|
May 2002
In your January 14, 2002 memorandum to us appointing us to the Childcare Advisory Committee you said, “The committee’s primary charge is to examine the need for and feasibility of on-site day care for dependent children and to present your recommendations to me by the end of the spring semester. I ask that as part of your work, you do the following:
1) Review how the University is currently providing support for students, staff and faculty who are parents;
2) Seek input from the broader campus community, including those who expressed interest in serving on the advisory committee;
3) Think creatively about the possibilities both for formal daycare and other ways in which the campus might perhaps more informally address some of the needs for childcare.
4) Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of such possibilities in terms of both financial and human resources.
5)
Taking into account financial and
practical matters, consider the question of the
quality of the program we could offer.”
We
are pleased to submit this report to you.
We believe you will find that we have
thoroughly addressed charges one (see pp. 5-8),
two (see pp. 9-13), and three (see pp. 3-5)
above.
Our meeting minutes, reporting our
deliberations, appear in Appendix 1.
We
recommend that our report be posted to the
University’s web site.
We have learned a great deal and believe
that interested faculty, staff, and students
will benefit from what we have learned.
We
would be pleased to meet with you at your
convenience, now, and/or at the beginning of the
fall semester (if you elect to continue the
committee through the 2002 fall semester, as we
are recommending).
Mirelle Cohen
Rob Hutchinson
Chris Cummins
Paul Monaghan
Carol Curtin
Ili Nagy
Julia French
Hillary Schenk
Rosa Beth Gibson
Terri Selvage
Recommendations
You
asked us to “think creatively about the
possibilities both for formal daycare and other
ways in which the campus might perhaps more
informally address some of the needs for
childcare.”
In response to your charge we submit the
following recommendations:
With respect to formal daycare, our
recommendation is that you (1) ask University
colleagues in Business Services, Financial
Services, and Human Resources to conduct over
the summer months a cost-benefit analysis of the
on-campus childcare models (described below) we
have developed as a result of our work during
the spring semester and (2) extend the life of
the ad hoc
committee through the 2002 fall semester.
We make this recommendation because the
cost-benefit analysis can be effectively and
efficiently completed by our staff colleagues in
Business Services, Financial Services and Human
Resources who are adept in such analyses.
We base our recommendation
primarily on the Puget Sound campus community
survey results (see p. 12) and on what we have
learned about childcare centers at other
colleges (see p. 16). Our preliminary assessment is
that there is a need for a childcare center on
campus and that such a center might be feasible.
We recommend that a cost-benefit analysis of the
following two models be conducted:
Model One
A. A licensed, self-funded University-operated childcare center
· enrolling fifty (50) children—21 children from twelve months through 29 months old and 29 children from 30 months to five years old (to Kindergarten);
· open to the outside community, with Puget Sound faculty, staff and students having enrollment priority;
· staffed with regular University employees and student staff members;
· located on or near campus in a University-owned building (preferably located away from residence halls);
·
eligible for
accreditation by the
National Association for the Education of Young
Children (NAEYC), which is nationally recognized
as a benchmark of quality; and
· generating additional revenue (beyond the childcare center enrollment fees) by conducting summer programs (e.g., day camps similar to those conducted at Colorado College).
Other institutions with operations similar to what we have described in this model include Boston College.
B. This version of Model One is the same as A; however, in this version infants are included. The fifty (50) children would be distributed as follows: eight children from one to eleven months old, fourteen children from twelve months through 29 months old and 28 children from 30 months to five years old (to Kindergarten). Other institutions with operations similar to what we have described in this model include Colorado College, Drew, and Skidmore.
Model Two
A. A licensed childcare center operated by a non-profit organization like Bates Vocational Technical School, the YMCA, or Multicare (listed in order of preference)
· enrolling fifty (50) children—21 children from twelve months through 29 months old and 29 children from 30 months to five years old (to Kindergarten);
· open to the outside community, with Puget Sound faculty, staff and students having enrollment priority;
· employing Puget Sound students;
· located on or near campus in a University-owned building (preferably located away from residence halls and academic buildings); and
· eligible for accreditation by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), which is nationally recognized as a benchmark of quality.
Other institutions with operations similar to what we have described in this model include Hamilton and Whitman.
B.
This version of Model Two is the same as
A; however, in this version infants are
included.
The fifty (50) children would be
distributed as follows:
eight children from one to eleven months
old, fourteen children from twelve months
through 29 months old and 28 children from 30
months to five years old (to Kindergarten).
Other institutions with operations
similar to what we have described in this model
include Franklin & Marshall and Trinity.
We recognize the need to
examine carefully and comprehensively the costs
associated with the different models that we
outlined above, which is why we propose that the
University use its internal resources to conduct
a cost-benefit analysis.
Utilizing internal resources enables
Puget Sound to determine how best to fit the
models into the University’s structure, both
financially and organizationally.
Once the cost-benefit analysis is complete, you
will be able to make a decision about whether or
not to continue Puget Sound’s childcare
deliberations and the extent to which additional
financial and organizational planning is
warranted. At that point you could present the
committee with a new set of directives to
continue its work.
With respect to informal ways in which the
campus might address some of the needs for
childcare:
1) We recommend that the Student Employment Office (SEO) expand the current childcare registration service (described on p. 5) such that students registering as available to provide childcare services identify times when they are available as they register and that availability data be updated each semester. While our SEO colleagues are in the best position to design an expanded service, our thinking is that parents using the service might receive an electronic version of an Excel spreadsheet, which they could then sort based on the availability information (days and times) students provided when they registered. Ideally a faculty member, staff member, student, or community member could log on to the SEO web site at any time to do a search for students who have registered to provide childcare who are available at the time(s) needed. At the end of the web search the parent would have the names and contact information for childcare workers most likely to be available. Such a service might be particularly valuable for parents whose children are sick and thus unable to go to their regular childcare facilities.
