10 759.48 1(46 2000a IGSL LK:B Acknowledgments The Growing Up in Poverty Project is generously supported by nine foundations. including the Casey. Hancock. Packard. and Spencer foundations. and the Peter and Miriam and Walter and Elise Haas funds. Dissemi— nation and policy engagement activities are supported by the MacArthur and Mailman foundations. The Hewlett Foundation provides bedrock support to the PACE institute at Berkeley. Additional financial support comes from the Child Care Bureau of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) of the U.S. Department of Education. The California Department of Social Services supports data analysis related to the Bay Area research sites. No organization necessarily endorses the findings or interpretations contained in this report or the longer technical volume. The technical report provides a complete list of people who have offered essential moral and financial support. In addition. special thanks go to Josue Cruz at the University of South Florida. Patricia Siegel and Shelley Waters-Boots at the California Child Care Resource and Referral Network in San Francisco. and Vivian Wu who worked at the Yale and Berkeley sites. The Child—Caregiver Observation System (C-COS) was developed at Mathematica Policy Research Inc. by Kim Boller. Cheryl DeSaw. Linda Mendenke. and Susan Sprachman for the national evaluation of the Early Head Start program. Companion Research This report is being published alongside two other studies. One is an evaluation of the economic and employment effects of Connecticut‘s welfare reforms. authored by Dan Bloom and others at the Manpower Demonstration Research Cmporation (MDRC) in New York. The second focuses on the health of participating women. especially their mental health. It is authored by Sarah Horwitz and Bonnie Kerker at Yale‘s School of Public Health. By looking at all three studies together. we hope to inform pressing questions about the lives of children under welfare reform. lNSTlTUTE or GOV ERNMEN STUDlES LlBRARY TAL FEB 0 7 2017 UNlVERSlTY or CALlFORNlA The Growing Up in Poverty Project Graduate School of Education—PACE Bush Center in Child Development and Social Policy University of California, Berkeley 94720 Yale University, New Haven 06511 510-642-7223 205-432-9931 Wave ”I Summary 1 May 2000 Haaeeieg Rare Q/WOOOK REIMIMIEI‘ the Children Mothers Balance Work and Child Care under Welfare Reform Growing Up in Poverty Project 2000 Wave 1 Findings—California. Connecticut, Florida Project Co—directors Berkeley Tampa Yale survey coordinators Bruce Fuller University of California, Berkeley Sharon Lynn Kagan Yale University Gretchen Caspary, Assistant Project Director Nancy Cohen Desiree French Laura Cascue Africa Hands James Mensing Jan McCarthy, Site Coordinator Cege Kreischer Jude Carroll, Site Coordinator Kristen Cool Susan Sorachman, Mathematica Policy Research Inc., Princeton Greg Hoerz and Jordan Kolovson, MDRC, New York SUMMARY GROWING UP IN POVERTY PROJECT A In 1996, the United States embarked on a new way of assisting poor families. Policymakers hoped that welfare reform would end the “cycle of welfare dependency” that seemed to entrap poor parents and their children from one generation to the next. They also hoped that the new policies would shrink the welfare rolls and enable more women to work outside the home. In so doing, it was anticipated that mothers would provide strong role models for their children and greater economic stability for their households. Child care programs would grow in number and quality, supporting youngsters’ early development. In short, the reformers aimed to reduce single mothers” welfare dependency and boost their children‘s futures over time. The Growing Up in Poverty Project The purpose of the Growing Up in Poverty Project is to examine the impact of new welfare policies on children and families, and on the supply and quality ofchild care. Specifically, the study investigates whether welfare—to-work efforts alter maternal practices and child care settings in ways that advance children‘s well being. During the second half of 1998, the project team sampled 948 single mothers with young children who live in or near San Francisco or San Jose, California; Manchester or New Haven, Connecticut; and Tampa, Florida. Participating women in California and Florida joined the study within six months of entering the new welfare program. In Connecticut, the participants had been enrolled in the program longer and were randomly assigned to either the experimental (Jobs First) or the control (AFDC) program. In all three states the family samples are representative of local welfare populations. This summary details major findings from the first data collection. We continue to gather information SUMMARY on mothers and their children, so these results are preliminary. They stem from: (1) interviews of the mothers; (2) visits to child care providers, at centers and homes; and (3) direct assessments of children’s early language and social development. How Are Children Faring under Welfare Reform? I Young children are moving into child care settings of diverse, and