“Caring for Our Children: Meeting the Child Care Needs

of Low-Income, WorkingFamilies in the District”

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

BACKGROUND BRIEFING REPORT

DC Family Policy Seminar

The DC Family Policy Seminar aims to provide accu-rate, relevant, non-partisan, timely information andpolicy options concerning issues affecting children andfamilies to District policymakers.

The DC Family Policy Seminar is part of the NationalNetwork of State Family Policy Seminars, a project ofthe Family Impact Seminar, American Association forMarriage and Family Therapy Research and EducationFoundation.

A collaborative project of the Georgetown University Graduate Public Policy Program (GPPP) and its affiliate,the National Center for Education in Maternal and Child Health (NCEMCH).

DC Family Policy Seminar

“Caring for Our Children: Meeting the Child Care Needs

of Low-Income, Working Families in the District”

BACKGROUND BRIEFING REPORT

ByKerry Whitacre with William Gormley

Georgetown UniversityGraduate Public Policy Program

September 26, 1995

This report provides a brief introduction to the issues addressed by the DC Family PolicySeminar on September 26, 1995. The author thanks the numerous individuals in theDistrict of Columbia government and in local and national organizations for con-tributing their time and efforts to this seminar. Special thanks are given to ValerieGwinner, Tobi Printz, Helena Wallin, and the staff of the National Center for Educationin Maternal and Child Health for their invaluable assistance in hosting this seminar.

1

“Caring for Our Children:Meeting the Needs of Low-Income,Working Families in the District”

I. Introduction In March 1995, the District of Columbia cut

child care subsidies for 1,600 children of low-income families. At the time, critics contendedthat some parents would have to quit their jobsbecause they could not afford child care. Othersfeared that children would be placed in poor-quality child care or left at home alone. In all, theDistrict eliminated $4.5 million that had gone tohelp families obtain child care. As part of the pro-gram, eligible parents had been receiving $95 aweek for each child (Brown, 1995). Within twoweeks of the cut, the District appropriated moneyto save some of the child care slots until the endof the fiscal year. The future of child care subsidiesfor low-income working families is bleak, however,because of the District government’s own budgetproblems and the impending cuts and reorganiza-tion of federal child care funding streams.

The case for providing accessible, affordable,quality child care to low-income families is com-pelling: It can enable parents to work, it can ben-efit children through educational enrichment, andit has the potential to reduce immediate and gen-erational welfare dependency. Families on the bor-derline of poverty and welfare dependencyarguably have the most difficult time coordinatingwork and child care schedules. According toPhillips (1995): “The working poor are also the

This seminar is the eighth in a series designedto bring a family focus to policymaking. Thepanel features the following speakers:

Sandra Clark: Research Associate, The UrbanInstitute.

Deborah Hall: Director of Big Mama’sChildren’s Center and Chairperson of theWashington, DC, Association for the Education ofYoung Children.

Wade Horn: President of the NationalFatherhood Initiative and former Commissioner,Administration for Children and Families, U.S.Department of Health and Human Services.

Barbara Kamara: Executive Director of theOffice of Early Childhood Development, D.C.Department of Human Services.

This seminar focuses on child care for low-income, working families in the District. Thisbackground report summarizes the essentials onseveral topics. It provides an introduction to thedemographics of low-income, working families andaddresses issues such as the current federal childcare programs and current political environment,child development, availability, affordability,quality, family-friendly work policies, and theimpending changes in the federal child caresystem.

Caring for Our Children: Meeting the Child CareNeeds of Low-Income, Working Families

in the District

least likely of all income groups to receive assis-tance with their child care costs.” Low-incomefamilies who are “doing the right thing” byworking struggle with their parental responsibilityto care for their children with limited fiscal capa-bility. Although community-based institutions,including private firms, can provide some welcomerelief, government intervention is also essential(Gormley, 1995).

Child care has become the subject of nationaldebate as legislators at all levels of governmentwrestle with child care legislation, most recently inthe context of welfare reform. The federal govern-ment must decide how much money to allocate,toward what ends, and with what restrictions.State governments and the District of Columbiamust decide how much of their own funds toinvest and who shall receive priority in competingfor scarce child care dollars. State governmentsand the District of Columbia must also decide howmuch emphasis to place on quality, as they assesstheir regulatory framework and their reimburse-ment policies. As Zinsser (1991) states: “Withchild care increasingly accepted as a necessaryunderpinning of our national economy, what wasonce viewed as largely the responsibility of fami-lies is now studied as a field in need of publicpolicy.”

Who Are the Low-Income, WorkingFamilies?

Generally speaking, low-income, workingfamilies are families who make less than $15,000 ayear. This figure can vary depending upon familysize and geographic location. For the purpose ofthis background briefing report, we are focusing onlow-income families that are currently working, asopposed to families that are currently receivingassistance through Aid to Families with DependentChildren (AFDC). Some of these families haverecently been able to survive financially withoutAFDC assistance, while others are in danger ofsliding into welfare dependency. Thus, AFDC is an

2

ever-present concern for low-income working fam-ilies.

Providing adequate child care for low-incomefamilies is a serious challenge in the District. Themedian income of families with children in 1992was $24,300, compared to the national average of$35,100. In other words, half of the families inthe District have an annual income of less than$24,300 (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1995).The average annual income of households headedby single mothers in the District is only $20,900(Outtz, 1995). In 1992, 21.7 percent of children inthe District of Columbia were in extreme poverty(income below 50 percent of the federal povertylevel), compared to 8.9 percent nationally; 47.1percent of D.C. children lived in poor or near-poorfamilies (income below 150 percent of the federalpoverty level), compared to 31.5 percent nation-ally (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1995). Inthe District overall, 28,610 children under the ageof 18—one in four children—are living below thefederal poverty level (Outtz, 1995). The povertyrate for younger children and for nonwhite chil-dren is even higher. African American childrenmake up 80 percent of the child population andrepresent 92 percent of D.C. children living inpoverty (Outtz, 1995). In addition, child povertyvaries extensively by ward. Wards 2, 7, and 8 havepoverty rates among children of 31 percent, 32percent, and 39 percent, respectively (Outtz, 1995).The prevalence of poor and low-income families inthe District underscores the importance of qualitychild care for these families and the challenges ofadministering the federal child care programs andpreparing for the likely changes in the federalsystem. Studies have shown that poor childrenbenefit more from quality child care than childrenfrom other income brackets (Clarke-Stewart, 1982).

What Are the Stresses on Low-IncomeWorking Families?

“American workers’ choices of employment—their choice of shift jobs, part-time work, or notworking at all—are influenced by family duties: by

the need to care for both elderly relatives and chil-dren” (Ferber and O’Farrell, 1991). Many parentsof poor children experience extreme work/familystress. “In single-parent, female-headed families,poverty rates are 46 percent for white children, 68percent for black children, and 70 percent forHispanic children” (1991). After food, housing,and taxes, child care is the next biggest expendi-ture for working parents at all income levels(Committee for Economic Development, 1993).

One study found that employees with chil-dren are under more stress and believe they arenot coping as well as coworkers without children(Galinsky et al., 1993). It is likely that low-incomeparents feel more stress about their children’s carebecause they often work long, irregular hours thatmake traditional and consistent child care arrange-ments difficult.

Finding quality child care was the most fre-quently cited problem with child care (62 percentof parents), according to Galinsky (1993). Childcare for children is often arranged informally.Children are often cared for by an unpaid familymember. Some of the paid care is unlicensed(Ferber and O’Farrell, 1991). Many parents puttogether a series of different arrangements for dif-ferent children for different days of the week(Galinsky, 1993). Close to 26 percent of employedparents with children under the age of 13 experi-enced a breakdown in their usual child carearrangements in the preceding three months(Galinsky, 1993). Galinsky (1988) found that “inassessing all of the potential predictors of psycho-logical adjustment at home or on the job, we havefound that the breakdown of child care arrange-ments ranks as one of the most significant.”Galinsky (1988) also found that child care break-down can affect both marital relationships and sat-isfaction as a parent. This issue can also under-mine carefully crafted workfare programs (Meyers,1993).

3

What Is the Impact of Changing FamilyStructures?

