HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 Child Care Needs Assessment Master Plan (2) CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 10, 1990
SUBJECT Child Care Needs Assessment And Master Plan
EXHIBITS ATTACHED Master Plan Report
RECOMMENDA ON Receive Report; determine the City's role in
. \ the provision of child care services.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT Funds for child care have not been included
in the Fiscal Year 1990-91 Budget.
DESCRIPTION At the January 23 , 1989 meeting of the Dublin
City Council, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 8-89, A
Resolution in Support of Childcare Services to Meet Existing Need and
Approving an Application for Grant Funds for Childcare Services. The
grant application, a collaborative effort between the Cities of
Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore, contained a request for $25,000 in
funding from the State Department of Education to develop a five year
regional child care master plan. The objectives for the proposed
master plan were as follows:
1 . To identify major child care issues
2. To examine governmental policies and procedures for possible
barriers to expanding child care programs
3 . To examine efforts of local employers and determine
feasibility of public/private partnerships
4. To develop recommendations for an action plan
Upon award of the grant in September of 1989, the
Livermore/Pleasanton/Dublin Child Care Task Force was established to
assist with development of the master plan. AdditioTXl-ly, a
consultant, Bay Area Economics, was hired to provide necessary data,
surveys, and resource information for the Task Force.
After nine months of work by the Livermore/Pleasanton/Dublin Child
Care Task Force, the final report has been released for review by the
City Council. The report assesses the needs and current status of the
child care system in the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin
(LPD) as well as sets forth the goals and strategies for improvement
of the child care system.
The report is divided into two distinct sections, reflecting the
process followed to create it. The first section, Needs Assessment,
presents an analysis and a summary of findings of the existing child
care system in LPD, projects current and future unmet demand for child
care, and provides information regarding the experiences of other
communities seeking to improve their own child care systems. The
second section, Master Plan, presents a set of goals and strategies
for the three cities to improve the child care system.
Needs Assessment
The LPD area has experienced substantial population and employment
growth during the past decade, putting pressure on the child care
system to grow as well. The total population has grown from 97,000 in
1980 to 130 ,000 in 1989, an increase of 34 percent. Dublin has
experienced a 70 percent increase during this period, the largest
percentage increase for the three cities.
The supply of child care spaces in LPD has increased as well during
the past four years, corresponding to the increased population growth.
At present, there are just under 5,500 licensed or license-exempt
child care spaces in LPD. Over 55 percent of the spaces are provided
by centers, and approximately 45 percent in family child care homes.
------------ -------------------------------------------- ------- ----
ITEM NO. COPIES TO: Resources For Famil y Development
9,50- 70 40
1
Estimates of demand, supply, and unmet need for child care spaces were
made for children aged zero to five and age six to 12 . For children
age five and under, estimates indicate that demand for child care
spaces is relatively balanced at present. For children age six to 12
(school age) , there is an estimated need for 800 to over 2 ,000 more
spaces in LPD at present. For the next five years, although the
number of spaces to serve zero to five year old children is projected
to continue at a relative balance between demand and supply, the need
for child care spaces serving school-aged children is projected to
increase by 260 to over 360, further highlighting the need to target
supply expansion efforts to this age group.
As part of the needs assessment, four groups of people affected by
child care were surveyed: residents of LPD, employers of LPD,
employees of companies in LPD (including non-residents working in the
area) , and child care providers in LPD.
Resident Survey: For the resident survey, 221 households in Dublin,
Livermore and Pleasanton with 389 children who either used child care
or wished to use child care were surveyed by telephone. Of the total
children covered by the responses, 279 children were using child
care, 69 children were not in child care but the respondent desired
such care for them, and 41 were children for whom no arrangements were
currently sought.
In addition to establishing basic patterns of child care and related
data, the resident survey indicated several key issues for the LPD
child care system:
® Of those surveyed, 84% rated the quality of their child care
as very satisfactory; this finding does not match the
experiences and opinions of many members of the Task Force.
Possible explanations may be that consumers do not have
enough information to accurately gauge the quality of care;
parents may have a difficult time acknowledging poor care;
or that the quality of care in the area is generally high.
• Employer child care benefits appear to be offered to a
substantial minority of the most affluent households but are
not reaching those most in need. Further, less than half of
those households offered such assistance are actually using
it, suggesting a mismatch between the type of assistance and
the employee's real needs.
a There is a strong community sentiment towards employers
providing a source of funding for child care.
Employer Survey: Ten large and ten smaller employers from Dublin,
Livermore and Pleasanton were surveyed by telephone. Limited child
care assistance is currently provided by these 20 firms. Flex-time
benefits were the most common child care assistance offered by
employers. The provision of pre-tax child care payment programs which
are available to all businesses under current tax regulations seemed
to be a confusing undertaking for many firms. Many firms expressed an
interest in doing more for their employees with respect to child care
needs, but felt the need for organizational guidance from local
government.
Employee Survey: A limited survey of the employees of five of the
smaller employers contacted for the employer survey underscores
several key attributes of the child care system for employees in the
area. Although satisfaction among system users is high, non-users
have expressed dissatisfaction with quality as a major reason for not
placing their children in child care. More than one-fourth of the
respondents received no child care benefits or assistance from
employers, and many of the respondents expressed the need for more
assistance such as flex-time and paid leave.
Provider Survey: A total of 20 providers were interviewed by
telephone, including 10 family child care home providers and 10
centers (at 21 sites) . Many problems were cited by respondents,
including lack of support in dealing with family mental health issues,
insufficient wages, lack of qualified staff, poor benefits, and high
staff turnover. Subsidies for low income families and the general
need for parent education in evaluating child care were also cited as
major concerns.
Master Plan
The LPD Child Care Master Plan Task Force believes that child care
services are vital to the future of all three cities. Current
conditions suffer from lack of state and federal funding, lack of
public agency organization, and lack of public understanding of the
relationship between child care quality and the health of the economic
base as well as the quality of life for all residents.
The following recommendations were formulated to avoid duplication of
services and activities, maximize the use of available resources, and
provide each of the three cities with a plan that can be tailored to
meet the individual city needs and circumstances. For the short term,
this approach translates into a series of expanded coordination
activities to be implemented by a selected non-profit organization
such as Resources for Family Development under contract to each local
government. In the longer term, the approach proposes creating a
permanent, on-going joint partnership between the local governments of
LPD, small and large businesses, providers, educators, and residents.
Below is a brief summary of the goals and objectives recommended in
the Master Plan. A more detailed summary is included in the report.
Goal 1: Expand the supply of general and targeted child care services
and facilities. Targeted child care services and facilities should
include subsidized care (for low income families) , infant care,
school-age care, odd-hours care, sick care, and children with special
needs and disabilities.
Objective 1.1: Conduct Community Education Program to educate and
disseminate information about the need for child
care and how to assess quality care.
Objective 1. 2: Establish Child Care Fund in order to centralize child
care financial assistance from government, private
business and non-profit foundations.
Objective 1. 3 : Create City-As-Model-Employer Programs by providing
City employees with child care benefits and assistance.
Objective 1.4 : Establish Local Government Contractor Program where
bonus points are awarded in contract bidding to firms
who provide child care programs.
Objective 1.5: Continue Assisting Providers with Licensing Process.
Objective 1.6: Leverage Funds From All Sources such as county, state
and federal agencies.
Objective 1 .7: Integrate Child Care into City Planning Process to give
child care the same status as other social services
provided by local governments.
Objective 1.8: Coordinate Service Provision and Expand the Supply of
Before-and After-School Child Care.
Goal 2: Strengthen the quality of all child care services and
facilities for both providers and families.
Objective 2.1: Conduct Community Education Program
Objective 2 . 2: Establish Child Care Fund
Objective 2 . 3 : Create Provider Recognition Program and Expand Provider
Accreditation Assistance to encourage providers to
enter and remain in the child care profession.
Objective 2.4: Coordinate Provider Educational and Training
Opportunities by pairing experienced providers with
newer ones in mentor relationships.
Objective 2 .5: Organize Pooled Purchasing Program to reduce provider
operating costs and expand the availability of health
insurance and other benefits by organizing a purchasing
pool.
Objective 2.6: Maintain Substitute Registry Program which actively
recruits substitutes, maintains a list, and fills
requests for substitutes for providers.
The Master Plan sets forth an ambitious program to improve child care
services for the Livermore/Pleasanton/Dublin area. As recommended in
the Master Plan, it is now up to each City to determine an
implementation plan that best suits the individual Cities needs.
Staff Analysis
In order to adequately address the needs of Dublin, it is necessary to
have a better understanding of the child care picture in Dublin. The
following statistics, compiled by Resources For Family Development,
reflect the current number of child care facilities and available
spaces in Dublin.
Number of Facilities
Family Homes (1-6 Children) 67
Family Homes (7-12 Children) 13
Centers 10
TOTAL FACILITIES 90
Number of Spaces
Family Homes Ages 0-2 196
Ages 2-5 224
Ages 5 + 118
Centers Ages 0-2 10
Ages 2-5 340
Ages 5 + 252
TOTAL SPACES 1,140
Capacity Vs. Need
Age Homes Centers Total Capacity Need For Care Gap
0-2 196 10 206 205 (1)
2-5 224 340 564 453 (111)
5-9 118 252 370 636 266
TOTAL 1,140 1,294 154
Dublin is consistent with the other Cities in that there is currently
a sufficient supply of spaces for children ages 0-5 but a need for
additional spaces for children ages 6 and above.
Although the City of Dublin is not directly involved in child care
either through a contract for services with Resources For Family
Development, or as a direct provider of licensed child care services,
the City does provide a preschool enrichment program for children
2 years, 9 months through 5 years, as well as afterschool and summer
playground programs for children ages 6-12 . The net program cost to
the City for these two programs in Fiscal Year 1990-91 is estimated
at $57 ,952.
Recommendation
With the current recognition of the important role child care plays in
allowing families to maintain their employment, cities across
California have become interested in what they can do to ensure the
availability of quality child care services. In the immediate area,
the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore have had contracts with
Resources For Family Development since 1984 to provide information as
well as specific child care services to their residents.
During the budget hearings for the Fiscal Year 1990-91 Budget, the
Council deferred a request for funding from Resources For Family
Development until the completion of the Master Plan. The request for
$12, 500 would fund the following services:
Core Services
1. Assist City to plan for child care needs.
a) document changes in supply/demand and turnover of child care
services.
2 . Coordinate child care resources.
a) facilitate new child care services as needed
b) prevent duplication of services
1
3 . Monitor and report on county, state and federal policies that
impact on local ability to generate funds.
a) provide summary of information to City Staff
4. Advocate for increased child care services at the national, state
and county levels.
a) inform community
Supplementary Services
1. Increase visibility of City's role in child care.
a) identify City clearly as supporting child care services by
development of a pamphlet outlining procedures to obtain a center
license
2 . Upgrade quality.
a) offer training to new and existing providers
b) provide consumer information
c) recruit, train and place child care substitutes to facilities
in Dublin
0
Therefore the City Council has two issues before them: the first
being the acceptance and possible implementation of the Master Plan;
and second, the request for funding from Resources For Family
Development.
Before making a commitment to fund either a contract with RFD or
implementation of the Master Plan, Staff believes that the City
Council needs to determine whether it is the role of local government
to provide funds for child care. If the Council supports this
concept, then it would be Staff's recommendation that the City
Council take the following action:
1. Enter into a six month contract with Resources For Family
Development based on the scope of services outlined above.
As funds were not budgeted in the FY90-91 Budget, a transfer
from the Unallocated Reserves in the amount of $6, 250 will
be necessary.
2 . Accept the Master Plan Report and direct Staff to develop an
implementation plan and cost analysis for review during the
FY91-92 Budget hearings.
If the City Council does not believe that local government should
directly fund child care services, then it is recommended that the
City Council accept the Master Plan Report and direct Staff to monitor
the provision of child care services in Dublin, reporting back to the
Council as necessary.
LIVERMORE/PLEASANTON/DUBLIN
CHILD CARE NEEDS ASSESSMENT
AND
MASTER PLAN
Prepared for:
The City of Livermore
The City of Pleasanton
The City of Dublin
Prepared by:
The Livermore/Pleasanton/Dublin
Child Care Task Force
In Association with:
Bay Area Economics
Michael Marsh
ADF Research
September 1990
6
ERRATA SHEET
LI VERMO RE/PLEASANTON/DUBLIN
CHILD CARE NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND MASTER PLAN
This update corrects certain typographical errors which Bay Area Economics regrets to have included
in the printed report. The following passages should read as follows:
Page iii(first paragraph,final sentence):
This document, the result of over nine months of work by the
Livermore/Pleasanton/Dublin Child Care Task Force, has been funded by the Cities
of Livermore,Pleasanton,and Dublin,as well as the State of California.
Page 1(second paragraph,second and third sentences):
It was initiated through the efforts of the City of Livermore, the City of Pleasanton,
and the City of Dublin, all of which allocated city funds to commission a Needs
Assessment/Master Plan as well as form a Child Care Task Force. The initial study
was expanded through additional funding provided by the State of California.
l
u
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Needs Assessment/Child Care Plan was created by the dedication, hard work, and creative
thinking of numerous organizations and individuals who are concerned about the well-being of the
children of Livermore,Pleasanton, and Dublin. We gratefully acknowledge the invaluable contribution
of each member of the Livermore/Pleasanton/Dublin Child Care Task Force, the guidance and
support provided by Ms. Miriam Miller and Ms. Ruth Fries of Resources for Family Development,and
the commitment to the future of the three communities demonstrated by the elected officials and staff
of the Cities of Livermore,Pleasanton,and Dublin.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this document is to assess the needs and current status of the child care system in the
cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin (LPD) as well as set forth the goals and strategies for
improvement of the child care system as a Master Plan. This document,the result of over nine months
of work by the Livermore/Pleasanton/Dublin Child Care Task Force, has been funded by the City of
Livermore and the State of California.
SECTION 1:NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Demographic Trends
The LPD area has experienced substantial population and employment growth during the past decade,
putting pressure on the child care system to grow as well. The total population of LPD has grown from
97,000 in 1980 to 130,000 in 1989, an increase of 34 percent (based on National Planning Data
Corporation data). Dublin has experienced the largest percentage increase for the period(70 percent),
but Pleasanton has added the most people, increasing from 35,000 in 1980 to over 50,000 in 1989. At
present, Livermore is the largest of three cities (57,000), but Pleasanton is only slightly smaller
(50,400),while Dublin is less than half as large as the other two cities(23,000).
The LPD area is characterized by a rapidly growing population base living in relatively affluent
households with a family orientation. However,households earning less than$20,000 comprise almost
14 percent of the total for the LPD area. Many workers commuted long distances outside the
immediate vicinity in 1980; this pattern is probably still occurring, and will be more fully known after
1990 Census is completed.
Current Child Care Supply
The supply of child care spaces in LPD has increased dramatically during the past four years,
corresponding to the increased population growth. Overall, 94 new facilities were added between
December 1986 and February 1990 according to RFD, an increase of 30 percent. The number of
spaces has increased by 1,214, an increase of over 28 percent. At present, there are just under 5,500
licensed or license-exempt child care spaces in the LPD(excluding part-day nursery school programs).
Livermore has the largest supply,with over 2,400 licensed and license-exempt spaces in 201 facilities.
Over 55 percent of the child care spaces are provided by centers, and approximately 45 percent in
family child care homes. When analyzed by age across both types of facilities, about 20 percent of all
spaces serve children aged zero to two years, almost 50 percent serve children aged two to five years,
and just over 30 percent serve children age six and over. This pattern of supply, with the heaviest
iv
concentration serving pre-school aged children, matches national patterns. Infant and toddler care is
typically more expensive and difficult to provide than care for preschoolers, due to lower staff-to-child
ratios and the additional care they need.
The LPD area child care system is unusual in several respects. After-school programs have been
developed at numerous school sites throughout LPD. Two employee-oriented on-site child care
facilities have been developed (Hacienda Business Park and Livermore Laboratory). The Resource
and Referral Agency, Resources for Family Development, has been very active in providing technical
assistance, employer workshops, and accreditation assistance. Several provider training programs are
available in the area, and LPD even has The Get Well Place, a mildly ill child care facility. These
facilities represent strong efforts towards improving the status of child care in LPD; many other areas
of the State are still trying to accomplish projects such as those in place in LPD.
Demand for Child Care
Estimates of demand, supply, and unmet need for child care spaces were made for this report for
children aged zero to five and age six to 12. For children age five and under, estimates made for this
report indicate that demand for child care spaces is relatively balanced at present in the LPD. This
finding,corroborated by the comments of providers surveyed for this report, matches the experience of
some providers, especially those serving preschoolers,who report difficulty in filling all available slots.
For children age six to 12(school age),there is an estimated need for 800 to over 2,000 more spaces in
LPD at present. For the next five years, although the number of spaces to serve zero to five year old
children is projected to continue at a relative balance between demand and supply, the need for child
care spaces serving school-aged children is projected to increase by 260 to over 360,further highlighting
the need to target supply expansion efforts to this age group.
It is important to note that the current balance between supply and demand for children age zero to
five in LPD does not account for infants/toddlers as a subcategory,this age group is generally more
difficult to serve due to lower required staff/children ratios and other licensing requirements. Thus,
the finding of balanced demand/supply for the zero to rive age group does not accurately reflect the
experience of RFD,parents,and local providers. Further,the past growth of spaces was due,in part,
to a very concerted effort by the child care community to recruit providers in the LPD area. To
maintain a balance of supply and demand as demand continues to grow from new population and
employment,systematic efforts to recruit new providers by RFD and others will need to continue.
Survey Results
Four groups of people affected by child care were surveyed: residents of LPD, employers of LPD,
employees of companies in LPD (including non-residents working in the area),and child care providers
in LPD.
v
Resident Survey. For the resident survey,221 LPD households with 389 children who either used child
care or wished to use child care for at least one child age 12 or younger were surveyed by telephone.
Of the total children covered by the responses,279 children were using child care,69 children were not
in child care but the respondent desired such care for them, and 41 were children for whom no
arrangements were currently sought.
Findings:
• For children in child care,32 percent had baby-sitters,28 percent were in family child
care homes,22 percent in child care centers,and 18 percent in before-or after-school
care programs.
• There were significant differences in care patterns by age of child. Among children
age two or younger, 39 percent were with baby-sitters,48 percent were in family child
care homes, and 13 percent were in centers. Among three through five year olds,23
percent were with baby-sitters,21 percent were in family child care homes,48 percent
were in centers, and eight percent were in before/after-school programs. For
children six through 12, 34 percent were with baby-sitters, 21 percent were in family
child care homes, eight percent were in child care centers, and 37 percent were in
before or after-school programs.
• Almost one-fourth of all children with baby-sitters as primary care had unpaid baby-
sitters. Over one-third of the children using baby-sitters were cared for by a relative.
• Children under age three were in care, on average, for 30 hours per week, three to
five year-olds for 28 hours per week,and six to 12 year-olds for 15 hours per week.
• The average weekly per-household expense for child care was $87. Amount spent
increased with income; households with incomes below $20,000 spent an average of
$31 per week, while households with incomes over $75,000 spent an average of$104
per week.
• Eighty-four percent of the households with children in child care rated their care as
very satisfactory; another 13 percent rated their care as somewhat satisfactory. The
level of satisfaction was high for all ages of children, all income groups, all household
types, and all types of care. The only noteworthy difference was among children in
day care centers; 77 percent of these children were in centers considered very
satisfactory,and 20 percent were in arrangements considered somewhat satisfactory.
• Although overall ratings of specific attributes of care received were quite high, the
results varied by type of care. After-school programs were considered weaker in
teacher training than other types of care, and substantial minorities reported
vi
teacher/child ratios in after-school programs as fair or poor. Child care centers and
after-school care also received lower ratings on"approach to child rearing"than baby-
sitters and family care homes.
• For those seeking child care but not currently using it, cost and "parent/grandparent
at home or not working" at 42 percent each were the two important reasons given.
Only one respondent indicated that hours of operation were a problem, and no
households listed lack of services for special needs children, inability to find quality
care,or lack of transportation as the main reason for not having the child in care.
• Overall, 21 percent of households either received government assistance or were
offered employer assistance with child care (3 percent government assistance,
eighteen percent employer assistance). None of the lowest income households(under
$20,000) reported being offered employer assistance, while over 20 percent of the
affluent households($50,000 plus)did.
• Opinions about financial responsibility for child care revealed that 27 percent felt that
residents should bear part of the cost of child care, 51 percent felt that real estate
developers should bear part of the cost, and 84 percent, felt that employers should
bear part of the cost.
In addition to establishing basic patterns of child care and related data, the resident survey indicated
several key issues for the LPD child care system. Perhaps most surprising to Task Force members is
the residents' high level of satisfaction with the quality of their current child care arrangements. This
finding does not match the experiences and opinions of many members of the LPD Child Care Task
Force regarding the currently level of quality offered by segments of the LPD system.
Possible explanations of the dissonance between the residents' responses and perceptions of the Task
Force are that consumers (e.g., parents) do not have enough information to accurately gauge the
quality of their child's care; that parents might have a difficult time acknowledging poor quality care
(due to implications about parental responsibility); or that the quality of child care in the LPD area is
generally high, but the "horror story" exceptions to that generally high level continue to motivate child
care professionals to improve the overall system.
Another key finding is that employer child care benefits appear to be offered to a substantial minority
of the most affluent households but are not reaching those most in need, households earning less than
$20,000 per year. Further, even though some employers are offering child care assistance, less than
half of those households offered such assistance are actually using it, suggesting a mismatch between
the type of assistance and the employee's real needs.
Finally, the responses to questions about who should bear part of the cost for providing child care to
the community indicated a strong sentiment towards employers as the source of such funding. This
vii
finding suggests the need for closer cooperation between employers in LPD and other members of the
community.
Employer Survey. Ten large and ten smaller employers in LPD were surveyed by telephone. Limited
child care assistance is currently provided by these 20 firms. Flex-time benefits were the most common
child care assistance offered by employers; many firms offered formal or informal flex-time
arrangements. The provision of pre-tax child care payment programs (DCAP) which are available to
all businesses under current tax regulations seemed to be a confusing undertaking for many firms.
Large firms are currently more active than small firms in studying child care options; small firms cited
the lack of resources as the main obstacle to implementing such benefits. Many firms expressed an
interest in doing more for their employees with respect to child care needs, but felt the need for
organizational guidance from local government.
Employee Survey. A limited survey of the employees of five of the smaller employers contacted for the
employer survey underscores several key attributes of the LPD child care system for employees in the
area. Although satisfaction among system users is high, non-users have expressed dissatisfaction with
quality as a major reason for not placing their children in child care. More than one-fourth of the
respondents did not receive any child care benefits or assistance from employers, and many of the
respondents expressed the need for more assistance such as flex-time and paid leave.
As part of the on-going child care planning effort for LPD, it is recommended that a more extensive,
statistically reliable survey of employees throughout the area be undertaken to further assess
employees'child care needs.
Provider Survey. A total of 20 providers were interviewed by telephone, including 10 family child care
home providers and 10 centers (at 21 sites). This group provides licensed child care for almost 1,400
children (potential capacity). Forty percent of the programs have chosen to not operate at capacity in
order to maintain program quality or to make part-time slots available.
Many problems were cited by respondents, including lack of support in dealing with family mental
health issues,insufficient wages,lack of qualified staff,poor benefits,and high staff turnover. Subsidies
for low income families and the general need for parent education in evaluating child care were also
cited as major concerns. Regarding expansion plans,over 85 percent of respondents planned to expand
(or would if conditions permitted)during the next five years. Impediments to expansion include zoning
fees,licensing requirements for outdoor space,and need for funding for portables on school sites(after
school program).
viii
Experiences of Other Communities. For this report, numerous child care plans and policy statements
formulated by communities throughout California were reviewed. Strategies that have been proposed
and/or implemented by local governments in these communities include child care as part of General
Plan, developer fees/exactions, development incentives (e.g., density bonuses), relaxation of
zoning/permitting process, City-as-Model-Employer, Local Government Contractor Program
(encourage vendors to provide child care assistance to their employees, child care coordinator
positions, creation of child care fund, and special taxes). Strategies implemented primarily by
businesses include on-site child care, flexible benefits, direct monetary assistance, and grants to
resource agencies. Provider strategies include accreditation programs, substitute registries, pooled
purchasing,and training programs.
ix
SECTION 2:
LIVERMORE/PLEASANTON/DUBLIN
CHILD CARE MASTER PLAN
Statement of Approach
The LPD Child Care Master Plan Task Force believes that child care services are vital to the future of
all three cities. Current conditions suffer from lack of state and federal funding,lack of public agency
organization, and lack of public understanding of the relationship between child care quality and the
health of the economic base as well as the quality of life for all residents.
The Task Force's approach in formulating the following recommendations is to avoid duplication of
services and activities,maximize the use of available resources,and provide each of the three cities with
a plan that can be tailored to meet individual city needs and circumstances. For the short term, this
approach translates into a series of expanded coordination activities to be implemented by a selected
non-profit organization such as Resources for Family Development (the Resource and Referral
Agency for the LPD area) under contract to each local government. This approach utilizes the
resources that are already operative in LPD,and builds upon them to deliver enhanced services. In the
longer term,the approach proposes creating a permanent, on-going joint partnership between the local
governments of LPD,small and large businesses,providers,educators,and residents.
The following Plan is structured as two primary goals with corresponding objectives. To accomplish
these goals and objectives, both Year 1 Actions (year after Plan adoption) and Longer-Term Actions
(second through fifth year after Plan adoption)have been formulated.
The Plan is intended to be the first step in an evolutionary planning process, and it is recommended
that a cycle of updated needs assessment/master planning be undertaken jointly by LPD every five
years. Thus,this first Plan lays the groundwork for future planning efforts.
x
Goals and Objectives
Goal 1:
F-pand the supply of general and targeted child cane services and facilities. Targeted child care services
and facilities should include subsidized care (for low income families), infant care, school-age care, odd-
hours care, sick cam, and children with special needs and disabilities.
Objective 1.1:Conduct Community Education Program
Description: Conduct on-going Community Education Program for all sectors of the community to
educate and disseminate information about the need for child care, the effect of quality care on
children and the community, ways to assess quality care, and methods available to private business to
provide child care benefits. The Community Education Program should be targeted to different
sectors of the community including schools,business,and the general public.
The Community Education Program could include press releases for local press,print announcements,
cable television spots and programs,a Child Care Far publicizing available services,printed summaries
of information in a graphically designed pamphlet, a Child Care Public Hearing with testimony from
concerned citizens, seminars for business on Dependent Care Assistance Programs and other
employee benefits,etc.
