Raising reimbursements rates would not mean that fewer families would receive child care assistance. Instead it would mean that families who do receive child care subsidies would be able to afford more providers and could get better quality care for their children. There isn’t one fixed amount of support the state can give working families, where you have to take from one to give to another. By joining together in unions providers in other states have been able to free up funding for kids and families, and get care for kids on waiting lists and improve choices for parents at the same time.
The state agency is opposing Question 3 (scroll to the bottom), but that’s just more proof of why it’s needed. DEEC doesn’t want to involve providers in the decisions that affect us and our kids. The statement they put out says that’s because they need to balance access, affordability, and quality, but with 17,000 kids on the waiting list going without quality child care they obviously aren’t striking the right balance.
We are working to form our union because we want to have a voice in decisions that affect us, and help the state make child care work better for kids, parents and providers. Question 3 wouldn’t let providers make those decisions ourselves, all it would do is give us an official place at the table where the decisions are made.
We also want a voice to support regulations that protect children and help providers keep serving our communities. When providers can’t afford to stay in business, kids end up in child care situations that aren’t regulated at all.
She wrote that some providers take in $40K in payments but what that doesn’t tell you is that most of that goes right back into the cost of providing care, improving your facility to keep up with new standards, and providing nutritional food to your kids. There often isn’t enough left over to make ends meet, much less afford health care.
Providers are independent businesses, but part of our wages and a lot of the conditions that make it hard to keep providing care are up to the state, and right now we don’t have any voice at all in that. That’s why almost a third of providers every year stop doing child care.
We need Question 3 so that we will have a voice to help the families that depend on us and make sure quality child care is there when parents need it. I hope that all parents and providers will see why this initiative is good for Massachusetts children.
Betsy Yarra
Question 3 is no brainer for democrats. Not only is the right decision, Family Providers have a right to decide if they want collective bargaining and deserve a seat at the table. But also, the labor movement is a critical component of the progressive coalition. A stronger labor movmement will help elect politicians who will fight for working families.
That is something I didn’t know. Is there a source for that number?
<
p>
That is deplorable. Why do Mitt Romney and Kerry Healey let kids go without quality daycare?
There are about 14,000 children on the waitlist, and of that about 9,800 are pre-school aged.
<
p>
CCRC report
SFC report
< a href=”http://www.eec.state.ma.us/docs/REChildrenWaitbyAgeGrouping.pdf”>EEC report</a?
The numbers have dropped under the Romney administration following the formation of the EEC and consolidation of mulitple lists (removing duplicate entries, etc.). But there is still a lot of work to be done. Funding is only one issue. If I thought that collective bargaining provided an even playing field for management and workers, I wouldn’t be so against the proposal. But, I believe it not only would give providers an upper-hand in negotiations (and yes, I do believe that would be a bad thing because balance is an important issue), I think it would also bring the progress being made to a standstill — with contract negotiations, lawsuits, legislative process, etc..
There has got to be something wrong with the current system to keep 10,000+ customers waiting. If the providers were being compensated properly the businesses would exist to serve that.
<
p>
Looks broken to me.
<
p>
Do any other states have this proposed system in place? What are those waiting lists like? {not necessarily directed at you, dweir, just anyone who knows.}
But it’s only about a year old. Lots of info here. I found one report from Jan. 2005 that said there was a waitlist of over 10,000 for pre-K care alone.
Betsy, thank you so much for clarifying this issue. Now I’m going to vote “yes,” but I didn’t understand the question before, so I was going to vote “no.”
<
p>
I hope you will send your letter to newspapers as a letter to the editor. Maybe it will influence a larger number of people as it influenced me.
it’s a no-brainer.
So I have a home daycare provider that I couldn’t be happier with, so here’s where I’m torn.
What is the benefit to ME, in adding another bargaining unit to the system?
Is there an example of a similar consumor driven system where service has improved for the customer because of the introduction of a bargaining unit?
And most importantly, the claim that services will not cost more. Is this just a nice way of saying that I will not be paying anything more directly to my provider, but costs still need to come from somewhere? I have no interest as someone who can afford to pay for a service, but still relies on that service to have others contribute to system that wasn’t broken for me in the first place.
