Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 05181999 - C97
? 7 FHS #34 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �;;j" �" CONTRA COSTA FROM: Family and Human Services Committee C+iJ[3NT DATE: May 18, '1999 SUBJECT: Status Report on Employee Child Care Center SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS- ACCENT the attached report from the Employes Child Care Task Farce on the feasibility of establishing a second child care cuter to serve children of Contra Costa County employees. BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: On April 2S, t999, the Family and Human Services Committee heard a report from Laura Lockwood, Director, Capital Facilities and Debt Management, on a study on the feasibility of establishing a second child care center to serve children of Contra Costa County employees.. Ms. Lockwood gave a brief background and then introduced Ken Jaffe, International Child Resource Institute (ICRI), who gave a detailed overview of the report. Mr. Jaffe stated that the feasibility study showed that a second center could break even financially only if the fees did not include any development costs. The existing center at the Public Works Department was able to be developed without subsidy because of the vast amount of"sweat equity" provided by the employees. This was an extraordinary effort which, in his opinion, would be almost impossible to replicate. Mr. Jaffe reviewed the total income/loss projections based on various employee salary and fee assumptions, with and without leasehold costs. Ms. Lockwood pointed out CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _„_YES SIGNATURE, RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER X-01 7� , SIGNATURE(S). MARK DESAULNIER GAYLE S.UILKEMA ACTION OF BOARD ON May 18, 1999 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDEC OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A XX UNANIMOUS(ASSENT — — — — — — I TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: _NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Sara Hoffman,336-1090 ATTESTED May 18._ 1999 PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERIC OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND C LINTY ADMINIST_9ATOR Laura Lockwood,Capital Facilities I Employ Chili Cara Task Force v4a Capital Facilities BY , u /Ki4tit- 'DEPUTY FHS #34 BACKGROUND REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS tcont'd): that the financial estimates were based on a high quality child care model with staffing ratios of three- to-one for toddlers and infants and eight-to-one for preschoolers. Mr. Jaffe then reviewed funding options, including grant funding, build to suit with lease back options and funding through the State Department of Education for welfare eligible families (which would broaden the scope of the service population of the center). Supervisor Gayle Uilkema said that she supported the concept of a child care facility if it was done properly and questioned if grants would be available if only employee children were at the center. Mr. Jaffe responded that funding possibilities were best if it was a blended site, however, some foundations are interested in specific research issues which would make it more competitive. Three sites were discussed with the preferred site being a car dealership on Alhambra Avenue in Martinez. Where was also a discussion on the possibility of partnering with the City of Martinez and the school district to make the site more affordable. After further discussion, it was agreed that Ms. Lockwood would return to the Family and Human Services Committee at its July 12, 1999 for further discussion on possible locations, partnering with others and funding. 2 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY'ADM/NISTRATOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 6t' Floor Martinez, CA 94563 DATE: April 26, 1999 TO: Family and Human Services Committee Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema c'4' , FROM: Laura Lockwood, Director, Capital Facilities & Debt Management SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON EMPLOYEE CHILD CARE CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. ACCEPT the attached report submitted by the Employee Child Care Task Force on the feasibility of the establishment of a second Child Care Center to serve Contra Costa County employees. 2. ACKNOWLEDGE that a second County Child Care Center is likely to rewire an ongoing subsidy since the income generated through parent fees will not cover the full cost of its operation. 2. CONSIDER if the Child Care Task Force should investigate outside sources of funding to offset the start-up and facility costs of a Child Care Center; if so, direct staff to seek GRIP funding for a grant writer. BACKGROUND: During the May 12, 1998, hearing on the proposed purchase of the Summit Centre, the Board of Supervisors requested that the County Administrator's Office explore the establishment of one or more additional child care facilities for County employees. Subsequently on .lune 9, 9998, the Board authorized the Family and Human Services to designate departmental representatives to an employee child care task force (see Attachment A). The first meeting of the Task Force was held on October 28, 9998 and the group has met monthly since that time. Activities of the Child Care Task Force The Gild Care Task Force sponsored an early evening meeting in Martinez on December 9, 9999 for the 378 employees who had indicated interest in a second County child care center; however, only four County employees attended that meeting. The Child Care Task Force also retained the International Child Resource Institute (ICRI) to examine the feasibility of an employee child care center and to identify potential sites for this center. The Task Force has worked closely with ICRI, providing guidance and feedback as their work has proceeded. ICRI's report is included as Attachment B. Employee Survey of Child Care Needs In August 9998, the County Administrator's Office distributed a survey of child care needs to County employees. Initially only 294 responses were returned and the response from the Health Services Department was particularly low. After a second survey of Health Services Department employees, an additional 84 responses were received for a total of 378. The survey results are appended to this report as Attachment C. REPORT CONCLUSIONS: ICRI reviewed a number of data sources describing County employees, These data indicate that the county workforce is relatively older than the general workforce. ICRI has determined based on their experience in developing employee child care centers that the County employee population would support a child care center of 96 children in addition to the 32 children currently enrolled at Kids at Work. The ICRI report compares a range of options on employee salaries, fees and facility costs. When startup and facility costs are included in the calculation, a child care center will require some level of ongoing County subsidy. The ICRI analysis also assumes a fee structure of between $470 (Kids at Work fee for preschooler) and $780 (average fee for infant/toddler) per child per month. In comparison, the survey indicates that only 40 percent of County employees would be willing to spend more than $400 per month for childcare, In some jurisdictions, alternate sources of funding such as ISTEA, CDBO, or State grants have been used to offset facility costs. If such funding is available, there are some scenarios in which annual operating income (fees charged to parents) may support annual operating costs of a child care center. ATTACHMENT A MEMBERSHIP OF TASK FORCE ON EMPLOYEE CHILD CARE Laura, Lockwood, CAO Davida Amenta, CAO ,John Gregory, CAO Tonza Harvey, Human Resources Patti McNamee, Public Works ,Jill Ray, Supervisor Uilkema's Office Kathy Chiverton, Supervisor Gerber's Office Betty Fisher, Supervisor DeSaulnier's Office Pat Stroh, Community Services/Head Start Wilda Davisson, Community Services/Child development Pauli Wampler, Social Services Leona Hartman, Social Services Belinda Moen, Health Services Stephen Harris, Health Services County Employee Participants: Yvonne Ybanez Danielle belly Gnselda Romero ATTACHMENT-B Report To Contra Costa County On the Feasibility of the Establishment of a Child Care Center to Serve County Employees Submitted by International Child Resource Institute Berkeley California April 1999 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILD CARE NEEDS ASSESSMENT TATTLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 1 II. Profile of County Employees 1 III. Assessment of Size and.Configuration of Child Care Center 3 IV. Staffing for Child Care Center 5 V. Pro-Forma Budgets for Child Care Establishment and Operation 6 A. Cost of Establishment E. Cost of(.operation VI. Potential Sites for Child Care Center 27 A. Castro Street Pros-cons-conditions E. Alhambra Avenue Pros-cons-conditions C. Summit Center Pros-cons-conditions VII. Funding and Financial Considerations 2$ VIII. Timeline for Program Implementation 30 Executive Summary The International Child Resource Institute reviewed the feasibility of establishing a child carte center to serve Contra Costa County employees. The following findings were made: 1) The current employee population, residence location, other current child care arrangements, and employee demographics would sustain a child care center of up to 100 children. 