This report, prepared by the human resource team at Harper Supply Company, investigates the feasibility of employer-assisted child care for company employees. Drawing on a workplace survey, national demographic data, and case studies of corporate child care programs, the report evaluates several assistance models — including on-site day care centers, partnerships with national child care providers, voucher and tax credit programs, and in-home care subsidies. The study finds that Harper Supply lacks the employee base and capital to build its own facility, and recommends two practical alternatives: inviting an established provider to build on company property with guaranteed employee priority, or establishing a dollar-matching tuition assistance fund. Key survey findings reveal that 95% of employee-parents report difficulty finding child care, and 55% have missed work because of child care failures.
The report exemplifies applied research methodology in a professional context: it formulates a problem statement, reviews existing literature and case studies, administers an original survey instrument validated against a published framework (Bloomfield, 1998), incorporates demographic comparison data from the U.S. Census, and synthesizes all findings into ranked, feasible recommendations. This layered evidence approach is characteristic of business and HR research reports.
The paper opens with a transmittal memorandum, followed by an executive summary that previews the two recommended options. The body proceeds through an introduction establishing the social context, a problem statement, a literature review of corporate child care models, an employee survey with tabulated results, a limitations section, and a demographic analysis. The final two sections — Summary and Conclusions, and Recommendations — synthesize findings and propose a committee-driven pilot program. This classical report structure (context → evidence → recommendation) is well-suited to workplace policy proposals.
It is evident that a significant need exists at Harper Supply Company for some form of assistance with child care. Applying the criteria found in the research for this report indicates that Harper Supply is not economically able to completely fund the construction of a child care facility. When evaluating other options, it appears that the two best choices are: (A) enabling a large child care provider to construct a facility on the Harper Supply campus and ensuring that Harper employees' children always have places in the facility, while remaining spots may be filled by external applicants, or (B) establishing a tuition assistance program in which, for every dollar an employee contributes to a "child care fund," Harper Supply would match that dollar in some form.
The number of single-parent families and families in which both parents work continues to increase. This trend has placed greater attention on the relationship between work and family environments, and on the consequences employees face when attempting to balance work and family responsibilities. The rising cost of child care has forced many parents to turn to cheaper, less reliable options. Stress related to caregiving responsibilities can have a variety of negative impacts on job performance, including decreased productivity, increased absenteeism, increased turnover, and decreased job satisfaction.
The conditions which exist in child care at this time range sadly from 10% of child care providers actually endangering the lives and health of the children in their care, to others in which small children may spend as much as 70% of their day watching television (Massen-Draffin, 1995). Driving this overwhelming need for quality child care is the large number of mothers who must work outside the home. Parents who are fortunate enough to have corporate child care as an option expect their children will receive higher-quality care than they would in private daycare (Massen-Draffin, 1995).
Employers began to seriously consider corporate child care as an employee benefit in the 1980s. It appeared that corporate child care would address parents' dilemmas of finding safe, affordable child care while maintaining access to their children during the workday. What the early pioneers of corporate child care did not anticipate was a road riddled with obstacles and government red tape (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 1995), making it extremely difficult to establish and sustain a corporate child care center.
"Family-friendly" corporations are defined as those that persevere and succeed in establishing a child care program. The factors that make a business family-friendly include empowering employees to meet family responsibilities, sharing the fruits of productivity fairly with employees, refraining from assuming family responsibilities, putting long-term interests ahead of short-term goals, avoiding support of anti-family causes, respecting the institution of marriage, and cultivating a corporate culture that values family (Mattox, 1992).
This study will determine the current child care needs of employees at Harper Supply Company and will research the financial and social benefits of a company-sponsored child care program.
Several corporations have been involved with successful employee child care programs since the early 1980s. Kindercare, Inc., through its corporate division, has successfully helped many companies establish child care programs. To ensure sufficient planning, Kindercare at Work provides guidelines for corporate executives to follow during the preliminary fact-finding period. Company size is always considered: comprehensive research has found that a company should have at least 750 employees to make an on-site child care program viable. Available space is another key factor — there should be at least 65 square feet of interior space per child and at least 65 square feet of exterior space per child. Employee involvement is equally critical. Employers should not assume that employees who have already made satisfactory child care arrangements will abandon them in favor of a corporate program.
Another business with positive results in corporate child care planning is the Lego Creative Child Care Center, which earned accreditation from the National Association for the Education of Young Children — a particularly difficult certification to attain. Gannett Publishing Company, one of the top-grossing U.S. publishing companies and a pioneer of corporate child care, has been listed on Working Mother magazine's list of the top 100 best companies for working mothers eleven times in a row. It is no surprise that Gannett's bottom line remains strong, since several studies have shown that a work environment that fosters happy employees is crucial to financial success (Lozada, 1997).
Not all companies entered the child care arena with the assumption that their efforts would automatically succeed. Ford Motor Company spent a great deal of time surveying employees, researching options, and consulting with child care professionals before taking any action. Even then, a pilot program was implemented at a subsidiary plant — the North Penn facility of Electronics and Refrigeration — before any major changes were made (Lozada, 1997). Lisa Farnin, a manufacturing engineer and project leader at North Penn, stated: "We were trying to find out what made sense to our company — using common sense and good business sense. We tried really hard to look through what to propose and why it would work."
