Doug Ducey and his Republican legislative croniesย had $56 million in federal money waiting to be spentย to help cover the cost of child care and early childhood education for low income families. They refused to spend it.
The state didn’t have to put up a penny. All it had to do was add a $56 million line item to its budget, and more low income children would have access to child care services. Ducey and the Republican legislative leaders knew the money was there, they were urged to put it in the budget by child care advocates and by Democrats in the legislature. They just decided not to do it.
When a story in the Sunday Starย brought the unspent $56 million to my attention, I contacted Michelle Crow, Southern Arizona Director of the Children’s Action Alliance, for more details. Next I talked to Democratic Rep. Randy Friese, who represents LD-9, my legislative district, to find out why the money didn’t make it into the budget.ย The more I learned, the worse things got.
In March the federal government included $5.2 billion in its budget to increase the quality of child care and early childhood education across the country. Arizona’s cut of the funds is $56 million, which is supposed to be added to the $125 million Arizona already receives to subsidize child care and early childhood education for children from low income families.
Right now, there’s not enough money to subsidize child care for all the children who need it. As bad or worse, the amount the state allocates per child doesn’t cover the child care provider’s costs. The state Department of Economic Security’sย “Reimbursement Rates for Child Care” schedule is based on what the services should cost. The problem is, the reimbursement rates haven’t changed since 2000. The state is still using an 18 year old rate schedule created at a time when the minimum wage was $5.15 an hour. Today it’s $10.50.
It’s actually worse than that. The DES reimbursement is only 75 percent of going rate in 2000. It’s no surprise Arizona has among the lowest reimbursement rates in the country.
Child care and early childhood education providers can’t possibly cover 2018 expenses at 2000 rates. Even if they wanted to stretch the dollars further by increasing class sizes, like Arizona’s K-12 schools have been forced to do in the face of budget cuts, they can’t.ย The minimum adult-to-child ratio for child care is set. You can’t just add a few more children when money gets tight.
That means providers are in a bind. They’re fine taking children whose parents have the means to pay at a rate that covers the cost of salaries, supplies and overhead, but they lose money every time they take a child from a low income family who pays with a state subsidy.
Arizona has been losing providers of subsidized child care, according to the Star article, because providers can’t afford to take low income children at the current rates.
Arizona families lost 788 providers of subsidized child care between January 2016 and July 31, 2018, including 369 centers and group homes ending their state contracts.
If the additional $56 million Arizona received was added to the current child care subsidies, providers would be able to continueย serving more low income children. But our “education governor” and the Republican legislative leadership purposely left the money out of the budget.
According to Rep. Randy Friese, he brought up the $56 million during aย House Appropriations Committee session. The committee chair, Rep. David Livingston (R, LD-22), told Friese the money wasn’t being appropriated. When Friese asked why, he didn’t get an answer.
During budget discussions on the House floor, Rep. Pamela Powers Hannley (D, LD-9), offered an amendment to include the $56 million in the budget. It was voted down on party lines.
Fortunately, the money isn’t lost. Arizona has three years to spend the $56 million. But children who need child care can’t wait until the governor and the legislative majority decide to allocate the money. The children need the services now.ย Ducey and Republicans in the legislature, all of whom are up for election this year, owe voters an explanation.
Bonus Graphic From DES:ย I was sure I’d have to dig through the Department of Economic Security’s rules and regulations to find a passage saying the child care reimbursement rates are frozen at 75 percent of child care costs for 2000. I was wrong. There it was, proudly displayed in the header at the top of a 2018 reimbursement rate schedule.
This article appears in Aug 9-15, 2018.
Great article David! Thanks so much for covering this super important issue. No reason for the state to sit idly on money that could be used to help families access quality childcare, especially when the need for these services are so great.
(By the way I wanted to add that the $56M is annual funding, not one time funding).
” When Friese asked why, he didn’t get an answer.”
You demand an explanation from people that you don’t talk to, but don’t ask a second question of people you do?
Friese quit when he didn’t get an answer? Is that what you refer to as “representation?” I am not satisfied, and you shouldn’t be either. Plus there are always two sides to every story. It might help some of us to hear the other side. can you get it?
We have voted people in and out expecting better results and they never do come. This would be one more wasted attempt. Self reliance should be promoted as they are now doing in socialist failing countries.
Kathy S, here is the reason Republicans gave to the Star: “Legislators voted in May against spending the money, saying they were unclear about how the states Department of Economic Security planned to use it.” Friese told me that was the answer given to Democrats as well.
It’s a ridiculous answer, of course. The use of the money is limited to improving the quality of child care and early childhood education for children of low income families. It can be put into the budget as a line item for that purpose. It’s ridiculous on another front too. They knew about the money since March, plenty of time to draw up a plan. If you want to use some money offered to you, you draw up a plan, jump through any hoops put in front of you. They didn’t bother because they didn’t want to spend it.
