‘HV 857 1993 ~ ' IGSL UCB How do parents adjust to scarce options in Santa Clara County? INSTHUTL 'CCVigNHENTAL Policy Analysis for California Education EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT INITIATIVE PAC E SANTA CLARA COUNTY COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP 2 :53 "r , s V .I 31w“? \ Waiting for Child Care How do parents adjust to scarce options in Santa Clara County? Casey Coonerty Tamsin Levy Policy Analysis for California Education forthe Santa Clara County Social Services Agency 1998 VI Policy Analysis for California Education PACE EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT INITIATIVE SANTA CLARA COUNTY COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP 174} , as . .,. ‘5;st g, ': .. u, ‘v _ e - 4. . ', . 1 H ‘ ‘i‘f \ § 3’ I! k? ' This report stems from the Growing Up in Poverty Project, funded in large part by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation’s Center for the Future of Children and by the HHS Child Care Bureau, Washington DC. Steady support from Marie Young and Pia Divine is enormously appreciated. Policy Analysis for California Education—PACE University of California, Berkeley ° Stanford University 3653 Tolman Hall 0 Berkeley, CA 94720—1670 Telephone: 510/642—7223 Web Site: http://www—gse.berkeley.edu/research/PACE/pace.html 53m? x #2:} 15in; m? _.;;:;:£.¢§; v ’ :§ .' ‘ ; W: ' h (53’ ‘3. , a. .15.: i ‘ 4 v ‘ ,.Xi_€, ‘ » . V, \ ¢ . (L. o “A ‘ g- ‘ “ *‘ ‘ fin,“ “32,: L? \ ; . ,. " v ‘ "y"_'».vv,’u. 1, st ‘1 . M n \. mfimfiqawm‘ 1m. w. ‘ : . §3§E§3ACE QV§RV§EW ENYERRNQ "fir-lg MfiKRKE? Assessing parents’ demand for child care giékfiRsXMENTQ’fi Wfigém’i iii} S§M§§LWY ENTRY TQ CfiiLSwfisfiié‘Qfi MfiRKETfi Learning more about child—care demand HfiW' WAS we W‘sfifi fiTEEEW' ETEESEQNEQ? MfidQR RNQiNQE’; Who are these parents? What did we discover about child care and work? What types of child care do parents prefer? Debate over informal care Secondary child—care arrangements Hours children spend in care Finding child care The financial burden for working poor families How do parents view child—care quality? How do parents adjust while waiting for subsidies? ££§§§£ii§§§€3§éf§ fia%§§§ fitffififfifi fisfifiéfifififi kaa $3? 33W ’ EE‘Sémmm 'M mm jfii’fl‘iz A“! "XV-M“: 'g'if'm'Eflfi wnmnagmms :‘fifii‘: Wm, a; ‘ WEED mi Emmy ’ mfimfi 'itrtafi gnEmWr m hfikm, m; “MM: w 51:3“qu " "E szfiiwm: NEE gzmmw didw 2:, EE 5 . w" E... Q in: :522 2:2 § 3H7} 1 WM; -‘ This ambitious survey of parents waiting for child care was led by Casey Coonerty and Tamsin Levy at the UC Berkeley PACE Center. They worked long hours, supervised a bevy of data collectors, and carefully crafted the report which follows. Their work will help Santa Clara County develop a more effective and fair way of connecting low—income and blue—collar parents to various child—care options. As this report so vividly reveals, getting on a waiting list for child care is simple. But the allocation of scarce day—care slots is hardly a quick or equitable process. Whether a family successfully receives a precious child-care space still depends on which waiting list their name appears. While waiting for aid, most parents are holding down a low—wage job and allocating a large portion oftheir take—home pay for child care. First and foremost, the authors wish to express appreciation to the 300 women who agreed to be interviewed about their personal lives, jobs, and social relationships. The statistical analysis that follows does not fully capture these lives and the rich stories told by these women, but it provides a start. Special thanks also are due to Nancy Cohen for helping to design the interview protocol. Four women at PACE spent their evenings and weekends placing calls to 1,800 families who appeared on waiting lists: Trina McAlister, Sharon Terman, Meline Toumani, and Suzanne Van Steenbergen. Their dedication to this project and their perseverance were remarkable. Staff at three major child-care organizations contributed time to assemble their waiting lists and voluntarily share this information. They included Barbara Kasnic at the Community Coordinated Child Development Council (4C5); Yolanda Garcia, county director of Head Start; and Vivian Cooper at Choices for Children. They also reviewed earlier drafts of this report. Their openness throughout this endeavor has been much appreciated. In addition, staff at 4C5 conducted the Vietnamese interviews. At PACE’S Berkeley office, Diana Smith and Elaine Chen ensured that the logistics and support for the project continued to flow. Spanish translations were done by Sharon Terman, Pablo Sandoval, and Luis Huerta. Bob Hass worked on the elegance of the authors’ prose, informed by reviews ofearlier drafts by Gerald Hayward and Fran Kipnis. Katherine Huffaker Jones developed the layout of the document. Robert Dillman and Ms. Smith drew the graphics. Kate Welty provided !im 565.3555. 