77 Massachusetts Avenue 
Cambridge, MA 02139 
http://libraries.mit.edu/ask 
 
DISCLAIMER NOTICE 
 
Due to the condition of the original material, there are unavoidable 
flaws in this reproduction.  We have made every effort possible to 
provide you with the best copy available. 
 
Thank you.
 
 
 
Some pages in the original document contain text 
that runs off the edge of the page. 
ii
DAY CARE PARTNERSHIP:
A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR MASSACHUSETTS
BY
Sheryl Adlin
Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning
on May 15, 1985 in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of Masters in City Planning
ABSTRACT
Major demographic and economic changes have resulted in the lack of
supply of quality affordable day care for preschool and school-age
children. Many state governments are now attempting to develop policies
to increase the supply of care since there is no national comprehensive
day care policy, A planning process was developed and coordinated
by the author which resulted in a comprehensive Massachusetts day care
policy, This thesis includes a discussion of; 1,) the economic and
demographic changes which lead to the increased demand for quality
affordable day care; 2,) the planing process; 3.) the recommended
policy.
Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Yohel Camayd-Freixas
Title: Assistant Professor of Urban Studies
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My special thanks to Professor Yohel Camayd-Freixas for his encourage-
ment and support, but mostly for his laughter and to Professor Langley
Keyes for always treating me like a professional.
This thesis actually would not have become a reality without Joan
Quinlan, the Governor's Advisor on Women's Issues and co-chair of the
"Governor's Day Care Partnership Project". Joan's skill and commitment
were the primary factors responsible for the development and implementa-
tion of the Day Care Partnership Plan.
iv
Table of Contents
Chapter
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. The Problem: The Need for Quality Affordable Day Care . .
1.1 Increasing Numbers of Working Mothers . . . . ... .
1.2 The Inadequate Supply of Affordable Quality Day Care
1.3 Day Care in Massachusetts.. . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. ThePlanning Process: "The Governor'sDay Care Partnership
4
4
9
21
Project" 26
3. The Planning Intervention: The Recommendations . . . . . . . . 35
3.1 The Vision, 1984.'-.-.................................. 35
3.2 Resource Development . . . . . . . . . . ........... . 40
3.3 Qaulity..........-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.4 Affordability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.5 Policy Coordination and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . 75
Epilogue...-............................. 
.78
Mission Statement.-......... . . .
Statement of Purpose - - - - - - - - -
Fact Sheet: Day Care in Massachusetts;
Day Care Partnership Project - - - - .
The Day Care Partnership Plan . . . . .
The Day Care Message - - - - - - - - -
Chronology of
- - -0-.-.-0-0
Governor's
Appendix
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
80
81
83
87
93
86
I.Z
Page
vReference Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Selected Bibliography. . ............ ... . ....... 98
1Introduction
The rapid growth of single-parent and two-wage earner families has
resulted in a dramatic increase in the need for affordable quality child
day care.* In spite of major demographic and economic changes during
the past twenty-five years, the United States remains the only industrial
nation without a comprehensive child care policy. The lack of such a
policy has resulted in a "patchwork of programs funded in a host of dif-
ferent ways serving only a fragment of the population."1 Because of the
lack of affordable day care programs, over five million children under the
age of thirteen are left alone for a significant amount of time each day.2
Although Massachusetts' committment to child care has been high
relative to other states, it is estimated that only about a third of
Massachusetts' families are able to find the kind of care they want at a
price that they can afford. During his reelection campaign in 1982, Governor
Michael S. Dukakis said that there was a need for "the state to have a com-
prehensive, identifiable day care policy," To achieve that goal, in March
1984 the Governor appointed the "GOVERNOR'S DAY CARE PARTNERSHIP PROJECT"
composed of state and local government officials, legislators, business and
labor leaders, educators, providers, advocates, and consumers. Project
members were asked to develop recommendations that would lead to more
affordable quality child day care programs throughout the Commonwealth.
I was hired to be the director of "The Governor's Day Care Partnership
Project" in February 1984 by Joan Quinlan, the Governor's Advisor on
Women's Issues and co-chair of the "Governor's Day Care Partnership Project."
* The terms child day care, day care, and child care will be used inter-
changeably throughout this thesis.
2I was able to recommend membership, write the Project's Statement of Purpose,
and develop the Project's working structure. I played an active role in
developing the Project's recommendations and wrote the final report which
was submitted to the Governor in October 1984. The report resulted in the
Governor announcing a $17 million "Day Care Partnership Plan" in January
1985.
Serving as director of this Project was a unique opportunity to parti-
cipate in a very important planning process. In the past government officials,
day care providers, consumers, and advocates have been able to agree on
what Massachusetts' day care system's problems were, but they have never been
able to agree on solutions or who should pay for any intervention. At the
end of the six month process, which lead to the Project's report, not only
had Project members reached consensus on almost all of the recommendations,
but therewas strong support for the recommendations throughout the very
diverse day care community, The Project and its report will have a major
affect on the future development of day care services in Massachusetts.
This thesis is divided into three chapters; 1. The Need for Quality
Affordable Day Care; 2, "The Governor's Day Care Partnership Project";
and 3. The Recommendations of "The Governor's Day Care Partnership Project".
The first chapter explores the reasons for the dramatic increase in the
number of working mothers and identifies the reasons for the lack of affor-
dable quality child care, The second chapter discusses the events leading
up to the appointment of "The Governor's Day Care Partnership Project" and
the process used to develop recommendations. The third chapter, the recom-
mendations, is divided into five sections: The Vision, 1989; Resource
Development; Quality; Affordability; and Policy Coordination and Implemen-
tation. For each recommendation there is a discussion of rationale and
implementation strategy. The recommendations as a whole, focus on the need
3for state government to take an active leadership role in the development
of quality affordable day care services.
The problems confronting any attempt to provide more affordable
quality day care are complex and there are no simple, or easy solutions, The
Project's thirty recommendations are an attempt, though, to address these
problems in a fairly comprehensive manner. Massachusetts has never had
a comprehensive day care plan before. Future analysis will be needed to
determine if the Project actually met its goals.
4Chapter One
The Problem
THE NEED FOR QUALITY AFFORDABLE DAY CARE
1.1 Increasing Numbers of Working Mothers
While America policymakers debate if mothers with young children
should work, millions of women with preschool and school-age children
are entering the labor force, Between 1950 and 1980 the labor force
participation of mothers with children under six tripled from 14% to 47%.3
In 1980 there were 5.5 million working mothers with preschool children,
representing the fastest growing segment of the workforce,4 with mothers
of children under two entering the labor force at the most rapid rate of
all.5 Sheila Kamerman of Columbia University points out that "we are
approaching the time when most preschoolers will be children of working
mothers, as most school-age children already are." 6 By 1990 64% of all
preschool children are expected to have working mothers.7 The "baby
boomlet" is projected to add 6 million children to the American population
by 1995.8 The majority of these babies' mothers will be working full time
long before their children enter kindergarten.
Large numbers of young single American women have worked outside .of the
home since the Industrial Revolution.. Only a very small proportion of
wives and mothers worked for wages, though, except during times of national
emergencies (e.g. the Great Depression, World War I and II). The dramatic
increase in working mothers during the past two decades has resulted in only
11% of American families currently fitting our image of the "traditional"
American family with father working, and mother at home caring for their
children,9 Major demographic and economic changes lead to the increase in
working mothers. The significant demographic changes that contribute to
5the increase in working mothers includes: 1. increasing divorce and
separation rates; 2. smaller families; and 3. increasing numbers of mothers
who do not marry. Over the past two decades marital patterns have changed,
and fertility rates have dropped. Young women are marrying later, giving
birth later, and having fewer children.10 More and more women are remaining
in the workforce even after marriage and/or childbirth."1
A very important factor in the increase in working mothers is the
growing number of mothers with no husband, either by choice or circumstance.
In 1960 there were 4.5 million American female-headed households. By 1982
this number had increased to 9.7 million or one out of six families.12 During
the past decade the number of female headed households with dependent children
has doubled.1 3 Over 25% of all children thirteen years old and younger
are now cared for by single mothers,14 and 50% of all children can expect
to live in one-parent homes for a significant part of their lives.15
The number of female-headed households is particularly significant
in the black and Hispanic communities as the following chart points out:
1970 1981
Female-headed Households % of Black Families 30.6% 45.5%
Female-headed Households % of Hispanic Families 16.9% 21.8%
Female-headed Households % of White Families 7.8% 14.7%
(source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census)
Female-headed households are a larger portion of black families than any
other subgroup. For whites the proportion is the smallest, but the increase
is the greatest.
The majority of female-headed households are poor. Many single mothers
find themselves economically responsible for their children yet unable to
earn an income adequate enough to keep their children out of poverty.
Although over one out of three marriages now ends in divorce and 80% of
children remain with their mothers after divorce, only 4% of divorced women
receive alimony and only 22% collect any child support.16
6Divorce often results in financial crisis for the woman and financial
gain for the man. A 1976 University of Michigan study found that the
economic status of divorced men improved 17% while the position of women
declined by 29%.17 A more recent California study showed that the standard
of living for divorced women plunged 73% while their ex-husbands experienced
a rise in living standard of 42%.18 A divorced mother, confronted with the
need to find a job to support her children, must often first find child
care. The dilemma she may find herself in, though, is that she cannot
afford child care because her income has been so drastically reduced.
Many single mothers, therefore, find themselves dependent on welfare.
More than 1/3 of U.S. female-headed households are on AFDC. Depending on
the state, AFDC payments in 1980 ranged from 49% to 96% of the poverty
level9 19  Many AFDC mothers find the lack of affordable child care a barrier
to employment, When Massachusetts AFDC recipients were surveyed in 1975
"family responsibilities" (for many lack of child care) was given as the
primary reason for not being in the workforce.2 0 As we shall see the
lack of child care continues to be a major barrier to employment for many
AFDC mothers.
Sixty percent of women currently on AFDC had their first child as a
teenager.2 1 These women are particularly handicapped because more than
half were unable to complete high school.2 2 Over 1.3 million children
are now living with 1.1 teenage mothers and over one fourth are receiving
AFDC.23 Most of these teenage mothers are unable to finish high school
and/or work because they cannot find or afford child care.2 4 Over 800,000
children of teen mothers are in need of child care.2 5
In 1980 3.2 million single mothers were working full time.2 6 Employment,
though, does not guarantee an adequate standard of living for female-headed
households. Twenty-two percent of working female-headed households and 33%
7of single mothers with children under six are poor.2 7 Because of the lack
of marketable skills, discrimination, and occupational segregation, many
working mothers find themselves locked into dead-end jobs. There is a
large earnings gap between families supported by women and families supported
by men. The median wage for white female-headed households is 64.5% of
families maintained by white men compared to 50.8% for black female-headed
households and 52.5% for Hispanic female-headed households.2 8 The average
median income for all full time working single mothers in 1982 was $12,07029
and this will be an important figure to remember when we later explore the
average cost of child care.
Single mothers are obviously working due to economic necessity. In-
flation has resulted in many married mothers also having to work in order
to keep their families out of poverty. Only one job in four now pays enough
to adequately support a family of four.3 0 Thirty percent of all working
families were maintained by two earner parents who would have had an income
of less than $13,000 if only one parent worked, 3 1 and at least half of all
working two-parent families would earn less than $15,000 without the mother's
paycheck.3 2 Many families must, therefore, have two pay checks or fall
below the poverty line.
Women have also been pulled into the labor force by an accelerated
demand for female labor. Fourteen of the twenty occupations projected to
experience the largest growth through 1991 are female-dominated, with more
than 66% female workers.3 3 Occupations have been historically sex-segregated,
with women working primarily in clerical and service jobs. A 1981 MIT
study found that 70% of all new private sector jobs created between 1973
and 1980 were "women's jobs".3 4 Unfortunately, most of these jobs tend to
provide low wages and poor benefits.
The increase in the number of female-headed households and inflation
8have resulted -in a dramatic increase in the number of working mothers in
the past twenty-five years. There has also been an accelerated demand for
female labor. Many other mothers would like to work or complete high school
but are unable to do so because of their inability to afford day care. In
spite of increased labor force participation many female-headed households
live in poverty due to inadequate child support, lack of marketable skills,
discrimination, occupational discrimination, and as we shall see the high
cost of child care. Black and Hispanic female-headed households have the
highest rates of poverty compared to all other families.
91.2 The Inadequate Supply of Affordable Quality Day Care
Who is minding the millions of American children who have working
parents? The answer for many is "day care". In 1980 an estimated 7.2
million children needed day care. Approximately one quarter of these
children lived in single-parent families.3 5 Many parents, though, are
unable to find the kind of day care they want at a price they can afford,
resulting in parents either unable to work or forced to leave their children
in less than adequate care.
Surveys show that most working parents would choose to have relatives
care for their young children, but less than 50% of American families have
this option. Our society's mobility means that many families do not live
near grandparents or other relatives and even if relatives are geographically
accessible they too are likely to be working.3 6 Few parents today raise
their families in the neighborhood where they themselves grew up - close
to relatives, friends, and neighbors that they know and trust and the
extended family is all but extinct. In 1900 50% of Boston's families
included parents, children and at least one other relative, but by 1977
the number of extended families had shrunk to 4%.37 The National Academy
of Sciences recently reported that: "Many families today not only have
parents who have less time available for their children, but also have
declining access to such traditional support systems as kin networks and
informal neighbors and church help." A 1981 study of Massachusetts families
using subsidized day care found that the vast majority had no accessible
relatives able to care for their children.38 Day care is therefore the
crucial support that enables many parents to work.
The National Commission on Working Women, though, in a 1979 survey of
80,000 working mothers found that 33% had a serious child care problem.
The study concluded that "working parents on average require four separate
10
arrangements in any given period to ensure 90% reliability.3 9 These
multiple arrangements cost time, energy, and money and may have a negative
impact on the child.
This same year the United States General Accounting Office reported
that 3.7 million children were receiving inadequate child care.4 0 A 1980
New York City survey found that 40% of parents spent at least one month
looking for child care and 27% looked for two months or more. Thirty percent
of these parents had no interum child care resource.4 1 In 1982 the
Children's Defense Fund estimated that 5.2 million children under the
age of thirteen were left alone for a significant amount of time each day.
A frighteningly large number of these children were preschool children.4 2
Parents know intuitively (and the research clearly documents) that
quality child care is critical to their child's development, but many
studies show that "child care is so hard to find that expectations are often
low, and the parent is thankful if the child is simply safe and fed." 4 3
America's child care problem is growing worse, though, with projections that
the 7.2 million children that needed day care in 1980 will increase to 10.4
million by 1990.44 "The need will grow even more dramatically during the
next two decades because not only will the rate at which mothers enter the
labor force continue to increase, but more children will be born, a reversal
of the '70's trend of decreasing births."4 5
Cost is the key factor why so many parents are unable to access quality
child care. Day care is very labor intensive and even with low wages
significantly depressing child care costs the average cost of care in the
Greater Boston area in 1983 for example was:
$5700 - Infant Center
$3500 - Preschool Center
$4200 - Family Day Care
$1800 - School Age Center4 6
11
Most parents can afford to pay no more than 10% of their gross family
income for child care. Even at 10% of family income, many families find
that child care is their fourth highest budget item following housing,
food, and taxes. Low income parents may spend as much as one-third of
of their income on child care.4 7 It is important to note that 25% of the
14.3 million working families in 1981 had incomes below the U.S. Labor
Department's "lower family budget,"4 8 and that the average median income
for a working female-headed household is $12,070, making child care
unaffordable for many families.
Yet, in spite of obvious major demographic and economic changes and
pressures, three attempts (1971, 1975, 1979) to pass national comprehensive
child care legislation failed and advocates have little hope of such
legislation being considered in the near future. The United States is
the only industrial nation which does not have a national child care
policy. Gwen Morgan, who has worked for such a policy since the late
'60's has warned that "for the first time in history, the two major functions
of families, child rearing and maintaining economic self support and
autonomy are in potential conflict with one another."4 9
The Federal government has only given support to comprehensive child
care programs during wartime and economic crisis. Although the federal
financial commitment to day care was substantial during the Great Depression
(1900 programs cared for 40,000 children) and during World War II (1.6
million children were cared for in 3000 centers), federal support was
withdrawn as soon as the crisis ended.5 0 The federal government became
interested in child care again in the mid-60's as a result of rapidly
increasing AFDC dependency, but this support was not comprehensive,
targeted instead to only some of our poorest families.5 1
Advocates believed that a publicly subsidized child care system would
12
be the major social innovation of the '70's.5 2 Six prime factors, though,
contributed to the failure of adopting a national comprehensive child care
policy:
- ambivalence over whether mothers with young children should work
- child care being viewed as a private family responsibility and
innappropriate for government action
- lack of appropriate research and a convincing data base on the
needs, costs, and benefits
- conflicting goals and lack of political power among supporting groups
- well organized and effective opposition groups
- the "redistributive" impact of comprehensive child care legislation
Policymakers refuse to acknowledge that day care is an urgent social need,
unlike their European counterparts who routinely accept the notion that
society shares in the responsibility for child care, American policymakers'
ambivalence about public funding for child care results in a child care
system which is "a patchwork of programs funded in a host of different ways
serving only a fragment of the population."5 3
James Levine, who has written extensively about child care points out
that "social scientists and policymakers have been far more concerned with
the effects of maternal employment and day care on children than they have
with the effects of the lack of child care - or of inadequate child care -
on parents' lives."5 4 The benefits of affordable care are shown in two
recent studies. Federal funding cuts in 1981 resulted in many lost subsidized
day care slots. Two hundred and eleven parents, surveyed a year after they
lost their space in a New York City subsidized program because of these
funding cuts reported that they either quit their jobs, left their children
unsupervised, stretched budgets to the breaking point to pay for care, and/or
were often late or absent from work because piece-meal arrangements often
broke down.5 5 A 1983 study titled "Cost-Effectiveness of City Funded Child
Care Centers in the City of Los Angeles" clearly documents the relationship
of affordable day care and family economic self-sufficiency. The study looked
13
at seven programs serving 355 children. Without these centers:
- 43% of working parents would have to quit their jobs
(69% of single working parents)
- 83% of parents in school would have dropped out
(88% of single parents)
- 80% of parents in job training would have left their program
(92% of single parents)
Closing the Los Angeles programs would have cost the public $919,836 in
AFDC, unemployment benefits and lost taxes.
The current patchwork of federal day care funding includes programs
tied to social service, education, child development and job training and
employment programs. Since 1976 the federal government has also provided
tax credits for child care expenses related to education and employment.5 6
The child care credit is now the largest single form of public expenditure
on child care; estimated to have cost the federal government 1.8 billion in
1984.57 Many analysts argue, though, that the credit is of little or no
benefit to low and moderate income families, the very families that are
most in need of assistance.5 8
From 1965 to 1982, day care expenditures by federal, state and local
governments grew from $12.3 million to $3.0 billion.5 9 The federal government
decreased child care funding in 1981, though, in spite of an increase in
the need for care. In a 1983 survey, the Children's Defense Fund found
that reduced 1981 federal day care funding triggered program cuts in 32
states and 25 states were spending less on day care programs in 1984 than
in 1981.60 Ironically, while the federal government is reducing support
for child care, the majority of Americans may in fact support the need
for subsidized child care. A 1982 Public Agenda survey found that 88%
agreed that most mothers work because they need the money and 60% agreed
that unless government provides adequate child care many families will
never be able to be self-sufficient.6 2 In the 1975 National Child Care
14
Consumer Study, 56% of parents with incomes below the poverty line said
that it "did not pay to work" if they had to pay for child care and 82% of
all respondents supported child care costs being adjusted to parents ability
to pay.
Equal opportunity for women in employment and education cannot become
a reality without a national child care policy. The U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights reported in 1981 that "women are frequently unable to take
advantage of educational or employment opportunities due to lack of or
inadequate child care." 6 2 The Commission went on to state that the lack of
affordable child care;
- keeps women in part-time jobs that have low pay and little
career mobility
- keeps women in jobs which they are overqualified for and prevents
them from seeking or taking job promotions or training
- conflicts with women's ability to perform their work
- restricts women's participation in federal employment and training
or education programs
- means that one out of five unemployed women are unemployed because
they cannot make satisfactory child care arrangements6 3
The inability to access child care is clearly linked with the rapidly
growing number of poor female-headed households, and contributes to the
fact that 30% of America's children and 40% of black children live in
families unable to adequately care for them because of poverty. Educational
and employment opportunities that parents cannot pursue because of inadequate
child care are economic opportunities effectively denied.6 4
Many policymakers have looked to employers to provide needed child
care services and believe that "private industry holds the greatest potential
for child care improvement."6 5 A 1981 Business Week survey of human resource
executives reported that 67% expected child care to become a standard benefit
by 1986.66 Yet, the 1983 National Employer Supported Child Care Project
reported that there were only 240 employer-sponsored child care programs
15
nationwide and 50% were sponsored by hospitals.6 7
There are few employer-supported child care programs in spite of
the fact that research documents their benefits. In a 1978 survey of
58 on-site centers, 88 percent of the employers felt that their center
increased their ability to attract employees, 72 percent reported lower
absenteeism, 65 percent reported improved employer attitudes towards the
company, 55 percent reported lower job turnover, and 36 percent felt they
improved community relations.6 8 Eighty percent of the employers who re-
sponded to the National Employer Supported Child Care Project claimed that
their child care program aided recruitment efforts; two-thirds claimed
that it reduced turnover; and half asserted that it reduced absenteeism
and had a positive effect on productivity. Companies also reported that
child care reduced tardiness, the need for overtime and temporary help,
and also improved morale.6 9 The Pheonix Institute found many advantages
to employer-supported child care including:
Corning Glass - reported 50% of their MBA's are dual career couples
with child care problems. Employer-sponsored child care was a great
advantage in recruiting women of child-bearing age.
Vanderbilt Shirt Factory - reported an effortless 15% increase in
staff in 1979, despite a tight, competitive labor market after
opening a day care center. They also noted a dramatic drop in turn-
over and absenteeism costs from $1000/year/employee to a negligible
level.
Zale Corporation - reported that child care benefits are an especially
effective recruitment feature for companies which rely on young,
highly skilled workers.
Intermedics - reported a 9% reduction in employee turnover after six
months of child care program operation and a 37% reduction after the
second year. Since it costs $3000 to train each new employee the
company believes its center pays for itself.
Red Rope - reported increased production rates and morale and a 70decrease in absenteeism and turnover after starting a day care center.
It is clear that with reliable care, working parents' absenteeism,
16
tardiness and turnover rates decrease while their morale and job performance
improve. Business recruitment and training costs are high; therefore
keeping highly trained women in the workforce by providing affordable
quality day care simply makes good economic sense. The limited involvement
of employers in providing day care may be due, in part, to their "lack
of information about the problems facing working parents and the range
of solutions to them." 7 1 More companies may not be providing child care
assistance because they simply are unaware of the benefits, or they lack
information on how to develop a program, or are too small to develop a
program on their own and/or believe the costs would be too great. Many
employers may be interested in buying into existing services rather
than starting their own programs. "They may find, however, that the in-
adequacies and inefficiencies of local services prevent their involvement."7 2
At this point it does not seem that employers alone will solve the American
day care problem.
Some government afficials and policymakers have argued that the cost
of quality care is too high and that the way to provide more care and
enable more parents to work is simply to lower current day care standards.
The societal cost of low quality care is very high, though, since a child's
first five years are the most important in his/her development. "The
ultimate cost of unaffordable child care will be borne by our aging
society three and four decades into the future; the failure to meet the
needs of today's children will limit the potential of tomorrow's adults
to support the social and economic institutions upon which larger and
larger numbers of older Americans will be dependent."7 3
Research done in above average quality programs documents that there
are no differences in intellectual development in middle class children
who do or do not attend day care and that quality programs may actually
17
positively impact low income children's development. In a recent
Newsweek article titled "What Price Day Care?", Catherine Blusiewicz,
a psychologist, stated that "everything depends on the quality of the care.
The research is starting to show that kids in good day care do have some
advantages . . . but children definitely suffer in low gaulity day care.n75
(emphasis mine)
Changed Lives, recently published, reports the findings of a twenty-
year longitudinal study. This research documents that low income children
who attended quality preschool programs: 1. performed better in school,
2. were more likely to complete high school and go on to college,
3. were more like to be employed, 4. were less likely to become teenage
parents, and 5. were less likely to become involved in crime than
children who did not have this opportunity. The study concludes that
the benefits of quality care are clearly greater than the costs.
"Many experts consider this long-term experimentally rigorous study
compelling evidence that early, high quality educational intervention is
indispensable in efforts to break the cycle of poverty." (emphasis mine)7 6
It is easy to conclude from available research that quality care not
only improves a child's health and learning, but benefits society by
increasing social stability and enhancing future productivity.7 7
The ability to provide quality care, care that meets the developmental
needs of young children, is dependent on the talents, training and commit-
ment of the caregivers,78 Most children respond positively to a fairly
wide range of settings as long as:
- caregivers are warm and concerned
- atmosphere is happy and friendly
- enough toys and activities are available
- program is adequately staffed
- caregivers frequently interact with children
- staff is adequately trained
- staff is adequately paid7 9
18
The National Day Care Study conducted by Abt Associates in 1979 found that
caregiver training, group size, and teacher-child ratios were the factors
that determined quality in both centers and family day care homes.8 0
The findings also point out that there were major differences between
unlicensed, licensed, and "sponsored" (supervised by an agency) family
day care homes. On average, "sponsored" family day care providers were
better trained, offered a broader range of services, taught and interacted
with children more frequently.8 1
Several national consumer studies have shown that parents prefer
structured programs that provide:
- learning opportunites
- socialization experience
- high quality of staff
- safety
- nutrition
- extended hours
- opportunity for parent involvement8 2
Parents do want good care for their children, but day care costs a lot
of money, good care costs more than poor care, therefore, there is not
a lot of good care.8 3 Many parents face the difficult conflict of needing
to work to support their children, yet being unable to afford adequate
care for their children while they work.
The problem of a lack of affordable quality day care is growing worse
as more and more programs are unable to find qualified staff willing to
work at current wage levels. At the same time, these programs cannot
increase wages because parents cannot afford increased fees. Most day
care programs currently "operate at the brink of financial disaster and
survive only by paying shockingly low wages."8 4 "Unlike other commodities
or services whose rates can rise to match inflation, child care is con-
strained by fixed public allocations or limited family costs, neither of
which stretch to keep pact with rising costs . . . In human services, the
19
traditional economic models based on supply, demand, cost and quality
are inadequate."8 5 Wages, affordability, and quality are inter-connected
and one of these factors cannot be changed without affecting the other
two. (For a more detailed discussion on wages see Recommendation #12
page 54.)
A 1976 survey of 4609 families emphasized that parents wanted a
variety of different kinds of child care programs to choose from.8 6
"A variety of programs is called for to meet the needs of different
families and different children, in different circumstances with different
cultural values."8 7 A flexible, pluralistic system, which offers lots
of alternative administrative and programming patterns, though, "must
consider the ability of social service consumers to afford, select or
utilize services of quality, or to demand quality from service providers." 8 8
Although a flexible variety of different arrangements is more likely to
meet the varying needs of different families, consumers must be provided
with education and protection since many parents do not now know how to
locate existing day care programs or choose among them.8 9 "Informed
consumer choice requires knowledge about a complex service which includes
social, psychological, educational, physical and environmental, as well
as fiscal and organizational dimensions of care."9 0 There are very few
available services to assist parents in finding and choosing good care.
Individuals and community groups that recognize the need for additional
day care services and who are interested in providing these services
quickly discover the difficulty in finding suitable space, start-up
capital, and/or program development assistance. Some communities create, in-
tentionally or unintentionally, barriers to the establishment of new
programs through stringent health, building, zoning, and safety codes.
These barriers have contributed to the lack of affordable care in many
20
communities. Many local public officials, like their Washington counter-
parts, seem unaware of the importance of affordable quality care for families
achieving economic self sufficiency.
Virtually every professional in the child development field has
attested to the fact that there is a lack of affordable quality child care.
The United States is the only industrial nation, though, that does not
have a comprehensive child care policy. Many parents simply cannot afford
day care even though industry-wide low wages greatly depress the cost of
care. Employers do not seem to be recognizing the need or taking action
to provide child care assistance. Although some policymakers argue that
the answer to the high cost of care is to lower standards, children suffer
in low quality programs ultimately costing society because of the need for
additional remedial education programs, greater welfare costs, and even
future higher crime rates. Many parents also do not know how to locate
quality programs. Community groups interested in starting new programs
often lack needed resources or discover insurmountable local barriers
to starting day care programs.
The overall national day care picture is grim. The next section of
this thesis examines the state of day care in Massachusetts, since without
a national child care policy, families must look to state government for
help. The Child Care Resource Centers estimates, though, that only one-
third of Massachusetts families are able to find the kind of care they
want at a price they can afford. Lacking a national child care policy,
the burden of increasing the supply of affordable quality care may fall
on state government.
21
1.3 Day Care in Massachusetts
Massachusetts can point to many child care accomplishments with
pride: leadership in early childhood training; licensing standards among
the nation's most comprehensive; and a purchase-of-services system which
includes a sliding fee scale and a commitment to continuity of care.9 1
These factors have supported the development of many fine community based
programs. The need for child care, though, is currently about four times
greater than the supply and only about 10% of families eligible for sub-
sidized care are able to find it. There are only 124,000 licensed spaces
for the estimated 500,000 children needing care. Although there are
approximately 150,000 children eligible for state subsidized care, there
are currently only 16,400 slots available.9 2
Parents can choose from primarily two types of care: family day
care or center-based care. A small number of family day care homes belong
to Family Day Systems. The Office for Children (OFC) licenses preschool
day care centers and registers family day care homes. There are currently
about 124,000 children attending over 1700 licensed preschool day care
centers and 9000 registered famil.y day care homes. There is no way to
accurately estimate how many children are in unlicensed care. Although
there is a two year old statute requiring OFC to license school-age day
care centers, regulations have not yet been written.
Funding for licensors has not kept up with the increase in day care
programs. There were five licensors for 862 family day care homes in 1974
compared to ten licensors for 9000 homes in 1984. There were fourteen
licensors for 1096 centers in 1974 compared to seventeen licensors for
1736 centers in 1984. The lack of licensing staff has had serious conse-
quences on both the supply and quality of care.
