Charlotte City Council
Housing and Neighborhood Development
Committee
Summary Minutes
April 6, 2006
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
ACTION
I.
Subject:
Revised Housing and Neighborhood Development Action Plan
The Committee approved the revised Housing and Neighborhood Development
Action Plan.
II.
Subject:
Housing Trust Fund Strategic Plan
The Committee approved the revised Housing Trust Fund Strategic Plan.
III.
Subject:
After School Enrichment Programs
The Committee voted to:
A:
Not approve the new program standards developed by Partners In Out-ofSchool Time
B:
Not approve the Intermediary Vendor Selection process
C:
Direct the City Manager to discuss the County’s involvement in After
School Enrichment programs with the County Manager and report back
to the Council in preparation for the FY08 budget process.
Present:
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Council members Susan Burgess, Anthony Foxx, Don Lochman, Patrick Mumford
Absent:
Council Member Michael Barnes
Staff:
Julie Burch, Ruffin Hall, Stanley Watkins
Others:
Jeff Bradsher, Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board
Patrick McNeely, Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board
Janice Singleton, Child Care Resources
Patti Stowe, Child Care Resources
Clair Tate, Partners-In-Out-of-School-Time
Time:
12:27 PM – 2:20 PM
ATTACHMENTS
1. Agenda Packet – April 6, 2006
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 6, 2006
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
ACTION
I.
Housing and Neighborhood Development Action Plan
Stanley Watkins presented the revised Housing and Neighborhood Development Action Plan.
Key points include the following:
ƒ
Mr. Watkins informed the Committee that as a result of the discussion at their March 28th
meeting, staff has revised the action plan to include the following additional objectives:
• Neighborhood Policy
ƒ Discuss the City’s role in neighborhood outreach, education and capacity
building to strengthen neighborhood organizations
• Increase the number of Community Watch programs
• Provide education to citizens on earned income tax credits
ƒ Discussion on neighborhood zoning standards
ƒ Review neighborhood infill housing policies
ƒ Review status report on gentrification
•
Affordable Housing
ƒ Discussion on the distribution of affordable housing
ƒ Review current affordable housing policies and the impact of local regulations
on affordable housing
• Review of transit oriented development policies
• Provide an update on the Homeless Report
ƒ Expand education and outreach initiatives for affordable housing
• Discuss the City’s role in preventing foreclosures
• Discuss predatory lending
Questions/Answers/Comments:
Burgess:
I would like to adopt this with the consideration of developing a community wide
action plan.
Next Steps/Action:
Council member Foxx made a motion to submit the revised Housing and Neighborhood
Development Action Plan to Council for adoption. Council Member Barnes seconded the motion.
The Committee unanimously approved the motion.
II.
Housing Trust Fund Strategic Plan
Stanley Watkins presented the revised Housing Trust Fund Strategic Plan. Key points include the
following:
ƒ
On March 28, 2006, the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board presented their strategic plan to
City Council’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee.
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 6, 2006
Page 3
ƒ
ƒ
Upon review, the Committee requested that the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board and staff
revise the action plan to make it more explicit that the plan is a partnership between the Housing
Trust Fund and City Council.
Key policy concerns of the action plan were in the policy theme. Based on the Committee’s
discussion, the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board proposes the following modifications to the
plan. (Underlines represent new language)
Theme
Strategy
Action Steps
1.
ƒ
Policy
ƒ
Partner with City Council to
educate elected officials and
public on the impacts of
affordable housing policies
Partner with City Council to
review community impact of
Charlotte Affordable Housing
Policies
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Review City and County policies that
deter affordable housing
development
Review Housing Locational Policy
Review transit stations development
strategy
Consider a land banking policy
Host Community Roundtable with
City Council on affordable housing
and City policies that impede
affordable housing locations
Review use of County/CMS lands for
housing
Questions/Answers/Comments:
Burgess:
Is there a budget for the Housing Trust Fund other than what we spend on houses?
Watkins:
No. Staff resources for the Housing Trust Fund are a part of Neighborhood
Development’s budget.
Burgess:
$47 million is allocated for the Housing Trust Fund. We’ve only spent $42 million.
Where is the remaining $5 million?
Watkins:
It will be spent as part of upcoming Request for Proposals.
Burgess:
Explain the overall housing goal of 4,500.
Watkins:
The overall housing goal is based on the City’s entire affordable housing program
(Federal, Local and Housing Trust Fund). The Housing Trust Fund has financed
2,300 units to date.
Burgess:
How does the HTF Advisory Board plan to educate public officials and the
community about affordable housing?
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 6, 2006
Page 4
McNeely:
This idea grew out of the Robert Charles Lesser & Company study. There is a need
to provide education on affordable housing. We will do this by working to get
articles on affordable housing published in the Observer and other local
publications.
Burgess:
How did we fund the Lesser study?
Watkins:
It was funded from Neighborhood Development’s budget.
Burgess:
What’s the budget for the Communications and the Marketing Plan mentioned in
the action plan?
Watkins:
There is no budget. We will seek pro bono work.
Burgess:
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing Partnership (CMHP) had also planned to start
an affordable housing non-profit, but when they learned that the Housing Trust
Fund Advisory Board was also going to do this they decided to stop their efforts.
Should the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board do this or should CMHP do this?
Watkins:
CMHP stopped because they had higher priorities, at the time. We feel as though
the HTF Advisory Board should raise the awareness of affordable housing because
the HTF is a much broader funding source and the CMHP has received HTF funds.
Lochman:
How did we determine the amount needed over the next ten years?
Foxx:
The Robert Charles Lesser & Company study performed an analysis based on supply
and demand and current price points.
Lochman:
Why are we building houses for $110K if there are existing houses for $90K
currently available?
Watkins:
Most of the Housing Trust Fund’s financed units are rental units, not
homeownership.
Foxx:
I have a concern with only 15% of our units for $16K and below.
Can we
look at the rate of return on affordable housing investments? I think we should look
to see what impact we’re having on the City’s bottom line. I also think we need to
look at the existing housing stock. I would guess that it is cheaper to rehabilitate
existing houses rather than build new houses.
Bradsher:
This is not always true. Sometimes it can actually cost more to rehabilitate an
existing house.
Burgess:
How will the Audit committee operate?
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 6, 2006
Page 5
Watkins:
The intent is to take an in depth look at how city staff is administering the work they
do for the Housing Trust Fund.
Burgess:
The Housing Trust Fund Strategic Plan allows you to strengthen your original
charge.
Bradsher:
Yes, we want to look at the entire scheme of things to see how we can produce more
affordable housing units.
Burgess:
I would like for you to also think about how we can help people with the lowest
income. I’d also like for us to look at what other communities are doing.
McNeely:
We are doing that. We’ve had someone from Greensboro come in to talk with us.
We are also looking at Seattle, Washington and New York.
Next Steps/Action:
Council member Lochman made a motion to approve the revised Housing Trust Fund Strategic
Plan. Council member Foxx seconded the motion. The Committee unanimously approved the
motion.
III.
After School Enrichment Programs
Stanley Watkins presented additional information on the After School Enrichment Programs
(ASEPs). Key points include the following:
ƒ
Two outstanding issues from last year’s budget decisions were adopting new quality standards for
ASEPs and a resolution on using an intermediary to administer the program on behalf of the
City.
ƒ
City staff worked with Partners-in-Out-of-School-Time (POST) to review and expand current
ASEP quality standards to support the highest quality program possible. New standards include:
prioritizing programs located in Charlotte’s Revitalization Areas, North Carolina Day Care
Certification, collaborating with schools and teachers and providing transportation when
needed. These standards have not been implemented as they await review and approval by City
Council.
ƒ
After working with POST to develop the quality standards, staff reviewed the proposed ASEP
Quality Standards and program administrative options with the Privatization and Competition
Advisory Committee (PCAC).
ƒ
The PCAC met on March 10, 2005 and recommended that the City initiate a RFP process to
select a third-party intermediary to administer the After School Enrichment Program. The
Intermediary will help leverage City funds for the ASEPs and provide oversight, consultation and
training for the programs. The intermediary selection will be based on organizational expertise,
management plan, compliance system, fund raising expertise and competitive cost to the City.
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 6, 2006
Page 6
ƒ
On March 28, 2006 the Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee discussed the
After School Enrichment programs.
ƒ
During the March 28th discussion, the Committee requested that staff report back to the
Committee with information on Mecklenburg County’s involvement in ASEPs and information
on what other city’s are doing regarding ASEPs.
ƒ
Stanley Watkins explained to the Committee that Mecklenburg County does not have any direct
involvement in funding the ASEPs. Most of the funds come from federal and state agencies.
Questions/Answers/Comments:
Mumford:
We need to have a discussion about if it is appropriate for the City to continue to
participate in funding these programs? We also need to discuss if the service can be
provided in a more cohesive manner. We also need to discuss of it would be better
to have one group manage the ASEPs. Neighborhood Development has done a
good job of managing the programs but it is not one of its core services.
Lochman:
The City’s tax funds should go toward core functions like Police, Fire and streets.
Foxx:
One of the City’s core functions is public safety. Can you explain the connection
between ASEPs and public safety?
Tate:
ASEPs support this core function by giving kids a safe place to go during after school
hours to keep them out of trouble. Without these programs, children would be
home alone, thus safety becomes an issue.
