Family & Children: The Latest From New America

On the Cusp in California

Education Policy — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:00:00 -0400

If children are the future, then looking at a state's educational system is like peering into a crystal ball. California is a state teeming with young children -- 4.7 million under age 8, to be exact. One in every eight young American children lives in California. And many of these children come from minority ethnic and racial backgrounds and speak languages other than English. If Americans want to get a glimpse at our future as a "majority minority" country they don't have to look beyond California.

Promoting the Vision

Asset Building — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:26:00 -0500

Introduction/Background

In recent years, the role that savings and assets play in shaping people's lives has increasingly captured the attention of researchers, policy analysts and elected officials. Their interest in savings and building wealth has grown along with an increased awareness of specific policy tools and interventions, such as matched savings accounts available for lower-income workers. The launch of the SEED Initiative in October 2003 was an important marker in this process because it introduced the

A Family-Based Social Contract

Next Social Contract — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:03:00 -0500

Executive Summary

Americans instinctively revere the family as an institution that helps facilitate all other aspects of life. The family fosters attachments across generations, provides a nurturing environment in which to raise children, and is a means of transmitting values from one generation to the next. It is the foundation upon which our social contract has been built.

Child Savings Accounts: A Primer

Asset Building — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 05:28:00 -0400

Executive Summary

Poverty reduction strategies increasingly focus on the importance of creating financial assets. Child Savings Accounts (CSAs) are a novel and promising tool that builds on that focus by promoting savings starting at a young age. Child Savings Accounts (CSAs) exist as policies, products, and programs, and are being offered by governments, financial institutions, and non-profits for a variety of purposes.

Child Savings Accounts: Global Trends in Design and Practice

Asset Building — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:11:00 -0400

INTRODUCTION

Child Savings Accounts (CSAs) exist as policies, products, and programs, and are currently being offered by governments, financial institutions, and non-profits. CSAs are more than basic savings accounts. What distinguishes CSAs from standard savings accounts is the degree to which they serve as means to an end-most often to spur the social and/or economic development of children. Another distinguishing feature is they are often intentionally targeted to children of low- and moderate-income families (as opposed to only children of middle-class and well-off families).

The concept behind CSAs is based on the premise that saving is an important way for an individual to build assets and accumulate the wealth necessary to meet a variety of needs throughout one's lifetime. Households can use savings to build a nest egg for future investments, and in the shorter term to build a stock of resources to cushion against economic shocks (such as sickness, famine, natural disaster, or death of a family member). Such a cushion can forestall the need for households to sell off productive assets (such as equipment used to run a small business), or withdraw their children from school (more common within developing countries). Savings can also have positive long-term effects, known as "asset effects." These include adopting a more hopeful outlook on the future, or what researchers refer to as a "future orientation."[1] As a result, savings products, policies, and programs that are specifically designed to facilitate a child's accumulation of assets at an early age are increasingly considered a viable option for motivating young people to enter formal financial systems, build assets in their youth and throughout their adult lives, and ultimately lead to economic and social advancement for themselves and their families.

There is no universal model for CSAs. The design of CSAs can vary widely, from simple, low-cost savings products offered by financial institutions, to universal, life-long savings platforms with significant financial incentives offered by governments. Variations in CSA design depend largely on the type of institution offering them, and the institution's purposes for doing so. For example, a financial institution may offer a CSA product intended to cultivate new clients or help children develop a habit of savings; a non-profit may establish a CSA program intended to protect children from future economic shocks, help children build a stock of resources for future investments, or enable children greater access to education and healthcare; and a government may design a CSA policy intended to reduce poverty of children and their families, expand opportunity to the disadvantaged, or promote overall development within a society. However, while some purposes of CSAs are unique to particular types of institutions, there are also often instances of overlap in purpose and hence similarity in design.

CSA Typology: Products, Programs, and Policies

? CSA Product-This type of CSA is typically offered by financial institutions such as banks, credit unions, or microfinance institutions. It may have features such as a low initial deposit and in-kind incentives, such as a mug or school bag, for achieving certain balances.

? CSA Program-This type of CSA is typically offered by institutions such as non-profits and research organizations attempting to test impacts of CSAs on health, educational, and other outcomes. It may have features such as those mentioned above, as well as features such as significant financial incentives (i.e. a lump sum of "seed" money when the account is first opened and/or "matches" to deposits made by the family of the accountholder or the child him/herself.