In the Spring of 1984 one-third of all preschool center licenses had
22
expired and there were over 2500 family day care homes waiting to be
registered; most waited more than three months. In the past Office for
Children licensors often assisted in program start-up. Licensors simply
do not now have the time available to provide technical assistance or
visit programs to assure regulation compliance. Licensing regulations
have not been reviewed since they were implemented in 1976.
The Office for Children also provides, through its 42 local offices,
some information and referral for parents looking for care. This consists
of providing parents with the list of licensed centers and registered
family day care homes in their area. Offices are unable to tell parents
where openings exist or the kinds of services each program provides.
Although area OFC offices also do an annual local needs assessment, they
lack the resources to develop additional services or help individuals
and/or community groups establish new programs.
During fiscal year 1985 (July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985) the Commonwealth
will spend over $62 million to subsidize the cost of care for approximately
20,000 children though Department of Social Services (DSS) contracts and
Department of Public Welfare (DPW) vouchers. DSS currently contracts
with over 300 day care agencies to provide care to approximately 11,900
children whose families earn between 70% and 115% of the state median
income for work related reasons. Families cannot earn more than 70% of
the state median income to initially access a slot. They then pay on a
sliding fee basis as their income increases. DSS also purchases care for
3700 "supportive services" children, who are in danger of abuse or neglect
or have a special physical or developmental need.
Review of the state funding shows that provider rates have not kept
pace with inflation and that the last substantial rate increase was in
1975. Rates were actually cut in 1982 and this has lead to an overall
23
decrease in program quality. Many program directors report that they are
unable to find qualified staff at existing wage rates and that staff turn-
over rates have recently increased dramatically.9 3
The state subsidized day care system is still recovering from a 1981 -
1982 crises, brought on by then Governor King's attempt to abolish the DSS
contracting system. King wanted to provide day care subsidy only for
Welfare clients through a reimbursement system which would have provided
no more than $160 per month per child for child care costs. The legislature,
though, refused to allow this change. King then transferred 25% of state
funding for preschool day care to school-age programs in order to support
his "Work and Welfare" initiative. This transfer resulted in a dramatic
cut in services and reduced rates for most programs.
For the past two years the Department of Public Welfare has provided
day care vouchers for participants in the Department's Employment and
Training Choice Program. During FY '85 over 4500 vouchers will be issued.
This program is an excellent example of the importance of day care to low-
income families' ability to become economically self-sufficient. Over
the past two years more than 13,000 AFDC recipients have graduated to jobs
averaging $5.00 an hour, many received day care vouchers. Without these
vouchers many clients could not have participated in the program. E/T's
child care cost (approximately 13.5 million during FY '85) will be more
than repaid in future savings in AFDC, not to mention the taxes these
employed parents will pay as well as increased spending due to increased
earning power. There is currently much concern, though, that parents
will not be able to afford the cost of care once their vouchers expire
(one year after E/T graduation).
In addition to OFC, DSS, and DPW there are at least seven other
state agencies (Executive Office of Human Services, Communities and
24
Development, Economic Affairs, Labor, and Administration and Finance,
as well as the Department of Education and the Governor's Office) involved
in regulating, purchasing, stimulating supply, or developing policy for
child day care. Trying to determine how day care policy is made is
ambiguous and confusing both to those within state government as well as
to providers, consumers and advocates. With little coordination, and
sometines conflicting objectives, it is no wonder that every year there
seems to be a crises in day care policy. The Commonwealth lacks a planning
process that includes the private sector, which would lead to the rational
expansion of services in areas where there is the greatest need and the
assurance that these services meet quality standards. This has lead to
conflicting priorities and the lack of coordination of resources.
Some local governments and school committees have provided funding
for day care programs. Boston and Cambridge participate in the Department
of Social Services Private/Public Partnership Project (4-P) which provides
a three for one match of local dollars. Boston has expressed interest
in increasing its donation, but the day care portion of the 4-P program
has been level-funded for several years. Amherst's town meeting last
year approved funding for a staff person to provide information and
referral services for local residents. Some local school districts (e.g.
Cambridge, Sommerville, Falmouth, Lowell) provide space in school buildings
for day care programs, especially school-age care. A few school committees,
including Brookline and Newton, provide funding for day care programs.
Many communities, though, have been reluctant to provide any support for
day care programs. At least 24 Massachusetts communities have restrictive
zoning ordinances, prohibiting family day homes in some or all neighborhoods.
Only about 900 Massachusetts children are currently attending an
employer-supported child care program, and most of the employers providing
25
child care assistance are hospitals and universities. Only one union
(Boston City Hospital Workers) has day care included in its collective
bargaining agreement. The Commonwealth provides space in only two state
office buildings for day care for state employees children.
The Massachusetts day care delivery system is clearly a patchwork
of services, with little coordination or on-going planning. As many as
two-thirds of parents needing care may be unable to find the kind of
care they want at a price they can afford. Many programs are unable to
attract qualified staff because of low wages. Funding for licensing has
not kept pace with the growth of services resulting in serious delays
in start-up as well as limited program monitoring and no available
technical assistance. The potential for private sector support has yet
to be tapped. Not only is there an inadequate supply of care, but there
is little available assistance for parents who do not know how to find
or choose care.
Gwen Morgan points out in Caring about Children in Massachusetts that
"if parents who need to find child care in the community are finding it at
a price they can afford, at a level of quality that supplements good child
rearing, and in the form they want to choose, then there is no need for
further action by government at any level."9 4 Clearly this is not the case
and there is a need for state government action. Government officials,
providers, consumers, advocates and community leaders have often been able
to agree on what the system's problems are, but there has been little
agreement on how to solve these problems or who should pay for the solutions.
The next section of this thesis discusses the formation of the "Governor's
Day Care Partnership Project", which was an attempt to bring all of the
relevent players together to develop recommendations that would lead to
more affordable quality child care throughout the Commonwealth.
26
Chapter 2
The Planning Process:
"THE GOVERNOR' S DAY CARE PARTNERSHIP PROJECT"
During his 1982 reelection campaign Governor Michael S. Dukakis
stated that there was a "need for the state to have a comprehensive
identifiable day care policy." In several letters, following his election,
day care advocates requested a clear process, in which they would be in-
volved, that would develop this "comprehensive identifiable day care policy."
Two documents, Caring About Children in Massachusetts and A Comprehensive
Child Day Care Delivery System: A Working Plan, released in 1982, emphasized
the need for a comprehensive state day care plan. Advocates used these
documents to support their request and add credibility to their case.
Joan Quinlan was appointed the Governor's Advisor on Women's Issues
in August of 1983. As she spoke with community leaders and agency heads,
the lack of affordable quality day care rose as a primary barrier to women
achieving economic self-sufficiency. She brought her concerns to the
Human Resources Cabinet, chaired by Philip Johnston, then Director of the
Governor's Office of Human Resources. Johnston and Quinlan sent a joint
memo on October 18, 1983 to the Governor, suggesting that he appoint a
task force to "initiate an eight month-long process to develop a comprehen-
sive child care policy." The state's economic growth and the initial success
of the Deparmtent of Public Welfare's Employment and Training Choices
Program (E/T) had focused more attention on the growing lack of available,
affordable quality child care. More mothers entering the workforce in-
creased demand for care at the same time that teachers and family day
care providers were leaving the field because of low wages and the new
availability of higher paying jobs in other sectors. The FY '85 budget
27
request included ten million additional dollars for day care vouchers
for E/T participants, but there was growingconcern that many parents
would be unable to find care. At the same time the growing number of
"protective services" day care placements were putting added pressure on
the already overburdened delivery system.
The Governor approved Quinlan and Johnston's request and a staff
person was hired in February 1984. In March he appointed the "GOVERNOR'S
DAY CARE PARTNERSHIP PROJECT" composed of state and local government
officials, legislators, business and labor leaders, educators, providers,
advocates, and consumers. The mission of the Project was to recommend to
the Governor a comprehensive day care plan, focusing on increasing the
availability of affordable, quality day care services throughout the
Commonwealth. The choice of the word "Partnership" was symbolic, used to
stress the importance of bringing together and coordinating private and
public sector resources to best meet Massachusetts families' and childrens'
needs. Quinlan and Worcester Senator Gerard D'Amico co-chaired the effort
and they chose October as the deadline for the Project's final report to
enable recommendations to be included in the Governor's FY '86 budget request.
The Project's "Statement of Purpose" (see Appendix), distributed at
the first meeting points to the need for a stable well-managed state
delivery system as well as state policies that will stimulate other sector
involvement. Project members focused on how to assure quality services,
coordinate existing services, plan for future needs, and encourage other
sector support and investment. In the absence of new federal funding
Project members knew that they had to look to other sector support to
expand existing services. The "mixed economy" of day care "financed and
delivered by: families, non-profit individual entrepreneurs, large-scale
profit making bodies, government agencies," and combinations of all of the
28
above, may actually be one of day care's system potential strengths.9 5
Throughout the process of developing recommendations several vital
state government roles were identified as necessary to expand and strengthen
the existing day care delivery system:
- helping communities dentify their child care needs and their
existing gaps in services
- helping communities bring resources together to plan new programs
and support existing programs
- providing technical assistance and incentives to develop new
programs and expand existing programs
- determining quality standards and monitoring programs to insure
that children's developmental needs are met
- subsidizing the costs of care for low and moderate income families
- purchasing care for families in crisis
In Government Initiatives to Encourage Employer-Supported Child Care: The
State and Local Perspective, Dana E. Friedman points out four ways that
state government can accomplish these tasks. I have expanded upon her
definitions which are very useful in understanding the positive role
state government can play in encouraging other sector support for child
care.
educator - through needs assessment and other mechanisms
which point out the importance of day care
broker - by bringing together a variety of community re-
sources to develop and support programs
facilitator - by providing technical assistance, matching funds,
tax incentives, and a strong delivery system that
other sectors can "buy into"
being a - and demonstrating the importance of day care to
"model employer" worker productivity
The Project's two major goals of developing a stable, well-managed delivery
system and stimulating other sector involvement are clearly inter-related.
The Project's structure was developed before the first meeting. Facing
a tight timeline, a complex agenda, and the difficult task of developing
consensus among an extremely diverse group, it was decided that a clear
structure needed to be outlined in advance. The goal was to assure that
recommendations would be developed quickly and yet be processed through
all the appropriate channels. Members were asked to participate on one
29
of four working groups: State Government, Private Sector, Local Government/
School System, Higher Education, represeting the four sectors needed to
form a viable day care partnership. A fifth working group, State as Employer,
was formed in May, with the Governor's approval, when its need became
apparent.
GOVERNOR'S DAY CARE PARTNERSHIP PROJECT
Joan Quinlan
Governor's Advisor on
Women's Issues
Gerry D'Amico
State Senator
Coordinating
(Working Group
State Government Private Sector
Working Group Working Group
Philip Johnston, Evelyn Murphy,
Secretary Secretary
Executive Office Executive Office
of Human Services of Economic
Affairs
Committee
Co-Chairs)
I
Local Government/
School Systems
Working Group
Amy Anthony,
Secretary
Executive Office
of Communities
and Development
and
John Lawson,
Commissioner
Department of
Education
Higher Education
Working Group
Gerard Indelicato,
Governor's Advisor
on Education
Each working group was chaired by a cabinet member resulting in preliminary
recommendations being able to be "processed through" appropriate state
agencies instead of agencies later reacting to a set of completed final
recommendations. This meant that the recommendations had informal agency
"sign off" before they became part of the final report.
As specific issues were identified, the State Government, Private
Sector, and Higher Education Working Groups formed small "teams" to develop
options for further discussion. Several teams asked outside "experts" to
30
participate. This process helped solve some of the more complex issues,
since each working group met for only a few hours no more than twice a
month. The Local Government/School System Working Group was small enough
that there was never a need to form smaller teams.
Working groups and team meetings were fairly structured. Agendas
were carefully worked out before each meeting by the Project's staff person
and approved by the Working Group chair. Options were fairly open, though,
and there was much give and take among participants. In spite of diverse
roles and interests, Project members were able to reach consensus on almost
all issues.
There was also a Coordinating Committee made up of Working Group
Chairs and appropriate agency Commissioners, Secretaries, and Governor's
Senior Staff. This group met only three times and meetings were primarily
informational. The Project's progress was also periodically discussed at
the Human Resources Cabinet and one formal presentation was made to a
full Cabinet Meeting.
Although each working group had its own unique perspective, the
Project's major recommendations (particularly Child Care Resource and
Referral Agencies) were preliminarily developed simultaneously and
separately by several different working groups. This obviously strengthened
recommendations, which were reworked several times from many different
perspectives.
The Project met as a whole three times with the Governor present.
These meetings were intended to not only update the Governor on the Project's
progress, but share information between working groups. The Project's staff
member attended every working group and team meeting, as well as meeting
frequently with working group chairs in order to assure needed communication
and consistency. Key state agency staff members also met together
31
periodically to assure communication, to identify potential problems and
to work out possible solutions.
The Massachusetts day care community is fairly well organized. It
has been an effective lobbying group and had been influential in the Project's
appointment. Input from the community was sought throughout the process.
All of the major day care groups had a representative on the Project.
Leaders had frequent conversations with the Project's staff person who
also periodically attended their group's meetings to provide updates and answer
questions. Comments and concerns were discussed in working group meetings.
During the Project's early stages, three public hearings were held
(Worcester, Boston, and Springfield) to identify issues. Several hundred
people attended, over forty testified, and many others submitted written
testimony. Each working group's preliminary recommendations were summarized
and sent to several thousand people, who were invited to a dozen statewide
forums for reaction. Forum comments were summarized and became the basis
for developing pre-final recommendations, which were then widely distri-
buted for final comments. The first draft of the final report was reviewed
by all Project members. The final draft was reviewed by coordinating
committee members before it was submitted to the Governor in October.
The Project's structure seems to have worked well. The final report
was submitted in time for the Governor's review before the completion of
his FY '86 budget request. Recommendations already had initial agency
"sign off" and were supported by all of the diverse day care advocacy
groups. In addition many individuals and groups became aware of the
importance of expanded support for day care through the Project's hearings
and forums as well as media coverage of both.
The final section of this thesis presents the recommendations of the
"Governor's Day Care Partnership Project." Recommendations are divided
32
into four sections: Resource Development, Quality Affordability, Policy
Coordination and Implementation. The major recommendations are summarized
below.
I. RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
Only about a third of Massachusetts parents needing day care
are able to find the kind of care they want and can afford. The
bringing together of resources (business, labor, schools, local
government, colleges, community leaders, etc.) must be done
in each community with strong leadership on the state level.
1. Office for Children should develop a statewide network
of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies.
2. The Executive Offices of Economic Affairs and Labor
should initiate ten employer-sponsored day care
projects during 1985.
3. The state should begin to become a "model employer"
and address state employees day care needs.
4. The Department of Education should encourage local
school systems to develop school-age day care programs,
provide transportation, utilize space for day care,
and develop day care programs for adolescent parents.
5. The Executive Office of Cummunities and Development
should identify incentives for local housing authorities
to develop programs and public housing residents.
6. The Executive Office of Communities and Development
should identify communities with zoning barriers to
family day care homes and develop solutions to these
barriers.
