Letter from the Managing Editor Just fifteen years ago scientists believed that at birth the structure of babies' brains had been genetically determined. This assumption left its mark on the discussion of the old "nature versus nurture" questions about the development of a young child. Recently, however, researchers have been learning how, rather than something innate, experiences after birth, particularly during the first three years of life, determine the actual wiring of the human brain. Newsweek reports how new technology, such as positron emission tomography imaging, can measure activity of the brain's different regions and yields hard data on the critical nature of the experiences of the first three years of life. Simple activities, such as cuddling and rocking a baby, stimulate growth, and the long-term effects of inadequate nurturing can be devastating. For example, in profoundly deprived children, such as orphans in an institutional nursery, critical areas of the brain actually remain undeveloped, and such children suffer emotional and cognitive problems. This new scientific evidence of the lasting effects of a child's early childhood experiences magnifies the significance of access to quality child care for welfare recipients and the working poor. Nearly a quarter of families with children under three live in poverty, and welfare changes will push more parents of young children into the work force. Those children are most at risk because without some sort of financial assistance their parents can afford only very poor-quality and/or unreliable child care or even no care at all. In the lead article of this issue of CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW Daniel Lesser discusses the opportunity states now have to create a unified subsidized child care system that serves welfare recipients and the working poor. The author highlights how, through the use of a model child care family copayment sliding fee scale, all needy families, whether welfare recipients or working, would have the opportunity to access subsidized quality child care. Ilze Sprudas Hirsh ILZE SPRUDZS HIRSH Managing Editor Photographs that appear in CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW are produced independently of articles and columns and bear no relationship to cases or incidents discussed herein. COVER PHOTO BY MARTHA TABOR DESIGN BY HENDRICKSON CREATIVE COMMUNICATIONS © 1997 by National Clearinghouse for Legal Services, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval Toward a Unified Child Care Subsidy by Daniel Lesser I. Introduction Title VI of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRA)1 consolidates all but one2 of the major federal funding streams for child care for welfare recipients and the working poor into a single new Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG).3 Included in this consolidation are the programs that funded child care for recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) who were participating in education, training, or other work preparation activities, for AFDC recipients who were working, for former AFDC recipients during the first year after they work their way off AFDC,6 for low-income working persons deemed "at risk" of becoming dependent upon AFDC if child care was not provided to them,7 and for other low-income families The PRA also repeals the guarantee The consolidation of funding streams and elimination of the child care guarantee for welfare recipients are prompting states to reexamine their child care subsidy programs and to consider building unified child care subsidy systems that serve both welfare recipients and the working poor. The first issue states will need to address is which families to serve in their subsidized child care systems. The stakes for children and families are very high since families who are 1 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRA), Pub. L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105. 2 The only major federal child care funding stream not consolidated into the new Child Care and Development Block Grant is the Title XX Social Services Block Grant, 42 U.S.C. § 1397, a portion of which most states use to fund child care. 3 For a thorough discussion of Title VI of the PRA see Jo Ann C. Gong, Child Care in the Wake of the Federal Welfare Act, 30 CLEARINGHOUSE REV. 1044 (Jan-Feb. 1997). 442 U.S.C. § 602(g)(1)(A)(i)(II), repealed by Pub. L. No. 104-193, § 103(c). 5 Id. § 602(g)(1)(A)(i)(I), repealed by Pub. L. No. 104-193, § 103(c). 6 Id. § 602(g)(1)(A)(ii),(iii), repealed by Pub. L. No. 104-193, § 103(c). 7 Id. § 602(i)(1), repealed by Pub. L. No. 104-193, § 103(c). 8 Id. §§ 9858 et seq. 9 Pub. L. No. 104-193, § 103(c). Daniel Lesser is a staff attorney with the Poverty Law Project of the National Clearinghouse for Legal Services, 205 W. Monroe St., 2d Floor, Chicago, IL 60606; (312) 263-3830, ext. 239. |