.

Child Care - What Women Want

Westchester Women coming together to speak up on child care, economic opportunities and a stronger community!

Child care is often the biggest household bill after the rent or mortgage.   With a year of full-time child care for a 4 year old averaging over $14,000 annually in Westchester, most families struggle to find care that is both affordable and meets the emotional and educational needs of their children.   Most parents are left to their own devices to pay for child care, in contrast to college, which often provides financial assistance even to moderate income families. 

While Westchester County has many amazing child care and after school options for parents, there are also programs that will not necessarily prepare young children for educational success.   And then there are illegal child care businesses that do not comply with NY's regulatory requirements.   Parents need more help in navigating our confusing "child care market". 

NY is actually behind most states in the nation when it comes to the scope of early learning systems and services.   Nearly 30 states have already implemented  quality rating improvement systems, giving parents comprehensive and clear
indicators of quality to guide their child care and early learning choices.  NY’s
version, QUALITYstarsNY, is not yet fully rolled out, held back by insufficient state funding.

Westchester women need affordable child care choices that will not only allow them to work, but provide reliable care and rich learning for their children.   If you have something to say about child care, come to the first ever Westchester Women’s Summit on Saturday, March 2nd at the Yonkers Riverfront Library.   Organized by the Westchester Women's Agenda, the Summit will bring together hundreds of women from across the county sharing their concerns, their needs and their aspirations - about jobs, health care, legal services, children's services and more.  The free event runs from 8:30 am to 1:30 pm; registration is required.

For more information or to register, go to westwomenssummit.eventbrite.com.

For more info on child care, contact the Child Care Council of Westchester at (914) 761-3456 or visit our website www.ChildCareWestchester.org.

Kathy Halas, Executive Director, Child Care Council of Westchester and member of the Board, Westchester Women's Agenda.

 



 



 



 



