DOCUMENT RESUME
PS 020 421
ED 353 033
AUTHOR
TITLE
INSTITUTION
PUB DATE
NOTE
AVAILABLE FROM
PUB TYPE
EDRS PRICE
DESCRIPTORS
Adams, Gina; Sandfort, Jodi R.
State Investments in Child Care and Early Childhood
Education.
Children's Defense Fund, Washington, D.C.
Mar 92
39p.
Children's Defense Fund, 25 E Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20001 ($4.50).
Research/Technical (143)
Reports
MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
*At Risk Persons; Comparative Analysis;
Differences; Disadvantaged Youth; Early
Education; *Educational Policy; Federal
*Financial Support; *Low Income Groups;
Surveys; *State Aid
*Day Care;
Childhood
Aid;
National
ABSTRACT
This study examined state expenditures during fiscal
year 1990 for programs that helped low-income families purchase child
care, provided preschool education services to children, or provided
child care assistance to special groups of families such as families
with teen parents, migrant or refugee families, and families whose
children are at risk of abuse or neglect. A survey was sent to the
state agency in each of the 50 states that administered funds for
these programs. The survey included questions on expenditures,
eligibility categories, reimbursement rates, and quality of care.
Findings indicated that state expenditures on child care and early
childhood development ranged from $0.24 per child to more than $70.00
per child. It was concluded that: (1) states invest too little money
in child care and early childhood education; (2) despite new federal
resources for child care appropriated in Fiscal Year 1990, resources
are not sufficient to meet the need for child care; and (3) the level
of state and federal investments is inadequate, thus preventing
parents from working and causing children's further economic
disadvantage. Attachments include lists of expenditures in fiscal
year 1990 on child care and early childhood services by states and by
state programs, and descriptions of the study methodology and the
child care research project. (MM)
****.******************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Edacahonal Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER IERICI
XTMS document haS been reproduced as
ece,ved from the person or organaahon
originating a
C Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction Quality
Fonts of new or opinions stated in Ms document do not necessarily represent official
OERI position or policy
cez
cz,
State Investments in
Child Care and Early
Childhood Education
by
Gina Adams
Jodi R. Sandfort
March 1992
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
im4
ck
kAt4ex-sivx..,
0
0
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."
Children's Defense Fund
BEST COPY
This report is one in a series of studies by the Children's
Defense Fund examining state policies and practices in child care
and early childhood education.
It focuses on state expenditures
on programs that help low-income families purchase child care,
provide preschool education services to children, or provide
child care assistance to special groups of families (such as teen
parents, migrant or refugee families, or families whose children
are at risk of abuse or neglect). Only those programs where the
state had discretion over the funding and policies were included
-- consequently these data truly reflect the level of state
commitment to meeting the needs of families and children for
child care assistance.
[See Attachments C and D for further
information about the survey, its methodology, and upcoming
reports.]
CDF's work in this area is supported in part by the David
and Lucile Packard Foundation's Center for the Future of
Children.
Many individuals have played key roles in the gathering and
analysis of the data included in this report, as well as in its
production. First and foremost, our sincere thanks go to the
many state administrators and state agency staff who provided the
information examined here. We also appreciate the various CDF
staff who have helped at different stages, including Helen Blank,
Olivia Golden, Donna Jablonski, Clifford Johnson, Janis Johnston,
Sherrie Lookner, Ruth Massie, and Janet Simons.
Children's Defense Fund
122 C Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
(-02) 628-8787
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A 50-state CDF survey of all state expenditures for child
care and early childhood development services reveals striking
disparities between states, as well as a pattern of inadequate
investment in every state.
State expenditures on child care and
early childhood development during Fiscal Year 1990 ranged from
$0.24 per child in Idaho to more than $70.00 per child in Alaska,
Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont (see Attachment
A).
Even in states that ranked in the top 10 in state
expenditures, however, inadequate funding meant that many
children and families were left unserved.
KEY FINDINGS:
States invest far too little in child care and early childhood
education.
o
Half of all states spent less than $25 per child on the care
and education of young children, and one-third spent less than
$17 per child.
o
Even states that ranked in the top 10 in their per child
expenditures failed to serve many children and families.
For example, even though California ranked sixth in per
child expenditures in FY 1990, the state estimated that only
10 to 20 percent of the eligible children were served.
o
In 1990, 11 states spent at least 24 times more on
corrections and prisons than they spent on the care and
development of young children. Nevada and Idaho spent more
than 100 times more on corrections than on services for
early childhood development, and Virginia spent almost 75
times more.
o
In 1990, 11 states spent more than 100 times more on
higher education than on programs to help children get a
strong foundation for learning before they enter school.
1
Levels of state investment in child care and early childhood
education vary enormously, even within those regions -- the
South, West, and Midwest -- that have the lowest per child
investments overall.
o
The top five ranking states each spend at least 300 times
more per child than the last-ranking state (Idaho).
o
Eight southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia) ranked in
the bottom third of all states spending less than $17 per
child on children's early care nd development. Yet some
southern states spent much more.
Florida, for example,
ranked ninth in the nation and spent three times more per
child than neighboring Georgia and more than four times more
per child than Alabama on its children's early care and
development.
o
There is a remarkable range even within states that rank in
the bottom half.
West Virginia, for example, spends less
than $20 per child and is one of the poorest states in the
country, yet spends three times more per child than
neighboring Virginia.
o
The states with the lowest levels of commitment to young
children are in the northern Midwest and West, where five
states (Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, and South
Dakota) spent less than $5 per child in FY 1990.
Yet
nearby Nebraska, Colorado, and Utah spent four to five times
as much per child.
New federal resources for child care appropriated after FY 1990
represent a move in the right direction but are nowhere near
sufficient to meet the need.
o
Despite the new federal child care resources appropriated in
1990, many low-income families and children are still unable
to obtain essential child care and early childhood
development services.
Vermont, for example, which ranked
third in state expenditures in 1990, estimates that it will
only be able to serve about 35 percent of eligible families,
even with the new federal funds.
