What’s New?

OP-ED: Ignoring rising child care costs puts infants at risk

Posted on November 10, 2017

Published in The Star-Ledger on Monday, November 6, 2017

It might not happen today, and it might not happen tomorrow, but a baby will face serious harm at a New Jersey child care center. It’s just a question of when and where. And if preventive action isn’t taken quickly, the responsibility, ultimately, will rest with the New Jersey Legislature.

Though New Jersey’s child care system faces many challenges, the most urgent is the inadequacy of the state child care subsidy. Each year, the state provides financial assistance in the form of subsidies to help pay for child care for approximately 80,000 children from low-income families, enabling parents to participate in the workforce.

The Legislature has not increased the subsidy for infant care since 2008, as we have reminded them repeatedly in letters, policy papers and testimony. Today’s infant care subsidy is the same $32.12 a day established nearly a decade ago. But now, that barely covers the costs of keeping the doors open, like staffing, supplies, rent and utilities. And it leaves nothing to cover repairs, let alone invest in quality improvements like facilities upgrades, staff training and professional development or parent engagement initiatives. In fact, New Jersey’s infant care reimbursement is an alarming 40 percent below national standards for quality care.

With that $32.12 stretched thinner and thinner by rising costs, the shortfall has compromised staffing and training, driven up turnover, and begun to undermine providers’ ability to meet critical safety and care standards. A review of recent child care center violations revealed numerous basic safety concerns, like leaving babies unattended or in cribs in unsafe conditions. A shocking 34 percent of centers were cited for not having staff Child Abuse Record Information (CARI) background checks on file, which is required by the State of New Jersey.

Providers understand the stakes and they’ve demonstrated amazing creativity and tenacity to continue serving New Jersey’s working families. They’ve leaned on each other and shared resources and ideas. They’ve built partnerships with community-based organizations and, so far, they – and we – have been lucky.

But eventually, something has to give. And though the reimbursement shortfall affects all children, providers understand that the risks are greater for babies who require more intensive attention and care. Better than most, providers understand that it is now just a question of when our luck will run out. That’s why child care providers are working with us to sound the alarm.

Leadership from Trenton on this important issue is long overdue and the silence has been deafening. Increasing the infant care reimbursement rate must be an urgent priority for the Legislature and New Jersey’s incoming governor. Just one incident resulting in serious harm to a baby would certainly result in a crisis of confidence in our state’s entire child care system. With more than 400,000 children in New Jersey child care centers, the impact on working families and their employers would be alarming.

For a small fraction of the funding earmarked for the State Capitol renovation project, the Legislature could increase the infant care reimbursement rate to a point that would allow providers to meet basic staffing and training standards. That’s not enough to ensure quality care, but it would reduce the likelihood of an avoidable tragedy. And it would serve as an important down payment on quality child care that keeps working parents on the job, keeps kids safe and prepares them for success in school.

Ignoring a problem and hoping for the best is no way to make public policy. Ten years has been more than long enough to wait for action on this life-and-death priority.

Jennifer Santana, President, Coalition of Infant/Toddler Educators
Cecilia Zalkind, President and CEO, Advocates for Children of New Jersey

You are invited to celebrate with ACNJ!

Posted on November 15, 2017

You are invited to celebrate with ACNJ!


8:30 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
The Clubhouse at Galloping Hill
Kenilworth, NJ

Reserve your seat today.

Year after year, ACNJ truly makes a difference in the lives of New Jersey children. In 2017 alone, ACNJ’s efforts came to fruition when $25 million was included in the State budget to expand preschool to more of New Jersey’s 3- and 4-year-olds.

For nearly 40 years, ACNJ has been doing such work to give every child a chance to grow up safe, healthy, and educated. Clearly, ACNJ can deliver for New Jersey children.

Join ACNJ at our 2nd Annual Breakfast on December 13 to celebrate our successes and strengthen our efforts on behalf of New Jersey’s Children. There is still much to be done. We hope to see you on

BLOG: Why are we locking up youth offenders when there’s a better solution?

Posted on October 20, 2017

 

Nicole Rohan, Legal Intern

Many first-year law students spend their first legal internship sitting behind a desk every day in a law firm or going to observe court. As a legal intern for Advocates for Children of New Jersey, my experience was different. At the end of June, I had an eye-opening experience.  I got the opportunity to drive down to the New Jersey Training School for Boys in Monroe Township, commonly referred to as “Jamesburg” to join in on a rally to close down the facility. I went not knowing much about the facility or about the youth living there.

At the rally, speakers from different organizations and backgrounds talked about all different reasons why juvenile offenders should not be put in an institution like Jamesburg. They had very compelling arguments. Because of the curious law student in me, I found myself thinking during the rally about the arguments from the other side.

