HomeMy WebLinkAbout0190.091; . • . , ,
April 4, 1991
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, CaIifcmia
Child Care Comprehensiye NeedS Assessme!lL Report
Members of !he Cooncil:
'Rtport in Brief
This is an informational item and no Council actioo is required. The purpose of this report
is to summarize the results of the three child care needs assessments undertaken in Palo Alto
wililin !he last year by liIe Child Care Coordinate< at CouncJ1 direction.
The Cluld Care Master PJan, approved in concept by liIe Council on December 18, 1989,
called fo< ono and five year goals in four majO!' -=s: Quality, Affordability., Availability
and Accessibility of lioensed child care programs for all who need lIlem. The comprehensive
needs assessment fmdings rq>orted by staff will be utilized by the CMd Care Task Force as
!hey refine their annual goals and objectives. Tbe one year goals will be revised annually
based on updaled data, and implementation of the Master Plan's Year Two objectives will be
t>ased on tile fincfmgs found in this report.
Key Points
This report presents. brief synopsis of the Cluld Care Pro,ider Survey, tile Employer Child
Care Needs A=sment and the EmplOyee/Community Needs AssessmenL (Copies of the
survey results are attached). Recommendations based on this report "ill be presented 10 the
Human Relations Commission by the Child.Care Task Force on April 4th, 1991 as part of
their annual review of the Master Plan Goals and Objectives
Backj:round
On December 18, 1989, the City Council approved in concept the Child Care Master Plan
subntitted by the City" Cbild Care Task Force. Al that meeting, Council directed staff 10
return wilL'i a report desCribing the comprebensi .. 'e child care needs found in tbe commu.nity.
Staff chose three i.,sttuments; a child care provider survey, an employer survey a.'1d an
.emp!oyee/community survey. This methodology 'WaS chosen in order to gain the perspecti ... 'e
of families, businesses a.'Id child care providers.
CMR: 190:91
• ZI _ ------
•
,
?
"J..
'.
,
•
Cbild CNe Proyider Sum,Y Rgull$
Surveys were senl by the Coonfin.Uor'. Office 10 all licensed child care providers in Pak;
Alto, both cenler-based program. and family day care homes. "mely·five surveys were
distributed, 46 III oenten and 45 10 day care bonws. A self·addr-..ssed stamped envelope was
provided 10 assisl in the return. FoUow·up phone calls were made, encourngin, respondents
10 t<>mplele and return the """,ey instrurrenL The response rale for eenten was 72 '11\ (33)
and fa< family day care bomes, S3" (26).
Four of the licensed family day care homes surveyed had ceased operation. d"ring the .urve~
period. This change brings the number ~eyed 10 46 centers a.~d 45 family day care homes.
One ~ note on the methodology: Only programs licensed by the Slate and Counly Social
Servi<;e;s Departments were surveyed. Nei!her !he figures lIlX the responses shO'.lld be
regarded as chani..'"teristics of unIioeosed, exempt or illegal operations.
In summarizing !he results of !his surIIey, Sl2ff finds a high demand for licensed child care
spaces which is not currently being met (42% more spaces needed to serve current waiting
fists}. See Attachment i.
Of those surveyed, currently 2" of family day ::are enronmenl and S% of child care center
..... are partially subsidized. It is esti~ that ," of families in family day care bomes
and 22" of cenler·based participants need funding assistanre.
VtIhen SIaff compiled average fee char&es for """ice, il was easy 10 see why affordai:>ilily is
sucl! an issue. Infant care in centers averaged $734 montl'Jy; loddIer nu.; averaged $661;
pr=hool care, $483; and school·age care sm. Family day care home rates were 1es',
which is usually the case: infant, $549 monthly; lOddIer, $535 monthly; preschool, $497
monthly; and SChool-age, $3 an hour. One caveat is that these fees represent the average
found in December 1989. Most programs raise their fees in la.ouary or July, SO the current
fees may be higher than reported here. Palo Alto Community Otild Care, operalor of 17
cenlen, raised Illei! rates an average of II" in July and Synlex', child care program raised
their ",u.; an average of over S" !his pa.II summer. Because these programs are seen as
bartlingers in the field, other prognrns, if !hey have nol already dar. so, wi.ll follow in
raising dleir tuition, dramatically increasing these averages.
Tuition rates arc c.calaIing, beca>Jse !)( efforts 10 adjust for 1he traditional!) lew saJaries and
compensation derived by child care worken. Family day care owners average 517,655
annueny w!u1e bome assiSlanIS are paid $6 hourly. Ceoter £taft' teache" are averaging
S12,940 aMually; head teachers, $19,978; site dimcIors, $25,416; and administra:ors,
S29,SOO annually. Part-lime teacher assistants in centers average $6.82 an hour (interestingly
enough, thio figure represents an increase of S I. 50 an hour over !he national average, ..,hieb
provides • ciue as 10 ho,,' underpaid !he fie\d is tJu'Oughout !he country).
Staff turnover is at 41 peroenl n.'llionally, primarily be<:ause of the sUm compensation. High
lUmOVer is the number OIle impedimenl 10 • qU&lily child development experience. Tui!ion
CMR: 190:91
Page 2
rates have rue.. in an attempt to keep qualified workers in the field, thereby enriclling
programming. Cnfortwu.lely. the true OOSI of care is more than many parents can afford;
Ill"" child care worl<trs, have in effect, been subsicflZing the field through acceptaru:e of low
wages.
Certainly child care cen!erS and family day care homes an: DOl realizing huge profit' at the
expense of their staff. Only 12" of the tenttrs in Palo Alto reported • profit last year, while
48" lost mcney and 40'" broke even. Among homes, 6595 of family day care homes made.
profi~ 9595 broke even and 8" suffcre<l • loss (19" of bomes declined to Slate). As one
can see, family day care homes fared belter than center-based operations financially. This is'
due 10 a moltilude of factors, includin* less overhead, Jess staff and therefore Jess compen .. -
lion, and by and larse, family day care homos charge less for their services, thereby they
have lower vacancy rates.
A comparatively high percentage (2990.1 cl Palo Alto families use preschool child care
centers for socialization/enhancement pwposes as oppo<ed 10 • n<ed for child care due 10
parental work, training or school schedules. Non-residents of the City use 40 percent of the
Ii-.ed spaces available. This higb percentage signifies. couple of bsues: child care is a
regional issue not easily addressed solely as a municipal coocem; and most of those repre
sented by the 40 percent category work 10caIIy but reside elseWhere, bringing their child care
need with \hem 00 their daily commute path. Man} parents find it comfortable to have their
children, especially infants and toddlers, closer to their place of work. This desire height
ened afler the October 1989 earthquake and exacerl>ates the lack of supply. Many jurisdic
tions have implemented employer/deveJoper mitigation measures !}ing cbild care 2JJd
additional development together (e.g., San Ramon, Contra Costa Counly. Concord. San
Francisco, Los Angeles).
A large ""\iority of Jiceosed center> desire Increased linages ... ith City services, i.e.,
libraries (94"), child care coonIinator (91"), recreation divbion (79") and increased senior
adult volun= (69"). Fanuly day care !!omes expressed. srnaIler need ~, networlring with
outside programs from 62" (cluld care coordinator intenlction) down to 23" (senior adults
.. volunteers).
Wllh regard to accreditation, (NatiOJ12l Associatioo for Edueation of Young Children), 42"
are interested in lhat process, 27" are nO( interested ","d 23" are either curren~y accredited
or in process.
The maj« obstacles in openting progr.uns in Palo Alto are: 1) low tad.or salaries, 2) high
staff turnover, 3) area high oost of living and 4) inadequate site availability.
Day can: centers and large family day can: homes had minimal problems with the Stale
I...icensing Offi<:e (12"), highly uncharllcteristic of the field. Thi. pojnts out the strong
professional demeanor of most ope:ations in Palo Alto. No small family day care homes
reported problems in working with the Licensing Division.
CMR: 190:91
Page 3
Only one OUI of twe:Jty-four day care centers oiled problem. wo<king with the State-funded
Resouroe and Refemo! agency (4C Council 0( Santa Clara County) regarding refemo!
functions, and only one family day care ~.ome oul 0( fifteen experienced Iiklo problems.
When asked 10 evaluate the training program wd t.cchnical 'Jlpport available from the
resoorte and memo! organization, however, 24% 0( cenle,. and IS" of hom .. wen: les3
!han satisfied with those services, indicating a need fo< more training and wocJr;shop .. ssion.
10 be beld 1oca1ly. A review 0( types 0( con:ent offered was wggestOO by those surveyed ..
EmplQyer Nm1$ AW:5gntmf R:otults
Of the 54 companies who responded 10 the 3() minute telephone SlIrvey, 66" offer some
Iype of child =~ benefit Of thO$O, 75" provide benefits that directly benefit employees
woo are parents. The remaining 2S" provide inauect benefits, including fle",ble time
options which may .,.. may JlO( be (flrectly attn""utable 10 child care assistance (= Attach
ment 2).
Direct benefits include .. , OIl or near-site child care center, • DeM' Program (Dependent
Care Assistance Plan), an enhanced refenal program, parentai leave, financial assistance 10'
child care providen, reimbursement accounts and .,.. .endocivouc!ler programs.
Staff allempled 10 obtain • repreamtltivc sample with regard 10 size and Iype of busIness,
surveying fum. from an employee base of 10 up 10 S600 worlrers. The size 0( the company
was the only rorrelete linking companies with tI>eir predispositioo '" offering benefits. All
COil'pOllies with over SOO employees offer clu1d care benefits. Neither the IYpe of industry
itself nO< gender composition had an, impact Ofl the nature of benefits offered.
Despite the fact tltat groups represe..ting small businesses have been vebement in their
opposition 10 parentai lea.elegisJation in Sacrnmento and Washington, smaIl companies in
Palo Alto are more likely 10 offer generous pam>ta1 leave pankag .. tltan bug", ft..". •. This is
an impO<tant benefit due 10 the fact thaI quality infant care is scarce and very expensive,
leading many welI-qualified WOJneI1 workers to leave the work foroe postpartum. This is
detrimental to business as costs rise appreciably in the area of r .. ;ruitment and training ",hen
higII twnover results.
Of the CO<pOra!ions offering chil~ care benefits, 7% of their employees utili", them (median
uso). The more women the organization employs, the higher the usage factor. TIle most
popular benefit offered is the Dependenl Care Assistance Plan (!)CAP), whieb is offered by
40'" of the organizations providing benefits. Mea"", DCAP use is also 7j1;. A DeAP
~ is a "p<e-tu" payroll plan under l.lLS. O>de Sectio<! 129. whereby employees may
set asi<ieop 10 $5000 annually from tI>eir salary 10 pay for dependent care f.,.. children,
elderly parents and disabled dependents. This is a nontaxable benefit. The employer also
aves tu: money since t.~ amount set aside is 00( considered wages.
WIlen employers were queried as to tI>eir reasons fO£ instituting clu1d care benefits,
-employee satisfaction" was given as the prinwy motivation. The Dumber one stUmbling
CMR.: 190:91
Page 4
, ,
•
I
block given as an impediment to providing child care benefits was cost. Fifty percent 0( all
orpnizaIion. cited thiJ facto<, yet two-thirds of those that mentioned coS! as I detriment still
provided benefits. Three respondents cited inadequate infomwion about child care benefits
(those firms have been C<>Iltacled by the Coordinator', office (or te.:hnical assistan<:e
provision), Of the 33% !IOI offering ally child care benefits 0( any kind, none p:ans to offer
them in the future. Half the companies currently offering benefits pLut to expand t'>eir m<nu
in the ncar future.
While interviewing the employers, we asked if we could s1Jrvey their employees.. Most films
ga.ve their approval and we distribufed our employee/community instrument to employees of
every firm that agreed. Also, every perooa, who called the County-, State-funded Rcsoure<:
and Refenal Agency within the las! year regarding child care who resid"" or worked in l'-.Io
M.o, was senl a survey form. See Attachment 3.
We tabul.1ed 1628 completed questionnaires, with 79" representing employees between the
ages 0( 18 and 45,92% representing eml'loyees locally-based, 72% representing two adult
households, 64" representing dual inromes and 91" representing fun-time work status.
Fony-pewlIIt of all employees responding 10 the survey currently need or use child care;
83" 0( those need DC use full day programming; 48" 0( ali those utilizing any type 0( c~.ild
care use licensed facilities, IS" provide the care themselves, 1351 use relatives and 12% use
sitters in borr.e.
By age group, 34" 0( the respondents with infants, SS % 0( those with preschoolers and 5751
o(!bose with schoolagen "se licensed child care.
The Community was basically plea>ed with their child care artaIlgements; only 18 % cited
that they were unsatisfied with lheir current siruation. O.ie! .reasons [or dissatisfaction were:
1) high cost of care (23%), 2) location less than desirable (21%) and 3) perceiv"" lack 0(
program quality (21 %).
Thirty~. percent 0( all employ<es queried missed wod, Of "ere late due to child care
problems between ooe and ten times annually (i.e., soeklng new provider, olSCipline
problems surfacing at the center, etc). Five percent said they were ilbsent Of tardy over 10
times annually. Forty-three percent said they were late or absent between one and lO times
annually due SO a sick cruld; live percent said this impacted them over 10 tl mes a year.
Seventy-two percont 0( the work rorce question"" said their child care arrangements fell
through from ~me to time (a sick or closed provider). Fifty-five percent of !hose missed
WIld< to care for the child when that occurred. 23 % said their spouse ortissed work 10 care for
the child, 16% had .... of a hack-up program and 6" used other methods to deal wi!h that
silUalion. Approximately half 0( the =JlOOdents ",(feted work interruptions due to a child
care-Idale<l problem (49%) at !east on. 10 I<n times annually.
CMR: 190:91
Page S
•
Itepnfutg usage of & sick child care fac11ity when their offspring were ill, 56% said they
would "'" such a progr.il11 jf it wen> available; 44li would not. However, when told lhat
their tmi'I"yer would assiSl in the <OSI, 68li said u.,y woold ... s< sucb a program, while 32 %
. would not. TIti. refl<cts I>oth the high cost of r-..:upera!i·'. centers (usually averaging $40 a
clay) and the 1elaIively new availability of sick care facilities, ""herein many pan:nts do not
foe! oomfottable leaving their sick child in • structuml care situation.
WheIl employees were asked wbat child care benefits were offered by their employers, a
Dependent Care Assistance Plon (DCAF) was, by far, the most frequent benefit mentioned
(48%). The nextlhr<:c mentioned were: On (]C Near Sile Child Care Facility (11 !i),
Itcimbursement Accounts/Flexible Spending Plan (9li) and Financial SupportiEnhanced
lteferral Programs (7%).