2
o
Minnesota, which ranked in the top 20 states in per child
expenditures in 1990, currently has 1,900 eligible families
on waiting lists for child care assistance in the
Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area alone -- despite the
new federal funds.
Inadequate state and federal investments in child care and early
childhood education prevent parents from working and leave
children further behind.
o
A recent study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that
about one out of every four young mothers (ages 21 to 29) who were
not in the labor force -- a total of 1.1 million women -did not work because of child care problems.
o
In four states (Idaho, South Dakota, North Dakota, and
Montana), there was no state-funded child care assistance
program to help low-income parents who are trying to work
but cannot afford child care in 1990. The only way for
parents in these states to get assistance for child care was
to go on welfare first.
o
Inadequate and underfunded child care places children -- and
our nation's future -- at risk. A study by the National
Research Council concluded that "Poor quality care...
threatens children's development, especially children from
poor and minority families."
RECOMMENDATIONS
Ensuring that every child is ready to enter school by the
year 2000 is a goal widely shared by the Bush Administration,
Congress, state policy makers, and the business community.
However, the broad support for this goal means absolutely nothing
for children, especially our poorest youngsters, without the
dollars necessary to turn the massive amount of rhetoric around
school readiness into real opportunities for low-income children.
Without an immediate and major new investment in child care and
3
early childhood development, millions of children will enter the
schoolhouse door without the essential help they need to take
advantage of their elementary school education.
More
importantly, they will be denied the support that they need to
become self-sufficient and contributing adults.
We must:
1) Fully fund Head Start
o
Congress and the Administration must act immediately to
guarantee every eligible child a Head Start by 1995.
The Administration has only proposed a $600 million increase in
Head Start. Moreover, they propose to serve more children
by eliminating almost $100 million used by programs to
train Head Start teachers, imprcve their wages, and hire
additional staff to provide special help to parents and
children.
Congress must immediately pass S. 911, the School
Readiness Act.
This bill would increase Head Start
funding by $1 billion a year
achieving full funding by
1997.
In order not to deny thousands of today's three- and
four-year-olds a Head Start, CDF urges Congress to speed
up the timetable in S. 911 and increase Head Start by $2.1
billion this year in order to serve all children by 1995.
2) Expand state funding for child care and early childhood
development
o
States are now in the midst of their legislative sessions.
Now is the time to increase significantly state investments
in child care and early childhood development programs to
ensure that children have access to the high quality
services that they need to be ready to enter school.
States should not be cutting a single child care dollar.
Congress and the Administration made it clear when passing
the new federal child care legislation that federal dollars
were not to replace existing state investments in child
care.
3) Fully fund the Child Care and Development Block Grant
o
Congress must fulfill its promise by providing $100
million additional dollars this year for the recently
passed Child Care and Development Block Grant and
dramatically expanding the funds for child care in future
years.
Low-income parents cannot work and be self4
sufficient unless they have more help paying for child
Without additional federal funds, states will be
care.
hampered in their efforts to improve the quality of child
care to ensure that children receive a strong preschool
experience.
4) Ensure that pending regulations for the two new federal child
care programs do not impede states' efforts to guarantee
children are in safe and decent quality child care
o
Pending federal regulations for the Child Care and
Development Block Grant and the At-Risk Child Care program
would tie states' hands and limit their ability to improve
the quality of child care used by the poorest families.
The regulations must be changed. Currently they prohibit
states from setting even the most basic health and safety
protections for a large number of children. Children will
not be ready to enter school if states are prohibited by
the federal government from taking steps to ensure that
they are in decent child care settings.
5) Fully fund the Licensing and Monitoring Grants Program, which
helps states improve the quality of child care
o
Congress must provide $50 million to fund the Grants for
Licensing and Monitoring program. This program is linked
closely to the school readiness goal aG it offers states
funds to improve the quality of child care in a number of
ways, such as by hiring more inspectors for child care
facilities and training child care workers so that they are
better prepared to work with young children.
6) Ensure a Fair and Healthy Start for every child
o
Good child care is essential if children are to have a
strong foundation for later learning.
However, to
thrive and learn, children also need a number of other basic
supports, including decent health care and strong families
with adequate incomes.
Basic health care for every child and mother -- including
prenatal and maternity care, checkups, immunizations, and
care for sick and disabled children -- cannot wait. The
president and Congress must act in 1992 to guarantee a
Healthy Start for every child.
We should join with other industrialized nations in
ensuring every American family a minimum level of economic
security by enacting a refundable tax credit this year
that will leave no family behind.
5
STATE INVESTMENTS IN CHILD CARE AND EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
INTRODUCTION
High quality child care and early childhood development
services are essential for children and families.
They help
ensure that children are safe while their parents work, enabling
parents to support their families without having to sacrifice
their children's development.
All good duality programs --
whether they are called child care, early childhood development,
or early childhood education programs -- also provide the
nurturing and stimulation children need to develop fully, to
enter school ready to learn, and to grow into trusting and
responsible adults.
Comprehensive, good quality early childhood
programs are particularly important for low-income children, to
help them overcome the disadvantages of poverty and to give them
a strong start in school.
Investments in the care and development of young children
yield concrete results.
For example, studies show that every
dollar invested in high quality preschool education services
saves $4.75 that otherwise would be spent on future costs of
special education, crime, and welfare.
These findings, among
others, prompted President Bush and the nation's governors in
1990 to agree in their National Education Goals that by the year
2000, "all disadvantaged and disabled children will have access
to high quality and developmentally appropriate preschool
programs that help prepare children for school."
6
Despite the nation's rhetorical commitment to early childhood
development and school readiness, a CDF 50-state survey reveals
that current state investments in this area are woefully
inadequate.
Unless investments are increased significantly, the
country will not be able to turn the rhetoric of school readiness
into real gains for children.
This survey examined all state
expenditures on child care and early childhood development, and
found striking disparities between states and a pattern of
inadequate investment in virtually every state.
