ED 068 710

TITLE

INSTITUTION

PUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

DOCUMENT RESUME

VT 017 251

Proceedings of the Governor's Working Conference onDay Care (November 22-23, 1971) .

Illinois State Dept. of Children and Family Services,Springfield.Nov 7180p.Office of Community Relations, Department of Childrenand Family Services, 524 South Second Street,Springfield, Illinois 62706

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS *Child Care Centers; Community Coordination;

Conferences; *Day Care Programs; *Day Care Services;Handicapped Children; Low Income Groups; ProgramCosts; Retarded Children; Sheltered Workshops; *StatePrograms; Workshops

IDENTIFIERS *Illinois

ABSTRACTThe status of day care in Illinois is described in

the presentations and workshop summaries of this conference. Thestate day care budget was close to $50 million for fiscal 1972,almost triple the previous year's amount. Illinois has day careprograms for mentally handicapped children, children from low incomefamilies, the normal child, and so on. Of all the publicly funded daycare programs, these serving the mentally retarded have increasedmore rapidly than any others. For handicapped children age 16 andover, day care may be in sheltered workshops..However, there are fewprograms for the emotionally disturbed, and the most neglected of allmay be the children of migrant families. The presentations in thisdocument discuss all aspects of day care in Illinois, including whatkind of programs would be most useful, long-term planning,regulation, costs and financing, and performance evaluation. Theclosing session of the conference recommended support of theBrademus-Mondale Comprehensive Child Care Bill. (VP)

67 Ca ria Ca CP 161

ripaReartiodrodwdRisiReaRors4 meal ea 04 oi al 44 al 44 ai

reg CID AD E4 tem1211 ;a FA PGpataistiactiostacdP4

ga gi 414 g ga mid giCD la CO 7E° !1.1,04 L.0.osi mown

ted itiZi ga CITE if 4 Os

rfsl 1451 Frias

riT1 WImimled: 2-1 las4401 gaigui led 414ria ca co_ cia rip0,,,,,INipisralpulF0

sag f tutiCICADA' tga

aram11 1 IMMINo%Ilid%lidieviolaticarhe, 14p34, 1msgarigar4a1401440,co 4., ir.,D ciaoisrirlogrislo4Popsielhiptairavensispo044 wog mod odet4 al 4404 wog021841=4elgoinstgaigmagimma

012.890 03 )gia GP 417 4.11311lastaPargoluorTIPadettai

44d -64g'4144'11;Q Fri FriPmfadosimPrilasNo451ga I= 44 Ca "4 Ca aral4co 467 ris, riD

geingedagelloetel441=1"40144We-1ita CD fm;

04000,4010403:0-gale4gasaltasiggri-raricipmcoriawrdipMrodt401%sticgd wed gogua ess.c,,; ria 4,4.1 E/s1

railDoi Owl Pa4mDis44 siged0161401'41asg40

rap, rall.w..iv5161DisorSiwW"14414M040,140'allina4M640104MPolgillPoir4PlioggiOisg61geteldie4M44113*140mell4m4

412

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO.DUCE° EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG-INATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN-IONS STATED 00 NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU-CATION POSITION OR POLICY.

Proceedings of the

Governor's Working Conferenceon Day Care

November 22.23, 1971

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

Richard B. OgilvieGovernor of Illinois

Illinois Institute

for Social PolicyIllinois Department

of Children and Family Services

Bruce R. Thomas, Director Edward T. Weaver, Acting Director

b

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

3 AN OVERVIEW OF DAY CARE IN ILLINOISEdward Weaver, Acting DirectorIllinois Department of Children and Family ServicesDonald Simpson, Regional CommissionerSocial and Rehabilitation Services, U.S.D.H.E.W.Murrell Sy ler, Administrative Assistant to theMayor for Child Care Services, City of Chicago

16 DAY CARE: PRO AND CONDr. Maria Piers, DeanErikson Institute for Early Education

21 THE IMPORTANCE OF DAY CARE IN THE STATE'S SERVICE PROGRAMThe Honorable Richard B. OgilvieGovernor of Illinois

26 THE OBJECTIVES OF DAY CAREWorkshop Summary and RecommendationsPapers

39 LONG-TERM PLANNING AND COORDINATIONWorkshop Summary and RecommendationsPaper

47 REGULATION OF DAY CAREWorkshop Summary and RecommendationsPapers

56 COSTS OF DAY CAREWorkshop Summary and RecommendationsPapers

66 EVALUATION OF DAY CARE PERFORMANCEWorkshop Summary and RecommendationsPapers

71 THE FINANCIAL PRIORITY OF DAY CAREGeorge A. Ranney, Jr., Deputy DirectorIllinois Bureau of the Budget

73 CONCLUDING SESSION

74 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

3

2,

INTRODUCTION

The State of Illinois is committed to a day care system responsive to theneeds of Illinois citizens. It was the purpose of the Governor's WorkingConference on Day Care to reaffirm that commitment and to provide a forumfor informed and concerned citizens to make known their opinions and feelings.We meant this conference to be a working conference and it was. It promptedmuch informed and lively discussion, established better communication amongthose interested in day care and focused attention on the most pertinent issuesinvolved.

I was impressed both by the sincere demands for State and Federal actionand by the expression of need for a continuing and close examination of whatthe respective governmental roles in day care can and should be. Thisconference actively assisted the State in examining its role and, hopefully,provided the participants with new insights into the broad scope of options, perspec-tives and priorities that State officials must consider.

I wish to commend the Illinois Department of Children and FamilyServices and the Illinois Institute for Social Policy for their joint effort inorganizing the conference and to express my appreciation to the citizens ofIllinois whose active and constructive participation in the conference madeit a clear success. The publication of these proceedings reflects our desire toextend the benefits of the conference to the much larger community of citizens, inIllinois and elsewhere, who share our interest in creating an exemplary stateday care program.

Richard B. OgilvieGovernorState of Illinois

1

An Overview of Day Care in Illinois

Edward WeaverActing Director

Illinois Departnwntof Children & Family Services

PANEL

Donald SimpsonRegional Commissioner

Social and RehabilitationServices, U.S.D.H.E. W.

MR. WEAVER: I find my task todaydescribing the status of day care in Illinois apleasant one. Despite many problems which exist,there has been real, visible progress in expanding thenumber and quality of day care programs. Much ofthat progress can be attributed to the individual andcollective efforts of persons in the room this evening.Your influence, coupled with the Governor's specialinterest, has resulted in a state day care budget forthe current fiscal year of almost $50 million. That isnearly three times the $17.6 million spent last yearfor day care.

Governor Ogilvie proposed this meeting todefine future objectives in day care and to definethem more precisely and to call upon your talents tohelp design a practical plan to implement these ob-jectives. If we are going to plan wisely, I think weneed to know where we are and where we want to go.There are, in Illinois today, day care programs forthe mentally handicapped child, the child from thelow income family, the normal child. the child ofworking parents, and so forth. We in Illinois wantto serve all of these children but we can't, after all,wait for the millenium. Reason demands that we setpriorities and I'll be talking a little bit about some ofthose priorities tonight in terms of action alreadytaken.

Of all publicly funded day care programs, thoseserving the mentally retarded have increased morerapidly than any others in the past five years. Thishas been due largely to the organized voice of con-cerned parents, the Illinois Association for the Men-tally Retarded, and the Department of MentalHealth.

The present day care budget of the Departmentof Mental Health is $11.9 million, nearly dcublethat of a year age. Exactly two years ago, 2,700retarded youngsters were being served in 51 day carecenters with funding at about $1.8 million. Nowthere are 98 centers serving nearly 9,000 mentallyhandicapped boys and girls . . . more than triple thenumber served two years ago. That, I believe, is

Murrell SylerAdministrative Assistant

to the Mayor for Child CareServices, City of Chicago

progress. But these impressive statistics fail to tellthe whole story. A large number of children in daycare centers or at horn:. have been accepted in recentyears into the public school system. Next July,another large group of handicapped children now inday care will enter the public schools because the ad-mission criteria have been changed to includehandicapped youngsters three years of age and over.

This rapid progress and these changes in theschool code have reduced the demand for new cen-ters for the mentally retarded. Only five new centersreceived grants during this fiscal year. But additionalfunding has made it possible for existing programs toserve more children. And all centers have a betteropportunity to expand the scope and the quality oftheir programs. Now there is the opportunity tofocus attention on meeting the needs of the severelyand profoundly handicapped child who may beineligible for public school programs, but who canbe cared for in creative day care programs, especiallythose which reach into the home.

Day care for the mentally retarded often takesthe form of sheltered workshops for handicappedchildren age 16 and over. For the most part, theseprograms succeed in channeling the physical andemotional energies of the youthful handicapped intoproductive enterprises. Unfortunately, there are fewday care programs for the emotionally disturbedchild. During the past year, only a dozen centersserving the emotionally disturbed participated in thegrant program of the Department of Mental Healthand I think it is time that we as professionals andothers demonstrate our commitment to expandedservices for the emotionally disturbed child. Theseservices should be tied-in directly with communityprograms in the public schools and in mental healthclinics in local communities.

There has been progress in behalf of anotherhandicapped group and that is the children of lowincome families who live in economically depressedcommunities. The Department of Children andFamily Services launched its grant-in-aid program to

strengthen services for these youngsters and theirfamilies in January, 1970. It was not too long,however, before it became painfully apparent thatthe law creating the grant program was too restric-tive. It limited total funds for the program for afiscal year to $750,000. It also imposed a formula inwhich the Department was required to decrease sub-stantially grant aid to individual centers over a threeyear period. That law has now been changed toeliminate these adverse features.

The program is reaching the target population.More than 80% of the children currently served inthe 50 centers receiving grants are from low incomefamilies. About one-third are from families currentlyreceiving public assistance. The number of fundedcenters is rather equally divided between CookCounty and downstate. Most of these centers serve35-40 children, 3 to 5 years of age, on a full dayfull week basis. A few of them provide care for in-fants and some for school age children as well.

Major obstacles to increasing day care facilities,particularly for the poor, are financing and licensingdifficulties. Groups trying to establish new centersare often stymied by start-up costs and red taperelated to local licensing ordinances. In Chicago,particularly, unwarranted delays which ensue fromthe moment an organization applies for a city licensetend to frustrate even the most well-intentionedgroups. There has been some progress in reducingthe red tape and I am confident that we can workcooperatively to resolve more of these problems sothat we can make quality day care available and ac-cessible to the disadvantaged.

In addition to the grant-in-aid program, theDepartment of Children and Family Services isassisting the four Model City communities ofChicago, East St. Louis, Rock Island, and Carbon-dale to expand their day care programs. By matchingModel City monies with federal Title IV-A funds ad-ministered by the Department of Children andFamily Services, significant expansion of day carewill occur. Between now and next July, the numberof children served should nearly double from1,325 to 2,500 and this latter figure even doubleagain after July if federal funds continue to be madeavailable.

Federal funds matched with state dollars ad-ministered by the Department of Children andFamily Services are also making an impact on daycare in public housing projects. The Department isassuring financial support for the 11 new day carecenters serving 1,100 children in Chicago HousingAuthority projects . . . as well as 20 new day carecenters in downstate projects serving 1,000 children.Many of these centers, I might say parenthetically,are still under construction but the groundwork hasbeen laid, and operators, that is those that we willcontract with for the operation, have been deter-mined in most instances and we are simply awaitingcompletion of the building.

4

Perhaps the most neglected families of all havebeen the migrants. Most of these Spanish-speakingfamilies come from the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.Their back-bending dawn-to-dusk labor in the fruitand vegetable fields of our state has been one reasonwhy Illinois ranks high in agricultural production.And their children must be regarded as our children.

I 'became particularly concerned about thiswhen a representative of the Illinois Migrant Coun-cil advised us a year ago that their federal funds formigrant child care centers were being discontinued.Staff of the Department of Children and Family Ser-vices went to work and secured a federal grant. This,coupled with state funds appropriated throughpassage of House Bill 1066, made it possible to fund12 centers for 485 children during this harvestseason. The Department is now supporting develop-ment of full year programs to serve "settled out"migrant families as well as the mobile migrants whenthey return to Illinois next spring. If you have nevervisited a migrant child care center, I urge you to doso. It is a beautiful experience and the reports I'vehad not only from our own staff but from the federalevaluators are most positive about the rentersoperated this summer. We hope to extend these inthe months to come.

The Department of Children and Family Ser-vices also pays individual child care costs for low in-come families which receive agency services. Lastyear, the Department spent $422,000 on purchase ofday care. The average number of youngsters servedin any one month is 500. The Department alsooperates two day care centers here in Chicago, oneof them just 2 or 3 blocks from here. These two cen-ters serve more than 200 children each month.

All told, the total day care budget for theDepartment of Children and Family Services thisyear is $18.9 million.

Another major function of the Department ofChildren and Family Services, of course, is licensingof nearly 3,400 day care homes and some 1,700 cen-ters. The licensing process is comprehensive andtouches on all aspects of day care, including plan-ning, development, and implementation.

And finally, the Department of Children andFamily Services is responsible for statewide day carecoordination and planning. I will have more to sayabout that later.

Now, let me briefly comment on the day care ac-tivities of the Department of Public Aid an agencywith which I have been rather intimately involved inrecent weeks. Child care allowances for the pastfiscal year totaled nearly $8.5 million. The averagenumber of children served each month was 10,000.some 63% of whom are here in Cook County. Thatwas 3,500 more children than were served statewidein the previous year. Some 70% of the payments forchild care were made in behalf of children whoseparents were employed in very low income positions,

while 30% of the funds were expended for childrenwhose unemployed parents were receiving educationor training.

This year, the Department of Public Aid's daycare budget is $18.3 million. Services are providedfor children of families enrolled in the WIN, orWork Incentive Program, other adult education andvocational training programs, and low income em-ployed. The payment rate is a low $65 per month forchild care but individual exceptions are made whenactual costs justify an adjustment. We had hoped tobe able to increase our allowable rate for child care,but the status of General Revenue funds in this fiscalyear precluded a change in July as we had intended.And no change can be seen at the moment.

The Office of the Superintendent of Public In-struction is involved also in a variety of childeducation programs. Traditionally in Illinois theseprograms have not been labeled as day care. But,whatever the label, the Superintendent's Office has ahighly responsible role in educating the school agechild and an expanding role in services to thepreschool child. The need for coordination betweenthe education agency and other state agencies isreadily apparent.

This, then is where we are. Now let us focus onwhat needs to be done.

The report of the 1970 Illinois White HouseConference on Children and Youth makes a numberof recommendations which your workshop shouldconsider. Let me underscore some of the mostsignificant of these recommendations.1. Development of day care resources should, to

the extent possible, follow a pattern of day careservice centers which provide a full range of ser-vices, including a variety of arrangements offamily day care and group day care, so that anappropriate choice of care is possible forchildren from infancy to age 12.

2. A range of family services must be available toparents and children who require day care, andday care should be one of the alternatives to fulltime foster care or institutionalization.

3. Parents of children receiving day care servicesshould be involved in the development, im-plementation, and evaluation of the serviceplans for their children. Parents should par-ticipate in making policy related to theoperation of the service.

4. There should be public information programs topublicize the great needs for day care serviceswhich are unmet and interpretation on a con-tinuing basis of the potential long term im-plications of failure to meet those needs.

5. Licensing services of the Department ofChildren and Family Services should bestrengthened, particularly with adequate num-bers of qualified personnel, in order to assureuniform, continuing, and vigorous application

5

of licensing standards.6. States' attorneys must discharge their respon-

sibility for prosecuting violators of the licensinglaw.I have saved the first day care recommendation

of the Illinois White House Conference to discussnow because it is of special concern to me and thestaff. The recommendation states, "The Departmentof Children and Family Services should be requiredby law to have responsibility for planning day careservices on a statewide basis and coordinating thedelivery of these services with priority in areas withthe greatest need to the end that there is the most ef-fective utilization of the resources of the State."

In September of 1969, Governor Ogilvie signedinto law, House Bill 2028, which in essence gave theDepartment the responsibility for planning andcoordination. The Department began its task bydeveloping a comprehensive report on day care inIllinois which I'm sure most of you have seen. It in-cluded a variety of recommendations. Some of theserecommendations have already been carried out, in-cluding our direct support in establishing the IllinoisCommittee for Community Coordinated Child Care,commonly referred to as Illinois 4-C. We have alsofollowed through on other recommendations whichincluded the provision of technical assistance andfunding to local day care groups.

To make our planning and coordination effortsresponsive to the true needs of citizens of Illinois,however, we seek your assistance in this conference.We need to know from you what services should beincluded in the definition, and who should receivethese services, and what portion of these servicesshould be supported by public funds.

Also, what kind of planning design or formula ismost useful for day care planning?

A related question is what model of coor-dination is most effective at both a local andstatewide level is the 4-C model the mostdesirable method for coordination? Or is thereanother model?

Should the funding and delivery of state-administered day care programs be centralized inone department of state government?

How can we make the licensing or regulationprocess one of development rather than one limitedto setting unreasonable restrictions which exist inmany varied local ordinances and perhaps to somedegree in the state standards?

What are the guideposts for determining howmuch a quality program should cost?

Should there be a limit on the amount the stateshould pay for each child?

How do you evaluate and who should do theevaluation of day care programs?

These are some of the questions that are yet tobe answered. If we address ourselves to these

questions with honesty, candor, and cooperationwhich expresses our real commitment to improvedday care services, we will truly serve the best in-terests of children and families of Illinois.

MR. SIMPSON: I am delighted to be here toparticipate in this conference as Illinois movesrapidly forward in the provision of more and betterchild care. A December, 1969 quarterly report onchild care for enrollees in the Work IncentiveProgram showed that only 145 children in. Illinoiswere receiving out-of-home day care. Moreover,1,406 mothers or caretakers were unable to take partin work training courses because child carearrangements were not available. In September,1971, the same quarterly report which we require ofthe state showed that 1,895 children were receivingday care, and only 113 mothers were unable to taketraining courses because of lack of child care.Although we know that Illinois still is not meetingall needs for day care services, the balance hasrapidly shifted in a positive direction.

Federal and slate resources for day care inIllinois have correspondingly increased over the pasttwo and one half years. During fiscal year 1968$575,000 of Illinois State and local welfare expen-ditures were for day care. In fiscal year 1971 thecomparable figure was $10.9 million. The fiscal year1972 state appropriation for day care, including'Mental Health funds is $49.2 million. This great in-crease in funds represents an enormous expansion offederal matching monies, mostly on a three for onebasis. More important, it shows what can be done toprovide a crucial social service when some initiativeis taken on behalf of children and parents in need. Itshould lead not only to employment of many peoplenow on welfare but also to better family life andchild growth and development Tor thousands ofdisadvantaged.

The dramatic increase in day care funds is dueto the amendments to the Illinois State Plan for childcare services under Title IV-A of the Social SecurityAct. Title IV-A allows a state, at its option, to.provide day care and other social services to formerand potential, as well as current AFDC recipientswith 75% federal financial participation. On June17, 1971, we were pleased to approve an amendedIllinois State Plan to enable the Department ofPublic Aid to provide day care or purchase itthrough the Department of Children and Family Ser-vices for children residing in Model Cities neigh-borhoods, low income housing projects, 0E0poverty designated areas and children of migrantfamilies. In addition, individual children andfamilies outside these areas are eligible if they arefound to need day care services because of economicand social deprivation. The State Plan provisions

allow Illinois to provide day care services to manythousands of vulnerable children and parents whowill benefit enormously from quality child care.

Contracts have been negotiated with the fourModel Cities areas in Illinois, as mentioned by Mr.Weaver a moment ago. Three of the four contractshave been signed, in Chicago, Rock Island and Car-bondale, and the fourth one in East St. Louis shouldbe executed around the first of the year. In addition,Illinois has contracted with the Chicago HousingAuthority to provide day care services to inhabitantsof I I housing locations. Five of these will be ad-ministered by the Chicago Housing Authority, andsix by the Chicago Commons Association. TheRockwell Gardens Housing Unit Day Care Centerhas already opened and is receiving children; theothers are expected to open shortly. GovernorOgilvie and his staff merit congratulations and ap-preciation for these great advances in child careprograms. Nothing comes easily. I want to emphasizethat Mr. Weaver and others on the staff of theDepartment of Public Aid and the Governor's staffworked very hard to bring this about. They havedemonstrated that they want Illinois to have the bestfoundation of quality child care and developmentservices and they have shown enormous initiative,imagination and perseverance in pursuing this objec-tive. Illinois' expansion of its child care program hasset an example for the six states in this region and for.the entire country. Nevertheless, there are still manyother federal resources which can be utilized to ex-tend and improve further the State's services tochildren.

I have been asked to review these other Federalresources available besides those administered by theSocial and Rehabilitation Services of HEW. TheDepartment of Agriculture contributes to day careservices through the Special Food Service and theSupplementary Food Programs. The Special FoodService Program is designed to improve thenutritional status of pre-school children by reimbur-sing day care centers for foods purchased and byhelping the centers buy or rent kitchen equipment.These Department of Agriculture programs will payup to 85 cents per day per child for three meals anda snack; up to 75% of the costs of equipment, and upto 80% of the costs of food service staff in cases ofsevere need.

The Supplementary Food Program makesavailable selected nutritious foods to individuals inlow-income families who do not have an adequatefood supply and who have been identified as needingfood for health purposes. There are presently twoprograms in Illinois under the Supplementary FoodProgram, both in Cook County, serving ap-proximately 8,500 children per month.

The Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment can help by providing space for daycare centers in community buildings or publichousing projects under certain conditions. In low

rent housing complexes, space for day care can beprovided with "modernization" funds if the tenantswill give day care priority. The use of space is a mat-ter for determination by the tenants. In addition, iffunds are available, day care centers can be incor-porated into neighborhood facilities whose construc-tion is funded under Section 703 of the Housing andUrban Development Act of 1965.

The Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment also funds the Model Cities programwhich provide the so called supplemental grantswhich can be used for day care. Almost uniquelyamong Federal grants-in-aid, Model Cities fundsmay be used to match Title IV-A monies so that theentire cost of day care services in model neigh-borhoods is paid from Federal funds. This has beendone in Illinois as Mr. Weaver mentioned, and isproducing $15 million per year at the present timefor day care services in the four Model Cities inIllinois.

HEW's Office of Child Development ad-ministers the Head Start program with 80% of costsmet from federal funds. Last year full year HeadStart services were provided for 12,000 children inIllinois. Federal Head Start expenditures in Illinoisfor full year, part day or full day Head Start, Parentand Child centers and the summer programs totaled$13.3 million.

HEW's Office of Education contributes to daycare services under Titles I and III of the Elementaryand Secondary Education Act and the EducationProfessions Development Act. These funds may beused for training of staff and certain compensatoryeducation and innovative preschool and day careprograms in public schools. They are administeredthrough the State Superintendent of Public Instruc-tion.

HEW's Health Services and Mental Health Ad-ministration provides financial assistance for daycare services for emotionally disturbed and mentallyill children through facilities and staffing grants un-der the Community Mental Health Centers Program.Federal funds may be provided for up to 90% ofstaff costs for the first year of operation in a povertyarea and for up to 75% in a non-poverty area. Thefederal share declines for each year of continuingoperation. Further, HSMHA supports daytimeprograms for emotionally disturbed children in-cluding special education and supportive psychiatricservices.

HEW's Social and Rehabilitation Service fundsday care services in additional ways to the threedollars for one dollar matching under Title IV-A ofthe Social Security Act. Funds are available for thecare of handicapped, mentally retarded, and other-wise disabled children under the DevelopmentalDisabilities Act. These aft administered through theGovernor's Office of Human Resources in Illinois.Funds are also available for day care licensing andstaff development under Title IV-B, of the Social

7

Security Act, the Child Welfare Services. Of course,the largest amount of money available for day carecomes from Title IV-A of the Social Security Act.This provision has been mentioned above, but Iwould like to stress the fact that it presentlyrepresents the single most important way a state cansecure funds to provide child care and related socialservices to needy children and families.

The Office of Economic Opportunity is fundingday care programs through demonstration andresearch grants from their Office of ProgramDevelopment in Washington. There are two OEOdemonstration grants in Illinois, one at theEcumenical Institute in Chicago which is gatheringinformation on different kinds of day care sponsors,the costs of day care programs, the costs of day caretraining programs and attendance factors. Thesecond grant is to the Amalgamated ClothingWorkers Union child care center.

The Illinois Migrant Council also receivesfinancial assistance from OEO for the costs ofoperating two day care centers. Finally, OEO fundsday care through local Community Action Programswhich may decide to invest some of their resourcesin child care activities. One example here in the Stateis the Peoria Citizen's Committee for Economic Op-portunity.

Day care is supported by programs operated bythe Manpower Administration of the Department ofLabor. Any one of the manpower programs like NewCareers, WIN, Manpower Development andTraining Act programs, and Operation Mainstreammay be tapped for training day care personnel. Daycare is also provided as part of these manpowerprograms as a supportive service. For example, in theConcentrated Employment Program, enrollees aregiven $53 a week plus $5 per dependent to pay fortraining expenses which often includes the actualprovision of day care.

It must be obvious from this listing of federalresources that any individual or any state agencywanting to develop day care programs has a con-siderable problem in finding and pulling together allthe different federal sources of funds. Each is ad-ministered by a separated federal office, each hasseparate forms, rules and requirements and the en-tire business is so complex as to be almostparalyzing. The Appalachian Regional Commissionrecently compiled a directory of Federal Programsfor young children that includes 227 differentfederal programs which could be employed to sup-port services for children. There are approximately50 separate congressional enactments applicable today care programs. There are 6 federal departments,approximately 18 agencies and many divisions ofthose agencies administerinj programs in this field.There is an equal complexity in state and local,public and private programs for child care. The needfor coordination is obvious. It is for this reason thatI am personally a strong advocate of the 4-C con-

cept. For those of you who are unfamiliar with it, theCommunity Coordinated Child Care Program is sim-ply a mechanism for coordinating and managing bet-ter the resources for day care at the federal, stateand local levels. At the federal level, it bringstogether representatives from all of the involvedagencies to create the channels for developing com-mon standards and for pooling resources in a moreorderly and systematic way.

At the state level, the 4-C committee can, (1)assess the statewide needs for child care and assist instate-wide planning for expansion of services, (2)coordinate the many state programs affecting childcare, and (3) serve as advocates for children and ef-fectively represent their interests and needs bothwith taxpayers and with administrators of children'sprograms.

At the local level, 4-C can be an effective coor-dinating and planning body to maximize theavailable child care resources. Local groups canassess community needs, help in the development ofcommunity wide plans and initiate coordinated ac-tions and programs which result in the mosteconomic and efficient provision of child care ser-vice.

I'd like to add that I don't think any of us careparticularly about a specific name or a form. Whatwe are interested in is the substance of coordinationand some kind of mechanism that will pull it alltogether on behalf of children and their parents.

Day care is expensive. Estimates of the cost ofquality child care and development services rangefrom $180042200 per child per year. We cannot af-ford to waste this kind of money through fragmen-tation, duplication, or underutilization of facilities.Joint action through coordination and sharing ofresources can prevent the enormous waste ofmillions of dollars.

Illinois has a 4-C program, but it needs to bestrengthened at both the state and local levels. TheState 4-C Committee was officially recognized inSeptember, 1970, and two cities, Chicago and EastSt. Louis, have also been recognized. In addition, 10other communities in the state are at various stagesin the development and formation of active coor-dinating committees or mechanisms. I am pleased atthe effort to date in Illinois, but want to emphasizehow important it is to move these money savingcoordinative efforts forward as the state's expen-ditures of child care rapidly expand.

The need for coordination becomes even moreapparent when we consider the current and very ac-tive congressional interest in expanding child careservices. I want to speak only briefly about theCongressional scene. Our office has prepared alegislative resource document for the Conferencewhich will be available to all of you. It synopsizesthe principal provisions of the five major bills or

8

proposals currently before the Congress. Thesituation right now is complicated with these fivebills under active consideration. What will come outis anybody's guess, but I think it is clear that there isinterest in both the Administration and the Congressin expanding both the quantity and quality of childcare services and doing it soon.

I would. like to make a few comments on theprovisions of the two major bills under active con-sideration, the Child Care Programs under H.R. I

(the so called welfare reform bill) and the Com-prehensive Child Development Act of 1971. TheChild Development bill started out as separate billsby Senator Mondale and Congressman Brademus,but they are in the process of being put together in aconference committee at this time. Child care underH.R. I is envisioned as a supportive service for thoseindividuals engaged in employment, training orvocation rehabilitation services under both the Op-portunities for Families Program which is for thotefamilies in which at least one member over 16 yearsof age is deemed employable, and under the FamilyAssistance Plan, in which no member of the family isdeemed employable.

Day care services will be administered by boththe Department of Labor and HEW, with HEWassigned responsibility for developing additionalchild care resources. It is hoped that the $750million new authorization for day care under H.R. 1,which includes about $410 million in new funds foremployment-related day care, will make it possiblefor all potentially employable welfare recipients toparticipate in training programs and employment.This is a desirable goal in itself. We must insist,however, that the care provided these children is of arequisite quality, and not a program which con-tributes to retardation of growth and development bybeing an inadequate substitute for a mother's care.

I am troubled by the projections of the numberof day care slots that can be provided under H.R. Iauthorization. $700 million ($50 million is ear-marked for construction costs) is supposed toprovide for 875,000 day care "slots" for childrenbetween the ages of 0-14. This is not enough if therehabilitation and employment goals of H.R. I are tobe met. Further, this averages about $800 per childper year. This amount is inadequate, by current stan-dards, for anything but custodial care which is likelyto be substantially below the quality of a mother'scare.

The Comprehensive Child Development billssponsored by Senator Mondale and RepresentativeBrademas do not limit child care services to thewelfare poor. They attempt to establish the principalof universal comprehensive child development ser-vices for all children. The Administration acceptsthis as a desirable objective, but is constrained by thegreat cost which is estimated at about $20 billion peryear. The compromise worked out last week between

the Brademas bill in the house, and the Mondale billas passed by the Senate resolves many of the Ad-ministration's problems with these two bills. The in-come limit for free services would be $4320 a year,which is the so-called "break-even" point in thewelfare reform proposals with respect to incomemaintenance and the relationship between earningsand the amount of a grant. The compromise billestablishes in law the very important principle of"comprehensive child development services" and Ibelieve the fact that both the sponsors of the Mon-dale bill and the Brademas bill and the Secretary ofHEW have endorsed this principle is the most im-portant aspect of the legislative developments.cant aspect of the legislative developments.

In conclusion, I would like to suggest that daycare is more than a building, more than a single ser-vice; it should provide children with intellectualstimulation, medical and nutritional care, andemotional development in a loving environment withmaximum possible parent involvement in order tobenefit both the child and his family. The preschoolyears are the most important for the development offuture intellectual abilities; Psychologist BenjaminBloom found that up to half of a child's potential forgeneral intelligence and intellectual growth wereformed in the first four years of life. We cannotignore this fact as we create day care services to meetthe ever growing need.