Sometimes it may feel easier to say, “Those kids are bad, they deserve to be locked up” or ask, “Why is it bad to institutionalize children?”

In the days following the rally, I did some research and discovered why it isn’t “easier” to lock kids up and the very real issues that come from youth offenders being institutionalized:

  • Development of the child is negatively impacted by institutions for youth offenders.
  • Problems with the mentality behind labeling youth offenders as “bad.”
  • Recidivism rates are lower for youth offenders who are put in community-based alternatives.

“Research clearly supports the approach of treating youth in their own communities – not in large institutions miles away from home,” said Bart Lubow, former director of the Juvenile Justice Strategy Group at the Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore. He worked with New Jersey on the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) which has successfully reduced the numbers of youth in our county detention centers by more than 60 percent, without risk to public safety. Lubow noted that research shows that locking juveniles up in institutions is more costly than caring for them in their communities and returns no greater results in lowering recidivism. As a result of JDAI, many of our state’s county detention centers have closed and consolidated with neighboring detention centers, resulting in millions of dollars in savings (New Jersey Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) 2015 Annual Data Report, NJ Juvenile Justice Commission).

 

Psychological Issues Related to Youth Detainment

A report released in October 2016 by the National Institute of Justice at the Harvard Kennedy School called, The Future of Youth Justice: A Community-Based Alternative to the Youth Prison Model, found that youth prisons are at odds with everything known about adolescent development in general and especially the population of youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system. Instead of helping kids get back on track, these facilities exacerbate many of the factors that brought them to the attention of the courts in the first place (McCarthy, Schiraldi & Shark 4). One big problem with youth prisons is that they communicate to young people on a regular basis that they are dangerous, feared, worthless and have no real future.  Compelling evidence from studies show that youth need positive adult-youth interactions and learning opportunities that help them with the developmental tasks of impulse control, judgment, future orientation, and emotional maturity; all of which they would get from community-based alternative programming and placement (McCarthy, Schiraldi & Shark 5).

Recidivism rates have been a problem among juvenile offenders released from incarceration within the juvenile justice system. One study done by Richard A. Mendel in 2011 revealed state by state data that concluded 70 to 80 percent of incarcerated youth are rearrested within two to three years. Incarceration is extremely disruptive to a child’s development and learning because it greatly reduces the likelihood of the juvenile ever returning to school, and, for those who do, significantly increases their chances of being classified with emotional or behavioral disorders  (McCarthy, Schiraldi & Shark 13).

In 2013, The National Research Council published a review that concluded that well-designed community programs are more likely to reduce recidivism and improve youth well-being than institutionalization.  A good example of successful community-based services is Treatment Foster Care Oregon, which is an evidence-based alternative to incarceration or a group placement for young people who have been adjudicated delinquent. Families within communities are recruited, trained, and closely supervised as they provide treatment and intensive supervision to the juvenile offenders. Boys who participated in the program had “fewer subsequent arrests, fewer days of incarceration, less self-reported drug use, fewer violent offense referrals, and fewer self-reported incidents of violence than did a control group” (McCarthy, Schiraldi & Shark 22).

 

The Financial Deficit of Detaining Juvenile Offenders

According to the New Jersey 2018 Budget Book, in 2016, the state spent $200,146 to detain one child at the New Jersey Training School for Boys, which is approximately $546.85 per day per juvenile. The daily cost has only gone up over since 2008, when the average cost a day of a juvenile was approximately $174 (Justice Policy Institute, 2008).  The budget estimate for 2018 is $679.96 per juvenile per day. Some of the rise in the per capita cost is due to fewer juvenile offenders being sent to residential facilities, but I think that this money could be more effectively used on community-based alternatives rather than detainment. This is certainly worth considering. In 2014 the National Juvenile Justice Network calculated that if 50 percent of the youth held in juvenile commitment facilities in 2011 could have been supervised in the community for an average program duration of nine months, states would have saved more than 300 million dollars. And the NJJN felt that 50 percent was conservative. The presenters at the rally advocated for any savings realized from the closing of facilities like Jamesburg to be re-invested into a safer and more efficient system of community-based programs for our youth. For those who require secure care, they should be in smaller community-based treatment facilities. You can learn more about this and other reform efforts at www.youthjusticenj.org.

 

Conclusion

The research and data confirmed for me that youth prisons should be closed. Using community-based alternatives will create more positive opportunities for juvenile offenders in New Jersey leading to better outcomes and may save taxpayer dollars. If we view these youth as an investment in the future of society and less like “bad kids who deserve to be locked up,” it becomes obvious that community-based alternatives are much more beneficial for our society as a whole.

Through its #NJVOTES4KIDS Campaign, ACNJ is educating both candidates and voters about important children’s issues such as juvenile justice. Learn more at www.njvotes4kids.org.  I encourage all to learn more.