This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

John Gruber February 27, 2013 at 03:46 AM
that's why it's called a CHOICE and a SACRIFICE. Don't make choices for which you're unwilling/unable to make the sacrifices for. No one is forcing you to have a child therefor I shouldn't be forced to pay an expense no one forced you to incur.
John Gruber February 27, 2013 at 04:12 PM
I would think "college educated" people are smart enough to understand it costs money to raise a child and it's a completely personal choice not being forced on you by anybody. There are plenty of people who CAN afford it, I shouldn't have to pay more so you can get everything you feel entitled to when in fact you're not.
Bjorn Olsson February 27, 2013 at 05:43 PM
John, you're the one calling it a sacrifice. I call making sure it is feasible for people to have kids and work a necessity. If we want women in the workforce, we should make sure there is good affordable child care available. In the past there wasn't much of a choice for women. Most women I know would LOVE to be able to stay home more with their kids, but US society makes very little allowance for parental leave, sick days for sick children, affordable day care, etc. I understand that your position on this is different and it's not an unreasonable one at that, but this is how I see it.
Ethel February 27, 2013 at 08:04 PM
Not really relevant here, but why is this about what the woman wants? I know several local families that have made the decision to have children, and the one who stays home to raise them is the father. And for one, I think that's great.
John Gruber February 27, 2013 at 08:23 PM
It's a sacrifice because you CHOOSE to have the child and raise. Life's not about what you would "love" to do, it's about what you CAN do. If you don't want or can't afford the personal responsibility of a child, DON'T HAVE ONE. It's common freaking sense. Why should I pay another tax so you can do what you "love". If one wants to work more than they want to raise a child, the solution isn't to make people pay so they can have both. Instead of making people pay for you, don't be selfish and make people pay so you can do what you want.
Carl Schneider February 28, 2013 at 01:13 PM
Bjorn "highest rate of child poverty per GDP" means we we have the highest percentage of poor children for the amount of money we make as a country.
Bjorn Olsson February 28, 2013 at 01:17 PM
So, I am having a hard time following your argument based on that fact true or not. Are you trying to argue that poor people have more children in the US than elsewhere? My interpretation of such a fact would be that the US as a society is less successful at supporting those families.
Carl Schneider February 28, 2013 at 01:19 PM
Don't even get me started about emergency room health care for people who get hurt trying to stand on the seat while riding a motorcycle ... or ride their skateboard down a really long hand rail...
Carl Schneider February 28, 2013 at 01:23 PM
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_06232004/ This is about expenditures per GDP on poverty and how much we still have, slightly different but still horrible. We spend more and get less. Anyone who thinks that we are not geared here towards keeping the poor poor and dependent needs to look at this.
Carl Schneider February 28, 2013 at 01:38 PM
The US is 14th in the world in GDP per capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita All of the countries above us have lower percentages of child poverty than we do. Actually only Romania is higher, and they are not one of the 14. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/29/491443/un-report-child-poverty/?mobile=nc
Bjorn Olsson February 28, 2013 at 02:18 PM
And most of the countries with lower poverty rates than the US on that list have much stronger social than the US, like paid maternal leave and universal healthcare. It really works.
Ellen Cunningham February 28, 2013 at 02:30 PM
All you who stress the choice of having kids when you can afford them ( and I agree in theory), I want to be clear that you are all strongly pro choice and believe in the prevalence and availability of birth control??
George Datino February 28, 2013 at 02:40 PM
Ellen, Are you equating abortion as a form of birth control in your question?
Ellen Cunningham February 28, 2013 at 02:50 PM
Of course not except in that what happens if you get pregnant with a child that " you cannot afford"?? Do you go ahead and continue with that pregnancy, be forced to return to work etc etc?
John Gruber February 28, 2013 at 03:22 PM
Most would think that fact means there are to many people having children they can't afford to have. And the solution isn't to make other people pay for them. The government isn't here to make sure you can get everything you can't afford. there a plenty enough who CAN AFFORD to pay for their own kids that I shouldn't have to pay another tax so you can have what you feel entitled to. And if the government paying for household bills works, Europe wouldn't be the bonafide mess it is. There is nothing ok with you forcing me to pay more so you can have a kid you can't pay for on your own. Lets not forget the ones who will have MULTIPLE kids they can't afford. You still expect me to pay that tax so they can enjoy fantasy land a little longer? Life's about choices, not making other people pay so you don't have to make those choices
Ellen Cunningham February 28, 2013 at 04:23 PM
Aidan. How about connecting the dots then! Very mature response. are you unaware that no contraception is foolproof, 100 percent effective? and many are expensive? The point I am trying to make that the issue is not black and white and there can be a role for government for assisting In the grey areas. And maybe in child care assistance, to keep people off welfare.
Bjorn Olsson February 28, 2013 at 04:36 PM
