HomeMy WebLinkAbout0207.092t
" . ,
i ,
j
I
!
I
I
I
I
-
~ .. ' .. , \~
$11
April 23, 1992
THE HONORABLE ClTY COUNCIL
Palo Alto~ Colifcrnia
Attention. Finance c~mmittee
'Il'ESPONSJ TO CITY AlJDI"TOR'S PALO ALTO COMMUNITY CHIL_P CARli AUDIT
Members of the Council:
•• pert 111 8~ief
Former city Auditor George Beck submitted a report in November 1991
on an Audit of City Subsidy Payments to Palo Alto Commi.mity Child
Care, Inc~ (PACCC), which made several recommendations for
incorporating additional requirements into the PACCC contract and
increasing the level o~ moni taring per.formed by Hurnar. Services
sta~f. This report is an update to staff's initial responses to
the Auditor's recommendations~
lIsckqrouncS
In the initial response to the Auditor's Report, staff did not
agree with certain elemants of Recommendations 1, 4, i anQ a. In
aaQition, the Finance Committee, on February 25, asked that staff
'Work with the PACCC Board on issue:; raised in Recommendation 3,
including developing a pciority list for subsidy eligibility and
aeveloping a plan to eliminate subsidies tor PACCC employees.
Staff agreed with the Auditor on Recommendations 2, 5 and 6.
The Committee also r€quested a comprehen5iv~ overvie~ of childcare
provision be provided. Attached to this report is the comprehen
siva Needs Assessment, prepared in 1991 Child Care comprehensive
Needs Assessment Report (CMR:190:91). There have been few
siqnificant changes in the elements disc·-.lssed in the report since
it was presented to the Council.
CHR:207!92
, ,
-
" -..., -~~~:;~ -~
R.eo .. endat~: ThrQ~9h amendment of the City'. contract with
PACCC, tb. city ahould. require PACCC to .ata:blish .ppropri.ate
gYidelines tor applicant. with reqard to tb~ docuaentation
nacessary to 8upport their ineo.es~ Thia may inelu~. such
documents •• Qrisinal pay stUbs sn4 recent l signed tax return ••
Staff Response: St3.ff will incorporate lanqu3.ge in the 19092-93
contract that requires the establishment of appropriate guidelines
for applicants 'With regard to the documentation necessary to
support eliqibility~ Clients 'Will be required to provide their two
latest pay stubs, unemployment compensation verification letter,
tax returns, and/or Notice o~ Action ~tter from the Social
Security Department. Self-employed individuals will be required
to supply their latest tax return. Also, clients should be advised
that they must report any ch3nges in income or household status
within ten days of the change, or risk l~sing their eligibilitY4
Certification by PACCC staff will be required to take place twice
annually.
ReC:OlDle:nc1ation 3: city ata.!! anc5 PACCC management sbould vcrk
together to develop prioritie. toz: subs.idy eliqibi1itl''' PACCC
_ploy •• s sbeuld not :be eliqi:ble for City subsidy.. city staff
responsible for th& admi-:Listration of the contract with PACCC
ahou14 take a .ore active role in tbe oversight of the administra
tion of sUbsidy funds... inclul5ing 1.) rev:iewinq files of subsidy
recipients for proprietYI compl.teDeas, and proper autborimatian;
2) peri04ic review of centar d.ocumentation of subsidy recipient
attendance to verify UB~ of .ervice; and 3) verifying the propri.ty
of PACCC'& muinis.tration of subsidy funds distributed. to affiliate
centers.
staff Respons~: Staff has met with PACCC representatives regarding
developing priorities for subsidy eligibility, and will inco::-porate
them into the 1992-93 contract. High priority wIll be given to
"special need M children, children of Aid to Families with Dependent
C!\ildren (A-FOC) recipients, East Palo-Alto Children, and single
parents.
While the City Attorney does not believe there is a legal conflict
of interest, staff does agree with the Auditor that allo~ing PACCC
administrators to grant subsidies to their own ernplo~rees is not
desirable. staff have worked with PACCC representatives on this
issue, and have come to what both feel is an acceptable compromise
position. The 1992-93 contract ~ill specify that no subsidies are
to be given to PACCC employees. Three PACCC employees (5 school
aqe childr-en) currently receive subsidies from the City. These
CMR:207:92 2
\-
; ,
I
I
I
l
i
~, "
f,
-
employees ~ere receiving subsidies prior to beco~ing PACCC
en:.ployeE"s, and staff prClposes to "grandfZ!,ther" them back into the
suhsidy progra~, after recertifying their eliqibility.
staff aqrees that a more active City role in the over~i9ht of the
administration of subsidy funds is desirable. This year 'che Human
Services Division has performed contract mcnitorinq visits for all
fot:.:t"teen agencies 'Who receive City funding, and staff plans to
continue this practice. However, the Division's responsibilitieo
have steadily increased, and the ability to extensively manage the
subsidy contract is limited. Human Service staff will perform at
least one ccnttact monitoring visit per year, and strive to perform
two such monito~inq visits. Monitoring ~ill consist of a review of
eligibility criteria for recipient's attendance, waiting list
priorities, and oversight on general subsidy management.
The iS5U9 of staff verifying the propriety of PACCC's administra
tion. of subsidy funds distributed to af!i 1 iate centers; ... ill be
addressed in the response to Recommendatio~ s.
Recommendation 4; Tbe city should neqotiate aD amendment to tbe
PACCC contract to provid.e assi.tanee tor administrative costs. One
possible •• thod vo~ld be to ~.~e the overhea4 rate on aubsidile4
chi14care hours provided.
staff RI"JSpon s e :
staff ha~ discussed this issue with PACCC representatives, and
jOintly recommend using a 20 percent overhead allocation, based
upon the methodology used by the State Department of Education
Alternative Payment System. In thE 50 pr?qrams operated by the
state, 80 percent of the contract amount is used for subsidy
tuition VOUChers, with the re:maining 20 percent available for
administrative overhead. Staff and PACCC rep~esentati· ... es feel this
mathod. of admi.nistrati ve overhead reimbursement is appropriate; a~d
does not require the considerable burden of recordkeeping involved
in maintaining tim~ records for subsidiZed chlldcare hours.
Recommend.ation 7: "through tbe City'S contract with PACCC', an
azplicit plan should be 4eveloped to phase out the administration
an4 ov.rhaa4 ~o.pon.nt ot the subsidy oYer a reaaonLbI. peri04 of
time.
Staff Response: When the ?ACCC program 'Was ir.i tiated in 1974,
approximately 90 percent of the participants were SUbsidized by the
city, while 10 percent were full cost tuition. In ~991-92, this
pez-centaqe is just the opposite: approximately 90 percent of' the
participants are paying full cost tuition and only 10 percent are
C'MR:207:92 l
-
6ubsidlzed by city funds. In 1974 virtually all of PACCC adminis
tration ;,nd operations C05tS Iao'ere paid for bi the city. This
administrative support funding made ser.se ~hen t~e agreement
between PACCC and the City was first forged in tl".e ;nid-1970' s.
However, with the growth of the agency and the budget increase of
the organization oyer the last 18 years ($2.7 million projected for
the current year), the organization should assume the administra
tive. support functions out of their program proceeds. PACCC only
sets aside 7 percent of tuition for administration, although the
standard for like oz-ganizations is a 15 percent set-aside. PACCC
has relied on City monies for aciministration instead. For the
15191-92 year, the administrative support level is $130,000. The
City has reduceo this l~vel ove~ the last t~o years by $20,000.
What is ofte~ overlovked when administrative sub~idy is discussed,
however I is the fact that the City provides Ventura School and a
portion of College Terrace rent free to PACCC. The estimated
annual rental value of these two sites is $227,760, based on a
value of $.80 per square foot. The city also subsidizes the rent
at the nine extended day care sites for school age children. PACCC
pays $.23 per square foot at each of these sites. The new lease
'With PACCC foz-the Ventura site will allow PACCC to sublease a
portion of the site, thereby establishing a source of revenue for
PACCC. Thus the "administrative subsidy~ to p~ccc is far more than
the $130,000 direct payment.
Staff recommends that, 'Within 3 years, the direct payment of
administration costs for the subsidy program be reduced to 20
percent of the contract a~ountj as ~as discussed in Recommendation ••
Reegmm8D4ation B: PACCC should ~e a11owe4 to continue to act as
the "clearing' heuse" for child Clara .ubsi~y requests througbeut the
eOlZlllunity, but. only in conjunction witb a greater degree of
oversiqht on the part o~ tbe City.
Staff Respo_1'lse: Staff agrees .... ith the Auditor's findIng that
affiliate use of the subsidized funds has not been performed in a
satisfactory manner~ Hovever, the Human Services Division cannot
provide adequate oversight of PACCC's performance of their con
tractea scope of se~vices, ~ithout the addition of monitoring the
affiliate programs. To address the concerns raised by the Auditor,
statf reviewed two options ~ith PACCC represent3tives:
1) Either PACCC strengthens their procedures fo;:-affiliate agency
use of the City subsidy, or
CHR: 207: 92 4
2) '!"he City und2.rtakes i!I separate formal contra.ct process wheo:-eby
the affiliate agency would be subjected to the same monitoring
process as other contracted agencies are by ~uman Services
staft.
Staff have discussed both options with PACCC repre!:entat~ves~ 'oliho
very much p~efer the first option. City staff will undertake mere
concentr&ted efforts to ensure that PAC~C is a~equately overseeing
affiliate contracts in future~ staff believes this ~ill obviate
the need to explore options for other childcare groups providing
administrative oversight for PACCC or for affiliate programs.
Staff do~s not believe that even if there were another child care
group aVailable who had the ability to provide such a5sistance~
that delegating oversight of City funds to another agency would be
appropriate.
Attachments:
CMR:207 :92
Audit Report of Palo Alto Community Child Care
Child Care Comprehensive Needs Assessment Report
CCMR: 190: 91j
5
\ ,
.'
REPORT from the City Auditor
Honorable City Councl1
Palo Aho, Calijomia
Attention: Fll1ance Committee
fl
Februa.ry 20 I 1992
Subject: Attached Audit Report. Audit of City Su~Sldy P.yments to Palo Alto
Community Child Care, Inc.
Attached is \he Palo Alto Community Ch~d Care aLodit report issued on November 14,
1991. The City CourlCll referred this aud~ 10 the Finance Committee for further discus.
sion. ThIs nem is scheduled for the February 25. 1992 Fonance Committee meetng.
Respectfully submitted,
1 ..
~Mo L.------
Tracy Y. ~ok
Acting cify Auditor
TKRMG
..
'r-REPORT-I from the City Auditc ,
-
This report Is for informatlon only.
No CouneO Betlon Is required.
November 14, 1991
Honorable City Counal Members
Palo Alto, California
Subject: Attached Audit Report -Audit of City Subsidy Payments to Palo Alto
Community Child Care, Inc.
The City Aud~or's office has completed a reo.iew of City subsidy payments to Palo A~o
CommL.'nity Ch~d Cere, Inc. (PACCCj. T1>e aud~ indica!es that, while administratloo of
subsidy funds by PACCC needs improvemen~ positive steps have been taken to
strengthen the organization's intemal <:orItrOIS over the City's subsidy payn,ents.
Additionally, the report recommends that increased oversight of PACCC activities be
perfomled by City staff.
Re3ponses to the aud~ from both PACCC and City management are appended to the
repan as Appendices A and B. The City management response takes except"'" to
firKfrngs and/or recommendations in the report in three areas, and as of this date, these
areas remain un.reso[ved. 'mese points of oisagreerilent are as follows:
1 . Recommendation 1 of the attached aud~ report states, in pa~ that guide
fines for appropriate dccumer.tation of income for subsidy a pplicants be
incorporated into the contract. City staff expresses the opinion in their
respanse that this level of detail for the adm,nistration of the contract was
inappropriate.
As our audit indjcates, leaving this component of the agreement wlth
PACCC ambiguous has in the past allowed City subsidy funds to be used
in ways that did not prOvide reasonable assurance that they "'ere being
spent as intended by the City Coun",l, Incorporating these guidelines into
future contracts ~h PACCC will providp. expflCit direeton to both City staff
respansibie for the administration of this contract. and to PACCC, in this
important component of the agreement.
-
-.
AudH Report· PACCC,lnc
Novamber 14, 1991
Page 2 of 3
2. Recommendatons 4 and 7 deal with the compor>ent of the City's subsidy
es:abfished to assist PACCC ",t:h their administrative overhead. Staff
responded 10 them logether, and took exception to the suggestion of lying
reimbursemerlt lor these co~ to hours of child care provided. They
presenied as an a~emative the develupment of an indirect cost rate. This
methodology is acceptable.
Recommendation 7 states that the current administrative subSi,jy be phased
out oyer a period of ~me, and suggests a period 0' three years. M. the end
of three years, this compo.,ent of the City's subsidy wO'Jld be replaced by
an overhead rale, negotiated between City staff and PACCC management
City staff response to the recommendabOtl is that the administratve subsidy
should be phased out over lour, not three years. They t~en state "the
p/laSe-0l.1 should be done over a 4-year period to avoid upheaval ()( the
demise of PACCC, which would have a devastatng effect on the quality and
availability 01 chnd care in Pale Alto".
Given PACCC's total revenues in 1991 as approximately $2.5 million, the
effect 01 reducing their administrallve subsidy by one-third represents a
reduclion of their revenues of 1.87 percent per year. "City stalf's 4-year
period is uS1;d, the reduction is 1.40 percent Whether a three yea, ()( four
year phase-out pence is used, the difference betwoon the tv.-o alternatives
appears to be negfigible.
3. City staff's response to Recommendation 8 indicates that rt is a por.cy
decision for the City CourlCll 10 make whether PACCC should CO!1!inue as
the City's clearing house lor chnd care subSidy requeStS. This is true, arid
that policy direction has been given arid is in place. However, the neces
S8IY oversight on the part of City staff has not oc.."Urred.
'L
Staff's response COI1fuses administration of the subsidy program (a PACCC
responsibaity), with oversight of the program (a City stafT function), and
states that "the Human Services Division does not .~ave the resources
sufficient to manage the subsidy program .. :. The intent 01 the auell
recommendation was to require City staff to exercise "greater oversight" of
non-PACCC subsidies, not management ", present, any o,'ersil/ht by City
staff of these City-subsidy recipients not located at PACCC facilities would
be an improvement. ACiditionally, at audrt, there was a lotal of ten subsidy
recipients located at nor"PACCC child care facHilies. OverSight of this
component of the City'S subsidy mighl consist of verllying the propriety
of four or five reCipient files twice a year,
AuOrt Report -PACCC,lnc
November j 4, 1991
Page 3 of:;
Given City staffs dissent on 1M above findings al'lC.' recomrnendatioos, subsequent follow
"'P by tile City Aud~or's office wiN eit"er require direction from the City Covncil, an
amendeo aud\! report by tile r.e!W lacting City Auartor, or a revisioo of City managemenfs
response. WIth these issues resolved, the City Audttor's office will perform a lanew-up
RUdtt of bott1 PACCC's, and the City's, administrabYe ~esponsibilrt!es under the terms 01
the subsidy contract within the ne,1 six months_
Resp9C!!u11y submitted,
6---r-C~ i3~.?
George C. Seck
c.tyAu<frtor
GB:RMG
ce: June Aeming, Assistant City Manager
EmJly Harrison, Flt18noe Director
Paul Thittgen, Community Senvoas Director
Gary Thompson, Executiv" Director, PACCC, Inc.
William Zaner, City Ma'1age r
External Aud"!IOrs File
•
AUDIT OF CITY SUBSIDY PAYMENTS TO PALO ALTO
COMMUNITY CHILD CARE, INC.
AUDIT OF CiTY SUBSIDY PAYMENTS TO PALO ALTO
COMMUNiTY CHILD CARE, INC.
Issue Date: November 14, 1991
.., -
Aucfrt Work
Performed by: George C. Beck, City Aucfrtor 6 E .
Date Report Forwarded
10 City Manager: Oc!ober 25, 1991
Copies to: June Fleming. Assistant City Manager
Emily Harrison, Finance Director
Pau! Thiltgen, Communitt Services Director
Gary Thompson, Executive Drrector, PACCC Inc.
William Zaner, City Manager
External Auditors File
.--~:
-
· )
"
r,.
'.; .. -
". :"
BACKGROUND
."-~--~----
Palo Alto Community Chnd Ca,e (PACCC). Incorporated, a
private, rlOO-profit COfp<lfation, has been a prwpal prollider of
chnd care services in the City since 1972. Wrth total revenues 01
approximately $2.05 million in 1990, PACCC provided child care
services to approxim&!sly sa"sn hloorad chndren at seventeen
sites. Chl'dren receivir\w care from PACCC range in age from
two mon;hs to twelve years. AdditiOl'1ally, PACCC maintains
relations with SiX other child care proviaers in the com:nunity, and
admi~isters subsidy funds for qualified participants at those
centers. During the period of this relliew, ten recipients of City
subsidy money were located at non-PACCC s~es.
Every year since 1973, the City has granted general fund money
10 PACCC for the purpose Of providing subsidies to inDividuals
who could not otherwise afford the organization's full fee for chJld
C8'!!, a'ld assiS!~d with PACCC's operational and organizational
expenses. In fiscal year 1990-1991, PACCC received $993,255
in direct ala !rom the City. Of this amoun', $140,000 was lor
administrative support The balance of the t .. mds, $253,255, was
to be macle aV8J1able for subsidies.
In January 01 this year, City stat! expresSed concems regar(]1ng
the financial wen·being 01 PACCC, and the inlagrity 01 their
system 01 intemal control. PACCC's financial statements and
management repo."t, prepared by their independent aud~ors and
received in March, indicated the source of the ir problem to be the
organization's cash basis 01 accounting and management defi·
ciencies. AI a meeting of the PACCC executive board in March.
City S1aff, iI'1cIuding the aCting Human Services Administrator, the
Director o! Community Services, and the City Aud~or were
assured the issues and concems raised by the external aud~ors
would be addressed.
At their May, 1991 board meeting. PACCC management dis·
clOsed thai revenue shortfallS for the year would resu~ in the
organization losing r1'\CY\ey on operations for the year, end would
necessilale an "emergency advance" on the City's subsidy
commitment in order for PACCC te meet its payron. Even though
PACCC requested an advance on their subsidy due to the
cyciicaI nalure of their business, the concerns expressed with
regard to meeting their payron prompted a review 01 PACCC's
administration of subsidy funds provided by the City.
. -'. .-~~>
,~
AUDIT METl10DOLOOY
'~~-~?!f;.
"'r.L
•
AdcJitiona.1y, ea1ier this year, PACCC's board of directors moved
to make a change in the organtzation's management That
process was concluded in July when a new executive dirsctor
was hired by the Board. ~ was particularly appropriate to con
duct an audrt 01 City subsidy funds to PACCC as it wouid faciil
. tate tne tr.al.,Sltior~ of their ne'N executive director.
~ should be noted that issues and conditiOf1s identified in this
report represent the status of operations as they were reviewed
in August, and hence were not the responsibility of the new
executive director. During the course of the aud'n, the new
executive director look positive steps to implemem corrective
measures to oonamons identified either as a resu~ of this audit,
or by members of PACCC management
Whne many of the concerns identified L~ this audit relaile directly
to PACCC operations, it should be emphasized thail this repon
has not been prepared for, nor is it intended to be refled upon
by, PACCC. Instead, this report is intended to identity problem
areas which are of concern to this office and which should be
addressed through the City's contractual rela~onship wi',h
PACCC.
There were three areas 01 focus for this audit. The first was
concerned witt1 the a.dministr~on 01 subsidy funds by PACCC
management, and related acccunling and intemal control ISsues .
The second 0eaJt witt1 operations of ch~ d care srte faCilities as
t"ey relate 10 subsidy fund recipients. FIflSIIy, an assessment of
the effiCiency and effectiveness Of PACCC in pro"';ding child care
to the communny was made.
SectIon 2.08t30 (2) Of the City's municipal code states the! the
CWI Aud;tor shall include departme'1taJ nespooses to aud'rt find·
ings. In the cument cirCumstance, however, ij is appropriaile to
incorporate the respooses 01 both PACCC's management and
board of directorS and City staff respoosible for administration of
the City's agreement with PACCC. These respooses are append·
ed te this report as Appendices II and B, respecitvely.
NOftmbir 104, 1G;G,
.... -~ ,,--$
ADMINISTRA TlON OF
SUBSIDY FUNDS fin~jn 1
Insufflci<!m documentation is required by f'ACCC management 01
subsidy applicant's income. At audit, income verification proce
dures CQrIsisted 01 appflcant.s seff-repor1Jng income and any
subsequent changes in economic stalus. Independent COl'Ifirma
TIOO of income was not performed.
Recommendation 1
Appropriate procedures for determinlng the wrrdity of subsidy
apprtca'1ts' inco:rn! and need for chJld care is esserrtiaJ to mO: ....
taining a credible subsidy program. Through a,,,endment of the
Citls contract witr1 PACCC, the City should require F>,CCC to
establish appropriate guiderr!les for appncants witn regard to tI1e
documentation necessary 10 support their inccme. This may
include such docuonents as original recent pay stubs and recent.
signed tax retums.
Finding 2
At audij, ind'rvidual camer directors maintained waiting "~ for
subsidy recipients, and, in some cases, extended subsidy to
rxfrviduals without obtaining prior approval from the central office.
RecommendatJon 2
The City should require PACCC to cemraflze a~es related to
subsidy administration. Appfrcants should be able to express a
preference for B specific sije; however, the pool of appiicants
shcuid be evaJuated in ijs entirety by central office personnel.
Findlne 3
The methodology used to determine who receives City subsidy *;.. .
does not prollide reasonable assurance that the most needy in .",c
the community receive it. No assessmem be\'O'ld income
efigibllity is made. As a resu~. the fonewing cond'rtioIls were
allowed to 0CCUf;
Nonrn6;, Hi, ,W;
<---.~"~ ~ j'fiB -~
·~' . • " f
>-
t'~
I
L
2.
" ,
A single parent vlhO indicated a weakly work schedule of
ten hours a week was given subsidy funds without a frmtt
on availability.
Sing;e parents who stated they were attending schOOl did
no! have to rjemonstrate lYogress towards a degree or
vocatiOnai certification. In several instances, class
scheduleS submitted wit'> appflcatJons indIcated schoo!
sttendance of less than ten Mours " week.
3, An applicant who reported gross income from seW-employ
ment of over $40,000 per year qualified for subsidy be
cause dedu.."tIble expenses reduced taxable income 10 a
qualifying level.
4. Several appfrcants lived with relatives and did flO! pay ren~
but did nOl have to claim that bene(jt as income for the
purpose of determining subsidy.
S, AplYoximately 20% (fouroeen of sixty-five) of subsidy recipi
ents are employees of PACCC.
Recommendation 3
PACCC management /'laS already taken steps to address this
concern. Relevant sections of tl'leir POlicy and lYocedures
manual are in the IY0C9SS of revision that win inClud<l new me!h
ods for asseSsing subsidy applicant's needs and t'le lYoprie!y of
e><tending CIty subsidy to them. These steps should be incorpo
rated into the CIty's contract with PACCC as oornpor.e.'1t$ of the
agreement's Scope of Services.
Key to this effort is establishing a new rlSl of p!iOrities for evaluat
ing appfrcant's subsidy eligibility. City staff and PACCC manage
ment should work together to develop priorities for subsidy
eUgibility. Elements that could be considered in developing such
B p<iority listing include:
2
.-~---.--
'Special need'. Children who are taken lrem abusive or
clar>gerous homes, are assignments of !he court, etc. (after
exhausting subsidy provided by the Slate),
Aid to Families Wrth Dependent Children (AFOC) reCipi
ents, IndMduals receiving this form of subsidy have
'.
•
\
proven their need to other govammen'.aJ entities that have
greater resources for determining income.
3. East Palo Alto chl:lren in conformity wt!I1the City's prior
instructions and in keeping with resolution of the court
case generally known as the "Tinsley Agreemerlt". AI
audrt, mere were no East Palo Alto children receiving
subsidy,
4. Single parents not ,eceiving AFDC.
5. Two parent families.
6. Undergradua1e students -for a maximum of 1WO years.
PACCC employees should no: be efigible for City subsidy be
ca' JS€ -<oing so creates the possibfflty of conflict 01 interest in
PAce.... administrators granting subsidy to their own employees.
Such a subSidy amounts to ~ employee benefit, not contemplat
ed in the agreeme n! the City has wiIh PACCC. H would be
entirely appropriate for PACCC itseff to provide this 10rm of
assistarce to its employees, but the City should not pay for it.
