No. 11 November 19, 1998

What do you get when you mix sentiment and politics rather than logic and facts with a California government commission on day care? You get a result that may actually harm access to affordable and safe child care for California families participating in both private and government programs.

The Little Hoover Commission is a bipartisan, independent state oversight agency that submits its recommendations for state government reform to the governor and the legislature. The Commission’s report, Caring for Our Children: Our Most Important Investment, is guided by the premise that, without the state’s seal of approval, parents do not have the capacity to seek and provide safe child care for their children – not even when grandma provides that care.

The commission’s report recommends that:

"the Governor and the Legislature should enact legislation requiring relatives providing license-exempt care to pass a TrustLine background clearance in order to be paid for providing subsidized child care";

"Legislation also should be enacted requiring license-exempt providers to pass health and safety inspections conducted by the Department of Social Services…"; and,

following France’s lead, California should establish a universal preschool program that would be phased in over the next ten years at an annual cost to California taxpayers of $5 billion.

In other words, the government, not parents, would be the arbiter in determining whether grandma poses a criminal or safety threat to children. Furthermore, these recommendations presume that the same public education system, which currently fails to teach children to read and keep them safe, could assess and serve children’s needs better than parents’ available options. If these recommendations ring of big government run amok, they should.

The temptation to increase government rules and oversight for day care may be difficult for lawmakers to resist, especially since this issue is politically and emotionally charged. But before California lawmakers endorse the Little Hoover Commission’s recommendations, they should make every effort to approach this issue with logic rather than sentiment and answer the key question: what are the best approaches to promoting quality and affordable child care for California’s families?

Regulations. A 1995 study conducted by the Rand Institute found that increased state regulations on child care providers increased costs and encouraged people to leave formal child care in favor of informal child care arrangements, such as a relative or neighbor. While it may be reasonable to provide some minimal requirements for child care providers, the fervor of "protecting" children has created over-regulation – deterring many from providing these services.

Today multiple layers of government bureaucracy already regulate most formal child-care facilities. 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.

Subsidies. Providing additional government subsidies, which is another Little Hoover recommendation, may actually increase the costs of child care for all families. A recent study by the U.S. Congressional Joint Economic Committee reports that government subsidies for college tuition have actually increased higher education costs faster than the rate of inflation, making higher education 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 for these increases. Similarly, government subsidies of child care could precipitate higher prices for child-care services.

Californians pay income and sales taxes at rates far higher than the national average. A tax cut provides solutions by allowing parents to keep more of their earnings. Some may decide to spend more time at home rather than the office. Others would be able to purchase the child-care options that best suit their needs.

Now, what do you get when you mix reason with free-market approaches to providing affordable, accessible, and safe child care? Safe and affordable day-care options that work for California families.

* Naomi Lopez is director of the Pacific Research Institute’s Center for Enterprise and Opportunity.

For additional information, contact Naomi Lopez at (415) 989-0833.