[Senate Hearing 107-349]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-349
CHILD CARE: STRENGTHENING FAMILIES AND IMPROVING THE WELL-BEING OF
CHILDREN
=======================================================================
HEARING
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
EXAMINING CHILD CARE: HELPING PARENTS WORK AND IMPROVING THE WELL-BEING
OF CHILDREN
__________
MARCH 15, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-342 WASHINGTON : 2002
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
TOM HARKIN, Iowa BILL FRIST, Tennessee
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
PATTY MURRAY, Washington PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
JACK REED, Rhode Island SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
J. Michael Myers, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Townsend Lange McNitt, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
STATEMENTS
FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 2002
Page
Dodd, Hon. Christopher J., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 1
Bond, Hon. Christopher, S., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 5
Murray, Hon. Patty, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington.. 6
Roberts, Hon. Pat, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas....... 8
Reed, Hon. Jack, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island... 10
Collins, Hon. Susan M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maine... 11
Merkison, parent, Kennebunk, ME; Helen Blank, Director, Child
Care and Development, Children's Defense Fund; Elaine
Zimmerman, Executive Director, Connecticut Commission on
Children; and Janet Schalansky, Secretary, Kansas Department of
Social and Rehabilitation Services............................. 12
Thompson, Elizabeth Bonbright, Executive Director, Washington
State Child Care Resource and Referral Network; Kathy R.
Thornburg, Research Director, Center For Family Policy and
Research, University of Missouri-Columbia, and President,
National Association For the Education of Young Children; and
Travis H. Hardmon, Executive Director, National Child Day Care
Association.................................................... 37
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.:
Helen Blank.................................................. 54
Elaine Zimmerman............................................. 59
Janet Schalansky............................................. 66
Elizabeth Bonbright Thompson................................. 69
Kathy R. Thornburg........................................... 76
Travis Hardmon............................................... 78
Jim Klein.................................................... 80
(iii)
CHILD CARE: STRENGTHENING FAMILIES AND IMPROVING THE WELL-BEING OF
CHILDREN
----------
FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m., in
room SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Dodd
presiding.
Present: Senators Dodd, Jeffords, Bingaman, Murray, Reed,
Bond, Roberts, and Collins.
Opening Statement of Senator Dodd
Senator Dodd [presiding]. Good morning. The committee will
come to order.
Thank you all for coming. I apologize for starting a few
minutes late, but we had a vote a moment ago. I welcome my
colleague from the State of Washington, Senator Murray, who has
joined us; she was one of the champions of child care even
prior to her arrival here as a member of the Washington State
legislature.
I am thankful to all of our witnesses and the people who
have gathered in the audience to talk about this issue. I thank
all of you for being here. As I look out over our witness
table, I know that I have worked with some of you for years on
these issues, and it is a pleasure to see all of you. So thank
you for coming to be a part of this hearing this morning which
we have entitled, ``Child Care: Strengthening Families and
Improving the Well-Being of Children.''
We have invited you all to talk this morning about one of
the most basic issues of our times and certainly one of the
critical issues of the 21st century--and that is not an
exaggeration or hyperbole. Let me share the statistics with
you.
Certainly I have said many times, and maybe it is becoming
overstated but it is absolutely true, that children represent
20 percent of the population of the United States, but no one
would deny that they represent 100 percent of the future of
this Nation. As we enter this very, very difficult century
already, with the problems that we have seen as a result of the
events of 9-11, the raging problems of the Middle East, the
staggering economic problems that we are going to be facing,
the competition worldwide, the generation that is born in this
century and will be raised in this century and the coming years
will play a critical role in terms of whether this Nation will
carry on its great traditions--and that is not an exaggeration.
How we treat the very youngest of our population will in large
part determine the outcome of that question.
Let me share with you some very basic statistics which,
during today's hearing and the consideration over the weeks
ahead, to keep in mind. I think it makes the case more so than
any rhetoric than I can offer about the importance of these
children.
Today, 78 percent of mothers with school-age children are
in the work force. Sixty-five percent of mothers with children
under the age of 6 are in the work force, and more than 50
percent of mothers with infants are in the work force. Those
are the facts, and the numbers are going up all the time of
people in the work force with young children. That is the
reality, and I see nothing on the horizon that is going to
change those numbers.
Most parents are simply not at home full-time any longer.
Many might like to be. For those who are, I introduced, along
with my colleague from the State of Washington, legislation in
the Senate to provide tax credits for stay-at-home parents,
recognizing that there is a sacrifice that they engage in, and
we want to recognize that sacrifice through the Tax Code.
But many people do not have that choice; they have to be in
the work force, and it is not easy. These people deserve our
attention as well. It is not an easy matter to balance work and
family issues under any circumstances, and today it is
extremely difficult.
Since 1996, the number of families receiving child care
assistance has grown dramatically, to about 2 million children
today. But for as many children who receive assistance,
available child care funds reach only one in seven eligible
children across this country. And as many of you in this
audience know, child care in too many communities is not
affordable even if you can find it; and in too many more, it is
not available even if you could afford it; and even worse, in
many places, it is of dubious, dubious quality--which may be
the most important issue that we will discuss today.
About 14 million children under the age of 6 are in some
type of child care arrangements as I speak to you here this
morning. This includes about 6 million infants in our country.
The cost of care averages somewhere between $4,000 and
$10,000 a year, more than the cost, I might add, of tuition at
many if not most of our State universities and colleges. Far
too many of our American parents are left with far too few
choices. Nearly 20 States currently have waiting lists for
child care assistance. Every State has difficulty meeting the
child care needs of its population. Not a single State in this
country serves all the eligible children in their State.
While waiting lists show that there is a demand for
service, that is certainly only part of the picture. Wyoming,
for instance, does not have a waiting list, but if you earn
over $18,800 a year, which is barely above the poverty level
for a family of three and probably below the poverty level for
a family of four, you cannot obtain any child care assistance
whatsoever in that State.
In some of these States with long waiting lists, parents
throw up their hands and do not even bother getting on the
list. You can imagine if you show up and say, ``I believe I
qualify for child care,'' and you are told by someone, ``Well,
we will put you on the list, but you are number 500,'' or
number 1000 on the list, the likelihood is slim that you are
even going to bother to be on the list, understanding that
there is little or no likelihood you are ever going to receive
that assistance.
More than 30 States require families of 150 percent of the
poverty level to pay more than 7 percent of their income in
child care fees, or do not even allow a family at this low
income level to qualify for child care assistance. Other
families who are eligible for assistance have difficulty
finding child care in the community, because subsidies are far
too low.
Most people think of child care as work support for working
families, and it certainly is that. We talk about the necessity
of having a child care program so that people can go to work.
But this is far more than just ``parking'' children. This is
not like someplace where you can leave your automobile where it
is going to be safe. We need to understand that if we are going
to be talking about people's ability to go to work and making
it possible for families to work, we need to spend as much time
thinking about where these children are going to be and the
circumstances under which they are going to be cared for.
It is time to focus, in my view, at least as much attention
on the needs of children, who spend so many hours a week in
child care, to make certain that they obtain the intellectual
stimulation necessary to hone the learning skills that they are
going to desperately require in their formative years. Seeing
to it that they are safe ought not to be even a question.
Seeing to it that they get proper care, seeing to it that it is
going to be a stimulating, nurturing environment, is something
that we should pay far more attention to.
Let me tell you why. Forty-six percent of kindergarten
teachers recently responding to a national survey reported that
more than half of their students in kindergarten are not ready
for kindergarten. The learning gap does not begin, they said,
in kindergarten. It is first noticed there, but it does not
begin there. Strengthening the quality of child care in the
country is one of the keys, I believe, to shrinking this gap.
Quality child care is a major factor in school readiness. In
addition to meeting a child's cognitive, physical, social and
emotional needs, quality child care should include pre-literacy
and oral language training as well. Too many child care
settings are deficient in these areas.
I am currently working with Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine
and many others, including my colleague from Washington Senator
Murray, to introduce legislation to reauthorize the Child Care
and Development Block Grant that will address the early
development needs of children. Seventy-five percent of children
under 5 with working parents are spending a lot of time in
child care. If these children are to enter kindergarten ready
to learn, we must strengthen the child care that they are
receiving today.
In our reauthorization bill, we will set aside specific
portions of child care in the development block grant to
strengthen the child care work force. I believe it is almost
criminal that child care workers on average earn about $16,000
a year. It is no wonder that the turnover rate among child care
workers is among the highest of any career in our country. I
also believe it is criminal that cab drivers, hair stylists,
and window washers all need training and certification--and
understandably so, in many cases. But the people whom we
entrust to care for America's young children for the most part
require no certification whatsoever. If we are to expect better
outcomes for children, we must first work to strengthen the
child care work force.
Last year, I introduced the FOCUS bill to provide grants to
States to increase child care teacher compensation and to
provide scholarships for those who want to improve their
training and education. Many of the FOCUS bill provisions will
be included in the child care reauthorization bill.
In addition, the education bill was recently enacted to
include an amendment to provide professional development for
early childhood educators to promote children's school
readiness. We know that under the best of circumstances in a
growing economy over the last several years, we have not been
able to meet the need or demand for child care assistance.
Today in a tough economy, the task is going to be that much
more difficult.
To compound matters, I am very concerned about the
administration's welfare reauthorization plan submitted to
Congress last month. The plan calls for an enormous increase in
the number of parents who will be required to work under the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program. I
understand that; what bothers me is the following. Not only
will the overall number of parents required to work increase,
but the number of hours each parent will be required to work
each week will also increase from 30 to 40 hours a week.
What is troubling to me is that the administration
requested no additional child care funding. In fact, the
administration requested a 5-year freeze on child care funding.
It is one thing to increase the work load and to demand
additional hours, but if simultaneously we are not going to
make it possible for those families to be able to leave their
children in a safe place and to afford to do so, we are just
adding additional burdens to families that are already facing
tremendous economic difficulties.
Does that mean--a freeze on child care pay for 5 years, a
freeze on reimbursement rates, a freeze on eligibility rates, a
freeze on helping working poor families--and by the way, this
is the group that we are primarily talking about. You can get
the assistance by and large if you are on public assistance or
welfare. But we do not want to crowd out the working poor.
These are the people who are really going to get hit by
freezing this and putting the burdens on them.
So as we talk about this issue, remember that the audience
we are talking about is the working poor primarily when we talk
about the needs of child care.
It goes without saying that we must be certain there are
sufficient child care funds to assist families transitioning
from welfare to work, particularly if the Government is going
to require them to work. I am concerned that the
administration's plan will result in a raid of child care
assistance from the working poor to pay for those families
transitioning from welfare. We need to do both. Welfare reform
cannot succeed in the long run without sufficient funding for
child care, and the working poor cannot get by without the
child care help that they need.
Leading studies have found that early investments in child
care can reduce the likelihood of being held back in school,
reduce the need for special education, reduce dropout rates of
high school students, and reduce juvenile crime rates. If we do
not improve the quality of child care that our children now
spend so much time in, in my view, we will be in danger of
missing the boat on a whole generation of children.
With those opening thoughts, let me turn to my colleagues.
I see my friend from Missouri is here, as well as my colleague
from Kansas, and obviously my colleague from Washington.
I will turn to my colleague from Missouri for some opening
comments.
Opening Statement of Senator Bond
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It seems like old times working on child care. A dozen or
so years ago we worked on your act for better child care
legislation, and that was less contentious than some of the
things we are working on now--no death threats or anything like
that in that one--and it is a pleasure to be working with you
again on something that is so important.
I appreciate your calling this hearing. Unfortunately, I
have other commitments this morning, but I want to make a
preemptive introduction of Dr. Kathy Thornburg, who is going to
be on the second panel. She has spent the past 20 years as
director of the Child Development Laboratory at the University
of Missouri at Columbia.
In Missouri, we are very proud of a number of things. We
are proud of our Parents As Teachers which takes care of the
parental responsibility, and we are also extremely proud of the
Child Development Laboratory which provides a high-quality
early education setting for children from 6 weeks through the
third grade, and serves as a teaching and research lab for
university students, faculty, and staff.
Dr. Thornburg directs a program that focuses on the growth
and development of each individual child by promoting cognitive
development, social and emotional development, physical
development, creative development, and parental involvement. In
fact, the Child Development Laboratory under the leadership of
Dr. Thornburg was recognized by Child Magazine as one of the
top 10 child care centers in the Nation in 1992.
Dr. Thornburg is a great resource in Missouri on child
development and early learning programs. We are very fortunate.
I thank you very much for having her here today to testify on
work force issues and the important role that compensation and
professional development play in building good child care and
quality early learning programs.
I will have to read her testimony, but I hope she will be
able to address the general questions about what we can do at
the Federal level to help attract and keep qualified child care
teachers. I know that some States are doing a good job, but
this is a shared responsibility, and we need to keep the
pressure on State and local governments as well. I would be
interested in her thoughts if we were to provide more money in
the Child Care Development Block Grant for professional
development, whether that would solve the problem of
underqualified teachers.
With that, Mr. Chairman, again I apologize that I have
other commitments this morning, but we do look forward to
reading the testimony, and I thank you very much for holding
this hearing.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much, Senator Bond, and we
will give Dr. Thornburg a very warm welcome from the committee
when she appears on the second panel.
We thank you for coming by this morning. I should note in
addition to your help on the Child Care and Development Block
Grant a number of years ago that you were very instrumental
along with others on this committee in the Family and Medical
Leave Act.
Senator Bond. Yes.
Senator Dodd. You played a very critical role in drafting
that bill, which has now served almost 40 million families in
the United States since its adoption 9 years ago, and we thank
you for that as well.
Senator Murray?
Opening Statement of Senator Murray
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for holding this really important hearing and for
your tremendous work on behalf of children in this country and
certainly in particular on the issue of child care at the
present time.
Child care is an issue that touches all parts of our
society, from working parents who are struggling to hold it
together, to employers who are losing valuable hours because of
someone's child care problems, to the children, who really
spend too many hours in settings that are not preparing them
for what life holds.
I can tell you from my own experience in the classroom that
early childhood education and child care have a tremendous
impact on a child's development. I could tell immediately when
a child joined my class whether they had been in a high-quality
child care program or a good preschool, or whether they had
been left in a setting where there was not a lot of stimulative
activity going on, or it just was not good for them.
There are a lot of dedicated people who work in child care
and help our children grow and develop, but too often, many of
them do not have the kind of training they need, and certainly,
all of them do not have the compensation they need.
I think the sad thing, Mr. Chairman, is that every parent
wants his or her child to succeed. No parent looks around for
an option and says, I would rather leave my child in a setting
where they do not get the kind of attention they need or have
an untrained caregiver.
The reality is that a lot of parents have no choice.
Quality child care is either too expensive, or it is just not
available. I think we should be aware that it is even more
difficult for parents who work the night shift or who have
infants, and any program that we develop has to address those
issues.
In my home State of Washington, we have worked very hard to
provide good child care options, and until just recently, we
were serving families up to 225 percent of poverty, whether
they were welfare recipients or just working poor.
Unfortunately, my home State of Washington is very much
impacted by the economy right now--we have the second-highest
unemployment rate in the Nation, second only to Oregon, our
neighbor to the south--and because of a tremendous budget
shortfall, our State unfortunately just cut eligibility from
225 percent to 200 percent of poverty, which means that about
13,000 families in my State will be impacted.
My State also increase the copayment requirement and de-
funded some important quality initiatives, so I am deeply
concerned as our economy is in a very difficult State that the
kids are the ones in my home State who are really hurting, and
certainly, child care is an issue that is always impacted
first.
I think the good news for kids in my State is that there
are some really good, committed people who are fighting to get
good, quality care, and Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that
one of Washington State's leading advocates for children is
here in our audience today; she is on your second panel.
Elizabeth Bonbright Thompson is the executive director of the
Washington State Child Care Resource and Referral Network. She
is a member of the Washington Child Care Coordinating
Committee, and she is immediate past president of the National
Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies. That
is just a small part of her resume, which I know all the
members have, so I will not go through it; but I think that
what is not in her resume is even more impressive, and that is
her total dedication to children and the passion and
professionalism that she brings to work. Through her work in my
State and our State's Resource and Referral Network, she has
helped countless struggling parents find high-quality,
affordable child care; she has created opportunities for child
care workers to get more training and better salaries; and she
has built coalitions to improve child care quality and overcome
obstacles.
I think she more than anyone in my State has really worked
to make sure that thousands of our kids have a safe and
nurturing environment, and I am delighted that she is here
today to talk about the Resource and Referral Network, which is
really a linchpin for our State.
Unfortunately, I cannot stay for the second panel--I have
to catch a flight back to Seattle for commitments in the
State--but Mr. Chairman, I want you to know how much I
appreciate your work on this issue and my commitment to work
with you to make sure we do the right thing particularly as we
reauthorize TANF--I concur with the remarks that you made
earlier--and I thank Elizabeth for traveling 2,500 miles to
come out here and help my colleagues understand the challenges
that we face in child care.
Thank you very much.
Senator Dodd. Senator Murray, thank you very, very much. As
I said a moment ago, you have been a wonderful supporter on
these issues, and you have brought a wealth of experience as a
teacher and then as a State legislator in the State of
Washington to this issue, so you have been a wonderful ally
over the years in your service here in the Senate on these
issues.
We have been joined by other colleagues--Senator Roberts of
Kansas, Senator Collins of Maine, and Senator Jack Reed of
Rhode Island.
Let me turn to Senator Roberts. I would point out that when
Senator Roberts sees me coming, he looks at me and says,
``Child care.'' The reason I approach him is because he has
been such a terrific advocate and great supporter on these
issues.
Pat, I thank you for your support and thank you for being
here this morning.
Opening Statement of Senator Roberts
Senator Roberts. If I do not say ``child care,'' I say
``Cuba''--but that is another issue.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership. It is Friday,
and I want to thank all the witnesses for taking their very
valuable time to come here. This is a crazy place--they give us
cards, and we are supposed to be in two places at the same time
over half the time--but it does not mean that we are not
tremendously interested and share, as Senator Murray has
pointed out, your perseverance on behalf of child care.
It was a great night last night for Connecticut and
Missouri and Kansas; they all won--although I think you play
tonight.
Senator Dodd. Connecticut plays today.
Senator Roberts. Well, you are going to win.
Senator Dodd. Thank you. [Laughter.]
Senator Roberts. That is not March madness.
Senator Dodd. You barely won last night, I might add.
Senator Roberts. We persevered; our point guard has a bad
ankle, so I am going to have to leave--I may have to play if
things get too bad. [Laughter.] Then we would really be in a
world of trouble.
Let me say that Kansas has an impressive record in reducing
welfare cases and providing quality child care services. I am
so pleased that our Kansas leading lady in child care who
really administers these programs for my home State is here
today to testify. Secretary of Social and Rehabilitation
Services for Kansas, Janet Schalansky, is here to lend her
expertise on this issue and give a State perspective.
Kansas has seen the number of welfare clients decrease from
over 26,000 cases in 1996 to an estimate 12,500 cases last
year. While decreasing the number of individuals on welfare, we
have also seen an increase, like other States, in the number of
individuals who are indeed in need of child care. For example,
in 1997, about $37 million was spent on child care in Kansas;
this year, it is estimated that over $61 million will be spent.
Those funds assist 17,000 children, and only 3,000 of those
children are designated TANF children. This data really proves
that child care is crucial for working parents.
An important and impressive point to note is that there is
no waiting list for child care services in Kansas. Janet is
certainly responsible in part for that. In addition, SRS has
outreach programs to target working families who might qualify
for child care, which include partnering with our county health
clinics, our schools, our chambers of commerce, health care
providers, and various community action agencies.
The mission of the Kansas SRS is ``to protect children and
to promote adult self-sufficiency.'' I am happy to say that
Janet has promoted this theme throughout her entire career, and
we are very fortunate and very lucky to have a person as
dedicated as Janet.
Mr. Chairman, I have about seven additional paragraphs here
indicating my strong support for child care; I think I will
just ask that it be made a part of the record in the interest
of time. And like Senator Bond and Senator Murray, I have
another commitment that I have to rush off to, and I apologize
to the panel and to you, sir.
Thank you for your leadership, and thank you for your
perseverance. You have strong bipartisan support in this
regard, and in that regard, I do whatever Senator Collins
suggests that I do--within reason. We are team for you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Dodd. Thank you, thank you. I know that, and I
thank you for coming. I know it is very difficult for Members,
but I want the audience and our witnesses to know that there
are many times when that occurs, but Members will just send a
statement over; and the fact that Members have come here this
morning and cannot stay is an indication beyond just the
normal, perfunctory submission of statements of their support.
I am not just saying the things I have said because they are
here. What I have said about Pat Roberts is true--on every,
single occasion that I have gone to him and asked for his help
on child care, he has been there. So those seven or eight
paragraphs, whatever you want to say, we will include it in the
record, and thank you for your support.
Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Bless your heart, Janet, and thanks for what you do.
[The prepared statement of Senator Roberts follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Roberts
Kansas has an impressive record in reducing welfare cases
and providing quality child care services. I am pleased that
the woman who administers these programs from my home state is
here today to testify to our committee. Secretary of Social and
Rehabilitative Services for Kansas, Janet Schalansky is here to
lend her expertise about this issue and give a state
perspective. Kansas has seen the number of welfare clients
decrease from over 26,000 cases in 1996 to an estimated 12,500
cases last year. While decreasing the number of individuals on
welfare, we have seen an increase in the number of individuals
who are in need of child care. For example, in 1997 about $37
million was spent on child care in Kansas compared to this year
where it is estimated that over $61 million will be spent.
Those funds assist 17,000 children. Only 3,000 of those
children are designated TANF Children. This data proves that
child care is crucial for working parents.
An important and impressive point to note, there is no
waiting list for child care services in Kansas. In addition,
SRS has outreach programs to target working families who might
qualify for child care, which include partnering with county
health clinics, schools, chambers of commerce, health care
providers, and community action agencies.
The mission of the Kansas SRS is to ``protect children and
promote adult self-sufficiency.'' I am happy to say that Janet
has promoted this theme throughout her entire career. Kansas is
lucky to have a person as dedicated as Janet.
Child care, in the home when possible and outside the home
when parents work, goes right to the heart of keeping families
strong. Unfortunately, finding quality, affordable child care
is one of the most pressing problems for families in Kansas and
around the country.
With the enactment of the 1996 welfare reform, we were
successful in administering assistance to those who need it, in
an innovative and streamlined way. In the last 5 years, these
programs have been extremely successful in reducing the rolls,
while giving individuals real skills to work and retain
employment. However, even with a decrease in the rolls, we must
continue to assist those in need, whether it be welfare
recipients or the working poor. One of the easiest ways we can
do this, is by offering assistance for child care.
Many families work but are still unable to afford child
care, which forces them into economically difficult situations.
Child care can eat up 40% of a family's income and can easily
cost as much as college tuition. With this in mind, we must
continue our commitment to support families who leave TANF but
still require some assistance.
Offering states flexibility in administering the Child Care
and Development Block Grant has been the driving success of
this program. For instance in Kansas, we have rural areas out
west and urban areas in the east--giving states flexibility
allows individualized needs to be met.
Finally, child care is the beginning of the education
process for many children. With an increase of single parent
families and an increase of families with two parents who work,
we must continue to offer states the flexibility to promote
these programs and to invest in child care. Partnering with
Early Head Start and Head Start is vital to all our children.
If we are able to provide quality and educational child care,
we will have kids on the path to success.
Senator Dodd. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island has also
been a strong supporter of this issue. We thank you, Jack, for
being with us.
Opening Statement of Senator Reed
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me
begin by commending you for your leadership, not just in this
hearing and this Congress, but for many, many Congresses. There
are literally hundreds of thousands of children throughout the
United States today who have better chances, better
opportunities, and better lives because of what you have done,
and I thank you very much for that.
I thank the witnesses. You bring great expertise and
experience.
I am particularly concerned--and I hope we can explore it
in the questioning--about the fact that we demand very high
quality from child care workers, and we do not pay for that
quality. I hope we can begin to think about that. I have
introduced legislation along with Senators Dodd, Kennedy,
Daschle, Murray, Kerry, Corzine, and Cleland to provide some
incentives to raise the reimbursement level at the State level
for child care. I think that will go a long way toward ensuring
quality.
In my view, too much of our system is subsidized by child
care workers, most of them women, who are extremely competent,
extremely dedicated, but woefully underpaid. So I hope we can
do something about that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dodd. Thank you, Senator Reed. I hope we can as
well.
Senator Collins--and again, I rarely get involved in a
children's issue that I do not reach out to her or she reaches
out to me as a partner in these issues, and this is no
exception--so I thank you, Susan, immensely, for your support
and your work.
Opening Statement of Senator Collins
Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am delighted to be here today. I saw Senator Paul
Wellstone on the way over, and he asked me to express his
concern about this issue and his wish that he could be here.
Fridays are very difficult because all of us are catching
planes, so like many of my colleagues, at 10:30, I have to turn
into a pumpkin and be out of here.
But Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this
hearing to examine the challenges that working families face in
finding affordable, quality child care for their children. You
truly have been a tireless advocate for working families for
many years. Even before becoming a parent yourself, you were
concerned about the adequacy of child care, and I have been
pleased to support you in a number of initiatives to make
quality child care more available and to increase funding from
the Federal Government.
As any parent will tell you, quality child care is
difficult to find, and even mediocre care is at times out of
reach for many working families. Moreover, studies show that
the biggest barriers that most families face in both getting a
job and keeping a job is affordable, reliable child care. Child
care is the crucial work support for parents.
I am particularly pleased to welcome this morning a witness
from Maine, Sheila Merkison from Kennebunk. She will describe
the challenges that she has faced as a single working mother
with a 2-year-old son. While she has been fortunate to find
good quality child care, her child care expenses are 48 percent
of her weekly net income. That obviously leaves her very little
left over for even the basic necessities of life.
While Ms. Merkison qualifies for child care assistance,
Maine, like many States, does not have sufficient funds to
serve all of its eligible working families. I was impressed to
learn that Kansas has been able to serve its families without a
waiting list.
Ms. Merkison, on the other hand, remains on a waiting list,
and she is not alone. More than 42,000 Maine children need
child care and are eligible for subsidies, yet the State
currently has funding available for just over 12,000 subsidies.
That means that there is an overall unmet need for subsidized
child care in Maine for 30,000 children.
I know from talking to child care providers that many
working parents in Maine are forced to make terrible choices
about what to do in the absence of these subsidies. In fact,
there was a survey of low-income working families in Maine that
reported that 20 percent of the working parents interviewed
acknowledged that they had left their children in an unsafe
child care situation during the prior year--it is not that they
want to; it is that they feel that they have only bad choices.
That is why I think it is so important that we work
together to provide more assistance so that we can meet this
very considerable unmet need for subsidized child care.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much, Senator Collins. We are
very grateful as well to Ms. Merkison for coming down from
Maine to be with us.
I want to note that the other day, the Finance Committee
held a hearing on child care from a tax perspective, and they
were wonderful. I just want to make reference to Senator
Baucus, who chairs the Finance Committee, who was extremely
eloquent and forceful; Senator Rockefeller, who was passionate
on several rounds of questioning to Secretary Thompson about
child care.
And Secretary Thompson, I might point out, as former
Governor of Wisconsin, was one of the leaders in support of
child care, so he is in a different position today, but he was
the witness before the Finance Committee. Senator Lincoln,
Senator Breaux, and Senator Snowe, our colleague from the State
of Maine, were also extremely forceful and articulate on the
issue.
So I just want to express my gratitude to the Finance
Committee for expressing their strong commitment to this issue
as well.
With that, let us turn to our witnesses who have come
today. Ms. Merkison, we are really grateful to you. The other
witnesses that we will be hearing from are also wonderful
friends, but they testify periodically, even before State
legislative bodies or Congress itself in the case of Helen
Blank, whom I have seen on many occasions, and Elaine
Zimmerman. But for you to come down is a tougher thing to do,
and I want you to know how deeply grateful we are that you have
come down to talk about your own circumstances in a crowded
room full of strangers, far away from your own home. It means a
great deal to us, because you put a face on this, rather than
just numbers. I have a lot of statistics up here about waiting
lists and so forth around the country, and those numbers get
written down, but when you talk about what you are going
through and how difficult it is for you to make ends meet and
to meet your obligations and see to it that your son is well-
cared for, you give a dimension to this discussion that, with
all due respect to the number-crunchers, really resonates. So
we are very grateful to you and anxious to hear your comments.
STATEMENTS OF SHEILA MERKISON, PARENT, KENNEBUNK, ME; HELEN
BLANK, DIRECTOR, CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT, CHILDREN'S DEFENSE
FUND; ELAINE ZIMMERMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CONNECTICUT
COMMISSION ON CHILDREN; AND JANET SCHALANSKY, SECRETARY, KANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICES
Ms. Merkison. Thank you. Thank you for inviting me this
morning, and good morning.
