ASSESSING THE CHILD CARE AND 

DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 

HEARING

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 27, 2002 

Serial No. 107-46 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 2002 

81-197 pdf 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 

 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
ii

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin GEORGE MILLER, California 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California PATSY MINK, Hawaii 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

CHARLIE W. NORWOOD, JR., Georgia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee RON KIND, Wisconsin 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DAVID WU, Oregon 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois SUSAN DAVIS, California 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

 PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

 RIC KELLER, Florida 

 TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

 Paula Nowakowski, Chief of Staff 

 John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director

 SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS 

 HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California, Chairman

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia, Vice Chairman PATSY MINK, Hawaii

JOHN BOEHNER, Ohio JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware RON KIND, Wisconsin 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina DAVID WU, Oregon 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

FRED UPTON, Michigan BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................ 1 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C..................................................................................................................... 1 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, PATSY MINK, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, WASHINGTON, DC................................................ 3 

STATEMENT OF JANET K. SCHALANSKY, SECRETARY, KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF 

SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICES, TOPEKA, KANSAS, ON BEHALF OF THE 

AMERICAN PUBLIC HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC................ 7 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS J. BESHAROV, RESIDENT SCHOLAR, AMERICAN 

ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC....................................................................... 9 

STATEMENT OF HELEN C. RILEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ST. MICHAEL'S SCHOOL 

AND NURSERY, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE ..................................................................... 10 

STATEMENT OF KAREN W. PONDER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTH CAROLINA 

PARTNERSHIP FOR CHILDREN, SMART START, RALEIGH, NC..................................... 13 

STATEMENT OF HELEN BLANK, DIRECTOR OF CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT, 

CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND, WASHINGTON, DC ............................................................ 15 

APPENDIX A -- OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. “BUCK” 

MCKEON, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................................... 35 

APPENDIX B -- OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, PATSY 

MINK, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, WASHINGTON, DC.............................................. 41 

APPENDIX C -- STATEMENT OF JANET K. SCHALANSKY, SECRETARY, KANSAS 

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICES, TOPEKA, KANSAS, 

ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION, 

WASHINGTON, DC.................................................................................................................... 45 
iv

APPENDIX D -- STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS J. BESHAROV, RESIDENT SCHOLAR, 

AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC .............................................. 69 

APPENDIX E -- STATEMENT OF HELEN C. RILEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ST. 

MICHAEL'S SCHOOL AND NURSERY, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE ............................ 103 

APPENDIX F -- STATEMENT OF KAREN W. PONDER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NORTH CAROLINA PARTNERSHIP FOR CHILDREN, SMART START, RALEIGH, NC

.................................................................................................................................................... 113 

APPENDIX G -- STATEMENT OF HELEN BLANK, DIRECTOR OF CHILD CARE AND 

DEVELOPMENT, CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND, WASHINGTON, DC........................... 123 

Table of Indexes.......................................................................................................................... 146 
1

HEARING ON ASSESSING THE CHILD CARE 

AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn House 

Office Building, Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon [chairman of the subcommittee], presiding. 

 Present: Representatives McKeon, Isakson, Castle, Goodlatte, Osborne, Mink, Tierney, 

Holt, McCollum, and Miller. 

 Staff present: Jim Cline, Professional Staff Member; Scott Galupo, Communications 

Specialist; Kate Gorton, Professional Staff Member; Patrick Lyden, Professional Staff Member; 

Stephanie Milburn, Professional Staff Member; Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern 

Coordinator; Holli Traud, Legislative Assistant; Denise Forte, Minority Legislative 

Associate/Education; Maggie McDow, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; and Alex Nock, 

Minority Legislative Associate/Education. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE 

ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Chairman McKeon. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness 

will come to order. 

 We're meeting today to hear testimony on assessing the Child Care and Development Block 

Grant.

 Under committee rule 12(b), opening statements are limited to the chairman and the ranking 

minority member of the subcommittee. Therefore, if other members have statements, they may be 

included in the hearing record. With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain 

open 14 days to allow members' statements and other extraneous material referenced during the 
2

hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. Without objection, so ordered. 

 I will begin now with my opening statement. 

 Good afternoon. Thank you for joining us for this important hearing today to hear 

testimony on the impact of federal childcare assistance. This subcommittee has sole jurisdiction 

over the program requirements and the discretionary funding side of the Child Care and 

Development Block Grant and will play a vital role in its reauthorization over the next few months 

during consideration of the president's proposal to further welfare reform by increasing 

independence and strengthening families. Today, building on the previous hearings that we have 

held on welfare reform, we will examine the operation of the Block Grant in preparation for its 

reauthorization.

 We know that affordable, reliable childcare is critical to allow mothers to obtain and retain 

employment. Largely as a result of welfare reform, there are unprecedented numbers of women 

with children who are in the workforce. Recognizing the increased need for assistance, the federal 

government has made a significant financial commitment to providing access to affordable 

childcare for low-income families. 

 Funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant has more than doubled in the last 

five years, to $2.1 billion in fiscal year 2002, and the president's budget proposes to maintain this 

funding commitment. In addition to these funds, more than $2.7 billion in mandatory funding was 

available this year, and over $4 billion from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block 

grant was spent on child care assistance for low-income parents in the year 2000. 

 As part of welfare reform in 1996, this committee streamlined the funding and program 

requirements within the Child Care and Development Block Grant to provide states maximum 

flexibility in addressing the child care needs of low-income families and children. Currently, states 

set eligibility levels, quality standards, and reimbursement rates for providers, and health and safety 

requirements. States largely have targeted their funds to serve those most in need, families on or 

transitioning off of cash assistance. However, low-income families that never have participated in 

welfare also receive assistance. 

 Importantly, the block grant ensures parents are free to choose the childcare setting they 

prefer for their children. Childcare subsidies are usually provided as vouchers that parents can use 

to purchase any type of childcare. Parents may use their certificates for center-based care, a family 

childcare home, relative care, or in-home care. 

 In addition to providing direct subsidies to care, states must currently spend 4 percent of all 

Child Care and Development Block Grant funds on activities to improve the quality of care. States 

use these dollars in a variety of ways. Many have increased consumer information available to 

parents, worked to increase the capacities of child caregivers, or increased reimbursement for 

higher-quality care, just to name a few. The importance of quality care is reinforced by research 

indicating that the experiences of a young child greatly affect a child's success in school. 
3

 Today, we will hear from experts in the childcare field, directors of state child care 

programs, and an operator of a childcare facility. I know all will offer us insight into the strides 

that have been made in supporting our nation's parents as well as caring for our young and schoolage children. The committee welcomes their thoughts on further steps that need to be taken. 

 I am sure the witnesses' testimonies will be invaluable as we prepare to consider legislation. 

We look forward to their comments. 

 With that, I would like to recognize Congresswoman Mink for any statement that she cares 

to make at this time. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX A 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, PATSY 

MINK, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, WASHINGTON, 

DC

Mrs. Mink. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I, too, join you in underscoring the importance 

of these hearings and look forward to the testimony that the panelists will be offering to this 

subcommittee. 

 The issue of child care is one of the most critical facing the poorest members of our society, 

especially those struggling in one or more low-wage jobs, trying to make ends meet to provide for 

their children. 

 I look forward to your testimony to help us understand how the current childcare 

development block grant funds are being used and how we must improve the program in order to 

meet more of the needs of our poorest families. 

 We know that a very small percentage of eligible children are being served, that those that 

are get very poor to maybe adequate care but that high-quality care is usually priced out of these 

parents' budget or not available, even, in their communities. Research shows us that only 12 to 15 

percent of eligible children are receiving childcare subsidies from this program, in some states, less 

than 10 percent. 

 Many who are receiving subsidies are unlikely to find affordable high-quality care in their 

communities, and this presents a major problem. Many are forced to rely on their families and 

friends for home-based care for their children, which offer their children high-risk situations, and 

this issue also needs to be addressed by this committee. Center-based care may be of higher quality, 
4

but by no means is it high quality, and we have to work to improve center-based care, as well.

States currently only spend about 4 percent of the child-care funds on quality, and this certainly is 

inadequate funding of this very substantial need. 

 The childcare providers and their staffs need assistance. The care personnel are in lowpaying jobs. According to the National Organization of Women's Legal Defense Education Fund, 

childcare workers earn between 10,000 and 18,000 annually, and the turnover rates is very high. 

So, anything we can do to improve the status of the employees of these centers will go to the 

improvement of the childcare for the children involved. 

 Parents have a hard time finding care for whole workdays. Sometimes they have to bus 

back and forth from their place of employment to transfer their children to another caregiver 

because of the time restraints. 

 The whole issue of quality childcare for TANF parents is a very critical issue that we have 

to face in this committee. 

 We face two major issues in the reauthorization of childcare block grant, and that has to do 

with providing additional funds and to make sure that we have quality care. I, myself, have 

introduced H.R. 3113, the reauthorization of TANF, and we go into this issue. One of the big 

changes in 1996 was to take childcare away as an entitlement. My bill puts that back in, and I hope 

that that change will be incorporated. 

 The sponsor of the reauthorization bill on our side is the ranking Democrat of the full 

committee, and it is my privilege now to defer time my time to Mr. Miller for whatever comment 

he would choose to make. 

