Rationale for Child Care Services: Programs vs. Politics

by Stevanne Auerbach (Editor), James A Rivaldo (Editor), Walter F. Mondale (Foreword by)

Overview

Rationale for Child Care Services presents a cogent introduction to the history, needs, and major concerns in childcare, and suggests the basic and essential components of a comprehensive program including planning, organizing and funding.
 
Foreword by Senator Walter M. Mondale, Vice President, Senator, and Ambassador to Japan. Contributors include Mary D. Keyserling, Therese W. Lansburgh, Dr. Dorothy Hewes, Jeanada Nolan, Gertrude Hoffman, Jule M Sugarman, William L. Pierce, Glen P. Nimnicht, Elizabeth Haas, and Dr. Stevanne Auerbach.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9781504033701
Publisher:	Open Road Distribution
Publication date:	06/28/2016
Series:	Child Care: A Comprehensive Guide , #1
Sold by:	Barnes & Noble
Format:	eBook
Pages:	215
File size:	317 KB

About the Author

Stevanne Auerbach, PhD, Teacher; Program Specialist at the U.S. Department of Education, approved the first grant for “Sesame Street,” evaluated “Title One Programs,” established first model childcare center, testified before Congressional Committee (1969); At the Office of Economic Opportunity, planned national childcare program, coordinated Childcare Forum at the White House Conference on Children (1970); Childcare Advocate; Author of 15 books on parenting, childcare, toys; Cross-Cultural Study Childcare Services (1974), Choosing Childcare (1976), Child Care: Comprehensive Guide (1975–1979), Confronting Childcare Crisis (1979); Consults, evaluates, reviews toys and products for www.drtoy.com.
 

Read an Excerpt

Rationale for Child Care Services

Program vs. Politics

---

By Stevanne Auerbach

Openroad Integrated Media

Copyright © 2011 Stevanne Auerbach
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-5040-3370-1

---

CHAPTER 1

THE MAGNITUDE OF DAY CARE NEED

Mary Dublin Keyserling

The challenge of day care needs is vital to us all. Our children are our future, and deserve the very best we can provide for their growth and development. Yet millions of our children today are denied the chance to realize their potentials because they lack the developmental opportunities that should be their birthright.

Two groups of children need developmental day care urgently. The first group is children of employed mothers who cannot arrange for satisfactory care for them at home. The second group is those whose families are economically deprived, whose mothers are not now working and who lack the kind of preschool developmental opportunities on a part-day basis which would give them an equal start with more privileged children.

One of the most dramatic social changes in recent decades has been the rapid increase in the employment of women. Thirty-six and one-half million women are in the labor force today. While the number of all working women has increased nearly three-fold since 1940, the number of working mothers has increased nearly nine-fold, and now exceeds thirteen million. More than half of all mothers with children aged six to seventeen are job holders. More than one third of all mothers with children under the age of six, totalling nearly five million women, are workers, and have taken jobs for compelling economic reasons. They are faced with the difficult problem of obtaining adequate care for their children while they are away from home. There are now more than six million children under the age of six whose mothers are in the labor force.

A survey made in the mid-1960's by the Women's Bureau (U.S. Department of Labor) and the Children's Bureau (HEW) clearly revealed that a large proportion of the children of working mothers are inadequately cared for while their mothers are at work. (All available evidence indicates that the situation has not improved since then, and may, in fact, have actually worsened.) Of the children under six covered by the survey, nearly half were cared for in their own homes. Home care may often be very good; in many cases, however, in the mother's absence, it is very poor.

Windows on Day Care

In 1971–72, I directed a study for the National Council of Jewish Women of day care needs and services in 77 cities. In the course of this project, which was published under the title "Windows on Day Care," hundreds of able women volunteers visited a large number of nonprofit and proprietary day care centers and family day care homes. They interviewed many mothers and talked with the many people in their communities most knowledgeable about day care. Interviews with working mothers underscored how difficult it was for many of them to arrange adequate home care for their children when they were on the job. Fewer than 4 percent of mothers have an adult female relative in the home who can assume care responsibility.

