Items in cart [0]
| [ Top of Page ] [ Home ] [ Contact Us ] [ Help ] [ The National Academies Home ] | ||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Who Caresfor
America 's Children ?
Child Care Policyfor the 1990s
Cheryl D. Hayes, John L. Palmer, and
Martha I. ZasIow, Editors
Pane} on Child Care Policy
Committee on Child Development Research and
Public Policy
Commission on Behavioral and
Social Sciences and Education
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1990
OCR for page R2
National Academy Press · 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. · Washington, D.C. 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing
Board of the National Research Council, whose membem are drawn from the councils of
the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute
of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for
their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to
procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National
Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The work that provided the basis for this volume was supported by the Ford
Foundation, the Foundation for Child Development, and the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Who cares for America's children?: child care policy for the 1990s /
Cheryl D. Hayes, John L" Palmer, and Martha J. Zaslow, editors:
Panel on Child Care Policy, Committee on Child Development Research
and Public Polio, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education, National Research Council.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-309-0403~9
1. Child care United States. 2. Child care Government policy
-United States. 3. Child care services Government policy United
States. I. Hayes, Cheryl D. II. Palmer, John Logan. III. Zaslow,
Martha J. IV. National Research Council (U.S.~. Panel on Child
Care Policy.
HQ778.7.U6W53 1990
362.7-dc20
90-5813
CIP
Cover: A collage of drawings done by children from the Stoddert After School Program,
Washington, D.C., and the Clara Barton School-Aged Extended Day Center, Bethesda,
Maryland.
Copyright (if) 1990 by the National Academy of Sciences
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
PANEL ON CHILD CARE POLICY
JOHN Lo PALMER (Chair), The Maxwell School of Citizenship and
Public Affairs, Syracuse University
J. LAWRENCE ABER, Department of Psychology, Barnard College
ROBERT BECK, Bank of America, San Franc~sco, Calif.
BARBARA BOWMAN, Erikson Institute, Chicago, Ill.
ANDREW CHERLIN, Department of Sociology, Johns Hopkins
University
JUDITH F. DUNN, Department of Individual and Family Studies,
Pennsylvania State University
ROBERT LEVINE, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University
ELEANOR E. MACCOBY, Department of Psychology, Stanford
University
RUTH MASSINGA, Maryland Department of Human Resources
REBECCA ~ MAYNARD, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.,
Princeton, NJ
RICHARD NELSON, School of International and Public Affairs,
Columbia University
HARRIET PRESSER, Department of Sociology, University of Maryland
JUNE S. SALE, UCLA Child Care Services, Los Angeles, Calif.
ANNE R. SANFORD, Chapel Hill Gaining Outreach Project, Chapel
Hill, iN.C.
JACK P. SHONKOFF, Department of Pediatrics, University of
Massachusetts Medical School
EUGENE SMOLENSKY, Graduate School of Public Policy, University of
California, Berkeley
ALBERT J. SOLNIT (Er Offirio, Board on Mental Health and Behavioral
Medicine, Institute of Medicine), Child Study Center, Yale University
MARGARET B. SPENCER, Division of Educational Studies, Emory
Universitr
JOHN J. SWEENEY, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO
and CLC, Washington, D.C.
