South Carolina Kids Count
Kids Count indicators capture the causes and the consequences of the poverty and other disadvantaged conditions of too many children in South Carolina. This is why we rank 47th. These are the children that Judge Cooper targeted for the remedy to their less than minimally adequate opportunity in school. In order for these poor children to reach third grade performing at standards on PACT, how much would our state need to improve on the Databook indicators? PACT is based on national academic standards equivalent to NAEP and No Child Left Behind expectations. If South Carolina reached the national average on the health, family, and economic indicators in Kids Count, young children in South Carolina would enjoy support comparable to the national circumstances underlying national academic standards. Thus children in South Carolina would receive equal health, family, and economic support to grow up and develop successfully rather than putting the entire burden on superior academic instruction in the schools.
Percentage Reduction Required to Reach the U.S. Average
| Health | |
|---|---|
| Low Birthweight | 22% |
| Infant Mortality | 17% |
| Family | |
| Single-Parent Families | 22% |
| Births to Teens | 18% |
| Economic | |
| Poverty | 22% |
| Insecure Parental Employment | 6% |
| Safety = Child Deaths | 16% |
In order to level the playing field for reaching Judge Cooper standards, children's health, economic, family, and safety risks at birth would have to be reduced by about 20%. This would require enormous changes in the social and economic wellbeing of our state that are unlikely to happen in the next decade. Instead the burden of reaching national academic standards will fall on improved childcare, early education, and parenting.
Can't any progress be made with health, family, and economic circumstances? Certainly healthcare and good health can be improved both during pregnancy and in the early years of life, since enormous resources are expended in the healthcare sector. Family structure and functioning need healing too. There are reported to be ten churches/faith congregations in South Carolina for each school building. How can they contribute more to the cultural transformation in our families needed to restore strengths taken for granted many decades ago? Economic parity with the nation is even more problematic. South Carolina has the jobs (ranking 29th in secure employment of the parents of children) but not the wages and income. The Judge Cooper remedy is to grow our young children into human capital so that their knowledge, skills, and work habits as the future workforce will match national and world competitive standards. So, if economic parity is not likely soon (after 140 years of trying to catch up), what are our best and most practical opportunities? They appear to be:
If improvements in health, family strengths, and community supportiveness can be applied to the Judge Cooper remedy, the burden on better parenting, childcare and early childhood education will be reduced substantially. This can be done but only if we adopt powerful family, health, and community strategies supportive of our well-established education and economic development agendas. Then Judge Cooper's early childhood remedy could be achieved much faster and at much lower cost.
The recent legislative session focused almost entirely on four year olds' need for school and center-based development programs. Quality 4K services through schools and childcare are a very important approach to the Cooper remedy since they take place just before entry to kindergarten. However, Judge Cooper did not single out 4K as the only remedy.
...This Court does believe that certain program funding which has been cut in the past and the failure to fund other programs which have been adopted to deal with the specific needs of children in poverty in their early childhood years deprives those children of the opportunity to obtain a minimally adequate education...1
...The Court therefore finds that the education clause of the South Carolina constitution as defined in Abbeville County, imposes an obligation upon the General Assembly and the State of South Carolina to create an educational system that overcomes, to the extent that is educationally possible, the effects of poverty on the very young to the pre-kindergarten and kindergarten, to enable them to begin the educational process in a more equal fashion to those born outside of poverty...2
...The Court further concludes that the constitutional requirement of adequate funding is not met by the Defendants as a result of their failure to adequately fund early childhood intervention programs...3
...At-risk students benefit the most when additional time is provided early in their lives in the form of early childhood intervention.
Q. What would it take to close that gap...that coming out of poverty brings with the child?
A. High quality, high quality early childhood programs. The sooner, the earlier, the better...41Abbeville County School District, et al., v. The State of South Carolina, et al., No. 93-CP-31-0169, (Lee, SC Court of Common Pleas, December 29, 2005), p. 150.
2Ibid. pp. 156-157.
3Ibid. p.162.
4Ibid. p.163.
Which young children are at risk and require the Judge Cooper remedy? It is our assumption that every waking hour of a child has comparable developmental potential, but many hours are not spent fruitfully for development. These "developmental downtimes" and even "developmentally destructive periods" are the focus of our concern and for our possible efforts to fill those periods with positive care and development. Since support for the parent/family approach to enhancing readiness is now so minimal, as well as not on the political policy agenda, the data presented below focuses on non-parental care, both formal and informal, especially for ages 0-3 in addition to the currently emphasized age of 4. Therefore, the policy question is: what should be done to enhance the developmental experiences of "at risk" children during the entire first sixty months (1825 days, or roughly 25,000 waking hours) before kindergarten eligibility? The 180 days of 4K at 6.5 hours would cover less than 5% of the 25,000 hours of developmental opportunity.