Mr. Miller. Thank you very much for yielding, Ms. Mink, and thank you for all the work you have 

done on this issue and to the chairman for holding this hearing. I will be very quick. 

 I just want to say that this committee made a fundamental decision about the education 

system in this country to put in accountability, to put in standards, and to put in another $150 

billion of the public's money, but we also know that too many children who are entering that 

system are damaged in one form or another, simply not school-ready, and we cannot make that 

kind of investment in a new ESEA bill and not recognize how core child development and child 

care is to those children entering our education system. 

 We also now have had five years' experience with the welfare reform and the change in the 

American workplace to a 24/7 economy, and we now understand that childcare has got to deal with 

non-traditional employment, with non-traditional hours, and there may have to be a premium for 

those services. We also recognize, as we demand that women on welfare go to work, we may 

preach to other women not on welfare to stay home, but we demand that women on welfare go to 

work, that we have got to provide toddler care, we have got to provide the kinds of support services 

for very young infants and toddlers that are necessary if that demand is going to continue on those 

individuals.
5

 So, I would hope that, as we look at welfare-to-work, as we look at welfare reform, as we 

look at school reform, we would understand that this is the most important developmental time for 

us as human beings and that we would construct a system that recognizes that and puts a premium 

on quality, puts a premium on child development and healthy development of those children, and I 

look forward to these hearings, and I hope that we will have a chance to fully participate in this 

entire debate on the reauthorization of the welfare reform legislation and the importance that child 

care plays in that system. 

 Thank you and I yield, Ms. Mink. 

Mrs. Mink. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be inserted in the 

record at this point. Thank you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, PATSY MINK, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, WASHINGTON, DC – SEE APPENDIX B 

Chairman McKeon. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you, Ms. Mink, Mr. Miller. 

At this time, I would like to introduce our witnesses. 

 We have, first, Secretary Janet Schalansky, the Secretary of the Kansas Department of 

Social and Rehabilitation Services. She will be testifying on behalf of the American Public Human 

Services Association. She is the recipient of the Outstanding Person of Kansas Conference on 

Social Welfare and the YMCA Woman of Excellence Award. Secretary Schalansky earned a 

master's degree in rehabilitation counseling and a bachelor's degree in pre-medicine from Emporia 

State University. 

 Next, we will have Doug Besharov. Mr. Besharov is a resident scholar at the American 

Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and Professor at the University of Maryland School 

of Public Affairs. A national expert on social welfare policy and the legal process, Besharov has 

written extensively on issues affecting the lives of children and families. He is a former director of 

the U.S. Center on Child Abuse and Neglect and editor of the book Enhancing Early Childhood 

Education Programs. 

 I understand Mr. Castle would like to recognize a constituent from his state of Delaware. 

Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 I do not quite know how to introduce Helen Riley to everybody, because I think her 

testimony will introduce her better than I could, except to say she has been on the firing line with 

respect to child care for a number of years. We have a nursery in Delaware, in Wilmington, near 

where my office is, that serves very low-income children, which have been in business for in 

excess of 100 years, and Helen has not been there for 100 years, but she has been there for more 

than 30 years. 
6

 She has degrees from the University of Delaware in psychology and elementary education. 

She has done practically everything at St. Michael's. I have visited St. Michael’s and it is a 

wonderful enterprise they have going there. In my judgment, they do a wonderful job working 

with the kids. In fact, I nominated St. Michael's School Nursery for the Governor's Excellence in 

Early Child Care and Education Award, and I was even more pleased when they were chosen for 

first place in that particular category. 

 I think that is what we need to hear in this subcommittee. I agree with a lot of the opening 

statements, Mr. Chairman that people have made here about the importance of this but we need to 

know how it's working out there. Finally in introducing Helen, I would just say, even though it is 

perhaps a personal comment, I have seen those kids in kindergarten or first grade who just aren't 

ready, frankly, to proceed in education. We can have all the education reform bills, the no child 

left behind, you can possibly imagine, and you may never get to those kids if you do not do 

something earlier. Perhaps handling childcare correctly is the way to do it. 

 I like the way they do it at St. Michael's. I like what Helen has to say, and I look forward to 

her testimony, as well as what I think is a very good panel, and we thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman McKeon. Then we will hear from Ms. Karen Ponder. Ms. Ponder is the Executive 

Director of the North Carolina Partnership for Children, an organization providing oversight and 

technical support to North Carolina's 81 Smart Start partnerships. She has been involved in early 

care and education as a teacher, pre-school director, board member, and teacher trainer. 

 Finally, Ms. Helen Blank. Ms. Blank is the director of the Child Care and Development 

Division at the Children's Defense Fund, where she works to expand support for early care and 

educational experiences for children, particularly low-income children. At the Child Welfare 

League of America, she was involved in the development of child welfare reform legislation. Ms. 

Blank has authored major studies on federal and state childcare policies and numerous articles and 

papers on childcare and education policy. 

 Now, before we begin, let me explain the lights. You have all given us written reports. We 

have those, and those will go fully in the record, so you may use your five minutes to summarize or 

whatever way is most important to you. At the end of four minutes, that green light will become 

yellow, and at the end of five minutes, it becomes red, and I think that I have talked about the trap 

door. I don't think it really is there, but I would hate to find out, however, at the end of five 

minutes, if you could finish, we would appreciate that, and then the same will stand for members 

when we get our five minutes for questioning, but we're really happy to have you here today. 

 You know, this is a subcommittee that has been known in the past, I think, for some 

partisanship. I think we have come a long ways in working to overcome that, and especially when 

we're talking about children, I think it is pretty hard to be partisan over children, and I hope that we 

will, and I know we will benefit from this hearing here today, and we will hear now from Ms. 

Schalansky.
7

STATEMENT OF JANET K. SCHALANSKY, SECRETARY, KANSAS 

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICES, TOPEKA, 

KANSAS, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HUMAN SERVICES 

ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. Schalansky. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am 

Janet Schalansky, Secretary of the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. I am 

here representing our state of Kansas as well as on behalf of the American Public Human Services 

Association, a non-profit, bipartisan organization representing state and local human service 

professionals for more than 70 years. I thank you for this opportunity to be here to talk about the 

ever-important subject of childcare. 

 The investment in childcare among the states has increased dramatically since welfare 

reform; 80 percent more children are receiving subsidy today than they were in 1996. In fiscal year 

2000, there was $9 billion in combined federal and state dollars on childcare. That includes the 7 

billion of the childcare development block grant, as well as the TANF block grants. In addition, 

states spent $2 billion in direct TANF spending. Since 1997, 189 million was spent at that time. 

Today that is $4.3 billion of TANF is spent on childcare. 

 At this same time, states have exceeded their 100 percent maintenance of effort, and it is 

clear, I think, their commitment to both access and quality has been impressive. Many of the states 

have done a lot of partnering in order to get at the ever-growing problem of caregiver wages and 

retention. In California, they partnered with their community colleges and state universities to do a 

mentoring teacher project, as well as a child development-training consortium. 

 In Michigan, as Congressman Miller talked about, they were dealing with the odd-hour 

childcare: weekend, shift work, the need for childcare 24/7 in our country based on the 

employment market. They gave grants to providers to improve quality and expand access. In 

Ohio, they worked on collaboration with Head Start and childcare so that they could increase 

opportunity, leverage resources, and improve quality and expand access. 

 In Kansas, right in the middle of the country, we have 15,513 children are served monthly 

by the childcare subsidy. This is up dramatically from the early '90s. This year, we are having a 

very tight budget situation, which is shared by many states, but we recommended and the governor 

approved a rate increase, recognizing the importance of child care not only to the children but to 

those parents who we needed working in the economy. We raised rates to the 65th percentile for 

licensed care and to the 60th percentile for registered care. We also increased rates for special need 

childcare for those children with special needs. 

 We also did some extensive work on an infant-toddler project, again recognizing the 

importance of quality childcare in that zero-to-three time in these children's life. 

 We also were one of the first states in the country to transfer almost $8 million of our 

TANF block grant into childcare, so that we could begin an early Head Start program that serves 
8

825 children directly, and that program benefits an additional 2,000 children. That expands our 

quality initiatives to about $14 million, which is about 20 percent of our block grant. 

 We also have benefited from the flexibility that the block grant has given us for various 

initiatives. We hooked up with the Kaufman Foundation, blended our dollars in order to develop 

some programs for at-risk children for after school in the Kansas City area. We also are in a 

consortium with other states in our region: Nebraska, Iowa, and Missouri, to define and evaluate 

childcare quality and learning from those experiences. That will be a three-year project. 

 We have also, although we have had significant increases in funding, we are seeing 

significantly more children. There continues to be need for increased funding. We serve right now 

about 16 percent of the eligible children in our subsidy. We currently have no waiting list. 

However, we do not do any outreach. Twenty percent of the folks in our study indicated that they 

were not aware of the subsidy program. 

 Now, looking at the document put out by Crossroads, by the APHSA Crossroads New 

Directions for Social Policy, in that organization we believe that it is important to states for 

maintaining flexibility and increase federal funding. As I indicated earlier, $4.3 billion of TANF 

was transferred into childcare. With reauthorization of welfare reform and also with our caseloads 

going up on welfare, if we are unable to transfer those dollars from TANF, then we will need $4 

billion more into child care. We also support the restoration of funding for the social service block 

grant to $2.8 billion. Both of these have been critical uses of childcare in our states. 