CHERYL D. HAYES, Study Director
BRIGID O'FARRELL, Senior Research Associate
MARTHA J. ZASLOW, Senior Research Associate/Consultant
PATRICIA N. MARKS, Research Associate
APRIL BRAYFIELD, Statistical Consultant
MICHELLE DANIELS, Administrative Secretary
. ·-
OCR for page R4
COMMITTEE ON CHILD DEVELOPMENT
RESEARCH AND PUBLIC POLICY
MARY JO BANE (Chair), J.F.K School of Government, Harvard
University
ROSS PARKE Mice Chair), Department of Psychology, University of
Illinois
ANN L. BROWN, Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois
ANTHONY BRYK, Department of Education, University of Chicago
DAVID L. CHAMBERS, School of Law, University of Michigan
ANDREW J. CHERLIN, Department of Sociology, Johns Hopkins
University
SHELDON DANZIGER, Institute of Public Policy Studies, University of
Michigan
GREG J. DUNCAN, Department of Economics, University of Delaware
FELTON J. EARLS, Department of Behavioral Sciences, School of Public
Health, Harvard University
GLEN H. ELDER, JR., Carolina Population Center, University of North
Carolina
RICHARD F. ELMORE, College of Education, Michigan State University
ROBERT W. FOGEL, Center for Population Economics, University of
Chicago
CYNTHIA T. GARCIA-COIL, Department of Pediatrics, Brown
University Program in Medicine, Women and Infants Hospital of
Rhode Island
NORMAN GARMEZY, Department of Psychology, University of
Minnesota
RICHARD JESSOR, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of
Colorado
JUDITH E. JONES, National Resource Center for Children in Poverty,
School of Public Health, Columbia University
RICHARD J. LIGHT, J.F.K School of Government, Harvard University
AMADO M. PADILLA, School of Education, Stanford University
JOHN L. PALMER, The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public
Affairs, Syracuse University
DIANA T. SLAUGHTER, School of Education and Social Policy,
Northwestern University
BARBARA STARFIELD, School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins
University
THOMAS S. WEISNER, Department of Anthropology, University of
California, Los Angeles
1V
OCR for page R5
Contents
PREFACE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I INTRODUCTION
1 Child Care in a Changing Society
2 Mends in Work Family, and Child Care
II CHILD CARE AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
3 The Effects of Child Care
4 Quality of Child Care: Perspectives of Research and
Professional Practice
5 Supporting Physical and Psychological Development in
Child Care Settings
III THE CURRENT SYSTEM
6 Child Care Services
7 Child Care Policies and Programs
8 The Child Care Market and Alternative Policies
IV FUTURE DIRECTIONS
9 Recommendations for Data Collection and Research
10 Conclusions and Recommendations for Policies
and Programs
APPENDIXES
A State Regulations for Family Day Care and Center Care
B Professional Standards for Early Childhood Programs
C Participants in Panel Workshops
INDEX
v
vi1
X1
3
16
45
84
108
147
194
227
269
288
315
324
340
349
OCR for page R6
Honorable Louis Sullivan
Secretary
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Secretary:
We are pleased to forward Ho CaresforA?nerka's Children.? the
report of the Panel on Child Care Policy. The report was prepared at the
request of and with support from the Department of Health and Human
Services, with additional support from the Ford Foundation and the
Foundation for Child Development.
This report is an important statement on child policy issues. It has
been prepared by a distinguished group of professionals with diverse
backgrounds in pediatrics, public policy, business, education, economics
psychology, and other social science fields.
The panel was impressed with research showing the importance of
close parental involvement with children in the first year of life. In its
fifth recommendation, in recognition of the need for dose and early
parent-child interaction and the shortage of quality infant care programs,
the panel recommends mandating the option of unpaid, job-protected
leave for employed parents of infants up to one year of age.
As the panel chair notes in his preface, "appropriate public and private
policies toward child care ultimately must reflect differing value
orientations as much as the weight of scientific evidence and analysis."
At least in the near term, there is unlikely to be a clear public consensus
on parental leave issues. We believe that further review will be necessary
to resolve the matter. We anticipate that such studies will recognize the
undoubted burdens that are convincingly documented here to families
and children of the current absence of such a provision. But they will
also need to consider in fuller detail the very real burdens to individual
firms, to the nature of hiring decisions, and to the economy at large that
uniform federal mandating of such leave would entail and how they
would be allocated. These are issues that should now be addressed with
a different array of specialists than those represented on the current
panel.
Very truly yours,
Robert McC. Adams, Chairman
Commission on Behavioral and
Social Sciences and Education
National Research Council
Frank Press
Chairman
National Research Council
OCR for page R7
Preface
One has had only to follow the news media in recent years, or to be the
parent of a young child, to know that child care has become an issue of great
concern in America. The social revolution that has transformed American
family life over the past several decades has had many repercussions, but
none more important than those that affect the care and rearing of our
children. As a consequence, a subject that as recently as a generation ago
was strictly regarded as a private family matter is today the focus of intense
public debate and, increasingly, of public policies.
While there is general agreement that the current U.S. system of child
care is inadequate and that child care policies should promote the healthy
development of children, there is little social consensus beyond this. How
important is parental care relative to nonparental care? What specific
kinds of care are needed by children of different ages and of various social,
economic, and cultural backgrounds? How available and affordable is such
care in out-of-home settings? What is the appropriate role of parents,
of governments, of employers, and of other institutions in ensuring that
children receive such care? These are but some of the important issues
that must be better understood, if the nation is to respond effectively to
what some have characterized as a crisis in child care.
