|
Running head: FAMILY DAY CARE AND W-2
Wisconsin Works (W-2):Quality Child Care & Challenges of 40 Family Day Care Providers in Portage County, WI. Oluyomi A. Ogunnaike Room 449, College of Professional Studies University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point Stevens Point, WI 54481 Phone:(715) 346 - 4742 Fax :(715) 346 - 4846 Email :oogunnai@uwsp.edu
Abstract The overhauling of welfare programs was expected to result in increased demand for child care (Wisconsin Women's Network, 1998). Policy experts claim that accessible and affordable quality care is essential to the success of welfare reform initiatives (APA, 1998). The present study examined the impact of the welfare reform initiative, "Wisconsin Works" - W-2, on quality care in family day care homes in Portage county, WI, with an emphasis on group size and caregiver qualifications. A total of 40 providers caring for children whose families receive W-2 were interviewed on the phone about group size, qualifications, mode of reimbursement, and the challenges experienced as a result of W-2 policy. Findings revealed that there were 3 types of providers - Licensed, Regular Certified, and Provisional Certified. Most of the providers interviewed were licensed, had as few as 5 - 6 children in their care with an average of one W-2 child. The licensed provider had the highest qualifications followed by the regular certified provider, and the provisional certified provider with little or no qualifications. The challenges experienced by the providers included inconsistent co-payment by W-2 parents, inadequate infant care, confusion, and bottleneck bureaucracy. Implications of these findings include the need for uniform regulations for caregiver training, increased child care subsidy for W-2 recipients, and collaboration with higher institutions for the purpose of research and training of all involved with W-2. KEY WORDS: welfare, caregiver qualifications, group size, family day care
Welfare Reforms in WI and Quality Child Care As states begin to overhaul their welfare programs, the demand for child care is bound to increase. Research suggests that for welfare reforms to be successful, affordable quality care is imperative (APA, 1998; Groginsky & McConnell, 1998; IWPR, 1998; Waller, 1997). Child care experts stress the importance of quality care in the early years because such care has implications for later child outcomes (APA, 1998; Fiene, 1995 cf IWPR, 1998; Galinsky, Howes, Kontos, & Shinn, 1994). For example, Chilman (1993 cited in APA, 1998) noted enhanced cognitive and social development among children who received high quality care in out-of-home care environments. Child care experts emphasize caregiver qualifications, group size, and adult-child ratio as very essential indicators of quality care (Modigliani, 1994; Philips, 1987; Zigler & Lang, 1991). This paper examines the impact of Wisconsin welfare reform program referred to as "Wisconsin Works ", W - 2, on caregiver quualifications and group size in family day care homes in Portage county. Based on the expectation that demand for child care will increase due to welfare reform, the present study specifically examines whether W - 2 actually led to increase in group size in family day care homes. The study also examined whether W-2 had any effects on caregiver qualifications, and whether providers experienced any professional challenges due to W - 2. Because Portage County has a predominance of family day care providers, the data obtained were primarily from these caregivers that were interviewed on the phone. Also, other child care professionals involved in policy matters were also interviewed about the gains and challenges of W - 2 with regards to caregiver qualifications and group size. What is W-2? W-2, also known as Wisconsin Works, came into statewide operation in October 1997 (Folk, 1997). W-2 is a program aimed at enhancing welfare recipients' transition into the workforce by promoting independence and dignity of the individual through work. W-2 is made up of a four-rung ladder, with the topmost rung emphasizing self-sufficiency and self-reliance. The bottom rung, referred to as W-2 Transitions is for recipients, who, due to one disability or another are unable to perform any self - sustaining work. As such, they are mandated to engage in activities that are consistent with their abilities in order to receive any financial assistance. Recipients are paid 70% of the minimum wage and also qualify for food stamps, child care, and health care subsidies. A limited period of 24 months is imposed on the participants on this rung(Folk, 1997). The next rung from the bottom, community - service jobs, provides employment opportunities for recipients needing to practice skills that are useful and relevant to working in private business. Recipients are paid 75% of the minimum wage, and are eligible for food stamps, child care, and health care subsidies. A lifetime limit of 24 months is allowed, although participants can move up the ladder during those 24 months. Subsidized employment or trial jobs represents the third rung. Here, an employer provides participants employment opportunities, which involve training. The employers are given $300 per participant to cover training costs. Participants are paid market wages and can also be eligible for food stamps, child care, and health care subsidies, and the earned - income tax credit. A lifetime limit of 24 months also applies to this rung. At the top of the ladder is the unsubsidized employment rung which allows for participants who are job ready to be matched with available positions. Based on the perceived readiness for employment of participants in this rung, minimal financial assistance is provided by the state. Likewise, eligibility for food stamps, health care