THE COST OF CHILD CARE IN NEW MEXICO › wp-content › uploads › ...Family, Group Homes, 1 -Star...

1 | P a g e

Prepared for the State of New Mexico’s Children, Youth

and Families Department

By

Kate Krause, PhD

Department of Economics, University of New Mexico

December 30, 2010

THE COST OF CHILD CARE IN NEW MEXICO

2 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4

Data Used for the Cost Study ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Sampling and Return Rates ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5

Some Data Caveats and the Use of Median as a Measure of Central Tendency ............................................................................................... 7

Economies of Scale and the Effect of Fixed Teacher/Child Ratios ..................................................................................................................... 7

Enrollment as a Cost Concern ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8

Enrollment Patterns ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Infants ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Ones ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9

Twos............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9

Threes .......................................................................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

School-aged Children .................................................................................................................................................................................. 9

State Support of the Industry: Tuition Assistance............................................................................................................................................ 10

Aggregate Costs and Revenues ........................................................................................................................................................................ 13

Sources of Revenue: State Support for the Industry Re-Visited ...................................................................................................................... 15

Expenditures ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Meals and Snacks ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 26

Economic Environment .................................................................................................................................................................................... 29

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 31

Appendix 1: Enrollment Data ........................................................................................................................................................................... 32

1. Enrollment Data: Infants ......................................................................................................................................................................... 32

2. Enrollment Data: 1-year Olds ................................................................................................................................................................... 34

3. Enrollment Data: 2-year Olds ................................................................................................................................................................... 36

4. Enrollment Data: Pre-school Children (36 months – 5 years, not yet in Kindergarten) ......................................................................... 38

5. Enrollment Data: Kindergarteners (5-year-olds in Kindergarten) ............................................................................................................ 40

3 | P a g e

6. Enrollment Data: School-aged Children (6 and older) ............................................................................................................................. 42

Appendix 2: Receipt of Child care Assistance .................................................................................................................................................. 44

Appendix 3: Specific costs associated with caring for children with special needs ......................................................................................... 49

Appendix 4: Effects of the Recession ............................................................................................................................................................... 50

Appendix 5: RPI Survey ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 51

4 | P a g e

THE COST OF CHILD CARE IN NEW MEXICO

Introduction In the fall of 2009, researchers at the University of New Mexico began a multi-pronged investigation into the cost of caring for New Mexico’s children. The study began with a short phone survey of all child care providers regulated or licensed by the state’s Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD). That survey collected data on the staffing at child care providers; the data are presented in Child Care Workers in New Mexico (the “Workforce Report”). The second stage of the investigation was a mail survey of teachers at licensed providers. More than one thousand teachers completed that survey, and their data are also summarized in the Workforce Report. In the third stage of the investigation, researchers contacted directors of child care facilities in an effort to collect more detailed information on costs and the child care workforce. Because this survey was so detailed, the return rate was not as high as was the case for the two earlier data collection efforts. The first wave of surveys yielded very few responses; the researchers then turned to Research and Polling, Inc (“RPI”) in an effort to increase the sample size. RPI conducted telephone interviews with 127 providers, and the data from that effort provides most of the information in the report below. Together, the Workforce Report and this report present data on the cost of caring for infants, toddlers, pre-school and school age children. Additional information on the child care industry can be found in New Mexico Children Youth and Families Department Market Rate Survey, 2009 (the “Market Rate Survey”) and in The Cost of Quality Standards in the CYFD Quality Rating System (the “Cost of Quality Report”). The Cost of Quality Report details the increasing equipment, supply, curricular, administrative, labor and other costs associated with a provider’s transition to higher star-level designations. The fact that virtually all of these costs increase with higher star levels is confirmed in the current report. However, the Market Rate Survey reveals that the rates that providers charge do NOT systematically increase with increases in star level designation. Taken together, these data reveal an economic divide between the cost of increased quality and the revenue that can be earned delivering that quality. One interpretation is that providers are unable to pass the higher costs for higher quality care on to the families receiving that care. A consequence of this rate/cost disconnect is a reduction in the incentive for providers to incur the costs associated with obtaining a higher star-level designation. Despite this, nearly half (48%) of providers interviewed by RPI said that they planned to seek a higher Star level or accreditation in the coming year.

5 | P a g e

Data Used for the Cost Study Mailed-in and email workforce surveys were received from 36 providers. Mailed-in and email cost surveys were received from ten centers. Research and Polling, Inc., an Albuquerque surveying firm, completed surveys over the phone with 127 providers. Table I-A summarizes the distribution of respondents.

TABLE 1-A: SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION

Mail/email RPI Number who initially agreed to take longer survey Total Providers

Centers, 1-Star or 2-Star 17 49 253 (cost) 231 (workforce) Includes centers & homes

489 Family, Group Homes, 1-Star or 2-Star 7 33

Centers, 3-, 4- or 5-Star 7 31 125 212

Family, Group Homes, 3-, 4- or 5-Star 2 12 35

Unknown or Registered 3 2

TOTALS 36 127

Sampling and Return Rates For key cost components we report the results of hand-written surveys received from ten centers, pooled across all Star levels. Prior to beginning the process, we set a goal of cost and workforce data from 125 3- 4- and 5-Star providers, workforce data from 400 1- and 2-Star providers and cost data from 300 1- and 2-Star providers. We fell far short of these goals despite multiple contacts. Mailed surveys from UNM’s economics department yielded very small sample sizes as shown in the first column of the table above, and the decision was made to hire a professional surveying firm to interview more providers. For many of the questions, data were obtained from approximately 150 providers. However, many questions were unanswered by some of these providers. In addition, some of the responses were too vague to be included. Data tables below include ONLY the Research and Polling results (and are referred to as “RPI sample, respondents, data or survey”); data from mailed in and email surveys is presented separately (and referred to as “UNM sample, respondents, data or survey”) to account for slight differences in the survey instruments. We solicited responses from registered child care providers, but received so few that this data is not included in the tables below.

6 | P a g e

TABLE 1-B: A COMPARISON OF CYFD LICENSED PROVIDERS AND RPI RESPONDENTS BY STAR LEVEL, LOCATION AND FACILITY TYPE

1-Star 2-Star 3-Star 4-Star 5-Star Urban Rural Center

Family home

Group home Santa Fe

RPI Sample 16 65 5 21 17 71 53 79 24 21 12

CYFD 324 489 47 64 136 674 386 714 161 185 74

RPI Sample

12.9% 52.4% 4.0% 16.9% 13.7% 57.3% 42.7% 63.7% 19.4% 16.9% 9.7%

CYFD 30.6

% 46.1% 4.4% 6.0% 12.8% 63.6% 36.4% 67.4% 15.2% 17.5% 7.0%

FIGURE 1: DISTRIBUTION OF PROVIDERS BY STAR LEVEL: RPI SAMPLE AND CYFD LIST COMPARED

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

RPISample CYFD

5-Star

4-Star

3-Star

2-Star

1-Star

7 | P a g e

The RPI survey results under-sample 1-Star providers and over-sample 4-Star providers. Higher star level providers are required to maintain more detailed records, and so it was easier for directors at those star levels to answer the longer survey instrument. Figure 1 above illustrates the composition of the surveyed sample and the CYFD population by Star level.

Some Data Caveats and the Use of Median as a Measure of Central Tendency Child care providers come in a wide variety of sizes and configurations. Some are large, caring for literally hundreds of children; some are small, caring for only a handful. Some child care is offered as part of a larger facility, so that some costs are not paid by the provider. Of the ten centers responding in the earliest round, one operated in a church and another in a school. Some providers’ cost figures were so different from the mean that the group average was not meaningful. Because of the presence of these “outliers” we report almost all of the data as medians (but indicate where we diverge from this). The median is to be interpreted as that number for which half the responders reported a higher number and half a smaller number. The median is an accepted measure of central tendency for distributions characterized by asymmetric “tails” or the presence of outliers. These characteristics describe much of the child care industry’s costs. Given the large number of responses of zero, the median is also often zero. That can be interpreted as “half or more of providers of this category report zero”. That is, this cost component is one that most providers do not incur. For cost components that are not commonly incurred, we report the percentage of respondents in each subcategory reporting any expenditures for that component. We report data in four different categories: star level, urban/rural, facility type (i.e. center, family home, and group home) and Santa Fe (We found that providers located in Santa Fe tended to deviate from the mean more greatly than other providers, especially in relation to labor costs). Within each of the categories listed above, the subcategories are mutually exclusive. That is, all percentages within each category add up to approximately 100%. For percentages represented under Santa Fe the omitted subcategory is all other providers.

Economies of Scale and the Effect of Fixed Teacher/Child Ratios Some features of child care are subject to economies of scale. A larger facility is likely to have lower per-child rent, office administration, insurance and other operating costs. Adding more children lowers the average (i.e., per child) cost of these components. This is a common feature of many industries. But a unique feature of the child care industry is the absence of economies of scale for the largest single cost component faced by the provider: labor. Fixed child-to-teacher ratios mean that the lion’s share of the per-child cost of care is invariant to size of facility. For example, regardless of the size of the facility, if one teacher is required for five children, and that teacher

8 | P a g e

earns $10 per hour, the teacher-cost per child is $2 per hour whether the child is cared for in a small family home or a large center. The Cost of Quality Report estimates labor costs for a provider caring for the maximum number of children allowable. Because some excess capacity is inevitable in any child care environment (because children arrive and leave at different times, for example) this estimate is a lower bound for this cost component. Given the unique aspects of labor costs, the importance of the labor input in determining the quality of care a child receives1, and the large fraction of total care costs attributable to labor, workforce issues are addressed separately in the Workforce Report. With the exception of the aggregate expense data contained in table 3-A, the data and summaries presented below focus on all other costs of caring for the children of New Mexico.

Enrollment as a Cost Concern Although enrollment was not a focus of this study, enrollment data were collected and are presented in Appendix 1. Enrollment affects costs primarily through the fixed teacher/child ratio mechanism. If there is excess capacity at a provider – that is, if a child could be added while remaining within the constraints of the ratio requirements – then per-child costs will be higher than they would be otherwise. In the example above, per child hourly labor costs are $2 only if the teacher is caring for five children; if only four are enrolled, the per-child cost grows to $2.50 per hour. While excess capacity increases the cost of caring for children working at full capacity at all times is virtually impossible because children arrive and leave at different times during the day. Operating close to capacity may mean wait-listing children or shortages in care. Because these are important components of care, we discuss them below.

Enrollment Patterns

RPI enrollment data reveal greater excess capacity for older children than for infants. This may be explained in part by the fact that the ratios allow fewer infants per adult caregiver. Similar patterns were apparent in the UNM surveys.

