[Background Material and Data on Programs within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means (Green Book)]
[Program Descriptions]
[Section 9. Child Care]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
SECTION 9 - CHILD CARE
CONTENTS
Introduction
Employment and Marital Status of Mothers
Child Care Arrangements Used by Working Mothers
Child Care Costs
Supply and Characteristics of Child Care Providers
Supply of Providers
Wages of Child Care Center Staff
Staff Turnover
Child Care Standards and Quality
Regulation and Licensing
Research on Child Care Quality
The Federal Role
Background and Overview
Major Child Care Programs
Child Care and Development Block Grant
Child Care Tables
Child Care and Development Fund
Families and Children Served, Type of Care, and Payment Type
State Income Eligibility Limits
Trends in Child Care Expenditures
State CCDF Allocations
References
INTRODUCTION
Child care is an issue of significant public interest for
several reasons. The dramatic increase in the labor force participation
of mothers is the most important factor affecting the demand for child
care in the last quarter century. Currently, in a majority of American
families with children--even those with very young children--the mother
is in the paid labor force. Similarly, an increasingly significant
trend affecting the demand for child care is the proportion of mothers
who are the sole or primary financial supporters of their children,
either because of divorce or because they never married. In addition,
child care continues to be a significant issue in debates over how to
move welfare recipients toward employment and self-sufficiency;
mothers on welfare can have difficulty entering the labor force
because of child care problems. Finally, the impact of child care on
the children themselves is an issue of considerable interest, with
ongoing discussion of whether children benefit from participation in
programs with an early childhood development focus.
Concerns that child care may be in short supply, not of good
enough quality, or too expensive for many families escalated during the
late 1980s into a national debate over the nature and extent of the
Nation's child care problems and what, if any, Federal interventions
would be appropriate. The debate culminated in the enactment of
legislation in 1990 that expanded Federal support for child care by
establishing two new child care grant programs to States. The
programs--the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) and the
At-Risk Child Care Program--were enacted as part of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508). These programs
were preceded by enactment of a major welfare reform initiative, the
Family Support Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-485), which authorized
expanded child care assistance for welfare families and families
leaving welfare. In 1996, as part of welfare reform legislation (the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act,
Public Law 104-193), these programs were consolidated into an expanded
Child Care and Development Block Grant (sometimes referred to as the
Child Care and Development Fund), which provides increased Federal
funding and serves both low-income working families and families
attempting to transition off welfare through work.
This chapter provides background information on the major
indicators of the demand for and supply of child care, the role of
standards and quality in child care, a summary description of the
major Federal programs that fund child care services, and reported
data from the largest of those sources of dedicated funding, the Child
Care and Development Fund (CCDF).
EMPLOYMENT AND MARITAL STATUS OF MOTHERS
The dramatic increase in the labor force participation of
mothers is commonly regarded as the most significant factor fueling
the increased demand for child care services. A person is defined as
participating in the labor force if she is working or seeking work.
As shown in Table 9-1, in 1947, just following World War II, slightly
over one-fourth of all mothers with children between the ages of 6 and
17 were in the labor force. By contrast, in 2002 over three-quarters
of such mothers were labor force participants. The increased labor
force participation of mothers with younger children also has been
dramatic. In 1947, it was unusual to find mothers with a preschool-age
child in the labor force--only 12 percent of mothers with children
under the age of 6 were in the labor force. But in 2002, over
64 percent of mothers with preschool-age children were in the labor
force, a rate more than 5 times higher than in 1947. Women with
infant children have become increasingly engaged in the labor market
as well. Today, 60 percent of all mothers whose youngest child is
under age 2 are in the labor market, while in 1975 approximately one-
third of all such mothers were labor force participants.
The rise in the number of female-headed families also has
contributed to increased demand for child care services. Single
mothers maintain a greater share of all families with children today
than in the past. Census data show that in 1970, 11 percent of families
with children were headed by a single mother, compared with 24 percent
of families with children in 2003. While the number of two-parent
families with children increased only slightly between 1970 and 2003
(25.8 and 27.1 million, respectively), the number of female-headed
families with children almost tripled, increasing from 3.4 million
families in 1970 to 9.9 million in 2003. These families headed by
mothers were a major source of growth in the demand for child care.