Another question in the child care equation concerns sick children. If an employee who bills $250 per hour must stay home because her child is ill, the cost to the employer is significant. The child care industry has responded by developing "mildly ill" child day care centers. The National Association of Sick Child Daycare reports that there are currently approximately 350 such centers in the country (LoJacono, 2001). Generally, one center serves several regular day care centers, and spots must be leased annually by the corporate day care or by parents. A single lease may cost up to $8,000 per year, but many corporate executives consider the expense justified given the productivity losses that would otherwise result from employees staying home with mildly ill children (Woodward, 1999).
There are also child care endeavors that have failed. Owens Corning is a notable example. Their employees apparently did not answer all survey questions truthfully, creating an inflated picture of the need for on-site child care. After the company built a facility, there were not enough clients to make it economically viable. This illustrates a known risk: employees may indicate they will use a corporate child care center as insurance, even when they have already made other arrangements. When enough employees do this, the result — as it was for Owens Corning — is a facility operating below sustainable capacity.
Day care consultants sometimes encourage corporate America to believe that building a quality day care center guarantees demand — a "build it and they will come" philosophy. But a number of companies have found otherwise. An on-site center opened by a Kentucky-based office supply company employing 100 people lost $30,000 in two years because of low usage (Marsh, 1995). Similarly, The American Savings Bank, a California company employing 4,000 people, closed its award-winning day care center after employees ranked it last on a list of the ten most-wanted employee benefits (Shellenbarger, 1995). A recent study by Hewitt Associates found that while 60% of America's major employers offer pre-tax day care set-asides, only 3% of employees use them (Hewitt Associates, 1995).
The pros and cons of offering child care as a job benefit are outlined in a survey reported by The Conference Board (1995), "Should Employers Help with the Kids?" Among employers surveyed, 62% believed corporate child care had raised employee morale, 54% reported that employee absenteeism had decreased, and 53% said it improved the company's public image and enhanced recruitment, while 52% believed it increased productivity and 37% credited it with lower employee turnover. On the other side, 41% cited excessive organizational costs, 39% found employee costs too high, 27% reported underutilization of the center, and 27% said the program contributed to communication gaps.
Some of the principal barriers to successful corporate day care include: (A) ensuring the facility is capable of housing a day care program; (B) addressing all applicable health and safety regulations, including parents' concerns about ill children; (C) potential lack of employee participation; (D) the significant time required for setup and daily operations; (E) construction costs, which can be exorbitant without an experienced construction director; and (F) a shortage of properly trained and certified child care providers in the company's area.
Major ongoing problems for corporate day care providers include: (A) the cost and variety of insurance a center must carry; (B) the substantial capital investment required without certainty of success; (C) subsidizing employees' costs; and (D) the fact that typically only 2%–4% of employees will use a company-sponsored program, which is problematic for smaller companies.
Although on-site child care facilities can be expensive and sometimes disappointing, there are other ways employers can assist employees with child care needs. Some employers pay various percentages of their employees' child care costs, often by contracting with a large child care provider or national chain such as Kindercare. In some instances, a corporation has donated land to a child care provider on the condition that the corporation's employees receive first preference for enrollment as long as the center remains open. This arrangement reduces the financial burden on the corporation while allowing the provider to fill empty seats with children from outside the company. Neither party needs to master the other's business operations — a genuine win-win arrangement.
Because the child care provider is typically part of a franchise or chain, research, training, insurance, curriculum, staffing, and legal matters are handled by in-house professionals. Successful examples of this partnership approach include the Norlarco Credit Union in Fort Collins, Colorado (90 employees), The Principal Financial Group in Des Moines, Iowa (8,500 employees), and Paine-Webber in San Francisco (Woodward, 1999). Each implemented child care by partnering with an established provider, demonstrating that this model can work across a wide range of company sizes.
Another option for meeting employees' needs without a large financial commitment is before- and after-school care provided by local school systems. Between 5 million and 15 million American children lack a safe place to go after school, putting them at risk for poor grades, possible drug or alcohol abuse, early sexual activity, and increased risk of victimization by crime. Well-run before- and after-school programs provide learning opportunities, a safe environment, and adult supervision. The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program is a primary source of federal funding for school districts developing and maintaining such programs; over a three-year period, more than 1,500 grants were awarded to 6,800 rural and inner-city public schools. Resources that may support this effort include YMCA and YWCA programs, Boys' and Girls' Clubs, and the American Red Cross. The main drawback of this option is that it provides no coverage for infants and children under five years old.
Many parents prefer home child care, particularly for newborns and infants. For employees earning between $30,000 and $40,000, hiring an in-home care provider could easily consume one-fourth to one-third of their income. Some employers have begun to offer financial incentives to parents who use home care providers (Lee, 1995; Woodward, 1999). A related option worth considering is whether the company could reserve spaces at a nearby center, purchase preferred-customer status for its employees, or donate funds to help a nearby center upgrade quality and extend its operating hours.
You’re 57% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 4 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.