E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Courtesy of Clarissa Doutherd
Clarissa Doutherd, shown with son Xavier, has had to quit her full-time job but so far has avoided public assistance.
Clarissa Doutherd, 30, was able to lift herself out of poverty and climb the ladder of success at a nonprofit, rising from part-time bookkeeping assistant to staff accountant. But last year the high cost of child care derailed her ambitions.
Doutherd, who lives in Oakland, Calif., with her 4-year old son Xavier, had been able to cover the nearly $1,000 monthly child care bill thanks to a state subsidy that helps lower-income working parents. The support disappeared after budget cutbacks last year.
“In June, I had to quit my full-time job,” after her salary was insufficient to cover her child care costs, she said. “I was on the brink of being able to pay the full cost, just another raise away from being completely self-sufficient.”
At a time when women’s issues have become a political football in the national arena, many states have been chipping away at funds aimed at supporting working mothers and families, even as federal subsidies are drying up and the cost of child care is climbing.
The average cost of child care increased nearly 2 percent for centers and family-run child care homes in 2010 compared to the previous year, according to the most recent data available from Child Care Aware of America, which provides information for parents and child care providers. The cost of care for infants in a center rose 2.3 percent, while the cost of infant care in a home setting rose 2.6 percent.
Depending where you live, costs can vary wildly. The average cost for full-time care for a 4-year-old in Mississippi is about $3,900 a year, compared with $12,200 in Massachusetts, the group reported.
“If you need child care today and can’t afford it it’s challenging to get it,” said Helen Blank, director of leadership and public policy at the National Women’s Law Center. “Unfortunately, this doesn’t get the spotlight it should given its critical importance to helping women work and helping kids.”
There is a broad political consensus that helping low-income parents pay for child care helps the economy.
Presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney has said as much on the stump.
“I'm willing to spend more giving daycare to allow those parents to go back to work," he said in a speech this year. "It'll cost the state more providing that day care, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work."
But many states have had to slash budgets for such programs, leaving working families struggling to foot hefty child-care bills.
A recent study by the National Women's Law Center shows how some states have taken a hatchet to day care subsidies. A sampling:
- In California, Gov. Jerry Brown's proposed budget would cut spending on child care and early education by $517 million. the cuts “would deprive 62,000 children of the opportunity to participate in these programs," according to the Law Center. Income eligibility limit for child-care assistance would be reduced from $42,216 a year for a family of three to $38,180 a year for a family of three. A previous eligibility change is what impacted Doutherd.
- In Florida, over 75,000 children are on a waiting list for child-care assistance.
- In Maine, Gov. Paul LePage proposed funding cuts that would eliminate child-care assistance for half of the families currently receiving it.
- New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed a budget for fiscal 2013 that, together with planned systemic changes, “would result in 15,900 children losing their child care program and 31,800 children losing their after-school program as of September of 2012," according to the Law Center.
Many of the cutbacks by states are a result of federal dollars drying up from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, said Blank. While President Barack Obama’s fiscal 2013 budget proposes $825 million to help states, many working family advocates expect a shortfall.
“The problem we continually face is as a country we’re not willing to put the resources into child care to make that available,” said Blank. “Families can’t afford it, and it’s an endless struggle for providers, families and policymakers.”
The deep recession and slow recovery have kept government officials focused on priorities of food, shelter and employment. But she said that for working families, “child care is the lynchpin for all those things.”
Putting child care on the back burner has been a problem for years, said Martha J. Buell, professor of human development and families studies at the University of Delaware. The United States, she pointed out, is one of the few developed countries that does not fully support education prior to age 5.
The problem, as she sees it, is that policymakers see child care as workforce support rather than preschool education. “The first five years are critically important for getting kids ready for school," she said.
Indeed, Doutherd felt her son benefited from his time in day care, in addition to the benefits of her being able to earn a paycheck and get off welfare.