The Panel on Child Care Policy was convened under the auspices
of the National Research Council's Committee on Child Development
Research and Public Policy to collect, integrate, and critically assess data
and research that bears on these issues. Our efforts were financed by
the Ford Foundation, the Foundation for Child Development, and the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. This diverse group of sponsors
sought a comprehensive review of knowledge concerning the costs, effects,
and feasibility of alternative child care policies and programs to assist
. .
V11
OCR for page R8
. . .
V111
PREFACE
federal, state, and local decision makers as well as decision makers in the
private sector- who, in the coming years, will set the course for government
and employer involvement in the provision, financing, and regulation of
child care services. This report contains the major findings of this review
and the panel's consequent recommendations for future data collection and
research and for directions for policy and program development.
The magnitude of our task was obviously large and the allotted time
to carry it out short. Fortunately, we were blessed in several respects. Our
sponsors' key staff, Betsy Ussery, Associate Commissioner of Head Start in
the Office of Human Development Services, Heidi Sigal of the Foundation
for Child Development, and Shelby Miller of the Ford Foundation, were
all that one could wish supportive and generous but nonintrusive. The
various members of the panel embodied a wide range of essential scholarly
and practical perspectives and, to the last, were exceedingly generous with
their time and goodwill.
The National Research Council provided us with very able staff as-
sistance. The leadership and contributions of Cheryl Hayes, the study
director, in particular, were invaluable at every stage of the process, from
the initial formulation of the study through to the drafting and redrafting
of the final report. In addition to her overall responsibility for managing
the study, Cheri worked with the working group on service delivery and
assumed primary responsibility for drafting chapters 1, 2, 6, 9, and 10 of
this report. The contributions of other members of the staff were also
significant to the outcome of the study. Martha J. Zaslow, senior research
associate/consultant, worked with members of the working group on the
policy implications of child care research to prepare a detailed scholarly
review of the child development research on child care and assumed pri-
mary responsibility for drafting chapters 3, 4, and 5 of this volume. Brigid
O'Farrell, senior research associate, worked with the members of the work-
ing group on the child care market and assumed primary responsibility for
drafting chapters 7 and 8. Pat N. Marks, research associate, worked with
the working group on standards, regulations, and enforcement and assumed
primary responsibility for the state data collection, as well as for prepara-
tion of all the tables and figures in the report. April Brayfield, consultant,
worked with Pat Marks to gather and analyze the state data. Michelle
Daniels, administrative secretary, managed all of the details associated
with the panel's meetings and prepared the manuscript for publication.
Eugenia Grohman, the CBASSE associate director for reports, edited the
manuscript and managed its formal review.
Finally, numerous individuals outside the panel and its immediate staff
also contributed in important ways to the success of the study. Several
scholars prepared background papers and analyses that were critical to
the panel's deliberations: Teresa Kohlenberg and Frederick Jarman of
OCR for page R9
PREFACE
1X
the University of Massachusetts Medical School, a detailed review of the
research on illness and injury in child care; Lorelei Brush, a paper on the
projected costs of expanding Head Start; Roberta Barnes of the Urban
Institute, simulation projections of the costs of proposed alternative child
care policies; Linda Waite and Arlene Leibowitz of the Rand Corporation,
a paper on the effects of child care on women's labor force participation
and fertility; Rachel Connelly of the University of Vermont, a paper on
the child care market; Sheila Kamerman and Alfred Kahn of the Columbia
University School of Social Work an overview of international comparisons
of child care policies. Drs. Kamerman and Kahn also organized and
cochaired the panel's workshop on cross-national perspectives on child
care policy. Many other social science scholars, health and early childhood
professionals, federal, state, and local policy officials, representatives of
community organizations, businesses, and labor unions from the United
States and abroad participated in the panel's five workshops and generously
contributed their knowledge, experience, and ideas (see Appendix C).
In addition, several individuals were invaluable sources of information
and comment that aided the panel and staff in preparing this report,
most especially Howard Hayghe at the Bureau of the Census, Lindsay
Chase-Landsdale at the George Washington University Medical School,
Deborah Phillips at the University of Virginia, Peggy Connerton of the
Service Employees International Union, Marcy Whitebook at the Child
Care Employee Project, Norton Grubb at the University of California at
Berkeley, and Douglas Besharov at the American Enterprise Institute.
As is the case with so many important issues currently facing our
country, appropriate public and private policies toward child care ulti-
mately must reflect differing value orientations as much as the weight of
scientific evidence and analysis. Nowhere was this more evident than in the
deliberations and conclusions of our panel. Nevertheless, panel members
were unanimous in their conviction that we are currently investing far too
little in the care of our children for the future health of our nation as a
whole. Scientific evidence and analysis are persuasive on this point, and
they illuminate fruitful avenues of remedy. We trust that this will be evident
to the readers of the pages that follow.
