Issuu

Santa Clara County

September 2026

Received: 09/15/2026

Childcare Blueprint

This Childcare Blueprint centers the voices of parents in Santa Clara County who encounter substantial and consistent barriers to accessing safe, affordable, quality childcare – childcare that allows them to pursue their life goals and their families’ economic stability. In these pages, you will hear from migrant farmworker parents who need childcare that begins early, so they can make it to their agricultural jobs. You will hear from refugee and immigrant families seeking childcare providers who speak their home country’s language and celebrate their traditions. You will hear from veteran parents who, upon separation from the military, lose access to subsidized childcare. You will hear from young moms who have been impacted by the juvenile justice system and former foster youth who prioritize relationships of deep trust with their childcare providers. And you will hear from parents facing housing insecurity and experiencing domestic violence, who need consistent, safe, and trauma-informed childcare environments. In addition, there are stories from parents who have children with disabilities, including complex medical and behavioral needs. These stories illustrate the critical need for additional training, funding, and support for childcare providers so they can feel confident and capable when caring for all children. We brought feedback from our parent listening sessions directly to childcare experts across our county. They listened deeply and crafted equitable strategies and actions across three main goal areas:  The ability to find, access, and pay for childcare;  The ability to connect with a qualified and trusted childcare provider; and  The ability to find a childcare environment that meets the child and family needs. These are challenges that nearly all families face across California and across the nation. And while we can join advocacy efforts for state and federal action, there are also specific efforts we can make right here. We asked our childcare experts about ways we can build on work that’s already going on across Santa Clara County. By combining efforts and elevating the resources that do exist, we can increase our outreach to families, strengthen pathways to becoming a skilled childcare provider, and remove barriers to creating quality childcare environments.

Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Sylvia Arenas, District 1 Betty Duong, District 2 Otto Lee, District 3

Susan Ellenberg, District 4 Margaret Abe-Koga, District 5

County Executive: James R. Williams

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Overview

Family Needs & the Childcare Ecosystem

The Blueprint Framework

Appendices

+ Centering

+ Invitation to

+ Three Broad

+ Appendix A:

Family Voice & Collaboration + What Do

Families Want?

Partners & Families + Santa Clara

County Context + The Needs of

Goals + Santa Clara

Childcare Blueprint Contributors

County Childcare Blueprint

+ Appendix B:

Pages 24-37

Pages 38-43

Our Families

References & Sources

+ Strains on the

Childcare Workforce

Pages 4-6

Page 3

Pages 7-23

Overview +

Centering Family Voice & Collaboration

What Do Families Want?

The Santa Clara County Childcare Blueprint is a set of locally focused recommendations intended to help the County and other stakeholders and partners make more strategic use of limited resources to address the childcare needs of local families. The Santa Clara County Childcare Blueprint is a locally focused framework for strengthening how organizations across the county support children and families with childcare needs, particularly those who are already connected to County services and who often face the greatest barriers to stability and well-being. This document brings forward critical insights from families themselves

Page 4

about what is working, where gaps remain, and how childcare support in Santa Clara County can be strengthened to better meet their needs. The Blueprint is designed to help the County and its partners make more strategic use of limited resources by identifying practical ways to improve how families access childcare and related supports across Santa Clara County’s mixed delivery system.

Centering Family Voice & Collaboration

This Blueprint begins with a simple premise: to act effectively, we must first listen carefully. Families are best positioned to tell us where systems work and where they fall short, which provides essential insights into how public systems can become more coordinated, flexible, and familycentered. The Santa Clara County Childcare Blueprint relies on families’ experiences to shape recommendations about policy, practice, and resource alignment.

Development of this Childcare Blueprint required deep collaboration across County departments, community organizations, and service providers. Through structured and facilitated meetings, experts from family-serving organizations across the county considered the needs raised by families and explored local strategies to address those needs, including ways to better support childcare providers. The Blueprint encourages public agencies and organizations to think creatively about how existing resources, responsibilities, and relationships can be better aligned to address families’ most pressing childcare challenges.

Page 5

The Blueprint serves as a call to action for the County and community partners. We hope that the Blueprint serves as a practical tool for guiding discussion and action across the county. Some changes will require new investment and sustained public commitment. At the same time, important progress can begin within the work already underway through stronger coordination, deeper partnership, and a more intentional focus on family needs.

This Blueprint is an invitation to work more closely together on behalf of children and families. Santa Clara County is home to immense creativity, generosity, and resolve. This Blueprint is offered in that spirit: as a conduit for family voice, a reflection of shared responsibility, and an invitation to work more closely together on behalf of children and families. When families are supported and children have what they need to thrive, the entire community benefits.

What Do Families Want? Families want high quality, affordable care that they can trust, offered when and where they need it. The many families who participated in this work were very clear about what they want from a healthy, robust childcare system:  Information about childcare options that is centralized, accessible and highlights critical information like waitlists, eligibility for subsidy options, and extended hours of operation;  High-quality care that is affordable, provided in their languages, and consistent with their culture and values;  Care that matches their work hours and is located close to home or work so that transportation is feasible;  Learning environments that are safe and accessible for children with disabilities; and  Providers they trust and who are highly trained, background-checked, and empathetic with the developmental and individual needs of their child.

What challenges do families experience? Families also expressed, however, the very real challenges they experience in navigating the complex childcare system. Care is difficult to find (especially for infants and toddlers), waitlists can stretch for years, the cost for childcare is too high, and there is often a mismatch between employment hours and available childcare hours.

Page 6

Development of the Blueprint Literature Review Review of key reports and data describing the early childhood education landscape in Santa Clara County

Family Listening Sessions Listening to the needs of families across Santa Clara County

Advisory Committee Meetings A core group of childcare experts and crossdepartmental partners met monthly to collaborate on the development of this Blueprint

Family Needs & the Childcare Ecosystem +

Invitation to Partners & Families

Santa Clara County Context

The Needs of Our Families

Strains on the Childcare Workforce

Family engagement was made possible through service provider and partner relationships. Recognizing the need for a concerted effort to gather information and highlight family voices, the Office of Children and Families Policy (OCFP) reached out to key public partners in Santa Clara County to ask for help in reaching families with childcare needs. Page 7

Invitation to Partners & Families The Office of Supportive Housing, Department of Employment and Benefit Services, Department of Family and Children’s Services, Office of Women’s Policy, Office of Immigrant Relations, Office of Disability Affairs, and the Veterans Services Office were critical in facilitating connections with communitybased organizations who directly serve County-supported families. The Veterans Services Office and CalWORKs Employment Services also helped with recruiting families and hosting groups.

Many partners helped OCFP connect with families. Our heartfelt gratitude goes to these community-based organizations who graciously recruited families for listening sessions, often providing discussion space and, if needed, translation assistance:  Bill Wilson Center  Family and Community Engagement Center at the Morgan Hill Unified School District  Fresh Lifelines for Youth  International Rescue Committee  Parents Helping Parents  Sacred Heart Community Service  YWCA  Young Women's Freedom Center

Page 8

We are also grateful for the opportunity to join an April 2026 Homelessness Prevention System meeting to query over 50 community-based organizations about the needs of families facing housing insecurity.

Childcare experts gathered monthly to think through strategies that might meet families’ needs. OCFP reached out to childcare experts and key partners across the county to participate in a collaborative design process. These partners gathered monthly from February through June 2026 to digest family feedback and to think through the strategies and actions that might meet family needs. Partners on the Blueprint Advisory Committee included representatives from FIRST 5 Santa Clara County, Grail Family Services, Choices for Children, Kidango, Go Kids, Inc., the International Rescue Committee, the Santa Clara County Office of Education, the City of San José, the San José Public Library, Valley Health Foundation, Silicon Valley Community Foundation, and the YWCA, as well as several institutions of higher education (EDvance College, DeAnza College, Mission College, and San José State University).

Invitation to Partners & Families We must listen closely to families. To center family voice in the Santa Clara County Childcare Blueprint, OCFP and Clarity Social Research Group conducted an extensive community engagement process to understand the childcare needs, experiences, and priorities of families who represent some of the highest-need populations in Santa Clara County. Beginning in Fall of 2025, 12 in-person and online listening sessions were conducted with 95 parents and caregivers. These sessions – conducted in English, Spanish, and Dari – were intentionally designed to reach families connected to County services. Throughout the following sections of the report, we weave these family voices into the broader Santa Clara County childcare context.

