Child care staffing regulations, cost impact study

              COST IMPACT STUDY

CHILD CARE STAFFING REGULATIONS

Report to the Arizona Legislature

By the Auditor General

January 1987

87- 2

DOUGLAS R NORTON. CPA

AUDITOR GENERAL

STATE OF ARIZONA

OFFICE OF THE

AUDITOR GENERAL

Members of the Arizona Legislature

The Honorable Evan Mecham. Governor

Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor Generai, a Cost Impact Study

o f t h e Child Care Staffing Regulations, This report is in response to the

September 16, 1986, resolution of the Joint Legisiative Budget Committee.

The report provides estimates of the costs of implementing the staffing

regulations promulgated by the Department of Health Services. We estimate

that the annual cost of providing child care in Arizona w i l l increase by

approximately $ 5.46 million because of the new regulations. Approximately

$ 5.3 million of this cost will be for hiring additional s t a f f , the remainder i s due

to lost revenues because some centers may need to slightly reduce their

enrollments to meet the new ratios. On the average, weekly child care fees

would need to increase by $ 3 to cover these costs. tiowever, these increases

w i l l vary by type of center. More detailed information about these costs is

presented in the report.

My s t a f f and I w i l l be pleased to discuss or c l a r i f y items in the report.

Respectfully submitted,

~ u d i t o rG eneral

2700 NORTH CENTRAL AVE. e SUITE 700 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 ( 602) 255- 4385

TABLE OF CONTENTS ---.-----

Pave

p-

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

COST IMPACT OF NEW STAFFING RATIOS FOR CHILE CAKE . . . . . . . . 9

Additional Caregiver S t a f f Reauired . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Costs o f Additional Caregiver S t a f f . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Fee Increases Due t o Additional Caregiver S t a f f . . . . . . . 14

Staffing Ratios Impact on Center Capacity . . . . . . . . . . 16

Total Costs o f New S t a f f i n g Regulations . . . . . . . . 17

OTHER QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

APPENDICES ----.--

I TECHNICAL APPENDIX

I1 DATA COLLECTION FORFIS

LIST OF TABLES

Paqe

TABLE 1 -

TABLE 2 -

TABLE 3 -

TABLE 4 -

TABLE 5 -

TABLE 6 -

TABLE 7 -

TABLE 8 -

TABLE 9 -

TABLE 10 -

TABLE 11 -

Comparison o f S t a f f / C h i l d Ratios . . . . . . . . . . 2

Percentage o f Additional Caregiver S t a f f

Required t o Meet New S t a f f i n g Ratios

by Type o f Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Percentage o f Additional Caregiver S t a f f Required

t o Meet New S t a f f i n g Ratios by Tax Status and Type

o f Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

bEys tTimypaete odf YCeeanrltye rC o. st . o. f A. d. di. tio. na. l . C. are. g. ive. r . S. t a. f f . 13

Increase i n Yearly Caregiver Wage Costs by Type o f Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Average Weekly Fee Increase t o Cover Cost o f

Additional Caregiver S t a f f by ' Type o f Center and

Tax Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Weekly Fee Increase t o Cover Cost o f Additional

Caregiver S t a f f by Type a f Center . . . . . . . . . 15

Percentage of Children Dropped Due t o Room

Capacity 3djostments by Type o f Center . . . . . . . 16

i s t i m a t c r l \ early Cost o f ! dew S t a f f i n g Ratios

t y ? ype of Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Average keckly Fee Increase t o Ccver Cost o f

lick; S t a f f i n g Ratios by Type o f C k n t e ~ dnd Tax

Str~ tr4: j . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

heck7y Fer Increase t o C~ ver Cost of Nek~

s t a f f i n g Rctio:, by Type o f Center . . . . . . . . . 19

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Centers by Areas of

S t r a t i f i c a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

FIGURE 2 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Child Care Centers by Type . . . . . 6

FIGURE 3 Type o f Child Care Cerlter by

N o n p r o f i t / P r o f i t Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

INTRODUCTION AND BACK- G- ROUND

The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a special study of the

cost impact of new Department of Health Services ( DHS) regulations

governing child care centcrs i n Arizona. This study was conducted i n

response to a September 16, 1986, resailrticln o f the Joint Legislative

Budget Cornittee.

T h i s report presents information on the estimated costs of child care

staffing regulations t o become effective between January 1987 and July

1988. The information was requested by the Child Care Study Cornmi ttee of

the House of Representatives, which has been studying the impacts o f the

new regul ations.

Origin Of The Study -----

During 1986, DHS revised i t s rules and regulations poverning the

operation of child care centers. The revisions were based on the

recommendations of the Arizona Child Day Care Task Force, which studied a

variety of issues, i~ cluding ' the requlatian o f child care centcrs. The

Task Force found that Arizona's reqkiirements f o r c h i l d care staffing were

among the k~ ighest i n the country ( a" . e. inorc chl'ldrcn are under the

supervi si on of fewer staf f ) . I t recommendecl decseasi ng the number of

children per staff person a t l icensed c e u t e ~ r . DHS used the Task Force

recommendations as a basis for revising its reg~ nlations on staffing,

program requirements, san. s" tatisn and other center operations. All b u t

the staffing regulations became effective on December 12, 1986. The

staffing regulations take e f f e c t between Jianrsaw 1987 and July 1988.

Table 1 compares Arizona's current standards w i t h the Task Force

recommendations and the DWS revisions.

The new regulations caused concern among some child care provfders

because of the potential increased costs. The providers were

particularly concerned that the 1 ower staffing ratios woul d require

additional s t a f f , In addition, restrictions on mixing infants and

1 - year-- olds w i t h o khcr age groups coul d i ncrease staffing needs.

TABLE 1

COMPARISON OF STAFF/ CHILD RATIOS

Age Group

01 d New

Staff/ Chil d Task Force Staff/ Chil d

Ratios Recommendations Ratios

Infants 1: 8 1: 5 or 2: 11 1: 5 or 2: 11

1 - year- 01 ds 1 : 10 1: 6 or 2: 13 1: 6 or 2: 13

2- year- 01 ds 1 : lo 1 : 8 or 2: 17 1: 8 or 2: 17

3- year- 01 ds 1 : 15 1 : 10 1 : 13

4- year- 01 ds 1 : 20 1 : 13 1 : 13

5- year- olds who

are not yet school age 1 : 25 1 : 15 1 : 13

School age chi1 dren 1 : 25 1 : 20 1 : 20

DHS and the Department of Economic Security ( DES) attempted t o c o l l e c t

data on the cost impact of the new regulations. However, a low response

r a t e t o a survey of child care centers prevented DHS from making reliable

estimates about the potential cost impact of the new regulations.

Study Sco~ eA nd Development

The Child Care Study Committee requested. the A~ rditor General to examine a

broad range of questions. The questions included the following issues.

o What will be the direct costs of implementing the new regulations?

What will be the possible loss of revenue from declining

enrol lments?

o What will be the cost impact on DHS to implement and enforce the

new regul ations?

o What will be the cost impact on DES for child case subsidies?

o What will be the increased costs for nonsaabsidized parents? If

costs become prohibitive for nonsubsidized parents, what are some

of the possible consequences?

The questions encompassed a wide range of legislative concerns about

child care regulation. Eecause of the limited time available for the

study, however, the Child Care Comi ttee directed the Auditor General to

define the study's actual scope. In view o f the time available to

conduct the study and the 1 imited da" l available, the stuay ' s scope was

focused on the additional costs child carp centers may incur i n meeting

the new staffing regulations.

Methodow- - A nd - S- am- p-- l- e-- -- G--- h-. a-- r- a-- c-- t- e.- r i stics.

The cost estimates preserrtecr i n this rcpoa t it:^ blssed on a sample of 321

child care centers licensed by DS! S as sf August 1986. rhc centers i n the

survey were selected frorn tile 790 DHS Siccnsed centers, and the sample

was stratified to ensure t h a t the various t\{& ses o f centers ( i . e., profit

versus nonprofit, centers of differ- ing l icensed capacities) were

adequately represented. The stratifisd s a ~ p l e was also designed to

represent centers located i n Maricopa, Pira and othw selected counties.

Figure 1 i l l ustrates the sample chmrac teri stica according to areas of

s t r a t i fieatpio r!. ( See thc ' Technical Appendir % a ;<: ccrlpl cte description

sf the study methcdolugy, j

Child care center. operators and sther iiii- dustw- y represenmalives were

consul led in dewel opi ng survey i nskrumenls drrd prece; I! xrel; to ensure the

coll ection o f relevarrt data with min lsrurn dfsruptl'on t o center

operations. Auditor General s t a f f met witkg the s t a f f o f each center

included i n the sample to explain the daf- a cel Section procedures and

instruct them i n f i l 4 1 n g out: the survey fornis. Auditor General staff

also visited each center regubr1. v during the data collection phase to

verify data and answer quest; ons.

The survey was co~ nductcd October 13 through 2 7 , 1986. Data were

collected for each day t h a t centers were open during the survey period

and included: ( 1 1 the number of children attending tkc center, ( 2) their

ages, ( 3) times %" r; and times ormt, ( 4) staff on duty, and ( 5) the tines

when s t a f f prcvided direct care Lo the children.

Figure 1

DISTRIBUTION OF CENTERS BY

AREAS OF STPATIFICATION

COUNTY LICENSE CAPACITY

NON- PROFIT

* Percentages are based on 319 centers rather t h a n 321, because we were

unable to obtain profit/ nonprofit status for two centers.

Of the 321 centers i n the original sample, some centers chose not to

participate, others were no longer i n business, and some centers were

excluded from the study because of unreliable data. The analysis that

follows i s based on data collected from 267 1 icensed child care

facil i t i e s .

The participating 267 centers included ccnters offering a variety o f

child care services, ranging from 24- hour services to programs for the

care and education of devel spmental ly disabled chi1 dren. For the purpose

of our analysis, we categorized centers into two groups: all- day child

care centers and specialized centers. All- day centers generally offer

care for more than ten hours per day, base fees on an hourly or weekly

rate rather than on a particular course or program, and in many instances

allow for drop- in children. Specialized centers include Head Start,

preschool s, preschool s w i t h extended care, a f terschaol 1 atchkey programs,

and developmental ly disabled programs. Figure 2 summarizes the frequency

with which these types of participating child care f a c i l i t i e s are

represented i n the study.

