On Saturday, the record government investment meant to stabilize the child-care industry during the pandemic will end. This federal funding cliff might cause 70,000 providers to go under, leaving 3.2 million children without places. The prospect has prompted an overdue conversation about how to build a sustainable child-care system in the United States.
Any solution will have to work for the people, such as Fletcher and Segura, who have opened their homes to care for one-fifth of kids under 5 years old in the system. They need easy access to subsidies and support.
Family-run child-care facilities are a lifeline, especially for America’s poorest workers. They tend to charge less than day-care centers, giving parents more hours for their money. They are more likely to offer overnight or 24-hour care, crucial for parents who work shifts or unpredictable hours, more of whom are Black or Hispanic, and are single parents. Small home-based settings are vital in rural areas and for parents who prefer that a provider speaks their language.
These locations are disappearing. Like all facilities, they took a hit during the pandemic as parents kept their children home to avoid infection. By 2022, the overall number of day-care centers had rebounded above 2019 levels, but the number of licensed family-care facilities was down 11 percent.
Even before covid-19 the supply of home-based child care had dwindled: The number of small providers almost halved between 2005 and 2017, falling to under 100,000. That left 29 percent fewer licensed facilities overall, because the tally of other settings rose by just a couple thousand. The number of unlicensed home-based-care providers fell, too. (In some states, some day cares operated out of private homes need not be formally licensed.)
Child care has always been a small-margins business. Federal and state subsidies plug some of the gap between what parents can afford and what providers need to make. The challenge is getting those funds to eligible providers.
Part of the problem is bureaucracy. “The paperwork is painful. It’s just torturous,” Fletcher said of the process of securing tuition subsidies for Grand Momma’s Daycare, the facility she runsin Missouri. By contrast, a chain such as industry giant Bright Horizons has a billing department to chase down government checks.
States need to simplify their processes. Websites and forms should be optimized for mobile phones — the only way many care providers can get online. And states should pay providers up front, or based on a child’s enrollment rather than attendance. As a 2019 report from the National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance urged, this would give family providers more reliable streams of income, at less cost of their own time.
Getting these payments weekly, rather than monthly, might stabilize cash flow, suggests Segura, whose day care serves the children of many agricultural workers. She receives subsidies from programs such as California’s Community Connections for Childcare.
Regulations need to be pragmatic and humane. An inspector’s order to make home upgrades that a renter is not allowed to undertake might be a death sentence to her business. Vermont is revising its rules governing child-care operations and has solicited insights from family providers. Other states would do well to follow suit.
Efficiency would help. Segura waited months to get trained and approved to start her day care during the pandemic, at a time when the supply of child-care providers was contracting. So would a personal touch. Fletcher said the turnover of inspectors is a source of strain.
Federal and state agencies might also invest in networks that help small providers benefit from efficiencies without sacrificing warmth and personal service. For instance, the nonprofit All Our Kin in New Haven, Conn., helps family-based providers get licensed, access training and build business acumen.
There’s a role for employers here, too. Upwards, a company co-founded by Jessica Chang, plays matchmaker between home-based caregivers (such as Fletcher and Segura) and organizations (including the U.S. Army Reserve) that need their workers to have reliable child care.
When Upwards can’t make matches, Chang tells companies why. She levels with employers about local supply and costs. If those companies respond by offering child-care benefits through Upwards, that’s another stream of revenue secured for participating providers.
These are creative and important attempts to shore up a system that for too long has relied almost entirely on the passion and commitment of the people who care for America’s smallest citizens. “As long as I can pay my bills, I will continue to help those that are in need,” Fletcher told me, her voice wobbling but determined.
Caring for children might be a higher calling, but the people who do it shouldn’t have to be saints — or martyrs — to keep going.
Credit: Source link