The iast q\leStion asked of the employees regarded their use of the child care benefits offered
by their employers. Of t'1e employees wbo were ." .... ." of said benefits being offered, 42 %
utilized !be various forms of Financilll Support, 35% used the Ite;mbursement A=unts,
32 % used !be Flexlble Spenalllg Plan, 31 % wele in a DCAF Program. 26% used their
employer supported child care faciiity and 13% utilized the Enhanoed Referml Program.
CONCWSION
The child care service delivery system a""lable in Palo Alto is a complex one. While
plentiful options ue available for the population, alSadvantages in the sySICm ue evilknt
from !be findings of the comprehensive needs assessments. Various program options are
abundant, yet cijrens withoot adequate disposable income have a difficult time finding and
anOrding quality care. While L"" City of Palo Alto Mod the Stile Department of Education
offer subsidies 10 those in need, many pan:nts are unable to afford o.e ccst of quality child
<:are provision; many programs have a diffi<:ult time recruiting appropriate staff because of
6.., low remuneration; and many facilities cannot afford the COS! of doing busIness in Palo
AIIo with regard 10 rentsllea= and properly oWllen!rlp COSI>. The profit motive in the fiel<l
is basically absent as only a smali percentage of pmgr.un.; ("""let-based) reported ..,alliS up
in the black litis past fiscal year.
To creale a climate w1J.e,." the child care servi<:e delivery system can wock opti maIly,
additional partners must be encouraged 10 jciJ1 "isting efforts 10 provide assistlL.1Ce to the
field. Besides !be City ,-,d Stale, who aIrea.:Iy bave committed much \0 the endeavor, a
strong commitment from the privale sector and the feden! government is ne<essar)I before a
debvery 5y'"tem thai works for all can be implemenll'd.
A major task lhat lies ahead involves educati<g employers kl the benefits of assisting their
employees with their family support needs, Study after srudy bas shoWll the cO'H:ff""tive
nature of making available a wide variety <>f family support options to !be worlc force.
Incentives are available from California and !be federal government kl businesses who
eOOeavoc to pro\ide tbese types of benefit offerings. A major OIltteach project is needed to
ecIucate, inform and assiSl the private seclO£ in our comm unity regard""'g !be availability of
II!es< incentives. In Ibis vein, the City'. Child Care Task Pmce stated in their original report
CMlC 190:91
Page 6
•
. '-.-".
.-
/
to C-OUI'.cil !bat ~ City al", n=<\, 10 provide additional benefit> 10 their employees in order
10 best serve lIle community as a model employer.
Recently eNC1cd feder1II child care Iegi,lation makes additional funding available to states for
!be purp<><eS of ..msidizing fees, offering additional r.chnical assistance and IIaining 10 ~
field and improving stlff compensalioo (passed as part of ~ lteronc11iatioo Budget Bill oa
Octobel' 2711l, 1990). The legislation created two new block grants 10 states -the child care
development block gran! (CCDOO) and a new capped entitlement within ~ AFDC job
opportunities and basic 0011, program (JOBS). In additiO!l, it expanded !he earned income
tax CIedit (EITC) and adjusted it foe family size, and created two new related tax credits. •
Although !hi, funding wi!I not !la, .. much impact in Palo Alto in ~ near future since 7S"
0( tile $99 million which california is sIaIed 10 recei~ i. earmarl<ed for low income SUbsidy
assistance, it nevertItcless sets !he sb£e for addinorull assistance in the future.
The Child Care Task F= will submit 1'",,,,"n"ldalioru ba.5<d on ~ fIndings of these IhTce
needs assessmerJI> 10 the Human Rolations CommWion, which in turn will SIlbmi! their
=mmeMalioos 10 L'>e City Council.
Attachments: 1-Child Care Provider Survey instrument and Report
CMIl; 190:91
2-Employer Needs Assessment Instrument and Report
3-EmployeeiCommunity Need, Assessment In.5!rument and Report
Page 7
•
.) ,
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF PALO ALTO
CHILD CARE PROVIDER SURVEY REPORT
Conducted by
Office of Child Care Coordinator
Human Servi<:es Divis;on
City of Palo Alto
I.
II.
III.
If.
Y.
PREfACE ••
"~"THOOOLOGY
SlMllARY •
FlHllIHSS
AECOIItEIIiA TI otIS
TABlE OF COIITENTS
I
2
3
6
14
.«f".
Stlrveys were sent to ill licensed child care providers in Palo Alto. botJ\ center
bas~d pro9r~ms and famlly day care homes. A self-addressed stamped envelope ~as
provided to assist in the return. Follaw-up phone (a115 ~ere made, encourdging
respond~nts to complel~ and ret~rn the survey i~strument.
9~ surveys were distrj~uted~ 46 to chl1d care centers and 49 to family day care)
hOlTles. 33 centers and 26 homes responded for a total of 5.9 completed surveys
out of the ori9inal 95, or iI 62 percent respon5e rate. The response rate fc-r
child care !:enters was 12 percent; 53 percent of family day ciI!'"e homes T!sponded.
As befitting the myriad of problems faced by chtld care providers, four of the
1 icensed fam~ 1,)' day care homes sur~eyed had ceased ope rat ions during the sur'l'ey
period. This cnange brings the current number ~f licens!d child care facilities
in Palo Alto to 46 ce~ter~ and 45 family da~ (are homes~
Ooe finil note: Only programs licensed by the State and Count} Social Services
Oepartr.u~nts were surveyed. Neither the figures nor the responses should be
regarded as chara~teristics of unlicensed, exempt or illegal op~~ations.
•
, ,~'
I ! ! • SU!OtAAy
A. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE f/NCIHiS,
1. Suppl1 and Deoand
Licensed capacity of Palo Alto child care facilities: 3014
Number Df dlildrer. 00 waiting ].:jsts for service: 1307 •
Child care prDgrim ~acancy rate: 10.4%
Percentdge of additional spaces necessary to serve unmet need: 4~ over
current licensed capacit~
2. Afford.bility/SUbsidize Assistance
Family day care enrollment current1y SUbsldized: 2%
Estimated flmi1~ day care nDme enrollment needing sub5idy: 7\
Child care center enrollment currently subsidized: 5%
[st~mated child care center enrollment needfng subsidy: 22X
3. fees for ServTce
Cbild tare center infant monthly fees: S734 average
O'llld care center tOddler monthly fee:;: S661 average
Child care cer.ter preschool monthly fees: 5483 average
Child care center school age monthly fees: S279 aver~~e (part time)
C.hild car-e center k.indergarten/school age: S3.26 hourly (part tfme)
Fami 1J day tare home infant monU',iy fees: $549 average
Fami17 day care home toddler monthly fees: $535 a~erage
family day care home preschocl ~ont~ly fees: 5497 average
family day care hGm@ school age fees: S3.GO hourly (part time)
C. Salary and COMpensation
Average family day care provider: S11,665 annually
Average famiTy day care assistant: S6.CC hourly
(niTd care center adffiinistrator; 529,500 ann~aT averdge
Child care center site director: 525.~16 annual average
(~ild care center head teacher: $19,978 annual averag€
thild care center teacher: S12,940 annual average
Child care c-enter t-eacher aide: $6.82 hourly average
5, Profitabil ity
Day care center$ whc reported a profit: 12%
Center5 who brDke e~en: 40%
(enters who suffered a loss last year: 48%
FamilJ day care homes who repo~ted a profit: 65%
ramil} day <are homes who brake even: 9.5%
family dey care homes who suffered a Toss: 8%
rercentage of day care home5 who declined to state: 19%
3
•
-.
"
".-r
,/
5. Socialization Needs Yersus C~11d Care Need
29%. elf presctHwlers in centers US.in9 progi"am for enhar.c~menl
llX of presc:hoole-t,S in centers due to parental "ark or school
22% of preschoo1ers in day (ire ~omes for enhancement purposes
781; of pr.eschoolers in day care nomes due to parenta1 work/training
,~ Emplcyee/Employer Heed for C~ild Car£ services
40% of child care-enrol1ees in Palo Alto reSide outside tne City but
howe parents who work locally
8. Recruitment of Child Care Enro11ees
The nurnbfr one method for placing children in a certain facility is ~ord
of mouth:
6]% of family day care horne enrollment
27~ of center participants
9. Access to Clty Service
94% of centers desire increased ser ... ices frorr: library s]stem
91% of centers des~re services from (;t~ Child Care Coordinator
7~ of centers desire increased linkages from Recreation Department
69% of centers want to use senior adults is ... olunte~r::
6l% of da~ (are homes want serwices. from City Child Care Coordinator
50% of day care homes desire additiona1 Recreation Oep3rtment accpss
46% of day cere homes want ir.creased l1bcary ~s)i~tance
23% "Of d'ay care home!> wanl to utiTiu senior adrJlts as voTunteers
10, Accreditation
Percent of centers accredited: 15%
Percent of (enters in process of becoming accredited': 9"~
Percent interested in accreditation process: ~2%
Percent not interested 1" accreditation: l7%
I]. ~ajor Obstacles in Operating Programs in Palo ATto
low tea(her saliries
High staff turnover
Area cost of li ... ing
l:"adElQuate a'oliilability of Site Tocations
12. I"ter~ction .. ith Licensing Off~~e
12"' of centers and large family dd)' care homes reporte-d problems
'JiIor"'ng with State licensing Di'llision
0'% of small famil} day care homes reported prob1ems lIo'orking \!iit:,
taunt)' licen5.ing Office
4
•
13 ••• lotlonshlp w;th St.te·Funded Resource and Referral Agency
Only one center o~t of 24 and one family day care out of 15 cited
problems .ith 4Cs of Santa Clara. CountJ with regard to referral
fonct 10;'25.
When asked t,:, ~'oIiluate the troi1l;t!hg progri!m and technical support frum
4(:;. 24\ of centers and 15% of homes iJIIere less than satisfied lIIith tt10se
si!fYices.
5
..
IV. FINDINGS
A. SUPPLY AND DElWiD
ralo 'Alto chll-d care programs serving iii total licensed capacHy of 3014
chi 1jr~n were Sl)r',eyed (2709 day Cire center 510ts c:l1d 305 (ami 1,. day care
home slots). Programs responding served .. total of 2014 c~ildren (l870 in
t:enters. and 204 ir. homes). Responding programs ser'lled fi9 percent of al T
children cared for in licensed fac11ities in Palo Alto. W"hile we t.annQt
state-that the survey results are !OC percent statistically 'Walid, we c.an
-:..ay that programs serving just under 70% of all dildrfm cared for in
pr09ra~s .ere represented in the survey results.
2!) programs surveyed provide infant care (10 centers. and 19 homes j. The
number of infants on program waiting lists stand at 770.
60 programs responded that they serve preschool children (35 family day care
hom€'s, and 25 center-based). Many prtigrams overhp their servfce for
integrate<! age ranges so the total numbers 1nclude duplicati .... e programs.
Waiting list numbers total 832 preschtiol children. Since c.hiTdren can reside
Gn mo.re than one 1; st simultaneously, thi s total does not necessari 1, ref] ect
the num~r of chlldreo awaiting placement.
20 program! servhg ~cnoci age chi Jdren (ages 6 a:'ld up) responded tc tt1e
survey (8 homes and 12 centers). These numbers do not r,e::e-ssar-ily represent
kindergarten children served before and/o!"" after school as those children
may be cared far in preschool or school age type programs.
Inforli1ation cuned frcm the 5i programs respondin.g show the followin'9
o~ailable openings by age group:
Aye 0-2 • 17.5 openings
~ge 2-3 ~ 63 openings
Age 3-5 • 155 openings
A1}p 6 and up ,.-79 openin':1s
~(I\liewing licensing capacity, waiting list numbers and current openll'3s
a~~ilable~ some conclusions can be drawn:
10 !.ene the unmet need for infant care, 753 addit i()nal spaces "auld hJ'o'e
to be created. (This aSS(Jm!i that postpartell parental leC!\'e options cff.ere-d
by area emp10yers remain at tne current l~vel.)
To serye the current unmet need for preschool care? 5S9 additional slots
.ould n~ed to become ivatTable.
10 ser'We the current unmet need for school age care, 20 additional sTots
limuld neeii to be treated according tD the survey !'""\]'sld ts. 48 school agE'
dtildren currently reside on wiilitll')9 lists (not countin9 kindergarten
o£:nrollees) while ZB vacancies were reported.
AllhotlCjh t~is latest finding does not corrotHJ!""ate the generi' consensus that
6
, ",
•
school age c~ild care iVillab11ity is lacking. there are mar.y reasons for
this low number. Most family day care homes do net ser .... e schoel age chi1dren
(onl1 8 out of 26 reporting} due to the lack of hours that those children
utilize the p,.agra~ {an av.erage of t~ree hours daHy during the school year),
For iI small familJ day care home that is lic.ensed for up to on1j six children
08 of the 25 FOCH reSpOnd'9flts were small), to resene a space for a part·
time child does not ~ake economic s~nse. Ever. fOf th! large family day car!
homes (8 out of 26}, with only 12 slots available per' hol';u? again a. full
time child obviously brings in more revenu-e, Therefore, most famil ; es in
need of school age dild care do frat phce their c.t.ildren on famiTy day care"
waitinQ lists. An{lther reason for tne reported lack of need among school ~
age children is that the kindergarten population count is inte9rated into
the ,preschool statistics beci{Jse kinder-9arten children lJIiy be served in
either type of progra~ as alluded to earlier. ~iodergartners do he~e the
greatest n!ed for after-school eire as thei; school sessions r~n half day.
With 50 {eli 5c"'001 Ige dli1d care programs responding to the sUl"'IIey (only
8 homes and 12 centers), the number of waiting lists a~ailable for parents
to place their children are limited. Many parents must locate unlic.erJsed
alt!rnative programs for their r.eeds such as the Recrfation Department's
drop-in tare program, YMC~/VWC4 programs, various youth leagues, etc.. Those
programs ~re not s~rveyed.
It sflould also be noted that th~ school age child care programs wilicn the
(ity established at all elementary school sites became full immediately and
abundant waiting lists have been established,
8. AVAILABTllTY SCHEDUlE
Mos.t programs are open iIIl1 .average of 10.5 hOurs dan,. Monday through Friday .
.rour family cay cafe ftO!l?eS and one center offer weekend care.
FOllr homes and nne center reported offering slcl< ch'dd care.
