Unknown Speaker 00:04 When I was first asked if I would hold a workshop on child care, the concept was. Let me back up a second. Since I've asked all of you how you got to childcare, I should explain myself that. As you know, my name is Sheila Cameron, and I'm a professor at Columbia School of Social Work. And I also have a joint appointment in the School of affairs and I also co director research program on comparative social policy, in particular, Child and Family policies in the advanced industrialized countries. And I've been carrying out research having to do with children and women and their families for more than 25 years, primarily in the OECD countries with some attention to the newly industrializing countries in Asia as well. I started to say that when I was first asked if I would do this, the concept was, should be focused on comparative developments, with regard to child care, a lot of sense. Inevitably, however, with the change in date, there also changes in our world as well. And so what we've also experienced is the enactment of public law 104 93, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Act of 1996, which has major provisions and implications with regard to childcare as well. So and so I can go either way, if people have a particular preference. And let me before I start talking, let me at least get a sense from those of you who are here. Whether there's a preference for me to focus on the US and the current situation in particular, or whether you prefer that I focus on comparative developments? Unknown Speaker 02:18 I asked. Yeah, I can do a little of each. And the other thing, therefore, that I would suggest is I will be mindful of the time. But I'm used to being interrupted, and I don't have a if I if I'm in the middle of a thought, and I want to be sure I completed I may say, hold it for a second. But in general, my attitude is, you should feel free to ask questions as I go along. And I will be sure to leave some time at the end, for general discussion. Okay. So I start out with the assumption that you recognize, as I recognize, and increasingly I think, as people in the industrialized world recognize that child care is an enormously important social policy and social program, whether it's something that's funded by the state, or funded by the private sector, and whether it's something it's delivered by public agencies or by private agencies, we're talking about a critically important service. And we become aware of its importance for two particular reasons. One, of course, has been the growth of labor force participation rates of women with young children. And the second has to do with the large amount of child development research that's been carried out over the last two or more decades that has revealed the importance of the early years of life and the importance of children's development, their cognitive development and their social development for the particular kind of group experiences they have when they vary. So depending upon whether you want to look at it as a, as a a woman's issue, as a parents issue, or as a children's issue, it's clearly very important, this space up here, so they're welcome to come on. By and large, there are three primary factors, therefore, which generate or underscore the importance of childcare. One has to do with the provision of care while mothers work. And since clearly, more and more mothers are working, this becomes a critically important issue. The second as I said, has to do with the recognition of the portents, of enhancing child's development maximizing both cognitive and social development. The third has to do with providing compensatory compensatory experience for deprived or disadvantaged children in whether it's compensatory education or compensatory socialization. And to put the context in perspective, let me remind you that when we talk about labor force participation rates of women in the United States, were essentially talking about 70, roughly 70%. Women with children are in the labor force. And if we focus on the group, home childcare out of home childcare services, especially but childcare services in general, are most important, we're talking about preschool aged children, roughly those under age six. And in the United States, we're dealing with a situation in which we're married women with children under age six are concerned, about 60%, close to 60%. Of those with children aged three, four and five are in the labor force. And more than 55%, of married women with children under age three are in the labor force, and close to 55% of married women with children under age one, labor force. So we are not talking about an issue that affects a minority of women. We're talking about an issue in which the critical mass of women, the dominant group within this Society of Women, now having experiencing a different kind of lifestyle, one in which they are working outside of their home, and that 70% of them are working full time. So it's not just thoughts on where either, although a significant proportion, obviously are working thoughts on as well. Unknown Speaker 07:13 To give you just some comparative context here, I would point out that countries such as Denmark, and Finland and Sweden, have higher labor force, higher female labor force participation rates than the United States there, we're dealing with rates of about 80 to 85%, of all women with children under compulsory school age, the labor force, so that obviously, it's a lot higher than the 60 or 60 plus percent, we're talking about, as far as the US is concerned, great countries that have a pattern that's similar to the US countries such as Norway, Canada, France, roughly the same kind of picture. And those are countries in which there's a fairly significant pattern of full time labor force participation is where countries that have lower rates, female labor force participation, then in the US, are countries such as Britain, where the the rates are very high for married women and relatively low for single mothers. At this largely thoughts on the rates are the bat the same level that we're talking about somewhere like 55%, that's in a country such as Germany, largely full time we're in countries such as Australia, where again, it's largely brought on work. And in the countries sort of around the method to the European countries around the Mediterranean. We're, again, we're dealing with full time, but relatively low labor force participation rates. I mentioned this, because one of the points that I want to underscore is that although most of us assume that out of home childcare services and the extent of coverage is highly correlated with female labor force participation rates. The answer is it's not necessarily so it just depends, you'll see certain patterns in the correlate and others that are not. So I would simply underscore that an important factor is the high proportion of women who were working, but that by itself is not a sufficient factor. And all you have to do is to take a look at the situation in the US and compare it with some other countries. And you'll see how that works. Where the US is concerned So I'm just going to lay out sort of in broad brushstrokes, the pattern of us childcare coverage, and how it