Lochman:
Is there a cut off point for eligibility for these programs?
Tate:
Children receiving funding for these programs are very low income.
Mumford:
We want children to receive childcare funding, but we want to figure out the best
way to do this. We need to decide if the service should be consolidated into the
County’s functions.
Burgess:
What are the reductions in Community Development Block Grants funds for this
year?
Watkins:
$722,000 this year.
Foxx:
How would we go about looking at a consolidated approach to After School
Programs?
Mumford:
We funded the ASEPs last year by moving money from other sources with the intent
of sending a message that we want to shift this to the proper area.
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 6, 2006
Page 7
Foxx:
I’m not ready to say that ASEPs are not the City’s core business. However, I do
think we should have a discussion with the County. Also, I’m not ready to say if the
County doesn’t fund the programs that we should cut our funding.
Mumford:
We need to set funding priorities at the local level.
Lochman:
It’s going to be difficult to get the County to assume this funding.
Burgess:
We have several dilemmas:
1) Do we raise taxes to pay for this?
2) Do we use money from the general fund to pay for this?
3) Do we fund this by using more housing money?
Lochman:
I think we are too far along in the current budget process to transfer this to the
County at this point. Ruffin (Hall) do you agree?
Hall:
I do think it’s too late to give the County time to react, but it doesn’t mean that the
Council could not engage the County at this point.
Mumford:
I don’t think it is too late. I think we should begin a formal dialogue with the
County Commission so that they can consider funding this. I think we should
submit this issue along with the other issues that we’ve discussed as a Council.
Burgess:
Let’s hold off on making a decision about the intermediary until we have a
conversation with the County.
Lochman:
Mr. Hall, is it safe to say that the FY07 budget provides funding for ASEPS?
Hall:
The FY07 budget does not include funding for the intermediary. However, it did
include funding for the ASEP before we received additional Community
Development Block Grant cuts.
Foxx:
I’m comfortable with holding off on making a decision about the Intermediary until
we can have a conversation with the County.
Lochman:
I think going forward in FY08 we need to prepare to make some tough priority
decisions.
Mumford:
We should not expect to fund ASEPs next year, so how do we prepare so that the
ASEP providers will have a smooth transition?
Tate:
Perhaps we should look at raising private money to help support these types of
programs.
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 6, 2006
Page 8
Next Steps/Action:
The Committee decided to take no action on the new standards developed by Partners in Out-ofSchool Time (POST) and to take no action on the Intermediary Selection Process from the
Privatization and Competition Advisory Committee. The Committee also decided to direct the City
Manager to have a conversation with the County Manager about assuming the After School
Enrichment Programs.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 PM
City Council
Housing and Neighborhood Development
Committee Meeting
Thursday, April 6, 2006 – 12:00 Noon
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center – Room 267
Committee Members:
Susan Burgess, Chair
Anthony Foxx, Vice-Chair
Michael Barnes
Don Lochman
Pat Mumford
Staff Resource:
Julie Burch
AGENDA
ACTION
-
Revised Housing and Neighborhood Development Action Plan
Housing Trust Fund Strategic Plan – Council Priority
After School Enrichment Programs
________________________
Distribution:
Mayor/Council
Pam Syfert, City Manager
City Leadership Team
Corporate Communications
Debra Campbell - Planning
Stanley Watkins – Neigh. Dev.
Richard Woodcock – Neigh. Dev.
Stan Wilson – Neigh. Dev.
Stephanie Small – Neigh. Dev.
Walter Abernethy – Neigh. Dev.
Pat Mason – Neigh. Dev.
Ruffin Hall – Budget Office
Mike Nail – Budget Office
Anna Schleunes – City Attorney Office
Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board
Charles Woodyard -CHA
Pat Garrett - CMHP
Chris Squier – PCAC
David Elmore - Business Support Services
Claire Tate – Partners In Out-of-School Time
Page 1
Housing and Neighborhood Development Action Plan
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
April 6, 2006
Committee Action Requested:
Approve the 2006 Housing and Neighborhood Development Focus Area Action Plan.
Explanation:
ƒ At the February 2006 City Council Retreat, Council selected the Housing and Neighborhood
Development Focus Area as a priority.
ƒ City Council also identified some high priority subject areas to be addressed in the Housing and
Neighborhood Development Action Plan.
ƒ City Staff took those subject areas and identified some objectives to be addressed by the action plan.
ƒ On March 6, 2006, City Council approved the focus area plans and referred the action plan to the
Committee for further review and comment.
ƒ The Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee discussed the action plan during their
March 28, 2006 meeting and requested that staff include several additional objectives.
ƒ Attached is a revised copy of the action plan.
Attachment:
Revised Housing and Neighborhood Development Action Plan
Page 2
REVISED
2006 Housing and Neighborhood Development Action Plan
1. Neighborhood Policy
Goal:
Decrease the number of Challenged neighborhoods.
Objectives:
A. Review the City’s strategy for addressing neighborhoods
B. Define the City’s service delivery expectations for Stable, Transitioning and
Challenged neighborhoods
C. Specify City strategic investments for neighborhoods, e.g., infrastructure, housing
and economic development
D. Assess the City’s current targeted neighborhood revitalization and intervention
efforts
E. Discuss the City’s role in neighborhood outreach, education and capacity building
to strengthen neighborhood organizations
a. Increase the number of Community Watch programs
b. Provide education to citizens on the earned income tax credits
F. Discuss on neighborhood zoning standards
G. Review neighborhood infill housing policies
H. Review status report on gentrification
I. Perform a “gap” analysis on the City’s neighborhood efforts
J. Establish goals and priorities for City neighborhoods
2. Neighborhood Ombudsman
Goal:
Provide proactive outreach services to non-targeted neighborhoods.
Objectives:
A. Assess the need for a more proactive neighborhood approach
B. Provide information to residents on current city programs and services
C. Assist neighborhoods in identifying and solving complex problems
D. Assist neighborhoods in understanding land use and zoning requirements
E. Provide training and capacity building services to strengthen neighborhood
organizations
3. Affordable Housing
Goal:
Establish City affordable housing goals and priorities for the next 5 years.
Objectives:
A. Discuss on the distribution of affordable housing
B. Select priority affordable housing markets to serve, e.g., preservation of existing
rental units, households earning less than $16,000, etc.
C. Establish Housing Trust Fund performance measures
D. Review current affordable housing policies and impact of local regulations on
affordable housing
a. Review of transit oriented development policies
b. Provide an update on the Homeless Report
E. Expand education and outreach initiatives for affordable housing
1
Page 3
a. Discuss the City’s role in preventing foreclosures
b. Discuss predatory lending
F. Assess the need for a 2nd Housing Summit of local housing providers
4. Neighborhood Infrastructure
Goal:
Upgrade streets, sidewalks, curb & gutter and other infrastructure to
sustain neighborhoods.
Objectives:
A. Address important health, safety and appearance issues related to infrastructure
needs
B. Provide minimum level of infrastructure consistent with the character and needs
of neighborhoods
C. Leverage other investments in neighborhoods
D. Recommend neighborhood priorities for infrastructure
5. Rental Property and Landlords
Goal:
Maintain high quality rental properties.
Objectives:
A. Assess impacts of problem landlords on neighborhoods
B. Review current City polices and ordinances to address problem landlords
C. Identify strategies and actions to address problem landlords
6. Good Neighbors (Section 8)
Goal:
Engage in education and outreach to improve citizen awareness and
involvement in maintaining neighborhoods.
Objectives:
A. Increase residents awareness of the importance of property maintenance,
sanitation, code enforcement and zoning regulations
B. Help residents understand their individual responsibilities for maintaining their
properties to sustain neighborhoods
C. Provide strategies and tools to assist residents in negotiating practical solutions to
neighborhood conflicts.
INFORMATION
7.
CHARLOTTE HOUSING AUTHORITY
Goal:
Increase City Council’s awareness of the Charlotte Housing Authority
goals, plans and implementations strategy.
Objectives:
A. Review the Charlotte Housing Authority Strategic Plan
B. Receive information on property disposition strategy
C. Understand the impact of the Charlotte Housing Authority strategies on the City’s
affordable housing.
2
Page 4
Housing Trust Fund Strategic Plan Follow-up
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
April 6, 2006
Committee Action Requested:
Approve the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board’s revised recommendations for the Housing
Trust Fund Strategic Plan and adopt the proposed action plan.
Policy Framework:
ƒ On November 26, 2001, City Council established a Housing Trust Fund to provide financing
for affordable housing in the Charlotte community.
ƒ On April 8, 2002, City Council established a Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board. The
Advisory Board is charged with: overseeing the Housing Trust Fund, establishing policy and
guidelines, monitoring performance and reporting annually to City Council.
Revised Plan:
ƒ On March 28, 2006, the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board presented their strategic plan to
the City Council’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee.
ƒ Upon review, the Committee requested that the HTF Advisory Board and staff revise the action
plan to make it more explicit that the action plan is a partnership between the Housing Trust
Fund Advisory Board and City Council.
ƒ Key policy concerns of the action plan were in the policy theme. Based on the Committee’s
discussion, the Housing Trust Advisory Board proposes the following modifications to the plan.
