Early Childhood Care and Education: What Are States Doing?

Transcription

1 Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Governors Association Early Childhood Care and Education: What Are States Doing? Family Studies Center for Excellence in School of Human Ecology UW-Madison University of Wisconsin-Extension Center for Excellence in Family Studies School of Human Ecology University of Wisconsin-Madison

2

3 Early Childhood Care and Education: What Are States Doing? First Edition Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Governors Association Briefing Report Edited by Karen Bogenschneider, Ph.D. Director, Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars Prof., Human Development & Family Studies Family Policy Specialist University of Wisconsin-Madison/Extension Bettina Friese, Ph.D. Associate Director, Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars University of Wisconsin-Madison Karla Balling Research Assistant, Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars University of Wisconsin-Madison Jessica Mills Associate Director, Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars University of Wisconsin-Madison Lisa Pugh Content editing Meg Wall-Wild Layout, production, and copy editing January 2002 University of Wisconsin-Extension Center for Excellence in Family Studies School of Human Ecology University of Wisconsin-Madison We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, The A. L. Mailman Family Foundation, The National Conference of State Legislatures, The National Governors Association, & Elizabeth C. Davies

4 Purpose and Presenters I n 1993, Wisconsin became one of the first states to sponsor Family Impact Seminars modeled after the seminar series for federal policymakers. Because of the success of the Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars, Wisconsin is now helping other states establish their own seminars through the Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars established at the University of Wisconsin- Madison. Family Impact Seminars are a series of seminars, briefing reports, newsletters, and discussion sessions that provide up-to-date, solution-oriented research on current issues for state policymakers, legislators, legislative staff, Governor s Office staff, legislative support bureau personnel, and state agency representatives. Family Impact Seminars analyze the consequences an issue, policy, or program may have for families. The seminars provide objective nonpartisan research on current issues and do not lobby for particular policies. Seminar participants discuss policy options and identify common ground where it exists. Early Childhood Care and Education: What Are States Doing? is the 17th seminar in a series designed to bring a family focus to policymaking. This seminar featured the following speakers: Dave Riley Professor, Human Development and Family Studies Extension Child Development Specialist University of Wisconsin-Madison 1430 Linden Drive Madison, WI (608) dariley@facstaff.wisc.edu Helene Stebbins Program Director National Governors Association Hall of States 444 N. Capitol St. Washington, DC (202) hstebbins@nga.org ii Purpose and Presenters

5 Bina Patel Policy Associate National Conference of State Legislatures 1560 Broadway, Suite 700 Denver, CO (303) Karen Ponder Executive Director North Carolina Partnership for Children, Smart Start 1100 Wake Forest Road Raleigh, NC (919) For further information on the Wisconsin Family Impact Seminar series, contact: Karen Bogenschneider Director, Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars Executive Director, Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars Professor, UW-Madison/Extension 130 Human Ecology 1300 Linden Drive Madison, WI (608) State Coordinator Karla Balling Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars 130 Human Ecology 1300 Linden Drive Madison, WI (608) Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars iii

6 Wisconsin Family Impact Seminar Briefing Reports Each seminar is accompanied by an in-depth briefing report that summarizes the latest research on a topic and identifies policy options from across the political spectrum. Copies are available at: Extension Publications 45 N. Charter St., Madison, WI Toll-free: (877) (877-WIS-PUBS); Madison: Building Policies That Put Families First: A Wisconsin Perspective March 1993 Single Parenthood and Children s Well-Being October 1993 Can Government Promote Competent Parenting? January 1994 Promising Approaches for Addressing Juvenile Crime May 1994 Welfare Reform: Can Government Promote Parental Self- Sufficiency While Ensuring the Well-Being of Children? January 1995 Child Support: The Effects of the Current System on Families November 1995 Teenage Pregnancy Prevention: Programs That Work March 1996 Programs and Policies to Prevent Youth Crime, Smoking, and Substance Use: What Works? February 1997 Moving Families Out of Poverty: Employment, Tax, and Investment Strategies April 1997 Building Resiliency and Reducing Risk: What Youth Need from Families and Communities to Succeed January 1998 Enhancing Educational Performance: Three Policy Alternatives March 1998 Long-Term Care: State Policy Perspectives February 1999 Raising the Next Generation: Public and Private Parenting Initiatives October 1999 Helping Poor Kids Succeed: Welfare, Tax, and Early Intervention Policies January 2000 Rising Prescription Drug Costs: Reasons, Needs, and Policy Responses January 2001 Designing a State Prescription Drug Benefit: Strategies to Control Costs March 2001 Early Childhood Care and Education: What Are States Doing? January 2002 Or, visit the Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars website at: (enter a portal and click on State Seminars). iv Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars Briefing Reports