Onty a small number of the current subsidy recipients are receiv
ing Aid to Families with Oependent Children (AFDC). To receive
AFDC support, a more stringent set of guidafines is used to
determine and n-.aintain ""gibillty lor those funds than that used
by f'ACCC for child care subsidy. As a resu~. their need lor
suppolt is substantated more effectively than would be the case
for non-AFDC rec;pients.
Individuals who Cfld not qualify for subsidy under estabfished
standards could apply on a ·special needs· basis. However,
appfJCa!ion.s for wbsidy that fall imo this catego'y should be
subject to adCllionailevals of review within PACCC. This review
may include final approval by ths Board of Directors. For any
component of the priority fist. PACCC and/or City managemem
may want to establish a dollar fi en ~ to assure some level of
fundi ng for each group.
CIty staff responsible fer the administration of the contract with
PACCC shOuld take a more active rOle if1 the oversight of the
administration of Subsidy funds. This oversight should include
the lollowing steps:
CENTER OPERATIONS
-'.
-, ..
1. Rs.ii!w files of subsidy recipients for propriety, complel~·
ness, and proper authorizatiOl'l.
2. Periodicaily review Centers' dOCt.:mentBtiOl'l of subsidy
recipients' attendance to ""'ify that they are actuaily using
n.
3. Verify the propriety of PACCC's auministratlOl'l of subsidy
lul'lds distrbuted 10 affiliale centers.
Anding"
A portion (S140,(Xl(i in the current year) of the City's subsidy is
designated in the contract with PACCC for certain administrative
and overhead expenses. Accounting and reimbursemern for
these expend~ures Is not being done In conformity with the terms
of the contract
Recommendation 4
The intent behind this component of the City's subsidy is not to
compensate PACCC for specmc expenses, but to assist the
crgantzstiotl with its admJniS\fative costs, whatever they might be.
A simpler basis for prcMIng \his asslsta!1Ce would be to develop
an overhead rete and apply this rate to some meas'Jre of service
PACCC prOVicies. One possOble method cou!d be to base the
overhead rate on su!lsidized ch~o care hours prOvided. This
amendment 10 the contract with PACCC should be nego~ated by
City management and inclUded in !he conlract in the f.;ture.
Further DISCUSSion of the administrative componeflt of the City's
subsidy to PACCC Is conlained in a subsequent ponjoo of thiS
ropen.
Andlng 5
Center Sign·in sheets and other reoords indicated that, in certain
instances, children wer~ not attel'lding the Ch~d care facility
aithougt. PACCC was receiving subsidy funds for them. In some
instaJ>CeS, chndren did not attend lor weeks or months at a time.
-
\
"
Recommendation 5
I~ ExhiM "A' tilled "1990-1991 ScOPe of Services" 01 the currenl
contract bl!:ween the City ane PACCC, the ccntractt>r's responsi
bil~ies for administration of City subsidy funes is stated as:
"PACCC shan administer City child care suosidy funds".
aeyond staling that on:y res'dent5 and employees of me City and
st..oenls enrofled in Palo Alto sChools uneer the Tinsley Agree
ment are errgib!e for City Subsidy, no direction is pro.,.;oed to
PACCC in the contract as to what is a reimbursable subsidy ex
pense. ~ is recommended thal establIShed policies by the
PACCC management and board of director,: l>e reviewed by City
staff responsible for admirjstering the contract with PACCC. Addi
tionally, these procedures should be incorporaled .-.to the con
tract as a component 01 the agreement's Scope of Se'Vices.
Wrth regard to subsidizing PACCC for Children who do net attend
their facilities, a time lim~ to< absences should be established and
included in the City's contract Ch,dren who are absent more
than a WMk or \WO wi1houl acceptable written doCumentation
should be dropped from !he subsidy program to allow access to
others who wiJ.I use it.
Anding fj
Record keeping with regard to documentation of Children's
attendance at tr.e va"io'~s centers needs 10 be Improved. Dwe
to IscI: of Clear directioo in the past, cente' cflrectors have been
able 10 design and use forms to< recording ehHdren's alte near>ee
ndependenl of each other and the central office. As a resu~, the
e1fectJveness of these documents in properi:y reODrding atten
dance v,,:ies significantly !rom center 10 center. In many instanc
es, Chi!dren are no! being signed in a"ld out properly. Some
cente, directors use documents 10 recap atteneance which were
originally intended te record mealS received at the center.
Parents Olten are not required to sign or in~ial sign-in sheets, and
these Wilre often found:o be blank or have the innials of a center
employee instead. 'M1He rt is acceptable for employees at
cemers that serve sChoo! age Children to sign them in, ~ is not at
imant/toddler centers.
,
'I
!
\
These records are impoltant in 1M! they estat,'sh the basis for
prOving tile attendance of cnJldren at the child care faCilities.
Additionally, they represant an important element of the "audrt
trall" of documenta"Jon that is used 10 determine !he propriel)! of
subsidy distribt:dons.
Recommendalion 5
The contract the City has with ?ACCC should stipulate that forms
tlesignad 10 record end summarize cI1ildren's attendance at
PACCC facilities be standardiZed. PeriodiC review of these
documents should be performed ~ administrative personnel for
propriety end completeness. These records should InClude the
foiklwing information:
1. ChJld's full name
2. . Sign-in time
3. Parent 0( guardian's Signature at sign-in
4. S.gn-out tme
5. Parent or guardian's signalure at slgn-out
The contract should al$O reqUire thal written subsidy administra
tion peRcles a"ld procedures be updated and enforced. excep
tions to established poficieS and procedures should be made only
after writte.n authority is Oblained.
Finding 7
App.-oximate'y 35% of the City's subSidy to PACCC ($ 14Q,COO) is
earmarked for administration and overhead. This, in affect, is a
subSidy to PACCC's users WhO would not o!l\erwise quality for
pubflc assiStance. Qo;er!l\e past several years, there has been
crtScussion between PACCC representatives and City staff with
regard 10 phasing out thiS component of !he City·s subsidy.
RecommendatJon 7
Through the City's contract with PACCC, an expflcit plan should
be developed to phase out t'lis componenl of the subsidy OYer
a reasonable period 01 time, perhaps three yesl's. During thiS '
interim period, administrative expanses could be recovered :
through an overhead rate appHed to each tlour cf Ch,d care I
provided. Each year for the next !l\ree contract years, the over-\
head rate would be reduced by a third until the .fO.,U.~c 00, , " •. t',a .. ct, I"
l:;;art 011SiJ' s;:;s;;ay ".ynMntlIO p .. lo ,'. _
_ ~c, ~~~,~'~~~;';w:,"i, c... -_ ......
"
, • -' >, • .,.~
" .~ , " ..
, .
:',
.. ",
•
year when rt would be replaced by on i'ldi,ect cost allocation
based upol'l PACCC's cost or administering !he subsidy program
The purpose or this aIIocaton would be Ie compecsate PACCC
!or administration expenses assOCiated w~.I1 tne subs iet)' prograM.
Flndl"l1 8
Adminlstration of subsidy funds 10 child care organizations
affiliated with PACCC is ,"adequate. Oversight of subsidy fvn<:ls
S! affiliates is not being perlormed in a manner that prollidei
reasonable assurance that the funds are being used for agreed
upon child care services.
Recom mendatlon a
Preserving the role or PACCC as the "clearing house" for child
care subsidy requests throughout lhe community has bOth
POSM end negative consequences. On the positive side,
PACCC, as me City's principal "aison with the child care c0m
munity, ostensibly possesses the resources to effectively evaluate
a given &;lPrtcaflt's Me'j!or child care assis\ance. However. rt is
not clear !hal ability has resuned in effective aDocatiOll 01 subsidy
funds in the past A p."IJdent COiJfSe of acton at this tme would
be 10 allOW PACCC to continue to administer these funds, but
ooly in conjunction with a greater degree or oversight on the part
01 the City.
Finding 9
Incompa~ble functions are r>Ot adequately segregated in the
cen!ral office. This condition was also mentioned in the t 990-
1991 management letter from PACCC's independent audrtors.
Recommendation 9
The new exeCU1ive director has taken steps to mitigate this
intemal control weakness. With regard to subsidy administration,
the City's contract with PACCC shoold be amended to ,-equire the
approval of at least two members of management for the granUng
-'
CONCLUSION
01 subsidy and periodic review of subsidy recipients' files fO(
required updates of ioformation. Also, the accounting manager
needs to fullin the role of 'cootrolie'" ratr,er than that of a book,
keeper, This individual represents ar, assenUal component 01
PACCC'~ system of internal control, and Should be accountable
lor the prOO8r accounti ng of transactiens and If".e substance 01
the events they represent.
The finc"'9s and recommendations made L'1 this repon have
been discussed with PACCC management, and positive steps to
Improve the organization's internal controls \'lith respect 10
subsidy administration have already been initiated, This report
outlines several areas where bot/; PACGC and City staff responsi
ble of the admi'listration 01 this contract need to make improve
ments In the way City subsidy funds are administered, These
Improvements. once agreed to, should be incorporated into the
contract tt-.e City has wittl PACCC fO( admi'1is\ering City Chnc!
care subsidy fur,ds, During 1992, tnls office will perform a fo~ow·
up aoort to cietermine :he progress made,
I -_ ... -..........
Palo Alto Community Child Care
Comp.rehcnsWe Child C4~ Ser.:.<ice:s
3990 VQ"ntur.!: C:... nJo ,t..L+co. c.:.. 94306 i41S.~ 493·136 r
F~;~ A~~Q C.t~ =Qwnc~l
;.~. s .. ;;: :,c.:.s.::
'Tho!' [.:;':'1-> .. ':'1:14 j.s .. r'ot"Sycnse t ... t.;':f/' .ioU
of ; .. :0 .,:,It-J s .. b~id .. · 5<:<rl;o!-.$ t~ ;: ... ;'0 ,.;,
C,Ho!' :~,,:-'::. 'c:,r t.;"10 ::t.: "'1..O.:h:.:·r. ,,!!,';'
::epCi"t . .:.~ t~.~ ,:~~?
,.;.,~!;; ... ;.;t:-~:-'4:'::
;.e-:~.
:-tr ~.:i;: ~.s dOlle .... !'.orcui.'< j.:.t, .ll~ ::;,o!' r.;,-,-_
... d.~n[.t~ ... ~.:.~n ac4 So&rd ~r CL:ec;Qrl .lore .. ;pre.:I.~i'~ .;.(
b~!IIi ccn.stru.:t,;.v~ ("",-..:a:.. oc th.i& fir ... ~, e"'I-Z-... di .. or
Gut. .. :'d'r r.m.lli. rtds u-pcrt lH'o..-id.es. r .• ,:,:':, .roC:: :.r.o!" C:t-;-,,;,f
.,,, ... ..:. ':'':' .. 0 .. b"ultpr-i..I'It {(If ."r. f.;.;;u.eci ..,n.',"lIIof-r.-;: •• ui~ ... r,,;,,,,
.ar.':; ,:io\".erli,i'lt. ~or.o .. :e!' ........ lie ..... dlt::',.'::st;.:o:-, t
t'o!'C"'if,:o;e tho!' rep..:.r.'. il8p.:rt..r • .::~ to :::.':0,;::'0 .nd i.'1i
.~j:-,!f~..:::_n.;1t t .. nol"e.;i~ r •• ll.ies 'th.: I.· .. o!' .. n.:! _'";;-, in ":1,,;.,
": .. ia<1Iurdt.;r.
P.:.:::;; 4.:knQ'Io':'""d s •• t.~.4; • .:1."" d",:;..::",r.~~o!"s ::. ... ~.t' :'*"'n :~;';l".'; l:"l
t;-.", ~,,"5C .aQ.IIIO~rds:r .. t~':;rl ... f" .. i"I:!"~"" ; ... r.c~, ~I_t "e ;arE Ft""-.• C: :. ...
~, .... -.e: c;:.n.s: ..... er.;'t::.::; p.o· .. ·~.;i"'..: $ .. :'!;~j~ .. u .. ~ ~",-• .:j:r1!!d.i cd 5':'-• .;-':..-
:;; ...... 1!!.r.t ~.a.l!Il:i.u; .. nd :,~;; l'",":'1':"'r.:..o;, .. 1" • ..:;. .:~;.;:.:: n .. : .i"::-"rC: t ...
pay ~ ... ':l COSt .:.h~!d ':',Ir1!!.
-::r.':'"t,s':stol!n .. a;a.n"if"IU!nt ';"l'ld .,r~':II!-~ .. r.': ;lI.:'!;-;'r.:..e:;,pret .. ti"r. r.Ci..o.
.... es .. ;t""d in :~~ prQb;~.$ ch~:. ~r. E""':~ t .. s h;ih:~;h:.",~ ,~
h':s r~por ... aO~~~lI!-t. ?r!~r t ... the f.~.! ~~~~~ t~~Q~t. ~.~:::
.. ':::-,~;;-.':'s-:;:.~.:'.:.r. t~c;' .. ~r", ... .: ... ·;e s:',~n.:.e .. ~ •. i s~:.:r-:."".:i :to;:.;s ~~,;
s~~5idr i.r.t~kE F;;-.:..:",d~te ... :-"~;.;s:ni ~~ t':.;;~.;::y .::ri:Er!a
I !denti..: .. : e~ ~:r. ~"'C~'~ re.:o~~e~d~~ • ..::.~. ~~:~~~
7.e::~~i.:ati~rl, ~~~~~~r~ni, ~~~ f"-~:",'Io'-~p.
=~l~~E~:~1' th",,:e ~
.:.f .1 :Q::;"'! .:.~ f .. r:. r .... r.': & • ;:.:'! ()1l~
lIICT, ~~$ :..:. tne "t.o!-e
CitY .I~~~:~~~o!".
;": • .:. ;,;l: p,,,,·:.iE :
~ f~r:F r~:, 5:~i:e ;~;~~: f~~~:.~~ we ••
-.;.r,o!' ,~ .. , :""';':i",1'; r~';e::'';"~r.i !,..; .. :£i':7
~:'o!'r.-':;Qr. t.:. .;:.;;~.:~.-."e t.;; ~ .• :,.,~,~t: t:'~aOl!
~~s: af :.~. neely" &~.: ~.;:~;:.-"~ t ~~:.
n ~ddi:'~0~. ;~~~: h~$ h~re': ~ c nt:.:.: o!'t.
tI,!;r.~:.: ... ·.·,.r5:i',: A,,-; ::,:,.:~,,:.: ~;.::-~
l
•
.. ::-----~--..
Att • .:he.:l ... re 5~el fIe :-es",o:".S('s :.c th.e-.r"'c';'~"'e!"1:::a~lons 1III ... .:Ie
v: ~H·. E.~.::';' aI,d c., .. I"" ~:-c.pj.s.ej sub!i. .. .lj "~~il:l.::.l~:..;:.." .:-r;~er! •.
7h.rlk J~I.! a~"'l:1. fc.,: )"v ... r ':';:"<l-p"r .. tl.:>r. ilorld f" ... ..:,~.:-locks f..::.:-... r-.:i
~o ... rl~~ r~I.tlon~h1? ~Lth the ~.:J ~G ~gnt'~l.!e pr~.1~.n8
qualltr ch~l~ care t~ l~ .. ~n~g~. f~m~:I~s
5.rl~ .. rel1",
/~U.) l1J~--;s.:-'1
Co ... r, ... ;r,olllp.o:.;:.n
E~~~ut1'e D~rector
AUCki 101 Ciiv Sublold)' p.ym.rrt. 10 p.lo
,",,0 Co~Uftfty Child Cere
~.
-
APi aJDOCA
PACCC MAHAGEMEHT
RESPONSE (coni.)
l. f';,.CC:: ha. r-""-i.$ed. tl'le -1ntali;'I!! and j.."I~ollle veri f".":a.tl<;,n
proced~re" f<lr ba.ic !Subsidy eli,ibl1itr. f'.reo":'; ... !'"e
no". re.,L'1re-d to sub.it of:-Icial do..:u.arllt.:ii, l"e.,
pa:rche..:!;: ,t ... b cOJ'ie$, c:opLes !;if ;"FCC grant ..... rd
It'ttll"T"S, etc. Th"" PACe;;:-[.lo.ec:ut~ .. :e-Iilt"e't(1;-.. ne
Contract. ~d.ini.tT"'':.''T Ioilll det~rlll.r .• (_~1:,.
~.li.ibilit~ ... t-11izin( tbe offici .. l docullle~LatiQn ~nd
es~ .. bli5hed p~CCC in~o.e f~~del~nes,
The inco .. ~ "Il'rificat.ion .. t.ate.ent 'Io'lll W lIIonitoTed and
r",,, ieioed e"-"'T), .. ali: 16) lIIonth5 AJld l"bsidizll'd f ... U ies
..-ill be reqlJir""~ to report ...... ,. cha ....... in their
f .. n .. n..:i .. l .t~tUIS-lOitl'.ln teill [10J .. oTl,;inf dllf5.
2. Tne r'l!!',,-ised policy requirea S'Ub5idize.:! ~r"'nts
to provide official el ... s 5chedulel and docu~Dt.tion
th.t indic .. t.e .. a struc~ured acadeillic prolraa ~Orkl!'l'
to.aTds a delree and/or ~ocatioDcl o.r~ifie .. tlon vltnl ....
.. re.s-:lnat.IO! tlille (ra.e_
Tne intake and jneo~ v~rifi~atlcD pre~es. for
selr-"aploJ'ed p.rent-li is b • .til'd eD ad.ju-lited. ,ro ... in.coille.
There are no ,uicielinel on bOlO to addre ...
I;),,\bsil.ii.zed f ... i.lie ... living .. ·ith l"elati"el .. nd: not l'ayin(
rent. CUrren":. .AFDC Il.i.ideliDe.s do not require re-tK-rtinlr
thi.s as a benefl-t, if tb .... re(:iptent li~·e5 at heae ioj thc.ut
rellt ot'.li, .. tioD_
:PACCC 1oIil1 de .. ""lep itl OlOn •• ploy .... e chi"d f::arO!! b .. nefit.
that 10Iill be part. or a /leI. "'.ploye .... benefit pack_,e.
All exi_tin, PACCC e.~lo,.ee sl.i.blliiay contract. ioill be
.randiathered ill until PACCC de"·elop.!. it. or',D ... ploy .. e
cbild care beneti":.. E:-!ec~ive ia.ediat,ly PACCC ~111
I10t initi.ate-.. ny new .. ubliidy c.ontr .. cts vlth FAeCC
eap.xoyees_
:I. It il \In.:ierstood that the adll.ini.ct.T.t.i"e cost .... i11 be
b .. sed OQ an IOverheo&d. ~ r .. te of the entlTe .... b"iO'y alo.ard.
P;.CCC .. dainiltr.at.ion VIII _et .. ~tb City It .. rf to
deter.ine the .afprepriate rat", based on the
.. d.linistr.ati\"e iluJ:p.ort net:ded for th .... 1I..&1l&l!Ie.ent .of
lIiubsi.dy tunds .. nd .a reall-stic tillie fr_e t..:l pro'l.':idil' !,;,r
this transit. on,
e
--.
•
... t, .. ;:;;:::: b~rC',;; oi ':'1".::.:;,:1", ,,~,,:, ... : ... ~:-,.; .~:;-, ~, ... .E .... ~.::.,:.-t
r:rC'.:::!;" :: o. ~r~lne ~ .~~;~ :-~.:~ $~S-~ oi:~~~ ;~
;,nttrr', ... : 4< ':Clti --.~r" .:,-.. e .... r,d e ""_~: .,r,:.-;. .. r f ~r.a(,,;: ._.
over~.iht ~f ~ e ~~~5i .ci~~n; :ra:~:~,
~. The Adrnini5tratlVe C.:.m~~::ee Qf ~~e ;~:~.:: ~.:.~rd a!
Lire~:~r£ ~~:: e,., "'5k~~ to ~&~~~f :;~;~ :-~5p~n&~t~:_:~ ~~
... le~l-~~n~A: b~~~5, Tnt ~~~l~;$::-oi7_.<: ~:&~.:t~i
'~.::rw~<:" th~ rr~.5~rer. tMr c~;:-~n: E:_rd .~.::C'
F:-t,.~ent, a~d tbe [~C'cu:~~e t~re.::t:r,
e;, 'he ~:'I!!;::w:.'"e "'~r-t:i:t.:;,r il:1d C"l'ltra'::ts "-dJt •• ->l'!I:r-c~.::'r il".'e
e~--.~~:~~h~d a .;:en~,a:.:e~ ~~i:~ni lLs: t~a: ~2!: ~c
.It,;.l:-,: ... ::-.e~ i.f. 'tiH f_,'::': .,:i::..r,~s:r-... :~'ot-",t:~.::o! ~:" ~;; ..
C.;.n ... a.;ts ... .:;iI.~r, .... 't-:--il .. ,:,.-.
:n ';:Q~M~~.:::L:~ ~~t~ the CitT ~~ ;~:~ ~:~; :~i:~ C~re
.: .... "r;;;~n ... 't"4 \ ... ~,.j, c.. dI!!5:,."a~e.j ref:-"';;>!'.,t.a.~~ .... ;. the
PA~'::: ~~e.;.u:_.e ~2!e.;'t~r .~d Ccnt~.~:~ ... ~~i~is'triltc.r
~i:l ~eve::p prc.,edur,.,s t~ ~on;'t~r a:~ ~~!~:iatC'~
r~Ce~~~ni ~"tr A~~.i~y f~~~~. rhe .~~.:orlni ~!;"Gced~r~~
loll; !:.e re.L.;':>!'.:;' ."it;1 .a.rfi~i~;:t$ t:.-e:;;:"e i:t;;'",;:;,,,,r,t":.':'i,,
I.~5L •• i~at~~~ Gf s~bsidy fynd~ ~Cl ... ~~.I~.tC'l Io~:l .a.~~'::
be Te'·,.s.ed t. ... .:: .. Il(Gr. ' .. ~::h ?.:.';:CC po.:.l:..;;,
6. Ti1e r>!'\~se.;l ,II.,bsiJ;;c .. r-u.;edute$.:ic tef ... >!'.::t t:-,e
rec"_end.at..,,n5 ... -.J. b. tn. [;:.t:;-aU';;.:Gr-an.: .iore l',
.c.::c..r.;l .. nce .;~th " .. il-'!: C.~lroJrn_. ::;~ .. :e :::,ey.!.r'tlit:1.'::. c.r
L':: .. ca: • .:lr. lui:l.s.Ljj' pfu':'ecilOres, r.-,,,, ~-.i'\a: ';..-.. :"t ;;:i: ':Oil!
5u!:.~1:.'::.ed .: .. ~.'ter ~~:e.
~, ,,5 .e1.t1: ...... ,j 11"; r~.~""'l!il!! f.;, .. r ;..;,~, F.:.'::":": ~."l!i cr,A)",i"'; "tr,,:
~cc~u~:~nK M~~~ier P~\."t;on. I: l~ ~~~ ~ :c~tr~~~er
p~~~'::.~cn .~~ lJ It~~.::t~red t~ ~rCVi~~ ~~t~~n~: i;~n~r~:
ar.~ o::":ers.'i'-.t .. i .... :: ;"C,:C !~n"':-,';:~d: 5~:;;:.er ...
~,,!'".~:;;c.rl;:"'i ar • .;l re','.e_ af 1<.I1:..:&i':_" ~c.1~c:/_.;=.~r,i5tr ... -:i"r.
1, & nelo re5p"n5~bil.:l Cli ~hl5 ~C5.!~CO"
:~~ Z~~C~:i~e ;~rl!!ct.~r h.~ ~~t ~itn F~:C~ Cen:~r
':'_;:"@"':7_"r5 .. r.~ ci~'·e~.:lp-e ne. So!!:. i .... c,,--;. i"r::&-S. t'nolt
pr~.~de &i;Cyr~tt ~::en an~~ ~ec~rci~ ~~th t~ • .::h~:d :i
f~l; n.ze, p.rent '.i~ :~~ •. .;~:~ .• n~ ~ .. ~!~ 5~1~~t~rE.