FINDINGS
Too many states invest far too little in child care and early
childhood development services.
In FY 1990, half of all states spent less than $25
per child on the care and education of young children, and onethird spent less than $17 per child (Attachment A).1/
In
nine of these states (Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Virginia), state
expenditures on child care and early childhood development
totaled less than $10 per child.
A number of states invested considerably more to promote the
safety and development of their children.
Yet even among the
highest ranking third of all states, only five (Alaska,
Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont) spent more
7
:4
State Discretionary Expenditures
on Child Care and Early Childhood
Education Services (1990)
HAWAII
Top third of states
(more than $38 per child)
Source: Children's Defense Fund, 1992
i
Middle third of states
($17 to $38 per child)
,Z Bottom third of states
k
(less than $17 per child)
than $70 per child.
The next six highest states (California,
Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Washington) only
spent between $45 and $55 per child.
The low priority states are giving their children is
illustrated vividly by comparing state investments child care and
early childhood development with their expenditures in other
major areas of state responsibility.
In 1990, for example, 11
states speAt at least 24 times more on corrections and prisons
than they did on the care and development of young children.
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Indiana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, and Tennessee all spent 24 to 30 times more on
corrections than on child care.
Not surprisingly, the contrasts
were even more shocking in states with the lowest per child
expenditures for child care and preschool programs.
Montana
spent 52 times more on corrections than on early childhood
development services, Virginia 74 times, Nevada 106 times, and
Idaho 779 times more.2/
Similarly skewed priorities can be found when comparing
state expenditures on child care and early childhood development
services with their expenditures on higher education.
In 1990, 11
states (Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana,
Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Virginia, and Wyoming) spent
more than 100 times more on higher education than on the care and
education of children before they enter school.3/
While determining the precise amount of investment needed in
every state is impossible, it is clear that it is not only the
states with the lowest expenditures that fell short of meeting
the need for services.
Even states with the highest levels
of investment (relative to other states) failed to provide enough
high quality child care and early childhood development services
to meet the needs of their children and families:
o
While Massachusetts ranked first in FY 1990 in per child
expenditures for child care and early childhood development,
it had long waiting lists of eligible families not able to
obtain services because of inadequate state funding. Since
1990 the state has cut its expenditures significantly due to
As a result, growing numbers of eligible
fiscal problems.
families and children have been turned away.
o
Although Connecticut ranked fourth in per child expenditures
in FY 1990, virtually all of its counties served less than half
Half of the counties served fewer than
of those eligible.
one out of every three eligible families.
o
New York, which ranked fifth in FY 1990, is estimated to
have served only about 14 percent of the low-income families
that were eligible for assistance that year.
o
Even though California ranked sixth in per child
expenditures in FY 1990, the state estimated that only 10 to
20 percent of the eligible children were served.
o
Illinois ranked eleventh in per child expenditures on child
care assistance and early childhood development. Yet a
recent study by the Institute of Applied Research found that
child care problems still prevented two of every five
single mothers on welfare in the state from working or going
to school.4/
A few states significantly increased their investments in
child care and early childhood development last year, progress
that is not reflected in these FY 1990 data on state
expenditures.
Most, however, have not made major new commitments
in this area since these data were collected because of the
9
severe budgetary situations they are facing.
In fact, the
current fiscal crises in the states threaten their investments in
child care and early childhood development services, as well as
in other key human service areas.
For example, while Texas
ranked thirteenth in per capita expenditures for child care and
early childhood development in 1990, legislators came very close
to eliminating the state-funded preschool program in the last
legislative session.
Without this preschool program, Texas would
have probably fallen to the lowest third in state per child
expenditures.
Levels of state investment in child care and early childhood
education services vary enormously, even within those regions -the South, West, and Midwest -- with the lowest per child
investments overall.
Nationally, state expenditures on child care and early
childhood development services ranged widely -- from $0.24 per
child in Idaho to $152.04 in Massachusetts.
Even the middle-
ranking states, Nebraska and New Hampshire, spent 100 times as
much as Idaho, the lowest ranking state.
This variation is also clear within each region of the
country.
While the South, Midwest, and West lag significantly
behind the Northeast in their overall investments in child care
and early development, there are states in each of these regions
that rank in the top third in per child expenditures on these
services.
10
L)
For example, many southern states had very low levels of
investment in child care and early childhood development in 1990.
Half of the states in the bottom third (eight out of 16) were
in the South -- Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia.
The majority of
these states spent less than $12.50 per child.
Yet some southern states were willing to invest more
substantial amounts in the development of their children in 1990,
and others are working to increase their investment.
Florida,
for example, ranked ninth in the nation in per child expenditures,
and spent four to five times as much per child as several of its
southern neighbors.
Other southern states, in particular Texas,
Oklahoma, and South Carolina, were ranked in the top 20 states.
Even West Virginia, which has only made modest investments and is
one of the poorest states in the country, spent more than three
times as much per child as neighboring Virginia.
Two southern
states also made significant new investments in early childhood
since 1990.
Arkansas and Kentucky, both of which were in the
lowest third of all states in 1990, recently enacted new state
preschool education programs that will increase their
expenditures significantly above 1990 levels.
Similar variations among neighboring states are found in the
West and Midwest.
The five states with the lowest levels of
commitment to the care and development of young children in 1990
are located close together in the Midwest and West.
These states
-- Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, and South Dakota -- each
11
spent less than $5 per child on these essential services.
Yet
the nearby states of Nebraska, Colorado, and Utah each spent four
to five times as much per child to help their children get a
strong start in life.
Even neighboring Wyoming, which ranks in
the bottom third of all states and spends only about $13 per
child, spends at least three times as much per child as the five
lowest states.
Other states in the Midwest that fell in the bottom third
(less than $17 per child) include Indiana, which spent only about
$9 per child, and Missouri, which spent only $16 per child.
In
contrast, Illinois, which borders on both these states, was
ranked eleventh of all states and spent $46 per child.