7 Table of Contents Executive Summary vii A Checklist for Assessing the Impact of Policies on Families xi Acknowledgments xv Child Care Quality: Does It Matter and Does It Need to Be Improved? by Deborah Vandell & Barbara Wolfe Is Nonparental Care Needed in Wisconsin? Does the Quality of Care Matter to Children? How Does the Quality of Child Care Affect a Parent s Employment and Education? What Is the Quality of Child Care in the United States? Why Doesn t the Private Market Work as Well for Child Care as it Does for Other Industries? Is Child Care a Proper Issue for Public Policy? Or Should the Private Market Handle It? How Can Government Improve Child Care? How Much Does Improving Child Care Quality Cost? Summary State Efforts to Improve Early Care and Education by Helene Stebbins State Efforts to Coordinate Early Care and Education: A Statutory Overview by Scott Groginsky & Bina Patel NCSL State Legislative Report: Analysis of State Actions on Infant and Toddler Care by Joan Lombardi & Julie Poppe Ensuring Safe and Healthy Care Improving Quality and Supply Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars v

8 North Carolina s Smart Start: Implications for Public Policy by Karen Ponder What Is Smart Start? Is Smart Start Effective? How Is North Carolina Addressing Three Major Needs: Affordability, Accessibility, and Quality? Why Is Smart Start Needed in North Carolina? How Has Smart Start Involved Families? How Is Smart Start Different from Head Start? How Is Smart Start Funded and Where Do Its Funds Go? How Has the North Carolina Legislature Shaped Smart Start? Summary What s Happening in Wisconsin in Early Childhood Education and Care? Child Care Programs Head Start Public School Early Education Programs Programs Serving Children with Disabilities Other Early Childhood Care and Education Programs Selected Resources vi Table of Contents

9 Executive Summary O dds are the toddler next door is not taken care of during the day by a parent. In fact, in Wisconsin, more than 70% of preschoolers whose mothers work are in child care with someone other than mom or dad, compared to 56% of preschoolers nationwide. So what is the quality of their care? And just how important is quality? How can Wisconsin help families have reasonable access to the range of early childhood education and care programs available? Can the resources be arranged to better meet the needs of children and families? The first chapter, by Deborah Lowe Vandell and Barbara Wolfe, examines these questions. In the United States, the quality of care is neither outstanding nor terrible, but there is plenty of room for improvement. In a recent study of 600 child care settings, about 6 out of 10 were estimated to be fair (53%) or poor (8%); only 30% were rated good and 9% excellent. Only three states have childadult ratios that meet the recommended 3 infants to 1 adult; Wisconsin s standard for infants is 4 to 1. Caregiver qualifications are reportedly on a decline nationally and salaries did not improve during the 1990s. Child care workers earned only 41% to 85% as much as their counterparts in other professions. Consequently, turnover has been high with 51% of teachers and 59% of assistants leaving their job over a 20-month period. The quality of a child care setting from poor to excellent can affect a child today and throughout adulthood. High quality care translates into measurable improvements in language, math, and social skills through second grade. One estimate shows substituting a poor quality caregiver with an excellent one would improve a child s school readiness by 50%. Looking even further down the road, studies which follow children into adulthood demonstrate that kids with higher quality preschool care are more likely to complete high school and college, earn better wages, and commit fewer crimes. Higher quality child care also increases the odds that parents will continue their education, keep their jobs, and work longer hours. From an economic standpoint, economists who study child care agree that the private marketplace does not work as well for child care as for other industries. For example, parents find it hard to compare the quality and cost of care. Parents often face a seriously limited set of child care options, especially low-income parents with odd work schedules. Moreover, parents of young children are at the low end of their earning potential and may not be able to afford high-quality care. Also, the benefits of quality care extend beyond the family to society as measured by lower costs for education, reduced crime, increased productivity, and less need for social services. What government should do and how much it should invest are not easy questions. However, some research exists. If a center with an annual per child cost of $6,500 reduces the child-staff ratio from 11:1 to 10:1, the cost per child increases by about $306. Improving a center s quality rating from mediocre to good (25%) increases annual costs by 10% or $246 per child. No cost estimates exist for the least expensive alternative improving the quality of caregiver training. Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars vii