What should we do to respond to Judge Cooper regarding the other 95% of young children's time? In brief, the data shows that large numbers of hours are spent by "at risk" children in informal as well as formal care (and parental care) at each age before kindergarten. Assistance to the grossly under-resourced, under-trained, under-paid and under-appreciated formal and informal caregivers seems like an obvious opportunity, since families already dig deep into their own pockets for several hundreds of millions of dollars and struggle constantly to engage the caring and kindness of family, friends, and neighbors to keep their young children. Unfortunately the resources available are seriously insufficient for formal and informal caregivers to provide high quality, readiness-enhancing developmental experiences. No data for time spent in various types of child care has been published previously for South Carolina. The following section profiles the types of care that young children receive in our state.
The purpose of the data presented in this section is to describe the time spent by children between birth and kindergarten in various types of care. The simplest categories of care are: parental, formal, and informal. Formal care programs are larger and more likely to have planned activities following developmental curricula. Informal programs are typically small, providing personalized care through non-parental relatives, friends, and neighbors (often designated as FFN for Family, Friends, and Neighbors). Family, friend, and neighbor care offers the best virtues of family and neighborhood support. The 2002 South Carolina Child Care Survey of parents (see report by Dr. Janet Marsh) provides our only data explaining which families choose what types of care for their children at various ages. A major purpose of the data is to show what types of care are experienced by young children who are at risk for doing poorly in school. The readiness risk factors available from the childcare survey data are parental poverty, education, marital status, and work obligations. The only child risk data is for disability. The data profiles childcare in terms of these risk factors, comparing parental, formal, and informal care.
The most revealing findings are that children at risk participate: a) significantly in each of these types of care; and b) proportionately more in informal plus parental care than formal care. This is important because most policy attention to enhancing the development and readiness of "at risk" children is focused on formal programs for four year olds, primarily school-based but also on their childcare. The entire period from birth up to age 4 is not under policy consideration, despite the fact that ages 0-3 receive meager financial support except for insurance-funded healthcare and childcare funded by parents and federal block grant funds. The following profile should help to explain with whom young children spend their time, therefore whose efforts should be supported to enhance the development and school readiness of children most at risk. The data suggests that a comprehensive approach to school readiness and healthy development should cover all of ages 0-4 (to entry into 5K) and should support all three major types of care: parental, formal, and informal. The data below presents the descriptive evidence for addressing formal, informal, and parental care during the first 25,000 hours of each child's life that must not be wasted.
Data from the 2002 South Carolina Child Care Survey of parents shows the following about which types of care are used the most:
Primary Care Types Used
Percent of Children by Primary Care Type
Birth through 5
Parent Care Formal Care Informal Care 35% 43% 22% Mean Hours Spent by Children in Their Primary Source of Care
Birth through 5
Formal Care Informal Care 28 25 Mean Hours Spent by Children in Any Type of Care They Use
Birth through 5
Center Care (Including HS) 4-K FCC FFN 26 22 24 16 Percent Distribution of Primary Sources of Care by Age of Child
< 1 Year Old 1 Year Old 2 Years Old 3 Years Old 4 Years Old 5 Years Old Parent Care 57% 41% 30% 23% 22% 34% Formal Care 17% 32% 46% 55% 62% 51% Informal Care 27% 27% 24% 23% 16% 16% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Percent Distribution of All Non-maternal Hours of Care Spent by Children Ages 0-4
Formal Care 46% Pre-school or Center 28% Head Start or Early Head Start 2% 4K 4% Family Child Care 12% Informal Care 19% Relatives 16% Sitter/Nanny 1% Friend or Neighbor 2% Spousal Care 35% Spouse 27% Ex-Spouse 8%
Data from the 2002 South Carolina Child Care Survey also provides critical information regarding the types of care used by children "at risk" versus children with low or no risks.