2) The optimal location for the child care center based upon employee demographic review, employee survey and transportation patterns should be in central Contra Costa County, in the greater Martinez area. 3) used upon employee survey information,the optimal hours of operation for the center would be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,with the flexibility to emend hours as necessary. 4) There are currently three sites, which have been identified as potential locations for a child care center. These are located in downtown Martinez, along Alhambra.avenue near the County hospital and at the Summit Center near highway four. 5) Based upon extensive budget analysis, it has been determined that it would be feasible to operate a child care center for 96 children with some surplus, if the center were operated at or near full capacity with sufficient parent fees and/or outside subsidies. 6) A child care center for 96 children could be operated at above a breakeven point,by year two, if fees charged were at the average level for the Martinez area, and salaries paid were at the level of those currently provided to Contra Costa County Public Works Child Care Center(Kids at Work). Further action should be taken to continue the site selection process, secure a site and developfinal detailed budgets for the establishment and operation of a child came center to serve county employees. le INTRODUCTION i..11. MRVIEW AND APPROACH The International Child Resource Institute was contracted by Contra Costa County to assess the feasibility, determine the size and location of;and develop general start-up and operating budgets for a child care center to serve Contra.Costa County employees. ICRI has conducted the following activities in order to determine the parameters for a child care center for the County; & Reviewed and analyzed the Contra Costa.County Employee Child Care Survey, updated February 1999 b. reviewed and analyzed further Contra.Costa County employee data including,but not limited to employee residence, commute patterns,and age and location of employee dependents c. Conducted an assessment of sites available for the development of a child care center d. Established the optimal size and operating hours for a child care facility to serve county employees e. Developed start up and ongoing operational budgets for the construction,refurbishment and operation of a child care facility f, Made conclusions about the size, scope and assts of a child care center for County employees ICRI is providing a draft report related to each of the above items and,upon review by the County Child Care Committee, will submit a final report. H. PROFILE OF COUNTY EMPLOYEES Contra Costa County currently has approximately 7400 employees. The employee population, from County Health Services to Department of Social Services, and from Probation and County Administration,the majority of County employees work in the central part of Contra Costa County. A review of the demographics of employees who are members of the County Health Plan, analyzed by age category shows that the majority of children of County employees also reside in the central part of the County. 1 HEALTH PLAN MEMBER CHILD DEMOGRAPHICS-SELECTED CITIES PRESCHOOL AGE CHILDREN SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN Ales E � AREA CITY i 0 thru 1 2 that 3 4 thru 5 I Total it6 thro 7 8 thru 9 10 thm 11 i 12 tura 13 i 14+ i ' PreSchl , 25 EAST health demog. 6 14 15 35_J: 17 26 17 37 121 TOTAL: i 31 58 59 148 68 E 86 70 97 ! 422 7 health demog. 3` 4. i 0 7 5 1 4 . 6 3 28 TOTAL: 7 6 5 18 10 i 11 15 9 76 rITTSB 24 23 24 71 32 I 44 48 46 179 TOTAL: 42 41 49 132 64 76 75 71 i 357 NEST RIiC (1►Nlv1 l# l l 1 41t 25 26 1413 health dog. 8 6 5 19 1 9 i 11 18 17 71 TOTAL: 19 c 17 24 60 34 37 40 46 219 SANPAI3LO. .._ health demog. 3 i 4 2 9 3 7 5 7 23. TOTAL: 11 12 8 31 14 19 16 24 85 CENTRAL:CO Cts t <.._ 19„ 25 66': 24 a,.,. " 34 38.z .. 5 262 health demog. 7 9 19 35 1 16 19 16 21 75 TOTAL: 26 31 44 101 40 53 54 74 337 42 health demog. 11 13 25 49 26 31 24 26Y * j143- TOTAL: 47 44 57 1.48 1 68 83 71 86 437 PLAAN'T L 9 8 18 3 1 l 11 1tl 8 u health demog. 6 3 4 13 ! 4 7 7 9 34 TOTAL: 15 11 22 48 1 15 18 17 17 91 ESOLAN© BENIC�A 9 2 1 t',' 31€ 18 .. 12 ,13 :. ICDUNTY health demog. 2 i �3 4 9 5 5 �, 9.._ 2 49_. TOTAL: 11 j 15 14 40 23 17 22 14 1616 'VALLE3(3 healthdemog. 13 11 12 345 i 1.1 17 18 21 ''2 TOTAL: 23 i 26 31 i 80 ! 32 39 46 1 44 185 i GRAND TOTAL: 232 , 261 345 846 ; 3+68 1 439 1 426 i 482 2375 As can be seen from the above chart,the greatest population of children of dependents residing in the larger cities of Contra Costa County and contiguous Solano County cities are above preschool age (with preschool children reviewed as ages 0 through 5). This fact indicates that the majority of current employees of Contra Costa County have children who are of elementary school, rather than of preschool age. However,the number of preschool children of County employees represents a significant minority with 835 preschool age children from major Contra Costa and contiguous cities represented. It is notable that the number of preschool age children residing in central and east Contra Costa.County who are listed as County health plan dependants is nearly identical(297 vs. 298). However,the child care survey returns indicate that 69%of the respondents work in the Central County area. 2 REVIEW OF CQUINTY CHILD CARE SURVEY The County Employee Child Care Survey is useful in refining information about the size, location, and child care needs of County employee respondents. The following information is a summary of responses provided.through Cutten Consulting of La Honda, California. > There were 387 responses to the survey. > Most of the respondents work in Martinez (59%). Richmond-based employees,the second most named location,had a 13%response. By area within the county, 69%of the respondents work in the central area incorporating Martinez, Concord,Pleasant Hill, and Walnut Creek. Next was the West Contra.Costa County area at 18%. ➢ Respondents home locations are more spread out. The central area of the county had the highest representation with 31%of all respondents living there. East Contra Costa County(16%), West Contra,Costa(18%), and Solano County(15%)each had abut the same percentage of respondents. > Levels of response varied greatly by department. Health Services had the highest response numerically, 183. On a percentage basis, Health Services-Public Health(3010),the County Administrator's Office (18%), and Community Development(14%)had the highest response rates. Some departments had no responses. > Most respondents(77%)need childcare during regular weekday hours, 8 a.m.. to 6 p.rn.. Many of those who answered"other"(17%)need weekday care beginning earlier in the morning and ending earlier n the afternoon. Ninety-two percent(92%)of respondents who have children in the target age groups—infant, toddler, preschooler-stated they would likely use a childcare center located at work. If the center were located.within 5 miles of home or work,the response was still high with 82% stating they would likely use the center. > Not many respondents(18%)were willing to pay more than$500 per month per child for childcare. About three in ten(29%) would like to pay under $300, with another third(32%) willing to pay between$300 and $400. One-fifth of respondents(21%)were willing to pay as high as$500. A The majority of respondents with target age children preferred the central county area for childcare. At 58%,this area was preferred.3 to 1 over West Contra Costa County, which was the next highest area at 19%. III. ASSESSMENT OF SIZE ANIS CONFIGURATION OF CHILI'S CARE CENTER The development of an understanding of the optimal size and configuration of a child care facility requires a synthesis of demographic and survey review, field experience and statistical analysis. At best,this exercise is grounded in a combination of science moderated by experience. As