Edmonton (Alta.) - 1975 - Policy guidelines regarding the expansion of day care services in... by Edmonton Tower Resource Centre Online Library

r -e ,

0T142-/

POLICY GUIDELINES REGARDING THE EXPANSION OF DAY CARE SERVICES IN EDMONTON

EDMONTON SOCIAL SERVICES Prepared by: Michael G. Day, September, 1975.

1)7) 1101A

State of day-care facilities within the City of Edmonton - report by the Local Board of Health. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That Council provide increased financial support towards the development of day-care centres. 2. That Council urge the Provincial Government to complete with all speed its review of day-care standards and develop a policy for subsidization. HISTORY:

At their February, 1975, meeting, the Local Board of Health requested a report which would reflect the views of public health nurses on the day-care centres they regularly visit. It was later extended to include the results of the public health inspectors' inspections. The Board received the consolidated report in May 1975 and directed that it be brought to the attention of City Council and the Minister of Social Services and Community Health. JUSTIFICATION:

The poor conditions in a high proportion of privately-operated day-care centres give cause for concern. The number of available spaces is increasing but at nowhere near the level of demand; consequently waiting-lists are long. Many of the centres are inadequate but closure would only accentuate the problem. Both expansion and up-grading of the program are therefore necessary to deal with the following problems: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Lack Lack Lack Lack Lack Lack

of of of of of of

facilities standards personnel training programs money for capital costs.

In summary, and applying standards which though arbitrary are based on the combined knowledge and experience of the Supervisor of Preschool Services and the Director of the Environmental Health Division, the state of day-care centres in the City is as follows:

Private City-subsidized Other subsidized

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

TOTAL

35 14 12

21 0 0

56 14 12

The detailed reports are available but because they refer to individual operations have not been included.

ENCLOSURES:

1. List of unsatisfactory centres (the numbers on this report correspond to a regional list held by the Local Board of Health). 2. Unsatisfactory conditions most often seen in day-care centres. 3. Copy of article by Mrs. D. Paddon, Local Board of Health, and Mr. M. Day, Edmonton Social Services, released to the press.

Submitted by: Dr. J. M. Howell, Medical Officer of Health, on behalf of the Local Board of Health.

July 15, 1975.

LIST OF CENTRES VISITED HAVING UNSATISFACTORY CONDITIONS 'Poor' Day Care Centres (Updated Reports)

Central: of 21 Private Commercial Operations, 10 were grossly inadequate according to 1974 reports submitted by Public Health Nursing and Physician staff to Dr. Ball by Dr. J.C. Nelson. Reported to Homes & Institutions Branch / Provincial Government. 3. Conditions adequate. 4. Operator did not allow PHN inside centre. Appears not much Improved since last report. 9. Inadequate staff, feeding an programming. 14. Staff inadequately prepared re: child learning process. 17. No staff training in E.C. development. 19. New concern re: overcrowding / out door play inadequate. 21. Appears inadequate. Needs investigation of noise level, handwashing, toilet training methods. 22. Inadequate according to inspector. To be corrected. 23. Poor support from owner. No parent involvement. 24. New - no report since new owners. Staff report poor support for their needs by owner. 26. Inadequacies persist.

Duggan: 2 Commercially operated-adequate facilities. Acute shortage of Day Care Centres as indicated by 'waiting lists'. 28. Inadequate centre. Closed 1974. Announcement May 7, 1975 Journal reopening May 13, 1975.

Eastwood: 2 Commercial operations - 1 was reported to Homes & Institutions Branch in 1974.(34)One unlicensed. 33. Unlicensed. Applied for license for 50 - not approved. Open (unlicensed) with 27 children. Changing ownership June 15, 1975. 34. Inspector recommends license not be renewed (May 1975).

Glengarry: 9 Commercial operations - 3 inadequate. One reported to Province Dec. 1974. (1/37) 35. 45 children. Inadequate toilets and play equipment. 37. Has concerned nurse in area - since Dec/74 biweekly visits have been made. Report sent to Mr. Aushman Dec. 1974. 39. Inadequacies - Size, staff training and washroom facilities.

Idylwylde: 7 Commercial operations - 1 considered inadequate and reported to Public Health Inspector. (4,4t) 48. Still inadequate.

Jasper Place: 5 Commercial operations, one of which was found inadequate it has reportedly moved to another location. (#60). 58. Several inadequacies reported (May 1975) 60. Inadequate supervision of activity programs. (May 1975).

( 7.

South Side: 10 Commercial operations - 3 considered inadequate. Reported to Public Health Inspector. 61. Licensed for 60. 70 children present May 7, 1975 when P1-IN called. 65. No trained staff (8 children under 4 yrs.) 72. Closed. March 1975.

-2-

Woodcroft: 4 Commercial operations. One new one has begun.recently. It is unlicensed. P.H. Inspector alerted. (see below) 79. Closed. 82. Unlicensed. ,Poor conditions. Staff willing to improve. Operator slow to comply with regulations.

-ru m

ruct,,v,Abzi s

c-1

c"?

Jif

,L.t)

1,s-t- â&#x20AC;˘

UNSATISFACTORY CONDITIONS MOST OFTEN SEEN IN COMMERCIAL DAY CARE CENTERS

Basic hygenic and sanitary measures are not adequate. A. staff is not practising cleanliness. Dirty floors, windows, chairs, tables and cribs often seen. i. ii. Inadequate washers etc. - for face cloths, towels, cribs and bedding. iii. Children's faces and clothes unclean. iv. Toys not washed. b.- diapering of children inadequate. cleaning childoff with soiled diaper. i. ii. no hand washing by staff. C. poor food handling. bottles (sent in with baby) not refrigerated, nipples not washed off etc. i. ii. stored on diapering table. iii. if mother sends in sour milk baby is fed same. iv. propping of infants soothers on strings around neck. V. Lack of training and knowled2e on Â°art of staff re: physical, emotional and .developmental needs of children. very little infant stimulation - no understanding of need for same_ i. ii. early toilet training programs seen as part of program in some centres. (eg. for 11/2 yr. olds) iii. little attention paid to safety. iv. no knowledge of realistic expectations for child behavior. little talking to infants while changing or feeding. v.

Inadequate diet. lunch, providedby day care operator. eg. Soup (Campbells soup made i. with 2 cans of water) and jam sandwiches (small amount of jam) No diet consultation - operator does not use referral sources suggested (because of expense?) iii. Food sent in (as in majority of private operations) if inadequate, child receives nothing unless operator is willing to go out and buy. This happens frequently enough to be a problem to operator.

Overcrowding. i. although operators are licensed for 'x' number, they often take as many as 5 - 10 above the number. ii. play space - both outside and inside is often economized on. In several centers a public park across from the center is utilized. iii. sleeping - close together, crowded, lack of oxygen? eg. one center places foam mattresses under the feeding tables. - long sleep hours enforced - no differentiation of age group needs. iv. noise level - very high in some centers.

Lack of program for children. i. untrained operators Simply do not have the time or the knowledge to plan stimulation for the children in their care. ii. the child who is crying may be picked up - but he may fall asleep with exhaustion before any one reaches him. iii. children sit in walkers or play pens for hours. iv. toys are broken or non-existent.

.â&#x20AC;˘

Inadequate provision for children who are ill. 1. staff not trained to recognize symptoms ii. staff do not check children on admission each a.m. iii. abuse is not recognized iv no isolation if infectious - cross infections common v. no place for child to lie down if he is ill - cots are folded up and put away.

In conclusion, it can be seen that many problems arise in Day Care Centers, as operated for commercial gain. The per diem cost for a fully-funded child in a city subsidized Day Care Center is $7.40. This, based on a 20 day month, is roughly 048.00 per child per month. Most private agencies charge $90.00 maximum. The private operator is therefore faced with a dilemna. How does he/she offer Day Care adequate to serve preschool children and simultaneously show a profit at the end of a year?

Hay 1975.

INDEX

INTRODUCTION

pg. 1

HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT

pg. 1

III

PRESENT SERVICE SYSTEM

pg. 5

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVE AND FUNCTIONS

pg. 8

PROJECTION OF NEED

pg. 13

PRIORITY AREAS FOR PROGRAM EXPANSION

pg. 17'

VII

MODEL FOR SERVICE EXPANSION IN EXISTING AREAS OF TIE CITY . • pg. 18

VIII MODEL FOR SERVICE EXPANSION IN DEVELOPING AREAS OF THE CITY • p3. 20 IX

INNOVATIONS IN PROGRAM DELIVERY

pg. 22

FIVE YEAR COST PROJECTION

pg. 24

A. OPERATING COSTS

pg. 24

B. CAPITAL COSTS

pg. 27

APPENDIX A - ANALYSIS OF THE NEED FOP. EXPANDED DAY CARE SERVICES IN THE CITY OF EDMONTON. APPENDIX B - POSITION STATEMENT ON AFTER SCHOOL CARE

INTRODUCTION A good deal of public attention is presently being focused on the delivery of day care services. This public review is in no way unique to Edmonton. It is a local reflection of a national concern. Every major study or report conducted in the last five years which dealt in some way with the family and our system of family support services has contained major recommendations relating to the expansion of Day Care. Locally, this exaalination has led to a growing awareness of the severe shortage of quality day care programs in the City of Edmonton, and a consequent demand for the expansion of publicly supported programs in this field. This situation has given rise to the need for the City of Edmonton to re--evaluate its role in the field of day care and to generate policy which will guide the City's activity in this area over the coming years. This paper will propose such basic policy. In order to set the policy recommendations in context it may be useful to provide background information including an overview of developments to date and a brief description of the present service system.

HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT The City's initial involvement in the field of Day Care coincides with the

initiation of the Provincial Preventive Social Service Program in 1966. All city expenditures in Day Care have been under the terms of this joint funding program. Thus, eighty percent of all City funds allocated to day care services have been recovered from the senior levels of government.

Early in 1966 following the submission to City Council of MO major position papers, outlining the need for subsidized day care, by the Edmonton Welfare Council and the Family Service Association, Edmonton Social Services and the United Way agreed to jointly fund the Community Day Nursery, the City's .../2

- 2 first publically supported day care service. The Centre had a capacity of sixty-two children.

It was anticipated that the City would have a growing role in the development of additional services. At this time a policy vacuum existed in relation to public support for day care programs. it was felt that the development of such policy (to ensure an orderly development of services and the most efficient and appropriate application of public funds) required the services of a full time day care consultant. In response to this need the City, through the Social Service Department hired the first Director of Day Care in early 1967.

The Director working in conjunction with an Advisory Committee on Day Care attached to the Social Service Department began to formulate the basic policy which continues to provide the foundation for the current program. Important elements in this policy included the following: extension of service would be sought through the purchase of service from non-profit community based organizations; public subsidy would be available primarily to families with special needs, for example - single parent families, and low income families, and; - public funds would only be available to programs of good quality, providing for all aspects of the child's developmental needs.

Based on these guidelines the city again in conjunction with the United Way agreed to fund two additional centres in the next two years: Primrose Place (capacity 52) in 1967 and Downtown Day Care Centre (capacity 38) in 1968.

... /3

- 3 During this period a combination of factors led the City to consider the initiation of a day care centre under direct City auspices. At this time there was a shortage of available staff with specialized training in Early Childhood, and there was no program at either the College or University level preparing additional workers. It was felt that the development of a high quality City operated program could serve as a training centre thus providing the general community with a source of qualified staff. In addition, there were a number of program approaches which had been discussed in the literature but for the most part were untried in practice. There was a feeling that a program operating under direct City control could be used to test out a number of these ideas. As a result of these considerations the City developed a proposal to initiate the Glengarry Day Care Centre as a teaching and demonstration centre. The application for funding was initially rejected by the Provincial Government. Following a strong reaction from a wide variety of community groups and organizations who favored the extension of public involvement in Day Care programs, the Province, reversed it's decision and approved the application. Glengarry opened in 1969 with a capacity of eighty preschool children.

The following year the fourth community based centre (West End Day Care Centre) was opened serving fifty-six children.

In 1971 the question of day care expansion was reviewed by City Council and the following decision resulted; "Due to the need for extended day care services for children and the fact that advanced planning is necessary to take advantage of opportunities related to the provision of facilities, that City Council authorize the addition of three new subsidized centres in 1972 conditional on support from senior governments".

- 4 As a result of this council directive three new community based centres were approved for funding in 1972. These were; - Jasper Place Day Care Centre (capacity 40); - Student's Union & CotLanunity Day Care Centre (capacity 60); - Beverly Day Care Centre (capacity 40).