What does this survey data tell us about the care profile of Cooper Kids; i.e., those disadvantaged children who are poor with low-educated parents, many of whom are not married? The following simple table presents the profile of primary sources of care for each risk factor:
| Parental | Formal | Informal | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low Educated Parent | 44% | 32% | 24% |
| Poverty | 40% | 34% | 26% |
| Working Little or None | 38% | 33% | 29% |
| Disabled Child | 31% | 36% | 34% |
| Single Parent | 21% | 47% | 32% |
When this data is considered from the perspective of readiness risk, it shows clearly that "at risk" children are well-distributed across all types of care: parental, formal, and informal. The distribution of care is quite similar for children with poor, low-educated, and minimally working parents for whom parental care is the primary source of care (38-44%), followed by formal care (32-34%), and informal care (24-29%). Disabled children have as their primary sources of care formal (36%), informal (34%), and parental (31%). The most dissimilar pattern is for single-parent families which rely heavily on formal care (47%) and informal care (32%), but least on parental care (21%) because they cannot work or go to school and be the primary source of care for their children. The implications for policy to respond to Judge Cooper's mandate are:
Primary Care Used by "At Risk" Children
Disabilities: Primary Type of Care for Children with a Disability
Any Type of Disability Parent Care 31% Formal Care 36% Informal Care 34% Total 100% Disabilities: Percent of Children with Disabilities in Each Type of Care Used
Total Parent Care Formal Care Informal Care Physical Disability 3.20% 3.70% 2.50% 3.70% Emotional Disability 1.00% 1.00% 0.30% 2.80% Developmental Disability 2.00% 1.30% 2.50% 2.10% Any Disability 4.20% 3.70% 3.50% 6.50% Parental Education: Primary Type of Care by Education Level of Respondent
Less Than HS Diploma HS Diploma/GED Some College/Tech Training/2-year Degree Completed 4-year Degree Graduate Work or Degree Parent Care 44% 37% 35% 29% 34% Formal Care 32% 36% 43% 53% 53% Informal Care 24% 27% 22% 18% 13% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Marital Status: Percent Distribution of Primary Type of Care by Marital Status of Respondent
Married Resides with Partner Divorced/ Separated Single Parent Care 39% 31% 27% 21% Formal Care 43% 44% 40% 47% Informal Care 18% 25% 32% 32% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Hours of Work: Percent Distribution of Primary Type of Care by Work Hours of Respondent
Under 20 Hours/Week 20-34 Hours/Week 35+ Hours/Week Parent Care 38% 14% 9% Formal Care 33% 56% 68% Informal Care 29% 30% 23% Total 100% 100% 100% Poverty/Income: Percent Distribution of Primary Type of Care by FPL Status of Respondent
0-100% 0-185% >185% Parent Care 44% 40% 30% Formal Care 34% 34% 50% Informal Care 22% 26% 20% Total 100% 100% 100%
The criticality of the risk factors was demonstrated by the national Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey/Kindergarten cohort. The ECLS-K found that it took the entire kindergarten year for the percentage of students from low educated families to reach the percentage of college graduates' children demonstrating reading and math skills in the fall.
Percentage of First-Time Kindergarteners Demonstrating Reading and Math Skills by Mother's Education
| Less than High School | College Graduate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fall | Spring | Fall | Spring | |
| Math: | 83% | 97% | 99% | 100% |
| Number and Shape | 31% | 72% | 76% | 95% |
| Relative Size | 6% | 32% | 38% | 75% |
| Ordinality, Sequence | 1% | 6% | 9% | 31% |
| Reading: | ||||
| Letter Recognition | 38% | 84% | 84% | 99% |
| Beginning Sounds | 9% | 49% | 49% | 86% |
| Ending Sounds | 4% | 29% | 31% | 69% |
| Sight Words | 0% | 3% | 6% | 24% |
The 2002 South Carolina Child Care Survey also asked parents the main reason for their choice of the primary source of non-parental care and what characteristic of care was most important for formal care:
Parental Reasons for Choosing Child Care
Main Reason for Choosing Care Cited by Parents of Children ages 0-5
0-5 Under 1 1-2 3 4-5 Know/Trust/Like Caregiver 29% 46% 32% 31% 21% Nature of Program 15% 5% 12% 10% 24% Convenient Hours /Availability 11% 8% 12% 16% 8% Recommendation of Friend/Neighbor/Relative 8% 9% 5% 9% 10% Religious and Cultural Preferences 11% 0% 4% 8% 10% Other 5% 3% 9% 8% 6% Training/Education of Staff 5% 2% 4% 6% 7% Staff/Child Ratios 5% 9% 6% 4% 4% Cost 5% 6% 7% 2% 4% Location 5% 10% 4% 6% 4% Main Reason for Choosing Each Type of Care Cited by Parents of Children Ages 0-5
Reason Center, Head Start, or Early Head Start Family Child Care Family, Friends, & Neighbor Care Know/Trust/Like Caregiver 13% 44% 49% Nature of Program 25% 5% 5% Convenient Hours /Availability 7% 8% 17% Recommendation of Friend/Neighbor/Relative 12% 12% 0% Religious and Cultural Preferences 13% 0% 0% Other 6% 8% 8% Training/Education of Staff 8% 0% 2% Staff/Child Ratios 5% 9% 3% Cost 2% 7% 8% Location 8% 4% 1% "Most Important" Characteristic of Formal Care Cited by Parents of Children 0-5
0-5 Under 1 1-2 3 4-5 The number of children per caregiver 14% 19% 14% 13% 14% The training and education of caregiver 25% 24% 30% 15% 25% The way the child and caregiver relate 43% 45% 37% 46% 43% The type of activities offered 9% 8% 8% 12% 9% Affordable cost 3% 1% 2% 6% 3% Flexible and convenient hours 6% 4% 6% 6% 6% Convenient location 2% 3% 3% 3% 0%
5The data in this section are primarily from research by Janet Marsh, Ph.D., and Heather Odle-Dusseau, M.S., Clemson University. The survey of 1,211 SC households was conducted by the University of Washington under a state grant from the ABC Child Care Program, SCDHHS. More extensive analysis of the data is on the Institute on Family and Neighborhood Life (http://virtual.clemson.edu/groups/ifnl/Child_Care/content.html). Additional child care information is available for each county on the Kids Count website at www.sckidscount.org/county05.asp in the Parents Working and Child Care sub-section starting on page 3 in the Family section.
