is only 2% more than those who think it is inadequate.

Therefore, even if adequacy of reimbursement may not be a significant deciding factor in program participation, asthe data implies, it may affect CACFP operation for those currently participating in the program. When providerswere asked what they would like their reimbursement rate to be, 117 or 22% of current participants respondingwanted a higher reimbursement than what they are currently receiving. The increase suggested ranged from 5 centsto $1.88 per child per meal. On average participants desiring an increase want CACFP daily reimbursement to beincreased by $1.13 per child.

Although we cannot conclude that provider’s perception about the adequacy of CACFP reimbursement has asignificant effect on decision to participate, it does suggest that a significant proportion of current participants arenot satisfied with current reimbursement rates. This finding is revisited in the question identifying challenges toCACFP participation and operation.

40

Adequacy of Reimbursement

No response Don’t know Adequate Inadequate Total

Non-participant 246 42 42 44 374

Participant 34 1 254 245 535

Total 280 43 296 289 908Table 8Source: Survey of Factors affecting participation, AACF, 2002

Satisfaction with administrating agency

A child care provider’s perception of the CACFP administrative agency may affect their decision to participate inthe program. In Arkansas, the Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education (DCCECE) administers theprogram. The Division also licenses child care providers in the state. Since a provider has to be licensed toparticipate in CACFP, each provider would have had some interaction with the Division prior to making anydecision about CACFP participation.

In previous years, a child care provider learned about the program when they became licensed but no follow upwas provided. In recent years this has changed. Now the Division sends brochures to each newly licensed programand follows up with interested providers. Although the Division may initiate the process with a family day carehome, the provider has to apply through a sponsor. The sponsor provides subsequent training, site visits andtechnical assistance. Hence FDCH participating in CACFP are more likely to have more interaction with theirsponsor than with the Division unlike other CACFP participants.

Survey respondents were asked how satisfied they were with the training, visits and technical assistance providedby the administering agency. Thirteen percent of survey respondents left the question unanswered, while an additional13% don’t know whether they are satisfied with the Division. Thirty-seven percent of those responding to thequestion are “very satisfied” with the Division. An additional 42% are “satisfied” with the Division. This indicatesthat 79% of those responding to the question are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the Division. Not surprisingly,seventy-five percent of these are CACFP participants. It is important to note that all the 12 sponsor/central officeswhose responses are not included in the analysis are either “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the agency.

Four percent and two percent of those who responded to the question indicated they are “unsatisfied” and “veryunsatisfied” with the training, visits and technical assistance provided by the administering agency. Non-participantsmake up 61% of those unsatisfied and very unsatisfied.

Fifty-two percent of non-participants either answered “don’t know” or didn’t respond to this question comparedto 8.5% of participants. Altogether current participants make up close to two-thirds of those who responded tothis question indicating non-participants may have limited contact with the agency. Since CACFP participantsconstitute a large percentage of those satisfied with the agency, we can infer that satisfaction with the agency mayhave influenced their decision to participate in CACFP. However, satisfaction may also develop over time especiallywith more frequent contact with the agency. Also, non-participants make up the larger proportion of those unsatisfiedwith the agency. This may have influenced their decision not to participate. Although, the effect of child careproviders’ perception of DCCECE does not seem to individually be of significant influence on providers’ decisionto participate in CACFP, it may affect a provider’s decision to participate when coupled with other factors.

41

Satisfied DHS No Don’t Very Very

response know satisfied Satisfied Unsatisfied Unsatisfied Total

# # % # % # % # % # % #

Non-participants 101 93 34.1 41 15 111 40.7 22 8.1 6 2.2 374

Participants 17 28 5.4 252 48.8 218 42.2 10 1.9 8 1.6 533

118 121 15.3 293 37.1 329 41.7 32 4.1 14 1.8 907Table 9Source: Survey of Factors affecting participation, AACF, 2002

Challenges hindering participation or program operation

A total of 17 distinct challenges to CACFP participation were included in the survey questionnaire. Most respon-dents identified multiple challenges hindering their current administration of the program (for current participants) ortheir participation in the program (for non-participants). The non-participant questionnaire included 13 of thesechallenges while that of current participants included 10. Six of these challenges were common to both groups andboth groups had an “other” category. Hence, the response of both groups will be considered when analyzing these6 common challenges. The other 11 obstacles or challenges will be examined for each affected group.

The 4 most identified distinct challenges in descending order are low reimbursement, having too many rules, notknowing about the program, and having to complete too much paperwork. Low reimbursement rate tops the listwith 241 respondents. More than 100 respondents identified each of the other 3 challenges. A lot of respondentsalso identified other challenges.

Although the administering agency provides some information on CACFP during the licensing process, someproviders reported they do not know about the program. Thirty-eight percent of non-participants responded thatthey do not know about CACFP. Non-participating FDCH make up a 92% percentage of these respondents. InArkansas, most FDCH do not know the program by its name. Rather they identify it with a particular sponsoragency. A number of day care providers participating in the program called to find out if CACFP was different fromthe nutrition programs in which they are currently participating. It is therefore not surprising that this is mainly a daycare home problem.

In addition, 24% of non-participant respondents say they do not know how to apply to the program or the processis too difficult. Forty-two percent of these non-participant respondents had also indicated they do not know aboutthe program in a previous question.

Only fourteen percent of non-participant respondents say their programs are ineligible to participate in CACFP.Approximately half of these are for-profit child care centers compared with 13% who are non-profit programs.Child care centers make up 77% of those who say their program is ineligible to participate in CACFP.

The current reimbursement rate was identified as a major obstacle to operating CACFP for participants andparticipating in the program for non-participants. Of the 6 common challenges to participants and non-participants,low reimbursement rate was the most cited as a major challenge. Twenty-six percent of respondents identified the

42

inadequacy of current CACFP reimbursement as a deterrent. Eighty-five percent of these had indicated in aprevious question that the reimbursement is not adequate.

Less than 8% of non-participant respondents identified this as one of the reasons why they are not participating inthe program. On the other hand, 40% of participant respondents reported this is a major challenge to operatingCACFP program. Participants make up 88% of those who see reimbursement as a challenge to CACFP partici-pation or operation.

Six percent or 32 participants said their CACFP reimbursement/payment is not timely and this is a major challengein operating the program. Twenty-five or 78% of these are FDCH. Payment to FDCH are made by sponsors whoare mandated to disburse the money no later than 5 days after it is received from the administering agency. Theproblem could be with the sponsor or the administering agency. The sponsors may be receiving the money late orthey may be late in disbursing it. To ensure CACFP fulfills its mission, the state and federal government haveimplemented many accountability measures over the years. Sixteen percent of all respondents say there are toomany rules in the program. Over 60% of these are current CACFP participants. Therefore, while too many rulesmay not significantly hinder participation, it is a major challenge to current participants.

The lack of manpower or staff is not a significant determinant of providers’ participation. Only around 4% of allrespondents claim they do not have enough staff to operate or participate in CACFP. According to the responseobtained from the survey, the lack of skilled staff is not a significant hindrance to participation or operation ofCACFP. Although slightly more non-participants felt their staff lacked the skills or the training necessary to operatethe program, overall very few respondents felt this was a problem. Less than 4% of all respondents reported lackof skilled staff as a challenge to operating or participating in the program. The corresponding percentage byparticipation status is 2% and 5% for participants and non-participants.

