• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Child Care Newsletter

May 2003
Vol. 2, No. 3

Printer Friendly Version To view PDF files, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed.

NCSL Technical Assistance
NCSL Publications and Meetings
Federal Update
Current Research Resources

Legislatures have been active on child care and early childhood education legislation during the 2003 legislative session. This article provides a brief overview of some of the issues that were proposed in state legislatures during early 2003. The next newsletter will provide a more in-depth analysis of enacted state legislation. Although many states are experiencing fiscal challenges, child care and early education issues remain on the agenda.

Legislatures have been grappling with revenue shortfalls. The majority of financing bills in state legislatures this year took the form of tax credits. They include personal income tax credits, corporate tax credits for companies that provide or pay for child care expenses, or franchise tax credits for child care providers in certain circumstances. Other alternatives include a sales-and-use tax exemption for tax-exempt organizations to provide full-day services (Virginia), bonds for school construction (Hawaii) or for financial assistance to child care centers (New Jersey), and a tax on beer (Arkansas). Five state legislatures (Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey and Rhode Island) considered personal income tax credit bills, while other states (Illinois, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and West Virginia) considered corporate or employer tax credits. Iowa considered a bill to establish a child care employee benefits program to be administered by the Department of Economic Development. The program would be funded at $2 million and provide a variety of tax credit options for businesses that build or remodel a child care center; pay for children of employees to attend a center; operate or lease a center; or donate financial or tangible property of a center that its employees' children attend. The tax credits could be used for individual and corporate income taxes, franchise taxes, insurance gross premiums taxes, and credit union money and credits tax. The credit would be 25 percent of the value of the expenditure, not to exceed $100,000, with one rollover annually for a maximum of five years.

Illinois considered a tax credit for start-up costs for employer child care. Other tax credit proposals include an income tax deduction for taxpayers who operate or maintain centers or who have paid outside costs of child care. One state proposed a resolution urging Congress to enact a tax credit for taxpayers who remain at home to care for their children and other dependents.

A Michigan legislator proposed the creation of a $1 million loan guarantee fund directed toward providers who serve lower-income families, in communities with the greatest need and in geographic distribution around the state. The bill would create a loan guarantee commission with a fund created within the Department of the Treasury for construction, purchase, lease or improvement of a building; purchase of land; purchase of equipment; staff training; initial operating expenses; payment of salaries; and marketing.

Many early care and education programs are funded through the Child Care Development Fund (CCDF), which specifically funds state child care subsidy programs for low-income children. States are required to provide maintenance of effort funds in order to receive federal funds and must add state matching funds to draw down additional federal funds. Twenty-one states proposed changes to their child care subsidy programs. Some states addressed the transition from welfare to employment with a transition period (Arizona and Virginia). Other states considered child care eligibility, including some expansions of eligibility (Ohio, nonassistance child care program, Oregon, post-secondary students) and raising eligibility (Illinois, New Mexico, New York and West Virginia). Michigan proposed a bill that would require full payment of any outstanding balance to a previous child care provider before payment to a new provider could occur.

Other states addressed reimbursement to child care providers (Georgia, Illinois, Nebraska, New Mexico and Rhode Island), including differential reimbursement rates for accredited child care providers set at 50 percent higher than local rates (New York). New York proposed CyberStart, a program that would provide grants to child care centers for computer systems. New Jersey proposed to use $3 million of unexpended Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) funds to provide grants to nonprofit child care programs for not more than 50 percent of the cost of purchasing school buses, not to exceed $20,000.

Child care and early education providers and teachers are key components of a child's learning environment. During this session, several bills were proposed that would require criminal background checks for providers (California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Wyoming), drop-in care (Montana), nannies and au pairs (New Jersey) and family day care (Pennsylvania). Other bills addressed issues such as fingerprinting requirements (New York) and prohibiting volunteers or others with certain criminal convictions from caring for children (New York).