and child care subsidies, and the earned - income tax credit is determined by the participant's income. Each recipient is assigned a Financial Employment Planner (FEP) who provides skilled advice in fostering the recipient's self - sufficiency and independence. The FEP explains which of the four rungs the recipient qualifies for, work patterns, and requirements. For example, if the recipient falls into the third rung of W-2, subsidized employment, the FEP explains the recipient's responsibilities, remuneration, and entitlement. To be considered eligible for W-2 services, one has to be earning an income below 165 percent of the poverty line and also meet asset limits of $10,500. There is a 60-month lifetime limit on the rungs and a 60-day residency in Wisconsin requirement for participation in W-2. Participants are encouraged to move from one rung to another as quickly as possible (Folk, 1997). W-2 and Child Care To be eligible for child care funding, the individual must be employed or be a participant in a W-2 approved activity. Also, the recipient's children must be placed in regulated care that is, certified or licensed child care. The state and the parent jointly pay remuneration for child care. Provisional Certified Caregiver. Apart from subsidizing child care costs, W-2 also created a special type of certification for caregivers called the Provisional Certification. The Provisional Certified provider must be above 18 years, be evaluated through criminal background check and home safety check in order to provide child care services. Such a provider is not required to undergo formal training in child development, and can care for as many as 6 children for less than 16 hours in any 24 hour period. These children must be related to the provider. Minimal state remuneration is provided to discourage people from making a career of being a provisional certified caregiver. According to Diane Adams and Lois Feinen (personal communication, August 10, 1998), provisional certified providers care for 5% of 21% W-2 children in certified day care in Wisconsin. Although there are very few provisional certified providers in Portage County, child care professionals and advocates have expressed their concerns about the quality of care provided by such caregivers due to a lack of training. Also, such certification could have implications for staff turnover among trained caregivers. Studies are needed to address these concerns before final conclusions are made about the role or quality of care in provisional certified homes. Other Types of Providers. The Regular Certified Caregiver refers to providers who are required to undergo 15 - 20 hour course of Family Certification. These providers also undergo a criminal background check and health and safety inspection before certification by the County. However, the regular certified provider is not required to undergo continued training/inservice. This caregiver can care for a maximum of 6 children (3 or less of whom can be related and the other 3 should be unrelated) for no more than 16 hours in any 24 hour period. The regular certified provider earns a higher percentage of reimbursement by the state compared to the provisional certified provider. Presently, regular certified caregivers provide child care for 17% of W-2 children in Wisconsin (Adams, 1998). The Licensed Caregiver is permitted to provide child care services based on formal training and operation in a safe environment. There are 2 categories of the licensed provider - Family Licensed and Group Licensed. The Family Licensed provider undergoes an initial 40 hour course of Family Licensing and is required to attend 15 hours of workshops, seminars, etc, as part of continuing education. If such a provider has children less than 2 years, s/he has to undergo an additional 10 - 15 hour Infant/Toddler course. The family licensed provider can only care for a total of 8 children at one time for 12 consecutive hours within a 24 - hour period. The Group Licensed provider shares similar requirements with the licensed family provider except in group size, caregiver qualifications, and inservice/continuing education. The group size is 9 or more children, and the number of hours of continuing education depends on the provider's number of working hours. For example, a 15 hour additional inservice training is to be completed by the provider who works less than 20 hours weekly. Whereas, a provider who works more than 20 hours a week is required to undergo 25 hours of additional inservice training per year. Caregiver qualifications differ on the basis of the number of children for which the center is licensed (see section on Caregiver Qualifications for details). Compared to Regular Certified providers and Provisional Certified providers, Licensed providers are regulated by the State and currently provide care for 76% of W-2 children in Wisconsin. Apart from the above named categories, there is another group of providers who are certified and licensed at the same time referred to as Certified - Licensed. These providers are given permission to operate for 16 hours and care for as many as 10 - 12 children. By virtue of both certification and licensure, the certified-licensed caregiver is more likely to be able to provide care for W-2 children since these parents work outside regular office hours. For example, such a provider can care for a certain group of children during the fixed licensed hours and care for others, e.g., W-2 children, during the flexible certified hours. Adams (1998) commented on the fact such categorization is an aberration because the mode of operation and other caregiving requirements remain unclear to the provider. For instance, the provider who is regarded as both Certified and Licensed may misinterpret that she is allowed to care for children 24 hours a day. In summary, there are three types of providers in Wisconsin, two of whom are regulated by the County (Regular certified & Provisional certified) and one is regulated by the State (Licensed). These providers differ in the level of training required, group size, and number of hours of operation. A summary of the caregiver qualifications, group size, hours of operation, and W - 2 reimbursement is provided in Table 1. Caregiver Qualifications and Group Size in WI Regulations