7. The State should establish a Private/Public Partnership
33
Day Care Fund to leverage private sector investment in
day care services.
II. Quality
A day care program's level of quality and its cost effective-
ness are dependent on an adequate number of trained staff members
committed to providing care which meets each child's developmental
needs.
8. Department of Social Services should raise provider
rates to meet recommended salary and fringe guidelines.
9. Department of Social Services should raise family day
care provider rates to attract and retain capable
providers.
10. Future day care funding should target the development of
family day care systems in communities without them
and expand existing systems.
11. A regionally-based comprehensive day care worker
training model should be developed.
12. The Office for Children should receive adequate funding
to appropriately fulfill its licensing responsibility.
III. AFFORDABILITY
Continuity-of-care and socio-economic program mix are two
important criteria in assuring available affordable care.
13. Make Massachusetts' Individual Child Care Tax Deduction
more progressive.
14. Increase the number of state subsidized slots for both
currently eligible families and families earning
between 70 - 115% of the state's media income.
34
IV. POLICY COORDINATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
Trying to determine how day care policy is now made is
ambiguous and confusing, both to those within state government
as well as providers, consumers, and advocates. This situation
impedes not only clear policy development and implementation,
but also the effective management of existing resources.
15. Governor's Office of Human Resources should function as
the focal point for the development and coordination of
overall day care policy.
16. A Day Care Cabinet should be establish.
17. Governor should appoint a Citizen's Day Care Advisory.
The next chapter begins with a description of the kinds of services
that might be available in one community in 1989 if these recommendations
are implemented. It is important to note that increasing the availability
of affordable quality day care is not a goal, in itself, but a tool in
achieving other important state government goals which include:
- decreasing the number of families dependent on AFDC
- increasing the number of families living above the poverty line
- meeting the developmental needs of young children and providing
compensatory education
- increasing the productivity of the workforce
- supporting community and regional economic development
"Self-sufficient families contribute to the near-term economic well being
of the country, healthy children are the critical long term resource for
a strong and stable nation." 9 6To address the day care needs of Massachusetts'
families, state government needs to take an active leadership role. The
Commonwealth cannot solve all of the problems alone and must work closely
with the private sector which also has a high stake in the availability of
quality affordable day care.
Chapter Three
35
The Planning Intervention
THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE "GOVERNOR'S DAY CARE PARTNERSHIP PROJECT"
Central to the recommendations presented in this report is the recognition
that parents' needs, resources and preferences vary dramatically. Parents
need help, though, in finding care and knowing how to choose good care. Our
goal should be for each community to have a variety of available child care
models so that parents can choose from several good options, which might
include: neighborhood infant/toddler, preschool and school age day care
centers; work site day care centers; in home care; family day care homes and
family day care systems; school extended day programs, and emergency care
programs. Each community should have available care during the hours parents
work, including evenings and weekends. Each child care option should be
designed to meet each child's developmental needs.
3.1 The Vision, 1989
The goal of our recommendations is to stimulate community public/private
partnerships that will increase the availability of quality day care. The
ingredients and combinations of each partnership will vary. It may be helpful
to envision one Massachusetts community five years from now in the Fall of
1989. The year 1989 was chosen to emphasize that developing community based
child care will take a period of years.
One particular parent living in this community is about to
enter the workforce and needs day care. This parent calls the
local Child Care Resource and Referral Agency (CCRR). This
agency, supported with public and private dollars from state
and local levels, serves both consumers and providers. The
CCRR is the community's day care hub, gathering information,
analyzing data, and facilitating the formation of public/
private partnerships to develop and maintain programs, as well
as assisting parents in finding good care for their children.
All the CCRR's program information is computerized so that a
parent receives an up-to-date list of programs with available
openings. Parents are also given information on how to choose
a program and how to apply for available subsidies. This
particular parent decides to visit three programs before making
a choice.
The first is a center serving twenty preschool children and
twenty school age children (after school and during school
vacations) in two large classrooms in a neighborhood junior
high school. The director of a local day care program, faced
with growing waiting lists and encouraged by the Child Care
Resource Agency, worked with the school principal to obtain
state funds to renovate space in this formerly underutilized
building. Several local businesses then donated money for
equipment and other start-up costs.
Parents pay o'n a sliding fee scale. A quarter of the
children are subsidized by the state and another quarter by the
local United Way. Three of the children are handicapped and
37
the center's staff receives training and support from the
school department's special needs office. Each year student
teachers from two local colleges bring additional resources to
the program. The town provides funding for supplies and
transports the school-age children to the center each afternoon.
The second center, located in a new industrial park, serves
fifty infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Through the efforts
of several state agencies and the local CCRR, the center was
included in the park's original plans. The Child Care Resource
and Referral Agency worked with the developer to design the
center and encouraged each of the park's businesses to support
the center, using materials and data prepared by the state
Executive Office of Economic Affairs. The CCRR also helped in
forming a non-profit corporation and in hiring qualified
staff. The availability of the center has proven to be an
important factor in drawing new companies to the park and
creating new jobs for the community.
Two-thirds of the park's businesses subsidize their
employees' cost of care (two have day care as part of their
collective bargaining agreement). Several others donate funds
or secretarial and accounting help. A quarter of the center's
parents live in neighborhoods near the park, but do not work in
the park. The center has five children, needing day care
because of family crisis. Their care is paid for by the state.
The third program is a family day care system, a network of
36
family day care homes, which serves a hundred infants,
toddlers, preschool, and school age children. The Child Care
Resource and Referral Agency initially recruited interested
family day care providers and then worked with staff from a
neighboring community family day care system to develop an
agency to give these providers training and on-going support.
Convinced by the CCRR that helping parents meet their day
care needs would be good for their businesses, a local bank and
insurance company pay for fifty percent of the cost of care for
their employees' children enrolled in this family day care
system. Two other businesses contract for special providers to
care for their employees' children during evening and nightime
hours. The state subsidizes twenty-five of the system's
children, many from newly arrived immigrant and refugee
families. The local school district pays for the cost of care
for four infants whose mothers are attending high school.
This particular parent, no matter what the family income, is
assured that all three programs offer care designed to meet
his/her children's developmental needs. Each program has an
adequate number of staff, trained and committed to providing
good care, and there is adequate space, supplies, and
equipment. S/he will find that in these programs children are
nurtured and parents are listened to.
This standard of care is established and maintained by
adequate funding for: licensing, day care worker wages, and
39
training. This particular parent (and all parents) can find
care, pay an amount s/he can afford, and work knowing his/her
child is receiving quality care. His/her employer is assured a
productive, dependable employee.
Many of the elements described in this 1989 imaginary community's day
care system exists in real communities today. What is currently lacking,
though, are mechanisms to integrate these elements, encourage the development
of new partnerships and maintain an adequate level of quality. The following
recommendations developed by the "Governor's Day Care Partnership Project" are
a blueprint for accomplishing these goals. They are divided into four
sections:
o RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
o QUALITY
o AFFORDABILITY
o POLICY COORDINATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
Recommendations will require either administrative, legislative, or budgetary
action or a combination of all three.
40
3.2 Resource Development
The recommendations in this section seek to expand the day care
system's financial operating base by facilitating and stimulating other sector
investment and involvement. In order to have optimal impact these resource
development efforts should be targeted to a number of communities in 1985,
adding additional communities in 1986 and 1987. This will require a
coordinated effort of a number of state agencies. How to assure this
coordination is outlined in Section 3.5, POLICY COORDINATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION.
The implementation of the recommendations in this section should not
only increase the overall supply of child care but the kinds of care
available. Parental choice is one important component in assuring quality
care and is discussed in detail in Section 3.3, QUALITY. The goal of the
recommendations, in this section, is for parents throughout the Commonwealth
to have the kinds of child care options to choose from that are described in
"The Vision, 1989", Pages 35-39 of this report.
A. CHILD CARE RESOURCE AND REFERRAL AGENCIES
Recommendation # 1
Over the next three years the Office for Children should
develop a statewide network of Child Care Resource and
Referral Agencies (CCRR).
41
Child Care Resource and Referral Agency Description
A Child Care Resource and Referral Agency (CCRR) will be a community's
hub of day care activity, focusing efforts on promoting day care and bringing
together the state and local resources required to support existing programs
and develop new ones. Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies will make day
care visible and accessible in each community.
The function of each Child Care Resource and Referral Agency should be
to:
o Collect and analyze data to determine community needs and
gaps in services.
o Develop new resources by acting as the community's day
care broker, bringing together employees, labor,
providers, parents, local government and school systems,
and colleges to expand existing programs and start new
ones.
o Provide technical assistance to groups interested in
starting new programs and expanding existing programs.
o Help programs coordinate their resources, by developing
for example a shared transportation system or toy library.
o Educate consumers by providing parents with information
on how to choose a quality program, where openings exist,
and what subsidies they may be eligible for.
o Manage both private and public sector vouchers, providing
an easy mechanism for employer support.
o Provide and Coordinate day care worker training.
Implementation
The Office for Children should develop, maintain and coordinate this
statewide network of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies. OFC should
either:
o Help community groups develop a new not-for-profit agency
42
o Contract with an existing community not-for-profit agency
able to perform these functions
o Increase staffing in an area OFC office to perform CCRR
functions in the interim in areas where it is not
immediately feasible or practical to develop a separate
CCRR agency
Each CCRR should have an advisory board representing local businesses,
local government, child care experts, and consumers. This board should be
closely linked to local Office for Children Councils.
Although OFC should provide start-up costs and a continuing base of
funding for CCRR's, local government, businesses, United Way and other
community groups should also contribute. A local match formula, based on an
area's economic needs and resources, should be developed, making sure that
communities most in need of services are not prevented from developing a CCRR
because of an inability to provide the required match.
B. EMPLOYER-SUPPORTED CHILD CARE INITIATIVES
Recommendation # 2
The Executive Office of Economic Affairs (EOEA) and the
Executive Office of Labor (EOL) initiate ten
employer-sponsored day care projects during 1985.
Rationale
Employers are an important resource in expanding day care services.
43
There are several good Massachusetts employer-supported child care models and
there is increasing employer interest.
CCRR staff will help educate employers to the fact that available,
affordable, quality child care is in their best business interest (lower rates
of absenteeism, tardiness, and turnover; increased levels of worker
recruitment, retention, productivity, and morale; better community relations
and company image) and can help employers decide which options (supporting
resource and referral services, providing vouchers, buying slots in existing
programs, contributing start-up or expansion funds, providing support for
existing programs, developing family day care systems, starting a center) will
best meet their needs. CCRR staff will also work with Private Industry
Councils, Chambers of Commerce and other business groups to educate them to
the need for care and assist them in determining the best way each group can
help.
It will be several years, though, before a statewide CCRR network
exists that can focus on increasing employer-supported child care programs.
Even after CCRR's are established they will need on-going support from the
Executive Offices of Economic Affairs and Labor. EOEA and EOL need to take
active roles in promoting employer-supported child care.
Implementation
EOEA and EOL tasks should include:
o Research and data analyses
o Development of brochures and other materials
o Outreach to employers
44
o Outreach to Private Industry Councils, Economic Development
agencies, Chambers of Commerce, etc.
o Linking employees and employer groups with CCRR's and/or
other community resources
o Making recommendations on other possible incentives that
would increase employer-supported child care services
At the same time the Governor's Office of Economic Development should
encourage developers to include day care space in industrial parks, business
complexes and other new building efforts. Initial EOEA and EOL efforts should
focus, where possible, in the four areas where OFC's special "Citizen
Involvement for Day Care Quality Project" (a federally funded two-year project
which is in its second year) is working with citizens to develop strategies
and build networks within their communities to stimulate and develop
employer-supported day care.
Other efforts which would provide a climate for increased employer
involvement in child care should include:
o The Governor lobbying the Department of Labor for expanded
day care funding for job training and employment programs.
o EOEA encouraging each Private Industry Council (with
increased efforts in targeted communities) to use a larger
share of its support services resources to provide day care
funding for Job Training Partnership Act clients.
o The Dependent Care Assistance Plan (D-CAP) portion of the
Federal Tax Recovery Act of 1981 codified into state tax
law to protect it from future state decoupling with federal
tax laws. The Department of Revenue should send all
Massachusetts employers information about Dependent Care
Assistance Plans and how to take advantage of these
benefits.
45
C. STATE AS EMPLOYER
Recommendation # 3
The state should begin to become a "model employer" by
aiding in the establishment of a non-profit corporation to
help state employee groups start and maintain child care
programs and providing start-up funding for three to five
day care centers each year.
Rationale
The Commonwealth is the state's largest employer. As an employer, the
state is just as affected by the changing composition of the workforce as
private sector employers. Helping employees meet their child care needs will
increase worker productivity and can demonstrate to other employers potential
employer- supported day care models.
Chapter 677, passed in 1983, requires that based on documented need,
space be made available for day care use for state employees in all state
owned buildings. There is now a day care center in the McCormack Building and
one will soon open in the new Transportation Building. Although Chapter 677
is a significant first step, employee groups need technical assistance and
on-going support to develop programs. In addition to developing on-site care,
the Commonwealth should carefully review other employer-supported child care
models.
Implementation
The function of the non-profit umbrella corporation should be to:
o Develop state employee child care centers in state-owned
buildings
46
o Establish policies for all state employee child care centers
o Provide technical assistance to state employee groups in
developing programs
o Provide on-going support to centers
o Coordinate foundation and other fund raising efforts
These efforts should be supported by the Department of Personnel
Administration. Its role should be to:
o Help organize and work with the non-profit umbrella
corporation.
o Develop informational materials for state employees on day
care options and work with personnel officers to
disseminate this information
o Work with each state agency in developing and implementing
a child care needs assessment
Funding should be provided through the state's capital outlay budget
for renovation costs, equipment, and other appropriate start-up costs for day
centers in state owned buildings. Efforts should include:
o Establishment of some centers outside of Boston, based on
documented employee need.
o Day care included in state college campus expansion and
renovation planning.
o Development of a downtown Boston infant/toddler center,
possibly as a joint effort with the City.
Administration and Finance (A&F), along with other appropriate
agencies, should examine the costs and benefits of establishing a Dependent
Care Assistance Plan for state employees. A&F should immediately review the
implications of a salary reduction plan, through which employees could
voluntarily allocate a portion of their salary on a pretax basis for child
care costs.
47
D. LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS
1. School-Age Child Care
Recommendation # 4
The Department of Education should encourage the
development of school-age child care programs.
Rationale/Implementation
The number of "latchkey" children, children who are unsupervised after
school and during school vacations, is rising dramatically, In 1982 the
Children's Defense Fund estimated that almost half of the nation's children
age thirteen and under were unsupervised while their parents worked. These
children face loneliness, fear, danger, delinquency, and exploitation.
School-age child care would enable these children to play, relax and learn new
skills while interacting with caring adults.
The Department of Education should also encourage local school
districts to start kindergarten the same time in the morning as other
elementary grades and not to alternate children, enrolled in day care
programs, mid-year from morning to afternoon sessions.
2. Use of School Space
Recommendation # 5
Amend "School Building Assistance Bureau" (SBAB)
regulations (Chapter 685) to make day care an eligible
expense.
