LOS ANGELES COUNTY

PACE

Policy Analysis for California Education

lNSTlTUTE or GOVERNMENTAL
STLlDlFSLlRi21ARy

l i N

.VH.

UNlVERSlTY OF CALlFORN lA

University of California, Berkeley and Stanford University

1“ +m
: . " ‘
‘ “a;

V _ ﬁrms.
‘ ktei‘gig'i‘,
”N.

.11? ‘

.359:
‘ .
3

was

‘\
. u.» C
1,,
p17 [-3

RESEARCH SERES 08‘»?

Los Angeles County
Child Care Needs Assessment

March 2000

Brenda Ball Cuthbertson
Elizabeth Burr

Bruce Fuller

Diane Hirshberg

Peliw Analysis fm”
f V w i 9 ‘ ’ m t
, {.alzfmma R-ducatwn

PACE

Acknowledgements

This report is the result of a study conducted for the Los Angeles County
Department of Public Social Services. Invaluable assistance in developing the study
design and survey items were provided by members of the Los Angeles County
Child Care Planning Committee and staff from the ten child care resource and
referral agencies located in the county. Special thanks go to Kathleen Malaske—

Samu, Laura Escobedo, Mary Hruby and April Muranaka for assistance

throughout.

Policy Analysis for California Education — PACE
University of California, Berkeley 0 Stanford University
3653 Tolman Hall 0 Berkeley, CA 94720-1670

(510) 642-7223

URL: http://pace.berkeley.edu

Executive Summary

With an expanding economy and increasing numbers of CalWORKs participants moving
into the workforce, demand for child care in Los Angeles County will increase. Yet,
while earlier research pointed to a dearth of child care, there is little data on where child
care is needed within Los Angeles County, as well as little information on speciﬁc types
of care available like special needs care or care during non—traditional hours. In 1999, the
Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) contracted with Policy Analysis for
California Education (PACE) to conduct a study of the licensed child-care supply for all
children in the county. Via a survey of over 2000 child-care providers in Los Angeles

County, PACE was asked to determine the following:

1. How does the supply of licensed child care vary across the county? Are vacancy
rates lower or higher in certain communities?

2. How does the supply of child care vary across low-income communities with high
concentrations of welfare recipients?

3. Across the county, are there shortages in special types of care, such as non-traditional

hours care, subsidized care, ill child care, and care for children with special needs?

The survey data was analyzed at three levels: county-wide, Service Planning Areas
(SPAS) and Supervisorial Districts. The major ﬁndings of this study include the

following:

0 Overall, the supply of licensed child care in Los Angeles County is very low
when compared with the child population estimated to need care. There are fewer
than sixteen licensed child-care slots per 100 children age 0—12 estimated to need
care.

0 Licensed child-care capacity varies widely between SPAS. While there are
sufﬁcient slots to serve 18% of the total population age 0-12 in SPA 5, only 6%
can be served in SPA 7.

0 Care for both infants and school age children is in short supply, relative to care for

pre-school age children.

PACE

Despite low capacity numbers, there are vacancies throughout the county. The
availability of spaces varies by SPA; centers report vacancy rates of between 14%
and 20% by SPA, while in Family Child Care Homes (FCCHs) the vacancy rate is
between 19% and 26%.

A signiﬁcant number of centers report that space constraints and zoning
requirements are major barriers to expanding their services.

There is both good and bad news concerning child care for children with special
needs: most providers are able to care for children with mild special needs or
chronic conditions, but fewer are equipped to care for children with severe special

needs.

Very little care exists for ill children who are enrolled in centers, as compared to
those served by FCCHs.

Countywide, there is a high willingness to serve subsidized children.

Little care is available during non-traditional hours. Among providers who do
provide care at off hours, more F CCHs than centers offer ﬂexible-hour care:
countywide, drop-in care (3 0% total county-wide). Countywide 20% of centers
and homes offer evening care.

Centers are more likely than FCCHs to provide care in languages other than

English.

PACE

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

Introduction

Overview: Child Care in a Changing Labor Market
The Issues: Growing Demand and Poor Data
Demand Issues

School Readiness and Quality

Central Questions

County Demographics

Methodology

Main Findings

Capacity and Demand

Determining Capacity

Estimating Demand

Infant and School Age Capacity

Preschool Capacity

Vacancies: Sufﬁcient Supply, Costs or Quality?

Special Types of Care
Non—Traditional Hours Care
Subsidized Care

111 Child Care

Children with Special Needs

Language

Barriers to Expansion

Overall Expansion

Special Needs Barriers

Barriers to Care During Non-Traditional Hours

Summary and Recommendations

Capacity

Barriers to Expansion

Vacancies

Supply and Vacancy Rate Data Issues

Special Types of Care
Non-Traditional Hours Care
Child Care Subsidies
111 Child Care
Care for Children With Special Needs
Transportation

Languages

Quality Issues

Future Research

Final Thoughts

Endnotes

Selected Appendices

PACE.

WQONMAWNi—‘H

¥V

I PACE

I. Introduction

Overview: Child Care in a Changing Labor Market

In 1996, the California State Legislature passed the California Work Opportunity and
Responsibility to Kids Act (CalWORKs). The state’s plan for implementing the new
federal welfare mandate Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), CalWORKs
completely altered the nature of welfare programs in the state. It emphasizes moving
welfare recipients off of aid and into the workforce, and places responsibility for
operating programs to meet this goal on county welfare agencies. It also provides
funding to cover child care, transportation, supportive services (e.g., domestic violence,
substance abuse, and mental‘health services) and other costs associated with re-entering
the workforce. Even as CalWORKs was being implemented, California’s economy
began booming. Unemployment has dropped as thousands of new jobs have been

created.

With increasing numbers of former CalWORKs participants moving into the workforce
and new workers relocating to California, the size of the state’s workforce is increasing
rapidly. There is concern that the supply of child care in many communities is
inadequate to meet the growing demand created by these changes. In Los Angeles
County, earlier research indicated that the total number of licensed child-care slots is not
adequate to meet the needs of working parents in the county.1 While illuminating the
overall shortage of care, however, this data did not identify areas within the county where

the existing supply is either sufﬁcient or especially inadequate.

Recognizing this problem, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services
(DPSS) contracted with PACE to conduct a study of the supply of licensed child care in
Los Angeles. Via a telephone survey of over 2000 child-care providers, this project
explored not only the overall availability of care, but also important issues like access to
care during non-traditional hours, the numbers of providers who speak languages other
than English, the availability of care for ill or special needs children, accessibility to

transportation and barriers to expanding the supply.

Z’ACE

m§t

This report presents the ﬁndings of this study. The results are intended to help the Board

of Supervisors and county child-care planners by accomplishing the following:

0 Establishing baseline information on the supply of licensed child care in the county;
0 Creating a deeper understanding of how existing child-care services do or do not meet
the needs of children and families in Los Angeles; and

0 Determining where to target child-care expansion efforts and new facilities.

The report is organized into six sections, followed by extensive technical appendixes.
The introduction sets the stage by identifying reasons behind the rising demand for child
care and providing county demographics. A brief overview of this study’s ﬁndings is
offered as well. The next three chapters delve into the countywide results of the survey,
including vacancy rates and capacity; after-hours care; care for sick children, and
language information. Barriers to expanding the supply of licensed child-care, such as
stafﬁng shortages, lack of facilities, and funding, are discussed next. Finally, a summary
of the study’s ﬁndings and recommendations for where and how to target expansion

funds are presented in the concluding chapter.

This study does not address the supply of license-exempt care in Los Angeles County.
There is a considerable amount of care available in license-exempt group settings, but as
of yet there is no reliable data on the total supply. The amount of care provided by
license-exempt individuals throughout the county is also unknown and difﬁcult to

assess.2

The Issues: Growing Demand and Poor Data

The shortage of child care in Los Angeles is among the most severe in California.3 Prior
research indicates that parents in the county are half as likely to ﬁnd licensed child care
spaces for their youngsters as are parents in Northern California.4 Earlier studies also
found that per capita supply is variable across neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Parents in
afﬂuent areas enjoy a greater array of choices than do parents in low—income
neighborhoods. These studies determined that infant care. school age care. and non-

traditional hours care are in particularly short supply.5

2 PACE

Little is known about where vacancies exist and where expansion is most needed within
the county. Part of this is due to conﬂicting capacity data: two separate entities, the
California Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division (CCLD)
and the ten child care Resource & Referral agencies in the county (R&Rs) each maintain
separate databases of child-care providers. These databases are neither linked nor
regularly reconciled, and while the CCLD data tends to over—report the supply of licensed
care. R&R databases tend to undercount the amount available. This study began with a
systematic reconciliation of these databases, in order to develop more accurate data on
the overall number of licensed child-care slots (see Appendix 7). However, this was not
sufﬁcient for understanding supply. Even when there is good data on the total number of
licensed care slots, it does not necessarily represent the actual amount of care available.
Many providers prefer to care for fewer children than they are licensed to serve. This
analysis looks at these issues: not only does it report on simple capacity numbers, it also
looks at “shadow capacity,” that is, how many children providers prefer to serve, as

opposed to simply the licensed capacity (see Appendix 2).

Demand Issues
Increased Need for Child Care . .
Still, while thls study prov1des

Rising Births improved supply data, the demand
Welfare Reform _ , .
Greater Maternal Labor Force Participation for llcensed Chlld care remalns
SChOOl Readiness unclear. Differing parental

preferences and scarce child-care

supply in some neighborhoods make it difﬁcult to determine whether parents with young

children would utilize licensed child-care slots if they were available.

Indeed, the forces that inﬂuence the child—care market are numerous, complex and often
difﬁcult to determine. Economic theory dictates that in a market economy, the supply of
care is inﬂuenced by how much parents are willing or able to pay for care. Providers
have to earn a minimum amount simply to remain in the market; if parents are willing to
pay more, then the supply should increase. If the price becomes too high, then there will
be more slots than parents Willing to pay for them. Likewise, the demand for licensed
child care is impacted by the cost of care. If the cost is lower, more parents will demand

care, and a shortage will ensue. Even in this over-simpliﬁed model, it becomes evident

PACE 3

that subsidies for low-income parents can impact the child-care market; parents who
previously could not afford licensed care will place new demands for care on the market.

At the same time, the level of the subsidy may determine the care parents can afford.

The simple market equilibrium model described above does not account for differences in
the quality of care provided, which also impact the price providers can charge and parents
will pay. Higher quality care is generally more expensive, and parents are usually willing
to pay more for it, to a point. At the same time, parents are often unwilling to purchase
care below a certain quality, regardless of the low cost. The amount of child-care
subsidies also may impact these choices; if subsidies are not high enough, a parent may
not be able to utilize the care they prefer. Finally, the market model breaks down when
there are barriers to information. If parents do not know that providers have slots
available, or providers do not know that parents are seeking care, then there may be
imbalances in the market. A precise determination of the demand for licensed care in Los
Angeles County is beyond the scope of this study. Still, where possible, this report

addresses demand issues in light of the ﬁndings on the supply of care in Los Angeles.6

Even though the exact demand for child care is unknown. there are many indicators of a
growing need for licensed child-care slots in Los Angeles. First, the child population is
increasing. The annual number of births rose from 134,858 in 1982 to 150,449 in 1997.
and in-migration to the region is continuing.7 Second, welfare reform is creating a need
for more care, as many mothers move into the workforce for the ﬁrst time. These
mothers are eligible to receive child-care subsidies for the duration of their stay on
CalWORKs so long as they are engaged in appropriate work or educational activities.
These subsidies can continue for at least two years after the participant transitions off of
cash aid. so long as her income qualifies her for assistance. These parents are expected to
demand more licensed care as their work situations stabilize. Finally, the economy is
expanding, adding new jobs, workers, and their families to the region. A steady increase

in the need for more licensed child care in the county is. therefore. quite likely.

School Readiness and Quality
Another critical issue. which although beyond the scope of this study must be viewed as

central to any efforts to expand child-care supply. has to do with the issue of supporting

4 I PACE

school readiness. It is not enough to build more centers or family child-care homes;
quality is as important as quantity. Recent research shows that children’s early
experiences are critically important for brain development. If children do not have
nurturing and stimulating environments, their later success could be jeopardized. For
example, mothers who have graduated from high school are more likely to read to their
children, and yet in 1997, 39.2% of babies in Los Angeles were born to mothers with less
than 12 years of education.8 With high-quality child-care settings, it is possible to boost
the school readiness of all children. Therefore, although it is not the focus of this study,
the issue of quality child care is too important not to address, and recommendations for

enhancing quality across the county are included in the concluding section of this report.

Central Questions

This analysis centers on policy questions raised by the increasing need for child care:

0 How does the supply of licensed child care vary across the county? Are vacancy
rates lower or higher in certain communities?

0 How does the supply of child care vary across low-income communities with high
concentrations of welfare recipients? Since the ability of parents to transition off
welfare and into jobs depends on the availability of child care that meets their needs,
this study looks at whether capacity shortages and language differences pose special
barriers to these families.

0 Across the county, are there shortages in special types of care, such as non—traditional
hours care, subsidized care, ill child care, and care for children with special needs?
Determining where such barriers exist could help child care planners better meet the

needs of parents in Los Angeles.

PACE

County Demographics

Los Angeles County has 9.8 million residents, of which 27%, or more than 2.5 million
are children age 0-12. Latinos make up 58% of the children and youth in the county,
while whites total 21%, African Americans 10%, Asians and Paciﬁc Islanders 10% and

. American Indians
Children and Families in Los Angeles County1

Total number of children, ages 0-17 2,803,645 less than 1%'9 The
Total number of children, ages 0-5 1,042,044 county’s ethnic
Latinos 58% , , ,
Whites 21% composmon is
BIQCkS ' 10% changing rapidly.
A51ans and Pacrﬁc Islanders 10% ,
American Indians <1% The proportion 0f
% Children 0-5 receiving AFDC, 1996 24.01% Latinos has risen
% Children 0—5 receiving CalWORKs, 1998 18.6%

from 41.9% in 1982

to 57.9% in 1997,
and will continue to grow; sixty-two percent of births in Los Angeles were to Latino
mothers in 1997. At the same time, the percentage of whites dropped from 29.1% to 16%
and the percentage of blacks in Los Angeles dropped from 12.4% to 77%”.

Among California’s 58 counties, Los Angeles has the highest rate of child poverty.11
County-wide, 33% of children aged 0-17 live in households below the poverty line and
51% are low-income (for 1998 the poverty level was $16,450 for a family of four).
Sixty-one percent of children in Los Angeles receive school lunches.12 Latino children
suffer from the county’s highest poverty rate at 43%, with 631,000 children in poor
families. The American Indian poverty rate is 34%, African American 33%, Asian
Paciﬁc 21% and White 13%.13 Of children ages 0-5 county-wide, 18.6% live in families
which receive some form of public assistance, e.g., Medi-Cal, Food Stamps or

CalWORKs. Nearly half of these children are black (49.1%), and 18.3% are Latino.”

The countywide demographics presented here represent only part of the story about the
potential need for licensed child care in Los Angeles. It is necessary also to address
demographic differences between communities within the county. Los Angeles is more
highly segregated than other counties, especially for Latinos and African Americans.15
Moreover, patterns in the supply of and demand for licensed child care appear to be
correlated with ethnic differences among communities. For instance, an earlier PACE

study noted that Latino neighborhoods were less likely to have child care centers than

a PACE

predominantly white communities. The reasons behind this difference are thought to be
multiple, ranging from parental preferences for home-based care to language barriers.16
While this study cannot address the historic causes of differences in the supply of child
care around the county, is does offer data on the availability of care by smaller

geographic and population units within the county.

Service Planning Areas In the appendixes, all of the
In 1993, the Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors adopted a plan dividing Los Angeles analyzed for two separate
County into eight Service Planning Areas (SPAS)
for the purposes of planning, information-sharing
and data-gathering. First developed by the Supervisorial Districts and
Children’s Planning Council, these SPAS are now
used by county departments to coordinate and
integrate services and programs throughout the (SPAS). There are ﬁve
county.17 The eight SPAS are:
SPA 1 — Antelope Valley

data is broken down and

geographic divisions:

county Service Flaming Areas

Supervisorial Districts, and

SPA 2 — San Fernando Valley eight SPAS, which vary

SPA 3 — San Gabriel Valley . . . .

