HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12031985 - T.1 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on December 3, 1985 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson, Fanden
NOES: None
ABSENT : None
ABSTAIN: None
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT : Report of the Contra Costa Child Care Task Force
Supervisor Sunne W. McPeak, Chair of the Contra Costa
Child Care Task Force, presented the report of the Task Force that
provides for the design of a comprehensive, integrated child care
delivery system for Contra Costa County. The following members of
the Task Force spoke on the various components of the report:
Dione Mustard reviewed the need for child care facilities;
Joe Goglio summarized the findings and recommendations
of the Task Force;
Judith Wood reviewed the recommendation for a child care
coordinating agency;
Jann Morris commented on the need for an organization child
care fund;
Joan Kelly discussed the issue of quality assurance and
relationship to the new. California initiative;
Ken Johnson spoke on funding issues; and
Linda Best summarized action steps recommended by the
Task Force.
Board members expressed appreciation to the Task Force for
their work and agreed that the report should be reviewed by adminis-
trative staff and appropriate Board Committees.
Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the report of
the Contra Costa Child Care Task Force is REFERRED to the County
Administrator for review and report to appropriate Board Committees.
The County Administrator is requested to report to the Board by
February 5, 1986.
1 hereby certify trot t?�;.^?r'Cart.,End c"rroct^sire. of
an action taken and enterotj gist aye,rn. .� v�G1 aha
Board of Supervisors on the daf4e shoE:m.
cc: County Administrator PFU BATCHELOR, Clerk of yhc,
Of SuPervicors cnd County Administea.cr
By 7...
A
.. t
CONTRA .COSTA
CHILD CARE TASK FORCE
Summary Report
Sunne Wright McPeak , Chair
Jann Morris , UWBA Staff
December , 1985
LE:EKED`, :Cj 1985PH1l 9ATCHEIORLERK BOARD OF SQA COSORs
'/� ONTRA C t De ut
t
��1T$QDLJC�i 0�1
�3�skQ�g
The Child Care Task Force (CCTF) convened in January , 1985
to design a comprehensive , integrated child care delivery system
for Contrd Costa County with the intention that that system be
implemented by 1990 to substantially address child care service
needs .
The child care system should be based on the following
principles :
1 . Quality child care services are in the best
interest of the whole community .
2 . Child care services will be developed in the
private sector in response to documented need and
the ability to pay for them.
3 . Parents are best able to choose care for their
children.
4 . Child care cost assistance should be available when
needed without unduly limiting parental choice .
5 . Quality of care will improve in response to
financial incentives .
6 . Fees for care can be related to the quality of
care.
7 . A County-wide approach should encourage and
coordinate with local initiatives .
5.RQn§_Qr�hiP_�n�_Pa=�i�iR��iQt!
The co-sponsoring organizations of the Child Care Task Force
(CCTF) have been Contra Costa County , the Contra Costa Develop-
ment Association , the Mayor's Conference of Contra Costa County ,
Contra Costa Children's Council, the Central Labor Council , the
Chambers of Commerce of Contra -Costa and United Way of the Bay
Area. Representatives of these organizations comprised the task
force's Steering "Committee . They convened 42 additional task
force members representing local business , government , schools ,
child care operators , and human service funders . Other interested
parties and observers also participated in the task force dis-
cussions.
1
Y t
The CCTF adopted a very ambitious agenda and deadline ,
intending to achieve its goals of system design and implementa-
tion plan in six months .
The Subject matter presented a complex array of problems ,
opportunities and potential solutions . Many of the participants
were experts in child care programs , many others knew little
about the problem. Thus education was the first step for the
group. Speakers , films and written materials were provided . The
group quickly agreed to focus on system development rather than
to duplicate previously conducted needs assessment.
Next , the group identified service components which would
comprise an ideal service delivery system and prioritized those
service components . Existing services and resources were consi-
dered , particularly in the critical areas of ongoing system
management and evaluation , program quality monitoring and
resource development .
Finally , the CCTF developed , considered and selected
resource development alternatives . The results are this child
care system design and implementation plan .
P.IIYI�QII.IDIlII�81._�.h�.ng€€
Contra Costa County is changing dramatically with tremendous
growth in population and employment. Its cost of living and
housing is higher than the state median. Leading national
trends , Contra Costa's ratio of women in the work force with
children continues to be higher than both state and national
averages . Erosion in the industrial employment base in East and
West County have generated more two parent working families in
order to meet their own basic needs .
MEF,�D_F,QR_DEVELDPMEMT_OP^CPiIED_CARE_SERVICE!i
Expanded child care services are needed in every community
in the county . These communities are unique; their service needs
are unique; their services must be unique , yet they must be
coordinated to be cost effective for the community as a whole .
The gap between demand and supply will continue to increase
without planned , coordinated service development .
25 ,400 children are currently underserved by the existing
child care delivery system in Contra Costa County , according to
studies conducted by the Contra Costa Children's Council in
conjunction with the California Child Care Resource and Referral
Network and by the United Way of the Bay Area's local community
problem solving committees : D&aAdg for Central
and East County and y81�X�_�Qrzi�gr_grsig� for South County .
Projected growth in population, employment , and working parent
families indicates. an additional 10% service need by 1994 for a
2
1
total of 27 , 940 children for whom appropriate child care will be
a problem.
The need varies by community or geographic region.
In West County , subsidized care for children of all. agesis
most needed , particularly for infants and school age children.
In East County , critical needs include infant care , multi-
cultural-sensitive care , subsidized care , and care for children
of all ages in families in the expanding communities of Brentwood
and Oakley .
In South Central County , infant and school age care are the
most critical needs .
In North Central County , school age care is most needed .
Some needs are consistant across the County . Care for sick and/or
recuperating children is non-existant; additional assistance with the
cost of care for those families who cannot afford the full cost
is necessary. By both , work attendance and productivity are affected .
Attachment E includes additional information regarding the need for
child care .
LUR E.P-MUEM_AEEAE
The need for increased &MAilabijily of services is one of
several problem areas needing to be addressed in designing and
implementing a comprehensive child care delivery system. A
second critical issue is the need for increased Mfjajdabili.Lx of
services . For approximately 20% of the underserved consumer
family market ( 5 ,080 children) , the cost of care and the limited
resources of those families make inability to purchase services ,
or affordability of care , the main barrier even to what resources
are available . In addition, many middle income working parent
families have difficulty purchasing appropriate care .
The need for improved SL3bality- of service is the third
critical issue . Existing state licensing and monitoring
mechanisms are inadequate to assure parents ' and communities '
concerns about safety , protection and child development
programming .
The need for improved �BQLslina�i�n_Qf_BSLYi�g& is the fourth
critical issue. Diverse geography , communities , and family needs
require increased ability to manage, integrate, expand and coor-
dinate limited resources .
These four issues were identified by the $t Lfl�B�ig,�_iQL_A
gaQada child care Sub-Committee and subsequently adopted by the
CCTF, which also added the following areas :
3
,
- Increasing parental choice of care with a system which
is designed to reflect the very broad range of family
preference about location, type of care and program
emphasis
- Increasing public support for child care as a matter of
public good , effecting the whole community and , encour-
aging development of adequate child care services
Solving the liability insurance crisis
The CCTF focused on these six areas , structuring its Sub-
Committees to address them.
I. The child care delivery system, as an important compo-
nent of the communities ' education systems , needs broad-
based community support including parents , employers ,
employees , residents without a direct child care need ,
and public and private policy makers .
II. The child care delivery system is fragmented and needs
development managed to achieve comprehensive , coordi-
nated services , increased availability , affordability
and quality of care , parental utilization and public
support . To achieve these objectives , system partici-
pant consensus on leadership within and for the child
care community is necessary.
III. The child care delivery system lacks adequate resources ,
including facilities , programs and revenue streams .
IV. Specific service components need to be added or expan-
ded . These need to be targeted for attention.
Specific descriptions are included in Recommendation
III , items A-F .
V. The child care system is severly threatened by the
existing liability insurance shortage . Caregiver costs
have increased as much as four times , causing the loss
and potential future loss of many already scarce provi-
ders . See Recommendations section for proposed public
policy changes .
VI. Local jurisdictions desire autonomy in determining
zoning .and land use issues; however several communities
are extremely restrictive and/or have exorbitantly
expensive fee scales for childcare facilities . See
Recommendations section for recommended public policy
changes .
4
VII . Parents , employers and the community are concerned that
the child care system be able to provide greater
assurance of quality in child care operations than is
currently possible .
$BQQMMBBRAT,_QH
I. DEVELOP SYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION
In order to develop ��IIQII���_IIhil�_II3rE_�gzYiIIg&, the
CCTF determined that child care system management , coordina-
tion , public relations and resource development are
necessary to achieve comprehensive and coordinated services ,
to increase availability , affordability and quality of care
and to increase parent utilization and public support . The
CCTF recommends
€Yg1Q8mRII�_fIIII�SiQII�_hII_�LIIIILII�: The organization's Board
of Directors would be comprised of :
_k Employer representatives including 1 representative
of the Chambers of Commerce and representatives with
large and small employee populations and of unionized
and non-unionized businesses . Diverse geographic rep-
resentation shall also be reflected .