10 However, the question of whether early childhood care and education is a proper issue for public policy is a matter of values and judgment, not research findings. Most Americans agree that caring for children is primarily the responsibility of parents. Yet in recent polls, over 8 in 10 parents report that government could be doing something or a great deal to help them. Helene Stebbins of the National Governors Association reviews how more than a dozen states are finding solutions to child care dilemmas. Stebbins lists examples of state programs, detailing their history, scope, target audience, and funding. In a recent 50-state study, Scott Groginsky and Bina Patel of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) report that 36 states have statutory language encouraging or requiring coordination of early education and child care programs. In a separate chapter, NCSL authors also review several strategies that states are using to ensure safe and healthy care for infants and toddlers, improve the supply of quality infant and toddler care, and support families with young children. For example, several states have improved the ratio of children to adults in child care settings, supplemented Early Head Start funding, and launched innovative provider training and compensation. States have also taken steps to include children with special needs. One of the best examples of how a state has improved child care quality, while still recognizing the primary role of parents is North Carolina s Smart Start. Smart Start was established in 1993 as a state-local early childhood initiative serving all North Carolina children under the age of 6 and their families. According to Executive Director Karen Ponder, a total of 81 local partnerships covering all 100 North Carolina counties have focused their attention on three major areas: child care and education, family support programs, and health services. State funding has grown from $30 million in to $216 million in Private contributions total $70 million and more than 1 million volunteer hours. Smart Start has been credited, in part, with creating nearly 50,000 new child care spaces, increasing the quality of child care, improving the credentials of child care providers, and reducing the turnover rates of child care teachers. Research shows that Smart Start participants are better prepared for kindergarten entering school with better language skills and fewer behavior problems. North Carolina s unique approach has received the 1998 Innovations in American Government Award and the 1999 Innovation in Government Award. The next chapter summarizes what Wisconsin is doing in early childhood care and education. For seven years in a row in the 1990s, Working Mother magazine ranked Wisconsin in the top 10 states for child care. The number of regulated child care providers in Wisconsin more than doubled in the 1990s from 4,413 to 10,500 licensed and certified providers. Of the 200,000 children in regulated child care, 21% were receiving a child care subsidy from Wisconsin Shares in October In 1856, Watertown, Wisconsin became the first community in the country to establish a kindergarten, and in 1927 Wisconsin began public funding viii Executive Summary

11 for 4-year-old kindergarten. Currently, about one third of the state s school districts offer a 4-year-old kindergarten. Wisconsin also supplements federal dollars to allow an additional 1,388 children and families to be served by Head Start. In 2000, the Birth to 3 Program served 8,371 children and their families over the course of the year. This chapter overviews the Wisconsin legislature s investment in programs like Wisconsin Shares, supplemental Head Start, and SAGE as well as the number of children enrolled in 4-year-old kindergarten, childhood special education, and Birth to 3 Programs. Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars ix

12

13 A Checklist for Assessing the Impact of Policies on Families The first step in developing family-friendly policies is to ask the right questions: What can government and community institutions do to enhance the family s capacity to help itself and others? What effect does (or will) this policy (or proposed program) have for families? Will it help or hurt, strengthen or weaken family life? These questions sound simple, but they can be difficult to answer. The Family Criteria (Ad Hoc) Task Force of the Consortium of Family Organizations (COFO) developed a checklist to assess the intended and unintended consequences of policies and programs on family stability, family relationships, and family responsibilities. The checklist includes six basic principles that serve as the criteria of how sensitive to and supportive of families policies and programs are. Each principle is accompanied by a series of family impact questions. The principles are not rank ordered and sometimes they conflict with each other, requiring trade-offs. Cost effectiveness also must be considered. Some questions are value-neutral and others incorporate specific values. People may not always agree on these values, so sometimes the questions will require rephrasing. This tool, however, reflects a broad nonpartisan consensus, and it can be useful to people across the political spectrum. This checklist can be used to conduct a family impact analysis of policies and programs. Check the questions that apply to your policy or program, and record the impact on family well-being. Principle 1. Family support and responsibilities. Policies and programs should aim to support and supplement family functioning and provide substitute services only as a last resort. Does the proposal or program: support and supplement parents and other family members ability to carry out their responsibilities? provide incentives for other persons to take over family functioning when doing so may not be necessary? set unrealistic expectations for families to assume financial and/or caregiving responsibilities for dependent, seriously ill, or disabled family members? enforce absent parents obligations to provide financial support for their children? Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars Principle 2. Family membership and stability. Whenever possible, policies and programs should encourage and reinforce marital, parental, and family commitment and stability, especially when children are involved. Intervention in family membership and living arrangements is usually justified only to protect family members from serious harm or at the request of the family itself. Does the policy or program: provide incentives or disincentives to marry, separate, or divorce? provide incentives or disincentives to give birth to, foster, or adopt children? strengthen marital commitment or parental obligations? use appropriate criteria to justify removal of a child or adult from the family? allocate resources to help keep the marriage or family together when this is the appropriate goal? recognize that major changes in family relationships such as divorce or adoption are processes that extend over time and require continuing support and attention? xi