C. SUBSIDIZED ASSISTANCE AND NEED
Regarding s-cholarshlp assistance and subsidized' care, 6 family day CHe
homes (32t) offer some sort of subsid'ized assistance while !g do root. Of
the 32 centers responding. 24 {7S~) provide SQme type Qf subsidlzed care.
lne majority of subsidized zssistance ema~ates from the City of .Pzlo Alto
Kuman Services contract with Pal<l AHa Community CntTd Care (5 of tne 6
tJOrrlC'-S: and 13 of the 24 centHs).
Other sources of subsidized ass; stance among homes ilnd centers ;:ncl ude:
owner-financed ~cholarships (12)~ GA1N welfare program funds (S). and State
Dep~rtment of Education aSsistance (4)~ There are currer.tly 116 subsidized
slots being utilized frorn all sources. One source, Palo Alto (ommun~tJ
Child Care, mai"tains a waiting list of 40 eligible families. n of the
tolal enrollment in family day care homes is subsidized, while 5% of center·
based slots are currentl.v underwritten by a variety of sources.
When progra~ Directors were queried as to ho~ many families are In need of
stlbsidiled assistance using th€ PA((t: Subsid.,Y Fee Scnedule~ 22\ of cent.er
~nroJlment and 1% of family day care home users were identified. If family
income data was not readily available. pro~iders were asked to estimate ho~
many families lndicated that the fee represented a hardship for them.
7
•
-'.
I
D. fEE IHrORIIA!lOIi
When re~iewing the fees c~arged for service, it is easy to see why the need
for more subsidized assistance is acute. CEnter child care rates in Palo
Alto are among the highest in the nation.
Type of Care IIonthl, Average
center infant tare (f.ll time)
Center toddler care (full time)
(enter preschool care (full time)
Center kindergarten after schoo1 care
Center school age care (part time)
Kindergarten/part time school a~e
fDCH infant care (full time)
FDCH toddl.r care (full time)
rDCH preschool tare (full time)
rOCH school age care (part time)
S734
661
483
322
179
549
53S
497
HourI, (;f applicable)
S
3.26
3.26
l.OO
E. SALARY AND CO"PENSATION
Regarding staff salaries reported in the survey. the average sahry for a
center~based administrator stands at $29,500 annually. Site directors
a~eraged $25.415 annually and ~ead teachers garnered an average of $19.978
for the year. ~egular teachers earned an ave~age of $12,940 while teacher
aides averaged $6.82 hourly.
Responses to the Question of family day care home salary information
iodlcated that a private home provider av~riged $17.665 annually, and in a
hrge fUl11, day care h()lle situation (serving iI maximt..:m of 12 childrer.'
where aides -were warranted (an aide must be pr!s!'f'lt if over si:l: dild',·er1
are served), tnose aides averaged $6.00 hourl,.
F. PROFIT OR LOSS
The largest discrepancy between day (are centers and family day care homes
lIIas. manifested in the responses regarding profitability. Of family day care
home providers, 17 operations ~laimed a profit, 2 suffereG losses, ~ brok~
even ar,d 5 declined to state. Of child care center operations, on the other
h3nd. 3 providers stated that they made ii prc..fit. 12 suffered a loss and ]0
broke even~ Many of the center-based operations are nonprofits so on~ would
not expect them to make a profit on thei r programs. Howev~r ~ th~1 are not
mandated to lose money. yet 48% of them did.
8
•
\
-'
'.
G. fORECASTS fOR STAYING I" BUSI"£5S
A universal sentiment was voiced when program directors were a~ked if th~y
planned on c~ntinuin9 their Qpe~ation. Of the 2] family day (ire home~ whQ
responded to t~at Q~estion, 20 state~ that they p1anned to continue~ while
one WdS uncertain. Among cent!rs who re5p~nded, 29 said they would continue
operations~ 2 were uncertain and 2 declined to answer. Except for the four
family day care operators who had an active license but c1o)ed their doors
in the last fisc~l y~ar, all other operators licensed by the State or tounty
are currently operating.
H. SDCIALIZATI~ NEEDS VS. CHILD CARE MEEDS
The respanse to the question ~f how many preschoo1 ~hildren utilized child
carp for social i~ation and enhancement purposes as opposed to i nf;!,=d fo'r"
child (are due to parenta.l work.~ training or seheal schedules, was that 22%
of presehGol enrollees in family day care homes and 2~ of preschoolers in
center-based care were served for reasons other than parental child c.Jr-e
need.
I. CHILO CARE AS A REGIONAL ISSUE
The nIimber of Pala Alto resIdents utilizing local child care options in
rela.tion to total number of .11 licensed spaces available are: in child care
<:-:nters 60% were used by r~sidEr;ts .and 39.5~ by nonresidents. (.5'% "We're
uncertain.' In famil), day care home-5, the findings we!"e agail"l t~at 60% of
the spaces were held by resldents, while 24~ were held by nonresidents. (27%
uncertain Dr no response.)
lhis demographic tlig:-'llghts the following concern.:;: 1) Child care is a
rEgio~al l5sue? not easily addressed solely as a municipal concern; and 2)
approximat!ly 40% of those ~tiliZ;"9 child (are in Palo Altn work but don't
live in the area, bringing their child care need .. itrl them on t,",e;1" daily
commute path. This exacerbates an already crlSls level lack of supply and
has led many CalifGrnia jurisdictions to develop emplQyer/de~eloper
~itigatiDn measures i~volvin9 child care (San Ramon, Sunnyvale, Contra Costa
(aunt,. Concord and San francisco).
J. OUTREACH/ADVE~TISIHG
in regard to how prospfctho'€ clients are mil de aware Clf various chUd care
centers~ 27~ reported word of mouth referr.al s (endorsement from pre'~iously
enrolled parent), 21% were referred b;-advertisement, lS% by P.alo Alto
Community Child Care, 9% by PalD ~lto School District or elementary school
si tes and 7% from 4Cs (Santa Clar.a County Resource and ~eferral AgfnCjI).
12% Wf!re referred by R1iscellaneolls sources, i.e .• famt1y p€'diatriclarls,
ltlildren's Health Council, Jewis;~ ConllrH.mily center. Fn:nch Consulate.
lrII'Jrkplace, etc.
For famll, day carp home place-mer,t, respondents stated that .... ord of mC1Jth
was their top referral scurce ~ith an overwhelming 61%~ with 9% coming frow
a~vertjsements. 4Cs was the next referral source at 51 and the remain1ng
options sh~red the Dther 25%~
9
•
,
\
..
. -
l. REFERRALS WIlEN fI LLED
When centers are filTed to clpacity. 19 admil'1fstrators rf>fer prospe-ctive
families to Pa10 Alto COlmlunit), Child Care. 18 to 11(~ and Ui to other
c!'rtters. For fimily day Cire homes. referl'"als ire provided to the Family
Da~ Care Net~ork (9). another provider (9), and Palo Alto Community Child
tare (8).
L. UTILI ZING CIlIIMUHITY RESOURCES
When qu~sti(lned about accessing e.xisUng corrmunity resources, 3] cer'lters ~
stated an intel'"est in receiving services from the C1ty's Library system, 26
from the Recreatior.. Department, l!i in us.ing sen10r-,atiuHs. a~ volun.teers.
through the R.S.l.P. program. Fam'rTy day care homes responded with less
enthusiasm regarding ;Jtilizing said resources: J3 indicated a desirE to
a(tess. Recreation Department assistance, 12 stated libra))' assistance would
be helpful and 6 showed interest in uSlng senior .adults as volunteers.
The disparity between center and home responses p<Jints out the transpor·
taUor. difficuHies that hmily day care homes find for thesmse1ves, tne
fact that in small family day (are hemes, just one per~o~ ~s responsib1e
for the tFlildren and special events away from the names are difficult to
attend.
M. ACCRfOITAT/ON: PRO AND CON
Accreditation practices drew an ambivalent rEsponse with 14 centers
inte-rested i" N.~EYC (~ational AssQciatio:'! for the [ducation of Young
Children) accr~ditation, 9 wer~ not interested, S a1read)' were accredited
and 3 were in the process. 2 did not have an opi:"don. 8 family day care
homes cHed an interest in NAFDe (National Assodat ion of Family Day CarE')
accreditation~ 1 were not interested and 9 didn't know or ~ad no opinion.
N. T[CHNICAL ASSISTANCE HEEDS
te~ters fe!l a greater need for technical as.sis.taot-e offerings ~ith 62%
citing areas of need, ~hereas 33~ of h~s responding indicated that support
services would be beneficlal. When gi .... erl an opportunity to itemize such
needs~ among centers, 27%. want€d' legislative updates., 21% ... ,anted a Palo Alto
(hild ~zre newsletter. !9t asked far further networking opportuniti€s among
peers, 17% indicated a need for more training opportunities and 16% wanted
acc~ss to subsidized funding for lo~ ind middle income familie~. Itemizing
da)' care home needs, of the 33% ~~a stated a need for support senl'ices, 3~
requested a Palo Alto dlild car€ neltllshtter. 2:7% 1!janted additional networking
opportunities among peers~ 23~ w~r.ted additional training opportunities, ~
~nted legislative information, and .!\wanted access to subsidized fundi~g.
O. OBSTACLES I~ OPERATION OF PROGRAM
When child care providers .-ere aSKed about obstacles prt:~sent which could
binder quality operations~ centers. responded with enthusidSIn. 22 centers
listed' obstacles. as d'fverse as zoning: regulations to housirlg costs. A fe'\ll
major obstades were reiterilted time and time again and they .... ere (in order
of frequerlcy c.ited): I} low salaries wf1ich inhibit r-ecruitm€nt and/or
IJroduce high turno~er; 2) area cost of living; 3) space aViilabilitJ and
10
[.
•
\
•
site location, Ottler obstac.1es: cited included getting inforl!liition to
parents 9 gap between cost of care and parents' ability to ~oY. and the lack
of. substitute teacher pool.
16 family dOl)' care hOO'les stated no obstacles thiit they were aware of, ... ·hill?
6 indicated the following obstacles: J) stringent requirements for becoming
.n ,ffili.te of ralo ~.lto Co"",unity (Mild Care (PACCe); 2) financi.l
problems; 3) lack of space; 4) too many day care homes clustered in certai~
.arEas. and' not enough in other lreaSj 5) landl<lrd's mista'i:.en ass{Jm.oticns that
famil, day carl! use is not compat 1ble with seclJrity and damage concerns, nor
wiln the free flow of neigt,borhood trafficj E) lack of professional'
atmosp~ere and business acumen in most day care homes,
P. RELATIONSHIP ~ITH LICENSING OFFICE
When: asked to characterize tl'leir relationsf\ip with the Community Care
licensing Divlsion. State Department of Soc'a' Services~ of the centers and
large fUlil) day care hcaes t 24 ] isted their relationstlip is B fair Orie,
while 4 cited it as unfair and t didnrt have a~ oplnion.
When sull fun, day care homes were asked t:J state the QlJality of their
rel.t1onship with Santa Clari County's Social S~rwices li(e~stng Oivi~lun.
25 stated they were treated fairly and 2 did not know. None said their
relitions!"lip ""as unfair. These r-esp!)nses are much more positi .... e ttla~ the
norm iD the field and shows that 9reat str;d~s have be~n made over the 1ast
few years by both licensing agencies_ Hfective July I. 199{J. the Stdte
Licensing Oiwision of the Secial Serwices Department will handle licensing
responsibil Hies for all program types,
Regardl~ th~ "centers and: large hOlIeS who characterized their relation5t:i.o
with licensing is unfair. th~ following issues surfaced;
"Licensin9 requiT~ment~ are fair t ho~ever. 1icensin9 personnel should ha~e
more of a c~ild dev~topment bacKground.-
-licensing OiYlsi<ln does not seem ioterested in quality of program. often
puts school age child elre in preschool ~igeDr. hOle.·
~We ire a morning. parent participaticn preschoo1 program with .:bffel"ent
fleeas,·
WOur licensing analyst is -incredibly Ditpic~y· and does not seem interested
10 needs of childre~ at .11 9 but only in unimpGrtant details,-
-Att\tude of inspectors is -atiocious, demeaning. paperw~rt 'S o.er~helmln~
and they are very difficult to be partners ~ith,·
"L icensing is l..lnfarniliar-with accreditation, serwic.e is puniti'ole rather-t~an
5upPQrti~~~ rules are changed without notice and often ~eern arbitrary.~
~Enforcement of regulations wit~out a~y kno~ledge or understanding of child
development; no incH~atjon was shown to understand the special circumstances
of our program,-
II
Q. RELATIOHSHI~ V:TH RESOURCE ~ REFERRAL AGENCY
Each tOlJnty has at least one pub1ic1y funded (hild Care Resource and Referral
Agency. Thefr mandate includes referring the public to licensed (~ild care
facilities and pTo .... idi~g training and tecfmical iUsis.tance to programs,
among other duties. When a~ked about their relationship with 4(s of Santa
(lara County regardin9 their resource and refE-rral activities. 23 stated th€jI
had a supportilie relationship. while 1 ... as unhappy .. itl'!. ~enlce they had
received. Among family day care homes, both large and small. ]4 \IIer~
supportive whUe 1 was not. Thesoe roes.por,~{'s indicate that 4Cs of s.anta Clara.
County is dOing an excellent job regarding the; r fi rst mandate (referring"
the public to progrlffis _ith vacancies).
HO'ME'ver. the res.u1ts. were r,ot quit! so sLOp?Qrtive .,.hen pr-ograms 'liere a.s.ked
to evaluate the technical assistancE! received from their publicly funded
f'CS,()\.'u'ce ar..tj' ri!ferra,1: 16 centers indicated sup-port ..,hHE; S ..,ere not happy
with their services~ Afimng hames, 11 were supportive while only 2 were not.
tt~m5 cited regarding nor.support included:
"Ha\leo't tvard. of any traif'oir1gs, f;lut lock. forward to ?artkipat;ng should
there be any ;n the future~-
~Some 4Cs staff are wer) supporti\ls while s~me are not VEry dependable."
~Oon't receive much information in training and technical assistance areas
that I can apply. althollgh 1 do g~t informaticn 'if! the mail.-
"Have not had any i~ttr~~tion ~~th t~em in t~is regard."
.. f am disappoif'lted in the lack of referrals. 1 recei'.,'e."
"My program nas. never-received any services from 1+(.5".
"little or no training for teachers that a1read'.J have expeY"'iente and
e~ucation. Workshops provided are re~~dial at best."
~Haven't had any access to trainin9 or technical assistance."
"They need to provide a progl"am that he1ps IJS know non,! about toddlers and
infants .•
R. [lPECTATJDNS OF tlTl CHILD CARE COORDINATOR ROLE
Ihe last issue ri1ised in the pr{l\/ider survey in\lQlved thl'! rc1e of the tHy
(hOd Care CO{lrdirlat<lr~ Program operators were told that a City CoordillalQr
wa~ hired and asked what «inds uf support were needed from tt".j§, office. All
center providers except 3 listed' support needs in several areas. Of the
family day care ,,",ames, 16 listeJ" support needs ...... hile 10 stated they did
r.ot need support.
