THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO ® RECORDAN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF FACULTIES VOLUME IV, NUMBER 4REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CONTENTS / May 25, 1970DAY CARE1 Report of the Committee on Day CareApril 13, 1970Last May the President of the University appointeda committee to investigate the problem of day carein the University community. The committee hasbeen functioning for eleven months. The responseof the University to the recommendations of theCommittee on Day Care has been positive. Whetheror not the recommendations of the committee willresult in the creation of the proposed day carecenter will depend on the ability of the day carecorporation to secure adequate financing fromgovernmental and private resources. Questions withrespect to the progress of these efforts may beaddressed to my office or to the board of the daycare corporation.Walter L. WalkerVice-President for Planning andAssociate Professor , School ofSocial Service AdministrationFormation of the CommitteeDuring spring 1969 various groups within theUniversity pressed for the development of childcare facilities to take care of the children of employees and students. It was argued that there isa clear and urgent need for a free, twenty-four-hour-a-day, client controlled day care center at theUniversity. There were questions raised of bothfact and policy. No one at the time seemed toknow, among other things, the number of childreninvolved, the optimum location and probable costsof such facilities, and the availability of public andprivate funding.In April 1969, President Edward H. Levi established a committee to enable the University to develop a rational approach to the problems faced bythose members of our community who are seekingalternative child care plans for their small children.The committee was authorized to employ staff,conduct censuses, and gather information to enableit to make appropriate recommendations. The broad charge of the University Committee on DayCare was to consider the problem in relation to theUniversity as a whole.Membership on the CommitteeIn undertaking this responsibility, every effortwas made to constitute a committee which wouldreflect a diversity of viewpoints from personsalready knowledgeable in the area of day care. Unfortunately, the Women's Radical Action Projectdeclined to send a representative. Nevertheless,the committee included members from faculty,students, employees, and administration. Followingis the membership of the Committee :Walter L. Walker, Vice-President for Planning,ChairmanMary Jean Bowman, Professor of Economics andEducationDonald Brieland, Professor and Associate Deanof the School of Social Service AdministrationWilliam Cannon, Vice-President for Programsand ProjectsDr. Jarl E. Dyrud, Associate Professor andDirector of Clinical Services in the Department of PsychiatryRebecca Mclntyre, employee and member of theCampus Committee for Child CareElizabeth Anne Meyer, student and member ofthe Campus Committee for Child CareSuzanne Morrison, Research Assistant at theNational Opinion Research CenterDonnell M. Pappenfort, Associate Professor inthe School of Social Service AdministrationConnie Stevens, student and member of theCampus Committee for Child CareWork of the CommitteeIn the course of its investigations the committee sought to establish potential and expressedneed for day care services, considered alternative1ways of meeting the need, and explored the manycomplex and interrelated factors involved in settingup and operating a day care center. These includedclient control, governmental regulations, site selection, intake, programming, staffing, cost analyses,and fund raising.There was general agreement that nationallythere is a real and pressing need for greatly expanded, high quality day care services. In a surveyof working mothers conducted jointly by theWomen's Bureau and the Children's Bureau in1965, it was found that 3.8 million childrenunder six had working mothers, as did 6.1 millionchildren between the ages of six and eleven. Another 2.4 million were twelve to thirteen. Of these12.3 million children, 984,000 (or 8 percent) tookcare of themselves.Some indication of the magnitude of the problemin the Chicago area is revealed by the 1967 studyof the Welfare Council of Metropolitan Chicago:13,700 pre-school children in Chicago in needof full day care with spaces available for only4,700; 38,000 children in this age group withworking mothers; 700 children under six withno day-time supervision while their mothersworked; 15,000 latch-key children aged 6-13 inneed of after school care.The potential demand for day care serviceswithin the University community is considerable.A report on the number of children of Universityof Chicago employees in October 1969 showed thatthere were 253 children under two years and 579children two to five years old, for a total of 837.Effective demand for day care services is moredifficult to assess, since it is assumed that presentemployees of the University with children havemade some arrangement for child care. For thepurposes of the committee, effective demand hasbeen tested through the provision of public hearingsto be described below.Over the summer of 1969, two of the committeemembers developed the outlines of a model fora pilot day care center. They considered questionsof site, design, staff, and parent participation. Acost analysis of thexpilot project was undertakenwhich included estimated costs of operation andproviding a building and equipping it for use as aday care center. An outline for the administrationof the center was proposed, including the corporatestructure, the board of the corporation, and thecenter executive committee. The report also in cluded tables showing some of the state and localrequirements for day care for staff and physicalplant; various sources of federal funds for whichthe program should be eligible; and some information on absenteeism, turnover, and personnelshortages at The University of Chicago. Salientfeatures of the study will be summarized below tohighlight particulars of the committee's deliberations.Finding an adequate and appropriate site in thecommunity is itself a problem. Governmental regulations for day care centers are very stringent.The existence of the Hyde Park Cooperative Nursery School has been threatened by the lack ofavailable space and the cost of bringing existingstructures up to meet the present code. Since thecommittee began its work, the City Council hasamended the Municipal Code to ease the restrictions on day care centers.The committee has investigated the presentlyvacant Church of the Redeemer at 56th and Black-stone. An architectural engineer has evaluated thebuilding as structurally sound for rehabilitation asa day care center and has provided a cost estimatefor the rehabilitation. The location is considereddesirable because it is close to the University andaccessible by public transportation, the campusbus service, and the hospital transportation service.The design of a day care center must includeconsideration of the number and distribution ofchildren to be served and the utilization of available space. A one-hundred-child center is thoughtto include the maximum number of children whocan be accommodated, taking into account bothefficiency of operation and manageability of scale.Decisions about the age distribution should reflectthe following factors :1 ) mothers being more likely to return to workas their children grow older;2) trained staff being more available for workwith older children than with infants ;3) costs of caring for older children being considerably lower than for very young children ;and4) judgments being made by parents and staffabout individual family and child situations.Staffing for a day care center was consideredfrom the standpoints of both minimum formalrequirements and the most desirable qualities andqualifications. The latter included interest in youngchildren, ability to establish rapport with children,keen powers of observation, warmth of personality,2experience with children, and knowledge of childdevelopment principles. Staff-child ratios must meetthe requirements of the State of Illinois Department of Children and Family Services and the Chicago Board of Health. A variety of training activities were also suggested, including in-service training for staff, crisis preparation for parents, preparation of personnel for work in other centers, andinvolvement of parents in everyday operations ofthe center.High quality day care services are expensive.The estimated total annual operating cost for aone-hundred- child center.4s $296,000. The estimatedbuilding and equipping cost is $165,000, includingpurchase, renovation, and needed equipment.The proposed administration of the center callsfor the formation of a not-for-profit, tax-exemptcorporation composed of all interested employeesand students at The University of Chicago. Theboard of the corporation would be responsible forsetting up the day care center and, ultimately,for financial management. A center executive committee, composed primarily of parents of the children in the center, could be elected by the parentsof the center and would be responsible for the dayto day operation.The diversity of viewpoints was reflected in thecommittee's deliberations. The ongoing dialogueraised fundamental questions of equity and responsibility as well as revealing deeply rooted differences in value and ideology; for example, the daycare center model summarized above was questioned on its underlying assumptions. It was arguedthat the proposal assumes the viewpoint of amiddle-class parent. Other forms of day care, suchas foster day care, may be more beneficial to thechildren and more acceptable to parents who areblue-collar employees. Social class differences inpatterns of child rearing may well dictate differentapproaches to the provision of child care services.Another source of criticism was the presumption"that students and employees should be treated ona par with respect to University provision of childcare facilities." From this perspective the linkingof students and workers is viewed as an example"of those who are in relatively favorable positionsin a society (i.e., of students) pushing their interests by riding in on the shoulders of those whoare in real need (i.e., workers)." It was furtherargued that such a day care center as that proposed"would almost inevitably set the stage for majorsubsidies to child care for students."On the other hand it was pointed out that the University has already assumed responsibility inmany areas for the needs of its employees, students, and faculty. It has done this in traditionalways by paying pension benefits, health insurance,ano! other fringe benefits for its employees. Forstudents and faculty the University has providedsubsidized housing. It was also argued that thereare many forces operating on women to encouragethem to enter the labor force. Women are educatedand trained to acquire marketable skills. Theirearnings may be needed by the household to makeends meet, and an income becomes essential if thewoman is the sole support of the family and musteither live on inadequate welfare payments orgo to work. At the center of a woman's dilemmain these circumstances is the lack of high quality,inexpensive child care facilities.On September 19, 1969 the committee agreedon a set of recommendations, which were submittedto President Edward H. Levi.Recommendations of the Committee1. That a not-for-profit, tax-exempt corporationbe established to facilitate the development andmanagement of the day care center. This corporation would have employees and students as itsmembers. The University's participation in the establishment of the corporation would principallybe to publicize, provide space for, and give corporate sanction to a series of meetings designed toreport the findings^ of the University Committee forChild Care to interested employees and students.(It is anticipated that the organization of the corporation would flow from these meetings.)2. That The University of Chicago negotiate anoption to purchase the Church of the Redeemerproperty at 56th and Blackstone.3. That the University seek preliminary opinionsfrom the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference, Hyde Park-Kenwood Conservation Council,the Health Department of the City of Chicago, theFire Department of the City of Chicago, the zoningboard, and the appropriate state and city licensingbodies concerning the feasibility of the site for daycare.4. That the University commit itself to assistingthe new corporation in securing funds from privateendowments, foundations, and government agenciesto pay for operating expenses.Client ControlThe core of the recommendations is the endorsement by the committee of the principle of "client3control with commensurate client responsibility."The corporation will have the authority to make alldecisions relating to the operation of the center,including policy, intake, program, staffing, andevaluation. The corporation will at the same timeassume responsibility for providing the quality ofday care desired by the clients, including the generation of funds required for the ongoing operationof the center and the development of organizationalskills needed to translate the dollars into efficient,effective, and innovative day care services.The Role of the UniversityThe position of the administration of the University is that it most emphatically does not want tobe in the day care center business. Day care services are never "free." They always cost someonesomething. In the best of times, the little publicizedand very prosaic problem of generating operationalfunds is a large and thankless task. When resourcesbecome scarce, the problem is critical. If money isdirected into day care services, then less money isavailable to meet other pressing needs within theUniversity. It is hoped that the University may receive some return on its investment through rentspaid by the corporation. Nevertheless, it must beregarded as high risk capital, designed to encouragethe further investment of time,, energy, and commitment by the beneficiaries of the service todevelop the day care center. The work to date, byindividuals actively concerned with setting up thecorporation, gives us every reason to believe theinvestment is well placed. Much remains to be done.As indicated in the recommendations above, theUniversity will make available such technical re--sources as the corporation may find useful duringthe initial stage of incorporation and the searchfor funds.Action Taken on the RecommendationsFive public hearings have been held by the com mittee, one on campus and four in Billings Hospital. The turnout in the hospital was small butinterested. The hearings have generated some thirtypersons willing to work on setting up the center.The committee has endorsed the principle of insuring a "substantial" and diversified employee representation — especially from the lower paid echelons— among clients and officers of the corporation.The University has negotiated an option topurchase the Church of the Redeemer for a periodof six months. The ongoing work to develop theday care center is now the responsibility of thosemost committed to its establishment. They havealready incorporated and are working on the problems of involving more interested persons, especially among lower level employees, and generating funds. Staff services for this initial periodhave been made available through Vice-PresidentWalker's office.The committee recommends that the Universityproceed to buy the Church of the Redeemer property after it has evaluated the availability of firmfinancial backing for the first year's operation ofthe center and has a substantial number of lowerechelon employees of The University of Chicagowho are interested in planning, managing, andusing the center.Having completed its charge and with the responsibility for continued work on the day carecenter in the hands of the newly formed corporation, your committee respectfully requests to bedischarged.Mary Jean BowmanDonald BrielandWilliam CannonJarl E. DyrudRebecca McIntyreElizabeth Anne MeyerSuzanne MorrisonDonnell M. PappenfortConnie StevensWalter L. Walker, Chairman4THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE FACULTIESHXwawH*!onoowooaoerooONou>n Zm ± c o35 n? >=i O TJ c/> no|zPO p > •vO o<3si a -i> a3<O n'os22 m