As discussed earlier, the present study examines whether W - 2 engendered any changes and challenges among family day care providers. The following overarching questions guided the study: 1. Did W - 2 lead to an increase or decrease in the number of children cared for in family day care homes? Group size change? 2. Did W - 2 affect caregiver qualifications for family day care providers? 3. What, if any, are personal or professional challenges experienced by family day care providers as a result of W - 2? Method Participants A list of all Family day care providers in Portage County was obtained from the County Department of Health and the author called Human Services and all the providers. A total of 40 Family Day Care providers caring for W - 2 children agreed to be interviewed on the phone. The providers were asked about the number of children in their care, the number of credits they had to take in order to be certified or licensed, system of payment for the W-2 child and any challenges engendering from the W-2 reform. The following questions were asked during the interview: 1. Are you a Certified or Licensed provider? 2. How many children are registered in your care? 3. Out of these children, how many are W - 2 children? 4. On the average, about how many hours daily would you say the children spend in your care? 5. To become licensed or certified, how many credits or courses did you have to take? 6a. How were/are you paid for providing care for the W-2 child/children in your care? Was it a system of copayment? OR Was the county or just the parent responsible for the remuneration? b. What was the percentage paid by: (i) county? (ii) parent? 7. Could you tell me if you experienced any challenges or had any issues arising from your care of W-2 children? Results Description of Family Day Care Providers in Portage County Table 2 presents findings on the sample interviewed. There were four types of providers - licensed, regulated certified, provisional certified, and licensed - certified. As Table 2 illustrates, most of those interviewed were licensed providers, followed by regular certified providers. There were very few provisional regulated and licensed - certified providers. Description of Family Day Care Providers
Group Size Findings from Table 3 reveal that on average, family day care providers took care of less than 8 children regardless of whether they were certified or licensed. Table 3 Group Size and Distribution of W-2 children
* = Certified & Licensed Providers ** = Licensed Providers *** = Licensed - Certified Providers
Of all the providers interviewed, the licensed provider was likely to have a higher group size than the regular or provisional certified provider. In homes where there were more than 8 children, the provider was "licensed-certified" and all the children were not present at once. For example, one of the providers who had about 13 children in her care explained that she cared for 8 or fewer children during her licensed hours, and 3 others during her certified hours. These 3 children were children of a W - 2 recipient who works during the third shift (9p.m - 3a.m). Provisional certified providers had the smallest group size. Table 3 also illustrates that the highest number of W-2 children cared for by the Family day care provider at any one time was four (n=4), the average being one (n=1) child. Caregiver Qualifications Table 4 presents findings on caregiver qualifications of family day care providers interviewed. Caregiver Qualifications
Because most of the providers interviewed were licensed, they followed the regulations provided by the State (refer to Table 1). The licensed providers are required to take a 40 -hour credit course at Mid-State College, a community college situated in Central Wisconsin, and also undergo 15-hour training in Infant-toddler care, and a continuing education of 15 hours yearly. The providers attended seminars, workshops, classes, and CPR as part of the yearly continuous education requirement. Most of the regular certified providers mentioned taking credits ranging from 5 - 40 hours from Mid - State College. Very few regular certified providers mentioned participating in any professional activities as part of continuous education. Of the 2 provisional certified providers in the sample, one reported having no child - related training and the other provisional certified provider was a grandmother who had taken some courses as a regular certified provider. However, she did not mention upgrading her certification. Payment The providers were asked about how they were paid for providing care for the W-2 child (ren). Most of the providers mentioned a system of co-payment - that is, the county paid a certain percentage while the parent paid the rest. The providers were asked to estimate the percentage of the payment made by the county and parents respectively. Most of them replied that the county paid between 75 - 80%, while the parents paid between 20 - 25%. Challenges The providers were asked to identify challenges engendering from their involvement in the W - 2 program and provision of child care services to recipients. 60% of those interviewed had experienced a variety of challenges, which I categorized into 3, namely, Parent Factor/Issue, County Factor, and Other. They are presented in Box 1.