1. Areas of support needs indicated by Child tare Centers revolved around
the following issues:
Create better communication among the City. School District and the
,hild care professional;
11
..•..
•
•
,-i --i::. , '>("""
C~~"-, ___ ~ /,
Devplop ~ public relations campaign around child ~are issue~i
Provide technical assistance to providers;
Educate employers as to now they can be ;"..,oh'ed;
Be an idvucite for chiid care;
Assist with child care referral needs;
-'
Help provide transportation from tlemenhry scflools to c~ild (are ~
progrillDSj
Improve compensat.on for workersj
Develop r-esourtes for c~i1C! care programs;
10ning assi5tance;
£stab1ish development of I substitute teacher p~cl;
Frovide data on child care needs in CitYi
£dutate the commu~ity to t~e wort~ of quality child care.
Z. FaMII, Day Care ~. reque.tPd the follow1ng are •• of •• sistanee from
the ChIld Care CoordInator'. Office:
fstablish substitute teaeher pool for pro'f,ders;
A$sist parents is finding caT~ in their homes;
Provide nutritiQn and c~rriculum info~ation;
Develop recognition in communit, for c~ild care seTvices;
Provide referral system for Palo Alto providers;
Assist in fonning t~e Nid-Peninsul a Falll; ly Day Care Hame Network;
Oe'/elop on the job training programs in fami I)' da)' care homes;
Establish networking opportunities for child care staff;
Provide technical assistance a.bout flow to gain a fair profit and
assist in fo~u'itfng wfse busfness pract1ces.
13
..
/
Y. REC~fN!)ATlOliS
1. Increase Supply of Infant. Toddler, Preschool. School Age. Recuperat'~e
and Special IiHds Chi ld C",e 'rograms In 'a'o A1t~ by the following
... thod ..
In.tr04IKe-"C!'Il1d Carc ~e,ed" language ;nt~ City General P"1" document
to assess thHd care impact of residential and business upansion ...
Deve10p step-by-step trouble shooting brochure to assist pote~tfal
providers ~;th use permlts proc~ss, zoning regulatinns et a1.
Provide technfcal assistance component from (it! Chi1d Care
Cocrdinator's Office to support implementatiGrI of employer-.assisted
child care facilities.
Assist btJs~ness iPl development of postpar-tert parental leave policies
to alleviate the infant care shortage.
Develop information (:~a1gn to recruit more family day care
providers in Palo AltQ.
Implement additional school site child care programs to augment
C\Jrr2r.t CitJ'ISchool Oi strict Agreement where waitfng list figures
war!"ant.
Encourage I ·sick child care-operation for slightly to moderatel~
111 children with funding assistance from interested e~ployers.
Encourage e-xisting programs to open their doors to special needs
enrollees and develop options for special needs training for
providers.
2. ~.intain Affordability and Increase Su~sidized Assistance to 'alo Alto
A.sider.ts and Employees in need by the fol1~ing methods:
ESt03bllSh an Expendable City (hild Care Trust Fund under the
direction of the Child Care Task Forte ~ith emphaSis on fundraising
earmarked for capital outlay projects, augmentation of the (;t)'5
~uman Service contract funding with a wider allocati~n system, and
divelopment of seed money for new programs.
Oevelop additional funding partners to assist City and ~tate
Government in offtring child care subsidies, fn(luding the federal
Gover"ment and local business.
Review underused Clty facilities and retrofit for (~ild care USF.S,
thereby keeping fixed leasing costs lo~ to providers allowing them
to cnarge lo~er fees.
14
/
[duclt~ employers On hx credits i'llilihble and cast effectiveness
generated by offering subsidized child care benefit plans to thEir
"""loy •••.
3. Incr •••• S.lary and C....,.., .. t!on L ••• , .f tl:ild Care Staff by the
following .. thods:
Establish .n Expendabl. tity thlld t.re Trust Fund onder t"e
dtri!'ctioD of the Ctlild tare hsk Force to assist in unde':"Writing
training fees for pravideTs~ d~~e1op ~ub·a,cQunt to raise teacher
sahries to market 1e~e-l • .and support other staff de'llelopmeT'lt needs.
Educate the publi( to vilue the professiona1 work caregivers prov~de
tD develop qualitJ and enriching programs.
~ork with the Child tare ["",loyee Project in Oakland on their
stritegic plans to upgrade teacher sa1aries.
Conduct annual s.alaT.1 and compens.ation surlle-ys amollg Pilo Alto c.hild
care prD~iders to establish are; .arket levels.
4. Address High Percentage of C~lld Care U.e by Local Doployees Who Reside
Elsewhere by the following .. thads:
Oevelop a tit, 'llild care mitigation ordinance whereby 10cal
businesses eshblishing nh or renovating additlor.al facilities
iscertain their correlating incurred cMild (are need and recamme~d
plan to address expanded usage.
htablisn l'Ie.: ctdld can facilit;es in tf\e downtowr\ aru uld il'l the
Page Mill Research ilnd De'w'elopmerlt geograpbical region.
Educate employers about available studies proving cost-effectiveness
of employer-Is.isted programs.
Infora busTnesses of Califorrli a tax credits avan able for de'llelopment
of facilities and subsidizing employee child care costs.
BrDker federal funds available under current legislitio~ for
Employer-Sponsored Child Care Options ,C .. lifornia·s s~ar'i!; S2.5
m;ll ion).
,. Establish D.tab.n~ Cl.arlnghouse of Chil~ Care Suppl1 and _ b, tile
fcllowing .. thad.:
Educate child care prograQ providers about the ~lIPorhnce of
referring ,11 \,mmet requests for ctl'ild eire Iss!stance to State
funded Resource and Referrll Agency l4Cs of Si~tl ClirA Count,) 1"
order to accurately c01llpile needs data. A coa.prehenshe (.,ntnllzed
data bank is necessary to deroon.stnte unmet need. ttlereb)' incr-using
funding opportunities froll puhhc, privite-and foundltic;n Sou1"(es
and for long range planning purposes.
I,
•
\
, .'
i.-, :_-:
0: • .:"
l icen'SecJ proc;r .. s shoule: Iccept requests for child care when space
Is .~itllb'e. They should c~ntlct the Resource and Referri1 Ager.cy
period1c:,all, to update thtir current situation regarding space
IViil.blllty. wilting ll.t nuaber ••• t 01.
I. Increa.e Access to Clt1111d IIonprofit "'09r .. Resources by the following
llethods:
Develop MObile library outreach proqra to visit area family day eve
home and c~1Td cart tenters .itk ipproprilte reading materials.
Develop IIOb1le re<rutfon progri..IIS to whit parks .. here dlild c:arf
centers lnd neighboring fun, day tire providlll!r5. can part '.clpate
In board games, utilize sports tquipaent and be pro~ided with other
offerln9s.
Develop lnal11ng list of in licrnsed progr-&ms il'l Palo , .. 1to and
periodically send o~t Speci" progri. flyers allowing facilities to
plan coter.inOU5 ictivlties.
St-1Jdy availabil ity or Retired Senior roltJnteer Program (RSVP)
participants to serve IS volunteers in cMld care centers and family
day care home progrJMS~
7. Incr •••• the Number of eftlld Care ProirDIS Interested in Accreditation
by the following .. thads:
Sponsor an Accreditation lefor.ation workshDp.
Ttlrough. the us@ of t~e CH,. Child Care Trust FLlnd, partially
subsidize accreditatiDn fees.
8. I .. proye Rehtlonshi, ~tween Chil4 Clre Centeroltarve rail, Day Care
Homes and the State Licensing Dfflce " the follOWing .. thads:
,
Sponsor q(Jarterl, meetings between P,alo Alto lh'i1d (are providers
and the C~;ld Care litens;ng Ombudsman to discuss problem area.
As needed, meet with State licensing ofritials in Sacramento.
Work witn Senator Rebecca Morgan's Child (are T~sk force ~n State
licensing concerns which call for legislative remedies~
9. I.prove Seryices of the Education and Trolning Unit of tn. 4Cs touncil
of Santa Clara County by the following .. t~ods:
Hold more trainings and wor(s~ops ie Northern Santa Clara ~ounty.
Survey Palo Alto providers periodically to ascerUi" s4Jbjl!'ct ,r.atti!r
pert i rtent to t@achers,' needs.
Increase funding for 4Cs of Santa Clara County to ~ire additional
staff for Education and Trajning Unit as current level of funding
provides only twa staff to serve 3,000 COLinty child care pro~;ders.
16
•
IQ. I"c ... se leyel of Support fr .. City Child Cir. Cccrdin,tor'. Office to
ATea Proyi •• r. by the following .. thads:
Pro\tfde legishti'l'e updiltes.
De¥eTop additional networt1~g oPPDrtunities for pro~iders.
Procur! additlonal subsidized funding opportunitlfs.
Investigate ~t~ods for e~pindin9 training opportunities.
Act in liaison role bet.een p~viders and City depart.eAts.
Develop public relitions role fDr better understand; n9 the illpcrtance
of quality child care.
Educate area e~loyers to ad~antages of child care is~jstance for
the1r eMployees.
Provide tec~~ical assistance ~ert appropriate.
Develop list of available certified Sub5tHute staff to assist
programs for emergency situations.
Provide better communication between Sthool District and area child
care providers.
Develop additional child tire benefit packages for City employees.
Sponsor business a~inistrition seminars tc increase know1edge of
dl1d eire directors regardin9 the efficient operation of faei 1 i ti~s.
17
".
Pl •••• circle the appropriate Dumber and till iD ~h. blank where
appropriate.
A) ~. yo~ pr~ram ceDter-base4 or a fami17 4ay care operation?
1) center-based 2) family day care home
B) rr a faa!ly 4al care operation, hoy large 1. your program?
3) large family day care 4) small family dAY care
C) What is the lieeDsed capacity of you~ pr~ram?
5)
D) What age grouPIe) 40 you .erve7 (circle all that apply)
6) 0-2 years 7) 2-) years 8) 4-5 years
9) 6 years and up 10) F.O.C.H. (0-18 years)
E) Are you currently e.rviug JOur ~i=eD.e4 capacity?
11) y"s 12) no (if no, skip to question II
It yes to que.tion S, 40 you m.intaiD a valtiDq list?
13) yes 14) no
G) What ara your waiting list numbers for the fOllowing age
groapa?
15) 0-2 years
17) 3-5 year"
lEi) 2-3 years
18) 6 years and up ____ __
tt approslaately how lODg doe, • prospective elient remain on
your .aitiDg 1i.t berore •• ~ot becoae~ available'
19) under :l lIlotlth
2:1) 3-6 IIlOnths
2Q) 1-3 months
22) over 6 months
" If your P""9r ... b not: filled to capacit:r, I>ov .any optninqs
40 you have curre.D~ly per aqe group1
23) 0-2 y~ars ____ __ 24) 2-3 years __
25) 4-5 years ____ __ 26) 6 yea rs and up ____ __
- 1 -
•
27)
K) Do you o~C.r weekend care or .ick child care?
28) no
30) sick child care
29J week~nd care
31) both
L) x. your op.ratioD .tfi~iated vith an out_ide c~rporatio~ or
business ozvanication?
32) yes 33) no (if no, skip to ~estion N)
Xl IB what •• yeS} i. your program relate4 to an out.i~e
J>uaineas'2
34) vendor/Voucher payments
35J reserved slots for employees
36) contributions/donations
37) re.ferral
38) otber (please specify)
.} Does your program provide any sub5i4ies or partial/full
.cholarsblps tor proqrsm partieipaDt.?
39) yes 40j no Cit no, skip to question R}
0) It yes to question ., wbat i. the source ot your subsidize~
assistanctl'!
'I} City support through PACCC
42) state Department of Education contracts
43) Alternative payment Program (A.P~P.)
44) G.A.I.N. Welfare Program
45) County Child Protectiv& Services
46) outside corporations
47} owner-financed scholarships
48)
OJ WhAt percent or your total enrollaeDt 1. sUbai4iEe4?
49) __ t
-, -
•
;,
II) Xiii your _tt .. tieD. app.roz:wat.el:r lLoY .uJ t&.llil •• current.ly
hiD; .en-ed i~ Jour proqr&llt are i:a :a •• 4 oL subs! dised
••• i_tame. it it were .va1~&bl.? (As e quide, the City of
Palo Alto 5ubsidi~ea child care tees ~or the following
family size and ~orreBponding monthly income:)
Sin91e parent with 1 child -$1650 or less
Family of 3 -$1750 or less
Family of 4 c $1850 or less
For each family m~r addition, add $100 per month.
If you do Dot kD~v parent iDCO •• levels, hoW aaDJ families
indicate to you that the fe. ch.rq.~ represents • bar4sbip
for them? (00 not count tamilies alreaay receiving
subsidized/sCholarship assistance.)
50}
S) Wbat are your tees for •• rvie •• ? (Circle which billing
period you use.)
51) infant $, ____ __ (per day, per weekI per month)
52) toddler $, ____ __ (per day, per weex. per month)
53) preschool $ ____ __ (per day, per week, per month)
54) schoolaqe $ (per day, per wee~, per Jnonth
tor school year)
55) 6choolage $ (per day, per week, per month
for vacations)
56) sick child care ~ (per day)
57) drop-in service $ (per day)
~) Xu your •• tiaation, for 70ur preschool enrollees, how many
chil~reD utilise your program ~or socialization/enhancement
experience a. oppoBed to • need tor cbile care provision 4ue
to parental work, school or traiDiD9 .che4ules'
58) 59) do not serve preschoolers
U) What pexcentage of 70ur preschool participaDts 40es the
fiqure 8UppU • .s 11> que.tioD ., repre __ u
60) ___ I 60J do not serve p~eschoolers
V, Bow aaay eDrOlled ch11~r.D r •• id. 1D Palo Alto'
62) __ _
.) Bow .any enrolled Children bave r •• 14ence out.ide of Palo
lito?
63)
-3 -
-----
..
,I
I
"
. ,/
Z, WoUld your proqraa ~ i~tere.t.d La rece1viav .ervice. trom
the citr'. a.or.atioD or ~ibrary 8r8t .. ?
