State’s New Ratings System for Child Care Already in Doubt
But will this ratings scale actually improve the quality of child care provided around the state?
That’s yet to be determined.
YoungStar, which has been modeled on quality ratings systems used in other states, will be mandatory for providers in the publicly funded Wisconsin Shares program and optional for providers who only care for private-pay children. Any provider in the YoungStar system must agree to care for Wisconsin Shares children.
DCF’s YoungStar rates providers according to their facilities, curriculum, resources and provider education and will cost about $62 million through the 2014-2015 fiscal year.
To attempt to incentivize quality care, Wisconsin Shares subsidies will be tied to a provider’s rating, with more money provided to caregivers who meet higher criteria. A DCF spokeswoman told the Shepherd that a few state employees will be hired to oversee the program, but a consortium of child-focused groups will do the bulk of provider outreach and training. Microgrants will be awarded to providers who want to improve their child care centers or education.
“This is seen as a way to educate child care providers and improve care,” said Stephanie Hayden, spokeswoman for DCF. “We aren’t giving people ratings and then walking away.”
Reform May Hurt Those It Is Intended to Help
But will YoungStar deliver on its promises to
improve child care, especially for children from low-income families?
The nonpartisan Public Policy Forum’s (PPF)
recently published study, “Moving the Goalposts: The Shift from Child Care
Supply to Child Care Quality,” found that YoungStar has consequences—both
intentional and unintentional—for day care providers and state government.
PPF found that shifting the focus from ensuring
a plentiful supply of day care to quality child care could negatively impact
the men and women the Wisconsin Shares program had been developed to help:
individuals new to the job market who lacked formal education and advanced job
skills.
“There are several impacts that are going to
have to be carefully watched as the program is implemented,” Rob Henken,
president of PPF, told the Shepherd.
Originally, quality wasn’t on policy-makers’
radar when Wisconsin Works (W2) and the Shares program were created during Gov.
Tommy Thompson’s tenure. Wisconsin Shares had been launched to quickly create a
large supply of child care providers for the thousands of low-income working
parents who suddenly had access to affordable child care. The program expanded
so quickly, PPF’s report explains, because it was open not only to W2
participants, but also to other working parents who met the income
requirements. When Wisconsin wages stagnated shortly after the program was
created, Wisconsin Shares ballooned with eligible working parents.
Since the state focused on quantity and not
quality, Wisconsin Shares did not reward providers who had high-quality
centers. Providers could earn a living without a formal education or other
so-called indicators of quality.
Milwaukee child care provider and AFSCME Local
502 President LaTonya Johnson said that child care experience in the home was
used as a much-needed, transferable job skill once the state began subsidizing
child care in the 1990s.
“A lot of these people found a way to make a viable
living as a child care provider,” Johnson said.
Now, however, 14 of the 44 points in the
YoungStar system are linked to education. Johnson said that’s too high and will
penalize both home-based providers and group centers that employ a large number
of child care workers who are good caregivers but lack education. Johnson
contends that YoungStar is a way to force providers out of the Wisconsin Shares
program.
“If the state is sincere about improving
quality, then they should link [these criteria] to all child care providers,
period,” Johnson said.
DCF’s Hayden said YoungStar allows providers to
earn points a number of ways besides education, so experienced providers who
lack a formal education can be competitive. She added that DCF is providing
many educational opportunities and microgrants for Wisconsin Shares
participants.
Does It Measure Quality Care?
In addition to penalizing local child care
providers who had been the lifeblood of the Wisconsin Shares program, YoungStar
may not even measure “quality” at all, according to the Washington Policy
Center, a nonpartisan free-market think tank.
According to a letter sent to state legislators
by Liv Finne, the Center’s director for education, “Wisconsin’s YoungStar
program shares many of the features of other state [quality] programs, and is
likely to have the same disappointing results.”
Finne wrote that YoungStar “takes a stern
regulatory approach, singling out those providers who should be receiving the
most help from the state: providers who serve low-income families.”
Besides being ineffective in measuring and
improving quality, the Center’s study of similar programs around the country
found that these ratings systems “measure inputs, not actual outcomes for
children” and that they’re “expensive and complicated to administer.”
DCF’s Hayden said YoungStar had been developed
from pieces of other states’ programs.
“We learned from their mistakes,” she said.
But PPF’s Henken said that the Forum’s ongoing
research showed that parents are likely to want a caregiver who is warm or
nurturing. Attributes such as a college degree aren’t always a deciding factor
for parents. Nor are parents “clamoring for quality improvements,” a previous
PPF report found.
At What Cost?