=h~~d:en ~~~ ~rC' o1.C~~~ ,:,~~ ~ee~ ~r m~rt ~~~n ~; p~~ .. r
nGt~ri.:: .. t;.;,~ .nc, r cic ~~~I,;~;~,"~ ~~._ ~~ Cf ~ed frQ~
t,l •• .:t~Ve s .. ~~Lci pr" r~~, ~c.n~'::.~:e~en'"
,::,; ... ,':,;!;"t-d, ""'';': o!.:ioe-c:-;;;.I".I'-': ~::-' :",., i'.,'::;:-,:
~~:-~Ct~:-~~~ '::Q~: ~.::~ ~~m.~~5t:-~:~~,
I
I
I
-
APPEHI:lIX A
PACCC MANAGEMENT
RESPONSE (ecnL)
PACCC SUl5id~ Ell,ic~litT
(;~ crder or priorlt1}
I. "Spe-cial ne'!><j" o:hilJren .. ho "1I't-t-a.lil!':ll i:-o!ll ,,!:;.u5i~·.e .::·r
d ... n.eroua ";":>111\"5, &S:IlI.i(l'llter ... .lI "f the C(ll,H't.,
'L .. ici tG Foi.ll:I..li~.s ."iO'l Deper.dent C,c,il.dren P.FD:'J
r~clpient.1lI -indl.';:dl.l.als r-ece~"~n" this f.:lrll! of 5"bl!;li;lr
h ... ~ p:,"CI\"en thtlr t'L"""!'': t" other .o ... ·.H·n;ilJ~f,t.41 ent-I ties
"that h&\:e iTea.t!!'r reso'Jrce& f.:or d<e~.enllin!ni ill",o.e.
l. E&st Fa!o Alto I;.hildre.n (""he ar'!!: I1'1C08e eli,ible). and in
conformity ~ith tbe City'. Friar in&truc~ions .nd in
li:eepini" witl:! resolution of the court ..:;a.!lle ,enera.!l,.. !;::.nC\,;ll
as the -Tlnlllley Agr.e.e~~~.
E"freetl'1i'oI! i-.e-diatel,.. PAce::: will not illitiatll!' an}" neli
&ubai.:l1 cootracta ,,"itb PACCC eaployee •.
All existinl .PACCC e.plo,._ .uolI..:dy C:Or.tTACt.S ...,ill be
Ire.r..drat-he-r_d in ulItll PACCC d~velop.t it'S 0"11 e:ll.,l"yee
child e,re benefit.
lO/Il/91
NDvem6lilr H, 1991
.-~ .~-q~~ li 3 irte
) ,
~ .•.
"!"Q: 10'.;.1': :'lI;!i ZaneI'"
"\.1.1'18 r:'~:;.l.1'Iq
L:::l';'!: Sarris~'
-'---
S't.f5.:;tC":': A~C:':' OF" c:~ SUSS:i:r:-:: P':"·i~E..';':'S r~ p;.;..: A:.':'C C::.KM"".J~":':''::'
CS::.:-CARE, !.NC.
0101'1::: Ncve:::ber 6. 1:909.
I nave =-e'.'ie.''''Ii!~ 'the Cit~ Aud.i':cr's "A'Jc:,,<::, Clf Cit..Y Sut-s:"dy FaYD!.ent.s
to Pale Al~~ C~mm~~t~1 ~ild C~re. Inc. (PACCC;~. and ~l5cussea the
iSSl.ll!s I'"1l.':'SIi::: t:!1oerlilin Io'.itll Dtovid Mar":.l.r., llUlll&n Serv,:,cRs Ad.lIlinis'tra
tor. 'the bulk at tn. findinqs a:-.t' rlilc.Q:!:lIenC:a";..l.ons are directed to
the PAC~C Board Qf ~irectClr~, and 5~&~r is eon!iden~ that th~ Boar~
vill itlOe.:-t .it-s test etfarts to i0:tllliloent reCC'llIme."Idll!d .a:provement.r;
in prr:>qram ac1mir..i..atrat:ion. 11'1 ralSponae to !'l..ndings and I'"GcOmlllenda
ticrl-s s-pe,cific t.o the City au.t:·s ad3in.is~ .. tion of th-e PA.CC'C'
c:entract. a ge'Me.ral oblh!rvation should blil .ade t .. ,·\a't filtaf! rIlc50llrC~.$
.re liD.it:l:d in thl: Bua,an S4rV;i.ees Division. and eon,.equently the
Aud.i tor'.. raco_endatiDN5 'tC aUqlIIent llioni tor ing aC1:i vities .,ill
bave to be .valuat~ witt ~terance to thair eo&t-ef:.~tiY.r.ess.
This i~ also true of r~tion8 to add langv.ge to the current
co~t~act ~hlCh aandates opar.tiQn~l p.o~ad.~res for PACCC.
a_l:olllulldatioa 1: '!brQU<]lI .... 1Ci4Iutlt of th .. City'. cgntra;:t vit.h
P."C:CC. the Cit! shollld r-rui:re PACCC to •• u.blhb appropriate
quid.liAes for .ppl.ieaDU with l'e<1ard to t.he 4gcWll.II:taticlI
.ece: .. ary to s'Upport ud.l" iacoa • .s. 'fbis aay ucl'Ude such
4ocua.nts .s origia&l par stubB and reo.llt. siqned t&x retuz=s.
Whill! sta!! a9rees w.ith the Auditor that independent eor.!i..r'2Iation
at income level is iapo~~t, it is also i~portant to note that
PAC1:C office s-:a!! is !:ICt trained: as e~iqibility .... orkus., ant! a-;-eas
cf con!identl6lity could ~ b.oa=hed it th~s reeo~endation is no~
carefully implement.d. s~tt d~saqree5 wi~h the A~~i~or as to the
n.ed. to in:::::lrporate q\lideli1'les fer d.oc'.';':IlIel'lta":.icrl into t.'ll!! cur::,e~,:
contract. StaEf does, hOllo' • ..,.r, believe the': doc\U:I.ntation 8ue!"!. as
pay 5t1.:;o5, Not.l.C"e of Aetlon lett.e:t"a fro!:: the D'!!iparuer.t of Social
Servicils for fal!lll.ies re""'e-1Vl!'lg -:::ther fO:n:ls of a:a:liis.~an:::e, tax
returns f::lr t.'1_ salf-uploy.cl:, and Slg'ned c:laG:s schedules frotl tha
NO'lembir 14, , gih
~"'~-...
. . '
" -
-
APPENDIXB
FIMANCE DEPARTMEK'I"
RESPONSE (CCIIlt)
•
t"1I~istri!.r'5 c;!!ic::e tQ: panmt.5 I.o".!'1Q .IIrc 1I!:\..:d&:nts, shol;;.ld bc
r.lj>Jc.5~.d 1:;:1 I'':':::::C 5t:a!! in Clrdel:'" to p:-o..-idlil pr-oot o! eli9i~i':'it..f
tor sl.t!l$id.'!. t.~ct'. s~~s.idi1.e.d :av.i:~ sht:'J.ld. a!.s.o ~!: :t'~dv. ;a. .. a.re. o:.~.i!."':.
I!I:hotlld 'their t:;'l"cUmS~i!I"'lCI!!!S e:'4119_, t.hey l:l\lS-:' r-ep,;:.t"'t: t.nese c::~anges
within ~o :':$ O~ !5C~ 10s5 of ~heir $~s~dy.
J:eC:O=:lleJ:Id.ticD 4:: 'f!u eity sl/.cuH require l'Acec to c:ez:.t..r .. l.i.u
a~1;iv1~1.S ~.l.t.~ t~ .~aid7 .~iDist: .. tio~. ~pplieanes sbou14 ~.
&hle to exPress a pref~r.~ee. fQt •• p~~i!ic site; boveYer, t.~. pool
of a~~l1~~at •• hQul~ ~ •• &1U&t..~ ~ i~s eat.ir.ty by c.~t.ral ctric.
perillolUlel.
St..t! a9r.~s ,d.':!':. t.ne Auc!itor's reco-:,:1endat::':o::-o. and ..,::.11 monit.or
llllple:!nen:atlon or. t."e reca.llend:ations to t.··U! a:<t:ent t.~i!I":. st.at"::'.:'cl'\q
resO'lU":;:es .are II!tvajlatlle.
1l.cOJmudat.,i"1I 3; ;:it.y .taff I/tit! PA~O: JU,:ua;eCle:at .1Io\llo work
tog .. t..l:ler ~::Io de"elop priorities lor subsidy elig-Uoility. J'AC:CC"
elllplO'y.e:l ah.ou14 .ot b •• l.:!qi~llt !CI~ City sUl:lsi6y. Cit:! .u!"l
r'spODsible !"or t.t.. at!alinl.strat.1021. or the COl1t.:'&ct .,it.1!. :rAcce
shauld take a .ore aeti~e 1'01. in toe over:li~bt of the adaiaistr.·
t.ioll. ~f s\lbsi4! ,!\UI;4'~ uch4u.~ 1) :-evi.vu; fih·. of SUbs.id,
recipi •• ts tar pro9riet1~ ~l.taD.:I'1 ~d proper authori2atic2l.:
Z) p~ia4ic r •• iev al CaDtar 4oeu..u~tio21. of .Ub.i4! recipi.21.t
atteD4kn~. to ?erity ~.e of .-rv1oe; aDd lJ •• ,ritylDg ~he propriety
01' 'Ae«;. au.izlJ.strat-ic. of .u».id:r tUll4. Ili,trimlted to e:!tiliat..
aeAtlU'a.
Sta!t aqr*as with tn« A~dltor·. r*ce:=en~aticn that a pri~:rity lis~
for .ubsidy eli9ibili~y $hould be ~ev~lcp~Q. a!~ho~g~ ~~e eleme~~s
1~5~ed in the audit r.p~rt &r& net ~o~~r~anlive. end stat! wou:d
not nel.es.lulr-ily cor.sider the.lll to be il\ erode:-ot impor:.ar:c::e ,as L'le'l
are disp':'ay«d. il'l the report. St.a!! 'Would, allj;o point out thoa: the
Co .. nt:f of S."r,t." ';:'ara uke.s a.vaila.cle ~h1.1d c:a'Ce flUtds for u;. ta
one year for chi~drel'l a~ r~5k cf abase or negl.~t, and C~ty fund$
should l:>e prioritized ill Vli. ue ... c~or'C1i!'lt;ly So as l'lot t~
dy.,Plicll!tte COl,lnty .services. Stat! aqree$ thot PAce.:: Hlployeel5
should ~Qt be ~li9ible tor City subs~dy, and viiI WorK vith PACCC
to ~t'ansitign the withdrawal ot cligi~ility with & Larq~t ~ate for
campl.te ~itbdr&wal of :uly 1, 1.992.
Tbe Husan SE~ic~.s Division. which is responsible tor =Qni~oring
the PAcec con~&c::~. doas no~ have ~i~~ or-resources ava~la~le t~
assume 8 Clore a~lve role in the .dmi~rstr~tion o! subsidy funds
beyond =oni'toring a.ndo ,'/a.l.uating the conuac::t. A ':::l,Irsory t'e' .. ieW" o!
a u.mplinq Qf" $'Jt:sldy-el:.g-lble !am;.liits' !.:.les .ill becoce a il4r.;:
c-f 'the .onit.o:-il'lg ;:rocess, ;trut .st:atfinq hv.ls 'preclu.:"e lC;oving into
area&. Cot: ," .. osio::.' lIIan-aql!'~en't ~t e.t1::.1:.a .... e. ~e:nte'I"S or vuitlcation of
.tud~~t .t~er.danc:e,
~ 'I
~-I , i
tj
"
I
I
--."
J.~oaa.n~Atic~.~ ~~. City saoul~ ~e~Qtia=. a~ a.aD~~c~t ta tb.
JtA(;'C'C contract to prcl'vid. a.ssist.<tDC'. tor &@,i.n::'st:raeiva c:asts. 011111
po:s.ibl ••• t,bl:d "",c..uld b. to base the CI't.rb.a~ tate dc. stWSic:l:lze.:!
eh~14 CLrIli ~ours provided.
Whi!e reC10val o~ ac::.inistrat:,iv. :SIl.lP!;lO::"": t.:, free up adC:i";.io-na:
s;.::Csidy !'J~:li,.,g is a ;oal o! the f!:l.UIial"l .se~\·':'ce$ tillision, !.";. is
i!l:;lortan.e tha't t:~'U_s be dCfl41 qr-adually so 't..'l .. 't. PJ..CCC: re..:nai ... u. a
viablll provider o! c."il:J: eare -ser .. icOJ:s. St:a(! d.C::'E!S l"lot il,;ree .... l':..'l
the Aud.ltor th!lt ad!l:.l1"'.i5":rat:':?e overbead ri!::'U:.:rslli!l:len:: :!!I~ol..:'!d b'!!
tied ~Q ho~rs e( c~il~ care provis!.on. Botb ~~e State anc F.ceral
govern:ten-<:s uti;'-:'ze an incllrect cost ratei:;, t!'leir ;:::lil::l care
cor.t.:-a~-s pro-;!"a::n. This lIIeti,:,=l;'!ology pr~vide5 J:::-.:dget sta.oilit:y Zco-r
P~C::C am! 't.!l.e. C!.":.y, i1"'.sl:-I!;ui 0-: t~e u .. 'predic .... a:cl-e tl1Jc~'.I~t.:.o:ls .ul
l.:r.dil'lg ass.ociat;ed: ... i'th n.Ol!I"S ot t:hJ.l.:l. ca:"e u't.i.!.:;':z:ation. 5't-a!~
recollU:ler-.ds a 4-yeer pr.l:s1t-Q\:" of adltir::istrlltive -suppot"t, =.0 :be
rep:'a.ce(! J:::y ar-: in.direct. COSt rate. c;~ 12 to 19 percene: ot tot.a!
5uosi~y dcll~r.. Th~ phase-o~t should :be dcne over ~ .-year p~t"io~
to avoid. uphe!oval or Ule de~isl! of' .PACe:::, whic~ would have a
devillstatirlg et!ec";. on ':.he qwslity ane:! avaU.abllity .;;t dl.lld ~a=1!! in
Palo Alto.
:aecoWi:leDd1='!Cln 5: Est,u,1;i.sille4 palicie:l by the PACC::: .... !1.g.ze%l.'!;. &D4
lI=&rt!l 'CIt lSirectors .tao .... ld :bII ra.,i ••• d by City _taft ':-e:spoZlsibh tor
.dai~isteri..D9 tb. COIlt.r-.ct dtll PllC:O'C:. Additioaal.ly, t-b~s.
ptocedurws .hculd b. iacorpotated 1~to the cCDt.ract as e ccmpClZla~t
c! the aqreea4l1t'. ,CQpe of .erTioe.. With re;ar~ to .ub~idizihg
PAcee for chil~~en ~ho ~o DOt att.a~ their t.ciliti •• , a tiee limit
for Qaenees ,houle! :b. establisbed aDd illoc-lu4.d i~ t1le Cit-y'.
c;IO'atroliot.
City st.at! o!Igre8;; ..,it!1; 'tlM! l.uditecr"s rec-~l'l.'!Je"da.tior., ant:! .. ;ill
"_or.ito~ il:lple!1er.tatlol'l o! the r-eC:=-:n::Ioendaticll& to 'the e:rt.~l'".~ t..":at
5~atfi~g rEsout"ces are a\~11.ble.
aec;omm.a~ation I: T,be cit7"' c-oatraot with PACCC .houl~ .tipulat.
that forms d •• i~ed ~o %.oar~ aad .uaaarita childr~l •• ttendalloc-.
at PACCC faciliti •• be .t&Id~i2.d. LIId reviewed peric4ically ~1
adllli!li.trati"'e per.ollU:lel fot ,p.ropri.ty .bl! compl.t • .IIe~.. orh.
coatract .bo~l~ also reqytr. that written .~sidy .4mini.trat1oZl
,poliei •• &::II! I'rof:a~u.ru: biI a.p.s.t.d ~iS .ct'cre.r:1. E:l:ceptiol1s to
.. st.al:lli.~.4 policies eZlC! prcc-dla'e:s s!lculd: lie :m:alh clIlr af':.e:r
vrittab autboritJ is o~tai.-d.
Cit.y sta!'!' aq: •• 5 ",it~ 't!1e ~:ul!':'t.or'l!S r-ecc=enc:!:a.tlol'l, il."'l(j ... :11
.o~ito::" il:lpleme:ntation of the rec:c:o...mencil!.t.ion,s tc ~"l.e eX"terl':: t..'1.at
stattinq resources are availa~l~.
-APPEHIlOC 8
-..NeE DEPARTMENT
RESPONSE ( __ >
" ..
" "~.",-; .. ~"", .• " .... ",,,,, •. ~"''''!IfO'''' ..
.J,.eeec:c.rndatiec 1: '!ll..!'ough the eity'. eo.r.t:o&:::t. wit.~ ~.1CCC, .. a
erpliei~ plaa sboul~ ~. ~.valop.~ tQ phas. o~t t~ •• ~ini5tr ... tioc
a:cd overhelld c'OJ:lPOtl",:ct ot tlte ... !:nl:'~1 ::"'e~ .. re:ason .. .t:l.., p_=-iod of
tiJr. ••
R.=~.nd~tiotl I: PACC= '4oal~ be allQw.~ to con~i:cu. to act a$
t~. ~c!~ari~q bou •• " !¢r cni!d c&rt 5Ubsidl requ •• ts throuqhout t~.
c"'lC1\lnit1~ :tlut 00.1.1 ill eC-J!l~1.illct:ion VJ.':'.h a grrat:l!r de-;r •• at
over.iqh~ O~ the part of ~~ Cit~.
This is II ~o~~~y decis:~n t~r the City C~u~cil. H~~ever, it: is
i:;:or-al"lt: ':-0 bE: a.;arl!' ';;!l.<:tt t..",,!! Hl.l)'J;an Ser·,,:.ces Di'"is:;'or: does net.
have reSO\lrces S~~:~cle~~ to ~nage t~e $"~5id~ prcqrll~ !~r .1~~e=
P.\Co;:C 0:: t~,e a!'!::..l':"ates, .lind · ... ould ::-eCOl!lJ!lo!::"Id t,."Hltei:."Ier PACe:: be
d:.;.rec~ed to i::c;:rc'/e t.fJe':!' o..-er-si9nt of .5ubs;':'d:y funds ~!' f:.Jnds bi1
'p:-ovid~a d.l!'IO'-:C-:':'y to o-;,,"~r orgl!!!"'.:"za:::;;'·::ns tt!!'QI;;::-. t."-.e Gene: ... fund
h-..llllan l!Ie:-vio:es :::or.'t::'att process.
aecommetldation .... as c.irdC":.-ed at ?~cc: s't!llf'!':'rl9 a.na lnter:;a,;'
cQn::ols, and sta!! bas no additio~aj c~~e:"l~.
cc: Pa~l Thil~gen
Dave H .. nir.
-
April 4, 1991
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
Chlld ~ Comprehensive Needs Assessment Rezx1C!·
Members of the Council:
Rewrt j 0 Brief
This is &n infonnational item and no Council action is re.qlJlred. Tne ?urpose of this repon
is to summarize the results of me L1ree child care needs assessments undertaken in Palo Aho
within the last year by thl! Child Care Coordinator at Council direction.
The Child Care Master Plan, al'prove<l in concept by the Council on December 18, 1989,
caUed for one and five year goals in four major area.s: Quajity, Affordability .. Availabiiity
and Accesstoility of licensed child care programs for all who need them. The comp!"ehensive
needs assessment fmdings reported by staff wiU be utilired by the Child Care Task Force as
they refme their annual goals and objoctives, The one year gC>1h wlJl be revisal .,.",uaIl;
basod on updated data, and implementation of the Master Plan's Year Two objectives wiU be
based on the findings found in this report.
Key Pojnts
This repon presents. brief synopsis of the Child Care Pr""ider Survey, the Employer Child
Care Needs Assessment a.l'1.d me Employee/Community Needs Assessrnenl (Copies of the
survey results are attached) . .RecommendatioilS based on this report will. be presen:ed to the
Human ReWions Commission by thel1Uld.Care Task Forc. on April4Li. 1991 as pan of
their annual review of the Master Plan Goals a.~d Objectives.
Rackp-ound
<. , De:ember 18, 1989, ~ie City Council approved in concept the Child Care Mas«r Plan
submitted by the City's Child Care Task Force. At that meeting, Council directed staff to
return with a repon desenoing the comprehensive child care needs found in the, community.
Staff chose tbrec instr.1ments; a child care provider survey, an employer survey and an
_employee/community survey. This methodo1ogy was chosen jn order 10 gain the perspective
of families. businesses and child care provia e:s.
CMR; 190:91
·71·-·' _~ _TO ' -•• :-.
i
" ,
-
pHd Can: Providcr Syrvey Resu'U
Surve)'s wrn sent by the Coordinator's Office to all1ict',nSoed ~hnd care prcw;dm in Palo
Alt.o, both center-ba."'oed programs and family day care homes. Ninely-five surveys Wtre
dislribul.ed, 46 to centers and 45 to day care homes. A self-a<ldrcs=' St4rnped envelope was
provided 10 iUsist in the rerurn. Follow-up phone calls ",,"'ere made, encouro.ging le.spor.dents.
to complete and return the survey instrumenl. The response rate for centers was 72% (33)
and for family day care homes, 53 % (26).
Four of the liCC'lsed family day care homes surveyed had ceased operations d'Jring the surve~'
pedod. This change bdogs the number surveyed to 46 center> and 45 family day care hemes.
One final note on the methodology: Only programs licensed by the Sta~ and CO'Jr.r)' Social
Services Depa..Ttrnents were surveyed. Neither the figures nor the responses should be'
regarded as characteris.tics of unlicensoj, exempt or illegal operations.
In summarizing the results of this survey, staff finds a high demand for licensed child care
spaces which lS not currently belng met (42 % more spaces needed to scrre current waiting
liSts). See Attachment J.
Of those s~\.'eyed. currently 2% of family day care enrollment and 5% of ch~ld care center
users = partially subsi<!ited. It is estimal.ed L'lat 7% of families in family day car. homes
and 22!!1i of center-based participants need funding assistance.
Wheri staff compiled average fee charges fOT service, it was easy 10 see why affordabiLity i.s
such an issue. Infant care in ce..'1ters averaged $734 monthly; texfdler rates averaged 1661;
preschool care, $483; and school-age care $279. Family day care home rates were 1.<3.
which is usually the case: infant, $549 monthly; toddler, $535 monthly; preschool, $.497
monthly; and sc::hool-age. $3 an hour. One C3.ve.at is ti'.at these fees represent the average
found in December 1989. Most progntms raise their fees in January or July, so the current
fees may be higher than reported here. Palo Alto Communiry Cto.ild care, operator of 17
centers, raised their.rates an average or 11 % in July and Syntex's child care program rais.e.cl
their rates an average or over 8% this past summer. Because these prognJns are seen 2.S
haibingers in the field, other programs, if they have not already done sa, will follow in
raising their tuition~ dramaticaUy increasing these averages.
Tuition rates are cscalating, because of efforts to adjust for the traditionally low salaries and
compensation derived by child care workers.. Family day care owners a'\lerdge $17,655
annually wlu1e home assistants = paid $6 hourly. Center sWf teacher; are averaging
$12,940 annually; hea<l teachers, SI9,978; site direclQrs, $25,416; and administrator;,
529,500 annually. Part-time teacher assistants in cenlers average $6.82 an hour (interestingly
enough, this figure represents an increase of 51.50 an hour over the national averag:, which
provides a clue as to how underpaid the field is throughout the country).
Staff turnover is al41 percent natiOnally, primarily because of the slim c<>mpensation. High
turnover is the number one impediment to a quality child development expt;rience. Tuition
CMR: 190:91
Page 2
L
.~ ..
ta\l:S have risen in an ~tlempl I<> ...., qualrne<! '"Of"" in L>,e ficld, tt.cr-eby enriching
progra."llming; Unfortl.lnatell''t the true cost of c::an: is more U<.at! nuny parents can afford;
thus, child care workers, h.,avc: in effect, been subsidiljr.g the field !.hroug~ acceptance of low
wa:es .
Certainly child care =ten a.,o family day .,...~ homes = no< rWuing huge profits at the
""pense of their staff. Only 1291 of the centers co P;;lo AIm reportal • profit last year, while
48" lost :noney and 4091 broke even, Among homes, 65,. of f;lJTlily day can: homes !Mde a
profit, 9.S% broke even and g" suffer«! a loss (19% of nomes :l«:lined to =). A. one
can $<e, family day care homes fared better chan center-basi>:! operatiO!1' financially, This is'
due to • mullitwle of facto", including less ove,head, 11:55 staff :and tl-.eref"" 1= C{)mpema
<ion, and by and large, t1In-,uy day care homes charge less for Ih¢ir ",,,,ices, thereby they
have lower vacancy ra~.
A compamtively high percentage (2)%) oi Palo Alto families use prescflool child =,
centers for socializationle:c'uinwnent PUIJXlse5 as opposed to. n~ for chlld ca" du, to
parenlal work, training or school schedules. Non-resident> of Ill. Cit) "Ie 40 pe""'" of \he
licensed spaces availahle, TrJs high percentage signifies a couple of iuuet: child care is •
.regional issue not easily addressed SOlely as a municipal concern; and mo~ of r:hose rep.e~
sented by the 40 percent <:3ltgory warl:. locally but reside elsewhere, bringing their child <:are
noed with them on their daily comm"te path, Many parents find it comfor~J. to have their
children, especially infants."d toodlers, clo",' to their place of work. This d<.llre hcight
one<! after the October 19119 earthquake ""d eucerbates the lack of supply, Many jurisdic
tions have implemc::!ued employer/deveJoper mitigation measures tying child care i111d
additional development together (e.g" San Ramon, Contra Costa Coon,y, Conrord, SaIl
Francisco, Los Angeles).