14 Principle 3. Family involvement and interdependence. Policies and programs must recognize the interdependence of family relationships, the strength and persistence of family ties and obligations, and the wealth of resources that families can mobilize to help their members. To what extent does the policy or program: recognize the reciprocal influence of family needs on individual needs, and the influence of individual needs on family needs? recognize the complexity and responsibilities involved in caring for family members with special needs (e.g., physically or mentally disabled, or chronically ill)? involve immediate and extended family members in working toward a solution? acknowledge the power and persistence of family ties, even when they are problematic or destructive? build on informal social support networks (such as community/neighborhood organizations, religious communities) that are essential to families lives? respect family decisions about the division of labor? address issues of power inequity in families? ensure perspectives of all family members are represented? assess and balance the competing needs, rights, and interests of various family members? protect the rights and safety of families while respecting parents rights and family integrity? Principle 4. Family partnership and empowerment. Policies and programs must encourage individuals and their close family members to collaborate as partners with program professionals in delivery of services to an individual. In addition, parent and family representatives are an essential resource in policy development, program planning, and evaluation. In what specific ways does the policy or program: provide full information and a range of choices to families? respect family autonomy and allow families to make their own decisions? On what principles are family autonomy breached and program staff allowed to intervene and make decisions? encourage professionals to work in collaboration with the families of their clients, patients, or students? take into account the family s need to coordinate the multiple services they may require and integrate well with other programs and services that the families use? make services easily accessible to families in terms of location, operating hours, and easy-to-use application and intake forms? prevent participating families from being devalued, stigmatized, or subjected to humiliating circumstances? involve parents and family representatives in policy and program development, implementation, and evaluation? xii Checklist

15 Principle 5. Family diversity. Families come in many forms and configurations, and policies and programs must take into account their varying effects on different types of families. Policies and programs must acknowledge and value the diversity of family life and not discriminate against or penalize families solely for reasons of structure, roles, cultural values, or life stage. How does the policy or program: affect various types of families? acknowledge intergenerational relationships and responsibilities among family members? provide good justification for targeting only certain family types, for example, only employed parents or single parents? Does it discriminate against or penalize other types of families for insufficient reason? identify and respect the different values, attitudes, and behavior of families from various racial, ethnic, religious, cultural, and geographic backgrounds that are relevant to program effectiveness? Principle 6. Support of vulnerable families. Families in greatest economic and social need, as well as those determined to be most vulnerable to breakdown, should be included in government policies and programs. Does the policy or program: identify and publicly support services for families in the most extreme economic or social need? give support to families who are most vulnerable to breakdown and have the fewest resources? target efforts and resources toward preventing family problems before they become serious crises or chronic situations? The Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars aims to connect research and policymaking and to promote a family perspective in research, policy, and practice. The institute has resources for researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and those who conduct Family Impact Seminars. To assist researchers and policy scholars, the institute is building a network to facilitate cross-state dialogue and resource exchange on strategies for bringing research to bear on policymaking. To assist policymakers, the institute disseminates research and policy reports that provide a family impact perspective on a wide variety of topics. To assist those who implement policies and programs, the institute has available a number of family impact assessment tools for examining how responsive policies, programs, and institutions are to family well-being. To assist states who wish to create better dialogue between researchers and policymakers, the institute provides technical assistance on how to establish your own state s Family Impact Seminars. The checklist and the papers are available from Director Karen Bogenschneider and Associate Directors Bettina Friese and Jessica Mills of the Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars at the University of Wisconsin-Madison/Extension, 130 Human Ecology, 1300 Linden Drive, Madison, WI, 53706; phone (608) ; FAX (608) ; The checklist was adapted by the institute from Ooms, T. (1995). Taking families seriously as an essential policy tool. Paper prepared for an expert meeting on Family Impact in Leuven, Belgium. The first version of this checklist was published by Ooms, T., & Preister, S. (Eds., 1988). A strategy for strengthening families: Using family criteria in policymaking and program evaluation. Washington DC: Family Impact Seminar. Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars xiii

16

17 Acknowledgments For their generosity in providing financial support for the Wisconsin Family Impact Seminar, Early Childhood Care and Education: What Are States Doing?, we extend sincere appreciation to: The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation The A. L. Mailman Family Foundation The National Conference of State Legislatures The National Governors Association Elizabeth C. Davies We are also grateful to the following individuals for their contributions: Mark Lederer for his advice and many contributions since the seminars began in 1993; Theodora Ooms for developing the Family Impact Seminar model and for her continuing technical assistance; Bethany Brewster, Brandon Covalt, and Mari Hansen for their assistance in organizing this seminar. The 17th Wisconsin Family Impact Seminar Planning Committee: Dorothy Conniff City of Madison Anne Carmody State of Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services Dave Edie State of Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development Patty Brill Hammes State of Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services Jill Haglund State of Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Dave Riley University of Wisconsin-Madison, Dept. of Human Development and Family Studies Anne Sappenfield Wisconsin Legislative Council Julia Strong State of Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services The Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars Legislative and Gubneratorial Advisory Committee: Representative Peter Bock Representative Mark Miller Annette Cruz, Governor s Office Senator Gwendolynne Moore Senator Alberta Darling Representative Luther Olsen Senator Joanne Huelsman Senator Judy Robson Representative Jean Hundertmark Representative Daniel Vrakas Representative Julie Lassa Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars xv