Mothers' attachment to the labor force differs depending on
the age of their youngest child and marital status, as Tables 9-2
and 9-3 show. Table 9-2 exhibits the labor force participation rates
of various demographic groups of mothers with a youngest child over
or under age 6. The table provides evidence of the increasing rate
of working mothers, especially working mothers with preschool
children.
TABLE 9-1--LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES OF WOMEN, BY PRESENCE AND
AGE OF YOUNGEST CHILD, SELECTED YEARS, 1947-2002
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TABLE 9-2--LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES OF WOMEN WITH CHILDREN, BY
MARITAL STATUS AND AGE OF YOUNGEST CHILD, SELECTED YEARS, 1970-2002
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Table 9-3 provides a detailed breakdown of the labor force
participation of women for March 2002 by marital status and the age
of the youngest child. Among those with children under 18, divorced
women have the highest labor force participation rate (86 percent),
followed by separated women (80 percent). The labor force
participation rate for never-married mothers with children under 18
grew to over 75 percent in 2002, a 24 percent increase over the 1996
rate. In 1996, never-married mothers trailed all other marital status
groups (with children under 18) in labor force participation, but by
1999 the participation rate for never-married mothers surpassed
married women (70 percent) and widowed mothers (63 percent). In 2002,
the rates for all three groups remained relatively stable.
TABLE 9-3--LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES OF WOMEN WITH CHILDREN
UNDER 18, BY MARITAL STATUS AND AGE OF YOUNGEST CHILD, MARCH 2002
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
As Table 9-3 illustrates, labor force participation rates tend
to increase regardless of the marital status of the mother as the age
of the youngest child increases, at least up to the child's teenage
years. Among all women with children under 18, 61 percent of those
with a child under 3 participate, 69 percent of those whose youngest
child is between 3 and 5 participate, and 81 percent of those whose
youngest child is between 14 and 17 participate.
In 2002, 72 percent of mothers participated in the labor
force. Among these mothers, Table 9-4 shows 50 percent worked full
time and 18 percent worked part time (less than 35 hours per week).
Forty-one percent of mothers with children under age 6 worked full
time, and 18 percent worked part time.
Table 9-4 reveals that how much mothers' work differs
according to their marital status and the age of their children.
It also indicates that changes have occurred between 1996 and 2002.
The 1996 welfare reform law's new emphasis on work is likely to have
affected the employment status of the never-married mother subgroup
most significantly, and that is reflected in the table. Overall,
the percent of all mothers (with children under 18) employed full
time grew from 48 percent in 1996 to 50 percent in 2002. Within the
subgroup of never-married mothers, the 3 year period was accompanied
by a much larger increase in full-time employment. In 1996, 36 percent
of never-married mothers with children under 18 were employed full
time. By 2002, the figure had increased to 51 percent. The percent
of never-married mothers working full time with children under
age 6 had grown comparably, increasing from 29 percent in 1996
to 45 percent in 2002. Within the divorced mothers subgroup, there
were increases between the years, but the differences are not nearly
as large as within the never-married subgroup. In 2002, the percent
of all divorced mothers employed full time with children under 18
remained almost 69 percent, steady since 1999, and a 2 percentage point
increase since 1996; for those with children under 6, 61 percent
worked full time in 2002. The employment status of married mothers
remained generally stable or declined slightly since 1996, depending
on full- or part-time status, and age of children.
TABLE 9-4--PERCENT OF MOTHERS BY FULL1- OR PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT
STATUS, MARCH 1996 AND 2002
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS USED BY WORKING MOTHERS
Data on the types of child care arrangements used by families
with working mothers are collected periodically by the U.S. Census
Bureau. The most recent U.S. Census Bureau statistics available on
child care arrangements are based on data collected by the Survey of
Income and Program Participation (SIPP) for April-July 1999. Because
the interview questions obtain information about both paid and unpaid
substitute care used while the mother works, it provides information on
categories of care that generally are not considered child care, such
as care provided by the father, or care by a sibling.