95 parents and caregivers shared their childcare experiences during 12 listening sessions.

Page 9

Whose voices are highlighted in the Blueprint?  Young mothers, including those with experiences of foster care, housing instability, domestic violence, and the juvenile justice system  Former foster youth who are new parents  Veteran parents  Parents experiencing housing insecurity and domestic violence  Families of children with disabilities  Migrant and immigrant families  Refugee families  Low-income families using CalWORKs Stage 1 childcare

Santa Clara County Context Santa Clara County’s childcare system operates in one of the most economically dynamic — and economically unequal — regions in the nation. Access to quality childcare is a powerful driver of child development, family economic stability, and community well-being, yet it remains out of reach for many families in Santa Clara County. These childcare-related challenges are felt broadly, but they fall unevenly, making equitable access a pressing priority. Significant wealth and a high cost of living are hallmarks of the county. Santa Clara County is an extremely expensive place to live. The San José region had the second highest cost of living among 283 urban areas across the nation in 2025.1 According to SelfSufficiency Standard calculations for the county, a household of two adults with an infant has to earn at least $141,000 annually to meet basic needs without private or public assistance.2 Using this standard, about one in four (26%) county households do not earn enough to meet their basic needs without assistance.3

Page 10

How many families with young children did the County serve in FY2024-FY2025? The County of Santa Clara Social Services Administration served 37,563 households with children ages 0-5 across three programs – In-Home Supportive Services, CalWORKs, and the Department of Family and Children’s Services. Most of these families were Hispanic/Latino, with most speaking English or Spanish. Among the 4,388 CalWORKs cases, 1,553 (35%) were approved for services, but only 683 (44%) utilized their CalWORKs Stage One Childcare benefit. Source: Data from the Office of Research and Evaluation

Santa Clara County Context Diversity is a defining feature of this region. Santa Clara County is characterized by diversity across a broad spectrum of interrelated demographic, socioeconomic, cultural, and neighborhood factors. In addition to cultural and linguistic diversity there is extreme income inequality in the county, with the income of the top 20% of residents almost 18 times greater than that of the bottom 20%.4 Within this diverse mix of residents, some face persistent inequity. Redlining5 and restrictive housing covenants6 created unequal, racially driven access to home ownership, contributing to the development of neighborhoods with high levels of poverty. Inequities in the workplace persist, with Latina women earning less than half of what White men do.7 Women continue to bear a disproportionate share of caregiving tasks – along with the costs related to those responsibilities.8 Among single parent households, twice as many are headed by a woman as by a man.9 Poverty rates for female heads of household with children are more than double those of male heads of households with children.10

Page 11

Due to these barriers, socioeconomic vulnerabilities are unevenly distributed in the county. Countywide, about one-fourth of households are living below United Way’s Real Cost Measure of poverty, with pronounced differences by racial/ethnic groups; 32% and 53% of Black and Latino/a households are below this level, respectively, as compared to 17% of White households.11 Rates of food insecurity,12 homelessness,13 and unemployment 14 are also disproportionately high among Latino/a and Black residents in the county. Moreover, in the current climate of anti-immigrant sentiment and policies, county residents born outside of the U.S. report being afraid to seek access to support programs,15 leaving them with fewer opportunities for help with things like basic needs, job training, and secure employment.

The Needs of Our Families Affordable childcare can be difficult to find, especially for infants and toddlers. Part of this challenge is availability. In 2023, only 69% of the demand for childcare was met in Santa Clara County – a shortage of approximately 25,072 slots. The overwhelming majority of the needed slots (19,448) are for infants and toddlers. Only 28% of estimated demand for children under the age of three is being met.16 Childcare options are more limited in low-income neighborhoods. “Childcare deserts” are clustered in predominantly low-income neighborhoods and neighborhoods of color in Santa Clara County.17 The cost of childcare is out of reach, and subsidies don’t close the gap. The cost of childcare was named as a significant barrier by all families in listening sessions.

Some areas of the county are considered “childcare deserts”, places where there are too few licensed slots for the number of children in need of care.

Page 12

Since 2010, costs for childcare in Silicon Valley have risen at twice the rate of inflation.18 Currently, the median annual costs for center-based infant and preschool care in Santa Clara County are $30,399 and $23,652, respectively. Home-based care is $20,810 for infants and $19,990 for preschool-aged children.19 Young parents described most of their income going toward childcare.

“Newborn care is very hard to find. Most providers are full and if I found a spot, it was too expensive. I’m living paycheck to paycheck. Living in this county, what’s going to give?” – Young mother

The Needs of Our Families Subsidized childcare exists, but parents cited the current structure of eligibility and sliding-scale contributions as problematic. Subsidized care helped 10,801 families in Santa Clara County absorb the costs of childcare in 2023; however, subsidized care providers were able to serve only 13% of children 0 to 2 and 36% of children in qualified families.20 Working families fall into a persistent gap where they earn too much to qualify for full assistance but too little to pay for private care. Parents highlighted difficult economic tradeoffs: for some families, it was more financially viable for one partner to exit the workforce altogether, whether to become eligible for free childcare or because their income was insufficient to offset the cost of paid care.

Families also shared that subsidy payments are too low. One parent who used childcare vouchers shared that they supplement the subsidy out of pocket to compensate their caregiver, describing the caregiver’s final takehome pay as barely minimum wage.

“When my children were younger, I remember being paid $60-$70 for the day. When I went to pick up my kids from the babysitter and I asked how much it was, they said it cost $50. It didn’t make sense to have to continue working.” – Migrant mother

For families currently receiving subsidies, inflexible payment structures add further strain. Parents may be locked into full-time rates regardless of actual usage, continuing to pay even when their child is sick and cannot attend. From a caregiver’s perspective, however, spots are reserved for specific children; caregivers count on a steady income and may not be able to go unpaid if a child is sick or absent.

Types of Childcare in a Mixed-Delivery System Childcare centers provide early care and education in a non-residential facility. Childcare centers are licensed by Community Care Licensing and typically serve larger groups of children with multiple staff and defined classrooms. Childcare centers usually operate during traditional business hours. Licensed family childcare is provided in the caregiver’s home, serving a small mixed-age group of children. Licensed family childcare may provide flexible hours and culturally specific care. Family, Friend and Neighbor (FFN) care is informal, often license-exempt childcare provided by relatives, friends, neighbors, or babysitters in the child’s or caregiver’s home.

The Needs of Our Families Subsidized care is off-limits for some families for other reasons as well. Listening session families with mixed immigration status described being excluded from subsidized childcare programs. One parent shared that having children born outside the U.S. meant the family could not qualify for subsidy support. More than half of recently surveyed immigrant families in Santa Clara County who were from Latin American countries expressed “major concern” about seeking public benefits because they fear it might harm their immigration status.21 Language barriers compound every other challenge. Non-English-speaking refugee and immigrant families shared that language exacerbates childcare challenges.

Listening session families described being unable to communicate with childcare providers about safety concerns, to receive information about their child’s development, and to understand enrollment processes or program requirements.

“The language is very important. Most people from Afghanistan are coming to the U.S., and most of them have language barriers. They don't know how to ask about the safety of their kids. They don't know how to solve their problems when the teacher talks to them.” – Refugee mother Parents want culturally consistent care and providers who speak their language. Children without access to a same-language care provider may not have the chance to practice their primary language while in care and may feel socially isolated.22 Analyses reported by the Santa Clara County Office of Education suggest that in 2023, there were significant unmet needs for primary language instruction for 19% of children in the county’s early childhood education system, with the biggest gaps for Vietnamese-speaking students.23 For these and other reasons, some parents strongly prefer providers they personally know, whose values align with their own, and with whom they can communicate directly.