Year 1 Action: Each city contracts with a selected non-profit to plan Education Program as part of
Child Care Coordination Services Contract. (See Implementation Plan)
Longer-Term Action: Implement and continue Community Education Program. Work towards joint
LPD participation in on-going Community Education Program.
Objective 1.2:Establish Child Care Fund
Description:A Child Care Fund is a fundraising and distribution method intended to centralize child
care-related financial assistance by governmental organizations, private businesses, and non-profit
foundations. By centralizing these activities, funds can be matched, leveraged, and used in ways which
maximize resources. Fund monies could be used for purposes such as subsidizing the costs of care for
low-income families, providing scholarships for provider training, making loans for facility capital
improvements and expansion, providing a transportation network, supporting a substitute registry,and
expanding availability of provider benefits. It is recommended that the Fund not be used to cover
operating costs of providers.
Careful planning and initial organization of the Child Care Fund is needed to successfully target child
care needs in LPD. In the longer term,the LPD Task Force believes that the creation of a joint Child
Care Fund supported by business and government in all three cities would best serve the needs of the
LPD area as well as most efficiently use limited financial resources. Such a joint effort would likely
require the formation of a new non-profit entity with policy-making and fund distribution capabilities.
However,in the shorter term,the LPD Task Force recognizes that differing needs and approaches of
the three cities might result in the initial creation of a Fund involving one or two LPD cities.
Year 1 Action: Each city contracts with selected non-profit to plan Child Care Fund, including
selection of legal entity and organizational/administrataive structure. This service would be part of
Child Care Coordination Services Contract with a selected non-profit. (See Implementation Plan).
Longer Term Action:Implement Child Care Fund and work towards involving all three cities and their
respective private and non-profit sectors as active participants in the Fund.
Objective 13:Create City-as-Model-Employer Programs
Description: Local governments can serve as model employers, providing child care benefits and
assistance to their own staff in order to encourage community-wide employer child care assistance.
Efforts used by cities around the state include development of on-site child care centers (State of
California requires on-site facilities for all of its new office buildings with more than 700 employees),
benefit plans, subsidies,flex-time,etc. Davis and Los Angeles in particular have focused much of their
plan implementation efforts on making their own organizations into model employers.
In the LPD area, both Pleasanton and Dublin have begun to explore this strategy. This Plan objective
recommends that each LPD city create and implement a City-as-Model Employer Program tailored to
the needs of each city's personnel.
Year 1 Action: To begin the process, each city will designate a city staff member as liaison (may
require adjusting existing staffs job description or hiring new part-time person). The city liaison will
receive technical assistance from a selected non-profit (through expanded Child Care Coordination
Services Contract)to formulate tailored program for their city.
Longer Term Action: Continue to expand and refine City-as-Model Employer Programs. Continue to
enable a selected non-profit to provide limited technical assistance for city liaisons.
Objective 1A:Establish Local Government Contractor Program
Descri tg ion: Working from the idea that local governments can influence the private sector by their
own purchasing power for goods and services, Los Angeles and Alameda County have implemented
. Xll
contractor programs. These programs can involve surveys, educational materials, and even a contract
award bonus system for those private businesses selling goods or services to local governments who can
demonstrate attention to child care on behalf of their employees(Los Angeles only). The incentive is
that those companies with child care programs are awarded bonus points in the contract bidding
process, enabling them to secure contracts over companies without such child care programs. This
kind of approach could be especially useful to target those companies with employees at the lower end
of the wage scale, which, according to surveys conducted for,the LPD Needs Assessment, typically
receive virtually no employer child care benefits or assistance.
Since Alameda County has established such a program, a similar program in one or more of the LPD
cities should be coordinated with County efforts to avoid duplication.
Year 1 Action: To create this program, each city's child care liaison will work with city staffs to
formulate a local government contractor program. A selected non-profit will provide limited technical
assistance as part of the expanded Child Care Coordination Services Contract.
Longer Term Action:Implement and continue to refine Program.
Objective 1.5:Continue Assisting Providers with Licensing Process
Description: RFD currently provides licensing information and technical assistance to providers in
Pleasanton and Livermore through current coordination contracts. However, this service is not
provided to Dublin as such a contract has not been established.
Year 1 Action: Establish technical assistance service for Dublin providers as part of Child Care
Coordination Services contract with a selected non-profit.
Longer Term Action: Continue service.
Objective 1.6:Leverage Funds From All Sources
Description: RFD currently seeks to respond to all Requests for Proposals received from County,
State, or Federal agencies in order to obtain funds for child care in LPD. However, budgetary
limitations prevent RFD from initiating, preparing, and submitting proposals for funding to other
potential sources such as foundations and corporations. This objective seeks to enhance RFD's
capability to proactively seek funding from a variety of sources on behalf of the LPD child care system.
Year 1 Action:As part of expanded Child Care Coordination Services Contract, direct a selected non-
profit such as RFD to proactively seek all available funding sources.
Longer Term Action:Continue to implement this objective through RFD efforts.
Objective 1.7:Integrate Child Care into City Planning Process
Description:The purpose of this objective is to give child care the same status as other social services
within local government by fully integrating child care into each city's planning process. Since LPD is
expected to continue to experience substantial growth and development, this objective seeks to build
child care into future public decision-making.
An important way to achieve this objective is to incorporate child care into each city's General Plan,
either as a separate General Plan Element or by revising other Elements to include child care policies
and programs within them. Recent state law actually lists child care as an optional General Plan
Element, and several California bills have recently been proposed which would make a Child Care
Element a requirement of the General Plan for each city.
There are several other ways which child care can be incorporated into the city planning process.
Development agreements, which are typically used by cities to negotiate developer contributions and
dedications on a case-by-case basis, can be used to exact child care monies or facilities. Child care
impacts can also be made an explicit part of the environmental review process(EIR)as a matter of city
policy. In this way, mitigations required as conditions of approval could encompass child care impact
mitigation measures.
Another important tool available to local government to incorporate child care into the planning
process from a regulatory standpoint is the recent California enabling legislation which permits cities to
legislate density bonuses for development projects that include child care facilities. This type of
approach, modelled on density bonuses available for affordable housing provision, serves as an
incentive which cities can offer to developers to expand child care facility supply at no cost to the city.
Since each city in LPD has different land use development policies and procedures, achieving this
objective will require an approach tailored to each city's needs and circumstances.
Year 1 Action: Planning department for each city formulates an approach to integrate child care into
the planning process. Approach may require adoption of policies or procedural changes.
Longer Term Action:Implement strategy as designed by each city.
xiv
Objective 1.8:Coordinate Service Provision and Expand the Supply of Before-and After-School Child
Care
Description:This objective addresses the unmet need for before-and after-school care for school-aged
children up to the age of 12. Although LPD has an active system for this type of care, demand
estimates conducted for the Needs Assessment found a current unmet need for approximately 830 to
more than 2,000 spaces for children aged 6 through 12. This need is projected to grow by an additional
260 to 360 spaces by 1994. Discussions with providers and members of the Task Force further
underscored the extent of this unmet need;lengthy waiting lists and many distraught parents are typical
experiences of local after-school programs.
Year 1 Action: Establish a network of city liaisons, school district representatives, and providers to
coordinate the current system and explore ways to better maximize available school-site space. The
facilitation of this network should be an item in the expanded Child Care Coordination Services
Contract.
Longer-Term Action: Continue to formalize the network from Year 1. Seek integration into each
participating school district's facility planning process.
Goal 2.
Strengthen the quality of all child care services and facilities for both providers and families.
Objective 2.1:Conduct Community Education Program (same as for Objective 1.1)
Objective 22:Establish Child Care Fund (same as for Objective 12)
Objective 23:Create Provider Recognition Program and Expand Provider Accreditation Assistance
Description:This objective responds to the need(identified in the Needs Assessment) to provide more
community support and encouragement to providers to enter and remain in the child care profession.
A recognition program could be as simple as awarding a plaque to Provider of the Year in each City.
It could also involve monetary awards and incentives. Such a recognition program should be integrated
into the Community Education Program (Objective 1.1 and 2.1).
This object also seeks to expand on the current efforts by RFD under a grant from Mervyn's to
encourage provider Accreditation (note: Accreditation is granted by several national organizations;
RFD provides technical assistance during the process but does not set standards or award the
xv
Accreditation). At present, the limited two-year effort is targeted to family child care home providers,
but should be expanded to target center-based care as well. Accreditation is a very important factor in
improving overall quality of care, since the process involves a self-directed, year-long assessment of
programs and facilities. In addition, the achievement of Accreditation can serve to enhance provider
staff morale and professional commitment.
Year 1 Action: Each city directs a selected non-profit to formulate and implement a Provider
Recognition Program as part of an expanded Child Care Coordination Services contract. To initiate
this effort, it is likely that a non-financial incentive to providers such as an award ceremony and plaque
will need to be the first-year procedure.
An expanded Accreditation Program will require additional funding, and is envisioned as a longer-term
action.
Longer Term Action: Continue the Provider Recognition Program. If the Child Care Fund is
implemented,seek to offer a small financial incentive to compete for the award.
Expand Provider Accreditation Program to make funding for technical assistance by a selected non-
profit a permanent commitment on the part of the to-be-formed Child Care Fund. Also, target this
effort to all providers, including center-based care. Financial incentives such as a short-term loan fund
to pay for enhanced supplies and teacher training as part of the Accreditation process is also
recommended.
Objective 2.4:Coordinate Provider Educational and Training Opportunities
Description: In order to maximize available resources and offer a more comprehensive approach to
child care education and training in LPD, this objective seeks to coordinate such opportunities as they
are currently offered by several educational institutions.
In addition to formal education and training programs, an effective tool to encourage training has been
the pairing of experienced providers with newer ones in a mentor relationship. This objective seeks to
implement this type of program on an area-wide basis.
Year 1 Action: As part of an expanded Child Care Coordination Services Contract, the selected non-
profit would serve as facilitator of an evaluation and planning process among child care educational
institutions serving LPD. All education and training programs should be represented in this process.
The process would assess current educational gaps and overlaps, seeking to formulate a coordination
plan and identify the appropriate coordinating mechanism, which may be one of the educational
institutions currently serving the LPD area.
xvi
In addition,a Mentor Program should be implemented by a selected non-profit such as RFD as part of
an expanded Child Care Coordination Services Contract.
Longer Term Action: Implement plan developed through Year 1 Action.
Objective 2.5:Organize Pooled Purchasing Program
Description: This objective seeks to reduce provider operating costs and expand the availability of
health insurance and other benefits by organizing a purchasing pool. For example, while individual
providers may not be able to afford the health insurance premiums for their employees, pooling the
needs and purchasing power of many providers may render such insurance more affordable.
Year 1 Action:As part of the expanded Child Care Coordination Contract with a selected non-profit, a
program will be formulated. Volunteer expertise such as local insurance experts will also be tapped.
Longer Term Action: Implement program(s).
Objective 2.6:Maintain Substitute Registry Program
Description:A substitute registry program is currently operated by RFD on behalf of Pleasanton and
Livermore. This program, which actively recruits substitutes, maintains a list, and fills requests for
substitutes, serves a vital function for providers facing difficult obstacles in providing consistent care.
However, the program has been operating at a monetary loss of approximately $5,000 per year
according to RFD, and will not continue to be offered after mid-1991 unless additional funding is
found. Even if Dublin joins the program, its fair share contribution based on the monies currently paid
by the other two cities would be approximately $1,500, less than the amount needed to close the gap.
Thus, to maintain this model program, it is recommended that Dublin participate in the program, the
provider fees be increased moderately(current subscription is $35 per year), and that Pleasanton and
Livermore increase their support by approximately$1,000 each.
Year 1 Action: Obtain participation by City of Dublin. Increase funding from Pleasanton and
Livermore. Accomplish these two actions as part of expanded Child Care Coordination Services
contract with a selected non-profit such as RFD.
Longer Term Action:Continue to maintain substitute registry per Year 1 Action.
xvii
Additional Longer Term Objectives Dependent on Child Care Fund Creation:
These additional objectives are intended to be longer-term,with no Year 1 Action specified. They are
included herein as objectives to work.towards in future years of Plan implementation.
Objective 2.7:Integrate Child Care Planning and Implementation with Other Dependent Care Efforts
Object 2.8:Provide Start-up and On-going Financial to Providers for Programs and Business Needs
Objective 2.9:Create Job Bank for Teacher Recruitment and Placement.
Xvnl
Implementation Plan
The focus of the above set of goals and objectives is on building upon existing resources and efforts in
the short run while striving towards more formalized three-city joint cooperation over the longer term,
particularly for those objectives (e.g., Child Care Fund, Community Education Program, etc.) which
would benefit from the economies of scale and improved coordination which joint efforts would
provide.
Year 1 Implementation
To accomplish the Year 1 objectives, three primary implementation mechanisms are required:
adoption of the Plan as proposed (or with revisions reflecting each city's selected objectives intended
for implementation), an expanded Child Care Coordination Services Contract between each city
choosing to implement the Plan and a selected non-profit such as RFD, and the designation of a city
child care liaison to implement and coordinate objectives which the city needs to directly incorporate
into its own management.
Plan Adoption (Fall 1990). Each city participating in the formulation of this Plan will be asked to
adopt the Plan as presented herein. If a particular city chooses to adopt a modified version of the Plan,
reflecting its selection of objectives which it intends to implement, that course of action has been
anticipated by the Task Force and would fit within the Plan's structure.
Child Care Coordination Services Contract (1991). The expanded Child Care Coordination Services
Contract (Contract) builds upon the existing contracts in place between RFD and the Cities of
Pleasanton and Livermore. In order to clarify the relationship between new services recommended in
the Plan and existing services already included in the existing contracts, the Plan has been structured to
only recommended expansions. In other words, the Plan assumes that existing services and the funds
used to pay for them will continue to be requested by the two cities, and that new funds requested for
expansion of services should be considered as a net increase above the current amount allocated and
spent by the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore.
According to RFD, approximately $25,000 is already contributed to fund coordination activities
($12,500 by Pleasanton and $12,500 by Livermore). It is estimated that the expanded Coordination
Services as outlined in the Plan would require approximately$56,000 in additional funding for Year 1.
A formula for equitable funding by each of the three cities could be based on population size, which
translates into an approximate $20,000 additional funding contribution from Pleasanton, an
approximate$22,000 additional funding contribution from Livermore,and an approximate$14,000 new
funding contribution from the City of Dublin. The formula assumes retention of the special services
provided to Pleasanton such as the local office;this service is not assumed to be revised or expanded.
City Liaison. Another vital implementation mechanism is the designation (by each participating city)
of a city liaison. This person would be a city staff member who would be given the responsibility to
1 a J
xix
work with other entities for each of the objectives requiring this effort as outlined in the Plan. There
will likely be a cost associated with this liaison;however,this Plan does not estimate such costs.
It is anticipated that the city liaisons will desire to meet periodically to share experiences and ideas.
This type of cooperation has not been made explicit in this Plan,but is an expected outcome of it.
Longer Term Implementation(1992-199
Each of the objectives outlined in the Plan will require a different longer term implementation
approach. Given the necessary planning activities which still need to occur for many of the longer term
actions,this Plan does not propose spec implementation mechanisms.
This Plan also seeks to establish a regular cycle of LPD child care planning. To this end, it is
recommended that a similar process to the one just completed (including broad task force
participation)be undertaken again in 1994-1995.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................1
I.NEEDS ASSESSMENT...................................................................................................................................2
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND TRENDS..............................................................3
Population and Household Characteristics...............................................................................3
Employment and Occupational Characteristics........................................................................4
Summary........................................................................................................................................4
DESCRIPTION OF THE LPD CHILD CARE SYSTEM................................................................8
CurrentSupply and Trends..........................................................................................................8
Description of LPD Child Care System...................................................................................13
DEMANDFOR CHILD CARE..........................................................................................................18
CurrentNeed...............................................................................................................................18
FutureNeed.................................................................................................................................19
SURVEYRESULTS.............................................................................................................................22
LPD Resident Survey 22
LimitedLPD Employer Survey................................................................................................. 1
Limited LPD Small Firm Employee Survey............................................................................34
LPDProvider Interviews............................................................................................................3
44
SALARY AND WORKING CONDITIONS OF CHILD CARE PROVIDERS IN LPD.........44
StaffTurnover..............................................................................................................................."
Salaries.........................................................................................................................................
STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE THE CHILD CARE SYSTEM....................................................46
LocalGovernment Strategies....................................................................................................46
BusinessStrategies......................................................................................................................51
ProviderStrategies......................................................................................................................52
11.CHILD CARE MASTER PLAN................................................................................................................53
LPDCHILD CARE MASTER PLAN...............................................................................................54
Statementof Approach..............................................................................................................54
Goalsand Objectives..................................................................................................................55
ImplementationPlan..................................................................................................................63
APPENDICES....................................................................................................................................................70
1 -
INTRODUCnON
Child care is a vital issue that affects all of us. Forces such as the influx of women into the labor force,
the increasing strains placed on the educational system, and the growing pressure on children to adapt
to a complex world have combined to make the need for child care in Livermore, Dublin, and
Pleasanton an important community concern. This need must be viewed as multi-dimensional; an
adequate number of spaces to meet child care need is not enough. The quality of those spaces,as well
as their affordability and accessibility must also be ensured in order to develop a child care system
which truly meets the needs of the three cities'children.
This Needs Assessment/Master Plan is an important first step in the process of planning for the
improvement and enhancement of the child care system in the Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and
Dublin(LPD). It was initiated through the efforts of the City of Livermore,the City of Pleasanton,and
the city of Dublin, all of which allocated city funds (Measure A) to commission a Needs
Assessment/Master Plan as well as form a Child Care task Force. The initial task force and study were
expanded to include the Cities of Pleasanton and Dublin through additional funding provided by the
State of California. This document is the result of these combined efforts and funding sources.
This document is divided into two distinct sections, reflecting the process followed to create it.
Section I: Needs Assessment presents an analysis and a summary of findings of the existing child care
system in LPD, projects current and future unmet demand for child care, and provides information
regarding the experiences of other communities seeking to improve their own child care systems.
Section 2: Master Plan presents a set of goals and strategies for the three cities to improve the child
care system.
2
I.NEEDS ASSESSMENT
3
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND TRENDS
The nature of the need for child care is predicated on the underlying demand for such services.
Demand,in turn, depends on factors such as the number of children, the age distribution of children,
the incidence of working mothers, and the income levels of households in an area. Although this type
of demographic data will be more accurate after the 1990 Census is complete and results are published
(sometime in 1992),certain estimates are currently available,as summarized below.
Population and Household Characteristics
The LPD area has experienced substantial growth during the past decade,putting pressure on the child
care system to grow as well. The total population of LPD has grown from 97,000 in 1980 (see Table 1)
to an estimated 130,000 in 1989, an increase of 34 percent. Dublin has experienced the largest
percentage increase for the period(70 percent),but Pleasanton has added the most people, increasing
from 35,000 in 1980 to over 50,000 in 1989. At present,Livermore is the largest of three cities(57,000),
but Pleasanton is only slightly smaller (50,400),while Dublin is less than half as large as the other two
cities(23,000).
The LPD area is characterized by a high concentration of family households(defined by the Census as
households containing related individuals),which increases the need for child care. In 1980 (last year
data available), 81 percent of the three cities' households were family households. Dublin had the
highest concentration of family households,approaching 89 percent(see Table 1).
In 1989, there were an estimated 34,800 children under the age of 18 in the LPD area. The largest
number of children lived in Livermore.
The LPD area is characterized as relatively affluent, with an overall median household income of
approximately$49,000 in 1989 (Table 2). In contrast,the State of California had an estimated median
household income of$31,420 for the same year. Pleasanton has the highest median household income
of the three cities,having an estimated median household income exceeding$57,500 in 1989.
An analysis of the distribution of household income in 1989 indicates that a full 48.5 percent of the
three cities' households earned more than $50,000; the concentration in this category for Pleasanton
approached 60 percent, while for the other two cities, it ranged from 38 to 42 percent of the total
households. However,it is important to note the presence of lower income households in LPD; almost
14 percent of all households earned less than$20,000 in 1989. Livermore had the largest proportion in
this category(almost 17 percent).
4
Employment and Occupational Characteristics
The relationship between resident household income, occupation/employment patterns, and commute
distances all affect the need for child care near work and home. Unfortunately, since the LPD area
had changed dramatically since the 1980 Census, there are limited data available to indicate these
relationships (new data will come from the 1990 Census). Anecdotal evidence indicates that many
residents of LPD do not work in the area, and many of the workers in the rapidly growing business
parks throughout the I-580/680 corridor commute from residential areas outside of LPD. The old
1980 data indicate, interestingly, that over 18 percent of the three cities' residents had occupations in
the administrative support category,which is typically not associated with high wage scales. Commute
times(Table 3) show that 40 percent of the employed residents of LPD drove more than 30 minutes to
their place of work,which likely means that many residents work in other parts of the Bay Area.
Summary
In summary, the LPD area is characterized by a rapidly growing population base living in relatively
affluent households with a family orientation. However,households earning less than$20,000 comprise
almost 14 percent of the total for the LPD area. Many workers commuted long distances outside the
immediate vicinity in 1980; this pattern is probably still occurring, and will be more fully known after
1990 Census is completed.
Table 1: Demographic Data for the LPD Area: Population, Households, and Population Age Distribution
Livermore Pleasanton Dublin LPD Area
%Change, %Change, %Change, Number %Change,
1980 1989 80-89 1980 1989 80-89 1980 1989 80-89 1980 1989 80-89
Population 48,348 56,706 17.3% 35,160 50,453 43.5% 13,496 22,976 70.2% 97,004 130,135 34.2%
Number of Households 16,303 19,504 19.6% 11,326 16,512 45.8% 3,954 6,858 73.4% 31,583 42,874 35.8%
Number of Family HH's 12,928 NA 9,287 NA 3,500 NA 25,715 NA
Average Household Size 2.95 2.90 -1.7% 3.09 3.05 -1.3% 3.41 3.35 -1.8% 3.06 3.03 -0.9%
Average Family HH Size 3.39 NA 3.49 NA 3.66 NA 3.46 NA
1980 1989 1980 1989 1980 1989 1980 1989
Population Age Distribution
Under 5 3,758 4,360 2,163 3,239 1,088 1,781 7,009 9,380
5-9 4,138 4,465 3,119 3,403 1,206 1,815 8,463 9,683
10-14 4,788 4,227 4,167 3,426 1,488 1,723 10,443 9,376
15-17 3,076 . 2,673 2,589 2,635 1,085 1,100 6,750 6,408
18-24 5,421 4,960 3,485 4,123 1,564 2,052 10,470 11,135
25-34 8,748 10,256 5,428 8,485 2,400 4,271 16,576 23,012
35-54 12,230 17,261 10,505 17,572 3,615 7,312 26,350 42,145
55-64 3,216 4,594 2,016 4,523 678 1,914 5,910 11,031
65 or more 2,973 3,909 1,688 3,051 372 1,008 5,033 7,968
Total 48,348 56,705 35,160 50,457 13,496 22,976 97,004 130,138
Median Age 28.7 32.6 30.1 34.9 26.4 31.9
Source: Bay Area Economics,based on Information from National Planning Data Corp.and 1980 U.S.Census
Table 2: 1989 LPD Household Income Distribution
Livermore Pleasanton Dublin LPD Area _
Percent Percent Percent Percent
Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total
Household Income Distribution
Less than$7,500 996 5.1% 674 4.1% 158 2.3% 1,828 4.3%
$7,500-$14,999 1,306 6.7% 752 4.6% 294 4.3% 2,352 5.5%
$15,000-$19,999 936 4.8% 549 3.3,6 288 4.2% 1,773 4.1%
$20,000-$24,999 897 4.6% 543 3.3% 310 4.5% 1,750 4.1%
$25,000-$29,999 979 5.0% 554 3.4% 478 7.0% 2,011 4.7%
$30,000-$34,999 1,197 6.1% 637 3.9% 592 8.6% 2,426 5.7%
535,000-$39,999 1,506 7.7% 791 4.8% 679 9.9% 2,976 6.9%
$40,000-$49,999 3,407 17.5% 2,153 13.0% 1,424 20.8% 6,984 16.3%
$50,000-$74,999 5,687 29.2% 5,330 32.3% 1,977 28.8% 12,994 30.3%
$75,000-$99,999 1,776 9.1% 2,644 16.0% 418 6.1% 4,838 11.3%
$100,000+ 817 4.2,6 1.885 11.4% 240 3.5% 2.942 6.9%
Total 19,504 100.0% 16,512 100.0% 6,858 100.0% 42,874 100.0%
Median Household Income $45,679 $57,519 $44,424 $49,051
Source: National Planning Data Corporation and Bay Area Economics.
Table 3: Employment by Occupation and Travel Time to Work, 1980
Livermore Pleasanton Dublin LPD Area
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Occupation
Exec/Admin 2,337 10.1% 2,980 17.3% 713 11.3% 6,030 12.9%
Prof 3,746 16.2% 2,473 14.3% 497 7.9% 6,716 14.4%
Technical 1,580 6.8% 694 4.0% 170 2.7% 2,444 5.2%
Sales 2,290 9.9% 2,471 14.3% 882 14.0% 5,643 12.1%
Admin Support 3,893 16.8% 3,211 18.6% 1,346 21.3% 8,450 18.1%
Services 2,706 11.7% 1,744 10.1% 795 12.6% 5,245 11.2%
Prod/Craft 3,304 14.2% 1,920 11.1% 1,044 16.5% 6,268 13.4%
Oper/Labor 3,028 13.1% 1,624 9.4% 837 13.3% 5,489 11.7%
Farm 311 1.3% 145 0.8% 30 0.5% 486 1.0%
Total 23,195 100.0% 17,262 100.0% 6,314 100.0% 46,771 100.0%
Travel Time to Work
0-9 Min. 3,547 15.7% 2,416 14.8% 875 13.9% 6,838 15.1%
10-19Min 8,715 38.5% 3,787 23.1% 1,244 19.8% 13,746 30.4%
20-29 Min. 2,831 12.5% 2,764 16.9% 954 15.2% 6,549 14.5%
30+ Min. 7,525 33.3% 7,392 45.2% 3,206 51.1% 18,123 40.0%
Total 22,618 100.0% 16,359 100.0% 6,279 100.0% 45,256 100.0%
Source: National Planning Data Corporation,based on Information from 1980 U.S.Census
8
DESCRIPTION OF THE LPD CHILD CARE SYSTEM
This section describes the LPD child care system as it currently exists in both a quantitative and
qualitative manner.
