Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 051 911 PS 004 865
AUTHOR Fitzsimmons, Stephen J.; Rowe, Mary P.TITLE A Study in Child Care. Volume I: Findings. Day Care
Programs Reprint Series.SPONS AGENCY National Center for Educational Communication
(DHEW/OE), Washington, D.C.; Office of EconomicOpportunity, Washington, D.C.
PUB DATE Apr 71NOTE 82p.
EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS *Child Care Centers, *Day Care Programs, *Day Care
Services, Expenditures, Family Characteristics,Financial Support, *Preschool Programs, *ProgramDescriptions
ABSTRACTThis is the first of four volumes of a study
designed to seek and describe formal child care arrangements of goodquality and to investigate the cost of reproducing these centers andhome care arrangements. The twenty centers and systems describedinclude centers all around the country: on Indian reservations, inthe inner city, in hospitals, rural settings and migrant communities.Sponsors range from welfare departments to labor unions. This volumepresents an overview of each of the twenty centers. Appendixescomprise 7/8 of the document. Appendix A is concerned with generalprogram information, notable program elements, child and familycharacteristics, funding and expenditures. Appendix B containssummary center descriptions and cost data. (AJ)
DAY CARE PROGRAMS
REPRINT SERIES
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO-DUCE) EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG-INATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN-IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU-CATION POSITION OR POLICY.
VOLUME I: FINDINGS
coordinated by
Stephen J. Fitzsimmonsand
Mary P. Rowe
from
A STUDY IN CHILD CARE
eponeored by
The Office of Economic Opportunity
U.S. DEPARIMENT OF REALM, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE/Office of EducationNational Center for Educational Convnmication
3.
F.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
VOLUME I: FINDINGS 1
Purpose and Scope of This Study 4
An Overview 6
Children, Staff and Parents 6
Program Structures and Budgeting . 8
Summary 10
APPENDIX A: BASIC DATA ON CENTERS AND SYSTEMS . 11
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY DESCRIPTIONS AND COST DATAON CENTERS AND SYSTEMS 21
Centers 23
Systems 59
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many persons contributed their efforts to the achievement of thisstudy of quality child care in the United States.
Mr. Paul Grigorieff and Miss Lynn Thompson served es overallproject coordinators. Mr. Richard Ruopp was supervisor of the CaseStudies. Mr. David Warner and Mrs. Mary Rowe directed the costanalysis. The analysis of quality in child care, and of staff and centeroperations, involved Dr. Jeffrey Travers, Dr. Evelyn Glenn, andMrs. Virginia Demos. Analysis of data on both individual programsand across the centers was assisted by Dr. Richard Anderson.Mrs. Patricia Bergstein, Miss Brigid O'Farrell, Mrs. Sally Zeckhauser,Mrs. Jane Ward, and Miss Patricia Cook. 'invaluable editorial assistancewas provided by Mrs. Chris Jerome and Mr. John Jerome.
Major contributions were made throughout the study by Dr. WalterStellwagen and Dr. Morris Shepard of the Office of Economic Opportunity.
Special thanks go to Miss Carol Sue Duncan, Miss Nancy Sievert,Miss Frances Pretty Paint, Miss Rosemary Wilson, and Miss Patti Bernsfor invaluable administrative and clerical support. Finally, we wish toexpress our thanks to the staff and children of the child care centersstudied who provided the basis for an analysis of quality child care.
Stephen J. Fitzsimmons, Ph. D.Project DirectorCambridge, MassachusettsApril 1, 1971
3
VOLUME I
FINDINGS
They are Indian, they are Black, White, Chicano, Oriental.Senior citizens and teenagers, former public school teachers and house-wives and social workers, babies and toddlers, boys and girls, men and
.women. They're isolated in the hills and hollows of Kentucky, passingthrough migrant camps as they follow the harvest, crammed into thetenements of Manhattan. They're America's working poor, her middleclass, her welfare recipients. Some are young mothers, some aredivorced, some are foster parents, some preside over large and bois-terous families and others have found themselves widowers with youngchildren to raise. Some of the kids don't get enough food and othersdon't get enough love. Some are old enough to talk but can't; othersspeak Spanish, Navajo, Ute, Ibo, Chinese, Italian, or English. Whatall of these people--from 8 months to 80 years old--have in common ischild care in America. They are the people who staff and operate childcare programs and the children and their parents who use child care.They number in the hundreds of thousands and every day their ranksare swelling.
This 0E0 contract to investigate, describe and estimate costsfor "quality child care"1 comes at a time of mounting national interestin the subject. There are many research studies documenting the impor-tance of early childhood in the later development of the individual.
1 When using terms such as "good" and "quality" in describing centers,we do not mean to imply that all aspects of center operation are outstand-ing or that elaborate programs were provided. Usually the centers weresafe, the children properly fed and behaving normally for their age. Inaddition, at least one aspect or program of the center was notable (beingwell-known or felt by us to be the equivalent of a well-known program).
1
4
Still others have investigated early childhood curriculum development,compensatory feeding, and health care for children. A few have beenconcerned with women in the labor force: the Census' tell us that thelabor force of 1971 is at least 40% women, whereas in 1948 only 10% of
the labor force was women. In addition, at least 40% of mothers whohave children under 18 are working now, in contrast to the 10% of suchmothers in 1948. The cold facts point to a very basic and human concern:how are our children being cared for?
Rough answers to this question are now emerging. 0E0 hasrecently sponsored national child care demand and supply surveys.1Massachusetts parents were queried about their need for and use ofchild care. 2 These surveys update the 1965 study on Child Care Arrange-ments of Working Mothers3; together, they give us a clearer picture ofthe child care presently in use in this country. At least half of America'schildren under six years of age are now regularly cared for (at leastpart-time) outside their own homes. At least that many are regularlycared for by someone other than their parents. Most of these arrange-ments are non-monetary: parents barter, pay in services, or do not pay.Most of the parents who need child care have little money, and can usechild care centers only if there are heavy subsidies. Not surprisinglythen, while demand for child care appears very strong, the use of centersis presently very limited.
But demand for formal child care is growing. In 1965, group and
center care accounted for no more than 3% of working-mother arrangements.
1 In progress under contract with Westinghouse Learning and Westat Research, Inc.
2 Massachusetts Early Education Project survey, Nichols House, HarvardGraduate School of Education, Appian Way, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971.
3 Spendler and Low, Child Care Arrangements of Working Mothers,Women's Bureau and Children's Bureau, 1968.
z
The Weetinghouse-Westat survey indicates that many more such arrange-ments are now formalized, and this does not include the use of child careby non-working parents. Moreover, national concern is growing at theCongressional level. Many different child care bills will be brought tothe next session: the FAP day care legislation is only the most prominentof many.
Hence OEO's concern with "quality child care." How can it bedescribed? How can it be provided? How much does it cost? Somegeneral answers indicated by our study are these:
(1) Good and excellent child care come in many forms, varyingwith respect to parents' and providers' values and the resources avail-able. We find there is no one kind of "quality child care:" there aremany.
(2) Good and excellent child care are now being offered by awide variety of sponsors: welfare departments, inner-city communityorganizations, private industry, religious groups, research foundations.Within school departments, on Indian reservations, in private homes,in the ghetto, in migrant camps, in the suburbs, good child care is tobe found in heartening profusion.
(3) Good and excellent child care are very hard to guarantee.The wide diversity described above has one common thread: enormoushuman effort lies behind every center we visited. Like other studies,this report has a few hypotheses abOut standards, but the most importantaspect of quality child care is the human effort and devotion which areits chief characteristics: a child care center is its director and staff.
(4) It's expensive to provide good and excellent child care.People accustomed to costs in lower-quality public schools, people whohave seen only part-time child care or who have worked with volunteer
child care, are likely to bc: taken aback by the real cash costs of full-timecare for young children. Costs of child care in our survey range from$1, 200 to $4, 100 per child per year. (No centers were caring entirelyfor infants, who as a group are even more expensive to care for.) Aboutfour-fifths of the real costs of child care are personnel costs; variationsin per-child costs are therefore highly predictable. Knowing the staff-
child ratio at a given center and where in the country it is located allowsone to predict within narrow limits how much the given arrangement willcost. Thus the staff of a child care center is its principal aspect withrespect both to quality and cost.
Purpose and Scope of This Study
The purposecof this study was to seek out and describe formalchild care arrangements of good quality. An additional charge was toinvestigate the cost of reproducing the centers and home care arrange-ments visited.
Limited time and resources were available, which meant that alongitudinal study of a random sample of American child care centersand systems was not feasible. MOreover, to draw a good sample, wewould have had to wait for an analysis of the Westinghouse-Westat surveyof present supply. Only a very expensive, long-term project couldreally determine what quality in formal child care arrangements is.This short-term study does not attempt to settle the highly controversialissues in the field. Rather, it was assumed from the outset that manywell-known child care centers are doing a good job, and that thesecenters could be described. Recognizing the wide diversity of groupsinterested in providing child care, we decided to include facilities ofmany different kinds. In Volume II, the reader will find case studiesof centers and systems located all around the country, studies whichdescribe child care on an Indian reservation, in the inner city, in a
hospital setting and in mobile trailers serving migrant communities, toname a few (see Tables I and III in this volume). Seven systems, somewith and some without home care, are included. As mentioned above,sponsors range from welfare departments to a labor union. Many pro-grams are part of multi-service community agencies, and more thanhalf offer extensive supplementary services for the whole family:counseling, health, job training and the like.
Each of the twenty centers studied is providing what we considerto be good child care. Starting from an original list of hundreds ofcenters, we selected 'forty for an initial visit and site report. We believethat the twenty which are described in depth are among the t etter centersof their kind in the country. Our observers felt that some were trulyexcellent, by virtue of the happiness of the children, the warmth anddedication of the staff, and the enthusiasm of the parents.
Descriptive studies, which basically compile enough informationso that informed hypotheses can be drawn for other research, are oftenreported in case study format. We follow this tradition in presentingthe case studies of Volume II. The careful reader will notice manysimilarities and patterns among the twenty. Our own analysis of thecommon structure and characteristics of these twenty centers, plusthree center designs for 25, 50, and 75 children, are presented inVolume III: Cost. and Quality Issues. This volume will be of particularinterest to prospective center operators, government planners andfurther researchers.
?. )Those interested in the research methods, the data collected
and the analysis of this data are referred to Volume IV: Technical.t"-. .This volume contains a description of (Air statistical methods, four
summary tables, and a concise outline of questions for further research.
Taken together, these four volumes present a description of goodformal child care, an analysis of common characteristics and structures,summaries of basic data and methods, and a note on what we have andhave not learned.
An Overview
General findings of our study have been presented above: goodchild care is diverse, it is provided by many different sponsors, ittakes very great effort, and it is expensive. Bearing in mind the specialnature of the sample we studied, more specific conclusions are presented'below.
Children, Staff and Parents
Children in our "good" child care centers are generally happy,cooperative and self-reliant, with little crying or withdrawal. Parentsgenerally report these children to be at least as happy as ever at home.The adults in these centers are typically responsive, supportive andwarm. They encourage children in individual pursuits without muchintrusion, and they are particularly supportive of language development.Positive adult behavior (praise, -one-to-one attention, constructive re-direction) was felt by observers to be associated with happy children:negative adult behavior (coldness, hostility, intervention without re-direction) was associated with unhappy children.
Most children spent between six and ten hours a day in a center;they were typically divided into groups of from eight to twenty-onechildren. Staff-child contact hour ratios varied from 1:3 to 1:10 (seeTable III); most children's groups had at least two teachers. (These
proportions of staff to children are considered very favorable in contrastto public kindergartens and Head Start programs. ) Many center staffsincluded men teachers and teenage and senior citizen volunteers. These
staff members were considered particularly valuable.
6
We found that the staff-child ratio is a principal indicator of goodcare. The ratio of administrative staff to children appears as importantas that of teachers to children because maintaining a warm atmosphere,time for each child, and a spirit of cooperation are largely dependent onhaving enough support staff. We also believe that larger centers havemore difficulty in maintaining warmth. Protecting this ratio is importantespecially in multi-service centers with many programs or in isolatedareas where support resources are limited.
One of our more striking findings has been that formal educationalqualifications of staff are not associated with excellence of staff. Direc-tors believe it is important to train on-the-job, to recruit men and commu-nity residents, but above all to recruit warm and responsive teachers.We conclude that, in general, personnel funds should be spent on ensuringenough staff members rather than emphasizing staff with degrees. Sup-plementing staff with volunteers; is a widespread and apparently success-ful practice (see Table III).
We found that directors of child care centers are very importantto the success of these operations. They provide direction, purpose,support. They fill in for resources the center might be unable to afford,working 50 and 60 hours a week in some cases. It may be that in thishighly labor-intensive field, maintaining a director-child ratio is asimportant as any other policy. The supply of directors may, however,be limited: while directors report little difficulty in recruiting staff,boards of directors report great difficulty in recruiting capable directors.
Parents were involved in child care in many different ways.Some centers have parents making all major policy decisions: in others,parents operate in advisory capacities. In still others, parent groupsare basically social. Parents participate as volunteers, as recruitersand donors of support and resources. All centers systematically report
107
children' s progress to parents; many regularly make formal evaluations,encourage parent conferences and participation. Parents are also in-volved in many of the supplemental programs noted in Table II.