<
p>
Not trying to argumentative, just really want to understand this question better. Something about the language in the question is tickling my libertarian streak something fierce.
If you don’t want to join the union, then what can happen to you? Given the anti-trust exemption granted by this proposal, it seems that it would be possible for the union to exclude providers who don’t choose to join the union from some of the business. I don’t think I like that.
<
p>
If the proposal did not have the anti-trust exemption, I might vote for it.
<
p>
That is based on Taft-hartley.
<
p>
The way a union election works is the members of the bargaining unit vote. If a 50% plus one vote to unionize, then the union negotiates a contract that applies to the entire bargaining unit. A contract can not include a provision that requires union membership.
<
p>
The Union (or union staff – since it is my view that the members are the union) is required to represent all members of the bargaining unit – regardless of union membership. Therefore some contract have a fair share fee which pays for negotiations and represenation and therefore can not be higher than dues. That is called democracy. I didn’t vote for George Bush, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t my president.
What is the intent of the anti-trust exemption?
<
p>
I have not seen an explanation of that yet.
Question 3 will do nothing to change the amount of funding the state puts into early education and care and, as far as I can tell, it won’t improve the quality of childcare.
<
p>
It is not true that family child care providers don’t have input into quality standards: in Boston the state early child care grant goes to the Boston Community Partnerships for Children. See here: http://www.massresou…) for more information on CPCs). The CPC allocates this money for direct services, in the form of vouchers for childcare and also for indirect services which support daycare providers, like continuing education and accreditation programs. The CPC Governing Council has representatives from the Boston Public Schools, family daycare providers, and other agencies providing childcare–like here, for example: http://www.bostonabc… In addition, the CPC Governing Council meetings are open to the public and there are always family daycare providers present who are not board members but are free to participate in the discussions. There are also local cluster meetings in Boston neighborhoods for family daycare providers. In Boston at least, there are many opportunities for family childcare providers to have their voices heard. The Boston CPC also does advocacy work with the State Dept. of Early Education and Care to make sure that the interests of all of the members of the CPC are represented–a specific point was made this year to reexamine reimbursement rates for family daycare providers.
<
p>
The real problem is that voucher reimbursement rates for family daycare providers are lower than for other childcare providers, but allowing family childcare providers to collectively bargain will not raise those reimbursement rates–the tradeoff is fewer voucher slots if one wants higher reimbursement rates. Fewer families will have access to childcare if reimbursement rates go up–to say that will not happen is absolutely not true. Besides, most family daycare providers only have a few voucher slots out of their total number of slots available–my daughter’s daycare had two voucher slots and eight market rate slots. Incidentally, my daughter’s daycare provider is opposed to Question 3.
<
p>
What is needed is for the state to understand the true cost of providing family daycare and making sure that the money is made available in the state budget to maintain the same number of vouchers and to raise reimbursement rates. I don’t see how a union is going to make that happen–the money allocation and rate determination mechanism just doesn’t work like a traditional collective bargaining system because the local CPC gets a block grant from the state.
<
p>
I don’t have a dog in this fight–I’m just a private citizen who is a consumer of childcare, albeit one who has been doing a lot of work with the Boston CPC so I’ve been giving this a lot of thought. Take it for what it is worth.
outside of Boston. Boston Boston Boston.
<
p>
A YES vote will ensure the rest of the child care providers outside of Boston have a voice at the table.
Really? Childcare providers can exist outside of Boston? I had no idea. That’s really not much of a rebuttal, now is it? Childcare providers outside of Boston are not “voiceless” and CPCs are not an invention of Boston, they exist throughout the state. I won’t pretend to speak for other CPCs which is why I focused on Boston. There are currently 154 CPC lead agencies throughout Massachusetts responsible for administering state early education and childcare grant money: http://www.eec.state…
<
p>
Again, the important point is that the mechanism for providing quality childcare and increased payments to family childcare providers isn’t as simple as a union negotiating with the state for higher rates–family childcare provders aren’t employees of the state for one thing and, as I noted before, money for early childcare is often received by a local CPC as a block grant. So who would the union negotiate with? The State? The local CPC?
<
p>
Those interested in learning more about how CPCs operate should visit: http://www.eec.state… where you can find the FY07 CPC RFR, budget, and other documents.