Page 14

The Needs of Our Families Safety and trust are paramount in every childcare decision. Across all listening sessions, safety was named as the most important factor families consider when evaluating childcare – and trust in a provider is the way safety is established. Families described anxiety about entrusting their children to people they don’t know. Parents also shared concerns about what they perceive as inadequate staff training and limited accountability tools. Parents described specific features they associate with safety: cameras and 24-hour surveillance, doublesecurity entry gates, strong staff-to-child ratios, and the ability to see their child when dropping off and picking up. They want staff who are background-checked, CPR- and first-aid certified, trained in child development, and screened for mental health. They also want frequent communication throughout the day – photos, texts, and prompt responses to concerns. For some parents, trust issues caused them to prioritize center-based care, believing there is more oversight and comprehensive background checks compared to home-based care. Other parents expressed a strong preference for caring for their own children, particularly when their children are very young. These families would prefer a flexible work schedule or income support rather than placing their child in an unfamiliar setting.

Page 15

How “gap families” adjust to the growing costs of childcare… Gap families are working families who are not eligible for childcare subsidies but still cannot afford the true cost of care. They are often caught between public eligibility rules and private market prices, making childcare extremely expensive. For example, in Santa Clara County, private-pay families with infants in full-time licensed care typically pay $24,000 per year in tuition,24 which represents one-third of the median household income of female householders with one or more children.25 For context, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) caps co-payments of families who receive subsidies under the Childcare and Development Fund (CCDF) at no greater than 7% of household income.26 To reduce the impact of childcare costs, many families in Silicon Valley have reduced non-essential spending (72%), delayed major purchases (65%), delayed or decreased retirement spending (53%), and/or reduced essential spending (52%).27 Families in the childcare affordability gap may not qualify for public childcare subsidies, but they may still benefit from childcare resource and referral services and connections to community-based supports that help them identify affordable care options.

The Needs of Our Families Families want care that matches their needs. Many families in Santa Clara County have childcare needs that are not easily met by existing facilities. Childcare hours, provider languages, and accommodations for disabled children and children who have experienced trauma mean that some families have fewer options than others.

“What I look for the most is the trust in the person that’s taking care of my kid. It’s hard just to put them somewhere where you don’t know what’s happening.” - Veteran father Working parents need expanded childcare hours. Across all listening sessions, parents described childcare hours as too limited. Standard childcare operating hours – typically 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. – leave families without coverage during early mornings, late evenings, weekends, and holidays. This was a significant challenge for parents working in industries with unconventional hours or variable schedules, as well as for parents who need to work extra hours. They have little leverage to align their work schedules with the hours that their care providers are available. Indeed, none of the licensed centers in Santa Clara County and only 3% of family childcare homes offer evening care (after 7:00 PM), overnight, and/or weekend care.28 Page 16

In a recent survey of parents in Santa Clara County, one-third (34%) indicated it was “very hard” or “hard” to find care that worked for their desired schedule.29 The lack of flexible childcare hours to meet parents’ work schedules places additional stress on parents. Across diverse listening sessions, parents described the pressure of having to choose between working or caring for their child, often being late to work, leaving shifts early, missing professional opportunities, and in some cases, losing their jobs entirely.

“I’ve lost jobs due to childcare because I have nobody else to pick up [my children]. My boss told me if I leave early, I’m fired. I’ve exhausted all other options.” - Parent experiencing housing insecurity

The Needs of Our Families Fluctuating agricultural jobs and income increases stress on migrant farmworker families. Listening session families who work in agriculture described income that fluctuates significantly with agricultural seasons – higher during contract periods, then dropping sharply. This volatility makes it difficult to budget consistently for care and can affect eligibility for incomebased subsidy programs. Families noted that even when wages increase, the gains are modest and do not keep pace with rising living costs in the Bay Area.

“It’s been difficult to find someone to take care of my daughter. Especially for people who work in agriculture, we have to be out in the fields early in the morning, so it’s hard to find someone who is willing to let us drop kids off that early. It’s a real challenge for those who work out in the fields.” – Migrant mother Families identified transportation as limiting their childcare options. This barrier highlighted the importance of childcare proximity to homes and/or the ability to access childcare through public transit. For families with early morning agricultural work schedules, the combination of geographic distance and early hours creates a significant challenge.

Page 17

Families find it difficult to navigate the childcare system. Across every listening session, families shared that they encountered challenges finding information about childcare options and resources. Families described a childcare landscape that is fragmented, opaque, and difficult to navigate without insider knowledge. Parents reported spending significant time to find childcare yet often did not know where to begin that search.

“Just learning about what’s available is the hardest part.” - Veteran father Parents shared that they typically find information about childcare through word of mouth. Parents without those connections, such as newly arrived families or those who recently transitioned out of military service, described starting from nothing. Parents desired an app or centralized resource that could filter providers by location, price, age group, waitlist status, and subsidy acceptance. While such resources do exist in the county, families reported difficulty finding, accessing, and navigating them – suggesting that awareness gaps remain a significant barrier. Parents also called for proactive outreach: multilingual information delivered at the hospital at birth, during prenatal care, and through trusted community organizations.

The Needs of Our Families Care for children with disabilities is very difficult to find. Families of children with disabilities described navigating a system not designed for them, with fewer options, longer waitlists, and providers who are unprepared to serve their children. Parents shared experiences of being refused enrollment in childcare programs due to lack of specialized services and limited capacity to work with children with disabilities.

“There’s information and programs and resources, but it’s like everything is hidden, this little secret, and I don’t understand it.” - Parent of a child with a disability Staff training to work with children with disabilities is a critical and unmet need. Parents described witnessing a lack of empathy and frustration directed at children with disabilities in environments where staff lacked adequate training to work with children with developmental disabilities.

Page 18

At this time, just 12% of childcare providers in the county currently serve children with disabilities, including 18% of centers and 8% of family childcare providers.30 A survey in Santa Clara County found that 34% of home providers and 25% of childcare centers needed to adapt their spaces to accommodate the needs of children with disabilities.31 Steps are being taken to address this issue, with a County investment directed towards Early Learning Workforce Initiatives that support opportunities for professional development, small-business supports, and pathways into the childcare field.32

“My child uses a wheelchair. She needs support to move around, use the restroom, and participate in classroom activities without feeling like she is a burden.”

“Most centers aren't set up for kids with disabilities like my son's, and some family childcare homes are often hesitant to take on the extra care requirements.”

- Parent of a child with a disability

The Needs of Our Families Limited childcare options for families who have children with complex medical needs. For children with chronic medical conditions (e.g., cerebral palsy, cancer, cystic fibrosis), the specialized childcare responsibilities often fall on the parent. For parents who work, options are limited to hiring a home health aide, finding a family member who can administer the necessary care, or, if their child meets eligibility requirements, securing an InHome Supportive Services (IHSS) provider who may or may not have a medical background. Some patients qualify for skilled licensed nursing services, which may be covered by Medi-Cal or by California Children’s Services (CCS), a state program administered by county public health departments for eligible children with certain diseases or health issues. In Santa Clara County, CCS serves approximately 6,000 children enrolled in case management services and 1,000 children enrolled in medical therapy, which includes occupational therapy, physical therapy, and home and school consultations. If parents need respite care, the San Andreas Regional Center offers some day programs with limited hours, particularly for older children and young adults who need care.

Page 19

Because families with medically fragile children apply to multiple programs with multiple funding sources to receive the care they need (i.e. Medi-Cal, IHSS, CalFresh, CCS, nursing agencies, and schools), CCS nurses provide guidance and support in navigating systems of care. They also coordinate clinic visits, surgeries, and medical transport, as well as other health care needs, medications, medical therapies and equipment.

“I want the kind of environment for my kids that they won't feel like a burden, or they won't feel like they've got issues, so we're just being tolerated. I want a place that they are able to thrive with other kids, knowing that they have their own differences.” – Parent of a child with a disability

Strains on the Childcare Workforce As families continue to face economic, social, and personal challenges, the childcare workforce is persistently underpaid and undervalued for their vital contributions to the community.

