Workers' Rights Board, 1997, 2005

ALBANY, NEW YORK
WORKERS’ RIGHTS BOARD

The Workers’ Rights Board (WRB) is a project of
the Labor-Religion Coalition, the Jobs with Justice chapter
in New York’s Capital Region
33 Central Avenue
Albany, NY 12210
518-213-6000 x6294

PuBLic HEARING ON:

FAMILY
CHILD CARE
OcTOBER 22, 2005
DESMOND HotEL, ALBANY, NY


The Workers’ Rights Board is a project of the local Labor-Religion Coalition, the Jobs
with Justice chapter of New York’s Capital Region. Ours is one of sixty WRBs across
the country that support, strengthen, and publicize the rights of working people.
Workers’ Rights Board members make recommendations and take action on behalf of
workers through their authority as fair-minded community leaders.

The Workers’ Rights Board of Albany, NY convened the Family Childcare Panel on
October 22, 2005 to hear testimony from Family Childcare Providers from across New
York State concerning the problems, issues and challenges providers face in their
efforts to deliver high quality childcare.

This event was co-sponsored by VOICE/CSEA Local 100A, the family childcare
provider union formed in partnership with CSEA Local 1000 AFSCME, the 265,000
member Civil Service Employees Association, the Labor-Religion Coalition and the
Capital District Worker Center.


DEFINITIONS

Family Childcare/Family Childcare Provider: three to six children cared for in the
provider’s own home form more than three hours per day. One or two more
children my come after school and there are no more than two infants being cared
for in the program. The provider is registered by the state, is fingerprinted, is
cleared through the statewide child abuse registry and has a criminal background
check performed. The provider is subject to extensive regulation, intense scrutiny
by the state and must complete 30 hours of continuing education every two years.

Group Family Childcare/Group Family Childcare Provider: seven to twelve
children are cared for in the home with the help of an assistant. One or two children
may come home after school and there are no more than four infants being cared
for in the program. The provider is licensed by the state, is fingerprinted, cleared
through the statewide child abuse registry and has had a criminal background
check performed. The assistant must also be fingerprinted, cleared through the
child abuse registry and have a criminal background check performed. Both the
provider and the assistant must complete 30 hours of training every two years.

In both family and group family, household members over the age of 18 must
submit their fingerprints, clear the child abuse registry, and have a criminal
background check performed.

Informals: an individual who receives subsidized payments to take care of one or
two children other than her/his own. . At the time of the hearing, no regulation of
these individuals was in place. Since August 1, 2006, the state has begun to enroll the
informals and to set standards through regulation.

Note: Legally Exempt applies to individuals who take one or two private pay
children other than their own children. They are not subject to any type of
regulation.


Preface

In New York State there are approximately 14,000 family and group family childcare
providers. A childcare system that is both high quality and accessible is important to
parents and employers. Family childcare is an integral and critical element in the delivery
of childcare in this state.

On a daily basis family childcare providers serve 150,000 children freeing parents and
guardians to pursue essential economic and academic endeavors. Licensed and registered
family childcare providers deliver high quality care in safe learning and nurturing
environments. Many parents prefer the smaller, personal settings of the family childcare
home as opposed to center-based care.

Family child care providers, however, have become infected with a malaise caused by an
unwieldy, perplexing regulatory environment and a malfunctioning subsidy system that
was intended to help low-income parents afford quality care for their child(ren) and
productively remain in the workforce.

The Child Care Panel of the Workers’ Rights Board was convened in an effort to bring
the far-reaching problems family childcare providers face into the public eye. Before this
hearing, family providers have not had the opportunity to effectively communicate from
their experienced perspectives to community and political leaders whose influence could
actually make a difference. This was a unique experience for the family childcare
community and for the panelists alike.

The panelists heard descriptions of incompetent licensors issuing questionable regulatory
violations, regulations that sometimes make no sense, a discouraging and dysfunctional
subsidy system, public humiliation by the Office of Children and Family Services for
alleged minor infractions, difficulties obtaining basic insurances such as homeowner's
insurance and a general lack of professional respect.

Serious regulation of family childcare began to gain momentum in the 1980's. Until the
early 1990's, counties were the primary regulators. In the early 1990's New York State
took over all the licensing and regulation of family childcare. A local county official was
heard to say during a meeting with providers, "You will rue the day the state takes over
regulating you". Her chilling prophecy was precise.

During the nineties, the Office of Children and Family Services promulgated new
regulations regularly. Providers recognized the authority of OCFS and the power it had
over them. Though they did not agree with everything OCFS did, providers found a way
to adapt and adjust. A natural, healthy tension between the providers and OCFS existed
as the numbers of family child care providers continued to grow.

Then a major change in the relationship between OCFS and the provider community
occurred. In the late 90's the Office of Children and Family Services declared the
regulations to be in a state of emergency. It began issuing new regulations on what


seemed to be a daily basis. Because of the declared "state of emergency" OCFS did not
have to wait for public comments for implementation. OCFS rushed to implement them
with a “here they are, live with it” attitude. In 2000, the Quality Childcare Act of 2000
was passed and, thereafter, Alyssa's Law and Medication Administration Training.
Confusing policy statements and constant rewording of regulations muddied the waters.
The era of attempting to create a quality childcare system by force of regulation had
begun. This autocratic posture coupled with draconian cuts in childcare funding during
the past few years has proven to be a recipe for disaster.

The behavior of the Office of Children and Family Services during the past six years is
reminiscent of a nefarious employer exerting coercive power over employees. The
current climate has seriously damaged family childcare and childcare quality in general.
It drives out high quality providers and stunts expansion by discouraging motivated,
skilled candidates from entering the childcare field. These developments have led to a
statewide backlash erupting within the provider community. The testimony of providers
to the Child Care Panel paints a disturbing picture of a system with severe internal and
structural problems in dire need of sweeping reform.

Family providers have said "enough!" The shabby, heavy-handed and unconscionable
treatment of the provider community has to stop. The way to build a quality childcare
system is through cooperation, reasonableness, fair treatment, open lines of
communication and mutual respect. Recognition of the professionalism of family
providers is paramount to the future success of the childcare system. They are the ones
who daily produce and deliver the services to the families and children of New York
State.


Forward

During the past two and a half decades families have experienced tremendous growth in
the need for childcare. Societal factors fueling this growth include the necessity for two
incomes to maintain a decent standard of living, the proliferation of single parents, the
influx of women into the workforce pursuing careers and welfare to work initiatives.

Serious structural and systematic problems exist within the childcare system. Family
child care, an integral component of the child care delivery system has been subjected to
severe pressures over the past few years resulting in a decline in numbers in spite of an
ever increasing need for child care. The Child Care Panel of the Workers’ Rights Board
was convened in an effort to address these problems.

Childcare in New York State is delivered through a mosaic of regulated, unregulated and,
unfortunately in some instances, illegal facilities. Childcare centers and family childcare
are the two most familiar regulated entities. A third, the informals, providers who care for
one or two unrelated children, have recently become a part of regulated childcare. The
remaining unregulated providers include grandparents, close kin and neighbors and
friends who may or may not operate legally.

The most exciting development in the past few years has been research into the impact
childcare has on regional economies and future economic development. Included in the
Child Care Panel report is the executive summary of “Investing in New York, An
Economic Analysis of the Early Care and Education Sector” by the Cornell University
Department of City and Planning and the New York State Child Care Coordinating
Council illustrating the significance of child care now as a part of the economic
infrastructure.

One of the more surprising findings is that, in addition to the 14,000 licensed/registered
family child care providers, another 35,000 New York State taxpayers annually identify
themselves as child care providers on their federal tax filings. Who are these people?
There is no definitive answer to the question. Is there any question as to why it is so
difficult to process all these permutations and develop a clear picture of what the
childcare system actually looks like in New York State? It resembles an incomplete
jigsaw puzzle with pieces spread out all over a tabletop.

A second report is also included entitled “The Childcare Funding Crisis: What it Means
to New York Families and Providers” was compiled by Cora J Mac Villa, Strategic
Campaign Coordinator, CSEA Local 1000 AFSCME and submitted to the panel on
behalf of VOICE/CSEA Local 100a. It succinctly illustrates the positive effects childcare
subsidies have on families and children and the negative impact thousands of families
and providers are now experiencing because of flat funding and cut backs to the program.


Most important is the Child Care Panel Report itself. The passionate and eloquent
testimony of committed family childcare providers speaks for itself. Broad sweeping
reforms of childcare, in the family child care segment in particular, are imperatives for
the future. The importance of early care and education is finally being recognized for its
crucial role in the social, emotional and cognitive development of children. The survival
of family childcare is a critical element in the early care and education initiatives
currently being implemented across New York State.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledging everyone who worked hard to bring the panel to fruition would be
difficult. Four individuals should be recognized for their special contributions: Martha
Schultz of the Labor-Religion Coalition of the Capital District, whose expertise,
guidance, flexibility, and insight made the hearing possible. Fred Pfeiffer, of the Capital
District Workers’ Center of Albany, for his unflagging public support and tireless
advocacy for less fortunate members of society, and Joyce Burch and Fran Nantista,
family childcare providers and founding VOICE members, for finding the time to attend
the numerous meetings and make the phone calls necessary to make all of this happen.


Panelists Listen to Two Hours of Riveting Testimony.
Pledge to Work on Behalf of Family Childcare Provider Issues.

For two hours on Saturday Oct a2" 2005 8 distinguished panel of concerned
individuals listened intently to compelling testimony by VOICE/CSEA members as they
explained the difficulties and challenges they face on a daily basis as Family Daycare
Providers. The theme of the hearing was FAMILY CHILDCARE PROVIDER
JUSTICE— “SUPPORTING THE PEOPLE WHO HELP RAISE OUR CHILDREN
WHILE WE WORK”.

The event coincided with the VOICE/CSEA Local 100a Leadership Summit held on
Oct.21‘' and 22", 2005. VOICE/CSEA Local 100a is the family child care provider union
founded in partnership with CSEA, the Civil Service Employees Association. VOICE
stands for the VOICE of Organized Independent Childcare Educators.

A standing room only crowd of 150 community participants including over 100
members of VOICE/CSEA Local 100a showed their support with numerous rounds of
applause and standing ovations as the testimony was delivered.

The Panel

Paul Tonko New York State Assemblyman

James Tedisco New York State Assembly Minority Leader

Lynn S. Morris, Early Childhood Educator,

David Soares, District Attorney of Albany County,

Reverend Alexandra Lusak First Presbyterian Church in Troy, NY

Testimony Summary

A total of 20 individuals (19 providers; 1 graduate of a family childcare setting who is
now an adult) submitted written testimony to the panel. The topics were wide ranging and
included unprofessional licensing representatives, cuts in the subsidy funding, the Office
of Children and Family Services website, recalcitrant local officials defying state law,
child support laws forcing children out of the system, the economic importance of
childcare, the high turnover rates in childcare, the dangers of unregulated care, and
burdensome regulations that sometimes make no sense. Nine individuals (including the
translation of Spanish to English) gave oral testimony to the panel.