Legislative proposals also addressed professional development of early childhood teachers. Hawaii considered a career ladder program for child care workers. Tennessee proposed incentive pay for child care workers, and Texas proposed a pilot program for early childhood education and teacher retention. Michigan proposed a loan guarantee program, and New York proposed a loan forgiveness fund. Massachusetts considered provider certification and an accreditation bill.

State legislatures often consider bills to add duties or requirements for licensing of child care and early childhood education programs. During this session, 23 states proposed bills related to licensing standards. Examples of these include bills about facility safety, such as protecting children from pesticides (Illinois and New York); locating communication towers (New Jersey); testing for lead (New Jersey); radon mitigation (New Jersey); air quality in child care and Head Start centers (New York); and authorization for dispensing medication (North Carolina). Georgia and Maine considered changes in staff-to-child ratios, and Massachusetts considered regulation of nannies and au pairs. Georgia considered a liability insurance bill that would require any child care learning center licensed by the Office of School Readiness to carry a $100,000 liability insurance policy. The bill also would require child care centers, family homes and group child care homes to carry a $25,000 policy for bodily injury and property damage. Tennessee considered a bill to rate accredited child care programs, and Mississippi considered a bill to exempt certain accredited programs from licensing.

Several states considered coordinating various elements of early education programs. For example, Pennsylvania proposed a comprehensive interagency plan for child care services and early childhood development. Washington proposed a consolidation of early learning and child care programs.

A few states proposed legislation to transfer authority for early childhood programs or make other adjustments in oversight. New Mexico proposed the creation of the Office of Early Education in the state Department of Public Education; appropriations and authority would be moved from the Children, Youth and Families Department to the Department of Education. Oregon considered changing the composition of the Child Care Commission. Florida legislators considered a bill that would reorganize and combine funding for the school readiness system by moving school readiness services from the Agency for Workforce Innovation to the Office of the Governor. In addition, the bill would transfer regulation and licensing from the Department of Children and Family Services to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. The Florida Department of Education would be required to develop age-appropriate standards and a curriculum for promoting reading preparation, with the goal of fostering brain development so that a child is ready to read at or above grade level after reaching first grade.

Two states specifically addressed infant and toddler issues. Illinois considered adding an infant-toddler initiative to its comprehensive state child care plan. The bill would address the shortage of care for young children under age 3 by adding a requirement for a collaborative initiative and an annual report. Iowa considered a bill that would establish an at-home infant care program.

Nineteen states considered proposals for prekindergarten, including state prekindergarten initiatives and Head Start issues. The bills covered expansion proposals as well as consideration of quality initiatives to improve prekindergarten programs. California and Florida considered proposals to create universal prekindergarten programs. New Jersey proposed to add districts to its preschool program if they are contiguous with other funded districts. Oregon proposed to expand eligibility to include all 3- and 4-year-old children. Virginia proposed to expand the program to cover all eligible 4-year-old children. Missouri proposed a More at Four program to develop a community-based, voluntary prekindergarten initiative designed to prepare at-risk 4-year-olds. Tennessee clarified the availability of lottery funds for prekindergarten programs. Texas proposed to require school districts to provide free prekindergarten to at-risk 3- and 4-year-olds and to authorize tuition-based prekindergarten for other children.

States also considered prekindergarten standards, including age requirements (Idaho) and revising eligibility criteria for preschool programs for at-risk children (Tennessee). A proposal that was withdrawn in New Hampshire would have required curriculum standards for state-licensed preschools and a bill to establish an early literacy and reading improvement program. Tennessee recommended that prekindergarten programs include a reading component. New Jersey considered a bill to establish content standards for early childhood and a statewide assessment system. Mississippi considered a cost-benefit study of prekindergarten. New Mexico proposed a study of the alignment of early education programs as well as a bill to create an advisory council to develop an integrated system for prekindergarten through post-secondary education.

