PACE W0 rm 1' pmslmozz ; CDSS-PACE Child Care Planning Project: Descriptive Findings from the Child Care Subsidy Interview August 2002 INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENTAL STUDES LIBRARY VI}? II3 7.0I7 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Prepared for The California Department of Social Services Policy Analysis for California Education University of California, Berkeley ' . ‘ x a ,, \ 4‘ . .. 3f" \ 7 .I ‘ WORKING PAPER SERIES 02-2 ~71 CDSS-PACE Child Care Planning PijECtZ Descriptive Findings from the Child Care Subsidy Interview August 2002 Diane Hirshberg, Ph.D. PACE and Leslie Derbin, Ph.D Greg Robison, Ph.D Population Research Systems (PRS) Freeman, Sullivan & Co. A Policy Analysis for California Education PACE Acknowledgements This survey is a part of the CDSS-PACE Child Care Planning Project, funded by the California Department of Social Services. Special thanks to Lyn Vice, Hilva Chan, Valerie Maulet, Teri Ellen, Nikki Baumrind, Laurence Carr and LaRae Bustamante (CDSS), and to Nancy Remley at the California Department of Education, for their long—range perspective and steady support. In each of the three counties participating in this survey, several people provided invaluable assistance: Alette Lundeberg, Joyce Barker and Raul Aldana in Santa Clara County; Pat Cheadle and Connie Mundhenke in Kern County; and in Orange County, Stephen Schrieber—Smith and Suneel Bhasker. Table Of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Study Sites and Population .............................................................................................................. 5 Study Methods ......................................................................................................................................... 7 SECTION 2 Descriptive Survey Results ........................................................................................................................... 9 Respondent Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 9 Child Care Usage and Choice ........................................................................................................ 12 Familiarity with the CaIWORKs Child Care Subsidy System ..................................... 15 Child Care Payment and Subsidy Use ..................................................................................... 16 SECTION 3 Discussion .............................................................................................................................................................. 19 Endnotes ................................................................................................................................................................ 21 Appendices Appendix A: Letter of Recruitment and Interview Instrument in English .. 23 Appendix B: Telephone Interview Frequencies ............................................................... 39 Appendix C: Open-Ended Questions Index of Frequencies ..................................... 54 “happy” "1w. . s‘ 1- * “wees—m. massage» Executive Summary The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) have been involved in an effort to understand the impact of welfare reform and the implementa— tion of the CalWORKs program on child-care supply and demand in California. As part of this project, CDSS and PACE decided to conduct a telephone interview of current and former CalWORKs partici— pants to answer the following questions: I What kind of care are current and former CalWORKs participants selecting for their children? I What are the factors contributing to these choices? I How are they paying for child care? I What are the factors contributing to parents using or not using CalWORKs child— care subsidies? I Of eligible parents who are not using CalWORKs child—care subsidies, why are they not using subsidies? The survey was conducted in three counties: Kern, Orange and Santa Clara, and in three lan— guages, English, Spanish and Vietnamese. A total of 1,974 interviews were completed: 673 (34.1%) in Kern County, 797 (40.4%) in Orange County, and 504 (25.5%) in Santa Clara County, between May 1 and June 30, 2001. This report presents descriptive survey results. It includes demographic data from the survey respondents, frequencies for the survey questions, and select responses by county, language, and ethnic groups. Respondent Characteristics I Respondents were interviewed in English (n:1,189, 60.2%), Spanish (n:176, 8.9%), and Vietnamese (n:609, 30.9%). I The majority of respondents (87.3%) were receiving cash aid. There was no significant difference in the proportion of respondents receiving cash aid across the three counties. I Over sixty percent (61.1%) of respondents reported that they were working and earning income at the time of the interview. I The education level of survey respondents was fairly low. Forty-two percent of the respondents had not finished high school, while 32.2% re- ported having a high school diploma. Less than one—quarter (24%) of the respondents had attended or completed college. There were differences across language and ethnic groups in educational attainment. Spanish and Vietnamese speakers had far lower attainment than English speakers. Asian and Latino participants had less schooling than White or African—American respondents. I Respondents’ marital status differed greatly by language and ethnic group. Vietnamese—speaking respondents were significantly more likely to be married (82.4%) than Spanish (36.0%) or En- glish—speaking (20.2%) respondents. Likewise, Asians (who are mostly Vietnamese in our sample) were far more likely to be married than members of any other ethnic group. African Americans were least likely to be married. I Respondents were asked to answer questions regarding child—care usage and payment for a single, randomly selected “index child.”l 8.7% of the index children were under age 2, 24.3% were age 2—5, and 67% were age 6-13. All responses refer to this specific population. Child-Care usage and Choice I English—speaking respondents (68.7%) were significantly more likely than either Spanish— speaking (59.4%) or Vietnamese-speaking respondents (54.4%) to use child care. Whites (70.6%), African Americans (70.4%) and Latinos (67.1%) all used child care more than Asians (53.7%). I The majority (63.4%) of the survey respon— dents were using child care for ten or more hours per week. I Parents were far more likely to use child care for younger children age 5 and under (73.7%) than for children age 6 to 13 (58.3%). I Child-care use was highly correlated with income levels; the percent of respondents using child care was progressively higher for higher income brackets. There was no correlation between the number of hours worked and the use of child care for parents working twenty or more hours per week. Use of child care was also related to the type of CaIWORKs activity in which a parent was a participant. Parents were more likely to use child care if they were working (79.1%), in job training (73.1%) or attending school under the Self— Initiated Program (77.7%) than ifthey were looking for a job (61.4%) or participating in other CaIWORKs activities. Kith and kin care, also known as license—exempt care, was used by the vast majority of respon- dents. Two—thirds (66.8%) reported using family members, 12.1% used friends or other individu— als, 22.2% used a child—care center, Head Start or school—based program, and 8.4% used a Family Child Care Home.2 Whites were the most likely of the ethnic groups to use licensed center—based care (29.8%), while Asians were least likely (55%). The majority of parents (70%) chose a child—care provider that they already knew, while 15% reported using informal sources to find care, e.g., finding care in their neighborhood or near where they worked, and 12% used the services offered from a CalWORKs or resource 8r referral agency case manager. The top reasons parents gave for choosing their care provider were that the provider was a relative or family member (40.7%), safety or trust issues (32.3%), location or transportation constraints (27.3%) and the quality of the care offered (19.700). Of those parents not using child care for the index child, almost half (46.6%) indicated that they did not use care because they did not need it, while 12.3% brought up cost or subsidy concerns. Fewer than 10% said that they were not able to find care or use the child-care system (8.7%), had problems around transportation or location of care (6.4%), or that there wasn’t care available to them (6.4%). Famlliarity with the CaIWORKs Child- Care Subsidy System I Overall, 84.9% of respondents knew that CaIWORKs could help pay for their child care. Almost two-thirds (61.8%) of respondents knew that CaIWORKs could help pay for their child care up to 2 years after they started working. The majority (59.7%) of those who knew that CaIWORKs would pay for their child care re— ported that they learned this information from their caseworker. Of the others, 1 1.9% learned this from their CaIWORKs orientation, 8.5% from their child-care provider or an AP agency, 7.3% from a friend or family member and 6.3% from a flier. More English—speaking respondents (89.3%) than Spanish-speaking (80.8%) or Vietnamese— speaking (82.2%) respondents were aware that CaIWORKs could help pay for their child care. Similarly, more English-speaking respondents (66.7%) as compared to Spanish—speaking (45.5%) or Vietnamese respondents (57.0%) knew that CaIWORKs could pay for their child care up to 2 years after they started working. Vietnamese—speaking (27.000) and Spanish— speaking respondents (26.3%) were much more likely than English—speaking respondents (1 1.5%) to report that the welfare office materials were some— what or very difficult to read. Child-Care Payment and SUDSidV USE Ofthe parents using child care, 18.7% reported that they or their family pay for services. These parents may or may not be using a subsidy as well. Ofthe parents using child care, 48.2% reported receiving help paying for child care. Of the parents receiving financial assistance for child care, the vast majority (94.2%) are receiv— ing subsidies from either CalWORKs or the AP program. English—speaking respondents (62.9%) were significantly more likely to receive help paying for child care for their index child than either Span— ish—speaking (38.0%) or Vietnamese—speaking respondents (15.4%). There are significant differences in the use of child-care subsidies by ethnicity as well as by language. African—Ameri— can parents were more likely to receive assistance paying for child care than any other group (74.7%) while Asians were least likely to access this help (17.4%). Latinos (55.8%) and whites (63.3%) fell in the middle. I The type of care used by parents appears to be correlated to the use of subsidies. Parents re— ceived assistance paying for licensed care in over three—quarters of those cases while they used subsidies for less than half (43.5%) of the license— exempt providers. I The use of subsidies also was correlated with the type of CalWORKs activity in which the parent participated. Parents enrolled in Self—Initiated Programs (SIP) had the highest level of subsidy use (69.9%) followed by those who were working (60.7%), in non—specified “other” activities (57.4%)“, in job training (56.3%), and in job search activities (45.7%). Executive Summary Endnotes ‘ This child was randomly selected by a computer for households with more than one child under 14. 1 This count includes multiple responses. Some parents reported using multiple providers. 