The ninth and tenth subsidized centres were opened in 1974. - South Edmonton Child Care Centre (capacity 60) and the - Fulton Place Child Care Centre (capacity 40).

Also during 1974 an agreement was reached with the Centre D'Experience Pre-Scolaire (a French language day care centre) for the subsidization of twelve spaces in it's program.

While the group care of preschool children is the major component in the day care service system there are two other important programs in which the City is involved. They are Family Day Care and After School Care. Because the day care centres can only care for children between the ages of 21/2 and 6 years of age there was a need for an additional service to care for very young children; children who could not be accommodated in a centre for a particular reason, and dependent school aged children in the hours before school, at lunch, and after school until working parents return home. To respond to this need Edmonton Social Services developed the Family Day Care Program. This is a service which utilizes private homes in the community which have been assessed, approved and receive ongoing supervision from trained social work staff. Subsidization is available to families on the same basis as in the case of the centres. The primary limiting factor in terms of the programs capacity is "5

- 5 the amount of staff time available to administer the program. The service was initiated in 1968 with one staff. Additional staff were added in 1970, 1971, 1973, 1974 and 1975. However, because these same staff provide the social work service to the community based centres the amount of time they can commit to Family Day Care is quite limited. We presently have the equivalent of five staff working in the Family pay Care Program serving the entire City.

The third component of Edmonton's subsidized day care services is the After School Care Program. These programs serve dependent school age children in a group setting. The first programs were initiated in 1969 in conjunction with the Glengarry and Primrose Place Centres. Three units were added in 1974: one in conjunction with the Student's Union Centre; one in conjunction with the Fulton Place Centre and one independent program in the West End. Four additional programs were approved for funding in 1975.

It should be made clear that the need for increased service has been obvious since the initiation of the subsidized day care program. The rate of service expansion was limited, however, by the amount of funds made available by both the City and Provincial Governments. Thus, long range planning which aimed at a set rate of program expansion has not been possible.

III PRESENT SERVICE SYSTEM At the present time the City of Edmonton is involved in a gradually evolving network of day care services through the funding and/or administration of the three types of services described above. The capacities of these various services are as follows: .../6

- 6 A GROUP CARE OF PRESCHOOL CHILDREN - City operated 80

Glengarry Day Care Centre - Community Board Operated Beverly Day Care Centre Downtown Day Care Centre Community Day Nursery Jasper Place Day Care Centre Fulton Place Child Care Centre Primrose Place Day Care Centre South Edmonton Child Care Centre Student's Union & Community Day Care West End Day Care Centre

40 40 65 40 40 60 60 60 60

- Parent Co-operative Centre D'Experience Pre-scolaire

TOTAL

557

TOTAL

220

B FAMILY DAY CARE - City operated

C AFTER SCHOOL CARE City operated 17

Glengarry Day Care Centre Community Board operated Primrose Place Day Care Centre Fulton Place Child Care Centre Edmonton After School Care Garneau After School Care Oliver After School Care Duck-Inn TOTAL

50 25 50 25 25 25 217

...17

7 The subsidization of these 994 day care spaces is funded entirely under the Preventive Social Service Program. As pointed out earlier this is a cost sharing program involving all three levels of government. In the final analysis the cost sharing formula is 50% Federal, 30% Provincial, and 20% Municipal.

The application of public funds is done on a selective basis through a purchase of service arrangement. The guidelines governing this purchase of service are based on a definate priority system. This is reflected in the statistics describing the users of subsidized day care spaces. Over 757. of the families with children in these programs are single parent families. Over 66% of these families have incomes sufficiently low that they are assessed the minimum ten dollar per month fee. In other words public funds are being used to provide service to families who could not afford to purchase their child care from commercial programs. For many of these parents the withdrawal of subsidized care would mean their withdrawal from the labour market or from educational programs as the case may be.

The approach to program expansion, with the exception of the Family Day Care Service, is the funding of community based non-profit societies who carry the responsibility for program management. (The Family Day Care Service is sponsored as a direct service of Edmonton Social Services). The City maintains the responsibility for setting general program standards and operating policy (including a priority system used in determining admissions, a common system of assessing fees, the level of funding, and a uniform statistical record keeping system). The voluntary Board of Directors, however, is responsible for the actual program management.

- 8 In addition to the day care services subsidized through the P.S.S. Program, there are a large number of other programs. These services, most often run as a small business by an individual or a family, are licensed by Alberta Social Services and community Health. The standards used in this licensing procedure are minimal and as such have been subject to criticism for some time. There are presently 58 such centres operating with a total licensed capacity of 2,103 spaces. The quality in these various centres varies widely. While some of these programs are offering good service many are very questionable and some are without doubt harmful to the children in their care. The only direct involvement the City has with these programs is through the licensing process requiring inspections by the Health, Planning and Fire Departments.

The last major source of day care service (and certainly the one which accounts the largest volume of care provided) is private babysitting arrangements in family homes. This is largely an unknown component. It is difficult to obtain information on something that has so little public visability. Based on case situations that we become aware of it would seem, however, that there is some cause for concern for the quality of care that many of these children receive.

IV STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVE AND FUNCTIONS It is obvious that a number of major changes in the delivery of day care services are needed. Not only is a major expansion of the capacity of the overall day care service system needed, but also improvements in the quality of many currently operating programs are required. The solution to these problems depends on an integrated approach to day care services. The programs

.../9

9 described above do in fact form part of a "day care service system" and can not be dealt with effectively in isolation. Based on this premise, the following recommendations are made.

RECOMMENDATION #1: That the City of Edmonton make a committment to take an active leadership role in the further development of an integrated system of day care services within Edmonton. RECOMMENDATION #2: That Edmonton Social Services be assigned the responsibility for co-ordinating all City activity within the field of day care. In order to further define the parametres of this activity it is recommended: RECOMMENDATION #3: That the following statement of objective be endorsed: The objective of the City of Edmonton in relation to day care services is to promote the development of a comprehensive system of good quality day care service in Edmonton. (a)Day Care in this context means the care of children outside their own homes, for some part of the day in circumstances where the care provided at home needs to be supplemented. (b)The system to be comprehensive must address itself of the needs of children 0-12 years of age, normal and handicapped children, and children who require part time, as well as full time care.

Is the operationalization of this objective there are a number of alternative courses of action open to the City. Decisions must be made which will define the particular functions of the City within this field.

It is suggested that the primary commitment of the City be the continued development and financial support of day care services which will provide care for the children of special need families. These would include families where there is one parent present, families with limited incomes, and families is

- 10 which a parent is incapacitated or a child needs special resources.

For the majority of these families the pursuit of employment or educational goals is dependent on their children having access to subsidized day care programs.

RECOMMENDATION #4: That the first priority of the City be the extension of subsidized services to high priority families. There are a number of benefits in the sponsorship of day care centres by independent non-profit societies. These benefits include: (a)greater program flexibility to meet varying local needs and to demonstrate varying approaches to quality child care; (b)greater economic efficiency of operation through the application of voluntary resources, and (c)development of community support for the program through the education of citizens in their role as Board Members. For these reasons it is recommended: RECOMMENDATION #5: That the expansion of subsidized group care programs be carried out through the funding of non-profit community Boards who act as program sponsors. In contrast to the above there are two situations in which there are benefits in the City carrying the direct program management responsibilities. The Family Day Care Program is a city wide program which makes effective use of centralized recruitment and intake procedures, and centralized program resources. It has been developed as a direct service of Edmonton Social Services. The same Department also operates the Glengarry Day Care Centre. The Centre was initially started as a teaching and demonstration centre. While it no longer functions as a teaching centre it continues to provide the City with a day care setting in which to test out new program ideas and approaches. In addition, the experience gained in the direct operation of a program, aides in developing effective policy for the Community based programs.

RECOMMENDATION #6: That the City continue to administer the Family Day Care Program and the Glengarry Day Care Centre. The major issue relating to day care services at this time is the questionable quality of the care provided in many commercial programs. The primary obstacle to improved care in these centres is financial. Most private operators claim that they cannot afford to improve their service without generating additional income. On the other hand they argue that an increase in their fees (their sole source of income) would price the service beyond the reach of many families using their centre. There is a good deal of validity to this argument. Quality day care is not inexpensive. The average cost in subsidized centres is currently $180.00 a month per child. However, good quality care for young children is also an investment. In the long run inadequate services may cost more in terms of rehabilitative and remedial programs which have to deal with the damaging effects of inadequate programs for preschool children. We have reached the point where there are very few families who can afford to carry the full cost of a good day care service for their children.

The service being provided by private centres is badly needed. They account for almost 707 of the organized day care placements in the city. On the other hand their deficiencies are great enough that they cannot be allowed to continue without improvements. A three pronged approach will be suggested to deal with this problem.

The Alberta Department of Social Services & Community Health is presently reviewing the standards used in the day care licensing procedure with a view to upgrading these. It is essential that more adequate minimum standards be set for all child care programs. .../12

- 12 RECOMMENDATION #7: That the City of Edmonton make representation to the Provincial Government suggesting that the Province maintains and strengthens its licensing function through the adoption of a higher set of minimum standards and the addition of legal sanctions to enforce these standards. At the present time there does not exist any adequate source of program consultation that day care operators can call on for guidance in improving and strengthening their centres. This is a particularly significant deficiency in that a great many of the private operators have no specific training in early childhood development. From a tactical point of view it does not seem possible to integrate an effective consulting service with the "policing function" of licensing. For this reason it is suggested that the Province maintain the licensing function and that the City develop a consulting capacity.

RECOMMENDATION #8: That the City of Edmonton through its Social Service Department develop the capacity to provide administrative and program consultation to all day care programs regardless of sponsorship. It would be hoped that over time this consulting resource could also be used in preparing upgrading programs for woman who were providing private babysitting service in their own homes.

Returning to the issue of the financial situation of the private centres, it is clear that any significant improvements in their programs will be dependent on additional income. Based on the arguments presented above it is recommended:

RECOMMENDATION #9: That Edmonton Social Services develop a supplemental funding program for private day care centres. Qualification for such supplementation would depend on the centre meeting operating standards set near the level of the present subsidized centres. The supplementation would be extended in the form of flat rate subsidy for each child placed in the program. The final two functions of the City in relation to day care are public education and general program co-ordinator. Both of these functions are presently being performed by the Day Care Section of Edmonton Social Services .../13

-13 and would be continued as valid responsibilities.

The City's functions in day care based on the overall objective stated above can now be summarized as: (a)funding of non-profit centres to provide care for children from high priority families; (b)administration of the Family Day Care Program and the Glengarry Day Care Centre; (c)provision of consultation services to all child care programs regardless of sponsorship; (d)development of a supplementation program for approved commercial centres; (e)distribution of general information to the public on day care services and (f)co-ordination of the activity of all those organizations, agencies, and associations which are involved in day care services in Edmonton.

PROJECTION OF NEED In order for long range planning of Service development to be at all

effective it is important that a committment be made at a policy level to the rate of expansion that can be supported. In making such a decision it is important to consider what the actual demand for service will be. A detailed five year projection of day care need in Edmonton is contained in the Report Analysis of the Weed for Expanded Day Care Services in the City of Edmonton which is attached to this document as Appendix A. A summary chart showing the projected need for three age groups (corresponding to the three types of day care service: Family Day Care, Group Care of Preschoolers, and After School Care) is reproduced below. It contains projections of the total need, the need for fully subsidized spaces and the need for partially subsidized spaces.

- 14 TAnLE I

NUMBER OF EDMONTON CHILDREN REQUIRING PARTIALLY AND FULL SUBSIDIZED DAY CARE PLACEMENTS BY AGE GROUP, 1976 - 1980

NUMBER OF CHILDREN WHOSE MOTHERS WORK FULL TIME

QUALIFYING FOR FULL SUBSIDY

QUALIFYING FOR PARTIAL SUBSIDY

AGE GROUP

YEAR

0-2

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

3,646 3,920 4,155 4,390 4,634

741 797 845 892 943

872 937 993 1,049 1,108

2-6

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

8,077 8,502 9,012 9,558 10,123

1,643 1,730 1,833 1,944 2,059

1,931 2,032 2,154 2,285 2,420

6-12

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

9,976 10,375 10,775 11,192 11,616

2,029 2,111 2,191 2,276 2,363

2,386 2,479 2,575 2,675 2,776

- 15 It is important to consider the adoption of some mechanism to keep the rate of expansion of the various forms of day care service in balance. The projected need for Family Day Care is approximately one-half of the projected need for centres serving children aged 2 to 6 and thus it would seem logical to adopt as a policy guideline the intention to add one new Family Day Care space for each two additional spaces developed in centres. It is suggested that the sane guideline (a one to two ratio) be approved for After School care and the supplementation of spaces in private centres. In the case of After School Care the projected need is roughly equivalent to the need for preschool spaces, however, there are other factors which need to be considered. For a further discussion of this issue see Position Paper on After School Care which is attached as Appendix B. The rational ia the case of supplementing private centres is simply that our primary commitment should be the support of high priority families in non-profit centres and this is one means of ensuring that our pattern of expenditures reflect this.