“We struggle financially because I’m not able to work full-time yet,” said Doutherd, who is trying to get any work she can while watching her son at home. She’s proud to say she hasn’t had to apply for any public assistance yet as she had to in the past, but she’s unsure what the future holds.
“The problem with cutting child care subsidies is instead of encouraging parents and families to work, you put them back into the system,” she said.
Even in this economy, author Zac Bissonette says it's still possible for young people to save up and invest in their future. He shares financial tips from his new book, "How to Be Richer, Smarter, and Better-Looking Than Your Parents," and answers viewer questions.
Leave a Comment:
Also, I'm more for cutting welfar and the people who justs want to have kids and have the state and federal government pay for them. Give those funds to people who bust their butts to support their family. You shouldn't get money just because your poor and don't want to do anything about it. If you can prove you can hold a job, you should get help if needed. If you want to sit home and have 6 kids, well then fend for yourself.
Give those funds to people who bust their butts to support their family.
I am one of those of which you speak. But like most people who "bust their butts" to raise a family, I don't want my fellow taxpayers money to help me. They have their own families to take care of. I am not entitled to any of their hard earned money to help me finance the choices I've made.
I am the youngest of 12 children. Mom and Dad worked hard to support us without a penny from other taxpayers, and they were able to give 10% of their income to help those around us who needed help.
I am for helping each other out, but having the government involved just doesn't work. It never has. There is no way a huge organization like that can give the money to the people who really deserve it.
All-in-all, I agree with your sentiments, but sooner or later the government will run out of other people's money and we will all have to fend for ourselves. May as well get used to it now.
For all of you who are on one side or the other of this issue, please don't forget that there are many who fall into the middle ground. I used the assistance as I needed it. My husband has been a soldier and I have worked at least part time since I was 16. That was "MY Money" I was using.....I paid into the system and when I needed it the system paid me back. We still make less than the state says and could still take assistance, but we don't need it anymore so we don't.
What about single fathers?
“In June, I had to quit my full-time job,” after her salary was insufficient to cover her child care cost
This statement clearly shows that raising a children is a full-time job. Sure, you can have somebody else raise your children, but you just might have to pay them as much as you can make working someplace else.
In many cases, it works out better if one spouse just stays home and takes care of the kids. Yes, that will mean sacrifices. Perhaps you'll need to downsize the house. Maybe you'll need to forgo Christmas presents. Maybe you'll need to drive a $1,000 car instead of a $10,000 car. Maybe you'll need to go without TV and video games consoles. Those all are things my wife and I have chosen to do without. But the upside is that she doesn't have to work out of home.
The downside is that raising kids is a demanding task. My wife works much harder and has more stress in her days of raising kids than I do at my place of employement. Therefore, I need to stay off the couch when I am home and be actively involved with the kids so she can take a break.
The solution is not to subsidize the life we think we are entitled to using other people's money. The solution is to decide what is important to you as a family and make the hard choices for yourself.
We already have government daycare. It's called public schools.
Those people who are so concerned with the evils of socialism and who espouse leaving such problems to capitalism to solve should show that their version of the ideal system works by:
(1) Making child-care cost efficient enough, so that the labor force and therefore capitalism doesn't suffer needlessly from the loss of labor described in this article.
(2) Organizing, managing, and financially supporting NGO (non-government organizations) charities that relieve government of that socialistic burden.
(c) 2012
"Get off that couch and trickle down!"
I know I and every other working mom in Mississippi would love to know where they get that the average full-time child care for a 4 year old in our state is under $4000. That's only $75 a week! I pay $70 a week just for my 7 year old's after school care plus $120 a week for full-time daycare for my 4 year old. Where are all these daycares that supposedly only charge $75 a week for preschoolers for full-time care in Mississippi?!
