This article reviews the history and content of recently passed U.S. child care and family legislation. This legislation is compared to the child care and family policies of four European nations in terms of five major policy objectives: (a) increasing supply, (b) supporting maternal employment, (c) easing the burdens of child rearing, (d) permitting parental choice, and (e) raising the quality of programs. All four European nations have been concerned with promoting childbearing and assisting parents to balance work and family responsibilities. They have also increased national responsibility for the care and education of children ages 3-5 and employer responsibility for parental leave. In contrast to the state-run systems in France, the United States has a market-based system with middle- and upper-income parents making the choices and being reimbursed by the state for part of those expenses. Low-income parents receive targeted subsidies. Recent parental leave legislation brings the United States only slightly closer to Europe because the leave is unpaid.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adamik, M. (1991). Hungary—Supporting parenting and child rearing: Policy innovation in Eastern Europe. In S. B. Kamerman & A. J. Kahn (Eds.), Child care, parental leave and the under 3s: Policy innovation in Europe (pp. 115-144). Westport, CT: Auburn House.
2.
Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion. (1993). Creating a 21st century Head Start. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
3.
Barnes, R. (1988, October). The distributional effects of alternative child care proposals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Seattle, WA.
4.
Clarke-Stewart, A. (1989). Infant day care: Maligned or malignant?American Psychologist, 44, 266-273.
5.
Combes, J. (1993). France. In M. Cochran (Ed.), International handbook of child care policies and programs (pp. 187-209). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
6.
Crenshaw, A. (1991, February 14). An IRS chiller: Case of the disappearing dependents, or where did millions of children go?Washington Post, p. 21.
7.
David, H. (1982). Eastern Europe: Pronatalist policies and private behavior. Population Bulletin, 36, 1-48.
8.
David, M. G. , & Starzec, C. (1991). France: A diversity of family options. In S. B. Kamerman & A. J. Kahn (Eds.), Child care, parental leave and the under 3s: Policy innovation in Europe (pp. 81-113). Westport, CT: Auburn House.
9.
Finn-Stevenson, M. , & Trzcinski, E. (1990). Public policy issues surrounding parental leave: A state-by-state analysis of parental leave legislation. Unpublished manuscript.
10.
Golonka, S. , & Ooms, T. (1991). Child care in the 101st Congress: What was achieved and how will it work?Washington, DC: The Family Impact Seminar.
11.
Gunnarsson, L. (1993). Sweden. In M. Cochran (Ed.), International handbook of child care policies and programs (pp. 491-514). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
12.
Hofferth, S. (1993). Child care in the 101st Congress: Emerging agenda for children in poverty. In J. Chafel (Ed.), Childhood poverty and public policy (pp. 203-243). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
13.
Hofferth, S. , Brayfield, A., Deich, S., & Holcomb, P. (1991). The national child care survey 1990. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
14.
Kamerman, S. (1991). Child care policies and programs: An international overview. Journal of Social Issues, 47(2), 179-196.
15.
Kamerman, S. B. , & Kahn, A. J. (1981). Child care, family benefits, and working parents. New York: Columbia University Press.
16.
Kamerman, S. B. , & Kahn, A. J. (Eds.). (1991). Child care, parental leave and the under 3s: Policy innovation in Europe. Westport, CT: Auburn House.
17.
McIntosh, C. A. (1987). Recent pronatalist policies in Western Europe. In K. Davis, M. Bernstam, & R. Ricardo-Campbell (Eds.), Below-replacement fertility in industrial societies: Causes, consequences, policies(Supplement to Population and Development Review) (Vol. 12, pp. 318-334). New York: Population Council.
18.
National Commission on Children . (1991). Beyond rhetoric: A new American agenda for children and families. Washington, DC: Author.
19.
Nemenyi, Maria . (1993). Hungary. In M. Cochran (Ed.), International handbook of child care policies and programs (pp. 231-245). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
20.
O'Connell, M. (1990). Maternity leave arrangements: 1961-85. Work and family patterns of American women. In Current Population Reports (pp. 11-27), Special Studies Series P-23, No. 165. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
21.
Olmsted, P. (1988). Child care in 17 countries: The many worlds of today's preschoolers. High/Scope Resource, Spring/Summer, 1-3.
22.
Pettinger, R. (1993). Germany. In M. Cochran (Ed.), International handbook of child care policies and programs (pp. 211-230). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
23.
Phillips, D. (Ed.). (1987). Quality in child care: What does research tell us?Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
24.
Richardson, G. , & Marx, E. (1989). A welcome for every child: How France achieves quality in child care. Washington, DC: French-American Foundation.
25.
Robins, P. (1988). Federal support for child care: Current policies and a proposed new system. Focus, 11(2), 1-9.
26.
Schiersmann, C. (1991). Germany: Recognizing the value of childrearing. In S. B. Kamerman & A. J. Kahn (Eds.), Child care, parental leave and the under 3s: Policy innovation in Europe (pp. 51-79). Westport, CT: Auburn House.
27.
Sorrentino, C. (1990). The changing family in international perspective. Monthly Labor Review, 113(3), 41-58.
28.
Spencer, G. (1989). Projections of the population of the United States by age, sex, and race: 1988 to 2080. Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 1018.
29.
Sundstrom, M. (1991). Parenting policies for young families in Sweden. In S. B. Kamerman & A. J. Kahn (Eds.), Child care, parental leave and the under 3s: Policy innovation in Europe (pp. 171-199). Westport, CT: Auburn House.
30.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1989). Employee benefits in medium and large firms, 1988 (Bulletin 2336). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
31.
U.S. Congress . (1990). Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, section 5082, P.L.101-508. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
32.
U.S. Congress . (1993). Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Conference Report). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
33.
Whitebook, M. , Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (1989). Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in America. Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project.
34.
Willer, B. (Ed.). (1990). Reaching the full cost of quality. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
35.
Willer, B. , Hofferth, S., Kisker, E., Divine-Hawkins, P., Farquhar, E., & Glantz, F. (1991). The demand and supply of child care in 1990: Joint findings from the National Child Care Survey 1990 and a Profile of Child Care Settings. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
