UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

SENATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY AFFAIRS (SACUA)

CHILD CARE TASKFORCE REPORT

"Changing American Life:  Responding to the Needs of Faculty with Children at the University of Michigan" 


October 25th, 2004

(Accepted by Senate Assembly - October 25, 2004)

SACUA Childcare Taskforce Members:

SeonAe Yeo, Chair* **                                               Leslie A. de Pietro
Associate Professor                                                      Director
School of Nursing & Medical School                            Work/Life Resource Center

Karey Leach Fugenschuh                                              Bruno J. Giordani* **
Director                                                                        Associate Professor
Children’s Centers                                                        Medical School & LSA

Deborah Keller-Cohen**                                             Michelle A. Kosch**
Professor                                                                      Assistant Professor
LSA & School of Education                                         LSA

Shelly H. Martinez
Assistant Associate Provost
Office of the Provost

Ellen E. Hamilton                                                          Kimberly LaRochelle
Doctoral Candidate                                                      Student Intern              
LSA                                                                             School of Business Administration        

*Current or Immediate Past Members of SACUA
**Current or Immediate Past Members of Senate Assembly

The Taskforce wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Professors Edward D. Rothman and Kristy K. Martyn.

Table of Contents

Section:
I. Overview
           Introduction
           Background to the Task Force
           Charge to the Task Force
           List of Task Force Recommendations

II. Task Force Recommendations
           1. Increase high quality licensed child care on campus
           2. Increase the flexibility of child care programs to better meet the faculty's work schedules.
           3. Improve the cultural climate within academic units for faculty with children.
           4. Develop a more family-friendly environment.
           5. Encourage the Provost's annual review of Deans to include leadership in improving the family-friendly climate       
               within the units.
           6. Appoint an implementation committee to implement the recommendations, and continue to monitor the needs of 
               faculty with children.

III. Identify existing needs and resources for childcare for University faculty: Faculty Survey.

IV. Current Resources

V. The Importance of High Quality Child care Programs

References

Appendix
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Section I

Overview

Introduction
The United States lags behind Europe in its treatment of childcare where in many countries it is government sponsored and widespread, “seen as an expression of social solidarity and national investment in the next generation.”(Williams, 200:49)

Belgium, Sweden and France are notable examples but also in Eastern Europe time off is provided for childcare. As a consequence, the stress of caring for children weighs more heavily on the shoulders of America’s working parents.  Between 1992 and 1997 there was greater than 100% increase in the percentage of parents reporting significant work-family conflict. (Shore, 1998) Thus it is not surprising that the Heldrich Work Trends Survey reports that 49% of workers rated on-site child care as somewhat/very/extremely important.

The availability of childcare impacts the workplace in many ways. Breakdowns in child care that lead to absences cost business $3 billion dollars each year. This was reduced by 20-30% when childcare services were provided. (Landsman, 1994; Friedman, 1988).  Recruitment and retention have both been found to be affected by available childcare.  (National Employer-Supported Child care Project, 1984)  In a study of a large state supported university, half of employees reported childcare responsibilities affected their work and 57% said that their work was affected by the childcare responsibilities of others).  (Reported in Kolodny, 1998). This means that childcare affects not only parents but also their co-workers.

Mothers and fathers do not carry this stress of childcare equally, however. While inequity among men and women in domestic duties including child care is widely reported, it appears that academics also participate in the same asymmetrical distribution of effort as the general population. In a study of female academics and businesswomen, Biernat & Wortman (1991) found that both men and women reported that the woman were more involved with childcare than their husbands. A 1988 University of Wisconsin study found that women spent nearly two and a half times more on child care than men. (Hensel).  Riemenschneider and Harper (1990) report on faculty at a major midwestern university found that “nearly 28 percent more men than women reported never having experienced a conflict between the demands of child and work.” This means that while lack of available child care weighs on both mothers and fathers, it impacts mothers more.

The stress of childcare responsibilities early in women’s’ careers participates in this equation.  Mason and Gould report that among Ph.D.s, women with babies are 29% less likely than women without babies to enter tenure track positions to begin with (reported in Academe, November-December, 2002).  The add that “On a year to year basis after receipt of the Ph.D., married men with babies and single women without babies are on average 50% more likely than are married women with babies to secure a tenure-track position.”  Over all, 56% of women who have children within five years of receiving the Ph.D. get tenure (with 12-14 years), compared with 77% of men who have children in the first five years post-Ph.D., and 68% of women who have children later or not at all (and 71% of men who have children later or not at all).

Peer institutions have recognized that improving child care resources and job flexibility for parents can help in faculty recruitment and retention.  A number of universities (including the University of California System, MIT and Princeton) provide a maximum of two years of tenure clock extension, in accordance with current AAUP recommendations (AAUP, 2001).  At MIT both tenured and untenured faculty may reduce their appointments to part time for family care giving for up to five years; other universities offer similar part-time options.  The University of California has proposed to guarantee the availability of high quality child care slots to new faulty hires. MIT has centrally located on-campus daycare facilities which accommodate all age groups.

