Census Bureau Counts Moms as ‘Designated Parents,’ Fathers as ‘Child Care’
We probably have all heard this line – when Mom goes out with her friends at night or to a meeting, folks ask, “Who is babysitting?” Inevitably, some mothers reply with their husband’s name, as in “Joe is babysitting.” Huh? I thought Dad was Dad and child rearing was a part of the deal. But evidently, this is seen as a support service to the mom. That is the way the Census Bureau looks at it too.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, when dads care for their children, it is considered “child care.” When moms are the responsible party, they are the “designated parent.” A recent New York Times article noted that in 2010 32% of households listed the father as the child care provider, up from 26% in 2005. This number is a bit confusing to me because grandparents, family child care providers and child care centers are much more prevalent as sources of child care in general, but a chart I read, called “Fathers Providing Care for Children with Employed Mothers” verifies these numbers.
I wonder when the Census will catch up with the reality of today’s families. If a third of all two-parent households have the father at home while the mom is at work or in school, it is past time to ditch the “mother as designated parent” nomenclature used by the Census Bureau, and in fact by mothers and fathers everywhere!
I’m Feeling Especially Proud of 4C Staff and Volunteers
Most of my blogs are specifically about public policy issues, but I want to take a quick moment to “brag on” 4C volunteers and staff. In the past week, 4C for Children was given a great honor to be named the overall winner of the ONE Award. ONE stands for Organizations of Noteworthy Excellence. The award recognizes business best practices among tax-exempt charitable organizations in Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky.
This year, 15 organizations submitted applications and six met criteria for at least one of the three categories (people, principles, process). 4C was the only organization to be recognized in all categories. The ONE Award is based on the Malcolm Baldrige Performance Excellence Award, given at a national level for businesses that meet a rigorous set of standards. The process includes review by a team of trained examiners.
This was the first time 4C submitted an application, although I must say that we have been working for a number of years to increase our use of data to improve all aspects of our services and impact. The kudos for this recognition are due entirely to the high expectations and diligence of the 4C staff – 70 strong.
We were most honored to be in the company of other terrific organizations that make a huge impact in our region. One of the greatest things is that all the winners this year serve children. The other honorees are:
- Assistance League of Greater Cincinnati
- Cincinnati Union Bethel
- Redwood
- Society of St. Vincent DePaul
- The Children’s Home of Cincinnati
The other highlight of the year (so far—and it is only the end of January) was the very successful Champions for Children gala held on Saturday January 28. Nearly 350 people, dressed in their finery, cheered our champions Senator Eric Kearney, Digi Schueler and Toyota, as well as Champs: The Next Gen – Kenton County Schools’ Hanner’s Heroes. Hundreds stayed to dance the night away. Generous sponsors and friends made the evening a big financial success. One corporate leader, who has been to hundreds of benefits, declared this event to be in her all-time top 10. (I had fun too!) In this case, the kudos go to our volunteer committee chaired by Marla Fuller and Tori Ames, and to Karen Hurley, 4C’s VP of Development.
I wonder what other great things 2012 has to offer.
Child care assistance more essential than ever – but less available
When “welfare as we know it” was ended in 1996, replaced by Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, child care financial assistance was accurately seen as an essential support needed for families to get off public assistance. Over the last 15 years this assistance has lifted millions of people out of poverty.
Today, with states struggling with lower tax revenue and a climate where cutting government spending is sometimes seen as a religion, there are far fewer families who are able to benefit from this assistance. One Associated Press story (http://tinyurl.com/7dsu8ht) tells of a mother and father with a four-year-old boy who are losing their child care assistance because their income is too high. The mother is a waitress at a weight-loss resort, the father a tree-cutter. Both make near the minimum wage.
Their story really struck me because, four years ago, they lived in a tent in a dry river bed, strung out on methamphetamines. Today they are both working, paying rent and supporting their child. They played by the rules – welfare reform has worked for them. It’s tough love with serious consequences for those who do not get training and work.