links both to working and I use the term work and recognizing whether it complies. So let me just say it's a shorthand for paid work outside of the home. Okay. The general overall pattern for working women in the US those who have young children has to do that I'll do this chronologically for you. I'll begin with infant care. And I'll go from there, the toddler care and from that sort of preschool age children. So if it's, if you think in terms of infant care, and maybe it should even talk about newborn, one infants and infants who are slightly older, but any case where the US is concerned, from a national or federal perspective, and from the perspective of statutory provision, in other words, where there is a law, what we have, in effect is federal legislation that provides bare bones and I want to underscore the bare bones, bare bones protection for women at the time of childbirth. We have the federal government, the family medical leave, act, just so I get a sense how many people know that legislation? And how many people? Is there anything anybody who's not? So here we have a federal law, enacted in 1993, after two failed efforts when Congress passed the legislation, but then President Bush veto that we have legislation, which provides for 12 weeks of job protected but unpaid leave, following childbirth or adoption with some other kind of federal family medical emergency. Unknown Speaker 12:07 Apart from that, which probably affects about 70% of women, women in the workforce, we have legislation in five states that involve short term disability laws that provide cash benefits, for the period of time that a short term, non job related disability occurs. And by legislation that was passed in 1978, pregnancy and maternity is considered a disability. And so as a result in those five states that have short term disability, insurance in place, women at the time of childbirth receive a modest cash benefit when they're out on the because of childbirth and all that kind of convalescing, and it's roughly at the level of unemployment insurance and those states, New York, New Jersey, California, Rhode Island, and Hawaii. And they cover about 20 to 23%, of the female labor force. So what you have is roughly 70% of working women who are covered by an unpaid leave for 12 weeks and since 12 week tend to 12 weeks is usually what's considered to be the period of time a woman needs to convalesce around the top of childbirth, we have roughly from on the basis of the state statutory legislation, and that was less than a quarter of working women covered them and if you include what people have as a result of employers law shifts or collective bargaining agreements or whatever, close to 50% of working women get some kind of fate and job protectively. Five, pay that of course leaves a large proportion of women uncovered. And needless to say those tend to be the more poorly paid those marginal kinds of employment and so forth. If we then look at the situation of infant and toddler care, and the reason by the way, that when I talk about childcare I always begin by talking about maternity and parental leave. Has to do With the fact that if you have such a leave the implicit and sometimes explicit assumption is that you'll at least one parent is going to be home, taking care of the baby following childbirth. And the need for out of home care tends to emerge when the fat leave. And so to look at patterns of childcare and ignore maternity or parental leaves is other nonsense, I perhaps should also point out to you that more than 117 countries around the world have some form of paid and job protected leave at the time of job are usually on maternity leave. And that these, this 117, and that's my last count, it could be more by Now certainly isn't less that that's a group that clearly includes some developing countries as well as developed countries. In fact, it includes all of the developed countries, all the advanced industrialized OECD countries, except for Australia and the United States. So it's a fairly widespread development. And, as I said, it's only when you see that policy that you know, at what age women are going to be looking for childcare. And I use women, the term women fairly indiscriminately, because regardless of how I would like to make this a gender neutral discussion, the reality is, is we're talking about women, most of the time, when there is a real issue of parents, I'll bring them both in once. Unknown Speaker 16:50 If it's, remember, they wouldn't be eligible for the states who provide short term disability, because that's linked to pregnancy and maternity, they aren't eligible for the unpaid Family Medical Leave Act, and they're sometimes eligible sometimes for fringe benefit protection. And in the United States, it's a very small proportion. I don't even think anybody has real numbers, but we're talking about a very small proportion. And I don't want to minimize its importance as a symbolic gesture. It's very important. But in real life, when you when there are TV, documentaries, or songs, something emerges in which suddenly the television television stations or the papers are particularly interested in this issue, I will always get a dozen calls ask me something about fathers. In fact, apart from the fact that the kind of research I do does not let me identify individual fathers who weren't necessarily taking the lead, nonetheless, I can practically on the fingers of one hand, identify those fathers who are advocates of this position and who have taken time off themselves and speak up for this guy. Like Jim Levine and Families and Work, for example, as an impassioned advocate and mica Lam at NI CHD in Washington is another one and like, I couldn't joke fleck up at the University of Massachusetts literally. Probably, I mean, I could very easily sell them. The fact that I can identify by name and others can to give you some sense, there are some who do that. But it's a small proportion and more in academia, by the way, because for two reasons, because the culture is different, because there's more equity within the family around gender related issues. And because increasingly, universities are setting up policies that really make it possible for parents of young or newly born babies to make some kind of personalized notation. At any way that as I was saying, it has immediate consequences for when you start looking for out of home child care. If one looks for at the US from the perspective of whether we see in the way of infant care about roughly one quarter infants are in some form of publicly subsidized care. Usually divided roughly equally between centered care and family daycare. I'm sorry, well, I said infants I should have said infants and toddlers. So we're talking about the under threes here. Oh Um, the other thing is that in various research studies that I've carried out in the US on childcare that involves program visits, that we say to you that I have seen larger proportions are the numbers of young infants, infants under the age of the year under the age of six months, in fact, in out of home childcare in this country than I have in any other of the industrialized countries. And that also was going to say that I've seen more infants in here are using