a general principle based upon experience, with a non-subsidized child care center which is not located on the same site as the employee population, it can be assumed that ten percent of a company will male use of a child care facility during the life of that center. Further, approximately ten to twenty percent of that group would likely make use of a child care center at the same time. 3 In the case of Contra Costa County employees, with approximately 7000 employees overall, approximately 700 will mace up the usage pool for a child care center. If 10—20%of these employees will make use of a center at any one time,this would make the potential usage level for Centra Costa County employees between 70-140 children. In reviewing the demographic and survey data available, the following issues related to Centra Costa County must be taken into account in determining the optimal size for a child care facility. a. Aging employee population-A significant number of Contra Costa County employees have children who are beyond preschool age. As a result,the size of a center could be kept at a lower level than the greatest size for this employee population. b. Diversity in residential locations of employees-As Contra Costa County employees live throughout the entirety of the County, and in several other counties it is less likely that the full employee population would make use of a facility which is centrally located within the county. As a result,this fast would also lead to development of a slightly smaller child care facility. c. Appeal to outside operators-As there may be a need to locate and contract with an outside child carte operator,the size of the facility must be large enough to appeal to the widest variety of outside child care operators. d. Strong employee interest shown through survey-The strong interest of parents with preschool age children in a central County child care center would indicate an enthusiastic usage by a significant number of County employee parents. e. Fours of operation of the Center- A significant majority of County employees who return surveys indicated a need for child care between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m,. This information is helpful in focusing the time configuration of the Center. Conclusion: Based upon the above demographic, survey and anecdotal information, it can be determined that the child care facility for a maximum of 100 children, operating between the hours of'7 a.xn. and 6 p.m. located in the Martinez area would give greatest use to County employees. For purposes of development of an appropriate number of children related to optimal staffing and grouping within the Center, a benchmark of 96 children has been established. This number could include non-county employee children during the start up phase. 4 IV. Staffing Patterns The following tables represent the staffing patterns and room configurations for operation of a Contra Costa County employees child care center during year one and for year two and beyond. The adult to child ratios recommended as well as the overall group sizes exceed the required state licensing standards and comport with widely accepted levels for high quality care. PROGRAM ANALYSIS - STAVING PATTERNS -YEAR ONE AG E GROUP,; y �..h�.Y+^!'."..,.,a... .. ;...v. MAWS," n ti 6 3 TO 1 2 TODI?IYRS 1 9 3 TO 1 3 IRANKI+IAL 1 6 6 TO 1 1 .�.: SCHOOL 1 16 8T01 2 t SGI of L r 1 16 8T01 2 HAF C0.5 TOTAL NET h; 5 53 12 STAFFING LEVELS -YEAR.TWO AND BEYOND .,AGEGROUP x 1 AI!1I t 4,: 2 12 J 3 TO 1 4 3 TO1 12 3To1 4 1 6 3 TO 1 1 h' I� 1 18 6 TO 1 3 3 16 8 Tt71 6 '�A•.-/'.»�-�+4f :.[t�sr��Lai 'jESn����; >fi A 8 96 19.5 4.s 5 V. Pro-Forma Budgets for Child Care Establishment and OL)eration Aa Cast of Establishment Permanent wilding Estimated Costs: Low High„ Building area: 6,720 s.f @$130/s.f. @S160/s.f. $873,600 $1,075,200 Modular Building Estimated Costs: Purchase Cost Lease Rate Building area: 6,720 s.f. $281,250 $5,250 mo. + $32,000 set up Hookup Costs Estimated fees for electrical, sewer and water$50,000 ADA compliance- decks and ramping $25,000 Landscaping Estimated Casts: Landscaped area: 7,200 s.f. 1/3 in concrete paving(`35.50/s.f $13,068 Miscellaneous cone. Curbs $2,500 2/3 in grass, sand, groundcover,bark @$2.50/s.f. $11,880 Trees 25 c@Z$150 $3,750 Fencing 500 Lf Cq),$25 $12,500 6 Play Structures 4 x@`}$15,000 $60,000 'Suter future $5,000 Benches 5 @$504 $2,500 Drainage 350 Lf. @$20 $7,000 Catch basins $4,000 Signage $2,500 Storage shed $10,000 Garbage enclosure $5,000 Miscellaneous $20,000 IMS 'u,,�t $159,698 Equipment Estimated Casts: The following are provided as a sununary review of start up casts for a child care center serving 96 children: Consurnables Art and daily room supplies 10,000 Pager, plastic, and food supplies 5,000 Office supplies 2,500 Consumable toys, games, and educational materials 6,000 Housekeeping supplies 2,500 First aid/health supplies 1.000 Subtotal 27,000 7 '_Ion-consumable Educational/development equipment 6,000 Toys, games, and manipulatives 25,000 Chairs,tables, and shelving 35,000 Indoor play lofts 20,000 Kitchen equipment 5,000 Staff lounge furnishings 5,000 Office furniture 5,000 Housekeeping equipment 2,000 Computer equipment 3.000 Subtotal 106,000 TOTAL 133,000 B. Cost of Operation Explanation of Operating Budget Situations The following situations are based on the assumptions that the Start Up Phase will have 53 children and 12 staff,while for Phase Year Two and Beyond,the population will consist of 96 children and 19.5 staff. Situation 10 Start lip Phase and Year Two and Beyond Phase, with both the fees and salaries of Kids at Work. Includes lease/building debt service, annualized building set up repayments(over 20 years) and annualized start up equipment and supply costs(over 15 years). Situation 2: Start`[Jp Phase and Year Two and Beyond Phase, with the salaries of Kids at Work and the average fee rates. Includes lease/building debt service, annualized building set up repayments (over 20 yearn and annualized start up equipment and supply costs(over 15 years). Situation 3; Start Up Phase and Year Two and Beyond Phase, with both the average rates for fees and salaries. Includes lease/building debt service, annualized building set up repayments(over 20 years) and annualized start up equipment and supply costs(aver 15 years). S t tion 4: Start Up Phase and Year Two and Beyond Phase, with the salaries of Kids at Werk and the average fee rates. Does not include lease/building debt service, annualized building set up repayments(aver 20 years) and annualized start up equipment and supply casts(over 15 years). 8 DE'T'ERMINING PROGRAM INCOME The local cost for child care in the downtown Martinez area of Contra Costa County was determined by the following; Review of three local child care programs showed an average rate of$782.00 per month per child for infant and toddler care,ranging from a high$930 per month to a low of$660 per month. Preschool care was based on analysis of nine local child care program in the Martinez area. The average rate was$577 per child per month, with a high rate of$714 per month and a low of$450 per month. The Contra Costa County Public Works Child Care Center(Kids at Work)operates on the averaged rate of$576 per month for infants and toddler care and$470 per month for preschool care. These figures were used for determining Center income in fiscal situation I. 9 + Itw 00 0 0 a ul 0 z 43 ul 3 to 0 x' O 0 Z LUr log 51 V tfd f zul J� °45 �W M 4 gy 1 �y ., Y IN Yf y�, LS a{`'��.� .,,fir �► i��- r #Vr e s > 00 U. tx k , �f ` fJ� raS . C+i Estimated Operating Budget4tart Up Situation 4-bids At Werk Salartes&Fees with Leasehold Costs antra Zoste oun Id care Unter Estimated Income Monthly Rate: Number of children 53 total 15 children @$57$.00 per month (average fee per inf/tod) 38 children @$470.00 per month(average fes per prsch) Either income to be used to meet operating costs Enrollment Enrollment Total estimated income at 100% $318,000.00 at 609 $286,200.00 Estimated Operatina # Com ensation&Temp. Labor Salary 103347 Substitute 6000 Payroll Taxes 24882 Insurance medical,dental and life 34200 (at$150 per month with 19 employees for 12 months) Insurance workers comp 6000 Total 272,429 Care and Services Meal, snack 36,000 Indoor and outdoor equipment 12,000 Art supplies 7,200 First aid supplies 1,200 Transportation/Field trip 3,600 Total 60,000 Facili Lease 63000 Annual building set up repayments(aver 20yrs) 21400 Annual start up equip/supply costs(over 15 yrs) 12813 Insurance-property damage and liability 6000 Taxes and Fees 0 Repair& maint.-building 6000 Repair&rnaint.