18 The Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars Advisory Committee: Dick Barrows Inge Bretherton Tom Corbett Jim Gingles Jane Grinde Tom Kaplan Mark Lederer Carol Lobes Sally Lundeen Margo Melli Theodora Ooms Enis Ragland Dave Riley Rae Schilling Terry Shelton Denise Skinner Sue Springman Sue Vergeront Rebecca Young Associate Dean, Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison Human Development & Family Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin-Madison Health Promotion & Human Development, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin-Madison Family Impact Seminar Consultant Human Issues, Edgewood College School of Nursing, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Law School, University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Law and Social Policy, Washington, DC Mayor s Office, City of Madison Human Development & Family Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Family Medicine, Eau Claire Residency, University of Wisconsin-Madison LaFollette Institute, University of Wisconsin-Madison Human Development, University of Wisconsin-Stout Wisconsin Department of Administration Former Wisconsin State Legislator Former Wisconsin State Legislator xvi Acknowledgments

19 Child Care Quality: Does It Matter and Does It Need to Be Improved? By Deborah Lowe Vandell & Barbara Wolfe T he quality of child care in the United States leaves room for improvement. Caregiverqualifications declined nationally, salaries did not improve during the 1990s, and teacher turnover is high. Research shows that quality matters. For example, substituting a poor quality caregiver with an excellent one improves a child s school readiness by 50%. Over time, kids with better preschool care are more likely to complete high school and college, earn higher wages, and commit fewer crimes. Higher quality care also increases the odds that parents will continue their education, keep their jobs, and work longer hours. The authors also discuss government s role in child care and why the private marketplace does not work as well for child care as for other industries. This chapter reviews extensive research that finds over 6 in 10 children are being placed in poor or simply fair child care settings, having a potentially damaging impact on their development. The chapter analyzes the need for non-parental child care in Wisconsin as well as the immediate, long-term, and extended roles that child care can play in a child s future. In addition, we will look at the child care connections to a parent s employment and education, and summarize the quality of child care in the United States. Finally, in light of the statistics, what are the possible solutions and costs? Ultimately, the report aims to provide an answer to an important policy question: Is there an economic justification for public intervention to improve the quality of non-parental child care, especially for children from low-income families? The bulk of the evidence argues the answer is yes. Is Non-parental Child Care Needed in Wisconsin? Child care provided by someone other than a parent is now the norm rather than the exception for young children in Wisconsin. Among children with employed mothers in Wisconsin, 76% under age five are in child care compared with only 57% nationwide. And many children spend a great deal of time in that child care setting. Of all children under age 5, 39% spend more than 35 hours per week in child care. This number is only slightly lower (36%) for children under age three (Snyder & Adams, 2001). With the implementation of welfare-to-work programs in nearly all states, the need for non-parental child care is growing especially among low-income families. Among children with employed mothers in Wisconsin, 76% under age five are in child care compared with only 57% nationwide. Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars 1

20 Does the Quality of Care Matter to Children? The answer to this question may seem obvious, but research shows the impact of quality is more far-reaching than one might guess. The quality of child care is measured in two main ways process quality and structural characteristics. Process quality is rated by observing what occurs in child care settings from children s interactions with caregivers and peers to activities, and health and safety measures. Structural characteristics are graded by noting the child-to-adult ratio, the size of each group of children, and the level of caregiver education and training. These two quality indicators are often related. When child-to-adult ratios are lower (i.e., more adults per child), children generally appear less apathetic and distressed; caregivers also spend less time managing the classroom and offer more stimulating, supportive care. When staff is more highly trained and paid, children s activities are of higher quality, and caregivers are more responsive and less restrictive. The age of the child is important in determining overall quality. For instance, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care showed that group size and child-to-adult ratios were more critical than other factors in rating process quality for infants. However, caregiver education and training were stronger predictors of quality for preschoolers (NICHD Study of Early Child Care, 2000a). Short-Term Effects of Child Care Quality Quality, in process and structural terms, is important to children of all ages even in the short term. When process quality (rating of interactions, activities, health and safety) is higher, children appear happier, have closer relationships with caregivers, and perform better on thinking and language tests (Burchinal et al., 1996). In contrast, poor process quality appears to predict greater behavior problems (Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997; Hausfather et al., 1997). Child performance is also tied to structural quality (child adult ratio, group size, and caregiver background). For example, when compared to caregiver settings, which provided fewer adults, children in classrooms with lower ratios were better able to understand, initiate, and participate in conversations, had better general knowledge, Preschoolers perform better on standardized tests when their caregivers are better educated and trained. were more cooperative, and showed much less hostility and conflict in interactions. In addition, preschoolers perform better on standardized tests when their caregivers are better educated and trained for example, if they have at least an associate arts degree in a child-related field. When teachers are better trained, the children also have better language skills, are more persistent in completing tasks, and in general are better prepared for school (Vernon-Feagans et al., 1997; Clarke-Stewart et al., 2000). 2 Child Care Quality: Does It Matter and Does It Need to Be Improved?