? CSA Policy -This type of CSA is typically implemented by governments, both local and national. It may have features such as those mentioned above, as well as features such as being progressive (i.e. giving more financial support to those more in need) and/or being universal (i.e. being offered to every newborn or child in a locality).

This paper aims to augment the limited existing literature and research on CSAs by providing an overview of the current global landscape of CSAs in their various forms. By describing and briefly assessing some of the reasons why institutions offer CSAs and the range of features that can constitute their design, we aim to broaden understanding of these accounts in their various forms. Furthermore, we hope to illustrate some global trends in child savings accounts. For example, our examination of the current breadth of CSAs illustrates their perceived potential as a flexible and effective tool in the fields of social policy, philanthropy, and financial services. While the goal of this paper is not to advocate CSAs along these lines, we argue that they warrant further attention and examination.

The paper begins with an introduction containing an overview of CSAs and some notes on the research methodology we used for data collection. It then provides a description and analysis of common features and purposes of CSAs in their variety of forms and purposes, while providing related anecdotes and insights from our research that inform our views. The paper concludes with a discussion of a few major obstacles faced by existing and potential providers of CSAs. An Appendix at the end of this paper offers a comparison of features of and rationales for various CSA products, programs, and policies in operation around the world.

[1] For an introduction to the concept of "asset effects," see: Michael Sherraden, "Key Questions in Asset Building Research," Center for Social Development, 1999, at http://gwbweb.wustl.edu/csd/asset/keyquestions.htm (accessed June 10, 2008). For an example of a study showing effects of holding assets on health attitudes and educational plans, see: Fred M. Ssewamala et al. "A Novel Economic Intervention to Reduce HIV Risks Among School-Going AIDS Orphans in Rural Uganda," Journal of Adolescent Health, 42, 2008, pp.102-104.

Kids' Share 2008

Fiscal Policy — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 02:00:00 -0400

Children are a declining priority in the federal budget -- a trend that shows no signs of stopping. In 2007, the federal government paid out $2.7 trillion through spending programs and disbursed roughly another $1 trillion through the tax code. Rapidly expanding entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security -- and the country's defense system consumed the largest shares of the budget, while spending on children remained essentially stagnant and did not keep up with growth in the economy.

Our second annual Kids' Share report on the state of the children's budget looks comprehensively at trends in federal spending and tax expenditures on children. Again, we determined how much the federal government spent on children and how programs for children fared against other national priorities in the federal budget. We also explored how future budget planning will affect children.

This report echoes what we found in our Kids' Share 2007 report -- the amount spent on children's programs is waning. And neither relatively slower growth in the economy in fiscal 2007 nor changes in party control of Congress affected this trend.

Kid's Share Fact Sheet: How Children Fare in the Federal Budget

Historically, children have not been a priority.

From 1960 to 2007 federal spending on children rose from just 1.9 to 2.6 percent of GDP. Spending on the big three entitlement programs -- non-child portions of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid -- nearly quadrupled from 2.0 to 7.9 percent of GDP.
Children’s share of domestic federal spending -- spending that excludes defense, non-defense homeland security, and international affairs -- declined from 20.2 to 16.2 percent from 1960 to 2007.

Last year, children’s spending did not keep pace with growth in the gross domestic product (GDP).

The children’s budget grew 1.6 percentage points slower than GDP between 2006 and 2007, inching up just 0.7 percent in real dollars. Spending on the big three entitlement programs -- non-child portions of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid -- rose 2.9 percentage points faster than GDP and 5.2 percent in real dollars.
Even while spending on children’s health programs grew 2.2 percentage points faster than GDP between 2006 and 2007, spending on education declined by 4.4 percentage points relative to growth in the economy.

The next Congress can affect future trends in children’s spending.

Six major programs are up for reauthorization or extension in the next Congress: State Children’s Health Insurance Program, No Child Left Behind, Child Care and Development Block Grant, Child Tax Credit, Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Absent policy changes, children’s spending will continue to be squeezed in the next decade.