48
Rationale/Implementation
Many school buildings are underutilized because of declining
enrollments. The Department of Education should encourage local school
districts to use available space for day care for both pre-school and school
age youngsters (the needs of older children should also be considered). Local
school districts should either provide the service directly or enter into a
contractual agreement with a non-profit agency to provide care. Once CCRR's
are developed they will be available for technical assistance and for linking
school authorities with community groups interested in providing care. If
space needs to be renovated for day care use or if a local school district is
interested in constructing new space, funding should be made available (based
on the economic needs of a community) through the School Building Assistance
Bureau (SBAB).
All income received by a school district as reimbursement for providing
support to day care programs (e.g., utilities, construction, maintenance)
should return to the school district through a revolving account and not go
into the city's or town's general account.
3. Transportation
Recommendation # 6
Amend school transportation regulations (Chapter 71-7A) to
enable local schools (under regulations promulgated by
local school committees) to transport children from day
care to school and from school to day care and receive full
reimbursement.
49
Rationale/Implementation
In many cases children's before and after school day care is not
located in the schools they attend. Most day care centers either do not own
vehicles or find that providing transportation is logistically impossible.
Parents cannot leave work in the middle of the day to bring their children to
day care. Currently Chapter 71-7A mandates local school districts to
transport children only from home to school and back. Amending this statute
will make day care accessible for many school age youngsters.
4. Adolescent Parents
Recommendation # 7
The Department of Education should encourage local school
districts to coordinate with community day care programs so
that adolescent parents can complete high school.
Rationale/Implementation
The need for day care is not only a concern for elementary school age
children. Last year 2,500 Massachusetts adolescents under age eighteen gave
birth. The inability to find affordable child care is the reason many will
not complete high school. Since each community's needs for programs for
adolescent parents will vary, DOE should encourage collaborative efforts.
The Department of Education should also broaden the focus of its
training efforts to sensitize school adjustment counselors and other
appropriate personnel about the needs of adolescent parents. A component of
50
the training should include how to help adolescent parents find community day
care. This training could eventually be purchased from CCRR's.*
E. LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITIES
Recommendation # 8
Executive Office of Communities and Development (EOCD) make
day care a priority use of modernization and supportive
services funds.
Implementation
The Executive Office of Communities and Development (EOCD) should work
with local housing authorities to determine tenants' child care needs.
Housing authorities should be encouraged to make space available to help meet
these child care needs. Expansion of existing programs and new program
start-up should be a priority use of EOCD modernization and supportive
services funds. Space should be made available for day care programs at no/or
reduced rent.
EOCD should also work with public housing authorities to determine the
barriers to tenants becoming family day care providers and develop policies
that will increase the number of units available for family day care.
* Out of school adolescent parents may also need day care. Meeting these
needs are discussed later in this report.
51
EOCD and the Department of Social Services should develop an
interagency agreement targeting the expansion of day care services for public
housing residents. EOCD should provide start-up funding through modernization
and supportive services funds and DSS should provide operating funds once
programs (which meet DSS purchase standards) are established.
F. LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Recommendation # 9
The Executive Office of Communities and Development
encourage the use of Small Cities Community Development
Block Grant funds for day care program start-up.
Rationale
The availability of day care and community economic development are
interconnected; therefore, the availability of day care should be on the
agenda each time a state agency works with local government officials on a new
industrial or office park, or other development project. Cities should be
encouraged to use Community Development Block Grant or Small Cities Community
Development Block Grant Funds to renovate space and/or provide operating funds.
Recommendation # 10
Executive Office of Communities and Development identify
communities with zoning barriers to family day care homes
and develop solutions to these barriers.
52
Rationale/Implementation
Many municipalities have zoning regulations that restrict family day
care homes in residential neighborhoods. Attempts in three different
legislative sessions to make family day care a "home occupation" failed,
primarily due to home rule objections. Advocates now feel that even if the
home rule objections could be overcome, making family day care a "home
occupation" may not be an effective solution to existing zoning barriers in
some communities.
The Executive Office of Communities and Development should identify
communities with zoning barriers that restrict family day care homes in
residential neighborhoods and work with providers, local officials, the Office
for Children and community groups to develop uniform definitions and
reasonable solutions to these barriers. EOCD, with the assistance of
providers, local officials, OFC, and community groups, should develop any
necessary and appropriate legislation to eliminate these zoning barriers by
December 1, 1985.
G. PRIVATE/PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP DAY CARE FUND
Recommendation # 11
Establish a Private/Public Partnership Day Care Fund.
53
Rationale/Implementation
Private/Public Partnerships are critical to day care service
expansion. Using state funds to leverage private sector investment is an
important mechanism of a coordinated effort to expand services.
The Executive Offices of Human Services, Communities and Development,
and Economic Affairs and the Governor's Offices of Human Resources and
Education should develop criteria for this fund. The fund should be used to
match donations from private sector, local government, private charitable and
higher education institutions to expand existing programs and to establish new
ones. Evaluated annually, funding should be incrementally increased based on
the availability of potential donors and documented area need. This fund is
not intended as an alternative to the Department of Social Services Private
Public Partnership Project account, but rather as a complement to it.
54
3.3 Quality
A day care program's level of quality and its costs effectiveness is
dependent on an adequate number of trained staff members, committed to
providing care which meets each child's development needs. There are fewer
and fewer programs in Massachusetts, though, able to attract and retain
trained qualified staff. This issue as well as adequate resources for program
licensing and monitoring are addressed in this section.
We can no longer afford to debate if children should be in day care.
Instead we must develop the best possible programs for the more than 100,000
Massachusetts children currently attending licensed day care programs. The
kind of care children receive will affect their later school performance and
the kind of adults they become. Adequate funding must be made available to
assure that all programs meet each child's developmental needs.
A. Wages
Recommendation # 12
The Department of Social Services increase provider rates
to meet the following salary guidelines for center and
family day care system staff with a 25 percent fringe
guideline.
ENTRY LEVEL 10,500 - 13,125
TEACHER LEVEL 12,600 - 15,750
HEAD TEACHER LEVEL 14,700 - 18,900
COORDINATOR OR CENTER DIRECTOR LEVEL 17,850 - 21,900
PROGRAM DIRECTOR LEVEL 18,900 - Dependent on program size
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LEVEL Dependent on program size
55
Recommendation # 13
The Department of Social Services negotiate a "blended
sub-unit rate" between $101-2.50 with each contracted
Family Day Care System.
Rationale
Historically, day care workers wages have been low because child care,
perceived as "women's work", is not valued. The U.S. Department of Labor
classifies parking lot attendants and day care teachers in the same
occupational category. Nationally, two thirds of day care workers earn
poverty level wages and the turn-over rate is twice as high as other human
service workers. Research shows that based on qualification requirements, day
care workers are the nation's most underpaid occupational group.
We now face a crisis situation, with almost every day care program
throughout the Commonwealth unable to fill open staff positions. Directors
report that along with rapidly increasing turnover rates, they are often
forced to hire staff with inadequate qualifications. These high turnover
rates have a negative impact on our children. All efforts to expand available
day care services will be futile if programs are unable to find qualified
teachers.
Substantial day care rate cuts during the last two years of Governor
King's administration forced many programs to either lay off staff or cut
salaries, which had not kept up with inflation, making an already bad
56
situation worse. Salary levels in some programs are lower now than they were
before 1982.
This year, the average salaries in state subsidized programs are:
TEACHER AIDES $ 7,865
TEACHERS $10,586
HEAD TEACHERS $11,844
Day care teachers, unlike public school teachers, work year round.
Over half of the workers earn less than $5.00/hour, and many receive
inadequate fringe benefits. Family day care providers, who work ten hour days
with no paid benefits, average $8.50 per day/per child (averaging less than
$8,000 annually). "In the U.S. in general, and Massachusetts, in particular,
we have a system of day care based on the exploitation of workers providing
the care". (Morgan)
Day care worker wages are not related to training or experience. On
average, janitors, typists, messengers, and clerks receive higher salaries
than day care teachers. With Massachusetts' tight labor market, higher paying
jobs are available to current or potential day care workers and qualified
workers are leaving the field. Without substantial wage increases, who will
mind our children?
Wage and Fringe Guideline Implementation
These recommended wage and fringe guidelines should be implemented
within a two year period, with a cost-of-living increase the second year.
Agency and program differences require flexibility in guideline
implementation. A committee of day care providers, workers and other child
57
care experts should work with the Department of Social Services to establish
qualification guidelines linking salary levels with training and experience.
Family Day Care system "Sub Unit" Rate Implementation
A family day care system's "sub-unit rate" is the amount of money it
can pay a provider per child per day. The current average rate is
$8.50/day/child. Most providers earn less than $8500/ year. The Department of
Social Services should negotiate with each contracted family day care system a
"blended sub-unit rate" of between $10-412.50. This will enable systems to:
o Raise their sub-unit rate to attract new providers and keep
existing providers
o Set up a variable rate structure, paying providers a
different rate based on a child's age, the number of hours
a child is in care, a child's special needs and/or a
provider's experience.
This rate increase will raise the average annual system family care provider
income to approximately $10,000 per year.
B. TRAINING
Recommendation # 14
Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (CCRR) should
determine area day care center and family day care provider
training needs and then develop and coordinate appropriate
training programs.
Rationale
Specialized training in child development and early childhood education
is necessary for teachers to provide children with good care. The best day
care programs have a "balanced" staff with differing backgrounds, training and
experience. Low salaries, though, prevent day care workers from purchasing
training. In addition workers have little incentive to purchase training
since salary levels have historically not been related to training or
experience.
Although the Department of Social Services has periodically provided
training to workers in state subsidized programs, there is a need for a
comprehensive training model accessible to all day care workers. A state-wide
Child Care Resource and Referral network will provide a mechanism to
coordinate and expand existing training programs.
Implementation
The development of a comprehensive day care training plan will require
the coordinated efforts of the Office for Children, Department of Social
Services, Department of Education, Governor's Office of Education, and the
Board of Regents. Training should:
o Be financially and linguistically accessible to all day
care workers
o Incorporate a counseling/career development component which
includes evaluation and accreditation of past training and
experience
o Address the special needs of family day care providers
A comprehensive training model should be implemented in one region during
59
FY'86, in two additional regions in FY'87, and be available statewide by the
end of FY'88. If possible, the Region chosen to pilot the training model
should be a Region with an established CCCR. Training should be accredited,
competency-based, and financially accessible.
. The programs should be piloted in one Region in FY'86, expanded to two
additional Regions in FY'87, and be implemented statewide by the end of
FY'88. Each Region's current DSS training funding level should continue until
this training model is in place in that Region. "Appendix A" is a detailed
description of this proposed training model.
During the first six months, a detailed needs assessment should be
completed. Interested day care workers and family day care providers should
receive guidance in evaluating past training and experience, and developing
individual training plans and career goals.
Training should include (but not be limited to):
o Courses
o Workshops
o On-site workshops, etc.
o Child Development Associate supervision
o Degree programs
OFC, through CCRR's, should work with colleges and universities in the
Region (with day care community input) to develop appropriate programs.
Student intern programs and other higher education resource linkages should
also be developed. Joint Head Start/Day Care training should be encouraged.
bO
Tools to measure competency of entry level center workers and family day
care providers should be developed.
OFC, DOE, the Board of Regents and the Association of Independent
Colleges should develop a competency-based Early Childhood Education degree
and certification. They should also work toward a reciprocity agreement for
Early Childhood courses throughout the higher education system.
The Board of Regents should also develop a tuition waiver plan and school
loan forgiveness plan for day care workers.
The Department of Education should also modify its existing Early
Childhood Education Certification to include an Age 3 - Kindergarten Option,
with approved licensed day care centers included as student teaching sites.
This will require a statutory change.
RECOMMENDATION CHANGES IN OFC LICENSING REGULATIONS REGARDING CENTER STAFF AND
FAMILY DAY CARE PROVIDER QUALIFICATIONS
The following suggestions for changes in licensing regulations regarding
staff qualifications are contingent on the implementation of the recommended
training model. Center-based day care workers and family day care providers
should be able to demonstrate competence in the following areas within five
years of the training model's implementation. Training should focus on the
skills listed under each staff category. OFC should develop necessary tools
for measuring competency and mechanisms for demonstrating competency.
61
*Entry level personnel - (within three years of hiring) will demonstrate
skills in the following areas, measured by a competency-based tool:
o Child development
o Child management
o Health/safety/nutrition
o Teaching strategies
o Specific curriculum area (minimum 3)
o Parent communication
*Teacher level - In addition to above will demonstrate the following
skills when hired:
o Daily and long-range curriculum planning
o Human growth the development
o "Child awareness training"
o Parenting skills
0 Basic supervision/Peer relations
These can be demonstrated by:
CDA or AA Early Childhood Education Degree (must include a supervised
field placement) and one year experience.
or
BA Early Childhood (must include supervised student teaching).
*Head teacher - In addition to above will demonstrate the following
skills: [in programs where there is a director with starred skills (*)], the
teacher need not demonstrate those starred skills (*).
o History of day care/models of care
o Financial management*
o Community resources and networking
o Administration*
o Supervision/communication skills
This can be demonstrated by:
CDA of AA early childhood plus cources in above and three years of
experience
or
BA in early childhood (which includes above courses) plus two years
experience
*Teachers and Head Teachers should have a primary area:
o Infant/Toddler
o Pre-School
A tool should be developed to measure achievement in primary area.
*Family Day Care Providers (Providers receive provisional registration)
- Renewal of registration after two years will require demonstration of
following skills:
o Age appropriate behavior/home based activities
o Behavior management and limit setting
o Communications with parents
o Health/safety/nutrition
o Daily planning
o Juggling day care and personal needs
o Record keeping and taxes
A competency-based tool will be developed to measure skill achievement.
b3
C. FAMILY DAY CARE SYSTEMS
Recommendation # 15
Future day care funding expansion should target the
development of Family Day Care systems in communities
without them and expand existing systems.
Rationale/Implementation
Family day care, while the preferred option for many parents, has a
high provider turnover rate and is difficult to monitor in terms of quality.
A Family Day Care System addresses some of these problems by:
o Recruiting, training, and supporting providers
o Referring and placing consumers
o Monitoring quality
o Providing back-up care when a provider is unavailable
Expanding Family Day Care Systems should not be interpreted, though, as
an alternative to support and training for Independent Family Day Care
Providers. Expanding support and training for all providers is necessary to
raise the overall quality of family day care.
The Department of Social Services should study the implications of a
recent complaint to The U.S. Department of Labor which threatens family day
care system providers current status as sub-contractors. Policies should be
developed to assure the continuation and expansion of family day care systems.
64
D. LICENSING
Recommendation # 16
The Office for Children must receive sufficient funding to
appropriately fulfill its licensing responsibilities.
Rationale
Although the supply of day care has not kept up with the need, there
has been a dramatic increase in the number of day centers and family day care
homes during the last several years. Funding for the Office for Children for
licensors has been inadequate to keep up with these increases. One-third of
the state's day care center licenses have expired; the waiting list for family
day care registration is over 2500; family day care providers wait months to
be registered and are only visited if a complaint is filed; regulations have
not been reviewed in eight years; a two year old statute requiring the
licensing of school age day care centers has not been implemented.
Maintaining the level of day care quality or expanding the supply will be
impossible without adequately expanding OFC's licensing capacity.