4 Parent/Consumers of child care services including
working parents , one of whom is a representative of
union leadership .
1 Providers of child care services , including at least
one representative of centerbased care and at least one
representative of home-based care with affiliation to
one of the two family day care home associations in the
County . Consideration shall also be given to participa-
tion of proprietary and non-profit providers and of
church-based and state funded programs .
1 Children's Services Professionals drawn from
children's public interest groups when possible and
including one clergy .
f Representative of the Real Estate Development
community .
j Representative of Contra Costa County Government .
Representative of Contra Costa 's Cities with
affiliation to the Mayor's conference.
j, Representative of the County Superintendent of
Schools Office.
1. Executive Director of the organization as an ex-
officio .member.
5
i Membership on the Board of Directors thus totals jg
These representatives are determined by the CCTF to be
necessary to assure that the broad community is included in
the decisions effecting child care service delivery , while
preventing potential conflict of interest situations .
Jhe mi"iga of the new organization is to assist in the
development and the retention of licensed child care facili-
ties in the County to meet the demand brought about by
economic growth and the increase of the single parent
family. It will address such areas as availability , affor-
dability , and quality of care. It will strive to assist all
concerned entities by monitoring the overall effectiveness
of this industry and will maintain open lines of communica-
tion with all participating cities . It will have no
jurisdictional authority but rather will focus on the needs
of this industry and will affect change as it pertains to
availability , affordability , and quality of care.
The objectives are :
I. To maintain current information on the problems of
Child Care affecting the Contra Costa County area and
and to develop programs to assist in resolving these
problems in concert with the County 's cities , support
organizations , and the private sector.
II . To provide a funding source to assist in the growth
and retention of child care facilities in the County .
III. To monitor the overall effects and quality displayed by
this industry in the County .
IV . To educate the general public and business sector as to
the need for child care facilities in the County .
V. To act as an additional conduit of information for not
only concerned organizations , but other entities and
individuals .
The primary purpose of the organization will be to in-
crease and direct resources from all parts of the community to
the development of child care services . It is intended to
support and expand existing direct or indirect services , not
to duplicate them. The organization will work closely with
child care agencies and funders to achieve the goals as de-
scribed . in this report .
II . DEVELOP ADEQUATE FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE CHILD CARE SYSTEM
Primary responsibility to child care payments belongs to
parents to the extent possible unless offered as an emp-
6
' � 1
loyee benefit . However , many families cannot fully afford
quality child care . Thus the need for additional funding .
Furthermore , resources are required to develop and manage
a comprehensive system in which there is a sufficient supply
of quality child care services . Therefore, there must be a
three-way funding partnership including ( a) parents , (b ) the
public sector (government at all levels) , and (c ) the
private sector (employers , builders , foundations , enterprise
ventures , churches , etc . ) . The CCTF recommends these actions ,
selected from many options , be considered as possible funding
sources -
Federal -
1 . Support increasing tax credits for child care
related fees paid by all individual and business
taxpayers .
2 . Support HR 2867 (Miller ,et al) to increase
federal funding of child care services .
State -
1 . Support increasing tax credits for child care
related fees paid by all individual and business
taxpayers .
2 . Support increases in State funding of expanded
child care services with increased share to Contra
Costa .
3 . Support state legislature 's consideration of
additional birth certificate fees to fund child
care services .
4 . Support state legislature enacting state or
authorizing local enactment of bond issues for
child care facilities .
5 . Support state legislature 's study of small
additional payroll tax of .001 to fund child care
services .
County -
1 . Support increase in general fund allocations
for child care , particularly for funding of child
care system management subsidies , and of quality
monitoring as a child abuse prevention method .
2 . Support a percentage of the County 's allowable
annual increase in property tax assessments
being ' used to fund child care services .
3 . Apply for FY '86 County community development
funding of child care facilities and services .
7
4 . Support County developer fees to fund child
care facilities and/or services .
Cities
1 . Support increase in general fund allocations.
for child care , particularly for funding of child
care system management subsidies , and of quality
monitoring as a child abuse prevention method .
2 . Support a percentage of each City 's annual
increase in property tax revenues being used to
fund child care services .
3 . Support city utility users tax to fund child
care services .
4 . Support city developer fees to fund child care
facilities and/or services .
Schools -
Support cooperative ventures between schools and
child care providers regarding use of space and
transportation .
Pr_iY,dIk_S2Iur._e§.
1 . Secure increased foundation funding .
2 . Continue to secure increased United Way of the
Bay Area funding .
3 . Support private lending institutions developing
secured loans for child care facility expansion.
4 . Support exploration of pursuing an enterprise
to generate funds for child care services ( for
example , consider development of an amusement
park , sports complex or other profit generating
recreational facility) . The Child Care Task Force
is considering a consultant proposal to assist in
developing earned income opportunities as a source
of system funding .
S . Support employer sponsored child care and em-
ployer child care benefits for employees , in-
cluding cost assistance, flex time and parental ,
maternity and paternity leave.
6 . Support cooperative ventures between churches
and child care providers regarding use of space .
By using each of these sources , Contra Costa County
leverages its opportunity to secure some of the additional
funds needed to develop sufficient and adequate child care
services .
8
• 1
III. DEVELOP NEW AND EXPANDED SERVICES
The CCTF recommends adding or increasing the following
targeted service components between .now and 1990 .
This listing reflects the order of priorities as ranked by
the CCTF although all services and functions are needed to
establish a comprehensive child care system. It is also
acknowledged by the CCTF that some of the system components
will take longer to develop because they require more time
and resources than others . It is expected that the Board of
Directors of the new organization will determine the order
in which system components are developed .
I�gYnl_�_P�iQzis.ia n
A. Child Care Fund with parents selecting care using
vendor-vouchers and administrative agency assessing
caregiver program quality and offering development
information including training to caregivers when
appropriate . A quality rating should be used to
determine the amount to be paid for the care , an
incentive for high quality care . Costs of professional
monitoring visits can be kept low by conducting them in
conjunction with quarterly visits to monitor the
federally funded child care nutrition program.
The Child Care Fund would administer dollars from em-
ployers ( for specified employees) and government or
foundations ( for low income families in need of assis-
tance) . It would support p.�,.r�.hII��_Qf_Sg�Yl�a from
direct caregivers selected by eligible working parents
throughout the County . Parents ' share of cost to be
determined by ability to pay on a sliding scale .
B • ,�X��nm_�QQr�ina�iQn�_Manngnm€n�_aII�_AIInunl_EYnlnn=
lion, including planning and development of services
and management of constituency relations .
C . CaYg&iYQY_1Iainin& with trainee participation
incentive . 1985-86 pilot ( recruitment and) training
program funded by the California Child Care
Initiative will train 60 new and 60 existing care-
givers , to be managed by Contra Costa Children's Council .
D. Pubiiu_EduQgtiQn via a positive media campaign to
reach potential child care participants including
parents to motivate increased support and utilization.
To be done by agency to be determined acting as child
care coordinating body.
E• �II€Q�mntisn_an�_�gfnzrnl_�nxYi�n� must be expanded .
Currently being done by Contra Costa Children's Council
at annual costs of $261 ,000 funded by State and County ,
additional resources are required to respond to the
demand .
9
F . funding may be secured from
foundations for start-up and from county and cities for
ongoing operations . Currently , public policy ,
particularly child care licensing regulations , do not
cover operation of sick child care services . The new
Child Care organization shall develop community supported
consensus on needed public policy and regulations
changes and lead advocacy efforts for same .
Consideration may also be given to the agency , acting
as coordinating body , organizing child care
participants to advocate for employer policy and
employment practices allowing paid family leave for
care of sick children .
G. 1jry
Increasing the
availability of direct services through indirect
activities , items I through 4 , and direct activities ,
items 5 through 7 .
1 . Licensing and Zoning Assistance for caregivers
and potential caregivers . Done by Contra Costa
Children 's Council ( as part of funding for
Resource and Referral Services identified in E,
Information and Referral , above) . Specific current
costs for this activity not identified separately .
2 . through :
a) Coordination of efforts to identify and
secure use of schools , churches , recreation
and homeowner organization clubhouses as
child care facilities .
b ) Coordination of effort to secure changes
in local zoning policy , including management
of broad community participation in adoption
of a "model" zoning ordinance .
3 . Currently offered by
Contra Costa Children's Council 's Resource and
Referral Program ( funding levels not separately
identified) . To be expanded by the California
Child Care Initiative pilot for one year beginning
October 1 , 1985 .
4 .
5 .
To be provided by private direct services pro-
viders in cooperation with schools .
10
i
6 . ( Sick child care , fits within this broader area
of service development , see item F) .