2) We recommend that Facilities Services add diaper changing stations to one men’s and one women’s restroom in each of these campus buildings: Wheelock Student Center, Jones Hall, Music, and the Fieldhouse. We recommend that the restrooms be signed as having such changing stations.
3) We recommend that Student Affairs add free parenting literature (e.g., Parents Monthly, Puget Sound Parent, Planned Parenthood information) to the free literature currently provided in Wheelock Student Center.
4) We recommend that Student Affairs provide easily-accessed resource information for students who are parents. This would be a listing both of resources available to them on campus and a directory of local agencies that can help student parents with issues such as finding childcare.
5) We recommend that Student Affairs explore the possibility of dedicating a room in the Diversity Center as a “mothers’ room” for nursing mothers, a space where women can sit comfortably to nurse their children or to use breast pumps.
6) We recommend that ASUPS and other student groups be encouraged to plan, advertise, and staff babysitting services to students, faculty, and staff members throughout the academic year for University-wide special events like Commencement, finals week, faculty meetings, etc.
7)
We recommend that the Wheelock Student
Center Board consider establishing a “children’s
corner” in the lounge in the northwest corner of
the building.
Such a “children’s corner” could be
furnished with child-size beanbag chairs, some
children’s books, and a few toys in a basket.
Review of Current Support
for Students, Staff and Faculty who are
Parents
Student
Affairs
Orientation leaders
provide childcare when a new student arrives
(usually a new transfer or non-traditionally
aged student) with a child for the orientation
session. Orientation leaders offer to provide
ad hoc
childcare in the Wheelock Student Center to
enable the mom or dad to attend the orientation
session.
Athletic
Facilities and Events
Athletics issues, on
request, a facility use pass to the children
over age sixteen of Puget Sound students,
faculty members and staff members.
Children under sixteen can use the
facilities, but only when accompanied by the
adult.
Children of Puget Sound students, faculty
members and staff members can attend athletic
events if they are with a student, faculty
member or staff member who shows a Puget Sound
identification card.
Library
Library cards are issued to enrolled
students, active faculty members, and active
staff members.
The Library does not issue children of
students their own cards, so if a child checks
out material on the parent’s card, the student
is responsible for late or lost materials.
However, the Library does provide
children of active faculty and staff their own
card.
The faculty or staff member must be
present at the time of acquiring the card.
Library practice is to
allow in-house use of the Library by children
who are under the supervision of an adult and by
middle and high school students who demonstrate
serious purpose (usually an assignment in hand
or an obvious interest being pursued) for using
Library resources.
The Information Commons requires a campus log
on. Library staff members can log on for someone
if they judge it appropriate.
The Arts
Most School of Music events are free to the
public (Symphony, String Orchestra, Wind
Ensemble, Band, Chorale, Jazz Band). Puget
Sound students with a current identification
card are given complimentary tickets to certain
School of Music events, such as the Jacobsen
concerts and faculty recitals. The general
ticket prices for other events, including the
Adelphian Christmas concert, are discounted for
students, senior citizens, faculty, and staff.
As a rule, Puget Sound does not encourage
children under age eight at music concerts, as
babies and very young children can create
disruption. If parents bring very young
children to music events, they may be encouraged
to sit in the back, if possible.
All theatre events require paid tickets for
everyone. The theatre productions are
often unsuitable for young children (parental
advisories are placed on the posters).
Student Employment Office (SEO) Services
SEO posts information about
available childcare jobs on the SEO job board.
Students can review the information and apply
for the jobs in which they are interested.
SEO also maintains an on-call list of students
who are interested in and available to do
childcare. Students can sign up to be
included on the list, which SEO provides to
interested employers.
Individuals seeking to hire students to do
childcare can either post the job information on
the job board or request a copy of SEO’s on-call
childcare list, and follow up with students
whose interests and availability match their
needs. To post job information or obtain a
copy of the childcare list, employers can call
SEO, stop by the SEO office, mail the job
information, or use a web form on the SEO site.
SEO mails, faxes, or emails the on-call list to
potential employers.
Students can visit SEO and
self refer to existing job openings posted on
the job board, and/or they can complete a form
to be included on the on-call list.
The number of students who are listed as
interested in providing childcare services
varies throughout the academic year and summer.
At the time we inquired about the SEO service
(spring 2002), there were 75 students on the
childcare list.
In addition to SEO’s regular direct mail communications with local employers, families learn of these services via the SEO website, by word-of-mouth, and periodic announcements in the Open Line. Often employers have used SEO’s services previously. Occasionally SEO has provided copies of the childcare lists to campus groups who have requested them. Families who use the SEO referral service come from the University community (faculty, staff and student parents) and from the Tacoma community.
SEO data on how many
families use the referral service is somewhat
limited. During the 2000-01 year, SEO
received approximately 190 requests for the
childcare on-call list. SEO does not have
data regarding how many childcare jobs were
posted on the job board (about 1500 jobs of all
types are posted on the board each year).
Students enjoy the flexible schedules of this
type of work, and the fact that many positions
are located close to campus and do not require a
car.
Employers provide feedback that they are
impressed with the quality of the applicants.
Many employers experience difficulties finding
students who can work the variable schedules
they need for childcare, and sometimes students
don’t reply promptly, or they don’t update their
contact information when it changes.
Working Solutions, Inc. (WSI) counselors who are
child/family experts provide comprehensive
domestic and international resources for the
care and education of children from birth to 18
years.
They also offer an array of information
and support for families.