3 The majority of those recorded as participating in “other” activities were in school or other educational programs that were not considered a Self Initiated Program, e.g., GED programs. leWMWMWWMMW Introduction For the past two years, PACE has been working on a project funded by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to examine the impact of the CalWORKs welfare reform initiative on the child—care system in California. As part of this effort, PACE has been looking at the usage of child-care subsidies by CalWORKs participants, as well as the child—care choices made by parents utilizing CalWORKs and Alternative Payment (AP) program subsidies. Using administrative data from AP agencies and social services departments in Kern, Los Angeles, and Alameda counties, PACE was able to identify some trends in child—care choice and subsidy use among CalWORKs and low—income working parents. We found that parents using CalWORKs Stage 1 child—care subsidies chose exempt child care more often than parents in Stage 2—financed care, and that low-income working parents receiving subsidies via the AP pro— gram selected licensed child care more often than parents participating in CalWORKs. Moreover, in Kern County, PACE found that Spanish-speaking parents were proportionately less likely to access CalWORKs child—care subsidies than English—speaking parents. However, these results did not explain why parents do or do not use subsidies, and it also did not allow us to understand the child-care choices of parents not using child—care subsidies. Moreover, the administrative data did not allow us to understand across all three counties who among CalWORKs participants are using subsidies, and how parents who are not accessing subsidies pay for child care. Indeed, the data systems in place in AP agencies and county social services offices throughout California do not produce the kind of data needed to answer the ques— tions posed by our current study. As we attempted to understand parents’ child— care and subsidy choices, PACE also conducted a series of focus groups with parents in the three counties, asking about their experiences with the CalWORKs and AP subsidy systems and about how they chose their providers, including the constraints on choices of providers. Generally we found that concerns about trust and safety, access to care (transportation and hours of operation), and beliefs about the educational quality of the providers impacted mothers’ decisions about what kind of care to use. Also, some parents experienced difficulty in getting child-care subsidies, while others found the system quite easy to use. The number of parents we could speak with in the focus groups was limited, and the information we gathered cannot be generalized to a larger population. In response to the constraints of existing data sources, PACE and CD88 decided to conduct a survey of current and former CalWORKs participants in order to answer the following questions: 1) What are the factors contributing to parents using or not using CalWORKs child—care subsidies? Of eligible parents who are not using CalWORKs child— care subsidies, why are they not? And, how are they paying for child care? 2) What kind of care are current and former CalWORKs participants selecting for their children? What are the factors contributing to these choices? PACE contracted with a professional survey research firm, Population Research Systems (PRS), a subsidiary of Freeman, Sullivan & Co, to conduct a 15— 20 minute telephone survey in English, Spanish and Vietnamese with current and former CalWORKs participants drawn from three counties, Kern, Orange and Santa Clara. Data collection was launched in May 2001, and completed in June. This report offers a look at the descriptive results of this study. It covers re— sponse frequencies for the population as a whole, as well as breakdowns by county and by language group, and other select cross—tabulations. Study Sites and Population These three counties were selected to participate in this study for several reasons. First, while these counties are not representative of California, they do reflect some of the diversity of the state. Santa Clara County is a Bay Area county with urban, suburban and even rural regions, and has a diverse population that includes large Vietnamese and Latino communities. Orange County is a large southern county with a varied population that also includes significant Viet— namese and Latino communities. Kern County is located in the central valley, and has both urban and rural communities, including a large migrant worker population that is primarily Latino. Finally, the struc— ture of the child—care subsidy system differs among the three counties, both reflecting the state’s commitment to a decentralized social services structure, and repre- senting some of the different ways counties have chosen to deliver these services. These structures, and the counties themselves, are described below.1 Kern County Kern County’s CalWORKs population is com— posed primarily of three ethnic groups: Hispanic (4,492, or 45.2%), White, non-Hispanic (3,734 or 37.6%), and Black, non-Hispanic (1,506 or 15.2%). Despite the ethnic diversity, the majority of the CalWORKs participants speak English (8,886, or 89.4%) with the remainder primarily speaking Spanish (996, 10%)} In Kern County, one agency, Community Connections for Child Care, administers all state— funded child—care subsidy programs for the county, including all three stages of the CalWORKs child- care subsidy program. Stage 2 clients may or may not be receiving cash aid, as Kern County’s defini— tion of“stable” and eligible for transfer to Stage 2 includes parents who may be participating in education or work experience programs as well as employment. This applies as long as they have had no interruption in child—care arrangements for at least four months. Orange County Orange County CalWORKs clients also fall mostly into three ethnic groups. As of July 2001, almost half (48%) of the population on CalWORKs were Hispanic. White clients made up 23% of this popula— tion, and Vietnamese were 21%. In Orange County, Stage 1 child care is administered by the County of Orange Social Services Agency while Stage 2 and 3 child—care services are administered by Children’s Home Society of California, and the Orange County Department of Education Child Development Services Programs. A client is considered stable, and referred for Stage 2 services, when they have held a job or been in an approved CalWORKs activity for 30 days or ex— pected to last longer than thirty days, and when they 6 have identified a legal child—care provider who has been authorized. This means that some of those receiving Stage 2 subsidies may still be receiving cash aid, while others may be off cash aid. Santa Clara County The CalWORKs population in Santa Clara is quite diverse. Of a total of 6,487 families with adults participating in welfare-to-work activities (one and two—parent families), 2,522 (38.9%) identify their ethnicity as Vietnamese, 2,041 (31.5%) as Hispanic, 840 (12.9%) as White, 399 (6.2%) as Black, and 167 (2.6%) as Cambodian. The language diversity is also striking; while 2,978 (45.9%) families speak English, 2,476 (38.2%) speak Vietnamese, and 382 (5.9%) speak Spanish. Another 154 state that they speak a non~ specified language other than English, while 150 speak Cambodian and 61 speak Russian, which combined comprise another 5.6 % of the total partici— pant population.3 In Santa Clara County, Stage 1 child care is administered by the county Social Services Agency, while Stages 2 and 3 are administered by three APP agencies: 4C5 Council, Choices for Children, and PACE. CalWORKs participants transition to Stage 2 when they are employed full—time and no longer eligible for cash aid. Eligibility Criteria Participants were eligible for the survey if they met the following inclusion criteria: I Current CalWORKs clients as of February 1, 2001 who were receiving cash aid and who were participating in work or CalWORKs activities that made them eligible for child care subsidies and who had at least one child under the age of 13 and resided in Kern, Orange, or Santa Clara County; or I Current and former CalWORKs clients who had transitioned off cash aid due to earnings and had at least one child under the age of 13 during the time period from August 1, 2000 through January 31, 2001 and resided in Kern, Orange, or Santa Clara County. Therefore, only current or former CalWORKs participants who were working or engaged in welfare— to—work activities and were eligible for a child—care subsidy could participate in the study. In addition, due to resource constraints, the survey was limited to parents who spoke English, Spanish or Vietnamese. Study Methods Sample County Social Services Department employees furnished PRS with electronic files containing contact and demographic information for 7,207 Kern County CalWORKs participants, 8,070 Orange County partici— pants, and 2,776 Santa Clara County participants who met the study inclusion criteria outlined above. These files were used to generate cover letters sent to eligible participants and were loaded into the PRS computer—assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) system so that eligible respondents could be contacted by telephone for inclusion in the study. Only one CalWORKs recipient per household was randomly selected to participate in the study. COVGI' Letters Potential respondents were sent a cover letter on PACE letterhead prior to receiving a call from PRS (See Appendix A). The cover letter was written in English with a Spanish and Vietnamese language translation provided on the back of the letter. They were given the name of the PACE project manager who they could call collect if they had questions about the study. Potential respondents were also informed that they would receive a $10 incentive for participating in the study. Telephone Interviews The child—care subsidy telephone interview (See Appendix A) was designed by PACE and PRS in collaboration with CD55 and County Social Services Department representatives from Kern, Orange, and Santa Clara counties. The telephone interview, which contained both closed—ended and open—ended questions, took appro- priately 20 minutes to complete in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. Interviews were conducted weekdays between the hours of 5:00 PM and 9:00 PM, on Saturdays between 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM, and on Sundays between 12:30 PM and 9:00 PM. A maximum of nine call attempts were made to reach each potential respondent. Refusal conversions were used to enhance the study response rate. Respondents who refused to participate in the study were re-contacted by another interviewer on another day to attempt to gain their participation in the study. Prior to beginning the telephone interview, respondents who reported not receiving a cover letter were offered an opportunity to have a cover letter sent to them prior to being interviewed. A total of 68 potential respondents reported not receiving a cover letter. Informed verbal consent was obtained from respondents before beginning each telephone inter- view. Both the cover letter and telephone interview were approved by the University of California at Berkeley Committee for Protection of Human Subjects and the State of California Health and Human Services Agency’s Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects. Upon completion of the telephone interviews, interviewers confirmed each respondent’s mailing address so that the $10 incentive and a thank you letter could be distributed to each respondent. Interview TODiCS The interview topics included, but were not limited to the following: Demographics/Characteristics of Respondents On or off cash aid Months on CalWORKs CalWORKs activities Educational level Marital status Number and age of children living with respondent Race/ethnicity Language Employment status Current job title Income Child Care Arrangements and Payments for Index Child Use of child care Types of child care used Cost of child care How pay for child care including source of subsidies Cal WORKS System Knowledge of CalWORKs assistance in paying for child care Why not using CalWORKs child-care subsidy Ease of reading CalWORKs office materials For questions concerning child care arrange— ments, the CATI laboratory system randomly selected one child aged 13 and under living within the respondent’s household to ask questions about. This child is referred to as the “index child.” In some cases, the “index child” had just turned 14 years of age. Information about these children was retained in the study. Interviewing Outcomes From the approximately 18,000 potential partici- pants in the three county files, only 8,177 people were called in order to fulfill the completed interview requirement. Those called were drawn at random from the total population. The remaining records were not needed to complete the study. Of the numbers called, 32.8% were disconnected or no longer in service; connected to beepers, fax machines, or modems; connected to businesses; or connected to residences with no eligible respondent. In addition, language barriers were encountered among individuals not speaking English, Spanish, or Vietnamese. A total of 123 calls were ended due to a language barrier. Interviews were completed with 1,974 respon— dents representing 35.5% of the usable sample of 5,558 records. 