The much-dreaded ‘reorganisation’ under the Trump administration has yet again become the cause célèbre in the media. This time, it’s the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which has been subjected to rigorous reshuffling and resource redistribution, and the media has predictably put the spotlight on the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, the HHS is an amalgam of several agencies, offices, and programs, including the two prominent child-care programs: Head Start and the Child Care and Development Fund. Recently, the administrative changes have reportedly impacted these programs as well, leading to service disruptions and forecasted program failures in the future.
The two federally funded child care programs allegedly cater to millions of children, primarily those hailing from low-income families. The importance of these programs is often overemphasised citing the correlation between poverty and low prospects of success in later life. These programs purportedly counter those effects through early childhood education, equipping children with cognitive and emotional resilience.
One must note that these programs function optimally under the HHS, providing a ‘bargain’ proposition by offering potential future adults who are more productive and healthier. But, one must not underestimate the uphill battle these programs face internally. Even without political changes, these programs are a logistical nightmare, persistently understaffed and staring down the barrel of chronic budget cuts.
The primary federal body responsible for early-childhood programs is the Administration for Children and Families (ACF). Before the operational overhauling, the ACF was said to boast a workforce strength of around 2,400 employees. Post the staff reductions, the ACF is reportedly now left with about 1,500 employees – an astounding 38 percent reduction.
Though the specifics of those who were laid off remain unclear, it is believed that many were working on the aforementioned child-care programs. The reactions from former officials, advocates, and child-care providers across the country have been evidently pensive.
AFS regional staffs play a critical role in ensuring that the federal standards for child-care programs are maintained. They offer guidance to state officials and care providers to meet these standards and help navigate the notorious federal paperwork and bureaucracy, which, if not promptly addressed, can retard the payment processes.
The funding stream’s stability is not the only concern here. The narrative around early-childhood care changed drastically over the last decade. The increasing recognition of the critical development that happens in the first two to three years of a child’s life, along with the narrative around program quality and safety, has led to calls for higher safety and operational standards in these programs.
In response to these challenges, lawmakers and government officials tried to tighten federal child-care program regulations. The new set of safety regulations that were introduced faced roadblocks typical to the public sector. However, in the recent past, the HHS managed to hire staff to monitor these new standards, most of whom are now reportedly laid off.
The effectiveness of these early-childhood programs and the ideal model for their execution has always been a subject of intense debate. Conservative intellectuals argue that these programs are over-regulated by the federal government, making them unnecessarily expensive and onerous without guaranteeing an increase in quality.
The critics also suggest that federal subsidies disproportionately favor large care centers, which may not be the preference of all families. Additionally, they argue against the bureaucratic red tape that often becomes a hallmark of such sprawling programs.
Although the critics might have expected some systematic reduction in regulations and a careful plan to improve efficiency across the board, the Trump administration’s approach was rather abrupt. The layoffs were swift and gave little time for the outgoing employees to manage their records and hand over their duties.
The rapid changes left many in a state of confusion, with Head Start providers unsure who to contact at HHS. The suddenness of the whole restructuring process and the lack of a clearly defined plan have drawn intense criticism. Critics claim that these cuts to the workforce could lead to less safe, more expensive, and harder to find childcare.
In conclusion, while the real intentions behind these drastic changes remain unclear, the administration’s approach has certainly demonstrated its disdain towards the early-childhood programs and their incumbents. And the fact that the lion’s share of this burden is expected to fall on the hard-worked directors of these programs only adds insult to injury.