Maybe the Father of the child can chip in. Wait, she might be Gay and adopted the child. Maybe her significant other can chip in. How about we help the folks who don't think having Baby Daddies is the way to go. Maybe we should help those who DON'T clog the system with unwed mothers syndrome. You want to have kids? Have the finances to pay for them. I feel ZERO sympathy. Maybe Obama can offer some of his JP Morgan savings.
Here is an idea, Try to have a husband before you have a baby, and make sure that your husband has a history of working and work habits.
Most daycare workers would never put their own kids in daycare, no matter what the cost is.
It is not natural for strangers to raise children.
One of you, mother or father, needs to raise your children.
Why is it that no one brings up the most critical issue here? Why is the spending cut always reflect on assistance of some kind? Why is it not hitting the pocket books of the millions of Federal employee's especially in Washington DC ? Why is it not cutting Federal grants into the millions of dollars for research that is bogus? Not the good stuff, bogus stuff to get grants that have no value in our society. Why are we paying to have the White House redecorated everytime a new President takes office? Why are millions of dollars of OUR money being wasted in our own government YET there are buget cuts in daycare assistance, EDUCATION??? I am all for slimming down the deficit but cut cost elsewhere. Quit attacking the programs that give assistance (where it is due). Quit attacking our childrens education. Congressmen/woman pay for a part of their healthcare, they should pay taxes and they should not be on our funded dollars for the rest of their lives.
The article never mentions that the stay at home spouse watching their children 24/7 sacrifices a lot more than a thousand $ a month yet no Gov handouts for them. It is only Temporary, marry someone resposible, so one of you can stay at home with the children.
Our monthly child care costs (we have never qualified for aid) are more than our mortgage payments, more than car payments, more than utilities and more than our groceries. The only thing that is costing us as much as childcare is student loan payments. Meanwhile the wonderful workers at our daycare are practically living on minimum wage. Something is seriously wrong with our economic and political systems. It is time we as a society start valuing families, children, mothers, health and happiness above profit and what is or isn't in your pocket book after tax day. Why in god's name should some douchebag make millions for running a corporation into the ground and bankrupting its employees while people who care for our children are making a pittance? Could care less about the "entitlement" argument. It isn't about entitlements. It is about our society valuing what is important rather than what we are told to value by those who have all of the power and reap all of the benefits. It is about having a little human decency.
It seems to me there is a real disconnect between "Daycare workers should be paid a lot more" and "Daycare costs so much already." ?? Is this the hope that the government will subsidize daycare to make up the difference?
Yes, CEOs and Wall Street people make way too much money fo their "skills." I'm not sure how that relates to daycare costs.
The average costs of daycare the article cited are hilarious to me. Daycare for my 9-month-old in Brooklyn costs $18,000/year. We researched all of the local options and that was typical. Most families in my neighborhood have nannies, which run from $30,000-50,000+/year.
So how you are saying that only men can be the only authorize speakers for religion concerns and know what is right for both men and women in their religion and church. If any where this is one area there should be both men and women, where do we live, what era do we live in, what century is this. I know that since documents, laws, religion books, and constitutions have been written they state that “all men” but do not forget in this country right now in the United States of America women are over ½ of the voting populous and men should be very careful as to how they treat the other sex, women are no longer your property, your play things, women are you equals.
So if this is true and women should not be included even in a religion discussion, then there does need to be more men reading their whole religion doctrines because there are many issues and parts that men seem to over look or disregard, like greed, honoring their fathers and Mothers and adultery, in most of the religion books I have read it says men should have compassion.
It's about time California initiated some cutbacks for subsidies. Aren't they 15 Billion in debt? Aren't people leaving California in droves because of their high tax rates? Isn't the new Governor proposing an even higher tax rate? Isn't California rated #50 on the Fortune 500 List of least friendly business climates?
Go to Texas where everyone is welcome and we won't tax the hell out of you.