9
Worker Ss A Project of the Labor Religion Coalition,
e the Jobs with Justice affiliate in New York’s Capital District
Rights 33 Central Avenue * Albany, NY 12210

518/ 482-5595 * LRC @nycap.rr.com
Board

Recommendations based on testimony during the Family Childcare
Providers Hearing, October 22, 2005

A. ACHIEVABLE IN THE SHORT TERM

Al. Provider Retention Program: The Provider Retention Program was allowed to
expire in March of 2005. It should be immediately reinstated and fully funded.

Justification: During the four years the Provider Retention Program functioned, it
awarded grants to nearly 40,000 childcare workers across the state as a reward for

longevity and credentialing. Childcare suffers from an annual attrition rate of 30%.
Programs that reduce the loss of experienced providers improve the quality of care
and foster the documented importance of continuity of care for children.

A2. Recognition The Senate, Assembly and Governor should all work to enact a law
that will allow family childcare providers to organize, be recognized by the state and
to bargain collectively.

In the past legislative session two bills were introduced and passed in the Senate and
the Assembly that will establish collective bargaining rights for family childcare
providers. The Governor vetoed the bill and the Senate overrode his veto. At this
time the Assembly should override the Governor’s veto of the House Bill, #10060, to
complete the passage of this bill into law.

Justification: Currently family childcare providers have little direct input into the
regulatory process and avenues of redress of grievances and disputes are blatantly
biased in favor of government agencies or non-existent. A law establishing collective
bargaining rights for family childcare providers will allow them to have an effective
voice in childcare advocacy, promote fairness in the treatment of providers, and will
result in improved care for the children of New York.

A3. Spanish Publications: All OCFS regulations, information and policies should
be available in Spanish.


Justification: Large numbers of providers whose first or only language is Spanish
find understanding regulations, policies and information very difficult. Their ability to
comply with regulations and deliver quality childcare would be greatly improved if
regulatory and training materials were available in Spanish. Recruitment of new
Spanish speaking providers would also be improved.

A4. Social Service Law 390: The section of SSL 390 which exempts family
childcare from local ordinances and zoning must be strengthened.

Justification: County and town officials in various parts of the state have been
harassing family daycare providers with attempts to circumvent 390 and impose their
own regulations leading to confusion and conflict with state regulations which are
already stringent and strictly enforced. The word “assessment” should be added as a
tax exemption in view of the fact one county tried to reclassify family daycare into a
commercial tax category. This would have resulted in a 21% increase in property
taxes on the provider’s residence.

AS. Informal Providers: The regulations enacted by the Office of Children and
Family Services governing informal care (legal childcare providers caring for 2 or
less children) should be implemented immediately and thoroughly through out the
state. These regulations will impose a minimal burden on informal providers and
promote quality care for families and children.

Justification: Counties employee thousands of informal providers in the subsidy
System as a means of saving money but there are hidden costs and dangers. A study
by the New York State’s Comptroller Office uncovered massive fraud and seriously
deficient care of children who are cared for by informal providers. Within the past
few months, informal providers have become subject to regulation. Those informal
providers who participate honestly within the system should be offered resources,
training and incentives encouraging them to become licensed or registered family
childcare providers.

A6. Health Insurance: The qualifications of acceptance in the Healthy New York
program should be relaxed or waived for all family childcare providers.

Justification: There exists a void of accessibility and affordability of health care
insurance to family daycare providers. Their incomes are limited and self-pay of high
insurance premiums precludes most providers from obtaining even the most basic of
health insurance plans.

B. MID-RANGE

B1. Website:
a. Allow providers to opt out of having their addresses, phone numbers and
map link to their home posted on the Bureau of Early Childhood Services
website


b. Replace the adverse approach to posting information about providers on the
website with a more affirmative construct.

Justification:

a. The OCFS/BECS website posts addresses, phone numbers and map links to
providers’ homes posing safety and security threats to provider families and
the children in their care. By posting such information, a pedophile or non-
custodial parent can easily identify family childcare providers who are home
alone with children and target the children for abduction or other crimes.

b. The design of the information pertaining to alleged violations posted on the
website unfairly humiliates thousands of providers causing in the process the
loss of clientele and undeserved damage to professional reputations.

B2. Medication Administration Training: A complete revision and overhaul of this
training is imperative.

Justification: Known as MAT, this training to qualify to administer everyday over
the counter drugs and common prescriptions goes arguably beyond what is necessary
to insure competence. It is expensive and time consuming. The result has been a
massive opt out of the program by the majority of providers resulting in an overall
reduction of service to the families who have children in daycare programs.

C. LONG-TERM

C1. Licensors and Registrars: A new, intensive and comprehensive training for
OCFS licensors and registrars be developed and implemented. Policies and
procedures should be adopted which support and foster mutual understanding
between the childcare community and the Bureau of Early Childhood Services of the
Office of Children and Family Services.

Justification: regulations have become burdensome, expensive and complex.
Interpretation of regulations is inconsistent and enforcement has become at times
arbitrary and questionable. Providers are frequently cited for inadvertent, relatively
minor infractions, which are easily correctable and then questionably labeled as a
serious violation.

C2. Insurance: The New York State Insurance Department should require admitted
A rated property and casualty insurance companies to create and offer standard
homeowner’s insurance policies to family daycare providers.

Justification: In spite of the lack of evidence that family childcare providers pose an
adverse risk, few insurance companies offer standard homeowner policies to family
childcare providers. Many providers have been forced to purchase substandard


policies or hide their daycare activities or even to close down because of the non-
availability of a standard homeowner’s policy.

C3. Childcare Subsidies: A complete overhaul of antiquated county computer
systems and the addition of staff to approve and disburse subsidy payments should be
undertaken immediately. Policies that result in providers not being paid the subsidies
they are owed because of the parent’s deliberate or unintentional actions should be
changed immediately. In regard to the late, short and non-payment problems,
counties should be forced to pay interest and penalties to providers for payments 30
days beyond the normal due dates.

Justification: Providers across the state who offer services to the childcare
subsidized families regularly experience late, short or non-payment for services
rendered. Many counties have become overburdened with the administration of
subsidy payments causing financial hardships to providers forcing many to cease
operations. Non-payment and late payment of subsidized monies also results in
providers refusing to care for subsidized families.

C4. Childcare Subsidies: Funding for childcare subsidies should be increased
substantially and a moratorium declared on the parental cooperation requirement.

Justification: Childcare subsidies have been successful over the past decade
affording millions of New Yorkers the opportunity to pursue gainful employment and
self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, due to inadequate funding, many counties have
reduced the qualifying threshold from 200% of Federal poverty level guidelines to
150% or less. This has resulted in loss of childcare to many families because they can
no longer afford licensed regulated care. In some cases a parent has lost employment
or had to place a child in an unregulated, unsafe environment to continue to work.
The new mandate that all custodial parents must pursue the non-custodial parent for
child support has imposed serious hardship on custodial parents. The court process is
slow and time consuming, discouraging custodial parents from pursuing legal
remedies and resulting in loss of income as the custodial parent is forced to take
inordinate amounts of time off to appear in court.


Epilogue

There is a growing belief within the family child care community that the Office of
Children and Family Services is intentionally working to reduce the number of family
providers across the state. The harsh treatment of providers and the imposition of
complex and questionable regulations lend credence to this belief.

Why would OCFS want to reduce the number of family childcare providers? One answer
is the long-standing institutional bias of the Office and Children and Family services
against family childcare providers. OCFS fails to recognize the high quality of care
family childcare providers already provide and the overall potential benefits family
childcare holds for New York State. The deep, abiding mistrust and disrespect of family
providers is illustrated by funding policies favoring centers, the lack of a fair venue to
redress grievances and the punitive nature of its website. Granted, as in any type of
business, unqualified family childcare providers do exist. However, the vast majority of
family childcare providers are hard working, rule abiding and conscientious individuals.

It makes no sense to pursue a policy of reducing the numbers of family childcare
providers. It is nothing less than blatant mismanagement to execute policies, which drive
out many highly qualified providers. A flourishing, sensibly regulated family child care
system should be expanded and developed as a low cost, quality component of the child
care system.

When funding a childcare center, the very minimum amount that needs to be spent per
child is $6500 with $10,000 per child considered an optimal target for high quality. To
set up a high quality center to serve 10 children would cost $100,000, at the very least. In
most cases, candidates to become family or group family providers do not have to invest

vast sums of money in their homes to begin operations. Very few spend even a grand
total of $6500.

In June of 2006, Governor Pataki proudly announced that $2,000,000 in grants would go
to centers and other agencies to expand and improve childcare. Not a penny of that
money went to family childcare. The money will create only 404 new slots for children
due to the targeting of the allocation. How many more slots could have been created by
the same amount of money by including family childcare?

Family childcare fills a huge niche in the childcare delivery system, and policies
promoting its growth should be a priority. Given the right incentives, a pool of qualified
candidates could easily be recruited and trained. A motivated family provider community
with skills, abilities and commitment would contribute immensely to the social,
educational and economic good of New York State. In reality, family childcare is a cost-
effective opportunity for qualitative and quantitative expansion.

Providers have formed 2 unions in New York State to combat the ongoing mistreatment
from OCEFS. They are working hard to obtain recognition by the state. Providers have
done this because they deserve to be included in the policy process and not merely


subjected to its potentially COrrosi
serving the needs of children and

ve and debilitating effects. They are committed to
families and are proud of the professional work they do.

Providers have the experience and insight of being on the front lines of childcare
everyday. By forming unions, providers seek to be the driving force in the development

of an inclusive, high quality child

care system, of which New York State can be proud.


Testimony Index

Oral Testimony

1. How Quality Family Childcare Changed Our Lives
Betsy Martin Doud
Family Childcare Graduate
(as read by Barbara Stevens, parent of children in family childcare)

2. Child Care Funding Cuts Cut Deeply
Linda Scott
Niagara County

3. Incompetent Licensor Abuses Power
Fran Nantista
Albany County

5. Labeled a Troublemaker for Speaking the Truth
Sharon Foti
Monroe County

6. Town Officials Ignore State Law---Create a Nightmare
for Family Childcare Provider

Roxanne Savage
Suffolk County

7. Providers Publicly Humiliated with Scarlet Letters
Edith Gaines-Rivera
Westchester County

8. New Child Care Support Law Devastates Providers, Parents and Children
Claudia Ruiz
Suffolk County
(en espanol)
Translation of Claudia Ruiz’s Testimony
Jennifer Rios
Suffolk County

9. Childcare is Vital to the Economy
Ed Gresco
Statewide Organizer—VOICE/CSEA Local 100a


Written Testimony

10.

11

12.

13.

14.

jb

16.

47,

£9.

20.

21

Why Quality Providers are Shutting Their Doors
Kim Bannister
Erie County

Huge Communication Gap Between Providers and Regulatory Agencies

Mary Jarvis
Onondaga County

Regulations Cause Widespread Confusion
Linda Oliver
Niagara County

Subsidy Cuts are a Disaster
Sonya Agee
Niagara County

Work for 12 Hours—Get Paid for 6
Linda Oliver
Niagara County

Informals are Unfair Competition
Donna Majors-Hill
Monroe County

Market Rate Inequities
Antoinette Davis
Erie County

The Frustrations of Dealing with Licensors and Regulations
Marcia Mango
Schenectady County

Subsidy Payment Problems with DSS
Darlene Sheldon
Chenango County

Unregulated Informals Diminish Quality Regulated Care
Cathey Sandman
Niagara County

Group Family Ratios Make No Sense
Kathy Stearns
Cayuga County.