Background to the Task Force
At the beginning of the 2002-03 academic year, SeonAe Yeo asked SACUA to make the determination of faculty childcare needs a high priority among SACUA’s goals for the year.  At the SACUA meeting of February 3, 2003, a discussion was held on possible faculty childcare objectives with the following guests: Barbara Butterfield (Associate Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer), Janet Weiss (Associate Provost for Academic Affairs), Jessica Burstrem (undergraduate student), Leslie de Pietro (Director of the Work/Life Resource Center), Kate Fitzgerald (House Officer), Karey Leach Fugenschuh (Director of the Children's Center), Deborah Goldenberg (Professor), Beatriz Ramierz (Ph.D. candidate), Beth Sullivan (CEW Program Manager for Policy and Advocacy), and Rodger Wolf (Dean of Students Administrative Manager).  Appendix A

As a result of the February 3 discussion, SeonAe Yeo requested that SACUA to form a Childcare Taskforce and, on April 28, 2003, SACUA formed the taskforce, which had as its charge:

  1. To identify existing needs and resources for childcare for University faculty.
  2. To suggest modifications of existing resources to meet perceived needs.
  3. To propose new programs or systems if deemed necessary and if deemed feasible in view of current budget limitations.
  4. To propose means of achieving necessary support.

After reviewing past reports on University childcare needs, the Taskforce met multiple times throughout the academic year.  Based upon the background materials, their own personal experiences, along with a faculty opinion poll (Appendix B), Taskforce members identified the child care needs of faculty, the current capacity of University resources to meet those needs, and determined a significant number of unmet needs.

List of Task Force Recommendations
A. Support and increase the number of high quality licensed child care programs on campus
B. Increase the flexibility of child care programs to meet the faculty's work needs
C. Improve the cultural climate within academic units for faculty with children.
D. Develop a more family-friendly culture.
E. Encourage the Provost's annual review of Deans to include leadership in improving the family-friendly climate within the units.
F. Appoint an implementation committee to solicit input about these recommendations, monitor implementation of SACUA child care task force recommendations, and continue to address the needs of faculty with children.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II

Task Force Recommendations
The Task Force recommendations listed below are derived from the faculty survey detailed in Section III and other current resources. Each recommendation is supported with faculty survey information regarding the need it seeks to address. If action has already been taken in response to a recommendation, the status of that effort is also noted.  We address resources in Section IV.

In order to aid University leadership in reviewing the recommendations, the Task Force judged each recommendation on the basis of its potential impact on faculty with children, the urgency of need to which the recommendation responded, and the cost and relative ease with which the recommendation could be implemented.   Specific actions are presented after the thematically organized list of recommendations.

A. Support and increase high quality licensed childcare on campus.
1.  Support existing programs and facilities for high quality childcare at convenient locations for working parents on campus.

2.  Increase availability of high quality child care. 

3.  Increase the affordability of quality childcare on campus for infants, toddlers, and pre-schoolers without reducing the quality or number of pre-school spaces 

B. Increase the flexibility of child care programs to meet the faculty's work needs.
1.  Increase flexibility in daytime child care program

2.  Establish consistent and high quality auxiliary child care programs to achieve flexibility.

3.  Develop and expand child care information clearing house for both campus and community.

C. Improve the cultural climate within academic units for faculty with children.
1.  Recommend consistent application of family-friendly initiatives.

D. Develop a more family-friendly environment
1. Encourage the provision of lactation rooms for each high-use building.
2. Encourage the consideration of on-site child care facilities for every new major site and major renovation.
3. Increase awareness of the services within the Work/Life Resource Center.
4. Establish innovative and convenient vehicle access systems for parents and their children.

E. Encourage the Provost's annual review of Deans to include leadership in improving the family-friendly climate within the units.

F. Appoint an implementation committee to put into practice the recommendations, and continue to monitor the needs of faculty with children.  The members of the committee should include senior administrators from the vice presidential areas to which the child care centers report, directors of the child care centers, and current faculty, staff and students.   

___________________________________________________________________________________________

SECTION III

Identify existing needs and resources for childcare for University faculty: Faculty Survey.

1.1.  Needs Assessment
In order to identify existing needs for childcare among University faculty of all campus, the task force conducted on-line survey.  The report is based on responses to an on-line survey of faculty on all three campuses for two weeks in February 2004.

Sample:  A total of 652 faculty responded (94% were from the Ann Arbor campus).
Of those, 477 provided information on current childcare arrangements: 50% Childcare Centers, 32% Before/After School Care, 29% Summer Care, 28% Nanny or Sitter in Your Home, 17% Care by Relative, 10% Non-relative Home care (total reflects rounding).   Additional responders predominantly either had older children who did not have childcare needs or did not have children. 

Survey Questionnaire:  Respondents were asked to provide Likert ratings for the “Importance” of and for their ”Satisfaction” with 5 aspects of childcare services: Availability, Cost, Quality, Flexibility and Location and for separate ratings of Full-Time Care, Part-Time Care, After-School Care, and Summer Programs.  For Availability, respondents were also asked to include the length of waiting lists in their response. For Quality, we asked respondents to consider, adult to child ratios, program accreditation, qualifications of staff (e.g., education, experience, longevity and compensation). Flexibility included availability of part-time or evening/weekend care and other particular needs they may have.  The survey also asked faculty for additional open-ended comments.  A total of 275 faculty made various comments. These qualitative data were analyzed separately at the end of the report.