64) yes
66) just Libraries
65) just Recreation
67) no
Y} Would 70ur proczr ... be iatere.te4 1.11 a.lug-•• Dior a4ul ts as
volWloteer. tllrouqb tile un proqr .. '
68) yes 69) no 70) don't know
S) Wou14 your p~ogr&D be intereste4 fa recliving ibtormation
re;arciaq a=~r.4it&tion7 (either NAEYC for centers or NAFDC
tor homes)
i1) yes 72) no "13) don't know
AA) How 40 parents haar about your proqr .. ' (Fill in the
percen'taqe next to the appropr ia te source a )
74) , referred by adverti5~ant (Yellow pages.
newspaper ads, phone bookj
75J \ rQ~erred by Family Day Care Net.ork
70J , referred b}" 4Cs (Santa Clara county's
Resource and Referral Agency}
71} , referred by Palo Alto community Child
Care (PACCC)
78) , endorse=ent trom previously enrolled
parent (vor~ o~ mouth)
79) , referred by SChool Distriot/School Site
80) \ other {please describe in space below)
aB} Wbea your progr .. i. ~ille4 to capacity, whoa do you refer
prospective ~aadli.. ~o,
81) 4CS 82) PACCC 83) another provider-
84) Family Day care Network
85) other (please describe)
CCl are there area. or uehDleal _ai.tUlce/.-upport .ervice t.bat
roa would like to receive that axe Dot available DOW?
86) yes 87) no (it no, skip to question EEJ
-4 -
•
DO) Pl •••• la41cat. the below ar ... d.scribing the a4ditional
.upport de.ired. (Circle more than one if .pplicable~)
BB) subsidized fundiD9
89) conference traininq opportunities
gO} leqislative update information
91J Pale Alto chil~ Care Newsletter
92J networking opportunities a~ong peer caregivers
EE) What ob.tacl •• , if &bY, are pr.sGnt iB operating a child
car. prOCJram bl Palo Al to?
93)
94) no obstacles that I am aware of
PP) a. operator of a cent.r-~a.&4 proqram, how 40 you
characterise yoar relationabip with the state'a community
Care LiQensiD9 Office i~ C..pbell?
95) fair 96) unfair 97J don't knoW'
GG) Aa operator of • day ~ar. home, bo~ 40 JOu cbaraQterize your
ralatlon8blp with the County's 1icensinq office in Sac Jose?
SIS) fair 99) unfair lOa} don't knoW'
HB) Xf you an.v.r~d "unfair" in question FF or Ga, please
ezplain in the space provi464:
101) ______________________________________ __
II) HOY ~4 you cbaracterise your relationship with the
fol1owinq two departments of the Santa Clara County 4CS?
A .... oure. " Referra.l1
102) supportive l03l non supportive
B. ft'ai1li"9' _oS l'BcbDlcal """htaI>ce:
104) support; ve 105) non-supportive
~J) ~f you answered -non-8upportlv." to .ither A or B in
qu •• tiOD II, p1.... .-plaiD in the apace provid.4~
106)
- 5 -
----
DI
LL)
/
~l .... proYide aaDu&l or bourly .al.~ t.roraatioD DeKt to
the applicable .tart po.itlo~ li.t~ •. (These responses will
be beld in 8tri~~est confidence and vill be cited in
composite figure. only.)
Private Family Day Care Provider/owner:
1071 $ ________ __ annual
Larg-e Family Day Care Provider Aide/Assistant,
1081 $, ____ _ hourly
Non-Profit Center-Based Administrator:
10'1) $ annual
Child Care Cent.er site Director: 110) $ annual
Child Care Center Head Teacher: 1111 $ annual
Child Care Cente.r Teacher: 112) $ annual
Child Care Center Aide/Assistant: 113) $ hOlJrly
For the 1 •• t fi3cal year, cl14 your operation
114) make ill profit 115) su.f.fer a loss
116) bre.aJc even
KNJ Do you p1an to continue op.r.tia~a of your proqram in the
forse.able future?
117) yes 118) no 119) uncertain
HR) ~e City of ».10 Alto haa h!r~4 & Child care coor~iDator.
1D the apace .val1abl.~ pl •••• Dote what type o~ assistance
IOU would like to ~.~.iv. tram thi. positioD.
1201 ______________________________________ __
121) no support needed
Thank you tor your time in completing this survey. Please return
it ASAP in the enclosed. envelope. Should you need the survey
picked up, please call 493-4650 and arrengeaents will be made,
Survey results will be made available within 45 clays of project
CC'JDJDe.ncement ..
-6 -
•
)
1
•
Report for
-palo Alto Child Cat e 1'as\'. force
''''0 ~\tO Cb\I& eo<' _0" ,.".,.~
Mril \.990 ~ Stu<l'i of'''''' ",to """,,'!YO< S~ Child. Care offetln~s
. .... _Mot' pavid f, lY\artin
?tolecl v il '''''''' ' Child. care coordinator
CitY of ?a\o A.\tO
conducted b'f
stanford A.\unuU consultitW, 1'eatn
Joanne Goldberg ~anc)' ~arnel
Juli.e Johnson
,
Report for
P.alo Alto ChIld Care Task Force
Palo Alto Child Care Benefits Assessment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Highlights of the findlngs:
·100% of Ic.rge ccrnpa.""lies{over 500 EJj:plc~ .. C'es) offer bCl"'.eiJls.
O\"erall. 65':,'0 uf companies offer benefits .
.. Size is the on!>' importar.t Lr)dlca~or ora company's iikdihood
to offer benerits. The industry arid ~ender compo.si'jon had no
impact on nature of child care be;JeTlt offerings.
• Of comp211ies offering benefits, 75% provide benefits that
directly benefit parents
• Small companies offer more generous parentallea\-e prc~ra.rns
L~an large companies, contradicting the popuiar be1:ef 'trJat
parentaJ lea':e is de:t.rimental far sm;a}l business
• The median use ofbenefHs is 7%. The more v.:omen L, the
org.antzatio~. the higher the use.
• DCA? 15 L"'1e most popuI?.rber:cf:t. offered by 4.0~,'S of
orga.'1t:laUons prD\icing benefits. !\~edi2_"1 DCA? use f:1 tl:ese
organizatJons is 7S;".
• Emp!oyee ~,2.tJsfacUon Is t.lJ.e primary motivation of err:p!oye.rs
offert.'1g child care benefits.
.. Tne Job function of the: beneDts t:-JsUga!.or has no reiat!o.-l to t..~e
nature of beneftts .
.. Cost ir .... '1..ibits 50'H) cf all crgar.izations from offen..ng ben efts.
Two-t."irds of those t."r-.lat menUct,jcd cost as. a detriment s-t:ll
p!"o\ide some kl"nd of benef"iL
"" Three respondents s.aid t..'":ley had inadequate i.:1.fom:ation a'!)out
beneflts.
-Of the 33S'O not offer"ing benefits. none plan to offer them in the
future. Half Ll-Je compa-"1ies currently offering benefits p1a."1 to
expa.'1d.
Recommendation summary:
.. Focus cn increasIng benefits among current benefit pro\iders
• Concentrate on iarg~ organizations
'",2G;:'
'. ;>!
3
• f-!--t'lp organ!zatlons publicize benefits
• Educate employees
• Publicize activities of leading child care benefit pro\iders
• Provide adequat~ u,fonnation on benefits to organizations
• Develop a needs assessment/guidelines tool for organizations
'<
4
SUMM:ARY
Ovemew
The Palo Alto Employer Child Care Beneflts Assessment gauged the current
state or child ca:e benefits offeri..'"1gs among Palo Alto employers. In te!ephone II
interviews. respondents from 54 organizatiOns were asked about benefits.
including subsidies and util:.zaUon. Interviewers Jnquired about costs. about
the human and organizational factors that facilitated the development of their
chile! care benefits programs. and the obstacles that prevented them from
offering more benefits . .After discuSSing their benefits. respondents gave
insights into t.he benefits planning process and discussed future offerings.
Thls report describes t.l]e survey and the inforrn.ation it yielded. The conclusion
includes lnferences. projections, a'-ld suggestions for future acthities.
The SllTVey design
A \.'oltJnleer team from the Sta..l"lford Business School Alumni Consulting Team
[ACT) program developed the instrument and a list of companies emplo)ing ten
or more people. Employers were randomly selected from all companies L'1 each
s~e and industry category. v.itn the list weighted toward larger employers in
an efforlto Include 2S many employees as possible.
Act re\iev,;ed existing sun:ey instruments and m~l \\.ith the PaJo AHo Chlld
Care Coordinator and the Palo Alto Child Care Task Force to der,,<e material for
the pajo Alto sun"ey. OutSide e."\.-perts assisted v.ith sUI"\'ey format and content.
Kames ca..'11e from five sources:
•
• •
The Santa Clara County Commerce & Industry Directory (271
compa.nies)
"PaJo ~AJto Employers \-;.;t'h o'\"er 100 Employees" (46 companies
"!\,!ajor DoVt.nto .... n Emp!oyers" (10 companies)
"Palo A1to Major Employers" (30 compar.1es)
·<Stanford Research Park Finns· [44 companies)
(The Directory is published by the San Jose Chamber of Comme_rce. The oL~er
lists ,",'ere developed by the City of PaloPJto PlannIng Department. Many
flames appeared on more than one !lst.)
The Ch!lc! Care Coordinator. two staff members of the 4Cs of Santa Clara
County. and members of the Palo Alto Child Care Task force administered the
survey 10 the selected employers during the month of January 1990. The
survey contained 16 questions, many o!them multl-tJered. for a total of ]20
items.
The ACT members reviewed the survey v.ith tl1e Interviewers in a series of
meetings to reaffirm sun'ey objectives and ensure confcnnity of intf"rview styie"
•
5
Sw-r.,. Content
The focus of the survey was on th~ nature of current and a.T1tkipated benefits.
O(her questions inquired .into the motivation for Initiating b.tnefj~. reasons for
not implementing benefits. and other mitigating factors. The survey asked
about costs (most employers were unable t"respond] and basic demographlcs:
employee number, rnanagf".I number, women employees and managers.
RESULTS
Overview
The comparJes that partiCipated In the survey had a total of 31.500 employees.
approx!mate~ half the Palo Alto employees and 25% of all companJes ",;th ten
Of' more e~ p .. oyers. .
si'Zc. , Coapani." With 8t!nefit..a
10-24. 10 ,
2S-U 1. a
lOO-Ug. 14 ,.
SeD-SSg , ,
1-2000 J 3
2000+ 5 5
Of Ll-]. 5-1 employers surveyed. 19 said that they had no child care benefits of
any kind. These 19 employers had a total of 118$ employees. or an average of
62 employees each and a median C>f 40. All O\'e companies \\;'.h fUleen or fewer
emplo)'ees offered no chiid care benefits. All 14 companies I>;th more than 500
employees offered benefits of some kind. The average employee count among
companies offeling child care benefits was 872. The ayerage company offering
child care benefits was over ten times as big as the average company not
offering such benefits.
SLze ·.'as the only Important correlate ... ;th child care benefits. Employers v.ith
a high percentage of worn en or a hi.m percentage ofwornen managers were no
more or less likely to offer benefits than other employers. Nor were child care
beneflts more common in any pa.rtk:ular industries. although the .
manufacturing organizations clustered.at the t"l' of the size range (9 of the 14
companies ",,;th o\'er 500 employees] and therefore tended to offer benefits.
Who Offered What
The 35 organizaly.ms that offer some of the benellts listed in the survey have
rew similarities (other than their location). A number of the respondents
initially indicated iliat they had no benefits: further questioning revealed that
they did offer benefits. At the oilier end of the spectrum are organizations that
have tn\'ested a substantial amount of resources in developing chHd care
benefit programs.
6
The benefits In tile su,ny can be divided mlo two categories: tilose tilat
directly and S<Jlely arfed parents. and those L>"at do not.
The beneflls that directly and solely affect parents: an en· site [or near·!ste)
child care racility. a DeAP program. child care information referral senices.
parental leave. a payment .... oucher system. a preferred pro\ider program .. and a
reimbursement accounts plan. ,.
Benefits that accrue to non-parents (as well as parents) and can be perceived
as affinnative or parental needs: Sick leave {to care for 111 fam:!y m.embers}.
employee semlnars. fl""'time. part time. caIeteria plans. job sharing. and
VOluntary reduced time.
Amon~ tile 35 respondents who offered benefits. 25 had a orogram that
Induced direct benefits to parents. The other nine only offered benefits in the
second categQ.ry~ The benefits ofIeied by these ntne focused on flexjble time
options. These cption'i are a function of the nature of the organizations -
relrulers. fo: example --who schedule employees on part-time shifts. to
accommodate the emp10yer as well as the emp1oyee.
Benefits in Ll-).e flrst parent·dire~ted category:
Ele::-.efit
Cr.-sit>!: ~!'I:'ld eil!:e
!;c.:..;> ;: :-c-.s: :-a:ll
2 c:-;i!I:'l:::=-~:':::~:-;'
1< er;.~!~~:.!~~s
.t.~ 1
!~~o~~~ion/~e~e~r~l e o~;a~!%at:::o~s
A!l: :>1;
1":..J':".a:;aa-=s i~ 1.
S21.e::ie-j. :::.., l~
2S !:-ou:-:5 + il'll 1
.All
P.=~~~el leave 11 c=;a~i=at':'o~~ See belc:.r
Li::-.::'~-c-:! Pre!'''!!::-:ed pro\"'i~i!r 2 c:-;a~.':'-=-c::.ic:;s
.F.ei~!:;.:r.sE:-:-.e::"l.t a::c-':-,-=:lts !I cr;';'::"li::a:.i:o:-,s All ... s:;;ally
t!ed to DC.~'?
~;:·:-;-;.;:-.i:J:-O
Two of the respondents offered four of these beneDts. se'eraJ offered three.
Many re~pondenls offered benefits in t.he second, mere general category:
5e:r.ir.ar5
Fle-:l.:ti~
Part-t.imtt
Ca!et~ria be~efi~s
JO~.5"'ar.
Vol~ntarl re~~ced time
Sic~ l~av.: ill ra~ily
O.::ga.nizat!O!::5
2,
11
5 • !a ,.
all, :i.~ 1;
"depoe:lds" :i.., 1
illl; 12: !lO::-.e. 12
&11~ Ii; SC::71e 11
.ll
"deperl::::,s .... in 9
all, 7; ~o:r~ .. 11
all, :25. ~one. 1
•
7
The p,-epond~rance or benefits in the second category reflects the fact that
these benefits .are re!aUve1y less o..-pensl\'~ t.11an most o[ the benefits in L"e first
category and that they (end to be mainstream: v.1dely offered and used
throughout the private and public sectors.