 Quality remains ever important for each of the states. The federal government should 

support research, which promotes policies, which encourage public and private sectors in building 

and sustaining early care, education, workforce well-trained, and that staff is adequately 

compensated. Five years, Congress made its decision to invest in childcare, streamline funding, 

and devolve authority to the states. We support the continued work on this effort. 

 Time has not allowed me to go into everything. It is in the record, as you said, Mr. 

Chairman, and I stand ready to respond to questions at the appropriate time. 

STATEMENT OF JANET K. SCHALANSKY, SECRETARY, KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF 

SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICES, TOPEKA, KANSAS, ON BEHALF OF THE 

AMERICAN PUBLIC HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC – SEE 

APPENDIX C 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. Mr. Besharov. 
9

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS J. BESHAROV, RESIDENT SCHOLAR, 

AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. Besharov. Thank you very much, Mr. McKeon and members of the subcommittee. I am very 

pleased to be here today to tell you about the sufficiency of child care funding and the use of child 

care vouchers to ensure that parents have choice in the care they receive for their children, and I am 

going to try to make four points in the time I have. 

 First, there have been, as you know, major increases in child care funding, big enough to 

cover all the working poor, almost all welfare leavers, but just not enough to cover full eligibility 

under the CCDBG and the CCDF, and I am going to elaborate on that in a moment. Much of this 

money, however, is not going to the working poor and is not going to welfare leavers, and that is 

because of the parental preference for home-based care. 

 In many states, not all, it is extremely difficult to use a voucher to purchase home-based 

care, and the result is that, although there is an excess of funds for the working poor and for welfare 

leavers, there is a disproportionate use of the funds available for center-based care and, therefore, 

higher-income recipients. It's a problem at the end. I say it is a dilemma that requires us to think 

very hard about what the purpose of subsidies is for. 

 I said that I would start with the point that child care spending has increased. I have 

provided with my testimony a sheet called ``Rising Federal and Related State Spending on Child 

Care.'' It is the appropriate role of congressional committees to look mainly at the monies available 

through their own jurisdiction, but what I did in this handout is to collect all the federally funded 

childcare that is available for low-income Americans. That figure from 1994 to the year 2000 rises 

from $9.5 billion to 17.2 billion. That includes after-school programs, Head Start, and so forth. 

 The Congressional Budget Office has just issued a report, I think it is the Congressional 

Budget Office, which reflects those numbers, roughly. 

 Now, as I said, that is a very large increase. It is actually an 81 percent increase in 

spending. Much of that, as was just said, comes from TANF transfers, and I would be remiss if I 

did not emphasize that all my comments are based on the assumption that childcare funds from 

TANF are available to the states, because if those funds dry up, everything I say is moot, and so, 

you all should realize that as we talk about the size of the block grant and the other things it is 

being used for. 

 However, with that assumption put on the table, which is an 81 percent increase in funding 

in about six years, and by our calculation, that created 2.3 million additional slots. I will say that 

again, 2.3 million additional slots, and those roughly reflect the numbers that I just heard. 

 I did say, however, that this was enough money, depending on how you count it. The 

figures are that about 20 percent of welfare leavers get child care subsidies, and depending on the 

year, between 10 and 15 percent of those eligible for CCDBG/CCDF, get funding, but there is 

enough money to cover all the leavers and there is enough money to cover all the working poor.
10

Why aren't they getting the money? The answer is that, even though we have, what I believe is a 

terrific voucher system, that has increased parental choice in a way that I think the original 

sponsors in 1992 never would have expected, there are still limitations in parental choice. 

 Those limitations have to do with using vouchers for home-based care. Some of the 

opening statements today drew a distinction between the quality of home-based care and the quality 

of center-based care. Let me say that, if I had hours, I would share with you the research that 

suggests to me that it is an open question about whether centers are better than home-based care. I 

will mention just two things. One, child-pupil ratios are lower in home-based care, and number 

two, there is less movement from home to home than there is from center to center; they are much 

more stable. 

 The obstacles, to sum up, have to do with the fact that much of home-based care is not 

licensed, and often, advocates as well as state officials are hostile to supporting unlicensed care. 

Part of this is informal obstacles. For example, in many states, a relative providing childcare has to 

be fingerprinted, even the grandmother. Explain that to a Hispanic woman in California where the 

take-up rate among the Mexican-Americans is tremendously low, partly, all observers agree, 

because of these kinds of requirements. 

 Well, to close up, let me say enough money, if the TANF money is available, the money not 

going to the lowest income first because of the problems with the availability of vouchers for 

home-based care, and finally, I think in the question-and-answer, a discussion of the fact that, 

although I have made it a very simple yes-and-no, in fact, providing vouchers for home-based care 

is a complex policy issue. 

 Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS J. BESHAROV, RESIDENT SCHOLAR, AMERICAN 

ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC – SEE APPENDIX D 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. Ms. Riley. 

STATEMENT OF HELEN C. RILEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ST. 

MICHAEL'S SCHOOL AND NURSERY, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 

Ms. Riley. Thank you, Mr. McKeon. It is an honor and a privilege to be invited to speak today 

before the subcommittee. 

 I want you all to know that, when I go back to school tomorrow, I will speak with the 

kindergarten and the pre-K, the four-, five-, and six-year-olds at my program, and tell them about 

this experience and my firsthand encounter with democracy and try to inspire them to be involved, 

as well, and tell them that, indeed, any one person can have an opportunity. Just remember at the 

end of today that those children I will be speaking to tomorrow are the children who will be 

affected by your policies, and of 36 four- and five-year-olds that we have in our program, 30 
11

receive purchase of a care subsidy to attend our program. 

 I have 31 years experience in the childcare and early education field. I am not a policy 

wizard. I do a lot of child advocacy, but I am the person who, for 31 years, on a daily basis, has 

been in the place where the policies meet the people. 

 What I propose to do today is give you my point of view on three points that are critical for 

children zero to five and then the fourth thing is to give you my perspective as a citizen, taxpayer, 

and voter on how these programs look to an insider, somebody with a bird's eye view of what 

happens on a daily basis. 

 The first point that I want to talk about is school readiness and quality childcare and early 

education. The second is parental choice and equitable access to quality programs. The third is 

cost as it relates to workforce, facilities, and educational programming, and then the fourth will be 

my perspective. 

 School readiness and quality: All the recent findings in brain development research tell us 

that the first year of life is the most critical. There are connections that are made in the brain during 

that year that support language and literacy, math and science, social skills, emotional 

development, and a sense of oneself as a learner. I really do not understand why it is that, at the 

age of 18, we can understand that a mind is a terrible thing to waste, is a statement that applies, but 

we do not seem to be able to relate it at eight months. 

 The other thing to keep in mind when we talk about 21st century competitiveness is that, in 

the first year of life, when children are exposed to foreign language, their brains remain forever 

more receptive to foreign language and to the ability to learn foreign language. 

 Now the reality: Children every day are somewhere with someone doing something and we 

are paying for it. Some are in places that are unsafe and unhealthy, but we have opportunities to 

optimize those situations and integrate into them, integrate the informal childcare system into the 

educational system. The reason we should do that is the potential is great, we can get rapid results, 

they're measurable in a short time, and we can make positive impact on other problem areas for this 

country, public education and eventually the workforce, crime, and health. 

 One of the things that I have read recently that I find startling and that inspires me every 

day is a statistic that says that children who live in poverty come to kindergarten with a vocabulary 

of about 5,000 words. On the other hand, children who do not live in poverty come to kindergarten 

with a vocabulary of 20,000 words. I picture some poor child going into the kindergarten 

classroom and the teacher saying, here, put this in your cubby and the child not knowing whether 

that's his or her own personal space or a body part. 

 I think we really have to think about the handicap that is created for children when they do 

not have exposure, because they're at high risk and living in poverty, to programs that can stimulate 

their language and their learning abilities. Also, in good early childhood programs, children 

receive intervention and remediation at an earlier stage, where it is most effective and most likely 
12

to be successful. 

 Parental choice and equal access: They are values of our culture. We talk about them all 

the time. They were part of the system in its original design, but the reality is that quality programs 

are closed or severely limited to families using purchase of care due to low reimbursement rates 

from states. In my state, we pay 75 percent of the 75th percentile. My program raises over 

$200,000 a year to subsidize the children on purchase of care. That is about 86 children, and we 

need about $2,000 per child. 

 I wonder whether parents who are selecting childcare actually get their first choice or their 

second choice or their eighth choice or their last choice or just what is available. Do we ask them 

and are they satisfied? 

 I will try to finish quickly. 

 My personal view: I take a hard look at the government programs that I participate in my 

program. I see families today going to work and going to school. That is a big improvement, but 

the training programs that I see parents attending prepare them for mediocre jobs, and a lot of the 

jobs that they hold are mediocre and low-paying jobs. That is tough on kids. The parents are last 

ones hired; first ones fired or laid off. The jobs are unstable. The children are in and out of care as 

parents move from job to job. These families literally live month to month with their job 

arrangements and with their child care arrangements. 

 One thing that I do see that we have to increase is the sense of hope in the families, in the 

parents, mothers and fathers, who participate in the program and get a job. Their sense of self and 

their sense that things will be better are tremendous. I see them come in so excited to be working 

or to be in school. They share that information with us, and their expectations for their children 

rise when they see themselves being able to model for their children what they want their kids to 

do.