If current spending and revenue policies continue, children’s share of domestic federal spending will decline from 16.2 percent in 2007 to 13.8 percent by 2018.
As a slice of GDP, children’s spending will decline from 2.6 percent in 2007 to 2.2 percent in 2018, while Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will rise from 7.9 to 9.6 percent.
While domestic spending is projected to grow by $771 billion between now and 2018, the type of budget baseline used by the nation’s budget offices indicate that children will reap only 7.1 percent, or $55 billion, of this.

For the full text of the report and the PDF version of the fact sheet, please see the PDFs attached below.

How Much Does the Federal Government Spend To Promote Economic Mobility, And For Whom?

Fiscal Policy — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:30:00 -0400

In an economically mobile market economy, individuals and families are able to raise their private incomes, wealth, and ability (sometimes referred to as human capital) over time and across generations. In the United States, many associate economic mobility with the pursuit of the American Dream. Education, work experience, and saving enhance the opportunity for upward economic mobility. To this end, many federal spending and tax expenditure or tax subsidy programs aim to enhance economic mobility. But exactly how much does the federal government encourage economic mobility? What form does this encouragement take? And who benefits from these efforts?

To begin answering these questions, we trace federal expenditures and tax subsidies through an array of spending and tax programs that can be broadly classified as aimed at enhancing economic mobility. We show these expenditures in 1980, 2006, and projected to 2012 under the type of budget baseline developed by the Congressional Budget Office. Within the federal mobility budget, we classify several hundred programs into 10 broad budget categories:

Employer-related work subsidies (e.g., 401(k) plans and exclusion of employer contributions for medical insurance premiums and medical care);

Homeownership (e.g., capital gains exclusion on home sales and exclusion of net imputed rental income on owner-occupied homes);

Savings and investment incentives (e.g., dividend exclusion and expensing of certain small investments);

Education and training (e.g., Title I Education for the Disadvantaged, higher education, and Job Corps);

Child health and nutrition (e.g., Medicaid and child nutrition);

Work supports (e.g., earned income tax credit [EITC] and child care entitlement to states);

Other child well-being (e.g., foster care and children’s welfare services);

Business incentives and development (e.g., Economic Development administration and Small Business Administration);

Citizenship services (e.g., refugee and entrant assistance); and

Equal opportunity services (e.g., minority business development and equal Employment Opportunity Commission).

We separate expenditures and subsidies in the remainder of the budget into other assistance largely aimed at maintaining income and increasing consumption
(e.g., Social Security, Medicare, cash welfare, or SSI), or other spending largely for public goods (e.g., public infrastructure and research). The distinctions between mobility versus consumption and individual versus public goods are, like all budgetary classifications, somewhat blurred. For instance, programs that target a defined group, such as homeowners or renters, are usually counted in mobility or in consumption, respectively. Programs with geographic targets, such as the Appalachian region or areas affected by Hurricane Katrina, without identifying corporate or individual beneficiaries, are classified as public goods even though individuals or the firms that employ them are receiving the funds at some point. Thus, budget classifications are not meant to value alternative uses of public funds but to help sort out and account for the nation’s established priorities. Here we attempt to tease out through a budgetary exercise how much of the federal budget is directed toward improving individual economic mobility.

Our findings are as follows:

A considerable slice of federal funds has been aimed toward programs promoting mobility at some level. In 2006 alone, about $212 billion or 1.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in direct spending and another $534 billion or 4.1 percent of GDP in tax subsidies went to programs aimed at promoting mobility, for a rough total of $746 billion. (The measure itself is rough because of the inevitable issues of categorization, and because one cannot strictly sum tax expenditures together.)

Roughly 72 percent of this $746 billion in mobility expenditures, or $540 billion, is delivered mainly through employer-provided work subsidies, aids in asset accumulation, and savings incentives. This spending flows mainly to middle- and higher-income households and often excludes lower-income households or provides them comparably little in benefits.

The remaining 28 percent, or $205 billion, of the mobility budget is channeled through programs that favor lower- to moderate-income individuals.

Even when the tax and spending incentives directed at middle-income households provide them with greater (relative) benefits than the rich receive, the effect may be to inflate key asset prices (e.g., higher prices for homes than would otherwise be the case). Such inflation places these assets further out of reach for the excluded poor and lower middle-income classes. Consequently, the absolute and relative mobility of lower-rung groups is undercut.