infants advisedly important quality out of home care, than I've seen anyplace else. And I must say, at times when I've been particularly horrified, especially places in the southeast, where the high rate of adiponectin care and Centacare is extraordinary. And the quality is also often extraordinarily poor. The response very often is, but you should see what the alternatives are. And I must admit, I tend not to think about the alternatives of bringing babies along when you're involved in agricultural work, for example of putting them in someplace on the side of the ditch. So I recognize there are some even crummy eruptions. Nonetheless, what I'm simply saying is, in general, we have relatively high proportions of infants and toddlers and adults, Unknown Speaker 21:41 roughly divided equally between center care and family daycare, higher numbers of very young infants. That is the pattern in most other OECD countries, and poor quality of care, then one would see certainly in countries that are in our general league in terms of per capita, when you move to the three, four or five year old age group, that's where you see significant changes. And that's where the major expansion of childcare has been in the United States over the last couple of decades. About 70% of three, four and five year olds are in some form of adult home care, largely of some kind of care. That includes almost all five year olds, about 94% of five year olds today are all either in kindergarten or already in first grade. But it's largely part day programs. About two thirds of three and four year olds are in some kind of adult care. And the this could be Headstart programs, which are overwhelmingly four year olds. It could be three kindergartens could be nursery schools, it could be daycare centers, or it could be family daycare. Most of them the children are in a group program rather than a family daycare program. The preference for family daycare seems to be significantly heavier, when it's involves care of children under age three. In other words, for infant and toddler care, you will often see a preference among parents for a more informal arrangement, but not by the time a child gets the event, three years old. The other thing is if you look at patterns of use of preschool programs, by parents education, and by family income, you'd see very significant and fact dramatic differences. And that is for example, in those families in which the mother is a college graduate, the likelihood of a child being the child say a three year old of being in the preschool program is quite high and equally high, whether the mother is in the labor force or not. So what you're getting in a sense is a quite dramatic example of the fact that job the three year olds are in various kinds of group programs, either or both because their mothers are in the labor force or and because mothers think that this is an important and valuable experience for their children, regardless of their labor force situation. If you look at patterns of family income then you will also see very dramatic differences much higher rates without for those families who have above median income, then for those who have incomes under 20,000. And they think simply will have a certain similar pattern here. That is a recognition of the value of the experience for the child's development, regardless of what the employment status is. Let me stop on providing the US overview. And let me give you a comparative perspective. And then I'll come back to some of the issues that currently facing us. Unknown Speaker 25:47 Where the European countries are concerned now focus on Europe primarily, but I'll throw in Canada and Australia and New Zealand, because they're they're really, I'm really talking about the OECD countries before the inclusion of Mexico and the margins for the inclusion, recent inclusion of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland. But they could be characterized by the similar terms. At first, these are countries that all have paid and job protected maternity leaves with a modal pattern of about six months, remember us is 12 weeks and not paid. These countries typically have six months, nobody provides less than three months of paid leave. And many provide more than the six months. That usual usually paid at a level in which there is a social insurance benefit, like a Social Security benefit, for example, that covers replacement of the full wage that's covered under Social Security in that country. Or it might be something like 80 or 90% of that. And most of these countries also have some component that goes beyond a maternity benefit. And that becomes a parental benefit. So for example, a country such as Canada, which we usually think of as having policies that are very similar to our own except for health insurance. But apart from that, we tend to think it's quite similar to the US. The Canadians have a six month paid and job protected leave in which the first half is limited to women to mothers also covers adoption by the way, and the second half is open to either parent as a parental leave. Where France is concerned and provides a 16 week paid and jaw protectively following. Even Britain, although not among the more generous countries provides a fairly significant lead. First, as part of the European Union, it's now required to provide at least 14 weeks of paid and job protected maternity leave. And then it has a supplementary supplementary modestly paid and then further supplement dates. Unknown Speaker 28:32 Second, a growing number of countries have supplementary extended parental leaves. And these leaves last anywhere from a year or a year and a half to three years into a child's third birthday. And they are paid as well as job protected. Things example, Sweden has a parent leave that lasts for 18 months after childbirth. The first year is paid. That cut back slide like this is these are the big cuts you hear about you'll see how absurd it is to characterize them as big but nonetheless, the Swedes make a fuss over the Swedish parent insurance benefit when it's fully paid now only covers 80% of wages instead of the 90% that used to cover it and whether the percent of what time so 80% for the first year. Then next three months are covered at a low flat rate benefit. And the final three months up to the 18 month birthday of the child was unpaid. That the 18 months can be shared among between both parents. And in addition it can be divided And prorated. So you could for example, choose to take a father, father could take off six months, using the parent insurance benefit, the mother could take off another six months or so full time, they could then each take off part time from work for a certain period that, in effect, they could expand the use of the benefit. So in one way or another, the child was was cared for only by a parent. And and the family would lose practically no income until the child is 18 months old, at which point in time, the Swedish guarantee of a publicly subsidized place and childcare comes into play in the countries such as Finland, that begins with a one year maternity and parental leave, in addition, has offered another two years in which parents have the right to choose between either a