The PPF’s report also warned that the state’s
cost of running the program will likely rise as more providers begin earning
higher ratings and therefore earn higher subsidies. That’s a net-plus for
providers but a drag on an already tight state budget that’s going to get even
more dire if Republicans deliver on their promises to slash taxes for the
state’s wealthiest residents and corporations.
Earlier research by PPF found that the cost of
operating a high-quality center in southeast Wisconsin was estimated to be
$11,500 per child—about double the cost of the program today.
“There are many policy conundrums, but
essentially one of the biggest—if not the biggest—themes [is that] unless there
is a significant decline in the number of participants in Wisconsin Shares,
then achieving quality is ultimately likely to require more resources,” Henken
said. “That’s sort of a lingering problem and it’s one that the next
administration is going to have to confront.”
Gov.-elect Scott Walker’s spokesman did not
respond to the Shepherd’s request to
comment for this article.
DCF’s Hayden said Walker’s transition team had
visited the agency last week and had spoken to high-level managers. DCF’s
secretary is a political position (currently held by Reggie Bicha, who had been
appointed by Gov. Jim Doyle) and Walker will appoint his own secretary after he
takes office on Jan. 3, 2011.



The fact the state even has a Wisconsin Shares program is rediculous and a waste of taxpayer money. Just stop the program. Then require all child care providers and workers have a 4 year degree in early childhood development. I would never put a child in one of the day care centers. The horror stories of them being left on vans. Or day care centers that hire people with criminal convictions such as food stamp fraud. Some don't even have college degrees of any kind. They are nothing but phony shops where they pay people to watch other peoples kids while their own kids are at some other daycare center. This is an insult to the hard working people who pay for their own day care without any government subsidy.
We need laws requiring mandetory paternal custoday. Fathers should be required by law to take custody of their children and stop pawning them off on their mothers and day care centers.
Everything would be different if we were talking about some non-black small town in central Wisconsin instead of a non-white, previously german northside of Laverne & Shirley town.
Whereas djl wants trained and qualified high-paid professionals in Milwaukee, anyone who has raised children in Wisconsin's many all-white, small towns knows that the typical daycare is staffed by anything but. Maybe one of these professionals started the daycare, but the ones who actually are minding your children are high-school kids, drop-outs, out-of-work moms and such. It's like asking that your McDonalds value meals be served only by master chefs, and still be only $5. Can't be done!
Original AFDC type welfare was originally accepted by taxpayers, so long as the recipients were just like themselves. That race equality also meant the descendants of slaves, or anyone else not of propertied classes also received AFDC was an abomination. An abomination made tolerable by the reality that those redistributed dollars all made it back to the taxpaying, ownership class.
Black-owned businesses made things even worse in the eyes of the conservative believers in the bigoted natural order. Many of you didn't really care that people like Sam Walton, owning stores like Walmart, could sell us goods made in China, and take the profits out of the state of Wisconsin. But for money paid to a black-owned daycare, allowing that black daycare owner to build a house in the suburbs (like everybody white was already doing), now that was just plain unacceptable!
I hate to say it, but that's what this DCF thing all boils down to. Any un-revealed details and contrary facts are immaterial. Just the ideas I mentioned here are enough for most people to have already passed judgment!
Like most of the previously successful working class who had time-clock punching jobs that once paid in excess of $25/hour. The only reason those jobs were "good" was because when you ordered a pizza, or bought a beer at the local pub, those workers that served you were not making anywhere near $25/hour. Equality is not the American dream, having MORE than your neighbor is the dream.
Not so sure the government needs to be involved. Stop welfare, stop Wisconsin share. I was in South America recently. Most countries have no welfare and no government subsidized day care. People get by and are not starving. They night be selling candy on the street corner but they are working. People making as little as $40k-$50k per year can hire a maid. Now that is cool. We need to get rid of welfare, it would drive down labor costs, and maybe foriegn countries would move their factories here for cheap labor instead of us moving jobs overseas. If people had to work, they would work for any price and it would drive down wages to make us more competitive. When I see a guy in the parking lot of Home Depot holding a sign saying he will do anything, I respect that. If I hire him I win, he wins, no taxes, and no welfare involved. Beautiful.
As Isaac Asimov once said to a rich woman whining about how hard it was to find servants, and how easy it was in the old days, "But madam, it is we who would be the servants!" It's easy to hire servants in South America because most of us would be of the servant class, terrified of death squads and eager to be the servants, prostitutes or hired thugs of the rich and powerful.
That guy in the Home Depot parking lot is prostituting himself to you. How is that "beautiful"?