ED 331 598

TITLE

INSTITUTION

PUB DATENOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

PS 019 353

Hearing on the Reauthorization of the ChildDevelopment Associate Scholarship Assistance Act of1995 and State Dependent Care Development Grants Act.Hearing before the Subcommittee on Human Resources ofthe Committee on Education and Labor. House ofRepresentatives, One Hundred First Congress, SecondSession.Congress of the U.S., Washington, D.C. HouseCommittee on Education and Labor.20 Feb 9058p.; Serial No. 101-97. Contains some small/fainttype.

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional SalesOffale, U.S. Government Printing Office, WashingtortDC 20402 (Stock No. 552-070-08630-7, $2.00).Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (090)

MF01/PCO Plus Postage.*Child Caregivers; Early Childhood Education; FederalLegislation; *Federal Programs; *Grants; Hearings;Postsecondary Education; Public Schools; *ScholarshipFunds; *State ProgramsCDA; *Child Development Associate; Congress 101st;*Dependent Care Services; ReauthorizationLegislation

A hearing was held to discuss the reauthorivition ofthe Child Development Asf,ociate Scnolfirship Assistance (CDASA) Act of1985 and the State Dependent Care Development Grants (SDCDG) Act. TheCDASA Act was created to provide financial assistance to low-incomeindividuals who woull otherwise be unable to afford the cost of theCDA application and assessment. The SDCDG Act authorizes funds tostates for the planning, establishment, expansion, or improvemeat ofresource and referral programs and before- and after-school childcare services for school-age children. Testimony concerned: (1) areasin which improvements would help the CDA legislation achieve its fullpotential; (2) removal of limitations from the SDCDG Act; (3) theeffectiveness of the SDCDG Act and the need for a comprehensive billthat would help cubsidize children in child care; and (4) theexperience of the public school system in Washington County, Marylandin implementing and using the SDCDG Act. (RH)

********************************************X**************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.**************************************************** ***** **************

f

HEARING ON THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE ?;CHU DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATE SCHOLARSHIP

ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1985 AND STATE DEPEND-

ENT CARE DEVELOPER GRANTS ACT

ta4

HEARINGBEFORE THE

u s DIPARTANENT Of EDUCATIONro CtIciettr.if Permaircf, Rae IrrptoirtmtPot

En/CAT/0E01 RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER tERICt

.4111¶r,s tux umeillt nay, alian raPCOCCIA ad atree,,p0 1.orn ttu. wregon ortionqabon04,sainalmil A

crlanyt.511a.r. been made Ifl Irprtuotliarttniut NW, Uwaiif V

4.* U 74.10,rutIS stigrct P' einCt,,, -,00 no( pcsarf,1 r pp ,4..# ..tf.c.atfa. $11,Ar1.0,, p(11./

SHWOMMITTEE ON HUMAN HESOURcEsOF THY

COMMITTEE ON EDITCATION AND LABOR

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESONE HUNDRED FIRST COM;RESS

f'( 1.)Ni SESION

tU:!1 1 WASIIINill'ON,

Serial No, 101-97

Pt t,,t Itti ".Pw Cotlifnit let ,tt EtitiL 40+,11 d I .117t11

BEST COPY AVAILABLY

tAwFUNMEINT PRINTINC; 4r1ely1:

AS141,il,11/?.

-,t1. f11. 'upur Ilitet)(1,70 t I if 1401-.,1.,n41 I flf.ot tr-,11ITA t11... NV.pAnt4,1,,n III '...11111:

silk eV 9 "

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

AUGUSTUS FWILLIAM LI FORD. MicLuganJOSEPH M GAYD(Xs, PennsylvaniaWILLIAM 141L1.! CLAY, Mis..iouricyoR6E MILLER, CaliforniaAUSTIN J MURPHY, PennsylvaniaDALE E MiehiganPAT WILLIAMS, NIonfonamArrHicxx G. MARTINEZ, ('aliforniaMAJOR R ()WENS, New YorkCHARLES A HAYES, II hoof,.CARL C PERKINS. KentiickyTHOMAS SAWYER, OhioIX)NALD M PAYNE. NewNITA M LOWEY, New YorkGLENN POSHARD WiningJOLENE UNSOELD. WashingtonNICK JOE RAHALL B. Wet$ VirginiaJAIME R Fl!STER. Puerto H, oprrErt VISCLOSKY. IndianaJIM JONTZ. lothanoKWEISI MFTME. Ntift hi id

HAWKINS. Cithfornia. ChairmanWILLIAM F. G(X)DLING. PennsylvaniaE. THOMAS COLEMAN. MitvouriTHOMAS E prral.MARGE ROLIKEMA. New JerseySTEVE GUNDERSON. WiwonsinSTENE BARTLETT. TexasTHOMAS .1 TAUKE, lowaHARRIS W FAWELL. lIhnPAUL B HENRY. MichiganFRED ((RANDY, IowaCASS BALLENGER. North t."rolmitPETER SMITU. VermontTOMMY F ROBINSON. Ark,m,.as

lielIMMrrrEE iit'IMAN RE.sortirys

1/A1,E F KI1THOMAS C SAW'f ER. (BooJOLENE UNS4/ELD, WashingtonNITA M LOWEY. New YorkGLENN POSHARD.AUGUSTUS F HAWKINS. California

JEx Officio,

DEE, Mtvhigan, rmitnTliOMAS TM'KE. lowaE THOMAS COLEMAN. MisNotiriFREI) ;RA NDY kva

3

CONTENTS

raja,

Hearing held in Washington. IX", February '2,0. 1:11toStatement of.

Phi Hips. Carol Brunson. Executive Director, Council for Early ChildhoodProfessional Recognition: Jill Burkhart. Early Childhood Coordinator.Washington County Board of Education; Sandra 141mm. Exeoutive Di-rector, New York g'tate Child Care Coordinating Council; and Dale BFink. Senior Project Aiksociate, SchoolAge Child Care Project. Welles,ley College Center for Research on Women ............... .

Prepared statements, letters, supplemental materials. t-1 cetera.Burkhart, Jill. Early Childhood Coordinator. Washington County Board

of Education, repared statement of ... . toFink. Dale B.. Sttmor Project Assocmte. School-Age Child Care Project.

Wellesley Colkge Cenwr for Research on Women. prepared statementof

Lamm, Sandra. Executive Director, New York State Child Care Coordi-nating Council, prepared statement of.. . .

.,,Phillips. Carol Brunson, Executive Director. Council for Eart Chiidhood

Profev:ional Reeognition, prepared statetnent of

!II

HEARING ON THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THECHILD DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATE SCHOLAR-SHIP ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1985 AND STATEDEPENDENT C &RE DEVELOPMENT GRANTSACT

FEBRUARY. 20. 1990

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES.

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR.Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m., in Room2261, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Dale E. Kildee [Chair-man) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Kildee. Poshard. and Tauke.Staff present: Susan Wilhelm. staff director; Damian Thorman.

legislative associate; Lisa Morin, professional staff member; andMargaret Kajeckas. clerk/legislative assistant.

Mr. KnavEs. The subcommittee will come to order. We are begin-ning to have some afternoon hearings because our schedule is get-ting rather pressed. I know Mr. Tauke is very, very busy. I expecthim to be here momentarily. I'm trying to speak over a cold soplease bear with me.

The Subcommittee on Human Resources convenes this afternoonto hear testimony on the reauthorization of the Child DevelopmentAssociate Scholarship Assistance Act and the State DependentCare Development Grants Act.

The Child Development Associate Scholarship Act was created in1986 to provide needed financial assistance to low-income individ-uals who otherwise would be unable to afford the cost of the CDAapplication and assessment.

The CDA is a performance based professional credential awardedto people with demonstrated ability to work with young children.The credential serves not only as a recognition of an individual'sskill in working with children but often is the first step toward fur-ther educational achievement. We've seen that throughout thecountry.

The State Dependent Care Development Grants Act authorizesfunds to states for the planning, establishment, expansion or im-provement of resource and referral programs as well as before andafter child care services for school-age children.

The program's existence is in large part due to the efforts of aformer member of the Education and Labor Committee and a great

(II

2

advocate for children, Sala Burton, who represented San Franciscohere in the Congress of the United States.

As a matter of fact, I can mall maybe five or six years agoIthink, Susan, you were present when Sala and Orin Hatch got intoa little discussion during a conference committee between theHouse and Senate. They became kind of the odd couple even backin those days on izing that there was some role for the Fed-eral Government rir crld care.

They became very good friends and cooperated closely together.one, of course, from the liberal wonderful city of San Franciscowho indeed was liberal herself, and the other more conservativeSenator from Utah. But they recognized that there was a need forsome Federal concern for the children of this country.

I watched that friendship grow, their cooperation grow, and washappy to see that Mr. Hatch was cosponsor of the Senate version ofthe Child Care legislation, making that bill truly bipartisan.

The program which Sala Burton advocated enjoyed bipartisansupport at the time of its enactment and continues to play an im-portant role in expanding the availability of resources and referralservices and for school-age child care programs.

We welcome all our witnesses and look forward to their testimo-ny concerning the effectiveness of these prograL,s and how theymay be improved.

Before proceeding, I'd like to recognize Mr. Tauke who has al-ready demonstrated, over the years I've worked with him, a deepinterest in the needs of children in this country. Mr, Tauke.

Mr. TAUKE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We didn'tdraw too big a crowd this afternoon.

[Laughter.]Mr. TAUKE. On behalf of my colleagues, I wish to welcome our

witnesses who are testifying today on behalf of the Child Develop-ment Associate Scholarship and the State Dependent Care GrantsAct programs.

State Dependent Care Grants have provided seed money to statesthat has allowed them to develop, publicize, and attract supportfrom other state sources for programs to assist eligible recipients inneed of dependent care services. Particularly in the area of beforeand after school child care, these funds have helped to deal withthe problem of latchkey children.

The flexibility of this grant prograin is key in that public, pri-wite and non-profit entities are eligible to receive funds. Thisaspect of the program most certainly results in a greater numberand diversity of services.

The Child Development Associate Scholarship program is a toolwhich has helped many individuals attain the credentials to beself-sufficient professional employees in the child care field.

The strength of the CDA program is that it is competency-based.Early childhood professionals realized when they developed thecompetency standards that a particular type of education or train-ing does not necessarily mean that individuals can deal effectivelywith children and their families.

Because candidates are evaluated on their performance and mayhave either formal or informal training, there is a much greaterlikelihood that qualified individuals who may not have the same

:3

access to formal education may still be able to receive this distinc-tion. That is critically important, of course, in certain areas of thecountry and among certain groups.

This is particularly helpful, for example, for individuals in ruralareas, like many in the State of Iowa, where formal secondary edu-astion may be out of reach for a variety of reasons.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses. Mr.Chairman, and I thank you for taking the time to have this hear-ing and thank the witnesses for taking the time to present theirviews.

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you. Mr. Tatike. Mr. Poshard.Mr, POSHARD. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I just want to say in

regard to the Dependent Care Development Grants Act and theeffect that it's had upon the child care institutions in my area, Ican see that we've come a long way from the babysitting servicesthat were provided several years ago to the point where an educa-tional component is now an integral part of most of our child careopportunities for children. I'm very grateful for that and very sup-portive of our reauthorizing that act.

In terms of the credentialing process of staff for the child careHead Start folks and others brought about by the Child Develop-ment Associate Scholarship Assistance Act, I think that's a greatopportunity for many of our people. I think it's very much neededin the field and would very much be supportive of continuing thoseacts.

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Poshard.Our witnesses this afternoon are Dr. Carol Brunson Phillips, Ex-

ecutive Director of the Council for Early Childhood ProfessionalRecognition, Washington, DC; Ms. Sandra Lamm, Executive Direc-tor of the New York State Child Care Coordinating Council,Albany, New York; and Mr. Dale B. Fink, Senior Project Associate.School-Age Child Care Project, Wellesley College Center for Re-search on Women, Wellesley. Massachusetts; and Ms. Jill Burk-hart. Early Childhood Coordinator. Washington County Board ofEducation, Hagerstown, Maryland.

Okay. Would they come forward please.Dr. Phillips.

STATEMENTS OF CAROL BRUNSON PHILLIPS. EXECUTIVE DIREC-TOR, COUNCIL FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROFESSIONAL REC-OGNITION: JILL BURKHART. EARLY CHILDHOOD COORDINA-TOR, WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; SANDRALAMM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. NEW YORK STATE CHILD CARECOORDINATING COUNCIL; AND DALE B. FiNK, SENIOR PROJECTASSOCIATE. SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROJECT. WELLESLEYCOLLEGE CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON WOMENDr. PHILLIPS. Good afternoon. I'm Carol Brunson Phillips from

the Council. The Council administers the Child Development Asso-ciate National Credentialing program.

This program, since its inception in 1975, has provided the Na-tionally-recognized system that has stimulated early childhoodtraining opportunities and documented the competencies of thoseworking with young children.