 When I get back, I will tell my children about the experience today, and I ask you to 

remember that they are the same children that we are talking about. Please do the best that you can 

by these children. I am willing to help in any way that is possible, and I thank you for the 

opportunity to speak. 

STATEMENT OF HELEN C. RILEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ST. MICHAEL'S SCHOOL 

AND NURSERY, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE – SEE APPENDIX E 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. Ms. Ponder. 
13

STATEMENT OF KAREN W. PONDER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTH 

CAROLINA PARTNERSHIP FOR CHILDREN, SMART START, RALEIGH, 

NC

Ms. Ponder. Mr. Chairman and the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to talk to you 

about what I believe is the biggest priority for our country. 

 In the early '90s, North Carolina took a hard look at the needs of its youngest children and 

decided we were tired of the status quo. Sixty-seven percent of the mothers of our young children 

were in the workplace, the state's childcare standards were the worst in the nation, and business 

leaders were calling for a better-prepared workforce. 

 To give you just one example of how low our standards were, 10 years ago a high school 

dropout convicted of a felony could be a childcare and education teacher. Today in North Carolina, 

background checks prevent people with criminal history from caring for children, and our early 

care and education workers are required to be at least 21 years old and have a high school diploma. 

The good news is, in addition, 80 percent of our childcare and education teachers have now 

completed college-level course work or have achieved a college degree. 

 In 1993, North Carolina created a comprehensive, locally controlled, public-private early 

care and education initiative called Smart Start. Smart Start engaged business leaders, the faith 

community, parents, childcare, education, and every North Carolina community in finding 

solutions. The locally designed programs have improved the quality of childcare, better educated 

teachers, made care and education more accessible and affordable to families who need it, 

improved children's health outcomes, and improved the services we provide that support families to 

get the results they want for their young children. 

 The state partnership that I oversee sets accountability standards and holds every 

community accountable for achieving results. 

 North Carolina was able to create a more effective early care and education system because 

of the childcare development block grant and the TANF transfer dollars, because these funds form 

for us, and for all other states, a foundation on which to build an early care and education system, 

and yet, the unmet needs of both access to childcare and education and the quality of individual 

programs remain enormous. Even with state initiatives like ours, including Smart Start, TEACH 

Early Childhood Scholarships, and WAGES, programs that were developed in North Carolina and 

that many other states are now replicating, there is not enough funding to do the job we need to do. 

 In fact, with our combined funds, including using over 40 percent of our Smart Start dollars 

to provide subsidies for poor families, there is only funding for 18 percent of our eligible 

population to be served. 

 In North Carolina, we were fortunate to have the political will to put additional state dollars 

into developing a vital system of early childhood education. However, those state Smart Start 

dollars are not a substitute for CCDBG, TANF, or Head Start dollars. Our state has been able to 
14

maximize the use of all of these funds but learned as we created our system that the problems of 

access and quality were even greater than we had imagined. 

 Smart Start and the funding from the block grant that is set aside to improve the quality of 

childcare have helped us to increase the percentage of high-quality childcare and education centers 

from 20 percent in 1993 to 66 percent in 2001, and conversely, the percentage of poor-quality 

childcare has decreased from 80 percent in 1993 to 34 percent in 2001, and we need the flexibility 

currently in the block grant that allows us to maximize all of our funds to best serve the children of 

North Carolina. We ask for that flexibility to continue with the reauthorization. 

 Today, Smart Start receives $220 million in public funds, has raised $125 million in private 

contributions, and has been replicated in six states, with broad interest from others, but our greatest 

accomplishment has been increasing the readiness of young children to enter kindergarten by 

increasing the quality of care and education they receive in the early years. Children who attend 

Smart Start quality programs have better cognitive and language skills and fewer behavioral 

problems when they enter kindergarten than do children from programs without that support. 

 More than 80 percent of North Carolina childcare and education teachers have a college 

degree or have completed college course-work, and the number of early care and education 

teachers leaving the workforce after a year has decreased from 42 percent to 31 percent. 

 Decades of research show that we know what to do for young children and that, when we 

give them high-quality experiences, not only does school readiness improve, but drop-out rates 

decrease, the need to repeat grades, the need for special ed, or the potential for committing crime 

decreases, but we also know that we need funding to continue to serve every child. We have made 

many gains in our state, but we have got so much farther to go, and state funds cannot replace the 

resources that are provided through the federal child care development block grant or the Head 

Start funding. 

 We ask you to assure that this block grant is well-funded in all states to help our children be 

ready for the rigorous goals that are set forth in the recently-enacted K through 12 law. We are 

requesting that action be taken to ensure that every child in the nation has the opportunity to begin 

school on a solid foundation. I believe the return on the investment in the lives of young children 

will demonstrate that making the needs of young children one of the nation's highest priorities yield 

significant benefits to society. 

 Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN W. PONDER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTH CAROLINA 

PARTNERSHIP FOR CHILDREN, SMART START, RALEIGH, NC –SEE APPENDIX F 
15

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. We thought we were going to have a solid four hours before the 

first vote, but there is a vote. There will be one vote on the Upton amendment, and some of our 

members have left so they can vote and come back, and we'll continue moving the hearing, and we 

appreciate your understanding of this. 

 We will hear now from Ms. Blank. 

STATEMENT OF HELEN BLANK, DIRECTOR OF CHILD CARE AND 

DEVELOPMENT, CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. Blank. Thank you. We welcome the opportunity to testify today, and we look forward to 

working with the subcommittee to improve families' access to quality childcare. We especially 

appreciate the bills that Representatives Mink and Miller have introduced that would make 

significant progress in helping families work and children learn. 

 As you consider childcare and CCDBG, remember that it helps achieve two primary 

objectives, allowing low-income parents to support their families and work, both mothers on 

welfare and mothers who are trying desperately to stay off welfare in low-wage jobs, as well as 

providing the early learning experiences that children need to do well in school. The demand for 

childcare has escalated dramatically since the passage of the welfare act, with both the number of 

welfare mothers and single mothers rapidly entering the workforce. The president's welfare 

proposal actually increases the number of families who will need childcare help. 

 Childcare can be a huge burden for families. It costs four to 10 thousand dollars a year, 

more than the cost of public college tuition. It is interesting to note that 77 percent of college 

tuition is paid for by the public and private sector, where parents are only asked to pick up 23 

percent of the cost. At the front, as our witness has testified, a very important end, parents must 

pay 60 percent of the cost of childcare. The private sector only pays 1 percent, and government 

only picks up 39 percent. 

 With the help of Congress, we have made tremendous progress, and the number of children 

and families getting childcare assistance has increased over the past five years, but we are not there 

yet. Only one in seven children who are eligible for CCDBG receive help. A report that CDF did 

indicates that, even in a robust economy, there are huge gaps in families' access to quality 

childcare. There are three major choices that states, as they try to balance limited resources, make 

regarding childcare assistance: who is eligible for help, how much parents contribute to the cost of 

care, and how much providers are paid. In each of these areas, we have got room for improvement. 

 For example, over one-third of the states have waiting lists for childcare help or have just 

closed intake, and these waiting lists are sizeable: 37,000 in Florida and Texas, 12,000 in Indiana, 

18,000 in Massachusetts. Some people say, well, don't worry, those families on the waiting list, 

they found childcare. These families are poor families, remember that, and they face tremendous 

hardships as they try to go to work, and they do not get childcare assistance. 
16

 A 1998 survey of parents on the waiting list in Santa Clara County, California, found that 

over one-third of parents earn $10,000 a year or less. About 40 percent of parents said they had 

given up searching for work, because they could not find affordable childcare. Forty-two percent 

had problems with quality. 

 In Houston, most families on the wait list were spending 25 to 30 percent of their incomes 

on childcare. Imagine. These families on the wait list are not just TANF families. They are lowincome working families, and only a handful of states, and they have tried, are managing to provide 

childcare assistance as a guarantee to both welfare families and low-income working families, 

because welfare reform will not work if we just look at welfare families, because every low-wage 

family is one unstable childcare arrangement away from losing their job. They cannot go back on 

welfare anymore with time limits. 

 Waiting lists tell only part of the story. They do not include families who do not bother to 

apply because they believe it is futile, and as we heard from Kansas, they do not include the 

millions of families who, because states do not do outreach, because they know their money is 

limited, do not even know that childcare help exists. 

 Families that receive help still face hurdles. States may make burdensome co-payments. 

Thirty-five states require families at half the poverty level, $7,000 a year for a family of three, to 

pay a co-pay. Forty-six states require poverty-level families to pay a co-pay. 

 The quality, and you heard this already from other witnesses, of care and even a family's 

basic choice of providers is determined by how much states pay providers. Remember that these 

providers are struggling low-wage women themselves, many of their children eligible for childcare subsidies. Nearly half the states set rates on outdated market rate surveys of the cost of care. 

What does this mean, 75th percentile? Think about it. How can a provider be expected to provide 

good care to children if she is receiving a payment based on what childcare cost in 1996 and it is 

2002? Her rents, her salaries, utilities, and even the cost of books and crayons are not frozen in 

time. 

 So, what do states do? To make up for these shortcomings, two-thirds of states say, well, 

you can charge families more than the required co-payments? What does that mean? For families 

to have real choice, they must even pay more for childcare out of their income already stretched to 

the limit. 

