Squeezed on All Sides, Parents Forgo Day Care - Education, Safety Sacrificed in Fiscal Crunch

[Pirate Smile]

Source: Washington Post

By Donna St. George
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 21, 2008; Page A01

In the Prince George's County community of Riverdale Park, town officials have noted a distressing sign of the national economic downturn: more children left home alone to fend for themselves by working parents too strapped to afford child care.

The problem was discovered by code enforcement officers who inspect apartments in the town of 7,000. They used to come across such cases once every couple of years. Then, six months ago, they found one child left alone, followed by another and another.
In one instance, a kindergarten-age girl was found hiding in a closet, apparently because she was scared, code enforcement officers said. In another, children aged 10 or 12 were missing school to watch their younger siblings.

Riverdale's experience comes amid an increasing economic strain in child care across the Washington region. In an area known for day-care waiting lists, many operators report a rise in vacancies as parents withdraw their children or cut back on hours because they can no longer afford the cost.

The phenomenon is not universal, but it has struck in many middle- and working-class areas as lost jobs, reduced work schedules and foreclosed homes affect families with few reserves. Many have confronted tough choices about the care of their children.
"I've never seen anything like this before," said Phyllis Waters, president of the Professional Child Care Provider Network of Prince George's County. "You're seeing people just dropping out. . . . They're taking them out of day care and putting them into homes with grandmothers and neighbors and whoever else."

There are no statistics on the decline, but Maryland state officials say the economic fallout can be seen in a recent spike in complaints in Prince George's about unregulated, informal day-care providers that operate illegally. In Montgomery County, state officials said, child-care centers that once had waiting lists are reporting vacancies. "We've never seen that trend," said Rolf Grafwallner, assistant state superintendent for the division of early childhood development.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/20/AR2008122002113.html?hpid=topnews

[CoffeeCat]

1. That's frightening...

...for the economy and for these children.

A five-year old should not be left home alone. That's terrible.

[davidthegnome]

2. It doesn't really come as much surprise

Even years ago when I had a reasonable full time job (which in my area pays about 8 bucks an hour, temp, no benefits), I couldn't afford daycare on top of all other living expenses. I would never have left the kids alone, but then I had options, trusted family members who'd watch them.

While the recession is no doubt making it harder, it's been a very significant issue for years.

[liberalhistorian]

3. Same here. I was a single parent while my son was

growing up (he has one more year of high school to go), only marrying last year. Even though I was a college graduate, the jobs in my area sucked for the most part and there is absolutely no way I could have afforded day care. I thank God my mother was retired and able to watch him or I'd have been up shit creek. I could have left him with some of the crummy fly-by-night day cares run out of homes, but most sucked and would not have been a good environment for him.

[davidthegnome]

4. I had some

unpleasant experiences at the daycare my parents sent me to as a boy. So I was paranoid about daycare to begin with. When I asked around and heard the cost.... yikes. It's a wonder that people with children manage to survive these days, it really is. In my case, it was my sister that helped, who had a little girl of her own.

During the brief time I lived in South Dakota it was like twice the cost (I live in Northern Maine). I don't recall exact figures, but I think my eyes bugged out when they told me.

[liberalhistorian]

8. Oh, I didn't live in SD at the time, I lived

in Ohio, where I grew up. Believe me, day care is much cheaper here than it is in Ohio, for the most part. One of the first friends I made when I moved here a few years ago ran a day care business out of her home (she had an entire separate wing of her house just for it) and is a wonderful provider. She's much cheaper than it was in Ohio, and she told me the going prices in that area for day care, which was definitely cheaper. That was in a city in SD. Now I'm in a rural area where it's even cheaper, but much harder to find.

The cost of living in SD is a lot cheaper than Ohio or other eastern states, believe me.

