Goals - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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

• Inform PFA planning with primary parent data
• Implement a comprehensive census of existing preschool supply
• Quantify preschool gaps at the community level, with reference to targeted (vs. licensed) capacity, types and hours of care, affordability, language/ethnicity and quality
• Assess the PFA readiness of the child care workforce and child care facilities
• Recommend priorities and strategies for incremental deployment of PFA

• Random digit dialing parent interviews conducted by Field Research Corp. in English and Spanish (600 completed).
• Written surveys of centers (72% completion rate) and licensed homes (60% completion rate).
• Nine parent focus groups and four provider focus groups to explore and document values and preferences.

• 4Cs
• CA Child Care Resource and Referral Network
• Center for the Study of the Child Care Workforce
• Field Research Corp.
• UC Berkeley Survey Research Center

• Parent Site Preferences

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.

• Spanish-speaking Parent Preferences

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

• Pre-school Supply

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)

• Child Care Provider Attitudes towards Preschool for All

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

• Written surveys sent to all licensed child care centers and family child care homes in the R&R database
• Spanish and English versions were available for family child care providers
• Target Response Rate -- 60% for centers and 40% for family child care homes
• Actual Response Rate -- 72% for centers (n=233) and 60% for family child care homes (n=352)

• Comprehensive
• 83 questions for Centers and 64 questions for FCCHs
• Four Sections:
• Program Overview-- Regulation Status, Licensed Capacity, Target Enrollment, Vacancies/Waitlists
• Facilities--Interests in Expansion, Needs, and Challenges
• Workforce-- Educational, Ethnic, and Linguistic Background by Position
• PFA Interest—Support and Challenges Needed to Support PFA standards

PFA Supply and Demand StudyChild Care CentersSample BackgroundFacilities and Expansion InterestsPFA InterestsWorkforce

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

0-5yrs

19%

+30yrs

18%

5-15yrs

27%

15-30yrs

37%

• 30% Title 5, 52% Title 22, 18% Exempt
• 58% of respondents indicate being licensed for P/S

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)

• More S/A & I/T programs indicated having vacancies
• Approx 54 % of P/S programs indicated vacancies

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:

• 69% Slow Economy (n=81)
• 47% Families Cannot Afford (n=55)
• 41% Other (n=48)
• 9% Program Location (n=10)

• Approx one-third of all centers indicated having waitlists

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

• $764.49 full-day care, ranging from $ 573.89 in SSF to $1700 in Atherton
• $538.26 part-day care, ranging from $338.91 in SSF to $1611 in Atherton
• 31 % of children enrolled at centers with preschool age children receive fee assistance of some sort

Other

5%

Sliding Fee Scale

9%

Program Scholarship

21%

Public Subsidy

65%

n=1783

• What facility changes would you like to make to improve the quality of your existing program?

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%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Lack of funding

/capital

Uncertain

enrollment/demand

Lack of org

capacity or time

Landlord/tenant

issues

Other

• 40%(P/S) are interested in expansion

What 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

Centers interested in PFA

MD

8%

Very

interested

28%

Not at all

25%

Somewhat

interested

39%

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

• Salaries for classroom teachers that established parity with local K-12 system
• Competitive benefit package for classroom teachers
• Staffing qualifications and professional development (by 2010, lead teacher in each classroom with a BA/BS degree, Master Teacher Permit, pass CBEST)

• Courses offered in community-based settings, e.g. local centers
• Courses offered to group of, or entire staff, of a center
• Pool of substitutes available to allow for attendance at day classes
• Language support, such as bilingual courses or translation of lectures or reading materials

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

• P/S staff:
• 21% assistants hold AA degrees or higher
• 39% teachers hold BA degrees or higher
• 61% directors BA +

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%

• 56% of teaching staff speak English only (37% hold BA+)
• 34% of teaching staff are fluent in English and another language (27% hold BA+)
• 3% of teaching staff speak a language other than English fluently but are not fluent in English (11% hold BA+)

$30.00

$25.00

$21.56

$20.00

$18.64

$17.13

$15.00

$15.04

$10.00

Some College

BA or higher

PFA Supply and Demand StudyFamily Child Care Homes

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

• Average # of years in business= 9.9
• Only 20% serve children with special needs
• 73% of families served are neighborhood residents

Large

36%

Small

64%

n = 351 cases

BA/BS degree or higher

HS or less

21%

25%

AA/AS degree

Some college

11%

43%

African

American

Other

9%

11%

Asian

5%

Filipino

9%

Hispanic

29%

Caucasian

37%

• Although Caucasians represent only 37% of the workforce, they are significantly over-represented in certain cities:
• Belmont/San Carlos 70%
• Pacifica 55%
• Menlo Park/Woodside 54%
• Redwood City 51%
• Overall, Hispanic representation does not vary significantly across cities
• They represent between 10% (Belmont/SC) to 43% (SSF) or the workforce

Are you familiar with NAFCC (National Association of Family Child Care) accreditation?

