As part of his focus on middle class initiatives in this year’s state of the union address, President Obama reminisced about the universal child care available to his grandmother and then proposed: “In today’s economy, when having both parents in the workforce is an economic necessity for many families, we need affordable, high-quality childcare more than ever. It’s not a nice-to-have — it’s a must-have. … my plan will make quality childcare more available, and more affordable, for every middle-class and low-income family with young children in America — by creating more slots and a new tax cut of up to $3,000 per child, per year.”
According to the White House fact sheet: “The President’s proposal will ensure that all low- and moderate-income families … with children age three and under have access to a subsidy to pay for quality child care so they can work or attend school or job training. By 2025, this investment will expand access to high-quality care to … more than 2.6 million children served monthly through the child care subsidy system.”
Why is institutional child care a “must-have?” Currently, more than 40 percent of children are born to single mothers. Even when dads are initially present, most of these moms are parenting alone, or with a new partner by the time the child is 5.
When a family operates with only one of the parents, the resources for caring for a child are diminished, often by both the missing parent and the absent parent’s extended family.
Marriage for many single mothers would be associated with significant reductions in medical, food and welfare benefits. The structural disincentives for marriage have created unintended consequences that substitute government support for family stability.
The thoughtful thrift of those born during the Depression is rare in today’s society. When easy credit and school loans become burdensome, fewer resources are available for children and time at home.
The president is right. Many young families struggle to make life work.
A Jan. 26 National Public Radio (NPR) item noted that the “universal childcare” referred to by Mr. Obama was offered during World War II while fathers left for war and mothers worked. However, the president’s current proposal would double U.S. child care subsidies to more $80 billion.
“The problem is that the quality rendered in the U.S child care market is low to mediocre, on average,” Chris Herbst, associate professor at Arizona State University’s School of Public Affairs, told NPR. In fact, Mr. Herbst’s research finds that children in federally subsidized day care don’t fare well on cognitive and behavioral tests
Less than a week after the state of the union address, a JAMA Pediatrics article by Bick, Zhu, et.al. was released. “Effect of Early Institutionalization and Foster Care on Long-term White Matter Development” describes the anatomical differences identified by structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brains of children. Two groups of Romanian children were randomly assigned to either institutional care or family-based foster care as infants. At age 8 both groups of children were evaluated for developmental outcomes and brain structure.
Children who remained in institutional care demonstrated “significant associations” between neglect and the micro-structural anatomy of the brain. White matter is the system that connects diverse parts of the brain and allows rapid coordination of thoughts and actions. For children in institutional care, the white matter tracts were demonstrably less developed than in the children cared for in a family setting. Poorly developed white matter is associated with decreased responsiveness and learning abilities.
The findings correlate to several other research activities by the same investigators demonstrating that institutionalized children are more likely to face learning problems, emotional challenges and behavioral difficulties.
The good news from this research is that children placed in a caring family environment can improve brain development along with cognitive, emotional and behavioral outcomes. The bad news is that children who spend much of their time institutionalized have poorer outcomes, even if they are fed, clothed and provided other basic necessities. Children thrive when they are loved by caregivers. Paychecks and checklists do not produce love.
The authors of the research concluded: “Results suggest that removal from conditions of neglect in early life and entry into a high-quality family environment can support more normative trajectories of white matter growth. Our findings have implications for public health and policy efforts designed to promote normative brain development among vulnerable children.”
Research is clearly suggesting that the richness of family bonding produces better brains, and better emotional and behavioral outcomes. Our society cares deeply about our youngest citizens. We want them in safe, welcoming learning environments. Institutional child care is not our only policy option.
Medical, demographic and sociological sciences agree that loving families are critical to optimal child development. Consequently, our country needs to identify and implement thoughtful policies that support the formation and stability of families, the involvement of both parents and caring relatives, job flexibility and sharing, and the possibility that a parent or grandparent could have the skills and will to care for their own child.
The highest quality child care, it turns out, is a loving family.
Alma L. Golden, M.D., a pediatrician in Temple, Texas, was deputy assistant secretary for population affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services during the administration of George W. Bush.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.