Infants

Most (56%) responding child care providers report being unable to add any full-time infants without adding more staff; 21% could add just one more infant. Mean excess capacity for full time infant care is less than 2 infants for providers in every category, and less than one for urban providers, family home providers, providers in Santa Fe and 1-Star providers. There is even less excess capacity for part-time infant care. 77% could not add any part-time infants.

1 Hellburn, S.W., (ed.) “Cost, Quality and Outcomes in Child Care” Technical Report, Department of Economics, University of Colorado, Denver. 1995.

9 | P a g e

Because parents often place children on multiple waitlists, the existence or length of any provider’s waitlist cannot be interpreted as a shortage of care in the market generally. However, waitlists are suggestive of preferences for types of care: they may imply parents’ demand for a particular facility if a spot should become available. Slightly more than half of providers (52%) have at least one infant on a waiting list for full time care, and some report very lengthy waiting lists. Most (76%) responding providers have no waiting list for part-time infant care.

Ones

There is also little excess capacity among caregivers for 1-year-olds. 61% of respondents stated they could not add any full-time 1-year-olds without hiring additional staff, and 74% could not add any part-time 1-year-olds without hiring additional staff. Very few providers reported being able to take more than five additional one-year-olds. More than half – 53% - reported a waitlist for full-time one-year-olds.

Twos

Just over half – 51% - of caregivers could add at least one full-time 2-year-old without hiring additional staff. Fewer than half – 48% - could add at least one part-time 2-year-old. In general, higher-star child care centers had the longest waitlists.

Pre-Schoolers

There is more excess capacity for pre-school children than for the younger age groups. Only 29% of caregivers could not add any full-time pre-schoolers without hiring additional staff. 62% had no full-time preschoolers on a waiting list and 68% had no part-time pre-schoolers on a waiting list. As is true for other age groups, higher-star child care centers had the longest waitlists. This feature of the market is consistent with the interpretation that waitlists are not evidence of general shortages of care, but of parent preference for child care with specific characteristics.

School-aged Children

School-age care is primarily after-school care and care during school holidays. Few Kindergarteners were on waitlists: 85% of providers had NO full-time Kindergarteners on a waitlist; 94% of providers had NO part-time Kindergarteners on a wait list. As was the case for Kindergarteners, few school-aged children were on waitlists: 87% of providers had NO full-time school-aged children on a waitlist; 86% of providers had NO part-time school-aged children on a wait list. This lack of waitlists for older children was true among the UNM survey takers as well.

10 | P a g e

State Support of the Industry: Tuition Assistance As described above, if the median is zero then half or more respondents gave zero as an answer. As seen in the tables below, most providers enroll children who receive child care assistance: there are few zero medians. Assistance was rare among children in part-time care; the tables below include only children cared for full-time. Complete assistance data are available on Appendix 2.

TABLE 2-A: MEDIAN ENROLLMENT AND MEDIAN NUMBER OF CHILDREN RECEIVING ASSISTANCE, FULL-TIME INFANTS

Star Level Facility Type

Total 1 2 3 4 5 Urban Rural Center Family home

Group home

Santa Fe

Median Enrollment

3.0 .0 2.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 1.5 .0

Median number receiving assistance

2.0 .0 2.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 6.0 .0

TABLE 2-B: MEDIAN ENROLLMENT AND MEDIAN NUMBER OF CHILDREN RECEIVING ASSISTANCE, FULL-TIME 1-YEAR-OLDS



Group home

Santa Fe

Median Enrollment

3.0 1.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 11.0 2.5 3.5 7.0 1.0 1.0 2.0


2.0 1.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 7.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

11 | P a g e

TABLE 2-C: MEDIAN ENROLLMENT AND MEDIAN NUMBER OF CHILDREN RECEIVING ASSISTANCE, FULL-TIME 2-YEAR-OLDS



Group home

Santa Fe

Median Enrollment

5.5 1.0 4.0 8.0 6.0 11.0 5.0 6.5 10.0 1.0 2.0 3.5


3.0 .0 3.0 6.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.5

TABLE 2-D: MEDIAN ENROLLMENT AND MEDIAN NUMBER OF CHILDREN RECEIVING ASSISTANCE, FULL TIME PRE-SCHOOLERS



Group home

Santa Fe

Median Enrollment

10.0 3.0 12.0 12.0 5.0 24.5 11.0 9.0 16.0 1.0 4.0 4.0


4.5 1.5 5.0 6.0 4.0 8.5 4.0 5.0 6.0 .5 2.5 2.0

12 | P a g e

TABLE 2-E: MEDIAN ENROLLMENT AND MEDIAN NUMBER OF CHILDREN RECEIVING ASSISTANCE, FULL-TIME* KINDERGARTENERS



Group home

Santa Fe

Median Enrollment

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 .0 1.0 9.0


1.0 .5 1.0 1.5 1.0 .0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .0 1.0 1.0

TABLE 2-F: MEDIAN ENROLLMENT AND MEDIAN NUMBER OF CHILDREN RECEIVING ASSISTANCE, FULL-TIME* SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN



Group home

Santa Fe

Median Enrollment

3.5 2.0 4.5 14.0 3.5 2.0 4.0 3.0 7.0 .5 3.0 17.0


2.0 .5 2.5 4.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 .0 3.0 .0

* Full time as classified by the respondent. Despite the lack of refinement in the data, several patterns emerge. First, for all age groups except the oldest, 5-Star providers appear to enroll a smaller fraction of children who receive assistance. Second, for all age groups younger than Kindergarten, rural providers appear to enroll a larger fraction of children who receive assistance. Third, centers generally report a smaller fraction of children receiving assistance than do family or group homes, although the size of the samples at that level of disaggregation caution against placing significant weight on that finding (that is, there were few family or group homes who responded to all questions). Finally, while the trend is uneven, it appears that the proportion of children receiving assistance is greatest among the youngest children.

13 | P a g e

Aggregate Costs and Revenues Before considering individual components of costs, we compare providers’ overall costs and revenues (including labor). Revenues in excess of costs imply profitability; revenues less than costs indicate that the provider is losing money by offering services. Long-term periods for which costs exceed revenues are not economically sustainable and may mean that the provider will be unable to continue in the business. A few large high-cost outliers drive up the means, particularly for rural and 4- and 5-Star providers. (All categories of providers except 3-Star and Group Home providers display means that are greater than the medians indicating the presence of high-cost providers). The medians reported below do not control for enrollment size or age distribution and so do not support any claims regarding relative cost of care per child. The Cost of Quality Report includes per-child estimates of some costs. Consistent with these results, costs increase with increases in star level.

TABLE 3-A: ESTIMATED ANNUAL TOTAL EXPENSE

Star Level Facility Type Total 1 2 3 4 5 Urban Rural Center Family home Group home Santa Fe

N 103 16 51 5 17 14 57 46 66 20 17 11

% of Sample 16% 50% 5% 17% 14% 55% 45% 64% 19% 17% 11%

Median $89,000 $23,899 $86,794 $210,548 $102,000 $292,884 $158,009 $54,925 $217,384 $5,000 $27,000 $214,767

TABLE 3-B: ESTIMATED ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE*



Group home

Santa Fe

N 96 15 48 4 16 13 53 43 63 19 14 10

% of Sample

16% 50% 4% 17% 14% 55% 45% 66% 20% 15% 10%

Median $100,000 $37,469 $64,033 $263,176 $125,892 $432,343 $154,800 $78,996 $211,693 $18,000 $38,818 $146,519

*Two providers reported negative revenue, an indication that they did not understand that the question referred to gross revenue, not net profit. This is just one example of the difficulty with the data.

14 | P a g e

Overall, median revenue exceeded median costs, but profitability varied by type of provider. The median revenue minus median cost was highest among 5-Star providers although as will be shown below median out-of-pocket costs for 5-Star providers under states true operation costs. More than half of the 5-Star providers in this sample did not report paying anything for facility rent or mortgage. Median measures for 2-Star providers, Santa Fe providers, urban providers and centers suggest that providers in those categories are more likely to experience costs in excess of revenues. This comparison is illustrated in Figure 3-1 above. The UNM data report median aggregate expenses of $313,518 and median revenue of $209,162. The data allow individual calculations of profit using these measures. Of the ten completed center surveys, five report negative profit, two did not respond to the questions, and three report positive profit.

FIGURE 3-1: MEDIAN ANNUAL COST AND MEDIAN ANNUAL REVENUE COMPARED

The Market Rate Survey reveals that providers are not universally able to increase rates for higher star level care despite the associated increased costs. This reduces provider incentives to work toward higher star classification. Despite this, nearly half the providers interviewed by RPI indicated an intent to seek a higher star level or accreditation in the following year.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

Tota

l

1-S

tar

2-S

tar

3-S

tar

4-S

tar

5-S

tar

Urb

an

Rur

al

Cen

ter

Fam

ily

Gro

up h

ome

San

ta F

e

Median Annual

Cost

Median Annual

Revenue

15 | P a g e

TABLE 3-C: RESPONSES TO SURVEY QUESTION: DO YOU PLAN TO SEEK A HIGHER STAR LEVEL OR ACCREDITATION IN THE COMING YEAR?


Total 1 2 3 4 5 Urban Rural Center Family Home

Group Home

Santa Fe

Number 120 16 65 5 20 14 69 51 77 24 19 11

Distribution in sample

13% 54% 4% 17% 12% 57% 43% 64% 20% 16% 9%

Yes, number (%) 58 (48%)

11 (69%)

32 (49%)

4 (80%)

7 (35%)

4 (29%)*

29 (42%)

29 (57%)

40 (52%)

11 (46%)

7 (37%)

7 (64%)

*While there’s no higher level than 5 Star, these 5-Star providers may plan to seek a different accreditation body.

16 | P a g e

Sources of Revenue: State Support for the Industry Re-Visited The focus of this report is the costs faced by child care providers. However, to place those costs in context we present summary data regarding the sources of revenue received by survey respondents. The data below are based on RPI surveys; patterns are similar in the ten UNM center surveys.

TABLE 4-A: MEDIAN ANNUAL REVENUE BY SOURCE


1 2 3 4 5 Urban Rural Center Family home

Group home

Santa Fe

Tuition/fees paid by parents (n=107)

$7,000 $11,588 $28,019 $32,000 $252,006 $44,470 $9,650 $69,396 $1,230 $85 $69,000

Tuition Paid by State (n=98) $42,000 $27,867 $63,599 $42,134 $131,564 $27,866 416,545 $80,628 0 $2,400 $26,100

Private Organizations including employers (n=81) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Child & Adult Food Program (n= 101)

$150 $6,356 $19,650 $8,100 $9,023 $4,800 $5,830 $10,207 $2,051 $7,071 $150

Contributions & donations (n=87)

0 0 0 0 $750 0 0 0 0 0 $1,395

Other (n=34) 0 0 0 $10 $47,261 $42 0 $736 0 0 $2,000

Parent-paid tuition and fees and state support provided most of the revenue received by providers. The Child and Adult Food Program was also an important source of revenue. Among the UNM survey respondents, median parent tuition payment was $55,000 and median state-paid tuition was $20,600. Overall, 70% of providers reported zero donations or contributions as sources of revenue. (Donations of material, equipment and services are more common and are reported below.) Santa Fe providers were unusual in that 60% had received contributions or donations. Half of 5-Star providers reported receiving some contributions or donations. Two of the ten UNM respondents reported receiving contributions.