The 1999 data indicate that the types of child care
arrangements used by families while the mother works vary depending
on the age of the child, as well as the mother's work schedule (full-
or part-time), marital status, and family income. Table 9-5 shows the
distribution of primary child care arrangements provided for
preschoolers (children under age 5), by marital status and mother's
work schedule. In the 1999 SIPP survey, parents were asked to estimate
the number of hours a child spends in any of several care arrangements
during a week, rather than to identify the child's "primary" care
arrangement while the mother worked. In Tables 9-5 and 9-6, the
primary child care arrangement is based on the arrangement in which a
child spends the most hours in a typical week. In the case of a child
who spends equal time between arrangements, the child would have more
than one primary arrangement.
Table 9-5 shows that about one third (34 percent) of families
of preschoolers with working mothers in 1999 primarily relied on care
in another home by a relative, family day care provider, or other
nonrelative, compared to almost one quarter (24 percent) of families
whose primary arrangement was an organized child care facility. These
data resemble the 1995 survey results, but mark a change from the
fall 1994 survey results, which revealed that over 30 percent of
families used organized child care as their primary arrangement.
However, some of the decline in the use of organized child care
facilities and increase in care out of another's home may have
reflected a change in the 1995 survey, which more clearly defined
care types, by asking specifically about family day care providers
(providers caring for more than one child outside the child's home),
as distinct from organized group day care. Relative care, either in
the child's home or the relative's home, was used by almost 30 percent
of families of preschool children with employed mothers. Over one-
fifth of families with young children did not rely on others for help
with child care arrangements while the mother worked, but instead
used parental care (21 percent), especially care by fathers (almost
18 percent). Less than 4 percent of families relied on care provided
in the child's home by a nonrelative.
Preschool children of part-time employed mothers were much
more likely to be cared for by a parent (32 percent), than by an
organized child care facility (18 percent), and also more likely to
be cared for by a relative, family provider, or nonrelative in another
home (28 percent). Mothers employed full time were most likely to
use organized day care centers (21 percent), a grandparent
(13 percent), or family day care provider (13 percent) than any other
form of care.
Table 9-6 shows the types of afterschool arrangements used in
1999 for school-age children by working mothers, as well as cases in
which there were no arrangements specified. In 1999, 27 percent of
children age 5-14 were being cared for after school in the child's
home, whereas in 1995 this figure was almost 20 percent. Of those
children age 5-14 with employed mothers in 1999, 13 percent were
cared for by a sibling (4 percent by a sibling under age 15).
Afterschool care by fathers continues to increase. In 1999,
23 percent of children were primarily cared for by fathers during
afterschool time, compared to 21 percent in 1995, and 11 percent
in 1993. Children reported to be in self-care or to be unsupervised
by an adult for some time while their mothers
TABLE 9-5--PRIMARY CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS OF CHILDREN UNDER 5, 1999
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
were working represented 18 percent of the children. It is not known if
the children in the "no arrangement specified " category were
unsupervised, or if other factors may account for their not being
reported in a child care arrangement, such as travel time from school.
Table 9-7 shows the types of child care arrangements used in
1999 for children under 5 by the economic well-being of the family. The
19 percent of poor children being cared for in the child's home by a
relative or nonrelative in 1999 represents a marked increase from
9 percent reported in 1995. The percent of nonpoor children in this
category remained unchanged at roughly 15 percent. Nonpoor children in
1999 were slightly more likely than poor children to be cared for in
another home. Poor families were slightly more likely than nonpoor
families to not specify any regular arrangement.
TABLE 9-6-- CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS USED BY EMPLOYED MOTHERS FOR
CHILDREN 5-14, SPRING 1999
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TABLE 9-7--PRIMARY CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS USED BY EMPLOYED MOTHERS
FOR CHILDREN UNDER 5, BY POVERTY STATUS OF THE MOTHER, SPRING 1999
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Table 9-8 shows the primary arrangements used by working
mothers for their preschool-aged children from for selected years from
1977 through 1999. In general, the table does not show dramatic
changes in the arrangements used during this time period. However,
there is a noteworthy rise in the share of children of single mothers
who were cared for by fathers, from 1 percent in 1977 to more than
10 percent in 1999.