Share infographic:

BLOG: Do you provide child care for infants?

Posted on October 20, 2017

 

Diane Dellanno, Policy Analyst

Do you provide child care for infants?  I asked this question hundreds of times as I called child care centers throughout New Jersey as part of a statewide study on the availability of center-based care for infants and toddlers. This is the same question asked by new parents everyday as they prepare to return to the workforce.  As I called center after center, memories of finding child care for my own children came rushing back. I remembered the sleepless nights before returning to work, wondering how I could ever find someone that I trusted, someone that would be able to provide a safe, warm and stimulating environment for my baby while I was at work.  I recalled the numerous phone calls and visits to child care centers, the endless probing of other parents for recommendations, and the constant worry of making the right decision. I was lucky. I had options; I was able to find child care that worked for my family. However, for far too many New Jersey families, this is not the case.

Having access to options for child care that best suits a family’s needs is vital for supporting working parents. These options should include a robust supply of safe and reliable high-quality licensed child care programs that also serve as a rich early learning environment, since the first three years of a baby’s life is most critical in laying the foundation for healthy development and later success in school and life.  However, as Advocates for Children of New Jersey’s (ACNJ) recent report, No Room for Babies: Center-based Infant-Toddler Child Care in Short Supply, reveals, the supply of infant-toddler child care in licensed facilities is limited throughout the state and in some communities – practically non-existent. This leaves many working parents scrambling to find care, often making piecemeal accommodations for lack of available choices. Even when center-based care is available, many families find the high cost of infant care does not fit into their budget. For these families, affordability becomes the determining factor in deciding who will care for their baby. This is especially true for families that receive a child care subsidy. Each year, New Jersey provides subsidies to help offset the cost of child care for approximately 80,000 children from low-income families, enabling parents to participate in the workforce. The infant subsidy rate of $32.12 per day or just $4.00 an hour per baby, has not been increased in nearly a decade and covers only a small fraction of what it really costs to provide high-quality care.

Finding a provider nearby that has space and will accept the subsidy is becoming increasingly difficult. The reimbursements are often too low to meet even their basic expenses – staff, rent and utilities. Centers, already struggling to cover the rising operational costs, are forced to limit the number of babies they can accept. Other times, in order to cover costs, centers charge the difference between what the subsidy covers and the actual tuition rate, making it unaffordable for the families who need it the most.

The Child Care and Development Block Grant Act (CCDBG) of 2014, which largely funds the subsidy system, marked a critical step in strengthening the quality of child care, improving the health and safety of children in child care settings, and making it easier for parents to get and keep the child care assistance they need. Parental choice, equal access and quality are the cornerstones of this grant, and as such, states must “ensure equal access for eligible children to child care services that are comparable to child care services in the State that are provided to children whose parents are not eligible to receive assistance.” Equal access cannot happen without an increase in funding for child care subsidies to bring the rates up to 2017 costs, as well as a system that provides higher subsidy rates for higher quality. In fact, the federal government will not fully approve New Jersey’s CCDBG plan until the state addresses the low subsidy reimbursement rates. As a first step, ACNJ recommends that New Jersey starts by providing funds to correct the current inequitable rate structure for infants to reflect the higher cost of providing child care for babies.

Child care is one of six key issues ACNJ is highlighting as part of its #NJVotes4Kids Campaign. Help raise awareness by sharing the infographic below. Let legislative and gubernatorial candidates know they need to make this issue a priority.

Share our infographic:

Zalkind joins Fund for NJ in calling for full funding of school-aid formula

Posted on October 18, 2017

ACNJ President Cecilia Zalkind joined The Fund for New Jersey in the release of their sixth report, “Providing High-Quality Public Education to All New Jersey Children,” in the Crossroads NJ series aimed at informing public debate in this pivotal election year. The report calls for recommitting to the expansion of the preschool program. “The kids have waited a long time. Children who could have had preschool are now approaching middle school,” Zalkind said.

Other Crossroads NJ reports cover climate and environment, criminal justice, housing and land use, jobs and the economy, and transportation.

The Education report notes that to meet the challenges of preserving a public education system that works well for many students and extending its benefits to those who still lag behind, New Jersey needs to step up efforts on funding, reducing segregation, and making college degrees more attainable. The report calls for leadership to address these challenges and encourages New Jersey to:

  • Fully fund the school finance formula codified in the School Funding Reform Act of 2008 (SFRA)
  • Carefully evaluate the SFRA formula and, if necessary, adjust its provisions
  • Expand the successful state-funded preschool program
  • Make higher education in New Jersey more affordable and increase the number of college graduates
  • Build and implement programs designed to integrate our schools

News Clips:
101.5 New Jersey: Group urges NJ to find $1B and fully fund school-aid formula — now!

WHYY: Sharper focus on education, more equitable funding sought in N.J.