Initial analyses suggested that responses from faculty not using or not planning to use the various childcare categories tended to demonstrate the largest variability in response, most likely because these individuals no longer needed or never needed such care and may not have been familiar with what is now available at he University.  Therefore, in order to better understand the findings, we limited evaluations of responses to those faculty specifically using or expressing a need for different types of childcare.  For example, the evaluation of response data for Full-Time Childcare was restricted to only those individuals using or stating they were looking for full-time care.  In addition, data were analyzed and compared between persons using UM services and those using resources outside of the University of Michigan (Non-UM), separately.  This was done as initial analyses suggested there were noticeable differences in these groups on some of the response categories. 

In order to simplify the presentation of the data and the discussion of results, the percentages presented below in most cases represent the sum of those persons endorsing either the “Important” and “Very Important” or “Satisfied” and “Very Satisfied” categories.  The initial review of the data suggested that there was little information to be lost from combining these categories and comparing them to the rest of the responses (“Unimportant, Somewhat Unimportant, Neutral” or “Very Unsatisfied, Satisfied, Neutral”).  When comparisons were made between faculty’s responses for UM and Non-UM resources for Importance and Quality measures, differences only were considered if they were at or exceeding 10%. 

In order to give another perspective to the results and to adjust in some manner for relative differences that may exist between those using and not using UM resources in rankings of importance and satisfaction, a difference score, “Importance – Satisfaction” was computed across each of the primary domains (i.e., Availability, Cost, Quality, Flexibility, Location).  For the ease of analysis, simple group differences were computed rather than computing a difference for each subject and then averaging those differences.  An arbitrary, though sufficiently large, 30% difference was chosen to be of interest for these difference scores based on a review of the distribution of the frequencies representing these differences. This summary score, for example, would allow us to better evaluate when a particular group of faculty rated an area as particularly important, but were reasonably dissatisfied. 

Results:

Full-Time Childcare:  The Full-Time Childcare questions were responded to by the most individuals (75 UM; 194 Non-UM).  A review of the Importance ratings (Table 1) demonstrate that for persons who report using UM full-time services, Quality is rated highest, followed by Availability and Location.  Ratings for Flexibility and Cost were relatively lower.  For Non-UM service users, there was a similar pattern, though they were found to rate Flexibility and Cost higher than did UM users. 

 

 

When the Satisfaction ratings for the UM and Non-UM groups were compared (Table 2) for the primary criteria, the UM service users were found to rate their satisfaction with the Quality of full-time care as higher than did Non-UM users.  Satisfaction ratings for the Availability of care were lower in the UM group than the Non-UM group, however.  For Location ratings, the UM group clearly rated their satisfaction as higher than Non-UM service users.  Just as for Availability satisfaction ratings, UM service users, rated their satisfaction for Flexibility of their full-time childcare as lower than did Non-UM users.  Finally, both groups rated their satisfaction with Cost reasonably similarly, though UM care users cost as somewhat lower. 

By way of summary, then, the quality of childcare services, not unexpectedly, was seen as especially important by all responders, with over 98% of persons responding that they viewed quality as important or very important.  Ninety percent of all respondents and just over 80% of all respondents also gave the highest importance ratings for Availability and Location of childcare facilities, respectively.  Differences in importance ratings between the UM and Non-UM parents were primarily evident for Flexibility and Cost, both of which were rated relatively higher for the Non-UM parents.  This is not surprising, as the needs for greater flexibility and lower cost may lead faculty parents to seek services outside the UM system where choices may be wider and more varied.  In terms of how satisfied parents reported being with their full-time childcare services, the Quality and Location were clearly rated as higher for parents using UM services, as compared to those parents not using UM services.  These ratings highlight the quality of UM services and the importance that UM faculty place on having high quality full-time day care available near their place of employment, even if it means higher cost and less flexibility. 

Indeed, comparing the importance and satisfaction ratings across the groups leads to a clearer understanding of the adjustments that parents are willing to make for childcare.  For example, the largest differences between ratings of importance and satisfaction were for UM service users whose difference between Importance and Satisfaction (Importance-Satisfaction) was 35.7 percentage points.  Thus, although availability is highly important for faculty using UM childcare services, they are relatively more dissatisfied with the availability of such care.  Another large discrepancy exists for the difference of the ratings for faculty using Non-UM services considering how high they rate quality, yet how only about 45% are satisfied or Very Satisfied with the care they actually are able to obtain outside of UM. 

Part-Time Childcare:  A substantial number of parents make use or are planning to make use of part-time childcare services (43 UM; 112 Non-UM).  A similar review of the data as above was completed comparing the faculty using UM to Non-UM resources.  For parents using or planning on using Part-time Childcare, 80% or more of UM and Non-UM faculty rated Quality, Availability, Flexibility, and Location as Important or Very Important.  The primary difference between the two groups was that Cost was rated as being somewhat more important for Non-UM faculty, as with full time care (52.4 versus 65.2). 