Because of the varl'ety i n types o f centers dwd variables unique to each

type of operation, indlastry representatives aSerte4B us tc the pr~ babiil t y

that some types of centers may be affected by the regulations more

seriously than others. They indicated thet all- clay child care centers

may experience the greatest impact from the claanges i n staffing ratios.

Currently, more special ized programs either vo4 untarily or lay requirement

operate w i t h ratios similar to or more stringent than the new ratios,*

Furthermore, for- profit f a c i l i t i e s can be expected to experience a

greater impact than their nonprofit counterparts .*" A1 1 - day chi l d care

centers are overwhel mingly rut1 as proprietary operats'sns ( 38- 4 percent).

Figure 3 i l l ustrates the percentage e f prof it and nnssprofi t centers

represented i n the study, by type of center.

* Head Start and developmental ly disabled programs must a1 so campi y

w i t h other Federal and State regulations that requ9re slaffinp ratios

more stringent than the new ratios.

** Industry representatives indicated that nonprofit centers generally

have sources of revenue i n addition to parent fees. Fcr t h i s rkasan,

many of these centers are currently able to cperate w i t h ratios

similar to, or more stringent than those required by the new

regulations.

5

FIGURE 2

ALL

DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD CARE CENTERS

BY TYPE

DAY CHILD CARE ( 134) 49.8%

DEV. DISABLED ( 6) 2.

AFTERSCHOOL ( 8) 3%

HEAD START ( 24) 9%

PRESCHOOL* ( 63) 24.3%

PRESCHOOL ( 32) 1 1.6%

* ~ c p r z e n t sp reschool s o f f e r i n g extended care.

FIGURE 3

TYPE OF CHILD CARE CENTER

BY NONPROFIT/ PROFIT STATUS

LEGEND

NONPROFIT

0 PROFIT

Acknowl edaements

The Auditor General wishes t o express appreciation to the many chi1 d care

center owners, directors and s t a f f who assisted i n the c o l l e c t i o n o f data

f o r t h i s study. The Auditor General also thanks the s t a f f s o f the

Department of Health Services and the Department of Economic Security f o r

t h e i r assistance.

COST IMPACT OF NEW STAFFING RATIOS FOR CHILD CARE

We estimate that the yearly cost of the new child care staffing

regulations will be approximately $ 5.46 mil 1 ion. These costs are

primarily the result of required staff increases. While the level of need

varies greatly, we estimate that 82.8 percent of the centers would

require at least some additional caregiver staff t o meet the new staffing

regulations. The estimated cost to the industry of this additional

caregiver staff i s approximately $ 5.38 million. Adding t o t h i s figure

$ 159,000 per year in lost revenues due to the centers dropping childrer:

to meet the standards, brings the estimated total yearly cost of the new

staffing regulations to $ 5.46 million.

On the average, weekly fees would need to be increased by $ 3.01 to cover

these costs. For- profi t, a1 1 - day centers ' weekly fees would potential ly

increase the most ($ 4.83), while weekly fees for nonprofit, more

special ized centers would increase the least ($ 7.1 9).

Additional Careaiver Staff Reauired

The analysis estimates that 221 ( 82.8 percent) of the child care centers

included in our simulation woul d require additional caregiver staff t o

meet the new staffing ratios. Of the 46 ( 17.2 percent) centers not

impacted, all b u t one are special ized child care facil i t i e s .

The need for additional caregiver staff varies dramatically. Table 7

indicates that 47.6 percent of the sample centers would not need t o

increase caregiver staffing 1 eve1 s or need to increase them by 1 ess than

5 percent. Another 33.3 percent of our sample centers would need to

increase their staffing levels by 5 to 25 percent, The remaining 19.1

percent would need to increase their staffing levels by more than 25

percent.

TABLE 2

PERCENTAGE OF ADDITIONAL CAREGIVER STAFF REQUIRED TO

MEET NEW STAFFING RATIOS BY TYPE OF CENTER

Type of Center

Percentage of Increase All - Day Chil d Special ised Chil d

i n Addi tional Staff Care Centers -- C are Centers Total

Less Than 5% 17.2% ( 23) 78.2% ( 5614) 47.6% ( 127)

More than 25% 35.1 ( 47) - up 3.0 I4 1 1 . 1 -- ( 51)

chi- square = 105.00 gamma = - 865 p = . OOO

* Discrepancy due to rounding.

As expected, a l l - day child care programs would hc most severely impacti. c?,

All but one such center i n the sample \ i~ oulcF be impacted bj the: r, cw

staffing ratios. Furthermore, 35.1 percent of the alLday c h j l d care?

centers would be required to increase their caregiver staff by more than

25 percent, while only 3.0 percent o f the more specialized child carp

programs would have to increase their s t a f f by a similar a ~ o u f i ~ d. i thirr

the 5 to 25 percent range t h i s pattern persists, even thoei~ h * he

percentage differences are not as great ( 47.8 percent and 18.8 p ~ r t e ~ t ,

respectively),

Among a1 1 - day chi1 d care centers, those operating as fr3. y.- yrofi t L C ~ E P ~ S

would be impacted to a greater degree than their n o n g r o f ~ t ~ ~ u ~ " t e % - p d r % ; s

( see Table 3 ) . Of the for- profit, all- day child care c e n t ~ r s , 41.23

percent would need to increase their caregiver s t a f f hy aore than 25

percent, while only 13.8 percent of their nonprcf it corrnleryarts wor~ 1 d f . / ~

required to do so.

TABLE 3

PERCENTAGE OF ADDITIONAL CAREGIVER STAFF

REQUIRED TO MEET NEW STAFFING RATIOS

BY TAX STATUS AND TYPE OF CENTER

- All- Day Child Care Centers

Percentage of Increase

i n Staff Nonprof i t Profit Total

Less Than 5% 34.5% ( 10) 12.4% ( 13) 17.2" 1,23)

More than 25% 13.8 -(- 4 ) - 4- 1. Q -.- ( 43) -- 3- 5 .1 --- ( 4 7 )

100.0% ( 29) . 100.0%--* ( 1-- 05~ - 1- 0 0-. - 0- '%-*( 134l

chi - square = 11.37 gamma = .559 p = - 003

x e c i a l i z e d Child Car- e- - C- e- n ters

Percentage of Increase

i n Staff Nonprofit Profit Total

Less Than 5% 83.2% ( 84) 02,5% ( 2 0 ) 78.2% ( 104)

More than 25% 2.0 ( 2 ) 6.3 ( 2) -. 3.0 -( 4 )

- 100-. 0% *- 1- 1- 01 1 - 100-- .0%" -_ o 100.0% $ 13l3 - -- a - -- - .--

chi- square = 6.28 gamma = - 485 p = .04J

* Discrepancy due to rounding.

This pattern persists among more specialized child care programs, Only

16.9 percent ( 14.9 percent i- 2.0 percent) of all nonprofit, speciala'zet4

centers \ riould need to increase their caregiver staff by more than 5

percent, contrasted with 37.6 percent ( 31.3 percent + 6.3 percent) of

their for- profit counterparts.

Auditor General staff also examined the degree to which size and location

influenced a center's need for additional caregiver staff. Hawever, thc

analysis did not indicate that a relationship exists between a center's

location or licensed capacity and the need to add caregiver staff.

Costs Of Additional Caregiver Staff

The new staffing regulations may increase c h i l a care casts in that some

centers would need additional caregiver staff 2nd/ ctr reduce enrollments,

Most of these costs would be the result of adding caregiver s t a f f , Re

estimate that the cost to the industry o f itddi~ g a#? ditioraal caregiver

staff would be approximately $ 5.30 mill ion per year.* However, as

indicated in Table 4, a large majority of these costs would be assu~* ledh y

a1 1 - day child care centers. While a1 1 - day chi1 d care centers . epre., esrt

approximately half of the licensed child care f a c i l i t i e s i n the !* a-!,~,

they would incur 86 percent of the total c ~ l t s rf addips a? t'iit- i{* rc? l

staff. I t is estimated that other, more specSlaiizt.^ r! cr? n%- ers w s u i r i ir.~. ur.

only 14 percent of these costs.

Sinre the licensed capacities of all- day chi14 C ? : * r , qsr : r ? ti, 5 t ~ n < i e

larger than mare special izcd centers, i t f c t. t i 1 ~ 7 ; r r'. r* f: x/ klr 4;: - f

that t. i. 1~ frjrmer would bear a 1a rger peroentc~ i - : V: v * t< . 5 e : : v ~ i :#; J

additional caregiver staff.** However, t h l " ~ Y a h s - ::" _. vi~ hflrr j , a

current yearly cost of caregiver wages i s ; akc9r, ". :. nns ; t'cw,* t i r r (

Tahie 5). I t is estimated t h a t the cost cf :: d. rr* rj7) spr i~.; r: c #:\ f$ :~" nlii;: t4 ~

fringe benefits will increase by 18.7 pek-(:(. i? i, . l i ? * aiT- prtT i i + f ; c t

1 at: i i t i c s , while only 3.2 percent for more spec i z j i,.~. q

.---. * T i l l s figure was derived by calculating a#: nut.,.- c i v ~ ~ T&~ G: I*: ~; 4 ~~? i l t ~

eaclrr renter, appiyiny that wage tc the P P & 1 3 ; 4 ? PIIIT~*~ C(:$ "

addi f. i" onal staff hours needed fur K ~ Eti. 1: \ tceL ? a; ' i: lfE . l , r k gE '

is~ ultiplyingb y 26 to generate yearly cast cLif- s+ d ! o ~ t *:$* L Y+. ~ il- " C

- 7s summed across all centers i n the study and mu; c" - ipI fee by 2,"' C i: :.%

mu1 t i pl ier was generated by dividing the total ; t , p ~ l or: 04 1 i ~ e r s c t "

ch-[ Id care facilixies ( 790) by the number s f centers incSluc+ i. d i r t our

sanrple 1267). FICA at 7.15 percent and an r ~ ~ s t t : ~ 5b t~~~ e P~ ~ ciccbrE - ~

employee related expenses were a1 sc factored into thcsc figurrs,

** 3he werage licensed capacity of all- day chl; ld cgrc c 2 r r t f i x . . i : h:-

2n contrast, the average l icensed capincf ty it:' : p-" ial4rn* C ' lr 4 : *: s: i ,-+: ( h

centers is 71.