Perhaps a perfectly logical way to free up funds for assistance to Parents who are working but have a difficult time paying for Day Care is through more intelligent management of Welfare in general. For those mothers out there who have multiple children, yet NEVER show an inclination for anything except assuming a preferred "position" for the "Baby Daddy", an edict. YOU RECEIVE WELFARE FOR THE FIRST CHILD ONLY AND AS SOON AS THE CHILD IS IN SCHOOL YOU LOSE A LARGE AMOUNT OF THAT WELFARE STIPEND BECAUSE YOU CAN NOW GET A JOB. betcha' that will free up BILLIONS of funds for working TAX PAYING parents.
We have spent almost a trillion dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. How does that add up? At one point we were spending about 12 billion dollars a month. All in the name of 9/11 and security. I don't feel any better yet do you? That said most states do a pretty lousy job of collecting money from the absent parent. Single parents are just that. All alone. If the states spent as much money getting back child support as they do writing traffic tickets the whole scene would change. But that would actually fix the problem, and we can't have that now, can we?
Where is this child's father? They need to track him down for child support if he isn't paying! That should be the first action that's needs to be taken before any outside funding is used.
Peace.
Missy......in many, many cases, there are several "baby Daddies" delivering their sperm donor responsibilities to "baby Mommas" lying on their butts all day, waithing for a baby daddy to drop over for a Booty call. Not much interest in locking up the "contributors" by the women who are welfare dependent for most of their lives. The first step to having an ability to fund Child Care programs for WORKING PARENTS is to fix our rampant growth of WELFARE in this country to MANY undeserving social leeches.
The tea-bagger strategy is working. Work is the domain of rich old white guys, and the women should be barefoot at home in the kitchen raising kids.
When they say a return to the Founding Fathers, Family values, blah, blah, blah; that is what they really mean.
Dougie...your statement is one of TOTAL IGNORANCE. If there is any ONE group in this country who would disagree with you it would be the"Tea Baggers"....PROMOTERS OF THE WORK ETHIC. Actually, the domain of "woman barefoot, pregnant and at home" reflects directly on the Liberal Socialist Dimocrap Party which is the author and primary supporter of da' "Baby Daddy / Baby Momma" Welfare scheme which gives up a whole hell of a lot of VOTES for the 'Craps. AND FUTURE VOTES AS WELL. Keep those Baby Machines humming...give them all they want.
If you can't afford to stay home with your children or can't afford to pay for the day care, maybe you shouldn't be having kids. I know, that whole responsibility thing is over most peoples heads but I assure you that if you try it, it works.
I think it's unpatriotic for people to look at their fellow Americans and say "I want you to fail!" That is what in essence most of you are saying. This topic has turned into a birth control issue. And for people to suggest adoption? Ridiculous. Do you know how many kids are in the foster care system and never get out until they become a legal adult? Is that what you want? You are a fatherless child? And your mom can't afford daycare? Well then, you should be motherless too! Yes, makes perfect sense.
I am a stay at home mom. We live in poverty because of that decision. But I wanted to be the one to raise my two children. Other families don't have that luxury. I worked at a daycare recently and it was hard, low paying work. Raising children isn't easy. And we have to raise them to be good, outstanding citizens. I would think my society would support that. And yes, if that means gov't paying for childcare, then so be it. I'll be entering the workforce next year, after my youngest starts going to school full-time. I have a college degree. I have very limited work experience. Are you, my fellow Americans going to tell me I should fail?
Take down your flags. Most of you are unpatriotic, sniveling snobs.
For all of you who are on one side or the other of this issue, please don't forget that there are many who fall into the middle ground. I used the assistance as I needed it. My husband has been a soldier and I have worked at least part time since I was 16. That was "MY Money" I was using.....I paid into the system and when I needed it the system paid me back. We still make less than the state says and could still take assistance, but we don't need it anymore so we don't.
With having had 3 kids in daycare, I know the pain of daycare cost. Not only that but the costs of quality daycare and not just any daycare. However, it's a good thing that daycare cost is temporary (5 years full-time each child) so I opted to stay working full-time when it didn't make sense financially during the 5 years but in the long run, it made sense financially, emotionally, mentally, and I also know I am not meant to be a full-time stay-at-home mom.