More single-parent families and more womenin the work force are creating a larger demand forchild care. Although a majority of American chil-dren live in two-parent families, half of all chil-dren will live in a single-parent household duringat least some part of their childhood. Between1970 and 1989, the number of children living withonly one parent increased from 12 percent to 25percent.

Single parents face particular problemsin securing appropriate child carearrangements. In effect, it is a viciouscycle: Single-parent families tend tohave low incomes and a higher propor-tion of children living in poverty. Theyalso have greater difficulty finding orpaying for quality child care that wouldenable them to go to work or to workmore productively (Ferber and O’Farrell,1991).

According to a report by the U.S. AdvisoryCommission on Intergovernmental Relations(ACIR), “there is a connection between single par-enthood and the demand for child care (1994).Although single mothers are not more likely towork than other mothers, they do work longerhours, and they are more reliant on child care out-side the home” (Ferber and O’Farrell, 1991).

Today, 54.5 percent of mothers of childrenunder three years of age are in the labor force,compared to 34 percent in 1975. Mothers nowtypically only take off 12 weeks from work aftergiving birth (Galinsky, “Families at Work,” 1994).Two-thirds of women with preschool children andthree-quarters of women with school-age childrenare employed outside the home (ACIR, 1994).Some of the factors driving this trend include “thedecline of the traditional family; deteriorating eco-nomic conditions; and new attitudes toward work,children, and men’s and women’s roles in society”(ACIR, 1994).

In the District, 62 percent of women of allages were in the work force in 1992 (Spalter-Rothet al., 1995), and fewer than 40 percent of all chil-dren under the age of 6 have a nonworking parentliving at home (Outtz, 1995). In addition, 36 per-cent of children are living in households with noadult male present, compared to the nationalaverage of 15.8 percent (The Annie E. CaseyFoundation, 1995). Moreover, 67.3 percent of chil-dren live in neighborhoods where more than halfof all families with children have a female head ofhousehold, compared to 7.2 percent nationally(The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1995).

II. Federal Child Care ProgramsThat Help Low-Income, WorkingFamilies

Before 1988, no federal funding specificallytargeted the provision of child care subsidies topromote economic self-sufficiency for low-incomefamilies (General Accounting Office, 1994). Inrecent years, as the number of working motherswith young children has increased, Congress hasrecognized the importance of child care to familyself-sufficiency.

In 1988, Congress passed the Family SupportAct (FSA), which included two child care programs.The first provides child care for recipients ofAFDC, including those participating in the JobOpportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) training pro-gram. It is an uncapped entitlement with a matchrequired by states. The program lowers the actualcost of care for AFDC families who are working orattending state-approved education or trainingprograms. In fiscal year 1993, the federal govern-ment spent $470 million for AFDC child care (U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, 1995).The second program is called Transitional ChildCare (TCC), which has the same funding mecha-nisms, state matching rates, and payment rates asthe AFDC program. However, this program is forworking families whose AFDC eligibility has ceasedbecause their income from employment has suffi-ciently increased. TCC provides transitional child

4

care for eligible families for up to 12 months.Under this program, families are required to con-tribute to the cost of care. In fiscal year 1993, thefederal government spent $113 million for TCCchild care.

In 1990, the federal government recognizedthat low-income, working families are at risk forbecoming dependent on welfare because of theirinability to work and afford child care (Hofferth,1992). At-Risk Child Care and the Child Care andDevelopment Block Grant (CCDBG) were autho-rized by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of1990 to support low-income, working families.The At-Risk funding program provides financialassistance for child care for low-income, workingfamilies but allows states to define what is consid-ered “at-risk” and what is considered “low-income.” An individual state’s share of total fundsis equal to the ratio of the state’s children underage 13 to the number of the nation’s childrenunder age 13. In fiscal year 1993, the federal gov-ernment spent $270 million on child care underthe At-Risk program. The CCDBG was designed toprovide direct support to low-income, workingfamilies that need child care in order to work or toparticipate in education and training, and toimprove the availability and quality of child carefor all families (General Accounting Office, 1994).States receive their share based on formulas instatutes and regulations. Payments to familiesmust be sufficient to ensure equal access for eli-gible children, provided their families are notalready receiving subsidized care. The Congress seteligibility for CCDBG at 75 percent of a state’smedian income, but states may set lower ceilings(Sternowski, 1995). In fiscal year 1993, the federalgovernment spent $891 million on CCDBG childcare.

Despite the proliferation of child care pro-grams (a number of smaller federal programs alsocontribute child care assistance in addition to theprograms described above), most states and theDistrict of Columbia have failed to serve all low-income families who are legally eligible for assis-

tance (Phillips, 1995). In addition, the programsare poorly integrated (ACIR, 1994). Even thoughall four programs were designed to reduce the costof child care for low-income families, they havedifferent objectives, target populations, and pro-gram requirements. Consequently, “integratingthese new federal programs into existing state sys-tems of child care in a way that both promotesand supports self-sufficiency has been a continuingchallenge and area of concern for states” (GeneralAccounting Office, 1994). A General AccountingOffice study (1994) found the following:

Different federal program requirements andresource constraints has led to many gaps indelivery of services to low-income populations.GAO reported four gaps in particular:

1. Categories of clients who can be served;2. Limits on the types of employment-related

activities clients can undertake without com-promising their benefits;

3. Limits on the amount of income clients canearn without losing their eligibility; and

4. Limits on the amount of time during whichclients can receive child care subsidies.

This General Accounting Office study con-tinues: “The categorical nature of programs doesnot recognize that disruptions in important ser-vices such as child care can cause economicallymarginal families to lose jobs and, if eligible, to beforced to rely on welfare.” In addition, if a statedoes not have funding through a block grant, At-Risk Child Care program, or other source to con-tinue child care subsidies for the TCC program, theclient must bear the entire cost of child care(1994).

Although the TCC program of the FamilySupport Act promises assistance to parents wholeave AFDC, this essential help either fails to reachmost eligible families or provides too little assis-tance to meet their needs. Most of those familieseligible for Transitional Child Care assistance whenleaving AFDC failed to receive the assistance(Children’s Defense Fund, 1992). In San Francisco,

5

for example, only 10 percent of those eligible actu-ally receive funds under the TCC program or acomparable program (Clark and Long, 1995).

Different states have used their CCDBGmoney differently. Some states, recognizing thatchild care subsidies can prevent low-income fami-lies from becoming welfare dependent, have tar-geted a majority of the block grant funds for childcare to low-income, working families. Otherstates, because of budget problems, have appropri-ated much of the CCDBG money to meet the childcare needs of AFDC families who are currentlyentitled to child care subsidies (GeneralAccounting Office, 1994). A survey conducted bythe Children’s Defense Fund found that 15 statesreported using CCDBG funds to pay for child carefor some AFDC families in employment, educa-tion, or training programs (GAO, 1994). TheDistrict of Columbia uses some of its CCDBGmoney for AFDC families (rather than for childcare for low-income, working families).

Currently, there are incentives for states toserve entitled clients first. General AccountingOffice study (1994) found that:

Although child care workers believe thatthe provision of child care is importantto prevent low-income, working familiesfrom going on welfare, these families areserved, as funding permits, after statesprovide subsidies to entitled individuals.Clients who are entitled by law toreceive child care benefits are placed inone category, and other eligible individ-uals are prioritized and served asresources permit.

Even with the influx of new federal dollarsinto child care since 1990, states are not suffi-ciently meeting the child care needs of low-incomeparents (Blank, 1993).

III. Types of Arrangements andPatterns of Use

Child care arrangements of low-income fami-lies vary greatly according to household type andparental employment status (Phillips, 1995).According to the National Research Council’sBoard on Children and Families:

Approximately 48 percent of low-income children under age 5 are caredfor mainly by their parents; an addi-tional 10 percent are cared for exclu-sively by their parents. Only 22 percentof children with two employed parentsand 8 percent of children with a singleemployed mother are cared for solely bytheir parents (15 percent of childrenwhose mothers are in education andtraining programs are exclusively inparental care). Of those relying on non-parental care, the distribution ofpreschool-age children across types ofcare varies greatly by household typeand employment status of the mother.Care by a relative is especially prevalentfor low-income preschoolers with singlemothers (26 percent), employed mothers(28 percent), and mothers in educationand training programs (23 percent).Children under age 5 in families headedby employed single mothers are alsoheavily reliant on family day care (21percent) and center-based care (27 per-cent) (Phillips, 1995).