Counselors provide personalized, verified
referrals, as well as extensive education,
consultation, and support. Resources for all of these
areas are also available through the Web site
LiveAndWorkWell.com.
The child/family counselor works with the
individual to understand his or her issues and
needs, and together they develop an action plan
with a timeline. If the individual needs a
referral or educational materials, the counselor
researches the issue and returns the information
with a schedule, date, and method that is
agreeable to the member. The counselor follows up with
the individual and is available to respond to
any subsequent call or online request for
assistance. The following paragraphs describe
some of the key components of the WSI
child/family program.
Verified Referrals that Match Member Needs
WSI verifies that each referral provided
explicitly matches the individual’s criteria,
including accessibility and cost, and that the
resource is currently available.
In addition to their own databases, WSI
has longstanding contractual relationships with
a network of resource and referral agencies
throughout the United States to ensure that
referrals are absolutely up-to-date and
accurate, and reflect “local knowledge.”
WSI provides referrals in the following
areas:
Child
care resources. WSI refers to a wide range
of child care options, including child care
centers, nanny services, au pair services, home
day care, babysitting, preschools, before and
after school programs, school break programs,
summer child care, emergency or sick child care,
respite care, and programs for children with
special needs.
Programs for children. These include
community resources, day and residential camps,
recreational activities, summer activities,
programs for teens, classes, and volunteer
opportunities.
Programs for parents.
These resources support all stages of
parenting. They include:
prenatal and childbirth classes and
services, lactation consultants and support,
postpartum groups, newborn issues, “moms day
out” programs, fathers’ programs, parents’
support groups, parent education classes,
support for parents of children with special
needs, recreational opportunities for families,
resources for single parents, relocation
assistance for families, and services for
parents of adolescents.
Resources for education.
These include home school associations,
kindergartens, private schools, alternative
schools, support for college searches and
applications, and assistance with classes and
adult education.
Some WSI child/family counselors have
specific expertise in education.
Online information for families with
children.
If the individual prefers, he or she can
utilize extensive information available on the
WSI web site.
For example, WSI has a Child Care Locator
of 120,000 child care facilities, including
extensive, up-to-date information.
Other Locators provide information
regarding camps, adoptions, schools (including
international schools), colleges, and
information for families regarding specific
communities.
Education and Advocacy
WSI educates individuals about the kinds of
resources that are available, and helps them
assess their value.
For example, WSI helps individuals learn
how to choose childcare that fits their needs,
and how to assess the quality of childcare
providers.
WSI provides written assessment
checklists tailored to specific kinds of
childcare providers and facilities.
All educational material that WSI
provides is specifically tailored to meet each
member’s needs.
Consultation regarding Parenting Issues
WSI’s consultation and problem solving services
are valuable to individuals concerned about
parenting issues and child development.
If discussions about parent/child issues
reveal a more serious family conflict, the
child/family counselor can refer the individual
to a network provider for a face-to-face visit,
and/or to the Working Solutions counseling
specialist for additional consultation by
phone.
During calendar year 2001
nine (9) faculty and staff members used the WSI
childcare referral service.
Working Solutions reports that the
general usage of their child/family resource and
referral is from 6% to 9% of the employee
population.
The nine cases at Puget Sound in 2001
represent between 1% and 2% of the employee
population.
Faculty and staff members who are eligible for the University’s Flexible Benefits Plan may use a dependent care personal expense account if they require day care services for certain dependents so they can work. If married, the faculty or staff member’s spouse must either be employed outside the home, disabled, or a full-time student. Eligible expenses are
1) Charges for the care of children aged twelve and under for whom the faculty or staff member claims a dependent exemption on his or her federal income tax return;
2) Charges for the care of children or adults of any age who are unable to care for themselves because of physical or mental disability. A person qualifying for this type of care must spend at least eight hours a day in the faculty or staff member’s home and must be the faculty or staff member’s dependent for federal income tax purposes. Nursing home expenses do not qualify.
Contributions to a
dependent care personal expense account are made
using University-provided flexible benefits
allowance dollars and/or dollars deducted from
the faculty or staff member’s salary on a
pre-tax basis (before Federal Income Tax and
Social Security taxes are applied).
The maximum allowable dependent care
personal expense account contribution is $5,000
per year.
Forty-nine (49) faculty and
staff members established dependent care
personal expense accounts in calendar year 2002.
Input from the Campus Community
On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, from 4 to 5 p.m., the committee hosted an open forum for students, faculty and staff. Approximately 40 people attended the open forum, including committee members. Committee member Rob Hutchinson facilitated the open forum, opening the discussion by presenting an array of childcare options (see Appendix 2). The committee’s objective for the forum was to listen to community members’ suggestions and concerns. Points and questions raised during the open forum included:
Academic
Departments and Professional Schools
Committee members invited
selected academic departments and professional
schools to identify ways in which their
curriculums, research agendas and academic
programs might be enhanced by an on-site
childcare center.
Occupational Therapy
(OT)
During the fall, OT students take a pediatric
occupational therapy class in which they learn
to administer pediatric assessments (i.e., an
infant movement screen, a preschool play scale,
and a motor assessment for young school-age
children). The students usually have to find
their own children from the community for this
lab experience. A childcare center on campus
could be a great source of children and parents
for this lab experience. Currently parents bring
their children to the OT/PT building,
participate in an interview, watch the
assessment and learn about their children’s
development. Everyone benefits--students,
parents, and children. Each year OT needs a
half-dozen infants, preschoolers, and young
school age children for these labs.
There could be other learning experiences for OT
students that the OT pediatric professor could
design with children from the childcare center,
such as demonstrating how to interact with young
children, how to join them in their play, how to
expand their developmental skills, etc.