TABLE 4

ESTIMATED YEARLY COST OF ADDING ADDITIONAL

CAREGIVER STAFF BY TYPE OF CENTER

Yearly Cost o f Percentage o f Percentaue o f All

Type o f Center Additional S t a f f Total Costs License--- d. Cente- r - s -*

All- Day Child

Care Centers $ 4,560,000 06.0% 50.2%

Special ized Chil d

Care Centers 740,000 14.0 - 49. 8

* Estimate based on percentage o f sample.

TABLE 5

INCREASE I N YEARLY CAREGIVER WAGE CCSTS

BY TYPE OF CENTER

Yearly Cost o f Current Yearly Care- Percentage

Type o f Center Additional S t a f f Giver Labor Costs

P

Increase

All- Day Child

Care Centers $ 4,560,000 $ 24,420,000 18.7%

Special ized Chil d

Care Centers 740,000 22,960,008 3.2

A l l Centers $ 5.3~ 0.000 3- 4- 7 .3-- 8 - 0- ,- OJ- Q- Q - 11.2

Fee Increases Due to Additional Caregiver Staff

Assuming that the cost of additional caregiver staff would be passed on

to parents, weekly child care fees would need to increase by an estimated

average of $ 2.91 per full- time equivalent ( FTE) child across all

centers." However, fee increases will vary greatly by type of center.

Parents placing their chil dren in for- profi t, a1 1 - day chil d care centers

would incur the largest average fee increase o f $ 4.71 per week. The

smallest average weekly fee increase of $ 1 . I1 per child FTE would be

experienced by parents using nonprofit, special izee chil d care facil i ties

( see Table 6 ) .

The fee increases presented above are average figures. The coniputer

simulation model indicates that fees for individual centers could

increase as much as $ 13.81 per full- time child. However, as shown in

Table 7, 69.4 percent of the all- day child care centers and 95.5 perc~ nt

of the more specialized centers could expect fee increases of $ 6 or less

per week. Further, the projected fee increases assume increased costs

will be passed on to consumers through fee increases on a dollar for

do1 lar basis. Some centers could conceiyably raise fees above their

actual costs and attribute i t to the regulations. On the other hand,

some centers may not pass all of the additional costs orr to parents.

Instead, they may employ other options sljch as changes in programs,

increased use of donated goods and services arisfor reductions in prsofits.

" Average weekly fee increases for each center were generated by

dividing the weekly cost of additional caregiver staff by the average

number of full - time equivalent chil dren. Chi1 d FTEs were calculated

on a nine- hour day, For the most part, child FTEs are only

appl icabl e for a1 1 - day chi 1 d care centers. However, standardizing fee

increases in this fashion permits comparisons across various types o f

child care facilities.

The calculation of average weekly fee increases also assumed that

centers were in compliance with the old, less stringent, staffing

regulations during the two week period of data collection. However,

DHS 1 icens1" trg administrators indicated that not a1 1 centers

consistently compl ied w i t h the 0' 8 d staffing requirements. Therefore,

a percentage o f the estimated costs of adding additional staff may

actually represent the cost of meeting the less stringent staffing

ratios that were in effect in October, 1986.

TABLE 6

AVERAGE WEEKLY FEE INCREASE TO COVER COST OF

ADDITIONAL CAREGIVER STAFF BY TYPE

OF CENTER AND TAX STATUS

Type o f Center

A1 1 - Day, P r o f i t

A1 1 - Day, Nonprofit

Specialized, P r o f i t

Specialized, Nonprofit

Avq. Wklv. Fee Increase

TABLE 7

WEEKLY FEE INCREASE TO COVER COST OF ADDITIONAL

CAREGIVER STAFF BY TYPE OF CENTER

Type of Center

A l l - Day Chil d Special ized Chil d

Weekly Fee Increase Care Centers Care Centers Total

$ 2 or Less 20.9% ( 28) 78.2% ( 104) 49.4% ( 132)

$ 2.01 - $ 4 27.6 ( 37) 11.3 ( 15) 19.5 ( 52)

chi- square = 90.25 gama = .779 p = . OOO

* Three all- day and one specialized centers' weekly fees would increase by

more than $ 1 0.

15

Staffing Ratios Impact On Center Capacity

I n examining the cost impact the new s t a f f i n g r a t i o s may have, the

computer simulation model also took i n t o account a center's physical

plant 1 imitations. Physical p l a n t 1 i m i t a t i o n s might 1 i m i t an

administrator's a b i l i t y t o place children i n t o smaller groups i n order to

add s t a f f i n a c o s t - e f f i c i e n t manner. ( See the Technical Appendix f o r a

detailed discussion o f the simulation model.)

A center administrator may be faced with a s i t u a t i o n i n which it i s less

c o s t l y t o lower the capacity o f c e r t a i n rooms i n the f a c i l it. y than to add

additional s t a f f . This may r e s u l t i n children being removed from the

center's r o l l s i f these rooms c o n s i s t e n t l y h o l d close t o the maximum

number o f children permitted by DHS.

Several c h i l d care administrators expressed concern t h a t l o s t revenues

from such capacity adjustments would be substantial. The simulation

reveals t h a t t h i s would not be the case ( see Table 8). Less than 21

TABLE 8

PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN DROPPED DUE TO ROOM

CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS BY TYPE OF CEUTER

T v ~ eo f Center

Percentage of All- Day Chi1 d Specialized Child

Children Dropped Care Centers Care Centers Total

No Chi1 dren Dropped 71.6% ( 96) 87.2% ( 116) 79.4"/, 212)

Less Than 1% 27.6 ( 29) 9.0 ( 12) 15.4 ( 41)

chi- square = 11.86 gamma = .433 p = .008

* Discrepancy due to rounding.

16

pc! rc~ nt ( 55) of the iic2j. ssr.! rhfld care Fac- siitier; In our :+, an? p'lc wolrld

nceti t o r! rop children : rum tnel'r roll s. Tn most instances, thew drops

repkaesent less than 1 po1+~ 2vltr; rf the averal~ e dfiiiy attendance a t tbc

i: t" ntkrs. Only 5- 3 percent of thc c, z~ t? tersw ould n w r l tc l o w e r thczir

avcragc attendance by wrcejn; ~~( 3r6!.~ O W ~ Y Wa~ l l - d a j child care

f a c i i l ' t i e s are again d%'.; pr~ pit: rtif;~ t;.: rtecp~ lr; e~ s en tcr! amrng c e ~ t e r sh avf r;! j

Zc rr'," tl70~ ceh ildren fr. nrri tfj; t~~;- t , > a

:~ ; , ti n~ q tbf* 1c rr n: $ liee ": r ; i, pacil. y ' 2: I: n: ll* p a; tt_ Zhi? cost r.!

dfiy:. : j r c d j c: ayt- c- i;~- f + . + tip ";, ctai qc~ q:: s + f mew s t a f f i r ~ ~

. s - ; ~ , i ~ ; l 4l ~ 3 " li?' t) d'!, r'f? $ 5 ,&? 5 1 . day ~ j ; jdI

% ' i d . . 1 c I - 5 I i.*:~ t* t: rj" i of these i 3 s ~ - a nd c p c j a l jzpd CQ c'

. ~ ~ D ~ T w- o" k~ 91s d ~ W I C , BI n~ i r$( raAri> : air~ gt1 4. / Ise:- rf il;~ 1 ! see i ab'i e 9 5 .

- - - - - -- - -

- t . r evefiuls r s % " 3 ~ : d~ crcases ir? ~ e n i c r capac ; ty ~, e:. r~.

~ ~ e d , e ~ r ~ Skn1. y e dm k r l ? ; z s l zc i r , ~:, he ntrmher of c h i ! rlyrr, haslars dropper1 b;.

U I.. 11 ~ i 13, This . .~?- l-. i.\: ed by d" ivr" kj8rtg thc avrrage e? r, riy tcc

:, k. iirfr" 4 by 21f-*!; j, r* hr* ci :,? rc P;? t: i9litie,; [$ 1t3,2E! P; 9 hours, P

f u l l - t i m e chah u - *.\ s ppa~~ irriatel9y hourq'; per' day a t tslese

t - 3 ~ - t i ! t i e s 3

Tb: is estimated that the cost a f child care will increase by a weekly

average of $ 3, Q1 per child FTE. Wawevel-, as noted previously, these

costs will vary by type of center ( see Table 101. Parents placing their

chl" 1dren i n for-- profl't, a1 l- day child care facil idies would experience

tho greatest average weekly increase of $ 4.83 per full- time child. The

sn~ allest increase of $ 1.19 would be encountered Ry parents using

nonprofit, specfalized child care ceatc: rs. This trdnslates into a 9.4

percent averdrje weekly fes: . irscrease for for- prsafi. 8, a1 1 - day chil d care

een LCPP,, and a 2.3 peir. cen", c: e i irareedse for ~ o u i p pi ~ d, f special ized chil s'

care

E5I" TPJF'EE t EARI- Y COST OF lkJE'M" STAFFING

kA?'" LOS BY TYPE OF CEd'TkR

V:. tv- Ty Co<; s: i3f Percentage of Percentage * a

Is, t. 2 G t Els r, tw t " - - --"" - S t. g - f f f nn R8rios - a- ---. --- . " --.- - Y- ntal Cosf" s- -- - To tal - P- o p-. ( a f

d: i 460 [, p; .- EL .: + J,.. L..

t*; \ j . y !?%.