In general Arkansas is a poor state, with more than a third of its children qualifying for federal assistance throughvarious programs. It is not surprising that few respondents felt that having enough low-income children or adult inlocal area was an obstacle to qualifying for CACFP. Although double the percentage of non-participants identifiedthis as an obstacle compared to participants, ratio 7.7 to 3, overall just 5% of respondents identified this as apossible challenge to their program.In Arkansas, accessing a sponsor this does not seem to be a hindrance to Family Day Care Homes’ participationin CACFP. There are 12 sponsors in the state. Only 2 non-participants identified access to a sponsor as a hin-drance to their participating in the program. The administering agency does not encourage switching sponsorsexcept in very serious cases. In such cases, a child care program has to leave CACFP for 3 months to be able tochoose another sponsor.

Twelve percent of child care programs currently not participating in CACFP do not want to operate a foodprogram. However, most respondents identifying this as a reason for non-participation also identified other rea-sons.

Very few providers are not participating because of the agency administering CACFP. Four percent of all non-participants said they were not participating because they did not want to work with the state agency that admin-isters the program.

Close to 4% of all respondents report “serving enough children so as not to lose money” as a challenge. Thecorresponding percentages for non-participants and participants are 2.9% and 4.5%. This problem of having

43

“enough” children may be in-terms of economies of scale but it could also be a case of serving enough low-incomechildren to receive a higher reimbursement.

Eight percent of non-participants versus 1% of participants say they don’t have the facilities to serve food. Cur-rently, some participants have their food catered by agencies working with schools or other private entities. Forcenters with multiple sites, the food may be prepared in one site and delivered to other sites.

Approximately 1.3% of participants said they do not receive enough support, guidance, training or technicalassistance from state agency administering CACFP and that this poses a challenge to operating the program.

The amount of paperwork required to operate CACFP is a major challenge to most current participants. Close toa quarter of participants who responded to the survey said there is “too much paperwork to complete”. A quarterof non-participants identified some other reason for not participating apart from those listed in the survey; thecorresponding percentage is 9% for participants.

44

Challenges to program Non participants Participantsparticipation or operation # % # % Total

Reimbursement/payment mealrate for CACFP is too low tocover our costs 29 7.8 212 39.7 241

Other 97 25.9 48 9 145

Too many rules or it is too much trouble to be in the program

57 15.2 86 16.1 143

Didn’t know about the program 142 38 142

Too much paperwork to complete 126 23.6 126

Don’t know how to apply or theapplication process is too difficultto participate in CACFP

90 24.1 90

Program/center is not eligible toparticipate in CACFP

53 14.2 53

Don’t want to operate a foodprogram

47 12.6 47

Not enough children or adults inlocal area qualify for the CACFPprogram

29 7.8 18 3.4 47

Don’t have enough staff toparticipate in the program

27 7.2 13 2.4 40

Don’t have the facilities to servethe food

31 8.3 6 1.1 37

Can’t serve enough children tonot lose money

11 2.9 24 4.5 35

Reimbursement/payment is nottimely 32 6 32

Current staff don’t have skills ortraining to participate in theprogram

20 5.3 11 2.1 31

Don’t want to work with the stateagency (DHS) that oversees theprogram

16 4.3 16

Don’t receive enough support,guidance, training or technicalassistance from state agencyadministering CACFP

7 1.3 7

Can’t get a program sponsor 2 0.5 2

Total respondents 374 100 534 100 908

Table 10Source: Survey of Factors affecting participation, AACF, 2002

45

Fund Source

Child care providers obtain funds from different sources to fund their program. Most programs obtain privatepayment to provide child care services, this is usually in the form of parents paying for the child care services theirchildren receive. Providers who are not currently participating in CACFP are more likely to be receiving privatepayments than current participants. This difference is slightly significant at 5% level of significance. The ratio is 66to 59 for non-participants to participants.

Child care subsidies such as Transitional Employment Assistance (TEA) child care payment are the next mostcommon source of child care monies. This funding stream is accessed in equal proportion by both participants andnon-participants. Thirty-five percent of both participants and non-participants receive funds from this avenue.

Medicaid, Arkansas Better Chance Program (ABC) state funds, employer reimbursement and Head Start fundsare other fund sources in descending order of occurrence.

The Arkansas Better Chance Program (ABC) provides “quality” early childhood education and care to education-ally at-risk children ages birth to five in low-income families. The program includes both center-based programsand the Arkansas home-based instruction programs (known as HIPPY). The program is the source of child carefund for 35 providers or 4% of all respondents. There is no significant difference in access to this fund for partici-pants and non-participants.

Apart from private payment, Medicaid and employer reimbursement are the other two fund streams that showdifference in access by participation status. Nine percent of participants access Medicaid funds compared to 3%of non-participants. Five percent of participants access funds for their program through employer reimbursementcompared to less than 2% non-participants.

It is not surprising that participants seem to be more likely to have other fund streams apart from those listed. This“other” category includes CACFP, grants and others sources identified by respondents. From the responsesanalyzed we cannot conclude that a particular fund stream predisposes a provider to participate more than theother. Though we observe some differences in accessing diverse kinds of funds by participation status, access doesnot differ significantly by participation status.

Non-participants % Participants % Total

Private 246 65.8 313 58.6 559

Child care Subsidy 130 34.8 187 35 317

Other 59 15.8 101 18.9 160

Medicaid 11 2.9 48 9 59

ABC 16 4.3 19 3.6 35

Employer reimbursement 7 1.9 28 5.2 35

Head Start 10 2.7 11 2.1 21

Table 11Source: Survey of Factors affecting participation, AACF, 2002

46

Program Duration and Frequency of Operation

The more days a child care program is open, and the longer the length of day they are open, the more likely theprogram is to participate in CACFP. Over 13% of CACFP participants provide services more than 6 days perweek compared to 6% of non-participants. Nearly all CACFP participants provide services more than 5 days aweek, the percentage for participants is 99.6% compared to 96.5% for non-participants.Close to 75% of CACFP participants provide child care services for more than 11 hours compared to 68% ofnon-participants. Also, approximately 7% of non-participants provide child care services for less than 5 hourscompared to 0.4% of participants. Eligible programs that provide services for lesser days and for shorter periodsare less likely to need to provide food for the children they serve and are thus, less likely to participate in CACFP.

Days of Operation

# of Days 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total

Not participating 1 5 6 316 9 12 349

Participating 2 450 27 42 521

Total 1 5 8 766 36 54 898Table 12Source: Survey of Factors affecting participation, AACF, 2002

Hours of Operation

# of Hours 2 - 5 6 - 10 11-15 15 - 24

# % # % # % # % Total

Not participating 24 6.6 92 25.4 234 64.6 12 3.3 362

Participating 2 0.4 134 25.7 333 63.9 52 10 521

Total 26 2.9 226 25.6 567 64.2 64 7.2Table 13Source: Survey of Factors affecting participation, AACF, 2002

47

Summary of Findings

The 5 issues examined: reimbursement adequacy, satisfaction with DHS, CACFP challenges, fund source,and program duration and frequency have major impact on child care providers in Arkansas. The differencebetween participants who think CACFP reimbursement is adequate to those who think it is not is very small.This suggests that although current reimbursement rates may not seem to significantly affect providers’ deci-sion to participate in CACFP, it may affect current participants operation of the program. A significantproportion of respondents reported current reimbursement rates are too low to cover their costs.

Child care programs that provide services for fewer days and/or hours are less likely to feel the need toparticipate in CACFP. Programs with shorter duration are less likely to feel a need to provide meals to thechildren during their short period of operation.