Occupational therapists are very interested in
childhood occupations--the everyday activities
of children. There could be an assignment for OT
students to observe the children during their
daily routines at the childcare center (feeding,
sleeping, playing, etc.).
During the spring semester, OT has pediatric
clinics for children with special needs (e.g.,
Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, attention deficit
disorders).
Many of these children need opportunities
to interact with typically-developing peers.
With a childcare center on campus, there might
be opportunities for student therapists to
design activities that promote social
interaction between the typically-developing
children and children with special needs.
Many OT graduate students are interested in
special projects or thesis projects related to
children. Sometimes these projects require a
sample of children who are typically developing.
A campus childcare center might be a
great source of subjects. In other cases,
graduate students might be interested in
designing a childcare environment that promotes
healthy childhood occupations such as play,
self-care, and parent-child interactions.
Currently, there is a trend toward serving
children with special needs in their “natural
environments” (e.g., home, daycare settings,
community). There may be some state or federal
grants available to help fund a campus childcare
center, if there are opportunities for
occupational therapy students to learn more
about how children develop and function in their
natural environments.
OT faculty and students
might become involved in the planning of the
details of the actual physical arrangements of a
childcare center in order to maximize
accessibility, safety, and opportunities for
healthy “occupation.”
OT might also be involved in the
acquisition of materials for activities and
program planning, particularly if any children
or infants with disabilities were to come to the
center.
Developmental Psychology (273) and perhaps Introductory Psychology (101) would benefit directly from an on-site facility. Assuming parents were willing, children could come into classes periodically for demonstrations. Students might also be able to observe children for various reasons (e.g., looking at interactions between kids of different ages), and students might be able to have children participate in their own research (e.g., independent studies, psychology experiments in Experimental Methodology and Applied Statistics (201 and 301) and Psychological Testing and Measurement (371).
If departments began
including children in the facility for too many
experiments, class projects, etc., parents might
be offended and children might be harmed.
In addition to ensuring that
individual
projects or uses were ethically sound, Puget
Sound would have to determine that the overall
or
summative effect of using this facility were
not excessive.
If that were the case, the University
would have to restrict excessive use of the
facility for classroom benefit. Were the
Psychology Department to use a childcare center
for class-related experiments and exercises, the
department would need to work extensively with
the Institutional Research Board to ensure
informed consent.
It is unlikely that the
School of Education could use a childcare
facility in their academic program because the
school generally doesn’t work in the early
childhood arena. If the center provided extended
day-care (after school care for older kids), the
School of Education might benefit.
The School of Education generally works
within the classroom context, but might do a few
things with school-age children in a different
setting.
The committee conducted a
survey (see Appendix 3) of the entire University
of Puget Sound community in April. Questions were written to
solicit information about the need for childcare
now or in the near future, the current cost and
location of childcare for those who use it, what
is important to parents when selecting childcare
facilities, and whether or not they might use an
on-campus childcare facility if it were
available.
The survey was sent to all staff and
faculty in paper form, and the response rate was
about 54%.
Students received the survey in an
electronic format; their response rate was about
17%. The total number of surveys
returned from both groups was 835, or 24.5%.
Randy Nelson, Director of Institutional Research, told the committee that because of the low response rate, especially among students, the results should only be used as a general overview of the childcare situation among the Puget Sound community, not for the purposes of planning a new program. Some key findings:
· Twenty percent (20%) of staff/faculty and 3% of students currently use childcare. These numbers fluctuate slightly when people were asked about their possible future need for childcare, but will stay roughly the same for the next three years.
· The number of campus children who will be in childcare this fall is 139, and they will need care from 6 to 32 hours per week. The need for childcare continues in the summer, with fewer hours for young children needed, and more hours for school-age children.
· More campus members have their children cared for in their homes (either for free by a family member or by a paid care provider) than take them to childcare facilities (61 vs. 50).
· Reflecting the above finding, we found that 52 out of 147 children (35%) receive gratis childcare. Of those who do pay for childcare, fees vary quite dramatically depending on the age of the child and the length of time in care. The average cost, however, is about $125 per week.
· If we break down the children in our survey by age, we find that the 1 year olds and 5 year olds make up the largest age groups needing care right now (16 of each age), with the 2, 3 and 4 year old groups each having 11-12 children. 43 children are school age, from 5-13 years old.
· Safety, staff quality, enrichment activities, and cost were ranked in that order as the top factors that parents—both faculty/staff and students—look for when selecting a new childcare provider. Beyond that, a facility close to the university was ranked next (5th) by faculty/staff, and 7th by students.
·
If a safe, quality childcare
center were opened on campus in fall 2002,
parents of 28 children said they would
definitely use it, and another 58 children’s
parents would strongly consider using it (for a
total of 86).
Subtracting the school age children
(since our models do not include that age)
leaves 57 infants through preschoolers; without
infants, there are 41 toddlers and preschoolers
whose parents would definitely or strongly
consider using a campus facility.
While it is difficult to accurately generalize about, or thematically organize the numerous comments made on the survey, they were overwhelmingly positive. About eight in ten students, faculty, and staff who made comments went out of their way to convey their support for on-site childcare services at Puget Sound and mentioned its potential benefit for recruiting and retaining talented faculty, staff, and students. About two in ten made comments that were neutral or negative. Negative comments were generally around these themes: the University shouldn’t allocate limited resources to support childcare when other needs (most often mentioned was medical benefits) are not adequately addressed and the University shouldn’t support parents’ childcare needs in any way. Operational comments/suggestions included:
· Services beyond regular business hours, during breaks, during holiday periods, during summer months (year-round as opposed to academic year services)
· Pick-up and delivery services between the center and children’s schools
· Service for children who are ill
· Drop-in, hourly, or emergency childcare services
· Emphasis on services for children under school age
· Emphasis on outdoor, sport-related activities
· Employment opportunities for Puget Sound students
· Emphasis on exceeding minimum criteria for quality childcare
· Emphasis on high-quality childcare staff
· Self-supporting services
· Elliot House or another University-owned house as a childcare facility site
· Collaboration with academic programs
· Consider the noise children make when selecting location.