SPA 4 _ Metrolg w1dely 1n geographlc Size as
SPA 5 — West19 well as ethnic and socio-

SPA 6 — South20 . . . .
SPA 7 _ E aSt21 economlc compos1t10n. This
SPA 8 — South Bay level of analysis is intended to

The SPAS vary widely in size and population.
While SPA 1 covers 2,232 square miles it only
includes a population of slightly over 332,000; child expansion efforts within
while SPA 6 is only 77 square miles in Size but
contains a population of over 985,000.22

allow for better targeting of

the county.

Methodology

In order to build a comprehensive picture of child—care capacity in Los Angeles, PACE
conducted a telephone survey of over 2000 child-care center directors and family child-
care home providers (FCCHS) in summer, 1999. The centers and FCCHS selected to
participate in this survey were pulled from a master list of over 7000 licensed providers
who appeared in both the Community Care Licensing and Resource & Referral agencies’
(R&RS) databases (see Appendix 8). These are referred to as the "matched" providers. A
Stratiﬁed random sample of providers was drawn by SPA and type of ﬁrm (FCCH or
center). Eighty-ﬁve percent of the providers that were reached completed phone

interviews that averaged 15 minutes each.

PACE

The survey was organized into the following focus areas: licensed capacity and
“shadow” capacity (how many children providers prefer to serve); vacancy rates;
expansion potential and barriers; languages spoken by providers, parents and children;
care provided for temporarily ill children; and care available for children with special
needs (deﬁned broadly, e.g., including disabilities, transportation, ﬂexible hours, and
other barriers). The length ran from between 31 and 36 questions, depending on the type
of ﬁrm interviewed and the responses to selected items (See Appendix 9 for a complete

list of survey items).

The analysis of the overall child care capacity within the county includes an additional
1033 FCCH providers who appeared only in the Community Care Licensing Database.
At the time of the survey, the status of these providers was unknown so they were
excluded from the sampling frame. Calls made after the completion of the survey

veriﬁed the enrollment and the preferred capacity of these providers.23

As survey participants were selected via a stratiﬁed random sampling scheme by SPA
and ﬁrm type, the results can be generalized with conﬁdence both to the SPA level and to
the county as a whole. However, in order to analyze the survey results for Supervisorial
districts, the data was re-weighted and subjected to approximations. Thus, results at this

level are much less precise and should be interpreted only as rough estimations (see

Appendix 10).

Main Findings
In brief, this survey uncovered the following ﬁndings, which are described in more detail

in subsequent sections:

0 Overall, the supply of licensed child care in Los Angeles County is very low
when compared with the child population estimated to need care.24 There are
fewer than 16 licensed child-care slots per 100 children age 0-12 estimated to

need care. (Section II.) .

8 I PACE

0 Licensed child-care capacity varies widely between SPAS. While there are
sufﬁcient slots to serve 18% of the population age 0-12 in SPA 5, only 6% can be
served in SPA 7. (Section II.)

0 Care for infants and school age children is in short supply, relative to care for pre-
school age children. (Section II.)

0 Despite low capacity numbers, there are vacancies throughout the county. The
availability of spaces varies by SPA; centers report vacancy rates of between 14%
and 20% by SPA. while in FCCHs the rate is between 19% and 26%. (Section II.)

o A signiﬁcant number of centers report that space constraints and zoning
requirements are major barriers to expanding their services. (Section V.)

0 There is both good and bad news concerning child care for children with special
needs. Most providers are able to care for children with mild special needs or
chronic conditions, but fewer are equipped to care for children with severe special
needs. (Section III.)

0 Very little care exists for ill children who are enrolled in centers, as compared to
those served by FCCHs. (Section III.) 7

0 Countywide, there is a high willingness to serve subsidized children. (Section III.)

0 Little care is available during non-traditional hours. Among providers who do
provide care at off hours, more FCCHs than centers offer ﬂexible-hour care:
countywide, drop-in care (30% total county—wide). Countywide 20% of centers
and homes offer evening care. (Section III.)

0 Centers are more likely than FCCHs to provide care in languages other than

English. (Section IV.)

Subsequent sections of this report provide more detail about the ﬁndings summarized

above.

PACE

{$3

11. Capacity and Demand

Information on child-care capacity reveals the level of need for expansion. This section
addresses how many licensed child care spaces exist in Los Angeles County and then
considers the potential for the present supply to meet parental demand for care. The
analysis takes current vacancy rates into account. It is important to realize that this
measure of capacity includes a number of preschools (about 1/3 of the center sample),
many of which offer only half—day shifts. The total licensed capacity also does not
account for all care options open to parents. Many families choose to place their children
in license-exempt settings, which include but are not limited to care provided by relatives
or friends, and before and after-school enrichment programs. However, no
comprehensive data exists on the supply and utilization of exempt care. This study

therefore focuses on licensed care for infants, preschoolers and school-age children.

Furthermore, the data presented here has some measure of error built in to it. As noted in
the introduction, existing data on the universe of licensed child-care providers is not
entirely reliable. Two unrelated entities maintain unlinked databases of licensed
providers in Los Angeles County: the California Department of Social Services
Community Care Licensing Division (CCLD) and the ten Child Care Resource &
Referral agencies (R&Rs) serving the county. Although this study utilizes supply
numbers developed via an extensive process of reconciling data from all of these
organizations, the numbers may still exclude some active providers, and likewise some
centers and FCCHs that no longer provide child care may be included (for more

information on both database limitations and the data reconciliation process, see

Appendix 8).

Determining Capacity: LA. County
Determining Capacity ‘ 202,432
The procedure for 193,937

189,343

determining capacity

occurred in two steps.

First, the numbers of l Licensed capacity in Provider reported Provider preferred
the matched licensed capacity capacity

licensed child-care slots database

Lvﬁ __,,,._.,, A,, w____,,,,,_,, ,,, H 7 ___ 4., ,,,i,, 7,, ﬁiﬁ i,#_______ii

t 8 PACE

(as reported in the matched database) were adjusted to reﬂect the licensed capacity that
providers reported (Countywide, the matched data underestimated licensed capacity by
5% for centers and 3% for FCCHs). Then the provider-reported licensed capacity was
reduced to reﬂect providers’ preferences to serve fewer children than their license
permits. Previous studies of child-care supply assumed that providers wanted to operate
up to their maximum capacity. However this survey found that 49% of F CCHs and 14%
of center providers preferred to care for fewer children than their license allows. FCCHs
prefer to ﬁll only 88% of their slots on average while centers prefer to ﬁll 96%. Licensed
capacity records should be reduced to reﬂect these preferences when determining the
overall supply of child care. The overall reduction in the number of licensed slots
countywide is not large (7%), from 202,432 slots to 189,343 (For variations in reduction

rates among Service Planning Areas (SPAs) or Supervisorial districts see Appendix 2).

Estimating Demand

Estimating parental demand for licensed child care is a difﬁcult task as multiple factors
contribute to the need for care. These factors include child population counts, maternal
labor force participation, the ability of parents to pay for licensed care, parent knowledge
about available care. and parental preferences. For the purpose of this report, ratios of
child-care slots to children are utilized to show the percentage of the child population that
could be served with the existing supply. This comparison is made with and without
consideration of maternal labor force participation rates (MLFP) from 1990 census data.
In the ﬁnal comparison, a portion of the CalWORKs child population (30%) is also
included, assuming they represent new demand for child—care services. 25 To put these
percentages in perspective, they are compared to average licensed-care use rates at the

national level and the average supply of child-care slots statewide.

PACE Kg 3

Conmringpmfenedcapacityto demand indicators; child population, maternal labor force
parlicimﬁon rate, and CalWORKs child population

PomlaﬁmandCapacityl 040fmmmmwmm
Agegmqi/Typeof Estinateddrild Providers' Alldiildreninthe Childmnwith mﬁw
Gare popian'on pdenedcapau’ty minty mddngnnthels Wdﬂdm
warm! 1,914,722 55,030
(hmmtal 1,914,722 134,314
Center. infant
(<3yl's) 458,788 5,648
Center pie-school]
(35) 453,179 103,700
Center. school-
age(612) 1002755 24,889 a , _.
Tadllbka 1.9mm 189.343 ,2 17% :i < 216%

Notes: 1)P(pﬂanonesﬁrmmmlmﬁomﬂeUﬁtedWhyZipoodeBookfcx 1998. 2)]1219900emsnmmnllaborforoepaiticipaﬁmratefa
losArglasCoutynﬂl‘ersWthdﬁldrmmxbrﬂinbothme—mﬂtno-parertfanilies)“es51.5°/qfordiilcll'erlage6-l7itnas64.5% An
avaageMleeof57.5%wasamhedmﬂedﬂdpopﬂaﬁmmohainﬂembaofdﬂdenwnmtedmmuoddngmﬂm Thistotal
mmedtocalculatetlepacaitwnoaﬂdbesmedlntlieﬁmloolum300/oofthe1998Calmdﬁldmilaﬁonmsackledtoﬂ‘emnber
ofdﬁlckmwiﬂtmidngnﬁlerstogetannrempletethrmﬁesﬁnme.

The above table shows child population estimates, providers’ overall preferred capacity,
and the percentage of resident children potentially served by three different demand
estimators (all children in the county; children with working mothers; and children with
working mothers plus 30% of CalWORKs children). F CCH slots are not age-speciﬁc and
therefore are excluded from the age group analysis). SPA and Supervisorial-level

estimates are reported in Appendix 2.

Looking at the Total Market Supply row, there are an estimated 1,914,722 children under
age 13 in Los Angeles County and 189,343 child-care slots. Therefore. only 10% of the
total child population could be served. If only employed mothers seek child care. the
percentage of children potentially served increases to 17%. still below the state‘s average
of 21%.26 Adding 30% of the CalWORKs child population slightly reduces the

percentage of children potentially served, to 16%.

PAC E

ms
la)

Infant and School Age Capacity

Speciﬁc age group comparisons at the county level show that infants and school age
children are the worst off in terms of child care availability. At best, FCCH slots for
infants and school age children can serve only 5% of the total population in the County.
The survey found that center slots targeting infants and school age children can serve 1%
and 2% of the total populations respectively. A comparison of these percentages to the
average numbers of children relying on center care nationally (about 5% for infants and
14% for school-age children) suggests that the County is facing a shortage of center care
for these age groups.27 It is important to note that parents generally rely on relative or
home-based care (including FCCHs) for children under the age of two. At most, F CCH
providers add an additional 5 slots for every 100 children expected to need care. And
providers serving younger children face stricter child: staff ratios. The supply of care in

this sector does not greatly impact the overall availability of licensed care.

Preschool Capacity

Preschoolers are the largest group in the child-care system. Many parents place their
children in preschool or center-based programs for social and educational benefits
regardless of their employment status. In fact, labor force participation does not
signiﬁcantly impact the demand for care in this age group (44% nationally).28 Looking at
Table l, at most only 23% of Los Angeles County’s preschoolers can be served by

existing center slots.

Vacancy Rates by Type of Care and ‘
Age G roup ‘ Supply, Costs 0r Quality?

—» ~ Vacancies: Suﬂicient

25% 2 4% » Despite the apparent supply

shortage, many of the

2090

o
l7/o 160/0

providers in Los Angeles
County report having
vacancies. At the time of the
survey there were an

FCCH Center Center Center Center ‘ estimated 111,480 Children

vacancy rate vacancy rate - vacancies - vacancies - vacancies -
all ages infant preschool age school age

enrolled in centers and

42,923 in FCCHs, leaving 17% of center and 25% of FCCH slots vacant.29 (These rates

RACE ” 52%

do not differ signiﬁcantly from those recorded in 1995.) Vacancy rates impact both
parents and providers. For providers, low enrollments drive closures. This is a special
concern for FCCH providers who operate at a 25% vacancy rate on average. Center
vacancies are lower overall, and are also unevenly distributed; while some centers have
vacancies, over half have waiting lists (See Appendix 4 for SPA and Supervisorial district

rates and notes).

For parents, these vacancy rates could indicate that the supply of child care is more than
sufﬁcient in meeting their demand. But the presence of waiting lists suggests that other
factors, such as the cost, quality of care, and location, are involved. 52% of the centers in
the survey had waiting lists with an average of 37 children per site. Seventy percent of
the children on waiting lists were preschoolers, demonstrating that while the supply is

relatively higher for children in this age group, it may not be adequate to meet demand.

Percent of centers with waiting lists, by age group
served.

% of centers with Average # of
age waiting lists1 children on list2
infant 11% 32
preschool 40% 34
school age 10% 21
TOTAL 52% 37

1Some centers maintain separate waiting lists for each age group. Thus.
there are more waiting lists. as reﬂected in the columns listing age
breakdowns. than there are centers with waiting lists. The "Total" row
reﬂects the number of centers with waiting lists. rather than the number of
lists themselves.

‘3 u -
"The average number of children in the "Total" row was calculated to
include all children on waiting lists. regardless of age.

Whether or not the child care market is sufficient to meet the needs of parents depends on
a number of factors including the following: cost (parent can afford to pay for needed
services), quality (parent feels that available services are safe and nurturing for their
child). location (parent lives close to care or has transportation to access it). and

information (parent knows the care is available).

I C 051: Both Resource & Referral agencies and the Census Bureau cite the cost of

licensed care as a barrier for low-income families seeking child care. Parents earning

1 4 ' PACE

up to $30,000 spend an average of 22% of their income for licensed care, while
median—income families pay about 17%.30 The cost of care in Los Angeles County is
quite high, averaging $595 per month for infants and $461 per month for
preschoolers.31 At the same time, over 40,000 families are on waiting lists to receive
state Alternative Payment Program child-care subsidies.32 This indicates that cost is a
concern for numerous families in the county. If all of these families obtained child-

care subsidies, demand for licensed care could swell rapidly.

Quality: Even if families can afford the Number of slots per 100 children aged 0-12
cost of care, concerns about quality may estimated to need care.1

. . . . . # of slots per Super— I# of slots per mm
keep them from “t‘llzmg ex‘sung 100 children visorial children needing
services. A recent four-state study that SPA needing care district care
included California found mediocre 1 17'6 1 9'2

2 19.0 2 16.5
quality is common in all licensed child- 3 17.0 3 18.8 2
. . . T” T W 11.8 4 15.8
d k _ -
care settings an that high quahty 5 27.8 5 20.5
providers are rare. Centers fared better 6 16.7 A _
. . . 7 10.1
than FCCHs, w1th only 12% receivmg 8 16 7

poor quality (or growth-harming) 1
. _ Children with working mothers and 30% of the CalWORKs
rankmgs compared to 35% 0f farmly population (See notes for chart on p. 8). Providers‘ preferred

- ca aci used for estimate.
Chlld care homes.33 In focus groups p ty

conducted by PACE researchers as part

of a separate study of child-care supply and demand, mothers in Los Angeles County
reported having a lot of concern about the quality of licensed care available to them.
They described homes and centers which they refused to utilize or had to leave, for
reasons ranging from lack of cleanliness to abusive practices. Mothers also described
their search for providers that offered not only safe and nurturing environments but
also educational activities ranging from language development to homework

. 4
aSSIS’tance.3

Location: Earlier reports have mapped out the supply of care relative to the number of
resident children, revealing areas where access may be hindered for parents seeking

care near their homes. Low income communities in particular have less access to

PACE "é a

licensed child care relative to wealthier neighborhoods.35 Given that many low-
income parents face transportation constraints, the location of care is often a big
factor in the selection of child-care providers. Taking maternal employment and
CalWORKs participation rates into account, the table on page 9 shows the number of
slots per 100 children needing care by SPA and Supervisorial District. On average,
SPAS 4 and 7 fall signiﬁcantly below the county average, as does Supervisorial
District 1. These areas should receive ﬁrst consideration for development efforts. But
the County should not overlook the fact that high-need areas still exist within child

care-rich SPAS and Supervisorial Districts.

Information: While Resource & Referral agencies are available to help parents ﬁnd
available child-care slots, all parents needing care may not know of these services.
Moreover, centers and FCCHs may not have other means for reaching potential
clients. Therefore, parents wanting licensed child care may not be able to locate
vacant slots in FCCHS or centers near to them, while providers with vacancies may

not be connecting with parents needing their services.

Appendix 2 provides a zip code level analysis of the number of slots per hundred children

expected to seek care. This level of analysis is necessary to target areas with the greatest

need of care since child-care supply varies widely within SPAS and Supervisorial

Districts. In other words. even in SPAS or Districts whose overall child-care supply is

above the county average, there can be areas of severe shortages. For example. in SPA 2

there is an average of 19 slots per hundred children. and yet zip code 91402 supplies only

2 slots per 100 children. Zip code level maps of these ratios will indicate if parents have

access to care in neighboring zip codes that are rich in child care.