A brief overview of the CDA program is contained in my writtentestimony; thus, my comments this afternoon will focus on theCDA Scholarship Act.

This Act is extremely important legislation that encourages indi-viduals to seek training and certification in the field of early child-hood. There are, however, given our experience with the program,several areas which, if improved, would help the legislation achieveits full potential. I will highlight these following my general re-marks about the CDA program.

You've heard repeatedly that years of reseamh and professionalexperience have clearly established the fact that specialized train-ing in child development is the single most important variable indetermining the quality of child care programs. Yet, evident in1975 when the CDA program was established, and still evidenttoday, is that the supply of trained personnel in the field is notkeeping pace with the demand.

Among the factors contributing to this condition are the growingnumbers of parents of young children in the workforce which spursa growing need for early childhood services by parents regardlessof income, along with the griming rmvnition of the importance ofhigh quality comprehensive services like Head Start for childrenliving in poverty and other circumstances that place them at riskfor later school failure.

These factors have, helped to skyrocket the demand for earlychildhood services. Yet the ability of programs to recruit andretain qualified staff has not kept pace due to a number of charac-teristics, both of the traditional system for early childhood teacherpreparation where costs are high and availability is limited andcharacteristics of the workplace where compensation and benefitsare poor.

The CDA program was created to produce a new category ofearly childhood professionals designed to increase the number ofqualified individuals available to work with young chi!dren. TheCDA program uses a competency-based approach, whii:h is note-worthy for two reasons. One, it increased training opr,rtunities forthose for whom traditional approaches to higher edozation are in-accessible and, two, it focuses on the specialized needed towork with young children and their families.

Since 1975, over 33,000 individuals have rece'ved the CDA cre-dential. with the vast majority, over 90 percent, prepared to workin centers with three and four year old children.

In support of the CDA program. the Scholarship Act was author-ized by Congress in November of 1986 with a $1 million appropria-tion for the first year, fiscal year 1987. The funds provide stateswith scholarships for income eligible individuals to cover the costof the credentialing program.

Since the scholarship program was instituted, two subsequent ap-propriations were allocatW creating roughly 11.800 scholarshipsover the last three years. Scholarships are distributed to stateseach year based on a population formula, with small states, likeVermont, receiving about ten scholarships and larger states, likeTexas, receiving about 300.

The overall impact of this program is currently being document-ed statistically through state-by-state report data analysis. Howev-

5

er, anecdotal reports from scholarship recipients cite the sucessesof the program and identify benefits well beyond the concrete mon-etary assistance.

Scholarship recipients report feelings of great accomplishment byreceiving scholarships, of profound personal reward for their effortsto improve their job skills, and of career incentives to further theirformal education. The program further has brought direct access toCDA into the child care workforce at large, making support for theCDA credential available for the first time to the family day carecommunity and to child care programs who heretofore have beenwithout sources of support for staff development.

Yet, despite its successes, reports also reveal several limitationswhich have constrained the Scholarship Program from achievingits overall intent. Many states have awarded fewer than half theiravailable scholarships, reporting that the income eligibility guide-lines are too lo-v. Further, many eligible recipients have beenunable to use their scholarships for lack of funds to pay advisorswho assist with the CDA provess and lack of access to appropriatetraining.

Several changes in the CDA Scholarship Authorization couldeliminate these barriers and make it more usable.

First, raising the income eligibility guidelines. The current guide-lines limit an applicant's income to 130 percent of poverty. But be-cause scholarships are awarded only to cover credentialing costs.training costs must be covered by other means. Often those veryindividuals who are income eligible for credential awards are toopoor to purchase training and thus have no means to acquire theskills that are required for credentialing.

Raising the income eligibility guidelines to 75 percent of thestate median income would continue to target funds to lowerincome individuals while greatly expanding the pool of individualswho could benefit from scholarships.

Second, allowing scholarship funds to be used for training. Mostindividuals who want to become CDAs need training to acquire theskills to become credentialed, especially theist:, lower income individ-uals who have the fewest resources to cover the cost of training.

Scholarship Award guidelines should be more flexible so thatthese funds can be used for both training and credentialing pur-poses.

Third, increasing the maximum scholarship amount available toan individual. The current fee for credentialing is 8323, while thecost of training varies widely across the country. By allowing statesto increase each scholarship award, income eligible individuals'chances of becoming credentialed would be greatly increased. It isrecommended that the maximum individual scholarship amount beraised to $1,500.

Fourth and fiilally, increasing the total funding of the Scholar-ship Act. Early childhood programs are currently facing tremen-dous difficulties recruiting and retaining qualified staff, experienc-ing nationally a 41 percent annual turnover rate.

Since most newly-hired staff have less training and experiencethan those who leave, employers are often left with staff who needtraining to do the jobs to which they have been hired. Beyond theHead Start system employers' budgets simply don't cover these

9

6

costs. As a result, the supply of trained personnel is dwindling tothe point where more and more centers are requesting waivers ofstate licensing regulations regarding staff qualificatioss in order tokeep their doors open.

A flve-fold increase in total dollar appropriation would be ameaningful step in alleviating this condition and would meet thetraining needs for the same number of schPlarship recipients forwhom the Act was originally enacted.

Continued funding for the CDA Scholarship Act will have animpact far in excess of the dollar allocation, for it will help toachieve two timely and important accomplishmentsexpandingtraining opportunities for child care programs beyond Head Start,and providing meaningful rewards for obtaining training.

In today's child care community a tremendous need still remainsto build incentives for workers to obtain training and certificationthat will lead to stable careers in early childhood education. TheScholarship Act has been an important source of financial and pro-fessional support to these individuals, and it has helped to improvethe capability of states to ensure a trained and skilled workforce totheir growing child care delivery systems.

[The prepared statement of Carol Brunson Phillips follows:]

1 0

Tesfimony of Carol Brunson Phillips

before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the

Education and Labor Committee

U.S. House of RepresentativesWashington, D

February 20, 1990

1 1

A

8

My name is Carol Brunson Phillips and 1 am the Executive Director of the

Council for Early Childhood Professional Recognition, a private organization based

in Washington, D.C. The Council administers the Child Development Associate

(CDA) National Credentialing Program. Since its inception in 1975. the CDA

program has provided a nationally recognized system that has stimulated early

childhood training opportunities and documented the competencies of those svorking

with young children.

This afternoon I will provide a brief overview of the CDA program and how

it works and also discuss the CDA Scholarship Act. The Scholarship Act is

extremely important legislation that encourages individuals to seek training and

certification in the eally childhood field. There are, however, several areas of

improvement needed in order for the legislation to achieve its full potential.

highlight these following my general remasks about the CDA training and

credentialing process.

The Need for Early Childhood Training

Years of research and professional expenence have clearly established that

specialized training in child development and early childhood education is the single

most important variable in deterrnming the quali!), of program experiences provided

to young children. Yet, evident in 1975 when the CDA program was established

and still evident today, is that the supply of trained personnel in the field is not

keeping pace with the demand. Among the conditions contributing to this problem

are a growing need for early childhood services by families regardless of income,

1 2

9

Carol Bnmson PbilhpsPage 2

-nd the recognition of the importance of providing high quality, comprehensive

services like Head Start for children living in poverty or other circumstances thut

place them at risk for later senool failure.

The powth in labor force parbcipation by mothers of young children has

soared dramatically over the last two decades, helping to spur the increased demand

for eiuly childhood programs. In 1970, just 29% of an children under age 6 had

mothers in the labor foice. By 1975. that figure had revned 36%. By 1988, over

half (51%) of all preschool children had mothers in the labor force. But the demand

for early childhood programs if not solely the result of mothers in the labor force.

Attendance in early childhood programs has increased among children of employed

as well as non-employed mothers, especially for 3. and 4-year-olds. This is due, no

doubt, to the growing public understanding of the benefits of good early childhood

programs for children's later devekpment.

The benefits of good early childhood programs are especially pronounced for

children of low-income families. The need for such programs has grown as the

percentage of young children living in ptwerty has increased over the last two

decades. In 1970, 17% of all preschool L.hildren were living in poverty. By 1987.

that figure had surpassed 22%. Black and Hispanic children are two to three times

more likely than white children to be tiving in poverty. As the success of Head

Start has so convincingly shown, it is particularly important that children living in

1 3

10

Carol Brunson PhillipsPage

poveny, who BM by definition at risk for later school failure. are provided with a

high quality, comprehensive early childhood program.

While the demand for early childhood .iervices has skyrocketed. the ability of

programs to recruit and reutin qualified staff ha% not kept pace. Due to a numtvr

of characteristic% (both of the traditional system for early childhood teacher

preparation -- where costs arc high and availability limited -- and of the workplace

-- where Lompensation and benefits are poor). the ('DA program was created to

produce a new category ot early childhood professional. Designed to increase the

number of qualified individuals available to work with young children and their

families, the program ha% not yet achieved its goal; although its potential to do so

still exists Using a competency-based approach to training and credentialing, it

remains noteworthy for two reasons: I) it increases training ivpon unities for those

for whom traditional approaches tc higher educaOon arr. by perception or reality.

inaccessible. and 2) it focuses on the specialized skills needed to work with young

children arid their tamilies.

Overview of the CDA Program

The CDA program offers credentials to caregivers in four types of settings:

center-based programs for preschoolers. (2) center-based programs for

infamltoddlers. (3) family day care homes. and (4) home visitor programs.

Regardless of setting. all CDAs must demonstrate their ability to prsvide competent

1 4

11

Carol Brimson PhillipsPage 4

care and early education practice in 13 skill areas. Evidence of ability is collected

by four individuals who have first-hand observational knowledge of the C1M

candidate's performance with children and families. This tearn, which includes the

candidate himself OT herself, reviews all the evidence and then votes to decide

whether the CDA Credential should be issued.

The CDA national office sets the standards for competent performance and

monitors this assessment process so that it is uniform throughout the country. Since

1975, over 33.000 individuals have received the CDA Credential, with the vast

majority (over 90%) prepared to work in centers wilt) 3- and 4-year-old children.

The CDA Scholarship Program

The CDA Scholarship Program was authorized by the Congress in November

1986, with a $1 million appropriation for Fiscal Year 1987. The funds provide

states with scholarships for income eligible individuals to cover the costs of the

credentialing process. Since the scholarship program was instituted, two subsequent

appropriations were allocated $1,436,000 for Fiscal Year 1988 and $1,468,000 for

Fiscal Year 1989 -- creating roughly 11,800 scholarships over the last 3 years.

Scholarships are distributed to states each year based on a population formula with

small SLUES like Vermont receiving approximately 10 and Lsrger states like Texas

receiving approximately 300.

/ 5

12

Carol Brunson PhillipsPage 5

The overall impact of this program is currently being documented through

state-by-state program report data analyses. However, anecdotal reports from

scholarship recipients cite benefits well beyond the concrete monetary assktanee

Success stories told by individuals point to experiencing feelings of "great

accomplishment" by receiving a scholarship, of "profound personal reward" for their

efforts to improso their job skillv. and Of "Career incentive" to further their formal

education. Further. the propam has brought direct access to CDA into the childcare

workforce ai-large, making support for ('I)A credermaling available for the first time

to the family day care community. and to child care programs who heretofore have

been Withr nit SOUrces of suplxirt for staff developmental.

Yet. despite us succees, reports also reveal several limitations which have

constrained the sc.10..irs.up program from achies mg as overall intent. Many stases

have awarded fewer than half their available scholarships. reporting that the income

eligihlity guidelines are too low Further. many eligible recipients have been unable

lci ase their scholarshipv tor lack of funds to pay Advivors and little or no access

to appropnate trammg

Recommendations for improving the CDA Scholarship Program

Several changes in the CM Scholarship l'rograrn could eliminate theie

harriers and more useahle ro those nidividuals seeking careers in early

childhood

1 6

13

Carol Snmson PhillipsPage 6

Raising the Income Eligibility Guidelines

The cunent income eligibility guidelines limit applicant's income to

150% of poverty. Because scholarships are awarded only to cover credentialing

costs, training costs must be covered by other means. Often those individuals who

are income eligible under the cunent guidelines are too poor to purchase training.

and thus have no means to acquire the skills required for credentialing. A number

of states have reported that they have been unable to spend their allotments because

of individuals who want and need scholarships have no way to use them unless they

can also get help with accessing training. Raising the income eligibility guidelines

to 75% of the state median income would connnue to target funds to lower income

individuals, while greatly espanding the total pool of individuals who could benefit

from scholarships

Allowing Scholarship Funds to he Used for Training and

C reden baling

Most individuals who want to become CDAs need training to acquire

the skills to become credentialed. especially those lower income individuals who

have the fewest resources to cover the costs of training. Scholarship award

guidelines should he more flexible so that they can be used for both training and

credentialing purposes. This is especially important given the imminent changes in

the CDA program where beginning this fall, individuals who attend a CDA

1 7

27-283 0 - 90 - 2

14

Carol Brunson PhillipsPage 7

Professional Preparation Program will be awarded a CDA Credential upon their

successful completion. The cost fin credentialing will be subsumed »nder the cost

for training. Further, others who choose to obtain training through other programs

and seek a CDA Credential through the traditional process would also benefit if

financial assistance were available for training purposes as well.