[exboyfil]

5. This is why having two parent families is so important

My wife was able to stay home with the kids while I worked. It should be remembered that good child care should be expensive. Do you really want someone watching your kids (your most precious thing) by individuals getting paid the same as fast food workers? For this reason only individuals with professional jobs really can make working viable when you consider childcare. The tax structure alone dictates this to be a fact (you take care of your own kids then no payroll taxes go out of the exchange otherwise both you and the childcare worker are paying at a minimum Social Security taxes). It is likely that one or both of you are also paying state and federal taxes, spending dollars on gasoline and gasoline taxes, food, depreciation on the car, extra clothes for work, etc. For little kids probably 3 or 4 to 1 ratios is to be expected for the child care worker. If you got two kids at home, then staying home with them seems to be the best choice.

Also who is a better person to raise your children than yourself? This way your children learn your values etc.

I waited to get married until after I completed college, and we waited as a couple to have children when we were financially stable.

When the two parent model gets corrupted by out of wedlock births or divorces, and one partner does not step up to the plate for care of the family, then we as a society have a problem. We also have a problem when the salary of a reasonably established individual (say 24) cannot afford to support a family on one income.

The first problem (not waiting until financially stable) is one typically addressed with collective programs such as subsidized child care and welfare. Then you have the question, how many individuals can participate in such an approach before the entire system collapses? For folks who want to do the two parent - one income model it is frustrating to them that they have to help fund the one parent -one income with subsidiziation or the one parent - no income with welfare.

It should be remembered that dealing with young families has always been a problem. In the 1960s my parents had to do things like leave me alone when I was 5 (my earliest memories) latchkey me when I was a 1st grader, work split shifts, etc. If my dad had waited until he was 24 to have his first kid, then many of these difficulties would have been lessened. They never received a dime of assistance though, and they worked through it.

The second problem (failure to have a living wage) is directly tied to our trade and immigration policies in my opinion. Another contributing factor is our spending on an expansive military to allow our trading partners unobstructed access to our country. Individiduals want to raise the minimum wage and increase the power of unions, but without doing something about globalization and the direct competition from lower salaried countries as well as the merchantilism that is practiced by our major trading partners, we will just see a further growth in unemployment and more good jobs lost. I would like to get to the point where $10/hr minimum wage is a moot point because the only folks taking those jobs are kids earning money for college.

Immigration also forces down labor wage rates for those jobs that cannot be easily outsourced. Visas in the form of H1-B and L also contribute to outsourcing and suppressing wages.

[Lorien]

6. It doesn't work the same way for everyone

My best friend from childhood and her husband have two boys. He stayed home with them for a few years when her job paid better than his, then when he was given an opportunity of taking on a much better job, she stayed home with the boys for a couple of years. But here's the thing; despite the fact that these are two very intelligent people with Master's degrees, parenting isn't something they excel at. They almost NEVER say "no" to the boys, so the boys are out of control. Thank goodness their mother couldn't handle the mind numbing boredom of being a stay at home mom. She went back to work and got them into a top notch daycare facility. The boys love it, and the day care workers-though highly, er, "challenged" by the boy's behavior issues-are forcing the parents to acknowledge the fact that saying "no" is sometimes a good thing. They still get spoiled rotten at home, with almost every whim being catered to, but at least with daycare they have a few hours of structure and discipline every weekday. I've seen a real improvement in their behavior at home AND around other children. Who better to raise your children than you? Well, in some cases it really DOES take a village, and one should not condemn parents for doing what's best for their kids when what's best is sometimes not the traditional model.

[acmavm]

9. I don't know where to start with your post. I suppose maybe the part where

everyone isn't as perfect as you and your wife. Or maybe, everyone doesn't get to go to college (by a fucking longshot). Or how maybe while a 'two-parent' family might be ideal, it's hardly a reality for everyone. My first husband was a wife-beating, misogynistic, arm-braking son of a bitch. Of course, the coward only got big, bad, and brave behind closed doors, and after we were married. And there are millions of assholes out there like that. Kind of puts the kibosh to the 'two-parent' family believe me. If I would have read this damn drivel of your back then God only knows what I'd be telling you to do with yourself. Now since that phase is just a memory, I'll just call you an arrogant ass.