A large majority of license<! centen desire increased lilWlges with City seM=, Le.,
libraries (94%). child care coordinalor (91~), r=ea.tiao division (79:11) and increased senior
adult volunltCIS (69%), Family day care homes expressed a smaIler need in networking with
outside programs from 62" (child care coordinator inlttaCtion) down to 1391 (lenior adults
as volunteers),
'Nith regard to a...""CI"editation. (National As.sociation fo.:-Educat'orl of Young Childrer.), (2%
are interested in that process, 27% are not interested and 23% are eimcr C'lJIlemly .accredited
or in process,
The major OOSt.lCle, in operating programs in Palo Alto =: I) law teacher sa1>.ries, 2) high
staff turnover, 3) area higb cost of living ""d 4) inad"'luate sile .',ailahibty,
Day""'" cen= and large family day care homes had minimal problems "jth Ih< State
Licensing Office (I2l!), highly undW'acteristic of Ill. field. This points out the strong
professional demeanor of most operations in PaIo Alto. No small family day care homes
reported problems in working with the Licensing Division.
CMR: 190:91
P~e3
_c' ' 14 .a
I
L
,
\
· +---'~
.-,
-
Only one out of twenty-four day cue centcn cited problems working with the State-funded
Resootte and Refcml agency (4C Council of Santa Clan County) regarding refe"";
functions, and only one family day care home out of fift.ttn experienced like prcbIt-ms.
WIlen a,ded I<> ovaluate the training program and technical support avail.ble from tlte
resource and referral organization, however, 24% of ccnt.:rs and !5'% of homes were less
than satisfied with those services, indicating a need for more t.r:a.lning and workshop sessions
I<> be hold locally. A review of type, of content offered was suggested by those surveyed.
Of the 54 companies who respc!lded to the 30 minute telephone survey, 66% offer some
type of child care benefit Of tltose, 75% provide benefits that direc~y benefit employ=
who are parents. The remaining 25 % provide indirect benefits, including fi",ibJe time
options whkh mayor may not be Ilil'ectly attributable I<> child care as.istane<> (see At.12ch
mer,t 2).
Direct benefits inciude an on or near·site child care center, a DCAP Program (Dependent
Care Assistane<> Plan) ... , enhanc«l referral program, parental leave. financial ""i>'.anee 10'
child care pro",iders, reimbursement accounts and or vendor/voucher programs.
Staff atttmpted to Dbwn a repre..~tati ... e sample with regard to size and type of bll.tiness,
surveying firms from an employee base of 10 up to 5600 workors. The size of the company
was the oruy oorrelate linking companies with their predisposition tt. offering benefits. All
companies with over 500 employ'" offer child care b<nefits. Neither the type of indUStry
itself nor gender composition bad atly impact em the nature of benefits offered.
Despite the f~t \bat gro"p' representing small businesses have been vehement in t!\e1r
oppo:ition ta parental leave tegistatioo in Sacramento and Wa:ihington, smaIl companLes in
Palo Alto are more likoly to offer generous parental leave packllges than larger firms. This is
an important benefit due I<> the fact that quality infant can: is scarce and very expensive.
leading many welI-qualified women workers to leave the work force postpart'.Jm. This is
detrimentaJ to busL'1ess as ccsts rise appreciably in the area of recruitment and trainir.g when
high turnover results.
Of the corporations offering child can: benefits. 7 % or their employees utiliz.e them (median
use). The more women the organization cmp1o)'s, the higher the usage factor, The most
popular benefit offered is the Depender t Care Assistance Plan (OeAP), which is offerM b}
40% of the organizations providing benefits. Mellian DCAP use is al.., 7". A DCAP
Program is a 'pre-tax' pa}TOll plan under l.R.S. Code _tion 129. whereby employee, lTl2y
",t aside \lP '" 55000 annually from their salary to pay for dependent <:are for children.
elderly parents and disabled dependents. This is a nontauble benefit. The employer also
sa .... e~ :ax money Jiince the amount set aside is O()\ considered ""'ages.
Vt1J1en employers were queried as to their rea501'S for institl.ltlng child care betJefiLs.,
"'employee satisfaction" was given as the primary motivation. nit number one stumbling
CMR: 190:91
Page 4
:V
. qj , r
L
block given as .L"l impediment to providing child care. benefits was CO:it. Fifty percent of all
organizations cited this factor, yet tW'o--thirds of those that mentioned cost as a detrimen[ still
provided benefits. Three i-espondenu cited inadequate infonnation about child car: benefits
(those finns have been contacteJ' by the Coordinator's office for te.cnr'1ical assistance
provision). Of the 33~ not offoering any child care benefits of any lcini..l, none pram to offu
them in the future. l-Wf the compani~s currently offering benefilS pian to expand theiI menu
in the near fucure.
Emptoye:elCornmunjty Ngxfs AS$S~meM R;sults
While inter'oiewing: the employers, we asked if we could survey their employees. Most firms
gave L~eir approval and we distn'buted our employwcommuruty instrument to employees (1.[
every finn LiJa! ag",.,j. Also. every person. who called the County's Stare-fonde<! Rcsourco
and Referral Agency ..... it-1m Lie last )'I".af regarding child care who resided or worked 1"1 Palo
Alto, was sent a survey (oonn. See Attachment 3.
We Iabulated 1628 completed questionnai ..... with 79% representing employees between the
ages of 18 and 45. 92% repre>enting employees loca1ly-based. 72% representing two adolt
hoo.seholds., 64% representing dual incomes and 91 % representing fu!.l-time worl. status.
Forty-percent of all employees responding 1.0 the survey currently need or usc child care;
83% of tho,", need or use full day programming; 48% of all those utilizing any type of child
care use licensed facilities, lS% provide the care themselves, 13% tl5e relatives and 12% use
sitters b home:.
By age grouP. 34% of the respondents with infants. 55% of those with preschoolers and 57%
of tho.e with sehoolagers use Ii=sed child care.
The Community was basic.ally please<l with their child care arr.mgem",ts; only 18% cited
that tbcy were unsatisfied with their curre.."1! situation. Chief reasons. for dissatisfaction were:
I) high ""st of care (23%). 2) location less than desirable (21%) and 3) perceived lack t)f
prog.-.m quality (21%).
Thi11y-<>ne percent of all employees queried misse<! work or were late due to chii<! care
problems between '!me and ten times annually (ie., seeking new provider, discipline
problems surfacing &I the center. etc). Five percent said they were absent or tardy over 10
times annually. Forty-three percent said they were late or absent between one and 10 times
annually due to a sick child; fIve per"'...ent said this impacted t..'iem over 10 times a year.
Seventy-two percent of the work force questioned said L"'leir chiid care arrangements fell
through from time to time (a .ick or closed provider). Fifty-th'e percent of those missed
work: to care feR" the child when that occurred, 23~ said their spouse missed work to care for
the child. 16% had use of a back-up program and 6% used other methods to de.al with that
situation. Approximattly half of the respondents suffered work intem>ptions due to a child
care-related problem (49%) at least one to ten times annually.
CMR: 190:91
Page 5
-"'-'7
t
L
Regarding USil8e of. sick child care r""iHty WOe1\ their offspring were ill, 56% said they
wou1d use such a P:1JftaIn if it ..... "CI"e available; 44% would not. However, when told thai
th<it employer would assist in the coS!, 681'1 said they would u"", such a progrun, while 32 S;;
. would T10t. This reflects both L'1e high cost of recuperative centen (u:>uaHy ayerag~ng $40 a.
day) snd the ~lative1y new availabiHty of sick care fiKiJities, wherein many parents do not
feel comfortable leaving th~ir sick child in it structured care situation.
When cmpioyees were asked what child care benefits ,I,reTe offered by their employers, a
Dependent Care Assistance Plan (DCAP) was, by far, tIle most fr"'!uent benefit mentioned
(48%), Tho next th;"" mentioned were: On or Near Site Child Care Faoili!)' (11 !'OJ,
Reimbursement Accounts/Flexible Spending Pla11 (91'1 j and Financial Suppor'JEnhance<!
lWeml Programs (7%),
Tbc last Question asked Qr fr.e emplo)'ees regarded L'leir use of the child care benefits offered
by their employers. Of the employ= who were aware of said benelits being offered, 42 %
utilized the various forms of FinariciaI Support, 35% used the Reimbursement Accounts,
32'" used L~ Flexible Spending Plan. 31 % were in • DCA? Program, 26% "sed their
employer supported child care facility and 13 % utilized the Enhanced Referral Program.
CONCWSION
The child care service delivery system avai1able L-l Palo Aho is a complex one. Whi1e
plentiful options are available: for the popuiation , disacv<tJ1lages in the system are evident
from the findings of the comprehensive needs a.ssessments. Various progr.un options are
abundant, yet citizens IWithout adequate disposable income have a. difficlJlt time finding an<j
affording quality care. While the City of Palo A.lto ar.d the swe Department of Education
offer subsidies to tllose in need, ma.,y pzrents a ... e unable to afford the cost of quality child
care provision; many programs have a difficult time recruiting appropriate staff because of
the low remuneration; and many facilities cannot afford the cost of doing business in Palo
Alto with ~ \0 rentsl1eases and properry "wnership costs. The profit motive L'I the field
i, basically absent as only a small percentage of programs (ceDt..,.-based) reported ending up
in L'>e black this past fiscal year,
To cre.ate a climate where the child care service deliver)' system car; work optimaHy.
ad.:iltional partnen must be encouraged \0 join ex.i~ting efforts to provide assistance to the
field. Besides the Cily and State, who already have CDmmitted much to the en<lea"or, a
strong commitment from the private sector and the federal government is necessary before a
delivery oY'tem that works for all can be implemented.
A maj or t.a.sk: that lies al'Iead involves educating employers to the benefns of assisting their
employ..,. with their family support n..-.ds. Study after stUd)' has shown the CDst-effective
natllre of making 2vallab:e a wide variety of family support options to the work fmce.
Incentives are avai1able from California a!'.rl the federal govemment to b\ls~nesses who
endeavor to provide these t"jpes of benefh offerings. A major outreach project is needed to
educate, inform and assist the private sector in our community regarding the availability of
these incentives. In this vein. the City'S Child Care Task Force stated in their Original report
CMR: 190:91
Page 6
L
L l .
r ; ,
I
I
t
J
;,
-
" " '~':' .
10 Council that the City al$c; neo.:is to pro .. ide adcitional benefits 10 theiT r.mployees in -order
to best serve the community as a model employer.
Recently enacted federal child care iegislui.on makes additiona.! fundir.g lva.ilabl-:: to .iLat.es for
the l'U'J'O«'$ of subsidizing fees, offering addition>l technical assistance a.ld tribting to the
field and improving staff compenSi: ::ion (pa.ssed: as pan. of tbe Reconci!iation Budget Bill or,
October 27th, 1990), The legislation created two new block grants to stales -the child <are
d~ve1opment block grant ICCDBG) and • new capped entitlement within tho AFDC job
opporllmitie., and basic skills program (JOBS), In addition, it expanded the earned income
tax credit (BITC) and adjusted it for family size, and created two new relate<! tax credits,
Although this funding will not have much :impact in Palo Alto in the near future since 7S ~
of the $99 million which Califcrnia is slated to receive is earmarked for low L'1come subsidy
assistance, it r.eve.."1he1ess ~ the stag~ for additional assistance in t.he future.
The Child Care Task Force will submit recommendQtions based on the findings of these Wet"
needs asseuments to the Human Relations Commis.sion~ which in turn 'Will submit their
recommendations to the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
/.7",/ _____
&<-"j/ /?7'!'~
David Martin
C1u1d Care Coordina,or
l r;
I ( 1/ (~~~n
, Assistant City Ma."ag~ )
"\ } '--
'Related CMR: 593:9
Allachments: I-Child Care Pro,ider SUnley Instrument and Report
CMR: 190:91
2-Employer Needs Assessment Ir.Slrument and Report
3-EmployoeiCommunity Needs Assessment Instrument ard Report
Page 7
-,
ATTACHMENT I
cm-OF PALO ALTO
CHtLD CARE PROVIDER SURVEY REPORT
Conducte1l by
Office of Child Care Coordinator
Human Serv1ces Di>ision
City of Palo Alto
! I. PREFACE . •
II. METHODOLOGY
III . SUMARY.
IV.
V.
FlHDlHGS
RECO""E~AnOHS
TABLE Cf CONTfNTS
l
3
6
14
!
1
1
I
\
I
II. ~ETHODOlOGY
Swrve-ys w-ere 5E!nt to all1icensed child care prol..-iders ;r; Palo Alto, both center·
bas<:d programs and f.mily day care nomes. ,r., sl?lf·addressed stcllnped envelope Irro'J5
pruvidcod to i:!lS15.t in the retur:l. Follow·up pnon€ calls ..... fre made, e-ncourag,ng
res~I~f1d'el'1ts to complete and ret':.!: ... the survey in:::trl.'ment.
95. surveys were distributed, 45 to d1i1d care centers and 49 to family day ca!"e
horr,es. :.u (enters and 26 homes responded for C! tctal of 5' com~leted SUr'olt'Js
out of the original 95. Or" oil 62 percEnt response rate. The re~pon.s.e rate for
chi:1d (are centc-rs was 7Z percent; 53 pe-rcent of family day care ~ome:s. :--espor.o'ed.
As befitting the myriad of problems faced by CPlild care providers, fO'Jr of He
1 icensect family day care homes. surveyed had ceased operations during the sur .... e.v
pet'iod. His dange brings the current flLrmoer of Hcensed c-hilCl care facilities
in Palo Alto to 46 centers and 45 famiTy day care homes.
One> final note: Only programs licensed by the State and COllnty Social Servi.::es
;)(;partm€'nts 'Were surveyed. Neither the fjgures nOr the responses ShoulG ~'=
rC'IIi1!"'de-d as characteristics of unlicensed, e;(empt or illego!~ operations.
1
';:
-
· .'
III. SUH/IARY
A. H1GHllGHTS OF THE fINnINGS:
1. Supply and Demand
licensed capacity of Palo Alto child care facilities; 3014
Number of c.hildren on .. ailing 1.;sts f[)r sen'lee: 1307
Child care program vacancj rate; iO.4%
Percentage of :idditional spaces necessary to serve IJr,!li€~ rll?ed: C% O,/.;:r
currE~t licensed capacity
2. Affordabil tty/Subsidize Assistance
Family day care enrollment currently subs~dized: 2%
Estimated fa~n.Y day care horni'! enrollmEnt needing subsidy; 7%
(hiTd care ce~ter enrollme~t curr2ntly subsidized: 5%
(stimated child care center er.rol1mer.t needing subsid.y: 22};
3. Fees for Servict
Child (are center infant monthly fees: S734 average
Child care center toddler mont~'y fees.: S661 average
Child care cent~r preschool monthly fees: 5483 a~erage
Child care te~ter school age monthly fees: 5279 average (part time)
C.,ild care center kindergarlen/sd!ooi age: 53.26 hourly (part time)
Family d~y care home infant rrKlflthly fees: 5549 avenge
FalTlily day care home tOdd1er month1y ffES: 5535 average
Family day care home preschool monthly f.ees: S497 aYE-ragE
FC!mily day care hom€' schoo1 age fees: S3.00 hourly {part time)
~. Salary and Comp!nsation
Aver2ge family day Cir~ provider: SJ7,65S annua11y
Av~rage family day (are aSSistant: 55.00 hourly
lnild care center adffii~istrator: 529,500 annua1 a~era9!
Child care center site director: $25,416 annual average
Child t.:are center head teacf.,er: 519,978 annua1 al,lera-:;e
thild ~ar~ center teacher: $12,940 an~ual aver~ge
Ch11d care center teacher aide: 56.82 hourry average
5~ Profitability
Day care centers who reported a pr-ofit: In
(' ent ers who b"roke e\len: 40',
Centers who suffered a loss last year; 48%
F~lni11 daj care home~ \!o'ho reported a profit: 65%
Family day care hJmes who broke even: 9.5%
Family day care homes who suffered 11 10ss: 8%
rercentage of da.v care homes. who declined to state: 19'~
3
-
5. Soti!' hatton ~eeds Yer-sus Child Care Need
29:t of pr'!schDo~en. j, centers L:5 jng prCg'ci,r, for e"l~lan[t?mEnt
71t of preschoolers ~n centers due to parpntal \Ojorje or :schooT
22\ of prfSchcclers in day care homes for enhar,cement purpC'S~$
7,e,; cif prE'schoolrn ',:'I. day care home.i due to par-ental lIIor:-lo:./tra i n, ng
7. Employee/Employer Ne~d fer Child Care Ser~ices
40%. of child care enrollees in Palo AHa reside o-vtside the City b:..:t
have parents who ~ork 1etal1]
B. Recruitment Df Cni 1 d' Care Erlrollces
The rUlTlber one method for placing children: in a certa:ir-f.:;::, 1 itj" is w8rd
of mouth:
61% of family day care homoe er,rol1illent
27% of center particlpants
g~ Access to City Servic!
94% of centers desire i:'lcreased ser\lic.es frem lIbrary system
91% Df centers desire services frem City Chi~d Care Coordinator
79% of centers desire increas.ed linkages from Recre-ation Department
69% of centers 'Want to use senior adul ts as vo1unteers
62% of day care ~om€'s; want servj~E'$ fron; City (h:ld Care Ccor~~r,.at·Jr
50% of day tare hDmes dBire addltior.al Recreatinn D'E'partrr:-erlt access
46% of day czre homes war"1t increased Library assista'lcE'
23% of day care ~o~es want to uti' ize senior adults as ~olunt~ers
lO. Accreditation
P~rcent of cente~s accredited: 15%
Percent of Centers in process of becoming aCcredi ted: 9%
Percent interested in accreditation process: 42%
Percent not interested in accre~itat1on: 2n~
]1. Major Obstacles in Operating Programs in Palo Alto
Low teacher sa1aries
High staff turnover
Area cost of li~ing
Inadequate availabiiity of site locations
12. Interaction with licensing Off1C~
]2":4 of centers and large family day car~ hom~s reportec prob1,f;,T;5.
workjng with State LiCEnsIng Diyision
0% of sl1'!.all family day care homes reported problems WI"!!"ki:1g with
(OiUlty Lic:e11sing Office
4
-"
,
13~ Relationshlp with St.te-funded Resource and R~ferr&' Ageney
Only one center out of :'!4 and one family d2y ca!"~ C'.'Jt of 15 ci:f'd
rrob1ems lIIIith 4Cs of 5;Jnta Clan CO\J!".t)' w,U; regard to nferni
flJncti{!ns.
When i!sl<ed to !;Vililuat.e the training progralil ane tecr.;'\ical stJppt:1rt ft'l~'"
4(;, '24'7 .. of cer.to!::rs and lS~ of homes .... er~ less tl"<a!: satis.fle6 'IIIHh u'\OS€
ser .... i..:e.s .
5
.'_ :J
,i"
I -
A. SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Poalo Alto child care programs serving a total liter.sed capacity of 3014
('~ildren ~re suneyec {2709 day CJlire center slots and 305 falTlily day carE
hOlm! slots). Programs re-sponding s.erved oil total of 2074 children {187C in
c!?.,ters, and 2Q4 in homes}. Responding pr.agrams. served 69 !;lercent of all
dildren Cired for in ',lcensed factlitlE'S in Pa10 Alto. while we Cinnet
stale that the survey results are 100 percerlt statisticCilly ~'!1id, w,=" Can
!.ay that pO'"ogl"'ilms serving just under 7~ of all chl1drer, cared fDr iD
programs were represented in the s:Jrvey re~.;1ts:.
29 programs: surveyed provide infant care (Hi centers atld 19 ,",omes). The
:'"llJmoer of infants on program 'Walting lists stand at 770.
SO programs responded that ttley serve preschool chIldren (35 fami11 day ca"e
burne-s, and 25 ~er.ter-based), Many programs: overlap their service for
illtegrated age ranges s-o the total numbers include duplicati~'e progrc;ms.
Wditi1'tg1ist numbers total 832 prescnool children. Since c.~ildren can reslde
on more than one list s;multaneou51y~ this total does not neceHarlly reflect
the number of chlJdr€n awaiting place~ent,
20 program~ serving school age childre" (ages 6 and up) responded to the
~urve_\f {8 homes and 12 centers}, These numbers do not nece.ssariTy repre.sent
kindergarten .children served before and/or after school as thos'E! childrer,
may be cared for in presthoo1 or school age typ~ programs.
jnformation culled from the S9 programs res.ponding she ... , the fol1owing
<lVii ihbJe openings by agE group:
Aye 0·2
Age 2·3 •
I\ge 3-, ..
:lqC' 6 ~od
17.5 openi~9s
63 openings
155 openings
up ~ 79 openings
R(.·\liewing licensing capacity. waiting list numbers and current opeflin9~
available, scme conClusions can be drawn:
10 ~er~e the unmet need for infant care, 753 additional sp~ces ~oula have
to be created. (This assumes that postpartem parental leave optjons offel"ed
by area employ~rs remai~ at the (urrent level.)
10 serve the current u~met need for preschool car€, 589 additional slots
would need to become avillable.
10 serve tne current unrnet need for school age care, 20 additional slots
w:ouTd need to be created according to the survey results, 48 schDol ilge
c;,jldren ci.Jrrer.tly reside en waitlng 1fsts (r-ot counting k1ndergcrter,
(:1'troll€es) while 28 vacancies were reported.
Frlil[III!..Ih U~is. latest finding does not corroborate the gener,al cor.s.er,su.s thaI.
6
.---.:.
-,
_ -' -}·.~i:.;:: <{·ttI;~~i ..... .
sc"ool age cni:ld care availability is liding, t~ere a;e many reaSOnS for
this TO., number. Most family day care !'lames do not SEn"?; school ag-e c.:"1i"1dr,=r,
(only S out of 2~ reporting) due to the lack of hours t~it those childre~
ut ilia the program (an a .... erage of three hOlirs cia i i.Y C'uri ng the sdtooC! 1 yeu),
fer a small family day car~ home that is l1cen~ed for up to o!"1ly six children
(18 of the 26 FOCH respondents were small), to rpserve a 5paCf for a pdrt
time child does Tlot make economic sense. (\I€rl for the large family dey carE:
'lOme'S (8 out of 26). wit'"-on1y 12 slots a\laJiable per h::Jnle, again a ful1-
time child obviously brings in more revenue. Therefere, most families in
need of school age c,",ild car! do not place their childrerl on famiiy dey <:are
"aitir:g lists. Another reasor] for the repcr-ted lack of need among school ~
age Olildr'., is that the klnd~rg.!rter. population count is ir.tegrated into
the presc~v ... 1 statist 'ics bHC!~~':: kir.o!rgarten children \':.a) be ser·"ed in
either type of program is alluded to earlier. Kindergartners do have the
greatest need for after-school care as th~jr school sessions run half day.
With so few school age c~ild care progr~~s responding to the survey [only
B horn-e:s and 12 centers), the nUl"ber iJf wiilting lists availat:1e for parer.ts
to place th-eir childrer. are limited. Marl.I' pu€nts rnt.!st Toc:t~e unlic€'n~=d
alternative programs for their needs such as the P,€c.r-e.aticr, De-p2,tiTIent's
drop-in care prograr.!, '(MeA/YWCA programs, var~ous yo~th leoagves, etc. These
programs were not survey~d.
It should also be noted that the school age child care progr~ms which the
(ity establ ished at all elementary school sites became fu1l immedjate1y and
abundant waiting lists ~ave been €$tablished.
B. AV~!lAB!lITY SCHEDULE
Most programs are open an average of 10.5 hours dailY, Monday HrOligl-; Friday,
Four family day care homes and one -center offer weekend car-e.
FOllr hom-es and one center reported offering sick. ch'rld care.
c. SUBSIDIZED ASSISTANCE AND NEED
----
P<:garding 5cnolarshjp a~sistance and SlJb5idlZed can:, 6 fcmjiy del} care
horrlE's (32"t) offer som~ sort cf S'JDsid!2ed assistance \>;rliie 19 dCI ~ot. Of
th~ 32 centers responding, 2~ (7S~} pro'.'ide some typo:. of tubsidizea car€.
lhe ~ajority of subsidized assistance ~ma~ate5 from the City of Palo Alta
I1t,man S~rvices contract witl'l PaTe AHo COl!1T11l1nit)' Chjld C~re (5 of the 6
hom~s and 13 of the 24 centers,.