· Consider accepting kids receiving DSHS assistance
· Consider making grandparents and Puget Sound graduates eligible to enroll children
· ASUPS funding
· New Adventures daycare run by Multicare is considering partnership with other institutions
· UC Berkeley has a model program
Committee Research
Research conducted by the committee consisted of
two components—perusal of a wide range of
related literature and a survey of other higher
education institutions with childcare centers.
Literature Review (see
Bibliography)
Our research
determined that benefits of onsite childcare
include:
1.
a reduction in tardiness,
2.
a reduction in absenteeism,
3.
reduced distraction on the job, and
4.
an increase in job satisfaction (i.e.,
parents who are confident about their children's
child care arrangements report being more loyal
to their employers).
In other words, research
consistently shows that on-site childcare
reduces turnover rates and increases
productivity.
One professional association estimates
absenteeism caused by poor quality childcare
costs American business more than $3 billion a
year and that employers who help their employees
find good quality, affordable childcare enjoy a
distinct payoff in loyalty, productivity, and
profitability.
Further, the research on childcare
indicates that although some employees might be
unsupportive of on-site childcare because it
provides a benefit to a minority of employees,
in actuality, 88% of the labor force will become
parents at one point or another so this is
a
benefit, like retirement plans, that has the
potential to support the majority of the
workforce over the long run.
We also found that
childcare is provided at other liberal arts
institutions across the country.
A 1991 survey
of 553 colleges and universities who operate
on-site childcare centers provided the following
pertinent information:
In order for an institution to determine effectively a plan for childcare, it should determine whether there is sufficient demand. All the research recommended conducting a survey/needs assessment to determine:
However, on a cautionary
note viz a vis data collected in a
needs-based survey, one source noted that up to
60% of those who say
they are interested in on-site childcare
may
drop out before the center opens.
Once it has been determined that there is
sufficient demand for on-site childcare, a
number of practical considerations need to be
taken into account:
a.
Size: Most likely candidates for
onsite childcare programs are employers with at
least 750 employees.
There are other options for small
employers, such as a shared center in
cooperation with other nearby businesses, or
contracting with a childcare provider to run
onsite childcare and allowing outside
enrollment.
However, the minimum number of children
typically required for a successful onsite
program is 75. As a
general rule of thumb, spaces for 5% of the
labor force will fill.
b.
Space:
At least 35-50 square feet of
unencumbered floor
space is needed per child, preferably on
a first floor location, and 50-75 square feet of
external (outside) space.
c. Staffing Needs: In centers licensed for 13 or more children, licensees are required to conduct group activities within the following group size and staff-to-child ratio requirements;
AGE OF CHILDREN STAFF-CHILD
RATIO MIN GROUP SIZE
1 mo thru 11 mos
1:4
8
12 mos thru 29 mos
1:7
14
30 mos thru 5 yrs
1:10
20
5 yrs +
1:15
30
d.
Financial
Viability: Subsidies of $500-$1500 per child
per year plus subsidized rent/in-kind services
from the institution are usually required,
otherwise the cost of the service proves to be
prohibitive for most staff.
The “typical” childcare center costs
one-third of a million dollars per annum to
serve 65 children (just over $5,000 per child)
with 70% of the cost going to salaries.
Liability insurance is usually 1% of
total budget.
e.
Long-Term Planning:
It takes one to five
years to develop a center and between 18 months
and three years to fill to capacity.
When starting to plan for the center,
the first step is to attend a Department
of Social and Health Services (DSHS)
Licensing Orientation at the Division of
Child Care and Early Learning.
The Childcare Advisory
Committee created a survey to get information
from other colleges regarding their childcare
centers. We gathered information from the
following colleges:
· Adams State, Colorado
· Bates Technical College, Washington
· Boston College, Massachusetts
· Centralia College, Washington
· Clover Park Technical College, Washington
· Colorado College, Colorado
· Drew University, New Jersey
· The Evergreen State College, Washington
· Franklin & Marshall, Pennsylvania
· Gonzaga University, Washington
· Hamilton College, New York
· Skidmore College, New York
· Trinity College, Connecticut
·
Whitman College, Washington
More than half (57%) of the
colleges operate their own childcare centers
located on or near campus in college-provided
(building, utilities, maintenance, etc.) space.
Most of the colleges surveyed also had
the following departments that used the
childcare center in support of their curriculum:
Education, Sociology, Drama, Physical Education,
Psychology and Nursing. One college made non-paid
internships in the childcare center available to
students.
The childcare centers have
been operating between five and 27 years. The
campus community (faculty, staff and students)
has priority in the registration process, with
some colleges (22%) reserving four to six spaces
for the outside community.
An average of 35 children per day attend
the childcare centers with an average of 50
total enrollment.
Half of the childcare centers are
accredited.
Most of the centers serve children from
infants through preschoolers.
A few provide night or after-school care
for Kindergarten through elementary school
children.
Most of the centers are at
least partially subsidized by the
college/university. This subsidy ranges from
in-kind services, such as space, electricity and
janitorial help, to $30,000 per year subsidy in
addition to in-kind support.
We asked for feedback on
some of the problems these institutions have had
with campus childcare centers. These comments
included liability, safety of the children,
ensuring quality care, college subsidy costs
(including taking campus housing space for the
childcare center) and benefits for employees of
the childcare center. One college was forced to
separate the childcare center from the
university since the childcare center wages and
benefits were substantially lower.