<
p>
Also: http://www.massresou…
<
p>
Who runs the Community Partnership programs?
<
p>
The Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care (EEC) funds the programs. Various types of community organizations apply for grants to start Community Partnership programs in their communities. Depending on where you live, your CPC program may be run by your local public school department, community action council, or other community organization interested in early childhood programs.
I have some questions about this. First, I appreciate this comment by
<
p>
charlesfosterkane: “The real problem is that voucher reimbursement rates for family daycare providers are lower than for other childcare providers”
<
p>
This helps me begin to understand this issue. Thank you.
<
p>
You seem to be saying that this issue is about reimbursement rates for family day care providers who are paid by the state. I did not realize that so many home providers were actually getting paid by state voucher.
<
p>
I thought the state tended to cover vouchers for institutional or corporate day care centers, but not for family day care homes? How many home day care providers are actually able to participate in the state programs and receive subsidized payments (or voucher slots)?
<
p>
I did child care in my home 18 or so years ago, so I’m sure the landscape has changed since then.
<
p>
My understanding is that institutionalized providers have been quite successful in lobbying for their style of daycare (with licensed teachers etc.) over the home care providers. Perhaps this question is more about trying to find a way to tip the balance a little more toward the home care providers (I’m not saying this the way to go, I’m just trying to understand the issue). Home daycare providers are a great alternative for many families, and quality can be excellent. In my experience, it is a very personal relationship.
<
p>
While I was in touch with other home care providers, I could not have imagined joining a “union” of independent family day care providers. So I don’t really get what this question is about or even asking for.
<
p>
Collectively bargain?? A private home day care mom (or dad, I suppose) charges so much and makes an agreement with individual parents, whose children are in their care. What would be the point of a union?
<
p>
This must have some thing to do with those private home day care providers who are looking to the state to pay for children in their care, that is those children who receive (or whose parents receive) subsidies in the form of vouchers.
<
p>
It looks to me that this question must be about (logically) raising the rates that the state pays for kids who are cared for in private home day care situations.
<
p>
Am I wrong about that? Is this question basically about raising reimbursement rates?
<
p>
Why then is it being billed as a “union” issue?
<
p>
I do have to say that in my experience, reimbursement rates for food did not even cover the cost of the food, and did not compensate for the hours spent filling out the paperwork in order to get the subsidy. It was not even a wash, I figured it cost me money (time) to participate in the food program.
<
p>
Perhaps this is at the bottom of this issue.
<
p>
If so, I still don’t see how calling for “unions” is the solution.
<
p>
And, I am very much pro-union.
<
p>
That being said, charlesfosterkane’s comment: “Fewer families will have access to childcare if reimbursement rates go up–to say that will not happen is absolutely not true.” does not make any sense to me and does not clear up the issue of what this question is really about and what it proposes to do.
<
p>
I would also appreciate more of an explanation about this statement:
<
p>
” Besides, most family daycare providers only have a few voucher slots out of their total number of slots available–my daughter’s daycare had two voucher slots and eight market rate slots.”
<
p>
My guess would be that most family day care providers have NO voucher slots, but maybe things have changed in the past two decades, since I was a home day care provider. My understanding was that by far most of those subsidies go to institutional providers. What kind of rigamarole do you have to go through to get one of those voucher slots if you are a family provider?
<
p>
Could you say why your daughter’s daycare provider is opposed to Q3?? (“Incidentally, my daughter’s daycare provider is opposed to Question 3.”)
<
p>
Thank you.
They were given the right to make that decision, they voted and a majority voted to unionize. That gives them a right to bargain over reimbursement rates.
<
p>
It also gives them a collective voice, a democratic organization that they control. As william greider points out in “Who will tell the people” these type of mediating institutions are critical in the democratic process. Other organizations looking out for children and early education are also important, but an organization made up by family providers is also critical.
<
p>
Unions are the way for working people to have their voice heard. It’s not theoretical, that’s how its worked.
I should have been more clear: most of the family childcare providers who choose to receive state vouchers only have one or two spots dedicated to vouchers–I can’t think of any family childcare provider whose income is dependent solely on vouchers or even 50% dependent on vouchers. The pool of family childcare providers who do not receive vouchers at all is much much larger.