Oral Testimony

Betsy Elizabeth Martin-Doud
Family Childcare Graduate
How Quality Family Childcare Changed Our Lives

Being the oldest in a single-parent family was not easy. My Mom worked a lot to make
ends meet. We were bounced around from babysitter to babysitter, and living in the City
of Schenectady, the quality of care at these places varied greatly.

I remember one sitter where we were not allowed to go inside of the house; we were kept
outside on the porch (thankfully, it was enclosed). This woman was so mean that I was
afraid to ask her to use the bathroom, resulting in my having numerous “accidents”. The
next babysitter was much nicer. So nice that she let us roam the city streets and do
whatever we wanted. And it was with this sitter that I watched my younger brother get
chased down the street by a dog, running up to doorsteps crying for help until the dog
caught up with him and bit him in the ankle.

As the oldest sibling, these experiences were especially tough because I felt responsible
for my younger brother and sister. And I wanted to take care of them, and make sure they
were safe. But other than being the eyes and ears for my Mom and tell her what was
going on, there was nothing else that I could do except beg her not to “make us go back”.
In retrospect, this must have been the hardest for my Mom. As a single parent she worked
full-time and had three growing kids to take care of. There was no other support: no other
money coming in and no help from family. She did not have many options.

I will always remember the day we went to ““Annie’s”. She had a big house and we were
even allowed to go upstairs and watch the “Pink Panther” and “Gidget’’. She lived in a
nice neighborhood, by Central Park. We would go on field trips and to the library. And
best of all, going to Annie’s was fun - she would sing into her hairbrush microphone and
do a dance to the beginning of “Gidget” each time the show came on! I would chime in
with the other younger children, “Sing-it Annie, Sing-it!” “Sing-it, please...” And she
would slowly get-up and then start kicking her legs and waving her arms... I can still
“Annie’s” was a turning point for our family. It was a new and refreshing beginning.
Annie’s house was not only a fun and safe place for us, but she provided structure and
discipline in a nurturing way as well— this support helped my Mother a great deal. This
was also the beginning of a friendship that spanned the daycare setting; from spending
graduation and wedding celebrations together, to an employment and educational
opportunity for my sister in the daycare, and most recently at a coffeehouse where Annie
and I chatted while she rocked my six-week old daughter to sleep.

The difference between Annie and the babysitters that we had gone to was that Annie
was a Certified Daycare Provider. This was a fact that Annie would always point out to
me if I referred to her as a “babysitter”. At the time, I was too young to understand the
significance of this. Now, I am fully aware of and so thankful that licensed, high quality
Family Daycare is available.


The Family Daycare program provided an option for my Mother that my family
desperately needed. It provided monetary support in the way of a subsidy, and it
supported our autonomy by allowing my Mom to keep her job and stay in the workforce,
and by creating standards for quality assurance that gave my Mom peace of mind
knowing that we were safe and in good hands. And most importantly, the Family Daycare
program supported our family unit, by providing an option for my Mom to bring her kids
to an environment where we were free to grow, have fun, gain respect for others, and
ourselves and just be regular kids.

Linda Scott
Niagara County
Child Care Funding Cuts Cut Deeply

I am a registered family childcare provider in Niagara County where I operate my
business, Linda’s Lullaby. I have a great concern for this dilemma we’ re facing with the
child care subsidies funding program. I’ve been in the child care business for 15 years
and I found many unfair regulations and been through many stressful situations along the
way, but for the most part, I have learned to deal with whatever comes. It all comes with
the job. But one thing I do expect is to get paid after a long day of changing diapers,
cleaning runny noses, making nutritional meals 5-6 times a day, praying each day that no
child gets hurt, reading a story before nap time, taking a walk even though I don’t feel
like it sometimes, doing crafts, bottle feedings etc.. It’s all in the days work. The children
look forward to these activities because they are getting good quality childcare. Everyday
when these children leave the door I know I have done my best. When I see a parent walk
away with a smile on her face whether she is dropping the child off or picking them up, I
take pride in the fact I am providing high quality childcare. It helps parents concentrate
knowing that their child is in a safe environment while they are working. When I see that
we have allowed our funding to be cut and don’t try to restore it, this concerns me
greatly. I know there are parents that have had to choose to quit their jobs because there
was a cut from their subsidy program without notice. When a parent can’t support their
families that means they have to go on public assistance which will then cost tax payers
more money because they’!] loose their health benefits as well. I can’t imagine the people
who will have to leave their children home with older siblings. With all our 30 hours of
training on child neglect, safety codes, and violations I can’t imagine what kinds of things
that could happen while parents are away working. With all our training and concerns for
the children from the state, what was it all for if it’s not a concern now? I think it’s quite
clear why we need the childcare subsidies program. The $5 million block grant we
received in 2005 only $141,239 was used for childcare. The waiting list is about half
from last year. Only 420 families are receiving funding from 908 families who were last
year and the numbers are growing everyday. The waiting list is at least 2 years. Please
think of the children. Don’t wait until things get worse.


Fran Nantista
Albany County
Incompetent Licensor Abuses Power

My name is Fran Nantista. Iam a Family Daycare Provider — I care for children in my
home. I'd like to speak to you today about licensors. A licensor is a person employed by
the NYS Office of Children and Family Services to come into my home, evaluate and
inspect my daycare home to ensure that I am following regulations. I have been a
registered child care provider for the past ten years. In those ten years, I have had the
privilege of having five different licensors, two of whom I never met.

My experience with licensors has been tiresome. The first licensor I had — and I had her
for two years — was, by far, the worst. I spent many hours preparing for my first
inspection and welcomed the licensor into my home. This was my very first contact with
ANY licensor and I had been in business for five years without incident, accident, injury
or complaint.

I thought everything was going well until she decided that I was pretty much doing
nothing right. She didn't like my second method of egress, even though I am on the first
floor and am grandfathered in as far as city code is concerned. I was forced to build a
deck with stairs from my spare bedroom window going out to a 4-way stop on a main
thoroughfare. Can you imagine how safe that now makes my home? When she
questioned me on the fact that I had covered my cast-iron radiator with a 2-inch foam
mat, I quoted the regulation that states, “radiators must be covered to insure against injury
to children.” Her comment to me was, ““That’s not what they mean.” I had a lengthy
discussion with her over the fact that I can hardly be held responsible for an interpretation
of a regulation of which I am not aware. How does her interpretation take precedence
over mine? Why am I not aware of the “accepted” interpretation of a regulation?

This was the beginning of the end of any relationship I could have had with this licensor.
From that point on, I was the subject of an inspection that made absolutely no sense. She
asked to see my first aid kit. I brought her the first aid kit that the Child Care
Coordinating Council had given me when I started my business. She repeatedly stated
that there was a smaller one available. I advised her that this one went everywhere we
went — into the yard and on walks off the property. I get a letter from her 3 days later
stating that I am in violation because I do not have a portable first aid kit! This was an
out-and-out LIE!!!

This same licensor came to my home another time with someone else and then proceeded
to speak between themselves in Spanish. I advised them both that this was rude and that I
would appreciate them speaking in English while at my home.

I was actually threatened by this licensor to have an order issued for me to cease and
desist because I apparently had not completed my renewal application to her satisfaction.
When I called her, I was advised that she was on vacation so I demanded that this
situation be solved by the end of the business day or I would contact an attorney. I
ultimately found out that I could not possibly have completed my application for renewal


because SHE had sent me the fronts of the forms and not the BACKS. Apparently this
was MY fault!!!

[have had a licensor who demanded that I have a si gned statement by a parent that their
son’s epi-pen CANNOT BE ON THE PREMISES AT ALL because I have chosen not to
administer medications. I advised this licensor that I would not ask ANY parent to sign
anything unless she provided me with the regulation that states this cannot be on the
premises. This was 8 months ago and I have not heard a word from her since that time.
There are other providers experiencing the same problems with licensors. One provider
was charged with a violation for having “toxic” substances in her refrigerator. This
“toxic” substance is commonly known as BEER and it was UNOPENED! Why is it that
we cannot keep beer for our own consumption in our own refri gerator? At snack time we
are not in the habit of popping the top off of a can of beer. Another provider was charged
with a violation because the cabinet under her bathroom sink was not locked. A cursory
inspection by the licensor stated that there were toxic chemicals stored there. However,
upon appeal by the provider, it was discovered that the only things stored there were soap
and toothpaste. These are things that are usually kept on the vanity of this bathroom.
They are now considered toxic?

My basic problem with any licensor is that I cannot seem to understand why every one of
them has had a different interpretation of regulations. They seem to be free to violate
providers for some things and not violate other providers for the same thing. Don’t they
know that providers talk among themselves? Aren’t they aware that we do have a support
system?

It is apparent that the licensors are either given training that is not adequate or the caliber
of the people being hired for these positions is not of sufficient intelligence to handle the
position. Having spoken with many providers across this 4 county area, it is apparent that
there are no two licensors that interpret the regulations the same. How, then, can we be
expected to follow a set of rules when we are not made aware of an interpretation prior to
an inspection. This has to stop. There must be a universal set of regulations and a
universal set of acceptable interpretations available to ALL providers.

We cannot follow rules that are not provided to us. Can any of you?

This has been the most frustrating ten years of my life. I absolutely love my business and
the children for whom I care. I spent 25 years out in the working world and have NEVER
found an institution harder to satisfy than the NYS Office of Children and Family
Services. However, I REFUSE to back down. I will not let this institution force me out of
business without a worthy battle. I feel that I have made a difference in the lives of many
children who have passed through my care and I hope to continue to do so as long as I am
physically able. This is my life, this is my profession, and my only source of income. I
have found the job of my dreams and refuse to let OCFS dash that dream into oblivion.


Sharon Foti
Monroe County
Labeled A Troublemaker For Speaking the Truth

My name is Sharon Foti, and I have been providing daycare in Monroe County for 26
years. I’d like to speak to you today about what appears to be deficient training of
licensing representatives in the Family Daycare Registration and Compliance Unit. There
seems to be no universal model for inspection, no consistency in handing out violations,
and no due process in place for removing unsubstantiated violations. Each licensing rep.
has his agenda and time constraint. An inspection can last anywhere from one hour to
several. Some reps are obsessed with paperwork; others, health and safety issues and still
others have turned inspections into a “sport” to see how many violations they can find.
Licensing reps have been running over providers for years, writing us up for questionable
violations and giving out misinformation. ON several occasions I have had to explain the
regulations to a Licensing Rep. Providers have been violated for running out of paper
towels during inspection, for not doing dishes in a timely manner and for using the
bathroom out of the sight of the children in care. I was personally violated for not having
a current medical form in place for a school age child, when, in fact, annual medical
exams are not required for school age children. I was found in violations for having a
table in the basement two inches too close to the furnace. I immediately moved the table
in the presence of the licensing rep, but still received a violation.