I am excited to be here because I am very anxious to tell
people what it is like to work and try to provide for your
child when you do not make enough money to do it--and I would
definitely describe myself as ``working poor''; I think that is
a good description of it.
My name is Sheila Merkison. I am 26 years old. I am from
Kennebunk, ME. I have a 2-year-old son who is in day care, and
I feel that I have found a good facility for him, because it
has a nursery school program, and I feel he is learning.
However, there are sacrifices that I feel we have made for him
to be in this program.
I just want to give you a little bit of background on how I
came to be where I am. I was married when my son was born, and
I decided to become a homemaker. So, 1 week before he was due,
I stopped working to stay at home. Eventually, my husband was
verbally abusive and eventually became violent, and I decided
that my son and I both deserved a better life. So in 2001, this
past September, I decided to leave everything we had behind. I
packed the car with clothes that would fit, and we drove to
Maine, which is actually my home. I was born in Portland, but I
have been in the Carolinas for the past 10 years.
We came to Kennebunk, ME to stay with my grandmother until
I could get on my feet. I found full-time employment with an
insurance agency in October of 2001. You have to have child
care in order to work, so I found somewhere to enroll him. Like
I said, it is a great place, but the problem I face, as Senator
Collins mentioned, is that 48 percent of my net income goes to
day care. There is not enough left over for me to pay for rent.
I can provide him with food, diapers, clothing, and everything
else, but it was a choice--rent or child care. But I cannot
work without the child care, so this is the choice that we
made.
I feel that I am perfectly capable of working, and I can
provide everything for my son if it were not for the cost of
child care. And I do not believe that child care deserves any
less money; it is just that it is such a heavy expense for any
parent when you are trying to raise a young child. When your
child is sick and unable to attend, you are still required to
pay for a full week. If there is a holiday, and the child care
is closed, you are still required to pay for that day. Parents
either have to stay home on those days, so you would lose that
day's pay from your employment, or you have to make a choice
such as paying a babysitter, which is an extra expense. It is a
difficult situation for any parent.
I see no other way to fully provide for my son if we cannot
get child care assistance. This is really our last hope. The
only other Government assistance that I qualify for is the WIC
program, which I do participate in. I have been to social
services, and I was told that I make too much money for their
programs. I make $18,000 per year. That is hardly enough to
raise a child my son's age.
So I am asking for help. I am asking to be enabled to work.
And in my mind, really, if you are enabling people to work,
would that not cut down on women on welfare? If you allow them
to go to work, if they have the means to work, we would not
need so much of the food stamps and the other assistance that
is out there, because we would have the money to provide those
things because we would be working. If we had that assistance
with child care, I believe I could do it--I could pay for an
apartment. My son could have his own home, with his own bed,
toys again, with a room to put them in.
My son and I have been sleeping on a couch for 6 months
because we have been on a waiting list for child care for 4 of
those months. I feel that the waiting list is full of other
parents like myself, and we desperately need this help; parents
need the child care assistance.
Thank you.
Senator Dodd. Very good. Thank you.
Ms. Merkison. Thank you for your consideration, and I will
be happy to answer any questions.
Did you hear me okay? This is the first time I have spoken
on a microphone.
Senator Collins. I did. You did a wonderful job.
Senator Dodd. You did very well, yes; very, very well. And
thank you again for being with us.
What is your son's name?
Ms. Merkison. His name is Skyler.
Senator Dodd. OK. Thank you.
Helen Blank is our next witness. Helen, as I said, we have
known each other for a long time, and I would be hardpressed to
name anyone else in the country who is as knowledgeable about
child care as Helen Blank. She has for 25 years, a quarter of a
century, been involved in these issues--it is just a fact, and
the audience knows it, too; you cannot hide it, Helen--and has
done terrific work.
Helen is director of Child Care and Development for the
Children's Defense Fund and has been a real leader on these
issues for so long. I cannot think of an issue that we have
dealt with over the years involving children where she has not
been involved and given us wonderful advice. She is
knowledgeable about almost every State in the country and what
they are going through and the difficulties that States have as
well as the people who live in them with making ends meet,
particularly in the area of child care.
Your report, the newest one, ``A Fragile Foundation: The
State of Child Care Assistance Policies,'' has been
tremendously helpful in helping us formulate ideas at the
Federal level.
We thank you for your presence once again before the
Congress.
Ms. Blank. Senator Dodd, members of the committee, we
cannot thank you enough for the incredible impact that your
efforts have had on the lives of countless children. We still
have huge gaps in child care, but there are 2 million children
and families who now get child care assistance, and much of
that is because of your work and the work of this committee.
As you look at child care, as you said, it is really
important to remember that it helps parents work, and it helps
children enter school ready to learn. We have seen an enormous
increase in both the number of single mothers and welfare
mothers who have entered the work force in the past 5 years.
The President's welfare proposal puts even more demand on a
fragile child care system, with not one new dime, while States'
TANF dollars have started to dry up. So we are really at a
significant impasse.
You did note that child care costs more than public college
tuition, yet 39 percent of child care costs are borne by
parents, and only 23 percent of higher education costs are
borne by parents. So to make this work, to improve the quality
and help families pay for care, we need the Government and the
private sector to step up to the plate more.
Even in a robust economy, there were huge gaps in child
care assistance policies. States make three choices when they
determine how they provide help to families. They decide who is
eligible, how much a fee parents pay for the cost of care, and
how much to pay providers. When setting eligibility, as many of
you have noted, you cannot just look at welfare families,
because working poor families are one unstable job away from
welfare, and if we are going to make welfare reform work, we
have to look differently at child care. Only a few States have
done that. Rhode Island has really stepped up to the plate with
a guarantee of child care assistance for all families, but we
have a long way to go. In 40 percent of the States, if you earn
$25,000 a year, you cannot get any help. In Iowa, if you make
$20,000, a family of three cannot get any help paying for child
care.
You talked about the long waiting lists. In Texas and
Florida, 37,000 children are on the waiting lists. Some people
say that is okay--if you are on the waiting list, like Sheila,
you find child care. But studies show that families on the
waiting list face incredible hardships.
In California, one wait list had one-third of the families
earning $10,000 or less. About 42 percent had problems with
quality. In Houston, most families were spending 25 to 30
percent of their income for child care. Families on the wait
list are also very stressed. Many of them are not happy with
the quality of their children's care, and they bring this
stress home.
In North Carolina, the Smart Start program actually pays
for subsidies as a family support, because if families know
that their children are in better care, they bring home less
tension.
Families who receive help still face hurdles. In about 35
States, if you earn half the poverty level, $7,000 a year, you
still have to pay for child care, and in many States, you have
to pay 5 percent of your income; in 46 States, at poverty
level, you pay a fee.
Then we get into paying providers. The quality of care that
a child gets, as well as the family's choice--we talk a lot
about choice--depends on how much a provider makes. It is
important to remember, as you all said, that these providers
are often low-income women struggling to make a living. Many of
them have to use child care subsidies themselves. But nearly
half the States set rates below a current market rate. What
does ``below a current market rate'' mean? It means--let us say
you are running a program in 2002, but you have a 1996 rate.
Are you supposed to pay your provider, pay the rent, pay the
utilities, pay for things like books and crayons and supplies
at 1996 rates in 2002?
We have seen some innovative work on rates. About half the
States pay higher rates for higher-quality care, care that is
hard to find; but often those rates are on top of a low base
rate, so you are still not getting enough to provide for that
high-quality care. These gaps are growing wider. Last year, New
Mexico lowered eligibility from 200 to 100 percent of poverty.
West Virginia plans to lower eligibility and also eliminate
rate bonuses for infant care and odd-hour care. Texas is going
to be serving 6,000 fewer children of those working poor
families. Illinois is going to serve fewer families and raise
copays.
Gaps in subsidy policies are only part of the picture. You
have to remember that families who use subsidies are buying
into their States' child care systems because we use vouchers.
You all talked about the low salaries that child care providers
make. Until we do more about what providers get, we cannot
expect to attract and retain trained teachers.
But what States do is, just as they make tradeoffs on their
child care assistance policies, they make tradeoffs in their
licensing policies in order to keep the cost of care low so
women can go to work.
You need 2,000 hours of training to be a cosmetologist. In
30 States, you can work in a child care center with no training
in child development; in 33 States, you can work in a family
child care home with no training in child development. Ratios
are very important because you want children to get enough
attention from the staff. Only 10 States meet the ratios set by
national experts. In Texas, one person can care for nine 18-
month-olds--think about it--think about little Grace and having
these little children walking around, running around, and they
need a lot of attention.
Senator Dodd. I need nine people to help me take care of
her alone right now. It was a long night last night, I will
say. [Laughter.]
Ms. Blank. One of our young staff people had triplets, and
it has been extraordinary watching them. And one-to-three is
considered the best ratio for infants.
All of these are tradeoffs, because if you have better
ratios, you raise the cost of care.
This year, you have a major opportunity. The Child Care
Development Block Grant is only reauthorized once every 5
years. This is the time to increase the funding. We always say
money, money, money--but you cannot help families like Sheila,
you cannot improve ratios, you cannot raise compensation given
the gaps that we currently have, given that wait list chart
that sits out there.
What about other programs? Head Start only serves three out
of five eligible children, and Early Head Start reaches only 5
percent of eligible children. Many States now do pre-K
programs, but they are limited to low-income children, and
they, like Head Start, are only part-day. So if you are running
a Head Start or a pre-K program, you actually need a full child
care subsidy to make that program work for working families.
Nearly 7 million children come home alone, yet we could only
fund 11 percent of the applications for the 21st Century
Community Learning Centers program.
This is the chance to do something about the Child Care and
Development Block Grant, not only to add money but to increase
the money that is set aside for quality. We have fought about
this year after year after year. People do not like set-asides;
they want flexibility. But unless we put aside more money for
quality, we cannot address the many issues that have been
raised about helping children go to school ready to learn.
It is the time to address teacher compensation and quality.
It is also the time to address infant and toddler care where we
have our biggest gaps.
You have a big job to do, but I am confident that given the
commitment of this committee and the strong interest not only
in helping families work, but in helping children learn and
succeed in school, we can expand investments in a program that
is so critical to both of these national goals and really
ensure that no children are left behind.
Thank you.
Senator Dodd. Excellent testimony, Helen. Thanks very, very
much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Blank may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Dodd. I want to complete our panel, but I want to
note the fact that we have been joined by two additional
colleagues--Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico is here; and Jim
Jeffords, my good friend from Vermont. Both are members who
have been long involved in these issues.
Now let me turn, if I can, to complete our witnesses, if
that is all right with my colleagues.
Elaine Zimmerman is again someone with whom I have worked
for a long time in Connecticut. She has testified here in the
past. She is the executive director of the Connecticut
Commission for Children and one of the most innovative and
creative people I have met in public life. Her talents have
been particularly useful in working with families and children
in Connecticut, and she always comes up with great, innovative
ideas on how to approach these problems. We are very fortunate
that she is a resident of Connecticut and spends so much time
on our State issues. Her lessons have been tremendously
valuable, and we have stolen a number of them and applied them
to national ideas.
Elaine, we thank you for being here.
Ms. Zimmerman. Thank you very much, Senator Dodd, members
of the committee, and I want to thank the committee again for
your leadership on children's issues.
Lack of quality early care for families is like a loose log
on a trail--it can trip up what is just basic foothold to us.
It trips up health, curiosity, a place of safety, readiness for
school and, unexpectedly, equity.
We have very much in Connecticut taken keen interest in
what you and Congress have done in education this year, and we
are moving rapidly to fight social promotion. We have rigorous
standards, testing, high expectations in the schools, but we
have discovered something that was not part of the picture. We
have discovered that the missing piece of the puzzle to
educational achievement and to blocking social promotion is
early care and education.
We just did a study and followed children who were in early
care against those who were not, and I would like to offer the
findings today, a few key findings that are changing the
silhouette of this in Connecticut.
In Bridgeport, out of our poorest cities, we followed
children who had early care against those who did not, and we
found that children who had early care had fewer retentions,
more frequent attendance, and much higher reading scores in
grades K through 2. In the first grade--and this is really a
shocker--47 percent, nearly half of the students, who did not
have quality care were kept back.
Once you implement law to stop social promotion, once you
implement law in the public school and say that children need
to learn, and if they are not learning because of the schools,
we are not going to falsely pass them forward, what do you do?
You need to make sure that the early care system is in
place. That is the missing piece of the puzzle once you make a
commitment to blocking social promotion.
And get this--of the children who had early care, only one
child was held back. So almost half and only one of the
children who had early care.
The reading scores were startlingly different among those
who did and did not. And in terms of cost, the cost for the
children who had early care compared to the cost for those who
did not in terms of retention was 5.5 times more expensive for
the children who did not have early care. So the cost issue as
soon as you begin to cost it out in elementary school and go to
your goals that are education goals that the President and you
have just signed, you see that the gain is so much wiser to
invest in the early care.
We similarly are very interested and committed to reducing
the achievement gap in race and poverty for children
educationally. Once again, I am pleased to give this
information to you. We found in Connecticut that we were able
to not just narrow but stop the minority achievement gap with 2
years of early care and education.
In a study that we have just released out of Middletown,
CT, a working poor town, we found through the data, following
children in early care and education, that low-income African
American children who attended a school readiness program
attained a school readiness score that was comparable to white
children, they surpassed white low-income children, and they
surpassed African American children who did not have early care
and education. It was 2 years, not one. We needed the
continuum, but we broke the race divide through quality early
care.
I want to flag for you that the dollars for this and these
findings came from CCDBG funds collocated with education
dollars. We could not have done it without Child Care
Development Block Grant dollars.
We have a former president of the most successful bank in
Connecticut, People's Bank--the CEO is David Carson--when he
saw this data, he stood in front of our State legislature and
said, ``Well, I think what you are going to start needing is
two kindergartens--a kindergarten for the children who have had
quality early care and a kindergarten for the children who have
not--because the divide is so profound.''
Then, a child care provider from Stamford, CT in Fairfield
County near Manhattan, said, ``I took the children to look at a
swimming pool and to go by the ocean, and the children had
never seen a swimming pool before. There were seniors swimming,
and they thought the seniors were in their underpants. They saw
seagulls, and they thought the seagulls were chicken birds. I
gave a test and I asked do boats have wheels, and the children
said yes--not because the children were stupid, but because the
children had never seen a boat in the water; they had only seen
boats connected to cars. So they thought boats did have
wheels.''
Then, she said, ``This thinking that children will learn
when they are ready in any particular setting is a bunch of
lark. We will have to teach children, and if we do not teach
them, they will not have the images that they need in order to
get to language and print.'' That is what I would like to talk
about next.
We brought in a fifth grade cohort of teachers in a large
city, New Haven. We brought in an outside consultant out of
shame, because the children were about to take the mastery
test. The teachers had a secret. The secret was that they were
teaching the entire fifth grade curriculum verbally. They were
not teaching presuming the children could read print, because
the children could not.
They were about to do a major mastery test that was going
to expose this, and they brought in an outside reading
consultant. Well, this is of course what President Bush and you
all in education are realizing, is how important reading is. We
now know that many States are building their prisons and
determining how many prisons to build based on the third grade
literacy rate in the State--and this is accurate--if you do not
read by third grade, you are going to be in trouble, you are
going to be a dropout.
What we are seeing is that teachers have a host of skills
they need to have to teach reading effectively in K\1/2\, but
there is a missing piece, and that is the early care and
education piece. Oral language and pre-literacy are infant,
toddler, and pre-K.
I have a list in my testimony which you can access--I will
not take the time now--but just bare-bones, to succeed in oral
language development, children need 1,000 hours of experience
with books, alphabet games, storybook reading and activities
before they enter school. And yet in one city alone, in
Hartford, 73 percent of the adults in a sample group were
functionally illiterate. What does that mean? They could not
sign their name, they could not total a bank deposit ticket,
and they could not locate an intersection on a map.
For us to rely on parents for the pre-literacy skills is
missing that our parents are not necessarily literate. The core
indicator of a child's capacity to read is the mother's
literacy level. Seventy-three percent in the cohort were not
functionally literate.
We need children to be in quality child care not just so
that it is for babysitting. They need the sound of language,
the rhyming, the holding and touching of letters. This is not
rushing children to read. It is having them become facile and
love the sound of words, which many children are not getting.
I am going to jump because I know my time is nearly up. The
other component that we have not talked about yet is safety.
Virtually any time--and I would challenge you probably in most
States--if you did the horrible thing of calling the department
in charge of child deaths and you asked how the children died,
I can guarantee you that one-third to one-half of the children
who died would have died in unlicensed, unsafe care.
What we are seeing now in many instances is that it is
because the parent is working and does not have any care, needs
to find fly-by-night care, and the children are inadequately
protected.
I am sure many of you read that when the World Trade Center
imploded, the child care workers there went barefoot, put the
children in Safeway carts and started walking. They knew to do
one thing--they got every family file--because they knew that
by the end of the day, the parents might be dead, and they also
know that perhaps the children would not make it. So they
risked their lives, got the emergency folders, put the children
in Safeway carts and walked and walked and walked. They walked
until it was safe, and they never looked back. And then, do you
know what they did? They pretended that this had always been
their intention. They took the children out, and they played
games with them. The children were protected. None of them
died. They were all safe, and they were not as traumatized as
many. These child care providers were trained.
I hate to say this, but our world is a different world
after September 11. We in our State have created a training
system for all of our providers. We are teaching oral language.
We are also going to require multihazard evacuation planning.
I do not want my children to be in environments where the
people are not trained in case there is a danger, internal or
external. The level and need to think about safety as we
address child care becomes of new valance; it is just plain old
different, given that the context is different.
In sum, I would say that poor-quality care or no care is
the starter fuel for inequities in lifelong achievement, and
now that we know that early care is the first staircase for
learning patterns and early school success, we had best hammer
those stairs and help children ably climb them. I think we need
to expand CCDBG. I also think we need to expect more from the
field. I am tired of the complaints that we do not have enough
and that the people who do this are not able. We need to have
as high expectations in child care as you have just had of
schools, and I think you can only do that by putting in the
resources.
Thank you.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much, Elaine.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Zimmerman may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Dodd. Janet Schalansky has already been introduced
by Senator Roberts. We thank you very much for joining us and
are happy to receive your testimony.
Ms. Schalansky. Thank you, Senator Dodd and members of the
committee. I am pleased to be here.
I am Janet Schalansky, Secretary of the Kansas Department
of Social and Rehabilitation Services, and we appreciate this
opportunity to come and testify on the subject of child care,
no more important subject, not only as Senator Roberts said, of
our mission and our agency to protect children, but also to
promote adult self-sufficiency so that those families might
work.
Since the passage of welfare reform in 1996, States'
investments in child care have exceeded all expectations. We
have seen a dramatic increase and unprecedented growth in the
number of families and children served as evidenced by child
care expenditures. Between 1996 and 1999, there was an 80
percent increase in the number of children receiving a monthly
child care subsidy. States have programmed every dollar
available, and nationally, we have doubled our spending on
child care.
For example, looking at the TANF block grant, in 1997, we
transferred or spent $187 million of the TANF money on child
care; in the year 2000, we spent $4.3 billion--again, using
those dollars where they were most needed in order to have
families be self-sufficient and for children ready to learn.
I am concerned, and Senator Dodd, I think you outlined it
in your opening statement, about what happens if the current
economic downturn continues and the TANF money that we have
been transferring is no longer available; or in addition, if
the Congress mandates new welfare reform, work rates or hours
of participation, then Federal child care must be increased. We
will need to replace that $4 billion that has been transferred
to TANF to CCDF in order just to maintain our current
investment, and that does not include what would appear to be
an increased investment, at least in the President's proposal.
If Congress wants States to increase quality and increase
access, additional funding will be needed. And I share with Ms.
Blank the concern that it sounds like we are always saying more
money and more money--but the children need to be cared for,
and it takes money to do that.
Let me talk for just a minute about Kansas specifically. We
are a relatively small State in the scheme of things, but we
have 15,313 children who are served monthly by our child care
subsidy. That is up significantly from the early nineties. Our
expenditure as well has almost quadrupled on what we spend in
child care subsidies since 1992.
But what is more important--and I think you heard it
articulated very well by Ms. Zimmerman--is the importance of
the first 3 years of their lives, and even the first 5 years of
their lives. We have tried to focus in our State on that
quality, both through broad-based educational campaigns and
also in some training.
We have a special infant and toddler project that we use
through our child care resource and referral agencies to have
access for child care providers all over the State to make sure
they are trained in those very critical years of development
for a child.
We spend almost $14 million on quality in Kansas. Governor
Graves 2 years ago in his ``State of the State'' announced a
new initiative, suggesting that we transfer $8 million of the
TANF block grant to begin a Kansas Early Head Start program. It
serves 825 children and families directly, but it has impacted
the quality for an additional 2,000 children.
The flexibility that we have been provided in the Child
Care Development Block Grant has allowed us to partner with
other agencies and funding sources, and we really encourage
that that be continued. These collaborations have resulted in
an after-school program for inner-city children. We
collaborated with the Kaufman Foundation and also with one of
the 21st Century projects.
We also have a 3-year pilot project going on to define and
evaluate quality child care involving Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa,
and Missouri, and we think the data from that will help us
focus and then advocate for the needs of children in the
Midwest.
We have been able to achieve some degree of success in our
child care programs, but we know there is much more work to do.
Increased dollars would enable us to continue to face those
needs. As Senator Roberts said, right now, we do not have a
waiting list--we do some outreach, but even with that, we only
serve 16 percent of the eligible children, and I would suspect,
Senator Dodd, that it would be much like you said--they know we
have spent all of our available allocation, so people are not
applying.
We also know that we need a significant increase in slots
for infants and toddlers. Particularly in Kansas, the slots for
infants are costly and very hard to find.
We need to do more outreach to low-income families to
support the caseload growth.
We need to continue to work and focus on recruitment and
retention of quality providers. The research has shown over and
over that the quality of staff and training for them is
critical to the outcome for the children in their care.
We also need to increase provider rate payments above the
current percentiles. Even in our tight financial times in
Kansas, the Governor did recommend a small increase in child
care, knowing that we had to do that while we are cutting other
significant places in our budget, because we needed to keep the
provider network available.
States, including Kansas, have made a variety of
investments to support working families by focusing on odd-hour
and after-school care. We have got to figure out what works to
get the incentives for the providers in that. Examples from
other States include Maine, which provides technical to schools
starting school-age programs; and Connecticut has established a
child development associate credential certificate for school-
age providers; Massachusetts has funded distance learning
courses in infant and toddler care also through the Child Care
Resource and Referral Network; in New Hampshire, family and
center-based providers can participate in intensive training
and services equipment.
Five years ago, this Congress made a decision to invest in
child care, streamline funding, and devolve authority to the
States. Unprecedented success has been achieved to date, but we
know there is much more to do. We urge you to keep the promise
made in 1996 and resist adding new requirements and
expectations without the resources necessary to implement them.
We ask you to fully understand how critical an ample supply
of quality child care is to healthy families who can remain in
the work force and positively support healthy children.
Thank you for this opportunity. I will be happy to respond
to questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Schalansky may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Dodd. All of you have been terrific and have given
excellent, excellent testimony, and I want to thank you
immensely for your comments and your thoughts on this subject.
Let me turn to my colleagues. Senator Bingaman, do you have
any comments or questions that you would like to raise, and
then I will turn to Senator Jeffords.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much.
What strikes me in listening to the testimony and beginning
to learn about what we are faced with this year in this
reauthorization effort is that we have a real disconnect
between what we are saying and what we are doing. We give a lot
of speeches around town here about the importance of early
childhood education and development and so on, and the
administration budget to us asks for level funding on child
care at the same time that we are being requested to
dramatically increase the requirements to work for a lot of
families. So it seems to me that there is a lot of disconnect
there that will be particularly adverse in my State.
Thirty percent of your TANF funds can go to child care; we
have hit that cap, and we have made that transfer, but we would
like the flexibility to do more if we could. We would like to
see substantial increases in the amount of funding available
for child care. I know that is a joint responsibility of this
committee and the Finance Committee, and I am fortunate to
serve on both, as is Senator Jeffords, and we look forward to
working on these issues with you, Mr. Chairman. You have been a
great leader on this issue for many years, ever since I have
been here in the Senate, and we want to see if we can get these
numbers up.
Let me ask one question. Some of the argument that I hear
in discussions about this is that although we are not providing
that much for child care, or not providing near what is needed,
that is not a full description of the situation because we are
making this up with other programs. We are making it up with
Head Start; we are making it up with 21st Century.
Are those comparable? It seems to me that Head Start in my
State is a pretty weak reed for a working family to depend on.
I would be interested in any of your comments on that.
Ms. Blank. You got it, Senator Bingaman; it is a weak reed
for a working family to depend on. Head Start is a very
important program. It is a high-quality program with Federal
performance standards; it has set-asides to improve quality and
to improve salaries; it has teacher credentials. It is, as the
Bush Administration in their budget said, our premier early
childhood program.
But it is--well, first of all, it only serves 3- and 4-
year-olds, and mostly 4-year-olds. Early Head Start, which
Kansas is working on, is a jewel for babies; it serves less
than 5 percent of eligibles.
But both Early Head Start and Head Start and the limited
number of State pre-K programs are dependent on child care
block grant money to meet the needs of working parents. Some
people will say we are double-counting. They will put the list,
and they will say we have all this money. Well, first, just ask
any provider. You are going to hear from Travis Hardmon who
runs Head Start and child care if there are enough resources in
early childhood. But you are not double-counting if New York
City's pre-K program is 2\1/2\ hours a day, or if Head Start is
4 hours, and a parent needs 10 or 11 hours of child care; you
actually have to wrap in a full child care subsidy.
So we need both. We are actually layering a child care
system that includes Head Start and pre-K and child care. And
21st Century is wonderful, but as I said, only 11 percent of
the programs were funded. It is an interesting program, too,
because it is academically focused, which is good, because
children need a lot, as Elaine said, to be able to read and to
catch up--but many children need 3 or 4 hours of after-school
care 5 days a week and during the summer, and 21st Century does
not do that. It can be a couple of hours a week. It is an
important program.
One-third of children getting Child Care Block Grant
subsidies several years ago were school-age, so CCDBG is
actually an important piece of our support for school-age
children. So we do have more than one program, but they all
have a role, and they all together do not fill the enormous
gaps for our young children or our school-age children.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much.
Senator Dodd. Let me turn to Senator Jeffords. I mentioned
Pat Roberts and others, both Senators Reed and Bingaman, but
Senator Jeffords has cared about this subject matter for all
the years that we have served together, so we are listening to
colleagues here who have dedicated a good part of their public
service to this issue, and Jim Jeffords certainly falls in that
category.
Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you. I have just begun to get
moving, and I have a lot of things in mind.
I would like some information from you. I have been
studying the European situations and the Asian situations, and
the differences are so dramatic that it gives me concern as to
how we can catch up and what it will take to do that. I am
actually doing the arithmetic to do that, and it is astounding.
One of the key areas is the quality of early child care and
education, and I notice that the European standards are about
the same for K through 12 as for the pre-school. What do we
have in this country as far as being able to get those
standards and get that kind of preparation? Do we have many
people involved in learning how to have the quality of child
care that the Europeans and Asians have?
Ms. Blank. I have been to both France and Sweden, and it is
quite an experience. What I think is really astounding is their
commitment to children as nations. They differ--Sweden has sort
of a community system where one caregiver has five children; in
France, it is sort of extraordinary--you see 30 4-year-olds.
Now, the teachers have 5 years of training. Someone once said
to me the French children do not talk at table. It is a very
different society, and you could not just superimpose the
French system on America, just because of the way we are as a
people; I think we are more gregarious. You would never see 30
American children sitting so quietly with one teacher, and I am
not sure I would recommend it, but I certainly would recommend
the 5 years of training.
What they do in several European countries is not just the
early childhood, and I think that is an important lesson.
First, they do the health care. If you look at families' and
children's faces, you see less stress, because you start with
paid leave, so families stay home for several months. In
addition to the 3 or 4 months in France, you have family
allowances that you layer on top of. They have a lot more time
off, so the children get to spend more time with their
families. But as nations, these countries are committed to
children and family.
We could do it. It would take a while. New Jersey has a
pre-K program that goes to all children in the poor school
districts, and they are requiring teachers to have a 4-year
degree, and they are finding it takes a while, because we do
not have the work force. Kathy Thornburg can talk more about
that. We are not there yet, but if we made the commitment and
we gave ourselves some time and we invested the resources, this
is not rocket science. I think we know what works for young
children. There is lots of research. We need to roll up our
sleeves and make the commitment.
