3. J. K. L. M. The basis of the presented bill is the importance of and strength of the family. They should be involved at all stages of planning, implementation and evaluation. The 50% local committee participation is excellent. Whether they are employed should not be questioned. If they seek this service, it should be available to their children. Nor should there be objection to employment of parents whose children are in the program as long as there is adequate professional supervision. This need should again be met on individual program needs. It should be This would be an individual grantee decision upon need for the facility in a local community. It is possible that many programs would be operational on a 12-hour basis. This would be determined by the ages of the children involved. It should be supplementary to the on-going school program where applicable. By involving teachers and community representatives at a local level on the advisory committee, this can be accomplished. At the hearing in response to a question from Congressman Brademas, I said that in my opinion the public schools should not be excluded from these programs. Nor should the public schools have exclusive jurisdiction or control. The public schools should be permitted to participate, if they so desire, under the same regulations and guidelines as any other sponsor. Mr. BRADEMAS. Finally, today, we are very pleased to hear from Mrs. Dorothy Lasday, a member of the national board of the National Council of Jewish Women, and vice chairwoman of the national affairs committee of the National Council of Jewish Women. We are very pleased to have you with us. STATEMENT OF DOROTHY LASDAY, MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL BOARD OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN; VICE CHAIRWOMAN OF THE NATIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN Mrs. LASDAY. I am Dorothy Lasday, member of the national board and vice chairwoman of the national affairs committee of the National Council of Jewish Women. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today in support of an issue of great concern to us. While my comments are the position of the council, they reflect some of my personal experiences in the communities where I live. I am chairman of the Dutchess County child development committee, an advisory committee of the county legislature, and an officer of the New York State Association of Child Care Councils. At the time I moved to New York State in 1971, I was serving on the steering committee for a Virginia 4-C's council, which has since come into existence. The National Council of Jewish Women, with a membership of over 100,000 in 189 local sections throughout the United States, has had a concern for the welfare of all children and the strengthening of family life since its inception in 1893. At our last biennial convention in Miami in March 1973, our delegates approved the following resolution: HEALTH AND WELFARE The National Council of Jewish Women believes that a healthy community, sound family life, and individual welfare are interdependent * *** it therefore resolves * * * 5. To work for the expansion, development and adequate financing of quality comprehensive child care programs. As at our conventions in years past, a similar resolution is certain to be adopted at our biennial convention in San Francisco next month. Such resolutions are not only the expression of our positions, but the basis of our local and national activities for community services, education, study for social action, and social action itself. Social action in this case includes successful efforts to ungrade State child dav care standards in recent years-Michigan and Louisiana being two States that come to mind--and to provide more adequate funding for child dav care, such as in Oregon, when the newly imposed social services ceiling made cuts in services necessary in 1972-73. Concerted action had the cuts distributed evenly through all services and not mostly from dav care. It must be obvious that the National Council of Jewish Woman supports the intent of the Child and Family Services Act. As a result of our 1970 national survey on day care, directed by Mary Dublin Keyserling, and published as "Windows on Day Care," which I have here, we determined that legislation to provide badly needed comprehensive child care services for those families desiring them must include: 1. Well-defined standards not lower than those of the interagency requirements of 1968. 2. Parental involvement in development of programs. 3. Opportunities for socioeconomic mix among enrollees in day care facilities. 4. Funds for training of child care personnel. 5. Allocation of public funds (grants) to public and private nonprofit agencies only. 6. Full subsidization of quality care for children of low-income families and partial subsidization, on a sliding scale, for children whose families are above the poverty level, but not able to afford the full costs of care. The proposed Child and Family Services Act of 1975 (S. 626 and H.R. 2966) appears to include all of these. Yet we suggest that the following need to be considered carefully as they relate to this bill: 1. Standards for child day care services: With the enactment of title XX of the Social Security Act, effective October 1, 1975, for the first time Federal minimum standards for child day care have been enacted into law by the 93d Congress, as the basis for Federal reimbursement. Of necessity, section 201 (a) of the proposed Child and Family Services Act must be changed to reflect this. In January, when I reported on the newly legislated standards to our national affairs committee and then to our national subcommittee on child development, our pleasure at the enactment into law of child care standards was more than a little diminished because the enacted standards are lower than the 1968 Inter-Agency Day Care Requirements in two major areas: (a) The educational component in child care programs is recommended, not mandated, for reimbursement from social services funds; and (b) Staff ratios for school age children were raised from the current 1 to 10 requirement to a ratio of 1 to 15 for children age 9 and younger, and 1 to 20 for children ages 10 to 14. There is ample evidence in the many studies funded by the Office of Child Development of the importance of educational programing, even for infants and toddlers. Certainly, there can be no educational services with such staff/child ratios for school-age children. The situation becomes a nightmare in terms of the 80 school-free days per year when the child is in the program a full day. Our support of the 1968 Interagency Requirements was reexamined last fall. At the request of NCJW's executive committee, our position on day care standards was carefully reviewed at the annual joint meeting of the national committees on