And as for waiting until one is 'financially stable'. How many formerly financially stable couples do you thing might be going through this situation as we speak. How about the state of Detroit? How does you plan work then? The economy of this country has always be a victim of manipulation of the rich man (i.e. the first damn depression). So, what about all those that had jobs until our college-education Wall Streeters took us all down the road to ruin? Where do you return your kids to once the liars and thieves steal it all? I mean, manufacturing (EXCEPT FOR DETROIT) has been dead for years, IT and any customer service jobs mean you need to be a resident of India or China, so what the hell jobs are you talking about?

Smugness disgusts me. And lectures from a smug supercilious ass are useless.

[mantis49]

13. My thoughts exactly.

I, too, escaped from an abuser. You said it better than I could.

[acmavm]

14. You don't have any idea how much I had to take out before I finally posted

my response.

Whoever this idiot was who gave his mealy mouthed lecture on how we should all live up to his standards needs shut the fuck up. We need to deal with reality, not some arrogant ass's expectation of everyone living up to his qualifications on who should and who shouldn't be a parent. From the very first sentence you could tell this was coming from a smug asshole who doesn't have a clue what poverty and deprivation are really like or how easily anyone can slip into that hole.

I also took out the part where all the rich people are bitching because they got taken in the world's greediest and biggest Ponzi scheme. I'd like to here this fool cover THAT situation with his Pollyanna bullshit.

[exboyfil]

22. Well I guess I know what poverty is

I was born out of wedlock and had a drawer for a crib.

My earliest memories are of huddling around a wood burning stove for heat and getting water from a well before my father hooked up an electric pump to give us some water inside. We still had to heat water on the wood burning stove though.

Having our only meat source being squirrel. Sleeping in a car. Being without a home. Living on a credit card before computers could stop exceeding the limit.

I was blessed because my father became a skilled machinist, and we moved to California which was the land of opportunity at the time. He got a job in a factory and eventually became a manager. He was worked his butt off and never took a dime of welfare.

I am not saying individuals should live to my standards. What I am saying that these standards have worked for me. I am also saying that, as a country, we need to get to the point where we have good paying jobs for most people. Jobs that will allow a family to have one member stay at home while the children are young.

Is my model that bad. Compare it to several cases which I know of of women having children with different men who contribute absolutely nothing to the care of those children. Which do you think makes for a better society? Someone who combined pays 30%+ of his income to taxes, spends time with his daughters everyday, stays engaged with his daughters by helping them with homework and life planning, and wants to ensure that his daughters never have to depend on any man or an absent father who contributes nothing (in some cases not even letters).

I am not saying we should crash the welfare system or we should not assist those in need right now, but what I am saying is when does a collective solution collapse upon itself? Does it ever? In real benefits how much should an individual get from the state for an extra child? How can people totally dependent on the state afford cigarettes and alcohol?

Child care economics is a fact of life. Lets say we subsidize one child's care at $4/hr (3 children to one caregiver at $12/hr which is probably a low estimate), and the parent can only work for $8/hr. Does this make sense as a society? How about two kids then?

Now if we can get the parent to a high enough skill level/economics level then the state no longer needs to intervene with subsidized child care. With one kid that number is probably $15/hr and two kids $20/hr.

I have never stolen money from anyone. I could have paid off my house with the money that I lost in my 401(k), but I am not complaining about it. We live a very frugal life. I have one old 15 year old television. Our newest car is a 2002 Cavalier (the older one is a 1996 Escort). We contribute to our community with money and time. While my parents did help with 20% of my college expenses, I ultimately paid them back. I am the only immediate member of my family ever to go to college so I was not born to it.