Yes

38%

Yes

10%

No

62%

No

90%

Are you currently accredited by NAFCC?

n = 317 cases

n = 117 cases

Average Wkly Fee:

• 3-year-olds $130/week N=256
• 4-year-olds $125/week N=247

Fee Assistance:

• 20% of children receive fee subsidy
• 10% of children receive rate reduction
• 5% of children receive “other” type of fee assistance

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

<3 yr olds

3 yr olds

4 yr olds

5 to <12 yr

12+ yr olds

olds

No

33%

Yes

67%

Top reasons for vacancy:

• 63% slow economy
• 33% families cannot afford schedule
• 25% prefer working with a smaller group
• 24% too much competition /saturated market

(Vacancy Status does not vary significantly across regions)

Cities with highest % of FCC Homes reporting vacancies are:

• East Palo Alto 84%
• Redwood City 75%
• South San Francisco 74%

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?

• 38% yes
• 51% not interested
• 11% expansion not possible
• (Interest does not vary significantly across regions)

When asked why they are not pursuing expansion at this time:

• 76% enjoy smaller # of children
• 62% not interested
• 33% environment is satisfactory
• 16% lack of funds

• 58%--purchase significant outdoor equipment
• 41%--purchase significant indoor equipment
• 34%--improve interior and exterior security

Top 3 Areas for Improvement:

Not interested

49%

Interested

in improv

51%

PFA Interest

• Top reasons for interest:
• 77% to improve quality of my FCC program
• 50% to make my p/s more affordable
• 39% to expand spaces
• 38% to stabilize my enrollment

Very

Not at all

33%

29%

Somewhat

38%

Large homes are more likely to be “very interested” in PFA than small homes

PFA Interest by Region

• Cities with strongest interest in PFA:
• El Granada/Half Moon Bay 44%
• Menlo Park/Woodside 54%
• San Mateo 39%
• East Palo Alto 39%

• Salary parity for teachers with K-12 workforce (59%)
• Staffing qualifications and development (49%)
• Accessible environment for children with special needs (39%)

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

• For Redwood City, “Available Pool of Substitutes” is also a top support needed for staff to meet PFA standards
• English tutoring support is more important to East Palo Alto, Colma/Daly City, and San Bruno, where a larger % of the workforce are non-white

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%

• Telephone interviews conducted by Field Research Corporation, Inc., with 600 randomly-selected parents or guardians of children 5 years and younger.
• Interviews conducted in English and Spanish in March 2004.

• Interview asked for information about one child under 6 years for each respondent.
• The interview child was randomly selected.
• Child lives in the household at least 50% of the time.

• Introduction, purpose of the survey
• Current child care arrangements, if respondent working or in school
• Current child activities, if respondent is full-time parent or unemployed or spouse/ partner cares for child full time
• Opinions about PFA
• Employment status of respondent
• Demographics of respondent

P

E

R

C

E

N

T

P

E

R

C

E

N

T

N=598

2000 US Census P1 STF1

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)

P

E

R

C

E

N

T

N=341

P

E

R

C

E

N

T

N=308

N=286

P

E

R

C

E

N

T

N=286

P

E

R

C

E

N

T

N=261

• 57% of respondents who care for their child full-time, or their spouse/partner cares for their child full time, have enrolled their child in organized activities.
• This varies by age, income, and home language of the child.

Percentage Participating in Organized Activities

N=325

Home language of child N=245

N=279

• Based on the survey definition of PFA, 97% stated it is important for SM County to provide voluntary preschool for 3 and 4 year-olds.
• Of these respondents, 83% said it is very important, 13% somewhat important, and 3% slightly important.

• Based on the survey definition, 95% of respondents (with children under 5 years) stated they would be likely to send their child to PFA when s/he turned 4 years old.
• 69% said very likely and 26% said somewhat likely.

P

E

R

C

E

N

T

N=358

N=434

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

P

E

R

C

E

N

T

N=416

• Essential for 25% or more of respondents living in the following cities:
• 63% Daly City
• 95% East Palo Alto
• 42% El Granada/HMB/Montara Moss Beach
• 50% Loma Mar/Pescadero/Unincorporated
• 43% Menlo Park/W. Menlo Park/Palo Alto
• 49% Redwood City/Emerald Hills
• 43% San Bruno
• 29% San Mateo/Highland/Baywood Park
• 40% S. San Francisco

N=462

• 69% of respondents stated that San Mateo should charge people different amounts for PFA services based on their income and what they could afford.
• 31% of respondents stated that San Mateo should charge everyone the same amount.