In order to complete our perspective on the Judge Cooper remedy, we must consider the family, neighborhood and health factors affecting the development and readiness of young children. The data presented below comes from the 2003 National Survey of Children's Health for South Carolina (NSCH). This data highlights some of the risk factors hindering development and school readiness. These risk factors suggest important Cooper remedies in terms of family, health, and childcare policy:
While the remedies for these risks to development and readiness are not the focus of this Kids Count essay, some conclusions are obvious:
Family Profile: Data from the NSCH provide a brief profile of the overall percentage of children living in families with readiness risks:
| Percent (%) | Readiness Risks |
|---|---|
| 13% | Only one adult in the household |
| 21% | Under 100% of poverty |
| 45% | Under 200% of poverty |
| 37% | Minority |
| 5% | Hispanic/Latino |
| 4% | English not the primary language in the home |
Since Judge Cooper's ruling emphasizes the problem of children in poor families, we should come to terms with their profile which is shown below for those under 200% of poverty. This is just above the 185% cut-off for free/reduced lunch in the schools. In the data presented below, poor means under 200% of poverty and non-poor is over 200% of poverty; 200% of poverty was $31,470 in 2005 for a family of three and $39,748 for a family of four. The percentages for poor children below 200% of poverty and non-poor above 200% of poverty are shown below:
| Poor | Non-Poor | Readiness Risks |
|---|---|---|
| 20% | 5% | Only one adult in household |
| 52% | 0% | Under 100% of poverty |
| 51% | 21% | Minority |
| 8.50% | 1.20% | Hispanic/Latino |
| 6.90% | 0.80% | English not the primary language spoken in the home |
| 41% | 55% | Parents read to their young child daily. |
| 46% | 73% | Parents took their pre-school children on outings four or more times per week. |
| 15% | 5% | Parents are giving up more to meet child's needs than they ever expected. |
Child Health: Children under the age of six have numerous disabilities and chronic health conditions that impair their development and impose burdens on their caregivers. The prevalence of these conditions and the access to care are shown for poor versus non-poor children:
| Poor | Non-Poor | Readiness Risks |
|---|---|---|
| 9% | 1.4% | Child's health is poor or fair, according to parent. |
| 8% | 2% | Child is prevented or limited in ability to do things most children of same age can do. |
| 8% | 5% | Child needs or gets physical, occupational, or speech therapy. |
| 7% | 3% | Child's teeth are in fair or poor condition. |
| 50% | 29% | Child never breastfed. |
| 4.4% | 1.4% | Child, ages 3-5, identified for learning disability.* |
| 11% | 9% | Child identified for asthma.* |
| 3% | 1.20% | Child identified for hearing problems or uncorrectable vision problems.* |
| 1.1% | 0.6% | Child, ages 2-5, identified for behavioral or conduct problems.* |
| 4.3% | 2% | Child identified for developmental delay or physical impairment.* |
| 3.7% | 0.3% | Child, ages 3-5, identified for serious headaches or migraines.* |
| 6.5% | 5.6% | Child identified for speech, stuttering, and stammering problems.* |
| 16% | 12% | Child, ages 3-5, identified for three or more ear infections.* |
| 15% | 11% | Child has health conditions which are moderate or severe. |
| 12.6% | 6.4% | Child, ages 3-5, has problems with emotions, behavior, or getting along with others. |
| 3.5% | 1.1% | Child, ages 3-5, has serious problems with emotions, behavior, or getting along with others. |
| 4.2% | 1.4% | Child's mental or emotional health puts a burden on the family. |
| 19% | 11% | Child has no personal doctor or nurse (PDN). |
| 23% | 13% | Child did not visit (PDN) in last two years for preventive care. |
| 51% | 31% | Child's PDN does not spend enough time with child or has no PDN. |
| 34% | 23% | Child's PDN does not explain things in understandable way or has no PDN. |
| 43% | 24% | When child needed care right away for illness or injury, PDN did not provide it or there was no PDN. |
* Notes that the condition was identified by doctor, health professional, or school official.