17 | P a g e

TABLE 4-B: OTHER GOVERNMENTAL SUPPORT: NUMBER OF PROVIDERS RECEIVING ANY SUPPORT FROM LISTED SOURCE



Group home

Santa Fe

Number receiving municipal funding

1 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 1

Number receiving County funding

1 1 1

Number receiving State funding (excluding AIM HIGH or child care assistance)

3 3 1 4 3 4 2 1 1

Number receiving Federal funding

1 1 2 2

Three providers reported receiving financial support from their city, one from the county, two from federal sources and one from “other government”. The most common type of support was public transportation. Even excluding state tuition support, the state was the most common source of government support: 7 providers received additional state support.

18 | P a g e

Expenditures A provider’s costs are the focus of this report, and we provide details of components of those costs below. We report the median annual expenditures except where otherwise noted. For many categories of expense, a significant fraction of respondents listed zero; when that was the case the percent reporting expenditures in that category is given in the data table. Comparing the percent of providers reporting expenditures identifies how categories of costs vary by provider type.

TABLE 5-A: ANNUAL EXPENDITURES ON FACILITY BY CATEGORY: MEDIAN EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE NOTED



Group home

Santa Fe

Mortgage or Rent (n=107) : % reporting

71% 84% 80% 76% 46% 72% 80% 67% 96% 83% 64%

Median Mortgage or Rent (n=107) $7,068 $9,000 $9,600 $7,200 0 $9,600 $7,134 $8,880 $8,400 $7,434 $6,500

Real Estate Taxes and Insurance (n=89)

$600 $1,587 $3,859 $1,200 $2,408 $1,313 $1,500 $2,408 $1,500 $1,200 0

Utilities (n=100) $1,066 $3,029 $3,600 $5,050 $3,570 $3,523 $3,308 $4,000 $2,773 $2,788 $2,164

Cleaning & Maintenance (n=103) $995 $1,650 $1,833 $2,600 $6,560 $3,500 $1,767 $3,763 $841 $1,716 $3,924

Other Occupancy Costs (n=54) 0 0 $2,757 $400 $6,459 0 $500 0 $270 $992 0

Nearly a quarter of providers reported paying no rent or mortgage, including more than half of the 5-Star providers. Five of the ten UNM survey takers reported zero rent or mortgage; one reported facilities provided by a church and another by the school district. Family homes were least likely to report no rent or mortgage. Only 13 respondents provided estimates of the value of donated space. The median estimated annual value was $12,000. Median utilities paid by the ten UNM respondents was $3,955, similar to the numbers above; half of those ten reported no cleaning expenses and the median maintenance expense was $632. Items specifically mentioned in the “other” category include accreditation fees, fire inspection, city permits, registration and license fees, telephone and water charges.

19 | P a g e

TABLE 5-B: MEDIAN ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

Most Family Home providers did not hire business support services (for example bookkeeping, payroll processing). Few providers reported receiving donated business services; because the sample of providers who answered this question is so small the number of respondents receiving donations is given in the table. The value of donated business services ranged from $190 to $36,000. The overall average was $3,970, and the median was zero due to the large number reporting no donated business services. Hiring clerical and administrative support increases with Star level attainment. 90% of 1-Star providers (and 93% of family home providers) pay nothing for clerical support; more than 90% of 5-Star providers hire clerical or administrative support staff. Six providers reported receiving donated office support. The very high value of the median expenditure on other office support by 5-Star providers is an artifact of the small sample size responding to this question: very few providers reported more than $6,000. Seventeen survey takers stated “other” in response to this

Star Level Facility Type 1 2 3 4 5 Urban Rural Center Family

home Group home

Santa Fe

Business support services (n=89); % reporting

50% 75% 100% 82% 83% 68% 83% 82% 37% 88% 60%

Business support services, median $75 $700 $2,090 $2,000 $4,228 $525 $730 $2,174 0 $450 $2,195

Fraction reporting donated business services (n=25)

2 of 4

5 of 12

1 of 1 2 of 5 2 of 3 8 of 18

4 of 7

11 of 20

1 of 4 0 of 1 4 of 6

Office services, including clerical staff (n=76); % reporting

10% 51% 75% 71% 91% 55% 59% 68% 7% 67% 50%

Office services, median expense 0 $226 $1,190 $5,110 $4,611 $625 $263 $3,382 0 $214 $1,566

Donated office services 1 of 3

1 of 7 0 2 of 5 2 of 3 4 of 13

2 of 5

4 of 12 1 of 4 1 of 2 2 of 4

Median other office expenses incurred $120 $188 $3,777 $130 $51,773 $275 $208 $3,545 $110 $65 $10,060

20 | P a g e

question. The “other” category included banking fees, tax preparation, technical support/Internet access and some expense categories that are reported below.

TABLE 5-C: TRANSPORTATION COSTS: MEDIAN EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE NOTED



Group home

Santa Fe

Vehicle purchase/lease (n=66) % reporting 30% 35% 33% 67% 43% 33% 47% 26% 47% 75% 29%

Vehicle operating expenses (n=80) $180 $1,516 0 $2,185 $627 $614 $1,696 $1,079 $720 $2,016 $273

Reimbursement, staff mileage (n=59); % reporting

0% 25% 100% 63% 50% 25% 43% 44% 8% 14% 62%

Most providers – 61% overall in the RPI data and 8 of 10 UNM respondents– reported no out-of-pocket expenses associated with purchasing or leasing a vehicle. 4-Star providers and group home providers were more likely to report vehicle purchase or lease costs than other types of providers, but given the small numbers of each type of provider a statistically valid inference cannot be drawn. Purchase or lease costs ranged from $350 to nearly $100,000. Rural providers were somewhat more likely to pay to own or lease vehicles. One-third of urban providers reported purchase or lease costs; half of rural providers reported purchase or lease costs. Three providers reported using donated vehicles. More providers - 72% overall - reported on-going transportation costs including gas, maintenance, service, insurance and registration than reported ownership or acquisition costs. Clearly then, some providers are using vehicles that “cost” in the economic sense (that is, someone paid to acquire them) but that did not cost the provider in out-of-pocket expenditures. Three providers reported donated vehicle operating services with an average donated value of $1,436. Four providers, three of them rural, had rented a vehicle for a one-time use. Most providers (68%) did not reimburse staff mileage. Ten providers reported paying other transportation costs, including annual license tags, insurance, snow removal and travel to training, conferences and seminars. Excluding an outlier, these costs ranged in value from $80 to $2,080. As was the case for other transportation expenditures, rural providers were more likely to report these costs than were urban providers. 47% of rural providers reported additional transportation costs; 17% of urban providers did.

21 | P a g e

TABLE 5-D: MEDIAN ANNUAL EXPENDITURE ON INSURANCE



Group home

Santa Fe

Contents Insurance (n=71) % reporting any

57% 89% 100% 67% 100% 87% 77% 83% 77% 87% 100%

Contents Insurance, median expense $480 $2,275 $952 $600 $2,102 $1,413 $1,600 $2,275 $837 $600 $1,500

Liability Insurance (n=69) % reporting any

44% 86% 100% 87% 100% 85% 80% 90% 60% 85% 87%

Liability Insurance median expenditure 0 $1,698 $4,901 $1,200 $2,658 $1,519 $1,218 $2,500 $360 $500 $2,750

Directors’ Liability (n=34) % reporting any

14% 36% 0% 33% 83% 33% 50% 71% 0% 25% 80%

Other insurance, (n=22) % reporting any 50% 87% 100% 100% 100% 80% 86% 94% 33% 67% 100%

Most providers – 83% overall – purchased contents insurance. 1-Star providers were least likely to do so. Similarly, 83% purchased liability insurance, with 1-Star providers the least likely to purchase this coverage. Most providers (59%) did not purchase Directors’ Liability coverage. Of those that did most spent less than $4500 annually. Only 22 providers responded to the “other insurance” category, and of those only 18 reported positive expenditure amounts. These ranged from $100 to $210,000. “Other” included workers compensation and student accident coverage. Two providers carried abuse and molestation insurance. Two carried terrorism insurance.

22 | P a g e

TABLE 5-E: MEDIAN ANNUAL EQUIPMENT AND OPERATING EXPENDITURES


1 2 3 4 5 Urban Rural Center Family home Group home Santa Fe

Office Equipment (n=76) $115 $300 $1,150 $529 $1,598 $415 $800 $1,000 $100 $430 $115

Office Supplies (n=94) $225 $500 $1,200 $841 $1,564 $700 $500 $1,000 $165 $425 $679

Kitchen supplies & equipment (n=76) 0 $600 $1,500 $300 $687 $338 $790 $750 $200 $615 0

Licensing & Fees (n=102) $50 $110 $255 $300 $985 $200 $100 $255 $50 $40 $200

Advertising (n=89) percent reporting any 58% 71% 100% 71% 89% 77% 65% 78% 41% 83% 100%

Advertising, median expenditure $160 $215 $1,000 $500 $1,320 $279 $250 $686 0 $175 $2,000

Two providers reported receiving donated office equipment, one valued at $2000 and one at $7500. Four reported donations of office supplies three ranging in value from $422 to $800. One center received donated office supplies valued at $10,300. One provider received donated kitchen supplies valued at $1000. Expenditures increased with Star level, with a large jump in median fees for 5-Star providers. Four providers received donations to cover these fees, with values ranging from $650 to $8,569. Fifteen providers reported spending on “other” facility supplies. The median expenditure was $45. Most providers advertise. Family homes and 1-Star providers are the least likely to advertise; urban providers are more likely to advertise than rural providers. Santa Fe providers (n=10) show a higher median advertising expenditure relative to other providers. Five centers – four of them rural – received donated advertising. The value of the donations ranged from $200 to $1400.