We have been taking steps. It is better than it used to be.
About $2 billion is invested in State preschool programs. But
we still have a lot of gaps. And it does take resources.
Georgia has universal pre-K. They use their lottery, and they
spend almost $300 million. Parents there see it as free child
care; they love it. They still need child care to extend the
day, but when we asked Georgia if they would do it for the 3-
year-olds, they said, ``We could never do it because we cannot
get any more lottery money.''
Somebody in this country has to say that children and
families matter, and we now understand how important the first
5 years of life are, and we are going to do it. But in the
meantime, if we do not get there right away, we have to keep
taking these incremental steps, because they do add up. America
is often an incremental country. But those countries are great.
Senator Jeffords. Ms. Zimmerman?
Ms. Zimmerman. I had an opportunity to live in Sweden, and
one of the things that really stood out from the quality of the
care and how it was presumed was the amount of father
engagement. Fathers are dramatically more involved in the
raising of their children, even if the parents are divorced,
than you see here. So you walk the streets there and, whether
divorced or not, the fathers have the strollers and are with
the children, are with the children during work breaks, are
home during the infant care as much as the women are. It is
dramatically different.
Also, there is a commitment actually in their law that
understands that a key tenet of democracy is safety. And we
might talk about diversity as a core tenet and freedom of
speech, which they do too, but they put in safety and factor
that into all they do in child development. So that stands out
as quite different.
In Connecticut, when we put together our school readiness
initiative, frankly, we had to sculpt it as if there were
nothing, because as soon as we tried to put in the pieces that
we knew needed to go together--the health piece, the oral
language piece, the safety piece, the parent engagement piece--
the pieces are like a case of pick-up sticks; it is so
fragmented, there are so many shards and different funding
streams, that we had to build it, and people looked awry, and
different State departments looked awry. And even though it is
a fine system, we are only in targeted areas where children are
at risk. We have a wait list for school readiness of 15,000. It
has been level-funded for 3 years. So we have a Cadillac
program that has praised around the country, and it has not
grown for lack of funds.
Senator Jeffords. Some of my staff have young children, and
they are paying $5,000 a year for quality child care. Is that
fairly standard across the country for quality child care?
Ms. Zimmerman. It is much higher in Connecticut; it is more
to the tune of $7,000 to $9,000.
Ms. Blank. Infant care is $10,000 to $12,000, although
someone here told me they were spending $10,000 in Washington,
DC for a 4-year-old. It depends on your region.
We have found that if you look at rural and urban areas,
the costs were still high; that in rural areas, it was not
considerably lower than urban areas.
Senator Jeffords. Even taking the $5,000, I am trying to
figure out from a national perspective if we were to spend that
kind of money on every child, preschool, whatever, that is
about a $50 billion per year increase in expenditures. Can we
afford not to spend that?
Ms. Zimmerman. This was the data that I was presenting,
that as we are looking at the outcome data in K through 3, and
as we align it with Congress' goals for improved education,
what we are clearly seeing is that quality early care and
education narrows the race divide and improves school
preparedness, decreases retention, decreases school absence,
and improves reading and other cognitive capacities.
When we cost it out, the savings in early child care far
larger than the costs of retention. Put bluntly, we can make
this investment in the early years, or we can make it later
through holding children back or watching dropouts. The former
is more dignified. The latter is clearly not dignified and
comes with ancillary costs that are connected to self-esteem
and a sense that one can have an impact on the work force and
on the economy.
So I think the choice is just one or the other--either do
it early, or do it later in a negative way.
Senator Jeffords. It is my understanding that with the 3-
and 4-year-olds, if you do not get it at that time, you never
get it. Is there some truth to that--if you miss that good-
quality care as a 3- or 4-year-old, or earlier, you really
cannot regain it.
Ms. Zimmerman. Well, we know so much more now than we knew
10 years ago about the brain, and we did think that when
children were born, what came out was what you got. Now we know
that the brain cells actually form and are shaped like tree
boughs, the way the sun helps a tree bough form, that it is not
just what the child is born with but how the brain gets
activated.
We also know that the most important periods of pattering
for the brain actually happen before the age of 5; that
actually, lifelong patterning of thinking is taking place in
those very early years.
Now, I am an optimist, and I would be very disinclined to
say, well, after 5 years, that is it. But what we do know now
is that children can learn much more, and the patterns hold if
we do it early. And if we do that well, with sensitivity, we
are missing so much that those in Europe have already known to
do. And the findings there are not just about learning; they
also factor into things such as health and safety.
So the truth is very simple--the more we do early, the more
we gain in dignity, good outcomes in health safety and
learning, and also in dollars.
Ms. Blank. I agree with Elaine. There is one caution, and
this happened when we focused on the first 3 years of life.
That is that it is absolutely essential that children get this
strong start to start school if they are going to be strong
readers. If they come into kindergarten with very little verbal
action and no experience with letters and language, they are
far behind. But sometimes as a Nation, we tend to look in
blocks, and yes, we must do much more on the first 5 years of
life, and then we have to keep supporting children. We do a lot
less at the adolescent end because we say it is too late. So
every year of a child's life is important, and we do not do
enough in the first 5 years; we actually do not do enough in
the later years, either.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Senator Dodd. Thank you, Jim, very much.
Let me now turn to my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator
Reed. I know many of you have to catch planes and do other
things.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me
thank the witnesses for extraordinarily cogent and compelling
testimony today, all of you. Thank you so much.
Again, I am struck by several things. First, I took note of
Ms. Zimmerman's comments about the involvement of parents in
Sweden. I did not know you were Swedish, Chris, with your
paternal involvement----
Senator Dodd. The Irish have a long traditional.
[Laughter.]
Senator Reed. Which we celebrate this weekend.
Senator Dodd. I want to know whether those French programs
have wine at the table for those children.
Ms. Blank. They eat on china plates.
Senator Reed. All of this raises many questions, but I want
to focus on the issues that you all touched upon, and Ms.
Blank, you not only touched upon it but were very articulate
about increasing reimbursement rates, and I know you have been
working very closely with Elyse Wasch on my staff.
This seems to me to be a major issue that we have to
address--and it is not just improving pay; I suggested that in
my opening remarks--but with increased reimbursement rates, you
can improve training, you can do many things that have to be
done and also help providers to lessen the impact on parents,
because if they are getting more substantial reimbursements
from State and Federal programs, there is not quite the
necessity to turn to parents.
Again, I think that we have to really focus on
reimbursement rates in this reauthorization, and I wonder if
you have any other comments you would like to make in that
regard, Ms. Blank.
Ms. Blank. We certainly commend you for your strong focus
on this issue and for helping to bring it forward. You know,
this is all related. Two million children are getting
subsidies, so when we talk about school readiness, you cannot
not talk about child care. We have millions of children in
child care settings who are not getting subsidies. Rates that
providers get do not even really reflect, even if you were
paying the full rate, the true cost of running a program,
because there are so many other costs that are not there, like
facilities sometimes.
We have this odd thing where we say that we should not pay
the full market rate for poor children because then they could
get Cadillac care. Yet these are our poorest children. These
are the children in Bridgeport who need school readiness. So we
set up a bar, which is not even in law because States really
have the flexibility to pay whatever they want, that is less
than the market. And even when we had a law that said you had
to pay the 75th percentile, Connecticut up until this year was
paying the 75th percentile of 1991 rates. States are always
trying to balance. They want to keep their waiting lists small.
They do not want parents to pay so much. But I believe that in
Chicago, the rate for infants is something like the 18th
percentile--I might be wrong, but it is very, very low. How can
you do a good job? It is impossible to run a program and do
well by children, and you are talking about programs in poor
neighborhoods where you have less access to private resources.
Sheila talked about absent days. To save money, some programs,
if you are getting public money, do not want to pay for absent
days, but you have got to keep your program open. A school
would never say, ``If a child does not come, we will not pay.''
But we are always trying to make it cost less, and it does not
work. And we are asking providers to really pick up a huge
burden, and many of them cannot do it. I just heard of a
program in Westover that had been around for years that closed
the other day in Massachusetts. They cannot do it if you look
at the fact that 80 percent of their budget is wages. If we
want to do well by children, and we want them to have good
experiences, and they are in the child care line, their
provider probably needs a rate that is not even built on the
market, because as we all talked about, the market does not
really allow you to provide the kind of care that these
children need.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
One of the points that you made, Ms. Merkison, is that good
child care means that a parent can be in the work force and be
a productive worker. Might you comment on that again, because I
think that is a very important point.
There are some people who pooh-pooh all of this as just the
typical fuzzy-headed thinking of people who just do not know
about real life and the business world. Frankly, without good
child care, you cannot have good workers in many respects, and
I wonder if you might elaborate on your own experience.
Ms. Merkison. Sure. I can just reiterate for you, if this
is what you are looking for, that people who are applying for
child care assistance want to work. I look at it like these are
really the people who are looking for help as opposed to--and
what I have gotten in my own work environment is people who are
not happy with people that they feel are looking for a handout.
But people who want child care assistance want to work; they
want to work to provide what their children need. But without
that help, they cannot work.
In my case, I felt that the quality child care was so
important that I am putting him in a good facility with a
nursery school program, but I am sacrificing that much money.
Half of my paycheck right off the bat goes to this facility
because it is important to me that he has a good, safe
environment to be in. But we cannot afford a housing expense
because of child care expense, and it is frustrating to me to
have to make a choice like that.
So in regard to school, I feel like that is wonderful; I
have him in a good place. But when we come home, my son and I
sleep on a couch. I am trying to work and get on my feet.
Hopefully, later in the year, I will become an insurance agent,
but it is going to take time. I need to study. I need to learn
the business. So I will be able to make more income eventually,
but we need the help right now.
Senator Reed. Thank you so much.
Ms. Blank, you said that it is all related. Senator Dodd
and I serve on the housing committee, and I am struck again by
your comment, too, Ms. Merkison, that child care is one issue,
but there is another set of issues--health care and affordable,
decent housing for you and your child. We have lots of things
to do, and they all come together, and the measure is how well
our families are doing.
Ms. Zimmerman, I was particularly struck by your comments,
cutting to the chase--that if we want the best-educated
students in the world, we had better have the best child care
in the world, and we do not. Your statistics about looking
analytically at different groups of young people who have had
good child care and how they do in school is terribly
convincing. This is again not just some kind of altruistic, do-
gooder notion. This goes right to what everyone is saying they
want to do--have children be the best in school and in the
world so they can be good citizens, productive members of our
economy, and ensure this country remains strong.
Can you just amplify a bit?
Ms. Zimmerman. Yes. There was a reference before by Senator
Bingaman about the divide between wanting more TANF recipients
to work more hours, but the lack of care.
I think there is another divide, Senator Reed, and that is
the Nation's commitment to educational excellence beginning in
kindergarten, but not paying attention to the early care piece.
And what has become so evident from the latest findings that we
have seen in Connecticut is that the early care piece is the
missing piece; it is the connecting piece to succeeding in K
through 3. It is paramount. Clearly, the literacy, the math,
the language, the writing differential between those children
who were in a quality early care environment for at least 2
years against those who were not--we have a new fissure of
haves and have-nots.
One could say, well, maybe we just should not provide any
of it, but that is ridiculous if we are committed to quality
education and to global competitiveness which, since September
11, we certainly see the need for global connectedness. We need
to begin much earlier.
The other item that we saw we had not paid enough attention
to and that we had not seen much literature on--we asked the
question whether children, if they were racially integrated
earlier, would be less fearful of difference and more open and
receptive to difference. And lo and behold, again, the outcome
is that the understanding of difference and bias toward
difference begins very early, and the outcomes are borne out
much better in a joy with difference and a sort of acceptance
as if this is the way it is when children are exposed to
difference and live with difference.
Now, the nice thing about child care is that unlike the
public school where, once your kid is in school, it is your
neighborhood school, and that is that in early care, parents
are willing to drive to have their children be in the best
situation or to take three buses to get to the best situation,
and they can do that; they can pick and choose, and they can
also pick care near their work site.
So the opportunities for racial integration and helping our
children learn to accept and to actually respect difference
happens early.
Senator Reed. Thanks so much.
Senator Dodd has been very kind, and I am going to yield
back, but I just want to commend Ms. Schalansky and her
colleagues, because running these programs is a challenging
task with our policy, your policy, our funds, your funds,
private payers--and not just to you, Ms. Schalansky, but to all
of your colleagues who do this challenging job, again I want to
thank you.
Thank you, Senator Dodd.
Senator Dodd. Thank you, Senator Reed, very, very much.
Let me ask just a couple more questions--and obviously, we
could probably keep each panel here all day.
I just want to ask Sheila to comment and respond to this.
You are living with your grandmother; the couch that you and
your son are sleeping on is in your grandmother's house?
Ms. Merkison. Yes.
Senator Dodd. I suppose the distinction I would make is
that you have a situation that you can fall back on. The
problem for thousands and thousands of people is that they do
not have that grandmother around. So I think you are saying how
fortunate you are, as difficult as it is, that you are able to
kind of make this work because of that unique situation that
you are in, whereas most people would not have that alternative
available for housing.
And second, you did something that is very important. I
suppose you could have chosen to have a babysitter or a
neighbor provide child care, and then you might have been able
to meet that housing need, which is what I think a lot of
people probably do who do not have an option. I presume your
grandmother is not charging anything to stay with her.
Ms. Merkison. No, she is not.
Senator Dodd. I did not know the answer to that question,
and I was going to be in real trouble if she was.
Ms. Merkison. No, no. I think you made a good point that
some people do not have that to fall back on. But the concern
that I have as far as the urgency of the child care assistance
is that my grandmother is in her eighties, and should something
happen, my son and I would essentially be homeless, to be
honest. We would have nowhere to do.
It worries me--in that situation, would I take my son back
to the abusive home? I hope not.
I also want to mention that with only a high school
education, I am still capable of finding a job, finding
employment--with child care assistance--that can give me health
insurance, can give me the ability to provide the other things
that will take away from my need for the other programs--for
the health insurance assistance, for the food stamps. I think
that if we had more child care assistance, it would cut down on
the people needing these other programs.
Senator Dodd. Yes. You are a great witness, and I do not
know what companies are up in Maine, but if I were a small
insurance company, I would hire you as an agent in a minute.
Ms. Merkison. Thank you.
Senator Dodd. If they are listening or watching, I would
get hold of Sheila Merkison right away. I think you are going
to do very, very well. But you are adding a voice to a lot of
people who, candidly, Sheila, are not as articulate and suffer
under a variety of circumstances--they do not have one child,
they have three----
Ms. Merkison. Yes, and I have friends in that situation.
Senator Dodd. So you, by your own admission, as tough as it
is, are pretty fortunate to be in a situation where you do have
someone at this point who can help out. And you are on the
brink of maybe moving into a different economic category that
may make you far more independent than you otherwise would be.
Ms. Merkison. Hopefully, yes.
Senator Dodd. So we thank you again for coming down.
I wanted to make a point that I did not mention earlier. I
want to commend Mrs. Bush, the First Lady. Some of us
participated in a hearing where she testified about the
importance of early learning and pre-literacy, and I want to
endorse what she is saying and suggesting--that those are
critically important issues. And if there is any disagreement
at all--and I do not want to suggest that there is, because
there is none over her points--and I would like to ask people
to comment on this--it is that that is a very important aspect,
but in order to have a good pre-literacy program, in order to
have a good learning program, there are other elements that
contribute other than just reading to someone; there are other
elements that are critically important. And when you are
talking about the numbers that I cited at the outset of this
hearing, where 78 percent of women with school-age children are
in the work force, 65 percent of women with children under the
age of 6 are in the work force, and more than 50 percent of
women with infant children are in the work force, that child
care setting, the kind which you are making a sacrifice,
Sheila, to get into, is critically important if in fact we are
going to achieve the goals that Mrs. Bush has laid out for pre-
literacy and early learning. But you have got to have a quality
child care program to do that, and that is the thing that I
think was missing, with all due respect to the First Lady and
her testimony.
I would be interested, Ms. Schalansky, if you would comment
on that point--and I hope I am saying that in the way that I
mean it. I am so thrilled that she has taken this on as an
important issue, but just expanding it so there is an
understanding of the role that quality child care can play.
Ms. Schalansky. I think you stated it very well, Senator
Dodd. My understanding is that the role that Mrs. Bush is
playing is trying to broaden the understanding of the American
people about how important that is, and I think you heard it
from Ms. Blank and Ms. Zimmerman. But also by your data, 70
percent of those women are working, so it is not a matter of
our learning how to be better parents at home or picking a
preschool or a nursery school two or three mornings week. It is
a matter of having child care available for the 10 or 11 hours
a day you need 5 days a week.
One of the things that our department does--child care is
only one of them; we also run the child welfare program and
others--and as you stated, Ms. Merkison's situation is such
that she has something to fall back on. You might imagine that
if you do not wrap the total services around the family, you
start getting families in stress, you start getting child
welfare issues, you start getting marital issues, and all those
sorts of things.
So I think it is really critical. We have tried to do some
education as well in our State. We have borrowed a program
called ``Good Beginnings Last a Lifetime,'' and we have tried
to educate businessmen and parents and caregivers and
grandparents--but we have got to put that whole package
together, and if the economic situation is that you have to
work, or if you are in the part of our society that benefits
from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, then
we tell you that you have to work 30 hours a week now and 40
hours if the President's proposal is passed. You have got to
have that child care available.
As one of the other Senators said, there are programs
available--there is Head Start, there is the 21st Century
project--but the only minutely serve the programs.
I think one of the other questions is do we know what to
do--yes--but we do not have the resources to have them
available for every child, and in Kansas, being very urban in
the eastern part of the State and very profoundly rural in the
west, how we are able to deliver that service to kids wherever
they are and where their parents need to work.
Senator Dodd. I thank you for those comments. I think you
make the case, and I saw your colleagues here nodding their
heads in agreement with what you had to say.
Let me ask you as well, Ms. Schalansky, you mentioned that
fewer than 20 percent of TANF leavers, as they are called here,
participate in the State's child care subsidy program. Why do
you think that rate is so low, and what do you think we can do
to ensure that those leaving welfare for work get all the
support possible and why that gap exists.
Ms. Schalansky. We have tried to research that a lot over
the years, even prior to the welfare reform that was passed in
1996. I think a couple of things happened. For some families in
some situations, it is a cultural issue that they prefer to
have a family member if available to care for their child; or
the other situation that is occurring--and Ms. Merkison's
example may be one--is that families have made some choices.
They have made choices about rent or about child care, and they
might share a home with another person in a similar situation,
and they try to adjust their work schedule so they can work.
I think that folks know it is available, but we require, as
many States do, a subsidy that goes up on a sliding fee scale,
and I think we just have a situation that these families as
they have left welfare--although we are pleased that we
continue to get their wages up--many of them start at minimum
wage, and with all the things that hit them, I think they make
some choices. We try to educate them about making good choices
about what is important for their child and about getting good
child care, but I suspect many of those folks, if they have to
choose between rent and child care, may oftentimes patch
together child care that would probably be less than the
quality that you have heard described this morning.
Senator Dodd. OK. I mentioned at the outset of my remarks--
and my two colleagues were not here at the very outset to hear
these comments, but I know they agree with what I am about to
say, and I think others who were here do as well--we are
talking about people in the work force in child care, and I
mentioned the numbers. All of us here also respect and
understand that there are people who make the choice--the
difficult choice, economically--to stay at home. And I
mentioned how we have tried to get a tax credit available for
those people who make that decision to be at home and raise
their children, understanding the financial difficulties
involved.
What I do not want to ever see us get involved in here is
pitting the person who has made that difficult choice to be at
home, who does not necessarily have the income to do it but
wants to try to do it, against those who have no choice because
they are single parents or because the economic circumstances,
like Sheila's, just demand it, or the fact that we are
requiring it as a matter of Federal policy of the welfare
program.
So I feel very strongly about supporting those families who
make that decision to be at home and to get some help.
Elaine, I wonder if you might comment on this. We were
talking earlier about child care settings and how valuable they
can be in terms of learning, and you also talked about the high
rate of illiteracy or difficult literacy with a lot of parents.
You are not suggesting--well, let me ask you what you are
suggesting in a sense, because if one were just dropping in on
this conversation, it could almost sound like you are in a
sense recommending an alternative, and that is if you have a
choice where you can actually be a stay-at-home parent and care
for your child as opposed to placing that child in a child care
setting, we are recommending the latter. And I do not think
that is what you necessarily believe. Obviously, parents are
the best first teachers. So I wonder if you might comment on
that, because I think that too often we engage in this
conversation about subsidies and support and other things which
are critically important, but I think that too often, we leave
the audience believing somehow that we are caring only about
the people in that one circumstance and are not being
respectful of those in the other.
Ms. Zimmerman. I think parents having the choice to be at
home is paramount, and a child having a mother or father at
home gives that child a sense of constancy, intimacy, and
relationship that cannot be replaced by any State institution
no matter how wonderful.
So I would fully support that and in no way meant to infer
otherwise.
What we are trying to do in Connecticut is to address--and
this is where there is another disconnect--family literacy so
that parents who are not literate have access to this. One of
the problems we are finding in TANF is that a mom is in TANF,
reaches her limit, goes out and gets a job, and then she loses
the job. We are finding that there is a cohort of parents who
are losing their jobs because they are barely literate. So they
get a job with UPS, but it turns out they cannot read the
manual, so they lose their job. They could read a little bit,
but they could not read and critically think enough to get
through the manual.
So what we are doing now is we are just about to move
policy this session that will help us work with the literacy
level of the parents before they are expected to be in the work
force.
So I think it is the adult and the child--we want to make
sure that there is language and capacity to read, because
frankly, health and the capacity to have language are really
the boat to achievement. So it is an intergenerational
strategy.
Senator Dodd. I am so glad to hear you say that, and I know
Helen agrees with this comment as well. Too often, people in
politics like to argue against what we are suggesting here
because somehow, we are not respectful or supportive of people
who made the other decision. And I think that too often, we end
up allowing ourselves to be drawn into that political divide,
and we end up not doing much for either, as the case often
results. So I appreciate your saying that.
Finally, I just want to raise this with you and ask Helen
to comment as well, if I could. There is a report that you
helped craft in Connecticut--and I think I sent this one around
to every colleague in the Senate; if I have not, we will do
so--but my colleagues should know about this. This is a
masterful piece of work done by the Commission on Children in
Connecticut among others, bringing together in a very
bipartisan way--it was really rather remarkable--in the State
legislature. They sort of cleared the decks and said we are
going to do this--no one had any preconceived notions about
this--and began to look at the relationship between a child's
development of oral skills and reading skills. And I was
stunned by the results; it was really a fascinating study that
was completed, and it again goes back to a lot of what we are
talking about here. We have talked about child care and safety
and other things, but a child with someone else for as many
hours as someone like Sheila has to work a day, and that oral
relationship in terms of, ultimately that child's ability to do
exactly what Mrs. Bush and all of us want to do, and that is
good reading skills and pre-literacy.
I wonder if you might just take a couple of minutes and
comment again. I know you did in your testimony, but I think it
is such an important point, and maybe people would like to know
more about it.
Ms. Zimmerman. I would be glad to. We wrote legislation in
Connecticut that said that we needed to find out what teachers
needed to know to be able to teach reading effectively. That
was it. And we brought together the best experts in our State,
including teachers, psychologists, linguists, early childhood
experts, kindergarten teachers. We also brought together
experts from around the country who turn out to be the same
experts that President Bush is utilizing for his work on
reading.
We met together for a year, and we agreed to try to put
aside any differences or biases we had on what this was about,
and we did begin as if we were making the soup from the
beginning.
We were able to get rid of some of these fights that are
actually extraneous, like phonics and whole language fights; we
just put it all aside. And by the end, we cobbled together the
core skills and knowledge that teachers need to teach reading
effectively. We delineated it out by grade and by outcome for
every child.
We have since designed modules and a curriculum. We are
training every teacher in the school in how to teach reading
effectively beginning with kindergarten, first, and second
grades. And then, what became eminently clear was that we also
in the report needed to address the oral language piece.
So although this was originally intended to be an education
document K through 3, it became an early childhood plus K
through 3 document, and actually on to 3 through 6, because as
I testified, there are plenty of children who cannot read who
are in sixth grade.
But the marriage between the oral language and the pre-
literacy--understanding sound, rhyming, understanding the
connection between letter and book, understanding book and the
value of book--all of that is in child care and early
education, so that then became part of the reading panel
report.
We broke through so many divides with this report that we
have now revisited all of our code on reading, and we are
saying that it all has to be aligned with this report. It
became a sort of State-owned document, and it is actually as
good, I must say, as the document that has just come out of
Congress on reading from the Education Department.
Senator Dodd. As my colleagues know, I have a great love of
the Spanish language and culture, having served in the Peace
Corps in Latin America. There is a lot of talk about bilingual
education and the importance of it. One of the statistics that
I found really interesting is that oral ability, regardless of
the language in which you are orally capable, increases
tremendously your likelihood to learn to read in English. So
when people start talking about children and worrying about
whether they are going to speak English well in our society--
and that obviously becomes very, very important--but what is
more important, based on this study, is that they be orally
proficient in some language, and if they are, then the
connection with their ability to learn to read in English will
be dramatically improved.
Ms. Zimmerman. That is exactly right.
Senator Dodd. So that making it difficult for a child to
learn which language they are going to be orally proficient in
can actually retard that ability to learn to read.
Ms. Zimmerman. That is right.
Senator Dodd. That was a revelation to me in terms of how
we look at language ability, and given the fact that in school
systems now, it is not uncommon--I was at Stamford High School
recently, and there were 150 kids in the audience, and I think
there were 43 different languages being spoken by children in
that school--and this is not uncommon in any of our States now,
with the great richness of the country in a sense. So it is an
important added statistic.
As I said, we could spend all day with all of you, but I
think we should get to the second panel if we could. So we will
submit some additional written questions.
Sheila, a particular thanks to you for coming down from
Maine. You have been very helpful this morning.
Ms. Merkison. Thank you for having me.
Senator Dodd. Good luck to you and your son as well.
Helen, Elaine, Ms. Schalansky, thank you very much.
We will now go to our second panel. I know that some of my
colleagues are going to have to head off, but I thank them
immensely for their participation.
I will introduce the second panel as you are coming up.
Some of you have already been introduced by members who were
here earlier.
Elizabeth Bonbright Thompson--is that the correct
pronunciation?
Ms. Thompson. Yes. It turns into ``bombsight'' if you do
spellcheck. [Laughter.]
Senator Dodd. Yes. I will tell you the word I hear about
you. When I said you were going to come and testify--``You are
about to hear from a firecracker.'' So ``bombsight'' may be
appropriate. You have a lot of fans who think very highly of
you.
Ms. Thompson. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Dodd. Ms. Thompson is executive director of the
Washington State Child Care Resource and Referral Network. We
heard Senator Murray describe how effective Ms. Thompson has
been on behalf of children and their families and child care
issues.
We are going to hear from Dr. Kathy Thornburg. Senator Bond
was very gracious in his comments about his constituent. Dr.
Thornburg is a professor of human development and family
studies at the Child Development Laboratory and research
director at the Center for Family Policy and Research, and also
is president of the National Association for the Education of
Young Children, which is the largest early childhood education
membership organization in America. We are very honored to have
you with us.
And Travis Hardmon is also well-known to this committee and
the members up here. We rely upon him a lot for his expertise
and knowledge about these issues. He is executive director of
the National Child Day Care Association, the Nation's largest
nonprofit provider of child and family development services.
Mr. Hardmon knows first-hand the struggles that families face
in trying to afford child care and that providers face in
trying to keep costs down while raising the quality of care. I
was impressed with Mr. Hardmon's testimony, I might add,
prepared for the September 11 early learning hearing which we
were not able to have for all the reasons that we have heard.
In fact, Mrs. Bush was here that morning and was about to
testify.
I found the testimony that you were going to give that day
tremendously interesting, and it is still very, very valuable.
So I thank all three of you. You have been very patient
while we went through the first panel. I should have said this
to the other witnesses, but we will accept all of your
testimony and related documents that you would like to include
as part of the record. So if you could try to keep your
presentations brief, we can get to some questions.
We will begin with you, Elizabeth.
STATEMENTS OF ELIZABETH BONBRIGHT THOMPSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
WASHINGTON STATE CHILD CARE RESOURCE AND REFERRAL NETWORK;
KATHY R. THORNBURG, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR FAMILY POLICY
AND RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA, AND PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE EDUCATION OF YOUNG CHILDREN; AND
TRAVIS H. HARDMON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CHILD DAY CARE
ASSOCIATION
Ms. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. Thanks for the opportunity to testify before you
today, and as you said, I will submit my written testimony and
will try to limit it and will just take excerpts.