Parental Leave
Parental leave is a key benefit: it's visible, controversial. and essential. Parents
often suffer tremendously when they must leave a newborn or place a child in
substandard care due to a1l.'dety about keeping a Job. OrganizaUons counter
the demand for parental leave by arguing that the .>:pense of hiJing a"d
training a temporary replacement (or a worker on leave is infe3sible. even if Ll-Je
'\\:orker Js receiving no pay~
State Jaw currently requires that L'1e employer grant up to four Months leave
Without pay (0 any female employee who gh-es birth [0 a child. Some of our
respondents. \\'ho claimed to have parent21lea\'e~ indicated that their po!lcies
merely conformed to slate la\ ... ·.
Parenta11ea\"e policies:
£'7 lo :fee:3i
" .-
lC~
23,
22CO
15
SO
1;0
160
350
s.
275
353
600
.00
120Q:
HOO
Scsi~'y
11,;21
!\"lo:l
fOlll
f\J:!l
fell
Fa::tial
p-a:tia1
pl!,!"tial
Fa:-.. :'al
p~:--ti!ll
rlC:'lt!
r:c".e
no~e
nOi"".<e
nO."le
:OC~i!i
:,\o:-;e
3 r..::;--.:'!-.!!5
1-':6 ........ :'1. ce?e:--,c':':'<g r::,~ t.o:~:.:=e
2-2{2 ~~~~hsl 4 ~os ~~ya:d
(-I! "'k.5~ u.-;paid 3-4 r:'1C:5
E:J cay:!~ 1 ye-o!!" t::--.pa:':i
Hi .... el!'":s
ti · .. ;':5 ;::-:a!l!"~ S n.cs f".e-;T· .. ~e
4 ::".:l-'. a·.l'i~e"lt c':'sa~il':'t.y
"a=ies
6 J7:'J!!5
ti ::".",5
\,;? t.o 12 :r,cs
1 ye4r
6 i:".C3i
ii m~s
3 ::-':;!!II per~C':lal p!l.l:5 r..at. leave
No one pro"\1ded 1eave (or longer L'lan a year. Plans vaned widely f:rom
company to company . ..AJthough some respondents indicated that fathers could
take leave, they often added that no men had te.ken advanta~e of the parent?J
Jeave policy. Seven u--pIidtly stated that only women were eligible for lea .... e.
Of the len companies offering fun or partial pay. only tv.'o employ more than
500 people. The large companies may be oflcrin~ unpaid leave only bec"use of
c)"iemal and inlern?J pressures to pro\:ide some Kind or parent.al benefits; the
small companies maybe responding from a sense ~rresponsib[1ity and concern
•
s
for employee wellbeing. The smaJi compa."iies seem mucb more, !ikely to be
generous.
11:115 finding \;oIates-the genera) belieI that parental ]eave is detrtmenta3 to
small companies because L"ley cannot afford to hire lempc:-a."')' help or do
u1thout key employees. Opponents of par-ental leave use this ar,g:umcnt as a
key weapon against enactment of!a: ...... ·s requiring leave.
Utilization
Data on utiUzation was not readily a\'ailable in most categories_ Utilization
numbers. where aVallabTe, did not reflect a relationship bet;..veen ob .. ious
organizational characteristics and use. Utilization is a function of internal
promotion and educaUon rather tban or organizational size or employee mbe:.
-.,~.
The information on utilization was derh·ed from h\"o different sets of questions,
Each respondent was directly asked how many employees were sen"ed by Child
care benefits. 1\\"enty respondents speciflc-d a particular number. In a,..,other
seclion OfL". sun-ey. respondents were q"crted about indi\idual child care
benefits. Each time a rE'5pondent indicated that the orga...,ization offered a
benefit. the respondent was aSKed what percemoge of employees look
ad\"antage of that ben eDt. The survey thus )ieJded o,-ecall total numbers of
employees receiving child care benefits and indhidual percentage utilization
figures for e-ach beneDt.
Of the 20 jntcn:ie\\-ees who g.J.\'~ a tot2J nur:-:ber:
Three 2.sserted that 3l1-empioyees.took adva''''lta&:e of d:.i~d car-e
benefits. (The: organizat!o:1s offered rlex::ible time schedules.
a"-Id all employees "" .. ere elig:lbje.)
.. One noted th2t no employees us-ed tJ:e bend1ts.
1\"'0 others. both 2...'7!one the b.rgest or~a:li.z2!Jons in PaJo~.;:r~o_
said that about a half 01 one percent 01 employees used t.:'Ljeir
chiid care benefas,
• Tv.:o intenic\.;,:ers ga\'e numbers that indicated' overall use of
25%. Both o-rganizationswere mediur.l sued {lOO-500
employees]: beth had rxc.el1enl cl:Hd care benefits prcgrar'TIs.
including generous parental Jeave+
• The median response (E:.'(clud1.ng the 0% a,.:.d 100% f;gures)
was 7 01'6.
• Four of the fh:e cornpan..!es ,l,.ith the highest utilization (agaIn,
exc1udlnR; the extremes] had an e:mployee base that was more
than half female_
Four of the n ... ·e comp2.Il.ies \\ith t.'I-]e lowest utilization had a
work {oree that was Jess than 50% female,
.-
. . -.-
---~---
9
Among the benefits dirccUy J"elaled to parent n~t'ds. the DCAP program was the:
most popular. Only a smail percentage or employees used the on·site facility
offered by two organizations. rn. the table below, the uUlization I"ange is the
range Qrllgures given by lhos.e companIes that were able to slate (or estimate)
what percent employees took ad ..... antage of each benefit. (The numbers in
parentheses Indicate how many companies offer that benent rat1:!er than the
number able to rrspond to the 4,uestJon on cUllzation.)
.e-ne!it Jl\.ang. of 'DI!. Hed.i.:'lI ~ ..
em sit" ca.:e 2 -.. [21
PC"" .s-U, nCl 70
In!~/:refe-::'":al • -'0' e ~ i
PareMoil leave 2 -7. U/)
~pir..b\Jrse~~t , -I •• h) "
Fl!!xtl.!l",e 1 -100\ C2S} 3'0\
Pa:t-ti:r.'!! .5-OS, en) 3\
Re-::!uCEd ti=-.e 1 -2' (l E l "
Again, the f'le>.jb!e scheduling options tend to. reneet the type of organization
rather than concern about parental needs.
Cost
WhD P2\·S. 2I1d how much? M2I1Y respondents noted th2t they subsidized
certain benefits:
~oe-~.ef:'t
c • ., s.i::'e ca::e
Pa:s::r~i!l lli'ac;-a
r ... ~~t vouc,:".e-~
S~::'l::'na:,.
Fei:':'.b' .. r.5e.:~:e~t. ~ccc:..;.r:t.s
Ft:.ll 5~!I':'<!y
0
5
,
0
i'artial S~5i.:!:f
2
5
0
1
7
•
-" -
10
Or~ani.z.ations that offer other benefits. such as a DCA? progra"'11 or an
infOrmation and rererra! service. a!s.o incur costs. Very few have any idea ~or
care to reveail the data perta;nlng 10 Child care benefll .>:penses. Ten
organlzaUons did give us data_ The jnfonnation elicited was too speclaL.zed and
limited to make projections or to e;.,:trapolale. but it is won." examlning brieny-o
Bel"llill!it:a
PC""
PC","
DC~~ C~lifo:nla c=edit
OC~ 5er.li~.a::s
DChP se!l'1!r,a=f=efe=ral
DChi' SE-:":".!.:-.&!": re!"I!=:-al
DC/..? p=ef p:-o-.::'d-er
~-~;te !a:ilit~.
.ser..ir.o!=s. p:-l!!er:--e1.
Frcvic-!!::s
On.-.site f.cU.i-:.~~
::efe:::-i!l
P~}~e:'l.t. vOc:;e~.,,==
, .... ~.o
~:::Itt!it
50-](\:)
6C-~~ .,
'Q
2.
lS;j:J-~DuO ,
H5
E5
1
---Cost.
Ir . .!.t.l.1 o~;o!ng
le.. ceo H,CCO
"'15,000 !i-lO~ 0::l0
? .O.OCO
? 1,000
1,0-:--0: 4.00e re~e:-:al
3,20:) SE::--:!:-.!.r
SO~ 0:" 1 .. 5,000
2~ E:.~ 5,OeO
3;'2,0::0 1 ,dl1!~:"J
1.) r_"":l 0
0 l,1jJO
The cnly companies that spend a 12J"ge 2..;.'j]c.'J~: of r.loncy on duld care benefits
are the two that offer on-site facLli:ies. a.~d O~-e s.~ate3 u"i.at its ongoing costs 2.1""e
zero: t.;e center is self-suP:?Or"...i1"".g:_ T.-:-e \:.. .. m:;;&r~eS5 of a COr.1p3..."'1y to, spenj
money on benefH.S is not directly related to 2!"lY parucu!a.r ch::.racteristic. TI:e
companies ranged .in size: from 15 em;;!oyees to 4900 [all but one had m-ore
than 100 emp!oyees)~ of whom 2~"O to 7oc;~ " ... ·ere female.
Getting Started
Respcndents were asked to enume.ate L'1e: factors L'1at motivated them to offer
chJld care: benefits. The question was purpo::.ely open-ended so that
respondents would not feel {'o!'"l.stra5!'led by a ust. The Llltenie·",·;er's form ga\"e
fourteen possibie responses that the inten.i€;v .. ·er could check: there W2.S also a .. ,
"other" choIce. Of the 35 organiz2t.lons off~ii.ng benefits, 27 ga\'e a response
other than "don't know_" lYIany interviewees gaye rnuItlpie respor.ses.
The responses can be d! .... 1ded broadly lnto t..'1ree groups: factors onented
toward the company's image to outsiders (image. rnedjaj. factors that concern
the management of the organization (general eC']T:l.omic well-bei..'1g. competiti\,e
advantage). and factors Loat pertain direclly 10 the hal>piness o(llie employee
(employee interest. rne<ale). The inteniewer. typically gave responses from tI,e
third group. suggesting that the comp=y's inlention was to satisfy its
employees.
•
•
-;;..
II
Employee satisfaction ~oncerns:
Employee 1nter~st --23 mentions
Morale --14 mentions
Cost effectiveness and prooucU .... :ity:
Recruitment --11 mentions
Retention --9 mentions
ReduciI'!g ab~ntceism --7 rnep..tions
Increasing producthity·-6 mentions
Strengiliening flnan-ces .-5 mentions
Redudng tardIness - 2 mentions
E:\."temal concenls:
Image --4 menUor.:s
Competition --3 menti::ms
Unjon pressure --I mention
There was a diIect relationship beN"een the number of reasonS noted a .. ,-d the
number ofbeneflt5 offered. Inteniewees \I,ith lnuTtiple respons.es gc!ner.aJl>.·
represented organizations that offered a va.rlety of child-care related be:nellts.
Those inteniewee.s that responded "'don't YJl-Ow" to the question typfca1Jy
worked in organizations that offered very limited benef.;ts not directly ie1ated to
child care (part-timo schedules. for example].
~~\bcn asked whIch person ror people) in the crg"'~:1.!zation had taken
responsibility for L'1.1Uating and Ll1plementing benefits. res.ponses ranged fro!:1
tbe employee benefits department to a management team. Typic2.lly~ the:
.human resources department origincted the cl-J.!d care benefits plan. lbe
responsible people:
Person mentioned
Direc:or of human resources
CEO
Formal employee group
Informal employee group
XLL'"T1ber of times mCDtloned
14
8
4
4
There 2ppeared to be no relationship between the role of the instigator and tile
type of benefits offered.
Obstacles
\Vhal prevented employers from o-ffering more benefits? All 5 t intenie\I.'ees
""'ere asked to respond to thiS question. Un surprisingly, 27 mentioned that
cos! was a key faclor. although 19 of the 27 were offering benefits nonetheless.
Ten said that employee Interest was L'1adequate. Including five that currentIy
provide benefIts. Small organizations often added thal none of thetr employees
had small children" Two (both o('v:hom currently offer benents) mentioned
.',r
/' -".-
12
liability [ears_ Three others alluded to a lack of inform aU on abo'ot possible
~nents_
Management Planning
\VheLt,.er or not they offer child care benefits, many organizations are activelV in
the benefits arena_ Four oftho~ who do not currently offer child care bendHs
have had management discussions regardL"1g child care Issues.
Among the 35 organizations that currently prOVide child care: benefits:
• •
•
•
•
•
Ninelel!n have had management discussIons ofchnd care issues_
One organIzaUon plans 8 management c!1scussion In the future.
'J"oA.-elve state that they ha"'e surveyed employees about chtld care.
Three others are considering conducting such a survey.
Thirteen have mel with employees to conSider ch!ld care problems_
"I'w-o others are considering meeting With employees_
Si'( have actually requested propcsals from a child care pro\ider.
Three others are thlnklng about requesting proposals_
TV.,·o --one a current pro\'ider ofbeneflts. one a non-provider-
not~d that they had otscontinued one of theIr benefits due to lack
of interest.
A final question on the: sun-ey asked \l,.-hether the respondent would be
interested In s~eing th~ ACT/Child Care Coordinator employee needs
assessment survey. Nearly all 54 responde,,!s stated that they would !L<e to
ha\-e a copy of the Instrument. _
-•. ,
. --,
13
THE FUTURE
Of the 19 respondents who do not currently offer benefits. none plan to offer
benefits In the foreseeabie future. Fully half --18 of 35 --organi.z~Uons that
curren!Jy offer be,neflts plan to e>..-pa."1d their offerings in the: future:
• •
• • • • •
.' •
Ten are considert."l.g oITerinj: an tnIonnatlon and referral sen1ce "
Six,. ranging In size frem 2::. to 2200 employees. are consldenng a.,
on-Site Child-care center
SLx want to add a DCAP plan
Six are lookIng into cafeteria plans
Five are investigating a payment voucher system
Five want to ofTer a voluntary-reduced time option
Four plan to enhance their parental leave program
Four are t."1.inlting about a preferred pro"..'ider program
Four "\\.;11 E'J.."}Jand thelr job-sha.r:ing activities
Recommendations for future activities
]. Rather than lr)ing to market child care benefits to orgaruza:,jons that are not
currently interested. concentrate on organizations that do support chIld care.
OL'1er organizations , .. ill fclimv suit when their employee's or personnel staff
[responding to internal and e,,1.emal pressures) demand benefils. Focus on
increasLig the scc::.pe of offerings e..rnong CU:Tent p.o"\icers of benefits.
2. Concentrate on larger orgal'1iz2tions. as they are most likely to consider
offertng benefits.
3. The variations in lJSage sug:;est that some comp211ies do not adequateJy
publicize benefits. Support their effort~ to promulg2te inlorm3Uon about
benefits. p2..rticular!y in O'ga.J1t7.2tions that are more than .50:l,Q female.