Child care programs receive funds from different sources. The 5 distinct sources of funds examined in thisstudy are Medicaid, private funds, employer reimbursement, Headstart, child care subsidy, and the ABCprogram. Although no significant difference exists in access to each fund type by participation status, non-participants are less likely to access employer reimbursement, and Medicaid funds. On the contrary currentCACFP participants are less likely to be receiving private payments. We can infer that non-participants aremore likely to serve children whose parents can afford to pay child care and meal fees hence are less likelyto need CACFP. On the other hand, since CACFP eligibility is based, to an extent, on the proportion oflow-income children served, providers serving low-income children are more likely to need, qualify for andparticipate in CACFP.

A significant percentage of respondents are satisfied with the support they receive from the administeringagency. Current participants constitute a major proportion of those who are satisfied with the agency and alesser proportion of those unsatisfied with the agency. The result supports the assumption that a provider’sperception of the administering agency may affect participation. However, the percentage of respondentsunsatisfied with the agency is so low that this may not be the sole reason why many providers are notparticipating in the program.

Four major challenges were identified as being a major impediment to participating or operating the pro-gram. Two of these affect both participants and non-participants while the other 2 affects one group each.Low reimbursement rates and having to follow too many rules were identified by both participants and non-participants as being a major problem. Over 100 respondents identified each of these as a major challenge.Lack of knowledge about the program is a major obstacle to participation. Thirty-eight percent or 142 non-participants reported not knowing about the program. The amount of paperwork required to operate theprogram is a major challenge to current participants. Over 23% or 126 participants reported this as a majorobstacle to operating the program.

48

Logit Analyis of Factors Affecting Participation

In the face of the changing political and economic climate, various policy and regulatory changes have been imple-mented in CACFP. The policy environment and other inherent characteristics of the different licensed providertype may affect their ability and willingness to participate in the program. A review of the literature indicates variousfactors that may affect participation in CACFP. In addition to some of the identified factors like tiering, there aresome state specific factors that may have resulted from state eligibility rules that can affect participation significantly.The survey included questions probing into most of these factors. Although the list is not exhaustive, the surveyquestionnaire captured most of the significant factors affecting participation. Some factors, however, influenceprovider participation decisions more than others. Logit regression is used in the analysis of the survey response toestimate the magnitude of the effect of each factor on participation. The factors to be considered are program type,program size, type of care and program hours of operation. Apart from gross effect models, a multivariate analysisincluding factors found to be of significant effect is specified to determine the net effect of some of these factors.

Methodology

To examine the strength of the effect of each factor on CACFP participation there is a need for regression analysis.This provides a measure of the strength of relationship being tested (t or z values) and the level of confidenceassociated with such estimation. It also provides a way to verify the effect of co-occuring factors. That is, since inthe real world, few providers deal with just one of the factors hindering participation at a time, what is the effect ofhaving multiple factors that individually have an effect on participation?

Logit regression is used as opposed to a linear probability analysis to constrain the probability values between 0and 1. The linear probability model, though a simpler model, does not allow for this constraint. To be able tointerpret changes in terms of likelihood of occurrence, logit regression model offers better and easily interpretableestimates. Odd ratio is used in the analysis. The basic concept of odds ratio is if 2 events have equal probability ofoccurring, they are said to have 1 to 1 odd of occurring. This interpretation provides a better comparative measurefor the magnitude of each factor analyzed. All the mean estimates are in this report are statistically significant at 0.05significant level.

Hypothesis: the following factors affect a child care providers decision to participate in CACFP: program type,perception of adequacy of reimbursement, program size, program duration, and program fund source. The effectof each of these factors may occur individually or co-occur with another factor.

Effect of program type

There are different child care program types in Arkansas and CACFP eligibility varies by program type. For-profitprograms do not serve a significant number of low-income children and therefore are less likely to be eligible toparticipate in CACFP. However, for-profit child care centers who have been in existence for more than 3 yearsand currently serve 25% or more low-income children are eligible to participate in CACFP. For-profit programsthat have been in existence for less than 3 years are required to have a $25,000 surety bond and conduct an annualaudit of their program. Not surprising, these additional requirements have affected overall for-profit child carecenters’ participation in CACFP.

Logistic regression test was conducted on each program type to determine the gross effect of each type onparticipation. There are 6 distinct program “types” with a 7th “other” category. The program “types” are early

49

childhood education or day care center, family day care home, Head Start center, church-based program, non-profit program and for-profit program. Some respondents identified their program in more than one of the categories.These tended to be day care centers or churches. FDCH are the least likely to be identified as a multi-typeprogram. However, most churches identified with non-profit status while day care centers identified with both non-profit and for-profit status

Results of analysis

To find the magnitude of the effect of each program type, we define an additive logit model comparing day carecenters to other types of day care program. This model provides the best fit for the hypothesis of program effect.Not surprisingly, analysis reveals FDCH are most likely to participate with a 19 to 1 odds of participating comparedto day care centers. Also, non-profit programs and “other” child care programs have higher odds of participatingin CACFP compared to day care programs. Non-profit programs are 10 times more likely to participate comparedto an early childhood day care programs. Based on the eligibility and participation requirement for non-profit childcare programs it is not surprising to discover they that are more likely to participate. All other program types areless likely to participate. Head Start, church-operated programs and for-profit child care programs are 0.4, 0.1and 0.3 times less likely to participate compared to early childhood day care program.

Odds Ratio P|z|

FDCH 18.89414 0.0

Church-based programs 0.073309 0.0

For-profit programs 0.293802 0.0

Headstart 0.362825 0.7

Non-profit programs 9.659997 0.0

Other 1.080488 0.8

To further examine the effect of non-profit or for-profit status on day care centers’ participation, we developed 2models to measure the net effect of each program type. Model one includes a dummy variable for day care centersand another for for-profit programs. The additive model for the 2 dummies give a good fit. This model fits the datawith a Pearson’s chi-square of 1.04 at one degree of freedom. Thus, day care programs have 22 to 100 odds ofparticipating compared to other program of the same “profit” status. For-profit programs have 26 to 100 odds ofparticipating for any similar type program. The odd of a program that is not for-profit or day care center participatingin CACFP is 6 to 10 in this model.

Odds Ratio P>|z|

Child care center 0.26 0

For-profit center 0.32 0

The second model involves a dummy for day care center and another for non-profit status. The additive modeldoes not fit the data but the saturated model provides a fit at the expense of all the degrees of freedom. The

50

saturated model includes an interaction effect dummy for day care center who are non-profit. The model gives theodds of participation for a day care center compared to any other program of similar profit status as 7 to 100.Non-profit programs have 4 to 10 odds of participating for any 2 similar type programs. While being a day carecenter that is non-profit has an additional effect of a 15 to 1 odds of participating in CACFP. Thus, the odd of a daycare center participating in CACFP if it is non-profit is 15 times the corresponding odds for a for-profit program ofany other type!

Odds Ratio P>|z|

Child care center 0.07 0

Non-profit center 0.4 0

Non profit child care center 15.2 0

Program size

To determine the gross effect of the size of each program, we define a one-factor logit model where the group orlevel of each size has its own dummy. The 5 groups are 1-10, 11-50, 51-100, 101-300, those above 300.