I have been terminated twice for economic reasons, and I have been laid off with call back two times as well. I sold my plasma in college for money. I did chose a well paying profession (engineering), but I have worked very hard to get where I am.

In terms of the crap on Wall Street. I was against the banking deregulation at the time. I am been a strong advocate for 80/20 loans as mandatory. I have been against ARM loans. I almost blew a gasket when I heard some years ago that we should not be worrying about losing manufacturing jobs because we are moving to a service economy including FINANCIAL SERVICES. I am been a strong believer in enforcement of the current regulatory laws. I did not know that the SEC was so asleep at the switch, and I think heads should roll because of it. I do not think Freddie or Fannie should ever have been NGOs. I was against privatizing Social Security, but I am in favor of our only national debt being to Social Security.

I was against the bank bailout. I think the debt holders should have become equity holders in the banks, and the equity holders should have been wiped out. I think, as part of the bankruptcy, that all executive compensation contracts should have been renegotiated. I think that stock holders in companies need to take a more proactive stand on compensation packages (including large institutional holders such as Fidelity and Vanguard) and such packages should come up for proxy votes. I am in favor of valuing options when they are first issued as income. I think many managers who got unseemly bonuses for excessive risk taking should be taken to court for malfeasance in an attempt to get some of that bonus money back. I also think that compensation committee's feet should be held to the fire, and several of their members lose their positions.

I don't think Madoff should have gotten out on bail.

I am in favor of a proactive trade policy that targets individual countries with trade surpluses with us (especially in finished goods) to understand the reasons for the trade surpluses and ways to reduce the imbalance. I am in favor of at least hemispheric energy independence (I have a kooky idea about sugar ethanol and the Carribean that might help???).

So I should just send my 30+% of my income in and just shut up. Says a lot for intelligent discourse.

[acmavm]

23. Well, aren't you just a little paragon of virtue? And yes, shut up. Your

post was arrogant. And no, you don't have to just send in your '30% and shut up'. What you need to do is pry your head out of your ass and get a clue that not everyone can live up to your standards or order their lives as they should. Nor can they all step into line and get with your program.

For instance, I didn't even ask you about what all those college educated people, like IT programmers and techies, who waited until they had their educations but are now unemployed and have been since everything went overseas are supposed to do. I mean, you had it all laid out, didn't you? Why are they in trouble if they following 'the plan'? Solve that one while you're at it.

When you walk across water, let me know. I want to sell tickets.

[lastliberalintexas]

24. Nicer response than I intended

Thanks for saving me the time.

[acmavm]

25. Your welcome. But the fool just won't give it up.

[AwakeAtLast]

12. One parent staying at home is a pipe dream for most people

We thought we were financially stable, but then my husband lost his job and wound up being deployed to Iraq. Since he's National Guard, our living expenses were not paid for. If I had stayed at home instead of working, we would have been homeless. Soldiers make a pittance considering what they do.

My dad was a teacher in 1970 and made enough money to support my mom, me and my sister. I would never be able to afford that on my teacher's salary today, and I have been teaching for eleven years.

What you advocate is the ideal, but in this country people don't want the ideal for anyone other than themselves.

[exboyfil]

21. How can you say that I don't want the ideal for everyone?

I am against an expansive military that would require National Guard call ups. I think what we have done with the NG has been criminal. It was never intended to be used this way, and Bush and his proactive war will be remembered for generations because of it.

We need to be paying our teachers better it is true. Reviewing the compensation packages between teachers in my district with me (using equivalent experience and education charts - I am an engineer with two M.S. degrees and considerable Doctoral level work and I used the MA+45 credits table), I find about a $27K difference (assuming I get my maximum bonus). Without the bonus then the spread is around $15K. The medical for the teacher's is much better, and the retirement's are equivalent (possibly an edge to the teacher's for added security since there DB plan gives a much higher benefit than my employer but I have a DC component to my plan as well). Teachers work about 30 official days less than I do, and I work considerable unpaid overtime (which I know good teachers do as well). If you ratio up the 30 days difference then the spread reduces to $6K/$18K. I know that this is not entirely fair because teachers don't have as good an earning opportunity during the summer, but it is a lifestyle choice and part of going into the teaching profession. Teachers do have opportunity for salary enhancements such as for extracurricular activities etc ranging from 3-10%.