TABLE 9-8--PERCENT OF CHILDREN UNDER 5 IN SELECTED CHILD CARE
ARRANGEMENTS, SELECTED YEARS 1977-99
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In addition to data available from the U.S. Census Bureau,
data from the 1999 National Survey of America's Families (NSAF),
collected by the Urban Institute, can be used to examine primary child
care arrangements used by children under 5 with employed mothers
nationally, and across 12 individual States. Table 9-9 shows that
nationwide, 39 percent of preschool children with employed mothers in
1999 were in care for 35 or more hours per week (Urban Institute,
2002). Almost one-quarter were in care for 15-34 hours per week,
15 percent for 1-14 hours per week, and 22 percent spent no hours in
nonparental child care.
For preschool children with mothers employed full time, the
number of children in full-time care (35 or more hours) increases to
48 percent. Children ages 3 and 4 were slightly more likely to be in
full-time care than younger preschoolers (45 percent versus
36 percent). Children in higher-income families were almost equally
as likely to spend 35 or more hours a week in child care as lower-
income children (40 percent versus 38 percent), although higher-
income children are more likely than lower-income children to be in
part-time care (41 percent versus 34 percent). Twenty-seven percent of
low-income children are reported to spend no hours in nonparental care,
compared to 19 percent of higher-income children.
TABLE 9-9--PERCENT OF CHILDREN UNDER FIVE WITH EMPLOYED MOTHERS IN
DIFFERENT HOURS OF NONPARENTAL CARE, BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS, 1999
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
According to the 1999 NSAF (Table 9-10), 28 percent of
preschool children use center-based child care as their primary
arrangement, while half that number (14 percent) are in family child
care (Urban Institute, 2002). About 4 percent are primarily cared for
in the child's home by a babysitter or nanny. More than a quarter
(27 percent) of children under 5 are cared for primarily by a
relative, either inside or outside the child's home, which is the
same share of children in the care of a parent. The analysis of
individual States revealed that there is considerable State variation
in the use of specific primary child care arrangements.
The Urban Institute's analysis also examined how child care
arrangements vary according to both age of child and family income.
The survey data indicate that nationally infants and toddlers are more
likely to be cared for by relatives (30 percent) and parents (33
percent) than to be in center-based care (18 percent) or family child
care (15 percent). As preschoolers grow older (age 3 and 4), use of
relative and parent care decreases (23 and 19 percent respectively),
and center-based care becomes the most commonly used primary
arrangement (42 percent). Use of family child care remains relatively
steady at 12 percent for 3- and 4-year-olds.
TABLE 9-10--PRIMARY CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS FOR CHILDREN UNDER FIVE
WITH EMPLOYED MOTHERS, BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS, 1999
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
At the national level, children under age 5 in families below
200 percent of poverty are less likely than higher-income children to
use center-based care as a primary arrangement (23 percent versus 30
percent). Relative care and parent care are used most frequently by
lower-income families (29 and 33 percent respectively), and more often
than by higher-income families, of which 26 percent use relative care
and 24 percent parent care. Lower- and higher-income families are
almost equally likely to use family child care as their primary
arrangement (12 and 15 percent respectively).
In addition to looking at the primary child care arrangements
for children under 5, Urban Institute researchers used the 1999 NSAF
to examine the number of nonparental arrangements used to care for a
child, and the hours that are spent in each type of arrangement. As
shown in Table 9-11, nationally, 40 percent of such children under
5 combine more than one child care arrangement each week (Urban
Institute, 2002). Of those, 9 percent combine three or more
arrangements. The remaining 60 percent have only one child care
arrangement. Children under age 3 are less likely to have multiple
child care arrangements than 3- and 4-year-olds (34 percent versus
47 percent). Children aged 3 and 4 are more than twice as likely to
be in three or more care arrangements. Of the children in multiple
arrangements, most use a combination of formal and informal care,
regardless of age or income. Children from lower- and higher-
income families are almost equally likely to be in multiple child
care arrangements (41 and 39 percent respectively). As seen with
primary arrangements, there is considerable State variation in the
use of multiple arrangements.
TABLE 9-11--NUMBER OF NONPARENTAL CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS USED
BY CHILDREN UNDER FIVE WITH EMPLOYED MOTHERS, BY SELECTED
CHARACTERISTICS, 1999
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
CHILD CARE COSTS
Research studies have found that the majority of families
with working mothers and preschool children purchase child care
services. The tendency to purchase care and the amount spent on care,
both in absolute terms and as a percent of family income, generally
varies by the type of child care used, family type (married or single
mothers), and the family's economic status.