The National Child Care Survey found thatparents of different socioeconomic status had dif-ferent rationales for choosing their current childcare arrangement. Low-income families weremuch more likely to claim a preference for relativecare (35 percent), while high-income families weremost likely to claim quality of care as their reasonfor choosing their current type of care (Phillips,1995). Overall, low-income families tend to stressissues of safety and trust as the most important

6

characteristics in a provider—all other concernsabout quality may be considered a luxury (Phillips,1995).

Although a very high percentage (approxi-mately 95 percent) of families of all incomes statea high level of satisfaction with their current childcare arrangements, a closer examination of thedata shows some important distinctions. TheNational Child Care Survey revealed that low-income single mothers were significantly less likelyto state high levels of satisfaction than two-parent,low-income households (67 percent vs. 84 percent)(Phillips, 1995). Overall, single employed motherswere the population most likely to desire an alter-native to their current child care arrangements(Phillips, 1995).

In the District, approximately 19,842 childrenare enrolled in licensed child care centers orlicensed child care homes (Spalter-Roth et al.,1995). In 1990, 55,919 children 13 years of ageand younger had parents in the labor force.Spalter-Roth and colleagues found that “onlyabout 35 percent of children with working parentsare being served. The number of available regu-lated slots in child care facilities for the same yearwas 21,396, leaving a deficit of almost 35,000 slotsaccording to [the Metropolitan WashingtonCouncil of Governments]” (1995). Some of thepossible obstacles that inhibit parents from uti-lizing vacancies in child care facilities include lackof information, spatial mismatch, and high costs(Spalter-Roth, 1995). In addition, there is evidencethat many of the vacant slots were in child carefacilities in the Northwest quadrant of the city,which may be inaccessible geographically for par-ents in Wards 7 and 8 (the wards with the highestnumber and proportion of children in theDistrict). Wards 7 and 8, incidentally, are also thecity’s poorest wards.

IV. AccessibilityIssues of accessibility and availability place

large constraints on low-income families’ childcare options. According to Kisker et al. (1991),

only 23 percent of all child care centers link fees tofamily income. The limited number of programsthat offer sliding-fee scales restricts access to low-income families. Even the availability of relativesor friends is not as prevalent as one might suspect.A study by Siegel and Loman found that 67 per-cent of their AFDC sample had no family or friendin or near their home who could provide childcare (Phillips, 1995). Other barriers such as lack oftransportation and strict city codes prevent orinhibit the development of child care facilities.The effects of zoning restrictions on family childcare homes are especially worrisome (Gormley,1990).

Adequacy of the Number of Child CareProviders

In the District of Columbia, as in many com-munities, the supply of child care is inadequate.All across the 8 wards, there is a lack of infant care,school-age care, and care for children with specialneeds. Although the Office of Early ChildhoodDevelopment is coordinating many efforts to bringthe supply closer to meeting the demand, a seriousgap remains, placing low-income families and theirchildren in peril. Of the child care provided in theDistrict, there are different concentrations ofoptions in different wards. The largest number ofproviders can be found in Wards 2, 5, 6, and 7.Ward 2 has more child care facilities than anyother ward, even though it has the lowest per-centage of children (Spalter-Roth, 1995). Ward 8,which has one-fifth of the children in the District,has barely 12 percent of the providers (Spalter-Roth, 1995). These researchers note that “morechild care centers are found in the wards withhigher average family incomes. This locationalpattern suggests that child care centers best meetthe needs of families who can afford to pay. Someof these children’s needs may be met by subsidizedfacilities in these areas or by less expensive familyday care homes.”

7

Structure of Low-Income Work

The structure of most low-income work doesnot fit the hours and organization of typical childcare options. The National Child Care Surveyindicates that one-third of working-poor mothersand one-fourth of working-class mothers workweekends (Phillips, 1995). Only 10 percent of cen-ters and 6 percent of family child care homes pro-vide care on weekends (Phillips, 1995). Almosthalf of low-income parents work rotating sched-ules amenable only to finding multiple providersto patch together needed child care. In addition,many low-income families are plagued by irregularwork schedules, making formal child care arrange-ments virtually impossible. In the District, whilemost families leave for work between 6 a.m. and 9a.m., a substantial number leave for work at othertimes. According to a study conducted byHamilton Outtz Consultants for the District ofColumbia Head Start Grantees, more than 60,000workers leave work before 7 a.m. and over 20,000leave between midnight and 6 a.m.. Another32,000 workers leave for work after noon (Outtz,1995). A report by Spalter-Roth et al. (1995) indi-cates that most centers in the District operate onworkday schedules (from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)rather than all-day or evening schedules. Only38.1 percent of all centers in the District operateall day from 6:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. Thus, thereis a shortage of centers to meet the needs of par-ents working nontraditional hours.

Hofferth et al. (1982) looked at whether at-riskchildren have equal access to early childhood pro-grams. The answer was a qualified “no,” althoughequal access was much less likely if a child camefrom a low-income household.

Irrespective of family income, child carehas become a necessity for the majorityof American families. Yet specific gapsin current programs and arrangementsmean that many children and familieslack access to services. Families with

infants and toddlers, those with childrenwith disabilities, those with mildly orchronically ill children, those withschool-age children, and those in whichparents work nontraditional schedulesoften have particular difficulty arrangingappropriate child care services (Hayes,1990).

Role of Information Services for Low-Income Families.

“Information about child care services is essen-tial if parents are to choose an appropriate arrange-ment. Unfortunately, parents often lack informa-tion about the availability, affordability, andquality of child care options.” (ACIR, 1994). Anumber of barriers inhibit the flow of information.First, resource and referral agencies do not exist inall communities; second, parents may not knowthat resource and referral agencies exist in theircommunities; and, third, many resource andreferral agencies do not have accurate and usefulinformation such as a complete listing of familychild care homes (ACIR, 1994). A nine-state studyof welfare recipients found that such recipientsoften received inadequate information and per-functory advice (ACIR, 1994). The same problemsafflict low-income working parents. In fact, it isdifficult for parents of any income bracket toobtain valuable information on the relative meritsof various child care facilities (Gormley, 1995).

V. AffordabilityParents in low-income families choose the

child care arrangements they prefer, given their“current circumstances and limitations” (Phillips,1995). It is likely that if low-income families weregiven the financial and informational means tochoose child care arrangements, they would beable to choose care that best meets the needs oftheir child and their own work schedule. The costof child care is one of the most prominent con-straints that low-income families face.

8

The Cost of Child Care

On average, parents spend 10 percent of theirincome on child care (Ferber and O’Farrell, 1991).Poor parents devote a higher percentage of theirincome to child care than do the nonpoor (ACIR,1994). Among low-income parents, an average of22 to 25 percent of family income is spent onchild care (Committee for Economic Development,1993). In 1993, the average weekly cost of childcare was $54 for low-income families—an amountthat can be as much as 24 percent of the weeklyincome of a very low-income family (Phillips,1995). Care for infants is even more expensive—approximately $65 per week, or 33 percent ofincome (Phillips, 1995). In the District, Spalter-Roth et al. found that the average weekly cost forcenter-based care was $104 for infants, $79 forpreschoolers. Similarly, family child care averaged$69 for infants, $65 for preschoolers (Spalter-Roth,1995). The study conducted by Spalter-Roth in theDistrict found that child care centers cited parentfees as their most important source of revenue.Only 25 percent of centers that responded to theirsurvey reported government funds as a majorsource of their revenue (Spalter-Roth 1995).

Although low-income parents spend a largepercentage of their income on child care, they arenot necessarily purchasing quality care. “Thisremarkable effort does not provide enough moneyto purchase decent quality—25 percent of theannual earnings of a single mother working full-time at the minimum wage is roughly $2,200,while good quality child care can easily cost$4,000 a year or more” (Adams and Sandfort,1992).