23 | P a g e

TABLE 5-F: MEDIAN ANNUAL EXPENDITURES ON ITEMS FOR INFANTS

Star Level Facility Type 1 2 3 4 5 Urban Rural Center Family

home Group home

Santa Fe

Supplies for Infants (n=76) $175 $150 $500 $500 $3,388 $250 $330 $400 $100 $360 $1,547

Infant Furniture & Equipment % reporting any, (n=64)

37% 40% 100% 70% 86% 57% 48% 53% 43% 64% 33%

Infant Furniture & equipment, median expenditure

0 0 $1,700 $350 $342 $200 0 $175 0 $156 0

Relative to the supplies and materials needed for older children, expenditures on infants were quite low. The high cost of infant care appears to be driven by the low child-to-caregiver ratio, discussed in the Cost of Quality Report and the Workforce Report. Items specifically mentioned as infant costs were over-the-counter teething, colic and cold medicines, cribs, mats, gloves, and toys.

Only two providers reported donations of infant supplies. Nearly half – 47% - reported no expenditure in the past year for infant furniture or equipment. Three 2-Star centers, two urban and one rural, received donations of infant furniture or equipment. Eleven providers reported incurring other expenses specifically related to infant care. For ten of these the annual expense for these other items was less than $1000.

24 | P a g e

TABLE 5-G: ANNUAL MEDIAN EXPENDITURES ON ITEMS FOR TODDLERS AND OLDER CHILDREN

1-Star 2-Star 3-Star 4-Star 5-Star Urban Rural Center Family Home

Group Home

Santa Fe

Supplies, toddlers & older children (n=92)

$1,084 $500 $1,500 $1,250 $1,615 $1,000 $794 $1,350 $500 $500 $1,250

Furniture & Equipment, toddlers & older children (n=82)

$200 $557 $850 $1,000 $2,000 $650 $650 $1,000 $200 $600 $425

Non-infant meals and snacks (n=80) $1,150 $3,400 $3,500 $6,101 $9,634 $4,350 $2,450 $3,906 $2,400 $2,080 $550

Other expenditures, non-infants (n=38) 0 $50 $2,552 0 $438 $50 $12 $175 $37 $125 $600

Table 5-G summarizes expenditures for toddlers and older children. In each category the expenditure was much higher than that for infants. In addition, older children required meals and snacks. Specific cost items for older children included field trips, clothing, books, curriculum, art supplies, sports equipment, games and outdoor pool supplies.

Every respondent except for one rural 2-Star group home reported positive expenditure amounts for supplies for toddlers and older children. Nine providers received donated supplies for this age group ranging in value from $100 to $8,820. Most – 84% overall – reported spending money on furniture and equipment. Ten received donations in this category ranging in value from less than $10 to $84,500. Most donations were valued at than $2000 or less. Eleven providers received donations of food and snacks, ranging from $250 to $43,200. The median value of donated food was $2500. Providers were asked if it cost them more to provide care for children with special needs. More than three-fourths (77%) of caregivers report no higher costs to care for children with special needs; 1-Star providers, caregivers in Santa Fe and Group Homes were the least likely to report higher costs; 2-Star providers were marginally more likely to report higher costs. The specific costs associated with this care are listed on Appendix 3. Additional staffing is the most commonly-named cost. Nearly half – 49% - of respondents to this question did not care for any children with special needs. Of the 58 providers who reported caring for any children with special needs, 11 were either group or family home providers; child care centers provided most of the care for children with special needs. Higher Star level providers were more likely to care for children with special needs.

25 | P a g e

TABLE 5-H: ENROLLMENT OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS



Group home

Santa Fe

N (sample size) 114 16 61 5 16 16 67 47 75 20 19 12

% of Sample 14% 54% 4% 14% 14% 59% 41% 66% 18% 17% 11%

% enrolling children with special needs

51% 37% 38% 40% 81% 87% 52% 49% 63% 15% 42% 58%

TABLE 5-I: MONTHLY COST OF CARE FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS: COUNTS OF RESPONSES



Group home

Santa Fe

N 21 0 12 1 4 4 12 9 17 3 1 2

% of Sample 0% 57% 5% 19% 19% 57% 43% 81% 14% 5% 10%

$100 or less 5 0 3 0 1 1 3 2 3 2 0 0

$101-$500 6 0 3 1 1 1 4 2 4 1 1 1

$1000-$2000 6 0 5 0 1 0 2 4 6 0 0 0

$3600-$6000 3 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 3 0 0 1

The reported monthly cost of caring for children with special needs varied widely, and so the data are reported as counts in categories rather than as means. One center reported the cost as zero and one family home reported a monthly cost of $25. All of the providers that reported the highest cost of care were urban centers.

26 | P a g e

Meals and Snacks Providers indicated which meals they offered by the age of the children. Tables 6-A through 6-F summarize these responses.

TABLE 6-A: MEALS PROVIDED TO INFANTS: PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS WHO SERVE THAT MEAL OR SNACK



Group home

Santa Fe

Sample Size 70 7 35 3 15 10 41 29 41 13 16 5

Breakfast 84% 71% 86% 100% 87% 80% 78% 93% 88% 69% 88% 40%

A.M Snack 61% 71% 60% 100% 33% 90% 61% 62% 59% 62% 69% 60%

Lunch 91% 86% 94% 100% 87% 90% 90% 93% 90% 100% 88% 80%

PM Snack 91% 100% 91% 100% 87% 90% 90% 93% 98% 77% 88% 100%

Dinner 27% 29% 31% 0% 27% 20% 27% 28% 7% 54% 56% 20%

TABLE 6-B: MEALS PROVIDED TO 1-YEAR-OLDS: PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS WHO SERVE THAT MEAL OR SNACK

Star Level Facility Type Total 1 2 3 4 5 Urban Rural Center Family

home Group home

Santa Fe

Sample Size 86 10 44 4 17 11 47 39 48 19 19 6

Breakfast 83% 70% 84% 75% 88% 82% 77% 90% 83% 74% 89% 33%

A.M Snack 60% 70% 57% 100% 47% 73% 57% 64% 56% 63% 68% 67%

Lunch 88% 80% 91% 75% 88% 91% 87% 90% 83% 95% 95% 67%

PM Snack 93% 100% 93% 100% 88% 91% 94% 92% 98% 79% 95% 100%

Dinner 29% 30% 34% 0% 29% 18% 26% 33% 6% 58% 58% 17%

27 | P a g e

TABLE 6-C: MEALS PROVIDED TO 2-YEAR-OLDS: PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS WHO SERVE THAT MEAL OR SNACK



Group home

Santa Fe

Sample Size 97 12 51 4 18 12 52 45 56 21 20 6

Breakfast 84% 75% 84% 75% 89% 83% 79% 89% 80% 81% 95% 33%

A.M Snack 60% 67% 59% 100% 44% 67% 60% 60% 54% 67% 70% 67%

Lunch 88% 83% 88% 75% 89% 92% 88% 87% 79% 100% 100% 67%

PM Snack 96% 100% 94% 100% 94% 100% 98% 93% 100% 90% 90% 100%

Dinner 28% 25% 31% 0% 33% 17% 29% 27% 5% 57% 60% 17%

TABLE 6-D: MEALS PROVIDED TO PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN: PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS WHO SERVE THAT MEAL OR SNACK



Group home

Santa Fe

Sample Size 103 12 55 4 19 13 55 48 59 23 21 5

Breakfast 80% 67% 80% 75% 84% 85% 78% 81% 78% 74% 90% 40%

A.M Snack 61% 67% 60% 100% 53% 62% 58% 65% 54% 70% 71% 40%

Lunch 83% 75% 85% 75% 84% 85% 85% 81% 76% 91% 95% 60%

PM Snack 95% 100% 93% 100% 95% 100% 95% 96% 98% 87% 95% 80%

Dinner 27% 25% 33% 0% 26% 15% 25% 29% 5% 43% 71% 20%

28 | P a g e

TABLE 6-E: MEALS PROVIDED TO KINDERGARTENERS: PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS WHO SERVE THAT MEAL OR SNACK



Group home

Santa Fe

Sample Size 70 13 40 3 9 5 36 34 38 12 20 3

Breakfast 69% 46% 70% 67% 78% 100% 72% 65% 63% 67% 80% 33%

A.M Snack 51% 38% 55% 67% 44% 60% 56% 47% 45% 67% 55% 33%

Lunch 54% 31% 55% 67% 56% 100% 58% 50% 42% 58% 75% 33%

PM Snack 94% 92% 93% 100% 100% 100% 92% 97% 95% 92% 95% 100%

Dinner 30% 15% 30% 0% 67% 20% 31% 29% 5% 50% 65% 33%

TABLE 6-F: MEALS PROVIDED TO SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN: PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS WHO SERVE THAT MEAL OR SNACK



Group home

Santa Fe

Sample Size 65 10 38 3 9 5 32 33 34 13 18 2

Breakfast 65% 50% 68% 33% 67% 80% 69% 61% 62% 69% 67% 50%

A.M Snack 38% 20% 42% 33% 44% 40% 34% 42% 29% 54% 44% 50%

Lunch 42% 20% 42% 33% 44% 80% 41% 42% 32% 54% 50% 50%

PM Snack 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Dinner 34% 10% 37% 0% 67% 20% 28% 39% 6% 54% 72% 0%

Lunch and afternoon snacks are offered by almost every provider. Dinner is offered by very few centers, but by more than half of family and group homes. It is the least-common meal or snack offered. School-aged children are less likely to be served morning snacks or lunch because they are in school during the day, but every single provider who responded to this question serves school-aged children an afternoon snack.

29 | P a g e

Economic Environment The recent recession affected the child care industry by affecting parent employment and ability to pay for care. In addition, the recession adversely affected several other sources of funding for child care providers, including donations and some public support. In this section we address two questions asked on the surveys. The first question asked providers if, and how, they were affected by the recent recession. The second question focused specifically on the extent to which providers wrote off or forgave unpaid fees.

TABLE 7-A: WAS YOUR PROGRAM AFFECTED BY THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN?



Group home

Santa Fe

Sample size 105 14 56 3 18 14 61 44 67 21 17 10

Yes 77% 57% 80% 67% 72% 93% 72% 84% 84% 67% 65% 70%

TABLE 7-B: HOW WAS YOUR PROGRAM AFFECTED BY THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN? RESPONSES GIVEN BY 8 OR MORE RESPONDENTS*



Group home

Santa Fe

Sample Size 99 10 54 4 15 16 54 45 67 17 15 9

Parents fell behind on pmts

74% 60% 81% 50% 80% 56% 69% 80% 69% 82% 87% 22%

Fewer supplies, materials

69% 50% 76% 100% 67% 50% 74% 62% 67% 82% 60% 44%

Held back on raises, bonuses

43% 40% 44% 50% 40% 44% 39% 49% 60% 0% 20% 44%

Layoffs or reduced hours

36% 40% 39% 25% 33% 31% 41% 31% 46% 0% 33% 67%

Closed classroom(s) 9% 10% 13% 25% 0% 0% 13% 4% 13% 0% 0% 22%

Parents lost jobs, child withdrew

8% 10% 9% 0% 0% 13% 7% 9% 1% 18% 27% 0%

*Responses given by three or fewer survey takers are listed in Appendix 4.