For many years providers have been told by our licensing reps and in my case, the Child
Care Council in Rochester, that “infants” under two must be in a crib for napping
purposes. During one of my training classes on Statutes and Regulations, I asked the
facilitator, Ella Renkhart, who is the Regional Manager of OCFS, what to do if [had a
child under two who was climbing out of his crib? She told me to call my Licensing Rep.
and ask for a waiver of the regulations. Not long thereafter I admitted an 18 mo. of age.
She spoke to her supervisor, who then told her that I! COULD nap this child in a bed or a
cot. Subsequently, I re-read my regulations and could find no Statute or Regulation
requiring an infant under two to be in a crib. It’s no wonder that they complied so quickly
without a waiver.

In a separate incident, my daughter-in-law was opening a family Daycare and was
expecting her first inspection. The Licensing Rep sent her a checklist of items that she
should have on hand when he arrived; among them was “an Emergency Bag” and a “fire
blanket’. She called to ask me where to buy a fire blanket. I told her that the Regulations
have no requirement for a fire blanket or an Emergency Bag and that she couldn’t be
violated for not having them. The following evening while attending a class at the Child
Care Council, I ran into the CEO of the Council, a licensing rep from another county and
a training facilitator for the council. I asked them first about the fire blanket and they had
no idea what I was talking about. When I asked them why providers were required to
have an Emergency Bag if it’s not in the regulations, they sheepishly admitted that the
Emergency Bag was merely a good suggestion from the “Health and Safety people’???
(whoever they are) and was indeed not in the Regulations. The following week, while
attending another class at the Council, the training facilitator mentioned earlier, saw me
and remarked to the others, “Uh Oh, here comes trouble.” Now, I ask you because I


provide the highest quality care and have made it my business to stay current with regard
to the Statutes and Regulations, should I then be labeled a “troublemaker?” I know what

qualified ME to be a good provider. What I would LIKE to know is what are the job and
training qualifications to become a good NYS Licensing Representative?

Roxanne Savage
Suffolk County
Town Officials Ignore State Law
Create a Nightmare for Family Childcare Provider

Hello, my name is Roxanne Savage and I am the owner of H.U.G.S. Group Family Day
in Holbrook on Long Island. On behalf of all NY State Group and Family Day Care
providers I am here to present our challenges with the local townships. I think the
simplest means of doing this would be to relate my personal experience. After several
attempts by Islip Town Enforcers during the spring of 2002, I was finally issued a
summons on 6/28/02 -- SECTION 68 - Subdivision 25 B - Change of Occupancy-
Building * Written on the summons was " did allow, permit and maintain | family
dwelling as a child day care center with approximately 9 children at this time." (I had
received several verbal "threats" from Town staff about being shut down.)

When three Town Code Enforcers came to my home on that day I asked them to please
come in and look around. I wanted them to see what they were attempting to "close
down." They all appeared to be impressed and confused, one even commented that it
"was like a 'club-med' for kids”. Nonetheless, they were very clear that this time they
could not go back to the office without total follow-through as their boss, (Mr. T. Shea ?)
implied their jobs would be on the line. I was advised to obtain a lawyer and upon
receiving my summons they left with what I felt were sincere apologies.

The saga with the town continued for about eleven months. I found the entire ordeal to
be one big nightmare. I was emotionally and financially drained. Much time was spent
writing letters, placing calls, sending faxes and a day in court. All of this cost me time
and money. Some of my larger expenses were the lawyer, salaries to cover my time
away from the day care, whether it be outside the premises or in another room taking care
of 'town' business, and correspondence costs.

During these months I had the opportunity to listen to the stories of other providers.
Some were going through the court experience or just being hassled by the town. Islip
town encompasses the many zip code areas* and in the area of 200 Group/Family
Providers. Unfortunately there were a number of providers that either could not speak
English well or lacked the education to defend themselves. And if all of this wasn't
already frustrating enough, it was difficult, if not impossible to find someone to listen and
help us. I personally appealed to many individuals from: the Office of Children and
Family Services, the Town of Islip, the Child Care Council, the State, the County and
even the media”.

As I speak here today, I am aware of a provider in Islip who is being harassed by the
town and the neighbors of her new Group Family Day Care home. The neighbors have
posted huge signs on their lawns with arrows pointing to this lovely home in an attempt
to display their negative feelings. It is my understanding at present, that this day care has


yet to open, at least in part, I'm sure, due to the fact that the neighbors have told her
outright that they will harass anyone who sets foot on that property. In the meantime this
woman has invested a huge amount of time and money to fulfill her dream and the dream
of many families---to have a "home" where children can come for "nourishment" and the
parents can go off to work confident that their child is being well cared for.

It is my feeling that the time has finally come to educate the general public and most
importantly, the government agencies (towns) of the following: "Fifty Percent of the
Child Care Establishments are regulated Group and Family Child Care contributing
greatly to a $755 million dollar industry annually (LI - CCR &R data, 2003) (the). "Child
Care Sector is BIG-Fiscally, Socially and Economically" Group/Family Day Care
Providers are people committed to the child(ren) and their families. For most they are
dedicated professionals who put in long hours for the love and needs of the child.

I have been asked over the years why I continue with HOME based day care (and not
open a center). My reply is always the same, "I believe in Group/Family Day Care. It
provides the child with more-- things that are not tangible. The basics of "family" that
either are not happening at home or need to be reinforced throughout the day, every day."
Obviously I can go on for several hours but due to limitations I will not.

I hope my testimony will help everyone come to the realization that the government has a
responsibility to all sectors (business, family, etc.) to support Group and Family Day
Care.

Edith Gaines-Rivera
Westchester County
Providers Publicly Humiliated with Scarlet Letters

The Office of Children and Family Services website was originally designed to help
parents search for childcare and act as a marketing tool for daycare facilities. The
provider community paid scant attention to it since it really did not generate many
inquiries from potential clients. Then in the spring of 2004, some new features were
added. Two questions and a statement were supposed to help parents make a decision
about childcare.

They read as follows:

"Is there currently an unresolved serious violation?"

"Has there been a serious violation in the past two years?"

"Enforcement actions in the past two years”

Each of these is followed by a no or a bright Red YES with no explanation. Though a
parent could call OCFS for more detailed information more often than not a Red YES
prompted the parent to move on to the next potential facility. This caught the attention of
the provider community. The Red YES became known as the Scarlet Letter. In August of
2004, according to OCFS, 25% of all facilities had a Scarlet letter.

In March of 2005 approximately 1400 facilities were approved under Medication
Administration Training. 5000 have Scarlet Letters. What is wrong with this picture? As
many of you know, VOICE held discussions with OCFS concerning this beginning last
summer and then led a petition campaign to get this website changed into something
more palatable. OCFS in March added a profile page to the website. On it, the regulation
alleged to have been violated is identified and whether it is considered serious and


corrected. But no explanation of the situation is offered. So for instance, if during the last
inspection two years ago, the fence around a pool met the 48" height requirement, but
happened to settle an inch to 47" which the provider did not notice, the provider is
labeled as a serious violator and is identified on the profile page as having violated:
417.5(f)(1) Barriers of adequate height & security must exist to prevent access to
pools/bodies of open water. The fact the fence settled an inch is not noted.

It is not hard to imagine a parent being suspicious of the provider if the provider offers as
the explanation that she was violated for the fence settling an inch.

In spite of this attempt to improve the website, the Provider community is still unhappy
because of the lack of an explanation which OCFS says it will not do and for the
humiliation the website still causes providers. Is there some irony here? One section of
disciplinary regulations in a daycare setting reads:

417.9 (h) Methods of discipline, interaction or toilet training which frighten, demean or
humiliate a child are prohibited. Now can someone explain to me how OCFS has a
regulation prohibiting the humiliation of children and then defend as a best practice the
public humiliation of childcare providers?

Claudia Ruiz
Suffolk County
New Child Support Law Devastates Providers, Parents And Children

Buenos Dias damas y caballeros mi nombre es Claudia Ruiz.

Vivo en el condado de Suffolk soy maestro por 17 anos. Proveedora por 12 anos, he
estado con ninos practiqua mente toda mi vida. He seguido paso a paso por 12 anos

muchos cambios en las Regulaciones del estado the NY, toda para el bienestar de los
ninos. En su mayoria buenas.

Pero...esta ultima modificacion del soporte de ninos para mi opinion personally y la
opinion de 25 a 30 proveedoras del cuidado de mi area ha sido un fracaso que solo ha
veneficiado al estado y el condado porque la gran mayoria de los ninos bajo nuestro
cuidado han hido a parar en manos de cuidadoras de ninos informales.

Ninos en su mayoria que han tenido que pasar de nuestras rutinas bien planificadas,
centros de cuidados organisados y limpias por cuartos Oscuros, television, y maltratoes en
algunos casos.

Padres que se han distanciado de sus ninos por ese mantenimiento obligado que en
muchos casos no pueden pagar y al final el estado por ahorrar un presupuesto a puesto en
peligro la salud emocional y fisica de todos estos ninos; gve son tan importantes para el
estado.

Nuestro centro de cuidado se han quedado vasios, muchas de las proveedoras teniendo
licencia han tenido que bajoar sus tarifas a nivel de cuidadoras informales, inventar una
cantidad incredible de veneficios que no don. Por ejemplo ofrecen panales gratis,
formulas para bebes gratis, paseos, etc.


Algunas de nos otras que hemos invertido anos en preparacion, studio, entrenamientos
carisimos, porque el estado y el presidente piden centros de cuidado de calidad pero no
hay presupuesto para nosotras ni para los ninos que al final, estos pequenos so los mas }
importantes.

Pedimos un cambio immediate en esta reforma ridicula de suporte de los ninos. Pedimos
respeto y considiracion por parte de estos empleados del departamento de servicio social
que es es tan alli porque nosotros trabajamos porque si no nubieran centros de cuidados
ellas no trabajarian. |

Que paren de tartar mal ha estos padres que cada dia salen de su casa a trabajar y dejan a
sus ninos en manos estranas muchas veses manos daninas que lastiman estos ninos y
arriva de esto tienen que aguantar, esuchar palabras de racismo, y malos tratos de estas
empleadas del govierno.

Por este motivo nuestro ninos han dejado nuestros centros de cuidado porque estos padres
Ila no quieren bregar mas con toda esta pesadilla. Entonces nosotras preguntamos asta
cuando tanto maltrato? Abuso? Y tanta falta de repeto asia esta clas media y trabajadora.
Y hacia nosotras? Nuestra preucupacion hacerca de todo esto nos inbolucra a todos. Y
ahora mi asistente mi mano derech y mi hija Jennifer Rios les podra trasmitir nuestro
mensaje en su idioma Gracias por la attencion y gracias a VOICE por darnos la
oportunidad de compartir nuestra inquiedues. Gracias

Jennifer Rios
Suffolk County
Translation of Claudia Ruiz’s Testimony

Now did everyone understand what she said? This is what Spanish-speaking parents and
providers go through everyday.

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. My name is Jennifer Rios and I would be
translating for my boss who also happens to be my mom. We live in Long Island, NY,
Suffolk County. She has been a teacher for 17 years and a provider for 12. She has been
around children practically all her life. She has followed the regulations in NYS step by
step for the past 12 years. Most of them for the well being of the children.

But the last modification of the child support law, in my opinion and the opinion of about
25 to 30 providers in our area was a fraud. This regulation has only benefited the state
and the county because the majority of children under our care are now ending up with
babysitters.