Some of the disparities among state per child expenditures
may reflect differences across states or regions, including
variations in the cost of child care and preschool services, in
the proportion of mothers in the labor force, and in the
proportion of families with children that need help in paying for
child care and early childhood development services.
For
example, lower child care costs in some states might justify
slightly lower levels of investment in child care and early
childhood development.
Yet the huge magnitude of the disparities
between states defies any explanation based on these variations.
Instead, the gaps simply reflect clear policy choices by the
states -- choices that ignore the pressing needs of millions of
families and jeopardize the health, development, and well-being
of their children.
12
New federal resources for child care appropriated after FY
1990 represent a move in the right direction, but are nowhere
near sufficient to meet the need.
New federal child care funding became available to states in
September 1991 as a result of major child care legislation
enacted by Congress in 1990.
The Child Care and Development
Block Grant provided $732 million last year (FY 1991) in grants to
states to improve both the affordability and quality of child
care.
A second program of child care grants to states under
Title IVA of the Social Security Act (known as the At-Risk
Child Care program) offers $300 million nationally to states to
subsidize child care for'families who are "at-risk" of going on
welfare, but only if a state provides matching funds.5/
In
addition, Congress appropriated modest increases in the federal
Head Start program in FY 1991 and FY 1992.
While these new federal investments are an important first
step, they will only begin to address the enormous inadequacies
in state and federal funding for child care and early childhood
development services.
o
For example:
Vermont, which ranked third in state expenditures in 1990,
estimates that it will only be able to serve about 35
percent of eligible families even with the new federal
funds. Also, because of inadequate resources, reimbursement
rates paid to child care providers will equal less than
three-quarters of the cost of care, which means that parents
receiving assistance will not be able to afford good quality
care.
o
Minnesota, which ranked in the top 20 of all states in per
child expenditures in 1990, currently has 1,.00 families on
waiting lists for child care assistance in the MinneapolisSt. Paul metropolitan area -- despite the new federal funds.
13
r)
o
The new federal funds have not allowed Wisconsin, which
ranked fifteenth in 1990, to serve all the eligible families.
For example, in Dane County, where Madison is located, there
were 372 children on waiting lists for child care assistance
in early 1992 (compared with the 660 being served). Because of
these long waiting lists, the county made virtually no
effort to advertise the availability of the new federal
funds, as they were used up immediately.
Given the wide disparities in state expenditure levels,
new federal funds are likely to produce only modest reductions in
the gaps between states, and are unlikely to result in any major
shifts in the relative ranking of states.
Inadequate state investment in child care and early childhood
development prevents parents from working and leaves children
further behind.
The consequences of inadequate state investments in child
care and early childhood development for low-income children and
families are deeply troubling.
In particular, they reduce the
likelihood that children and families will receive the essential
support they need to thrive and be self-sufficient.
For example,
lack of child care assistance means that low-income parents find
it much more difficult to work and support their children.
A
recent study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that one out
of every four young mothers (ages 21 to 29) who were not in the
labor force -- a total of 1.1 million women -- did not work
because of child care problems.
This proportion is even higher
for poor young mothers, one-third of whom were not working because
of difficulties with child care.6/
14
Despite the clear link between child care and selfsufficiency, four states -- Idaho, South Dakota, North Dakota, and
Montana -- had no general state-funded child care assistance
program in 19Y) to help low-income parents who were trying to
work but could not afford child care.7/
Consequently, the only
poor families who were even eligible for child care assistance in
these states were those whose children were at risk of abuse or
neglect, or who were on welfare and therefore eligible for help
under the federally mandated child care program for welfare
recipients.
(The only exception is North Dakota, which provided
a small amount of child care assistance to a limited number of
teen parents.)
Equally alarming are the effects that inadequate investments
have on children's lives and future development.
Many low- and
moderate-income parents are unable to afford good quality care
without some kind of assistance.
For example, the Census Bureau
found that low-income parents who pay for care spend an average
of about one-quarter of their income on child care.8/
Yet even
this remarkable effort does not provide enough money to purchase
decent quality -- 25 percent of the annual earnings of a
single mother working full time at the minimum wage is roughly
$2,200, while good quality child care can easily cost $4,000 a
year or more.9/
The recent finding of the National Research
Council (NRC) that the quality of care that many children receive
is inadequate is hardly surprising.
"Of greatest concern," the
NRC concluded, "is the large number of children who are presently
15
\
cared for in settings that do not protect their health and
safety.
Poor quality care... threatens children's development,
especially children from poor and minority families."10/
Poor quality care has a clear impact on children's lives and
their development.
For example, the National Child Care Staffing
Study (NCCSS) found that children attending poorer quality child
care programs are less competent in language and social
development.
The NCCSS also found that children in poor quality
programs were much more likely to spend large portions of their
time in aimless wandering, and were less likely to have a secure
relationship with their teachers.11/
When these problems are
combined with the increasing stresses on families and
neighborhoods due to poverty, crime, and other problems, it is
not surprising that a 1991 survey of 7,000 kindergarten teachers
found that more than one of every three children in kindergarten
(35 percent) were not ready for school.
Even more alarming is
that 42 percent of the respondents felt as though the situation
was worse than it had been five years ago.12/
16
RECOMMENDATIONS
Ensuring that every child is ready to enter school by the
year 2000 is a goal widely shared by the Administration,
Congress, state policy makers, and the business community.
However, the broad support for this goal means absolutely nothing
for children, especially our poorest youngsters, without the
dollars necessary to turn the massive amount of rhetoric around
school readiness into real opportunities for low-income children.
The inequities and inadequacies in state funding levels for child
care and early childhood development services as documented in
this report show that unless an immediate and major new
investment in child care and early childhood development is made,
millions of children will enter the schoolhouse door without the
essential help they need to take advantage of their elementary
school education.
More importantly, they will be denied the
support that they need to become self-sufficient and contributing
adults.