Sizes Odds ratio of participating compared to group 5 (101-300 children)

1-10 6.52

11-50 1.78

51-100 0.58

300+ 1.87

The odds ratio obtained shows providers serving between 51 to 100 children have the least probability of participatingin CACFP. It has an odd of 1 to 2 compared to a program serving 101 to 300 children. On the other hand,programs with smaller sizes especially those serving less than 10 children have a high chance of participating. Theodds of participating is 7 to 1 compared to a program serving 101 to 300 children. The different eligibility andparticipating requirement may explain some of this result. Programs serving fewer than 10 children tend to beFDCH and those operate under the auspices of their sponsoring agencies. Sponsors are responsible for most ofthe administrative requirements for the FDCH under their auspices. The result shows the effect of program size isnot linear especially with the increase in odds recorded for programs with over 300 children. Although programswith over 300 children are more likely to participate, very few programs of this size exist in Arkansas. Because ofthis fact this coefficient is not significant, indicating the turn around in odds should be viewed lightly. It is, however,undeniable that smaller programs with less than 10 children have the highest probability of participating in CACFP.

Adequate reimbursement

To estimate the effect of providers’ perception of the adequacy of reimbursement on participation we allow a one-factor model allowing a dummy for each of the 3 possible responses on the adequacy of CACFP reimbursement:“adequate”, “inadequate” and “don’t know” The model shows that the effect of the level of reimbursement may not

51

be significant by itself. It may be of greater importance in combination with other variables. Providers who thinkreimbursement are not adequate have 0.92 to 1 odds of participating compared to those who think it is adequate.However, providers who do not know whether CACFP reimbursement is adequate have an odds of 4 to 1,000compared to those who thing it is adequate. The one flaw of this model is that it does not separate between thedifferent tiers. Although reimbursement adequacy seems to play a negligible role by itself, it may play a larger rolewhen viewed in concert with providers’ tier or other factors.

Odds ratio P|z|

Not Adequate 0.92 0.7

Don’t know 0.004 0.0

Program duration: number of days and hours

A child care program’s type may affect the number of days or hours in which it provides service which may be asignificant determinant on whether the provider wants to participate in CACFP. Programs that operate for shorterperiod (hours and/or days) may feel less need to participate in the program because the children may not eat in theircare since they are there for a short period of time. Such programs may also lack the infrastructure needed toparticipate in CACFP. A logit model allowing a linear effect of days is used to measure the effect of the number ofdays a program provides child care services. Programs represented in this survey vary from those providing childcare services for 2 days to those providing services every day of the week. The model indicates that everyadditional day of providing services per week increases the odds of participating by 1.43. The model provides avery good fit. Most of the programs in the survey provide care for more than 5 days a week. Also, each additionalhour a program provides child care services increases the odds of participation by 1.12 to 1. In conclusion, thelonger the duration and the higher the frequency of operation per week for a child care program, the more likely theprogram will participate in the CACFP program.

Odds ratio P|z|

Each additional day 1.4 0

Odds ratio P|z|

Each additional hour 0.1 0

In examining individual factors and their effect on CACFP participation, we eliminated some factors with insignifi-cant effect. These factors usually correlate strongly with other factors, for example, days, hours of operation andnumber of full-time and part-time staff. The best specification model uses a dummy to control for each of thefollowing program characteristics: FDCH, non-profit and for-profit status, church-based programs, perception ofadequate reimbursement, child care subsidies and Medicaid fund source. All these variables show a significanteffect and the additive model shows a good fit. The model gives the odds of participation of any program with eachof the characteristics included in the model. For example, a provider that perceives CACFP reimbursement to beadequate has nearly 7 to 1 odds of participating compared to other respondent in other program types, receivingthe same fund type as specified in the model. When examined in concert with other factors these variables contrib-

52

ute significantly to the model with little loss of degree of freedom. Some other factors, though, significant whenexamined solely do not show a significant effect when examined in combination with other factors. The modelunderscores one of the findings of this report; program type has a significant effect on participation. FDCH are themost likely to participate; non-profit status also increases the likely hood of participation significantly.

Odds ratio P|z|

FDCH 22.50342 0

Non-profit programs 6.875993 0

Church-based programs 0.1373388 0

For-profit programs 0.2184198 0

Reimbursement Adequacy 7.316076 0

Medicaid 7.014995 0

Child care Subsidies 1.39689 0

The analysis reveals factors affecting CACFP participation mutually co-occur with other factors. Although somefactors affect participation when examined individually, these factors show even a higher effect when examinedcontrolling for other factors.

53

Conclusion

In recent years, CACFP has recorded fluctuation in the number of providers participating in the program. Also, the

average number of children served through CACFP programs has declined slightly. Many factors exist for these

events. The most touted reason being the 1996 PWRORA. However prior to 1996, a significant number of child

care providers were not participating in CACFP hence other reasons must have existed prior to 1996. Factors

affecting participation may vary from state to state. This report has attempted to examine factors associated with

CACFP participation in Arkansas.

This study started out on the premise that the delta region of the state has higher child care and CACFP unmet need

due to the economic and demographic structure of most of its families. The presumption about relatively higher

child care needs in the delta has not been validated by this study. The density of children and the concentration of

child care providers is lower in the delta region compared to the northwestern or central parts of the state. Also,

although the economic and demographic structure of its families predisposes families in the delta region to being at

greater need for child care and CACFP, care-giver(s) in this region tend to be unemployed and therefore, and

children in this region may actually have lesser need for child care programs. Therefore, in spite of the fact that the

delta has the highest concentration of low-income children in the state, these children may not be accessing CACFP

as the program can only be accessed in a child care setting.

However, the unemployment of caregiver(s) is not the sole measure of child care need. Parents sometimes send

their children to quality child care programs to get them ready for school, in which case the delta will have the

greatest CACFP unmet need because of its high poverty concentration. Parents in the delta are least able to afford

to pay the expenses of a quality child care program out of pocket. Access to subsidized child care programs is

critical in this part of the state for low-income children to be school ready and also to provide an access to the

educational and nutritional opportunities provided by CACFP. It is important to note that all the analyses in the

study examined subsets of children, for example children below age 5, “own” children, those below age 5 and in

poverty or those below age 5 living with employed care giver(s). If the population all children under age 5 or 12

were considered, the central and western part of the state would have the highest unmet child care need because

they have the highest child density.

Nearly all the factors examined affect child care programs participation in CACFP. Family day care homes makes

up a large percentage of CACFP participants. They tend to be highly concentrated in the delta region of the state.

As a result, programs with smaller capacities are highly concentrated in the delta and they have a higher likelihood

of participating in CACFP. Child care centers, though with greater capacity, are not as represented in CACFP as

they are in licensed child care programs. They are concentrated in the central part of the state.

54

The longer the period of operation of child care program, the more likely it is that the program will participate in

CACFP. Programs that are open more days in the week or for longer hours tend to be more likely to participate

in CACFP.

One of the important finding of this study is that a significant proportion of child care providers still do not know

about CACFP. This issue is further complicated by the fact that most FDCH do not know the name of the

program. They know it by the name of their sponsor. This serves even further to underscore the need for more

information on CACFP to be provided to both CACFP participants and non-participants. In addition, non-

participants that do know about the program do not know how to apply.

However, a number of providers are not participating in the program because they are not eligible. Most of these

tend to be for-profit programs and programs serving few low-income children. Other programs are not eligible

because they are participating in other federally funded meal program. Most of these are child care programs

affiliated with a school program participating in the free and reduced-priced school meal program. Also, the survey

responses suggest that some eligible programs that are aware CACFP are overwhelmed by eligibility and

participation rules. One of the rules identified by known participants is the state requirement for “covered” programs.