Increasing the Maximum Scholarship Amount Available to an

Individual

The current fee for credentialing is $325, while the cost of training

varies widely across the country. (Based on a 1988 national survey conducted by

the Council for Early Childhood Professional Recognition, 1 year of study leading

to a certificate in early childhood education varies tinm $100 to $3,000. with an

average cost of $1,420.) By allowing states to increase each scholarship award to

at least $1,500, in.nme eligible individuals' chances for becoming credentialed will

be greatly increased. Given the need to include training costs, as well as

credent aling costs, it is recommended that the maximum individual scholarship

amount he raised to $1,500.

Increasing the Total Funding of the Scholarship Act

Early childhood programc are currently facing tremendous difficulties

recruitiN and retaining qualified staff. Nationally programs are experiencing a 41%

annual turnover rate. Most newly hired staff do not have the training and experience

15

Carol Brunson PhillipsPage 8

of those who leave, and thus once employed, need to obtain the specialized training

requited to provide decent care ..nd education to our nation's young children.

Beyond Head Start Programs, employers' budgets simply don't cover these costs.

And as a result, the supply of trained personnel is dwindling to the point where

more and more centers are requesting waivers of state licensing regulations regarding

staff qualifications in order to keep their doors open -- one of the conditions that the

initial enactment of the Scholarship Act was intended to alleviate. A five-fold

increase in total dollar appropriation would hc a meamngful step in accomplishing

this goal. by meeting the training needs for the same nwnher of scholarship

recipients for whom the Act was originally enacted.

Continued support and increased funding for the CDA Scholarship Act will

serve to support early childhood educators in two additional ways which have

become even more critical since the Act was first passed in 1486.

Expanding Training Opportunities for Personnel Beyond Head Start

Currently. 80% of CDAs obtained their credentials while employed in

Head Start programs. Head Start's commitment to staff training and their new

requirement that early childhood certified personnel be employed in every classroom

by 1992 have had a tremendous impact in upgrading the quality of staff and

consequently the quality of Head Start services. However, many more of our

nation's children are served in family day care homes and other child care centers

1 9

16

Carol Bninson PhillipsPage 9

than are served by Head Stan. Strategies need to be developed that would

encourage these programs to give this same emphasis toward increased training and

credentialing. A signifkant im-rease in scholarship amounts and allowing the funds

to be used for training are important steps in this direction.

Providing Meaningful Rewards for Obtaining Training

A recent survey revealed that the number of CDAs who received a

salary increase or better position as a result of obtaining a CDA Credential had

increused by 12% in the past 5 years. Though the wages in early childhood overall

continue to be depressed when compared with other occupations requiring similar

training, there is evidence that the CDA program is gaining increased recognition.

an important trend for stemming the high rate of turnover in the field. However.

yet to be resolved is the problem of providing consistent career ladders in the field.

There is little articulation between the various levels of formal preparation, therefore.

an individual obtaining a CDA can seldom apply that experience toward obtaining

an A.A. degree. The situation is similar for those obtaining an A.A. degree, who

are often not able to apply these experiences toward a B.A. degree. New this year

are two efforts by the profession to promote this articulation -- the National

Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) is adopting a position

statement on a Model for Professiona'. Development and the Council for Early

Childhood Professional Recognition is launching its CDA Professional Preparation

20

_

18

1. : i .a .... ,44o . "(If* ..f 1,41

11403111FILEF ACT 111111Xl1estubtroa Jaartimy 1090

Limbos*

AeLaita

7. 4,71. A

Arlassao

Dirt riot of evoloobPA,Aar .4,,

VIP.t

Fier! donus,,1.

. , ,h

Clear grl4s

Faas

S

too me

- Pt,

loot yob y

a ,

Sonar ipso' ,I .ss

Col Barra MIAMI

Co o ',ado

's I

Coomoot Loots . s r

I

Dolor* re

An

ihriSylrgadr I

7. M In

Si /loots llor000lp000ttoAr . I en

,

13 2

r

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Ittaklip. A . It. .

f.1 ,

17

Carol Munson PhillipsPage 10

Program. Scholarship assistance for early childhood personnel at this critical time

will help sipport the entrance of entry level personnel onto a stable career track,

:has promoting increased professionalism in the workforce.

Summary

in today's child care community. a tremendous need remains to build

incentives for workers to obtain training and certification which will lead to stable

careers in early childhood education. The Scholarship Act has been an important

source of financial and professional support to individuals. But beyond that, it has

also helped to improve the capability of states to insure a trained and skilled

workforce le their growing child care delivery systems.

Reauthorization of the CDA Scholarship Act is vital and should include:

raising the income eligibility guidelines

allowing its use for training as well as credentiahng

increasing the maximum amounts available to individuals

increasing the total appropriation

2 1

19 a.

aurameta.1, .0,r.I.. At t,

,t4,,',s

ow rota

/ 1,11 s0T, ,.

4 :

A ,4* ,,:75.

:V4.4

Ikpara Carol Aso

: 460,. 144.. 0,:70

, !! ,N 4'0,4.44 $.1 ;.,-4.'',1

igokalci forth Catotaas 111014a66

.<,'" .1.0,1^4. , ,.1c.,.. 11 . I MI.0. I Fa S. le

4S(`'. .4.' 00

ILIP1,440 Nati& Dakota

e .. . 1.leebe A *,, ".'11 .r.r ..A f 4. 4. a

l "! 5, . S .,1.7. .' .

t e .., 4

11001.04, 121141.4.

Matkiaata OXImbqop Vim&,,

..

1 4,

nerada

144 lamopideatli

OW. 44ermy4 '.

R,.017

Pm. Nakao.

111.1306,414e . .*t et t A. 4

4.' 3 4:

Oregon

4.4

Ponmay1vmAis0.4 4

t ,

Pas rt Rio°e

VOL144600tA '

0 1 !

Vir 0114,44,

P00% lag% to, s. 4. .

. n .4

SA 11184.1

Ae .

4 4,4 4 4 IA 4,.

Prosubo

BEST COPY MAILABLE

23

Cri Virg la 1.61.4441s

s- r

20

Mr. Kiwi* Thank you very much, Dr. Phillips,Ms. Lamm,Ms. LAMM. Thanks for inviting me to be here today. I'd like to

just introduce the New York State Child Care Coordinating Councilbriefly. We are a private, non-profit membership organizationwhich provides a variety of training and technical assistance pro-grams for child care in New York state.

One of the programs that we administer on behalf of the stateDepartment of Social Services is the CDA scholarship program forthe state. We are also involved in a data collection project which isfunded with the Dependent Care Planning Grants to New Yorkstate, So. I'd like to speak briefly to both of those programs if Icould.

As Dr. Phillips indicated, the CDA program is a much-neededand very valuable credentialing program. Since the program's in-ception in I "S.7 in New York state we've been able to award 30 ofthe about 600 scholarships that have been available. There's reallytwo major problems which again Dr. Phillips highlighted.

One of those is that the income guidelines are too low. At 150percent of the poverty level, the eligibility is really the mainreason that the program has been underutilized. New York state isnot alone in finding this to be true, In talking to other states toprepare this testimony. I learned that Florida, South Dakota andother states are facing the same problem and requesting that theincome levels be raised.

The eligibility is based on family income, and this is one of theproblems because even though child care workers are on very lowsalaries, they can't support a family on those salaries, so they livein families. Even though the family income may not be very high,it's too high to meet the income criteria.

In New York state our median income is over $28,000 and yet ata 150 percent of the Federal poverty level, a family of six wouldstill not be eligible because 150 percent of poverty level for afamily of six is $24.270. So. that's the first major problem.

The second major obstacle is the restriction on the use of fundsto the scholarship for assessment only, precluding subsidizingtraining, paying for advisors, and other resources that are neces-sary. In New York we lbund that where there was paid trainingavailable through a community college or a child care resource re-ferral agency, or some other communiv group, and where therewas an advisor paid through some other source, that's where mostof our CDA applicants are coming from.

Family day care providers, where most of the child care in thiscountry is provided, are really denied access to the CDA unlessthey have access to some paid training or paid advisor, and that'sthe other real main problem.

Training funds are available nowhere else in any existing orplanned Federal legislation, and that's why the CDA is especiallyimportant. The average national wage for child care staff, accord-ing to the Child Care Staffing Study, is $5.35 an hour, which comesout to about $11,000 a year as an annual salary. The CDA providesan informal and less expensive professional training program thanis otherwise available.

74

21

The demand for quality child care is escalating rapidly and weexpect that it will continue to do so. So, having trained profession-als enter and stay in the field is critically important. I'd makethree recommendations relating to these problems.

One is to raise the income eligibility limit to 125 percent of the

state median income and allow states to set the income guideline

for their state appropriately for the needs of the citimns of thatstate so that pmple who reed the scholarship have access to it.

Secondly. to allow the states more flexibility in how they spendthe funding. If there is a need for advisors in one part of the state.they should be able to spend it that way. If there is a need fortraining, the state should have the flexibility to do that. Also, tochange the amount of the scholarship so that the full cost of train-

ing can be paid.Thirdly. I would recommend that the allocation be inmased to

allow the states to meet these needs to expand the program and toallow the states a reasonable sum with which to work.

Regarding the Dependent Care Development program. these

grants to the states have been extremely helpful in planning thedevelopment of child care resource and referral agencies and build-

ing their capacity to offer services.Illinois, Mr. Poshard's state, has done a really good job of using

the Dependent Care Planning Grant to develop a clear plan for im-plementing resource and referral agencies.

As with other needs in child care, the need for CCR&R servicesis growing and will continue to grow. However, this program needsto be responsive to the changing needs and the continuing needs ofCCR&R. child care resource and referral agencies. for funding.

Unlike other services, such as direct child care services. R&R

agencies are not able to charge a fee for services that will meet thecost of delivering those services. Stable ongoing funding is neces-sary to allow them to develop the services that then they canmarket and to allow them to leverage other public and private

funds.The planning grants have been helpful in figuring out what t- do

and how to do it. but we can only tell people for so long how tosomething before we give them the resources with which to do it.The Dependent Care Development Grants can do that if the restric-tion on the use of the funds is lifted.

Thank you for this opportunity to share my vi:ws with you.[The prepared statement of Sandra Lamm follows:1

5

NBV YORK SIAN-,

CHILD CARE COORDINATING COUNCIL:17 su,4t. A:1,1P%. N.1.4 :22S't , 40 NN0

S-TtTS,lef c.tre lest- 1,-,rnser,,t A 1

: : - g.-,t A.. .. .

, !Nt',1 Id .-.41-t -.. r

.re

m11...,tit rci..1.- it iost S.at%-r

- k.r; Fet.r i sr :

Pt;

24

all income level!.. ThIrd, the use lc MPshould be mere flexible, so that trainin4 ornild ?leneeded, Advisors Of 400rainators at.3 ,ver!...41expenses vould be Art . Our expel. eng-0 ,4,11TI r c),1 1h,ti-hclarshir fund in New York State. and "he -x'.-r :0; V '

adMitilwtrAtive agen-irt., nationwide. drument..In New York . a:;.,ations have been nade t%assefitaMent tikholAr'Ibli,s To publl, I it. 11,t.

s,..holershIps. we sei.t 1;,eto.e1l ,h;idtacslItieb in the t,tate, including Mead Start, d.ayand famy day are Lomet,. to all cnA Advi,,rs at.1

4:: individuAl, wh, t;,AdNatsonal Credeflt10$1.4 Provrnm at.-o;ta:: !;1:A!,

At.yr:OprItt.1,` I .,. 4,1:14t ,

. I 44:54 r. .4: 1 re:err.t:.r ' Yr .

it,f;!: hr,t144,'" h. ,i5,1tf /0 !?5'r'41aT r ef f .

;th'.O1r1".hm d,,Wc t,r, Awarl,d

A,- . 1%4 ', 0: , IA : .141. 1 17,e'

Idvai.taje fn,

one ! 'h, :a kw1H :44 two, 'II'''. 40 !

wr,.te . AM preent:y workin4 with 0- e ...andidmt,: '

'mirk ins r :,,a Lav. ; I,........!Mr.:1 r ,

1.:"

^ .; 1:+r.;

41, . A , 4 44: 41. I: r t

, f:ew A!. 1:Jim'an* he a' ! hp: w :* -4 : 40 444'T 4 : 4, ty r

area 11. '41.4 ! '

thr tederAl po...ert7 ,r3,rlir.