One solution is to give more money to low-income families. By putting more “money in thepockets of working parents, obviously there’s moremoney available to pay child care providers and topay for higher-quality child care” (Kamarckquoted in Stanfield, 1993). Even AFDC recipientswho are entitled to child care cite cost as a fre-quent barrier to obtaining child care. Although

most AFDC recipients prefer center-based care, fewcan afford to pay the cost even with subsidies(Phillips, 1995). Hence, many low-income familiesrely on family members for free care—which is notan option for all families and is not necessarilyquality care or even safe care (Phillips, 1995).

Structure and Consequences of ChildCare Subsidies

According to the National Child Care Survey,the working poor are least likely of all incomegroups to receive assistance for their child careexpenditures. “Whereas 37 percent of both non-working-poor families and middle-income familiesreceive direct or tax assistance with their child carecosts, only 30 percent of the working poor receivesuch assistance” (Phillips, 1995). More than $2.5billion federal dollars supported child care assis-tance to the nonpoor through the Child andDependent Care Tax Credit in 1993. Because thetax credit is not refundable, it offers limited bene-fits to the working poor. In the same year, only$1.7 billion was spent on the four largest federalchild care programs earmarked to serve low-income families: Aid to Families with DependentChildren, Transitional Child Care, At-Risk ChildCare, and the Child Care and Development BlockGrant (Phillips, 1995).

Although the federal programs aim to provideservices to families ranging from the AFDC popula-tion to families just above the federal povertylevel, different funding streams have been used totarget different subgroups within the low-incomepopulation. The amount of public resourcesappropriated for these programs does not comeclose to meeting the needs of the large number offamilies technically eligible for assistance (Phillips,1995). In Chicago, for example, only 15 percentof those eligible receive government subsidies(Clark and Long, 1995). State agencies that coordi-nate the federal subsidy programs consistently findquality of care and access to care by low-incomefamilies to be problematic as AFDC populationshave grown, together with the states’ economic

9

responsibility to AFDC families. The distributionof available subsidies for low-income familiesacross the poor and working-poor segments of thispopulation continues to be detrimental to low-income working families, as states are required toprovide child care for AFDC recipients. TheDistrict of Columbia reported in 1993 that it wasusing funds (previously used for child care forother families) to cover federal AFDC child carefunds (Ebb, 1994). If AFDC becomes part of theblock grant program and the child care programsare consolidated (as currently proposed inCongress), then each state will be responsible fordevising its own rules and regulations about whichsegments of the poor and working poor shouldreceive child care subsidies—if at all.

According to a survey conducted by theChildren’s Defense Fund, AFDC child care isalready stretched to the limit, with strainsapparent in services for both AFDC and non-AFDClow-income families. States are either reneging onthe child care guarantee contained in the FamilySupport Act or spending the resources of the non-AFDC working poor (Ebb, 1994). Ebb states that“funding limitations and policy choices also hurtAFDC children by tilting AFDC child care pro-grams toward low-cost child care options that tendto be of poorer quality.” Ebb suggests that “suc-cessful welfare reform must be supported by addi-tional investments in child care for both AFDCand low-income working families, the child careguarantee should be strengthened, and the qualityof child care provided for our neediest childrenmust be improved.”

VI. QualityThe prevalence of high-quality child care

in the United States is very low. According to thecost, quality and outcomes study conducted byHelburn (1995), approximately one-eighth of allchild care centers are good, approximately one-eighth are poor, and the rest are mediocre.Galinsky et al. (1994) found that only 9 percent of

family child care homes are good and 35 percentare inadequate. The quality of child care canaffect numerous aspects of child development,such as school readiness. Phillips (1995) statesthat “low-income families face a range of childcare options that vary from the unsafe andunstable to those that offer not only safe but alsodevelopmentally beneficial care and learningopportunities.” Nonetheless, child care that fallsjust above the inadequate level can be considered“not ‘good enough’ for low-income children whoare experiencing the stresses and disadvantagesassociated with living in poverty” (Phillips, 1995).The District should determine whether its effortsare best served by trying to minimize poor-qualitycare through regulatory reform, financial incen-tives, or some other technique.

Although quality child care costs money,studies examining equity of access to quality careby low-income families found that low-incomechildren are able to experience the best and worstof care depending on their access to extensive fed-eral intervention programs and certain center-based programs (Phillips, 1995). According toSpalter-Roth (1995), low-income families, overall,get higher quality care in centers than in familychild care homes—especially when child care cen-ters are subsidized and monitored by the govern-ment.

But what is the impact of quality care on low-income families? Results from the cost, quality,and child outcomes study suggest that poor-quality care may have a stronger negative impacton low-income children than on other children(Helburn, 1995). The study also found thatquality, structure, and appropriate adult supervi-sion may matter more for low-income childrenthan for their higher-income peers. The implica-tions of these findings may help determinewhether resources should be allocated to ensurelow-income families access to the current supply ofchild care providers or to upgrade the quality ofchild care that low-income families presently use(Phillips, 1995).

10

Numerous studies confirm that the best pre-dictors of quality include staff training, staff educa-tion, low child-staff ratios, and low staff turnover(ACIR, 1994; Helburn, 1995). Some of thesequality dimensions are expensive; others are lessso. Providing low child-staff ratios, for example,require more funds than providing a well-educated, well-trained staff (Gormley, 1995). Withthese factors in mind, the District might focus itsattention on those quality components that arefinancially attainable.

When parents were asked what they look forin child care, a majority cited price and conve-nience; teacher training and group size were notsignificantly associated with parental child caredecisions (Hofferth and Chaplin, 1994). Thisfinding suggests that parents may not be knowl-edgeable about the determinants of a quality childcare program and may unknowingly place theirchildren in poor-quality care. As Spalter-Roth(1995) explains: “Inadequate consumer knowledgecreates market imperfections and reduces theincentives for some providers to offer qualitycare.” Without knowledge of what constitutesgood quality child care, parents will neither recog-nize nor demand such quality for their own chil-dren.

VII. Family-Friendly Work PoliciesMuch of the discussion thus far has focused on

the federal government’s role in providing finan-cial assistance for child care for low-income fami-lies. Employers also can play a role in creating afamily-friendly work environment and in offeringsubstantial child care assistance for low-income,working families. Studies show that if parents aresatisfied with child care arrangements, produc-tivity in the work place improves (ACIR, 1994).Hence, employers have an incentive to providechild care assistance to their employees.

A small number of companies offer on-sitechild care centers. Only 13 percent of FORTUNE1000 companies have child care centers near their

workplace (Galinksy, 1990). “One percent of com-panies with fewer than 50 employees offer this ser-vice, 2 percent of companies with 50–250employees, and 4 percent of companies with251–1,000 employees sponsor child care centers ator near work” (Galinsky, 1991). Fifty-five percentof FORTUNE 1000 companies offer resource andreferral services, but 64 percent do not offer suchservices to all locales (Galinsky, 1991).

Some companies have Dependent CareAssistance Plans (DCAPs), which allow employeesto deposit up to $5,000 of pretax annual salariesinto flexible spending accounts from which theycan be reimbursed for child care and health careexpenses. Fifty percent of FORTUNE 1000 compa-nies have DCAPs (Galinsky, 1991).

Some corporations provide vouchers to helppay child care costs of employees. As Galinsky(1991) explains, “Usually these are limited to low-income employees (under $30,000 family income,for example) and to a limited amount of a subsidy.The Corporate Reference Guide Study found thatvouchers are rare in FORTUNE 1000 companies:Only 1 percent of employers provide them.”Galinsky also notes that discount programs aremore popular; sometimes employees, for example,get a 20 percent discount at certain centers.

Overall, Galinsky found that the higher thenumber of professional employees, the more likelythe company is to offer child care assistance—astatistic that suggests that only low-incomeworkers in companies with a high number of pro-fessionals may have the opportunity to obtainchild care assistance from an employer. Overall,the prevalence of child care assistance isincreasing, but “not all employees have access toservices and benefits their own companies offerand many employees work for companies thatoffer no formal child care assistance” (Galinsky,1991).

Since lower income employees tend towork for the smaller, less professionalfirms, they often have the least access to

11

child care support. In other words, theemployees who probably need it themost are least likely to receive it. Thisposes a societal dilemma that should beresolved. Any number of governmentalactions are possible. For example, thefederal government could institute start-up grants for companies employing low-income workers to help such companiesprovide child care programs. Financialaid, in the form of child care scholar-ships (as in high education) would alsobe very useful (Galinsky, 1991).