John L. Palmer, Chair
Panel on Child Care Policy
OCR for page R10
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating
society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research,
dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the
general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in
1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government
on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Frank Press is president of the National
Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the
charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of out-
standing engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection
of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility
for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also
sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages edu-
cation and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr.
Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy
of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions
in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The
Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences
by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon
its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr.
Samuel O. Thier is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of
Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology
with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal
government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the
Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in
providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering
communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the
Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Press and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman
and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
x
OCR for page R11
Executive Summary
In the United States over the past decade and a half, as in other
developed countries, mothers' entry and attachment to the labor force has
changed the allocation of child care and childrearing tasks. The majority of
children now have working mothers, and as a result, child care increasingly
includes market services provided in an array of out-of-home settings. Since
the mid-197Os, care outside the home by unrelated adults has become an
increasingly common experience for very young children and for older
children during the hours when they are not in school. Child care is no
longer simply a protective or remedial service for poor youngsters or those
from troubled families; it is an everyday experience for children from all
economic classes. What was until recently treated strictly as a private family
matter has become a topic of widespread public debate and public policy.
In light of these dramatic demographic and economic changes, in
1987 the National Research Council's Committee on Child Development
Research and Public Policy established under its auspices the Panel on
Child Care Policy to critically review and assess knowledge concerning the
costs, effects, and feasibility of alternative child care policies and programs
as a basis for recommending future directions for public- and private-
sector decision making. Over a 2-year period, with support from the
Administration for Children, Youth, and Families in the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, the Foundation for Child Development,
and the Ford Foundation, the panel has gathered, integrated, and reviewed
existing data and research on trends in work, family, and child care; the
implications of child care for child health and development; the delivery
and regulation of services; and the costs and effects of alternative child
care policies and programs.
In
OCR for page R12
. ~
X11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of its review and deliberations, the panel has reached
seven general findings and conclusions that underlie its recommendations:
1. Existing child care services in the United States are inadequate to
meet current and likely future needs of children, parents, and society as a
whole. For some families, child care services are simply unavailable; for
many others, care may be available, but it is unaffordable or fails to meet
basic standards of quality. The general accessibility of high-quality, afford-
able child care has immediate and long-term implications for the health
and well-being of children, parents, and society as a whole. Developmen-
tally appropriate care, provided in safe and healthy environments, has been
shown to enhance the well-being of young children. It enables parents who
need or want to work outside the home to do so, secure in the knowledge
that their children are being well provided for. It can contribute to the
economic status of families and enhance parents' own personal and career
development. And since today's children are tomorrow's adult citizens and
workers, their proper care and nurturance will pay enormous dividends to
society as a whole.
2. Of greatest concern is the large number of children who are
presently cared for in settings that do not protect their health and safety and
do not provide appropriate developmental stimulation. Poor-quality care,
more than any single type of program or arrangement, threatens children's
development, especially children from poor and minority families. Quality
varies within and across programs and arrangements provided under differ-
ent institutional auspices. High-quality and low-quality care can be found
among all types of services, whether they are provided in the child's home
or outside it, in schools, child care centers, or family day care homes, in
programs operated for profit or those operated not for profit.
3. Irrespective of family income, child care has become a necessity for
the majority of American families. Yet specific gaps in current programs
and arrangements mean that many children and families lack access to
services. Families with infants and toddlers, those with children with dis-
abilities, those with mildly or chronically ill children, those with school-age
children, and those in which parents work nontraditional schedules often
have particular difficulty arranging appropriate child care services.
4. Arranging quality child care can be difficult, stressful, and time-
consuming for all families. However, the problems are inevitably com-
pounded for low-income families who lack time, information, and economic
resources. For these families, the choices are often more limited, and the
consequences of inadequate care are likely to be more severe. Therefore,
in addressing specific child care needs, public policies should give priority
to those who are economically disadvantaged.
OCR for page R13
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
. . .
X111
5. The most striking characteristic of existing child care services is
their diversity. The current system is an amalgam of providers, programs,
and institutional auspices that have little interconnectedness and do not
share a sense of common purpose or direction. This diversity is at once a
source of strength and a challenge to the development of a more coherent
system that meets the needs of all children and all families. On the positive
side, the diversity means that parents seeking child care outside their homes
have a range of programs and arrangements from which to choose. On the
negative side, the diversity means that the costs, availability, and quality of
care vary substantially. Preserving parents' choices in the care and rearing
of their children is essential; however, it has to be balanced against the
need to plan and coordinate services in a way that ensures their quality and
accessibility to all families who need them.