Although virtually all efforts to provide quality child care and early education are related to school readiness, seven states considered legislation with the specific term "school readiness." In Indiana, legislators introduced a bill that would establish a school readiness grant program with a $60 million biennial appropriation. The school readiness grants would be offered to schools that prepared plans for implementation. Eligible programs would include Head Start, Even Start, transitional kindergarten and grade one, full-day kindergarten and before- and after-school programs. New Jersey and Oklahoma proposed to create bodies to consider school readiness-a task force on early literacy and a partnership for school readiness.

Several state legislatures considered leave policy related to child care. New York considered three bills: a $3,000 tax credit to employers for each employee who is permitted to work a flexible or part-time work schedule for at least nine months; a proposal to offer a one-year service credit to members of police and fire departments who take child care leaves of absence; and another that allows members of the city retirement system to receive a service credit for time off without pay for child care leave. New Jersey proposed that public employee retirement system members be authorized to purchase one year of credit for official child care leave. Pennsylvania considered a tax credit for small businesses that offer family and medical leave. Massachusetts proposed adding leave time for the provision of home care.

Pennsylvania lawmakers are considering a set of education initiatives, which includes prekindergarten, proposed by Governor Edward G. Rendell (D). The Democratic Policy Committee and the Education Committee of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives hosted a joint hearing to discuss the research background as part of their deliberation on the governor's proposed budget. NCSL staff were invited to present information about child outcomes from prekindergarten and early childhood education programs across the country. The hearing took place in Allentown, Pa., as part of the series of field hearings legislators are conducting around the state.

Dr. Gerald Zahorchak, deputy secretary of the Department of Education, testified first to outline the goals of the education initiatives and to answer questions from committee members. Steffanie Clothier, program manager for NCSL's Child Care and Early Childhood Education project, followed with a national overview of research findings and legislative initiatives on prekindergarten programs. Testimony included an examination of the short-, medium- and long-term outcomes from quality early childhood education programs. Josiah Pettersen, from NCSL's Education program, testified on full-day kindergarten and class size research and policy issues. The hearing concluded with a speech by Governor Rendell in which he outlined his education initiatives and addressed questions from the audience regarding proposed tax policy changes and implementation issues.

To assist Texas lawmakers as they consider an array of child care bills during this tight fiscal year, NCSL recently conducted an educational briefing to explore various policy options that Texas policymakers are facing in the areas of child care financing, the role of the business sector in child care and coordination of quality child care services. Led by a bipartisan effort that included Texas state Representative Michael Villarreal with special organizational assistance from the offices of Texas state Senator Eliot Shapleigh and state Representative John Davis, NCSL planned a one-day meeting to help inform about and discuss potential approaches regarding key early childhood issues. The Texas Licensed Child Care Association cosponsored the event and lunch.

The Texas Legislature currently is considering several bills that would improve child care financing, access and quality, and coordination between child care and other early childhood services. One bill would require the Texas Workforce Commission to evaluate the quality of the state's current child care subsidy system. Another bill would require that Texas employers be informed of available tax incentives for providing pre-tax payroll deductions for dependent care expenses, including child care. In 2001, Texas lawmakers enacted a law that requires program collaboration between child care and early childhood education programs, and the Legislature now is exploring follow-up statutory changes by integrating local Head Start programs.

Nearly 30 legislators and legislative staff, along with other key child care stakeholders, attended the NCSL meeting, "Financing Child Care and Early Education in Tough Budget Times: A Briefing for Texas Legislators," which was held in Austin, Texas, on Feb. 5, 2003. At the briefing, three panels, comprised of national and state speakers, covered the issues of financing quality child care, the economic development aspect of child care, and coordinating approaches to quality child care and early childhood services. NCSL Senior Policy Specialist Lee Posey provided an update regarding the federal debate on welfare and child care reauthorization. A few Texas state legislators provided opening comments and moderated all the panels, which are described as follows.