Day care has become fashionable for manypeople for many reasons. We should want day careto free mothers to work, to help people get offwelfare, and to help liberate women, but most of allwe should want day care because of what it will dofor children. This means quality child enrichmentand development services which are not easilydeveloped and which are very expensive. I believethat the benefits enormously exceed the costs,however, for as Dr. Urie Bronfrenbrenner, a childpsychologist at Cornell University has so eloquentlywritten:

"If the children and youth of a nation areafforded opportunity to develop theircapacities to the fullest, if they are given theknowledge to understand the world and thewisdt m to change it, then the prospects forthe future are bright. In contrast, a societywhich neglects its children, however well itmay function in other respects, risks even-tual disorganization and demise."

MRS. SYLER: The City of Chicago has keptpace with the changing times and has modified itsadministrative structure to be responsive to theneeds of its citizens. The sensitivity of the Mayor andhis canny understanding of people and their human

9

1i

needs compelled him to establish an office of childcare services within his own office, where he couldgive personal attention to its functioning. The Cityof Chicago had just received formal recognition forits 4-C Program about three months when its ad-ministrative work was transferred to the newMayor's Office of Child Care Services which wascreated in August of this year. Thus, the child carecoordinating and planning functions of this commit-tee can be considered as an arm of the Mayor's Of-fice.

One can anticipate that the impetus in Chicagowill reflect the national significance of childdevelopment programs. The city already has made animpressive beginning. There are over 400 licensedchild care centers, serving more than 24,000children, of which about 12,000 are publicly suppor-ted, free centers. Over 7,300 children are enrolled inHead Start part-day and full-day programs, ap-'proximately 2,190 children are participating in earlyintervention parent and child centers. Another 1,700children are enrolled in Model Cities day care cen-ters and schomes. The Chicago Housing Authority,in partnership with the Illinois Department ofChildren and Family Services will offer an ad-ditional 1,100 day care slots for children in Chicago.Added to these are free child development programsfunded by grant-in-aid from the State and the pur-chase of care programs, including those funded un-der WIN.

In this conglomerate of free, publicly supportedchild development programs and the independentactivities of the voluntary agencies and owner-operated day care services, there is a real need for asingle coordinating authority to make sure that eachand every child has the find of environment andguidance that will enable him to function and makefull use of his potential abilities.

There is a surging movement towards sharedresponsibility for rearing the nation's children.There are several occurrences which have given im-petus to this movement, which can hardly be re-versed even it it is tempered.

First of all, the facts are that more and moremothers are working even though they may beworrying about what is happening to their children.The need to work is imposed on them by oureconomy and our value system. More than one-halfof all mothers with children under 17 are workingand almost one-third of the mothers with pre-schoolchildren are working. Many of these women have areal problem. They either have to leave theirchildren alone, or in the care of a relative or pay forday care or a maid they cannot afford. The averageearnings of women in the work force is under $5,000a year. It is obvious, then, that most working motherscannot afford quality day care which costs aminimum of $1,600 per child, or even $50 to $80 aweek for a maid or babysitter.

t

Currently, it is not only possible that some helpbe given to those mothers in their efforts to supportand rear their families properly, but there is in-creasing awareness that custodial care is unaccep-table as a solution.

Early child development programs now are im-portant partially because of the findings of someexperimental work in the care and development ofthe child which revealed that the ages prior to 5years are the optimum years for establishing learningpatterns. Added to this knowledge is the recentwidespread popularity that Head Start gave to lear-ning centers outside the home and the records of theeffectiveness of some schools specializing in correc-tion of special handicaps by early interventionduring pre-school years.

Even though we are still researching anddeveloping our knowledge about early childhoodprograms, there is a general consensus that theseearly years are the crucial years to the growth anddevelopment of the child. It is also known thatchildren in 3 deprived environment develop moreslowly thin children who have a stimulatingsurrounding in which to grow. Even though there isagreement that early intervention can improve theopportunities for the development of such children,we are still determining the best curriculum andtechniques for effective intervention.

Let me review some of the positive things weknow and on which the Chicago program will buildits child care programs. We know that each childinherits from his two parents certain characteristics.That's something we learn very early. We also knowthat there has been evidence of amazing changes inchildren when there is a significant change in en-vironment. Children can learn and they can grow,depending on the environment they have. The kindof treatment a child receives at home, at school or inthe streets may make him cooperative or not, "good"or "bad", smart or dull and friendly or antagonistic.

It has become increasingly clear that feelinggood and feeling loved and accepted are essential forall-around growth. A child's muscular skill, hisability to get along with others and the developmentof his intellect are all influenced by how he feelsabout himself.

We now talk in Chicago about a program ofchild development rather than just day care. We talkabout a quality child care program, and the Mayor'sOffice of Child Care Services is charged with theresponsibility of increasing the quantity and qualityday care for the city. What do we call quality daycare? Conceptually, we agree that it is a program ofactivities which improve cognitive, effective,motivational, neuromuscular skills which in turn im-prove the child's self image and emotional and socialadjustment. This sounds overwhelming, but in simpleterms, it is everything that affects a child's growthand assists him in reaching his potential level of

maturation.The Joint Commission on Mental Health of

Children concluded in its 3 year, 1.5 millionfederally funded study that was issued June 30,1969, that: ". . . A child care plan is needed fromconception to adulthood . . . A network of State andlocal child development agencies is needed to coor-dinate and evaluate child care services . . . Federalsupport should be provided to comprehensive ser-vices of a supportive, preventive and remedial naturewith special emphasis given to publicly supportedday care centers."

The White House Conference held inDecember, 1970, recommended that day care ser-vices should be divorced completely from thewelfare system; that the Federal Government shouldbear most of the fiscal responsibility for day care;that all children should be provided the opportunityto receive quality day care services; and that theeducational structure should be reorganized to takeadvantage of our increased knowledge about theearly development of children and their learningprocesses.

These reports have been ready by the leaders ofthe day care movement in Chicago and they have ar-ticulated goals for child care services. These leadershave endorsed in principal, the role of the Mayor'sOffice of Child Care Services. The five most impor-tant responsibilities are:

(1) The coordination of day care services andchild care programs. There is considerable con-fusion about funding resources and standards ofcare. There are seven federal agencies ad-ministering major childhood research and ser-vice programs without any single point ofleadership. A like situation exists at theregional, state and local level. Patterns of fun-ding vary enormously and there is no con-sistency in the criteria or standards for thevarious programs. There are very definiteinconsistencies in provisions of the programs.For example, many families have had the ex-perience of qualifying for day care during aperiod of training, only to lose their eligibilityupon entering employment.(2) A second and most crucial responsibility isto plan new and innovative day care modelsand, most importantly, a comprehensive plan forthe needs of the entire city. Thus far, there hasbeen little or no community-wide planning.(3) Thirdly, the office is to seek to mobilize allhuman, financial and physical services whichcan be used to increase the quality and quantityof day care.(4) A fourth and most vital responsibility ofthe office is to generate local agreement on theminimum standards for operating day care cen-ters and monitor maintenance of these stan-dards.

10

12-

t.

T.

(5) Additionally, the office must establish amechanism for evaluating the operation of daycare services and through this system establish aquality control of day care provided within thecity

Groups eager to open day care centers inChictigo have chafed under code restrictions and thehigh cost of bringing facilities into compliance.Those under pressure have protested that the codesare too strict. Others have become fearful that stan-dards will deteriorate and day care centers willbecome little more than parking places for children.In view of these legitimate concerns, our office hastaken steps to prepare a release combining thevarious licensing codes and translating them into asimple and understandable language. A study com-mittee has also been established to review the fire.building and health codes, rules and regulations todetermine if there should be revisions to makethese codes more consistent with new technologyand scientific use of materials. We envision the even-tual drafting of a new single code for day care cen-ters and the legal authority for licensing lodged in acentral place where total, definitive information andcounsel may be easily obtained.

As we proceed in developing our future plansfor expansion of services, we must first seek and findsome answers to some persistent questions whichseem to constantly haunt us. These include:

(1) To what extent should there be publicresponsibility and support of early childhoodprograms?(2) Are these programs needed for allchildren? Where should the priority be and forwhat age group? What income levels?(3) To what extent, if any, should there bepublicly supported day care for non-poor andthe near-poor?(4) To what extent should parent sponsoredorganizations, private non-profit and privatefor-profit agencies be a primary vehicle for thedelivery of child care services?(5) What are the real basic and minimalrequirements for day care facilities to assuresafe, comfortable and stimulating surroundingsfor child care?(6) How can we be assured that programs willbe developed on the basis of sound knowledge?(7) How can we increase our understanding ofthe causes and nature of deficiencies foundamong disadvantaged children and establishtechniques which will provide valid measuresand evaluation of the rate and extent of a child'sdevelopment; how can we design and deliverprograms and curriculum to prevent or over-come developmental deficiencies?

11

3

(8) To what extent do the needs of childrenjustify the expansion of child developmentprograms?

(9) Can education for parenthood be an effec-tive and thus more desirable alternative programfor child development?

(10) And finally and most importantly whatare the long range implications of societybecoming the third parent for the pre-schoolchild.

The recognized professions, the parents, in-terested citizens and relevant insitutions have beenengaged to help us find the answers to theseprevailing questions. I'm confident that we re wellon our way. Day care is not the answer for everychild, but it certainly should be an option.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question: This is relevant to some of the Censusof 1970 findings related to poverty groups. I findthat in reading or in listening to conversations aboutchild care centers, the prevailing interest is inmetropolitan areas, and yet, from what I can see onthe 1970 census figures, 49% of the poverty-strikenfamilies are in non-metropolitan areas. I wonder, hasthere been any considered attention paid to how thisneed can be satisfied?

Edward Weaver: We have been careful of thenon-metropolitan areas. On the other hand, that's anoversimplification, because there's a great deal to bedone in rural areas. The delivery of day care servicesin rural areas is even more difficult than in urbanareas and it's not easy in urban areas, but I thinksome evidence of what has happened in Illinois canbe cited.

Traditionally there are some downstate areasthat have had proportionately more organized daycare according to population. I am thinking of oneregion in particular of which I have had someknowledge the Champaign region which encom-passes 18 counties in central eastern Illinois. That,in proportion to population, had a great deal moreday care resources than probably any other region ofthe state. There's been effomi downstate, a rathervigorous effort on the part of social services staff andlicensing staff. to develop day care resources. Otherevidence that I can cite is what I said a tew minutesago in my remarks that the Grant-in-Aidcenters, those that we have in the last two years and

which succeeded in stimulating an infusion of statemonies, are rather equally distributed between CookCounty and downstate and a number of those are inrather small communities, as a matter of fact. Nowthat's not out in the country on the farm, but it is insmall communities that are, by definition, non-metropolitan, non-urban settings. So I think thatwhile I can't be terribly positive and say that we havereally done a job in the non-metropolitan areas, atthe same time I can say that we have made somesignificant effort and that some results have oc-curred.

Donald Simpson: I just wanted to add that onthe national scene there has been some recognitionof the need to pay attention to the rural areas andthe impoverished rural areas in two respects. In thebill or bills around which the Administration, theSenate and House conferees are circulating there isprovision for special attention to the need of bothmigrants, who are mostly rural workers of course,and to Indians and other minority groups primarilyfound in rural areas with special earmarking ofmoney authorized in that bill or those bills to go tosuch groups. Then, of course, some of the other billscarry special tax relief for parents who have childrenin day care centers or in educational institutions.This, of course, would be uniformly appliedthroughout the population enabling not the poorso much but the near-poor and the less poor inrural areas (as well as the people in metropolitanareas,) if they can find the services, to take advantageof day care services.

Question: If I read you right, you are all sayingthat quality day care involves more than custodialcare, and it seems to me that day care implies thatday care personnel know what they are doing, andI'm wondering what provisions have already beenmade or proposed for training day care personnel sothat either at the local, state or federal level qualityday care can be provided?

Murrell Syler: The colleges have just begun towork together to develop a curriculum. Specifically,the colleges in the Chicago area have been meetingwith what is called a manpower 'task force for theCity of Chicago for developing the job specificationsand career ladders in training for workers in daycare for the Model Cities Program. A number of jobtitles and job descriptions have been developed, andthe requirements for the personnel to be able tofunction in those capacities. This is a beginningbecause heretofore, most of the education programsstarted with primary grades and did not give trainingfor pre-school age.

Edward Weaver: For sozme years now theDepartment of Children and Family Services hasbeen rather active through its licensing division totrain and to help develop day care personnel. This iscontinuing and in addition, there are some specialefforts being made.

In the East St. Louis area there is an innovativenotion in cooperation with Model Cities, where atraining van has been made available which can gofrom place to place with a training program ofvarious activities which can help develop personnelfor various day care centers.

Tht. Junior College effort has been going on fora few years now, and a great many people have com-pleted the course and have actually entered the childcare field.

The Child Care Association of Illinois sponsorsvarious kinds of workshops and seminars.

Institutions here in Chicago from time to timehave special workshops on a time-limited basis fortraining programs in Early Childhood Educationand Child Development.

In all the Grants-in-Aid we've given and in allof the contracts we have negotiated for the extensionof day care, special attention has been given toreview of plans for development of personnel andfor inclusion of personnel from the neighborhoodarea or from the group of people served. As a matterof fact, in the grant-in-aid centers, I'm informed thatsome 200 people are now employed who wererecipients of Public Assistance at the time of theiremployment.

Donald Simpson: would just add that inChicago and Illinois, I think they are knowledgeableabout and take advantage of federal programs forsupportive training. There is education for topleaders in the field. Programs of the U.S. Office ofEducation for Early Childhood Education, mostlyunder the Education Professions Development Actand the Higher Education Act, both of which are ad-ministered by the U.S. Office of Education. Therereally are quite extensive opportunities for thetraining of professionals.

Question: Are there any plans to transfer theDepartment of Agriculture programs to H.E.W.,where they more properly belong?

Donald Simpson: No. There was a lot of talkabout a year or 18 months ago about the food andnutrition services of the Department of Agriculturebeing transferred to H.E.W. under the President'sreorganization proposals. As far as I know, they'restill in the proposals, but there has been nomovement in the Congress on those reorganizationproposals.

Question: As far as the E.P.D.A., I think thereare about 46 programs now, and there are more thanrumors that some.of them will not be funded throughthe life of the contractual arrangement and thatEarly Childhood, rather than continue its own iden-tity it has had in E.P.D.A., will just become part ofthis thing called Teachers' Centers, which meansquite a loss in this area. And I think it should be ofgreat concern to the state, because it just becomespart of Teachers' Centers. It loses its focus.

Donald Simpson: It is true that 33 programs inthe U.S. Office of Education would be consolidatedin the Administration's proposal for revenue sharingin the field of education. Maintaining identity, whenyou consolidate 33 programs into one overallauthorization, is always a problem. On the otherhand, I hinted in my paper of the complexities, thealmost-paralysis which results when we have toomany programs, and from being on the opposite sidetrying to help some people namely, Dr. Joan Swift

get some money out of the current programs ofthe Office of Education, some simplification wouldbe well worthwhile.

Question: Where do you start tapering off thecost to the consumer? We're talking about a functionwhich, in the non-poverty section, has beentraditionally met totally by the consumer through theproprietary day care center. But, if we talk about$2200 or $2000 per child, darn near everybody is atleast near poor; and these people have traditionallybeen paying their own way totally. They can'tpossibly pay this kind of price. Yet they are asked topay the price through their tax money!

Donald Simpson: Let me comment in terms ofthe Brademas-Mondale-Administration compromisethat seems to be emerging and hopefully will emergeby the end of this month from Congress. There is abreak .even point in it of $4320.00, at which the veryenriched comprehensive child development programcontemplated in that bill would be paid 100% by thegovernment for the poor. In addition, there is asliding scale on up above that according to theability to pay up to around $7,000 per year income,and then over that it very rapidly rises to a fee forservice basis that the parents would be expected totake care of themselves. However, if it is true as allof the scientists of the human development field aretelling us, that 50% of the "ballgame" is won inthose first four or five years of life, maybe we shouldthink of day care as we think of public education. Ifthat is so, when you are talking about $2000 perchild per year, it comes into a better perspective.Compare that to the cost of public education and Idon't think it's far off but, if you accept what thescientists are saying that the first four or five yearsof life are critical, then I think one has a completelydifferent view of that cost item.

Edward Weaver: Let me comment a little fur-ther on that. I think this is one of the stickiest issueswith respect to the whole notion of the extension ofday care services. If it were not for the cost, everyonewould be for it. If we can get over that, we will besubstantially on the road to getting day care for allchildren. There is a workshop on this tomorrow andquite frankly we would welcome your input on this.This is not a dodge on my part. This is a very seriousquestion, which has to be considered, weighed, andbalanced in terms of what Don Simpson just saidthe value to the child; the value to society over the

13

long haul; and is it worth this kind of investment.Practically speaking, I think the are some real hur-dles and some very real problems in public policy atthis point in time. I wish I could be as optimisticabout the Brademas-Mondale bill as Don is, but Ijust had handed to me tonight a copy of a clip out ofthe New York Times dated the 20th of this monthwhich discussed that bill which is now out of theConference Committee with the compromise thatDon mentioned. The essence of that New YorkTimes clip is that it was very likely the Presidentwould veto it, because it was the opinion of thePresident and his advisors that they couldn't affordit. So I am not too optimistic about Brademas-Mondale. I've thought for some time that as soon assomeone put a price tag on it, that very beautifulpiece of philosophic legislation would come intosome rather rough days. This is not a judgment onmy part; it's an attempt at a rather brief analysis ofthe state of the nation with respect to day care. Weare quite willing to legislate philosophy as long as itdoesn't cost any money, but this one would cost! Theother thing is that this particular bill is seen in con-flict with the day care provisions in the FamilyAssistance Plan, or H.R. 1, which is an interestingconflict if you balance off the possible cost, as Donstated of the Brademas-Mondale at some 2 billiondollars in its earlier form. That's compared with 710million dollars in H.R. I. That doesn't sound like aconflict; it seems to be great gap in coverage.

Murrell Syler: One of the considerations that isconfusing the cost of quality day care is the fact thatwe are talking about an array of services that can becharged against other federal programs, if you wereto consider what's actually being afforded today.These are complete medical services, psychologicalservices and nutritional services. Medical care isnow charged against Public Health Service, and bothpsychological and nutritional services are charged toother budget items and not seen as child care.

Question: Are there any emergency assistanceprograms to help these centers so they don't closeuntil we are able to get our finances from thesevarious departments?

Edward Weaver: I have a little difficulty iden-tifying whether you're talking to me with my PublicAid hat on or my Children and Family Services haton.

From the floor: She's talking about the latepayments from the Food Supplement Program.

Edward Weaver: The U.S.D.A. Program? Myrelationships to the U.S.D.A. haven't been terriblypositive. I think I'll ask Don Simpson if he can't an-swer that.

Donald Simpson: I like to think my relationsare positive. Whether they produce money is anotherquestion. I suggest you write a letter to the Federal

4-C Regional Committee. That's the kind of problemthey were set up to help with.

Question: I wonder if it would be in order forthis conference to suggest that our Governor use hisgood offices with the President in urging that thisbill (Brademas-Mondale) not be vetoed and,similarly, that we use this conference as a forum tosay we urge the President to sign the bill as it isreported out of the conference committee.

Bruce Thomas: If such a motion is to be pre-sented, I'd rather have it at a subsequent conveningof the entire group.

Donald Simpson: My own feeling is that it'sawfully good to wait until you see the bill, so youknow what you're either supporting or rejecting.Even if it is reported out of committee, a lot can hap-pen in the floor action in either the House or theSenate. They can send it right back again. Onsomething as controversial as this bill has been, untilwe get an enrolled bill from both houses, it's hard topredict what will happen to it in the White House.

Question: Mr. Simpson, I wonder if you cancomment on the role of the community action agen-cies under the Brademas-Mondale versions wherethe Head Start programs are folded in and the nor-mal role of the community action agencies inoperating these Head Start programs may come intoconflict with local communities acting as primesponsors. Will that not have the effect, in the ruralareas, of cutting out some of the efforts we weretalking about earlier in the evening?

Donald Simpson: I don't think so. As youknow, the proposal really is an Amendment to theEconomic Opportunity Act, and as such, would sub-stitute new local community councilsso far as daycare is concerned for what has been the functionof the local councils under the community actionprogram in determining day care programs underCAP funds. I would think that a 4-C Committeecould easily become the forerunner of such a localcouncil in determining needs and priorities for theexpenditure of resources available under the bill andfor general implementation of the plan. And reallythat's what the old community action councils didwith respect to the monies available under the com-munity program. So the concept is continued, butday care is carved out as a separate enterprise.

Question: I'd like to ask some questions per-taining to the special food service program. Whatwould be the reason for a center's being taken off ofthe special food service? Is there money availableright now for a beginning center to use? Is thepriority given to centers serving all or mostly low-income families? How was it decided which centergot money to supply kitchens?

Don Simpson: It is obvious I should havebrought my colleagues on the federal regional 4-CCommittee with me. I don't administer any Depart-

14

ment of Agriculture programs. Is there somebodyhere from the Department of Agriculture? (From thefloor Dianne Lane is here.) Good. Bring her uphere to the microphone. Let her answer thequest ions.

Dianne Lane: Some of your questions I cananswer. Some of them have to do with the policies ofthe State Department of Public Instruction's SchoolLunch Division. Right now I know that Illinois hasnot the funds to expand the special food serviceprogram beyond what it has now. A few newprograms were added this fiscal year which beganJuly 1, but right now it's frozen, simply becausethey've obligated all the funds that are available.Funds were not cut from last year; we've just hadsuch a tremendous growth throughout our elevenstate region last year that we are obligated to them.Now, our regional office administers the programsdirectly for five states. For those five states, noprograms have been cut off. Illinois is not one ofthem. The state agency administers the funds there. Ican find out I wouldn't say that they haven't cutany programs off. I can investigate the questions andget back to you through the 4-C Committee.

Question: Will this be funded beginning July,1972?

Dianne Lane: This program was originally athree year pilot program. The pilot period was upthis past June 30th. It has not yet been made a per-manent program; it's been extended for two years.

Question: Is there a priority to centers servinglow income families?

Dianne Lane: In order to be in the program theCenter has to draw from areas either with a high con-centration of working mothers or from low incomeareas.

Question: Equipping the kitchen how is thatdecided?

Dianne Lane: This is something that is decidedcase by case at the State School Lunch Division. Thenon-food assistance program funds should go to theneedy centers who cannot meet the expense them-selves of expanding into food service.

Question: Can funds be transferred from one ofthe other five states who may not be using their fullallocation?

Dianne Lane: Right now I have a figure of$509,000 as the initial apportionment for specialfood service programs in Illinois this fiscal year.There certainly would be a second re-apportionmentand probably. a third. The initial apportionmentdoesn't tell you very much. Around May or June,states will submit estimates of how much moneythey're going to have left over and how much theyneed, and the whole thing will be thrown back in thepot to be re-apportioned. Towards the end of fiscal1971, many states had a great many problems.

Funding had to wait for re-apportionment and trans-fer of funds to meet their obligations.

Question: I'd like to direct this question to bothMr. Weaver and Mr. Simpson. Do either federal orstate officials see any point at which use of localfunds in direct payments to child care centers wouldbe appropriate? Do you see any set of conditionswhere that might be the way to go about maximizingquality child care?

Donald Simpson: It's always helpful. If you'lldonate that money to Ed Weaver with a couple ofstipulations attached to it. One is that you canspecify the locality where you want it spent, and theother is that you want it spent on day care andnothing else. If you give it to him with only thosetwo strings, that'll earn three dollars federal forevery dollar you put up. That will do a lot for daycare.

Edward Weaver: Now, I want my rebuttal.That's why I wanted him to speak first. Don andother representatives of our partner in this enterprise

the federal government talk about the enor-mous possibilities under Title IV-A. Those enor-mous possibilities are only possible under the mostliberal of circumstances; under the most enlightenedpublic policy at the state level which opens up ser-vices to former and potential recipients almostwithout regard to any kind of criteria, and that con-dition simply does not exist! So, while it's possible,as a matter of fact this is something of the mechanismbeing used in the Model Cities communities rightnow in Illinois, and while it's possible to extend thatto the private sector of day care; the fact is that it'sextremely complex and difficult to satisfy the federalrequirements for defining the groups that can becovered under Title IV-A. We've gone to rathersignificant lengths to define the groups that we have.We had a couple of other definitions in that werethrown out, by mutual agreement I might say,because we could not figure out what they meanteither. We were trying to cover a lot of people. Theproblem is not with Don Simpson. I don't want to betroublesome to Don. And it's not always troublewith HEW. Part of the problem is drawing thedefinition so that when the auditors come in somethree, four, or five years hence, Don Simpson and Iboth, won't have to cough up the money out of ourown pockets to pay for the things the auditors cannotunderstand. So defining the group of eligibles is acomplex task! It's not easily done and the im-plication of state-wideness and the implications ofall sorts of other things that are part of the state plansubmitted for approval for the federal governmentdo intervene in opening this up as much as we mightlike to. If we can do this on a phase and piece-meal

15

basis, sort of biting it off a piece at a time, theremight be some other groups that could be included.We did, I think, pretty well at the first cut of this. Wegot Model Cities areas included, we got PublicHousing Project areas and populations includedthroughout the state, and also included MigrantPrograms throughout the state. The O.E.O. povertydesignated areas aren't in there. That's one of theones we tried for.

Question: I would like to know how and whenthe private proprietory day care center can beeligible for state, local and federal funding?

Edward Weaver: The proprietory for-profitcenters have always been eligible for funding on apurchase for service basis for individual children. Asa matter of fact, we are purchasing from profitproprietory centers throughout the state on the in-dividual purchase plan which I mentioned. They arenot eligible by statute for the Grant-in-Aid program;that's the other side of the coin. By and large, thebulk of the proprietory centers are in communitiesthat serve primarily middle class youngsters and arenot accesib le to the group that we have designated asour first priority in Illinois and that is the group ofhandicapped or disadvantaged children from low in-come families.

Question: I have been thinking about what Mr.Simpson said about the Comprehensive Child CareBill. I read an account in the Washington Post lastweek corroborating my information that this bill hasbeen reported out of conference committee. My in-formation is that this bill will not go into the hopperbefore the 29th of November, and that there aredefinite points at which we should apply somepressure if we wish to see it go through. Articles likeJames Kilpatrick's have had wide circulation. Theyare against the child development in the Comprehen-sive Bill. I have heard that those legislators who arein favor of the comprehensive legislation feel thatthey have not heard from their communities. It seemsto me if this conference is to accomplish anythingreally great, it is very important to direct our atten-tion as citizens to this bill. I hope that this group,before we close tomorrow, will make our wishes feltto the Governor, the President, and to certainlegislators so that this bill will have some chance tosurvive.

Don Simpson: I didn't mean to imply that Iwanted to preclude your expressing yourselves.That's up to the conference. The only thing is that asan old bureaucrat, I've learned to wait until I'm sureof what a bill says before I'm willing to take aposition on it but if you deal in principles, I don'tsee any harm. What probably is going on is a fightover costs and how fast one moves forward.

Day Care: Pro and ConDr. Maria Piers

Dean, Erikson Institutefor Early Education

One morning seven years ago, I had a telephonecall from a young friend who had just enrolled heronly daughter in nursery school. My friend was intears. She had been told by several well meaningneighbors as well as by her mother-in-law that athree and a half year old belongs home with hermother, not in nursery school, and that she, themother should stop doing her secretarial work andstay home with her child, etc. She felt terribly guilty,as if she were public enemy number one and that wasback in 1964.

Now the tide has turned. Now loving friends andrelatives and civic minded people make you feelguilty when you don't send your child to a nurseryschool, or indeed to an all-day day care center. It isthe mother who wants to stay home and take care ofher children who is made to feel like public enemynumber one.

In view of such a startling about face we bettertake a long questioning look at the whole issue ofpreschool education in general and day care in par-ticular. At the moment everybody is in favor of daycare. Industry and labor, government and privategroups, and the Women's Liberation movement.Correction almost everybody is in favor; childrenhave not been consulted. Seriously, there is, ofcourse, a lot to be said for preschool education.When people ask me what specifically is good aboutit, I have the answer at my finger tips.

Preschool education can aid in weaning thechild from an over attachment to his mother, byproviding short stretches of time away from thehome, where he can learn to stand on his own twofeet under safe conditions. It provides him with thecompany of other young children (very importantfrom the age of three on), the use of large equipmentsuch as a jungle gym (impossible to provide for mostfamilies), and lots of space for running andscreaming (sans neighbors complaining). Best of all,the child is under the aegis of a teacher trained to.satisfy his intellectual curiosity while also satisfyinghis need for physical and emotional closeness. Afterall, most of us receive our first arithmetic lessons onour mother's lap as we discover to our amazementthat she has the exact same number of eyes and earsas do we, and that two times five fingers make tenfingers. And lastly there is the opportunity to teachthe fundamentals of coexistence. If you kick Tommyin the shins he is not likely to let you play with his

fire engine; or a kleenex is for blowing your nose,Jennifer's sweater is not.

That is what is good about a day care center. Aday care center is good, IF it provides that mixtureof care and education which readies a child for for-mal education and for many aspects of life. But whatif it does not?

Before answering that question, let me tell youabout a strange thought that occurs to me. Why is itthat people always ask me what is so good aboutpreschool education and nobody ever asks me what'sso good about home? Why are we, the professionals,never called upon to justify the existence of familylife? Just in case someone should ask, I have an an-swer ready: Home is a place

where you are safe,where you can flop when tired,where you are liked for what you are, even onyour off days,where you are thoroughly familiar with everynook and cranny and person and thing,where you get a peanut butter sandwich whenyou are hungry, and an answer to a question,and a whack when you are mean, and a hugwhen needed.And you can be sure of all of these.A home is good if it provides all of these: food,

shelter, information, whacks and hugs and consisten-tly so.

What if it does not? The point here is that notevery home is a good home. I am thinking at themoment not even of a child from a poverty-strickenhome, but of a seven year old boy with a hardworking father, in a high income tax bracket, and amother in a mental institution, and a suburban housefull of toys and a constantly changing stream ofhousekeepers and babysitters . . . and nobody totrust and nobody to be sure of.

Such tragedy can and does happen everywhere.But it does happen much more frequently to childrenin urban slums and when it happens, it has lastingand crippling effects. I don't want to be sentimentalor belabor the obvious hazards of growing up inpoverty poor health, poor education, angry orlethargic mothers, absent or rapidly shifting fathers

but I do want to give you the results of a

16

7

fascinating research project I have recently comeacross which is not yet published.

Dale Meers from the Washington Children'sHospital has, in long term treatment, two ratheraverage school age children from a black slum area,and in cooperation with the police, has attempted toassess the environment of these two children.

Here is what they found. In an area of threesquare blocks there were 3,520 major crimes over aperiod of twelve months. This number by no meansreflects a sum total, but only those crimes that werereported by the police crimes like murder andburglaries. It does not include crimes committedagainst children, or thefts within a family, orprostitution without significant violence. Strangely,the children talked little about any of these things.The researchers found that their way of survivingand dealing with an unbearable environment was toward off what is "out there" and to behave as if theywere deaf and dumb. The trouble is that when youlive in a world of your own and shut out what goeson in your environment (we might compare this toschizophrenia), you don't see what the teacher writeson the blackboard either, nor do you hear when shecalls your name. You can't learn, period.