7 . O��in�_gge=:_cult.uIA1._Apd_12cation=_spgriJif.
aeryicga to be determined and developed through
needs assessment and coordination activities
(B) , advocacy ( I) and development of direct
Services Us 1-6)
H. Larul Qw-ality MQni1Q1iD.g of programs not participa—
ting in item A, (Child Care Fund with rating) . Includes
Caregiver Assessment , Development and Recognition. To
be done by agency to be determined as described in item A.
I . Eatli;. P41iQy AdyQODcy.. Currently done by a number
of organizations and providers ; needs to be coordinated ,
expanded and financially supported .
IV. DEVELOP CHILD CARE LIABILITY INSURANCE RISK POOL
In order to retain and develop sufficient quality child
care services , the CCTF supports the development of a state
supported and managed child care liability insurance risk
pool . Participation in the pool by private insurance car—
riers and by child care operators should make liability
insurance coverage more affordable . See CCTF positions on
public policy section for information on specific state
legislation related to this issue .
V. ADOPT PUBLIC LAND USE AND ZONING POLICY
In order to develop Aaaa�e��_�hil�_�az�_�sryi���, the
CCTF developed and presented model zoning and land use
policy for child care facilities to Contra Costa County and
to local cities to Mayors and to the Mayors Conference . See
Appendix A.
A further step in land use and zoning policy which a
county or city may take is to develop an ordinance for
worksite developer contribution to the child care system.
In consideration of such an ordinance , the following points
may be appropriate :
1 . Each worksite development (generating jobs) should
have a child care needs assessment and plan.
2 . Child care plan options :
- contribute funds based on square footage or value of
development to child care fund
- development of a family day care network for
employees
- building an on-or near-site child care center
11
- rennovating an existing building nearby for child
care
- expansion of an existing child care service
- employee benefit fund for child care expenses
- allocate a licensable portion of new space for .child
care
3 . Funding of each development 's child care plan should
result from collaboration between developer and tenant ( i .e .
developer provides seed money for plan, tenant provides ongoing
subsidy of plan through rent)
4 . Appropriate options for small , medium and large develop-
ments ( small : under 25 ,000 sf ; medium: under 100 ,000 ; large :
over 100 , 000 sf)
Land use and zoning decisions can also be used to
designate appropriate child care sites and facilities within
new residential developments .
VI . DEVELOP A LOCAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
In order to achieve improved a�a�ilkx_�f._�hil�_sarg
skryir,.2.k , the CCTF recommends local monitoring and assess-
ment of caregivers serving children and families receiving
funding assistance ( see Recommended service increases) .
Family day care home operators serving non-subsidized
children may participate in a supplementary program also
described in the Recommended services increased section
pending additional funding stated . The CCTF recommends that
child care center operators participate in the National
Association for Young Children's newly created self-assess-
ment and development program. The United Way of the Bay
Area has funded the Contra Costa Children 's Council for the
development of a program to examine and recommend specific
approaches to administration of child care payment assis-
tance programs which will incorporate quality indicators in
the caregiver payment assistance . This kind of a quality
assurance component should be incorporated into the manage-
ment of the Child Care Fund .
VII . CONDUCT PUBLIC EDUCATION AND AWARENESS PROGRAM
The CCTF recommends a major public education and aware-
ness effort targeted to parents , employers , public policy
makers and local communities , as specified in the service
development section (B ) .
VIII . SUPPORT LEGISLATION FOR PUBLIC POLICY CHANGES
The CCTF considered and adopted positions on legisla-
tion proposed in 1955 . The CCTF supported the federal and
state legislation descr.ilbed in Appendix B .
12
- ACTIQiy_�TEP,�
The CCTF shall form a new child care coordinating , non-
profit organization to implement the CCTF recommendations and
funding strategies and to select the best agencies to provide new
and/or expanded direct and indirect services to supplement exist-
ing services currently funded by a variety of other sources . The
CCTF will further assist in creating by-laws and articles of
incorporation , program plans , ' annual budget , personnel selection
and organization evaluation. ! The following immgdiala action
steps are recommended :
1 . By February 1986 , the CCTF Steering Committee should facili-
tate the selection and convening of the new child care
organization's founding board to implement the mission
statement and objectives .
The founding board of directors will adopt and file articles
of incorporation and by-laws and develop its operating plan
and budget , based on the mission statement and objectives ,
by June , 1986 for implementation between July 1986 and June ,
1987 .
2 . The Steering Committee should meet with the Superintendent
of Schools and representatives of school districts to dis-
cern the coordination of after-school " latch-key" funding
from the state with the development of a comprehensive child
care system.
3 . The Steering Committee should explore with the Contra Costa
Development Association the feasibility of initiating an
entrepreneurial venture to generate revenue to support the
child care services . The Contra Costa Development Associa-
tion may be the best-suited organization to take responsibi-
lity in assessing the potential for such an enterprise.
4 . The Steering Committee and subsequently the new organization
Board of Directors should meet with the Building Industry
Association to explore cooperative ventures for the securing
of space and locations for child care facilities and ser-
vices .
5 . The Contra Costa Mayors Conference and Contra Costa County
should coordinate a workshop for elected officials and plan-
ning department staff on planning and land use issues re-
lated to child care .
6 . The ch.ambers of commerce , Contra Costa Development
Association, Central Labor Council and Children's Council
should collaborate on the development of sample "employer
survey" for employers to best identify the child care needs
of their workers .
13
7 . The Contra Costa Children 's Council should loosely coordinate
with the Steering Committee and new organization the imple-
mentation of the United Way funded "child care fund with
quality indicators program" and the California Child Care
Initiative funded "caregiver recruitment and training
program" . The two recently funded efforts should serve a,s
pilot demonstrations for the development of key components
of the comprehensive child care system.
14
A�R1VQW�EDGEMENT�
The following individuals served on the CCTF :
Louise Aiello
Linda Best Ken Johnson
Serafino Bianchi Elaine Johnston
Bette Boatmun Joan Kelley
R. Paul Bonnier Gloria Knowles
Doug Bothun Don Lau
Tony Cannata Carolyn Lewis
Donna Columbo John Leykam
Barbara Corsio Mary Lou Lucas
Marjorie Danforth Rosemary Mans
Taylor Davis Steve Marcus
Teri Dean-Mitosinka Martin McNair
Doris Dorris Sunne Wright McPeak
Helene Frakes , represent- Dione Mustard
ing Sup . Nancy Fanden Betty Orzechowski
Marcia Fochler Russ Perkins
Betty Fong Maxine Randolph
Joe Goglio Linda Redden
Suzann Goodhue Louise Rush
Pamela Green Diane Schinnerer
Amy Halm Tish Shelby
Jim Hicks Ron Stewart
Ken Jaffe Katherine Weinstein
Carmella Johnson Judith Wood
Ann Johnson John Youngberg
Naomi Zipkin
In addition , these individuals served on sub-committees :
Mary Bengtson Merry Nail
Barbara Chase Pam Parker
Sue Childers Van Rainez
Loella Dotterer Kerry Randall
Patti James Susan Muranishi
Mary Lou Laubsclier Mike Ziemann.
Co-Sponsoring Organizations :
Contra Costa County
Contra Costa Chambers of Commerce
Contra Costa County Development Association
Central Labor Council
Contra Costa Children's Council
Mayors ' Conference
United Way of the Bay Area
Staffing was provided by United Way of the Bay Area .
Special recognition to Susan Murphy , Dixie Germolus ,
Vi.rgie Crookes and Jann Morris .
15
The following companies graciously hosted task force
meetings :
Adobe Savings and Loan , Concord
Bank of America , Concord
Chevron , U . S .A. , Jnc . , Concord
Shell Oil Company , Martinez
16
CHILD CARE TASK FORCE REPORT DECEMBER 1985
RECOMMENDED LAND USE AND ZONING POLICY
APPEj�UI�(_A
To : The Mayors Conference
From : Mayors Conference Representatives to Contra Costa Child
Care Tast Force : Taylor Davis , City of Pittsburg ; Russ Perkins ,
City of Hercules; Diane Schinnerer , City of San Ramon ;
Dione Mustard , City of Pleasant Hill .
THE PROVISION OF ADEQUATE, AFFORDABLE AND QUALITY CHILD CARE
IN CONTRA COSTA HAS BECOME AN ISSUE OF CRITICAL CONCERN , AS MORE
AND MORE WOMEN ENTER THE WORK FORCE AND MORE FAMILIES ARE HEADED
BY SINGLE PARENTS .
A study of central and eastern Contra Costa , conducted by
United Way , revealed a severe lack of child care services .
According to the data , 14 ,500 children of working parents were
not in licensed care in central and eastern county alone . If
figures for west and south county were added , the total figures
would surely exceed 20 ,000 . The Contra Costa Childrens Council
reports that hundreds of parents seeking child care referral
information each month subsequently do not enter or delay
entering the work force because they cannot secure adequate and
affordable care . State subsidized child care waiting lists total
more than 800 , without any advertising of the slots .