I PACE

III. Special Types of Care

Los Angeles County encompasses an extremely diverse population in which families

have differing work hours, linguistic backgrounds and incomes-~all of which impact the

type of child care parents need. Other critical child-care issues cut across these

demographic differences, such as the need for care for ill children and children with

special needs. This section looks at how well the child-care market has responded to

parents’ needs for different types of care. For SPA and Supervisorial-level tables and

estimates of the number of slots per 100 children, see Appendix 4.

Non-Traditional Hours Care
With the grth of
employment in the service
industry, increasing numbers
of parents are working non-
traditional hours. These
parents are more likely to
ﬁnd child-care arrangements
in FCCHs than centers
because homes supply
almost two thirds of all
evening care and 84% of all

weekend care. While more

Percent of Providers Offering
Non-Traditional Hours Care

Centers—7 _ I FQCEL;

55.0%

38.0%

27.0%

03°

24 Hour Care

Overnight Weekend

Temporary / Evening

centers (20%) offer temporary or drop-in care than any other non-traditional hours care,

FCCHs still provide greater ﬂexibility. More FCCHs offer this care, and although they

represent a smaller number of slots overall than centers, there are more of them. FCCHs

also have higher vacancies than centers, and thus overall a greater ability to absorb

children on an as—needed basis. Centers” low provision of other non-traditional hours

care is due in part to a perceived lack of demand (45% claimed that low demand kept

them from expanding this type of service). Parents may prefer to have their children

cared for at home during these hours, or they may not be aware that providers might be

willing to expand their hours. and thus do not express interest in these services.

PACE

Wag

Subsidized Care

More than half of Los Providers are willing to accept subsidized

child ren
Angeles County’s

90% ~

children live in low-

income families, many

58%

of whom depend on

subsidies to gain FCCH Center

access to Child care E_ Drprovider serves Iwilling to serve

services. Difﬁculties

with the subsidy payment system were thought to have deterred some providers from
serving low-income families using government vouchers or subsidies, which would
severely limit low-income parents’ choice of child care. But this is not the case; 87% of
FCCHs and 97% of center providers are willing to take subsidized children. Centers are

more likely than FCCHs to actually be serving subsidized children (77% vs. 58%).

111 Child Care ‘—— — ~ -7 -—»—~—~~7_«
Advocates assert that home is l Seventy-seven percent f’f FCCHS accept
\ mlldly 111 children
the best place for an ill child,
but staying home is not 3 23%

always an option for working

parents. A recent statewide

poll by the Los Angeles Times

found that many parents either

cannot afford to take time off to care for their children or they feel that their employer
would not allow it.36 And yet, center providers who must acquire a special license and
secure separate space to care for ill children have not responded to this need. Seventy-
seven percent of FCCHs said they would accept ill children who were currently enrolled;
28% would also take in ill children who they currently were not serving. Still, the total
supply of slots available in FCCHs willing to care for mildly ill children (35,705 for
enrolled children) could at most serve only 3% of the population expected to need care at
any given time. Any effort to expand the availability of care for ill children needs to
focus on centers; eighteen percent of current center providers (accounting for 22,296

slots) are open to getting an ill child license.

t8 E’ACE

Children with Special Needs
Providers were asked about
their ability to serve children

with different kinds of special

needs, divided three categories:

Mild Special Needs included
hearing or visual disabilities,
mild behavior or learning
disabilities; Severe Special

Needs included physical

Permrtaged‘slasopentospedalneedscam
(FCOk&Centerscmh'ned)

76% 80%

Mld SpNeecb Severe Sp. Needs (hmic Conditiors

disabilities, retardation, or use of feeding tube; and Chronic Conditions referred to

allergies, asthma, or diabetes. For all three categories, centers reported the ability to care

for special needs children at greater rates than FCCH providers. Many noted that they

were legally bound to do so because they received federal funding. The survey found that

providers accounting for 76% of all child-care slots are willing to serve children with
mild special needs while only 28% are willing and able to accept children with severe

special needs. Eighty percent of all child-care slots in the county are open to children

with chronic conditions.

PACE

dis

IV. Language

The graphs in this section
illustrate that there are populations
in Los Angeles who are utilizing
licensed child-care but not
necessarily being served in their
native language. These graphs
compare the percentage of
providers speaking a language to
the percentage of providers
serving families who speak that
language. For example, 13% of
centers serve Korean-speaking
children countywide, but only 3%
of center providers speak Korean.
In family child-care homes, the

percentage of providers serving

, K 760%
M 74.0%

I%ofpmvideasserving
.I%ofpmviders spmkingi

children who speak languages other than English outnumber the percentage of FCCH

providers speaking these languages except for Russian, Armenian and Farsi. There is

potentially an unmet need for non-English language services, especially for young

children whose parents prefer the native language.

It is also important to note that these ﬁndings pertain only to families accessing licensed

child care. Children not in licensed child care settings are left out of this comparison. It is

possible that the linguistic mismatch between the languages spoken by families and

providers may be greater than observed here, since non-English speaking parents may not

be approaching the licensed child care system at all.

N}
C23

PACE

FCCI-IlangmgminhstngelasCmmty

RUSSia" 1'.0%

Filipino Egg“)

Komn [032"

m -
i—rvl%ofproviders serving 1
Jﬁﬂﬁﬂmmj

To identify the magnitude of the
mismatch between the languages
spoken by families and languages
spoken by providers, it is
necessary to compare the
percentage of slots where a
language is spoken to the
percentage of children in the
population who speak the
language. The tables in Appendix
6 provide a supply side projection
of the number of slots where each
language is spoken at the county,

SPA and Supervisorial level.

However, these tables do not give a complete picture of language need in the county.

Current data on the major languages spoken in each SPA and county-wide was not

available at the time of this analysis; that information is needed in order to develop a

complete picture of the need for care in languages other than English.

PACE

V. Barriers to Expansion

The survey asked F CCH and Center providers about barriers to the overall expansion of
child-care slots in their program. In addition, it asked respondents not currently providing

non-traditional hours or special needs care what kept them from doing so. See Appendix

7 for SPA and Supervisorial-level information.

Overall Expansion
Center providers Barriers to Expamion
identiﬁed the need for l _

more space as the biggest
barrier to expansion
(50%). Licensing
requirements for indoor
and outdoor square
footage per child make

grth very expensive

for this type of ﬁrm. WMtwwm «Mgfﬂ

2.6% 'FOCHS‘

Many providers cared for
lCemexs

the maximum number of
children they were
licensed to serve, and cited licensing restrictions as a barrier to expanding (23% FCCH,
31% center). The need for more staff was also mentioned by both FCCHS (16%) and
centers (13%). Lack of demand was a much greater concern for FCCH providers than for
center providers (23% F CCH vs. 9% centers); this was not surprising given that FCCHs
also have higher vacancy rates on average. Providers choosing to care for younger
children are required to have lower child/adult ratios, reducing the number of children
that they can care for. Many FCCH providers (9% of other) also choose to employ lower
child/adult ratios because they want to provide high quality care. Unlike center directors,
a fair number of FCCH providers (15%) stated that they simply could not handle caring
for any more children, regardless of any additional support offered. Both types of
providers mentioned transportation as a barrier to increasing their client base. One

surprise was that only 3% of FCCH providers mentioned the cost of care as a barrier, and

22 PACE

center directors did not bring it up at all, while several studies point to affordability as a

major concern for parents.37

Special Needs Barriers
Appropriate stafﬁng, training,
and facilities topped the list for
both types of providers as
barriers to offering special !
needs care. Many centers
mentioned that they were

required to accept children with
disabilities as a condition of
receiving federal funding.

Some FCCH providers (11% of

other) felt that special needs

children required additional time which would force them to choose between reducing the
quality of care that they were able to provide or reducing their client load, which many
could not afford to do. Some providers noted that government-sponsored reimbursement
rates fail to account for the additional time needed to care for these children; thus serving
these children was sometimes too costly. Some FCCHS also mentioned that working with
special needs children was too demanding or that they simply preferred not to serve this

group.

Barriers to Care During Non-Traditional Hours

Providers not currently open during non-traditional hours (evenings, overnight and
weekends) were asked What prevented them from offering care at those times.38 Centers
were primarily concerned about ﬁnding staff willing to work non-traditional hours (51%),
while home providers wanted to preserve personal or family time (82%). A signiﬁcant
percentage of both groups perceived a lack of demand for this type of care (45% of

centers, 25% of FCCHs), reinforcing the idea that parents prefer to use relatives or

PACE 23

friends during these hours. If demand for non-traditional hours services were low, it will
be especially difﬁcult for center providers to cover their operational costs. In addition,

about a third of center j—” " ' " 7 ——7
providers responding 1

did not feel their

J - -- - 71-12.0%
fac111t1es were 4 m mnmg/ OtherJOb 7‘

need P61301131 time — 82.0%

appropriate for non-
. . l
tradltlonal hour care. ‘

They cited concerns

about safety and space.
Many center providers l

also used space in a

school or church

where nighttime or weekend care was not an option because of limitations on the lease.
Despite these constraints, 12% percent of center providers said they were willing to

consider expanding their hours of operation.

24 I PACE

VI. Summary and Recommendations

This report provides a snapshot of the licensed child-care system in Los Angeles County
at the county-wide level and, for the ﬁrst time, at the SPA and Supervisorial District
levels. This section reviews the major ﬁndings, and presents recommendations for action

as well as further study.

Capacity

Our survey conﬁrms earlier reports that the overall supply of child care in Los Angeles
County lags behind national and state averages, and that some regions within the county
are better off than others. The supply of licensed child care is especially low in SPAS 4
and 7 and Supervisorial District 1. In addition, there is little care available for infants
across the county, as well as relatively fewer slots for school-age children. The county
has already embarked on a signiﬁcant effort to increase the supply of after-school care for
school age children, which is not reﬂected in this report. However, other child care

expansion efforts are needed.

0 Child care expansion funds should be targeted toward increasing the amount of
care available for infants in all areas of the county.

0 Expansion funds should also be targeted toward increasing the overall supply of
care in SPAS 4 and 7 and Supervisorial District 1.

0 County planners should look closely at the zip code level supply data in all SPAS,
to determine Where within SPAS there are serious shortages of child care.

0 To identify even more precisely the areas in the greatest need of child care

expansion, mapping capacity data at the zip code level is recommended.

Barriers to Expansion

Center directors stated that the need for additional space was the biggest barrier to
expanding their programs. They also mentioned zoning and licensing requirements as
additional restrictions. In contrast, FCCHS were concerned that there was not sufﬁcient
demand to warrant expansion of their facilities. Stafﬁng concerns were brought up by

both.

PACE

Ni
é???

Funds should be targeted toward expanding existing facilities if they can
demonstrate demand for additional slots. Many centers have long waiting lists
and could provide care for more children if they were able to increase the size of
their facility.

Technical assistance in addressing zoning or licensing problems should be
available to providers receiving ﬁnancial assistance with expansion.

Financial assistance should also be made available to small FCCH providers
interested in becoming large FCCH operators or to those wanting to open centers
if they can prove that there is demand for their services.

Staff recruitment and retention programs should be developed, to assist centers
and FCCHs in acquiring and retaining a well-trained workforce. Financial

incentives to individuals who enter and stay in the ﬁeld may help this process.

Vacancies

In addition to shortages in child-care supply, the survey revealed that many licensed

child-care providers do have vacancies. At ﬁrst glance, these vacancies could suggest

that the current supply of care is sufﬁcient in Los Angeles County. The prevalence of

waiting lists, however, suggests that parents cannot or do not want to access existing care

providers. Possible reasons for this include cost concerns, location issues, language

differences, and concerns about the quality of care in centers and homes with openings.

In addition, parents may lack information about existing programs.

Further investigation into why there are vacancies in communities that have a low
supply of licensed child care is needed. Surveys of parents, providers, and
referral agencies could help identify what information parents have about child
care—providers, how they select their caregivers, and what barriers to using
licensed care they face such as cost or transportation.39
If parents seeking care are not able to ﬁnd the providers with openings. more

outreach by resource and referral agencies to both parents and providers needs to

happen.

PACE

- If cost issues are primary, then the county should provide child-care subsidies to
those low-income parents unable to obtain subsidies from other sources.

0 County and/or resource & referral agencies should conduct surveys of providers
periodically to gather current vacancy information and to re-assess whether

licensed capacity and preferred capacity differs signiﬁcantly.

Supply and Vacancy Rate Data Issues

One of the difﬁculties in determining accurate supply and vacancy results from there
being multiple organizations that track child-care providers in unlinked databases. The
California Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division (CCLD)
and the ten child-care resourCe & referral agencies in Los Angeles County each maintain
separate ﬁles on licensed providers. Some of the differences between CCLD and R&R
databases result from CCLD including information on providers who are licensed, but not
active, or who are licensed but do not accept referral services, while R&R databases
sometimes exclude these providers. In addition, CCLD keeps individual records for each
license, whether or not the license is for a facility operating with multiple licenses.

R&Rs do not maintain their ﬁles in this manner. Thus, CCLD data tends to over count
the supply of licensed care, while R&Rs undercount it. Finally, neither CCLD nor all of
the R&Rs regularly track vacancy rates. There are a number of steps R&Rs can take to
align their databases with those of CCLD and more accurately reﬂect the total picture of

available child care in the county.

0 Regular reconciliation of R&R and CCLD databases will help eliminate some of
the data discrepancies described above (see Appendix 8 for suggestions on this
process).

0 All of the county’s resource and referral agencies should include all active
licensed child—care providers in their databases, whether they accept referrals or

not, to eliminate R&R undercounting of the child-care supply.

RACE 2:?

Special Types of Care

Non-Traditional Hours Care

There is very little care available during non-traditional hours. At the same time,
however, there is a perception among many providers that there isn’t demand for these
services. Parents who desire licensed care during non-traditional hours need to be able to
ﬁnd providers offering this service, and providers who are willing to operate during

evening and weekend hours need to be connected with parents seeking these services.

0 Outreach to child-care providers should be conducted to inform them of the
potential demand for non—traditional hours care.

0 At the same time, the county should work with R&Rs and other community
organizations to increase parent awareness of the availability of licensed care
during non-traditional hours. Informing parents about the willingness of FCCHs
to offer non-traditional hour care may increase enrollment for these providers
while meeting parents’ demand for these services.

0 To track parent interest in licensed child care at non-traditional hours over time,
the county should collaborate with R&Rs; they gather data on the types of
referrals requested.40

0 If parent demand exceeds supply, ﬁnancial incentives should be offered to centers
and FCCHs willing to operate at night and on weekends.

o If centers and F CCHs have difﬁculties attracting staff to work during non-
traditional hours, the county should provide financial incentives to employees

who agree to work these hours.
Child Care Subsidies

The vast majority of providers surveyed stated they were willing to care for subsidized

children.

0 At present, no action is needed to encourage providers to take children paid for

with government subsidies. However, future surveys of providers conducted by

:28 PACE

either the County of Los Angeles or R&R agencies should continue to ask
providers if they are willing to accept children with subsidies.

0 Given that providers are willing to care for children with subsidies, the county
should provide subsidies to the lowest incbme parents on waiting lists for state

Alternative Payment Program subsidies.

Ill Child Care

There is very little care for ill children available in child care centers; there are only 4
centers in the county that are designated as ill child centers. However, 18% of centers
surveyed were willing to consider obtaining a license to care for ill children. FCCHs are

more ﬂexible about caring for mildly ill children, but the overall supply is limited.

0 Efforts to expand the availability of care for ill children need to focus on centers.
Financial assistance should be provided to centers willing to obtain a license to
care for ill children across Los Angeles County.

0 The county should support development of additional temporary/drop-in child

care facilities for ill children throughout the county.

Care for Children With Special Needs

Providers are generally willing to care for children with mild special needs or chronic
health conditions. However, they felt less capable of caring for children with severe
special needs. Children with severe needs make up a smaller percentage of the
population so it is difﬁcult to determine whether they face a more signiﬁcant shortage of

care than do the general population.

0 In order to increase both the access to and the quality of care for children with
special needs, low-cost or free training programs on working with this population
should be offered to child-care providers in both centers and family child care
homes.

0 The County should provide ﬁnancial assistance with the cost of making child care
centers and family child care homes Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

compliant.