Other sources of ~ubsidized assistance among homes and centers include:
o ... ·nH-fininced scholarships (12), GAIN welfare program fUnds (5), and Stcte
Department of Education asSistance (4J. There are currently ]]6 subSidized
S1Cits bel!"!g utilized from all sources. One source, Palo Alto Community
Child Care, maintains a waiting list of 4-0 eligible fa~ilifs. ,~I, of the
tola1 enrollment in family day care homes is subsidized, while 5: of center
bilsed sTots al'"e currently underwritten by a variety of SOt.;rces.
IIhen program Directors "ere querjed as to flOW milny fami 1 fes are in need of
subsidized assistance using the PACC( Subsidy Fee Schedule, 22~ Df center
enrollment and 7~ of family day care home users "ere lde"t';fied. If family
income data WiiS. flot re~di1y availabTe, providers were aslo.ed to estimHe how
ill.any famil ies lndicated that the fee repre!;ented a hardship for thlT:.
)
L
\
'" --
•
~ .. -.. ~
, .
i ,
--
D. FEE lNFORMATION
When reviewing the fe-es charged' far sendee. it is easy to s~e .... ~,..Y t~le l'1ee~
for mort subsidized assi~tdnce is aC\Jte. Cel1t~r d'llld care rates 11'1 Pa1c
Alto are aP'OO:19 the ~ighest in tn~ nation.
Type of Care HOrlUtly Average
Center i~fant tare (full time)
(enter-toddler care (full time)
(enter presc~oo' CiTe {full time'
Center kinder9arten afte~ school care
(enter sc~o\')l age care (part t irr,~)
Kindergarten/part time s~hoo' agE
FDCH infant care (full time)
FDCH toddier' care (fun time)
fUni preschool care (full t fme)
rOCH school age ta~e (part time)
5734
651
4BJ
321
179
549
535
497
Hourly (if applicable)
!
3 26
3.26
3.00
E. SALARY AND COMPENSATION
Re9ard~ng staff salaries reported in the survey. the average salary for a
center-based administrator stands at .$29,500 annually. Site directors
averaged $25.415 annually and head tea.chers garnerE'a an aVErage of $19,978
for the year~ Regular teachers earned an aveng~ of $12.940 wt1iTe-teacher
aides averaged $6.82 hourl).
Responses to the-question of faml1y day care home salary infDrmat ;or
indicated that a private nome prov;~er i\,leraged $17 ,1555 arlllua11jl~ and ~1"1 a
1ar~e family day can home situation (serving a ma)l(imum of 12 children)
~here aides were warranted (3n aide must be present if ov£r 51)1( children
a~e served)~ those aides averaged $6.00 hourly.
F. PROFIT OR lOSS
.c'
-,
: ':;.'~
Tne largE"st discrepancy between day care centers and family day care hO'l':'les.
was manifested in the responses regarding profitabil it ....... Of hmi1y day ;:are
home providers. 11 operations c1a~med .. prof".!, 2 suffered 'osses, 2 broke
ever. and S declined to state. Of child Cdr! centtr operations, on tne ot~er
hand, 3 providers stated that thfjl made a prof; t, 12 suffere,j a 10s5 and JO
brOKe even. Many of the center-based operations are nOrlprofits so one .... ould
Mt expect them to make a profit or. tneir programs. However, they are not
mandatfd to lose mJney. yet 48t of them did.
8
L
-
.c-"
.-:.~-::." ..:,
;,:r;,.,.~~
G. FORECASTS fOR STAYING IN BUSINESS
A universal s~ntiment was vOIced when program directors were asked if th~J
planned ot'! r.:Ol'1tin'Jing t~eir operat'-on. Df the 21 far:1ily day care hOrilr:"s. "'~,::'
responded to that question, 20 stated that U1ey plaonned to cC"ti;1I..1t', w.,r11e
one was ~ncertain. AmCH'1g cer.ters who respo:'lded, 29 s~jd they 'Wouid cor.t~~LJe
operations, 2 were uncertain and 2 dec1ined to answer. [xce~t fOT the four
fan.ily day care operators ""ho had an active ;icense but closed their diJors
in ttle last fiscal ,year, a11 oth'!!r operators licensed by the-State or (Ol.Jn~.¥
are c'Jr!"entl,y operat 'Lng.
H. SOCIALIZATION HEEDS VS. CHILD CARE NEEDS
Th~ response to the question of how m~ny preschool ch~ldren utilized Chl~d
care, for ~oc-ial Hat ian ;r,d enhance~nt purposes as opposed to a need for
child care due to parental work, trainlng or school schedules, was that 22~
of preschool enrollees in family day care homes and 29% of preschoolers in
center-based care were serwed for reasons othfr than parental child care
need.
I. CHILD CARE AS A REGIONAL ISSUE
lhe number of Palo Alto residents utilizing local chiid care optiorls ~n
relation to total number of all licensed spaces avai1abl~ are: In c~ild care
c-enters 6~ were used by residents and 39.S'%. by nonr€side-r;ts. (~5~; .. ere
uncertain.) Tn family da) c~re homes, t~e finding5 w=re again that 50% of
the spaces were he1j by residents, too'nne 24'% 'Were held b ..... nonresidents. (27%
ur,,:ertain or no response.}
'This demographic high1jghts the following concerns: l} Child care is a
regional is~ue, not easily addressed soleTy as a municipal concern: a~d 2)
approximately 4~~ of those utjlizing child care i~ Palo Alto work but do~'t
1 iv~ in tne area, bringi:1g their ;:~ild care need ""jU tnerll an thelT dail)'
commute path. Thi:s exacerbates an already crisis level laci<. of supply and
has led many Ca1ifornia jurisdiCtions to develiJp employ-er/develo~er
!I1itigation measures inVOlving child care {San Ramon, SUrLn),vale, Contra Costa
County, Concord and San Francisco).
J. OtITREACH/A.D'ERTISING
l~ regard to how prospective cl ients are made alolare of vanous child care
centers, 27% reported word of mouth referrals (endorsement fram previousTy
t!rtrol1ed p.arent), 211;; were referred b;' advertisement, 16"7. by Palo A,lto
Corr.-mwnity Chlld Care, 9t; b.Ji FCllo ,l!.1to School District or elementary scl'1ocl
:,;ites and 7~ from 4Cs (Santa CTara County Resource and ~eferral Agency).
12% ... ere referred by mis::ellr.neous SOlJrcas.. l.e., fa'1liiy pedlatnciar.:;,
(hiJdren's Health Courlcil, Jelof1sn Community Center. Fref1ch (onsu1at~.
workpl ace, etc.
rOT fami iy day care home 1'1 a(f~ment, respondents stated that worj of mo:,th
was th~ir top referral source ~jth an ow~rwhelming 51~. with 9% CD~iny (ron
adVErtisements. 4Cs was the next referral source CIt 5% and the rern~ln1n9
options shared the other 25%.
9
-
K. REFERRALS WHEN FILLEO
... t'1en <:enters are fillet:' to capacity, 19 adminlstrat{ll'"S refer ~rOspECti\ie
faml1ies to hl0 A1t'J ('OIl'liTlUr'lltjl Child Care. j8 to 4Cs and ]5 to o!.~er
centers. For family day Care homes, Ttferrals are provided to the Fa~iiy
Day Care Network (~J, another ~;-o ... jder (S'). and Palo Alto (om;r,Urlity C~ild
Care (8).
L. "~IlIZING COMMUNITY RESOURCES
When Questioned about acces:>if19 !Jli.sting (o,munity reSOl.!;ces. 31 centers·
stated an interest in receiVing senlices from t~e' City's t ibrary system, 26
fro~ the Recreathm Departme:lt, 25 in using senior (!du~ts as vclunteers
tI'lro'Jgh the !<.S.V.? program. Family day car-e homes responde(1 with less
enthusiasm regarding ut11izing said resourCeS: 13 il'ld~catej i! 6estre to
access Recreiltion Department assistance, 12 stated library assistar1ce WQuld
be ne1pful and fi showed lnterest 1n using senior.il:dul:s as volunteers.
The dlspllrity between c-enter and home res~o"ses paints out He transpor
tation dHficuHies that famlJ..v day care hOlTl!:'s find for t~esmse1ves, the
fact that i11 small family day care homes, just one person i:; responsible
for the c.hildren and special events iway from ttle homes are difficult to
attend.
M. ACCREDITATION: PRO AND CON
Accreditition prac:ices drew an ambivalent re~ponse ~ith 14 centers
interested in NAEVe (NatiDnal Association for the Education of 'I"·o<.Jr.g
Children} accre-ditation, 9 were net i:"1teres.ted, 5 already wt!re accrecited
a~d 3 were in the process. 2 did not have an opinion. e family day care
tlum-e!t cited an interest in fjAFDC (~at ional Associat ion of Fam"ily Day Care}
accreditation, ] were not inte-rested and .9 didn't kno\ll or had no upintOf\.
H. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE NEeDS
Centers feel a 9reater need for technical, lI!:s"istancE-offerings with 62~
citing ar~as of ne~d, whereas 33: of homes r!spording indicated that support
s(,r\I~ce$ wOt.ilct be beneficlc·l. When gjven art npponuriity to item1ze sucrr
needs, amon9 centers, 27% wanted 1e"3'1~lathe updates I 21-'; w2nted J PalD Alto
child care newsletter, 19t askEd for further networking opportunities among
peers, 17% indicated a need for more training opportunities: and 16~~ wanted
access to s:Jbsidiled funding for lQ"o~ ar:d midd1e income families. Itemizing
da.y care home r:eeds, of tne 33~ who stilted a need for support senices, 30""/,
requested a Palo .a.lto child care newsl~tter, 27~wanted additiol'1al networking
opportunities among peers. 23~ wanted additional training Gpportunities, 9%
Io!arlted legis1aU .... e information, and .5% wanted access to subsidized funding.
o. OBSTACLES IN OPERATION OF PPOGRAM
When child care providers we:-e askee about obstacles present whi...::h could
hinder qualitj operations, centers responded with enthLi-sii1SI:1. 22 centers
li~ted obstacles as di~er5e as zoning regulations to hous~ng costs. A fe~
nJajor ob~tacles were reiterat~d time dnd ti~e agaln and they were (in order
of fr~quency cited): 1) 10·'" sala~~ies: which inhibit recrl..litmerlt anc!/~r
I,r-oduc~ nigh turno'.er· 2) area C05.t cf livin~; 3) sPdce avaihbilily d
I D
... ~." ........... .
" -..•. (
•
I
I
I
~
.501te location. Dt~er obstacles cited incl.uded getting infcrmation to
puer.t~. gap ~tween cos.t of .:a.re arid paren.ts' abl11ty to ~.i)', a.nd the lack.
of a substitute t€a~her pool.
16 family day care hom-es stated no obstacles that tney were aware of, whlle
E: indicated th.e follO'''''ing obstades: 1) stringent requlrem!:nts for b€C0:rlrs
an aHiliate of Palo Alto Conmmity Odld (are {PA.CCC}; 2) fi:'lar1[~21
problems; 3] lack of space; 4) too many day care homes clustered j~ certain
areas and not enough in ether arelS; 5) landlord's mistaken assuffiptions that
family day care use "is not compatible ""ith SE'curftj and damage COnc.erT1$. nor
wH~ the free flo"," of neight.orhooc traffic; 6) lac.k. (If professional"
atmosphere and business acumen in mos.t day carE! homes.
P. RELATIONSHIP WITH LICENSING OFflC,
when as.ked to characterize their relaticnstlip .,.ith the (01TT'!ur\it.v (arl?
licensing Division, State Department of Social Services. of the centers and
large hmily day care homes, 24 listed their relationship as a fair Qr"1e,
~hile 4 cited it as unfair and 9 didn't have an opiniofl.
When small fa:::r;i1y ~ay care homes w-ere asked to state the Qua1ity of their
relationship with Santa Clara County's Social Services LiCfr"1S1n9 Oiiision,
2; stated they were treated fairl,Y and 2 di.d not know. None said ti'~e;r
relationship was unfair. These responses are much morE positive than the
norm in the fi el1 and shows that great stri des have been rr;arlf:' ave,.. the hst
few years by bath licen::;jng agencies. Eff~ctive JlJly 1, 199-0, the State
licensing Oi"vls.ion of the $o(,a) Senices Oepartw€'nt w"\11 handle l1c.ensir.g
re~ponsibilities for all pro9ram types.
Regarding to! 4 centers and la~ge homes who characterized tneir relatio~$h:p
with li('f!nsi~g IS unfa-ir. the fo11cwing )ss\les s,\Jrfaced:
~licensi"9 req'Jirements ue fidr. r,oWellei, lic~ns'ng pers.-oflnel st-.ou1d. r.c.'/e
more of a child development background,~
"Licensing DiviSion does nat seem lnterested in ql>ality of pro-grarr., ofter;
puts school age child car~ in ?res,hool ?1geon ho1e."
"tole are a. morniPg. parent partic.ipation preschool program .l1th diffe!"e:·,t
needs.~
"OUr'" licensing analyst is ·incredibly nilpicky" and does nnt seem lr:terested
in needs of children at alT. but only in unimportant details."
-Attitude of inspectors is -atrocious. demeaning, paperwork is owerwhel~in9
and they are very difficult to be partners with."
"licen!:ing 1S ll~familiar ""ltI1 i2ccreditation~ sendee is puniti .... e nthn th~n
~upporti .... e. Tu1es are changed without notice and often seem arbltrary."
"(nforceme~t of regulations witnout an.) knOWledge or lmdersta~din9 of child
de\ielopment; no inclination was showr, to understand the special c.ircum.stances
of our program.·
II
!ii!il"1 JIIlIIIIIlIA"''''''':'~'''' ["'-. .--
~"'h:~"<
-
.,;;.-
~if:t?
l:'11ii··· ~ ____ ..... .
q. RELATIONSHIP WlTH RESOURC£ AND REFERRAL AGENCY
fiCh County ~as at 1e~.st one pub1iciy funcec" C~ild Car--e Resource and !'.'!denal
~gency. lheir mandate inclvd~5 referring the public to 'icen~ed chi~d tart
(atilHie.s a.n.d provid'ing triining and technical assistant~ to progra(l1,S,
am-oog other dutiaos. W':-'ell a;ked about their rfliitioi1ship iIIIitn 4Cs of Si!r1til
(1 ara County Tegird ing the; r r-es.ource and ~efern1 attiv~ties. 23 stated the)
had a supportive re1ition.sh~p, 'v.'hl'e 1 .... as unhappy 'lfith sen'ice the-." had
H-ceived. MO!"9 hmilj day carE. hCfi'ies. D'Jt-h 1argc lnd Somal 1 , 14 w~re
'SupporUve while! .... as not. Th~s.€ re~90n$es irdicate that 4Cs of Santa C1aO'"a
Ccunty I':; doir.g iiin exc!11ent job regarding their first mandate (refert'iT'!9 ~
the public to programs with vacancies).
no.,.e-we,., toe results w~re not qu;tE< sc support;\le 'ffh€'-r'l programs iIIIe-re asked
10 e\la!u~te the technical assistan.:;.e reeei'o'ed from the-ir publicl!, funder::.:
res.ource and referral: 15 Cfnters indicated support w<hi7e 5 ioiere r!ot happy
wah the-ir services, Among homes, 11 w-ere supportive .... hile only 2 w;:.!"'e not.
it~ms cited regarding nonsupport inclujed:
"Ha-wen't heard of any trainings, b1..Jt 1('01< flJr~'ard to partiCipating sr:ould
ther~ be any in the future.~
·Some 4Cs staff are w:'f''j supporth'e whl1e so:ne art! not yr::.ry dependable,·
"Dc.!n't receive much informCition ir; trait'1ing and tecl'lnn:~l a5,sistance areas
that I can apply, a1H1ougfl I do get informatb~. in the man,
~Ha~~ oot had any i~t=racticn w1th th~rn in this regaro.H
"r am disappointed in tMe lack of referrals! receiwe,-
~My program I",as never receiv.e,c any SerYlce5 from 4(s~.
"Liltle or no training for teachers that a1read'~~ have experien::e and
pducation. Jlorkshops p.rovided are remedial at best."
"Hav~n't ~ad any acce~s to training or te(h~ica' assjstance,-
"They need to ;Jroyide iI prognm tha! MelDs, us k.now Ii.Dre abot.:t teddie-rs ar"j
i nfar'lts.·
R. EXPECTATlDNS OF CITY CHILO C~RE tODRDIN.~TOR ROLE
The last issue raised in the pl'ovider surwey involved the role of the City
Child Care Coordinator. Pro9ram operators we:-e told that a City C.oordinator
was ~ired and asked ~~at kinds of support were needed from this office. All
centef providers except 3 liste~ support needs in several areas, Of the
family dal care hom-es, 16 listed support ne-eds.. -.',",,;1e 10 s.tated th~y c,1j
not need ~upport,
1. Areas of support needs indicated by Child Care Centers revolved around
the fo11owin9 iss~es:
Create better communication a~o~g the Clty, School District and the
ch-rld care professit'nal;
11
--------_._---
L
-
'.
'i
I
I
I ,.
Oev<e'op 3: public reht~~lns campaign around child care-;ssue.,~
Provide technicil assistance to providers,
EduCiih employers as to he .. they can be in .... olved.
Be an advoCile for cni1d care;
Assist ~ith child care referral needs;
Help provide transportation from elementary sctl{lC~S to child care ..
programsj
jm~·ro¥e compens.ation for worke!"s;
De\o'elop rescun:es-for child Ci.e programs;
Zoning aS5istanc~;
Establish d~velopment of a substitute teacher poor;
Provide data on c~i'd care needs 1~ City;
Edu::at!; the cOmr.!:.mity to the worth of quality cilild care.
Fa~ily Day Care Homes requested the following areas of assistance from
tne Child Care toor~inltor's Office:
[slabllsh substitute teacher pool fer providers;
Assist pare~ts in findin; car~ in their homes;
Provide nutrition ~nd curriculum information;
Deve10p recognition in community for child care services;
Provide referral system for Palo Alto providers;
Assist in forming the Mid-Peninsula Family Day (are Ho~ Netlt!.'ork.~
Develop on the job training programs in family day care homes;
Establish networklng opportunities fer child care staff;
Provide technica1 assistance about how to g~jn i fair profit and
assist in formulating ",'·se business practices.
13
r
v. RECOMMENDATlOHS
1. lncrease Supply of Infant~ Toddler, Preschool. School A9!, Recuperative
ant: Special Heec's Cnild Care Programs in PaiD AHa by the follo"lng
metllod's:
Introduce "Child eire Need" Jal'l'9uage into C-ity Ge11!ral P1a!'l document
to assess child care impact of residential and business expansion. ~
Denlop step-by-step troubic shooting brochure to ass ;5t potential
pro~iders with use permits process, zonjng regulations et al.
Pro;:ide technicil assistance component from (ity Ct'li1d Care
Coordinator'S OfficE to support implementation of employer-assisted
chll~ care facilities.
~ssist business in development of postpartem parental leave pol icies
to alleviate the infant care shortage.
Develop information campaign to recruit more family day care
providers in Paln Alto.
lmpJement additional sa,ocl site child care programs to augment
current City/School Dis~rict Agreement where waitlng list f1gures
warrcl"\t.
Encourage a ·sick child car~~ operation for sltghtly to moderately
i11 children with funding assistance from interested ernp1oyers.
Encourage existlng programs to open their doors to special needs
enroliees and develop options for special needs training for
providers.
2. Maintain Affo~dability an~ ]ncrea~e Subsidiled Assistance to PaTo Alto
Residents and Employees in neeG by the fo"o~i~g methods:
fstablish an Expendable City Child -':are ht.:st Fund under the
direction of the Child Care T~sk Force with emphasis on fundraising
earmarked for capital outiay projects~ augmentation of the Cit)' s
Human Service contract funding with a .... ider allocatiDn system, and
development of s~ed money for new programs.
Develop add~tior.al funding partners to assist City a~d State
Government in offering child tare subsidies, i~cl~dlng the Fede~al
GQvernmr.r.t an~ local busineiS.
Review underused City facilities and retrofit for child care uses.
thereby keeping fixed leasing costs low to providers allowing then,
to charge lower fees.
14
7F111"C'N'
-
Educate employers on tax crediLs available and cost effecti~e~e~s
gEnfTated by offering subsidized child care benefIt plan~ to t~elr
employe~!>.
3. Jm:rease Sahry and Compe-nsation level of Child Care Staff by the
following methods:
Establish an Expendablf City Child Care Trust Fund uf'1d!::r the
directicn cf the Odld Care Task farcE to a.ssist "in l..mdE'n.'riting
tn.i~-:;-,':i flll!es for providers, devel~p sub·ac:count to raise t~ach~r
salaries to m3,~let le'fel, ,and support other staff de'.Jelopmr:nt needs. t
Educate the public t-.:: .... a.lue the professional .... or<. caregivers provide
to develop qua1ity anj ~nriching programs.
Work 'lrII'ith the Child Care Employee Project in Oakl and t,n the i r
strategic pla.ns. to upgrade ',ea~hi!r salaries.
Conduct annua.l salary and compln.s.ation SUnie.~'s among Palo ~lt~ ch-ild
care pr-oviders to esta.blisn an'.'! ma:'"Ket lel'e-IL
4. Address High Percentage of Chi.ld tare Use b)' lotal Employees Who Reside
Elsewnere by the following ~ethods!
Develop a City child care m1tigatioa ordinance whereby local
busjl1~sSE'S establishing nplt!l Of rEnovating additicr:-=l facilitiES
asc.ertain their correlating incJrrec. child care ne€'d and recommend
p1an to address expanded usage.
Establish new child c~re facilit"es in the ~ow~town area a~d in the
Page Mill Researc.h and Dellelc.pme!lt geographical region.
£ducate employers about available stUdies proving cost·effectivenes'S
of employer·assisted programs.
infDrm bus; nesses of (a1 i forn i". tax cred i ts iva; 1 abl e for devel (Jpment
of facilities and subsidi7~dg employee chi1d care tosts.
Broker federal fund~ av~ilab'e under current legislaticr for
Empl oyer· Sponsored r.~i1d Care Options (Cal Hernia' s s~are: S2, ~
million).
S. Establish Oat.ban' C1earinghouse of Child Care Supply ,nd Need by the
following methods:
Educate child care program providers abolJt the importanco: of
referring all unmet reQuests for child care assi~tance to Stat~
funded Resource and Referral Agency (4Cs of 5anta (lara County) in
order to accuraH1y compi1~ needs data. A compreher.si\:e centra1ized
data bank is necessary to demonstrate unmet need, thereby lncre-a~ing
funding cpportunities from publiC, private and foundatiot'j sources
and for long range planning purpDses.
15
-_._-
·'I;·{:~:t"L
"~"~,~~"'"{? '
.;-;"
-
'.
I
-.,
licensed prD9~ams should ~crept requests foy child tare when space
is a¥ailable. Thev should contact the ResourcE and R€fe~raT Ager.cj
periodicillly to LIPdate their current sitliation regarding space
ilVllli~iltty, waiting list numbers, et al.
6. Increase h;ct-s$ to Cit)' !nd" Nonprofit Prcgpam ResolJrces. by the fo' lowing
llet!lo<i. :
Deye1cp mobile library out;eac.h program to .... lsH area family day c,\re
henne ar,d dliid (ire centers witfi appropriate reading materia1s.
Develop mobile recTeatlofl prograrris to visit P<!T(S wtle-re child car.e
cente:-S and ne'fgr.bcring fami1y day CilTf providers can participl:!te
in b~ard games, utilize SpDl""ts equipm€'nt a~d be provided w~H other
off!r; ngs.
Develop malling list of a~'l licens-sd' programs in Palo Alto a:1d.
periodically send cut special program flyers ~llowjng facilities to
plan cotermin::H.:'s activitiH.
StlJCY availability of fletired Senior Volunteer Pr"og;-am (RSVP)
participants to s!rve as volunteers in dild carf centers and famIly
day care home progr~ms.
1. Increase the Humber of Child Care Programs Interested in Accreditation
by the following methods:
Sponsor an Accred;tation lnfonmati~n works~op_
Through the use of the-City Child Care Trust Fund, partia.lly
subsidile accreditation fee~_
S. Improve I::ehtionship between Child Care Centets/Large Family [J<!iY Care
Homes and the State licensing Office by the follo~in9 methods: .
Sponsor quarterly meetings bet~een Palo Alto child care ~roviders
and the Child Care Licensing Ombud5l'11ar. to discuss ~roblem area.
As needed, meet with State licensing officials in Sacramento.
Work with Senator Rebecca Morgan's Child Care Tas.k Force on State
licensing c~ncerns which call for legislati~e remedi€s.