Current Supply and Trends
The number of facilities and licensed spaces for the three cities are tabulated in Tables 4 and 5. As
indicated, the supply of child care spaces has increased dramatically during.the past four years,
corresponding to the increased population growth experienced by the three cities. Overall, 94 new
facilities were added between December 1986 and February 1990, an increase of 30 percent. The
number of spaces has increased by 1,214,an increase of over 28 percent.
In percentage terms, the growth in family child care home spaces has been the most dramatic in
Dublin, where 184 spaces were added between December 1986 and February 1990. The growth in
center spaces during the same period has been most dramatic in Livermore, with 300 spaces being
added. As of February 1990, Livermore has the largest supply of child care spaces of the three cities,
with over 2,400 licensed and license-exempt spaces in 201 facilities.
Table 6 presents a more detailed summary of the current supply of child care spaces by age of child
and location of facility. As indicated, 55 percent of the child care spaces are provided by centers, and
approximately 45 percent by family child care homes in LPD. When analyzed by age across both types
of facilities, about 20 percent of all spaces serve children aged zero to two years, almost 50 percent
serve children aged two to five years, and just over 30 percent serve children age five and over. This
pattern of supply, with the heaviest concentration serving pre-school aged children, matches national
patterns. Infant and toddler care is typically more expensive and difficult to provide than care for
preschoolers,due to lower staff-to-child ratios and the additional care needed by the younger ages.
Another indicator of the growth in the need for child care services is the number of requests made to
the local Resource and Referral Agency (R & R). Table 7 tabulates the number and growth in
requests for information from the local R& R,Resources for Family Development (RFD),during the
past four years. Although the mix of type of request varies from year to year, the overall level of
demand for RFD's services has risen more than 44 percent for the period, reaching almost 16,800
requests in 1989.
In summary, the supply of child care spaces has grown at a rate approximating the population growth
of the LPD area. Most of the current supply serves pre-school aged children, in keeping with patterns
evidenced throughout the U.S.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4: Historical Trend for Number of Licensed Child Care Spaces
Livermore/Pleasanton/Dublin 1987 - 1990
--------------------------------------------------------------------
NUMBER OF LICENSED & LICENSE-EXEMPT CHILD CARE SPACES
-------------------- --------- --------- --------- .........
Change
City/Type of Care 1987 1988 1989 (a) 1987-1989
-------------------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
LIVERMORE:
Family Homes 1,047 1,170 1,236 18.1%
Centers (b) 870 1,058 1,170 34.5%
Subtotal 1,917 2,228 2,406 25.5%
PLEASANTON:
Family Homes 450 549 668 48.4%
Centers (b,c) 1,039 1,411 1,253 20.6%
Subtotal 1,489 1,960 1,921 29.0%
DUBLIN:
Family Homes 354 399 538 52.0%
Centers (d) 493 449 602 22.1%
Subtotal 847 848 1,140 34.6%
Total
Family Homes 1,851 2,118 2,442 31.9%
Centers 2,402 2,918 3,025 25.9%
Grand Total 4,253 5,036 5,467 28.5%
a) 1989 supply is result of tally for February 1990 by RFD.
b) Center spaces do not include nursery schools run by rec districts
of Livermore and Pleasanton.
c) Pleasanton center spaces includex 93 subsidized spaces in Kid's
Club that are run by school district and are license exempt.
d) Dublin center spaces do not include 60 spaces through rec department
that are license exempt.
Table 5: Historical Trend for Number of Licensed and Exempt Child Care Facilities
Livermore/Pleasanton/Dublin
End of Year 1986- 1989
December December December February Change 1986- 1989
City/Type of Care 1986 1987 1988 1990 Number Percent
Livermore
Family Homes 165 149 170 179 14 8.5%
Centers(a) 15 16 17 22 7 46.7%
Subtotal 180 165 187 201 21 11.7%
Pleasanton
Family Homes 70 59 77 100 30 42.9%
Centers(a) 11 11 15 16 5 45.5%
Subtotal 81 70 92 116 35 43.2%
Dublin
Family Homes 47 46 64 80 33 70.2%
Centers(a) 5 9 9 10 5 100.0%
Subtotal 52 55 73 90 38 73.1%
Total
Family Homes 282 254 311 359 77 27.3%
Centers(a) 31 36 41 48 17 54.8°x6
Grand Total 313 290 352 407 94 30.0%
(a)Center data include the facilities operated on school sites. These are exempt from licensing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6: Current Child Care Supply (February 1990)
Livermore/Pleasanton/Dublin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUMBER OF FACILITIES (LICENSED AND LICENSE-EXEMPT)
Livermore (a) Pleasanton (b) Dublin Total
------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Family Homes for 1-6 Children 157 77.0% 83 71.6% 67 74.4% 307 74.9%
Family Homes for 7-12 Children 25 12.3% 17 14.7% 13 14.4% 55 13.4%
Centers 22 10.8% 16 13.8% 10 11.1% 48 11.7%
Total 204 100.0% 116 100.0% 90 100.0% 410 100.0%
NUMBER OF SPACES (LICENSED AND LICENSE-EXEMPT)
Livermore (a) Pleasanton (b) Dublin Total
------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Percent Percent Percent Percent
Number Of Total Number Of Total Number Of Total Number Of Total
------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Family Child Care Homes:
Age 0 to 2 408 17.0% 218 11.3% 196 17.2% 822 15.0%
Age 2 to 5 501 20.8% 263 13.7% 224 19.6% 988 18.1%
Age 5 + 327 13.6% 187 9.7% 118 10.4% 632 11.6%
Subtotal 1,236 51.4% 668 34.8% 538 47.2% 2,442 44.7%
Centers:
Age 0 to 2 68 2.8% 183 9.5% 10 0.9% 261 4.8%
Age 2 to 5 606 25.2% 687 35.8% 340 29.8% 1,633 29.9%
Age 5 + 496 20.6% 383 19.9% 252 22.1% 1,131 20.7%
Subtotal 1,170 48.6% 1,253 65.2% 602 52.8% 3,025 55.3%
Total 2,406 100.0% 1,921 100.0% 1,140 100.0% 5,467 100.0%
a) Facilities and spaces do not include nursery schools.
b) Facilities and spaces do not include nursery schools. Facilities do include 93 license-exempt subsidized spaces
that are run by schools/rec departments.
SOURCE: Resources for Family Development, Bay Area Economics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7: Historical Trend for Number of Referrals/Resource Calls to RFD
Livermore/Pleasanton/Dublin (The Valley)
End of Fiscal Year 1986 - 1989
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUMBER OF REFERRAL/RESOURCE CALLS LPD AREA
-------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------------------
Change 1986 - 1989
Type of Call 1986 1987 1988 1989 Number Percent
-------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------------------
Subsidy 1,890 2,025 1,874 2,026 136 7.2%
CCFP 676 673 841 1,102 426 63.0%
Waiting List 338 434 347 296 (42) -12.4%
Referrals Total 2,932 2,957 3,126 3,140 208 7.1%
Livermore 1,376 1,434 1,479 1,418 42 3.1%
Pleasanton 1,098 1,055 1,140 1,209 111 10.1%
Dublin 458 461 507 513 55 12.0%
Resources 404 353 865 953 549 135.9%
Technical Assistance 2,585 1,784 3,325 3,629 1,044 40.4%
GAIN NA NA NA 395 395 NA
Other 2,821 2,315 4,323 5,257 2,436 86.4%
Grand Total 11,646 10,541 14,701 16,798 5,152 44.2%
SOURCE: Resources for Family Development, Bay Area Economics.
13
Description of LPD Child Care System
The child care system in the LPD area consists of a range of component parts. In addition to the
licensed and license-exempt spaces in facilities inventoried previously, child care is provided by in-
home care or out-of-home care by relatives or baby-sitters that is exempted from licensing, half-day
traditional nursery school programs, and parent participation programs. All of these types of care
serve LPD child care needs;however, beyond the licensed and organized exempt facilities,the balance
of care can not be quantified since it is not regulated. It is this aspect of child care service delivery-the
informal arrangements made by parents and care givers of various types - which makes it difficult to
obtain a full understanding of the system in an area such as LPD.
The following discussion highlights unique aspects of the LPD child care system in order to develop a
more comprehensive understanding of the current status of child care services available in the area.
On-Site Child Care. The development of on-site child care, which places a child care center near a
major employment center, is a goal of many communities' child care policies. LPD is unusual among
California communities in that there are two on-site facilities in place. Both of these facilities should
be assessed in more detail in the future to ascertain their successes and need for improvement.
The Hacienda Child Development Center, located in Pleasanton, serves infants through school aged
children. This facility was built as a state-of-the-art child care center by the developers of the Hacienda
Business Park. This full-cost child care program serves business park tenants and their employees and
is also open to the community at large. It serves approximately LSO children.
The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Child Care Center serves 14-month through 5.5 year
olds on a full and part-time basis as well as school-aged children through an after-school program.
Children enrolled at the Center are children of parents employed by the Lab or Sandia Labs. This is a
full-cost child care center.
Child Care for Mildly Ill Children. Another goal of many communities is to provide a place for the
care of mildly ill children so that working parents can reduce their absenteeism and associated costs
from these occurrences. In LPD, The Get Well Place in Pleasanton, operated by the Valley Health
Care Center, provides a child care program for mildly ill children. Open to the entire community,The
Get Well Place has some subsidies available (based on need). The subsidies are funded by local
corporations and administered through Resources for Family Development.
Project Head Start/CAPE. The Community Association for Preschools (CAPE) operates as a
delegate agency of Southern Alameda County Head Start to provide Head Start comprehensive child
development services,including health nutrition and family social services,for low income and disabled
preschool children. This program, originally created as a locally designed option to more traditional
income-segregated Head Start programs, is unique in that it integrates eligible children into non-
subsidized Livermore and Pleasanton non-profit preschool programs.
14
Information and Referral Services. Resources for Family Development (RFD) is the State-funded
resource and referral agency which serves the LPD area. RFD is also a member agency of the state-
affiliated California Child Care Resource and Referral Network.
RFD maintains a regularly updated list of information on child care centers, licensed family child care
homes,and nursery schools. Referral staff helps families assess their child care needs, and then makes
referrals by matching needs to available openings. RFD also provides information to parents on how
to choose care appropriate to their situation, and how to assess the quality of care. In addition, RFD
administers several subsidy programs, provides technical assistance to providers and the business
community,and specialized referral services. RFD provides referrals to about 3,500 families annually.
Subsidized Child Care Services. There is one center in Livermore that is funded by the State
Department of Education (SDE) to provide eligible parents with subsidized care for 28 infants and
preschoolers. In addition, subsidies from SDE are available through the Livermore Area Park and
Recreation District for their school-site child care programs. In Pleasanton, there are some subsidies
for school age child care available through the school district.
All other subsidized programs in the LPD area are administered through RFD using a number of
different funding sources. These subsidies include:
• 165 children of working parents funded by SDE.
' 3 children with parents in job training programs funded by the Alameda County
Training and Employment Board/Private Industry Council.
' 14 children of parents on welfare who are in training programs funded by the
Alameda County GAIN program.
` 17 children of parents needing short term respite services funded by SDE.
The subsidies administered by RFD are based on a"parental choice model", where the subsidy follows
the child.
Provider Support Organizations. Providers in LPD have organized several invaluable groups which
give support and professional development services to their members. Valley Family Child Care
Association, an organization of family child care providers, has approximately 120 members
representing small and large family child care homes in LPD. The organization is affiliated with
statewide, national, and international family child care associations. The national affiliate offers an
accreditation program for providers meeting quality standards. Valley Family Child Care is also
involved in a special program funded by Mervyn's Foundation (in cooperation with RFD) to train
family child care providers and encourage their efforts to become accredited.
Directors of the Valley, an organization for center directors in LPD, has regular meetings and offers
speakers and workshops on a variety of topics. RFD representatives belong to this organization and
use it as a clearinghouse for information related to center-based programs. The Coordinator of Early
J
15
childhood Development at Las Positas College also uses this organization as a clearing house for
information for the development of new courses.
Family Service Infant Center coordinates with Livermore Lab and its counseling services. The Center
provides a variety of counseling programs. It receives its funding through a Tri-Valley Grant.
Substitute Care Registry. Many communities have sought to assist local providers by suggesting the
organization of a substitute teacher pool so that absent providers do not disrupt the quality of care.
The LPD area is unusual in that such a registry has been created. Administered by RFD,the child care
substitute registry serves 35 centers and family child care programs with a pool of 12 substitute
providers. RFD recruits, screens, and trains substitutes who are then referred to programs. The
centers and homes reimburse RFD for substitute salaries. The program referral line and
administration is minimally funded by registration fees, City of Livermore and City of Pleasanton
support,and non-local foundation support.
Other BU Area Resources For Providers. The Bay Association for the Education of Young Children
(BAEYC), a local affiliate group of the National Association for the Education of Young Children
(NAEYC is the largest early childhood professional organization in the country with over 70,000
members), provides membership services, including organizing local professional early childhood
teacher conferences, newsletter publications, book sales, and legislative advocacy. NAEYC also offers
an accreditation system for certifying high-quality,developmentally appropriate programs.
The Professional Association for Childhood Educators (PACE). This professional organization
represents child care center programs in the Northern California area. Its membership privileges
include access to group rates for liability insurance, educational conferences, financial management
workshops, and through its Child Care Vendor Payments Program, access to subsidized child care
slots.
The Child Care Law Center. Located in San Francisco this organization offers legal services, technical
assistance, and representation for child care providers in the areas of State regulations, business, tax
and public benefit law. They provide educational workshops, seminars, information through
publication and newsletters.
The Child Care Employee Project (CCEP). Located in Berkeley, this organization provides on-going
research, advocacy, and support for child care teachers regarding salaries, benefits, and working
conditions. CCEP offers educational workshops,mediation services between providers and employees,
numerous publications, and a regular newsletter to members. CCEP is active in pursuing legislative
reform which will improve the economic livelihood of child care workers,their rights as an identifiable
group in the labor force,and respect for people who choose to be teachers of young children.
The Alameda County Child Care Information Program for Contractors. This new service, funded by
Alameda County Department of Social Services,surveys County contractors on their existing child care
16
and family support programs. It provides free information, education and materials on child care via a
Child Care Program Specialist Office as well as through RFD to all County of Alameda contractors.
This program also encourages child care program development among County contractors.
Child Care Teacher/Provider Preparation and Training. The four major sources of training for child
care providers are Las Positas College in Livermore and the Chabot campus in Hayward, RFD, the
Valley Child Care Home Association,and Directors of the Valley.
RFD, through a grant from Mervyn's/Dayton Hudson, offers a 15 hour training program for home
providers including a mentor component and credit available through Las Positas College. The classes
are designed to lead toward later accreditation by national organizations.
RFD offers nutrition education to the 260 family child care homes that belong to the Child Care Food
Program. The agency provides child abuse prevention training, conferences, and workshops on a
variety of topics including health and safety,High/Scope curriculum,etc.
Las Positas College offers a large selection of classes and degree/certificate programs for staff working
in child care centers. Many of these classes meet the requirements set by Community Care Licensing
and the Commission for Teacher Licensing for child care teacher academic requirements. Las Positas
also provides short courses on special topics of interests to providers. This type of training is available
either on campus or off-site in local child care agencies and can be designed to meet particular training
needs. The college also co-sponsors conferences and workshops with RFD, Family Services of the
Greater East Bay,and other organizations.
Cabot College has developed and is now offering a mentor program which will provide on site training
at centers and homes.
The Regional Occupational Program offers child care training experiences for area high school
students. ROP is designed so that students may be doubly enrolled at Las Positas College and their
own high school and also be placed in volunteer student teaching positions in local child care programs.
Other East Bay area sources of teacher and provider training include Cal State Hayward,Mills College
in Oakland, Pacific Oaks College Extension in Berkeley, U.C. Berkeley Extension, St.Mary's College,
and San Jose State College.
Parent Education and Participation Programs. Room to Grow, New Horizons, and Livermore
Playschool all operate parent participation programs for families with toddler and preschool age
children administered through Livermore Schools Adult Education programs. Hill 'n Dale is a similar
program administered in Pleasanton. KinderKirk Schools also administers parent participation
programs in Livermore and Pleasanton. The Departments of Parks and Recreation in all three cities
also sponsors Tiny Tot toddler socialization programs for children 15 to 30 months of age. Nursery
school programs are also offered by all three cities for children 30 months to 5 years of age.
J .
17
Regglatoij AUncies. There are several state agencies which interface with child care services in the
LPD area. The State Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Department regulates
the licensing of all child care centers and family child care homes. Child care center providers must
meet minimum health and safety code requirements which include square footage requirements for
indoor and outdoor play space, emergency procedures, child intake procedures, immunizations, and
evacuation plans. Licensing requirements regulate director and teacher academic and experience
requirements for center programs only. The State Department of Education administers the Child
Care Food program in coordination with local organizations such as resource and referral agencies.
Center teachers and directors in publicly funded programs must also meet higher academic and
experience requirements administered through the Commission for Teacher Licensing Children's
Center Instructional Permit credentialing process.
Center programs funded by the State are reviewed by State Department of Education consultants who
measure the programs' contract for child development services using a standardized instrument called
the Program Quality Review. Another State agency which interfaces with child care center programs
and family child care homes is the State Fire Marshall's Office,which must approve sites for fire safety
prior to licensing. All center teachers, aides, owners, directors and family child care providers (and
their spouses and/or other adults living in the home) must have their fingerprints taken and cleared
with the FBI.
18
DEMAND FOR CHILD CARE
The demand for child care in the LPD area is difficult to estimate precisely, due to a variety of factors
including the lack of data about working mothers, the lack of hard data regarding number of children,
and the uncertainty about children with working mothers who need licensed care versus those who have
other arrangements such as baby-sitters or relatives. Moreover, an unknown proportion of working
mothers work part-time schedules, enabling them to reduce their after-school care needs for school-
aged children.
Current Need
Tables 8A and 8B provide High and Low estimates of current and future unmet need for licensed child
care spaces in the LPD area (Appendix A provides a breakdown for each of the three cities). The
variation between High and Low estimates is based on changing one assumption: the percentage of
children ages six to nine needing organized care for. To make these estimates,the number of children
in LPD were estimated from three sources: published estimates from National Planning Data
Corporation, the last four years of"live birth" statistics obtained from Alameda County for the three
cities, and current public school enrollments for all of the districts encompassing the LPD area. The
percentage of mothers in the labor force was estimated using 1980 Census information for the three
cities and trending the data upward to reflect national trends as indicated by a special 1984 Census
study on working mothers. The most difficult item to estimate, the percent of children needing
organized care, is based on a combination of Census sources and data obtained from the LPD
residents'survey described in the following section.
As indicated in Tables 8A and 813, demand for child care spaces does not exceed supply at present for
children age five and under in the LPD. This finding, corroborated by the comments of providers
surveyed for this report, matches the experience of some providers, especially those serving
preschoolers,who report difficulty in filling all available slots.
This finding needs to be examined more fully. As described In Section 7 of the GAIN County Plan
(March 1987),the number of licensed providers that are actively providing care (e.g.,In operation) in
an area,can be significantly less than the data would indicate. Often,providers obtain a license but
do not remain"in the business" or choose to enroll less children than their licensed capacity permits
In order to enhance quality or allow for part-time users. According to RFD, the supply numbers
provided for this report already adjust for some of these inactive licensed providers; however, for
those choosing to limit enrollment,no estimate of the effect on supply is available.
It is also important to note that child care,like most services, needs to have a slight excess of supply
to provide a choice for factors such as cost and quality. In addition fluctuations in demand and
simple turnover also necessitate the need for additional spaces. Further,It is important to note that
19
the demand estimate shown herein does not break out infants/toddlers, which are generally more
difficult to serve due to lower required staff/children ratios and other licensing requirements. Thus,
while the demand estimate in Table 8 seems to indicate that new spaces for the zero to five age group
are not needed,this does not accurately reflect the experience of RFD,parents,and local providers.
The demand estimate also calculates need for spaces to serve children age six to 12(school age). For
this age group, even with conservative estimates and assuming that all licensed spots are in service,
there is an estimated need for 800 to over 2,000 more spaces at the present time.
Future Need
In the next five years, the demand estimate indicates a growing need for child care spaces, even with
the conservative assumption that the participation of women in the labor force in LPD will remain
stable. As indicated in Table 8, no shortfall is projected for the zero to five age group, assuming the
current level of supply continues through 1994.
There will be a shortfall of 1,090 to 2,461 spaces serving the six to 12 age group (an increase of
approximately 260 to 360 spaces above current unmet need). This estimate of future unmet need
assumes no growth in the supply of spaces serving school-aged children. It is important to note,
however,that the supply of child care spaces is not static; in a growing area such as LPD, supply will
increase as population and subsequent demand increases (note that the supply of spaces did increase
almost 30 percent for LPD between 1986 and 1990;see above discussion). However,the rate of growth
of spaces without encouragement is not possible to estimate. Furthermore,it should be noted that the
past growth of spaces was due, in part, to a very concerted effort on the part of RFD and others to
recruit and assist providers in the LPD area.
Table 8A: Low Estimate of Unmet Need for Child Care in the Tri-Valley Area: 1989- 1994 Summary
1989 1994
0-5 6-9 10-12 Total 0-5 6-9 10-12 Total
DEMAND:
Number of Children(a) 11,317 7,746 5,626 24,689 11,541 8,374 6,497 26,412
%of Mothers in Labor Force(b) 61.4% 81.8% 81.8% 61.2% 81.8% 81.8%
Number of Children with Mothers 6,946 6,338 4,603 17,887 7,066 6,853 5,317 19,236
in Labor Force (c)
Percent of Children
Needing Organized Care(d) 50.0% 30.0% 15.0% 50.0% 30.0% 15.0%
Number of Children of Working Mothers 3,473 1,901 690 6,065 3,533 2,056 798 6,386
Needing Care Organized Care
SUPPLY:
Number of Family Homes(e) 1,810 632 2,442 1,810 632 2,442
Number of Centers(e) 1,894 1,131 3,025 1,894 1,131 3,025
Total Licensed Child Care Spaces(f) 3,704 1,763 5,467 3,704 1,763 5,467
SHORTFALL IN CHILDCARE SPACES (231) 829 598 (171) 1,090 919
(a) National Planning Data Corporation 1989 estimates. Note National Planning Data Corporation population estimates are aggregated 0-4,5-9 and 10-17. 0-4 converted to
0-5 by shifting 115 of 5-9 age group population to 0-5. 10-17 age group reduced to 10-12 by taking 315's of the total 10-14 age group data.
(b) Current Population Reports,Household and Family Characteristics: March 1988,Series P-20,No.437,issued May 1989. U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the
Census;Labor Force Characteristics for Places of 10,000 to 50,000: 1980. U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census. National rate of increase for the period
1980- 1988 for women in the work force used to estimate 1988 percentage of mothers with children under 18 in Livermore,Pleasanton and Dublin in the workforce.
(c) Number of children times percentage of mothers in the workforce.
(d) Demand for care for 0-5 based from number of children needing non-relative care outside the home from"Who's Minding the IGds?Child Care Arrangements:Winter 1985,"
U.S.Bureau of the Census. Demand for care for children 6-12 determined by using survey results to determine the number of children in these age groups in child care,and
dividing this by total children of working mothers in the age group.
(e) January, 1990 survey conducted by RFD. To estimate the need for childcare in 1994,it is assumed that the number of spaces will remain constant.
(f) Current supply of spaces kept constant for 1994 projection.
SOURCE:Bay Area Economics;sources as noted
Table 8B: High Estimate of Unmet Need for Child Care in the Tri-Valley Area: 1989- 1994 Summary
1989 1994
0-5 6-9 10-12 Total 0-5 6-9 10-12 Total
DEMAND:
Number of Children(a) 11,317 7,746 5,626 24,689 11,541 8,374 6,497 26,412
%of Mothers in Labor Force(b) 61.4% 81.8% 81.8% 61.2% 81.8% 81.8%
Number of Children with Mothers 6,946 6,338 4,603 17,887 7,066 6,853 5,317 19,236
In Labor Force (c)
Percent of Children
Needing Organized Care(d) 50.0% 50.0% 15.0% 50.0% 50.0% 15.0%
Number of Children of Working Mothers 3,473 3,169 690 7,333 3,533 3,427 798 7,757
Needing Care Organized Care
SUPPLY:
Number of Family Homes(e) 1,810 632 2,442 1,810 632 2,442
Number of Centers(e) 1,894 1,131 3,025 1,894 1,131 3,025
Total licensed Child Care Spaces(f) 3,704 1,763 5,467 3,704 1,763 5,467
SHORTFALL IN CHILDCARE SPACES (231) 2,097 1,866 (171) 2,461 2,290
(a) National Planning Data Corporation 1989 estimates. Note National Planning Data Corporation population estimates are aggregated 0-4,5-9 and 10-17. 0-4 converted to
0-5 by shifting 1/5 of 5-9 age group population to 0-5. 10-17 age group reduced to 10-12 by taking 315's of the total 10-14 age group data.
(b) Current Population Reports,Household and Family Characteristics: March 1988,Series P-20,No.437,Issued May 1989. U.S.Department of Commence,Bureau of the
Census;Labor Force Characteristics for Places of 10,000 to 50,000: 1980.U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census. National rate of increase for the period
1980- 1988 for women In the work force used to estimate 1988 percentage of mothers with children under 18 in Livermore,Pleasanton and Dublin in the workforce.
(c) Number of children times percentage of mothers in the workforce.
(d) Demand for care for 0-5 based from number of children needing non-relative care outside the home from'Who's Minding the Kids?Child Care Arrangements:Winter 1985.'
U.S.Bureau of the Census. Demand for children 6-9 assumed to beat this same level. Demand for care for children 10-12 determined by using survey results to determine
the number of children in these age groups in child care,and dividing this by total children of working mothers in the age group.
(e) January,1990 survey conducted by RFD. To estimate the need for childcare in 1994,it is assumed that the number of spaces will remain constant. `
(f) Current supply of spaces kept constant for 1994 projection.