These programs that have been in operation for less than three years are required to obtain surety bonds which so

far has eluded them. Currently, the Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education is re-examining this

issue. If the issue is adequately addressed it may result in an influx of child care providers in to CACFP and better

access for Arkansas’ children.

Factors such as program type, program size, days and hours of operation, perception of the administering agency

all affect providers’ decision to participate to varying degrees. All these factors affect each other. It is, therefore,

difficult to get the net effect of each. The last logit regression provides estimates of the net effect of some of these

factors.

While examining factors that limit participation, it is imperative to examine factors affecting current providers from

effectively operating the program. This will shed some light on possible strategies that can be employed to reduce

exit rate. Low reimbursement and the volume of paperwork required for the program are factors that prevent

current participants from enjoying the program.

Intervention strategies targeted at some of these findings will help reduce the number of providers exiting the

program while encouraging eligible non-participants to consider participating in the program. This will result in

better access to CACFP and more children in Arkansas will be able to benefit from the program.

55

Bibliography

Arkansas Department of Human Services Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education Child CareLicensing Unit. Minimum Licensing Requirements for Child Care Centers. Little Rock, AR: ArkansasDHS Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education, 1999.

________. Minimum Licensing Requirements for Day Care Family Homes. Little Rock, AR: Arkansas DHSDivision of Child Care and Early Childhood Education, 1999.

Hamilton, William, Nancy Burstein, and Mary Kay Crepinsek. Reimbursement Tiering in the CACFP: SummaryReport to Congress on the Family Child Care Homes Legislative Changes Study. Cambridge, MA: AbtAssociates, Inc., 2002.

Hamilton, William, Eric Stickney, and Mary Kay Crepinsek. Family Child Care Homes and the CACFP: ParticipationAfter Reimbursement Tiering, An Interim Report of the Family Child Care Homes Legislative ChangesStudy. Washington, D.C.: Abt Associates, Inc., 1999.

United States Department of Agriculture Food and Consumer Service Child and Adult Care Food Program. ChildCare Centers Handbook. Washington, D.C.: USDA Food and Consumer Service Child and Adult CareFood Program.

United States Department of Agriculture Food and Consumer Service Office of Analysis and Research. EarlyChildhood and Child Care Study: Summary of Findings. Washington, D.C.: USDA Food and ConsumerService Office of Analysis and Research, 1997.

United States Department of Agriculture Special Nutrition Programs Child and Adult Care Food Program. AdultDay Care Handbook. Washington, D.C.: USDA Special Nutrition Programs Child and Adult Care FoodProgram.

________. Resource Packet. Washington, D.C.: USDA Special Nutrition Programs Child and Adult Care FoodProgram.

Mod

el 4

Effe

ct o

f for

-pro

fitst

atus

on

child

care

cen

ters

part

icip

atio

n

Mod

el 5

Effe

ct o

f non

-pro

fitst

atus

on

child

care

cen

ters

part

icip

atio

n

Mod

el 6

Effe

ct o

fpe

rcep

tion

abou

tad

equa

cy o

fre

imbu

rsem

ent

onpa

rtic

ipat

ion

(Pro

gram

s th

at a

reno

t ch

ildca

re o

rfo

r pr

ofit)

(Pro

gram

s th

at a

reno

t ch

ildca

re a

ndno

n-pr

ofit)

(Pro

vide

rs w

hosa

yre

imbu

rsem

ent

isad

equa

te)

(Chi

ldca

rece

nter

s)

Mod

el 1

Effe

ct o

f num

ber

of d

ays

ofop

erat

ion

onpa

rtic

ipat

ion

Mod

el 2

Effe

ct o

f num

ber

of h

ours

of

oper

atio

n on

part

icip

atio

n

Mod

el 3

Effe

ct o

f pro

gram

size

on

part

icip

atio

n

(Pro

gram

ope

ned

for

2 da

ys)

(Pro

gram

ope

ned

for

1 ho

ur)

(Pro

gram

s w

ith10

1 to

300

child

ren)

ES

TIM

ATE

D O

DD

RAT

IO A

ND

T-V

ALU

ES

FO

R L

OG

ISTI

C M

OD

ELS

OF

THE

PR

OB

AB

ILIT

Y O

FPA

RTI

CIP

ATIN

G IN

CA

CFP

FO

R L

ICE

NS

ED

CH

ILD

CA

RE

PR

OV

IDE

RS

IN A

RK

AN

SA

S

(Pro

gram

s an

dfu

nd s

ourc

es t

hat

are

not

incl

uded

,an

d pe

rcep

tion

ofre

imbu

rsem

ent

inad

equa

cy)

Fam

ily D

ay C

are

Hom

es18

.89

414*

22.5

0342

*(1

3.8

82)

(13.

501

)C

hurc

h-ba

sed

prog

ram

s0.

0733

09*

0.13

733

88*

( -7

.275

)(-

5.01

0)Fo

r-pr

ofit

prog

ram

s0.

263

04

06*

0.29

38

02*

0.21

841

98*

(-6.

014)

(-4.

592

)(-

5.17

5)H

eads

tart

0.3

6282

5(-

1.8

08)

Non

-pro

fit p

rogr

ams

0.4

0321

72*

9.65

99

97*

6.87

59

93*

(-3.

66

4)(7

.970

)(6

.185

)O

ther

1.0

80

48

8(0

.24

8)C

hild

care

cen

ters

0.20

238

61*

0.07

547

72*

(-10

.40

8)(-

13.1

16)

Non

-pro

fit c

hild

care

cen

ter

15.2

4792

*(7

.672

)1-

106.

5287

88*

(7.7

16)

11-5

01.

780

479*

(2.5

12)

51-1

000.

579

4393

*(-

2.0

49)

300

+1.

8787

88

(0.7

99)

Ade

quat

e7.

316

076*

(8.1

31)

Not

Ade

quat

e0.

9207

23(-

0.35

4)D

on’t

Kno

w0.

003

937*

(-5.

400

)E

very

add

ition

al d

ay p

rogr

am in

ope

ned

1.43

38

64*

(4.6

46)

Eve

ry a

dditi

onal

hou

r pr

ogra

m in

ope

ned

1.12

8576

*(5

.54

0)M

edic

aid

7.01

49

95*

(4.5

05)

Chi

ldca

re s

ubsi

dies

1.3

96

89

(1.5

40)

Pse

udo

R-

squa

red

0.02

0.03

0.14

0.15

0.17

0.21

0.3

60.

44

App

endi

x Ta

ble

8N

ote:

om

itted

cat

egor

y sh

own

in p

aren

thes

is. I

ndiv

idua

l t-v

alue

s sh

own

in p

aren

thes

is b

elow

the

odds

rat

io.

Sou

rce:

Sur

vey

of F

acto

rs A

ffect

ing

Lice

nsed

Chi

ldca

re P

rovi

ders

’ Par

ticip

atio

n in

CA

CFP

in A

rkan

sas

Mod

el 7

Effe

ct o

f pro

gram

type

Mod

el 8

Effe

ct o

f pro

gram

type

, per

cept

ion

ofre

imbu

rsem

ent

adeq

uacy

and

fund

sou

rce

onpa

rtic

ipat

ion.