In a large percentage of the homes of working mothers, fathers work at night and expect to sleep during the day while trying to look after their children. In how many homes do fathers say to their children, "Wake me up when you're hungry"? Is this the developmental care a small child needs? In many families, Council survey participants found that siblings were kept home from school to take responsibility for children only a little younger than themselves. Few mothers who depend on maids or babysitters can afford to pay enough to obtain well-trained household helpers; few can afford "in-home" help at all. Therefore it is not surprising that so many mothers said they were unhappy with child care arrangements in their own homes.

According to the Women's Bureau/Children's Bureau survey, nearly one-third of the preschool children of working mothers were cared for in homes other than their own. Day care homes of relatives and neighbors, providing care for as many as two million children, are the largest single purveyor of day care for children outside their own homes. The great majority of these day care homes only provide custodial care. Only about five percent are licensed and hence subject to inspection. At their best, they are warm and loving; at their worst, they do serious harm.

Participants in the "Windows on Day Care" project visited a sizable number of day care homes. They reported that only six percent of those observed provided what was regarded as "superior" care. Twenty-nine percent were considered "good." Half were custodial in nature, providing little or no educational or other services beyond the meeting of physical needs. An additional fourteen percent were regarded as outright "poor"; all too many of these were shocking in the extreme. For example, an observer visited a day care home licensed for no more than six children. In this home there were 47 children cared for by one day care mother. Eight infants were tied to cribs; toddlers were tied to chairs; and three, four and five years olds coped as best they could.

Another observer reported:

This interviewer can still recall vividly one particular home where she counted eleven children — five infants and six other small children from about one to four years old running and screaming in the four room house. The strong urine smell, the stale odor of uneaten food everywhere, and the bugs crawling around made one nauseous. There was one very obese, sullen, unpleasant woman in charge.

Very little funding is available today for the badly needed training of day care mothers. Here is a report of an interview with still another day care mother who was not an isolated example: "We don't have toys," she said. She had had paper for coloring but "it got tore up." She said she "counted on the Lord to help her teach the right way with the help of a switch." Three year olds!

According to the Women's Bureau/Children's Bureau study study of the arrangements working mothers make for their children's care, fifteen percent of all children under six went with their mothers to their places of work. Experience in the early years has profound and irreversible effects. A large part of intelligence and behavior patterns is developed then. Will a child playing on the floor of a back room of a dry cleaning establishment have much opportunity to realize his or her potential?

There are two additional groups of children of working mothers to be accounted for. First and saddest of all are the "latchkey" kids, left on their own with no one to care for them. We don't know how many they are, but considerable numbers were reported in the cities included in the "Windows on Day Care" survey.

Here is a story, more telling than official statistics, which was included in the report of a Council survey participant:

Peter, age three, gets his own lunch every day. He has to. No one else is home ... He eats what he can reach and what his still uncoordinated hands can concoct if he can get the refrigerator or cabinet doors open. Some day it might be poison. Peter is anything but alone in his plight. The City Welfare Department estimates that 700 children less than six years of age are left alone each day, in our city alone, without any formal supervision when their mothers have to work.

There should not have to be any little children in America left alone to fend for themselves.

Finally, there are the children cared for in centers, both nonprofit and proprietary. The Women's Bureau/Children's Bureau study found that only six percent of the preschool children of working mothers were cared for in these centers. The proportion of children in group care has risen since that study was made in 1965, but not very markedly.

Monitors for "Windows on Day Care" found that the great majority of the children cared for in the centers observed had working mothers. Proprietary centers primarily served middle- and higher-income families. The nonprofit centers largely enrolled children from very low income families, although some of them did accept a small proportion from middle-income families which were charged fees scaled to income.

Children from one-parent homes headed by working mothers were a small minority in most proprietary centers. The proprietary centers visited were generally too expensive for fatherless families. The nonprofit centers gave children from these families top priority. In two-thirds of the nonprofit centers visited by project participants, children from one-parent homes were a sizable majority. About three-fourths of the day care centers observed were largely segregated institutions, serving only white or predominantly white families, or only black or predominantly black families.