Children are now going from our well planned routines, well organized daycares, and
clean rooms, to dark rooms, unending hours of television and abuse in some cases.


10

Parents are now being forced to distance themselves from their daycares because they are
being charged fees they cannot pay at the end because the state wants to “stay in budget”.
They are putting at risk the well being of the children, hurting their emotional and
physical health. If these children are so important to the state, then why force them out of
our care?

Our daycare facilities are being emptied out, a lot of providers with licenses are having to
lower their fees match the same pricing as the “babysitters”. They are being forced to
make up ridiculous benefits to get children to come to their care. Some examples of this
are “free diapers, babyhood, baby formulas, field trips etc.”.

Some of us have invested years in preparation studies, and very expensive trainings
because the state and the president want high quality daycares, but they are saying there
is not enough money in the budget to help us.

We are asking an immediate change to child support law. We are asking for respect and
consideration from DSS because if it wasn’t for us providers, they would be out of jobs
along with the parents.

They need to stop treating us with disrespect because these parents are leaving their
children with strange hands, who in many cases are hurting hands. These parents have to
hear words of racism from government employees.

For these reasons our children have left our daycares because they don’t want to deal
with DSS, they think this is all a nightmare.

Parents are being pushed to the point to where they are asking us when are we going to
deal with all this abuse? When are we going to be treated as working class and when are
the providers going to be recognized as workers for the state?

All these worries involve all of us. Thank you for listening and thank you VOICE for
giving us the opportunity to share our troubles.

Hillary (voice representative), thank you for being with us every step of the way. If it
wasn’t for you we would still be at home taking all this abuse and wondering when it
would all end.


1]

Ed Gresco
Albany County
Childcare Is Vital To The Economy

I would like to thank all the members of the panel once again for
coming and listening. I know you all have been sitting for a while.

I noticed some of you have started to wiggle a bit in your chairs, so I will be brief.

My name is Ed Gresco. I spent sixteen years as a Group Family Child Care Provider and
I was a nationally accredited provider. I am now a representative of VOICE, the VOICE
of Organized Independent Child Care Educators. VOICE is a statewide family child care
provider organization that has partnered with CSEA AFSCME Local 1000. We work to
materially and directly improve the working environments and careers of providers. We
believe the quality of childcare in New York State will improve in direct proportion to
the fate of the providers.

In the coming months and years VOICE members may approach some or all you with
problems and issues of our members. We ask that you help and support VOICE/CSEA
whenever you are able.

You have heard testimony about the problems and issues in the Family Childcare
Community. You may think a rather bleak picture has been painted. It is not. Every one
who has testified is a committed family provider----providers who desire to remain
family providers but who are feeling intense pressures from both the regulatory
environment and in the financial arenas. These factors are contributing to a very high
attrition rate across the state---estimated at 20 to 30% per year.

Yet this is an industry, which is absolutely vital to the economic health of New York
State. Daycare in many ways has become an integral part of the economic infrastructure
similar in importance to transportation, utilities and communication industries. Without
childcare facilities opening at 6am across the state, many businesses, both private and
public would be hard pressed to properly staff their organizations by 9am. In New York
State, childcare frees 750,000 parents to go work each day. These parents earn $30.5
billion dollars in income each year. Needless to say that is a significant contribution to
the economy of New York State.


12

When we talk in large numbers, billions of dollars, thousands of providers, hundreds of
thousands of children and parents, sometimes we might suffer from what accountants call
decimal creep. What that means is when huge numbers are thrown at people--30.5 billion
dollars for example, people just cannot completely grasp the significance.

So let's break it down to a more immediate level. There are approximately 100 VOICE
members here today. And let's say they all go out of business on Monday. What would
be the immediate repercussions? At least 800 parents and 800 children would be without
daycare. These 800 parents face losing combined total incomes of $625,000 during this
first week alone. These parents now must scramble to find new daycare---many being
forced to take their children to substandard or unregulated care because of the chronic
shortage of high quality providers. Now if you want to subject yourself to a serious case
of decimal creep multiply those numbers by 50. There are approximately 15,000 family
and group family providers in New York State. With a turnover rate of 30% annually,
5000 leave the business. I will let you do the rest of the math at your leisure.

I want to point something else out. Everyone who testified identified regulatory or
financial issues. Not one of them complained about the children or the parents. Yes, there
are problem children and there are difficult parents. Providers can handle those situations.
It is the regulatory environment and the county payment systems, which for the most part,
force providers to reconsider their career of choice.

I said I would be brief. I have here two reports-- the first is called Investing in New York,
which clearly defines the economic impact of childcare in New York. The second is The
Child Care Funding Crisis, which gives an overview of the funding streams for childcare.
I encourage you all to read both reports. And when finished I want you to ask yourselves-
--is government spending on childcare actually spending or is it in reality a government
investment? I of course believe it is an investment, not expenditure.

In closing we ask you that when you are dealing with questions or policies about child
daycare, you take it a step further and ask yourself, "how does this new policy or
regulation affect Family Daycare Providers"? And again I ask for your support of the
efforts of VOICE/CSEA in the future.

Thank you.


13

Written Testimony

Kim Bannister
Erie County
Why Quality Providers Are Shutting Their Doors

I would like to speak to you about the problem of high quality providers leaving the Early
Childhood field. They are leaving mostly due to regulations, interpretation of regulations
and unfair treatment by licensors/registrars. For the last 13 years I have been told that all
new regulations were put into place to promote high quality child card I am here to tell
you it has had the opposite effect.

High quality providers feel overwhelmed by ridiculous regulations. For instance:
416.5(i): Protective caps covers or permanently installed obstructive devices must be
used on all electrical outlets that are accessible to children. Providers get written up all
the time on this one. I’m not saying this is a bad regulation all I’m asking is if the cap is
right in view of the licensor and obviously was an oversight by the provider it should not
be written as a serious violation. Now if a provider continues to not cover electrical
outlets in her home a violation is warranted. 416.5(1): Any pet or animal kept indoors at
the group family day care home must be in good health, show no evidence of carrying
disease, and pose no threat to the children. Great regulation all pets should be kept in
great health. But what about the inspector that asked the provider to take her gold fish to
the vet for an exam or face a violation. Or the provider who bought a new puppy
unexpectedly and her inspector showed up two days later and wrote her up for not telling
the office before she purchased the dog. By the way that provider was not running her
program yet and there were no children in care. She almost quit before she even started.
416.11(9): After use, dishes and all utensils must be washed with soap and hot water and
rinsed in hot running water. This is a new favorite for licensors. There is no consideration
to the children’s needs after breakfast and lunch. A provider was written up for this
because of dirty lunch dishes in the sink. The provider was getting the children down for
their naps. Which would you rather see the provider taking care of children or the
provider taking care of dishes?

There are so many more regulations I could sight to show provider frustration but I’m
limited to time and would literally need hours to give you a true picture. I would like to
tell you about a Nationally Accredited Provider who just closed her business in
September. She did not leave because of low enrollment in fact she was completely full
for September. She did not leave for a higher paying job; she would have made more
money in childcare. She left because she was overwhelmed by the regulations. She was
on of the most conscientious providers I knew. She knew her regulations inside and out
and did everything by the book. Yet, she was terrified of getting written up. Why was she
so afraid well she knew other providers were receiving their scarlet letters for erroneous
infractions and was afraid it was only a matter of time before it was her turn. I have never
known this woman to do one thing wrong, ever but the stress of the possibility of having
an unjust violation was just too much. This was a Nationally Accredited, college


14

educated woman who loved her job but felt no other way out but to quit. I’m here to fight
for these women I do not want to see the quality providers leaving the field.

When a high quality provider is written up for a regulation and receives a red yes on the
website they are devastated. I know of 2 providers who are seriously considering not
renewing their licenses because they were written up for pool infractions. Their pools
were already deemed safe by the state when Alyssa’s law first came out. Yet, apparently
this year inspectors want different barriers in place. They were given no chance to correct
the “so called” problem and now have the scarlet yes next to their names. They may be
leaving the field. How many excellent providers is this state willing to lose before they
realize there is a problem. By the way the providers who are not doing the right thing do
not care about their violations, they will continue on. It is the providers who care about
their reputations that are fearful of getting written up for every minor infraction. They are
the ones who burn out and leave for other jobs.

I challenge you to read the regulations and implement them in your own homes with your
own children or grandchildren. Now realize if you forget to put a plug outlet back in,
leave dishes in the sink, don’t have proper documentation for sun screen, or medicine you
will be immediately written up and everyone in your field of employment will think you
are not doing a proper job. You must take care of children for 11-12 hours a day without
a break for lunch or lord forbid you have to go to the bathroom. It doesn’t matter if a
child in your care was not feeling right an you just wanted to sit and rock him, everything
better be clean and all paperwork must be in order there are no excuses, no exceptions.
We have taken the care out of childcare the emphasis is on paperwork and not on the type
of program the provider in running or the quality of care the child receives.

Mary Jarvis
Onondaga County
Huge Communication Gap Between Providers and Regulatory Agencies

My name is Mary Jarvis and I have been doing daycare as both a Family Daycare and
now Group Daycare for 16 years in Onondaga County. Our community and county have
gone through so many changes over the years. One agency in particular is the Department
of Social Services. This agency was and still is vital to the Family Daycare Programs in
Onondaga. The department oversaw the food program for many years. They are no
longer the regulatory agency nor do they supervise the food program. At this time the
Department plays the primary role of distributing subsidy funds for families who qualify
for daycare assistance. The Department of Social Services did work hand in hand with
Providers at one time and were very helpful to me on many occasions. DSS's role
changed when they were no longer the registrar or licensor and things became very
confusing for providers as to who were doing what and what was taking place within the
regulations pertaining to daycare. It is unfortunate that at this time many providers can no
longer look to that avenue of support that existed when the county DSS was in charge of


15

regulatory concerns. A partnership between providers and the support staff who over see
our business was and still is so very important to the success of quality daycare in the
community as a whole. Many providers, including myself, feel it has become a time of
assuming good sound daycare businesses are always either guilty of being out of
compliance or just uneducated individuals who are talked to in such a manner. Registrars
and licensors don't work with us on a consistent basis when communicating the rules and
regulations that are so important to have good quality daycare homes. Providers who are
either group or family do not receive updates to the regulations in a timely manner or just
don't receive this information at all. My question to you is: How can daycare providers in
my county and across the state still continue having quality daycare homes when we are
left in the dark and not informed about all the new or revised updates that govern our
daycare businesses?

We do not have a crystal ball to know what will be added to the list of requirements next.
We as good, quality daycare providers strive to be on top of what is expected of us but
feel we are on a treadmill always running to catch up with the regs. But unfortunately,
feeling like we will never achieve what is necessary to comply with all that is set before
us at any given time. At this very moment we are losing exceptional daycare providers
because of the challenges that hang over our industry. Yet many substandard daycare
homes are still open across the state. This is truly a GRAVE concern to providers who are
offering a safe haven for children. Retention of good quality daycare homes in the
community is so very important to everyone. How can we continue to keep going on the
way things are and still maintain the standard of daycare service so very important to
many families who need to work and not worry about the quality of care for their
children? Providers are not against regulation. What we are against is the lack of
consistent understand and clarifications of the regulations by the licensors/registrars who
implement those rules. A question that we often ponder is who is overseeing the
overseers? No one has ever asked me "how is your licensor doing with regard to the
renewal process"? OCFS has never asked me or any other provider I know of, what
OCFS could do to help us achieve the compliance necessary for all the regulations. Their
attitude seems to be, here are the regs, they are open to interpretation, and if you don't
like the interpretation, too bad. Lastly, I would like to thank you for hearing my concerns.