PACE 2

£513

0 Informing parents about the willingness of FCCHs to offer special needs child
care may increase enrollment for these providers while meeting parents’ demand
for these services.

0 The Los Angeles County Child Care Planning Committee has a Task Force on
Special Needs and Inclusion that is studying the need for special needs care in
more detail. Their research should be used to help determine how and where the

existing supply of care for special needs children should be enhanced.

Transportation

53% of FCCHs and 15% of centers surveyed offer transportation services to their clients.
These services alleviate geographical constraints and assist working parents who may
need mid—day transportation for their school-age children. Unfortunately, only 4% of the
child population expected to need child care could be served by providers currently

offering transportation (see Appendix 4).

0 Providers willing to but currently unable to provide transportation should be
offered assistance. This assistance could be in several forms: financial assistance
for the purchase of safe vehicles, a vehicle loan program, or direct payments to
private and/or public transportation companies willing to serve child care homes
and centers.

0 An alternative to individual providers offering transportation is development of a
ﬂexible shuttle system available at a low-cost (or no cost) to parents otherwise

unable to take their children to licensed child-care providers.

Languages

The results of the research on child care in languages other than English are inconclusive.
While the study identiﬁed which languages providers and their clients speak, it does not
provide information on parents who do not use licensed care and whose ﬁrst language is
not English. Thus we do not know if these parents are not accessing licensed care
because of language barriers or because they prefer other options. Moreover, we did not
have data to match the languages spoken in child care facilities with those most common

in the surrounding community.

PACE

it)
CZ?

The county should work with R&R agencies and other community-based
organizations to produce and distribute materials on licensed child care in all of
the major languages spoken in the county. These materials should focus both on
assisting parents in accessing referral services as well as educating them on the
importance of quality care, whether exempt or licensed.

More work needs to be done to determine whether language differences are

barriers for parents seeking licensed child care.

Quality Issues

Although this study did not focus on the issue of quality child care, this topic cannot be

separated from efforts to increase access to licensed child care for Los Angeles County

residents. As noted in the introduction, quality child care can play a signiﬁcant role in

preparing children for school. As the county engages efforts to bolster the supply of

licensed child care, planners have a unique opportunity simultaneously to improve the

quality of care available. In this light, we have several recommendations:

Ensure that expansion efforts focus on quality as well as quantity. The goal
should not be expanding the supply of care regardless of the attributes of that
care. Expansion funds for centers and homes should be tied to speciﬁc quality
measures, and only those ﬁrms or individuals meeting well-deﬁned requirements
or willing to improve should be provided support.

Make sure that parents have access to the tools and information necessary to help
them identify quality care providers. As noted above this includes making
materials available in all of the major languages spoken in the county, as well as
connecting parents with resource & referral agencies and other child care
advocates who can provide these resources.

Offer quality improvement assistance to child-care providers. Make sure they
have access to continuing education programs focused on quality care and provide
ﬁnancial assistance for age-appropriate educational materials, as well as for
needed capital modiﬁcations. In addition, provide information to providers on

how to pursue becoming accredited by organizations like the National Association

PACE

{a}

for the Education of Young Children (N AEYC) or the National Accreditation
Commission of the National Association of Child Care Professionals.

0 Support enhanced regulatory controls for child care. Community Care Licensing
is mandated to visit active providers only once every three years, unless there is a
complaint levied.41 R&Rs have neither the resources nor the legal authorization
to monitor providers, although R&R and APP programs provide information to
parents on how to report violations or concerns to CCLD. The county should
advocate to the state that additional monitoring of licensed providers be mandated
and funded, and work with CCLD staff to see if there are interim steps that could

be taken to improve oversight of providers.

Future Research

As noted in the introduction, this study focused on developing a more accurate picture of
the supply of licensed child care in Los Angeles County. However, it was not intended to
or able to address demand issues. We suggest that future research focus on parent
demand and preference issues, including those raised above in the discussions of vacancy
rates, languages spoken by providers, and special needs care. R&R data on the requests
parents make can help planners develop a picture of the demand for care, but it is
important to also talk with parents who are not aware of or are not accessing R&R
services. Finally, developing an accurate picture of the supply of license-exempt group
care is an important piece of the child care picture that should not be overlooked. While
this study did not address this piece of the child care market, it cannot be ignored when

trying to understand supply and demand issues.42

Final Thoughts

Los Angeles County has already embarked on an ambitious program to expand the
supply of licensed child care around the county. The Board of Supervisors has
appropriated $74 million for the development of after-school care at elementary schools
across the county and has set up a $10 million grant and loan fund aimed at developing
new facilities, expanding existing facilities, and improving the quality of care available in
the county. These programs represent a signiﬁcant move toward meeting some of the

needs uncovered in this study.

32 PACE

As expansion efforts continue, child care planners must be careﬁil that the push to
increase the supply of care does not compromise efforts at improving the quality of care.
It is also important that the County gather updated data on the supply of licensed care
periodically, and work with R&R agencies and CCLD to improve the accuracy of the
data provided. Finally, parents need to be involved in the planning process, to insure that
the supply of licensed child care truly meets their needs. Maintaining an adequate supply
of quality child care in a region as large and complex as Los Angeles County is a huge
challenge. It will require continual monitoring and investment to guarantee that parents

have access to real quality choices for child care.

PACE 3

is)

334

PACE

Endnotes

1 Child Care Indicators, Volume II (1999). Berkeley and San Francisco : Policy Analysis for California
Education (PACE) and California Child Care Resource and Referral Network and California Child Care
Portfolio (1999). San Francisco: California Child Care Resource and Referral Network.

2 PACE is developing a preliminary inventory of license-exempt providers in Los Angeles County, which
should be available Summer 2000.

3 California Child Care Resource and Referral Network and California Child Care Portfolio (1999). San
Francisco: California Child Care Resource and Referral Network.

4 Child Care Indicators, Volume II (1999). Berkeley and San Francisco : Policy Analysis for California
Education (PACE) and California Child Care Resource and Referral Network.

5 Fuller, Coonerty, Choong, and Kipnis (1998). An Unfair Head Start: California Families Face Unequal
Access to Child Care. Berkeley, CA: University of California, PACE. California Child Care Portfolio
(1999). San Francisco: California Child Care Resource and Referral Network.

6 For a more detailed paper on economic theories and child care, see Loeb, S., et. a1. (2000). “Deﬁning
Unmet Need in Child Care.” Berkeley: PACE (forthcoming, summer 2000).

7 California Vital Statistics Birth Records. Totals exclude births to parents with missing race and ethnic
data.

8 California County Data Book (1999). Oakland, CA: Children Now.

9 Los Angeles County Children’s Scorecard 1998(1999). Los Angeles: United Way of Greater Los Angeles
and the Los Angeles County Children’s Planning Council.

‘0 Tafoya, Sonya M. (2000). Mixed Race and Ethnicity in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute
of California.

11 California Child Care Portfolio (1999). San Francisco: California Child Care Resource and Referral
Network.

‘3 Children Now (1999).

13 Children’s Scorecard 1998 (1999).

‘4 Children Now (1999).

‘5 Fuller, Coonerty, Choong, and Kipnis (I998).

16 Fuller, Coonerty, Choong, and Kipnis (1998).

‘7 Laying the Groundwork for Change Los Angeles County’s First Action Plan for Its Children, Youth And
Families. (1998). Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles County Children’s Planning Council. A copy of this
report, including a map of the SPAS is available on—line on the Children’s Planning Council website:
www.childpc.org.

‘8 SPA 4 includes Downtown Los Angeles and West Hollywood

‘9 SPA 5 includes West Los Angeles, Santa Monica and Malibu

2° SPA 6 includes Florence, Lynwood and Compton

2‘ SPA 7 includes East Los Angeles, Montebello, Norwalk and Lakewood

’2 Children’s Scorecard 1998 (1999).

23 Many providers prefer to serve fewer children than they are licensed for. Taking this into account, we
adjusted the overall licensed capacity in the matched provider population. This adjusted capacity served as
the base number of child-care slots from which projections of special types of care were made to the actual
licensed population.

24 See the section titled “Estimating Demand,” pp. 6-7, for more information on how need is estimated.

25 This estimate is based on the mandate that in each county 30% of CalWORKs clients in single-parent
families need to be working in FY 1998. This number increases by 5% each year through FY 2002, to
meet Federal work requirements.

26 The 1999 Child Care Portfolio produced by California Child Care Resource and Referral Network
estimates that 21% of children in families where both parents work could be served by existing child-care
slots statewide.

27 According to the 1995 National Household Education Survey, 14% of children in grades K-3 use center-
based before-or— after-school-care on a weekly basis and between 6 and 17% of infants are enrolled in
center-based care. Both of these ﬁgures are independent of mothers’ work status.

28 Fuller, Bruce, eta]. (1997). An Unfair Head Start: California Families Face Gaps in Preschool and Child-
Care Availability. Berkeley, CA: University of California, PACE.

29 Vacancy rates were calculated by comparing the total number of vacant slots to the total number of slots
providers preferred to ﬁll for each geographical area. Observed differences between geographical areas are
subject to sampling error. See Appendix 3

PACE

ﬁre}

30 California Child Care Portfolio (1999). San Francisco, CA: California Child Care Resource and Referral
Network.

3‘ Children Now (1999).

32 Personal communication, Kathleen Malaske-Samu, Los Angeles County Child Care Coordinator

33 Helbum, Suzanne and Howes, Carollee (1996). Child-Care Costs and Quality. Future of Children.
§ummer/F all. www.futureofchildren.org

’4 CDSS-PACE Child Care Planning Project. Interim report will be released July 2000.

35 Child-Care Indicators, Volume II (1999). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education and
the California Child Care Resource and Referral Network. http://www.rrnetwork.org/sup_maps/index.html,
and California Child Care Portfolio (1999).

36 Decker, Cathleen. “Finding Quality Child Care a Tough Task.” Los Angeles Times, June 20, 1999, A1,
A32.

37 California Child Care Portfolio (1999), Children Now (199), and Casper, Lynne. M. (1995). “What Does
It Costs to Mind Our Preschoolers?” Washington DC: Census Bureau, US. Department of Commerce.

3“ FCCH N=370; Center N=960

39 As part of the CDSS-PACE Child Care Planning Project, PACE researchers are conducting focus groups
with parents in Los Angeles County. This research is exploring, in part, how parents select child-care
providers and the constraints on those choices. Preliminary ﬁndings will be released in the summer of
2000.

4° For more information on referral tracking, see the 1999 California Child Care Portfolio.

41 An additional ten percent sample of FCCHs is drawn and visited annually.

42 See endnote #2.

PACE

0.?
Cf.)

Appendix 1:
Service Planning Areas and Supervisorial Districts “At a Glance”

SPA 1 - Demographics

Estimated Number of Children
Age 0-5 33,792

Age 6- 12 35,040
Source: Children’s Planning Council (CPC) 1998
projections

Percentage of working mothers with:
Children under 6 45.74%
Children 6 to 17 66.9%

Source: 1990 Census

CalWORKs

18% of all children are in families
participating in CalWORKs (12,482)
Source: CPC

Estimating demand for child care:

This report assumes that only working
mothers (including CalWORKs mothers
complying with federal work requirements)
will need child care for their children.
Maternal employment rates from the 1990
Census are used to estimate the percentage
of children with working mothers and 30%
of the CalWORKs child caseload is included
in the demand estimate, assuming that
welfare reforms have moved this percentage
of mothers into the labor force. These
children, who will need some sort of non—
maternal care, comprise our demand group.
This study shows the percentage of children
in the “demand” group that could ﬁnd
licensed child care in SPAl. Important
notes: 1) Parents have options beyond
licensed child care listed with CCL and the
R&R agencies and 2) Center slots include
half-day programs.

SPA 1 - Child Care Overview

Estimated number of licensed slots
supplied by licensed providers in the
matched database:

FCCH preferred capacity: 3,057
Center preferred capacity: 4,024

Demand Group/ Estimated number of
children needing care:

38,898 with working mothers

3,745 children in CalWORKs families*
*this is only 30% of all CalWORKs children

Percent Served: 17.6% of children needing
care in SPAl could be served by existing
licensed child care slots.

Percent of children in demand group who
could be served by providers with the
following services:

PACE 3?

Appendix 1:
Service Planning Areas and Superviseriai Districts “At a Glance”

SPA 2 - Demographics

Estimated Number of Children
Age 0-5 168,582
Age 6- 12 186,867

Source: Children’s Planning Council (CPC) 1998
projections

Percentage of working mothers with:
Children under 6 56.21%
Children 6 to 17 67.94%

Source: 1990 Census

CalWORKs
9% of all children are in families

participating in CalWORKs (31,284)
Source: DPSS. January 1998

Estimating demand for child care:

This report assumes that only working
mothers (including CalWORKs mothers
complying with federal work requirements)
will need child care for their children.
Maternal employment rates from the 1990
Census are used to estimate the percentage
of children with working mothers and 30%
of the CalWORKs child caseload is included
in the demand estimate, assuming that
welfare reforms have moved this percentage
of mothers into the labor force. These
children. who will need some sort of non-
matemal care. comprise our demand group.
This study shows the percentage of children
in the "demand" group that could ﬁnd
licensed child care in SPA 2. Important
notes: 1) Parents have options beyond
licensed child care listed with CCL and the
R&R agencies and 2) Center slots include
half-day programs.

('13

SPA 2 - Child Care Overview

Estimated number of licensed slots
supplied by licensed providers in the
matched database:

FCCH preferred capacity: 8,839
Center preferred capacity: 33,283

Demand Group/ Estimated number of
children needing care:
221,717 with working mothers

9,385 children in CalWORKs families*
*this is only 30% of all CalWORKs children

Percent Served: 19.0% of children needing
care in SPA 2 could be served by existing
licensed child care slots.

Percent of children in demand group who
could be served by providers with the
following services:

severe SP- need
chronic cond E: > ..
mild sp.need ‘27-‘53
ill child
weekend

overnight * ~

evening [:52 °

temp. care “‘3‘

24hrcare 1%

Pr0vides trans. ‘4

I PACE

Appendix 1:
Service Planning Areas and Supervisorial Districts “At a Glance”

SPA 3 - Demographics SPA 3 - Child Care Overview
Estimated Number of Children Estimated number of licensed slots
Age 0‘5 164,428 supplied by licensed providers in the
Age 6— 12 188204 matched database:

Source: Children’s Planning Council (CPC) 1998 FCCH preferred capacity: 7,475

projections

Center preferred capacity: 28,825

. Demand Group/ Estimated number of
Percentage of working mothers with: children needing care:

Children under 6 53-56% 21 1,078 with working mothers

Children 6 to 17 65-36% 11,050 children in CalWORKs families*
Source: 1990 Census *this is only 30% of all CalWORKs children

Percent Served: 17.0% of children needing
care in SPA 3 could be served by existing
licensed child care slots.

CalWORKs
10% of all children are in families
participating in CalWORKs (36,833)

source: DPSS’ January 1998 Percent of children in demand group who

could be served by providers with the

' ' ° ' rvices:
Estimating demand for child care: followmg se

This report assumes that only working - .7
mothers (including CalWORKs mothers
complying with federal work requirements) ‘ ‘
will need child care for their children.

Maternal employment rates from the 1990 ‘
Census are used to estimate the percentage ‘
of children with working mothers and 30% l
of the CalWORKs child caseload is included
in the demand estimate, assuming that 3 ~
welfare reforms have moved this percentage
of mothers into the labor force. These
children, who will need some sort of non-
maternal care, comprise our demand group.
This study shows the percentage of children
in the “demand” group that could ﬁnd
licensed child care in SPA 3. Important
notes: 1) Parents have options beyond
licensed child care listed with CCL and the
R&R agencies and 2) Center slots include
half-day programs.

PACE

ﬁe?
ﬁg?

Appendix 1:
Service Planning Areas and Supervisoriai Districts “At a Glance”

SPA 4 - Demographics

Estimated Number of Children

Age 0-5 112.816

Age 6- 12 127,767

Source: Children’s Planning Council (CPC) 1998
pI‘OJeCtIODS

Percentage of working mothers with:
Children under 6 46.95%
Children 6 to 17 59.24%

Source: 1990 Census

CalWORKs

12% of all children are in families
participating in CalWORKs (28,839)
Source: DPSS. January 1998

Estimating demand for child care:

This report assumes that only working
mothers (including CalWORKs mothers
complying with federal work requirements)
will need child care for their children.
Maternal employment rates from the 1990
Census are used to estimate the percentage
of children with working mothers and 30%
of the CalWORKs child caseload is included
in the demand estimate. assuming that
welfare reforms have moved this percentage
of mothers into the labor force. These
children, who will need some sort of non-
matemal care, comprise our demand group.
This study shows the percentage of children
in the “demand” group that could ﬁnd
licensed child care in SPA 4. Important
notes: 1) Parents have options beyond
licensed child care listed with CCL and the
R&R agencies and 2) Center slots include
half-day programs.

