I respectfully submit this public comment as Vice President of U-LAUNCH: Childhood Development Homes, a Virginia Licensed Home-Based Child Care System, regarding the proposed Child Care Subsidy Program Guidance Manual.
Applicable Guidance Document and Board:
This comment applies specifically to the Child Care Subsidy Program Guidance Manual under the Virginia Department of Education, State Board of Education. It is submitted in response to the proposed revisions addressing PASS implementation, policy and process clarifications, and identified gaps in CCSP guidance.
Virginia has established Licensed Home-Based Child Care Systems as a distinct regulatory model. For that model to function effectively within the Child Care Subsidy Program, the Guidance Manual should establish administrative procedures that recognize not only individual system-approved homes, but also the licensed system responsible for approving, monitoring, supervising, providing technical assistance to, and administering those homes.
My recommendations focus on the administrative infrastructure necessary to support accountability, due process, financial responsibility, data integrity, continuity of care, and effective communication between VDOE, Provider Services, Local Departments of Social Services, Licensed Home-Based Child Care Systems, approved homes, and families.
A Licensed Home-Based Child Care System operates through a defined organizational structure and governing authority. CCSP should therefore permit each licensed system to formally designate authorized representatives for specific functions, including:
VDOE should maintain these designations at the system level so authorized officials are not repeatedly required to establish their authority each time they communicate regarding an affiliated home.
CCSP systems should distinguish between the Licensed Home-Based Child Care System and the individual approved home.
A system-level record should identify the licensed system, license or system identifier, authorized representatives, participating homes, system status, administrative permissions, and official contacts.
Each approved-home record should separately identify the operator, physical location, system affiliation, approval status, Vendor ID, PASS/KinderConnect status, approved capacity, subsidy participation status, and applicable restrictions.
This structure would allow VDOE to identify both the regulatory system responsible for the provider relationship and the specific location where care is physically delivered.
Each Licensed Home-Based Child Care System should have secure access to a roster showing the current CCSP status of its affiliated homes.
Status categories should be sufficiently specific to distinguish among circumstances such as:
Active; Pending; Inspection Pending; Vendor Agreement Pending; PASS Pending; Missing Documentation; No New Referrals; Payment Hold; Temporarily Suspended; Terminated; and Closed.
A system may determine, for example, that a home should temporarily accept no new placements while allowing children already enrolled to remain in care. CCSP should be capable of recognizing that status without treating the home as either fully active or fully terminated.
This would improve oversight while reducing unnecessary calls to Provider Services.
The Licensed Home-Based Child Care System is responsible for approving and monitoring its member homes.
CCSP should therefore maintain accurate information regarding:
VDOE should consider a System Annual Certification or Roster Update through which the licensed system confirms which homes remain approved.
Where information has already been verified through an authoritative VDOE or licensed-system process, CCSP should apply a “verify once, reuse where legally permitted” principle rather than unnecessarily requiring repeated submission of identical information.
The original system recommendations correctly identify annual renewal, capacity, and authoritative system verification as distinct issues that should be coordinated with CCSP.
The Guidance Manual should clearly distinguish between the appeal rights of an individual approved home and the rights of the Licensed Home-Based Child Care System when a state action affects the system’s regulatory, contractual, financial, or administrative interests.
For example, when VDOE takes an action involving a system-approved home, the Manual should state when the licensed system may:
The licensed system should not automatically have standing in every matter involving an individual provider. However, where an action affects the system’s legal responsibilities, contractual relationship, financial administration, placement of children, access to records, or system status, the Manual should provide an appropriate mechanism for system participation.
Due process should correspond to the party whose interests are actually affected.
This is an important area requiring greater clarity.
When CCSP determines that an overpayment has occurred, the Guidance Manual should identify responsibility based upon the cause of the overpayment.
Potential responsibility may rest with:
Liability should not automatically be assigned to the licensed system merely because the individual provider is affiliated with that system.
Similarly, an error by one approved home should not create financial liability for other unrelated homes within the same system.
The Manual should distinguish between:
home-level error, system-level error, family error, and state/local administrative error.
Before recoupment, the responsible party should receive notice identifying the basis for the overpayment, amount, period involved, evidence supporting the determination, repayment or recoupment method, and available review or appeal process.
The subsidy payment structure should not inadvertently impose financial responsibility on a Licensed Home-Based Child Care System for an action it neither caused nor controlled.
Both the licensed system and the approved home maintain records relevant to care.
Therefore, the Manual should clearly identify which records must be produced by which party during a CCSP audit, monitoring review, payment inquiry, or investigation.
Depending upon the issue, relevant records may include:
The state should avoid requesting the same information repeatedly from multiple parties when an authoritative record already exists.
The Guidance should also identify applicable retention periods and confidentiality requirements.
Where the Licensed Home-Based Child Care System has responsibilities involving family placement and financial administration, authorized system administrators should have access to the information reasonably necessary to administer that placement.
