Womenstake

Paying Fair for Child Care

by Karen Schulman, Senior Policy Analyst 
National Women’s Law Center

On Fair Pay Day, we take note of the fact that many women work in jobs comparable to men and are paid much less than their male colleagues. It’s also important to draw attention to the fact that many women are in jobs dominated by women and are paid extremely low wages. One such job is child care, where 97 percent of the workforce is female.

Child care providers play an essential role in children’s lives. High-quality child care promotes children’s well-being and prepares them academically, emotionally, and socially for school so they can achieve their full potential. Yet, child care is among the lowest paid professions. In 2006, child care workers earned an average of just $9.05 an hour, or $18,820 annually. In comparison, baggage porters earned an average of $21,580 annually and pet sitters earned an average of $20,230 annually. Child care workers are also often denied other important and necessary benefits, such as health care and sick leave. Because of the low wages and limited benefits associated with child care work, many women in the industry are forced to take on second jobs.

Child care providers need to see a dramatic increase in wages if they are to support themselves and their families. Some states have taken steps in the right direction by boosting wages for child care providers who receive additional education, making health care benefits available to child care providers, and allowing home-based child care providers to unionize. Although some small steps have been made, much more can be done.

(For more information on child care workers, see http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/ProvidersApril2008.pdf)

Census Findings: Child Care is a Major Financial Burden

by Karen Schulman, Policy Analyst
National Women’s Law Center

New Census data released last week provide more evidence that paying for child care can be a tremendous financial burden for families, particularly for families with low incomes.

Families with incomes under 100 percent of poverty who pay for child care spend an average of 29 percent of their income on child care, according to the new Census data. Families with incomes between 100 percent and 200 percent of poverty who pay for child care also spend a significant portion of their income on child care — 14 percent. In comparison, those with incomes at or above 200 percent of poverty spend 6 percent.

The Census data also demonstrate that low-income families have less access to good child care and after-school options for their children. Only 7.8 percent of children ages five to fourteen with incomes under 100 percent of poverty and 10.3 percent of children ages five to fourteen with incomes between 100 percent and 200 percent of poverty participate in enrichment activities (including organized sports, lessons, clubs, and before- or after-school programs), compared to 17.6 percent for children ages five to fourteen with incomes at or above 200 percent of poverty.

Overstuffed Shelves and Bare Cupboards

by Karen Schulman, Senior Policy Analyst
National Women’s Law Center

There was a striking juxtaposition of articles in the New York Times last week: one about Washington elites shopping at Costco, buying salmon, shiitake mushrooms, pâté, and other foods in bulk quantities for their dinner parties, and the other about food banks not having enough food to feed the hungry. 

It’s a question that’s been asked many times before, but there hasn’t been a good answer yet: How, in can this nation of plenty, can we allow so many people to go without their basic needs being met?

The 2007 Farm Bill would increase emergency aid for food banks as well as expand other critical food and nutrition programs, but the bill is currently stalled in Congress. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of low-income pregnant women, infants, and children are at risk of being cut from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) because of insufficient funding levels being proposed by the administration and Congress, according to a new analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 

While it’s nice that the Washington’s movers and shakers are being cost-conscious in their food purchases, it would be better if they acted to ensure their fellow citizens are getting enough food to eat before starting their holiday party planning.

Child Care Workers Moving Forward in Michigan

by Karen Schulman, Senior Policy Analyst
National Women’s Law Center

Child care providers in Michigan just took a major step forward with a new contract agreement between the state and Child Care Providers Together Michigan, a union formed by AFSCME and the UAW that represents about 45,000 home-based child care providers who are licensed, registered, or serving children receiving child care subsidies. These are low-income women caring for Michigan’s poorest children for minimal pay. The contract agreement aims to address providers’ low wages by raising reimbursement rates for subsidized providers. It would also expand training opportunities, improve quality, and strengthen child care providers’ rights.

Provider reimbursement rates, which have not been increased since 1997, would be raised by 13 percent to 35 percent (depending on the provider’s location and type) over the three-year period of the contract. Providers would receive additional incentive payments if they complete training or provide care for infants and toddlers. In addition, under the agreement, the union will work with the Michigan Home-Based Child Care Council toward addressing health care insurance for providers.

Yet these promised benefits will only be realized if the state follows though with the funding needed to implement the rate increases and other provisions of the contract. The Michigan legislature should say yes to these improvements. In addition, given that center-based providers have been similarly underpaid for their hard work, it should also extend increases in payments to child care centers, as has been the case in other states where child care unions have negotiated agreements, such as Illinois, Oregon, and Washington (see NWLC’s report on states that allow child care providers to unionize). So while this chapter has been completed, the story is just beginning.

Another Administration Official Pleads Poverty

by Karen Schulman, Senior Policy Analyst
National Women's Law Center

Earlier this week, the deputy secretary of homeland security resigned, saying it was for financial reasons—he couldn’t manage on a salary of a “mere” $168,000 a year. He is the second or third administration official in just the past few months to step down because they needed to earn more money, even though they had salaries that put them in the top 2 percent of all earners in the country.  These claims of poverty would seem jarring enough on their own, but they are particularly hypocritical coming at the same time the administration is blocking efforts to help more low- and moderate-income families gain access to health insurance for their children.  The administration recently issued guidelines that effectively prevent states from increasing their income eligibility limits for the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) above 250 percent of poverty, or $42,925 for a family of three—about one-quarter of the income that the deputy secretary says is too low to stay in his job.  Yet the administration seems to believe that these families are earning more than enough to afford health insurance on their own.  The administration is also promising to veto a bill approved by Congress, with significant bipartisan support, to increase funding for SCHIP.

Maybe the departing deputy secretary can’t make it on a salary of $168,000 a year because he is particularly bad at managing his personal budget—as bad as the administration has been in handling the U.S. budget.  But, if the administration is going to continue denying help to families making do on much, much less, administration officials planning to resign would be well-advised to use the reliable old standard,  “I want to spend more time with my family,” rather than the new and unimproved, “I want to spend more money.”   

The People Speak, The Department of Labor Listens

by Joan Entmacher and Karen Schulman

A new report from the Department of Labor demonstrates that there is broad consensus among employers and employees that the Family and Medical Leave Act is a success in helping employees balance work and families.  The report summarizes 15,000 comments submitted in response to a request for information about employees’ and employers’ experiences with the Family and Medical Leave Act.  When the Department initially issued the request, there was concern among FMLA’s supporters that it could be a prelude to an effort to scale back FMLA’s protections.  To make sure that DOL heard from workers and their families, not just employers, advocates put out the word—and thousands responded by sending in their comments and stories to DOL.  It seems to have had an impact—the report highlights the many comments detailing the significant benefits of the FMLA.  The report, however, also emphasizes a number of employers’ concerns, particularly with employees’ use of unscheduled, intermittent leave.  It will be important to continue to monitor what the Department proposes in the wake of this report.