-equipment 5000 Security.Alarm services 2400 Janitorial services 15000 Janitorial supplies 1200 Utilities-Electric/Gas 6000 Water 1200 Garbage 2400 Phone 2400 Office supplies 2400 Total 146213 Ether Expenses Advertising 1200 Staff Development and Education/Tultion Reimbursement 4000 Miscellaneous 1200 Total 6400 } U*) M ; uj ui x tv Ict CSL co c cs nr" ca a tai ar r_: r` to w ' C14 � r �- ci t t r (D Q LU uj YwCO 3 uj V LL co tv � _ . LU uj 4) AC5C5toc) � , 0 � oci6ai (6oria; Y 0 0 -00 cr. 0 �° m ' A �• tCf "i flJ d3 m t/i E � t3 C! ul C O 0 � v c my cc #3 �; E ED sad ' ." - o d •� rr3 us e- � -- v LL 0"" Estimated Operating Budget-Year Two and Beyond Situation I-Kids At Work Salaries&pees with Leasehold Casts Contra Mta EountChild Eare nter Estimated Income Monthly Rate: Number of children 96 total 30 children @$576.00 per month (average fee per inf/tod) 66 children @$470.00 per month (average fee per prsch) Other income to be used to meet operating costs Enrollment Enrollment Total estimated income at 100% $579,600.00 at 90% $521,640.00 Estimated Operatlffl-Cc t Compensation&Temp.Labor Salary 3601547 Substitute 11000 Payroll Taxes 44586 Insurance medical,dental and life 34200 (at$150 per month with 19 employees for 12 months) Insurance workers comp 6000 Total 456,333 Care and Services Deal, snack 36,000 Indoor and outdoor equipment 12,0001 Art supplies 7,200 First aid supplies 1,200 Transportation/Field trip 3,600 Total 60,000 Facil` {_ease 63,000 Annual building set up repayments(over 20yrs) 21,400 Annual start up equiptsupply costs(over 15 yrs) 12,613 Insurance-property damage and liability 6,000 Taxes and Fees - Repair&maint.-building 61000 Repair&rnaint.-equipment 5:000 Security Alarm services 2,400 Janitorial services 15;000 Janitorial supplies 1,200 Utilities-Electric/Gas- 5,000 {stater 1,200 Garbage 2,400 Phone 2,400 Office supplies 2,400 Total 146;213 Other E enses Advertising 1,200 Staff Development and Education/Tuition Reimbursement 41000 Miscellaneous 1,200 Total 6.400 „.. 00 z Iis C) C) (D (D N atC4aalt � aC4iw0) CSECVt C3CCa0C4tLoCV4 �# 4 F �t E2 k �� to fA gi awl w`- ¢ £f ,�..� UJty } LLJ 0 cvic; cistoa) cica �-- cm L. O _ ., LL Gl CiS Fa Q � , < LU ui xC� 'Coy %;` Estimated Operating Sudget�Stert Up Situation 2-Kids At Work SalariesfAvrg. Fees with Leasehold Costs ntra nsta Eounty Uhila Care Nnter Estimated Income Monthly mate: Number of children 53 total 15 children @$780.00 per Month(average fee per inf/tod) 38 children 1@$575.00 per month(average fee per prsch) 0?ther income to be used to meet operating costs Enrollment Enrollment Total estimated income at 100% $402,600.00 at 90% $362,340.00 Estimated Operating Cost Compensation&Tem . Labor Salary 199347 Substitute 8000 Payroll Taxes 24882 Insurance medical,dental and life 34200 (at$150 per month with 19 employees for 12 months) Insurance workers comp 6000 Total 272,429 Care and Services Meal, snack - 38,000 Indoor and outdoor equipment 12,000 Art supplies 7,200 First aid supplies 1,200 Transportation/Field trip 3,600 Total 60,000 Facility Lease 83000 Annual building set up repayments(over 20yrs) 21,400 Annual start up equip/supply costs(over 15 yrs) 12,813 Insurance-properly damage and liability 6000 Taxes and Fees 0 Repair&rmaint.-building 6000 Repair&maint.`equipment 5000 Security Alarm services 2400 Janitorial services 15000 .Janitorial supplies 1200 Utilities-Electdc/Gas- 5000 Water 1200 Garbage 2400 Phone 2400 Office supplies 24010 Total 146213 Cather EMenses Advertising 1200 Staff 03eveloprment and Education/Tuition reimbursement 4000 Miscellaneous 12.00 Total 6400 55. LO Cr) LU $ w ' 0a (0 Cit QNVQC7toMo m t�3 CGt tfii r-� l* C) co 1'. 0 0 toui � Q sn � U. cl UJ UJ zL�y z ¢ s y UJ � � � t� N � C� � •c� 'moi uj cm 60). 61% 64 41%, 649� 40t d3- 4% to 60 6$ 61% fiAll), 613� E03#fh F , .,z Cet 6 0) (6 t77 t3� `rip ` 6k 691 6F} 69- 69 619- } ca _ � � tom? � � � .r.•',`. .;� . LA 0 e - CO0 cc 0 Q � CL u s+°. Lo to LLJw tfS t31 't302 0 COQ+ 40 0 t Estimated Operating Budget-Year Two and Beyond Situation 2-Kids At Work Sals.&Avrg. Kees with behold its Contin Mia our hid Care U7ftr Estimated income Monthly Rate: Number of children 96 total 30 children @$780.00 per month(average fee per inf/tod) 66 children @$575.00 per month (average fee per prsch) Other income to be used to meet operating costs Enrollment Enrollment Total estimated income at 100% $736,200.00 at 90% $"2,"0.00 Estimated Operating Cost Com ensation&Temp. Labor Salary 360547 Substitute 11000 Payroll Faxes 44586 Insurance medical, dental and life 34200 (at$150 per month with 19 employees for 12 months) Insurance workers comp 6000 Total 456,333 Care and Services Meal,snack 36,000 Indoor and outdoor equipment 12,0100 Art supplies 7,200 First aid supplies 1,2010 Transportation/Field trip 3,600 Total 60,000 FacilLty Lease 83000 Anneal building set up repayments(over 20yrs) 21,400 Annual start up equip/supply costs(over 15 yrs) 12,813 Insurance-property damage and liability 6000 Taxes and Cees 0 Repair&maint.-building 6000 Repair&maint.-equipment 501#00 Security Alarm services 2400 Janitorial services 15000 Janitorial supplies 1200 Utilities-Electric/Gas- 5000 Water 1200 Garbage 24010 Phone 2400 Office supplies 2400 Tectal 146213 Other gaenses Advertising 1200 Staff Development and Education/Tultion Reimbursement 4000 Miscellaneous 1200 Total 6400 1"001, ,. W W" 8 �ti ....� . ; CO UJ LL ' A G? COM i ie 9 �p N L`3 Cd N at ui Q t r} C14 co f 644464vgw6r44-1� 64 40). 6ew 411, 44440W X44 .: uj tZul ` tLl ELI 161 � — �— � p a� /] Cl Z UJto V` Y CO Ck �y ids 619,164 613,44 443 6%40. #f,}443�,Vw wi1 41%. 43F 60.6 69-40 Ul{�t ¢ - - 0C) Lo0 o t� tisC� c3sCOMM <� tut 6% E/3611k40- 60)� 6i r Z" t Lo 4)U. S cz � kk 0 as TLU � � uj +" (Li of tis 4f) Estimated Operating Budget-Start Up Sit, 3-Avrg. Salaries&Fees with Leasshold its Contra et* +-cin d MWeentor tlmated Income Monthly Rate: Number of children 53 total 15 children @$780.00 per month(average fee per infttod) 38 children @$575.00 per month (average fee per prsch) Other income to be used to meet operating costs Enrollment Enrollment Total estimated income at 100' $402,600.00 at 90% $362,340.00 Estimated 0 Avratina Cwt Compensation&Tem . Labor Salary 249040 Substitute 9000 Payroll Taxes 30965 Insurance medical,dental and life 34200 (at$150 per month with 19 employees for 12 months) Insurance workers comp 6000 Total 329,205 Care and Services Meal, snack 36,000 Indoor and outdoor equipment 12,000 Art supplies 7,200 First aid supplies 1,200 Transportation/Field trip 3,600 Total 60;000 Facili Lease 63000 Annual building set up repayments(over 20yrs) 21,400 ,Annual start up equip/supply costs(aver 15 yrs) 12,813 Insurance-property damage and liability 6000 Taxes and Fees 0 Repair&maint.-building 6000 Repair&maint.-equipment 5000 Security Alarm services 2400 Janitorial services 15000 Janitorial supplies 1200 Utilities-Electric/Gas 5000 Water 1200 Garbage 2400 Phone 2400 Office supplies 2400 Total 146213 Other Enenses Advertising 1200 Staff Development and Educationfru€tion Reimbursement 4000 Miscellaneous 1200 Total 6400 ,mss r- iN N CO e— " ? EI3 40* 69,161% 441�-40916%% 68 60. 6e* hof 613 � x{. C >f uj w co w t ViR E to -j 40 cel 0 LJ � a �a � Cata � -Z egg.-LL Z UJ rare r. uj to ti uj LU Ca 0 C3 C) CZ 3 //� �u 69 61r* T CL ttt < Cn - 4) tis w+ (D Ca yr LL C1 CIS x °' LA Ci y_ s.o is th C7UJ 5K C '•• C/3 Estimated Operating Budget-Year Two and Beyond Bit. 3-Avrg. Salaries iii Fees with Leasehold Costs ntra Coatarsun h Id Mrs nter Estimated Income Monthly Rate: Number of children 96 total 30 children @$780.00 per month(average fee per infttod) 66 children @$575.00 per month(average fee per prsch) Other income to be used to meet operating casts Enrollment Enrollment Total estimated income at 100% $736,200.00 at 90"0 $662,581.00 Estimated Operating(Cost Com nsation&Temp. Labor Salary 448640 Substitute 12000 Payroll Faxes 55037 insurance medical,dental and life 34200 (at$150 per month with 19 employees for 12 months) Insurance workers comp 6000 Total 553,877 Care and Services Meal, snack 36,000 Indoor and outdoor equipment 12,000 Art supplies 7,200 First aid supplies 1,200 Transportation/Field trip 3,600 Total 60,000 Facil Lease 63000 Annual building set up repayments(aver 20yrs) 21,400 Annual start up equip/supply costs(over 15 yrs) 12,813 Insurance-property damage and liability 6000 Taxes and Fees 0 Repair&maint.-building 6000 Repair&maint.-equipment 5000 Security Alarm services 2400 Janitorial services 15000 Janitorial supplies 1200 tltilitles-Electric/Gas 5000 Water 1200 Garbage 2400 Phone 2400 Office supplies 2400 Total 146213 Other Expenses Advertising 1200 Staff Development and EducationlTultion Reimbursement 4000 Miscellaneous 1200 Total 6400 Irl 21 w > z co LU oa � � C) 0 U. t �, W It � � � co " tom 0 � " S i ua C� - Cs .r- c*t m c� w 0 co car w � � LL W)I.