. . - - -- -~ - . 1"'-.: .- - -. .. . 1 UC!. 0% . -- -.

i :, ~:! b?~: i;;, y ( re(?.- v {$,:~. F; ~ b t 3 ~ ;, ?: g v, j 4, f ng 6 re3 i i f i '~" Bc;,

I;-$ 1, t* w as d j f f j ( " . A/ " , PC! :" C. arjx" fa:+ dZj P week'iy

~ censed ch? l b care % en. ters. Special i zed el:! i l r*

a? g duration and Freqiiacticy. A s o , as z's the case

graris are entirely frrndccl t h r c ~ ~ ta~ xh revenues

ajarerlts. Therefore, Wradittjr Gcrseral s t a f f decided

weekly fee charged by ell- day c h i l d care r: entea. s i n

TABLE 10

AVERAGE WEEKLY FEE INCREASE TO COVER COST OF

NEW STAFFING RATIOS BY TYPE OF

CENTER AND TAX STATUS

Cost o f Cost o f Average Pct. Avg.

- T y- p- - - o --- f.- Cen- ter Additional + Dropped = Weekly Fee Wkly. Fee

-- S t a f f i n g - C..-- h- ildren -- I ncrease - Incr ease

All- Day, P r o f i t $ 4.71 $. I2 $ 4,83 9.4%

A l l - Day, Wonprof i t 3.63 .06 3.69 7.2

Special ired, P r o f i t 2.06 . I3 2.19 4,3

Specialized, Nonprofit 1 . I1 .08 1.19 2.3

TABLE 11

WEEKLY FEE INCREASE TO COVER COST GF NEW

STAFFING RATIOS BY TYPE OF CENTER

Typh - o - f -- - Cen- t- e - r

A? 1 - Day Chi1 d

- t- d- e- c-- s- k l y --- F--- e e Tncr. e; ls- e - - - C-- are Centers >----

( pet) ( n=)

$ 2 or Less 19.4% ( 2 6 )

$ 1.01 - $ 4 26.1 ( 35)

$ 4,09 - $ 6 20.9 ( 28)

$ 6. C87 - $ 8 263.9 628)

$ S. SC - $ 14 12.7 ( 7 7 )

----- --."-

- 1- Q - O- h) 0%- ( 1341-

Specialized Child

Care Grnt-- e-- r rs

( pet) h= f

76.7% 1102)

52.0 ( 16)

6.0 ( 8)

3.0 ( 4 j

2.3 ( 3 1

--- ---

- 10- 0.0-% ( 133)-

Total

( pet) ( n= l

47.9% ( 128)

19.1 ( 51)

13.5 ( 36)

2 . 0 ( 32)

7.5 ( 20)"

-.----

- 7 00.0% -( 267-- 1 .

chi - square 91 . I1 gamma = - 773 p = r0140

* Tlllree a1 l - day artd arre special ized centers " weekly fees woul d increase hey

nore than $ 10

- O--- T- HER QUESTIONS

In addition to the staffr/ child ratios and the a s s ~ r f a t e dc ost impact, thc

Lcgisl ativc Child Care Study Cosrrmi; ttee requ~ stey:' other a'rrfnrnlatior o?:

related areas. Phis sectiorl will a6da.- cqs thosc qurt, tl'c\ ns tc thc e x t e ~ vla t

were able to obtain information within Shc t5mc constraints given.

1. Mhat w i l l be the cost imi~ r- acto n c hl ~ d cai-. i dPr ~ t ~ r : ? iiow rnany {: erdriSs

would likely be fcrced to clusc. dime t o dFcreGlc; ed costs or dccliniu .:

enrol lments?

To deter~ ine whethcv. the regulations may resnl t I F tE; c cluc, ts~ e o f center-

\. rould reqrajre a study a; 4 tkic curren. t t3t. trfitah1: T ~ t yan d $ 0 1 vc: rar, j r j f thtj

centers. Be t a i l e d reverlue and exper;.;! i. trxyy; jnt or~~ rs- 5iopf or each cpr; Tc r

~ douldb e necded t o assess ti:^ jrnrr~ ct of the -~~ c~. Q~,' cB6s) sP-+ t~ . SLBC~ a: s" rrc4Y

woul d be d i f f i c u l t because of : i 1 1 l" fin., 3rlsi stenc ics Ehrclucbtrut teir (,& I 1 3 *:

care industry ir, cost vdriahles such as f r r e 0: v ~ d u c cr~ en t give" sorer

cent,@ rrs, the use a f donated Sahor a ~ dma terials ?; y : GFP c e n t ~ r s , v a t y l ; - 4

costs lor differe~ ta ce2 el ch: lt41- en, an0 2la" fr" ere~ rcxZ X , j ~ : ~ , ~ g r a ~( 9; :, t. f"

1a ck of a s t a ~ ~ d a r c i i i ~ a. r; c::~ a: lntin! r sys t- rr am: r r ~~ : r r " t t ; a *, igtti* t ? ) i:,:. E? G

for a f u l l y c d . 9 G C ~ J .

2. What w i l l be tiis.. cost impact 0x7 Tire Depar?-, mkln", of I t - * " . ~ ? ; 7 l i j " r iSj ~~ ? j : i i r i f j

IDES)"?

DEZ prosram el i g i b i i i t y r.~ qsircmlunts ;,!~ d suus;: - 1) sr:; ourzl, s , lrr a, ot direr. 1 ! t;

tied Lo the Depak- tment o f Health S e r v - i c ~ s ( 17 I S ) 1 Y ceqs I I: O ~ ~ q i ~ f r ~ P. f i i ~ ? :

------ * DES assists low ; ~ c o a x ~ Fa ntl" 1jes ws'th day-*:~ PC ~ ~ " ~ ? P P ~ S I \ TSh, c i l c 1 P ~ j - 8 .

subsidy FrcrgraK meet", tka? greed5 of t a ~ l ? i ' es tabe;:? * i l , c ; + v : alt. i s nc - gi +~: trr

than 65 perccnt 6 - Statc raedian i n c o r ~ ~ E +,..+ . - u. ns r > r t - i i

assistance tssed or? e s f i d i n 9 scale sc hesfulc ;; rrju" t:' i ~ Q P: otk : 2 t - 3 ~ p iu- i-and

family s f z t , Crirarently, % be maximum amczu~ t r; lsyabic is $ 9- 56 for ;?

ten- hour' day,. Sf n: aa these f?" xed amouarb are n ~ .; tire : ; y t i e > t q J

fees charged b j Sndii! idual centers, many s u b s i d i ~ e e if am~ 1 f es must pa?

a pcrtion sf their child care costs.

Therefore, the new rules and regulations will not affect the DES subsidy

program unless DES or the Legislature chooses to revise eligibility

requirements or to increase the sliding scale payment schedule.

Through combined State and Federal funds, the 1986- 87 day- care subsidy

budget i s approximately $ 18.6 mil 1 ion. These monies subsidize chi1 d care

services for eligible recipients i n DHS licensed child care centers and

DES certified homes. Approximately $ 13 million ( 72 percent) of this

budget will be paid to DHS 1 icensed child care f a c i l i t i e s to which the new

regulations apply.

We were unable to obtain from DES or determine from data collected during

our study the percentage of total day- care revenues paid by the DES

subsidy program. Theretore, we asked the centers in our study to estimate

the percentage of their revenues received from DES. Based on the centers'

estimates, if DES were to maintain i t s current percentage of payments it

would have to increase i t s subsidy budget by an estimated $ 1.4 mill ion per

year to cover the increased cost ot the new stattlng regulations without

changing el igibil i ty requirements.* This represents a 7.5 percent

increase over the e n t ~ r e1 986- 81 day- care subsidy b~~ dgeatn d a 10.8

percent increase over the amount paid for child care at DHS licensed

f a c i l i t i e s .

3. What will be the cost impact on DHS to implement and enforce neb

regulations? Will they require more staff and more State

appropriations?

We did not determine a cost impact to DHS resulting from the new

regulations. However, i t i s anticipated that 1 icensing specialist

functions will expand and currently heavy caseloads w i l l continue t o

greatly exceed recommended 1 eve1 s.

* All centers included i n the study provided information as to the

percentage of their revenues pravided by DES child care subsidies.

Each center's total yearly cost to meet the new staffing re~ ulations

were then multiplied by the estimated percentage t o obtain DES'

portion of the costs per center. These figures were then summed

across all centers and multiplied by 2.96.

The nckz regulations require the centers t o keep * fore irlfornrat~ on than i r

trre past. Therefore, the I c n q t h o i inspections ma: incredse because of

the addl t1onaI time needed t a 1 ~ v 7 c w cpr; tpr files. In a d ( { i L i ~ ~ , f f c

inspection a c t i v i t i e s , I icensing yersonnel f o r ~ s c e that t. hc" y wl: l I be

provid~ n g techt- 1ca l support and tvd: n a nq tn ccntcrs needl ng ass1 stanrc I t7

understanding ar~ d complying k i l i t h ti?^ wXi;: Y" C : jill a ti ? nr.

A l thougfi; regulatory ac" i 21 t lrs Ilia> i: arrf* zhrT L e c c o s i n ~ spcc~ ar- tsls'

cascloads w i i 1 remain th? same, [ I[!"; a y h. 3~ ~ ~ n1 - iec ~ n ~ l ~ t ~

specla1 i t s I rjcated sn P l ~ ~ ex r ja~ nd Tut: qiil tf i nt~ pccl: the / YO I lcr- lnsr\:+

chi1d care centers thrr~!! grtout thc 31- at^, M i c r t r ~? ;. h. addl t10n ot one nor:

errrpl oyee 7t- i Dccernbcr f 9116, Utl', pcrscnnr. 1 arltr c" l pa r :? Wat 1 u c s o ~ case I cs: 3s

wil l remain the Eiilnle, a t BC! centers pi r sgi-;: 4affst, and the Phr? mrx

caseloacts wil i dcr- rease fron; 125 cen terc- :, r; ap(, r. cr; r;~ atery 10U centtrs I X ~

special i ST.