For their feelings Satisfaction of the Quality of their childcare provider, over 80% of parents in both the UM and Non-UM care groups chose Satisfied or Very Satisfied.  Both groups were also similar in their lower Satisfaction ratings of Cost with just over 40% endorsing the two highest categories.  Ratings for satisfaction of Flexibility of childcare were at the upper end of the 50th percentage on average for both groups.  Some relative differences in ratings between UM and Non-UM parents were evident for Availability, for which faculty parents were less satisfied with the availability of UM care than Non-UM care (53.8 versus 65.2).  Satisfaction for Location, as might again be expected, was seen as higher for parents using UM services than Non-UM services (87.2 versus 77.5).  The only larger difference (over 30 percentage points) between Importance and Satisfaction ratings across the two faculty groups was evident on the Availability rating, with a 41.5 percentage difference between the very high importance that faculty saw for having childcare at UM and the satisfaction that faculty had in its actual availability. 

After School Childcare:  Many parents who responded were using or planned to use after school services for their children (75 UM, 120 Non-UM).  For childcare after school, ratings of Importance were fairly similar across both of the UM and Non-UM childcare University faculty groups.  Quality was again the highest, followed closely by Location and Availability, with lower ratings for Flexibility followed by Cost.  When satisfaction ratings were compared across the two groups, ratings for Quality, Cost, Availability, and Flexibility did not differ by 10% or more.  The ratings for Quality were again high, with relatively lower satisfaction for the other domains.  For the Location ratings, a relative difference was evident between the two groups, with faculty taking advantage of UM resources being more satisfied than were those using Non-UM resources (87.5 versus 75.9).  When difference scores were computed between Importance and Satisfaction ratings, larger differences only were evident for the Availability rating, in which the importance of available resources was rated as Very Important or Important by over 90% of the responders in each childcare group, though both groups could be considered less satisfied than expected (UM difference = 36.6; Non-UM difference = 30.8). 

Summer Camp Childcare:  Another category that was considered was summer camp.  Although the number of responders was lower in for this category of care (54 UM; 112 Non-UM), calculations were completed.  For both groups, again Quality was considered quite important, with ratings for Availability and Location also being over 90% in both groups.  Flexibility was next highest in importance with over 65% of parents in each groups rating it Important or Very Important.  The lowest percentage rating of importance again was for Cost, though there was some difference between the two groups, with faculty using Non-UM resources seeing cost as relatively more important than faculty whose children went to UM-related summer programs (38.9 versus 54.1). 

When Satisfaction ratings were reviewed, ratings for Satisfaction in Cost and in Flexibility were relatively low for both groups at approximately 50%.  Ratings for satisfaction for Quality were in the 70% bracket for both groups, lower than in other types of childcare.  As noted previously, there was greater satisfaction for faculty using UM (88.0) as compared to Non-UM (78.3) resources.  Availability, even in the Summer Camp Category, suggested relatively less satisfied ratings by those using UM (56.0) as compared to Non-UM services (65.3).  Just as for After School Childcare,  the only difference rating that met the 30% criteria or more was the comparison of the Importance rating with the Satisfaction rating for Availability of Summer Camp (UM = 34.7; Non-UM = 27.3). 

Conclusions

One way to review the primary “take-home” messages from the above discussion is to look at the conditions in which there was a reasonably large discrepancy between how important a group rated the primary categories (i.e., Availability, Cost, Quality, Flexibility, Location) and how satisfied they were with the services they were receiving.  The largest differences were primarily noted for two instances for the Full-Time care responders.  In this case, there was a particularly large difference in the high ratings of importance that faculty not using UM (Non-UM group) services gave for quality of childcare and the lower ratings they gave for their satisfaction with that care.  In addition, there was a reasonably large difference between the high Importance and the low Satisfaction with the availability of childcare resources as rated by faculty using full-time childcare at UM.  This highlights the difficulty for UM faculty who feel strongly that they would like UM care, but are dissatisfied with its actual availability.  This finding was shared by the faculty using part-time, after school, and summer camp UM services, as well. 

Finally, to summarize many of the findings listed in the earlier sections, faculty at our university appear more willing to de-emphasize the importance of cost factors, if they are able to obtain UM services allowing for a more convenient location for their childcare.  They also rate these UM-based services very highly when they are able to take advantage of them.  On the other hand, they are quite aware of the lower availability of such services and some of the difficulties with flexibility that they may face once that care is chosen. 

Summary of Open-ended Comments

A comment area was available in which just over 275 faculty made comments.  Generally, a number of faculty commented on the fact that available and flexible daycare is essential to obtaining tenure if you have young children.  The specific comments can be summarized as follows. 

Cost, availability, and location were primary areas of concern among the comments.  High costs (both of the U-M centers and of private options) were noted, and several faculty described having to cut back on their appointments because they could not afford childcare. Faculty who had moved to Ann Arbor from elsewhere found the costs here comparatively high; the possibility of having discounts for multiple children in UM centers was raised.

