THREAD: We talk about how COVID-19 is going to permanently deplete huge swaths of the child care supply without major relief, but I think sometimes it's too theoretical. A friend alerted me tonight to an instance here in Richmond that shows the cold, hard, human reality:
This is a church-based center, around since the 1980s(!). They serve 175 kids, infants to 5th gr.
They temporarily closed in March: "this decision was made primarily due to reduced enrollment, financial deficits, & concerns with the COVID-19 pandemic."
The statement continues: "After much prayer and in-depth discussion, we have decided not to re-open... as we looked at all aspects of trying to continue to run a daycare it became evident that we needed to make the hard and sad decision to close it permanently."
As we've been saying all along, this financial precariousness is not, however, a new problem: "Even prior to the challenge of COVID-19, the pastoral team had discussed the long-term benefit of continuing this ministry when compared to its costs and risks."
I think one of the most heartbreaking things is how my friend found out about this particular closure: by stumbling across a Facebook Marketplace ad for a free giveaway of cots and other child care supplies.
This is just one tiny tragedy among 100s, of course. It won't get a big writeup in the paper. But it's 175 kids & their fam's, poof, without care. 1 provider gone. This is why we need a $50B stabilization fund & then a whole new way of treating child care.
One of the greatest differences between the U.S. and nations that lead the pack on family outcomes is an understanding that, as the Nordic Council of Ministers says, "the well-being of children is strongly linked to that of their parents."
In the U.S., we often segment out the child from the parents. Think about the way that we focus on 'school readiness' by what the kid can do w/o considering factors like housing stability. We want a playground for the kid w/little consideration for how parents can socialize.
Similarly, until pretty recently, America has had very little to say about how working conditions, schedule predictability, and job quality impact parental well-being. That conversation is much more sophisticated (and has policy teeth) in many peer nations.
🧵Ok, we need to talk about this. We've reached the point where in a well-intentioned attempt to do ANYTHING about child care, the administration is taking an action that may be actively counterproductive. Let me explain.
First off, I have SO MANY QUESTIONS about how this is going to work. Options include "company child-care centers near construction sites or new plants, paying local child-care providers to add capacity at an affordable cost for workers, directly subsidizing workers’ care costs"
Ok, but you realize we have a MASSIVE child care educator shortage right now, yes? Do any of these companies need to ensure educators get a competitive wage? What happens if their workers just end up on waiting lists? Doesn't feel fully thought out.
None of this has to be complicated. There are enough public buildings around -- elementary school gyms could easily be used on the weekends -- and local gvm't could partner with volunteer orgs, faith communities etc. to staff them. Toys, coffee machine, you're set.
🧵I had a fascinating experience today at this Helsinki playground that reinforced for me just how backwards the U.S. gets its family policy.
(And no, this isn't gonna be another 'if only America was Finland' thread)
I went with my daughters to attend a free arts & crafts activity at the children's center adjoining the playground (many Finnish playgrounds have these, and there are different staffed activities every day).
A Finnish father was there with his delightful 15-month-old son.
We struck up a conversation and it emerged that he was on his third day of paternity leave. His wife had been taking care of their son before going back to work, and now he had three months of full-time care before the toddler started attending a child care program in January.
That's 3% of your annual income and close to a $150 increase in your monthly food budget!
Of course, this assumes that your district is actually able to operate its school meal program as usual; if it's not, now you're buying more at the grocery store.
"Under a policy of broadly expanded subsidies that limits family payments for ECE to no more than 7% of income among those up to 250% of national median income, we estimate that mothers’ employment would increase by six percentage points while full-time... nber.org/papers/w30140?…
"...employment would increase by nearly 10 percentage points, with substantially larger increases among lower-income families...
...Despite the increased use of formal care, family expenditures on ECE services would decrease throughout most of the income distribution..."
(10%!)
...For example, families in the bottom three income quintiles would experience expenditure reductions of 76%, 68%, and 55%, respectively. Finally, teacher wages and market prices would increase to attract workers with higher levels of education."