As the County continues to experience rapid population and
employment growth in the next decade , the child care needs will
continue to increase . As public resources for human service
needs diminish , solving the child care problem will require
greater cooperative efforts between parents , providers , public
officials and employers . The Child Care Task Force , with
representation from each of these segments of our community , has
been working for six months to design a child care system and
identify resources to implement such a system countywide .
The Task Force believes that local government can have a
significant impact on child care needs through the planning and
permitting process . Child care centers and large family day care
homes require not only state licensing , but permits from the
local jurisdiction . This process can often pose obstacles and
impediments . to the child care provider , when it could and should
be. as simple a process as possible .
Obstacles in the zoning and permitting process which have
been identified can be summarized as follows :
1 ) Provision of child care is not currently a high
priority for most jurisdictions .
CCTF - APPENDIX A Page lA
2 ) Potential providers are often unaware of the local
government 's permitting requirements and , once aware , are
often uncertain as to how to go through the process
effectively and successfully . This is especially true for
the family day care home providers .
3 ) Zoning standards and requirements vary widely by
`community .
4) Permit fees vary widely by jurisdiction , ranging from
$35 to $500 . Some impose a flat fee , making no distinction
between a large family day care home (7-12 children) and a
center , which typically serves a larger number of children
and requires more staff time for processing .
5) Jurisdictions can sometimes impose financially
burdensome conditions of approval , which do not necessarily
relate to health and safety requirements .
6 ) Neighborhood opposition frequently occurs , both for
centers and family day care homes , and tends to focus on
objections to a "business" , traffic , parking and noise.
In view of these problems faced by child care providers , the
��i�i�.�l_ngg�_iII_Qszr_�9�n1iX• ( statement attached) We further
urge that each jurisdiction take positive steps to encourage the
provision of adequate facilities . These steps should include :
1 ) Incorporating the policy statement into the General Plan
and appropriate elements of the Plan.
2 ) Directing local planning staff to participate in
workshops convened by the Mayors Conference or a child care
coordinating body to share data and increase coordination on.
child care issues and the permitting process .
3 ) Cooperating with a coordinating agency to develop data
on child care needs in the individual communities so as to
better identify the existing and future needs .
4) Providing clear guidelines and support and assistance in
the permitting process and providing clear information about
the standards and criteria applied to child care facilities .
Provide this information to the state licensing office.
5) Keeping fees as low as possible and , in particular ,
avoid burdensome fees on family day care home providers , who
are least able to afford it .
6 ) Avoiding financially burdensome conditions of approval ,
consistent with health and safety requirements .
CCTF - APPENDIX A Page 2A
7 ) Complying with SB 163 , particularly the section which
provides for administrative review of large family day care
homes .
PQlisy
It is the policy of ________-_ _ __ __ to assist
and encourage the development of adequate , affordable and quality
child care in this community . In pursuit of this goal ,
__-____-_____---____---_____ will strive to simplify regulations and
the permitting process , minimize fees , and shorten the approval
process . It is the policy of to approve permits
for child care facilities unless there is a demonstrated reason
not to . supports the principle of parental
choice for child care and the need for a variety of options
available in the community , including schools , child care
centers , family day care homes and emrloyment sites .
encourages the participation of
parents , providers , public officials and employers in the
planning and decision making process relating to the provision of
child care facilities
E€.a§_QP__BQ.b!nd_Imp 1Qm€r.1L.11Qn_Rgg_pprgfr:etv.xiQps
#1 : If progress is to be make in meeting the child care needs of
our County , each jurisdiction must officially recognize
child care as a critical need of its citizens .
#2 : Child care needs must be addressed by each local
jurisdiction; however , it is important that there be coord-
ination and some level of consistency between jurisdictions .
#3 : Some cities may have more demand for child care than others .
It. is important to identify where the needs exists .
#4 : The first interface between a child care provider and a
permitting agency is generally the local staff . It is at
this point that the provider is either encouraged or dis-
couraged in proceeding with the process . Establishment and
communication of clear guidelines and the provision of good
staff support and assistance will translate into more faci-
lities entering the licensed child care system.
#5 : Adequate child care is a necessary service . Fees set high
enough to discourage such facilities only result in unsuper-
vised children. This can lead to undesirable social con-
sequences and further public costs . Governments should work
to remove unnecessary barriers to the provision of proper
care .
CCTF - APPENDIX A Page 3A
06 : Basic requirements should deal with traffic , parking and
noise and should be reasonable . Requirements having to do
with landscaping and design should be no more stringent than
those for other buildings in the .zone in which the permit is
allowed .
#7 : The purpose of this law is to meet the need for child care
by making large family day care homes easier to establish.
Facilities of this type may particularly help meet the need
for after-school care . Small groups of school-age children
going to a facility near their school may prove to be less
disruptive of neighborhoods than other , larger facilities .
When school facilities are not available for after-school
care , large family day care homes may help solve the before
and after school transportation problem.
CCTF - APPENDIX A Page 4A
CHILD CARE TASK FORCE REPORT DECEMBER 1985
LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS
Esc_gLaI
1 . HR 2867 (Miller , et a1) to improve and expand child
care services and early childhood education services ;
bill is result of Select Committee on Children , Youth
and Families .
2 . To maintain child care food program.
3 . To retain and expand employer cafeteria benefit
plans without penalty to taxpayer.
data:
1 . AB 55 (Brown) to provide $50 million expansion of
general and categorical child care programs ; CCTF
proposed that author and legislators consider the use ,
now and in the future , of local broad-based community
public /private partnership child care planning
organization( s) as a vehicle for distribution or
approval of distribution of funds .
2 . SB 303 ( Roberti) to provide $100 million for local
school districts for capital expenditures and operating
costs of latch key programs ; CCTF proposed that author
and legislators consider the use , now and in the
future , of local broad-based community public/private
partnership child care planning organization( s) as a
vehicle for distribution or approval of distribution of
funds .
3 . SB 864 (Hart) to give tax credits to employers of
50% of start-up expense up to $30 ,000 and 30% of child
care program operating expense ; CCTF proposed ceiling
be eliminated .
4 . AB 1939 (Wright) to give tax credits to employers
of 50% of start-up , up to $10 ,000 and % of child care
program operating expense; CCTF proposed ceiling be
eliminated .
5 . SB 566 (Bergeson) to make child care buildings
eligible for local revenue bond .
CCTF - APPENDIX B Page 1B
6 . SB 711 (Watson) to authorize voter consideration of
$100 million State Revenue Bond Act for child care
facilities .
7 . AB 1007 (Hayden) to allow local jurisdictions to
assess child care fees from developers ; reduces or
excuses fees if developer provides on-site child care
services . CCTF position: "continue to observe" .
8 . SB 43 ( Seymour) to bring State personal child care
tax credit into compliance with Federal allowances . ' In
addition , provides for refund of child care tax credit
to non-tax paying filers .
9 . AB 2175 (LaFollette) to provide additional $5
million state funding to expand Alternative Paymant
( income eligible parents choose child care provider)
programs to counties with no existing program or with
long waiting lists .
10 . SB 1474 ( Seymour) to establish a liability
insurance pool for child care operators .
CCTF - APPENDIX B Page 2B
CHILD CARE TASK FORCE REPORT DECEMBER 1985
' ESTIMATED COSTS OF NEW & INCREASED SERVICES
AEEEINP 1.XC_C
The following costs are only estimates of costs based on the
best available information. A refined , detailed , phased budget
will be developed by the Board of Directors of the new organiza-
tion.
�x�s.�.m_�QQr�inal=iQn,_Manngsmant_and_�nnval_EyalQa.t.iQn
To be done by new coordinating organization at
approximately $75 ,000 annual costs .
!tihil�_�ar.a_Fnnil
Start-up costs for development and adoption of criteria
$30 ,000 . Supplementary operating costs for monitoring at
2000 visits per year estimated at $50 ,000 .
Average cost per child $3 ,000 x 500 children =
$1 ,500 ,000 . Beginning in January , 1986 , add 100 children
per year. Added costs : 1986 = $330 ,000 ; 1987 = $660 ,000 ;
1988 = $990 ,000 ; 1989 = $1 ,320 ,000 ; 1990 = $1 ,650 ,000 .
Administrative agency to be determined . ( 500 children are
about one-tenth of those whose families need assistance
to afford quality childcare) .
�azgsiyQr_Traininx
Training to be done by Community Colleges or other
appropriate agency at annual cost of $208 ,000 to train 1600
caregivers .
ZnfQr.ma11Qn—and_Rafer.xnl_.SaxvicQs
Increase in level of service needed at annual cost of
$75 ,000 .
aiQk chili gats 5-€iYirea
At estimated start-up costs of approximately $135 ,000
and annual operating costs of $240 ,000 .
CCTF - APPENDIX C Page 1C
Additional resources will be needed to adequately
educate the public and consunicis . A budget will be developed .
D —Piz v;_t_5rzviC,.e;i
Intrease level of developmental services , at a cost of
$25 ,000 annually .
To be done by agency to be determined at c(I,-;t of
$20 ,000 for six months .