ρ< .0

5%

ARKANSAS AR 443 1373 942 2917 5150 3668 1621 20 11

ASHLEY AR 458 1675 1025 3681 6491 4625 1974 20 11

BAXTER AR 437 1905 1012 4170 7281 4981 2126 14 4

BENTON AR 2107 12533 4628 25423 40821 29865 13798 106 38

BOONE AR 491 2305 1059 4809 8123 5728 2558 16 23

BRADLEY AR 206 709 477 1581 2968 2080 885 13 5

CALHOUN AR 77 311 185 768 1415 955 370 4 1

CARROLL AR 385 1680 844 3521 6080 4282 1925 12 21

CHICOT AR 396 879 873 1915 3876 2698 1181 17 7

CLARK AR 415 1502 856 2987 5104 3619 1669 14 12

CLAY AR 233 1113 503 2409 4068 2915 1258 13 3

CLEBURNE AR 233 1313 617 2930 5122 3549 1494 6 12

CLEVELAND AR 116 593 263 1254 2242 1560 688 6 5

COLUMBIA AR 513 1525 1140 3372 6420 4372 1873 31 9

CONWAY AR 294 1361 649 2852 5169 3603 1578 11 13

CRAIGHEAD AR 1565 6096 3133 12198 19809 14492 6752 73 30

CRAWFORD AR 918 4157 1991 8881 15032 10730 4750 23 17

CRITTENDEN AR 1747 4025 3723 8617 15834 11515 5170 52 19

CROSS AR 373 1312 855 2960 5435 3801 1607 15 13

DALLAS AR 156 497 356 1128 2410 1617 664 9 4

DESHA AR 535 1110 1104 2332 4428 3034 1367 23 6

DREW AR 398 1310 849 2749 4832 3391 1502 18 11

FAULKNER AR 1296 6454 2877 13521 22006 15842 7086 49 30

FRANKLIN AR 270 1203 557 2598 4591 3116 1353 12 19

FULTON AR 126 674 295 1503 2650 1791 757 14 3

GARLAND AR 1436 5042 3007 10679 18759 13187 5833 44 27

GRANT AR 177 1124 406 2442 4268 3014 1281 4 3

GREENE AR 534 2689 1183 5681 9411 6803 3007 25 9

tota

l ow

n ch

ildre

n un

der 5

livin

g w

ith a

t lea

st 1

par

ent

tota

l ow

n ch

ildre

n un

der 5

livin

g w

ith a

t lea

st 1

par

ent

own

child

ren

unde

r 12

livin

gw

ith s

ingl

e pa

rent

tota

l ow

n ch

ildre

n un

der 1

2liv

ing

with

at l

east

1 p

aren

t

TOTA

L ch

ild p

op (<

18)

popu

latio

n un

der 1

2

popu

latio

n 5

and

unde

r

# o

f chi

ldca

re p

rogr

ams

not

part

icip

atin

g in

CA

CFP

# p

artic

ipat

ing

in C

AC

FP

31 3 17 969 471 538 434 365 55.3 63.5 $30,316.00

31 7 13 860 261 466 549 371 50.2 67.6 $31,758.00

18 9 6 1121 483 372 911 420 64.1 78.1 $29,106.00

144 92 30 7572 3232 2102 5618 1941 57.4 80.0 $40,281.00

39 16 20 1369 779 591 1166 407 65.5 68.5 $29,988.00

18 3 9 512 263 326 234 181 53.9 67.0 $24,821.00

5 1 1 97 42 71 138 56 59.9 68.3 $28,438.00

33 7 24 704 388 438 631 429 56.9 87.2 $27,924.00

24 7 14 879 619 504 248 355 58.3 65.0 $22,024.00

26 10 7 1307 581 366 773 371 70.3 76.5 $28,845.00

16 8 4 424 174 340 627 200 68.0 71.7 $25,345.00

18 1 10 575 458 290 662 182 56.2 62.3 $31,531.00

11 3 5 243 182 165 274 105 57.3 75.5 $32,405.00

40 16 13 1417 430 555 662 431 62.0 69.6 $27,640.00

24 7 13 804 416 380 657 308 63.9 72.3 $31,209.00

103 36 44 4233 800 1564 2614 1302 61.8 73.6 $32,425.00

40 14 21 1604 831 982 1666 1011 58.8 72.2 $32,871.00

71 0 30 3104 1047 1972 1460 1265 57.7 59.4 $30,109.00

28 6 13 734 307 470 521 380 60.2 67.9 $29,362.00

13 5 6 395 227 143 180 138 66.3 71.5 $26,608.00

29 6 14 873 519 530 253 379 50.3 53.9 $24,121.00

29 9 15 787 226 344 626 378 69.4 83.3 $28,627.00

79 33 36 3876 908 1091 2969 1390 64.6 83.0 $38,204.00

31 9 22 522 272 273 609 239 63.9 76.8 $30,848.00

17 2 12 397 189 222 337 128 64.1 80.0 $25,529.00

71 18 27 3348 877 1620 1871 1387 60.5 75.8 $31,724.00

7 4 2 444 87 181 625 181 64.1 84.2 $37,182.00

34 15 12 1144 633 543 1336 488 64.2 74.1 $30,828.00

TOTA

L ch

ildca

re p

rogr

ams

# C

hild

care

cen

ters

# F

DC

H

tota

l chi

ldca

re C

APA

CIT

Y

CA

CFP

cap

acity

popu

latio

n un

der 5

in p

over

ty

# C

hild

ren

unde

r 5 w

ithem

ploy

ed c

areg

iver

s

# o

f chi

ldre

n un

er 5

in s

ingl

epa

rent

hom

es w

ith e

mpl

oyed

care

give

r

"per

cent

of "

"ow

n""

child

ren

unde

r 5 w

ith w

orki

ng p

aren

ts"

"per

cent

of "

"ow

n""

child

ren

unde

r 5 in

sin

gle

pare

ntfa

milie

s w

ith w

orki

ng p

aren

ts"

med

ian

inco

me

HEMPSTEAD AR 557 1715 1138 3539 6446 4594 2112 22 14

HOT SPRING AR 479 2066 1048 4378 7608 5369 2336 17 7

HOWARD AR 242 978 564 2166 3840 2699 1148 14 4

INDEPENDENCE AR 453 2277 989 4734 8396 5825 2616 16 24

IZARD AR 143 734 341 1612 2768 1933 822 6 4

JACKSON AR 333 1071 686 2231 4081 2877 1256 9 10

JEFFERSON AR 2077 5354 4656 11775 22161 15682 6895 88 62

JOHNSON AR 339 1605 746 3406 5733 4073 1806 9 11

LAFAYETTE AR 165 501 375 1099 2174 1507 638 9 5

LAWRENCE AR 270 1237 564 2504 4258 2980 1353 15 7

LEE AR 366 699 793 1552 3277 2215 961 11 12

LINCOLN AR 240 821 539 1796 3215 2296 989 10 3

LITTLE RIVER AR 258 927 509 1924 3430 2456 1117 13 6

LOGAN AR 332 1515 726 3263 5824 4065 1760 20 24

LONOKE AR 719 4037 1742 8812 15188 10702 4531 29 12

MADISON AR 161 986 371 2176 3817 2640 1124 2 9

MARION AR 191 873 443 1942 3571 2410 990 10 3

MILLER AR 1028 3016 2181 6245 10734 7768 3562 48 16

MISSISSIPPI AR 1618 4107 3301 8552 15407 11120 5074 46 33

MONROE AR 293 677 620 1485 2862 1976 853 14 18

MONTGOMERY AR 77 593 188 1243 2174 1532 671 5 3

NEVADA AR 177 637 394 1403 2509 1747 745 6 1

NEWTON AR 101 540 229 1183 2142 1418 594 10 2

OUACHITA AR 598 1748 1383 3995 7453 5149 2140 21 19

PERRY AR 133 697 292 1502 2586 1831 773 8 2

PHILLIPS AR 1146 1997 2419 4373 8513 6056 2714 32 24

PIKE AR 144 788 314 1646 2816 1981 871 8 5

POINSETT AR 525 1761 1117 3735 6684 4734 2088 11 11

tota

l ow

n ch

ildre

n un

der 5

livin

g w

ith a

t lea

st 1

par

ent

tota

l ow

n ch

ildre

n un

der 5

livin

g w

ith a

t lea

st 1

par

ent

own

child

ren

unde

r 12

livin

gw

ith s

ingl

e pa

rent

tota

l ow

n ch

ildre

n un

der 1

2liv

ing

with

at l

east

1 p

aren

t

TOTA

L ch

ild p

op (<

18)