Implementation
Of critical importance is:
o Adequate staff to license day care centers
o Adequate staff (including bilingual licensors) for a
multi-area family day care registration model. This model
would enable licensors to visit a percentage of registered
family day care homes each year on a randomly selected
basis.
Adequate staff is also needed to:
o Review and revise all existing regulations. In reviewing
regulations, attention should focus on staff qualification
requirements. Specific suggestions for upgrading staff
qualifications are in Appendix B.
o Develop and implement regulations for: family day care
systems*, school age day care**, special needs family day
care, off-hour (nights and weekends) care, and drop-in care
o Translate family day care materials into appropriate
languages
o Review programs currently exempt from licensing and develop
future policies for assuring the quality of these programs
o Review the feasibility and implications of Group Family Day
Care Home licensing
E. PURCHASING STANDARDS AND MONITORING
Recommendation # 17
Develop purchasing standards for vouchers comparable to
contract standards.
Recommendation # 18
Target sufficient funding to adequately monitor all state
purchased day care.
Rationale/Implementation
All state subsidized care no matter what the purchasing mechanism
(vouchers or contracts) should be the same level of quality. This fiscal year
the State will purchase over sixty million dollars of day care services.
* Enabling systems to register their own providers should cutdown on the
long family day care registration waiting lists.
** Statute should be amended to include "care for school age children before
and after school hours and during school vacation." Age range should be
changed from 6-13 to 5-14.
6b
Monitoring will assure that quality standards are maintained. All day care
programs should be required to provide a detailed breakdown of their
administrative costs, assuring that day care funding supports quality services
for children.
F. Families in Crisis
Recommendation # 19
The "Governor's Day Care Partnership Project" supports the
recommendations of the Department of Social Services
Supportive Services Day Care Task Force to increase
supportive services day care rates to provide adequate
staffing and reimbursement for transportation costs.
Rationale
Day care is often the most important component of the treatment plan
for abused or neglected children or it is used to prevent abuse and neglect
(referred to as Supportive Services Day Care). Many of these children are
angry and confused, often acting out in the classroom, and require special
attention. Some are developmentally delayed and need extra help and teacher
time. Funding is needed for additional classroom and support staff to
adequately meet these children's needs.
Most of these children also require transportation from home to day
care and back home. The Department of Social Services requires that day care
programs provide this transportation, but programs are finding it increasingly
difficult to do this at current reimbursement rates.
67
Recommendation # 20
The Department of Social Services and Department of Public
Health develop an interagency agreement with the goal of
providing comprehensive services to Supportive Services
children ages birth to three.
Rationale
The Department of Public Health funds Early Intervention programs for
developmentally delayed children, aged birth to three. Many of the infants
and toddlers in Supportive Services Day Care need and are eligible for these
services.
A targeted pilot should be implemented in four communities. Ten
children in each pilot program should receive Supportive Services Day Care in
a Family Day Care System. Other appropriate services (e.g. physical or speech
and language therapy) should be provided to these children by the community
Early Intervention Program while the children attend day care. Early
Intervention program staff should also help train each child's day care
provider to best meet each child's needs.
G. SENSITIVITY TO MULTI-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
Recommendation # 21
State subsidized day care programs meet the needs of
children from all cultural backgrounds.
66
Rationale
Families needing day care services come from many different backgrounds
and these backgrounds will affect the kind of programs parents want for their
children. Day care programs need sufficient resources to meet each child's
needs no matter what their family background. Of particular concern are
refugee and immigrant families, since linguistic and other cultural
differences should not prevent families from obtaining care or feeling
comfortable with the care their children receive.
Implementation
In order to reach this goal:
o Sensitivity to multi-cultural differences should be
addressed in each day care program's Request for Funding
Proposal
o Adequate program funding should be provided for such things
as bilingual teachers, translating materials, and/or
developing special curriculum.
o Efforts should be made to develop new programs to fill
existing service gaps.
o These issues should be addressed in any expansion of day
care funding.
H. SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN
Recommendation # 22
The Department of Education should encourage local school
districts to use federal funding (Chapter 94-142 and
Chapter 83-313) to provide services to "special needs"
children with working parents.
Rationale
Working parents with "special needs" children face an almost impossible
task in finding appropriate care for their children. Some "special needs"
children already in day care may not even be identified or receive appropriate
services because of inadequate staff training and/or program resources. The
Department of Education needs to work with local school districts to assure
that "special needs" children receive the services they need while their
parents are at work. DOE should encourage the development of local school
district and community day care programs cooperative efforts.
Implementation
The Department of Education should provide training for day care
teachers concerning Chapter 766 through the Commonwealth Inservice Institute.
DOE should encourage local school districts to include day care teachers in
Core Evaluation Teams and in the development of Individual Education Plans.
Chapter 94-142 and Chapter 83-313 funding should be used to:
o Provide personnel to work with "special needs" children in
day care centers
o Transport children from day care to special services and
back to day care
o Develop integrated full day programs
The Office of Handicapped Affairs should identify the problems of
making centers accessible to handicapped children, parents, or staff and help
identify renovation funding sources.
70
3.4 Affordability
The recommendations in this section address the issues of
affordability, focusing on the importance of a continued state government
commitment to the concepts of continuity-of-care and socio-economic mix. Both
of these concepts are important criteria in assuring that parents will be able
to continue working and that children's developmental needs will be met.
It is important to note, though, that many of the recommendations in
Section I, Resource Development, should lead to not only more care, but more
affordable care. Employers, local government, school system and college
investment in child care should lower the cost of care for many parents.
Without other sector involvement many parents will continue to be unable to
afford quality care for their children.
A. CONTINUITY OF CARE
Recommendation # 23
Planning for all state funded day care programs should
include a commitment to the principle of
continuity-of-care.
Rationale
Continuitiy-of-care assures that low income families will not find
themselves caught in a revolving door, losing day care at the end of a job
training program or when they receive small increases in income. The issue of
continuity-of-care needs to be a particular concern for state agencies in the
71
development and expansion of voucher programs, programs designed to help pay
for child care for a particular population for a designated period of time.
Vouchers are effective in giving particular populations immediate access to
care, but if there are no subsidized contracted slots available when the
voucher expires, the parent risks losing their care and not being able to
work. Planning of voucher programs must include future expansion of the
contracted day care system.
Implementation
Before implementing or expanding a voucher program, the question of how
"continuity-of-care" will be guaranteed needs to be addressed. In order to
maintain quality and stability, preference should be to expand the contracted
day care system and not to extend vouchers. The ratio of vouchers to
contracted slots needs to be carefully reviewed before expanding a voucher
program.
Children needing to change programs due to age, family relocation or
parental choice should be a priority for an opening in another state
subsidized program. Siblings of children in care should be eligible for
services and be a priority for openings.
The Department of Social Services, with appropriate community input,
should review and revise its sliding fee scale.
72
B. SOCIO-ECONOMIC MIX
Recommendation # 24
Make the Massachusetts Individual Child Care Deduction more
progressive.
Recommendation # 25
Governor take a leadership role in lobbying for changes in
the federal Child Care Tax Credit which would provide
increased benefits to low and moderate income families.
Recommendation # 26
Provide additional subsidized day care slots for families
earning less than 70% of state's median income. Priority
given to refugee and adolescent parents for this expansion.
Recommendation # 27
Target additional state subsidized day care slots for
families earning between 70%-115% of state median income
who are currently paying the full cost of care and will be
unable to continue care because of rate increases.
Rationale
A two tiered day care system, with separate state funded programs for
"poor" children, would be harmful for all of our children. Whenever possible,
state agencies should purchase care in programs with a socio-economic mix of
families, but maintaining this mix is a complex problem. Raising wages to
assure quality could increase program rates to a level some moderate income
families would be unable to afford.
Currently families are eligible for a state subsidized day care slot if
they earn less than 70% of the state median income (they remain eligible up to
73
115%).* There are thousands of low income families eligible for services on
program waiting lists. Refugee and adolescent parents are two populations now
having the most difficult time finding affordable day care. At the same time,
there are thousands of families earning between 70% - 115% of the state median
income, ineligible to access a state subsidized slot, but not able to afford
the full cost of care.
Implementation
1. Child Care Tax Relief
The maximum tax relief a Massachusetts parent can currently receive for
child care costs is $129/year/child, through the Individual Child Care
Deduction. On average, higher income families now receive the most benefit
from this deduction. The Individual Child Care Deduction should be made more
progressive so that lower income families would benefit more than higher
income families. Lower income families' benefits should be raised by
'redistribution" of this tax deduction.
Making this deduction more progressive is important, but even after
this change, the child care deduction will only provide several hundred
*70 - 115% of State Income 1984
Family Size Two 12,852 - 21,084
Three 15,876 - 26,052
Four 18,888 - 31,032
Five 21,924 - 35,988
74
dollars in tax relief for low and moderate income families. The Federal Child
Care Tax Credit is much more promising and the Governor should take a national
leadership role in changing the Federal Child Care Tax Credit to provide
increased benefits to low and moderate income families.
2. Eligiblity for State Subsidized Contracted Slots
Funding for state subsidized care should be substantially increased to:
o Provide additional slots for families earning less than 70%
of the state's median income
o Provide additional slots for families earning between 70%
and 115% of the state's median income. These new slots
should be targeted to programs with parents currently
paying the full costs of care, who will be unable to
continue because of rate increases.
75
3.5 Policy Coordination and Implementation
This report addresses the state's role in increasing the supply of
affordable day care and assuring that this care meets the developmental needs
of young children. Implementation of many of the previous recommendations
requires a coordinated effort of several state agencies. This section focuses
on assuring this coordination and the efficient implementation of all of the
recommendations of the Governor's Day Care Partnership Project.
Recommendation # 28
The Governor's Office of Human Resources function as the focal
point for the development and coordination of overall day care
policy.
Recommendation # 29
Establish a Day Care Cabinet which includes: the Secretaries
of Human Services, Economic Affairs, Communities and
Development, and Labor and the Directors of the Governor's
Offices of Human Resources, Economic Development, Education and
Women's Issues.
Recommendation # 30
Governor appoint a Citizen's Day Care Advisory Committee with
broad constituency and geographic representation
Rationale
At least eleven state agencies are currently involved in regulating,
purchasing, stimulating, or developing policies for child care. Day care is
an issue which cuts across four secretariats (EOHS, EOCD, EOEA, EOL) and is an
important agenda item of four agencies (DOE, OFC, DSS, DPW). Conflicting
priorities and lack of coordination of resources and leadership by any one
agency has been a continual problem. Trying to determine how day care policy
76
is made is ambiguous and confusing both to those within state government as
well as to providers, consumers, and advocates. There is an obvious need for
coordination of day care policy.
Project members carefully explored the concept of creating a new
separate Day Care Agency or having the Office for Children be the state's "day
care agency." Both of the options were evaluated as unlikely to be
successful. The problems and expense of a new agency are obvious and families
might best be served by stimulating day care interest throughout state
government and not categorizing it as the sole responsibility of one agency.
The OFC statute does give it authority to coordinate day care across
secretariats. As a line agency within EOHS, though, OFC has not been able to
accomplish this task. This report does emphasize the need to give OFC
sufficient resources to fulfill its mandates to promote the development of day
care services, provide consumer education, and license care. It is unlikely,
though, that OFC would be able to coordinate day care policy across
secretariats.
Implementation
Each year by August 3 1st the Day Care Cabinet should submit an Annual
Day Care Plan and Budget to the Governor for review and approval. This budget
should then be incorporated into specific agency budgets.
The Advisory Committee should review the Annual Day Care Plan and
Budget before it is submitted to the Governor and advise GOHR and the Day Care
Cabinet on all major new policies and initiatives. The Cabinet and Advisory
77
Committee should determine each year if GORR continues to be the appropriate
office to coordinate day care policy.
GOHR should perform the following functions:
o Coordinate the implementation of this report's
recommendations
o Staff the Day Care Cabinet
o Coordinate targeted resource development efforts
o Long range day care planning
o Stimulate research on child care issues
o Serve as the day care federal and legislative liaison*
o Coordinate a statewide needs assessment for future
planning**
o Coordinate media and public education on day care issues
o Evaluate major new initiatives.
* Plan should include coordination with Head Start Planning.
** Future on-going data will be collected by the CCRR network.
78
Epilogue
On January 22, 1985, Governor Michael S. Dukakis announced his "Day
Care Partnership Plan." (included in Appendix)
"At a time when nearly 50 percent of Massachusetts mothers with
children under six are working, quality child care is a lifeline to
the economic independence and stability of families and vital to
a sound future for our children. Good day care is also a key to
continued economic growth as Massachusetts employers seek to attract
new workers in a full employment.
Over the next two years, we will take the lead in improving the
availability and quality of child care an encouraging other employers
to get involved. Our day care plan is a blueprint for forging new
partnerships with business, local government, labor, schools and
higher education that results in a system of day care second to none
in the nation."
The plan includes funding (16.7 million dollars) in the Governor's FY '86
budget request for most of the "Governor's Day Care Partnership Project's"
major recommendations. Many of the Project's administrative recommendations
have begun to be implemented. Day care policy is now being coordinated by
the Governor's Office of Human Resources, the Day Care Cabinet has been
formed, and the Day Care Advisory is in the process of being appointed.
Two of the Project's preliminary recommendations were implemented before
the final report was ever completed. The Senate Ways and Means Committee
included $300,000 for a minimum of three Child Care Resource and Referral
Agencies (CCRR) in its FY '85 budget which resulted in four new CCRR's
beginning operations in March 1985. The Executive Office of Communities
and Development made day care a priority for its FY '85 supportive services
funding and several housing authorities received funding to start new
programs for public housing tenants.
The Governor's announcement of his "Day Care Partnership Plan" was
covered by all four TV news networks and was reported the following day
79
on the front page of the Boston Globe. (see Appendix) The Globe ran an
editorial supporting the Plan several days after the announcement. There
has been substantial, favorable coverage in local newspapers and by
several radio stations.
The legislature is currently debating the Governor's FY '86 budget
request. All of the $16.7 million "Day Care Partnership Plan" funding
was included in the House Ways and Means Budget. Even if the legislature
passes the Governor's entire budget request, though, many of the system's
problems will remain unsolved. The Governor's announcement emphasized
that this was the beginning of a two-year initiative. It will be several
years before we can determine if the Plan will actually "create a model
child care system of affordable, safe quality care that is available to
every family in Massachusetts who needs it."
80
Appendix
81
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
STATE HOUSE * BOSTON 02133.
HAEL SJ DUKAKIS
GOVERNOR
Day Care Task Force: Mission Statement
The Problem:
* There is a shortage of quality child care. The cost of child care is
often prohibitive. For example, the Census Bureau reports that 36% of
unemployed women with family incomes of $15,000 or less would work if day
care were more affordable.
* The Commonwealth through the Executive Office of Human Services, can not
fully meet the need for subsidized day care. The Department of Social Services
estimates that the need for work related day care is six times the supply.
* The development of day care policy and delivery of services is fragmented
within state government.
The Cause:
The rapid entry of women into the workforce; continued sex-segregation
of women into low paying jobs; the increase in the number of women who are
single heads of household and thus, living on the edge of poverty; the increase
in two working parent families; lack of incentives and coordination to stimulate
employer and community support for child care.
The Effects:
Inadequate supervision and care of children; barriers and disincentives
to training and employment and as a result, to becoming economically self-
sufficient; those parents who do work remain among the "working poor"; policies
designed to stimulate child care are not achieving maximum benefit, and are at
times working at cross purposes.