21 Long-Term Effects of Child Care Quality The long-term effects of child care have been measured in a variety of ways. Research shows that children enrolled in higher-quality classrooms as preschoolers display better math skills through second grade. This impact is greater for children of less-educated mothers. According to kindergarten teachers, children whose child care providers were more involved and invested in them during the preschool years have fewer behavior problems (Howes, 1990). Are these connections strong enough to be meaningful? To address this issue, NICHD researchers studied the relationship between the quality of the home environment and children s developmental outcomes. Their results showed home quality has roughly twice the impact of child care quality. However, the effects of child care quality for three-year-olds were both significant and meaningful (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 1999; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2000b). In estimating the impact of child care quality in the long term, researchers made a significant discovery. If the quality of a caregiver was raised from the lowest quality rating to the highest (among the settings observed), a child s school readiness would be expected to improve by 50%. Extended Impact of Child Care Quality Even though only a few studies have followed children into adulthood, it is notable that all find some evidence of long-term gains particularly with lowincome, high-risk preschoolers. The Carolina Abecedarian Project (Campbell & Ramey, 1995; Ramey et al., 2000), the Perry Preschool Project (Schweinhart et al., 1993), and the Chicago Child-Parent Center directed by UW-Madison researcher Arthur Reynolds (Reynolds et al., 2000), are our best type of studies randomly assigning families to treatment and control groups and tracking their progress over time. If caregiver quality was raised from the lowest to the highest, a child s school readiness improved by 50%. Children in the Carolina project showed long-term gains in IQ scores, reading, and math. Follow-up at age 21 showed these individuals were on average older before having children and were more likely to have attended a four-year college than their peers. By age 27, children in the Perry Project were less likely to have been arrested, and they had monthly earnings almost double their peers $1,219 versus $766. Also, they were much less likely to be receiving public assistance 15% versus 32%. Children in the Chicago study had significantly higher math and reading scores, and by age 20 were more likely to have completed high school and had lower rates of juvenile crime. Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars 3

22 How Does the Quality of Child Care Affect a Parent s Employment and Education? Evidence of a connection between quality of child care and a parent s employment is limited. However, research suggests when low-income families receive higher quality child care, mothers are more likely to keep their jobs, work more hours (Meyers, 1993), and increase their later educational attainment (Benasich et al., 1992; Ross & Paulsell, 1998). When center-based care was provided for low birth-weight infants in the Infant Health and Development Program, mothers were more likely than their control group peers to be working. This effect was greater for less-educated women (Brooks-Gunn et al., 1994). An employee whose children are well-cared-for may also have higher productivity than those employees with children in lower quality settings (Blau & Philip, 1989). By contrast, poor quality child care can cause a mother to quit a job. Nearly a third of teenage mothers participating in one experiment reported that unsatisfactory quality of child care led them to quit work or change hours or activities. When mothers reported that the ratio of children to adults in their children s child care was worse than recommended standards, they were twice as likely to drop out of the JOBS program and the labor force, than mothers who reported that their child care met the standard (Meyers, 1993). The quality of child care in the United States is mostly fair, rarely excellent. What is the Quality of Child Care in the United States? In the United States, care is mostly fair, rarely excellent. The most reliable estimate on national quality is provided by the NICHD Study of Early Child Care in which 600 non-parental child care settings were studied in nine states (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2000a). In this study, care was most often graded as fair. Only 11 percent of the settings were considered excellent. Poorquality care was more likely in centers serving infants and toddlers (10 percent) than in centers serving older children (4 percent). Extending these results to all American families, we estimate that for children under age three 8 percent of child care settings are poor, 53 percent are fair, 30 percent are good, and 9 percent are excellent. Researchers concluded that national child care is neither outstanding nor terrible, and plenty of room for improvement exists. In terms of structural quality (child adult ratio, group size, and caregiver background), only three states have child adult ratios that meet the 3:1 standard recommended for infants by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Public Health Association (American Public Health Association, 1992). Some states permit ratios as great as six infants to every caregiver. Wisconsin has a 4:1 requirement. 4 Child Care Quality: Does It Matter and Does It Need to Be Improved?