215?)? if}: 1'. “Wail" , -/ aimwimwhm34551; 4 -h * T a 5‘“ » n1, .' ‘ ,2 , 33‘" MJWWW‘fi “9“)“ {4’1 35233555555.,5}w’i Ehi‘é? ; .025 55555:.- I". 1. 4 Q‘fiflxflhangariasimqyixfim; $25}§-'*5-,;5§51J£515W» .5. vv-‘Uv- n 5... $54. '. . w. .5 5- ‘. J 55:55:35": 3155.: x531?» 55mm? ‘ ‘; i! » I , 5 . ,5 W3? Wigsmnfi Nmm‘mqa‘» 1525543: #555555 «a ' ' 1 Miami: hmgam n: valaizfiéf'} hm fiffii: 551 515553? 5 " M5555? ariuijflxmm {1555555555 .wessfl m 5535.5555555m 5: ‘2: mp: . . 5 it“ $535; 43553551555555? WW} dfmf‘i :::'5*mu§“fé 351.51} Ema igwn‘wzif ' e 5‘ .3? {53‘ 5531:5215 wiyéimwh 5mm ”5’5 E23555; 225* new «5 5N5 ,5 f .5 \ ‘ "1‘sz fiatlfm‘ai fiaih’ hmwififlnxil Wmai "5» 5555*} § mmzfim f-* 55555.55: 355515 2 ‘ 5 Miuwmq‘qakw m?! .’?x‘3§5§*&3§3 ; a 1 («'53 555174?! “~39 5:5 5t: 54 *5 5 m i“; ,5 a 5:55- patient and helpful guidance on the local policy context in which family demand for child care was studied. PACE conducted the survey and data analysis independently. This very fact is a tribute to the Social Service Agency’s resolve to look at key pieces of the welfare reform puzzle with refreshing candor and a thirst for hard evidence. From PACE’s perspective, we deeply appreciate being able to collaborate with a partner that is so committed to making welfare reform work and to strengthening the county’s child- care infrastructure. This important effort was built on this shared commitment and cooperative spirit of our colleagues. Thank you all. Bruce Fuller Jolene Smith PACE Director Child Care Coordinator University of California, Berkeley Social Services Agency “ $3:qu 2:312:53, 1917?; 31):“? TL 3: Q .4 m ,hrxmimma “Em gm v 1;; it? m Wfl31flimu3‘n? an? _ fin“; 3mg?” Wig it“: {w "xx-m ‘ my“ he wlwip n. ,th w my"; In winter 1998, the PACE research center began a phone survey of low-income and blue—collar parents. Most were mothers who had signed—up on one of three child— care waiting lists maintained by different agencies within Santa Clara County. This survey was conducted at the request of the county’s Social Services Agency (SSA). Our immediate aim was to help the agency simplify and streamline the fragmented process by which parents attempt to find child care. This mandate is contained within the state’s welfare reform legislation that was approved by the legislature and governor in 1997. In addition, PACE and SSA initiated a four-year study to track CalWORKs parents who must find child care prior to entering the workforce. The present study allowed us to pilot test many interview questions. The survey began with the three major waiting lists maintained by Head Start, the 4C3 Council, and Choices for Children. Because the 4Cs list was by far the longest, we only selected those parents who had signed up within the past two years to make the consolidation process manageable. After consolidating all three lists, our work— ing file contained 5,238 names. We then randomly selected and interviewed 300 parents in depth about how they were coping while looking for work and waiting for a child-care slot. These women—often voiced in sharp and impatient tones—- told us much about these facets of their lives: ° The character and basic demographics of their households. ' Their worries over maintaining employment and searching for child care. ' How they searched for interim child—care while waiting for a subsidized slot. ° How they struggled to pay for child care, and how they perceived the quality of care. We begin by sketching the policy problem. Then we report on how these parents see their world and their limited child—care options. 1171111 111111 11111111 {1311311111 31111111111 531:1 3111 1::111'1' . 