I recently attended a national public policy symposium in Washington, D.C., where Carmen Nazario spoke. Ms. Nazario is the assistant secretary for Children and Families of the Department of Health and Human Services.  Her comments were wide-ranging, talking about the administration’s budget proposals (expanding child care to 300,000 more children), the First Lady’s efforts to decrease the incidence of childhood obesity, and the Early Learning Challenge Fund.  But the biggest “ah ha” moments for much of the audience of early childhood advocates was the discussion of health care reform.

Large numbers of staff in child care centers, and self-employed family child care providers, do not have health insurance through their employers.  These low-wage workers often cannot afford insurance for themselves and their families, and do without.  Due to pre-existing conditions, they may be unable to even buy health care in the individual market.  Ms. Nazario believes that child care workers may be among the biggest beneficiaries of health care reform.

This week may be “do or die” for health care reform that would make care accessible to those who provide care and education to our youngest children.  For their sake and the sake of all the families in America who depend upon them, let’s hope health care becomes available at a price they can afford.

Yesterday an article appeared in the Wall Street Journal describing how governments all over the world are subsidizing child care in order to bring more women into the workforce, and even to boost sluggish fertility rates. Government investments in child care in Japan and France, for instance, are seen as the means to raise women’s employment rates and income, resulting in a huge increase in consumer spending.

I titled this blog “déjà vu” because I have heard this case over and over during the 30 years I have advocated for investments in quality child care. In the last 10 years or so, all the child care focus has been on the importance of the early years in laying the foundation for school success and lifelong learning. But prior to that, child care was in the public eye primarily as a tool to enable parents to work to support their families.

I don’t think U.S. policy makers are concerned with low fertility rates, as they are in Japan and France, but they are concerned with the economy. The article states, “Japanese economists calculate that raising women's employment rate from the current 67.5% would boost consumer spending enough to create an additional $70 billion in wealth.”

The Wall Street Journal article concludes that many in America want the government to stay out of child care, leaving the full responsibility to parents. They ask readers to weigh in with their opinions on the issue. It will be no surprise to my readers that I believe that government investment in quality child care pays double dividends – first, as an essential tool for economic development and, second, to close the achievement gap by having all children ready to succeed.

I am delighted to hear the renewed conversation about the link between the economy and child care. 

Two nights ago I spent more than three hours at a public hearing for the City of Cincinnati’s 2010 budget.  The Council has an impossible task on its hands – cut $51 million from an already tight budget.  Well over 100 citizens spoke about a wide variety of City services.  The folks dressed in green to support recycling and environmental issues were the most visible.  The parents with their children with special needs advocating to retain therapeutic recreation programs were the most moving.

I was there to support human services:  homeless shelters, services for victims of domestic violence, food for those who cannot afford food this holiday season or any season, and of course child care so that working parents can get and keep jobs.

What struck me on Tuesday was how respectful the members of Council were.  They sat through testimony which was, at turns, boring, thoughtful, repetitive, moving, rude and respectful right back.  While our current Council is extremely divided (four of the nine members are declining to participate in the negotiations) at least most of the members seemed to believe in the value of hearing from citizens. 

I wish them the best in getting to a balanced budget with the least harm to the City.  I also wish that they will fund human services at a time that people are most in need.

New research from the Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development at Seattle Children's Research Institute has found that preschoolers in home-based child care businesses watch 2.4 hours of television a day, compared to .4 hours per day at a child care center.  These numbers may be significantly higher, according to the lead researcher, Dr. Dimitri Christakis, as it is a self-report, and providers may tend to underreport.

Children go home in the evenings to busy households where they are likely to watch two to three additional hours of television, thus five or more hours a day for a child who is awake only 12 hours a day.  The providers in the study were from among the 45 states that license home-based child care, unlike Ohio where no regulation is required until a provider cares for seven or more children.  I suspect that the situation is worse in homes where there is no oversight and no training.

The American Academy of Pediatrics discourages any television viewing, including videos or educational television, in the first two years of life and recommends a daily limit of one to two hours of quality programming for older children.

Child care should be an opportunity to enjoy imaginative play, develop social skills and participate in activities that develop cognitive abilities.  Our community has long rejected simple custodial care since we learned that the majority of brain development takes place during the first years of life.

Christakis, the study’s lead researcher, said, "High quality preschool can make a very, very positive difference. We're so far from meeting that, that we really have a lot of work to do. Any time a TV is on, children speak less and adults interact with them less frequently.”

Public policy issues abound in this research: the need for parent education about choosing quality child care, the need for states like Ohio to regulate all child care businesses, and the importance of ongoing education for child care professionals.  As Christakis said, “we really have a lot of work to do.”

For 41 years the City of Cincinnati has licensed child care centers. The City adopted regulations long before the State of Ohio began its oversight function, and City leaders regularly renewed their commitment to higher standards – particularly when it came to class size. 

Effective October 31, 2009, the City regulations are off the books, and inspections have ended.  The reason is, like so much in this time of economic strain, the City cannot afford to subsidize this protection for children.  A second concern is that state law does not “give permission” to localities to create child care regulations. This has been the case for the full 41 years, but with this legal opinion, combined with budget constraints, the regulations were doomed. 

4C has convened a group of child care providers and advocates to determine if the child protections are salvageable.  Our first step will be to get language in the state law that permits cities to have regulations which exceed the state’s.  Such language currently exists for nursing homes, and we hope to mirror that language.  If we succeed in this first step , we will then propose a plan in which fees cover all expenses.  I’ll keep blogging on this issue, so stay tuned.