#1 if you’re an objective journalist, referring to legislators as “cronies” or other negative language indicates strong bias. If this article is the equivalent of comedy central or the Limbaugh show, it doesn’t matter but it seems you make an effort to inform not indoctrinate.
#2 if you have a question about legislation, and call two sources who are on the same side of the issue, you haven’t made an attempt to get both sides of the story. Certainly Republicans must have had a reason, even if it was a bad one. Maybe I missed where you called Ducey’s office. Edit, I see you took the quote from the Star in comment .
I’d think if it was no-strings-attached free money they would’ve taken it even though they’re philosophically opposed for the same reason I am: it’s not my job to raise other people’s children.
There is a very clear reason, and it pretty much goes without saying: For the umpteenth time, when it comes to the Republican Party, ideology trumps common sense, basic decency, simple humanity, etc. They would rather refuse to participate in a program that has obvious and well-demonstrated benefits (not just for the kids but for the whole community) than admit that government spending is good for something other than increasing corporate profits and making wealthy people wealthier.
And once again bslap perfectly demonstrates the selfish, moronic mindset of so many people in this country who enable this kind of vicious, self-defeating class warfare. No, of course it’s not your job to raise other people’s children, but it is ALL of our jobs to help. When we pay more for better public schools and programs that benefit kids, it greatly improves their chances of growing up to be healthy, sane, responsible adults. It’s a proven fact, but you’d rather cut your own nose off to spite what you perceive to be someone else’s socialist face. Truly idiotic.
David Safier, thanks for the response, but I read your column to get your informative details, not an unverified opinion of the Star, second or third hand.
In your article you state that Friese did not get an answer, but now in your response to me you say” that “Friese told me that was the answer given to Democrats as well. Isn’t he is a Democrat?
A large part of credibility is consistency. Modifying information gives the reader reason to question accuracy. This seems to be a large part of the problem with journalism today.
Not spending 56 million free dollars is about the stupidest behavior I have ever heard of. Incredible!
Spoken like a true socialist. There is no such thing as free money. Why not donate directly to your cause? Does “shovel ready jobs” ring a bell?
Kathy and Bslap, I’m neither a journalist nor especially objective. What I write is basically an opinion column on The Range. However, I try to be factual and honest, then I draw conclusions from the facts, conclusions you may or may not agree with. I generally link to my source material, as I did here, so you can read the work of a more objective journalist to put what I’ve written in perspective.
Maybe it should posted as Opinion so we may know it. The red byline above the headline says News. I tried to take it that way and was fooled.
Kathy S.,
If one scans higher up (just below TUCSON WEEKLY) the highlighted red byline clearly states NEWS & OPINION. Obviously you fool easily.
Thanks Wise Guy. So is there any news?
There is a reason the money is not being applied, and it may not be the reason Democrats assume or infer that it is. Personally, I wouldnt assume anything about the motives without hearing them explained by those who made the decision, not guessed at by their political opponents. And increasingly, the two sides dont communicate, they just push policy agendas they know that no amount of verbiage would get the other side to agree to.
I have no idea what the motive was here, but in the background of this particular policy debate is the fact that there are different ideas about the way families should be structured and childrens needs met in the different political camps. And given the way one camp works, trying to offer programs or options that end up imposing social change and a particular family structure on people who may not want or need that, it does create a reluctance in the other camp to move forward with funding and programs promoted by their opponents, who have a history of talking about providing choice while the new option they create then turns into the new straight-jacket necessity for most. Women should have the CHOICE to work outside the home morphs into women cant afford NOT to work outside the home. Women should not have to have more children than they want to becomes only rich families can afford to raise and educate more than two children in the U.S., if they expect to pay for their childrens college degrees.
As for the other big issue that is often framed as a choice issue, it would be interesting to know how many people who choose it really feel that, given their economic reality, it is something they have chosen freely, with other good options fully available to them. Ironically, other uses of funding and policy-making power besides the ones usually pushed by the establishment wing of the party of CHOICE might in fact have created broader options and more of a sense of choice rather than necessity for these women. Like, for example, a much higher minimum wage for full time work, fully funded social security and single payer health care systems, and free education at public universities.
Whatever the case, it is a fact that the absence of anything resembling decent public health care and retirement programs and the fact that it is legal for people to be paid so little to work full time in this country have created the need for a lot of government handouts and programs, like the one discussed here, that would not otherwise be necessary. When we get people who work full time for a living out of the situation where they cant afford to pay their own bills, then well be making some progress. Forcing them into certain government-subsidized choices because we choose to allow their employers not to pay them enough to live on is not the only possible solution to their problems. But its the only kind of solution the establishment wing of the Democratic Party ever seems able to come up with.
The way this blog displays on my computer, all that appears under “Tucson Weekly / The Range: The Tucson Weekly’s Daily Dispatch” is “Education Media News Politics.”
No mention of “Opinion.”