subsidized place in child care or cash benefit. If one of the parents stays home, it's not a wage related benefit. It's a flat rate benefit, and it's relatively modest, it's worth about a quarter of an average wage. But nonetheless, it's certainly significant especially so for low wage cons of women. We're Denmark is concerned, it also provides a better one year parents leave it's paid. And another year available. If at option that's paid for through unemployment insurance countries, such as Italy, provides five months full way to replacements in another Unknown Speaker 31:52 sorry, six months of full wage replace, and then another three months and the relatively low level and then again, some extended time off. Germany provides 14 weeks at full wage, the difference between 14 weeks and six months at a small flat rate, a still lower benefit for another year and a half and up until the child's third birthday, workers working parents have the right to take a leave, even if it's not fully paid. These are illustrative and I could continue with the illustrations, it does give you some sense in which I would suggest that the European countries are moving towards a policy in which infant care will be care by a normal by a parent who was in the labor force has chosen to remain at home to provide that care, and is doing so without any significant loss of income as a consequence, as a result. Needless to say, you see very few young babies in out of home care in these countries, because there's no particular reason for this is voluntary, it's up to parents who prefer it. Nonetheless, crops will surprise some of you it may surprise others that usually will pattern is the parents will take time off, usually a mother. But to give you some perspective on this. In Sweden 40% of fathers who are eligible with some portion of the pay leave, take some portion of it even though they don't begin to use as much as their wives are using when it comes, but I didn't mention that I'll just round the picture out. The Swedish parent insurance benefit also covers time off when the child is ill. The parents take off without losing pay from work. And they also provide time off for parents who are bringing a child to school for the first time changing schools when there's some kind of special event in preschool going on all of this a parent can participate in. Unknown Speaker 34:39 So you can see, first of all with regard to infants a very different pattern. It also has implications for when parents as I said look for Out Of Home childcare, and it also has implications for toddler care. If you take a look at toddler care and here I'm talking about care for A one to two, two and a half year olds. In Europe, as in the United States, it's a diversified pattern of childcare delivery. And it's also a situation in which it's the area in which there's still not an adequate supply of programs. Nonetheless, you will find significant differences. When you compare the situation with the US. For example, Denmark has enough places for about 60% of its under threes, compares with about 25% in the US compares with about a third in France, with about 40% in Sweden. So in effect, what we're dealing with is a country, tiny country, by all means certainly is but nonetheless a country which is established a policy in which there is more extensive, heavily subsidized care for the under threes than any country in the world. Impressive. And that's an it is high quality care, just as it is in Sweden. It's not that in the United States, you can't find equally high quality. It's just been in the Scandinavian countries, the quality is consistently and uniformly high. While in the US, we have care that ranges from as good as anyplace else in the world, to almost as dreadful as you can see, certainly in the OECD countries. The pattern of preschool programs appear on talked about programs for two and a half or three year olds, two children age five, six or seven, depending upon when compulsory school begins. And therefore when they're in such limits here is where the differences particularly dramatic, there are just as I was explaining that prote that the types of childcare programs for toddlers are very diversified. That diversity sort of is phased out by the time a child gets to be about two and a half, three, in that there are three different models of child care with 434 and five year olds, two of which are quite dominant in Europe, and one of which is clearly sort of off the center and healthy being gradually phased out. But clearly, marks lie but I call the laggards countries. And here the one model. And this carries through not only for the three, four and five year olds, but younger ones as well as the Scandinavian model of childcare, which provides for care that is targeted on children of working parents on the assumption that almost all young children live in families in which the sole parent or both parents are in the labor force. As I pointed out before, we're talking about 85%, roughly 85% When it comes to women with children under age three, and if anything slightly higher for the three, four and five year olds, the Scandinavian countries have targeted their policies or these children as being clearly the dominant group within the society and the ones who most need the care. The programs are administered under auspices that are independent of both social welfare and education. They are, as I said, a very high quality and they follow the standards of quality that we in the US have designated as being indicia of high quality programs, small group size, high staff child ratios, extensive good training of staff, low staff turnover rates, and so forth. Unknown Speaker 39:22 The program's last the normal workday since the typical pattern of Scandanavian wives in any way this to work caught on if you want your child in a short period of time during the day that's perfectly fine. And fee so income related but heavily subsidized for everybody. And coverage rates as I indicated a very high the pattern that's the dominant pattern on the rest of the continent is an age related pattern in which children under age three or in France under age two In either group care or fab or supervised family daycare. And it tends to be administered on the health hospices, for the most part, with it, three, four and five year olds, and in France, also the two year olds where they're concerned, they are in programs in the ministry under Education auspices. And the primary philosophy is a philosophy of cognitive as well as social development. With a basic concept, that if children are to do well in school and be prepared for school, they need a preschool experience. And these countries in which the preschool experience is viewed as important for all children, regardless of their mother's labor force status. And as a result, it's something that should be universally available and free. So it's available to children. Generally speaking, if not to all children, then there may be some priority, but the priorities could include children of immigrants, children of single parent families, children who are in some way or other disadvantaged, as well as children of working. But you can see how universal it is when I say to you that in France, about 