Insufficient availability or excessively long waiting lists for UM centers were among the most frequent complaints. Given the importance of adequate childcare to persons attempting to obtain tenure, several faculty suggested that some spaces should be guaranteed at UM centers for junior faculty. Many expressed disappointment at the lack of on-site daycare (especially for infants and toddlers on central and engineering campuses), and the hospital center was specifically faulted for being too far away from the hospital grounds. Convenience of everyday deliveries of children to daycare, as well as sick-child pickup, lunch-hour visits and support for breastfeeding were cited as reasons for the desirability of on-site centers. (Parking issues were also raised in this context: faculty noted that parking spaces in gold lots were too limited or costly and that blue lots filled too early in the morning, causing difficulties scheduling morning transportation and preventing daytime visits to children at off-site facilities.) 

Flexibility of childcare was also an extremely important issue.  The most frequent comments related to the lack of available care during evening teaching, meetings and department colloquia, and (for hospital staff) evening or weekend on-call hours. It was suggested that the university could help with this problem by discouraging unnecessary scheduling of mandatory events outside the normal working day. A number felt there was little understanding among providers of variable teaching schedules; they mentioned difficulties with having to adhere to specific drop-off and pick-up schedules or else pay penalties. There was concern that the sick childcare system (Kids Kare at Home) is expensive and not always easily available. Another difficulty was finding childcare for before and after school and on snow days and school holidays. Transportation to and from classes and sports for high-school children without cars or available school parking  was also mentioned. More extensive and varied summer camp-type programs were called for. Several single parents mentioned trouble finding childcare coverage when they needed to be out of town for conferences. Several faculty also noted that there were no real options for eldercare through the University and that there should be daycare options available for special needs children. A number of faculty made concrete suggestions for dealing with flexible schedules. Some suggested 24-hour drop-in care on the medical center campus for faculty who must come in for emergencies at odd hours. A general University-based drop-in center was suggested  as well, as was a university-run drop-off and pick-up program to match before and after school care.

Another important area of concern was the need for extended leave (beyond that allotted by the University) after a child’s birth, as well as the availability of a part-time option for faculty. A large number of faculty either expressed interest in the option of reducing their effort to make room for childcare responsibilities, or said that they had already done so. Most of the latter were not tenure-track appointments, however, and several commented that they had opted out of tenure track when they found out how difficult and stressful it would be to have and care for children.  Several noted how important it was that their departments had allowed them to reduce their faculty effort by 25% or 50% and maintain this for several years. This does highlight, however, some of the discrepancies across departments, as other faculty pointed out that they were unable to reduce their effort or could only reduce it by 25% and only for a short time or up to one year. On the other hand, several faculty felt that any attempts to lower their faculty efforts would be met with such negative attitudes by other faculty and chairmen that they would not consider doing so. Some fathers pointed out that they felt that tenure clock adjustment or other options were not really available to them.

A number of respondents pointed out that finding available and affordable childcare was one of their biggest stresses early in their careers, and an even greater number thought that the lack of adequate, reasonable childcare options weighs particularly heavily on the career prospects of women faculty. The need for a “normal, balanced life” and a “child-friendly life” was a common theme running through many of the comments. A number of faculty felt that their workplaces were not family friendly in that other faculty did not understand the unique difficulties of having children. They did not feel that it was not possible to comfortably bring their children into work when there was no other childcare coverage available. (It should be noted that several faculty who filled out the questionnaire pointed out that they did not have children and that they felt that childcare was a special benefit that had no comparable counterpart for them, and some felt that they were often having to “cover” for faculty with children.)  One departmental chair pointed out that careful and comprehensive documentation to present to faculty relating the available child care options should be prepared by the University and would be an important selling point to faculty applicants.

Several respondents did report mainly positive experiences with the childcare options available in the area, and one expressed satisfaction with the sick childcare system. Most of those who had been able to place their children at one of the U-M centers expressed satisfaction with the quality of the programs. But the majority or respondents who took the time to make comments indicated that they thought that the university is not doing enough to make child care available, accessible and affordable for faculty and to make the working lives of faculty consistent with their duties as parents. The university’s efforts to address faculty childcare needs were compared negatively with those of other local employers (Visteon/Ford/UAW) and with those of peer institutions (Harvard, Yale, Cornell, the University of Chicago, the University of California). No positive comparisons were made. The lack of high-quality, conveniently located, affordable child care programs with hours of operation matching the hours faculty are expected to be on campus seriously affected the quality of life and productivity of the majority of respondents. They felt changes were in order and that responsiveness and flexibility on the part of the University seemed lacking.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SECTION IV

Current Resources

The committee identified existing child care resources on the Ann Arbor campus.

According to The University of Michigan –Ann Arbor: Common Data Set, 2001-2002, we have a total of 2,799 (1,009 or 36% women) instructional faculty.  We also estimated number of women faculty age 20-45, assuming they are likely in childrearing age. According to HR, 756 faculty belong to this range.  HR also provided us with a scale of children in the University families. However, in this case, we cannot differentiate faculty vs. staff children.  We have a total of 1092 children age 0-5, a total of 1518 children age 6-13, and a total of 737 children age 14-18.  A total of 3347 children live and are affected by parent’s work environment.