Program Structures and Budgetiu
All center and system budgets and program descriptions wereturned into functional form. To do this, we determined what percent ofthe budget of each center is spent on child care, administration, feeding,rental, health, transportation and supplemental programs. The readermay check any case study, and the model programs presented inVolume III, to see approximately how much it costs to provide theseservices.
A glance at center and model program budgets will also helpresolve the apparently wide variation in costs per child-year (seeTable IV). At first glance, the range seems very broad. But subtract-ing the costs of supplemental programs (most of which serve adultsrather than children), makes these variations somewhat smaller. About80% of all cost variation in the remaining standard core programs isdue simply to differences in staff-child ratios and differences in pricesaround the country. Standard core programs which are well-staffed andlocated in major urban areas are likely to be quite expensive.
We investigated economies of scale: are big programs lessexpensive per child? Is there an optimum size for a child care center?Across the board, larger centers cost a little less per child, but thisfinding must be carefully considered. Larger centers seem to find itharder to provide quality child care even when they can maintainfavorable staff-child ratios. The apparent economy of spreadingadministrative overhead appears to result in problems related to themaintenance of quality. This is also important with respect to directors.
8
It may be that directors should not have to direct too large a program:even a limited program, to be really successful, needs large inputs oftime, effort, energy, and spirit on the part of its director. We con-clude that there is no certain optimum size for a center, but that smallercenters appear somewhat more attractive.
Home care systems in this survey offered warm, secure carewhich was almost always very near the children's own homes. Demandstudies' indicate that parents place high priority on child care close tohome. Home care thus is particularly attractive, especially in isolatedareas. However, home care was found to be almost as expensive ascare in centers. (Home care of infants, mildly sick children, childrenwith special problems, and children in hard-to-reach areas is lessexpensive than care for those children in centers. ) Home care in thethree systems studied also appeared to be seriously underfunded.Provider mothers (those who take children in) are paid far less thanfederal minimum wages, and the educational programs offered are veryslim.
One way directors lighten the burden of child care expense is byrecruiting volunteers and donations. Two-thirds of one of our budgetswas "in-kind." On the average, almost one-quarter of all resourcesused by the centers in this study were not paid for. Most of these"volunteered resources" were people: directors working overtime,professional skills donated, volunteer staff. We did not cost the veryextensive inputs from members of the centers' boards of directors,without whom many centers could not exist.
We learned comparatively little about the special problems ofstart-up, growth and longevity. Most centers were relatively new, butwere past the start-up phase. Our chief finding about start-ups was to
1 e. g. Massachusetts Early Education Project, survey, oP. cit.
9
12
illuminate the enormous effort required to start a center. At least one
aggregate person-year of work is needed to get a center going. Growth
costs are similar: it takes great energy to recruit sufficient resourcesfor survival, much less stable growth. Our data indicate that systemshave an advantage in terms of both growth and longevity.
Funding sources are presented in Table IV. The reader will notethat the majority of the burden of child care expense in this study is notborne by parents. From the limited data of this survey, and as a rule
of thumb, (considering country-wide demand for child care) the Abt staff
concludes that quality child care is not, in general, financially profitable.From the point of view of society, it seems clear that child care, like
public education, may be a social good appropriate for public support.
Summary
The center and home care arrangements we studied were diverse,
but all required great human effort, and all were expensive. The director
and staff of a child care center appear to be principal indicators of both
quality and cost. Many programs were found to be very good and very
expensive. It is doubtful that quality child care is widely suitable to aprofit-making enterprise in view of the financial status of those who need
it most.Data indicate that on balance, smaller centers and well-funded
home care are most attractive from the point of view of quality. These
findings in turn suggest that some kind of system arrangement may be
the best way to provide care to large numbers of children. Systems
may also be better able to grow and survive, and since home care and
small neighborhood centers can meet parental needs for care close to
their own homes, child care systems are particularly worthy of attention.
i.310
APPENDIX A
BASIC DATA ON CENTERS AND SYSTEMS
14"112.
APPENDIX A: BASIC DATA ON CENTERS AND SYSTEMS
Four tables are provided for the reader, with brief interpreta-tions, which present basic data on the twenty child care centersstudied. The data concerns:
General information on the programsNotable elements of these programsDistributions of child and family characteristicsEstimation of funding and expenditures
Table I - General Information
TABLE I presents a quick summary description of the centersstudied. Sponsorship includes all segments of the economy. Most ofthe centers serve poverty populations. This fact is somewhat sur-prising, for although 0E0 funded the study, the centers were not ingeneral explicitly selected because they served poverty populations.
Centers offering programs for all age ranges are included,though the bulk of the services offered are for pre-schoolers.Center hours seem rather short in some cases. If we considerthat the parent will need time after delivering the child to the centerto get to work, and time to get to the center to pick up the child, itappears that the center hours are such that a parent would have dif-ficulty working full-time.
Table II - Notable Elements
TABLE II details the exemplary features of the centers studied.The failure to cite a center as having an exemplary feature does notnecessarily mean that the center was of low quality in that respect,but rather that compared to other programs and to other features inthat center it was more informative to feature something else. Similar
1513
features Lave also been combined under general headings. We notethat parent or community participation was broadly represented asexemplary, as was staff and career development. This finding is inaccord with the fact that so many centers serve poverty populationsand the 0E0 emphasis on community development.
Table III - Distributions
TABLE III presents capsule statistics describing each center.We note that centers tended to be moderate in size, although somevery large systems were represented. Adult /child ratios and contact-hour ratios tended to be quite favorablel (few children per staff).Contrary to expectation, child care is not primarily offered to childrenin single-parent households. A substantial number of complete familiesare represented.
Centers served a variety of ethnic groups, although consideringcenter size, the largest number of children were Black. Blacks are,however, seriously under-represented on center staffs. Quality childcare centers are not unlike other institutions in society and also appearto be somewhat slow to hire minority group members.
Table IV - Estimated Funding and Expenditures
TABLE IV summarizes center budgets. It shows expenditures,income and functional allocation of funds for each center or system.Unweighted center and system averages are also presented, althoughone should exercise care in interpreting them.
1 The number of children is given in terms of Average Daily Attendance(ADA) rather than enrollment. The number of staff is given in termsof full time equivalent staff (FTE) including volunteers. Forty hoursof staff effort counts as one FTE. Thus, one FTE could representone person working 40 hours, two persons working 20 hours each,etc.
14
1R
We note considerable variation in costs per child, but in mostcases they were somewhat higher than those usually cited in discussingchild care. In part, this is due to the fact that a substantial portion ofcenter costs are defrayed by using donated time and equipment. Thesedonations were counted as expenditures. There are two reasons forthis:
1. Experience with other programs indicates that as thesupply of child care expands, volunteers, donated space,etc. will become scarce.
Z. These donations do constitute a cost to society and arereal even though it is not common to consider them.
For information on adjusting cost figures for regional variations,see Volume III of this study.
15
17
Tab
le I
Gen
eral
Info
rmat
ion
A. S
pons
orsh
ip
Priv
ate
Non
-Pro
fitP
rivat
e P
rofit
Pub
licH
eads
tart
Affi
liate
Tot
al 1
1 6
B. A
dmis
sion
Crit
eria
Pov
erty
Non
-Pov
erty
1 1
C. P
rogr
ams
infa
nts
6T
oddl
ers
1
Pre
-Sch
ool
19
Sch
ool-a
ge7
D. H
ours
A.M
.P
.M.
E. D
ays
Ope
nA
vera
ge 2
48
Ful
l Day
Tot
al 2
0H
alf D
ay7
Sum
mer
Pro
gram
3Cen
ters
I Os
its
AM
AL
za ';:-. gia!
AM
ER
AV
CO
CA
SP
ki tb t:
CE
NT
S
5TH
____
__
1--
e
GE
O
_9__
t___
GR
EE
at.
WA __
E Z.
HO
LL
___
...
-
N.
SY
RA
_
--4-
---
UT
E
cz oz ..
WIG .
'
Ie
-0--
,
e---
ii-
-4-
e1
67
7:3ç
7.30
7:30
87
308
77
307
307:
308
66
66
5:30
44:
304
6
j4.3
04.
305
6
250
250
247
250
250
225
250
250
250
255
244
250
246
Sys
tem
s
co
BE
RK
4t u.
FA
M
,ic
KE
NT
...
BIE
CK
c. x
NE
IGH
N.R
.O.
SP
RI
_._
_..
4---
'----
-.
----
---4
-'-
--C
ente
rH
ours
Var
yw
ithin
Sys
tms
247
254
238
254
253
248
250
-- -
--
-,.
..
--
Tab
le II
Not
able
Ele
men
tsA
. Gen
eral
Spo
nsor
ship
Par
ent a
nd/o
rC
omm
unity
Vol
unte
ers
Hom
e C
are
B. B
asic
Car
e
Edu
catio
nal P
rogr
am:
Cur
ricul
umB
iling
ual/B
icul
tura
l
;.-S
taff:
Tra
inin
g, D
ualit
y,C
aree
r D
evel
opm
ent
Adm
inis
trat
ion:
Pla
nnin
g,P
ositi
ons,
Sta
bilit
yO
ther
:F
inan
cial
Man
agem
ent,
Mak
ing
Do,
Nut
ritio
n
C. V
aryi
ng C
ore
Hea
lth, R
emed
ial C
are
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
D. O
ccup
ancy
Pla
nt, F
acili
ties
E. S
uppl
emen
tal (
Soc
ial S
ervi
ces)
Cen
ters
13 gu I :14 iA
MA
L. ri4
AM
ER
4
AV
CO
a
CA
ST
ti
CE
NT
t
5TH
I
GE
OG
RE
E*A
J....
NO
LL
%
SY
RA
UT
E
....
M
-,.
I,
lilt
1111
1111
1111
111
=M
IK
e
S.-
e1
SS
e-
-
S-,
kI
....
Sys
tem
s
b 'a 4' oi
JER
K
a. rt R it
FA
M
44 X e
KE
NT
tb a -- a4'
ME
CK
Na 11 ,=. 4
NE
IGH
N.R
.O.
.. 4S
FR
I
..4
S.
.
1
I
0I
e
Dis
trib
utio
nsA
. Ove
rall
Tot
al C
hild
ren.
A.D
.A.
Tot
al S
taff
F.T
.E.
Tot
al V
olun
teer
s F
.T.E
.A
dult/
Chi
ld R
atio
Adu
lt/C
hild
Con
tact
Hou
r R
atio
B.
Sex
Chi
ldre
n:N
.) ©M
ale
'F
emal
eS
taff:
Mal
eF
emal
e
-
C: F
amily
Sta
tus
CoM
plet
eM
othe
r. O
nly
Fat
her
Onl
yS
urro
gate
Cen
ters
.12 E I ft,
z.s - g
.. esI -
°I
-c 4'-t
, %
a. .... rl
-s.
cz coel
le
tes
,ea
Q'
.c.c
i:tt
-C
sV
I,,,,
I..
AM
AL
AM
ER
AV
CO
CA
SP
CE
NT
5TH
GE
OG
RE
E11
AH
OU
SY
RA
UT
EW
OO
5411
827
7755
197
10.5
3854
6692
2238
1217
7.6
18.4
14.3
33.6
3 1
81-
27 6
1743
9.2
15
0.5
11.
39.
10.
9.1
31.
14
71
01.
32
1/4.
51/
6.5
1/3.
91/
4.3
1/3.
51/
5.6
113.
61/
3.3
1/22
1/3.
41/
2.3
1/2.
71/
2.8
1/4.
91/
9.4
1/5.
51/
5.9
1/5.
61/
71/
4.2
1/5.
5 1/
4.1
1/5
1/4.
21/
3.6
1/4.
5
52%
56%
50%
57%
47%
57%
64%
51%
52%
60%
49%
53%
45%
48%
44%
50%
43%
53%
43%
36%
49%
48%
40%
51%
47%
55%
33%
11%
33%
0%21
%21
%0%
17%
30%
11%
18%
11%
25%
67%
89%
67%
100%
79%
79%
100%
87%
70%
89%
82%
89%
75%
85%
81%
58%
11%
15%
49%
64%
51%
17%
4,4
3%23
%80
%60
%
15%
18%
42%
85%
77%
45%
36%
49%
77%
55%
17%
14%
20%
-3%
--
4%-
--
5%
-1%
-45
;8%
3%-
2%2%
-6%
15%
Sys
tem
s
-Lb a
a. aca '4
;
f e m x
-el
T3.
4:2 $
2
I* 74-
4: 4B
ER
KF
AN
KE
NT
NE
CK
NE
IGH
N.R
.O.
SP
RI
269
3570
787
239
1072
425
106
9315
6817
159
269
154
31
100
11)
14.2
50
388
1/2.
81/
2.1
1/3.
412)
115
1/3.
5-r1
/32
1/3.
4
1/5
1/2.
61/
6.7(
2)1/
61/
4.3
1/4.