23 Qualifications of caregivers are also reportedly on a decline nationally. This decline may be related to low wages (see Figure 1). In the 1990s, teachers averaged between $13,125 and $18,988 annually for full-time employment and assistant teachers earned just $6 $7 per hour. Salaries of child care workers ranged from 41% to 85% of their peers (over 25 years of age) in other professions. These salaries did not improve throughout the decade. Figure 1: 1997 Salary Comparisons: Median Child Care Teacher or Assistant Earnings vs. Peers in Other Professions 1 Earnings Relative to Peers High School Assoc. Degree BA Degree MA Degree High Paid Teachers/Assistants 1997 Low Paid Teachers/Assistants 1997 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1999, and Whitebook, Sakai, and Howes, Consequently, turnover has been high. (See Figure 2). A study that made two visits to child care centers 20 months apart found that during that period 51% of teachers and 59% of assistants had left their jobs (Whitebook, Sakai, & Howes, 1997). 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Figure 2: Child Care Worker Turnover Rates 59% 51% 34% 36% 0% Assistants Teachers Teacher- Directors Directors Note: Figures include all staff at all centers; rates derived from 2 visits, 20 months apart to centers. Source: Whitebook, Sakai, and Howes, 1997 Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars 5

24 Parents of young children often have low incomes and simply cannot afford high quality child care. Why Doesn t the Private Market Work as Well for Child Care as for Other Industries? Economists who have studied child care agree that the private market does not work as well for child care as for other industries like shoes for three reasons. First is the lack of information. Parents find it difficult to compare the quality, cost, and availability of care, and they are unsure how to evaluate the information they do receive. Often, considerations of convenience, time, and location cause parents to limit their search. These problems are especially acute for low-income families and for those who need child care for odd work hours (Vandell, 1998). Second, the market may fail for child care due to what economists call externalities effects beyond the primary consumers. Parents may not consider overall benefits to society when choosing child care. These benefits may include lower costs for later education, reductions in crime, increased productivity, and lower need for social services. Conceivably, unsafe and unhealthy child care may increase direct costs to both the family and society. Third, child care market failure may result from an imperfect capital market. Parents of young children tend to have low incomes relative to their permanent incomes, and may face borrowing constraints. These parents simply cannot afford to purchase high-quality child care. Yet, cost is not the only obstacle for low-income families odd work schedules also play a role. One third of working-poor mothers (incomes below poverty) and more than a quarter of working-class mothers (incomes below $25,000) work weekends (Hofferth, 1995). Half of working-poor parents work a rotating schedule, yet only 10 percent of centers and 6 percent of family day care homes provide weekend care. When selecting child care, low-income families must choose from a seriously limited set of options (see Figure 3); almost three-fourths of children of working-poor parents are cared for by a parent or other relative. 6 Child Care Quality: Does It Matter and Does It Need to Be Improved?

25 Figure 3: Child Care Arrangements for Low-Income Children under Age 5 Family Day Care (8%) Other (5%) Center (15%) Parent (48%) Relative (22%) Source: Phillips, In-Home (2%) Unfortunately, economists say all these factors work together to prolong market failure demand for high-quality care is too low, compensation is too low, and the more highly-trained seek employment elsewhere. As a result, quality declines, unless intervention occurs. Is Child Care a Proper Issue for Public Policy? Or Should the Private Market Handle It? The question of whether child care is a proper issue for public policy is a matter of values and judgment, not research findings (Riley & Bogenschneider, 1999). Most Americans would agree that caring for children is primarily the responsibility of parents (Sylvester, 2001). Yet in recent polls, over 8 in 10 parents report that government could be doing something or a great deal to help them (Hewlett & West, 1998). Interest in government involvement in child care was triggered, in part, by welfare reform. If welfare reform is to succeed, high-quality child care is a necessity. The recent change in welfare policy establishing work requirements means more lowincome parents must now find child care. In recent polls, Americans support more government spending for child care for low-income families (Sylvester, 2001). With this increase in demand, the issue of child care quality becomes even more important. In recent polls, Americans support more government spending for child care for lowincome families. Many of the benefits of child care are like those of primary schooling preparing children for the next level. Ultimately, society benefits from the mental, language, and behavioral competencies associated with higher-quality care. Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars 7

26 Subsidies for families can help level the playing field for low-income parents. How Can Government Improve Child Care? A variety of public-sector interventions may be used to improve child care. They include information and referral, licensing requirements, placement activities, financial incentives, training for child care workers, tax credits for parents, incentives for employer-provided care, direct provision of care, and tuition subsidies. Subsidies for families can help level the playing field for low-income parents. A study of six community programs by the Urban Institute (Phillips, 1995) suggests that subsidy programs enabled parents to access care that was as high in quality as that chosen by better-off, unsubsidized parents. Still, problems remain. Although many incentive and subsidy programs exist, they are not widespread and states have been slow to make funds available. At a minimum, some states have chosen to: provide information on available child care slots, hours of operation, structural quality, costs, and staff training, establish training programs, mandate minimum requirements for example, reducing child adult ratios and group sizes, and establish and enforce safety regulations and certification requirements. More ambitiously, other states consider ways to recruit and retain highly qualified individuals in the early education field. Examples include providing tuition subsidies, incentives (i.e., those used for nurses, physicians, teachers during shortages), and salary increases. 8 Child Care Quality: Does It Matter and Does It Need to Be Improved?