Heavy case1 oads may r? ccrease DftSi abi I i * y t o ensure regu? a* 1' 1'$

conrpl7; anr: e. Ebationai aurbsrj t i e s rei" oTliners" a cdsrain3d 05 4: l centers [ ~ ' 3 "

year per s p c e ~ a 9 s t . olir : 3+ bifjl? 9i, S O ~ * ~ F P I ca re ~ P C P V I ~ + P ! ~ ,

quest~ oneri. w ksetii~ t* p~: q ~ ~ abl~ P j 3 n c q ~ l ~ I r ' i ~ ~ l ~ ~ z '^ &; f ~ e ~- uf f j~ Tent tf) l PYE!.!' * c)

compliance wISGI ~ i~ rpe~$ 7:,~ tS . ~ / C * ; IF I rP3t! c5 dri ' twr regw l a t i o n s , Waby

easel o a d ~ a nd l imiied n~ inik~ eks ! Insi~ ecrr i a i t . ; r s t ? nue b r i t h th.:. rip!

reqrs i d t+ ilns.

4, If c i ~ s t sS rc: sme prr3lrll. l: t- 1 % G far 423re!; tc P!::,,?. m i p h t ke 5 0 ~ 1cf~ ~ F ? F

conset: gent e; 7

d 1 increase rr r~~ rvheurf ' 2 dtcl- 1- key c h l~ O w n ?

e ) iiiCY* PaSF jfi chi1t j abt~ se ana neglect; ~ ~ S PpfSac;~ lq; l a qrc~:.,$.,~?

dc~& sj< 5j! i ch a ' i $ 3 &) rc" r~ VtF? 5 r ~ r vCi C ~ ?

To determine the f e a s i b i 1 i ty o f addressing quest1 ons re1 8ted t o c l i e n t

behavior, we contacted professors o t p o l i c y analysis a t Arizona State

University and the U n i v e r s ~ t y o f Arizona. They concluded that these

questions cannot be answered wjthout extensive research conducted over

time, and even then the r e s u l t s may be speculative,

The d i f f i c u l t y i n determining the e f f e c t o f the new regulations on c l i e n t

behavior i s is01 a t i n g the various factors a f t e c t i n g behavior. For

example, t o determine how many parents would leave the work force becau5e

they could no longer a f f o r d c h i l d care would require the researcher La

control f o r other c o n t r i b u t i n g causes such as worker d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n .

This would be impossible without extens~ ve surveys or s i m i l a r dat8

col 1 ected over time.

INTRODUCTION

This appendix describes the methodological design and procedures used to

develop the cost impact figures detailed i n the body o f the report.

EEVIEW OF PRIOR STUDIES

Auditor General staff began the research project by reviewing prior

studies on the cost o f day- care, especially thare studies t h a t

concentrated on chil(?/ staff ratios, A major work in this area was

completed in 1979 by Abt Associates. Pub1 i'she4 in several volu~ es, the

report provided important background infoinma:: ion cn the vurnereus factors

involved in assessing day- care costs. A later study, conducte4 by t h e

North Carolina Department o f Administration ( 19831, uses another approach

to ascertain the costs of child care for that state. Both prior stueies

structurzd the research around different questions and environments

specific to those studies. Therefore. i t was not feasible t o replicate

eitlier one for Arizona.

Two studies specific to ck3a" ld care costs i n Prizuna were completed ant

provided insight into the types sf prohlems Auditor General staff could

expect to encounter. The Department of Economic: Securlty ( DES) conducted

a study in 1980 of child care centers that had financial agreements with

DES, in order to determir~ e the cost of child care ir! those centers. DES

needed this information to ascertain the amount, of the subsidies they

woul d pay to ecanomical ly disadvantaged working parents. Later

adjustments in subsidy levels were nade in proportion to increases i n the

cost of living, rather than based on new cost data collected from the

centers. Since DES has financial agreements w i t h approximately half of

the child care centers in Arizona, the sample was representative of DES

csnters b u t did not reflect. the entire population of ch- ilc! care centers.

The Department of Heal t a Services ( DHS) and DES began a pi l o t study of 14

child care centers in February 1986, to assess the impact and cost of the

1985 task farce recommendations. The p i 1 ct test revealed several

ol.+ stacler t o preseatislg valid costs t o the State. Most important was the

lack of standardized accounting practices among the centers. PHS visi1: cd

the pilot centers to help them set up standardized accciunting systems i n

order to answer the questionnaire. They then sent the p r e t e ~ t e ( ~

questionnaire to all 787 licensed child care centers in operatior1 at t h a t

time. Only 75 centers returned questa' onnai yes that contained usabl e cost

and census data. An independent pub1 ic accounting firm hired by DHS to

validate the data determined that the information could not be \ ial idaweti

and, therefore, no inferences or conclusions could be drawn from the data,

INDUSTRY INPUT

Since response rates from child care centers in bath prior studies were

low and threatened the inferential value cf the research results, Auditor

General staff arranged meetings with rcpre- sentatives of the child r3re

industry for their advice on technical factors t o be considered ira the

study and on how t o increase participation i n the present research

effort. Separate meetings were he1 d in Sefltember with individual s v bcl

supported the new regael~ it ~ n b a ne i neividval s siho oppi~ sed t h ~ ' FIPL

regulations. There were thrw S'or~ al mretl; rcgr; i t r f i l r a Cd3fr7 i : ~ 1 1 ~ c t i ~ r l

actual ly henan. TKQ of kine r; rtct i 32s weri: rid; t it tc j c i 1 i r ~ f ! l ~ t : + r ~

opinions and s~ gge:~, tinnsb efore . the: research d;- sit;* f W ~ Sf ~ ~ i ! i kaj tl e +. r'jrlcr

thest- i was 14- i t h p~*/>) por~- eontf~ thr En; rw 1c' 3rp5 j: t: jo~ ts .;? n*:~' C~ nr ,; as wit19

opponer~ ts. A th- it- d formal meeting cnmhin~ d hotk thesc grok~ ps tc / IS~!: I; P~+.

the research rksi gn for final review. There k . r ' r c ' 41 ~ tc nermerous informal

meetings i n Phoeriix ~ n dTu cson w i t h bcth ~ Y C I U ~ ~ : . l nput was encordrapecl

fror the centers and two- way cornn~ ut~ icibtiorse ntnl" n; ld cprn over rkie course

of thc entire studdye When part- icular questions or issucz erner qet? . I- h? f

caul d be better. answered by tirose with expclnicrir. i: i n the I nc" cr?; r; trjt,

tel ephon~ m i ni- surveys were cc! ndi; ctesl. Care was taieerr to i ncl crde Phors

wlac supported and thcse wt~ e opposed the riew ~ ~ . q u S a t i o n s . E x c ~ u ~ ? th~ e~ ]

actual data collectioili efforts, well over a hundred contacts were mad(>

w i t h industry members, representing bottz opgosaerlts and proponents of t k i ~

regulations. In ar? ld. ition t o t h i s industry i n p u t , approximately 78

meetings were held w i t h officials of DHS and DES f ~ rthe - ir technical

advice in developing the research design.

The f i r s t requirement that child care officials f e l t ~ u s tbe met was that

the paperwork burden of any study he rc: asenaSle for center operators.

Both groups of representatives suggc.; ted additional factors that needed t o

be considered.

1. Inherent differences between prsfie and nonprofit centers

2. Differences irr centers located i n uariobs parts o f the state

3. Size of centers based on their l - ic. enseal r d p d ~ ' j t y

4. Physical plant ' limitations of cerrters i n terms of legally mandated

appurtenances and square foot renuire!~ crts for different age groups

5 . The dynamic nature o f childl'staff rati; jz 6uring a c! ay

6, Appropriate time frarrles f o r col l c c t i nc t b t a

7. Impact. o f accepting DES subsidized h: hf; lfdren when attendance rathcr

than enrollment i s reimbursed

8. Separation of fixed versus variable cagts

9 Variance among ccnzers i n wages for caregivers

10. E f f e c t o f donated goods and service% * O a r: e? lterk serpectecc c ~ s t

l" acreases

A1 though technical resear- el: questions coul d be answered by Auditor GcrrevciS

method01 ogi sds, eei- tai n deci sion rul ~ s were better deci dec! by those vi t h

child care experience, advice was uffcred by and sought from both

proponents and opponents of the new regulaticns.

RESEARCH DESIGN

rosearr, h design for det~ rmiili: tg the cost o f chdn9es i n child/ stzff

ratios was buil t around a computer si! rrul ation m t r d ~ l which integrate$

chi l drerr ' s attendance, caregl" ver time records, the new chi 1 dlstaff ratios

for each age category, a d a center's physical plant 1 imitations for eacn

room in the f a c i l i ty. The resul ts of the simrrl ati on model coul d then be

analyzed in terms sf other variables such as size o f the center, its

Tocat. jc~ n, profit or nonprofit status, wages paid Ijy the center, whether

the center & as a preschool or day care center, etc.