When my husband and I got pregnant, which we were trying to do, he had a good job and decent benefits, and I was looking for a better temp position until I had to leave work. All that changed in four months. My husband was out of a job and the benefits we needed. Fortunately, I was hired on from a temp position and received excellent benefits. When we planned to have our baby, we could afford the expenses. Then suddenly, it seemed impossible. How many other people go through this? And even for those who do support abortion, place yourself in our shoes and think about whether you would terminate a pregnancy you wanted and planned for at five months?
The only place that accepts infants in our small community is the sole daycare center, and the rate is high. However, the teachers in the rooms are well trained and great resources for us as new parents. They provide basic formula and fresh foods for the infants so they are getting at least two healthy meals per day. There is always another person there to help when it gets difficult, which means that the teachers there can eat a meal, get a bathroom break, pass off a screaming baby when they are frustrated - all things that I have a hard time doing when I am home alone caring for my baby.
Having stayed home with our baby for as long as my maternity leave allowed, I know that I cannot do as good a job with him as the teachers do at daycare. We both benefit from the break. And the satisfaction I derive from my job is much different from what I get at home. My husband, whose dream for a long time was to be a stay-at-home dad, says that he could not handle the day-to-day with our son and often brings our son to daycare instead of taking him for a full day at home when I am not there. So please do not mock the mothers and fathers that choose to work.
Now, if the daycare center had a little additional funding to make it more affordable, that would be wonderful. Many women in our small community stay at home because they can't afford the daycare, then try to rejoin the work force once the children are in school. With the economy the way it is, that is really tough to do. Besides, I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on child care than on things like tax cuts, foreign aid or erectile dysfunction studies.
Interesting... I am middle class. By no means poor. By no means rich. Whenever I make a decision that is going to impact my family financially (i.e. buy a car, a new house, have a child) my husband and I sit down together and figure out if we can afford it. Will we have to make sacrifices? Are we willing to make those sacrifices? One of the questions we DON'T contemplate is, "How can we make the rest of the taxpayers pay for our choice?" When I had my son, we were not in a position to shell out enormous amounts for childcare. Fortunately, I was able to pay a smaller sum to a trusted relative to care for him. Had I not had that option, we would have considered alternatives, like my husband getting a second job, or delaying having kids. We all make choices in life. We should all be ready to deal with the consequences of those choices instead of assuming the world will chip in.
I've paid my way, and I resent having to pay the way for others because they didn't plan accordingly. And before you all jump down my throat with a snarky, "Would you rather they were on welfare," the answer would be, "Absolutely not." I'd rather people are held accountable for their own decisions. I don't support career welfare any more than subsidized daycare; although, I do believe there's a time and place. Clearly, there are situations that occur that are not under your control in which temporary assistance is appropriate. Having kids, a highly controllable event, tends not to be that kind of situation.
Any of these ideas work for anybody? -
1. Parents who think they need daycare should try to work AT HOME if possible.
2. Live with less and only have one parent work while the other raises their own child.
3. If you are a single parent get the other parent involved! Where is he?!? He needs to own up. Same with the child's grandparents and other relatives.
4. DO NOT have children out of wedlock. (Wow! What a concept! But it works! Have some self-control, people! Where's your morals!?! Think of yours and your child's future, not just 'the moment'!)
5. Work at a job where you can take your child with you. Some places have on-site daycare, some jobs you just bring your child with you like on-the-road jobs.
You quit you job and consider public assistance an option? Benefits denied. That's what's wrong with America. Too many hand outs. And someone thinks businesses should step up and provide child care. Why does everone think their problem should be solved by someone else. Take care of your own kids. At work, your supposed to work. Oh wait, she quit - no unemplyment or beneifts for you slacker.