The District of Columbia government is thelargest employer of Washington, DC, residents.During fiscal year 1993, five child developmentcenters, with a capacity for 255 children, operatedat District government work sites. Spaces are madeavailable to low-income families through a sliding-fee scale (Indices, 1993). Some local companieshave made exceptional efforts to provide child careassistance. The Marriott Corporation and FannieMae, for example, have been celebrated as morefamily-friendly than most (Moskowitz andTownsend, 1993). In general, however, most pri-vate firms in the District have paid scant attentionto the child care needs of their employees,including the working poor.

VIII. ConclusionSociety has a huge stake in helping low-

income parents enter and remain in the work forceso that their families become self-sufficient.Studies have shown that child care can make thework force more productive, can reduce welfaredependency, and can support families (Committeefor Economic Development, 1993). A study by theGeneral Accounting Office used economic mod-eling to estimate the effect of reducing (throughsubsidies) the cost of child care on the mother’swork effort. The model showed that providing afull subsidy increased the work effort of poormothers from 29 to 44 percent and near-poor

12

mothers from 43 to 57 percent. The effects onnonpoor mothers was significantly smaller(Phillips, 1995). Fronstin and Wissoker (1994)found the same trend among samples of low-income families: The higher the price of childcare, the lower the employment rate (Phillips,1995). This suggests that child care is very impor-tant to help families achieve independence fromwelfare assistance and to keep many more fromslipping into poverty.

Nonetheless, low-income families’ child careoptions are constrained due to the structure oftheir low-wage jobs and accessibility and afford-ability problems. Without government, employer,or other financial assistance, many of these fami-lies must rely on free care by relatives or friends orresort to very inexpensive care of dubious qualityand to multiple arrangements—all of which maynot benefit the child, and may actually harm thechild’s development. Unfortunately, current fed-eral and state investments in child care already fallshort of child care needs. Ebb (1995) states: “Evenbefore enactment of any new welfare reforms,three-fourths of the states have waiting lists forworking-poor families in need of child care assis-tance.” The inadequacy of government supportand other constraints may force low-income fami-lies to pursue child care options they do not prefer,out of economic necessity.

A key question for public policymakers iswhether significant inequalities in access andaffordability of child care options should exist inthis country. Should low-income families be giventhe same opportunities as higher-income familiesto access child care arrangements that they feel arebest for their children while enabling them towork and to be productive members of society?What is the proper role of the federal governmentin providing low-income families with the finan-cial means to have more options? Does the cur-rent federal child care system limit or enhance theoptions of low-income families? Would currentlegislative proposals improve or worsen child careoptions for low-income families? How will the

District and the states be affected if the federalgovernment grants them greater discretion in childcare expenditures? All of these important ques-tions need answers.

When this report was written, the welfaredebate was tabled until after the Congressionalsummer recess. The Work Opportunity Act, S.1120(sponsored by Senator Robert Dole) includes re-authorization of the CCDBG at slightly higherlevels than current spending, as requested by theSenate Labor and Human Resources Committee.However, the Dole bill would curtail federalfunding for the IV-A child care programs by con-solidating the various IV-A programs and byfreezing funding at fiscal year 1994 levels throughfiscal year 2000. Ironically, this would coincidewith significantly expanded work requirements forthe AFDC population. To meet these work require-ments, the Department of Health and HumanServices estimates that additional child care expen-ditures of $4.1 billion per year will be required byfiscal year 2000 (Children’s Defense Fund, 1995).Yet the Dole bill envisions reduced federal childcare expenditures.

The Dole bill would also jeopardize child carespending by placing welfare-related child carefunds into the same pool with other welfare-related appropriations. Thus, the states and theDistrict of Columbia would be free to divert federalchild care dollars to employment and training pro-grams for the poor, if they so desired. In addition,the Dole bill would eliminate the requirement forstate matching funds. In all probability, thiswould result in lower levels of state spending. AsClark and Long (1995) point out: “When federalfunding for social services (including child care)was reduced in the early 1980s, states did not, ingeneral, provide added funds for child care ser-vices. Instead, state funds were used to maintaincrisis-oriented social services.” Based on theseprecedents, the elimination of matching fundsrequirements could result in reduced child careexpenditures by state governments and theDistrict.

Regardless of what Congress does or does notdo, the District of Columbia will have its owndilemmas to confront. What balance should bestruck between the child care needs of the workingpoor and those of the nonworking poor and thetruly destitute? Who among the eligible shouldreceive priority? What balance should be struckbetween quality and affordability? Is it better tofund a larger number of slots for child care ofaverage (or even below average) quality or asmaller number of slots for child care of high

13

quality? How much of its own funds should theDistrict spend on child care for the working poor?What additional steps should the District take topromote availability, affordability, and quality?And what are the responsibilities of private firmsand community-based institutions located withinthe District? Without good answers to these ques-tions, the working poor face an uncertain future asthey attempt to meet both family and work obliga-tions.

The following section presents a brief descrip-tion of child care programs available within theDistrict of Columbia for children and families.This list is based on information obtained throughinformal surveys with local organizations andadvocates. It does not represent a comprehensiveanalysis of local resources. Descriptions areincluded for purposes of reference rather than rec-ommendations.

Barney Neighborhood House 3118 16th Street, NW3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20010(202) 939-9000 Executive Director: Rob McLean

The Barney Neighborhood House providesafter-school tutoring and activities for school-agechildren.

“Before and After School Program”DC Public Schools1230 Taylor Street, NWRoom 202Washington, DC 20011(202) 576-7132Program Coordinator: Carver King

The Before and After School Program providesstructured activities on public school groundsthroughout the District for children ages 5–12before and after school as well as during summermonths.

14

Big Mama’s Children’s Center4680 Martin Luther King Avenue, SWWashington, DC 20003(202) 563-5303Director: Deborah Hall

Big Mama’s Children’s Center provides servicesfor children ages eight weeks through 14 years.The licensed capacity is 104 children. The cur-riculum is developmentally appropriate with anemphasis on Afro-centric history. The center isopen Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to6:00 p.m.

Calvary Bilingual Multicultural Learning Center1459 Columbia Road, NWWashington, DC 20009(202) 332-8697Executive Director: Beatriz Otero

The Learning Center’s program is for children2–5 years of age. Care providers speak Spanish andEnglish.

Catholic Charities1125 Neal Street, NEWashington, DC 20002(202) 396-8100Director: Ruddy Hutchinson

St. Joseph’s Day Care CenterTaft Junior High School18th and Perry Street, NEWashington, DC 20018(202) 526-0100Director: Phyllis Toner

DC Family Policy SeminarSampling of Early Education Providers and

Referral Agencies for Low-Income Families

Catholic Charities runs two child care facilitiesin the District—one on Neal Street, the other atthe Taft Junior High School. The center on NealStreet has been in existence since 1971. It serveschildren from 6 weeks through 4 years old from7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The center at the TaftJunior High School serves children ages 2–5 yearsfrom 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Both centers servelow-income families in the District.

The Center for Youth Services921 Pennsylvania Avenue, SEWashington, DC 20003(202) 543-5707Director: Samuel TramelContact: Dayna Nokes

The Center for Youth Services is a private, non-profit corporation established to offer multiple ser-vices to disadvantaged inner city adolescents. Itoffers a multifaceted program that includes devel-opmental child care, parent education, develop-mental screening, and child care referrals.

DC Department of Recreation and Parks“Day Care” (202) 576-7226“Before and After School Care” (202) 576-71323149 16th Street, NWWashington, DC 20010(202) 673-7660Acting Director: Betty Jo Gaines

The D.C. Department of Recreation and Parkshas three principal programs that focus on youngchildren: (1) The Day Care Program, primarily forpreschool children; (2) the Cooperative CareProgram, which includes parents in the operationof care programs; and (3) the Before and AfterSchool Care (BASC) Program, which provides care,supervision, and activities for younger children ofwork-ing parents before and after the school day.The neighborhood recreation centers in the systemhave for several years included informal before-and after-school activities, as working parents

15

depended more and more on the recreation cen-ters for supervision of their children duringworking hours. The department also operates anumber of Head Start programs in the District.