I have been asked to focus on the role of child care
resource and referral as the thread which holds the fragile
early child care and out-of-school time system together, or the
quilt together.
Child care resource and referral, commonly called ``R and
R''--which I will use to keep this shorter--is the child care
system's best-kept secret. Today, children are in so many
different types of early childhood settings; we need one system
that can reach them through either their parents or their
caregivers. Only the R and R system offers that kind of access.
Only the R and R system has the capacity to integrate the
wishes of the families, the skills of the caregivers, and the
needs of the children.
There are four major activities that are core to R and R
services, and they are in every State. The first is family
services, and obviously, that is where we assist families to
find care, to identify quality, and to access subsidies as
appropriate.
Nationally, through NACCRRA, the National Association of
Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, we know that we are
serving nearly 3 million families a year.
The second is provider services. We recruit, train and
provide technical assistance and consultation support to over 2
million child care providers each year to increase the supply
and improve the quality of care and early learning
opportunities for children.
The third is community building, and this is really key. It
is tough to get your head around it, but it is very key.
Resource and referral programs regularly engage business,
faith, education,l health, and philanthropic leadership in
every community to help build that early learning community.
Without this community building component, the whole system
would fall apart.
The fourth is also really important, and it is data and
research. As you know, numbers really help you make decisions
about how you draft policy, and numbers in child care are very
hard to come by. The resource and referral programs all collect
locally-based supply and demand data around child care. In
States with strong resource and referral networks like
Washington State, the local R and R programs each report on a
monthly basis their data to us, and we compile, analyze and
disseminate that data Statewide, for use by State and local
partners and policymakers.
We feel that it is a proven model and merits replication
nationally, because I think it could provide you all the key
information you need to make some good decisions.
I want to tell you a little bit about resource and referral
in Washington State, because I think we have been a successful
model. Washington State has invested in one of the most
comprehensive Statewide R and R systems in the Nation. The
beauty of the R and R structure is that every R and R looks
like the community it serves. So that as you can imagine, there
is a diversity of organizations that run at the local level.
In Washington State, only 2 of the 18 locally-based R and R
programs are stand-alone R and Rs--all they do is resource and
referral. The other 16 programs are housed in parent
organizations which have a wide variety of broader interests
that they use, and these are just a program within it. Those
include CAPs, which are Community Action Program agencies; city
government; a university; educational services districts, which
are school districts; a community college; and six of our
resource and referral programs are housed in faith-based
organizations.
A key byproduct of a strong, well-funded R and R system is
the ability for the Statewide R and R network to both leverage
private dollars to match State and Federal funds, which is a
prerequisite for the CCDBG, and also to position the State to
acquire and distribute Federal grants.
Since 1990, the Washington State Child Care Resource and
Referral Network--that is my organization--has leveraged,
secured, or facilitated the distribution of more than $16
million in private, Federal and State dollars for child care
and out-of-school time system in Washington State, and that is
above and beyond--that is not even counting--the amount of
money that the State funds us to do the core services. That is
for the other kinds of programs.
The R and R Network has served as a catalyst for change and
a mechanism for raising resources to meet the specific
community and Statewide needs.
Let us talk a little bit about parental choice; it is so
key. Many families are unable to find the type of care they
seek due to the lack of child care supply to meet their needs.
This is especially true for infant and toddler care, care for
children with special needs, school-age care, and care for
children during nontraditional working hours.
During the years between 1996 and 2000, which was the
beginning of welfare reform, right when we needed it--we needed
a lot more care--we were losing up to 1,000 family child care
providers a year in Washington State. They were closing. These
were small businesses. They were making decisions for lots of
reasons, because it was a hot economy in Washington, and they
could get higher-paying jobs elsewhere, and there were a lot of
reasons. But this had a profound impact on the availability of
in particular infant and toddler care, because in our State, a
lot of the youngest kids are in family child care.
In an effort to address this growing lack of supply and
others in nontraditional hours and others, the State has
dedicated over $15 million between 2000 and 2003 to fund
creative community-based approaches to building the quality and
capacity of child care.
A majority of these resources flow through the R and R
system, and were we not there to do it, it would not be
happening. In addition, Washington State has consistently put
100 percent of its share of its Federal CCDBG infant/toddler
set-aside dollars into community-based activities. I think that
is pretty impressive. You often hear that States are taking the
money and using it for other things. Washington State is
putting 100 percent of its infant/toddler set-aside into the
community-based programs.
We make every effort to use existing service delivery
systems. Why replicate or duplicate if you do not have to? So
we depend heavily upon strong partnerships between existing
systems, and resource and referral and the local health
jurisdictions work hand-in-hand through Health Child Care
Washington, which is a byproduct of Health Child Care America,
to provide unique health linkages for families and caregivers,
and that has proven to be very effective as a retention tool.
I have been asked to talk a little bit about family child
care providers and what we do for them. Well, the R and R
programs are a primary source of support for family child care
providers who are independent small businesses that are
operating out of their homes.
The R and R support for family and child care providers--
they support them in many, many ways, but some of them include
help with becoming licensed; training and consultation on
health and safety, infant, toddler, and school-age care;
lending libraries, resource vans, materials--taking them out to
their homes when it is harder for them to get in--and home
visits. So there are many ways.
Senator Dodd, you mentioned the stay-at-home moms and the
folks who care for friends, neighbors, and relatives--the
informal care system. We support that as well, and as a matter
of fact, I think every State could tell you that a significant
number of the children on subsidy are choosing nonparental,
family member, friend and neighbor care at least some part of
the week. Reaching out to this population is extremely complex.
They are not licensed, and it is hard to find them. Yet
nationally, 82 percent of the resource and referral programs
support this type of care.
Literacy is a huge component, and I want to say that a
cost-effective option for enhancing early literacy through a
variety of child care settings would be to capitalized on the
established R and R system in each State and to provide early
literacy specialists in every R and R.
This is a model which is already working in Maine through
their R and R system, which is called the Research Development
Centers. That is the other probably R and R--everybody calls it
something different, so it is hard to know what it is in your
own State.
In conclusion, because of welfare reform, Washington has
committed ever increasing amounts of its Federal and State
dollars to enhance the quality, affordability, and availability
of child care and out-of-school time services. Over half--53
percent--of all current TANF dollars flowing into Washington
State are used in child care. To me, that is an incredibly
impressive number. This commitment of TANF resources is a
powerful recognition of the importance of child care to working
families and the success of welfare reform--but as a result,
funding for child care services has become extremely vulnerable
to the upward fluctuations in TANF caseloads, which we have
actually just been experiencing and which is sending the child
care system into a tailspin in our State.
Congress has the power to create a strong safety net for
children and families through the Child Care and Development
and TANF reauthorization. It is time to design those policies
and dedicate the funds, and I have five recommendations for
you.
One is to significantly increase funding for child care
subsidies for eligible families working on low-income jobs and
leaving welfare.
Two is to fund efforts to improve the recruitment and
retention of qualified professional staff and provide
incentives for additional training.
Three is to fund specialists for services to parents and
programs on critical issues, such as inclusion of children with
special needs, infant/toddler care, early literacy, health,
etc.
Four is to require and fund a comprehensive system of R and
R services in every State, including a Statewide network.
And five is to fund a comprehensive, accurate, and current
national system of early care and education data collection,
analysis, and reporting using local R and R data.
If you do these five things, and they are in place and
appropriately funded, you can count on the following positive
outcomes. Communities will be better poised for economic
development and growth. The early childhood and out-of-school-
time work force will be well-prepared and more appropriately
compensated. Families will have choices of appropriate
nurturing and learning environments for their children, and
children will enter school ready to succeed.
Thank you.
Senator Dodd. Thank you immensely for that testimony. It
was very, very helpful.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Thompson may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Dodd. Dr. Thornburg.
Ms. Thornburg. Thank you.
Senator Dodd and Senator Jeffords, it is my pleasure to be
here and be able to talk about the CCDBG, because as you know,
we need to tackle the crisis as it relates to quality,
affordability, and compensation. So thank you for having me.
We must make an investment in CCDBG now. We have heard a
lot already today about low-income working families and their
need to be able to afford quality child care with qualified,
well-compensated professionals.
As you know, there are many important components to this
reauthorization, but today in the few minutes that I will be
speaking with you, you will hear me talking several times about
compensation, because I am really here to talk about the early
childhood work force and how the work force is the group that
makes the difference in the lives of the children, in addition
to the school readiness for making them ready to enter school
successfully.
Research tells us that high-quality child care makes a
difference for young children's math and literacy skills,
behavior, and over time, we have already talked about them
completing school and also to lower the incidence of juvenile
delinquency.
I want to mention two studies right now. One is the Cost,
Quality, Outcomes Study, and then, I am sure you have both read
the Neurons to Neighborhoods research. There are many important
findings in these studies, but one major finding that they
share is that programs that have staff with better
qualifications and better compensation experienced lower staff
turnover and higher-quality programs.
So it is no surprise to anyone in this room that it is the
people--it is the teachers and the other staff who are the key
to high-quality early childhood programs. So that again, we
have to look at the compensation issue of the teachers.
So the lesson is pretty clear. The benefits of good-quality
early childhood programs will only be achieved if we invest in
the child care programs and finance the full cost of providing
high-quality services. Again, this means the equitable
compensation of the well-qualified staff, but we must also
ensure affordable access for all families to good programs.
I am honored to be President of the National Association
for the Education of Young Children which, as Senator Dodd
mentioned, is the world's largest organization. NAEYC supports
Federal legislation introduced last year--thank you, Senator
Dodd--known as the FOCUS Act. This Act would deal with the work
force issue in the form of a compensation plan based on
education.
You already mentioned earlier ticket-takers making more
than child care professionals, and $16,000--both of you know
these statistics quite well--and that the turnover rate is at
least a third; so I will not repeat that.
On the earlier panel, Janet mentioned that there is a
Midwest Child Care Consortium including Iowa, Kansas, Missouri
and Nebraska. We just completed our first round of data, we got
the data a few months ago--you will find some in the written
testimony--but Gallup called 920 infant/toddler and preschool
teachers through a random selection process, and from that
chart, you will be able to see that 40 percent of the teachers
had at least a 2-year child development degree, but in spite of
that, 60 percent of the teachers earned less than $15,000 a
year. This is in Region 7. Missouri was right at $15,000.
Nebraska and Kansas followed, and I must say that Iowa had an
even lower salary.
A recent report outlined staffing patterns in 75 relatively
high-quality child care centers in California. They interviewed
a lot of people in 1996. Four years later, they went back to
check and see how they were doing. Seventy-five percent of the
teachers were gone, and 40 percent of the directors were gone.
So we know the importance of consistency for children, and we
know that high turnover is not good for that.
Essentially, I like to think of the early childhood work
force as a bucket with a gaping hole in the bottom of it,
because we set standards, we put professional development
dollars into our early childhood professionals, and it is
really futile.
In one example I give in my written testimony, the example
is from Michigan, and the main point in that example is that
there are degreed teachers who are in the pre-K classrooms, and
the second a primary classroom opens up, that person leaves--
and who would not, because it is for double the pay. Other
States have similar stories.
Fortunately, we do have some successful examples of how
quality of children's early learning and development can be
enhanced when we do pay attention to linking professional
development with higher compensation. And of course, the U.S.
military model is the best example today, where they have taken
training, education, and compensation, linked it, and reduce
turnover.
This committee heard from Sue Russell last month about some
efforts in other States. I think you both know about the TEACH
early childhood project now in 19 States that provides
scholarships to help early childhood teachers go back to
school, pay for their education, their tuition, their books,
release time, and so forth. But for those who already have
college degrees, there are programs like WAGES in North
Carolina and CARES in California that provide a graduated wage
supplement to participating teachers, again based on the level
of education.
So both the scholarship as well as the retention and
compensation initiatives link quality with compensation. States
and communities are seeing results from these efforts in lower
teacher turnover and better-educated child care teachers, but
expansion of these programs must happen at a faster pace.
Many of the States using TEACH and WAGES projects are in
fact using CCDBG moneys to finance them. So the FOCUS Act has
been incorporated as a second title in the CCDBG
reauthorization bill introduced in the House by Representative
George Miller--and we of course hope that it will be part of
the Senate's reauthorization legislation.
Senator Dodd. It will be.
Ms. Thornburg. Thank you. And Congress of course must make
the investment today.
Ms. Thompson had five recommendations. I actually have one
to conclude with, and that is straight from the wisdom of
Senator Jeffords. I think I heard you ask a few minutes ago
would it be helpful if we added $50 billion, and I think that
would be great. I think it would be a good start. So that would
be my recommendation, to look at not only serving more
families, but what I am concentrating on today is really
worrying about the work force and the inconsistency. And of
course, we cannot expect an 18-year-old without tuberculosis,
who has a child abuse screen--which is Missouri's requirement
for being a head teacher in a child care program--how can we
expect that person to know, understand, or worry about the
literacy of young children. So the work force issue is quite
serious.
I thank you for listening and for caring about young
children and their teachers.
Thank you.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much, Dr. Thornburg. That was
very, very helpful.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Thornburg may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Dodd. Mr. Hardmon?
Mr. Hardmon. Senator Dodd, Senator Jeffords, thank you for
having me today. It is indeed a pleasure. I work on these
issues locally here in the District of Columbia, and also serve
on the USA Child Care Board of Directors, so it is a pleasure
to be speaking to you from a local perspective.
The National Child Day Care Association happens to be the
largest nonprofit child care provider here in the District of
Columbia. We serve over 1,600 children ages 6 weeks to 12, at
25 centers, and also through a family child care satellite
system. Approximately 75 percent of those children enrolled in
NCDCA are beneficiaries of the subsidy program.
During my time at NCDCA, we have actually expanded by
opening eight additional child development centers, and
unfortunately, we are still unable to meet the growing child
care needs of the District of Columbia community.
It is indeed an honor and a pleasure for me to come before
you today to testify on the importance of and the need for
significant additional funding for the Child Care and
Development Block Grant, the major Federal support for child
care assistance. Even in times of economic uncertainty and
pressing international and domestic concerns, our Nation must
look first at the care and education of our children.
I have been asked to focus on what is needed in terms of
meeting working parents' needs and looking also at issues
around school readiness. I am happy to do this from the
perspective of a child care provider.
There are three things that I think are significant, one
being the stability of the child care delivery system,
including a trained and educated, adequately compensated child
care work force, and the need to increase payment rates to
providers who serve low-income families.
Second is providing services to meet the needs of families
with infants and toddlers, and third is improving school
readiness in the context of the child and the family.
Next, stability of the child care delivery system. Our
organization, NCDCA, employs over 300 staff in 25 centers in
Northeast, Northwest, and Southeast DC. Of that staff,
approximately 150 are teaching staff. Annually, on average,
NCDCA loses about 10 percent or more of our teaching staff to
better salary offers or retirement. Recruiting approximately 15
new teachers a year places an enormous burden on the
organization and jeopardizes the quality and stability of our
child care services.
High staff turnover is also a burden to the children, who
must deal with the change in beloved teachers and must risk
developing a new relationship on a too-frequent basis.
We constantly struggle to recruit well-qualified staff and
often find that we are hiring replacement teachers who have
less training and education despite recognition that higher
wages contribute to greater staff stability and program
quality.
Compensation for the majority of teaching staff positions
does not keep pace with the cost of living. Additionally, the
payment rates that we receive are too low to provide families
with access to a full range of quality services and directly
impact the stability of the child care infrastructure.
In the District, as we look at the inadequate reimbursement
rates that are outpaced by the market rate, looking at what we
are paid in terms of a subsidy has a tremendous impact on our
ability to provide quality services to purchase the equipment
and supplies that we need, the books that were talked about
earlier, as well as the curriculum materials, and all kinds of
classroom supplies that are needed. In addition, there is a
tremendous impact on recruitment and retention because the
agency faces this impact on a significant way as we have opened
new classrooms in our efforts to expand, but we do not have the
teachers to be able to operate and begin providing services. So
recruitment and retention is a significant issue.
Let me put this in perspective. Without an increase for
work force development and reimbursement rates, we will not be
able to keep pace with inflation and the rising expenses,
leaving these critical needs unaddressed--the need for
increased staff training to improve quality, salary increases
to avoid losing more qualified staff, and the need for
additional slots to meet the growing unmet need for child care
services.
My second point is around services for infants and
toddlers. The District of Columbia last year had a waiting list
of over 6,000 infants and toddlers District-wide; again, that
is 6,000 infants and toddlers District-wide. Each week, our
organization receives calls from families seeking services, and
we must turn them away because we do not have the capacity to
serve them. Unfortunately, this leaves low-income families in
the District with choices that do not promote the optimal
development of their children and may indeed place them in care
settings that do not provide for basic health and safety.
Additional funding is needed to develop and equip
facilities to meet this age group and to ensure that our
youngest children are in safe, developmentally appropriate and
enriching care while their parents are at work.
The infant care work force must also be appropriately
prepared, trained, and compensated.
The third issue is school readiness. Given the recent
compelling research about young children and what they need to
know in order to be successful in school, I am pleased with the
increased emphasis on early literacy. High-quality child care
programs have traditionally emphasized pre-reading and language
development; however, we need to improve training for early
childhood teachers and need better materials and curricula so
that children in child care will have the language-rich
environment and skills they need to succeed.
However, I must share with you a concern that was
articulated earlier by you, Senator Dodd. That is that we are
in a situation that, as we look at this whole issue of school
readiness, it is not about school, it is about school
readiness. Quality early care and education providers have long
recognized the importance of a holistic approach which includes
comprehensive services for children and families at risk. Book
learning will not be achieved isolation, especially when you
are dealing with children from low-income families, where basic
physical needs must be addressed if we are to create a rich
learning environment. Nutrition, health screening, family
support, and parental involvement are just a few of the
elements which pave the road to success in school and in turn,
success in life.
I cannot stress enough the critical role that the parents
play, which has already been articulated here earlier.
Our program, NCDCA, just to bring this to a close in the
interest of time, provides GED training, a male initiative,
parent apprenticeship training programs, home ownership
programs, and self-empowerment programs for families. In order
to do this, we must raise money privately to supplement what we
receive in the way of our reimbursement rate.
We believe it is important to provide these kinds of
services to children from disadvantaged backgrounds so they can
grow and learn in an effective manner.
In conclusion, I thank you for the opportunity to share my
excitement about the work we do and seek your help to address
the challenges faced by families and the child care providers
who serve them. We know what works. When it comes down to the
nuts and bolts, one message remains clear: If we are to address
our infrastructure needs, expand services, and improve quality
for children from birth to school age, substantial increased
funding is absolutely necessary.
I was part of the panel, as you indicated earlier, that was
to speak on September 11, and since that day, we have done much
healing and have come together as a Nation. I want to thank you
for your leadership and also say that all of our efforts as a
country and as a world leader much start by looking at the
well-being of our children. They are our most precious asset,
and ensuring their care and well-being is our best defense.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hardmon may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Dodd. Thank you very, very much.
Again, all three of you have given excellent, excellent
testimony, and you bring such a wealth of knowledge to this
discussion, with many, many years of deep involvement in these
issues. There will hardly be enough time to examine all the
aspects of all this, but we are very, very grateful to you.
Let me turn to my colleague from Vermont, because he may
have a schedule conflict. We are going to try to get you out of
here at a decent hour. So let me turn first to Senator
Jeffords.
Senator Jeffords. Yes, I do, and I appreciate it, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Hardmon, I am of course very interested in DC. Several
years ago, I sat on DC appropriations and, I was kind of the
pseudo superintendent of schools for several years, years back,
and it depresses me to see that the needs of the Nation's
Capital are still not being met in the area of education, and I
want to do what I can to try to help rectify that. It shocks me
that the Nation's Capital, which we here in Congress have made
ourselves responsible for, has not been able to have the
funding available to do what needs to be done. I may save that
for a visit later to get more information, because it just
shocks me. This Nation's Capital ought to be the example to
follow, not the example of what is needed. So I appreciate your
testimony.
I do have to leave, but I want to let all of you know that
I am deeply concerned about this Nation and our failure to act
as every other Federal government has throughout the world to
fully fund early childhood especially and to make it part of
the responsibility of the Federal Government.
I am going to be doing all that I can, working with my good
partner here, to get this Nation to live up to its
responsibilities. Senator Dodd is probably in the more
unfortunate position of having to look to the appropriations. I
am on the Finance Committee, and I am excited about the
opportunities that I have, because I enjoy a reordering of
priorities through the tax system. So I have in mind some
exciting things, like, as was mentioned earlier, the $50
billion. That is an easy one. All I have to do is find a match,
and I think I have found a match, so we will get moving.
Anyway, it does raise the consciousness of all of us in
regard to the serious problem that we have relative to the rest
of the world. We have just not recognized as a nation that the
Federal Government has to provide more resources. What we
provide relative to every other Nation is unbelievable. I look
at Japan as the prime example of what a country can do. Their
teachers, for instance, are paid within the top 10 percent of
wage-earners in the country. They have demonstrated that that
is a top priority and that their child care and everything all
the way up and down the line is probably the top example, but
the Asians and the European nations just shame us relatively to
what we do, especially when we get down to the young children.
Together with my chairman over here, we are going to do all
that we can--he has done remarkable things.
Mr. Chairman, I have to go to another committee meeting,
but I have listened very carefully to the testimony, and I
reserve the right to drill you with additional questions after
you leave.
Thank you very much.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much, Senator Jeffords, for
your support.
I mentioned earlier the wonderful hearing that the Finance
Committee held on child care and the members, both Republican
and Democrats. It was a very impressive sight to see the issue
of child care raised as predominantly or as dominantly as it
was in that hearing. And we have a joint hearing coming up with
Senator Breaux on the Finance Committee and this committee as
well, looking at the appropriations, authorization, as well as
the tax code, which can play a very critical role in all of
this.
So we look forward to some efforts here this spring and
summer to try to improve the support for this issue.
Senator Jeffords. If nothing else, it will be exciting; I
am not sure about the results.
Senator Dodd. Well, hope springs eternal here. We have been
at this for a long time.
I do not know if they can pick this up on CSPAN or not--the
numbers are probably a little small--but just to lay out here
what we tried to do was to compare occupations, salaries, and
so forth. I always hesitate to do this to you, because it is in
no way meant to denigrate the salaries that other people are
paid, but just to put salaries in perspective for people. As
Senator Jeffords just said, when you look at other countries,
how do you value certain things.
One of my colleagues said earlier that you cannot go
anywhere, and I do not care who is standing up to speak about
the priorities of a Nation--if it is one of these general
subject matters or speeches where education is not always
listed if not the top, near the top, of everyone's agenda of
what is important. And that transcends ideology and political
lines. Yet we painfully see--and this may shock people--but we
spend less than one percent of the entire Federal budget on
elementary and secondary education, excluding higher education,
as a partner with State and local governments. Here we are in
the 21st century, and we are an anemic--to put it lightly--
partner on elementary and secondary education. We are even more
anemic when it comes to early childhood issues.
I do not know how many articles in national magazines,
programs on television--everyone seems to know these numbers
rather well about the importance of zero to three, zero to
five, brain development--we heard it again today. People can
almost cite these numbers verbatim without relying on charts or
staff memos. Yet, despite all of that awareness there is this
inverse proportion to the need and the allocation of resources
as opposed to the other end of the spectrum, where I do not
deny there is a need, but when you start talking about the
commitment of dollars at a higher education level--and someone
pointed out earlier what percentage of a person's disposable
income goes to the cost of higher education versus what
percentage of disposable income goes to providing for the early
education needs of their children.
Again, this is no longer a debate. We are not arguing--this
is not the argument about global warming--not that I think
there is much of an argument there, either--but a debate on
whether or not it is critically important to a Nation's well-
being, particularly this one that depends on the sophisticated
document of a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, which I carry
with me every day, to have someone understand the subtleties of
the First Amendment, you need to have an educated population.
If you end up with an ignorant population, you not only put our
economy in jeopardy, you put this document and everything it
stands for in jeopardy. An educated society, a democratic
society, absolutely and totally depends upon an educated
society.
So when you start looking here at comparative salaries in
terms of where child care workers are down here at $7.43 an
hour, $16,000 a year, and with all due respect to gaming and
casino change persons and the like, who can early $2,000 and
$3,000 more; desk clerks at resort hotels and so forth--God
bless them for doing what they are doing, and many of them are
trying to provide for the child care needs of their children--
but nonetheless in terms of where we as a society allocate our
resources, how our rhetoric and our actions are completely
misaligned. The rhetoric is way up here, and the actions are
almost at the bottom. It is frustrating to me, after 20 years
here arguing on these issues, to find ourselves pretty much
making the same case today as we were almost a quarter century
ago. So it is frustrating, and I hope Senator Jeffords is
wrong, that we will actually do better.
I am heartened by the turnout here today and the comments
made by people from both political parties about the importance
of greater commitment to this issue.
With that, let me ask a couple of questions if I can of our
last three witnesses. I want to come back to the STEPS program,
Ms. Thompson. I was interested in hearing how that works, how
it provides what I think you described as a seamless transition
for children into kindergarten. I wonder if you could tell us
more about how that program works?
Ms. Thompson. Yes. The STEPS program was actually initially
begun for children with special needs. It was a way to
integrate them into kindergarten through zero to three
programs.
In Washington State, we have elaborated on that program and
had it apply to children from all kinds of backgrounds,
children who are having trouble assimilating into the
kindergarten experience. What is exciting about that program is
that they have teams in local communities that consist of the
Child Care Resource and Referral program, the teachers, the
principals, different human services supports for families,
family support centers, and they all work together for the
family early on, way before they even come close to
kindergarten, to have an integrated program, to make sure,
whether it is literacy issues or whatever is at stake for that
program, we try to deal with it before they get to
kindergarten. It has been wildly successful; the problem is it
is woefully underfunded. As a matter of fact, we used to use
Child Care and Development Block Grant funding to in part fund
the piece for the child care participants, and unfortunately,
because of the State budget woes, that was just cut, so we are
not using CCDBG funds for that anymore.
But it is a wonderful program, and we hope that those kinds
of programs can be stimulated.
Senator Dodd. Yes. It is very, very innovative, and I
commend you for it and hope you can get it back on track. In
fact, we would like to know a little more about it; if you
could send us some information on it, we might try to
incorporate in some of our other ideas ways to promote this
concept, because it is so important to make that transition.
Too often we think of these things in boxes, and we do not
understand that it is a seamless piece here and that it moves
that way.
Oftentimes--I do not know if this will sound humorous to
you--I will ask people if they will support me on the Child
Care and Development Block Grant, and I will also ask if they
will help me out on the WIC program as well, and I also need
some help on nutrition.
And they will say, ``Look, I will help you out on WIC, but
I cannot do all three.''
And I always say, ``We are talking about the same child
here, I want you to know. We are trying to transition this
individual. So when you pick and choose on me a bit, that is
okay, but understand that you are giving with one and taking
away with another.'' This is the point the earlier panel made
as well.
One thing I want to raise with you, Dr. Thornburg, is the
point that Mr. Hardmon raised about the early learning
preschool literacy issues. Again, none of us here argues about
the value and the importance of that. I think the concern
expressed is that, again, to deal with that in isolation from
these other issues and that a person's ability to succeed as an
early learner and in pre-literacy depends on a variety of other
issues such as their ability not only to think cognitively, but
also how to deal socially as well as emotionally, physically,
and so forth.
I wonder if you might comment on that issue as it relates,
one, to the people who are trained to work in these ares, but
also the significance of that in terms of early learning and
the pre-literacy programs.
Ms. Thornburg. I have been a teacher trainer for 35 years,
and we continue, as we did three decades ago, to know the kinds
of things that we should be training teachers. We have added a
little bit of knowledge--the brain development information has
been helpful and useful--but we know, as you mentioned, that
literacy and numeracy--teachers must know how to, not just that
it is important. Social-emotional development is equally
important. Learning to know how to have friends and play with
your peers and so forth, of course, is crucial.
Physical development has been mentioned once or twice
today, and I really want to reiterate that, because the
exercise and the nutrition that can go on in helping families
learn and understand--young children begin to develop their
habits, and I am really concerned about obesity among young
children today--that is something else----
Senator Dodd. We are going to have a hearing on that issue.
Ms. Thornburg [continuing]. That is good, because teachers
of young children need to know and understand more about that
issue as well.
So it is not only teachers needing to know and understand
basic child development, but how children learn, how to set up
the learning environment so children can learn, how to have
curiosity come from the children--and that is really discovery
learning and so forth--so how to set up an appropriate
environment for these children so they can be curious and they
can learn through discovery as well as learning through some
intentionality, for example, with literacy and numeracy.
I like what Mr. Hardmon said about the role that early
childhood teachers have in working with families and parents,
because teachers cannot do it alone. We have seen today that
parents cannot do it alone. So it is just one more aspect that
we want early childhood teachers to be good at--working with
and supporting parents on behalf of the children. And we do
this in many of our States with no formal pre-service or
educational requirements for our children birth to five.