'ra;;.r: ,taft 'N, ;row.t.;

wcrrker.: ,c1;, 414YAr44o 14,4,

''her sta'e, I e;., t' ..1m; :41

,v4 r.ee! w',4 .

if .. s 5 qft 74r,.rA4' W. 4, .

s !ti, f -4: ','

.h4f .nr 1,143fr: 4 he h !4:s.h;;.40,4130.1 4W:i .

t.Ja. A !,WPfawari:;;4

,n, Fut,., . t

st.,,;ran 4 4 -..iryear a, 4 Tait- 'herev.I.emeh: tor empl-ym". 1.4.

s,Itts:ItZed f,f -4 . A' hut:sch(,larsh.p 4;rr,gr41. a..len7les the a:: 1-1' rai,.14,r) P5110levels is a:Ways heard Ihthe state,' tfhlt c hest in artualty awarding the .-,.4 4 ar,.4:11,..

those that havr streo,hei Thr

7o make '1.e eliqlt..:t7 lee:states And regirnf. thP in-ome critdp:Itemedian ih ,.Tur r,stOu:d have the f:exibility to set tI.e .ns.,Ttle u:IS or 22% of the state median income At 11-.r.

13011t shou:d be taisel :43I1 hf <he federAl vertywhich lb A mc.re tatt :eve: f,,r MAW)

The se-fel .r 1e. 5:471e I tra:r..inl a4.,1

78BEST COPY AVAILABLE

23

I Am Sdli,11'i l;it,A Niqy : 3!Yart. d ur,.. , .41 eci a-. A t Now 'V..'

which Is pr ivate , non prof if rnemh 333-3111I organ i:3,-43expandInq th, ktiyply of f f r dal- le 1+;.,i 1.1 I ill; -1 .#New York S.,1,. 03.0- members are-. Id resk,,,r,t rort+t +,agencieu. and o!her ,r;Aregoa .

i,fters A f.'13,1'.1719 dt9 hit . e j'211 eare Tpsts*Jr,'*!, and ref erra ; 1444: sta1Ilevelopment !

under ',+tit t.i + the st ate Depart men'. r,f id!add1 t i.e -. . : '11: I lren F ;

mnt rays.; w I 33 N'.'" Lr. I. ' :the st e '2eve lopment ;- 3; ; ,:,re4;olir3.4, .4irt,rwy 13vt31-pme!3 -,y;143

i3;;.43 ; 35 t . l,e; ,"-43 33 ; 3,3.3.3 -3 '

r.roqrAm try: the 1%; ">, 13 pr,,ir.en. .4r,3 t

tteltlqet: .e : : rt... 41-.3; :I A3,....;,.43.. 1.

:4 ; 33.43 A3 t it - 3' 7 1,,

pre, f*t.1,. i'.71.4 1,"!'. 1,14.114 if) I +1',.,*3. . ...7 7 , ,1.otiter, .4+1 He.-i ; ..irams an 3, 3 am ;

pe,..ider% I?:r . re -41; 1314i ,N+.11 41 , 3,'-r wm exFui t ,are :3. 41 VA.; t!, . ;;

41+43 41e-re +; : 3. 1.1 e33...4.4.,.1. 11; 11, 1, .rnt.f-H . : . i '

iri . r ; :

7f,f w 7:per..0. .

t'ariik+V.r ;-t,. .1+ : :43 e .',41'.311' ',1 .,1 ",, 11.11.4, 1 1 It e.re, It 7 I1'. "

N,41 14-1:a .13 1;',/ 7 - ;

STIIP 3,VM3'' . ; 3 an". Vr..3e, 4 . ..34,ave .isimped I om I 'A +.1 1 377 t 4 I% ;T, th ,t...

; ,r;., 4: i .3. ,,;11 tr 4- 3, : .

are ...ill.. I t /V .1.14 w.ti y. :,trt ;3,

e,t I.vr ..37.; ' ,.w.th: ; 't , I 1; , t t ; r 3

F.11.1,1Iry) I I' t . 1. . 1: ;I : I 3.

e It,. 3 *A . 1f1.! I

F.,41 ; 1. 1 :, .; : .!- -1-, ° 1..1.

3, ..41.:..j t -r3 `, .

.* , . 4.linwever 'here ,34re ce','era; w. ;1, 13..e s, I :.t.;;. I 13 olwhi, :41 Le 4-4,1,. tret../th..1 .r.tj t r...v.4;would more ef fe 3 ivi.33/ a,-c-Lmp: lml; 13,w gr+4 I Impr....11.1 7;quality 4 1,f are in Head Start ld r f- .431.i

!amily day ir5i3 *.e. MP el:J:1' 1guidel tut; are ext remely ret,3 r 34-3 lye sh,4,4;,3and made more repOnsive To variaTtont. tiTate ,afunet fr.r t rain it pr .4r1,3 3 ;- ; .1 !,5 : =:. ! '+ e .

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

27

25

allow the candidate to complete the .-redentia,Inq Ir Whry,

t hla Candidate is part of an or9ani,rat con that f

tk,) pru.:ide these serviceis, tiach 4:4t. i Head t art qratt r

Jay care centers, the candidate much more 1: kr- ly t ,mpt,,,..

the process For family day ,:are pr,ividers, or those who wL

outside such a supportive program, thy process $s mwd, mat,rtifficult, In New York, the ma:or.;.tY of otrr scholarships 'pair'been awarded to fohr geographic .ir.-it lit ear.h, a paidprofessional is lu,ated dt a ,,t112a carP resour,e anl tete:-ta:agency, A ,ommuW,,ty olleqe, or a hi 1 are pr,i3ramcandidate throagh the pror.es. Identrfy deve17p trainreoresourcecr and prcv:de zither r The 'at, r-Ast:ociatt. .New wr,!t. 4

number ,.t pot et: ; 4:41:d 3.4te7, 7.1 :1 .1.1e t or ,17- t41. ;y:

aras o I ;7: f an t. tiler and prer.chc.,1 However, wit hou! ;1,L,I,

c". 771 Cl.qt I ra 1ner are t:ymled 0: !.1.t L., imp I emen t this lo:ally. -4 nif, need for pa: iand advisors is ea' uniloe to New V irk state. A.

r 4 "M.4orr 1 o-r:e-: . " . ; 1.-e 7 7;7.:..111, J.1 1,e . : 7 and t.yr:

;:r !%, .10:

7- 7 .7, ;

t.. : t wo 1 3 f , t .01 ! 0 0.. t

r 10... ! .31 :ow t he . 1.3, ;

the ,e .3 and 1,4y t ht

it 3 . 1.,,1 .

7, !.

I 7, ; : : - ,

1,.t.:1 7' , .47 . ,m0.1 f .1 7...t. ij .

TO?. t '.-!' !it. 7.". 7', 7 te..

:...

la,ha 1 lo...at0d .0 . whet r,0-t ; ; .-t hat st,-0,1-. sv.ti.r. 3 V.1007 w it

:lekenAer C:are leve.lopment

Dei. -it : I . ,00.t .7 0 -0". ,1 0 tr !

4: 4%7,1, 4 . ; "-.'rf.F7p...(It... l' t 7.tt 1.

A 7:.,111t.er

INVN:.1., : : AI ;., .0

t er ar t t iny and t ttcht... : 171 7'4 .$1,1 -

ate network. ASS:* ; ions AIaska Oregon Wn-rtirl.;...,T.W1s7'onn, and Colorado have made protires. It. 1 hese

Several other st dies. ink- lt.13:ny M:, and flew *.r.:-)c roc., .

r he dependent care development (4 rar.t .1 a. et; 1.

col lec t .17 -.vs' ems hrt.trgh t 47-01 ret 0f r 7 ,help CrftelY aget,c prwitde more ei fe. ve a70i 01 lel.*services.

However, . the I i1 tat ions oft how t I,e ji ants La%

limited their. effectiveness. :Ince th overa/1 plannrhq ha, beeraCcOMplished, operational funding to c7,c-lifft agens.ie f7tr.:e.jy,ylyFor example, in New York State, in a number of locations a ut,...qor committe has already developed an -crganttational plan t-r ArrC7R&R service. nave a fundsnq propotar: prepared 1,,,t Y

funding to begin building the agency. HiNtorIcally. wt ha':eover end .1-.0er again that relatively small operatlu4 gr4n1:s

BEST COPY MAW

F777.7

79

26

CCR&R ogen,-lee, To lei!erage 'other .-v;!

stable operatinq h.xne is nec.ecary fir,if A grAni$40,000 can pur.-hase ei.nisgh sTaff time ani overNowlCCRS14 agenvy to ,-,ther furlaerf.:. Withmit th;, r.per,st:tr'h m LemiTi irpi.i j ;.',14nne:1 ,y.:tem w ;:-

A bo.irvvy 1,11,,Ild 1,t .0,1,Au.te,.3

nependent ;,!are l*ee1:1Fment .1-ants ha'..e .. 7.

Of COR&R w;thin eA-h !.!dies t,e he:afor the effe,tme t t

CVNICR:,, ate ;:eco,,,w). !te,e1 1

;flIrr:e:!1.4 the .1;.4::'.; .'! efamil4ec galn ACCPSS thOt;:e -;erviceE,, Witt: !he Aemah:ml the child ..are ;.5-, the time t- tAkenut of the plarviin4 t;lage .1:1 the ImplemeT1'.0:nationwl.ie The Frohih::. nf4177,1 Tet 0:.Nhoula 112:ti At.d ette-41,..e t tf ;

T ft ::y

NOTFh

yee is7 tanci tw izup i?y ,f ,lare ni Arn* .11 e-

2. ::0,hra;i. Evd, 7o114:nt.10 Nse4r:-cr .rt,,r i4 l';s4

ihyl::, -

Letter ¶ :;e : 'AmAt. . :e

4

Ohona,s9a :e"et ' NV'' Ai 7., '

30

BEST COPY AVAI1ABU

27

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Ms. Lamm.Mr. Fink.Mr. Fixx. Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman and members, thanks a

lot for giving me this chance to testify. It's a particular pleasure, asa citizen, to be able to come to the Congress of the United Statesand to say that you are our lawmakers and I am here principallyin this instance to report to you that you enacted a very good law.

I am here to talk about the Dependent Care Grants A.ct, specifi-cally that portion of itas you know, it's divided into two por-tionsbut that portion of it that deals with school-age child care,which is 60 percent of each state's grant. That is what I am here toaddress today.

I am part of a small research group at Wellesley College in Mas-sachusetts called the School-Age Child Care Project, and we spendall of our time looking at the so-called latchkey child issue andlooking at the development of alternatives for school-age children.

I am going to be concise. You have my written testimony andI've also given to the staff to be distributed too a book which wasjust written by the director of our project and myself that came outat the end of 1989 called "No Time to Wastean Action Agendafor School-Age Child Care." I hope you'll get a chance to look atthat.

In that book, among other things, we developed a series of 15 rec-ommendations that we thought would take this issue into the1990s, and actually, the second of our 15 recommendations was toreauthorize the Dependent Care Grant Act. We do have one smallchange we'd like to make on it. I'll talk about that a little bit later.

Mostly I'm here to underline the fact that the Dependent CareGrant Act has been a very successful effective piece of legislation.

I might diverge for just one moment to say that just after I fin-ished faxing a copy of my testimony here a few days ago I was driv-ing home in the car and I heard a new item on the radio in which Iheard that a company is about to release something called KidsCuisine, which is something that kids can cook for themselves athome in the microwave oven.

Now, I would not put down any American entrepreneur who hasfound a gap in the market and is going to go out there and fill it.But I guess what I want to convey to the House of Representativesis that the Dependent Care Grant Act is a different approach tofilling the time of kids who are left alone.

As a matter of fact, the approach is really to not have so manykids left alone and to create constructive programs at schools, atcommunity centers, and other places, so that children can be doingsports, doing art, interacting with peers, interacting with compe-tent adults and having a pmductive time.

would now just like to cite for your understanding of why it'simportant that kids not be home alone two pieces of informationthat 1 didn't put into my written testimony, which is that whenpublic school teachers were polled in 1987 about whether or not itwas a problem of kids going home alone, 51 percent of them citedchildren spending time alone as the most significant barrier to ef-fective school performance.

When school principals were asked in 1987 by the National Asso-ciation of Elementary School Principals about this issue, 89 percent

31

9s

of them said that kids would be better off if there were more befbreand after school programs and summer programs for the timesthat schools were not in session.

So, what has the Dependent Care Grant Act done about thisproblem? Well, I have in my written testimony illustrated thatwith some details. I'm just going to give yoi, the highlights here.

But, to give you a for instance, in the State of Vermont wheregrant is the floor level of $50,000which means only thirty thou-sand of it goes to school-age child carethey report to us thatthree-quarters of all the programs for school-age kids in the Stateof Vermont that have been started since 1985 have been startedwith small seed grants from this Dependent Care Act. So that isvery significant.

In Tennessee we find that of approximately 100 new licensedschool-age child care programs since 1985, 87 of them got off theground with the help of the Dependent Care Grant Act.