*90 Wj�r4t 44, 4V*404040. 61). 419� 4g). fa40 49.ui E . Lid � tj= w z ) a tri Gi � '+$' C:v 0c:l � 0 N 't +p� 0 z LLQ ca r- cc> - u sus tis r� CO ,to CV) C) cci co ass std to co y LLJ tol� 60364Ori,41:� +0419. 6f* 61+ W)� 64* Wj� 44.4, 4469.&* 4& E Citx7C:3C> a 27 t[l C5 0 C�z 0 co vi C5 C6 C5 Gi UJ r �n W � 0 ca an LL cc V . cc m � ca w m CC to U CL c� us ,. 4 x CZ � � } Estimated Operating Budget-Start Up Situation 4-Kids At Work Salaries&Avrg. Fees without Leasehod Costs Centre Meta Eounty Child Care Fenter Estimated Income Monthly Mate: Number of children 53 total 15 children @$7130.00 per month(average fee per infftod) 38 children @$575.00 per month(average fee per prsch) Cather income to be used to Meet operating costs Enrollment Enrollment Total estimated income at 100° $402,600.00 at 90% $362,340.00 Estimated Omratino Cost Com ensation&Temp. Labor Salary 199347 Substitute 6000 Payroll Taxes 24382 Insurance medical,dental and life 34200 (at$150 per month with 19 employees for 12 months) Insurance workers camp 6000 Taal 272,429 Care and Services Meal: snack 36,000 Indoor and outdoor equipment 12,000 Art supplies 7,200 First aid supplies 1,200 Transportation/Field trip 3,600 Total 60,000 Fac€li Rent 0 Insurance-property damage and liability 6000 Taxes and Fees 0 Repair& maint.-building 6000 Repair&maint.-equipment 5000 Security Alarm services 2400 Janitorial services 15000 Janitorial supplies 1200 Utilities-Electric/Gas 5000 Water 1200 Garbage 2400 'hone 2400 Office supplies 2400 Total 49000 - Other E enses Advertising 1200 Staff Development and Education/Tuition Reimbursement 4000 Miscellaneous 1200 Total 6400 ate, � r- rtd7t�r �r- � uj t 0 Cl CD ` LC3 NN Cp „ 00 s� eac� t�, c� r, � � 0 ! w YA V- C14 C14 ui _ . LL tf$ 60-A&40 � 611), 40 4& 519'40e 60* 613, W- awl $40UJ � ca U3 ui Lr- FIC 6 Ic uj C> Ca 0 tl- 0 f- G a m a a 8 C4 . to C.i m C3 0 m M w t•- g to " � 0) w �.. �- C1t &S. 6-* y- 40* agT Vam �y � � 4& � 61* 60I YlT, 40- y�T �l 3N.�. oaC aa) 0 IES. 0 0 + � 0 0tm LL c. Q x co � tIa tS3 � ,� w ii iL'1 ,� so 0 � � Estknated Operating Budget-Year Two and Beyond Situation 4-Kids At Work Salaries&Avrg. Fees without Leasehold Costs Contra Costa +-un Mild m_ anter Estimated income Monthly Rate. dumber of children 96 total 30 children @$780.00 per month (average fee per inf/tod) 66 children @$575.00 per month (average fee per prsch) Other income to be used to meet operating costs Enrollment Enrollment Total estimated income at 100% $735,200.00 at 90% $692,580.00 Estimated Q?1ratfnu Coat Compensation&Terra . Labor Salary 360547 Substitute 11000 Payroll Taxes 44586 Insurance medical, dental and life 34200 (at$150 per month with 19 employees for 12 months) Insurance workers comp 6000 Total 456,333 Care and Services Meal, snack 36.000 Indoor and outdoor equipment 12.000 Art supplies 7,200 First aid supplies 1,200 Transportation/Field trip 3,600 Total 60,000 Pacili Dent 0 Insurance-property damage and liability 6000 Taxes and Pees 0 Repair&rnaint.-building 6000 Repair&maint.-equipment 5000 Security Alarm services 2400 Janitorial services 15000 Janitorial supplies 1200 Utilities-Electric/Gas 5000 Water 1200 Garbage 2400 Phone 2400 Office supplies 2400 Total 49000 Other Expenses Advertising 1200 Staff Development and Educationt'Tultion Reimbursement 4000 Miscellaneous 1200 Total 6400 F C) Ul W #iJf < U. > n w w agcoto0cl cs � cv0av 'co ry 0 cl C F- a cs . c' o 00 cv U') 40 0 0 ,r- rte: 00 co 1- tis to � > LL W6 UJ z + W Zj ZCCCO00c C-4 vM � Cl0� ti � :#,1.1 Axi ci rz vs a) a) a ,r-- ccs CD C 0 c� x z . LU tom ► �� —^ - _.- - wv4� e Lo FA 1 fI3 0 E_ _ U. � � C CLto CL tKi E tii Lti w X 0-0 0 'C3 * 5 f p d < U- cn co F- f— Z t— C.3 ts. C3 1� h- VI. Potential Sites for Child Care Center Upon determining that the optimal location for a child care center to serve County employees would be in the greater Martinez area, an initial site review of nine sites was conducted.. After further analysis the following three sites were determined to be the most effective for the establishment of a County employee child care center. The sites are as follows: A. 806 Castro Street, Martinez—This site is made up of building and yard area which have the possibility of being developed into a full child care center. However,the present building would need to be augmented with a modular or purpose build structure to house 96 children.. The present building could house approximately 50 children, with the addition of bathrooms and sinks. Pros—This location would be most effective for those County employees working in the downtown Martinez area. The site is within walking distance of several County offices. A modular building could be added to the existing building to allow for sufficient space for the development of a center for up to 100 children. Cons—it would be necessary to develop an agreement with the City of Martinez in order to configure off site parking areas(as a drop-off zone along the property line). The present building would require refurbishment in order to develop an optimal child care environment. Costs of development would include both refurbishment and the addition of a leased or purchased modular building. B. Former car dealership located on Alhambra avenge—This site has ample space for both a child care center to serve up to 96 children and a very large potential yard area. The space is within one half mile of the County hospital facilities and along the major transportation corridor to the present County administrative facility. Pros—Former car dealerships are among the most adaptable spaces for the development of child care facilities. The location is well suited both for health and hospital employees as well as for downtown employees. Cons—It remains unclear whether the present owners would be willing to lease part of this very large site for child care purposes. The yard area would require potential oil cleanup and other environmental work because of its previous use as a parking lest. C. Modular site at or contiguous to Summit Center—This site serving up to 96 children could be developed out of the parking lot area adjacent to the building into which the County is currently expanding. A modular building can be designed and developed, and a yard area sequestered out of the existing parking area. Pros—a modular building can be easily designed and developed for child care purposes. A building at this site could effectively serve the large county employee population within the 27 building. The site is also located along the major transportation corridor along which a large number of County employees reside. Cons—It will be necessary to develop a large footprint out of current or potential parking lot area in order to have sufficient space for a modular building and the requisite yard areas. (approximately 14,000 s.f.). Dependant upon the location of various utilities the cost of hookups may be high. VII. FUNDING ANIS FINANCING CONSIDERATIONS There are several existing mechanisms which can be reviewed in the development of sufficient funding to build and initiate operation of a viable child care center to serve Contra Costa County employees: A. State Department of Education, Child Development Division With the advent of the new federal guidelines for public assistance, known as TANF (Temporary.Assistance to Needy Families), a series of new funding mechanisms have been developed(or are in process). These mechanisms include a no-interest revolving loan fund, funding for the purchase of relocatable buildings, and funding for expansion of infant, toddler; preschool and school-age child care programs. Each funding pool is announced by a Management Bulletin published by the California Department of Education- Child Youth and Family Services Branch. During the next year it is estimated that at least 200 million new dollars will be available through various State Department of Education Child Care funding initiatives. Most of these initiatives require that the majority of families served earn less than 75 %of the State median income. This restriction may preclude a number of Contra Costa County employees from participating in such a center. However, under certain circumstances the State may be willing to review proposals that provide for a greater blending of family income levels. B. Build To Suit With Lease Bach Option There is a child care real estate specialist with access to a builder who is willing to build child care center sites on a turn-key basis, in exchange for repayment through lung term leasehold. This builder will construct the center using architectural plans approved by the County or incorporate the architectural package as part of their costs. The builder can provide a proposal at