The Mission:
While recognizing the state's continued commitment to fund day care, the
state must also develop policies designed to stimulate and leverage the growth
of child care services among the private sector, local government, and community
agencies and institutions in order to begin to meet need.
The Governor's day care task force will develop a comprehensive child care
policy with the goal of increasing supply, improving access and affordability
and promoting quality child care in Massachusetts.
060
82
Day Care Task Force: Mission Statement
Page 2
It will do so by proposing specific policies to leverage day care, and specific
methods for providing linkage between the potential sources of support for day
care, including business, schools, municipalities, the state and community
agencies.
The Task Force will use two existing policy proposals as working documents;
(1) Caring About Children in Massachusetts, by Gwen Morgan for the Children's
Agenda Day Care Seminar, and; (2) A Comprehensive Child Care Delivery System:
A Working Plan by the Department of Social Services. Proposals will not be limited
to those contained in these documents, however.
The Task Force will be coordinated by the Governor's Advisor on Women's
Issues, as a member of the Human Resources Cabinet. Membership would include
representatives from: (1) each Secretariat responsible for some aspect of
day care policy, including: Executive Office of Human Services; Executives
Office of Labor; Executive Office of Communities and Development and Economic
Affairs ; the Department of Education (2) The Governor's Offices of Educational
Affairs, Economic Development and Human Resources; (3) The legislature; and
(4) Business, labor, providers, parents, advocate and the community.
The Task Force would be divided into five working groups mentione above
(business, schools, municipalities, state, community agencies). Each sub-
committee will coordinated by the appropriate secretariat or agency. The
task force will review and develop proposals, (starting January) hold public
hearings around the state, hold a Governor's Conference on Day Care and have
policy recommendations on line for FY'86 (summer '85).
83
"GAEU'S DAY CARE PAIQNERSHIP PinJECr".
STATB ENTr OF PLRPE
The 70's raging debate, "Is day care good or bad for children and
families?" became moot with dramatic increases in the number of mothers
in the work force and the number of single parents struggling to be
economically self-sufficient. There is now widespread agreement that
the availability of quality child care is essential for:
- sound economic developimnt
- econcnic self sufficiency of families
- social service support to families
- social and cognitive development of children
Many Massachusetts parents, though, cannot find child care at the level
of quality they want and at a price they can afford to pay.
The demand for care far exceeds the supply, but there are recognized
strengths in the Massachusetts Day Care System. Ikwndreds of high
quality, conmrmity-based centers serve a socio-economic mix of families.
A variety of options including center based family day care, nursery
schools, and school age prograns are availabe in many ccrunities. The
Department of Social Service's sliding fee scale assures continuity of
care for the approximately 16,000 children receiving subsidized care.
If current management and policy problems can be solved, the voucher
program will add needed flexibility to the stable purchase of service
contracted system.
State government leaders, day care providers, consuxners, and advocates
recognize the critical gaps in the current Massachusetts child care
system which go beyond the unavailabiltiy of supply to meet growing
deawnd. The Governor has charged the "Governor's Qhild Care Partnership
Project" with making policy reconmendations that will lead to high
quality, affordable, available, accessible child care throughout the
Con,wealth. To accoplish this goal, we need to focus our attention
on two areas.
Massachusetts has never had a comprehensive day care policy. This has
lead to conflicting priorities and lack of coordination of resources.
The system is currently recovering fron a two year crises (81-82) which
lead to cuts in rates and services and millions of wasted state dollars.
Currently, at least nine state agencies (EHS, OFC, DPV, DSS, HOAF,
EKEA, BID, DOE, IDL) are involved in regulating, purchasing,
stimnlating supply, or developing policy for child day care. Trying to
determine how day care policy is made is ambiguous and confusing both to
those within state government as well as to providers, consuners, and
advocates. Critical to the success of our mission is articulating a
coherent child day care policy addressing:
- How future policy will be determined;
- The best model for delivery of services;
- Who will be eligible for state-subsidized services;
84
It is very irportant for the state to develop the best means to perform
in its roles as regulator (licensing) and funder. The word
"Partnership", though, was chosen to symbolize coordination of resources
both within and without state government. High quality, affordable,
available, accessible child care throughout Massachusetts requires
additional resources from business, labor, local goverrrent, school
systems, charitable institutions, and higher education. A stable, well
managed state delivery system will certainly facilitate other sectors
investing resources to support existing progrwms and develop new
services. Other policies must also be developed and inplenented to
maximize this investment. Recminendattons should focus on the most
effective role(s) for the state to undertake to stimulate additional
resources.
There is clearly a need for educating business and ccrmunity leaders of
the need for and the benefits of day care. Information and technical
assistance is also required. We rieed to reexamine our tax and revenue
policies, zoning laws and econanic development initiatives, looking for
the best ways to increase supply.
The current national debate over education has ignored the significance
of day care for both pre-school and school age children. Our schools
are an inportant partner with parents and carnnity agencies in
increasing the quality and supply of child care for preschool and school
age youngsters. We need to develop policies that will facilitate these
partnerships.
Recent studies of the Massachusetts' day care system emphasize the
severe lack of resource and referral services. Child care resource and
referral agencies (COR'S) potentially:
- Give parents information about available services;
- Help parents locate services;
- Docunent area supply and demand;
- Provide training for care givers;
- Stimulate local supply;
- Provide a mechanism for enployer support.
If the "Governor's Day Care Partnership Project" supports the need for
CI1R's, it will be necessary to determine how they should be funded and
irrpleimented.
Our charge is to develop policies that will best utilize state resources
to stimulate new investment which will inprove quality and increase
supply. Looking at the issue of quality, steps are already underway to
increase the number of licensors and review state purchasing standards.
This is a beginning, but adequately paid and trained staff is the
crucial component of any quality program. How to provide decent wages
and on-going training and, at the sane time, keeping day care affordable
for parents, is a difficult dilemma. Although there are no easy
answers, increasing resources through new sources is an important step.
85
A stable, well-nanaged state subsidized day care systen and policies
that will facilitate, stirmlate, and leverage resources frrn other
sectors are clearly inter-related and dependent on each other. If we
are successful the "Governor's Day Care Partnership Project" will build
the foundation and develop the plans for a day care system that will
truly meet the needs of families and businesses throughout the
Ccrmxnweal th.
C Zrno oA MdoernoAr's Day Cr P5rtrsi Prot,
airono~jT-f-Mernor's Day Care Partnership Project
Day Care in Massachusetts
o There are approximately 100,000 children in licensed day care centers
and family day care homes in Massachusetts.
o There are approximately 1,750 day care centers and 9,000 family day
care homes.
o The Office for Children licenses day care centers and registers
family day care homes.
o The average cost of care in the Greater Boston area in 1984 was:
Infant
Preschool
School Age
Pamily Day Care
$5,700/year
3,500
1,800
4,200
o The state currently subsidizes the cost of care for approximately
16,400 low-income children. Parents pay on a sliding fee basis.
- 11,900 through contracts with the Department of Social
Services.
- 4,500 through vouchers for clients of the Department of
Public Welfare's Employment and Training Choices Program.
o The Department of Social Services also purchases care for
approximately 3,700 children who have special needs or whose
families are in crises (protective services).
o In FY'85, the state will spend approximately $63,900,000 to help pay
for day care for low-income families:
Department of Social Services
Department of Public Welfare
$50,600,000
13,300,000
63,900,000
Chronology of Governor's Day Care Partnership Project
- March, 1984
- May, 1984
- July, 1984
- Oct, 1984
- Nov & Dec,
1984
- Jan 22, 1985
Governor Michael S. Dukakis appoints "Governor's
Day Care Partnership Project" (GDCPP).
GDCPP holds Boston, Worcester and Springfield
Public Hearings.
GDCPP holds 12 statewide forums to discuss
preliminary recommendations.
GDCPP submits final report to Governor.
Development of budget, legislative amendments
and administrative action.
Governor announces "Day Care Partnership Plan"
86
87
THE DAY CARE PARTNERSHIP PLAN
The American family is changing. Only 11% of families fit the image
of the "traditional" American family, with father working and mother at
home. Almost half of Massachusetts mothers with children under six are
now working full time. They are working for economic survival. In
today's economy, two paychecks are often necessary since only one job in
four adequately supports a family of four. And they are working because
almost 20% of Massachusetts mothers are the sole support of their
families.
Who is minding these millions of children while their mothers and
fathers work? The answer for many is "day care." Few parents today
raise their families in the neighborhood where they grew up - close to
relatives, friends, and neighbors that they know and trust. Day Care is
the crucial support that enables parents to work.
In Massachusetts, though, too many parents are unable to find the
kind of day care they want at a price they can afford. The "Day Care
Partnership Plan" will create over the next two years, more, better,
safer, and affordable day care and help solve the difficul1t problems
parents face in struggling to both adequately support their families and
care for thei.r children.
More day care will also aid in the continuing economic success story
of Massachusetts. As we near "full employment" day care will be
necessary to attract new employees into the labor market.
This two-year plan was developed under the direction of the
Governor's Advisor on Women's Issues with the help of over 50 state and
local government officials; business, labor and community leaders, early
childhood experts, and parents. "Partnership" is the key concept of this
plan. Reaching our goals is dependent on bringing together and
coordinating private and public sector resources to best meet the needs
of Massachusetts families and children.
Under the coordination of the Governor's Office of Human Resources,
four cabinet secretariats - Human Services, Economic Affairs, Labor, and
Communities and Development - and the Department of Education will
provide resources and the leadership that communities need in order to
develop more, better, safer and affordable day care programs.
Implemeniii this plan will require increased state funding (which is
reflected in the Governor's budget request filed on January 23, 1985),
new legislation (to be filed) and administrative action, much of it
already underway.
CREATING N4RE AND AFR)RDABLE CHILD CARE
Recent studies show that as many as 1/3 of Massachusetts parents
looking for child care are unsuccessful in finding care. Another 1/3
settle for care they feel is inadequate or a strain on their family
budget. Parents confront long waiting lists (average wait is six months
to a year) with infant care almost impossible to find.
The Day Care Partnership Plan
Page #2 88
The "Day Care Partnership Plan" will create more and affordable care
through the following actions:
1. Develop a statewide network of Childcare Resource and Referral
Agencies to:
-- Develop new day care programs by acting as the
community's day care broker, bringing together
employees, labor, providers, parents, local
government, school systems, and colleges to
expand existing programs and start new ones;
-- Provide technical assistance to groups interested
in starting new programs and expanding existing
programs;
- - Collect and analyze data to determine community
needs and gaps in services.
2. Initiate 10 employer-sponsored day care projects during
1985, to serve as models to employers across the
Commonwealth.
3. Increase day care for state employees:
-- provide assistance to employee groups in
developing programs;
-- renovate space in five state-owned buildings
for day care centers.
4. Increase available day care space:
-- in public school buildings through funding
provided by)the "School Building Assistance
Bureau;"
-- in public housing projects through funding
provided by the Executive Office of Communities
and Development.
5. Increase the number of low-income parents who will receive
state assistance in paying for child care.
CREATING BEITER CHILD CARE
The answer to the child care dilemma is not simply "more". We must
develop the best possible early childhood education programs for the more
than 100,000 Massachusetts children currently attending licensed day care
programs. Children are our most important resource. We know that the
kind of care these children receive will affect their later school
performance and the kind of adults they become.
Te Day Care Partnership Plan
Page #3 89
The "Day Care Partnership Plan" will address the need for better care
through the following actions:
6. Substantially increase the salaries of day care staff in state
subsidized programs to enable these programs to attract and
retain cualified staff.
7. Train day care teachers and family day care providers through
Child Care Resource Referral Agencies, ensuring better care for
all children.
8. Educate consumers through Child Care Resource and Referral
Agencies by providing parents with information on how to choose a
cuality program, where openings exist, and what subsidies they
may be eligible for.
9. Increase resources to programs that serve children with
families-in-crises.
10. Form a Citizen's Day Care Advisory Committee with broad
constituency and geographic representation to advise
on the implementation of this plan.
CREATING SAFER ILD CARE
At the time of greatest need, many parents have been frightened by
reports of sex abuse in day care centers. Sex abuse is not only a day
care problem, but a larger societal problem whose dimensions we are just
beginning to realize. The challenge before us will be to deal
aggressively with sex abuse while continuing to support day care in order
to prevent such incidents in the future.
The "Day Care Partnerhship Plan" will address the need for safer
child care through the following actions:
11. Increase protection to children in day care programs:
-- 20 additional licensors;
-- Human Services Interagency Team;
-- four person investigative unit;
-- educate parents through Child Care Resource and Referral
agencies;
-- Inter-agency Agreement to share information;
-- children's educational materials; and
-- support legislation that will allow children to testify
by video tape; protect day care workers that report
suspected abuse; expand the definition of mandatory
reporter according to Chapter 51A to include all day care
personnel.
90
PARTNERSHIP PLAN: CREATING MORE AND AFFORDABLE CHILD CARE
o Local Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies Bring Together:
- - business
-- labor
- - local government
-- schools
o More State-subsidized Care
o More Care in Public Housing
o Additional Centers for State Bnployees
91
PARTNERSHIP PLAN: CRATING BETTER CHILD CARE
o Increase Worker Wages
o Better Training of Teachers
o Assist Parents in Choosing Quality Care
92
PARUNERSHIP PLAN: CATING SAFE CHILD CARE
o 20 Additional Licensors
o Human Services Inter-agency Team
o Investigative Unit for Abuse
o Review and Revise Regulations
o Inter-agency Agreement to Share Information
o Parent Education
o Children's Educational Materials
93
The day-care message
yovernor Dukakis's commitment to day
ca.r- is rare among public officials. His recom-
pwgtlations to expand day-care services in
Massachusetts are vital to filling the crucial.
peeds of working parents and their children
fwr good. safe, affordable day care.
I F _JFor more than a decade, government and
b1siness leaders have ignored the pressures
faced by workers struggling to balance jobs
andjfamily life. Day-care scandals are rooted
, the failure to formulate policies that serve
those who must earn a living and raise chil-
.saritoo. The grim tales of latchkey children
itMto care for themselves, the horror stories of
sexual abuse at poorly staffed, underregulated
-Tediers are largely a result of this failure.
The situation has become critical. Only
one-third of the state's families have the kind
of care they want and can afford: one-third
Sipab settle for what they can find: one-third
ean)lind no care at all.
Dukakis has requested $17.8 million to ex-
pand day-care services. The proposal. drafted
by a governor's advisory committee. calls for
salary increases and training programs for
day-care workers, more subsidized care for
-moderate- and low-income families. better
care for needy families, more licensing and
monitoring personnel, and creation of refer-
ral-resource centers. In addition, a day-care
cabinet will generate leadership within state
government. More facilities at housing pro-
jects, public schools and state office buildings,
along with more employer-sponsored pro-
grams, will offer parents a range of options.
By linking the state's. continued economic
success to expanded day-care services, the
governor has sent an important message to
the private sector. Productivity can be en-
hanced, and absenteeism, turnover and tardi-
ness reduced, when workers know their chil-
dren are well cared for. In the future, making
it in Massachusetts may depend on making
that connection.