Most times we're talking about very small grants of $2,000 or$3,000, up to maybe $10,000, that are going out to a communitygroup, a YMCA, a parents' group, a school district, and they'reusing this as the seed money to get started. Then the program be-comes self-funding,

In Alabama over that same period of timeand there, the Com-munity Education Division of the State Education Department ishandling this funding streamthey've gone from three school dis-tricts with extended day programs to 43 and have approximately15,000 school children now attending those before and after schoolprograms.

I'll just give you a few others. There's more enclosed in my writ-ten testimony. Pennsylvania has estimated that they have created352 new programs with 7,000 slots for school-age children; Utah, 13new programs; and Michigan. approximately 5,000 more school-agechildren in licensed care since 1985.

We think that this speaks very strongly of the success of thismeasure in putting out information, bringing professional develop-ment to this field, bringing the kind of small start-up monies thatare necessary to help grassroots and local groups get going in thisservice field,

But there is an issue in many communities that these grantscannot always be used if they don't have the parents there to self-fund the programs once they're off the ground. You give a grantfor start-up, expansion or improvement, and you're assuming thatsomebody is going to be there to pay the daily operating costs, topay the weekly fees.

In some communities, that is possible. In most of the ones I'vejust cited, that's the way it's going. But there are places where thisitind of grant cannot be accessed because you have a lot of low-income and moderate-income families who just simply aren't goingto have the funds and you don't have other alternative sources.

Now, in our book 'No Time to Waste" we have recommendedthat Congress address this. We have recommended that it not ad-dress it specifically through modifying this legislation but by pass-ing comprehensive child care legislation of the kind that you'vebeen discussing for the past year or more. A comprehensive billthat would help to subsidize people's children in child care, wheth-

3 2

29

er they're infants, toddlers, preschoolers, or school-agers, is very

necessary.But I do want to make that point, that this bill continuing to be

authorized without another vehicle to allow for some subsidy insome operating costs is not going to help all communities.

Now I come to the final point about one change we would like tosee in this authorization.

As you know, you wrote in a floor of $50,000 for the small popu-lation stateswith the appropriation at any level, those states get$50,000 as a minimum, and then it rises according to population.

When the first appropriation was made five years ago, it was at$5 million so we had a range of $50,000 to about $450,000. As theCongress has chosen to increase the appropriation, we now havethe larger states having received significant increases while thesmall states are still hovering at or slightly above $50,000.

It is our viewpoint, after interviewing and discussing with coordi-nators of these funds out in the field, that those small populationstates would greatly benefit by having that floor doubled to$100,000.

Now, we're not saying that if you. for whatever reason, go backto a very small appropriation of, let's say, $5 or $7 million national-ly, that these small states should get that money. We're saying ifyou could write into the reauthorization something that would indi-cate that any time that the appropriation exceeds half of the au-thorizationthat is, $10 millionat that point we would like to seethese smaller, which tend to be rural states, getting $100,000.

The two things that we've really heard from the field on thatpoint are, one, that they are giving out these seed grants to thecommunities, but they don't even hare any staff time to go andmonitor and see what became of the grants. Thirty thousands dol-lars, which is 60 percent of $50,000, if you put it out into the field,you've got nothing left to go out and monitor and evaluate whatyou've done.

Secondly, these states are very dispersed and very rural for themost part, these small population states. Just to get some contactwith people in the more removed areas of the state, they need asomewhat larger grant.

So, that would be the one change that we would like to make.Finally, again I would like to congratulate you for having enacteda very effective piece of legislation. I hope you'll read a little bitmore about the detaits of why it's been good in the book and in thetestimony I've submitted,

I'd like to just close by saying that if you have no other reasonfor reauthorizing this bill, reauthorize it because of a place calledThe Living Room. The Living Room is a school-age child care pro-gram in Naples, Florida. A principal of a school down there saidthat if his kids were not going to be able to have a mother or afather or a grandmother, or somebody, to go home to at the end ofthe day, then, by God, they weren't going to go home to any insti-tutionalized-looking kind of place either. They were going to gohome to a living room.

3

30

He used money from the Dependent Care Grant Act to refurbisha portable classroom and to set up a program which is called TheLiving Room. That's where those boys and girls go after school. Toa nice comfortable place where they can relax and hang out andtalk to some caring adults

That's the kind of alternative that this Dependent Care GrantAct is making possible for the children of our country. Thanks.

[The prepared statement of Dale B. Fink follows:}

"I 4

_

31

TESTIMONY OF Dale B. Fink, Senior Project AssociateWellesley College Center for Research on Women. Wellesley. MassachusettsFebruary 20. 1990

EDUCATION AND LABOR SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCESUS. HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES

'THE DEPENDENT CARE GRANTS: HOW A FEW FEDERAL DOLLARS HAVE

MADE AN ENORMI.)114 IMPACT ON AN EMERGING FIELD

Mr, C'hairman and members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity tooffer testimony and I applaud the interest of this committee in the quality of lifefor America's children in a time of great changes in the demographics, culture, andeconomies of our nation's falnlii's,

My testimony today touches on one of thc two piezes or legislation that you arcexamining here--thr vehicle for reauthorization of what are known as theDependent Care Grants The authorization for this act cxpircs this fiscal yearafter having received six years of authorization, and five years of appropriation, I

am here to recommend very strongly the reauthorization of this act and to explainto you how a relatively small new federal stream of funds has galvanized interestand actisity in an important new issue all across this country.

I am part of a small research group at Wellesley College in Massachusetts, calledthe School-Age Child Care Project, which has been an important national resourcesince 1979 for those developing programs and policies relating to the so-calledlatchkes" issue. Through our research, consultation, training, and publications. weassist school districts, parent groups, nonprofit organizations, corporations. mayors.governors, state legislatures and many others in thc development or appropriateprograms so that children do not have to be left to fend for themselves justbecause their school schedules are not well-matched with thcir parents' emplosmentschedules.

We help people design appropriate programs that offer care. recreation, enrichment.challenge and fun to school-age children from Me years old to adolescence, in anatmosphere that fosters independence, choice-making, and community explorationan the part of school-age children and youth I am pleased to make availabletoday, in addition to copies or my testimony, some copies of our latest publication.co-authored by myself and our Project Director, Michelle Seligson. It is a conciseoverview of the recent policy developments in this field, called Nei rime To Waite.An Action .4genda for School-Age Child Care

:15

32

In this book we developed and discussed 15 ACTION RECOMMENDATIONS Thesecond one on our list is the reauthorization of the Dependent Care Grant program.We believe it should be reauthorized for another four years, and we would like tosee it fully funded at the $20 million level. We also recommended, bawd on ourdiscussions with the coordinators of the funds in the states, that the floor-levelappropriation for states with small populations should be raised from 550.000 to$100,000 whenever the appropriation exceeds $10 million

Why, you might wonder, did we give such high priority to this piece of legislation.in a book in which we wrote about a range of other responses to the latchkeyproblem at the state, local, and national level, many of which, measured in dollars,have been much more substantial than this one" tell you why we gave it suchhigh priority, Because this federal program has been successful beyond the wildestdreams of ansone in the newly emerging field of school-age child care. ft hasplaced the issue of before- and after-school care for school-age children on themap in many states which had previously not recognized it. It has given rise tomany grass roots efforts which just needed a little infusion of financial resourcesto get them off the ground It has allowed many states to hold their first statewideand regional conferences on before- and after-school care for children. It hasstimulated many local and state governments and private providers towardinteragency collaboration across the lines of education, child care, recreation.public health. social services, public welfare, and other related fields. It hasallowed for training. so that the response to school-age kids with working parentsis not to warehouse them in a cafeteria or a gym and keep them off the streets fora few hours hut to involve them in meaningful, appropriate and creative activities.It has fostered an important examination in many places of child care regulations,most of which were written with programs serving younger preschool children inmind, and often include requirements not completely relevant and omit others veryimportant to this older child population.

I don't mind telling you that many advocates of school-age child care weredisappointed in J984 when this act was first passed Perhaps a little history willclarify for you wl we were skeptical hack then and so enthusiastic now

llistory of the dependent care grant

In May of 1984 the Houve or Representatives passed by unanimous vote an actallocating $30 million 3 !.ear f or three years for school-age child care. It wouldhave authorized grants to school districts and nonprofit organizations, allowingthem to spend the money on operational expenses or start-up activities and alsowould have created a national clearinghouse for information and technicalassistance on this issue. On the Senate side, however, this *School Facilities ChildCare Aer never got out of Committee. Meanwhile, the same thing happened with abill supporting resource-and-referral funding nationwide.

To break this impasse, proponents and opponents of the measures came together ona compromise, in which they combined the school-age child care bill with theresource-and-referral bill. They eliminated the federal clearinghouse, changed theallocation mechanism to a state-administered grant program, narrowly defined thcobjectives as start-up, expansion and improvement, established the school-ageportion as 60% in this bill I whereas it would have been 100% in the SchoolFacilities Child Care Act), and cut the total authorization from $30 million forthree years to S20 million for only two years.

rt

3:3

You can easily appreciate that people felt disappointed at the prospect of theentire school-age child care field nationally receiving only 150% of 1,40 million ($23million), when the figure of $90 million itself had seemed a mere drop in thebucket, given the estimates of latchkey children running into the millions, andgrowing, and combined with the loss of the federal clearinghouse and the removalof operational funds it seemed an altogether limited contribution to a major socialproblem. On top of that, it got off to a very slow start, with no fundsappropriated the first year and just 55 million in the second and final year or itsoriginal authoritationreduced even a bit more by Graham-Rudman-Hollings. Rutthen it began to happen: the school-age child care field got its chance to show justhow resourceful it could be with a small amount of money. Some states passed thefunds, which ranged at the beginning from $50,000 in about 20 states toaPProzimalelY 5450.000 in California. through F.ducation Departments; othersthrough Human Services or Social Servioes or Public Welfare or through stateuniversities or other agenoies. Many created brand new programs. Others. suti asPennsylvanoi. merged the federal dollars with funding streams that had alreadybeen initiated at the state level.

The 1986 SeSSiOn Of Congress reauthorized the Dependent Care Grants for fourmore years. The authorization level remained at 520 million. The fiscal 19117appropriation was once again 55 million, and it has climbed higher each year sincethen, to fil): million in fiseal logo

And now I'd like to illustrate just how the grant has been spent--at least thc e0.41,of it that is for school-age child care--and make sure you understand how thivlittle measure has made such a big difference to this field Let me describe to youhow four different slates have used thc grant. I have chosen them not becausethey are exceptional but because they illustrate the enormous range of possibilitiesThose three words that Congress wrote into thc authorization--"start-up. espansion,and improvemenrowhich man) of us once thought would be too restrictive to heuseful, have proved their vvorthiness on thc front lines.

The legacy cf the grant: hundreds more programs: tens of thousands more childrenin care; the first professional development efforts IA this Held

Vermont has always received the minimum Dependent Cate Corant or W.000 3n,ihas funnelled it through the Department of Human Sery ices Of the $10,000designated for SACC, three-quarters or more has been put into seed grants t row$300 to $2300 to go right out into thc field. The Child Cate Sets ices Divisionreports that there has been a 300% increase in licensed sohool-age child care sincr19E5, and that 75% of all programs started in that period have received fundsthrough the Dependent Care Grant. The balance has been used for conferencesand training. Among the programs receiving seed grants have been a SatelliteFamily Day Care Program. where family day care prosiders 3re recruited hy aChildren's Center to take children into their homes before and after school Inanother Vermont community, two independent school districts receiving a grantjoined together to transport children to one program. In another town, a school-agecomponent was added to a child care renter housed in a convalescent home, withthe aim of incorporating intergenerational programs AS part or the curriculum.

In Tennessee. the Department of Human Services (DHS) is the grantee. Theycreated a statewide task force of citizens, which led first to a checklist to helpparents evaluate tht Quality of programs for sohool-agers. Then a start-up manualand public service announcements for local radio stations were developed In more

34

recent years, seed grants in the S7.000 to 810,000 range have been one of the majorways the grant has been used. DHS estimates that of approximately 100 newlivensed school-agle child care programs since 1985, 87 got off the ground with thehelp of the dependent care grant,

In Mabama. the Community Education Division of the State Department ofEducation is the grantee. That office has focussed on two major goals thedissemination of information on school-age Child care to families in need of it.particularly low-income families, and the establishment of model programs inschool districts. They contracted with the Alabama Congress of Parents andTeachers to send a newsletter on school-age child care programs to the parents ofall elementary and middle-school age children in the state. Also, they worked withthe Department of Human Resources to reach AFDC and other low-incomefamilies. Information packets detailing the availability of school-age child careprograms, possible sources of financial aid, alternatives to self-care and a toll-freeresource and referral number have been enclosed with AFDC checks and foodstamps. As for school districts, where there were only 3 disricts with ExtendedDay Programs in 1985, there are now at least 43, and thc enrollment was estimatedlast year at ()set 15.000.