the request of the County. This approach may be feasible if the Center is able to operate at the surplus level indicated in the year two and beyond scenarios of the Financial Analysis cost section of this report. C. Agreements With Local Corporations To Sponsor The Center Partial to full funding of Center development may be procured in exchange for child care spaces to be made available to local corporations for employment.related child care. Corporations could be given a specific fee proposal related to the number of spaces they would "purchase" in the center. Costs could be shared by more than one corporate entity in the development and operation of the Center. It is unlikely that one corporation may be 28 willing to fund the entire cost of the development of the Center. However, numerous corporations throughout California have expended in excess of one million dollars on building and operating child care facilities. A Foundation Funding Various foundations have supported the development of community based child care facilities. The following are some foundations that have provided funding for child care center development in the Centra Costa County area: S. H. Cavell Foundation- has provided extensive"brick and mortar"funding for child care centers, especially when open to lower income children. Morris Stulsaft Foundation-has supported child care related site funding in a wide variety of modalities, including work f snity programs, mixed age group child care, child care with enhanced family services, and numerous other approaches. Haas Foundations- including Miriam and Walter and Evelyn and Peter have funded a wide variety of child care sites and programs. San Francisco Foundation- has funded equipment purchase related to innovative site development. Koret Foundation-has funded some child care centers where the center(or parts thereof) can be named for the Koret family. Packard Foundation- continues to fund some child care centers where new theories and approaches can be tested. Kresge Foundation- is particularly interested in providing matching money when well- conceived fund raising campaigns for buildings are developed. This funder will often match other monies on a dollar for dollar basis. Conclusion. An active fund drive which could combine efforts to submit proposals to a number of the above funders may serve to assure the procurement of sufficient funding or financing for the development of a Center. 29 VIII. ICRI Timeline for Implementation of Child Care Services 30 W C3 W U) uju Li uj c i p � 3 ! � E uj ou y ¢s LU .� c " LQ C u p. y tj Ca � t :t e t t t E s�s sJt t.3 s t e a Aft ea 00 `} 3 r- 4 A e L 6D 0 a, 1= 4 L 1 1 t t ' T ti 1 'k Ca i i rti � I k � s st` E � E � t Lam„ E � E E � � e Li Li 6D C 63 C7� > G > 42, M. C14 CL C C t r r r �✓ i� t° i S 7 3 4 'S S t �t S 1 5 S e.F'3 S is ty} E� 4:T 1y �: �t CIO 1 r. 6 t a� � t C`X t4 t t '� cs -cl ` + F. �, ` t 4 5 1 t �5 l 1 Cli 4 16 r IS a� a t : t s 4 S t i 4, ail E� Eti S Lai � Y� ?S ,.- a� � "ilk C? oca ca cs ea � � E C s.Cs 21 0 C1 VI iF 9F i4 #F �iF iE �F if iF •iE aF C� ON 00 r^ 4 ' 6 .D e Ile {n c� { « ra C t+d F t d wa ! � ,�..pp � w � _ � � ° '� � � 4 '"` t� a3 � "� � �. p .� � � � � � � � � � � �' � � � � '�' •t�t�' sem., 4�.i t. ,� � _� � us _ ;�y ,'�'"'.�, � � Gam% G? tJ � � � �. iF iE �3F �E r a t� t� t `t t :1 t 40 00 6� ' ' '` t 6 1 � f i G: tJ � e3 .w �YF � g � { 71 � . � � � � m c 3 2 / � § § _ « # « # « ATTACHMENT"_C Contra Costa County 1998 Childcare Survey February 1999 Prepared by: Cutten Consulting La Honda, CA 94020 Executive Summary There were 378 responses to the survey. Most of the respondents work in Martinez(59%). Richmond-based employees, the second most named location, had a 13%response. By area within the county, 69%of the respondents work in the central area incorporating Martinez, Concord, Pleasant Hill,and Walnut Creek. Next was the West Contra Costa County area at 18%. Respondents home locations are more spread out. The central area of the county had the highest representation with 31%of all respondents living there. East Contra.Costa County (16%), West Contra Costa County(18%), and Solano County(15%) each had about the same percentage of respondents. Levels of response varied greatly by department. Health Services had the highest response numerically, 183. On a percentage basis, Health Services - Public Health (30%), the County Administrator's Office (18%), and Community Development(14%) had the highest response rates. Some departments had no responses. Most respondents(77%) need childcare during regular weekday hours, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.. Many of those who answered "Other" (17%)need weekday care beginning earlier in the morning and ending earlier in the afternoon. Ninety-two percent(92%)of respondents who have children in the target age groups-- infant, toddler, preschooler--stated they would likely use a childcare center located at work. If the center were located within 5 miles of home or work, the response was still high with 82% stating they would likely use the center. Not many respondents (18%) were willing to pay more than$500 per month per child for childcare. About three in ten (29%) would like to pay under$300, with another third (32%)willing to pay between $300 and $400. One-fifth of the respondents(21%) were willing to pay as high as $500. The majority of respondents with target age children preferred the central county area for childcare. At 58%, this area was preferred 3 to 1 over West Contra Costa,County, which was the next highest area at 19'/0. Cutten Consulting, La Honda, California February, 1999 Centra Costa County 1998 Childcare Survey Contra Costa County administered a survey in August and November 1998 to ascertain the childcare needs of County employees. The County wanted to learn more about who was using and needed childcare services, the type of childcare services that employees would prefer, and whether a County-sponsored childcare center would be practical. Methodology The two-page survey was distributed to County employees through their departments. Employees could then fill in the survey and return it directly to the County Administrator's Office. Employees were asked to complete the survey and return it by August 31, 1998. A copy of the survey is contained in the Appendix. A second distribution took place in November to increase the number of surveys returned from Health Services. response Rate Response to the survey was voluntary and employees were notified of this fact in the survey introduction. A total of 378 questionnaires was returned from the two distributions. Almost all respondents had young children and therefore had a personal interest in completing the survey. Some respondents did not have children in the age groups being addressed in this survey; some explained that they were in the "soon to have a family" stage, a few had older children who needed after school care, and a few others had no children. The response to the survey, based on the county's approximately 7,000 employees, was small. It is not surprising that many employees who do not have children in the "childcare age group" would not respond, as they are not ostensibly impacted daily by this issue. But childcare issues actually do affect all employees when a parent must alter meeting schedules, leave work early, or miss work entirely because of childcare-related matters. The respondents to the survey were employees who primarily need childcare during regular business hours. Since many county employees, e.g., health service employees, do not work those hours, more data about their needs would be helpful in assessing future childcare programs. Survey Results Summary The results that follow are based on the 378 surveys returned. Not every question was answered by every respondent. Category response percentages are based on the total number of responses ("Count") for each individual question. The Appendix contains the survey questionnaire and analysis tables of the survey questions tabulated by the number of children in each age category. These tables are key to the analysis below. The tables concerning current Cutten Consulting, La Honda, California 1 February, 1999 Contra Costa County 1998 Childcare Survey childcare needs and preferences exclude answers from those respondents who have no children in the age groups being studied. For other questions, such as "How much would you be willing to pay ..... a category is included for those with no children of childcare age. This makes it possible to compare views for those who currently have small children and those who may in the future. Several questions were used as identifiers. These were questions 1, 2, 3, and 11. (See the