So the system I think is very broken. The teachers I
train--and they get 4-year degrees and master's degrees--a year
later, some may be insurance agents, or they have moved to R
and R where they can make a little more money. They are
wonderful teachers. They love kids, and they love working with
children and families, but they are no longer teachers because
you do not have to pay more than, we found out in Missouri,
$15,000 was average.
So we know how to do it, we know what the research says,
and we just are not doing it, and I think the $50 billion truly
is a good idea--then I think we would be well on our way--but
it still is not the complete package.
Senator Dodd. Your job is to call Senator Bond over the
weekend, who sits on the Appropriations Committee.
Ms. Thornburg. I will do it. Thank you.
Senator Dodd. I also want to ask you about the universities
and how they can help with the early childhood work. This has
somehow created a sort of symbiotic relationship. If it is
elevated at a university level as an important discipline, I
think that in itself creates its own attractiveness to people,
who then insist--we are going to work on all sides of this--
giving the status to people who work in this particular area I
think contributes as a piece of convincing others that there is
a value that should be reflected in what people are paid.
Ms. Thornburg. In many universities including my own, there
are very few faculty members training early childhood teachers,
so there is a limit on enrollment. So we have a lot of bright
young people who want to go into early childhood and child
development programs, and there are not enough slots for them
to be trained. So as Helen mentioned earlier, we know how to do
it, but it is going to take a little while to get there. So
that is just one issue at the university level.
We in Missouri, as well as people in most States, are
looking at articulation, because we have one-year child
development degrees from high schools and vocational schools;
we have 2-year associate degrees, and then 4-year and graduate
degrees. We at the State level have to get better at figuring
out how to articulate--a few States have done it, and as I
mentioned, other States are working on it--because we have to
value and cherish the training--any training--that all of these
teachers need. So we need to be better in articulation
agreements for the teachers.
Senator Dodd. That could be an interesting subject matter.
Again, we talked about the FOCUS bill, and I appreciate your
kind comments about it. We are going to incorporate it,
obviously, since I am writing the larger bill--we are going to
get it in there. Senator Reed also has a separate piece of
legislation in this area on reimbursement rates, and we will
incorporate his ideas as well as we move forward. I think that
is a very important piece, and we need to focus more attention
on how we can increase the status of that particular issue.
Mr. Hardmon, your testimony almost made it sound like the
rate that is established here--and by the way, it is around
$10,000 for child care in the District of Columbia, is that not
right; it is one of the highest in the country.
Mr. Hardmon. Right. For the infant and toddler population,
that is pretty close to being accurate.
Senator Dodd. It is pretty close to $10,000, which is I
think among the highest in the country, but it is very, very
high. But you made it sound like the rate is more about what
parents can generally afford, not what it actually costs to run
a quality program. I wonder if you could talk a little more
about that.
Mr. Hardmon. Yes. The actual issue for us in terms of the
reimbursement rate really goes back to what Helen Blank said
earlier about looking at the fact that the rates have not kept
pace with inflation or cost-of-living. So when you are a
provider trying to provide quality service to children and
families, trying to retain your staff and do things on a
consistent basis and keep people, that is where the difficulty
comes. With many States and the District having a tiered rate
system, the base is so low that in order to move forward on the
tier, you need more at even the base rate. So that is where the
challenge really comes in.
Senator Dodd. Yes. That is the point that I think you were
making, and it is an important distinction to make.
You said something else that is really important, and it
goes back to what we have been talking about a bit today, and
that is the early learning and school readiness issues. You
said that when we talk about children under 5, we are talking
about school readiness,not pushing school down to younger ages.
I think that is a very important point.
I now have a 6-month-old daughter, and people have been
teasing me, wondering if I have already gone to talk to Harvard
about a possible college education for her, and how you have
got to begin so early talking about schools now. And obviously,
we are going to start shopping at some point for early
education and so forth; it is critical. You have got to start
early looking around.
But I was also looking at my daughter's face the other day
thinking, she is 6 months old, and I am already talking about
going to school. If we were in the position where I could spend
more time with her--I want that parent-child time and so
forth--and I do not want to rush her into a highly disciplined
environment and not give her a chance to be a child. Maybe I
was mis-hearing what you were saying in terms of not pushing
school down to younger ages, but I think it is an interesting
point, and I was wondering if you might further expound on it.
Mr. Hardmon. I think the key to this whole thing is the
fact that there needs to be a holistic approach, and that is
what I really wanted to convey to the committee. We cannot
just, as was said earlier, only think about literacy and
reading. We have to look at the fact that especially children
from low-income families have issues around health care, as you
mentioned, nutrition, and other things--we have not even talked
about transportation, and housing was mentioned earlier.
So in order to be an effective child care provider and
provide these services in a comprehensive way, we must look at
what families need over and beyond just segmenting this issue
just to deal with book-learning or reading. I did not mean to
make it sound like it is not important, but we see parents who
come to us with a sixth grade education and in many cases have
no GED, so we are in a situation where we are having to support
them in order for them to be better parents and to be their
child's first teacher, as we have talked about here, which is a
circumstance that you may not see as prevalent in the middle
and upper-income communities. But parents do need the support
in order to really make this whole thing work.
Senator Dodd. I just realized that I probably said
something--I have a sister who is an early childhood
development specialist, and if she watches this, I suspect the
phone is going to ring. She and a woman by the name of Nancy
Rambush--for those of you who really follow early childhood
issues, my sister was a Montessori teacher back in the mid-
1950's when she started out coming out of college at the Whitby
School in Greenwich, CT where a lot of this was revived--and
her point to me over the years, as someone who has now spent
about 30 years in early childhood development is--and she tells
me this all the time--children do not play; children work--that
we see it as play, but they are working. Their ability to
absorb and learn is boundless, and to the extent you can
channel this to some degree where you allow children to enjoy
their childhood, but in a constructive enough way that they are
also learning, is the key to a lot of this. Just so I do not
get that phone call, I have corrected myself about the
importance of understanding what children are actually doing
when we see them ``playing''; they are actually engaged in very
serious work, and that is critically important.
Again, I have a dozen more questions I could ask all of
you, but I think what I will do is submit some of them to you
in writing.
Finally, I want to go back to the numbers that I put up
here when we started the hearing, because it makes the case
again. We are going to be entering more difficult times now. We
have budget deficits that we are going to be running this year
nationally, somewhere in the neighborhood of between $80 and
$120 billion plus, depending upon which numbers you accept at
this juncture; but certainly, as the President has pointed out,
there will be no year during his term of Presidency over the
next 3 years in which we will be operating in a surplus. So the
days when we could talk about having additional resources are
behind us for a while, tragically, yet we also know, if there
is any doubt in people's minds about the need out there, about
people who still believe in a waiting list--you just need to
look at some of these. As I said, some States do not even keep
waiting lists anymore, because it just does not make any sense.
But if you start looking at places like Alabama, which is not a
huge State, with 5,000 people on the waiting list; Alaska, a
smaller number; Arkansas, 8,000; California, 280,000; the
District of Columbia, 91,000; North Carolina, 25,000; Texas,
36,000--you get some sense of the size and the magnitude of
this issue. And we are not going to solve it all in next year's
appropriation or tax bill, but if we can get people on the
track to really match the rhetoric with the actions and put us
on a glide-path that does prioritize these issues, not just in
the speeches we give but in the actions we take here--no one is
expecting to solve the problem overnight, but this problem is
not becoming less of one, it is becoming more of one. The
number of 78 percent of women with children under the age of 6
in the work force--that number is not less than it was a year
before--it is more. And when you get to the point where 50
percent of women with infants are in the work force, that is a
not a lower number--that is a growing number.
And obviously, with welfare reform issues and the numbers
that have been highlighted about greater work requirements in
this year's bill and flat-lining--at best, flat-lining--what we
are talking about--and I know, by the way, that some think
about raiding this fund, just so you will know. I will put you
on notice that there are those who are going to go after the
Child Care and Development Block Grant money for some other
issues, and I know what they are thinking about. It is hard
enough to try to get some increases here, but for those who
think they are going to go after these funds in order to apply
them in some other place, they have a battle on their hands on
this. It is hard enough to reach the level of supporting 2
million children with so many going without their needs being
met that I am hopeful we can convince people here that, as
important as some of these other issues are that people raise,
if you do not have an available, affordable, and quality child
care program in the country, all of the other issues that we
associate with in terms of ready-to-learn and literacy are soon
going to go wanting.
So I thank all of our witnesses today for their very, very
supportive and helpful testimony. I thank my colleagues on a
Friday for making themselves as available as they were. I thank
our staffs for putting together the hearing this morning. We
will have another hearing on this issue on Tuesday. We will be
talking about it at the budget resolution when it comes up. We
will be talking to appropriators about this. We will be talking
with the tax-writing committees who have already spoken
eloquently on this subject matter.
So while there is a lot of work to be done, I am more
heartened this year in many ways by what I am hearing from my
colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, on this issue than
I have ever been before. So I am more optimistic in many ways
that we are building a bipartisan coalition to address these
issues.
This is truly, as you said, Mr. Hardmon, in your closing
comments, about the defense of the country, too. America's
strength is going to be measured by many factors, not only our
ability to defeat an enemy militarily, but also to defeat the
enemies of poverty and ignorance, which can also really
threaten a great Nation. And we are determined to see to it
that we are as strong in our ability to defeat those enemies as
we are others.
I thank all of you for coming. This committee stands
adjourned.
[Additional material follows.]
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Prepared Statement of Helen Blank
I am Helen Blank, Director of Child Care and Development at the
Children's Defense Fund. The Children's Defense Fund welcomes the
opportunity to testify today on child care and looks forward to working
with the Committee to improve families' access to quality child care.
CDF is a privately funded public charity dedicated to providing a
strong and effective voice for America's children, especially poor and
minority children. We are deeply grateful for Senator Dodd's strong and
lasting commitment to ensuring that families get the child care help
they need to work and children need to learn, including his sponsorship
of the Act to Leave No Child Behind (H.R. 1990/s. 940) and Senator
Kennedy's deep interest and support for early learning. In addition, we
are appreciative of the members of this Committee who have provided
leadership in the area of child care and early childhood.
Child care is an issue central to the daily lives of working
parents and their children. Every day, American parents go to work to
support their families and must trust their children to the care of
others. An estimated 13 million children younger than age six are
regularly in child care and millions of school-age children are in
after-school activities while their parents work. Every working parent
wants to be sure that his or her children are nurtured and safe.
Child care matters not just for parents but also for their
children. Quality child care is also critical to help children enter
school ready to succeed. The nation cannot proceed successfully on its
track towards improving educational outcomes unless it focuses on the
developmental needs of young children. Research is clear about the
importance of the first three years of life to brain development. The
process of learning to read begins well before a child enters
elementary school. Early childhood experiences that include exposure to
language-rich environments are building blocks for school success.
Studies also show that when child care is available, and when
families can get help paying for care, they are more likely to work.
Without help, they may not be able to become and stay employed and may
end up turning to welfare.
In a survey of Minnesota families with children, one out of five
said that child care problems had interfered with getting or keep a job
in the previous year.
In a study of families who were potential recipients of child care
assistance in Illinois, nearly half said that the cost of child care
had negatively impacted their opportunities for employment.
The number of low-income parents entering the workforce has risen
significantly since the enactment of the welfare law. Among families
receiving welfare cash assistance, the proportion participating in paid
employment or work activities grew from 11 percent in 1996 to 33
percent in 1999. Overall, employment among low-income single mothers
with young children grew from 44 percent in 1996 to 55 percent in 1999.
These employment gains can only be sustained if families have access to
dependable child care. This means help with child care costs, which can
be a staggering burden for these working parents and consume a large
portion of their paycheck. Child care costs can easily average $4,000
to $10,000 a year--more than the cost of college tuition at a public
university. Yet, 77 percent of higher education costs are covered by
public and private dollars while 23 percent are bome by parents. In
contrast parents pay the bulk of child care costs. Spending by parents
account for 60 percent of the cost, compared to 39 percent for
government and just 1 percent for businesses.
The welfare law created a new urgency to meet families' need for
child care help while offering states new opportunities and resources
to accomplish this task. The number of children and families receiving
assistance has increased significantly over the past five years as a
result of significant increases in federal and state funding for child
care. However, the goal of providing adequate supports for all children
and families who need them remains far out of reach. Only one out of
seven children eligible for child care assistance through the Child
Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) program is currently receiving
it.
The continuing shortcomings of our child care policies are
particularly troubling given the extremely favorable conditions for
states that prevailed until recently--a strong economy, shrinking
welfare rolls, and growing revenues. Given the current state of the
economy, families relying on child care assistance face a double-edged
threat. As the economic downturn affects more families, their budgets
will be squeezed even tighter while their need for help with their
child care bills will intensify. States will require additional
resources to meet this demand, but they may be less able to depend on
the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant as one of
their major sources of child care funds. States will likely need to use
an increasing proportion of their TANF funds for cash assistance,
leaving fewer resources available to help families with child care
costs just at the point when the need for assistance may be growing.
Just as states are attempting to maintain a precarious balance in a
faltering economy, low-income families are also trying to sustain their
own fragile balance. Low income working families are often one
unreliable child care arrangement away from welfare. These families
balance competing basic needs with very limited resources. If our
country is serious about promoting work, then it must address their
real needs, which includes the need for stable child care. Unstable
child care arrangements that fall through can easily catapult into a
lost job.
Already, there are clear indications that the economic downturn is
negatively impacting state child care assistance programs, and the low-
income families these programs are intended to help. In many states,
surpluses have rapidly been replaced by deficits--forcing states to cut
back in many areas, including child care. As of January 2002, 45 states
and the District of Columbia reported revenues below forecasted levels.
Nineteen states responded to the economic crisis with cuts to programs
for low-income families and human services programs, including 10
states that cut income support or employment support programs such as
child care and job training. Another eight states made across-the-board
cuts that will affect every program.
At the same time, many states are starting to see their TANF
caseloads grow. In 33 states, TANF caseloads increased between March
and September 2001, and by the end of the 2001 fiscal year, state TANF
outlays exceeded the amount of the basic TANF grant by more than $2
billion, a shortfall that states will have to fill.
A Fragile Foundation: State Child Care Assistance Policies, a
recent report by the Children's Defense Fund covering the 50 states and
the District of Columbia (and which we request be included in the
hearing record), reveals that inadequate federal and state funding
prevents millions of children in low-income working families from being
able to get the help they need. Many hard-working low-income families
are not even eligible for help due to low state income eligibility
cutoffs for child care assistance. Many who are eligible cannot get
it--either because they are put on waiting lists or turned away due to
inadequate funds, or because no effort has been made to let them know
they are eligible to get help. Those fortunate enough to actually
qualify for child care assistance face additional hurdles. In some
cases, the amount that state will pay for care is so low that parents
cannot find good quality providers who can afford to serve their
children, and in other cases parents have to pay so much in parent fees
or copayments that child care expenses still are a staggering financial
burden.
It is essential that additional federal investments be made to help
address the continuing gaps in child care assistance policies,
particularly as families grapple with the current economic situation.
Without sufficient funding, state policymakers will continue to face
unacceptable tradeoffs between helping families pay for child care and
ensuring that they can choose good quality care.
As of March 2000, only four states I allowed families with incomes
up to the maximum level allowed under federal law (85 percent of state
median income) to qualify for assistance. In 40 percent of the states,
a family of three earning $25,000 could not qualify for help.
Even if a family is eligible for child care help, they may not
necessarily receive it.
As of December 2001, more than one-third of the states had waiting
lists or frozen intake-meaning they turned families away without even
taking their names because they were unable to serve all eligible
families who applied.
Some of these waiting lists were extremely long: 37,000 children in
Florida, nearly 37,000 children in Texas, 18,000 children in
Massachusetts, and 12,000 children in Indiana.
Studies and interviews with parents highlight the challenges that
families on waiting lists face--many must choose between paying the
rent and affording care, go into debt, or settle for inadequate care
because they cannot afford better options:
In a 1998 survey of parents on the waiting list for child care
assistance in Santa Clara County, California, over one-third of parents
reported earning less than $10,000 annually. About 40 percent of the
families said they had given up on searching for work since they could
not find affordable care for their children. Forty-two percent of
families cited shortcomings in the quality of their children's care
with 47 percent reporting that their child only received individual
attention sporadically.
In a 1999 survey of families on the waiting list in Houston, most
families reported that they spent 25 to 30 percent of their income on
child care. Nearly one-third of the parents said that they had to put
off paying other bills in order to pay child care expenses first, and
17 percent had to do without certain necessities. Nearly two-fifths of
the families had to work fewer hours or miss work because of
inconsistent child care.
Individual stories of these families bring home the consequences of
not receiving child care assistance. A mother on the waiting list in
Florida has Krone's disease but no insurance, so money for tests and
the $200 a month for prescriptions must come from her pocket. Her child
support is paid erratically, and currently is several months behind.
She works for an employer who has seen business decline because of the
economy. This employer lets her live in the upstairs rooms, but if
something should happen to the business, the family would be homeless.
Child care costs 50 percent of the mother's salary. She wants her
daughter to have good quality care that promotes her development, but
wonders whether she can afford it. She says, ``I have seen my daughter
Katie's social skills and general knowledge increase dramatically since
she has been in child care. Without help in paying for child care,
however, I will have to withdraw her, and go on welfare. I can hardly
say the word, welfare, but I really would have no choice.''
The families on waiting lists are mainly low-income families who do
not receive TANF and are not transitioning from TANF. Only a few states
have acted to ensure that all eligible families who apply will have
access to assistance, regardless of whether or not they are receiving
welfare. Rhode Island has established a legal entitlement to child care
assistance for all eligible families, and states such as Illinois,
Oregon, Vermont, and Wisconsin have clearly indicated (through budget
language, regulations, or public statements) their commitment to
serving all eligible families who apply. These states are the exception
rather than the rule.
Waiting lists tell only part of the story. They do not include
families. who do not bother applying for assistance because they know
it is futile to expect to get help. They also fail to include families
who simply do not know that child care assistance programs exist.
The waiting lists would be even longer and many additional states
would have to turn to them if more families know they could get help.
States report that many eligible families are not sufficiently informed
about child care assistance. Two-fifths of the states acknowledge that
eligible families are often unaware that they could receive help paying
for care. If more families were informed about the availability of
child care assistance and applied for it, it is highly unlikely the
demand could be met, even in states that currently have no waiting
lists. Only four states indicate that they could serve all eligible
families. Many states report that they could not meet the need without
a significant increase in funds.
If a family does manage to qualify for and begin receiving child
care assistance, the challenges they face hardly end there. Numerous
obstacles may prevent a family from retaining eligibility for child
care help. To maintain eligibility for child care help, families must
verify that they continue to meet the income and other criteria for
child care assistance on a regular basis. Over two-thirds of the states
require families to go through a recertification process at least every
six months. In most cases, families must also notify the state
immediately following any changes in their job, income, or other
circumstances. Requiring frequent recertification whether or not there
have been any changes in the family's situation, and immediate
notification when there is a change, places a tremendous burden on
parents who are struggling to balance the demands of work and family.
Ten states make the process particularly difficult for low-income
families by requiring in-person recertification in many or all cases,
rather than allowing families to recertify by mail or phone. This
creates an unreasonable burden for parents just entering the workforce
and likely to be employed in low-wage jobs with inflexible schedules.
They often cannot take time off from work to visit their local child
care agency without jeopardizing their already fragile connection to
the workforce.
If a family is unable to, comply with these requirements and loses
their assistance, they may be forced to change their child care
arrangement This not only jeopardizes a parent's job but also disrupts
a child's relationship with their provider.
Families that are fortunate enough to receive assistance may still
find child care unaffordable due to burdensome co-payment policies. All
States require families receiving assistance to contribute toward the
cost of care based on a sliding fee scale and many states require
families at the poverty level or below to pay a fee.
A number of states charge relatively high fees to families earning
half the poverty level ($7,075 a year for a family of three in 2000),
even though there is scarcely room in their budgets for the most
minimal charge. Thirty-five states required families at this income
level to pay a fee, as of March 2000. In nine states, a family at this
income level with one child in care paid fees above 5 percent of
income.
Forty-six states required families at the poverty line ($14,150 for
a family of three in 2000) to pay a fee. In two-fifths of the states, a
family at this income level was required to pay 5 percent or more of
their income in fees. Arkansas' fees were I I percent of income for a
family at the poverty line, and North Dakota's fees were 15 percent of
income.
In two-thirds of the states, a family of three earning just $21,225
a year (150 percent of poverty in 2000) with one child in care was
required to pay more than 7 percent of their income in fees or was not
even eligible for help. In comparison, families nationwide at all
income levels only pay an average of 7 percent of income for care,
according to Census data. Fees were particularly high in some states.
In Oregon, a family at this income level paid 16 percent of income; in
Nevada, they paid 17 percent; and in South Dakota, 19 percent.
Another important component of a state's child care assistance
policies are reimbursement rates for providers. Adequate reimbursement
rates can ensure that parents have a real choice of providers. They
make it possible for providers to accept children receiving child care
subsidies and have the resources needed to support quality care. Nearly
half of the states fail to give families a real choice of care. They
set their rates below the 75th percentile of the market rate-the rate
that gives families access to 75 percent of their community's
providers--or base them on outdated market rate surveys. Rates are
extremely low in some states. Missouri set its reimbursement rate below
the 75th percentile of the 1996 market rate as of March 2000. The
state's reimbursement rate for a four-year-old in a center was $167 a
month lower than the 75h percentile of these outdated rates. Several
other states also set their rates more than $100 a month below market
prices.
With such low rates, providers may require parents to make up the
difference between the state's rate and the provider's--on top of the
parent's required fee--or may refuse to serve their children
altogether. Over two-thirds of the states allow providers to ask
parents to pay the difference between the state's rate and the
provider's rate. This may make providers more willing to serve families
receiving subsidies despite the low state rates. Yet, it also places an
additional demand on low-income families already stretched to their
limits.
States' reimbursement rates are deficient in other ways as well, as
they often fail to reflect market realities. For example, providers
generally expect private-paying parents to pay in full even if their
child is absent for a few days, because the provider still has to
operate their program on those days and pay their staff. The provider
relies on that expected income and cannot just temporarily fill the
slot with another child. While most states reimburse providers for some
absent days, all but seven place some limits on the number of absent
days per month or per year they will reimburse providers.
A number of states offer higher reimbursement rates to cover more
expensive care, such as special needs or higher quality care, or to.
give providers an incentive to offer care that is in short supply, such
as odd-hour care (care during evenings, nights, or weekends). While
differential rates are extremely important for encouraging providers to
offer the high quality care that is essential for children's successful
development and the specialized care that many children and families
need, they are no substitute for adequate base rates.
In many states, the differential is relatively small and not enough
to compensate for low state reimbursement rates. As a result, total
rates, even with the differential, fall below market rates. For
example, as of March 2000, New Jersey's reimbursement rate for
accredited center-based care for a four-year-old was $504 a month,
which was only slightly higher than the standard rate for non-
accredited care and still lower than the 75th percentile of 1997 rates
($585 a month). Only the combined strategies of sufficient base rates
and significant differential rates can produce an effective
reimbursement rate structure.
Clearly, there are numerous gaps in state child care assistance
policies. These gaps are growing wider in a number of states. For
example:
In 2001, Louisiana lowered its eligibility cutoff from 75 percent
of state median income ($31,151 for a family of three) to 60 percent
($24,921).
Also in 2001, New Mexico lowered eligibility for families not
receiving TANF from 200 percent of the federal poverty level ($29,260
for a family of three) to 100 percent ($14,630).
West Virginia plans to reduce its income cutoff for child care
assistance from 200 percent of poverty ($29,260 for a family of three)
to 150 percent ($21,945) in 2002 as well as eliminate a planned rate
bonus for infant care and odd-hour care.
The impact of inadequate investments on the number of families who
can receive child care assistance is illustrated by the situation in
Texas, which already has a long waiting list. In 2001, the state failed
to provide a sufficient funding increase to maintain even the current
level of support for low-income working families. In order to meet
strict welfare work requirements, the state will devote a larger
proportion of its funds to serving families trying to move from welfare
to work, which will cut back help for low-income families working to
stay off welfare. Approximately 6,000 fewer children in low-income
(non-welfare) families are expected to receive child care assistance in
2003, as compared to 2001.
The initial signals from governors' budget proposals and
legislatures' early actions in 2002 indicate that the outlook for child
care and early education investments, and the children and families
affected by them, continues to be bleak. While in California the
governor's proposed budget for FY 2003 includes a small (4.9 percent)
increase in child care funds, it also proposes substantial changes
that, if enacted, will make it more difficult for low-income families
to get help and lower the quality of child care available to their
children. First, the budget proposes lowering the income eligibility
limit for child care assistance so fewer families will be able to get
help. The proposal would lower eligibility from 75 percent of state
median income ($35,100 for a family of three) to between 60 ($28,080)
and 66 percent ($30,888), depending on where the family lives.
Parent fees would increase for families at all income levels, and
families with the lowest incomes would be required to pay a fee for
child care, putting an additional financial burden on those with
extremely limited resources. In addition, the budget proposes lowering
reimbursement rates for providers, which would give providers a
significant pay cut and wipe out their ability to make investments in
quality. Parents who choose to stay with providers with higher rates
would be responsible for making up the difference-forcing them to
further stretch their already limited incomes.
In Illinois, the governor has proposed $63 million in cuts that
will directly affect child care in the state. The governor's proposals
would restrict income eligibility for child care assistance, denying
help to many low-income families. For parents able to receive
assistance, co-payments would increase-by as much as 20 percent for
some families.
In Washington, the legislature has already enacted changes this
year that will reduce the income eligibility cut off for child care
assistance from 225 percent of the federal poverty level ($32,918 for a
family of three) to 200 percent ($29,260). This will affect about 5
percent of all families currently receiving help paying for child care.
In addition, parents' co-payments will increase by $5 per month.
Gaps exist not only in state child, care subsidy programs, but also
in state efforts to help ensure that good quality care is available for
all families. There has been a growing focus on improving K-12
education. and on early literacy. These issues cannot be fully
addressed, however, without first ensuring that all children who need
it have access to affordable, high quality child care and early
education. Children's early experiences have a profound impact.on their
ability to learn and succeed when they reach school, and for many
children, a substantial proportion of these early experiences are in a
child care setting.
Currently, many children are not receiving the experiences they
need to prepare for school. Forty-six percent of kindergarten teachers
report that half of their class or more have specific problems when
entering kindergarten, including difficulty following directions, lack
of academic skills, problems in their situations at home, and/or
difficulty working independently.
Low-income children are particularly at risk. For example, a North
Carolina study found that 38 percent of low-income kindergartners in
North Carolina had very low scores in language skills, while only 6
percent of their higher-income peers scored this low; in measures of
early math skills, 37 percent of low-income kindergartners scored very
poorly compared with 9 percent of higher-income children.
In order to ensure that children receive a strong start, they must
be supported by well-qualified and well-compensated child care
teachers. Yet it is nearly impossible to attract and retain providers
when their average salary is Just $16,350 a year with few benefits. Low
wages result in extremely high turnover rates--nearly one-third of
providers leave their programs each year--which deprives children of
the opportunity to form close, stable relationships with their
teachers. A number of states have begun to address this issue with
promising initiatives that offer wage incentives to teachers who
receive training, or have already receiving higher credentials, and who
commit to staying with their program for a certain period of time. Yet
these efforts, which are dependent on CCDBG and TANF funds, reach only
a small fraction of child care providers, and typically offer only a
small salary supplement.
The large majority of states do not even have basic requirements to
ensure a minimal level of quality. While cosmetologists must attend as
much as 2,000 hours of training before they can get a license, 30
states allow teachers in child care centers to begin working with
children before receiving any training in early childhood development.
Although early childhood educators recommend that a single caregiver be
responsible for no more than three or four infants, four or five
toddlers, or 10 preschoolage children, only 10 states require that
child care centers have child-staff ratios that meet these levels.
States definitely need more resources devoted to improving the
quality of child care. They are currently required to spend a minimum
of 4 percent of their CCDBG funds on quality efforts. They have used
these funds for vital supports and creative initiatives, ranging from
hiring more inspectors to ensure facilities are safe, to housing infant
and toddler, health, and early literacy specialists in resource and
referral programs to work with their communities' child care providers.
However, a 4 percent set-aside is not nearly enough considering the
numerous components that need to be in place for children to receive
the quality of care they need, including well-trained and well
compensated staff, low child-staff ratios, safe, roomy facilities
designed to meet the needs of young children, basic equipment such as
books and toys, regular monitoring and inspection of providers, and
resource and referral programs to help families find care and support
providers.