21.4% of the English—speaking sample, 3.2% of the Spanish—speaking sample, and 11.0% of the Vietnamese—speaking sample were interviewed. For purposes of this study, an American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) refusal rate has been calculated. The refusal rate is defined as the number of refusals divided by the number of interviews, number of non—respondents, 8 and the number of cases of unknown eligibility“. There were a total of 157 refusals for a low refusal rate of 2.8% of the usable sample. The refusal rates by lan— guage were as follows: English speakers - 1.8%; Spanish speakers - 2.1%; and Vietnamese speakers — 1.9% From the samples provided by the county social services departments, 9.3% of Kern County partici- pants, 9.9% of Orange County participants, and 18.2% of Santa Clara County participants were interviewed. A smaller number of interviews were completed with Santa Clara County CalWORKs participants due to the smaller number of participants within this county who were eligible for the study. Proportionally a larger percentage of the Santa Clara County CalWORKs population was interviewed, however. Data Analysis Frequencies (counts and percentages) were run for all studied variables. The frequencies can be found in Appendix B. In addition, cross—tab tables were run as well. Select cross—tab findings are located throughout the text of the report; most of these are presented graphically. Cautions in Interpreting These Findings While there is a lot of information to be gained from this study, we want to offer a few cautions about interpreting these data. First, these study data are only representative of the three counties studied and as such cannot be generalized to the state of California. More- over, within Orange and Santa Clara counties we oversampled Vietnamese-speaking clients. Therefore, in order to generalize findings for specific populations within each of the counties, or for more sophisticated analyses, weighting may be advisable. Second, the study was limited to those CalWORKs participants with telephones. Third, while we have broken down these findings by language, ethnicity and county, we want to warn against drawing conclusions from relatively small groups of respondents. While our sampling frame- work gives us sufficient power to draw conclusions for the population of CalWORKs participants in each of the counties, the numbers do not allow similar confidence for conclusions regarding subsets within the counties. FIGURE 1 Language by County 100—1 90— . 80- 7o— 60— 50— 40— 50— 2o— 10— O- Percentage Kern Orange Finally, there were in a few cases internal incon— sistencies in the responses given by the survey partici- pants. In places where open-ended and closed re— sponses were inconsistent, we re-coded the closed- ended responses to reflect information provided in the open-ended responses. This occurred especially in questions concerning the use of child care 4 parents would respond that they did not use child care because a relative, partner or sibling was watching the child. This type of response necessitated recoding question 8 which asked respondents whether they were using child care 10 or more hours per week. Also, in some cases, when we asked parents questions about an index child exclusively, it appears that the responses given referred to other children in the family (or the family as whole). These rare instances were not recoded, as we were not comfortable altering these responses. Descriptive Survey Results In this report, we present an overview of the results from the survey. Four main areas are cov- ered: the demographics and characteristics of the study respondents; the usage of child care by respon- dents, covering the type of care; the cost of child care and how they pay for care, including the use of I English Spanbh El Vietnamese 60 Santa Clara subsidies; and respondent familiarity with the CalWORKs child care subsidy system. Summaries of the responses to Open—ended questions are included where appropriate.S Respondent Characteristics Between May 1 and June 30, 2001, a total of 1,974 child-care subsidy telephone interviews were completed with current and former CalWORKs participants from Kern, Orange, and Santa Clara counties. Six hundred seventy—three (34.1%) inter— views were completed with Kern County CalWORKs recipients, 797 (40.4%) interviews were completed with Orange County recipients, and 504 (25.5%) interviews were completed with Santa Clara County CalWORKs recipients. Respondents were interviewed in English (n:1,189, 60.2%), Spanish (n:176, 8.9%), and Vietnamese (112609, 30.9%) (See Figure 1). We asked respondents to tell us their ethnicity. The breakdown by county is shown in Figure 2. It is important to note that this was a multiple response category, where respondents who consider themselves of more than one ethnicity could report that. These counts depicted below are by the percent of cases rather than responses, so that a person who called themselves African American and Asian would appear twice. Around 72 respondents gave more than one ethnicity. The Asian population in the survey is pre— dominantly Vietnamese; 95% of those who identified FIGURE 2 Ethnicity by County 60%” 50%— m 40%— O S E 30%— 8 c“: 20%~ 10%— O%~ : 1% .- 2% Kern County Orange County Santa Clara County (n=673) (n=797) (n=504) I African American I American indian I Caucasian I Asian Latino E Pacific lslander C] Other themselves as Asian answered the survey in Vietnamese. Approximately 10% of those who called themselves Asian then identified themselves as Chinese, though some of these were respondents who called themselves both Chinese and Vietnamese. Just over 28% of the respondents who identified themselves as “Latino” answered the survey in Spanish. The fourteen respon— dents who called themselves “other” included Afghanis, people identifying themselves as from the “middle east,” one person who responded “human” and one who said “head of household.” FIGURE 3 Educational Level by Language 80% J 70%— 60%— 50%— 40% - Percentage 50%“ 20%— 10%— 0%— English Spanish 10 The majority of survey respondents (87.3%) were receiving cash aid. There was no significant difference in the proportion of respondents receiv- ing cash aid across the three counties. In addition, over 60 percent (61.1%) of respondents reported that they were working and earning income at the time of the interview. The education level of survey respondents was fairly low. Forty—two percent of the respondents had not finished high school, while 32.2% reported having a high school diploma. Less than one—quarter (24%) of Less Than High School I I High School Some College [1 AA or higher Vietnamese FIGURE 4 Educational Attainment by Ethnicity 60%— 50%— 40%— 50%- Percentage 20%— 10%- O%—‘ African American American Indian- Caucasian (n=151) (n=5’l) (n=498) .m' 8% 8% | - Asian Latino Pacific lslander (n=625) (n=606) (n=52) I Less than High School I High School [3 Some College I: AA Degree or Higher the respondents had attended or completed college. There were significant differences across language groups in educational attainment, with Spanish and Vietnamese speakers having far lower attainment than English speakers, as Figure 3 shows. Likewise, as is shown in Figure 4, when educa- tional attainment is broken out by ethnicity, the Asian and Latino populations have significantly lower levels of schooling than white or black respondents. FIGURE 5 Marital Status by Ethnicity 90%- 80%— 70%— 60%— 50%— 40%— 50%— 20%— ”10%— Percentage One characteristic on which the respondents differed greatly was marital status. There were consid- erable differences by both language and ethnicity. Vietnamese-speaking respondents were significantly more likely to be married (82.4%) than Spanish (36.0%) or English—speaking (20.2%) respondents. Likewise, as Figure 5 demonstrates, Asians (mostly Vietnamese) were far more likely to be married than members of any other ethnic group. i 31%” l 25° ‘ , 10% 10% y l O%_ . - 5% - 5% - 1% - - 5% 1 African American American Indian Caucasian Asian Latino Pacific lslander (n=154) (n=55) (n=505) (n=641) (n=624) (n=32) I Single-nevermarried I Single-livingwithapartner D Married E] Separated/Divorced/Widowed 11 TABLE 1 Age of Index Child Breakdown Age group Count Percentage Under 2 170 8.7% 2-5 years old 477 24.5% 6-13 years old 1316 67.0% Total 1963 100.0% Notes: This figure includes ten children who turned 14 within three months of the survey date. In addition, the total number of children here (1965) does not include 11 children for whom parents did not share age data As noted above, each respondent was asked to answer questions regarding child care usage and payment for a single “index child.” The computer randomly selected the child for households with more than one child age 13 and under (or just turned 14 in a w: imam... NI'nL‘ummw-u'flnewm'w-k‘fl ‘ .. m i FIGURE 6 Use of- Child Care for Index Child by Language 70%7 60007 59% . - 50%— 54% 69% C1) 0’ M “5., 40%# .3 .‘T‘r‘ii‘fltiv'i C * ‘~ ' (1) e 30% — (1) Db \ 2 0% — 1 0% — 0% T l English Spanish Vietnamese few cases), and the questions from that point forward referred specifically to that child. Table 1 depicts the age breakdown for the index children.6 Thus, all responses in the remainder of the report refer to this specific population of children. Child-Care Usage and Choice Who uses child care? We asked parents a series of questions about their child—care usage. These included whether or not they used child care for the index child, what kind of care they chose, and how they found their provider. The majority (63.4%) of the survey respondents were using child care for ten or more hours per week. However, English—speaking respondents (68.7%) were significantly more likely than either Spanish-speaking (59.4%) or Vietnamese-speaking respondents (54.4%) to use child care (see Figure 6). The use of child care by ethnic groups varied as well. Asian respondents were less likely to use child care (53.7%) than White (70.6%), Latino (67.1%) or African—American (70.4%) respondents (see Figure 7). Use of child care differed considerably by the age of the index child, as is shown in Figure 8. Parents used child care for almost three—fourths (73.7%) of the children age 5 and under, while for children age 6—13 years they used care 58.3% of the time. Use of a child—care provider was closely linked to the income level of the participant; as participants” income rose, their use of child care rose as well, as is clearly demonstrated in Figure 9. This raises a question for future research of whether language, ethnicity or Hook: 7 if Ulserof Child Care for Index Child by Ethnic Group 80%7/ 709/34 609/5 (D \ g 50*/;~ . 0% 40%— U a 30‘s— 0. 209% 10%— l African Caucasian Asian American (n=505) (n=641) (n=154) 12 Latino American Pacific Islander (n=623) Indian (n=32) (n=54) FIGURE 8 Use of Child Care for Index Child by income may be more powerful factors in predicting the Age Group use of child care among this population of welfare-to- work clients. 80%_ Use of child care was also related to the type of 70%_ CalWORKs activity in which a parent was a partici- (D 60%_ pant, as is shown in Figure 10. Parents were more likely E BOO/F to use child care if they were working (79.1%), partici- § 40%_ pating in job training (73.1%) or attending school E 50%“ under the Self—Initiated Program designation (77.7%) 20%“ than if they were looking for a job (61.4%) or partici— 10%— pating in other CalWORKs activities. 0%“ I """ " ’ We asked those parents who were not using child 0-5 Years 6—1 3 Years (n=6 46) (n=1314) care whether they wanted to use care, and what was Age of index child preventing them from using care. The majority of parents not using child care did not want to use child care. Indeed, of those currently not using child care for FIGURE 9 Use of Child Care for Index Child the index child, less than one—third (28.7%) indicated by income any interest in using care. There were differences in 80% —1 parents’ interest in using care between those talking 70% _ about older or younger children. Almost 45 percent 60% _ (44.6%) of respondents not using care preferred to use fig 50%_ child care for an index child aged 2 and under, and E 40% _ half of those whose index child was age 2—5 were 5 50% _ interested in using care. However only 22.8% of those a 20% _ not using care for an index child aged 6—13 wanted care 1 0% _ for that child. 