questionnaire in the Appendix.) These questions are used in conjunction with the more specific childcare questions in this analysis. Question 1. What is your County work. location`.' The database that will be provided to the County Capital Facilities Department contains the street address and city of the respondent's work location. Since the placing of a childcare center near the work site--within 5 to 10 miles--was one of the issues under consideration, the work site location was needed for the analysis. Table 1 provides the survey respondents'work locations. Most respondents (59%) work in Martinez. Respondents working in Richmond, including one person in El Cerrito, were next highest at 13%. Concord rounded out the top three areas with 9%of the respondents, while Antioch and Pittsburg came in with about 5%. All other cities in the county had smaller response rates. When cities are grouped into areas of Contra Costa County, the highest concentration of employees works in the central county area, with nearly seven in ten respondents(69%) indicating this area as their work location. West County ranked second at 18%and East County was third at 11%. Very few respondents work in South Contra Costa County or in the far eastern part of the county. Cutten Consulting, La Honda, California 2 February, 1999 Contra Costa County 1998 Childcare Survev TABLE 1 Work Location by City and Area Ci Count Percent Antioch 20 5.4% Bay Paint 1 0.3% Pittsburg 19 5.1% East CC Cty Subtotal 40 10.8% Brentwood 3 0.8% Far East CC Cty Subtotal 3 0.8% Concord 32 8.6% Martinez 219 59.0% Pleasant 1 fill 4 1.1% Walnut Creek 1 0.3% Central CC Cty Subtotal 256 69.0% Danville 1 0.3% San Ramon 1 0.3% South CC Cty Subtotal 2 0.5% Hercules 15 4.0% Richmond/El Cerrito 47 12.7% Rodeo 1 0.3% San Pablo 4 1.1% 'Fest CC Cty Subtotal 67 18.1% Benicia 1 0.3% PHC 1 0.3% Solana 1 0.3% Other Counties Subtotal 3 0.8% Total 371 100.0% Cutten Consulting, La Honda, California 3 February, 1999 Contra Costa County 1998 Childcare Survey Question 2. Where is your home located? As in the previous question, the issue of the possible location of a childcare center in the county was the reason for asking the question. If respondents preferred to have a center situated close to their homes then it was necessary to know where they live. This question provided that data. Martinez is the city where the greatest number of respondents lives. It accounted for 13.7% of the responses. Antioch was second at 8.8%. For this study, home cities were also grouped together into areas. These areas are. East Contra Costa County, Far East Contra Costa County, Central Contra Costa County, South Contra Costa County, West Contra Costa County, Solana County,Alameda County, San Francisco and Marin Counties, and'Miscellaneous Areas. Table 2 shows the summary of these groupings. The Appendix contains results both by city and grouping. TABLE 2 Home Location by Area Area Count Percent East CC County 55 16.4% Far East CC County 24 7.0% Central CC County 147 31.1% South CC County 10 2.9% West CC County 61 17.7% Solano County 50 14.5% Alameda County 28 8.1% S.F./Marin Counties 5 1.5% :Miscellaneous 4 1.2% Total 344 100.4% Cutten Consulting, La Honda, California 4 February, 1999 .................._ ........................................................................................._.............................................................................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ . ........ . ........ ...._.. ........ ......... ......... . ................................ ........ Centra Costa County 1998 Childcare Survey Chart 1 Home Locations by Area 3 , 30j i �t 25f Ctii6 tY��yr i� Irj I i r x 20 i pn,XW�s!Ilt,il(ilfi i f 11 i Y �^ Pr Ill IN 1 i kat z Itif�l L a� m. kfit pUi t txt s. wttt s � t. MN! E gyp' r y ., s� i x uYct �M�If ei i;i dai P i k , - i 1 h 1 ti s i II 1'E E ! f 11 R1 11 i {) t ...':`�. a....i...:'. ......,.w. ......n,...1.................3 dba.w.:! .d... ...,. ................ a '7wWu.. ,24..i.1:..'�w.iwwau3 For Easty South Solano Co. SFlMarin Co. East Cantra! Wast Alomada Co. Mise. Area Question 3. `''hat department do you work for? Return rates varied widely from department to department. In all, responses were received from employees in 35 departments. Based on the Contra Costa County Payroll Budget Unit Table,there are 120 departments in the county, making the composite departmental response rate 29%. Numerically, the largest number of surveys returned came from Health Services with 183. This number represents a combined total for 5 health services departments, including Public .Health (130 returned) and Hospital (33 returned.) The second highest responding department on a numerical basis was Social Service with 57 respondents. When the responses are viewed on a percentage basis, the response rates for these departments are not as high as other departments. Percentage-wise, the highest return rates were from Health Service - Public Health (30%), the County Administrator's Office (18%), and the Community Development Department (14%). Health Services ® Hospital, the largest county department with 1799 employees, had just over 2%return the survey. Some respondents who work at the hospital may have been included in the Heath Services - Public Health tally when Cutten Consulting, La Honda, California 5 February, 1999 Contra Costa County 1998 Childcare Survey they did not supply enough information to determine exactly where they work. Several departments had no respondents. Question 4. Employment Level Respondents were asked to state whether they work full or part time. Almost four-fifths (79.5%)of all respondents work full time, with the remaining 20.5%working part-time. Question 5. Hary many children do you have in each age group? Three age groups were represented in this question: Infants aged 0-1,toddlers aged 1-2, and preschoolers aged 2-6. Most respondents had no more than one child in any group. Table 3 below shows the results for all three groups. As was stated earlier, some respondents have no children in these age groups, but were interested in the survey either for future family considerations or because they would like care for older children. TABLE 3 Number of Children by Age Group Age Crau 1 % 2 % None % Infant 0-1 79 20.9% 0 0.0% 299 79.1% Toddler 1-2 92 24.3% 4 1.1% 282 74.6% Preschooler 2-6 166 1 43.9% 1 35 1 9.3% 177 46.8% Question 6. For each age group, indicate the type of care your currently use. The type of current care varies considerably with the age of the child. For infants, care by relatives in the child's or their home or family day care at another care giver's home both ranked high at about 40%each. For toddlers, family day care increased to 52%with care by a relative decreasing to 30%. Once the child reaches pre-school age (2-6),the use of a day care center jumps from around 7%to 48%. For respondents who have two pre-schoolers, the use of a day care center climbs even higher to 50%. For pre-schoolers,the use of family day care outside of the home falls to 16%. The analysis tables for Question 6a to Question 6c in the Appendix present all these results. Respondents who have no children in these age groups were deleted for these three tables. The tables show the responses for each age group with accompanying results for those respondents Cutten Consulting, La Honda, California 6 February, 1999 ............................................... .. ................................................................................................................................ ...... .. . ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... . . ...... .. ........ Centra Costa County 1998 Childcare Survey who have a child or children in ether age groups. For example, in the table "Question 6a Current Type of Infant Care," responses of employees who have an infant or have an infant and another child in one of the other age categories are included. Respondents who have non- infant age children are not included. This type of table makes it possible to see differences that may arise for employees with children in more than one age group. Question 7, For each age group, indicate where you would prefer your child's care to be located. This question looks at where respondents who are currently using childcare would prefer to have those childcare needs met. For all age groups, virtually no one preferred to have their care near transit such as BART. The vast majority(71%) of respondents needing infant care prefer it to take place at or close to the work site. Another 24% would prefer to have the care at or near home. 