30 | P a g e

Most (77% overall) caregivers were affected by the recent recession, particularly rural caregivers and centers. 2-Star and 5-Star respondents were more likely to say that the recession affected their programs than were other caregivers. Table 7-B expands on this response. The most common recession-based effect was that more parents fell behind on fees (especially at 1-Star, 4-Star, home (as opposed to Center) and Rural caregivers). All four 3-Star caregivers who responded to this question reported buying fewer supplies and materials; this was a common response among Family Home providers as well. No urban responders reported losing many children; 7% of rural responders did. Comments given by 3 or fewer respondents in response to this question are listed in Appendix 4.

Responses to the survey question “How much did you ‘write off’ last year due to uncollectible or ‘forgiven’ fees?” are summarized in Table 8. Almost three-fourths of all respondents wrote off or forgave some fees last year.

TABLE 8: FEES THAT WERE WRITTEN OFF AS UNCOLLECTIBLE OR FORGIVEN DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR (SURVEY COMPLETED IN 2010)



Group home

Santa Fe

Sample Size 87 15 44 3 15 10 48 39 55 20 12 7

Percent reporting any

74% 67% 77% 100% 73% 60% 77% 69% 82% 50% 75% 86%

Less than $500 7 1 3 0 2 1 7 0 2 5 0 0

$500 - $1000 14 3 8 0 2 1 8 6 7 3 4 0

$1000 - $1200 9 1 4 0 3 1 6 3 5 3 1 1

$1500 - $2000 11 2 5 3 1 0 3 8 11 0 0 1

$2500 - $3100 8 1 5 0 1 1 6 2 6 1 1 3

$3750 - $5000 6 0 4 0 1 1 3 3 5 0 1 0

$5000 - $10,000 9 1 6 0 1 1 4 5 9 0 0 1

More than $10,000 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0

Median $970 $585 $1000 $2000 $970 $300 $923 $1000 $1517 $23 $923 $3000

31 | P a g e

Conclusion Many child care providers operate at a loss; some that appear profitable are only profitable because they operate in space that is provided to them at no cost or receive other valuable contributions from private donors and public agencies. If all providers had to pay for all of the costs of caring for children – including facility costs and the value of uncompensated time - many would be unable to remain in business. This reliance on private and governmental support makes providers vulnerable: if the support is no longer available, providers would have to obtain space, materials and services in the market, and would have to increase fees in order to cover their operating costs. Larger providers may be able to exploit economies of scale, but labor costs are not amenable to this potential cost savings given required child/teacher ratios. Most surveyed providers operated at close to full capacity and so adding more children would require hiring more teachers. The Workforce Report provides greater detail on the cost and qualifications of those teachers. Most have more education than the minimum required by either the state or by the hiring provider, and yet their wages are low, often close to minimum wage. The overall average wage of teachers who responded to the Teacher Survey was less than $10 per hour. Costs increase with increases in quality as measured by star level designation. However, the Market Rate Survey suggests that providers cannot always capture those higher costs in the form of higher rates. Despite the relative lack of economic incentive to improve the quality of care delivered to New Mexico’s children, most survey respondents who were not already at the highest star level expressed an intent to seek a higher star designation in the coming year. The recent “great recession” adversely affected most providers of child care, highlighting the fragile nature of profitability in this industry. Most providers wrote off or forgave unpaid fees, and the comments provided during the interview are stark reminders of what caregivers must do to make delivery of care possible. Child care is an industry and this is an economic report, containing economic data. But the benefits of providing – and the costs of failing to provide – quality care to New Mexico’s youngest residents go beyond dollars and cents. The data in this report and the companion reports describe an industry in which providers do much with little in their efforts to contain costs and keep child care affordable.

32 | P a g e

Appendix 1: Enrollment Data

1. Enrollment Data: Infants

TABLE 1-A: FULL-TIME INFANT ENROLLMENT


Total 1 2 3 4 5 Urban Rural Center Family home Group home Santa Fe

N 79 9 41 5 13 11 47 32 55 12 12 7

% of Sample

11% 52% 6% 16% 14% 59% 41% 70% 15% 15% 9%

Mean 4.9 1.3 3.4 3.2 10.8 7.2 5.2 4.5 6.5 .6 1.7 3.0

Median 3.0 .0 2.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 1.5 .0

TABLE 1-B: PART-TIME INFANT ENROLLMENT



N 50 7 21 2 12 8 34 16 40 7 3 6

% of Sample

14% 42% 4% 24% 16% 68% 32% 80% 14% 6% 12%

Mean 1.5 .9 1.0 1.5 1.5 3.3 1.5 1.5 1.8 .3 .7 .7

Median 1.0 .0 1.0 1.5 1.0 3.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 .0 1.0 .0

TABLE 1-C: NUMBER OF FULL-TIME INFANTS PROVIDER COULD ADD WITHOUT ADDING MORE STAFF



N 62 10 29 3 10 10 39 23 48 11 3 7

% of Sample

16% 47% 5% 16% 16% 63% 37% 77% 18% 5% 11%

Mean 1.0 .4 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.6 .8 1.4 1.1 .8 1.0 .4

Median .0 .0 .0 1.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 1.0 .0

33 | P a g e

TABLE 1-D: NUMBER OF PART-TIME INFANTS PROVIDER COULD ADD WITHOUT ADDING MORE STAFF



N 43 8 18 2 7 8 30 13 34 6 3 6

% of Sample

19% 42% 5% 16% 19% 70% 30% 79% 14% 7% 14%

Mean .5 .1 .6 1.5 .3 .8 .5 .7 .5 .5 .7 .5

Median .0 .0 .0 1.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 .0

TABLE 1-E: NUMBER OF FULL-TIME INFANTS ON WAITLIST



N 61 9 28 2 11 11 38 23 45 11 5 6

% of Sample

15% 46% 3% 18% 18% 62% 38% 74% 18% 8% 10%

Mean 4.2 1.1 1.2 2.5 8.9 9.8 4.3 4.0 5.4 .4 1.2 4.8

Median 1.0 .0 .0 2.5 4.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 .0 1.0 .5

TABLE 1-F: NUMBER OF PART-TIME INFANTS ON WAITLIST



N 41 8 18 2 7 6 27 14 31 8 2 4

% of Sample

20% 44% 5% 17% 15% 66% 34% 76% 20% 5% 10%

Mean 1.3 1.1 .2 .0 3.0 3.5 1.8 .5 1.5 .6 1.5 1.3

Median .0 .5 .0 .0 .0 3.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.5 .5

34 | P a g e

2. Enrollment Data: 1-year Olds

TABLE 2-A: FULL-TIME 1-YEAR OLD ENROLLMENT



N 86 9 44 5 16 12 48 38 58 11 17 7

% of Sample

10% 51% 6% 19% 14% 56% 44% 67% 13% 20% 8% 10%

Mean 5.6 2.2 4.6 4.2 7.6 10.1 5.3 6.0 7.8 .9 1.4 4.7

Median 3.0 1.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 11.0 2.5 3.5 7.0 1.0 1.0 2.0

TABLE 2-B: PART-TIME 1-YEAR OLD ENROLLMENT



N 51 9 22 3 10 7 32 19 43 6 2 6

% of Sample

18% 43% 6% 20% 14% 63% 37% 84% 12% 4% 12%

Mean 2.0 .9 1.6 2.3 2.2 3.9 2.0 1.9 2.2 .8 .0 2.5

Median 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .5 .0 1.5

TABLE 2-C: NUMBER OF FULL-TIME 1-YEAR OLDS PROVIDER COULD ADD WITHOUT ADDING MORE STAFF



N 61 10 28 2 10 11 33 28 48 7 6 7

% of Sample

16% 46% 3% 16% 18% 54% 46% 79% 11% 10% 11%

Mean 1.2 .4 1.5 1.0 .3 2.3 .5 2.1 1.3 .6 1.7 .1

Median .0 .0 .0 1.0 .0 .0 .0 .5 .0 .0 1.5 .0

35 | P a g e

TABLE 2-D: NUMBER OF PART-TIME 1-YEAR OLDS PROVIDER COULD ADD WITHOUT ADDING MORE STAFF



N 38 9 14 1 7 7 27 11 30 6 2 6

% of Sample

24% 37% 3% 18% 18% 71% 29% 79% 16% 5% 16%

Mean .7 .1 .9 1.0 1.6 .3 .8 .5 .9 .0 .5 1.5

Median .0 .0 .0 1.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 .0

TABLE 2-E: NUMBER OF FULL-TIME 1-YEAR-OLDS ON WAITLIST



N 51 9 22 2 8 10 31 20 41 7 3 6

% of Sample

18% 43% 4% 16% 20% 61% 39% 80% 14% 6% 12%

Mean 3.8 1.4 1.7 1.0 7.3 8.2 4.3 3.0 4.5 .9 1.0 5.0

Median 1.0 .0 .0 1.0 2.5 5.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 .0 1.0 .5

TABLE 2-F: NUMBER OF PART-TIME 1-YEAR-OLDS ON WAITLIST



N 36 9 14 2 6 5 24 12 28 7 1 4

% of Sample

25% 39% 6% 17% 14% 67% 33% 78% 19% 3% 11%

Mean 1.4 .7 .2 .0 3.2 4.6 2.0 .3 1.8 .3 .0 .5

Median .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

36 | P a g e

3. Enrollment Data: 2-year Olds

TABLE 3-A: FULL-TIME 2-YEAR OLD ENROLLMENT



N 98 10 53 5 16 14 56 42 65 15 18 8

% of Sample

10% 54% 5% 16% 14% 57% 43% 66% 15% 18% 8%

Mean 7.4 4.0 6.9 7.4 8.1 10.9 7.2 7.6 10.2 1.3 2.1 5.1

Median 5.5 1.0 4.0 8.0 6.0 11.0 5.0 6.5 10.0 1.0 2.0 3.5

TABLE 3-B: PART-TIME 2-YEAR OLD ENROLLMENT



N 54 10 26 2 8 8 31 23 41 10 3 6

% of Sample

19% 48% 4% 15% 15% 57% 43% 76% 19% 6% 11%

Mean 3.1 1.1 2.7 5.5 1.6 7.4 3.9 1.9 3.8 .7 1.3 2.5

Median 1.5 1.0 2.0 5.5 1.0 3.5 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5