Say you take my middle salary figure of $12K more. It gets immediately reduced by approximately 35% for marginal taxes, and we are now left with a difference of $8K. Still a big number, and I can see why it would be a struggle for a family to make it on a teacher's salary alone especially if you factor in the failure to earn the same income during the summer.

My pay took a jump about five years ago when I changed employers (especially the bonus portion). My wife has not worked since a year before the birth of our first child (14 years ago). We have been able to save money for retirement, pay our house down (8 years to go), and put some away for the kid's college (not nearly enough though). We have no debts except the house. I do not spend money on toys for myself (my car is a 2002 Cavalier which I plan to hold onto until the wheels fall off like my first Cavalier - my wife's car is a 1996 Escort whose wheels are about ready to fall off). We have one television (a 15 year old free hand me down). My computer is a $300 Best Buy special. Our house is the smallest and least expensive in our neighborhood (which is a very good neighborhood with an excellent elementary school). We wear clothes until they wear out, and I only buy clothes on clearance and in some cases Goodwill. We do not go out to movies, but I do a great deal with the kids with less expensive activities. My wife helps out quite a bit at the school (as well as at our church).

I have been terminated twice in my career for economic reasons, and I have been directly threatened for termination for economic reasons at least three additional times. I have also been laid off with call back an additional two times (yes it happens to salaried engineers as well). While teachers can be terminated for economic reasons as well, it occurs less often than individuals working in the private sector.

My goal would be to see all salaries reach a level in which all families can have one individual stay home when the children are young if they chose too. I choose a high earning occupation (engineering), and I feel that I earn my salary. I am the only person in my immediate family ever to go to college. My parents helped with about 20% which I have since repaid. The rest was scholarships, jobs, and loans. I paid my student loans off within four years of getting out of college. My dad worked in a factory, and my mom was a waitress. Obviously, not my opinion of the ideal situation, but their split shifts helped a lot to reduce the amount of time I was alone.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

16. Hmmm, immigration, check. Welfare, check. Ah... unions. You forgot unions.

I'm sure you can work some union bashing in there.

[Dervill Crow]

18. Yes. If they are lucky, they can work different shifts.

Having a parent stay home with children is a luxury few can afford.

[NJCher]

7. heard a similar story to this

Last week on the radio. It appears some couples are going to a day shift for one, night shift for the other.



Cher

[RazBerryBeret]

10. This is sad.

but I can relate. Several years ago I was laid off from a job, luckily I have the ability to "freelance". I then had 2 small boys and frequently clients would call me for the next day--I had to be ready to accept any projects, in their offices. I couldn't afford the nearly 300 bucks a weeks for daycare if I wasn't working. But I needed the daycare if I got a call-it was a struggle, for everyone. We got through it, I've just come to grips with letting my middle-schooler get off the bus by himself after school, that scared me. but he's home 1 1/2 hours alone (supposed to be homework time)....and my husband works less than 2 miles from our house.

This generation will have a lot of stories to tell.

[southernyankeebelle]

11. Sad day in America

We have been debating the day care issue with our son. We are thinking of taking care of our 3 yr old grandchild. We already pay the day care because he can't afford it. He and his ex wife both live separately and he doesn't make much money. He works hard trying not to get any aid from the government although he can qualify.

[mikehiggins]

15. On not taking aid and assistance

My dad was one of the premier "don't take welfare" folks in my life. Working poor, my family was well within the guidelines for assistance such as public housing, etc., but he felt it would be an insult to ask for it.

Too bad. Maybe if he had my sister would have had more than one dress to wear all through high school.