A critical first step at the federal level is to guarantee
that by 1995 every eligible low-income child can participate in
Head Start.
The Administration has only proposed a $600 million
increase in Head Start.
Moreover, the Administration's proposal
would serve more children by eliminating almost $100 million used
by programs to train Head Start teachers, improve their wages,
and hire additional staff to provide special help to parents and
children.
Congress should not accept these broken promises and
17
should instead create a guaranteed funding stream for Head Start.
This expanded investment also should:
o
Offer local programs additional resources to meet the
increasingly complex needs of low-income children and
families.
o
Ensure that Head Start funds are available for a full-day,
full-year program. As Head Start parents strive to move off
dependence on welfare, it is critical that Head Start not be
limited to a part-day, part-year schedule that discourages
parents from seeking employment and becoming selfsufficient.
o
Provide additional resources to serve infants and toddlers.
The dearth of good quality programs for our youngest
children makes it especially important to provide more
flexibility to Head Start programs so that they can reach
children as early as possible with the comprehensive
services that are the hallmark of Head Start.
The most effective way to achieve these goals is to pass
S. 911, the School Readiness Act, immediately.
This bill would
increase Head Start funding by $1 billion a year -- achieving
full funding by 1997 -- and also would strengthen the program.
However, in order not to deny thousands of three- and fouryear-olds a Head Start, CDF urges Congress to speed up the
timetable in S. 911 and increase Head Start by $2.1 billion
this year in order to serve all children by 1995.
Yet even if Congress and the Administration fully fund Head
Start immediately, many children and families will remain in need
of good quality child care and early childhood development
services.
Low-income working families, earning just above the
federal poverty line, are currently ineligible for Head Start,
yet unable to afford the good care their children need.
In too
many communities, extreme shortages of good quality care for
18
infants, toddlers, and school-age children force parents to
juggle care by siblings, relatives, neighbors, and -- in the case
of school-age children -- "latch-key" arrangements that leave
children home alone and vulnerable.
To meet these needs and more, the Administration and Congress
also must fulfill their 1990 promises to families and children by
appropriating an additional $100 million for the Child Care and
Development Block Grant (CCDBG) thy: 'joar, bringing it up to the
promised authorization level of $925 million, and by dramatically
increasing federal investments in the Block Grant in succeeding
years.
Despite its rhetoric on the importance of good quality
child care and early childhood development, the Administration
has proposed to limit states' abilities to improve the quality of
child care used by the poorest families.
Pending federal
regulations for the two new child care programs, the Child Care
and Development Block Grant and the At-Risk Child Care program,
would tie states' hands by prohibiting them from setting even the
most basic health and safety protections for a large number of
children receiving child care assistance.
be changed.
These regulations must
Children will not be ready to enter school if states
are prohibited by the federal government from taking steps to
ensure that they are in decent and safe child care settings.
In addition to these essential activities, the
Administration and Congress must provide the full $50 million to
fund the Grants for Licensing and Monitoring program.
19
This
program is linked closely,to the school readiness goal.
It
offers states funds to improve the quality of child care in a
number of ways, such as by hiring more inspectors for child care
facilities and training child care workers so that they are
better prepared to work with young children.
The federal government cannot succeed alone.
Stronger state
leadership and expanded state investments are needed to ensure
that children in every state have access to the care and
developmental services they need to grow well and strong.
are now in the midst of their legislative sessions.
States
Now is the
time to increase substantially state investments in child care
and early childhood development programs to ensure that children
have access to the high quality services that they need to be
ready to enter school.
child care dollar.
States should not be cutting a single
Congress and the Administration made it clear
in the new federal child care legislation that the new federal
dollars were not to be used to replace existing state investments
in child care.
Good child care and early childhood development programs are
important.
However, to thrive and learn, children also must be
healthy and live in strong families with adequate incomes.
Congress already has voted to extend Medicaid health coverage to
every poor child by 2002.
But basic health care for every child
and mother -- 4ncluding prenatal and maternity care, checkups,
immunf.zations, and care for sick and disabled children -- cannot
20
ry;A it
The president and Congress must act in 1992 to guarantee a
wait.
Healthy Start for every child.
We also should join other industrialized nations in ensuring
every American family a minimum level of economic security by
enacting a refundable tax credit that leaves no family or child
behind.
The president and Congress must act in 1992 to provide a
Fair Start for every child.
If states and the nation are to fulfill the pledge that
every child will enter school ready to learn by the year 2000,
there is no alternative but to make a major investment
immediately in good quality child care and early childhood
development services.
Our continued failure to attend to the
well-being and development of young children is not only a tragic
waste of their potential, but also a gamble with our nation's
economic future.
21
Endnotes
1/ This includes both state funds and federal funds that can but
are not mandated to be used for these purposes -- see Attachment
C for details on what was included, and Attachment D for
information about the CDF state child care research project.
2/ Data on state expenditures for corrections and higher
education are from: U.S. Department of Commerce, State Government
Finance, 1990, Government Finances GF-90-3: Washington, D.C.,
August 1991.
3/ Ibid.
4/ Gary L. Siegel and L. Anthony Loman, Child Care and AFDC
Recipients in Illinois: Patterns, Problems, and Needs, Institute
for Applied Research: St. Louis, Missouri, September 1991.
5/ As of October 1, 1991, the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services reported that 13 states had not drawn down any of their
States are,
federal "At-Risk" Child Care funds in FY 1991.
however, allowed to use these FY 1991 funds in FY 1992.
6/ Peter Cattan, "Child Care Problems: An Obstacle to Work,"
Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 114, Number 10, Bureau of
Labor Statistics: Washington, D.C., October 1991.
7/ These states now have some child care assistance available to
these kinds of families because of the new federal programs (the
Child Care and Development Block Grant and the program for "AtRisk" Child Care), which gave them federal funds to set up such
programs.
8/ Bureau of the Census, Who's Minding the Kids?, Current
Population Reports, Series P-70, #9: Washington, D.C., May 1987.