98%, just about all children aged three, four and five attend the French free school vehicle match. And about half the two year old attended as well. Voluntary. The school day program is free, it covers normal school hours a normal school year. In France, that means roughly 830 to four or 430. There are extensive wraparound services for before and after school programs, these charge income related fees, but the core program is free. Belgium has about the same kind of coverage. Italy, believe it or not. country with very low female labor force participation rates less than half of lives are in the labor force in Italy, nonetheless, has close to 95% of its three, four and five year olds and the preschool program, it's free. Germany has about 85%. If you looked at the Eastern European or Central European countries, rates are quite high, as they always were, for the three, four and five year olds. It's the younger children that have taken more of a beating, as these countries have moved into a transition into the market economy. In part because the child for the parent benefit has had a a cut in terms of its value. The assumption had been in Poland and Czechoslovakia and Hungary that parents a mother would stay home until the child was three and that benefit is worth less, and the out of home care somewhat less available. nonetheless. Well, as I said, when we look at Europe, we're essentially talking about a pattern at the very least, and universal preschool for three years and up. And as an alternative, the Scandinavian model, the only country that doesn't fall into this pattern and probably wouldn't surprise a number of you is Britain. Sometimes when I talk about the Anglo American countries, we used Unknown Speaker 43:55 it recently in the context of a book that we're editing and the project that I had my colleague, co directing, we were going to call a volume that was on Britain, Canada, New Zealand in the us something about the Anglo American countries. But the Canadian government that is supported the Canadian study got very upset because of French Canada. So we agreed we wouldn't call the Anglo American countries we played briefly with calling them Britain and for former colonies, but that didn't seem to sit well with some people. Nonetheless, she got them you get a concept of what they are. We just now just call it the names of the countries. But Britain essentially has a two tier system that's very much like what the US had in place earlier in this century. What we are beginning to move out of and have begun to move out over the last couple of decades. And that is a childcare system in which you have childcare Out Of Home Services. With children from disorganized and disadvantaged millions of children in need of protection, and then you have a separate system for middle class children whose parents are looking for enrichment and enhancement, this is beginning to change in Britain, I think we're well along with the two what's changing in the United States, although who knows, we may go backwards for a while. And it's also a pattern that the same model has now moved towards integration and New Zealand. It has not yet in Canada. But essentially there, what you're getting is an approach which has not quite pulled together the fact that children regardless of income status, economic status, social status, employment status, needs some attention and will benefit from these programs and to separate them into two different systems makes no sense, whatsoever. There is, as I said, beginning recognition of this, but much of Europe is so far beyond what we're doing in this country, and well, well beyond what the British should do. What probably makes something of a difference in Britain is it starts compulsory school age five, which is younger than almost all the other countries, and therefore has just about olds, four year olds already in school and preschool, because it's like kindergarten in the United States. But the provision for the under threes, and particularly under two is just dismal. And it really is tied up with an ideological concept that basically says women with young children belong at home. And therefore only when their problems, they any other kind of provision. The pattern is changing. But as you know, policy always takes to catch up and social change. I think we just see if there was anything else that I wanted to say real questions about sort of the comparative developments, developments and other kinds of issues anybody wants to raise? Unknown Speaker 47:23 This isn't jumping. Inside. Are there any figures that deal with the numbers of young people between 16 and 18? Are our a prison context? The countries that have been described as a very poor record, early child care in countries that have a very healthy Unknown Speaker 48:05 you could get data on Rates of Imprisonment. But I think it would be very difficult to make causal links between that whether in fact there was positive or negative social policies towards families. A great deal depends on so much else. Justice, you really can't do justice by trying to compare child abuse rates, delinquency rates, or prison rates, because you don't know who's counting. You don't know what the definition of the phenomenon of problem is. So you really don't know what can happen. In Europe, would you say that this less ideological? State? I think that's a very important point. I think in the European countries, there's a much more positive attitude towards the role of the state is what positive attitude towards paying taxes. Dealing with a with a society that has more trust in government, and a stronger sense of solidarity within Unknown Speaker 49:43 it doesn't mean it matter who's in power. Unknown Speaker 49:46 It doesn't matter who's in power. And I could have gone down with countries and explain to you which ones had conservatives and how, which had in the US sense liberal governments. and there's no correlation between the dominant political party in place and the nature of support for childcare or parents policies. Unknown Speaker 50:12 And has there been any particular reason. Unknown Speaker 50:22 In general, the especially in the Scandinavian countries, the Social Democrats have been much stronger advocates. Very generous policies with regard to childcare apparently. So the trade unions in Britain historically opposed these developments. They were very much concerned with discouraging women from entering the workforce and so weren't interested in providing support, the Labour Party now is in somewhat different situation. It's also changed other aspects. In France, the conservatives have always supported a variety of Child and Family policies. And as a result, the liberals face stress those policies which are designed to respond to working parents, and the conservatives will stress those policies which are designed to respond to parents at home. But the reason the net effect is you get both types of provisions and it's Geminus. Unknown Speaker 51:35 That I was wondering whether any agenda issues it really was chill. Unknown Speaker 51:51 I mean, theoretically, the US lost children. We're not a friendly country. I would agree with you. But if you listen to political rhetoric, listen to the