47^th on Kids Count and Mandated by Judge Cooper: It's Time to Implement Comprehensive Early Childhood Strategies

Kids Count Ranking and Judge Cooper:

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:

• human capital development, starting in early childhood;
• healthier living and more effective healthcare;
• family strengthening;
• community support for child development, family strengthening, and good health.

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 Cooper Remedy through Legislation in 2006:

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...⁴

¹Abbeville 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.
 

Parental, Formal, and Informal Care of Young Children⁵:

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:

• Mothers appear to be the caretaker of these young children for the majority of the child's waking hours.
• The primary source of care for ages 0-5 is 43% formal care, 35% parental care, and 22% informal care.
• The distribution of non-maternal care hours for ages 0-4 is 46% formal care (center-based, Head Start, and 4K), 35% spousal care, and 19% informal (FFN) care.
• The primary source of care as the child grows older shifts steadily from parental care to formal care in almost an inverse relationship; informal care's percentage is almost constant until it falls by 7% at age 4:
  • Parental care declines from 57% in the first year to 23% at age 3 and 22% at age 4.
  • Formal care increases from 17% in the first year to 62% at age 4.
  • At age 4 informal care drops by 7% and formal care increases by 7% as a result of 4K programs.

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.

• Children with disabilities use formal (35%), informal (34%), and parental (31%) care almost equally as their primary source of care.
   
• Children in poor families with income under 185% of poverty compared with non-poor children rely much more on parental care (40%-vs-30%), somewhat more on informal care (26%-vs-20%), but much less on formal care (34%-vs-50%) as their primary source of care.
   
• Children in families that work full-time (35+ hours) compared with those whose families work reduced hours (20-34 hours) and especially low or no hours (under 20) are most likely to rely on formal care as the primary source of care (68%-vs-56%-vs-33%), but significantly less on parental care (9%-vs-14%-vs-38%) and slightly less on informal care (23%-vs-30%-vs-29%).
   
• Children in single-parent families use informal care as their primary source of care much more than the children in married families (32%-vs-18%), slightly more formal care (47%-vs-43%) but much less parental care (21%-vs-39%). Children living with a divorced or cohabitating parent have primary sources of care roughly mid-way between married and single-parent families: parental care (27% and 31%) and informal care (32% and 25%).
   
• Children of parents with less than a high school degree rely much more on parental care as their primary source of care than children of college graduates (44%-vs-29%), somewhat more on informal care (24%-vs-18%), but much less on formal care (32%-vs-53%). Children of parents with only a high school degree or GED use only slightly more formal care than those in low-educated families (36%-vs-32%) but much less than those with college graduate parents (36%-vs-53%); they use slightly more informal care than low educated families (27%-vs-24%) and parental care mid-way between the low educated and college graduate families (37%-vs-44% and 29%).

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:

• Assistance must be provided to all three types of care (parental, formal and informal) to enhance quality of care and experiences nurturing child development and readiness.
   
• Parenting education and family literacy services are critical because low-educated families rely the most on parental care as the primary source of care for their children.
   
• Formal care serves as the primary source of care for roughly one-third of "at risk" children ages 0-5 (32-36% for low education, poverty, minimal work, and disabled child) and for almost half (47%) of single-parent families. Financial and quality enhancement support is needed by formal care providers.
   
• Informal care serves one-quarter to one-third of "at risk" children as their primary source of care. Since informal care providers currently are largely ignored for quality enhancement and financial support, they should become another target for early childhood development efforts.

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:

• The main reasons for choosing the primary source of non-parental care:
  • 29% knowing/liking/trusting the caregiver;
  • 25% program quality (nature of program, training/education of staff, staff/child ratio);
  • 21% convenience (hours/availability, location, and cost);
  • 19% judgment (recommended by friend, family, neighbor, or relative; religious or cultural preference).

• The main reasons for choosing the primary type of care:
  • Knowing/liking/trusting the caregiver is the main reason for family childcare (FCC) and FFN care (44% and 49%) but the least important reason (13%) for Center or Head Start care;
  • Program quality is the main reason for Center or Head Start care (38%) but not one of the main reasons for FCC (14%) and FFN (10%).
  • The second main reason for each primary type of care is: 25% judgment (recommended by friends, neighbors, and relatives; religious, and cultural preferences) for Center or Head Start care; 26% convenience (hours, availability, location and cost) for FFN; and 19% convenience for FCC.

