ExchangeEveryDay Past Issues

My comment is with regards to the insta-poll connected to this article. Does it really reflect the true state of things? While our funding has declined our enrollment is stable and the demand is high with long waitlists. There was no way to express this on the insta-poll since funding and enrollment were combined.

While there has been a lot of discussion about the need for the economic stimulus package to address long deferred improvements in the country’s physical infrastructure, little mention has been done of the challenges faced by child care , a critical support for employment in America’s economy.

4-C’s annual survey data showed an overall drop in enrollment in March 2008 for the second year in a row as the economy continued to soften. Testimony from high quality accredited centers at the City Early Childhood hearings in December indicated that as unemployment grew so did the number of children leaving child care. This has resulted in the laying off of staff at some rural programs and stress in many group centers across our 5 county service area.

The normal safety net for child care programs in times of economic downturn is the child care subsidy system. As parents lose their jobs and family incomes dwindle, state subsidy payments pick up part of the cost of child care for families where the parents are earning less income due to reduction in hours or dropping into lower paying jobs.

This has been occurring as the number of children on the Wisconsin Shares subsidy system increased by over 300 in Dane County between 2007 and 2008. While the subsidy system provided key supports to these children and their families, 4-C’s analysis of the data shows a disturbing correlation between subsidy payments and centers closing in 2007. Of the 12 full day group centers that closed in 2007, all were for profit programs with more than 10% (and often more than 50%) children on state child care subsidies. The for profit aspect is noticeable as most non-profit programs during this period reported the need to increase fundraising to cover losses in their payments from the Shares program. For profit programs however have no way to make up their losses and a number of them instead closed .

The culprit is the federal government. Increased child care costs are a natural part of welfare reform and prevention. While the latter is mandated by federal law, there has been no increase in federal funding in years. The state to its credit has increased state expenditures on child care but the increase has not kept up with demand especially as the recession has grown. To keep from placing children on waiting lists, the state created new formulas for determining market rates, increased co-pays and finally froze rates completely.

If we want to insure we have a strong child care system to help with the recession’s recovery the federal government needs to insure there is enough funding to cover waiting lists and the potential new growth in the subsidy system while paying market rates as has been the intent of the federal legislation since the beginning of the program. Expecting child care providers during good times to make up losses on subsidy clients from parents paying out of pocket is unconscious able. Expecting them to make up losses on the free market during a recession is unworkable and can only lead to more closings and less child care available for everyone.

Proposing increased child care money as part of the economic stimulus package is not a bailout. Unlike the auto and banking industry, child care for low income families is already part of the federal budget. What I am suggesting is that the federal government as opposed to state (and in some cases local) governments pay their fair share of the child care subsidy system. It would preserve a critical part of the support system for local economies and as a recent economic impact study by UW extension shows it is a strong economic stimulus since almost all of the funds spent on child care are recycled several times over in the local economy. One job in child care results in another half of a job created in the secondary market. I also helps many more parents go to work.

I am the director of a Head Start program that covers 5 counties in Northwestern OHio. Usually after the holidays we have many families that have moved to a different county or out of the area and enrollment drops and moves around between the centers. This year however, our enrollment has not dropped and families are not moving around. We find this an interesting observation on the state of families in poverty in northwestern Ohio.

Enrollment has dropped by almost 50 children.

I am sure that we will be impacted by the recession. Our Center lost two children when layoffs occurred at the university with which we are affiliated. Our region has not been impacted as much as other regions, however we have anticipated problems and budgeted for fewer children