(Underlines represents new language and strike thoughts represent deleted language)
Theme
Strategy
Action Steps
1.
2.
ƒ
Policy
ƒ
Partner with City Council to
educate elected officials and
public on impacts of
affordable housing policies
Partner with City Council to
review community impact of
Charlotte Affordable
Housing Policies
3.
4.
5.
6.
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Review City and County
policies that deter affordable
housing development
Review Housing Locational
Policy
Review transit stations
development strategy
Consider a land banking
policy
Host Community
Roundtable with City
Council on affordable
housing and City policies that
impede affordable housing
locations
Review use of County/CMS
lands for housing
The revised Housing Trust Fund Strategic Operating Plan is attached.
The Committee also requested a matrix that shows the amount of units that could be built
with annual Housing Trust Fund investments of $10m, $15m, $20m, $25m and $30m per
year. The matrix is attached.
The Committee requested changes in the tax rate for various amounts of funding. The
Budget Director informed the Committee that the information will be available at the April
12 City Council Budget Workshop.
Page 5
Background:
ƒ Since 2002, City Council through voter approved bonds and other appropriations have
designated $47 million for the Housing Trust Fund.
ƒ To date, 100% of the Housing Trust Fund’s appropriations have been allocated to housing
funding categories and all but $8 million has been awarded to affordable housing developments.
ƒ The results so far have been the financing of 2,300 affordable homes of which 811 have been
completed. The Housing Trust Fund primarily serves families earning an annual income of
$38,500 or less.
ƒ On March 12, 2005 the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board held its Annual Retreat. The
focus of the retreat was:
o Long-term future of affordable housing in the City
o Role of the Trust Fund in ensuring an adequate supply of affordable housing in
Charlotte
ƒ A Housing Market Study, commissioned by the Housing Trust Fund in 2005, forecasts a need
for 12,530 new affordable rental homes by 2010 for families with annual earnings of less than
$16,000.
ƒ The Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board originally established a goal of meeting 50% of the
2010 projected need over the next ten years, which would require annual capital budget of $76
million.
ƒ The Strategic Plan also sets forth strategies and action plans for the Housing Trust Fund
Advisory Board to address: Funding, Housing Policy, Trust Fund Operations and Education and
Outreach initiatives. (See page 5 of the Revised Housing Trust Fund Strategic Plan)
Attachments:
Revised Housing Trust Fund Strategic Plan (April 4, 2006)
Housing Trust Fund – Housing Production Projections
Page 6
Draft
City of Charlotte
Housing
Trust
Fund
Strategic Plan
April 6, 2006
Page 7
<INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK>
Page 8
CHARLOTTE HOUSING TRUST FUND
STRATEGIC PLAN
APRIL 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................1
II. ISSUES...................................................................................................................................2
III. VISION....................................................................................................................................3
IV. GOAL ......................................................................................................................................3
V. ACTION PLAN ........................................................................................................................4
VI. NEXT STEPS..........................................................................................................................5
Page 9
<INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK>
Page 10
CHARLOTTE HOUSING TRUST FUND
STRATEGIC PLAN
The Housing Trust Fund has committed
$42 million (90%) of its $47 million
allocation. Financial commitments have
been made to 2,300 affordable ownership,
rental and special needs homes. To date,
811 of these homes have been
completed. The Housing Trust Fund has
been a major contributor to the Council’s
five-year affordable housing goal.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 12, 2005, the Housing Trust
Fund Advisory Board held its Annual
Retreat. The focus was on the long-term
future of affordable housing in the City of
Charlotte and the role that the Trust Fund
should play in ensuring that an adequate
supply of affordable housing is available
for the citizens of Charlotte.
Additionally, almost 60% of the total units
financed have been reserved for families
earning less than $19,230. This effort has
reduced the Housing Trust Fund’s funding
leverage ratio to 1:4.
The Housing Trust Fund was chartered by
the City Council on February 22, 2002 and
charged with the responsibilities of:
1. Overseeing the City of Charlotte
Housing Trust Fund operations;
2. Recommending to City Council
annual funding priorities for the
Housing Trust Fund;
3. Creating or collaborating with taxexempt entities to solicit private
funds;
4. Monitoring the Housing Trust
Fund performance; and
5. Providing an annual report to City
Council.
With this backdrop, the Housing Trust
Fund Advisory Board pondered the future
of affordable housing in Charlotte and the
role that the organization can play in that
future. The Board reviewed demographic
and housing data that will have an impact
on the community over the next five years.
It engaged in a SWOT (Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats)
Analysis to identify strategic issues that
need to be addressed internally and
externally. The Board then prioritized
issues and identified broad themes and
key strategies. Finally, the Board
identified an action plan to better address
the affordable housing needs in the
community.
The City Council also established goals for
its overall affordable housing program,
which included the Housing Trust Fund, of
developing 4,500 affordable homes over
five years and maintaining a funding
leverage ratio of 1:5. While the Housing
Trust Fund can serve families making as
much as $51,280 annually (80% of the
area median income), the Council
requested that priority be given to families
earning less than $19,230 annually (30%
of the area median income).
The following pages summarize the
outcomes from the Board’s retreat and
subsequent follow-up meetings. Key
elements of the plan include:
•
•
•
•
•
Since the Housing Trust Fund’s inception,
$47 million has been raised to support
funding for affordable homes. $10 million
has come from bonds approved by the
City Council, $35 million from voter
approved bonds in 2002 and 2004, and $2
million in a City land sale dedicated to the
Housing Trust Fund.
Issues
Vision
Goals
Action Plan
Next Steps
The Board’s overall purpose was to put
forth a strategic plan for community
discussion on funding and developing
affordable homes in the City of Charlotte.
1
Page 11
CHARLOTTE HOUSING TRUST FUND
STRATEGIC PLAN
II. ISSUES
A number of factors impact the City’s ability to provide affordable housing for its citizens. They
include population and employment growth and the ability of the housing delivery systems to
meet the various housing needs. The Housing Trust Fund hired Charles Lesser and Company
to develop a local housing market study. The major outcome from the study was a growing
unmet need of households earning less than $16,000.
Year
2004
2010
Net Unmet Housing Demand for Incomes < $16,000
Rental Homes
Owner Homes
10,178
1,094
12,530
4,831
Total
11,272
17,361
Opportunities
Weaknesses
Strengths
Given this information, the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board undertook a SWOT Analysis to
identify key issues that need to be addressed. Below is a summary of their findings:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Threats
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Issue Areas
Board perception
Credibility
Board make up
Commitment and continuity
Board ability to work together and execute decisions effectively
Board willingness to understand varying perspectives
Rapid record of success
City Council’s and voting public high trust in HTF
Low community awareness of HTF and affordable housing needs
City policy of maximum two terms (Impact of Board turnover)
Lack of diversity – no women or other nationalities on the Board
Capacity building – the Board has not prepared others to take advantage of HTF
Lack of attention given to CDCs and small developers
Not being aware or understanding the Charlotte Housing Authority’s (CHA) policy
direction
Inability to make in-roads to transit locations
Better educate community on benefits of affordable housing
HTF processes are open and flexible
Potential for discussion of affordable housing development around new school sites
HTF mandate to bring forward new affordable housing policies
Non-profit housing finance initiative
Appeal to Charlotte community generosity
Results of new market study
Strengthening relationship with CDCs and Homeless Alliance
Creation of relationships with other jurisdictions – sharing information, technical
assistance and capacity building in other communities
Best practices research from other communities – leverage quality models from other
cities
Explore utilizing Charlotte Mecklenburg School sites for affordable housing
Challenges of existing landlords with low occupancy rates – (buy down capital
structure to produce affordable units with lower rates)
The inability to acquire land around transit stop locations
Potential for Board complacency
Inability to impact many units considering the Board’s mixed-income strategy and
focus on 30% or less of the AMI
City Bond shortfalls
Federal budget cuts
NIMBY – particularly as it relates to the Housing Locational Policy
Response of persons benefiting from HTF now resisting others that could benefit from
the program
Impact of CHA’s policies on the affordable housing market
2
Page 12
CHARLOTTE HOUSING TRUST FUND
STRATEGIC PLAN
III. VISION
Considering the Housing Trust Fund’s history, market trends and current issues, the Board
put forth a vision to guide development of its strategic plan. The proposed vision is
highlighted below:
Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board
Vision
ƒ
Everyone in our community should have the
opportunity to have a good place to live to achieve
their potential;
ƒ
The community should make available a continuum of
housing options for its residents that range from
shelter and transitional housing for the homeless and
special needs populations, to low and moderateincome rental homes, and ownership homes; and
ƒ
The best model for success is building sustainable
mixed-income communities.
IV. MISSION
To accomplish the above vision, the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board has put forth an
expanded mission, which is highlighted below:
Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board
Mission
ƒ
Finance affordable housing, review affordable housing
policies and engage in education and outreach on
affordable housing.
3
Page 13
CHARLOTTE HOUSING TRUST FUND
STRATEGIC PLAN
V. GOAL
To bring focus to the Board’s vision and drive development of its action plan, the Board
developed an overall goal for the future. The Housing Trust Fund’s goal is:
Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board
Goal
ƒ
Address 50% of 2010 projected unmet affordable
housing demand (6,265 units). (Increase housing for
families earning less than $16,000.)