From 1980 to 2006, the mobility budget as measured here has risen from 5.2 to 5.7 percent of GDP. During this same period, income maintenance programs rose slightly less, from 9.3 to 9.9 percent (with non-child Social Security growing substantially while the rest of income maintenance fell).

Income maintenance programs tend to be moderately more directed toward those with lower incomes. At times, however, these programs may impede economic mobility by discouraging work and saving, especially for those with the fewest resources. (We do not assess whether these programs help in achieving greater equalization of consumption, which is a different objective than mobility, as measured by independent economic status.)

Finally, much of the spending that falls into our residual budget category includes public goods that may also promote absolute mobility for the population as a whole. We do not examine that possibility here. At the same time, most of these programs are not directed toward promoting relative mobility.

The net result is a budget of direct spending and tax subsidies that attempts to promote absolute economic mobility for some but, in many areas stymies relative and intergenerational mobility in the acquisition of private assets, income, education, and ability. Trend lines into the future show a likely deterioration, not improvement, in these conditions.

For the full text of the paper, please see the PDF attached below.

10 New Ideas for Early Education in the NCLB Reauthorization

Education Policy — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:00:00 -0500

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) seeks to improve student learning and narrow academic achievement gaps that place low-income and minority students at a disadvantage relative to their affluent and white peers. Evidence shows that the roots of children’s academic success or failure are already firmly in place by third grade and as much as half of the black-white achievement gap already exists before children enter first grade. Therefore, to achieve its ambitious goals NCLB must do a much better job of catalyzing and supporting state and local efforts to improve children’s education in the preschool and early elementary years.

But despite the importance of the pre-k and early elementary school years, current debate over NCLB reauthorization has devoted very little attention to improving pre-k and early elementary school programs, separately or as an integrated collective. The main debate has been over the law’s testing and accountability provisions—which focus on student performance in grades three through eight.

Advocates for universal pre-k are lobbying for the creation of a new pre-k title in NCLB and substantial new federal funding to support state universal pre-k efforts. But there is almost no discussion of how provisions already in NCLB could better support high-quality early education in pre-k through grade three (PK-3).

Many provisions in NCLB affect early education. Four federal programs authorized under NCLB—Title I, Even Start, Early Reading First, and the Early Childhood Educator Professional Development Program—provide nearly half a billion dollars annually in funding for pre-k programs. Two-thirds of children in rapidly growing state pre-k programs attend classes in public schools, so policies that affect elementary schools also affect pre-k. Provisions throughout NCLB—from its teacher quality provisions to its charter school program—should be updated to reflect the increased inclusion of pre-k in public education, and to acknowledge the centrality of high-quality early education to achieving the law’s school improvement goals.

This issue brief analyzes NCLB programs and policies that affect or have the potential to affect early education and recommends 10 ways NCLB reauthorization can better support high-quality early education.

1) Allow Reading First funds to be used for pre-k language and literacy activities

2) Tap supplemental educational services and public school choice set-aside funds for high-quality pre-k

3) Improve accountability for early education programs

4) Restructure elementary schools identified for reconstitution as PK-3 Early Education Academies

5) Strengthen the ability of charter schools to deliver high-quality pre-k

6) Combine NCLB's Title V block grant program with Head Start's newly authorized state early childhood coordination initiative to create a single "2020 Early Education" state grant program

7) Require pre-k programs operated in public schools or with Title I funds to employ "highly qualified early educators" as lead teachers

8) Create a "Pathways to Pre-kindergarten Teaching" alternative certification demonstration program

9) Provide targeted professional development to individual teachers

10) Expand the representation of English Language Learners in pre-k programs

All of these ideas carry little or no cost to the federal government, relying on better use of existing funds rather than new funding. These are not the only ways to improve early education in NCLB, but they form a starting point for a broader discussion about how federal education policy can better support high-quality early education.

For the full paper, please see the attached PDF below.

Asset-Based Welfare Policy in the U.K.

Asset Building — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:49:00 -0500

While traditional anti-poverty efforts have focused on maintaining a social safety net to protect the poor, there is a growing recognition that economic well-being hinges on a household’s ability to accumulate a wide range of assets. The value of assets is based not only on the economic security they provide but in how they enable people to make productive investments in their future. This approach has contributed to a wide range of policy proposals designed to help households build assets, including matched savings accounts, children’s accounts, and accessible saving plans.