4. \York to educate employees. as employee 1n~erest is a pr .... -ne motivator of
benefits. Perhaps offer 2:1 on-sHe ernp!cyee seminar kit (seminars presented by
City of Palo AJto Child Care Coordinator's Officej that discusses commui'1it"j'
opuons for care, tax 13.",,'5. etc.
5. Publicize the acUv:ities of the orga.n11:ations t..~at e..x.hibit e..xemp1ary beha .. ior
In the area of ch:Jd care benefHs.
6. Give organizations compreh~nsi ... e des<:r1pUons and analyses of ava1l2ble
benefits and thek costs. ThIs may help eradIcate the fear and ignorance that
seem to prevent some organizations from offering or eA."'Panding ben~nts.
7. Create a guIdelInes packa$e for companies fr~at Jets them evaJuate different
benefIts and d~termJne whien are best for their organization.
, . ,
\ .
/
Employer Survey on Child Care Benefits
Inter:vlew Guide
CHOrE to interviewer: italiC$ are used for sentences. phrases. or words that you speak).
Hello. Hy 1'lanle' i$ 1 am working t.Jith the dUld Ca.re Coordinat.or for the Cit]
of Palo Alto~ Your ~ .has been selected to be part of a survey that the City is
cczxiucting. All 1nfoma ti on .YOU gi VII! us will .be cat:lfi dentia 1.. &ncI we will gi v~ you a cos:
at the staVe.Y results it you want. The survey takes fran 5-1D mi."lute:s to ccrrplete. -H-
• J ' 2· ? (reschedule a.s necessaI)")
~y N~: ________________________ " ________ _
~~:--------------------------------------
PrumeN~<: __________________________________ __
Intervi~ name: ___________________ _
Ti t1e' _______________________________________ _
current C2>ild Care Beru:fi ts
1. Does your c~~y currently offer an? child care benefits?
res _____ (go to '2) No _____ (gc to '7)
2. I .. going to nad 'yOU a list of child care becefits. Please i.dentify the ones that
your ~y otfe-rs. (If interviewee indicates that CQTI)aTIY offers any of the benefits.
ask about uliliution, subsidy. and eligibility_ Circle responses or write in answers at
appropri ate. )
BDiEFITS
Ckl-site lacilit7
Dr;-:let t care
ass.i..stance plan
InfOlJlDti co ,
rt!e-rral se.-vioes
WIIA'I' , OF
00'u,yEES
~~ rr •
,
,
IIho provides?" _________ __
Leaves of absence ,
(par..,tal l ... ve)
Bow 1""9? ___ _
" I "
COIPAl'Y
SUBSIDY
full
partial
llOtataH
full pay
partiaJ
"" pay
'WHO IS EL[CIBLE?
for whan?
foe vhan?
for whan?
tor whan?:--:-:::7 (male' femaJe?)
" .----'
Leave to c.a..n~ for , tor ..... hcm? ___
si ck fami. ! Y JnI!!I1'bers
Pa}'ml!!n t vouchers , full for: whan?
partial
&.ployee S<minars , full lor wban?
partial
not at all
Flertime , fo~ wban?
_tpart Ume i foe whan? ___
caf~teri. benefits , to~ wh<:ITl?
Financial support to , (of errployees) for wban:?
preferred providers
Re.irTb..u:sem::nt , full for ...nan? ___
Accounts partial
not at all
Job sharil19 , for whtrn?
Voluntary reduced time , for .... t.an? ___
Otbe~ , full fer ",han?
partial
not at a21
the instigatol/decision maker ell the current child carll!' beI"lefit offerings?
if instigator and d.ecision rraker .... ere differell:~ note both in appropriate-
H\mU1 Resources Director
Infornal S'lployee qroup
~r ______________ __
•
,
elk
4. 5lh::c:h were-the most inporta.F1t factors involved in this deci.sioo? (do not read list)
Itectui tmont
_lor-: interest
.Abss1teeism.
Opened new OOilchnq
Executive-interest
Public inage
General ~c
Doesn't know
• 2 •
.Mor.a.le
Media
Carpeti ti on
Turnover
Tardiness
Oni <Xl dsnand
Producti vi t.J'
~'----------------
. ......
. '-"
/
(I f no flmdinq.. read 5d and .ski p to q'.le.5 ti Otl 17)
Sa, XDtI does your ""'I'Mr fund tre benefi ts? (pronpt; open-ended)
Sb. How many rears will the cO'!panJ' ccntinL!e to fund at this level? __
x. Is t..'te cannit."I'II!!nt renewed' annually?
Sd. How:TallY enpZoyees are served by the cucrent child care .benefits?
•
)
6. would you mind. giving us SCI'Re: infornetion on f;OSts --rE!S't'eT'ber that ev-e;rything yC1J teJ
us ~Jl be strictly confidential?
Star~ up costs $ ___ _
Annual operating Co$t.s $, ___ _
other contributions~
Resct.lrce and reofernlll
Rent fr~ space
.Ha.intenance
Assist in billing, budget
~er ______________ _
Future Child Care Benl!fits
$_-
$_
$_
$_
$_-
7. Is t1'lere any reason tho1e you know of that has prevented' your cmpany fran ofter.dl9
additiooal chiJd care benefits? {Do not read the list. This q:uestion should evoke an
unprompted reSponse.)
Cost
Wabilil;y
Impending! legislation
Lack of in:formatiCln
Incon.sist.ent with
compan 'J practices
Lack of employee
interest
Ot.tler (please specify)
B. Is lOUl" cmpally currently calS.ldednq expanc:li..ng the r~e of c.hiJd cue benefits
offered in the next .7Hr?
Yes fta
-; -
•
._---'---
l will read you ~ list of child care benefits. Please indicate uhether your ca;pany .is
conside,d.ll9' each service and' bow' extensive a suhsidy wi] t he offered:
~
considering
Benefit
Ol-si teo dli I d care
~t care assistance
tnfor.mation • Referral
services
Leaves of absence
(parental I ealle)
Sick leave to care toe fandly ~rs
Pa)"tnellt vouchers
Flextime
Ccmpat)y
Suhsidy
Full
Partial
I(one
Full
Parti.al
lfone
Full salary
Partial salary
No saiar1
Full
partial
Full
partial
None
Fi1l!aJciaI suppoct to preferred providers
Reinb:Irssrent accounts
volUDtary reduced time-
other (please .peci!y)
-4 -
Full
partial
Mone
P'ull
Pk--ti.Jl
None
~' .... ... , .
9. Whieh of the tollowing activities ha ... ·e occurred at your carpany? (If :no, il~k if they
are considering it.)
!hpJoyee ChiJd care Survey
.Meetings wi tb ~loyees-to consider
chcild care-related problems
Requested prqposals f~om a chdJd
care ~ ,. .. 1'1
Han.agE!"!'¥!llt discussitllS regarding
child care issues
Initiated a child care ber!efi L but
dropped it
Appointed saneone within your carpany
to hand! e chi 1 d C'are issues
~------------------
Yes ~o. No
but
considering
That '5 the end of the .survey~ Could you give me 3 little infcrnBtion about yOi.!!'" C'alJ?anY:
10. How ITBnl' e!Il'loyees do you have ill Palo A1 to?
11. hbat percent of 81ploy~s are nanagers?
12'. How trany female eupIOlee:5 do you have?
ll. Rhat percent cf tl!l"l81e enployees are manag'ers?
15. Ho-~ d you 1 ike a copy of the survey resuJ u? YEs .NO
l'~ We have developed .. needs assessment ~y loe ~loyers to use with their erJFloyee:
Would you be-interested in using it to survey you,r-enployees? (If y~. add: I'll get back
to you In the near futw-e-.)
_ l'OO fa! alRTIC1PA'I'mG DI = SIlRVE!'.
• S •
. .
ATTACHMENT 3
EMPLOYEE/COMMUNITY CHILO CARE. l'<'"EEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT
BY
DAVIDF. MARTIN
CHlLD CARE COORDINATOR
CITY OF PALO ALTO
•
TABlE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. PREFACE ••.•.•..•. . • • . • • • . • . . • • . . . .• 1
I. METHODOlOGY. . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2
II. SUMIoVlRY . . . . • • . • . • • • . • . . • • • . • . • . • . . 3
IV. IIIARRA 11VE •••••••••••••••••••••• 5
Y. RECOMMENDATIONS •.••.. •••..•... 9
•
I. PREFACE
This report summarizes the. results of the city of Palo Alto's' Child
Care zaploy •• /coasunity _.ed. A.sessmeDt, conducted in the spr~9 ot
1990. The objective of the survey was to gather in!ormation froll!.
employees of Palo Alto-based firms and the commUl'Jity in gene-ral
reqardinq their child care needs. Additional objectives included
ascertaining the prol::llems employees encounter in developinq child care
s-ervice delivery pl~ns for their children, how emplcyers assist in
this need and -what further steps should be taken by various parties to
.ake this process an easier one. Also measured was the productivity
factor of workers with child care problems, what types of care are
beinq utilized by the employee population, satisfaction rate ot the
current usaqe. what benefits are offered by employers and how many
workers utilize said benefits.
The Palo Alto City Council approved thll!! Child Care }faster Plan in
Deceaber of 1989. Among other things, the plan calls for the City's
Child Care coordinator Office to conduct a comprehensive child care
needs assessment. Two elements, the Child Care Provider Survey and the
Japlorer Chi14 care _.ads A8.es ... nt, have been completed and
published. This survey repre&ente the final component in the needs
assess.ent package.
It is the City's hope that tl1e results of these assessmer..ts will
provide a clear direction of how best to proceed to increase supply,
.aintain affordability and promote the quality of child care
operations in the Palo Alto area. Recommendations will .follow the.
release of the comprehensive report which will be designed to solve
the major probleJD: areas defirled in the findings ..
The City Child Care. Coordinator 'Would like to thank the
corporations/firms who allowed us access to their employees y the Haas
Center for Public Service at Stanfor~ for partially £unding the intern
position to assist in this endeavor, and the Child Care Task Force for
partially fundinq the intern position out of the Child Care Trust Fund
Account.
David F .. Martin
Child Care Coordinator
City o~ Palo Alto
1
Jennifer Watanabe
Coordinator Intern
n. MErHODOLOGY
surveys were sent to th~ 54 firms ~ho took part in phase two ot our
project .. the a.p:'.)!'e% _.e4. Aa.eIJUilent. study. At the time of the
second Burvey. representatives of the various firms were asked if they
'WOUld allow their employees to be included in phase three ot the
project, an -.plo, .. ,coxaunity Child care ••• 4. AB •• B ••• Dt.
other firas who vere unable to take part in the earlier projec~ were
also sent forma tor their employee's use and many of them responded ~s
well. In addition, anyone wbo contacted the State-funded Child Care
Resource , Referral Aqency in Santa Clara county within the past year
regardinq a child. care need who either lived or worked in Palo Alto
~o also sent a survey form.
We received II. total of 1628 comple.ted questionnaires. While we
understand that to complete a scientifically valid community needs
assessment WQ should query everyone Who lives or works in Palo Alto,
we are co.fortable with our characte~ization of these findinqs as a
beneficial tool in measuring the stf!lte of child care in our COlDIUnitY4
2
•
•
!!!. SUMMARY
a. EIGBLXQ&T8 OP rKB PIKDIROS.
1.. pemographi 9 po to
Eaployees between the age of 18 and 45: 7'%
Employees workinq locally: 12%
Employees representinq 2 adult househ~lds: 72'
t.ployee Households representinq dual incomes: &.%
Employees representing full-time work status: '1\
2. Child Care Need
Employees curr~ntly needing child care: COl
Eaployees (who need child care) requiring F.T. programs: 8l\
3. TYPe of Child Care Used
Employees usinq licen~ed child care facilities: 48%
~ployees ~ho provide the care themselves: ~5\
Employees who use relatives ( not including parents): 13\
Employees who use sitters in home: 12%
8RnxnoWN BX AGE CATEGORY
Infants usinq licensed child care:
Preschoolers using licensed care:
SCbool-agers using licensed care:
4. Satisfaction Bate
3H
U\
57\
Employees satisfied with current arrangements: 12'
REASONS FOR QrSS&TISFACTION OF REMAINING 1"
High cost of care: 23\
Location less than adequate: 21\
Perceived Lack of Program QUality: 21'
5. EmploLe:r-Bel,ttd, Child Care Issues
Employees wbo missed work or were late due to child care
problems: 3 Ii'.
Eaployees wbo missed work due a child's illness: '8\.
Employees Who missed work due to child care arrangements
falling throuqh: 55'.
Employees ~acing work dIsruption due to child care related
problems: 4"" •
• at l ... t ODe to ten tiaa. aDDual17
3
----,,----
, , .. -,
•
,.
6. Sick Child CAr@ Usage
e.ployeea Who would use a sick child care centert 56'
kmployees who would use if employer subsidized sick care: .8%
7. Cbild eare egofttits Offered By Employers
Dependent core Assistance Plan (DCAP): ~8'
On-Site or Near-site Child Care Facility: 11\
Plexible Spending Plans/Reimbursement Accounts: ,\
Financial support/Enhanced Referral Programs: 7'
8. Child Care Bgnefits Used By Employ~
Eaployeea utilizing Fin~ncial Support from Employers: 42\
Employees utilizinq Reiabursement Accounts: 35\
BRployees utilizing Flexible Spending Plans: 32\
Employess utilizing DCAF: 31%
EMployees utilizing an employer-supported c.c. site: ze'
£.ployeem utilizing an Enhanced Referral Program: 13'
4
, ,
,/
IV. NARRATIVE
1) DEXOGR1PKXC PRO~ZL.
(Because .~~e questions were unanswered and some rasults too
a_all to .8as~re, percentages will not alvays equal 100\J
, ,
7.% of the respondents were between the ages of 18 an1. 415. Of
those, 44' were female. A strong percentaqe~ as one can see, were
of child-bearing age. The respondents were well-educated in
qeneral, with 1.% havinq attended colleqs and 33\ having reached
a gr.adu.ete level educai;.ion. '2% were employed locally; .7\:
classified themselves as managers or professionals and 25' as
clerical or secretarial statf. 4.0\: of all Households earned
between $40,000 and $75,000 annually, 32\ were above $75,000 and
20' were between $25,000 and $40,000. 72% represented 2 adult
households and ,.% ot those had dual incomes. Full-time
employment was the norm a.s 91.' of the. respondents fit that
category. Given that the majority of households represented in
this survey contain 2 full-tim~ werking adults, it is not
surprising that the pressing need tor child care exists at the
level indicated in the forthcoming section~
The responses represent parents of 1512 children (38' school
agei31' pre-scboo1i23\ in£ants). 1628 workers or residents
responded~ 40' of Palo Alto employees surveyed stated a current
need for chil" care. This includes rEsponses from parents 'Who
curr~~tly h.ve arrangements and are searching for other options
as well as parents who have no child care arrangements but are in
need. Almost 40\ currently have some type of arrangement. '3'
stated II. need for traditional Monday-Friday care 'With "
indicatinq II. need tor weekend provision~ 83\ stated that they
needed child care full-day. This stat also reflects the need for
before and after school care provisi~n for school-age children.