<
p>
When I said, “Fewer families will have access to childcare if reimbursement rates go up–to say that will not happen is absolutely not true.” The pool of money granted to a CPC for early childcare is finite. You have only so many ways of slicing up the pie: if you have $100, you can provide four slots at $25, 3 slots at $33.33, or 2 slots at $50. The goal should be to expand the pool of money (which the state has cut greatly over the past five years) available for childcare which will increase the number of vouchers as well as calculating the true costs of providing family childcare and making sure reimbursement rates increase. Since the state has not shown a willingness to increase the total amount of money available, if reimbursement rates go up the number of children served will decrease.
If reimbursement rates go up, either child care money will have to increase (i.e. raise taxes) or else the number of subsidized kids will decrease.
<
p>
Yes on 3 will either 1) raise taxes or otherwise allocate spending to childcare subsidy or 2) reduce number of kids subsidized or 3) reduce dollar value of subsidy per child.
<
p>
I just don’t see a forth choice.
<
p>
Didn’t the Legislature vote to allow collective bargaining sometime ago and didn’t Romney veto it? Assuming the vote goes no on 3 (which it will), do you suppose the Legislature will again vote for collective bargaining in the face of a voter referendum?
the only daycare providers who will be able to benefit from the system are the institutions with large numbers who can make it up by charging full paying customers more. It is in essence a “tax” on the working families who are paying full prices for child care at large non-profit or corporate institutional care.
<
p>
The institutions can make up the difference on the non-subsidized rates, whereas family/home daycare providers can’t do that (as easily), so the low subsidized rates just keeps private home providers out of the voucher reimubursement pool.
<
p>
The opponents of this question seem to be in favor of a system (the current one) in which home daycare providers are effectively shut out of the state reimbursement opportunities. It also limits poor families to institutionalized care, rather than say being able to bring their children to a neighbor’s house (or friend or family member) to be cared for in their home.
<
p>
I see this question as limiting the options of poor working parents who need daycare options and must rely on subsidized care.
<
p>
I think I will vote yes on this question on general principle because it would give more options for poor working mothers, and/or those who are going to school.
One problem is that there is a fixed amount of support that the state can give to working families – the state has money set aside for income-eligible childcare slots and those slots are distributed to various agencies and private family child care providers who chose to contract with the state. There are three types of funding for state-subsidized childcare: CPC funding (which has been explained well), voucher funding, and basic income-eligible slots. In order for a family child care provider to provide subsidized care to a family who qualifies they need to either: contract with their local CPC, contract with their local voucher agency, and/or contract with a family child care system that holds an income-eligible child care contract with the state. Once the slots are full, children have to be waitlisted. As slots are vacated, children are enrolled off the waitlist. I work with this every day – there is not one way that I can see Question #3 increasing access to childcare for children on the waitlist.
<
p>
I do not disagree that family child care providers should have a voice at the table – they have extremely demanding jobs and I know that a lot of time profit goes right back into supplies/training/etc. I know that it is a highly regulated field – but why shouldn’t it be? As both a parent and a professional, I wouldn’t expect anything less. Should providers have a voice in the regulations? Sure, but I cannot imagine that all of the providers who are going out of business are doing so because of the regulations – they are minimal standards and that is the truth. They are going out of business because it is an extrememly draining and demanding job – emotionlly, financially, and physically. These providers deserve our respect and our admiration and our efforts to promote the field. I don’t personally think Quesiton 3 accomplishes any of that.
If question 3 leads to an increase in rates for home daycare providers who take subsidized kids, then there will be more home daycare providers willing to open up such slots, and fewer who refuse or stop (because it is financially impossible for them to provide services for such little compensation). Why should there be an expectation that daycare providers should be willing to be drained “emotionally, financially, and physically” when we don’t expect other workers to be so abused. What is your point?
SunderlandRoad:
<
p>
Please answer this question, “What leverage does a union have to raise reimbursement rates for family daycare providers?” The key point in all of this is that family daycare providers are not employees of the state. They file a Schedule C just like any other small business. Are they going to go on strike if rates don’t go up? In that case, the voucher money left unused by family childcare providers will simply roll over into other voucher slots offered by other providers.