Wages for childcare workers are extremely low and are a common reason providers leave the field. In the San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metropolitan Statistical Area, the average childcare worker receives an hourly wage of $20.84, which translates into only $43,340 annually33 – an amount that is considered “extremely low income” for a household of two or more.34 In the Bay Area, about one-third of family childcare providers, center lead teachers, and center assistant teachers are enrolled in public assistance.35 Further, despite the fact that the foundation of this workforce is Latina – representing more than 40% of family childcare providers, center lead and assistant teachers, and Transitional Kindergarten (TK) paraprofessionals in the state36 – Latina childcare workers (and Black workers) at all levels earn less than their Asian and White counterparts statewide.37

Page 20

Low wages are a major driver of decisions to leave jobs in early education. In one survey of those who left a position in early education, about four in ten cited reasons related to wages or benefits.38 When skilled providers leave the field, the children they have cared for lose a critical early relationship.

Work stress and burnout among providers is high, and feelings of burnout are getting worse. Childcare workers experience high stress levels and depressive symptoms. More than half of Bay Area family childcare providers (57%) and two-thirds (67%) of center teachers scored in the “high-stress” category on the Perceived Stress Scale. One-fourth of family childcare providers and 39% of center lead teachers had significant depressive symptoms as well.39 Results from the 2026 annual National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) survey of early educators found that in California, almost half (46%) reported that their level of burnout worsened in 2025, and 55% said that their feelings of uncertainty worsened.40

Strains on the Childcare Workforce Federal anti-immigration policies exacerbate existing workforce and supply problems. A large portion of the childcare workforce in the Bay Area is foreign-born – including 60% of family childcare providers, 27% of center directors, 30% of center lead teachers, and 39% of center assistant teachers.41

Current aggressive deportation and restrictive visa policies are likely to impact the local childcare workforce. Families in listening sessions expressed significant fear related to their own immigration status. Research has shown that previous immigration enforcement activities that were less severe and comprehensive as the current ones resulted in reductions in: (1) participation in center-based childcare, especially among Latino and low-income families, (2) the number of childcare employees, and (3) the number of operating childcare centers. These effects, in turn, led to reductions in the use of childcare among college-educated US-born mothers – a finding that suggests that anti-immigration actions can lead to reduced supply and affordability of care, further destabilizing the entire early education system.42 The field is plagued by high turnover. All these factors – low wages, stress and burnout, and anti-immigration policies – are major contributors to high turnover in early childcare.

Page 21

Nationwide, childcare work has a 65% higher turnover rate than other jobs.43 In Bay Area counties, turnover is very high; the annual turnover rate for center-based care is 21% for lead teachers and 22% for assistant teachers, and it is 30% for family childcare assistants.44 The most recent annual NAEYC survey of providers indicated that 59% of early care program leaders in California had more difficulty in the last year with recruitment of qualified educators, and almost one-third (30%) had more difficulty retaining staff.45

Turnover rates are particularly high in the Bay Area, and recruitment of qualified educators can be very difficult. Costs to meet existing and future childcare demand are high – and rising. The cost to operate a childcare facility is high, and margins for owners are thin. Increasing business-related costs threaten the sustainability of many facilities.46 Moreover, in a 2023 survey of county childcare providers, 71% of family childcare providers and 67% of center-based providers indicated that they needed repairs or renovations to their spaces.47 Finding ways to support childcare providers with repairs and renovations could decrease some of this financial pressure.

Strains on the Childcare Workforce Childcare providers need additional mentoring and training to support children’s social and emotional learning. A 2024 childcare provider survey in Santa Clara and San Benito counties found that 71% reported seeing greater anxiety in children, and 30% saw increased trauma since the COVID-19 pandemic. Providers are working hard to create nurturing and healing-centered caregiving environments that meet children’s needs, and more than onethird (35%) of respondents felt they would benefit from additional training in trauma-informed practices.48 Alongside the increased need for trauma-informed caregiving environments is a growing understanding of the importance of inclusive practices in childcare environments. The number of children served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) increased nationally from 6.4 million in school year 2012-2013 to 7.5 million children in 2022-2023, which equates to an increase from 13% to 15% of the public school student population.49 There is also a demand on providers to mitigate the impact of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) that stem from domestic violence and housing insecurity, divorce, neglect and/or abuse, household substance abuse and/or mental illness, and having an incarcerated parent.

Page 22

There are high expulsion rates in preschool environments, nearly three times the rate of K-12 students combined. Boys (particularly Black and Latino boys) are disproportionately impacted; they are nearly 4.5 times more likely than girls to be expelled. Children with disabilities (including ADD, ADHD, autism, and other developmental disabilities) are also more likely to be suspended or expelled from preschool – 5.4% compared to 1.2% of children without disabilities.50, 51 Children who experience early expulsion and suspension in preschool are 10 times more likely to experience negative educational and social outcomes like dropping out, academic failure, grade retention, involvement with the juvenile justice system, and negative school attitudes.52 Providers need mentoring, training, and support to proactively and respectfully identify what steps to take when children exhibit prolonged disruptive or unsafe behavior, including how the program will determine supportive next steps to connect the family with additional resources and explore alternative care options if necessary.53

Strains on the Childcare Workforce Statewide TK expansion shifts the market. As of the 2025-2026 school year, universal transitional kindergarten (TK) is open, cost-free, to all four-yearolds in the state. More than 8,500 children enrolled in TK in Santa Clara County in 2025-2026, up from just over 7,000 in the prior year.54 Whereas the no-cost nature of TK may be very attractive for families who struggle with covering the cost of care for their 4-yearolds, TK care is not full-day, and so TK may not be an option for all families.

The expansion of free public TK creates less demand for feebased private preschool. While TK’s effects on the workforce are still emerging, the availability of TK spaces has reduced demand for preschool care, leading to loss of preschool spaces. Infant and toddler care requires a lower teacher-to-child ratio than preschool care; pivoting to infant toddler care can increase providers’ costs substantially. Given these market shifts, it is critical that we plan and implement collaboratively so that providers are supported and families can find the care they need. Kindergarten readiness rates decrease in Santa Clara County. The most recent Santa Clara County Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA) shows that children’s readiness levels have been declining.

Page 23

Between 2018 and 2025, the percentage of children classified as Fully Ready decreased from 50% to 35%, while the proportion of children classified as Not Ready increased from 19% to 34%. These lower readiness levels likely reflect the lasting effects of pandemicera disruptions – reduced access to early learning environments and social interactions.55

Slumps in kindergarten readiness reinforce the need for investments in early learning. The KRA report highlights factors that are linked to higher kindergarten readiness scores, including: fulfillment of basic needs, participation in early learning programs, parent/caregiver education level, lower weekday screen time, and participation in kindergarten transition activities. The findings reinforce the importance of early investments in children and families, including access to high-quality early learning programs.

Given the myriad needs of families and the strains on the childcare workforce, the time is ripe for the concerted efforts recommended in the following Santa Clara County Childcare Blueprint.

The Blueprint Framework +

Three Broad Goals

Santa Clara County Childcare Blueprint

The Blueprint is based on deep conversations with families about their childcare needs and desires, as well as concrete strategies to address those needs, developed by a diverse group of childcare experts across the county.

Page 24

The Office of Children and Families Policy (OCFP) convened a diverse Blueprint Advisory Committee of public agencies and community-based organizations to discuss policy priorities and to craft a set of locally focused policy recommendations.

24 24

Three Broad Goals The Blueprint consists of three broad goals. Each goal is supported by a set of recommended strategies and related actions that are ordered by local-, state-, and federal-level recommendations.

GOAL 1: Childcare Navigation, Access, & Cost Ensure families who are eligible for Santa Clara County services can find, access, and afford high-quality childcare.

GOAL 2: Readiness & Support of the Childcare Workforce Build a stable, diverse, well-compensated, and well-supported childcare workforce in Santa Clara County that is responsive to the communities it serves and has equitable pathways for professional growth, education, and economic mobility.

GOAL 3: Childcare Facilities That Meet Families’ Needs Increase the supply, quality, and sustainability of childcare facilities in Santa Clara County, accounting for regional costs and the specialized needs of infant and toddler care.

Page 25

Santa Clara County Childcare Blueprint

GOAL 1

Childcare Navigation, Access, & Cost There are multiple, complex barriers to accessing childcare, including eligibility requirements that are difficult to meet and a fragmented system of care that is difficult to navigate and access — especially for immigrant families, families who have children with disabilities or behavioral concerns, and families with nontraditional work schedules.