RECOMMENDATION #10: That the rate of expansion of Family Day Care, After School Care, and the supplementation of placements in private centres be based on the growth rate of the subsidized centres serving children 2 to 6 years of age, in a 1:2 ratio. It is obvious from the figures contained in the above table that we are facing a serious shortage of day care service. The rate of program expansion, will, in the final analysis be based on a political decision made in the context of the various demands placed on public funds at both the Municipal and Provincial level. In view of this it is not possible to recommend the rate at which day care services should grow. This Report will project the amount of service which would be generated by two growth rates.

.../16

- 16 A 257, annual growth rate would lead to the following service provision.

TABLE It PROJECTION OF SERVICE PROVISION BASED ON 257. ANNUAL GROWTH, 1976 - 1980

YEAR

SPACES IN PRESCHOOL CENTRES

SPACES IN FAMILY DAY CARE

SPACES IN AFTER SCHOOL CARE

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

687 858 1,072 1,340 1,675

343 429 536 670 837

SPACES SUPPLEMENTED IN PRIVATE CENTRES 343 429 531 670 837

At the end of five years this would meet approximately 40% of the projected need for subsidized day care placements.

A 507. annual growth rate would yield the following service.

TABLE II PROJECTION OF SERVICE PROVISION BASED ON 507. ANNUAL GROWTH 1976 - 1980

YEAR

SPACES IN PRESCHOOL CENTRES

SPACES IN FAMILY DAY CARE

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

825 1,238 1,857 2,785 4,177

412 619 928 1,392 2,088

SPACES IN AFTER SCHOOL CARE 412 619 928 1,392 2,088

SPACES SUPPLEMENTED IN PRIVATE CENTRES 412 619 928 1,392 2,088

- 17 By 1980 a 507. annual growth rate would have provided approximately 957. of the spaces requiring subsidization.

A general cost estimate covering the next five years for the 257. growth rate will be contained in a later section of this Report.

VI PRIORITY AREAS FOR PROGRAM EXPANSION A detailed assessment of the need for subsidized day care by area of the City can be found in Appendix A, Analysis of the Need for Expanded Day Care Services in the City of

Edmonton. The recommendations of this section are

based on the findings of that Report.

In addition to the current subsidized centres formal agreement has been given to fund an additional three programs. One of these is to be located in Millwoods and will be on the new campus of Grant MacEwan College. A second centre will be located in a renovated church facility, South of Jasper Avenue on 114th Street. The third program will be located in the Westmount area.

Tentative plans have been set to construct three new centres in 1976. These would be located in Londonderry, West Jasper Place, and Norwood (integrated with the commonwealth Games site). It should be noted that Londonderry and West Jasper Place contain the highest concentrations of subsidized housing in the City. The Norwood - McCauley areas rated the highest need index for subsidized Day Care. For these reasons it is recommended:

RECOMMENDATION #11: That the Londonderry, West Jasper Place and Norwood areas be approved as the first priority areas for the expansion of subsidized day care programs in 1976. .../18

- 18 Initial discussions have been held regarding two other possible programs. One of these is to be located in the new downtown facility of the Y.W.C.A. and the second to be integrated with a Limited Dividend Housing Project to be constructed in Hermitage. Both of these locations would be appropriate placements for new centres when considered in the context of the data in Appendix A.

RECOMMENDATION #12: That tentative approval be given to be development of subsidized centres in the new Y.W.C.A. facility and in the Hermitage area in 1977. Additional programs to be developed in 1978 and future years would depend on a number of factors including: the availability funds, the growth of the city and population shifts within the city.

Assuming that the need projections remain relatively accurate it is recommended:

RECOMMENDATION #13: That the following be considered as priority areas for the development of subsidized day care centres in the years 1977 - 1980: King Edward, Hazeldean, Duggan, Delton-Newton, Castledowus, Athlone-Calder, and Millwoods. The growth of both the After School Care Programs and the Family Day Care Service would follow the pattern established in the expansion of centres for preschool children.

VII MODEL FOR SERVICE EXPANSION IN EXISTING AREAS OF

THE CITY

As can be seen from the above recommendations a number of areas of the City with a high need for expanded day care services are developed communities. In most of these situations it is either not possible or at the best very expensive to acquire land in order to construct new facilities to house day care programs. .../19

- 19 Fortunately other alternatives are usually available. Most of the current subsidized centres lease existing community facilities which were amenable to renovation and conversion to day care use. This system has proved quite satisfactory in the past. However, a problem is now developing. Up until the present time, the cost of renovations and initial equipment have not been covered through P.S.S. funding. The individual programs have had to appeal to community sources (such as private foundations) for these funds. Initially this system was satisfactory but as the same sources have been tapped repeatedly it becomes more and more difficult to get a committment for additional funds. We are now at the point where this obstacle may impede future development. This system can continue to work and will prove to be one of the most efficient ways of making available new facilities, provided the City can begin to provide financial assistance to cover the cost of initial renovations.

RECOMMENDATION #14: That the basic approach to program expansion in the existing areas of the city continue to be the rental of existing community facilities with the additional support of City grants provided through the P.S.S. funding' mechanism to cover renovation and start up costs. In some situations other alternatives may arise which should be considered on a case by case basis. Such options may include the requirement for the inclusion of day care facilities in major new developments in which the developer has asked for concessions from the City (such as rezoning to permit more intensive land use), or agreements with the School Board for the use of surplus School facilities in inner areas of the City.

The most appropriate location for After School Care Programs is in the Elementary School they serve. Initial discussions have been held with the Edmonton Public School system and tentative agreement has been given on the use .../20

- 20 of school facilities in those situations where there are surplus classrooms. Because the facility requirements for After School Care programs are not as extensive as in the case of preschool centres other options may be open (such as the use of Community League structures and Church halls).

VIII MODEL FOR SERVICE EXPANSION IN DEVELOPING AREAS OF THE CITY An entirely different approach to the development of day care facilities in new areas of the City is called for. In these cases existing community buildings will not be available. In fact based on our experiences in areas such as Londonderry and Millwoods there will be severe shortage of available community facilities for programming of all types. This means that the establishment of a new facility will depend on the acquisition of land and the financing of capital costs. It is unreasonable to expect that community groups will be prepared to carry this responsibility. The successful extension of services in such areas will depend on more active participation of the City in the financing and construction of new facilities.

RECOMMENDATION #15: That the City of Edmonton accept responsibility for the construction of day care facilities for subsidized programs in developing areas of the City. It is not possible to finance such construction directly through the Preventive Social Service Program. However, community groups acting as sponsors of day care programs can be provided with operating funds (including an allocation for rental of facilities) on a yearly basis through the P.S.S. program.

RECOMMENDATION #16: That the City borrow the money to cover the cost of constructing day care facilities and in turn rent the facilities to Community Boards at a level which would cover the debenture repayment. .../21

-21 There are several advantages to this proposal. The City would maintain ownership of the facility and thus would continue to control the equity represented in the facility. In addition the P.S.S. funding used to repay the debenture is cost shared to the level of 807 by the senior levels of government. Thus the City in the final analysis has to cover only 20% of the costs of facility which it will eventually own outright.

In locating day care programs in developing communities several factors have to be considered. The centre should be in relatively close proximity to the potential group of users of the service. Access to the centre must be convenient both by car and by public transportation and finally there is benefit in locating the centres close to public services, such as, health clinics, parkland, school facilities, and public housing. A site integrated with the combined parkland and school reserve would in most situations meet the above requirements.

RECOMMENDATION #17; That a parcel of land be set aside in each new community (generally the area coinciding with the catchment area of a Junior High School and being approximately 20,000 in population) as the location for a subsidized day care program and that this site be integrated with the central park and school reserve where possible and appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION #18: That such day care sites be purchased out of the 5% excess dedication as provided in subsection 2, Section A of Standard Terms of Reference for Development Agreements as Approved by City Council July 17th, 1972 and Ammended February 11th, 1974.

In order to facilitate this process, working arrangements will have to be established between the Day Care Section of Edmonton Social Services and the Realty Development Department and the Subdivision Planning Branch of the Planning Department. On the basis of the recommendation of the Subdivision Planning .../22

- 22 Branch the process of allocating specific sites should take place at the time the Neighbourhood Plan is being developed.

While Edmonton Social Services will be directly involved in the selection of the sites and will have a major role in the design of facilities, it is suggested that the overall responsibility for construction and management of the facility be delegated to the Real Estate and Housing Department. In view of the expertise in the Architectural Services Branch and the Property Management Section of Real Estate and Housing this would seem to be the most effective approach. In addition if the Social Service Department were to maintain direct control of the day care facilities there may arise conflicts between the roles of program consultant and co-ordinator and landlord.

RECOMMENDATION #19: That the Architectural Branch of Real Estate and Housing be assigned the responsibility for managing the construction phase of new day care centres and that the Property Section of the same Department be assigned responsibility for managing the facility and acting as leaseholder to the community group who sponsor the program.

IX INNOVATIONS IN PROGRAM

DELIVERY

An effective day care service system has as its primary objective the positive development of the young children it serves. It is much more than a purely custodial service. It is a child development service and as such overlaps with a number of other service systems, such as, the preschool service system of the Local Board of Health and the Early Childhood Services Program of the Provincial Department of Education.

At the present time there are a number of gaps in the array of services to young children and their families. There are many instances in which children who are stunted in some aspect of their growth (be it intellectual, emotional or .../23

- 23 physical) could have benefited and overcome developmental difficulties if they and their families had had access to preventive programming designed to strengthen the development of these children. It is hoped that over time the Day care Section of Edmonton Social Services can take the initiative to test out in partnership with other organizations new program approaches to meeting such needs.

Such programs might include the following: the provision of upgrading programs to women providing private babysitting services out of their own homes, in-home projects in which parents have access to consultative services in the area of child development, and organized observation nursery programs in which parents can observe their children functioning in a group setting and take part in group discussions aimed at strengthening their abilities as parents. The nature of such program innovations will vary over time depending on changing community needs and advances in the field of child development theory. The important consideration is that we maintain a flexible approach and based on ongoing analysis be prepared to alter our methods of service delivery.

More clearly within the area of traditional day care services there are several needs which our present programs do not meet. In many families the parents work shift work and have difficulty in making child care arrangements for the evening hours and for weekends.

RECOMMENDATION #20: That on a demonstration basis a program of extended day care service (evening hours and weekends) be developed to test out the need and the most appropriate pattern for delivering the service.

.../24

- 24 At the present time we are facing a particularily severe shortage of group care for infants. The Family Day Program is seen as the primary method of meeting this need. At times it is difficult to recruit a sufficient number of homes willing to care for very young children.

RECOMMENDATION #21: That on a demonstration basis a program providing group care of infants be developed. The third large area of unmet need is the lack of temporary child care services which may be required by mothers either in emergency situations or in cases where the mother needs a break from the child care responsibilities. This would be intended for those women who do not have other alternatives, such as, the use of relatives or friends.

RECOMMENDATION #22: That each centre be encouraged to make available one or two placements daily to provide care on a temporary basis to families needing such service,

FIVE YEAR COST PROJECTIONS The following cost projections are based on a 257 annual growth rate in the

volume of service that is provided. The estimates are based on current costs and do not take into consideration the effects of inflation over the next five years.

A OPERATING COSTS The average annual gross cost for one placement in each of the three day care services is as follows: group care for preschoolers - $2,250.00; After School Care - $1,130.00 and Family Day Care - $1,450.00. The income generated through fees is approximately 18% of the gross costs. Based on these figures .../25

25 -

the following project ons are made.