6. There is no single policy or program that can address the child care
needs of all families and children. The nation will need a comprehensive
array of coordinated policies and programs responsive to the needs of
families in different social, economic, and cultural circumstances and to
children of different ages, stages of development, and with special needs.
7. Responsibility for meeting the nation's child care needs should be
widely shared among individuals, families, voluntary organizations, employ-
ers, communities, and government at all levels. Americans place a high
priority on individuals' values and on the rights of parents to raise their
children according to their own beliefs. Therefore, all child care policies
should affirm the role and responsibilities of families in childrearing. Gov-
ernments, community institutions, and employers should support rather
than detract from that role.
GOALS OF A CHILD CARE SYSTEM
The panel has identified three overarching policy goals that should
guide the future development of the child care system in the United States:
achieve quality in out-of-home child care services and arrange-
ments;
improve accessibility to quality child care services for families in
different social, economic, and cultural circumstances; and
enhance the affordability of child care services for low- and moder-
ate-income families.
Achieving all three of these goals is critical to the development of
an improved child care system in which all children and families have
access to affordable programs and arrangements that meet fundamental
standards of quality and parents have increased choice in combining child
care and employment. In the absence of fiscal constraints, these goals are
OCR for page R14
if
EXE;CUTI~E SUMMARY
not mutually exclusive, nor do they necessarily reflect competing priorities;
In the current environment, however, pursuing them simultaneously will
inevitably involve some difficult tradeoffs.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHILD CARE
POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
On the basis of its review of the scientific evidence and the panel's best
assessment of the costs, effects, and feasibility of selected alternative policy
and programmatic actions, the panel recommends five immediate steps to
improve the child care system in the United States. The first three will
require substantially augmenting current government allocations for child
care by $5 to $10 billion annually. The other two can be implemented
at much more modest cost, much of which could be borne by the private
sector.
1. The federal government, in partnership with the states,
should expand subsidies to support low-income families'
use of quality child care programs and arrangements.
For many parents in or near poverty, problems with child care can be
a barrier to becoming and staying employed. Therefore, child care must be
a central component of any policy to help poor families achieve economic
self-sufficiency through employment. Several specific funding mechanisms
are available to channel support for low-income child care, including: (1)
changing the dependent care tax credit to meet the needs of low-income
families; (2) expanding the earned income tax credit or converting the
personal tax exemption for children to a refundable credit; (3) providing
additional support for the purchase of services through grant programs such
as the Social SeIvices Block Grant program; and (4) allocating additional
support for child care and early childhood education provided by the public
school systems.
The panel is neutral as to the specific funding mechanisms for chan-
neling general support for low-income child care. Each of the policy alter-
natives presents tradeoffs among the three goals of quality, accessibility,
and affordability. While scientific evidence and policy analysis can highlight
these tradeoffs, choosing among the goals, and therefore among the policy
instruments, is the role of the political process.
2. In partnership with the states, the federal government
should expand Head Start and other compensatory pre-
school programs for income-eligible 3- and 4-year-olds
who are at risk of early school failure.
OCR for page R15
EXE;CUTIVE SUMMARY
XV
Over two decades of experience with the federally funded Head Start
program and major evaluation studies provide convincing evidence of the ef-
fectiveness of high~uality comprehensive early childhood education. These
programs provide economically disadvantaged and at-risk preschool chil-
dren an early educational experience that improves their chances of later
academic success. Accordingly, the panel concludes that the Head Start
program should be expanded to serve all income-eligible 3- and 4-year-olds
in need of comprehensive child development services. In addition, Head
Start programs should be integrated with community child care programs to
provide extended-day care for children whose parents are employed. They
should also be coordinated with other public and private school and child
care programs serving children in low-income families and children with
disabilities in this age group to ensure that appropriate services are acces-
sible to all children and families who need them. For low-income children
who do not require intensive comprehensive child care programs that com-
bine health, education, and social services, publicly provided compensatory
education programs should be expanded.
3. Governments at all levels, along with employers and
other private-sector groups, should make investments to
strengthen the infrastructure of the child care system.
The panel urges several specific steps to strengthen the infrastructure
of the child care system:
a. expand resource and referral services;
b. improve caregiver training and wages;
c. expand vendor-voucher programs;
d. encourage the organization of family day care systems;
and
e. improve planning and coordination.