Under parent factor, the providers mentioned lack of payment, poor communication, irresponsibility, child neglect, and unethical behaviors of parents; e.g., incessant change in child care environments and caregivers. Under the county factor, the providers mentioned an initial delay in processing paper work by the county office, lack of proper coordination with parents to verify the number of hours of care provided, and too much paper work. Other issues mentioned by the providers included limited infant care slots for W-2 families, irregular hours of care, ignorance of W-2 recipients about the benefits of not receiving food stamps. They also mentioned the lack of adequate support for recipients who desire to advance themselves through formal education and fluctuations in the rates paid to caregivers by the county. Discussion Caregiver Qualifications Findings from the present study indicate that majority of the family day care providers completed some training, although the number of hours and type of training differed. As earlier explained, licensed providers went through 40 hours of child -related training, 10 - 15 hours of training in infant - toddler care, and 15 hours of continuing education requirement. Although certain regular certified providers mentioned finishing similar training, many certified providers explained that they took a 5 - hour training in family day care certification. The provisional certified providers had no child-related training. Examining caregiver qualifications vis-a-vis welfare reform brings up 2 issues, namely, licensure, and the need for child - related training. To begin with, the State regulatory system operates on a double standard premise. Some providers, especially those regulated by the State (Licensed caregivers), undergo stringent requirements as discussed above. The providers regulated by the County do not undergo such stringent regulations. Some of the certified providers interviewed explained that they opted to enhance themselves professionally by obtaining more training than required. With the inception of W-2, a new category of certified providers was created - the provisional certified provider, who is only required to undergo a home inspection and background check. The lack of child-related training for the provisional certified provider has been regarded as "misplaced priority" by child care professionals. Child - related training has been identified as one of the key indicators of quality care (Adams, 1990; Brooks-Gunn, Smith, Berlin, & Lee, 1998; Galinksy, 1990; Galinsky et al., 1994; Hayes, Palmer, & Zaslow, 1990; Howes, Whitebook, & Phillips, 1992; Modigliani, 1994; Zigler & Lang, 1991). Research suggests that children cared for by educated/trained caregivers have enhanced language, exhibit cooperative behaviors, and are able to persist in task assignments (Howes, 1987; Ruopp, Travers, Glantz, & Coelen, 1979). Findings from a nation-wide study of family day care providers by Galinsky and her associates (Galinsky et al., 1994) revealed that providers with child - related training were more sensitive and responsive to children in their care. Despite the importance of caregiver training, factors such as unclear regulations, lack of proper incentives for training, restrictive guidelines, and lack of funds have minimized and discouraged caregiver enthusiasm and interests, especially, among family day care providers (Adams, 1998; Modigliani, 1994). For example, the fact that in Wisconsin, family day care providers have differing requirements and regulations may engender confusion and mixed messages about quality care. Thus, the present findings call to attention the need to have a closer look at the training requirements for all providers and the establishment of clear and standard policy applicable to all types of providers. Group Size Present findings suggest that most of the family day care providers in Portage county are caring for five children or less. These findings are congruent with what child care experts suggest (see Galinsky et al., 1994; Kontos, 1992; Modigliani, 1994; Ogunnaike, 1995). These authors suggest that having small group size, for example, six children in family day care homes has implications for quality care. Particularly, Galinsky and her associates note that small groups foster safety and reduce the occurrence of accidents and injuries. Similarly, small groups facilitate constructive and responsive caregiving behaviors and enhanced socio-cognitive competence among children (Adams, 1990; Zigler & Lang, 1991). In Portage county, WI, some certified providers and very few licensed providers care for the fewest number of children, that is less than five children. According to the county specifications, certified providers can only care for as many as six children (three under the age of 7 years, three above 7 years). Many licensed providers in this study care for as many as eight children, in compliance with state regulations. Very few W - 2 children were cared for in family child care homes in Portage county. On average, the family day care provider cared for as few as one or two W - 2 children. The regulations, however, has no specifications for the number of W - 2 children that can be cared for at once. Examining the relationship between group size and W - 2 reforms, the expectations for an increase in the children in regulated child care was not met. According to a News Release from the