16

Linda Oliver
Niagara County
Regulations Cause Widespread Confusion

In our experience as daycare providers we have been told that the regulations are open to
interpretation. I have been a daycare provider in NYS for 3 years and have had 3
registrars. Each time the registrar comes to the daycare there is a new interpretation. We
would like regulations that are absolute in nature and not open to interpretation. We are
sure it would eliminate the confusion daycare providers experience. When there is an
accident in a daycare environment does the daycare industry need to be hard pressed be
with another regulation? Why should all children be refused the opportunity to swim in a
3-inch plast blow up pool because of a drowning incident? Does this mean all daycare
providers are not able to supervise children in a few inches of water? Maybe we should
refain from giving children baths because someone might drown? Daycare providers
would like the opportunity to be in the decision making process before new regulations
are added.

Sonya Agee
Niagara County
Subsidy Cuts Are A Disaster

Over the past year subsidized programs have been cut throughout Niagara County, which
leaves daycares, parents and children suffering. In the past few months over 400 families
on the daycare assistance programs have been terminated. This affect has caused daycare
providers to cut their rates, lose children due to parents having to quit their jobs or
leaving children with whom every they can to provide care for their children while they
try to hold on to their jobs. The funding has also caused an affect with the 800 families
who are on the waiting list to apply for daycare assistance so they can search for a job.
Therefore they are forced to stay on public assistance until they can get some help from
the county. Us providers are hoping that we will get a decent raise soon to help off-set
some of the business that we have lost in the past few months. Group family daycares
have not had a raise since October 2003, and Family Daycares have not had a raise since
October 2002. Since Niagara County has been paying us fair market rates they have taken
away our absent days in which Providers loose a days pay when a child is absent from
daycare. Other counties in the State of New York have been granted raises and still get
absent days.


17

Linda Oliver
Niagara County
Work For 12 Hours—Get Paid for 6

Many childcare providers are vendors for the Dept of Social Services and only get paid
for 6 hours when we have worked 10-12 hours. How many other non-daycare related
vendors from DSS work 12 hours and get paid for 6? How about getting interest on all
those late payments? Auntie’s House daycare home has had daycare payments as late as 6
months from DSS. We have no contract with DSS and when requesting a copy of the
DSS regulations, we were refused. How can we be accountable for regulations governing
DSS subsidized childcare when we don’t even know what they are? What’s the big
secret?

Donna Majors-Hill
Monroe County
Informals Are Unfair Competition

I am a Group Family Day Care provider of 13 years. I have a concern about license
provider verses informal providers. The Licensed providers are mandated to take 30
hours of training and the informals are not required to have any training at all. The
informal daycares get business because they are less expensive. The new Medical
Administration Training to administer medication is not fair to the Licensed Day Care
Provider because if we choose not to take the class we are not allowed to give out
medication. However, the informal can give out medication without any training and do
the same duties and responsibilities as the licensed provider.

Antoinette Davis
Erie County
Market Rate Inequities

When the state allocates a specific amount of money to their districts that includes the
Market Rate Increase for Licensed Child Care Providers, why are the districts given an
option as to where they can actually allocate these specific funds? When they decide to
distribute the funds outside of the state’s designated target, why are they not paying the
providers retroactive from the past market rate increase they have not honored? When
providers received the contract for the new market rate increase, we were not aware ofa
‘new formula’ that will be used to calculate our payment. The new rates do not make
sense when you use the states regulations to calculate them. Many providers had the
documents notarized without realizing the major discrepancy in the figures. Can someone
please explain the ‘new formula’ the state has devised and explain it to the business
owners it will effect?


18

Marcia Mango
Schenectady County
The Frustrations of Dealing with Licensors and Regulations

My name is Marcia Mango. I am a group family provider in Schenectady County. Group
Family allows us to care for more children than Family Day Care with the help of an
assistant. I am the provider who was written up for a violation because I had beer in my
refrigerator. My licensor opened my refrigerator door without asking, I said “Roberta,
what are you looking for?” She said, “I am looking to see if you have beer in your
refrigerator.” I said, “Roberta, I am not drinking beer, I am not letting the children drink
beer, so what is the problem? It is not against the regulations to have beer in my
refrigerator.” She said. “I’ll have to check with my supervisor.’ She proceeded to send
me a violation report stating that I had toxic substances within reach of the children. I
then had to write her supervisor to dispute the violation, which was removed from my
record. The problem is; that not a day passes in which we are not in violation some way
or another simply because the regulations contradict each other and they are subject to
individual interpretation.

Let me tell you a little bit about the discrepancies in some of our regulations. Before I

became a group family provider I was a family provider. I was allowed to care for up to 8
children by myself. Now that I am a group family provider I am only allowed to care for
up to 6 children by myself. I guess when I decided to do group day care the state assumed
that I’d lost my mind, and that I was no longer competent to handle two more children.
This makes no sense to any of the providers and neither do a lot of other regulations; such
as; Regulation # 416.3 (d) which states; Toxic paints or finishes must not be used on
room surfaces, furniture or any other equipment, materials or furnishings which may be
used by the children or are within their reach. When my friend received a violation for
having soap underneath her sink, I said, what is the difference, if you have soap out for
use by the children or stored for use by the children at a later date? Regulation # 416.11
(q) States; toilet facilities must be kept clean at all times and must be supplied with toilet
paper, soap and towels accessible to the children.

I decided to write a letter to Suzanne Sennet, Bureau of Early Childhood Services,
Director. I asked her if soap, shampoo, toothpaste, dish soap, laundry detergent, interior
house paint, wallpaper, carpets, bleach, and a number of other products were considered
toxic or hazardous materials. Ms. Sennet wrote back and told me they are all toxic and
should be kept out of reach of small children, and specifically said that older children
should be taught to use soap properly. I again wrote her a letter, and asked her to define
what she meant by small and older children (after all you could be a 13 year old midget,
and be considered a small child). If left open to individual interpretations, some of us
could be violated while others doing the same thing would be okay. Ms Sennet wrote me
back again and said a small child is considered preschool and an older child is school age.
Now, first let me address the soap issue. Regulation # 416.8 (2) states; Children who are
able to toilet independently, including fastening and unfastening clothing, wiping
themselves, flushing the toilet, and WASHING their hands, may use the bathroom on
another floor for a short period of time WITHOUT direct adult supervision. Most
children are potty trained between the ages of 2 and 3 years of age. I’m not sure what the


19

state wants from us. Do we put soap out in the bathroom, or keep it out of the reach of
children? Now let’s look at bleach. Regulation # 416.11 (r) 1, states; Equipment that is
frequently used or touched by children on a daily basis must be cleaned and disinfected
when soiled and at least once weekly. We are told to use a bleach solution. Bleach is
toxic, on one hand we are instructed to use it and on the other we are told not to use toxic
substances on surfaces which will be used by children.

I can’t speak for all the providers but I know that every provider’s home that I have been
to is in violation of the regulations. I know mine is, because I have interior house paint,
and wallpaper on my walls, I also have carpets and there is wood stain on my cupboards,
floors and furniture. In our Home Safety Checklist (which we are required by the state to
sign), it asks us to attest to the fact that there are no toxic paints, finishes or hazardous
materials USED in or on the floors, walls, windowsills, beds, toys or any objects within
reach of children, it also has us attest to the fact that our home is in good repair.
Regulation # 416.4 (f) 1 states; When care is provided primarily on the first floor, of a
group family day care home and the second floor is used on a limited basis including for
napping purposes, one means of egress from the second floor must be either an interior
stairway with no intervening rooms or obstructions which leads to an exterior door at
ground level, or an exterior stairway which leads directly to the ground. The second
means of egress may be a window which is at least 24 inches in it smallest dimension and
which is adequate for the safe evacuation of children and adults. The smallest dimension
of my second floor windows is 35 inches and my husband and I have no trouble at all
climbing in and out of them. I have been providing day care for 22 years and have been
licensed through NYS for 13 years. The whole time that I have been licensed, I have been
in the same house with the same windows, and that regulation has been the same for as
long as I can remember. This year my windows shrank. If someone asks you to give them
the dimensions of your window, don’t you measure from top to bottom and from side to
side? This year Roberta Upadyhay, the beer Gestapo licensor decided that she had to take
the measurements of my window “opening” (our regulation does not even mention the
word opening). She said she received an internal memo from Suzanne Sennet saying that
she has to measure the opening, when I asked for a copy of this memo she said she’s not
allowed to give me it. How are we supposed to follow secret regulations or regulations
that contradict others? Any way you look at it we are in violation of the regulations
everyday. Here is one more scenario, we are allowed to sleep children on the second
floor, so lets say I carry one baby upstairs while my assistant is reading to the rest of the
children downstairs, now I go down to get another infant to carry him upstairs, while I
went down to get the other infant, the first infant was left on the second floor by
themselves, I am in violation. You might be sitting there saying to yourself she is taking
this a bit far, but what if I were to tell you that I put this same question to the Gestapo
licensor that tried to have me violated for having beer in my refrigerator, and she said,
and I quote, “That’s right you would be in violation and if I were here, I would have to
violate you. That’s why you’re allowed to watch up to two children under the age of two
per person, so you can carry two up at a time.” (That’s real safe!) That’s when I said well,
if my assistant carried the other two up, who then would be watching the rest of the
children? Even she could then see my point.

I think child care providers have enough stress not only from the children themselves,
the children, believe it or not are probably one of our smallest stresses, I would venture to


20

say that most providers would say the licensors and regulations are our biggest stresses,
and that is a pretty scary thought, when you consider the fact that this has turned into a
society of litigates and that we are well aware of the fact that one small accident could
bankrupt us. It is our hope that you can help us with some of these problems. It would be
nice to be able to have a good working relationship with the state and to be treated as
professionals, many of us have college degrees, some have chosen this career as a means
to be home with our children, or just for the plain simple fact that we love the children.
We all thank you for taking time out of your busy schedules to help us with this matter.

Darlene Sheldon
Chenango County
Subsidy Payment Problems with DSS

Good Morning my name is Darlene Sheldon and I am from Norwich, NY in Chenango
County. I am the provider at Just Kidding Childcare, which is a Group Family

Childcare. The mission statement of our facility is "Children are the heart of our business
and we are not Kidding!” I try to do all things involved with our childcare business in a
legal and decent manner. This past December of 2004 one of our families moved to an
adjoining county. Otsego. As required by New York State I asked the mom to go to the
county's office and apply for DSS childcare for her children. These children have been in
my care since the oldest was two and the second child since 6 weeks of age. To make a
long story short my childcare was their stability and a place for them to feel safe and well
cared for.

I received the Otsego County confirmation letter for Provider Enrollment on January
10,2005. This letter was originally dated 12/10/04 but the date was crossed out and
written in as December 22nd, 2004. The month of January was billed to Chenango
County and the bill was paid promptly. New York State has an agreement between
counties that the previous county pays the first month of childcare when the counties are
changed.