61/
5.7
47%
50%
47%
55%
49%
52%
42%13
1
53%
50%
53%
45%
51%
48%
58%
12%
3%()
0%0%
20%
88%
97%
11)
100%
98%
100%
80%
25%
25%
73%
15%
15%
99%
32%
65%
75%
21%
81%
75%
.5%
62%
5%-
1%2%
-.5
%-
5%-
5%2%
10%
-6%
0)In
suffi
cien
tda
ta
(2)
Doe
s no
t inc
lude
vol
unte
er h
ours
.A
uxie
r C
ente
r ra
tios
are
1/2
and
1/3
(con
tact
hou
rs)
incl
udin
g 12
0 vo
lun-
teer
hou
rs/w
eek
(3)
Rem
aini
ng d
ata
for
Brig
htw
ood
Cen
ter
only
1I
11
11
Tab
le Il
l (C
ontin
ued)
D. P
aren
t Em
ploy
men
t
Em
ploy
edU
nem
ploy
edS
choo
l or
Tra
inin
gN
ot S
eeki
ng W
ork
E. E
thni
city
- C
hild
ren
Ang
loB
lack
Chi
cano
Indi
anO
rient
alP
uert
o R
ican
Oth
er
F. E
thni
city
- S
taff
Ang
loB
lack
Chi
cano
Indi
an-
Orie
ntal
Pue
rto
Ric
anO
ther
Cen
ters
ix. I.
ccQ
AM
AL
100%
% ,.., t' .x
AM
ER
81%
Q
AV
CO
90%
.. -2
CU
P
75%
CE
NT
58%
_
5TH 58%
i 1.) ,
GE
O
100%
to
GR
EE 11
1
36%
.2 i II-A
67%
-ez % .
NO
LL
39%
SY
RA
44%
UT
E 121
INN 71%
15%
5%3%
13%
33%_
25%
17%
10%
6%-
3%-
4%5%
18%
29%
6%9%
14%
,2%
19%
-26
%4%.
-3%
-30
%2%
49%
31%
-
26%
91%
12%
88%
23%
22%
50%
43%
4% -
96%
30%
54%
6%
40%
8% 49%
35%
65%
-
13% -
,-
15%
35%
28%
142
%
19%
7%88
% -3% 3%
32%
39%
78%
-1%
-5%
5%-
--
--
-17
%-
-1%
-1%
-7%
-8%
--
--
4%-
-3%
--
-
9961
)-
1%-
--
--
22%
53%
80%
17%
89%
43%
75%
100
%23
%37
%39
%57
%33
%12
%
27%
20%
83%
-21
%25
%-
63%
55%
43%
-69
%
13%
--
11%
36%
--
67%
-50
%-
--
--
--
--
--
-67
%-
--
--
in s
choo
l,
aI
I
- 141
(5) ,
l, w (7)
I
-
n se
ason
Dat
a fo
r
Spa
nish
-spe
akin
g
Prin
cipa
ly1
___
--
- CD
(2)
13
-
Mot
he
100%
orin
trai
ning
Insu
ffici
ent
1
-
s on
ly
empl
oyed
,
-I
55%
Brig
htw
ood
Bla
ck,
I
- Spa
nish
-spe
akin
g1
-
Cen
ter
I
19%
only
I
Sys
tem
s
eti
---
ea
BE
RK
131
Cr:
34 a. :::
FA
N 121
t., a
KE
NT
36%
CA
elt c ea :r
e,
'BE
CK
60%
12 e3 'F. io ct .6,
NE
IGH
66%
.....: .!
N.R
.O.
141
95%
4;4
SP
RI d
151
39%
--
60%
21%
9%4%
8%-
-4%
Le%
25%
1%X
%-
--
--
-33
%
42%
4%96
%24
%17
%6%
28%
56%
63%
4%76
%77
%1%
13%
1%31
%46
1 -
-6%
90%
--
--
-56
%3%
1%2%
--
--
56%
171
131
50%
20%
10%
20%
38%
-50
%76
%-
30%
--
--
4%90
%
.-
--
--
-
--
--
--
30%
20%
146%
--
--
Tab
le IV
Cen
ters
1970
:71
Est
imat
edF
undi
ngan
d E
xpen
ditu
res
A. S
umm
ary
Dat
a
Cos
t per
Chi
ld/H
our
Cos
t per
Chi
ld/Y
ear
Per
cent
Bud
get f
or P
erso
nnel
B. S
ourc
es o
f Rev
enue
Fed
eral
Sta
te a
nd L
ocal
Par
ent F
ees
i\DO
ther
E.N
.3In
-Kin
d
C. T
otal
Bud
get
($10
1:10
's)
D. E
xpen
ditu
res
Tea
chin
g &
Chi
ld C
are
Adm
inis
trat
ion
Fee
ding
Hea
lth
Occ
upan
cyO
ther
: Tra
nspo
rtat
ion,
Soc
ial S
ervi
ces
, etc
.
Na lb r 4
AN
AL
2 4
AM
ER
.x;
AV
CO
1
CA
ST
t i.1 1 S
CE
NT
t it
5TH
1 1C
EO
e,
GH
EE
4 R HA
R
NO
LL
4.
ST
RA
UT
E
... 3 *1
$1.4
2$.
59$1
.08
$.62
$1.1
8$.
75$1
.38
$.89
$1.7
1$1
.37
$2.0
6$1
.59
$1.9
0
$292
5$1
295
$245
3$1
438
$244
2$1
301
$293
3151
445
$389
5$2
590
$351
7$3
604
$114
7
81%
65%
62%
81%
19%
78%
75%
81%
81%
70%
77%
78%
73%
55%
54%
14%
88%
67%
100%
21%
30%
5% 27%
20%
22%
44%
14%
62%
,70
%
5%
98%
15%
36%
53%
5%8%
3%10
%
2%49
%53
%25
%64
%25
%51
%24
%21
%2%
''1lr-
-121
323.
6
33%
78.5
25%
168
158
133A
6511
a713
4.3
2562
30.8
54.9
208.
417
0.9
56%
48%
52%
48%
43%
69%
70%
35%
46%
47%
37%
39%
54%
14%
23%
15%
24%
18%
11%
a27
%16
%8%
11%
19%
11%
10%
11%
9%13
%6%
9%10
%11
%12
%15
%6%
19%
1%
4%0%
2%1%
8%1%
0%9%
7%4%
3%14
%3%
16%
18%
22%
14%
11%
10%
11%
12%
12%
14%
9%9%
12%
0%0%
0%0%
14%
0%0%
6% 1114
29
(211
55.5
1117% in
clud
ing
excl
udin
g
12% R
esea
rch
1
28%
Gro
wth 1
0% Cos
tsi
13%
$1.2
7
$261
4
755
21%
18%
14%
18%
29%
139.
50%
16%
11%
4% 13%
6%
Sys
tem
s
SE
RK
4O
FA
H
..
KE
NT
NE
CK
f
MIN
H111
.R.O
.
..,
k$PR
I
' S1.
9$2
2$1
.37
$.83
$.57
928
$1.1
2,$2
197
751
$305
5$2
287
$266
3$2
036
$117
0$1
509
83%
75%
72%
77%
71%
80%
'
6%58
%80
%
85%
80%
20%
68%
8%5%
6%1%
10%
48%
2%,
19%
35%
1%20
%20
%21
%3%
12%
12%
821.
981
63.
1217
.48
610
88.
641.
223
2.3
52%
39%
26%
48%
40%
44%
44%
28%
27%
16%
23%
22%
18%
20%
)11
%7%
23%
10%
14%
14%
15%
1%3%
' 1%1%
2%6%
1%
9%3%
10%
12%
19%
124
I
3%5%
37%
233%
.19%
5%5%
$106 31
76%
.
9% 8% 13%
1807
.
42%
2% 13%
2% 12%
9%
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY DESCRIPTIONS AND COST DATAON CENTERS AND SYSTEMS
f
2321122
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY DESCRIPTIONS ANDCOST DATA ON CENTERS AND SYSTEMS
CENTERS
Amalgamated Day Care CenterChicago, Illinois
American Child Centers, Inc.13M7 0.M, Tennessee
AVCO Day Care CenterBoston, Massachusetts
Casper Day Care CenterCasper, Wyoming
Central City Head Start Day Care CenterSalt Lake City, Utah
5th City Pre-SchoolChicago, Illinois
Geor etown Day Care CenterWas ington, D. C.
Greeley Parent Child CenterGreeley, Colorado
paight-Ashbury. Children's CenterSan Francisco, California
Holland Day Care CenterHollan Michigan
S racuse Children's Centeryracuse, New York
We Indian Tribe Day Care CenterFort Duchesne, Utah
West 80th Street Day Care CenterNew York, New York
23
24
Page
24
27
30
33
35
38
41
43
45
48
50
53
56
AMALGAMATED DAY CARE CENTER
Amalgamated Day Care Center, located on Chicago's West Side,is one of a very few day care centers operated by a labor union, andAmalgamated Clothing Workers of America (ACWA) is the only unionin the country directly involved in its own day care programs. Day careis part of the comprehensive approach of the ACWA to meeting the needsof its members and their entire families.
The center is sponsored by the Amalgamated Social BenefitsAssociation and the Chicago Joint. Board of the ACWA. (Four otherACWA day care centers are located in the Baltimore, Md. area, spon-sored by the Baltimore Joint Board.) The Chicago center is a pilotproject, begun in March, 1970, and only the first of several centersto be established in the Chicago area. The success of the program todate can be attributed to the union's wholehearted commitment to theidea that day care is a social benefit to which working parents are fullyentitled. This commitment is made operable through adequate financingand a competent staff.
Basic child care needs are met effectively in the day-to-dayoperations of the center. A core educational program for total childdevelopment is reinforced and expanded through staff meetings and fre-quent consultation between individual staff members, the director, anda part-time social worker. New facilities were built specifically forthe center, and the union has spared no expense in providing equipment,materials, and staff necessary to meet the educational, nutritional, emo-tional, recreational, and health-care needs of the children.
In the union view, day care is a logical extension of its responsi-bility to help its members attain a 'better standard of living. The unionfeels that a better standard of living not only includes higher wages,shorter hours, paid vacations and holidays, insurance and .retirementprograms, but also better housing, equal opportunities, finer education,
25
and improved health care for the entire family. The union works forthese social and economic benefits throughout the garment industry. At
Amalgamated Day Care Center union operation in itself is a noteworthyfeature; the following additional characteristics of the program warrantexamination:
FiniatiLLI --In the first year of operation, the center has hadan open-ended budget; an experienced center director and aunion administrator are developing a model center, from whichreasonable budgets and guidelines for the operation of additionalcenters are beg derived.
Educational Program.- Because of the model center aspect ofAmalgamated, the director has been able to experiment with themost modern equipment and advanced materials in the field ofday care. The director devotes about half her time to workingwith children and staff in the continuing development of a totalchild care program.
Health Care--Because thelree union health clinic is locatedadjacent to the day care center, the children easily and convenientlyreceive complete medical and dental care, free of charge, whichwould not otherwise be available for children of union membersunder the age of 13.
25
SUM
MA
RY
:
AM
AL
GA
MA
TE
D E
STIM
AT
ED
S AN
D IN
-KIN
DE
XPE
ND
ITU
RE
S 1970 -1*
costs make un;...
`-
% of total
total costcost/child year
cost/child how-
Personnel
Standard Core
80%
$126, 600$ 2, 344
$ 1. 14.
80%
of $'s
Varying C
ore4
%6, 700
124. 06
100%
of In-Kind
Occupancy
16%
24,700457
. 2281
% of T
otal(S +
In-Kindl
TO
TA
LS
100%
$158, 000$
2, 925$ 1.42
*costs to nearest $100,%
to 1.0
1.111T
o OF T
OT
AL
TO
TA
L=
$ CO
ST$ IN
-KIN
D
I.ST
AN
DA
RD
CO
RE
CO
STS
A.
Child C
are and Teaching
56%$88, Z
OO
.$84, 300
$3, 900
B.
Adm
inistration14%
21, 50021, 500
0
C.
Feeding10%
16.90016, 900
0
II.V
AR
YIN
G C
OR
E C
OST
S
D. H
ealth6, 700
6,7000
E.
Transportation
00
0
III.O
CC
UPA
NC
Y C
OST
S16%
24, 70024, 700
TO
TA
LS
100%$158, 000
$154, 100$3, 900
(100%)
(98%)
(2%)
AMERICAN CHILD CENTERS. INC.WOODMONT CENTER
Woodmont Center is the training and demonstration center forAmerican Child Centers, Inc., a private, profit-making corporationwhich originally set out to market child care center franchisee on anationwide basis. The franchise concept was shelved when it becameevident that ACC, Inc. would be unable to guarantee and maintain qualitystandards on its franchises, but not before $1. 5 million was spent onplanning. The primary capital acquisition resulting from that $1. 5million expenditure is a carefully drawn overall plan for all aspectsof commercial day care center establishment and operation. WoodmontCenter is a demonstration of the plan in action.
The location of Woodmont Center, and the cost of its services,make it suitable primarily for middle class families. Although it iswithin the possibility of each of these families to make other child Lare'provisions (at home sitter, play groups, etc.), sometimes at a lower
cost, the fact that they have placed their children at the day care centerindicates a clear.preference for the type of care offered there. Thoseresponsible for the center feel that the provision of a day care facilitywhere the middle-class mother can leave her children (trusting that itis to her advantage) frees her to use her energy and education in sucha way as to be of benefit to both herself and the society. (Sixty-ninepercent of center mothers work. ) This they consider the indirectsocial benefit of providing a high price, high quality service.
The central impression the center makes is that of a luxury institu-tion. Corporate management decided early on that the operation wouldhave to sell quality if it were to succeed, and this, plus the WoodmontCenter's demonstration role, have subtly colored its operation. Thelocation and the newness of the center's physical facilities, the emphasis
27
28
on educational aspects of day care, and the efficiency of operation allcontribute to an air of quality. That all this is possible within the realmof profitability is a tribute to both the careful preliminary planning thatwent into the center, and the effectiveness of the operating controlsnow placed on the center.