Yes, I would expect you to pay those taxes if they were implemented, I suppose. You're already paying for tax deductions for parents, for people without health insurance and for tanks and carriers noone ever asked you about, that's just how it goes. Europe's fiscal crisis has everything to do with the poorly implemented Euro currency and the bank collapse, nothing with childcare subsidies.
John Gruber February 28, 2013 at 07:36 PM
I agree with your logic, except the welfare part, I think if people didn't have kids they couldn't afford and took advantage of contraceptives and even clinics there would be LESS people on welfare. It's cheaper to pay for a lousy contraceptive or relatively simple procedure than to raise multiple children. If the government wants to provide cheap ways for people to AVOID having children that seems reasonable, but it's unrealistic to make the public foot the bill for raising children of parents who aren't responsible
Aidan February 28, 2013 at 08:45 PM
More sloppy liberal logic. Play connect the dots with some other dopes. Abortion has no role here. I'm not pro choice. I'm pro responsibility. Contraceptives are as available as soap. Leave that lazy excuse alone.
Aidan February 28, 2013 at 11:32 PM
Okay. First dot: you are responsible for your actions. Second dot: I am not. Third dot: the government should not be responsible for your irresponsibility. Fourth dot: don't use welfare as a dot.
Carl Schneider March 01, 2013 at 01:43 AM
Pro choice or not, I think there is a place for "an oops" and no place for having children on purpose that you know ahead of time that you cannot afford. There IS a difference.
John Gruber March 01, 2013 at 07:38 PM
" You're already paying for tax deductions for parents, for people without health insurance and for tanks and carriers noone ever asked you about" You continue to compare completely irrelevant things. Those taxes pay for OUR defense, if people can't afford medical care they can DIE. That's YOUR child, not OUR. Having children you can't afford nor can be there to raise should not be rewarded. There are PLENTY who CAN afford their own children, so there is no need for people to have children they can't pay for themselves so here's an idea, why don't people start paying for things they don't need themselves before you start taking more from my pocket.
Teleman March 02, 2013 at 01:06 AM
Look at the Reagan speech from 1967- back then the democrats were dedicating billions to the "war on poverty" 40+ years later and trillions spent- poverty is roughly the same. Liberal Fail
Teleman March 02, 2013 at 01:08 AM
$16 trillion in debt and counting- where are we supposed to get the money to cover all of these benevolent causes again?
John Gruber March 02, 2013 at 04:56 PM
It's truly a sad state when people expect the government to provide the money and means to raise their own child
Bjorn Olsson March 03, 2013 at 02:20 AM
Gruber, I don't have a problem understanding your standpoint and it makes sense that the comparisons are irrelevant to you. I agree that parents are responsible for their own children, but it also benefits all of us to do everything we can to support parents and children, in many ways just as much as military spending.
Bjorn Olsson March 03, 2013 at 04:06 PM
First of all: people of all classes will continue to have babies, affluent people, poor people, smart people and stupid people. In the end, it will benefit all of us if we do what we can to make sure these kids get what they need to flourish and overcome a challenging childhood. It takes a village, as they say, and simply sneer that the parents should have been more responsible really won't make a difference.
Curious March 03, 2013 at 09:57 PM
If our government stopped subsidising illegal aliens & their children with our tax dollars, there would be plenty of money to help pay for childcare for those who need it.
John Gruber March 04, 2013 at 04:28 PM
"First of all: people of all classes will continue to have babies, affluent people, poor people, smart people and stupid people" So why should the people who are irresponsible and flat out stupid get my money when I made many of the same decisions they COULD have and raised my kids with out making someone else pay for it. Children should not be brought into this world with the assumption that someone else will pay for it. It's not right to "tax" the responsible ones who A) waited to raised their children til they could afford to and now have to pay a tax so others DON'T B) raised their children without the assistance of the government and now are expected to pay for someone else C) CHOSE NOT to have kids because of the high costs and now have to incur additional ones because other people aren't intelligent or feel entitled Just because I'm responsible and make good choices shouldn't mean I now have to pay more. Saying "people will always be responsible" is not a justification for making me pay for them. There's contraceptives, planned parenthood etc. The only time it takes a village is if the kid belongs to the village idiot.
John Gruber March 04, 2013 at 04:37 PM
"I agree that parents are responsible for their own children, but it also benefits all of us to do everything we can to support parents and children, in many ways just as much as military spending." It only benefits the people who can't afford to support themselves, I get NO benefit from paying to raise SOMEONE ELSE'S child. There are enough people who CAN afford to support themselves that there is no need for these people who can't afford kids to keep having them. Period. I'm not sure how you think forcing society to pay for a tax that mostly only the irresponsible will benefit from helps all of us. your taxing parents that ALREADY paid their OWN money to raise their kids or can't afford their own at all to raise YOUR kid. In no logical way can you compare military spending to giving irresponsible parents money for having something they can't afford. Military spending defends HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS os US citizens. National security isn't at risk because I don't want to pay for people to have something they have no business having.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something