I never received a billing packet from Otsego County but received some payment
vouchers at the end of February. I did bill the county at the fair market rate and waited
for payment. I received notice that I did not follow the proper procedures of the Billing
Packet. I then placed a call to Otsego County and got the registry who could only leave
a message for the Person in charge of DSS. The DSS person called me four days later and
I requested a billing packet.

The bill for February was corrected and resubmitted. On March 7, 2005 I received a letter
Notice of Approval of Your Application of Child Care Benefits. This letter went

into effect February 4, 2005. The amount the county agreed to pay me was $51.25 per
week. I had billed them for $125 per week and was in shock. The above letter went on
to explain that the amount that DSS was based on a Court Ordered Child Support letter
and that someone was to provide 59% of the child care amount but the Persons name was
crossed out. (I still do not know who this person was as the parents were to pay a total
amount of $22.50 per week half coming from each parent).

I called Otsego DSS and again asked them whom the person was whose name was
crossed off and received no reply. February's payment never came in March. The first


th

week of April the voucher for March was submitted. The payment was received April
15th in the amount of $175 this was the March payment. This was $285.66 short so I
called again and got the registry left a message and was called back. They would check
into this for me as there now was only one employee for this job and things had fallen
behind. I offered my concern but still told them they needed to get this taken care of. So
now there was no February payment and March was short.

Now, I submit May's voucher for April billing. On May 26th I received February's
payment, which was $198.30 short. April’s payment was also made on this check but
guess what it was $617.65 short. The math equation now is Otsego County was $1101.61
indebted to me for back payments.

May's payment arrived the 15th of June and was short $305. I called and talked to
registry and left a message, When the call was returned I told them the new court papers
from this family had been issued at the beginning of Marc h and the papers stated that the
parents only owed me a combined amount of $22.50 and where was the rest of my
money? The DSS person said the she could not read the court papers as they had been
faxed to her... This is three months since she had t hem in her possession.

My client had to resubmit her application for Childcare to Otsego in June for the next six
months of service, which she did. There seemed to be a problem, not all of the paper
work was received or illegible due to fax submission. My client called and continually
left messages for the DSS person.

July 8th brought the New Notice of intent to Change Childcare Benefits. This notice was
to go back to May 31st; the amount was to go from $53.30 to $119 per week. I had
charged them my fee of $125 per week but wasn't going to argue about $119. On the
fifteenth of July no payment was received. I waited four days and then being so
frustrated at the $1788.31 in back pay that I gave the mom, my client, a two week notice
of intent to no longer provide service for her children.

That night I cried all night and just could not allow these precious children to be the
broken pieces when the DSS were the ones to blame for my loss of income. I called the
mom first thing in the morning and told her to tear up the letter and forgive me for
placing the DSS blame on her. Please bring your children back! I know we need to run
our business as a business but where do we do the part that is called "Putting Children
First"? I could not turn this family away y and was so frustrated with Otsego County that
I called the billing department to see if they were to send me a check soon and there was
no order for a check.

On July 28th I finally received the back pay for February, March, April and May as they
admitted they had made a mistake with the amount they were to pay me. Here we go
again there was no payment for June. Again, a call was placed t o Otsego and I, who
usually am very passive. let them have it. I asked, "How in the world do you get things so
screwed up? You have an order that tells you how much to pay me and you can't even
follow it? I told them I send the children en from our childcare to kindergarten who are
able to read one even above a fourth grade level and they can't follow a simple
calculation that was given to them. I was referred to a person who was in charge of the
billing dept. Of course I had to leave a message and she did call me back. She said there
was a check now ordered for the next Thursdays billing. Well, that check came and it
was short $1079 for June and July.


22

The payment on August 15th finally contained the June and J uly payments that were in
arrears.

The most recent letter I received on October 1 Ith stated that Otsego was going to close
this family’s case on October 13th because there was a page on the family’s application
that was not signed by the parent. The page was the citizen certification signature. The
parent submitted the paper and on October my payment came for the month of
September. There is a discrepancy for $44. Here we go with the saga "As the Stomach
Churns DSS versus Darlene Sheldon page 28."

Who do the Childcare providers go to to assist us with this incompetence? I felt I was on
my own. Thank God for VOICE who I and my sister providers are counting on to help us
in the future to find some solutions to these kinds o f a problems.

Cathey Sandman
Niagara County
Unregulated Informals Diminish Quality Regulated Care

My three main concerns are these:

1. The extreme cuts in subsidized Day Care funding affecting hundreds of families
and children who want to work.

2. The large number of “informal” daycare being provided in an unregulated
environment that cuts into licensed home care providers abilities to operate and
keep their businesses viable. Unregulated care is Suspect and known to be of low
quality.

3. The general lack of respect and professionalism providers experience when
dealing with regulatory agencies.

Kathy Stearns
Cayuga County
Group Family Ratios Make No Sense

HI, my name is Kathy Stearns; I have been doing group family daycare for 11 years. I
have raised 3 children of my own now 19, 16 and 10. Iam an active member in my local
daycare association. I am very pleased to finally have the opportunity to speak out on my
behalf and the behalf of thousands of daycare providers in the central NY area. We are
looking for some standardization on the daycare numbers. It doesn't seem fair that a
family provider has a capacity of 6+2 and a group has 12+2 if the group can have double
the full-time children then doesn't it make sense that they should also have double the
school-age? Also why does the group provider loose their plus 2 after their assistant
clocks out? If a family provider can watch 6+2 on their own then a group provider should
also be able to have a capacity of 6+2 on THEIR own. The numbers just don’t add up!

The CACFP program has similar irregularities. If we all pay the same amount for food,
electric, phone etc., why are there tiers for the food reimbursement? Just because there is
a disparity of median income levels between certain school district or particular families
within a particular child care program, that doesn’t mean the prices are any different for
food that we must supply for our daycare children. There should be no tiers within the


23

reimbursement rate schedule in the CACFP program. We feed all the children within a
particular program the same meals therefore there should be one flat rate for all children.
Instead of a tier program there should be uniformity with the pay structure so that we as
providers receive the same rate across the board for our reimbursement.

Thank you for your time and patience. As a daycare provider I thank you for listening to
me!


The Child Care Funding Crisis:

What it Means to
New York Families and Providers

Respectfully submitted
to the
Child Care Panel of the Workers Rights Board
October 22, 2005

by
VOICE/CSEA


Funding for child care is an issue that affects life at every level in New York: It affects parents
trying to work and pay their bills, children trying to learn, employers whose employees find
themselves in dire financial straights, local governments struggling to help their citizens with
limited resources and taxpayers who must make up the difference. The child care system in New
York is currently facing severe cuts from every funding stream. County governments are already
adjusting their budgets to account for shortfalls, and New Yorkers are beginning to feel the heat.
As providers, we come here to present our case and ask the questions: how can we maintain the
high quality care that every child deserves and needs to succeed when we are not given the tools
to do so, how can such a vital part of New York’s economy be pushed aside when so many are
affected, and how can we make the system more efficient, more accessible, and more responsive
to the needs of those it serves?

New York’s child care funding crisis stems from a culmination of factors originating with the

passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in
1996. This federal legislation was meant to encourage people to move from welfare to work, yet
it initiated a new set of obstacles for the states and their respective local governments: how were

low income families to find and maintain employment with no way to pay for the care of their
children?

PRWORA addressed this problem with TANF — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

This block grant replaced Aid to Families with Dependant Children as the primary vehicle for
social service assistance. It is issued to the states with four goals in mind: to provide assistance to
needy families so that children can be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives,
to end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits via job preparation, work, and
marriage, to prevent and reduce the number of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and to encourage the
formation and maintenance of two parent families. This grant is a flat amount that is not
adjusted for inflation.

In order to qualify for the TANF grant, states must spend some of their own money on programs
for the needy, called Maintenance of Effort (MOE). The state funds are combined with TANF,
the federal Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG), Title XX (federal social service
block grant funds), and local government funds to provide child care that goes to TANF
recipients and other low-income families in need. Money is spent according to the requirements
of the originating grant: TANF funds can only be spent on programs and aid for TANF recipients
(including child care) who are fulfilling the work requirements of the program. Other low-
income parents (those transitioning off of TANF services and those “at risk” of requiring TANF
assistance) in need of child care subsidies receive their funds from one of the other grant sources.
If needed, states may transfer funds from TANF to CCDBG to allow for further spending on
child care for non-TANF recipients: the working poor. Unfortunately, changing economic


circumstances for the nation and for New York State have meant that protections inherent in the
system have faltered and the money from each of these sources must be stretched farther than
ever.

In the beginning, things were good: In the late 1990’s at PRWORA’s inception, the economy
was thriving. New Yorkers were working, the number of families requiring assistance was low,
and the number of child care subsidies rose dramatically as states were able to redirect funds not
needed for cash assistance. A surplus of funds developed as future protection to maintain the
worker support programs as well.

As the recession of the early 2000’s began to hit and New York began to suffer job losses and
strained finances, the number of TANF cases began to rise. The standard block grants were no
longer enough to keep up with the needs of New Yorkers and the programs on which they had
come to depend, and the events of September 11, 2001 compounded the crisis.

After the recession came inflation, and a lack of increase in funds meant that while the same
amount of money was received by the state, it was worth less in actual terms. The cost of child
care continued and continues to increase, meaning that fewer children are served with the same
amount of money. The combined effect of more cases, increased costs, and a devalued dollar put
the states, and New York in particular, in a precarious position: spend the TANF surplus to
maintain the programs that were performing so admirably, or cut services dramatically and risk
compounding the economic crisis by flooding the system with even more cases of low-income
families forced to quit their jobs, stop attending school, and joining the ranks of TANF recipients
which would in turn reduce even further the amount of funds available for child care subsidies.
New York spent its surpluses and now finds itself in a position to cut those services, a task for
the county governments that have always been responsible for supervising and administering the
programs.

The inherent problem in the system is that the counties are at liberty to set the standard by which
it determines who receives benefits: the federal income cut off for child care subsidies amounts
up to 85% of the state’s median income, or roughly 275% of the federal poverty level. New York
State’s cut off is 200%. A county can set its standard lower; it can also require families to
contribute co-payments, or family shares, for the cost of child care. The required amount can be
between 10% and 35% of the family’s income above the poverty rate.' Therefore, a family that
qualifies for a subsidy in one county may not qualify in another, and co-payments can vary
dramatically from county to county.

Counties such as Onondaga are even now making cuts to their budgets. That county’s proposed
2006 budget would cut 300 subsidies from its program.” With Onondaga’s income cut-off
reducing from 200% to 150% above the poverty rate, a family needs to be poorer to qualify for a
subsidy. As of 2003, Monroe County already limited its subsidies to those families at or below
140% of poverty.” Additionally, parents who have grown used to paying nominal co-payments
for their children’s care may be forced to work harder to pay for county-imposed increases in co-

' Families on full public assistance in New York are not required to pay a co-payment.
< Syracuse Post Standard, October 6, 2005.
> Fiscal Policy Institute, TANF and Child Care Spending in New York: An Update, April 28, 2003.


payments; the extra work will put them in a higher income bracket, which drives the co-
payments higher, requiring more work, and so forth. The scene is likely to occur all over the

state.