Financing Quality Child Care-Dave Edie of the National Child Care Information Center discussed national financing strategies for early care and education. Donna Garrett of the Texas Workforce Commission, which administers child care subsidy funds at the state level, discussed policy options in this area. Jason Sabo of the Center for Public Policy Priorities presented the policy realities of setting up a quality child care subsidy system in Texas.

Child Care as an Economic Development Issue-Nina Sazer O'Donnell of the Families and Work Institute discussed how state policymakers can build relationships with businesses and the role businesses can play in child care. Nancy Hard of the Family Service Association, San Antonio, presented the local child care provider's perspective of the importance of engaging and partnering with businesses.

Coordinating Approaches to Quality Child Care and Early Childhood Services-Grace Hardy of QUILT (Quality in Linking Together) Community Development Institute, discussed the importance of full-day, full-year child care and how well-funded collaborative approaches can improve program quality. Donna Garrett of the Texas Workforce Commission described the state's challenges and plans for more systemic coordination. James Strickland of Child Inc., Austin, spoke about the local perspective on successes of coordinating early childhood services.

At the National Conference of State Legislatures' Spring Forum in Boston, members of NCSL's Human Services and Education committees participated in a joint session, exploring how to better coordinate Head Start and state early childhood education programs. The context of the discussion was the reauthorization of the program and the Bush administration's plan to provide an option for states to run their own Head Start programs.

Windy Hill, associate commissioner of the Head Start Bureau, described the administration's plan (there is no written proposal yet). She stated that the administration values the comprehensive nature of the Head Start program and that states that elect this option would be required to maintain the same number of Head Start slots. According to Commissioner Hill, states could consider the option of aligning Head Start curricula with a state prekindergarten program. Commissioner Hill expressed concern about the quality of Head Start programs, stating that 90 percent of centers had one or more areas of noncompliance with standards. On a related but separate issue, President Bush has expressed his desire to move the Head Start program from its present location in the Department of Health and Human Services to the Department of Education. Commissioner Hill indicated this could happen in 2005.

Sarah Greene, CEO of the National Head Start Association, said she opposed moving the program to the Department of Education because that department does not have experience in the comprehensive services Head Start provides. Regarding the option for states to administer Head Start, she expressed the belief that states would need more funding than the administration is discussing in order to develop and administer a state plan. She said her organization is not opposed to state involvement, but indicated that her main concern is that Head Start be fully funded. The program now serves 60 percent of eligible 4-year-olds.

The final panelist to speak was Representative Merle Kearns of Ohio. She raised a number of questions state legislators might ask as they consider any proposal to become more involved in Head Start and offered some practical steps they might take, such as discovering who in their state already is responsible for coordinating early education programs.

Following the panel, the Human Services and Education committees held a joint business meeting and voted on renewing NCSL's Early Education policy. The existing policy was adopted with some changes that emphasized states would examine a proposal that gave them more flexibility with the Head Start program, but state legislators would have to be actively involved in decisions about any such proposal. A final vote on the policy will occur at NCSL's Annual Meeting in July.

A Head Start bill will be introduced soon in the House. A Senate hearing on the administration's proposal was to be held in late April.

As states experience serious revenue issues, NCSL child care project staff will convene a child care financing meeting session at this year's NCSL Annual Meeting in San Francisco on July 22. The session, "Child Care: Hard Choices, No Easy Answers," will examine the federal prospects for funding-including reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant-and will discuss how states are allocating their funds. The session also will highlight how states are making difficult decisions about eligibility, copayments and the amount of funding for improving child care quality. Visit the NCSL Web site at www.ncsl.org for more details.

State legislators have many options to consider when developing early care and education policy. An upcoming NCSL publication, Financing Early Childhood Education: A Legislator's Worksheet, will describe federal, state, local, business and other revenue sources. The worksheet also will outline strategic policy options available to legislators, including key resource information and fiscal questions designed to be useful in the development of legislative proposals. If you would like to receive a copy of this publication, please contact Beth Clemens at (303) 364-7700, or e-mail her at beth.clemens@ncsl.org.