 These gaps are growing wider. Last year, New Mexico slashed its eligibility limits from 

200 to 100 percent of the poverty level. West Virginia plans to cut eligibility. So does the state of 

Washington. West Virginia is eliminating a planned bonus reimbursement rate for infant and oddhour care, the care that is hardest to find. Texas, by 2003, will serve 6,200 fewer poor working 

families than it did in 2001. They have pulled their TANF money out of childcare. 

 Gaps in subsidy policies are only one part of the picture. Overall quality must be addressed.

We know that children's early experiences have a profound impact on their ability to succeed in 

school, and many of those experiences are in a childcare setting. Forty-six percent of kindergarten 

teachers report children are not prepared for school. In order to have a strong start, the first line of 
17

business is a well-compensated and trained teacher. Yet, we pay $16,350, on average, for a 

childcare provider. So, as a result, the turnover rate is nearly one-third. Children cannot form 

stable relationships with teachers. 

 A number of states have made promising steps to address this issue, but do you know what 

we spend nationwide? Twenty-five million dollars of CCDBG and TANF money to raise care giver 

wages. It is wonderful that we are doing it. It is a drop in the bucket. Most states don't have basic 

minimum levels of quality. In this country, in 30 states, you can go to work with no training in 

child development in a childcare center and in 33 states, in a family childcare home. How can we 

meet the goals of the Leave No Child Behind Act that you passed last year if we do not start early? 

 States need more resources. They have done wonderful things with their quality money. 

They have hired more inspectors. They have staff and resource and referral programs providing 

support to childcare providers, but 4 percent is not enough for well-trained and compensated staff, 

low staff-child ratios, roomy facilities, basic equipment, regular monitoring of providers, resource 

and referral programs to help families find care. 

 It is essential that CCDBG be strengthened. We cannot just use other programs. We have 

had greater investments in Head Start and pre-K, but Head Start only serves three out of five 

eligible children, early Head Start less than 5 percent. State pre-K programs serve few of the lowincome children who are eligible, and both Head Start and pre-K are part-day programs. If they 

want to meet the needs of working parents, they need a full child-care subsidy wrapped around it.

It's not double counting. These are two separate programs that have to work together. 

 We have nearly 7 million children at home alone after school, and only 11 percent of the 

requests for funding for 21st century community learning centers were funded. About a third of the 

children receiving CCDBG subsidies are school age. 

 We need more investments. We think we should be doubling the number of children 

served, providing care to at least 2 million children over the next five years, and increase the funds 

targeted to improving the quality of care. 

 This is an important opportunity with reauthorization to expand investments in a program 

so crucial to the goals of both Congress and the administration, the goals of helping our families 

work, stay off welfare, be self-sufficient, and the other equally important goal of helping ensure all 

children go to school ready to learn so the education reform bill is a success. 

 Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HELEN BLANK, DIRECTOR OF CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT, 

CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND, WASHINGTON, DC – SEE APPENDIX G 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. 
18

 I am going to recess until someone returns to get in the chair, and so it will be just a couple 

of minutes, and then we will move forward. 

 So we will be in recess at this time. 

 [Recess.] 

Mr. Castle. [presiding] The subcommittee will resume. 

 As you can see, people are still voting, and they will be coming back, and Chairman 

McKeon will be here in a moment, believe me, I am not just taking over, I was authorized to do 

this. I think it is important to point out, since I am the only one here at this point, and hopefully 

somebody from the minority side will be here in time, when I finish my questions. 

 Let me thank all of you. You may have, from my introduction of Helen Riley, come to 

understand how important I think this subject is, and I do not mean the subject, necessarily, of what 

we are doing at the federal government but the subject of caring for kids and getting them ready for 

life and particularly ready for school. I am just a strong believer that those developmental years are 

it, and if we do not take advantage of that, then we are going to have problems. Having said that, 

how we do it becomes a heck of a lot cloudier out there. It is not easy, and the funding issues are 

not easy, as well. 

 So, let me just ask some questions, perhaps, specifically, and let me start with my friend, 

Mr. Besharov. 

 You said that providing care to a greater number of children is not simply a matter of 

needing more funding. If funding is, in fact, adequate, what are the issues that are responsible for 

creating what I am going to call, an apparent shortage in childcare? You may not view it as a 

shortage.

Mr. Besharov. The problem is how we set eligibility or how the Congress set eligibility under the 

CCDF when that was enacted. Eligibility nationwide is up to a maximum of 85 percent of state 

median income for families, and that takes the maximum, in some states, in excess of $40,000 a 

year of family income. So, we have a very large potential eligibility built into the law, and then we 

have the need being viewed from two dimensions, one for the poor and the near-poor, welfare 

leavers and otherwise, and then, secondly, as a generalized childcare program for low- and middleincome Americans. 

 So, if the Congress truly desires to serve up to 85 percent of median family income, which 

is a very high income, I wish I had come prepared to tell you what it was in Delaware, but it is 

high.

Mr. Castle. Glad you did not, but go ahead. 

Mr. Besharov. That program nationwide would cost something like $40 billion a year, as opposed 

to the 4 billion being spent directly and the other three being spent through TANF. There are a lot 
19

of people, as you heard Helen and others mention, only 15 percent of people who are technically 

eligible under the CCDF get benefits, and that is because the bar is very high. I tried to lower the 

bar to talk about welfare leavers and the working poor, which are families with an income at or 

around 100 to about 115 percent of the poverty line. 

 For those families, I think most observers agree that there is enough money in the system to 

serve them. The disagreement is why those people are not getting funded. 

Mr. Castle. Okay. Actually, it is a very complicated subject, and perhaps I asked a more 

complicated question than we can lend itself to in a five-minute answer, and I actually am 

interested in the Delaware figures on that. We really do need to understand all that, and I think we 

should come back to it at some point. I do want to ask a couple other questions. 

 I know that Ms. Riley can answer this, and perhaps Ms. Ponder, as well, but I would be 

interested to know what the parents share with you regarding their searches for child care. I am 

hearing, at the hearing, that a lot of people are not even looking for first choice, second choice, they 

are just looking for, you know, where is it, the logistics of it or whatever it may be, but are you 

running into parents who are truly weighing this or, in the case of low-income parents, there is no 

weight of educational opportunities, other opportunities for the kids? 

 I am not saying that parents do not care. I am just saying what do you find that they are 

looking for, not what you are providing but what they are looking for. 

Ms. Riley. May I? 

Mr. Castle. Yes, you may. 

Ms. Riley. Parents do care. They do not want to put their children just somewhere. We get, I 

would say, right now, we are averaging, because we keep a tally, 15 to 20 calls a day for purchase 

of care slots in our program. We are serving 125 children at any given time. 

 So, that number of daily calls is huge. That says to me there is a big pool of people out 

there.

Mr. Castle. So, what are they looking for? 

Ms. Riley. What they are looking for is loving care of their children. They are looking for hours 

that are compatible with their work time, but more than anything, they are looking for programs 

that will get their children ready for school, in addition to baby-sitting. 

Mr. Castle. Is that really true, or is it true because you all do it, so they come to you, at your 

school, your nursery and school? 

Ms. Riley. The kinds of things that parents say, even parents who come when their children that are 

one or two years old, is that he was home with my mom, his grandmother, but I really want him to 

get used to a social setting and being around other children. I want him to learn. I want him to be 
20

ready for school. So, education, early education is very important to parents. 

Mr. Castle. I do not mean to cut you off, but my time is up, and I want Ms. Ponder to respond 

momentarily, if she could, too, before we go to Mr. Tierney, I guess. 

Ms. Ponder. It is an issue we have struggled with in North Carolina, and one of the ways, all the 

national research says that parents are not good choosers of their child's care, and we know that is 

for many reasons. Basically, they do not have money to pay for good care, and it would be terrible 

for them to say their child is in bad care just because that is all they could afford, and so, they sort 

of close their eyes to things that do not work sometimes. 

 So, the way we have addressed that is to institute a five-star rating system and then to train 

parents through an education campaign about what the difference is for a family, so that when they 

walk into a child care center in North Carolina, they have a potential five stars, and if it is a onestar, they know that is the worst child care that has a rating, that is licensed in our state. It has been 

very effective, but the other thing is you have got to have enough good choices or it does not matter 

what they know. If they cannot afford and get good quality childcare, then it does not matter. It 

just makes them feel worse about their child's situation. 

 So it is a continuing issue for families, but one I think there are answers to if there is enough 

good care provided. 

Mr. Castle. Thank you. I appreciate that. I cannot imagine how long the one-star operations stay 

in business, but 

Ms. Ponder. It is actually now very slim. We like to see them go out of business every day. 

Mr. Castle. Thank you. 

Ms. Ponder. If they are not willing to improve. 

Mr. Castle. I understand, not willing to upgrade. Mr. Tierney. 

Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Thanks to the chairman. 

 I was struck two weekends ago when I had a chance to go to a conference on education and 

one that the chairman at the moment had to been to last year. They had it again this year, and one 

of the publications that came out was funded by a lot of foundations, MacArthur and Ford or 

whatever, but their principle argument was that we should have children going to school at age 

three and four, as well as five, and all the way up. They estimate, and these were mostly businesspeople that had participated in putting this together, as well as the foundations. It was not anything 

biased in one direction or the other, but it would be about $40 billion just for the federal cost, and 

that is if the states shared, to get three, four, whatever, and obviously, with roughly a little over $4 

billion, we are a long way from that. 
21

 So, we look at, I suspect, what can we do in the interim to try to get people back to work? 