A number of highly dedicated early childhood professionals are hard at work designing Ohio’s new Center for Early Childhood Development.  This far-reaching endeavor is designed to create a single administrative structure with the authority and responsibility to implement and coordinate state funded or administered early childhood programs and services for children prenatally until entry into kindergarten. See the Build Ohio website for more information. www.build-ohio.org

This planning is based on Governor Ted Strickland vision stated in his 2009 State of the State Address: “To better serve our youngest learners and help them thrive in school and in life, we will unite all of our early childhood development programs and resources into the Department of Education. This comprehensive early childhood system will focus on the whole child and provide quality early learning and care while improving our efficiency and effectiveness.”

It sounds ideal – and even more important now that the state is struggling with drastic reductions in funding to important efforts like early childhood.  But the devil is in the details.  Early Childhood leaders enter this effort with distrust all around.  This distrust is borne out of years of the different departments (Ohio Department of Job and Family Services and the Ohio Department of Education, in particular) establishing programs and services which they truly believe are in the very best interest of children.  To this end Ohio has two sets of licensing procedures and standards, two entirely different professional development standards and infrastructures, two different approaches to higher education. 

The two departments start from entirely different places.  ODE is focused on education regardless of a family’s work status or income. And the underlying purpose of ODJFS to ensure quality settings for children whose parents work in low-wage jobs. On the personal level (for don’t most things come down to the personal level), there is a long history of personnel from one department showing disrespect and misunderstanding toward the others’ systems and goals.

The plan is to join staff from education, health, mental health, family support, special needs and early intervention under one roof, and one leadership – and to create a great team on a playing field which, prior to this consolidation, was (is) littered with silos.  I’m rooting for a winner, where children and families can be better served with fewer resources, and I hope that Ohio can create a model for other states.  However, there is a long way to go, and it is going to take respect and compromise that has yet to surface.

I think, however, that it can be done.  I’m rooting for the team – and for the children.

A few weeks ago I wrote about the value of Cincinnati’s child care licensing law – and a proposal to preserve only a few of the provisions.  I testified before the Board of Health and followed up with letters to the Commissioner, the Chairman and two City elected officials. Last night the Board of Health met again and eliminated the entire ordinance without a word about alternative plans. The ordinance is officially dead and gone after 41 years of protecting children.`

HOWEVER, I am pushing hard for a task force to consider our proposal to have child-to-staff ratios and square footage re-introduced.  Among some former supporters of the City law there is some ambivalence because of the tough economic situation and because there are some flaws in the law as it was.  However, those same (former) supporters have expressed a desire to restore the best of the law.  While I haven’t heard back from anyone at the Health Department, I approached their public information officer last evening at the meeting and learned that Commissioner Noble Maseru has referred the issue to their attorney.  We know from past experience that the attorney will warn against licensing, but we have had it for more than 40 years with no law suits or even threats, so I’m not buying that as a barrier. As you can see, there is still fight in me for this – particularly for the infant ratios!   

Loss of the City standards adds an extra burden on our community’s voluntary efforts to increase school readiness. I hope you will join 4C in the effort to restore some of the standards.  If you know anyone at the Board of Health or the Mayor, you might make a call!

Last night I had the opportunity to testify before the Cincinnati Board of Health about the City’s Child Care Licensing Ordinance. The City has regulated child care centers since 1968 and is now proposing to eliminate this protection for children. You might be surprised to know that I support this proposal…up to a point.  

Much of the City’s regulation duplicates the State of Ohio’s regulation, and in this era of severe budget cuts, it is hard to justify any duplication at all. Yet, there are three provisions very much worth retaining in order to protect children, align with community goals of school readiness and distinguish Cincinnati by having us closer to national quality goals. Those standards are:

1.      Room size – The City requires that for each infant there are 50 square feet to allow for cribs, high chairs, rockers and floor space for children to crawl and walk. The state only requires 35 square feet.

2.      Adult-to-Child Ratio – The City requires one adult for four infants while the state permits two adults to care for 12 infants (1:4 vs. 1:6).

3.      Group Size – Since the City’s adult-to-child ratios are lower, the total number of children permitted in a classroom is also lower. 

The City license is expensive for the 105 programs that are currently licensed ($8 per child per year), so any effort to save them money would be important as well. A coalition of child care center operators and supporters propose that the City eliminate the current ordinance and replace it with a much streamlined approach, to include only room size, ratio and group size. This plan has the benefits of:

·         Continuing the basic standards for young children in care.

·         Eliminating a staff position at the Health Department by transferring room size verification to the Building Department and allowing a desk review of staffing plans.

·         Saving the high cost of licensing for City businesses by significantly reducing the licensing fee.

Proposal for Major Savings and Modification of Cincinnati.doc (29.00 kb)

Early childhood education programs are closing at an alarming rate. In the 23-county region served by 4C, there has been a loss of more than 3,000 spaces in child care centers since January. I could view this very theoretically—and it would make sense: Supply and demand. Unemployment is up, the need for child care is down.

But there is more than meets the eye. Working parents are finding lower cost, informal options—friends or relatives who themselves are out of work. Many parents have reduced hours or reduced pay, and full-time child care no longer meets their needs.

Ohio and Kentucky have invested millions of dollars to improve early childhood education because of the enormous benefits of high-quality early learning. The loss of these programs represents a set-back for school readiness. Informal child care providers do not have access to training, are not held to safety standards and often provide little continuity of care, with children bouncing from one caregiver to another.

I hope we—child and family advocates, policy-makers, funders and families—will work hard to preserve the gains in quality during these tough economic times so that when the economy improves, the foundation will still be in place to build a world-class early childhood education system for all children.