To set up an alternate way of growing up is, insuch cases, imperative. Day care, whether in an in-stitution or a licensed home, seems an answer. Onecould even say that hny kind of care is a better an-swer than a home life that renders children inac-cessible to a teacher, or for that matter any respon-sible adult. Here we must remind ourselves that thechildren who live in such abysmal conditions arerelatively few, that day care is currently the ad-vocated solution for many, many more children,children with a basically good sound home who arealert, sometimes affectionate, sometimes annoyinglike all kids.

The idea of day care for the average child makesus immediately and acutely aware that somethingwhich is a little better than the worst simply isn'tgood enough. The point is that second rate day carealso has its dangers. They are different from a crimeinfested slum, but just as pernicious. The under-staffed center or the center with a high staff turnovermust by definition remain a merely custodial place,must rely on an overdose of behavior modification,which is a much more palatable word than drill,without motivating the individual, and musttherefore, turn out children who are easy to manage,stupid, often sickly, well behaved in order to avoidtrouble, without developing inner controls. Howcould they? They never know which housemother orchild care worker or teacher expects what.

By the way, I have seen such children in mynative country where people are forced to dosomething about the population increase and they setup "kinderdorffer". Kinderdorffer are well inten-tioned, just as most day care centers are here. They

17

are absolutely benign the people are terribly nicewho work with those kids. The kids are cheerful,rosy-cheeked and totally without initiative. Nobodyever misbehaves. Nobody ever sasses a teacher. Ahigh percentage, I suspect, are enuretic, almost all ofthem have learning problems even though geneticallythey come from an average population just likethe kids in a very bad city slum. They are betterdressed, eat better meals, but they have very, veryfew caretaking adults one house mother per ninechildren that is all. And somewhere there is ahouse father who in turn is housefather for four orfive different units, and they have everything, butthey don't have people. And this is how they growup. They look very pretty and well-nourished and allthat, but there is something terribly essential missing.Something terribly human. There won't be any greatinventors or thinkers among them, I am almostwilling to bet on that.

What I am saying is that those centers thathave to rely on custodial care manufacture futuredropouts, unemployables, burdens to the taxpayer,and in doing so, it sharply increases class differen-ces. For it's only the children who have no choicewho land in such centers, not your children or mine,and no public school teacher the most dedicated,the most gifted can make them study, no matterhow hard she tries. Second rate day care is a hard-ship. To be sure all human beings know hardships,you and I have undergone hardships, but we sur-vived. If you and I survived it is because it didn'thappen too early in life. The difference between theyoung child and the adult is that prolonged hardshipleads to retardation and that the damage is per-manent.

There is yet another danger inherent in the un-der-staffed center; we virtually force children to seekemotional support, company, stimulation from theirpeer group almost exclusively. Too much of this, tooearly in life conditions them for seeking support andhelp and rules of conduct from their equals, fromtheir peers and, therefore, prepares the way to thedelinquent gang. So let's not understaff child carecenters.

I think the message is loud and clear. If we aresetting up day care on a large scale, and if we don'twant to produce a generation of quasi deaf anddumb unresponsive children who in due time spawnanother generation of quasi deaf and dumb children,then we must provide quality day care. That is, if Imay now remind you of some earlier statements fromthe speakers and also from the floor, namely, that wesink our money in people. Not into a curriculum orinto a beautiful building or into marvellous equip-ment though we are certainly not opposed to anyof these. But if we must cut corners, and it seems thatwe must, then let's not cut it on personnel. Everycenter must have at least one person who is welltrained and knows how young children develop andhow parents interact and interlock. And the others?

What was good about Head Start was people.People who set it up, people who had the dream,people who were direct beneficiaries and people wholearned from it what one can do with kids thatyoung. As we set up day care on a grand scale let'splease not forget people. Let's have warmknowledgeable people to deal with children and,above everything else, let's have enough of them, soour children don't become dumb, docile anddelinquent.

What I am pleading for is that we select theteachers for the young and the poor and particularlyfor the young and poor with the same care, the sameattention to excellence we reserve for a graduateteacher in a university (though clearly thequalifications must be different). But if we do, wejust might salvage a lot of human potential in thepoor, and indeed, in the rich also.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question: What are your feelings in regard toinfant day care?

Dr. Piers There are some problems with that.Infants evidently need a lot more of a "mother-person's" time. This can be a Mom, a woman oldor young a real teacher, a nurse or whatever nameyou call that person, and they need a degree ofcon-sistency in their care which makes it positively per-nicious to have a wonderful nurse today, andanother wonderful nurse tomorrow, and anotherwonderful nurse the day after that. It confuseschildren at the very beginning of forming relation-ships and of cognitive development. They simplydon't know their way around, so it's particularly im-portant that the caretakers of the very, very young bethe same ones, predictable again and again. "I feel inmy bones she's going to be there tomorrowvaguely, dimly before I even start to think." That'sthe familiar touch, the familiar bottle, the familiarsmile, the familiar frown. So that I think we have tobe terribly careful as our clients in day care centersbecome younger and younger, that we make sure wehave no turnover. People who take care of the veryyoung must be interested in the kids and there mustbe no more than two children per caretaker. The ex-perience that bears out that it can be done like thatcomes from the Child Care Center at Yale which wasand still is, an absolutely superb day care center.They took in toddlers and infants years ago, but theyhad one young girl there for two babies and itworked. They also had a lot of parent involvementand to my knowledge they now have only infants, butthe appropriations were cut. However, they also hadkids up to age five and six if the circumstances of thefamily made this necessary.

10111.1

r.

There must be a sufficiently large number of them(paraprofessionals, aides), warm people who have anatural inclination towards kids, one per seven forchildren between three and seven, but no more thantwo toddlers per adult. As you know day care has atendancy to embrace younger and younger age levelsand there is a warning in this.

There remains one issue that is currently muchtalked about. It is parent involvement. What do wemean by that? Participation? Government? Perhapsand perhaps not. Many mothers and fathers are tooburdened as it is. Some ethnic groups abhor theidea of parents (especially mothers) running things.But everywhere under all circumstances for peopleof all races, colors, creeds, income groups here isone of the essentials of development youngchildren learn, unfold, thrive, in constant inter-change with a parent or parent figure. Lethargic,deprived, angry, sick people make poor parents.Parent involvement then, whether or not it meansparticipation, means under all circumstances that theneeds of adult human beings must be met up to thatpoint where they foster the growth of their ownchildren through constant interchange.

Let me remind you of the poor little rich littleboy. He recovered as soon as his mother recoveredand was released from the mental institution.

Now for some utopian picture on the horizon.What could day care become ideally? Occasionallyan idea springs up that was meant to benefit thepoor, but turned out such an excellent idea thateverybody wanted it. Health insurance was such anidea. The Montessori system and before that theFroebel Kindergarten. If I may share with you someterribly subjective impressions, Head Start had asimilar effect. I'm convinced, as many of your are,that a great many blunders were committed in thewhole Head Start situation and one might have donebetter but one did something, and it is also true thatthe Westinghouse Study proved convincingly thatHead Start failed to perform miracles. It failed tokill off rats in tenements, it failed to improve thenation's economy, the awesome complexities of bigcities, crime and graft, and it didn't do away with thewar in Southeast Asia, cancer or the common cold.And so kids continued to have problems in gradeschool even though they went to Head Start. On theother hand, Head Start convinced mothers poorilliterate mothers that they could learn and indeedbecome their children's teachers, that they couldhave their teeth fixed, take up dressmaking and lookattractive, become more self-respecting, serve bal-anced menus, generate a measure of beauty in theirschools and homes, and above all believe in self-determination based on self-respect. I will also stickmy neck out and say that I am quite sure that HeadStart helped people, in all walks of life, to take thefirst five years seriously and to discover the values ofpreschool education.

18

Question: What do you consider to be thepresent and future implications of the rather obviousabsence of the male figure in the nursery andpreschool programs.

Dr. Piers I have considered this for some time.We are terribly pleased and proud that we have anincreasing number of male students at Erikson In-stitute and we welcome this trend very much. I thinkit's one of the hazards for growth that overrides classand income. Children in any great Western countrygenerally have no "fathers". The poor father leavesearly in the morning, if he works. If its an extremepoverty situation, the father comes and goes, andmany kids in poverty areas, of all colors and classes,don't really know father figures as we know theyshould. The working people of all income groups atbest see their children after 7:00 P.M., if they don'thave to attend meetings or something else.

So let me just say, I think it is a real problemthat our children grow up in a predominantlyfeminine society. I don't think the answer is inabrogating a women's role. I think that we need a lit-tle of each the male image and the female onethis goes for both little girls and little boys.

Question: Would you comment on the alter-natives or the impact of taking the money that's in-vested in day care facilities and training of personneland investing that money in the home instead oftaking the child out of the home.

Dr. Piers: In principle I think this is entirelypossible it's probably good. I know that there aresome very staunch advocates of that, but it may turnout to be more complicated and costly. If we reallytalk about very deprived people, then the handingout of a check does not do the trick because thedeprivation is older and deeper than a monetary one.What has to be done or has to be available is sup-plementary care of the parents and/or education asthe case may be. I think it is one of the possibleavenues depending on composition of the com-munity and the available resources. I wish to statethat I or anyone at Erikson Institute can be partial infavor of one method as opposed to another, such asgroup care, family care, money to families. Thatdepends on a number of variables and I really don'tprefer the one in favor of the other. Also, there aretoo many practical considerations. Where does themoney come from? What is mutually agreeable to thepopulation that wants to work or should work, theemployer? What are the existing facilities in a com-munity? Is there something to which parents canturn? It is terribly complex.

Question: What is your opinion in regard to theeducational approach to the different cultural andethnic backgrounds?

Dr. Piers: This is such a super-colossalquestion, I don't know where to start. Are you asking

19

if I favor an integrated set-up? Then the answer issimple yes.

Question: As far as bi-lingual education . . .

Dr. Piers: I wish I knew more about it, is all Ican say. I can tell you that I've had one experience.The setting was very different and yet not so dif-ferent from the United States; and that is amongthe Swiss rural poor. They are not so poor as the vasturban areas in the United States. These groups growup bi or tri-lingually. It works very well. It is nottrue that they are poorer in the mastery of one par-ticular language. They manage to speak two or threelanguages and express themselves very ably. Theyhave no choice. My guess would be that we don'thave much choice either. We simply must raise awhole number of groups in a bi-lingual fashion, butreally I don't know enough about it. What I've readso far doesn't really answer all the questions that areconnected with this problem. But I know, in prin-ciple, it can be done. The Swiss are a case in point.The Jewish Staettel kids in pre-Hitler Poland wereanother case in point. They learned two and threelanguages and mastered them perfectly. It seems anecessity for a great number of groups we are curren-tly working with.

Question: Would you comment on parentevaluation in day care centers and the role of theparent in evaluation because that is going to bequite important.

Dr. Piers: Yes, it certainly is in some areas. Inothers, they'd rather not touch this, particularly ifwomen are involved. I think, however, it is im-perative that we let parents know what to look for inday care centers. What are the criteria for good daycare centers? One is a very simple one thebehavior of the children over the course of a day andthe expression on the children's faces. Are theysometimes actively, busily, intensively engaged inwhat they are doing, and then again they flop andday dream and do whatever kids do from time totime to rest regress a little bit (that's quite allright). Or are they constantly kept in line? Are theytoo good? Are they too acting out? In either case, wemay conclude something is missing. You want agood average of alert expressions. Of course, theirphysical state is an important thing, but many peopleare aware of this area already. A good and construc-tive time reflects in the expression. And I think wehave to publicize that broadly.

Question: When we speak of bi-lingualchildren, we are usually speaking of immigrants,however, I think we have bi-lingual children in theUnited States. Blacks speak in a certain way, andthen we are asked to speak another language whenwe go into the formal educational setting. Basically,blacks have a common language no matter where weare from. I don't think this is dealt with at all. Thequestion I really have iswhat are the implications

t

with day care running rampant in this country interms of staff, four years of college trained staff, whomust have the resources to deal with this.

Dr. Piers: There are enormous practicalquestions. I could conjecture that you maybe haveone person in a center who is conversant in bothlanguages and I'm taking your statement at facevalue that all blacks understand each other. I'mnot totally persuaded.

Comment: I don't believe I said that.

Dr. Piers: What matters is that the acquisition ofa second language is regarded as a hardship. I don't

20

think it ever is unless you deprecate the firstlanguage.

Comment: This is what must be dealt with.Dr. Piers: Those of us who speak more than one

language are at an advantage. The fact that this coun-try is so large makes the acquisition of a secondlanguage a strangely new problem. But in a smallcountry people have to learn at least one morelanguage. Mere you get terribly far with English ofone kind or another some dialect of English. Inprinciple, I don't see what could be wrong with theacquisition of several languages as long as you makesure that there is no class distinction attached tospeaking one or two languages.

The Importance of Day CareIn the State's Service Program

The Honorable Richard B. OgilvieGovernor of Illinois

Throughout the three years of my term asGovernor of this state, I have not often had the op-portunity to invite myself to give a keynote speech.Since I have taken advantage of this prerogative, Ihave chosen my words carefully and I am grateful forthis opportunity to share my thoughts with you.

Let me first add my thanks to those of Mr.Thomas and Mr. Weaver for the participation of allof you who are here today.

Our day care program would amount to little,indeed, without those who are willing to operatethese day care facilities, without professionals withthe knowledge to formulate day care programs,without public officials and employees in-terested in day care, and without the many privateorganizations, citizens' groups, and individuals whohave urged greater public support of day care.

I thank you for your past accomplishments andinvite you to help the State of Illinois proceed indesigning the most comprehensive day care programof any state in the country.

While I am proud of what we have accomplishedalready in the child welfare area, we are constantlylooking for new ideas. We need to know whatspecific problems exist, and we have a continuingdesire to evaluate the true needs and desires ofIllinois citizens.

You have been asked today to address manycomplex and important questions in the day carearea. Many questions have already been outlined,and I know that in each workshop more will bepresented. I would like to add two encompassingconsiderations.

Formulating a state day care policy raises somevery fundamental questions. I urge you to not losesight of these issues when discussions become boggeddown in details.

In our planning of day care programs, do weperceive day care as a service for selected groups ofthe population, or as a "social utility" available toall? More basically, to what extent is a child a publicresponsibility in our society? The broadest im-plications of day care policy cannot be ignored orminimized. The effect of day care on the role of the

21

family, our educational system, the economy, mustbe anticipated.

On the other hand. no discussions of day careare productive unless they are guided by a basic con-sideration of the needs and welfare of children. Aday care program must put the chief value on thechild that it serves.

This administration has consistently made ser-vice to children and the carc of children the highestpriorities. My support of day care services is oneaspect of this commitment, which recognizes that ourgreatest hope for the future lies in these children.

Mr. Weaver has reviewed the various aspects ofthe Illinois day care program. While we have accom-plished much in the past, we must turn our effortstowards planning for the future. To do this at thestate level, it is important to view day care as onepossible social service among many.

It is also critically important that we not jumpon the day care "band wagon" at the expense ofother essential services. Neither can day care beseparated from other state services and programs.Let me illustrate what I mean.

The Department of Children and Family Ser-vices currently provides a wide range of services tochildren. These include adoption services, fostercare, institutional care, and in-home services.

Now, should we be concerned with caring for achild in a day care center who has a family, whenanother child has no family at all and may need to beplaced in an institution? Could we be doing more toprotect our children from parental neglect or abuse?

While the state recently instituted an adoptionprogram for black children, does more need to bedone in the adoption field? Will day care be able toprevent social problems and thereby diminish theneed for other welfare services?

It is also important that day care not beseparated in our minds from our educational systemin Illinois. Though the state has increased its con-tribution to public education tremendously duringthe past three years, expanded funds for educationhave been limited this fiscal year. This being true,should the state spend any money on day care?

1

Should we attempt to plan a comprehensive anduniversal system of day care when our present systemof public education has so many flaws?

Day care must also be considered within thecontext of the Illinois welfare programs. I know thatmany of you question the role that we should play inprograms for the poor and, more specifically, forwelfare families.

We do a disservice to both day care and welfarerecipients if we view day care only within the welfarecontext. While day care most certainly has a role toplay in facilitating the employment of mothers, wecan contribute to the neglect and stunting of a newgeneration by advocating programs that are onlycustodial in nature.

On the other hand, the economic resources ofgovernment are limited, and day care is expensive. Ifsociety has a responsibility to any children, it isespecially responsible to the children of poorfamilies.

Any child who is doomed to wander through amaze of dilapidated housing, inadequate schooling,and limited employment opportunities deservespriority. For these reasons, day care programs inIllinois should continue to emphasize servingchildren in poverty areas.

Concentrating day care services within povertycommunities also means focusing them on welfarefamilies. It seems to me that those who expresssuspicion of day care in this context are not reallytalking about day care they are instead objectingto the alleged "forced" or "coercive" nature ofwelfare work programs.

At the same time they should continue to servicethe parents who are least able to afford day care ser-vices. Secondly, day care services should be focusedon children with special needs, such as those withphysical and emotional problems.

It should be pointed out first and I have saidthis before that many mothers receiving Aid toFamilies with Dependent Children want to work. Ithas also been pointed out that the lack of day carehas kept these women out of the labor force.

For the quarter ending in June, 1971, theIllinois Department of Public Aid reported that ap-prozimately 1,200 persons were not, and I em-phasize not, referred to the Work Incentive Programbecause child care was not available, while 1,000persons were not referred due to the ages or numberof children in the home. These persons comprised 43per cent of all persons determined to be "not ap-propriate" for referral to WIN.

While it is not unreasonable to expect a welfarerecipient to accept a job if one is offered, the matterbecomes irrelevant when we consider a mother witha child under the age of 6 years. Since the WIN

it

program gives priority to AFDCU fathers and AFDCmothers with older children, a requirement thatmothers with pre-school children accept placementshould not be an issue there simply are too fewWIN slots for all.

It has also been determined that 34 per cent ofthe present AFDC families, or some 44,000 cases,have no child under the age of 6 in the family. Whilemany of these adults would not be employable forother reasons, the figures do point out that there arelarge numbers of women who could be employedand who do not have pre-school children.

What disturbs me about the issue of da.%*care forwelfare recipients is that the day care services thatare presently utilized by employed welfare recipientsare inadequate.

We know that some children simply care forthemselves while other children are cared for byolder brothers and sisters. This is not to say that weshould rush out and blindly build day care centers.Perhaps these centers would never be used due to apreference for in-the-home care. It does say,however, that something is wrong not necessarilywith the welfare system, but with our system of daycare services.

I have been attempting to outline some of myquestions and concerns. Where do we proceed fromhere?

Illinois is at the threshold of having one of themost comprehensive day care programs in this coun-try. Our day care program has expanded substan-tially within the past three years. In Fiscal 1970Illinois spent $10.3 million on day care. In 1971,spending increased to $17.6 million. This year wehave budgeted $50 million for day care services.

There are nearly 75,000 children in the statebeing served in 1,680 licensed day care centers and4,470 licensed day care homes. As Director Weaverhas pointed out, the variety as well as the availabilityof our day care programs have also been enhanced.

Bringing Title IV-A funds under the SocialSecurity Act into Illinois to finance day care forchildren in poverty areas has been one of our mostimportant initiatives.

With Title IV-A funds, we have increased theDepartment of Children and Family Services budgetfor day care to $19 million. Numerous other stateshave since contacted Illinois to seek guidance in in-stituting similar programs.

The Title IV-A program is also significantbecause it represents a cooperative effort betweenthe state and public and private agencies in par-ticular Model Cities, the Chicago HousingAuthority, and Chicago Commons.

The state is eager to increase the role of privateagencies in sponsoring day care programs, for we donot intend to build and operate day care centers our-

selves. Increasing voluntary participation in day careprograms, therefore, is a critical need.

Title IV-A funding has been particularly impor-tant due to the very limited nature of state resources.You are well aware of the budgetary problems withinour welfare programs. Though this issue will be ad-dressed later, I would like to say that I am extremelyheartened by the progress that was made inWashington last week in support of emergencywelfare funding. Even with this aid, however, Illinoiswill continue to expand its day care program largelywith Title IV-A funds.

In addition to this source of funding, severalpieces of legislation are pending at the federal level.Of most immediate concern is the ComprehensiveChild Development Act of 1971, which was recentlyreported out of a conference committee. I have beenwatching this bill with great interest and great con-cern. Its emphasis on day care which has a strongchild development component, its emphasis on ser-ving the poor families, its emphasis on involvingparents in day care services these are entirely con-sistent with my position on day care as it has beenstated over the past two years. I agree in principlewith this bill. I understand, however, that the con-ference committee report has not yet been printed. Iwill be able to make a more definitive statement onthis legislation after I have had an opprrtunity tostudy the final version carefully. Certainly I agreewith the principle of placing priority on the needs ofchildren.

I would like to conclude with the hope thatthese discussions this afternoon are productive andthat they will be rewarding. I can assure you thatyour recommendations will be studied carefully, andI'm confident that many of them will probably be im-plemented.

Let me reemphasize that the state needsguidance. I am not too proud to ask for advice. Weneed to know how best to evaluate the true effec-tiveness of day care programs. We need to know howmuch money to pay for day care services. We need toarticulate more thoroughly the objectives of a daycare program in Illinois. And in general, we need toknow how best to utilize the funding for day carewhich we will receive in the future.

Day care is not new in this country nor doesit stand alone as a social service. With all of itsbenefits, it cannot be viewed as a cure-all for everychild-crippling social problem that exists in thissociety.

We must instead determine how day care canbest serve the future generations in this state andwithin the bounds of a full range of commitments.

For the sake of our children, were going to dobetter we're going to do better than ever before.With your help, our effort can, and I believe, willsucceed.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question: Are there more funds going to beallocated for expansion of the programs for migrantchildren?

Governor: There will be additional funds com-mitted for that program and for the enlargement ofour day care programs generally. I cannot nt thismoment predict how much because we are just nowbeginning annual preparations for the coming fiscalyear, but we are prepared to commit additionalfunds.

Question: On behalf of the Action Committeefor Decent Childcare, we are very pleased that theGovernor is responding to people being concernedabout childcare. We do want to know specifically ifyou would intervene with President Nixon for theconcerns that you have just stated in your speech. Weall know that unless there is massive federal finan-cing of childcare, all of our concerns about childcaredon't become reality and end up in rhetoric andgood wishes.

Governor: Briefly, the answer is "Yes" just asI intervened with the President for the last severalmonths, and most dramatically last week, with thecooperation of Senator Percy, when we were able tomove for additional welfare funding for Illinois. Iwill not hesitate to intervene in this connection, andI know of the President's own concern for programsthat affect the children of this country, and I knowthat I won't have any difficulty bringing our views tohis attention.

I might say that the group that this young ladyrepresents passed around to all of you someliterature posing some questions. Perhaps I can com-ment a little bit more specifically on these. Inreiteration of what I said, we have already been in-tervening with the President, and received his atten-tion and cooperation on a perhaps more immediateneed in the area of public aid or welfare and this Imight again point out was with the tremendouscooperation of Senator Percy. We could not have ac-complished it without his willingness to press veryvigorously in the United States Senate with anamendment which he was prepared to put on the taxbill and which is now going to be on H.R. I inwhatever form it comes out of the Senate.

You ask here "Would I support a positionthat childcare would not be used as a way to forcewomen off welfare and into low-paying dead-endjobs." Frankly, I think that is somewhat academic;we don't have jobs to reach as far as there is a realneed now. So I don't see anyone pushed off of anytype of program into that situation.

Question: Governor, on the first point that wasraised, because it is so important, I really want toclarify what your position is. Will you intervene on

23

behalf of the statement that has come out of the JointCommittee?

Governor: Well, I can't put it any more bluntlythan I just did. Until I read it, I am not going tocommit myself to anything. In principle, I supportthe objectives I've seen. However, I have seen somebills come out of Congress where there is nosimilarity between what the announced purpose is,and I am not going to mislead you. I have said that Isupport the principles of the bill, and if the bill con-tains those objectives, I will support the bill.

Question: I'm with Head Start. Head Start hasproven itself to be very valid in the educationalprocess, and I'm wondering if you plan to follow thechildren when they have proven themselves in HeadStart and go into kindergarten. Is there money for apolicy in that respect?

Governor: The Director (Mr. Weaver) says thatthe Federal government has some follow throughprograms we don't have a specific program. Letme make a point that I perhaps didn't put as stronglyas I'd like to. We are looking for ideas out of thisconference and this might well be one that would bea consensus opinion of the group, and one that thisadministration could well adopt. We can then usethis with the cooperation of our congressionaldelegation, and the White House could work for anenlargement or an enrichment of these programs. Idon't stand before you as an expert on this youpeople are the experts, and I'm the generalist, andwhat I am looking for is advice and information andI can tell you that I have a willingness to accept it.

Comment: I'm from the Governor's Office ofHuman Resources, and I can respond to thatquestion. Our office is working now with the Officeof Public Instruction in drawing up plans for gettingsome information sent back to the United States Of-fice of Education for more follow through. Talk withthem and maybe they can give you more information.

Question: In light of the complexity ofchildren's programs, when you mention the $50million in respect to child care, we know that it isdivided between Children and Family Services,Department of Mental Health, the Welfare Depart-ment, etc. Would you possibly favor the setting up ofa department of early childhood education andchildhood development in order to truly coordinatethe services to children?

Governor: One of the Governor's problems isthe complexity of governmental operations. In fact, Ihave just recently initiated some efforts designed totry to consolidate in a more meaningful way the farflung operations of Illinois State Government. I haveforty departments and agencies that report directlyto the Governor. You just cannot run a governmentwith that many agencies. Let me give you part of ananswer anyway. One of the things that I am ex-tremely interested in is a consolidation of the

24

db

delivery of social services on the part of the State ofIllinois. I think that we have made a mistake infragmenting the programs in the past, and I knowthat I speak the views of Ed Weaver who is head oftwo of the most important departments. A more ef-fective job could be done if there was a bringingtogether of all of these components that right noware all over the place and that are frequently in com-petition with each other to the disadvantage of thepersons they endeavor to serve, and this is frightfullyexpensive because of duplication.

Now, Bruce Thomas' Institute for Social Policyhas instituted two demonstration projects and youprobably have heard something of this. One is theWoodlawn Project and the other is a tri-county areaproject centered in Peoria and these are our first ef-forts towards trying to consolidate the state's par-ticipation in a single delivery area. I was just talkingwith Dr. Piers at lunch about the great temptation ingovernment, because you are not here an awfullylong time, to make big jumps "let's be dramatic." Ithink it would be a very serious mistake for me toconclude without a great deal of advice and the op-portunity for some experimentation as to where weare going to be five years from now or even two yearsfrom now. I would have no trouble with the creationof some kind of a division within the overall agencywhich would concern itself with this particular mat-ter that you are talking about, so long as it was inter-faced and had a clear inter-relationship with etherresponsibilities that the state is getting more andmore involved in.

Question: We in day care are very concernedabout the self-image of children, but I have asuggestion that wouldn't cost any money at all. Ifyou would repeat publicly that many of the peopleon welfare are people for whom our economy cannotprovide jobs that would go a long way towards in-creasing the self-image of children whose familiesare on welfare, who were terribly attacked recently.

Governor: I am afraid, however, that that isabout as oversimplified an answer as as the oversim-plified statement that the party you are talking aboutmade the other day.

Question: As a member of the Action Com-mittee for Decent Childcare, I would like to ask ifthere is any idea of expansion of the grant-in-aidprograms on a state level to provide more funds forboth new and existing centers.

Governor: I would like to have you ask Direc-tor Weaver about that. He's nodding his head theanswer is "yes".

Question: Would you describe your plans fordelivery of health services to young children in thestate?

Governor: I think I have rather covered it. Letme sum up. I have a problem in trying to manage theoverall delivery of social services. We have now

,t,..rveoWterwiyAerma, 11:0SPIJIII011/N4n1,20.1.41,32AnnoNn

made a step in this direction, because in Ed Weaverwe have a Director of Public Aid and an ActingDirector of Children and Family Services,and we have an amalgam in terms of two very impor-tant responsibilities. I want for Illinois the best daycare program that is possible for humans and statesto achieve and we are willing to put our moneywhere our mouths are as we have demonstrated sofar. Yes, we are willing to go to Washington to getthis. I might say a word of appreciation to DickFriedman and to Don Simpson we have some ex-cellent men who are in a position to know the needsof Illinois and secondly to help the federal govern-ment to respond to this, so we are looking toward areorganization and toward an improvement.

Question: I would like to speak of industry andday care. I wondered if you had considered making a

public statement concerning involvement of industryand day care. I wonder if a statement of this sortmight not elicit a positive program on their part.

Governor: I think this is a worthwhilesuggestion, and I will be happy to consider it withthe advice of my friend, Mr. Weaver. I have had aninteresting conversation with the lady who runs theAmalgamated Clothing Union Workers Centerand while that is not industry it is at least an ac-tion on the part of the private sector that is veryworthwhile, and this is particularly a bright spot onthe scene. I think there is a role for the private sectorto assert itself more than it has, and in fact, I wouldlike to see the private sector take over the whole ofthe program with a little help from the government. Isuspect that we are a few years away from thatmillennium.

26

A?

The Objectives of Day Care

Carlton Williams, ModeratorChicago Housing Authority

The morning session of the workshop on the ob-jectives of day care began with three presentations.Dr. Joseph L. Braga from the University of Illinoispresented a position paper entitled "Objectives ofDay Care: Child Enrichment". Its central point wasthat day care must have as its prime objective theeducation and development of young children andnot the cutting of welfare costs. The paper citedmany studies which show that the child's early en-vironment is critical to his growth and development.These same studies indicate that the first five years oflife are the most rapid for physical, socio-emotional,language and cognitive development in the child.They also indicate that the early environment of thechild and the quality and kinds of stimulation hereceives during his early years influence his attitudestoward later learning as well as his later learningskills. Experts agree it is very important that the firstyears of a child's life contain the elements which willpromote maximum development. Based on theevidence available, the paper proposed that the goalof day care should be that of providing appropriatekinds of experiences, materials and opportunities forexploration and interaction at appropriate times inorder to optimize and facilitate each child's develop-ment. Dr. Braga's paper contained specific recom-mendations for the components of a day careprogram necessary to achieve this goal and theserecommendations were presented later in themeeting.

Dr. Braga supported his prepared text with ad-ditional commentary on the value of child develop-ment. He stated that as a practicing psychologist hehas dealt with many adults who were not at peacewith themselves and that he felt that this kind ofproblem could be avoided through child development programs which teach children to love them-selves. He also pointed out that, if properlystimulated, by age five the child is ready to begin in-trinsic motivation for learning. However, Dr. Bragaasserted that schools today are extrinsically oriented,and studies show they emphasize the development ofthe least important kinds of thinking. Therefore, hefelt that the downward extension of the schoolsystem would not be the best approach to improvingand expanding early child development programs.