It is essential that the Child Care and Development Block Grant be
strengthened so that it provides the help families and children need.
Other programs cannot be expected to compensate for the continuing
shortcomings in states' child care assistance policies and basic gaps
in quality. Over the past several years, federal and state investments
in prekindergarten and after-school initiatives have expanded. Yet,
access to these programs remains limited, particularly among low-income
children. Head Start reaches only three out of five eligible preschool-
age children, and less than 5 percent of eligible infants and toddlers.
Nationwide only 44 percent of children ages three to five and not yet
in kindergarten who are in families with incomes below $15,000 a year
are participating in public or private prekindergarten programs,
compared with 71 percent of children in families with incomes of
$75,000 or more. Georgia provides prekindergarten to all four-year-olds
whose families want them to participate, but Oklahoma is the only other
state that has taken significant steps toward making prekindergarten
universally available. Most state prekindergarten initiatives serve
just a fraction of low-income children, and many are limited to four-
year-olds. Prekindergarten programs also often operate on a part-day,
part-year basis. As a result, low-income working families needing full-
day care are still dependent on the CCDBG for child care assistance.
Similarly, many school-age children lack opportunities to
participate in constructive after-school activities. Nearly seven
million school-age children are home alone each week. In 2001, only 11
percent of the requests for funding through the U.S. Department of
Education's 21st Century Community Learning Centers after-school
program could be filled.
Additional investments in child care will help more low-income
parents afford good care that enables them to work and that helps their
children grow and learn. CCDBG funding should be increased so that by
the end of five years, families of at least an additional two million
children can receive help paying for care. Funding targeted toward
improving the quality of care child should also be expanded, with
special attention to the needs of infants and toddlers. Provisions
should also help providers have access to additional education and
training and in creased compensation. Funding should be available to
ensure that children are in high quality care. We should not miss an
opportunity this year with reauthorization to expand investments in a
program so crucial to the success of children and families and to truly
ensure that no child is left behind.
Prepared Statement of Elaine Zimmerman
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Elaine
Zimmerman. I am the Executive Director of the Connecticut Commission on
Children, housed in the Connecticut Legislature. The Commission is non-
partisan and staffs all three branches of government on children's
policy and trends in Connecticut.
I join you this morning to share brief comments on the importance
of early care and education. There is truly nothing more important to
the economy and our future than to help children thrive and parents
work. When both are occurring smoothly, the youngest generation is
usually healthy, safe and learning and the adults are, in the majority,
providing the work participation our nation demands for economic
growth.
It is hard to believe that lack of child care, a modest line item
compared to other costs and a clear and research-based policy, can
frequently be the crack in the plan. Yet fissures in our nation's child
care access and sustainability can impede early learning, timely health
interventions and employment opportunity for parents ready to work.
Lack of quality early care for families is like a loose log on the
trail--it can trip up what is just basic foothold to us--health,
curiosity, a place of safety, readiness for school and unexpectedly,
equity. Yes, the lack of access to quality early care widens the
achievement gap for those who are poor and minority before they open
the kindergarten door of the schoolhouse.
stopping social promotion
Connecticut supports Congress in the new education law, which has
insisted on research-based practice and accountability in learning so
that every child learns. We have in our state ensconced standards
teacher training and outcome based planning. Concurrent with this, we
are trying to end social promotion.
In our efforts to stop falsely passing children forward, we must
look at what we need to do at the front end to help children succeed.
We have learned that a key variable in the puzzle to allow children to
move forward and not be held back in kindergarten, first or second
grade is quality early care and education.
bridgeport findings
Findings in one of our poorest cities show steady gains from
quality childcare. Bridgeport followed children who had quality early
care and education programming against those that did not. Children who
had quality early care had fewer retentions, more frequent attendance,
and higher reading scores throughout grades K-2. In the first grade, 47
percent of students (45 out of 96 students) who did not have quality
early care and education were retained, compared with only 1 percent of
students (1 out of 88 students) who had quality early care and
education.
Those children in the Bridgeport study who had quality early care
and education had stronger reading scores than the other children.
First-graders who had quality early care and education averaged a score
of 11.68 on the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), and all of
those students exceeded the ``substantially deficient'' level of 10. In
contrast, those children who did not have quality early care and
education averaged just 6.84 on the DRA.
Early care and education saved significant tax dollars in decreased
retention. In the Bridgeport study, retentions in K-2 cost 5.5 times
more for those children who did not have quality early care and
education ($622,644) than for those who did ($113,208).
Only one child with quality early care and educator programming was
held back. The costs of the program were much less than the costs of
retention, which was over $10,000 a child. And these costs are just the
literal costs per year. They do not measure costs to self-esteem,
expectation of self as student, and eagerness to learn.
Social promotion cannot be stopped strictly through formal
accountability in education policy. It needs also to have a precursor
in early care and education. Early care and education is the missing
piece to stopping social promotion.
CCDBG dollars that did this. Connecticut's preschool dollars are
paid for by a co-location of funds from CCDBG and education funds.
the achievement gap in race
In the recently signed ESEA, reauthorization bill, the key goals
include narrowing the achievement gap between those who are successful
and those who are not, particularly minority students and poor
students.
Although Connecticut is among the top-performing states in U.S.
Department of Education exams, black and Hispanic children trail white
children by large margins.
Only 25 percent of black and Hispanic children reached the state's
fourth-grade reading goal, compared with over 70 percent of white
students, according to Connecticut Mastery Test scores released on
March 6, 2002. In the state's seven poorest school systems, one of
every three eighth-graders was identified as a poor reader, compared
with one of every 15 in the rest of the state.
Students from low-income families fared far worse in writing and
mathematics than children fourth-graders living in poverty met the
state from higher-income, families. Only 37 percent of fourth-graders
living in poverty met the state goal in writing; more than two-thirds
(70 percent) of those above the poverty line met the goal. A majority
(61 percent) of sixth-graders overall met the state goal in
mathematics, compared with only one-third (33 percent) of low-income
children.
Endeavoring to address the minority achievement gap, we discovered
that two years of quality early care programming for three and four-
year-olds blocked the early differential. In fact, minority children
did as well as low-income white children. In new data from a study
conducted in Middletown, Connecticut, the availability of a school
readiness program accounted for an over threefold reduction in the
number of low-income African American children ``not ready'' for
school--from 12.9 percent (of those who did not attend) to 4.0 percent
(of those who did attend). Among white children in general, 3.03
percent were unprepared for school.
In the Middletown study, low-income African American children who
attended a school readiness program attained an average school
readiness score (55.63) that was comparable to white children in
general (57.59) and surpassed both white low-income children (51.16)
and those low-income African American children who did not attend a
school readiness program (48.37).
Additionally, this Middletown study found that children--across
racial and economic lines who attended two years of quality early care
and education were significantly better prepared for kindergarten than
those who attended only one year. The findings of the study, conducted
by Walter Gilliam of Yale University, are consistent with an earlier
Yale analysis by Edward Zigler and Walter Gilliam of all state-funded
school readiness programs in the nation.
This nationwide analysis found that pre-K programs had a
significant impact in increased competence, reduction in behavior
problems by 4th grade, improved attendance and grades in elementary
school, and improved state achievement scores. In addition, every state
that looked at the impact of their program on grade retention found a
significant impact.
These results provide strong evidence that quality early care and
education programs can help to close the educational gap at
kindergarten entry between white and low-income African American
children. It is CCDBG dollars that finance this in Connecticut.
a new divide among children--those with and without quality early care
The former CEO of our most successful bank in Connecticut spoke to
the state legislature last week. He was struck by the findings I just
presented to you and suggested to legislative leadership that we might
need two-kindergarten classes--one for children who have had quality
early care and one for children that have not.
In his travels, he is hearing from kindergarten teachers about the
divide they already see in skills between the children who have had a
few years of quality early care and education and the children,
particularly those from low-income areas, who have had nothing.
We saw the same problems when we met with kindergarten teachers to
learn their views of early care and education. After all, the
kindergarten teacher is the tollbooth between early learning and formal
education. They informed us methodically that children are manifesting
less ability to focus, more behavioral health problems, more aggression
and less fine motor skills which they attribute to more passive
activity like television rather than scissors and paper cutting or
drawing or writing.
literacy and reading
An outside reading consultant came to one of our larger cities to
meet with fifth grade teachers. They had called her in, because they
were about to con-duct a state required education mastery test and they
were worried.
What were they worried about? The children in the fifth grade could
not read well enough to pass these tests. In fact, the children were
being taught the entire fifth grade curriculum orally. They brought
this reading consultant in from out of state because they were ashamed
and worried. It never occurred to them that as fifth grade teachers
they would need to concern themselves with reading fundamentals.
Can you imagine designing a curriculum as if you were in a country
that did not have print? This is Connecticut, with the best education
in the nation. Yet often our poor children and children of color are in
a different story.
a state plan to improve reading
Connecticut created a Reading Panel to look at the skills and
knowledge that teachers need to teach reading effectively. We brought
in the best in the country, including many who are now working in
Washington under President Bush.
We have implemented teacher training in how children learn to read,
and we have reading plans in virtually every school. But what is also
clear is that you cannot reach this without preliteracy and oral
language development. It is like learning to run or skip before
learning to walk.
oral language development
Oral language development and preliteracy are the bridge and,
precursors to language skills development in kindergarten and first
grade.
Before entering formal education children should: Have more than
1000 hours of experiences with books, alphabet games, storybook reading
and activities. Enjoy books and language and see the purpose of reading
have been included in conversation and treated as successful speakers
and listeners. Have engaged in playtime that employs symbols (acting
out roles, designing stories and in using props. Be exposed to print
and writing in their daily life. Understand how to handle books and
know that print moves left to right. Have been read to by an adult who
supports the child's view and creativity during the reading aloud.
preliteracy in early care and education
Young children in early care and education benefit significantly
from:
Being read to aloud and being asked to be active participants in
the reading. Understanding that print carries a message. Engaging in
reading and writing attempts. Identifying labels and signs in their
environment. Understanding that there is a connection between letters
and sounds. Linguistic awareness games, nursery rhymes and rhythmic
activity (Phonemic awareness, a powerful predictor of later reading
success, is found in traditional rhyming, skipping and word games).
Letter sound matches and some letter identification. Temporary invented
spelling to represent written language.
Early care and education teachers can: Share books with children,
including Big Books and model reading behaviors. Talk about letters by
name and sounds. Establish a literacy-rich environment. Re-read
favorite stories. Engage children in language games. Promote literacy-
related play activities. Encourage children to experiment with writing.
Without the quality environments in child care where teachers are
reading to children, helping them hold and cherish books, the divide
between those who have and those that do not, increases.
Also, parents are key to ensure love of language and curiosity in
daily life. Parent and family members can: Read and re-read stories
with predicable text to children. Encourage children to recount
experiences and describe ideas and art that are important to them.
Visit the library. Talk with children and engage them in conversation,
give them the names of things. Provide opportunities for children to
draw and print, using marker's crayons and pencils.
This happens at home for many--but it does not happen at home
enough for those children whose parents cannot read, who do not have
books or who do not know to tap on words, pointing the fingers at
letters, repeat rhymes, sing songs that rhyme. This is the work of both
family and trained child care and early education workers.
connecticut's commitment to oral language development in early care
Clearly teaching reading does not begin in kindergarten. There are
numerous activities that child care providers and early educators can
perform in preschool settings to help children in preliteracy skills
development.
Connecticut is now training all of our school readiness child care
sites in oral language and preliteracy. For programs to receive quality
early care and education dollars they must have a plan for oral
language training. This comes from a combination of education dollars
and CCDBG dollars. We cannot do it without CCDBG dollars.
Some states are now planning their prison construction, based on
third grade reading levels. This shows with certainty that a third
grader is not going to succeed in school if he cannot read is already
hammered in. The kid's cell could be designed like a pair of jeans.
The choice is ours--but it is not just an elementary school choice,
which you have so stunningly passed in spite of budget constraints and
the disastrous backdrop of terrorism. The missing shoe is quality early
care and education. If we want to break the achievement gap in learning
and literacy we need to narrow the lack of skills at an earlier age.
family literacy
``Babies whose mothers provided them with opportunities to observe,
imitate and learn, performed higher on IQ tests at age four than
children who were exposed to the same teachings starting at age one.
(Tamis LeMonde and M.H. Bornstien 1987)
There is a high correlation between the literacy level of the
mother and the literacy level of the child. Yet we know that the
literacy levels of moms coming off of TANF are very low.
Many TANF recipients are getting jobs and then being laid off,
because they can read at a third grade level, but they cannot read
manuals. So they get a job with the post office and then they are
fired; they get a great job with U.P.S. and then they axe laid off. We
are losing workers constantly due to adult literacy gaps.
Our state is going to assess literacy levels of the moms before
placing them in work. We see how many low-income adults are losing jobs
after TANF Not because they have emotional problems; they were never
taught to read beyond third grade level.
Their children will also have a literacy gap, if we do not
intervene. The key indicator of a child's literacy level is the
mother's literacy level. Where does the intervention begin in language
development to remedy this profound lack in language development? In
early care and education.
behavioral health and aggression in children
``Violence is learned so it can be unlearned or conditions can be
changed so it ?not learned in the first place. It is never too late to
change the behavior, but it is much more difficult to do it later
rather than earlier--Dr. Ron Slaby, Harvard University.
Early aggressive behavior, which is learned through imitation and
direct experience, is the top predictor of later aggression.
Increasingly children are showing sips of behavioral health problems in
the very young years. In fact, in our state, we have facts that read
more like a Robin Williams routine than a social policy. In 1998-1999,
Connecticut schools suspended or expelled 1,914 children in
kindergarten and first grade (458 in kindergarten; 1,456 in first
grade). When you study the causal factors for these suspensions and
expulsions, the majority are expelled for problems with behavior.
The last decade of research on the prevention of violence led to an
understanding that violence prevention needs to start early and that,
acting as early as possible, in the first five years, is recommended
for successful intervention. It is in the under five years that a child
develops mental health problems and where the severe behavioral
underpinnings can be anchored to implode later. Yet, impoverished
children are less likely to receive care for a behavioral problem
because they receive irregular and poorer quality health care.
If we want zero tolerance in school, we need to reach the children
sooner to assess, intervene, and refer children with behavioral health
difficulties. This is cost effective, as when the behavioral disorder
shows up in the classroom, the entire learning process is diminished
and the child is often not given mental health intervention but some
form of behavioral misconduct reporting which can imprint teacher bias
towards the child.
quality care returns the dollars spent
When we invest in the early years, we save in out-placement,
special education and in mental health interventions later, which are
prohibitive in cost.
In Bridgeport alone, the children who were in quality care ended up
not staying back in school. The cost of retention is $9,000 and up to
$10,000 when you add on the ancillary costs. The cost of child care is
significantly less, between $5000-7500. Put starkly, we can keep
children back later and pay more or we can provide quality early care
and education and see children achieve with dignity.
Eighty percent of the learning disabled children in special
education simply did not learn to read. Of our special education
population, about 45% are learning disabled. This costs our state about
$397,526,000 or roughly $12,951 per learning disabled student. The
costs of special education are killing our towns and schools. Pre-
literacy skills and oral language development begins with well-trained
providers in early care and education.
The costs of the racial divide in achievement manifests in poor
school performance, dropouts and low expectations of performance in the
workforce. The additional cost is a searing despair--Langston Hughes
said, ``What happens to a dream deferred--does it dry up like a raisin
in the sun, or does it explode?'' Either way, depression or violence,
the cost is plenty.
changing context, changing values
There was a time when we did not want to invest in child care
because we thought that women needed to stay home. Well, perhaps we
should. But we have just created a welfare reform policy that says that
poor women need to work and work quickly. If women are working, where
is the, care for their young?
We are witnessing moms trading, babies in parking lots like bags of
celery and potatoes. Other moms are taking, care of eight infants
illegally to help the neighborhood work. Eight infants with one
untrained provider is a recipe for illness, poor safety and learning
failure.
Child care is like transportation. If you don't have it, you cannot
get there. Yet, unlike transportation, there is no bus, even if you
come in late. There is only sometimes a teenager down the street, a
boyfriend or often the mom just lies and calls in sick.
This costs the economy. The number of sick days due to lack of
child care is high. It is simply a white lie that is part of our
culture because we have not yet admitted that family and work Policy
must offer care while parents work.
This costs in safety. I called the Department of Children and
Families to ascertain where the deaths were of children. At any given
time, the majority of child deaths are from informal care often some
unintentional provider who is supposed to be watching the children
while the mom works. Usually, the boyfriend.
With cutbacks or level funding of CCDBG dollars, more parents will
not enter the workforce. They Will stay on welfare longer or leave
welfare and flounder--because people are rightly not willing to work if
their children are not safe and protected. This is the heart of the
matter. Lack of dignity in work choice and safety at home for children
costs us, unnecessarily.
Lack of early care is packaged chaos-ready to go off.
quality care with the best trained teachers
Early care providers are with children while their learning
patterns are forming. Unlike the body, which takes 20 years to mature
to 95% of its full size, the brain develops to 90% of its capacity in
the first five years. At birth, children's brains have almost all the
brain cells or neurons, they will ever need. However, these neurons are
not yet linked into the networks necessary for learning and complex
functioning.
Between birth and school age a process of ``sculpting'' occurs:
some neural connections are made or reinforced and others die away.
Early childhood experiences shape these connections; helping to
determine which ones are maintained and which are lost. Early care
Workers need to know how to teach these young children, not just how to
clean their diapers. (First Steps-Taking Action Early to Prevent
Violence).
Parents want quality care with well-trained providers for these
critical times in a child's early development. The majority do not seek
out informal care as a matter of choice. A recent Bridgeport study of
parents reflects this. Seventy percent of the parents said they would
choose licensed child care when given the choice. The critical shortage
of quality care, particularly for infants and toddlers, as well as the
cost of care pushes many parents to choose unlicensed care because they
have no real choice. In Bridgeport alone, 2,300 children are being
cared for in unlicensed, unregulated care.
The early years are not simply fit for babysitting. They are in
fact where language begins, where the capacity to care for others
begins--or does not begin. The facts are uncontested that the
underpinnings of a child's ego, self esteem, and lifelong learning
patterns are sewn together before kindergarten.
creating a system to train providers
Connecticut has created a system of training for the field called
Charts-A-Course. We have designed a method whereby providers get course
credit for their work. They can accrue these course credits towards
diplomas in high school, community college, and four-year college. We
assess every course and determine its worth, sort of like a Betty
Crocker stamp of approval. We have raised scholarship money for this
and now see many more providers who come from diverse backgrounds
coming in for training. In fact, the field has broadened in its race
and ethnic diversity? due to this programming.
The state now relies on Charts-A-Course for a host of training
opportunities. For example, they will provide oral language training
for the for the child care field. As we position training for homeland
security, they will host the child care trainings with FEMA. An
infrastructure, expectation of quality, and insistence on raising the
water level is methodically working. CCDBG pays for all of this.
Yet, child care providers are bailing out. It is easier in this day
to get a job cutting hedges or babysitting dogs to make a decent
family, wage than child care. In fact, child care workers make less
money than dog pound attendants. So we believe we should link increased
dollars to increased training. Raise the water level for the children,
keep the providers and elevate the field.
The turnover rate for child care is increasing. Children learn that
adults are inconsistent in their lives. The child has parents in the
workforce. Then the second or third adult in the child's life, the
early care and education providers leave. Then the next early care and
education provider leaves. The child, from a psychodynamic perspective
learns not to bond, to trust or to relax into play. Object constancy,
the internal learning that self is constant, which needs to be in place
by the age of three, is threatened.
Constancy of child care providers and excellence in their work
matters for the child, for the elementary school classroom and for
savings for the nation. Yet we act as if children only start to learn
when they open the kindergarten door. Actually, child learning
patterns, curiosity, values, and moral development are set before they
open that door.
bioterrorism and safety
When the World Trade Center imploded, the child care providers at
the child care facility grabbed all the emergency forms. They knew that
the children might not have parents by the end of the day. They also
knew there was a chance the parents might lose children. They left
barefoot and told the children they were going for a walk. They put the
children in grocery carts and began to walk. They walked and walked
until they were safe. Then they stopped, pretended that this had always
been their destination and began to design an intentional play event at
a location that was safe. Every child was safe. None were lost.
These child care workers were trained in multi-hazard planning.
They knew to protect the children. In our new context, we need our
young to be in places where the providers understand safety,
evacuation, communications and the psychological interventions
necessary to calm children and facilitate their not being traumatized.
Well-trained providers can do this. A babysitter down the street, a
boyfriend temporarily watching, a child, is less likely to have this
kind of formal training in protecting our young. It is just one fact of
early care and education. But it is a new facet.
In Connecticut, we are going to require all schools and child care
settings to be trained in multihazard planning. In a bill, modeled
after original language introduced by Senators Dodd, DeWine and
Collins, we have added components that ensure that children will not be
forgotten in homeland security planning. This sort of planning lends
itself to a greater respect for the formal kinds of care we have for
our youngest generation.
We will train every child care provider in multi-hazard planning.
With the shadow of--bioterrorism, we are working on making sure we can
access everyone. Where are they? How do we reach them? How do we make
sure they are immunized? How do we protect them? We will work with the
child care workers to develop a system of reaching every child in a
health emergency.
I can tell you that as a mother now, I am more concerned about the
whereabouts of my young children after school, and I want to be sure
that those who are with my children when I am not, understand
evacuation planning and safety The young need this, as much as the
public schools. And in both New York and the Pentagon, our children
were safe in quality child care. This was not by chance. The early care
and education teachers were trained in child safety.
diversity and global connectedness
Reflecting on September 11, it is clear that we want to sharpen our
commitment to diversity and global connectedness. We studied the impact
of difference on children, at what age children learn to notice
difference and whether integrated settings make any difference on race
bias for young children.
Child care and preschool can bring children together from different
class and race backgrounds. Parents use the care near their worksite,
are willing to travel for quality and reflect this in their choices.
A literature summary, performed by Yale University, made it quite
clear that young children, by the preschool years, begin to think of
their peers in racial terms. ``Racial attitudes are acquired early and
become harder to change as the child matures.'' (McConhay, 1981). By
late preschool, children ``evaluate [others] on the basis of racial-
category membership.'' (Hirschfeld, 1996). The literature also shows
that early integration may lead to reduced fear, mistrust and violence
across racial lines. Exposing young children to multiracial peers may
help reduce the likelihood of later ridicule or fear of other races
(Hopson & Hopson, 1993), produce positive effects on intergroup
relations (Slavin, 1995), and help ``transcend some of the structural
barriers that affect interracial and interethnic contact . . . (Coll &
Garcia, 1995).
Simply integrating a classroom is not enough. It is important to
bring together children of different races and the same economic
background in order to provide equal-status contact and less likelihood
of mistrust, fear or violence. (Hopson & Hopson, 1993). Having a large
enough percentage of each race present in each desegregated school is
important in order to have equal power and status inside the school.
(McConhay, 1981). Interaction should be cooperative, involve one-on-one
situations and receive institutional support. (Devine, in press).
It is CCDBG dollars that allows this racial integration to happen
in Connecticut.
false policy divide
We can pay for the lack of quality care later in poor literacy,
special education, increased divides between the skilled and unskilled,
poor health care--or we can do it up-front at the beginning. As a
nation committed to prevention rather that crisis, and particularly now
with the budget deficit and the need to honor every dollar, early is
better, younger is better, quality is always better.
bold systemic reform
The question is not should we finance child care but what outcomes
do we want for children? How can we reach these goals in the early
years using research-based findings, best practices with proven
outcomes and the lowest common denominator in dollars?
I believe the bold strategy here is to invest deeper and to expect
more-not to invest less and expect it all to begin in kindergarten.
Perhaps we need a Child Care Accountability Act to raise the overall
training, expectations in outcomes with explicit requirements and
stated learning transitions to early elementary school. Let's do what
you have done for education in the early care and education domain.
Because early care and education is the porch to the kindergarten door.
Put in a demand for excellence in health, safety and learning.
Improve the field. You could demand training, standards, transition to
school, health care linkages, only research-based practice. But don't
harvest out the resources when this is where the seed begins to grow.
Prepared Statement of Janet Schalansky
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Janet
Schalansky, secretary of the Kansas Department of Social and
Rehabilitation Services. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on
the subject of child care, helping parents work, and the wellbeing of
children.
Background Since the passage of the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996, states'
investments in child care have exceeded all expectations.We have seen a
dramatic increase in the number of families and children served as
evidenced by the unprecedented growth in child care expenditures.
Between 1996 and 1999, there was an 80 percent increase in the number
of children receiving a monthly child care subsidy.
States have programmed every dollar available for child care. The
child care story is a Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) and
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) story. Nationally, we
have doubled spending on child care. In FY 2000, states expended over
$9 billion in combined federal and state dollars on child care. This
includes $7 billion from CCDF and TANF dollars transferred, plus $2
billion in direct TANF spending. States have increased TANF spending on
child care from $189 million in FY 1997 to $4.3 billion in FY 2000.
TANF funds spent on child care exceeded the entire federal portion of
the CCDF allocation in FY 2000.
Under CCDF, states have met or exceeded the 100 percent
maintenance-of-effort requirement each year. States have matched all
available federal funds. While allowed under federal law to spend up to
5 percent of CCDF on administrative costs, states, on average, spent
just 2.6 percent on administrative costs in FY 2000. This represents a
decrease of $3 million in administrative costs from the previous year.
If TANF caseloads increase due to the current economic downturn, the
amount of TANF funds available for child care may be reduced. In
addition, if Congress mandates new welfare reform work rates or hours,
then federal child care funding must increase as well. We need $4
billion in addition to the CCDF funding to maintain our current
investment. If Congress wants states to increase quality and increase
access, then additional funds will also be needed.
the child care story in kansas
The child care program in the state of Kansas is administered by
the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. Kansas
ranks 15th in geographical size as compared to other states. The state
population of 2,688,418 includes both urban and rural communities. In
population, Kansas ranks 32nd in the nation--26.5 percent of the
population is under 18 years of age; 7 percent is under the age of
five. The median household income is $36,488, which is fairly
consistent with the national median. In Kansas, 10.9 percent of the
population and 15.4 percent of the children are living in poverty.
In federal FY 2002, Kansas received a TANF block grant of $101.9
million. Kansas has historically spent, and is projected to continue
spending, the entire amount of the TANF block grant. Of the block
grant, almost $17.9 million was transferred to CCDF to cover child care
expenditures. Quality initiatives accounted for 19.8 percent of Kansas'
total child care budget.
In Kansas, 15,313 children are served monthly, by child care
subsidy. Approximately 16 percent of those eligible for subsidy
payments are served. Child care subsidy payments are available to
families with incomes below 185 percent of the federal poverty level
(FPL). Families who receive a subsidy payment, however, may be required
to contribute a copayment for their child care based on a sliding-fee
scale. For example, a family of three--a mother and two children--with
an income at 150 percent of FPL ($1,829 monthly/$21,948 annually),
would have a total monthly copayment of $177. TANF families and those
whose children are at risk of abuse and neglect have no fee. Kansas has
no waiting list at this time. Kansas spends $53,206,577 annually on
subsidy payments.
This year, in an attempt to promote both quality and access, child
care provider rates were adjusted based on state norms. Rates were set
at the 65th percentile for licensed providers and at the 60th
percentile for registered providers.
Approximately $14 million is spent annually on child care quality
in Kansas. Of that, $7.9 million is for Kansas Early Head Start, which
serves 825 children and families and has an impact on another 2,000
children. Kansas was the first state in the nation to devote TANF funds
to this comprehensive state-funded program.
Kansas supports flexibility in using CCDF funds. This allows us to
partner with other agencies and funding sources, focusing on
initiatives targeted as issues important to Kansas. Each state has its
own unique issues and needs the flexibility to develop partnerships and
programs to meet these needs. Several important state collaborations
have produced the following: After-school programs developed with the
Kaufman Foundation--for inner-city programs in Kansas City; An
apprenticeship project designed and implemented with the Department of
Labor through a federal grant--administered through a community
college; Kansas Head Start and Early Head Start Programs--which bring
together year round child care and Head Start services; A statewide
Resource and Referral network providing core services to all 105
counties; Initiatives for programs to provide literacy, school
readiness, teen parenting and fatherhood services for families--through
Early Head Start centers and community services; and The Midwest Child
Care Research Consortium, a three-year project to define and evaluate
child care quality involving Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Missouri.
Kansas also embraces the emphasis of quality, which CCDF has
supported. In Kansas we consider quality to combine enhanced services
delivered by well-trained professionals with the availability and
access to those services. Our success in this area is demonstrated by:
Caseload and Rates. We have funded caseload growth (with no waiting
list) and set eligibility for subsidy at 185 percent of FPL in order to
serve the working poor and TANF recipients. We have increased rates to
providers who care for children with special needs, while maintaining
provider rates that sustain a competitive level with local market rates
to ensure access for families receiving child care subsidies.