Because of the economic advantages of the client population,emphasis at Woodmont Center is on aspects of child care that go beyondbasic physical needs. Health care and nutrition, for example, arenot supplied on either a remedial or supplementary basis. (A suggestionthat some medical care might be provided brought immediate protestfrom local physicians.) Emphasis is given, rather, to educationalprograms and to purposeful custodial care. Transportation is theparents' responsibility; health care is limited to emergency proceduresand parental notification. Py contrast, in less basic areas, the centerhas its own ACC-prepared curriculum and educational materials, aswell as a complete physical plant designed from the ground up to makemaximum use of the proprietary educational materials and methods ofthe parent company.
Success of a profit-making child care operation comes fromkeeping its client children happy and involved, and its client parentssatisfied not only with the general well-being of the children but alsowith their progress.. The Notable Elements of Woodmont. Center thatprovide that success are an exemplary physical plant and facilities,an extremely well-planned approach and development program, aninventive and challenging curriculum and staff deployment, and anefficient accounting/inventory system which helps keep costs lowenough to make profit possible.
28
29
AM
ER
ICA
N E
STIN
IAT
ED
5A
ND
1N
-1:
1 :1
?E
XPE
NtW
rull
ES
1970
-71
*
SUM
MA
RY
:c
of to
tal
tota
l cos
tco
st/c
hild
yea
rco
st/c
hild
how
Pers
onne
l cos
ts m
ake
Stan
dard
Cor
e82
%$1
09, 1
00$
1059
$.4
8%
of
$'s
Var
ying
Cor
e0
%0
00
% o
f In
-Kin
d
Occ
upan
cy18
%24
, 300
236
.11
65%
of
Tot
al(S
+ I
n-K
ir
TO
TA
LS
100
%$1
33, 4
0012
95$
..59
*cos
ts to
nea
rest
$10
0,%
to 1
. o
.ota
i a
STA
ND
AR
D C
OR
E C
OST
S
A.
Chi
ld C
are
and
Tea
chin
g
B. A
dmin
istr
atio
n
% O
F T
OT
AL
TO
TA
L=
$ C
OST
S IN
-KIN
D
48%
23%
$63,
650
31,2
50
$63,
650
31,2
50
$0 0
C. F
eedi
ng11
%14
, 200
14,2
.00
0
U c.;
II.
VA
RY
ING
CO
RE
CO
STS
D. H
ealth
00
0
E.
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
00
0
III.
OC
CU
PAN
CY
CO
STS
18%
24, 3
000
0
TO
TA
LS
100%
$133
, 400
$133
, 400
$0
(100
%)
(100
%)
(0%
)
AVCO DAY CARE CENTER
The AVCO Day Care Center is located in AVCO's Dorchesterprinting plant. It is small, non-profit, and fairly new, having been inoperation about a year and a half. Originally intended for the childrenof printing plant employees, part of the new building was specificallydesigned as a day care center. But partly because the plant is runningat half capacity these days, only two of the center's 34 children haveparents who work at AVCO. The rest of the kids come from the surround-ing Roxbury-North Dorchester community.
The center is strong on social-emotional development for itschildren, particularly self-reliance. There is little of a formal educationprogram as such, but field trips, games and toys, and a highly child-centered program all lend themselves to basic education. The two co-directors spend more time working with children than with administrativeduties, thus supplementing the other four teachers.
Health care is provided by one of the co-directors, an R. N. whois also the AVCO plant's nurse. A consulting pediatrician visits onceevery two weeks for several hours. Food is purchased from the cateringservice located in the plant's cafeteria. The center has no transportationsystem; parents deliver and pick up their own children. There is noset hour when the children must be at the center. Thus parents have someflexibility in their arrival time. Generally speaking, space is adequatefor the number of children enrolled, with four main indoor rooms and agrassy playground adjacent to the building.
Two interesting aspects of this center, which are dealt with indepth in the Notable Elements section of the report, are the following:
StaffThe center's small full-time staff of one Anglo and fiveBlack teachers is racially balanced with the children served.The center is very fortunate to have two young men teachers
3130
who are good examples for the children, as well as two co-directors who work together in a very complementary fashion.Two other staffers, both women, are delightful people whorelate well to the children. What is remarkable about thisstaff is a fortuitous mixture of personalities. All six staffmembers get along with each other very well, and this issomething the children can sense. It makes for a warm,happy place.
AVCO Support--Although it wasn't planned that way, the centeris benefitting very few AVCO employees. Instead, the centeris providing a badly needed service (the waiting list is about300) to the Roxbury-North Dorchester community. The centerhas no legal ties with AVCO, but AVCO has given it space,seed money, the services of its janitorial, public relations,food, health and other corporate facilities, and continues toprovide funds for large items needed.
31,
32
AV
CO
EST
IMA
TE
DS A
ND
IN-K
IND
EX
PEN
DIT
UR
ES 1970 -
71*
SUM
MA
RY
:("_o of total
total costcost/child year
cost/child how
Standard Core
76%
$ 49,700$ 19 875
$0. 82
Varying C
ore2
%1, 000
380. 02
--,,
Occupancy
220/0
14, 300540
O. 24
r)T
OT
AL
S100
%$ 65, 000
$ 2, 453$1.08
-Personnel costs make
79 u cf45 %
of In-Kind
62 % of T
otal(S +
*costs to nearest. $100,%
to 1.0
rm%
OF T
OT
AL
TO
TA
L=
S CO
STS IN
zK1N
D
I.ST
AN
DA
RD
CO
RE
CO
STS
A.
Child C
are and Teaching
52%$33, 800
$23, 200$10, 600
B.
Adm
inistration15%
9, 8003, 700
6, 100
C.
Feeding9%
6, 1006, 100
II.V
AR
YIN
G C
OR
E C
OST
S
D.
Health
2%1, 000
1, 000
E.
Transportation
III.O
CC
UPA
NC
Y C
O :, T
S22%
14,30014,300
1111T
OT
AL
S10010
$65, 000$33, 000
$32, 000
(100%)
(51%)
(49%)
CASPER DAY CARE CENTER
The Casper Day Care Center is a private, non-profit corpora-tion located in Casper, Wyoming. Children and staff are housed in twochurch buildings about four blocks apart from each other and perhapstwice as far south of the center of the city. The center, operating withextremely limited funding, has made full use of every available sourceof donated time, money, facilities and equipment in order to providechild care services.
Basic child care is efficiently supplied for 10 toddlers, 66pre-schoolers who come full-time, and fifteen school-age childrenwho come before and after public school and for lunch. The educationalprogram stresses the child's social and emotional development as wellas language development, and health care is provided by a part-timenurse. A full-time buyer-nutritionist oversees the food service pro-gram. Facilities, space, equipment and materials are all adequate.
In addition to these aspects of the program, the center hasdeveloped the following noteworthy features:
Handicapped Program--The center attempts to meet theneeds of several physically and emotionally handicappedchildren, so that they can participate in normal day careactivities.
Volunteers--The entire program is dependent on a core ofvolunteers, both part- and full-time, involving NeighborhoodYouth Corps workers, students, professionals and interestedcommunity people.
33
34
CA
SPER
EST
IMA
TE
D $ A
ND
IN-K
IND
EX
PEN
DIT
UR
ES 1970 - 71*
SUM
MA
RY
:%
of totaltotal cost
cost/child yearcost/child hour
Standard Core
85%'$ 94.500
$1,227$
:53
Varying C
ore1%
1,20016
.01
Occupancy
14%15,000
195.08
TO
TA
LS
100%$110,700
$1,438$
.62
Personnel costs make up:
82% of $'s
80% of. In-K
ind81%
of Total
($ + In-K
ind)
*costs to nearest $100,%
to 1.0
STA
ND
AR
D C
OR
E C
OST
ST
o OF T
OT
AL
TO
TA
L=
$ CO
ST$
1.1MM
EN
IMINI.
A.
Child C
are and Teaching
48%$ 53,000
$21, 100$31,900
B. A
dministration
24526,600
17,6009,000
re%
C.
Feeding13%
14,90012,700
2,200
II.V
AR
YIN
G C
OR
E C
OST
S
D.
Health
151,200
1.200
E.
Transportation
III.O
CC
UPA
NC
Y C
OST
S14%
15,0001,100
13,900
TO
TA
LS
1005$110,700
$52,500$58, 200
(100%)
(47/ )153 )
CENTRAL CITY HEAD START
Central City Head Start Day Care is located on the southeasternedge of Salt Lake City's business district. The center has made fulluse of, and has developed within, 0E0 Head Start guidelines. Thesuccess and quality of this center rest to a large extent on the particu-lar operating styles of its personnel. Management depends heavily onthe personalities of key staff, but it is noteworthy that at Central Citythe capacity to allow this personal style to develop and reach maximumeffectiveness is built into the system itself.
Basic child care is efficiently supplied within the routine ofcenter operations. Food service is by contract with the local schooldistrict. Educational needs are met by both external and center-developed educational programs used by head teacher-guidance teacherteams for each 15 children. Health care is provided by a part-timenurse who has been successful in getting private and public healthagency sources to help with the center's children and parents.
The center has use of a good building, sufficient indoor and out-door space, adequate storage, a workable transportation system.
The success of the broader range of services to parents and staffalmost overshadows the center's basic day care capabilities. In develop-ing the following noteworthy program features, Central City not onlygives quality day care to its children, but also makes a sizeable contri-bution to the welfare of the surrounding community.
Career Development--By carefully following the intent of CAPguidelines, the center has consistently been able to 'fill most staffpositions by promotion from within rather than outside hiring.
35
Parent Involvement--The center has not only involved parents inthe education of their own children, but has also established itselfas a significant resource for center families.
Cross-Cultural EducationBy matching staff composition to theethnic balance of its client population, the center has capitalizedon its rich racial and cultural mix to develop a continuing programof cross-cultural education for both parents and children.
Health Care--Careful cultivation of the larger medical communityby center staff has resulted in a broad range of health care for thechildren and health counseling for center families.
Social Service Resources--As a result of center liaison work, notonly health care resources, but also vocational, housing, welfare,legal, social, and educational professionals and agencies are in-volved in giving direct aid to center families.
The bulk of this report deals with the center's strengths, becausethe overriding impression of the observers was one of success in day care,
36
SUM
MA
RY
:
CE
NT
RA
L C
ITY
EST
IMA
TE
D $
AN
D I
N-K
IND
EX
PEN
DIT
UR
ES
1970
- 7
1*
% o
f to
tal
tota
l cos
tco
st/c
hild
yea
rco
st c
hild
how
-Pe
rson
nel c
osts
mak
e up
:St
anda
rd C
ore
67 %
$89
, 300
$1.
624
$. 7
883
% o
f $'
sV
aryi
ng C
ore
12 %
16,1
0029
3,
1468
% o
f In
-Kin
dO
ccup
ancy
11 %
15,4
0028
0.1
479
% o
f T
otal
Supp
lem
enta
l10
%13
,500
245
. 12
($ +
In-
Kin
d)
TO
TA
LS.
100
%$
134,
300
$2,
442
$1.
18co
ats
to n
eare
st $
180,
% to
1.0
STA
ND
AR
D%
OF
TO
TA
LT
OT
AL
=JC
L)
+$
IN-K
IND
I.C
OR
E C
OST
S
A.
Chi
ld C
are
and
Tea
chin
g43
%$
57, 2
00$
48, 9
00$
8, 3
00
B.
Adm
inis
trat
ion
18%
23, 8
0018
, 700
5, 1
00
C.
Feed
ing
6%8,
300
8, 3
000
II.
VA
RY
ING
CO
RE
CO
STS
D.
Hea
lth8%
10, 5
006,
200
4, 3
00
E.
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
4%5,
600
5,60
00
III.
OC
CU
PAN
CY
CO
STS
11%
15, 4
005,
500
9,90
0
IV.
SUPP
LE
ME
NT
AL
SE
RV
ICE
CO
STS
F.C
aree
r D
evel
opm
ent
1%1,
100
500
600
G.
Pare
nt I
nvol
vem
ent
6%7,
600
6, 6
001,
000
H.
Soci
al S
ervi
ce3%
4, 8
000
4, 8
00
TO
TA
LS
100%
$134
,300
$100
, 300
$34,
000
5TH CITY PRE-SCHOOL
The 5th City Pre-School Center is an integral part of the 5thCity Community Reformulation Experiment, on the west side of Chicago.It is also financially, administratively, and operationally part of the Ecu-menical Institute, a research and training center. The success and qualityof this center must be viewed in the context of the Institute's commitmentto the philosophy of mass education and "imaginal" education (educationto improve self-image), enabling deprived children from poverty areasto cope with the world.
The pre-school and aiter-school programs have become a pri-mary force in 5th City community reformulation. This particularcenter is a pilot program, part of a model developed over the pastseven years to make the community organization and the pre-school pro-gram transferable to any depressed area anywhere in the world.
Basic child care is supplied within the routine of center operations,with food provided through the Institute kitchen and health care throughthe 5th City clinic. Educational needs are met by staff-developed curricu-lum, team-taught in a corporate decision-making system. Parentinvolvement and career development are also important parts of theoverall program.
Facilities, space, equipment,, materials are all inadequate; thestaff simply copes with what they have. They are trained to use what-ever materials are available; the transferability of the program is notdependent on monetary resources.
The following noteworthy elements being developed by the centercontribute significantly to the development of the children and to theoverall welfare of the 5th City community.
38
39
Curriculum and methodologyThe curriculum and methodologyfor the 5th City center have been developed by the staff of theInstitute and the center over the past four years to meet thespecific educational needs of deprived children. This programis continually being expanded and refined by the center staff.