TABLE 3-C: NUMBER OF FULL-TIME 2-YEAR OLDS PROVIDER COULD ADD WITHOUT ADDING MORE STAFF



N 67 10 33 3 11 10 38 29 53 9 5 7

% of Sample

15% 49% 4% 16% 15% 57% 43% 79% 13% 7% 10%

Mean 1.8 .8 2.4 .7 1.7 1.3 1.4 2.3 1.9 1.3 1.8 1.1

Median 1.0 .0 2.0 .0 1.0 .5 .5 2.0 .0 1.0 2.0 .0

37 | P a g e

TABLE 3-D: NUMBER OF PART-TIME 2-YEAR OLDS PROVIDER COULD ADD WITHOUT ADDING MORE STAFF



N 44 10 18 2 6 8 29 15 33 9 2 6

% of Sample

23% 41% 5% 14% 18% 66% 34% 75% 20% 5% 14%

Mean 1.3 .5 2.0 .5 1.5 .9 1.3 1.3 1.6 .6 .0 .7

Median .0 .0 1.0 .5 .5 .0 .0 .0 1.0 .0 .0 .5

TABLE 3-E: NUMBER OF FULL-TIME 2-YEAR-OLDS ON WAITLIST



N 59 9 29 2 8 11 33 26 48 9 2 6

% of Sample

15% 49% 3% 14% 19% 56% 44% 81% 15% 3% 10%

Mean 3.1 1.6 1.1 3.0 5.5 8.1 3.0 3.3 3.7 .6 .5 4.7

Median .0 .0 .0 3.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 .0 1.0 .0 .5 1.0

TABLE 3-F: NUMBER OF PART-TIME 2-YEAR-OLDS ON WAITLIST



N 43 9 19 2 5 8 28 15 32 9 2 4

% of Sample

21% 44% 5% 12% 19% 65% 35% 74% 21% 5% 9%

Mean 1.2 .8 .3 1.0 2.8 2.8 1.4 .7 1.4 .4 1.0 .5

Median .0 .0 .0 1.0 .0 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 .5

38 | P a g e

4. Enrollment Data: Pre-school Children (36 months – 5 years, not yet in Kindergarten)

TABLE 4-A: FULL-TIME PRE-SCHOOL ENROLLMENT



N 103 11 53 4 21 14 58 45 71 15 17 7

% of Sample

11% 51% 4% 20% 14% 56% 44% 69% 15% 17% 7%

Mean 14.6 8.2 14.2 12.8 10.3 28.0 14.8 14.2 19.6 1.5 5.2 7.7

Median 10.0 3.0 12.0 12.0 5.0 24.5 11.0 9.0 16.0 1.0 4.0 4.0

TABLE 4-B: PART-TIME PRE-SCHOOL ENROLLMENT



N 71 11 34 3 11 12 45 26 53 11 7 8

% of Sample

15% 48% 4% 15% 17% 63% 37% 75% 15% 10% 11%

Mean 10.4 8.9 7.6 5.7 8.0 23.3 12.7 6.4 13.4 1.7 1.7 23.3

Median 4.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 16.5 5.0 3.5 6.0 1.0 1.0 16.0

TABLE 4-C: NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PRE-SCHOOLERS PROVIDER COULD ADD WITHOUT ADDING MORE STAFF



N 75 8 39 2 13 13 41 34 59 9 7 6

% of Sample

11% 52% 3% 17% 17% 55% 45% 79% 12% 9% 8%

Mean 4.1 1.1 5.4 6.5 2.5 3.2 3.6 4.8 4.7 1.3 2.6 1.5

Median 2.0 .5 2.0 6.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

39 | P a g e

TABLE 4-D: NUMBER OF PART-TIME PRE-SCHOOLERS PROVIDER COULD ADD WITHOUT ADDING MORE STAFF



N 49 9 20 2 8 10 33 16 40 8 1 7

% of Sample

18% 41% 4% 16% 20% 67% 33% 82% 16% 2% 14%

Mean 2.0 1.0 2.5 3.5 2.1 1.6 1.7 2.6 2.3 .8 .0 1.6

Median 1.0 .0 2.0 3.5 1.5 .0 .0 2.5 1.5 .5 .0 .0

TABLE 4-E: NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PRE-SCHOOLERS ON WAITLIST



N 60 7 31 2 10 10 37 23 49 7 4 3

% of Sample 12% 52% 3% 17% 17% 62% 38% 82% 12% 7% 5%

Mean 5.2 2.3 1.6 .0 4.0 20.4 6.0 3.9 6.0 .3 3.0 .3

Median .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 6.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.0 .0

TABLE 4-F: NUMBER OF PART-TIME PRE-SCHOOLERS ON WAITLIST



N 47 8 22 2 6 9 32 15 39 6 2 6

% of Sample 17% 47% 4% 13% 19% 68% 32% 83% 13% 4% 13%

Mean 4.0 1.8 2.2 .0 8.5 8.0 5.3 1.0 4.7 .0 1.0 8.0

Median .0 .0 .0 .0 4.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 2.0

40 | P a g e

5. Enrollment Data: Kindergarteners (5-year-olds in Kindergarten)

TABLE 5-A: FULL-TIME KINDERGARTENER ENROLLMENT



N 65 10 33 2 13 7 39 26 49 7 9 5

% of Sample 15% 51% 3% 20% 11% 60% 40% 75% 11% 14% 8%

Mean 4.0 4.0 4.4 2.0 2.2 6.0 4.4 3.4 4.9 .6 1.6 7.4

Median 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 .0 1.0 9.

TABLE 5-B: PART-TIME KINDERGARTENER ENROLLMENT



N 51 11 25 3 6 6 27 24 36 8 7 4

% of Sample 22% 49% 6% 12% 12% 53% 47% 71% 16% 14% 8%

Mean 1.9 1.9 1.7 3.3 .7 3.0 1.3 2.5 2.4 .4 1.0 1.3

Median .0 1.0 .0 1.0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 .0 .0 1.0 .5

TABLE 5-C: NUMBER OF FULL-TIME KINDERGARTENERS PROVIDER COULD ADD WITHOUT ADDING MORE STAFF



N 47 10 22 2 5 8 29 18 39 6 2 4

% of Sample 21% 47% 4% 11% 17% 62% 38% 83% 13% 4% 9%

Mean 2.2 .8 3.1 6.0 .6 1.4 2.0 2.5 2.4 .2 3.5 .3

Median .0 .0 .5 6.0 .0 .0 .0 .5 .0 .0 3.5 .0

41 | P a g e

TABLE 5-D: NUMBER OF PART-TIME KINDERGARTENERS PROVIDER COULD ADD WITHOUT ADDING MORE STAFF



N 37 10 15 2 5 5 24 13 27 8 2 4

% of Sample

27% 41% 5% 14% 14% 65% 35% 73% 22% 5% 11%

Mean .9 .3 1.5 3.0 .6 .0 .9 .9 1.0 .6 1.5 .0

Median .0 .0 .0 3.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.5 .0

TABLE 5-E: NUMBER OF FULL-TIME KINDERGARTENERS ON WAITLIST



N 41 9 19 1 6 6 24 17 33 6 2 4

% of Sample

22% 46% 2% 15% 15% 59% 41% 80% 15% 5% 10%

Mean .6 .0 .8 .0 .7 .8 .8 .4 .7 .0 1.0 .0

Median .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 .0

TABLE 5-F: NUMBER OF PART-TIME KINDERGARTENERS ON WAITLIST



N 34 9 14 1 5 5 21 13 27 6 1 4

% of Sample

26% 41% 3% 15% 15% 62% 38% 79% 18% 3% 12%

Mean .1 .0 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0

Median .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

42 | P a g e

6. Enrollment Data: School-aged Children (6 and older)

TABLE 6-A: FULL-TIME SCHOOL-AGED ENROLLMENT



N 60 11 30 1 12 6 36 24 43 8 9 5

% of Sample 18% 50% 2% 20% 10% 60% 40% 72% 13% 15% 8%

Mean 10.5 12.7 9.6 14.0 11.5 8.3 13.7 5.8 13.6 1.3 4.0 36.8

Median 3.5 2.0 4.5 14.0 3.5 2.0 4.0 3.0 7.0 .5 3.0 17.0

TABLE 6-B: PART-TIME SCHOOL-AGED ENROLLMENT



N 51 10 27 4 6 4 29 22 33 9 9 4

% of Sample 20% 53% 8% 12% 8% 57% 43% 65% 18% 18% 8%

Mean 5.2 5.1 5.1 7.8 1.2 9.3 3.4 7.5 7.0 .9 2.9 .8

Median 1.0 .5 2.0 4.5 .0 .0 .0 2.5 .0 1.0 3.0 .5

TABLE 6-C: NUMBER OF FULL-TIME SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN PROVIDER COULD ADD WITHOUT ADDING MORE STAFF



N 42 10 23 2 3 4 25 17 32 8 2 4

% of Sample 24% 55% 5% 7% 10% 60% 40% 76% 19% 5% 10%

Mean 2.5 1.1 2.3 10.0 1.0 3.8 2.6 2.3 3.0 .1 3.5 1.5

Median .0 .0 .0 10.0 .0 2.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.5 .0

43 | P a g e

TABLE 6-D: NUMBER OF PART-TIME SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN PROVIDER COULD ADD WITHOUT ADDING MORE STAFF



N 36 10 19 1 3 3 23 13 24 9 3 4

% of Sample

28% 53% 3% 8% 8% 64% 36% 67% 25% 8% 11%

Mean 1.1 .1 1.9 .0 1.0 .0 1.5 .5 1.3 .7 1.3 .0

Median .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 .0

TABLE 6-E: NUMBER OF FULL-TIME SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN ON WAITLIST



N 39 9 20 1 6 3 21 18 31 7 1 5

% of Sample

23% 51% 3% 15% 8% 54% 46% 79% 18% 3% 13%

Mean 2.5 .0 .5 3.0 13.8 .0 3.8 .9 3.1 .0 .0 15.8

Median .0 .0 .0 3.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

TABLE 6-F: NUMBER OF PART-TIME SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN ON WAITLIST



N 37 9 19 1 4 4 22 15 27 8 2 4

% of Sample

24% 51% 3% 11% 11% 59% 41% 73% 22% 5% 11%

Mean 8 1.1 .6 .0 .0 1.8 .3 1.5 .8 .1 2.5 .0

Median .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.5 .0

44 | P a g e

Appendix 2: Receipt of Child care Assistance

TABLE 7-A: RECEIVING CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE: NUMBER OF FULL-TIME INFANTS



N 65 8 34 4 10 9 40 25 49 11 5 7

% of Sample

12% 52% 6% 15% 14% 62% 38% 75% 17% 8% 11%

Mean 4.2 1.1 3.3 2.8 11.0 3.2 2.9 6.2 4.4 1.5 7.8 1.6

Median 2.0 .0 2.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 6.0 .0

TABLE 7-B: RECEIVING CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE: NUMBER OF PART-TIME INFANTS



N 36 8 13 2 9 4 23 13 27 5 4 6

% of Sample

22% 36% 6% 25% 11% 64% 36% 75% 14% 11% 17%

Mean .9 .4 .5 1.5 1.6 1.0 .7 1.2 .7 .0 3.3 .2

Median .0 .0 .0 1.5 .0 1.0 .0 1.0 .0 .0 2.5 .0

TABLE 7-C: RECEIVING CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE: NUMBER OF FULL-TIME 1-YEAR-OLDS



N 62 9 29 4 11 9 35 27 47 9 6 7

% of Sample

15% 47% 6% 18% 15% 56% 44% 76% 15% 10% 11%

Mean 3.1 1.0 3.3 3.0 2.2 5.6 2.9 3.3 3.7 .6 2.0 2.3

Median 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 7.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