SPA 4 - Child Care Overview

Estimated number of licensed slots
supplied by licensed providers in the
matched database:

FCCH preferred capacity: 3,147
Center preferred capacity: 12,218

Demand Group/ Estimated number of
children needing care:
128,656 with working mothers

8,652 children in CalWORKs families*
*this is only 30% of all CalWORKs children

Percent Served: 11.8% of children needing
care in SPA 4 could be served by existing
licensed child care slots.

Percent of children in demand group who
could be served by providers with the
following services:

«to I PACE

Appendix 1:
Service Planning Areas and Supervisorial Districts “At a Glance”

SPA 5 - Demographics

Estimated Number of Children
Age 0-5 30,522
Age 6- 12 37892

Source: Children’s Planning Council (CPC) 1998
projections

Percentage of working mothers with:
Children under 6 55.8%
Children 6 to 17 67.41%

Source: 1990 Census

CalWORKs

8% of all children are in families
participating in CalWORKs (5,229)
Source: DPSS, January 1998

Estimating demand for child care:

This report assumes that only working
mothers (including CalWORKs mothers
complying with federal work requirements)
will need child care for their children.
Maternal employment rates from the 1990
Census are used to estimate the percentage
of children with working mothers and 30%
of the CalWORKs child caseload is included
in the demand estimate, assuming that
welfare reforms have moved this percentage
of mothers into the labor force. These
children, who will need some sort of non-
matemal care, comprise our demand group.
This study shows the percentage of children
in the “demand” group that could ﬁnd
licensed child care in SPA 5. Important
notes: 1) Parents have options beyond
licensed child care listed with CCL and the
R&R agencies and 2) Center slots include
half-day programs.

SPA 5 - Child Care Overview

Estimated number of licensed slots
supplied by licensed providers in the
matched database:

FCCH preferred capacity: 2584

Center preferred capacity: 9,368

Demand Group/ Estimated number of
children needing care:
42,574 with working mothers

1,569 children in CalWORKs families*
*this is only 30% of all CalWORKs children

Percent Served: 27.8% of children needing
care in SPA 5 could be served by existing
licensed child care slots.

Percent of children in demand group who
could be served by providers with the
following services:

I PACE 412:

Appendix 1:
Service Planning Areas and Supervisorial Districts “At a Glance”

SPA 6 - Demographics

Estimated Number of Children
Age 0-5 128,690
Age 6- 12 130,375

Source: Children’s Planning Council (CPC) 1998
projections

Percentage of working mothers with:
Children under 6 39.67%
Children 6 to 17 55.55%

Source: 1990 Census

CalWORKs

22% of all children are in families
participating in CalWORKs (56,410)
Source: DPSS, January 1998

Estimating demand for child care:

This report assumes that only working
mothers (including CalWORKs mothers
complying with federal work requirements)
will need child care for their children.
Maternal employment rates from the 1990
Census are used to estimate the percentage
of children with working mothers and 30%
of the CalWORKs child caseload is included
in the demand estimate, assuming that
welfare reforms have moved this percentage
of mothers into the labor force. These
children, who will need some sort of non-
matemal care, comprise our demand group.
This study shows the percentage of children
in the “demand” group that could ﬁnd
licensed child care in SPA 6. Important
notes: 1) Parents have options beyond
licensed child care listed with CCL and the
R&R agencies and 2) Center slots include
half-day programs.

SPA 6 - Child Care Overview

Estimated number of licensed slots
supplied by licensed providers in the
matched database:

FCCH preferred capacity: 7,395
Center preferred capacity: 14,686

Demand Group/ Estimated number of
children needing care:
123,475 with working mothers

16,923 children in CalWORKs families*
*this is only 30% of all CalWORKs children

Percent Served: 16.7% of children needing
care in SPA 6 could be served by existing
licensed child care slots.

Percent of children in demand group who
could be served by providers with the
following services:

42 PACE

Appendix 1:
Service Planning Areas and Supervisoriai Districts “At a Glance”

SPA 7 - Demographics

Estimated Number of Children

Age 0-5 143,981

Age 6- 12 154,448

Source: Children’s Planning Council (CPC) 1998
prolecnons

Percentage of working mothers wth:
Children under 6 51.33%
Children 6 to 17 62.88%

Source: 1990 Census

CalWORKs

12% of all children are in families
participating in CalWORKs (34,942)
Source: DPSS, January 1998

Estimating demand for child care:

This report assumes that only working
mothers (including CalWORKs mothers
complying with federal work requirements)
will need child care for their children.
Maternal employment rates from the 1990
Census are used to estimate the percentage
of children with working mothers and 30%
of the CalWORKs child caseload is included
in the demand estimate, assuming that
welfare reforms have moved this percentage
of mothers into the labor force. These
children, who will need some sort of non-
maternal care, comprise our demand group.
This study shows the percentage of children
in the “demand” group that could ﬁnd
licensed child care in SPA 7. Important
notes: 1) Parents have options beyond
licensed child care listed with CCL and the
R&R agencies and 2) Center slots include
half-day programs.

SPA 7 - Child Care Overview

Estimated number of licensed slots
supplied by licensed providers in the
matched database:

FCCH preferred capacity: 5,090
Center preferred capacity: 12,515

Demand Group/ Estimated number of
children needing care:
171,022 with working mothers

10,483 children in CalWORKs families*
*this is only 30% of all CalWORKs children

Percent Served: 10.1% of children needing
care in SPA 7 could be served by existing
licensed child care slots.

Percent of children in demand group who
could be served by providers with the
following services:

PAGE 22:3

Appendix 1:
Service Pianning Areas and Supervisorial Districts “At a Glance”

SPA 8 - Demographics

Estimated Number of Children
Age 0-5 129,156
Age 6- 12 142,162

Source: Children’s Planning Council (CPC) 1998
projections

Percentage of working mothers with:
Children under 6 53.04%
Children 6 to 17 67.23%

Source: 1990 Census

CalWORKs

16% of all children are in families
participating in CalWORKs (42,866)
Source: DPSS, January 1998

Estimating demand for child care:

This report assumes that only working
mothers (including CalWORKs mothers
complying with federal work requirements)
will need child care for their children.
Maternal employment rates from the 1990
Census are used to estimate the percentage
of children with working mothers and 30%
of the CalWORKs child caseload is included
in the demand estimate, assuming that
welfare reforms have moved this percentage
of mothers into the labor force. These
children, who will need some sort of non-
matemal care, comprise our demand group.
This study shows the percentage of children
in the “demand” group that could ﬁnd
licensed child care in SPA 8. Important
notes: 1) Parents have options beyond
licensed child care listed with CCL and the
R&R agencies and 2) Center slots include
half-day programs.

SPA 8 - Child Care Overview

Estimated number of licensed slots
supplied by licensed providers in the
matched database:

FCCH preferred capacity: 8,425
Center preferred capacity: 19,395

Demand Group/ Estimated number of
children needing care:
164,080 with working mothers

12,860 children in CalWORKs families*
*this is only 30% of all CalWORKs children

Percent Served: 16.7% of children needing
care in SPA 8 could be served by existing
licensed child care slots.

Percent of children in demand group who
could be served by providers with the
following services:

ad: PACE

Appendix ‘1:
Service Pianning Areas and Supervisoriai Districts “At a Giance”

Supervisorial District 1 -
Demographics

Estimated Number of Children
Age 0-5 216,773
Age 6- 12 228,742

Source: Children’s Planning Council (CPC) 1998
projections

Percentage of working mothers with:
Children under 6 44.8%
Children 6 to 17 55.9%

Source: 1990 Census

CalWORKs

13% of all children are in families
participating in CalWORKs (58,543)
Source: DPSS, January 1998

Estimating demand for child care:

This report assumes that only working
mothers (including CalWORKs mothers
complying with federal work requirements)
will need child care for their children.
Maternal employment rates from the 1990
Census are used to estimate the percentage
of children with working mothers and 30%
of the CalWORKs child caseload is included
in the demand estimate, assuming that
welfare reforms have moved this percentage
of mothers into the labor force. These
children, who will need some sort of non—
maternal care, comprise our demand group.
This study shows the percentage of children
in the “demand” group that could ﬁnd
licensed child care in Supervisorial District
1. Important notes: 1) Parents have options
beyond licensed child care listed with CCL
and the R&R agencies and 2) Center slots
include half-day programs.

PACE a

Supervisorial District 1- Child Care
Overview

Estimated number of licensed slots
supplied by licensed providers in the
matched database:
FCCH preferred capacity:
Center preferred capacity:

5,024
16,716

Demand Group/Estimated number of
children needing care:
224,980 with working mothers

17,563 children in CalWORKs families*
*this is only 30% of all CalWORKs children

Percent Served: 9.2% of children needing
care in Supervisorial District 1 could be
served by existing licensed child care slots.

Percent of children in demand group who
could be served by providers with the
following services:

7°/(

(«it

Appendix 1:
Service Planning Areas and Supervisorial Districts “At a Glance”

Supervisorial District 2 -
Demographics

Estimated Number of Children
Age 0-5 203,440
Age 6- 12 216,807

Source: Children’s Flaming Council (CPC) 1998
projections

Percentage of working mothers with:
Children under 6 46.7%
Children 6 to 17 61.8%

Source: 1990 Census

CalWORKs

19% of all children are in families
participating in CalWORKs (78,357)
Source: DPSS, January 1998

Estimating demand for child care:

This report assumes that only working
mothers (including CalWORKs mothers
complying with federal work requirements)
will need child care for their children.
Maternal employment rates from the 1990
Census are used to estimate the percentage
of children with working mothers and 30%
of the CalWORKs child caseload is included
in the demand estimate, assuming that
welfare reforms have moved this percentage
of mothers into the labor force. These
children, who will need some sort of non-
matemal care, comprise our demand group.
This study shows the percentage of children
in the “demand” group that could ﬁnd
licensed child care in Supervisorial District
2. Important notes: 1) Parents have options
beyond licensed child care listed with CCL
and the R&R agencies and 2) Center slots
include half-day programs.

Supervisorial District 2 - Child
Care Overview

Estimated number of licensed slots
supplied by licensed providers in the
matched database:

FCCH preferred capacity: 13,799
Center preferred capacity: 25,226

Demand Group/Estimated number of
children needing care:
228,890 with working mothers

23,507 children in CalWORKs families*
*this is only 30% of all CalWORKs children

Percent Served: 16.5% of children needing
care in Supervisorial District 2 could be
served by existing licensed child care slots.

Percent of children in demand group who
could be served by providers with the
following services:

4‘5 PACE

Appendix 1:
Service Planning Areas and Supervisoriai Districts “At a Glance”

Supervisorial District 3 -
Demographics

Estimated Number of Children
Age 0-5 152,233
Age 6- 12 171,430

Source: Children’s Flaming Council (CPC) 1998
projections

Percentage of working mothers with:
Children under 6 53.48%
Children 6 to 17 65.12%

Source: 1990 Census

CalWORKs

9% of all children are in families
participating in CalWORKs (29,015)
Source: DPSS, January 1998

Estimating demand for child care:

This report assumes that only working
mothers (including CalWORKs mothers
complying with federal work requirements)
will need child care for their children.
Maternal employment rates from the 1990
Census are used to estimate the percentage
of children with working mothers and 30%
of the CalWORKs child caseload is included
in the demand estimate, assuming that
welfare reforms have moved this percentage
of mothers into the labor force. These
children, who will need some sort of non-
maternal care, comprise our demand group.
This study shows the percentage of children
in the “demand” group that could ﬁnd
licensed child care in Supervisorial District
3. Important notes: 1) Parents have options
beyond licensed child care listed with CCL
and the R&R agencies and 2) Center slots
include half-day programs.

PACE

Supervisorial District 3 - Child
Care Overview

Estimated number of licensed slots
supplied by licensed providers in the
matched database:

FCCH preferred capacity: 7,236
Center preferred capacity: 29,395

Demand Group/Estimated number of
children needing care:
193,049 with working mothers

8,705 children in CalWORKs families*
*this is only 30% of all CalWORKs children

Percent Served: 18.8% of children needing
care in Supervisorial District 3 could be
served by existing licensed child care slots.

Percent of children in demand group who
could be served by providers with the
following services:

1
i severe sp.nwd “

(its
as;

Appendix 1:
Service Pianning Areas and Supervisorial Districts “At a Giance”

Supervisorial District 4 -
Demographics

Estimated Number of Children
Age 0-5 166,675
Age 6- 12 190,636

Source: Children’s Flaming Council (CPC) 1998
projections

Percentage of working mothers with:
Children under 6 55.28%
Children 6 to 17 68.12%

Source: 1990 Census

CalWORKs

12% of all children are in families
participating in CalWORKs (43,620)
Source: DPSS, January 1998

Estimating demand for child care:

This report assumes that only working
mothers (including CalWORKs mothers
complying with federal work requirements)
will need child care for their children.
Maternal employment rates from the 1990
Census are used to estimate the percentage
of children with working mothers and 30%
of the CalWORKs child caseload is included
in the demand estimate, assuming that
welfare reforms have moved this percentage
of mothers into the labor force. These
children, who will need some sort of non-
matemal care, comprise our demand group.
This study shows the percentage of children
in the “demand” group that could ﬁnd
licensed child care in Supervisorial District
4. Important notes: 1) Parents have options
beyond licensed child care listed with CCL
and the R&R agencies and 2) Center slots
include half-day programs.

Supervisorial District 4 - Child
Care Overview

Estimated number of licensed slots
supplied by licensed providers in the
matched database:

FCCH preferred capacity: 8,420
Center preferred capacity: 26,717

Demand Group/ Estimated number of
children needing care:
221,999 with working mothers

13,086 children in CalWORKs families*
*this is only 30% of all CalWORKs children

Percent Served: 15.8% of children needing
care in Supervisorial District 4 could be
served by existing licensed child care slots.

Percent of children in demand group who
could be served by providers with the
following services:

as PACE

‘ Appendix 1:
Semee Pianning Areas and Supervisoriai Districts “At a Giance”

Supervisorial District 5 -
Demographics

Estimated Number of Children
Age 0-5 172846
Age 6- 12 195,140

Source: Children’s Planning Council (CPC) 1998
projections

Percentage of working mothers with:
Children under 6 55.55%
Children 6 to 17 68.98%

Source: 1990 Census

CalWORKs

11%% of all children are in families
participating in CalWORKs (39350)
Source: DPSS, January 1998

Estimating demand for child care:

This report assumes that only working
mothers (including CalWORKs mothers
complying with federal work requirements)
will need child care for their children.
Maternal employment rates from the 1990
Census are used to estimate the percentage
of children with working mothers and 30%
of the CalWORKs child caseload is included
in the demand estimate, assuming that
welfare reforms have moved this percentage
of mothers into the labor force. These
children, who will need some sort of non-
maternal care, comprise our demand group.
This study shows the percentage of children
in the “demand” group that could ﬁnd
licensed child care in Supervisorial District
5. Important notes: 1) Parents have options
beyond licensed child care listed with CCL
and the R&R agencies and 2) Center slots
include half-day programs.

Supervisorial District 5 - Child
Care Overview

Estimated number of licensed slots
supplied by licensed providers in the
matched database:

FCCH preferred capacity: 11,482
Center preferred capacity: 36,3 83

Demand Group/ Estimated number of
children needing care:
230,624 with working mothers

11,805 children in CalWORKs families*
*this is only 30% of all CalWORKs children

Percent Served: 20.5% of children needing
care in Supervisorial District 5 could be
served by existing licensed child care slots.

Percent of children in demand group who
could be served by providers with the
following services:

race as?