TABLE III PROJECTION OF COSTS BASED ON 25% GROWTH RATE, 1976 - 1980

NUMBER OF SPACES

GROSS COST

FEE INCOME

NET COST

687 343 343

$1,545,750 387,590 497,350

$278,238 69,766. 89,523,

$1,267,515, 317,824 407,827

YEAR

PROGRAM

1976

Centres After School Care Family Day Care Private centre Supplementation Administration Consultation

102,900 76,000 0

343

TOTAL

1977

Centres After School Care Family Day Care Private Centre Supplementation Administration Consultation

858 429 429

$1,930,500 484,770 622,050

$341,490 87,259 111,969

Centres 1,072 After School Care 536 Family Day Care 536 Private Centre Supplementation 536 Administration Consultation

$1,583,010 397,511 510,081 128,700 84,000 30,000

420

TOTAL

1978

$2,172,066

$2,412,000 605,680 777,200

$434,160 109,022 139,896

$2,733,302

$1,977,840 496,658 637,304 160,800 100,000 30,000

TOTAL

$3,402,602

... /26

- 26 YEAR PROGRAM 1979

NUMBER OF SPACES

1,340 Centres 670 After School Care 670 Family Day Care Private Centre Supple670 mentation Administration Consultation

GROSS COST

FEE INCOME

NET COST

$3,015.000 757,100 971,500

$542,700 136,278 174,870

$2,472,300 620,822 796,630 201,000 100,000 45,000

TOTAL

1980

Centres 1,675 837 After School Care 837 Family Day Care Private Centre Supple837 mentation 837 Administration Consultation

$3,768,750 945,810 1,213,650

$678,375 170,246 218,457

$4,235,752

$3,090,375 775,564 995,193 251,000 100,000 45,000

TOTAL

$5,257,232

It is important to keep in mind that these costs would be cost-shared with the two senior levels of government through the Preventive Social Service Program and 807 of these expenditures would be returned to the City. Thus, the city's costs for a day care program expanding at an annual growth rate of 25% over the next five years would be:

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

434,413 546,660 680,520 847,150 1,051,446

Because the program is funded through a cost-sharing arrangement the rate of growth could be limited by a failure of the Province to budget sufficient funds to match the City committment. Effective long range planning would depend .../27

- 27 on some assurance of the amount of money to be allocated by the Province over the next five years. At the present time the P.S.S. program budgets on a year by year basis.

RECOMMENDATION #23: That in order to facilitate long range planning of day care services an approach be made to the provincial Government requesting some indication of the amount of funding which will be allocated for day care services over the next five years.

B. CAPITAL FUNDING It is more difficult to anticipate the requirements for capital funds over the next five years. It is clear from an earlier recommendation that the Social Service Department sees the need for the construction of three new facilities in the coming year. Cost estimates for a sixty child centre are approximately $250,000. This would mean a capital outlay of $750,000 in the coming year. Costs in future years would depend on the rate of program expansion approved. With a 257. annual growth rate we would likely need an average of two new centres a year or a yearly capital outlay of $500,000 in 1975 dollars.

It is again important to remember that these costs would be recovered over time through the rental of the facility to a community sponsor.

APPENDIX A

ANALYSIS OF THE NEED FOR EXPANDED DAY CARE SERVICES IN THE CITY OF EDMONTON

EDMONTON SOCIAL SERVICES PREPARED BY: MICHAEL G. DAY September, 1975

I INTRODUCTION For some time the proponents of organized day care have argued that the need for expanded services is so obvious, and so great that there is no real need to carry out need assessments to analyse this issue. However, the development of a convincing rational for program expansion, the formulation of an operational plan to guide such expansion; and the setting of goals regarding the volume of service which will be required, now necessitate the compilation of a thorough data base.

The following analysis is a beginning step in the development of such a data base. The Report has two separate but interrelated goals.

It will evaluate the need for subsidized care (as currently defined in terms of single parent and low income familiec), and also provide some estimates of the general need for day care considering all families in the city. These estimates will be further analysed to determine the relative need for gamily Hay Care, After School Care, and Group Care for Preschool Children, and will be projected over a five year period.

The second major objective of the Report will be to analyse the relative need for expanded Service in each area of the city. A number of indicators of the need for subsidized day care will be integrated to form a composite index, which when applied in relation to the location of existing centres will provide a guide to the location of new centres in the immediate future.

II PROJECTION OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR NEXT FIVE YEARS There exists no direct indicators of the need for day care services. Therefore the projections contained in this section of the Report are inferences .../2

- 2 based on indirect sources of data. The primary source of information used in these calculations is statistics generated out of the 1971 Federal Census. A full bibliography is contained at the back of this Report.

The estimates of need which follow are calculated on the basis of the number of women presently in the labour force and the increase in this number over the next five years. The projections do not include the number of mothers who are full time students and thus require day care or the number of single parent fathers who have young children. Thus the estimates presented will be conservative.

It is common knowledge that more and more women are entering the labour force. It is only after reviewing the statistical evidence in this area, however, that one realizes what a widespread trend this is, and what a major impact this will have on many Social Services including day care. In the ten year period from 1961 - 1971 the number of women employed in Edmonton increased from 35,541 to 75,780 representing a 113% increase. It also appears that women with preschool children are entering the labour force at approximately the same rate as women generally.

In order to translate the data available on female participation rate in the labour force into projections of the number of day care spaces required, the following progression will be used: A.

The female participation rate will be projected for the next five years.

.../3

- 3 B.

Based on these rates a projection of the number of women in the labour force will be made for the years 1976 - 1980.

Using the present known rates of the number of working women who have preschool and young school age children estimates will be derived of the number of working women with young children for each of the next five years.

Again applying the present, known ratio of the number of young children each working mother has to the figures derived in (C) a projection of the number of children who have working mothers will be made.

The figures in (D) will be broken down into three age groupings 0-2, 2-6, and 6-12 corresponding to the three types of day care services provided and based on these figures estimates of the total number of required child care arrangements will be made.

Through analysis of the family income distribution of families with working mothers, projections of the number of required subsidized day care placements will be given.

A. FEMALE LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES, 1976 - 1980 The labour force participation rates for the years 1961 and 1971 were 41.3 and 48.6 respectively. This represents an average yearly increase of .73. This factor was used to project the rates for the years 1976 - 1980. This data is shown in Table I below.

..14

- 4 TABLE I FEMALE LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES YEAR

1 RATE

1961 1971

41.3 48.6

AVERAGE YEARLY INCREASE

ACTUAL

.73 Projected

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

.73 .73 .73 .73 .73

52.25 52.98 53.71 54.44 55.17

B. NUMBER OF WOMEN IN THE EDMONTON LABOUR FORCE, 1976 . 1980 In order to determine the actual number of women who will work in Edmonton for the sezt five year, else participation rates determined above were applied to population projections for all adult females. These calculations are illustrated in Table II.

TABLE II

YEAR 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

PROJECTED NUMBER OF FEMALES IN EDMONTON LABOUR FORCE, 1976 - 1980 2 NO. OF FAMILIES PARTICIPATION AGE 15+ RATE 170,326 174,700 179,074 183,448 187,822

52.25 52.98 53.71 54.44 55.17

NO. OF FEMALES WORKING 88,995 92,556 96,181 99,869 103,621

C. NUMBER OF WORKING WOMEN WITH YOUNG CHILDREN 3 For the Prairie Provinces it is known that 66,000 working women had preschool children in 1973. This figure taken as a percentage of all women working

...15

- 5 on the Prairies in 1973 (503,000) indicates that 13.1% of worIcing mothers had preschool children. Adjusting for an Alberta labour force participation rate which is higher than the combined Prairie rate, it is estimated that 13.9% of Alberta locrnaa who are working have preschool children. The figures used in this

adjustment are presented in Table III.

TABLE III PARTICIPATION RATES OF PRAIRIE WOMEN

PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE PRAIRIES MANITOBA SASKATCHEWAN ALBERTA ALBERTA/PRAIRIE 1973

39.4

40.4

34.4

41.7

Because women with preschool children were entering the labour force at a rate 2% faster than the overall female population between 1967 and 1973 this trend was continued in making projections for 1976 - 1980. Using this percentage and applying it to the number of women in the Edmonton labour force for the years 1976 - 1980 weobtain the projected number of working women who have preschool children. Table IV contains this data.

TABLE IV NUMBER OF WOMEN IN THE EDMONTON LABOUR FORCE WITH PRESCHOOL CHILDREN, 1976 - 1980

YEAR

NUMBER OF WORKING WOMEN

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

88,995 92,556 96,181 99,869 103,621

% OF WORKING WOMEN WITH PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 14.75 15.04 15.34 15.65 15.96

NUMBER OF WORKING WOMEN WITH PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 13,127 13,920 14,754 15,629 16,538

-6 D. NUMBER OF YOUNG CHILDREN WHO HAVE WORKING MOTHERS 1976 - 1980 Using results from the Nickson Report on Working Women and their child 4 care arrangements it is calculated that 21.95% of Prairie preschool children had working mothers in 1973. Again adjusting for a higher Alberta female participation rate it is calculated that 23.267. of Alberta preschool children had working mothers. 5 In 1973 there were 194,052 preschool children in Alberta. Therefore, 45,136 (194,052 x 23.26%) of these children had working mothers. On the basis of these statistics it appears that each working woman with preschool children had approximately 1.33 (number of preschool children with working mothers divided by the number of working mothers with preschool children or expressed numerically 45,136 divided by 33,916) preschool children.

Assuming that this ratio would be at least this high for the Edmonton situation and would remain relatively constant, Table V shows on estimate of the number of preschool children with working mothers for the years 1976 - 1980.

TABLE V NUMBER OF PRESCHOOL CHILDREN IN EDMONTON WITH WORKING MOTHERS, 1976 - 1980

YEAR

NO. OF WORKING WOMEN WITH PRESCHOOL CHILDREN

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

13,127 13,920 14,754 15,629 16,538

NO. OF PRESCHOOL CHILDREN PER WORKING MOTHER 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33

NO. OF PRESCHOOL CHILDREN WITH WORKING MOTHERS 17,459 18,514 19,622 20,787 21,996

-7 In order to assess the need for Group Care vs Family Day Care placements the projected number of preschoolers with working mothers needs to be broken into two age groups: 0-2 years and 2-6 years. According to the Nizitson Study 727 of these children were in the age range 2 to 6 years. However, the proportion of the total preschool population that is composed of children in the 2-6 year age range will vary over the next five years. Table VI integrates these two factors and projects the number of Edmonton children age 2-6 who will have working mothers in 1976 - 1980. This table also provides figures on the number of these children whose mother works full time.

Conversly Hickson states that 28% of the preschool children with working mothers are under the age of 2. Again integrating this with the percentage of the total preschool population which will be composed of children under 2 between 1976 and 1980 we can project the number of 0-2 year olds with working mothers. Table VII contains this data.

The data is not available to use the model outlined above in order to project the number of Edmonton children aged 6-12 whose mothers work. However, 6 based on a special census run from the 1971 Federal Census we do know the number of such children for the total Province in 1971. Table VIII convevUl taill data to Edmonton figures and projects them for the years 1976 - 1980. We do not have access to data which would indicate how many of these mothers worked full time. Assuming that the incidence would be at least as high as in the case of working mothers with preschool children the same 67.5% factor has been used.

.../8

- 8 TABLE VI PROJECTION OF NUMBER OF EDMONTON CHILDREN AGED 2-6 WITH WORKING MOTHERS, 1976 - 1980 PROPORTION OF

YEAR 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

PROPORTION OF PRESCHOOL CHILDREN WHO ARE AGED 2-6 65.30% 64.82% 64.18% 64.90% 64.99%

NUMBER OF CHILDREN WITH WORKING MOTHERS,7 CHILDREN 2-6 WITH WORKING MOTHERS WHO WILL BE 2-6 68.54% 68.04% 68.04% 68.12% 68.18%

11,966 12,597 13,351 14,160 14,997

NUMBER OF CHILDREN 2-6 WITH MOTHERS WORKING FULL TIME 8,077 8,502 9,012 9,558 10,123

TABLE VII PROJECTION OF NUMBER OF CHILDREN AGED 0-2 gni woutpc MMUS

YEAR 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

PROPORTION OF PRESCHOOL CHILDREN WHO ARE AGED 0-2 34.70% 35.18% 35.19% 35.10% 35.01

PROPORTION OF CHILDREN WITH WORKING MOTHERS,8

WHO WILL BE 0-2 30.94% 31.37% 31.37% 31.29% 31.21%

NUMBER OF CHILDREN 0-2 WITH WORKING MOTHERS 5,402 5,808 6,155 6,504 6,865

NUMBER OF =Mt 0â&#x20AC;¢2 WITH somas wonING FULL TIME 3,646 3,920 4,155 4,390 4,634

- 9 TABLE VIII PROJECTION OF THE NUMBER OF EDMONTON CHILDREN AGED 6-12 WITH WORKING MOTHERS, 1976 - 1980 YEAR ACTUAL NUMBER OF ALBERTA CHILDREN WITH YEAR WORKING MOTHERS 1971

Aged 6-9 Aged 10-1

24,560 22,240

6,607 5,983

TOTAL

46,800

12,589

NUMBER OF FEMALES YEAR WORKING 1971 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF EDMONTON CHILDREN WITH WORKING MOTHERS

75,825 88,995 92,556 96,181 99,869 103,621

PERCENT INCREASE 17.4% 22.1% 26.8% 31.7% 36.7%

PROJECTED NUMBER OF CHILDREN AGED 6-12 IN EDMONTON WITHHCORK/1G MOTHERS

PROJECTED NUMBER OF CHILDREN AGED 6-12 IN EDMONTON WITH MOTHERS WORKING FULL TIME

12,589 14,779 15,371 15,963 16,580 17,209

8,496 9,976 10,375 10,775 11,192 11,616

While it is clear from the data that there are a large number of young children whose mothers work either part time throughout the year, or full or part time for a short time during the year the balance of the projections in the working paper will deal only with children whose mothers work full time throughout the year. It is felt that while many families in the first instance need child care arrangements the need may not be as critical as in cases where the mother works full time. The latter situations are of first priority and public funds which became available through the next five years should be allocated in meeting this need.