The Minnesota Department of Education has been the grantee for that state'sDependent Care Grant. After several years of information and consultation forchild care providers, school principals and superintendents, they reported last vearthat there were 55 more school districts with school-age child care programs thanin 1985, and estimated that the total numbers attending programs had doubled inthat time rieriod.

Here arc some more reports se rezei'd in response to a sursev I4C conJucted in19139--just the 'bottom line."

MICHIGAN. aporosimatels 5000 more children in school-age t;hi Id care since tqlsv

NEW HAMPSHIRE' over 400 slots for school biers created since ittlts; thatrepresented more than a 40% increase

NEW JERSES avows imateT 217 new programs since P-tfts

YOR K approsirnatel 100 new programs scrling ocr 10 000 ;hildren

OREGON7 an increase from BO school-based sites to 115

PENNSYLVANIA. 152 new programs with 7000 slots for school-age children

RHODE ISL AND. 30 new programs, 900 slots

UTAH: 15 new programs serving 375 children

The "start-up, expansion and Improvement" In the school-age portion of theDependent Care Grant has been very successfulbut a vehicle Is still needed for

subsidy and operational expenses

i hope the picture is clear. We are talking about this grant having been leveragedto create hundreds and hundreds of programs across this country, serving tens ofthousands of children whose parents would previously have had to forego

3 es

35

employment opportunities in order to provide before- and after-school care, orwould have faced the prospect of sending their children to an empty home, withthe television and the refrigerator as their Primary comPanions,

In addition, we are talking about the very first professional developmentopportunities for most People working in this field, where people working withchildren before and after school have begun to take themselves soriously 3Sprofessionals, with a mission vital to the well-being of their communities

And remember, this money is not being used for pay for ongoing operations, onlvfor "start-up, expansion, and improvement' The ongoing participation of thechildren in all the programs I just referred to is being paid for by their parents firsubsidized by other public or private funds

Unfortunately, in some communities, grants for start-up. expansion, andimprovement are ineffective because so many families cannot afford the fees forongoing operations and there are no alternative sources of funding. There is adesperate need for more subsidy for low and moderate income families to accessschool-age child care. That needs to be addressed by the Congress. In our book, NoTim! To Waste, we said we would like to see it addressed through another vehicle--comprehensive child care iegislation, such as you have been considering over thepast year. Legislation such as ABC, HRI could provide subsidy funds for familtecwith an ages of children in need of care, from infancy through early adolescence.Ir such legislation were to be passed, we sec the value of maintaining the currentmore narrow definition of the purposes of the dependent care grant--at least aspertaining to thlf 60% that relates to schoolage child care. As to any possiblerevisions in the definitions and exclusions in the resource-and-re ferrol portion ofthe grant: that is a Question you should put to those in the resource-and-referralfield. Thc two fieldsresource-and-referral and school-age child carethoughlodged here in the same legislative vehicleare not parallel with one another intheir mode of development.

why raise the floor from $50,000 to $100.000 for small states?

There is, however, one change we would recommend, and wc mentioned it in ourbook, in our ACTION RECOMMENDATION referenced earlier. We would IA e tosee the floor appropriation fixed at $100,000 whenever the amount of theappropriation is above 510 million. Large population states have seen signif wantincrease as the appropriation has climbed from S5 million to $13.2 million, Thesmaller-population states have risen just a little above the $50,000 flooror in somecases stayed on the floor. Remember, when we say a state is receiving 550,000, itis receiving just $30,000 for the school-age child care portion, We noted that three-fourths of all the new school-age child care programs in Vermont since 1985 havegotten off the ground with the help of these federal dollars--all that wasaccomplished with just $30,000 a year! But discussions with coordinators of thesefunds in some of the smaller population states have made it clear that with a fewmore resources. their efforts could multiply significantly.

There are two main reasons why this change would be justified. First: thoseadministering this funds would be enabled to follow-up and examine the resultsachieved by these funds once they've been disbursed into the field. Second: thoseadministering the funds would be better able to offer assistance to Outlying andrural areas. As you are probably aware, the small-population states are primarilyrural and in many cases geographically immense. The difference in these states

BEST COPY AVAI1ABLF

:1;1

36

between $30,000 a year and 560,000 a year for school-age child care would be verbnoticeable, much more noticeable. I would say, than the loss of a small part oftheir increase would be in the larger SHIMS.

If the annual appropriation for thii legislation should once again fall to half orless of the S20 million current authorization level, then these low-population statesshould continue to live with the $50.000 floor. But we feel that any time theappropriation is above half of thc current authorizationas it has been the pasttwo fiscal yearsthen the floor should rise to $100,000

Putting the amount of this authorization in contet

This dependent care grant ts not 3 great pot of money, yet it has had enormous andsery positise !vilification% According to a Census Bureau Report. "Who's Mind logthe Rids?: American parents are currently spending $11 billion annually out oftheir own pockets on various child care arrangements. The federal child care taxcredit, as 5,'ou probably knoss. costs ihe federal treasury additional billionsannually-53 4 billion in FY 195/4 is the most recent figure that I hays:,We can assure .'ou that if sou re-authorize this small piece ot legislation and mal.cthe corresponding appropriations, vou will be able to continue to be proud of theresults it pcodu4:cs

4

37

Mr. Mums.. Thank you very much, Mr. Fink.Ms. Burkhart.Ms. BURKHART. Thank you, and good afternoon. I appreciate the

opportunity this afternoon to speak with you about hos, a localschool system has implemented and utilized the Dependent CareGrants.

The public school system in Washington County, land hasbeen supportive Jf the concept of school-age child carM.ae7or many,many years. But it's only been recently that it has become a reali-ty. The reason for that, as with many of the school districts in thiscountry, has been funding.

The first program that was actually begun in WashingtonCounty only three years ago tried three years prior to that to getenough funding to begin a program. It began as a result, afterthree years, of donations mostly from individuals and small busi-nesses in that community.

After one year of operation, the program was able to continuewith the assistance of a Dependent Care Grant. This allowed theprogram to expand its number of children and to offer a qualityschool-age child care program at a minimum of expense to parentswithout the fear of closing the program the next year.

Although start-up costs may seem insignificant to many, the taskof raising $3,000 to begin a program so the materials can be pur-chased and so that insurance costs can be covered, becomes over-whelming for many small school districts. The Board of Educationin Washington County has been very supportive in making it possi-ble to provide the facility and utilities, and even some custodialservices for Washington County to be able to provide the school-agechild care programs.

This is not the case in many of the school districts throughoutthe count!), however. Consequently, the stari.-up costs for the pro-grams in these districts are prohibitive. The Dependent CareGrants in Washington County and throughout the State of Mary-land have made it possible for school districts to begin programsfor the safety, protection and care of our children.

In Washington County, Maryland alone Dependent Care Grantshave supplied that extra funding which allowed us to continue thefirst program, which was struggling financially, and it suppliedenough supplemental funding_ for start-up to begin four additionalprograms this year in September.

As a result of the coordination of interagency resources and ef-forts by the Board of Education, the additional funding from theDependent Care Grants has been utilized to train approximately200 persons in our community. It has also been used to train themin such areas as Red Cross first aid, child health and eafety, recog-nizing child abuse, nutrition, appropriate management and disci-pline techniques to be used for rhildren, and programming for spe-cial needs children after school.

It has been used to also purchase needed materials that were notavailable and to provide supplemental insurance costs which inthis country right now range from $35 to $75 notionally.

The Dependent Care Grant also has provided funding for the cre-ation of a Child Care Activities Guide in our community that hasbeen distributed not just to those programs that have school-age

41

38

child care programs brt to all programs in the community thathave children. Those that are profit and non-profit.

As a result, also, of' the Dependent Care Grants to WashingtonCounty, the fee charged to parents has been kept at a minimum.ranging from $1.00 to $1.75 per hour. Because the need for school-age child care right now exists largely with low and lower middleincome families, this low cost to parents has allowed us to servechildren who might otherwise be home alone before and/or afterschool.

While our program capacity has tripled in two years. we havenot begun to meet the needs. During the summer of 1988 theWashington County Commissioners appointed a committee toassess the need for school-age child care programs in WashingtonCounty.

Analysis of the committee's report concluded that while familyday care homes and some day care centers accept school-age childcare children, most prefer children who are younger for two rea-sons. One is that it's easier to keep them there all day than to havethem coming and going. The other is it provides full day fundingfor the provider.

The family day care home situation in our community is alsovery similar. The fact is there simply are not enough school-agechild care or any age child care providers in Washington County atthis current time.

The Dependent Care Grants have made it possible to provideschool-age child care programs in the public schools in order tobegin to meet the growing demand for child care services for beforeand after school.

In addition, the survey conducted by the committee involvingstudents in 32 schools showed that approximately 30 percent of theparents surveyed needed before school care and approximately 43percent of the parents surveyed needed after school care for theirchildren.

In general, this means that one-third of the parents surveyedwould utilize before and/or after school child care services. Thereare over 13,000 children in our public schoo:s right now betweenthe ages of 4 and 14. Roughly this means that perhaps 4,000 to5,000 children need before and/or after school care services inWashington County alone.

When one considers the fact that the Washington County publitschools serve 13,000 students and the fact that we are only able toprovide services in our public schools to 175 students, 1 believe theneed is very clear.

Dependent Care Grant has allowed a small rural school systemthe opportunity to expand its program to meet the needs of 175children. Washington County alone could quadruple this numberand still not accommodate the numbers of school-age children inneed of care.

It is imperative that dependent care grants be continued in orderto supplement the costs of these programs so that expansion andtraining opportunities are available and so that quality, safe, af-fordable programs can be initiated and rwanded for the protectionat.d care of the Nation's children.

4 2

39

I strongly urge you to reconsider the reauthorization of the Fed-eral Dependent Care Development Grant Program, focusing on thenecessity for start-up funding, for direct 43ervices for children, fortraining, and for expansion of services to school-age child care pro-grams in public schools, Local inter-agency effort must be main-tained as well as networking of state departments of educationwith departments of human resources.

Thank you.[The prepared statement of Jill Burkhart follows:i

4 3

40

TESTIMONYFOR

THE FEDERAL DEPENDENT CAREDEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM

PREPARED BY

JILL BURKHARTWAHINOTON COUNTY BOARD OF EI,L;CATIflN.

HASERDTOWN. MARYLANTI

E::XCATION C.,_:!AY;ITTEF

S:14 C,)XX:TTEE

FElir'UAr:

4 4

42

In the Statf. M3'y1an0

In"".rnt ;Nee' f:t ar,t, fur3c3t40 thr t f L.,()cr a I Deo ,,C1f,ntr-,Are opmont Fr ,111!: iS,; .4-3f r nrj Imr ernr"it esrtf I lopxt :

BALTIMORE CITY

r/ pr cio F.1 ar ats 1 1.,,,t c. '001-C (-'t't t 't t t'.lt I CI

l t t rtl,). t ,' FIt 1 $417 .

tr'o f".1,; 'r- C f" .1V:t rT1 .4T'JTr, 07,-,rit r, i1"1 '.; t . ("."' 1

c

t th "AN P.( f ; ef, u t

t 4 ."' 3'10 .i! 1 1 t tC, 1 C Pt/ 1rc33 I rl t.'t' 1,;r1c I 3

BALTIMORE COUNTY

t (14,r.4..1i,p t tt it; 1 N r. I r undi,f orro 1 rtf: tvl

0,1%, r tr!,-..,. 1 t ....I 3Ps ip t o t

11' C. Ifr ,, 1 "t.:

CALVERT COUNTY

to r:ir Cr c,', I 04C' 'f 4fPr 3 r1,3 ;{.7 ;11.14I 1 :,,L.hc..ro r:?- 1

to r t . , a! 0 1: Otif. rr opi--, rs, S.

CHARLES COUNTY

to eo,lod t of trIP 13o4-r, o4 Itlo to tht,extent 00',..-.)t111" throLlqh dpi-?ndept ç.t o fund.Proy3f-11ncl a CO'lf,;.; 1 tant of t Vt 3 1 &i c art, rfr ogoarr, rntat tdevelnrfrvnt, forst.. I Ur f tel tr and t)v pur.cha4,,:rfpfut rf; twt, and rtgulyment tc: cc-pate do aer.;thet :Calplei35) tronme.nt for the program.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

41

The Pub I i t.. hoc t n r Warth 1 nq t 011 Ct)t.nt , Mar y

been ,,oppor t ol the C. ont t of f4chpo I Age t 1 I d Care Tor

many year ,, hut t t har:, oven er,t Iy t.it 9c Mon 3 Apt-

Child Core Ma'. necome a rvaIttv.

idahingt on LoorIt v , marry moht I I r. ommun t P 2 f thy

Country t7,truqg th Itrlf'ntlrli3 f.ichoo I Pqe ChIn Car fol

one primarv roat--,on: Vonot,1q. The ti,tt prhorom thit

begi.411 to W.3'111, irqt (T' C-C3/rVir y y thr el, year., a/to tr 1ed

l fr 1 Or tO that t. 1;11P tr, ohtato

Onnuqh t .irld r..,oroor t I t1 t nr PO* t burlor,

t I, f 3) t1,7 7,03.t. y t r tlir 1 3111 1 V 1 Liii ii 1 %, anit Lora 1 1

commun t but, Olt t et onto oii 03 opel 1 on. the

Pr otr)r 4^.+,30, c, to root 1 o3.11, with the .a.or,is,tanc_cr ot

DeperOorli Carr, tI. t tvt, c.h a 1 IotvPd t pi Ow- 03, t pOnt-, I t

711.irrtrer- f " 1 1 tr err, aed to of ter a 1.4.1.1 1 t , C' 1 1'4

C r 3. 7 ; rnr p,o wi t t.. t 3i . 4 n

Of r I.13OO he' CUI t t year .