0%— - - - In the response to the open—ended question Under $501- $1001- Over about what was preventing parents from using child $500 $1000 $1500 $1501 care, almost half (46.6%) of those not using care (n=344) (n=74’|) (n=550) (n=’l94) FIGURE 10 Use of Child Care by Type of CalWORKs Activity 90%— 80% — 70%— 60%— 50%— 40%— 30% — 20% — 10%— Percentage Job Search Job Training Self-Initiated Substance Abuse/ English as a Working Other (n=445) (n=264) Prog. Mental Health/ Second Lang. (n=628) (n=’|06) (n=’l48) Domestic Abuse “1:1 04) (n=74) 13 indicated that they did not need it, while only 12.3% brought up cost or subsidy concerns as a barrier to using child care. Fewer than 10% said that they were not able to find care or use the child-care system (8.7%), had problems around transportation or location of care (6.4%), or that there wasn’t care available to them (6.4%) (see Appendix C for more detail). In the population of non—child care users, Asian respondents were least likely to want care (1 1.8%) while African American participants were most interested (48.1%), followed by Latinos (40%) and Whites (37.2%). What type of care do survey respondents use? Kith and kin care was used by the vast majority of respondents.T Two—thirds (66.9%) reported using family members and 12.1% used friends or other individuals. Licensed care was used for almost 30% of the children and 20.8% of the respondents used a child—care center, Head Start or school—based pro- gram, and finally, 8.4% used a family child—care home (FCCH). There were, however, differences in the type of care selected by Vietnamese speakers versus English and Spanish—speakers. Vietnamese speakers over— whelmingly used family members (86%) to care for their children, while English—speakers relied on a mix of family (51%), center-based care8 (26%), friends/ license—exempt individuals (12%) and FCCHs (8%). Spanish—speakers used more family members (5900) than English speakers, and relied on non—relative license-exempt individuals (22%) more than either English or Vietnamese speakers. (see Figure 11)." Type of care used also varied when broken out by ethnic group, as Figure 12 shows. Whites were most likely of the ethnic groups to use center care (33.6%), while Asians were least likely (5.5%). The type of care was also linked to the age of the index child, with parents choosing center-based care for younger children more often (29.1%) than for older children (15.4%), as is shown in Figure 13. There was virtually no difference in the types of child-care providers used by parents who were working and earning income and those who were not working (though who may have been participating in other CalWORKs activities). Most of the survey population (89.3%) reported using only one child care provider. Less than 10 percent (9.1%) used two providers, and only a handful used three or more. How do parents find their providers? We asked the respondents how they found their child—care provider. As shown in Figure 14, the major— ity (70%) already knew their care provider, whether they were a friend, relative or co—worker. The next largest group (15%) reported using informal sources, e.g., finding their place of care in the neighborhood or where they work. Just under 10 percent (9%) found their provider via a CalWORKs caseworker.‘U Only a small fraction (3%) used a resource 8: referral agency. FIGURE 11 Type of Provider Used by Language Spoken, All Respondents Using Child Care 90%— 80%— 70%— 60% ~ 50%— 40%— sox — 20%— 10% — “4% Percentage O V/‘ fl ‘ fifizfl- English Spanish 14 I Family FHend I or Other FCCH Center D Head Start D Informal Care 4% Vietnamese FIGURE 12 Type of Child Care by Ethnicity 90913~ 80”!de 70%4 601w G.) O S 5037*me C G) 8 40%— 0.) CL 50%— 20%— llOi‘T , ‘1 8%_ M 036‘ ml- l 30v 4% ‘ Will A», African American Caucasian Asian Latino American indian Pacific Islander (n=lOO) (n=557) (n=545) (n=420) (n=39) (n=20) I Family I Friend or Other E] FCCH l:] Center/Head Start El Informal Care FIGURE 13 Type of Child Care by Age of Child 80":— 70“:— 60*!— —\ i\) Q o l l ’ 12% 9% 0—5 years old One of our open—ended questions asked parents to tell us the reasons they chose their current child—care provider. They were encouraged to give more than one answer if they preferred. The responses they gave mirrored those of parents in other studies done by PACE; the top reasons included the following: wanting to use a relative or family member, issues of trust and safety; location and transportation constraints and quality. Table 2 shows the top five responses to this question, aggregated from more detailed answers (see Appendix C for more details). I Family Friend or I Other FCCH Center/ l: Head Start Informal D Care Familiarity with the CaIWORKs Child-Care Subsidy System In addition to asking parents about their usage of child—care subsidies, we asked about their knowledge about subsidies, and how they gained this information. Overall, 84.9% of respondents knew that CaIWORKs could help pay for their child care. Almost two—thirds (61.8%) of respondents knew that CalWORKs could help pay for their child care up to 2 years after they started working. 15 FIGURE 14 How Found Child Care Provider CalWORKs orienta— tion, 8.5% from their III-III Friend, relative, or co-worker or already knew provider Informal sources Newspaper, telephone book, bulletin board, flyer, etc. Resource and Referral Welfare office, caseworker, or eligibility worker child-care provider or an AP agency, 7.3% from a friend or family member and 6.3% from a flier. Vietnamese— speaking (27.0%) and Spanish-speaking respondents (26.3%) More English-speaking respondents (89.3%) than Spanish—speaking (80.8%) or Vietnamese-speaking (82.2%) respondents were aware that CalWORKs could help pay for their child care. Likewise, significantly more English—speaking respondents (66.7%) as compared to Spanish—speaking (45.5%) or Vietnamese—speaking respondents (57.0%) knew that CalWORKs could pay for their child care up to 2 years after they started working (see Figure 15). The majority (59.7%) of those who knew that CalWORKs would pay for their child care reported that they learned this information from their caseworker. Of the others, 11.9% learned this from their TABLE 2 Reasons Chose current Child Care Provider, TOD 5 Responses (n=1,221) Code Count % of Cases Child care provider is a relative/ family member 497 40.7% Safety/trust child care provider 394 32.3% Location/transportation 333 27.3% Quality of child care 240 19.7% Cares for own child/ doesn’t have a provider 99 8.1% Notes: Responses referring to parents’ choice of care for quality reasons included the experience of the provider, the training and education of the provider, that the provider is licensed, the curriculum used, the number of children cared for and the quality of the provider, unspecified. 16 were significantly more likely than English—speaking respondents (11.5%) to report that the welfare office materials were some— what or very difficult to read. In the open—ended questions, we asked partici- pants to tell us what the welfare office told them about finding child care and about paying for child care. There was a wide range of responses to both of these questions, and aggregating the responses was a difficult task. The top six answers to each question are pre— sented in Tables 3 and 4. In both cases, it is clear that the majority of respondents were told at least some of the information they needed to know regarding finding and paying for child care, and many described specific assistance that they received. It is of concern, however, that in response to both questions a fairly sizeable number of clients (17.7%) said they received no information (which is different from those parents who did not remember what they were told). Addi— tional analysis of the open—ended questions is needed to understand these responses, and who gave them, in a more complete way. Child-Care Payment and Subsidy USE Survey participants were asked whether they paid for child care, and if they were receiving assistance for child—care costs. If they did pay for care, they were then asked how much they paid. If these parents received help paying for care (whether or not they were also contributing to the cost of their care), they were asked to name the agency or person providing this help. Of the respondents in the survey that reported using child care, less than twenty percent (18.7%) FIGURE 15 Knowledge that CalWORKs Could Help Pay lai‘tiliia‘ “cadre” 90%“ 80%— 70%“ ‘ Q) 6000'“ OT 8 5000—“ 0C) 3 40%— 0) CL 30%— 2000— 10%— 0%— English (n=1,189) Spanish (n=176) Vietnamese (n=609) I Knowledge that CalWORKs could help pay for child care [1 Knowledge that CalWORKs may pay for child care up to 2 years after started working reported that they or their family paid out of pocket for services (parents paying out- of—pocket for child care expenses may also be receiving a subsidy). Asian parents were least likely to pay for care; only 1 1.9% paid, while African—Ameri— can parents were most likely to pay—22.2% paid at least part of the cost of care. In addition, of the population using child care for the index child, almost half (48.2%) reported receiving help paying for child care. Of the parents who reported TABLE 3 While Receiving Cash Aid/Assistance, What did the Welfare Office Tell You about Finding Child Care, Top 6 Responses (n=1,184) Code Count % of Cases Case worker helped me find care or get assistance 316 26.7% Told that CalWORKs would pay for child care/specified rules for reimbursement 252 21.3% Given referrals to R&Rs 211 17.8% Given no information/no help was offered 209 17.7% Did not need/want assistance/already had a provider at the time 148 12.5% Given some information about child care 143 12.1% TABLE 4 What did Welfare Office Tell You about Paying for Child Care, Top 6 Responses (n=1,119) Code Count °/o 0": Cases They would help pay for my child care 361 32.3% They told me I needed to meet certain requirements for a subsidy 308 27.5% They told me nothing 156 13.9% They referred me to an agency/AP program 104 9.3% Was told about payment, co-payment, time limits, age limits, stages, waiting lists 70 6.3% Not interested in it/did not need/did not apply/not eligible 56 5.0% 17 FIGURE 16 Have You Received Any Kind of Help Paying for Child Care by Language 70%— 60%— m 50%— O S 40%— C (D e 30%— (D D. 20%— 10%— O%— - .AI-IIIW in Vietnamese English Spanish receiving financial assistance for child-care expenses, the vast majority (94.2%) were receiving subsidies from either CalWORKs or an AP program. The data cited above indicates that some portion of the population used unpaid child care. While we did not ask specifically whether parents were receiving care for free, we can see from the open—ended questions that of those parents using child care and not accessing child—care subsidies from CalWORKs, almost 39% (38.7%) did not have to pay for child care (see Table 5). Of those parents who did have out-of—pocket expenses for child care, one—third (31.7%) paid $100 or less per month. Another twenty percent (21.1%) paid between $101 and $200, and over one—third, (34.4%) paid between $201 and $500 per month. Almost ten percent (9.2%) reported paying between $501 and $1000 for care each month. English-speaking respondents (62.9%) were significantly more likely to receive help paying for child care for their index child than either Spanish—speaking (38.0%) or Vietnamese-speaking respondents (15.4%) (see Figure 16). This does not imply that non—English speaking parents did not know about subsidies; indeed our data shows that these parents do know about them (see p. 17). The use of child—care subsidies is correlated with the type of care used in our data, with subsidy use being lowest for care by family members, as Figure 19 shows. Vietnamese-speaking and Spanish—speaking TABLE 5 Primary Reasons why CalWORKs is Not Paying for Child Care, Top 5 Responses (n=1,146) Code Count % Of Cases Don’t have to pay for child care 444 587% Is not working/ not enrolled in school/off CalWORKs 249 21.7% Didn’t want it, did not apply 167 14.6% Wants to keep child at home with family/doesn’t trust others/ special needs child 91 7.9% Another program pays for child care (including APP, CalWORKs) 82 7.2% «Mm, an. ,. FIGURE 17‘ l-laye You Received Any Type of Help Paying for Child Care by Ethnicity 80%— 70%— w 60%~ 5’ 50%— \ g 40%— L) a 50%— Q 20%— 100/04 0%— Caucasian Asian African American American Indian (n=99) (n=38) (n=354) (n=544) 18 Latino Pacific (n=412) Islander (n=18) FIGURE 18 Received Help Paying for Child Care by Age of Index Child 70%— 60%— (1) 50%— , 1 8‘ O . . .. g 40%)— ; g 30%— (D a 20%— 10%— 0% 0—5 Years (n=475) 6+ Years (n=755) parents in our sample used kith and kin care at higher rates than English speakers, so they would not be expected to use subsidies at a high rate. There were differences in the use of child—care subsidies by ethnicity as well