community activities and on national affairs, November 7, 1974. We found that the following recommendations from "Windows on Day Care," chapter IX, page 229, is as valid today as when written: Improving Standards and Their Enforcement: We recommend that any legislation to expand funding for child care services provide for the development of Federal child care standards which local programs would have to meet to be eligible for funding, no less comprehensive than the 1968 Federal Interagency Requirements approved by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; the Office of Economic Opportunity and the Department of Labor. The joint committee meeting reaffirmed the support of the National Council of Jewish Women for the 1968 Interagency Day Care Requirements for Federal financial support for day care for children. We want to make clear that such standards should apply not only to Head Start and ESEA day care projects and, of course, those funded under social services-currently title IV-A, later title XX of the Social Security Act-but also to child care services provided through increases in the cash grants to ADC working mothers. Presently, there is no accountability for expenditure of these funds, whether in licensed care in day care centers or family day care homes, or in unlicensed, inadequate, or unsafe care, or even if it is spent at all for child care. Hopefully, the Child and Family Services Coordinating Council, section 201 (a), could provide a mechanism for attacking the problem. 2. Parental involvement in development of programs: National Council of Jewish Women has consistently supported parental involvement in development of programs for their children. Again quoting "Windows on Day Care," page 7: We also recommend the establishment of representative, local child and family service policy councils, with a high degree of parental participation. It is recommended that Federal funds be allocated to help support these functions. This mechanism would provide a useful means for utilizing those local 4-C-Community Coordinated Child Care-committees which meet accepted criteria. But one of our experienced members on the child development subcommittee wrote a word of caution, with specific reference to the bill now under consideration: Fifty-one percent parent membership on the Board represents some problems and should perhaps be modified. While the intent is good, it often leads to a large number of Board members who do not have time to really do leg work, or do not have the experience. Can a mechanism be developed which gives parents the voice they must have in programs for their children and yet, at the same time, provide for the community support these programs need to function effectively? Unless a center is 100 percent federally funded for its full budget, in this time of inflation, no day care center can exist without community support and cooperation. In 1970, a committee, chaired by Dr. Urie Bronfenbrenner, distinguished professor of psychology and child development at Cornell University, developed a "Statement of Principles-Day Care U.S.A." published by the Office of Child Development: The day care center should become the focus of social and service programs involving families, neighbors, local businesses, civic organizations, and any other agencies in the community. This enables the entire community to become aware of and actively concerned with the children in its midst. The day care program has the responsibility of serving as a bridge to the larger community in which the child lives. We share these concepts. I have come to recognize how important they are through my involvement with the Dutchess County Child Development Committee and its coordination efforts for the activities of 12 licensed county centers, five of them Head Start. Most children in full-time day care centers are from families where the adults are employed full time. Working parents also have responsibility for care of their homes and families, which fully occupies evenings and weekends. Very few have the additional time or energy to carry the continuing load of the child day care center board responsibility-planning and executing that extra fundraising event needed. because costs have spiraled, or the "big wheels," or the dishwasher must be replaced or attending meetings to prepare the presentation for United Fund budget allocation review-or to develop staff job descriptions or to paint tables. Moreover, in many areas of our country, there are no State or local tax funds to provide the local share, 20 percent after 1979. For example, I understand that United Funds provide the local share for those centers receiving Federal funds in Ohio. This limited time availability applies across the socioeconomic spectrum alike to the working middle-income and the working ADC parent. Parents want to become involved. They rightfully demand to be part of the decisionmaking process affecting their children. But if the board has 10 members, 5 or 6 of whom are working parents, in a very short time a strong day care center director will be running the program with little or no input from parents or the board-if not by intent, then by default, and, before too long, becomes totally exhausted. I think we have to have a way of distinguishing policymaking versus ongoing responsibility so the centers can have the support they need to have for this. Although the legislation specifically indicates that fees from parents are to be used to expand the program-not for part of the operating budget as is now the case-in this time of both recession and inflation, this may be unrealistic. 3. Opportunities for socioeconomic mix among enrollees in day care: Our community services are always of higher quality, with greater citizen support, when they serve all segments of the population. There is resentment when services are offered only to the very poor and others need them as well. Moreover, all children benefit from the exposure to different cultures and lifestyles. 4. Funds for training of child care personnel: Under such funding available in years past, the training has provided a way up the ladder for women-men, too-who wanted to work, and also better care for children. The lack of availability of training money has meant that we have had to be most creative in providing inservice training opportunities in the past 2 years, except for Head Start. The child care staff, center and home have been shortchangedthere are no funds to reimburse costs, such as transportation, meals, sitter, registration fees, supplies, or to pay for a substitute to release the day care worker to attend training during normal work hours. 5 Allocation of public funds (grants to public and private nonprofit agencies only: a. National Council of Jewish Women opposes grants of public funds for capital costs, equipment, et cetera, for profitmaking, pro |