Now exactly why would we force this mother to quit her job and return to welfare? That is, if the family has not already reached its time limits so she can still qualify I often hear politicians and others interviewed saying that they worked hard for their money, and they do not want to prop up lazy people. But what about hard-working people who have worked extraordinarily hard to overcome odds? Count me in as one supporting more child care assistance to working families.
Disappointing decision regarding protection of children in Hamilton County
Hamilton County will have two tax levies on the ballot November 8 – one for health care for uninsured low-income residents (Indigent Care Levy) and the other for victims of child abuse and neglect (Children’s Services Levy). What is most on my mind today is the Children’s Services Levy renewal which will (assuming it passes) bring in $4 million less each year than it currently does to provide protection from child abuse and neglect.
The Hamilton County Commissioners approved the proposed levy amount to be the same millage as we have had for the last 15 years, BUT this will provide $4 million less each year for child welfare services, because $2 million of the funds will have to be used for services for severely handicapped children and property values have gone down, resulting in another $2 million loss. (The services for handicapped children have been paid for by the Indigent Care Levy which is receiving a substantial cut, and now will be paid from the Children’s Services levy.)
Several things bug me about this plan.
- The amount of the levy has not increased in 15 years while demands for service and costs have significantly escalated.
- Children’s Services staff have been reduced from 460 to 240 in the last three years with caseloads going from 12.7 to 20.1 in the last two years. These are people who rescue children from abusive situations, monitor situations where neglected children live with relatives or in foster care, and otherwise work daily to ensure that further harm does not come to these most vulnerable children. The staff are under great stress and carry a huge responsibility on society’s behalf.
- These child welfare services must be provided under federal and state mandates. We have a bare bones operation, meeting only the minimum mandated services. We can’t go any lower.
- The Commissioners’-appointed Tax Levy Review Committee, after studying the needs in great detail, recommended maintaining the current level of services and also using a portion of a County fund reserves as a source of additional funding. They definitely felt we could go no lower.
I suppose the thing that bugs me the most is that tax levies are the one area where voters get to have a say on what they want their tax dollars to support. By reducing the levies and assigning additional obligations to the reduced level of funding, the Commissioners have taken away our ability to give a thumbs up or down to the thoroughly researched Tax Levy Review Committee recommendations.
One Commissioner boasts of his promise to reduce taxes, yet the levies passed with 68% of the vote five years ago. Nearly seven out of 10 Hamilton County voters want to pay taxes for this very purpose. I imagine there are many, many things they would rather not support, but this is clearly one they do care deeply about. So I ask, do you want to save a few dollars on your taxes or spend those few bucks to make certain children do not come to harm because we did not have the resources to respond quickly enough to a bad situation?
Even though the amount of the Children’s Services Levy has been decided, there is a way to make sure that severely handicapped children are served without reducing services to abused and neglected children. (It feels a bit crazy to think our options are to help either handicapped or abused children. Surely there are other things we’d rather see cut. But let’s not go there today with the Bengals Stadium.) There exists a fund set aside to settle possible (but unlikely) state audit findings. Enough resources should be drawn each year from that fund to make up for the loss. Come on, Commissioners. Have a heart.
Top Threats to Early Childhood Programs
Exchange (formerly Child Care Information Exchange) is the definitive journal – in print and daily on-line posts – for administrators of early childhood education programs. The magazine and the on-line resources are wonderful, and there are often gems that I save and savor. One of the services provided by the publishers Roger and Bobbie Neugebauer are surveys of directors on various public policy topics. A recent post reports the top threats perceived by owners and directors of child care centers. Here is the post:
For the past 20 years Exchange magazine has been surveying Exchange readers about threats to their organizations. Historically, there have been five threats that have consistently risen to the top of the list year after year:
- State of the economy
- Competition from Pre-K in the public schools
- Shortage of qualified teachers
- Decreasing public subsidies
- Children with challenging behavior
In the early 1990′s, “competition from Pre-K in the public schools was rated the number one threat year after year. By the late 1990′s and early 2000′s, “shortage of qualified teachers” rose to the top. And, in recent years, not surprisingly, “state of the economy” is the top vote getter followed closely by “competition from Pre-K in the public schools.”
The weak state of the economy hits centers in many ways: enrollment is down due to fewer parents being employed, and those who are employed may choose to use family members for child care rather than choose an early learning setting. Government at all levels gives lip service to the importance of high quality early learning, but their budgets are shrinking and therefore, so are subsidy rates. Loans are very difficult to come by, and therefore, so is expansion. I hope that “state of the economy” falls to lower on this list in the near future!
As to competition from Pre-K in public schools, universal Pre-Kindergarten for three and four year olds is sweeping the country – but has yet to appear in Ohio and Kentucky. Universal Pre-K essentially extends Kindergarten – available (but voluntary) to all children regardless of income. Some states have chosen to contract with existing high quality child care centers. Others have expanded the capacity of elementary schools reach all families. In this case I am glad other states are working out the details for Ohio and Kentucky to follow.
Not Such Great Neighbors: Liquor Establishments and Child Care Centers
Yesterday morning at In God’s Hands Child Care Center in Kennedy Heights (Cincinnati), State Senator Eric Kearney held a press conference to introduce Senate Bill 49. 4C staff member Nikki Bryant was in attendance in support of the center’s director, Kathy Tyler. Nikki has been serving as the Leadership Coach assisting Kathy and the center in its successful quest to become star-rated by Ohio’s Step Up to Quality rating system.
S.B 49 proposes to prohibit the issuance of liquor permits to bars, restaurants and liquor stores (“retail liquor establishments”) if the operation of the establishment interferes with the operation of child care centers and nursing homes.
The law already exists to prohibit such businesses if they interfere with the “orderly conduct of affairs” of schools, churches, libraries, public playgrounds and hospitals. Senator Kearney proposes to add child care centers and nursing homes to the list.
Senator Kearney indicated that he has received numerous complaints from child care centers and community council members indicating that the presence of liquor stores and bars has created safety concerns for their neighborhoods.
Now, I’m not against bars, restaurants and liquor stores, and in fact, have spent a bit of time in each, but I’d just as soon have the Ohio Division of Liquor Control have the tools it needs to deny a permit to a not-so-reputable bar across the street from our children’s early childhood education programs. If permits can be denied because the “liquor establishment will substantially and adversely affect or interfere with the normal orderly conduct of the affairs” of a school or public playground, why not deny such a permit for the benefit of a child care center and nursing home? Seems like common sense to me.
A little disclosure here: Senator Kearney served on the board of 4C for Children in the 1990’s, and is being honored by 4C in January 2012 as one of our Champions for Children for his efforts in the Ohio legislature that look out for the wellbeing of young children.
The Bad News and the Good News of Ohio’s Budget
So what do you want first – the good news or the bad news of the State of Ohio’s new biennium budget – which started July 1, 2011 – as it relates to early childhood education and child care? OK then. We’ll start with the bad. Working families with incomes up to nearly $28,000 a year (for a family of three) used to be able to get some help paying for child care. Now, a family is ineligible to receive help if the income exceeds about $23,000 for a family of three.
The good news is that once a parent starts getting help, she can get raises along the way and continue getting some level of assistance until her income reaches $37,000 a year. That’s not great, because it is hard to make it financially with two young children whose child care might cost as much as $16,000 a year. But it sure beats losing all assistance at $23,000 – which was an early budget proposal. Ohio expects to serve 103,000 children every month, the same as last year despite the lower eligibility levels.
For child care centers and family child care providers the bad news is that the reimbursement rate will be set at the 26th percentile of the 2008 Market Rate Survey – a 7 percent across-the-board cut. This represents a $40 million savings for the state. The rate started at a painfully low level and is now lower. Child care teachers and aides make very low wages to start with. This can only make it worse, since salaries are the biggest budget item in a center.
The good news on rates is that centers and Type A family child care homes that get quality rated through Ohio’s Step Up To Quality can get from a 7 to 19 percent higher reimbursement than the market rate. This is up from 5 to 15 percent last year. With the base rate dropping to the 26th percentile there will still be a cut to all programs but the rated programs will be impacted less.