as by language, as is FIGURE 19 Received Help Paying for Child Care by Type of Child “Care 90%— 80%—/l 88% 70%— g 60%— g 50% § 40%— 30%— 20%— 10%— 0%— “" 76% Pe Friend or FCCH Other Start Family l l | | I ‘ l Center/Head Informal Care shown in Figure 17. African-American parents were more likely to receive assistance paying for child care than any other group (74.7%) while Asians were least likely to access this help (17.4%). Latinos (55.8%) and Whites (63.3%) fell in the middle. Again, as noted above, the type of care used is related to subsidy use, and also is correlated with ethnicity, so care should be taken in interpreting these data. The age of the index child was also related to receiving assistance in paying for child care. Parents were more likely to be using subsidies for younger children age 0-5 (63.6%) than for older children age 6- 13 (38.5%), as is shown in Figure 18. The type of care used by parents also appears correlated to the use of subsidies, as is shown in Figure 19. Parents received assistance paying for licensed care in over three—quarters of those cases; 87.6% of those choosing family child-care homes used subsidies while 76.2% of parents choosing centers received assistance for these costs. However, less than half (43.5%) of parents using license—exempt providers for their children received pay— ment assistance. Finally, the type of CalWORKs activity a parent participated in was also related to the use of child—care subsi- dies, as Figure 20 demonstrates. It is not possible to know definitively whether access to FIGURE 20 CalWORKs Activity by Received Assistance Paying for Child Care 70%—/ 60%— (1) 50%— 8 a «€40%_ (l) g 30%— (1) CL 20%- 10%— 0%— Job Search Job Training SIP Substance English as a Working Other (n=269) (n=’192) (n=’l’|5) Abuse/ Mental Second Lang. (n=491) (n=54) Health/ (n=57) Domestic Abuse (n=62) 19 subsidies influences the choice of care, or whether the choice of care dictates whether subsidies are wanted or needed. The open—ended responses do give some insight into this. When asked the primary reason why they were not using a subsidy, over one-third of the parents (38.9%) responded that they did not have to pay for their child care. Another large group were not participating in eligible activities at the time of the survey, and some just did not want to use the subsidies. The top five aggregated responses appear in Table 5 (see Appendix C for details). Still, among the respondents who did not use child-care subsidies, over two—thirds (69.1%) did express interest in having CalWORKs pay for child care if they were eligible. It is not possible to know whether those respondents who did not pay for care but were interested in CalWORKs subsidies use providers who are eligible for payment via subsidies, even if they currently do not charge for care. Further study of this issue is needed. DiSCUSSiOfl When we developed this survey, there were a number of questions that we hoped to answer with our data. Among others, we wanted to know what kind of care parents in CalWORKs were choosing, why they chose the care they used, whether they used subsidies of any kind to pay for child care, and perhaps most importantly, why parents who were eligible for subsidies were not using them. The survey offers a glimpse into how some CalWORKs parents are making these decisions. As we noted earlier, the findings are not generalizable to the state as a whole, but rather provide a picture of what is happening in three coun— ties that represent some of the diverse communities around California. The data presented in this report offers some good news to state and county child—care planners who are concerned about the use of subsidies by CalWORKs participants. For the most part, parents in our study did know about CalWORKs child—care subsidies. 20 Moreover, many of those who were not using subsidies had child care providers who did not require payment. However, the story is a bit more complicated than this summary might indicate. For one, it is not possible to know whether parents would change their behavior and choices if different options were available to them. For example, would Vietnamese or Spanish— speaking parents choose to use licensed care more if there were more licensed providers who spoke their language and shared their cultural and ethnic heritage? Would this lead to greater subsidy utilization? If trust and safety are among the most important concerns, would an increase in the supply of licensed care affect their choice? Or would parents continue to choose family and friends? Given that CalWORKs parents are choosing exempt care in large numbers, should there be a focus on increased training for exempt care providers, or on getting these providers licensed? Also, while we asked parents whether they knew that CalWORKs would pay for child care, we didn’t ask how well they knew the rules of the system. Do these parents understand all of the rules regarding child—care subsidies, including that their license—exempt family members may be eligible to be paid by CalWORKs to take care of their children, if they meet certain criteria? Would these parents use subsidies more if they had a better understanding of how the system works? Unfor— tunately, we cannot answer these and similar questions with this research. This data does, however, begin to point out the next set of questions that state and local child—care planners may wish to explore. It also is difficult to uncover causal effects from the correlations we found. The influences on subsidy use and child-care selection among Vietnamese speakers are especially difficult to tease out. This population was comprised primarily of two—parent families. They lived in only two of the three counties that we studied, they didn’t use subsidies for the most part, and they used family—based care almost uniformly. It is hard to determine whether the child—care and subsidy choices made by these parents can be explained by factors such as language, marital status, ethnic identification, or community with the level of analysis conducted for this report. However, with additional analyses and different methods, the survey data that we collected may be able to answer some ofthese questions. We also found a relationship between income and the use of child care. However, the causal relationship between these factors is not clear. Does higher income lead to greater use of child care, or does the use of child care enable parents to find employment that pays better? PACE researchers are beginning to do this work. We expect that as we delve further into it, this survey data will provide us with an even richer and more complete understanding of the descriptive results presented in this report. ..—.....,..1.., . Endnotes ‘ One additional influence on our selection of counties is the statewide evaluation of the CalWORKs program. We made sure that the counties we studied were not involved directly in that evaluation, to avoid conflicting with that project, and potentially burdening CalWORKs participants with multiple surveys. 3 Kern County Social Services Agency CalWORKs Monthly Report, August 2001. 3 County of Santa Clara Social Services Agency, data on CW ES enrollees by ethnicity and language as of Iuly 31, 2001. 4 Refusal Rate 1 (REFI) is calculated with the following equation, REF1= R/((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + (UH + UO)) with I 2 Complete interview, P 2 Partial interview, R : Refusal and break—off, NC : Non-contact, O : Other, UH = Unknown if household/occupied, UO : Unknown, other. 5 Some of the percentages and totals reported in the text may look slightly different from those in the appendixes. In the findings presented in the text, the responses that fell into the “don’t know,” “missing” and “refused” categories were omitted from the calculations. These responses are reported in the frequencies in the appendixes. ‘ The population of index children does not mirror exactly the total population of children in the households we surveyed. However, we would not expect a perfect correspondence even with random sampling, as the children are unevenly distributed among families. Some might have four children and others only one, and this impacts what the final sample of index children looks like. The overall population of children in the families we surveyed were 555 under age 2, representing 13.8% of the total number, 1,051 ages 2-5, comprising 26.13%, and 2,416 age 6-13, making up 60.07%. 7 This was a multiple response category, and the total number of responses is over 100%. Around 5.5% of the respondents used both center care and kith 8t kin care. Kith and kin care refers to family members and friends. Kith and kin child care is often referred to as license— exempt care, although these individuals may possess a child care license but be choosing not to operate a home. Also, license—exempt care includes the use of individuals who are not necessarily family or friends of the parent. 3c Center/Head Start care includes school—based programs. Informal care includes park recreation programs, dropping the child at the library, and unsupervised after—school playground time. " This count includes multiple responses. Some parents reported using multiple providers. H)It is possible that some of these “welfare caseworkers” may be Resource & Referral staff who are co—located at a CalWORKs office; it is hard to confirm whether the respondent differentiated between them. 21 22 Appendix A: Letter of Recruitment and Interview Instrument In Engllsh {mm \mfiysis fer IE “s li’i‘wn is Emmi lien list Ci t3: Dear , I am writing to tell you about an important study being conducted by the University of California at Berkeley for the California Department of Social Services (CDSS). The purpose of the study is to learn about parents’ experiences with child care while participating in CalWORKs or after going off CalWORKs. Results from this study will help improve the CalWORKs program for working parents. For this study, you mget a call from Freeman, Sullivan & Co. (FSC), a research firm in San Francisco, asking you to participate in a 20-minute interview on the telephone. If you receive a call from FSC, this means that your name was chosen at random from a list of people who are or were in the CalWORKs program. Your decision to participate in this study is voluntary and will not affect your CalWORKs benefits. You may refuse to answer any questions you are not comfortable answering and you can stop the interview at any time. If you complete an interview, your responses will be kept confidential and will not be connected to your name. Your responses will be put together with the responses of others who complete an interview. Your responses will rm be shared with the county CalWORKs staff. To thank you for completing the interview, you will be paid $10 by FSC. Should you have any questions or concerns about this study, you may call Diane Hirshberg collect at (510) 642-7223. Sincerely, “757 “/f j r ii — 33/ R If W. If ....