
Preschool For All Supply and Demand Study 4Cs of San Mateo County in collaboration with California Child Care Resource and Referral Network Center for the Study of Child Care Employment UC Berkeley Survey Research Center. Goals. Inform PFA planning with primary parent data
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Preschool For AllSupply and Demand Study4Cs of San Mateo Countyin collaboration withCalifornia Child Care Resource and Referral Network Center for the Study of Child Care EmploymentUC Berkeley Survey Research Center
Myth: Parents do not want to place young children under five on elementary campuses with older children
Fact: More than half of the parents surveyed chose preschool classrooms at elementary schools as the preferred location.
Myth: Spanish-speaking parents prefer informal, family caregiving to formal preschool for young children
Fact: Spanish-speaking parents support Preschool for All in even higher numbers than English-speaking parents
Myth: We do not have a shortage of preschool spaces in San Mateo County
Fact: When estimates of preschool classroom spaces are adjusted only to serve three and four year old enrollment and only to reflect the desired enrollment of the provider (rather than maximum licensed capacity), shortages of licensed preschool programs are an issue in our county (in some communities more so than others)
Myth: The existing provider community is opposed to Preschool for All because it upsets the status quo and threatens their independence.
Fact: Many providers support Preschool for All when it is framed as a strategy to improve the quality of existing preschools and make preschool affordable and accessible for all
o
60
50
40
# of existing ctrs
30
# of ctrs represented in the study
20
10
0
Millbrae
Belmont
Pacifica
Daly City
Atherton
La Honda
Menlo Park
Woodside
San Mateo
Foster City
Burlingame
San Bruno
San Carlos
Hillsborough
East Palo Alto
Portola Valley
Redwood City
El Granada/Half Moon Bay
S San Francisco/Brisbane
NAEYC Accredited
11%
H/S
35%
Title 5
65%
n=66
n=116
89%
Contracted
Non-contracted
(13 + 66=79 out of 223 are eligible to be PFA sites, or 35% of our sample)
6%
12%
24%
29%
69%
59%
264 spaces in 116 ctrs
246 spaces in 133 ctrs
Title 5 /HS
3 year olds
4 year olds
Title 22
Exempt
Out of 117 respondents:
11%
8%
40%
39%
52%
50%
1274 spaces in
149 ctrs
553 spaces in
128 ctrs
Title 5/HS
4 year olds
3 year olds
Title 22
Exempt
50%
40%
39%
39%
38%
37%
30%
None
38%
20%
10%
0%
Repair/
Upgrade
Purchase Sig
Indoor Equip
Purchase Sig
Outdoor Equip
Improve
Interior/Ext
Security
Yes,
62%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Lack of funding
/capital
Uncertain
enrollment/demand
Lack of org
capacity or time
Landlord/tenant
issues
Other
FacilityExpansion InterestsWhat has prevented you from expansion?
70%
60%
50%
40%
Top facility/site improvements needed to support expansion of your program
30%
20%
10%
0%
expand
outdoor space
remodel existing
program
provide additional
toilets and sinks
add new permanent
or modular space
Center Interest in PFA by Vacancy Status
100%
28%
26%
80%
60%
Not at all
46%
36%
Somewhat
40%
Very
20%
26%
37%
0%
Centers
with
vacancies
Centers
with no
vacancy
70%
66%
60%
57%
50%
40%
40%
30%
34%
20%
15%
10%
0%
To expand number of licensed preschool spaces in my community
To increase/ stabilize enrollment in our existing preschool program
To improve the quality of our program
To make our preschool more affordable for the families we serve
Other
If you are not currently a Title 5, H/S, or NAEYC accredited center, what assistance would you need?
80%
70%
71%
60%
50%
48%
40%
44%
30%
20%
22%
10%
0%
Funding to enable staff
Funding to address
Training and technical
Other
to participate in NAEYC
gaps identified during
assistance in NAEYC
accreditation process
NAEYC accreditation
standards and
process
accreditation process
Title 5
High school
or less
2%
BA/BS
or higher
Some
college
36%
41%
Title 22
High school
or less
0%
AA/AS
BA/BS
or higher
21%
Some
college
42%
40%
AA/AS
18%
Teacher
Assistant Teacher
5%
5%
2%
5%
8%
46%
13%
55%
Children in SMC (0-12)
22%
39%
7%
8%
36%
Caucasian
19%
Hispanic
Asian/
Pacific Islander
African
American
Other
30%
$30.00
$25.00
$21.56
$20.00
$18.64
$17.13
$15.00
$15.04
$10.00
Some College
BA or higher
120
100
80
# of existing FCCs
60
# of FCCs
represented in the study
40
20
0
Pacifica
San Bruno
San Mateo
E Palo Alto
Foster City
Redwood City
Colma/Daly City
So. San Francisco/
Brisbane
Burlingame/Millbrae/
Hillsborough
Belmont/San Carlos
Menlo Park/Woodside
El Granda/Half Moon Bay/
Montara/Moss/La Honda
Large
36%
Small
64%
n = 351 cases
BA/BS degree or higher
HS or less
21%
25%
AA/AS degree
Some college
11%
43%
Are you familiar with NAFCC (National Association of Family Child Care) accreditation?
Yes
38%
Yes
10%
No
62%
No
90%
Respondent BackgroundAccreditation StatusAre you currently accredited by NAFCC?
n = 317 cases
n = 117 cases
Average Wkly Fee:
Fee Assistance:
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
<3 yr olds
3 yr olds
4 yr olds
5 to <12 yr
12+ yr olds
olds
Respondent BackgroundCurrent Enrollment33%
Yes
67%
Respondent BackgroundVacancy StatusTop reasons for vacancy:
(Vacancy Status does not vary significantly across regions)
Cities with highest % of FCC Homes reporting vacancies are:
Providers in Moss Beach, Montara, El Granada, and HMB are more likely to report “program location” as the primary reason for vacancy
No statistical significance exists between the size of home (whether it’s large or small) and vacancy status
Are you interested in expanding to a large center?
When asked why they are not pursuing expansion at this time:
Top 3 Areas for Improvement:
Not interested
49%
Interested
in improv
51%
Very
Not at all
33%
29%
Somewhat
38%
Large homes are more likely to be “very interested” in PFA than small homes
PFA InterestSupport Most Needed for Staff
Courses offered in
community-based settings
75%
Online or weekend courses
73%
Financial Assistance w/ books
70%
Financial Assistance w/ tuition
69%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
PFA InterestSupport for Staff--Key Facts
PFA InterestSupport Most Needed for Accreditation
Training and technical
assistance in NAFCC
60%
standards and
accreditation process
Funding to enable me
to participate in
50%
NAFCC accreditation
process
Other Accreditation
26%
assistance needed
Funding to address
gaps identified
22%
during the NAFCC
accreditation process
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
N=341
*Parental – Parent cares for child while working or other parent/spouse cares for child while respondent working.
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
Urban Institute: Primary Child CareArrangement of Employed Parents, CA, 1999 NSAF (Under 5 years)
U.S. Census: Who’s Minding the Kids? Spring 1999, PPL-168 (Under 5 years)
Percentage Participating in Organized Activities
N=325
Home language of child N=245
N=279
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
Free N=463
Full day N=457
Speaks Spanish N=90
Shares values N=460
*Teacher speaks Spanish asked only of respondents who completed the interview in Spanish
N=462
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
Walk home N=462
Drive home N=461
Drive work N=240
Transit home N=460
Transit work N=240
*Transit=Public transportation
N=460
N=459
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
20%
10%
0%
undecided
disagree
agree
Parent vs Providerprovider
provider
parent
parent