Wisconsin Women's Network Child Care Task Force, an advocacy group based in Madison, WI (September 28, 1998), a total of 60,000 children were expected to be enrolled in regulated child care. However, less than 50% of the children expected are currently enrolled and receiving child care subsidies. This leads to several pertinent questions, namely, "where are the other children"? Are they left at home alone or being cared for by unregulated providers? Those who work closely with providers and the recipients themselves are affirming these questions. Care by unregulated providers and licensed providers commonly report relatives or by those providers that have lost W-2 children in their care. Present findings also indicate that some of the providers had to refuse W-2 recipients who needed child care during hours outside their licensure. An example was that of a woman needing child care for her three children due to work schedule. The provider, with five children of her own tried to accommodate the woman's needs but found it too cumbersome after a while. In addition, the W-2 recipient was unable to afford the co-payment. Under the old welfare system, the government paid for child care, thus making it possible for recipients to pursue education or employment opportunities. However, under W-2, a system of co-payment is in operation, which has inadvertently resulted in fewer children being placed in regulated care. Findings on the impact of W-2 on child care from Marathon County (a neighboring county) and Portage County reveal a decrease in the number of caregivers due to inadequate number of children in regulated day care homes (Heinz, 1998). Thus, the lack of affordable regulated care has resulted in placement in unregulated care or care by relatives. From another perspective, it is reported that some child care providers divert funds meant for caregiver compensation to accommodate W - 2's parents' inability to pay (the Wisconsin Women's Network Child Care Task Forcer, 1998). Caregiver turnover resulting from lack of children and/or financial instability, coupled with stories about the atrocities committed in unregulated child care do little in alleviating the concerns child care experts have about the plight of these vulnerable children and their families. To address the issue of unaffordable child care, the Governor, Tommy Thompson, recently announced an increase in child care subsidies for teenage mothers whose parents qualify for W-2. Such an increase should be extended to other recipients, especially those who desire to advance themselves through education or securing better jobs, the working poor, and other low-income families. Presently, W-2 does not provide subsidies for recipients who want to be educated or those who are able to find better - paying jobs. Challenges Findings reveal parents' inability to pay as a major challenge experienced by the interviewed providers. Such inability to pay was attributed to the W-2 recipients' meager earnings at work and inappropriate management of income. Apart from financial challenges, the providers also mentioned lack of responsive care by W-2 parents, neglect, irresponsibility, and lack of communication between the parents and the provider. An example of poor communication is reflected in the fact that some parents did not inform the providers about a change in child care, thus leaving the provider in the lurch. Another provider complained that a W-2 parent suddenly moved her children to another child care without prior notice. This provider also complained about not being paid by either the provider or the county. Providers involved in the W-2 program identified the lack of payment and parent moving their children from one care situation to another as a major shortcoming. Sometimes, the confusions engendering from the system of co-payment result in mixed communication about who pays what. For example, the provider who complained about the parent moving her children to another child care mentioned that after contacting the county, he was informed that the parent did not list him as her child care provider. In other instances, the parent just left without paying or telling the provider about any change in child care arrangements. Other challenges experienced by providers include initial delay in payment from the county, too much paper work, lack of proper coordination and communication between the county office and W-2 recipients. The providers complained about being shortpaid or/and being left in the lurch by W-2 parents who change their child care arrangements. These complaints were lodged at the county office, however, the providers were informed that the county was unaware of such occurrences. The family day care providers also mentioned other challenges, namely, limited slots for infant care, parent confusion, irregular hours, fluctuation in rates paid by the county, turnover of children and providers. Some providers also commented on the fact that many W-2 parents were confused about benefits, e.g., food stamps. These providers noted that some W-2 parents were reluctant about getting better-paying jobs due to fear of losing benefits, especially food stamps. As such, these parents continue to work at low - paying jobs, struggle to make ends meet, and never make it beyond the poverty level. Lack of support for W-2 parents who desire an education was also mentioned. The providers explained that contrary to the goal of