Public Policy Information This article originally appeared in the June 2002 issue of Welcome Home. Article Copyright 2002 Heidi Brennan and Cathy Myers. Reproduction or dissemination of this work -- or any part of it -- is expressly forbidden without the written consent of the author.

Beyond the Child Care Debate

by Heidi Brennan and Cathy Myers

Editor’s Note: The following article was written for the Spring 2002 issue of Family Support magazine by our executive director, Cathy Myers, and the co-chair of our Board of Directors, Heidi Brennan. It appeared in the “On the Other Hand” column, in which two different points of view on a topic are presented. The companion article, “The High Cost of Childcare Puts Quality Care Out of Reach” was written by Karen Schulman, research associate at the Children’s Defense Fund (the article is posted on the CDF website, search on the author’s name). Family Support is published by the nonprofit organization Family Support America, which has defined and promoted family support principles in all settings in which children and families are present. They connect individuals and organizations who have contact with families-- Family and Home Network has recently become a member. Cathy has attended several of their symposiums and conferences over the past few years, meeting many interesting and dedicated parent leaders and professionals from across the United States.

It is time for some changes in the discussion about child care. For thirty years, social and economic changes have rocked U.S. families. Along with a growing advocacy effort to expand government supported child care and early education, there has been substantial growth in research about the needs of children and the effects of daycare, much of it hotly debated. The majority of parents, drawing conclusions based on their own experiences and observations of their children’s needs, prefer parental care and/or part-time paid care over full-time child care.

It is time to understand the statistics that are used to “prove” a need for expanded full-time child care. For several decades, the most widely misused statistic in this debate has been the Department of Labor measurement of the number of “mothers in the workforce.” While mothers’ participation in the workforce has increased since the early 1960s, it is by no means a clear measure of the number of children needing full-time child care. The DOL simply divides mothers into two categories-- those who earn no income, and those who earn any income. By the DOL’s definition, countless “working” mothers have little or no need for child care. “Mothers in the workforce” includes mothers with home-based employment, mothers who work part-time while their husbands or other family members provide child care, mothers who earn income by providing family daycare (and care for their own children at the same time), mothers who work different shifts from their husbands (tag-team parents) and those women whose husbands are at-home parents.

It is time to eliminate the bias that funds paid child care but does not provide equivalent support for other options. Currently, federal and state money provide subsidies for child care for low-income families, but there is almost no support for families caring for their own children. A notable exception is the state of Minnesota, which in 1999 instituted the At-Home Infant Care Program, offering certain low-income parents of infants a choice between returning to work and using a state childcare subsidy or staying home and receiving a monthly stipend for a period of twelve months.

For families of all income levels who pay for child care, there is support via the federal dependent care tax credit. Families who don’t pay for child care are ineligible for this tax credit. Therefore, a family earning more than $100,000 can have a portion of their child care expenses subsidized, while families who care for their own children-- many of whom have incomes of half that or less--receive no credit for the costs incurred in caring for their children. This income tax provision unfairly favors families who use paid child care.

It is time to listen to the messages of concern from some of our nation’s leading physicians. Pediatrician T. Berry Brazelton, M.D., and child psychiatrist Stanley I. Greenspan, M.D., spoke up about their worries regarding the care children are receiving in their recent book, The Irreducible Needs of Children (Perseus Books, 2000). “We do not recommend full-time daycare, 30 or more hours of care by non-parents, for infants and toddlers if the parents are able to provide high-quality care themselves and if the parents have reasonable options.” The doctors note that fewer than 10% of infants and toddlers have access to high-quality daycare. They make recommendations for sweeping changes that could improve daycare, but also caution: “....we believe that in the first two years of life full-time daycare is a difficult context in which to provide the ongoing, nurturing care by one or a few caregivers that the child requires.” And, they add, “…studies of the quality of available daycare are not optimistic. We may be trying to rationalize a system that simply isn’t providing the essentials of what children need. It may therefore be best to reconsider our assumptions. The best way these assumptions can be reconsidered is by each and every family having good and accurate information. With this awareness we believe most will make a wise and enlightened choice.”

It is time to re-think how we can best support low-income families. We must not assume that the only answer to helping low-income families is full-time child care. Government policies could support a combination of parental time with children and part-time child care. Tax incentives for businesses providing part-time work might be an effective strategy. Parents at all income levels must have accurate information about their children’s needs. They must also have opportunities, through formal programs and informal parent-to-parent mentoring opportunities, to increase their parenting knowledge and skills. Public information campaigns such as those about smoking and drunk driving could help provide parents-- and prospective parents--with crucial information.

It is time to take a critical look at proposals to spend vast sums of money to institute public education for preschoolers. The Head Start program already provides quality preschool education for some children from low-income families. Expanding this program to make it available to all who qualify makes more sense than spending the vast sums needed to provide public education for all four-year-olds. It is also important to recognize that the benefit of part-time preschool programs for many children does not mean that it is necessary or even desirable for all. Currently, families choose from a great variety of preschool programs, and some families prefer to forgo preschool altogether, providing family-centered enrichment activities instead. Furthermore, lengthening the school day for four-year-olds may actually reduce the benefits of an educational preschool program.

It is time to recognize the value of unpaid work in our families and communities. Unpaid caregiving provides an enormous, unacknowledged contribution to society. Parents who find ways to forgo or cut back on paid employment to have time for their families often reach out to their communities too. Volunteering in schools, places of worship, scout and sports programs, they build the foundation of the “village” we know we need.

It is time to listen to what parents want. Parents believe that their children need generous amounts of their time. The June 2000 survey on child care conducted by Public Agenda polled both parents and child advocates regarding which care they thought was best during a child’s earliest years. 70% of parents, and 71% of child advocates, believed that the best care is an at-home parent. Only 6% of parents and 13% of child advocates believed that a quality daycare center is best.

A poll conducted in June 2000 by the nonprofit organization Public Agenda showed that 96% of parents with children ages three and under indicated they were satisfied with their current child care arrangement (83% “very satisfied,” 13% “somewhat satisfied).”

It is time to transform the debate about how to help families. Just as there are many different kinds of families, there are many different ways of providing care for our children. We must improve the availability and quality of child care for those parents struggling to provide basic needs for their families. At the same time, we must work to expand choices for moderate and low-income families. Advocates for children are obligated to recognize that those who choose options other than paid child care deserve respect and support. Many of these families struggle financially in order to spend more time with their children. We must develop flexible public policies that encourage and support parents’ initiative and ingenuity in caring for their children.

Return to Public Policy.