MN CCAP Rule changes

[Blackcat31]

Some changes due to the 2011 Legislative Session:

Families receiving CCAP funds to pay for their child care services will now have to pay more out of pocket for their child care cost. The reimbursement rates are being reduced by 2.5% across the board. (see first section of memo attached)

Some other changes:

* LNL providers now required to have CPR and First Aid trainings as well as 8 hours of other training in order to receive payment through the CCAP and DHS systems.

*Payments to anyone who lives in the same home as CCAP child will no longer be allowed.

*Non-standard care rates and Activity Fees eliminated.

* Paid absent days reduced to 10 per YEAR. Eliminates payment for absent days to LNL providers all together.

*Restrict CCAP payments for care provided in child's own home.

[nannyde]

Minnesota Statutes, section 119B.09, subdivision 9a, limits CCAP
payments to child care centers that receive CCAP payments for children and employ either the
parent of the child or a person who lives with the child. CCAP payments will be prohibited to
licensed or license-exempt child care centers if more than 50% of the children cared for by the
provider are children of the provider’s employees or reside with center employees


Wow I wonder why they inacted THAT rule?

Ten absent days a year is going to cause a lot of problems. It will translate into providers either billing the kid as present when they are not or letting kids go when they get to the ten day limit.

Our state allows 4 per month. Nearly five times as many.

[Cat Herder]

:confused: Looks like it will be very difficult to find a provider willing to take CCAP very soon.

Why penalize the provider if the parents miss days? If the problem lies with the parent missing work, why are they not the ones penalized?

I think I understand the intent, but they missed the mark, IMHO. It only penalizes the kids and providers this way.... unless I missed something, which is very possible. :confused:

I think it is sad the kids will be excluded from field trips and special events. Again, it only penalizes the kids. I would end up just canceling all trips to keep them from being singled out and excluded (it would break my heart to see it), because I could not afford to pay all the extra costs out of pocket.

I never understood CCAP paying their own family members or someone to "one on one" in their own home to begin with (other than special needs) so I really have no opinion about that part. I am sure there were very good reasons why it was allowed, I just don't know what they were.

I like the training part....it sounds pretty minimal and standard across the board to me. That requirement is not price prohibitive and many CCR&R's have it available for free a few times a year.

[Blackcat31]

Minnesota Statutes, section 119B.09, subdivision 9a, limits CCAP
payments to child care centers that receive CCAP payments for children and employ either the
parent of the child or a person who lives with the child. CCAP payments will be prohibited to
licensed or license-exempt child care centers if more than 50% of the children cared for by the
provider are children of the provider’s employees or reside with center employees


Wow I wonder why they inacted THAT rule?

Ten absent days a year is going to cause a lot of problems. It will translate into providers either billing the kid as present when they are not or letting kids go when they get to the ten day limit.

Our state allows 4 per month. Nearly five times as many.

I agree with no longer paying in reference to the first comment you made. I also think the 10 day limit is going to cause some stress for sure. It used to be 10 in six months and that was tough for some families so it just had them sending kids with illnesses and drugging them up first. If the child is present for even 15 minutes, we do not have to count it as an absent day.

:confused: Looks like it will be very difficult to find a provider willing to take CCAP very soon.

Why penalize the provider if the parents miss days? If the problem lies with the parent missing work, why are they not the ones penalized?

I think I understand the intent, but they missed the mark, IMHO. It only penalizes the kids and providers this way.... unless I missed something, which is very possible. :confused:

I think it is sad the kids will be excluded from field trips and special events. Again, it only penalizes the kids. I would end up just canceling all trips to keep them from being singled out and excluded (it would break my heart to see it), because I could not afford to pay all the extra costs out of pocket.

I never understood CCAP paying their own family members or someone to "one on one" in their own home to begin with (other than special needs) so I really have no opinion about that part. I am sure there were very good reasons why it was allowed, I just don't know what they were.

I like the training part....it sounds pretty minimal and standard across the board to me. That requirement is not price prohibitive and many CCR&R's have it available for free a few times a year.

Our program for CCAP used to be 100% worse so this is all still improvments and fine tuning...LOL!! I agree about the activity fee but in my area, no one charges an activity fee so that won't be a huge problem but I can't speak for the more metropolis areas. I can see how it might impact them and you are right, it will be the kids who will suffer from it.

I am thrilled that they are no longer willing to pay family members or boy/girlfriends who live in the same home to do childcare!! That would be like us having to hire our own children's father to "babysit" their own kids! If a person chooses to be in a relationship and live with someone who has children, I think it means the whole package...not paid benefits too!!

And I love that they are now requiring LNL providers to have training. That should have been a requirement from the beginning.


As for the payment decrease, it will cost my daycare parents an additional .70 cents a day, $3.50 per week or $14 per month so it shouldn't be too difficult to handle.