31’1"“.31NE5) 11111-1 1121211 1 ,L.v 1 1. a”? : QQQQQQ QQQQQQQQ Q“ QQQ Q: QQQ QQQQ: Child care and preschool programs in California grew slowly between the second world war and the mid—sixties. This steady yet incremental expansion occurred mainly through centers and preschools which were often extensions of public schools. Then, as millions of women with young children moved into jobs and professions, the child—care system grew rapidly and took many different forms. This came to include licensed family day-care homes and vouchers, allowing a diverse mix of parents to hire relatives and paid baby-sitters—supported by rising public subsidies. California was one of the first states to experiment with child—care vouchers. The intent was to respond quickly to the skyrocketing demand for child care, bypass bureaucracies, and widen parental choice. Since 1990 federal and state spending on child—care and preschool programs—with the important exception of Head Start and centers financed by the state department of education—has supported this market oriented approach, favoring the financing of child-care vouchers rather than building new centers. Sacramento now allocates almost $2 billion annually to local governments and community organizations for child—care and preschool programs. Over half of this allocation is awarded to parents in the form of seemingly portable vouchers. Within this policy context it becomes important to understand child—care waiting lists at the county level. Such lists represent the point ofentry for thousands oflow— income and blue-collar families who are trying to find a slot for their child, or a subsidy to help offset the high cost of care on the open market. Many middle—class families also sign—up on waiting lists as they attempt to penetrate the day—care market. But these families are often more successful in finding stable child care than are working—class and poor families. Over the past year in Santa Clara County, some child—care advocates have estimated that between 8,000 and 14,000 families have applied but continue to wait for child— care assistance. Most of these families earn less than $28,000 a year and therefore are eligible for financial aid. Indeed, without it these parents will be unable to meet the high cost of private care. Consequently they are likely to drop out of the labor force, remain on welfare, or simply be unable to hold down a job until their young child starts school at age five. Local policy makers, parents, and citizens in Santa Clara County should worry about waiting lists—the front door of the child—care market—for three reasons. First, the fragmentation of waiting lists means that child—care slots and subsidies are allocated haphazardly, depending on which list a parent happens to sign up. Currently three major agencies maintain separate waiting lists. This duplication of 33333 3m: :3 mum‘aqw ‘3 311334331 3. 3333 «333:3 333333315333 33333; 33 ' ,m. . ,.,: 3:33’3 03 33333» .3333 3333'.» ' 3153.3; ‘ ' . « :3" H 3333333 .2333 ‘33:: 33:33 3‘3 351%: 3' 523 2333 33333:: sin 3:.» {7333303333 «3333,31». ,3 ,.~?‘-.3~ “3‘26.“ 3‘: 93339333333. 35:33-33 .3 3'135'!’ ‘33 ‘32:; 33:33 ‘73:; . 3::3'331331-‘33313333‘13333 33»=;.3t:.:+*.:-;3§:3 .3; 3 3:33:33 3.33 33333333 ; «r! "3'3. 33133 3'? 5333333331 g;3:§3333: 3 233333323; (3': 12333:; a; u: (2;. .‘ v, . '3; mm. 33331333“? 43 33:33.;33‘ (3.3 3 “323333? 3953 Ti‘f‘és 3 .3: g 3 «3.33 33315333 333333 3313333312 : 2332 31133333333: : e: $313333“; 33333353 233‘: 3 2 ::-x. t: g. V g5? 33.3333 {33 ‘_..‘;3 3. '13 ‘ 301‘ ‘6 ‘3 . 3- 3 _ H . T :3“: 33m. , . \z\ '3 \rw; ~32; ‘3! \ ‘ ’7! . 1, . x .v 1 33 I‘ \ ‘ , ‘3}; ‘3 3 ‘ "‘-’- .- ,‘ 1.1,} i J #1 ‘9‘ ‘ ' i 5 ‘ 4 q a " ‘J . ,3 . . 3 J ! Y 3 ":3 . ‘3 3 3 o 7~ ‘ V 3 ‘3. . effort is costly for all three agencies and creates unwarranted confusion in the eyes of parents. Second, waiting lists are used frequently by local policy makers and the media as indicators of the need for child care. Yet they may overstate true demand if a large number of families sign—up on more than one list, or ifa sizable number of families secure child care but then do not request that their name be taken off the list. This was a major concern of the research team at the beginning of this study. Local policy makers know very little about how much or within which neighbor- hoods the demand for child care will grow. Key factors driving growth and demand include the rate ofjob growth and the extent to which