political Why do you think when? Unknown Speaker 52:13 Well, that's the very last question. Here maybe capitalism. Unknown Speaker 52:25 What would you say the Italians and other equally capitalist Unknown Speaker 52:28 history Willie's parties and extra parties have to come in as party in so many different kinds of parties, star in an hour's movement, radical voices, yours. And then when you Unknown Speaker 52:45 cut this pilot last child friendly. Unknown Speaker 52:53 I wonder how much of this is? Unknown Speaker 52:57 Well, I mean, there were such anomalies. That is the region of Italy, that has the highest rate of childcare anyplace in the country. That has provision for 30% of the other threes and all the open threes is Emilia Romagna, which is the richest and most affluent part of Italy, which also has had the furthest left political administration, they you give me the rationale for that COPPA that you should. I think certainly the race issue in the US has played a very important role. I think somehow, rather, until we as a country have prepared to say we're concerned about other people's children and not just our own, where we're in serious trouble. And in some sense, the big growth in public investment in children and the expansion in Child and Family Policy came to the point in time in the 1960s, when we were still struggling with trying to win the civil rights. And when we were still struggling with trying to deal with poverty issues. Well, if anything, those countries, other countries have a concern about poverty, we're concerned about child poverty. And those countries, other countries, we're also concerned about social cohesion. So when you see Unknown Speaker 54:22 immigration, integrate and with large immigration, well movement equal. Unknown Speaker 54:33 But I think what you're seeing now in Europe, is the first beginnings of anxiety, really significant anxiety around immigrants, which we hadn't experienced in ways this, like, you know, we're in so again, we're very different leagues because there's no country or cluster of countries including all of the European Union with its 350 million population doesn't take as much as the immigrants and as Unknown Speaker 55:04 I was just thinking about our country's history, in terms of denial of dependence visit not like children in this country. As a society, interested in denial tendencies Unknown Speaker 55:17 or rejection, talking about dependency is stigmatized. Unknown Speaker 55:21 We're not willing, as was discussed this morning to recognize each of our own and individualistic kind of selfish attitude which children. Unknown Speaker 55:40 At that brings us on, Todd did say a few words about the lead the personal responsibility work opportunities act of 96. In particular, with regard to childcare since I assume that some of you probably heard many Abramowitz earlier in relation to welfare legislation. And given the interest of time in any case, I'll focus specifically on the childcare piece, if I'm said telling you things that you already know whether they've been said to tell me Shut up to something else. That they think perhaps philosophically from our point of view, the most interesting development is that there was a kind of bipartisan consensus that emerged implicitly open last year, that if welfare was going to be transformed from an assistance program, to a work related program, child care to absolutely critical and essential component. And they couldn't be treated as ancillary, but they had a big door that was absolutely sick. And I think that's the first time we've seen that kind of recognition across the board. Having said that, what then are the provisions? First of all, the legislation abolishes two major childcare entitlements that exists existed in ASBC? Unknown Speaker 57:34 First, Unknown Speaker 57:37 was the childcare entitlement. For AFDC recipients who work are in training programs or are in educational programs? No, now it's really some the current night is one of one Id three legislation. I'm sorry, excuse me, yet the end of the entitlement was fraught. There were two sources of the there were two entitlements because the second one is the transitional childcare. Okay. Transitional childcare was a provision in the Family Support Act. And the childcare entitlement for AFDC recipients was part of the 1993 and 1990 childcare legislation. So the tween it 1988, which is when the Family Support Act was passed, and it's to the transitional childcare, which is a guarantee of a right to subsidized childcare to those AFDC recipients who were leaving AFDC for work, they would still be getting one year of subsidized childcare. So that was one entitlement and then the subsequent one was the AFDC. The childcare subsidy for AFDC recipients and at risk those at risk of going on a sec. Both of those were eliminated and the two who were merged into a child care. provision of the legislation. It in which funding was transformed into a block grant and the Block Grant was capped the childcare. Funding for childcare will be at about $22 billion dollars for now until the year 2002. And part of it requires a state match To the existing funding strings will merge into a block grant, the amount of the Block Grant is capped by that I made a limit set on it, add the amount is about $22 billion. And there are some requirements for state match. And that has to be at the Medicaid level that matches over the cert to begin with the 20 to 30 plus has to be matched by state governments. Until 2002, that's when the the a deficit in the budget is supposed to be balanced, you know, so all of this legislation is geared to 2002. And it's all incidentally, watch this because it's a very important issue. It's all back loaded rather than front loaded, by which I mean, the major cuts of Fe and the major mandates around increased work participation of all phased in over time, so the changes will be far less draconian initially, but more so later on. There could even be more funding for childcare, because the provisions of the tab for TA and F are the new cash assistance program, which is a substitute for the abolished AFDC program. The provision for that cash assistance program includes the fact that states can decide to take 30% up to 30% of their cash assistance buttons, and put that money into child care instead, or they can take up to a third of that money and put a third of it into title 20, which is the general social services provision of the Social Security Act. And put two thirds of that 30% of the words 20% into child care. So in effect, a state that's very much concerned about it's about the need to create additional supports to make it possible for their assistance claimants to get to work, could in fact, put more money into childcare, but at the expense of their cash assistance benefits. So that's something else that you want to watch. Unknown Speaker 1:02:39 Yeah, so this will be pending. Unknown Speaker 1:02:42 This will be pitting in different groups, secular different subgroups among the poor against one another. I might also point out and just get that title 20 funds cut by 50% to begin with. This is legislation, it's for social services for low income children, families, elderly and so forth, first