As to quality improvement and school readiness, the bad news is that there are significant cuts to quality initiatives. T.E.A.C.H., the source for college scholarships for early childhood teachers received a significant funding cut. Training and technical assistance to support providers as they work to achieve the quality rating has been cut by 20 percent.
The good news is that the administration has a strong commitment to continuing and strengthening Step Up To Quality. Quality Achievement Awards for rated programs are maintained at a high level. Plans are underway to add an additional star level and to further improve the benchmarks and licensing process.
So what’s the bottom line of the new Ohio budget on early childhood care and education? It could have been worse. Ohio HAD to cut $8 billion from the budget, and the expectation was that some services would be decimated. Fortunately, the Ohio legislature and governor seem to understand the role of child care in economic stability and the role of early learning to prepare children for school.
Was 4C’s Policy Action Alert Politically Charged?
Last week 4C sent a policy action alert to 30,000 parents, child care providers and supporters. We frequently send such alerts when policy and funding are being determined by legislators at the state and national level. Part of our mission,
to improve the quality, effectiveness and accessibility of early childhood education and care
in the region so every child has a positive experience
and a foundation for success in school and life,
can only be accomplished by improving or maintaining the systems and policies that impact children and families.
Thus, 4C considers advocacy as a key strategy to accomplishing its mission.
The email we sent last week alerted people to the Ohio Governor’s proposed budget for child care and early education. We spelled out the good news (relatively modest cuts in key services and proposals for reform) and the things to watch. And we asked our constituents to contact their state senator and representative to “let them know you support investing in early education and care.”
So, I was surprised to receive an email from a parent who felt the alert was “very politically charged.” She indicated that the message went “far beyond what a non-profit organization should communicate. I am very disappointed,” she stated, “ that you still consider yourself as ‘non-profit’.” She asked how we could justify this action. I’m interested to know what you think.
One of the key roles of 4C is to speak loudly on behalf of children and families, advocating for government policies which support the highest quality of child care and early learning. Such policies often have to do with regulations or funding. We have sent such action alerts where appropriate whether leadership is a Republican or Democratic administration. We are firmly and staunchly non-partisan in our actions.
As I re-read the Policy Alert to determine if we crossed a line in our approach, it seems fair in that we spoke of both cuts and programs where the Governor is proposing to hold the line, and we spoke of much-needed reforms that the Governor is supporting. We have sent similar alerts regarding proposed funding cuts in Democratic administrations and Republican administrations. We feel it is appropriate, and aligns with our mission to ask those interested in early childhood education to contact their legislators to “Let them know you support investing in early education and care.”
Recently the accounting firm Barnes Dennig issued a newsletter with the lead article titled Lobbying and the Law: Debunking the Great Misconception. The article states, “Truth is, a charity that doesn’t spend at least some of its time in advocacy work – whether that’s pushing for more art in the classrooms or advocating for the mentally ill – is probably not doing its job.”
We agree.
Talking Points for Day on the Hill
The National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies gave its 300-plus symposium attendees a great background and briefing to prepare for our visits to our legislators. We met with staff of Representatives Michael Turner, Jean Schmidt, Steve Chabot (and Steve himself), Geoff Davis, House Speaker John Boehner, and Senators Rob Portman and Sherrod Brown. Here are the 2011 issues that we discussed with members of Congress and their staff.
- About the current budget situation: Don’t cut child care! We cannot strengthen this economy without parents working, and working parents need child care. When you work on the budget for the remainder of this fiscal year, don’t cut child care.
- Reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant: This is the legislation that provides funds to help low-income working families pay for child care, and provides for quality improvement. This law has not been reauthorized for 15 years, and many of its requirements are outdated. When reauthorizing:
- Require comprehensive background checks
- Require minimum levels of training for those who work in child care
- Require that centers and family child care homes are inspected on a regular basis
- Increase the quality set-aside from 4% under current law, to 12%, rising over time to 25% like Head Start.