Proposed to be offered as a part of the new operations
at start—up cost of $1 ,000 ,000 plus avrual operating costs
of $50 ,000. To be administered by agency to be determined
beginning in January , 1986 .
Annual costs of $1 ,250 ,000 .
CCTF APPENDIX C Page 2C
CHILD CARE TASK FORCE REPORT DECEMBER 1985
NEW PROJECT RECOGNITION
APPE�D�� D
The Child Care Task Force recognizes the following recent
developments in child care services in Contra Costa , and in
adjacent communities which are models of local initiative.
D-i§-LQl2xenz-_-child_�ar�_��inszal_�s�Yi�n.
Bishop Ranch Business Park and several of its
major occupant employers , Pacific Bell and Sunset De-
velopment have arranged for the Contra Costa Children's
Council to provide specialized child care resource and
referral services to Bishop Ranch employees . Resulting
information on demand and utilization will be used to
develop additional child care services .
BankAmerica Foundation , in conjunction with the
California Child Care Resource and Referral Network ,
designed a child care services recruitment and training
project for testing in six areas of the State . The
Foundation secured financial support from Chevron ,
U . S .A. , Inc . ; Clorox ; Mervyn's ; the City of San
Francisco; and Contra Costa County . Contra Costa was
selected as a test site , with the Contra Costa
Children's Council conducting local recruitment and
retention efforts and arranging for caregiver training .
Chevron Land Development set aside space in its
development adjacent to Hilltop Shopping Center for a
child care center . They then secured a private child
care operator to provide services in the facility to
families working or living in the area.
As a result of United Way of the Bay Area's
community problem solving com-
mittee , United Way issued a request for proposals for
an innovative child care cost assistance program which
will also measure the quality of programs selected by
eligible families for their children. Follow-up ser-
vices are expected to include program and operational
development suggestions for caregivers . High quality
caregivers are expected to be able to receive recogni-
tion in the form of higher fees for the services pro-
vided .
ro-
vided .
CCTF - APPENDIX D Page 1D
• Qhils�_para_Allians<si_fszr_Raasairsia._ansi._Payalszpmnn�
The City of Concord directed $ 215 ,200 of its
general fund to a new organization whose purpose is to
develop child care resources for Concord residents .
The organization expects to contract with direct child
care services providers for expanded information and
referral services and educational awareness , caregiver
development and family cost assistance in conjunction
with employers . In addition , the City augmented its
Leisure Services Department budget with $100 ,000 for
after school child care this fiscal year .
flas�i'e a_Bua.inEaa_Eark
Just across the county line from Contra Costa 's
southern edge. , Hacienda Business Park draws employees
from Contra Costa County . It is developing a "state-
of-the-art" child care facility within the business
park for the use of occupant company employees .
Ra�isznal_Aa.szsLrzl;iPD._a1_Ysznng
9hildig n_a_faD.iar._15Q1f-yalD.aI!Q.n_PrQj.ac-1
The NAEYC has developed a child care center self-
assessment tool which will be made available to local
centers ( for a fee) for their use in measuring their
effectiveness and program quality .
&an_Raman—Ya 11£Y._S'chilsl_S'cara_LIli ADS e
This organization is developing school site child
care programs for school-aged children in the San Ramon
Valley . They have convened school administrators ,
child care providers and community members to develop
resources to serve children at four elementary school
sites .
Qharnh_Qhils�_Qara_Qantsr
Joint management-employee effort of V.A . Hospital
and Kaiser Hospital in Martinez .
Qiinsia_aQhs 21_Dia1risrs
Before and after school care .
CCTF - APPENDIX D Page 2D
CHILD CARE 'Yt•SK FORCE REPORT DECEMBER 1985
HEALTH CARE SOURCES
APPENDIX-9
It is well documented that there is a rapidly growing need
for affordable , quality child care for working parents. However ,
statistics are gathered by various agencies using slightly
different methodologies and time frames , and hence , although the
numbers show the same general trends , they differ somewhat from
source to source .
Therefore , Appendix E contains background data information
regarding the need for health care from several sources . The
following materials have been included :
California Child Care Resource and Referral Network
April 9 , 1984.
prepared
by the California Child Care Resource and Referral
Network .
A summary of the number of licensed family day care
homes and licensed day care centers in Contra Costa
County prepared by the Contra Costa Children's Council ,
November 1985 . '
prepared by
the Contra Costa Children's Council , July 1984 .
CCTF - APPENDIX E Page IE
California Child Care
Resource and Referral Network
Summary Findings
Bay Area Child .Care Information Project
April 9 , 1984
In 1983 , there were 3 ,000 active fEmi.ly day care homes and
1 ,030 group child care centers with the capacity to serve
over 75 ,000 children in the five Bay Area counties .
Almost 3 in 4 child care spaces were in child care centers
rather than family day care homes .
30 percent of the total capacity in day care homes and
centers ( almost 23 ,000 spaces) is subsidized for low income
families with public dollars . Almost all of the subsidy is
in child care centers .
The Bay Area received over $67 ,000 ,000 in 1983 for child
care services to income eligible children from two major
sources of government support : State Department of
Education - Child Development Division ( $58 , 500 ,000 ) and
Head Start ( federal ) .
Almost one in ten centers received United Way funds in 1983 ;
slightly fewer received grants from private foundations and
corporations . To make ends meet , one-third sponsored fund-
raisers and 20 percent solicited donations .
In 1983 , child care fees averaged $2 , 900 a year for fulltime
care ( 8-10 hours/day) of one preschool child in private
care. Average fulltime infant care fees were over $4 ,000
annually in centers and $3 ,000 in homes . Fees were highest
in Marin and San Francisco.
Over half of all centers in the Bay Area are non-profit .
One quarter are government-sponsored , primarily by school
districts , Park & Rec . Depts . and city or county government .
The remaining 25 percent are for-profit businesses , mostly
"mom and pop" in nature rather than chain operations .
Family day care homes offer a wider range and greater
flexibility of services than child care centers in terms of
ages of children served and hours of carer 76% of homes
offer infant care; 59% afterschool services ; 15% night-
care; 79% partweek ; 10% weekend . Only 7 centers have
nightcare programs ; 5 are open on Saturday . Full day is
preferred .
Patty Siegel,
Executive Director
320 Judah Suite 2 • S '-�r<incisco, California 94122 • (415) 661-1714
Child care centers serve mostly preschoolers beginning
around 2 1 /2 yers old , the majority on a partday basis .
Only capacity is fulltime care.
Only 2% of family day care capacity and 2% of center
capacity are children enrolled in programs outside the
county where they live. The majority of parents still
prefer arrangements close to home.
Despite high unmet need , there are vacancy rates of 24% of
capacity in homes and 11% in centers . Poor quality , high
cost , wrong location, hours or ages served and high turnover
cause under-enrollment .
P-01 A.NP__F_A 9 Ta
By 1985 , child care centers and family day care homes in the
Bay Area will be able to serve only 60% of the children from
birth - 9 years needing care while their parents work . Over
11 ,000 children under 6 and 41 ,000 aged 6-9 years cannot be
served by existing services by next year.
Based on the increasing number of infants and preschoolers ,
the rising number of single parent families , the burgeoning
number of working mothers with young children and changes in
women's work patterns , the number of child care spaces
needed will grow from the 75 ,000 available in 1983 to over
128,000 by 1985 .
In 1983 , the 8 CCR&R agencies handled child care requests
for over 45 ,000 children , almost 10 percent of the entire
Bay Area population of children under 10 years . Nearly half
were infants and toddlers under 2 ; over three-quarters had
working parents and over half needed care fulltime.
There are 385 ,000 children 0-9 years living in the Bay Area .
There well be over 73 ,000 more by 1990 - an increase of
almost 20% in 10 years - due to : the recent "baby boomiet"
produced by the large number of women of childbearing age;
the grwoing Hispanic and Southeast Asian populations ; and
the influx of families seeking employment in the Bay Area.
More than half of the mothers with children under six in the
Bay Area are in the labor force. For children 6-17 years ,
the figure is over two-thirds . Both figures are above the
rates for California and the nation.
The majority of parents of infants and toddlers request
home-based child care arrangements with loving caregivers ,
small groups of children and a family atmosphere. Requests
for preschoolers are usually for group centers , particularly
those with educational components. Parents with school-age
children seek either type of arrangement depending upon
their child 's maturity , independence and need for adult
supervision.
CCTF - APPENDIX E Page 3E
. Who Needs Child Care and Why?
Demand and Demographics
Population and Labor Force Trends Shaping Demand for Child Care
By 1985, child care centers and day care homes in the Bay Bav Arra as well as the number of families seeking employ-
Area will be able to serve only sixty percent of the children mens in the region also contribute to the increase in young
-)etwecn 0-9 who sera child care while their parents work. children.