enacted in 1975. With a $2.5 billion cap, then it's good to have less than that now and think of the last 20 odd years and inflation and you realize how much that has been cut as well. Yes. Unknown Speaker 1:03:36 It will get more so. The eligibility for subsidized child care is overwhelmingly targeted on TANF to recipients on assistance recipients. Except for minimal health and safety standards. And a 4%. Set aside for improving the quality of childcare programs except for these two relatively modest requirements. There's no requirements with regard to the quality of childcare being used by 10 percipience going off to work. So what I started out by saying what was important on the positive side was to recognize that there was consensus around the essential need for childcare. There is no consensus and a big debate around the importance of quality of care whether quality makes a difference totally ignores all the research on how quality matters, and what a difference it makes. States will no longer the winner. hired when they're subsidizing child care to meet prevailing market rates, which had been a provision of the Family Support Act. So instead, they can announce, maximum rates really are what they want, which could be well below the market. And therefore, in effect, create major pressure on assistance recipients, leisure, okay, a major pressure on their using the cheapest form of childcare around, which means inevitably, informal care, and usually poor quality care. And I don't want to imply that all informal care is bad quality, but merely that in the aggregate, it's more likely to be bad than said to care. In addition, because of the cap on funding, which limits the availability of resources for child care, and the parallel pressure on mother's to work, without any regard for exemption for women with young children, except for those with children under age one. In effect, there's this tremendous pressure on increased numbers of low wage low skilled women entering the labor force needing childcare. But at the same time, a limited amount of money available for childcare. And although if you look at the amount of money, it is larger than what would have been available, before the new legislation, if you also look at the numbers of women with young children who are going to be expected to work, the demand is still larger. And the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis which suggested there would be a significant shortfall in available funds for childcare, if in fact, there is full participation as required by women who were working. And remember the participation requirement is, after two months, you start dissipating in some kind of a community service activity, within two years, you should be at work. So the end of there is a some a modest exempt. Now, the exemptions were a modest adjustment on hours of work expected for women with children under age six, and excused participation if they can't find childcare. But nonetheless, the basic approach is to say that everybody, certainly from the time a child is one year old, and in some cases, even era that should be in the labor force. So the demand for childcare is going to be enormous. The group that I think is going to suffer the most will be the working poor, because in effect, the whole thrust of the legislation is on getting people off cash assistance off time into the labor market. Unknown Speaker 1:08:35 And that's where the childcare subsidies go into. Which means the group that's been especially vulnerable, I wished before had been at least covered and bought by ATLAS childcare money, now is going to not have that available. Just adding a few other things that I think are particularly important is that you want to pay attention to remember Unknown Speaker 1:09:02 the chunk of money that is targeted, all the Unknown Speaker 1:09:08 people who have applied for Iran and are being phased into work. And there remember, there's no longer transitional childcare involved contrasted. There is transitional Medicaid that's still protected, but the transitional childcare is not protected. So in effect, once you go off welfare and you are working, you very likely going to lose your subsidy, which in addition, remember that legal immigrants are precluded from benefiting from 10 and therefore are likely to be in a situation in which their children will not qualify for any subsidized childcare. And the exception here is they could qualify for Headstart Cubans, children from Cuban families and from Haitian families are. Unknown Speaker 1:10:14 Another important I think because some of them were defined as refugees, and refugees are exempt from this legal immigrants. Well, so we want to pay attention to children who are on SSI because remember, the definition of disability is changing for children. Functional disabilities will be eliminated from those that are approved criteria for acceptance on SSI, which means about 350,000 children will be dropped from the SSI roles, these children may lose their eligibility for subsidized childcare as well. And then also remember that those adults, what parents do, you will, who have been convicted of a felony as related substance abuse will be banned from receipt of t of TANF or food stamps. And although their children can still get benefits, this issue of how they qualify for childcare or not, is a very big issue. And I think the last point that I would want to highlight is that although Child Welfare was kept out of the block grant, and in theory protected, that nonetheless, childcare services are probably the single most important preventive service in relation to preventing child abuse and neglect. And it's not clear what's going to happen to the availability of places and childcare for this population. It's the demand for childcare for the TANF population is increasing. And if the child welfare system or the child protective services then experiences a big increase in referrals to wit system, as well. I'm mindful of time and therefore, I'm going to stop right here and respond to just any questions anybody wants to raise. To let you know, let me say something about it. Because I you know, that there are days when I wonder why I get out of bed in the morning, when I think about sort of what I've committed my professional life to what what the situation looks like at this point. It's too easy for us to indulge ourselves, I think in saying it's so depressing. You don't even know where to begin. And in some sense, there is some desire, I think, to lay it all hang out and let the rest of the public see, in fact, what's going to help terrible that's going to happen, that we will see if not, there are no changes in this legislation over the next few years. We'll stop by think seeing increases in allegations reports of abuse or neglect, certainly neglect situation, we'll see I think, increase incidence of homeless families with children that one could begin to list the kinds of horror stories. Nonetheless, it seems to me it's also incumbent upon us to look for any opportunity that we can possibly find, to work the legislation in order to attenuate some of the worst consequences for children, families, and the states have been pushing for more flexibility. For