_ Appendix 1:
Samoa Planning Areas and Supervisoria§ Districts “At a Glance”

I ?ACE

Appendix 2:
Licensed Capacity Adjustments

As noted in Section 1, a two step process was used to ﬁnd true capacity. First, R&R
licensed capacity records were adjusted for the population to reﬂect provider-reported
licensing. In their survey responses, many providers reported a greater licensed capacity
than was recorded in R&R data. This was especially true for providers serving school-age
children. In tables 1 A and B, numbers less than 1 indicate that R&R data overestimated
licensed capacity while numbers greater than 1 suggest capacity was underestimated. In
SPA 1, for example, for every 100 licensed infant slots in R&R records, providers
indicated that there were actually only 88 licensed slots. Conversely, for every 100

licensed school age slots in SPA 1, providers reported that there were actually 141
licensed slots.

After adjusting population records of licensed capacity, providers' preferences to serve
fewer children were incorporated into the analysis. This reduced the number of slots by
an average of 4% for centers and 12% for F CCHs. The preference adjustments reﬂect the
percentage of slots providers wished to ﬁll (between 91% and 98% for centers and
between 85% and 97% for FCCHs, depending on geographical location). Tables 2A.
and B. show the actual projections of capacity. This adjusted capacity was used as a base
for making estimates about the supply of special types of care discussed in Section III
and Appendix 5.

Table l.A. Center Capacity Adjustments

Reduction factor:
Adjustment Factor for provider reported provider

licerﬂg reference
SPA N infant pre-school school-age total pref. reduction

1 54 .88 .99 1.41 1.05 .91
2 256 1.15 1.02 1.17 1.03 .96
3 217 1.07 1.04 1.30 1.07 .95
4 110 1.19 1.00 1.06 1.01 .95
5 72 .96 1.06 1.42 1.09 .98
6 126 .95 1.03 ' 1.21 1.04 .98
7 93 1.03 1.06 1.13 1.07 .98
8 1.02 1.22 1.04 .95

Supr. Dist.1 126 1.07 1.04 1.15 1.05 0.98
Supr. Dist. 2 250 1.07 1.03 1.25 1.05 0.98
Supr. Dist. 3 164 1.02 1.04 1.11 1.04 0.97
Supr. Dist. 4 204 1.08 1.03 1.16 1.04 0.97
Su r. Dist. 5 289 1.21 1.01 1.26 1.05 0.95

Q,“
«A

PACE

Appendix 2:
Licensed Capacity Adjustments

Table 1.B. FCCH Capacity Adjustment Rates:

Adjustment for Adjustment for One Step Adjustment rate

provider reported providers preferring to (includes lie. and pref.
SPA N licensing serve fewer children adjustments)
1 77 1.02 .92 .94
2 226 1.04 .85 .89
3 167 1.01 .85 .86
4 68 1.02 .89 .91
5 53 1.04 .85 .88
6 149 1.05 .92 .97
7 122 1.01 .88 .88
8

_.1.TO

Supr. Dist. 1 126 1.02 0.89 0.92
Supr. Dist. 2 250 1.04 0.92 0.96
Supr. Dist. 3 164 1.04 0.89 0.92
Supr. Dist. 4 204 1.04 0.85 0.87
Supr. Dist. 5 289 1.02 0.83 0.85

52 PAGE

Appendix 2:
Licensed Capacity Adjustments

Tables 2B. and E. include an additional capacity adjustment. The original survey sample was based on the number of ﬁrms that
appeared in both R&R records and CCL records (See Appendix 8). Firms listed with both sources are referred to as matched cases;
ﬁrms appearing only in CCL records are referred to as unmatched. Subsequent to the completion of the original survey, DPSS staff
called the unmatched FCCH providers and recorded capacity information from the 1033 providers still in operation. The preferred
capacity of the unmatched population is included in Table 2B. and in comparisons of the overall number of slots per hundred children

(See Appendix 3). Unmatched F CCH capacity is not included in projections of the number of slots offering special types of care, as
presented in Appendix 5.

Table 2A. CENTER CAPACITY- SPA and county levels

Infant Preschool School Age Total Center Capacity
. R&R Provider providers R&R Provider providers .
R&R Provider Providers records of reported prefer to records of reported prefer to R&R Provider Providers
SPA # of Centers records reported Prefer Cap licensing serve Cap licensing serve records reported , Prefer

1 59 86 76 70 3056 3036 2781 917 1290 1174 4193 4402

2 463 1181 1358 1299 25909 26306 25132 6118 7145 6852 33407 34808
3 426 1519 1625 1549 21704 22616 21704 4493 5857 5571 27895 30098
4 207 481 573 548 10821 10811 10280 1376 1457 1390 12693 12841
5 154 202 194 190 7794 8281 8106 766 1090 1072 8762 9565

6 228 714 681 671 11574 11867 11690 1970 2378 2325 14350 14926
7 181 529 545 534 9356 9904 9637 21 12 2393 2344 12087 12841
8 316 880 902 862 14816 15130 14372 3587 4377 4161 19470 20410

5:5 I PACE

Appendix 2:
Licensed Capacity Adjustments

Table 2B. F CCH Capacity- SPA and county levels

reported ProViders

# of R&R Provider
matched licensed
SPA FCCHs records licensin 1
1 330 3252 333 1
2 967 9932 103 75
3 923 8692 8780
4 33 1 345 8 3 5 1 6
5 280 293 6 3066
6 73 7 7624 8025
7 5 85 5784 5 846
8 93 5 9466
county 5088

Table 2D. Center Capacity-Supervisorial

. Provider
, Total R&R Reported /
SPA Li‘c Cap Lie Cap
1 7445 7733
2 43339 45183
3 36587 38879
4 16151 16357
5 1 1698 12632
6 21974 22951
7 17871 18687
8 28936 301 18

*includes unmatched FCCH preferred capacity.

Table 2.C. Total Market Capacity-SPA and county

W Preferred ca? 1 I

Infant Preschool School Age Total Center Capacity
Matched Provider Matched Provider Matched Provider Matched Provider .
database reported Providers database reported Providers database reported Providers database reported Praviders
# of records of licensed prefer to records of licensed prefer to records of licensed prefer to records of licensed -, prefer to
Sup. Dist. Centers capacity capacity serve capacity capacity serve capacity capacity serve capacity capacity serve .
Sup. Dist. 1 275 877 938 920 13497 14037 13756 1853 2131 2088 16245 17057
Sup. Dist. 2 406 993 1063 1041 19954 20553 20142 3476 4345 4258 24515 25741
Sup. Dist. 3 434 798 814 790 23633 24578 23841 4586 5090 4938 29139 30305
Sup. Dist. 4 392 1334 1441 1397 20304 20913 20286 4569 5300 5141 26484 27543
Sup. Dist. 5 527 1590 1924 1828 27642 27918 26522 6855 8637 8205 36474 3 8298 .2
! PACE

534

Appendix 2:

Licensed Capacity Adjustments

Table 2.E. FCCH Capacity-Supervisorial

Matched Provider
# of database reported Providers
matched records of licensed prefer to
Sup. Dist. FCCHs capacity capacity
Sup. Dist. 1 592 5534 5645
Sup. Dist. 2 1391 14422 14999
Sup. Dist. 3 738 7818 8131
Sup. Dist. 4 977 9808 9906
Sup. Dist. 5 1390 13562 13833

Unmatched
FCCH
preferred

TOTAL
FCCH
preferred

I PACE

Table 2.F. Total Market Capacity-Supervisorial
Matched Provider a;
database reported Providers
records of licensed prefer to

Sup. Dist. capacity capacity sen'e

Sup. Dist. 1 21779 22702

Sup. Dist. 2 38937 40740

Sup. Dist. 3 36957 38435

Sup. Dist. 4 36292 37449

Sup. Dist. 5 50036 52131

*includes unmatched FCCH preferred capacity.

Appendix 2:
Licensed Capacity Adjustments

PACE

Appendix 3:
Percent oi Child Popuiation Served by Estimated Demand

Comparing Supply with Estimated Demand

To determine the percent of the population that could be served by existing slots, this
analysis compares the number of slots providers prefer to ﬁll to the number of children
who could potentially need care. The ﬁrst comparison of children to slots includes all
resident children, the second includes only children with working mothers, and the ﬁnal
comparison includes 30% of the CalWORKs child population in addition to children with
working mothers. The ﬁrst two demand estimates are included so that the ﬁndings can be
compared with other studies. However, the third estimate may be the strongest indicator of
demand. Tables C. and D. use unadjusted licensed capacity from the matched database as
a base and are comparable with the zip code level ﬁle in Table 1.E. (The sample size does
not allow for generalizations at the zip code level.)

Child population estimates are from the United Way Zip Code Book 1998. CalWORKs
counts are from January 1999, prepared by DPSS for the Los Angeles County Child Care
Planning Committee, and maternal labor force participation rates (MLFP) are based on
1990 census data. Number of slots per hundred children is synonymous with the
percentage of children served.

This appendix only includes data at the SPA and Supervisorial district level. Zip code-
level data is available by request from PACE.

Table 1.A. Com aring Demand Estimates to Preferred Capacity at the SPA and County Levels.

Maternal Labor Force
Population Participation Rates % of population potentially served
# of slots per
Maternal ' 100 children
Maternal Labor Force . w/ working
Totai # of Labor Force Participation - 1# of slots per moms + 30%
Provider Total # of CalWORKs Participation - mothers with # of slots 100 children . of
preferred children age children age mothers with school-age , per 100 w/ working CaiWORKs
SPA capacity" 0-12 0-12 children<6 children children mothers kids
1 7509 68832 12482 45.7% 66.9% 10.9 19.3% 17.6%
2 43859 355449 31284 56.2% 67.9% 12.3 19.8% 19.0%
3 37704 352632 36833 53.6% 65.4% 10.7 17.9% 17.0%
4 16225 240583 28839 47.0% 59.2% 6.7 12.6% 11.8%
5 12286 68414 5229 55.8% 67.4% 18.0 28.9% 27.8%
6 23429 259065 56410 39.7% 55.6% 9.0 19.0% 16.7%
7 18369 298429 34942 51.3% 62.9% 6.2 10.7% 10.1%
8 29502 271318 42866 53.0% 67.2% 18.0%
co '“ “5 23m 9:4?22' ‘1 T523888 , {£09 640% , / , ,

*includes preferred capacity of 1033 unmatched F CCH providers

PACE

Appendix

Percent of Child Population Served by Estimated Demand

Table 1B. Comparing Demand Estimates to Preferred Capacity at the Supervisorial Level.

Maternal Labor Force
Sup. Dist. Population Participation Rates % of population potentially served
# of slots per
Maternal 100 children
Maternal Labor Force w/ working
Total # of Labor Force Participation -- #4 of slots per moms + 30%
Super- _ Provider Total # of CalWORKs Participation .. mothers with # of slots lOO-children of
visorial preferred children age children age mothers with school—age per 100 w/ working CalWORKs
district capacity 0-12 0—12 children<6 children children mothers ' kids
1 22370 445515 58543 44.8% 55.9% 5.02 9.9% 9.2%
2 41710 420247 78357 46.7% 61.8% 9.93 18.2% 16.5%
3 37985 323663 29015 53.5% 65.1% 11.74 19.7% 18.8%
4 37097 357311 43620 55.3% 68.1% 10.38 16.7% 15.8%
5 49793 367986 39350 55.6% 69.0% 13.53 21.6%

20.5%

Table 1.C. Comparing Demand Estimates to Matched Database Capacity at the SPA and County Levels.

Maternal Labor Force
SPA Population Participation Rates % of population potentially served
# of slots per
Maternal 100 children
Maternal Labor Force w/ working
Total # of Labor Force Participation — n of slots per moms + 30%
matched Total # of CaIWORKs Participation —- mothers with # of slot: 100 children of
database children age children age mothers with school-age per 100 w/ working CaIWORKs
SPA capacity 0-12 0—12 children<6 children children mothers kids
1 7935 68832 12482 45.7% 66.9% 11.5 20.4% 18.6%
2 45415 355449 31284 56.2% 67.9% 12.8 20.5% 19.7%
3 38387 352632 36833 53.6% 65.4% 10.9 18.2% 17.3%
4 17088 240583 28839 47.0% 59.2% 7.1 13.3% 12.4%
5 12066 68414 5229 55.8% 67.4% 17.6 28.3% 27.3%
6 23526 259065 56410 39.7% 55.6% 9.1 19.1% 16.8%
7 18841 298429 34942 51.3% 62.9% 6.3 11.0% 10.4%
8 30962 . 271318 67.2% 11.4 17.5%
-caaiiiy§f5139 ”914722 ’ 715.4%

Appendix 3:
Percent of Child Population Served by Estimated Bemand

Table 1.D. Comparing Demand Estimates to R&R Capacity at the Supervisorial Level

Population Maternal Labor Force % of population potentially
Participation Rates served
Maternal children w/
Maternal Labor Force # of slots working
Total Total # of Labor Force Participation - per 100 moms +

Super-u matched Total#of CalWORlG Participation— mothers with children or children w/ 30% of
visonal database children age children age mothers with school-age % of child working CalWORKs

district capacity 0-12 0-12 children<6 children pop served mothers kids
1 22559 445515 58543 44.8% 55.9% 5.1 10.0% 9.3%
2 41988 420247 78357 46.7% 61.8% 10.0 18.3% 16.6%
3 38523 323663 29015 53.5% 65.1% 11.9 20.0% 19.1%
4 38726 357311 43620 55.3% 68.1% 10.8 17.4% 16.5%

21.6%

5 52424 367986 39350 55 6% 69.0% 14.2 22.7%

PACE 5%

Appendix 3:
Percent of Child Population Served by Estimated Demand

Center Capacity by Age Group

A separate comparison of center capacity by age group is presented here because only
centers obtain licenses that are age-group speciﬁc. FCCHs can care for infants so long as
the adult-child ratio is reduced, and conversely can have a higher adult-child ratio if they
serve school-age children. Thus, capacity per age group comparisons are not possible with
FCCHs since the ages they choose to serve are not speciﬁed and may change over time.

Table 1. Percent of children that Center slots could serve by age_group

Children in demand group Total child population
% infants % preschool % school-age % infants % preschool % schoolage
* potentially potentially potentially potentially potentially potentially
SPA served served served served served served
1 0.8% 32.3% 4.6% 0.4% 16.7% 3.3%
2 2.6% 52.0% 5.2% 1.5% 30.7% 3.7%
3 3.3% 46.4% 4.3% 1.9% 26.5% 3.0%
4 2.0% 35.5% 1.7% 1.0% 18.0% 1.1%
5 2.2% 89.5% 4.1% 1.3% 52.2% 2.8%
6 2.3% 39.2% 2.8% 1.0% 18.4% 1.8%
7 1.4% 24.4% 2.3% 0.7% 13.4% 1.5%
8 2.3% 38.0% 4.1% 1.3% 22.2% 2.9%
Total 2.3% 41.4% 3 .6% 1.2% 22.9% 2.5%

Table 2. Percent of children that Center slots could serve by age group

Children in demand ggoup Total child population
Super- % infants % preschool % school age % infants % preschool % school age
visorial potentially potentially potentially potentially potentially potentially
district served served served served served served
1 1.8% 25.7% 1.5% 0.9% 12.6% 0.9%
2 2.0% 38.1% 2.9% 1.0% 20.2% 2.0%
3 1.8% 57.4% 4.2% 1.0% 32.4% 2.9%
4 2.9% 40.7% 3.8% 1.7% 24.2% 2.7%
5 3.6% 51.9% 5.8% 2.1% 30.6% 4.2%
Total 2.3% 41.4% 3 .6% 1.2% 22.9% 2.5%
ea PACE

Appendix 4:
Vacancy Rates

Regional vacancy rates were computed as a ratio of the total number of vacant slots in a
region to the total preferred capacity. This eliminated distortions caused by the skewed
distribution of vacancies within each area. (Figure 1 shows the distribution of vacancies
among centers in the county. The distribution is skewed with the most frequent vacancy
rate being zero. FCCHs followed a similar pattern.) The sample for center vacancy rates
was reduced to 795 cases due to missing or corrupt data. In addition, vacancy rates may be
relatively high when compared to earlier studies that did not take preferred capacity into
account. In other words, accounting for providers who preferred to care for fewer children
inﬂates the vacancy rate by shrinking the base number of slots. Since Table 1.B. uses
licensed capacity as a base, the data is comparable to earlier studies. Observed differences
in rates between geographical areas may be due to sampling error.