welfare reform succeeds in moving more low—income parents into long-term jobs, not simply cutting the welfare rolls. If waiting lists can be consolidated and more effectively orga— nized, a single list would serve as a more accurate indicator of the need for additional child care. Third, by studying how parents respond while waiting for subsidized child care, we can strengthen the system more thoughtfully. For example, our survey reveals that many parents do find an informal child-care provider while they are waiting for a subsidy. In doing so, however, they end up paying out—of—pocket fees. This addi— tional financial burden reportedly disrupts their job search activities. Many parents also are waiting to win a slot in a preschool or center—based program, strongly believing that this option offers a richer educational setting for their young child. This helps to reveal their true preference for organized care, yielding a better under— standing of family demand patterns. Findings in all three of these areas can help guide local policy makers in reshaping the child—care system. Sacramento policy leaders might listen carefully to the voices of these working—poor parents, as well. In 1997 the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 1542, providing an ambi— tious blue—print for welfare reform. It also mandated that each county’s child—care planning council create a method for consolidating its various waiting lists.1 Legislators were concerned that multiple waiting lists contributed to parents’ con- fusion over how to find care and could lead to unfair allocation ofscarce slots. They also were worried that waiting list figures did not accurately reflect true demand for child care services. For example, a recent report in Santa Clara County stated that w. t ivm 1%? 3523335 37‘1”?“ a‘xgum, 3mm mi ‘.z.2zz§£ Wjafivv iiii'i”tiifi"¢' mi :gmmivi "5“? ’3 «mm 2:73:21 . M23 ,imgvstfiggsh ‘74: 33d} Mimi .i 1,4" 5»; i ,Hv‘i} Kiwi. ".1” £33 'E ”iii-33% *3»: ii Vi m; (‘4 W 3 5i . (.afiiiii é. ;‘§£;.;‘ , :.J\ ' - , ‘ ‘ t" , m H“; 'l ’ ,. I t ' ( "1m; 991W”? WNW: 2’ -; 1* . ‘ .. ' ‘ I j ° What is the quality and cost of care that parents are using as they wait for financial aid? ° What is the overall impact of waiting for subsidies on the lives of both parents and children? The first component of the study involved the consolidation of three waiting lists—one from each agency—into a master list. We received waiting lists from the Community Coordinated Child Development Council of Santa Clara County (4C3), the Head Start program, and Choices for Children.4 Unlike the other two agencies, 4C5 contributed names placed on their waiting list during the last two years. After consolidating the three lists, the new master list contained 5,238 names. Once duplicates were removed, only 4,810 names remained. See side box, “Elimi— nation of Duplicates,” on page 8. Our goal was to complete 300 parent interviews by drawing names from the consolidated waiting list.S We randomly sampled 800 names from the list. Due primarily to a high rate of disconnected or wrong phone numbers (52% ofall calls made), our initial sample of 800 proved too small to generate the 300 interviews needed. Consequently, we resampled 1,000 additional names, thereby creating a sample pool of 1,800 names in total.6 As an incentive to participate in the study, we offered each eligible parent $10 upon completion of the full interview. The first portion of the phone interview deter— mined whether or not the respondent fit the requirements of our study. To do so, the respondent had to have at least one child under the age of five, and she could not have received a subsidy for child care unless it began less than six months prior to the administration of the survey.7 Ifthe parent had more than one child under the age of five, our interviewer randomly selected one of her children. The selected child then became one focus of the survey. There were 96 parents who did not qualify for the full survey. In most cases this was because their children were now over the age of five. Participants answered a 30—minute phone survey consisting of structured and open—ended questions on a variety oftopics. These included questions on present child—care quality and cost, parental stress, demographics, and arrangements made by parents while they were waiting for childcare subsidies. Of the 300 completed interviews, 12 were conducted in Spanish and two were conducted in Vietnamese. Limitations in our capacity to fully pursue individuals from the waiting lists may 51:29.1. 