Inherent i n the research design i s the assiirnption t h a t the costs o f

imp1 ementing the neh caregiver s t a f f i n g regulatiorrs wif 1 be passed an to

the users of c h i l d care. Altho% rgh there my be other options available

f o r dealing with the increazed costs, Auditor Genera7 s t a f f did not

attempt t o address the v a r i e t y o f V M ~ S cersters would react t o increased

costs. These coul d p o t e n t i a l l y incl uaic c u t t i n g programs or p r o f i t s ,

generating a d d i t i o n a l sources o f revenue, i~ r: rsasing the use o f donated

goods and services, etc,

The computer s- imulation modeling began by deke~";:! 8874) 1g the number o f d i r e c t

caregiver s t a f f required For each i n d i v i d u a l cerntcr a t any given ane- ha1 f

hour time increment. This fjgurc was dejje/ rld~ nt on the number and age

riistrs'laution o f c h i l d r e n present a t a S ~ V P Pc~) rii"- haif hour time increryent,

the neb chi3dJstaf. f rat'ins f o r those aqes, I.~; K! paysicti1 plant 1 i m i t a t i o n s

t h a t could impact the implementation o f thess. new r a t i ~ s . ill center's

ph) sic, jT p l a n t tliight 1 i m i t ~ p e r ~ l t o rh- sa t, ^ i i i i c s ti, break chi l d r c ~ i ~ t o

in? r, lSe. r groups arid add s t a f f j n 3 co5- t - r f f i c i e ? r a t fashion. 1- icmsc

y r i f ~ i j : ~ l j cf a :: Enter i s basecl 017 d ~ t a r i l ; r > r . ' ~ ;: pcr~" ldin$ j 3 ' sqllarP f r ~ kfr k

&,: hi ki $ nfant t0rk~ jf. r>~:, ti * r" : sejuarf fprr tp-. v7 : rE. T; lf ir" t? rt rld (? r f him that-,

liia. r_ v r. npns irr . I ecn! rtlr !; ss d ] i n i f i c ; r ! ' l i c c p s ~ 4 s c f t y t! i? f- PSUCICC" tfi bc

: ; j e ~ c ~ ci n* t~ f ; + f ~ ta + > : a i ~ + t r ~ o t i Y : l t : : + ~ ? ; j b i n 2 rv - 5% '.,*? r, b. \ dofL: dfng iF c h i 1d rer

: CIF:! d 1 ; ~ kp fikeii <: It o sn;, i? l: i.. ilr: ru:? s t.;~ Y ~ a j " ~ : ; .~: I ~ , q ~ c t f~ t s f - f ; n gr a t i o s ,

. r , ~ Y ; ~ u z * ifcrvir C~ +! I(- S~ RU'd! ! l::~ 3 gpc:, dpi r i d i ~ o ta 134 addl t i o n a l

s? zf l l l e - ; ~ lr W: S CLS~- bilticie- rrtto r: c 46, [. OK" , fkp new

@( iiSldt'; daff i- aifr3 fnu ; i-" i o 5- year-. uitl ci?. ildrew i s 13 to 8 . If the yoom

ksif; ilizf: d for* 7, kl" w ; 39e5 had a row capacity o; 15, i t would not be

c. 1 2?- efficic3nP fat- a Lznrer. adnlinistt'ator to f i l l thp: r* oom t o capacity.

Ill JI,!; srj bu'ould : itlcessi tctf e hir. ir- ng a segcond F'P fc: r** r? t? fizr tii? i) chi1 C I ~ Q P ,

Fhr'c; secor~ tf s t a t f perror; woul;! br rcclil~ red s: rrc" er t h e new r a t i o s because

t h a a nurnE.: er c; f s hildren cawd for i, y rmtg s t h : f ; ~ e r s ~ i5j; ~ 7~ l'm iLlc; rl t o I d ,

The c o s t in ~ l j d g ~ osf acfdirg tt. 1 i x nrin?- cii: nall s t ~ E f p i. a- inn w ~ ) ~ di l rat be

i. I : by t: hc v ~ v c r u e obta6r; ed i r r ~ a - 4 - i t k 4 t CPS f~::* caring for* tbc.

addi- tional two LI~$ du'l. e n. Ir-, pilt: from Lb, i \ li d t ; i n i r ; isf. r. ator. s suggcr* trP

t ltrii t i l e \ cost t 3 f ,* ddfrit~ ad?: f;. ional stat-; . n, ? I I;: isz tllc. ciajnr i f y of c d g r " s .

PC o: f s c t by +. he f ces o" i'~ ppr,, x: matrl:/ I f f- - - 4 ; 1 ** rcr ( tfepens? in:?. cn

t E CF 1- ft? s t a f f ( ridded). b d t l j t ? : ~ > ~ " 3 ~ i ? ~ ~ - ; ~ ' * : ~ j tc:~ ~~ t sJ P [ ihr

! la.:& i~, I" t ~ : j b $ r] j tje . . . &;. I<

a?: riit:#~ nal " s i f f c~ 3cy. s t h s a ~ w ar a r9tr3n$,* 1~ i: ~ rldrpjrl S S S I E C ~ FJC~!

P i ti1 f , i - ~ i ~ act l'cin,

number of children the center needed to drop. Tksus, these children were

not included in determining the number of direct care staff a center

needed to add to be i n compliance w i t h the new staffing regulations.

However, lost revenues from children dropped in the simulation were

generated and included i n the overal! cost of impleinenting the new

chi1 d/ staff ratios.

The result of the computer simulation model, then, was a determination for

each individual center of the number of children who had t~ be dropped and

the number of staff who needed t o be added t o meet the new staffing

ratios. These figures ref1 ected considerations of the cost efficiency o f

adding additional staff or dropping chi1 dren, given the physical pl ant

1 imitations of a center. The figures also factored i n a profitable paint

for adding staff.

The cost of additional caregiver staff was determined by using each

center ' s average hourly caregiver wage and rnul tiplying the number o f staff

!? ouvs t~ oedeci to incct the new regulations by t h a t c~ arter's average wage.

A11 the c e n t e r s h c s t s hrsre then summed t. 8 obta- ir; ~ s. timatcr of additional

cdregiver wages fcr ccnters included in the sample. This fiourt was

mumltiplied hy 2.96 S" 61/ 798) t o project the ccst cstimate o f adding s t a f f

f o r the pspul atifir) of 1 Scecs~ d day- care facil i t i c f i:? Prizona.

l o t i- cvcnl; r\ s due t r j ciroppcd chi i drcr! were c i .: ter wined i n a sl ipi- itly

rii f f c pent n- annor-, A centf- r's fees are basef: ( tn '; r'tter31 factors ir; cl uding

a bf a child, intilti~ lti. childrfiv i!~ scour!. lt. s, types o f programs, anal

ri13"; i; rari 1 ~ ~ i g t h . Tlnese tend tr vary b j type o f center. Specific

t: k?- o'i ? mcnh fees coer7d aactt be used because t h ~ y dc not reflect sl'niilar

t, 5arwisr3s dt3Y'o~ S3 1.1 i e ~ k , ~ i' n" ~ tb le sample, fort^! last rs- tvcrrucs cabld f r t

c : ~ ~ , ? ~ ! ! at i~~ t~ a, n ~ ~ ~ r l r dr! aii'zF~~{ d f ee per chi1d ncf; fiee; $ 0 beq generated.

Ataditor Genere1 s t a t i der i d ~ dt o compute an aver9age da+ ly fee for a l l - day

child cart centel s t810.28) and use this figure t o determine lost

rcucnucs. Last rpvenucs estimates were obtained for a77 centers in the

sample using this standab- dized fee and mu% tiplyin!: the number o f FTE

chi1 dren needed t o be droppcc- to meet new regul ataons. These figures were

summcsd across centers and ~! edlliplic. d by %, 96 to project the cost estimate

of dropping chi1 dren for the papril a t ion of 1 icerrsec! day- care facil i t i e s in

Arizona .

Incorporating the suggestrons from the child rare cperators, the sample

was s t r a t i f i c d on s~ vev. al characteri % tics.

2. Geographical regions

3. Sire ( i - e . , licensed i; apacit% y of the Fa4; ilit. y)

Sample size wsls deterrrained u s i ~ gth e ger1efbI ly cccepted canf idence 1e arel

of 95 percent ( N r i g h t . 7985) wizr: a re1 i a b i 1 i ty factor of plus or mi nus :' 3

pere: CP. An algari tha f r ~ a m CI jrr~ ar~ mlo f salnpl - iris wethods [ Lakner, 1976)

out1 ined the praccdure for ascertaining thc n. nmber needed, Tkis i s

s511ii jar : 17 the 115tld1 ti, t" m~ ifa~ fr~ r d ~ t e riri'l a'$ &~"- aEIpjf' rize found I n

standdr- d ~ t a t ; ~ t i c ; li, z! r n ~ ai i tg basks ( Schaeffeu 6 l - t a ., 197S, pase 42).

Sample size! detesminal~ on reqtlf1p. 9~ kk: o~' I: c:= ig@? i* 2fn estimations of the

population size, medn and waridr; ce, I n : has czzc, ea% a for the algorithm

were bbelsed on " ce DDllS study mentioned cd~ lrP$ cr, Through use of the

algor, Ethm and data, = it w s determinet4 ?; hat the appr? i2riare sample size was

295, w i t h a confidence leve3 of 9S percpgir, arid error o f plus or minus 3

ye.. rcent. Giscussi~ r: wcas held kith a sampling special t'st from the Survey

RewarcR Laboratcry, Arizona S t a h ~ h3jverajit y, which resulted i n a

procc! dure f o r f o r ~ ~ ~ l a t i oont a ~~ ystern~ triacn dom selection o f the

stra~ iffed units i n Mai- icopa and P i m ccunties, ? kp entire population of

Maricopa and Pima c h i l d ciare centers m s used ? s our ~~ rbaanr ea sampling

f riame.

were identified, Several clusters of centers were evident, w i t h the

remaining child care centers being widely dispersed. I t was decided t o

concentrate on the centers in four clust~ red areas rather than include

dispersed child care centers, due to the difficulty of travel, inefficient

use of s t a f f , and excessive demands o f time that would be required. The

geographic clusters were selected on the foll swing c r i t e r i a .

1. They represented d i f f e r e n t regions o f ~ ! ~ c ? S. tate.

2. They represented regions of d. i f f e r i n ? , nzeroeconomic and social

structures.

A1 1 child c a w centers in a cluster were included i n the study.

Following are the areas that were sclerked for the four clusters.

Information about the ~ o u ~ l i t i ewsa s tako~? f rom Brizona ' s Changing Fconomy :

Trends arid Prospects ( Arironc3. Dr- oartr;~ enlc; f Ccr~~ m~ rc1e9,8 6 1.

1. Y~ ikapai/ Cnccn? n@ Lritrnt- v - ,:! I , ires ? hct has tourism, forestry and

m ? r i ~ i i j c tr:~ g r ~ as i t s ~ r r q l : ] ccnnr- ii: ir basr;., a1 osq w i t h government and

Ijraivfrsi t y f: a: cs.

3, Coc. lrlis~ CQ) LII:~ J -- d r t A a i ~ ~ : ~ ~ r ? ( , kt ~ r i r c ir tdustries and kligh

uncnepl syci? r3nk.