FACTS ABOUT PROPRIETARY CENTERS

The average fee charged was about $18.50 a week per child. Survey participants felt that this was all that the great majority of families served could afford, yet they recognized that fees at this average level do not and cannot possibly buy developmental care including essential educational, nutritional, health and social services.

Because the average fee charged was less than half what quality care actually costs, parents got what they paid for. In more than half the proprietary centers the size of classes exceeded generally accepted standards, and the adult-child ratios were far too low.

Salaries paid center directors and other professional staff were, on the whole, very much lower than those paid elementary school personnel. The great majority received less than $4,000 a year, with many paid subminimum wage rates. Because salaries were so low, the majority of the staff had little or no training in early childhood education or development.

On the basis of the wide range of information collected, the proprietary centers visited were rated as providing "superior," "good," "fair" or "poor" care. Only one percent of the proprietary centers visited were considered "superior"; 14 percent were regarded as "good." An additional 36 percent were reported to be largely custodial, providing "fair" care in the sense of meeting basic physical needs, but with little, if any, developmental services. About half were considered to be rendering poor care; in some cases this was found to be actually injurious.

How poor can "poor" care be? A survey participant reported that at the time of her visit to a center there were two children, aged 10 and 12, in sole charge. Said the visitor:

This center should be closed. Absolutely filthy. Toilets not flushed, and smelly. Broken equipment and doors. Broken windows on lower level near back stairs and doors. Broken chairs and tables. No indoor play equipment. One paper towel used to wipe the faces and hands of all children. Kitchen very, very dirty.

Another excerpt:

Very poor, basement, dark room. All ages together. Rigid control and discipline. Rundown equipment. Babies are kept next door in double-decker cardboard cribs in a small room with a gas heater ... a sad case of inhumane dehumanizing of kids by an owner who makes plenty of money.

NONPROFIT DAY CARE CENTERS

One the whole, the nonprofit centers presented a more encouraging picture. About 15 percent of the non-profit centers visited were Head Start projects; about the same percentage were other programs wholly financed by public funds. About one quarter of all nonprofit centers visited were jointly financed by public and private funds, and another one quarter were centers run by philanthropic agencies. A few were hospital based. The remainder were largely church operated, generally run on a fee-for-service basis. On the whole, of all centers seen, the best of the Head Start centers elicited the most praise on the part of Council Survey participants.

While Head Start provided service without cost to parents, a large majority of the other nonprofit programs observed charged a flat fee, averaging about $14.00 a week. A few scaled their fees from nominal amounts upward, according to the income of parents.

Qualifications of directors of the nonprofit centers visited were much higher than those who headed centers under proprietary auspices, although there was relatively little difference in the degree of training of other staff members. Salaries paid were also far better in nonprofit than proprietary centers, both for professional personnel and aides. Costs of services generally run considerably higher in the former than the latter. To illustrate: in Washington, D.C. some 25 publicly financed centers are now run by the National Child Day Care Association and care for about 1200 children on a full-day basis. Costs per child average about $45 a week, whereas average fees in proprietary centers in the District are about half that amount. Although the Association's centers provide care of excellent quality, a recent survey made by a private research organization at the request of the city welfare authorities found the services of a large majority of the privately run centers to be far below acceptable minimum standards.

Adult-child ratios met generally accepted standards in a much higher proportion of the nonprofit than proprietary centers observed, and nonprofit centers were considerably more likely to provide the full range of services necessary for developmental care.

For these and other reasons, the services of the non-profit centers observed were, on the whole, rated considerably higher than those of the proprietary centers visited.

Of all nonprofit centers seen, nearly ten percent were regarded by survey participants as "superior." Somewhat more than one quarter were considered "good," and about half were rated "fair," meaning that while they provided for basic physical needs they were essentially custodial. Somewhat more than ten percent were considered "poor."