II tho;,qh tort r.ro ," ma, ,a-,erf, 3 ,"3,10013 3 r,1),3. tO t

1, .1,3r of a ; trq 4- " t o 1 11 4,i :Nqr T1 o 3 HAI mat Pr 1 :1

are aya 1131,1C arid t 'Ial t 1 n I.iAT ,arr t r r t ar 303

ttecomer., ewer whe I my ei) f trra 1 ttctror; 1 (.1 it to. Tht floo-r1

of Edutatien to Wat,hincltue l'otorrtv mal,er. the, proqram phr,ittleby prns. 1,11 r1( rit I at" 1 It %, t11 it 1,., %,,rtrIi,

r:,Pr v 1 L .1t On C OP t o hoe 1 rlrie tri 1,1 Carr.

qr Out $1'. lt)nci ,14- t.'£' 0'.'11 1)0', or cif t Thlr- I., 1,03 tn.=

.3.'32 131 111,3333,. (73 the -:1-hea1 Pir.t tr,, ; orld

Lr,ntPt1rit'ht. Y. '1,t ', (rt. ty, t,rt,.itt, et tt,;"..t,

dii.tf (- 34, or p ohit ; t . Th Iretter ,:ferrt Fa, P ^Int ' n

Waral I rici toe or t y 1`1 i ti ant/ thr tt,,, ,, fmade t t por,r, t I t-, f ;,T h._.3) I I, ; c t co; r 4 0,

the, . t 1 r:"1 r-ar t11- 1 1 Of 370 .

I 0.13 0- C°L'''t l'1". 14,1fld t r','1,/,'ilt,t1t i of t , t

) th.tt ,7 f ,;-3133.7 7 3, .4 7 trtt 1,3.0 3'1F'

t or r,or a-, wh; w,1" Ilf:11. t.-,kttry l er,

g>mt,n t 1 t t ot f uhrl nr1 r-3,r7 ?. 1 0t1, acttl t t 101%1 I

or 3) t..7 t.: t,fr,f't lq!-`', 310 a r t. i 1 t C nor It At ton I

loth, r333thr3 r. 't .1,, %-t Ov 3", It,. 4P ",/ .4! 1.'11.

thf' a:10 31'.' : 313 7

at-et ow nat r, r i'Ut: '

, ct 13' , 1 it Irr 'A I `' inh '41 . N.t r 1 t ;

PIPPt 03'' I ..tf 1 13,, 7177 1 +1,' " c""

3114 0,14 ,3VO 1 t,31 `..?,,,,3 1,1i Nee., e,,, t et", ,

ch,e.r Tut,- 1,-,11 f, it f^, ,4 c t 4,L;pp I 32r, ivr,t 30 0

3t-1(t1 ( '1' ; 1, 1

E'f'012if"..`" t t, car aet .11,,e o, ;heft et; t or the ;.r eat 1 or,

of a t.r.3"ot,1 e ror 1.'11 11 Care r",' II tt e,, (,,, ti, or,

r1,1 tt: 10 .1: : LttIt I tit 3. 11.033, ,3.3,r 0, of 3 ,330

pr f 13 I,. ,13 n (

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

3 5

44

KENT COUNTY ( r o nr 1 r1A,e0

rano E,ccIrc,1 c,111.0

v to ol It, I t, .3t.r 1 ,s,1^ t 1, 4. I 1 -f d 11 C t t 1,11 c:!, tpA,Pnt

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

te C-1C 1 OP 11'n t".3L..t jt :11.1 arn 4 .,% f

t^ p LL11:-.T fit.] 1 rIr)001 r . it rji H.; % c,

^," i .

f f) .1 t LV 1 . t t

!., -S,1 i".tt t r ti it' ' C e :

Onlo ,,.1 ;kyr t,, t r,t r,,11 .

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY

t( , I At t E1'2t...,t.". 4 I 42,

t / . ir**1 t , t e.tt "os t ,t

tr. cittek 1'17,1 , "_ I 1;1 e I r thei,

I ;11,...*'. ac t ,tes I .1, 0 I P.,1I f rt, I 0:

t 1 0.15 ,

ST. MARY'S COUNTY

tV t,., Ld' ,

. e ,J.

TALBOT COUNTY

,

tc, ht 1 L. d s p tn,t,S,(1 I OW 4 00, 0 I dCever a I F? I I bent,/ r up, t

#1 prctvictI*Iii 11t .11,11,g V., ofWhy 1 c. I a ncp.taftr, vt I op/I-tentpurc hacw, of ge age, ogr tat e atpr 1.11 , f t t,CIrr/

BEST COPY AVAILABLE-

4 C0

43

DORCHESTER COUNT Y

- to Ana v;k7 t Oat., f,C,711fTt(trId,-It toriF, 47,4 thI710 cctlImIttve d rvp11-7p a plat, tflit

t, RAI too, t r7 nit 1 t ht ommchr' t

Orte,m1,'!c. a varlpfv of wav,, tv mAI,v varc,nt awAre otthy r!o..41 1"1, (4.110 wa. It .t+.111.1hle

t ct ,1 I ;tar vnt Ott,. r F# I tt

tY I" I Iit t ittittr. - I' 1 rt. ctr,o Arr

tit NI', It I'', a ml i I a- f A t, f ., ItC`

FREDERICK MINI Y

t

.' r ,40 t tt.t,

It t Itt. 4 t".1, , 4" tt

HARF ORD (:Ot I

t 1 14 I 1 CIS "' ; id

4 I ns,C( ; .3(0 ( F`

- t- 0,1 ;14 , -,.st,tt Itt *." , fl tit't I' ,1 I I ". ; C J 14 L tt

-t t ",; 1! #..#c

KENT COUNI Y

r fI '.1 I st,r4t L,i, e, ,tt._ ..1 1)1,1 1

P' ."-' .4 ¶ 44.4. Itt't f 4., ,-t,-Cf

t "" lt/i t 1,11,1

. r, It .t 1 f ilk tts(.1rt.ci In 4..01 I, 11111 IN 1 tt'l Ildt101t. drti?Pri

ctr, j ett,

mat; .1- a I i 1,1c! er4t1;QPIPI o meet1C 4 hAnd 11 apOr'd C0 1 101 Pr

- j

47

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

45

WASH I NG T ON C GUN T

-I: 41 .0 AF,1 . IA k' 411:1Jr.1 4! ' ''''t .1141' ' ". k ,k' 1.k1

C4,t . ' {4.1J 1 ,t; t

, 'Ho; ..... c4, :4.:'''" .1'fr n

' ,t - " 4.4 .. t,.: "et it e , 0Iir ," kJ' 4,4 i I 4,q,

,1

S 4,4,

. . '. 3` ' 1

: : t

,rJcif , 1.#4 t*.j$ v tit tl",

t

. ,k)

:

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

46

2. Cu, eot ro' IC

Ac c or L1 I rip t ii 9tsct ion I o t /In lir P2 +itnrslr'sq 1 /' r si I . re/s 2 ieot 1 J 1 -rul .4 1 aoll mu I t 101e0. 1 d-1' a 1 t rep, c ,%-sn 1-scs fi.i'Cl

autrICh" i zsit 10t al t a put C ntsi,r I ss./s PCi ou5c hoc) I rs and chi ld care c erster aqr loul tura!

Der rr t' CiV t`P ,,pii ss 1 thIlut 13 f_4ss- 3 ,4 Ihear incl. ter t oh ....Le fiPt", r)li I 10 1,sti holoht-rr.scvs.,irefrehts.

T t pr coo., e : co..t.sts ; it r 1214 vot r .1110 ,st3" :1CII:1 lh that A rors

pr-I t I r st ssi qr f (If p424 "41 '-1011."I' d' I.,--',;`,'''"1 ts I o - / I ,,,.11 rstl

I325. ,Imself .31,3 1 254. 1 t I ',.1.11 ant 2..w111 1:1P tf-0 4iSc112ty,

111,12". ! s tr'Si 1,31 I iait.o-'' 1- t ,' IL.; '.` t 1.4' 1 nt; .' t. : ' " 1 !lel I 1,41 L;ot t ,,I at- . L. 3.,

t d t t.; ' -).! t I n I nr1 ,sf Cots 1 , s

I t--s 1 d Oat t dt'; .P :--. 1,'" to -sod t ht ooto, s tho

ce 'itt lt', of a L, t.,

r I t I, c,r, 2.1s,17,0 ¶ 1 4. I "`'

t's e emt--ot a'' Lis :Et 201 t1r. 1-, , 1,16.21 ''fl 2'''cir VA( 3 .'f.; o. ot,(> t

p 3,0 ,, (301 wns., I ati. o c. p rest hro ...Jr

-I I I 'Ij " I E.' I t-t 4 to, h: .In I ,So as.er Ogin plI oht. a1 -2) nood...0 c sr o £:') s&tL e!Ll-, 3110

P.,' IC I s'" I 321 .s 1:'L'f" C "1 3 f `,I nr".' ",tf,1 .

- `1"""' ,4 : 1 me<-10-s s,, t 21 1 -1 t t irç, rat f"d , istd tt.' kit 1 1 1 I..* e .311 t -fss: h C I

t" , ; e s -.4 ; f,- tof 10,In "-n

1... -e I I $ " ,. ho I s o .

fipt-c :1 a ;

1 oil it at '11 :.4 51; rI 14 Ir.,

1 0 "..! a t't -1. t 1h.1 La/ t t 13 At'

,!) .4,' p tc ; 1,0n 1 'IS I, sir 4. t5C I

1.". t 2 el, .35-T or%S. r I.; I I `.! `.7 : TI r-T I t

at,d f a.Ti; 1 II , r 010 fnn.1. `r 0 1;sp y, pr ar v Ilmlt32CI.

Olt

BEST COPY AMAMI

47

t e te., , e ,

41,.

itf',t12

BEST COPY AVAILABE F

4S

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much.All your testimony has been very good here. I can't really find

any area where I would disagree. I wish we had not just moremoney but better priorities in the government, We could do a lotmore if I could get the cost maybe of one customized coffee pot fora 13-2 bomber, I might be able to pay for some of these programsright here.

That's our job, I serve not only on the Education and Labor Com-mittee, but I serve on the Budget Committee. The big decision inthe Budget Committee is not so much dollars as priorities. You setyour priorities first and see how much money you have for thosepriorities. Very often those that already have high priority, hold onto their dollars and those that don't, have a difficult time gettingtheir dollars.

So I try to approach the budget process not from the bottom line,the dollars, but from the priority point of view. I think this is avery high priority.

Things are changing in the world. All the experts on EasternEurope of one year ago wcre all wrong, thank God. It's nice to haveexperts wrong at times, but things are really changing and I thinkwe have an opportunity to take programs, very small programslike thisthese are programs that would not even be a blip onDick Cheney's computer over at the Defense Department. Wouldn'teven be a blip.

But to, say, double these programs or triple these programs,would still not create a blip over there but it would make a signifi-cant difference in these programs.

So, our job both in the Education and Labor Committee and theHuman Resources Subcommittee, and in the Budget Committee, isto really look at what the priorities of America are today and I sug-gest that children are a very, very high priority.

From time to time I have visited the National Zoo here jj Wash-ington, DC. When I first came to Washington my kids were 4, 5and 6. We used to go out more frequently then. Having gone to thezoo, I noticed many things.

I did note, however, that probably the zoo keepers, the peoplethat work in the zoo out there, were not being paid enough, and Istill believe that to be the case. But they are making more thanchild care workers in Washington, DC.

There is something fundamentally wrong when that takes place.I certainly will not help child care workers by taking money awayfrom those that work at the National Zoo. They earn everythingthat they make there and probably should get more. But when werecognize that we really expect almost some charitable contribu-tions from poor people to provide child care, that's a very, veryshaky foundation for child care in this country.

That's what we really require when we require of the poorsay,we'll pay you five bucks an hour and you'll make $11,000 a year.right? The rest of it just, you know, feel good about yourself be-cause you're helping.