- {t (.94! ifim,kijm jg“ dim," .2 fl My xx; Bruce Fuller Diane Hirshberg Associate Professor Project Manager School of Education School of Education University of California at Berkeley University of California at Berkeley Para la version en Espanol, de le vuelta a la pagina. Cho mAu ti‘ocng viCEt xin gia qua m¥t sau. 23 Les estamos escribiendo para contarles de un estudio importante que esta conduciendo la Universidad de California Berkeley para el Departamento de Servicios Sociales de California (CDSS). El proposito de este estudio es para aprender de las experiencias de los padres en el cuidado de sus hijos mientras activamente participando en el programa CalWORKS. O despues de aver participado en CalWORKS. Los resultados de este estudio sirven para mejorar el programa CalWORKS para los padres trabajadores. Para esle estudio.es posible que recivan una llamada de parte de Freeman. Sullivan & Co. (FSC). una empresa de averiguacion ubiqada en San Francisco. que pedira su participacion en una entrevista por telefono que tardara 20 minutos. Si usted recive esta llamada de parte de FSC. esto quiere decir que su nombre l'ue selecionado entre personas cuyo activamente participan o participaron en el programa CalWORKS. Su Decision en participar en este estudio es de su voluntad, y no afectara sus beneficios de CalWORKS. Usted puede negar contestar qualqier pregunta que no se siema comodo contestando. y puede terminar la entrevista a cualqier momento. Si usted termina la enrrevista. sus respuestas seran completamente confidencial, y no estaran connectadas con su nombre. Sus respuestas seran colocadas con las respuestas de otros que terminen la entrevista. Sus respuestas no seran repartidas entre los funcionarios de CalWORKS. Para una muestra de gracias por terminar la entrevista usted sera pagado $10 por FSC. Si tiene preguntas or preoccupaciones acerca de este estudio, puede llamar a Diane Hirshberg. llamela A collectar (510) 642—7223. TroOong Nai'i Hoi'c California tai’i Berkeley fiang tham khafio moat cuoac nghiean coilu voa cuong quan troi'ng cho 860 X216 Hoai (The California Department of Social Services. CDSS). Mui‘c fifch cufia cuoac nghiean coiiu naay lao muoan tim hieau theam kinh nghieiim cufia nh'oong ba‘ac cha mei’ vea vie'ac gioo trefi ‘khi tham gia vaoo choong trinh CalWORKs hoae‘c sau khi khoang coon tham gia nooa. Nhoong kezit quafi too cuoac nghiean cofiu naoy seo giufip choong trinh CalWORKs more cafii thiean toat hon cho nhoong ba'ac cha mei' fiang lasbm vieac. Vao cho cuoac nghiean coiiu naoy. quyti vo coil thea nhaan mo‘at cuil fiiean thoai'i too Coang Ty Freeman, Sullivan & Co. (FSC). moat cofing ty chuyean vea nghiefin coilu tai’i San Francisco. se6 hofii quyii vo tham gia phofing vaan khoafing 20 phufit trean fiie’an thoai'i. Khi quytl vo nha‘cin more cufi niean thoa'i'i too FSC. fiieau fioii coir nghoa lao tean cufia quyil vo more choi’n moat cafich ngaau nhiean too danh safich cufia nhoong ngoooi trong choOng trinh CalWORKS. Soi‘ quyeét fionh tham gia vaoo cuo'ac nghiefin col‘Ju cufia quyi‘i vi) 1210 tiii' nguyean vao seo khoang bo afinh hoofing fiean quyean 161i vea CalWORKS. QuyL‘i vb coil thea too choai trafi 160i baat coir caau hofii naoo quyii vo khofmg x'ooa loong. vao coil their ngong cuoac phofing vaan bazit con luiic naao. Taat cafi caiic caau trafi 160i cufia quyii vo seo more gioo kin cuong nho seo khoang flooi'c tieat loa' voiii nhaan viean CalWORKS. Tean cufia quyil vo seo khoang adore nhaéc tom. Taat cafi cafic caau trafi 160i cufia nhoong ngééoi fiao tham doi' vavso cuoiic nghiefm cofiu naoy seo mare nhaap Chung la'i'i flea coil moat keat quafi tof'ing quafit. \ FSC xin ta'e'ng 10 no?) la fieii cafim tai‘ s'di' hoip taiic cufia quyil vo. \ \ Neau quyL‘l vo cou thaéc niaéc hoaéc coil caau hofii gi. xin vui loong liean lai'c bao Diane Hirshberg mi 5051 (510) 642-7223. 24 CDSS-PACE Child Care Planning Project Child Care Subsidy Interview 5/30/01 Intro1. Hello. My name is and I'm calling on behalf of the University of California at Berkeley. May I speak with ? (CalWORKs participant) 1. Yes 2. No IF PARTICIPANT IS NOT AT HOME: CB. What would be a good time to call back? IF PARTICIPANT IS AT HOME: INTR02. We are calling to ask you questions about your experience with the CalWORKs welfare program and about your child care arrangements. You may remember getting a letter from us recently. The information you provide will help improve the CalWORKs program for other parents. To thank you for completing the interview, you will be paid $10. Your name was chosen at random from a list of similar parents. Your decision to participate in this interview is voluntary and will not affect your CalWORKs benefits. Your responses will be kept confidential and will not be connected to your name. Your responses will never be shared with the county. You may refuse to answer any questions that you like and you can stop the interview at any time. INTRO3. The interview will take about 20 minutes. Is this a good time for you? 1. Yes 2. No (Thank participant and terminate interview) 3. No, not a good time (Schedule callback) INTRO 4. In which language would you like to be interviewed? 1. English 2. Spanish 3. Vietnamese 25 SCREENING QUESTIONS Before we begin the interview, we need to confirm the following information. 1. Have you ever participated in CalWORKs, or what used to be called the AFDC or GAIN program? 1. Yes 2. No (Sorry you are not eligible for the study. Thank you for your time). 8. Don’t Know (Sorry you are not eligible for the study. Thank you for your time). 9. Refused (Sorry you are not eligible for the study. Thank you for your time). 2. Do you have a child age 13 or younger? 1. Yes 2. No (Sorry you are not eligible for the study. Thank you for your time). 8. Don’t Know (Sorry you are not eligible for the study. Thank you for your time). 9. Refused (Sorry you are not eligible for the study. Thank you for your time). 3. Do you live in one of the following counties: Kern, Orange, or Santa Clara County? 1. Kern County 2. Orange County 3. Santa Clara County 4. None (Sorry you are not eligible for the study. Thank you for your time). 8. Don’t Know (Sorry you are not eligible for the study. Thank you for your time). 9. Refused (Sorry you are not eligible for the study. Thank you for your time). 4a. Are you now receiving cash aid or cash assistance from CalWORKs? 1. Yes (Go to Question #5) 2. No 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 4b. How many months has it been since you stopped receiving cash aid or cash assistance from CalWORKs? (Go to Question #5) 88. Don’t Know 99. Refused (Go to Question #5) 26 4c. Would you say: 1. Less than 3 months 2. 3 to 6 months 3. More than 6 months 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 5. Are you currently working and earning income? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused Direction: If respondent answered “no” to Question #4a and Question #5, then say “Sorry you are not eligible for the study. Thank you for your time. ” CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS Now we would like to ask about your child care arrangements. 6. How many of your children who live with you are: Age of child # of children Under 2 years old 2-5 years old 6-13 years old 14 years and older 88. Don’t Know (Those were all the questions I had. Thank you for your time. Go to #42 to confirm address) 99. Refused (Those were all the questions i had. Thank you for your time. Go to #42 to confirm address) 27 CA TI Randomly Selects Index Child Based on the total number of children in the household, the CA Tl system will pick one child at random by asking for the nth oldest child (e. g., “the 2nd oldest child”). This “index child” will be referred to in subsequent questions. Now, we would like to find out about the child care arrangements you used over the last 6 months for one of your children. 7a. What is the name of your ? 8. Don’t Know (Probe) 9. Refused (Probe) (Probe: It’s okay if you don’t want to give us a name. Let‘s just pick a name for the following questions.) 7b. How old is ? 88. Don’t Know 99. Refused 8. During the past 6 months, did anyone beside you regularly take care of 10 or more hours per week? (Probe: This can be any individual in your home or in their own home, including a parent, or in a family child care home or child care center.) 1. Yes 2. No (Go to Question #10) 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 9. In a typical week during the past six months, about how many hours per week did receive child care from these child care providers? (Go to Question #12) 88. Don’t Know 99. Refused 10. Would you like to use child care for ? 1. Yes 2. No (Go to Question #20) 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 28 11. What is preventing you from using child care for ? (Go to Question # 20) (multiple response) 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 12. Which of these following types of child care provider(s) did you use for in the past 6 months? (read responses, multiple response) 1. 2. Noumea» 8. 9. Family member (Go to Question #12a) Child care center, which includes church or other religious child care center, YMCA center (Go to Question #13) . A Family Child Care Home (FCCH) . Head Start/Early Head Start . School (Go to Question #12b) . Friend or other individual (Go to Question #120) . A sports team, club, or recreational park program, or supervised playground Sending the child to the public library_ Other (Go to Question #13) 10. N/A (child cares for self) 11. Don’t Know 12. Refused 12a. Which family member takes care of ? (read responses, multiple response) (Go to Question #13) . The child’s father/mother . Your current partner or spouse . The child’s older brother or sister . Grandparent . Another relative . Other (specify) . Don’t Know . Refused tommUW-AOON—‘I 12b. What type of school does attend? Is it a: (read responses, multiple response) (Go to Question #13) 1. Nursery school/pre—school 2. Extended day care program, before or after school care at the child’s school 3. Other (specify) 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 29 12c. Is this friend or individual who takes care of : (read responses, multiple response) (Go to Question #13) (FYI — It’s okay for providers to not have a license...) 1. An unlicensed provider in your home 2. A licensed provider in your home 3. An unlicensed provider in his/her own home 4. A licensed provider in his/her own home 5. Other (specify) 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 13. Do you or your family pay for child care for ? 1. Yes 2. No (Go to Question #16) 8. Don’t Know (Go to Question #16) 9. Refused (Go to Question #16) 14. How much do you or your family usually pay for child care per month for ? $ (Probe: You said...) 1. Per month 2. Per week 3.Perhour 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 15. Of that, is some portion a required co-payment? 1. Yes 2. No (Go to Question #16) 8. Don’t Know (Probe: Does the child care agency or your child care center require that you make a small payment for child care?) (Go to Question #16 ifprobe does not work) 9. Refused (Go to Question #7 6) 153. How much is your co-payment? $ (Probe: Is that...) 1. Per month 2. Per week 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 3O 16. Many families need help paying for child care. Have you received any kind of help paying for child care for over the last 6 months? 1. Yes 2. No (Go to Question #18) 8. Don’t Know (Go to Question #18) 9. Refused (Go to Question #18) 17. Who has provided this help? (read responses, multiple response) . CaIWORKs or GAIN . Head Start/Early Start Center . APP (Alternative Payment Program) . Before-lafter-school care . The child care center or agency provides it or pays for it . Child care is provided for or paid for by an employer . Child care is paid for by the other parent . Child care is paid for by my partner or spouse (not the other parent) . Child care is paid for by a relative 10. CaIWORKs community college child care 11. Religious organization/place of worship 12. Child care is traded for/exchanged/or bartered 13. Other (specify) 15. Don’t Know 16. Refused LOOOVCDO‘l-D-OJN—‘I 18. While you were receiving cash aid or cash assistance, what did the welfare office tell you about finding child care? (multiple response) (Probe: Is there anything else?) 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 19. What did the welfare office tell you about paying for child care? (multiple response) 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 31 CalWORKs CHILD CARE SUBSIDIES 20. Did you know that CalWORKs could help pay for your child care? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 21. Did you know that CalWORKs or may continue to pay for your child care for up to 2 years after you started working? 1. Yes 2. No 9. Refused If the respondent answered “no” to Questions #20 and #21, then if respondent uses Child care, go to Question #24, if not, go to Question #27 Based on response to Question #17, if respondent has used a CalWORKs child care subsidy or APP in the past 6 months, go to Question #23. 22. What are the primary reasons why CalWORKs is not paying‘for your child care? (multiple response) 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 23. How did you find out that CalWORKs would pay for your child care? (read responses, multiple response) . Your case worker . Child’s other parent . A relative or friend . Child care provider or . Employer/job training . Welfare rights advocacy group . Never found out you were eligible . CalWORKs/GAIN/AFDC orientation . Fliers sent to my home 10. Other (specify) 11. Don’t Know 12. Refused If respondent uses child care, go to Question #24, if not, go to Question #27 LOOONCDUI-PCONA 32 24. How did you find your current child care provider(s) for ? Was it through: (read responses, multiple response) 1 2 3 4. 5 6 9°.“ 9. 10. 11. 