D.C. Jewish Community Center1836 Jefferson Place, NWWashington, DC 20036(202) 775-1765Executive Director: Arna Meyer MickelsonYouth and Family Division Director: ElonaShaffert

The D.C .Jewish Community Center offers twopreschools; a “No School Today” program for chil-dren when school is closed; a winter camp heldduring winter break; an after-school program forchildren in kindergarten through sixth grade; and“The Lunch Bunch,” a group designed for workingmothers who find it stressful to juggle time, makechild-care decisions, meet the demands of a job,and try to maintain a relationship.

Edward C. Mazique Parent-Child Center1719 13th Street, NWWashington, DC 20009(202) 462-3375Chief Operating Officer: Charlene Walker

The center is a private, nonprofit, community-based organization involved in early intervention,early education, and family support. The centeroffers 13 programs at five sites in the District.Overall, the center serves 500 families in bothcenter-based and home-based care.

Family and Child Services of Washington, DC929 L Street, NWWashington, DC 20001(202) 289-1510Program Director: Deanna Phelps

Family and Child Services follows a family-based child care model. It works with theDepartment of Human Services to provide childcare to low-income families. This organization alsoworks with a network of 45 home providers toplace approximately 150 infants and preschoolersin full-time child care.

Gallaudet University Child Development Center800 Florida Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20002(202) 651-5130

Director: Gail Solit

The center provides center-based child care ser-vices for children who are deaf and those who canhear. Half of the staff are deaf and half can hear.The center provides care from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00p.m. for children ages 2–5 years.

Gap Community Child Care Center3636 16th Street, NWWashington, DC 20010(202) 462-3636Director: Ms. Monica Guyot

The center is a multicultural, educational,developmental program for children ages 6 weeksto 5 years. In addition to providing a fullpreschool curriculum including math, socialstudies, art, music, social skills, language, andreading, the center provides breakfast, lunch, and asnack for all participants.

Head Start Program in Washington, DCUnited Planning Organization810 Potomac Avenue, SEWashington, DC 20003(202) 546-7300Director: William Hughey

Established in 1965, the Head Start Programprovides comprehensive child development ser-vices for low-income preschool children (3–5years). All local Head Start programs offer four

16

major components: Education, social services,parent involvement, and health services (includingmedical, dental, nutrition, and mental health ser-vices). Local programs are administered throughgrants from the Administration for Children andFamilies, U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices. The authorizing legislation specifies thatat least 10 percent of Head Start’s national enroll-ment must consist of children with disabilities.There are 39 Head Start facilities in the District,serving 1,665 children.

Howard University Hospital Child Care Center1911 5th Street, NWWashington, DC 20001(202) 797-8134Interim Director: Michelle Parker

The center provides child care service primarilyto Howard University and the hospital employees’children, with secondary service to the LedroitPark area residents. It provides child care anddevelopmental services for children six weeks to 4years of age, and also provides child care forschool-age children on holidays and weekends.

Intergenerational Child Care ProgramNational Child Day Care Association1501 Benning Road, NELower LevelWashington, DC 20002-4599(202) 397-3800Program Director: Mattie Jackson

This program was developed in 1966 toinvolve older adults in 21 child care centersaround Washington, DC. The older adults serve asteacher aides and assist in housekeeping and cler-ical activities.

Kenilworth-Parkside Learning Center1553 Anacostia Avenue, NEWashington, DC 20019(202) 397-1827Center Director: Michael Gross

The center provides child care to children ages2–4 from 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.

Northwest Settlement448 Ridge Hill Street, NWWashington, DC 20001Infant Center224 R Street, NWWashington, DC 20001(202) 332-3680Center Director: Maddy Edward

The settlement is open from 7:30 a.m. until6:00 p.m. for children ages 2–5. NorthwestSettlement also has an Infant Center for infants sixweeks to 2 years of age. The settlement acceptsvouchers from low-income parents.

“PhoneFriend”Office of Early Childhood Development717 14th Street, NWSuite 730Washington, DC 20005(202) 727-1839Executive Director: Barbara Ferguson Kamara

PhoneFriend is a free afternoon helpline forlatchkey children, provided by the D.C. Hotline incooperation with the D.C. Public School’sDepartment of Guidance and Counseling. Trainedvolunteers answer the phone from 3:00 to 9:00p.m. each weekday and from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m.Saturdays. The PhoneFriend staff also make pre-sentations to schools and community groups onschool-age child care topics. The PhoneFriendnumber is (202) 223-2244.

Project ROAR (Reach Out and Read)Washington, DC, Public Library901 G Street, NWWashington, DC 20001(202) 727-1151Contact: Maria Salvadore or Pamela Stovall

17

The purpose of ROAR is to promote readingamong family child care providers and parents andchildren they serve. A librarian visits providers’homes and offers storytime that includes activitiessuch as reading and acting out stories and finger-plays. The librarian leaves books for children toread and follow-up activities for providers and par-ents to do with children.

Rosemount Center2000 Rosemount Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20010(202) 265-9885Executive Director: Jane Yocum

The Rosemount Center offers a bilingual, mul-ticultural program with center-based and/or home-based care. The center offers center-based care forinfants, toddlers, and preschoolers, and offershome-based care for preschool children. Thecenter offers parents a combined option of home-based and center-based care. It also runs a HeadStart program and participates in the Departmentof Health and Human Service’s subsidy program.The center also provides in-house special educa-tion and therapies for infants and children withdisabilities. Finally, Rosemount Center runs atraining program for child care workers at theRosemount Center and other child care providersin the community.

The Village Day Care Center2900 14th Street, NWWashington, DC 20009(202) 234-5114Director: Stephanie Tindal

The Village Day Care Center provides compre-hensive child care service to families. They acceptsubsidies from low-income families. The cur-riculum is developmentally appropriate and taughtin a multicultural setting with a bilingual staff. Thecenter provides services for all children, (includingchildren with special needs) 2-1/2 to 5 years ofage, from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Washington Child Development Council2121 Decatur Place, NWWashington, DC 20008(202) 387-0002

Executive Director: Bobbi Blok

The council is the resource and referral agencyfor families in the District. In addition to helpingfamilies find appropriate, affordable, child care,the council also trains child care center staff andlicensed home providers.

YWCA Child Development Center624 9th Street, NWWashington, DC 20001(202) 626-0731

The YWCA Child Development Center provideschild care programs designed to meet the needs ofworking parents and provides a developmentalprogram within the framework of a full day ofchild care. It also has a fully licensed preschoolprogram and provides a developmental program inhalf-day sessions during the school year fromSeptember through May.

18

Child Welfare League of AmericaChild Day Care Services440 First Street, NWSuite 310Washington, DC 20001(202) 638-2952Contact: Bruce Hershfield, Program Director

The Child Welfare League of America is a nationalmembership organization of 800 members, ofwhom 200 provide child care services. The ChildDay Care Services program examines programpractice and policy issues related to child care. Inparticular, the organization lobbies for federalfunding, has developed a National Child Day CareTask Force, builds family child care systems, offersleadership programs, and tries to improve relationsbetween child care and foster care services.

Children’s Defense Fund25 E Street, NWWashington, DC 20001(202) 628-8787Contact: Helen Blank

The Children’s Defense Fund analyzes federaland state policy issues, and works with members ofCongress and state legislators to develop child carepolicy. It conducts research in child care issues,trains child care advocates, and provides a leader-ship program for individuals in the early child-hood field.

19

Children’s Foundation725 15th Street, NWSuite 505Washington, DC 20005-2109(202) 347-3300Executive Director: Kay Hollestelle

The Children’s Foundation promotes quality,affordable child care and works to improve thelives of children and the people who care forthem. The foundation sponsors the Family DayCare Project, which provides resource developmentfor children and parents, as well as specializedtraining for caregivers and parents. It also spon-sors the National Child Support Project, whichhelps custodial parents collect support, and pro-vides information on a variety of enforcementproblems.

