Nanny-state rules will raise the cost of child care

0 Comments | Insight on the News, Nov 24, 1997 | by Naomi Lopez

Welfare advocates and the popular media routinely portray child care as unaffordable, inaccessible and even dangerous. In recent public statements, first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton has proposed reforming the nation's child-care industry through means such as providing additional child-care subsidies to working parents and creating a national registry of child-care workers to protect children from abuse. These and other proposals were echoed by President Clinton at a White House conference on child care in October. The temptation to increase the scope of government may be difficult for lawmakers to resist, especially when the issue is as politically and emotionally charged as child care. But there is a better way. Lawmakers should seek free-market approaches to providing affordable, accessible and safe child care instead of looking to government to promote safety, increase availability and reduce costs.

The average weekly cost of child care, for families that paid for care, was $57 in 1993, with a $66 cost for infants less than 1 year old. Studies have found that lower-income families spend less for care than higher-income families. According to Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute, approximately one-third of all full-time working mothers and nearly 58 percent of poor working mothers pay nothing for child care. This is due to reliance on friends and family for care and/or on government programs.

Federal efforts indeed are substantial. According to the Congressional Research Service, the federal government was operating 46 federal child-care programs in 1994. In addition, the General Accounting Office identified many more federal initiatives (181 in 1993) aimed at improving the quality of child-care facilities. These programs operate through federal agencies such as the departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury, Agriculture and Housing and Urban Development. With so many efforts already operating on the federal level, is there any realistic expectation that expanding the federal role will provide the answer?

One popular proposal -- providing additional subsidies -- actually may increase the costs of child care. A new study by the congressional Joint Economic Committee reports that government subsidies for college tuition may have increased higher-education costs faster than the rate of inflation making it less affordable for lower-income students. Colleges increase tuition and fees with the knowledge that the government -- not parents who are price-sensitive -- is footing the bill. Similarly, government subsidies of child care could precipitate higher prices in the child-care industry.

While the first lady's suggestion to create a national registry of childcare providers as a safety measure is well-intentioned, the premise of it is that parental convenience trumps a parent's duty to show due diligence in checking the background of a childcare provider. By relinquishing this control to a federal registry, parents will gain a false sense of security, ultimately giving up a prerogative and responsibility that should be theirs alone.

The most effective way to guarantee safety is direct parental involvement with the child-care facilities. Measures such as meeting the staff, dropping in at unscheduled times and communicating with children about their experiences are the best ways to ensure safety -- and none of these approaches requires government intervention. Many private community organizations, such as churches and neighborhood groups, already share their members' references and recommendations with other parents seeking child care.

One important step that all levels of government -- federal, state and local -- can take to reduce costs and increase availability of child care, without expanding the scope of existing government intrusion, is to reduce regulatory and licensing requirements. Many child-care facilities are licensed and regulated by multiple layers of bureaucracy For instance, all staff, regardless of function, may be required to have first-aid and CPR training, and facilities may have to carry liability insurance or install energy-absorbing surfaces under climbing equipment. Such regulations impose heavy costs on facilities and far exceed the measures most reasonable parents implement in their own homes. Furthermore, there is no evidence to indicate that unlicensed facilities are any less safe than licensed providers. Reducing the regulatory and licensing requirements would reduce the barriers to new child-care providers entering the market, thereby reducing child-care costs and increasing availability of child-care providers.

Government intervention into this area only will serve to invite the unionization of child-care workers, the creation of additional regulations and licensing requirements on child-care facilities, and additional child-care subsidies -- all at a higher cost for taxpayers and those purchasing child care on their own. Policymakers should not endorse yet another government expansion in the name of child care before making every effort to distinguish fact from fiction and answering the question: Will more government improve child-care options for America's families?