Staff training and development--An intensive and ongoing trainingprogram for pre-school staff has been developed to allow theInstitute to carry the program to other places. The program isdesigned so that local community members will eventuallyoperate the center, as they do other aspects of the 5th Cityorganization.
Community Reformulation--The Pre-School Center representsonly a portion of a vital and successful 5th City community whichis designed to meet social, economic and cultural needs of theresidents.
39
4n
5TH
CIT
Y E
STIM
AT
ED
AN
D IN
-KIN
DE
XPE
ND
ITU
RE
S 1970 - 7C
.'
SUM
MA
RY
:%
of totaltotal cost
cost/child yearcost/child hour
Personnel costs make up:
Standard Core
89%$227,300
$1,154$
.6754%
of $'s
Varying C
ore1%
3,90020
.0190%
of In-Kind
Occupancy
10%25,000
127.07
78% of T
otal($ +
In-Kind)
TO
TA
LS
100%$256,200
$1,301$
. 75
*costs to nearest $100,%
to 1.0
I.ST
AN
DA
RD
CO
RE
CO
STS
U.
(7c. OF T
OT
AL
TO
TA
L=
$ CO
ST$ IN
-KIN
D
A.
Child C
are and Teaching
69%$175, 700
$44,500$131,'200
B. A
dministration
11%28,900
11,20017,700
C. Feeding
9%22,700
20,8001,900
VA
RY
ING
CO
RE
CO
STS
D.
Health
1%3,900
3,900
E.
Transportation
OC
CU
PAN
CY
CO
STS
10%25,000
10,80014,200
TO
TA
LS
100%$256,200
$91,200$165,000
(100%)
(36%)
(64%)
GEORGETOWN DAY CARE CENTER
The Georgetown Day Care Center is very small (no more thantwelve children at any one time) and housed in the Georgetown UniversityHospital. It began as a model integrated day care center for thechildren of working parents, sponsored jointly by the National Councilof Jewish Women and the hospital, as part of the Georgetown UniversityAffiliated Center for Child Development. The center also serves asa half-way house for handicapped children from the neighboring DiagnosticNursery Center. There is a center pamphlet in the Appendix.
Basic child care is efficiently supplied within the routine ofcenter operations. Educational needs are met by the teacher and theassistant teacher and food and health services are provided by thehospital. A social service worker and nutritionist, both full-timehospital staff, work with the center when needed. The center uses oneroom of the hospital, in a new section of the building, with adequateindoor and outdoor space and sufficient storage.
In addition to providing quality day care for the children, thedual funding and the half-way house function of this center are note-worthy program features.
Dual FundingSponsorship by a private organization anda large institution enables the center to meet the needs of alimited number of hospital employees in a convenient andeconomic manner, successfully combining private resourcesand institutional services and facilities.
Half-way House--As a half-way house the center offers normalday care activities to emotionally and physically handicappedchildren on a temporary basis, while adding to the alreadyrich ethnic, social and economic mix of children.
41
42
GE
OR
GE
TO
WN
EST
IMA
TE
D $ A
ND
IN-K
IND
EX
PEN
DIT
UR
ES 1970 -
71
SUM
MA
RY
:%
of totaltotal cost
cost/child yearcost/child hour
Personnel costs make up:
Standard Core
89%$27,200
$ 2.590$
1.2268%
of $'s
Varying C
ore- T
o100
1098%
of In-Kind
Occupancy
11%3.500
3330.16
75% of T
otal($ +
In-Kind)
TO
TA
LS
100%$30,800
$ 2,933$
1.38
illww
sMIDI.
STA
ND
AR
D C
OR
E C
OST
S
A.
Child C
are and Teaching
B. A
dministration
C.
Feeding
II.V
AR
YIN
G C
OR
E C
OST
S
D.
Health
E.
Transportation
LIO
CC
UPA
NC
Y C
OST
S
TO
TA
LS
*costs to nearest $100,%
to 1.0
% O
F TO
TA
LT
OT
AL
=$ C
OST
$ IN-K
IND
70%$21,500
$16,400$5, 100
97;-
2,700300
2,400
10%3,000
3,000
100100
11%3,500
3,500
100%$30,800
$23,200$7,600
(100%)
(755)(25%
)
THE GREELEY PARENT CHILD CENTER
The Greeley Parent Child Center is a day care program formigrant seasonal and rural poor children and their families living in andaround Greeley, Colorado. It is operated by the parents, with adviceand assistance from the local community, a college and a university. It
is an effective example of parent control and community 1.nvolvementfunctioning smoothly in a new cooperative effort between Chicano migrant,rural, and Anglo communities.
The center sees itself as far more than a baby-sitting service.The center believes that it, " . . . provides an atmosphere conducive tothe teaching of educational and social readiness for an optimum of fortychildren." The educational program is carried out by the director, thehead teacher and two teacher aides. Health care is provided by a coreof professional volunteers and food service is contracted for with thepublic schools. Outdoor and indoor space is adequate, with the buildinghaving just been remodeled by the center parents, as are materials andequipment.
In addition to meeting the basic child care needs there aretwo noteworthy elements at Greeley which are very closely linked. Thefirst is parent control and the second is community involvement.
Parent Control--The Chicano parents in Greeley, some activeand others s-,ctled out migrants, have formed a private, non-profit corporation to provide day care services for their chil-dren. They are involved in every aspect of the program asthe governing body, as staff, and as workers-- remodeling,going to classes, fund-raising and socializing.
Community InvolvementThe Anglo community has formedan advisory board to the parent corporation providing compe-tent, professional services, advice, technical assistance andresource s,, upon request, in a ,:ooperative parent-communityventure.
43AA
GR
EE
LE
Y E
STIM
AT
ED
$ AN
D IN
-KIN
D E
XPE
ND
ITU
RE
S 1970-
71*
SUM
MA
RY
:%
of totaltotal cost
cost/child yearcost/child hour
Personnel costs make un:
Standard Core
73%$40,500
$1,066$
.66.
63% of $'s
Varying C
ore14%
7,400195
.1298%
of In -Kind
Occupancy
12%6,400
168.10
81% of T
otal
Supplemental
1%600
16.01
(5 + In-E
ind)
TO
TA
LS
100%$54,900
$1,445$
.89*costs to nearest $100,
qto 1. 0
% O
F TO
TA
LST
AN
DA
RD
CO
RE
CO
STS
TO
TA
L$ C
OST
+$ IN
-KIN
DI.
A.
Child C
are and Teaching
35%$19,200
$12,600$ 6,600
nr
nzrB
. Adm
inistration27%
14,9001,400
13,500v
C.
Feeding11%
6,4006,300
100
U.
VA
RY
ING
CO
RE
CO
STS
D.
Health
9%4,800
4,800
E.
Transportation
5%2,600
1,800800
HI.
OC
CU
PAN
CY
CO
STS
12%6,400
4,6001,800
IV.
SUPPL
EM
EN
TA
L SE
RV
ICE
CO
STS
1%600
600
F. Social Service1%
600600
TO
TA
LS
100%$54, 900
$26, 700$28, 200
(100%)
(49%)
(51%)
HAIGHT-ASHBURY CHILDREN'S CENTER*
The Haight-Ashbury Children's Center, Inc. is a non-profitday care center in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury section. It is achaotic and vital place, with a young staff and young parents continuallychanging the program to better suit their needs. The style of operationis i:formal, the staff are very involved with the children (several teachersare young men), and the kids have a good deal of freedom in a loosely-structured and interesting curriculum.
Basic child. care is efficiently accomplished in the center'sroutine operations. The nutrition program is compensatory for somechildren and maintenance-oriented for others. The center has an MDand a nurse on a consultant basis and arranges medical services forits families. The educational program is an adaptation of the BritishInfant School system and is taught by a staff of head and assistantteachers. The center has three buildings on the same small lot and hassolved its lack of outdoor space by installing a large, multi-purposeplay structure which allows children to climb, swing, hang, dance,teeter and play in many ways in a small Space. The center does not havea transportation system because it is located in the community it serves.Most children walk to the center with their parents.
As with most quaLly centers, the program goes far beyond childcare. The center is a clearing house for community information andassistance, with staff members concerned about improving the city'sservices to its poor. A full-time social worker is on hand to help parentsfind and benefit from the services available to them. In addition, thecenter does child care and job counseling, helps with family planning and
Since the center was visited there has been a considerable staffturnover, including the director. It is not known whether there hasbeen a significant change in center operations.
e;
health care, and leases space to community services in its building. Thecenter's director is well-known in the California day care field and isan important resource for both staff and parents.
Several aspects of Haight-Ashbury's operation are particularlyinteresting and will be examined in detail in the Notable Elements sectionof this report.
Curriculum--A modification of the British Infant School system,in which each staff member is a specialist in some area --stitchery, carpentry, science, mathematics, music, dance,and so on --and develops the curriculum and materials for hisown program. Children are free to pursue their own interestsin the area of their choice, in an open-classroom, familygrouping setup.
Staff--The staff is young and dynamic, very involved with thechildren and responsive to change. The center is fortunate tohave several men to work with the children, and parents andstaff work closely to provide field trips and special experiencesfor the children. The staff's style is warm and informal, andeach person -- whether head teacher or para-professionalteacher assistant -- has a great deal to offer the kids.
Parent Involvement--Parents directly control the program andpolicymaking of the center, screening, hiring and firing staff,budgeting and administering finances, planning the program andmaking changes where needed. Parents buy half-shares in thecenter and earn a return on their investment. While parentmeetings are often chaotic and intense, large-scale parentparticipation is integral A) this community operation.
46
47
HA
IGH
T-A
SHB
UR
Y E
STIM
AT
ED
$ A
ND
IN
-KIN
D E
XPE
ND
ITU
RE
S 19
70 -
71*
SUM
MA
RY
:St
arid
ard
Cor
eV
aryi
ng C
ore
Occ
upan
cySu
pple
men
tal
TO
TA
LS
% o
f to
tal
tota
l cos
tco
st/c
hild
yea
rco
st/c
hild
hou
rpe
rson
nel c
osts
mak
e up
:
74%
12% 7%
100%
$154
, 700
14,3
0024
, 400
15,0
00
$ 20
8, 4
00
$2,8
92 267
456
280
$3, 8
95
$1.
270.
12
0.20
0.12
$1.
71
78%
of
$'s
92%
of
In-K
ind
81%
of
Ts+
olal
In -
Kin
d)
*cos
ts to
nea
rest
$10
0,%
to 1
.0
% O
F T
OT
AL
1.ST
AN
DA
RD
CO
RE
CO
STS
*A.
Chi
ld C
are
and
Tea
chin
g
B. A
dmin
istr
atio
n
C.
Feed
ing
II.
VA
RY
ING
CO
RE
CO
STS
D.
Hea
lth
E.
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
III.
OC
CU
PAN
CY
CO
STS
IV. S
UPP
LE
ME
NT
AL
SE
RV
ICE
CO
STS
F.St
aff
Tra
inin
g
G. P
aren
t Inv
olve
men
t
TO
TA
LS
TO
TA
L=
$ C
OST
$ IN
-KIN
D
46%
$ 96
,200
$ 83
,600
$12.
600
16 -
33, 3
0023
, 300
10, 0
00
12%
25,2
0024
.600
600
14, 3
0014
, 300
12%
24,4
0018
,300
6,10
0
1.80
060
01,
200
6%13
,200
8,70
04,
500
100%
$208
,400
$159
,100
$49,
300
(100
%)
(76%
)(2
It)
44.
HOLLAND DAY CARE
The Holland, Michigan Day Care operation is a good exampleof a Head Start program which has followed CEO guidelines astutelyand developed an effective day care service within that framework.While the program is not innovative or startlingly different, it is pro-viding good care for children and has involved the community in sucha way that relations between the migrant and the local populations haveimproved considerably. Moreover, the project is a very positive factorin the lives of the Chicano families it serves.
Basic child care is supplied in the routine operations of theproject's two centers. Educational needs are met through closeadherence to Head Start guidelines, while health care is provided bycommunity professionals who volunteer their services. The nutritionprogram is planned and operated by two full-time cooks assisted byvolunteers. The centers have the weekday use of two church buildings,sufficient indoor and outdoor space, adequate storage and a workabletransportation system.
What makes the program hum, however, is the good workingrelationship between the Chicano community and the local townspeople.Their cooperative spirit is seen in the classroom, the parent organiza-tions, the volunteer program, the policy advisory committee and theboard of directors., It is not dealt with here as a separate noteworthyelement, therefore, but as an integral part of each aspect of the daycare program.
48
SUM
MA
RY
:
Stan
dard
Cor
eV
aryi
ng C
ore
Occ
upan
cySu
pple
men
tal
TO
TA
LS
HO
LL
AN
D:
EST
IMA
TE
D S
AN
D I
N-K
IND
EX
PEN
DIT
UR
ES
1970
-71
*
To
of to
tal
tota
l cos
tco
st/c
hild
yea
rco
st/c
hild
hou
-Pe
rson
nel c
osts
mak
e ki
p:70
%$
119,
700
$1,
814
$ 0.
9681
% o
f V
s9
%15
,500
235
0.13
30%
of
In-K
ind
14%
23,9
0036
20.
1970
To
of T
otal
7%
11,8
0017
90.
09+
In-
Kin
d)
100
%$1
70,9
00$
2,59
0$
1.37
*cos
ts to
nea
rest
$10
0,%
to 1
.0
%O
F T
OT
AL
TO
TA
L=
$ C
OST
$ IN
-KIN
D1.