It is not the only heart-wrenching scene offered by the child care funding crisis. As of May 15,
2004, all applicants and recipients of child care assistance must obtain a child support order or
proof that he or she is pursuing such an order. If neither of those conditions is met, child care
assistance is discontinued. Single parents on full assistance receive subsidies for child care by
law, however, when they begin to transition off of cash assistance or if they leave the assistance
program entirely, they must comply with this new regulation.

The time-consuming process removes the working parent from his or her job for several days in
order to attend the necessary hearings and complete the required paperwork. Asking for legal
help with the process is just as costly: di piaheg and Tompkins Counties charge $105 per hour.
Chenango County charges $80 per hour.* What is most surprising and perhaps appalling is that
all of the time, effort, expense, and difficulty in obtaining the court order does not help the
custodial parent by relieving him or her from a high co-payment. The money obtained from the
non-custodial parent reduces only the social service agency’s share of the cost. Additionally, if
the non-custodial parent fails to pay, it is the custodial parent’s responsibility to make up the
difference in addition to his or her own share for the first four weeks. Once again, the working
poor and the providers who care for their children are backed into a proverbial corner: the
incentive for moving off of welfare is effectively removed for the parent, and the provider loses
any incentive to encourage the parent to move off of welfare. Why risk not receiving payment
yet again?

When parents cannot afford the co-payments or cannot pay for a non-custodial parent’s portion,
the provider is forced into the difficult position of choosing between the child and his or her own
financial well-being. The National Women’s Law Center recently published In Their Own
Voices: Parents and Providers Struggling with Child Care Cuts, in which providers discuss
openly the problems they have experienced with timely reimbursements, low subsidies, frozen
rates of pay, and long waiting lists. New York providers are equal to or above the 75” percentile
of market rates for child care, but those rates are also subject to county discretion. In New York,
a provider may only charge parents the difference between the state rates and private pay rates if
the provider does not have a contract with the county. > Some counties pay incentives for
accreditation, taking special needs children, or for care of children while parents who work the
night shift sleep. None of these incentives, however, are consistently applied across the state.°
Providers, like parents, are at the mercy of their counties of residence, struggling to make ends
meet with ever-dwindling dollars and constantly rising costs.

We are providers who willingly and lovingly open our homes to children. We love what we do.
Yet every day, more of our businesses close due to the rising costs associated with the quality

* Antos, Susan C. Child Support Cooperation: New Condition of Eligibility for Child Care Assistance Raises
Practical and Legal Issues. Greater Upstate Law Project, Inc.

> A New York provider is not legally required to sign a contract with the county in order to accept children on
subsidy.

° Greater Upstate Law Project, Inc. Child Care in New York State: A Patchwork of Policies, 2002.


care we provide.’We have difficulty attracting and keeping qualified staff.° We struggle to buy
supplies and we take money out of our own pockets to buy the things these children need to
thrive, which further jeopardizes our own financial health. The parents of the children in our
care are by and large working New Yorkers struggling to give these children every advantage
they deserve. Admitedly, New York State has increased its share of grant funding over the years,
and compared to many states, New York has consistently tried to keep up with standard market
rates.” However, it is not enough. Our system is complicated; it is cumbersome, and it places
undue burdens on those whom it seeks to help. We need consistently increasing funding at the
federal, state and local government level that will keep pace with inflation. We do not need more
cuts. We need a mandate that child care will not compete for funding with other programs like
health insurance, education, public safety, and defense. And we need legislation that makes
sense.

7 New York State Child Care Coordinating Council. Investing in New York: An Economic Analysis of the Early Care
and Education Sector, 2004.

8 The National Women’s Law Center, In Their Own Voices: Parents and Providers Struggling with Child Care
Cuts, 2005.

° Market rates were just recently adjusted again and took effect 10/1/05. New York State Office of Children and
Family Services Child Care and Development Fund Plan for FFY 2006-2007. See also The National Women’s Law
Center Issue Brief, Child Care Assistance Policies 2005: States Fail to Make Up Lost Ground, Families Continue to
Lack Critical Supports, 2005.


Executive Summary « 2004

An Economic Analysis of the

Early Care and Education Sector

A high quality child care system, just like roads and bridges,
is part of the infrastructure for economic development.

A report by the Cornell University Department of
City and Regional Planning for the New York State
Child Care Coordinating Council.

HOR OT

“ChildCare

CRORETRATIA - ToHAthl
www.nyscccc.org

230 Washington Avenue Extension
Albany, NY 12203 © 518.690.4217


A VITAL ECONOMIC SECTOR FOR NEW YORK

To most consumers, taxpayers and political leaders, child care means a vital service for families and often a

meaningful experience for children. But child care is also an important building block of the New York
State economy, enriching our state in many different ways. New York’s child care industry supports busi-

nesses and workers, and contributes to economic activity through its own sectoral linkages. The numbers
on the child care industry tell the story of the economic importance of this sector.

Ve 22,000 SMALL BUSINESSES

Child care is a significant small business sector
in New York State. The sector includes not-for-profit
and for-profit centers, Head Start and Pre-kinder-

garten programs and 11,000 family child care
providers.

O17 BILLION DOLLARS

The early care and education sector

generates $4.7 billion dollars annually in New
York State. This includes parent fees and govern-

ment investments in early education programs.

WV, 50,000 PARENTS

Child care is part of the social infrastructure that
keeps New York working. By caring for children,
the child care sector enables 750,000 parents to go
to work. These working parents are estimated to
collectively earn more than $30 billion dollars.

W) 19,000 WORKERS

Early care and education teachers, aides and staff
represent one of the fastest growing employment
sectors in the economy. The child care sector is
comparable in size to the local/interurban passenger
transit system and the hotel and lodging sector.

Regulated Child Care Establishments
New York State

Group Family
Day Care
16%

Center Care
17%

Universal Pre-K
8% ne

Family DayCare

Source: OCFS Licensing Data
New York State Education Department, 2003

Employment Comparisons
for Selected Industries

Combined Dairy Products
Hotels and Lodging
Air Transportation

Private Elementary & Secondary Schools

Local/Interurban Passenger Transit

Child Care

Banking

|
|

200,000

0 50,000 100,000 150,000

Source: From IMPLAN based on ES 202 employment data, 2000; Child Care
expanded numbers based on NYS OCFS estimates, 2002.

“Small businesses are the bedrock of the small-town
economy and the growth engine of the new economy.”

— Governor George Pataki


INVESTMENTS IN EARLY EDUCATION REAP

LONG-TERM BENEFITS

Like roads and bridges, a high quality child care system is
part of the infrastructure for economic development. Early
care and education is important for brain development in
children’s earliest years, and it promotes school readiness.’
And many studies have found that “high quality early
learning and care is one of the most powerful weapons
against crime.”” Clearly, children offered high quality early

education, social and emotional experiences have a strong

BUILD THE FUTURE WORKFORCE

An investment in a high quality early care and education
system promotes New York’s long-term future, in part
because good early education is the critical first step in
preparing skilled workers to fuel the state’s knowledge
economy. Jobs in areas such as electronic manufacturing,
software and computer-related industries are some of the
nation’s most important sources of growth, with average
wages 73% higher than in the rest of the economy. Ranking
eleventh nationally in the number of knowledge economy

jobs, New York has strong reasons to use early care and edu-
cation to maintain and strengthen its leadership in this area.

Child Care SHoutn Be PART OF NEW YORK’S
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

foundation for later success in life.

NEW YORK LEADS THE NATION IN CHILD CARE
TAX RELIEF, BUT WE STILL HAVE MORE TO DO

TO ENSURE THAT FAMILIES HAVE ACCESS TO
HIGH QUALITY CARE:

Quality child care is expensive, but New York has had
the vision to do more than any other state in making

it affordable through the state’s refundable child and
dependent care tax credit. New York’s employers also help
with tax-free flexible spending accounts that allow workers
to pay child care expenses with pre-tax dollars. These job-
creating tax breaks could be even more powerful with
increased outreach to encourage their use. Similarly,
although New York has made the wise investment of
subsidies to more than 183,000 children, only an esti-
mated 25% of children eligible for the subsidies receive
them, indicating that this crucial source of help could
be expanded.

CHILD CARE KEEPS NEW YORK’S
| BUSINESSES RUNNING:

Employers need child care to support their parent workers.
Despite New York’s strong knowledge economy, most of the
state’s job growth is in the service sector. Service jobs are
important entry points for young workers and those transi-
tioning from welfare, but these jobs are vulnerable to global
competition and its downward pressure on wages. Child

CHILD CARE IS AN IMPORTANT SECTOR IN ITS OWN RIGHT:

Child care businesses and their employees are a significant
sector of New York’s economy. Just as New York makes

care subsidies help keep working parents in the labor mar-
ket by making low-wage jobs pay for them, and help keep
service industries competitive. Employers also find that par-

investments to strengthen business management practices,
job retention rates and economic efficiency in other sec-
tors, the state should target economic development invest-

ents with child care services they trust are more productive ments to its vital child care sector.

and dependable workers.

' Shonkoff, Jack and Deborah Phillips, ed. From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press, 2000.

~ Brown, Jen, “The Link Between Early Childhood Education and Crime and Violence Reduction,” www.econop.org/ECELinkToCrimeReduction.htm.

“Our children are our greatest resource.”

— Sheldon Silver, Speaker of the NYS Assembly


'
4
4

INVESTMENTS IN THE CHILD CARE SECTOR PROMOTE REGIONAL ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT:

Regional economic impact analysis shows that in New York State each dollar
invested in child care generates a total of $1.52 - $2.00 in the state economy

as a whole.

EACH DOLLAR OF STATE INVESTMENT LEVERAGES MORE THAN $3.50 IN
FEDERAL FUNDS:

The federal government invests $1.3 billion in the early care and education
sector in New York. For every one of these federal dollars, more than $2 is
generated in the state economy, resulting in a $2.7 billion regional economic
impact. The combined impact of these leverage and linkage effects is more
than $7 for every state dollar spent.

The majority of revenues to child care providers come directly from parents.
Unlike higher education where tuition represents only 35% of total costs
(Mitchell et al., 2001), parent tuition costs represent the largest portion of the
gross receipts of the child care sector. Estimates for New York show that parent
tuition accounts for 63 percent of the gross receipts of the child care sector, and
government investment in quality early education and subsidies for low-income
parents account for the rest.

NYS Estimate of Gross Receipts of the
Child Care Sector by Source
NYS Gross Receipts of the Child Care Sector: $4.7 Billion

| Parent Tuition

_ Payments Government Subisidies
Be Oe 0 Si) i to Parents
ade 19%

Source: NYS Office of Children and Family Services, 2002

Child care should become an
integral part of New York State’s
economic development plans.
Investment in child care will
benefit the state’s economy,
support businesses and workers,
improve the quality of life in
our communities, and prepare
our future workforce.

This report was prepared by the Cornell University Department of City and Regional Planning for the New York State Child Care Coordinating Council.

Copies of both Executive Summary and full report are available at www.nyscccc.org

or by contacting NYSCCCC at 230 Washington Avenue Extension, Albany, NY 12203, 518.690.4217.