Note: To achieve the above goal would require an investment of $75,809,611 annually in the
Housing Trust Fund for a 10-year period. This assumes a mixed-income housing scenario
where units serving families earning under $16,000 make up 15% of the new development with
an average unit delivery cost of $90,753 and a Housing Trust Fund investment of 20% per unit.
This estimate does not consider the impact of inflation.
VI. ACTION PLAN
The Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board developed four strategic themes – Funding, Policy,
Operations and Education & Advocacy – to drive the development of the action plan. For
each strategic theme, specific strategies were developed with proposed action steps and
timelines. The matrix list on the next page details the Housing Trust Fund’s action plan:
4
Page 14
CHARLOTTE HOUSING TRUST FUND
STRATEGIC PLAN
Theme
Strategy
Action Steps
1.
Funding
ƒ
Pursue public and private funding
ƒ
Research other national and regional
funding alternatives
2.
3.
4.
1.
ƒ
Partner with City Council to educate
elected officials and public on impacts of
affordable housing policies
ƒ
Partner with City Council to review
community impact of Charlotte
Affordable Housing Policy
Policy
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
ƒ
Operations
ƒ
2.
3.
Build the best possible business model
based on benchmarking against national
best practices and ongoing research of
innovative affordable housing practices
4.
Strengthen HTF oversight, project
underwriting review and portfolio review
process
5.
6.
7.
I.
ƒ
Education
and Outreach
ƒ
Increase outreach to local housing
II.
providers and stakeholders to create
opportunities to leverage building capital
II.
Raise community awareness of need for
V.
affordable housing.
Complete Non-Profit Feasibility Study & decide
the next step
Renew discussion with City Council on additional
public funding
Research public or non-profit funding sources
Take position on maintaining federal funds
Review City and County policies that deter
affordable housing development
Review Housing Locational Policy
Review transit stations development strategy
Consider a land banking policy
Host Community Roundtable with City Council
on affordable housing and City policies that
impede affordable housing locations
Review use of County/CMS lands for housing
Provide overview of Charlotte Housing Authority
and Community Development Corporations
Establish an Audit Committee
Research and test alternative business models
for the Housing Trust Fund
Provide Board education on Trust Fund
Underwriting process and information
requirements (i.e., appraisals)
Participate in HUD Consolidated Plan
Review financial and project status report
Provide periodic issue updates (i.e., Exclusionary
zoning, building moratorium, etc.)
Develop communication/marketing campaign to
enhance understanding of affordable housing (i.e.,
NIMBY concerns).
Host outreach and information forums for potential
recipients of HTF funding
Work with Charlotte Apartment Association and
other landlord to provide better access to HTF
Re-design HTF Annual Report for greater
readability and distribution and update the web site
V. NEXT STEPS
After review and approval by the City Council, this will drive the work program of the Housing
Trust Fund over the next several years. The document will help fulfill the Housing Trust Fund’s
vision to provide affordable housing opportunities to citizens of Charlotte and help them to
achieve their potential.
5
Page 15
<INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK>
Page 16
Document Prepared for City of Charlotte
Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board by
Neighborhood Development Key Business
April 2006
Page 17
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Housing Trust Fund – Housing Production Projections
April 6, 2006
On March 28, 2006 the Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee made a
request for the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board to provide projections for the number
of affordable housing units that could be produced based on various City funding levels,
($10M, $15M, $20M, $25M and $30M). The chart below provides the housing
projections.
Total
Development
Funds
City Funding Level
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
(All Sources)
$50,000,000
$75,000,000
$100,000,000
$125,000,000
$150,000,000
Total
Units
551
826
1,102
1,377
1,653
Total
Affordable
Units
441
661
882
1102
1,322
Note: Affordable units include units serving up to 60% of AMI
General Assumptions:
ƒ Mixed income development model
ƒ 15% of units to serve $16,000 and below
ƒ 80% of the units serve 60% and below (based on experience)
ƒ 20% of the units serve 61% and greater
ƒ Housing Trust Fund Investment – 20% of total investment
ƒ A $90,753 cost per housing units (based on experience)
Page 18
Units Serving
$16,000 &
Below
83
124
165
207
248
After School Enrichment Programs
Quality Standards and Intermediary Selection
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
April 6, 2006
Committee Action Requested:
A.
Approve the new standards developed Partners in Out-of-School Time (POST).
B.
Approve recommendation for an Intermediary Selection Process from the Privatization and
Competition Advisory Committee, which is contingent on FY07 budget approval.
Background:
ƒ On June 28, 2004 Council directed staff to work with Partners in Out-of-School Time (POST) to
develop quality standards for the After School Enrichment Program (ASEP); and develop an ASEP
vendor selection process in conjunction with the Privatization and Competition Advisory Committee
(PCAC). However, Council action on the items was delayed from last year’s budget discussions.
ƒ
The City has been involved with After School Enrichment Programs (ASEPs) for approximately 30
years. ASEPs provide elementary and middle school students with a safe, nurturing environment
during after school hours where time is spent involved in constructive and healthy activity. ASEPs are
also designed to support the child’s intellectual, social, physical and emotional growth.
ƒ
The City of Charlotte currently provides $1.2 million to serve 775 children in six ASEPs - The
Bethlehem Center, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Greater Enrichment Program, J.T. Williams Middle School, St.
Paul Baptist Church and the YWCA. These programs are currently funded through CDBG (71%) and
City’s Innovative Housing Program (29%). The FY07 funding recommendations for ASEPs are still
being evaluated and will be addressed in the City Manager’s budget submission.
Outstanding Issues
ƒ Two outstanding issues from last year’s budget decisions were adopting new quality standards for
ASEPs and a resolution on using an intermediary to administer the program on behalf of the City.
ƒ
City staff worked with POST to review and expand current ASEP quality standards to support the
highest quality program possible. New standards include: prioritizing programs located in Charlotte’s
Revitalization Areas, North Carolina Day Care Certification, collaborating with schools and teachers
and providing transportation when needed. These standards have not been implemented as they await
review and approval by City Council. See attached document for details on the standards.
ƒ
After working with POST to develop the quality standards, staff reviewed the proposed ASEP Quality
Standards and program administrative options with the PCAC.
ƒ
The PCAC met on March 10, 2005 and recommended that the City initiate a RFP process to select a
third-party intermediary to administer the After School Enrichment Program. The Intermediary will
help leverage City funds for the ASEPs and provide oversight, consultation and training for the
programs. The intermediary selection will be based on organizational expertise, management plan,
compliance system, fund raising expertise and competitive cost to the City. Attached is an updated
selection process schedule for consideration.
ƒ
The City’s cost is expected to be less than $100,000 annually for an Intermediary. Pursuing the
Intermediary is contingent upon City Council FY07 budget approval.
ƒ
Attached is additional information about ASEPs. Included is a slide show that was presented to the
Committee in May 2004, a report from the National League of Cities, The After School Hours: A new
Focus for America’s Cities, which features Charlotte and a report from Child Care Resources, Early Care
& Education Demographics Report.
Page 19
ƒ
The Committee also requested information on Mecklenburg County’s involvement in After School
Programs. This information will be distributed at the meeting.
Attachments:
The After School Hours: A New Focus for America’s Cities (To be distributed)
Early Care & Education Demographics Report
PowerPoint Presentation – Charlotte After School Programs
Mecklenburg County’s Involvement in After School Programs (To be distributed)
Page 20
Charlotte After School Programs
City Council Dinner Briefing
May 24, 2004
Page 21
The Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Asked Staff to Present…
ƒThe Need for After School Programs in CharlotteMecklenburg
ƒThe Relationship between After School Programs and
City Core Business
ƒImpact of After School Programs in Charlotte –
Mecklenburg
Page 22
Background…
• Current City investment and participation
ƒ Neighborhood Development monitors 5 after school programs
ƒ $1.2 million in CDBG and Innovative Housing Funds serves 718
students
• Beatties Ford Road After School Enrichment
ƒ Establish J. T. Williams Middle School FY 2005
ƒ Provide academic and cultural enrichment opportunities to at risk
youth
ƒ $60,000 City funds to match CMS funding commitment
Page 23
A National Problem…
The most dangerous time of day for children…
3:00 p.m. – 6:00p.m.
ƒ Millions of children and teens are turned onto our
streets without supervision or constructive educational
or recreational activity…
ƒ Juvenile crime, abuse against children and adolescent
experimentation in drugs, tobacco, sex… soars.
Source: Fight Crime – An organization of Police Chiefs, Sheriffs and Prosecutors 2001
Page 24
After School Programs…
ƒ Support student success
ƒ Provide additional
resources for academic
achievement
ƒ Increase confidence in the
classroom
ƒ Help prepare students for
end of grade and
competency testing.
Source: After school Alert Issue Brief, January 2004
Page 25
After School Programs…
Provide alternatives to
involvement in youth
crime:
“…of 1539 children tracked
in a Chicago since 1967,
those who were not in
after school care (550)
were 70% more likely to
be arrested for a violent
crime by age 18.”
