Making the case for child-care bailout

U.S. officials say industry desperate for infusion as parents return to work

It has become agonizingly clear to parents of young children that the economy cannot fully reopen without child care. Yet a significant share of U.S. childcare providers have not been able to survive the lockdown.

The sector was already fragile: Unlike public education, the child-care industry operates almost entirely on private tuition payments, and most providers are barely profitable. With closings because of the coronavirus, many cannot continue to pay landlords or teachers.

Now that more states are allowing child-care centres to reopen, those that survived face higher expenses because of additional rules about sanitation and new limits, like no more than 10 children per classroom. In some cases, enrolment is down because parents can no longer afford to pay or they’re worried about the health risks.

Certain Democrats have long argued that the country should guarantee care and education for children ages 0 to five just as it does for those five to 18. Now, some members of Congress are proposing giving child care the treatment afforded other industries: a bailout. Congressional Democrats planned to introduce twin bills, in the House and in the Senate to spend $50 billion (U.S.) to cover operating expenses, new safety measures and tuition relief for families. The bills’ lead sponsors are Rep. Rosa DeLauro and Sen. Patty Murray.

Two Republican senators, Joni Ernst of Iowa and Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, offered a resolution last week that the next coronavirus relief package include $25 billion for child-care providers.

“You really can’t talk about reopening the economy without a conversation about how children are going to be taken care of,” DeLauro said. “We cannot let this pandemic set back the next generation.”

Jennifer Washburn has run a centre for 75 young children in Benton, Ky., for two decades. She laid off 11 staff members, and despite being open for children of essential workers, is spending $20,000 a month more than she earns (in normal times, she earned $2,000 a month in profit).

She estimates that when Kentucky allows child care to reopen for everyone in June, her payroll costs will increase 20 per cent because of new virus prevention responsibilities, and revenue will be down 20 per cent because of class size restrictions and decreased enrolment.

“We really need to look at how are we going to support us long term, how are we going to say we value early childhood,” Washburn said.

Even before the pandemic, finding affordable, high-quality providers was a struggle for many families.

Now, half the child-care supply in the United States is potentially at risk of closing permanently, according to an analysis by the Center for American Progress. It combined the centre’s data on child care availability with a March survey of 6,000 providers by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Seventeen per cent said they could not survive any closure without government support; 30 per cent said they could not survive more than two weeks; and 16 per cent could not survive more than a month. Some providers received short-term financing from the Paycheck Protection Program or the CARES Act relief package, which gave $3.5 billion to child care. The new bills, echoing recommendations from advocacy groups, go much further, calling for $50 billion.

Though many rich countries heavily subsidize early care and education, the United States has long resisted doing so. Lockdowns have shown what happens when child care and education are financed by parents instead of the government. Elementary and high schools are publicly financed, so no one doubts that schools and teachers will still be there when the country fully reopens. There is no such assurance for child care.

Researchers at Arizona State University found that job postings for early education teachers declined 13 per cent in the immediate aftermath of stay-home orders, which equates to the sector losing the capacity to serve 10,000 children each month. But the decreases came only from private programs.

The few child care programs that are funded by the government, like Head Start and public pre-K, did not show a decrease, the working paper found. “If there was ever a time to have a conversation about the fact that we expect parents to pay for care for the first five years of life and we expect government to pay for the next 13, then this is the time,” said Elliot Haspel, an education policy program officer at the Robins Foundation and author of “Crawling Behind: America’s Child Care Crisis and How to Fix It.”

Proponents of subsidized early education have generally made two arguments. One is it’s good for children, especially those from low-income families. Research has shown that high-quality programs improve children’s academic, social and emotional skills and close gaps between rich and poor children. The second is that it’s good for the economy, because it enables parents, particularly mothers, to work.

Proponents say these arguments have gained urgency because of the pandemic. They worry about the effects on children of being isolated for so long, and fear that the learning gaps between children from poor and rich families are widening. And, the economy cannot fully reopen until parents can go to work.

But now there’s another factor: public health. Parents might prefer to keep children home or with a family or friend. Or they might prioritize a small program or one with stringent coronavirus prevention measures over intellectual or social stimulation.

“We cannot let this pandemic set back the next generation.”

ROSA DELAURO U.S. REPRESENTATIVE