9/ The General Accounting Office found that the average cost of
good quality full-time early childhood education programs in 1988
was $4,200 per year per child, with additional in-kind costs of
roughly $600 per child. This means that many programs charge
more than this amount. U.S. General Accounting Office,
Early Childhood Education: What are the Costs of High-Quality
Programs?, GAO/HRD-90-43BR: Washington, D.C, January 1990.
10/ National Research Council, Who Cares for America's Children?
Child Care Policy for the 1990's, National Academy Press:
Washington, D.C., 1990.
11/ Child Care Employee Project, Who Cares? Child Care Teachers
and the Ouality of Care in America: Oakland, California, 1989.
12/ Ernest L. Boyer, Ready to Learn: A Mandate for the Nation,
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: Princeton,
New Jersey, 1991.
22
ATTACHMENT A
Total Expenditures on Direct Child Care and Early Childhood Services
by State in Fiscal Year 1990
Direct Service
Expenditures a/
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
$9,198,370
$13,228,330
$22,030,600
$5,926,775
$343,275,242
$20,172,248
$46,671,518
$5,196,618
$110,800,000
$22,081,126
$8,230,531
$57,730
$107,535,403
$10,574,690
$10,265,988
$9,789,030
$8,002,080
$9,201,163
$9,287,835
$38,626,868
$162,954,345
$45,474,011
$35,139,000
$5,773,012
$16,668,035
$526,553
$8,904,618
$1,087,228
$5,389,382
$66,266,785
$6,847,037
$236,401,916
$34,010,163
$574,433
$42,383,938
$24,856,115
$10,859,833
$93,466,369
$9,272,979
$26,529,109
$780,131
$15,205,808
$159,516,520
$11,374,103
$9,279,194
$7,516,680
$50,261,333
$6,603,350
$42,243,206
$1,388,839
National
Total:
$1,987,622,170
Total Number of
Children (<14)b/
818,740
141,988
784,274
481,829
6,227,286
690,739
594,417
130,697
2,269,515
1,358,849
224,141
243,644
2,330,704
1,138,164
568,255
530,369
739,020
971,557
242,589
931,522
1,071,782
1,934,687
938,241
579,837
1,041,235
175,696
341,247
239,733
223,722
1,413,961
355,674
3,353,698
1,251,716
139,574
2,201,401
658,270
574,603
2,195,796
178,911
718,345
158,358
945,473
3,833,861
503,759
113,879
1,190,563
1,012,733
335,132
1,024,237
107,097
Dollars
per child
$11.23
$93.17
$28.09
$12.30
$55.12
$29.20
$78.52
$39.76
$48.82
$16.25
$36.72
$0.24
$46.14
$9.29
$18.07
$18.46
$10.83
$9.47
$38.29
$41.47
$152.04
$23.50
$37.45
$9.96
$16.01
$3.00
$26.09
$4.54
$24.09
$46.87
$19.25
$70.49
$27.17
$4.12
$19.25
$37.76
$18.90
$42.57
$51.83
$36.93
$4.93
$16.08
$41.61
$22.58
$81.48
$6.31
$49.63
$19.70
$41.24
$12.97
(including District of Columbia)
Rank
40
2
23
39
6
22
4
16
9
35
21
50
11
44
34
33
A
43
17
14
1
27
19
42
37
49
25
47
26
10
31
5
24
48
30
18
32
12
7
20
46
36
13
28
3
45
8
29
15
38
Source: Children's Defense Fund, 1992. Totals do not include federal
Head Start funds or state programs focused exclusively on early
education for children with disabilities. The new Child Care
and Development Block Grant and "At-Risk" Child Care funds
passed in November 1990 are not included because these funds
were not available in any state until FY 1991 or FY 1992.
a/ Direct service expenditures included funds used to purchase
Funds spent on such things as
services for children directly.
salary initiatives, provider recruitment or training, or improvement
of licensing policies were not included.
b/ U.S. Decennial Census, 1990.
A.. i.-.)
ATTACHMENT B
Total Expenditures on Direct Child Care and Early Childhood Services
by State Programs in Fiscal Year 1990
Direct Service
Name of the Program
Expenditures
Alabama
Title XX
JOBS and TCC
Alaska
Child Care Program
State Supplements to Head Start
TCC
Arizona
DES Day Care Subsidy
Family Investment Initiative
Arkansas
Social Services Block Grant
State Child Care Funds
Project Success
California
General Child Care
Campus Child Care
State Migrant Child Care
Exceptional Needs Child Care
Latch-key Program
Family Day Care Systems
Severely Handicapped Day Care
School-Aged Parent Program
Alternative Payment
Federal Migrant
State Preschool
Protective Services
GAIN and TCC
Colorado
Income Status (Title XX)
Language Enrichment for 4-Year Olds
JOBS, AFDC-Working and TCC
Connecticut
Purchase of Service
Grants to Child Care Centers
Grants to School-Aged Child Care
State Supplements to Head Start
JOBS and TCC
Teen Parents
Delaware
Subsidized Child Care
District of Columbia
Subsidized Child Care
Prekindergarten
State Supplements to Head Start
$8,822,663 a/
$375,707
$9,198,370
$9,255,330
$3,964,800
$8,200
$13,228,330
$22,000,600
$30,000
$22,030,600
$3,445,789
$440,888
$2,040,098
$5,926,775
$200,797,672
$11,083,799
$7,660,000
$445,877
$15,455,566
$7,263,721
$774,000
$7,263,000 b/
$29,591,744 c/
$2,140,000
$36,674,516
$1,069,000
$23,056,347
$343,275,242
$11,395,429
$5,700,000 a/
$3,076,819
$20,172,248
$20,368,677
$19,074,895 d/
$296,216
$590,000
$6,166,730 e/
$175,000
$46,671,518
$5,196,618
$22,930,000
$13,286,000
$3,700,000
$39,916,000
Florida
Title XX
Early Intervention
Project Independence and TCC
Georgia
State Subsidized Program/PEACH
Hawaii
Social Services Child Care
A+ Program
State Supplements to Head Start
TCC
Open Doors -- Tuition Assistance
Idaho
Protective Services
TCC
Illinois
Employment Related Day Care
Families with a Future
Pre-K for At-Risk Children
Protective Services
State Supplements to Head Start
JOBS and TCC
Indiana
Social Services Block Grant
School Aged Child Care
TCC
Iowa
State Child Care Assistance
At-Risk Child Development
