Category Archives: Children

2018 State of Early Childhood Data Systems

Source: Early Childhood Data Collaborative (ECDC), 2018

In April 2018, 50 states responded to an Early Childhood Data Collaborative (ECDC) survey to assess states’ capacity to link child-, family-, program-, and workforce-level data across ECE programs. Linking child-, family-, and program-level data means having the ability to follow individual children, programs, and staff across programs and over time. Data may be housed in different systems or within the same system. The 2018 Survey included questions about linking child-, program-, and workforce-level data; data governance and policies; and uses of coordinated early childhood data.

National findings and recommendations from the 2018 Early Childhood Data Systems Survey are available in our final report. Click here to explore an interactive map with state profiles containing child, program, and workforce data.

Trusting states to do right by special education students is a mistake

Source: Matthew Brock, The Conversation, September 28, 2018

On Sept. 20, the U.S. Department of Education released a new framework to “rethink” how the department oversees special education services for students with disabilities.

As part of this framework, the department plans to provide states with “flexibility” and to “acknowledge” that states are “in the best position to determine implementation of their programs.”

This flexibility relates to how states satisfy the provisions in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act – a federal civil rights law known as IDEA meant to ensure all students with disabilities receive a free and appropriate education.

In my opinion, the assumption that states are in the best position to determine implementation of their programs related to the IDEA law is a faulty one. So is the notion that relaxing enforcement of these provisions would have a positive impact on students.

Counties With the Most Expensive Child Care in Every State

Source: Grant Suneson, 24/7 Wall St., September 27, 2018

Parents aim to create a nurturing environment for their children. Raising a child, however, is not cheap, and to provide children with food, clothing, health care, and any other needs, most parents must work. Going to work entails leaving young children in the care of others, be it friends, neighbors, family members, or professional day care centers.

In most American counties, annual average child care costs exceed $6,000 per year, though it can be significantly higher in some places. In some American counties, child care costs are more than double that $6,000 figure. These places tend to be the most affluent in America.

24/7 Wall St. reviewed the Economic Policy Institute’s Family Budget Calculator to determine the county with the most expensive child care in each state for a two-parent, single-child household…..

Click here to see the counties with the most expensive child care in every state.
Click here to see our detailed findings and methodology.

Child Care Expenses Make Middle-Class Incomes Hard to Reach

Source: Robert Paul Hartley, Beth Mattingly, Christopher T. Wimer, Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire, August 2018

From the press release:
About nine percent of working families with children under the age of six are pushed out of the middle class as a result of their child care expenses, according to new research released by the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire.

The researchers also found that many middle-class families do not pay any out-of-pocket child care expenses, perhaps by relying on family and friends, or by turning to lower-cost, less-qualified care. If all middle-class working families with young children were to pay what typical upper-middle and middle-class families pay for child care, roughly $6,900 per year on average, an additional 21 percent would be pushed below the middle-class threshold….

Does Socioeconomic Status Account for Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Childhood Cancer Survival?

Source: Rebecca D. Kehm, Logan G. Spector, Jenny N. Poynter, David M. Vock, Sean F. Altekruse, Theresa L. Osypuk, Cancer, Early View, First published: 20 August 2018

From the abstract:
Background:
For many childhood cancers, survival is lower among non‐Hispanic blacks and Hispanics in comparison with non‐Hispanic whites, and this may be attributed to underlying socioeconomic factors. However, prior childhood cancer survival studies have not formally tested for mediation by socioeconomic status (SES). This study applied mediation methods to quantify the role of SES in racial/ethnic differences in childhood cancer survival.

Methods:
This study used population‐based cancer survival data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 18 database for black, white, and Hispanic children who had been diagnosed at the ages of 0 to 19 years in 2000‐2011 (n = 31,866). Black‐white and Hispanic‐white mortality hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals, adjusted for age, sex, and stage at diagnosis, were estimated. The inverse odds weighting method was used to test for mediation by SES, which was measured with a validated census‐tract composite index.

Results:
Whites had a significant survival advantage over blacks and Hispanics for several childhood cancers. SES significantly mediated the race/ethnicity–survival association for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, neuroblastoma, and non‐Hodgkin lymphoma; SES reduced the original association between race/ethnicity and survival by 44%, 28%, 49%, and 34%, respectively, for blacks versus whites and by 31%, 73%, 48%, and 28%, respectively, for Hispanics versus whites ((log hazard ratio total effect – log hazard ratio direct effect)/log hazard ratio total effect).

Conclusions:
SES significantly mediates racial/ethnic childhood cancer survival disparities for several cancers. However, the proportion of the total race/ethnicity–survival association explained by SES varies between black‐white and Hispanic‐white comparisons for some cancers, and this suggests that mediation by other factors differs across groups.