-107 E. PROJECTION OF THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN NEEDING SUBSIDIZED DAY CARE ARRANGEMENTS The Federal Government through the Canada Assistance Plan is cost sharing up to 50% of the costs of publicly supported day care programs. A set of criteria to determine program eligibility for such cost sharing has, been developed. Included in these Federal Guidelines are criteria to determine which families qualify for subsidized care. Any family whose income falls below social assistance rates plus on allowance for work related expenses is entitled to full subsidization. Families whose incomes fall between this level and the average Provincial income are eligible for partial subsidy. Families over the Provincial average income are required to pay the actual cost of the day care service.

An income distribution of families with working mothers and young children (based on 1971 Federal Census data) had been analysed in accordance with the criteria set out above in order to determine the number of fully subsidized and partially subsidized spaces which will be required over the next five years. Table IX contains this information.

TABLE IX NUMBER OF CHILDREN WITH WORKING MOTHERS REQUIRING DAY CARE SUBSIDIZATION A. FULL SUBSIDIZATION UNDER SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ALLOWANCE PLUS WORK RELATED EXPENSES 9

CHILDREN IN SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES HEADED BY WOMEN

CHILDREN IN TWO PARENT FAMILIES

Less than $3,999 $4,000 - $4,580 (4,999) $5,000 - $5,402

1,206 399 0

4,575 1,185 553

Sub-totals

1,605

6,313

TOTAL

7,918

B. PARTIAL SUBSIDIZATION BETWEEN SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ALLOWANCE PLUS WORK RELATED EXPENSES AND AVERAGE PROVINCIAL INCOME 4,580 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000

4,999 (5402) - 5,999 6,999 7,999 8,999 9,475

Sub-totals

CHILDREN IN SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES HEADED BY WOMEN

CHILDREN IN TWO PARENT FAMILIES

209 420 257 165 84 28

830 1,795 1,985 2,331 1,200

1,163

8,141

TOTAL

9,304

There were 33,087 young children in Alberta in 1971 whose mother worked. Thus 23.93% (7918/33,087 x 100) of these children would have qualified for full day care subsidization. An additional 28.12% (9304/33,087 x 100) would have been eligible for partial subsidization. Projecting these percentages through the next five years we can determine the numbers of day care spaces requiring partial and full subsidization. Refer the Table X for these results. These figures are also presented in graph form: children aged 0-2 in Figure I, children 2-6 in Figure II and children 6-12 in Figure III.

F. SUMMARY The projections contained in this paper are as accurate as the available data permits. Because the estimates are based on inferential analysis, misjudgements in relation to any one of several factors could lead to different result. For example, a female participation rate increase of significantly more or less than the projected .737 would have a direct effect on the projections.

./12

-12 TABLE X NUMBER OF EDMONTON CHILDREN REQUIRING PARTIALLY AND FULLY SUBSIDIZED DAY CARE PLACEMENTS â&#x20AC;¢ BY AGE GROUP, 1976 - 1980

AGE GROUP

YEAR

NUMBER OF CHILDREN WHOSE MOTHERS WORK FULL TIME

QUALIFYING FOR QUALIFYING FOR FULL SUBSIDY PARTIAL SUBSIDY 10 Estimate Adjustment Estimate Adjustment

0-2

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

3,646 3,920 4,155 4,390 4,634

872 938 994 1,050 1,109

741 797 845 892 943

1,025 1,102 1,168 1,234 1,303

872 937 993 1,049 1,108

2-6

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

8,077 8,502 9,012 9,558 10,123

1,933 2,035 2,157 2,287 2,422

1,643 1,730 1,833 1,944 2,059

2,211 2,391 2,534 2,688 2,847

1,931 2,032 2,154 2,285 2,420

6-12

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

9,976 10,375 10,775 11,192 11,616

2,387 2,483 2,578 2,678 2,780

2,029 2,111 2,191 2,276 2,363

2,806 2,917 3,030 3,147 3,266

2,386 2,479 2,575 2,675 2,776

.../13

page

FIGURE I

Children Aged 0-2 With Working Mothers, 1976, 1980

. I

•

• .,•.

" .•

•

"-?-r!--t-ri

I ! ,

•

' 1 . • :

•

' 4

: I •. :

• •

•

- . - _-1_-_ • • • • . • i I 1 Chirdren.0.1.1,1-t-li VorAln oilletsi -e-cu_ Iffirica_Tat-tial. S-nbsidizaticin • , , 1 i 1 ; 11_,_:_t ; • . i • ; ! ; .1 II. i . , : . •i; - , . , ..i.i.,;,

i' , t'1.117. 1 :

1 1

1 I

. ''I•r! •11;

•

. •1•1•!. !!; I 1 Ili.; .1•1..if , •!!'!111 1•1•!1'. . 1 1 1 1 11111:I::: '•:111111.Li.1•1 i•1111Iiii: 1 1;1.•

. : ! ; ,

. 1 11-Th, int

,! :

1' : I

5000

. 1 : 1

i i

;

I ,

i .

1 I I I I i ; ' I f :

: 1 : 'I

1 , r;,,:..11:

'.1 - 1 I--

I : . ; • . I .

1 .

•1!.

. •2

••• .1 i . 11

3000

•

11 ,1 I•

I I

. . . ! .. : . 1 I I 1 i

• •

. -

•

..... . ..

••

;!.

. •

••

. 1

.r, •

• MN 1

. .

1 .

..-- :

.11•;1

. _

••: ,.

;

....-

• ••

'--

•

. . .

q97

• 4...

. , _ , , ,

• : : ,

1976

: ; , .

. , • .

1977

•

huh: •

111.1.11,

.7 -1-•

.1;. - '• :11:

1. . . : ' • -

; 1 7.--1

• ' :

....„It'•

I .

• - . . I . I . ! ,

-..• i• : .. '___1_•,_,•:!•:•• ii1.1•1 • :.-1-

•

! ' • I I I / .

;

1 :

• .. 1

; ,

. , . •

.• !

•

I- , ! '

•

-,.

. .

•

. •

_: , . '

•

... ..

. i: !' . . . .;

: • : . • .

' .• . .• .

. . :

. •

. . • . .-7-r: • • , ; • . L; ; . • • 1 . 1 :i

• • 1 : . • .• . .

; :

: ___. _,,.....,. , 1& :

• :

771

, .

. . . 1 - 1 1! I-, !I. 'Ill 1 ,..: . . 1 11 • ---,_ 1 • ! ' , • • .1 . ..•,..

: . . . : .

I. .. :.

. , :

r .

, .

. -

•

- -----.rz..-....:::-...-..,.,,„r.--......-........-......941 '''' - .-. • 1,....z ..-.,............._........-„,,,r 7gr5....__::-__t_____ . 0..., ....;;__.,..,_.

! 1 , ; , ; i I ' : . •

'. . !•. ' . 1-7-r-4 EL. ; i • ' ' '

,,. ,.

1 : . I •

. , 1

. . : , • •

:!111.1

;

: . ; . . •---+ •.••••...1:1 •,11. • ' • ___,-_.I-- 1 ' .h"

. 1 !: LL . .

; l . 'i :; ' • .i;i '

•

, . 1 i 1 . • : ; I

. . ! .

; 1 . I . 1 . I . : 1 ! . ; • I . :

1 . : . : :•

I I .

•

!..:. . • . . : i . .

: .

1 , ••• '• 11. .. 111:111:.t111.

1 .

, I

:•,•

: I 1 ' : I I I 11 ,. •,' i ,;..! .,,. , - !, •Hi •.

. 1

•

, • ; I .

r ,

•.

; . i

... , ; , 1 ' . 1L:1,7 I . 1 : : ' .I .i1!.1.-_!. .---7T 1 ,. 7 . , 1 . : 11:11• ' ' !,!'.!--7-:-.' • .. ;!.!. 1. •1, .--''.i1' ..: ..

IIIII

,.." :

;11i.

1 •

, ; , r

• • , ,

• : ' ...!-L

i I I . z 1

..7, _, "

. r

lit. , : 1 1 . ; j j ; . : I I I 1 I 1 : : 1 1 . 1 • j ,

. ; I

:. :; . .

• '

.! ••-•• li:•

•

.i..1.1! 1,, i..! huh III,

• • 1 ! I : . , , . , .

•

; 1 . j. • . . ' • : I

Iti.

, , , , . , . " . • i 1 1 ' ; . • ! . ! 1• I, .. . . .' ;1 ::' ' 11 •,,, 1 :, .

7-1!

•r----i-I-•,--t-- i•••••• ...•

. 1

.III;'L.;

!.11; .:

• ! . ,;7

1 1 I I i . ! . ! ; I i I • . r-j-i-r-; :

•

!. 11

• . 463-4• , • c..•1. 1 . -1-.• ! , ; : - 1. 0 . i__. , . .• • • ! i : . • .• • : . • ., . . , . . ,• 155 • .iii!,1 1-77..11,....1 1 , : !:;1.::.

. 11"it

111i1i . i . :.

I.!

. I -11' III I , i

, , .

• : • !

. : I

;r••.,. ,,1 , ,

• . , 1 .

1:11!• 1:111,-1!. '1'i'll,': i . • '1 1 :1• . 1 i• 1.1•1!":: . , !.

; !fl!. ! • ' ; i' .1••• •'' .• i-7 ... •••-•------..-.- -L.:L:777i 7-Fi-7-7. L;..H.1!• ..... ... i . 1 .;;.!1,.) . 1 1 ;!:. 1 .

1 l . . 1 i!• !. •

il ma -- !'11

,,-::.:

I ; - , :

• • .

' ' ,

'• .;:.

1 1

: I

1 1 r. . i I i ! ! I 1 . I

. , i

•

'.1

, . 3646 .I ;--rl-r--'--..

500

.,,

•

. . . ,

• , : : : ; ,

i;::11•111i. . 7-11,

. I . 1 I ; i I 1 I ; 1 ; ; • I

lin I.

3500

1000

I I

•!

: m

1500

. , ;

-7 -

'1.111'

•

4500 ...

; I 1 '

;

,i. j

4000

: .1,

1 : . ! . .

•

,,,,•,

. -

Wof.kx.ngaio.t1iexs:Re_q_ulittnDbstclizatIgn • • .

i 1

...•3 .!;..•, :.:., ! , 1,r., , .. , .. , 1,;•,;., , . ,...., .,.; ' Li . : .- - : : . . .

„,,„: .,

Fild-ze.n 0 -2 Iff...t

III

..----

111- . •

.1!

•

chadre--n----0-27741.th- iforRrng -11-cith-crs-1-r-

•

i 1 1 . - i :, , IF I. I :I

197-8

i , .

•

1979-

. .:::• . . .

• i • • 1 :1

•

. •

: : . : . :1 , ..:1,

• 1.980

, -..-i

Page 1.4

FIGURE II Children Aged 2-6 With Working Mothers, 1 1„,

I • 7

•

! :

;

1111 I 1 •

• • 1

•

; • ; 1 I ! •

10000

•

1! J

7_1

;

' '

' • i • .• : • , • I I I 1

2 1 •

I I

HEHT• .

1 ,I . 1 i IiiI

. 7t.

r-.

•

: r; •

r 1

; .