Council for Early Childhood Professional Recognition1341 G Street, NWSuite 400Washington, DC 20005(202) 265-9090

The Council for Early Childhood ProfessionalRecognition works to improve the status of earlychildhood educators nationwide. The counciloversees the Child Development Associate (CDA)National Credentialing Program, a collaborativeeffort between the early childhood profession and

National Child Care Research and Professional Organizations

the Administration on Children and Families. Theprogram promotes a variety of training experiencesfor early childhood staff and establishes nationalstandards for the evaluation and credentialing ofchild care staff. The council’s new CDAProfessional Preparation Program, a nationwidenetwork of one-year training courses, will provideuniform and accessible training for people inter-ested in becoming CDAs.

Families and Work Institute330 Seventh AvenueNew York, New York 10001(212) 465-2044Contact: Ellen Galinsky

Families and Work Institute is a nonprofitresearch and planning organization that conductsresearch on business, government, and communityefforts to help employees balance their job andfamily responsibilities.

Gallaudet University Child Development CenterProject Access800 Florida Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20002(202) 651-5130Director: Gail Solit

The Gallaudet University Child DevelopmentCenter received a grant from the Office of SpecialEducation and Rehabilitative Services of the U.S.Department of Education to help integrate childcare services for hearing and deaf children in otherchild care programs throughout the country.

National Academy of Early Childhood Programs1509 16th Street, NWWashington, DC 20036-1426(202) 232-8777Executive Director: Sue Bredekamp

The National Academy of Early ChildhoodPrograms is a component of the National

20

Association for the Education of Young Children.The academy administers a national, voluntary,professionally sponsored accreditation system forall types of preschools, kindergartens, child carecenters, and school-age child care programs.

National Association of Child Care Resourceand Referral Agencies1319 F Street, NWSuite 810Washington, DC 20004(202) 393-5501Executive Director: Yasmina S. Vinci

The National Association of Child CareResource and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA) pro-motes the development, maintenance, and expan-sion of quality child care resource and referral ser-vices. The association offers parents detailedinformation about local child care and early educa-tion programs and providers, current openings,and sources of financial aid. It also sponsorsregional and national conferences, provides tech-nical assistance, maintains a clearinghouse forchild care information, and publishes the quarterlynewsletter CCR&R Issues.

National Association for the Education of Young Children1509 16th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036-1426(202) 232-8777Executive Director: Marilyn Smith

The National Association for the Education ofYoung Children (NAEYC) is the nation’s largestmembership organization of early childhood pro-fessionals and others dedicated to improving thequality of services for young children and theirfamilies.

National Association for Family Child Care1331A Pennsylvania Avenue, NWSuite 348Washington, DC 20004(800) 359-3817President: Linda Geigle

The National Association for Family Child Care(NAFCC), formerly the National Association forFamily Day Care, is an organization of family andgroup child care providers and advocates. Theassociation began as a project of the Children’sFoundation, and its National Director of Family DayCare Associations and Support Groups continues tobe published through the foundation. Other pub-lications include the bimonthly newsletter TheNew National Perspective, and the pamphlet How toStart a Family Day Care Business.

National Black Child Development Institute1023 15th Street, NWSuite 600Washington, DC 20005(202) 387-1281Executive Director: Evelyn K. Moore

The National Black Child DevelopmentInstitute (NBCDI), a national nonprofit organiza-tion dedicated to improving the quality of life forblack children, focuses on three major policy areas:child care, child welfare, and education.

National Child Care Information Center301 Maple Avenue West, Suite 602Vienna, VA 22180(800) 616-2242Executive Director: Anne Goldstein

The National Child Care Information Center isan activity of the Child Care Technical AssistanceProject funded by the Administration for Childrenand Families (ACF). The center disseminates childcare information in response to requests from

21

states, territories and tribes, policymakers, parents,programs, organizations, providers, and the pubic.Other activities include outreach to ACF granteesand the broader child care community; publicationof the Child Care Bulletin; analysis of child caredata submitted to ACF; and distribution ofresearch, listings, and abstracts of child care publi-cations and resources.

National Conference of State LegislaturesWashington Office:444 North Capitol Street, NWSuite 500Washington, DC 20001(202) 624-5400

The National Conference of State Legislatures,which serves the legislators and staffs of thenation’s states, commonwealths, and territories,has three objectives: Improve the quality andeffectiveness of state legislatures; foster interstatecommunication and cooperation; and ensure astrong, cohesive voice in the federal system.

National Governors’ Association444 North Capitol StreetSuite 250Washington, DC 20001-1572(202) 624-5300

The National Governors’ Association, an orga-nization of the governors of the 50 states and theAmerican commonwealths and territories, is con-cerned with shaping policies both at the state andnational level.

National Resource Center for Health and Safetyin Child Care2000 15th Street NorthSuite 701Arlington, VA 22201-2617(703) 524-7802Contact: Pamela B. Mangu

The National Resource Center for Health andSafety in Child Care at the National Center forEducation in Maternal and Child Health providesinformation services, technical assistance, andresource materials in the area of child care. Thecenter disseminates information such as theNational Health and Safety Performance Standards:Guidelines for Out-of-Home Care.

The Urban Institute2100 M Street, NWWashington, DC 20037(202) 833-7200Contact: Sandy Clark

The Urban Institute is a nonprofit policyresearch and educational organization establishedin Washington, DC, in 1968. Its staff investigatesthe social and economic problems confronting thenation, and the public and private means to alle-viate them. The Urban Institute continues to con-duct extensive research on child care. Recent pub-lications include: Child Care Prices: A Profile of SixCommunities (1995), The Effect of Transitional ChildCare and Medical Benefits on Post-Welfare Success:Evidence From Two States (1995), Child Care Qualityversus Availability: Do We Have to Trade One for the

22

Other? (1994), Caring for Young Children WhileParents Work: Public Policies and Private Strategies(1994), The Effects of the Availability of Low-CostChild Care on the Labor Supply of Low-IncomeWomen (1994), Caring for Children in Low-IncomeFamilies: A Substudy of the National Child CareSurvey, 1990 (1993), and The National Child CareSurvey, 1990 (1991). Copies can be ordered byphone at (202) 857-8687.

Zero to Three2000 14th Street NorthSuite 380Arlington, VA 22201-2500(703) 528-4300Contact: Beverly Jackson

Zero to Three (formerly the NationalCenter for Clinical Infant Programs) is a nonprofitorganization that works to improve the chancesfor healthy physical, cognitive, and social develop-ment of infants, toddlers, and their families and tocreate a context for improved understanding ofearly intervention and prevention programs. Theorganization offers training programs and mate-rials, produces publications, provides technicalassistance to administrators at state, community,and program levels, and sponsors seminars andconferences.

Mayor’s Advisory Committee on EarlyChildhood Developmentc/o Office of Early Childhood Development717 14th Street, NWSuite 730Washington, DC 20005(202) 727-1839Chairperson: Beverly Jackson

The Mayor’s Advisory Committee on EarlyChildhood Development is made up of representa-tives from private organizations in the field ofearly childhood development, center operators,parents of children in both center-based andhome-based child care centers, public and appro-priate government agencies. The committeeadvises the Mayor on early childhood develop-ment programs in the District of Columbia andserves as an advisory council in the implementa-tion of the early childhood development require-ments of the federal government. The committeeserves as an advocate for improving the quality ofearly childhood development programs and rec-ommends methods of upgrading services.

Metropolitan Washington Councilof GovernmentsChild Care Advisory Committee777 North Capitol Street, NE, Suite 300Washington, DC 20002-4226(202) 962-3256

The Metropolitan Washington Council ofGovernments is the regional association of theWashington area’s major local governments andtheir governing officials. The council has a Child

23

Care Advisory Committee comprising representa-tives from the public, private, business, and educa-tional communities as well as individuals andorganizations with an interest in child care issues.The mission of the committee is to promote avail-able, affordable, quality child care throughout theWashington metropolitan region. The Council ofGovernments publishes (free of charge) theDirectory of Accredited Child Care Programs in theWashington Metropolitan Region.

