Indicator PI.1.a Child care capacity
Descriptive Title: Maximum capacity of licensed child care facilities and proportion of 0-14 year olds
Geographic Unit of Analysis: Census tract and point
* Most facilities do not operate at maximum capacity. Family child care homes are licensed for a maximum capacity of 8 or 14 slots. Child care centers may be licensed for 15 or more slots.
Why Is This An Indicator Of Health and Sustainability?
Substantial research demonstrates that accessible high quality childcare positively affects childhood growth, physical development, and physical health, cognitive, behavioral and school outcomes.a,b The accessibility of childcare for families with children is dependent on capacity of childcare providers to meet demand.
Interpretation and Geographic Equity Analysis
Child care is provided in many different forms in San Francisco. This indicator focuses on the provision of licensed child care, or child care centers and family child care home providers that obtain a license from the California Community Care Licensing Division. Some families choose friends and relatives (license-exempt caregivers) to care for their children, and programs for school age children are often not licensed by the state. This indicator does not include residential 24 hour care, foster care, or babysitting.
In 2008-2009, the neighborhoods with the most spots in licensed child care centers or homes were Bayview, Outer Sunset, Mission, Western Addition, and Excelsior. These were also the five neighborhoods with the greatest number of children 0-14 years old. During those years, there were roughly 5.3 children for every spot in a licensed child care center or home. Neighborhoods with the lowest ratios of 0-14 year olds to child care spots include: Financial District, Chinatown, Presidio Heights, Presidio, Treasure Island, and South of Market, which all have fewer than three children to a spot. Neighborhoods with the highest child to spot ratios include: Seacliff, Twin Peaks, Crocker Amazon, Bernal Heights, Russian Hill, and West of Twin Peaks which all have nine or more children to a spot.
Methods
The maps above use 2007 population estimates to map the percent of children 14 year old and under by Census tract. The addresses of licensed child care centers and homes were geocoded and mapped. Points were sized to correspond to their relative size.
Limitations
While center slots are licensed specific to age groups, family child care licenses allow for mixed age groups. Licensed FCCHs receive licenses for small and large homes, which can accept 6-8 and 12-14 children respectively. We chose to use the high end of the licensed capacity (small homes with 8 slots and large homes with 14 slots) to demonstrate maximum capacity. However, as noted by the San Francisco Child Care Planning and Advisory Council (CCPAC), “not all centers or family child care providers enroll to their full licensed capacity. While a 10% vacancy rate is a normal function of the market, many providers, by choice, enroll at far less than their licensed capacity. It is not unusual for a family child care provider licensed for 12 to serve half as many children. The vacancy rate is based on program capacity (the provider’s choice) which in many cases is lower than licensed capacity…. [Additionally,] some family child care providers care for their own children, which reduces the availability of slots in their license.” (2007 CCPAC Child Care Needs Assessment; Accessed online on September 11, 2009: http://sfcpac.org/publications-reports/)
SF CCPAC noted that “There is a danger in assuming a ‘slot equals a child.’ While generally this is a useful approach to simplify planning, the reader must be reminded that this does not match what is known about how care is accessed. Not all families using care need the care full time, so many slots may be “shared” by families. Some children attend more than one type of care (i.e. family child care half-day and center preschool half-day). Some providers licensed for 12 children may serve as many as 20 in a week, although, not at the same time. An example of where this could occur would be a family child care provider who stays open during non-traditional hours, including weekends…
[A]pproximately half the children in a typical [SF] neighborhood leave their neighborhood for care. Children are cared for outside their neighborhood for a number of reasons. Many families use care en route between home and work. Others select a particular location because they know and prefer a provider there. Some may assess the quality of a program as being worth the travel outside their neighborhood or route to work. In some instances, a family may move to a new neighborhood but keep their child with a provider they know in their old neighborhood. In the case of subsidies attached to a particular site, some parents leave their neighborhood in order to obtain subsidized care.” (2007 Child Care Needs Assessment)
To better understand parental demand and access to child care, San Francisco’s Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies conducted a survey of SF residents that had made child care inquiries to their department in 2005/2006. Of the 437 participants who responded, 71% stated they preferred child care near their home, 11% wanted care on the way to somewhere they were going and 8% wanted care near their place of employment. Despite high preference to have child care near the home, only 53% currently use a facility in their home zip code. Location of care was the most important factor for SF parents choosing a program, followed by the program’s affordability, quality and safety respectively. (2007 Child Care Needs Assessment) In contrast, a statewide survey of parents living near transit found that quality of care was the most important factor, followed by availability, cost, hours of operation, and location. (2008 LINCC Child Care and Transit: Making the Link in California Report, Accessed on September 11, 2009: http://www.lincc-childcare.com/docs.php?oid=1000000172&ogid=1000000019)
Although CCPAC surveyed parents in San Francisco initially requested center care, more parents ended up using FCCH providers. The authors note that lack of initial awareness about the existence of FCCHs, affordability of FCCHs (compared to center care) and higher vacancy rate at FCCHs, allowing for more immediate access to care, may have been factors influencing the participants’ initial preference for center care and actual utilization of FCCHs. As described above many factors influence demand and capacity of child care, however the survey findings suggest that future planning “future planning should address [the] desire for greater placement of facilities in neighborhood settings in relation to where young children live.” (2007 Child Care Needs Assessment)
Data Source
List and Capacity of Childcare Centers from Community Care Licensing Division, California Department of Social Services. Accessed on May 8, 2009: http://www.ccld.ca.gov/docs/ccld_search/ccld_search.aspx.
List and Capacity of Family Childcare Homes from Family Child Care Association of San Francisco (FCCASF). Accessed from FCCASF Office Staff on February 19, 2008.
Population Data Source: Applied Geographic Solutions, Inc. Spring 2007 Update: Current Year Estimates. Methodology available at: http://www.appliedgeographic.com/library.html.
Map and table created by San Francisco Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Section using ArcGIS software.
Map data is presented at the level of the census tract, which was calculated by assigning census block data to census tracts based on spatial location. The map also includes planning neighborhood names, in the vicinity of their corresponding census tracts.
Table data is presented by planning neighborhood. While planning neighborhoods are larger geographic areas than census tracts, census tracts do not always lie completely within a planning neighborhood. SFDPH used ArcGIS software and a dasymetric mapping technique to attribute Census block group data to residential lots. We then assigned residential lots to planning neighborhoods to calculate Census population totals within the neighborhoods.
Detailed information regarding dasymetric mapping, census data, geographic units of analysis, their definitions, and their boundaries can be found at the following links:
http://www.thehdmt.org/etc/Geographic_Units_of_Analysis.pdf
http://www.thehdmt.org/data_map_methods.php
- Karoly LA. Early Childhood Interventions: Proven Results, Future Promise. RAND Corporation, 2005.
- Schweinhart LJ. The High / Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40. The High Scope Press, 2004.