SOURCE:Bay Area Economics;sources as noted
22
SURVEY RESULTS
The research conducted for this report included extensive formal surveys and "key informant"
interviews in order to gather a complete understanding of the issues affecting the LPD child care
system. Four groups of people affected by child care were surveyed: residents of LPD, employers of
LPD, employees of companies in LPD (including non-residents working in the area), and child care
providers in LPD. Due to budgetary constraints for this study, the surveys of the employers and
employees in LPD were limited in scope; a total of 20 firms (both large and small) were asked
questions pertaining to employer/child care issues, in addition employees in five small firms were
asked employee/child care questions. The following section describes the findings from these research
efforts.
LPD Resident Survey
In order to accurately gauge the need for child care among residents of Livermore, Pleasanton, and
Dublin, Bay Area Economics contracted with ADF Research of San Rafael to conduct a telephone
survey of residents of the three cities. The final sample consisted of 221 households in Livermore,
Pleasanton, and Dublin either using child care or desiring child care for at least one child age 12 or
younger. Survey methodology is discussed in more detail in Appendix B, and the survey instrument is
included in Appendix C. Actual survey results and cross-tabulations are provided under separate cover
as a companion volume to this study.
For many of the questions specifically about care,survey results were compiled by child,so a household
with two children would have two children in the pool of responses for these questions.
Respondent Households
Survey respondents included households with at least one child aged zero to 12 for which they used
child care or wished to use child care. Of the total 221 responding households, 389 children age 12 or
under were reported;279 children(in 186 of the total households)were reported as being in child care,
69 were children for whom households would like to use child care but are not currently doing so, and
the remaining 41 were children for whom no arrangements were currently sought (indicating
households that used or sought child care for one child but not for another).
Of the children currently in child care, 28 percent were age two or under, 31 percent were age three
through five, and 41 percent were six through 12. Five percent of the children in child care had special
needs,such as learning disabilities, medical conditions, and physical disabilities. Most of these special
needs children(11 out of]5)were six years or older.
Sixty-nine percent of the responding households were two-parent households with both parents
working;of the remainder, 19 percent were two-parent households with one parent working, 10 percent
- I
IJ
23
were single-parent households with a working parent,one percent were single-parent households with
a non-working parent,and one percent were other types of households. The proportion of two-parent
households of any type increased with household income, while the proportion of single-parent
households decreased with income.
Incomes tended to be relatively high compared to the estimated 1989 distribution for all households in
the LPD area. Thirty-four percent of the respondent households had incomes between $50,000 and
$75,000,and 28 percent had incomes over$75,000, for a total of 67 percent with incomes of$50,000 or
more; this compares with only 49 percent for all households (see Table 2). However, this relatively
high income level of the survey respondents is in keeping with the tendency for family households to
have higher incomes than non-family households. Only five percent of responding households had
incomes under $20,000, a lower percentage than data for the entire LPD area, again reflecting the
tendency for families with children to have higher incomes than single person households or elderly
couples.
Households with higher incomes tended to have older children in child care; since incomes typically
increase with age of worker, and older workers would tend to have older children, this is not
unexpected. As a result of the correlation of age of children with income, higher-income households
also showed somewhat different child-care arrangements, with a greater proportion of children in care
centers and after-school programs. As mentioned above, single-parent households tended to have
lower incomes;interestingly,the number of workers in two-parent households did not directly correlate
with income. In fact, a higher proportion of two parent, single worker households had incomes over
$75,000 than did families with two working parents.
Patterns of Care
Type of Primary Care. Table 9 shows the distribution of children by type of primary care. For
children in child care in the LPD area, 32 percent were cared for by baby-sitters (defined in survey as
"person who takes care of one family's child or children other than their own"), 28 percent in family
child care homes, 22 percent in child care centers, and 18 percent in before or after-school care
programs.
As might be expected, there were significant differences in care patterns by age of child. Among
children age two or younger, 39 percent were with baby-sitters, 48 percent were in family child care
homes,and 13 percent were in child care centers. Among three through five year olds,23 percent were
with baby-sitters,21 percent were in family child care homes,48 percent were in child care centers,and
eight percent were in before or after-school programs. For children six through 12, 34 percent were
with baby-sitters, 21 percent were in family child care homes,eight percent were in child care centers,
and 37 percent were in before or after-school programs.
Almost one-fourth (23 percent) of all children with baby-sitters as primary care had unpaid baby-
sitters. This pattern held across all age groups. Over one-third(35 percent)of the children using baby-
24
sitters were cared for by a relative. About three fourths(72 percent)of all children using family care as
the primary child care were in homes of six or less children. This proportion was roughly the same
across all age groups. For children in child care centers,virtually all respondents(95 percent) reported
that the center had a clearly defined philosophy, curriculum and schedule. Eighty-eight percent of the
children in centers were in centers open full working days Monday through Friday. Interestingly, a
different response to this question was elicited from two-parent households with only one working
parent;over 40 percent of the children in these households in care centers were in centers open for less
than full working hours. This finding should be approached with caution, however, given the small
number of respondent households of this type.
There are some differences in the type of child care used by different income groups and household
types,but these differences are related to the age of children typically found in these households (e.g.,
the oldest children are in households with all adults in the labor force,so these households tend to have
more usage of before and after-school care).
It is interesting to note that most households rely on only one type of care;only 11 out of the total 279
children using child care in the responding households reported having more than one type of child
care arrangement.
Table 9: Primary Child Care Arrangements for Children in Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin
Age of Child Total(a)
0-2 3-5 6-12
Type of Care Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Babysitter 30 39.0% 20 23.3% 39 33.9% 89 31.9%
Family Child Care Home 37 48.1% 18 20.996 24 20.9% 79 28.3%
Child Care Center 10 13.0% 41 47.7% 9 7.8% 60 21.5%
Before or After-School Program 0 0.0% 7 8.1% 43 37.4% 51 18.3%
Total 77 100.0% 86 100.0% 115 100.0% 279 100.0%
(a)Totals do not because age Is not known for one child in before or after-school program.
Source:Bay Area Economics,based on a survey conducted by ADF Research in early 1990.
26
Hours of Primary Care in a Typical Week. The average number of hours of primary care used in a
typical week was 23 hours for all children in child care. Younger children tended to be in child care for
more hours; on average, children under three were in care on average for 30 hours per week, three
through five year-olds for 28 hours per week, and six through 12 year-olds for 15 hours per week
(probably due to school aged children attending school in addition to child care). Approximately one-
fourth of all children were in child care 40 or more hours per week; broken down by age, the
proportions were 44 percent for children under three, 33 percent for three through five year olds, and
four percent for six through 12 year olds.
Family homes and licensed care centers were typically used more hours than baby-sitters or before and
after-school care. Family homes were used an average of 28 hours per week per child,day care centers
26 hours,baby-sitters 21 hours,and before and after-school care 17 hours.
Location of Primary Care. For children using child care, care was on average 3.5 miles from home.
For children five and under, care was an average 43 miles from home; for the older children, care
averaged only 2.3 miles from home. Care centers were significantly farther from homes on average
than other types of care; they averaged 53 miles from the home, while all other forms averaged less
than four miles from home,with baby-sitters being the closest, at 2.5 miles average. The vast majority
of children, 81 percent,were cared for closer to home than to work. This pattern held for all ages of
children. Among child care types, baby-sitters were most likely to be closer to the home (89 percent),
and day care centers the least likely(still 68 percent,though).
Cost of Child Care. Among households using child care, the average weekly expense was $87.
Amount spent increased with income;households with incomes below$20,000 spent an average of$31
per week on child care,while households with incomes over$75,000 spent an average of$104 per week.
In between, households earning $20,000 to $50,000 spent an average of $69, and households earning
$50,000 to$75,000 spent an average of$83.
How Found. Respondent households found primary care for 52 percent of the children through
friends,relatives and neighbors. School was the second most common source of referrals(13 percent),
followed by Resources for Family Development. There were differences by age of the child; among
children under three,friends, relatives,and neighbors became a more common source, and RFD made
21 percent of the referrals, while for children three through five RFD referrals dropped to eight
percent of the total, and among children six through 12 school became the most important second
source,making 24 percent of the referrals.
There was significant variation in the means used to find child care, depending on the type of child care
used. Eighty-four percent of children with baby-sitters had their child care found through friends,
relatives, and neighbors. For family homes, over half were found through friends, relatives, and
neighbors, but 29 percent used Resources for Family Development. Child care centers were found
through friends, relatives, and neighbors for 42 percent of children; interestingly, the second most
common source for day care centers, at 12 percent, was newspapers or other advertisements. For
27
before and after-school centers, school was the most common source of information, representing 57
percent of all children.
Length of Use. The average number of months that the current primary care was used for children in
the responding households was 20 months. As might be expected, this increased with age. Children
under three were in their current care for an average of nine months,children three through five for 16
months, and children six through 12 for 31 months. Children tended to be with a baby-sitter for a
longer period on average (23 months), than in a family home (18 months), or day care center (16
months). This is probably because parents who have an acceptable sitter(who may be unpaid and/or a
relative) may continue to use the arrangement regardless of the age of child, unlike organized care,
where children are grouped by age.
Satisfaction and Ouality of Care
Level.of Satisfaction. The vast majority of children,84 percent,were in child care arrangements with
which their households were very satisfied. Most of the remainder, 13 percent, were in child care
deemed somewhat satisfactory. The level of satisfaction was high for all ages of children, all income
groups,all household types, and all types of care. The only noteworthy difference was among children
in child care centers; 77 percent of these children were in centers considered very satisfactory, and 20
percent were in arrangements considered somewhat satisfactory.
Attributes of Child Care Quality. Respondent households were queried about aspects of the general
quality of their children's care regarding the following items: cleanliness, attention paid to child,
child/staff ratio, staff training, learning environment, physical environment, approach to child rearing,
communications with parents,and safety. For all items listed, the vast majority(almost always over 75
percent)of households felt their children's care was either excellent or good. For cleanliness,attention
paid to child,physical environment,communications, and safety,over half rated their children's care as
excellent.
Some interesting tendencies appear when households are examined by type of child care used. Centers
and before and after-school care rated much lower by households on child/staff ratio than other forms
of care, with almost one-fourth of households using center care and one fifth of those using
before/after-school care rating their current care as only fair or poor. Only 27 percent of households
using before or after-school care rated their children's care as excellent in staff training, far below 43
percent for all types. Child care centers and before/after-school care also received lower ratings on
approach to child rearing than baby-sitters and family care homes. Conversely, centers got better
ratings on learning environment than other forms of care; 48 percent rated their children's learning
environment as excellent,compared to an overall rating of only 40 percent.
Changes Desired in Child's Care. Respondents were asked, for each child in their household in child
care,which one of a variety of aspects of child care they would change if given the opportunity. For
over half the children in households surveyed, the respondents said they did not want any change.
28
Otherwise, the responses were varied, with no one category dominating. Cost, surprisingly, was
mentioned for only eight percent of all children in care. About seven percent, or 18 respondents,
mentioned the need for better curriculum or activities. Approximately four percent (12 respondents)
mentioned that they would like to change the location of their care closer to their home. Improved
quality was mentioned by another four percent. For the remainder wishing to change something,
answers such as"hours of operation" and"would like to stay home and care for my own children"were
mentioned by a small percentage.
When sorted by type of primary care used, though,some variation in the general pattern emerges. For
61 percent of the children with baby-sitters, the children's households reported wanting no change.
This percentage declines to 54 percent for family care homes, 43 percent for before and after-school
care, and 38 percent for child care centers. Cost appears to be an important factor for the child care
centers and before and after-school care; for 12 percent and 14 percent,respectively,of the children in
these categories, respondent households wished to change this aspect of care. Hours of operation was
a noteworthy concern for children in before/after-school care, with respondents wishing to change
hours of operation for 12 percent of the children in this type of primary care. Interestingly, for those
using baby-sitters, no respondents chose cost as the attribute to change, but nine percent stated that
they would choose to take of the child themselves if it were possible.
Households Not Currently Using Child Care
Also responding to the Child Care Survey were households not currently using child care but wishing to
use it (in some cases, these could be households which have care for one child but not for another).
The survey results included 69 children fitting this description in respondent households.
Cost and "parent/grandparent at home or not working" at 42 percent each were the two important
reasons given for not using care for a child. Only one respondent indicated that hours of operation
were a problem, and no households listed lack of services for special needs children, inability to find
quality care, or lack of transportation as the main reason for not having the child in care. Cost
increased and "parent/grandparent at home or not working" decreased in importance as age of child
increased. Cost decreased and "parent/grandparent at home or not working" increased as the main
reason for not using child care as household income increased. As might be expected,
"parent/grandparent at home or not working"was the most important factor explaining the reason for
not using child care in the case of two parent households with one parent at home.
Government and Employer Provisions for Child Care
All responding households were asked if they received any government assistance or were offered
employer assistance for child care. Only three percent reported receiving government assistance with
child care. Eighteen percent reported being offered employer assistance with child care. Interestingly,
none of the lowest income households (under $20,000) reported being offered employer assistance,
while over 20 percent of the households with income $50,000 or above were offered some sort of
29
assistance. Overall, 21 percent of households received either government assistance and/or were
offered employer assistance with child care.
Use of Employer Assistance. The types of employer assistance reported included on-site child care,
DCAP programs,monetary payment for child care,and"cafeteria"benefit plans.On-site child care was
offered to 41 percent of the respondents,DCAP programs to 39 percent,and monetary assistance to 10
percent.
Interestingly, only 44 percent of the households reporting employer assistance used that assistance,
indicating that the offered assistance is not necessarily filling the needs of the employees.
Among those using the employer-provided assistance, 41 percent used a DCAP program, and 35
percent used an on-site facility. It should be noted though, that these percentages only represent a
small fraction of the total respondent pool;out of all the households,less than eight percent are using
any form of employer assistance for their child care needs. The reasons given for not using the benefits
offered depended on the type of benefit offered; many of the households reported that employers
offering on-site care had limited facilities or availability, or that they preferred care near their home
instead. Some reported that for employers offering monetary benefits, the federal tax credit was
greater than the monetary assistance offered.
Community Attitudes
Survey respondents were asked a series of questions regarding potential child care problems in their
community and about who should bear the cost of providing child care in the community.
Community Child Care Problems. Respondents were asked whether, in their opinion, any of a series
of items were a problem in their community. These items were cost of child care, finding quality child
care, amount of public funding for child care, availability of care for children with special needs,
availability of care for sick children.and unsupervised school-age children.
For all categories,at least half reported that the item was either somewhat of a problem or very much
of a problem, and for all categories except availability of care for special needs children (where one-
fourth of respondents were not sure if there was a problem)70 percent or more considered the item at
least somewhat of a problem. A majority said that cost of child care and availability of care for sick
children were very much a problem. Cost is considered less of an issue as income increases. Higher
income households were also less likely to consider the amount of public funding to be a very
important problem. Single working parents and low-income households were much more likely to
consider unsupervised school-age children to be very much of a problem.
Funding Sources for Child Care. Responding households were asked, among all residents of the
community,real estate developers, and employers in the LPD Area, who should bear at least part of
the responsibility for child care costs.
30
Only 27 percent felt that all residents of the community should bear part of the cost of child care. This
general sentiment held across most subgroups, with slightly less opposition among those households
using day care centers and among the lowest (under $20,000) and highest ($75,000 and over) income
categories.
Just over half (51 percent) felt that real estate developers should bear part of the cost of child care
provision. This position generally held across all subgroups,with the exception of low-income (under
$20,000) households, among whom 73 percent thought developers should bear part of the cost;
however,this income group represented only a very small proportion of total households.
A very large majority, 84 percent, felt that employers in the LPD area should bear part of the cost of
providing care. This extremely strong sentiment held across all subgroups of the population.
Summary
In addition to establishing basic patterns of child care and related data, the resident survey indicated
several key issues for the LPD child care system. Perhaps most surprising to Task Force members,
residents surveyed reported a high level of satisfaction with the quality of their current child care
arrangements,both in general and with respect to specific attributes. This finding does not match with
the experiences and opinions of many members of the LPD Child Care Task Force regarding the
current level of quality offered by segments of the LPD system.
A possible explanation for the dissonance between the residents' responses and the perceptions of the
child care community in LPD is that the consumers (e.g., parents) do not have enough information to
accurately gauge the quality of their child's care, leading to a Master Plan recommendation to
undertake a Media Campaign to raise awareness of the criteria making up "quality". Another
explanation is that parents might have a difficult time acknowledging that their child is receiving poor
quality care, since this kind of acknowledgement has many negative personal implications. A third
explanation is that the quality of child care in the LPD area is generally high,but that the exceptions to
that generally high level are the "horror stories"which continue to motivate child care professionals to
improve the overall system.
Another key finding is that employer child care benefits appear to be offered to a substantial minority
of the most affluent households (e.g., those earning over$50,000 per year),but are not reaching those
most in need,households earning less than$20,000 per year. Further,even though some employers are
offering child care assistance, less than half of those households offered such assistance are actually
using it,suggesting a mismatch between the type of assistance and the employee's real needs.
Finally, the responses regarding who should bear part of the cost for providing child care to the
community indicated a strong sentiment towards employers as the source of such funding, suggesting
the need for closer cooperation between employers in LPD and other members of the community.
31
Limited LPD Employer Survey
Methodoloev
To gain a better understanding of child care issues affecting employers, the owners or personnel
directors of 30 businesses in LPD were interviewed by telephone in early March. Twenty small firms
(limited to 25 to 100 employees) located in LPD were randomly selected from the Alameda County
Commerce and Industry Directory and interviewed by BAE staff. Ten of the largest employers in LPD
were identified and interviewed by RFD staff. The survey instrument is provided in Appendix D. A
summary tabulation of responses is shown in Table 10.
Use of Child Care
Information regarding the number of employees who used child care was difficult to obtain,
particularly for the larger employers. Fourteen of the 20 small firms indicated that 25 percent or fewer
of their employees use child care. Six of the 10 large firms were aware of how many employees use
child care. Of those large firms,two indicated 25 percent or less of their workers used child care, two
indicated slightly less than 50 percent used child care, and two indicated 60 to 65 percent used child
care.
Employer Child Care Assistance
None of the firms surveyed reported offering monetary assistance to employees to help pay for child
care. Most firms had never considered this type of compensation program. Among the few firms that
have studied the program,two were financially unable to implement it and two were studying it further.
Surprisingly, a Dependent Care Assistance Program (allows use of pre-tax salary dollars to pay for
child care,resulting in savings for both employer and employee)has been offered to employees at eight
of the 30 firms. The number of employees in these firms who have subscribed is still unknown due to
the program's recent implementation at most companies. Seven firms have considered the Dependent
Care Assistance Program (DCAP) but have not chosen to implement it. Some reasons given were
perceived high administrative costs, mistrust of its apparent advantages, and worries about how to
equally compensate employees who do not subscribe. These responses indicate a general need for
improved promotion of the DCAP concept, which essentially is a financial benefit to both employer
and employee as it allows pre-tax salary to pay for child care, lowering the effective salary subject to
federal income tax and FICA charges.
Most firms do not offer a child care referral service. A few firms collect information about child care
services and make it available to employees via the employee bulletin board or through files in the
personnel department. One large firm disseminates child care information at employee orientations.
One small firm has a special child care referral number for employees to use.
32
No firms offer paid leave specifically for employees looking for child care. Several large and small
firms offer paid personal days in addition to vacation and sick days. Employees at these firms would be
expected to use personal days when looking for child care.
Flex-time is the most widely offered benefit related to child care at both large and small firms. Over
half offer, either through policy or on an ad-hoc basis, the freedom to choose the hours that best suit
the employee's circumstances. In many firms, flex-time is a separate arrangement between the
employee and his or her immediate supervisor and is dependent on department needs. Job sharing, on
the other hand,was not offered at most firms.
Beyond six to 10 weeks of maternity leave for women(paid or unpaid), most firms offer no other type
of assistance to employees with child care needs. There were two exceptions to this norm. One large
firm offers unpaid parental leave to all employees (duration unknown). One small firm offers special
counseling assistance to employees, which reportedly has been used by families with children for
unspecified purposes.
Overall, few firms offer child care benefits to their employees in the form of employee policy
provisions. Many of the larger firms' respondents do not consider the child care needs of their
employees to be "the firm's problem," but did report a sensitivity to individual difficulties and a
willingness to work on a case-by-case basis to help an employee find a workable solution when child
care problems arise. Smaller firms seemed more willing to acknowledge that child care was an
important issue that needed their attention as employers.
Large firms are currently more active than small firms in studying and considering child care options
for their employees. Small firms cited the lack of resources as the main obstacle to considering or
implementing these types of benefits.
Employers'Sub esg tions
Most of the businesses surveyed stated that employers could do more to help meet the child care needs
of people working in the area. The high cost of child care for working parents is recognized as a
problem. Many respondents suggested ways businesses could help to reduce the high cost of care
through both direct or indirect subsidies. The example most often suggested for direct assistance was a
monetary provision such as a "cafeteria style" benefit plan. The example most often suggested for
indirect assistance was business participation in building and subsidizing a child care center in or near
the workplace. Other ideas,generated mostly by larger firms,were programs to increase awareness of
child care issues, the absolute necessity for flex-time scheduling, business involvement in community
organizations that are looking at child care issues, and the establishment of a local government
mechanism to facilitate communication between businesses with shared concerns in child care as well
as other human services issues.
33
Summ
In summary, the provision of child care assistance by employees in LPD appears to vary widely,
depending on the type of business and its labor force characteristics. In general, flex-time benefits
seemed to be the most acceptable, and many firms already offered this option either on a formal or
informal basis. The provision of DCAP or other financial benefits seemed to be a confusing
undertaking for many firms, signaling an issue that should be considered as part of the Child Care
Master Plan for LPD. Many firms expressed an interest in doing more for the employees around this
issue, but seemed to feel the need for organizational guidance from an outside source such as local
government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 10: Employer Survey Responses
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Reasons Not Offered Large Reasons Not Offered
Question Firms (a) After Considering Firms (a) After Considering
----------------------------------- --------- --------------------- --------- ---------------------
Offer monetary assistance?
Yes 0 0
No 20 10
Consider monetary assistance?
Yes 1 Labor costs too high, 3 2 are studying it,
No 19 had to cut back 7 1 not possible yet
Offer DCAP program?
Yes 3 5
No 17 5
Consider DCAP program?
Yes 4 1 still considering, 3 2 too costly to
No 13 1 too good to be true, 2 administer, 1 still
2 not justified considering
Offer referral assistance?
Yes 3 1
No 17 9
Consider referral assistance?
Yes 0 2 1 assessing need,
No 17 7 1 uses comm.resources
Offer paid leave?
Yes 5 4
No 15 6
Consider paid Leave?
Yes 0 0
No 15 6
Offer flex time or job sharing?
Yes 11 6
No 9 4
Consider flex time or job sharing?
Yes 1 still considering now 2 2 still studying it
No 8 2
Offer other types of assistance?
Yes 9 1
No 11 9
Consider other types of assistance?
Yes 0 3 3 studying options
No 11 6
a> Sample size for Small Firms = 20. Sample size for Large Firms = 10.
SOURCE: Bay Area Economics for Small Firms; Resources for Family
Development for Large Firms.
34
Limited LPD Small Firm Employee Survey
To gain more insight into the child care needs of employees working in small firms in the LPD area
(firms with less than 100 employees), BAE surveyed the employees at five of the firms previously
contacted for the employer survey. Four firms are located in Pleasanton and one firm is located in
Dublin. Two of the firms located in Pleasanton are located in the Hacienda Business Park. The survey
instrument is included in Appendix E.
Respondent Profile
Survey respondents were employees representing households with at least one child aged zero to 12 for
which they used child care or wished to use child care. Of the 23 households responding, 61 percent
were households with one child and 39 percent were households with two children. Of the 32 children ;
reported,all but eight currently use child care on a regular basis.
Of the children in child care, 58 percent were aged two or under, 29 percent were aged three to five,
and 13 percent were aged six through 12. Only two of the eight children not using child care but whose
parents desire to do so,were under five years of age,and the remaining six were school aged children.
Seventy-eight percent of the responding households were two-parent households with both parents
working, 13 percent were two-parent households with one parent working, and nine percent were
single-parent households with the parent working. Interestingly, all of the two-parent, single worker
households reported incomes in the $35,000 to $50,000 range and all lived outside of the LPD area
(likely reflecting the difficulty in this income level's ability to afford housing within LPD).
Respondent incomes were relatively high compared to the estimated 1989 distribution for all
households in the LPD area. Forty-five percent had incomes between $50,000 and $74,999, and 18
percent had incomes of$75,000 or more,for a total of 63 percent with incomes of$50,000 or more;this
compares with only 49 percent for all LPD households (see Table 2). No households had incomes
below $25,000. As in the resident survey respondent profile, the higher household incomes likely
reflect the tendency for families to have higher incomes than the total population.
Forty-three percent of the respondent households lived in the LPD area,26 percent lived in the balance
of Alameda County, 22 percent lived in Contra Costa County, and nine percent lived somewhere else.
No one reported living in the Central Valley, the South Bay/Peninsula, San Francisco, or the North
Bay.
Patterns of Care
Type of Primary Care. This respondent group used predominantly child care centers for the primary
care of their children. Forty-two percent of the children were cared for in centers,29 percent in family
care homes,21 percent by baby-sitters,and eight percent in before or after school programs.
35
There were differences in care patterns by age of child. Among children aged two or younger, 50
percent were in family care homes, 29 percent in child care centers, and 21 percent were with baby-
sitters. Among three to five year olds, 86 percent were in child care centers and 14 percent were with
baby-sitters. Of the three children six years or older who used child care, one was with a baby-sitter
and two used before or after school care programs.
Location of Primary Care. 'or slightly more than half of the children using child care (58 percent),
care located was more than t-,vo miles from home. Twenty-five percent were cared for one to two miles
from home and 17 percent were cared for less than one mile from home.
The same breakdown occurred for location of child care from respondents work. Fifty-eight percent
worked more than two miles from their child care location,25 percent worked from one to two miles,
and 17 percent worked less than one mile from their child care location.
More than half of the respondent households use child care in the LPD area. Forty-six percent use
child care in Pleasanton, eight percent in Dublin, and four percent in Livermore. This is not surprising
given the Pleasanton location of four of the five companies and that almost half of the respondents
households are located in the LPD area. Forty-two percent use child care outside of the LPD area.
Cost of Care. The total amount respondent households paid for all child care per week ranged from
$45 to $200. Fifty-eight percent paid less than $100 per week and 42 percent paid more than$100 per
week. It is difficult to draw conclusions from these figures as the number of hours of care per child per
week are not known.
Satisfaction With Care
All respondent households reported satisfaction with their child's primary care. Seventy-five percent
were very satisfied and 25 percent were somewhat satisfied. This strong satisfaction level is consistent
with the findings from the resident survey.