45 | P a g e

TABLE 7-D RECEIVING CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE: NUMBER OF PART-TIME 1-YEAR-OLDS



N 29 7 10 2 7 3 19 10 23 5 1 5

% of Sample

24% 34% 7% 24% 10% 66% 34% 79% 17% 3% 17%

Mean .7 .1 .3 3.0 .9 1.3 .3 1.4 .7 .0 3.0 .2

Median .0 .0 .0 3.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.0 .0

TABLE 7-E: RECEIVING CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE: NUMBER OF FULL-TIME 2-YEAR-OLDS



N 76 9 39 4 13 11 43 33 54 12 10 8

% of Sample

12% 51% 5% 17% 14% 57% 43% 71% 16% 13% 11%

Mean 4.5 2.8 4.6 5.8 3.5 5.8 4.5 4.4 5.8 .9 1.5 2.8

Median 3.0 .0 3.0 6.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.5

TABLE 7-F: RECEIVING CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE: NUMBER OF PART-TIME 2-YEAR-OLDS



N 29 7 13 2 5 2 18 11 22 6 1 5

% of Sample

24% 45% 7% 17% 7% 62% 38% 76% 21% 3% 17%

Mean .8 .6 .6 4.5 .4 .0 .4 1.4 1.0 .2 1.0 .2

Median .0 .0 1.0 4.5 .0 .0 .0 1.0 .5 .0 1.0 .0

46 | P a g e

TABLE 7-G: RECEIVING CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE: NUMBER OF FULL-TIME PRESCHOOLERS



N 80 8 41 4 15 12 44 36 60 8 12 7

% of Sample

10% 51% 5% 19% 15% 55% 45% 75% 10% 15% 9%

Mean 8.1 3.1 7.8 9.8 4.1 16.9 7.7 8.6 10.1 .9 2.9 1.9

Median 4.5 1.5 5.0 6.0 4.0 8.5 4.0 5.0 6.0 .5 2.5 2.0

TABLE 7-H: RECEIVING CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE: NUMBER OF PART-TIME PRE-SCHOOLERS



N 42 9 19 3 6 5 25 17 31 8 3 6

% of Sample

21% 45% 7% 14% 12% 60% 40% 74% 19% 7% 14%

Mean 2.8 2.6 1.7 4.0 .5 9.2 1.7 4.3 3.4 .4 2.3 .3

Median 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 .0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 .0 2.0 .0

TABLE 7-I: RECEIVING CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE: NUMBER OF FULL-TIME KINDERGARTENERS



N 50 12 23 2 9 4 30 20 36 7 7 6

% of Sample

24% 46% 4% 18% 8% 60% 40% 72% 14% 14% 12%

Mean 2.5 2.2 2.9 1.5 3.4 .3 3.5 1.2 3.3 .1 1.3 4.5

Median 1.0 .5 1.0 1.5 1.0 .0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .0 1.0 1.0

47 | P a g e

TABLE 7-J: RECEIVING CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE: NUMBER OF PART-TIME KINDERGARTENERS



N 33 8 15 2 6 2 21 12 25 6 2 5

% of Sample

24% 45% 6% 18% 6% 64% 36% 76% 18% 6% 15%

Mean 1.0 .3 .9 4.5 1.7 .0 .6 1.8 1.2 .2 1.0 .6

Median .0 .0 .0 4.5 1.5 .0 .0 1.0 .0 .0 1.0 .0

TABLE 7-K: RECEIVING CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE: NUMBER OF FULL-TIME SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN



N 52 10 26 2 9 5 29 23 35 9 8 5

% of Sample

19% 50% 4% 17% 10% 56% 44% 67% 17% 15% 10%

Mean 6.2 3.8 6.6 4.0 7.0 8.4 8.0 3.9 8.1 1.2 3.5 7.0

Median 2.0 .5 2.5 4.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 .0 3.0 .0

TABLE 7-L: RECEIVING CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE: NUMBER OF PART-TIME SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN



N 33 7 16 2 5 3 20 13 24 5 4 4

% of Sample

21% 48% 6% 15% 9% 61% 39% 73% 15% 12% 12%

Mean 2.3 1.1 1.6 11.0 2.4 2.7 1.2 4.1 2.4 .4 4.0 .5

Median .0 .0 1.0 11.0 2.0 .0 .0 2.0 .0 .0 3.5 .0

48 | P a g e

Note: Full- or part-time is as defined by the provider. Ninety-four providers had an hours-per-day designation: 18% defined full-time care as 4 hours or more per day; 21% defined full-time care as 5 hours or more per day; 24% defined full-time care as 6 hours or more per day. Eighty-seven providers had an days-per-week designation (not mutually exclusive of hours-per-day). 62% of providers defined full-time care as 5 days per week.

49 | P a g e

Appendix 3: Specific costs associated with caring for children with special needs Survey Question: What additional staffing, equipment, etc. do you need to care for children with special needs?

Comments regarding additional staffing: Comments regarding additional equipment or materials:

Speech therapist, OTE physical therapists comes here, no special equipment. Extra staff. Three floaters 6 hours daily. Extra teacher for field trips and other non-classroom activities. Extra staff member. When we have had special needs children it is almost always one-on-one. Additional staff. Staff and whatever equipment they need Two extra staff. One staff member for the two Social worker, office space, travel costs. Additional staff person per room. Staff (however, they get a discount of 15%). I often have to add a second teacher to help even though the ratio does not require it. Extra teachers, extra planning time, equipment. An extra teacher is needed on days that certain children are here. Her salary is extra and needed daily in order for class to run smoothly.

Specific toys, feeding utensils, foods. Training and equipment. High chair, stroller. Outdoor equipment. Ramps, sinks. Playground. Not sure of all things. Special equipment like technology. Special training, equipment, and sometimes additional staffing is required. We have gifted children, have had to buy a lot of books and toys, curriculum materials.

50 | P a g e

Appendix 4: Effects of the Recession Comments given by three or fewer respondents: Lost many children Difficult for parents to get CYFD contracts or meet the requirements Parents’/kids’ hours were cut or lowered Food bill has increased Lower enrollment Grandmothers caring for kids; parents taking children elsewhere, especially to free programs Not as many children are enrolled Co-pays are behind; parents do not want to pay co-pay Cut back on part of program (the example given by this provider was water therapy) Promote awareness of conservation (the example given was turning the lights off) More time spend fundraising Watching payments more carefully Working longer hours to compensate for losing a receptionist Did not hire seasonal employees for summer. Did not get as many calls for care. Ad manager not being paid Closed for 2 years; just re-opened Could not complete planned expansion On waiting list for state child care assistance Parents could not receive assistance Had to increase flexibility in program (days and hours) Had to cut everything extra Own pay was cut; did not pay self at all Added furlough days More requests for scholarships, CYFD assistance More late payments Cut program from 12 months to 9 months Moved to a different location

51 | P a g e

Appendix 5: RPI Survey

Date

Dear Child Care Provider,

The New Mexico Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD) is currently conducting the following survey among child care providers throughout the state. The purpose of this study is for CYFD to acquire a better understanding of the cost of providing child care from the provider’s perspective. The results of this survey will paint a more complete picture of your hard work and commitment to the children of New Mexico and will be used to inform policy-related decisions.

You may recall receiving a call from a representative at Research & Polling, Inc. asking you to fill out the survey either over the phone or by mailing the survey back in the postage-paid envelope provided. The survey will take approximately 30 minutes to complete.

Because we understand that your time is precious, you will receive a $25 American Express Gift Card in appreciation for your time and effort in filling out the survey. In order to receive your $25 gift card, please complete the survey within one week of receiving it.

Your specific responses to the questions in this survey will remain confidential and you will remain anonymous throughout this study. The responses from all of the surveys we receive will be analyzed and reported only as a summary. Your individual responses will not be shared with CYFD or any other individual outside of the independent research team.

In order to determine who has responded and should be sent a gift card, please provide your contact information on this sheet only. Please do not provide identifying information on any other parts of the survey.

Provider/Program’s Name: _________________________________________________

Name of Person Completing the Survey: ______________________________________

52 | P a g e

Position:________________________________________________________________

Mailing Address:

Street:____________________________________________________________

City:_____________________________________________________________

State:____________________________

Zip Code: ________________________

Phone: ________________________

Email: _________________________

Date of completion: ______________

Thank you for taking the time to assist CYFD with this important research. Please feel free to contact Nina Johnson at CYFD at (505) 771-5901

or via email at: [email protected] if you have any questions regarding this research study. If you have any questions regarding the survey instrument, please feel free to contact Nancy Kastanek, Vice President of Research & Polling, Inc. at (505) 821-5454 or via email at: [email protected].

Sincerely,

Brian Sanderoff

President, Research & Polling, Inc.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

53 | P a g e

SECTION 1 We would first like to gather some information about your facility.

1.1 During what hours is the center

open to provide care each day? From: am pm To: am pm

1.2 How many days per week is the center open?

1 3 days per week or less 2 4 days per week 3 5 days per week 4 6 or 7 days per week

1.3. Do you plan to seek a higher Star level or accreditation in the coming year? 1 Yes 2 No

1.4. Thinking about the recent economic downturn, did the economy affect your program?

1 No (SKIP TO SECTION 2)

2 Yes (Please indicate all that apply)

1 I had to lay off or reduce hours of workers

2 I had to hold back raises/bonuses

3 I had to close one or more classrooms

4 More parents fell behind on fees

5 I did not buy as many supplies and materials

Other: (Please Specify):_______________________________________________________________

54 | P a g e

SECTION 2 In this section we will ask for information about your enrollment.

2.1. For each of the following age groups, please indicate the number of children currently enrolled. Then please indicate how many children, if any, you carry on a waitlist in each age group or the number of additional children you could add, again by age group. Finally, please indicate how many children receive a scholarship, discount, state subsidy or other assistance.