Parental Concerns: Approximately 10% of poor parents are concerned "a lot" about their young children ages 18-71 months. Almost 15% of African-American parents are concerned "a lot" about their young children. These concerns reported are:
| Poor | Non-Poor | Concerned a Lot About How Their Child: |
|---|---|---|
| 11% | 5% | talks or makes speech sounds. |
| 10% | 3% | understands what you say. |
| 11% | 3% | behaves. |
| >8% | 4% | gets along with others. |
| 6% | 3% | is learning to do things for self. |
| 8% | 5% | is learning pre-school and school skills. |
Neighborhood Support: Poor and minority families are much more likely to report less neighborhood support and safety. The percentage of children whose parents report these neighborhood support and safety problems are:
| Poor | Non-Poor | Problems |
|---|---|---|
| 20% | 8% | Disagree or somewhat disagree that people in the neighborhood help each other out. |
| 21% | 10% | Disagree or somewhat disagree that people in the neighborhood watch out for each other's children in "this" neighborhood. |
| 17% | 8% | Disagree or somewhat disagree that there are people I can count on in this neighborhood. |
| 28% | 15% | Definitely agree that there are people who might be a bad influence on my child. |
| 22% | 5% | Never or only sometimes feel that my child is safe in the neighborhood. |
For interviews with Dr. Baron Holmes, Director of South Carolina Kids Count (803.734.2291 or via email at baron.holmes@ors.sc.gov) or experts on early childhood education in your community, please contact Kelly Graham (803-256-4670, ext. 227; or via email at kgraham@scchildren.org).
| Reasons | SC Ranking | (%) Above US |
|---|---|---|
| Kids Count Indicators | ||
| 1) Our families are weaker and under greater stress: | ||
| In single-parent families | 48 | 29% |
| Born to teen mothers | 39 | 21% |
| 2) More children grow up in poverty | 42 | 28% |
| 3) More children are born with health problems: | ||
| Low Birthweight | 48 | 28% |
| Infant Mortality | 42 | 20% |
| Reasons | Poor Children | Non-Poor Children |
| NSCH and Child Care Surveys | ||
| 4) Poor children under age 6 have greater health problems: | ||
| Fair or poor health | 9% | 1.40% |
| Never breastfed | 50% | 29% |
| Limited ability to do things other children can do | 8% | 2% |
| Moderate or severe health conditions | 15% | 11% |
| Problems with emotions, behavior, and getting along with others | 12.60% | 6.40% |
| 5) Poor children get less adequate healthcare: | ||
| No personal doctor or nurse (PDN) | 19% | 11% |
| No preventive care in past two years | 23% | 13% |
| PDN does not spend enough time with child or no PDN | 51% | 31% |
| When care is needed right away for illness or injury, PDN does not provide it or had no PDN | 43% | 24% |
| 6) Families of poor children have more risks: | ||
| Only one adult in household | 20% | 5% |
| Hispanic/Latino | 8.50% | 1% |
| English not primary language spoken in home | 7% | 1% |
| Parents read to young child daily | 41% | 55% |
| Parents take young child on outing 4+ times per week | 46% | 73% |
| 7) Poor children rely less on formal care (as primary source) | 34% | 50% |
| 8) Poor children rely more on parental and informal care: | ||
| Parent care | 40% | 30% |
| Informal care | 26% | 20% |
| Less than HS | College Grad. | |
| 9) Children in low literacy families depend more on parent as the primary source of care | 44% | 29% |
| Estimated % of Needy Children(ages 0-4) Served | ||
| 10) Support for caregivers is minimal in South Carolina: | ||
| Parent care ( from parenting and family support services) | 10%-15% | |
| Formal care (from ABC vouchers, Head Start, and 4K) | Under 20% | |
| Informal care (quality enhancement and financial support) | Negligible | |