The second position paper was prepared andpresented by Mary Ann Stuart, National Coor-dinator, Task Force on Child Care of the National

26

Richard Hamilton, RecorderDept. of Children & Family Services

Organization for Women. In her paper, Miss Stuartcited one of the goals of the National Organizationfor Women as being the development of universallyavailable, publicly supported, developmental childcare. In addition to her prepared text, Miss Stuartmade available a compilation of statistics indicatingthe number of working mothers in the United States,the number of children needing day care, a projec-tion of this number for 1980, the income of workingmothers, and the estimated cost of day care. Refutingthe frequent argument that child rearing is the totalresponsibility of the mother, Miss Stuart cited thefact that women constitute 43 per cent of the presentwork force and this includes 11.6 million workingmothers, most of whom work because it is necessaryfor them to do so. For this reason as well as others,she argued that society should share in the respon-sibility for child rearing. Miss Stuart's paper suppor-ted the Comprehensive Child Care Act then beforeCongress and saw it as a means of making qualitydevelopmental child care services a reality. In herpaper, Miss Stuart cited opinions of experts in thefield to support the argument for universal develop-mental child care and to reinforce her position thatthe middle or upper income child needs qualitydevelopmental care as much as the economicallydisadvantaged child. The paper advocated thatGovernor Ogilvie be charged with the responsibilityof developing day care centers throughout the statefor all who wish to use them, and that such centersbe developed solely for the benefit of children. Itwas further stated that these centers should not beestablished within the framework of the publicschool system, that parents be given an active role intheir development and operation, and that malesassume an equal role in day care programs.

The third position paper entitled "Day Care andWelfare Dependency" was prepared and presentedby Dr. Audrey Smith of the University of Chicago. Inher paper, Dr. Smith took the position that thereduction of welfare dependency not be an objectiveof day care. Dr. Smith submitted that the use of daycare to reduce welfare dependency could lead todevelopment of day care programs of questionablequality, and that it is both morally wrong and im-practicable to deny, welfare mothers the privilege ofstaying home to rear their children. She stated thatday care must continue to be consumer oriented withthe needs of the children and their families of

primary concern. Dr. Smith cited studies which showthat the provision of day care services alone has littleimpact on welfare dependency because the majorityof unemployable AFDC mothers are in that positionfor reasons other than lack of child care. AlthoughDr. Smith felt day care was not the anwer to reduc-tion of welfare dependency, she saw a need forpublicly supported facilities for mothers who wantedto get job training and work. Dr. Smith indicatedthat there is a particular need for comprehensiveeducationally oriented child care centers designed tomeet the child care requirements of the whole familyand believed such centers would benefit the welfarefamily by replacing formal or informal andinadequate child care arrangements. She also calledfor educational counseling for mothers who chooseto work to help them plan for and maintain goodchild care arrangements.

During the discussion which followed thepresentations, several additional ideas were advan-ced by other workshop participants which served tosupplement and reinforce points made by thespeakers. It was suggested that there ought to be twooverall objectives. One should be that of improvingexisting day care facilities and the other to suggest toGovernor Ogilvie what he can do to improve daycare in Illinois. The danger of developing objectivesthat are too general was stressed and specific stepswere proposed to reach the objective of improvingexisting facilities. These included the development ofmechanisms to get existing information on earlychildhood growth and development disseminated tothose providing day care services and, where such in-formation is not available, provision for researchand development and also development of trainingprograms for day care personnel, possibly throughthe universities. With regard to specific steps Gover-nor Ogilvie should take, it was suggested that hepublicly announce day care as having higher prioritythan other programs such as highway development;that he support the Brademus-Mondale Bill; and thathe support the training programs planned by variousuniversities. Other discussion centered around thevalue of parent enrichment programs and the need ofparents and day care center staff for simple basic in-formation on child growth and development. Atten-tion was called to the special needs of migrantchildren, and it was advocated that day care formigrant children be provided in a bilingual,bicultural setting with bilingual training as a part ofstaff training. The point was made that quality daycare must be defined in terms of the children served,and the opinion was advanced that quality day careis not the same for the black child, the migrant child,and the white child. The importance of accessibilityof day care centers in terms of geographic locationand purchasing power of the users was emphasized.

The afternoon session began with the moderatorcalling for the narrowing down of the broad con-

27

a

cepts presented during the morning session in orderto develop three practical, workable objectives thatthe group could present to the general session. Thefirst major objective suggested was that the provisionfor excellent child development programs be con-sidered separate and apart from the work andtraining programs of the Public Aid Department. Asreinforcement for this position. it was pointed outthat California has 1/6 of the total day care slotsavailable in the nation and these are administeredthrough the Department of Education, apart fromthe welfare program. It was suggested that possibly itwould be better to develop a division within theDepartment of Children and Family Services to ad-minister the program in Illinois instead of throughthe public school system.

A number of divergent points were madefollowing the proposal of the first objective. First,that a well trained staff is essential to the provisionof quality day care. Another point stressed the im-portance of leaving it up to the parent to choosefrom the available day care. A plea was made for theprovision of specialized persons in day care centersto identify and deal with problems. Another pointput forth was that there should be adequate fundingof research and development. It was furtherproposed that such research and development beunlimited as to scope. It was stated that quality daycare is vital, important, and a very good investment,but that legislators and the general public do notrecognize this and, as a result, a public educationprogram is needed.

Varying suggestions were offered in regard tothe target group for day care services. One view wasthat the target group should be disadvantagedchildren such as those of the migrants. It was arguedthat currently there is insufficient services availableand Head Start experience has shown that, unlessthere is a provision for a recruitment system, thosemost needing the service will least avail themselvesof it. Others disagreed that any group should besingled out for service.

It was noted that the Comprehensive ChildDevelopment Act of 1971 encompasses just abouteverything that had been advocated in the discussion.Under the bill, day care is to be available as an alter-native and much of the money is available to reachthose least financially able to obtain such service,but there is also provision for middle incomefamilies. Going on record in support of the bill wasagain called for.

The group expressed concern for adequatefollow-up so that the recommendations of this con-ference do not meet the same fate as those of theWhite House Conference on Children. It wasproposed that the group go on record as supportinguniversal child care and also public financial sup-port for proprietary day care centers.

After considerable discussion, it was agreed thatthe first, recommendation to be presented to thegeneral session would be as follows:

Quality day care, as an option, should beprovided for all children. Quality day careshould be available to all families withoutregard to, or as a condition of, parentsreceiving public assistance and free from awork participation or training requirement.The second major recommendation agreed upon

was:

In order to insure quality day care, highpriority must be given to effective stafftraining and development, curriculumdevelopment, research, demonstration andevaluation, parent and community par-ticipation, and supportive services.

It was decided that the third major recommen-dation should call for public financial support.There was much discussion regarding from wherefunds should come to support day care and whoshould receive such funds. If there were a reorderingof administration priorities, it was, felt, more currentfunds would be available for day care. There was

also a suggestion that a portion of state and federalincome taxes be ear-marked for day care and that theusers of day care services be given a tax break. Theadvantages of giving funds to parents to purchase daycare rather than to, day care centers themselves wereconsidered and there was some speculation that thismight be less expensive. Allowing parents to pur-chase service might result in service of a betterquality and service that is more responsive to theusers. It was suggested that providing funds to cen-ters themselves perpetuates mediocrity, however, thegroup agreed to advocate as its third major objectivethat:

28

Public funds should be provided to bothpublic and private day care centers on anongoing basis in the form of loans, grants,etc. Funds should also be available toparents to purchase day care.After the major objectives were agreed upon,

concern was expressed that many ideas presentedduring the session were not included. In the interestof time, the group recommended the objectives ofday care detailed in Dr. Braga's paper with the hopethat these might provide sufficient coverage of pointsmade by many participants during the session.

Child Enrichment

Dr. Joseph L. Braga,Learning Studies Division

University of Illinois, Chicago Circle

For a number of reasons, the development of acomprehensive system of child care and childdevelopment services has become the focus ofnational interest. Day care is being looked at from avariety of standpoints as a vehicle for social andcultural reform. Vast sums of new federal fundingare forthcoming, for which a comprehensive plan forimplementation must be prepared. To meet thisneed, priorities for the objectives of day care mustfirst be examined.

Day care is seen by diverse groups as having thepotential for solving a variety of different socialproblems and needs.

Those concerned with welfare reform see daycare as a vehicle for the reduction of welfare coststhrough the relieving of welfare mothers from full-time care of their children and thus releasing themfor employment. Manpower training programs areworking in coordination with agencies creating andstaffing new day care centers to supply careerdevelopment programs in day care for some of thesecurrent welfare recipients. As a long-term goal, theyview day care as a means of breaking a three to fivegeneration cycle of poverty, through the employmentof mothers and the education of their children.

Bruner (1970) and others (e.g., Haggstrom,1964; Hess and Shipman, 1965; Bee, et. al, 1969)have discussed the impact of poverty on self-conceptleading to short-range, restricted goals and a feelingof powerlessness, and on learning patterns leading tolimited language usage and problem-solvingstrategies. To be at all effective in breaking thepoverty cycle, then, day care programs must be coor-dinated with good programs for training welfaremothers for employment in meaningful and valuedcareers which will not only improve their economicsituation, but will also provide the mechanisms forenhancement of self-concept and pride.

The hope that day care could lead to economiesin government expenditures, however, seems con-tradicted by the evidence of the experiences of theCommunist nations (Meers, 1971). Quality day careis expensive. "The Soviets believe that children are anatural resource, perhaps the most valuable resourcea society has. Although the raising of the child is en-trusted to the family, the ultimate responsibility forthe child's development belongs to the State itself"(Cole, M. and Cole, S., 1968). A parallel belief, thatchildren as our most vital natural resource must be

29

the responsibility of the community, is consistentwith the movement for quality day care. PresidentNixon, in his address at the creation of the new Of-fice of Child Development, stated his commitment tothe healthy development of young children and tothe development of programs for children from birthto six.

If this commitment is to be fulfilled, then daycare must have as its prime objective the educationand development of young children, not the cuttingof welfare costs. The Forum on DevelopmentalChild Care Services of the White House Conferenceon Children stated in the Report to the President:"The members and delegates of this forum (represen-ting private, state, local, and parent organizations,business and private industry throughout the nation),are shocked at the lack of national attention to thecritical developmental needs of children. We urgethe recognition of day care as a developmental ser-vice with tremendous potential for positively in-fluencing and strengthening the lives of children andfamilies, and we urge the eradication of day care asonly a custodial, 'baby-sitting service' " (Report tothe President, 1971). Further, delegates emphasizedday care as a means of rescuing children from the ef-fects of affluence and isolation, as well as povertyand neglect, rather than merely relieving mothers ofthe nine-to-five responsibility of child rearing.

Women's movements have been promoting daycare as a vehicle for the release of mothers from theobligation of full-time child rearing, thus permittingthem the freedom to work or to spend some of theirtime in some other way. Day care is seen as aliberating force for women which will allow them tobecome people as well as women, and reciprocally tobecome more effective in their relationships withtheir children and family. "A child socialized by onewhose human role is limited, essentially, tomotherhood may be proportionately deprived ofvaried learning experiences. In a circular fashion,the development of children has been intimately in-fluenced by the development of women" (N.O.W.,Chicago Chapter, 1971). Proponents of this positionalso add that men should share in the child caringrole, an idea which is supportable in its implemen-tation in day care, not only for its potential influenceon men, but most importantly for its positive in-fluence on children who can benefit from both maleand female models. The position of day care as ameans for the relief of mothers from the primaryresponsibility of child rearing is a valid one,especially in its reciprocal relationship with childdevelopment as the goal of day care. First, it suggestsparent enrichment as an outcome, which would, inturn, presumably improve the family relationship.Second, it adds a new, important dimension to theconsideration of the goals of day care which isshared by those supporting child development andearly childhood education as the primary goal of day

care that day care should be a service for childrenfrom all socio-economic groups.

Psychologists and educators in the fields ofchild development and early childhood educationsee day care as a service which should be orientedprimarily to promoting optimal development inchildren. Day care is viewed as a vehicle for childdevelopment through early childhood education, tosupplement, not supplant, the home environment.

Whereas it was once thought that the years of achild's life before he entered school did not involveserious learning, experts (e.g., Bloom, 1964; Birch,1969; Bruner, 1970; Hunt, 1961) agree now that thechild's early environment is critical to his growthand development. Studies in a variety of areas havesuggested that the first five years of life are the mostrapid for physical, socioemotional, language andcognitive development in the child (Hunt, 1970). Ithas been found that the early environment of the:had and the quality and kinds of stimulation hereceives during these early years influence his at-titudes toward later learning as well as his laterlearning skills (e.g., Robinson and Robinson, 1968;Schaefer and Aaronson, 1971; Palmer, 1971). Wemust recognize the significance of this to all of us. Ifwe ignore this, and unless a child's needs are met inthose early years, and met adequately andimaginatively the capacity of that child to achievethe potential that he was born with may be per-manently damaged.

Bloom (1964) writes " . . . in terms of in-telligence measured at age 17, about 50% of thedevelopment takes place between conception andage 4, about 30% between ages 4 and 8, and about20% between 8 and 17." Therefore, it is of utmostimportance that those first years of a child's life con-tain the elements which will promote the maximumdevelopment of this major proportion of thevariance in his ultimate adult intelligence.

Bruner (1970) cites numerous studies (e.g.,Douvan, 1956; Greenfield, 1969; Hess, 1969; Lottand Lott, 1963; Mussen, Urbano and Bouterline-Young, 1961) supporting "critical emotional,linguistic, and cognitive patterns associated withsocial background already present at age three." Theenvironment and kind of stimulation and interactionwith adults to which a child is exposed in his earlyyears will have a significant impact on who he willbecome and what he will be capable of in later years.

The child learns through interaction and en-counters with his environment, with objects,materials, and persons around him. Through obser-vation, manipulation of objects, interacting,modeling, etc., the child learns to stabilize his per-ceptions of the world he lives in. How much andhow well he learns and the kinds of things he learns,then, depends on what he is exposed to. Day care as

a vehicle for child development through earlychildhood education should have as its goal, then,the providing of the appropriate kinds of experien-ces, materials, and opportunities for exploration andinteraction at appropriate times in order to optimizeand facilitate each child's development.

It is generally agreed that the early years in achild's life are critical to his development and thatappropriate early childhood education programs canhave a positive influence on development (Leeper,et al, 1968; Parker, et al, 1970). There is lessagreement on what kind of educational program isappropriate. The Head Start Planned VariationStudies and numerous educational laboratories anduniversities arc involved in trying to answer thatquestion through research and demonstration cen-ters.

There is a continuing controversey concerningthe relative effectiveness of four major types of ap-proaches to early childhood education. TheTraditional Nursery School Approach, the most per-vasive of all the preschool programs, stresses thesocial and emotional development of the childthrough free play and organized group activities suchas finger play, singing songs, and reading stories.The Perceptual-Motor Approach is best illustratedin the Montessori preschool program which em-phasizes self-corrective sensory-motor activities withspecially designed materials. The CognitiveDevelopment Approach includes a variety of diversetypes of programs, differing both in goals andmethods. They share a common emphasis on thedevelopment of cognitive skills and abilities, such asunderstanding and using language, concept for-mation, association and discrimination, problem-solving, and memory. The amount of structure andteacher vis-a-vis child-directed activity varies amongprograms. Included in this category would be suchprograms as the several Piagetian-based programs,some of the less academically-oriented bilingual andbicultural programs, the DARCEE program, theseveral diagnostic-prescriptive type programs, andthe open school approach programs. The final typeof approach is the Academic Skills Approach whichteaches the preschool child the academic skills whichhe ordinarily would learn in the first years of schoolthrough a program of planned, sequenced, highly-structured activities. The best known of this ap-proach is the Bereiter-Engelmann (Engelmann-Becker) Academic Preschool. There is some overlapin categories, especially in the last two, such thatsome of the cognitive approaches which stress schoolreadiness skills are more like the academic skills ap-proach than some of the other cognitive approacheswhich stress child development. The majority ofcurrent research is related to the development andevaluation of different types of cognitive and pre-academic and academic skills approaches.

Lasser (1971) stresses that day care programs

1

cannot be homogeneous in a pluralistic society.There is no single "best" day care system; each daycare program should reflect the particular orien-tation, background, and aspiration of the communityof the children in the center. In this way we canmaximize the development of each group rather thanattempting to equalize the development of all groupsin our society.

If child development and early childhoodeducation is to be the primary goal of day care, thenthere are certain universal characteristics whichevery day care program should share: theeducational program should be developmentallybased, that is, the activities and materials which arepart of the program should reflect an up-to-date,systematic approach to child development andstimulate the motor (gross and fine), language,cognitive, socioemotional, physiological, perceptual,and neuropsychological development of the childrenin the center. Stimulus activities and approaches ap-propriate and related to the facilitation of develop-ment should be based on developmental sequencesin each of these areas. Since each child develops par-ticular skills and abilities at slightly different rates, aflexible, child-oriented program would be most ap-propriate. The scheduling of activities should, asmuch as possible, respect the children's ownbiological rhythms. There should be, especially infull-day day care centers, sufficient flexibility in theeducational program to allow for a distribution ofplanned small group teacher-directed activities andchild-directed exploration of interesting andstimulating materials. At all times, the needs and in-terests of each child as an individual should directthe type and nature of activity. There should be ahigh ratio of adults to children so that the individualaffective and intellectual needs of each child can bemet effectively. There should be mixing of agegroups. Cazden, et at (1971) suggest that learning,particularly of language, is enhanced through in-teraction of different age groups. Critical to develop-ment in all areas, the day care center should be ahappy, supportive environment in which the childrenare encouraged to develop a positive self concept.

Day care educational programs should begin atan early age. Most centers accept children from 21/2 or 3 to 5 years of age. Caldwell (1970), Keister(1970), and Robinson (1968) have demonstratedthat group infant care for children under two yearscan be a positive experience, and Caldwell reportsfindings that the forming of multiple attachments ofthe kind that exist in a nursery do not appear toweaken in any way the single attachment of the childto his mother, so important to his future ability toform meaningful relationships. In Czechoslovakia(Meers, 1971) day care homes for infant care, thealternative to group infant care, were abandoned as aworkable system because they found no solution tothe problem of child placement during illness of the

31

day care mother; they had difficulty finding good daycare mothers; and they were able to exert insufficientcontrol over the daily activities of the child. Similarproblems in this country suggest that group infantcare with adequate adult-child ratios and sensitivecaregivers might be a better alternative than infanthomes.

Bruner (1971) warns that the idea of "enrich-ment" puts the child in the position of a passive con-sumer, and that to succeed, a program must involveactivity at the community level. The involvement ofthe community in actively solving problems relatedto the day care center provides motivation to thechildren to become actively involved in problem-solving activities at the preschool level. He stressesthat in order to maximize development in the youngchild, efforts must begin at an early age and involvethe parents.

If day care is to have the impact on human liveswhich is hoped, it must involve not only provision ofday care services. It must be based in the total con-text of the child and his family's life. This meansthat, in order to be maximally effective, day caremust be coordinated with other human services, inan effort to support the program provided by the daycare center. In addition, it must exhibit theflexibility to meet the needs of children and theirparents offering options such as half-day care, full-day care, after school care, night care, and infantcare.

Day care's first priority should parallel thatdesignated by the White House Conference onChildren as their "overriding concern": theprovision of comprehensive, family-oriented, childdevelopment programs, including health services,day care, and early childhood education. Bothwithin the day care program and as ari adjunct to it,health services should include, in addition to main-terance of health within the center, medical and den-tal checkups and appropriate treatment, in-noculations, and screening for visual and auditoryacuity. Nutritional services should be provided in thecenter, so that the children receive, while there, asubstantial proportion of the necessary vitamins,minerals, proteins and other nutrients and a varietyof types of foods. In addition, some input should beprovided for parents about the kinds of foods andpreparation of them which will supply the mostnutritive food at' home. The nuttition of the child isof great importance, since recent research (e.g.,Birch, 1970; Ricciuti, 1969) has suggested arelationship between inadequate, health andnutritional deficiency and learning problems. Thedeveloping brain of the young child, as well as hisbody, needs proper nourishment in order to developas they should.

Another critical element in the provision ofcomprehensive child care services is the provision of

ti

4

33

a program, in coordination with day care services,for early recognition, screening, diagnosis, andremediation and intervention of learning disordersand problems in preschool children. There need tobe channels for referral of children identified. ashaving learning problems to the appropriate agenciesfor further diagnosis and provision of suggested in-tervention and remediation. It is crucial that learn-ing problems be identified early while the child isdeveloping basic skills which he will need later inorder to develop more complex skills. Lack of iden-tification of early learning problems will result bothin the child's not developing in certain areas as heshould, and in all his future development beingbased on disturbed early development. Interventionat an early age has been shown to alleviate oreliminate future learning problems, particularlyfunctional retardation.

In the evaluation of programs in this and othercountries (Meers, 1971), two common elements ap-peared to be critical: teacher-child ratio and trainingof day care teachers and workers. It is extremely im-portant to the quality of the educational programthat a comprehensive and adequate training programbe coordinated with the development of day care ser-vices. The training model should provide for on-site,pre-service and on-going in-service training as wellas a career development program which will enablepersonnel to receive further training, sophistication,and experience permitting them to advance thecareer leadder. There should be input about programdevelopment to each center from curriculumspecialists and educational consultants, and volun-teer manpower should be sought to supplement thestaff-child ratio.

The final element important to the provision ofquality developmental child care is the planning of aprogram for summative and formative evaluation oflearning in the children. This is absolutely necessaryin order to evaluate the effectiveness of theeducational program as well as the level of develop-ment of skills of each child. periodic intervals inorder to direct appropriate teaching strategies. Testsshould not be used to obtain scores, but rather to ob-tain learning profiles of each child's integrities anddeficits in order to plan his program. Tests should beof a test-evaluate-teach-retest nature, giving in-dication of the child's learning style rather than sim-ply of what he does or does not know or can or can-not do. A raise of some number of IQ points, oftenused in the past in program evaluation, is inadequateas a measure of the effectiveness of a program. Theevaluation of a program should be planned in coor-dination with the goals of the program, and thereforetests should be chosen which will measure what theeducational program was designed to accomplish.Goals should be stated in behavioral terms andshould be specific and relevant. Evaluation ofprogram must be coordinated with evaluation oftraining and on-going in-service training programs.

In closing, it has been suggested that the earlyyears of a child's life are very important to hisdevelopment as a human being. The environment inwhich a child develops directs his learning.

Children Learn What They Live

If a child lives with criticism, he learns to con-demn.

If a child lives with hostility, he learns to fight.If a child lives with ridicule, he learns to be shy.If a child lives with shame, he learns to feel guilty.If a child lives with tolerance, he learns to be

patient.If a child lives with encouragement, he learns con-

fidence.If a child lives with praise, he learns to appreciate.If a child lives with fairness, he learns justice.If a child lives with security, he learns to have

faith.If a child lives with approval, he learns to like

himself.If a child lives with acceptance and friendship, he

learns to find love in the world.Dorothy Law Nolte

REFER ENCES

Bee, H., et. al, Social class differences in maternal teachingstrategies and speech patterns. Developmental Psychology, 1969,1 (6), 726-734.Birch, H. and Gussow, J. Disadvantaged Children: Health,Nutrition and School Failure. N.Y.: Harcourt, Brace and World,1970.

Bloom, B. Stability and Changes In Human Characteristics. N.Y.:John Wiley and Sons, 1964.

Bruner, J. Poverty and Childhood, paper presented at Merrill-Palmer's annual meeting, June, 1970.

Bruner, J. Overview on development and day care. In Edith Grot-berg (Ed.), Day Care: Resources for Decisions, Washington, D.C.:Office of Economic Opportunity, Office of Planning, Researchand Evaluation, 1971.

Caldwell, B., et. al. Infant day-care and attachment. AmericanJournal of Orthopsychiatry, 1970, 40 (3), pp. 397-412.Caldwell, B. Effects of infant care. In Review of Child Develop-ment Research, Vol. I. N.Y.: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964.Cazden, C. et. al. Language development in day care programs. InEdith Grotberg (Ed.) Day Care: Resources for Decisions,Washington, D.C.: Office of Economic Opportunity, Office ofPlanning, Research, and Evaluation, 1971.Cole, M. and Cole, S. Russian nursery schools. Psychology Today,Oct., 1969, No. 5, pp. 22-28.Haggstrom, W. The power of the poor. In F. Riessman, J. Cohen,and A. Pearl (Eds.)Mental Health of the Poor, N.Y.: The FreePress-Macmillan, 1964.

Hess, R. and Shipman, V. Early experience and socialization ofcognitive modes in children. Child Development, 1965, 36, pp.869-886.

Hunt, J. McV. Chapter I, In Edith Grotberg (Ed.) The YoungChild in America. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, 1971.

Keister, M.E. The Good Life for Infants and Toddlers.Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education ofYoung Children, 1970.Lasser, G. The need for diversity in day care. In Edith Grotberg(Ed.) Day Care: Resources for Decisions. Washington, D.C.: Of-fice of Economic Opportunity, Office of Manning, Research, andEvaluation, 1971.Leeper, S., et. al. Good Schools for Young Children. N.Y.: Mac-millan, 1968.

Nixon, R., Press release of President Nixon's speech establishingthe Office of Child Development, April 9, 1969.

Nolte, D. Children learn what they live. In Sarah Leeper, et. al.Good Schools for Young Children. N.Y.: Macmillan, 1968.

Palmer, F. Socioeconomic status and intellective performanceamong Negro preschool boys. Developmental Psychology, 1970,3. pp. 1-9.

Parker, R., Ambron, S., Danielson, G., Halbrook, M., Levine, J.Overview of Cognitive and Language Programs for 3, 4, and S

Year Old Children. Southeastern Education Laboratory,Monograph No. 4, 1970.

Parker, R. and Knitzer, J. Background Paper on Day Care andPreschool Services: Trends in the Nineteen-Sixties and Issues forthe Nineteen-Seventies. Mimeographed paper prepared for the1970 White House Conference on Children and Youth, on behalfof the Office of Child Development, Dept. of Health, Education,and Welfare, 1970.

Report to the President. White House Conference on Children.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971.Robinson, H. and Robinson, N. The problem of timing inpreschool education. In R. Hess and R. Bear, Early Education.Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1968.

Robinson, H., Frank Porter Graham Day Care Center. In L. Ditt-mann (Ed.) Readings on Development and Child Centers. N.Y.:Atherton Press, 1968.

Ricciuti, H. Malnutrition, learning and intellectual development.Research and Remediation Invited Address. Miami: AmericanPsychological Association, Sept., 1969.

,33

C

Freeing Mothers to Work

Mary Ann StuartNational Coordinator

Task Force on Child CareNational Organisation for Women

The National Organization for Women is com-mitted to working for universally available, publiclysupported, developmental child care and we haveworked actively during our five years of existence toraise national consciousness on this issue. BecauseNOW is a recognized feminist organization, we haveheard certain arguments against a national commit-ment to comprehensive child care services with morefrequency than many of you. These redundantarguments boil down to this 'women shouldn'thave children if they're not going to stay home andtake care of them. Child-rearing is the responsibilityof the mother.

When you hear this said as often as I have notonly from our legislators but from men and womenin the audiences of community groups where I speak

you begin to acquire a very dim view of how farwe have come as advocates for developmental childcare available to all. The working woman, althoughshe now constitutes 43 percent of the work force, isstill looked upon as the exception not the rule. Theworking mother and there are now nearly 12million working mothers in the labor force is stillvery much penalized for leaving her "proper place".The penalties include low-paying jobs and a lack ofavailable adequate child care services.

Most of the working mothers in this country doin fact have to work. One out of every tenhouseholds in America is now headed by a womanwho is the sole breadwinner. But, in spite of theeconomic needs of the working mother which forceher to leave her "proper place" in the home, therewards are meager. In the 1968 study Child Careand Working Mothers published by the ChildWelfare League, Dr. Florence Ruderman reported:"Mothers' earnings typically are small (rarely even$3,000), and the relationship of occupation and in-come to earnings, powerful among men, is at-tenuated, largely because of the low level of jobsheld and because of the intermittent and part-timecharacter of most mothers' work."

Sociologist Cynthia Fuchs Epstein explains thisphenomenon in her recent book Woman's Place."Women are inexorably seen in relation to theirchild-bearing functions and child-rearing tasks. . .The attitudes connected with the child-bearing func-

tion are those most commonly evoked in thediscussion of women and work. These are often usedas rationalization and justification for the status quo.

What is, is regarded as necessary, natural and just,and the effort to seek alternative solutions is therebyundermined."

The alternative solution to this rigid concept ofwoman's place that has been most seriously under-mined in this country is that society should share inthe responsibility of child rearing. At only one timein our history have we seriously addressed ourselvesto publicly supported care for preschool children.That, of course, was during World War II whenworking women were prized in the labor force.Overnight this country found the dollars and themeans to provide child care services for 1,600,000children when their mothers worked. Withthe war over and the men back home, thesecenters disappeared with similar speed. Today, whilemore than 5 million preschool children haveworking mothers, there are day care centers andhomes for only 640,000 of them. The high relation-ship between a negative attitude toward women whowork and an unwillingness to see day care as a highpriority are exhaustively documented in Dr. Ruder-man's study.

Next week Congress will be voting on a bill toprovide "every child with a fair and full opportunityto reach his full potential by establishing and expan-ding comprehensive child development programs".If passed, we could finally begin to make qualitydevelopmental child care services a reality in thecountry. If passed, this country will have made itsfirst real commitment to accepting society's share ofthe responsibility for the rearing of all children. But,the reaction against the bill is frightening in its in-tensity. In heated debate on the House floor oneCongressman declared that such a bill "insultsmotherhood and, if passed, will destroy the home. If

. this bill is approved the. House will be going onrecord as saying that mothers do not know what isbest for their children." We are playing ostrich if wedo not face this argument honestly and deal with it.

Susan Edmiston in an article on The Psychologyof Day Care points to the underlying assumptionsurrounding much of the current interest -- "takento its logical conclusion it is saying that no motheror family, no matter how loving, well-educated oreconomically fortunate, is capable of child-rearing;even under the best conditions, the nursery school orday care center can do a better job". That is preciselythe framework in which I work as an advocate forchild care. I do not deny the special needs ofchildren who are mentally retarded, emotionally-disturbed, or pnysically handicapped. Any system ofcomprehensive developmental care must provide forthese special needs. But I do deny that theeconomically disadvantaged child needs qualitydevelopmental care more than the middle or upper-income child. Economics should only enter into thequestion of who should pay for such services andhow much. Free care should be available to the

economically-disadvantaged and sliding fees shouldthen be reasonably based on total family income. Ialso deny that the child of a working mother needsquality developmental care more than the childwhose mother spends most of her time at home. Theconditions created by a mother's absence shouldmerely indicate that developmental child care cen-ters will have to remain flexible in order to accom-modate children who must spend varied amounts oftime in the center some children as long as theworking day (or night) of the parent, some as long asthe classroom time of the parent, some for only a fewhours of the day on only a few days of the week.

The state of the research on the developmentalneeds of all children is not complete. But with whatwe know now about the importance of earlychildhood experiences we cannot deny to anychildren the opportunity to develop their full poten-tial. Everytime we set a priority based on some"special need" outside of the child whether it beeconomic or based on the assumed failure of themother to stay in her "proper place" we are sayingthat only some children not all children will receivethese benefits.

The case I am making for universally-availabledevelopthental child care is not unique to thefeminist perspective. Bruno Bettelheim says: "I feel itis too narrow to think of day care centers merely asfacilities for mothers who have to work or astherapeutic centers for underprivileged children.Day care centers can do a vital job for all mothersand all children, if they are recognized as necessary.They are necessary because they can serve needs ofchildren that no mother can meet as well, re-gardless of her status." Our society by shuttingwomen off from the mainstream of American life andby isolating them to a place in the home have createdfor those women who could afford to stay home anunrealistic burden.