The institutions had some
suggestions on creating a childcare center:
Have parents pre-pay for care.
Focus on high quality care by keeping
child to teacher ratios low.
Employ stable, well-paid and
well-educated staff. One college suggested that
if the number of children is low (37 – 50) then
contracting out might be a better option.
However, if the numbers are higher (70 –
140), then having a college-run childcare center
could be cost effective. Also having more
preschoolers and fewer infants is better. Fund
raising should be a high priority as it is
essential to the funding of a childcare center.
One interesting option for fund raising was to
have a summer day camp open to the community
(ages 6-10), the profits from which could offset
losses of running the center during the academic
year. An annual work party involving the parents
(grounds cleanup, interior painting, etc.) and
an unpaid internship program for students were
other suggestions for raising/saving funds.
Recruitment and retention
of faculty and staff were among the most
commonly-mentioned benefits of having a
childcare center on campus. Other benefits
included using the childcare center for better
turnout for alumni weekends, having scholarships
available to the childcare center for low-income
staff, and creating work-study jobs for students
at the childcare center.
Our recommended priority is conducting a cost-benefit analysis of onsite daycare. Regardless of the outcome of the cost-benefit analysis, there are other issues we recommend that the committee pursue in Fall 2002, including:
1. Sick Child Care: How might we deal with the issue of sick children? That’s seems to be one of the main reasons parents miss work—to stay home with sick children who can’t be at daycare. (We should investigate the City of Seattle Pediatric Home Care program, where the City arranges for a certified nursing assistant to provide in-home sick childcare.) This benefit has reduced employee sick leave usage and improved productivity (e.g. reductions in days absent). Also, the committee may want to contact Mary Bridge Children’s Hospital in Tacoma (or other Tacoma Hospitals) to determine whether they would be willing/able to offer such a program at Puget Sound.
2.
Revisit
Current Childcare Information and Referral
Services for Faculty and Staff: We should
further discuss questions raised regarding this
service—the extent to which faculty and staff
are aware of the service, the benefits received
in relation to the cost of the service, and
whether or not funds allocated for the service
could be better spent elsewhere.
3.
Investigate Clinton Tax Credits for Childcare:
We should investigate the legislation President
Clinton enacted that gives tax credits to
institutions that set up new centers.
4.
Investigate The Child Care Facility Fund:
This is a revolving loan fund (maximum
$25,000 loan), administered by the Office of
Trade and Economic Development within the
Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development. Currently, the Child Care Facility
Fund loans and grants are available to employers
who are developing or expanding child care
facilities for their employees’ children or to
childcare owners/operators who contract for
child care services with employers in Washington
state.
Any “business, organization or person
whose primary purpose is to provide child care
services” is eligible for the Child Care
Facility Fund loans to include purchase of land
or buildings to be used for a child care
facility [WAC 130-14-060].
Investigate Contributions to Community Resources:
Contributions to existing community childcare
centers (see Appendix 5) may be more cost
effective than operating an on-site childcare
program and may require fewer resources while
having significant tax benefits.
|
www.aaup.org
Statement of principles on family
responsibility and academic work, 5/01 |
|
www.brighthorizons.com Bright
Horizons Family Solutions is the world’s
leading provider of employer-sponsored
childcare, early education and work/life
solutions.
Conducting business in the United
States, Europe and the Pacific Rim, we have
created more employer-sponsored childcare
and early education programs than any other
organization and have helped hundreds of
companies implement work/life strategies.
Bright Horizons is the partner of choice for
more than 250 organizations, including more
than 75
Fortune 500 firms, many of the nation’s
leading hospitals and universities, as well
as a variety of government offices.
All of our more than 325 childcare
centers are designed to meet the standards
of excellence set by the National
Association for the Education of Young
Children (NAEYC). |
|
www.brynmawr.edu/Acads/Psych/csi/index.html
…/about/thorne_school.shtml |
|
www.careguide.com
Tools and info for locating and
evaluating local options for early education
and care |
|
www.ccw.org
Center
for the Child Care Workforce
working since 1978 to bring fair
wages to those who provide care to our
nation's millions of children. |
|
www.childcare.org/business/workplace-solutions-comparison.htm
Child Care Resources, comparison of
workplace child care solutions |
|
www.childcareaction.org./imemployer.html
Child Care Action Campaign, employer
resource for improving the workplace
|
|
www.chronicle.com
Chronicle of Higher Education.
The Backlash Against academic
Parents, 2/22/02.
Putting the AAUP's Family Friendly
Policies Into Practice, 1/28/02 |
|
www.cuphr.org
Effective HR Practices.