P

E

R

C

E

N

T

N=453

P

E

R

C

E

N

T

N=238

P

E

R

C

E

N

T

N=411

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

• Essential for 25% or more of respondents living in the following cities:
• 53% Daly City
• 75% East Palo Alto
• 33% Loma Mar/Pescadero/Unincorporated
• 38% Menlo Park/W.Menlo Park/Palo Alto
• 40% Redwood City/Emerald Hills
• 35% San Bruno
• 29% San Mateo/Highlands/Bayward Park
• 48% S. San Francisco

N=460

P

E

R

C

E

N

T

N=415

• Essential for 25% or more of respondents living in the following cities:
• 55% Daly City
• 75% East Palo Alto
• 32% El Granada/HMB/Montara/Moss Beach
• 25% Loma Mar/Pescadero/Unincorporated
• 45% Menlo Park/W.Menlo Park/Palo Alto
• 28% Pacifica
• 37% Redwood City/Emerald Hills
• 30% San Bruno
• 26% San Mateo/Highlands/Bayward Park
• 49% S. San Francisco

N=459

P

E

R

C

E

N

T

N=219

P

E

R

C

E

N

T

N=458

140

120

100

agree

80

disagree

60

undecided

40

20

0

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

• Parents are highly committed to a vision of preschool education that is voluntary, is free for at least part of the day, and offers choices (consistent with survey findings).
• A majority of parents support a sliding fee system for parents who need full-day preschool.
• Only 40% of parents think that teachers with a four-year degree are better preschool teachers than those without.
• Parents are divided on the value of rating preschool quality and providing higher reimbursement to better schools.
• About one-third of parents think that the public school system should manage AND operate preschool (contrast with survey findings).

40

35

30

25

agree

20

disagree

undecided

15

10

5

0

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

• Providers are highly committed to voluntary preschool education for all children and value diversity of settings and parent choice.
• Almost 60% of providers disagree or are undecided about a FREE half-day preschool (or full day for those who need it).
• Providers are more supportive than parents of a sliding fee scale for families who need full-day preschool.
• Less than 20% of providers correlate a four-year degree with better quality preschool teaching.
• Less than 10% of providers believe that public schools should manage and operate preschools.

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

20%

10%

0%

undecided

disagree

agree

provider

provider

parent

parent

• Significant differences exist between licensed capacity and targeted enrollment; we need to revise our supply-building efforts to be more responsive to targeted enrollment and declared vacancies.
• There are significant community differences in preschool vacancy. Supply-building efforts need to be targeted appropriately to specific communities.
• The role of family child care homes in serving three and four year olds is not as great as thought—we can be somewhat less worried about the impact that PFA will have on the financial viability of these homes.

• Almost 40% of SMC’s preschool teachers have a BA or higher—this is better than many counties and increases the likelihood of achieving PFA goals.
• A strong message for selling Preschool for All to existing providers is as a strategy for investing in the quality of existing programs.
• Educational differences between the Title V and Title 22 teaching workforce are not as great as thought. This should lend more weight to accreditation efforts for Title 22 centers, so they can participate in PFA.

• SMC parents overwhelmingly support preschool and the goals of PFA; likelihood of enrolling in PFA is even stronger in the Spanish-speaking community; likelihood of enrolling in PFA declines as income increases.
• Parents place their three and four year olds in center-based programs more than any other age group five and under.
• Families with incomes between 35K and 75K are not using licensed programs as much as families with lower and higher incomes.
• The likelihood that full-time parents have enrolled their preschool children in organized activities increases with income.

• More parents find it essential that Preschool for All be full-day than find it essential that it be free. The importance of full-day correlates with lower income, with employment status, and with current use of non-parental care.
• 69% of parents support charging for Preschool for All based on household income.
• Preschool proximity to home is more important to parents than proximity to work.
• Location of preschool classrooms at elementary schools is preferred by more than half of the parents interviewed.

• Continue to analyze data and prepare final report.
• Disseminate a written executive summary, and make the full report available on the 4Cs website.
• Prepare city-specific cross-tabs, beginning with Redwood City and East Palo Alto, and make these available on our website.
• Continue to foster dialogue on implications of findings for PFA design and deployment.
• Seek funding to use the data for a comprehensive child care needs assessment.
• Make recommendations on data collection changes to R and R Data Standardization Committee.