That is what this is supposedly all about it, and we have got quality problems, we have got access 

problems. 

 I am struck, Ms. Blank, by the fact that your testimony indicates that, at $16,000, roughly 

the average pay for these people, they could qualify to have their kids sent to these programs. It 

strikes me as bizarre. So, when I look and see that the proposed funding in the budget that has been 

sent down to the House of Representatives for consideration would freeze the funding for not only 

the CCDBG but also for after-school programs, talk to me about that. 

 How realistic is that, and how responsible is that for us to let that sit without putting that 

up?

Ms. Blank. I think that this is a very big issue, and people, for years, just have not been able to be 

honest about the resources you need to make it work. You cannot freeze childcare for five years. I 

mean look what happens when you just freeze rates to providers. What does that say to those 

children waiting for care, and you have to look at where children are. We talk about good, strong 

early learning experiences. 

 There was a mother in Florida who had her three children on the wait list for Florida. At 

that point, it was 25,000. Her three children were in front of a TV set with a provider who spoke 

no English and no furniture all day long. When she received her subsidy, she was able to go to a 

childcare center. It was not terrific, Florida has low standards, but it was so much better. 

 We cannot freeze all those families out for the next five years. It is great that North 

Carolina has a rated licensing system, but there are 25,000 families on the waiting list. So, think 

about it, if those families cannot get off the waiting list, how they feel going to that one-star center 

every day. 

 This is not going to work without additional resources. Charlie Gruner, who was in Iowa, 

who has done a lot of work on collaboration among programs, wrote something a few years ago, 

and he said it isn't collaboration in early childhood, just lack of resources. If you pay someone 

$16,000 a year, how are you going to get programs to hire qualified staff? 

Mr. Tierney. Let me ask Mr. Schalansky and Ms. Ponder and again Ms. Blank, probably in that 

order, what would be the impact on the development of these children and on school readiness of 

children and on the labor force itself if we adequately funded these types of programs? Talk to us 

about how it would change our workforce, how it would change the prospects for the development 

of those children. 

Ms. Schalansky. I met with a group of human resource professionals in the greater Kansas City 

area about a year ago, and some of the things that they talked to us about was the loss of 

productivity in their workplaces because moms and dads couldn't get to work because they didn't 

have child care, and I think that it becomes very critical that we do that. 
22

 We also know that, as Ms. Blank mentioned, that the most underpaid professionals we have 

are those who we ask to serve our children at zero to five, and I think it is critical that we continue 

to find a way to raise wages, to increase the quality. 

 We know and all the research shows, the higher training and the quality of the teachers in 

childcare, the better the quality and the more learning that can happen. You heard the data about 

the number of children who are coming to school not ready to learn because of inadequate early 

childhood experiences, and we use the term in our state ``early education'' and not early childcare. 

Because it so often was equated with baby-sitting, which does not get the results that we want. We 

know that in Kansas, which about two-thirds is very rural; all we have in most of those 

communities is home-based care. 

 So we have tried to spend some effort through our Kansas State University, through their 

extension offices, to get training to those home-based care, but it is critical that we raise the quality 

of the staff there and that we get increases in the slots. I have difficulty in our state believing that 

we have enough funding with the number of children that are still waiting. 

Mr. Tierney. If I can keep the chairman distracted, we will go to Ms. Ponder. 

Ms. Ponder. I just wanted to add to that that the business sector in North Carolina has been 

extremely interested in the subject, because clearly it is their workforce, not only their future 

workforce but their present workforce that is struggling with the issues around child care. So, they 

have not only been willing to talk to us about it, but they have been willing to find it and have been 

very key in helping us maintain what we have now, but their philosophy has been, if a child has the 

right foundation, then they have the best potential to be successful in whatever they achieve. 

 So I think we have got to make sure that every child has the foundation built, that literally, 

and I am the grandmother of four under three years old, watching the language development real 

close and personal again in the very earliest years and the potential for learning when children have 

the right beginnings affirms to me again that it is immoral for us not to give every child the right 

beginning. So, the ways we can do that with childcare and early education, we do know what 

works.

 For us, it literally is a matter of having enough money to pay for it. 

Chairman McKeon. Mr. Isakson. 

Mr. Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Besharov, would you describe for me, and I want to make sure I understand what you 

are saying when you say home-based care. Tell me what home-based care is, because you talked 

about the obstacles to it. 

Mr. Besharov. Home-based care is care by relatives, including sisters of the parents, grandparents 

of the children. It includes, also, friends and neighbors down the street, and it also includes 

licensed or unlicensed group homes in the neighborhood, and for children under three, that is the 
23

predominant form of childcare in this country. The difference is that older children and their 

parents tend to like a more center-based arrangement, but when we are talking about infants and 

toddlers, there is a much stronger preference to be with a friend down the street. 

Mr. Isakson. Your testimony talked about, in a number of states, there are too many obstacles for 

there to be enough of that type of care. Is that correct? 

Mr. Besharov. The care is there, and the parents are paying for it. The obstacles are getting the 

vouchers to reimburse funding. It is only one in five welfare leavers getting a subsidy, even though 

there is enough money for all of them, because the money is going to other people. 

Mr. Isakson. Thank you. 

Ms. Schalansky, is that the same type of care that you described as informal care providers? 

Ms. Schalansky. Yes. That would be correct. It would be small home providers in our state, 

typically less than six children in that home. 

Mr. Isakson. Do you agree with Mr. Besharov in terms of, any number of states, the obstacles 

being so high that they cannot get the funding for that type of care? 

Ms. Schalansky. I am not sure that I am aware of that in the same way that he talks about it, 

because I think, for us, it is our predominant way to deliver care in many of our small and rural 

communities. I do not think we have the obstacles that he talks about being described. We have 

also tried to put some special provisions in our regulations, which allow for relative care if that is 

the parent's choice. 

Mr. Isakson. Mr. Besharov, I think you mentioned in your testimony fingerprinting of a relative as 

an obstacle to qualifying for the funding. Was I correct? 

Mr. Besharov. That is correct. 

Mr. Isakson. I think Ms. Ponder, whose accent, being from Georgia, I just love, by the way. 

Ms. Ponder. I am not. 

Mr. Isakson. I love southern accents, but I believe you talked about the necessity for some degree 

of security in terms of background checks and fingerprinting. 

Ms. Ponder. Right, because we have some history of not doing that well. 

Mr. Isakson. I understand that being an obstacle. I also understand, from being at the state level 

for so long, the threshold that people are holding all of us to, try and make sure we do not get 

children in dangerous situations. 
24

Ms. Ponder. One of the ways we have done that is to actually work with those families that 

provide care. Our state pays half the reimbursement to unlicensed care, which is what we call that 

kind of care, but even if that is unlicensed care, the real issue is that families need access to high 

quality, whether it is unlicensed or licensed. 

 We work with those families, and often it is the case that there are some obstacles to their 

not getting an approval by the state. We are not trying to say what they teach children, if it is 

religious or whatever, but that the setting needs to be of high quality enough to meet the school 

readiness needs of children regardless of who does it. I think we have to be careful that we do not 

argue who does it but that it is high quality wherever a child is. It should be a high quality home, 

for that matter. 

Mr. Isakson. In Georgia, we have worked at getting facilitators and trainers into these 

environments. Ms. Schalansky mentioned that in her printed testimony, to try and raise that level. 

 I do not have another question. I just wanted to really compliment all of the panel, but I 

subscribe to Ms. Riley's testimony with regard to early childhood development, the brain research, 

and you are absolutely correct on the stimulants in those first 36 months, and the flip side of that is 

the lack of that stimulus forever closes the door in many children forever in terms of language and 

music and a lot of cognitive skills. 

 So I commend you for what you are doing and for what I am sure your school is doing in 

Delaware, and I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

Ms. Mink? 

Mrs. Mink. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate all of the testimony today 

about the unmet needs of our children in being provided with quality childcare programs, that they 

might, if there were adequate funding, be available to utilize, and it would be beneficial, 

particularly for the younger children, to get them more ready for their regular school experience.

So, I appreciate the testimony, and although it is somewhat depressing, I must say, to hear the 

statistics of the numbers of people that are being turned away, Ms. Riley, I think you talked about a 

typical day, you had 14 phone calls and 12 you had to turn away. 

Ms. Riley. We had 14 phone calls. This was the day before yesterday. 

Mrs. Mink. Typical day? 

Ms. Riley. That is typical, 14 phone calls, 12 eligible for purchase of care, no spaces for any of 

them. 

Mrs. Mink. Okay. Twelve were found qualified. Where would they go? 
25

Ms. Riley. In Delaware, a lot of them end up in family care or in family day-care homes, other 

centers. They do not get their first choice. 

Mrs. Mink. So, in your experience, out of the 14 that called you, the center-based care was their 

first choice? 

Ms. Riley. Yes. 

Mrs. Mink Or they would not have called you, right? 

Ms. Riley. That is right. 

Mrs. Mink. So, they, then, have to turn to family care. 

Ms. Riley. Right. 

Mrs. Mink. So, we have to be concerned about both the care and then what happens to those that 

cannot be accommodated. 