STA
ND
AR
D C
OR
E C
OST
S
A.
Chi
ld C
are
and
Tea
chin
g47
%I
$81,
600
$70,
600
$11,
000
B.
Adm
inis
trat
ion
8 %
13,0
0012
,600
400
C.
Feed
ing
15 %
25,1
0023
,700
1,40
0
II.
VA
RY
ING
CO
RE
CO
STS
D.
Hea
lth4 16
6,30
05,
300
1,00
0.
E.
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
5 %
9,20
08,
400
800
ill.
OC
CU
PAN
CY
CO
STS
14 %
23,9
002,
100
21,8
00.1
111!
1.
IV. S
UPP
LE
ME
NT
AL
SE
RV
ICE
-. C
OST
S
F. S
ocia
l Ser
vice
s7
%11
,800
11,5
0030
0
TO
TA
LS
100 56
$170
,900
(100
%)
$134
,200
(79%
)$3
6,70
0(2
1%)
SY1CACUSE UNIVERSITY CHILDREN'S CENTER
The Children's Center at Syracuse University is one phase of
a university research study. The research focuses on a carefully
selected group of low-income families and their children. The basic
thrust of that research is to determine the effects of positive inter-
vention in the development of the children. It is begun during the
mother's pregnancy and carries on through the child's completion of
Syracuse University Nursery School, with continued contact and follow-
up well into the elementary grades.
This case study is concerned only with the Children's Center
for infants and toddlers and the center's complementary home visit
program. In looking at the center, especially in terms of replicabi-
lity and costs, research has been treated separately, although research
is a dominant force at the center. It should also be noted that although
the project was started in 1964, the current director, who joined the
staff in 1969, has broadened the scope of the project considerably. The
center is still undergoing major expansion and adjustments.
The basic care provided by the Children's Center is augmented
by a nutritional and educational program in the home. In addition to
adequate food, health care, transportation and facilities, the following
noteworthy features are found at Syracuse:
Child Development Trainer Program (CDT)--A program of
weekly home visits by a para-professional, begun during the
mother's third to sixth month of pregnancy, to give educa-
tional, health and nutrition assistance to the families. This
helps to build a bridge from the home to the child's antici-
pated enrollment in the day care center, which is then con-
tinued through the child's third;ibirthday.
50:
51
Curriculum--The curriculum is divided into infant and toddlerprograms. "Infant Fold," as it is called, is a half-day programdesigned to give children between five and a half and sixteenmonths structured play, basic care, and contact with otheryoung children of similar ages and abilities. For childrenfrom sixteen to thirty-six months, there is a full-day "FamilyStyle" program designed to provide rich learning experiencesin a homelike set up of various ages and abilities, with a gooddeal of choice given to children.
Generally, the observers felt that there was a tendency for theresearch focus to promote a rather clinical atmosphere, but this wasoffset by the high quality of care given children and their families.
51
52
SUM
MA
RY
:
SYR
AC
USE
EST
IMA
TE
D S A
ND
IN-K
IND
EX
PEN
DIT
UR
ES 1970
-714-
% of total
total costcost/child year
cost/child ho'Personnel costs inalc.. or):
Standard Core
60co
$194, 300$ 2,112
$1. Z4
% of $'s
Varying C
ore10
%31, 000
3370.20
0 % of In-K
indO
ccupancy9
%30, 200
3280.19
77 % of T
otalSupplem
ental21
68, 100740
0.43+
basedon overall
($ + In-K
ind)SU
B T
OT
AL
100%
$323, 600$ 3, 517
$ 2.06total;*including research,
Research
105, 4001,146
0.67both are 3%
less.T
OT
AL
S$429, 000
$ 4, 663'$ 2.73
*costs to nearest $100,%
to 1.0
% O
F TO
TA
LT
OT
AL
$ CO
ST+
I.ST
AN
DA
RD
CO
RE
CO
STS
A.
Child C
are and Teaching
B. A
dministration
37%
17%
$120,400
56,300
$120, 400
56, 300
.11V-K
IND
$
UC
.Feeding
6%17, 600
17, 600U
VA
RY
ING
CO
RE
CO
STS
D.
Health
3%10,200
10,200E
.T
ransportation.7%
20, 80020, 800
III.O
CC
UPA
NC
Y C
OST
S9%
30, 20019, 900
10,300
IV. SU
PPLE
ME
NT
AL
SER
VIC
EC
OST
S
F.C
hild Developm
ent Training
Program (C
DT
)21%
68, 10068,100
SUB
TO
TA
L100%
$323, 600$313,200
$10,3-00G
Research
105, 400105,400
TO
TA
LS
$429, 000$418, 700
$10, 300(100%
)(98%
)(2%
)
UTE INDIAN TRIBE DAY CARE CENTER
The Ute Indian Tribe Day Care Center in Fort Duchesne (doo-shane), Utah is a good example of a day care program which respectsthe needs and concerns of Indian and Anglo alike. Parents, staff andcommunity members work together; there is little sense of one racialgroup serving another. Instead they meet on the common ground of adesire to give themselves and their children a chance -- a chance todevelop individual abilities, understanding, confidence and self-reliance.The center is providing this opportunity to old and young alike.
Thirty Ute. and Anglo children receive basic care, as well asa flexible education program, to which the children may respond with-out pressure. An attempt has been made to include many Indian acti-vities in the program. Health care is provided by a part-time nurseand is supplemented by other community facilities. The nutrition pro-gram attempts to make up for deficiencies in the children's diets andto educate them in healthy eating habits. The center has no transporta-tion system of its own which presents a problem for families living faraway.
Thr..e notable elements were observed at the Ute Indian TribeDay Care Center. The first is the facility in which the program ishoused, the second is the community's involvement in and control of
/ the program, and third is a cultural curriculum developed for Utechildren.
FacilityThe center operates out of a friendly house whichradiates the love and care which are given daily to its smallvisitors.
Community Involvement and Control--Ute community membershave played a meaningful role in the development and operationof the center.
53
54
Cultural Curriculum--An integral part of the center's activitiesis a bicultural, bilingual program designed to foster an under-standing of and pride in the Ute Indian Tribe for both Indian andAnglo children.
The Ute Indian Tribe Day Care Program is not a pathbreaker,but it's not really supposed to be. Through parent and communityinvolvement and career development programs, residents have beenable to create something of their own for themselves and their children.It is working well and thus has provided important reinforcement forall participants, no matter what their age.
54
UT
E I
ND
IAN
TR
IBE
EST
IMA
TE
D $
AN
D I
N-K
IND
EX
PEN
DIT
UR
ES
1970
-71*
SUM
MA
RY
:'ro
of
tota
lto
tal c
ost
cost
/chi
ld y
ear
cost
/chi
ld h
our
Pers
onne
l cos
ts m
ake
up
Stan
dard
Cor
e77
%.$
59,8
00$2
,781
$1.
2380
% o
f $'
s
Var
ying
Cor
e14
%11
, 100
516
.23
73 %
of
In-K
ind
Occ
upan
cy. 9
%6,
600
307
, 13
78 %
of
Tot
al($
+ I
n-K
ind)
TO
TA
LS
100%
.$7
7,50
0$3
, 604
$1;
59
UiJ
1
Cr)
*cos
ts to
nea
rest
$10
0,%
to 1
. 0
% O
F T
OT
AL
39%
19%
19%
14% 4%
100%
TO
TA
L
$30,
200
14,9
00
14,7
00
11,1
00
6,60
0
$77,
500
(100
%)
=$
CO
ST
$26,
000
10,8
00
10,6
00
4,60
0
$52,
000
(67%
)
$ $' 4
,200
4,10
0
4,10
0
6,50
0
6,60
0
$25.
500
(33%
)
r
1ST
AN
DA
RD
CO
RE
CO
STS
A. C
hild
Car
e an
dT
each
ing
B. A
dmin
istr
atio
n
C.
Feed
ing
II.
VA
RY
ING
...:O
RE
CO
STS,
D.
Hea
lth
E.
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
ill O
CC
UPA
NC
Y C
OST
S
TO
TA
LS
WEST 80th STREET DAY CARE CENTER
The West 80th Street Day Care Center is a community-controlledprogram in the heart of one of Manhattan's Black and Spanish-speakingghettos. The center is dedicated to self-pride, self-determination,and the promotion of more effective social services for its community.The center's administration and the neighborhood are very closelyallied. Together, they have fought city hall on a number of issues, andtheir perseverance has paid off. They have managed to continue theirprograms of education and community help while receiving funds throughthe New York City Department of Social Services. The center has givenits parents and children a good program on a shoestring budget, thanksto a hard working, outspoken staff.
The center's children are given breakfast, lunch and snacksdaily, within a compensatory nutrition program. Health care and ahealth insurance plan are provided, as well as an educational programbased on life in the community and taught by community members. Themost important aspects of the educational program are the twin goalsof assisting kids to build good self-images and sharpening their verbalskills to help them deal with "the system" later on.
The center's building is in poor shape, but the community hasraised the money to renovate a nearby structure, and they will bemoving shortly. Just as meeting funding and bureaucractic problemshave drawn the community closer, solving the inadequate buildingappears to have strengthened the confidence and determination ofcenter people. They have operated a program for four years underadverse conditions. They believe they can accomplish anything.
The center goes far beyond basic day care operations. It helpscommunity peoplenot all of them parents-find decent housing andjobs, and get the social services they need. It also makes sure,
56
57
through personal efforts, that those services are rendered appropriatelyand quickly. The center conducts job training and community organiza-tion efforts to help residents improve their own lives. Self-determinationand self-help are the bywords--the center refuses to be a crutch.
The following aspects of the program seem particularly wellhandled:
Community Control -- The center is governed by a ParentGoverning Board composed totally of parents. It resolutelyfollows its own, not the city's guidelines on staffing, fees,curriculum and budgetary matters, feeling that communitymembers alone can decide what they want and how they wantit done. As a result, the center has hired communitymembers with much to offer the children where a lack ofpaper qualifications would have ruled them out as teachers.
Educational Program--The center's staff uses the communityas its curriculum. Children learn about their neighborhoodand the way the city works by going out into it and experiencingit firsthand. Teachers have freedom to use whatever materialsthey wish as they illustrate the concepts they have selected.Since the children are taught by community members they know(assisted by mothers and interested residents with specialskills), they come to feel part of a vital, important process.
Community Organization- -The center is active in all facets ofcommunity life. It has organized programs to provide betterhousing and jobs, to expose racial discrimination and povertyin the area and has been instrumental in changing city and stategovernment attitudes, organization and regulations. It has 3.)Itr;n
a practical help and an inspiration to many other communitygroups in forming day care centers and community-controlledschools.
57r-
WE
ST 80th ST
RE
ET
EST
IMA
TE
D $ A
ND
IN-K
IND
EX
PEN
DIT
UR
ES 1970
-71*
SUMMARY:
% of total
total costcost/child year
cost/child hourPersonnel costs m
ake up:Standard C
ore72.4%
$ 112,700$3,005
$1.38
76.3% of $' 6
Varying C
ore2.6%
4,000107
.0564.1%
of In-Kind
Occupancy
11.6%18,000
480.22
73.0% of T
otalSupplem
ental13.4%
20,800555
.25($ +
In-Kind)
TO
TA
LS
100%$ 155,500
$4,147$
1.90*costs to nearest $100,%
to 1.0
% O
F TO
TA
LT
OT
AL
I. STA
ND
AR
D C
OR
E C
OST
S
A.
Child C
are and Teaching
B. A
dministration
C.
Feeding
IL V
AR
YIN
G C
OR
E C
OST
S
D.
Health
E.
Transportation
III. OC
CU
PAN
CY
CO
STS
IV. SU
PPLE
ME
NT
AL
7SER
VIC
E C
OST
S
F. Career D
evelopment
G. Parent-
CommUnifY
Organization
H.
Social Service
TO
TA
LS
$ CO
ST$ IN
-KIN
D
54. Tr,
$85,100
$65,500
$19,500
10.7°4:
1F,, 600
13,7002,900
CO
7.1K11,000
10,400600
2. Viz
4,0004,000
11.69418,000
11,700'
6,300
3.8%6,000
6,0007. 2%
11,2008,300
2,9002. 3%
3,6003,600
100%$155,500
$113,200$42,200
(100%)
(73%)
(27 %)
APPENDIX B (Continued)
SYSTEMS Page
Berkeley Children's Centers 60Berke ey, California
Family Day Care Career Program 63New York, New York
Kentucky Rural Child Care Project 67Frankfort, Kentucky
Mecklenburg County Day Care Centers 70Charlotte, North Carolina
Neighborhood Centers Day Care Association 73Houston, Texas
NRO (Northwest Rural Opportunities) 76Pasco, Washington
Springfield Day Nursery System 79Springfield, Massachusetts
59
8J
BERKELEY CHILDREN'S CENTERS
The Berkeley Unified School District's Office of Early ChildhoodEducation operates seven day care centers (three pre-school and fourschool age) in the Berkeley area. (The Parent Participation NurseryClass program is not covered in this study.) We studied two of thethree pre - school day care centers in depth and were impressed not onlywith the programs in both, but with the overall system of child care inBerkeley.
Basic child care is very efficiently supplied within the routineof the centers' operations. Food service is under the auspices of theschool district. A cook in each center prepares the hot lunch and snacksser=ved daily. Educational needs are met by a program which allowschildren to choose from a wide range of activities, using a highly quali-fied teaching staff as resource people. Health care is provided by theschool district. Specialized personnel such as music teachers, guidance,nursing and social work professionals are shared by the centers.