Child Care Centers At The University Of Michigan

The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor has four affiliated campus children’s programs:  UM Children’s Center, UM Children’s Center for Working Families, Family Housing Child Development Center, and The Pound House Children’s Center.  These centers provide enrollment priority to current UM Ann Arbor staff, students and faculty and are accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).  Two programs (Child Development Center and Pound House) have a service mission and report to Family Housing.  The UM Children’s Center and UM Children’s Center for Working Families have an interdisciplinary research and training mission and are administered by the Rackham Graduate School.  In addition to these four affiliated programs, the UM Hospital Child Care Center offers enrollment priority to UM Health System staff and faculty, and is the only center offering infant care.

The Family Housing Child Development Center and the Hospital Child Care Center were established in 1991 and have facilities that were built that same year.  The UM Children’s Center, established in 1980, is in its original location at 400 N. Ingalls in the old St. Joseph Mercy Hospital Building (built in 1913).  The Pound House (established in 1975) and the UM Children’s Center for Working Families (established in 1986) were relocated in 1996 to the Towsley Center for Children.  Within the Towsley Center, the programs occupy adjacent residential homes (built in 1911), and connected as one building in 1967.  Although the older buildings are up to code, there are ongoing costly repairs that are required annually to maintain their environmental integrity. 

Annual Budget

The University of Michigan is committed to supporting the childcare centers.  In FY 2002, the University provided the centers with $1.5 million dollars, or 29% of their total resources.  All five childcare centers receive direct support from the University by providing physical space, utilities and related building expenses.  In addition, families at the four affiliated programs may apply for the Child Care Tuition Grant and if eligible receive a discount on tuition.  Because of the interdisciplinary research and training mission associated with the UM Children’s Center and UM Children’s Center for Working Families, these centers also receive a general fund allocation through the Rackham Graduate School. 

In general, tuition paid by the families is the largest source of revenue for each of the centers.  This is especially true for the UM Hospital Child Care Center.  Some centers also earn revenue from fundraising, scholarships, and investment distributions. 

Other Child Care Support Programs At The UM

The Work/Life Resource Center (WLRC) assists over 800 faculty, staff and students a year in finding licensed child care, as well as providing them with information on how to select a high-quality program.   Their database, which is maintained and updated on a regular basis, contains over 600 programs in the Washtenaw county area, as well as hundreds of others across the state, for those who might reside in other counties, such as Livingston, Wayne or Oakland.    The program also provides information and counsels faculty on modified duties and tenure-clock stoppage, as well as on other family-friendly programs and policies in the University community.

The Center also manages the Kids Kare at Home program, which assists faculty with sick and emergency back-up child care.  The program was established in 1998, supported by the Regents, and championed initially by Provost Cantor.  Provost Courant has continued to support the program, which more than pays for itself in terms of salaries recaptured and productivity on the job.  However, the program is limited to 48 hours of use, and has sliding fee scale range which does not provide any subsidies to higher-income faculty. 

Finally, the Work/Life Resource Center and the Office of Student Affairs were awarded a four-year federal Department of Education grant (CCAMPIS grant) for $237,388 over four years to provide more available and affordable child care on campus for students.  Fifty eight percent of the funds are being used for subsidies for students with financial need; twenty seven percent is used to establish a network of highly trained and accredited family child care providers to provide more infant and toddler care as well as to provide care on evenings and weekends.   The Committee on Student Parent Issues recently voted to broaden the scope of the program and, with financial support from the Provost, will offer services to staff and faculty as well as undergraduate and graduate students. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SECTION V

THE IMPORTANCE OF HIGH QUALITY PROGRAMS

While we were not able to identify existing studies that point out the underlying relationship between high quality childcare and faculty’s productivity, we feel urgent to describe how quality of childcare affects our children’s intellectual development.  After all, what matters most to us with or without children is our next generation, i.e., children. 

Brain development research and longitudinal studies demonstrate the importance of children’s early learning and care experiences to their future academic success and employee productivity.  Given that the human brain develops more rapidly between birth and age five as compared to any other age, the ability to provide high quality early childhood education is imperative in the development of children (Shonkoff & Philips, 2000). 

There are various findings regarding effective practices in early childhood programs that have relevance for young children.  One nationally recognized measure of high quality is Accreditation by the National Academy for Early Childhood Programs, a division of the NAEYC.  Accreditation is granted to programs that voluntarily demonstrate substantial compliance with the academy’s criteria for high quality early childhood programs.  Accreditation focuses on the following topic areas: Interactions among Staff and Children; Curriculum; Physical Environment; Health and Safety; Staff-Parent Interactions; Staff Qualifications and Development; Administration, Staffing and Nutrition and Food Service. 

Researchers have conducted longitudinal research studies of child care programs for poor children and for children whose mothers are employed.  These studies suggest the following characteristics are associated with effective programs, staff, and administrators:

·         Effective programs use explicitly stated, developmentally appropriate curricula that support children’s self-initiated learning activities.

·         Effective teaching staff have been trained in early childhood education and staff turnover is low.

·         Effective administrators provide in-service training and supervisory support for their staff’s curriculum implementation.

·         Effective programs maintain classes of fewer than 20 3-5 year-olds for every pair of teaching adults.

·         Effective programs provide parental support and parent involvement.  