I have learned from him a good lesson: pride doesn't feed the kids.

When I was unemployed from my high paying job, back in the day, I fell into a pocket where I was legitimately eligible for food stamps and I grabbed them. I would have gotten assistance on my housing costs as well but fortunately I was back at work before that was necessary. WHen a program arose lowering my mortgage rate I jumped on it. When a program arose letting my little girl get computer training because her mom is Puerto RIcan, we jumped on it without a blink of an eye.

Our kids always got the best we could provide for them and I never felt ashamed about any of it. My daughter is now a lawyer and my son is now a high school teacher. Ironically, they both resemble my dad's way of thinking rather than my own, but hell, they can afford it.

[DixieBlue]

17. Sounds a lot like my dad --

Also didn't want to ever be on assistance. We had a winter where we were on food stamps ... but that was only about four months out of the eighteen years I lived with my parents. All eighteen we would have qualified for aid had he not been so full of pride.

Now, I'm in the situation where my own family could use a little help -- not a lot -- but a little help with groceries would sure go a long way. But, we make more than is allowable. After living through my own childhood I do not want to revisit that with my daughter.

[davsand]

19. I have a friend who has been facing this situation.

She's a single mom and her daughter is the same age as mine. They live just a couple doors down from us. Mom runs a bookkeeping business of her own and works out of her house. Most of the time it has not been a problem because the child went to a sitter three days a week after school. Mom would schedule client visits for the days when the child was at the sitter.

Lately, business has been tight, Mom is feeling a pinch and the first thing to get cut was that after school care. There have been a few days where the child has had to go home to an empty house. It isn't terrible--because the child is 11--but it has really put a stress on Mom and left the child freaked out a few times.

Kevsand works at home for half days so that he can be here when Material Girl gets out of school. We have made due with a little less over the years, but it has been our choice, and has worked out well for our family. We feel blessed and my husband and daughter have enjoyed time with each other that a lot of kids never get with parents.

Well, with the elimination of after school care for the child, and with the realization that the child was there alone (again--not critical but still something that was causing them stress) Kevsand now hangs out with both our kid and the child sometimes after school. They sit and do homework together. Mom loves it, the child is happier and we have been able to do a little bit to help out.

I suspect that as times get tougher this is how a lot more folks are gonna have to deal with the situation. Back in the old days they called it "collectives" or "cooperatives" but the bottom line is that we are probably gonna end up working with each other to get past some of the worst times. Our kids are worth it--ya know?


Laura

[tblue37]

20. I refused to put my kids in daycare. Instead, I started one--a home

daycare I ran for 18 years, until my baby started college. During their childhood I continued to work as a part time adjunct English instructor at the university (I am a full time lecturer there now). I also took poorly paid jobs that I could fit around my kids' waking hours and the times they were at their dad's house.

They were with me during daycare hours, of course (which is why I had the daycare--so I could be home with them). I taught 6-12 hours a week (2 or 4 hours each on Monday, Wednesday, Friday), with a trusted regular substitute sitter watching the daycare during those hours. I chose to teach the earliest morning hours (starting at 7:30 a.m.), when most of the kids were still groggy, so by the time they were ready to really do stuff, I was home and ready to take them out to do it.

I also did alterations and custom sewing, tutoring, and freelance editing on the side, which I could fit around the times my kids were asleep or at their dad's house. I pretty much went without sleep for those years. I was able to make sure my ex took a fair amount of the financial responsibility for the kids, so I wouldn't drag them into poverty with me, but since I had to take poorly paid jobs (those were the only ones that could be tucked around the spare time I had when my kids didn't need me), I did end up pretty darned poor. I also ruined my health with overwork and lack of sleep.

But I didn't miss my kids' childhood. I was the one who raised them, not some babysitter.

Parents can't afford the cost of daycare, and even at that daycare providers can't really make enough money to live on. No one benefits.