Figure 1. Distribution of Center Vacancy Rates in Los Angeles County

«on 1

300

200

100

Std. Dev = .1 9
Mean = .15
N = 795,00

.30 40 .SO SO .70 .80
.05 1 S .25 35 45 .55 .65 .75 .85

TOTVRT

Table 1A. SPA and County Vacancy Rates Based on Preferred Capacity
FCCH Center Vacancy Rate

acancy - pre-school vacancy schooi—age vacancy
SPA ate ., , total aacnc rate infant vacancy rate rate rate

1 5% 16% 33%
2 22% 16% ‘ 17%
3 16% 18% 17%
4 17% 14% 17%
5 5% 13% 54%
6 28% 20% 17%
7 43%* 18% 10%
8 22% 15% 28%
Coun - M .. . w. ,. . M2,“ . 7 ,, 20% 16% 24%
Note: Only SPA 7 had signiﬁcantly higher average ﬁrm vacancies for infant care. No signiﬁcant differences

in FCCH ﬁrm vacancies were identiﬁed.

PACE

Q}?
max

Appendix 4:

Vacancy Rates

Table 1.B. Vacancy rates using provider reported licensing as a base

to serve fewer children.

FCCH [Center Vac Rate - Provider reported cap
‘ , atone}: total vacancy infant vacancy pre-school school-age
SPA ate ‘ ‘rate ' rate vacancy rate vacancy rate

1 ' 5% 16% 32%

2 22% 15% 17%

3 16% 17% 16%

4 17% 14% 16%

5 5% 11% 48%

6 28% 20% 16%

7 43% 18% 9%

8 21% 14% 28%
Conn 20% 16% 23%

Note: These ﬁgures are comparable to earlier studies that did not take into account provider preferences

Table 1.C. Supervisorial vacancy rates based on the total number of vacant slots in the

region
CCH

'Supr. acancy Total Center CENTER CENTER CENTER
Dist. - ates vacanc rates Infant Preschool Schoolage

1 " . 18% 20% 24%

2 25% 18% 36%

3 17% 14% 19%

4 g , 55 g 34% 14% 11%

5 ., , V 23% 16% 18%

Notes: 1. Preferred capacity used as base. 2. Signiﬁcant differences - Supr. Dist 2 had a signiﬁcantly
higher average center vacancy rate than Supr. Dist. 3. No signiﬁcant differences in FCCH ﬁrm

vacancies were identiﬁed.

Table l.D. Vacancy rates in the average and median ﬁrm, county level analysis

Total
FCCH Center
vacancy vacancy CENTER CENTER CENTER
rates rates Infant Preschool School-age
N Valid 1033 797 710 175
a 6 . , Missing a ”.60 p 0 , 87. , .621
Meﬂlan l 6% 4% 6%
Mode 0% 0% 0% 0%

Note: Average ﬁrm vacancies did not differ greatly ﬁom the aggregated vacancy rates we computed in
Table 1.A. Vacancy rates for the median ﬁrm were substantially lower than average rates, which is
expected when the distributions are skewed. The most frequently reported vacancy rate was zero. This
rate (0%) includes ﬁrms offering shifts whose vacancies are only for part of the program day.

PACE.

Appendix 5:
Special Types of Care

Tables displaying the special types of care offered by providers at the SPA and Supervisorial
district level (e.g., transportation provided, evening and weekend care, willing to care for
children with special needs) are available by request from PACE.

PACE

$§

Appendix 5:
Special Types of Care

PACE

Appendix 6:
Languages

Tables displaying languages spoken by providers and clients are available by request from
PACE.

PACE

Appendix 6:
Languages

I PACE

Appendix 7:
Barriers to Expansion

Tables displaying providers’ perceived barriers to expansion and to providing special needs and
non-traditional hours care are available by request from PACE.

PACE 5

Appendix 7:
Barriers to Expansion

Appendix 8:
Database Matching issues

Child care planners typically use two sources of data to determine the supply of licensed child
care in any given community: data from the California Department of Social Services
Community Care Licensing division (CCL), and information collected by Child Care Resource
& Referral agencies (R&Rs). However, the data provided by these organizations often looks
quite different. Community Care Licensing generally reports a much higher supply of licensed
care than do Resource & Referral agencies. Therefore, planners face the dilemma of trying to
determine which number is more accurate.

One goal of this Child Care Needs Assessment was to create a more accurate picture of the
supply of licensed care in the county. In spring 1999, PACE staff reconciled the databases from
the ten R&Rs in Los Angeles with those of CCL. The results of this process were as follows:

Out of 7836 FCCHs in the Community Care Licensing ﬁle and 5352 FCCHs in the R&R ﬁles,
we were able to match 5088 FCCHS. From 3316 centers in the CCL ﬁle and 2195 centers in the
R&R ﬁles, we were able to match 2034 Centers. This left 2748 FCCHS from CCL data
unmatched, and 253 FCCHs from the R&R data unmatched, while for centers 826 that appeared
in CCL data did not show up in the R&R ﬁles, and 153 in the R&R ﬁles did not appear in the
CCL ﬁles.

There were a number of database issues that arose as we explored why these mismatches existed.
Some were mechanical: Center and FCCH names are not entered exactly the same across the
databases; there were typographical errors; centers with multiple licenses are in the CCL
database multiple times, facilities move and change names, and so forth. However, many of the
database differences were due to policies on how providers who are inactive or not wanting
referrals are listed in the databases.

CCL databases include all providers who are maintaining a current license, whether or not they
are currently caring for children. A survey of the FCCHs appearing in CCL databases but not in
the R&R databases revealed 1053 were licensed but not currently caring for children.1 However,
another 1033 are caring for children, and represent over 8000 child-care slots across the county.
Thus, the R&Rs’ databases of active child care homes undercount the actual number of homes
providing care, while CCL’s database overcounts available care.

In some cases, the R&R agencies do not list family homes or child care centers which are
providing care because these providers do not want to receive referrals, or did not respond to
R&R outreach. In others, some R&Rs maintain a separate database for those providers which
are in business but do not want referrals, and did not provide that information to us, as we did not
know at the time to request it. Finally, there may have been some newly licensed homes and
centers in the CCL database that had not yet been entered into the R&R databases. While this
last issue is easily resolved when CCL provides updates to R&Rs, the ﬁrst two problems require
action on the part of all of the R&Rs. There should be consistent approaches to including all
active providers in one database, whether or not the provider wants R&R services. These homes
represent real capacity that needs to be counted.

PACE as

Appendix 8:
Database Matching issues

R&R databases also contained listings for homes and centers which did not appear in the CCL
database. In some cases, these providers were no longer active - we found that over 10% of the
FCCHS had closed between the time we reconciled the databases and the implementation of the
survey (around 4 months). Likewise, some centers had closed or moved. In a few cases license
exempt individuals were mislabeled as FCCHS, and license-exempt centers were labeled as
licensed centers. Still, there were many FCCHS and centers which were active, but who were not
matched in CCL’s data simply due to changes in name, address, or different ways of listing the
institutions in 'the two databases.

There are a number of actions we recommend to make the database reconciliation process
smoother and improve the accuracy of R&R data:

Regular reconciliation of the R&R and CCL databases. If the databases are reconciled
annually (or more often), there will be fewer discrepancies over time.

After reconciliation, phone calls to providers appearing in CCL databases but not in R&R
databases to ﬁnd out if they are currently caring for children. These providers should be
included in the R&R databases whether or not they are active (see #7).

Use of the CCL names for providers (even with typographical errors). Electronic
database reconciliation is not possible unless the data is entered exactly the same way.
R&Rs can add a ﬁeld to their databases speciﬁcally for the CCL name, and use this ﬁeld
for database reconciliation. They need to make sure they enter the name exactly as it
appears in the CCL ﬁle, including identical abbreviations. If there are typographical
errors in the CCL data, they should notify CCL or enter the name complete with the error
in the ﬁeld they will use to match databases.

Inclusion of all CCL license numbers for centers in the R&R databases. Unless all of the
CCL license numbers for each center are in the database, the license numbers are not
useful for reconciliation. Using license numbers may also lead to duplicate center listings
in the databases.

Having only one listing per child care center, but developing a ﬁeld to record all of the
license numbers. Before reconciling with CCL databases, consolidate multiple listings in
CCL databases into one record and use names to reconcile

Inclusion by R&Rs of all active providers, whether or not they accept R&R referrals, in
their databases. These providers represent real capacity that needs to be counted, to
eliminate R&R undercounts of the licensed child care supply. R&Rs could add an
indicator to their databases for providers who are active but do not want referrals, with
reasons (e. g., employer-based care, full-does not need referrals, prefers to seek own
clients).

Inclusion of information on FCCH providers who are maintaining licenses when they are
not currently providing care, with capacity for these homes recorded as “zero.” R&Rs
may also want to have a special ﬂag for providers who are not active, with reasons (e. g.,
vacation, maternity leave, inactive—may start again)

Regular review by R&Rs of their databases to make sure that there are no duplicate
entries.

Regular updating of R&R databases with CCL closure information.

i Another 661 providers listed in CCL’s database but not in the R&R databases were not reachable.

7’9

PACE

V11

V12

V13

Appendix 9:
Survey Instruments (Centers)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY CHILD CARE NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY
CENTERS

SECTION 1: Assessment of Licensed Capacity
How many children are currently enrolled in your program? V11

How many of these are:

Infants and toddlers under 2 years of age? V12A __

Children 2 years old and above who have not yet entered school? V12B __
School age children? V12C __

Do you operate shiﬁs? (i.e., do you have groups of children who come at different

times and don’t overlap?) V13 Yes/N0 (1/0)

V14

V15

V16

V17

V21

IF YES, GO TO V14; IF NO, GO TO V15

What type of shifts? How many kids in each? (Y ES=1, NO=0)
Before school V14A1 __ (0/1) V14A2 number of kids: __
Morning V14B1 __ (0/ 1) V14B2 number of kids: __
Afternoon V14C1__ (0/ 1) V14C2 number of kids:
After school V14Dl __ (O/l) V14D2 number of kids: __
Evening Vl4E1____ (0/ 1) V14E2 number of kids: __

Do you have a waiting list? V15 Yes/No (1/0)
IF YES, GO TO V16 IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION 2

How many children are on the waiting list? V16

Approximately what percentage of the children on the waiting list are:
Infants and toddlers under 2 years of age? V17A __
Children 2 years old and above who have not yet entered school? V17B __
School age children? V17C _

SECTION 2: Assessment of Expansion Potential

Does your facility own or rent its space? V21 Own/Rent (0/ 1)

V22A The information I have from the R&R indicates that you are licensed to care for
infants, preschoolers and school age children. Is this information correct?

V22A Yes /No (1/0) __

IF YES, GO TO V23; IF NO —>

V22B What is the correct number? V22B infants __
V22C preschoolers ____

V22D school-age _

NOW GO TO V23

PACE ”E"

"($9

Appendix 9:
Survey instruments (Centers)

V23 Do you prefer to enroll fewer children than you are licensed to care for?
V23 Yes / No (1/0)
IF YES, GO TO V24 IF NO, SKIP TO V25

V24 How many children do you prefer to care for? V24

V25 Can you tell me why you prefer to serve fewer children, or what prevents you from
providing care to more children? (Y ES=1, NO=0)

There is not enough demand for it V25A __ (0/1)
You wouldn’t earn enough to cover the costs V25B __ (O/ 1)
You don’t get enough referrals V25C _ (0/ 1)
You don’t have the right equipment V25D ___(0/1)
You don"t have enough staff V25E _ (0/ 1)
You don’t have enough space V25F __ (O/ 1)
You don’t have the right training V25G __ (0/ 1)
You prefer working with a certain age group V25H _ (O/l)
Zoning/licensing restrictions V251 _ (0/ 1)
Lack of start-up funding V25] __ (0/ 1)
Other: V25K __ (0/ 1)

SECTION 3: Language Assessment of Providers
V31 Which languages do the staff at your center speak ﬂuently? (Y ES=1, NO=0)

English V31A __ (O/ 1)
Armenian V31B __ (0/1)
Chinese / Cantonese V31C _ (0/1)
Chinese / Mandarin V31D _ (O/ 1)

Farsi V3113 __ (0/1)
Hmong V31F __ (0/ 1)
Khmer (Cambodian) V31G _____ (0/1)
Korean V31H __ (0/ 1)
Filipino/Tagalog V311 __ (0/ 1)
Russian V31] _ (0/1)
Spanish V31K __ (0/ 1)
Vietnamese V31L __ (O/ 1)
Other: V31M _ (0/1)

r2 PACE

Appendix 9:
Survey instruments (Centers)

V32 Which languages do the families of enrolled children speak ﬂuently?

English

Armenian

Chinese / Cantonese

Chinese / Mandarin
Farsi

Hmong

Khmer (Cambodian)

Korean
Filipino/Tagalog
Russian

Spanish

Vietnamese

Other:

(YES=1/NO=0)
V32A __ (0/1)
V32B __ (0/1)
V32C __ (0/1)
V32D __ (0/1)
V32E __ (0/1)
V32F _ (0/1)
V32G __ (0/1)
V32H __ (0/1)
V321 __ (0/1)
V32J ___ (0/1)
V32K __ (0/1)
V32L __ (0/1)

V32M (O/ 1)

V33 To your knowledge, has a prospective client ever decided NOT to enroll their child
because of a language barrier? V33 Yes/No (No) __

V34 Do you provide written materials about your program in other languages?
V34 Yes /No (1/0)
IF YES, GO TO V35 IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION 4

V35 Which ones? (Y ES=1, NO=0)
Armenian
Chinese / Cantonese
Chinese / Mandarin
Farsi
Hmong
Khmer (Cambodian)
Korean
Filipino/Tagalog
Russian
Spanish
Vietnamese
Other:

V35A __ (0/1)
V35B __ (0/1)
V35C __ (0/1)
V35D __ (0/1)
V35E __ (0/1)
V35F __ (0/1)
V35G___ (0/1)
V35H __ (0/1)
V351 __ (0/1)
V35J ___~ (0/1)
V35K__ (0/1)
V35L __ (0/1)

SECTION 4: Assessment of Ability to Care for Temporarily Sick/Mildly Ill Children
V41 Have you considered getting a license to care for mildly ill children?
V41 Yes/No (1/0)

PACE

Appendix 9:
Survey instruments {Centers}

SECTION 5: Assessment of Ability to Care for Children with Special Needs

V51

V52

V53

Does your program have the ability to care for children with minimal special needs?
This could include mild hearing or Visual impairments, mild learning disabilities,
mild physical disabilities, mild behavioral problems, etc. V51 Yes/No (1/0)

Does your program have the ability to care for children with chronic conditions
such as allergies, asthma, diabetes, etc.? V52 Yes/No (1/0)

Is your program equipped to care for children with more severe special needs, such
as mental retardation, physical disabilities, severe Speech impairment, children with
a feeding tube, etc.? V53 Yes/No (1/0)

IF NO TO ANY OF THESE (V 51, V52, V53):
V54 What are the barriers to caring for children with special needs?

"lbs.