popu

latio

n un

der 1

2

popu

latio

n 5

and

unde

r

# o

f chi

ldca

re p

rogr

ams

not

part

icip

atin

g in

CA

CFP

# p

artic

ipat

ing

in C

AC

FP

36 9 18 896 431 661 559 482 55.2 65.8 $28,622.00

24 6 9 945 400 558 880 459 59.4 80.7 $31,543.00

18 9 6 683 205 314 482 270 66.3 84.4 $28,699.00

40 6 28 1575 999 517 1127 464 61.2 76.8 $31,920.00

10 2 3 276 165 211 322 111 57.0 74.5 $25,670.00

19 9 7 724 583 386 464 249 60.2 67.7 $25,081.00

150 55 79 5407 2013 2333 1886 1877 60.7 64.5 $31,327.00

20 8 10 738 404 444 646 334 59.6 78.2 $27,910.00

14 4 4 374 140 201 194 146 60.3 67.6 $24,831.00

22 2 7 853 250 349 424 223 51.6 78.0 $27,139.00

23 2 16 449 189 433 200 332 58.1 72.8 $20,510.00

13 2 4 451 166 311 428 198 65.8 62.9 $29,607.00

19 4 8 504 112 232 376 291 63.3 79.1 $29,417.00

44 4 33 870 411 304 675 351 62.9 75.5 $28,344.00

41 15 14 2444 611 593 2185 538 62.2 72.6 $40,314.00

11 1 9 270 120 325 430 172 54.3 69.4 $27,895.00

13 4 4 362 102 292 396 118 53.8 47.0 $26,737.00

64 24 28 3071 338 1152 999 1018 59.8 77.2 $30,951.00

79 14 45 2872 1704 1798 1274 1343 56.9 67.4 $27,479.00

32 4 22 503 367 382 205 236 54.7 66.3 $22,632.00

8 3 3 140 46 172 285 120 63.5 75.0 $28,421.00

7 1 0 300 168 267 240 191 60.7 70.7 $26,962.00

12 6 2 344 114 194 262 80 57.7 57.1 $24,756.00

40 7 26 993 750 724 755 517 62.9 66.5 $29,341.00

10 5 2 353 51 133 326 107 55.8 63.3 $31,083.00

56 8 34 1332 646 1457 524 1043 62.5 64.9 $22,231.00

13 3 4 365 142 206 376 131 60.4 80.9 $27,695.00

22 8 11 783 415 683 739 402 57.2 63.8 $26,558.00

TOTA

L ch

ildca

re p

rogr

ams

# C

hild

care

cen

ters

# F

DC

H

tota

l chi

ldca

re C

APA

CIT

Y

CA

CFP

cap

acity

popu

latio

n un

der 5

in p

over

ty

# C

hild

ren

unde

r 5 w

ithem

ploy

ed c

areg

iver

s

# o

f chi

ldre

n un

er 5

in s

ingl

epa

rent

hom

es w

ith e

mpl

oyed

care

give

r

"per

cent

of "

"ow

n""

child

ren

unde

r 5 w

ith w

orki

ng p

aren

ts"

"per

cent

of "

"ow

n""

child

ren

unde

r 5 in

sin

gle

pare

ntfa

milie

s w

ith w

orki

ng p

aren

ts"

med

ian

inco

me

POLK AR 263 1462 544 3056 5174 3631 1621 11 4

POPE AR 821 3869 1757 8202 13900 9864 4322 26 17

PRAIRIE AR 137 563 322 1203 2284 1538 688 6 3

PULASKI AR 8982 26788 18996 54134 91210 66353 30865 425 107

RANDOLPH AR 264 1150 568 2582 4479 3132 1299 14 3

ST. FRANCIS AR 1017 2130 2013 4469 8193 5861 2687 27 26

SALINE AR 1074 5852 2501 12515 21276 14948 6497 38 16

SCOTT AR 176 826 364 1697 2919 2088 955 5 4

SEARCY AR 96 505 213 1067 1873 1277 549 6 3

SEBASTIAN AR 2554 8994 4952 18010 29937 21551 10110 68 52

SEVIER AR 246 1281 534 2669 4446 3223 1487 9 5

SHARP AR 206 986 467 2161 3747 2601 1110 19 6

STONE AR 109 655 271 1465 2557 1776 740 6 3

UNION AR 978 2916 2145 6411 11832 8250 3558 27 12

VAN BUREN AR 174 851 443 1926 3487 2411 1003 10 4

WASHINGTON AR 2537 12405 5220 24366 39492 28726 13840 92 70

WHITE AR 891 4519 2035 9677 16376 11651 5102 33 15

WOODRUFF AR 235 612 464 1269 2274 1620 735 8 8

YELL AR 313 1465 686 3071 5451 3852 1711 9 10

tota

l ow

n ch

ildre

n un

der 5

livin

g w

ith a

t lea

st 1

par

ent

tota

l ow

n ch

ildre

n un

der 5

livin

g w

ith a

t lea

st 1

par

ent

own

child

ren

unde

r 12

livin

gw

ith s

ingl

e pa

rent

tota

l ow

n ch

ildre

n un

der 1

2liv

ing

with

at l

east

1 p

aren

t

TOTA

L ch

ild p

op (<

18)

popu

latio

n un

der 1

2

popu

latio

n 5

and

unde

r

# o

f chi

ldca

re p

rogr

ams

not

part

icip

atin

g in

CA

CFP

# p

artic

ipat

ing

in C

AC

FP

15 2 5 556 243 414 585 198 52.2 71.0 $25,180.00

43 14 19 2093 488 1046 1744 749 61.0 74.8 $32,069.00

9 1 5 205 109 135 161 107 41.6 61.1 $29,990.00

532 165 158 33111 9242 6965 10378 7828 62.0 70.8 $38,120.00

17 8 1 678 412 246 615 181 62.4 61.8 $27,583.00

53 8 33 1359 454 1130 624 872 61.6 64.5 $26,146.00

54 29 20 2078 314 612 3221 1095 66.9 79.6 $42,569.00

9 1 4 304 136 261 338 139 56.5 72.8 $26,412.00

9 2 3 220 126 177 150 91 46.0 66.9 $21,397.00

120 36 52 4881 2154 2517 3499 2178 57.6 69.2 $33,889.00

14 3 8 356 387 433 474 327 58.0 74.7 $30,144.00

25 4 16 542 214 334 405 195 54.3 63.3 $25,152.00

9 2 5 150 140 160 417 44 62.1 58.7 $22,209.00

39 7 19 1529 493 998 1037 936 60.4 70.7 $29,809.00

14 2 6 457 323 215 386 177 60.1 74.7 $27,004.00

162 49 73 6270 2150 2646 5233 2354 56.6 74.5 $34,691.00

48 27 16 2072 866 1079 1980 729 55.9 71.0 $32,203.00

16 3 11 389 267 309 229 243 68.8 78.4 $22,099.00

19 3 14 540 365 448 634 393 63.6 72.8 $28,916.00

TOTA

L ch

ildca

re p

rogr

ams

# C

hild

care

cen

ters

# F

DC

H

tota

l chi

ldca

re C

APA

CIT

Y

CA

CFP

cap

acity

popu

latio

n un

der 5

in p

over

ty

# C

hild

ren

unde

r 5 w

ithem

ploy

ed c

areg

iver

s

# o

f chi

ldre

n un

er 5

in s

ingl

epa

rent

hom

es w

ith e

mpl

oyed

care

give

r

"per

cent

of "

