Day Care Sucks But Don't Expect Government To Fix It
I was surprised to read such reasonable sentiments and then noticed the piece (at Zocalo) was by Katherine Mangu-Ward, whose work I've read in the libertarian mag reason for years.
Mangu-Ward, managing editor at reason, is the mother of a two-year-old and writes about the problems of day care that people -- naturally -- call for government intervention in, because people (who don't think too hard about government) always think that is the answer:
The latest round of reformist chatter has been sparked by Jonathan Cohn's story in The New Republic "The Hell of American Day Care," which opens with the grisly story of in-home day care proprietor Jessica Tata, who left several infants and toddlers alone in her home while she went shopping. She also left something cooking on the stove. The house burned down and several children were killed. Cohn draws a bunch of policy conclusions from this sad story and the limited amount of academic research available on the industry, including the need for more oversight, more regulation, and more money.Washington tends to treat that trifecta as a no-brainer, but more spending, regulation, and oversight are not unambiguous goods. In an industry that is already failing to attract enough good providers, more regulations are unlikely to nudge the supply in the right direction. And when the government provides services--especially entitlements that creep into the middle class--it has a way of squelching promising private competitors.
Full disclosure: I am the product of two great in-home day cares. The second setup is the one I remember best: Every day after school I roamed the smallish house of a Virginia blueblood nicknamed Newbie, who lived a couple of blocks from my elementary school. She ran a day care, at least in part so that her hearing-impaired daughter would have an easier time making friends.
...But what about better regulation, licensing, and other oversight measures? Who could object to that?
My first in-home day care, of which I have spotty memories, provides at least a partial answer to that question. A woman named Millie, whom I recall primarily as a blurry face surrounded by a wild mane of dark hair, ran the place out of her basement. One of her specialties was homemade Play-Doh and she had a sandbox in her backyard. Millie was a godsend for my mom, who was heading back to work part-time after staying home with her young kids for a few years, in part because Millie was willing to accommodate non-standard schedules. The only flies in the ointment were Millie's neighbors. Perhaps they didn't like the hustle and bustle of a house full of kids. Maybe early morning drop-off was disruptive on their quiet street. So they waited and they watched. On occasion, Millie would cut one of her maxed-out clients some slack, allowing a kid to come earlier or stay later than the formal schedule dictated. This meant that she was over her allowed quota of kids when an inspector, called in by the irate neighbors, showed up. Millie's day care was unceremoniously shut down, leaving my parents scrambling for coverage and (very likely) leaving Millie's family financially in the lurch.
Regulations, even the most well-intentioned, are not without cost. The same rules that try (and sometime fail) to keep unscrupulous players from storing stacks of babies in a utility closet can be used by grumpy neighbors (or competitors) to force a useful and beloved community institute to shut down without warning.
This meant that she was over her allowed quota of kids when an inspector, called in by the irate neighbors, showed up.
This makes me think that maybe the woman deserved to have to her business shut down. As a business owner, you have to manage neighborhood relations. If the situation was bad enough for the neighbors to bust her, I imagine it wasn't just a little noise now and then. If she wanted to run a business, then she needed to behave like a business owner.
I don't see any real issues with having a private arrangement for someone to watch your kids. My mother did it when I was a teenager. The difference is that she had one or two kids at a time. Only people who knew her knew she was watching kids. She wasn't running a day care center.
MonicaP at July 8, 2013 7:20 AM
My understanding is that Jessica Tata had a "registered" home, not a licensed home daycare. All you need to do to have a registered home daycare is have a background check and CPR training.
In the 2011 Texas legislative session, the D's tried to pass more home day-care regulations (mostly lowering capacity quotas), but they backed off because the economy was in the dumps and it would have made childcare significantly more expensive. (If I can only keep six kids instead of eight, I'm going to charge more per child, right?) I don't know if it came up again in the last session.
Anyway, you get what you pay for. If you're only paying $400 a month for childcare, don't expect it to be quality (unless, maybe, it's your SAHM mom friend or mother-in-law). And if a daycare provider is an idiot, why would you trust them to take care of your child?
ahw at July 8, 2013 8:53 AM
Nanny up. Pay a real wage, don't be too picky, and expect your kids to get attached. Our nanny worked for us for 15 years--my kids went to Guatemala with her, and my westside show biz trendy leftie pals were horrified. My children would not be the nice, well-adjusted adults they are today without her influence.
KateC at July 8, 2013 10:13 AM
What KateC said. Life is choices. If you choose to have kids, have a plan: either someone stays home or you will have to entrust them to someone else. If you chose the latter, think of your responsibility to the kids.