Households Not Currently Using Care
For those respondent households who would like to use child care but are not currently doing so,three
of the five households reported lack of quality care as the problem. One household cited cost as the
main reason for not using child care and one household had a non-working parent caring for the child.
Employer Provisions for Child Care
Provisions Used by Employees. Flex-tune was the most widely used benefit offered by employers.
DCAP was used by four households. One household used the on-site child care facility(at Hacienda).
36
One household did not use the provisions offered by the employer. Eight households (more than 25
percent of respondents)reported no assistance from their employers.
Suggestions for Employers. Most of the suggestions given by respondents addressed the lack of
understanding employers have of parents'needs during the early years of their children's lives. Parents
would like more flexibility at work during these years. This might include flexible working hours,part-
time positions,and family sick leave. In addition,working parents would also like to see these attitudes
held by the larger society. This might translate into more part-time positions at child care centers, tax
breaks,and public/private subsidies to improve the quality of child care and to lower the cost.
umm
In summary, the very limited employee survey highlights several key attributes of the LPD child care
system for employees in the area. Although satisfaction among system users is high, non-users have
expressed dissatisfaction with quality as a major reason for not placing their children in child care.
More than one-fourth of the respondents did not receive any child care benefits or assistance from
employers, and many of the respondents expressed the need for more assistance such as flex-time and
paid leave.
It should be noted that the employee survey conducted for this study was very limited;a more extensive
survey of LPD employees should be conducted as part of on-going needs assessment/child care
planning efforts in LPD.
37
LPD Provider Interviews
In order to systematically assess the needs and opinions of a group of family child care home and
center-based providers concerning the delivery of quality child care services in the LPD area, a series
of telephone interviews were conducted between February and April of 1990.
Methodology. The approach of this research was to consider the small sample of 20 providers as "key
informants" about their own operations as well as the needs of the children and parents they serve.
Telephone interviews lasting between 20 and 30 minutes were conducted using an interview guide of 23
questions with both descriptive and open-ended formats (see Appendix F for interview guide and
tabulation). The instrument was designed to stimulate discussion with the respondents; thus, the
following discussion contains more anecdotal information than gathered in the surveys conducted on
residents,employers,and employees.
The Sample. A total of 20 providers were interviewed. This group included seven family child care
home providers licensed for up to six children,three family child care home providers licensed to serve
12 children, and 10 centers (at 21 sites) licensed to serve groups of 13 or more children. This group
provides licensed child care for a potential number of 78 children in family child care homes and 1,303
children in centers. Thirty-eight percent of these providers serve groups of 70 children or more; 52
percent of the center programs serve groups of 50 children or fewer.
Program Longevity. As a whole,this sample represents an established service provider group who have
been providing child care over a significant period of time. Almost all respondents (95 percent) have
been in business for three or more years;55 percent have been in operation for five or more years.
Age Groups Served. The findings indicate that family child care home providers have more flexibility
in serving a wider age range than centers. This pattern is particularly evident for providers serving
infants and toddlers in the area.
Only four centers (40 percent of centers) served infants under 18 months of age, while 90 percent of
family child care home providers surveyed offered availability of care for this youngest age group.
Sixty percent of centers served toddlers under 2.6 years of age. In contrast, all of the family child care
home providers accommodated toddlers.
All of the family care home centers also served preschoolers under five years of age,while only seven
of the 10 centers did so.
While 90 percent of family child care home providers serve children five to eight, only 60 percent of
centers serve this age group. Seventy percent of family child care home providers serve children nine
to 12;in contrast, only 30 percent of centers do so. The sample includes three center programs serving
school age programs expressly.
38 -
Non-Ambulatory Child Care Services. The majority (65 percent) of the providers sampled are not
licensed to serve non-ambulatory disabled children. It appears that very few child care programs in
the area actively recruit and serve children who are disabled.
Actual Capacity and Service Delivery. The majority (60 percent) of programs surveyed operate at
capacity most of time or always. Forty percent of these programs operate at capacity only sometimes
or never.
The interviews revealed that many programs intentionally operate below licensed capacity in order to
improve quality of care and/or permit greater flexibility for part-time spaces. Providers perceive that
program components serving high demand age groups such as infants or toddlers operate at or near
licensed capacity most of the time.
Only 30 percent of programs admit children from an on-going wait list; 45 percent of providers use
waiting lists sometimes or never. All programs serving state-subsidized children are required to admit
from waiting lists based on strict eligibility criteria.
Forty-five percent of the interviewed providers feel that the market demand for care is cyclical, often
associated with school calendars, and therefore subject providers to fluctuating enrollments. One-
fourth of the providers keep enrollments under capacity by choice to maintain program integrity or
quality based on keeping a reduced child/staff ratio or restricting the age group of children served.
Another 35 percent of respondents believe in encouraging the availability of part-time care slots. This
group reasons that this may result in an overall lower actual service/capacity ratio.
Ownership Structure. Seventy-five percent of all providers in this sample described themselves as
being in private business for profit. In contrast, only 20 percent of the total sample are organized as
non-profit institutions. Two agencies receive State funding and are non-profit through an umbrella
agency or school districts. Three centers describe themselves as private non-profit businesses.
Sixty percent of these programs are owner or family-operated. Twenty percent of centers are
administered by corporations, including one publicly held franchised center, one for-profit and two
non-profit corporations with governing boards. Thirty percent of centers are administered by
community agencies including churches.
Plans for Changg. Eighty-five percent of the respondents plan to expand services in the next five years,
or would do so if conditions were right. Twenty percent of the provider sample are planning to expand
infant care services. Only one family child care home provider is planning to expand licensed capacity
from six to 12. The two on-site school age programs would expand immediately to fulfill unmet
demand if they were to receive funding to purchase relocatable buildings for unnerved school sites.
There is a shortage of suitable indoor space for child care on most area school sites.Thirty percent of
programs surveyed have no plans to change program operations. One family child care home provider
39
operator is considering going out of business because of her own changing family needs. Four family
child care home providers stated that their service delivery plan in terms of age groups served is often
determined by age of their own children.
Impediments to Change. Comments regarding impediments to change can be classified into five
categories; licensing limitations, physical plant and equipment limitations, cost factors, supply of
qualified staff, and limited subsidized slots. Licensing limitations mentioned included outdoor play
space requirements and the age(s) of family child care home providers' own children. Physical plant
limitations included site improvements/renovations and the need for relocatable buildings on school
sites. Cost factors included zoning fees and the high cost of liability insurance. The supply of qualified
staff was mentioned several times in terms of the recruitment and retention of qualified teachers.
Family child care home providers get `burned out' because of the lack of sick leave and vacations.
Three providers mentioned that there are too few subsidized slots available.
Support for Change. Factors which assist providers in making the program changes they hope for
include: market demands for increased availability of child care services to drive expansion needs,
agency and public awareness of the needs for high quality care to help drive changes, involvement of
advisory/governing board in feasibility studies for expansion, applications for the State child care
expansion fund,and successful agency fundraising and advocacy.
Child Care Referrals. Child Care providers receive referrals from a variety of sources, including the
following: State-funded information and referral for parents looking for child care through the services
of County based agencies such as Resources for Family Development based in Livermore; word-of-
mouth; advertising; public and private schools; State agency sources for special needs such as Child
Protective Services/Department of Social Services; Public Health nurses; physicians; and
business/employers. Ninety percent of this sample most frequently receive client referrals through
word-of-mouth from past clients, friends, relatives, and neighbors. Ninety percent of this provider
group utilize the services of RFD sometimes,often or most frequently,35 percent use paid advertising
often or most frequently, and 30 percent rely upon primary school site referrals often or most
frequently. Other sources of client referrals were DPSS Child Protective Services, business park,
Realtors and the annual Children's Faire.
Substitute Care Providers. Locating suitably qualified substitute caregivers for family child care home
providers and centers is a frequent complaint by these child care service providers. Employee
absenteeism due to exposure to communicable disease is an occupational hazard for child care
providers; this problem is particularly acute among family child care home providers. Without a
community-based service created for the purpose of assisting home providers who are ill or need
emergency respite,there are few resources outside of the provider's own family members to assist with
this problem. As a group, the providers in this sample view staffing needs as an ongoing crisis, with
lack of substitute care as one component. One-fourth of those interviewed are enrolled in RFD's
Substitute Care program. Providers who utilized the program were very pleased with this service and
hope it can be expanded to meet more of their staffing needs. One-fifth of the sample described
40
alternative methods to meet this need. These included overstaffing, overtime assignments,keeping an
exclusive center-based list of on-call substitutes, and using a provider's own adult family members as
substitute providers.
Early Childhood Teacher/Provider Preparation and Training. Quality of care in child care settings is
closely linked to teacher/provider education and training. As a workforce, child-care teachers are
better educated than comparably paid workers. Center teachers are required by the State to possess
minimum academic and experience requirements, while family child care home providers are not
regulated by the State in terms of preparatory academic requirements. Local providers and teachers
have access to regional sources of preparation and training which include community colleges, State
universities, private colleges, professional association conferences, and child care agency tr aining
opportunities.
Eighty-five percent of the sample have taken advantage of some form of early childhood education
(ECE). Of this group which participated in local ECE training, 40 percent have attended RFD-
sponsored training workshops and classes. All of this same group report taking workshops, courses, or
ECE certificate/degree programs at Chabot/Las Positas Community College. Other sources of
training identified were Cal State Hayward, San Jose State, Ohlone College, Pacific Oaks College
Extension,High/Scope training, Mills College,AEYC conferences and American Montessori Society
training.
Professional Affiliations. There are many organizations for early childhood center teachers and family
child care home providers, including professional organizations offering membership services and
educational/career opportunities. Locally, there are two main organizations representing centers and
family child care home providers. Among the group surveyed 70 percent are affiliated with either the
regional center director organization, Directors of the Valley, or with the family child care home
provider organization,the Valley Child Care Association.
There are also Statewide and National affiliate organizations representing centers and family child care
home providers. 45 percent of those interviewed belong to a professional association. Of the sample,
53 percent belong to the National Association for the Education of Young Children or its statewide
affiliate. The other organizations mentioned, in order of frequency of membership, are the
Professional Association for Childhood Education,California School Age Consortium,State affiliate of
Valley Child Care Association,and the American Montessori Society.
Work and Family Issues. Child Care providers in the LPD region as elsewhere must cope with an
array of family situations that may be unrelated or peripheral to the actual work of providing adequate
child care for children of working parents. Sometimes these situations impact on the ability of
providers to serve their clients with a quality program.
When asked about how often providers must deal with specific work or family issues among the
population served, providers felt that job-related, mental health, and special needs of individual
41
children were most often the causes of such problems. Thirty-five percent of those interviewed felt that
they have to deal with economic problems including layoffs and unemployment of parents and late
payment or non-payment of tuition fees as often as weekly or monthly. Thirty percent said they dealt
with mental health issues including divorce,violence in the home,and drug/alcohol abuse as frequently
as weekly or monthly. One-fourth felt that serving the needs of disabled children or children with
specific individual needs occurred as often as weekly or monthly. Twenty percent felt that health-
related problems requiring consultation with parents, pediatricians, or nurses occurred with similar
frequency. Although many providers felt that they did not have to deal with these concerns regularly,
they still had to deal with them at least yearly. Other work and family issues which were mentioned
included,in order of frequency;suspected child abuse,low income families at risk of homelessness and
other problems,housing problems,abuse of family child care home providers' maximum daily hours of
care for other than work related reasons,and caring for sick children.
When asked to consider the sufficiency of local services to offset some of the above-mentioned
problems, 25 percent of the sample perceived a lack of adequate community-based services to help
families with job related economic and mental health related issues. However,most providers had no
opinion or felt that there were adequate local services to meet these needs. RFD hotline service was
mentioned as an example of mental health services available to help providers.
Provider Concerns. Staffing, compensation/benefits and the affordability of child care are the most
frequently identified components of programs which providers would like to change in this sample.
Family child care home provider and center directors are concerned about adequate compensation and
benefits for their work. Seventy percent of the respondents feel that issues relating to
compensation/benefits are the most important problems they face. Half of those surveyed feel that
finding qualified staff to work in their child care programs is also a critical issue. They identify high
staff turnover as an immediate problem.Also,half of those surveyed feel that some mechanism(s)must
be created to assist parents in payment for child care. The suggested mechanisms for assisting parents
included scholarships, direct subsidy, expanded tax breaks and special funding programs. Half of
center directors interviewed are concerned about the quality, experience, and education of entry level
child care teachers.
Of lesser concern, but still important to providers, is the issue of group size. Twenty percent of
providers identified group size as the most important part of their program to be changed. Among
these providers there appear to be two distinct opinions; one group would like to reduce the total
number of children allowed in each child care class,and the other would like to increase the number of
specific age group children to increase affordability.
Parental Choice. In this survey providers were asked about how parents choose child care,in order to
compare providers' perceptions regarding parental concerns about child care versus providers' own
concerns about the delivery of services. Provider opinion on parental choice of care indicates(in order
of priority) that safety, affordability, trust/love and cleanliness are most often identified. Qualified
staffing, reference checks, food service, and group management ability were also given a most
42
important rating by some providers. Of lesser importance were educational program, specific services
for parents themselves,location,and fun/excitement.
Child Care Service Deliver+ Solutions. Providers were asked a series of questions aimed at eliciting
their ideas about solutions to some of their concerns about their own programs and region-wide child
care services.
Sixty percent of providers surveyed feel there is a community-wide need for more infant and toddler
care options for parents. Forty percent feel that there is a need for more school age on-site child care.
Twenty percent feel there should be expanded substitute care programs for family child care home
providers and centers. Other services mentioned in order of frequency included more subsidized care
slots,greater part-time care options for parents,community-based recreation/enrichment activities for
school age children, supervised programs for junior high school-age children, emergency respite care,
special programs for non-toilet trained preschooler,and interaction programs with seniors.
When given the opportunity to rate the importance of possible child care support services to improve
program quality, 70 percent of providers rated enhanced salary/benefits as a priority, 55 percent rated
availability of group health benefits as a priority, and 60 percent identified an expanded substitute care
registry as a top priority. Fifty percent gave a teacher/aide/director placement service most important
status;55 percent prioritize the concept of a mental health outreach service for centers and providers.
Eighty-five percent of those surveyed feel a tuition subsidy program to stimulate continuing education
and training for staff is a high priority.
Sixty percent of family child care home providers surveyed prioritize the establishment of a fund to pay
for sick leave, vacation and respite substitute care for providers. One fourth of the sample favor
expanded public awareness/parent orientation programs concerning child care needs such as a "child
care tour of the valley"program.
Regulry Solutions. Comments on regulatory issues fall into three categories: expediting the
licensing process;increased monitoring and enforcement;and licensing code reforms.
Thirty percent of those surveyed request an increase in the number of licensing field analysts to reduce
caseloads and to expedite application processing. Family child care home providers were particularly
concerned about the decreasing frequency of visitation monitoring by licensing personnel. Thirty
percent encouraged more diligent enforcement of regulations and better training for licensing staff.
Suggested licensing code reforms mentioned include: increasing the maximum number of school age
children in small family child care homes for limited afternoon programs;reducing the number of two
year olds per adult for better quality; decreasing the outdoor area requirements for infant centers,
matching family child care home provider child/adult ratios in centers, formal disclosure of parent
complaints to licensing agencies, and more flexible ratios for family child care home providers serving a
limited age group of children.
43
Other Local Solutions. Home and center program providers mentioned the need for better
coordination of regional child care services to build collaboration between child care programs,
schools,city government,and private businesses. Two interviewees suggested the establishment of City
child care coordinator(s).
One-fourth of providers surveyed made comments regarding the need for family home providers and
center teachers to receive more recognition,respect,and value for the importance of their work.
Summary. In summary, the provider interviews indicated a range of day-to-day problems as well as
more long-range issues affecting their ability to meet the need for child care in LPD. While most of
the providers would like to expand, they faced constraints ranging from lack of portables (for after-
school programs at school sites) to lack of qualified staff. To meet current and future needs for child
care, providers focused on the need for more recognition, better working conditions, an expanded
substitute registry,and more support in dealing with family issues such as mental health and layoffs.
44
SALARY AND WORKING CONDITIONS OF CHILD CARE PROVIDERS IN LPD
To complete the assessment of child care system needs for LPD,addition research regarding published
data on the existing salary and working conditions for providers was undertaken by the consultant
team.
The child care teachers, directors, and aides for nine sample facilities in the LPD area were
represented in salary surveys of the Southern Alameda County region collected first in 1987 and
updated in 1989 by the Child Care Employee Project. The following summarizes the findings of these
two studies as well as the National Child Care Staffmg Study.
Staff Turnover
In 1987,Southern Alameda County child care teachers had one of the highest staff turnover rates,at 57
percent per year, compared to other Bay Area communities surveyed. This high turnover rate
corresponded with lower than average salary rates for teachers in Southern Alameda County compared
with other Bay Area communities. Updated 1989 data suggest that salaries in Southern Alameda
County have risen somewhat, and the staff turnover rate has been lowered to 30 percent per year for
teachers and 45 percent per year for assistants. Still, this rate is quite high when compared to national
statistics on separation rates for persons employed as Pre K Teachers (17.8 percent), Elementary
Teachers(11.1 percent),and Secondary Teachers(9.1 percent).1
Salaries
Data collected in 1989 suggest that Southern Alameda County wages are quite low. The annualized
salary for starting center teachers was $11,393 and $14,823 for teachers at highest levels (based on 6.5
hours/day, 50 weeks per year). Child care teaching salaries were 50 percent less than their female
counterparts and 66 percent less than male counterparts in other occupations requiring similar levels of
education.4
Child care staff wages have not kept pace with increases in the cost of living. Starting wages in
Southern Alameda County rose only 6.5 percent for child care teachers while the cost of living rose 8.5
percent for the period between the two surveys(1987 through 1989).
1 The Crisis is Real-Demographics on the Problems of Recmiting and Retaining Early
Childhood Staff. National Association for the Education of Young Children,1989.
4 Whitebook,M.,et al.,ibid.
45
Other findings of interest from The Child Care Employee Project's 1989 salary survey are that, in
general, higher wages were found in State subsidized programs and in programs with
academic/experience requirements beyond licensing regulations. Also, the survey concluded, in
keeping with national studies,that lower rates of staff turnover are directly related to higher wages.
One of the most striking features of current national research on child care teacher salaries and
working conditions is that of the relationship between factors in the adult work environment such as
wages and the delivery of appropriate care of children. The National Child Care Staffing Study found
that staff wages are the best predictor of the quality of care children receive, and that better quality
centers had higher wages, better adult work environments, lower staff turnover, better educated staff,
and more staff caring for fewer children.
46
STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE THE CHILD CARE SYSTEM
Background research for this report included a review of numerous resource documents, city child care
plans,and published reports describing the needs,strategies, and implementation programs for used by
public and private organizations to improve child care throughout California.
The following summary of these strategies has been divided into three sets: local government,business,
and provider. Since this report has been prepared for the Cities of Livermore,Pleasanton,and Dublin,
the following discussion focuses on local government strategies.
Local Government Strategies
Needs Assessments/Child Care Plans. Many cities in California have undertaken Needs Assessments
or Child Care Plans during the past five years including West Sacramento, Irvine, Davis, Fremont,
Central San Mateo County, and Palo Alto. Currently, the cities of Oakland and Santa Monica are
undergoing a child care needs assessment/planning process.
Most of these documents devote considerable effort to assessing current need such as a description of
the current supply,a demographic analysis, and perhaps a review of surveys of local businesses. None
of the documents reviewed by BAE included a resident survey. Most of the Needs Assessments or
Child Care Reports recommend undertaking a Plan as the next step.
The formal Plans range from statements of policies (e.g., "expand the supply of child care in our
community")to more definitive strategic plans with specified actions,budgets, and time frames. Most
of the possible strategies described below are included in many of these documents; however, the
Needs Assessments/Child Care Plans do not evaluate any of their own recommendations after
implementation, nor do any of them recommend such an evaluation or plan update in a specified
period of time. Several communities, including Fremont and Sacramento, have published updates on
the status of plan implementation.
For LPD, this Needs Assessment/Master Plan represents implementation of this type of strategy.
Child Care as Part of City Planning Process. Many of the child care plans recommend that child care
issues be given the same status as other social services within local government. One way to
accomplish this is to integrate child care into the city planning process. This approach is especially
important in cities with substantial growth and development such as Livermore, Pleasanton, and
Dublin.
In accordance with California law, each city must prepare a General Plan, which is mandated to
contain several Elements including a Housing Element, a Circulation Element, a Land Use Element,
etc. Certain other elements are optional, and recent state law actually lists child care as an optional
47
Element. Moreover, several California bills have recently been proposed which would make a Child
Care Element a requirement of the General Plan.
Several cities'child care reports recommended producing a Child Care Element as part of the General
Plan in the future, incorporating policy statements, identification of possible sites, and program
descriptions A related approach recommended by many child care advocates is to revise other
General Plan elements that relate to child care in order to incorporate policies and programs into
them.
Research for this study uncovered one Child Care Element, prepared for West Sacramento in 1989,
that has been included as part of their General Plan. However, review of this document indicated that
it does not deal with sites or other physical issues; rather, the West Sacramento Child Care Element
covers many of the same general topics as the other child care reports reviewed for this study.
There are several other ways which child care can be incorporated into the city planning process.
Development agreements, which are typically used by cities to negotiate developer contributions and
dedications on a case-by-case basis, have been used to exact child care monies or facilities. The Child
Care Law Project also recommends that child care advocates become involved in the environmental
review process (EIR) in order to comment on the child care impacts of proposed development
projects. This EIR process, by law, must attempt to mitigate documented impacts; possibilities exist
for realizing developer contributions to a child care system via the EIR process. (see Coordinator
discussion below)
Finally, Los Angeles has linked child care to the Redevelopment planning process, requiring that
redevelopment projects (city-sponsored projects in blighted areas) address the need for child care.
This type of strategy is important to consider because it interfaces well with those occasions when the
local government is actually serving as a major developer and can directly choose what type of facilities
to develop.
For LPD, research indicated that none of the General Plan's for the three cities includes a discussion of
child care or any child care policies.
Zoning/Permitting. The issue of zoning and related land use regulations can severely impact the
provision of child care,particularly in a family home setting. In California, legislation enacted in 1986
has served to clarify certain aspects of zoning law related to family homes. Small family homes(one to
six children) are permitted"by right"in all residential zones; this means than no notifications, hearings,
or use permits can be required for small family child care homes.
Large family homes (7 to 12 children) can be treated in one of three ways by cities in California: they
can be permitted "by right" in residential zones, they can be given a non-discretionary permit (granted
by planning director without public hearing if certain conditions are met), or they can be required to
obtain a conditional use permit (requires neighbor notification and public hearing). The choice of
48
requiring a conditional use permit can result in delay, expense, confusion, and potential denial of the
project. Child care advocates tend to discourage the conditional use permit approach, due to these
constraints on the expansion of child care supply.
Business licenses including payment of business license fees are also often required of family home
operators. This requirement has been waived in several cities throughout California as a strategy to
encourage expansion of the child care system.
For LPD, research indicated that Pleasanton permits small child cane homes by right, large child care
homes and centers by conditional use permit, and has reduced business license fees to$IS, the lowest fee
category available. For Livermore, small homes are also permitted by right, and large family child care
homes are subject to the conditional use process (including public hearings). Dublin's zoning ordinance
also permits small family child care homes by righ4.and requires a conditional use permit (including
public hearings)for large homes. Dublin does not charge a business license fee to family providers. Thus,
for LPD, large home providers are subject to the difficult process of conditional use permit hearings in all
three cities, an approach that could be altered per enabling legislation as described above,
Provider Start-Up/Expansion Assistance. In communities where supply of child care is of major
concern, special programs to assist providers with start-up or expansion have been implemented,
typically via the Child Care Coordinator mechanism described below.
The start-up of a family home or child care center requires numerous business skills and familiarity
with a variety of zoning and licensing regulations. These obstacles to start-up can severely constrain
the expansion of a community's child care supply. Start-up/expansion assistance,therefore, can take a
variety of forms including production of a brochure describing the city's zoning/licensing procedures,
assistance with loan applications,site location assistance,and business planning/marketing help.
For the LPD, RFD, through a grant from the CIP projec4 has just finished a two-year pilot program to
recruit and train family home providers. Although this pilot has been successful, it has now ended; and
RFD feels that continued start-up and expansion assistance is vital to achieving the goal of expanded child
can supply.
Child Care Coordinator. The child care coordinator concept has been recommended by many cities'
plans, and has been implemented in a variety of ways throughout California (e.g., Alameda County,
Contra Costa County, City of Fremont, City of Irvine, City of Davis, City of Palo Alto, City of
Sacramento,and State of California for its own employees). Basically, the child care coordinator is a
person responsible for implementing local government policies and programs;the person can either be
an existing staff member with other responsibilities or an addition to staff.
Child care coordinators can serve many functions. In the cases of integrating child care into the city
planning process, the environmental review/planning review/developer negotiation functions can be
overseen by the coordinator. In addition, the coordinator often serves as a liaison to other city
49
departments and the business community, providing education and referral services on employee
benefits, etc. Further, the coordinator can oversee special programs and partnerships undertaken by
the local government such as provider start-up/expansion,child care fund,and accreditation.
For LPD, RFD serves under contract as a coordinator for certain service functions for just the cities of
Pleasanton and Livermore. However, the role of RFD as a coordinator for the three cities in the LPD area
has not been fully developed due to budgetary and staffing constraints.
The need for one or more designated child care coordinators to serve LPD is a critical element which
should be considered the LPD Child Care Master Plan. Since LPD is a region containing three separate
local governments, and most fully developed child cane coordinator positions around the state of
California have been instituted under the auspices of one governmental unit, the ability to create a fully
developed child care coordinator role serving the LPD region should be carefully considered as pmt of the
Master Plan.
Developer Fees/Exactions. Developer Fees/Exactions is the "stick" approach to land development
regulation;this method is used by many cities in California to obtain funds for streets,parks,public art,
and affordable housing.
San Francisco and Concord have pioneered the effort to link development to fees for child care. In
Concord,a 0.5 percent of value fee is charged for most large new development projects for purposes of
distribution to local non-profit child care providers for facility expansion. In San Francisco, a linkage
fee for child care charged to office developers that was implemented several years ago received
national press;however,no actual new child care facilities have been constructed to date.