"ow

n""

child

ren

unde

r 5 w

ith w

orki

ng p

aren

ts"

"per

cent

of "

"ow

n""

child

ren

unde

r 5 in

sin

gle

pare

ntfa

milie

s w

ith w

orki

ng p

aren

ts"

med

ian

inco

me

Arkansas Advocates for Children & Families SURVEY OF ARKANSAS CHILD CARE PROVIDERS

All the information you provide in this survey will be kept completely confidential. 1. Where are you located ? ___________________________ (County)

2. Have you ever heard of the Child and Adult Care Food program (CACFP)? r Yes r No 3. Has your program ever participated in the CACFP program? r Yes r No 4. As a child care provider, are you currently participating in CACFP? r Yes r No 5. If you are not currently participating in the CACFP program, why not? Please check all that apply. r Didn’t know about the program r Program/center is not eligible to participate in CACFP r Reimbursement/payment meal rate for CACFP is too low to cover our costs

r Don’t know how to apply or the application process is too difficult to participate in CACFP r Too many rules or it is too much trouble to be in the program

r Don’t have enough staff to participate in the program r Current staff don’t have skills or training to participate in the program r Not enough children or adults in local area qualify for the CACFP program r Can’t get a program sponsor (family day care homes must have a sponsor) r Don’t want to operate a food program r Don’t want to work with the state agency (DHS) that oversees the program r Can’t serve enough children to not lose money r Don’t have the facilities to serve the food r Other (specify)______________________________________________________________________ 6. What are the two most important reasons why you don’t participate in the CACFP program? a.____________________________________________________________________________________ b.____________________________________________________________________________________ 7. Is the meal reimbursement/payment rate for the CACFP program adequate to cover your cost? r Yes r No 8. What sources of funding does your child care program receive? Include the percentages for all that apply. ____%Private payment ____%Head Start ____%Child care subsidy ____%ABC ____%Medicaid ____%Employer reimbursement/payment ____%Other (specify) ___________________________________________________________________ ____%Other (specify) ___________________________________________________________________ 9. The Arkansas Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education is the DHS agency responsible for administering the CACFP and other child care programs. In general, how satisfied are you with the support (technical assistance, training, etc.) the agency provides to local programs? r Very Satisfied r Unsatisfied r Satisfied r Very unsatisfied r Don’t know

10. Which of the following describes your program? Check all that apply.

r Early childhood education/day-care center r Family-home daycare r Head Start center r Church-based program r Non-profit program r For-profit program r Other (specify) _____________________________________________________________________

11. Do you offer before-school care? r Yes r No 12. Do you off er after-school care? r Yes r No 13. What are your days and hours of operation? Circle days and provide hours.

Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun Hours ______AM to ______PM

14. How many total staff does your center/home have? ___# Full-time ___Part-time 15. What is the licensed capacity (# of children) of your center/home? _____Infant/Toddler (1-35 months) _____Preschool (3- and 4-year-olds) _____School age (5-year-olds or older) _____Total 16. Are you considering participating in the CACFP program in the future? r Yes r No 17. If you could change one thing about the CACFP program, what would it be? 18. If this change were made, would your program participate in the CACFP program? r Yes r No

Thank you for completing this survey. Please return both pages as soon as possible by fax (501-371-9681) or in the enclosed postage-paid envelope to:

Arkansas Advocates for Children & Families 523 S. Louisiana, Suite 700

Little Rock, AR 72201

If you need more information, please contact Yetty Shobo or Rich Huddleston at 501-371-9678.

Arkansas Advocates for Children & Families SURVEY OF ARKANSAS CHILD CARE PROVIDERS

All the information you provide in this survey will be kept completely confidential. 1. Where are you located ? ___________________________ (County)

2. Have you ever heard of the Child and Adult Care Food program (CACFP)? r Yes r No 3. Has your program ever participated in the CACFP program? r Yes r No 4. As a child care provider, are you currently participating in CACFP? r Yes r No 5. How long have you participated in the CACFP program? _____________ 6. What are the “major” challenges in operating your CACFP program? Check all that apply. r Reimbursement/payment rate is too low to cover costs r Reimbursement/payment is not timely r Too many rules to follow r Too much paperwork to complete r Don’t have enough staff to operate the program r Staff doesn’t have the skills or training to operate the CACFP program r Not enough children or adults in area qualify for the CACFP program r Can’t serve enough children to not lose money r Don’t have facilities for serving food r Don’t receive enough support, guidance, training or technical assistance from state agency administering CACFP r Other (specify) ______________________________________________________________________ 7. What are the two biggest challenges you face in operating the CACFP program? a._____________________________________________________________________________________ b._____________________________________________________________________________________ 8. What sources of funding does your child care program receive? Include the percentages for all that apply. ____%Private payment ____%Head Start ____%Child care subsidy ____%ABC ____%Medicaid ____%Employer reimbursement/payment ____%Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________________ ____%Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________________ 9. Is the reimbursement/payment rate for meals served under the CACFP program adequate to cover your costs? r Yes r No If no, how much higher should your reimbursement rate be? Your current average rate: $_______ per child per meal The average rate should be: $_______ per child per meal

10. The Arkansas Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education is the DHS agency responsible for administering the CACFP and other child care programs. In general, how satisfied are you with the support (technical assistance, training, etc.) the agency provides to local programs? r Very Satisfied r Unsatisfied r Satisfied r Very unsatisfied r Don’t know 10. Which of the following describes your program? Check all that apply.

r Early childhood education/day-care center r Day- care family home r Head Start center r Church-based program r Non-profit program r For-profit program r Other (specify) ______________________________________________________________________

11. Do you offer before-school care? r Yes r No 12. Do you offer after-school care? r Yes r No 13. What are your days and hours of operation? Circle days and provide hours.

Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun Hours ______AM to ______PM

14. How many total staff does your center/home have? ___# Full-time ___#Part-time 15. What is the licensed capacity (# of children) of your center/home? _____Infant/Toddler (1-35 months) _____Preschool (3- and 4-year-olds) _____School age (5-year-olds or older) _____Total 16. If you could change one thing about the CACFP program, what would it be? 17. What do you like most about the CACFP program?

Thank you for completing this survey. Please return both pages as soon as possible by fax (501-371-9681) or in the enclosed postage-paid envelope to:

Arkansas Advocates for Children & Families 523 S. Louisiana, Suite 700

Little Rock, AR 72201

If you need more information, please contact Yetty Shobo or Rich Huddleston at 501-371-9678.

the arkansas child and adult care food program: a study of...

Documents