Elizabeth Janewaypoints out that the suburbanlife style aspired to by many Americans is verysimilar to the situation described by Moynihan in hisreport on The Negro Family. Moynihan describedthe fatherless families of the black ghettos cut offfrom the mainstream of economic life and differentin structure from social norms. If we look at Subur-bia, Janeway suggests "we can see that middle-class"normative" families, fleeing the cities and itsthreats, have converted themselves unwittingly intothe same sort of family-with-an-absent-father thatwas reckoned as highly disruptive of social structurewhen it occurred in the slums the day-long ab-sence of the husband and father and the isolation ofchildren and mother in a purely residential arearaised the barrier between generations higherbecause the world of work became utterly invisibleand its imperatives incomprehensible."

Today there is a social stigma attached to day

care centers. It is primarily caused, as I have beenpointing out, by our cherished but misguided beliefthat mothers must assume full responsibility forchild-rearing. Based on this belief, every mother whouses a center is admitting she has somehow failed inher principal, natural role. In planning for day carewe generally accept this concept and plan for specialchildren whose mothers are failing them and us. Webegrudgingly make money available to care formisfits.

Dr. Ruderman, in viewing day care as it existstoday, raises the question "whether, by creating aracially, economically, and culturally segregated ser-vice, this orientation does not in fact cheat allchildren, even those it presumably means to serve."She suggests that such segregation may in fact inten-sify the problems of the children by further isolatingthem from normal experiences and associations withchildren from normal homes and diverse socialbackgrounds.

A further argument for universally-availablechild care services is also presented by Dr. Ruder-man:

"Not only in day care, but in social ser-vices generally, programs or facilities aimedat the socially and economically dependent,incompetent and helpless tend to become"dumping grounds" in the eyes of the com-munity ... The best assurance of quality in asocial service exists when it serves all of thecommunity . .. The best evidence that a ser-vice has achieved a generally acceptableprofessional level is that it is widely used bythe middle and upper classes and by normal,responsible families. A more aware, critical,and even demanding clientele raises thestatus of a service, attracts more competentand more highly trained personnel, and leadsto a broadening and enriching of theprogram."

As Dr. Braga has pointed out the years betweeninfancy andfive are the most critical for the totaldevelopment of the child's full potential. Werealized long ago in this country that educatingchildren was too complex a job to be handled by in-dividual families alone. We must realize today thatthe awesome responsibility for child developmentfrom infancy to five is even more complex and assuch is far beyond the ability of individuals or in-dividual families to provide.

At this conference we are being asked to givedirection to the Governor as he plans for the futureof day care in Illinois and to determine a system ofpriorities as to who will receive the benefits oflimited day care dollars. I urge that we direct theGovernor to bring Illinois into the 20th Century. Wemust discard the archaic concept of woman's placethat is keeping society from accepting a respon-sibility for children that is long overdue.

Our charge to Governor Ogilvie should be tocreate a system of child enrichment centersthroughout Illinois available to all who wish to usethem.

Such centers should be created solely for thebenefit of children. Bettelheim insists that "to dotheir job well, child care centers need to be equippedonly with things for children . . . A child feels muchbetter about himself and the world, if he spends partof the day in a planned setting that exists only forhim . . . In fact, a great deal of children's resentmenttoward school in general arises from their feelingsthat schools are not created for them. Today toomany schools exist not to educate children for theirown good, but because society needs a scientist or amathematician."

Let us create child enrichment centers forchildren that avoid the problems of the public schoolsystem. No one program is right for all children. Arigid monolithic structure that the child is forced toadapt to must be avoided.

Let us guarantee an active role for parents in thecreation and operation of the centers. Theprofessionals have as much to learn from parentsabout children as parents can learn from theprofessionals.

Let us try to give our children a chance to growup free of racial, ethnic, cultural and economic bias.Let us also avoid the dangers of sex-rolestereotyping. Child-rearing is not only not the totalresponsibility of mothers, it is not the total respon-sibility of women. Both men and children have muchto gain from daily contact with one another. We arelearning more and more about the problems createdby isolating children too long in a "feminine" en-

36

vironment. Male teachers and fathers must assumean equal role in developing the full potential ofchildren.

What I am asking for exists nowhere in thiscountry at this time. I am asking that this conferencetake a step toward the unknown. If Governor Ogilvieacts on a mandate from us and sets Illinois on thepath of providing developmental child care for allchildren, he will be a true pioneer. He will have toshift the cumbersome machinery of state governmentand the rigid thinking patterns of the state legislatorsaway from day care as a limited service for the poorand inadequate. He and they will have to begin tosee day care as one part of a new state programdesigned to bring early childhood education anddevelopmental services to all the children of Illinois.This is the mandate I urge this workshop to make.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Rudcrman, Florence A. Child Care and Working Mothers. NewYork. Child Welfare League of America. 1968.Epstein, Cynthia Fuchs. Woman's Place, Los Angeles. Universityof California Press. 1971.

Janeway, Elizabeth. Man's World, Woman's Place. Ncw York,William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1971.Senate Committee on Finance. Child Care: Data and Material.92nd Cong.. 1st scss., June 16. 1971.

0E0 Amendments of 1971. Congressional Record. September 9,1971 and September 30. 1971.Children's Bureau and Woman's Bureau. Child CareArrangements of Working Mothers in the United States,Washington. D.C., 1968.

Edmiston, Susan. "The Psychology of Day Care". Ncw York. April5, 1971, p. 40-46.

Bettelheim, Bruno. Ladies Home Journal. September 1971, p. 34-36.

Day Care andWelfare Dependency

Audrey SmithSchool of Social Service Administration

University of Chicago

We have been asked to consider whether or notan objective of day care should be to help reducewelfare dependency. My response is that such an ob-jective is neither desirable nor feasible. To approachday care from the standpoint of trying to decreasethe welfare rolls is to confuse two very separateissues. In my opinion this confusion could havedisastrous results.

The intent of the 1967 Social Security Amend-ments creating the Work Incentive Program was torequire welfare mothers to participate in worktraining programs and in the labor market. In theproposed Family Assistance Program, as set forth inH.R. 1, this requirement is even more stringent.Provisions for child care payments and services areincluded in these programs. I will not dwell upontheir compulsory features but will simply state that Ithink it is both morally wrong and impractical todeny welfare mothers the choice of working orstaying home to rear their children. Use of day careto reduce welfare dependency could lead to mass daycare programs of dubious quality that mothers wouldbe expected, if not pressured, to use simply becausethe facilities have been brought into existence. Daycare must continue to be a consumer-oriented ser-vice with the needs of the children and their familiesits primary concern.

Regardless of one's beliefs about the desirabilityof trying to reduce welfare dependency through theprovision of day care, research to date indicates thatthis is not a feasible goal. Studies of welfare motherssuggest that the provision of day care services.alonewould have but a limited impact.on welfare depen-dency. For example, recent studies estimate thatproximately half of the mothers on welfare arepotentially employable as measured by such factorsas age, level of education and recent work history.However, this proportion of employable mothers isreduced by the presence of employment barriers, thatis, conditions which could prevent the mother fromeven applying for a job. Lack of child care is onlyone of these barriers. Others include health problemsof the mother, awareness of Cie poor labor market,presence of very young children in the home, andpersonality problems of the mother such as low self-esteem and feelings of alienation. Thus, althoughchild care ranks with poor health as one of the majorreasons mothers drop out of job training and em-

ployment, research data indicate that lack ofadequate child care is only one factor involved in thecomplicated equation of the employability of welfaremothers.

A study by Leonard Hausman demonstrated thatthe employability of AFDC mothers is also influen-ced by the "welfare tax rate", which was defined asthe rate at which assistance benefits to a familydecline as its earned income increases. A 100 per-cent tax rate means that all of a mother's earningsare deducted from her welfare grant, thus allowingfor no work related expenses. Under high welfare taxrates, AFDC mothers may be better off financiallyon welfare without trying to work in the low paid,marginal job market open to them. If Hausman iscorrect, the number of welfare mothers in the laborforce could be increased by reducing the welfare taxrate and by providing supportive services such aschild care. This would probably increase the welfarerolls, as more low wage-earning mothers would beeligible for supplementary public assistance,although reduction in total payments may beachieved. The provision of child care might alonenegate this saving, however, particularly in view ofthe current estimate of over $2,000 per year perchild for quality day care.

Additional data on employable AFDC mothersare provided by a study on the Work IncentiveProgram (WIN) carried out by schools of socialwork at the University of Chicago, the University ofMichigan and Case Western Reserve University.WIN programs in Chicago, Detroit and Clevelandwere studied. WIN is a work training program spon-sored by the Department of Labor in collaborationwith the Department of Health, Education, andWelfare. Its goal is the job placement of AFDCrecipients. WIN provides educational and jobtraining programs; the welfare department providessupportive services such as child care.

The 318 AFDC mothers in our sample werepredominately black. Most had some high schooleducation. They had been on welfare for an averageof three to four years. Almost 90 percent of thesewomen had been employed at some time, 58 percentwithin the last two years. Their jobs had been thelow skilled, low paying ones typical of thoseavailable to welfare mothers nationally. Themajority of these mothers had entered WIN in orderto upgrade their skills to obtain better paying jobs. Itis too early to tell how well they will succeed sincemost of them are still in the program after eight toten months. If we can judge these mothers bynational statistics. on female WIN enrollees, only 18percent of them will get jobs after completing WIN,and they will earn an average of $2.00 per hour.Since the mothers in our sample had an average oftwo children requiring child care some had asmany as six or seven children needing care theprovision of quality day care would cost as much asthese mothers could expect to earn.

Of course, less expensive child care could beused and, in fact, was used by our sample of mothersin WIN, but perhaps with a sacrifice in quality. Vir-tually all of the teenage children took care of them-selves outside of school hours while their motherswere away. Twelve percent of the children twelveyears and younger, even some of preschool age, alsotook care of themselves. In addition, another 12 per-cent of these younger children were cared for bysiblings who, unfortunately, were sometimes also un-der thirteen years of age. Other specifiedarrangements used for these preschool and youngschool age children were cared for by the child'sfather, 5 percent; by another relative, 19 percent; bya friend, neighbor or sitter, 31 percent; and in daycare centers, nursery schools and Headstartprograms, 8 percent. Only 13 percent of all thearrangements used involved licensed caretakers orfacilities.

Providing child care, however, is no guaranteethat women will participate in work trainingprograms or in the labor market. Women participate,at some cost to themselves and their children,because they want to work. Yet problems with childcare, in the presence of other unfavorable con-ditions, may tip the balance in favor of precluding orterminating a mother's WIN or work career. Forexample, mothers in our sample who dropped out ofWIN were just as satisfied with their child carearrangements as mothers who continued in theprogram, but the dropouts were more likely to preferstaying at home with their children. A number of themothers still participating in WIN have hadarrangements break down but have found others inorder to continue their participation. It is evidentthat some of these women who prefer to work arecontent with less than what is generally consideredacceptable child care. In fact, it could be argued thatto leave young children alone to care for themselvesand each other does not constitute child care at all.Thus, it seems that a major impact that the provisionof day care services could have on the welfarepopulation would be the substitution of quality carefor some of the problematic arrangements that wouldotherwise be used.

Although day care is not the answer to reducingwelfare dependency, there is a need for publicly sup-ported facilities and services for mothers who wantto get job training and work. An incidental effect ofthis may be to help some mothers get off welfare.

Our findings indicate that a wide array of childcare services are needed for both in-home and out-of-home care. With reference to informal care,methods need to be devised to help mothers find andutilize suitable caretakers. This includes providingadequate child care payments, developing andtraining pools of caretakers, and matchmaking ser-vices to put mothers in contact with qualifiedcaretakers. Regarding formal care, more licensedfamily and group day care homes should bedeveloped. There is particular need for comprehen-sive, educationally oriented, child care centersdesigned to meet the child care requirements of thewhole family. Such centers would provide not onlyprograms for preschool age children but before-and-after school and summer programs for olderchildren. Features such as flexible and extendedhours, the provision of two or even three hot meals,the development and maintenance of a roster ofhome care aides in case of illness and emergencies,should be included if maximum utilization is to beobtained. The inconvenience inherent in the use oftraditional day care centers would diminish if theneed for multiple arrangements per child or perfamily is eliminated.

While I believe that mothers should havemaximum autonomy in deciding about the care oftheir children, including the right to stay home withthem, our study indicates the need for educationalcounseling for mothers who choose to work.Mothers need to be apprised of available child carealternatives and encouraged to consider carefullytheir plans from the standpoint of the individualchildren's needs as well as from needs of the entirefamily. After plans have been made, supportive ser-vices should be given to help mothers maintain thesearrangements. For example, payment schedulesshould be adequate to encourage high quality care.

In summary, while I do not believe that day carecan have as a realistic and morally defensible objec-tive attempting to reduce welfare rolls, day care hasthe potential of providing a valuable service forwelfare and other low income working mothers andtheir children. The probability of this potential beingrealized will be greater if day care services aregeared to meet the needs of the mothers and toprovide high quality care for the children. This,rather than attempting to reduce welfare depen-dency, should be an objective of day care.

Ct r

Long-Term Planning and CoordinationCarolyn Chapman, ModeratorIllinois 4-C Committee

Mrs. Jan Otwell, Child Welfare Chairman,League of Women Voters, opened the discussion bycommenting on the role of long-term planning andcoordination in the development of a statewide daycare program. Using the analogy of building blocks,she noted that the strength of the whole structurewill ultimately depend on the careful placement ofits components which she termed: instruction, con-struction, implementation, supplementation,beautification, simplication, legislation and coor-dination.

Thomas Villiger, Administrator, Office of Plan-ning and Community Development, Department ofChildren and.Family Services, discussed the interestof his department in developing a clearer definitionof the role they can play in long-term planning andcoordination. The task of the workshop, he con-tinued, should be to determine where the planningand coordination functions are needed and tosuggest the most effective method or approach totheir implementation.

As the discussion proceeded, it became clearthat the primary concern of the participants was theproblem of coordination. While the need for long-term planning was acknowledged, it was felt thatunless an effective degree of coordination wasachieved first little systematic planning could bedone. It was suggested that coordination of day careimplies the efficient use of resources, the reductionor elimination of duplication of effort and thecoverage of unmet needs. On a functional level thiswould require a high degree of interagencycooperation so that the resources and services ofsuch departments as Public Health, Mental Health,Public Aid and Children and Family Services couldbe utilized most efficiently.

The need for such coordination was emphasizedby reference to the current problem of developmentof adequate staff and staff training programs in childcare. Two immediate sources of potential manpowerwere suggested by participants: (1) qualified teacherswho are unemployed at the present time and (2)eligible community residents and parents. In the caseof teachers, it was noted that the newly organizedplacement bureau of the Office of the Superintendentof Public Instruction has already committed itself tothis task. They are awaiting the development oftraining programs to which they can recommend cer-tified but unplaced teachers for additional training

39.

1

William McClinton, RecorderDept. of Children & Family Services

in early childhood education. They are alsodeveloping, through their certification boards, stan-dards for these personnel, however, they requiredirection from the Department of Children andFamily Services in terms of their needs for certifiedsupport staff. It was also noted that trainingprograms for pars- professionals must be geared tothe development of responsible career positions witha future both for the benefit of the individual and theday care program.

A broader question affecting both planning andcoordination involved the difficulty of determiningboth fairly and accurately the day care needs of par-ticular communities. Can a single community coor-dinating agency reflect the wide range of needs andaspirations as seen by that community? Or is itpossible to say the needs of the children are fargreater than the differences of their parents? It waspointed out as an example that there are about110,000 ADC recipients in Cook County, not all ofwhom need or want day care, yet CCDPA has dif-ficulty finding slots in licensed day care operationsfor those that do. And of this number, two-thirdsselect private day care arrangements as opposed toagency sponsored. The traditional agency approachto child care does not appear to attract these parents

they seek more flexible or more accommodatingarrangements. It was suggested that some agency,preferably The Illinois Institute for Social Policy,should undertake a consumer report on day careneeds. Since day care is a purchased commodity, itseems essential to determine more precisely what theconsumer-parent preferences are.

It was the opinion of the participants thatresponsibility for planning and coordination of daycare services had clearly been given to the Depart-ment of Children and Family Services through HB2028 which mandates the Department to do thefollowing:

Coordinate all day care activities for children ofthe State to insure effective statewide planning,development and utilization of resources.Recommend State policy on optimum use ofprivate and public, local, state and federal daycare resources to reduce dependency and toprovide enrichment and stimulation to theeducation of young children.Stimulate development of public and private day

care resources at the local level and assure fullutilization of available funds.Involve existing non-governmental agencies orassociations in day care planning.Develop a comprehensive day care plan for theState which identifies high priority areas andgroups, relates them to available resources, andsuggests effective ways to use existing day careservices.

Evaluate development of day care services on ayearly basis and provide cost-benefit analysis ofvarious day care arrangements.In order to accomplish these tasks, it was

suggested that Children and Family Services con-sider the creation of a new Division of EarlyChildhood Education which would be directlyresponsible for the coordination and administrationof the various program elements such as staffdevelopment, curriculum development, and licen-sing standards.

Considerable interest was also expressed in the4-C concept and it was recommended that Childrenand Family Services take a more active role in itsdevelopment. The 4-C mechanism, it was felt, wouldallow for broad-based interaction and participationat all levels in addition to functioning as a coor-dinating agent.

As a result of their discussions, the group con-curred on the following specific recommendations:

1. The Department of Children and Family Ser-vices should be held responsible for carrying outits legislative mandate and for providingnecessary funds and resources to do so effec-tively. To accomplish this, a new Division ofEarly Childhood Development under DCFS isrecommended. This new division would:

A. establish aggressive communityeducation programs to broadencitizen understanding of the value ofearly childhood education and its im-portance in the detection and/orprevention of learning disabilities inchildren;

B. coordinate all child care servicesthroughout the State;

C. coordinate health and specialeducation services;

D. develop curriculum in the field ofearly childhood education in con-junction with the Office of theSuperintendent of Public Instruction;

E. administer accreditation and cer-tification;

F. provide regional consultation serviceand in-service training programs andworkshops; and

G. provide aggressive outreach into thecommunity using managementassistants to take technical assistanceto the centers.

2. A Child Advocacy Program should beestablished with the following objectives:

A. wide dissemination of long rangeplans under consideration, especiallyto day care centers and communityorganizations;

B. development of day care assembliesinvolving wide representation fromcenters, parents and involved personsto insure that they have a voice.encourage uniform standards

throughout the State through theDepartment of Children and FamilyServices who should have the powerof enforcement in those areas wherelicensing regulations or standardsseem arbitrary and capricious.

3. The promotion of the 4-C concept, i.e., jointpolicy planning which relates local level coor-dination to state level coordination.

4. Staff training should be an on-going part of longrange planning, using community residents asmuch as possible for responsible positions.

C.

1971 Day Care Reference Data

Illinois Departmentof

Children and Family Services

This material was prepared to correspond withthe statistical presentations in the Department's1970 Annual Report, Day Care for Children inIllinois.

The data on day care centers includes only thoselicensed or approved by the Department of Childrenand Family Services. The tables concerning capacitydo not include 18 pending centers for which capacitywas not yet determined. Two additional centers areoperated by the Department and have a capacity of200.

In the year from October, 1970 to October,1971, centers increased 4% in number and 8% incapacity; average capacity went from 36 to 37 anddownstate total capacity jumped 10% as against 6%for Cook County. Of the 58 new centers, 51 wereagency-operated. Day care homes increased 33% innumber and 38% in total capacity.

LICENSED OR APPROVED DAY CARE CENTERS, FISCAL YEARS1966-71

FiscalYear July 1 New Total Withdrawn June 30

1965-66 847 414 1,261 229 1,0321966-67 1,032 414 1,446 256 1,1901967-68 1,190 486 1.676 306 1,3701968-69 1,370 521 1,891 361 1,5301969-70 1,530 504 2,034 429 1,6051970-71 1,605 569 2,174 495 1,679

LICENSED OR APPROVED DAY CARE HOMES, FISCAL YEARS1966-71

FiscalYear July 1 New Total Withdrawn June 30

1965-66 1,016 655 1,671 422 1,2491966-67 1,249 747 1,996 485 1,5111967-68 1,511 762 2,273 522 1,7511968-69 1,751 923 2,674 646 2,0281969-70 2,028 1,278 3,306 798 2,5081970-71 2,508 1,421 3,929 559 3,370

DAY CARE CENTERS, COOK COUNTY AND DOWNSTATEOCTOBER, 1971

TypeCook County Downstate Total

Number Capacity Number Capacity Number CapacityOSPI-DPA 4 175 14 548 18 723Headstart

Summer 13 591 97 3,197 110 3,788Year Round 38 1,377 62 1,873 100 3,250

All Other 597 27,165 859 27,886 1,456 55,051Child Care Centers 246 12,915 336 12,247 582 25,162

Nursery Schools 260 10,385 393 11,212 653 21,597Handicapped 70 3,180 92 3,542 162 6,722Play Group 20 655 37 860 57 1,515Other 1 30 1 25 2 55TOTAL 652 29,308 1,032 33,504 1,684 62,812

DAY CARE CENTERS IN ILLINOIS, BY TYPE AND SPONSORSHIP,OCTOBER, 1971

Total State, Agency Owner

No. Cap.Avg.Cap. No. Cap.

Avg.Cap. No. Cap.

Avg.

Cap.Child Care Center 600 25,885 43.1 302 13,642 45.2 298 12,243 41.1Nursery School 617 20,325 32.9 391 13,804 35.3 226 6,521 28.9Kindergarten 36 1,272 35.3 24 905 37.7 12 367 30.6Play Group 57 1,515 26.6 34 1,031 30.3 23 484 21.0Handicapped 23 555 24.1 19 449 23.6 4 106 26.5Mentally Retarded 139 6,167 44.4 133 5,867 44.1 6 300 50.0Year Round U'start 100 3,250 32.5 100 3,250 32.5 - - -Summer Headstart 110 3,788 34.4 110 3,788 34.4 -Other 2 55 27.5 2 55 27.5TOTAL 1,684 62,812 37.3 1,115 42,791 38.4 569 20,021 35.2

41

ADC COMBINED CASELOADFISCAL YEAR 1971

FY 11FamiliesCaseload

Families Number ofPersons

Number ofChildrenCook Downstate

June '71 150,335 107,362 42,973 606,886 445,992May 144,413 102,006 42,407 590,981 435,417April 141,050 98,106 42,944 576,147 424,809March 135,415 93,212 42,203 569,453 421,235February 128,063 87,755 40,308 534,531 397,381January 123,523 85,480 38,043 506,800 378,388December '70 117,495 80,676 36,819 483,615 362,792November 110,971 77,768 33,203 459,471 346,674October 108,431 76,334 32,097 450,137 340,272September 105,145 74,353 30,792 437,951 331,811August 102,048 72,349 29,699 426,780 323,844July 98,835 70,330 28,502 415,003 315,789Percent 100.0 70.0 30.0 100.0 74.7

Caseload Children Persons ADC Case Breakdown June '71June '71 150,335 445,992 606,886 State 150,335 100%June '70 96,183 309,497 405,891 Cook 107,362 71.4%Increase 54,152 136,495 200,995 D.S. 42,973 28.6%

56.3% 44.1% 49.5%

MONTHLY AVERAGE DPA CHILD CARE CASESFISCAL YEAR 1971

Total Percent Employment Percent Education orTraining Percent

State TotalCookDownstate

10,0006,3303,670

100.0 6,925 100.063.3 4,525 65.336.7 2,400 34.7

3,0751,8051,270

100.058.741.3

Percent 100.0% 69.3% 30.7%

DPA CHILD CARE ALLOWANCESFISCAL YEAR 1971

Total Percent Employment Percent Education orTraining

Percent

State Total $8,437,975 100.0% $6,082,220 100.0% $2,355,755 100.0%Cook 5,900,512 69.9% 4,334,882 71.3% 1,565,630 66.4%Downstate 2,537,463 30.1% 1,747,338 28.7% 790,125 33.6%Percent 100.0% 72.1% 27.9%

- .T

.ST

MT

V.

NU

MB

ER

AN

D C

APA

CIT

Y O

F D

AY

CA

RE

CE

NT

ER

S, B

Y C

OU

NT

Y, I

LL

INO

IS

OC

TO

BE

R, 1

971

II

CH

ILD

CA

RE

I

NU

RSE

RY

II

HE

AD

STA

RT

HE

AD

STA

RT

CO

UN

TY

TO

TA

LPL

AY

GR

OU

P H

AN

DIC

APP

ED

OT

HE

RC

EN

TE

RS

SCH

OO

LS

(Yea

r R

ound

)(S

umm

er)

No.

Ca

.N

o..

No.

Cap

.N

o..

No.

Ca

..N

o.C

a .

No.

Cap

.N

o.C

ap.

Ada

ms

1857

75

217

820

01

20.

414

0A

lexa

nder

295

170

125

Bon

d4

673

501

17B

oone

260

135

125

Bro

wn

125

125

Bur

eau

922

52

351

306

160

Cal

houn

115

115

Car

roll

236

236

Cas

s2

312

31

Cha

mpa

ign

421,

559

1970

613

495

518

22

803

96

Chr

istia

n6

170

235

130

310

5C

lark

120

120

Cla

y2

621

171

45C

linto

n3

104

274

130

Col

es11

289

718

93

701

30

Coo

k65

229

,308

250

13,0

90 2

6010

,385

20

655

7031

8038

1377

1359

11

30C

raw

ford

275

150

125

Cum

berl

and

DeK

alb

1645

45

183

512

61

125

133

DeW

itt2

402

40

)oug

las

691

231

460

)uPa

ge92

3,09

828

1,17

550

1,54

14

100

927

21

10E

dgar

238

120

118

Edw

ards

130

130

F. f

fing

ham

510

01

251

161

202

39

7aye

tte4

802

352

457o

rd1

251

25ka

nldi

n4

843

641

207u

lton

570

460

110

Gal

latin

Gre

ene

345

345

kund

y3

952

751

20Ia

nuito

n1

301

30la

ncoc

k5

901

103

551

25la

rdin

r":"

. r -

17 1

. ".7

.:7

NU

MB

ER

AN

D C

APA

CIT

Y O

F D

AY

CA

RE

CE

NT

ER

S, B

Y C

OU

NT

Y, I

LL

INO

ISO

CT

OB

ER

, 197

1(t

.unt

inite

cii

CO

UN

TY

TO

TA

LC

HIL

D C

AR

EC

EN

TE

RS

NU

RSE

RY

SCH

OO

LS

PLA

Y G

RO

UP

HA

ND

ICA

PPE

DH

EA

DST

AR

T(Y

ear

Rou

nd)

HE

AD

STA

RT

(Sum

mer

)O

TH

ER

No.

I C

ap.

No.

I C

ap.

No.

I C

ap.

No.

I C

ap.

No.

I C

ap.

No.

I C

ap.

No.

I C

ap.

No.

I C

ap.

Hen

ders

on(

Hen

ry5

105

235

240

130

Iroq

uois

280

1i

251

55Ja

ckso

n15

543

831

24

151

110

270

Jasp

er1

231

23Je

ffer

son

613

43

802

451

9Je

rsey

413

51

301

152

90Jo

Dav

iess

475

120

125

230

John

son

575

115

460

Kan

e37

1,26

314

601

928

83

566

157

413

61

25K

anka

kee

2260

111

324

513

21

92

363

100

Ken

dall

275

275

Kno

x15

415

411

010

275

130

Lak

e68

2,61

823

.78

230

1,22

05

122

319

57

299

LaS

alle

1534

71

308

131

130

412

61

30L

awre

nce

356

226

130

Lee

921

13

803

471

92

75L

ivin

gsto

n2

552

55L

ogan

415

21

202

107

125

Mac

on22

784

1040

29

197

255

113

0M

acou

pin

820

62

581

91

94

130

Mad

ison

371,

116

1765

615

382

126

452

Mar

ion

818

55

143

112

230

Mar

shal

l1

191

19M

ason

240

115

125

Mas

sac

212

02

120

McD

onou

gh2

501

251

25M

cHen

ry22

881

838

47

237

120

140

520

0M

cLea

n21

.61

87

284

1022

52

641

151

30M

enar

d2

501

251

25M

erce

r1

251

25M

onro

e1

201

20M

ontg

omer

y6

150

115

115

412

0M

orga

n8

316

624

61

251

45M

oultr

ie

1

NU

MB

ER

AN

D C

APA

CIT

Y O

F D

AY

CA

RE

CE

NT

ER

S, B

Y C

OU

NT

Y, I

LL

INO

ISO

CT

OB

ER

, 197

1

CO

UN

TY

TO

TA

LC

HIL

D C

AR

EC

EN

TE

RS

NU

RSE

RY

SCH

OO

LS

PLA

Y G

RO

UP

No.

I C

ap.

No.

IC

ap.

No.

Cap

.N

o.I

Cap

.

Ogl

ePe

oria

Perr

yPi

att

Pike

Pope

Pula

ski

Putn

amR

ando

lph

Ric

hlan

d

Roc

k Is

land

Salin

eSa

ngam

onSc

huyl

erSc

ott

Shel

bySt

ark

St. C

lair

Step

hens

onT

azew

ell

Uni

onV

erm

ilion

Wab

ash

War

ren

Was

hing

ton

Way

neW

hite

Whi

tesi

deW

illW

illia

mso

n

Win

neba

goW

oodf

ord

GR

AN

DT

OT

AL

1338

950

1,85

02

432

309

225

213

81

202

655

78

2575

05

123

501,

644

110

696

462,

005

731

320

495

715

929

740

415

54

131

331

916

06

129

834

032

1,41

89

181

542,

443

120

1,68

462

,812

276

1657

31

28

153

236

1238

54

9722

805

110

1785

73

180

290

114

829

01

251

751

82

49

120

1248

26

89

1990

1

600

25,8

85

6 241 2 1 1 2 10 22 1

15 12 1 5 2 2 1 1 1 3 14 1

221

653

134

571

15 50 20 12 22 230

644 10

762

180 20 82 85 36 8 11 11 70 570 50 717 20

21,5

97

.

2 1 1 1 1 - - 1

57

45 _ 26 25 17 25 25 10 12

1,51

5

HA

ND

ICA

PPE

D

No.

IC

ap.

HE

AD

STA

RT

(Yea

r R

ound

)N

o.I

Cap

.

274

238

0

115

120

170

170

110

611

52

931

35

155 _ _

225

111

218

03

256

324

1

162

6,72

2

160

213

8

410

0

725

41

15

1430

3

120

115

311

01

30

003,

250

(Con

tinue

d)H

EA

DST

AR

T(S

umm

er)

OT

HE

R

No.

IC

ap.

No.

Cap

.

310

55

221

115

717

5

265

476

416

5

512

5 -1

45 - -4

754

107

270

1058

4

110

3,78

82

55

1,1

NUMBER AND CAPACITY OF DAY CARE HOMES, BY COUNTY,OCTOBER, 1970 AND OCTOBER, 1971

Oct. 1970 Oct. 1971 Oct. 1970 Oct. 1971County No. Cap. No. Cap. County No. Cap. No. Cap.