Parents Were Targeted Under The “Zero Tolerance” Policy, A New Analysis Of Immigration Data Finds

Source: Adolfo Flores, BuzzFeed News, August 2, 2018

The Trump administration said family separation was the result of a “zero tolerance” prosecution strategy. But a new analysis shows that parents with children were the ones sent to court, while adults without kids weren’t.

Related:
“Zero Tolerance” at the Border: Rhetoric vs. Reality
Source: TRAC Immigration, July 24, 2018

….Family separations, the Administration stated, was the inevitable consequence of prosecuting everyone caught illegally entering this country. As the press widely reported, “[t]he Justice Department can’t prosecute children along with their parents, so the natural result of the zero-tolerance policy has been a sharp rise in family separations. Nearly 2,000 immigrant children were separated from parents during six weeks in April and May, according to the Department of Homeland Security.”

However, since less than a third of adults apprehended illegally crossing the border were actually referred for prosecution, the stated justification does not explain why this Administration chose to prosecute parents with children over prosecuting adults without children who were also apprehended in even larger numbers. As shown in Table 1, the total number of adults apprehended without children during May 2018 was 24,465. This is much larger than the 9,216 adults that the administration chose to prosecute that month.

Thus, the so-called zero-tolerance policy didn’t as a practical matter eliminate prosecutorial discretion. Since less than one out of three adults were actually prosecuted, CBP personnel had to choose which individuals among those apprehended to refer to federal prosecutors[4]. The Administration has not explained its rationale for prosecuting parents with children when that left so many other adults without children who were not being referred for prosecution…..

Stepping Up: New Policies and Strategies Supporting Parents in Low-Wage Jobs and Their Children – An Update to Set Up for Success

Source: National Women’s Law Center, August 2018

From the summary:
In recent years, the policy landscape at the federal level and in some states has in many ways become extraordinarily inhospitable to families—especially immigrant families—who are struggling to make ends meet and provide for their children. Far too many families find themselves set up to fail, with millions of parents across the country working in jobs in which low wages, unfair scheduling practices, and minimal benefits make it difficult to meet both work and caregiving responsibilities. And the parents most likely to work in low-wage jobs are women—disproportionately women of color and immigrant women—who are often raising very young children on their own.

Against this backdrop, however, it is all the more important to recognize that a substantial number of states, localities, and private actors—from working people to community-based organizations to large companies—have taken important steps in the past two years to improve the lives of low-wage working parents and their children.

Stepping Up: New Policies and Strategies Supporting Parents in Low-Wage Jobs and Their Children provides examples of the ways in which different stakeholders have implemented new policies, practices, and strategies to advance the key goals outlined in the National Women’s Law Center’s June 2016 report, Set Up for Success:
– Increase parents’ incomes.
– Ensure parents are treated fairly in the workplace and have stable, predictable work schedules.
– Expand children’s access to high-quality, affordable child care and early education.
– Increase parents’ access to paid sick days and paid family and medical leave.
– Improve parents’ opportunities to obtain education and training that can help them advance into better jobs.

New reports highlight different approaches to child welfare financing

Source: Child Trends, June 2018

Two new reports from Child Trends provide a comprehensive overview of how states use various funding sources to support child welfare agencies. The first report highlights state variation in per-child spending by child welfare agencies, finding that agencies spent $12.8 billion (approximately $172 per child) in federal funds and $16.3 billion (approximately $222 per child) in state funds in fiscal year 2014.

See:
Federal and State/Local Child Welfare Agency Spending per Child, 2004–2014
Source: Dana Connelly, Kristina Rosinsky, Child Trends, Research Brief, Publication #2018-12, June 2018

The second report highlights variation in how child welfare agencies use federal funding streams to finance their programs. This information can help policymakers, advocates, and other child welfare stakeholders review state approaches to child welfare financing and better understand how changes to funding streams will impact child welfare programs.

See:
State Variation in Child Welfare Agency Use of Federal Funding Sources
Source: Dana Connelly, Kristina Rosinsky, Child Trends, Research Brief, Publication #2018-13, June 2018

Related:
5 things to know about children and SNAP
Source: David Murphey, Child Trends, June 28, 2018
A new Child Trends 5 explains how the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) impacts children’s well-being. SNAP serves a monthly average of more than 1 in 4 U.S. children. The single largest share of households with children receiving SNAP benefits are headed by a white, non-Hispanic adult.

There’s a growing need for child-care centers on college campuses

Source: Jillian Berman, MarketWatch, June 5, 2018

The fate of thousands of college students— and their kids—hangs in the balance.

…. Across the country, campus child-care programs, like the one Preciado relies on, are eagerly waiting to see whether they’ll be able to afford to maintain their services or even expand them. Earlier this year, Congress authorized an increase in funding to the Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program, which supports efforts by colleges to help low-income student parents afford child care. But it still remains unclear which of the many campus child-care programs across the country will get the new funds and how that will be decided. ….