Professional Development. Our infant/toddler project trains and
supports child care providers and families by improving the quality and
supply of infant/toddler care by working directly with infant/toddler
professionals. These supports include funding professional development
initiatives to raise quality of care and reduce staff turnover; funding
TEACH scholarships that enable providers to increase their professional
knowledge of the best early child hood practices; working with
community colleges and universities to coordinate early childhood
curricula and credit requirements; and providing support/information on
child development to nonregulated/relative care providers by direct
contact and educational materials.
Access and Safety. Centers receive funding grants for expansion,
start-up, and to meet licensing requirements/improving and to improve
service quality. Grants are also given to family home providers to help
meet licensing requirements and improve quality of care.
Public Education and Awareness. We provide education and training
on early brain development and other research through open workshops in
collaboration with the Kansas Departments of Education and Health and
Environment. The state also sponsors a statewide public awareness
campaign on quality childcare targeted at parents, businesses, and
providers.
The Institute for Social and Economic Development recently
completed a study of TANF leavers in Kansas. The results of this study
indicate that access to high-quality child care is an important factor
in families maintaining employment upon leaving TANF assistance. Fewer
than 20 percent of leavers participate in the child care subsidy
program and 15 percent of families who return to TANF, who originally
left due to earnings, do so As a result of child care problems.
While Kansas has been able to achieve some degree of success in our
child care programs, we strongly support increased funding. In Kansas
these dollars would be used for the most pressing needs facing us
today: Increase access for low-income children and lower eligibility
rates and copayments; Increase slots for infants and toddlers; Outreach
to low-income families and funding to support caseload growth;
Recruitment and retention of quality providers; and Increase provider
payment rates above the current percentiles.
helping working parents
As chair of the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA)
Child Care Committee, I know state investment in quality has been
impressive. For example, states have made a variety of investments to
support working parents by focusing on odd-hour and after school care.
Maine and New Mexico have introduced rate adjustments for children
served during nontraditional hours. In New Mexico, 35 percent of
families with children in care are utilizing care during nontraditional
hours. Maine also provides funding for the state's school-age care
alliance to support efforts to provide technical assistance to schools
and other entities considering starting a school-age care program. And
in Connecticut, a partnership with the University of Connecticut, the
state's schoolage child care alliance and the Connecticut Charts-A-
Course career development systems has resulted in a project on
establishing a Child Development Associate credential certificate for
school-age providers.
States are also launching initiatives to increase capacity for
infant and toddler care. Alabama has launched an Office of School
Readiness to develop prekindergarten programs and develop Head Start
Collaborations at the state and local levels. Missouri provides start
up and expansion grants for programs that serve children from birth to
age three. Massachusetts funds distance learning courses in infant and
toddler care through the Child Care Resource and Referral network.
Courses have been developed for providers of both center- and family-
based care with an emphasis on including children with disabilities.
States have developed programs to focus on the special needs
of.infants and toddlers. In New Hampshire, both family- and center-
based providers can participate in intensive training and receive
equipment grants to increase the capacity and improve the quality of
infant and toddler care. North Carolina funds a quality enhancement
project that seeks to expand community-based child care health
consultations, provide online support for web-based training, provide
support for quality enhancement grants to providers, and evaluate the
impact of child care health consultations on the health status of
infants and toddlers. Missouri provides start up and expansion grants
for programs that serve children from birth to age three. Wyoming and
Vermont provide statewide training to assist caregivers in obtaining
infant care credentials.
Quality
At least half of the states are conducting activities focusing on
the issue of caregiver wages and retention. For example, both Maine and
Minnesota use training, minigrants, and capital improvement loans to
increase retention. Maine also funds Maine Roads to Quality, a child
care and early care and education career development center,
responsible for developing a 180-hour Core Knowledge Training program,
which also maintains registries for providers and approved trainers,
and administers scholarships and an accreditation support project.
In Massachusetts, child care providers receive quality awards for
achievement in quality programming, innovation in child care service
delivery, and assistance for providers in achieving accreditation.
Maryland has implemented a child care credential and tiered
reimbursement system. The Maryland Child Care Credential is a six-level
system that recognizes a provider's achievement of a specified number
of training hours, years of experience and professional activities,
which leads to quality care. Cash bonuses are given as incentives to
move up through each level and vouchers to defray the cost of training
are available. Washington has a Career and Wage Ladder Pilot Project in
its third year. The state pays centers for incremental wage increases
for teachers who have completed education milestones. The centers
contribute additional pay based on teacher experience. North Carolina
has developed a licensing system based on levels of quality.
Child care licenses now show one to five stars, reflecting the
levels of standards achieved. Increased subsidy payment rates for
higher star ratings have been an incentive and support for providing
quality care.
States are concentrating on early learning initiatives. Arkansas
has developed ELLA, the Early Learning Literacy in Arkansas initiative,
a literacy training program for prekindergarten teachers. Massachusetts
has funded the development of state-approved literacy standards and the
establishment of a tiered rating scale that offers incentives for
providing literacy activities.
Ohio has also worked on increasing collaboration between Head Start
and child care. The state has formed a workgroup to identify barriers
to collaboration and propose policy changes to increase opportunities
to leverage resources, improve quality, and expand access. In Rhode
Island, the state has certified Comprehensive Child Care Service
Networks that include center-based and family child care programs that
deliver comprehensive child care services at an augmented rate to
disadvantaged children.
Five years ago, Congress made a decision to invest in child care,
streamline funding, and devolve authority to the states. Unprecedented
success has been achieved to date. We urge you to keep the promise made
in 1996 and resist adding new requirements and expectations without the
resources necessary to implement them.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions you may have.
Prepared Statement of Elizabeth Bonbright Thompson
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today.
I will share with you some of the impressive achievements made in
improving the quality and availability of child care as well as
significant improvements in consumer education and parent Choice since
Congress last reauthorized the Child Care and Development Block Grant
(CCDBG) and integrated it with the new Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families Act in 1996.
I also want to thank you and your colleagues for consistently
recognizing the critical importance of child care subsidies and the
early childhood and out-of-school time infrastructure that. supports
families and children. Affordable, available, quality child care is the
key to the success of welfare reform and is the foundation upon which
children stand, ready to enter school.
I offer you two different perspectives today. One is the broad-
based national view which I share through,my role as Immediate Past
President of the Board of Directors for the National Association of
Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies. The other is my daily
systems building and program implementation experience as Executive-
Director of a statewide, private nonprofit child care resource and
referral (R&R) organization which focuses on strengthening public
policies to support families, their children and the individuals who
dedicate their lives to caring and educating our next generation.
Each day, approximately 800 R&R programs located in all 50 states
plus the District of Columbia assist working parents at all income
levels grapple with the difficult task of locating and assessing
appropriate child care arrangements. Each day these same R&R programs
offer critical technical assistance, training and consultation to child
care and school age care providers in an effort to improve the overall
quality of care. The other panelists here today will speak more in-
depth about the child care subsidy programs and the critical
professional development components funded through the CCDBG. I have
been asked to focus on the role of child care resource and referral as
the ``thread'' which holds the fragile early childhood care and
education and out-of-school time ``quilt'' together.
child care resource & referral
Child care resource and referral is the child care system's best
kept secret. One reason for this is due to a lack of product branding
since most R&R programs do not actually use ``child care resource and
referral'' in their agency's name. For example, the program serving
Spokane, Washington is called Family Care Resources. In Maine, all the
local R&R programs are actually called Resource Development Centers.
Regardless of what the R&R is called, they perform basic tasks in their
local community. The effectiveness of the work performed by R&R
programs has not been lost on the business community. Several years
ago, a group of Fortune 500 companies led by IBM joined together to
form the American Business Collaborative for Quality Child Care. This
group dedicated $100 million to improve the quality of child care and
98% of this money was delivered to communities through local R&R
programs.
Today, children are in so many different types of early childhood
settings, we need one system that can reach them all through either
their parents or their caregivers. Only the R&R system offers that kind
of access. Only the R&R has the capacity to integrate the wishes of the
families, the skills of the caregivers and the needs of the children.
Prior to Congress passing the original CCDBG in 1990, child care
resource and referral (R&R) programs did not exist in every state. As
of today, R&R programs are active in every state and the District of
Columbia as well as many of the territories. In addition, the U.S.
Military has integrated R&R services into their model child care
service delivery system. Each R&R program is as unique as the community
it serves. Thirty-four states have a structure which includes
community-based R&R programs and a statewide R&R Network or association
which binds them all together. Although, of these only 22 are publicly
funded, fully-functioning networks. The level of funding and program
sophistication varies greatly in this group as well. Eleven states have
local R&R programs but no unifying network. Five other states have just
one R&R program serving the entire state. The evidence points to the
power of a strong statewide R&R Network in helping to shape the
quality, affordability and availability of care. Research also shows a
strong correlation between the existence of a statewide network and
better access of families to consumer information and education.
Community-based R&R services go far beyond simply helping families
find child care. They support a wide range of care and education
choices in communities. Respondents to the recent national census of
R&R programs provide significant information on the scope and extent of
R&R in the 4 major areas of R&R activity:
(1) Family Services support families as they combine work and
family responsibilities and educate their children. These services
include: referrals to child care, early learning opportunities, pre-K
and Head Start programs, and out-of-school time programs; consumer
education on how to identify safe, high quality options; links to other
relevant family resources in the community, such as health, education,
mental health, literacy, employment; and information about the child
care subsidies which are available to families (in 28 states, the child
care subsidies are actually managed directly by the R&R system).
1. Provider Services support existing and prospective programs and
individuals to increase the supply and improve the quality of early
learning experiences for children. These services include: recruitment
and program expansion; technical assistance and consultation (over 1.2
million consultations are provided a year); training for licensed child
care providers and other early childhood and school age caregivers who
may be exempt from licensing (over 1 million individuals are trained
each year); training or connections to training on caring for infants
and toddlers (offered by 83% of the R&Rs responding to the field
census); support for accreditation and credentialing (offered by 96% of
respondents); support for relatives, friends and neighbors who provide
child care (offered by 82%); and informing programs/providers when
policies and regulations change (offered by 95%).
(8) Community Building Services support communities in building
early learning systems. These services include: keeping community
partners and policy makers abreast of key child care issues; serving as
the local information and service delivery hub; convening coalitions,
collaborations and partnerships (73% of the respondents); leading
community planning efforts (52% of the respondents); and engaging
business, faith, educational and philanthropic leadership in building
the early learning system (94% of the respondents).
(4) Data and Research. The R&R programs all collect data on child
care supply and demand. In states with strong R&R Networks (like
Washington State), each of the community-based R&R programs collects
standard data elements and reports that data monthly to the statewide
R&R Network, which compiles, analyzes and disseminates the data for use
by state and local community partners and policy makers. The data
component merits replication nationally and could be reported at the
national level, which would make for more fully informed policy
decisions.
naccrra
The National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral
Agencies (NACCRRA) is the national network which provides strategic
vision, policy leadership and technical assistance to R&R programs in
states and local communities all across the nation. Congress currently
funds NACCRRA to provide vital consumer education to families across
the nation and to link them with the R&R in their local community
through Child Care Aware. Child Care Aware was created by NACCRRA in
1988 with support from the Dayton Hudson Foundation and the Dayton
Hudson Family of Stores. The national, toll free parent information
hotline was first established in 1992. Since then, Child Care Aware has
become a steady national resource, consistently used in print media,
parenting books and publications, television programs, and national
public awareness campaigns on child care and related early childhood
services and programs. All of Child Care Aware's information
distribution channels (print, phone, web, email) are bilingual in
English and Spanish.
r&r in washington state
Washington State has spent 15 years building one of the most
comprehensive child care resource and referral systems in the nation.
This well-funded statewide R&R system includes the 18 local R&R
programs which provide direct services to families, caregivers and
communities and the statewide R&R Network which is the association of
all 18 community-based R&R programs and provides technical assistance
to the 18 R&Rs as well as state, regional and national policy
development. The 18 R&R programs are the child care infrastructure in
local communities positioned to assist with implementation of various
State policies or programs throughout the State. The State recognizes
the value of basic community-based R&R services which, while not
identical in every county, are offered in a consistent manner with
uniform standards regardless of location.
The beauty of the R&R structure is that every local R&R reflects
the community it serves. In Washington State, only 2 of the 18 R&R
programs are ``stand alone'' R&Rs, meaning that the mission of the
entire agency is related to R&R. The other 16 programs are housed in
``parent'' organizations which vary widely and include Community Action
Programs (CAP agencies), city government, a university, educational
services districts, a Community college, and 6 of the R&R programs are
sponsored by faith-based organizations.
A key by-product of a strong, well-funded R&R system is the ability
for the statewide R&R Network both to leverage private dollars to match
state and federal funds and to position the state to acquire and
distribute federal grants. Since 1990, the Washington State Child Care
Resource & Referral Network has leveraged, secured or facilitated the
distribution of more than $16 million in private, federal and state
dollars for the child care and out-of-school time care system in
Washington State above and beyond the funds dedicated for the delivery
of core R&R services. The R&R Network has served as a catalyst for
change and a mechanism for raising resources to meet specific community
and statewide needs.
economic realities
WorkFirst, Washington's welfare reform program, experienced
caseload declines of 44% from early 1997 to mid-2000. Until the last
several months, Washington enjoyed a strong economy and a high rate of
population growth over the last five years. The economic downturn and
repercussions of September 11 on Boeing and other key employers have
crippled the State's budget. Currently, Washington State has the second
highest unemployment rate in the nation. In December 2001, the TANF
caseloads increased by an alarming 1,800 families and this upward trend
does not appear to be reversing. The child care subsidy caseload
increased in June 2001 by 10,000 and has not yet receded.
Funding for child care services in Washington has increased by 345%
between state fiscal year 1996 and state fiscal year 2001. During that
same time period, the state's population of children under age 13
remained constant. Washington has committed ever increasing amounts of
its federal and state dollars to enhance the quality, affordability and
availability of child care and out-of-school time services. This growth
in child care services and quality activities over the past five years
has been directly related to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) expenditures on child care. Over half (53%) of all current
federal TANF dollars flowing into Washington State are used for child
care. As a result, funding for child care services has become extremely
vulnerable to upward fluctuations in TANF caseloads (as has been the
case in 2001). Decreases in the availability of TANF funds for child
care services could result in child care subsidy waiting lists, a
reduction -in the eligibility level for subsidies and a decrease in the
amount of investments in quality related services above the required
minimum 4% of the federal mandatory, matching and discretionary as well
as state matching funds within the Child Care and Development Fund.
quality counts
Washington's quality initiatives are widely viewed as very
successful, innovative and encouraging signs of the ability to make
progress on difficult and challenging issues within the child care
system. Accomplishments include: the creation of a mandatory and annual
training requirement for licensed caregivers as part of a state
training and registry system (STARS); a comprehensive statewide
resource and referral system serving families, providers and
communities; strong systemic supports for out-of-school time providers;
partnerships that help providers successfully meet health and safety
standards and improve the health and well-being of the children and
families they serve; additional support for families who have children
with special needs; and subsidy bonuses or enhanced rates for
caregivers who take infants and/or children with special needs and who
provide care during non-traditional hours.
As part of the quality initiatives, Washington has taken innovative
and effective steps in the last five years to support a professional
development system for caregivers that includes training and wage
progression opportunities intended to improve quality and reduce high
staff turnover levels. Examples include:
1. T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood@ Washington which is administered by
the Washington State Child Care Resource & Referral Network.
2. The Washington State Child Care Career and Wage Ladder Pilot
Project, which requires participating child care centers to partner
with the state on increasing worker wages based on time on the job,
experience and education.
3. The Child Care Careers Program which increases the quality and
quantity of child care available for the low income working families as
well as provides viable career options for WorkFirst participants who
want to work with children. This TANF program was designed to train 250
TANF recipients to become child care providers each biennium.
These successful efforts have shown that progress is possible
within the existing constraints. Yet they highlight the difficulties of
operating in a system that is largely underfinanced and tries to
survive by patching together solutions that constantly bump up against
the reality of the ``true'' cost of quality care. All of these
accomplishments need stable, sustained funding.
maintaining parental choice through improving quality
As more and more mothers have entered the workforce, the demand for
high quality child care, pre-school programs and out-of-school time
options has increased dramatically. Unfortunately, many families are
unable to find the type of care they seek due to a lack of child care
supply to meet their needs. Families of all income levels are patching
together regulated and non-regulated care options to cover their
extended work schedules. The most difficult to place are infants,
toddlers, school age children, children with special needs (physical,
social, emotional), children who need care during non-traditional hours
or on weekends and children whose parents work irregular shifts.
In most states, there is a significantly greater number of family
child care providers than center-based providers. However, the number
of available child care slots is much greater in centers. The family
child care providers tend to care for younger children, especially
infants, toddlers and preschoolers.
During the years between 1996 and 2000, up to 1,000 family child
care providers in Washington state were closing their child care
businesses each year. There were numerous reasons for this mass exodus.
The robust economy made it financially enticing for these providers to
leave the field for higher paying jobs. In addition, the shift in
federal rules and funding for the Federal Child and Adult Care Food
Program meant that a large portion of the family child care market was
no longer able to receive reimbursements to feed all the children in
their care.
In an effort to address the growing lack of supply, Washington
State dedicated over $9 million dollars from CCDF quality dollars in
2000-2001 to fund creative community-based approaches to building the
quality and capacity of child care, specifically for: Infants and
Toddlers; Children with Special Needs; Children needing care during
non-standard hours; School-age care; and Middle School age youth (ages
12-14).
As a result of the huge success of these projects, the State has
dedicated an additional $12 million over the next 2 years (2001-2003)
to refine projects to focus on child care provider recruitment and
retention in all categories primarily through the R&R system and on
developing and maintaining quality middle school programs.
r&r support for family child care
R&R programs provide specific supports for all child care and out-
of-school time providers. Traditionally, R&R programs are the primary
source of support for family child care providers who are independent,
small businesses operating out of their homes. R&R programs support
family child care providers in many ways including: Help with becoming
licensed; Business training (including how to: set fees, address taxes
issues, establish policies and procedures, communicate with parents,
market the business and much more); Provide training on child
development, health and safety, infant/toddler care, school age care,
etc.; Ongoing support and technical assistance, warm lines, etc.;
Lending libraries and resource vans of materials, equipment; Help and
resources to become accredited; Federal food program sponsorship;
Career advancement support; Business management and practices support;
Home visiting; Empowerment through establishment of neighborhood
networks; and Linkages to other systems and services in the community.
family, friends and neighbor care
In every state a significant number of children are in the care of
non-parental family members, friends or neighbors for at least some
part of each week. Many of these unregulated caregivers receive federal
child care subsidies to care for children eligible under TANF or CCDBG.
Washington State fully supports parental choice in child care
environments. Interestingly, each year the number of families receiving
child care subsidies who choose licensed-exempt caregivers increases.
Currently, over 40% of the child care subsidies are paid to these
licensed-exempt caregivers. We wanted to know why. So, the State
dedicated $250,000 of the CCDF quality dollars to contract with the
University of Washington, Human Services Policy Center to study the
issue, perform a general population survey and assess the results. The
study found that family, friends and neighbor care is a major part of
the child care system and is the dominant care for infants, toddlers
and school age children. A full 45% of all families with children ages
birth through 12 in Washington State use family, friends and neighbor
care for at least part of their child care needs. The percentage is
much higher: for families of infants and toddlers--58%. Another finding
of the study was that family, friend and neighbor caregivers welcome
training and other supports if they are offered as supports and not as
mandates. \1\ Eight-two percent (82%) of R&R programs nationwide
provide support for quality in those settings as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Brandon, Maher, Joesch and Doyle--University of Washington.
Developing Training and Support for Family, Friend and Neighbor
Caregivers in Washington State, December 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
literacy
All across the nation, states and local communities are creating
exciting early literacy programs to support children's school
readiness. Two states have been especially effective in establishing
viable literacy programs linked to child care, Florida and Maine. In
Florida, the R&R Network leveraged TANF dollars from the State to help
25 local R&R programs purchase and equip Caring for Kids resource vans
which have already provided training, toys, books and curriculum kits
to over 1,000 child care providers across the state. In Maine, local
R&R programs covering four large regions received Early Learning
Opportunity Act grant funds from the Department of Health and Human
Services, Child Care Bureau to enhance early childhood literacy as well
as to increase access to early learning for children with special needs
and children from diverse cultural backgrounds. Like Florida, Maine
also purchased mobile education vans. In addition, the Maine R&R
programs hired Early Learning Specialists to reach out to children in
child care and to train the caregivers about basic early literacy.
A cost-effective option for enhancing early literacy through child
care environments would be to capitalize upon the established R&R
system in each state and establish Early Literacy Specialists in every
R&R. It is a model which is already working in Maine and in many states
with other professional partners such as public health nurses, infant/
toddler specialists, children with special needs counselors, and mental
health consultants.
transitions from early care and education to school
The vision of Project STEPS (Sequenced Transition to Education into
the Public Schools) is that all children in Washington experience
seamless transitions from one early care and education environment to
another. The mission of Project STEPS is to provide training and
follow-up in every community in the state through an integrated system
of collaboration among local providers. The local R&R programs are
active partners in STEPS. The Washington State project, funded in part
with CCDF quality dollars, expands the traditional STEPS model from
children with special needs, to encompass normally developing children
who might have barriers to smooth transitions into public schools. The
project focuses on a wide variety of low-income families and the
breadth of cultural and linguistic diversity in each community.
infant/toddler care
Washington State has consistently put 100% of its share of the
federal CCDF Infant/Toddler earmark into community-based efforts to
build capacity and quality of care available for babies and toddlers.
The funds have gone to Healthy Child Care Washington to fund an public
health nurse in every local health juridiction who specializes in
infant/toddler care and provides on-site consultation to child care
providers caring for babies and toddlers. In many other states, the
Infant/Toddler earmark funds public health nurses who do similar tasks
but are located in local R&R programs. In Washington State, these
Infant/Toddler resources have also been used to fund the community-
based child care resource and referral programs to recruit child care
providers to care for infants and toddlers and to provide the
caregivers with mini-grants to purchase essential equipment or other
necessities to enable them to meet licensing requirements for infant
and toddler care.
These funds also sustain the efforts of the statewide, community-
driven BRAINet efforts to take the brain development training through
local volunteer ``BRAIN Squads'' to parents, caregivers, policy makers,
social workers, health professionals and community groups in every
county in the state. Over 1,000 professionals have been trained to
offer the ``brain training'' through BRAIN Squads all across the state.
health linkages and consultation
Healthy Child Care Washington (HCCW), which is funded through a
combination of federal Maternal and Child Health dollars, CCDF 4%
quality dollars and CCDF Infant/Toddler earmark dollars, has built
effective local partnerships between local public health jurisdictions
and the local R&R programs. They provide training, technical assistance
and consultation for child care providers on all health related topics,
including children's mental health, baby and toddler care, brain
development training, environmental health, care for children with
special needs and nutrition.
The State has dedicated $5 million over the 2001-2003 biennium to
support a statewide, community-based, comprehensive support system for
families who have children with special needs and the child care
providers who care for them. Through a partnership among local public
health organizations and the local R&R programs, families receive
enhanced referral assistance in identifying child care and are linked
to a skilled public health nurse for consultation and other parenting
resources. The child's new caregiver is often recruited by the local
R&R and is also able to access training and specialized consultation
services to improve the quality of care they are able to provide.
Unfortunately, this program is now slated to terminate on March 29,
2002 due to a need to shift resources back to cover TANF and child care
subsidy caseload increases.
In another unique project, over the past three years the State has
dedicated TANF dollars to develop and implement Hand-In-Hand, a
creative curriculum and training project for child care providers who
have children in their care who live in families affected by substance
abuse. Both the trainers' guides and participant's notebooks are
translated fully into Spanish.
The philosophy of the curriculum is that the training occurs in
communities jointly with R&R trainers and local chemical dependency
counselors. In just 15 months, 1,026 child care providers attended 97
training sessions totaling 304 hours of instruction from 51 trainers.
This training positively impacted over 8,200 children. In addition,
this project offers funding to local communities for mental health
consultation both for the caregiver and for the children in their care
as a follow-up to the training. There is also a community level
childrens mental health ``systems'' building component. This entire
project was created, designed, developed, managed, distributed and is
maintained by the Washington State Child Care Resource & Referral
Network.
consumer education
The largest ongoing investment to consumer education made by
Washington State each year is basic funding for outreach through the
child care resource and referral system. The Washington State Child
Care Resource & Referral Network has a statewide, toll-free consumer
education hotline which directly links the caller with the community-
based child care resource and referral program or other appropriate
local resource to meet their needs. The R&R Network has an extensive
website full of consumer education information for parents, caregivers,
employers and community members.
In 1996, the Washington State Child Care Resource & Referral
Network initiated the nationally acclaimed Child Care 2000 Campaign.
Over the past 5 years, the State has dedicated approximately $500,000
of CCDBG/CCDF quality dollars to support this $1.3 million multi-media
public engagement campaign about the importance of choosing quality
child care and out-of-school time care.
financing
Since the late 1980's, we have seen convincing evidence that the
child care workforce is in crisis. Teachers ate leaving the field in
droves (in 1997 the turnover rate for teachers in Seattle was 29% and
for assistants was 55%; a national survey reported the turnover rate in
1997 was 27% for teachers and 39% for aides) to find better paying
jobs. Wages are very low. In 1998 child care teachers in Washington
earned $7.73/hour and aides earned $6.34/hour. When adjusted for
inflation, child care teacher salaries have not increased since 1992.
The minimum wage in Washington State is $6.90/hour. Employee benefits
(health care, retirement, dependent care assistance) are rarely
available. Levels of education among child care workers are also low.
With high staff turnover and low levels of early childhood education
comes poor quality of care.
We know that the price that providers set for their services does
not reflect.the true cost of care, but rather is tied to the market
place, and what providers believe parents are willing and able to pay
for care. These artificially low prices are, in fact, subsidized by
foregone wages and benefits of the staff, and augmented by tough
compromises in the quality of care that must be made to arrive at
parent fees/prices that the market will bear.
We need a national focus and a statewide effort to work with
providers to understand what their current costs are and what their
full cost would be if they offered reasonable wages and benefits and
were able to ensure more consistently quality programs.
A pilot True Cost of Care Project is underway in Seattle/King
County, sponsored by the Northwest Finance CIRCLE (NWFC). The True Cost
of Care Project is working with family child care homes and child care
centers to develop true cost budgets and to analyze the gap in funding
between what exists now and what is needed. The mission of the NWFC is
to create a model financing system for early childhood care and
education and out-of-school time care that will ensure a range of high
quality, affordable, culturally relevant options that meet the unique
needs of families, children and staff by engineering and testing system
components and strategies.
The lack of funding dedicated to maintaining the provider
reimbursement rate at least at the 75th percentile of the most recent
market rate survey continues to be of grave concern. By January 2002,
we will have slipped to somewhere between the 52nd and the 58th
percentiles of the 2000 rate survey. As noted above, there is a strong
grassroots movement to rethink the whole basis for establishing the
reimbursement rate and to have it reflect the true cost of care rather
than the depressed reality of the market rate.
The State and community stakeholders recognize that increasing
child care worker salaries is tied to the larger question of how to
more appropriately and adequately finance the true cost of care for the
early childhood education and out-of-school time care system. Until the
general populous accepts that child care is a ``public good,'' the
patchwork of current funding will be inadequate to meet the diverse
needs of children, families, caregivers and communities.
conclusions
Washington State has a long history of thinking holistically about
developing quality child care and out-of-school time systems and
providing services for all families in the state This includes
providing a good safety net of child care subsidies for low-income
families, even before welfare reform in 1996. Washington's child care
system has grown and improved through collaboration, systems thinking,
the existence of strong advocacy and intermediary organizations, and
bipartisan legislative support.
Families and policymakers have vigorously demonstrated that
affordable, quality child care is of great value to children, to
working families, to our educational system, to our economy and to our
communities. Welfare reform opened a window on the importance of child
care during a period when new brain research, an expanding economy,
changing demographics, increasing concerns over the well-being of
children, and education reform shed additional spotlights on how our
state and country support and care for children during some of the most
important years of their social, emotional, intellectual and physical
development. New awareness of the widespread benefits of quality child
care and out-of-school time care led to Washington, and many other
states, to improve child care systems using discretionary funds
available through reduced TANF caseloads. This commitment of TANF
resources is a powerful recognition of the importance of child care to
working families and to the success of welfare reform.