Adams 52 190 82 325 Lee 7 28 9 33Alexander 2 4 3 6 Livingston 3 11 9 27Bond 5 29 11 56 Logan 44 179 44 197Boone 18 65 21 78 Macon 110 346 146 478Brown _ _ _ Macoupin 5 23 27 95Bureau 2 8 2 7 Madison 71 247 65 249Calhoun _ _ Marion 26 116 32 138Carroll 5 22 11 46 Marshall 3 17 2 15Cass 5 19 6 21 Mason 11 44 11 42Champaign 201 600 234 684 Massac 1 3 4 14Christian 14 45 15 62 McDonough 13 32 5 26Clark 8 36 13 53 McHenry 32 126 55 237Clay 8 13 18 81 McLean 53 149 75 199Clinton 1 2 9 35 Menard 7 30 9 41Coles 70 261 73 264 Mercer 2 4 3 5Cook Monroe 1 3 1 5

Chicago City 342 1123 529 1873 Montgomery 2 2 7 32Outside 136 371 253 795 Morgan 49 158 74 229

Crawford 6 12 12 34 Moultrie 13 57 18 68Cumberland 1 5 1 1 Ogle 23 96 21 89DeKalb 23 90 41 168 Peoria 101 319 105 355DeWitt 1 6 8 31 PerryDouglas 9 32 7 25 Piatt 6 20 6 18DuPage 76 251 94 362 Pike 3 15 10 33Edgar 5 22 6 29 PopeEdwards 1 4 1 4 Pulaski 1 2Effingham 7 51 19 76 PutnamFayette 7 33 10 39 Randolph 14 61 15 74Ford 4 18 4 20 Richland 18 59 21 68Franklin 5 19 5 20 Rock Island 109 330 100 337Fulton 8 24 11 43 Saline 1 2 2 7Gallatin _ Sangamon 204 822 255 1087dreene 3 12 10 28 Schuyler 1 4Grundy 8 42 12 62 Scott 3 12 10 18Hamilton _ _ _ Shelby 8 24 14 42Hancock 1 6 4 14 StarkHardin _ _ _ St. Clair 93 273 151 455Henderson Stephenson 27 105 30 112Henry 3 8 3 11 Tazewell 29 101 30 99Iroquois 2 6 2 8 Union 7 23 12 44Jackson 32 139 75 317 Vermilion 11 34 13 39Jasper 6 24 10 42 Wabash 1 2 3 7Jefferson 5 21 7 27 Warren 4 15 5 16Jersey 2 6 3 24 Washington 1 2 6 24JoDaviess 3 14 7 28 Wayne 3 18 6 30Johnson 1 5 4 16 White 1 5 3 18Kane 79 329 95 370 Whiteside 27 84 24 66Kankakee 74 245 74 251 Will 80 360 90 400Kendall 3 14 6 20 Williamson 9 41 15 71Knox 41 142 41 143 Winnebago 92 294 104 359Lake 47 190 41 175 Woodford 7 12 10 43LaSalle 9 36 14 54Lawrence 3 9 3 13 Total 2679 9307 3569 12888

Regulation of Day CareRichard Friedman , ModeratorRegional Director, USDHEW

Karen Hapgood of the American Society ofPlanning Officials presented an overview of themodel codes for licensing of day care facilities asdeveloped by six HEW task forces in the areas oflegislation, administration, staffing and programing,standards for health and sanitation, fire safety andbuilding codes and zoning. She pointed out that theHEW proposals are still in flux with more inputbeing received and compiled. She referred con-cerned persons to these models as valuable aids.

June Foster, the Day Care Coordinator for theChampaign Region, Illinois Department of Childrenand Family Services, then presented some definitionsof "regulations" and "day care" and the variations inapplying regulations to day care facilities. Thehistorical regulation of private enterprise for thepurpose of public protection and the impact of stateand federal funding for specific purposes togetherwith national models were reviewed. The effect ofincreasing local governmental and regulatory agen-cies was discussed in relation to day care becoming asocial, political, educational and economic issue.

Arlene Pierce, Day Care Projects Coordinatorfor the Mayor's Office of Child Care Services, thenreviewed the City of Chicago Code. Ms. Pierceoutlined the processing of an application for a cityday care center license, and the planning of her of-fice to consider revisions of procedures and stan-dards following research into the possibility ofunrealistic and/or stringent existing regulations.

Following the speakers' presentations each per-son in the workshop was given the opportunity to ex-press the area of concern which had shaped hischoice of this particular workshop. The group wasvaried in background and, therefore, presented awide range of concerns. Several persons expressedconcern with the city licensing regulations, fearingthat the "red tape" inhibited the initiation of morecenters. Ms. Pierce responded that the city agencywas at present exploring the codes and it's im-plication for proposed centers.

Another important concern expressed in variedforms was the need for placing the emphasis on thegood of the child, i.e., do regulations reflect thechild's needs? Is present funding being used directlyfor child development? Two other complimentaryareas covered were parent involvement in thedeveloping of standards and the increased need forcommunications between concerned parents, agen-cies, and licensing representatives.

47

Marjorie Stolzenburg, RecorderDept. of Children & Family Services

The group then synthesized their concerns intosix major areas and offered specific recommen-dations for each.1. Red-Tape Syndrome

There is need for the coordination of theregulatory functions among the federal, stateand local agencies.A. There should be consistency in the

regulations and policies of theseagencies as they apply to day carecenters in order that there shall notbe conflicting or overlappingrequirements.

B. Codes which are outdated and ex-clusionary should be updated so thatthey do not impede the developmentof day care centers. This was in par-ticular reference to zoning andbuilding codes.

2. Development or StandardsA. There should be objectivity in their

development.B. Provision for consistency in their ap-

plication.C. Flexibility should be possible in

meeting special situations throughprovision of administrative waiversand/or exemptions to avoid pater-nalism.

D. Provisional permits at the develop-mental stage of a facility should beprovided by local authorities as wellas the state.

3. Monitoring InspectionA. The concept of state/local duality

should not be pre-emptory or ex-clusionary.

B. Resolution of the state/local dualityshould be accomplished through aworking administrative agreementbetween the governmental units.

C. Locally, one city day care agencyshould assume responsibility for themultiplicity of city departments.

D. Linkage between state/city depart-ments for inspection and monitoringshould be sought.

E. A revocation procedure should bedeveloped with a formalized con-sultation procedure established, butincluding provision for quickrevocation when necessary.

F. A better definition of accountabilityshould be agreed upon between thelicensing agencies.

4. The Mechanics or Starting a Day Care CenterA. The state and city are obligated to

take leadership.B. A clearing house for existing infor-

mation should be established with:I. Specific information on

funding, program, and staf-fing.

2. A handbook or manual,updated annually, in-cluding a check list foroperators' guidance.

C. There should be wide disseminationof the information.

5. Community ParticipationA. Prior to the development of standards

and regulations, consultation fromparents, day care center operatorsand other representatives of the com-munity should be sought.

B. During the operational stage of cen-ters, parent advisory groups shouldbe developed.

C. There should be a clear definition ofthe relationship between parents ad-visory groups and agencies.

6. Future Evaluation of Standards and Reg-ulationsA. Seel( to include those umndards of-

fering the broadest growth potential.B. Use experience, change, and new

initiatives to upgrade services.C. Institute a series of community

assemblies including parents,operators, and other communityrepresentatives.

11W11111IMIIMPP1111

rOr,,,07,141,114,;f.T.,,,,,VlsezNqirst,,,,,,M31.4",,,,,,117.1,

New Model Licensing Codes

Karen HapgoodAmerican Society of Planning Officials

I would like to present for your considerationon overview of the model codes for the licensing ofday care facilities as developed by the HEW task for-ces. As many of you are aware the Office of ChildDevelopment in concert with 0E0 has sponsoredduring the past year a series of task forces whose taskwas to create model licensing codes for day care.The development of these codes was based on astudy of current licensing practices in all 50 states,which showed rather forcefully that no two stateslicensed day care facilities in the same manner orwith the same standards.

There were six task forces: one for legislation,one for administration, another for staffing andprogram, another which dealt with standards forhealth and sanitation, one for fire safety andbuilding codes and finally a task force on zoningwhich I was privileged to chair. The basic premisefor all of the models was that "provision of aminimum floor of protection for the child in care,whether in a family day care home, a group day carehome, or a group day care center, reflecting the con-cern that no one child is worth less than another"was necessary.

The model licensing statute was not earthshaking in its provisions. The proposed statuteauthorizes the licensing of all day care facilities forone year periods by the Department of PublicWelfare or that appropriate state agency whoseprimary interest and responsibility is comprehensiveservices to children. In the development of rules andstandards for licensing of day care facilities, theDepartment is directed by the statute to consult witha variety of resources including other appropriateagencies (such as health and education); consumersof day care services, i.e., the parents and guardiansof children in day care; representatives of those whooperate day care centers; experts in the relevantprofessional fields; and finally, a citizens advisorycommittee on day care licensing. To encourage alarger degree of participation and responsibility forthe licensing process, the statute provides for thiscitizens committee on day care licensing which is tobe comprised of representatives from day carefacilities and from the professional disciplines in-volved in day care.

The task force on administration dealt with the"gut" issues and problems prevalent in current daycare licensing. You are without doubt familiar withmany of these problems: lack of accountability byone administrative agency for licensing decisions,

49

lack of coordination among agencies involved in thelicensing process, varying regulations for day carelicensing within the state the list goes on and on.Of particular concern to the task force on ad-ministration was how to effectively regulate orlicense family day care homes. Two alternative andinnovative methods for regulating family day carehomes were proposed:

I. To establish a family day care systemwhereby a number of family day care homes orsatellites operate as part of a system with the respon-sibility for meeting licensing requirements lodged ina physically nearby day care center or in another ap-propriate local agency.

2. The use of registration as a method for theregulation of family day care homes. Under thisscheme a day care home operator would certify him-self as meeting predetermined standards, and it isthen up to those who use the service or to the com-munity to indicate non-compliance with theregulations.

The task force on administration recommendedthat the licensing function occupy a defined unitwithin the state agency, that the administrative licen-sing officer be placed at the policy-making level ofthe agency, and that management responsibilities notbe diluted with other non-licensing functions. Thiswould enable the exercise of appropriate regulatoryresponsibility and ensure accountability for licen-sing.

The task force on administration echoed therecommendation of the legislative model in its sup-port of an advisory committee on day care licensingcomposed of wide representation.

It was felt that the cost of day care licensingshould be met by public funding, and that liceniingfees should nt.t be considered as a primary source offunding to underwrite these costs.

The day care licensing unit is to be responsiblefor the development and review of day care stan-dards and regulations. In this area of responsibilitythe licensing unit shall also develop fire, health, andsafety regulations in conjunction with those ap-propriate agencies but the administration of thoseregulations shall be promulgated by day care licen-sing staff.

The task force on staffing and program laboredat length to produce a model which would be bothinnovative and adoptable. The task force recognizedthat day care services could be offered in a variety ofadministrative settings an autonomous center witha single director qualified for both management andteaching, a center with shared staffing respon-sibilities or perhaps a network of centers providingcentral administrative services and training. In anyand all settings the licensing representative needs tobe able to identify who has responsibility andauthority in the day care facility for program andpersonnel.

1

The model for the program and staffing com-ponents of licensing recommends a two stage licen-sing procedure based on the premise that obser-vation of a program is necessary before a full licensecan be issued. A provisional license would be issuedto enable a day care facility to open. A second andfull license would be granted after the licensingrepresentative has observed interaction between staffand children, use of space and equipment, and actualperformance of schedule and activity plans.

Requirements have been modified or madeflexible where necessary to accommodate varyingtypes of day care services. Programs which augmentthe home and school settings for children aged 6 to15 will be different from night care or drop-inprograms.

Child-staff ratios were designed on a program-matic basis rather than on homogeneous agegroupings where possible. Several examples werecited as support for different staffing standards.Cross-age groupings of children present new patternsfor learning but the staffing should reflect the agespan of children involved and the concentration ofages rather than using the youngest child as a basisfor a staff ratio, as is now often the case.

Differing physical plants may influence the staf-fing of day care facilities. Cut-up interior space in aday care center increases the difficulty of supervisingchildren while more open kinds of space could con-ceivably permit a lower staff ratio. The houri ofoperation, non-child caring functions, presence ofhandicapped children in a program, or a highturnover of children in a facility all are factorswhich should affect standards for staffing. Themodel allows for the preparation and submission ofa staff-use plan related to program requirements andspecial child needs. Such a staff-use plan would beevaluated by the licensing representative on the basisthat reasonable provisions are made for developmen-tal needs of children under any special circumstan-ces.

The work of the health and sanitation task forcewas of great interest to me, probably because as amother I had encountered many of the health aspectsof pre-school and school programs. According to thetask force, health regulations presently impederather than promote comprehensive health care; therequirements that do exist are often anachronistic;and certain kinds of health-related aspects are eithertotally lacking or are inadequately handled.

The anachronistic aspects of health-related stan-dards for day care progiams were effectively dealtwith in the model code for health and sanitation. Forinstance, the current requirement of a physicalexamination by a physician prior to a child's entryinto day care was felt to be unnecessary. The modelrecommends that a child deemed to be in generalgood health by appearance and by word of parentshould be accepted into a day care program if theprogram includes a regular source of health con-

sultation and if the parent agrees to participate in theday care health program.

Exclusion or isolation of children who aremoderately ill is no longer necessary. Communicablediseases have spread long before the symptoms ap-pear. Epidemic diseases are now controlled withmodern immunization practices and do not requireisolation. The code recommends that the decision toaccept children with symptoms be made by the daycare operator and parents with the aid of some formof medical advice.

Physical examinations for adults on day carestaff have similar aspects as those for children excepthealth evaluation of adult staff may have protectiveimplications for children. The code provides that thelicensing agency review the state of health of alladult staff. A statement of fitness to care for childrenwould be required and a pre-employment physicalexamination for all adults who work more than half-time would be required for the protection of bothchildren and staff.

Child sized toilets and washbasins are expensiveand not like those found in homes therefore, un-necessary.

The task force on health and sanitation con-curred with the recommendation of the staffing andprogram task force in regard to age-peer groupingpatterns. It was felt that good program developmentand imagination and flexability in utilization of staffwould eliminate any problems in cross-agegroupings of preschoolers, toddlers and infants.

While not within the regulatory province ofhealth and sanitation standards the task forcestressed that space requirements should be based onsize and type of group and the locality of the facilityrather than in square footage terms. This kind ofconsideration would have implications for the men-tal health of children in care.

The task force on health and sanitation alsorecognized the need to include appropriateregulations for drop-in programs and recommendedthat this kind of facility provide for continuinghealth consultation resources.

The code recognized th. value of integratinghandicapped children into "normal" programs andprovided for their special needs by requiring ap-propriate health advice and in-service training forstaff.

In what are otherwise normal or expectedregulations on nutrition there is a proviso in thecode that cultural and ethnic foods appropriate tothe individual program and locality be included inmeal planning.

The task force on fire safety and buildingcodes utilized national standards where possibleand recommended feasible alternatives wherenational standards did not apply or where the level

-50

sa

of safety could be obtained in another less expensiveway.

Probably the most heartening aspect of this codeis the recommendation that the state licensingauthority have on its staff a specialist trained in firesafety. The function of this position would be toutilize resources of other state agencies in the ex-pediting of fire safety compliance. The responsibilityfor coordinating fire safety inspections would thusbe lodged in the state licensing agency.

The task force on zoning did not develop aspecific code or set of regulations because of thelocal nature of zoning. What the task force did dowas describe performance characteristics of day carefacilities the presumption here being that localzoning boards probably were more ignorant than in-formed about day care. Based on a description ofperformance characteristi.:4, the task force on zoningdeveloped recommended zoning criteria.

For instance, the task force made the analogythat performance characteristics of a day care centerwere similar to those of a small elementary school.

51

Zoning ordinances for the most part tend to permitschools in all zoning districts. The implication then,and the recommendation of the zoning task force, isthat day care centers should be permitted in allzones except heavy industrial or other high hazardareas. The task force recognized that if a day carefacility was in compliance with state licensingregulations then it should not be the province of thelocal zoning ordinance to impose additional stan-dards. The day care facility would simply have tocomply with the zoning regulations of the district inwhich it was located. This would require no ad-ditional zoning permit.

The HEW proposals are still in a state of fluxwith more input being received and compiled, andproducts should be ready for regional meetingssometime in the spring. Having participated in thedevelopment of these standards, I was extremelypleased with the broad range and high level of taskforce capability. I commend these models to you aspersons involved in and concerned with the protec-tion and development of children in all Illinois daycare programs.

State Regulation of Day Care

June FosterCommunity Coordinator Of Day Care Services

Champaign Region, D.CF.S.

The word regulate has four definitions inthe big dictionary I checked, and each uses the wordscontrol and adjust. By statute and administrativepolicy, regulation or licensing of day care controlsand adjusts both the establishment and operation ofday care facilities. There is provision for adjustingboth downward and upward from the control orStandard prior to and after issuance of license."Reasonable compliance" with Standards forissuance of Temporary Permit or license is a "down"adjustment. The "up" adjustment is according to fullcompliance with Standards or with recommendedStandards and consultation.

Defining day care is more difficult. Day care canhave as many definitions as there are people in thisroom. To communicate effectively during thisworkshop, we should define day care for whom andfor what purpose in each discussion.

What does day care mean to you? Custodial orquality and what are your definitions? Day carewhich supplements family life or day care which is socomprehensive it supplants family life? Day care as aprotective service that treats problems which oc-curred in the past or as a preventive service that willprevent future social ills? Day care for poor orprivileged? Day care by public or private sponsor-ship? If private sponsorship, is it proprietary or not-for-profit? Each perspective affects the inter-pretation you give to the regulation of day care.

Historically, licensing is the regulation ofprivate enterprise which serves a public purpose.State and federal funding for specific purpose iscausing changes as reflected in the formulation of theFederal Interagency Day Care Requirements and theModel statutes.

Last year at HEW's Sixth Great Lakes RegionalLicensing Workshop, "Mr. Ed" the title we gaveto Edward T. Weaver when he was our RegionalDirector in Champaign gave the keynote address.Some excerpts from his address concisely and ac-curately conceptualize my experiences of nine yearsas a licensing representative and supervisor of a daycare center licensing staff. They are:

What is the source of power, theauthority, to license, to regulate child carefacilities? Does it come from the overridingrecognition and acceptance that the"professionals" know best? Does it comefrom the legislators? Does it come from the

facilities which are to be licensed, as a meansof limiting competition?

At various periods, in most of the states,one or a combination of the above sourceshave prevailed. And that is one of thereasons licensing sometimes comes intorough waters, because the "right" andultimately the only lasting source of poweror authority is the people.

To the degree that we fail to interpret, toeducate, and to bring along the general usingpublic in support of sound laws and stan-dards, we turn over the power to vested in-terests to those who make decisions onissues other than what is the public good as itis reflected in the care of children.Those comments are representative of the

leadership that has made Illinois a leader in theregulation, or licensing, of child care facilities foryears. The Child Care Act is considered by some tobe one of the three best Statutes in the nation. Twotypes of day care facilities are defined.

Day care homes are family homes which serveno more than 8 children. They have had littlepriority with either licensing or funding agencies,but their status is increasing. They are included inthe Models, as are Group Day Care Homes, aclassification similar to one eliminated in the ChildCare Act of 1969.

Day care centers serve 9 or more children, andthe children may be grouped in various ways forvarious purposes. The purpose is important and astatement of purpose is required. (However, the onefiled with the Department and that disseminated to.he public do not always agree.) Hours of operation,purpose, and ages served are used to classify day carecenters, and the types are defined in the Child CareAct.

The number of children that can be served inboth centers and homes, the licensed capacity, isdetermined by a number of factors including but notlimited to: ages of children; number of available,qualified staff; space available indoors and out;adequate equipment and physical facilities.Regulation of program content is more difficult thanregulation of physical facilities.

The hours of operation and purpose of centersfor handicapped children, federally fundedprograms, infant and night-time centers vary accor-ding to the needs of children served, their families,and criteria for funding. Appropriate standards areapplied to each day care service. Users andproviders occasionally critically compare com-pliance with one or more specific standards, becausethe relationship of each Standard to the total serviceand current technology is not obvious. Examples in-clude screens for buildings with year round tem-perature controls and washable floor surfaces infully carpeted facilities. In program, health and

medical requirements are evaluated and may bemodified in accord with a defined plan documentedby appropriate health and medical personnel.

Illinois Standards and the Models illustratevividly that specialized knowledge from many fieldsis needed in the regulation of day care. Obviously,there must be a network of cooperative workingrelationships with a large number of publicregulatory departments in all levels of government.The alternative is for either a state or national ad-ministrative agency to promulgate comprehensivestandards which assure necessary safeguards.

Today we are engaged in a war on poverty, andhistorically, wars have stimulated the developmentof day care. Several years ago, James B. Conant,President Emeritus of Harvard, called "culture ofpoverty" social dynamite. The dynamite has ex-ploded and day care is a social, political, andeconomic issue which must be regulated for thepublic good.

Licensing is a reasonably well formulated childwelfare function with a systematic, preventive focus.Identifiable stages in the licensing process includethe Inquiry, or pre-application, stage in which theinquirer defines her purpose and program andsecures clearances for all local regulations. Thelicensing representative interprets Standards andprovides assistance and consultation. The legalprocess begins with filing of Application. Successivestages include: evaluation or study of the plan orprogram; recommendation for issuance or denial ofTemporary Permit or License; supervision to deter-mine that Standards are maintained and, if needed,consultation to achieve full compliance. Con-sultation to assist licensees "achieve programs of ex-

cellence" according to recommended standards andcurrent knowledge is a continuously available man-dated service.

We must accept the fact that the authority toregulate is a form of police power. The regulatorystaff of all involved agencies, particularly the staffwhich recommends issuance or denial of license,must be skillful and comfortable in working withauthority and policy both its application anddevelopment. They should be competent in reportinginformation that will be helpful in furtherdeveloping standards, policy and practice. Theyshould be capable of establishing good communityrelations. And last which should be first, theymust have and use effectively the authority ofknowledge knowledge of good practice and ad-vanced thinking in care for children.

As Betty Caldwell said in her article A TimidGiant Grows Bolder, "Early child care isa power-ful instrument for influencing patterns of develop-ment and the quality of life for children and adults".We must not become modern day "money changersin the temple" and short-change children andsociety.

I believe that regulation of child care is vital andwill be supported by the people. Career ladderswhich maximize training and experience for childcare workers, sliding fee scales which permit familiesto pay according to their ability, and available socialservices are being voluntarily implemented. Suchself-regulating measures and periodic review of Stan-dards by all regulatory agencies with input byproviders and users should assure acceptable anddesirable regulation of day care services.

Licensing in Chicago

Arlene PierceDay Care Projects Coordinator

Mayor's Office of Child Care Services

In David Bakan's recent book, Slaughter of theInnocents, he traces the history of every aspect ofchild abuse and infanticide from ancient times to thepresent. In this documentary exploration, he states"What's needed are large-scale social concerns andacknowledgement that social survival depends on thewell-being of children."

Certainly those of us present here this morningare well aware that it was out of America's concernsince colonial times that resulted first, in inspectionof child care institutions, and ultimately, licensingrequirements. Currently, we are aware of thenational as well as the local thrust towards achievingmore effective day care standards and licensingprocedures.

Although there is general concurrence relativeto the need of licensing for day care, there are manywho share, if I may use the term, "mixed emotions"over the standards and procedures.

In order to avoid any polemics over semantics, Iwould like to define "day care center" as it is statedin the City of Chicago Municipal Code, Chapter158, dealing with day care centers. There are twogroupings.

Day Care Center Class I - is hereby definedas any institution or place in which are receivedthree (3) or more children, not of common paren-tage, apart from their parents or guardian, betweenthe ages of 2 years and 6 years for care during partor all of a day but not later than 9:00 P.M. The termis further construed to include similar unitsoperating under any other name whatsoever with orwithout stated educational purpose.

This definition does not include "group carehome," "group day care," "foster family home,""centers for mentally retarded," licensed by theStateof Illinois, bona fide kindergartens or "day nurseryschools" established in connection with gradeschools supervised or operated by a private or publicboard of education or approved by the State Depart-ment of Public Instruction.

Day Care Center Class II is herebydefined as above but offering care for children under2 years of age. Class II shall also comply withregulations of the Board of Health pertaining to careof infants in institutions.

We are cognizant of the fact that there is a dif-ference in the definition between the City and theDepartment of Children and Family Services whoselegal document is the 1969 Amendment of the ChildCare Act.

Currently, two licenses, one from the State andone from the City, are required to operate a day carecenter in the City of Chicago. Standards for both arefor the protection of children and the assurance ofcare and services conducive to the well-being ofthose individuals. However, the area of ad-ministrative responsibility differs; the State concen-trates on programing, the City on facilities. Withinthe framework of facilities, the inspecting andmonitoring tasks, include zoning determination ofthe building and the actual physical plant.

This morning I would like to accomplish twothings. First, to review the procedures which arepresently being revised by the Mayor's Office ofChild Care Services with the License Review Com-mittee serving in an advisory capacity, and second,to relate some of the specifics which are required bythe inspection agencies who determine licensing.

When focusing on the licensing procedure herein the Windy City, I am reminded of an old songwhich contains a lyrical phrase rather appropriate inexpressing the sentiments of many licensees . . ."Bewitched, bothered and bewildered " Andrightfully so, for the dispersement of the variousmunicipal codes, the multiplicity of the standardsand their interpretation created a plague of red tapewhich was not only undesirable, but unanimouslyfelt to be unnecessary.

In order to get through this maze and eliminatea fraction of the confusion, the present task forceprocedure was implemented as a start towardsproviding a "one-stop" process for the issuance of aday care license.

Briefly the steps are as follows. Once it isestablished that an individual is actually interestedin pursuing the day care business and decides he isgoing to buy, rent, build or remodel a facility, heshould seek two immediate resources: (1) theMayor's Office for Child Care Services and (2) theDepartment of Children and Family Services.

Mayor's Office of Child Care Services

1. On initial visit to office, applicant presentsthe blueprint of desired site to City's ArchitecturalConsulant for review. If the print complies withexisting codes showing building is adequate for theprojected goals, the applicant is advised to retain theservices of a registered architect to develop apreliminary print indicating the "plot plan." Ap-plicant also receives written and oral informationregarding the municipal codes and the requirementsenforced by the monitoring or inspection team.

2. If renovation or additons are necessary, theapplicant's architect must apply for a building permitat the City Hall in the Building Department. Foursets of completed architectural constructiondrawings are required by the Building Departmentand three copies by the Fire Department. Theseplans are processed through the Plan ExaminationDepartment for signature and approval.

3. The applicant should notify the Mayor's Of-fice of Child Care Services after completion of con-struction or renovation.

4. The applicant takes a "Letter of Introduc-tion" to the City Collector's Office and submits anapplication for license.

5. The City Collector's Office forwards copiesof the application to:

Chicago Board of HealthChicago Fire DepartmentChicago Building DepartmentMayor's Office of Child Care Services

6. Inspection by task force (on-site) isarranged.

7. The three departments of the task forcereport their disposition of inspection to the CityCollector's Office.

8. The license is then issued. However, if anyone of the task force group identifies a violation, thelicense is not granted.

What are some of the concerns of the inspectionteam that result in a center not receiving a license?Well, let us review quite succinctly the areasmonitored by the teams.

Building Department.1. Occupancy. C-3 schools Type I and Type IV.2. Construction Types. This is determined ac-

cording to the character of materials employed,their method of assembly and the fire resistancewhich they afford:

Type I Highest rate of fire resistive con-struction.

Type II Non-combustible construction.Type III Exterior protected combustion.Type IV Combustible.

3. Building Construction.a) architecturalb) electricalc) ventilationd) heating plante) plumbing

Fire Department.Bureau of Fire Prevention.

a) heat detectorsb) exit lightsc) egress system

d) hours of resistancee) number and location of fire alarm

2. Bureau of Electrical Inspection.Board of Health1. Maintenance.2. Sanitation.

The applicant says the codes are obsolete or out-dated, arbitrary and unclear. They attest to non-existent codes which are being enforced. In many in-stances, centers are categorized according to classesand types without clear understanding of the im-plications. There are specific problems with codescovering fire alarms, children's equipment andnatural and mechanical ventitlation.

An area of tremendous concern has been theBoard of Health's enforcement of the three-compartment sink. Here the Board of Health ismaking the Municipal Code 130 governingrestaurants applicable to day care centers. Manyquestion this interpretation.

In conclusion, in the coordinated efforts of theMayor's Office of Child Care Services we are con-centrating our total resources in updating and im-proving the licensing regulations and process. This isbeing done by:1. providing a standard format for presentation of

requirements to applicants,2. compiling the various licensing codes into a

single document with the terminology sim-plified, yet consistent with legal translation andphrasing,

3. working towards a firmer, cohesive inter-pretation from inspectors on zoning, fire safety,health and building code requirements,

4. continuing our research efforts in the areas ofunrealistic stringency relative to day carefacilities and making recommendations for coderevisions when deemed necessary,

5. maintaining the centralized control over thelicensing process in order to minimize the timeelement involved in securing a license and tominimize the problems which could impede therapid expansion of facilities, and

6. establishing stronger liasion between the Stateand the City inspection or monitoring teams.Our town, like many others according to recent

reports and evaluation documents, will be under-taking a variety of changes in the licensing process.There are many reservations whether it will producea greater uniformity among states or within states.However, I am quite optimistic that with the resentimputs from this office, concerned agencies, andcommunity constituents, the revised comprehensivelicensing information and procedures will not enableoperators to "succeed in the day care businesswithout really trying," but will certainly help them tobe less frustrated, more informed and more efficient.

55

6-2

Costs of Day Care

Roy Snyder, ModeratorChicago Commons Association

Dr. Blanche Bernstein, Director of Researchfor Urban Social Problems of the Center for NewYork City Affairs, reviewed those issues she feltshould be discussed in a workshop on the costs ofday care including government limits on permissablebudgets, the viability of private day care, and theelements constituting "quality"day care. She thenread a summary of her paper,"Costs of Day Care,Implications for Public Policy."

Although many topics were touched upon, theworkshop discussion centered essentially on threemain areas of concern: funds available for day care,costs of "quality" day care and costs of the variouscomponents of day care. In regard to funding, thefirst question raised concerned industry's use of the50% federal subsidization for day care costs.Although the legislation exists for this purpose, therehas never been an appropriation for it, and federalfunds available for day care have been so limited thatnone have been channeled to industry. There ishowever, a tax incentive built into the legislation,and if industry expends money for day care programsit is considered part of the cost of doing business andthe government will automatically pay 52% becauseof the tax deductible.

The availability of state or federal funds to meetconstruction or remodeling costs was also discussed.It was pointed out there are almost no fundsavailable for building with the exception of limitedfunds through HUD available to public housingprojects. There are some state funds available, butonly for minor renovations. For all practical pur-poses, there are no funds available to meet capitalcosts.

There was much discussion concerning thedefinition of "quality" day care do we have suf-ficient experience and information to determine theessential elements of a reasonalble day care programand to develop a basic set of standards which reflectrealistic costs versus benefit. The problem of selec-ting a desirable staff/child ratio was considered a keyissue here. HEW guidelines as reported by Dr.Bernstein, term a ratio of I to 6.6 as minimum, I to5 as acceptable and 1 to 3.8 as desirable. It is agreed,howevei, that it would be difficult to determine thedifference in impact of a ratio of I to 6 as opposed toI to 5. Although its study offered no specific recom-mendations, the Illinois Institute for Social Policyresearched costs for day care centers with staff/childratios ranging from 1 to 5 to 1 to 25. The Welfare

Fred Edgar, RecorderDept. of Children & Family Services

Council of Metropolitan Chicago considered a ratioof 1 to 7 as desirable. It was concluded that thestaff/child ratios listed by HEW were slightly high.