15' are in need of afternoon care only while a small
percentaqe(2') need morninq care only.
') TTPB O~ CliZLD ClUUI IJSED
Almost one-half of the. 1512 children represented were in licensed
child care programs at tbe tilDe of the survey' ..... ). This includes
centers and nursery schools (35\;) and :family day care hom-es (13") •
Of the remaining S2\, parents accounted for 1.5" of the proviSion,
relatives {not including parents} merited 1.2% of the coverage
duty, and a sitter in the home made up 1.2\ of the responses. The
remi!lininq 1.3\: cited "'other'" for their child care provision~
Examples include unlicensed day care, nannies and au pairs, drop
in recreational proqraas,-babysitting· out of home, friends and
neighbors.
5
.-
/
8y age qroup, we found that for infanta there was an even
distribution of use between day care homes and centers (17\ •• ch
tor a total of 34' ~or lie.naad c~r. u •• qe). The remaininq 57\
vas split among parental care, sjtters in homa and relatives.
For pra-acboolerl, 55\ were using licensed child care~ with the
"" residue split amonq sitters., parents and ~ela.tives.. For
.cbool-aq_ra, '2' sa.i~ that the school or city child care program
at school aerved their needs. 25\ citEd other lioensed
programming with the remaining 35\ us"g parents, relatives and
sitters !n that descending order.
II "'7l:B1!'AC'l'IOli U'U 01' CJc:LD CAIIB OSI!i)
Out of the 1083 responses to the satisfaction qua&tion, only 1.'
were -not satisfied-or were ·very dissatisfied-with their
arranqe.ents{20' School-Age, ~8% Infant and 1" PreschoolJ.
Xntereetingly enouqh, in addition to parents citing reasons for
Why they ~ere dissatisfied l we found than many who had indicated
a hiqh level of satisfaction still cited problems with their
current situation. Of the ~ total reSDOnses regarding
dissatisfaction, 23% cited the high cost o~ care, 21' deemea the
location less than adequate(i.e., too far from work, off the
co_ute path) and 2.1% stated the program lacke.d quality. The
remaininq 35% who were l~ss ~~an satisfied stated various other
reasons, including-inflexible hours ot operation, aqe
appropriateness of activities, frustration from spouse's
inability to work because of child care arrangement, and minimal
staff-child ratios.
7 I BllPLOYBII-RBLA7BD CBZLD CARE US o ItS
Employees were asked a series of questions related to commute
paths, absenteeism, tar4iness, work interruptions and levels of
employer suppoct reqarding child care~ 23' of the 1628
respondents stated that they commuted over ZO ail.. each waY to
~; 50\ said their commut2 .as ~r 5 put less than 20 and 27%
live within .5 miles of their 'Work locale. For the people 'Who
oommuta over 20 _ilea each way, only ,~ use child care near ~ork~
That fi~~re appreciB~ly rises as the COmDute path lessens.
In ter.s of absenteeism/tardiness caused by child care-related
problems, 31' said they had miss~d work or were tardy between 1
and 10 times annually. 5' said they ~ere absent or late Over 10
time" I;nnuAlly~
In addition, employees were asked if they had missed work or were
late because ot a sick child. 43% said they had .issed work or
vere late ~tween 1 and 1Q times annually due to child illness,
while 5' said their work schedules 'Were impacted negatively ~
10 times annually.
6
J
I
8,
72' stated that they were faced with a sick Qr clQsed child ca~
prQyider fro. ti~e to time. 55' of those missed yo~k to take care
of the child the~selves; 23% used spoQses or relatives; 1., used
a back-up program; 5\ had their child stay home ~lone and 1\ used
other uptions(i.eo# brought child to ~ork etc.)
_ DlTIIRItUftIOB. Dt7B t'O CHXLD a.JlZ-F.ELA'l'£l> PROBLEMS
• Of the 824 responses to this question, 5.1\: stated that they
e"'PSrienced no work interruptions d\ie to child. care-related
problema; 4" stated that they had their work interrupted between
1 and 10 time.s aMual1y and 2\: stated that their 'Work had
suffered on pore than 19 occasions due to child care situations.
" lICE CHILD CAaB 08AGB
51' of those who responded would use a child care center designed
:for the care of sick children if it w-as available, 'While 4.4%
would not. However, if a sick child care center was partially
subsidized by the respondentJ s employer, 6a\ W0111d use it. and
only 32\ would not.. These percentages do not include the ans'Wers
-aaybe,-·possibly· and -it depends~· It is important to note
here tbat many people gave these r-esponses and therefore are
interested in a sick child care center, but are hesitant to use
one without further investigation.
10, CIULD CAII.B BmorXTS CO\IIU!II'l'L Y OPFERED
All respondents were questioned as to ~e current child care
benefit packaqes available to them throuqh their employers~ From
398 responses, we were able to categorize 9 types of benefit5,
not includinq an "other l1 cateqory which qrouped together some
miscellaneous benefits. The oependent C~re Assistance Prog~am
(peapl was, by far, the most offered benefit garnering c., of the
possible options. on-site or near-site child care facilities
were available for 11' of the respondents. Flexible Spending
plans. Beimbursemept Accounts, and ·other-were each cited by "
of the employees. Examples of ·other· included flexible
scbedulir~ and -un4erstandinq eMployer~· Financial support and
enhADced referral were each listed in " of the
re8ponses~Brinqinq up the bottom of the list at less than 1\ were
the following: Parental Leave, Personal Leave for Sick Children
and paVJumt Vouphgu.
It appears that employers seem to favor child care benefits 'Which
focus on financial .::orJcerns ri.e~, DCAP 1 flexible spending plans)
vhile disreqardinq the benefits which would enable parents to
care tor their children themselves (i.e., parental leave,
personal leave for sick children et al.
7
.& PIIIEl]
i
-~
•
,
. -'",:, ------_.
UJ CB%LD CAllI! __ Xi'8 ClIIIRl!IIITLY un))
42' ot all employees who listed financial support as a benefit
o:t.fered by their respective companies use it~ 35\" of those
offered reiBbUrsement accounts U5e it. Flexible spending plans
were used by 32' of those offered one. 31\ of all employe~ who
were offered a OCAP plan use it. z,' of all employees who had on
or near-site child care center use it. Enhanced referral was
taken advantaqe ot by 13% of all employees. Finally, le$s than l' use parental leava and payment vouchers if offered to them.
"Money-oriented" be.nefits seem to be more popular with employees
than -1;ime oft-benefit.s. 'I'his may be because parents simply
cannot afford to take time off trom work even though it is
-approved-, If they are not earning money while taking parental
leave, then t~ia option may not be realistic for them.
Unfortunately, many people vere unable to answer whether or not
their utployer offered. any child care benefits. They were either
unaware if any benefits were offered or if they did think that
some benefit was offered they were un:s.ure specifically as to what
it was. Further, many people stated that they knew that a certai~
'benefit was offered but that intormation as to how to take
advantaqe of it vas lacking. For instance... many employees
indicated that although DCAP was otfere~, they were not
adequately informed of the mandatory meeting to sign up for the
benefit or of the deadline for application. It. seems that
communication needs to improve if employers and employees are to
enjoy the advantages ot employer-supported child care benefits.
It must also be noted that the usaqe percentaqes appear higher
than national child care benefit usage figures. It can only be
!Speculated that this occurred because these percentaqes are based
on responses from employees who indicated knowledge ot certain
child care benefits offered by their respective companies. As
stated previously ... many other employees were unaware of ~hether
any benefits were offered. Employees who are knowledgeable about
child care benefit offeri:lgs may have found out about the
availability or pushed for the enactment of said benefits due to
~~eir .are preasinq child care needs. These e~ployees would be
acre likely to use the benefits offered. Hence, if there is a
positive correlation between awareness and usage~ then the above
percentaqes could be inflated. when viewec:J as an incUcator of
child care benefit usage among the general employee population as
eaployees without a child care need may have disr-egarcIec:J the
survey instrument~
8
.' .. '
v. RECO~ATIONS
1. Develop additional funding partners to assist the city and state
Department of Education in offering child care subsidies,
including local employers.
2. Develop information dissemination campaign to alert employers
about the cost-effectivE nature of providing child care benafit&
to their employees.
3. Explore a city child C~e mitigation plan whereby local
bUsinesses •• tablishinq new or expanded facilities ascertain
increased child care need and recommend methods to address that
additional need.
.... Develop -Child Care Languaqe-for il"lclusion into the Ci.ty's
General Plan in order to allow mitigation efforts to proceed as
new or renovation projects come undar Planning review.
s. Inform. businesses of california tax credits available (Hart
S.B.'22) for development of facil1ties and subsidizing a portion
of employees child care costs~
6~ EXpand menu of city of Palo Alto child care benefit offerings to
public employees in the following areas:
a) sick or recuperative child care subsidy,
b) expansion of OCAP Program to Public safety Personnel
c) Explore Paid Parental Leave Options for employees
experiencing the birth of a child, adoption of a child and
long-term illness of a child~
d) Develop a downtown c.c. ~acility that city employees can
utilize in concert with other local businesses.
7~ Establish employer-supported consortium-financed child care
facilities in three key qe09~aphic regions:
a) Downtown
h) Paqe Hill & £1 Camino Corridor
c) stanford Business ?ark ~~ea
8. Support efforts by area employers in proJllulgatinq information
about child care benefits to their emploY6es as variations in
usage suqqest inadequate publlcitY/outreach~
9 ~ Assist blsinesses with the dev-elop"!rlent of postpartum parental
leave policies to help alleviate the infant care shortage~
10. Develop an in-kind contribytion -bank-whereby corporations may
donate excess qoods and/or services to child care programs in
need (paper supplies, accounting/legal services, etc.)~
11. Deteralne to what extent the lack of child care facilities near
employe~s workplace exacerbate the commute problems and int,ibit
fuilieB from sugqested. car-poolinq and alternative transit
options.
9
< •
."
~ Dear Parent ~
You can help improve child care services in Palo Alto by tal<ing a lew minutes 10 complete
this survey. All responses will be sllicijy confidential.
,. De:l1og'"lll1", Da ..
What is l'O'K age?
What IS )fOlK sex?
'6-2-: 0
female 0
25-34 [J
....... 0
W1'taI is the zip code o( j'OL" home? ___ _
How many ad"'" live in 'fOU' ____ _
Io\Ihar is your job s!alus?
""Him" 0 pat1-1ime ,witI1 benefits) 0
I mamed, what is your spouse's joIJ stalus?
3S-44 0 4S Of oyer 0
worlr? ___ ~
o o
full-time 0 pat1-time (_ benefits, 0 pat1.!ime (00 bene""') 0 001 in pa)d worl< fo<co 0
How faT do you /ravel ., worlr?
~onemilo 0 '·SmiIo, 0 5-20 mies 0
An> )'00 --0 '" hoIJriy (]?
_ ~ of WC<k do roo do?
MinlgerlpmlO_ 0 Saleslteclrical ,_ 0 Productionlope<ations
Administrative suppot't
What is the approximaJe ~ gross income of your household?
""'" 20 miles 0
o o
\JndOf $25,000 0 $25,00'-40,000 0 $4(),OOl-75,OOO 0 $7$,000.0
2. Current ~Id Care Needs
Do you C/.i.T/entty need chfld care1 yes 0 no 0
Ate you currently usmg child care? ~ 0 no 0
Please indicMe Ihe nJ.NJ'ItIer 01 childlfln you ate responsble b in ea.ch c&:tepoty.
~ (LJt1de< 2) __ Preschool (2-5 years) __ SChooI-age (6-13 Y"'I"L_
W~ ~(sJ 0( ewe are )'0<1 cvrrenIiy usinp?
O'IiJd(ren)'s Parent
ReIati\l9
Babysifter in home
li<:oflsod f.,-ni1y day C3t8
Dav care C$'\l6r
Sct>OOI
City program at school 0Ihe< ___ _
Infan! Pr_
O 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0
SchooI-age o o o o o o o o
Palo Alto Child Care Employee Survey • Page 1
""",-,,,,', \ . ,
•
. ."-
\ ,
1-5 miles 0 over 20 miles 0
~onemile 0 1-S miles 0 s-::w miles 0
Is the Ixot;on 01 """ provider s ••• rsctc<y? yes 0 no 0
WhaI"""-*I ~ the __ b you<' care provide<1 _______ _
How did you find )'CM proyidf><? ,_ ads, agency, /riend)
Verysar_ __ Not_
Very_
Infant o o o o
-o o o o
SchooI_
o o o o
_ """. do you need un each day? !o.amp;e: 8 am -5 pm)
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
w..dne9day
ThutsOay
FOday
Saturday
3. Cool 01 Chid c.r..
so
$1-'00
$101-250
$251-400
$401-600
$601-800
$801+
!nfant o o o o o o o
Preschool o o o o o o o
-o o o o o o o
• you use _ cat8, _ is the monthly cost'I ______ ,P.-lives in 0 or out 0
Palo Alto C~ild Care Employe. Survey -Page 2
· .
In the laS! year. hf,w many limes has • siCk chtld caused you 10 be une Of fO miss lillO/I<?
None 0 ,·10 0 -. than '0 0
When fOU' child i$ Sick. 81'8 ~ the first 0 or SIoCood 0 PfHBOn c::fIIIed?
Child stays home alone 0 Relatives assist 0 Take oft from work
u... • back""" ~
o o ~----------------------
" there were, .sick cMd co."1fer in Palo Alto, WIOUId roo use t? yes 0 no 0
If yes, what is • fair dttify charger undef $25 0 S2S-35 0 $35·45 0 $45+0
noD
_ many cmes per ..-Me)'O<l imemJpI9d at -* by p/Ione colis _'" J'OIff ~ and tI>eit car.>?
None 0 '·10 0 lobe !han 10 0
What -:;hiId ""'" -. doe. I'W' employer Cum!flrly _? Do 100 use them?
Thank you, U your employer gave you li1is survey, please return this form 10 the
appropriate person in your organi.."lItion. Otherwise, please send to:
David Martin
Child Care Coordinator
City 01 Palo Mo
P. O. Box t 0250
Palo Mo, CA 94303
Palo Alto Child Care Employee Survey • Page 3
"