That may include:
This does not require unrestricted access to a family’s unrelated eligibility or case information.
The guiding principle should be minimum necessary access for legitimate system administration, supported by role-based permissions, audit logs, confidentiality requirements, and secure user controls.
The Manual should clearly identify which dates control different subsidy actions involving system-approved homes.
Relevant dates may include:
Ambiguity regarding effective dates can directly affect payment, attendance, family responsibility, provider liability, and continuity of care.
The responsible parties should not be left to determine after the fact which administrative date controls.
A Licensed Home-Based Child Care System may oversee multiple approved homes.
A violation by one home should not automatically impair subsidy participation for unrelated homes in the same system.
Unless VDOE establishes that the licensed system itself violated a requirement or that a systemic failure affected multiple homes, corrective or enforcement action should remain attributable to the individual home responsible for the violation.
Likewise, a system-level violation should be identified as such and supported by findings relating to the system.
This distinction is essential for fair enforcement and proportional accountability.
VDOE should establish a routine reconciliation process among:
A system-approved home should not be listed as “active” for subsidy purposes if its system approval has ended, nor should it remain incorrectly suspended in one system when it has been restored in another.
This is more than a dashboard issue. It is a data-integrity requirement.
VDOE should identify the authoritative source for each type of status and establish procedures for correcting discrepancies.
Information should flow in both directions.
The licensed system should have a defined process for notifying VDOE when an approved home experiences a material change, including:
VDOE should likewise notify the licensed system when subsidy action affects an affiliated home.
For major actions affecting a child’s placement, parallel notice should be provided to the appropriate parties—including the family, approved home, and licensed system—subject to confidentiality requirements.
Virginia’s system regulations already contemplate alternative care.
The CCSP Guidance Manual should establish an expedited procedure for temporary placement in another approved home within the same licensed system when the original placement becomes temporarily unavailable because of:
If the child remains subsidy eligible and the alternate home is an eligible CCSP vendor, the family should not be required to restart the subsidy application process merely to receive temporary care.
The necessary POSO and PASS information should be updated through an expedited placement process.
The original system recommendations identify alternative care as a direct feature of the regulatory model and an important continuity mechanism.
When a child moves from one approved home to another within the same Licensed Home-Based Child Care System, families should receive clear written notice explaining:
This will prevent an internal placement change from being misunderstood as a complete termination of the family’s provider relationship.
Licensed Home-Based Child Care Systems already inspect, monitor, supervise, train, and provide technical assistance to approved homes.
When a correctable CCSP issue does not involve immediate danger, fraud, abuse, or intentional misconduct, VDOE should be permitted to coordinate with the licensed system.
Documented corrective training or technical assistance provided by the licensed system should be capable of being recognized as part of an appropriate CCSP corrective-action plan.
Likewise, when the system itself identifies a condition relevant to subsidy participation, the Guidance should define how and when that information is reported to VDOE.
A mature CCSP administrative model should provide licensed systems with aggregate information necessary to manage their networks effectively.
Appropriate system-level reporting could include:
Such information would allow licensed systems to identify trends, provide targeted technical assistance, improve compliance, and better manage available child care capacity.
Reporting should be designed to protect confidential family information while providing sufficient information for legitimate system management.
The Guidance Manual should also address the circumstance in which the Licensed Home-Based Child Care System itself closes, changes sponsorship, loses its license, or otherwise ceases operating in its current legal form.
The contingency procedure should address:
This is distinct from the closure of one individual home and requires a system-level plan. The underlying system analysis appropriately identifies loss of system licensure or change of sponsorship as a separate contingency requiring guidance.
Virginia has already established Licensed Home-Based Child Care Systems as a distinct regulatory structure. The Child Care Subsidy Program should now establish an administrative and accountability structure capable of interacting with them as systems.
I respectfully recommend that VDOE revise the Guidance Manual to provide clear policies addressing:
authorized system officials; system and home records; provider rosters; capacity and status classifications; annual certification; appeals and due process; overpayments and recoupments; financial liability; audit responsibilities; POSO, rate and payment visibility; effective dates; proportional enforcement; data reconciliation; reciprocal notification; alternative care; family notice; system-level reporting; corrective action; and system closure contingencies.
These recommendations do not eliminate individual provider responsibility, diminish parental choice, or reduce VDOE oversight.
Instead, they ensure that responsibility follows the party responsible for the action, that authorized parties have access to information necessary to perform their duties, that families are protected from unnecessary administrative disruption, and that VDOE can accurately distinguish between an individual approved home and the licensed regulatory system of which that home is a member.
A well-designed system-level framework would improve accountability, reduce duplication, strengthen data integrity, support fair enforcement, protect public funds, improve continuity of care, and allow Licensed Home-Based Child Care Systems to fulfill the responsibilities Virginia has already assigned to them.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeffery Ahmad
Vice President
U-LAUNCH: Childhood Development Homes
Virginia Licensed Home-Based Child Care System