The accreditation criteria of the National Academy of Early Childhood Programs embody these quality characteristics.  In addition, these criteria require programs to comply with state and local health and safety requirements; train staff to detect illness; provide first aid; ensure that children receive nutritious meals; health and social service referrals, and developmental assessments.  Three program quality categories have major effects on program cost:  staff-child ratio, staff salaries/benefits, and supplementary services (home visits, staff development, meals, referrals, and assessments).  Program quality is most dependent on program curriculum.  Curriculum costs, however, appear indirectly in staff salaries/benefits, with the direct cost of curriculum appearing as supplies and equipment (Schweinhart & Weikart, 1992).

While high quality preschool programs positively impact lifelong development for individuals, studies show that this investment also has a positive economic impact and investment for society.  Findings from the High Scope Perry Preschool Project concluded that for every dollar invested in a high-quality early childhood program for children, the direct and indirect benefits to the public good are equivalent to $7.16.  These conclusions have been validated by a recent longitudinal study in Chicago which showed similar societal benefits including increased tax revenue from participant’s higher earnings and reduced costs to society for remedial education and crime.” (Brown, 2002). 

Investments in child care profit business’s bottom line (U.S. Department of Treasury, 1998).  Access to affordable, quality childcare provide businesses with considerable benefits including:  lower employee turnover; reduced tardiness and absenteeism; higher employee morale and commitment; lower training and recruitment costs; and, increased employee productivity and performance” (Smith, Fairchild & Groginsky, 1997).  Therefore, high quality early childhood programs with program continuity, careful design and supervision have a significant and positive impact on their respective communities.  These programs play an integral role within the infrastructure of the University of Michigan and its extended community.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

References

American Association of University Professors. 2003 Statement of Principles on Family Responsibilities and Academic Work.  (Posted on website www.aaup.org  11/03.) 

Biernat, Monica & Wortman,Camille, 1991 Sharing of Home Responsibilities Between Professionally Employed Women and Their Husbands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 60(6):844-860.

Freidman, Dana. Child Care for Employees Kids. 1986 Harvard Business Review, March-April.

Hensel, Nancy. 1991 Realizing Gender Equality in High education: The Need to Integrate Work/Family Issues. ASHE-EIC Higher Education Report 2.

Heldrich Work Trends Survey. Winter 1999, 1.2.

Kossek, Ellen & Ozecki, Cynthia. 1998 Work-Family Conflict, Policies, and the Job-Life Satisfaction Relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology,  83(2),139-149.

Kolodny, Anette. 1998 C. Comer & D.H. George (eds.) The Family Track.  

Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Landsman, P. Juggling Work and Family. Business Insurance, 28:16.

Mason, Mary Ann & Goulden, Marc. Do Babies Matter? The Effect of Family Formation on the Lifelong Careers of Academic Men and Women. 2002 Academe, November-December.

Shore, Rima. 1998  Ahead of the Curve. Families and Work Institute. New York, N.Y.

Williams, Joan. 2000 . Unbending Gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shonkoff, Jack P and Philips, Deborah A (Eds).  From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Child Development. National Research Council, Institute of Medicine, Washington: National Academy Press, 2000.


Appendices

A.     SACUA Meeting on Child Care Issues – February 3, 2003, Elizabeth A. Sullivan

B.     SACUA Childcare Taskforce Faculty Opinion Poll – January 2004   [Not posted yet]

   

Appendix A: SACUA Meeting on Child Care Issues - February 3, 2003, Elizabeth A. Sullivan

Beth Sullivan
Program Manager for Policy & Advocacy
Center for the Education of Women, The University of Michigan
330 E. Liberty, Ann Arbor MI  48104-2289

Professor SeonAe Yeo thanked the invited speakers for coming to share their thoughts on the following three times:

  1.      Identify the nature of child care needs (e.g., time, location, quality) on campus
  2.      Identify existing resources and barriers on campus
  3.      Identify the “ideal environment” for working/studying families.

Leslie de Pietro directs the Work/Life Resource Center.  It offers child and elder care referral services, the Kids Kare at Home Program for the care of children when they are too sick to go to school, and assistance to UM staff and faculty regarding flexible work schedules.  In conjunction with the Center for the Education of Women, WLRC offers the Work-Life-Family series of programs on campus.  Ms. De Pietro noted that since 1998 when the Kids Kare at Home Program was begun, its use has tripled.

Ms. De Pietro noted that the University operates five child care centers on the Ann Arbor campus, with an additional center on each of the Dearborn and Flint campuses.  UM provides more options than most other Big 10 schools or peer institutions.

The WLRC and CEW wrote and received a four year grant from the Dept. of Education for development of child care providers on campus.  The Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program has already contracted with seven home-based child care providers and opened up 60 new spaces for children, including infant and toddler spaces.

Ms. De Pietro noted that the three keys to child care are access, affordability and quality.  When any one of the three key elements is given lesser priority, the stool is going to tip.  Her ideal environment would include a climate that accepts people’s family responsibilities, pays child care teachers at UM center higher salaries, and creates a child care scholarship program for low-income staff at UM.