3. I L~ rir1. t.: - , , 2: t k 2 ' I IcC~ C:: ty c . ec. or; omfes such as

( 7' y- ic~ t.? u. :\: I d- ci: f" l SF, ~ i'iitbir r'hli I tat1 t w : ~ B F !~ r.~ mep? f; 5 mcnt durfng slow

SPaSonS *

4. Mohave Courity - a1 LC l ~@ r> cehd, y ~ O E : Y;< ; aq % ttr l $ 8 5 i: h manufacturing and

Ill' c! R growth c3vi c; titqC.

t3euallsr t>- f b: arfi; n!: s + Q ; r i ~~ e ! l t f : ~ - k i , ? i l d n( if ;"~:~ p, ns~ vgt o the stuay and

~ ~ y);? ;~ ~ y~ 74-- f ! ph ~> j$-, i f-~+ j~ l o . n c r a b ; b 3 f f I - A; L: r; i ld 3 3 over~ sample and

" a_ fll; rjYT SCI f ~ ' l t z . r x , c ; i r s t , ; , c c;~ az, r~? o- vi,' j~:, fr." oinn ! be st(,! 4i4/. The f~ llowirrg

breriktil, w~ dc$ t. rqit p~:, . j: c. jrajLPfc'al .!' striLra". ierl ~~ 4 the . popml ation and

th;: sarnpie

1 a The ?- o% aT r? c: pu3$ ra" o~ c f c h i l d enrse ccnters 7" n outlying counties is

3 P 2 , or 23 : < - ? nt: st a1 1 chi 1 d ,, are ccrters, The sampl e i ncl uded 76,

or 24 p e ~ , * c w ~ ~

2. The total population of chi1 d care centers in Maricopa County is 431 ,

or 55 percent. The sample selected 174, or 54 percent.

3. The total pop~ llation of child care centers in Pima County i s 177, ( $ 1

22 percent. The sample selected 77, or 22 percent.

Despite the warnings about lack of cooperaticn, centc: rs were both

cooperative and conscientious in their data col Iectian efforts. Twn

hundred sevcnt. y- six centers ( 94 percent of the required s a ~ p l e size or 86

percent o f the oversample) agreed to participate a'rr the study. Nine

ccntel.~ were dropped because of unreliable or missing data, makina thc

final sample for analysis 267 ( 91 percent of the required samplc size or

83 percent of the oversample). Results of thu's sarr~ ple are sufficierit for

valid inferences to the population of child care centers in Arizona. ( See

Babbie, 1985, for a d- iscussicn e f adequate response rates for inferentfal

purposes. )

I ! ISTRllblENT DEVELOPMENT -.-- --" - -- -- 7

With advice frcm D M , EES and representat. ives of the child care industry,

drafts of data collectien instruments were prepared. The drafts were

reviewed by DEiS and DES. Firla1 drafts were produced and a. joint meeting

was arranged with Auditor General staff and both the proponents and

oPporlents of the regulations. The purpose o f the n: eeting was to explain

the research design, pretest the data collect= ia~ instruments, and s o l i c i t

final comments before presentation Lo the sample of centers.

! 4ost o f the suggestions were i neorporated into the fol l owing forms, which

were aerninistered to the centers.

1 . Survey Questionnaire asked basic information about hours of operatian,

fees, employee benefits, danatSons, and other demographic information

about thc center,

L , Cost Irripact Survey Questisnniiire requested information about certsirl

revenues for t h c~ en ter.

. Caregiver Wage Rate Form asked for information about each employee's

education, experience, hourly wage rate, and the estimated number of

hours worked each week.

4. Daily Child Attendance Roster was a log of each child's age, time i n

and time out of the center.

5. Daily Time Record for Caregivers was a log of the hours worked at

direct care for children i n half- hour increments over a 24- hour day.

Caregivers were also noted as volunteer or paid staff.

( See Appendix I1 for data collection forms. )

DATA COLLECTION

Letters were mailed to child care centers explaining the purpose of the

study and requesting their participation. Centers were then telephoned by

Auditor General staff to ascertain their participation. Data col 1 ecti on

began in October and took approximately four weeks t o complete. According

to child care operators, October was a good month for the two- week s t ~ ~ d y

for several reasons. I t represented a time of most normal operation in

that summer vacations were over, school was in sess. l" on, no major holidays

occurred ( Columbus Day was not considered a major holiday by industry

representatives b, there were no spring vacations, and overall there were

no reasons to suspect any major disruptions in either child or staff

attendance. Two weeks was considered by child care industry

representatives an adequate time frame for collecting the data. A lonaer

time frame waul d impose major burdens on centers and, consequently, would

threaten the quality of data and the willingness of centers t o

participate. Auditor General staff attended in- huse training sessions

explaining the research design and instructions for f i l l i n g out the

fornls. Each center in the sample was assigned an Auditcr Gcneral staft

member to help them i n answering questions and collecting data.

The f i r s t week ( October 5- 11) served as an introductory week i n \ vhich

Auditor General staff met with center personnel, toured their assigned

centers, and explained the study and forms to center administrators.

Survey and Cost Impact Questionnaires and Caregiver Wage Forms were

started a t this time.

The second week ( October 13- 18) was the s t a r t of daily data collection of

Child Attendance Rosters and Time Records for Caregivers. Staff visited

a1 1 the centers i n the f i r s t two days to ensure proper recording by the

centers.

The third week ( October 19- 25) continued daily data collection. Spot

checks of the preceding weeks' forms were conducted, along w i t h continued

visits to the centers for assistance if needed.

The fourth week ( October 26- 27) included final visits and collection of

all outstanding data forms. Because of the Columbus Day holiday, an extra

day's data was collected. This was done because two full weeks of normal

working days' data were desired.

After the data collectian phase was completed, November was spent

verifying information, collecting missing foo-~ s, researchinp incomplete

forms, and entering data from the centers i n t o cnnlputer files. Once the

data were entered, further checking of contputer printouts was conducted

for internal consistency of information and verification of out- of- range

values. Considerable time was spent on this data cleaning phase. The

various data files contained more than 225,000 records. Nine centers had

to be excluded from the study because of unreliable data, making the final

number of cases for the analysis 267.

ANALYSIS

Data analysis began i n December. The goal of data csllection was to

capture caregiver staff and chi1 d attendance during a two- week timeframe.

Because of the hourly variance i n attendance a t centers over the course o f

a day, a single measurement taken a t one point in the day would not

accurately reflect the dynamic nature of either children or staff present

a t the center. Therefore, after discussion with child care operators,

child attendance by age and the number of staff providing direct care ta

these children were measured in half- hour periods over the course of 2

24- hour day. If administrative or support staff filled in for caregivers

for certain half- hour periods during the day, they were noted as

caregivers for that ha1 f- hour. Thus, a more accurate measure of

chi1 d/ staff ratios was possible.

The unit of analysis for the study was the individual child care center,

Since there are different staffing requirements for different age

categories, the computer analysis sorted the children at a center into

separate age groups and assessed the total number of staff that would he

required for that center to meet new ratios. This was done for each

half- hour period over the 14- day timeframe.

The simulation then compared the nu~ ber o f staff needed t o the actual

total number of caregiving staff at the center for those sarna time

periods. Because of the difficulty in collecting and verifying data orr

which staff were w i t h which age groups each half- hour, we assumed t h a t if

the total number o f staff actually providing direct care t o children at

t h a t time was adequate t o meet the new regulations, the management of the

center would assign t h o s ~ staff iin compliance w i t h the regulations For

each age group, rather than overstaff for one age group and understaff for

another. While there may be instances when that mfgtit not be Triacl, wf:

expect that in the majority of cases our assumption would hold.

IW es~ ttl s of the cotnpwter simulation rr~ odelis are presented i n the report,

beginning with pagc 9. )

REFERENCES

Abt Associates, Children aP the Cent- er: Final Report of the National Day .-------- P--.--------- -

-- C- are Study ( 1979). Cambridge, Abt Associates.

Arizona Department of Commerce, Arizona's C h a n q 9 ------ Economy: Trends and

- P-- r ospects ( 1986). Phoenix, A%: Commerce Prcss.

Arizona Department of Ecsnomic Security, ' 7190 Child Care Cost Survey"

( 1980).

Arizona Department of Health Services and Arizona Department of Economic

Security, ' TChiSd Day Care Cost Study" ( 1 986 1.

Babbie, Earl, - S--- ocial- - R - es- e- a r - ch f- o- r - t - h- e- Gonsurn- e-~ ( 1985). Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth Pub1 i shi ng C~ rnpa0. y~ i n ~ .

Lakner, Edward, " A F- l- d- n- u -- a- l of S t a t i s t i c a l S-- a-- m--- g-'- t- i- n-:- Pcthods for Correctional

Planners { ' 1 9 7 6 ) , Crbana- Champaign, I b : kl~ fvet- sity s f I l l i n o i s Press. -.--- -

North Carolina Department o f Administration, " Nartb Carolina Day Care Cost

Study: Final Report" ( 7 ( 1983).

Scheaffer, Richard L., William Mendenhall and Lyman O t t , Elementary Survey

Sampl in9 ( 1 979). North Scituate, MA: Duxbursy Press.

Wright, Susan, -- S----- o---- c-- ial Science S t a t r ' s t i c-- s ( 1 986). Boston, MA: Al lyn and

Bacon, Inc.

SURVEY OUESTIONNAiRE

I ! J~:-, F o+ ch51 CI care center Lic. No. -

i' , j t : ~ L ~ 5 t

..-"- -- --,- A

Phone

I: t) . C o u n ty -- Z i p code -

k& i.: g ,* : ill e c1. centtr respondent - -

& . d i - ( ~ - t. gtie o f a ~ g a n i m a t i o n operates the cecter:

IJV- ;" fL

3. Pz j . 0 ~ ha ve a f5nancial agreement w i t h DE5:

:, i.:- r : : ~ ; i r l o ~ ~ ofr c~ ip eratf or are: ( c i r c l e either a , r . or D. R. j

I : ~ - 1 ~ r ; f , n t h n t j ~ ~~- 9; the e a r t" i5 your cenker ~ p e r , ?