sometimes questionable, quality as their mot/vet‘s movefrom welfare to work. The majority of children were in home-based care, consisting of family child care in regulated settings and kith and kin care, as opposed to center—based care. But the type of child care selected by mothers varied considerably by state, with 70% of the mothers in Florida selecting center—based care in comparison to 13% in Connecticut. In Connecticut BERKELEY ~ YALE [I SUMMARY Figure 1 Type Of Child care SEiECtEd bV mothers 100% i i 2') i i Unre I 8 i . gu ated q_ l kIth & kin care § 5. i {:1 Family child .2 50% ‘ ‘ care Homes E g I Center or .5 preschool o\° 0% California Connecticut Florida n=262 n=168 n=140 Distribution of types of child care providers differs significantly by state. “mu .» 312.15g; arm umuwx-Wmatiza _ a Figure 2 Child care quality: Average ECEVRS’ scores for centers 7 . l l 6 Average ECERS score 4:. 3 2 1 California Connecticut Florida n = 59 n = 12 n = 94 Average score in California is significantly higher than in the other two states, Figure 3 Child care quality: Average FDCRS SCOl‘ES fOl' home-based pl‘OViCiE‘l'S 6 5 Average FDCRS score A 3 2 1 California Connecticut Florida n = 118 n = 59 n = 26 Average FDCRS scores, consistently low, do not differ significantly by state. [r] GROWING UP IN POVERTY PROJECT A and California, large numbers of mothers selected unregulated care offered by kith and kin (54% in California and 77% in Connecticut, see Figure 1). The quality of the settings varied, as well. In California, for example, the child care centers reached a high level of quality that well surpassed the quality of centers selected by Connecticut and Florida mothers. In home—based care. the quality of care provided was similar across the states (Figures 2 and 3). Although the overall quality of home—based care was weaker than center—based care, there were some positive elements in home-based care. For example, children in home—based care were slightly more engaged with the provider and were asked more questions by this caregiver. In contrast, children attending centers interacted more frequently with other children and watched less television than children in home—based care (Figure 4). Why mothers select the type of care they do has been debated for years. Some suggest that the choice of child care reflects family values and desires. SUMMARY Others contend that the propensity of women to utilize child care centers, as opposed to home-based care, is highly correlated with the supply of centers in their neighborhoods. This study supports both perspectives. Disparities in supply range from 42 center slots per 100 young children in Tampa to just 1 1 enrollment slots per capita in Santa Clara County. Figure 5 also shows that the number of centers and family child care homes within a one mile radius of the average family also varies across our research sites. I Child care subsidies reach unequalfiactiom of poorfamilz'es. The share of women drawing their child care subsi— dies ranged from 13% in the Connecticut sample to 50% in Florida. California fell close to the Florida rate at 48% (Figure 6). That the disparity is so wide and “uptake” rates are so low is perplexing, especially since mothers report that having access to child care is very important to their seeking employment. In future work, the reasons for the low subsidy utiliza- tion rates will be explored. Figure ll Uneven; Child tare quality: Percentage 0f time Children engaged in activities 70%— ' 600/0— 64% 63%, § 500/0— I “E’ 40%— .5 “6 300/0— $3 ,W/ 200/0— 22% 10%— 100/ O 2W , Provider Provider Child asks child reading with interacting a question child with materials - Children in centers interacting with watching TV 19%] 18% j/ l l Child Child Child unoccupied other children Children in home-based care BERKELEY — YALE B SUMMARY Figure 5 Tampa and Santa Clara COUHW families live Close to more centers and DI‘ESChOOIS N O A U1 ! Count of centers or homes within one mile of median family. _\ O 5 0 I Centers and preschools I Young children} learning and development may /7e limited by [Jig/.1 rates ofmzzterna/ depression and llllé’l’é’llp(ll‘€llfi71gprlll'til‘t’S Welfare reform offered the hope that the quality of life for mothers and their young children could be improved as mothers moved into the paid labor force. Delving into mothers lives more deeply, we found that many exhibit maternal depression, a condition characteristic of many low—income mothers. Indeed, among our participating mothers, depression was up to three times higher than the national average. Accompanying this maternal depression, we also found that important parenting practices, such as reading frequently with one’s child, are often absent or occurred quite infrequently (Figure 7). Both factors (depression and disengaged parenting) can impede infants and toddlers early learning. We detected delays in the language development of participating toddlers in California and Florida, relative to national norms. Connecticut children appear to be developing language proficiency at a higher rate, due in part to their mothers compara— tively higher