Source:Fight Crime: Invest in Kids Report
Page 26
Challenges faced by CWAC Children*
Quality of Life Dimension
Citywide
Youth Population
CWAC
Charlotte Supported
After School
Programs
137,941
36,191
Average Kindergarten Scores
%After School Enrichment Students testing > to
grade level in FY 2003 school year**
2.8%
2.6
Dropout Rate
6.4%
10.4%
N/A
82.7%
73.5%
N/A
% Births to Adolescents
6.7%
11.2%
N/A
Juvenile Arrest Rates
1.0%
1.4%
N/A
N/A
N/A
% Children Passing Competency Exams
% Students testing at or above grade point level
in reading and math FY 2003**
*Source: 2002 Quality of Life Index
** Source: CMS
Page 27
718
N/A
66% in Reading
73% in Math
46% in Reading
57% in Math
Relationship of After School Programs to Community Safety…
Our Vision…
“Charlotte will be the safest
large City in America”
Our Challenge…
Juvenile arrests in Charlotte
increased 14.4% (from 4014
to 4593) between 2002 and
2003*
“In San Diego – juvenile
arrests during after school
hours were down by 13.1%
and juveniles as victims of
crime decreased by 11.7%”
Source: Afterschool Alert: Issue brief January
2004
*Source: Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department 2003 Annual Report
Page 28
Relationship of After School Programs to Economic
Development…
Our Vision…
Our Challenge…
“Charlotte will be the most
prosperous and livable
city for all citizens
through quality
economic development”
CWAC reported drop out
rates 40% higher than City
average
ƒ CWAC Competency test
pass rates 12% lower than
City average
ƒ Births to adolescents in
CWAC nearly tripled the
City’s average.
Source: 2004 Economic Development Focus Area Plan
Page 29
Relationship of After School Programs to
City Within A City…
Our Vision…
Our Challenge…
“Creating great
neighborhoods in which to
live, work and play”
ƒ CWAC neighborhoods are
challenged economically,
educationally and socially
ƒ A disproportionate number
of youth exhibit at risk
factors
Source: CWAC Focus Area Plan
Page 30
Relationship of After School Programs to Affordable
Housing Goals…
Our Opportunity…
Our Vision…
ƒ After school programs
“ Support family selfenable CWAC working
sufficiency initiatives and
parents to gain and hold full
increase affordable
time employment
housing opportunities”
ƒ The US General Accounting
Office estimates that welfare
reform will be associated
with a “substantial increase”
in unmet child care needs”
Source: Afterschool Alert: Issue Brief January
2004
Source: CWAC Focus Area Plan
Page 31
Possible Funding Opportunities…
Other Cities:
• Houston: $2.4 million
annually; $830,000 from
General Fund
• Columbus: $1.5 million
(General Fund and CDBG)
• Seattle: $4 million from
General Fund
• Fort Worth: $2 million
($1.4 million from special
taxing district and $421,000
from CDBG)
Untapped resources:
Leveraging Workforce
Development Board
Funds
Page 32
Impact of City Subsidized After School Programs… *
• Children are safer
“…students who spend three or more hours alone during out of
school time are…more likely to use drugs and alcohol,…possess
lower self-esteem and perform less well academically”
Source: Critical Hours: Afterschool Programs and Educational Success
• Parents respond that their children experienced great
improvement in grades
“ North Carolina’s Support Our Students program for middle school
students found that [those] who participated…increased their reading
and math scores on the state’s End of Grade tests”
Source: Critical Hours: Afterschool Programs and Educational Success
• Parents indicate that they can work full time – improving
their quality of life
*Source: 2003 CMS After
School Enrichment Program Survey
Page 33
Questions
Question and Answer Session
Page 34
Early Care & Education
Demographics Report
Mecklenburg County As of June 30, 2005
Page 35
Contents
Early Care & Education Demographics Report
Mecklenburg County As of June 30, 2005
Population Statistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1
Early Education Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2
Early Education Programs by Age of Children Served . . . . . . . . Page 4
Licensed Child Care Program Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5
Child Care Program Supply Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7
Child Care Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8
Child Care Subsidy Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9
About Mecklenburg County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 10
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 11
Page 36
Population Statistics
2005 Child Population (0-13 yrs.)
Total = 158,510
700,000
600,000
768,773
786,651
750,570
732,194
715,783
658,020
596,190
615,885
800,000
637,428
900,000
680,563
699,660
Total Population of Mecklenburg County
85,822
80,000
70,000
60,000
500,000
50,000
400,000
40,000
300,000
30,000
200,000
20,000
100,000
10,000
0
36,156
24,750
11,782
0
1995
2002
1996
2003
1997
2004
1998
2005
1999
2000
2001
(As of July 1, 2005)
0-2 years
3-4 years
5 years old
6-13 years
Source: State Demographics Unit, North Carolina as of July 1, 2005
Source: State Demographics Unit, North Carolina, projection revised June 2005.
Estimates for intercensal years provided by the North Carolina Office of State Planning
Estimates for 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 vary from previous estimates and
have been derived from the most recent Census data
Pregnancies & Births
Women 16+ with Children
Number of live births (15-44)
Number of pregnancies (15-44)
Pregnancy rate (per 1,000)
Birth rate (per 1,000)
80,816
100,000
80,000
31,891
60,000
12,773
16,946
95.3
71.3
Number of teen births (15-19)
Number of teen pregnancies (15-19)
Teen pregnancy rate (per 1,000)
Teen birth rate (per 1,000)
40,000
20,000
0
1990
991
1,506
59.7
39.3
2000
Source: US Census 1990 and 2000
Source: State Center for Health Statistics, calendar year 2003 information
released September 2004.
Households with Children Under Age 6 by
Family Configuration and Employment Status
1999 Income Ranges for 273,561 Mecklenburg
Households
Total = 57,563
80,526
90,000
2,356
21,620
80,000
61,807
70,000
9,190
58,289
60,000
50,000
31,983
40,000
4,499
30,000
19,898
17,438
23,518
20,000
10,000
Living with two parents (both working)
Living with father only (working)
Living with mother only (working)
Living with two parents (one parent working)
Not in labor force
0
Less than $10,000
$20,000 - $29,999
$50,000 - $74,999
Source: US Census 2000
$10,000 - $19,999
$30,000 - $49,999
$75,000+
Source: U.S. Census 2000
1
Page 37
June 2005 Report (As of June 30, 2005)
© 2005, Child Care Resources Inc.
Early Education Demographics
Legally Exempt Early Childhood, School-Age
Child Care and Summer Camp Programs
Licensed Early Childhood Programs
Total = 903
1
1
Total = 195
27
32
411
444
47
13
24
85
1
2
7
3
Star Rated Family Child Care Homes
Provisional License
Church Exempt (1 part day)
Part-Day Only Preschools (Star Rated)
Temporary C License
Star Rated Head Start Only
Star Rated Licensed Centers
Probationary License
CMS Pre-Kindergarten
Family Child Care Homes
School Age
Note: The North Carolina Division of Child Development separately licenses each building
in which a regulated early education program operates. Therefore, one program operating
in two buildings will have two licenses.
Part-Day Preschools
Head Start
Summer Camps
*Nine CMS Pre-K sites have Head Start enrolled children & 1 CMS Pre-K site has 2 More at
Four classrooms
Child Care Centers by Type of Licensure
& Capacity
Family Child Care Homes by Type of
Licensure & Capacity
Licensed Child Care Centers with Star Ratings = 451
Licensed Family Child Care Homes with Star Ratings = 411
License
Number of
Programs
1 Star
Percent of
Programs
Number of
Slots
Percent of
Slots
5
1.11%
470
1.20%
2 Stars
3 Stars
2
154
0.44%
34.15%
77
10,729
0.20%
27.48%
4 Stars
5 Stars
207
83
45.90%
18.40%
18,378
9,389
47.07%
24.05%
Subtotal*
451
100.00%
39,043
100.00%
Licensed Child Care Centers without Star Ratings = 36
Church Exempt
23
63.89%
2,839
Temporary C
11
30.56%
728
Provisional
1
2.78%
58
75.01%
19.23%
1.53%
Probationary
Subtotal*
Total
1
2.78%
160
4.23%
36
100.00%
3,785
100.00%
487
Number of
Programs
License
Percent of
Programs
Number of
Slots
Percent of
Slots
1 Star
2 Stars
80
2
19.46%
0.49%
523
16
17.87%
0.55%
3 Stars
4 Stars
5 Stars
218
96
15
53.04%
23.36%
3.65%
1,560
714
113
53.32%
24.40%
3.86%
Subtotal*
411
100.00%
2,926
100.00%
Licensed Family Child Care Homes without Star Ratings = 3
Church Exempt
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
42,828
Temporary C
Provisional
Probationary
2
1
0
66.67%
33.33%
0.00%
13
5
0
72.22%
27.78%
0.00%
Subtotal*
3
100.00%
18
100.00%
Total
414
2,944
* Includes Head Start programs
*Percentagetotals are rounded to 100%.
*Percentage totals are rounded to 100%.
Private Part-Day Preschool Only Programs
Nationally Accredited Full-Time, Part-Day
Preschool, After-School & Summer Camp Programs
• Number of Programs = 87
30
• Total Capacity = 8,710
Capacity
1
30
NAEYC = 3,486
25
NAFCC = 35
20
1
Legally Exempt
15
85
Star Rated
21 Centers
NAA = 0
9 Part-Day
Preschools
ACA = 800
4
10
2
Page 38
NAFCC - National
Association for Family Child
Care
3
5
NAA - National Afterschool
Association
0
ACA – American Camping
Association
NAEYC
Church Exempt
NAEYC - National
Association for the
Education of Young
Children
NAFCC
0
NAA
ACA
June 2005 Report (As of June 30, 2005)
© 2005, Child Care Resources Inc.