Recruitment & retention: Corporate
strategies that could work for colleges and
universities, Fall 2000 |
|
daycare.miningco.com/cs/workplacecare
Through About.com; statistics that
support the need and benefits of providing
daycare at the workplace; FAQs |
|
www.drew.edu/admin/depts/child_dev |
|
www.hewitt.com
Study Shows work/life benefits
continue to grow despite slowing economy,
4/23/01 |
|
www.hhs.gov/topics/childcare.html
US Dept. Health & Human Svs:
Administration for Children and
Families (Child Care Bureau) |
|
www.liveandworkwell.com
(UPS ID# 5391) Working Solutions/United
Behavioral Health, childcare consultation,
information, and referral services available
to faculty and staff members |
|
www.naccp.org
National Association of Child Care
Professionals
to improve, enhance and strengthen
the credibility of the people who lead the
child care industry by providing membership
services and benefits. |
|
nccic.org/ccpartnerships/toolkit/toc.htm
National Child Care Information
Center, toolkit template for engaging the
business community in finding child care
solutions |
|
www.nncc.org/EO/emp.options.html
The National Network for Child Care,
childcare options for employers |
|
nrc.uchsc.edu
National Resource Center for Health
and Safety in Child Care
|
|
www.dol.gov/dol/wb/childcare/ccguide.htm
Department of Labor Women's Bureau
Employer Child Care Options |
|
www.oted.wa.gov
Public hearing in Des Moines Feb 26
re the Child Care Facility Fund; loans and
grants available to employers developing
child care facilities for employees
children. See contact, below |
|
www.centerline.pdx.edu
Portland State University's
Oregon Center for Career Development
in Childhood Care and Education |
|
carbon.cudenver.edu/public/cwr/issues/CCarchives.htm
U. Colorado-Denver child care issues
archive |
|
www.upjohninst.org/publications/newsletter/jk_400.PDF
Upjohn Institute for Employment Research
Employment-Related Child Care Issues
doc |
|
Answers to the 10 most common questions about company child care center. The Human Resources Professional, Sept/Oct 1989 |
|
Bringing business to the table, a stakeholders’ round table involving business in systematic child care solutions. Claremont Graduate University School of Educational Studies project, Oct. 2000 |
|
Child Care Center Resource and Business Kit.
Provided by Working Solutions |
|
Childcare Information Exchange.
8th Annual status report on worksite
childcare, Sept. 1997.
Child care demographics: the cost of
center-based child care |
|
Creating a
childcare center.
Work & Family Connection, Inc. Trend
Report, June, 1997 |
|
Establishing
work-site child care centers: Basic steps
and considerations.
Compensation and Benefits Management,
Summer 1998 |
|
Gail Gosney,
Business Liaison, Small Business Resources,
Office of Trade and Economic Development,
128 – 10th Avenue SW, P.O. Box 42525,
Olympia, WA 98504-2525; (360) 725-4034; FAX
(360) 586-0873, gailcg@cted.wa.gov |
|
Inside Child Care.
NACCRRA report #4, May 1998. |
|
Is on-site childcare right for your
organization?
EBN, Oct. 1995 |
|
KinderCare materials |
|
Minimum Licensing Requirements for Child Day
Care Centers.
DSHS Jan. 1997. WAC 388-150 |
|
Not so friendly/Policy must be evenhanded.
Tacoma News Tribune, Mar. 31, 2002 |
|
On-site day care:
Good business. Tacoma News Tribune, October
2, 1997 |
|
US Department of Labor.
Meeting the needs of today's
workforce: childcare best practices, 1995-97 |
|
Who cares for the sick child?
CBS - The Early Show, Jan. 28, 2000 |
|
Who's minding the kids: A survey of college care service. Business Officer, May 1995 |
|
Working Solutions materials, including "All
About Childcare" guidebook |
|
Workplace day-care center--a costly onus
becomes a bonus.
Seattle P-I, October 3, 1997 |
|
Your taxes; Savings can be found in employee
benefits.
NYT Feb 17, 2002 |
1. Open Forum Overhead
2. Campus Survey Instrument, Results, and Comments
3. Surveys of Other Colleges with Childcare Centers
4. Minutes of Committee Meetings
5. Pierce County Summary
|
Characteristics of Respondents (Affiliation,
Live on Campus, Current Use of Childcare) |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Live on Campus |
|
|
Response |
|
|
|
|
Yes |
No |
Total* |
Population |
Rate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Faculty & Staff |
3 |
355 |
363 |
675 |
53.8% |
|
|
Faculty |
0 |
129 |
130 |
236 |
55.1% |
|
|
Staff |
3 |
226 |
230 |
439 |
52.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Students |
303 |
169 |
472 |
2736 |
17.3% |
|
|
Undergraduate |
302 |
152 |
454 |
2494 |
18.2% |
|
|
Graduate |
1 |
16 |
17 |
242 |
7.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
306 |
524 |
835 |
3411 |
24.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Note: Totals are larger than the sum of
'Yes' and 'No' due to respondents |
||||||
|
who did not identify their
affiliation. |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use |
Don't Use |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Childcare |
Childcare |
Total |
|
|
|
|
Faculty/Staff |
71 |
277 |
348 |
42.0% |
|
|
|
|
20.4% |
79.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student |
16 |
464 |
480 |
58.0% |
|
|
|
|
3.3% |
96.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
87 |
741 |
828 |
|
|
|
|
|
10.5% |
89.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comments of the Results from the Survey |
|
|
|
|||
|
If the faculty, staff and student
respondents were representative of all
faculty and staff, the number of |
||||||
|
children who might need child care could be
estimated using the results of the survey.
However,
it is |
||||||
|
reasonable to assume that people with
children were more likely to respond to the
survey than were |
||||||
|
people without child care needs.
In addition, the low response rate
for the students makes any
|
||||||
|
generalizations problematic.
Therefore, no attempt has been made
to estimate the number of |
||||||
|
children who might be served by a campus
childcare facility. |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Care should also be taken when interpreting
response counts.
As some of the respondents may |
||||||
|
share child raising responsibilities with
one another, some of the counts may reflect
the same |
||||||
|
household more than once.
Similarly, counts of responses to
certain questions disguise the fact |
||||||
|
that the respondent may be answering based
on the needs of several children (not just
one). |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other cautions: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Questions about childcare needs in
the future are based on speculation.
