Perhaps you’ve read about Sanesha Taylor. She’s the Scottsdale, Arizona mother who left her baby and toddler in the car while she interviewed for a job.
Got arrested and put in jail. Lost custody of her children. Story picked up by a local TV channel and spread all over the internet. So no job, of course. And dimmer prospects because she’s already got a felony charge on her record — and could be convicted.
No one — least of all Sanesha — thinks it’s okay to leave your kids in a car unattended, especially on a hot day. But she was between the rock and the hard place because she needed that job and had no one to look after her children.
She had thought she would until the last minute, but the informal babysitting arrangements she’d relied on fell though. So she felt she had no choice but to blow off the interview — and the chance of a job that would pay more than enough to end her family’s homelessness — or to take the kids with her and leave them in the car.
This story would be altogether different — and we would never have read it — if she’d had affordable, high-quality child care. For her — and many, many other low-income parents — that means child care subsidized with public funds.
She once had a child care subsidy, but lost it when her employer cut her work hours — and then fired her when she took time off to prevent a miscarriage. Reportedly was offered a job elsewhere, but couldn’t take it because she couldn’t find child care.
Arizona isn’t the only state that terminates childcare subsidies when parents lose their jobs and don’t find another PDQ.
Witness for Hunger member Tangela Fedrick, who lives in Philadelphia, tells of a similar experience. Like Sanesha, she managed to piece together part-time childcare arrangements.
But, she says, her five-year-old son no longer has “a sense of stability and security.” And “he’s not learning anything,” the way he did when he was at a childcare center that gave him “instruction and pushed [him] to learn more.”
She worries that he won’t have the “tools” to help him “excel” when he starts grammar school — and that the months without high-quality child care “will always be a time of lost potential.”
In short, we have two major problems here: parents whose lack of reliable child care is an obstacle to getting a job and children who miss out on early learning experiences, which scads of research tell us provide lifelong benefits — both to them and our society.
The problems are obviously related because they’re both rooted in lack of money — for parents to afford high-quality child care without a subsidy and for state and local agencies to provide subsidies to all parents who need them.
Not only to provide them, but to reimburse providers at a rate that doesn’t cause them to limit the number of subsidized children they’ll accept and/or to skim on investments in quality, e.g., staff training.
To some extent, the money shortage reflects choices by state and local governments. In 2012, for example, three states cut spending on childcare assistance by more than 30%. All three — Georgia, North Dakota and South Carolina — also cut state taxes.
But the federal government is to blame as well. The Child Care and Development Block Grant, a.k.a. the Child Care and Development Fund, hasn’t kept pace with rising needs and costs.
Nor, as I’ve said over and over again, has the TANF block grant — another major federal funding source. Combining CCDBG with states’ uses of their federal TANF funds and funds they must spend to get those, childcare spending was lower in 2012 than in any year since 2002.
The multiple funding streams make it hard to put a figure on the total number of children served — and not. This much we know. The number of children served by CCDBG was the lowest since 1998 — only one in six eligible children.
That leaves more than 5.6 poor and near-poor preschoolers without child care subsidized by the largest federal source. And at least some older children with working parents need child care too.
In 2011, 13.6% of poor preschoolers whose mothers worked had no regular childcare arrangements — as of course, did some unknown percent whose mothers were actively seeking work. And this was when at least some states still had Recovery Act money for child care—and before sequestration had taken a bite out of CCDBG.
Tangela has a job now. She hopes this means she’ll get her childcare subsidy back. If she doesn’t she’ll probably still have to rely on her network of friends and relatives because center-based child care for her son would set her back somewhere around $8,600 for the year.
That’s 36.4% of the median income for Pennsylvania’s single-mother families. And its far from the costliest, whether measured in dollars or as percent of median income.
President Obama has proposed increases for CCDBG totaling $807 million, including $200 million states would have to use to support improvements in childcare quality. This would leave somewhat under $5.9 billion for subsidies.
The National Women’s Law Center says that “the additional funding would help maintain low-income families’ access to help paying for child care.”
Not, you’ll note, make subsidies available for anywhere near the number of low-income families that need them — and at reimbursement rates that would ensure access to high-quality care.
One would think that a program that supports both work and early learning could get more — or at least one would if one knew nothing at all about this Congress.