• Families with children in Center or Head Start care were asked which childcare characteristic was the most important to them. The first four characteristics below are all quality features:
  • 43% the way the child and caretaker relate;
  • 25% the training and education of the caregiver;
  • 14% the number of children per caregiver;
  • 9% the type of activities offered;
  • 11% convenience (6% hours, 3% affordability, and 2% location).

• The policy and program support implications of these family reasons for choosing care would seem to be:
  • Families need resource and referral advice about quality of care characteristics and finding good care for their children (since program quality is only 25% of the main reasons);
  • Quality enhancement support should be provided to all types of providers, especially informal care for which knowing/trusting/liking the caregiver and convenience are the major reasons for choosing care (63% for FCC and 75% for FFN). Objective quality reasons are cited by very few families choosing informal care (14% FCC and 10% FNN) and by less than half (38%) of families choosing formal care;
  • Families with children in formal care cite quality characteristics as the "most important" ones for them; therefore, they need help affording and finding quality care so their children can benefit from the kind of care their parents value.

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.
 

Family, Neighborhood, and Health Circumstances of Young Children:

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:

• Poor families are shown to have greater risks in terms of :
  • Single adult households;
  • Minority and Hispanic status;
  • English as secondary language;
  • Literacy practices in the home;
  • Exposure to enrichment experiences;
  • Family stress;
  • Less neighborhood support;
  • Neighborhood problems with safety and bad influences.

• More poor children are reported to have greater health risks:
  • Fair or poor health overall;
  • Limited ability to do what most children can do;
  • Health conditions such as asthma, headaches, and ear infections;
  • Disabilities with hearing, vision, speech, learning, and developmental delays;
  • Emotional and behavioral problems;
  • Less adequate primary healthcare.

• The families of poor children have more parental concerns about their children's:
  • Speech and language;
  • Behavior;
  • Social skills;
  • Independence;
  • School readiness.

While the remedies for these risks to development and readiness are not the focus of this Kids Count essay, some conclusions are obvious:

• Families need more support for their economic and social viability and to enhance their parenting skills. Of the 265,000 children ages 0-4, there are roughly 53,000 to 88,000 "at risk" (assuming a range of 1/5 to 1/3). Parenting and family support programs probably do not serve any more than 10,000 of these children's families, approximately 10-20% of the "at risk" population. Consequently, expanded assistance to "at risk" families is a major issue in terms of comprehensiveness, intensity, and duration of support for child development.
   
• Poor children live in households and neighborhoods with greater risks. These risks limit the experiences of young children not only with their families but also in their childcare. This is especially true for FFN care and is an important reason why support for FFN care must be added to the policy agenda in South Carolina.
   
• The health conditions and services of poor children must be improved. Since one-quarter to one-half of poor children receive inadequate primary care, enhancements in accessibility and quality of health services funded by Medicaid must become part of the Cooper remedy. Data linking the health problems of children to their PACT scores shows that children with special healthcare needs are half of all students below basic on PACT and have twice the rate of sub-standard school performance as compared with healthy students.
   

Family, Health, and Neighborhood Risks of Children

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).

 

Top Ten Reasons to Make Young Children a Priority
(If South Carolina Wants to Be "Competitive")

1. South Carolina ranks an "uncompetitive" 47th on the wellbeing of children, (ahead of only Mississippi, Louisiana, and New Mexico).
    
2. South Carolina would have to reduce our family, economic, health, and safety problem indicator rates by roughly 20% to be "competitive."
    
3. South Carolina's economy is "not competitive" with or catching up to the nation.
    
4. Our main problem is our labor force which is "not competitive."
    
5. Children are our future workers to replace the Baby Boomers.
    
6. Education and work habits of children will determine their future competitiveness.
    
7. NAEP shows slow progress in education but South Carolina still is "not competitive" in education.
    
8. Family economics and structure in South Carolina are "not competitive."
    
9. Health services have improved but child health in South Carolina is "not competitive."
    
10. Care for our young children is inadequate, so early childhood development and readiness are "not competitive."
     

Top Ten Reasons Why Young Children Are "Not Ready" In South Carolina

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