W-2 which is that of enhancing independence and self - sufficiency, the program "punishes" recipients who wish to pursue education by refusing to provide them with financial support and incentives. The providers recommend that W - 2 support parents who desire to advance themselves through education and those who are able to secure better-paying jobs. The American Psychological Association (1998) has proposed similar recommendations. Another challenge mentioned was a shortage of child care during non-traditional hours. This has been attributed to inadequate number of children, caregiver burnout, and inadequate remuneration. The American Psychological Association (1998) in a publication titled "Making 'Welfare to Work' Really Work" called for policymakers to establish national child care policy reflective of the need for quality care outside non-traditional hours. States that are serious about fostering successful welfare -to - work programs will need to invest in providing child care after regular hours. Incentives such as grants, scholarships, training, and caregiver compensation are some ways of compensating providers interested in child care during non-traditional hours. Summarily, present findings highlight the state of caregiver qualifications and group size in family day care homes in Portage county. Many family day care providers, with the exception of those that are "licensed-certified", care for as few as five children. These providers are actually caring for fewer children than required by the state and county. As discussed earlier, the small group size could be attributed to changes brought about by W - 2 reform. For example, some families are unable to afford child care co-payment. Research indicates that welfare recipients and other low-income families spend a greater portion of their income on child care (cited in APA, 1998). Thus, it is not surprising to find parents utilizing cheaper care, which is most often unregulated. Present findings also reinforce the need to establish uniform training for all caregivers regardless of type. Research consistently indicates that trained caregivers provide sensitive care and are more likely to be responsive to the needs of children (Galinsky et al., 1994; Love, Schochet, & Meckstroth, 1996 cited in IWPR, 1998). Thus, child-related training and continuous education should be mandatory for the licensed, regular and provisional certified providers. In addition, clear and uniform procedures for obtaining such training should be provided and made accessible to providers. This paper has highlighted issues engendered by W - 2 in relation to child care quality in family day care homes. The issues addressed include regulation standards for training, group size, co-payment, and caregiver challenges resulting from W - 2. To conclude this paper, specific suggestions / recommendations are provided in light of the paper's findings: 1. Collaboration with institutions of higher learning and community agencies needs to occur in providing support for child care providers. In order to ensure that caregivers receive adequate training, the government should work with higher institutions and community agencies. These institutions can provide professional support through training, workshops, resources, and financial incentives to caregivers, especially those providing care during non-traditional hours. 2. Recipients need support in the areas of funding and accessibility to quality child care. Research findings on the success of welfare strongly emphasize the availability and accessibility to quality child care (APA, 1998; Waller, 1997). As such, it is expedient that states and counties provide clear information about child care resources to recipients. Transportation, hotlines, translators, and mentoring opportunities for recipients who experience difficulties in finding their way or in understanding English will facilitate a successful welfare -to - work transition. More importantly, the state should increase child care subsidies for all welfare recipients to ensure that all the children requiring care are actually enrolled. 3. Counties should conduct regular focus group discussions with recipients about issues that are challenging to them and find ways to work through those issues with them. Active solicitation of feedback is imperative to the success of any program. Thus, it behooves those in authority to find out from time to time from recipients what is working and what is not. Similarly, seeking feedback from providers and caseworkers or county officials will also go a long way in making the necessary adjustments in improving the quality of the W-2 program. 