94
Reference Notes
1. Beck, "Beyond the Stalemate in Child Care", p. 307.
2. Immerwahr, "Building a Consensus on the Child Care Problem", p. 31.
3. Ruopp and Travers, "Janus Faces Day Care: Perspectives on Quality
and Cost", p. 77.
4. LaMarre, "Industry - Sponsored Day Care", p. 53.
5. Ziegler, Day Care Scientific and Social Policy Issues, p.v.
6. Friedman, Government Initiatives to Encourage Employer - Supported
Child Care: The State and Local Perspective, p. 1.
7. Ibid, p. 1.
8. Cooper, "Day Care Needs", p. 336
9. LaMarre, p. 53.
10. U.S. Department of Labor, Working and Public Policy Report, p. 3.
11. Beck, "Beyond the Stalemate in Child Care Public Policy", p. 309.
12. U.S. Department of Labor, "The Female - Male Earnings Gap: A Review
of Employment and Earnings Issues", p. 1.
13. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, A Growing Crises, Disadvantaged
Women and Their Children, p. 5.
14. Scott, Working Your Way to the Bottom, p. 19.
15. Pearce and McAdoo, Women and Children: Alone.and in Poverty, p. 7.
16. Scott, p. 19.
17. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, p. 12.
18. Stallard, Karen, "Poverty and the American Dream: Women and Children
First", p. 5.
19. Pearce and McAdoo, p. 19.
20. Carballo and Bane, The State and the Poor in the 1980's, p. 10.
21. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Teenage Pregnancy, p. 32.
22. Ibid, p. 30.
95
23. Ibid, p. 32.
24. Ibid, p. 62.
25. Ibid, p. 63.
26. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, p. 15.
27. Wells, "Working Paper on Women and the Economy: Issues for the
States", p. 12
28. Stein, "Women, Poverty and Welfare: Breaking the Cycle", p. 5.
29. Norwood, "Working Women and Public Policy", p. 3.
0~.
30. McMurray and Kazarjian, Day Care and the Working Poor: The Struggle
for Self Sufficiency. p. 2.
31. Winget, "The Dilemma of Affordable Child Care", p. 353.
32. Ruopp and Travers, p. 76.
33. Wells, p. 10.
34. Stallard, p. 5.
35. Winget, p. 353.
36. Cooper, p. 339.
37. Bruce - Briggs, "Child Care: The Fiscal Time Bomb", p. 89.
38. Morgan, Caring About Children in Massachusetts, p. 5.
39. LaMarre, p. 55.
40. Boles, "The Politics of Child Care", p. 358.
41. McMurray and Kazarjian, p. 6.
42. Immerwahr, p. 31.
43. McMurray and Kazarjian, p. 68.
44. LaMarre, p. 53.
45. Winget, p. 353.
46. Child Care Resource Center, Cambridge
47. LaMarre, p. 54.
48. Winget, p. 357.
96
49. Morgan, p. 9.
50. Grossman, "Working Mothers and Their Children", p. 53.
51. Bruce - Briggs, p. 87.
52. Boles, p. 345.
53. Beck, p. 307.
54. Levine, Child Care and Equal Opportunity for Women, p. vi.
55. McMurray and Kazarjian, p. 6.
56. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, p. 13.
57. Card, "Tax Breaks for Child Care", p. 61.
58. Ibid, p. 19.
59. Council of State Governments, p. 2.
60. Blank, Children and the Federal Child Care Cuts, p. 5.
61. Immerwahr, p. 34.
62. Levine, p. vi.
63. Ibid, p. 10.
64. Cooper, p. 337.
65. Youngblood and Chambers - Cook, "Child Care Assistance Can Improve
Employee Attitudes and Behavior", p. 45.
66. LaMarre, p. 55.
67. Ibid, p. 54.
68. Friedman, "Child Care Matters at the Workplace", p. 6.
69. Ibid, p. 6.
70. Phoenix Institute, p. 3 - 4.
71. Friedman, "Government . . . .", p. 2.
72. Ibid, p. 3.
73. Winget, p. 357.
74. Ruopp and Travers, p. 79.
75. Watson, "What Price Day Care?", p. 16.
97
76. Hechinger, "Blacks Found to Benefit from Preschooling", p. 4.
77. Dunlopp, "Child Care and Parent Education", p. 188.
78. Rose - Ackerman, "Unintended Consequences: Regulating the Quality
of Subsidized Day Care", p. 24.
79. Goldman and Andrews, "Cognitive Development in Family and Group
Day Care", p. 23.
80. Roupp and Travers, p. 82.
81. Ibid, p. 83.
82. National Child Care Consumer Study; McMurray and Kazarjian, p. 69;
LaMarre, p. 53.
83. Ruopp and Travers, p. 73.
84. Morgan, p. 3.
85. Beck, p. 307 and 311.
86. Moore, "Parents' Choice of Day Care Services
87. Levine, "The Prospects and Dilemmas of Child Care Information and
Referral, p. 383.
88. Browne, "The Mixed Economy of Day Care: Consumer Versus Professional
Assessments", p. 321.
89. Levine, "The Prospects . . . .", p. 384
90. Browne, p. 323.
91. Morgan, p. 12
92. Child Care Resource Center, Office for Children, Department of Social
Services.
93. Testimony to the "Governor's Day Care Partnership Project"
94. Morgan, p. 8.
95. Browne, p. 322
96. Roupp and Travers, p. 91.
98
Selected Bibliography
The Alan - Guttmacher Institute, Teenage Pregnancy, 360 Park Avenue
South, N.Y., NY, 1981.
Alliance for Young Families, Uncertain Futures: Massachusetts' Teen
Parents and Their Children, A Report of the Statewide Task Force on
Pregnant and Parenting Youth in Massachusetts, 1985.
Beck, Rochelle. "Beyond the Stalemate in Child Care Public Policy",
Day Care Scientific and Social Policy Issues, Boston: Auburn House
Publishing Company, 1982, pp. 307 - 337.
Belsky, Jay and Steinberg, Lawrence. "The Effect of Day Care: A Critical
Review." Child Development, 1978, Vol. 49, pp. 929-949.
Blank, Helen. Children and Federal Child Care Cuts, Children's Defense
Fund, Washington D.C., 1983.
Boles, Janet K. "The Politics of Child Care", Social Service Review,
Vol. 54, No. 3, September 1980, pp. 344 - 362.
Browne, Angela C. "The Mixed Economy of Day Care: Consumer Versus
Professional Assessments, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 13 Part 3,
pp. 321 - 333.
Bruce - Briggs, B. "'Child Care': The Fiscal Time Bomb", The Public Interest
No. 49, Fall 1977, pp. 87 - 102.
Carballo, Manuel and Mary Jo Bane, The State and the Poor in the 1980's,
Auburn House Publishing Company, Boston, 1984.
Card, Emily. "Tax Breaks for Child Care", Ms., March, 1984, pp. 16 - 20.
Child Care Resource Center, "A Statewide Profile of Employer - Supported
Child Care", Cambridge, 1983.
Cooper, Mary H. "Day Care Needs", Editorial Research Reports, Vol. 1,
No. 17, May 6, 1983, pp. 335 - 352.
Council of State Governments, "Caring for our Children: Day Care Issues
Facing the States", State Information Center, Lexington, Kentucky,
December 1984.
Coppelman, Susan, "Capewide Zoning Outlaws: Home Day Care Providers",
Cape Cod Business Journal, December 1984.
Doyle, Anna Beth. "Infant Development in Day Care." Developmental
Psychology, 1975, Vol. II, No. 5, pp. 655 - 656.
Dukakis, Michael S. "Massachusetts Job Growth Outperforms Estimate: State
Tops National Growth Rate", News Release, February 22, 1985.
99
Dunlop, Kathleen H. "Child Care and Parent Education", Education and Urban
Society, Vol. 12, No. 2, February 1980, pp. 175 - 191.
Etaugh, Claire. "Effects of Nonmaternal Care on Children", American
Psychologist, Vol. 35, April 1980, pp. 309 - 319.
Friedman, Dana. Child Care Matters at the Workplace, The Child Care
Resource Center, Cambridge, 1984.
Friedman, Dana E. Government Initiatives to Encourage Employer - Supported
Child Care: The State and Local Perspective, The Center for Public
Advocacy Research, N.Y., july 1983
Greenfield, Patricia Marks. "Child Care in Cross - Cultural Perspectives:
Implications for Future Organization of Child Care in the U.S.", Psychology
of Women Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 1, Fall 1981, pp. 41 - 54.
Goodman, Norman and Joseph Andrews. "Cognitive Development of Children
in Family and Group Day Care", American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
Vol. 51, No. 2, April 1981, pp. 271 - 284.
Grossman, Allyson Sherman. "Working Mothers and Their Children", Monthly
Labor Reports, Vol. 104, No. 5, May 1981, pp. 49 - 54.
Haskins, Ron. "Day Care and Public Policy", The Urban and Social Change
Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, Winter 1979, pp. 3 - 10.
Hechinger, Fred M. "Blacks Found to Benefit from Preschooling",- The New
York Times, September 11, 1984, p. 4.
Immerwahr, John. "Building a Consensus on the Child Care Problem",
Personnel Administrator, Vol. 29, No. 2, February 1984, pp. 31 - 37.
Kamerman, Sheila B. and Alfred J. Kahn. "The Day Care Debate: A Wider
View", The Public Interest, No. 54, Winter 1979, pp. 76 - 93.
Kanahele, George S. "Entrepreneurship Development as a Tool of Employment
Policy", in Expanding the Opportunity to Produce: Revitalizing the
American Economy Through New Enterprise Development, ed. Robert Friedman
and William Schwebe, Washington D.C., 1981
Kilmer, Sally, ed. Advances in Early Education and Day Care: A Research
Annual, Vol. 1, Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1980.
Kilmer, Sally. "Early Childhood Specialists as Policymakers", Education
and Urban Society, Vol. 12, No. 2, February 1980, pp. 240 - 251.
Kushman, John E. "A Public Choice Model of Day Care Services", Social
Science Quarterly, Vol. 60, No. 2, September 1979, pp. 295 - 308.
LaMarre, Sandra E. and Kate Thompson. "Industry - Sponsored Day Care",
Personnel Administration, Vol. 29, No. 2, February 1984, pp. 53 - 67.
Levine, James, et. al. Child Care and Equal Opportunity for Women, Clearing-
house Publication, No. 67, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, June 1981.
100
Levine, James. "The Prospects and Dilemmas of Child Care Information
and Referral", Day Care Scientific and Social Policy Issues, Boston:
Auburn House Publishing Company, 1982.
Levine, James. A. "Day Care and the Public Schools: Current Models and
Future Directions", The Urban and Social Change Review, Vol. 12, No. 1,
Winter 1979.
Lewis, Gordon H. "The Day Care Tangle: Unexpected Outcome When Program
Interact", Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 2, No. 4,
Summer 1983, pp. 531 - 547.
Massachusetts' Department of Social Services, A Comprehensive Child Care
Delivery System: A Working Plan, 1982.
Massachusetts Division of Employment Security, Employment, Unemployment
and Poverty Conditions in Massachusetts, (First Draft), February 15, 1985.
McMurray, Georgia L. and Dolores P. Kazarjian. Day Care and the Working Poor:
The Struggle for Self-Sufficiency, N.Y. Community Service Society of N.Y.,
1982.
Millie, Amy. "Day Care and Early Childhood Education", Day Care Scientific
and Social Policy Issues, Boston: Auburn House Publishing Company, 1982,
pp. 476 - 494.
Moore, John C. Jr. "Parents' Choice of Day Care Services", American
Academy of Political and Social Science Annals, Vol. 461, May 1982,
pp. 125 - 135.
Morgan, Gwen G. Caring About Children in Massachusetts, Boston University,
1982.
Nakamura, Charles Y. et. al. "Interdependence of Child Care Resources and
the Progress of Women in Society", Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 6,
No. 1, Fall 1981, pp. 26 - 40.
Norgran, Jill. "In Search of a National Child Care Policy: Background
and Prospects", The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 1, March 1981,
pp. 127 - 142.
Olenick, Michael and Laura Estobedo. "Cost - Effectiveness of City Funded
Child Care Centers in the City of Los Angeles", Mayor's Advisory Committee
on Day Care, September 1983.
Pearce, Diana and Harriette McAdoo. Women and Children Alone in Poverty,
National Advisory Council on Economic Opportunity, Washington D.C. 1981.
Phoenix Institute, "Business and Child Care", Salt Lake City, Utah, 1982.
Robinson, Halbert, and Robinson, Nancy M. "Longitudinal Development of
Very Young Children in a Comprehensive Day - Care Program: The First Two
Years." Child Development, 1971, Vol. 42, pp. 1673 - 1683.
101
Rose - Ackerman, Susan. "Unintended Consequences: Regulating the Quality of
Subsidized Day Care", Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 3,
No. 1, Fall 1983, pp. 14 - 31.
Roupp, Richard R. and Jeffrey Travers. "Janus Faces Day Care: Perspectives
on Quality and Cost", Day Care Scientific and Social Policy Issues, Boston:
Auburn House Publishing Company 1982, pp. 72 - 101.
Ruttner, Michael. "Social - Emotional Consequences of Day Care for Preschool
Children", Day Care Scientific and Social Policy Issues, Boston: Auburn
House Publishing Company 1982, pp..3 - 32.
Seligson, Michelle, et. al. School Age Child Care 'A Policy Report',
Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, Wellesley, Ma., December 1983.
Siegel, Patty and Merle Lawrence. "The Role of Child Care Information and
Referral Services in Child Care Delivery Systems", unpublished paper,
December 1982.
Stein, Sondra Gayle. "Women, Poverty and Welfare: Breaking the Cycle",
paper presented at "Women, Welfare and Higher Education: A Policy Conference".
Smith College, April 1, 1985.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, A Growing Crises, Disadvantaged Women and
Their Children, Clearinghouse Publication 78, May 1983.
U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau, Employers and Child Care:
Establishing Services Through the Work Place. Washington D.C. 1981.
U.S. Department of Labor, "The Female - Male Earnings Gap: A Review of
Employment and Earnings Issues, Report 673, September 1982,
U.S. Department of Labor, Working Women and Public Policy, Report 710,
August 1984.
Watson, Russell, et. al. "What Price Day Care?" Newsweek, September 10, 1984
pp. 14 - 21.
Weikart, David P. Changed Lives, Ypsilanti, Michigan: High/Scope Press, 1984.
Wells, Joan L, et. al, "Working Paper on Women and the Economy; Issues for
the States", NGA Center for Policy Research, Washington D.C.
Winget, W. Gary. "The Dilemma of Affordable Child Care", Day Care Scientific
and Social Policy Issues, Boston: Auburn House Publishing Company, 1982.
Youngblood, Stewart A. and Kimberly Chambers - Cook. "Child Care Assistance
Can Improve Employee Attitudes and Behavior." Personnel Administrator,
Vol. 29, No. 2, February 1984, pp. 45 - 48.
Ziegler, Edward F. and Jody Goodman. "The Battle for Day Care in America:
A View from the Trenches." Day Care Scientific and Social Policy Issues,
Boston: Auburn House Publishing Company, 1982, pp. 338 - 350.
Ziegler, Edward F. and Edmund W. Gordon. Day Care Scientific and Social Policy
Issues, Boston: Auburn House Publishing Company, 1982.