Average Fees for Full-Time Child Care
Percent of annual
Percent of annual
income spent on
income spent on
Family Child
Average
Average
child care for one Child Care
child care for one
Care Homes
Centers
Annual FCCH child in a family
Annual
child in a family
(FCCH)
Weekly Cost Center Cost
Cost
of three in
of three in
Weekly Cost
Mecklenburg
Mecklenburg
County*
County*
$133
$6,916
$161
$8,372
17.53%
21.23%
$130
$6,760
$157
$8,164
17.14%
20.70%
$126
$6,552
$153
$7,956
16.61%
20.17%
$123
$6,396
$145
$7,540
16.22%
19.12%
$121
$6,292
$143
$7,436
15.95%
18.85%
Age
Infant
Toddler
2 years old
3 years old
4 years old
Average Fees for School-Age Care
School-age (part-time)
40 weeks of school year
care
$74
$2,960
7.50%
$80
$3,200
8.11%
$114
$1,368
3.47%
$130
$1,560
3.95%
School-age (full-time)
12 weeks of care during
summer/holidays
According to CCRI's provider database, the average annual fee for child care in Mecklenburg County is:
Family child care for 0-5 year old children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6,583
School-age care (year round in a FCCH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,328
*Based on annual income of $39,444 (income needed for a family of
one parent, one infant and one preschool child as reported by the
North Carolina Justice and Community Development Center 2003)
School-age care (year round in a child care center) . . . . . . . . . . $4,760
Source: Child Care Resources Inc. as of June 30, 2005
Center-based care for 0-5 year old children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7,894
Average Fees for Star Licensed Child Care Centers Per Week*
Average
1 Star
2 Stars
3 Stars
4 Stars
5 Stars
Infant
$162
$128
$140
$155
$165
$183
Average
1 Star
2 Stars
3 Stars
4 Stars
5 Stars
Infant
$133
$126
$130
$132
$141
$145
Toddler
$158
$122
$140
$151
$161
$176
2 Year old
$152
$122
$140
$146
$156
$169
3 Year old
$146
$116
$130
$141
$149
$160
4 Year old
$144
$116
$130
$139
$148
$159
School-age (Full) School-age (Part)
$133
$81
$112
$76
$121
$77
$130
$84
$134
$82
$148
$68
Data based on child care
centers’ and family child care
homes’ self-report to Child
Care Resources Inc. of fees
charged.
*Weighted averages
Average Fees for Star Licensed Family Child Care Homes Per Week*
Toddler
$131
$123
$128
$129
$138
$145
2 Year old
$126
$118
$125
$125
$133
$143
3 Year old
$123
$116
$120
$122
$129
$137
4 Year old
$121
$114
$118
$120
$126
$135
School-age (Full) School-age (Part)
$114
$74
$110
$73
$125
$100
$112
$71
$118
$78
$121
$79
Source: Child Care Resources Inc. database as of June 30, 2005
Child Care Resources Inc. (CCRI) maintains a referral database of licensed and legally exempt early education programs in Mecklenburg County. The North
Carolina Division of Child Development (NCDCD) provides CCRI with basic information about licensed programs, which CCRI supplements with information
gathered directly from program operators. Of the 903 NCDCD licensed early childhood and school-age programs in Mecklenburg County, 831 (92%) have
elected to provide CCRI with more program details than publicly available through the NCDCD. CCRI’s database also includes information about 195 legally
exempt (non-regulated) early education programs (e.g. part day preschool programs, summer camps and other school-age programs).
3
June 2005 Report (As of June 30, 2005)
© 2005, Child Care Resources Inc.
Page 39
Early Education Programs by Age of Children Served
Licensed Family Child Care Homes
Ages Served
# of Programs Serving
Those Age Groups
Infant (0-12 months)
Toddler (12-24 months)
Twos
Threes/Fours
402
404
410
408
Ages Served
# of Programs Serving
Those Age Groups
Fives
School Age
Before & After School
397
370
250
Family Child Care Homes reporting this information: 414
Combined Capacity: 2,944 children
Licensed Child Care Centers
Ages Served
# of Programs Serving
Those Age Groups
Infant (0-12 months)
Toddler (12-24 months)
Twos
Threes/Fours
328
332
352
424
Ages Served
# of Programs Serving
Those Age Groups
Fives
School Age
Before & After School
467
413
295
Child Care Centers reporting this information: 487
Combined Capacity: 42,828 children
Private Part-Day Preschool Only Programs
Ages Served
# of Programs Serving
Those Age Groups
Infant (0-12 months)
Toddler (12-24 months)
Twos
47
59
76
Ages Served
# of Programs Serving
Those Age Groups
Threes/Fours
Fives
86
59
Part-Day Preschool Programs reporting this information: 87
Total Capacity: 8,710 children
Publicly Sponsored Pre-K Sites
Ages Served
# of Sites Serving
Those Age Groups
Head Start Only (3 and 4 year olds)
CMS/Bright Beginnings Curriculum (4 year olds)
More at Four/Smart Start Pre-K Programs* (4 year olds)
CMS Exceptional Children’s Program (EC) (4 year olds)
CMS/Montessori Curriculum (4 year olds)
14
19
36
19
2
# of Classrooms
48
138
70
24
10
Capacity
863*
2,468**
1,057***
244
252
Publicly Sponsored Pre-K Sites reporting this information: 69
Total Capacity: 4,884
*Includes 317 Head Start enrolled children in 17 CMS Bright Beginnings classrooms and 546 enrolled in Head Start classroom sites or community-based child
care centers.
**This number does not include the Head Start and More at Four children at the CMS Bright Beginnings sites.
***Includes 180 More at Four children enrolled in 21 CMS Bright Beginnings classrooms and 877 enrolled in community-based child care centers.
Based on Child Care Resources database of 1,016 programs supplying the above listed information as of June 30, 2005. These programs are
able to serve a total of 58,020 children.
Note: Total number of sites, classrooms, and capacities do not total.
(Does not include summer camp programs.)
4
Page 40
June 2005 Report (As of June 30, 2005)
© 2005, Child Care Resources Inc.
Licensed Child Care Program Features
Family Child Care Home Schedules
Child Care Center Schedules
487
450
410
450
412
350
350
299
300
250
389
389
400
400
254
250
227
215
224
250
186
200
200
150
150
100
295
302
300
165
98
86
98
100
33
1
50
1
50
0
6
0
Day
Before School
Full Time
Full Year
Evening
After School
Part Time
School Year
Day
Before School
Full Time
Full Year
Overnight
Before/After School
FT/PT
Evening
After School
Part Time
School Year
Overnight
Before/After School
FT/PT
414 family child care homes reporting
487 licensed centers reporting
Source: Child Care Resources database as of June 30, 2005
Source: Child Care Resources database as of June 30, 2005
Special Services Offered by Licensed Facilities
Years in Operation - Licensed Facilities
450
563
450
400
400
350
258
300
250
200
200
100
355
300
249
250
150
342
350
98
69
150
85
73
69
201
161
100
44
50
50
1
0
0
0-1 Year
4-5 Years
1-2 Years
5-11 Years
2-3 Years
11+ Years
Bi-Lingual/Spanish
Experienced with Special Needs
Drop-In Care
24-Hour Care
3-4 Years
Bi-Lingual/Other
Transportation
Temporary/Emergency Care
901 licensed centers & family child care homes reporting
901 licensed centers & family child care homes reporting
Source: Child Care Resources database as of June 30, 2005
Source: Child Care Resources database as of June 30, 2005
5
Page 41
June 2005 Report (As of June 30, 2005)
© 2005, Child Care Resources Inc.
Licensed and Legally Exempt Family Child Care Homes by Zip Code
Zip Code Programs Capacity
Zip Code Programs Capacity
Zip Code Programs Capacity
28078
28105
28134
28202
28203
28204
28205
28206
28208
28209
28210
28211
28212
28213
28214
28215
28216
28217
28226
28227
28262
28269
28270
28273
28277
28278
8
9
2
1
1
1
32
6
37
55
63
13
8
8
8
223
48
278
1
8
5
24
29
21
62
44
24
5
55
28
165
211
147
463
304
170
3
24
12
32
1
20
4
6
24
171
78
214
5
138
26
42
Licensed and Legally Exempt Child Care Centers by Zip Code*
Zip Code Programs Capacity
Zip Code Programs Capacity
Zip Code Programs Capacity
28031
28036
28078
28105
28134
28202
28203
28204
28205
28206
28207
28208
28209
28210
28211
28212
28213
28214
28215
28216
28217
28221
28226
28227
28231
28256
28262
28269
28270
28273
28277
6
3
17
18
7
10
9
6
51
22
2
624
174
2,307
2,244
815
1,241
708
400
3,799
1,410
189
69
12
19
14
18
30
16
37
33
29
1
4,025
1,241
1,752
1,531
1,344
2,663
1,281
2,099
1,744
1,723
50
17
16
1
1
18
15
8
10
13
2,369
1,386
25
170
3,188
1,630
927
1,229
1,830
Private Part-Day Preschool Only Programs by Zip Code
Zip Code Programs Capacity
Zip Code Programs Capacity
Zip Code Programs Capacity
28031
28036
28078
28105
28134
28202
28203
28204
28205
28206
28207
28208
28209
28210
28211
28212
28213
28215
28216
28226
28227
28262
28269
28270
28273
28277
28278
4
3
4
6
1
2
2
2
6
2
274
306
233
1,092
54
310
70
180
277
31
4
1
1
4
5
3
2
3
7
7
766
70
94
585
636
217
214
323
499
637
6
2
2
3
2
2
1
421
86
454
430
128
268
55
Publicly Sponsored Pre-K Programs by Zip Code **
Zip Code Programs Capacity
Zip Code Programs Capacity
Zip Code Programs Capacity
28036
28078
28134
28203
28205
28206
28207
28208
28209
28210
28211
28212
28215
28216
28226
28227
28262
28269
28277
1
1
1
2
5
4
1
45
92
12
156
687
991
12
1
2
1
3
3
2
1
274
259
548
146
206
126
77
1
2
1
1
1
24
126
88
138
12
* More at Four and Head Start children enrolled in child care centers in the community are counted within licensed and legally exempt child care centers.