 Do you have any statistics, Ms. Ponder, since you have this state experience, as well, of the 

number of children that qualify totally for the federal support and who are not now being provided 

either family-based care or center-based care, and what happens to these families is they have 

neither. Do we have any statistics to show that? 

Ms. Ponder. Well, we have 25,000 on our waiting list so they qualify. 

Mrs. Mink. What happens to the 25,000? 

Ms. Ponder. They are in random places. You know, their sister, big sister stays home every other 

day and their brother stays. It is all kinds of arrangements. Their grandmother, who is elderly, may 

keep them. 

Mrs. Mink. Well, the 25,000, are those welfare? 

Ms. Ponder. They are low-income. 

Mrs. Mink. Not necessarily welfare. 

Ms. Ponder. No. We are serving most of the welfare families. 

Mrs. Mink. Including the welfare leavers? 

Ms. Ponder. Yes, at this point, but you know, we're under some financial crunch. 
26

Mrs. Mink. Twenty-five thousand are working family children. 

Ms. Ponder. Very poor working, just barely over the line in some cases and just barely holding on, 

and some of them are paying for part of their care and literally choosing between clothes and food 

and child care. So, it is a combination of ways that they keep managing until they can hopefully 

get some money. 

Mrs. Mink. So, Ms. Blank, in your testimony, you provided the committee with a good bit of 

statistics and other figures, which really lay the foundation of a tremendous need. On the quality 

issue, for instance, which is a major point of your testimony, how can we, sharing that concern and 

supporting it and believing that something has to be done, how do we go about doing it in the 

federal legislation? 

Ms. Blank. Well, the balance is flexibility for states. You cannot do much; I will be honest, unless 

you add more resources. 

Mrs. Mink. Well, now we say 4 percent. 

Ms. Blank. Right. There is 4 percent now and states spend, on average, about 6, but they have to 

serve all those families on the wait list. 

 So, if you provided additional resources, I mean we estimated, if you added $20 billion of 

mandatory money this year, over five years, you could serve 2 million more children if you tripled 

that quality set-aside. That would allow states to do more of the innovative work that is going on in 

North Carolina.

Mrs. Mink. Do we say in the current law where they have to spend 4 percent of the TANF money, 

our childcare development money that they have to spend for quality? 

Ms. Blank. There are very few limits, and there always have been, in childcare, in the statute. The 

statute simply says 4 percent of CCDBG must be spent for quality. 

Mrs. Mink. Do we say that it must be matched, that was my question, by the states? 

Ms. Blank. Childcare is funded in two ways. Part of it is discretionary through appropriations and 

part of it is mandatory. The mandatory funds must be matched by the states at the Medicaid 

matching rate. So, they do contribute to the cost of care. 

 They contribute to the total CCDBG pot. In order to draw down the money, they have to 

provide a match. So, they do contribute. 

Mrs. Mink. So, you think, by increasing the funding in the program and increasing the percentage, 

that we might come closer to meeting the need of quality? 

Ms. Blank. There are a number of steps you could take. You could increase the percentage. We 

have particular needs for infants and toddlers. That, I think, is probably the lowest-quality care and 
27

the hardest to find. You could target more resources on infant care. You could say the only 

standards in CCDBG are that states must have minimal standards around training and health and 

safety and physical premise safety. 

Mrs. Mink. Do we say anything about compensation of the workers? 

Ms. Blank. No, and there is numerous things that you could do. You could say that anyone who 

works in a formal childcare setting, not relatives, but anyone who works in family child or in 

childcare centers has to have training in child development, not a degree, maybe two hours, before 

they work with young children. That would be a start. You could have a special set-aside or 

program. The Miller bill has a title in CCDBG that is called Focus, which just focuses on both 

creating programs to help providers who do not have education get education, and it is a slow 

business.

Mrs. Mink. What about Ms. Riley's point of getting 14 phone calls and 12 being turned away? 

What can we do about increasing the number of care centers for children? We talked about quality. 

We talked about the compensation of the workers. What can we do to increase the availability, Ms. 

Riley, or anyone? 

Ms. Blank. If you added more resources, in fact, when we originally worked on childcare a very 

long time ago, Senator Hatch had put in the bill a set-aside for supply building. You could say to 

states, and again, there is a balance, because states like flexibility. You could say here is a set-aside 

of funds just to improve the supply. There is no money available for child-care construction. We 

have been very fortunate because we have opened up church basements and whatever, but if you 

looked at the average childcare facility, I think you would be a little sad. We have storefronts. We 

have programs that really are not built for young children. 

 So, you could direct more of the money to supply. A lot of this is resources, and what we 

do is we do the best we can and states do the best they can by making trade-offs. 

Ms. Riley. May I respond, because in Delaware there is no wait list? There is no waiting list in 

Delaware. Everyone is being served. The point I was making is that parents are making a selective 

choice for better programs for their children with an educational component, and we serve infants 

and toddlers, we serve children from two months. Infant care is extremely expensive to provide and 

to do in a quality way. It is very labor-intensive. It needs a lot of equipment. 

 Actually, my board did a study, and everybody assumed that kindergarten was going to be 

the most expensive program to run, except that those of us administering the school knew it is the 

infant care, where we have ratios in our program of one to two or one to three, depending on the 

age of children. 

 So, that is the point. That is what people are looking for. They are looking for quality, 

whether it is for an infant or for a three-, four-, or five-year old. 

Mrs. Mink. I yield back my time. 
28

Ms. Blank. The Miller bill actually has another provision, Mrs. Mink, which would allow for states 

to provide more support for accredited, high-quality childcare, which is another step in the right 

direction.

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

Ms. Schalansky, you mention in your written statement the importance of cross-program 

flexibility and coordination. What federal laws or regulations impede your ability to do that? 

Ms. Schalansky. Well, I do not know that there is anything that impedes it right now, except I 

think we have concerns about increased set-asides or increased limits that could be added to the 

current legislation. 

 In Kansas, I said, right now, there's a 4 percent quality set-aside. We exceed that 

significantly, because that is where one of our priorities are, but I think that it is important that, as 

we reauthorize, that in order to try to make some things happen in the system, that we do not set 

some set-asides or some limits that prevent the flexibility. I think our ability to blend or braid 

funding with other folks who will come to the table, whether they are employers, whether they are 

United Ways, whether they are other foundations, has been critical, and if we can get them to do a 

piece, let us say our United Way was going to do a lot of quality. I would hate to see our set-aside 

tied up to the fact that we could not get them to the table, so that whatever flexibility, I think, 

would help us, and we do not want to see any increases in that. 

 The other piece, and one is on the food funding, the child food funding, which now is 

hooked to a social service block grant. I remember, earlier in my career, when I ran a childcare 

program, we spent most of the money we spent on childcare in Kansas was social service block 

grant, but in order to get that childcare food program, you have to use SSBG, and I think states 

have shifted, and we believe that that ought to be tied to either TANF or CCDBG now. 

 So, that would be one thing, and I thank my little helper for reminding me of that. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

Mr. Besharov, your written testimony suggests that the current benchmarks for 

reimbursement rates is arbitrary. What, in your opinion, would be a better way to establish or target 

the reimbursement rates? 

Mr. Besharov. Well, the benchmark is set now at 85 percent of median family income. That is 

very high, and as we have heard here today, would cost $40 billion or more a year to meet, 

nowhere near current expenditures and it was put at that level to guarantee states the flexibility, that 

states that wanted to spend more money could, wanted to change their eligibility could. I think 

there is a simple solution here that would clarify where we spend, and that is to say that states can 

give childcare subsidies to anyone they wish as long as they serve the lowest income first and the 

second lowest next. 
29

 In other words, just impose an income test that says the most needy first, and let the states 

serve whomever they would like. That would avoid the dueling paradigms we have here between 

an eligibility standard that is much too high for planning, very few states are using the federal 

standard, and yet the advocacy is around the federal standard. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

Mr. Besharov. I also want to apologize. When I was invited to testify, I explained that I have a 

class at 4:00 o'clock in College Park, and as we have heard from every other member of this panel, 

the students come first, even if they are over 20 years old, and I will have to leave. I am very sorry, 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 

Chairman McKeon. We appreciate you being here and understand that, and we think that students 

should come first, too. 

I think they may be having a vote anytime, so we are getting toward the end. 

Ms. Ponder. Mr. Chairman, may I just respond? In North Carolina, with the rules as they now 

exist, we can set the eligibility anywhere we want to, and for us, we had set it at 75 percent. 

 So, I do not understand what you need to do to help that, and maybe that is just my 

ignorance, because maybe it is that the state, and I wish he were not leaving, so we could talk about 

it. Maybe it is just that his state will not change it. 

 Is that the case? 

Mr. Besharov. No, no, no.

Ms. Ponder. Okay, because I think that is an important issue. 

Mr. Besharov. There are two discussions taking place today, in my opinion. One is about the 

quality of childcare, generally center-based care, and what we do about that. The second 

conversation is what we do about the working poor, including welfare leavers, to enable them to 

put their children in a safe and reasonably good place while they work. Those two objectives are 

very difficult to match together unless you spend the 40 billion or more, because many of those 

low-income mothers are working odd hours, evenings, weekends, and so forth. 