But we can't build a child care structure on such a flimsy basis.We wouldn't get many people working at the National Zoo for that.

So, I really think that we have to address this in a very massiveway. I really believe we have to reauthorize these bills, do better in

5 2

49

reauthorizing them, try to get the appropriations process to catchup to whatever we do in the authorization process.

I also agree with. I'm sure, all of you, and you mentioned thisspecifically, Mr. Fink, that we really need a child care bill. We arestill working hard on that. We've been assured by the Speaker ofthe House, Mr. Foley, that we will have a bill passed bv the end ofMarch. So, we're working very hard on that. to secure tbat.

These really complement whatever we do there. These are com-plementary to that. So, we're going to pursue these paths in childcare right here. That's part of my speech. I'm preaching to thechoir here, I know that.

Really, you people are out there and you provide such expertiseto us here in the Congressnot only your knowledge or your com-mitment, which is very, very important. One of the advantages ofserving here in t:ze Congress of the United States is that you reallyhave the opportunity of getting sonwthing similar to a masiefsdegree or a Ph.D. with people like yourself out there informing usand inspiring us as to what we should do.

Let me ask a few questions before I lose my voice completelyhere. Dr. Phillips, you suggest that including training costs as anallowable use of funds would enable greater numbers of people towirticipate in the CDA program.

How do they get their training now under the present arrange-ment?

Dr. PHILLIPS. Training arrangements vary widely. For the So per-cent of the CDA's who were credentialed while they were employedby Head Start programs, the employer supports the training costs.Head Start has been the major contributor to that.

There are some employers beyond the Head Start system, butfew, that will also support the training costs for employee's.

The training network consists of a two year college and universi-tycommunity colleges provide a lot of CDA training. Some four-year universities, but few, and private consultants who are em-ployed or hired by child care programs, as well as program staffwho 1..rain the employees once they are hired.

So, it comes through a diverse arrangement.Mr. KILDEE. So you would ask for some flexibility within this

whet., some of the money could be used for training costs. Ofcourse, if we gave everyone the training costs, it would diminishthe number of people if we didn't significantly raise the appropria-tion. But vou still feel that some flexibility would maybe enableyou to look at a person that would not be able to get training inany other fashion, and so we can also help out in the training cost?Is that what you're asking?

Dr. PHILLIPS. Yes. This is based on what we heard from the schol-arship agency administratorswe heard that, even given the samenumber of dollars, increased flexibility in how scholarships wereawardedflexibility to allow some monies to be used for trainingwould help increase the utilization of the scholarships.

Given the income eligibility restrictions, no one can become aCDA without having been trained first. Therefore, peopit,income eligible and want to become credentialed, but if they haveabsolutely no resources for training, they simply can't use thescholarship awards.

53

50

Mr. KILDEE. Does anyone else have any--Dr. PHILLIPS. That is true in New York.Mr. KILDEE. You would concur with basically that.Dr. Fink, leaving children home unattended creates a great deal

of problems for the children obviously, perhaps some problems forsociety too. What type of problems does it create for their parents?Do you have any experience with that?

Mr. FINK. In some cases it causes parents who don't want toallow that to happen to take themselves out of the employmentforce altogether. There have been many parents who have saidthatfor instance, public housing residents in the City of Bostonwere surveyed many comprehensively and many of them identifiedlack of after school day care and lack of summer care for school-age kids as the reason why they were not seeking employment orseeking full-time employment.

But for those parents who do go ahead and take jobs, eventhough their children have to be home, it creates a tremendousamount of stress. lt also creates a lack of productivity.

Business has identified something they call the Three O'clockSyndrome that the parents are on the phone trying to find out ifeverything is okay at home while the person should be working.

Mr. KILDEE. I note that myself as I'm a Congressman and an em-ployer. I encourage that. I hire my staff, you know, for having goodheads and good hearts both. Good hearts have to attend to theirown children. But I do notice that after schoolnot so much anymore, the one I have in mind, the child is olderbut they obviouslyhave to show some concern. I'm sure in some businesses the tele-phones are really pretty hot after 3:00, or whatever hour the schoolmay get out, because of that.

I've noted in Flint, Michigan that several things keep people onwelfare. Of the two most common things that keep people on wel-fare is the fact that they will lose their Medicaid cardwhich isstupid and we're trying to undo that under the Welfare ReformAct. I'm not sure that's being implemented in the states, But it'sstupid.

I mean, I've gotten jobs for manyusually it's a woman who isso happy to get that job because she really wants to get off welfareand then finds out that cold turkey she loses the Medicaid card andshe has two or three or four children whose health is not thatgreat. She says. -I can't do it.- I agree with her. You know, I don'tknow how government can be so stupid, but having been in Wash-ington for a while it's easier to understand that.

[Laughter.]Mr. Kamm. But it's hard. Then, the other thing is lack of reli-

able child care. Those two things, I think more than anything else,keep people off the payrolls and on the welfare roles.

Just from a humanitm tan point of view we know why we shoulddo these things. But just from a fiscal point of view, we can helpwelfare acipients become contributors to the Treasurywhen theydon't draw upon the Treasury that makes fiscal good sense also.

So, I can understand why it is a stressful situation for parents,very often to the point where they feel that their best role as aparent is then to stay at home.

54

51

Mr. FINK, Mr. Chairman, if I might embellish. Then, of course,that means often a loss in their own income and it also means aloss to the economy.

Mr. Kamm Absolutely. It doesn't make good economic sense atall when we do that. We should be wise enough to figure that outand try to find some way to address that.

Ms. Burkhart, you mentioned that school-age services are provid-ed for children up to age of 12 in Washington County. Why is itimportant to serve children 12 years of age?

Ms. BURKHART. Basically I think many parents are not comforta-ble leaving their 12-year-old child home alone for two or threehours. As a parent of a four-year-old child, I face the situation ofwhat's going to happen next year when my child goes to school. Ihave wonderful child care now. but I also have to look at what'sgoing to happen at 3:00 when my child or I have to make a deci-sion.

Many parents, including myself, would not leave a 12-year-oldchild home in a rural part of a community with no one even closeby. I think sometimes even up to the age of 14 it becomes impor-tant to have at least some person or program responsible for thatchild from 3:00 until 5:30 or 6:00 when the parent or some responsi-ble adult is able to then look after that child.

Mr. KILDEE. You know, as a parent ofI used to say of threeteenagers, but as of this month I have two teenagers and one 20-year-old nowyou know, you wonder whyand my kids are allloing wellyou wonder why certain kids get through this kind ofdanger period and others don't.

I don't know what the formula is. I try to struggle with that. Ithink a lot of it is giving love and expressing love and let kidsknow they are loved. We use the word "love" in our family a lot.So far, empiricafly. it seems to work in my own family.

But you really look for the formula. But age 12. 13, 14thoseages are years where kids can begin to experiment in many areas.Left alone or left together, you know, we really are playing withsomething I think potentially very. very dangerous. We have to ad-dress that.

That's why latchkey programs or various types of programs thataddress the problems that latchkey tries to addressbecause therecan be a variety of modalities of addressing thissuch as theLiving Room program.

When I was teaching schooland I tell people in my real life Iwas a school teacherwe used to have a teen club which generallystarted at 6:00, but I generally would stay there at least onWednesday night right after school so kids could stay until it wastime to go home after teen club, or whatever time they had to gohome.

I remember Wednesday night was generally a night that manyparents look forward to because they knew that the school wouldbe open until maybewell, actually, it would be open until about8:00 at night then, with teen club starting at 6:00.

But it provided a service. The school was already there. As I said,there's various modalities to serve those children who are servedby latchkey prcgrarns. But that age group, those early teenscer-

5 5

.5 2

tainly 12 years old and I think 13 and 14 years oldare areaswhere we have to have concern too and address that.

Does anyone have any further comments on that?Mr. FINK. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I wanted you to know that on the

Dependent Care Grants there are several states swcifically thathave targeted part of their funding to start up and improve serv-ices for that age group, what they call a middle school age groupfrom about 11 to 14.

I know that Minnesota, Tennessee, Pennsylvaniaand I'm surethere are a number of others, but those come to mindbecause wehave been surveying and been in touch with the states and I knowthat more and more of this issue has been identified. What do wedo with the kids as they're leaving the elementary age? We stillneed to offer them some role models, some positive recreation per-haps some community service.

All kinds of other things come into it as you .t past the age often or so. That's what they're trying to use this grant innovativelyto work on.

MT. KILDEE. MS. Lamm.MS. LAMM. I would also ask, Mr. Chairman, that you and your

colleagues remember this as you look at other kinds of legislationthat affect children in this age group, including the other compre-hensive proposals and the welfare reform itself, which stops at 12,and creates a problem.

I have a personal emotional resprnse to this because my ownchild has just aged out of school-age mild care and I feel like at 13he's the most vulnerable he's ever been in his life and he's exposedto all kinds of things that he was never exposed to before. If there'sever a time that I felt like I shouldn't be working or I should beworking part-time so I could spend more time with him, it's now. Ifeel very strongly about that. It's a good point.

Mr. KILDEE. My kids now are 17. 18 and 20 and I feel I'm prettywell home clear right now. They all have been good kids, but youdo worry.

Those junior high years are really years where physically theyare able to take care of their own needs much more than whenthey're toddlers, certainly physie..,liv. But there's other needs be-sides physical needs.

Mr. FINK. The:, can even dye their own hair at age 12, right?ILaughter. IMr. KILDEE. But there are other needs and other pitfalls. They

are in the process of making some decisions which would goa lotof peer pressure on there too. So, it's extremely important.

Ms. Lamm, the committee has been informed that in some statesthe low eligibility level has precluded some potential CDA candi-dates from receiving scholarships. Have you had any experience inthat mard?

Ms. LAMM. Yes. In New York we 'ry very, very hard to recruitevery possible scholarship recipient. We mailed to every person tohad ever contacted the Council for Early Childhood ProfessionalRecognition requesting information about the CDA. We mailed toeach of them. We mailed to every licensed day care program in thestate. We mailed to every community college and four-year collegethat offers child care courses.

5 f;

5s

Out of all of those recruitment efforts we've only been able toaward 30 scholarships. One of the things that we're told by thepeople in communities who are working with CDA candidates isthat the eligibility guidelines are just too low.

That even with day care wages being as low as they are, peopleare not able to afford to live on those wages so there's a secondincome in the household usually, which puts the candidate over theeligibility guidelines and yet still not able to get rich.

Mr. Knxer.. So you would suggest either a change or some flexi-bility in the 150 percent of wverty then?

Ms. LAMM. Absolutely. What I would like to see is up to 125 per-cent of the state median income. Of course, for New York that's areal issue because in most of our counties the poverty level is justway below even subsistence level. So we would like to see it up to125 percent of SMI and taen the states being able to set the guide-line wherever is appropriate for that state because there is somuch variation.

Mr. KILDER. Anyone else have any comments on that? Doesanyone have any comments or any summary, or some questions Ihave not asked? Your testimony has been excellent, you writtentestimony also and your summary presented here today.

My intent is to proceed with reauthorization at meaningful levelshere. Again, we're going to have to compete. both in the budgetprocess and in the appropriations process, but I think that the au-thorization bill should at least set what we think is the need. Thereis a need out there and the authorization should reflect realistical-ly the need that exists for these types of programs.

If we don't do that, then we aren't giving good leads to either theBudget Committee or the Appropriations Committee as to wherethe funding levels should be.

So, our expertise here is to look at the need and try to translatethat need into the authorization bill, push hard, of course, for fullauthorization. But if you don't raise the authorization level up, ofcourse, you are guaranteed not to get any increases in appropria-tions because the appropriations cannot exceed authorizations.

I'd like to stay in contact with all of you in some fashion as weproceed. Mr. Tauke and I work very closely together on this billand he shares my deep concern for children, So let's try to remainin contact one with another on this.

If anyone has any summary comments, just feel free. This is avery flexible forum here.

Yes. Ms. Burkhart.Ms. BURKHART. I would just like to thank you again for the op-

portunity and to tell you that I welcome the opportunity for you tocontact me again, not just relative to school-age child care, but tothe whole issue of child care because I'm very much involved in asmall local way, but I think it impacts in a national way.

So, please do feel free to contact if you ever need anythingWashington County.

Mr. Kum& One compliment I get very often, both moelf andmy staff, is that we have very good hearings and that the hearingsare very meaningful and we learn a lot. The reason we have verygood hearingsand I think we dois we have very good witnesses.

5 7

54

We try to get people out there who have both the knowledge andthe commitment to the program.

This has been very helpful to me today. It's not only increasedmy knowledge but increased my commitment to these programs.You can be assured that as we march through this authorizationprocess I will keep in mind everything you've told us here todayand I will keep it in mind also as I go across two buildings over formy budget meetings as we set our priorities over there.

'Thank you very much. We stand adjourned.[Whereupon, at 3:06 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.)