9. Jepro~e Services of the rducation and Training Unit of the 4Cs Council
of Santa Clara County by tn. following ~.thods,
Hold mOre tr.~nings and wDr~shops in Norther~ Santa Clara County.
Sur~ey Palo Alto pro~iders periodica11y to ascertai~ subj!ct matter
pertinent to teachers' needs.
I~creas-e fUrlding for 4(s of Santa Chra County to hire add it iona1
staff for Educa.tion ar,d Tnirdng Unit as current level of funding
provides o'11y two staff to serv<: -,DOD COIJr.tJ child care pro'i;ders.
J6
t
~ ..
........ " .. ,.<:
"":"""-'"
'( ;
10. IncreBse le~el of support frOG City th,1d tare Coordinator's Office to
!!.rea Providers by the followin51 aeUlods!
P~ovide lagislativt updates.
lievelop additional ne-t ... ork.;~g opp.,rturtities. for-pro .... iders.
PrccYre additio~al subsidized funding opportunities.
In<lestigate methods for upand1ng training opporlur,;tie~,
Act ir. liaison ro1e between prO~'lder~ a.nd City depiirtNitts.
Oevelop public relltions role for better u~derstandiTi'~ the importance
of quality child tare.
Educate area employers tc advantages of chiTd care asSistcilC€ for
their employees,
Pr~vide technical assistance wh~re appropriate.
Develop list of aVoll1able-certified subs.titute staff to assist
programs for emergency s;tuatl0~s.
Provide better C{lm:!lunication between Scnool District lind ared c~1l1d
care prvviders.
Develop additional child eire benefit packages for City elYlplo)'Ees.
Sp{)rtsor business administration seminars to increase i(no",'~J;dQe af
c:Mild care directors regarding the efflcient operatlon of faciliti~).
17
Pl.age circle the appropriate number and fill i~ the blank wb~re
appropriate:
Al 1_ your pro~ram cent.r-~a5.4 ~r & family d&y ~are operation?
l) center-basec1 2) family day care home
!!) If & ~amilY dBY care operatie~1 how large is your prcqram'
3) 13rge family day care 4) small family day care
C) Wbat i5 the lioehse~ capacity of your program'
S)
O} What aqe 9rQ~p(s) do you serve? (cir~le ~ll that apply)
6) o-~ years 7J 2-3 years S) 4-5 years
9) 6 years ~nd up 10) LD.C.H. (0-18 years)
£) Are you currently ae~7ing your licensed capacity?
11) yes 12) no (it no, skip to ~e5tion I)
'Fl xt yes to question E, 40 you •• intai» a vaiting ~ist~
13) yes 14) no
G) Wbat are ycuz vaitiD9 list numbers for the following age
groups?
15) 0-2 years lti) 2-3 years
17) ~-S yeus lS} E years and up ____ __
~) Approximately how lo~q does a prQsp~etive client remAin on
your V&~tiDg list be~ore a slot beccmes available?
19) under 1 ~onth
21J 3-6 :months
20} 1-3 mont.hs
22} over 6 months
:) IL your program i. not fill.~ to capacity, bow .any openings
60 you have ~urrently per &ge groupl
23) 0-2 years 24) 2-J years
25) 4-5 years 26) 6 years and up __ __
- 1 -
-
I
I
.1
i
\
I
J) What bow'. 1_ JO'U..:' prcgz-&.I:. 1.2:1; op.,ratiOZl?
27)
k) Do y~u o~t.r vaakeu~ care or aick cbild care'
LJ
"l
26) no
30) sick child care
2S} ... eekend c~re
31) both
Is ),our oparaticlI attiliste~ with An olJtside corporation or
b~.ine85 orqanizaticn'
32) yes .3J} no (it no, skip to q\le:;t.jc.'"l N)
2n wbat vay(a) i& your program related to an outside
busitless?
34) vendor/voucher pl!I:y-T.lents
35) reserved slots for employees
36) contributions/donations
37) referral
3B) other (pleasE!. I"-pecify)
NJ Does your proqram provi6e any subsidies or p~rti41/~ull
acholarships tor program partieipa~ts'
39) yes 40) no {if no., sKip to question P.}
0) 2~ yes to question N, what is the .ouree of your subsidi%e~
assista.nce?
41) City support through PACCC
42) state "Deparbent. of Edu.cation contr~cts
43) Alternative Payment Program (A.P.P.)
44) G.A.I.N. Welfare Program
~5) County ChilQ Protectiv~ Services
46J outside corporations
47) owner-financed scholarships
. Pi Hev many aubsidized/seholarship Blots 40 you hav~ currently?
48)
til Wbat percent ot your total enrollment is sUbsidized7
49) ---~
•
11.) In yo~r •• ti •• tioD, appraziaately hoY _any tamil.s currently
beiDIl •• rovetS ill your proqram ar. in n.ed of aUb!lidir:ed
••• i.t&DCG it it were avallable7 (AS 4 quide, the City of
Palo Alto subsidizes child care tees for t.~e fcllowing
ta~ily size ana corresponding ~on~hly income:)
Sin91~ parent ~ith 1 child ~ $1650 or less
Family of 3 ~ $~750 or less
Family of 4 c $1850 or less
for each family member ~ddition, add SlOO per month.
If you do ~ot know pareDt income lev.l., how many f~ilies
indicate to you that the tee charqed repr.se~ts a bar4ship
tor them? (00 not count families alre~dv receiving
subsidized/scholar~hip assistance4)
50)
SJ What are yO\lr .tee.s for services? lCircle 'Which trilling
period you use.)
51) infant $ ____ __ (per daYI per ~eexi per montn)
5.) toddler $ ____ __ (per day, per ~eekt per ~onth)
53) preschool $ ____ __ (per day. per 'Week~ per mont.h)
54) school age $ (per day, per ~eex. per ~onth
for school year)
55) schoolage $ (per day, per yeek l per m~nth
for vacations)
56) sick child care $ (per day)
57) drop-in service $ ____ __ (per day)
TJ In your estimation, for your pre~eh~ol enrollees, hoY C&~y
ebll~r.n ytilize your program fur 8ocializ.tio~/enbance~ect
experienee as cPPQBBd to a nee~ for ebi14 car2 provision 4~e
to paren~&l work, .cbool or~iciD9 .ebe~ul.s?
58) 59) do not serve preschoolers
0) What pereentaqe of your preschool participants 40e3 the
~iqur. aupplie4 in question T repr ••• nt?
60) ---' 60) do not serve preschooler~
V) Rov many enrolled children resi~e in Palo Alto?
~2)
W) Bov .~y enrolle4 chil~ren bave resi~ecce out8i~e of Palo
Alto'!
G3)
- 3 -
-. .. ",",,",_.
:
j I
I
I ~
1
I k ,
II
I
I
j
I
'I
i
Xl
l{)
.o~14 your prograz be interested 1~ receiving .e~ioes trc~
the Citrla •• cr.ation or Library .1st .. ?
64) yes
66J just Lib~arles
ES) just Recreatior.
67) no
.ou14 your proqram be int.re~ted in uainq .enior a~u~ts as
volunteer. throuqb the ~ program?
se) yes 69) no
S) Would your program be interest.~ in r.ce!vi~g information
reqard.inq ac:c.l'editatio»;? (ei't.her NALYC for centers or lo'A'fDC
for homes)
i.ll yes 72} no 73) don't k"'l:oW
AA) Row 40 parents hear &bout yo~r proqc&m? (rill in ~h~
percentage next to the appropriate source.)
74)
75)
7E)
77)
78)
79)
ao)
____ .\ refe:cred by advertiser.u=nt (l'ello,"-pages,
newspaper ads, phone book)
____ , referred by Fat!ily Day Care: Net .. -ork
_____ , referred by ~Cs (Santa Clara County~s
Resource and Referral Agency)
____ .~ referred by Pale Alto Community Child
Care (PACCC)
______ t endorsement from pre"viously enrolled
parent (word of mouth)
_______ , referred by Scheol District/School Site
_____ "' other (please describe in' space belo ... ;.
BBJ YbeD your program ia Lille~ to capacity, vbom ~o you refer
prospective families to?
81) 4CS 82J PACCC 83) another provider
84) Family Day Care Network
BS) other (please describe)
eel Are ehere areas or technical ••• iatanee/support .er~iee tbat
yo~ vou14 like to receive that are not available nov'
86) yes 87) no (if no, skip to question EE)
-. -
-
I
:1 ,
~
~ 00) Ple.se indicat_ tbe below are.a d.seri~inq the addicio»al
8Upport 4 •• ir.~. (Circle ~ore than one if epplicable.) •
EE)
FF)
IS} subsidized funding
89) conference training opportunities
90) legi&lative update information
9~) Palo Alto Child Care Ne~slett~r
92) networking opportunities aDong peer caregivers
What c~st&cl.5, i~ any, are present in cperat!Dq 6 cbil~
care pro9ram in palo Alto?
93)
94J no obstacles that I am aware of
As op.~&tor of • center-~a8e~ program, boY 00 you
charaeteriEe your relationship witb the state's Community
Care Licensing Office in campbel11
9S} fair 96} unfair 97) don't ).~o ...
GG) Aa operator of a day care home, hoy ~o you cbar~cterize your
relation~hip vit~ tb~ County's licensing office in SLC Jose'
98) fair 9.9) unfair 100) don't mo ....
9) :It you araswere4 "UU:fair" in question n or GG" ple.s.se
erplaiD in the apace provided:
101) _______________________________________ __
II) Hev would yQ~ ~b.raeterize your relatioDsbip vith th9
rollovinq tvo ~ep&rtments ot tbe S&llta Clara County 4CS~
102) supportive 10J) non supportive
B. Training and ~eehn1cal AssistLDce:
lO~) supportive 105) non-supportive
JJ) If you ansvere~ ullon-supportive ll to either It. or B in
queatioD X%, ple ••• explain in the apace provided:
106)
- 5 -
-
I
: !
I
I
I II
I r
II
II
II
I, ,
Ul Plea •• prcvi~e aDDual or bo~rly 8&lary information ne~t
tbe applicUile staff position 11.teda . (These responses
be held. in Et.rictest con.t1dence and .. 111 be cited i:'1
composite figures only.)
private Family Day Care Provider/Dorner:
~07) $, ___ _ annual
Large Family Day Care Provider Aide/Assistant:
lOS) $, ___ _ hcurly
Non-Profit C~nter-Sased ~~inistrator:
109) $, ___ _ anr.:ual
Child Care Center Site Director: 110) ~ _____ annual
Child Care Ce:J.ter He2!iC Teacher: ill) $ _____ ,annual
Child Care Center Teacher: ~12} $ ____ ~annual
Child Care Center Aide/.Assi!:>tant.: 11.3) $ ______ hcurly
LLJ For ~he la9t fiscal year~ di~ your cperation
114) make a profit
216) break even
115) sufter a loss
to
1oIi11
KH) Do you plan to continue operations ot your proqrAm in tbe
torseeab1e tuture?
117) yes lla) no 119, uncertain
NN) Tbe city c~ Palo Alto has bire4 a Child Care coor~inator~
%n the apaoe available, please bote what type of assistance
you would like to receive from this positiQn.
120)
121J no support needed
Thank you for your time in completing this survey. Please return
it ASAP in the enclosed envelope. Should you need the survey
pic~ed up, please call 493-4650 and arrangements will be made.
survey results will be made available vithin 45 days of project
cOlhmencement.
-6 -
)
\
~
;.J ATTACHM:ENT 2
Report for
Palo Alto Child, are Task Force
Palo Alto Chiid Care Benefits Assessment
April 1990
A Study of Palo Alto Employer Supported
Child Care Offerings
Project Director: David F. Martin
Child Care Coordinator
City of Palo Alto
Conducted by:
Stanford Alumni Consulting Team
Joanne Goldberg
Nancy Kamei
Julie Johnson
."
-
Report for
Pa!·:. .A.:'to ChUd Care Tas.k Force
Palo Alto Child C3.Te Beneflts Assessment
EXEcunVE SU~1ARY
Highhghts of the findir;gs:
• 10D% of large compa..l.Je.s((;".H 50J e:-;:ph:/ees) o!'Terbe.-:efHs.
O\'er2JL 66C.· .. ~ cr cO;T:;:;,a"i-=s offer be;:e:lts.
• Size is L~e 07".~ lmp:,,"t~-:.t lnd~c.2·,Jr of a CO;JIP2.IlY'S li:"i:e~iho,:)j
to offer be:re!Jts. The lrdust.ry and ~ender comp')siticm Jc.2d no
irr:pact OJ: nature of c'hnd care be:1ellt offerings.
• Of corr:panies 0:·, _.-i:lg beneJJts. 75% pr:,\ide be~~n~.5 t..';.2.t
directly be:iieflt p2.:::nts
Sr; .... a.ll ccrr.pa7.Ies. oi':r.:i:' I':'lc!:-e ger.er'J~s p<±..:e:lt2.J Iez'.'e p:-cgr2.!";15
1..;:";2..."1 12.Ige ('omp2.J".:es. CGr.tr2dfc~:-J:g t.:JE' pO;:'wlar 'b~i;ef U'2.t
pare:-:lt?.J Iez','e is c~·,-,-i;:'iei ..... t.2J fer 5:-:1E=Jl b·w.s~:-.ess
• Th~ medi2..:""1. use c,f benef:ts is 7="S, Tne I:l.Ore '\\'C!":1e:n i:1 thE:
organi.zaUo:"!. L'lJe hf&~'ler the use.
• DCA.?:s. 'L~e r.lost ,;:,c?'..::,;ar oeT.c:.t. c.fle.-CO by ~0':'J cf
o'g2..I1iz.~Lions pro\jci:lg be::e~:ts. !'o!edi2...i DC..;]=' 1..:SE 1:1 'ttese
org2..."1il.aUons is 7S~~.
ET:lpJoyee S2.tJsla.Ctic.'1 Js the p~:":"'J2..r")" r:1ot.h:at..;Crl cf er:-ip~oyers.
o-;;eri~g child Cale bene~!s
.. T;"'1-e jo!J funcUN1 of t."-.e: ben~:l1.s bs:J&2..tcr h2S n'~ re!2.t..:(;:;'1 to t;l-:.e
n2.fi.lre of benef:ts.
• Ccst ir:h..:bits 50~,'S cf aJt (..rga.~2UG":; tro.""!:. of':,~'-:.:;g be"ef::s.
T\·:o .. L~irds 0: t.:"'"1ose tJlat r?le:::t..:c:ieo C:Jst as a ctt..r:::-Y".er:t s-:J;l
prc,,"tde some !-.:i:r:.d of benent .
... ]1lfee responae.nts s3id they had 1.r"!:ace::r..'.a~e InforrT12LOn about
benefits.
·Of L'1e 33S'S not offer:i1.s be"e;'!:s. r:o;-::e p!.3 ....... 1 to cfier L'JeI71 in L':,e
future, Half the COlT';ps-::es c:Jrre;1'Gj/ offerir;g ber::ef:t5 p:a...'1 to
e:.,:pa..'1d.
Recommendation summary:
., Focus Ot1 increasing benef;t.s a..rnc:1g Cl:ae:I1t be;-:eflt prc .. -::ders
3
• He1p organ4atJons publicize benef;t5
.. Educate .e!np:cyec:s
,. PubliciZe activities of leading child care benefit p:-~\,"jd'ers
• Provide adequate ip[ormatic:1 on b~nefjt.s to orga.."1ia-tJor.s
• Develop a needs assessrnent/gwideH'les tool [or organizatio:1s.
-
•
Overview
The Palo ALto Employer Child Care Benefits A.ss~ssrne:nt gauged the C1..Orrent
state or child care benents offeiings ;s,mong PaJo Alto employers. !n lelepho:"le 1
Inter.1ews, respondents frem 54 organiZ8tl0!'1S were asked about benefits.
including subsidies and utilization. Intenicwers jnquired about costs. about
the human and organizatio:1.al factors t."at fa"htated 'tile d~ve~opment of their
child care benefits programs. and tbe obstades that prevented L'-J.em froIll
offerin.g mDre benefIts. After discussing t.~eir benefits, respondents gave
insights into the benefits planning process 2..r"].d discussed futu:-e offe.rings.
ThiS report desCribes the survey and L'1oe L-lrO!'ll'lation it y1elded. The condusion
i:-Jc:ludes inferences, prDjeCtions, and sugges:Jo~s for ft.:ture act"';yities.
The Survey design
A "'oTu<1 teer team from the Stanford Business Schoo! AJurr:.ni Consulting Tea.rn.
CACll program developed the ins~"Ument arId a l:.st of compa.l1ies emplo)ing 1en
or more people. Employers were randomly selected from all cOr.:Jpanies in each
size and industry category .... ,:ith the hst wtigh~ed toward larger enployers in
at c:ffort to include as r::1arlY em~loYf'es as possible.
ACT re\ie\, .. ~d e,)jst::ng SU!i.'E'Y instn.Jments and met \\iL~ the Palo JaJto Ch:ld
Care Coordinator and the Pale. .AJtO Child Care Task Force to deri\'e materia] for
the Palo .Alto sun·ey. Outside e ..... yerts aSSisted ,\\iL'I,. survey fOnTiat a'1d content.
l\"ames ca.'r"J1c from five sources:
•
The SarIta Clara Count)· Comr=le:-ce & Indust...')' Directory (271
companle:;)
"Palo .. -\ltD Emp1o),ers "\~iL~ o"'~r 1 00 Empioyees" (46 ccmp2...;'1ies
'·]\.!ajor Dov,:nto\,,'TI Emp]oyers M {IO compa .... 1ies)
"PaiD Alto ~!ajor Employers" (30 companies)
"Stanford Research Park Finns" (44 companies)
(The Directory:is pubbshed by the Sa""! Jose Cha.'11beJ'" of Com::-ne.J'"ce. The: other
lists were developed by the City of Palo Alto P]"'1J1lng Department. Many
names appeared on more than one list.)
The ChJld Care Coordinator, Th'O starr members ofL'I-:le 4Cs ofSa.'i;L;. Clara
County. and members ofllie Palo Alto Chiid Care Task force administr.re-d the
survc:y to the selected emp!oyers during the rnon0 of Ja.~uary 1990. The
survey contained 16 questions, many of them mUlti-tiered. for a total of 120
items.
'The:: ACT members r!!\iev· ... ·ed the sur .... e.)' \\i:.h tnt 1nteni~wers in a series of
meetings to reaffirm 5Uf"\:ey objecti\'es arId ensure conforTTIlty ofinteniew 5't}·le.
I -lat. '. -
.c-. __
L
5
Survey Content
The focus of the survey was on the nature of current a.r.d a..'"1ticipatcd ben~fJts.
Other questions :inquired into the motivation fo;olnl'Uatlng benellts. reaSO:1S for
not implementing benefits. ai'1d ot.r"er ml~gat1ng (actors. The survey a.sktd
about costs (most empJoy~rs were unable to respond} and basic demographiCs:
employee number. manager number .. women employees ai""Jd rna."1.agers.
RESULTS
Overview
The comparties t.l-)at partic:lpated 1n the survey had a total of 3] .5DO employees,
appro.x:imateIy half the PaIo PJto emploYEes and 25% of all compa. ... lles v..'it.~ ten
or more emplDyers
Si:.e « C~m:pil;nies W.i.t.h Benefi't.5
10-2< J 0 ,
2S-!i9 15 8
100--'99 H JO
500-5".99 , • 1-2000 3 3
zooo+-5 5
Of L':le 5.; employers surveyed. 19 said that they had no chjld care benefits of
any kind. These 19 employers had a total of 1186 employees. or a..." average of
62 employees each and a median of 40. All five companies v.:irh fifi.een or fewer
empioyees offered no child care benefils ... J1 14 (cmpa."ties ",;th mere tha" 500
employees offered benefits of some kind. The average em~layee count among
companies offering child care beneflts was 872. The aye rage compa."",y ofkri:""g
child care be!1efits was over ten times 25 big as tte average company not
offering such benefits.
S[ze was the only important correlate \l.i.th child care benefits. Employers vdL'tJ
a high percentage of .. v omen or a high percentage ofwGmen rna. ...... agers were no
ffim.-e or Jess likely to offer benefits than eUler employers. Nor were Child care
benefits more common in any particular industries, aJthough the
man.ufacturing organizations cIustered at the tal of the stze range (9 of the 14
companies \",th over 500 employees) and t..~ere,are tended to offer beneflts.
Who Offered What
The 35 organizations that offer some of the benefits listed in the sur..·ey have
few similarities (other than. their location). A number of the respondents
jnitiaJly indicated that they had no beneflts: fu;:iber quesUoning revealed that
thev did offer benefits. At the other end of the spectrum are organrzauons that
ha\;e invested a substantia] amount of resources in developing child care
benefit .programs.
-----:----. >L
-.
--"'~
, I
i
-
6
The bcndit3 In ti1e SUIYCY can: be dl\ided lnta D.V:l categones: tIwse L'-1at
directly and so!eIy afftct parents. a.jd those that d~ not.
Th~ bene(jts L'1at directly a..'"ld solely afiect parents: a.."1 on·si~e lor near·lstd
child care fadllty. a DeAF program, chrld care information rcf~rraJ se.r.'ices,
parentaJ ]eave, a payment · ... oucher syst"'.:m. 2 preferred pro~,ider prOfra..rn. and 2
reimbursement accounts plan,
Benefits that accrue to non-parents (as welJ as pa:ents) a.--:d Ca.l be perceh'ej
as affir:native ofparentaJ needs: Sick lea\:e (to care for ill falill!y members).
employ-ee seminars, fie)'."time, part time, cafeteria pla .... 1s. job sna.'ing. a.~d
vOluntary reduced time.
AmO.:1g the 35 respcndents who c·ffered benefits, 26 had a progra.'1l that
included direct benel1ts to pa:-ents. Th-e oLher nine only oflered benents in the
second category. The benefits offered by tilese nine focused 0;1 flexible ti:-ne
o~tions. These op'Uons are a function oC the n2twr~ of the organLzaUons -'
relaJlers. for e.xarnple -. '.':ho schedde emp10yees on pa.""t-Ume shlf!.s to
accommodate the emplcye'r as \"'ell as the ernploYl!e,
Benefits in t1":ie !"irst. parent-cHrect-ed ca:egc;y:
2 c:-;~-:'l:'::011::-:'-,~
:, ~:-;~~:.:~~~:~~
.:..:'1
!n~o~~t-.ic-"I/.re!'e:.::al ! o:;~:;iut':'o:",~
,t.:'l: ';,
,~.!:":.t';li!::!5 :::':'1. :2,
S~l~.:';'e:::1 :!:"l :!-"
;S 1':00,:':.5 + '::'."l 1
;.11
?a~~~:el leave l1 c:-;~=!:I:~~~3 S-ee ::>e:c_'
L':'~.~t.c-;:l; P=e~~==e~ p:ovi~e= 2 ~:;~~~:!t!~~5
r-..e::~..o:';':5e::-,-=.'1t 2-:::CO',;:->:'S 8 c=-;;':-':':,!";:;:~,5 AI! .. \;s;.:~lly
t.'::e.:::l to ~C.:'..?
S':..:",-'":,,,::' ~:'l
Two of L;e respondents offered four of these benefits. several offered t..lJ.ree.
Many respondents offered beneflts in L":e second. more general category:
:s.enefit
F.ie .... ti:-:;~
Polnt-tir.'le
Ca~et~ria ~~e!it~
Jo't.share
Vo!..:r:.ta::y .:e:!..:ce-d tlrr,f'.
sick l~~Ye: ill f~mily
c:-;a:'li::aticr.s
24
17
5
9
" ,.
_11. :in i;
"C'!!re~=5" in
~ll. l2; !O~e-~ 12
ell, E; .5~~ 11
.ll
"de?e:"j-=s"~ in .9
~ll, 7; !lC,-:-~, 11
al1~ 25, ':~::1~, 1
7
The prcponderanc~ ofbenel'its In the second catego:-y Tei1ects the f2ct t.h.at
Ll-JcSe: benefits are re12tively less u-perlsive tha:, most of L'":le: benefHs jn t..'":!e first
category and 1..."'1at they tend to be mainstr-eam: \0.dely offered 2...."1d used
L'lroughout L~e private ai'ld publiC sectors.
Parental Leave
ParentaJ leave 15 a :key bel1efit: lrs \i5ible. con;Xoversial. a."1d e:ssenti2.J. Parents
often suifer tremendous!y whe.'1 L'1ey rrrLlst leave a newborn or place a child i~
substandard care due to an:\jety about }:ee:plng aJob. Organizations counter
the de~and for parer.taJ leave by argui;:;g t..'1at t."e e>.-pense of hiring 2...T"J:Q
trafning a temporary replacement for a worker on leave 1S infeasible, even if the
\ .... or};e! Is receh1ng no pay.