12. . A friend, relative, or co-worker . Your neighborhood . The place where you work (Go to Question #26) A school . A church, synagogue or other place of worship . A newspaper, phone book, a public bulletin board, a flyer, or other advertisement A toll-free number/a child care agency/ (Go to #25) The welfare office, a welfare caseworker, or eligibility worker Already know the child care provider . Other (specify) (Go to Question #26) Don’t Know Refused 25. How did you find out about the child care agency/? (multiple response) 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 26. What are the reasons you chose your current child care provider for ? You can give more than one reason if you would like (multiple response) (Probe: Why did you pick this child care provider?) 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 33 27. If you found out that you were still eligible for a CalWORKs child care subsidy, would you be interested in having CalWORKs pay for your child care? 1. Yes (Go to Question #28) 2. No 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused (Go to Question #28) 27a. Can you tell me why you would not be interested in having CalWORKs pay? (multiple response) 28. In the past year, did you find it hard to find or keep a job, go to school, or participate in training because you were unable to arrange child care? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused CalWORKs PARTICIPATION 29. Which of the following CalWORKs activities are you participating in? (read responses, multiple response) . Mental Health Services . English as a second language (ESL) . Domestic abuse services . Working (part-time or full-time) (Go to Questions #30 thru #34) - Other (SPeCIIY) } (Go to Questions #30 Job search activities Job training and vocational education . Self-Initiated Program (SIP) to earn an A.A./B.A. degree (Go to Questions . Substance abuse services I #30 and #34) cooowmmboorve 10. Don’t Know # 4 11. Refused and 3 ) 30. How many total months or years have you participated in CalWORKs? 1. Months 2. Years 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 34 31. What type of work are you doing? 7. Not working (Go to Question #35) 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 32. About how many hours do you work in a typical week? 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 33. What shift(s) do you usually work? (read responses, multiple response) 1. Days 2. Evenings 3. Nights 4. Weekends 5. Rotating/variable 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 34. What is your total monthly income before taxes? Please include salary, wages, tips, alimony, child support, and cash assistance. $ (Probe: Is that...) 1. Per hour (Go to Question #35) 2. Per week (Go to Question #35) 3. Per month (Go to Question #35) 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused (Go to Question #34a) CA T/ will calculate month/y earnings based on responses to Questions #34 using per hour and per week figures. 34a. Even a rough estimate would be helpful. Would you say that your total monthly income is: 1. Under $500 per month 2. $501—$1000 per month 3. $1001-$1500 per month 4. Over $1501 per month 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 35 ABOUT YOU l have a few final questions that will help us describe the people who completed this interview. 35. What is the highest grade in school you completed? Grade school or less Some junior high Junior high Some high school High school Some college 2—year college 4-year college . Other (specify) 10. Don’t Know 11. Refused OWNP’QPWNT‘ 36. What is your current marital status? Single—never married Single-living with a partner Married Separated Divorced Widowed Don’t Know Refused 999°979‘P9’N7‘ 37. To which of these groups do you belong? (multiple response, read responses) . African American or Black . . American Indian (GO to Quest/on #40) . Caucasian or White . Asian (Go to Question #373) . Latino or Hispanic (Go to Question #38) . Pacific Islander - Other (SpeC'W) (Go to Question #40) . Don’t Know . Refused llflbm\lO)U‘l-i>-CJOI’\)—A 36 37a. Are you: (multiple response, read responses) . Vietnamese (Go to Questions #39) . Chinese . Hmong .Japanese - Korean (Go to Question #40) . Laotian . Other (specify) . Don’t Know . Refused QQNOU‘I-tuwN-A 38. What language(s) do you speak at home? (Go to Question #41) 1. Only Spanish 2. Mostly Spanish 3. Both Spanish and English 4. Mostly English and some Spanish 5. Only English 6. Other (specify) 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 39. What language(s) do you speak at home? . Only Vietnamese . Mostly Vietnamese . Both Vietnamese and English . Mostly English and some Vietnamese . Only English . Other (specify) . Don’t Know . Refused LDmCDO'l-bOOKJ-A 40. How easy or difficult was it to read the materials given to you by the welfare office or your case worker? (read list) . Very easy . Somewhat easy . Somewhat difficult . Very difficult . Don’t Know . Refused (Om-hww—i 37 41. Do you have any additional comments you would like to make about your child care arrangements? In appreciation for completing this interview, we would like to offer you $10. But first I need to check your mailing address. Interviewer reads address to respondent. 42. Is this address correct? 1. Yes 2. No (fill in correct address below) 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused If respondent answered “yes” to Question #27, state “You mentioned that you might be interested in seeing whether Ca/WORKs would pay for your child care. Let me give you the toll- free number for your county.” THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR PARTICIPATING IN THIS INTERVIEW. 38 Appendix B: Telephone Interview Frequencies CDSS-PACE Child Care Planning Project Child Care Subsidy Interview County: Kern Cou 34.1% 40.4% Santa Clara 25.5% Total 100.0% SCREENING QUESTIONS 4a. Are you now receiving cash aid or cash assistance from CaIWORKs? Count Percen Yes 1724 87.3% No 249 12.6% Don’t Know 1 0.1% Total 1974 100.1% 4b. How many months has it been since you stopped receiving cash aid or cash assistance from CaIWORKs? Count Percentage Less than 3 months 107 43.1% 3 to 6 months 107 43.1% More than 6 months 34 13.7% Total 248 99.9% 5. Are you currently working and earning income? Count Percen Yes 1207 61 .1 % No 767 38.9% Total 1974 100.0% CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS Now we would like to ask about your child care arrangements. 6. How many of your children who live with you are: Under 2 ears old Count 0 1477 1 441 2 54 3 2 Total 2-5 ears old Percenta 57.3% 33.9% 7.6% 1.0% 4 0.1% 5 or more 0.1 % Total 100.0% 6-13 ears old 4 5 or more Total 14 years and older Percenta 70.1% 17.5% 8.6% 2.7% 4 0.9% 5 or more 0.2% Total 100.0% 40 CA Tl Randomly Selects Index Child Based on the total number of children in the household, the CA Tl system will pick one child at random by asking for the n’“ oldest child (e. g., “the 2”d oldest child”). This “index child” will be referred to in subsequent questions. Now, we would like to find out about the child care arrangements you used over the last 6 months for one of your children. 7b. How old is ? Count Percentage Under 2 170 8.7% 2-5 years old 477 24.3% 6—13 years old 1316 67.0% Total 1963 100.0% 8. During the past 6 months, did anyone beside you regularly take care of 10 or more hours per week? (Probe: This can be any individual in your home or in their own home, including a parent, or in a family child care home or child care center.) Yes No Total 9. In a typical week during the past six months, about how many hours per week did receive child care from these child care providers? Count 1250 721 1971 Pe 63.4% 36.6% 100.0% Count Percentage 0-10 172 14.7% 11-20 223 19.0% 21-30 189 16.1% 31—40 379 32.4% 41—50 150 12.8% 51+ 58 5.0% Total 1171 100.0% 10. Would you like to use child care for ? Count Percentage Yes 205 28.4% No 509 70.6% Don’t Know 7 1.0% Total 721 100.0% 41 11. What is preventing you from using child care for ? (Go to Question # 20) (multiple response) 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 12. Which of these following types of child care provider(s) did you use for in the past 6 months? (multiple response) N: 1253 Count Percentage of Percentage of Responses Cases Family member 837 59.3% 66.8% Child care center, which includes 174 12.3% 13.9% church or other religious child care center, YMCA center A Family Child Care Home (FCCH) 105 7.4% 8.4% Head Start/Early Head Start 19 1.3% 1.5% School 85 6.0% 6.8% Friend or other individual 151 10.7% 12.1% A sports team, club, or recreational 9 0.6% 0.7% park program, or supervised playground Sending the child to the public library 3 0.2% 0.2% Other 23 1.6% 1.8% N/A (child cares for self) 5 0.4% 0.4% Total 1411 99.8% 12a. Which family member takes care of ? (multiple response) (Go to Question #13) N: 837 Count Percentage of Percentage of Responses Cases The child’s father/mother 362 38.1% 43.2% Your current partner or spouse 24 2.5% 2.9% The child’s older brother or sister 111 11.7% 13.3% Grandparent 311 32.7% 37.2% Another relative 140 14.7% 16.7% Other (specify) 3 0.5% 0.4% Total 951 100.2% 42 12b. What type of school does attend? Is it a: (multiple response) (Go to Question #13) N= 84 Count Percentage of Percentage of Responses Cases Nursery school/pre-school 17 20.0% 20.2% Extended day care program, before 36 42.4% 42.9% or after school care at the child’s school Other (specify) 32 37.6% 38.1% Total 85 100.0% 12c. Is this friend or individual who takes care of : (multiple response) (Go to Question #13) N = 151 (FYI — It’s okay for providers to not have a license. . .) Count Percentage of Percentage of Responses Cases An unlicensed provider in your home 67 42.7% 44.4% A licensed provider in your home 9 5.7% 6.0% An unlicensed provider in his/her 53 33.8% 35.1% own home A licensed provider in his/her own 24 15.3% 15.9% home Other (specify) 4 2.5% 2.6% Total 157 100.0% Yes No Total Count 231 1006 1237 13. Do you or your family pay for child care for ? Percen 18.7% 81.3% 100.0% 14. How much do you or your family usually pay for child care per month for ? Count Pe 100 69 101— 46 31.7% 21.1% 34.4% 9.2% 3.7% 100.1% 1- 75 $501 - 1000 20 1000+ 8 Total 43 15. Of that, is some portion a required co-payment? Count Yes 52 No 178 Don’t Know 1 Total 231 15a. How much is your co-payment? 1- 100 101- 150 151- 200 1-$300 1+ Total 16. Many families need help paying for child care. Pe 22.5% 77.1% 0.4% 100.0% Pe 23.4% 29.8% 8.5% 17.0% 8.5% 12.8% 100.0% Have you received any kind of help paying for child care for over the last 6 months? Count Yes 597 No 641 Don’t Know 1 Total 1239 44 Pe 48.2% 51.7% 0.1% 100.0% 17. Who has provided this help? (multiple response) N = 596 Count Percentage of Percentage of Responses Cases CaIWORKs or GAIN 292 42.5% 49.0% Head Start/Early Start Center 4 0.6% 0.7% APP (Alternative Payment Program) 325 47.3% 54.5% Before-lafter-school care 5 0.7% 0.8% The child care center or agency 7 1.0% 1.2% provides it or pays for it Child care is provided for or paid for 0 0.0% 0.0% by an employer Child care is paid for by the other 0 0.0% 0.0% parent Child care is paid for by my partner or 0 0.0% 0.0% spouse (not the other parent) Child care is paid for by a relative 4 0.6% 0.7% CaIWORKs community college child 6 0.9% 1.0% care Religious organization/place of 1 0.1% 0.2% worship Child care is traded for/exchanged/or 0 0.0% 0.0% bartered Other (specify) 11 1.6% 1.8% Don’t Know 3 0.4% 0.5% Refused 29 4.2% 4.9% Total 687 99.9% 18. While you were receiving cash aid or cash assistance, what did the welfare office tell you about finding child care? (multiple response) (Probe: Is there anything else?) 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 19. What did the welfare office tell you about paying for child care? (multiple response) 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 45 CaIWORKs CHILD CARE SUBSIDIES 20. Did you know that CaIWORKs could help pay for your child care? Count Perce Yes 1262 84.9% No 211 14.2% Don’t Know 13 0.9% Total 1486 100.0% 21. Did you know that CaIWORKs or may continue to pay for your child care for up to 2 years after you started working? Count Percenta Yes 1218 61.8% No 753 38.2% Total 1971 100.0% If the respondent answered “no” to Questions #20 and #21, then if respondent uses child care, go to Question #24, if not, go to Question #27 Based on response to Question #17, if respondent has used a Ca/WORKs child care subsidy or APP in the past 6 months, go to Question #23. 