3. For Senators: Cosponsor Senator Richard Burr’s (R-NC) “Child Care Protection Act of 2011” which calls for comprehensive background checks for child care providers to ensure that convicted felons, child abusers and sex offenders are not paid to care for children. In Ohio, child care providers cannot find out if people thay are planning to hire to care for young children have substantiated cases of child abuse. In Kentucky, background checks do not require fingerprinting.
We will follow up with our messages and see if we have had an impact. Since two of our three messages did not involve funding, we feel there is a lot Congress can do right away. I’ll let you know if we made any progress.
Report From the Hill, Day Two
After six hours of trekking (damn those high heels) from House buildings to Senate building and through the Capitol, I report on our Hill visits. We have been doing these visits for nearly 20 years, and I believe they are very valuable in educating our elected representatives about the issues facing families. Most often we and the others who come to Washington meet with staffers who specialize in specific issues. Members of Congress cannot be experts in all areas and they rely heavily on their staff to examine issues and develop their positions. Often the Member of Congress is in a committee meeting and not available.
Our first stop was the office of Michael Turner (R) of Montgomery, Clinton and Warren counties. Five 4C staff met with Legislative Aide Andy, a UD grad who knew a great deal about child care and our issues. As it turns out, his mother is an elementary school teacher. Whenever they speak, she first asks, “What have you learned today?” She then tells him of a particular child who is succeeding despite the odds, or perhaps struggling. He is a compassionate and knowledgeable young man who, we are convinced, will share with the Congressman our desire to protect children and provide opportunities to children and families.
Our second visit was with Representative Steve Chabot (R) of Cincinnati. Steve is in his second go-round in Congress. Representative Chabot was in a hearing when we arrived and his staffer lead us through tunnels and passages and byways to get to the Capitol meeting room. Steve joined us in the noisy hallway, opposite the door to the House of Representatives. We talked about budgets, reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant, the economy and putting children first. At one point he had to return to the hearing room to vote (to defund NPR, I believe) and then rejoined us to finish our discussion.
The Capital building was humming with armed security guards, room “sweeps” with dogs, and general craziness. It turns out that the President was due shortly, to have lunch with the members of Congress on the occasion of St. Patrick’s Day. Most everyone was wearing green.
Our next visit was with a staff member of newly elected Senator Rob Portman. Nine staffers from Ohio child care resource and referral agencies were present. Another dozen or so were meeting at the same time with a Fellow in Senator Sherrod Brown’s office. Senator Portman’s temporary offices are in a basement corner in a very crowded, dismal space. We stood in a narrow hall, sharing our “children first” message, along with the specifics of child safety and the value of child care as an essential work support. Senator Portman is still building his staff, and the person we met with seemed to be absorbing the information, but we had no sense of her response. Even the passionate and very effective parent advocate in our group, Lawrence Hall, did not elicit much of a response.
While the 4C Kentucky contingent went to visit Representative Geoff Davis (R) from Northern Kentucky, the rest of us visited the office of Jean Schmidt (R) of eastern Hamilton County, Clermont County and places east. We were supposed to meet with the Representative (and have done so every year she has been in Congress), but today she was having lunch with the President. We had the pleasure of meeting with a Legislative Aide, Michael McQueary, whose wife, a teacher, is expecting their first child in two weeks. Michael was interested and committed to improving background checks for all those who work in child care. We referred him to ChildCareAware.org to help in his child care search. He asked that we send information about choosing quality infant care for his personal search.
On my final visit of the day, I was joined by Lawrence Hall to meet with Speaker of the House John Boehner’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Stephanie Milburn. Stephanie has met with us year after year and is very knowledgeable about the Child Care and Development Block Grant and other Federal supports for child care. She indicated that her boss’s new role as Speaker precludes sponsoring legislation and dictating the work of the committees but that this is an issue he will pay close attention to.
While all of our visits seemed worthwhile, we are facing the toughest budget situation I can remember. We will be following up with our Southwest Ohio Congressional delegation and staying on top of their actions on behalf of children and families.