This discrepancy between the supply of child care services By 1985, the number of children under five will peak
end working families' need for care is the result of an over- at about 235,(99).This means that the nerd fur infant and
.whelming demand that is unprecedented.Today, child care preschool care during these years will increase. As these
is a service that virtually all the children in a community children grow older, the nerd for school-age carr will mush-
•iecd at some time for otic reason or another. For mane roost in the last half of the 1980s.
xorking families, however, child care is essential to their Although the number of children under 10 years will
economic survival. decrease slightly during the 1990s, there will be a net in-
Demand for child carr has been growing as the result of crease of 41,)(9) children in the Bay Arca during; the period
hanges in the economy, the workforce, the population of 191311-20191. This dramatic increase in the number of children
101.111g children and the composition of families.The demand will place a severe strain on the already limited supply of
for child care expands and contracts in reaction to economic child carr. (See chart this page.)
changes—job growth and parents' need to work—as well as
fluctuations in the supply and cost of different child care Decrease in Family Size and Fertility Rates
arrangements, the availability of family members for child
=are and public attitudes about the quality of child care Families are smaller todav for a variety of reasons. People
:ervicrs and their effect on children. are having fewer children; and grandparents are less likely
Locally and nationally, there arc several population arrd labor to live with the family: Men and women are marrying at
;01CC Ireads that will cause all increase ire the demand (or child iary later ages and delaying childbirth for longer periods while
"ernices ire the aurrrrucrrity establishing themselves in the workplace.The Census
Bureau projects today's young families will average two
;nerease in the Number of Children 0-9 years, children, down from an average of three for their parents'
i980-2000 generation. In fact, except for the late 1940s and early 1950s,
women's fertility rates have been declining since the 1900s.
l3y 1990. there will he over 73,(99) more children between The downward trend in fertility rates is expected to con-
1-9 years in the Bay Area than in 1980. This is an increase of time, with one in five young women of today expecting to
dnlost 20 percent.This rapid growth is the result of a "baby have only one child or none at all. Fewer than one in ten
'wonilet" produced by the large number of women now in will have tOur or more children. Women with smaller tami-
:ilcir childbearing years, especially those in their 30s and 40s lies arc enure likely to work and utilize chilli care.
vho had postponed marriage and childbirth.Thr large
'-lispanic and Southeast .Asian immigrant populations in the
3rowth in number of Children 0-9 yrs.: 1980-2000
'projected number of children 0-9 yrs.
%Increase
1980 1985 1990 2000 1980-2000
lay Area 385.520 432.510 459.060 426.490 T 11
County
Uameda 143.750 158,290 168,390 159.530
.ontra Costa 90.020 100.230 109,210 109,420 T22%
3an Mateo 68.390 75.600 79,780 69,780 T 2%
ian Francisco 60.290 75,420 78,230 63.560 T 6%
Aarin 23.070 22,970 23.450 24,200 T 5%
Source:State Department of Finance
By the year 2000,there wdl be over 40.000 more children 49 years Irving rn the Bay Area.
1
these ircmis in lower tertility and smaller families Chang
nig economic dcniands have pushed worsen into
,ignitic.uttly .111'Cet the types of child care arrangements the Labor force during difficult periods in our nation's his-
avail.ablc to families. tory (19.30s, WW 11). Wonicn Irft the workforce and re-
- li.iving ti wer children who arc spaced turned to clic ]Ionic when the economy improved or when
close together reduces the likelihood of mcn returned to replace them on thejob. Despite similar
older children caring for younger brothers recessionary trends today, it is unlikely that mothers' partici-
and sisters.This also lessens the opportu- patios in the labor force is a temporary phenomenon.Their
nity tier voungcr children to niodcl'older numbers have been increasing almost continuously over the
brothers and sisters and to learn social- past 40 years. By 1980, nearly one in two mothers in the
ization skills at home. As a result, the U.S. with children under six were either working or look-
preschoofrxperience becomes increas- ing titr work; those -,vith older children (6-17 years) did so
ingly attractive to today's parents. in even greater numbers (64 percent).
- Families with fewer children are better Women today are working during their 20s, establishing
able to aftiird the cost of child carr positive expectations about work, careers, and their eco-
scr\-iccs in the community. noniic benefits. For these reasons, they are more likely to
- Older parents who are more established remain in the labor force after marrying; and having chil-
in their careers are better able to afford dren.They will return to work earlier after the birth of their
child carr fees. children than mothers in any previous generation.Today,
- Families less likely to include grand- over 40 percent of mothers taking leave arc back at work
parents or other relatives do not have before their child is one year old.
access to these traditional forms of These trends have created a huge demand for all types of
in-honer carr. child care services that outstrips the supply of programs and
providers. Infant care needs are especially acute not only
because so few programs exist for this age group, but also
Increase in Proportion of Families Supported by Women because the unprecedented Icvcl of demand was both over-
Thr most tar-reaching change caking place in the structure vahclin nig and unanticipated.
of U.S. households is the increase in the proportion of Growth in Percent of Children with Mothers
families supported by women.This revolution in family in the Workforce in U.S.: 1970-1980
structure over the past 25 years has been caused by: the
doubling; of divorce rates; the tripling of birth rates for
unniarried women; and the increasing trend or sg d fin5 �le 57% 353% 1970
.
mothers to set up their o%vn homes rather than live with 177777=1 1980
relatives.The number of families supported by women \yell
43% 43%
cote uncreastng;, although at a slo,,vcr rate. 39%
Source
nnu
Bureau of Labor
Child carr is an essential service for families supported by Sta6stles
women because it enables them to work, providing up to 70 29% .::.:..:.:..:
ercenC of total tinnily income from their earnings. Al-
though the median income for children in these families is
haul\- one-third that for children living with both parents,
it can make the difference between poverty and an adequate
standar{ of living.
0-5 yrs. G17 yrs. 0-17 yrs.
Increase in the Number of Mothers in the Labor Force During the 1970s,the proportion of workup mothers kicreased from 4 in 10 in
and the Proportion Working Fulltime/ Year-round 1970 to over 1 in 2 by 1980.
Demand for Child Care Will Grow Because Of
In 1980, over half of the mothers with children under six —increase in the numoerof children 0.9 years
in the 13.1\-Arra \%c re in the labor three. 0vcr two-thirds of --decrease in family size and fertility rates
mothrn with children 0-17 \-cars were working.These rates —increase in the proportion of families maintained by women
are higher than those tier California and the nation. —increase in the number of mothers with young children in the labor force
The Ba\- Arca mirrors what has become a national phc_ —increase in the proportion of employed mothers working fulltime/year-round
nome•non: the unprecedented numbers of niothers in the A critical labor force trend with prot01.1nd ctfect on child
worktoi cc. especially married wonicn \vith children under carr demand is women's increasing involvement in fulltitne,
three vrars. The overall labor force participation rate of N•car-round employment.The proportion of mothers work-
mothers with children under six in the U.S. has increased ing more hours, more regularly throughout the year is
tour-told from 12 percent in 1947 to 47 percent in 19811, grog%ing; tier wonien in both ,inglc anu
d two-parent families
11\- 1992, this figure had increased another I percent.This rate ,turd tier women with children of all ages. V�omen who work
is cxpecrrd to increase throughout the decade, resultins tiu111iMe arc snore than twice as likely to cue child carr
from deep diangrs in economic conditions, family strut- centers than parttime working; mothers. As this revolution
Cure. wonted s work patterns and attitudes about wonte•n•s in woutrn's attachuirnt to woi k occur,• the deniand tier
roles at home• and in the \vorkplacr. �Sre (•11.111 group child carr pro,r.ttns—as well as taniil\- day care
hoists—,•.i4l ii��„hrootu.
4others Most Likely to Use Child Care Centers For Child Care Arrangements of Working Mothers with
:hildren Under 6 Years Children Under 5 Years
-work fulltime June, 1982
-have a relatively high family income($25,000) Percent of mothers using
—youngest child is at least Tyears old
—black women more likely than white women Relative 29%
-work in white collar occupations Mother or Father 23%
-live in metropolitan or suburban areas Family Day Care/Friend/Neighbor 22%
-are single mothers Child Care Center 15%
-are well educated(at least one year of college) Babysitter in child's home 5.5%
Changes in Child Care Arrangements of workforce may be tilt major reason why they arc providing
Working Families care to fewer families.This trend may mean that families
will have ti:wer options front which to choose.
The changes taking; place in the labor force and in families There were also fewer families using care in their own
.will create agnlwing demand for child care services outside honk in 1x/82 as relatives were less available and babysitters
.he traditional family and neighborhood resources.The were harder to find. Fathers continued to be an important
Jecreasing; availability of spouses, siblings, relatives and resource, accounting; for 1.3 percent of child care arrange-
friends for child care has caused more working parents than Hunts. However, almost one quarter were unemployed and
ever before to turn to family day care homes, day care looking; tilr work. Child care duties for these fathers can, at
centers, nursery and preschools, afterschool programs and best, be considered transitory arrangements until they
other group care settings to meet their child care needs. return to the workforce.