Since 2000, the United Kingdom has begun implementing a number of asset-based welfare policies. Specifically, the Child Trust Fund and Saving Gateway Initiatives are generating valuable insights which may be used to develop policy innovations. The Child Trust Fund provides a $500 savings account for every child born in the UK and, with over two million accounts to date, it represents the most developed children’s savings account system in the world. The Saving Gateway is a large demonstration program designed to test the impact of matched savings incentives on the savings behavior of lower income families.

This paper describes these efforts, analyzes the initial wave of data and research produced, and assesses the policy implications of these recent findings to date. For the full text, please download the PDF attached below.

ASPIRE Act Frequently Asked Questions

Asset Building — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 02:00:00 -0400

The attached document answers the following questions about the America Saving for Personal Investment, Retirement, and Education (ASPIRE) Act:

What does the bill do?
Why is a bill to promote asset building for children necessary?
Who is eligible? Will illegal immigrants or children who become citizens get accounts?
Will children born before the bill takes effect get accounts?
Why do wealthy people get these accounts?
Why do poor people who don’t pay taxes get accounts?
Is it unrealistic to expect those with low incomes to save when they already struggle to get by?
How much money will the government put into an account?
How much of the benefits will go to lower-income families?
Will assets in the accounts penalize people applying for public assistance?
Who can contribute to the accounts?
Why is there a limit on private contributions to the account?
Who will control the accounts?
How much will this cost?
Can America really afford this? How is this paid for?
Are there restrictions on account withdrawals? How can money in the account be used?
How will the account be taxed?
Why is there a minimum account balance, even after age 18?
Has this been done before?
How do KIDS Accounts differ from the UK’s Child Trust Fund Accounts?
Will this raise college tuition?
What if my child needs money to pay for college before they are 18?
Who will manage this program?
Why can’t the private sector offer accounts?
Why not let the private sector handle accounts of those under 18?
How much can a child save in a KIDS Account? What will they have when they are 18?
Where will money in KIDS Accounts be invested?
How will this bill help promote financial literacy?
Who supports this bill?
What is the legislative strategy for moving this bill through Congress?
How is this year’s bill difference from previous versions?

The Stress of Balancing Work and Family

Workforce and Family — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 06:12:00 -0400

Executive Summary

American families confront major challenges in balancing work and family life. Workers report that they would prefer fewer hours, while new technological capabilities require parents to bring more job responsibilities home with them. Mothers and fathers encounter strain in work and home environments alike. Polling and surveillance data confirm that the balance between work and family care needs attention. Some of the most quantifiable and severe costs of this burden on families are adverse health outcomes. This paper catalogues a number of factors linked to job stress and work/family conflict: metabolic syndrome, hypertension, heart disease, poor dietary habits, obesity, and mental illness.

These chronic and systemic harms place a heavy burden -- financially, logistically, and psychologically -- on American middle-class families. Families are the fundamental building block of the next social contract; they raise the next generation of Americans. Only through sound policy solutions and broader workplace flexibility can America overcome the challenges that its families face.

For the complete paper, please see the attached PDF below.

Why Not More Focus on Children?

Workforce and Family — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 01:52:00 -0400

The 2008 presidential primary season is shaping up as one unprecedented in American history. Fund-raising reports from the first two quarters of 2007 demonstrate the breakneck pace with which this latest presidential season has begun. Fund-raisers aren’t alone in setting a new pace, as state after state has moved up the date of its Presidential primary in a bid for increased influence.

What has not changed is the focus of the early primary politicking. In the past few weeks, would-be presidential candidates have been forced to answer questions on the employment status of Don Imus, whether they hunt rabbits or squirrels, and the price of a gallon of milk. This focus on “gotcha” politics and commercial minutiae elbows aside room for discussion of more meaningful topics. The tragedy at Virginia Tech underscores the need for our nation to focus on our young people. What about the status of children in the United States?

To continue reading the Issue Brief, please click here.