Key Partners Key Partners from the Blueprint Advisory Committee (in alphabetical order) include Choices for Children (Alternative Payment Provider), City of San José, Department of Aging and Adult Services (In-Home Support Services), Department of Employment and Benefit Services/CalWORKs, Department of Family & Children's Services, FIRST 5 Santa Clara County, Go Kids, Inc. (Alternative Payment Provider), Grail Family Services, Kidango, Office of Supportive Housing, Parents Helping Parents, Public Health Maternal, Child, & Adolescent Health Division, San José Public Library, Santa Clara County Office of Education (Childcare Resource & Referral Network, Local Planning Council), Silicon Valley Community Foundation, and Veterans Services Office. Additional partners will be identified as strategies are developed and implemented.

How to make progress? The Blueprint Advisory Committee developed four key strategies to make progress in improving childcare navigation, access and cost.

 Advocate alongside local childcare organizations for rate reform efforts that reflect the true cost of care.

 Build trust and relationships that help families navigate and use childcare resources.

 Research and build toward a coordinated, mixed-delivery system of care that expands universal access for the highest-need families.

 Consolidate and share accessible childcare information, resources, and tools for families and providers.

A set of recommended actions for each strategy follows. Page 26

Strategy 1.1 – Advocate alongside local childcare organizations for rate reform efforts that reflect the true cost of care LOCAL ACTIONS a.

Strengthen cross-system partnerships that advocate, expand, and maximize current subsidized childcare funding (e.g., CalWORKs Childcare Stage 1, 2).

Partner with the local childcare community to advocate for legislative and funding solutions that expand childcare subsidy programs, reduce family co-pays, and prioritize funding for critical needs (e.g., infant/toddler care and care for children with disabilities).

Collect, analyze, and communicate data on families’ childcare subsidy needs by age group and geographic subregion to address countywide trends, inform funding priorities, and support advocacy efforts.

Collaborate with childcare organizations and agencies that advocate for Alternative Payment voucher rates that reflect actual market costs. STATE-LEVEL ACTIONS

Draft and submit formal County correspondence to California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and the Governor's office advocating for a clear implementation timeline for the 200,000 childcare slots committed in the 2021–2022 Budget Act.

Together with FIRST 5, Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE), and others, convene a Bay Area county coalition (including Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Contra Costa counties) to coordinate joint advocacy at the state level, focused on childcare access.

Partner with Early Edge California and others to conduct a structured audit of current licensing, contracting, and compliance requirements in partnership with CDSS — specifically identifying rules that consume provider and system capacity without meaningfully improving child outcomes — and submit a reform recommendation package to CDSS. FEDERAL-LEVEL ACTIONS

Prepare and deliver written testimony to Santa Clara County's Congressional delegation documenting the projected local impact of any reduction to Head Start, CalWORKs Childcare, and other federal childcare funding, including the number of children and providers affected.

Partner with the National Association of Counties and FIRST 5 California to coordinate federal advocacy, submitting joint sign-on letters in opposition to any proposed funding cuts.

Page 27

Strategy 1.2 – Build trust and relationships that help families navigate and use childcare resources LOCAL ACTIONS a.

Partner with FIRST 5, Family Resource Centers, childcare providers, and families to build on the success of Parent Cafes and the Strengthening Family Protective Factors framework, by identifying and disseminating practices that build trust between families and childcare providers.

Expand opportunities for families to connect with childcare providers by building on the success of SCCOE’s Universal Pre-Kindergarten Enrollment Fair and developing a countywide Childcare Open House day, in which participating childcare providers are invited to open their businesses to prospective families.

Strengthen communication with immigrant families and childcare providers about the County’s policies and commitment to safeguarding information about immigration status. STATE-LEVEL ACTIONS

Draft a formal County resolution supporting state legislation to raise the income threshold for subsidized childcare eligibility from 85% State Median Income (SMI) to 100% SMI for all subsidy types, aligning with current California State Preschool Program (CSPP) eligibility.

Track and actively support any state bill advancing income threshold reform, including coordinating public comment, signing on to advocacy letters, and facilitating testimony from local families and providers.

Strategy 1.3 – Research and build toward a coordinated, mixed-delivery system of care that expands universal access for the highest-need families LOCAL ACTIONS a.

Collect and share research with local elected officials on promising practices from counties and cities that have improved access to childcare, expanded paid family leave, and implemented local funding models.

Build on SCCOE’s Universal Prekindergarten planning and implementation work– spanning Transitional Kindergarten, licensed centers, family childcare homes, license-exempt providers, and other settings – to maximize access for the highestneed families.

Assess family demand, policy barriers, and funding opportunities for non-traditional hours of care by partnering with SCCOE Resource & Referral (R&R) Program, Alternative Payment Providers, childcare providers, and local jurisdictions to analyze need, identify zoning and regulatory barriers, and pursue funding for evening, weekend, summer, holiday, and other non-traditional care options.

Page 28

Strategy 1.4 – Consolidate and share accessible childcare information, resources, and tools for families and providers LOCAL ACTIONS a.

Partner with SCCOE, FIRST 5, Alternative Payment Providers, and childcare providers to develop and share a family-facing guide that explains the full-range of childcare options, eligibility criteria for childcare subsidies, and resources for families of children with disabilities.

Identify additional resources to improve the county’s childcare finder, https://childcarescc.org, including incorporation of family and childcare provider feedback, key data dashboards, and real-time enrollment availability information for families.

Partner with SCCOE R&R to disseminate childcare resources and information to promotoras, Family Resource Centers, County staff, home visitors, doulas, community health workers, pediatric clinics, schools, and community-based organizations to share with families. STATE-LEVEL ACTIONS

Submit a formal funding request to CDSS for increased Resource & Referral (R&R) Program funding, including a detailed proposal for how additional resources would be deployed to expand navigation capacity specifically for underserved communities.

Advocate for state-level legislation requiring all R&R programs to maintain real-time slot availability data accessible to families online.

Page 29

GOAL 2

Readiness & Support of the Childcare Workforce In a county where high living costs strain even middle-income households, childcare providers face difficult choices—some leaving the field entirely for a living wage. Workforce instability stems from low compensation, unaffordable housing, safety concerns for immigrant families, and limited career development pathways.

Key Partners Key Partners from the Blueprint Advisory Committee (in alphabetical order) include the City of San José, Department of Employment and Benefit Services/CalWORKS, FIRST 5 Santa Clara County, Go, Kids, Inc., Grail Family Services, Kidango, Institutions of Higher Education (e.g., Mission College, Foothill-DeAnza, Gavilan, EdVance, San José State University), Office of Supportive Housing, Parents Helping Parents, San José Public Library, Santa Clara County Office of Education, and Silicon Valley Community Foundation. Additional partners will be identified as strategies are developed and implemented.

How to make progress? The Blueprint Advisory Committee developed three key strategies to make progress in supporting the childcare workforce.

 Connect childcare providers to financial, housing, benefit, and legal supports.

 Augment existing workforce career development efforts with a focus on reducing language and financial barriers.

 Advance equitable compensation and support for the childcare workforce, including strengthening workforce voice, leadership, and advocacy capacity.

A set of recommended actions for each strategy can be found on the following pages.

Page 30

Strategy 2.1 – Connect childcare providers to financial, housing, benefit, and legal supports LOCAL ACTIONS a.

Connect childcare providers with existing public programs, including city, county, and federal small business support programs, housing assistance, tax credits, procurement preferences, energy rebates, Covered California, and CalSavers.

Advance childcare workforce housing stability by advocating for childcare providers to be included in local affordable housing programs, deed-restricted units, and down-payment assistance programs, modeled on existing teacher housing preference policies.

Pursue funding for a Crisis Response Grants program to prevent childcare closures experiencing acute financial crises (e.g., equipment failure, unexpected repairs, temporary revenue loss).

Partner with County staff and immigration-focused community-based organizations to provide information, legal resources, and rapid-response safety strategies for childcare providers and the families they serve. STATE-LEVEL ACTIONS

Formally endorse and actively advocate for state legislation establishing pay parity between childcare educators and TK-6 teachers, including a County resolution, legislative testimony, and coordination with the Santa Clara County Office of Education’s Local Early Education Planning Council.