1111;152:431; . 18:31:53 RE 511199.15" Eu. § 13:31! ; :1“ E 3d 153E131? kl {5E3 THEE: ‘3); ”Ex" 4 41} 3E 2163;121:1311; 1342;.“ 2 ‘ V 35-23315“: W ‘1: 111115» (E “152:: “3 M :51 w“: 11‘1‘3‘: :11.‘ E.‘ “- vi: ~ a}: “IBEEEIEE; :Ei‘mfiflfi’fl 3:3.» 1:: {:5 1: ' 1111;: n,“ V 12E? 1": 1:1. 15“ t :1: ‘ I f .1 , ‘ s 1”.“ ’1' -1 51111111511111.21111:13.:31111;11 ”(WEE 5115:5111? . -’ 1. 1’ z 1 «<1st 2.111115": M11131: 11111 52:: :EE .111:qu 1 1.: 1 5. w: ,. 1» = . , 111:1": :3E1M%3E3fi¥11 E111111111Em~~mr1mh 11551-251: 145:5: 1.1:; . : 1.»; (1.» '1' ,: , 1 E Efiiffl‘f’sf E“ "gaiwwé 5:31.315; 5 ”‘16:? E5: 1 E , E 2%}? .E E1“! ”1’ 2:" ‘V X ' 3 "4" 511% E15: “:1; 11:06: 521111.: 11 1-1:; m 5 ' " , ,, have created a bias in our results. If the phone numbers that were given to us were wrong numbers or nonworking numbers, we did not search further to make con- tact with these individuals. Therefore, the population participating in our survey over represents the most stable families appearing on the waiting lists. The discov- ery that these waiting lists are so out of date suggests that they are problematic indicators of unmet demand for child care. Our next step was to ascertain the demographic characteristics of sampled families appearing on our combined waiting list. Our findings indicate that the ethnic diversity ofrespondents mirrors the diversity within Santa Clara County as a whole (Figure 1). Approximately 89% of the 300 respondents are mothers, 7% are fathers, 4% are rand arents, and less than 1% are uardians or foster arents. The E P g P African American Asian/Pac Islander 5% Caucasian 29% ages of the respondents range from 17 to 65, with a median age of28. The median age of children in families surveyed is three years: 37% of the children are infants (ages 0—2), and the remaining 63% are over the age of two but younger than five. Although the majority of respondents (47%) gave birth to their first child between the ages of 19 and 24, one—third of all respondents first gave birth as teenagers (Figure 2).8 Ethnic background of participating families 3mm- K‘hiw 33-: 1Q?! ‘13"? 3' 1563 2:1 .' , L ‘ ‘V g ‘ , , L . a .x , {31g}; 1 f )g ‘45 .‘63' . LAN 5.“ r‘f’ . »,' ‘ ‘ ... ‘ \ ’ s l , ' T5211“)? diam Hrs: ‘ 1- _, ., . 153-13, ;'~.!imnx : g; . . , .4 . Age at which mother gave birth to first child Employment status of parents Forty-eight percent (48%) of the respondents have never been married, while another 26% are either divorced or separated. Therefore, 74% of the waiting list population are single parents. Among this group, 68% are currently working (Fig— ure 3). Note that these parents are working despite the fact that they have yet to receive child—care subsidies. A majority of respondents report a total family income of less than $20,000, with 36% claiming earnings of less than $10,000 (Figure 4). Most respondents have received some form of public assistance within the last two years. The programs most widely utilized include Medi-Cal, Food Stamps, AFDC, and WC (Figure 5). 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 13-18 19-24 25-30 31 or older 68% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Not Working Working ‘ m wéfix 9% P533336"! 49%: «wpwa “mu. .\ ,, ‘ “:4. mm . . , 1. muwu+mfiwmwmm m... “MAW,” w... LL: «; ’. . , gmsfizw'm *{ng ‘* am mag in __ , ‘W‘Ngmm x V.‘ .y' ,g z ‘ ' “ . ‘ x 33 - . in; ‘ ‘ f g - .3; E ‘3‘ 5‘ (i3 ; {‘H « ,“ ’ L h r - hue / .- V ‘ ~ ‘ V A < ‘ \ ‘ Wifi'iffij? Agni?!“ » .‘ .3! 5 g, N‘ ' ' ». , , i ' 5 HA Vi Y ’ y,” ‘3 i I "_4 1; fl {again-fiwiflé ,a H ; A .. ' ‘» 2- - h ; ~, a“ :1 _, A _ 2g "26113;: a” H 1;: ‘ , I ( .‘ ‘ mg) a) ‘ \ .) ’ ‘ iammfim 37"} ‘g'ji‘iidfligr "'5: w :5 '. )s 3‘ C43" .x. E I; ..._;.' r; we ’ g "V 2 ‘ .14 “my «M i ii} g} g 2113‘ \w‘ Number of child- care arrangements reported Hours per week in primary care arrangement ‘ 4 Arrangements 0.7% 3 Arrangements 2.4% 0 Arrangements 22.1% 2 Arrangements 17.7% 1 Arrangement 57.1% On average, children of these working—poor families spend a large portion of their week in their primary care arrangement. Approximately 45% of sampled parents have their children in care for more than 40 hours a week (Figure 9). An additional 22% are in primary care for 30 to 39 hours a week. The amount of time spent in the primary arrangement does not differ according to the type ofchild care. Fully 46% ofchildren in formal care attend for more than 40 hours a week, compared to 44% in informal care. 30% 20% 10% 0% 10—1 9 20-29 30—39 40—49 50 or hours hours hours hours more hours e § gas} ‘wzérv,,, . i ‘uzmm 'mi #4153313 a; _ . 