Protective Services
TCC
Teen Parents
Kansas
Social Services Block Grant
JOBS and TCC
Kentucky
Purchase of Service
Refugee Child Care
TCC
Louisiana
Vendor Day Care Program
High Risk Four-Year-Olds
TCC
Maine
Voucher Program
Title XX Child Care
Early Childhood Demonstration
State Supplements to Head Start
TCC
$54,200,000
$51,000,000 f/
$5,600,000
$110,800,000
$22,081,126
$1,689,417
$5,500,000 g/
$290,754 a/
$360
$750,000
$8,230,531
$38,663
$19,067
$57,730
$50,801,900
$831,700
$45,000,000
$5,712,100
$896,000
$4,293,703
$107,535,403
$10,010,281
$564,409
dk
$10,574,690
$4,574,029
$1,175,700
$3,026,022
$716,737
$773,500 b/
$10,265,988
$6,463,808
$3,325,222
$9,789,030
$7,977,727
$16,449 d/
$7,904
$8,002,080
$5,694,081
$3,501,500
$5,582
$9,201,163
$1,052,000
$5,645,066
$150,000 f/
$2,440,769
dk
$9,287,835
Maryland
Non-AFDC Child Care
Extended Elementary Education
Project Independence and TCC
Foster Care
$19,922,441
$6,660,900 f/
$11,325,527
$718,000
$38,626,868
Massachusetts
Voucher Day Care
Contracted Child Care
Chapter 1-88
State Supplements to Head Start
Independent Child Care
$57,159,000
$90,700,000
$7,495,345
$6,000,000
$1,600,000
$162,954,345
Michigan
Social Services Block Grant
State Preschool
MOST Program and TCC
$14,470,000
$21,500,000
.9,504,011
$45,474,011
Minnesota
Basic Sliding Fee Program
State Supplements to Head Start
AFDC Child Care Program
Migrant Child Care
$14,692,000
$5,500,000
$14,300,000
$647,000
$35,139,000
Mississippi
Social Services Block Grant
TCC
$5,728,360
$44,652
$5,773,012
Missouri
Purchase of Day Care
Protective Services
TCC
$13,413,533
$3,138,594
$115,908
.,16,668,035
Montana
Protective Services
TCC
$514,321
$12,232
$526,553
Nebraska
Title XX
Job Support Program and TCC
$5,255,821
$3,648,797
$8,904,618
Nevada
Title XX
JOBS and TCC
AFDC Working -- Additional Benefits
New Hampshire
Employment Related Child Care
Protective Services
State Supplements to Head Start
$209,357 d/
$747,878
$129,993
$1,087,228
$4,364,698
$791,684 a/
$233,000
$5,389,382
New Jersey
Socia= Services Block Grant
Head Start-Like
Urban Pre-K Pilot Program
Protective Services
REACH
SACC
State Equalization Aid - Four Year Olds
32
$34,609,000
$1,184,000
$2,500,000 f/
$9,387,000
$10,225,610
$500,000
$7,861,175
$66,266,785
New Mexico
Income Eligible Child Care
Protective Services
Project Forward
New York
Title XX
Low-Income Child Care
Prekindergarten Program
State Supplements to Head Start
TCC
CUNY Child Care Subsidy
Migrants
SUNY Child Care Subsidy
SUNY Community Colleges Child Care
North Carolina
Subsidized Child Care
Developmental Day Care
TCC
North Dakota
Crossroads Project
Prime Time Child Care
JOBS and TCC
Ohio
Title XX
Public School Preschool
State Supplements to Head Start
JOBS and TCC
Oklahoma
Day Care Services
4-Year Old Program
Respite Child Care
Oregon
Employment Related Child Care
Transitional Child Care
Migrant Child Care
Oregon Prekindergarten
Protective Services
Pennsylvania
Social Services Block Grant
Migrant Child Care
New Directions (JOBS) Child Care
Rhode Island
Subsidized Child Care
Allocation for Prekindergarten
State Supplements to Head Start
South Carolina
Social Services Block Grant
At-Risk Prekindergarten
JOBS and TCC
Protective Services
$3,391,458
$1,328,934
$2,126,645
$6,847,037
$138,237,376 h/
$46,279,656 h/
$41,671,000 a/
$1,800,000
$10,284
$2,225,000
$4,000,000
$1,533,600
$645.000
$236,401,916
$29,483,742
$4,500,105
$26,316
$34,010,163
$50,000 i/
$175,000 i/
$349,433
$574,433
$25,999,768 a/
$5,500,000
$5,500,000
$5.384,170
$42,383,938
$23,914,340
$835,275
$106,500
$24,856,115
$6,326,197
$366,036 a/
$799,882
$2,850,000 f/
$517,718
$10,859,833
$75,836,369
$630,000
$17,000,000 a/
$93,466,369
$7,158,055
$266,000
$1,848,924
$9,272,979
$11,270,568 j/
$15,005,678
$132,863
$220.000
$26,529,109
South Dakota
Child Protection
Child Care Program and TCC
$26,780
$753,351
$780,131
Tennessee
Social Services Block Grant
TCC
$14,763,233
$442,575
$15,205,808
Texas
Title XX
Prekindergarten
TCC
Child Care for Teen Parents
$40,203,305
$114,774,440
$1,238,775
$3,300,000 a/
5:159,516,520
Utah
Child Care Program
JOBS and Transitional Child Care
$6,192,000
$5,182,103
$11,374,103
Vermont
Subsidized Child Care
Early Education Initiative
TCC
$8,027,000
$1,250,000
$2,194
$9,279,194
Virginia
Child Day Care Fee System
TCC
$7,431,996
$84,684
$7,516,680
Washington
Employment Child Care
Child Protective Services
Therapeutic Child Care
Teen Parents
Seasonal Child Care
Family Independence Program
Early Childhood Education & Assistance Program
State Supplements to Head Start
TCC
First Steps
Div. of Alcohol & Sub. Abuse
West Virginia
Title XX
Prekindergarten
JOBS and TCC
Wisconsin
Community Aid Child Care
Teen Parents
4-Year-Old Kindergarten
State Supplements to Head Start
Consolidated AFDC & TRC Child Care
Drug & Alcohol Treatment Child Care
Family Support Child Care
Wyoming
Day Care
TCC
National Total:
$9,128,453
$4,080,511
$3,385,416
$736,697
$3,448,929
$14,787,625 k/
$13,000,000
$538,265
$2,937
$152,500 a/
$1,000,000
$50,261,333
$4,500,000 a/
$892,278
$1,211,072
$6,603,350
$11,634,802
$79,200
$14,000,000 a/
$2,000,000
$14,057,309
$193,895
$278,000
$42,243,206
$1,375,862
$12,977
$1,388,839
$1,987,622,170
Source: Children's Defense Fund, 1992. The listed program names
reflect state-specific terminology to denote various child care
Totals do not include federal Head Start funds or state
programs.