Rodger Wolf, from the Division of Student Affairs, is a member of the Child Care Oversight Committee and the Committee on Student Parent Issues.  He also works with Ms. De Pietro to oversee the CCAMPIS grant for development of additional home-based child care providers.  He ceded his time to Ms. De Pietro.

Karey Leach Fugenschuh directs the UM Children’s Center and the Children’s Center for Working Families.  She also oversees the University’s child care tuition grant program, which offers subsidized child care rates to eligible students whose children are enrolled at a UM center.  She noted that the university has raised the starting salary for UMCC teachers to $25,000 per year, but admits that child care teachers deserve higher than the market rate for their hard work.  She would like to see greater support for quality programming for children.  She also noted that UM’s facilities are aging and need a great deal of upkeep.

Deborah Goldberg is a mother of a nine year old son, professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and a member of the President’s Advisory Commission on Women’s Issues.  She noted the need for after-school care for middle school aged children.  She also raised the question as to whether UM faces any liability when faculty bring their children to their labs after school.  She suggested development of an after-school program on campus where faculty, staff or students could bring their children to do their homework while their parents finish their work day.

Jessica Burstrem is an undergraduate Honors English student and single mother to a breast-feeding toddler.  She said the local child care options that were acceptable to her in terms of quality, accessibility and affordability were very few, even with the financial assistance she received from the state’s Family Independence Agency.  She also noted that more lactation rooms are needed on campus, perhaps with a refrigerator to store breast milk, so that nursing moms can continue to provide the best milk for their babies while pursuing their studies/work.

Kate Fitzgerald is a House Officer at UM Hospital who has a 3 year old.  She ran the Moms in Medicine group last year, a group that has about 30 members including one single father.  She appreciates the care her son receives at the hospital’s child care center, but says their hours need to be extended or some form of emergency drop-in care provided so that residents, house officers and other staff who work hours beyond the usual 7 am to 6 p.m. child care hours can receive care for their children.  She also noted that the wait list to enroll children in the hospital’s center often requires families to wait 18-24 months before a space becomes available.

Ms. Fitzgerald also recommended increasing the number of part-time faculty positions that are available at UM so that young parents can better balance their work and family responsibilities while their children are young.  Another idea she suggested was to tap UM Medical School alumni/ae to raise funds for additional child care resources.

Beatriz Ramirez is a Ph.D. candidate in comparative literature, a member of the Child Care Oversight Committee, and a member of the Committee on Student Parent Issues.  She is the mother of a 2 year old.  Ms. Ramirez said that long term solutions are needed to address the problem of inadequate levels of child care for infants and toddlers.  Because most graduate students are at the UM for six years or more and are in their peak child-bearing years, their greatest need is going to be for child care for infants and toddlers.

Beth Sullivan from the Center for the Education of Women provides staff support to the Committee on Student Parent Issues.  She agreed with Ms. Ramirez that the University’s most critical problem of availability is in the area of care of infants and toddlers.  Affordability is most acute for students and low-income staff. 

Ms. Sullivan noted that there are a number of forms of child care assistance on campus, ranging from referral assistance to financial subsidies, but there needs to be a more concentrated effort to market these resources to the community.  The Committee on Student Parent Issues is likely to recommend to the Provost that one centralized unit on campus be charged with leading such a marketing effort because current efforts, although done in collaboration across a variety of units, are unable to fully promote the available resources.  For now, the Center for the Education of Women has received approval to develop a website devoted to students with children and will be developing it in coordination with students and other units that serve student parents.

Ms. Sullivan mentioned that a policy change under consideration by the UM Children’s Center Board could increase availability.  Last summer, the Committee on Student Parent Issues recommended to the Provost that UMCC be asked to change its wait list priority policy to include a preference for UM-affiliated families.  UMCC is the only child care center on campus without such a preference.  Ms. Fugenschuh, who directs UMCC, reported that the Board had discussed the issue at its January meeting, but no final decision on the matter had been made.

Associate Provost Janet Weiss said it was unrealistic to envision a large expansion of child care facilities by UM.  Recent pricing for a new facility that could serve 75 children was estimate to cost as much as $5 million.  Given the current budget crisis, UM is faced with making trade-offs when it comes to budgetary decisions because no additional monies can be spent.

Associate Vice President and Chief Human Resource Officer Barbara Butterfield suggested a number of actions that might improve child care quality, access and investment.  Like the University’s participation in the National Science Foundation’s ADVANCE grant, which seeks to increase the number and advancement of women faculty in the sciences, engineering and medicine by addressing academic climate, the University could similarly encourage climate changes toward an acceptance of child rearing among academic professionals, staff and students.

Ms. Butterfield said a full cafeteria option through UM benefits could be explored, as well as lobbying for increased child care tax credits on both the federal and state levels, as ways in which to increase affordability of child care.  She also suggested that UM’s child care centers be added to the local United Way fundraising effort.+

Professor Yeo thanked the invited guests for sharing their thoughts on the matter.  She said she planned to summarize discussion from today’s meeting and forward it to the Senate Assembly, the Provost and to President Coleman for their consideration.

 

Appendix B   SACUA Childcare Taskforce Faculty Opinion Poll will be posted by the end of March, 2005 

 

Return to Faculty Governance Home Page Return to Reports, Activities, Issues Index