2‘ ' . ’ , ‘ “wwwg, 4“, f ‘, ‘ i a \ . g Q . a v 'g‘ ., f} “x - « ‘ ‘ 7, ~ g _\ ,4 “+54. _ ‘ . 9... .~ w... .. . ‘ ~... sx When parents are searching for child care, two main routes are traveled to learn about child—care options. Social service agencies give referrals to parents seeking care and also offer information to encourage more informed choices. Forty—one percent of all parents reported that information on subsidies was received from a public agency, including schools and social services (Figure 10). However, only 4% of respondents found child—care subsidies through resource and referral agencies. Instead, most respondents used referrals from friends and relatives. Remember that all 300 parents had contact with a child-care agency—at least to get on a waiting list. But most parents actually found their child—care provider through informal networks. Other . 0 Information about 14.5%: . . . Y. chIId-care subsndles $“W. s h I Friend/relative fififigfiéfi. C 000 33 9% saw“: 66 A . g+o§3fiz$wfl¢g . 1, .43. - Advertisement ‘ m . ,, o swim"... 6.2%; : , g . . . M rrrwrwr ChllCl care rovuder i w i i g 7 007 . 0 Can’t recall 5 _ I _ R& R 4.0% ooa servnces 44% 23.3% The cost ofunsubsidized child care for people on waiting lists severely limits Choices for low-income families. Since 68% of respondents have an annual income ofless than $20,000, the need for inexpensive care is critical. The financial burden of child care is even more pronounced in Santa Clara County than in other areas of the state, since the county has a high cost of living. One recent report estimated that about one—third ofall jobs in Santa Clara County pay too little to keep a young single parent and child out of poverty.14 In our survey the median cost ofcare for one child per hour was $2.45. At this rate, a day of care costs $19.60 for working—poor parents, while a month (at eight hours a day, five days a week) costs just under $400. This equals over 40% of a pre—tax monthly salary for a minimum-wage worker. ”LWQ Mm: 3x18 (22,} 35A '1 a’yw 1m : -,.\.A = .. Mr» ,- H.) J r Y .1 o , v, A 5 J? ‘ Y r I ‘ , ‘ \whh .. 9. ¢ . v H :53: A i L 563 m‘ 5‘"); 12:44.) ‘ 'w A- ' ‘ ‘ x « . 3,» ‘ 1 i 2:: i‘ It, I ‘ ‘ a shim tiara egaaaiéiafi”? $40?” 44%;?” {:3 at” a3: 52.. ”a? :12 ““52 if? “:3 M xii @511: W 8’ gag ‘5; We asked respondents to judge the quality of their primary child—care arrangement by using letter grades. Over half (58%) give it an “A,” while the remainder (42%) give it lower grades. The lack of individual attention that children receive in their primary care arrange— ment may account for these mixed ratings. Among respondents, 47% say that their provider does not always give individual attention to their child, 27% say that the child receives individual attention often, and 18% say only sometimes. Regarding safety—another indicator of quality—a large majority of respondents say their children do feel safe and secure in their main child-care setting. Another portion of the survey asked respondents who, besides themselves, is most involved with their child. We call this person a “co-caregiver.”15 By measuring the relationship between the parent, co-caregiver, and child, we hoped to gain a glimpse into each parent’s support system and determine the quality of care within this informal relationship. Forty—four percent cited a relative as the person most involved with their child. Another 40% mentioned the child’s father (or mother) as the person most involved in the child’s life. This is notable given that only 26% are married. Respondents seem to be more satisfied with the quality of care provided by the co—caregiver than with their primary care arrangement: 64% indicated they were “completely happy” with the care from the co-caregiver, while another 26% were “very happy” with this close relationship. Waiting for child—care subsidies affects the lives of both parents and children—not