Estimating the 'Hidden Tax' on Insured Californians Due to the Care Needed and Received by the Uninsured

adminn — Mon, 21 May 2007 10:33:00 -0400

The report released today by the Hoover Institution confirms that insured families across California pay a "hidden tax" to provide uncompensated health care to the uninsured. The existence of this "hidden tax" is no longer in dispute; what's under debate is its magnitude, which is hard to measure precisely because it is "hidden."

This memo describes the range of estimates that various experts have made, highlights some of the reasons for differing judgments, and then lets the reader draw his or her own conclusions about the reasonable range of hidden tax estimates.

For the complete Policy Memo from New America, please see the attached PDF file below. The Hoover report can be downloaded from that group's web site.

Every Baby a Trust Fund Baby

adminn — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 09:05:00 -0500

Click here for a brief video discussion of this idea.

An American Stakeholder Account (ASA), established for every child at birth, would build a savings and ownership culture in America, promote financial literacy, and fortify the American economy for the long haul. Every child would automatically receive a $6,000 deposit into an ASA at birth -- and also be eligible for dollar-for-dollar matching funds for voluntary contributions up to $500 a year. Over time, ASAs will evolve into a broad system of saving accounts that all Americans, and especially low-income Americans, can tap to meet their asset needs throughout their lives, enabling them to invest in higher education and lifelong learning, purchase a first home, start a small business, and build a nest egg for retirement.

At present, about a quarter of all white kids and half of all other kids grow up in households with zero or negative assets, apart from possible equity in a house. This means that there are no available assets for any sort of investment. The prospects for achieving economic success of children growing up in such households are pretty dim. Therefore, imagine what it would mean for such kids to have an investment account with their name on it -- earmarked for their education, their first home, their retirement. Imagine the enormous effect such a program would have on our failed efforts to educate our kids about financial basics. And just imagine the effects on our economy: it doesn’t take an army of economists to tell us that we would reap huge rewards if virtually all young people became owners, savers, taxpayers, and entrepreneurs -- and if fewer people depended on the state, local charities, their communities, and their parents for their livelihood and well-being.

The full text of this essay is available below in PDF format. To learn more about our other Big Ideas for a New America, please click here.

How Research on Family Structure and Children's Development Can Inform Healthy Marriage Practitioners in the Field

Workforce and Family — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 05:00:00 -0500

Is children’s development, and children’s cognitive development in particular, affected by the marital status of their parents? On the face of it, this seems to be a simple question to which there is an intuitively simple answer: yes. Yet the answer to this question is anything but simple. The complexity of this question, the policy context that has helped shape a growing body of related research, and the implications of findings for policy and practice are discussed below. The following discussion is based on my remarks during the plenary session of Connecting Marriage Research to Practice, a conference sponsored by The African American Healthy Marriage Initiative.

While we can readily observe that children in married-parent families tend to be significantly better off than children raised by single or cohabiting parents, it is more difficult to discern how much better off children without married parents would be if their parents were to marry. An extensive body of research on this topic suggests that marriage would confer benefits on these children, even those within disadvantaged families.

The research further suggests that the conduits for these benefits tend to be attributes commonly associated with marriage, such as improved economics and stronger family processes, more so than the marital choice itself. These findings help us understand why marriage matters and provide valuable insights for policy and practice within the Healthy Marriage Initiative.

For the complete issue brief, please see the attached PDF version below.

Teacher Quality in Grades PK-3: Challenges and Options

Education Policy — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 01:00:00 -0400

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1) The PK-3 Workforce is Subject to an Array of Entry Standards. Public school teachers in grades K-3 must meet the quality standards of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Pre-kindergarten (PK) teachers in Title I-funded programs also are regulated by NCLB. But Head Start teachers have their own separate entry standards. In some state PK programs, all teachers must possess a bachelor’s degree and have engaged in additional early childhood or PK-3 training. In others, only a Child Development Associate certificate is required.

2) There are Approximately 1.5 Million Teachers in the PK-3 Workforce. New America estimates that some 80 percent of the overall PK-3 teaching workforce holds a bachelor’s degree. Only 39 percent of PK teachers, however, hold a four year degree in comparison to almost all K-3 teachers. Of note, three out of four state-funded PK program teachers hold a bachelor’s degree. Elementary school teachers are paid more than double their PK counterparts ($47,000 v. $23,000 per year), except those in state-funded PK programs who, in keeping with their comparable credentials, are paid salaries comparable to, but still lower than, their elementary school counterparts. PK-3 teacher turnover rates are inversely related to salary.

