Comments (8) | Add a comment
John L. Smith
Loss of child care subsidies will cost more in the long run
Tools
More Columns
More Blogs
It's a long way from Carson City to the Watch Me Grow preschool and nursery on Craig Road, but a recent decision made in the distant state capital has sent some of Brandie Heiseler's parents scrambling.
In a story that received little attention in Southern Nevada, the Division of Welfare and Supportive Services on Jan. 4 announced that increased demand for the state's Child Care and Development Program has exceeded available funding. That has put at least 220 of the 1,100 Nevada families whose breadwinners depend on child care assistance on a waiting list as division officials reassess eligibility requirements.
The announcement has done nothing to diminish the popularity of Gov. Brian Sandoval, who continues to receive bouquets in the media for his guidance of the state through a difficult economy. The fact Sandoval has balanced the budget in part on the backs of some of Nevada's neediest families has rated barely a footnote.
Heiseler isn't a state budget director or political insider. She's the director of the preschool. She sees firsthand how struggling families, often headed by single parents, depend on the child care stipend to maintain their jobs in an extremely challenging economic environment. Without that help, there would be no one to watch the children. And that means parents in the breach will slide from work to welfare.
"It's extremely important to the families," Heiseler says. "In difficult times, with positions being cut and not a lot of employment out there, working people really need the assistance to help pay for child care so they can keep working."
While it's also true that local child care centers receive those state funds, they are compensated at a fraction of their usual rate. The benefit far outweighs the cost in improving the lives of poor working families.
Take Whitney McEuen, for example. In recent months she has been working at the Habitat for Humanity Restore at 1401 N. Decatur Blvd. She gets 20 hours a week and is able to work because the state pays $28 a day to Watch Me Grow to cover child care costs for her young son.
Without that help, the proud single parent wouldn't be able to work and would slip back into the state welfare system.
"Really, the child care is everything to me," she says. "I was on welfare. If it wasn't for (the subsidy), I'd be back on it."
Hessie Bradford is under even more pressure. Although her two biological children are grown, in December she adopted three young nieces. State officials promised that she would receive child care assistance. She works full time booking hotel rooms, shows and restaurant reservations at MGM Resorts International.
Now she has learned that she might lose the child care assistance that not only helps her but also has relieved the state of the far greater cost of caring for three needy children. She says she was recently told the child care help would no longer be available to adoptive parents.
"I was told this is a service for working parents and that I would have that service available to me," Bradford says. "Now that I've adopted them, I have no child care. It's very nerve-racking to me. I need this service."
In Carson City, Welfare Division Administrator Diane Comeaux notes that demand has outpaced state and federal funding: "Last July we made limited reductions to eligibility hoping to avoid these deeper cuts, but unfortunately we did not realize the anticipated savings. To ensure we are doing all we can, we are implementing several new strategies to help Nevada families."
If those strategies include bumping single mothers McEuen and Bradford from the state's admittedly depleted child care program, however, they aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
John L. Smith's column appears Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. Email him at Smith@reviewjournal.com or call 702-383-0295. He also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/smith.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
mindfulwhim, you sure are full of yourself. You need to get over that every welfare recipient is a victim of circumstance. One of these ladies admits her decision to take in the children was based on welfare subsides...what other "promises" were made to her about subsides down the road? What Mr. Smith fails to provide in this article is exactly how much these two ladies and their children will ultimately cost the state/taxpayer because of healthcare programs, possibly housing, food programs etc....these welfare subsidies don't just stop with daytime childcare issues.
I feel ill when I read many of the comments here. Instead of finding a practical and workable solution to this problem, which is to find a way to help this single parent help herself, as in some job training to show her how to get on her feet so she can support her family, you attack her.
Such is the uneducated and demeaning attitudes of the conservative base; blame the victims. How can you be all about "competition" and then refuse to assist those who lose the competition? All competition implies winning and losing. The problem with the uneducated [selfish] attitudes of conservatives is that they cannot think critically enough to provide for those people who compete poorly in our society. They are [apparently] only interested in making sure that they, thenselves, can compete, whether through strict self interest, writing the rules and lawsin their favor, or just plain lying or manipulation of others for their own gains.
There's no empathy, or solutuons for those that are less fortunate than themselves; only blaming and negative judgement. These blamers only care that it is not they that are in need of assistance, of any kind, and they are willing to trample all over anyone to ensure it.
Woe be to anyone who need any assistance in "The Greatest Country in the World" (as they like to call it). I don't see it, because in my mind, actions speak louded than words.
If you can't afford to care for and feed them - "YOU SHOULD NOT BREED THEM" ----------------------
----------------
-----------------
------------------
----------------
-------------------
-------------------
---- It should not be somebody else's responsibility to pay for "RAISING YOUR KIDS"
Maybe welfare mothers should all be sterilized to prevent any more welfare babies. How about school in session for 12 months a year, you already have the highest -paid babysitters already under contract.
@waitaminute - Yes, she should have let her 3 nieces go into an orphanage, or better yet, let them be on the streets. Perfect solution to the problem....how in the he** do you sleep at night? I imagine you probably call yourself a Christian as well....
If people were paid enough for heir work they wouldn't need tax payer help.....instead of being angry with these parents..you should be angry at companies who choose to pay so little that we tax payers need to subsidies their employees
How in the he** does this woman decide to adopt children without adequate means to fully support them and then get indignant when the state (taxpayers) balk at subsidizing their day care? It's the typical entitlement mentality that pervade our society today.
I think this issue is a little more complex than presented in this article. But I do understand the resounding message is: if not this state welfare program, these care givers will depend on another state welfare program as in "Now she has learned that she might lose the child care assistance that not only helps her but also has relieved the state of the far greater cost of caring for three needy children." Really?