. -. p! lte? i" at- c p a t - ~ n t s csuz;: y required to pay f o r drys the? r

,; r - t- . C." Ab "& C\> 4 %?.' :~ 1 t: .?

7. Does your center pay f ~ trhe following b e n c f i t c for crnployfles whorl:

rincipal function i s to provide direct care:

f- c- lei?-% all t h -----

a t apply 1

F u l l - time Part- time

Healthlmedical insurance ---.

Dental insurance

Retirement benefits -, - --.

Sick leave -- .. - a- --

Vacation -- ".-

Meal s

- 0-

Other empl oyer- paid benefits for direct careyiv6. r; -- - ----- - -.

8. Does your center receive any of thc f o l l o w i ~ g- d - e natao- ns- - Qr-- s-- u-- b si: 3% ec: " --

( check all t h a t apply)

--- Free or reduced rent

Food

Volunteer caregiver time

---- Grants or rash d o n a t i o ~ s

---- Other goods or servfces

9. What percent of your costs are covered by parent fecs arid ZtEC p a y ~ ~ ~ x a f - : . ~

---- pcrcen t

10, Does your center use room dividers?

Yes

11, bicul d you 1 i k e r3, repy o f the resnl ts c f t h i s r; tudy? i i" i! Y SI : TI- IF

IS SCHEDC! LED TO BE PELEASED AT THE EriD OF DECEPIEF91

Yes

PJ 0

1 RESLARCtith: ( A l Obtain a copy of the fct. sct-! eduic3.

" C-- O ST IRPPCT SURVEY QUF- ST- I- O NNATRE

1. Name o f center -- - Lit, ! lo. . a - . - . -

Name/ title o f person cr~ mpletingt his r e p ~ r- t --- - - - - -. . - --

2. List the avprage -(-- f-- a il) ehdrge pcr child for full tirrr- c" cnrc a t ;* lfjriv center for:

lAva: rayp d a i l y fees 2ut. 3eF- ineb as fee; ! ;

laarri8rs or paid by pilrects and the D F O , I ~ ' R ~ R ? . - f

Econoaii c, Secur'i by I DCS], j

Infants

----- One year o l d ~

---- Two year o l d ~

--- Three year o3ds

---.- Four year o l d ~

----.-- Five year ~ I d s

-- -- -- Ages over f f v ~~ m y ~

3, A ) Does yorsr ci.'- nter ru- c: q., tirie sni-: al5 to o!~ i? eli. ec as ;) art. c f .$) ts3

^- A-- --

daily charqe t o t h * ? g A y c v t >

--.--- &

-- Yes

No

2) If yes, i n ywr experience, excluding labor czsts, what i a * EEr

current average i-. cst per clay per c h i l d sf the rad f06: i thae :';'$::

phrchase which i s included i n the average c n i l v ehax~ gr?

- INSTRUCTIONS TO CHILD ATTENDAhCE ROSTER

- A---- ND DAILY TIEIIE RECORD F- - O- R CAKFGIVEKS

Both the DAILY CHILE ATTENDANCE ROSTER an0 the DAILY TIM KECOKC FOiZ

CAREGIVERS are forms that are t o be filled a j l . i t edch day. Use a qew fair n

each day for the child roster, and time record. The A. G. staff rnenii~ r\ r

will pick up completed forrns during their weekly visits t o your cerltct-.

DAILY CHILD ATTENDANCE RQSTEK

The purpose o f this for, rl is t o obtain cartddl i? ourly attenddnei- 1- Fe. t ui

chi1 d.

1. List each child's name.

2. Enter the child's actual age.

3. Enter the time the child was received a t the center iri the " t i m ~ i n '

column. Please include whether the time was a. m. or p. m. [ Examcrie: 9:*?

a. m. J

4. Enter the time tne child l e f t the center r n the " tine out" ~ colui: 1r:,

5. tlauc the center's staff - or the child's parent initial the t c j j - i : ; w " l c ~

they enter the " tine out"'.

NOIF: 1P the ch479 erit2r" t h ~ cen ter more than eincc* eacn day, " " t ~ ~ -- : DP

ch- ilti's name a %?~ andti me including the carrt.- saondia: g tiinc t z f eLrtyr 4. c

exit* [ Ex? rr? plc: J n r r r ~ t ~ r e : ! a t 8.00 a. m, arra l e f t dr, 11 - 30 d, a., HE ' 4 -

brought bdck d0 ttie cenxtar a t I :( IG p. m. and : e f t f o r the ddy d- r, 5: 42 a , l . t r t , n

He shcul d be eiat~ re~(. 3;~ i the roster t ~ toi r n ~ s , ci; 6; 1 i ~ rredl~ rrq ?. he: "" 2 F[. rk< ; I:

and " time eut", j

- DAIL- Y TI ME RECORD FOR CAREGIVERS -*--

The purpose of ihic Form is tc, obtain caregiver , akfenddnr, e J'p., tcr~~ r, lja. t

Paid s t a f f t o be incl~ adcd clre those who, at ssnae tfmc during t h t

prov~ de direct care, This will always include t e a c h e ~ ~ e, a r ~ ~ i v c r sai, a s,

assi~ harrTIs~~~ 6~ sT1Yeuttce. sw~ h o were hired to pra1v-- i- t ic dire-- c- t- - c ar- e - A l s::

include any velunteers who n r ~ v i d c direct edre. it: d d f ~ T m n , other ceiit,-;. r _-.- --.---__-- L- ---- -----

staff may dl so be incltiaed, SLiCIi ds th~ e director, ~ h i ) . glJt* ir~ g S. IXIGC i , 4 i i ~ ' i P

Lhz day mdy prow idc. l c l i r ~ t ~ c are.

7, , ,\ .- M0Y- k: rhf s ffirm kid.; designed t. 0 p r o v i d e for 24 jl3lir cr: ver. a+ 3, ?. L, 8 3 g c22-..,

r- 7-,- 7 cfie:: ic o f f " "' 1 t , ~ spent g i v i n g direct c h i l d- .- c- a w , , The " da, g; i>" y.;:; f ~ 5 2 :'

' n s- o , fc II‘--- those p e r x s who do not pr- r: vidr :>. 9 ~ ? c - i ;

care most of rhe t: mei, i t may bs easier for the director LCI n ~ r , ~ r ; ~ ctri- i K~

d a i l y t- ecorc! ;: I a centralized ' l o c a t l ~ na nd comp'leie the f s m ,

Each individual staff/ volunteer should be given a new form each day. They

would be responsible for completing the form each day.

1. Enter the staff/ vol unteer's name.

2. Enter the person's position and check off whether the person is a

" paid" staff or a " volunteer".

3. Check each one- half hour increment in which the staff/ volunteer

provided direct care to any chi1 d age group. Again, please check only the

time slots in which direct care was given.

ROUNDING PROCEDURE: If you provide care for a minimum of 15

minutes during any 1 / 2 hour interval , that

interval should be checked. If you provide

care for m h a n 15 minutes during any 182

hour interval, that interval should not be

checked.

A, G, I n i t i a l s

- DA- IL- Y CW- IL- D P. J'TENDAMCE ROSTER ----.---

Date ------

C e n t e r Name --- .--- L i c . No. ----

NOTE: I F A CHILD LEAVES THE CENTER DllRI!! G THE DAY F(' P NCR- CENTER RELATED

ACTIVITIES, PLEASE SIGN THE CHILI! O U i WHFTFI TilEY LEAVE AND SIGN TtlEl4

BACK I N WHEN THEY RETURN.

PLEASE INDICATE A. W, OR P. M. WHEG SJCNIF! G 12 OR OUT,

S i g n Out

Child's Name Age Tinac I n Time But I n i t i a l s ----------------------------------------------------------"- -- ---------- -- - - - - - -- ---------------- --

---

" W'V

S ~ ~ A I ~ ~ L ~ KauI o sm axn nrwa

l n c lu de owll!, - r a -~- d: t af f ~ rrl; t,.. re s p r if i r ; i 1 J y h i r ~ ~ t: c r rcvicie dirt.(:+

- 2------- chi1d care. S ~ c h star f riloitl d f! rtiid e i: nr t . : r i v ~ r c , tcacnfivus, Fiky, - - =

assistants, etc. lr~ h~ s;: frinctiarr 33i7 r i l r c ~ t : I- C? P i s tq IICSV~ C'C d i r ~ c i $, Rcpr* cart.. i h i s f err? rieed ; ir: Ty ' ~ i ~ ' ~ ~ ~ - r j ~ ~ f , ~ ~ - i j I

a -"--- -;* T--- - -

-- L*) t- he car t< lr r I Fr

collected by the A, G. r f 3 ' i c- lrimb~ r dh; irf w c ~ k ? ti? ?,

4, Entcf rhe cc ' E tii. lt vie., " i ; ~ . e sd h ~ F J ~ ~ ' ~ T -)" ~ Icr , l rI ' i c:;? iSt" Y XP,~ je~ c:;~ i n

CQkUMM ,: I " r: b. ild c3i. c * ~ . v , t ~ a * f ~ ~ :+, - ~,~ c p f i ' hctj c $ ~ y ;. I F jable p x p ~ y i p ! ~ ; ~

working direcii-; k i t ! ! a ? rr?, i,. o+ children 6 ~ r i : i g 3 s p c - i f i c d timi.? pct- ja, 4

i n any 2 icensed day carp cclrrt? r, e i fmentaa-; i ec" adr; c 2x7 nn & rsgranr, or x rr t k P

f is. 7 tJr LP raurcins, socf-? k7' raka P S ; ~ ~ ~ IISG~ J% Y O Y' 0" r- ncr f , c f ds vcla: o: i tc;

chi 1 d growxh or cdet.-~ a. k~;~, ncu! c,*) T& x? rif? nc'c . c edes 2- e:

A. G. Initials

CAREGIVER WAGE RATE FOR)?

Center Name - Lit. No.

COLUMN A

Empl oyee Name

- COL B --- C BL C COL D COLUflN E COLUFltl F

Estimated

Ed. C DA Exp. Weekly

Code Code Code Hours

Hourly

Rate