Surveys conducted with working mothers by the Census In all, mothers and fathers provided 23 percent of all child
Bureau from 1958 to 1982 document the growing use of day care arrangements in families where the mother was work-
care homes and centers by families at all socioeconomic ing, a slight decline since 1977. Dual-working families
levels, although it is highest for centers for children with where both parents worked in blue collar or service occu-
fulltime working mothers and families with annual incomes pations were most likely to share child care tasks, probably
over S25,()tHI. because of shift and nighttime work.While this working
The growing acceptance of group care experiences for arrangement solves the child care problem, it puts a severe
young children means that even when mothers are not strain on family relationships.
working, they are likely to use some type of child care As more mothers join the workforce, the shift away
service. Nursery school enrollment for 3-4-year-olds has trom care in the child's home to care outside the home in
doubled over the past IU years in the U.S. from slightly centers and day care homes will escalate.The reduced
over i in 5 to 2 in 5. The National Center for Education nuinbcr of potential carcg;ivcrs in the child's home; the
Statistics t6rccasts a 33 percent rise in nursery/kindergarten increase in talnilics headed by women; the decline in family
cnrollnunt for 3-5-year-olds between 19811 and 1990, the size and the increase in public acceptance of the benefits of
I gain pn)jrited for any level of education. group child care experiences for young children will create
Increasingly. working parents rely on part-day nurseries new denl.tnd for child care services in the community.
and preschools in combination with other resources to pro-
vide filll-day care for their preschool-age children. In 1982,
one in five parents using more than one child care arrange- Demand for Child Care in the Bay Area
tient were combining part-day centers with other arrange-
ments to make fulltinlr care. In 1083 the eight Bay Area CCRKR agencies received
The most recent Census Burcata survey (June, 1982) of reyuesrs for child care for over 45,0(111 children.This was
working nluthcrs whose youngest child was under 5 years almost 10 percent of the entire population of children
old indicates that the use of child care centers has continued under IU years. Because these rcyucsts are from parents who
to increase, from 12.5 percent in 1977 to 15 percent in 1082. are actively looking for child care programs, they accurately
However, use of group care centers is higher for sonic n•priscnt cxpresscd needs which many child care analysts
working mothers than others, a fact that is usually, although bclicyc are the most reliable indicators of unmet needs.
not al\yay,, .associated syith ability to pay. Family structure !'arenas wire seeking either a "tirst tinge" arrangement or a
.11s0 affeLts use of ccntcrs. Single mothers are more likely to situation to replace one that their child had outgrown or
use this form of care ht-cause there is no spouse to share that had sinaply broken down. Surveys indicate that many
child carr respunstbllit cs. (See charts above.) parents have to find ne\y arrangements an average of twice
In 1982, over one out of five working mothers with young; cath year.
children were using child care in the home of a non-relative. The oycr%vhclnutig majority of the 45,W0 children need-
Fulltinu working mothers used thine :arranµnlents nlorc ing child care—over 3 out of 4—required an arrangement
often than mothers working only parttime. Care in a non- while their parents worked or looked for work. Almost one
relative's honk—which includes t:lllllly day care—declined in tell had a parent in school or a job training program. Over
slightly since 1977. Thr rise in use of centers probably con- half will be in care on a fulltinac basis, usually 8-10 hours a
trillutcd to this pattern. I however, the decreasing availability day, Monday through Friday. Others needed care for only a
of day care Mone providers and ncighbors as they join the portion of t}lc day or week oil a regular basis, or tctupor.161\,
during family crises, illness or school vacations. An esti- Demand for Childcare in the Say Area: 1983
mated 121111 requests wrrc received for ongoing care at
night, on the weekends or for rotting shifts. Data on child care requests for 11,275 children during
Almost half of the children needing carr ..•cre infants three representative months:9/82, 1/83,and 5/83
and toddlcrs under 2 years old, a proportion that has been
rising 1-2 percent cacti year as more of their mothers enter Ages
the workforcc. 0nc in ten is a school-age child, usually K-9
yearn, tier %vhom parents feel services before acid/or after Under 2yrs. 46%
school arc appropriate.
As we have seen tjom the national trends in child care 612 yrs. 16%
38%
usage, the types of services parents are requesting vary with
the nuncber and ages of their children, fancily income, 12-5 yrs.
amoinit and schedule of care needed (days/hours), fancily
child-rearing values, dcvclopmental•needs of the child as
%vcll as parcnc:' attitudes about the stability and reliability of
various types of caregivers and programs. hours
Parents of infants and toddlers most often request honcc- 51%
based services, looking for family environncents, loving Fulhime
providers and sncall groups of children, although the pro-
portion seeking infant centers is increasing. Requests for Occasional-Temp. 10%
preschool-agc children arc overwhelncingly for formal Befor10% 29%
center-based carr, especially programs with an educational Part time
/Aftersehool
Part time
atmosphere. Parents with school-age children seek pro-
grams most suited to their child's level of maturity, inde-
pendence and need ti)r adult supervision. Fancilies usually
attempt to use the same arrangement for all their children, Reason
unless age differences are so great that this is not possible. SchoolJot)Training
9%
There are also seasonal variations in demand for child care Parent Activities 50,6
in the Bay Area.The highest volunce of requests arc in the Respite,Sick-other 5%
fall when parents look for preschools and day care centers Child Development 3% 78%
for their prekindergarten children and aftcrschool services Work-Seek work
for the K-9 year olds. At this time, more students need
child care as universities and colleges begin their busiest
cnrollment period. he January, demand is again at high levels Source:Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies
although infant and fulltince requests arc more numerous. In
late spring, I in 5 requests are for summer care while c•Ie-
tnentary schools arc closed for July and August. Preschooler
needs also increase while part-day nurseries shun down for
summer vacations. Needs from working parents peak at
Ellis time as srtulents graduate and enter the job market.
(5cc charts this page.)
Facts About Children and Families in the Bay Area: 1980 Census
—There are 385.000 children 0-9 years living in the Bay Area.Almost one third are infants and toddlers under
the age of three...
—There will be over 73,500 more children 0-9 years in the Say Area by 1990,an increase of almost 20%in 10 years. . .
—One in five children live in single parent families...
--Children 0-14 years are quite racially diverse,including 17%Black; 13N Asian and slightly under 1%Native American. 17%
are of Hispanic origin. . .
—Over one in five children 5-17 years speak a language other than English at home. . .
—Over one in ten families with children live in poverty. ..
—Families with two or more workers earn 370io more in family income than those with one worker. . .
—Over half the mothers with children under six are in the labor force.For children 617 years,the figure is over two-thirds. . .
—Median income of families with children ranged from a high of$29,721 for married couples in Mann to a low of 511,037 for
single mothers in Alameda County. . .
4
Need for Child Care for Working Families in the Bay Area: 1985
Age Projected M of Chil- X Estimated%Mothers in = #Children in Work- X %Needing Care = Potential M Chil-
dren:1985 Labor Force in Bay Area: Ing Families Outside Family dren Needing Care
1985' In the Community
0-5 yrs 273,720 X 53% a 145,070 X 50% a 72,535
6-9 yrs 158,785 X 70% 111,150 X 50%" 55,575
Totals 432.505 256,320 128,110
'Project 2%increase over 1980 Census data for SF-Oakland SMSA
"Based on estimates for preschool children.No separate data available for school-age.
Unmet Need for Child Care Services in the Bay Area
National surveys of working mothers with young chil-
dren have found that about half must rely on sources of care
within the community: babysitters in the child's home,
family day care homes and child care centers.
By using this estimate of demand for care outside family
resources together with 1985 State Department of Finance
projections of child population, the following projections of
child care nee,-for working families can be derived: (See
chart this page.)
How many of these 128,(NN)children 0-9 years needing
child care in 1985 can actually be served by the present
supply of day care homes and child care centers? The answer
is only 6 in 16 children. Over 11,W)children under 6 years
old and as many as 41,(Y)U children 6-9 years old could not
be servedin misting programs by 1985. The problem will
be especially acute for infants and toddlers under 21/2 years
old, and for young school-age children (kindergarten-7
years old) who are more likely than older school-age
children to use a formal afterschool program.
How these children will be cared for while their parents
work, or go to school or job training programs, is crucial to
their social and emotional development. It is an overriding
concern of parents, employers and policymakers whose
responsibilities include Elie welfare of children.
Families cannot prosper if raising their children and earn-
ing a IiyinG are constantly at odds with one another. Parents
need helpjingling these roles. Quality, reliable child care at
a price families can it-ford will not only help parents with
their-juggling act, but it will also contribute to a stable
workforce, a strum economy and a healthy society.