'fiery few respondents (1%)selected "at or near their spouse's work site," with only a.slightly higher number(3%)having no preference. For toddlers, the respondents show a greater interest in having the care at or near home, with 30%preferring this option. Care at/near work drops about 9%to 62®/x. Response to the other three categories remains very small with 5%preferring care near their spouse's work location. Responses for those employees with preschoolers do not vary that much from those with toddlers. About half still prefer care near the work site with about 37% preferring care near home. The number preferring care near their spouse's work site climbs to about 8%, although this is still a relatively small percentage. Responses vary somewhat for those employees with children in multiple age groups. For those respondents who have infants and: toddlers, 68% (slightly lower than the overall 71%) would prefer the care at or near the work site for both children. For those who have infants and pre- schoolers, this percentage drops to 61% wanting the care for all children at or near work. Another 15%would prefer the care to take place at or near their home. For respondents who have toddlers and preschoolers, there is about an even split between those who want both children's care close to work(48%) or close to home (39%). As in Question 6, the results by age group are presented in the Appendix analysis tables. The discussion in the section above about reading the tables for Question 6 is also applicable to the tables for Question 7. Table 4 presents the preferred county area for childcare by each of the age groups. If the respondent said that their preferred location was near home, then their home city was used in the table. If the respondent stated that they preferred to have their childcare Cutter.Consulting, La Fonda, California 7 February, 1999 Contra Costa County 1998 Childcare Survey close to work,then their work location city was used. Results are reported for these two categories only -- near work or home -- since a definitive area could not be assigned to the other categories. Thus, this table presents a composite picture of how different county area rank as a preferred place for childcare. TABLE 4 Preferred County Area for Childcare by Age Group Area Infant % Toddler % Preschooler % Total 010* East Cty 7 11.3% 4 5.3% 19 11.9% 30 12.3% Far East Cty 1 1.6% 5 6.7% 6 3.8% 12 4.9% Central Cty 27 43.5% 36 48.0% 79 49.7% 142 58.2% South Cty 3 4.8% 2 2.7% 5 3.1% 10 4.1% West Cty 8 12.9% 12 16.0% 27 17.0% 47 19.3% Solano Cty 5 8.1% 7 9.3% 16 10.1% 28 11.5% Alameda Cty 9 14.5% 6 8.0% 5 3.1% 20 8.2% SF/Marin Cty 1 1.3% 1 0.6% 2 0.8% Misc. Cty's 2 3.2% 2 1 2.7% 1 1 0.6010 5 2.00 Total 62 100% 1 75 1 100% 1 159 100% 1 296 * Total percentages are based on the number(n) of respondents, since a respondent could have children in more than one age category. For this table n=244. It is clear from the table that, by far, respondents want their childcare in the central area of the county. For those respondents with infants,the percentage preferring the central area was lower(44%)than for the two other age groups. Nonetheless it still had a level of interest that was almost three times that of the next closest area. Question 8. When do you most need childcare? Over three quarters of the respondents needed childcare most during the normal work day-- in this study, Monday through Friday between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.. Results for the three child age groups fell between 76%and 81%. Weekday care from 2 p.m. to 11 p.m. was needed by about 5%. Those with toddlers needed this afternoon care the least(3.5010), while those with pre- schoolers needed it the most(6%). This may be the result of pre-schoolers needing continuing Cutten Consulting, La Honda, California 8 February, 1999 ........................_...... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..................... ............. ...................... .. ......... ......... ......... ......... ...................................... ......... ......... . . ................................ ...... Contra Costa County-_ 1998 Childcare Survey care after a half-day preschool program. Needing care during "other" times had a considerable response(17%). Most of these responses were from employees who would like the service to begin earlier in the morning, e.g., at 7:00 or 7:30 am., picking their child up around 5 p.m. No respondents stated that they most needed care after I I p.m. week nights. For this question,responses from employees who do not have children in the survey age groups were included. These employees showed less need for care during business hours (66%) and a greater need for care between 2 p.m. and 11 p.m., with 17%stating this as their preference. Since there were not many responses from employees with non-childcare age children, these percentages should not be given too much interpretive weight. TABLE When Childcare Is Needed Most Time Period Count Percent Monday - Friday 243 76.9% 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. I Monday- Friday 16 5.1% 2:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Weekends 3 0.9% Other 54 17.1% Total 316 100.00/j Cutten Consulting, La Honda, Calf forma 9 February, 1999 Contra Costa Coptj 1998 Childcare Survey Chart 2 When Childcare Is Needed Most J M F M M, a �jt iwiiH!%- rWrt r iit pIw 'w ii ti F�Hn iN N ,M�IdI-II ?+u M-F 2-11 Weekends a r I Other Question 9. Would likely use a County childcare center if it was located.... This question allowed County employees to tell whether they might use a childcare center if it was at various locations. Ninety-two percent(92%)of respondents stated they would likely use the center if were located at work. If the center were located within 5 miles of work or home, the response was still high, with 82% and 81%, respectively, saying they would likely use it. For a childcare center located within 10 miles of work or home, the likelihood of use falls quickly to under 30%of respondents. Likely use also varies somewhat by the age group of the child. For those respondents with infants or toddlers,over 97%of them would likely use a childcare center located at work verses about 89% for those with preschoolers. One issue that is not determinable from this study is the impact of direction of travel. .A respondent could say that they would likely use a childcare center that is within 5 miles of work. But if they are approaching work from one direction and the center is located 4 miles past their work site in the other direction, they might consider the extra eight miles in the morning and another eight miles in the evening as too far to drive. This issue cuts both ways. Cutten Consulting, La Honda, California 10 February, 1999 ................. _ ..................................................................................... ........._....... ......... ......... ......... ............. ..... ........... ........... ..... .. ....... _ _ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ... ...... ........ ........ _ _ _ ......... ......... ......... ...................................... _ _ .... ........ ................_...... _ Contra Costa County 1998 Childcare Survey A respondent who said they would not be interested in using a childcare center that is about 10 miles from work or home might actually use the center if that"10 mile" location is right along their commute route. Question 10. Based on your current childcare needs,what is the most,you would be willing to pay each month, per child,for full-day childcare near your work site? Employees were asked what would be the most they would spend for childcare near work. Almost three in ten(29%)answered that they would not pay more than$300 per month per child. Another 32 percent stated that the maximum they would pay would be $400. Five hundred dollars was the limit for about 21%of the respondents. About one-eighth would pay up to $600. Very few(5.6%)were willing to pay more than that. Cutten Consulting, La Honda, California 11 February, 1999 Contra Costa County 1998 Childcare Survey_ TABLE Amount Willing to Pay Each Month Per Child Amount Willing to Pay Count Percent /I Less than$300/month 91 28.6",o $300 -400/month 103 32.4% $400 - 500/month 67 21.1% $500 - 600/month 39 12.3% $600 - 700/month 10 3.1% $700 - 800/month 8 2.5% Over$800/month -- Total 318 100.0% Cutten Consulting, La Honda, California 12 February, 1999 ................................................................................. ........................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................... ...... ....................................................................................................... ........I.......... ...........................................................................