The centers rated "superior" were heartwarming. They provided care as good as any to be found. Most of the "poor" centers seen should not be permitted to continue operating.

FUTURE NEEDS

Survey findings underscored the urgency of the need both to expand and greatly improve the quality of day care services for the children of working mothers. Many people have the impression that in the last few years the gap between need for care and its supply has been closing. Although supply has been rising, demand has been rising even faster.

In 1965, licensed day care homes and centers had the capacity to care for 25,000 children. By 1973, this enrollment capacity had risen to about 900,000 children. This gain, however, is not as encouraging as it looks. First, some of the increase in licensed capacity was more apparent than real. It simply reflected our growing efforts to license already existing homes and centers.

Secondly, during the eight years in which licensed enrollment capacity grew by 450,000, the number of children under the age of six of working mothers rose by nearly twice that number. We will have to run much faster just to stay in the same place.

Thirdly, most of the actual increase in enrollment was subsidized by public funding which came from Head Start, Title IV, WIN and Model City funds, among others. These programs made a vital contribution, but they have been largely restricted to the children of families in poverty. These are, of course, the children who should have the highest priority — but they represent a relatively small proportion of all children in need of care.

The number of working mothers who are not eligible for subsidized day care for their children but whose incomes are not sufficient to enable them to pay for good care is very large. About two thirds of all children whose mothers are in the labor force are in families with annual incomes between $5,000 and $15,000. Not many families in this income range can afford to pay for good full-day care which may cost from $2,000 to $3,000 or even more per child per year. The evidence indicates that, despite the recent increase in enrollment capacity, the day care crisis is intensifying.

Need is not only a matter of how many places there are, but also how adequate the places are, how accessible they are and how much they cost. Good infant care is extremely costly, much needed and almost nonexistent. Care at night and on weekends, when many mothers have to work, is almost impossible to come by.

The preschoolers of employed mothers are by no means the only little children who lack the developmental experiences good day care affords. A second group, no less in need, are those in economically and educationally disadvantaged poor or near-poor families in which the mothers are not employed. It is estimated that there are about two and one-half million of these children under the age of six, a large proportion of whom would benefit greatly from part-day programs providing educational, health, and other developmental opportunities. Head Start and similar programs, both publicly and philanthropically supported, reach only a very small proportion of these children.

In addition to children of working mothers, and children in economically disadvantaged homes in which the mother does not work, there are many others whose need for day care presents a compelling challenge. There are many handicapped children who can fare better outside their own homes, and children of mothers who are studying or in work training or whose volunteer services in the community make a vital contribution, and who would welcome good care for their children for part of the day. All children whose parents desire it for them need good day care at an affordable price.

(Continues...)

---

Excerpted from Rationale for Child Care Services by Stevanne Auerbach. Copyright © 2011 Stevanne Auerbach. Excerpted by permission of Openroad Integrated Media.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---

Table of Contents

Contents

General Preface STEVANNE AUERBACH,
Foreword SENATOR WALTER F. MONDALE,
Introduction,
Preface to Volume I,
Contributors to Volume I,
1. The Magnitude of Day Care Need MARY D. KEYSERLING,
2. Day Care: Issues, Trends, and Directions THERESE W. LANSBURGH,
3. Historical Precedents for Day Care DOROTHY HEWES,
4. A Brief History of Child Development in California JEANADA H. NOLAN,
5. The Day Care World of Children GERTRUDE L. HOFFMAN,
6. Getting Organized for Child Development Services JULE M. SUGARMAN,
7. Profiting from Day Care WILLIAM L. PIERCE,
8. How to Plan for a Comprehensive Day Care System GLEN P. NIMNICHT,
9. Getting Support for Children's Programs: Organizing Child Advocacy ELIZABETH HAAS,
10. What Parents Want from Day Care STEVANNE AUERBACH,
APPENDIX: 1970 White House Conference on Children Report of the Day Care Forum and Task Force on Delivery of Services,
Resources,
Bibliography,
Acknowledgments,