22. What are the primary reasons why CaIWORKs is not paying for your child care? (multiple response) 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 46 23. How did you find out that CaIWORKs would pay for your child care? (read responses, multiple response) N = 600 Count Percentage of Percentage of Responses Cases Your case worker 395 56.1% 65.8% Child’s other parent 3 0.4% 0.5% A relative or friend 48 6.8% 8.0% Child care provider or APP 56 8.0% 9.3% Employer/job training 10 1 .4% 1.7% Welfare rights advocacy group 5 0.7% 0.8% Never found outyou were eligible 1 0.1% 0.2% CalWORKs/GAlN/AFDC orientation 79 11.2% 13.2% Fliers sent to my home 42 6.0% 7.0% Other (specify) 23 3.3% 3.8% Don’t Know 20 2.8% 3.3% Refused 22 3.1% 3.7% Total 704 99.9% If respondent uses Child care, go to Question #24, if not, go to Question #27 24. How did you find your current child care provider(s) for ? Was it through: (read responses, multiple response) N = 1238 Count Percentage of Percentage of Responses Cases A friend, relative, or co-worker 578 42.4% 46.7% Your neighborhood 60 4.4% 4.8% The place where you work 9 0.7% 0.7% A school 66 4.8% 5.3% A church, synagogue or other place 13 1.0% 1.0% of worship A newspaper, phone book, a public 40 2.9% 3.2% bulletin board, a flyer, or other advertisement A toll—free number/a child care 32 2.3% 2.6% agency The welfare office, a welfare 111 8.1% 9.0% caseworker, or eligibility worker Already know the child care provider 269 19.7% 21.7% Other (specify) 43 3.2% 3.5% Don’t Know 62 4.5% 5.0% Refused 81 5.9% 6.5% Total 1364 99.9% 47 25. How did you find out about the child care agency/? (multiple response) 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 26. What are the reasons you chose your current child care provider for ? You can give more than one reason if you would like (multiple response) (Probe: Why did you pick this child care provider?) 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 27. If you found out that you were still eligible for a CaIWORKs child care subsidy, would you be interested in having CalWORKs pay for your child care? Count Perce Yes 1506 76.4% No 408 20.7% Don’t Know 56 2.8% Total 1970 99.9% 27a. Can you tell me why you would not be interested in having CaIWORKs pay? (multiple response) 28. In the past year, did you find it hard to find or keep a job, go to school, or participate in training because you were unable to arrange child care? Count Percen Yes 738 37.7% NO 1219 62.3% Total 1957 100.0% 48 CalWORKs PARTICIPATION 29. Which of the following CalWORKs activities are you participating in? (multiple response) N = 1974 Count Percentage of Percentage of Responses Cases Job search activities 443 17.9% 22.4% Job training and vocational education 265 10.7% 13.4% Self-Initiated Program (SIP) to earn an 148 6.0% 7.5% A.A./B.A. degree Substance abuse services 8 0.3% 0.4% Mental Health Services 47 1.9% 2.4% English as a second language (ESL) 104 4.2% 5.3% Domestic abuse services 19 0.8% 1.0% Working (part-time or full-time) 629 25.4% 31.9% Other (specify) 106 4.3% 5.4% None 594 24.0% 30.1% Don’t Know 8 0.3% 0.4% Refused 103 4.1% 5.2% Total 2474 99.9% 30. How many total months or years have you participated in CalWORKs? Count Percentage 0-6 Months 1484 75.2% 7-12 Months 390 19.8% 13-24 Months 87 4.4% 25 and more Months 13 0.7% Total 1974 100.1 % 31. What type of work are you doing? 7. Not working (Go to Question #35) 8. Don’t Know 9. Refused 49 32. About how many hours do you work in a typical week? Count Percentage 0-10 Hours 28 4.5% 11-20 Hours 65 10.5% 21-30 Hours 89 14.3% 31-40 Hours 390 62.7% 41-50 Hours 38 6.1% 51 + Hours 12 1.9% Total 622 100.0% 33. What shift(s) do you usually work? (read responses, multiple response) N = 622 Count Percentage of Percentage of Responses Cases Days 457 60.1% 73.5% Evenings 86 11.3% 13.8% Nights 57 7.5% 9.2% Weekends 51 6.7% 8.2% Rotating/Variable 108 14.2% 17.4% Refused 1 0.1% 0.2% Total 760 99.9% 34. What is your total monthly income before taxes? Please include salary, wages, tips, alimony, child support, and cash assistance. Count Percentage Under $500 per month 344 18.8% $501—$1000 per month 741 40.5% $1001-$1500 per month 551 30.1% Over $1501 per month 195 10.6% Total 1831 100.0% 50 ABOUT YOU I have a few final questions that will help us describe the people who completed this interview. 35. What is the highest grade in school you completed? Count Percentage Grade school or less 183 9.3% Some junior high 135 6.8% Junior high 79 4.0% Some high school 427 21.6% High school 632 32.0% Some college 272 13.8% 2-year college 137 6.9% 4-year college 63 3.2% Other (specify) 36 1.8% Don’t Know 9 0.5% Refused 1 0.1% Total 1974 100.0% 36. What is your current marital status? Count Percentage Single-never married 593 30.0% Single-living with a partner 107 5.4% Married 805 40.8% Separated 209 10.6% Divorced 226 1 1.4% Widowed 33 1.7% Refused 1 0.1% Total 1974 100.0% 51 37. To which of these groups do you belong? (multiple response) N = 1974 Count Percentage of Percentage of Responses Cases African American or Black 154 7.6% 7.8% American Indian 55 2.7% 2.8% Caucasian or White 505 24.8% 25.6% Asian 641 31.5% 32.5% Latino or Hispanic 625 30.7% 31.7% Pacific Islander 32 1.6% 1.6% Other (specify) 14 0.7% 0.7% Don’t Know 2 0.1 % 0.1% Refused 8 0.4% 0.4% Total 2036 100.1% 37a. Are you: (multiple response) N = 640 Count Percentage of Percentage of Responses Cases Vietnamese 603 86.9% 94.2% Chinese 68 10.0% 10.6% Hmong 1 0.1% 0.1% Japanese 2 0.3% 0.3% Korean 0 0.0% 0.0% Laotian 3 0.4% 0.5% Other (specify) 17 2.4% 2.7% Total 694 100.1 % 38. What language(s) do you speak at home? (Go to Question #41) Count Percentage Only Spanish 91 14.8% Mostly Spanish 49 8.0% Both Spanish and English 182 29.6% Mostly English and some Spanish 113 18.4% Only English 179 29.1% Other (specify) 1 0.2% Total 615 100.1% 39. What language(s) do you speak at home? Count Percentage Only Vietnamese 438 77.4% Mostly Vietnamese 84 14.8% Both Vietnamese and English 18 3.2% Mostly English and some Vietnamese 5 0.9% Only English 2 0.4% Other (specify) 19 3.4% Total 566 100.1% 52 40. How easy or difficult was it to read the materials given to you by the welfare office or your case worker? Count Percentage Very easy 946 47.9% Somewhat easy 655 33.2% Somewhat difficult 226 11.4% Very difficult 112 5.7% Don’t Know 35 1.8% Total 1974 100.0% 41. Do you have any additional comments you would like to make about your child care arrangements? In appreciation for completing this interview, we would like to offer you $10. But first I need to check your mailing address. Interviewer reads address to respondent. 42. Is this address correct? Count Percentage Yes 1573 79.7% No 399 20.2% Refused 1 0.1 % Total 1974 100.0% LANG. In which language was the interview completed? Count Percentage English 1189 60.2% Spanish 176 8.9% Vietnamese 609 30.9% Total 1974 100.0% 53 Appendix C: Open-Ended Questions Index of Frequencles Table # Title 1 Preventing you from Using Child Care (Q11) 2 While Receiving Cash Aid/Assistance, what did the Welfare Office tell you aboutflndingChild Care (Q18) 3 What did Welfare Office tell you about Paying for Child Care (Q19) 4 Primary Reasons why CalWQRKs is not Paying for Child Care (Q22) 5 Reasons Chose Current Child Care Provider (Q26) 6 Why Not Interested in Having CalWQRKs Pay (Q27a) Table1: Preventing you from Using Child Care (Q11)* n=219 Code Count % of Cases Dees not need care 102 46.6% Cost/subsidy issues 27 12.3% Don’t know wherefhave time to find care/don‘t know 19 8.7% system Prefer to use other parent/partnerlreietivei‘chiid 16 7.3% Location/transportation issues 14 6.4% Availability (openings, hours, won‘t take aii chiidren. 14 6.4% won’t take certain eqes. taneuaee. soeciat needs) Wants to care for chiid themselves 10 4.6% Quality or trust issues 8 3.7% Now looking for child care provider 8 3.7% Other 28 12.8% Total 246 *Multiple response question. 54 Table 2: While Receiving Cash Aid/Assistance, what did the Welfare Office tell you about Finding Child Care (Q18)* n=1,184 Code Count % of Cases Case worker hetped me find care or get assistance 316 26.7% Told that CalWORKs would pay for chiid 252 21.3% care/specified ruies for reimbursement Given referrais to R&Rs 211 17.8% Given no informationfno hetp was offered 209 17.7% Did not neediwaot assistance/atready had a 148 12.5% provider at the time Given some information about child care 143 12.1% Told to find care themselves 128 10.8% informed that they could choose any type of care 120 10.1% Told did not qualify for assistance or needed to 44 3.7% have other familyfoarent care for chiid, or certain providers were denied System was difficult, had problems getting 27 2.3% assistance Referred to another agency or organization (not 17 1.4% R&Rl Given or understood incorrect information about 15 1.3% child care choice and subsidies Toid to look for a providet that took CalWORKs 12 1.0% vouchersicharged right amount Other 33 2.8% Don’t remember 29 2.4% Total 1,704 *Multiple response question. 55 Table 3: What did Welfare Office tell you about Paying for Child Care (Q19)* n=1,119 Code Count % of Cases They wouid help pay for my chiid care 361 32.3% They told me i needed to meet certain requirements 308 27.5% for a subsidy They toid me nothing 156 13.9% They referred me to an agency/AP program 104 9.3% Was toid about payment, oo-payment, time limits, 70 6.3% age iimits. stages, waiting fists Not interested in it/did not need/did not appiy/noi 56 5.0% eiigibie Was given specific information regarding who they 43 3.8% couid use as a provider Was denied payment/had probiems for various 36 3.2% reasons/too compiicatedfioo much paperwork Respondent was toid or understood incorrect 23 2.1% information/case worker did not expiain weii/had to ask about it Was toid to find cniid care first then go back to 16 1.4% weifare office to arrange payment Was toid CaiWORKs wiii not pay for spouse/parent 8 0.7% at home Respondent received heir) finding chiid care 7 0.6% Provider won’t take CaiWORKs 6 0.5% subsidies/reimborsement rates are too iow Other 20 1.8% Does not remember/does not know/did not pay 60 5.4% attention Total 1,274 *Multiple response question. 56 Table 4: Primary Reasons why CalWORKs is not Paying for Child Care (022)* n=1,146 Code Count % of Cases Don‘t have to pav for child care 444 38.7% is not workinoinot enrolled in sohootrott CalWORKs 249 21.7% Didn’t want it, did not appty 167 14.6% Wants to keep Child at home with family/doesn’t trust 91 7.9% others/special needs child Another program pays for child care {including APP, 82 7.2% CalWORKs) Bad experience 57 5.0% Did not know they were eligibler’know about 54 4.7% subsidies or how program works Tnouoht thev were not eligible tor various reasons 46 4.0% Has not found a provider 38 3.3% Unwilling to Change provider/provider not 35 3.1% etioibleiwon’t accept subsidv Paperwork issues 24 2.1 % Lanouaoe barrier 1 0.1% Don‘t know 48 4.2% Total 1,336 *Multiple response question. Table 5: Reasons Chose Current Child Care Provider (QZ6)* n=1,221 Code Count % of Cases Child care provider is a z‘eiativez’tamily member 497 40.7% Safetyz‘trust child care provider 394 32.3% Looationftransoortation 333 27.3% Quality of child care 240 19.7% Cares for own chitdz’doesn’t have a provider 99 8.1% rovider offeredfwitling/‘likes my children/Children léke 64 5.2% provider/nice atmosphere Cost of chitd care 59 4.8% Hours care is available 52 4.3% Child care provider took. alt of my Children/served 40 3.3% special needs/infants Onév/best provider availabte/no time to look 26 2.1% Languaoez’sooio—oultural background of provider 24 2.0% Provider needed the workfmonev 6 0.5% Other 63 5.2% Total 1,897 *Multiple response question. 57 Table 6: WhyMt Interested in Having CaIWORKs Pay (Q27a)* n=427 Code Count % of Cases Parent cares for child themselves 99 23.2% Other parent takes care of child 61 14.3% Child is too old for subsidy or for care/takes care of 48 11.2% self Does not need/Want a subsidy 40 9.4% Wants family member as provider 33 7.7% Does not need child care 30 7.0% Paperwork burden 23 5.4% Not working 23 5.4% Another promam pavs for child care 22 5.2% Special needs child/iack of infant care/ptobiems 21 4.9% finding care Bad experiencesiprobiems with program/don‘t want 18 4.2% countv invoived Earns enough to pay for care/too much for 18 4.2% subsidy/doesn‘t pav or pays very little Likes current providerfafraid to switch/concerned 12 2.8% about quality of those who take subsidies Problems with eligibiiity of provider, self, future 10 2.3% eiiqibiiitv concerns Didn’t know aboutfunderstand program 8 1.9% Subsidy inadeeuate 5 1.2% Not using subsidy so others who need it more can 4 0.9% haveit Language barrier 2 0.5% Othet 12 2.8% Total 489 *Multiple response question. 58 BRE KELEY LIBRARIE HIIllWWI HI H W} Cll‘l Policy Analysis for California Education PACE University of California, Berkeley and Stanford University 5655 Tolman Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 Telephone: (SlOl 642—7223 litto: paceberkeleyedu