Federal and state efforts to improve care for infants and toddlers

Future of Children

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 79-97

  Knitzer, Jane ^a  

^a Columbia University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHILD CARE; CHILD PARENT RELATION; CHILD WELFARE; ECONOMIC ASPECT; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; INCOME; MEDICAID; POLICY; POVERTY; REVIEW; TAX; UNITED STATES; WELFARE; EARLY CHILDHOOD INTERVENTION; ECONOMICS; INFANT; NEWBORN; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PRESCHOOL CHILD; SOCIAL CARE;

CHILD CARE; CHILD WELFARE; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; EARLY INTERVENTION (EDUCATION); HUMANS; INFANT; INFANT CARE; INFANT, NEWBORN; PUBLIC ASSISTANCE; PUBLIC POLICY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 7044268703     PISSN: 10548289     EISSN: 15501558     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/1602811     Document Type: Review

References (59)

1. Curtin, S.C., and Martin, J.A. Births: Preliminary data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports (2000) 48:1-5.
2. Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Public Law 103-227 (1994). The concept of school readiness addressed in this goal is broad, including attention to the emotional, cognitive, physical, and social aspects of child development.
3. Cauthen, N.K., Knitzer, J., and Ripple, C. Map and track: State initiatives for young children and families. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 2000.
4. For example, six states spend more than $200 per child under age six on child development and family support programs, 14 states spend between $100 and $200, while five states do not invest any state dollars at all.
5. See Bremner, R.H. Children and youth in America. Vols. I, II, and III. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970;
6. see also Grubb, W.N., and Lazerson, M. Broken promises: How Americans fail their children. New York: Basic Books, 1982;
7. see also Steiner, G.Y. The children's cause. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute, 1976.
8. Kamerman, S.B. Child and family policies: An international overview. In Children, families & government: Preparing for the twenty-first century. Zigler, E.F., Kagan, S.L., and Hall, N.W. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 31-48.
9. Trattner, W.I. The federal government and social welfare in early 19th century America. Social Services Review (1976) 50:243-55.
10. Knitzer, J. Federal policies and the well-being of children: The unfinished agenda. A report to the William T. Grant Foundation. New York: Bank Street College of Education, 1984.
11. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. J.P. Shonkoff and D.A. Phillips, eds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.
12. Zeanah, C. Jr., ed. Handbook of infant mental health. 2nd ed. New York: The Guilford Press, 2000.
13. Shonkoff, J.P., and Meisels, S.J. Handbook of early childhood intervention. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
14. Duncan, G.J., Brooks-Gunn, J., and Klebanov, P.K. Economic deprivation and early childhood development. Child Development (1994) 65:296-318;
15. see also Aber, J.L., Jones, S, and Cohen, J. The impact of poverty on the mental health and development of very young children. In Handbook of infant mental health, 2nd ed. C. Zeanah, ed. New York: The Guilford Press, 1999.
16. U.S. Census Bureau. Poverty in the United States: 1999. Current Population Reports, Consumer Income Series. P60-210. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2000.
17. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Labor force statistics from the Current Population Survey. Employment characteristics of families in 2000. Table 6: Employment status of mothers with own children under 3 years old by single year of age of youngest child and by marital status, 1999-2000 annual averages. News release. April 19, 2001. Available online at http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/famee.t06.htm.
18. The size of the deduction per child decreases for families earning more than a certain amount ($110,000 for a two-parent family).
19. U.S. Department of the Treasury. Tax information for you. Save up to $500 for each child. 2001. Available online at http://www.irs.ustreas. gov.
20. Bennett, N.G. and Lu, H. Childhood poverty research brief 3: Untapped potential - State earned income credits and child poverty reduction. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 2001.
21. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. EIC participation for tax year 1999, by state. 2001. Available online at http://www.cbpp.org/eic2001/part-2001. pdf.
22. Greenstein, R., and Shapiro, I. New research findings on the effects of the Earned Income Tax Credit. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1998. Available online at http://www. cbpp.org/311eitc.htm.
23. National Center for Children in Poverty. Young children in poverty: A statistical update. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, March 1998.
24. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, third annual report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 2000.
25. Center on Law and Social Policy (CLASP)/Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). State Policy Documentation Project. Data available online at http://www.spdp.org..
26. This may be because the time the mother does not work counts against her lifetime limit for accessing federally funded cash assistance. (This limit also varies; the federal law permits up to five years, but states may set shorter time limits.)
27. Kreader, J.L., Piecyk, J., and Collins, A. Scant increases after welfare reform: Regulation, child care supply in Illinois and Maryland, 1996-1998. Child Care Research Partnership report no. 3., New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 2000.
28. Knitzer, J., and Cauthen, N.K. Enhancing the well-being of young children and families in the context of welfare reform: Lessons from early childhood, TANF, and family support programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1999.