Just as a grotesque counter example: I know couple that decided to have kids, but neither was willing to let it interfere with a career. But they wanted to have it all, so they conceived a plan: a full time nanny, fired and replaced every six months, so that the absent parents would have a chance in the child's affections. If they went through with this, I really don't want to know what happened to the poor kid...
a_random_guy at July 8, 2013 11:41 AM
Recapping: Millie took care of lots of other people's children in a residential neighborhood, where she "accommodated non-standard schedules" and just happened to be "over her allowed quota of kids when an inspector, called in by the irate neighbors, showed up."
Sorry. I'm on the side of the "irate neighbors."
The same rules that try (and sometime fail) to keep unscrupulous players from storing stacks of babies in a utility closet can be used by grumpy neighbors (or competitors) to force a useful and beloved community institute to shut down without warning.
Oh, PUH-LEEZE. It was "useful and beloved" only to the people who dropped off their kids there all day and left the neighbors to deal with it. If Millie had played by the rules, she wouldn't have had any trouble.
Kevin at July 8, 2013 11:49 AM
"Nanny up. Pay a real wage"
Friend was a nanny in LA. She has a degree in child pyschology and excellent references.
So she goes to this Hollywood producers home, they are millionaires. Dude wants to pay her 9 bucks an hour to take care of two kids. Then she goes to work for a husband and wife who are both surgeons. They lay her off because they want a cheaper service...even though they have a newborn and two kids.
And we wonder why illegal immigrants end up being nannies or we have situations like this. People are cheap about shit they need but not about shit they don't need.
I don't plan on having kids partly cuz I can't afford them.
Ppen at July 8, 2013 12:43 PM
Gee. Be a single mom. Stay at home. Let the government pay for everything.
Why not?
There are people who even maintain that nobody does this, even as projects remain filled.
Radwaste at July 8, 2013 4:42 PM
I have, at various times, put out ads about watching a few kids alongside my own. It shocks me what the people contacting me would expect. First, they want to pay maybe $2 an hour. They want you to watch them 12 hours a day. One woman wanted to drop her kids off the next day, after talking to me all of 2 mins, on the phone. So not worth it, unless you know the family before you start watching the kids. Just truly, truly sad.
momof4 at July 8, 2013 6:41 PM
My mom watches my kids in exchange for paying her health insurance premiums. It's all she wanted and we got off cheap with it. On the other hand, I know someone that charges $150 a day per child to watch them. Child care is expensive and unreliable in my opinion. I short term babysat for a friend while on maternity leave for someone I knew. I charged her $50 a day for two children as long as she provided all their food, diapers, etc., and replaced any of my children's toys if her kids damaged them. She of course complained this was too expensive and out of line, until she looked at other childcare options. Suddenly I was a bargain. I'll never do it again though.
BunnyGirl at July 8, 2013 10:38 PM
I have friends who hire au pairs to watch their two kids. It's pretty cheap, but the turnover rate is high and the quality is hit or miss.
It seems to be working for them, but I wouldn't do it. I want my kid to develop healthy attachments with people who won't leave every six months. Some of the women aren't terribly bright. One couldn't understand why the bathroom got flooded every single time she took a shower. This went on for weeks. Turns out she didn't understand how the shower-curtain liner worked.
Some of these women are very sheltered and living away from home for the first time. One had a pregnancy scare, and my friend had to explain how sex worked.
On the plus side, they get to have lots of adult time, so it's worth it to them. Of course, my friends are nuts. At one point they had two au pairs for one kid because the kid would cry in the back seat of the car by himself, so one had to sit back there with him.
MonicaP at July 9, 2013 8:41 AM
The single biggest problem day care providers have is liability (for which we have the St. Martin Preschool case and similar to thank). The only way the problem is going to get fixed is to establish a liability cap. However, if the day care industry gets one, that opens the barn door to liability caps for all sorts of industries, which is why the law industry will fight it to their last breath.
Cousin Dave at July 9, 2013 10:08 AM
I trust any random woman I found at a park more than the SEIU workers that the gov't hire to work at day care centers. There's a reason Judge Kimba Wood had an "illegal" nanny.
KateC at July 9, 2013 11:18 AM
Do you mean the false accusations in the McMartin preschool trial. You are right that liability changed. But somewhare between 99.7 and 99.99% of the charges really lacked credibility.
Jim P. at July 9, 2013 8:47 PM
Jim, you're absolutely right; the allegations were not only false but bizarrely so. However, the McMartins and their insurers still had to spend millions defending the case. Insurers took note of that and how easy it was to levy false charges against day care centers, and make them stick.
Cousin Dave at July 10, 2013 6:49 AM
Leave a comment