Contra Costa County has taken a slightly different tactic with this type of strategy. The County
requires that all new developments (commercial and residential) over a certain size prepare a Child
Care Needs Assessment in order to determine the need for child care generated by the project
proposal. The developer must then mitigate the identified need by either building facilities or assisting
non-profit providers with facility construction/expansion.
For LPD, this approach has been previously discussed but no firm proposal was ever developed Since
each city in LPD handles existing fees/exactions in a variety of ways, a regional fe%zaction policy for
child care services would be difficult to implement. However,for the Master Plan, this concept should be
more fully explored by the Task Force.
Developer Incentives. Developer incentives are a "carrot" approach to facilitating an expanded child
care system. Cities such as Los Angeles have encouraged child care by offering developers a density
bonus(more square feet of development than would otherwise be permitted), waiving development or
permit fees (which can be thousands of dollars) if child care is provided, and waiving parking
requirements for projects in downtown locations (parking in garages is typically a major development
cost which developers are delighted to minimize).
50
A recent piece of state legislation level,AB 1828,has enacted enabling legislation which permits local
governments to pass ordinances establishing a density bonus for child care space provision. This type
of legislation is explicitly modelled on affordable housing legislation which provides for a density bonus
in residential projects if a certain number of affordable units are included. For child care,the density
bonus is for buildings over 50,000 square feet, and permits up 10 additional square feet of development
for every one square foot of child care space provided,subject to certain size and licensing standards.
This legislation is important because it provides an explicit encouragement by the state to local
governments to use their regulatory powers to expand the child care system.
For LPD, this enabling legislation could be enacted in each of the three cities, and should be considered
as a recommendation in the Master Plan.
Child Care Fund. A Child Care Fund is a way to centralize funds that are derived from multiple
funding sources at the State, County, and local level. This fund can be used for a variety of programs
or can provide direct subsidies to income-eligible or at-risk families. Many cities' plans recommend
implementation of a Child Care Fund. Contra Costa County has successfully established a Fund
targeted to providing subsidies to low-income families. Funding sources for the Contra Costa County
Fund include the State Department of Education, Community Development Block Grant monies,
foundation grants, and private or public donations. In Palo Alto,a Fund has recently been established
with the goal of improving current facilities and expanding the system. Funding sources are anticipated
to include local government,corporations,and foundations.
For LPD, a Child Care Fund would provide a centralized source of funds to pay for recommendations
arising out of the Master Plan.
City-as-Employer Model. Local governments can serve as model employers to encourage child care
provision. Efforts used by cities around the state includes on-site child care centers(State of California
requires on-site facilities for all of its new office buildings with more than 700 employees), benefit
plans, subsidies, flex-time, etc. Davis and Los Angeles in particular have focuses much of their plan
implementation efforts on making their own organizations into model employers.
For LPD, the City of Pleasanton has established a city employee task force to look at these issues.
However, research indicated that this group has not progressed beyond taking a survey of child care needs.
The City of Dublin has recently implemented a Dependent Care Assistance Program for its employees.
The Master Plan should fully explore this strategy for the three cities, including implementation
mechanisms.
Local Government Contractor Pro rg ams. This concept is a particularly interesting approach. Working
from the idea that local governments can influence the private sector by their own purchasing power
for goods and services, Los Angeles and Alameda County have implemented contractor programs.
r
51
These programs involve surveys, educational materials, and even a bonus system for those private
businesses that can demonstrate attention to child care on behalf of their employees (Los Angeles
only). The incentive is that those companies with child care programs are awarded bonus points in the
contract bidding process, enabling them to secure contracts over companies without such child care
programs.
For LPD, this strategy is probably a workable idea, and should be more fully explored as pan of the Master
Plan. Attention should be given to integration with the County program to avoid duplication of services.
Special Taxes. Fremont is a good case study of this concept - the direct taxation of residents and
businesses to support child care programs at the local level. Unfortunately, the Fremont tax proposal
for resident taxation was defeated at the ballot box last year, sending a message around the state that
residents were not willing to provide direct monetary support for child care.
For LPD, this strategy would likely not be well-received by the public or local officials. Results from the
resident survey described above,for example, indicated that less than one-third of respondents view child
care funding as a partial responsibility of all residents. Instead residents see funding as a responsibility
primarily of developers and local employers.
Cry as Provider or Partnership with Others. A city,through its officers,departments, and officials can
take an active role in the promotion and development of cooperative relationships with parents,
employers,child care professionals, the school district,organizations,businesses,educators,community
leaders,and government officials. The common goal in such partnerships is to increase the availability
of accessible and affordable quality child care to working parents. Los Angeles has funded an after-
school education and enrichment program (LA'S BEST) on school sites and formed a city-federal
partnership to establish a child care center on City Hall grounds to serve city and federal employees.
The most common form of partnership to date has been between local governments and school
districts, primarily for the purpose of operating after-school care programs. Schools can either lease
space,provide ground for portables,or actual contract with cities to operate programs on school sites.
In LPD, an example of this partnership concept has been implemented in Livermore, where the school
district provides land for portables at school sites to the recreation district who, in tum, operates
before/after-school care programs. This partnership concept could be expanded as part of the Master Plan
recommendations to include regional cooperation and funding by the three cities to implement strategies
such as the Child Care Coordinator and the Child Care Fund.
Business Strategies
There are numerous strategies to enhance the LPD child care system which can implemented by local
business and can be encouraged by Master Plan recommendations. These include provision of on-site
or near-site child care facilities(e.g., near office buildings or industrial areas);flexible benefits such as
52
Dependent Care Assistance Program, cafeteria plans, flextime, parental leave, etc.; dived monetary
assistance to pay for a portion of child care costs;and dived grants to resource agencies.
Since the limited employer and employee surveys conducted for this report indicated the need for or
expansion of many of these strategies,it is recommended that the Master Plan incorporate mechanisms
to involve the local business community into the continued planning and fundraising process.
Provider Strategies
Strategies which have been implemented directly by providers,provider organizations,and/or resource
agencies include formalized accreditation programs; a family child care network to provide tr aining,
respite for providers, and substitutes; and pooling of financial resources to maximize the cost-
effectiveness of purchases of goods and services such as liability insurance and supplies. For LPD,it is
recommended that the Master Plan incorporate mechanisms to encourage these kinds of strategies.
For example, an expanded Child Care Coordinator could organize an insurance program on a Valley-
wide basis.
i
53
II.CHILD CARE MASTER PLAN
JY
LPD CHILD CARE MASTER PLAN
Statement of Approach
The LPD Child Care Master Plan Task Force believes that child care services are vital to the future of
all three cities. Current conditions suffer from lack of state and federal funding,lack of public agency
organization, and lack of public understanding of the relationship between child care quality and the
health of the economic base as well as the quality of life for all residents.
The Task Force's approach in formulating the following recommendations is to avoid duplication of
services and activities,maximize the use of available resources,and provide each of the three cities with
a plan that can be tailored to meet individual city needs and circumstances. For the short term, this
approach translates into a series of expanded coordination activities to be implemented by a selected
non-profit organization such as Resources for Family Development (the Resource and Referral
Agency for the LPD area) under contract to each local government. This approach utilizes the
resources that are already operative in LPD,and builds upon them to deliver enhanced services. In the
longer term,the approach proposes creating a permanent, on-going joint partnership between the local
governments of LPD,small and large businesses,providers,educators,and residents.
The following Plan is structured as two primary goals with corresponding objectives. To accomplish
these goals and objectives, both Year 1 Actions (year after Plan adoption) and Longer-Term Actions
(second through fifth year after Plan adoption)have been formulated.
The Plan is intended to be the first step in an evolutionary planning process, and it is recommended
that a cycle of updated needs assessment/master planning be undertaken jointly by LPD every five
years. Thus,this first Plan lays the groundwork for future planning efforts.
55
Goals and Objectives
Goal 1:
Expand the supply of general and targeted child care services and facilities. Targeted child care services
and facilities should include subsidized care (for low income families), infant care, school-age care, odd-
hours care, sick cane, and children with special needs and disabilities.
Objective 1.1:Conduct Community Education Program
Description: Conduct on-going Community Education Program for all sectors of the community to
educate and disseminate information about the need for child care, the effect of quality care on
children and the community, ways to assess quality care, and methods available to private business to
provide child care benefits. The Community Education Program should be targeted to different
sectors of the community including schools,business,and the general public.
The Community Education Program could include press releases for local press,print announcements,
cable television spots and programs,a Child Care Fair publicizing available services,printed summaries
of information in a graphically designed pamphlet, a Child Care Public Hearing with testimony from
concerned citizens, seminars for business on Dependent Care Assistance Programs and other
employee benefits,etc.
Year 1 Action: Each city contracts with a selected non-profit to plan Education Program as part of
Child Care Coordination Services Contract. (See Implementation Plan)
Longer-Term Action: Implement and continue Community Education Program. Work towards joint
LPD participation in on-going Community Education Program.
Objective 12:Establish Child Care Fund
Description: A Child Care Fund is a fundraising and distribution method intended to centralize child
care-related fmancial assistance by governmental organizations, private businesses, and non-profit
foundations. By centralizing these activities, funds can be matched, leveraged, and used in ways which
maximize resources. Fund monies could be used for purposes such as subsidizing the costs of care for
low-income families, providing scholarships for provider training, making loans for facility capital
improvements and expansion, providing a transportation network, supporting a substitute registry, and
expanding availability of provider benefits. It is recommended that the Fund not be used to cover
operating costs of providers.
56
Careful planning and initial organization of the Child Care Fund is needed to successfully target child
care needs in LPD. In the longer term,the LPD Task Force believes that the creation of a joint Child
Care Fund supported by business and government in all three cities would best serve the needs of the
LPD area as well as most efficiently use limited financial resources. Such a joint effort would likely
require the formation of a new non-profit entity with policy-making and fund distribution capabilities.
However,in the shorter term, the LPD Task Force recognizes that differing needs and approaches of
the three cities might result in the initial creation of a Fund involving one or two LPD cities.
Year 1 Action: Each city contracts with selected non-profit to plan Child Care Fund, including
selection of legal entity and organizational/administrataive structure. This service would be part of
Child Care Coordination Services Contract with a selected non-profit. (See Implementation Plan).
Longer Term Action:Implement Child Care Fund and work towards involving all three cities and their
respective private and non-profit sectors as active participants in the Fund.
Objective 13:Create City-as-Model-Employer Programs
Description: Local governments can serve as model employers, providing child care benefits and
assistance to their own staff in order to encourage community-wide employer child care assistance.
Efforts used by cities around the state include development of on-site child care centers (State of
California requires on-site facilities for all of its new office buildings with more than 700 employees),
benefit plans, subsidies,flex-time,etc. Davis and Los Angeles in particular have focused much of their
plan implementation efforts on making their own organizations into model employers.
In the LPD area,both Pleasanton and Dublin have begun to explore this strategy. This Plan objective
recommends that each LPD city create and implement a City-as-Model Employer Program tailored to
the needs of each city's personnel.
Year 1 Action: To begin the process, each city will designate a city staff member as liaison (may
require adjusting existing staffs job description or hiring new part-time person). The city liaison will
receive technical assistance from a selected non-profit (through expanded Child Care Coordination
Services Contract)to formulate tailored program for their city.
Longer Term Action:Continue to expand and refine City-as-Model Employer Programs. Continue to
enable a selected non-profit to provide limited technical assistance for city liaisons.
57
Objective 1.4:Establish Local Government Contractor Program
Description: Working from the idea that local governments can influence the private sector by their
own purchasing power for goods and services, Los Angeles and Alameda County have implemented
contractor programs. These programs can involve surveys, educational materials, and even a contract
award bonus system for those private businesses selling goods or services to local governments who can
demonstrate attention to child care on behalf of their employees (Los Angeles only). The incentive is
that those companies with child care programs are awarded bonus points in the contract bidding
process, enabling them to secure contracts over companies without such child care programs. This
kind of approach could be especially useful to target those companies with employees at the lower end
of the wage scale, which, according to surveys conducted for the LPD Needs Assessment, typically
receive virtually no employer child care benefits or assistance.
Since Alameda County has established such a program, a similar program in one or more of the LPD
cities should be coordinated with County efforts to avoid duplication.
Year 1 Action: To create this program, each city's child care liaison will work with city staffs to
formulate a local government contractor program. A selected non-profit will provide limited technical
assistance as part of the expanded Child Care Coordination Services Contract.
Longer Term Action:Implement and continue to refine Program.
Objective 1.5:Continue Assisting Providers with Licensing Process
Description: RFD currently provides licensing information and technical assistance to providers in
Pleasanton and Livermore through current coordination contracts. However, this service is not
provided to Dublin as such a contract has not been established.
Year 1 Action: Establish technical assistance service for Dublin providers as part of Child Care
Coordination Services contract with a selected non-profit.
Longer Term Action: Continue service.
Objective 1.6:Leverage Funds From All Sources
Description: RFD currently seeks to respond to all Requests for Proposals received from County,
State, or Federal agencies in order to obtain funds for child care in LPD. However, budgetary
limitations prevent RFD from initiating, preparing, and submitting proposals for funding to other
potential sources such as foundations and corporations. This objective seeks to enhance RFD's
capability to proactively seek funding from a variety of sources on behalf of the LPD child care system.
58
Year 1 Action:As part of expanded Child Care Coordination Services Contract, direct a selected non-
profit such as RFD to proactively seek all available funding sources.
Longer Term Action:Continue to implement this objective through RFD efforts.
Objective 1.7:Integrate Child Care into City Planning Process
Description:The purpose of this objective is to give child care the same status as other social services
within local government by fully integrating child care into each city's planning process. Since LPD is
expected to continue to experience substantial growth and development, this objective seeks to build
child care into future public decision-making.
An important way to achieve this objective is to incorporate child care into each city's General Plan,
either as a separate General Plan Element or by revising other Elements to include child care policies
and programs within them. Recent state law actually lists child care as an optional General Plan
Element, and several California bills have recently been proposed which would make a Child Care
Element a requirement of the General Plan for each city.
There are several other ways which child care can be incorporated into the city planning process.
Development agreements, which are typically used by cities to negotiate developer contributions and
dedications on a case-by-case basis, can be used to exact child care monies or facilities. Child care
impacts can also be made an explicit part of the environmental review process(EIR)as a matter of city
policy. In this way, mitigations required as conditions of approval could encompass child care impact
mitigation measures.
Another important tool available to local government to incorporate child care into the planning
process from a regulatory standpoint is the recent California enabling legislation which permits cities to
legislate density bonuses for development projects that include child care facilities. This type of
approach, modelled on density bonuses available for affordable housing provision, serves as an
incentive which cities can offer to developers to expand child care facility supply at no cost to the city.
Since each city in LPD has different land use development policies and procedures, achieving this
objective will require an approach tailored to each city's needs and circumstances.
Year 1 Action: Planning department for each city formulates an approach to integrate child care into
the planning process. Approach may require adoption of policies or procedural changes.
Longer Term Action:Implement strategy as designed by each city.
59
Objective 1$:Coordinate Service Provision and Expand the Supply of Before-and After-School Child
Care
Description:This objective addresses the unmet need for before-and after-school care for school-aged
children up to the age of 12. Although LPD has an active system for this type of care, demand
estimates conducted for the Needs Assessment found a current unmet need for approximately 830 to
more than 2,000 spaces for children aged 6 through 12. This need is projected to grow by an additional
260 to 360 spaces by 1994. Discussions with providers and members of the Task Force further
underscored the extent of this unmet need;lengthy waiting lists and many distraught parents are typical
experiences of local after-school programs.
Year 1 Action: Establish a network of city liaisons, school district representatives, and providers to
coordinate the current system and explore ways to better maximize available school-site space. The
facilitation of this network should be an item in the expanded Child Care Coordination Services
Contract.
Longer-Term Action: Continue to formalize the network from Year 1. Seek integration into each
participating school district's facility planning process.
Goal 2:
Strengthen the quality of all child care services and facilities for both providers and families.
Objective 2.1:Conduct Community Education Program (same as for Objective 1.1)
Objective 22:Establish Child Care Fund (same as for Objective 1.2)
Objective 23:Create Provider Recognition Program and Expand Provider Accreditation Assistance
Description:This objective responds to the need (identified in the Needs Assessment) to provide more
community support and encouragement to providers to enter and remain in the child care profession.
A recognition program could be as simple as awarding a plaque to Provider of the Year in each City.
It could also involve monetary awards and incentives. Such a recognition program should be integrated
into the Community Education Program (Objective 1.1 and 2.1).
This object also seeks to expand on the current efforts by RFD under a grant from Mervyn's to
encourage provider Accreditation (note: Accreditation is granted by several national organizations;
RFD provides technical assistance during the process but does not set standards or award the
6
Accreditation). At present, the limited two-year effort is targeted to family child care home providers,
but should be expanded to target center-based care as well. Accreditation is a very important factor in
improving overall quality of care, since the process involves a self-directed, year-long assessment of
programs and facilities. In addition, the achievement of Accreditation can serve to enhance provider
staff morale and professional commitment.
Year 1 Action: Each city directs a selected non-profit to formulate and implement a Provider
Recognition Program as part of an expanded Child Care Coordination Services contract. To initiate
this effort, it is likely that a non-financial incentive to providers such as an award ceremony and plaque
will need to be the first-year procedure.
An expanded Accreditation Program will require additional funding, and is envisioned as a longer-term
action.
Longer Term Action: Continue the Provider Recognition Program. If the Child Care Fund is
implemented,seek to offer a small financial incentive to compete for the award.
Expand Provider Accreditation Program to make funding for technical assistance by a selected non-
profit a permanent commitment on the part of the to-be-formed Child Care Fund. Also, target this
effort to all providers, including center-based care. Financial incentives such as a short-term loan fund
to pay for enhanced supplies and teacher training as part of the Accreditation process is also
recommended.
Objective 2A:Coordinate Provider Educational and Training Opportunities
Description: In order to maximize available resources and offer a more comprehensive approach to
child care education and training in LPD, this objective seeks to coordinate such opportunities as they
are currently offered by several educational institutions.
In addition to formal education and training programs, an effective tool to encourage training has been
the pairing of experienced providers with newer ones in a mentor relationship. This objective seeks to
implement this type of program on an area-wide basis.
Year 1 Action: As part of an expanded Child Care Coordination Services Contract, the selected non-
profit would serve as facilitator of an evaluation and planning process among child care educational
institutions serving LPD. All education and training programs should be represented in this process.
The process would assess current educational gaps and overlaps, seeking to formulate a coordination
plan and identify the appropriate coordinating mechanism, which may be one of the educational
institutions currently serving the LPD area.
' 1 '
61
In addition,a Mentor Program should be implemented by a selected non-profit such as RFD as part of
an expanded Child Care Coordination Services Contract.
Longer Term Action:Implement plan developed through Year 1 Action.
Objective 2.5:Organize Pooled Purchasing Program
Description: This objective seeks to reduce provider operating costs and expand the availability of
health insurance and other benefits by organizing a purchasing pool. For example, while individual
providers may not be able to afford the health insurance premiums for their employees, pooling the
needs and purchasing power of many providers may render such insurance more affordable.
Year 1 Action:As part of the expanded Child Care Coordination Contract with a selected non-profit, a
program will be formulated. Volunteer expertise such as local insurance experts will also be tapped.
Lony-er Term Action:Implement program(s).
Objective 2.6:Maintain Substitute Registry Program
Description: A substitute registry program is currently operated by RFD on behalf of Pleasanton and
Livermore. This program, which actively recruits substitutes, maintains a list, and fills requests for
substitutes, serves a vital function for providers facing difficult obstacles in providing consistent care.
However, the program has been operating at a monetary loss of approximately $5,000 per year
according to RFD, and will not continue to be offered after mid-1991 unless additional funding is
found. Even if Dublin joins the program, its fair share contribution based on the monies currently paid
by the other two cities would be approximately $1,500, less than the amount needed to close the gap.
Thus,to maintain this model program, it is recommended that Dublin participate in the program, the
provider fees be increased moderately(current subscription is $35 per year), and that Pleasanton and
Livermore increase their support by approximately$1,000 each.
Year 1 Action: Obtain participation by City of Dublin. Increase funding from Pleasanton and
Livermore. Accomplish these two actions as part of expanded Child Care Coordination Services
contract with a selected non-profit such as RFD.
Longer Term Action: Continue to maintain substitute registry per Year 1 Action.
y
62
Additional Longer Term Objectives Dependent on Child Care Fund Creation-
These additional objectives are intended to be longer-term, with no Year 1 Action specified. They are
included herein as objectives to work towards in future years of Plan implementation.
Objective 2.7:Integrate Child Care Planning and Implementation with Other Dependent Care Efforts
Object 2.8:Provide Start-up and On-going Financial to Providers for Programs and Business Needs
Objective 2.9:Create Job Bank for Teacher Recruitment and Placement.
I
63
Implementation Plan
The focus of the above set of goals and objectives is on building upon existing resources and efforts in
the short run while striving towards more formalized three-city joint cooperation over the longer term,
particularly for those objectives (e.g., Child Care Fund, Community Education Program, etc.) which
would benefit from the economies of scale and improved coordination which joint efforts would
provide.
Year 1 ImRlementation
To accomplish the Year 1 objectives, three primary implementation mechanisms are required:
adoption of the Plan as proposed (or with revisions reflecting each city's selected objectives intended
for implementation), an expanded Child Care Coordination Services Contract between each city
choosing to implement the Plan and a selected non-profit such as RFD, and the designation of a city
child care liaison to implement and coordinate objectives which the city needs to directly incorporate
into its own management.
Plan Adoption (Fall 1990). Each city participating in the formulation of this Plan will be asked to
adopt the Plan as presented herein. If a particular city chooses to adopt a modified version of the Plan,
reflecting its selection of objectives which it intends to implement, that course of action has been
anticipated by the Task Force and would fit within the Plan's structure.
Child Care Coordination Services Contract (1991). The expanded Child Care Coordination Services
Contract (Contract) builds upon the existing contracts in place between RFD and the Cities of
Pleasanton and Livermore. In order to clarify the relationship between new services recommended in
the Plan and existing services already included in the existing contracts,the Plan has been structured to
only recommended expansions. In other words, the Plan assumes that existing services and the funds
used to pay for them will continue to be requested by the two cities, and that new funds requested for
expansion of services should be considered as a net increase above the current amount allocated and
spent by the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore.
According to RFD, approximately $25,000 is already contributed to fund coordination activities
($12,500 by Pleasanton and $12,500 by Livermore). It is estimated that the expanded Coordination
Services as outlined in the Plan would require approximately$56,000 in additional funding for Year 1.
A formula for equitable funding by each of the three cities could be based on population size, which
translates into an approximate $20,000 additional funding contribution from Pleasanton, an
approximate$22,000 additional funding contribution from Livermore,and an approximate$14,000 new
funding contribution from the City of Dublin. The formula assumes retention of the special services
provided to Pleasanton such as the local office;this service is not assumed to be revised or expanded.
City Liaison. Another vital implementation mechanism is the designation (by each participating city)
of a city liaison. This person would be a city staff member who would be given the responsibility to
64
work with other entities for each of the objectives requiring this effort as outlined in the Plan. There
will likely be a cost associated with this liaison;however,this Plan does not estimate such costs.
It is anticipated that the city liaisons will desire to meet periodically to share experiences and ideas.
This type of cooperation has not been made explicit in this Plan,but is an expected outcome of it.
Longer Term Implementation(1992- 19951
Each of the objectives outlined in the Plan will require a different longer term implementation
approach. Given the necessary planning activities which still need to occur for many of the longer term
actions,this Plan does not propose spec implementation mechanisms.
This Plan also seeks to establish a regular cycle of LPD child care planning. To this end, it is
recommended that a similar process to the one just completed (including broad task force .
participation)be undertaken again in 1994-1995.
LIVERMORE, PLEASANTON, & DUBLIN CHILD CARE MASTER PLAN TASK FORCE
Name/Address Category Telephone
Livermore
DAWN BAULEKE
548 Hanover Street
Livermore CA 94550 Parent 443-8317
VERN BROWN
1111 E.Stanley Blvd.
Livermore CA 94550 Valley Memorial Hospital 373-4080
CAROL EDSON
5195 Diane Court
Livermore CA 94550 Valley Ministerial Assn. 455-0465
JACKIE FITZGERALD
1401 Calvary Lane
Livermore CA 94550 Las Positas College 447-1158
BARBARA HEMPILL
3311 Pacific Ave.
Livermore CA 94550 City of Livermore 373-5147
CLARENE JOHNSON
1020 Mocho Street (D) 447-1864
Livermore CA 94550 Directors of the Valley (N) 455-5018
BONNIE JUPINA
204 Hagemann Drive
Livermore CA 94550 AAUW 447-4621
DORIS KNAPP
685 Las Positas Blvd.
Livermore CA 94550 Livermore School Dist. 447-9500
Name/Address Category Telephone
BARBARA KRAYBILL
71 Trevarno Road
Livermore CA 94550 LARPD 447-7300
MYRA LATKIN
4609 Almond Circle
Livermore CA 94550 _ Social Concerns Committee 443-2866
ANDREA SCHEIB
397 Lincoln Avenue
Livermore CA 94550 Valley Childcare Home Assn. 449-0453
Pleasanton
DAWN GORDNER
1970 Harvest Road (D) 846-6000
Pleasanton CA 94566 Human Services Commission (N) 846-3591
VALERIE HURST
3593 Arbor Court (D) 449-5845
Pleasanton CA 94566 Human Services Commission (N) 462-2554
PATTY LEE
7421 Stonedale Drive (D) 484-3422
Pleasanton CA 94566 Parent (N) 469-5250
EILEEN MORLEY
P.O.Box 520
Pleasanton CA 94566 City of Pleasanton 484-8160
STEVE PETERSEN
3986 Stoneridge Drive (D) 833-6191
Pleasanton CA 94566 Parent (N) 462-9633
Name/Address Category Telephone
DOUG ASHBRIDGE
11555 Dublin Canyon Road
Pleasanton CA 94588 Farmer's Insurance 847-3120
Dublin
CINDY COBB-ADAMS
7009 Newport Court
Dublin CA 94568 At Large 828-7177
BARBARA DONNELL
7897 Cranford Lane
Dublin CA 94568 Dublin Parks&Rec.Commission 828-3809
JULIE FEAD
7191 Prince Drive
Dublin CA 94568 Parent 829-5045
JOAN ICING
7471 Larkdale Avenue
Dublin CA 94568 Dublin Chamber of Commerce (x236) 828-2551
DIANE LOWART
P.O.Box 2340
Dublin CA 94568 City of Dublin 833-6645
BETTY ROBERTS
7471 Larkdale Avenue
Dublin CA 94568 Dublin USD 828-2551
t
CONSULTANT TEAM
Bay Area Economics
2550 9th Street,Suite 210 A
Berkeley,CA 94710
(415)549-7310
Michael Marsh
4266 Atlas Avenue
Oakland,CA 94619
(415)530-5889
ADF Research
1456 Lincoln Avenue
San Rafael,CA 94901
(415)459-1115
e
BIBLIOGRAPHY
U.S.Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports,Series P-23,No. 117, "Trends in
Child Care Arrangements of Working Mothers." U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C., 1982.
. Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 129,"Child Care Arrangements
of Working Mothers: June 1982." U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington
D.C., 1983.
. Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 9, "Who's Minding the Kids?
Child Care Arrangements: Winter 198485." U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C., 1987.
Berkeley Planning Associates. "Planning the Development of a Child Care System for
Irvine,California." Berkeley CA, 1984
"Child Care Services and Economic Development in Davis: Current
Conditions,Trends,and Strategies for Action." Berkeley CA, 1986.
The City of Davis Child Care Task Force. "Report of the City of Davis Task Force."
Davis CA,1986.
Cohen, Abby J. Planning for Child Care: A Compendium for Child Care Advocates
Seeking the Inclusion of Child Care in the Land Use/Development Process. Child
Care Law Center:San Francisco CA,1987.
Land Planning Consultants. "Pleasanton School Facilities Needs" Pleasanton CA, 1988.
League of Women Voters of California. Child Care in California Part 1• The Issues.
League of Women Voters of California:Sacramento CA, 1988.
. Child Care in California Part II: Should We Care? League of Women Voters
of California:Sacramento 1988.
Lawrence, Merle and Sarah Lutes. "California Child Care Initiative Year-Two Report:
October 1, 1986 - October 31, 1987." California Child Care Resource and Referral
Network:San Francisco CA,1988.
U.S. Department of Labor. "Child Care, A Workforce Issue: Report of the Secretary's
Task Force." Washington D.C., 1988.
Child Care Coordinating Council of San Mateo County, Inc. "Child Care: A
Public/Private Partnership." San Mateo County CA,1989.
Palo Alto Child Care Task Force and Palo Alto Community Child Care. "City of Palo
Alto Child Care Master Plan." Palo Alto CA, 1989.
Cohen, Abby. Family Day Care Zoning. National League of Cities: Washington D.C.,
1989.
Child Care Employee Project. The National Child Care Staffing Study Who Cares?
Child Care Teachers and the Quality of Care in America. Oakland CA, 1989.
Harris,Louis and Associates. The Philip Morris Companies Inc. Family Survey II: Child
Care A Survey of Public Concerns about the State of Children Existing Child Care
Systems,and the Need for Action. New York NY,1989.
Lane,Patricia. "Update: Child Care Activities of the City of Los Angeles." Los Angeles
CA, 1989,
Bellm, Dan. A Guide to the California Child Care Initiative• Increasin the he Supply and
Quality of Child Care Through Public-Private Partnership. California Child Care
Resource and Referral Network:San Francisco CA,1989.
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District. "Short Term School Facilities Status
Report." Livermore CA, 1989.
City of Fremont. "Update City of Fremont Children's Services." Fremont CA,1990.
Hayden, Tom. Caring for Tomorrow-, A Local Government Guide to Child Care.
Assembly Office of Research:Sacramento CA,updated 1990.
70
APPENDICES
t
Appendix A: Low Estimate of Unmet Need for Child Care in the Tri-Valley Area,by City: 1989
Livermore Pleasanton Dublin
0-5 6-9 10-12 Total 0-5 6-9 10-12 Total 0-5 6-9 10-12 Total
DEMAND: +
Number of Children(a) 5,253 3,572 2,536 11,361 3,920 2,722 2,056 8,698 2,144 1,452 1,034 4,630
%of Mothers in Labor Force(b) 64.9% 81.7% 81.7% 59.7% 81.9% 81.9% 55.8% 82.0% 82.0%
Number of Children with Mothers 3,409 2,918 2,072 8,400 2,340 2,229 1,684 6,253 1,196 1,191 848 3,235
in Labor Force (c)
Percent of Children 50.0% 30.0% 15.0% 50.0% 30.0% 15.0% 50.0% 30.0% 15.0%
Needing Organized Care(d)
Number of Children of Working Mothers 1,705 875 311 2,891 1,170 669 253 2,091 598 357 127 1,083
Needing Care Organized Care
SUPPLY:
Number of Family Homes(e) 909 327 1,236 481 187 668 420 118 538
Number of Centers(e) 674 496 1,170 870 383 1,253 350 252 602
Total Licensed Child Care Spaces(f) 1,583 823 2,406 1,351 570 1,921 770 370 1,140
SHORTFALL IN CHILDCARE SPACES 122 363 485 (181) 351 170 (172) 114 (57)
(a) National Planning Data Corporation 1989 estimates. Note National Planning Data Corporation population estimates are aggregated 0-4,5-9 and 10-17. 0-4 converted to
0-5 by shifting 1/5 of 5-9 age group population to 0-5. 10-17 age group reduced to 10-12 by taking 3/5's of the total 10-14 age group data.
(b) Current Population Reports,Household and Family Characteristics: March 1988,Series P-20,No.437,Issued May 1989. U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the
Census;Labor Force Characteristics for Places of 10,000 to 50,000: 1980.U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census. National rate of Increase for the period
1980-1988 for women In the work force used to estimate 1988 percentage of mothers with children under 18 in Livermore,Pleasanton and Dublin In the workforce.
(c) Number of children times percentage of mothers in the workforce.
(d) Demand for care for 0-5 based from number of children needing non-relative care outside the home from'Who's Minding the Kids?Child Care Arrangements:Winter 1985,'
U.S.Bureau of the Census. Demand for care for children 6-12 determined by using survey results to determine the number of children in these age groups in child care,and
dividing this by total children of working mothers in the age group.
(e) January, 1990 survey conducted by RFD. To estimate the need for childcare In 1994,it is assumed that the number of spaces will remain constant.
(f) Current supply of spaces kept constant for 1994 projection.
SOURCE:Bay Area Economics;sources as noted
Appendix A,cont.: Low Estimate of Unmet Need for Child Care in the Tri-Valley Area,by City: 1994
Livermore Pleasanton Dublin
0-5 6-9 10-12 Total 0-5 6-9 10-12 Total 0-5 6-9 10-12 Total
DEMAND:
Number of Children(a) 5,134 3,653 2,810 11,597 4,075 3,041 2,398 9,514 2,331 1,681 1,289 5,301
%of Mothers in Labor Force(b) 64.9% 81.7% 81.7% 59.7% 81.9% 81.9% 55.8% 82.0% 82.0%
Number of Children with Mothers 3,332 2,984 2,296 8,613 2,433 2,490 1,964 6,887 1,301 1,378 1,057 3,736
In Labor Force (c)
Percent of Children 50.0% 30.0% 15.0% 50.0% 30.0% 15.0% 50.0% 30.0% 15.0%
Needing Organized Care(d)
Number of Children of Working Mothers 1,666 895 344 2,906 1,216 747 295 2,258 650 413 159 1,222
Needing Care Organized Care
SUPPLY:
Number of Family Homes(e) 909 327 1,236 481 187 668 420 118 538
Number of Centers(e) 674 496 1,170 870 383 1,253 350 252 602
Total Licensed Child Care Spaces(f) 1,583 823 2,406 1,351 570 1,921 770 370 1,140
SHORTFALL IN CHILDCARE SPACES 83 417 500 (135) 472 337 (120) 202 82
(a) National Planning Data Corporation 1989 estimates. Note National Planning Data Corporation population estimates are aggregated 0-4.5-9 and 10-17. 0-4 converted to
0-5 by shifting 1/5 of 5-9 age group population to 0-5. 10-17 age group reduced to 10-12 by taking 3/5's of the total 10-14 age group data.
(b) Current Population Reports,Household and Family Characteristics: March 1988,Series P-20,No.437,issued May 1989. U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the
Census;Labor Force Characteristics for Places of 10,000 to 50,000: 1980.U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census. National rate of increase for the period
1980-1988 for women in the work force used to estimate 1988 percentage of mothers with children under 18 in Livermore,Pleasanton and Dublin in the workforce.
(c) Number of children times percentage of mothers In the workforce.
(d) Demand for care for 0-5 based from number of children needing non-relative care outside the home from"Who's Minding the Kids?Child Care Arrangements:Winter 1985,'
U.S.Bureau of the Census. Demand for care for children 6-12 determined by using survey results to determine the number of children in these age groups In child care,and
(e) January,1990 survey conducted by RFD. To estimate the need for childcare in 1994,it is assumed that the number of spaces will remain constant.
(f) Current supply of spaces kept constant for 1994 projection.
SOURCE:Bay Area Economics;sources as noted
Appendbc A,cont.: High Estimate of Unmet Need for Child Care in the Tri-Valley Area,by City: 1989
Livermore Pleasanton Dublin
0-5 6-9 10-12 Total 0-5 6-9 10-12 Total 0-5 6-9 10-12 Total
DEMAND:
i
Number of Children(a) 5,253 3,572 2,536 11,361 3,920 2,722 2,056 8,698 2,144 1,452 1,034 4,630
%of Mothers in Labor Force(b) 64.9% 81.7% 81.7% 59.7% 81.9% 81.9% 55.8% 82.0% 82.0%
Number of Children with Mothers 3,409 2,918 2,072 8,400 2,340 2,229 1,684 6,253 1,196 1,191 848 3,235
in Labor Force (c)
Percent of Children 50.0% 50.0% 15.0% 50.0% 50.0% 15.0% 50.0% 50.0% 15.0%
Needing Organized Care(d)
Number of Children of Working Mothers 1,705 1,459 311 3,475 1,170 1,115 253 2,537 598 595 127 1,321
Needing Care Organized Care
SUPPLY:
Number of Family Homes(e) 909 327 1,236 481 187 668 420 118 538
Number of Centers(e) 674 496 1,170 870 383 1,253 350 252 602
Total Licensed Child Care Spaces(f) 1,583 823 2,406 1,351 570 1,921 770 370 1,140
SHORTFALL IN CHILDCARE SPACES 122 947 1,069 (181) 797 616 (172) 352 181
(a) National Planning Data Corporation 1989 estimates. Note National Planning Data Corporation population estimates are aggregated 0-4,5-9 and 10-17. 0-4 converted to
0-5 by shifting 1/5 of 5-9 age group population to 0-5. 10-17 age group reduced to 10-12 by taking 3/5's of the total 10-14 age group data.
(b) Current Population Reports,Household and Family Characteristics: March 1988,Series P-20,No.437,Issued May 1989. U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the
Census;Labor Force Characteristics for Places of 10,000 to 50,000: 1980.U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census. National rate of increase for the period
1980- 1988 for women In the work force used to estimate 1988 percentage of mothers with children under 18 in Livermore,Pleasanton and Dublin in the workforce.
(c) Number of children times percentage of mothers in the workforce.
(d) Demand for care for 0-5 based from number of children needing non-relative care outside the home from"Who's Minding the Kids?Child Care Arrangements:Winter 1985,"
U.S.Bureau of the Census. Demand for children 6-9 assumed to be at this same level. Demand for care for children 10-12 determined by using survey results to determine
the number of children in these age groups in child care,and dividing this by total children of working mothers in the age group.
(e) January, 1990 survey conducted by RFD. To estimate the need for childcare in 1994,it is assumed that the number of spaces will remain constant.
(f) Current supply of spaces kept constant for 1994 projection.
SOURCE:Bay Area Economics;sources as noted
Appendbc A,cunt.: High Estimate of Unmet Need for Child Care in the Tri-Valley Area,by City: 1994
Livermore Pleasanton Dublin
0-5 6-9 10-12 Total 0-5 6-9 10-12 Total 0-5 6-9 10-12 Total
DEMAND:
Number of Children(a) 5,134 3,653 2,810 11,597 4,075 3,041 2,398 9,514 2,331 1,681 1,289 5,301
%of Mothers In Labor Force(b) 64.9% 81.7% 81.7% 59.7% 81.9% 81.9% 55.8% 82.0% 82.0%
Number of Children with Mothers 3,332 2,984 2,296 8,613 2,433 2,490 1,964 6,887 1,301 1,378 1,057 3,736
in Labor Force (c)
Percent of Children 50.0% 50.0% 15.0% 50.0% 50.0% 15.0% 50.0% 50.0% 15.0%
Needing Organized Care(d)
Number of Children of Working Mothers 1,666 1,492 344 3,503 1,216 1,245 295 2,756 650 689 159 1,498
Needing Care Organized Care
SUPPLY:
Number of Family Homes(e) 909 327 1,236 481 187 668 420 118 538
Number of Centers(e) 674 496 1,170 870 383 1,253 350 252 602
Total Licensed Child Care Spaces(f) 1,583 823 2,406 1,351 570 1,921 770 370 1,140
SHORTFALL IN CHILDCARE SPACES 83 "" 1,097 (135) 970 835 (120) 478 358
(a) National Planning Data Corporation 1989 estimates. Note National Planning Data Corporation population estimates are aggregated 0-4,5-9 and 10-17. 0-4 converted to
0-5 by shifting 1/5 of 5-9 age group population to 0-5. 10-17 age group reduced to 10-12 by taking 315's of the total 10-14 age group data
(b) Current Population Reports,Household and Family Characteristics: March 1988,Series P-20,No.437,issued May 1989. U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the
Census;Labor Force Characteristics for Places of 10,000 to 50,000: 1980.U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census. National rate of increase for the period
1980-1988 for women in the work force used to estimate 1988 percentage of mothers with children under 18 in Livermore,Pleasanton and Dublin In the workforce.
(c) Number of children times percentage of mothers in the workforce.
(d) Demand for care for 0-5 based from number of children needing non-relative care outside the home from•Who's Minding the lids?Child Care Arrangements:Winter 1985,'
U.S.Bureau of the Census. Demand for children 6-9 assumed to be at this same level. Demand for care for children 10-12 determined by using survey results to determine
(e) January, 1990 survey conducted by RFD. To estimate the need for childcare in 1994,it is assumed that the number of spaces will remain constant.
(f) Current supply of spaces kept constant for 1994 projection.
SOURCE Bay Area Economics;sources as noted
APPENDIX B
METHODOLOGY FOR RESIDENT SURVEY
The universe from which the sample in the LPD Resident Survey was drawn included all households in
the area with children age 12 or younger either using child care or wishing to use child care. Some
analysis of Livermore only was needed, so the sample size needed to be large enough to reach
statistically valid conclusions regarding Livermore for the basic questions. It was determined that the
most efficient way to reach this group of people was through a telephone survey.
Initial pretesting with random-digit dialing(using the telephone prefixes for the area) indicated that a
considerable number of calls would have to be made to reach households of the correct type willing to
respond to the survey. Time and budgetary restrictions led BAE/ADF Research to limit the sample to
listed telephone numbers and the sample size to 221, which allowed for approximately 100 responses
from Livermore households.
In order to successfully complete 221 interviews, over 3,400 calls were made between February 15 and
March 15, 1990. The following provides a breakdown of the calls made. Complete survey results are
provided under separate cover as the LPD Technical Appendix.
CALL RECORD FOR LPD RESIDENT SURVEY
Total Listings 3,410
Total Completed Interviews 221
Reasons for"No Interview Completed":
No Children 12 or under 1,612
Disconnected/Non-working Number 289
Business Listing 196
No Answer/Busy 215
Refused to Cooperate 351
Child Care Not Needed 233
Answering Machine/Computer Line 218
Not in LPD Area 13
Communication Barrier 22
Adult Not Available 32
Total"No Interview Completed" 3,189
APPENDIX C:
Resident Survey Instrument
ADF Research
1456 Lincoln Avenue 189001
San Rafael, CA 94901 012490 `
TRI-CITY CHILD CARE SURVEY Time start:
i
--Contact Record Sheet-- off_
Dublin. . . . . .. .. . . . .1
Pleasanton. .. .. ....2
Livermore. .. ... . .. .3
Hello, this is with ADF Research. We are doing a survey on the subject of child
care and would like your opinions. (IF NECESSARY, SAY): We think you will find the
survey interesting. It is being done for the Tri-City Child Care Task Force.
1. First, are there any children living in this household that are 12 years of age or
younger?
YES, ARE CHILDREN 12 OR YOUNGER. .. .. .. . . . .. ... . . .1 (CONTINUE)
NO, ARE NOT. ... .. .. . ... . .. .... . .. ... .... . .. .. ....2 (TERMINATE, REC CODE 17
(IF YES, ARE CHILDREN 12 OR YOUNGER, ASK):
2. Is this residence located in Dublin, Pleasanton or Livermore? (IF YES, RECORD
WHICH ONE)
DUBLIN. . .. .. . .... . . . .... .... . . . .. .. . . . ... . . .1
PLEASANTON.. ... .. .. .. . . . ...... .. .. ... .... ....2 (CONTINUE)
LIVERMORE.. . ... . .. .. . . ...... .. .. . .. .. .. ... ..3
OTHER. . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . .. .. .. .. . . ..... .. .. . . .4 (TERMINATE, REC CODE 18
CONTINUE ONLY WITH HOUSEHOLDS THAT HAVE CHILDREN 12 OR YOUNGER IN ONE OF TRI-CITIES. I
3. Are you one of the adults that live in this household?
YES, ADULT IN HOUSEHOLD.. .. .... . .. . . .. .. . .. .1 (CONTINUE)
NO, ADULT BUT DO NOT LIVE IN HOUSEHOLD.. . ...2
NOT AN ADULT.. .... ..... ... .... ..... ....... .3 (ASK Q.4) ;
IF ADULT THAT DOES NOT LIVE IN HOUSEHOLD OR NOT AN ADULT ASK):
4, May I please speak either with an adult that lives in this household or an adult
babysitter? (IF NOT AVAILABLE, ARRANGE FOR A CALLBACK)
NOT POSSIBLE TO SPEAK WITH ADULT..... . . .. .. .1 (TERMINATE, REC CODE 19
CALLBACK INFORMATION:
NAME:
DATE: TIME:
CONTINUE ONLY WITH ADULT HOUSEHOLD MEMBER OR ADULT BABYSITTER
5. What are the ages of the children in this household 12 or under? (RECORD BELOW)
6. Do you currently use any type of child care for any of these children? (IF YES, ASK
WHICH ONES AND RECORD BELOW)
IF NOT NOW USING CHILD CARE FOR ANY CHILDREN 12 OR UNDER, ASK):
7. Would you like to use child care for any of these children? (IF YES, ASK
WHICH ONES AND RECORD BELOW)
Ages
In Currently Using Would Like To
Household Child Care Use Child Care
Child #1. .. .. . .. .. ... .. ........ ....... . . . .... ..... .
Ut-.1� lit-N G�9 2q)
Child #2. . .. . .. .. .. ... . . .. ......
Child #3. . . . .. . . . ..
Child #4. . ... . .. .. . . .. .. . . . .... . . .. .. .
(Iwl� (2493 UV-9S) ��
Total children 12 or under in HH. .. . . .
Total currently using child care.. .... .. .. . . .. ... .. ..
Total would like to use child care.... . ..... . . ........ .... . .. ... . . .. . . .
Total neither current using nor would like to use child care. . ... . . ... . . .. .. .. .
Cat 39)
-1- 189001 I
, !
IF CHILD CARE CURRENTLY NOT USED AND DO NOT WANT TO USE ANY-FROM QUES 6 AND 7,
TERMINATE AND RECORD CODE 20
IF CHILD CARE CURRENTLY NOT USED BUT WANT TO USE, GO TO QUES 25 ON PAGE 4.
i
IF CHILD CARE CURRENTLY BEING USED, ASK QUES 8, i
i
(IF CURRENTLY USING CHILD CARE-FROM QUES 6):
Now, I'd like to ask you about the types of child care you are now using. (ASK
FOR EACH CHILD CURRENTLY USING CHILD CARE FOR. RECORD AGE OF CHILD IN SPACE BELOW)
Child #1 Child #2 Child #3 Child #4
8. For the (AGE OF CHILD), do you regularly use a (READ LIST).
a. BABYSITTER, who takes care of one
family's child or children other 4S- Si_ 61_ ^►�-
than their own. . . .. .. . . .. .... . . ... .1. .. . ... .. .. .1. .. . .. . . .1. . . .. . . ... .1
b. FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME, which is
someone taking care of between 2
and 12 children in their home for
pay on a regular basis.. ...........2. ....... ....2. . .. . . . ..2.. .. .. . . ...2
C. CHILD CARE CENTER, which is a
facility serving more than
12 children.. .. .. .... ...... ..... .. .3.. ....... ...3. ..... . ..3. .. . .. .. .. .3
d. BEFORE OR AFTER SCHOOL CARE PROGRAM,
which is an organized program caring
for school-aged children before
or after school... .................4... .........4... ... . ..4... ... .....4
i
IF ANY CHILD USES MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF CARE ASK
9. For the (AGE OF CHILD), which is the primary type of child care, that is, the j
type that is used most in a typical week?
BABYSITTER................ . ......1............1.... .....1. ..... ... ..1
FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME. . .... .....2. .. .........2.... .. ...2. ..... .. .. .2
CHILD CARE CENTER. .... .. .........3........... .3.... .. .. .3. . ... . .. . . .3
BEFORE OR AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM...4... .........4..... .. ..4.... . . .....4
Now, I'd like to ask you some questions about the,PRIMARY CHILD CARE which you
use (FOR EACH CHILD). (IN ASKING QUESTIONS .10 THROUGH 24, YOU ARE TO ASK ABOUT
THE PRIMARY TYPE OF CHILD CARE)
(FOR EACH TYPE OF PRIMARY CARE USED, ASK):
10. In a typical week, about how many hours
do you use (TYPE CARE) for (AGE OF
CHILD)? . ..... ... . . .. ..
Cr
IF USE A BABYSITTER FOR PRIMARY CARE-FROM QUES 8 OR 9, ASK):
11 I'd like to ask you about the babvsitter. Is the babysitter paid or unpaid?
?'4_
BABYSITTER IS PAID... ..... . ......I. ...........1.. .......1. . .. . .. .. ..1
BABYSITTER IS UNPAID.............2....... .....2...... ...2...... . ....2
NOT CERTAIN. . .... . . ..............3......... ...3. ..... . ..3. ... .... . . .3
12. Is the babysitter a relative or not?
4i- !S-
• BABYSITTER IS RELATIVE... .. . .....1........... .1........ .1. ..........
1
a
BABYSITTER IS NOT RELATIVE.......2........... .2.. . ... .. .2..... .. ... .2
NOT CERTAIN. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . . . . ...3........ .. . .3.. .. . ....3. . . ..... ...3
(IF USE A FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME FOR PRIMARY CARE-FROM QUES 8 OR 9, ASK):
3. I'd like to ask you about the Family Child Care Home you use. At any one time,
does this family child care provider take care of more than six children7
YES, TAKES CARE OF MORE THAN 6..1.. .. .. .:. . .. .1. . . .. .. . .1.. . .. . . . . . .1
NO, DOES NOT. ....... ............2.. .......... .2....... ..2.. .. . . .. .. .2
NOT CERTAIN.. .... .. . ... . .. . . ....3...... .. .. ...3.. .. . . . ..3.. .. . .. . . . .3
-2- 189001 !?�
(CONTINUE WITH THOSE WHO CURRENTLY USE CHILD CARE):
(IF USE A CHILD CARE CENTERFOR PRIMARY CARE-FROM QUES 8 OR 9, ASK):
14. Does the child care center have a clearly defined philosophy, curriculum and
schedule?
YES, IS CLEARLY DEFINED... . .. .. .I. .. .... .. .. ..I. .. . . . . . . .1. . . . . . .. ..I
NO, IS NOT. .... . . . .. . . ..... .. .. .2. ...... . .....2. . . . . . . . . .2. .. . . .. . . .2
NOT CERTAIN.. .. .. .. .. . . . ... .....3. .. .. . . .. ... .3 3 3
15. Is this center open for full working days Monday through Friday?
tu-
YES, IS OPEN... . . . .. ...... . .....I.. .. . . . .. ...I. . .�. I.... .. .. .I
NO, IS NOT. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . ... . . .2.. . . . .. . . .. ..2. . . . . . . . . . .2.. .. .. . . .2
NOT CERTAIN. . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . .3.. .. . .. .. ....3 3 3
Now, I'd like to ask you about the (AGE OF CHILD)'s primary care, that is, (ANSWER FROM
QUES 9).
16. About how many miles from your home is your (AGE OF CHILD)'s primary care located?
NUMBER OF MILES FROM HOME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17. Is (AGE OF CHILD)'s primary care closer to your residence or the place of work of an
adult member of your household?
MAI-
CLOSER TO RESIDENCE.. .. .. .. .. . ..1. ........ .. ...1.. .... .. . . .1 1
CLOSER TO ADULT'S WORKPLACE. ....2. . . ..... . .. .. .2.... . . . . . . .2.. . . .. . . .2
NOT CERTAIN. . .. . . . .. .. .. . .. . .. ..3. .. .. ... . . . .. .3 3 3
18. How did you first find (AGE OF CHILD)'s current primary child care? (DO NOT READ
LIST)
a.
REFERRAL FROM RESOURCES FOR FAMILY 13- fit-
DEVELOPMENT.. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. .....I.. .... ... .....1
b. NEWSPAPER OR OTHER ADVERTISEMENT... ..2. ... .. .... ... .2..... . . . .. . .2 2
c. FRIENDS/RELATIVES/NEIGHBORS. . . ... .. ..3. .... .. . .. .. ..3. . .. . . . . . . . .3. .. . . . . .3
d. CHURCH.. . . . . . .. .. ... .. .. ...... .. .... .4 4 4 4
e. SCHOOL. . . . .. ... . ... .. ... .. ...... .....5 5 5 5
OTHER: 6 6 6 6
DON'T RECALL... . . ...... .. . ...... . . ...7.... .. . .. .....7 7 7
19. How long have you been using (AGE OF CHILD)'s primary child care? (RECORD IN MONTHS
AND/OR YEARS)
MONTHS BEEN USING.. ... .. .. .. ... .. . .. .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . .
LI)
YEARS BEEN USING. ...... .....
... .... . . . . ..