Congress has the power to create a strong. safety net for children
and families through the CCDBG and TANF reauthorization process. Now is
the time to design the policies and dedicate the funds necessary and to
feature the models we know make a difference, such as: 1. Ensuring
adequate funding levels for CCDBG subsidies for eligible low-income
working families and those leaving welfare; 2. Addressing workforce
issues by funding efforts to improve the recruitment and retention of
qualified professionals in child care, early learning and out-of-school
time programs/businesses and by providing incentives for additional
training and education; 3. Establishing good learning opportunities for
children in all settings by placing resource specialists in local R&R
programs (or other community partner entities) for services to parents
and providers on critical issues such as inclusion of children with
special needs, infant/toddler care, early literacy, health and mental
health, school age care, career counseling and other technical
assistance; 4. Broadening coverage of sustained community-based support
and coordination systems for early learning and out-of-school time care
by mandating a comprehensive system of local R&R services with a funded
statewide R&R Network in every state. Also continue to fund Child Care
Aware to ensure parents access to quality R&R services in their local
community; and 5. Guaranteeing that real-time data on supply, demand,
gaps, cost and quality are collected at the local, state and national
level by funding a comprehensive, accurate and current national system
of early care and education and out-of-school time data collection,
analysis and reporting using local R&R data.
If the above five policies were put into place and funded
appropriately, you could count on the following positive out comes:
Communities would be better poised for economic development and growth;
The early childhood and out-of-school time workforce would be well
prepared and more appropriately compensated; Families would have
choices of appropriate nurturing and learning environments for their
children; and Children would enter school ready to succeed.
Prepared Statement of Kathy R. Thornburg
Members of the Committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
discuss with you today the reauthorization of the Child Care and
Development Block Grant and how investments in the early childhood
workforce will make a significant difference in the lives of our young
children and their readiness for success in school. I speak before you
as an early childhood educator, a parent, and on behalf of NAEYC, the
nation's largest early childhood education organization that is engaged
at all levels in ensuring that all children have access to affordable,
high quality early childhood education.
Roughly 12 million children below school age are in some form of
non-parental care during the week. The quality of the experiences they
have in child care and other early childhood settings provides a
foundation for success in school and beyond.
Research tells us that high quality child care makes a difference
for young children's math and literacy skills, behavior, and over time,
completion of school and lower incidence of juvenile delinquency. The
Children of the Cost, Quality, Outcomes Study Go to School, a study by
the National Center for Early Childhood Development and Learning at the
University of North Carolina, found that programs with additional
resources could devote more of their funds to hiring staff with better
qualifications and to providing better compensation, and that those
programs experienced lower staff turnover rates and higher quality care
for the children. In addition, the study found that children with close
teacher-child relationships had better social development and behavior
that carried through the early school years. Likewise, the National
Academy of Sciences report, Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of
Early Childhood Development, a report synthesizing the scientific
knowledge of children's development, said that providing quality would
also require increases in staff compensation as well as professional
development.
It should come as no surprise that the people--the teachers and
other staff--are the key to quality in child care and other early
childhood programs. Again, research tells us that programs that provide
adequate compensation are more likely to have good teachers.
The lesson is clear: the benefits of good-quality early childhood
programs will only be achieved when investments in child care and other
early childhood education programs finance the full cost of providing
high-quality services. The full cost must include equitable
compensation of well-qualified and competent staff and must also ensure
affordable access for all families to good programs. It is this aspect
of what will help all children be ready for school and for lifelong
success that I will speak to today.
We have a long way to go. A parking lot attendant earns more than a
child care professional. The average child care teacher in a center-
based program earns only $16,000 a year, often without health care or
other benefits. Many child care professionals are so inadequately
compensated that they themselves are eligible for child care assistance
for their own children. It is no wonder then, that roughly a third of
child care staff in this country leave their programs each year in
pursuit of a salary that will help them feed, clothe and house their
own families, even when it means leaving the work they love.
I am one of several researchers with the Midwest Child Care
Consortium--we are from Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. We
completed the first year of data collection a few months ago and you
will find some of the results on the table attached to my written
testimony. Gallup called 920 infant, toddler, and preschool teachers
through a random selection process. Forty percent of the teachers had
at least a 2-year child development degree. Almost 60%. of the teachers
earned less than $15,000 a year.
I liken the child care workforce situation to a bucket with a
gaping hole. States require very little, if any, preservice training in
child development or early education before an individual can work in
child care. The financing of child care is largely a matter of parent
fees and inadequate child care reimbursement rates. As a result, the
people who care for and prepare our young children for lifelong
learning bear the brunt of a poorly financed system with grossly
inadequate compensation.
A recent report by Marcy Whitebook of the University of California-
Berkeley studied staffing patterns in 75 relatively high quality child
care centers in California. Seventy-five percent of the teachers in
those centers in 1996 and 40 percent of the directors were no longer in
those jobs just four years later. And the individuals who replaced them
came with lower education and training. The hole in the bucket simply
does not get repaired without real attention to the compensation
crisis.
Child care teachers enter the field, receive training or college
degrees, and then have. no incentives to stay in their programs, or in
the field at large. Providing more professional development that is not
tied to increased compensation is not the remedy. A child care teacher
who gets her Bachelors Degree can--and often does--move to the public
school system to teach kindergarten for double the pay and benefits.
Quite simply, the inadequate funding for child care actually drives
many better educated and qualified staff out of child care programs.
Michigan's preschool program provides a good example. The Michigan
School Readiness Program is a half-day preschool program for children
at risk of school failure. In 2001-2002 the program served 26,000
children across Michigan. The program requires that all lead-teachers
have bachelor's degrees with an early childhood education endorsement.
In programs where these teachers are not part of the collective
bargaining unit, staff turnover is very high due to the attraction of
higher salaries in elementary schools.
For teaching positions that required teacher certification, but
where teachers were excluded from the district-wide teacher
compensation package: One-third of the positions tamed-over in the
1998-1999 program year, over double the rate for on-contract preschool
teachers; Only 34% of the positions had been filled by the same teacher
for 5 years or more; and Compensation was about -one-half as much as
positions that were covered under the districtwide contract.
A Kindergarten Readiness Program Manager in the Lansing Michigan
Public School District reports that for a three county area (Ingaham,
Eaton and Clinton) where none of the MSRP teachers are on contract,
that 50% or more of the preschool teaching staff turn over every year.
When they leave, they nearly all go into elementary schools. The
school district sees preschool as a stepping stone. They use it as a
feeder program for their elementary grades. They lose almost 2 to 3
months of the program every fall as they try to fill positions, which
compromises the stability and quality of the program. It also raises
the cost of professional development. As qualified teachers leave, new
teachers come on board who need the training that the former teachers
had received.
As this example shows, the importance of compensation cannot be
downplayed when setting policies to promote quality early childhood
education. We are hearing from other states that this problem is not
unique to Michigan.
We do have successful examples of how the quality of children's
early learning and development can be enhanced when focused attention
is paid to linking professional development with higher compensation.
The U.S. military transformed its child care system from dismal to high
quality in large measure by providing better compensation and increased
training tied to compensation increases. As a result, the military
child care system has experienced dramatic reduction in staff turnover,
and now has much higher professionalism and staff morale.
As you heard from Sue Russell when she testified before this
Committee just last month, there are successful efforts in many states
to raise both the quality of the child care workforce and to provide
the compensation assistance that will help them stay in their programs.
The T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood Project, now in 19 states including my
own state of Missouri, provides scholarships that help pay for
education, tuition, books, release time, and travel stipends. The child
care program helps support some of the costs. When the child care
teacher finishes the professional development, she is eligible for a
bonus or raise, so long as she commits to remaining in her program for
another year. Participating teachers can renew their TEACH scholarship
for a long as it takes them to earn their degrees, sometimes several
years because they are simultaneously working. For those teachers who
already have college degrees, there are programs to help keep them in
the field. Programs like WAGE$ in North Carolina and CARES in
California provide graduated wage supplements to participating teachers
based on their level of education.
Both the scholarship and retention compensation initiatives link
quality with compensation. States and communities are seeing results
from these efforts in lower teacher turnover and better educated child
care teachers. But expansion of these programs must happen at a faster
pace. Many of the states using TEACH and WAGES projects, are using the
Child Care and Development Block Grant as a key component of the
financing.
The National Association for the Education of Young Children, the
world's largest early childhood education association, supports federal
legislation introduced last year, known as the FOCUS Act, that would
take these TEACH and WAGES-like projects to a much larger scale across
the nation. That legislation has been incorporated as a second title in
the CCDBG reauthorization bill introduced by Representative George
Miller. We very much hope that it will be apart of the Senate's
reauthorization legislation.
Children cannot wait another five years for the next CCDBG
reauthorization to provide the resources to tackle the intertwined
crisis of quality, affordability, and compensation. We can make a
significant investment in CCDBG now, helping to raise the amount spent
on quality and particularly compensation, as well as helping more
families afford good child care. Or, we can fail to make the investment
today and pay the price: high educational failure, increased
delinquency, lowered self-sufficiency and productivity, and fewer
adults prepared to be effective, loving parents to the next generation
of children. Thank you for listening--and caring about young children
and their teachers.
Prepared Statement of Travis Hardmon
Good morning Chairman, distinguished members of the Committee,
fellow witnesses, and honored guests. My name is Travis Hardmon. I am
the Executive Director of the National Child Day Care Association,
serving in this position since 1994. I am the President of the District
of Columbia Child Care Providers Coalition, and I serve on the Board of
Directors of the United States Association for Child Care.
The National Child Day Care Association (NCDCA) is the largest non-
profit child care provider in Washington, DC. NCDCA provides
comprehensive child development and family services for 1600 children,
ages 6 weeks to 12 years of age, at 25 child development centers--
providing full-day, year round services, and a new family child care
system of 20 home providers. Approximately 75% of the children enrolled
at NCDCA participate in the child care subsidy program During my time
at NCDCA, we have expanded services by opening 8-child development
centers, yet unfortunately, we are still unable to meet the child care
needs of the community.
It is indeed an honor and a pleasure for me to come before you
today to testify on the importance of and need for, significant
additional funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, the
major federal support for child care assistance. Even in times of
economic uncertainty and pressing international and domestic concerns,
our nation,must look first at the care and education of our children.
I have been asked to focus on what is needed to meet the needs of
working parents while promoting the school readiness among our
children. I am happy to do this from my perspective as an early
childhood care and education provider in the District of Columbia, an
interesting area and unique in many ways in providing comprehensive
early childhood and family services.
I commend you, Chairman and members of the committee for
demonstrating your commitment on this important topic by holding this
hearing.
needs
There are three areas that I believe need to be addressed in order
to better serve the children, families, and community:
1. Stability of the child care delivery system: including a
trained, educated and adequately compensated child care workforce--and
the need to increase payment rates to providers who serve low-income
families.
2. Providing services to meet the needs of families with infants
and toddlers.
3. Improving school readiness in the context of the child and
family.
While there are more issues I can include, Congress and the
Administration have the capacity to address and improve these three now
within the context of CCDBG reauthorization.
1. Stability of the child care delivery system
NCDCA employs over 3 00 staff in 25 centers in Northeast,
Northwest, and Southeast D.C. Of that staff, approximately 150 are
teaching staff. Child care centers, and the child care industry as a
whole, are losing well-educated teaching staff and administrators at an
alarming rate. Annually, on average, NCDCA loses 10 percent or more of
our teaching staff to better salary offers, or retirement. Recruiting
approximately 15 new teachers a year places an enormous burden on the
organization and jeopardizes the quality and stability of our
child,care services. High staff turnover is also a burden to the
children who must deal with losing a beloved teacher and must risk
developing a new relationship on a too frequent basis. We constantly
struggle to recruit well-qualified staff and often find that we are
hiring replacement teachers who have less training and education.
Despite recognition that higher wages contribute to greater staff
stability, and program quality, compensation for the majority of
teaching staff positions does not keep pace with the cost of living.
Additionally, the payment rates that we receive are too low to
provide families with access to the full range of quality services and
directly unpacts the stability of the child care infrastructure. The
monthly reimbursement rates that the District pays are inadequate and
are based on outdated market rate information. Paying subsidy rates
that meet the fall and current market rate would allow our organization
to hire and retain staff better equip our classrooms with books and
supplies, and upgrade our curriculum materials; thereby improving the
quality of care available to the children we serve. Operating without
adequate reimbursement rates is a recipe for failure.
Recruitment and retention is a top challenge faced by our agency.
We have had new classrooms ready but were unable to open due to
difficulty hiring qualified staff. With the move to improve program
quality, provide professional advancement and growth opportunities, and
meet the changing needs of our clients, NCDCA has undertaken
significant professional development activities--activities that
require new investments. Salaries and training costs for continual
professional development represent 80% of NCDCA's operating budget.
These costs are necessary and critical if NCDCA staff are to be
qualified and trained in the latest research-based methods of teaching
and delivering comprehensive services. Despite this trend, funding to
help us address our retention and training needs are falling short of
what is truly needed. Unfortunately, the President's budget proposes to
continue mandatory CCDBG funding at the FY 2002 level for the next five
years--a plan that would seriously undermine the stability of the child
care delivery system.
Let me put this in perspective. Without an increase next year for
workforce development and reimbursement rates, we would not be able to
keep pace with inflation, and rising expenses leaving these critical
needs unaddressed: The need for increased staff training to improve
quality, Salary increases to avoid losing more qualified teachers and
staff, The need for additional slots to meet unmet and growing need for
services, The need for additional equipment, supplies, and program
curriculum materials.
2. Providing Services for Infants and Toddlers
In the District of Columbia, we have other early childhood
initiatives to supplement education for three-, four-, and five-year-
olds: charter schools and the D.C. Public Schools' pre-kindergarten
program. However, during the previous year nearly six thousand families
with infants and toddlers were on the District's waiting list for child
care assistance, and fin desperate need of services. Each week NCDCA
receives calls from families seeking services and we must turn them
away because we do not have the capacity to serve them. Unfortunately
this leaves low-income families in the District with choices that do
not promote the, optimal development of their children and may indeed
place them in care settings that do not even provide for their basic
and health and safety. Additional funding is needed to develop and
equip facilities to meet this age group and to ensure that our youngest
children are in safe, developmentally appropriate and enriching care
while their parents are at work. The infant care workforce must be
appropriately prepared, trained and compensated.
3. School Readiness
Given the recent compelling research about what young children need
to know in order to succeed in public school, I am pleased with the
increased emphasis on early literacy. High-quality child care programs
have traditionally emphasized pre-reading and language development,
however, we heed to improve the training for early childhood teachers,
and need better materials and curriculum so that children in child care
will have the language rich environment and skiffs they need to
succeed.
However, I must share my concern that much of the discussion seems
to focus on the purely academic aspects of school readiness.
Particularly when we're talking about our children under five years of
age, we should remember that we are not talking about SCHOOL but about
READINESS FOR SCHOOL. Quality early cue and education providers have
long recognized the importance of a holistic--approach, which includes
comprehensive services for children and families at risk. Book learning
will not be achieved in isolation, especially when you're dealing with
children from low-income families where basic physical needs must be
addressed if we are to create a rich learning environment. Nutrition,
health screening, family support and parental involvement are just a
few of the elements, which pave the road to success in school and, in
turn, to success in life. And I can't stress enough the critical role,
which a child's parents must play, in our work.
Our program at NCDCA would not be the success it is today without
our focus on the family Certainly as we help each child, we help the
family. But, we are not about some sort of ``trickle up'' theory. In
practice, our comprehensive approach to child development is a
comprehensive approach to family development. With its four walls,
NCDCA provides GED training, a male involvement initiative, a Parent
Apprenticeship Program, a home ownership program and a parent and
family self-empowerment program. NCDCA must constantly fundraise to I
supplement the child care reimbursement rates that we receive.
Providing services to the child within a family context is the most
effective strategy for helping children to be successful and ready for
school. We believe it is important to provide the kinds of services
that children from disadvantaged backgrounds need. We see out children
as the hub of a family Wheel. As we benefit the child, we benefit the
family. And as we benefit the family we benefit the child, and in doing
both, we benefit our community. Because of this comprehensive approach
to human development, children leave our program stronger, more
resilient, more hopeful and more ``educated''--and ready for school.
Yes, it may so complicated. But children, families, and the poverty
from which they come are not simple concepts, easily defined.
conclusion
I thank you for this opportunity to share my excitement about the
work we do and seek your help to address the challenges faced by
families and the child care providers who serve them. We know what
works. When it comes down to the nuts and bolts, one message remains
clear--if we are to address our infrastructure needs, expand services
and improve quality for children from birth through school age,
substantial increased funding is absolutely necessary.
I was to be part of the panel to testify at the hearing that was
scheduled here on September 11, 2001. Since that day, we have done Mach
healing and have come together as a nation. I want to thank you for
your leadership and also to say that all our efforts as a country and
as a world leader must start with looking at the well-being of our
children. They are our most precious asset and ensuring their care and
well-being is our best defense.
Again, I thank the Committee for the privilege and opportunity to
testify today on behalf of early childhood programs and I make myself
available to the Committee now and at any time in the future to answer
questions on this or any other matter.
Prepared Statement of Jim Klein
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, Thank you for the
opportunity to provide written testimony on the important topic of
improving the well being of children. In low income communities across
the United States, the most drastically affected by the lack of capital
resources are children in the midst of crucial physical, emotional and
social development. The Ohio Community Development Finance Fund
believes that child care is an overlooked element of a comprehensive
approach to community renewal. Likewise, the space in which care is
provided is usually an afterthought at best. Its effect on the
development of young children is ignored.
I am the Director of the Ohio Community Development Finance
(``Finance Fund''). The Finance Fund is a non-profit community
development intermediary serving local community nonprofit
organizations in disadvantaged communities across Ohio, from inner city
to rural communities. We offer a range of housing and economic
development programs with a large part of our focus on facilities for
child care and Head Start. The Finance Fund is a member of the National
Children's Facilities Network (NCFN), a coalition of nonprofit
financial and technical assistance community development intermediaries
involved in planning, developing, and financing home and center-based
facilities for low-income early childhood programs.
On behalf of the Ohio Community Development Finance Fund and the
National Communities Facilities Network, I would like to applaud
Senators Mike DeWine (OH) and Christopher Dodd (CT) for introducing S.
1217, the ``Child Care Facilities Financing Act', which would create a
critically needed ``seed money'' federal investment which would
leverage existing community resources to address the facilities crisis
in low income neighborhoods. Having this type of funding will enable
the Finance Fund to increase our private capital investment
partnerships, resulting in more resources to expand child care space.
In essence, the Finance Fund will be able to reach more children. I
would like to offer comments on our successful community development
child care model in Ohio,--as well as examples of Network member
projects in Connecticut, Maine, and Illinois; and the important role
that S. 1217 can play to expand this vital work.
about the ohio community development finance fund
The Finance Fund has been working on issues of children's space
since 1993. Our initial involvement was with the Head Start program
which provided us with a sound base of understanding in addressing the
broader childcare market. We offer stable resources for planning,
technical assistance and funding for the development of expanded
quality space. As a statewide nonprofit intermediary, we serve locally
controlled community based nonprofit organizations in low-income
communities. Our clients develop and implement a variety of community
revitalization projects. Ohio has been fortunate to have policy makers,
such as Senator DeWine, who not only realize the value of revitalizing
communities, but also investing in children. We also have had
supportive partnerships with Ohio Department of Education, Ohio
Department of Development, Ohio Department of Human Services and
private sector investors.
The Finance Fund has had years of experience in using limited
amounts of public money to bring about significant private sector
capital investment. Duringthepast10 years we have used limited public
funding to enable $368 million in community projects.
This ability to form public-private Partnerships and our ability to
offer education and technical assistance to our clients has placed us
in the unique position of addressing a wide-range of revitalization
issues.
In Ohio, resources for the development of housing or economic
development, though not abundant, are present. In childcare, however,
resources for the development or enhancement of space are extremely
scarce. The Finance Fund receives funding from the State of Ohio to
provide space-planning funds and technical assistance to Head Start and
Childcare. The State has also invested with the Finance Fund to entice
private capital investment into the expansion and enhancement of Head
Start spaces. In addition we offer training and assistance in the
management of the development process. Every $1.00 of public funding
has been turned into $26.11 in project funds, which have touched the
lives of over 13,000 of Ohio's children.
Eight products are currently being offered to our clients:
PreDevelopment Program--Grants to start the development process in
housing/economic development. Provides community-based nonprofits
funds for ``soft costs'' of specific projects.
PreDevelopment Section 8 Program: Provides zero-interest loans to
nonprofit organizations that wish to pursue ownership and/or management
of Section 8 properties.
Linked Deposit Fund: Serves as a debt enhancement tool/product that
is used to reduce the interest rate on permanent financing. Provides
community based nonprofit developers access to affordable financing
from local lenders for housing and economic development projects.
Economic Development Grant: Grants for community revitalization
projects. Provides community-based nonprofits with funds for
construction/equipment for specific projects.
Head Start Facilities Planning Grant: Grants to enable the
facilities predevelopment or planning process for nonprofit Head Start
agencies.
Head Start Critical Repair & Safety Grant: Assists in providing
better, safer and healthier space for children by providing funding to
local Head Start grantees for repair of critical deferred maintenance
and safety items.
Child Care Facilities Planning Grant: Grants to enable the
facilities predevelopment or planning process for nonprofit Child Care
agencies.
Child Care Capital Fund: Resource for the financing of real estate
projects available to Head Start agencies. It can be used to reduce the
interest rate on permanent financing.
These grant dollars have provided 10,662 homes for low-income or
homeless families, created almost 2,238 jobs specifically ear-marked
for the low-income population, and revitalized hundreds of thousands of
square feet in order to rebuild communities, provide shopping,
transportation, medical and social services for it's residents. Through
the other four grants, specifically designed to affect Ohio's children,
the Finance Fund has also made a huge impact on the state. Those grant
dollars have built 1,339 classrooms in Head Start and low-income
childcare centers. Based upon Ohio law, this is enough space for 20,000
low-income children to receive quality childcare, hot meals and other
health or social services while their parents are at work or school.
Other grant dollars have provided almost $100,000 in emergency funds
for Head Start agencies.
These funds are for critical repair and safety needs and are easily
accessible so Head Start agencies do not have to use their operating
dollars for emergency maintenance or to ensure the safety of the
children. The Child Care Capital Fund, on the other hand, has helped
Head Start agencies achieve almost $700,000 in savings by leveraging
(lowering) the interest on their mortgages.
increasing the supply of child care in ohio's low-income communities
Planning resource, capital funding, demand, and supply issues are
words, which hopefully convey some of the technicalities of the need,
however, ``on the street' need looks differently. Wonder World in
Akron, Ohio is an example of the severity of the problem. This urban
center is located in an old church. Care space is dingy and poorly
light and divided into an upstairs space and a damp basement space. The
care spaces have no windows and no direct access to bathrooms or
kitchen space. There is no outdoor play space. Because the space is
needed for church and Sunday school, the center must be ``broken
apart'' each Friday and ``reconstructed'' each Monday. The environment
cannot help but have an effect on children and on caregivers, no matter
how dedicated, In spite of these conditions, the center has a waiting
list and a dramatic need for infant care space as well as expansion of
toddler, pre-school and after school care. There are no other choices.
Where there is lack of access to quality space or where the space is
low quality, children lose developmental opportunity.
In this case, the Finance Fund played a critical role, offering gap
funding and technical assistance to help meet the needs of children and
their families. The Finance Fund was also able to assist the Tri-County
Community Action Agency in Athens, Ohio for the Nelsonville Head Start
Project. The project used a $250,000 grant to reduce the interest rate
on permanent financing to construct a new Head Start facility, which
replaces a center the agency had rented from Hocking College. The
financing tool, termed link deposit, made the mortgage more affordable
and freed up program funds to be used for services for children and
families.
In these instances, we have been successful, but looking across the
State of Ohio there is enormous need for additional quality space. An
essential tool necessary to help meet this need is low-cost, flexible
funding of the type that would be provided by S. 1217, the Child Care
Facilites Financing Act, introduced by Senators DeWine and Dodd. Having
this type of funding will enable the Ohio Community Development Finance
Fund to increase our private capital investment partnerships, resulting
in more resources for local projects and our ability to reach more
children.
s.1217, the child care facilities financing act
Since many low-income communities in Ohio face a severe shortage of
quality child care space, the Finance Fund has been working to expand
the supply of child care by providing essential resources to
communities; and, as a member of NCFN, by supporting federal
legislation--S. 1217, ``The Child Care Facilities Financing Act'' which
would create small ``seed money'' investments to capitalize child care
financing funds within existing community development intermediaries.
The Finance Fund applauds Senators Mike DeWine (OH) and Christopher
Dodd for introducing S. 1217,'' The Child Care Facilities Financing
Act'' on July 20, 2001 with strong bi-partisan support from 10
additional co-sponsors: Senator Snowe (ME), Senator Kennedy (MA),
Senator Roberts (KS), Senator Johnson (SID), Senator Edwards (NC),
Senator Feinstein (CA), Senator Collins (ME), Senator Wellstone (MN),
Senator Bingaman(NM), and Senator Murray (WA)
This legislation draws on the community development model by using
small, seed money investments to leverage existing community resources
to help meet the growing demand for child care in low-income
communities. In addition, experienced nonprofit intermediaries will be
able to enhance the ability of home- and center-based child care
providers to serve their communities by providing the kind of technical
assistance that is needed to help them undertake appropriate capital
planning to improve and expand their programs.
S.1217 would authorize $50 million annually to fund grants to
nonprofit intermediaries to help home- and center-based child care
providers more effectively meet the child care needs of local
communities. Funds will be used to provide: financial assistance by
intermediaries, in the form of low-cost loans, grants, and interest
rate subsidies, for the acquisition, construction, or improvement of
facilities for home- and center-based care; and technical assistance to
improve the business management and entrepreneurial skills to ensure
the long-term viability of child care providers.
S. 1217 requires that the federal investment be matched, dollar for
dollar, by funds from the private sector, thereby stimulating valuable
public/private partnerships. Members of the National Children's
Facilities Network typically raise well over this match requirement
from their public and private partners for every dollar they invest in
child care space.
The community development approach has proved successful in low-
income neighborhoods and communities across the country in stimulating
investments in affordable housing, community facilities, economic
development projects, and small businesses. These investments have
halted and even reversed the decline of many hard-pressed communities
and provided economic opportunity to their inhabitants. There is ample
evidence that the same type of economic boost can be achieved in child
care.
The beauty of the community development model is that it relies on
small community based efforts rather than on large-scale top-down
government programs. All that is needed to strengthen the child care
infrastructure in low-income communities is small seed-money
investments to capitalize child care financing funds within the
existing community development intermediaries. These organizations
would then provide technical and financial assistance to local home-
based and center-based child care programs.
national children's facilities network
The Finance Fund and other members of the National Children's
Facilities Network (NCFN) look forward to continuing to work with
members of your Committee and other members of Congress to ensure the
passage of S. 1217. NCFN's purpose is to share information on child
care facilities issues; initiate legislation and regulations affecting
low-income early care and education facilities; and develop and support
various financing strategies, initiatives and programs. (See Appendix A
for Network Overview and Membership List)
Network members have become sophisticated at the art of using
government and philanthropic grants to leverage significant private
sector capital investments in the expansion of child care space. The
examples below demonstrate a select few of these intermediaries'
ability to leverage other funds from their investments, and the child
care space that is produced as a result. A strategic investment by the
federal government in these experienced intermediaries will
dramatically expand and strengthen the child care industry in the low-
income communities they serve.
Ohio Community Development Finance Agency (since 1994)
Investments in childcare space--$16.3 million Total project funds
leveraged--$146.6 million $5 leveraged for every $1 invested Children
served--23,171 Classrooms created--1,363 Square feet of real estate
created--1,666,822
Illinois Facilities Fund (since 1999)
Investments in Child Care Space--$17.6 million Total project funds
leveraged--$37.4 million $3.6 leveraged for every $1 invested Children
served--2,300 Classrooms created--100 Square feet of real estate
created--595,000
Local Initiatives Support Corporation (since 1994)
Investments in childcare space--$8.2 million Total project funds
leveraged--$47.2 million $6 leveraged for every $1 invested Children
served--3,850 Childcare centers created--50 Square feet of real estate
created--356,000
Coastal Enterprises Inc., Augusta, Maine
Investments in childcare space--$13.1 million Childcare providers
served--110 Children served--3,424
conclusion
Looking across the state of Ohio, there is an enormous need for
additional quality for child care in low-income communities. Where
there is a lack of access to quality space, children lose. When
children lose, we lose children, and when we lose children, we always
pay the social and economic costs later. S. 1217 is an important first
step in addressing the need to build the supply of quality child care
facilities to support the needs of children, families and communities
nationwide.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony before
your Committee today. We would be pleased to provide additional
information about our work.
[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]