years, the governors have been pushing for this. So it seems to me they've got it. Sometimes you hear talk now they wish that the feds would give them some instructions and guidelines, but that they will ask for this and they're stuck with it. Part of what I think many of us have to do is we have to be visible advocates at state and casting and city government levels in order to either figure out how to maneuver through the existing legislation, or to be able in some way rather to confront Unknown Speaker 1:14:53 the various legislations at the state and federal level and it wasn't changing. But I think we will We'd have to operate on two different funds, we have to work to make changes in the federal legislation, we have to work at state level to be able to get states to take advantage of flexibility, and therefore to be able to put in place some more positive developments. Some states will do that. And I think we need to be sure that those that do do it become exemplars and are made visible for the more positive moods because there is this fear otherwise of the so called race to the bottom. Unknown Speaker 1:15:38 What you said just now made me wonder if there is any kind of clearing house a way in which people who are interested in abuse can become more clearly aware of what's happening, progressively states, newsletters there. Unknown Speaker 1:16:02 There are faculty loads. There are probably 30 And I'm sure there'll be 100 different initiatives out there for monitoring the impact of these changes in legislation. There are some for like the urban Institute's example, which has a national program out there. The State Institute for Research on Poverty has a valuation of the Wisconsin w two the new Wisconsin program. There are efforts at the National Center for Children and poverty to pay some attention to children's outcome. There is Child Trends in wash. It's also paying attention to children's things, I could mean some operations and going to look nationally, some will look statewide, some will look at particular population groups like children or the elderly. In addition, there's something on a Netscape I don't know how many of you have access to Netscape, but there is a subscription service called Hands net, which does make it possible to collect information about what's happening and what some of the activities are, without any fee whatsoever. If you have access to Netscape, you can latch on to the Children's Defense Fund, and its network of advocates. There there's something called the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, that's probably the single most effective budget analyst and Legislative Advocate. The I mentioned the Children's Defense Fund, which is the most effective advocate for children nationally, there's a central mod social policy in Washington, particularly good on both welfare and childcare issues. We my colleague, and I, Alcon and I have been running a series of expert roundtables over the last year focused on different issues ranging from welfare and Medicaid in a welfare context, childcare in the welfare context, child welfare, in which we've been issuing reports based on these particular expert group discussions, and giving advice to states and voluntary sector leaders and so forth. You're going to see more and every professional organization from the American Bar Association, the American Psychological Association and National Association of Social Workers, they're all going to be paying attention, so find your place. And the other thing just for ease of access also and staying up to date. On Netscape is something called the electronic policy network, which was developed under the auspices of Pollstar Princeton. So my colleagues here must know about it, in which he's brought together on what on the web his homepage or rather that the electronic Policy Network homepage the major foundations that I'm interested in this issue the major think tanks that are interested in this issue, the major advocacy groups or you can just click on any of them the problem in some senses. Unknown Speaker 1:19:49 There is what there are again, on the internet, there is a time to think when it's cool, but there is a women's political, anybody remembers the exact name of it. It's on the internet. I think every major women's organization, national and regional is going to be concerned about it. Just as every organization is concerned about particular issues like childcare, childcare action campaign will pay attention to the childcare issue, the American Pediatric Association to us, for those of you in the New York City area that are interested New York Citizens Committee for the children of New York is by far the most effective New York based group. And the woman sitting above I'm sure will also pay some attention to these issues. Unknown Speaker 1:20:57 Getting information. And I imagined in your area. I know my own state is made up Unknown Speaker 1:21:23 of boats Unknown Speaker 1:21:26 and Motor Sales. There is a direct action associated with those. By the way, right here in New York City that was responding to the city budget, Texas, wholesale coalition agencies to protest those budget hearings, very, very Unknown Speaker 1:22:00 Additionally, in marching, communicating varies. Unknown Speaker 1:22:06 By the way, it's the city that big cities that are going to take the biggest tech, one, because the cities are defined as democratic constituencies. And the Republicans simply assumed that there was nothing to gain from doing anything that would make take the pressure off the cities. And as a result, if you think about where the problems are, in terms of concentrated poverty, high proportions of AFDC recipients see we're talking about the large cities in the United States that tend to have 30 or 40% of their children on AFDC, which is three or four times the rate that exists in the country as a whole. In addition, you've also got a situation in which the cities are much more likely to be the places where illegal immigrants living as well. So the cities are going to take a very big hit. And I think there's a particular issue in trying to mobilize that. I just, I mean, what I've tried to do really is to give you information, I would nonetheless I would be remiss if I didn't say to you, whatever your political positions, this these are terribly important issues that are going to affect all of our children if not directly then indirectly. I simply urge you to become involved in your own communities whichever way you think is important. So thank you very much. Unknown Speaker 1:24:04 I said I was going to speak and I bought your book today. She was getting essential so I got it today guys, Unknown Speaker 1:24:12 Ted. I teach policy on welfare for many years. And I've heard a lot about you and I just saw you because this summer they were added because I saw Brenda walking on Sunday. She was like no her father sees so I had a student exchange trade last night This while I met her actually there was a feminist conference the National Unknown Speaker 1:25:09 Conference and that's why I really liked her a lot yes super lady for the reminder materials for this course. So, she said immediately I should get your books I now have it guess we can