The system has good buildings, sufficient indoor and outdoorspace, and at least two of the centers have very good playgrounds thanksto parent, staff and community cooperation. All centers have an abun-dance of materials and equipment for their children. There is, unfor-tunately, no transportation system.
Staff and children are ethnically balanced in each center. Mostcenters are small (about 35 children), and the program is carefullyindividualized to each child's needs. While parent participation has beenlimited in the past, this aspect of the program is said to be expanding.Parents currently have a voice but no decision-making power. Thisseems to be partly a result of the centralization of many aspects ofcenter operation, and partly because the system runs very smoothly andoutside assistance does not seem to be needed. The most interestingaspect of the overall program was, to us, the system itself.
60
Early Childhood Education System--The system has attracted a
corps of qualified teachers. with an excellent pay scale, reasonable
working hours and conditions and three-month paid vacations
each year, among c,ther liberal benefits. A central office coor-
dinates the centers, handles their maintenance, accounting,
purchasing, nutrition, staff hiring, firing, salaries and promo-
tions, among other things. Each center has a good deal of
autonomy in developing and implementing its own programs.
61
6 2,
BE
RK
EL
EY
EST
IMA
TE
D $ A
ND
IN-K
IND
EX
PEN
DIT
UR
ES 1970 - 71'
SUM
MA
RY
:%
of totalStandard C
ore87
%
Varying C
ore1
%
Occupancy
9%
Supplemental
3%
TO
TA
LS
100%
total costPersonnel costs m
ake up:cost/child year
coat /child hour$ 716,700
$ 2,663$
1.6883%
of $'s5,800
220.01
76% of In-K
ind75,500
2810.18
83% or T
otal23,900
890.06
($ + In-K
ind)
$ 821,900$3,055
$1.93
*costs to nearest $100,%
to 1.0
% O
F TO
TA
LT
OT
AL
=$ C
OST
+$ IN
-KIN
DI. ST
AN
DA
RD
CO
RE
CO
STS
A.
Child C
are and Teaching
B. A
dministration
C. Feeding
II.V
AR
YIN
G C
OR
E C
OST
S
D.
Health
E.
Transportation
IIL O
CC
UPA
NC
Y C
OST
S
IV. SU
PPLE
ME
NT
AL
SER
VIC
E C
OST
S
F.Social Service
TO
TA
LS
52%$433, 100
$429, 000$4, 100
28%227,100
227,100-
7%56, 500
55,2001,300
1%5,800
5,800
9%75,500
75,500
3%23,900
23,900
100%$821,900
$816,500$5, 400
(100%)
(99%)
FAMILY DAY CARE
The Family Day Care Career Program, commonly known asFDC, is a system of organized home care with 21 sub-centers located inNew York City communities, each administering 40 to 60 homes in theneighborhoods they serve. The sub-centers are coordinated by a centraloffice which provides technical support to the centers.
The central administration consists of an overall director,her assistant, four technical assistants and three clerks. At eachsub-center level, a director, day care counselors and aides, educationalaides and specialized consultants support the work of teacher motherswho take children into their own homes, and career mothers who areworking and need day care,
The system is large but warm; drawing its character from thegracious and devoted people who make it run on a very limited budget.They do this by being deeply involved with the system, giving out oftheir own pockets and putting in long and physically exhausting hourswithout overtime compensation. Family Day Care is a unique communityof people who have banded together to help each other. There do notseem to be any major problems which couldn't be solved with adequatefunding.
Basic child care is accomplished in day homes licensed for spaceand sanitary facilities by the city and state. Enrollment is limited to sixchildren in a home, including those of the teacher mother. There is oftena mixture of ages and ethnic backgrounds. Teacher mothers provide hotlunches and two snacks daily on an inadequate budget of $15 per child permonth. Children and all members of their immediate families are re-quired to have physical examinations before entering the program;centers help with such arrangements. Parents are also responsiblefor taking children to and from the day homes (usually located closeto the parent home). The educational program is severely limited by
63
E4
underfunding: there are few materials available, although teachermothers are assisted 8 hours each week by sub-center educationalaides, and are provided with lists of activities for children. Thereare also excursions and activities arranged by the sub-centers whichinvolve all the children in the program. The following aspects of theprogram are noteworthy:
Human Returns- -What is remarkable about Family Day Careare the gains made by women who now have a purpose inlife -- whether being able to work outside the home to supporttheir families or taking care of children in their own homesfor a small salary. In both cases, the program has giventhere women self-e ;teem and a new direction in their lives.
Making Do--Also remarkable is the fact that the programmanages to function at all with the financial restraintsplaced on staff. Funds are received late; are unstable;are insufficient. Staff members at all levels work over-time and spend their own salaries because they are dedi-lated to this program.
Ease of Transportation--In most cases, career mothers areable to take their children to a child care home very nearby,sometimes within the same apartment Luilding.
Responsive and Stable GrowthFamily Day Care is acceptingapproximately 100 to 200 new children a month (increasingrecently at about I% per month). There is a waiting list ofapproximately 800 children who cannot be placed due to in-sufficient funds and staff. The swift and steady growth ofthe system is characterized by remarkable responsivenessto community need without loss of organizational stability.
64
Career DevelopmentThe Family Day Care Career Programhelps women to improve and practice their skills in home-making, child care, and outside jobs. Hundreds of families
have left the welfare rolls as mothers have been able to seek
and find new careers. Internal advancement in the systemhas meant promotion for many FDC mothers; hundreds of
women have gotten outside jobs after joining FDC as careermothers.
65
66
.FA
MIL
Y D
AY
CA
RE
SYST
EM
EST
IMA
TE
D A
ND
IN-K
IND
EX
PEN
DIT
UR
ES 1970-71*
(Excludes In-K
ind estimate
of Teacher-M
other time
and facilities underpayment)
SUM
MA
RY
:%
of totaltotal cost
colt cl./llsity_emcost/child hour
Personnel costs make up:
Standard Core
89%$7,270,800
$ 2,037$
.8282%
of $'s
Varying C
ore3%
218,20061
.0246%
of In-Kind
Occupancy
3%238,000
67.03
75% of T
otal
Supplemental
5%436,300
122.05
($ + In-K
ind)
TO
TA
LS
100%$8,163,300
$ 2,287$
.92*costs to nearest $100,
To to 1.0
%O
F TO
TA
LT
OT
AL
=$ C
OST
+$ IN
-KIN
D,
I.ST
AN
DA
RD
CO
RE
CO
STS
A. C
hild Care and T
eaching39%
$3,176,400$2,511,400
$665,000
D
WdB
. Adm
inistration27%
2,190,1001,812,000
378,000
.4C
.Feeding
23%1,906,300
1,606,500299,900
0UII.
VA
RY
ING
CO
RE
CO
STS
4C4
D.
Health
3%218,200
168,60049,600
E.
Transportation
III.O
CC
UPA
NC
Y C
OST
S3%
238,400217,000
21,400
1V. SU
PPLE
ME
NT
AL
SER
VIC
EC
OST
S
F. Career D
evelopment
5%433,600
235,300198,300
TO
TA
LS
100%$8,163,000
$6,550,800$1,612,200
(100%)
(80%)
(20%)
THE RURAL CHILD CARE PROJECT
The Rural Child Care Project operates nineteen day care centersscattered throughout nine counties in eastern Kentucky. From the be-ginning, even prior to its Head Start funding and guidelines concerningparental involvement, the project employed parents and communitymembers as its center staff. In accord with its commitment to com-munity development, and because of lack of formally qualified personnelin the rural areas, all teachers are pars- professionals. Due to on-the-job training, continuing supervision and a low turnover rate, the centerhas developed an experienced and competent staff of community residentswith little, if any, original formal training.
The centers deal with simple survival needs of the children:adequate nutrition, medical attention and referral, hygiene, and develop-mental problems geared to the needs of children growing up in a sociallyisolated and economically deprived areas. While the project has had tomake do with whatever facilities were donated by the various communi-ties; parents, staff and volunteers have put much effort into makingthem workable, cheerful and comfortable for children. Transportation,which was one of the major problems in using the centers, has beenhandled through the use of school buses and private cars of hired trans-portation aides and volunteer drivers.
Recognizing that a child's life will not be improved simply bytaking him out of his home for a few hours daily, the project attachesmajor importance to improving the lives of center families. It doesthis through direct social services, including a highly successful home-maker program, and through extensive referrals to local agencies andresources.
Noteworthy features of the Rural Child Care Project are:
6867
Social Services and Homemakers -- Project social workers anda personalized homemaking service combine to fill a variety ofneeds for center families and endeavor to promote improvementof living conditions through demonstration and teaching of practi-cal skills.
Parent Involvement -- A large number of formerly geographicallyand socially isolated parents have been involved in center opera-tions and decision-making. Parents have donated considerabletime, energy and talent to decorating the centers and makingplay equipment for the children.
Staff Development -- Training has been large-scale and hasoverlapped so that para-professionals have skills in more thanone job area. Career development through educational oppor-tunities has resulted in extensive staff promotion.
Volunteers -- Volunteers from the community, as well astrainees in federally-sponsored programs help with every aspectof the project -- as center aides, clerical aides, social workersand transportation aides and homemakers. Their presence inthe centers provides additional adult contact for the children.
68
69
SUM
MA
RY
:
KE
NT
UC
KY
EST
IMA
TE
D $
AN
D I
N-K
IND
EX
PEN
DIT
UR
ES
1969
- 7
0*
cost
s m
ake
up:
% o
f to
tal
tota
l cos
tco
st/c
hild
yea
rco
st/c
hild
how
Pers
onne
lSt
anda
rd C
ore
52 %
$62
1, 9
00$
1,36
1$
.70
74%
of
$' s
Var
ying
Cor
e7
%87
,100
190
.10
68%
of
In-K
ind
Occ
upan
cy10
%12
5,10
027
4.1
472
% o
f T
otal
Supp
lem
enta
l31
%38
3,00
083
8.4
3($
+ I
n-K
ind)
TO
TA
LS
100
%$1
, 217
,100
$2,
663
$ 1.
37*c
osts
to n
eare
st $
100,
% to
1.0
% O
F T
OT
AL
TO
TA
L=
$ C
OST
$ IN
-KIN
D
I.ST
AN
DA
RD
CO
RE
CO
STS
A.
Chi
ld C
are
and
Tea
chin
g26
%$
309,
600
$ 20
9, 6
00$
100,
000
B.
Adm
inis
trat
ion
16%
s
$ 19
2, 6
00$
192,
600
C.
Feed
ing
10%
$ 11
9,70
0$
119,
700
U cnII
.V
AR
YIN
G C
OR
E C
OST
S
D.
Hea
lth1%
13, 9
0013
,900
E.
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
6%
73, 2
0073
, 200
III.
OC
CU
PAN
CY
CO
STS
10%
125,
100
38, 2
0086
, 900
IV. S
UPP
LE
ME
NT
AL
SE
RV
ICE
CO
STS
F.So
cial
Ser
vice
s an
d H
omem
aker
s22
%26
3, 0
0023
5, 0
0028
,000
G.
Staf
f D
evel
opm
ent
5%66
, 000
66, 000
H.
Res
earc
h4%
54,0
0054, 000
TO
TA
LS
100%
$1,2
17,1
00(1
00%
)$948, 200
(R05,1
$268, 900
f208
11
MECKLENBURG COUNTY DEPARTMENT OFSOCIAL SERVICES DAY CARE CENTERS
The day care program operated by the Mecklenburg CountyDepartment of Social Services consists of three separate operations:
1. A system of nine day care centers located in and aroundthe city of Charlotte, North Carolina and outlying towns. Thissystem serves 239 toddlers and pre-schoolers, and is controlled,staffed, equipped and maintained by the department in churchf.is,public school space, public housing projects and communitybuildings.
2. A system of five day care homes in Charlotte's Model Citiesarea, which serves 25 school-age children. The departmentcontracts with, and supervises the care given by five women intheir own homes. This small, new after-school program willsoon be expanded.
3. A broad program of after-school care which is paid for bythe department but operated by the YWCA in four facilities inthe Model Cities neighborhoods. This system of Extended DayCare serves 200 school-age children, but is not covered in thiscase study since it is run entirely by the YWCA.
All three operations run year-round, and the department esti-mates that some 1,200 children are involved in some phase of its daycare activities.
The day care centers are small, neighborhood programs housedin donated, leased and community-built space. Basic child needs aremet through compensatory and maintenance nutrition programs, healthcare through each center's consulting pediatrician, education andsocial-emotional programs and adequate space for physical development
activities. The centers are kept scrupulously neat and clean. Childrencan walk to almost all of the centers; where this is not possible, staffcars are used, and in one instance, the center operates a bus free ofcharge.
Parent needs are also considered important. The departmentassigns a case worker to each family to refer them to the various socialservices available in the community. In addition, centers provide someparent education and community organization through parent meetings.
Noteworthy aspects of the Mecklenburg County Day Care programwhich are treated in depth in the Notable Elements section of this reportare the following:
ti
Nutrition Program -- Both the content and the style of thenutrition programs in the centers are exemplary. Centerteachers and cooks work together to introduce the childrento new foods through pictures, stories, and growth cycledemonstrations. Some centers have gardens, tended by thechildren, which have furnished vegetables and flowers forcenter tables. Healthy attitudes toward food and eatingfostered in this program have helped many children sufferingfrom malnutrition and the eating anxieties associated withchronic hunger.