3) Pre-Service and In-Service Training Standards for PK-3 Educators Vary Considerably Across States and Programs. The National Association for the Education of Young Children sets standards for early childhood teacher education programs. However, not all colleges of education meet or are required to meet applicable standards. In fact, colleges of education have limited capacity to offer quality PK-3 teacher training programs. Substantial federal funding exists for in-service Head Start and K-3 training, but surveys suggest that states pay little systematic attention to in-service training quality or content in K-3 education. Instead there is an emphasis on participation hours.

Recommended is that NCLB Title V funding be dedicated to early education expansion, conditioned on an assurance that all publicly supported PK-3 lead teachers meet a new “highly qualified early educator” standard. Competency may be evidenced through completion of a four-year early childhood education post-secondary program or by passing a new, national “high, objective, uniform standard of evaluation” that is a performance-based measure of knowledge, skills and disposition.

Recommended is that over a phased-in period of time, Head Start’s minimum teacher quality standards be aligned with a new, NCLB “highly qualified early educator” definition. A portion of Head Start’s increased future appropriations should be dedicated toward improved Head Start educator quality and pay.

Recommended is that Title II of the Higher Education Act (HEA) be targeted to support integrated PK-3 teacher preparation and certification programs. Further recommended is that HEA’s college of education accountability standard be revised to reflect the percentage of students who begin and complete programs, including improved disaggregation of certification data, such as PK-3 certification success.

Recommended is that Title II of NCLB expressly authorize and encourage integration of PK and K-3 in-service training and alternative certification pathways for non-traditional early educators, including for example new college graduates who might participate in a Teach for America Early Childhood Initiative or similar local efforts.

The full text of this report is available below in PDF format.

Grandparents Raising Their Grandchildren

Workforce and Family — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:23:00 -0400

Today nearly 5.7 million grandparents only have to walk downstairs or down the hall to celebrate Grandparents Day with their grandchildren. They are part of a growing segment of the American population that is living in multigenerational households.

With the increasing demands of a global society, Americans are looking outside the nuclear family and using extended family members to assist with household responsibilities. Grandparents are helping their children manage their hectic lives and alleviate some of the parenting burden.

For the complete document, please see the attached PDF version below.

Beyond Censorship

Wireless Future — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 03:47:00 -0400

As the FCC dramatically increases fines for indecency over broadcast TV -- and as Congress and the President raise the fine limits by a factor of ten and threaten to extend decency standards to cable and satellite networks -- the debate over how best to protect children from inappropriate media has reached a fever pitch. The problem is real: a plethora of studies show that repeated exposure to violence, inappropriate sexual content and even repeated advertising for junk food can have a negative, long-term impact on children. And while television is today's primary battleground, it won't be long before most children have access to a portable wireless device with 24/7 access to unlimited video content over the Internet.

New America's policy roundtable revolved around the question of who is responsible for protecting kids from inappropriate media -- the government, industry, or parents armed with new technologies -- and what can each do?

For the complete document, please see the attached PDF below.

State Policy Options for Building Assets

Asset Building — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:49:00 -0400

States continue to play an important role in helping low- and moderate-resource families save and build wealth. They have been innovators in assets policy, whether on their own or through the forces of "devolution," in which federal funds and decision-making authority are shifting from the federal to the state level. These initiatives and experiments -- these "laboratories of democracy" -- have inspired and informed other states as well as policymakers at the national level.

The following ideas to broaden savings and asset ownership include a range of simple proposals that may have a significant impact with little associated cost; some medium cost ideas; and others that, with a somewhat larger investment, would potentially alter the longer-term outlooks and prospects of millions of struggling Americans.

For the complete document, please see the attached PDF version.

Valuing Fathers

Workforce and Family — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:00:00 -0400

Because of the demographic changes of the past generation, dads need more flexibility in their work. Businesses are recognizing that more fathers need flexibility in the workplace and many are giving it.

Businesses should be applauded for that and encouraged to do more in providing workplace flexibility -- and dads deserve credit for the work, balancing and the sacrifices that they make.

For the complete Issue Brief, please see the attached PDF below.