Office of Early Childhood DevelopmentD.C. Department of Human Services717 14th Street, NWSuite 730Washington, DC 20005(202) 727-1839Executive Director: Barbara Ferguson Kamara

The Office of Early Childhood Developmentfacilitates citywide coordination of public and pri-vate efforts to expand and improve child develop-ment services to better meet the changing needs ofthe community. This is done on behalf of childrenand families, and in partnership with all who areconcerned with the future of children in thenation’s capital. Some of the functions of theoffice include advocacy; collaboration and coordi-nation; consumer education and public informa-tion; data development and analysis; early careand education service; financial assistance; policy,legislation, and regulation review and develop-ment; public/private partnership development;and training and technical assistance. For infor-mation on training and events, call the 24-hourChild Care Calendar Line at (202) 310-2020.

District Child Care Associations

24

Washington, DC Association for the Educationof Young Children4680 Martin Luther King Avenue, SWWashington, DC 20003(202) 563-5303Chairperson: Deborah Hall

The Washington, DC Association for theEducation of Young Children is the local affiliateof the National Association for the Education of

Young Children. The local association is a profes-sional organization incorporated for the purpose ofbringing together people interested in the educa-tion, rights, and well-being of young children;sponsoring activities and projects that will furtherthe understanding of the needs of young children;determining the essentials of adequate group careof young children; interpreting these standards asneed arises; beinging informed of and cooperatingwith other groups concerned with the welfare andeducation of young children; and investigatingnew trends in early childhood education.

Adams, Gina and Jodi R. Sandfort. State Investments in Child Care and Early ChildhoodEducation. Washington, DC: Children’s DefenseFund, March 1992.

Advisory Commission on IntergovernmentalRelations. Child Care: The Need for Federal-State-Local Coordination. March 1994.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Kids Count DataBook: State Profiles of Child Well-Being.Baltimore: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1995.

Blank, Helen. Investing In Our Children’s Care: AnAnalysis and Review of State Initiatives ToStrengthen the Quality and Build the Supply of ChildCare Funded Through the Child Care andDevelopment Block Grant. June 1993.

Brown, De Neen L. “D.C. Cuts Day-Care Subsidiesfor 1,600 Children; Families Fear Effect.”Washington Post. March 21, 1995, C8.

Children’s Defense Fund. Child Care Under theFamily Support Act: Early Lessons from the States.April 1992.

Children’s Defense Fund. Dole Bill Summary.August 1995.

Clark, Sandra and Long, Sharon. Child Care Prices:A Profile of Six Communities (Summary of Findings).Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, April1995.

Clarke-Stewart, K. Alison. Daycare. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.

Committee for Economic Development. WhyChild Care Matters: Preparing Young Children for aMore Productive Agenda. New York: Committeefor Economic Development, 1993.

Ebb, Nancy. Child Care Tradeoffs: States MakePainful Choices. Washington, DC: Children’sDefense Fund, 1994.

25

Ebb, Nancy. Child Care and Welfare Reform: MorePainful Choices. Washington, DC: Children’sDefense Fund, 1995.

Ferber, Marianne A. and Brigid O’Farrell with LaRue Allen. Work and Family: Policies for aChanging Work Force. Washington, D.C.:National Academy Press, 1991.

Galinsky, Ellen. Business Competitive Policies andFamily Life: The Promise and Potential Pitfalls ofEmerging Trends. Bank Street College ofEducation, 1988.

Galinsky, Ellen. The Role of Corporation inPromoting Early Childhood Education and Care andFamily Support Systems. New York: Families andWork Institute, 1990.

Galinsky, Ellen. Employers and Child Care. NewYork: Families and Work Institute, 1991.

Galinsky, Ellen and James T. Bond, Dana E.Friedman. The Changing Workforce: Highlights ofthe National Study. New York: Work and FamilyInstitute, 1993.

Galinsky, Ellen. “Families at Work: TheImportance of the Quality of the WorkEnvironment.” In S. Lynn Kagan and BerniceWeissbourd, eds., Putting Families First: America’sFamily Support Movement and the Challenges ofChange. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1994.

Galinsky, Ellen and Carollee Howes, Susan Kontos,Marybeth Shinn. The Study of Children in FamilyChild Care and Relative Care: Highlights ofFindings. New York: Families and WorkInstitute, 1994.

General Accounting Office. Child Care: WorkingPoor and Welfare Recipients Face Service Gaps.Washington, DC, May 1994.

Works Cited

Gormley, William, Jr. “Regulating Mister Rogers’Neighborhood: The Dilemmas of Day CareRegulation,” The Brookings Review, Vol. 8 (Fall1990), pp. 21–18.

Gormley, William, Jr. Everybody’s Children: ChildCare as a Public Problem. Washington, DC: TheBrookings Institution, 1995.

Haskins, Ron. “Is Anything More Important ThanDay-Care Quality?” In Alan Booth, ed., ChildCare in the 1990s: Trends and Consequences.Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Publishers, 1992.

Havemann, Judith and Helen Dewar. “Dole CourtsConsensus on Welfare: Reform Plan CarriesTough Work Mandates.” The Washington Post.,August 8, 1995, A7.

Hayes, Cheryl D. and John L. Palmer, Martha J.Zaslow, eds. Who Cares for America’s Children?:Child Care Policy for the 1990s. Washington, DC:National Academy Press, 1990.

Helburn, Suzanne. Cost, Quality and ChildOutcomes in Child Care Centers: Technical Report.Denver: University of Colorado at Denver, June1995.

Hofferth, Sandra L. “The Demand for and Supplyof Child Care in the 1990s.” In Alan Booth, ed.,Child Care in the 1990s: Trends and Consequences.Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Publishers, 1992.

Hofferth, Sandra L. and Duncan Chaplin. ChildCare Quality versus Availability: Do We Have toTrade One for the Other?. Washington, DC: TheUrban Institute, 1994.

Hofferth, Sandra L. and Jerry West, Robin Henke,Phillip Kaufman. Access to Early ChildhoodPrograms for Children at Risk. Washington, DC:National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.Department of Education, 1994.

Indices. Washington, DC: DIstrict of ColumbiaGovernment, 1993.

26

Kisker, Ellen, Sandra Hofferth, Deborah Phillips,and Elizabeth Farquhar. A Profile of Child CareSettings: Early Education and Care in 1990—Vol. I.Princeton: Mathematica Policy Research Inc.,1991.

Meyers, Marcia. “Child Care in JOBS Employmentand Training Program: What Difference DoesQuality Make?” Journal of Marriage and theFamily, Vol. 55, No. 3 (August, 1993), pp.767–783.

Moskowitz, Milton and Carol Townsend. “100Best Companies for Working Mothers,” WorkingMother (October, 1993), pp. 27–67.

Outtz, Janice Hamilton. Children and Families inthe District of Columbia: Child Care Needs:—PartI:. Demographic Analyses. Lanham, MD:Hamilton Outtz Consultants, 1995.

Phillips, Deborah A, ed. Child Care for Low-IncomeFamilies: Summary of Two Workshops.Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995.

Spalter-Roth, Roberta and Enrique Soto, TeeshlaMorgan. Children and Families in the District ofColumbia: Child Care Needs—Part II: Child CareNeeds Assessment Survey. Washington, DC:Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 1995.

Stanfield, Rochelle L. “Child Care Quagmire.”National Journal. February 27, 1993, pp.512–516.

Sternowski, Richard. Interview. U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services, Children’sBureau. August 4, 1995.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,Administration for Children and Families. [FactSheet.] Washington, DC, January 1995.

Zinsser, Caroline. Raised in East Urban: Child CareChanges in a Working Class Community. NewYork: Teachers College Press, 1991.

The DC Family Policy Seminar is coordinatedby Valerie Gwinner, Project Director, NationalCenter for Education in Maternal and ChildHealth, 2000 15th Street North, Suite 701,Arlington, VA 22201-2617, (703) 524-7802.

For additional information about the DCFamily Policy Seminar, or to request copies of thefollowing briefing reports or highlights, pleasecontact Tobi Printz or Helena Wallin at (703) 524-7802:

• Families That Play Together: Recreation andLeisure in the District (July 1995).

• HIV/AIDS: Helping Families Cope (April 1995)• Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment

Programs: A Family Approach (February 1995)• Family-Friendly Welfare Reform: Using Welfare

Policies to Strengthen the Family (November 1994)

• Preventing Family Violence (September 1994)• Preventing Adolescent Violence (May 1994)• Preventing Teen Pregnancies (December 1993)

27

28