Improving the accessibility of quality child care to low- and moderate-
income families will depend in part on developing a child care system that
meets the needs of all children and families. Improving the capacity of
the system to match consumers and providers, to offer information and
referral to parents, to provide training and technical assistance to family
day care providers, and to support effective planning and coordination of
policies, programs, and resources at all levels would enhance the quality
and accessibility of services to all families.
4. The federal government should initiate a process to de-
velop national standards for child care.
An extensive and growing body of scientific research and best pro-
fessional practice has established the importance of child care quality for
OCR for page R16
XVI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
child development. Based on existing knowledge, it is possible to specify
reasonable ranges for standards to govern many important features of child
care, including stafI/child ratios, group size, caregiver qualifications, and
the configuration of physical space.
Staff/Child Ratios Research shows that the staff/child ratio is most
critical for infants and young toddlers (O to 24 months). For those youngest
children, the ratio should not exceed 1:4. For 2year-olds, acceptable ranges
are 1:3 to 1:6; for 3-year-olds, 1:5 to 1:10; and for 4- and 5-year-olds, 1:7
to 1:10.
Group Size Children benefit from social interactions with peers; how-
ever, larger groups are generally associated with less positive interactions
and developmental outcomes. Acceptable ranges are a maximum of 6 to 8
children during the first year of life, 6 to 12 for 1- and 2-year-olds, 14 to
20 for 3-year-olds, and 16 to 20 for 4- and 5-year-olds.
Caregiver Training and EJcpertence Caregivers in child care centers,
family day care homes, and school-based programs should have specific
training in child development theory and practice. In addition, research
shows that more years of general education contribute to caregiver perfor-
mance and children's developmental outcomes.
Physical Space and Facilities Space should be well organized, orderly,
differentiated, and designed for children's use. Specific activities should
have assigned areas within a child care center or family day care home
(e.g., an art table, a dramatic play corner, a block-building corner, a
reading corner). Facilities and toys should be age appropriate for the
children using them.
Current state regulations vary dramatically, and few reflect existing
knowledge about the dimensions of qualibr that are essential to protect
children's health and safety and to stimulate social and cognitive devel-
opment. Unfortunately, there are few economic or political incentives
for the states to take this step. Thus, incentives must also be created
to encourage state involvement: for example, linking federal funding to
compliance with national standards. Accordingly, the panel recommends
that the federal government establish a national-level task force to bring
together representatives of the states, the relevant professional organiza-
tions, service providers, and appropriate federal agencies to review current
knowledge from child development research and professional practice to
develop national standards for the provision of child care services and
preschool education.
OCR for page R17
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
xvii
5. The federal government should mandate unpaid, job-
protected leave for employed parents of infants up to 1
year of age.
In light of scientific evidence on the importance of establishing strong
relationships between parents and children in the early months of life
and the greater likelihood that these enduring relationships will develop
when parents have time and emotional energy to devote to their young
children, the panel urges that the federal government mandate unpaid, job-
protected leave for employed parents of infants up to 1 year of age. Clearly,
public policies should also stimulate the development of quality child care
programs for infants and toddlers. However, in light of existing knowledge
from child development research and the shortage of quality infant and
toddler care programs, national child care policy should also offer parents
the option of remaining at home to care for their own children.
Even among those who agree that parental leave policies should be
implemented, there is little consensus about whether leaves should be paid
or unpaid and, if paid, at what level of wage replacement, for what period
of time, at whose cost, and with what assistance for the particular problems
of small employers. Our conclusion, based on a review of the available
research and the panel's professional judgment, is that, in the long term,
policies should provide paid leave with partial income replacement for up
to 6 months and unpaid leave 'or up to an additional 6 months, with
job-related health benefits and job guarantees during the year.
We recognize, however, that the costs to employers and governments
will make the implementation of paid parental leave impossible in the
near term. Accordingly, as a first step, we recommend that the federal
government mandate that employers ensure unpaid, job-protected leave,
with continued health benefits, for up to 1 year for all parents who prefer
to remain at home following the arrival of a new baby. We acknowledge
that without wage replacement, parental leave will not be a viable option
for many families, and we look forward to the eventual implementation of
policies to provide paid leave.
In sum, in keeping with the panel's objective of enhancing families'
choices among child care arrangements for infants, parental leave as well
as quality out-of-home care should be an option regardless of parents'
economic status.
OCR for page R18