•

I I 1

•

! • • •

•

, : , • •

• i

I I

•

I:-

• . • :

L-, T 4-- •

1 I ; 1

: r- .;

! ,

i •

. 1 I t

• ,

--!--r . . . •,:,

r-- • ,

1 1 I

•

1976, 1980

3 :1!

• •

1 !

;

; • :

9500 ; '

ill ;

;

•

I ,

8000 1• •;

" •

•

••• :

1 -71 -1

1 1

•

• i

•

;

•

I • I ' :

••

•

F. . t

; :

•

I . ..

' i

1 1

! . . ; •

; • • 1

•

, 1

, -

,.._ •

. • •

1-7-i----

; II .

• I

• :

i_. 1-

•

1-.•!. .

.---)-, •. ,

•

.i.•,

;17-., , ,,... ,i• .., i i,.',

171-77

•

;

: • I . •

;

•

• i •

•

. • •

: • r

T•.

7-.1

r 1

I-

7-1- . • 1

• ,

1 : h.

1 % ! : :

•. r • • • .••

tI 1 I

. ;

I ! I

•

• . : 1 1

. •

• _ :i 1

! • 1 : ;

, , ,

, ,

• I i • . •• I1 ! ;

• . 1

II; , ••

: :

,. • , . : ;

.,,-

• •

•

. ;

I 1

•

• • ;

, •

1,1i

1 1

• 11

1976

! ;

: • : •

:I II , !

;

1- •

228-5

•

I • :•

•

i519dren..--2-6-With--We;rking-Hi

.1:

•

. •

1• : . : • . •i

. :

•

. 'C-hltdren-2--0-Tkiih--We:rkin„, 0= 4

;

1111 1 1

1977

subStd-tzatton

! ,. i 1.' - : , , : ; , . r-:- ' -r

---:-"^-- - . -• r 7"--.-7-1-tr . •;-;.• • '

;

I • :

, ; i -

I 1

•

• I

• -7/0. • -L •• L.133. . .

. ,

;

" • 500

•

1: 1•11H.,.7-HH-;_. ; I . •

l il

• . ! .

• • _LI-__-:,_LL ,

I 1 : ,

: . T • :.. - :"

, 1 . 1•- - ' I. 1 1._ • • : : 1--;--;-• • : • ; h" --': : - • 7

• •

- 1

1500 •

i i ; : , .111r

_ . ! • i..771-t-7- ;r-------.--;:-.------i-------L---L-:-i-----' " • , , :. 1i • • • : irL . ; i ; 1 . ! I ; r' : irt. '• :. i t : 1 ` r-. .!; , 1 , i I.:: , i ,) ! ,In III ..)1:: , , i I i . , : 1 , I : , ,,,, I I—I-1 : • ; ; . : • • •

, ; 1 ; i • • . , 1--: . '-: 1-t"! I ; 7,-; • _ • •;• 1-t"'-' r•-• :

. : ;

,--,--- . .

I i '

. _1 _

._, !

: : : T•

I . ; , , .

: . :

• -

• !

;

.. •

3000

. ' •; :. -. ! . -1-7 : . -

. : . ,

•-

;

III

111:1 ! '

• -•:—.--;---7-r-,-1--; , , t . •

1.000

2000

•

; I

. -

• ! . !

, '• I ' ' • - ' ! ; ! I

•

1 1

•

;!,•• 11111-7...:11.•

- ,• 1 11 ,1

1 I

;

1iii

; :

.II•

•

‘.

•

: ! • 7; • II . . • • • r- • • I • . i •

8500

2500

•

9000

7500

' 1

197.8

, . -sub si-dtza tton- •

;

. •

• •

. ••

: t--- . .

•

71 i

• • • -AT1tChiadren . • • , • •

;

1919- • •

vorking-mo khers

r-,-!

1930

•

FIGURE III Children Aged 6-12 With Working Mothers, 1976, 1980 I

. I

• • ;

! II: '

, •

I ; •

•

! • I •

: •

•

IMO ; I Ell I ,-,ii 1

, ,•

I •

•

: 7. , ' I i : • I

80.00 ..._ _ :

•

• .•

• : : • •

•

;

•

. ,

i 11;

ii ;

; • . • ; • . .

I , • • . ' ; ' . T , 1 • 1 . ; ' 1 1" " I • •

' ! I t "

••

. • • ' " : I I I • , r-: • i----1 1 :-1 • , • ! : :

. •

:I•

•

;1[11! , ", • r___

I :

i .

i 1

1 1

.•.11: I :• 11

r . L.

•

' • . .

: . i

•

. __!_+__

• 1 -. , L.2, : ! I 1 '

. i I i ' : • I •

.__

3000

•. -I ; • . . 1 I "

" 1

• . 1: ; l•

! I I I ; . I

. :

: :

: 1

I I I 1 1 I ! : I I I I 17. 1 "1 "77-. 71 1- 11 ! 1 I II I I

' .

1111 1 1 1: I 7 I, 1; i • I : i 1 . ' L...1 _.,4_1_.;..' r L•

I • • .

, : - 1 I II i , I!: 1 I .• 1-. • t I I .. . t 11 ' : • 1.11 : . .. 1 1 1 1 1 i r-r- • 1

i. ! .

. 1 f ; . ; 171 •

I 1 1, ! : •

I • I_Lp, . • ,

• 1

: • ! •

F I

: i

., :

. .

1 1

Fr!

' J

1:.„

I I ; • I I 1 ,

. ....4___ 11 ! i . , • 1! 9 :i.,

• L: •

• 1

: ! : • , • , .

, : . i..

i , 1 I

' . . "

IIII i

! " 1: I: it" ' !I.,

1111 ! ri---. , . ri . . ,,1 • . • ;, , , . : • • , • , . : . . , .. }-.H.--..---7-7--'.- • .---.1. i , ‘........ • • . 1 ..:1 : I ' • -I-

•

. I

t t . ! 7 ,

•

; •

• . 1 , . • : :1 I • 1: I • H - .

. ,____. • • • 1....._ •

•

11 : I 1

•

'III!

••

;••

1 LL_L: --: I-) I I , • ”- ! : :

• :

i : ' • ' 1-! 1 ! • I ,

. • .•

I I

, . ; . .

• r : i .

' —LL . . . ' • --' I- • .r-r- !' : 1 .1, ,:7°-: , ; i ;I I :

. ! .

1000 500 •

;

' • ' - • ' • ' ! ' i ' .: ; ' • ; '• ': ; , ---r-r-rri-7- i.!-!,- r ; , ; ' ; i-r-r-E 1 ! ! • I • '

_1_

[ • • ;

•

. •

•

; . ;1; ; • ;

; • ; : 1976

! . : I : ! i- , ! ! i • ! ! '

1977

. i • 197811

: • • •! ' -1-7. • r •. ;

•

; 197

: : i 1• ' ; , : . :

n -, -.1 • : .

,. 1

DitItherS -ReStilitilt-F121-1-i÷11

-, .

! • : ! •

- ; :

. ; ; L':

: • ;

I 1

r • r I

: . • IT : :

• .. • .

I I— : --- '- - 7 • 7- , : 7.-i-, : 11.--• :• _ .1 ---•,--• • ••i . ! ; : • ; i - • 1 ;' : : ;l i , . . • '''...;_•_:,..)...r,Ir ' • • --"'n"".7"--!. - 236-3—-.-h-i 1' .I___ ,;; ----.-1--1.! -z....!=7-•.t11-7-6-4: . , i• . .-71-r-jr; : i : ' • : . ' ...'.....--• •=•. 7!..1,77 la7.7 91 "-".• ..... _ L ; ; . ,• , : 2000 Ii 2!0.:; 9 .T . . . --7--; -i-f i: : , , •, , 1 „___L_ • • F" : • --: : ! • :• • : : : ! . • .• , •, '.-i-, - . • -t ! . !,, i • , , . : 7. • 1500:_1,.' .. - .I 1 1_ . ,'

2500

. •

• :'__ r .

• , i ,

, I :

)

! •

• .L.-1. ..-.1.- " I ' .... I ' ; • ii! : 1

. ;;;:,:•',1 1;i:,1:1• itli• ! • : ;;',, •

,- ;1:•...,1.:,'

•' • r

I: 1: il I;

i l r!,

. .

•

: ' .'

1 i •

••

. 1

:11 I: : !I. ; . • • I i I i r : I : • • I I . : ' • :•

. i

;I.!

•

I •

i'l"-H---: . . : : I ; • .

• : : . . ----,--r--;-r .I , ---.,-, . . . . . . . • -1--i--• „ - -.-.. . . . , . .._..r_r...7....__. :..._,.,_..7........._.,....7.........-:.--7--7_77..--.......__7.r7 • i . : i . 1 . ; • • I-- . ., • ;-: • . ; rt.!' r-• i • - -7 . . • - - • • ! I I III-!.1 • 1 . I 1

• '

. 1 • I i i • ! I '. : • ' • • I T-

, I ' :1 ! • • 1 .1 I I I I II! ; ' ' ! I 1 I I • I I ' •

•

I , i , 1 ' , •

r!ilil:

.. r

f •

• !

1 ! ! . 1 . i •

11 ., •11 iii !;;;•,: 111 i , 1 - !l i i :. 1:!:: , 1 .11; li i - ' , I: I :';;;,,,; 1:11 , ' • :::.." iiri I._ : .,•,: •,_ :•111!: :•!m , i—r.

: : .

• •

. .

. ;

•

, 17-77- j:!•!

• • •• I-. • i

h ' i !

: t

: •

I . ;!!!;. !1 : .;,!!!,! 1:

! 1

• • ! 1 •

;

, .

•

I. 1 1 I

:• . . .

•

111

,•

r. I . L•

•

-t-

. :

•

3500

11 • P

•

9000

•

• !

' ": . • I I '

;z1

;,----r-

: : .

99 I 1 I I • .11

9500

1 1 •

• :II! •

10000

•

; : I ;

. . . • 1 : .1: , • • • 1 1 1: • •

• . :1 , I • :

' I ! ; 11

; ;

; 11 • : • . ; I ;

• •

•

• , • . • ,

! • , , •

••

11000

. •

: I

• ;

•

10300

Page 15

•

Sub s idiza tion•7.I-•r • •77-1-. .! , : • ; • f.H ;

7771 •

; AILLCIfildren 6+1:27111.-fri-J •

•-

ii!;0111!

; ;;;;):

- 16 However, there is a strong case for arguing that the projections contained in this paper are conservative and if inaccurate will prove to be too low rather than too high. There are a number of factors which support this statement; - At each point in the analysis where judgement had to be exercised, the conservative methodology was adopted. - These estim- tes do not consider the need for day care in situations where the mother is unable to care for her children for reasons other than employment, such as a student mother, or a mother incapacitated due to a mental or physical health problem. (Our current subsidized day care system serves a substantial number of such cases). The estimates do not consider the need for day care in cases of single parent families headed by fathers (although the relative number of such cases is small it is increasing steadily). The estimates do not consider the need for day care in cases where the child has special needs requiring the service, such as a physical or mental handicap, a development lag, etc.. - And finally and perhaps most importantly the Report does not consider the fact that there are many women who are presently not working but would prefer to be; the major obstacle being the lack of acceptable day care service. Hickson indicates that in Canada as a whole 177. of the mothers in the 20-24 year age range are not working but would prefer to be and of those 507. indicate the reason they are not working is that they cannot find adequate child care arrangements.

;-'17 It is difficult to translate the projections of the number of child care arrangements which will be required into estimates of the number of day care spaces offered by formally organized services, which will be needed. It is obvious that a great number of parents make private arrangements with friends, or relatives and would continue to do so even if spaces in organized programs were available. It is also obvious, however, that the number of formal day care spaces is so far below the total projected need that a great gap exists. It is certain that virtually all of the families estimated to need partial or full subsidy will have real difficulty in finding good care arrangements for their children without assistance from a Government supported program. To put this in perspective the Report estimates that in 1976, 4,413 children will qualify for full subsidy and another 5,189 children will qualify for partial subsidy. At the present time there are a total of approximately 950 subsidized spaces in the City of Edmonton.

III DETERMINATION OF PRIORITY AREAS FOR THE EXPANSION OF DAY CARE SERVICES Up until this time it has been possible to initiate subsidized day care programs in any location of the city and be assurred that the service will very quickly be operating at capacity with a list of families waiting to be admitted to the program. For this reason it has not been necessary to be selective in determining sites for new centres. The major factor for this has been the shortage of subsidized placements relative to the number of families needing service and who qualify according to the program's criteria.