** CMS Bright Beginnings (including those with enrolled Head Start and More at Four children, Exceptional Children and Montessori Classes) and Head Start
independent sites are counted in with publicly sponsored Pre-K programs.
Based on Child Care Resources Inc. database of 1,066 reporting programs with a total capacity of 61,797 as of June 30, 2005.
6
Page 42
June 2005 Report (As of June 30, 2005)
© 2005, Child Care Resources Inc.
Child Care Program Supply Trends
Child Care Centers and Family Child Care Homes
Licensed Child Care Centers 2000-2005
Licensed Family Child Care Homes 2000-2005
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
466
2000
468
2001
472
2002
481
2003
489
2004
487
2005
512
500
492
453
453
414
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Star Rated License Trends for Child Care
Centers 2001-2005
Star Rated License Trends for Family Child Care
Homes 2001-2005
300
450
275
400
250
350
225
300
200
175
250
150
200
125
100
150
75
100
50
50
25
0
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2001
2005
2002
2003
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
5 Stars
4 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
GS110-106
2 Stars
1 Star
7
Page 43
2004
2005
3 Stars
June 2005 Report (As of June 30, 2005)
© 2005, Child Care Resources Inc.
Child Care Demand
N = Number of Responses
Ages of Children Served
N = 2,785 Children
Location Preference
N = 2,734
0.25%
0.5%
0.25%
2%
13%
25%
10%
13%
14%
1%
3%
5%
7%
75%
12%
19%
Pre-Natal/Under One
Two
Five
Nine and Over
Near Home
Near Employer/Home
In Route to Employment
Zip Code
Employment
One
Three/Four
Six to Eight
Near School
Near School/Home
Community
Other
Note: Families can choose more than one option.
Type of Care Preferred
N = 4,882
5%
Primary Reason Child Care Needed
N = 2,785
5%
2%
1%
4%
6%
6%
51%
7%
77%
36%
Child Care Center
Summer Camp
Part-Day Preschool
Employment
Parent Attending School/Training
Parent Seeking Employment
Family Child Care Home
School Age Program
Relocation
Child Socialization
Other
Note: Families can choose more than one option for care.
Reasons Parents Did Not Find Child Care
N = 705
Calls for Child Care Referrals
N = 2,785 Children
2%
0.2%
1%
3%
0.3%
7%
50%
0.4%
10%
0.6%
1%
1%
93%
28%
3.5%
Mecklenburg
Other NC Counties
Rowan
Iredell
Cost
Preferred care not available
Facility's schedule
Quality of program
Out of State
Gaston
York County, SC
Stanly
Waiting for Financial Assistance
Hours of operation
Location
Note: Numbers are based on a 20% sample of families searching
for care and extrapolated to the whole; parents can give more than
one response.
Source: Child Care Resources Inc. (January 1 – June 30, 2005)
Note: Percentage totals are rounded to 100%
8
Page 44
June 2005 Report (As of June 30, 2005)
© 2005, Child Care Resources Inc.
Child Care Demand
(continued)
N = Number of Responses
License Status of Programs Where Families
Found Child Care
N = 1,162
1% 7%
1%
Quality Indicators Parents Used When
Searching for Child Care
48%
N = 1,219
1%
3%
1%
4%
6%
0%
55%
11%
32%
5 Star
3 Star
1 Star
Temporary
12%
18%
Star Rating
Low staff/child ratio
Staff/child interaction
Small group size
Education of staff
Compliance history
Staff stability (lack of turnover)
4 Star
2 Star
GS 110-106
License Exempt
Note: Numbers based on a 20% sample of families searching for care
and extrapolated to the whole; families can choose more than one
indicator.
Note: Numbers are based on a 20% sample of families searching
for care and extrapolated to the whole; parents can give more
than one response.
Child Care Subsidy Information
Ages of Children Whose Parents Called Seeking
Child Care Financial Assistance
N = 1,678
Child Care Financial Assistance
Total number of calls received by Child Care Search from
parents/caregivers needing subsidized child care: 2,049.
12%
26%
15%
Number of Children Receiving Subsidized Care
7%
13%
10%
17%
.
Prenatal/under age one
Two
Five
Nine and over
One
Three/Four
Six to eight
Number of children receiving subsidized care as of June 30, 2005
9,598
Monthly average of children receiving subsidy from January – June 2005
9,570
Average monthly waiting list from January – June 2005
5,348
Waiting list for subsidized care as of June 30, 2005
5,361
Note: Children of parents seeking child care referrals in addition to
subsidy are included with child care demand data.
Maximum Income Eligibility for Child Care Subsidies
6/30/2005
Maximum Income Eligibility for Child Care Subsidies
8/01/2005
Family Size
Family Size
Maximum Gross
Monthly/Annual
Income
Family Size
Maximum Gross
Monthly/Annual
Income
1
2
3
4
5
6
$1,824/
$21,888
$2.385/
$28,620
$2.946/
$35,352
$3,507/
$42,084
$4,068/
$48,816
$4,629/
$55,548
7
8
9
10
11
12
$4,735/
$56,820
$4,840/
$58,080
$4,946/
$59,352
$5,051/
$60,612
$5,156/
$61,872
$5,261/
$63,132
Maximum Gross
Monthly/Annual
Income
Family Size
Maximum Gross
Monthly/Annual
Income
1
2
3
4
5
6
$1,836/
$22,032
$2.401/
$28,812
$2.966/
$35,592
$3,531/
$42,372
$4,096/
$49,152
$4,661/
$55,932
7
8
9
10
11
12
$4,767/
$57,204
$4,873/
$58,476
$4,979/
$59,748
$5,085/
$61,020
$5,191/
$62,292
$5,297/
$63,564
Co-payments (% of gross monthly income): 1-3 children - 10% / 4-5 children - 9% / 6-12 children - 8%
.
Source: Child Care Resources Inc. (January 1 – June 30, 2005)
Note: Percentage totals are rounded to 100%
9
Page 45
June 2005 Report (As of June 30, 2005)
© 2005, Child Care Resources Inc.
Points to know about Mecklenburg County:
• Estimated total population of 786,651 as of July 1, 2005
(Source: State Demographics Unit, North Carolina projection revised June 2005)
• The seasonally unadjusted unemployment rate was 5.1% as of June
2005 (Compared to 5.3% in June 2004)
(Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission)
• Charlotte is the most populous city in Mecklenburg County, the
most populous in North Carolina and the 21st most populous in the
United States.
(Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, July 1, 2003 population estimates)
• Charlotte is the second largest banking center in the U.S., behind
New York City.
(Source: Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, 2003)
• Median household income of $50,045 in 2002
• Total number of students in Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Schools for 2004-05 is 121,640 (CMS)
• There are 151 public schools in Mecklenburg County.
Of these, 91 are elementary schools, 32 are middle
schools, 17 are high schools, and 11 are schools with
special programs. Fifty are magnet schools. (CMS)
• The total number of students enrolled in Pre-K in
2004-2005 was 2,965 four-year olds. (CMS)
• According to the North Carolina Division of Child
Development, 26,255 children ages 0-12 were
enrolled in some form of licensed child care in
Mecklenburg County as of June 30, 2005. There were
44,300 child care slots available at the time.
(Source: US Census Bureau Model Based Estimate, 2002)
• Number of TANF recipients 0-17: 6,689
Number of TANF recipients 0-5: 3,017
General Information
• The federal poverty guidelines are determined
according to family size and apply to all but two
states.* These guidelines, issued each year by the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), are
a form of measurement that simplifies the poverty
thresholds for administrative purposes, such as
determining financial eligibility for certain programs.