programs focused exclusively on the early education for children with
Direct service expenditures included funds used to
disabilities.
directly purchase services for children. Funds spent on such things
as salary initiatives, provider recruitment or training, or
improvement of licensing policies were not included.
Notes
a/ Estimate.
b/ Includes unknown amount spent on other supportive services for
families, such as parental education or employment counseling.
c/ Includes Alternative Payment and Alternative Payment Latch-key
program.
d/ Includes local administrative costs.
e/ Doesn't include funds spent on AFDC working families.
f/ In addition to this amount, there were additional in-kind
contributions for this program.
g/ This is the amount allotted for the program implemented in
February 1990.
h/ This figure is for the federal fiscal year.
Local
administrative costs of up to 10 percent (determined by each
county) are included in this amount.
i/ Includes an unknown amount for the training of child care
providers.
j/ Federal fiscal year.
k/ This was a pilot program during this year.
ATTACHMENT C
METHODOLOGY
In the past year, CDF has surveyed all state child care and
early childhood education agencies to examine the policies and
expenditures of all programs that provided child care and early
childhood development services in state Fiscal Year 1990.
This
report provides information on the expenditures for these
services.
Subsequent reports (see Attachment D) will provide
information on the policies of the programs included here.
Only those programs where states had discretion over the
level of total funding and policies were included.
Consequently,
for example, programs such as Head Start (which is federally
funded) were not included, while the child care assistance
provided to families on welfare (where states have to match
federal funds) was included.
The only state or state/federal
programs that were not included in the study were state preschool
programs that were limited to children with disabilities and
preschool efforts that operated for three or fewer days per week.
Information on Chapter 1 funded preschools was also not included,
because states do not collect these data.
CDF mailed survey forms to each state agency that
administered funds for child care or early childhood development
services.
These surveys included questions on expenditures,
eligibility categories, reimbursement rates, quality of care, and
other essential issues.
This information was collected from
every program in each state, and great effort was made to ensure
that no programs were missing.
With considerable effort, CDF was
able to achieve a 100 percent response rate, with more than 180
surveys conducted.
Survey data were collected, where possible, through phone
interviews, which allowed us to improve the accuracy of our data.
These data were put into computer data bases as the information
was received.
Finally, after the data were analyzed, printouts
of state expenditure levels were mailed to each respondent to
verify.
Consequently, these data reflect the best assessment of
expenditures by staff in the state child care and early childhood
education agencies.
For more information, contact Gina Adams or Jodi Sandfort at
the Children's Defense Fund, (202) 628-8787.
0
t.
ATTACHMENT D
THE CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND'S STATE CHILD CARE RESEARCH PROJECT
In 1989 the Children's Defense Fund initiated an intensive
research project designed to collect information about a broad
range of state-funded child care and early childhood development
policies and programs.
The first phase in this project focused
on state policies that affect the quality of child care, and
resulted in a report titled Who Knows How Safe?
The, Status of
State Efforts to. Ensure Ouality Cnild Care, released in 1990.
It
provided state-by-state information on state policies and
programs that improve the quality of child care and early
childhood education programs, including state licensing policies
as well as state policies to provide training, improve provider
salaries, and educate parents about quality,
The second phase in this project examines state efforts to
provide child care assistance and early childhood development
services.
To measure state commitment to such services, CDF
collected information on the expenditures, policies,and practices
of all state programs that provided such assistance to families
in state fiscal year 1990.
CDF examined all state (or combined
state and federal) programs that:
o
Help low-income families purchase child care,
o
Provide preschool education services to children, or
o
Provide child care assistance to particular groups of
families and children (such as migrant or refugee families,
teen parents, families whose children are at risk of abuse
and neglect, and other families who are of special
interest).
This report is the first product from this second phase of
CDF's research effort.
It focuses on the total amount of
expenditures in each state for these services.
Other reports
from this phase will provide much more detailed information about
specific state policies in a range of state programs.
For
example, the second report (to released in late March, 1992)
examines early lessons learned from state implementation of the
federal Title IVA welfare reform child care assistance programs.
The third report, to be released later in 1992, will examine
state efforts to help low-income parents become self-sufficient
by providing child care assistance.
focus on
The subsequent report will
tate preschool and early childhood education programs.
The final report from this phase of the project will examine
state child care programs for families that have particular needs
for child care assistance, such as migrants or refugee families
and teen parents.
For more information, contact Gina Adams or Jodi Sandfort at
the Children's Defense Fund, (202) 628-8787.
0
L)0
.