While this situation still exists in general, it is felt that a rational allocation of resources across the city requires a more planned approach to program expansion. This will help assure that communities with extreme need will not be .../18

- 18 overlooked. In addition, the establishment of new centres in developing areas of the city will require some lead time to ensure that land is available and that the program is developed in concert with other community services. Thus the need for new programs in such areas should be identified in advance.

To facilitate this planning process, which is in fact a process of identifying or gauging the relative need for such services in various areas of the city, a data base needs to be developed. As was the case in the first section of this Report no direct indicators of community need for day care service exist. Therefore, we will once again be dependent on indirect measurement of need.

This section of the Report will first analyse the overall need for day care without reference to subsidization and will highlight areas that appear to be under serviced. Information on the distribution of preschool children and female labour force participation rates will be integrated to give a need index. This will be compared with the distribution of all licensed day care facilities.

The Report will go on to provide a similar analysis, dealing only with the need for subsidized care. In this case the distribution of single parent families and the average family income will be integrated to form the index, and the resulting information will be compared with the location of existing subsidized programs.

A. DISTRIBUTION OF OVERALL DAY CARE NEED Based on information from the Social Needs Survey conducted by Edmonton Social Services in 1972 we can obtain female labour force participation rates by area of the city. Each Census Tract was rank ordered, with the tract with the .../19

- 19 lowest rate ranked #1, the tract with the second lowest rate ranked #2, etc.. The same Census Tracts were also ranked according to their preschool population with the tract with the lowest population ranked #1, the tract with the second

11 lowest population ranked #2, etc..

These two rank order numbers were added together to give a composite need index relating to day care services. Table XI contains a summary of this data. The Census Tracts, are listed in the order of their need index from highest to lowest.

TABLE XI NEED INDEX RELATING TO DAY CARE SERVICE FOR EDMONTON CENSUS TRACTS

CENSUS TRACT 77 2 76 75 1 5 6 42 58 28 26 27 12 65 7 59 3 35 70 15 41 71 39

RANK ORDER ON FEMALE PARTICIPATION RATE 14 19 19 14 11 19 9 10 10 8 17 8 11 7 9 12 11 13 9 14 15 9 15

RANK ORDER ON PRESCHOOL POPULATION 79 73 77 75 77 63 71 74 70 69 60 68 65 67 64 59 61 56 58 53 52 57 50

NEED INDEX 93 92 91 89 88 82 81 84 80 77 77 76 76 74 74 71 72 69 67 67 67 66 65 .../20

-20 -

CENSUS TRACT 20 44 50 72 56 9 4 19 67 66 73 55 68 8 25 37 36 40 11 61 21 14 38 31 24 54 51 62 57 69 43 16 13 17 46 34 10 18 74 32 23 22 31 45 30

RANK ORDER ON FEVALIV PARTICIPATION RATE 13 1 8 9 18 16 19 14 9 16 9 6 9 9 17 14 14 15 5 7 13 14 14 3 16 13 8 13 17 9 17 14 5 14 4 1 5 14 14 3 5 5 3 1 3

BANK ORDER ON PRESCHOOL POPULATION 51 62 55 54 42 38 35 44 48 41 47 49 43 40 32 31 30 28 36 34 27 26 23 33 19 20 24 18 14 21 9 11 16 6 15 17 13 2 1 10 8 7 4 5 3

NEED INDEX 64 63 63 63 60 54 54 58 57 57 56 55 52 49 49 49 44 43 41 41 40 40 37 36 35 33 32 31 31 30 26 25 21 20 19 18 18 16 15 13 13 12 7 6 6 .../21

-21 -

CENSUS TRACT 29 48 49 52 53 63 64 78 90

RANK ORDER ON FEMALE PARTICIPATION RATE

RANK ORDER ON PRESCHOOL POPULATION

NEED INDEX

Data not available

This information is also illustrated in Map I. The basic map shows the distribution of day care need viewed in general terms without reference to subsidization. The level of need is divided into three categories: high need (the top 157. of the census tracts according to the need index), average need (the mid 607,), and low need (the bottom 157.). The overlay shows the distribution of licensed day care services. Each dot represents a licensed program. The number in each census tract shows the total number of licensed spaces for that area.

In general it seems that the need for day care service and the location of existing centres are poorly matched. The location of centres tends to be centralized in the inner area of the city, while areas of high general need are on the perimetre of the city. Several communities with the highest need rating have very little or no day care service within the areas. Included in such communities are Londonderry, Steele Heights, Springfield, Collingwood, Millwoods, Petrolia, Riverbend, and Parkdale.

One of the problems which may be hindering a more appropriate distribution of services is the difficulty that both private operators and Community .../22

- 22 Boards are encountering in trying to find suitable facilities in these outlying areas.

B. DISTRIBUTION OF THE NEED FOR SUBSIDIZED DAY CARE SERVICES Three factors were considered in analysing the relative need for subsidized day care in various communities of the city. The census tracts were 12 rank ordered on the basis of average family's income from highest to lowest. They were also rank ordered in relation to the number of single parent families 13 with children at home. These two ratings were added together to again form a composite need index. Table XII contains these ratings listed by census tract from highest need to lowest.

TABLE XII NEED INDEX RELATING TO SUBSIDIZED DAY CARE SERVICE FOR EDMONTON CENSUS TRACTS

CENSUS TRACT 44 55 60 27 34 56 47 59 14 28 21 50 70 61 71 62 46 20

RANK ORDER ON AVERAGE FAMILY INCOME 73 76 68 62 77 74 60 65 72 59 64 69 56 75 57 70 67 45

RANK ORDER ON SINGLE PARENT

FAMILIES

NEED INCOME

77 71 76 79 64 65 78 73 66 75 68 61 70 49 67 50 51 72

150 147 144 141 141 139 138 138 138 134 132 130 126 124 124 120 118 117 .../23

-23 -

CENSUS TRACT 25 17 53 67 12 31 35 32 65 13 63 33 57 58 39 45 48

54 42 73 74 52 66 15 6 68 37 75 36 49 51 69 41 29 43 78 22 96 26 19 40 16 64 72 30 1 38 76 2

RANK ORDER ON AVERAGE FAMILY INCOME 63 61 54 53 38 46 52 35 41 58 42 66 47 55 34 78 43 51 37 49 79 33 40 50 71 36 16 31 17 18 32 25 19 8 23 44 39 48 13 28 11 21 26 27 9 30 15 24 10

RANK ORDER ON SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES 54 53 59 60 74 63 55 69 62 43 58 27 46 36 57 13 48 40 52 32 1 47 39 28 4 38 45 30 42 41 26 33 37 44 29 7 12 2 35 18 34 21 16 15 31 10 24 14 25

NEED INCOME 117 114 113 113 112 109 107 104 103 101 100 93 93 91 91 91 91 91 89 81 80 80 79 78 75 44 61 61 59 59 58 58 56 52 52 51 51 50 48 46 45 42 42 42 40 40 39 38 35

-24 -

CENSUS TRACT

RANK ORDER ON AVERAGE FAMILY INCOME

RANK ORDER ON SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES

14 6 4 22 20 1 12 2 7 5 3

17 20 22 3 5 23 11 19 9 8 6

37 23 24 18 77 9 3 10 8 4 5

NEED INCOME 31 26 26 25 25 24 23 21 16 13 9

A third factor which is useful to consider when setting priorities for the expansion of subsidized day care services is the location of subsidized housing units. The data used in determining the need index is drawn from the 1971 Census. The situation in several of the outlying communities has changed dramatically in the last several years. One of the major factors in this change has been the development of subsidized housing.

Map II presents the information relating to the need for subsidized care. The basic map shows the need as indicated by the need index. Three categories are used: high need (the top 15% the census tracts according to the need index), average need (the mid 607) and low need (the bottom 157). The first overlay shows the distribution of subsidized housing. Each dot represents a separate housing project. The number in each census tract indicates the total number of subsidized housing units in that tract. The second overlay shows the location of existing subsidized day care services. Centres serving children 21/2 to 6 years of age are indicated by a round dot and After School programs are indicated by a triangle.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;125

MAP r THE DISTRIBUTION OF GENERAL 'LAY .CARE

153rd o

107 th- ove 49

High Need ,Medium. Need Need

census tract city boundary scale in miles 0

Blank Areas Data Not Available

DISTRIBUTION Of LICENSED DAY CARE CENTRES IN EDMONTON

tio

Represents One Centre The Numbers Represent the Total Day Care Spaces in Elkh Census Tract.

IIAP II THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE NEED F

census tract

High Need .

city boundary

, VOL \ Mediurn Need \Low Need

scale in miles mzsc=3.;,==wia....namsma

DISTRIBUTION' OF- SUBSIDIZED- EC:USING PRGJECT3

1 visiRIBT/T70:1 OF SUBSIDIIF.D ramritmsâ&#x20AC;¢ IN EEI-CatriON CP Day care Centre

Exiting Project

ts,Pro_pcvsedi Drolect -ber of Subatdizea Number itepreaents The Total Nc-.. Housing Units, Irr Each, Census. Tract

CI After Scheel czere Frogra=

- 27 As was expected the addition of the information relating to public housing changes the picture substantially. On the basis of this consideration the following census tracts would be added to the high need category: 1, 6, 7, 15, 28, 41, 42, 65, 70, 75, 76, 77, and 90.

In viewing this information in relation to the distribution of subsidized centres it is clear which areas are under serviced in relation to their need.

C. SUMMARY In general there are four areas of the city that would be given priority in considering the location of additional subsidized centres. The area along the North-East perimetre of the city is one such high priority area. The communities of Steele Heights and Londonderry have a high level of existing need. The new areas of Castle Downs and Hermitage will develop such need as these communities expand.

The South-East area of the city including the general areas of Duggan and Millwoods are also high priority with a need which will expand sharply as subsidized housing projects are completed in Millwoods.

The Western boundary of the city would also be rated as a high need area largely due to the concentration of multi-family subsidized housing projects. The communities of Springfield and Collingwood would be included.

The fourth high priority area is a corridor of older communities .../28

- 28 running North-South all lying to the East of 97th Street. This need would be concentrated in the Norwood and McCauley areas but would also include Delton, Santa Rosa, Newton, Croadale and South of the river, King Edward and Hazeldean.

FOOTNOTES 1. These rates are based on Federal Census data. 2. These figures based on City of Edmonton and Edmonton Sub-Region Population Projections, Planning Department, 1974. 3. This figure provided through telephone conversation with M. Nickson of Statistics Canada. 4. M. Nickson, Preliminary Report on Working Mothers and their Child Care Arrangements in 1973, Statistics Canada, January 1975. 5. National Health & Welfare, 1973. 6. Special run from 1971 Federal Census, Female 15+ in Census families by family status (head, spouse) by labour force activity, weeks worked, full or part time, family income and aggregate number of children by age. 7. In 1973 727, of the preschool children who Ilea working mothers were in the 2-6 year age group. Percentages for the years 1976 - 1980 were calculated through the following formula: % of preschool children who will be 2-6 for a particular year % of preschool children who were 2-6 in 1973 x % of children who had working mothers and were in the 2-6 age range in 1973 or X 68.6%

x 72%

8. Conversoly in 1973 287, of the preschool children who had working mothers were in the 0-2 year age group. Percentages for the years 1976 - 1980 were calculated through the following formula: % of preschool children who will be 0-2 for a particular year % of preschool children who were 0-2 in 1973 x % of children who had working mothers and were 0-2 in 1973 or X x 28% 31.4% 9. The following figures were used in this calculation: - single parent families (average size 3) - social allowance rate of $3,200.00 plus $1,380.00 work related expenses = $4,580.00. - two parent families (average size 4) - social allowance rate of $4,022.00 plus $1,380.00 work related expenses = $5,402.00.

10. Based on the 1971 census data, approximately 157. of the females in the labour force were self-employed or engaged in unpaid family work. It was felt that many of these women would not require supplemental care for their children. 11. This information was drawn from the results of the city of Edmonton 1975 Census. 12. Based on 1971 Federal Census. 13. Based on 1971 Federal census.