Listed below are the 2005 HHS poverty guidelines:
(Source: North Carolina Eligibility Information System, July 1, 2005)
• Number of Food Stamp recipients 0-17: 32,067
Number of Food Stamp recipients 0-5: 12,285
(Source: North Carolina Food Stamp Information System, July 1, 2005)
• Children 0-5 living in poverty in 1999: 7,351
(Source: US Census 2000)
• Single individual = $9,570
• Family of two = $12,830
• Family of three = $16, 090
• Family of four =$19,350
• Family of five = $22,610
• Family of six = $25,870
• Family of seven = $29,130
• Family of eight = $32,390
• For each additional person, add $3,260
Child Abuse and Neglect (CAN) Data for
Mecklenburg County
CAN reports for all ages (0-17)
9,871
CAN reports for ages 0-6
4,307
CAN reports for ages 7-12
3,264
CAN reports for ages 13-17
2,300
* Alaska and Hawaii use different guidelines due to
higher living expenses.
Children Found Substantiated or In Need of
Services
2,437
Ages 0-6
1,183
Ages 7-12
771
Ages 13-17
483
(Source: North Carolina, Department of Health & Human Services,
Division of Social Services, Central Registry for Child Maltreatment,
2003-2004)
10
Page 46
June 2005 Report (As of June 30, 2005)
© 2005, Child Care Resources Inc.
Definitions
Bright Beginnings is a Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools-sponsored program that serves educationally at-risk four-year-old
children in school settings and in area child care programs. This program enables four-year-olds who might otherwise have
started their school years behind their peers to build the foundation they need to succeed when they enter kindergarten.
Bright Beginnings has a child-centered curriculum with a strong language and early literacy focus. It features support services
provided by child development, health and mental health, and literacy specialists, as well as active parent/family
involvement. Bright Beginnings classrooms in area childcare programs are funded by More at Four and Smart Start of
Mecklenburg County.
Center-Based Programs are independently operated or operate in schools, workplaces, individual homes (considered small
centers), churches or synagogues. Most are open on a fixed schedule, eight or more hours per day, Monday through Friday.
Children in centers are usually grouped by age. As they grow, children often move into the next playgroup with a different
caregiver. All centers must meet state regulations for the legal operation of a child care facility.
Child Care Subsidy - Financial assistance for income eligible families to secure North Carolina Division of Child Development
licensed child care while parents/guardians are working, attending school or job training activities.
Exceptional Children’s Programs are public pre-kindergarten programs that assure children with varying abilities have the
opportunity to develop mentally, physically, and emotionally when provided with an appropriate individualized education in
the least restrictive environment with their typically developing peers. The program serves children ages 3, 4, and those 5
year olds not age eligible for kindergarten. Parents have the opportunity to be actively involved in meaningful ways in their
child’s education. (Based on IDEA – P.L. 94-142)
GS 110-106 (Religious-sponsored child care facilities) are child care facilities or summer day camps operated by a church,
synagogue, or school of religious charter. While exempt from licensure, they must file a notice of intent to operate a child
care facility with the state. A religious-sponsored child care facility may choose to seek licensure, but if it does not, it must still
meet state licensing requirements with the following exceptions: staff qualifications, staff training, written activity plans and
developmentally appropriate activity centers.
Head Start and Early Head Start are federally-funded programs that provide free, comprehensive developmental services for
children ages birth to five from low-income eligible families. These programs are child-focused and family centered.
Licensure – Legal permission, granted by the North Carolina Division of Child Development, to operate a child care facility for
more than two children for more than four hours a day. A license is issued according to the rules and regulations set forth by
federal and state laws or local ordinances pertaining to a child’s health, safety and welfare.
Licensed Family Child Care Homes (FCCH) are operated by individuals who provide care in their homes for more than two
children who are not related to them. These programs offer a home-like setting that provide the opportunity for siblings to
stay together. A licensed FCCH may care for up to eight children, with no more than five preschool children in care at any
given time. The caregiver’s own preschool-age children must be included in the number of preschoolers. However, their
school-age children are not counted for licensing purposes. FCCH’s must provide age-appropriate toys and activities,
nutritious meals and snacks and meet basic health and safety standards. All FCCH’s must meet star regulations for the legal
operation of a child care facility.
Legally Exempt Family Child Care Homes are allowed to care for two non-related children in addition to their own without
being licensed by the state.
Montessori Curriculum is an individualized program of education based on the philosophy that children learn through their
own experiences in a carefully prepared, ordered, and responsive environment. Included in the environment are didactic and
sequenced materials geared toward promoting children’s education in four areas: development of the senses, conceptual or
academic development, competence in practical life activities, and character development.
More at Four is a state wide, voluntary program that prepares eligible four-year-old children for school success by providing
them with high quality pre-kindergarten experiences. The curricula used are child-centered, have a literacy and language
focus and include parent participation. More at Four classrooms operate in centers and school settings for six hours per day,
follow the public school calendar and have no more than a one-to-nine staff-to-child ratio.
11
Page 47
June 2005 Report (As of June 30, 2005)
© 2005, Child Care Resources Inc.
Definitions (Cont’d.)
NAA Accreditation - Accreditation standards for programs offering care to school age children. The standards were
developed by the National AfterSchool Association (NAA), a professional support network promoting quality programs for
children and youth in their out-of-school time. NAA accredits programs that meet these quality standards, based on a selfstudy and an NAA Endorser’s ratings of compliance with the standards.
NAFCC Accreditation - Accreditation standards for family child care homes. The National Association for Family Child Care
(NAFCC), a professional organization offering education and support for quality programming in family child care, has
developed a set of standards that define quality for family child care homes. To have a program accredited by NAFCC, the
family child care home provider must complete a self study to rate the degree to which standards are met, submit an
application to NAFCC, and have the ratings validated by an NAFCC Observer.
NAEYC Accreditation - Accreditation standards for early education programs (full day and part day). The National Association
for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) has developed a set of quality standards that programs must meet to receive
accreditation. Receipt of accreditation indicates that an early education program provides a high quality learning
environment for children that exceeds the threshold for quality set by licensing requirements. Programs must complete a self
study, submit an application, and have ratings verified by an NAEYC Validator.
School-Age Child Care refers to programs for children before and/or after school hours and during school holidays and
vacations. Family child care homes, child care centers and schools typically offer this type of care. Programs that operate for
four hours or less per day are license-exempt, but may voluntarily seek state licensure or pursue national accreditation.
Part-Day Preschools operate for four hours or less per day serving children between the ages of 0-5 years. While licenseexempt part-day preschoolers may voluntarily seek licensure and may pursue national accreditation. Typically, part-day
programs operate on the same calendar year as the public school system, serving families where one parent is not employed
full-time. Faith organizations and community-based not-for-profit organizations are the primary sponsors of part-day
programs.
Public Pre-Kindergarten Programs include center-based classrooms for four-year olds that are fully or partially publicly
funded and operate under the direction of state, local, and federal education and human service agencies.
Probationary License may be given if the program has not met the law or rules either on purpose, or on an on-going basis, or
is hazardous to the health and safety of children. The probationary license, and the notice explaining why it was issued, must
be posted in the child care program where it can be easily seen.
Provisional License may be issued if the program has not met the child care rules either on purpose, or it has happened more
than once, or it is dangerous to the health and safety of children. A provisional license is given so that the program has time
to fix the problems. The provisional license, and the notice explaining why it was issued, must be posted in the child care
program where it can be easily seen.
Star Rated License - North Carolina’s new system of licensing child care programs that is based on points a program can
receive in three categories: Program Standards, Staff Education and Compliance History. A program can earn more points
and receive additional stars on its license by achieving the following: provide higher quality environment/program for
children, and; employing staff with additional training, education and/or experience in early education, and; maintaining a
high rate of compliance with the North Carolina State regulations for child care programs.
Summer Day Camps are generally designed for school-age children and operate during the day for less than four months.
They may be offered by child care centers, colleges, recreation sites, faith-based groups, or other sponsoring organizations.
This type of program is exempt from state licensure.
Temporary License is given by the North Carolina Division of Child Development for a period of six months to a new program
or to a previously licensed program (when a change in ownership or location occurs) after which it may apply for a higher
than one star rating.
For more information, call
(704) 376-6697.
12
Page 48
June 2005 Report (As of June 30, 2005)
© 2005, Child Care Resources Inc.
Statistics in this report are based on information gathered from Child Care Resources Inc.’s
comprehensive database of family child care homes, child care centers, part-day preschools,
Head Start programs and public pre-kindergartens.
To ensure accuracy of the data, Child Care Resources Inc. annually surveys all early care and
education programs in the three counties in regard to their programs (licensing, capacity,
curriculum, hours of operation, fees, etc.) The database is also updated weekly based on
licensing information provided by the North Carolina Division of Child Development. Daily
updates are made to reflect changes in status or programming throughout the year. Statistics
regarding population and income, which are gathered from various sources, are the most
current available.
Child Care Resources Inc. publishes and distributes this report semi-annually and maintains
updates on a quarterly basis. For more information regarding this report or about early care and
education or school-age programs in Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, or Union County, contact Child
Care Search at 704-348-2181.
Page 49
Main /Administrative Offices
4601 Park Road, Suite 500
Charlotte, NC 28209
(704) 376-6697
Cabarrus County Office
2353 Concord Lake Road, Suite 160
Concord, NC 28025
(704) 786-1023
Union County Office
105-A Cedar Street
Monroe, NC 28110
(704) 238-8810
email: mailbox@childcareresourcesinc.org
www.childcareresourcesinc.org
© 2005, Child Care Resources Inc.
Page 50