4. Clear and standard regulations should be established for all child care providers. Regulations provide caregivers a parameter for evaluating the type or quality of care they are providing. Ensuring that these regulations are clear and consistent across borders is critical if we are concerned about the development and growth of young children. To start with, training in child development should be mandatory for everyone who wants to care for children. Providing informal resource network, accessibility to training sites, and financial incentives enhance quality care. Caregiver turnover is prevalent throughout the country and has an adverse effect on young children. To take care of the future, we need to pay very close attention to how we reward those who take care of today's young children. The State should revise and update caregiver fees. 5. Training sessions for recipients, providers, licensing agents, and caseworkers should occur regularly. To minimize confusion and frustration, it is imperative to train all those involved in disseminating information about child care regulations and W-2 requirements. Welfare recipients interviewed during a Wisconsin Public Television program on Welfare (June 9, 1998) mentioned being confused and unaware of certain aspects of the program, for example, child care. Some recipients mentioned that they were not told specifically what they had to do to secure a job or how to find child care. Caseworkers on the other hand explained that they had provided these recipients with "necessary" information. Family day care providers interviewed for this study complained about being confused and frustrated due to inconsistent instructions and consequences. Thus, money should be set aside to conduct training sessions for all who work directly or indirectly with W-2 recipients on issues of clarity, support, expectations, and consequences. Wisconsin Works, W - 2, is a relatively new program, thus, more research is needed to further understand its impact in other counties. Findings from Milwaukee, one of the largest counties in Wisconsin indicate that confusion plagues the administration of the program. More information is needed on the strengths, weaknesses, challenges, and gains of W - 2 across the state. There is a need to examine the impact of W - 2 on the family life of recipients, job accessibility, education, and quality of community support agencies. Findings from these research studies will provide much needed insight about the program and its impact on society. References Adams, G. C. (1990). Who knows how safe: The status of state efforts to ensure quality child care. Washington, DC: Children's Defense Fund. American Psychological Association (1998). Making 'Welfare to Work' really work. (On -line). Available:www.apa.org Brooks-Gunn, J. , Smith, J. , Berlin, L. , & Lee, K. (1998). Implementations of welfare changes for parents of young children. (On-line). Available: www.welfareinfo.org Folk, K. F. (1997). Welfare reform under construction: Wisconsin Works (W-2). (On -line). Available:www.iwpr.org ; irpweb@ssc.wisc.edu Galinsky, E. (1990). The costs of not providing quality early childhood programs. In Reaching the full cost of quality in early childhood programs (p. 229 - 236). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Galinsky, E. , Howes, C. , Kontos, S. , & Shinn, M. (1994). The study of children in family child care homes and relative care: Highlights of findings. New York: Families and Work Institute. Groginsky, S. , & McConnell, L. (1998). Subsidizing success with child care. State Legislatures Magazine [On - line], April 1998. Available:www.ncsl.org Hayes, C. D. , Palmer, J. L. , & Zaslow, M . J. (Eds.) . (1990). Who cares for America's children:Child care policy for the 1990s. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Heinz, G. (1998, August 30). Failure or "heartwarming" success?: Intense debate clouds second year of controversial welfare reform. Wausau Daily Herald, p.1. Howes, C. (1987). Quality indicators in infant and toddler child care:The Los Angeles study. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Quality in child care: What does research tell us? Research Monograph of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1 (pp. 81 - 88). Washington, DC : NAEYC. Howes, C., Whitebook, M., & Phillips, D. A. (1992). Teacher characteristics and effective teaching in child care: Findings from the National Child Care Staffing Study. Child and Youth Care Forum, 21(6), 399 - 414. Institute for Women's Policy Research (1998). Key research issues and questions: Child care quality. (On-line). Available:www.iwpr.org Issues and Controversies on File, January 9, 1998. Child Care. Kontos, S. (1992). Family day care: Out of the shadows and into the limelight. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Modigliani, K. (1994). Promoting high - quality family child care:A policy perspective for Quality 2000. Boston, MA: Wheelock College. Ogunnaike, O. A. (1995). Quality in family child care homes: How well is research reflected in regulations? Unpublished manuscript, Tufts University. Phillips, D. A. (Ed.). (1987). Quality in child care: What does research tell us? Research Monograph of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1. Washington, DC:NAEYC. Phillips, D. A. , & Howes, C. (1987). Indicators of quality child care: Review of the research in Phillips, D. A. (Ed.). (1987). Quality in child care: What does research tell us? Research Monograph of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1(pp. 1 - 9). Washington, DC: NAEYC. Ruopp, R., Travers, J., Glantz, F., & Coelen, C. (1979). Children at the center: Final results of the national day care study, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates. Waller, M. (1997). Welfare-to-work and child care: A survey of the ten big states. (On-line). Available:www.iwpr.org Wisconsin Women's Network Child Care Task Force, September 28, 1998. Pressing child care needs of low income working families must be addressed. Zigler, E., & Lang, M. (1991). Child care choices: Balancing the needs of children, families and society. New York: The Free Press.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||