3 i ,
A Portrait of Family Day Care Homes
Aomes Based on a telephone survey of active family day care providers listed with Child Care Resource and Referral agencies as of
April,1983
Total#of Licensed Homes 840
#Large Group Homes(7.12 children) 143
#Homes with Weekend Care 49
#Homes with Night Care 101
#Homes with Aherschool Care 514
Total#Children-Licensed Capacity 5.898
#Children whose care is publicly subsidized 113
#Children who live outside of county 99
#Children with disabilities 93
Ages of Children in Care AphWune, 1983
96 of Homes
Under 3 months 10
36 months 19
7.23 months 71
2 years 53
35 years 56
K-9 years 50
10.12 years 11
A Portrait of Child Care Centers
Centers Based on a mailed questionnaire sent to child care centers listed with Child Care Resource and Referral agencies as of April,
1983
Total#of Child Care Centers 176
#Centers Serving: #Slots Capacity
Infants 21 (12%) 346
Preschool 160 (91%) 7,742
Schoolage 61 (35%) 1,554
#Centers Uttering: #Slots Capacity
Fullday 97 (55%) 3,689
Partday 121 (69%) 4,399
Afterschool fit (35%) 1.554
Total#of Children Enrollment Capacity 9.642
#of children whose care is publicly subsidized. 3.050
#of children who live outside of county 162
#of children referred by Child Protective Services 17
Center Legal Status
Status N Centers
Public 19
Private Non-Profit 99
For Profit 53
Center Sponsors
Sponsor #Centers
School Distract 9
Community College District —
Other Government Agency 10
University —
Rehgious 31
Private Agency 10
ChairVFrancnise 5
Other Sponsor 6
::ounty Child Care Report Contra Costa County
Highlights: How does Contra Costa compare to the other four Bay Area counties. —accounts for half of population growth in the Bay Area over the next 20
years,due mostly to population explosion in rural East Contra Costa County—second highest increase in number of new jobs over the next 20 vears(115,500)—
greatest increase in percentage of children 0.9 years by the year 2000(22%)—highest proportion of total capacity in family day care homes(38%)versus child
:are centers(62%)
Unniet Need for Child Care for Working Families In Contra Costa County:1985
Meed ` Estimated#of Children
with working parents Total N Slots
needing child care Centers 6 Homes N Children
Age services(1985) (1983) UNMET NEED
0.5 years 14,961 12.958 2,003
6-9 years 13,119 2.582 10,537
TOTAL 28.080 15,540 12,540
Requests for Child Care in Contra Costa County:1983
Demand Child Care Resource and Referral agencies handled requests for 10,615 children needing care...
Hours Ages Reasons
Fulltime 45% Under 2 years 44% Work/Seek Work 75%
Parttime 33% 2.5 years 34% School/Job Training 9%
Before/After School 13% 6.12 years 22% Parent Activities 5%
OccasionaVTemporary 9% Respit"ickOther 2%
Child Development 5%
Supply of Child Care Centers and Day Care Homes
Slots Number of Slots for May,1983
38% Family Day Care Homes 5•898'
42% Private Child Care Centers 6,592
20% Public Subsidized Child Care
Centers 3.050
Total Slots 15,540
"Based on number of active homes on file with Child Care Resource and Referral agencies.
Cost of Child Care
Fees Average child care fees in private centers and day care homes as of June,1983
Hours 8 Ages Child Care Centers Family Day Care Homes
Fulttime
Infants $230/month $200/month
Preschool $2371month $208/month
Parttime
Infants $1.55/hour $1.551hour
Preschool $1.751hour $1.551hour
Schoolage
Before/Afterschool $1.30/hour $1.651hour
1
I
COW',!
� �U N � r[✓1ivJ .:
('t' rt
i
r
V-' W
ON co W a
"TI
15
N
INS }
X:.
;f1
—J -1 aY
W
W
r
N
N z
� � r
D Ul N co
Ln
N
cc
.1
;'Y1
co
S Ll
' a a D rt � a
(~D r n N rr
� n
x F
n
o
r
F- N .p W W w W
D 00 .A ON N N .7A .p LP O JJ
cn -r1
-3 71
r
a
O` N Q A W Ln O iT1
Ut W I'D Ut Ln __l 00 Qo Ul O)
r
rn �-
N W Ui N N N .A Ui W ON
I'D O 0o N 00 011 N Un O� ID I- Z
00 F O Ln F-' N lA J J U'i O7 cn
CT'1
a
7J
F- rrl CT7
X, F- N F F--' W C7
N J N .tA 00 �_n N J P �]
:U
:n ;'t7 .
v
J)
_ 0 �] cc J ID .n
CC J __jO OJ
�] D .C-. F- W 0o O Q,
a
C' N
t--� �:•, � ;--� P•.; �] Cil �� .p %�
�1 �7 W t J - Ji N F- W 7
ti
,moi 1
. .
'
'
rr vi � ..
rt
rI
0-4
cc ztt:
co
'
co F—
Q n� 11 n
pIr C nO ((D
rt (~D n
O R Ort rt U, P.
r
F- F-
Ln
OJ A )SZ Lil O a Cn
J7 ;'T1
r t7
r
T
I_n
J W W O N lSZ 'C2 .A W N
:n
r
a
� W .A N �
Q N Ch ON F- O .A .A Z
Ln r. G U l O Co J�:, n
- � r
:n t�
-G
a
m
rn
Ui J W O s2 �D J 77
.N tJ
a
t J
O t. W 7 N W A
z
"Tf
O r7 z Z O I b b7 > O lTJ
y r rr H H H Z Z Z D "79 z r r n
H Z + H b O cn M n O Cf) n x
r b H O Cn r r-+
ZE n m ( x z > r °m z o
b O w z z
L-1 cn d G7 i r O O y HO
£ Ln z
O 1 r
�.Q (D
N w U-+ co O) W J w 011 w O
co I'D -) LP f ',D V7 A N O M a F"i "
co O� Q> 11� I W I D J �.D O co J co O Un I O U)
r+ n
::r £
(D )-- N
rt ~ H
cn :r a x
rD
� n
x
H
r
(D O 1 G n n
(D rt >
C7
w � � '•G ri
iQ LQ (D
-A W m W W N O >
00 w UP -.D O N J I'D cn .A n E3 " r., b
(o a1 w cc co w O "D �'D In �'D A A O w W O U) 7
n r+ n O
(D 5' £
cn :r a n
n x
O
O
r
>y
n
r N x n z r
0 U, X, o A O 1v (n C r n
o x
�D N rn Ln rn o 0 0 o co rn lT1 rrt or
(D (D ~
`•G r^S n
O., n
>L W M
a cn
n w w
�, ! f--+ CT1 t•t N• n
co Ln 1 XN - A H (D fn
�D o 0 0 �-n o o O o 0 0 -_j o Ln co m ::r
Z9 O N N
�3 (D :3
CL
N
rm cn G)
(D O 'a W
'a
a n
�- rt (D .
] :3, U) 5
O
A I N u �- O N W W O W In N U) w n
w .A N w W A N a, s N G
W W W O OJ O1 O J CT �D 00 SL flJ F••'-
•� c- n
W v
• rJ �a r* * C) G) �-3 0 Cl) E O
rn C O (n O zo O >y I > >y �o O b
M rt c v N z > z r x 11 m *z z
• 3 0 E C z z > < 3 z z >7 > b H n
A) rS O Ll H 0 r H O " C C7 0 K cn O
C rt F K r v H v CT] z
D) x (D H r 3 H z tT7 d
O n H H N
z z th n
o n 0 > ti x r
co :5 :3, n v
w (D 0, T. C •<
O a N1-3
6, G n I t" O
rt � W z
v m rt £ U, z
D7 (D O I c
(D rt
�"! ::rX p CT
LL A N N• (D
(D (11 N
M r- rt LO (D
W w N o .A �A J m P U-1 D) O
O rt Q) Un I O N J O J J N W In �10 AI B " M
I� '7 OT r, U•) O') Ui 00 Ln �-' W 00 O (n
rt
(n o m �- N•
(D k rt rt .�
N CL H
lD rt fL I trl
co n rt
CD rD
n � I
n r
� � o
�' O � £ unz
Cm O i s
� n
n m n b
• �• (D CT]
n n LO �Q (D c�
c J all CT� O J J co N J Q) O b
rt w �.n rn 0o O w w r 011 N A J n " M 'T�
�:r — w U-1 w 1 A m rn o cc a` J P O In
(D II I n In
(D :Dr £ ::r O
n
O (D * (D ~ ~
n rt
(n tr a cn
rt F n n
W rt O
O
O E I I r
(nO I I b
rt rt C)
0) x x Mn z
i• Ln N O a (D c
n Ln .cam N .A .a w N J 3 !9 ") B n
tO In I a) .A O N O N N w In J m rt Cf x
�••'• Cn � (D m r+
a o (nn r
c
n rt a O (x
rD ::r Q) w r
(� �< z
O O w o w z (D n (D
C a Ln � w up J un o H (D (n
C co �.o co W A A N Ln 0o J �D CTJ � �
n O ONS.
rt Cn 9 (D
N I I (D Cl,
cn
n (D
�T (D I
M cn G7
(D O "U
(D r•( w "C3
n N. Q� n
fL �- N r� I -' ft (D
S Q N I r p ? M
(D �-Q O
J n I .A In .A co O� (31 (7� co W (n Q) n
U] a) w Ln I v. r) rn ON co "D 00 w O w n (D < ::T
w C rt O o I r� a CO XL. N w O1 J U') 00 LL Q1 r.
t D
00 (D G N. Q)
i
I �