APPENDIX B

POSITION PAPER ON AFTER SCHOOL CARE

SUBMITTED TO SOCIAL SERVICE COMMITTEE OF EDMONTON SOCIAL SERVICES JULY, 1975

EMONTON SOCIAL SERVICES PREPARED BY: MICHAEL G. DAY

POSITION PAPER ON AFTER SCHOOL CARE I INTRODUCTION At the present time the Day Care Section of Edmonton Social Services is funding the operation of six After School Care programs with a combined capacity of 140 spaces. Five of these services are administered by the Boards of existing day care centres. The sixth program is operated by a society specifically established for this purpose. There is a rapidly growing interest in After School Care. Four formal submissions have been made requesting funding for new services and a large number of more informal inquires have been received from communities considering the development of new programs. There are a number of issues in the present system of development and support of After School Care programs which need to be resolved before further expansion takes place. Included in such issues are: (a)the need for a revised funding system to more adequately support individual programs, (b)the development of standards to guide the development of new programs, (c)an agreement on the most appropriate administrative structure for new programs and, (d)an agreement on the priority to be placed on the extension of After School Care programs relative to the extension of Family Day Care and pre-school centres. It was felt that before making major policy decisions related to After School Care there would be value in gathering input from individuals and organizations who are involved in or have an interest in After School Care. Toward this end a Community Task Force on After School Care was initiated. The Task Force held a number of meetings, and developed a sub-committee structure to prepare recommendations on specific issues. A copy of the Report of the Community Task Force is attached. The following analysis reflects much of the discussion of the Task Force and the recommendations have been prepared after careful consideration of the work of the Task Force.

II REVISION OF THE FUNDING SYSTEM Several of the subsidized After School Care programs experienced severe financial problems over the past year. The major problem was the inability of the services to maintain a full enrollment. The narrow neighbourhood base of the After School Care program means that within a general context of heavy demand and limited service, individual programs may continue to be faced with unfilled spaces. With the present method of funding (a purchase of service agreement) revenue is tied directly to attendance. However, declining enrollment does not significantly lower the program's operating costs. The result is that such programs were faced with mounting deficits. .../2

...cont.:

- Page 2 -

Recommendation #1: The method of funding be changed from a purchase of service to a purchase of space agreement. This would mean that the service would be guaranteed a certain level of income regardless of enrollment. Careful monitoring would have to take place in order to determine at what point the community's use of a program can no longer justify ongoing subsidy. After School Care programs operate both on normal school days and also full days during school holidays, through the summer and at Christmas and Easter. Costs vary considerably between the part day and full day operation. In the past we have set one per diem which was intended to average these costs through the year. In fact the level of the per diem was barely adequate to cover the part day operation and resulted in a deficit during the full day operation. Recommendation #2: That a base per diem of $3.50 be set for normal part day operation and that a second per diem of $7.00 be set to cover the full day operation. Another problem which has been encountered is the fact that there are variable cost factors from program to program. Some services have rent and utilities to pay while others do not. Those programs integrated with day care centres have the capacity to provide full meals if funds are available while others lack the necessary facility and would be unable to use such funds. The net result of this is that a common per diem penalizes some programs unfairly. Recommendation #3: That the base per diem be adjusted for those programs which have specific building costs; which are able to provide full meals; or have other exceptional costs.

III DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS The Provincial Government is presently reviewing the standards covering all forms of day care service and it is expected that new legislation will be introduced within the next year. In the meantime we find ourselves with no guidelines specific to After School Care. The operating guidelines which we have developed pertain specifically to pre-school programs and while some sections would apply to After School Care they would not all be appropriate or applicable. Recommendation #4: That the standards proposed in the Report of the Community Task Force be applied as guidelines in the approval and assessment of After School Care programs. It is not intended that these standards be adopted as a final statement but rather that they be accepted as a working paper which can be revised as we gain more experience in this field.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;13

...cont.:

- Page 3 -

IV SPONSORSHIP OF AFTER SCHOOL CARE PROGRAMS As pointed out in the introduction all but one of the After School Care programs presently being funded are sponsored by a society which also operates a day care centre for pre-school children. Increasingly, however, requests for funding are coming from developing community groups whose sole interest is After School Care. While this model certainly has some advantages, primarily in the areas of parental involvement and program flexibility to meet local needs, a number of disadvantages are also apparent. Such Boards, because they have fewer resources to draw upon, tend to be less well organized and often have difficulties in maintaining a continuity of Board Membership. In contrast to this the "centresponsored" After School programs have a broader base of support and organization. In addition there is the advantage of a continuity of service for families. A third option for the sponsorship of After School Care services has been proposed. This involves the development of regional Boards which would administer a number of After School Care programs. This alternative would overcome the disadvantages of the individual program Boards which were referred to above. Because of the relatively low status of After School Care programs, it may prove difficult to attract and maintain the interest of potential Board members unless their cren children are involved in one of the services administered by such a Regional Board. Recommenaticn '[::3; That preference continue to be given to the development and administration of After School Care programs by organizations also ievolved in delivery of pre-scheol day care services, but that other options including the subeidizaticn of individual commenity Boards and regional umbrella Boards be accepted if required to expand services to new areas. The above discuesion points out that each of the options has advantages and disadvantages and that there is no "best" answer for all situations. My own preference is to favour the use of existing day care Boards, but I also feel it is important to be flexible and coetinue to use other approaches if the circumstances dictate them.

V EXTENSION OF AFTER SCHOOL CARE PROGRAMS It is apparent from the number of requests for After School Care funding that this area of day care programing could absorb all new funds for expansion. In addition to the After School Care programs a number of school aged children are :2ceiving subsidized care in the Family Day Care Program. In view of this and in view of the fact that it is generally somewhat easier for parents to find private arrangements for school age than for pre-school children it is important te establish acme guideline for the rate of After School Care expansion relative to the expansion of services for pre-school children. Recommendation #6: That a general guideline of one new After School space for each two new preecchool spaces be adopted as a guide to future expansion.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;14

...cont.:

- Page 4 -

As pointed out above, four formal applications have been received requesting funding for After School Care programs. Three of these come from existing programs which have been operating with other community sources of funding which are now depleted. The fourth ts an application for a new program from the Board of an existing day care centre. Recommendation #7: That the applications for funding from the Thorncliffe After School program, the Duck-Inn, the Oliver Community School Care program and the Beverly Day Care Centre be approved to a maximum subsidy of twenty-five spaces. In view of the fact that a number of communities have made requests for funds which we will not be able to meet it is important that as additional funds become available careful consideration of the relative priority of the various funding requests take place. In addition it would be important to achieve as wide a geographical coverage in the After School Care field as is possible. Recommendation #8: That a priority indexing system be developed as a general guide to the approval of new programs. Recommendation #9: That a maximum program size of twenty-five spaces for any one individual location be approved, again as a general guideline in the expansion of services.

VI SOCIAL WORK SERVICES At present all subsidized day care programs including After School Care programs are required to have as part of the service, social work services. This service is purchased from our Department. All of the children served by the After School Care programs are enrolled in school. As such these children and their families have access to the social work services of the school system. Our requirerer:t, is leading to a duplication of service which we can ill afford. The more of our staff time allocated to formal day care programs the less staff resource (and consequently less service) we have left to administer the Family Day Care programs. Recommendation #10: That the requirement for social work service be dropped for all After School Care programs.

VII CONCLUSION: This is not intended to be a final policy statement on After School Care. As we gain more experience with this evolving day care service, ongoing changes in our approach will likely be required. In addition it is not intended that these guidelines create a rigid approach. They will need to be applied with some flexibility. However, they will serve to clarify our present position and help to rationalize future After School Care development. M.G.D./b1b..

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIaNS FROM POLICY GUIDELINES REGARDING THE EXPANSION OF DAY CARE SERVICES IN EDMONTON

EDMONTON SOCIAL SERVICES Prepared by: Michael G. Day, September, 1975.

PHILOSOPHY RECOMMENDATION #1: That the City of Edmonton make a committment to take an active leadership role in the further development of an integrated system of day care services within Edmonton. RECOMMENDATION #2: That Edmonton Social Services be assigned the responsibility for co-ordinating all City activity within the field of day care. RECOMMENDATION #3: That the following statement of objective be endorsed: The objective of the City of Edmonton in relation to day care services is to promote the development of a comprehensive system of good quality day care service in Edmonton. (a) Day Care in this context means the care of children outside their own homes, for some part of the day in circumstances where the care provided at home needs to be supplemented. (b) The system to be comprehensive must address itself to the needs of children 0-12 years of age, normal and handicapped children, and children who require part time, as well as full time care. RECOMMENDATION #4: That the first priority of the City be the extension of subsidized services to high priority families. RECOMMENDATION # 5: That the City of Edmonton make representation to the Provincial Government suggesting that the Province maintains and strengthens its licensing function through the adoption of a higher set of minimum standards and the addition of legal sanctions to enforce these standards. (refer to Recommendation #7, Page 1 in Report). RECOMMENDATION #6: That the City of Edmonton through its Social Service Department develop the capacity to provide administrative and program consultation to all day care programs regardless of sponsorship. (refer to Recommendation #8, Page 2 in Report)

OBJECTIVES RECOMMENDATION #1: That Edmonton Social Services develop a supplemental funding program for private day care centres. Qualification for such supplementation would depend on the centre meeting operating standards set near the level of the present subsidized centres. The supplementation would be extended in the form of flat rate subsidy for each child placed in the program. (refer to Recommendation #9, page 2, in Report). RECOMMENDATION #2: That the rate of expansion of Family Day Care, After School Care, and the supplementation of placements in private centres be based on the growth rate of the subsidized centres serving children 2 to 6 years of age, in a 1:2 ratio. (refer to Recommendation #10, page 2 in Report) RECOMMENDATION #3: That the Londonderry, West Jasper Place and Norwood areas be approved as the first priority areas for the expansion of subsidized day care programs in 1976. (refer to Recommendation #11, page 2 in Report). RECOMMENDATION #4: That tentative approval be given to the development of subsidized centres in the new Y.W.C.A. facility and in the Hermitage area in 1977. (refer to Recommendation #12, page 2 in Report). RECOMMENDATION #5: That the following be considered as priority areas for the development of subsidized day care centres in the years 1977 - 1980: King Edward, Hazeldean, Duggan, Delton-Newton, Castledowns, Athlone-Calder, and Mill Woods. (refer to Recommendation #13, page 2 in Report). RECOMMENDATION #6: That the City of Edmonton accept responsibility for the construction of day care facilities for subsidized programs in developing areas of the City. (refer to Recommendation #15, page 2, in Report). RECOMMENDATION #7: That on a demonstration basis a program of extended day care service (evening hours and weekends) be developed to test out the need and the most appropriate pattern for deliverying the service. (refer to Recommendation #20, page 3 in Report). RECOMMENDATION #8: That on a demonstration basis a program providing group care of infants be developed. (refer to Recommendation #21, page 3 in Report).

IMPLEMENTATION

RECOMMENDATION #1: That the expansion of subsidized group care programs be carried out through the funding of non-profit community Boards who act as program sponsors. (refer to Recommendation #5, page 1 in Report).

RECOMMENDATION #2: That the City continue to administer the Family Day Care Program and the Glengarry Day Care Centre. (refer to Recommendation #6 page 1, in Report).

RECOMMENDATION #3: That the basic approach to program expansion in the existing areas of the city continue to be the rental of existing community facilities with the additional support of City grants provided through the P.S.s. funding mechanism to cover renovation and start up costs. (refer to Recommendation #14, page 2 in Report).

RECOMMENDATION #4: That the City borrow the money to cover the cost of constructing day care facilities and in turn rent the facilities to Community Boards at a level which would cover the debenture repayment. (refer to Recommendation #16, page 3, in Report).

RECOMMENDATION 45: That a parcel of land be set aside in each new community (generally the area coinciding with the catchment area of a Junior High School and being approximately 20,000 in population) as the location for a subsidized day care program and that this site be integrated with the central park and school reserve where possible and appropriate. (refer to Recommendation #17, page 3, in Report).

RECOMMENDATION #6: That such day care sites be purchased out of the 5% excess dedication as provided in subsection 2 Section A of Standard Terms of Reference for Development Agreements as Approved by City Council July 17th, 1972 and Amended February llth , 1974. (refer to Recommendation #18, 'page 3, in Report).

RECOMMENDATION #7: That the Architectural Branch of Real Estate and Housing by assigned the responsibility for managing the construction phase of new day care centres and that the Property Section of the same Department be assigned responsibility for managing the facility and acting as leaseholder to the cuulLtunity group Who sponsor the program. (refer to Recommendation #19, page 3, in Report).

-4 -

IMPIPMENTATION

contd

RECOMMENDATION #8: That each centre be encourage to make available one or two placements daily to provide care on a temporary basis to families needing such service. (refer to Recommendation #22, page 3, in Report).

RECOMMENDATION 49: That in order to facilitate long range planning of day care services an approach be made to the Provincial Government requesting some indication of the amount of funding which will be allocated for day care services over the next five years.