UC Berkeley will bring in management services from a for-profit child care provider to its Early Childhood Education Program at the start of the new year, officials announced Tuesday — a move that has come under fire from parents who use the service.
In a statement released Tuesday, the campus announced that child care provider Bright Horizons Family Solutions will manage policy oversight, staff training and administrative process support for three years beginning in January. The ECEP provides child care services for UC Berkeley students, staff and faculty.
More than 80 parents have signed a letter condemning the decision to bring in a third-party provider, which they characterize as a step toward privatizing the university. The letter also raises concern about a lack of parent involvement in the process and skepticism about the neutrality of choosing Bright Horizons, which was acquired by Bain Capital in 2008.
Bain Capital is a private asset management firm founded in 1984 by partners of the consulting firm Bain & Company. The campus originally hired Bain & Company at the cost of $7.5 million between October 2009 and December 2010 and charged it with finding savings for the campus through Operational Excellence — a controversial campus program that aims to improve administrative efficiency. Hiring Bain & Company sparked a campuswide debate about the role of outside consulting agencies in internal operations.
While the two have the same roots, Bain Capital and Bain & Company are distinct companies and do not share ownership, governance or employees.
Introducing the private child care provider is a temporary solution to aid the ECEP’s current management structure until a long-term strategy can be devised, according to the Tuesday statement. Teachers and student assistants involved with the program will retain their jobs and remain employed by the campus, though Bright Horizons will bring in its own management team to replace the current ECEP director, three program managers and one administrative supervisor.
In the letter, which was sent Monday to Associate Vice Provost for the Faculty Angelica Stacy and Associate Vice Chancellor of Residential and Student Services LeNorman Strong, parents expressed concern that the campus did not consult them or teachers in its decision and said the issue had not been brought up at recent meetings of the parent advisory board, a group of volunteer parent representatives from each ECEP center that makes recommendations to the ECEP Director.
“(The administration) should have ensured that there was enough transparency,” said Lisa Garcia Bedolla, an associate professor in the campus Graduate School of Education, who has a child enrolled in ECEP. “We don’t have an official say, but (the PAC) is supposed to be the place where they tell us what they are concerned about. And that structure was not used at all.”
The letter also points out that in its consulting report on Operational Excellence, Bain & Company suggested that the campus use an outside service provider for child care.
While Bain’s April 2010 report did suggest that the campus could use an outside provider to cut costs, the campus did not implement the suggestion at the time. Cornell University and North Carolina State, two of the three universities cited by Bain in its report as examples of institutions with outside child care services, use Bright Horizons as their service provider.
“It makes us feel worse,” Bedolla said. “It feels like a conflict of interest … and this makes it more suspicious and more in need of examination.”
However, according to Marty Takimoto, director of communications and marketing for Residential and Student Service Programs, many child care providers were considered, and the choice to go with Bright Horizons had nothing to do with Bain & Company’s previous consulting relationship with the campus.
“Some of the people were saying that child care was being outsourced, but we are only contracting with Bright Horizons to get through this short-term assessment and oversight of this system,” Takimoto said. “We went through a six- to nine-month process of looking at what options were available for getting accomplished what we needed to get accomplished.”
During the summer of 2011, the campus partnered with Bright Horizons Family Solutions to offer backup care — temporary in-home or in-center care for children and adults when primary caregivers cannot offer care — to its faculty members under the Back-Up Care Advantage Program.
Still, Bedolla said she remains wary of the way the new management has the potential to change the child care program.
“If we wanted that type of teaching philosophy, we would use their centers,” Bedolla said. “We would lose this great approach to teaching that Berkeley created.”
Contact Megan Messerly at [email protected].
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.

UC management of the centers hasn’t been a success. There have been dozens of serious incidents over the past year. Two of my kid’s friends have been injured, one badly enough that paramedics were called. It would be good to get somebody professional and competent managing the place.
We remember how challenging it was to leave our small child with strangers, it’s never easy no matter how good the reason. Certainly some members of the UC Berkeley administration are parents, can’t they empathize how parents would feel about this kind of change? They say it’s only temporary and the same teachers will be used, but every person/parent knows that a different company means a different philosophy. And particularly a company owned and operated by a private asset management firm like Bain Capital which has a history of looking at the bottom line first and people second. Daily Cal did a great job, thank you for bringing attention to the UC Berkeley child care dilemma.
Berkeley, read this article:
http://www.cornellsun.com/section/opinion/content/2010/11/16/our-kids-are-not-sale
The Cornell experience with Bain/Bright Horizons has been deeply problematic.
ECEP receives money from student fees. If they are privatizing this service, they should not continue giving student fee money to the for-profit provider.
The Bright Horizons control over Cornell University’s child care center has apparently been a failure and they are ending the relationship. http://cornellsun.com/node/43537
It is essential that the terms of the contract be fully disclosed. For an outfit that delivers such mediocre child care, it is stunning that so few companies and universities ever fire Bright Horizons. It makes one think that there is something written into the contract that makes it very difficult to leave, even if everyone agrees that that is a the best thing to do for the children. If Berkeley is going to sign the contract, then the contract should be fully public so that everyone can see both the scale of the payment to the for-profit entity AND any restrictions that make exiting the contract difficult if the child care provided proves to be not better than satisfactory.
u.c. berkeley.inc.
Nothing scares whiny little progressives like the marketplace.
Yes. A marketplace that can only be truly won by those who already have amassed huge amounts of wealth. No one argues with a free market, as long as it REMAINS free (which free markets by design do not).
Tell me more about your economic theories, leftie scumbag imposter.
Wow, that’s a real winning argument, Current Student.
Profiting off of two-year-olds’ existence just seems wrong, lol.
Why? Just because dimwits like you say so?
I think that it’s wrong because the same service can, and has been, provided non-profit. Now private interests will be scraping money off the top: money that could have been used to help two-year-old’s. In the same way, you wouldn’t think that a for-profit charity was particularly moral.
I think I’m saying that it’s like stealing from a baby?
Of course, you assume the non-profit was being run well instead of spending money on things that didn’t help the children, which resulted in the non-profit situation.
You obviously don’t understand the difference. A non-profit makes no profit by design, thus spending any extra money made back within the organization. A for-profit that makes no profit doesn’t have the money to do this. Often they’ll just cut services in order to garner the shareholders the slice they claim they “deserve”.
Where did you get your economic education…China?
LOL! You really should save the heavy insults for areas you have some knowledge about. Do some more research into non-profits. You seem to have the mistaken idea that they are all run really well. The truth is that many non-profits are not run well, because (1) they can’t attract the best talent (2) they often don’t reach the reach a size that allows for economies of scale and (3) they spend too much money trying to raise funds, so a large portion of their costs go into fundraising instead of their programs.
You got it!