The Welfare Council reported that it is doing acost analysis study and is also beginning to look atthe evaluative process as well. Eventually they hopeto match the cost with benefits, but when they referto cost they include efficiency and the measuring ofcertain intangible things. Evaluation of programsand effects of what happens to the children are verydifferent, and there we need to develop criteria forboth. The Council is presently testing 32 centers inChicago in their cost analysis and are combining notonly the cost but also the type of program and thestaff ratio. It was pointed out by the Welfare Councilthat their figures on costs of day care are two orthree times as much as Dr. Bernstein's proposedcosts. A report, which the Welfare Council sent toWashington, reflected a cost range from $1,100 perchild to $7,000 for the ten centers evaluated. Thispreliminary report forced the Welfare Council totake a closer look at the various components of eachcenter. The centers with the highest costs were thenon-profit centers which have a great deal of parentparticipation and where there are special programs.These figures did not include any building costs,onlyfunctional costs, but occupancy was included. Inother words, what the agency is paying in terms ofoccupancy (rent, etc.) is part of the cost per childbased on the hours the child is in the center, and thecost of operating the center. A "Day Care CostManual" is now being tested and revised and theCouncil is developing guidelines for use by centeroperators.

Dr. Bernstein said her figures were based on ex-penditures of 9 day care centers in New York withan average of $2,063 for all operating costs and therange was something like $1,680 to $2,950, butnone were as high as $7,000. Staff costs were foundto account for 75% to 90% of total cost. This in-cludes staff for the classroom, special resource per-.sonnel and maintenance people as well. The Councilstudy found 69% to 70% of the total cost was forstaff.

The cost of parent involvement was another sub-ject of discussion and clarification of terms wasnecessary. The involvement of parents on commit-tees, for example, is not a significant cost. However,if we include services to parents in this category, the

costs are greater. HEW desirable standards call forone social worker per 100 children enrolled, but thegroup found this an unreasonable figure if there wasto be involvement with the children and theirfamilies outside the center. It was agreed that thereshould be at least three full time social workers per100 children enrolled. This is one of the reasonswhy the not-for-profit centers have higher coststhere are no profit-making centers which could af-ford this type of involvement. Dr. Bernstein notedthat the HEW desirable standards have two clauses:one for social service professional at one per 100children and one for community social serviceparent or health aide at two per 100 children. Com-bined then, these categories would result in 3 staffper 100 children.

The comment was made that a uniform system ofaccounting is definitely needed and that this wasnecessary in order to do an adequate analysis of daycare costs. However, it was agreed that the amount ofmoney spent does not necessarily indicate quality ofa program. Two additional concerns were raised: (1)the reimbursement of Title IVA funds in terms ofstate programs now operating and (2) the amount ofmoney in local resources that a community couldraise on an in-kind basis. It was noted that duringthe past year in Chicago, the Head Start Programproduced an analysis which included governmentmoney as well as in-kind money and their total costs,including administration, were $2,197 per child.

There was much discussion involving thedevelopment of models which would outline the costof programs including the various components. Apaper prepared by the Illinois Institute for SocialPolicy on relationship of staff/child ratios to the costof day care was referred to here. Based on thepremise that personnel costs determine to a large ex-tent the overall costs of a center, the paper (which isincluded in these proceedings) presents modelbudgets for various staff/child ratios. These range

57

from a recommended desirable ratio of 1 to 5 at acost of $1,948 per child to a ratio of 1 to 25 withminimum care at $1,088 per child..

The group expressed the opinion that the effortsby various public and private agencies to developmodels which would reflect .the cost of each com-ponent that would be offered in a day care programshould be coordinated and the results disseminated.Interested agencies or groups would then be able toestimate just how much "quality" their dollars couldpurchase.

As a result of their discussions the groupdeveloped the following recommendations:1. The State should promote adequate cost accoun-

ting in day care programs and publish cost datafor various types of day care services.

2. The State should promote the development ofmodels of costs for day care showing the cost ofindividual components indicated for qualitychild development programs.

3. The State should make funds available for con-ducting cost effectiveness studies in the field ofday care.

4. The State should make funds available to meetcapital costs as opposed to only providingoperational funds.

5. Recognizing that coordination of day careprograms is not satisfactory, the State shouldgive urgent attention to the elimination ofduplicate, and therefore costly, administrativestructures so that the savings can be directed tothe expansion of day care services.

6. Recognizing the inadequacy of resources, publicand private, presently committed to child care,the State should promote the expansion ofexisting resources for child care and recognizethat government at all levels has the obligationto assure that quality child care services areavailable on a feasible basis to all who seekthem.

rt

Costs of Day Care

Blanche BernsteinDirector of ResearchUrban Social Problems

Center for New York City Affairs

My assignment at this panel is to set forth themajor issues which need to be considered in the ef-fort to come to some recommendations with respectto the costs of day care, taking account of the objec-tives of the programs. Further, we are asked to con-sider whether the government should set some limitson permissible day care budgets and whether privateday care is viable. In fulfilling my assignment, I shallbe drawing heavily on a paper of which I was co-author, which was published this past August by theCenter for New York City Affairs entitled "Costs ofDay Care: Implications for Public Policy". In settingforth the issues, I shall also, explicitly or implicitly,suggest my views partly to be provocative, partly toget my oar in.

Perhaps the first thing to point out is that wehave very little hard data on what day care costs ac-tually are. We have models for day care centers,family day care, and after school care, we haveestimates of costs issued by public or quasi-publicbodies but little information on how they arederived; and we have some information about actualday care costs and these at least in New Yorkare different from what one would expect from themodels or the estimates.

Let me try to present very briefly some of thesecost figures.

Models for day care centers and family dayprograms have been prepared by the Department ofHealth, Education and Welfare and although thecosts were developed in 1967, they are still issued bythe Department and are in general use as costguidelines. They were developed by HEW primarilyfrom its experience in the operation of full-day HeadStart programs and represent a synthesis of thenational experience. As such, they obscure localcosts differences which we know can be quitesignificant.

HEW outlined three sets of costs for group daycare centers: for a program meeting minimum, ac-ceptable, and desirable standards. There are substan-tial program differences among the three levelswhich I shall describe in a moment. The average an-nual per capita cost for each type of program is asfollows:

Minimum standard $1,245Acceptable standard $1,862Desirable standard $2,320

The comparable costs for family day care are asfollows:

Minimum standard $1,423Acceptable standard $2,032Desirable standard $2,372

Thus, it should be noted that, contrary to thepopular view, family day care is not substantiallycheaper than care of children in day care centers. Itwould appear from these figures that if the samepackage of services is provided to children, it makeslittle difference in the cost-per-child whether thechildren are in a day care center or family day care.The fact of the matter is that it is as expensive to em-ploy a mother to care for 4 children (in New Yorkcity the annual cost per child is $1100 per year), as itis to provide one professional and 3 non-professional classroom personnel for 15 children(annual cost is $1045 per child) at the desirablelevel for both day care centers and family day care.The cost for other staff personnel in the areas ofsocial service, medical and special resources aresimilar whether in a center or family day care home.There are, of course, differences in capital costs andthese should not be ignored in making decisionsabout which programs to follow.

We are able, in our study in New York, to ob-tain information from 9 day care centers which serveabout 10 percent of all children in day care centersin New York. These ranged from $1685 per childper year to $2985, with the average annual costbeing $2063. The figures at the upper end of therange were a reflection in one case of longer hours ofoperation in one center than are normal for day carecenters and in another case of the economic disad-vantages inherent in a small center. What is moresignificant, however, is that the average figure of$2063 per child was substantially below the figure of$2600 which public officials suggest is the cost ofday care in New York.

We were also able to collect some data onestimated per capita costs in industry-related daycare programs, and for this we are grateful toChicago, because it was the Urban Research Cor-poration in Chicago which sponsored a Conferenceon Industry and Day Care. The participants dealt ex-clusively with the subject of day care costs. Theystressed the fact, however that the limited cost dataavailable did not necessarily reflect the futureoperating costs of the programs. Costs per child peryear ranged from $837 in the Vanderbilt Shirt Com-pany in Ashville, North Carolina to $2390 in theAVCO Corporation in Dorchester, Massachusetts.The program run by the U.S. Department of Laborin Washington, D.C. as well as the day care centeroperated by Area Resources Improvement Councilin Benton Harbor, Michigan, were both $1912 perchild. Judged by the criteria of basic staff ratios, staffqualifications and special service, all would appearto meet at least the standards set by HEW for aminimun program, most would meet the standards

outlined for an acceptable program, and some meetthe desirable standard. Basic staff ratios including aprofessional and non-professional range from ap-proximately 1 staff to 5 children to 1 staff to 8children, and this latter program is not the least ex-pensive. Finally I would note that there are in NewYork City a large number of day care centersoperated by voluntary non-profit agencies and byproprietary groups without public subsidization.And, indeed, that these provide by far the largerproportion of the total number of places available inday care centers in the City about 25,000 out of atotal of 33,000. We do not, unfortunately, have anydata on costs of such centers. All we know is thatfees from parents cover the total cost in theproprietary day care programs and probably most ofthe cost in programs operated by voluntary non-profit organizations which do not receive public sub-sidies.

One of the major conclusions of my study oncosts of day care is that "public accountability andrational planning for the tremendous anticipated ex-pansion in day care in the near future requires a sub-stantial improvement in cost accounting proceduresto provide accurate information on total day carecosts and the components of such costs".

You have not been unaware of this problem inChicago, for the Welfare Council of MetropolitanChicago has prepared a Manual of Instructions en-titled "Day Care Cost Analysis." They state in theforeword "good fiscal information is a prerequisiteto consistent successful management and the foun-dation for sound patterns of financial support".Good cost accounting costs money and some mayfeel that it may be better to spend the money oncaring for children rather than on keeping track ofhow much it costs to care for them. I think thisgroup, however, will want to give consideration tothis question of appropriate cost accounting and inparticular to the question of how we can relate costdata to the quality of the program offered.

Now if we may return to the HEW models forthe day care centers and look a little more closely atthe components of the costs.

The smaller part of the difference in costs forthe desirable program is attributable to additionalcosts for food, transportation, medical services andwork with parents. The major part of the substantialdifferences between the minimum and either the ac-ceptable or the desirable standard stems from ad-ditional staff, particularly additional professionaland noki-professional classroom staff. Teachers andteaching assistants work with smaller classes and ahigher ratio of staff to children applies in special ser-vice areas such as social service, health, psychology,and music.

The qualitative difference between the threeprogram levels is as follows: Minimum is defined asthe level essential to maintain the health and safety

of the child, but with relatively little attention to hisdevelopmental needs. Acceptable is defined to in-clude a basic program of developmental activities aswell as providing minimum custodial care. Desirableis defined to include the full range of general andspecialized developmental activities suitable to in-dividualized development.

More specifically, if we look at staff ratios, theminimum program provides 1 professional and 2non-professional classroom staff for 20 childrenwith a classroom ratio therefore of 1 staff to 6.6children. The acceptable standard provides 1

classroom staff for 5 children, and the desirablestandard 1 classroom staff for 3.8 children. In ad-dition, special resource personnel such as social ser-vice, community, parent or health aides, psychology,music or art consultants, add respectively 1 per 60children, 1 per 25 children, or 1 per 15 children atthe minimum, acceptable and desirable standards. Ihave excluded from these calculations business andmaintenance personnel.

These data raise several issues. The first con-cerns the appropriate goals of the day care program.Most people would agree that the long-range daycare goal should be early childhood developmentprograms of the highest excellence available to allpre-school children. But the real question relates notto long-range goals but to short-term goals whatkind of program is it reasonable to aim for in thenext five years or so, given the facts of limitedresources, time constraints, and the pressing need ofthose awaiting day care services? In considering thisissue, attention must be paid to the question of staffratios and qualifications of staff. The question ofstandards is basically a question of what staff ratiosone will aim for in the classroom, since it is thesestaff ratios which have a critical impact on costs. Oneadditional person per classroom at a rate of $5200 ayear raises per-child cost in a 15-person class by$346. The qualifications of staff also have asignificant impact on costs. In New York City thereis about a $3,000 salary differential between teacheraides and fully-qualified teachers in day careprograms. Again in a 15-person class this makes adifference of $200 per year per child.

In weighing the question of whether to aim for avery high level of developmental day care as opposedto a reasonable program of early childhood caresuch as that suggested by the HEW acceptableprogram standard, it is important to note that the ex-penditure of $1,000,000 would provide for about800 children in day care centers at the HEWminimum standard, for 537 children at the ac-ceptable level, and for 431 children at the desirablelevel. In other words, $1,000,000 will provide foralmost twice as many children at the minimum com-pared to the desirable level and for 25 percent morechildren at the acceptable compared to the desirablelevel.

Gr

A second issue which I believe this panel willwish to consider may be put this way. Let us assumefor the moment that we want to aim for the ac-ceptable standard which is described by HEW "to in-clude a basic program of development activities aswell as providing minimum custodial care". Do weneed a ratio of 1 classroom personnel to 5 childrenas well as additional special resource personnelequal to 1 staff person for 25 children to achieve thisstandard? If we look at the kindergarten programs inthe public schools which serve mainly the five-yearold child, or at private day nurseries for the three tofive year old, we are likely to find staff ratios sub-stantially below the 1 classroom personnel to 5children. It may be said in response to this obser-vation that the children who attend subsidized daycare programs come from the disadvantaged groupsin society and therefore they need a more enrichedprogram than is available in the ordinary kindergar-ten or private day nursery patronized by the middleclass. I would be inclined to agree but what we needto consider is how much of a difference in staff ratiosdoes there need to be to achieve the goal of makingup for the disadvantage.

The third issue relates to the auspices for ex-panding day care programs. Most of the governmen-tal energy and resources as well as the efforts ofvoluntary agencies and community groups devotedto the expansion of day care programs has been

focused on programs under the auspices of publicand voluntary agencies or community groups. Thereare several indications that industry can play an im-portant role in the development of day careprograms. Some industrial firms have establishedgood day care programs and at a lower cost thanprevails in publicly-funded programs. The tax struc-ture already contains a built-in incentive for industryoperation of day care centers since part of the cost istax deductible as a cost of doing business. In ad-dition, federal legislation is already on the bookswhich permits government to subsidize 50 percent ofthe cost of day care programs operated by industryor labor unions, but it has not apparently been usedby the Administration as a result of the shortage offunds.

To summarize the issues then which this panelmay wish to discuss, I would list (I) public accoun-tability through a substantial improvement in costaccounting procedures; (2) the appropriate goals forthe next 5-10 years, that is full scale childhooddevelopment or reasonable child care; (3) the staffratios and the quality of staff necessary to achievethe stated goals whether they are the full scale ofdevelopmental services or reasonable child care, and(4) the use of various auspices public agencies,voluntary agencies, community groups, industry,labor unions to achieve an expansion of day careprograms.

60

65-

Relationship of Staff/ChildRatios to the Cost

Of Day Care

Illinois Institute for Social Policy

"It is the beginning of day care wisdom torealize that it is an expensive mechanism," notesGilbert Steiner in The State of Welfare. Operatorsof centers and researchers in the field have also ob-served that the expense is determined to a great ex-tent by the number of staff employed. This study,therefore, is concerned with examining the relation-ship between the number of staff and the cost ofoperating a day care center.

For the purpose of this study, certainassumptions have been made. Basically one modelbudget will be presented, which is intended to reflectonly the major operating costs of an established cen-ter. This center has an Average Daily Attendance of50 children which is a total enrollment of 57. It hasbeen reasonably well-established that due to reasonssuch as illness or vacation, 7 children can be expec-ted to be absent daily, therefore, referral to 50Average Daily Attendance will be made throughout.There is one director and one administrativeassistant per center and, depending upon thestaff /child ratio, varying number of teaching staff indifferent positions. The salary per year for eachteaching position remains constant. Also, becausethe number of children does not change, the yearlycosts of other operating categories food, health,occupancy, and equipment replacement remainconstant.

The staff positions that could be utilized in aday care center, excluding the director and ad-

TABLE 1.YEARLY COSTS FOR STAFF AND

GENERAL CATEGORIES

Non-teaching Administrative StaffDirector $10,000 per yearAdministrative Assistant $ 8,500 per year

Teaching StaffHead Teacher $ 9,000 per yearTeacher $ 8,000 per yearAssistant Teacher $ 6,000 per yearAide $ 4,000 per year

Food $1 1,302 per yearHealth $ 1,650 per yearOccupancy $13,080 per yearEquipment Replacement $ 1,500 per year

61

ministrative assistant, are those of a head teacher,teacher, assistant teacher, and aide. The number andtype of teaching staff will vary, depending upon anidentified staff/child ratio. For example, a centerwith a ratio of I to 25 would call for two teachingpositions for 50 children, whereas, a center with a Ito 5 ratio would indicate the need for filling 10positions for 50 children. The 2 positions in a I to25 ratio are filled by teachers. The 10 positions in a1 to 5 ratio are filled by I head teacher, 3 teachers, 4assistant teachers, and 2 aides.

Yearly costs for staff salaries and for othercategories have been assigned and remain constant.

TABLE 2STAFF/CHILD RATIO OF 1:5

Lreacher

LDirector I

Read Teacher I

Administrative Assistant

IkECEZIMI teat cr

Assistant Ass scant AssistantTeacher Teacher Teacher

AssistantTeaehe

EITCI Aide

2 el f 10 children each2 el f IS children each

Non-teaching Administrative StaffI Director $10,000I Administrative Assistant $ 8,500

Teaching StaffI Head Teacher $ 9,0003 Teachers $24,0004 Assistant Teachers $24,0002 Aides $ 8,000

Personnel Total $ 83,500Food $11,302Health $ 1,650Occupancy $13,080Equipment Replacement $ 1,500

$ 27,532

TOTAL YEARLY COSTS $111,032

Non-teaching position salaries are listed in Table Iand are compatible with salaries paid in the publicschool system. Table I also presents the yearly costsbudgeted for the categories of food, health, oc-cupancy, and equipment replacement.

On the basis of the figures given in Table I forstaff salaries and other constant operating costs,total yearly costs can be computed for differentstaff/child ratios. Tables 2 through 7 illustrate theposition charts and model budgets for staff /childratios of 1 to 5 through I to 25.

63

-17

TABLE 3.STAFF/CHILD RATIO 1:7

Director,

Read Teacherl

Administrative eeeee tantj

Teacher

AssistantTeacher

1 AssistantI Teacher

2 el f 10 children each2 el I IS children each

Non-teaching Administrative StaffI Director $10,0001 Administrative Assistant $ 8,500

Teaching Staff1 Head Teacher $ 9,0004 Teachers $32,0002 Assistant Teachers $12,000

Personnel Total $71,500Food $11,302Health $ 1,650Occupancy $13,080Equipment Replacement $ 1,500

$27,532

TOTAL YEARLY COSTS $99,032

Relation Or Staff /Child Ratio To CostPer Child And Cost Per Total Enrollment

Table 8 lists the yearly cost per child and theyearly cost per total enrollment for each staff/childratio. The positions of director and administrativeassistant and their costs are not included in the num-ber of staff since theirs are non-teaching positions. Itwill be noticed that with a staff/child ratio of 1 to 5,that is, I teaching staff member for every 5 children,the cost is approximately $2,000 per year for eachenrolled child. If the number of staff is cut in half bydeveloping a staff/child ratio of 1 to 10, the cost perchild enrolled is not cut in half. A staff/child ratio of1 to 10 yields a cost per child enrolled of ap-proximately $1,500. Similarly, an increase inchildren per staff member from 5 children for eachstaff to 25 children for each staff member is an in-crease of 500% in the number of children, however,this increase results in only a 50% decrease in thecost, i.e., from $2,000 to $1,000 per child.

There are several reasons why the cost of daycare does not decrease in proportion to the decreasein personnel. The first and most obvious is that thecosts per child of the other operatingcomponents -health, food, physical facilities, educationalmaterials - are the same regardless of the number ofstaff.

62

The second reason is that the professionalrequirements of the staff may change as there arefewer staff per center. For instance, a center with astaff/child ratio of 1 to 5 must have 10 persons for50 children - 1 head teacher, 3 teachers, 4 assistantteachers, and 2 aides (the non-teaching positions ofdirector and administrative assistant not being in-cluded). However, a center with a ratio of 1 to 25 isonly able to have 2 staff members, and both must beteachers. With a larger staff, teacher's assistants andaides can be utilized, thus reducing the cost.

The center which has a ratio of 1 to 20, utilizes2 teachers at $8,000 each and an assistant teacher athalf time for $3,000 per year. Doubling the numberof staff per child, that is using a ratio of 1 to 10, acenter would utilize 1 head teacher at $9,000, 2teachers at $8,000 each, and 2 assistant teachers at$6,000 each per year. Excluding the positions ofdirector and administrative assistant, the personnelcost of a day care center with a ratio of 1 to 10 is$55,500, while cutting the ratio of staff to childrento 1 to 20 reduces the cost of personnel only to$37,500. The conclusion arrived at from thisanalysis is that although the number of staff in a daycare center is the most costly element in the budget,wholesale reductions in that ratio do not necessarilyyield wholesale reductions in cost.

TABLE 4.STAFF/CHILD RATIO OF 1:10

Director

Head Teseherl

*Waist eeeee e Assistant

AssistantTeacher

AssistantTeacher

2 el f 20 children each1 class of 10 Children seek

Non-teaching Administrative Staff1 Director $10,000I Administrative Assistant $ 8,500

Teaching Staff1 Head Teacher $ 9,0002 Teachers $16,0002 Assistant Teachers $12,000

Personnel Total $55,500Food $11,302Health $ 1,650Occupancy $13,080Equipment Replacement $ 1,500

$27,532

TOTAL YEARLY COSTS $83,032

N'.0- r-

TABLE S.STAFF/CHILD RATIO OF 1:15

TABLE 6.STAFF/CHILD RATIO OF 1:20

N':

IDireetorl

1

Administrative Assistant'Administrative Assistant

Head Teacher,

ITeaeherlTeacher

Teacher1, Teacher

Assistant. Teacher(y time)

AssistantTeacher

2 classes of 23 children each

Non-teaching Administrative Staff1 Director1 Administrative Assistant

Teaching Staff1 Head Teacher2 Teachers1 Asst. Teacher (1/2 time)

Personnel TotalFoodHealthOccupancyEquipment Replacement

TOTAL YEARLY COSTS

Yearly cost For A StatewideSystem Of Day Care

$10,000$ 8,500

$ 9,000$16,000$ 3,000

$46,500$11,302$ 1,650$13,080$ 1,500

$27,532

$74,032

Thus far, the discussion has been focused on thecost of maintaining one day care center. Applyingsimilar computations, the cost of a statewide daycare system can be approximated. It has been foundby the 1970 census that there are 936,950 childrenunder the age of 5 in the State of Illinois.

Table 9 indicates the number Of day care centersthat might be established to handle a given day carepopulation.

As indicated earlier, the staff/child ratio is themost important variable in determining the cost ofan individual day care center. In determining thecost of a state-wide system, there is another impor-tant variable - the number of children that one an-ticipates serving. A complete day care system wouldserve the population under 5 years of age in the samefashion that the school systems serve the populationover 5 years of age. Universal day care, however, isnot yet the accepted norm as is universal primaryand secondary education. Accordingly, it is ap-propriate to talk about a state-wide day care systemwhich serves significantly less than the statepopulation of eligible children.

2 el. f 23 children each

Non-teaching Administrative Staff1 Director $10,0001 Administrative Assistant $ 8,500

Teaching Staff2 Teachers $16,0001 Asst. Teacher (1/2 time) $ 3,000

Personnel Total $37,500Food $11,302Health $ 1,650Occupancy $13,080Equipment Replacement $ 1,500

$27,532

TOTAL YEARLY COSTS $63,032

TABLE 7.STAFF/CHILD RATIO OF 1:25

[ Director I

!Administrative Assistanil

Teacher Teacher

2 el f 25 children each

Non-teaching Administrative Staff1 Director $10,0001 Administrative Assistant $ 8,500

Teaching Staff2 Teachers $16,000

Personnel Total $34,500Food $11,302Health $ 1,650Occupancy $13,080Equipment Replacement $ 1,500

$27,532

TOTAL YEARLY COSTS $62,032

TABLE 8.YEARLY COST PER CHILD AND

YEARLY COST PER ENROLLMENT

Staff/ChildRatio

Yearly Cost/Enrolled

Child

Yearly Cost/Total

Enrollment (57)

1: 5 $ 1 ;941 $111,0321: 7 $1,737 $ 99,0321:10 $1,457 $ 83,0321:15 $1,299 $ 74,0321:20 $1,141 $ 65,0321:25 $1,088 $ 62,032

Table 10 develops a matrix giving the cost of astate-wide day care system with varying staff/childratios in varying numbers of enrolled children.

The figures in Table 10 can be used to deter-mine the amount of money needed and the numberof children to be served. Given a specific amount ofmoney, it can be determined how many children canbe served at various staff/child ratios. Or given aspecific number of children to be served, the amountof money needed to accommodate them at variousstaff/child ratios can be determined. For example, ifthe state wished to spend approximately $40 million

TABLE 9.NUMBER OF CENTERS

PER GIVEN CHILD POPULATION

Number ofEnrolled Children

Number of DayCare Centers Needed

1,000 185,000 88

10,000 17615,000 26320,000 35125,000 43930,000 52635,000 61440,000 70245,000 79050,000 877

a year for operating day care centers it could serve:20,000 children with a staff /child ratio of 1 to 5;25,000 children with a staff/child ratio of 1 to 10;30,000 children with a staff/child ratio of 1 to 15;35,000 children with a staff/child ratio of 1 to 20;or nearly 40,000 children with a staff/child ratio of 1to 25.

There are certain intrinsic start-up costs in-volved in day care centers such as costs of licensing,renovation and training of personnel, however, their

TABLE 10.COST MATRIX

Staff:ChildRatio

Total Number of Enrolled Children

1,000 5,000 10,000

1: 51: 71:101:15

1:20

1:25

$1,999,000 $9,771,000$1,783,000 $8,715,000$1,495,000 $7,307,000$1,333,000 $6,515,000$1,171,000 $5,723,000$1,117,000 $5,459,000

$19,542,000$17,430,000$14,614,000$13,030,000$11,446,000$10,918,000

15,000 20,000 25,000

$29,201,000 $38,972,000 $48,743,000$26,045,000 $34,760,000 $43,475,000$21,837,000 $29,144,000 $36,451,000$19,470,000 $25,985,000 $32,500,000$17,103,000 $22,826,000 $28,549,000$16,314,000 $21,773,000 $27,232,000

Staff:ChildRatio

Total Number of Enrolled Children

30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,0001: 5I: 71:101:15

1:20

1:25

$58,403,000$52,091,000$43,675,000$38,941,000$34,207,000$32,629,000

$68,174,000$60,806,000$50,982,000$45,456,000$ 39,930.000$38,088,000

$77,944,000$69,520,000$58,288,000$51,970,000$45.652,000$43,546,000

$87,715,000$78,235,000$65,595,000$58,485,000$51,375,000$49,005,000

$97,375,000$86,851,000$72,819,000$64,926,000$57,033,000$54,402,000

calculation was not within the scope of this paper.Nor have we attempted to recommend whichstaff/child ratio would yield the highest quality ofchild care. All costs are dependent upon the qualityand scope of the program offered, but there is con-

siderable debate as to what constitutes the minimumor maximum standards for any type of program. Aworking definition of quality day care, therefore, isan essential first step in meaningful cost analysis.

65

67

Evaluation of Day Care PerformanceCarolyn Bergan, ModeratorWelfare Council of Metropolitan Chicago

Jacqueline Anderson and Sally Kilmer, mem-bers of the Day Care Policy Studies Group of the In-stitute for Interdisciplinary Studies, prepared a jointstatement outlining several questions regarding daycare evaluation. They emphasized the point that theevaluation of either day care programs in general orspecific day care operations must be based on a clearand realistic set of objectives. Is day care, for exam-ple, necessarily the most efficient mechanism forproviding child development services or enablingmothers to seek gainful employment. Several alter-natives or combination of approaches were notedwhich singly or in conjunction with day care mightalso offer the means for achieving the desired goals.

In their presentation to the workshop, Mss. An-derson and Kilmer pointed out that the boundary ofany evaluation is not always well defined and adiscrepancy often exists between the evaluator andthose being evaluated, i.e., generally the latter has noinput into the criteria used to evaluate him. Theysuggested that in the performance of an evaluationeither of two approaches may be used; one mayevaluate the input into a program or one may evalutethe effects of such inputs. In the case of Head Start,for example, the first approach was used, e.g., theWestinghouse Evaluation. This approach looked atthe efforts put into the operation of day careprograms and the range of services offered.

The second approach evaluates the effects orbenefits of a particular program and can be doneeither quantitatively (what number of children areserved; how many medicals are given) orqualitatively (what is the degree of the child's in-dependence; his readiness for school).

Sylvia Cotton, President of the Day Care CrisisCouncil of the Chicago Area, addressed her presen-tation to the need for parent and community inputinto the determination of the criteria for evaluation.Mrs. Cotton stressed the important role Local Ad-vocacy Councils can have in developing new systemsfor monitoring the evaluation process,for better utilization of existing sources, fOrlocating new facilities and for promoting in-servicetraining and encouraging new careers in child care.

The discussions which followed the presen-tations centered first around the question of whoshould do the evaluation as this would effect boththe purpose of the evaluation and the selection ofcriteria or measures. Local, state and federal, staff

66

Beverly Morgan, RecorderDept. of Children & Family Services

and/or program specialists, researchers and parentswere all considered as potentially involved and itwas felt that any effective evaluation tool or methodwould have to recognize and reconcile their varyinginterests and concerns. Greatest emphasis, however,was placed on parent and community involvement inall stages of the evaluation process.

The group then addressed the question of whatwere the proper goals for a day care program andwhether it was possible to develop a singleevaluation model suitable for a wide variety ofprograms and goals. After some discussion, thegroup decided it was more in favor of measuring theeffects of day care, but the parameters of those ef-fects were unclear. Several participants were of theopinion that a good day care program should effectsome change in community life and expressed thebelief that day care programs, if properly imple-mented, can improve the quality of family life,which, in turn, can improve the quality of com-munity life.

The participants then concluded that there wereaspects of a day care program which would yieldtangible results that could be measured. These in-cluded, but were not limited to:

1. Health. One could assess the comprehensivenessof a center's health program by monitoring thefrequency of illness and injury and determiningthe accessibility of parents for advice andguidance.

2. Quality of a child's day-to-day experiences. Isthe child treated with respect, warmth and firm-ness? Is he encouraged to explore, understandand analyze his environment? Does staff helpthe child to cope with his own feeling and ex-periences? Does the child's experience in theprogram give him the feeling he is loved, respec-ted and protected?

3. Satisfaction of the parents. Do the parents ex-press satisfaction with their child's experiences?Do they find the staff understanding andcongenial; is the program organization civenient or flexible? Are the parents encouragedto have impact on the program?