 I do not know of any centers that operate that way, and I understand both sides of this 

argument. That is why I say parse it out at the state level. You cannot get it right here in 

Washington, I believe, but Mr. Miller knows I always say that. I do not think we can, but I think it 

shows. We can let the states that want to go higher, that want to put their own money in, do it. I 

am not saying cut dollars. I am not saying that at all. 

 I am just saying clarify this discussion so that the state officials know that they are not 

aiming at 85 percent of state median income. They are aiming at serving as many people as 

possible, starting at the bottom and working their way up. That would be, it seems to me, a 
30

legitimate way to go, but I realize that that would be quite controversial, and I really apologize.

Please invite me back, please do not have a vote, and so forth. Excuse me. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Blank. Can I just say that most states do target their assistance on the poorest families? When 

we ask them, they usually target. So, they give the poorest families childcare assistance now, and 

you want to have enough flexibility so families' incomes can go up without losing childcare help. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. 

 My time is up. Mr. Miller. 

Mr. Miller. Thank you. 

 I like your aggressiveness. I was afraid I was going to have to use my time so you could 

answer Doug. 

Ms. Ponder, let me ask you if you might, I think I am re-plowing some of the ground that 

Mrs. Mink referred to, but I think it is an important point, and that is, how did South Carolina, I 

mean North Carolina, sorry. 

Ms. Ponder. That is okay. I am a native South Carolinian. 

Mr. Miller. Good. My kids went to school in South Carolina, so we are equal here. 

 North Carolina, you have made a conscious decision around the question of improving 

provider training and qualifications, and in your testimony, you quickly jumped over what you 

think some of the results are, but you know, that is an expensive decision to make, and yet the state 

made it, and I just wonder if you might walk us through that. 

Ms. Ponder. Well, we believe it is the most critical piece of what happens with a child in a 

program, because if the teacher is educated about early child development and early education, then 

they're going to do the right thing for kids regardless of what, maybe the storefront or wherever 

they are. 

 So, we decided, based on the research, that if we could improve the education of teachers in 

early care and education, that that would probably be the single most important thing; if we could 

just work hard on one thing, that is what it would be. 

 So, that was our reason, and it has turned out to be the case, because as we have improved 

the education of the teachers, we have improved the quality of the programs, and we have a long 

way to go. We are not there yet, and it is expensive, but our state was committed to doing it, and 

we have put a lot of our money in that. 
31

Mr. Miller. There is a school of thought that has been said to me a couple of times, that, you know, 

bad childcare is not as bad as we think it is for children. 

Ms. Ponder. I have spent my life doing this, and I have spent most of it actually either in the 

classroom or guiding the classrooms from a director's perspective, and I know that bad childcare 

harms children. I have seen it in my state over and over again. 

 I honestly believe, and I do not say this often, and this is sure not the safe place to say it if I 

do not say it often, but I honestly believe that bad childcare is worse than no childcare, because in 

bad childcare, if you have a teacher that does not know what that person is doing, not only is it 

harming an individual child, but you have got a whole classroom of little people who are 

interacting with each other in probably inappropriate ways if the teacher is not in charge of the 

class and does not have meaningful things going on. So, they are fighting and falling all over each 

other and hitting and doing all those kinds of things. 

 You can handle that better if you are a bad provider and you just have one or two children 

at home with them than in a classroom. I honestly have been in classrooms that were licensed that 

I think are abusing children because of what is happening there. I think it's a critical issue. I wish I 

did not believe that. I wish I could convince myself that it is not the case, but it is, and in many 

cases, it is that they do not know any better. Let me give you the best example that I experienced. 

 I trained, before Smart Start, I was training people about how to do it better, you know, 

classroom at a time, center at a time, and I did this entire training, like a three-hour session, on how 

you manage behavior with four-year-olds, and I really thought I had done a good job. People 

seemed to get it that you redirect, you do not have running places that invite them to run. You have 

them involved. You have them learning a little bit more than they already know. 

 Well, I got finished, and I said is there a last question, because it is time to go, and one of 

these teachers said to me, you have not told me how you punish a two-year-old for wetting their 

pants, and I literally jumped up and down and said where do you start to explain that you do not 

punish a two-year-old? 

 So, that is the kind of thing I am talking about. If a person does not understand, for 

example, that a two-year-old, part of their job is climbing, that is what a two-year-old was made 

for. They love it. They are going to do it. They are going to do it appropriately or they are going 

to get in trouble for doing it, which is what you see in an inappropriate two-year-old classroom, 

you know, children standing in the corner because they were climbing on something. 

Mr. Miller. I am going to ask you to stop there for a second. 

Ms. Ponder. I am sorry. 

Mr. Miller. Just as the light goes, Ms. Riley is over there shaking her head, so I want to give her a 

chance.
32

Ms. Ponder. I hope you are agreeing. 

Ms. Riley. I certainly am agreeing. I think that there is no way that dangerous situations, situations 

where people really don't know what they're doing, there is no way that that should be a place 

where we put children. The other thing that is appalling to me, when I said I wanted to speak as a 

citizen and a voter and all, is that we are paying for that. It is as ridiculous to me as when we paid 

money for those toilet seats that cost hundreds of dollars. 

 We should be outraged that we would spend $2 of government money on something that 

nobody would buy. There is no value for the dollars spent, and to me, the thing I worry about is are 

we really saying that we do not value the children that much, that it is okay? I mean that is what is 

wrong with the educational system. We have not decided about zero to five. We have not decided 

as a culture, as a country what it is that we want for our children and our future. They are left out 

of the equation. 

Mr. Miller. Thank you. 

 Let me just say, we look at this, I hope, from this committee's point of view, you know, 

what we have learned about children over the last 30, 35 years is, whether you look at children as 

just something to be taken care of or whether you look at an infant or a toddler or a two-year-old as 

this immense opportunity about the rest of their lives, and you know, Ms. Riley, you are right.

Why would we spend a dollar that we do not get value for? 

 You know, we are trying to stop that. It is a bit of a habit, but we are trying to stop it, and 

especially when, you know, it is about what the pediatricians and neonatal specialists and all these 

people tell us, is that, you know, this is a bundle of opportunity, if handled properly, and I think this 

committee is going to have to decide which vision it has of children. If they are just sort of to be 

maintained while parents go to work, if this is just about storage until kids, until the parent comes 

to pick him up, that is one vision of the world. 

 I do not know how you would buy into that, but it is conceivable, and in some instances, 

that is about what the care equals, is you are just storing your kid here until you get home, and it is 

because, and you talked about the choices, but it is really about, for us, as policy-makers, whether 

or not we can extract all that potential or help to extract all that potential out of these children while 

they are in the most formative years of their lives. They are going to make other choices later in 

their lives we know about, but clearly here is one where they are a sponge for development and 

opportunity.

Ms. Riley. May I respond? 

Mr. Miller. Sure. 

Ms. Riley. You know, to me, it is as if the light went on, finally, in my own state that the mission 

to be accomplished with welfare reform was to get people to work, and so, putting children in 

childcare of any kind, and I am not a proponent of center care. I am a proponent of quality 

wherever it is. The mission was to get people to work. It was not to provide an early education. It 
33

was not to make sure that there was quality. It was not any of those things. It was to get people to 

work, and it has been successful, but in what happened, we saw other opportunities unfold, and 

they are related. 

 The opportunities to do something with those zero to five years are so related to other major 

problems that we are facing that I think it is just a matter of where does this belong now? Is it tied 

to the working issue? Is it tied to education? Is it tied to criminal justice? Is it tied to everything? 

So, maybe the piece that send people to work just comes out of health and social services, but 

maybe there needs to be collaboration and partnerships among different branches of the 

government to make sure we accomplish everything that there is the potential to accomplish. 

Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman McKeon. Well, I think there has been a lot of eloquence here, and I think you have hit 

some really good points. I also have a lot of grandchildren. I have 24 grandchildren and a lot more 

than three under three, but really, we have been blessed. Their mothers are able to stay home with 

them, and I watch them work with them, and as has been said, they are like a sponge, and watching 

them soak that up, they are very blessed, and one of the problems I personally have to deal with, 

being a member of Congress, is every day I get frustrated. 

 There are many more opportunities and things that can be done than we seem to be able to 

accomplish or have the resources or the abilities to tackle, but there have been some very good 

things, I think, come out of this hearing, and I appreciate your being here, the things that you have 

brought.

 I appreciate the members that have been here and the questions that they have asked. 

 I hope that, as we move forward with legislation, you will keep in touch with us and that we 

can come back to you for more questions if we have them and that you will feel like, as you leave 

here, if there is something else you wanted to say, get it to us. We will keep the record open and 

get it in the record, and with that, we will adjourn this hearing. 

 Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned. 

 [Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146

Table of Indexes 

Chairman McKeon, 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 22, 24, 28, 29, 30, 33 

Mr. Besharov, 8, 9, 18, 22, 23, 28, 29 

Mr. Castle, 5, 18, 19, 20 

Mr. Isakson, 22, 23, 24 

Mr. Miller, 4, 30, 31, 32, 33 

Mr. Tierney, 20, 21, 22 

Mrs. Mink, 3, 5, 24, 25, 26, 27 

Ms. Blank, 15, 21, 26, 27, 28, 30 

Ms. Ponder, 12, 13, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32 

Ms. Riley, 10, 19, 24, 25, 27, 32 

Ms. Schalansky, 7, 21, 23, 28