State law currently requ~res Ll-Jat t.':.e: employer gra.'1t up to fcur mone~s lea\"e
"\., .. i"u;out pay to a'1y femaJe emplcyee v.:ho gives biAA to a child. Some of O1....:r
respondents. who c1aimed to h2ye parentru leave. indic21ed t.~at L'1e[r pDhcies
mer~ly conformed tD st3te law.
Pa.ren!?J 1€2xe policIes:
'-'7!OYE-P.:S S~5iC'1
" !-.; II
Ii: ~'''; :1
1::5 tu.!l
235 ! .. ~l
2200 ~:.lll
JS p.::-:: io! 1
so partial
H-:l f.'i!:::: t :.. i!! 1
:! i 0 Fa:: .. :'.!:"
350 Pi!;.r t i a 1
!:,:J Tlc"e
2750 !':c:-.e
353 rlO~1!'
Ho nD~oe
seo !'lC:"le
l:ZO~ l'l~.~;!
OCO ."O:<1li
J ~.::-;",: ~.!I
1-: IS .... .<.:~, ~e?e:-'~':':;i' Cl:'l .. !!::-:.>.;=e
2-3/2 =::-:.~~~~ ~ ~os u~~~:'d
G-E 10.'~". u:-:p .. id 3-4 ::":"':-5
£0 ~i!!Y~. 1 yea: ~~p~~~
.( ,,",:l:!!, aw~.e:'1: C:i:s.;,.~ili:.J'
'I.'.i=i~3
£ r.::' 5
, 0~S
I.:p t.o J2 rt.c~
1 year , :"",:'!iI , l'1',:l"S
; ~O3
No one prc\ided leave: for longer t."an a year. Plans varied \,l,-!.ceiy from
campar.y to company. Although same respondents L'1dicated t."'at fathers cou~d
take lea\'e. they often added th2t no men had t2.ken advanta_~e of the pa.;entaJ
Iea\-e policy. Seven e:\'"}l]icitly stated that only women were c:1iglble (or leave.
or the ten companies offering full or partJaJ pay. only t\l.'o employ mOre thar,
500 people. 1'he large companies may ~e c;lerir:.g ,unpaid leave only bec2:use of
cx1em.J..l and internal pressuo:es to pn.J"\.""Jde some kind of paren1aJ benefits; the
small companies may be respondingfroIi1 a sen5e of iesponsfbiht:y a...-id conC'er."~
jl51·.·
:~'::~t~-c-:
.-:t--__ :~~_
~c" .','
-
•
for employee wdlbeing:, Tr.e small cC:::-Jpanies seem ~\Jch mo:-e, likely to be.
,ccner-ous,
This finding ,\iol;Ojie:; the general bC:!jeithat pan::1taJ reave Is detr1m~n!aJ to
smaJi compa.iIes beC2use they Can:1Dt afford to hire temporary he:!p or do
\.\1thout key employees, 0ppo::1ents or ~arent.alleave use L",is aIguJ.".ent as a
key weapon agt.jnst enaclmenf of 13'.;'s requiring ltavc.
UtillzatJon
Data on uWizaUen was not readj!y aVaiJable in mcst catego.r.es, Uti:iz2.Uon
numbns. where aVailable. did not reflect a relaUcnsh:~ betv.'cen ob'.~ous
or-ganl:t.aUonal charClcterisUcs and !...:.lse, Utilization is a function ofintemal
promotion and education rather than c,f org.3J1uaUon.a.J size or tmplo)'e:e mix,
The information on utj]izaticn \1."2.5 den\'ed frcJ71 l'XC ci:Teient sets of questions.
Each respondent 'was directly as~~ed ho, .... · I7:2.r.y tmpbyees were seT"\'ed by child
care beneflts. Twenty respondents speci[jcd a p3rticular r.umber. In a..jOLo:,Er
section of the sun r:.y. respondents \\'e,e q'..!cned a'!Jo'.Jt L.,di\iduaJ child care
b~nefILs. Each time a responde.,t iJidjca.ted L'J.::.t L,e orga..""Jization. offered a
beneIn. t.'"re respondent \"'2S, asked w112t percentage of ernpIoye-es took
ac:h·n....,ta~e of ti1at benefit. The SUl\'fS L~us )ie1ded o\'erall tota! nurnb~;s of
er:lployccs ;-ecching child care benefits c..."1d in.dj·."idual perce~Hage utillZatiO;)
fIgures for each benef:t.
Of the 20 intcn.iewets who g:!!\."c a tot~ nur:-:,rr:
Three asserted that:aJl en'lplDyees.toe~ adv3."ltage of child CaT"e
benefj~s. (The organi:!atlons offered i1e;o.jble time schedules,
and ail employees \-ere elig~ble.J
One noted tJ1.:H no. ~,T!ployees used e:e beI:..:flts.
Two oL..~ers. both 2.."TJon,e-'L~e hr.gest c:-'~a.":.!.za:Jor::s 1;' P.:Jo • .:.,;·~O,
said L'-J2t about a ha~f 01 o.,e perce::t cT e.-r:p~oyefs Llsed L~~ir
chil d care be;] en ts,
T\ ... ·O intenie\\."ers gave nl:mbers L"lat lndicated o\'erall use of
25%. BeLi. organizations were mediocI7l s!..zed (l00-500
employees); beth had excellent cbld C2Ie bene!1ts prograrns.
including generous parenta.lleave.
The rnedia.'1 response (excluding the OC',/~ a..:.d lOO'S/a figuresJ
was 7% .
.. Four of the fi'\'e compa.-:..Ics W'1t."-1 the h!ghest uL!l.z.ation [agaJn,
excludJn~ the e . ...-LI'emes] had 2J1 employee base L~at W2S r.1o..-e
than half female .
.. Four of the fi\'e companies ... ,,;th L,e rowest utili.zation r.3.d .:\
\\;erk force that 'l,'as Jess than 50% female.
-·/'"'I!!I!~L-· ..•.. -. --_ ...
-
•
'.
',"'. "
~--,-'--""-_ .. ." ....... .....,.-.-. ,," .. '-~---'-
9
.A..m.ong th.~ be:ndhs di;-ccUy related to parent needs, L~e DC.AP program was L"1e
most popular. Ol"~J'y a s-ma..!1 percentage of employees used L":ie on-site-fac!iity
offered by NO organiZaUons. In!h~ table bdow, the uullzatiO:"'l ran&,e :s the
range offlgures given by those compa'1tes 1..'1at were abJe to state (or estL'11ate)
what percent enJp!oyees look advantage of te:ch beneflt. {The numbers i!1
pareniliescs indjcaLe how many C',ompanles offer that benefit raL"-ler t..""lan :.J-Je
number abTe to respond to the t.:ti.H:'sUon on uWizatlen,}
•• ;,.!it P..II.."1.;:oe .< ". Median 1":"',,
0" :site c e:::e-1 -, i a,
DeN' .~, ~ ls-l flO a
!:-:!Qh':e!"~=r/ll , -lO\ ,I)
P&::-en<;'ill leave 2 -H eli)
P,eL~\l:::.5e.~:"l't 1 -Jet 'i 1 "
F.,le;.:ti.'1';1! 1 -l::-D\ (2::} ~ : "
F'iI :t.-:.i:'T,~ ,5-56\ (17) 3l
"?~=ucej t.i::-.~ J -,. r! E) <,
Again. t.~e fie)jblr 5cheduli.'1g opUons tend to relleet the hye: of Of';!'a,'"'.i.zaU"::1
rawer than concern about parental ne-eds. • Q
Cost
\\110 P2YS. and how mucb? Many respondents noted that the} substc\zed
ceT1ain bene{jLs~
~4!=-.lI!fit
c~ ~i:e C~=l!'
P~=i-;-':'21 ..lei.·.·.a
P"'~:1.t ... .;Il.lc)o:e:-
:;'.:.:11 !I o;;110 l::!y
o
S
o
Fartial .5'2:>!li~y
2
;
1
7
•
,
"
-
lO
Or,aa..""li.:lations. that errer other bcnc:f.ts. s'..Jch <1.S a DeAP p:-og;a.."';J or 2.."1
inlorrnaUon and re:ferra! s~rvice. also incur costs. Very few ha.ve: a. ... 'l)' jdea (or
care to re\!ealJ the d<lta pertaJnln;; tD chnd care benefIt e:.-;penses. Ten
organizations did give us data. th~ infonnation e1jrited was tOD speci2.l.izoed and
hmHed to make prDjections or to e;...1..rapolate. but it is warth exa."T1jnlng b:iiciJy:
:;CA;'
tlCJ..P
DOll Cali~(::-:-:ia c:-e:lit
tiC;..? $-er.t':' '!'.a:: s
DC':'P ~e::,;:'r.4::/:ef~=:-al
DC;'''? ~~~i-:-.~:-, refE-:-:-a.l
DC~P pre! ~=o~::d~=
O~-~ite f6:ili~y.
$e::-.':: ::~=~. 'p:'~ ~~:: :-e~
f.:ovi~~:-s
, w~.o
:be:'le!'!..:'
5:-1'::':)
6C-O
£0
EO
25
l,; J:; -;:-~;;:) ,
1;3
65
---Ce.s-=3
l:-.!.ti~l
:1 0-, CDC
-;.5, ,,:,~, 'J
?
?
e, C:G
:. c , ':! -: ~
2,EJ
:;' ~ -, , 0"'"
l.'
0
O~;o!ng
16, c:~c
5-: O. ODO
~ ~, 0':; 0:
I, OC·~
4, COo. r~~e=:-a]
3,2C:I se;:-,::.-. .!::
::~5,~CO
S, coo
1 r:-.:'ll3..c~
1"" ... -:'1 0
.1, -; C·C
The or,Ty corr.pani"e.? L'i-J.at spend a la:ge 2.."::':..J~;' of r.J.Q:::'C)' on ch:~d ca.n~ benefits
are L'1e two that of:er on·,Site faci;;ties. 2...jd c':;;'! s!ate5 ~~2t its C:l~DtnO' costs are
zero: the ce:1t~r .'s s,!lf·supparJng. T~~ wj11;::.g,:-"ess of a ca~~'p::l."y to'='spenj
money on benei;ts is not clrecily related to 2 .. -'1)" p2.r"'Jcu1ar Ch2.r2cteiistic. Tr,e.
companies rang:ed in size rrom ] 5 em;Jloyees to 4900 [211 but one had more
than 100 e:rnp]oyees). of whom 20% to 70Sb ·were female.
Getting Started
Respondents ",:ere asked to enume'2te t..1e factors that rnotl· .. ·ated th-em tei oi:er
child care benefi~s. The question \':2.S purposely open-ended so L1at
respondents would not feel constrained by a list. The i.T'.:teni~wer's form ga..-e
fourteen possible responses Ll-.!~t tIle in!eniewer could check; there was also a..,
R oL'1er" cholce. Of the 35 crganiz3Uc:is offering benefits. 27 gave a response
other than Rdon·t L"1o\;:." Ma...,y in!E:Iiie\\;ees ga: .. e multiple respor.ses.
The responses C2.i"'1 be dl'\1ded broadly !nto L"1ree grouDs: factors oriented
toward Ll--:le: compa.,,)"s image tiJ ou!siders fim2ge. mecJaJ. factors t11at caneem
the management of the organizatjon (ge;)eraJ eC..Jnomic we.u·being. compeLtive
advantage). ana factors that pertain GlrectJy tG tbe happ!ness of the employee:
rernp!oyee interest, morale). The .inten"'ie\·:ers t)'P1caHy gave responses from L1.e
third group. suggesti:1g that tile comp.2....~y·5 i:::~er.tion was to satisfy its
employees.
f •
-
II
E:mployee satisfacUon concerns:
Employee interest --23 me:1UD:15
Morale --14 ment,jons
Cost effectiveness a ... d producU\it}':
.P.ecrujtment -~ 11 men'UO:1S
Reter.Co:1 -~ 9 mentions
Redl,;;cing absenteets!:1 --7 mentJons
lncreasing p.-oductJnry -~ 6 rne:rtlons
Strengthening finances --5 rnenuoDS
Reducing tard::ness - 2 rner:,tion5
E;",:ternaJ conceI&1s:
lmage --4 rnentJo:1s
CarnpeUtion ~~ 3 mentiDns
Union pressure --1 mention
--.-'_-
There was a direct relationship ben,,'een L~e n-umbr:::r of reasons no~ed and the
number ofbenenls offered, lntenie\.,:ees wiL'\., .. IT.t:hiple respcns~s generall),
represented organizaUons t.:';at offered a variety of child-care related benellts,
Those inteniewees L'1at respo.:Jded "don't k..-.o;,""~ to the question typically
'\':orked in organ.izations that offered very li;nited be.:1efits not direcuy related 1:1
child C2.;'e (part'-:'irne schedules. for e...xa.'7Jp!~),
W"hcn 2!:-~:cd ... ·.-hlch person (or peo.?;e-) in tr.e c,rga..."'"'Il.l.aUo:-1 had tak~.,
responslbllity for initiating and LJJp!eme.nung benefits. responses r2..;."1ged froo
t.;e empJoyee benefits depart..""nent to a management tea."'":l" TvpJcal]y. the
h-...:ma.n resources dep.e.rtment originated L"1e: c!1.i1d ca..re ber:;e!'its pla."'1. The:
responsible people:
Person mentioned
DirectDr c.f hUr:1an resources
CEO
Forrno..l employee grou;>
Inform2.1 e~ployee group
r..-l..l.."T.ber of H:-nes rner:t!oned
14
8
4
4
There appeared 10 be no relatio.-1s;'Jp bet\.l.'een the role of L'1e instJg2.tor a.r..d the
type ofbenenls offered.
Obstacles
\\1;at prevented empioyers from offe.rL"1g more ber:efits? .. .eJl 5': 1n~ef\ie\\"ees
were As~~ed to respond to L"ls questJcn. Unsurpns:,'1gTy. 27 mentioned that
cost ,~'a5 a key factor. alL"1ough 19 of the 27 were offer.i~g benef;,:.s nonethe~ess"
Ten said that employee Interest \1,,'a5 ir..J.dequ.ate. includ,ng five t...:.a~ currently
pro\'idc benefits. SmaJl orga.ntzations often added t:r::at none of Ll'"Je!r employces
had srr,ali C!1ifdren, Two {boLh ofwhom cur.en:J./ c~fer be!"1efits) me .. t.ioned
-
12
liability fears. Three others a..:luded to a lack of information .2':>out poss!ble
benefits.
Management Planning
\V"'neth~r or not they offer child care benefits, iDany organizations a:e acuvek if:!
the btnefils arena. Four of those who do not C'u:-rentJy offEr chl1d ca:e b-ene~ts
hav~ had management discussions rega!'d1.ng: child care issues.
A.'"TlO:1g the 35 orga...,'.zations that cur.ently pro\1de chlld care ben-e:'lts:
1\~meteen have had :nanagel":)ent cliscusslons of chnd caJe Issues.
One organization plans 2: management discussion In the future.
Tv.·eIv~ state that they have surve .... ed employees a~out child care.
Three others are considenn-=-cO!"lducti.'1g such a survey.
Thirteen have met \",,'ith employees to conSider child ca;e pro~!er:1s.
1\.1;0 others are considering meeUng With employees.
St.'\( ha .... e actually requested proposals from a chHd care pro\"\:der.
Three ot."'ters a:-e t..'i-J.inking about n::quesli.'''lg proposals"
l'v,:o --one a current pro\ider of benefas. one a nan-pro~,ider -
noted that t1"~e.r had disco:1Unu-ed one ofL1-]eir benefits C:::ue to lack
of interest.
A fma! questJon en the sur--ey as.~ed \'-":-Jet.1er the resPQr..dent would be
inteTested in seeing Ll-".e ACT/Child C2...-e Coordinator employee needs
assessment su!"vey. Nearly all 5'; respondents stated L~2.t t.lJ.ey would like to
ha',:e a copy of the inst.rument. "
-
'3
THE FUTVRE
or the ] 9 respondents who do nDt cwr:-er:.!Jy crie.r be:lef:t5. none plan to o~feT
benefjts !n th~ forese.eable future. Fully half·-18 c!' 35 --orgarliza~ons that
currently ofhr be;-eEts plan tD e.>,:pa.."':ld 'L ...... elr oITerL"1gs L~ t.."I)e future:
Ten are consid-eri.1g cfferill..$ a..'1 informaUo:1 a..~d re!"erra1 5~n"!ce
Six, ra."1g!ng In size from 2.:-to 2200 ernpioyees. a:-e cDr.s~deti.ng ~'1
on-site Ehiid-care center
SiX want to add a DC.'\P pla.n
SL"( are looking i:n!o ca.fet~n:a plans
Five are in\,estisating a payr.' .. ent "",oucher system
Five want to ofler a .... oluntary redu.:ed time cpti()n
Four pla.'"1 to tnharlce 'their pa.:-entaJ leave progr2.rn
Four a:e thinking about a p:-eierred prm.ide,: prcgra.-:1
Four \ ..... m e:\--pand their job-shanng activities
Recommendations for future acth'ities
1. Rather th~1 tI)ing to m~}~et ch~ld care benents to D;ganiz~:.ions t.'":lat a:e not
currently interested, cOr'.centrate. on orga..T1uaUr:':"lS that do s'...,;p~c.-t chl]d ca:e.
Other organizations will fD1I0\\.' 5'..1:t when t...~eir employees or person.nel staff
(responding to L""ltemaJ aT"Ja e:.,1enTa] pressu:;-es; demarnj benefits, Focus on
increasing the scope of ofttri=-lgS a..-rn':}':g CUTTe:i:t p;-G\'ider5 of herl-:fits.
2, Conccn:rate en larger orgaJ'.izatJo."1s. as they 2.I'e most l:i" .. e;y 10 cons:~er
offering benefits.
3. The \'3Mations in uS2ge sug;est L>-:Jat SDme c:c.:n;:anies CD 1"'.:.1 2cequa:e)y
public:z.e benefits. S~pport their eiforts to prCirr:.:..;lgate L"1!G:-r:l:='~:'" a:'c·.;t
Oe>1l?flts. pa.."""Uc-ul2.Ily in O'ga.-.iz2.!.:ian5 that .:.re <r:'Jre L"r-:Ja.n. 50",':1 :e.:-r:ale.
4. \,'ork to educate emp]oyees, 25 e,T.p1cyee i..t::-rest is a FTi..--;,e :i'l;,:''';'.-atc,r d
benefits. Perhaps oS-jeT 2...'1 C:1-sJte employee selT.~:-:2.r kH l5~r:-ji:;2.rS pres=n:ed ty
Cty of Palo AJtO ChIld Care COO~Girlat'.Jr·s Off:ce) &.2:.t discusses c()mITl':.l'~ity
op~ons for care, tax 12.,';5. e~c.
5. PubJiciL.e !..r.e acU'"ities of the organizatiDns that e..-vlibit e.. ... :cr:::plary bE'.~a\i,:,~
in L\..je area of ch!ld care benefits.
6. Give organizations comprehensive descnpUons 2-""1d o.naJyses of a·.-aJJab!e
benefJts and their costs. This r::Jay h~lp eradIcate: the fear 2J1d !gr:orance u-,?,t
s.eem to prevent SOme org2..'1iz2.tions from offering cr eA-pa.71G:n,5 benen.ts.
7, Create a gUidellJ1.:S pad~2.ge for companies .tJ:at let~ L"1~m f',aluzte di:'ferent
benefits and dete:-mme whJeh are best fer thc:u-org2.IllZ3Uon.
•
( .•.. \' J ,
'..I
I
d
j •
-
1 \:1 ERY IEh"ER
E'Tployer Survey on Child ca::~ ~...neEi~_s
Inter-..;lN Guide
(N01'E to intervif!"lol'er: i tal i ("s are used for sentences. ph="i'l'5e.s, 0:-wards t.b.a't. you speak)_
Hello_ My 1"'..an1e i.s I am workihg I.I:ith the Child ca"e Coord.i:latcr foe the Cit}
ot hIe Al to. roue-~y r..as .been .5el~ed to be part of a ~'.Xo'ey tl-.at thf1 Ci ty is
cocducting. All into.n;ation you give us ori.ll .be confidential. and WI!' ~ll git."t! you a COf
of t!le 1n1.rVCy results :if yeN. vanta The survey takes frem 5-tD mi.., ... tes to carplete . ....;e..-
f • t -? (re.sehedul e as necessary)
~yN~: _________________________________ _
Addr""s: _________________ _
Tnte~ewee name; _________________________ _
Title; ________________________________________ _
1. Does your company currently offer a~y child ca~ ~etits?
yes ___ { go to '2) No ____ ' go to #7)
2. I am going to read you a hst of child carl!' he'lef.it.s:. Please identify the on~ tba.t
your company offers_ (If interviewee inCicat~ that c~~y offers any of the benefits.
ask ~~t utilization. subsidy, and eligibility_ Circle ~esporses or write ~ Losyers Q!
appropriate.)
BDiEFITS
On-site facility
Dependent care
assistance plan
Infoqnatim 6i
~erral s:!'rnces
Who provides? _______ ___
Leaves of abse:nce
(p.arental leave)
HOIJ long'? __ __
,
,
- 1 -
CIMPM'Y I<HQ IS ELIGIBLE?
S!JBSI:DY
full for IorhaTI? ___ _
partia.l
not at all
full pay
partial
no pay
tor whan? ___ _
for ~~? _____ _
10: whcm? __ ~~7
(male & f~le?)
-
~lIe to care foe , for: • ... h(]"!'1:" ____
sick f~~ll members
"')mOnt vDuc:.~el'S \ full for whan?
partial
n:pJoyee seninars , full for ""·ban? ____
PMtial
not .at alI
FleKtilre , tor ;.mCf'] 7 ____
Pern'lii!J'lGlt part tine , for wnan?
Cafeteria benefits , [oc ...... h~?
F'" .... "laf:Icia I support to , (of e'Tl='1 oye.:::.s.1 !c-l' W[JO':l?
preferred providers
R-ei1T'burse-ne;-.t \ full fer 'l.TI.:r;;?
/l.CCOtJTlts partial
not at all
Job shadng , for "'han:
Voluntary red-.;ceod tiIre , for ... .r..cm? ___
Other , luI J for ""han?
partial
not at all
3.Who 'WaS
not r~;
are3:~ }
the instigator/decision r:ake!" en the current cr..ild' care' benefit offerings?
if instigator ar~ deeisicn maker ~ere differ~~t. note both ir. apprcpciate
em
Formal enployee grO'..IP
0ni<Xl
Ht.nan Resources Di rector
In! omsl erpI oy~ group other ______ _
•
4. wr.ich were the !1DSt ir.'portant factors inv",lved in this decision? (do not re..aQ list)
Recru.i tJrI!!Slt
Employee interest
Absenteeism
Opened ne'l.l bui ldin9
Executive interest
Publi c irTage
General ecan.c::tnic
Doesn ~ t know
• 2 -
Houle
Media
COTpetj ti on
"'.i'urr1.cver
Tardiness
Union derra..'"ld
Productivity
~'-------------------
(0<
-
(If no fundl.nq, r-~d .sa a .. :"ld: skip to question t7)
Sa. How does your CO'l'parly fU!'ld the-be...'1efits? (pr-crrpt ;open-ended)
$b. Hcw l"IUny years "'''ill the -=cnpany continue to f'Jfld at this level? __
6 .. Would you mind giving us serre i:-:tc.rrtE:tion 0.'"1 costs --r-~r that e"erytr..ing }'~U te)
us LIllI be str;clly confidential?
Stac: up c~ts $ ___ __
;.nnuaI operating costs $ ___ _
other contributions:
Resource and ref~t'":-al
~e:nt fr~ s,P<:iI ceo
Maintenance
Assi$t in bilJin9, budget other ______________ __
Future Child car~ Benefiis
$_-
$_---$ __
$_---
$_-
7. Is tberl!!' any reason that JOU know of that has prevented yOU!'" c::r.pany f=-ar:
C!dd.itlcn.aI clUld car!!! benefits? {Dc ... ot read the hst. 'Th.i..s que..stion should
unprompted re3pOI"...se .. )
cost
Liability
Impendinlil lS'gi5latirJn
Lack of information
Inconsist@'nt with
company pract.ices
Lack of emplo1~
interest
~er (please spe(ify)
.offering
evoke an
$. %s your ~y eurrentIy considering e.xp.anding the lange of child care benefi ts
offered in the next yea.?
yes No
3
•
I .. "'ill r-ead you a list of duld care benefits, ple.ase indica.te .... hether yaur cmpany is
C'cm.sider-ing eM:ch service and how ext.ensive .J subsidy ..... :ill be cUe-red: .. ConMerin;
Benefi.!
