advertisement

Missouri Early Head Start cuts to take effect soon

Monday, June 11, 2012 | 2:03 p.m. CDT

KANSAS CITY — Social service agencies will be deciding soon which poor families in Missouri will be losing their state-funded child care because of a budget cut approved by the legislature during the closing days of the last session.

Lawmakers cut state funding for Early Head Start programs nearly in half, from $5.67 million to $2.65 million, as part of the state's budget battle. The agencies that distribute the state's Early Head Start funds will be deciding in the next few days which people will get to keep their spots in the free programs beginning July 1.

Missouri's Department of Social Services last week distributed new contracts for providers under the reduced funding.

"Talk about being Solomon," said Jim Caccamo, the director of early learning at the Mid-America Regional Council. "Which kids do you pick out? (The providers) will have criteria, but, still, how'd you like to be the one to tell that family?"

The Kansas City Star reports that early childhood programming had been underfunded but escaped state cuts in recent years. But Jeremy LaFaver, a lobbyist for early childhood interests, said they couldn't escape lawmakers' work during the last week of the 2012 legislative session.

A budget offered by Gov. Jay Nixon and the House of Representatives avoided many of the cuts, relying on an amnesty program for delinquent taxpayers that would have generated an estimated $70 million in revenue, said Rep. Ryan Silvey, a Kansas City Republican. But the Senate rejected the tax amnesty plan and submitted a budget with sharper cuts.

Silvey led a joint conference committee that hammered out a compromise budget before the session ended May 18. He said that without the tax amnesty plan, the committee was forced to make hard decisions, including the cuts to Early Head Start.

"It was a matter of trying to find priorities for both of us," he said. "It was important to me we did the best that we could."

Dean Olson, vice president for programming at The Family Conservancy in Kansas City, said he fears that a poor family that suddenly has to figure out how to pay for child care may turn to unregulated providers. Missouri law allows anyone to provide care in their home, without being licensed, for up to four children. That's in addition to children related to the provider.

"A major concern with parents who lose care is where are they going to go?" Olson said. "In unregulated care there are no inspections, no training."


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Ray Shapiro June 11, 2012 | 8:43 p.m.

How did parents and children ever survive raising their babies before government funded Head Start programs?
Oh yea.
Families bonded together and shared baby rearing time with grandparents, aunts & uncles, neighboring moms, church programs, baby sitters and personal sacrifices.
Let the private charities help the poor unwed moms who has been abandoned by their own parents and have the government remove at-risk babies from those who can't figure out what to do with the reduction of government funded baby sitting services.
Improve adoption services and foster care alternatives to bring these babies up in safer, smarter homes.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle June 11, 2012 | 9:24 p.m.

Having the government take custody of at-risk babies isn't exactly going to be a money-saver. In fact, it's just a whole 'nother can of worms. Daddy-O.

One good way to improve adoption services is to allow gay couples to adopt. Otherwise, I don't think there will be enough "safer, smarter" homes for those babies who are now wards of the state. Outcomes for foster children are dismal; throwing out the word, "alternatives" doesn't achieve anything useful. Perhaps we should allow Catholic priests have them?

Quite frankly, those daycare centers are 'safer, smarter' homes for those kids, for at least a few hours a day. Do we really want to remove that, in exchange for the idea (but no real action) that we (meaning "private charity") should do something better?

Whatever the "something else good" is, it's quite unlikely to happen. That's a hard, cold fact that all these wonderful ideas run up against.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro June 12, 2012 | 1:08 p.m.

Derrick:
With all the money poured into head start programs the achievement gap has not improved, kindergarten reading readiness from those attending head start programs have not improved. All it's done is provide jobs for black women wanting jobs in government paid early childhood baby-sitting services because Hillary opines that "it takes a village."
Must it be a governmnet-run village to raise a child?

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro June 13, 2012 | 11:20 a.m.

Jumpstart, not Head Start, seems to be a better approach. (It also comes across far less FUBU then Head Start, in my opinion.)
http://www.jstart.org/site/PageServer?pa...

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements