Employer-Supported Child Care

Child Care: employer-supported, back-up care, impact on absenteeism (2005)

Statistic: 

According to a 2005 report by Bright Horizons on backup child care, “[i]n its first year, use of the CIBC [The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce] Children’s Center by the 800 employees enrolled in the program resulted in 2,528 work days saved---the equivalent of 10 work years” (Bright Horizons, 2005, p. 1).

Source: 

Bright Horizons. (2005). CIBC children’s center. Watertown, MA: Author.

Description: 

“After assessing the needs of 3,000 Toronto-based employees, CIBC decided to build a dedicated back-up child care center capable of serving 41 children infant through school-age for the exclusive use of it’s own employees- the first center of its kind in Canada. To make this vision a reality, CIBC required a full spectrum of services, including needs assessment and child car center design and development” (Bright Horizons, 2005, p. 1).

Child Care: employer-supported, back-up care, impact on absenteeism, productivity (2005)

Statistic: 

According to a 2005 report by Bright Horizons on back-up child care, “More than 68% of parents indicated they would have missed work if they had not used the center, leading to productivity savings of nearly $400,000 U.S.” (Bright Horizons, 2005, p. 2).

Source: 

Bright Horizons Inc. (2005). CIBC children’s center. Watertown, MA: Bright Horizons Family Solutions.

Description: 

“After assessing the needs of 3,000 Toronto-based employees, CIBC decided to build a dedicated back-up child care center capable of serving 41 children infant through school-age for the exclusive use of it’s own employees- the first center of its kind in Canada. To make this vision a reality, CIBC required a full spectrum of services, including needs assessment and child car center design and development” (Bright Horizons, 2005, p. 1).

Child Care: parenting in the workplace, prevalence (2005)

Statistic: 

According to a 2005 study on parenting in the workplace, 16% of large companies (500 or more employees) reported some form of parenting in the workplace. (Secret, 2005, p. 335)

Source: 

Secret, M. (2005). Parenting in the workplace: Child care options for consideration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(3), 326-347.

Description: 

“The purposive sample used for this exploratory study consisted of 55 organizations that reported a parenting in the workplace experience and 67 organizations that reported no experiences with the practice (non-PIW). The study sample was developed in the following way. First, a random sample of 7,000 businesses in the state of Ohio was drawn specifically for the study by the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (OBES). Practical and methodological reasons limited the study to one state, and Ohio was chosen because of the state’s proximity to the researcher and because the socioeconomic and marketplace make-up of the state approximates that of the country. A sample size of 7,000 was chosen because it seemed large enough to generate a moderate size sample based on an arbitrary but conservative estimate of 1% of businesses likely to report some type of parenting in the workplace practice…65% of the 7,000 businesses were small businesses ( less than 100 employees), 28% were medium businesses (100-499 employees), and 7% were large businesses (500 or more).”

Child Care: parenting in the workplace, employment level, prevalence (2005)

Statistic: 

According to a 2005 study on parenting in the workplace, “42% (of employers) reported that PIW employees in their businesses could be found in both upper level management and professional positions as well as in lower level positions such as clerical staff, housekeeping, or bookkeeping” (Secret, 2005, p. 338).

Source: 

Secret, M. (2005). Parenting in the workplace: Child care options for consideration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(3), 326-347.

Description: 

“The purposive sample used for this exploratory study consisted of 55 organizations that reported a parenting in the workplace experience and 67 organizations that reported no experiences with the practice (non-PIW). The study sample was developed in the following way. First, a random sample of 7,000 businesses in the state of Ohio was drawn specifically for the study by the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (OBES). Practical and methodological reasons limited the study to one state, and Ohio was chosen because of the state’s proximity to the researcher and because the socioeconomic and marketplace make-up of the state approximates that of the country. A sample size of 7,000 was chosen because it seemed large enough to generate a moderate size sample based on an arbitrary but conservative estimate of 1% of businesses likely to report some type of parenting in the workplace practice…65% of the 7,000 businesses were small businesses ( less than 100 employees), 28% were medium businesses (100-499 employees), and 7% were large businesses (500 or more).”

Child Care: lack of availability, impact on working parents (2005)

Statistic: 

According to a 2005 study on parenting in the workplace, “Although a variety of reasons were given as to why employees bring their children to work, such as convenience of practice and sick child needs, most respondents (64%) indicated the lack of available child care as the primary reason” (Secret, 2005, p. 338).

Source: 

Secret, M. (2005). Parenting in the workplace: Child care options for consideration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(3), 326-347.

Description: 

“The purposive sample used for this exploratory study consisted of 55 organizations that reported a parenting in the workplace experience and 67 organizations that reported no experiences with the practice (non-PIW). The study sample was developed in the following way. First, a random sample of 7,000 businesses in the state of Ohio was drawn specifically for the study by the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (OBES). Practical and methodological reasons limited the study to one state, and Ohio was chosen because of the state’s proximity to the researcher and because the socioeconomic and marketplace make-up of the state approximates that of the country. A sample size of 7,000 was chosen because it seemed large enough to generate a moderate size sample based on an arbitrary but conservative estimate of 1% of businesses likely to report some type of parenting in the workplace practice…65% of the 7,000 businesses were small businesses ( less than 100 employees), 28% were medium businesses (100-499 employees), and 7% were large businesses (500 or more).”

Child Care: employer-supported, workplace policies, prevalence (2005)

Statistic: 

According to a 2005 study on parenting in the workplace, “Despite the frequent occurrence of children in the workplace in these businesses, few (11%) had written policies governing the practice although most (68%) had unwritten guidelines that were understood by employees” (Secret, 2005, p. 338).

Source: 

Secret, M. (2005). Parenting in the workplace: Child care options for consideration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(3), 326-347.

Description: 

“The purposive sample used for this exploratory study consisted of 55 organizations that reported a parenting in the workplace experience and 67 organizations that reported no experiences with the practice (non-PIW). The study sample was developed in the following way. First, a random sample of 7,000 businesses in the state of Ohio was drawn specifically for the study by the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (OBES). Practical and methodological reasons limited the study to one state, and Ohio was chosen because of the state’s proximity to the researcher and because the socioeconomic and marketplace make-up of the state approximates that of the country. A sample size of 7,000 was chosen because it seemed large enough to generate a moderate size sample based on an arbitrary but conservative estimate of 1% of businesses likely to report some type of parenting in the workplace practice…65% of the 7,000 businesses were small businesses ( less than 100 employees), 28% were medium businesses (100-499 employees), and 7% were large businesses (500 or more).”

Child Care: employer-supported, on-site, employee alternatives (2002)

Statistic: 

According to a 2002 study on employer-supported on-site child care, “eighteen percent of the users of the Action (on-site daycare) center report having a zero-cost alternative available to them; at Bell, the corresponding number is 42.9 percent” (Connelly, DeGraff, & Willis, 2002, p. 250).
  

Source: 

Connelly, R., DeGraff, D., & Willis, R. (2002). If you build it, they will come: Parental use of on-site child care centers. Population Research and Policy Review, 21(3), 241- 273.

Description: 


“The employees represented by our data work for one of three light manufacturing firms in the same industry in a small city in the Southeast of the United States. The vast majority of production workers in this industry are women. Two of the firms, Action Industries and Bell Manufacturing, offer-onsite child care to employees while the third, Central Products, does not….We interviewed approximately 60 percent of the Action Industries workers of about 600, 75 percent of the Bell Manufacturing workforce of about 300, and 65 percent of the Central Products workforce of about 640.” 

Child Care: employer-sponsored, on-site, subsidy (2004)

Statistic: 

According to a 2004 study on the value of employer-sponsored child care to employees, “Although Action Industries charges a flat rate to those employee’s whose children utilize the on-site daycare center,“ Action Industries estimates that it subsidizes almost 50 percent of the total cost of the center (on-site), which at the time of the survey was a subsidy of about $130,000 per year. (Connelly, DeGraff, & Willis, 2004, p. 771)

Source: 

Connelly, R., DeGraff, D., & Willis, R. (2004). The value of employer-sponsored child care to employees. Industrial Relations, 43(4), 759-792.

Description: 

“This article uses the contingent evaluation method for calculating the value of employer-sponsored child care to employees. Like many environmental amenities, there may be a nonuse or existence of value of working for a company that offers employer-sponsored child care (ESCC), as well as a use value to parents who have children in the center. We test this hypothesis using data from three firms, two of which have on-site child care….There are approximately 60 firms in this industry in our area of study, and the industry is one of the primary employers in the region. Only 2 of the 60 firms have on-site child care, both of which are included in the study. Firms, in the industry range in size from a maximum of about 800 employees to fewer than 50. All three firms studied here are larger than the average firm in the industry in this region, with Action Industries having a workforce of about 600, Bell Manufacturing having about 300 employees, and Central Products having about 640 employees.”

Child Care: employer-sponsored, on-site, childless employee support (2004)

Statistic: 

According to a 2004 study on the value of employer-sponsored child care to employees, “50% of employees without young children (60% at Bell) would vote yes to taxing themselves $5 per pay period to support an on-site center” (Connelly, DeGraff, & Willis, 2004, p. 786).

Source: 

Connelly, R., DeGraff, D., & Willis, R. (2004). The value of employer-sponsored child care to employees. Industrial Relations, 43(4), 759-792.

Description: 

“This article uses the contingent evaluation method for calculating the value of employer-sponsored child care to employees. Like many environmental amenities, there may be a nonuse or existence of value of working for a company that offers employer-sponsored child care (ESCC), as well as a use value to parents who have children in the center. We test this hypothesis using data from three firms, two of which have on-site child care….There are approximately 60 firms in this industry in our area of study, and the industry is one of the primary employers in the region. Only 2 of the 60 firms have on-site child care, both of which are included in the study. Firms, in the industry range in size from a maximum of about 800 employees to fewer than 50. All three firms studied here are larger than the average firm in the industry in this region, with Action Industries having a workforce of about 600, Bell Manufacturing having about 300 employees, and Central Products having about 640 employees.”

Child Care: employer-supported, financial support, adoption assistance, private sector (2006)

Statistic: 

According to the 2006 National Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in Private Industry in the United States, 3% of private-sector workers had access to employer-provided funds for child care, compared with 10% of workers who had access to adoption assistance. (U.S. Department of Labor, 2006, p. 28)

Source: 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2006). National compensation survey: Employee benefits in private industry in the United States. Washington, DC: Author.

Description: 

Description of Sample: “The sample for the National Compensation Survey (NCS) (Wages, Benefits, Compensation Cost Trends --Employment Cost Index (ECI) and Employment Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC)) is selected using a three-stage design. The first stage involves the selection of areas. The NCS sample consists of 154 metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas that represent the Nation's 326 metropolitan statistical areas and the remaining portions of the 50 States. In the second stage, the sample of establishments is drawn by dividing the sample by industry and ownership. Each sample establishment is selected using a method of sampling called probability proportional to employment size. The third stage of sampling is a probability sample of occupations within a sampled establishment. This step is performed by the field economist during an interview with the respondent using a method called Probability Selection of Occupations (PSO). During this process, the field economist obtains a complete list of employees with each selected employee representing a job within the establishment. As with establishment selection, the selection of a job is based on probability proportional to its size in the establishment. The greater the number of people working in a particular job, the greater the job's chance of selection. The field economist selects a certain number of sample occupations depending on the size of the establishment.”

Syndicate content