only with regard to child—care quality but also in relation to work and family stress. Most respondents made some type of adjustment as they waited for a child—care subsidy (Figure 11). Cheaper care arrangements were sought by 140 respondents. In the work arena, 105 respondents (35%) worked longer hours to earn more in order to pay for child care, while 96 respondents cut back on their work hours in order to care for their own children. In addition, 82 respondents were unable to work at all because they felt that they could not afford child care while awaiting a subsidy. Among all respondents, 45% reported being late or missing at least one day of work or school in the last three months due to a problem with their child—care arrangement; 23% were late or missed two to three days; and 14% were late or missed four to six days. Just over two—thirds of all parents changed their child care while waiting (up T 330i3§ Ni 4"?“ M W. "23322222: 22:22:25. ;' i;"“9‘;i_ .2222 3:22;; :2 2 r 2' £22m.) 322222; 222 222 2.2 22 , 22; 222m2222m222mé5.22222 22:21:22 sbiwr‘: ? 22:2: 2. ' f .2522 Q'XW‘ 139”“: 31% 26b v2: ;. {a} < 2 2'2"; ti ”:2! 2 «2:22 W bat-Aim 22:, 22293. 55W} afifiififl wfifiw wwbfifim 25.2229:- Ewggmwiu 2:! a #222; if ‘ 2:22 :22; 2:222, .2 2.212 1/. to two years) for a subsidized spot. One—third of these respondents said this new provider was not of high quality compared to the earlier caregiver. 140 140 m 120 a) 3—: 100 E Li“.j 8O 8 so .8 E 40 3 Z 20 0 Worked Cutback Worked Unable Sought NO Split work more to cheaper Changes shifts hours hours work care made A majority of respondents (64%) felt that they received significant help as a parent from other kin members or friends, but the remaining share reported that “I’m alone as a parent.” Although 74% of respondents are single parents, many draw on a support system, and 82% say they are living with one or more adults. Even so, additional help does not always alleviate the stress ofparenting. Many respondents (34%) agreed that there are quite a few things which bother them about their lives, and a few (4%) strongly agreed with this statement (Figure 12). Only 17% of re- spondents strongly disagreed when asked whether there were “quite a few things which bothered them about their lives.” 45% 40°/o 30% 20°/o 10°/o 0°/o Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly agree Disagree iiégwe ”é? Adjustments made while waiting for subsidy Quite a few things bother me about my life rfii’fi'fiqgfiw 4 “2395 ii PW H Pub [41’ {I}: hit (3,33, .m «uranwam‘h-‘Mfl m U ‘ .N ‘ ‘J‘vvwn mw .» n”. 4.. ..,.‘ M} ,. .M. 4 - A . fl . . fiai'IM» .mmmw t w A a > u. k .» - ‘ aw.” I v' .. . ‘ "". v « ms$§s§f§s EsNQE '~ fifttif‘lfixi aaaram Our findings detail why the California legislature’s call for a county plan to consoli— date waiting lists is so important, both for parents and local policy makers. Presently the county has no clear and valid way for assessing the extent to which family demand for child—care exceeds available supply. And given parents’ concerns about quality, more work is required to understand their underlying preferences for their favored type of care. The robust growth in child—care vouchers is not yet responding to many parents’ reported preference for organized center-based care. At the same time the length ofwaiting lists leads to job instability and debilatating child—care bills for both low—income and blue—collar parents. Our study has focused mainly on parents’ experiences as they wait for child—care subsidies and less on the direct impact on children and their development. Further research should examine the difference between unsubsidized and subsidized care and the long—term effect of those arrangements on children’s early development and school readiness. Researchers also might look more closely at the impact of paren— tal stress on the quality ofcare in the child’s home environment, not to mention job instability experienced by parents. Our study focused solely upon the experiences of families with at least one child under the age of five. Yet school—age care also is crucial in enriching learning envi— ronments for older children. Before and after school care has been found to simply keep many school—age children out of trouble during non—school hours.16 It remains to be seen whether access to child—care information and