Increasingly, communities, cities and states are offering before- and after-school programs for children. These programs aim to keep kids safe and out of trouble; improve literacy, test scores and grades; or reduce risk-taking attitudes and behaviors. The NCSL After-School project has written Before and After School: No Time to Waste to help legislators, legislative staff and other policymakers better understand this issue. The publication is organized into three booklets.

For more information about this issue or to obtain a copy of the publication, contact Amber Minogue at (303) 364-7700, or e-mail her at amber.minogue@ncsl.org.

A new NCSL state legislative report, Promoting Young Children's Social and Emotional Readiness for School, describes children's social and emotional development from a researcher's perspective and identifies strategies legislators can use to reduce risks to young children's mental health. To obtain a copy of the report or receive more information about this issue, please contact Steve Christian at (303) 374-7700, or e-mail him at steve.christian@ncsl.org.

NCSL's Child Care and Early Childhood Education project said goodbye to Scott Groginsky last fall after many years of dedicated work. In January, Steffanie Clothier joined NCSL's Child Care and Early Childhood Education project as its new manager. Steffanie comes to the project with seven years of policy experience in working on issues that affect low-income families-including child care, welfare, and family and children's health issues-and a total of 13 years of work experience on state policy issues. She received a fellowship in 1996 from the National Association for Public Interest Law to conduct policy work on state welfare policy implementation. She has co-authored and edited a variety of welfare-related publications, including a state survey reporting on low-income families' participation in TANF and a report on Colorado's experience with devolution. She is a graduate of the University of Denver School of Law and Trinity College, Hartford, Conn.

In 2001, the Packard, Ford and Kauffman foundations launched an initiative to help states measure and improve school readiness in children. Sixteen states were selected to be part of the initial pilot group and were given funding and technical assistance to create school readiness indicators that will allow them to track, measure and analyze school readiness progress in their states. In January 2002, NCSL's Child Care and Early Childhood Education Project received a two-year grant from the Packard Foundation to provide additional technical assistance to the states in the initiative and to engage legislators in its development and progress.

Seventeen states-Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin-currently are involved in the initiative, and the sponsoring foundations intend to extend the initiative to include other states in a second wave initiative in 2004. NCSL's School Readiness Project has been working with the state indicator teams and other national partners, such as the National Governors Association, to encourage greater legislative involvement and to craft indicators that will be meaningful and useful to state legislators and staff as they write school readiness policy. In the coming year, NCSL plans at least one new publication devoted to school readiness, as well as some educational meetings for legislators who are interested in learning more about school readiness and this national initiative.

On April 2, the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee reported out by unanimous vote the "Caring for Children Act of 2003," which reauthorizes the federal Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG). The CCDBG was scheduled for reauthorization last year, but Congress did not do so. Although guaranteed funding (entitlement or mandatory funding) increases will be decided by the Senate Finance Committee as part of its overall welfare reform reauthorization considerations, the HELP Committee controls the discretionary and statutory portions of the CCDBG. At the mark-up, an expected amendment-that would have penalized states by reducing federal child care funds if state, local or federal funds for child care were cut-was pulled due to heavy lobbying by NCSL's federal office and other groups.

The bill, SB 880, provides $3 billion in additional discretionary funding over five years, increases the minimum set-aside for quality from 4 percent to 6 percent, and allows states to set the income eligibility threshold for the program (currently that level is set at 85 percent of state median income). NCSL's federal office worked closely with the chairperson, Senator Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), to improve the legislation offered last year.

Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) was prepared to offer an amendment at the mark-up that would have cut a state's CCDBG allotment if the state reduced federal, state or local funds expended for child care services and related programs. (The secretary of Health and Human Services could waive this penalty if a state imposed an across-the-board cut that included child care.) If the amendment had prevailed, any reduction in spending on child care would have been compounded by the loss of federal child care funds. Although the intent of the amendment was to preserve child care funding, the effect on states that already are reeling from budget deficits would have been huge. A letter from NCSL's federal office and the American Public Human Services Association to Senator Gregg detailed problems with the amendment and stated that they could not support the bill on the floor if it contained such an amendment. Some points included in the letter follow.

Senator Dodd withdrew the amendment, although he announced his intention to offer the same amendment during floor consideration of the welfare reauthorization bill.

The bill that passed the HELP Committee offers states considerably more flexibility than the proposal that was considered-but not passed-by the committee in 2002. At that time, the committee considered a bill that would have increased block grant set-asides to 13 percent for quality, parent access and data collection; it also contained several mandates regarding reimbursement rates and copayments.

The federal NCSL office will seek more changes as SB 880 is prepared for the floor. These include clarifying that states can use quality funds for licensing and supply-building activities and that states can provide differential reimbursement based on provider credentials (differential payment rates are specifically allowed for geographic location, child care for disabled children, and for weekend and shift-hour care). It is likely that the CCDBG bill will be merged with a Senate Finance Committee welfare reauthorization bill, with the possibility that the Finance Committee will mark up its welfare bill in May.

A newly published survey by the General Accounting Office (GAO), Child Care: Recent State Policy Changes Affecting the Availability of Assistance for Low-Income Families, describes state funding and policy choices for child care assistance programs. Child care administrators in 50 states and the District of Columbia were surveyed to determine what choices states made since January 2001 in providing subsidy assistance to TANF families, families that are making the transition from TANF and low-income families. Thirty-five states made key changes that affect the availability of child care assistance. According to the survey, "Twenty-three states made changes tending to decrease availability of assistance, nine states made changes tending to increase availability of assistance and three states made a mix of changes." Governors' budget proposals for 2004 showed a mix, with measures in 11 states to maintain funding, in 11 states to decrease funding and in seven states to increase funding. In addition, the report presented findings on income eligibility, other eligibility factors, waiting lists/freezing applications, copayments, reimbursement rates and spending on quality initiatives. The GAO report can be found online at www.gao.gov/new.items/d03588.pdf.

More Head Start programs were able to provide children with full-day, full-year services in 2001 compared to the number of children served in 1997, according to A Snapshot of Head Start Children, Families, Teachers, and Programs: 1997 and 2001, a new brief from the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP). The brief, the first of a series of analyses of Head Start Program Information Report data by CLASP, addresses a need to understand the program's development due to the anticipated reauthorization of Head Start by Congress in 2003. The brief can be found at www.clasp.org/DMS/Documents/1047305635.76/Head_Start_brief1.pdf.

The Children's Defense Fund (CDF) recently published Key Facts: Essential Information about Child Care, Early Education and School-Age Care, a book that includes a series of fact sheets designed to provide useful information about the importance of high-quality programs. The authors examine specific barriers that families encounter as they attempt to secure affordable child care, early education and school-age care. The report also discusses policies that support these types of programs. To learn more about the book, visit CDF's Web site at childrensdefense.org/head-start.htm.

For every $1 spent on high-quality child care programs, taxpayers can expect $4 in benefits, according to a recent benefit-cost analysis of the Abecedarian Early Childhood Intervention Project. The project, which began in the 1970s at the FPG Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, included infants from low-income families who were randomly assigned to a high-quality child care setting and infants who did not receive the same intervention. The analysts concluded that children who received the Abecedarian intervention are projected to earn approximately $143,000 more over the course of their lives than those who did not participate in the program. To view the complete analysis, go to http://nieer.org/resources/research/AbecedarianStudy.pdf. To learn more about the Abecedarian project, go to www.fpg.unc.edu/~abc/index.htm.