20. For your (AGE OF CHILD)'s primary care, would y6u say you are generally (READ LIST)
VERY SATISFIED. . . ... .. .. .. .. .. .1. . . . ... . . .. . .. .1 1 1
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED. . .. .. .. .... .2. . .. ... .. .. ....2 2 2
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED. . .. . . . ...3. . . ... .. .. ... ..3.. .. .. .. . ...3 3
VERY DISSATISFIED... ..... .. . ...4. .. .... . .... ...4 4 4
CAN'T SAY.. .. .. ... .. ...... .....5 5 5 5
21. If you could change any one aspect of your (AGE OF CHILD)'s primary care, what would
you change? (DO NOT READ LIST)
a. IT'S COST... .... . . .. . .... . . .. ..1. .. ... .. .. ... ..1 1 1
b. HOURS OF OPERATION. . ... .. . . . . ..2. .. .. . . ... .. ...2 2 2
C. LOCATION/MAKE CLOSER TO HOME. . .3. .. ... . . .. .. . ..3.. . . . .... . . .3. . . . .. ....3
d. LOCATION/MAKE CLOSER TO WORK...4. . . . . . . . . . .. . ..4.. .. . . . . . . . .4. . .. ... ...4
e. QUALITY OF CARE. .. .. .. . . .. .. ...5... .... .. . .. ...5. . .. ........5. .. .... ...5
f. TYPE OF FACILITY. . .... .. .. . . .. .6... . ... .. . .. .. .6 6 6
g. SIZE OF FACILITY. ... ...... .. ...7.. .. ..... ..... .7 7 7
h. TEACHERS OR STAFF. . .. . .. . . .. ...8.. .... ... .... . .8 8 8
i. ADMINISTRATION OF FACILITY. . . ..9.. .. .. .. .. . .. ..9.. . . . . . . . . ..9 9
OTHER: 0 0 0 0
NOTHING WANT TO CHANGE... .. . 1. .. . ... . . . .. ..:1. .. . . . . .. ..171. . .. .. .112-:1
NOT CERTAIN. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . . ...2. . ... .. .. . .... .2 2 2
22. Does the (AGE OF CHILD) have a special needs such as a learning disability, a medical
condition or a physical disability?
HAS SPECIAL NEEDS. . . . . . .... ....1. .. .. .. ..... .. .1 1
DOES NOT. . .. . . . ... . . . . . .. .. ... .2 2 2 2
NOT CERTAIN. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .3 3 3
-3- 189001 1ST
(CONTINUE WITH THOSE WHO CURRENTLY USE CHILD CARE):
23. I'd like to read you a number of attributes which could be used to describe a child
care facility. For each, please tell me if you feel (AGE OF CHILD)'s primary care
is excellent, good, fair or poor? (ASK FOR EACH AND RECORD BELOW)
Can't
Excellent Good Fair Poor Rate
115-
a. Cleanliness......... .. ............. .. .4....... .3... ....2.. ...1.. .. .. .0 j
tSC.
b. Attention paid to child...............4........3..... ..2.. ...1..... ..0
131-
c. Child/staff ratio... . .. .. . . ...........4........3.. .....2. .. ..1...... .0
tSg-
d. Training of staff...... .............. .4........3..... ..2.. .. .1. . . .. ..0
e. The learning environment... .. . . .... .. .4.. . . . ...3. .... . .2. . . ..1. .. . . . .0
f. The physical environment. .. . ...... . .. .4.... .. ..3.. .. .. .2. . . . .1... . .. .0
IW_
g. Approach to child rearing.. ..... . .... .4.... ....3.. .. .. .2. .. ..1.. .. .. .0
" tll-
h. Communications with parents... . . . .. . . .4. .. . .. ..3. . . . .. .2. . . ..1.. . . ...0
14i-
i. Safety. . . . . . .. .. .... ... ... ..... .. .... .4.. .. .. ..3. . .....2. . . . .1. . . . .. .0
24. What would you estimate is the total amount your household pays for all child care
in a typical week? (IF NECESSARY, SAY: Just your best estimate.)
AMOUNT SPENT PER WEEK
ON CHILD CARE: $ NOW, GO TO Q.26
(IF NOT CURRENTLY USING CHILD CARE FOR A CHILD BUT WANT TO-FROM QUES 7, ASK):
25. For the (AGE OF C or whom you would a to use child care but are not
currently doing so, what is the main reason why you are not now using child
care for them? (DO NOT READ LIST- RECORD ONE MAIN REASON)
141. 1'1q� ky9- ►5�-
a. Cost.. . . ... .. .. .... .. .............1........... ....1.. . .. .. . ... .1.. .. .. . ...1
b. Can't find quality care..... ......2....... ........2.. ... . .... . .2. . . . . ... . .2
c. Hours of operation I need are
notavailable. .... .. .............3...............3.. ... . .. .. ..3.. .. .. . .3
d. Services for special needs child
arenot available. .. .............4.............. .4...... ..... .4. . .. . ... ..4
e. Transportation not available
ornot convenient... . ............5......... ......5... .........5. . ... .....5
f. Location of child care I want
notconvenient or too far.... ....6........... .. ..6..... ..... ..6.... .. ....6
Other: 7. .... .... ....7.. ... .. .. ...7.. .. . .. . ..7
Notcertain. . .. . ...... . . ... .. .....8. . . .... . .... ... .8.. . .. .. . .. . .8. . . . . .. . ..8
ASK EVERYONE:
26. Does any member of your household receive any government assistance to pay for child
care, other than any income tax credits?
YES, RECEIVE GOVT ASSISTANCE FOR CHILD CARE. .. ... .....1
NO, DO NOT........... ........... ............ ... .. .....2
NOT CERTAIN.................. .................. ..... ..3
27. Do the employers of any members of your household offer any monetary or other
assistance for child care?
lSl-
" YES, EMPLOYERS OFFER ASSISTANCE...... ........ . .. ... .. .1 (ASK Q.28)
NO, DO NOT... .... .... .... .... .. ...... .. . .... . ... .. ....2� (GO TO Q.32)
NOT CERTAIN...... .. .. .. ................. .. . ....... ... 3
IF YES EMPLOYERS OFFER ASSISTANCE ASK):
28. What kind of monetary or other assistance for child care do the employers
provide? (DO NOT READ LIST)
If9_
a. MONETARY PAYMENT FOR CHILD CARE.. .. ... .. . . . . ... .. .. ...1
b. DCAP PROGRAM (ARRANGE TO USE PRE-TAX DOLLARS
TO PAY FOR CHILD CARE)..... .. . ... .. ... .... .. . .. . . . . .2
C. REFERRAL ASSISTANCE... .. ... .. ... . .. ....... . . .. . . . .. .. .3
d. ON-SITE CHILD CARE FACILITY.... .... .. ... . ... .. ...... . .4
e. PAID LEAVE TO LOOK FOR CHILD CARE..... ...... .. ....... .5
OTHER: 6
NOT CERTAIN. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . . .. .. . . . . . ... . . . .. . . .7
-4- 1890
(CONTINUE WITH THO�E WHOSE EMPLOYERS OFFER ASSISTANCE-FROM QUES 27):
29. Do you or other members of this household use any of the child care assistance
offered by employers?
ISy_
YES, USE EMPLOYER CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE... .. . .. . . . . . . . .1 (ASK Q.30) I
NO, DO NOT. .. .... .. .. . ....... . . .. . . .... .... .. .. . . . .. . . .2� (GO TO Q.31)
NOT CERTAIN. . .... . ... ......... .. ... ....... .. . . .. ... . . . 3
(IF YES, USE EMPLOYER CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE, ASK):
30. What kind of child care assistance offered by employers does your
household use?
tSt-
a. MONETARY PAYMENT FOR CHILD CARE.. . . .. .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .1
b. DCAP PROGRAM (ARRANGE TO USE PRE-TAX DOLLARS
TO PAY FOR CHILD CARE).. ..... . .. . . . ....... .. . . . . . . . .2
C. REFERRAL ASSISTANCE.. .... .. .. .. . . .. . . .. . .. .. . .. . . . .. ..3
d. ON-SITE CHILD CARE FACILITY.... .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . . .. . .4
e. PAID LEAVE TO LOOK FOR CHILD CARE. . .... .... . .. . . . . . . . .5
OTHER: 6
NOT CERTAIN. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . ..... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . .7
` (IF NO, DOES NOT USE EMPLOYER CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE-FROM Q.29, ASK):
31. Why is it that your household doesn't use employer assistance for child
care? (PROBE FOR SPECIFICS)
ISq_
IS4-
Isq_
ASK EVERYONE:
32. We're interested in your opinions regarding whether certain aspects of child care
are problems or not for the members of your community who need child care. I'd like
to read you a number of possible problems and for each please tell me if you feel
this is very much of a problem, somewhat of a problem or not a problem at all. The
first is (START WITH X'D ITEM)
Very Much Somewhat Of Not A problem Can't
A Problem A Problem At All Say
a. Cost of child care.... ........ .. .. ..1... .... ....2....... . . . . . .3. . . .. .. . . . .4
Ik_
b. Finding quality child care....... ...1.. ....... ..2. ........ .. ..3.... ... . . ..4
c. Amount of public funding for 161-
child care.. .. ......... .. ........ ..1. ... 2. .. . . . . . . . ...3. . .. . . . . . ..4
I
d. Availability of care for children
with special needs. . .. . .... ..... ...1.. .. . .. . .. .2. . .. . ... . . . . .3... . ..... . .4
e. Availability of care for M-
sick children.. .. .... ..... . ... .... .1.... .. .....2. .. .. . .. . . . ..3.. .. . ......4
lu,
f. Unsupervised school-aged children...I...........2........ .. .. .3. .. . . .. . . . .4
33. One of the major problems with child care is finding ways to pay for improving the
local child care system. I'd like to read you some groups of people and for each,
please tell me if you feel they should bear part of the responsibility for the cost
of child care or not? The first is (READ FIRST ITEM)
Yes, Should No, Should Can't
Bear Cost Not Bear Cost la
a. All residents of the community . ..... .. .. . . . .2. . . ... .. ...3
IVI_
b. Real estate developers. . ... . . .. .. . . . .1. . . . . . . .. .. . . .2.. . . . . . . . ..3
1 6ti
C. Employers in the Tri-Valley area.. .. .1. .. .. ..... . .. .2. . .. . . . .. ..3
-5- 189001
Finally, ,just a few questions for classification purposes.
34. Which of the following best describes the type of household you live in? (READ LI:
he-
a. TWO PARENT HOUSEHOLD WITH TWO WORKING PARENTS. . .. . . ... . . . . .1
b. TWO PARENT HOUSEHOLD WITH ONE WORKING PARENT.... ....... .. . .2
C. TWO PARENT HOUSEHOLD WITH NO WORKING PARENTS.... . . . . . . . . .. .3
d. SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLD WHERE PARENT WORKS....... . ..... . . ..1
e. SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLD WHERE PARENT DOES NOT WORK... . . . .. .2
f. NO PARENTS LIVING IN HOUSEHOLD, BUT WITH ONE OR
MORE ADULTS OTHER THAN PARENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR
CHILDREN....... .. .................................. .... ..6
OTHER: 7
REFUSED. ..... . ... . . ......... ......... ......... ........ ... ..8
35. Which of the following best describes your relationship to the children in your
household? (READ LIST)
t1(_
MOTHER..... .. .. .. ...... .. ......... .. . ........ ....... . . . . . .1
FATHER. . . . .. . .. . . ......... . . .... . .. ... ...... . .... . . .. . . .. .2
GRANDPARENT. . . . . . ......... . .. . ..... .. .... .. .. .. . . ... .. .. . .3
BROTHER OR SISTER... ... .. . ........ .. ...... .......... .. . .. .4
AUNT OR UNCLE. .. ... ... ... .......... ...... ............ . . . ..5
OTHER: 6
REFUSED. . .... .. ................. .................... . .....7
36. What is the approximate total annual household income before taxes? Is it
(READ LIST)
11Y-
UNDER $30,000. ... .......... ............. ... .1 (ASK Q37)
$30,000 OR MORE. . .. . ................... ... ..2 (ASK Q38)
(DO NOT READ) REFUSED........... ............3
(IF UNDER $30,000, ASK): (IF $30,000 OR MORE, ASK):
37. Is it (READ LIST)... 38. Is it (READ LIST)...
UNDER $10,000. ....... ......... .1 BETWEEN $30,000 AND $40,000. . ..5
BETWEEN $10,000 AND $20,000.. ..2 BETWEEN $40,000 AND $50,000. ...6
BETWEEN $20,000 AND $30,000....3 $50,000 - $75,000.. .. . . .. .. ... .7
REFUSED.. .. ...............4 OVER $75,000.... .. .. . .. .. ... .. .8
REFUSED.. .. . . .. ... .. .... . .. ..9
That's all the questions I have. Thank you for your cooperation.on this survey.
Interviewer Name:
Date: Time ended:
RECORD SEX: MALE.............1 11S-
FEMALE...........2.
-6- 189001
APPENDIX D:
Employer Survey Instrument
I
Employer Survey 1
Firm Name: Phone:
Date of Interview:
Name of person interviewed:
Position:
Circle the answer, or write in the correct answer.
First, we would like to ask you some questions about your firm.
1. How many employees does your firm have at this location?
Make sure you ask for this location only:
Number of Employees:
Next, we would like to ask you some questions regarding your
employees and the ways they use child care. These questions are
for the employees at this location only.
2 . Approximately how many of your employees are using some form
of child care?
Number using child care:
3 . Does your firm offer money to assist employees with payment
for child care
a. Yes
b. No
If yes, ask:
3al. Describe how your firm does this?
3a2 . How many of your employees get monetary assistance for
child care?
If no, ask:
3bl. Has your firm ever considered offering monetary
payment for child care?
a. Yes
b. No
If yes:
3b2 . Why did your firm decide not to offer monetary
payment?
2
Circle the answer, or write in the correct answer.
4 . Does your firm have a DCAP program, which uses pre-tax dollars
to pay for an employee' s child care?
a. Yes
b. No
If yes, ask:
4al. Describe how your firm does this
4a2 . How many of your employees are in your DCAP program?
If no, ask:
4bl. Has your firm ever considered setting up a DCAP
program?
a. Yes
b. No
If yes:
4b2 . Why did your firm decide not set up a DCAP?
5. Does your firm have a referral assistance program for employee
child care?
a. Yes
b. No
If yes, ask:
5a1. Describe how your firm does this
5a2 . How many of your employees have used your referral
assistance program in the last year?
If no, ask:
5bl. Has your firm ever considered setting up a referral
assistance program for child care?
a. Yes
b. No
If yes:
5b2 . Why did your firm decide not set up a referral
assistance program?
3
Circle the answer, or write in the correct answer.
6. Does your firm offer paid leave to employees looking for child-
care?
a. Yes
b. No
If yes, ask:
Gal. Describe how your firm does this
6a2 . How many of your employees have received paid leave
for child care in the last year?
If no, ask:
6b1. Has your firm ever considered offering paid leave to
allow employees to find child care?
a. Yes
b. No
If yes:
6b2 . Why did your firm decide not to offer paid leave
for this purpose
7 . Does your firm offer flex time or job sharing to assist
employees with their child care needs?
a. Yes
b. No
If yes, ask:
7a1. Describe how your firm does this
7a2 . How many of your employees are currently using job
sharing or flex time to help them meet child care needs?
If no, ask:
7bl. Has your firm ever considered offering flex time or
job sharing to assist employees with child care needs?
a. Yes
b. No
If yes:
7b2 . Why did your firm decide not to offer flex time or
job sharing
ti
4
Circle the answer, or write in the correct answer.
8 . Does your firm offer any other type of assistance to employees
with child care needs?
a. Yes
b. No
If yes, ask:
8al. Describe how your firm does this
8a2 . How many of your employees are currently using other
types of company assistance to help them meet their child
care needs?
If no, ask:
8bl. Has your firm ever considered offering any other type
of assistance to employees with child care needs?
a. Yes
b. No
If yes:
8b2 . Why did your firm decide not to offer any other
type of assistance?
9. What could employers in Pleasanton, Dublin, or Livermore do to
help meet the child care needs of people working in the area?
10. Would you or your firm like more information about the child
care programs available in Pleasanton, Dublin, or Livermore?
a. Yes
b. No.
If yes, confirm name, company, and address.
Name:
Company:
Street:
City, State, ZIP:
Thank you for your assistance.
CHILD CARE MASTER PLAN EMPLOYEE SURVEY
How can we improve child pre in Livermore.Pleasanton,and Dublin? The Child Care Task Force needs your help
in answering this question. Public officials,employers,and residents are working together to develop a Child Care
Master Plan. We need to know your current child pre needs and your child pre wishes.Your answers are important
because you will be representing other working parents in the area like yourself.
All answers to this survey will remain confidential Thank you for your assistance.
Age of Age of Second Age of Third
Youngest Child Youngest Child Youngest Child
1. Ages of children (Fill in 61ank)..................................:.......................
Please fill out the following chart for each child living in your household aged 12 years or younger.
U you would use child pre if it were available but are not currcotly doing so,please begin at Question#9.
2. Primary type of child care used?(Primary child care is the care used the
most hours during a typical week.)
Place an X in the appropriate column. Second Third
Youngest Child Youngest Child Youngest Child
1. BABYS=R,who takes care of one family's
child or children other than their own.................................
2. FAMILY CARE HOME,which is someone taking
care of between 2 and 12 children in their
home for pay on a regular basis............................................
3. CHILD CARE CENTER,which is a facility
serving more than 12 children...............................................
4. BEFORE/AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM,which is an
organized program caring for school-aged
children before or after school..............................................
3. Ifow many miles from home is this child's primary care?
Place an X in the appropriate column. Second Third
Youngest Child Youngest Child Youngest Child
1. LESS THAN 1 MILE.............................................................
2. 1 TO 2 MILES.........................................................................
3. MORE THAN 2 MILES.......................................................
4. DONT KNOW.......................................................................
4. Ilow many miles from your work Is this child's primary care?
Place an X in the appropriate column. Second Third
Youngest Child Youngest Child Youngest Child
1. LESS THAN 1 MILE.............................................................
2. 1 TO 2 MILES.........................................................................
3. MORE THAN 2 MILES.......................................................
4. DONT KNOW.......................................................................
5. Where is this child's primary care located?
Place an X in the appropriate column. Second Third
Youngest Child Youngest Child Youngest Child
1. LIVERMORE.........................................................................
2. PLEASANTON......................................................................
3. DUBLIN...................................................................................
4. SOMEWHERE ELSE...........................................................
6. For this child's primary care,would you say you are:
Place an X in the appropriate column. Second Third
Youngest Child Youngest Child Youngest Child
1. VERY SATISFIED..................................._......_...................
2. SOMEWHAT SATISFIED..................................................
3. SOMEWHAT UNSATISFIED............................................
4. VERY UNSATISFIED.........................................................
7. Would you use child pre near your work(within Vi mile)for
this child if it were available?
Place an X in the appropriate column. Second Third
Youngest Child Youngest Child Youngest Child
1. YES...........................................................................................
2. NO.............................................................................................
8. What is the total amount your household pays for ALL child care on a weekly basis?
AMOUNT PAID PER WEEK FOR ALL CHILDREN
9. Where do you live?
Circle the number ojyour answer.
1. LIVERMORE, PLEASANTON, or DUBLIN
2. BALANCE OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
3. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
4. CENTRAL VALLEY
5. SOUTH BAY/PENINSULA
6. SF/MARIN/NORTH BAY
7. SOMEWHERE ELSE
10. For each child living in your household for whom you would like to use child
care but are not currently doing so,what is the main reason?
Place an X in the appropriate column. Second Third
Youngest Child Youngest Child Youngest Child
1. COST................................................................................................
2. CANT FIND QUALITY CARE.................................................
3. HOURS OF OPERATION I NEED NOT AVAILABLE.....
4. NO SERVICES FOR SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN.........
5. LOCATION NOT CONVENIENT.............................................
6. OTHER ......••
11. If your employer offers any or the following assistance for child care,please circle ALL those items
that you use.
1. MONETARY PAYMENT FOR CHILD CARE
2. FLEXIBLE WORKING HOURS(e.g.,flextime or job sharing)
3. DCAP PROGRAM(uses pre-tax dollars to pay for child care)
4. REFERRAL ASSISTANCE
5. ON-SITE CHILD CARE FACILITY
6. PAID LEAVE TO LOOK FOR CHILD CARE
7. OTHER
8. NONE USED,EVEN THOUGH EMPLOYER OFFERS
9. EMPLOYER OFFERS NO ASSISTANCE
12. Which of the following best describes the household you live in?
Circle the number ojyour answer.
1. SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLD, WITH PARENT WORKING
2. TWO PARENT HOUSEHOLD, WITH ONE WORKING PARENT
3. TWO PARENT HOUSEHOLD, WITH TWO WORKING PARENTS
4. OTHER
13. Which or the following best describes your current IIOUSEIIOLD income on an annual basis?
Circle the number ojyour answer.
1. LESS THAN 514,999
2. 515,000 TO 524,999
3. 525,000 TO$34,999
4. 535,000 TO 549,999
5. 550,000 TO S74,999
6. 575,000 OR MORE
14. What could employers in Livermore,Pleasanton,or Dublin do to help meet the child care needs of people working in
the area? Write in the space provided below.
Thank you very much for your help in this survey. If you have any questions or comments,please call Lyn Harlan at 549-7310.
Tri Valley Child Care Task Force Provider Survey
The following questions are about your own child care program.
1. How many children does your license permit you to serve
6 — 12 _ 13-20 _ 21-30 _31-40 _ 41-50
_ 51-60 _61-70 _71-80 _ 81-100 _ 101-150 _ >151
2. How long has your program been serving children in the TriValley Area?
_ <lyear
at least 1 year <2years
_ at least 2 years <3years
_ at least 3 years <5years
_ >5 years <10years
>10 years
3. What age group are you licensed to provide care for?
_ Infants <18 months
_ Toddlers <2.6 yrs
_ Preschool <5 yrs
_ School Age 5-8
School Age 9-12
4. Does your license permit you to serve non-ambulatory children?
yes no
5. Does your child care service operate at capacity?
almost always
_ most of the time
sometimes
never
6. Does your child care service admit children off of a wait list?
almost always
_ most of the time
sometimes
_ never
I
7. If your program does not operate at full capacity most of the time
please give your opinion about why this is the case:
_ by choice to maintain quality (low child:staff ratio)
by market demands (flux in calendar year)
_
by choice to maintain quality (restrict spread of age differences)
other:
8. Please describe the ownership structure of your program?
_ private for profit
private not for profit (501c3 Tax Status)
private non profit with State or Federal subsidy
_ State funded through school district or public agency
9. Please describe the sponsorship of your program?
private individual(s) owner operated
_ corporation
church
agency
_ public
other:
10. Do you plan to change your program within the next five years?
_ yes no _maybe
If yes, please describe how your child care services will change:
If you would like to change your program but feel you can't, please
explain. What are the impediments to changing your program?
If you are considering a change, what factors are you considering and
which resources are you using to help you make your decision?
ti
The next series of questions are about how you make use of existing child
care support sevices.
11. How does your child care service receive child referrals?
(in order of frequency ) 1= most frequently 2= often 3=sometimes 4=NA
word of mouth 1. 2 3 4 _ advertising 1 2 3 4
RFD 1 2 3 4 school referrals 1 2 3 4
other:
12. Does you child care service receive support from other agencies to
provide for substitute providers or teachers? _yes _no
_RFD Substitute Program
other:
13. Does your child care service or staff as individuals take advantage of
any local early childhood education training workshops and classes for
family child care providers, center teachers, aides? _yes _no
If yes, please describe:
Chabot/Las Positas ECE Dept. _ RFD workshops
Other:
14. Is your child care service affiliated with area wide director groups or
other provider support groups? _yes no
If yes, please describe:
Directors of the Valley _ Valley Child Care Home Association
Other:
15. Are you or any of your staff current members of an early childhood
education professional association? _yes no
If yes, please describe:
NAEYC or EBAEYC PACE
Other:
16. How often must you deal with these family/work related crises?
1= very often <lxweek 2= sometimes >lxmonth 3= rarely >lxyear
NA= not applicable
job related economic (1) (2) (3) (NA)
mental health (1) (2) (3) (NA)
health (.1) (2) (3) (NA)
special needs (1) (2) (3) (NA)
transportation (1) (2) (3) (NA)
Comments:
17. How would you rate the sufficiency of local services to help families
deal with these family/work related crises?
1= definitely inadequate 2=adequate 3=no opinion
job related economic (1) (2) (3)
mental health (1) (2) (3)
health (1) (2) (3)
special needs (1) (2) (3)
i
transportation (1) (.2) (3)
Comments:
The next questions are about your ideas concerning the delivery of quality
child care services to the children and families under your supervision:
18. If you could select one or more aspects of your current child care
service to be changed what would it(they) be? ( in order of priority)
1=most important 2=important 3=less important 4=no opinion
_staffing 1 2 3 4 _compensation 1 2 3 4
_group size 1 2 3 4 _site/location 1 2 3 4
_additional services 1 2 3 4 _program/curriculum 1 2 3 4
_parent/school relations 1 2 3 4 _cost of care 1 2 3 4
Comments:
19. What types of things do you think are most important to parents when
they choose child care services? (in order of priority) 1=most important
2=important 3=less important 4=no opinion
_ safety 1 2 3 4 _ communication/trust 1 2 3 4
_ educational program 1 2 3 4 _ environment 1 2 3 4
fun/excitement 1 '2 3 4 _ affordability 1 2 3 4
cleanliness 1 2 3 4 _ qualified staff 1 2 3 4
Other:
The next questions are about how you think child care services can be
improved in the Tri6alley Area
20. What additional kinds of care should there be more of?
Infant/Toddler centers _ Infant/Toddler homes
_ School Age On-Site School Age in Homes
_ Special Needs/Mainstream _ Mildly ill/sick care
other:
21. If you could create one or more local child care support services which
could enhance the quality of current services what would it(they) be?
1= highest priority 2= important 3= less important 4= no opinion
_teacher/aide/director placement 1 2 3 4
substitute care 1 2 3 4 _mildly ill/sick 1 2 3 4
site accreditation 1 2 3 4
_tuition subsidy for continuing education 1 2 3 4
_teacher/provider salary enhancements 1 2 3 4
_group health benefits 1 2 3 4
child care financial management training 1 2 3 4
mental health outreach 1 2 3 4
small business no/low interest loans/grants 1 2 3 4
other:
22. If you could change one or more aspects of how local government and
regulatory agencies impact on your ability to provide quality services
to children and their families what would it(they) be?
23. Are there any other comments you wish to make for the purposes of this
survey?