education levels. These are baseline data and will be most helpful when used with future findings on young childrens performance over time. n GROWlNG UP IN POVERTY PROJECT A '6' I - Tampa Santa Clara Co. New Haven Family child care homes How Are Mothers Faring under Welfare Reform? I A s‘izez/J/e s/Jnre ofn'omen {Ire moving into jobs or training. Among all participating women in the three states, about half were working several months into the new welfare programs. In Connecticut, where we are able to compare mothers in the new and the old welfare programs, we found that the new program, jobs First, did encourage a higher rate ofemploy— ment—a 15% margin among mothers in the new program above the old welfare regime. k I W4zges (Il't’ low and [rouselro/d economies remain i mpooerislied. The median Florida woman, earned $3.45 per hour, in comparison to women in California ($6.36) and Connecticut ($7.24). These figures have not been adjusted for cost ofliving differences among the states (Figure 8). Despite these earnings, fragile levels of economic support still touch the lives of young children. Asked whether they had difficulty buying enough food, 28% ofthe Florida mothers and 3200 of California mothers said “often“ or “sometimes.“ SUMMARY I Levels of economic and social support experienced provided economic support for their child, compared by the women are uneven. to 36% among women in Florida. And sometimes those adults living in the home bring additional stress for the mother. One—fifth of the Florida mothers reported that their household includes one The women participating in the study faced many challenges. About one—quarter of all women ap— peared to be socially isolated, rarely seeing other _ adults. Just 16% of participating women in Con- member Wlth an alcohol or drug abuse problem. necticut reported that they lived with an adult who Figure 5 Percentage 0f mothers using Child care subsidies between 5 and 18 months into welfare programs 50% l > .‘9 U) .Q 3 (D a, 25% E m 3 o\° 00/0 California Connecticut Florida n=225 n=153 n=118 Child care subsidy utilization rates differ significantly by state for Connecticut. Figure 7 Frequency 0f rnothers reading to the focal Chi-id 1000/ .v if 0 670/0 - 1 Most clays 1-2 times if per week i I Rarely 0% California Connecticut Florida n=415 n=289 n=200 Reading frequency differs significantly by state. BERKELEY * YALE E SUMMARY Figure 8 Hourlv wages for working mothers : $7.78 ‘ , , $7.24 - . _ ‘1 $6.36 -~~~--~-~~ - g $5.45 (a . 3 2 $4 L 3 O I $0 California Connecticut Florida n=154 n=105 n=192 I mean median In addition to feeling stressed, many mothers were concerned about parenting issues. Among sampled women in California, 41% reported that they "feel alone as a parent.“ In California, 39% of all women agreed with the statement, “At the end of a long day I find it hard to feel warm and loving toward my child." a GROWING UP IN POVERTY PROJECT A Taken together, these findings suggest that the provision orieconomic incentives and sanctions alone may be insufficient to advance children‘s well—being. We need to consider women‘s personal resources, levels of social support, and their emotional health when constructing social policy. Initial pfOiECt papers I Growing Up in Poverty Project, ”1999 Progress Report.” (Berkeley: University of California and Yale University, 1999). I S. Holloway and B. Fuller, "Families and Child Care: Divergent Viewpoints." In S. Helburn, ed., "The Silent Crisis in US. Child Care,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 563 (1999):98-115. i B. Fuller, S.L. Kagan, J. McCarthy, 0. Caspary, D. Lubotsky, and L. Cascue, “Who Selects Formal Child Care? The Role of Subsidies as Low- Income Mothers Negotiate Welfare Reform." (Berkeley: University of California and Yale University, 1999). Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque. as. B. Fuller, S.L. Kagan, and 0. Caspary, "Variation in Poor Children’s Home and Child Care Settings: Does Maternal Employment Matter?" (Berkeley: University of California and Yale University, 1999). Paper for the Joint Center for Poverty Research Washington, DC. conference. S. Holloway, S. L. Kagan, B. Fuller, L. Tsou, and J. Carroll, "Measuring Child Care Quality with a Telephone Survey." (Berkeley: University of California and Yale University, 2000). Papers are available for $15 from the project center: Graduate School of Education 3653 Tolman Hall, University of California Berkeley, CA 94720. Please call 510—642-7225 or on the Web: http:\\pace.berkeley.edu ELEY Ll IBRARIES lllllllllllllllllllllllll lll llLlllLlllLlllllll Cll‘ibl-l? T0 learn more Administration for Families and Children, US. Department of Health and Human Services wwwacfidhhsgov Center for Law and Social Policy www.c/asporg Child Trends lnc. www.chi/dtrends Heritage Foundation www.heritage.org Hudson Institute wwwhudsonorg/Wpc/ Joint Center for Poverty Research University of Chicago and Northwestern University wwacprorg Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation www.mdrcorg National Center for Children in Poverty wwwresearchforumorg Urban Institute wwwnewfedera/ism.urbanorg