Number enrolled

Number of children you could

add without adding more staff

Number on a waitlist

Number who receive child care

assistance, discount or other type of assistance

Full-time

Part-time

Full-time

Part-time

Full-time

Part-time

Full-time

Part-time

Infants (less than 12 months)

1-year-olds

(12 - 23 months)

2-year-olds

(24 – 35 months)

Preschoolers (36 months – 5 yrs, not in Kindergarten)

5-year-olds in Kindergarten

School aged children, 6 and older

55 | P a g e

2.2. What do you consider full-time enrollment at your center? More than:

Enter number of hours per day: (or) number of days per week:

2.3a. How many children with special needs are enrolled?

2.3b. Does it cost your center more to provide care for any children with special needs?

1 No (SKIP TO SECTION 3)

2 Yes

What additional staffing, equipment, etc. do you need?

How much more does it cost you to serve children with special needs?

$ (Enter amount per month)

SECTION 3. This section asks for total budget amounts from various sources.

3.1. What was your center’s total budget (expenses) for the most recent fiscal year? $

3.2. What was your center’s total revenue for the most recent fiscal year? $

3.3. In the last fiscal year, how much money did you earn or take in from the following sources:

a. Tuition and fees (such as registration or special activity fees) paid by parents $

b. Tuition, contributions, or other fees paid by the State or AIM HIGH $

56 | P a g e

c. Tuition and other fees paid by private organizations, including employers $

d. Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) $

e. Contributions and donations $

f. Special events and fundraising efforts $

g. Other (please specify):_________________________________________________ $

3.4. Do you receive any income or revenue that comes from governmental funding sources not already included in question 3.3 above? If so, please indicate the program that provided the funding, the amount of funding and what it was used for.

Program: Amount:

Used for:

Municipal (City) funding: $

County funding: $

State funding: $

Federal funding: $

Other government funding: $

SECTION 4 The following questions will ask you to describe the center’s facility or physical space.

4.1. What is your annual expenditure on rent or mortgage for your building?

$

Is any part of that donated or provided without charge?

1 No (SKIP TO QUESTION 4.2)

2 Yes

What is the estimated value of any donated space?

$

57 | P a g e

4.2 This table asks for the actual monetary expenditures made to use and maintain your facility. Use total costs for the last full fiscal year.

Category: Annual Amount Paid by Center in the last year

a. Real Estate Taxes and Property Insurance (do not include the cost of insuring the contents of the building)

$

b. Utilities (gas, electric, water, telephone, Internet), trash and recycling, security and alarm monitoring

$

c. Cleaning services and supplies, maintenance of building and outside areas including outdoor play area and equipment and related maintenance supplies

$

d. Other Occupancy Costs

$

SECTION 5. In this section we will ask you about expenses for a variety of services, materials and supplies. These may be provided at no cost to your center through donations or contributions by a sponsoring organization or others. If you do not pay for any listed item, but it is donated to your center, please estimate the value of the contribution.

5.1. What does the center pay for the following administrative and program support costs? Use total annual costs for the last full fiscal year.

Amount Paid by Center per year

If you did not pay the full cost, what is the estimated value

of donations/ contributions?

Business Services, including accounting/bookkeeping, human resources and payroll processing

$ $

58 | P a g e

Office Services, including computer and IT support, clerical and administrative staff

$ $

Other: _________________________________________________ $ $

Other: _________________________________________________ $ $

Other: _________________________________________________ $ $

59 | P a g e

5.2. This table asks for transportation-related expenses. Please use total costs for the past full fiscal year.

Transportation Amount Paid by Center

per year

If you did not pay the full cost, what is the

estimated value of donations/contributions?

Purchase/lease vehicle(s) $ $

Gas, service, repairs, insurance, title and registration $ $

Rent of vehicle for one-time use (e.g. field trip) $ $

Reimbursed staff mileage $ $

Other travel or transportation (please specify):

________________________________________________ $

$

5.3. This section asks for costs relating to insurance. Please do not include health insurance for staff or facility insurance in this section.

Type of Insurance Amount Paid by Center per year

Coverage for the contents of the building $

Liability $

Directors’ Liability (“D and O”) $

Other (Specify):_______________________________________ $

Other (Specify):_______________________________________ $

Other (Specify):_______________________________________ $

60 | P a g e

5.4. This table asks for the costs of various supplies. Again, please use total expenditures for the past full fiscal year and estimate the value of any items that you received as a contribution or donation.

Supplies Amount Paid by Center

per year

If you did not pay the full cost, what is the estimated value of

donations/contributions?

INFANTS

Supplies for infants, for example: diapers, wipes, blankets, formula, infant toys and books

$ $

Furniture and equipment for infants $ $

Other items specifically needed to care for infants (Please specify): _______________________________

$ $

TODDLERS & OLDER CHILDREN

Children’s supplies, for example: toys and books $ $

Children’s furniture and equipment, including outdoor equipment

$ $

Meals and snacks $ $

Other items for toddlers & older children (Please specify):_________________________________

$ $

GENERAL FACILITY

Office equipment, rental & maintenance, for example: printers, computers, etc.

$ $

Office supplies, for example: paper, toner, postage, etc.

$ $

Meal-related supplies and equipment NOT including food (e.g. preparation, serving and eating utensils & dishes, kitchen appliances)

$ $

Licensing and fees $ $

Other (Please specify):________________________ $ $


61 | P a g e


5.5. How much did you spend in the past fiscal year to advertise or

promote the center? $

If any advertising was donated or contributed, please estimate the value of that donation.

$

5.6. Which meals / snacks does the center provide to the children? (check all that apply) Do not include food,

formula or breast milk provided by the parents.

Breakfast AM Snack Lunch PM Snack Dinner

Infants (less than 12 months) 1 2 3 4 5

1-year-olds (12 - 23 months) 1 2 3 4 5

2-year-olds (24 – 35 months) 1 2 3 4 5

Preschoolers (36 months – 5 yrs, not in Kindergarten)

1 2 3 4 5

5-year-olds in Kindergarten 1 2 3 4 5

School aged children, 6 and older

1 2 3 4 5

5.7. Do you participate in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)? 1 Yes 2 No

5.8. Please indicate the number of hours in the last fiscal year you, your staff, or your volunteers devoted to

activities outside of the center’s normal operating hours (for example fund raising activities or cleaning/organizing days):

Hours/year

Director

Other administrative staff

62 | P a g e

Teaching staff

Volunteers

SECTION 6. This section asks questions about the use of volunteers. If you do not use volunteers in any capacity, please skip to Section 7.

6.1. Please estimate the value of volunteered services. For each category of volunteer, please estimate the hourly wage you would have had to pay for the services if they had not been volunteered.

Volunteer Service Provided Number of volunteers

Total volunteer hours per

month

Estimated Hourly Value (per person)

Special teaching (e.g. music, art, dance) $

Professional services (e.g., nursing, social work, medical or psychological examinations)

$

Helper/aide in one of the rooms $

Accompany children on field trips $

Service on the governing board/parent advisory groups $

Works with children with special needs $

Other (Please specify):_______________________________

$

SECTION 7. Employment costs

7.1 If your center advertises to hire staff (for example, by placing help wanted ads in

newspapers), how much did you pay for that advertising in the past full fiscal year? $

63 | P a g e

7.2. How much did you spend in the last fiscal year on training and education for your staff?

$

7.3. What was the total amount expended by the center in the last fiscal year for employee benefits?

$

7.4. How much did you spend in the last fiscal year for substitute teachers (not regular members of staff)?

$

64 | P a g e

7.5. Please complete this table, describing yourself and your staff. Use information from this fiscal year.

Title/ Position

Number of employees in position

Average salary or

wage

Salary/ wage is per (hour, week,

month)

Average hours per

week

Total paid weeks per

year

Average overtime per week

Highest level of education and

field

Benefits provided,

including time off

Example: Lead Teacher

2 $7.50 hour 35 50 none Associates, early

childhood

Medical, 1 week paid vacation

Director

Assistant Director

Lead Teacher

Assistant Teacher

Custodial Staff

Administrative Staff

Other (Specify): ________________

SECTION 8. This section asks for information about your center’s revenue sources.

8.1. How do you charge tuition to families? (Check all that apply)

1 Hourly

2 Daily

3 Weekly

4 Monthly

65 | P a g e

5 Other (Please specify):_____________________________________________________________

8.2. This question asks for the tuition rates charged to parents and other consumers (such as state agencies). Please indicate in the chart below the tuition rates charged for children in each of the following age groups, using the type of rate selected in the previous question (i.e., hourly, weekly)

Age Group Full-Time Rate Part-time Rate, If applicable

Infants (less than 12 months) $

$

1-year-olds (12 - 23 months) $

$

2-year-olds (24 – 35 months) $

$

Preschoolers (36 months – 5 yrs, not in Kindergarten) $

$

5-year-olds in Kindergarten $

$

School aged children, 6 and older $

$

8.3. If you take drop-in children, what do you charge?

$ Per:

66 | P a g e

8.4. If you close your center for holidays, staff development days, or other breaks, do parents pay for these days?

1 Yes

2 No

3 We do not close for those days

8.5. For which of the following do you charge fees in addition to tuition? (Please indicate all that apply)

Annual activity/supply/registration fee $

Field trips, on average annually $ Per year

Extracurricular fees for lessons, enrichment programs, etc. (annual average)

$ Per year

Other (Please specify):____________________________ $

8.6. Do you provide any of the following discounts for certain groups of customers? (Please indicate all that apply)

1 Discounts for second or multiple children enrolled from the same family

2 Discounts to children of your staff

3 Discounts to employees of other specified businesses or organizations

4 Sliding fee scale for eligible families

5 Scholarships for eligible families

6 Other (Please specify):____________________________________________________________

8.7 How much did your center “write off” last year due to uncollectible or “forgiven” fees? $

67 | P a g e

Of this amount, how much was owed by private pay families?

$

How much was owed by families receiving reimbursement from the State?

$

8.8. How does the center respond to gaps or shortfalls in state reimbursement authorization, for example gaps in days or hours covered or authorized?

1 The family is charged the difference

2 The center “forgives” the difference

3 The child is not allowed to attend the center

4 The center assists the family with changing the authorization

5 Other (Please specify):____________________________________________________________

8.9. How many months ago did you last change your tuition rates?

8.10. The last time you changed your rates, what was the average change?

1 Reduced by _________________%

2 Increased by ________________%

3 No changes in recent years.

Thank you for completing this survey. Your responses will help CYFD develop policies that take into consideration the challenges you face in providing care to New Mexico’s children.

Form A375

THE COST OF CHILD CARE IN NEW MEXICO › wp-content › uploads › ...Family, Group Homes, 1 -Star...

Documents

Transcript of THE COST OF CHILD CARE IN NEW MEXICO › wp-content › uploads › ...Family, Group Homes, 1 -Star...