Advocate for state-funded expansion of mental health and employee assistance benefits for childcare workers, specifically modeled on the Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation (ECMHC) provider support programs.

Page 31

Strategy 2.2 – Augment existing workforce career development efforts with a focus on reducing language and financial barriers LOCAL ACTIONS a.

Advocate with existing career training providers to offer foundational child development coursework in multiple languages, including Spanish and Vietnamese, and identify funding for other supports (e.g., course materials, childcare and meals, disability accessibility, asynchronous learning).

Disseminate existing career pathway resources and strengthen and expand alternative pathways to early learning careers, including apprenticeships and other childcare pipeline initiatives (e.g., encouraging high school students to enroll in child development coursework).

Expand professional development training opportunities to childcare providers that focus on culturally responsive care, trauma-informed practice, disability inclusion, and practices that utilize a strengths-based approach to healthy child development and behaviors.

Pursue funding to support meaningful entry incentives into the childcare field (e.g., family childcare home license bonuses, tuition grants for Early Childhood Education students, loan forgiveness for graduates entering the childcare field), and advocate for expansion of existing state programs (e.g., Child Care Initiative Project).

Strategy 2.3 – Advance equitable compensation and support for the childcare workforce, including strengthening workforce voice, leadership, and advocacy capacity LOCAL ACTIONS a.

Connect with local Institutes of Higher Education and childcare partners to gather information about childcare wages, educational barriers, and turnover rates to advocate alongside the childcare workforce for equitable compensation and support.

Identify funding for leadership and advocacy opportunities for licensed and licenseexempt family childcare provider networks.

Strengthen Family, Friend, and Neighbor (FFN) leadership and advocacy networks (e.g., Parent Voices, San José Public Library) to identify strengths and needs of FFN caregivers and inform local policy development.

Identify funding to expand multilingual FFN trainings and support, including stipends, Communities of Practice, subsidy navigation, and child development supports.

Page 32

Strategy 2.3 – Advance equitable compensation and support for the childcare workforce, including strengthening workforce voice, leadership, and advocacy capacity (Continued) STATE-LEVEL ACTIONS e.

Advocate for state-level adoption of equity criteria — including compensation thresholds and language diversity targets — in all Title 22 and Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC)-approved educator preparation programs operating in the county.

In partnership with the childcare community in Santa Clara County, monitor Child Development Permit Matrix changes quarterly and proactively notify providers of any changes affecting childcare educator pathways. Submit formal advocacy comments on any proposed changes that would increase barriers.

Advocate for legislation removing barriers to Early Childhood Mental Health services — specifically broadening the licensed provider types authorized to deliver ECMHC services and enabling flexible delivery of services.

Advocate for state adoption of a flexible childcare program quality assessment framework that allows programs to select from multiple validated tools rather than a single mandated instrument, in order to support diverse program types and approaches.

Support the childcare community in advocating for a general innovation waiver process at the state level, allowing local programs to test alternative service delivery models while remaining compliant with core Title 22 health and safety standards.

Page 33

GOAL 3

Childcare Facilities That Meet Families’ Needs The Bay Area real estate market makes conventional facility conversion and maintenance essentially inaccessible for most childcare providers. Home-based childcare providers face increased challenges because many are renters. Housing deterioration, climate hazards, and the cost of repairs can directly force closures. At the same time, school enrollment declines create an opportunity to convert vacated school buildings into childcare facilities.

Key Partners Key Partners from the Blueprint Advisory Committee (in alphabetical order) include the City of San José, FIRST 5 Santa Clara County, Go, Kids, Inc., Grail Family Services, Kidango, Office of Supportive Housing, Santa Clara County Office of Education, Silicon Valley Community Foundation, and Valley Health Foundation. Additional partners will be identified as strategies are developed and implemented.

How to make progress? The Blueprint Advisory Committee developed four key strategies to help ensure that childcare facilities meet families’ needs.

 Increase childcare facility supply through capital investment and strategic site development.

 Support infant and toddler facility capacity expansion.  Increase access to facilities technical assistance for childcare providers.  Prepare childcare providers for climate-related emergencies and incorporate provider voice into climate action planning efforts.

A set of recommended actions for each strategy can be found on the following pages.

Page 34

Strategy 3.1 – Increase childcare facility supply through capital investment and strategic site development LOCAL ACTIONS a.

Increase access to capital for childcare facility development and improvement by partnering with Community Development Financial Institutions, lenders, and small business development centers to explore how to provide below-market loans, loan guarantees, pre-development grants, and financing technical assistance to childcare providers.

Collaborate with SCCOE and school districts to identify and assess feasibility of expanding childcare at underutilized school facilities, including conversion and colocation, and developing standardized joint-use agreements that support belowmarket leasing arrangements.

Partner with SCCOE to develop a standard joint-use agreement template that allows school districts to lease surplus school spaces to childcare providers at belowmarket rates.

Formally add childcare providers to the prioritization criteria for applicable housing improvement programs, including lead and asbestos abatement, weatherization, electrical upgrades, and energy rebates. STATE-LEVEL ACTIONS

Pursue funding for a dedicated Childcare Facility Maintenance and Repair Fund to provide grants, bridge loans, and rebate programs to licensed providers for repairs and maintenance that improve accessibility for children with disabilities.

Submit formal County comments on relevant CDSS or Department of General Services (DGS) facilities grant programs advocating for allocation formulas and scoring criteria that explicitly weight high-cost-of-living regions — including proposed language for any pending program guidelines.

Coordinate with Bay Area County partners to commission and publish a joint costof-living adjustment analysis for childcare facility funding and use it as the evidentiary basis for legislative advocacy.

Page 35

Strategy 3.2 – Support infant and toddler facility capacity expansion LOCAL ACTIONS a.

When funding is identified for expansion of infant/toddler care environments, include required childcare provider training on infant/toddler care (e.g., safe sleep practices, serving infants/toddlers with disabilities). STATE-LEVEL ACTIONS

Pursue funding for an Infant/Toddler Space Conversion Fund to support licensed childcare providers to convert preschool spaces to infant/toddler spaces (e.g., sleepsafe environments, furniture, fixtures, equipment, ratios, accessibility), in high-priority ZIP codes.

Strategy 3.3 – Increase access to facilities technical assistance for childcare providers LOCAL ACTIONS a.

Provide facilities navigation service technical assistance to provide individualized support to childcare providers on permitting, zoning, renovation, financing, and licensing processes.

Develop early learning facilities resources, including a development guide covering the full process from site identification through Community Care Licensing approval, and a regularly updated directory of mentor providers, local architects, contractors, land-use attorneys, and other experts with childcare facilities experience.

Regularly convene local Community Care Licensing staff, fire marshals, city/county planning staff, and childcare providers to address facility development needs and challenges.

Develop a Housing Resource Guide for childcare providers that lists applicable city and county housing assistance programs, eligibility criteria, and application timelines and process.

Page 36

Strategy 3.4 – Prepare childcare providers for climate-related emergencies and incorporate provider voice into climate action planning efforts LOCAL ACTIONS a.

Develop a childcare-specific emergency preparedness outreach campaign to confirm emergency alert registration, a simple Emergency Preparedness Checklist, and other resources tailored to childcare settings.

Include childcare facilities as named stakeholders in the next update to the County’s Climate Action Plan, with specific action items addressing energy efficiency, wildfire smoke mitigation (air filtration), and heat emergency protocols for childcare settings.

Track and pursue climate resilience funding streams (e.g., Inflation Reduction Act, California Department of Food and Agriculture programs) that can be directed to childcare providers. Establish an annual review process to identify new opportunities, and seek targeted funds for window air filtration units, backup power systems, and heat-mitigation infrastructure.