Private Home After-School Care -- The department contractswith five women to provide safe, 'pleasant places for school-age children to spend their time until parents arc finishedwork. Although there are educational activities for thesechildren, the department is more interested in giving theman unstructured kind of experience after the regimentation ofthe school day. This program exposes children to new peopleand different styles of living, and children are encouraged tohelp with all aspects of family life.
72
ME
CK
LE
NB
UR
G E
STIM
AT
ED
$A
ND
IN-K
IND
EX
PEN
DIT
UR
ES
1970-71*
SUM
MA
RY
:°Z
of totaltotal cost
cost/child yearcost /child hour
Personnel costs make up:
Standard Core
85%
$414, 700$
1; 735$
0.7182
% of $'s
Varying C
ore2
%7, 200
300.01
55%
of In-Kind
Occupancy
12%
58,500245
0.1077
To of T
otal($ t In-K
ind)Supplem
entali
%6, 200
26O
.01
TO
TA
LS
100%
$486,600$
2, 0360.83
*costs to nearest $100,%
to 1.0
%O
F TO
TA
LT
OT
AL
$ CO
ST
I.ST
AN
DA
RD
CO
RE
CO
STS
'A.
Child C
are and Teaching
48%$231, 900
$193, 300
B.
Adm
inistration23%
112, 80096. 300
C.
Feeding14%
70, 00066,100
II.V
AR
YIN
G C
OR
E C
OST
S
D.
Health
1%3, 900
3, ioo
E.
Transportation
1%3, 300
3,300
OC
CU
PAN
CY
CO
STS
12%58, 500
17,700
IV. SU
PPLE
ME
NT
AL
SER
VIC
E C
OST
S
F.Staff T
raining1%
6,206, 200
TO
TA
LS
100%$486, 600
$386, 800
;100 /4(79 %
)
40.800
$99. 800
(21 To)
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS DAY CARE ASSOCIATION
The Neighborhood Centers Day Care Association (NCDCA) is
part of a larger welfare organization, Neighborhood Centers, which
provides many services in the Harris County area, funded largely by
the United Fund and the Texas Department of Public Welfare. Theday care segment of this organization operates eight centers and 179
day homes in Houston and Harris County, in a program with 18 years
of successful experience behind it. The project is normally used asa standard upon which other day care efforts in the area are based,
and, as a measure of its reputation for effective service, it was given
a subcontract from 0E0 to develop 27 other day care centers in the
area (NCDCA no longer maintains a connection with these centers).
Both local and national organizing bodies recognize the lOng exper-
ience and smooth operation of the NCDCA approach as a model for
day care in an urban-suburban setting.
The method of fulfilling children's basic day care needs atNCDCA has been adapted to the particular social and economic situa-
tion of the locale, and has been modified by the longevity of the pro-
gram. An attempt is made to see that children are well-fed, ade-
quately protected, and stimulated to develop a strong self-image and
an attitude of healthy, imaginative inquiry. There are a great deal
of educational and curriculum materials available to centers within
the system; however, administrative emphasis is centered on devel-
oping the "total" child, rather than pouring a disproportionate amount
of energy into strictly educational aspects of the program.
Among noteworthy features of the NCDCA program are the
following:
Stability -- Low job turnover rates, an 18-year accumulation of
experience within the system, and a tradition of adequate sup-
port from well-organized charity groups (mainly the United Fund),
73
74
have given the NCDCA system a high degree of stability.
Participant Security -- Although pay is low, the very stabilityof the operation removes many staff job pressures. Jobsecurity is high, and many staff members have long servicerecords. The benefits accrue to both children and parents.Once a child is accepted, he or she may stay with the programdespite changes of family status, a policy which enhancessecurity of child and parent. The long service records alsomean that parents and children come to know many staffmembers well over a period of years, and that staff membersare well acquainted with the communities in which they work aswell as with each other.
Social Services -- The welfare organization umbrella (Neigh-borhood Centers) provides a ready means of delivering socialservices and concentrates considerable energy and staff onthat delivery. NCDCA uses that capability very well.
Day Home Care -- Ti.e extensive day home program used byNCDCA provides a ready means of expanding services andcaring/for more children without capital expenditure. Theuse of day homes has enabled the program to enroll approx-imately 200 per cent more children than center capacitieswould otherwise allow.
7.1
75
NE
IGH
BO
RH
OO
D C
EN
TE
RS
EST
IMA
TE
D $
AN
D I
N-K
IND
EX
PEN
DIT
UR
ES
1970
- 7
1*
SUM
MA
RY
:5o
ft(2
tdSt
anda
rd C
ore
76%
Var
ying
Cor
e5%
Occ
upan
cy19
%
Sub-
Tot
al10
0%
Day
Hom
e C
are
Sub-
Tot
alT
OT
AL
S
tota
l cos
tco
st/c
hild
yea
rco
st/c
hild
hou
rPe
rson
nel c
osts
mak
e up
:
$41
8,10
027
,700
$97
0 64
$.4
4.0
375
% o
f $'
s7
% o
f In
-Kin
d
104,
000
241
.11
71 %
of
Tot
al
549,
700
1,27
5.5
8($
+ I
n-K
ind)
538,
500
1,09
9.5
6*c
osts
to n
eare
st $
100.
$1,0
88,2
00$1
,170
$.5
7%
to 1
.0
I. STANDARD CORE COSTS
A.
Chi
ld C
are
and
Tea
chin
g
B.
Adm
inis
trat
ion
C.
Feed
ing
II.
VARYING CORE COSTS
D.
Hea
lth
E. T
rans
port
atio
n
HI. OCCUPANCY COSTS
1--
TO
TA
LS
CO
ST O
F T
HE
EIG
HT
CE
NT
ER
S
% O
F T
OT
AL
TO
TA
L=
$ C
OST
+$
IN-K
IND
40%
$217
,300
$214
,700
$ 2,
600
22%
121,
700
121,
700
14%
79,0
0075
,700
3,30
0
2%13
, 200
13,2
00
3%14
,500
14,5
00
19%
104,
000
75,0
0029
,000
100%
$549
,700
$514
,800
$34,
900
(100
%)
(94%
)(6
%)
NORTHWEST RURAL OPPORTUNITIESDAY CARE SYSTEM
Northwest Rural Opportunities (NRO) is an umbrella migrantorganization with four major social service programs, one of whichis a day care operation. NRO's day care is a system of nine centersscattered through six counties in eastern Washington state. The centersare mostly mobile trailers on permanent sites, and the project servesthe children of migrant families who stream north from Texas andCalifornia each year to harvest the crops. NRO's day care systemis an efficient and quality service providing year round care andeducation for disadvantaged children with special language and learningproblems.
Basic child care is accomplished in the routine of each center'soperation. Health care is supervised by local departments of healthand MDs who donate their Services. Each center has a full-time cookwho prepares meals in trailer kitchens. Food programs are compen-satory and meet USDA standards. Educational needs are met througha new curriculum based on the special needs of NRO's children, taughtby lead and assistant teachers, with trainee and volunteer help.
In addition to child development services, the larger NROorganization provides rrigrant families with direct services in the areasof self-help housing, adult education and economic development.Centers refer families to help from community agencies and smooththeir way.
The following aspects of NRO's day care operation are particu-larly interesting and will be dealt with in the Notable Elements sectionof this report:
Facilities--The system uses 21 trailers specially designed forday care and built at a cost of between $9,000 and $10,000 apiece.
76
77
They provide centers for eight of the communities, are clean,well-equipped, and meet otate and federal licensing regulations.
Educational ProgramNRO's child development specialist andtwo outside consultants have developed a curriculum directedspecifically at the learning and language problems of migrantchildren. The curriculum was developed at minimum cost andis being implemented along with a teacher training program.
Teacher Trainint--Seventy percent of the project's staff isdrawn from the migrant community and is receiving in-serviceand formai training in teaching the project's new curriculum.VISTA teacher volunteers are conducting workshops and monitoringimplementation of teaching strategies in the classrooms.
77
78
SUM
MA
RY
:Standard C
oreV
arying Core
Occupancy
Supplemental
TO
TA
LS
% of total
77%6%
12%5%
100%
NR
O E
STIM
AT
ED
AN
D IN
-KIN
D E
XPE
ND
ITU
RE
S1970 -
total costcost/child year
cost/child hour
$492, 800$1,159
$0.45
36, 50086
0.03
78,000184
0.0733,900
800.03
$641,200$1,509
$0.58
Personnel costs make up:
81% of S.
77% of InK
ir:c1
. 80% of T
otal($ +
In-Kind)
*costs to nearest $100,%
to 1.0
% O
F TO
TA
LT
OT
AL
=$ C
OST
$ IN-K
IND
I.ST
AN
DA
RD
CO
RE
CO
STS
A.
Child C
are and Teaching
B.
Adm
inistration
44%
18%
$283, 800
113,200
$231,300
112,500
$52, 500
700coti
C.
Feeding15%
95,80089,100
6,700
U.
VA
RY
ING
CO
RE
CO
STS
D.
Health
6%36,500
31,2005,300
E.
Transportation
III.O
CC
UPA
NC
Y C
OST
S12%
78,00066,500
11,500
IV.
SUPPL
EM
EN
TA
L SE
RV
ICE
CO
STS
F. Career D
evelopment
4%25,500
25,500(T
eacher Training)
G. Social Service
1%8,400
8,400
TO
TA
LS
100%$641, 200
$564, 500$76, 700
(100%)
(88%)
(12%)
SPRINGFIELD DAY NURSERY SYSTEM
The Springfield Day Nursery system has four child care opera-tions -- a day nursery, a kindergarten, a junior workshop for handi-capped children (half-day) and the Brightwood Day Care center.Brightwood, which we studied in depth, is located in a renovated in-dustrial plant in the midst of a low-income housing development,assorted factories and unidentified brick buildings. With very limitedfunds, the center staff has tried to brighten up the building's interior,but the flourescent lights, tile and cinder block walls, high ceilingsand sparsely furnished rooms seem bleakly institutional. The center'schildren are drawn from the low-income neighborhood surrounding thefactory/center complex.
Since more than half the children are Spanish-speaking, classesare bilingual. Each classroom has an English and a Spanish-speakingteacher. Health care is provided by the system's part-time nurse andphysician who are on call. Food is prepared in the center by a part-time cook who serves breakfast, lunch and two snacks daily. Becausethe center serves the local neighborhood, there is no transportationsystem: parents must deliver and pick up their children each day.The center is spacious and includes three main classrooms as well asnumerous smaller rooms used as teaching and activity areas.
An advisory board was being set up when we visited the center(which had only been in operation three months), to be composed ofparents, community and professional people. Parent involvement inthe initial planning and operations of the center was limited. Bright-wood's center director serves as social caseworker for the Brightwoodfamilies with the assistance of a bilingual parent coordinator.
The Springfield Day Nursery System retains a half-time socialworker lo help parents find and use the assistance available in the
80
community. Literature about the Junior Workshop and the Day Nurseryis included in the Appendix.
The Brightwood Center is noteworthy in that it offers:
Bilingual Education -- Half the teaching staff speaks Spanishfluently, and the rest make an effort to learn at least marginalSpanish. Many of the Brightwood's children are new arrivalsto the United States, and the bilingual approach eases the trans-ition for them. Staff members attempt to build a sense ofpositive self image in the children by reinforcing their attemptsto speak English, helping them when they cannot grasp concepts,and by introducing different aspects of the Spanish culture intothe curriculum. English-speaking children, on the other hand,are learning some Spanish.
80
81
SPR
ING
FIE
LD
SY
STE
M E
STIM
AT
ED
$ A
ND
IN
-K
IND
EX
PEN
DIT
UR
ES
1970
- 7
1*
SUM
MA
RY
:%
of
tota
lto
tal c
ost
cost
/chi
ld y
ear
cost
/chi
ld h
our
i o u
E.
Pers
onne
l cos
ts m
ake
up.,
Stan
dard
Cor
e75
%$1
76,0
00$
1,66
5$
0.85
78%
of
$'s
Var
ying
Cor
e1%
1,70
016
0.01
52%
of
In-K
ind
Occ
upan
cy19
%43
,800
414
0.21
75%
of
Tot
al
Supp
lem
enta
l5%
10,8
0010
20.
05($
-f
In-K
ind)
TO
TA
LS
100%
$232
,300
$ 2,
197
$1.
12*c
osts
to n
eare
st $
100,
% to
1.0
% O
FT
OT
AL
TO
TA
L=
$ C
OST
+$
IN -
KIN
D
1.ST
AN
DA
RD
CO
RE
CO
STS
A. C
hild
Car
e an
d T
each
ing
44%
$103
,300
$89,
400
$13,
900
B. A
dmin
istr
atio
n20
%47
,200
47,2
00
C.
Feed
ing
11%
25,5
0024
,100
1,40
0
II.
VA
RY
ING
CO
RE
CO
STS
D. H
ealth
1%1,
700
6.1,
700
E.
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
-
III.
OC
CU
PAN
CY
CO
STS
19%
43,8
0032
,300
11,5
00
111 IV
. SU
PPL
EM
EN
TA
LSE
RV
ICE
CO
STS
F.St
aff
Dev
elop
men
t1%
2,90
02,
900
G. P
aren
tInv
olve
men
t2%
4,30
04,
300
H. S
ocia
l Ser
vice
2%3,
600
3,60
0