subsidies will be effectively strengthened by key local agencies. On the most basic level, our study has shown that the experience of waiting for subsidies has a direct impact on the overall quality of life for parents and children. Without clear improvements, the ability of low—income parents to hold down a job will continue to be severely constrained. The daily lives of their young children will remain equally uncertain and insecure. Policy rhetoric persists about how the “market” of child—care providers, financed through organizational subsidies and vouchers, yields a rich array of child-care options and maxi— mizes parental choice. But when a working poor parent must pay almost half of her take—home pay for child care, this family has few real options. New federal and state child—care monies are now raining down on counties. But until better information becomes available to poor and blue—collar communities and the allocation of subsidies is streamlined, the magic of market remedies will remain illusory. Low—income parents and their children will suffer from the limited willingness of local agencies to serve families’ interests first. Lost work days will cut into the productivity of local firms. And taxpayers’ eagerness for effective welfare reform will go unanswered. In strengthening the county’s rickety child-care “system,” much is at stake. mg: \tx‘gf Eéflt‘timfia .“2 115* {1904) .‘N': Hid? {H‘s t’ 3 /\ _ / .wmffim” 'Kfi'w “‘er ‘1}:sz 'K:é;l“,u s‘sfi . {VJ-H9. .3... ,r. 3 .~ ' “rt; ‘ ; sq ,A X 1 ‘ , g _ ’ ._- :1" s gs,» .i 2 . 3r; , fisfiifi WWWN flaw?“ is; .: was: {-2, {:33 “W H am 3 s ‘ =33”va var 3' ., ,- t, W’HHQSW i‘térE‘Fffzfi inf-s: 7: s m « . < _~ , ‘ 3. w i a." i u A" » ‘H-‘I. : ' >933}; , “ , “ L» Q guy " jigsaw? .1 ,m 1 "sii' . W‘m‘flw 10. 11. 12. 15. 14. 15. 16. . California Department ofEducation, Child Development Division. 1998. Management Bulletin. Sacramento. . Working Partnerships USA. 1998. Growing Togetlzer or Drifting Apart? San Jose. . Children’s Defense Fund. 1997. Key Facts About Child Care and Early Education: A Briefing Boo/e. 1997. Washington, DC. We received 4,036 names from 4C8, 937 names from Choices for Children, and 265 names from Head Start. . 297 interviews were fully completed, while three interviews were partially completed. . The two samples were not weighted differently for the analysis. . 17 respondents received subsidies within the last six months. Of the 17 respondents, six changed child care after receiving their subsidy. This disqualified the child—care portion oftheir surveys because their arrangements had changed since their names were first placed on a waiting list. . This statistic refers only to sampled mothers. The 8% rate was found by eliminating duplicated persons on the list who had the same name, regardless of other differences in their identities (e.g. tele— phone numbers). Therefore, this percentage is a liberal estimate ofthe duplica- tion rate. The question pertained to what benefits respondents were receiving or had received in the last two years. Respondents had the opportunity to select more than one adjustment. Ellen Galinsky, Carollee Howes, and Susan Kontos. 1994. The Study ofEamily Child Care. New York: Work and Families Institute. Working Partnerships USA. 1998. Growing Together or DriftingApart? San Jose. Working Partnerships USA. 1998. In order to be considered a co—caregiver, the person had to be over 16 years of age. Children’s Defense Fund. 1997. Key Facts About C/ailtl Care and Early Educa— tion: A Briefing Book. Washington, DC. 3; unflnmwm Y? 3333 3333333333 3.3333333 "ZY ”ti“: 133$: b23351»;- 3.393333 3.333 33‘! 3. 3333:: (d £3fl3m¥ 333333 333-: "‘3 . . ., 3333333133 333333333333 333333;: «I ‘ ii 3: 3% 333g33333333m§ @3333 33333333333! 5‘33‘3‘3 4:? "33 : 33.333 3:3 H335“ \ 1'13? 30 23:3 :z-m‘: JJ ‘3‘“ (31%“ , .H‘iv ‘ VMW1 133333323 :J’VS $333,323.33 £3312 3: 333333333 53;. x 3333 .3 _: ‘H’. ‘V' , Sufi}; 13‘!“ ‘1313 \ ‘,_‘r‘3.‘9‘?(,}’>"3 3 3- i .3 5,331 . 33,“. , 3 “3 xxrmfij‘t" g.) '3 [3: 3,3; 3, 3 “3‘31“? - dfim‘ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE CLLCIEH? Policy Analysis for Califbrnia Education PACE University ()i‘(\:lliii‘(')l‘ni;i., Bvi‘kdcy ° Si‘uiiiin‘d i. iniwrsii’y M53 ”lblman H1111 ° Burlwlcig (IA 94720-1670 Ii‘L’lL‘PilUHL‘I 3 i ”/643‘7223 \‘V'cb Si {L‘Z hftp://W\\'w-—gsc.l’»c1‘l