On-site child ca=e
Dependent care ~istance
rnfomation s. Referral
servic=s
LeO! yes "t ab.s ence
(parenta.l lea ... 'e)
Sick leave to care for f~jly membe~s
F'lexti.rte
cafeteri~ benefits
Company
Subsidy
Full
Pat"tisJ
None
Fuli
Partial
None
Full s"lla=y
F actial sa: ar 'j
No sal~r-y
Full
Fart.ia..1
Full
Parti3l
,cc::e
Financial support to prefe~red providers
30b sharing
Vol uctary reduced tiJre
Other (please specify)
-4 -
Full
Partial
Hone
Full
Partial
Nane
:' J
1 ,
U , ; . , ,
~ i
9. W1Uch of the follos-ring activities r.a'<ie occurred' at your C't.n;::"".r.y? (If nco a!lk: :!!. tht!y
ue ccnside:.-mr; it)
Meetings ~th E!fI'f?loyees to consider
child care-re!att:-:i problens
Req-..rested proposajs frem a child
em ......... "';"',.1
Managa:r:2l1 t di SC" ...lSSl on.s rega niing
child eat'"e i!sues
Initiated a child care benefit, ~ut
dropped it:
.l1ppointa:i s~one within yowr c07panY
to .handle child care issues
N~ __________________ __
~phies
Yes No, No
but
consider-L"':l ;-
That '05 the end of the survey! CDl.:ld you give me a little in!crr.-ation about your cmpany:
10. HOl.' trany B'l'J-loyee.s do you -"~ve in ?aID Alto?
lJ. ~t ~rcent of errployees are rrsnagers'?
12. H04J .rTWly [male SlPJoyee.s do you have?
13. 'What perC'eZ1t of f.enale Ef!Ployees are IT'S.1lagers?
14. Anyt.hi.ng ycu~d like to add? Any e.::nment..s about child care servj~?
25. Would you lLke oil copy of the SW'Vey r~ults? YES NO
16. role-have-developed a needs a.ssessnent .survey fer mploye!'s to use wjtb their eYployee:
Would you be interest~ in using it to SU •• ''''Vey your frItll()y~? (H yes, add:: I'll ge-t back
to you .in the near-futuz-e.)
_ rro l't:Il PAR'l'IcrPATII«:l IN mrs =.
-S -
" "' ,
ATTACHMENT 3
EMPLOYEE/COMMUNITY CHlLD CARE I'<"EEDS ASSESSME."IT REPORT
BY
DA VID F. MARTIN
CHlLD CARE COORDL'iATOR
CITY OF PALO ALTO
· " .
I.
IF.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFAce ••.•....•...•••..••..•..••.. 1
METHODOLOGY " ..•••..•..••..•.•.• " 2
10. SUMMARY. • . • . . • . • • . • • . • • . • • . . • . • . •. 3
IV. NARRA Tl'l£ •.•••..•...•.•..•••...•.•. 5
V. RECOMMENOA TlONS ..•....••.•.•.•.•.• 9
... " .
I.
I
-
-'". -
PREFACE
This report summarizes the r~sylts of the City of Palo Alto's Child
Care Employe./coEmunity _ •• da ABseasment, conducted in the spri~g of
~990~ The objective of the survey .... as to qather info:t""U\C;.~ion from
employees of Palo Al to-ba.sed firms .and the c02:Utlu1'li ty in general
reqarc!inq their child care needs. Addition.al objectives included.
ascertaining the problems e~ployees e.ncounter in ceveloping child care
service delivery plans for their children, hoW' employer.·s assist in
this need and what further steps should be taken by various parties to
make this process an easier one. Also measured .. as the productivity
factor of workers with child care problems, ~hat types of care are
being utilized by the employee pop~lationf satisfaction rate of the
current ~sages what benefits are offered by employers and hoW many
~orker5 utilize s~id benefits.
The Palo Alto city C-':)uncil approved the Child Care Master Plan in
December of 1983~ Among other things, the plan. calls for the City's
Child Care Coordinator Office to conduct a comprehensive child care
needs assessment. Two ele~ent~, the Cbild C.re provi4er Survey and the
Baployor Chi14 Care Ne.es Assessment, have been completed and
published. This survey represents the final component in the needs
assessment package.
It is the city's hope that the results of these assessments wi] 1
provide a clear direction of how best to proceea to increase supply,
maintain affordability and promote the quality of child care
operations in the Palo Alto area~ Recommendations will follow tne
release of the comprehensive report _hich will be designed to solve
the major problem areas defined in the findings.
The City Child Cctre Coordine.t:or wculd like to thank the
corporations/firms ~bo allowed us access to thei~ employees s the Haas
Ce~ter for Public service a~ Stanford fo~ partially funding the intern
position to assist in this endeavor, and the Child Care Task Force for
partially funding the intern position out of the Child Care Trust Fund
Account.
David F. Martin
Child Ca~e Coordinator
City of Palo Alto
1
Jennifer Watanabe
Coordinator Intern
ll.
-
. -
METHODOLOGY
surveys were sen~ to the S4 firms who took part in phase two of cur
project., the Employer li •• ~. Asses:!!Imeat Btud:y. At the tillle of the
second survey, rep:z:·esentatives of the various firms .. ere asked. if they
wo'Uld allow ttieir employees to be inc14ded in phase three of the
project., an zaploy •• ,comaunity Chil~ Care Nee4s Ass.s8ment.
Other firms who vere ~nable to take part in the earlier projeo~w~re
also S£L"lt forms for their employ[:e's use and many of them responded as
well. In addition, anyone who con'cacted the State-funded Child care
Resource' Referral Agency in santa Clar!. county ..... ithin the past year
regarding a child care need who either lived or worked in Palo Alto
was also sent a survey form.
We received a total of 16.28 cOlZlpleted questionnaires. 'While we
understand that to complete a scie.:-ititically valid community needs
assessment .e should query everyone .... ho lives or \f{.")rks in Palo Alto,
we are comfortable with our characterization of these findings as a
beneficial tool in measuring the st~te of child care in our community.
2
• •
il ~
"t ~I
'1
I
I
I
\
IDo
-
SUMMARY
Ao I!J:GIlLIQIlTI ~ 'tlUI FIlIbIBGS.
1. pemographi x pata
Employees between the age of 19 and 45: 79%
Employee5 working locally: 92\
~ployees rep~esenti~q 2 adult households: 72%
Elaployae Households representi!'lg dual incomes: 64%
Employees representing tyll-time work stat~s: 'It
2. Chi!d Care Need
Employees currently needing child care: 40\
Employees (who need child care) ~equirinq F.T~ Programs: 83t
3. Type of Child Care Used
Employees usinq licensed child care facilities: '8%
Employees who provide the care themselvest 15\
Employees who use relatives { not including parents): 13\
Employees who use sitters in home: 12%
BREAKDOWN BY hGE CATEGORY
Infants using licensed child ca~e:
Preschoolers using licensed care:
School-aqers using licensed care:
34%
sH
57\
4. satiafactioD Rate
50
Employees satisfied wj,th current arrangements: 82%
REASONS FOR-2rnATI5FACT!ON OF REMAINING 1.2\
High cost of care: 2Jt
Location less than adequate: 21%
perceived Lack of Program Quality: 21\
Employer-Related child Care !s~
Employees who missed work or were late due to child care
problem£;: J:srr.
Employees who missed work due a child's illness: 48%.
Employees who missed work due to child care arrangements
taIling through: 55"
Employees facing work disruption due to child care related
pr-oblelnS: 4'\-
• At le.8t on. to tID times annually
3
-
" "
E. Sick Chi let Care tJsag~
Employee,s who .... ouid use a sick child care center: 55\:
Employees 'Who wO'.lld USe if employer suhsidiz.ed sick care: 68%
7. Child Care aen~fits Offered By Employers
Dependent Ca.re. A,$sista:'l:ce Plan {DCAP): '8%
on-site or Near-Site child Care Facility: 11%
Flexible Spending Plans/Reimbursement ACcOllnts; t\
Financial Support/Enhanced Referral Programs: 7%
8. Child Care Be.nefits Used By Employees
Employee.s utilizinq Financial Support from Employers: 42%
Employees utili!inq Reimbursement Accounts: 35\
Employees ~tilizing Flexible Spending Plans; 32%
Employees utilizing DCA?; 31\
Employees utilizing-an et:tployer-supported c.c. site: 26\
Employees utilizing an Enharlced Referral Program: 13%
4
----. f
L' -.... ' ----
. " .
,~ IV, NARRATIVE
I
!
I
\
S i
-
11 J)D.OGlIAPKI C PIlO!'ILE
2)
(Be.cause some questions were unans\,;fered and SOZl!g results tl.>O
small to meBsure, p~rcentages will not al~ays equal 100%)
7" of the respondents 'Were be.twee.n the ages of 18 and: 4~. Of
those~ 44\ were female. A stronq percentage, as one can see, were
of child-be~rinq age. The respondents 'Were .... ell-educated in
~eneral, 'With 84' having attended college and 33% havinq reached a graduate level education. 92% were e:rnployed locally; 47\
classified the.mselves as managoers or professionals and 25\ as
clerico!Il or secretarial staff ~ 40% of all Households earned
between $40,000 and $75,000 annually, 32\ were above $75,000 and
2(Ht: 'Were between $25,000 and $40,000. 72% represented. 2 adult
households and 64' of those had dual incomes~ FUll-time
emploJll:tent 'Was the norm. as 91% of the responder.ts fit that
category. Civen that the majority of households represented in
this survey contain 2 full-time working adults, it is not
surprising that the pressing need for child care exists at the
level indicated in the forthcoming section.
The responses .represent parents of 1512 children {3&' school
agei31% pre-schooli23\ infants). 1628 workers or residents
responded. 40% of Palo Alto employees surveyed stated a current
need for child C3~e. This includes responses from parents who
currently have arrangements and are searching for other options
as well ae parents who have no child care arrangements but are in
neea. Almost 40\: curr-ently have some type of arrangement~ '93\
stated a need for traditional Monday-Friday care 'With 6%
indicatinq a need tor weekend provision. 83% stated t.;'at they
needed child care full-day. This stat also reflects the need for
before and after school care provision .for school-age children.
15\ are in need of afternoon care only While a s:mall
percentage(2%) need morning car~ only~
3) !l'rI'B OF CHILI> CARE CSED
i
Almost one-half of the 1512 children represented were in licensed
child care programs at the time of the survey(4S%) . This includes
centers and nursery schools (35%) and family day care homes(13").
Of the remaininq 52", parents accounted for 15% of the proviSion,
relatives (not including parents) merited 12% of the coverage
dutYI and a sitter in the home made up 12' o~ the responses. The
remaining 13\: cited "other" for their child care provision.
EXamples include unlicensed day care, nannies and au pairs, drop
in recreational programs,Nbabysittinq-out of home, friends and
neighbors.
5
'~-'-
f
ay aqe group, ... e found that for iaf"ants there ..... as <1:::"1. £,:ven
distribution of use bet\Ween day care hOI'Jes and t';enters (17% each
for a total of 34\ f~r lieeDse~ car. usaq.)~ The re~aining 57\
'Was split among par.enr.al ::are, sitters in home and relatives.
For pre-_chool.rM, 55% 'Were using Ucensed child car-e, with the
'" residue split among sitters, parents and relatives." For
8ehool-aqer8 1 32% said that the school or city child care program
at school served ~~eir needs. 25\ cited cthe~ licensed
programming with the ~emaining 35% using parents, relatives and
sitters in that descending order.
II SATISFACTION RATE OP CaILD CARE USED
out of the 1083 respons~s to the satisfaction question, only 18%
'Were "not satisfied" or were t!very dissatisfied-with their
arranqements(20\ School-Age, 18\ Infant and 16\ Preschool) .
Interestingly enough, in addition to parents citing reasons for
why they were dissatisfied I -We found than many -who had ind.icated
a hiqh level of satisfaction still cited problems with their
current situation. Of the 209 total respo~ses regarding
dissatisfaction, 23\ cited the high cost of cdre, 21% deemed the
location less than adequate{i~e., too far from work, off the
commute path) and 21\ stated th~ program lacked quality~ The
remaining )5% who were less than satisfied. stated various other
reasons, including inflexible hours of operation, a,]e
appropriateness of activities, frustration from spouse's
inability to work because of child care arrangement, and minimal
staff-child ratios.
71 EKPLOYER-kELATED CaILD CARE ISSUES
, ',,!>' ~,f , ' _'
~2~_.J~{}:'~~ ~~ 1 ',( ---f.\ ):.~"
-
.-,!,
;:;-
Employees ",ere asked a series of questions related to f;Cm:Jl]ute
paths, absenteeism, tardiness, ~ork interruptions and levels of
employer support regarding child care. 23% cf the 1628
respondents st.ated that they commuted over 20 miles each ""ay to
~; 50\ said th~ir commute vas over S but less than 20 and 27\
live ... ithin 5 miles of their work locale, For the people ... 'ho
commute over 20 miles each way, only" use child care near work.
That figure appreciably rises as the co~ute path lessens.
In terms of absenteeism/tardiness caused by child care-related
problems, 31.\ saie: they had missed • ... ·-:>rk or were tardy between 1
And 10 times annually. 5' said they ~ere absent or late ov~r-1Q
~ annually.
In addition, employees 'Were asked if they had missed work or ~ere
late because of a sick child. 43\ said they had missed vork or
were late between 1 and 10 tiT.1es annually due to child illness,
while 5\ said their work schedules were impacted. negatively over
10 times annually.
l ,.
I c' ,
-.
"'---
.' '. ~
I
I
I ,
!
I
-
.)
')
,.-,---
12' stated that tbey were faced vith a ~k Qr cl~jL&,hild c~~
~r9vider from time to time. 55\ of those missed work to tak6 ~are
of the child themselves; ~lt used spouses or relatives; 16' ~sed
II back-up proqram~' S\ had "thr~ir ch ild stay hot:le Alone and 1% used
other options(i.e., brought child, to ~ork etc.J
.oax INTERRUPTIONS PU! ~O CHILD CARE-RELATED PROBLEKB
• or the 824 respor.ses to this question, 51\ st:ated that they
experienced no worlt. interx'uptions due to child care-related
problems; 47% stated that they had their work interrupted between
1 And 10 times e:nnually and 2\: stated that their work had
suffered on ~An 10 occasio~s due to child care situations.
SXCK CHILD CARB OSAGE
5" ot those vho responded yould use a child care center designed
for the ca.re of sick children if it was available, while 4-4%
voula not. Hovsver. ir a sick child care center was partially
subsidited by the respondent's e:rnployer, tist would use it and
only 32' would not. These perc~ntages do not include the answers
-maybe,w "possibly~ and -it depe~ds~M It is important to note
here that many people qave these responses and therefore are
interested in a sick child care center, but are hesitant to use
one without further investigation.
10) CHIld) CAIll: BIllIUITS CORREN'l'LY OFFERED
r 7
All respondents were questioned as to the current child care
benefit packages available to them through their employers. From
398 responses, We were able to categorize 9 types of benefits,
not includinq an "other" category which grouped together so~e
miscellaneous benefits. The pepeodent Care Assistapce Program
CpcAPl wa~, by far, the most offered benefit garnerinq ~.\ of the
possible options. on-site or n,e.ar-site child care facilitlli
were available for 11\ of the respondents. Flexible Spending
Plans. Reimbursement ACyoynts, and "other" were each cited by"
of the employees. Examples of ~other" incluoed flexible
schedulinq and ·understanding employer.-Financial support and
er~aoced referral were each listed in 7\ of the
responses.Brinqinq up the bottom of the list at 1955 than ~t were
the followinq: Parental Leave, Personal Leave for Sick ~1dren
and Payment Vo~.
It appears that employers seem to favor child care benefits ~hich
focus on financial concerns (i.e., DC-AP, flexible spending plans)
while disregarding the benefits which would enable parents to
care for their children themselves (i.e., parental leave,
personal leave fOr sick children et al.
7
c-
!
'.,
~11 CHILD CARB BEBEYITS CURRENTLY USED
42' ~f all employees ~ho li~~ed financial support as a benefit
of.t~r,;ad by their reJ;pective companies use it. :1:5% of those
offered rei~ursemant accounts wse it. Flexible spending plans
were used by 32% of tilose o.f.fered one. 31\ of all e:mploJ'e~ 'Who
were offered a DeAP plan use it~ 26' of all employees who had on
or near-site child care center use it. Enhanced referral was
taken llQVantaqe of by 13% of all employees. Finally, less thdn
1% use parental leave and payment vouchers if offered to them.
-Money-oriented-benefits seem to be more popular with employe~s
than ~time oft-benefits. This may he beca~se parents simply
cannot afford to take time cff from 'Work even though it is
.approved-, If they a~e not earning money ~hile taking parental
leave, then this option ~ay not be realisti~ for them.
Unfortunately. many people ~ere unable to answer whether or not
their eMployer ot.fered any child care benefits. They were either
unaware if any benefits ~ere offered or if they did think that
some benefit was offered they were unsure specifically as to what
it was. FUrther, many people stated that they knew that a certain
:benefit was offered put that infonr,atiCin as to he.. to take
advantage of it Was lacking. For instance, many employees
indicated that although DCAP Was Offered, they were not
adequately informed of the mandatory meeting to sign up for the
benefit or ot the deadline tor application. It seems that
communication needs to improve if e~ployers and employees are to
enjoy the advantages: of employer-suppor-ted child care benefits.
It must also be noted that the usage percentages appear higher
than national child care berLefi t usage figures. It can only be
sp~culated that this occurred because these percentages are based
on responses from employees who indicated knowledge of certain
child care benefits offered by their respective companies. As
stated previously, many other employees were unaware of whether
any benefits 'Were offered. Er.ployees ... ·h~ are knowledgeable about
child care benefit offerings may have found out about the
availability or pUGhed for the enactment of said benefits due to
their more pressing child care needs. These employees would be
more likely to use the benefits offered. Hence, if there is a
positive correlation ~tween awareness and usage, thp.n the above
percentages could be inflated ~hen viewed as an ind.icator of
child care benefit usage among ~he general employee population as
employees without a child care need lrIay have disr-egarded thil!:
survey instrument.
8
~"-.-.
I "L' I '
-
,
I
~)!
' ...
. ' '. ~
v.
-
. ----. -,.' ........ ..
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Develop additional fund -'9"
Department of Educati~n
including local employers~
partners to assist the City ~nd State
in o!te~ing child care subsidies,
2. Deve:lop inforMation cHssemination campaign to a.19rt employers
abou~ the cost-effective nature of providing child care ~nefits
to their ~ployees4
3~ EXplore a city child care mitigation plan where~y local
businesses establishing ne", or expanded facilities ascertain
increased ohild care need and recommend methods to address that
additional need.
4. .Develop "Child Care Languaqel't for inclusion into the City's
General Plan in order to allow mitigation efforts to proceed as
nev or ranovation projects come under Planning review.
54 Inion busine.sses of Californ~a tax credits availi!ble (Rart-
5.8.722) for development of facilities and sllbsidizing 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,
bj expansion of DCAP Program to public safety Personnel
c) Explore Paid Parental Leave Options for employees
experie~cinq the birth of a child, adoption of a child and
lon9-te~ illness of a child.
dj Develop a downtown c.c. facility that City employees can
utilize in concert with other local busin9sses.
7. Establish employer-supported consortium-financed child care
facilities in three k~y geographic regions:
a) Downto'Wn
b) Page Mill & El Camino Corridor
c) Stanford Business Park Area
S. Support efforts by area employers in promulqating information
about child care be.ne.fits to their employees as variations in
usage s~9gest inadequate publicity/outreach.
9~ Assist businesses with the development of postpartl.lll1 par-ental
leave policies to help alleviate the infant Care shortage.
10. Develo~ an in-kind contribution nbank~ ~hereby corporations may
donate excess goods and/or services to child care programs in
need (paper supplies, accounting/legal services, etc.)~
il~ Determine to what extent the lack of child care facilities near
emplo)tees workplace exacerbate the commute problems and inhibit
families from suggested car-pooling and alternative transit
options.
9
L
'.
-
.---"""
Dear Parent:
You can help improve chilO' care services in Pa!C'l Ar'to by !aking a few minutes to complete
this survey. AJT responses will be strictiy confidentiaL
1. Demog:i!phic Data
What is yi;U1 age?
What ,s your s&..-7
16-24 0
fem.<be 0
2,-34 0
mare 0
What was your f-.ighest (eve! of 6duc~t;O""1 Elemental)'
College
Whal is the zip code 01 your home1 _____ _
How marly adlJlts live in your fJousehcld? __ _
35-44 0
o o
WOt"kf ______ _
How many aduft. in yow ttousehOld are in tfle paid wOIkktrce? _____ _
Whil't is yWr fob status?
flJn-rime 0 pat1-time {with benefits) 0 part-time (no benefits1
If marne<!, -Nhat is your spoUS&'S job stafus?
o o
fun -tirM' 0 part-time (wilh benefrts) 0 part-time (no benefits) 0 not in paid wo:1c: force 0
How far do you trall8lto work'?
Under 000 mile 0 1-5 miles 0 5-20 m~es 0 over 20 miles 0
Are you salaried 0 Or hourly 01
.... ",a' type or work do you do?
Managerfpt'o'ession.al 0
~sttechnica1 SLJPpo.1 0
Productk>nloperations
Administrati ... e support
Wi'Jat is the appronmate anfl'.Ja/ gress income of your hou:;ehoJd?
o o
U1lde< $25,000 0 525.00140,000 0 $40.001-7>.000 0
2. Curre;lt Child Care Needs
Dc you cutremly r.eed child care? yes 0
Are you currentty using chflQ C~? yes 0
no 0
noD
~7S,OOO '0
Please incficale the number of children you ij/e responsible lor in each cat~'Jry-:
Infant (\.lI"Idef 2) __ Preschool {2·5 yearS") __ School-age [6-13 ye.arS) __
What type(s) of care ate you cUlrenll), ~sing?
;c.
Child(ren)'s Parent
Relative
Babysitter .in homoe
licensed family day C21'6
Day care center
Schoo!
Cty program al schoo
eMo'
W"lfanl Preschool
[J 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0
Schoof-age
o o o o o o o o
Palo Alto Child Care Employe. Survey . Page ,
'L
i
I
\
I
I
If 001. in your home, mw far ~ home?
~"""rn<1. 0 1·5 miles 0 5-20 m~feS 0 ovsr 20 m»e~ 0
How fill from worlc?
Und8f one mil! 0 ,·5 miles 0 5-20 miles 0 over .20 miles 0
no 0
What would be /he ido.llocaliOn to< your CiUO provi(ier, __________ _
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Not satisfiad
Vary dissatisfl$d
Infa. .... t
o o o o
If you we dissstis6ed. pIe~se explain why:
Sunday -y
Tuesday
Wedr.esday
Tt1urSda~
Friday
Saturday
Preschool o o o o
Schooi-age
o o o o
3. Cost of Qwld Care
-
-
$0
$1-100
$101-250
$251-400
S4l>HiOO
$601-800
$801 +
Infant
o o o o o o o
Prflsehool o o o o o o o
II roo use in-home care, wflat is the monrhly cosn
"L
Schoo~-age
o o o o o o o
_____ Provider 6ves in 0 or out 0
I
\
-
-_....--_.
fn ~ /itsl yea!, flow mcmy tlmes l1aV8 problems lIo'itfl cMd Coilflil arrangements caused you fo be iale-0110
miss worJi1 None 0 I·~O 0 Mare ~ 10 0
In thE lasl year, f;oJl( many tlmes has a sick child causN yOO 10 00 18(9 01 /0 truss wOrk?
None 0 1-10 0 More than 10 0
Whe~ yovr r;Md f& sick, are rot:.: lhe fits: 0 or second 0 person callad7
~at do Y"Y'" do when yoc..., pto''llkrer is sIck or closed?
Take off !rom worX Child stays home a!C'nit 0 Relatives ass:sl 0
Use a ba::::k -up provider
o o Othoc _________ _
H there w~e iff sick child ce'1!er m Palo Mo, wouki you IJS9 ;n yes 0 noD
If yes, whar is oil fait daily charge? under $25 0 $2S-35 D $35-45 D
Would you use a tick c.'tdd center if your employer paid parT 01 alt of the ch;/fge 7 yes 0
$45+-0
noD
Now many ti:nes per week are you ble"Upred al work by phone Ci/flS related to yOUI chiJdterl and their care?
,.;""" 0 1,'0 D """. th." 10 D
What cfl!1d cafe benefits does your employel currently offer? Do yot.J use them?
Thank you. If your employer,gave ,you this survey. prease return this form to the
appropriate petSoil il1 your organization. Other-Nise. please send to:
David Martin
Ch~d Care Coordinator
City 01 Palo Mo
P. O. Box 10250
Palo Mo, CA 94303
Palo Alto (h;ld Care Employee Survey . Page 3 ..