Quality early care improves children's scores on primary grade testing, helps children achieve greater school readiness and increases high school graduation rates, according to an Early Care and Education Collaborative fact sheet, What the Research Shows. The collaborative, which is a multi-year project of eight state-based child advocacy organizations that are working on child care issues, produced four fact sheets that address such issues as quality care and building community support. The fact sheets, which incorporate information from a variety of research studies, can be accessed online at http://earlycare.org/factsheet.htm.

A new strategy brief, Blending and Braiding Funds to Support Early Care and Education Initiatives, presents financing strategies that state and local policymakers can use to coordinate, align and integrate funds. The authors explore the current funding landscape and address the challenges involved in coordinating funds. The Finance Project, a nonprofit policy research, technical assistance and information organization, published the brief in January 2003. It is available online at www.financeprojectinfo.org/Publications/FP%20Blending%20Funds%201_24.pdf.

Lack of access to high-quality programs, inadequate funding and lack of advocacy are potential barriers to child care for children with disabilities and other special needs, according to a study, Barriers to Inclusive Child Care: Research Study Findings and Recommendations. Researchers at the WestEd Center for Prevention and Early Intervention conducted the study, gathering data from participants in California and outlining several recommendations designed to enhance access and success in quality child care programs. The executive summary and full report can be found online at www.wested.org/cs/cpei/print/docs/339.

Challenges and opportunities exist for those who want to integrate a stronger child development focus into the subsidy system, according to a paper that is part of the Urban Institute's Assessing the New Federalism Project. The paper is titled More Than a Work Support? Issues Around Integrating Child Development Goals Into the Child Care Subsidy System. The authors discuss questions that policymakers, practitioners and researchers may explore to help the subsidy system achieve a better balance between supporting child development and supporting parental work. To view the full report, go to www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1000449_ECRQtrly.pdf.

A national study of state child care contracting policies indicates that states use contracts to increase the supply of child care in certain high-need areas, provide care to special populations, and improve the quality of program standards and services. Researchers at the Center for Law and Social Policy conducted the study, Untapped Potential? How States Contract Directly with Providers to Shore Up Child Care Choices. They conclude that the full potential of contracting has not yet been realized. An eight-page policy brief of the report and the full report are available at www.clasp.org/Pubs/Pubs_ChildCare.

North Carolina children who participate in Smart Start-funded activities in high-quality child care programs are ahead of their peers who attend lower-quality programs. This finding is reflected in a recent report, Smart Start and Preschool Quality in N.C.: Change Over Time and Relation to School Readiness, produced by the FPG Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The report, based on a series of studies conducted between 1994 and 2002, can be accessed at www.fpg.unc.edu/smartstart/reports/Child_Care_Quality_2003.pdf.

July 21-25, 2003, San Francisco, Calif.

Sponsor: National Conference of State Legislatures

Contact: (303) 364-7700

Web site: http://www.ncsl.org/am03/Index.htm

May 27-30, 2003, New York, N.Y.

Sponsor: National Head Start Association

Contact: (703) 299-7502

Web site: www.nhsa.org/training/annual_conference/30th/index.htm

June 15-18, 2003, Portland, Ore.

Sponsor: National Association for the Education of Young Children

Contact: (800) 424-2460

Web site: http://naeyc.org/profdev/inst_12annual.asp

July 14-16, 2003, New Haven, Conn.

Sponsor: School of the 21st Century at Yale University

Contact: (203) 432-9944

Web site: www.yale.edu/21c/conference.html

August 4-8, 2003, Williamsburg, Va.

Sponsor: Child Development Resources

Contact: (757) 566-2845

Web site: www.cdr.org/

August 6-8, 2003, Washington, D.C.

Sponsor: Child Care Bureau and Administration for Children and Families

Contact: (301) 315-2825

Web site: www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb/ta/conf/#contact

For further information, contact Julie Poppe or Beth Clemens with the Children and Families Program, National Conference of State Legislatures, Denver, at 303.364.7700.

Back to the Child Care Homepage