Page 37

Appendices

Appendix A: Childcare Blueprint Contributors……….. Page 39

Appendix B: References & Sources…………………………. Pages 40-43

Page 38

38 38

Appendix A: Childcare Blueprint Contributors The County of Santa Clara Office of Children and Families Policy (OCFP) is grateful for the time, active engagement and direction of the partners listed below. Blueprint Advisory Committee Members (in alphabetical order) Israel Canjura*, Recreation Superintendent (Children & Youth Services Master Plan), City of San José Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services Araceli Delgado-Ortiz, Community Programs Administrator | Early Education, San José Public Library Maria Fusaro, EdD, Professor of Child and Adolescent Development, San José State University Lucille Gabriel, Youth and Family Services Program Director, YWCA Golden Gate Silicon Valley Michael Garcia, Santa Clara County Office of Education / Childcare Planning & Support Department Veronica Goei, Executive Director, Grail Family Services Trena Hudson, Deputy Executive Director of Programs, FIRST 5 Santa Clara County Jessica Kranz, Chief Operations Officer, Go Kids, Inc. Willy Kwong, Department Chair, Child Development, Mission College Wendi Mahaney-Gurahoo, Early Care and Education Consultant Keith Morales, Director - Community & Parent Engagement, Go Kids, Inc. Michelle Nguyen, Associate Director, Choices for Children Tram Nguyen, Director, Choices for Children Kayla Nicholls, Economic Empowerment Program Manager at the International Rescue Committee, San José Jessica Orozco, Program Manager III, Office of Supportive Housing Alicia Osborne, Vice President of Workforce Development and Admissions, EDvance College Angelica Ramos-Allen, Director of Policy & Communications, Grail Family Services Maéva Renaud*, Vice President of Advocacy & Policy, Kidango Jayanti Roy, PhD, Instructor, Sociology and Child Development, DeAnza, Foothill, and Gavilan Colleges Christine Rutherford-Stuart, MPH, Vice President, Impact, Valley Health Foundation Minerva Sarellano, Director, FIRST 5 Santa Clara County Christine Thorsteinson, Senior Director, Community Impact and Policy, Silicon Valley Community Foundation Dr. Matthew Tinsley*, Director, Education Initiatives & Policies, Santa Clara County Office of Education Xochitl (Zoey) Vasquez, Employment Program Supervisor, CalWORKs Employment Services Bureau * Served as a report reader, as well Family Listening Session Partner Agencies: Family and Community Engagement at Morgan Hill Unified School District, Sacred Heart, Young Women’s Freedom Center, Bill Wilson Center and Fresh Lifelines for Youth, Parents Helping Parents, the Department of Employment and Benefit Services, the Department of Family and Children’s Services, the International Rescue Committee, the YWCA, the Homelessness Prevention System Network, and the Office of Veterans Services Additional County Partners: California Children’s Services, the Department of Aging and Adult Services’ InHome Supportive Services, the Office of Women’s Policy, the Office of Disability Affairs, the Office of Immigrant Relations, the Office of Supportive Housing Convener: Office of Children and Families Policy, Dr. Heidi Emberling, Director; Karina Alvarez / Melissa Luu, Senior Management Analysts Facilitators / Authors: Penelope Huang, PhD, Lynne Mobilio, PhD, Maya Lawton, MPP, and Kristi Kelly, PhD from Clarity Social Research Group Page 39

Appendix B: References & Sources [1]

The Council for Community and Economic Research. (2025). Cost of Living Index. https://www.coli.org/press-release-for-immediate-release-2025-annual-average/.

[2]

Center for Women’s Welfare, University of Washington. (2024). Self-Sufficiency Standard: California Dataset. https://selfsufficiencystandard.org/california/.

[3]

Joint Venture Silicon Valley. (2023, October). Modeling Guaranteed Basic Income & Household Income Adequacy In Santa Clara County. https://jointventure.org/images/stories/pdf/gbi-report-2023-10.pdf.

[4]

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. (2024). Income Inequality in Santa Clara County, CA [Data set]. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/2020RATIO006085#.

[5]

Digital Scholarship Lab, University of Richmond. (2023) Mapping Inequality: Redlining in New Deal America. https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/map/CA/SanJose/areas#loc=13/37.3283/-121.9049

[6]

Surani, F., Suzgun, M., Raman, V., Manning, C. D., Henderson, P., & Ho, D. E. (2025). AI for scaling legal reform: Mapping and redacting racial covenants in Santa Clara County. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.03688

[7]

Santa Clara County Office of Women’s Policy. (2025). Women’s Economic Disparities. https://files.santaclaracounty.gov/exjcpb1626/2025-05/one-pager-women-s-economic-disparity-spring2025_0.pdf?VersionId=iwVaocbt_PulLAilYXG8Qh8QOptXFOZe

[8]

Gender Equity Policy Institute. (2024). The Free-Time Gender Gap: How Unpaid Care and Household Labor Reinforces Women’s Inequality. https://thegepi.org/free-time-gender-gap/

[9]

U.S.Census Bureau. (2020-2024). Households by presence of people under 18 years by household type (Table B11005) [Data set]. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT5Y2024.B11005?q=b11005&g=040XX00US06_050XX00US06085

[10] U.S. Census Bureau. (2020-2024). Poverty status in the past 12 months of families by household type by number of own children under 18 years (Table B17006) [Data set]. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT5Y2024.B17006?q=b17006&g=040XX00US06_050XX00US06085 [11] United Ways of California. (2025). Race Counts. https://www.racecounts.org/county/santa-clara/ [12] Feeding America. (2023). Mapping the Meal Gap. https://map.feedingamerica.org/county/2023/hispanic/california/county/santa-clara. [13] County of Santa Clara. (2025). Santa Clara County Point-in-Time Count. https://files.santaclaracounty.gov/exjcpb1571/2025-09/santa-clara-county-point-in-time-count-2025-finalreport.pdf?VersionId=Rl1.G6aaDKy9frtsmdKUrEepVwgOmZQ3 [14] U.S. Census Bureau (2020-2024). Employment Status (Table S2301) [Data set]. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2024.S2301?q=s2301&g=050XX00US06085&moe=false [15] Santa Clara County Public Health Department. (2025). Latino Health Assessment. https://publichealth.santaclaracounty.gov/health-information/health-data/speak-latino-health [16] Santa Clara County Office of Education. (2024, May). SCC ECE Facilities Study Final Report. https://www.sccoe.org/resources/EL-facilitiesstudy/Documents/2024_ECE_Facilities_Study_Report_complete.pdf [17] Center for American Progress. (2022) U.S. Childcare Deserts. https://childcaredeserts.org/. [18] Joint Venture Silicon Valley. (2023). Silicon Valley Index. https://jointventure.org/2023-newsreleases/2492-2023-silicon-valley-index-solid-regional-economy-despite-wealth-gap-shrinking-economy