<
p>
As I’ve explained, the Boston CPC is already working to raise reimbursement rates for family childcare providers and since it consists of people who have worked in the field for years, it has a much better understanding of how to accomplish this goal than a union with no experience in the matter. Furthermore, how much will union dues be a year for family childcare providers? How much of a raise in rates will be necessary to compensate for the cost of joining the union?
serving as a conduit for the voices of home day care providers? Unions are not perfect, but the institutional players have more of a voice, and political power, and they have no real incentive to include or represent the independent operators. Sounds like the types of groups you are talking about (“CPC”) are not helping much either. You say your organization is “working to raise reimbursement rates for family childcare providers,” and that’s good, but what makes your approach better than one that seeks to represent the daycare providers. I assume people who work for the CPC are also paid. Who pays their salaries? Where does the money come from? Do the childcare providers pay fees for your/their services, too? If not, then how can it be said that the CPC represents their interests? Just wondering.
You seem to be laboring under many misconceptions. First, the Boston CPC is a volunteer organization with a governing council of representatives from the Boston Public Schools, independent family childcare providers, institutional providers, and other interested parties. I’m not sure about the composition of all the CPCs statewide–you’d have to check into that yourself. I’m not sure where you get the idea that the CPC is an “institutional provider”. Every meeting I attend has numerous family childcare providers in attendance and the CPC has its own standing Family Childcare Committee. I’m not sure why you persist in saying family childcare providers are not represented in this process.
<
p>
The CPC oversees the grant Boston receives from the state for early childcare services, just as CPCs throughout the state do–I gave the number of CPCs in an earlier comment. The CPC IS NOT a direct service provider. It represents those who are service providers. The majority of the grant money goes into direct care–the vouchers which income eligible parents use to help pay for childcare. The indirect services overseen by the Boston CPC include helping train childcare providers, continuing education classes, quality issues, and acredidation. Very few people get paid (you get food at the meeting so I guess that’s payment of some sort) and there is one staff person from the Boston Public Schools who organizes the meetings of the CPC and its committees.
<
p>
It is virtually impossible to give a concise description of the advocacy work the Boston CPC and other CPCs throughout the state do, but since the CPC consists of childcare professionals–including family childcare providers–a diverse group of needs and interests are represented. Most of the last year was spent battling budget cuts for early childcare in Massachusetts and a significant restoration of funding was made from the initial proposed budget. This year one of the efforts of the Boston CPC is to account for the true cost of family childcare and work to raise reimbursement rates. Who would be better at understanding this process–professionals who have worked as childcare providers and know the ins and outs of the state childcare budget and the Department of Early Education and Care or the SEIU? I’m willing to bet on the professionals.
<
p>
Again, what will help early childcare in Massachusetts is increased funding for early childcare and deciding that we, as a Commonwealth, understand and value early education. The union has no leverage–none–to raise reimbursement rates. I think that unions are generally a good thing, but in this case I don’t think they can deliver any of what they promise.
<
p>
You might want to read this:
<
p>
http://www.earlychil…
I did not say that CPC’s are “insitutional providers.” I don’t know anything about CPCs. I was just responding to what you were saying. The institutional providers are just that, organizations, whether for profit or not for profit that provide childcare services–as opposed to home-based licensed daycare providers.
<
p>
It’s great that your CPC is made up of volunteers with support from the public schools. In terms of who you “represent,” it sounds like you represent many different players, including home providers, but not just home providers. My point was just that it makes sense for home care providers to look for representation or a way to amplify their voices, or their point of view, on this issue (reimbursement). Of course, this only applies or is relevant to those home daycare providers who participate in that voucher program.
<
p>
Honestly, I don’t really understand why this is a ballot question. I mean why do we have to vote on whether or not home daycare providers can join together in a “union.” Why can’t they just do it?
<
p>
Perhaps it does have to do with who they would be negotiating with. Who would that be? Well I dont’ know, but ultimately it would be the Legislature and/or some agency?
<
p>
Charles, are the CPC’s a product of the Dept. of Education? What does CPC stand for?
<
p>
Also, you insist that a union would have “no leverage” to raise rates, but if the home day care providers created and stood behind the union, the union would have that base of power, authority, or legitimacy at the very least. No, the union would have no power to raise rates, the legislature (I believe) would.