Licensing V54A _(0/l)

Cost / Funding V54B ___(O/l)

Facilities V54C ___(0/ 1)

Stafﬁng V54D __(0/1)

Training V54B __(O/ 1)

Safety / Insurance / Liability concerns V54F _(O/ 1)
Other V54G _(O/ 1)

PACE

Appendix 9:
Survey instruments (Centers)

SECTION 6: Assessment of Funding Sources
V61 Do you have any subsidized children enrolled now (i.e., children who are paid for

by a government or community agency)? V61 Yes/No (No) __
IF YES, SKIP TO V63; IF NO, GO TO V62
V62 Are you willing to accept subsidized children? V62 Yes/No (1/0) __

V75 Please tell me if any of the following reasons currently keep you from providing
care during non-traditional hours: (YES=1, NO=0)
There is not enough demand from parents V75A (O/ 1)

You wouldn’t earn enough to cover your costs V75B __ (0/ 1)
You don’t have enough staff V75C __ (O/ 1)

Space does not permit non-traditional hours V75D __ (0/ l)
Safety/security reasons V75E __ (0/ 1)

What else? V75F __ (0/ 1)

V76 Has your program ever changed or extended its hours-nfor example, you opened
earlier in the morning or stayed open later-—because parents needed care at these
times? V76 Yes/No (1/0)

V77 Are you willing or able to permanently change or extend your hours if parents need
care at these times? V77 Yes/No (1/0)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY CHILD CARE NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY
FAMILY CHILD CARE HOMES

SECTION 1: Assessment of Licensed Capacity

V11 How many children do you currently care for? V11 __
V12 How many of these are:
Infants and toddlers under 2 years of age? V12A __
Children 2 years old and above who have not yet entered school? V12B __
School age children? V12C __
V13 How many of these are your own children under the age of 10? V13 __
V14 Do you operate shifts? (i.e., do you have groups of children who come at different
times and don’t overlap?) V14 Yes/No (1/0) __

IF YES, GO TO V15; IF NO, GO TO SECTION 2

V15 What type of shifts? How many children in each? (Y ES=1, NO=0)

Before school V15A1 __ (O/ 1) V15A2 number of kids: __
Morning V15B1 ____ (0/1) V15B2 number of kids: ____
Afternoon V15C1___ (0/ 1) V15C2 number of kids: __
After school V15D1 _ (0/1) V15D2 number of kids: __
Evening V15E1_ (0/ 1) V15E2 number of kids:

I PACE re

V21
V22

V23

V24

V25

V27

V28

mi E
'4

623’»

Appendix 9:
Survey instruments {FCCHS}

SECTION 2: Assessment of Expansion Potential

Do you own or rent your home? V21 Own / Rent (0/1)
The information I have from the R&R indicates that you are licensed to care for _
children. Is this information correct? V22A Yes/No (1/0)

IF YES, GO TO V23; IF NO —+
V22B What is the correct number?
NOW GO TO V23

Do you prefer to enroll fewer children than you are licensed to care for?
V23 Yes/No (1/0) _
IF YES, GO TO V24; IF NO, SKIP TO V25
How many children do you prefer to care for? V24 __

What factors prevent you from providing care to more children? (Y ES=1, NO=0)

You cannot manage more children V25A _ (0/ 1)
There is not enough demand for it V25B _ (0/ 1)
You wouldn’t earn enough to cover the costsV25C __ (0/1)
You don’t get enough referrals V25D __ (0/ 1)
You don’t have the right equipment V25E __ (O/ 1)
It’s hard to ﬁnd reliable staff/qualiﬁed assistant V25F __
(0/ 1)
You don’t have enough space V25G __ (0/ 1)
You don’t have the right training V25H _ (0/ 1)
You prefer working with a certain age group V251 __ (0/ 1)
Zoning/licensing restrictions V25] _ (0/1)
Lack of start-up funding V25K __ (0/ 1)
Parents need care, but cannot afford it V25L _ (0/ 1)
Other V25M _ (0/ 1)
IF LICENSED FOR 6-8 CHILDREN ONLY: Are you interested in becoming a
large Family Child Care Home (12-14 spaces)? V26 Yes/No (1/0) __
Are you interested in opening a child care center? V27 Yes/No (1/0) __

How long have you been working as a child care provider? (Y ES=1, NO=0)
Less than 6 months V28A __ (O/ 1)
6 months-1 year V28B __._ (O/ 1)
1-5 years V28C _ (0/1)
5-10 years V28D ____ (0/1)
more than 10 years V28E __ (0/ 1)

RACE:

Appendix 9:
Survey Instruments (FCCHS)

V29 How much longer do you think you’ll continue to be a child care provider?
(Y ES=1, NO=0)
Less than 6 months V29A __ (0/1)
6 months —1 year V29B __ (O/ 1)
1-5 years V29C __ (O/l)
5-10 years V29D __ (O/l)
more than 10 years V29B __ (O/ 1)

V29.1 Do you View working with children as your chosen occupation?
V29.1 Yes /No (1/0)

IF YES, SKIP TO SECTION 3
IF NO, GO TO V29.2
V292 Why is this? (Y ES=1, NO=0)
Family situation (young children, pregnancy) V29.2A __ (O/ 1)
Child care doesn’t pay enough V29.2B __ (0/1)
You prefer another line of work V29.2C__ (O/ 1)
Other: V29.2D__ (O/l)

SECTION 3: Language Assessment of Providers

V3l Which languages do you, your staff, or other family members in the home speak
ﬂuently? (YES=1, NO=0)
English V31A _ (0/1)
Armenian V31B __ (0/1)
Chinese / Cantonese V31C __ (0/ 1)
Chinese / Mandarin V31D __ (0/1)

Farsi V31E __ (0/1)

Hmong V31F ___(0/1)

Khmer (Cambodian) V3 1 G __ (0/ 1)

Korean V31H __ (0/1)
Filipino/Tagalog V311 __ (0/ 1)

Russian V31] __ (0/ 1)

Spanish V31K __ (0/1)
Vietnamese V31L __ (O/ 1)

Other: V31M _ (0/1)

RACE 7";

Appendix 9:
Survey Instruments (FCCHS)

V32

V33

V35

Which languages do the families of enrolled children speak ﬂuently?

(Y ES=1, NO=0)
English V32A (0/ 1)
Armenian V3 2B (0/1)

Chinese/ Cantonese V32C (0/1)
Chinese/ Mandarin V32D (0/1)

Farsi V32E __ (O/ 1)
Hmong V32F _ (O/ 1)
Khmer (Cambodian) V32G __ (O/ 1)
Korean V32H _ (0/ 1)
Filipino/Tagalog V321 __ (0/1)
Russian V32] __ (0/ 1)
Spanish V32K __ (0/ 1)
Vietnamese V32L __ (O/ 1)
Other: V32M __ (0/ 1)

To your knowledge. has a prospective client ever decided NOT to enroll their child

because of a language barrier? V33 Yes/No (1/0)
Do you provide written materials about your child care home in other languages?
V34 Yes/No (1/0)
IF YES, GO TO V35; IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION 4
Which ones? (Y ES=1, NO=0)
Armenian V3 5A (0/ 1)

Chinese/ Cantonese V35B (0/1)
Chinese/Mandarin V35C (0/1)

Farsi V35D _ (0/1)
Hmong V3 5E _ (0/1)
Khmer (Cambodian) V35F ____ (0/ 1)
Korean V3 5G _ (0/1)
Filipino/Tagalog V35H _ (0/1)

Russian V351 __ (0/1)

Spanish V35] __ (0/1)
Vietnamese V3 5K ___ (0/1)
Other: V35L _ (0/1)

I PACE.

Appendix 9:
Survey instruments (FCCi-is)

SECTION 4: Assessment of Ability to Care for Temporarily Sick/Mildly Ill Children

V41 Do you generally allow your regular families to drop off children if they are mildly
ill (such as runny nose, fever, cough, etc.)? V41A Yes/No (No) ._
IF YES —>
V41B Under what condition? V41B

V42 Do you accept mildly ill children who are not currently enrolled at your home?
V42A Yes / No (1/0) _
IF YES —->
V42B Under what condition? V42B

SECTION 5: Assessment of Ability to Care for Children with Special Needs
V51 Is your family child care home able to care for children with minimal special needs?
This could include mild hearing or visual impairments, mild learning disabilities,
mild physical disabilities, mild behavioral problems, etc. V51 Yes/No (1/0) __

V52 Is your family child care home able to care for children with chronic conditions
such as allergies, asthma, diabetes, etc? V52 Yes/No (No) _

V53 Is your program equipped to care for children with more severe special needs, such
as mental retardation, physical disabilities, severe speech impairment, children with
feeding tubes, etc.? V53 Yes/No (l/O) _

IF NO TO ANY OF THESE (V51, V52, V53):

V54 What are the barriers to caring for children with special needs?

Licensing V54A ___(0/ 1)
Cost / Funding V54B __ (0/1)
Facilities V54C _(0/ 1)

Stafﬁng V54D ___(O/ 1)
Training V54B _(O/ 1)
Insurance / Safety / Liability concerns V54F ___(0/ 1)
Other V54G _(0/ 1)

SECTION 6: Assessment of Funding Sources

V61 Do you have any subsidized children enrolled now (i.e., children who are paid for

by a government or community agency)? V61 Yes/No (1/0) _
IF YES, SKIP TO V63; If NO, GO TO V62
V62 Are you willing to accept subsidized children? V62 Yes/No (1/0) __

RACE as

Appendix 9:
Survey instruments (FCCHS)

V63 Besides government subsidies and the fees that families pay, do you have any
support from the following child care funding sources? (Y ES=1, NO=0)
Foundation grants V63A __ (0/1)
Fundraising V63B _ (O/ 1)
In-kind Donations V63C __ (O/ 1)
Child Care Food Program V63D __ (0/1)
Other: V63B __ (0/1)

SECTION 7: Assessment of Special Services, Hours of Care

V71 Is your home accessible to public transportation?
Yes -- within walking distance (1)

No -- not within walking distance (0) V71 (1/0)

V72 Do you provide transportation for children between their home/school and your

home? V72 Yes / No (1/0)

V73 Do you currently provide the following non-traditional hour care? (YES=1, NO=0)
24 hour V73A (O/ 1)
Temporary/drop-in V73B (0/ 1)
Evening V73C (0/ 1)
Overnight V73D (0/ 1)
Weekend V73E (0/ 1)

IF NO TO ALL OF THESE —+ GO TO V74; IF YES TO ANY OF THESE ——> SKIP TO V76

V74 Would you be willing to consider providing non-traditional hour care?
V74 Yes/No (1/0) __

V75 Please tell me whether any of the following reasons currently keeps you from
providing care during nontraditional hours: (Y ES=1, NO=0)

There is not enough demand from parents V75A __ (0/ 1)

You wouldn’t earn enough to cover your costs V75B __ (0/ 1)

It’s hard to ﬁnd staff V75C __ (0/ 1)
Safety/security reasons V75D __ (0/ 1)

Space does not permit nontraditional hour care V75E __ (O/ 1)

You need time to spend with your family or for other personal responsibilities
V75F __ (O/ 1)

You are in school/training program V75G___ (0/ 1)

You have another job V75H__(0/1)

What else: V751 __ (O/l)

V76 Have you ever changed or extended your hours-~for example, opened earlier or
stayed open later--because parents needed care at these times? V76 Yes/No (1/0) __

V77 Would you be willing to permanently change or extend your hours if parents needed
care at these times? V77 Yes/No (1/0) _

an PACE

Sampling Error
Whenever a sample is used to represent a population there is a chance that the averages of
the sample will not perfectly match the average characteristics of the true population. This
possible mismatch is called sampling error. The potential error rate depends on the portion
of the population that is sampled as well as the overall size of the sample. In this study

1097 centers were used to make generalizations about the 2038 centers in the matched

Appendix 10:
Technical Notes

center population, and 1033 FCCHs were used to make generalizations about the 5088
providers in the matched FCCH population. The associated sampling error for countywide
estimates is +/- 2.1 for centers and +/-2.72 for FCCHs. Error rates differ by SPA and
Supervisorial District, as shown below. Also reported in Table 1 are sampling error rates
for the center vacancy data. Due to missing or corrupt data, several cases from the center—
based vacancy analysis were dropped, which increased the sampling error to 2.74 for
center vacancy data.

Table 1. Sampling error by type of ﬁrm and geographic

rouping.

$12.8

Sup. Dist.

CENTERS FCCH Center Vacancy Data

Geographic Total # of Sampling Total # of Sampling Total Sampling

Unit population responses error population responses Error population # complete Error
SPA 1 61 54 4.52 330 77 9.78 61 35 '10

SPA 2 464 256 4.1 967 226 5.71 464 191 5.44
SPA 3 426 217 4.66 923 167 6.86 426 139 6.82

SPA 4 207 109 6.46 330 68 10.59 207 78 8.76 '

SPA 5 154 71 8.54 280 53 12.12 154 59 10 '
SPA 6 229 126 5.86 737 149 7.17 229 91 7.97
SPA 7 181 95 6.93 586 122 7.9 181 70 9.17
5.17 171 6.77 316 123 6.91

1 275 148 5.47 592 126 7.75 275 101 V 7.7
Sup. Dist. .

2 406 214 4.61 1391 250 5.61 406 162 5.73
Sup. Dist.

3 434 231 4.41 73 8 164 6.75 434 172 5.73
Sup. Dist.

4 392 201 4.83 977 204 6.1 392 151 6.5
Sup. Dist.

5 527 303 3.67 1390 289 5.13 527 196 5.5

PACE

“as

Appendix 10:
Technical Notes

Sampling Frame

The sample was drawn after reconciling the provider databases from Community Care
Licensing and the R&R agencies (see Appendix 8). From the 7,122 matched providers,
1295 center directors and 1405 family child care home providers were randomly selected
within SPAS, to insure that the sample would be representative at the SPA level. The
results from this survey are generalizable to the matched population. Concern over the
number of FCCHs licensed by CCL but not R&R databases (2,748) motivated the county
to make additional calls to determine the status of these providers. This survey found that
38% of these providers were currently offering child care services. The additional capacity
represented by these "unmatched" FCCH providers was added to the analysis of overall
capacity reported in Section 1. This addition did not signiﬁcantly change the percentage of
children potentially served by the licensed child-care market overall.

Table 2. Reconciling CCL and R&R data on licensed providers

Centers Fcch

Matched cases 2034 5088

CCL providers not listed w/R&R 826 2748
R&R providers not listed w/ CCL 153 253

Non-Response Bias

Another type of sampling error is non-response bias. If a large number of providers in the
sample failed to respond to the survey, there would be concern that they might be different
from the responding group. Fortunately, the response rate was high for both center and
family child-care home providers. Eighty-ﬁve percent of center providers in the sample
and 74% of FCCH providers completed the 15 minute survey. The percentage of FCCH
completions increases to 82% when excluding from the sample base ﬁrms that were
closed. Nine percent of the providers contacted were closed. Callers were unable to contact
an additional 7% of the FCCH providers sampled due to wrong or disconnected phone
numbers. If these providers also are also out of business, the closure rate for FCCHs in the
sample increases to 16%. (See Table 4 for variations in closure rates by SPA.)

82?: PACE

Appendix 10:
Technical Notes

Center Survey Completion Rate I FCCH Survey Completion Rate 7

I ‘ excluding providers no longer in business I

1% 30/ Iwh I 8% o ‘

1% “100/ “my“ I 6 4

q! I Out of Busn. ‘ I Wrong# I I

D Refused I I Refused I

In # in circulation I IE1# in circulation I I

I Q T118311" in ICompletions I

85% I
m _ , v m. g 4 I
Table 3. Survey completions by SPA and firm type
total # # center Completion total # # FCCH Completion

SPA sampled responses rates sampled responses rates
SPA 1 61 54 89% 101 77 76%
SPA 2 298 256 86% 322 226 70%
SPA 3 256 217 85% 223 167 75%
SPA 4 140 109 78% 96 68 71%
SPA 5 93 71 76% 69 53 77%
SPA6 138 126 91% 181 149 82%
SPA 7 119 95 80% 150 122 81%
SPA 8 190 168 88% 263 171 65%
County 1295 1096 85% 1405 1033 74%

The percent of FCCH providers out of business varies by SPA and almost doubles when

including ﬁrms for which we had the wrong number or

a disconnected number

Table 4. F CCHs no longer in business or with incorrect/disconnected phone numbers

in the matched database

o/o Out of

Out of Wrong #/ R&R % Out of Busn or

SPA Business Disconnected capacity # in Sample Business Wrong #
SPA 1 12 7 194 101 .12 .19
SPA2 38 24 580 322 .12 .19
SPA 3 12 10 192 223 .05 .10
SPA 4 6 5 100 96 .06 .11
SPA 5 9 4 132 69 .13 .19
SPA 6 8 7 142 181 .04 .08
SPA7 10 8 178 150 .07 .12
SPA 8 29 25 522 263 .11 .21
County 124 90 2040 1405 0.09 0.15

PACE 83

Appendix 10:
Technica! Notes

Weighting the Sample

Since the sample was drawn based on SPA size, weights were required for county and
supervisorial levels of the analyses. County level weights were computed by comparing the
percentage of providers in the population that resided in each SPA to the percentage of
providers in the survey by SPA. Weights did not dramatically alter the outcomes of
county-level summary statistics. Supervisorial weights were determined by comparing the
percentage of population providers in each zip code to the percentage of sampled providers
in each zip code.

Non-Sampling Error

Survey data is also subject to non-sampling error. Non-sampling error can come from a
variety of sources, including respondents’ inability or unwillingness to recall information,
the misunderstanding of survey questions, different interpretations of provider responses
by surveyors, or errors in data entry or processing. It is not possible to measure these types
of errors, but it is important to acknowledge that they exist in research of this nature.

are PACE

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Cll‘lbll'HaclI:

Policy Analysis for California Education PACE
University of California, Berkeley

and Stanford University

3655 Tolman Hall

Berkeley, CA 94720—1670

Telephone: (510) 642—7225 Fax: (510) 642-9148
URL: ntto: M”oaceberkeleyedu