Page 40

Appendix B, continued [19] Santa Clara County Office of Education. (2025). Santa Clara County 2023 Childcare Needs Assessment. https://www.sccoe.org/supoffice/lpc/Documents/Reports/2023_LPC-Needs-Assessment.pdf. [20] Santa Clara County Office of Education (2025). “Santa Clara County 2023 Childcare Needs Assessment.” [21] County of Santa Clara Office of Immigrant Relations. (2026). The Immigrant Belonging Project. https://files.santaclaracounty.gov/exjcpb1626/2026-03/scc-immigrant-belonging-report_accessible3.02.26.pdf?VersionId=X1PeQvQ6UnW4NWNd5Is3oIgXDJGS8G7x [22] Park, M., Hofstetter, J., and Giana, I. T. N. (2022). Overlooked but Essential Language Access in Early Childhood Programs. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/languageaccess-early-childhood. [23] Santa Clara County Office of Education (2024). [Unpublished data analysis]. [24] Santa Clara County Office of Education, Local Planning Council. (2023). Average Tuition Rate Survey. [25] U.S. Census Bureau. (2020-2024). Median income in the past 12 months (in 2024 inflation-adjusted dollars) (Table S1903) [Data set]. American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2024.S1903?q=s1903&g=050XX00US06085&moe=false [26] Administration for Children and Families. (2024). 2024 CCDF final rule. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://acf.gov/occ/outreach-material/2024-ccdf-final-rule. [27] Opinion Research & Strategy. (2024). Santa Clara County Voter Attitudes Toward Early Childhood Policies. https://www.svcf.org/assets/files/publications/cc24-public-survey-media-release-29-Jan24.pdf [28] California Childcare Resource & Referral Network. (2023). California Childcare Portfolio. https://rrnetwork.org/research/child-care-data-tool#!0 [29] Santa Clara County Office of Education (2025). “Santa Clara County 2023 Childcare Needs Assessment.” https://www.sccoe.org/supoffice/lpc/Documents/Reports/2023_LPC-Needs-Assessment.pdf. [30] Santa Clara County Office of Education. (2024). Facilities Study Final Report. http://www.sccoe.org/resources/EL-facilities-study/Pages/default.aspx [31] Santa Clara County Office of Education. (2024). “Facilities Study Final Report.” [32] Santa Clara County Office of Education. (2023). Santa Clara County Early Learning Master Plan: MidImplementation Review. https://www.sccoe.org/elmp2017/Documents/ELMP_Report_Rv_Proof6.pdf [33] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2023). Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2023 - 39-9011 Childcare Workers. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes399011.htm [34] State of California Department of Housing and Community Development. (2025). 2025 State Income Limits. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/income-limits-2025.pdf [35] Powell, A., Muruvi, W., Copeman Petig, A., & Austin, L.J.E. (2025). State of the Early Care and Education Workforce: California Regions. Center for the Study of Childcare Employment, University of California, Berkeley. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/state-of-ece-california-2025-updatedjan2026.pdf [36] Powell, A., Muruvi, W., Copeman Petig, A., & Austin, L.J.E. (2025). State of the Early Care and Education Workforce: California Regions.” [37] Kim, Y., Austin, L. J. E., and Hess, H. (2024). The Multilayered Effects of Racism on Early Educators in California. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/The-Multilayered-Effects-of-Racismon-Early-Educators-in-California.pdf. [38] Center for the Study of Childcare Employment, University of California at Berkeley. (2024). ‘I could not afford to continue’. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2024/05/california-job-changes051424.pdf.

Page 41

Appendix B, continued [39] Muruvi, W., Powell, A., Kim, Y., Copeman Petig, A., & Austin, L.J.E. (2023). The Emotional and Physical Well-Being of Early Educators in California. Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of California, Berkeley. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/publications/report/ca-emotional-physical-wellbeing-2023/ [40] National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2026). ’A Year of Tough Choices’: The Childcare Affordability Crisis Is Destabilizing Educators and Families (California). https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/user-74467/california_naeyc_survey_brief_2026.pdf [41] Powell, A., Muruvi, W., Copeman Petig, A., & Austin, L.J.E. (2025). “State of the Early Care and Education Workforce: California Regions.” https://cscce.berkeley.edu/publications/report/state-of-ececalifornia-2025 [42] American Immigration Council. (2025). Immigrant Workers and the Childcare Crisis: What’s at Stake for Families and the Economy. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/report/immigrant-workerschildcare-crisis/ [43] Fee, K. D. (2024). Using Worker Flows to Assess the Stability of the Early Childcare and Education Workforce, 2010-2022. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/cdreports/2024/20240119-childcare-and-education-workforce [44] Powell, A., Muruvi, W., Copeman Petig, A., & Austin, L.J.E. (2025). “State of the Early Care and Education Workforce: California Regions.” [45] National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2026). “’A Year of Tough Choices’: The Childcare Affordability Crisis Is Destabilizing Educators and Families (California).” [46] National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2026). “’A Year of Tough Choices’: The Childcare Affordability Crisis Is Destabilizing Educators and Families (California).” [47] Santa Clara County Office of Education. (2024). “Facilities Study Final Report.” [48] Santa Clara County Office of Education. (2025). Santa Clara County and Sen Benito County Childcare Workforce Study. https://www.sccoe.org/supoffice/lpc/Documents/Reports/SCC-SBC-Workforce-StudyReport-2025.pdf [49] National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). Students With Disabilities. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/2024/CGG_508c.pdf [50] Zinsser, K. M., Silver, H. C., Shenberger, E. R., & Jackson, V. (2022). A systematic review of early childhood exclusionary discipline. Review of Educational Research, 92(5), 743–785. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211070047 [51] Gilliam, W. S. (2005). Prekindergarteners left behind: Expulsion rates in state prekindergarten systems. Yale University Child Study Center. http://www.fcd-us.org/usr_doc/ExpulsionCompleteReport.pdf [52] Georgia Family Connection Partnership. (2023, April 11). The Impact of Early Suspension and Expulsion on Long-Term Child Outcomes. https://gafcp.org/2023/04/11/the-impact-of-early-suspension-andexpulsion-on-long-term-child-outcomes/ [53] National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2025, November). A changing landscape for exclusionary policies in early childhood education. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/user174467/2025_suspension_and_expulsion_brief_final.pdf [54] California Department of Education. (n.d.). Enrollment Multi-Year Summary by Grade [Data set]. DataQuest. Retrieved May 19, 2026, from https://dq.cde.ca.gov/Dataquest/ [55] Applied Survey Research. (2025) Santa Clara County Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA). https://first5kids.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Santa-Clara-County-KRA-2025-Comprehensive-ReportFinal.pdf

Page 42

Appendix B, continued Other Sources Consulted:

Page 43



Aces Aware. (2025). Medi-Cal members ages 0-20 screened with an ACE score of 4 or more. https://data.acesaware.org/medi-cal-aces-children/accessible/



California Child Welfare Indicators Project. (n.d.). CWS Rates. University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved May 22, 2026, from https://ccwip.berkeley.edu/childwelfare/reports/SubstantiationRates/MTSG/r/rts/l



California Department of Education. (n.d.). 2025-26 Special Education Enrollment by Program Setting [Data set]. DataQuest. Retrieved May 19, 2026, from https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/



California Department of Education. (n.d.). 2025-26 Enrollment by English Language Acquisition Status (ELAS) by Grade by Language. DataQuest. Retrieved May 19, 2026, from https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/



Center for the Study of Childcare Employment, University of California at Berkeley. (2024). California Early Educator Experience and Interest in Teaching Birth to Three. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2024/12/california-birth-to-three-workforce-june2025.pdf.



Early Care and Education Research Alliance. (2026). Nonprofit Preschools Shrink as Transitional Kindergarten Grows in California. University of California, Berkeley. https://e3c.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/e3c-research-update-preschools-shrinking.pdf



Joint Venture Silicon Valley Institute for Regional Studies. (2025). Silicon Valley Poll. https://jointventure.org/publications/silicon-valley-poll



Kabot, S. (2019). Support You Can See (and Feel): Teaching Children with Autism. Teaching Young Children. https://www.naeyc.org/resources/pubs/tyc/oct2019/teaching-children-autism



Office of Children and Families Policy. (2026, February). Priority Areas for Childcare Expansion Opportunities in Santa Clara County. [Policy brief].



Opportunity Insights. (n.d.). The Opportunity Atlas [Data set]. Retrieved from www.opportunityatlas.org



New America. (n.d.). Mixed delivery, stronger results. https://www.newamerica.org/insights/mixed-deliverystronger-results.



U.S. Census Bureau. (2020-2024). Quick Facts: Santa Clara County, California [Data set}. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/santaclaracountycalifornia



U.S. Census Bureau. (2021). Diversity Index by California County: 2020 [Data visualization]. https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/racial-and-ethnic-diversity-in-the-united-states2010-and-2020-census.html



U.S. Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau. (2024). National Database of Childcare Prices [Data set]. https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/women.s.bureau.department.of.labor/viz/CountyFactsheets/Childcare inthecounties

Clarity Social Research Group (Clarity) was founded in 2012 and grew from prior experiences in research and non-profit consulting that left us wanting for greater impact on issues of social justice and equity. Clarity is a small woman- and minority-owned organization, dedicated to uplifting vulnerable voices seldom heard and contributing to upstream, broad-based, inclusive, and community-supportive efforts. Lynne Mobilio, PhD, Clarity Assistant Director, Penelope Huang, PhD, Clarity founder, and Maya Lawton, MPP, Senior Research Associate partnered with OCFP to design and facilitate Blueprint Advisory Committee meetings, and to author this report, which documents the collective efforts, hopes, and dreams of all who contributed to this work.