My point was that providers are not leaving the field because of overly strict regulations. Some previous posters had indicated that the union was needed to advocate for providers re: the strict regulations they are required to follow. Providers are heavily regulated by the state but that is not why they quit…in my opinion. It was a separate point from the financial aspect.
<
p>
Financially, providers who accept state contracts (and this is done primarily through family child care systems – systems that already advocate on behalf of their providers by the way!) are reimbursed at a lower daily rate than they could get privately – that is true. However, I do not believe that a union is going to get them a higher rate. If a higher rate was by some small chance negotiated, I belive the number of slots available to families who need state slots would be reduced.
<
p>
Providers who accept state contracts through family child care systems know they could make more privately, but by and large they join systems for the other benefits they provide. From what I have seen, health care is a bigger issue for these providers than actual reimbursement rates. I don’t see how a union is going to get these providers health care but to me, that is a bigger selling point than rates.
Question 3 In spite of its possible benefits of collective bargaining, I currently plan to vote no on Question 3 – It is more pro-union than pro-child or pro-family child care. Question 3 has been pushed to the ballot by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) under the premise of being good for children. It primarily effects Family Child Cares (FCC) which are small child care businesses licensed for a maximum of 6-10 children in residential homes regulated by the Commonwealth’s Department of Early Education & Care (EEC.) Currently Family Child Care Providers receive very low voucher and subsidy rates which often leave them with earnings below minimum wage. I want to make it very clear that Family Child Care (FCC) providers want and need to collectively negotiate subsidy rates, regulations and other issues with the Commonwealth. Yet, most FCC providers that I have communicated with across Mass. are against this proposed legislation.
Here are some major issues: 1. FCC providers are business owners, not employees – many FCC providers are employers of assistant teachers posing complex issues for a union designed for employees. An association of providers would be a more appropriate bargaining entity. FCC providers can and do currently affect change through associations without this legislation, however, FCC does need much greater influence. This legislation was created with little or no FCC input and favors the “employee organization” that pushed it through – SEIU. 2. FCC providers wish to retain their right to choose an organization which best meets their needs. This legislation requires one exclusive bargaining entity and mandates 2 years before it could be removed. FCC providers should have the right to choose whether they wish to belong to a collective bargaining entity, and which organization they belong to. It could be nearly impossible to decertify or get rid of SEIU if they become the exclusive representative and under perform. They are a very large organization that is willing to fight for a new national membership base of FCC providers. 3. The timing for implementation of this legislation allows little time for an alternative FCC lead and owned organization that could better serve FCC needs. SEIU has been gathering signature cards in preparation for pushing this legislation through – many FCC providers have complained about SEIU’s high pressure card signing tactics. FCC providers want a choice. 4. If a Union becomes the exclusive bargaining agency it is very likely that all costs (FCC provider costs, taxpayer costs, and costs to the families providers serve) would increase to support the Union. An organization lead and owned by FCC providers would likely place funding back into resources and benefits for the FCC providers and families they serve.
<
p> The “in favor” argument on the voter pamphlet is deserving of the included disclaimer – “The Commonwealth of Massachusetts…does not certify the truth or accuracy of any statement made in these arguments.” This legislation is good for SEIU! However, this legislation could negatively effect FCC providers and the children they serve. FCC would have to foot the bill and be subject to additional labor organizing laws. There are about 12,000 licensed and 8,000 active FCC programs state wide who could be required to pay union dues whether they wanted to be in the union or not, with no guarantee of additional benefits, and no way out. This legislation could also significantly reduce the number of FCC programs willing to accept subsidized funding to those that wish to belong to a union. Child care costs would almost surely increase. This legislation also affects “Kith & Kin” which are licensed exempt child care arrangements for subsidized care of relatives – I am not familiar enough with “Kith & Kin” to speak on their behalf.
<
p> This is my interpretation of Question 3 as a FCC provider who has been in business for 18 years and accepts subsidies (voucher and community partnership slots.) I am a leader in the field and belong to many FCC organizations through which I am in touch with hundreds of FCC providers by e-mail, meetings & phone. Providers are still looking into all aspects of this legislation and the views stated here reflect the current views of a significant number of providers.