Minneapolis, MN – Almost one-half of voters in the United States say they're pessimistic about the future for children. According to a new national survey, they favor spending for health, education, and safety - even over such popular priorities as tax cuts or balancing the federal budget.

The survey authors, with the advocacy group Every Child Matters, hope their findings send a strong message to candidates in this fall's elections. Jennifer Rison, state director for Every Child Matters in Minnesota, says the results reflect a lot of unhappiness over kids' well-being ranking as a low priority among policymakers.

"The bottom line of the report is that voters feel elected officials are not focusing enough attention, time and investment on children's issues. Parents are very concerned that their children will be worse off than they were, which is really the reverse of a historical trend. In every generation, children have done better than their parents in the United States. And, unfortunately, that might not be the case anymore."

Voters want a change in priorities, says Rison; that it's not a matter of financial support, but rather that the investments aren't going for things they believe are truly needed and will make a difference.

"The funding is not being directed toward child abuse prevention, alleviating children in poverty, educating very young children before they go into kindergarten and to get them ready for kindergarten. There's not enough funding for after-school programs, to make sure that kids are staying off the streets. And, the funding is not being directed toward health insurance."

The findings also included some criticism of the news media for not adequately reporting about the issues facing children and families. Rison adds the election is still very much up in the air based on the survey results, with 14 percent of voters undecided and 40 percent saying they could vote for either major party's presidential candidate.

The nationwide poll of 800 registered voters was commissioned by the Every Child Matters Education Fund and is available online at www.everychildmatters.org.



get more stories like this via email

An increase in child-care subsidy reimbursement rates up to 58% of market rate is being hailed as a big win for providers in Missouri.

Sarah Gould is the early-childhood director for Community Support Services of Missouri, which primarily cares for children with special needs in Jasper County.

She said the rate increase, which was signed in June by Gov. Mike Parson, helps families be able to afford child care.

"There's more stability for them," said Gould, "and they're able to use those resources that they would have put in child care to pay for additional utility costs or food costs, because we know those have all gone up in the last several years."

American Rescue Plan stabilization funds and some emergency aid through Congress for early-childhood education expired at the start of October, and Missouri child-care providers are looking for long-term solutions.

Missouri often is referred to as a state with many child-care deserts, and any loss of subsidies can be straining.

Casey Hanson, director of outreach and engagement for Kids Win Missouri, said it's important to come up with permanent solutions.

"So there's a little bit more relief money that will get pumped into the system," said Hanson, "but a lot of those opportunities that providers have used to keep their doors open over the last couple of years are going away. And that's why we're so focused on making sure that as a state, we're making investments that are more sustainable."

Hanson said it's important for families and parents to talk to elected officials and leaders about the needs for reliable, safe child care and also for child-care providers to be vocal about the impact of rate increases and how it helps their organizations.

The coalition known as "Think Babies Michigan" has advocated for more than $36 million in funding to offer grants to child-care providers for infants and toddlers.

Families with young children from across Michigan have joined the coalition to advocate for improvements in early child care, in terms of quality and affordability. But many of those care providers are struggling to keep their doors open.

Sacha Klein, senior director of policy and advocacy for the Early Childhood Investment Corp., underscored the dire need for this funding from the American Rescue Plan Act.

"Those child-care providers increase the quality of care that they are able to offer families," she said. "It'll enable them to pay their staff a living wage for the work that they do, and reimburse them as 'brain builders,' which is the way we think of early-learning staff."

The Think Babies Michigan collaborative is made up of more than 30 groups and numerous parents. Klein said it intentionally prioritizes having parents co-lead and co-design the policy agenda-setting process.

Although the coalition focuses primarily on making policy changes, Klein said it can also help families find the direct services that are available to support them around caring for their babies.

"We have secured greater public investment for early-on services, which enable families to get the services that they need," she said, "to intervene early if their baby shows signs of developmental delay or disability."

She said Think Babies Michigan aims to increase access and enrollment in high-quality child care and home-visiting services, along with early intervention and postpartum care for low-income families with children from birth to age three.


get more stories like this via email

For many in Nebraska's child-care industry, which was struggling even before the pandemic, the "Child Care Stabilization" funds in the American Rescue Plan Act made a huge difference. The money must be disbursed by Sept. 30, causing concern about a "funding cliff" for child care.

Catherine Huddleston-Casas, Ph.D., associate director of workforce planning and development at the Buffett Early Childhood Institute at the University of Nebraska, said the pandemic shone a light on the "poverty wages" many child-care workers receive. She said some found they could make better money in less-demanding jobs.

"The knowledge and expertise that is developed through the process of working under a seasoned child-care provider - all of that is going to be lost if we don't do something to try to keep our providers in their positions," she said.

The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services distributed the stabilization funds in a variety of ways, including stipends to employees at licensed child-care centers, and grants to center owners and staff to help pay down school loans. In a survey of Nebraska providers, 87% reported receiving some COVID relief money in the previous year, and most had used it for rent and utilities. Today, Nebraska has 10% fewer child-care programs than before the pandemic.

Grants also helped centers expand their capacity. Ninety-one-percent of Nebraska counties have a shortage of licensed child-care slots, and 11 counties have no licensed providers.

Susan Sarver, Ph.D., director of workforce planning and development at the Buffett Institute, said the way funds were disbursed may help the state experience a less severe "funding cliff" than it might have.

"Some states are still maintaining centers, so they're paying wages through those pandemic funds," she said, "and when that money disappears, those are the places that are going to have the biggest drop."

Sarver acknowledged that only when there's data to examine will it be possible to evaluate the sustainability of Nebraska's approach.

Huddleston-Casas authored a recent study showing the gap to fully fund Nebraska's early-childhood care and education grew from 51% in 2017 to 57% in 2021. She said there won't be any quick fixes, but examination of the current system is crucial, including the way it's funded. She considers this especially important because of what we've learned about child development.

"They're not just passive recipients; there's a lot going on in a baby's brain," she said. "But in what ways does the system we have give us the opportunity to do better? Or are we stuck with a system that doesn't know how to accommodate the developmental needs of children?"