29. Bernard, S., and Knitzer, J. Map and track: State initiatives to encourage responsible fatherhood. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 1999.
30. Garfinkel, I., McLanahan, S.S., and Robins, P.K., eds. Child support and child well-being. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press, 1994, pp. 285-310.
31. Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives. 2000 green book: Background material and data on programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2000.
32. In 1996, food stamp eligibility was made contingent on participation in work or training. Absent that, food stamps are limited to three to six months in any three-year-period. There has been much criticism of the program as unfriendly to working families. See A conversation with Sue Hall. Policy and Practice of Public Human Services (2000) 58:40-43.
33. Devaney, B.L., Ellwood, M.R., and Love, J.M. Programs that mitigate the effects of poverty on children. The Future of Children (Summer/Fall 1997) 7,2:88-108.
34. Eleven states supplement WIC, including the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
35. Rosenbaum, S., and Johnson, K.A. Making Medicaid and SCHIP work for families and children. Washington, DC: George Washington University and the Carnegie Corporation. In press.
36. Fox, H.B., McManus, M.A., and Limb, S.J. An examination of state Medicaid financing arrangements for early childhood development services. Maternal and Child Health Journal (2000) 4:19-27.
37. U.S. Health Care Financing Administration. State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) aggregate enrollment statistics for the 50 states and the District of Columbia for federal fiscal year (FFY) 2000. Available online at http://www.hcfa.gov/init/children/htm.
38. Ehrle, J., Adams, G., and Tout, K., Who's caring for our youngest children? Child care patterns for infants and toddlers. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2001. Available online at http://newfederalism@urban.org.
39. Mitchell, A., Stoney, L., and Dichter, H. Financing child care in the United States: An expanded catalog of current statistics. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, 2001.
40. National Women's Law Center. Making child care less taxing, and 2001 update memo. Washington, DC: NWLC, 1998, 2001. Available online at http://www.nwlc.org.
41. The states with state dependent care tax credits are Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, and New York.
42. Collins, A., Layzer, J., Kreader, J.D., et al. National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families: State and community substudy interim report. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, 2000.
43. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Child care assistance (through the Child Care and Development Fund, CCDF). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, December 2000.
44. Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001.
45. Knitzer, J. Promoting resilience: Helping young children and parents affected by substance abuse, domestic violence, and depression in the context of welfare reform. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 2000.
46. Other smaller programs that promote nurturing include the Healthy Start Initiative, which funds efforts to reduce infant mortality (FY 1999, $125 million); the Abandoned Infants Program, which funds services to prevent the abandonment of infants (FY 1999, $12 million); and Safe Start, a demonstration effort funded by the U.S. Department of Justice to prevent and reduce the impact of violence through the development of community-based initiatives (FY 1999, $10 million). See Fisher, H., Cohen, C., and Flynn, M. Federal funding for early childhood supports and services: A guide to sources and strategies. Washington, DC: The Finance Project, 2000.
47. Shore, R. Rethinking the brain: New insights into early development. New York: Families and Work Institute, 1997.
48. Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Commissioner's Office of Research and Evaluation, and the Head Start Bureau. Building their futures: How Early Head Start programs are enhancing the lives of infants and toddlers in low-income families, summary report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001.
49. U.S. Department of Education. Even Start: Evidence from the past and a look to the future. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, 1998.
50. U.S. Department of Education. 22nd Annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 2000. Available online at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/OSEP2000AnlRpt.
51. See note no. 25, Knitzer and Cauthen.
52. Wulczyn, F., and Brunner, K. The placement of infants in foster care. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago, 2000.
53. Silver, J., DiLorenzo, P., Zukoski, M., et al. Starting young: Improving the health and developmental outcomes of infants and toddlers in the child welfare system. Child Welfare (1999) 78:148-65.
54. Dicker, S., Gordon, E., and Knitzer, J. Improving the odds: Promoting the health, developmental and emotional well-being of young children in foster care. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University. In press.
55. Although TANF dollars are federal, the state must decide, from many competing priorities, how to spend them.
56. Gilman, E., and Collins, A. Better strategies for babies: Strengthening the caregivers and families of infants and toddlers. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 2000.
57. Gomby, D.S., Culross, P.L., and Behrman, R.E. Home visiting: Recent program evaluations: Analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children (Spring/Summer 1999) 9,1:4-26.
58. Knitzer, J. Early childhood mental health services: A policy and systems development perspective. In Handbook of early childhood intervention. 2nd ed. J.P. Shonkoff and S.J. Meisels, eds. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
59. DYG, Inc., Civitas Initiative, ZERO TO THREE, and BRIO Corporation. What grown-ups understand about child development: A national benchmark survey. Danbury, CT: DYG, 2000.