For example, the results |
||||||
|
from students show an increase in
childcare needs in several years, but will
these students still |
||||||
|
be enrolled (or did they ignore the
instructions to the question)? |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
Issues of programs, hours, and cost were not
addressed in the question asking whether
people enroll |
||||||
|
their children in a facility near
campus. |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given the short-comings of these data, the
results will not be adequate for the purpose
of planning a |
||||||
|
new program and should only be used for
obtaining a general overview. |
|
|||||
|
Do you anticipate you will use childcare in
the near future? |
|
|||
|
Responses |
|
|
|
|
|
Faculty/Staff |
Between Now and May 2003 |
Between May 2003 and May 2004 |
After May 2004 |
Total |
|
I will need to use childcare |
65 |
60 |
53 |
178 |
|
I may need to use childcare |
15 |
30 |
44 |
89 |
|
I will not need to use childcare |
245 |
231 |
219 |
695 |
|
Total |
325 |
321 |
316 |
962 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Students |
Between Now and May 2003 |
Between May 2003 and May 2004 |
After May 2004 |
Total |
|
I will need to use childcare |
17 |
10 |
17 |
44 |
|
I may need to use childcare |
7 |
12 |
52 |
71 |
|
I will not need to use childcare |
385 |
366 |
330 |
1081 |
|
Total |
409 |
388 |
399 |
1196 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Between Now and May 2003 |
Between May 2003 and May 2004 |
After May 2004 |
Total |
|
I will need to use childcare |
82 |
70 |
70 |
222 |
|
I may need to use childcare |
22 |
42 |
96 |
160 |
|
I will not need to use childcare |
630 |
597 |
549 |
1776 |
|
Total |
734 |
709 |
715 |
2158 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentages |
|
|
|
|
|
Faculty/Staff |
Between Now and May 2003 |
Between May 2003 and May 2004 |
After May 2004 |
Total |
|
I will need to use childcare |
20.0% |
18.7% |
16.8% |
18.5% |
|
I may need to use childcare |
4.6% |
9.3% |
13.9% |
9.3% |
|
I will not need to use childcare |
75.4% |
72.0% |
69.3% |
72.2% |
|
Total |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Students |
Between Now and May 2003 |
Between May 2003 and May 2004 |
After May 2004 |
Total |
|
I will need to use childcare |
4.2% |
2.6% |
4.3% |
3.7% |
|
I may need to use childcare |
1.7% |
3.1% |
13.0% |
5.9% |
|
I will not need to use childcare |
94.1% |
94.3% |
82.7% |
90.4% |
|
Total |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Between Now and May 2003 |
Between May 2003 and May 2004 |
After May 2004 |
Total |
|
I will need to use childcare |
11.2% |
9.9% |
9.8% |
10.3% |
|
I may need to use childcare |
3.0% |
5.9% |
13.4% |
7.4% |
|
I will not need to use childcare |
85.8% |
84.2% |
76.8% |
82.3% |
|
Total |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
How many children will need childcare during
the fall of 2002? |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Faculty/Staff |
Number of |
No. of Resp. |
Hours/week |
No. of Resp. |
Hours/week |
|
|
Children |
Acad Year |
Acad Year |
Summer |
Summer |
|
Infants |
15 |
11 |
27.7 |
10 |
20.7 |
|
Toddlers |
16 |
16 |
32.3 |
11 |
29.6 |
|
Preschoolers |
25 |
21 |
29.4 |
20 |
25.7 |
|
Kindergarteners |
14 |
10 |
17.9 |
9 |
28.6 |
|
Elem Schoolers |
38 |
30 |
11.7 |
25 |
30.3 |
|
Junior HSchoolers |
5 |
4 |
9.3 |
1 |
20.0 |
|
Total |
113 |
92 |
|
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Students |
Number of |
No. of Resp. |
Hours/week |
No. of Resp. |
Hours/week |
|
|
Children |
Acad Year |
Acad Year |
Summer |
Summer |
|
Infants |
3 |
2 |
25.0 |
1 |
20.0 |
|
Toddlers |
8 |
7 |
24.3 |
5 |
15.0 |
|
Preschoolers |
7 |
6 |
22.5 |
5 |
21.0 |
|
Kindergarteners |
3 |
2 |
42.5 |
2 |
32.5 |
|
Elem Schoolers |
4 |
3 |
6.3 |
1 |
5.0 |
|
Junior HSchoolers |
1 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Total |
26 |
20 |
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Number of |
No. of Resp. |
Hours/week |
No. of Resp. |
Hours/week |
|
|
Children |
Acad Year |
Acad Year |
Summer |
Summer |
|
Infants |
18 |
13 |
27.3 |
11 |
20.6 |
|
Toddlers |
24 |
23 |
29.9 |
16 |
25.1 |
|
Preschoolers |
32 |
27 |
27.9 |
25 |
24.8 |
|
Kindergarteners |
17 |
12 |
22.0 |
11 |
29.3 |
|
Elem Schoolers |
42 |
33 |
11.2 |
26 |
29.3 |
|
Junior HSchoolers |
6 |
4 |
9.3 |
1 |
20.0 |
|
Total |
139 |
112 |
|
90 |
|
|
Ages of children regularly provided
childcare and location of care |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
In Home |
In Home |
Not-for- |
For |
In Home |
In Home |
Not-for- |
For |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Age |
Free |
Paid |
Profit |
Profit |
Free |
Paid |
Profit |
Profit |
|
Fac/Staff |
Student |
Survey |
Pct |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fac/St # |
Fac/St # |
Fac/St # |
Fac/St # |
St. # |
St. # |
St. # |
St. # |
|
Total |
Total |
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
5 |
8 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
14 |
2 |
16 |
14.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
10 |
1 |
11 |
10.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
9 |
3 |
12 |
10.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
|
2 |
|
2 |
|
8 |
4 |
12 |
10.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
3 |
5 |
2 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
0 |
16 |
14.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
6 |
1 |
7 |
6.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||