4. Satisfaction of the Staff. How involved do theyfeel in the operation and organization of theprogram. Are supportive services readilyavailable to staff, e.g., in-service training.

5. Level of program compliance with legislative in-tent. Is the center serving the target population;is it fully utilized?

6. Effect of the day care center in terms of com-munity satisfaction and growth.

All the above were judged to be proper goals of aday care program and were, therefore, recommendedas basic criteria for an evaluation.

There were some issues raised which were notresolved, and these included achieving objectivity inevaluation, determining accountability for programquality and achieving effective parent participation.

Based on their discussion, the group developedthe following recommendations:1. Recommend that the performance of day care

programs be evaluated relative to the oppor-tunity for optimum early childhood develop-ment regardless of whether those day careprograms do or do not reduce welfare rolls.

2. Recommend that a day care program perfor-mance evaluation team include representatives

67

of the parents and the communities served aswell as representatives of funding sources,delegate agencies boards and/or staff, and licen-sing authorities.

3. Recommend that the following criteria beamong those primary considerations included inevaluating day care preformance:

A. Health of the children.B. Quality of the child's day to day ex-

perience.C. Satisfaction of the parents.D. Satisfaction of the staff.E. Level of program compliance with

legislative intent.F. Effect of day care center on com-

munity satisfaction and growth.4. Recommend that the Department of Children

and Family Services initiate a system of deferen-tial licensing of day care programs which iden-tifies early childhood development services asdistinctly different levels of day care programs.

Some Considerations in theEvaluation of Day Care

PerformanceJaqueline Anderson and Sally Kilmer

Day Care Policy Studies GroupInstitute for Interdisciplinary Studies

The evaluation of day care performance must bebased on the objectives which it was intended toachieve. For the purposes of this discussion, theojbectives of day care are considered to be: 1) toprovide a mechanism for providing child develop-ment services; and 2) to provide a means which willenable more mothers to take gainful employment.

There are several issues in the evaluation ofeither day care programs in general or specific daycare operations. At the broader level there are twoissues. The first is whether day care is an efficientmechanism for accomplishing either child develop-ment or employment goals? There may well be otheralternatives and more efficient means to achievethese ends. A separate but still related issue iswhether day care alone can achieve the desiredgoals, or whether it must be used in conjunction withother means.

The second issue is a more detailed one anddeals with whether or not a specific day careoperation is efficient. This consideration assumesthat day care, in general, is capable of achieving thedesired goals. The specific question dealt with hereis whether or not a given day care program ormethod of providing day care is efficient.

Alternative MechanismsAt the overall level, the efficiency of day care as

a means of achieving the desired goals has not beenwidely discussed much less evaluated.

For the goal of child development, the Federalgovernment is just beginning to evaluate methods ofproviding child development services other thanthrough a day care approach. For example, work isonly beginning on programs to provide childdevelopment services to the child in his own home."Parent educatio.i" or "child development" courses

for future parents are just being initiated on a pilotbasis.

Income maintenance programs as one method ofhelping or enabling parents to provide childdevelopment services to their own children has notreally been tested in significant ways.

Finally, combinations of the above approachesmay be necessary. For example, the provision ofchild development services through a day caremechanism may not be efficient without parenteducation.

For achieving the goal of increased employmentof mothers, day care, as a mechanism standing by it-self, will be efficient only for selected individuals.Other barriers to employment such as poor health,lack of job opportunities, lack of job skills oreducation, are all equally or more important asbarriers to the employment of mothers. What is moreimportant is that these barriers must be removedbefore the lack of day care even becomes an issue.Furthermore, the efficiency of day care is dependentupon the wages the mothers can command, which isdependent upon the job opportunities and her skillsand education. Hence, without the removal of theseother barriers, day care will be an efficientmechanism in aiding the employment of mothersonly for those who have good job skills and forwhom jobs are available.

68

r7D

MeasuresFor the goal of aiding mothers to take em-

ployment, the efficiency of day care can be roughlymeasured by the percent of mothers who desire em-ployment but are prevented from doing so by thelack of child care. Currently, the percentage is about10 or 15 percent. If the large-scale provision of daycare would reduce this by half, to about 5 or 6 per-cent, such a program could be considered successful.

There are no agreed upon measures for deter-mining, in an overall sense, the efficiency of day careas a mechanism for providing child development ser-vices.

Efficiency

The economic efficiency of specific day careprograms requires a detailed analysis of its expen-ditures. Several accounting methods are beingdeveloped to provide methods for accomplishing thistask.

The Role of Parents andCommunity in Evaluation

Sylvia CottonDay Care Crisis Council of the Chicago Area

In the process of identifying useful criteria andformats for evaluation of particular day careoperations, this workshop has been asked to examinewhether, under whatever approaches it proposes, daycare in actuality promises to be all that it is hoped tobe, and more narrowly, whether it can possiblyreduce welfare costs over the long run.

I know that political pragmatists attempt tojustify their belief that more day care slots will helpreduce welfare costs on the assumption that this isthe only way our state legislature and the Congresscould be persuaded to increase substantially thecurrent appropriations for child care. It seemsreasonable that if jobs become plentiful and childcare arrangements are satisfactory, a considerablereduction in the number of families on welfarewould occur. I have been unable, however, to findany solid data that would elevate this hypothesis toanything more than a fairly safe assumption.

Since it is current policy to give virtually allpublic funds available for day care to the children ofwelfare or very low-income families, there is evenconcern being expressed that day care expenses,which include early childhood education and healthcare, appear too high and should more appropriatelybe charged to education and health costs, rather thanbe included in the state's welfare and children's ser-vices budgets.

But is the reduction of welfare dependency andcosts really the soundest basis for prompting the ex-pansion of day care services? For example, if it isdemonstrated in two years or more that there is nosubstantial reduction in the welfare caseload despitean increase in day care slots, will the state's interestin day care evaporate? Will pressure to decrease ap-propriations mount?

It bears repeating here that day care should notbe viewed as a panacea for all the problems familiesface. "Good day care cannot compensate forinadequate income, poor housing, low employmentskills, an absent father, and racial discrimination,although it may minimize some of the deprivationresulting from these problems." (Wilner, 1965.) It iscrucial that we achieve a national recognition of theimportance of quality day care geared to thedevelopmental needs of young children and that wecome to recognize its value as a vital component ofour society, essential to its future well-being.

It may be futile even to voice the hope, but if

69

this Conference accomplishes no other purpose butto lay to rest once and for all the political view ofday care mainly as a device to force mothers to takejobs, and thereby reduce the welfare rolls, we will in-deed have achieved something positive.

Dr. Bruno Bettleheim, in his popular magazinecolumn, wrote recently, "It is too narrow to think ofday care centers merely as facilities for mothers whohave to work, or as therapeutic centers for under-privileged children. Day care centers can do a vitaljob for all mothers and all children, if they arerecognized as necessary. They are necessary becausethey can serve needs of children that no mother canmeet as well, regardless of her status."

Dr. Bettleheim in that same article madeanother point that is particularly relevant to the con-sideration of this workshop on evaluation: "The realdifficulty with day care centers today is not that theyseparate mother and child but that there are so fewgood ones. We have no real model for a day carecenter, and we seem unwilling to spend the requisitethought, ingenuity and money to arrive at one. Likepublic welfare, day care centers came about initiallyfor the poor. So everyone seems to say, 'Let's do it ascheaply as we can.' There is no surer way to guaran-tee poor quality."

A report by the Joint Committee on thePreparation of Nursery and Kindergarten Teachersquoted in Preschool Breakthrough: What Works inEarly Childhood Education, makes two points of in-terest to us today:

1. "The vulnerability of young childrennecessitates quality educational programs for them.'Something' is not necessarily better than nothing."

2. "A system of evaluating competence shouldinvolve teams of capable, experienced individualsdrawn from faculties, professional organizations,state departments of education and community agen-cies."

In addition, the Committee on Infant and Pre-School Children of the American Academy ofPediatrics states, "The primary purpose of day careshould be to offer a sound basis for learning and fur-ther development of the young and to support andencourage the mother in her efforts to care for herchild. Parent involvement is essential in each daycare center if it is to have a dynamic program whichwill !meet the needs of the children it serves."

Despite such respectable support for day care,fears are being expressed in some quarters that aproliferation of day care centers and too much em-phasis on early childhood education will radicallyalter family life and undermine our present societalstructure.

The most effective rebuttal to such fears willcome from broad and active community involvementin all aspects of the day care scene. Communitieswill differ in life-styles and factors such as ethnicgroup values and family patterns which may affect

the amount of parent and community involvement,but not necessarily the degree of intensity or interest.Programs, therefore, should be evaluated and judgednot only by their impact on the child, but also byhow they affect the parents and the community as awhole. How we might measure the benefits whichcould accrue to parents or a community by their par-ticipation in a day care program or place a costfigure on this are difficult questions but they shouldbe considered.

A recommendation of the 1970 White HouseConference, also relevant to the concerns of thisworkshop, urged the establishment of an Office ofChild Advocacy, with a network of Local AdvocacyCouncils. "Local Councils shall be so structured asto maintain effective citizen control while providingfor active participation of community agencies andorganizations concerned with the child." An impor-tant function of such Local Advocacy Councilsmight be the development of a new system formonitoring and evaluating the effectiveness ofprograms, the better utilization of existing resources,the locating of new facilities, promoting in-service

70

training and encouraging new careers in child care.

In their background paper on Day Care andPre-School Services Trends in 1960's and Issuesfor the 1970's, Parker and Knitzer write: "Plans formonitoring the effectiveness of programs are under-developed . . . There has been no continuousevaluation of the impact of training efforts, orassessment of the most effective methods fordeveloping competence in child care workers . . . Ifthe focus is on high quality programs, monitoringsystems are needed to help the local staff improvetheir programs. Monitoring systems are needed toinsure that program standards continue to be met."

Whether it be through the State 4C Committee,Local Advocacy Councils, Policy Advisory Commit-tees or Parent-Community Council as broadly basedas the Day Care Crisis Council of the Chicago Area,a more adequate monitoring and ongoing evaluationprocedure must be established if this state's commit-ment to quality child care and early childhoodeducation is to adequately reflect and, more impor-tantly, command the participation of the community.

The Financial Priority of Day CareGeorge A._Ranney, Jr.

Deputy Director, Bureau of the Budget

I have been asked to speak today on day careboth as a program priority and a financial prioritywithin the Ogilvie Administration. In choosing tospeak on this topic, I have no wish to interject a noteof fiscal pessimism into a conference designed togenerate new ideas and propose fresh initiatives. Ihope that what I will say will encourage rather thandiscourage your efforts.

The financial priority and the program priorityof day care cannot be separated. In the final analysis,financial priorities, as expressed through thebudgetary process, reflect program decisions. BothGovernor Ogilvie and Director Weaver have presen-ted figures that show the large increase in fundingday care programs have received in the past threeyears. Because of the Governor's firm commitmentto day care, the Department of Children and FamilyServices has been given all the funds they haverequested for day care. This .commitment has alsobrought new sources of federal funding into Illinoisthus expanding the Model Cities and the publichousing day care programs.

The fact remains, however, that money alonedoes not guarantee the success of any program.While it is difficult to balance program prioritieswhen allocating funds, assuring that a program willactually be successful presents an even greaterchallenge. Sustained success requires planning,evaluation, organization and, above all, enthusiasm.

One of the reasons you were invited here todaywas to help us determine whether the high prioritywe have given to day care can be justified. We sawthis conference, in part, as an opportunity to reviewwhat has been done and to assess our current needs.We cannot plan effectively nor realistically without aclear understanding of where we are and where weneed to go.

This afternoon I would like to relate day care tofour major efforts taking place within this ad-ministration in order to offer you a broader perspec-tive on the elements involved in determining bothfiscal and program priorities.

Illinois is currently formulating a budget forFiscal Year 1973. Starting December 1, the Bureauof the Budget's final review will begin. Programdefinition, development and evaluation are criticalelements of any good budgetary process. In additionto providing a process for evaluating what a specificprogram has accomplished, budgeting also providesan opportunity to initiate new efforts.

71

Initiating new ideas and programs is not alwayseasy. The amount of time available for budgetingpasses quickly, and inertia within the budgetingprocess can be great. In other words, there is a greatdeal of pressure to follow the status quo and to funda program as it was funded in the past without askingtoo many questions or seeking too many changes.

With day care, however, there is every reasonfor change to occur. Daycare has been singled out asa priority program and, even though it must competewith others for funds, this commitment providesroom for change and creative initiatives.

A second major effort of the administration isresolution of the current crisis in financing publicassistance programs in Illinois. To put it bluntly, thefunding of every State program is overshadowed bythe present welfare crisis. Budgetary problems havepresented many frustrating dilemmas for State of-ficials, and we are constantly trying to place thefiscal crisis into perspective. This requires an abilityto balance program priorities even though a crisissituation exists financially.

The anticipated deficiency in public aidprograms has made us all too aware of what aspecific amount of money means in human terms. Insome respects day care and the AFDC program aremeant to accomplish the same goal that of protec-ting and securing a viable future for our children. Interms of money, a typical AFDC family of fourreceives $3,200 in cash grants a year in Illinois. Thissame amount of money would provide two slots in aday care center at $1,600 each. We should not haveto choose between these alternatives, but circumstan-ces may dictate otherwise. And, while choices do notoften become this clear, we may be confronted withthem unless the welfare crisis can be met.

Last week I was in Washington discussing theneed for additional welfare funding in Illinois withfederal officials. Again, I was struck by the encom-passing issue of financial priorities. Both the Com-prehensive Child Development Act of 1971 and1971 Amendments to the Social Security Act, orH.R. 1, would cost the federal government millionsof dollars. If you had to choose between thesemeasures, which would you fund? I only recite thisincident to underscore the difficult decisions thatmust be faced at all levels of government. Andwhatever the decisions are, they will also affect ourprogram planning and development here in Illinois.

At the state level budgetary constraints seem

even more awesome. In October, the Governor an-nounced that he anticipated a welfare deficit of $180million or $107 million in State funds. Delaying ac-tion on program changes then would only have in-tensified our problems. If savings are to be realized,they must be realized now before greater reductionsare required. Again, we were faced with making dif-ficult decisions, choosing between alternatives,making choices that ideally we should not have tomake. The decision to reduce the General Assistanceand Medicaid programs was based on the need forreform in both these programs. The decision wasalso based, however, on the Governor's expressedconcern that those poor people least able to care forthemselves be protected. Thus, he chose to givepriority to maintaining the grant levels for the aged,blind, disabled, and children.

In his speech today, the Governor made a pointof clarifying the relationship between welfare andday care programs in Illinois. I would like to refer tothis issue again because it too is related to the finan-cial priorities of the day care program. In Illinois wehave not designed or promoted day care programsfor the purpose of forcing mothers to work. Day careembodies far too many responsibilities for a state toundertake these programs with such a narrow pur-pose in mind. At the same time, however, Illinois hasplaced a great deal of emphasis on providing welfarerecipients the opportunity to work, and this includesmothers as well as fathers. We have also placed astrong emphasis on designing day care programs forthe poorest of Illinois' citizens. Again, when re-sources are limited, those who need the most helpshould be served first. Our day care programs,therefore, will continue to focus on the poor, in-cluding welfare recipients.

With such an emphasis, one might ask whetherthose who budget for day care and welfare programsexpect or require that day care reduce welfare costs.That day care is an expensive program has been wellsubstantiated. In the short run, day care increasesrather than decreases welfare costs. We look at daycare, therefore, for its potential to reduce humancosts. While human costs and benefits can never beadequately quantified, they must never be ignoredwhen formulating programs or budgets.

A more appropriate role for day care might beto serve as a means to attract more money intowelfare programs. Since both a dollar for welfareand a dollar for day care may help a child secure abetter life, the dollar for day care may be more easily

72

justified to a public that is often hostile towardwelfare spending.

Moving on to a third initiative of the OgilvieAdministration, a special task force is presently con-sidering a major reorganization of the Executivebranch of state government. There are presentlymore than 75 departments, boards and agenciesreporting directly to the Governor. Demands on theGovernor's time are too great to run such anoperation with efficiency.

The reorganization task force will consider thecreation of new departments, the consolidation ofsome programs, and the elimination of others. Manyvery basic fiscal and management questions will beconsidered. I know that some of the recommen-dations made today will relate directly to the issue ofreorganization. I think it important that, above all,we not lose our emphasis on children themselveswhen considering reorganization. If a new depart-ment is created, such as one for early childhooddevelopment, it must not become an orphan or itwill not be adequately funded. At the same time, wemust try to assure that a specific program does notbecome buried within a larger department.Reorganization raises many interesting and complexquestions and we welcome your suggestions as wedeal with them.

Finally, this day care conference marks an im-portant step in improving the overall functioning ofstate government. In the past three years, there havebeen many successful steps taken to improve themechanics of government. Through the creation ofinstitutions such as the Bureau of the Budget,technical administration has been materially im-proved and as a result state government in Illinois ismore efficient and directed. It is now time that thestate government begin a process of reaching out tothe public in order to improve its ability to relate tothe actual needs of Illinois citizens. The Governorand his staff seek guidance and understanding andthere is a great need for public forums such as thiswhere communication can occur. I am pleased thatone of our first attempts at encouraging citizen par-ticipation has been so successful.

In conclusion, I want to commend you for yourthoughtful recommendations. We will be reviewingthe record with great interest. I have been gratifiedto see the enthusiasm and interest which you haveexpressed and feel we have a commitment to carrythrough from the fine beginning that has been madehere.

Concluding SessionAt the closing session, the recommendations of

each workshop were reported to the conference as awhole. In addition, the conference participantsproposed and adopted the following resolution:

The Governor's Working Conference on DayCare:

-recommends that Illinois Senators andCongressmen be urged to support the principlesof the Brademus-Mondale Comprehensive ChildCare Bill as reported out of Joint Committee,without crippling amendments; and

-recommends that Governor Ogilvie stronglysupport the principles of the Brademus-Mondale Comprehensive Child Care Bill asreported out of Joint Committee, and so com-municate this support to President Nixon andother appropriate Federal Officials.In response to this resolution, Governor Ogilvie

sent the following message on December 1, 1971, toPresident Nixon.

"I have been informed that the House will bevoting on S 2007, the Comprehensive ChildDevelopment Act of 1971, at the end of this week.Child care has been a priority of mine and since thebeginning of my administration in 1969, 1 have beenable to increase day care funding ten-fold from lessthan $5 million to $50 million in Illinois. Last week,I sponsored a state-wide working conference on daycare at which representatives of federal, state andlocal governments met with a number of active andknowledgeable community and professional leadersin day care. The conference strongly recommendedthat the principles of S 2007 be supported by youradministration. While I am anxious that the integrityof state social service programs be protected, I agreewith the principles contained in the act and wish toadd my personal concern that this significant billreceive your thoughtful consideration."

73

List of ParticipantsMr. Robert AlbrittonLegislative AideIllinois State SenateMs. Jacqueline AndersonInstitute for Interdisciplinary StudiesMr. Terence AndersonIllinois 4-CMs. Gail ArceseIllinois Institute for Social PolicyDr. Rebecca BakerDepartment of Elementary EducationSouthern Illinois UniversityMr. John BallardExecutive DirectorWelfare Council of Metropolitan ChicagoDr. Patricia BargerExecutive DirectorLoyola University Guidance CenterMs. Thora BautzDirector, Child Development ProgramPrairie State CollegeMs. Jean BedgerWelfare Council of Metropolitan ChicagoMs. Barbara BellDay Care AdministratorChicago Housing AuthorityMs. John BerganWelfare Council of Metropolitan ChicagoMs. Mildred BermanOffice of Child DevelopmentU.S. Department of Health, Education and WelfareMs. Kathy BernardIllinois Institute for Social PolicyDr. Blanche BernsteinCenter for New York City AffairsDr. Minnie BersonIllinois State University, NormalMs. Louis BinstockCitizens Advisory CouncilCook County Department of Public AidMs. Cathy BluntAction Committee for Decent Child CareMs. Virginia BollIllinois Institute for Social PolicyMs. Joyce BollingerMayor's Office of ManpowerMr. Richard BondDirector of Child WelfareIllinois Department of Children and Family ServicesMs. Heather BoothAction Committee for Decent Child Care

74

Ms. Gerrie BowieDirector, Church Women United Day Care Center,CarbondaleMs. Barbara BowmanErikson Institute for Early EducationDr. Joseph BragaLearning Studies DivisionUniversity of Illinois, Chicago CircleMr. Joe BrownExecutive DirectorCarver Day Care Center, PeoriaMs. Judy BubenWelfare Council of Metropolitan ChicagoMs. Katherine BusseIllinois Department of Public AidMr. Reuben ButlerRyerson SteelMs. Lela CampbellFifth City Day Care Center, ChicagoMs. Carolyn ChapmanChairman, Illinois 4-CMr. Leon ChestangSchool of Social Service AdministrationUniversity of ChicagoMr. Leslie CohenDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of Illinois, ChampaignMs. Gertrude CohnCook County Department of Public AidMs. Willye ColemanIllinois Department of Children and Family ServicesMr. Lawrence CostelloIllinois Budgetary CommissionMs. Sylvia CottonPresident, Day Care Crisis Council of the Chicago

Area

Ms. Janet Da lbeyGovernor's OfficeMs. Geraldine DanthonUnity Day Care Center, ChicagoMs. Helen DavisSouth Regional Chairman, Chicago Association for

the Education of Young ChildrenMr. Robert DawkinsEvanston 5-CMs. Shirley DeanChicago Child Care SocietyMr. Michael DebowskiAdvisory CouncilIllinois Department of Children and Family Services

Ms. Mary DeJohnetteChicago Federation of Neighborhood SettlementsMr. Ronald DomagalaAdler Zone Center for Children, ChampaignMs. James EbersoleExecutive DirectorWarren Achievement School, MonmouthMr. Fred EdgarIllinois Department of Children and Family ServicesMr. Joseph EngelJane Addams School of Social WorkUniversity of IllinoisMs. Nora EnglishIllinois Department of Children and Family ServicesMs. John EvensAdvisory CouncilIllinois Department of Children and Family ServicesMs. Ellen FlaumIllinois Institute for Social PolicyMs. Thea FlaumUrban Research Corporation, ChicagoMs. June FosterIllinois Department of Children and Family ServicesMs. Jean FoxEvanston Mental Health CenterMr. Richard FriedmanRegional DirectorU.S. Department of Health, Education and WelfareMs. Max GabbertU.S. Office of EducationMs. Irene GagaoudakiIllinois Department of Children and Family ServicesMr. Alfred GannonHeadstart CoordinatorGovernor's Office of Human ResourcesMs. Marguerite GibbsExecutive DirectorChildren's Development Center, RockfordMs. Lovia GilliamMurphysboro Day Care CenterMs. Florence GoldbergNational Council of Jewish WomenMr. Stanford GoldblattChicago Youth CentersMs. Olive GreensfelderIllinois League of Women VotersMs. Carolyn HaasParents As ResourceMs. Rose HadleyChicago Housing AuthorityMs. Barbara HallC-U Day Care Center, Champaign

i.

Mr. Richard HamiltonIllinois Department of Children and Family Services

Ms. Karen HapgoodAmerican Society of Planning OfficialsMr. Andrew HargrettKankakeeland CAPMs. Janet HartleyChristopher House, ChicagoMs. Isabel HarveyIllinois Department of Children and Family ServicesMr. Robert HavercampHuman Services Manpower Career CenterMs. Carol HeidemannIllinois Department of Children and Family ServicesMs. Tony HelsteinAmalgamated Child Day Care and Health CenterMr. Herbert HermanCook County Department of Public AidMs. Kate HermanStatus of Women CommissionMr. Frank HigginsChief, Division of Adult Education and Child CareIllinois Department of Public AidMs. Mary HoefferHead StartMr. Ronald HowardCollege of DuPageMs. Mary HoughtonUrban DevelopmentHyde Park Bank and Trust Co.Ms. Marjorie HuberEvanston Day NurseryMs. Doris HunterIllinois Department of Children and Family ServicesMs. Patricia HuttingerWestern Illinois UniversityMr. William IrelandIllinois Department of Children and Family ServicesMr. Phillip JarmackOffice of Child DevelopmentU.S. Department of Health, Education and WelfareMr. Joe JenkinsExecutive DirectorChild and Family Services, ChicagoMs. Betty JohnsonBetty's Nursery and Kindergarten, ChicagoMr.. Herman JohnsonChicago Model CitiesMs. Marva JollyChicago Commons AssociationDr. Myrna KasselHuman Services Manpower Career CenterMs. Anita KatzEvanston Mental Health ServicesMs. Lillian KatzUniversity of Illinois, Urbana

Mr. Jerry KellyChicago Economic Development CorporationMs. Patty KemperMayor's Office of Child Care Services, ChicagoMr. Richard KerrMalcolm X Day Care Center, ChicagoMs. Eleanore KingIllinois Department of Children and Family ServicesMr. Joseph KingChairman, Statewide Day Care SectionIllinois Child Care AssociationMs. Jeanne KlaumberAlderman Simpson's Child Care Task ForceMr. Robert KlingbergKlingberg Schools, ChicagoMs. Mariam KlimstraIllinois Department of Children and Family ServicesMs. Roger KnutsonCoordinated Child Care Association, RockfordMs. Diane LaneU.S. Department of AgricultureMr. Lewis LeavittCoordinatorWIN Program, ChicagoMs. Ear lean LindseyChicago Commons AssociationMr. John LintonAdministrator, Bureau of Employment SecurityIllinois Department of LaborMr. David Long,East St. Louis Model CitiesRev. Donald LoweUnited Church of Rogers Park, ChicagoMs. Ginger MackChicago Welfare Rights OrganizationRev. Neal MacPhersonChurch Federation of Greater ChicagoMs. Anne MarkowitchAlderman Singer's OfficeMs. Joy MartinRock Island City Demonstration AgencyMs. Carol McCaffreyIllinois Department of Children and Family ServicesMs. Franklin McCartyChicago Youth CentersMr. William McClinton, Jr.Illinois Department of Children and Family ServicesMs. William McDonaldNational Organization for WomenMs. Judy MeltzerSocial and Rehabilitation ServicesU.S. Department of Health, Education and WelfareMs. Barbara MerrillIllinois Union of Social Service Employees

76

Ms. Doris MersdorfU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

mentDr. Roger MeyerSocial and Rehabilitation ServicesU.S. Department of Health, Education and WelfareMr. James MillerIllinois Department of Children and Family ServicesMr. John MillerIllinois Board of Higher EducationMs. Annette MooreHead StartMs. Beverly MorganIllinois Department of Children and Family ServicesMs. Vesta MorganDivision of Vocational and Technical EducationOffice of the Superintendent of Public InstructionMs. Kathleen NicholsChicago Model CitiesMs. Mary NelsonSt. Barnabas Day Care Center, ChicagoMr. Thomas NolanCatholic CharitiesMs. Jan OtwellIllinois League of Women VotersMs. Helen PaynterRoosevelt UniversityMr. Lewis PennerJuvenile Protection AssociationMr. Robert PerlmanHuman Resources Council of PeoriaMr. Julius PhelpsHead StartDr. Maria PiersDean, Erikson Institute for Early EducationMr. Albert PorgesEvanston 5-CMr. Alfred PortisExecutive DirectorChristian Action MinistryMs. Lenore PowellState Director of Title IMs. Olive PowellIllinois Department of Children and Family Services

Ms. Aurelia PucinskiOffice of the Superintendent of Public InstructionMr. George RanneyDeputy DirectorIllinois Bureau of the Budget

Mr. Robert RaverettIllinois Bell Telephone Company

Ms. Mary Frances ReedNorthern Illinois University

1 r)

Ms. Roberta RempferDe Kalb Migrant Learning CenterMr. Sam RiceChicago Housing AuthorityHarold RichmondDean, School of Social Service AdministrationUniversity of ChicagoMr. Herb RobbinsSocial Service CouncilGovernor's OfficeMs. Rachel RobbinsSocial and Rehabilitation ServicesU.S. Department of Health, Education and WelfareMr. Richard RobertsDirector, Head StartSuburban Cook CountyMr. Bennie RobinsonAdministratorLawndale Day Care Center, ChicagoMs. Mary RobinsonHead StartMr. Ted RobinsonCommunity Development DepartmentU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

mentDr. Robert RockwellSoutherr. Illinois UniversityMr. Ward RoemkeIllinois 4-CMs. Anne RothschildJewish Children's BureauMr. William SchwarzCommunity Legal CouncilMs. Christian SimonsonConsultant, Day Care ProgramsIllinois Department of Mental HealthMr. Donald SimpsonRegional CommissionerSocial and Rehabilitation ServicesU.S. Department of Health, Education and WelfareMs. Diane SlaughterUniversity of ChicagoMs. Audrey SmithSchool of Social Service AdministrationUniversity of ChicagoMs. Beth SmithIllinois Bureau of the BudgetMs. Irene SmithHyde Park Neighborhood ClubMs. Malcolm SmithPresidentChicago YMCAMr. Roy SnyderChicago Commons Association

77

Ms. Gladys SorensonVilla Park, IllinoisDr. Robert SpragueDirector, Child Research CenterUniversity of Illinois, ChampaignMr. Robert StallsDirector, Model CitiesCarbondaleMs. Carol St. AmantChicago Urban LeagueMs. Shirley StarrGovernor's Office of Human ResourcesMs. Frank StewartIllinois Commission on ChildrenMr. James StewartChicago Youth CentersMs. Marjorie StolzenburgIllinois Department of Children and Family ServicesMs. Mary Ann StuartNational Task Force on Child CareNational Organization for WomenMr. Richard SwensonOffice of Economic OpportunityMs. Joan SwiftChicago City CollegesMr. Stan SwigJewish Community CentersMs. Lee SycleOffice of the Superintendent of Public InstructionMs. Murrell SylerAdministrative Assistant to the Mayor for Child

Care Services, ChicagoMs. Mary SzczerbaAction Community Coalition on Day CareMs. Norma TalonEvanston Day Care Admission and ServicesMs. Laura TarttEarly Childhood Development CenterWoodlawn Service ProgramMr. Robert ThayerGovernor's Office of Manpower DevelopmentMr. Bruce ThomasDirector, Illinois Institute for Social PolicyMs. Debbie ThorsenIllinois Committee for Migrant ChildrenMs. Terry TiermanAlderman Simpson's Child Care Task ForceMr. William TodhuirerDepartment of Human Resources, ChicagoMr. Raul TorresIllinois Committee for Migrant ChildrenMs. Lilly TurnerEast Chicago Heights Day Care Center

Ms. Muriel TuteurAmalgamated Child Day Care and Health CenterSister Andrea VaughnDe Paul SettlementMr. Thomas VilligerIllinois Department of Children and Family ServicesMr. Darrell VorwallerAttorneyMs. Bertha WashingtonThe Wood lawn OrganizationMr. Edward WeaverActing DirectorIllinois Department of Children and Family Services

Ms. Bernice WeissbourdEvanston Child Care Center

Ms. Irene WernerLutheran Welfare Services of Illinois

Mr. Carlton WilliamsChicago Housing Authority

Ms. Vivian WilsonIllinois Department of Children and Family Services

Ms. Ellen WollenbergerNorthshore Child Care Center, Evanston