27 How Much Does Improving Child Care Quality Cost? Defining the child care situation in terms of dollars is not an easy task. However, some research does exist. Studies using data from the General Accounting Office show that decreasing the average child-to-adult ratio by one increases costs by roughly 4.5%. Thus, if an average center with 50 children and an annual per child cost of $6,500 reduces the child-to-staff ratio from 11:1 to 10:1, the cost per child increases by about $306. A one-year increase in the average educational level of the staff demonstrates a 3.4% increase in total costs, including a 5.8% increase in wages. There are significant relationships between cost and quality. In another study, improving center quality by 25% (from mediocre to good) increases total costs by 10%, or $346 per child per year. None of these studies include the investment that is likely to be the least expensive approach to improving quality: caregiver training, including in-service training. The evidence is clear that better-trained caregivers provide higher-quality care. Summary When it comes to child care in the United States and Wisconsin, there is room for improvement. Quality, on average, is only poor to fair. The average group sizes and child-to-adult ratios often exceed recommended standards and the education background of child care workers is declining. Market failure in the child care sector indicates a need for government intervention. Not only the child, but the family and society as a whole benefit from highquality care. Specifically, beneficiaries may include children attending schools with others whose behavior may be influenced by their child care setting, taxpayers who will save money through reductions in education costs, employers who benefit from more productive workers, and potentially citizens who gain through reduced crime and public assistance needs. Finally, subsidizing child care for low-income families is consistent with the goals of the 1996 welfare reform and an ideology that seeks to encourage and reward work. The investment likely to be the least expensive way to improve quality is caregiver training. References American Public Health Association (1992). Caring for our children: National health and safety performance standards: Standards for Out-of-Home child care programs. Ann Arbor, MI: Author. Benasich et, A., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Clewell, B. (1992). How do mothers benefit from early intervention programs? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13, Blau, D. M., & Philip, R. (1989). Fertility, employment, and child care costs. Demography, 26, Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars 9

28 Brooks-Gunn, J. McCormick, M. C., Shapiro, S., Benasich, A. A., & Black, G. W. (1994). The effects of early education intervention on maternal employment, public assistance and health insurance: The Infant Health and Development Program. American Journal of Public Health, 84, Burchinal, M. R., Roberts, J. E., Nabors, L. A., & Bryant, D. M. (1996). Quality of center child care and infant cognitive and language development. Child Development, 67, Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for high risk African American students at middle adolescence: Positive effects of early intervention. American Education Research Journal, 32, Clarke-Stewart, K. A., Vandell, D. L., Burchinal, M., O Brien, M., & McCartney, K. (2000). Do features of child care homes affect children s development? Unpublished paper, University of California-Irvine. Hausfather, A., Toharia, A., LaRoche, C., & Engelsmann, F. (1997). Effects of age of entry, day-care quality, and family characteristics on preschool behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 38, Hewlett, S. A., & West, C. (1998). The war against parents: What we can do for America s beleaguered moms and dads. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Howes, C. (1990). Can the age of entry into child care and the quality of child care predict adjustment in kindergarten? Developmental Psychology, 26, Meyers, M. K. (1993) Child care in jobs employment and training programs: What difference does quality make? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (1999). Effect sizes from the NICHD study of early child care. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM. April. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2000a). Characteristics and quality of child care for toddlers and preschoolers. Applied Developmental Science, 4, NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2000b). The relation of child care to cognitive and language development. Child Development, 71, Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., & Burchinal, M. R. (1997). Relations between preschool children s child-care experiences and concurrent development: The cost, quality, and outcomes study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43, Phillips, D. A. (Ed.) (1995). Child care for low income families: Summary of two workshops. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Report available at: nccic.org/research/nrc_care/c_care.html. Ramey, C. T., Campbell, F. A., Burchinal, M., Skinner, M. L., Gardner, D. M., & Ramey, S. L. (2000). Persistent effects of early childhood education on high-risk children and their mothers. Applied Developmental Science, 4, Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A. (2000). Longterm benefits of participation in Title I Chicago child-parent centers. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development. 10 Child Care Quality: Does It Matter and Does It Need to Be Improved?