The most recent data on child care expenditures by families
are from the Survey of Income and Program Participation for the
spring of 1999. These data show that 54 percent of families with
employed mothers paid for child care for their preschool-aged
children. And, as shown in Table 9-12, families with higher incomes
were more likely to purchase care than families with lower incomes.
For example, 63 percent of families with monthly incomes of $4,500
or more purchased child care in the spring of 1999, while only
42 percent of families with monthly incomes of less than $1,200
purchased care.
The median weekly cost per family for all preschool-aged
children was $69 in 1999 for those families that purchased care
(Table 9-12). Married-couple families in which a husband is present
devoted a smaller percentage of their income to child care
(6 percent) than single-parent families (including married, without
a present spouse) (12 percent), but their child care expenditures were
nonetheless greater ($75 per week) than those of single-parent
families (about $60 per week).
Table 9-12 also shows that, while poor families spend fewer
dollars for child care than higher income families, they spend a much
greater percentage of their family income for child care. Thus, poor
families spent only $55 per week, but this amount represented almost
29 percent of their income. By contrast, half of nonpoor families
spent at least $70 per week on care, but this amount was only about
7 percent of their income. A Spring 2000 survey of the cost of child
care for a 4-year-old in urban child care centers across the country,
conducted by the Children's Defense Fund (Schulman, 2000) found that
in every State, the average child care tuition exceeds $3,300 per
child, and is over $5,000 per child in 20 States (with 11 States
over $6,000).
TABLE 9-12--USE OF PAID CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS FOR CHILDREN UNDER
AGE 5 AMONG FAMILIES WITH WORKING MOTHERS, MEDIAN WEEKLY CHILD CARE
EXPENDITURES, AND PERCENT OF FAMILY INCOME SPENT ON CARE, BY POVERTY
STATUS AND FAMILY INCOME, SPRING 1999
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
SUPPLY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILD CARE PROVIDERS
SUPPLY OF PROVIDERS
The variety of child care arrangements used by families has
been discussed above. However, the studies of arrangements do not
include estimates of the number of available providers. A
comprehensive study of licensed centers, early education programs,
center-based programs exempt from State or local licensing (such as
programs sponsored by religious organizations or schools), and
licensed family day care providers has not been conducted since the
U.S. Department of Education's Profile of Child Care Settings Study
was released in 1991. That study reported that approximately 80,000
center-based early education and care programs were providing services
in the United States at the beginning of 1990 (Kisker, Hofferth,
Phillips, & Farquhar, 1991).
A less extensive, but more recent study, focusing only on
regulated child care centers, was released by the Children's
Foundation in February 2002. The study reported that the number of
regulated child care centers in the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands totals 113,298
(Children's Foundation, 2002). This is a 2 percent increase from the
Foundation's 2001 study total, and nearly a 24 percent increase from
the total published by the Children's Foundation's first study of
centers in 1991. The 2002 study notes that the definition of regulated
child care center varies by State or territory. In 29 States, the
number of regulated child care centers includes nursery schools,
preschools, prekindergartens and religiously affiliated centers.
In the remaining States and territories, the definition is less
inclusive. For example, some States exclude nursery schools or
religiously affiliated centers in their count.
The Children's Foundation also conducts studies on family
child care providers (as opposed to centers). Their 2000 report
indicates that there are 304,958 regulated family child care homes,
of which 266,798 are family day care homes (caring for up to 6
children) and 38,160 are large group child care homes (in which
providers generally care for 7-12 children). It is assumed by child
care researchers that the number of unregulated family day care
providers far exceeds the number of regulated family providers, though
it is difficult to determine by how much. At the time of the
aforementioned Profile of Child Care Settings Study of 1991, the
number of regulated family day care homes represented an estimated
10-18 percent of the total number of family day care providers.
The U.S. Census Bureau also collects data on the number of
child care businesses in the United States. For a historical look at
child care businesses in the early 1990s, a 1998 report used Census
of Service Industries (CSI) data to provide information on the number
and characteristics of child care businesses in 1992 (Casper &
O'Connell, 1998). "Child care businesses" are defined as organized
establishments engaged primarily in the care of infants or children,
or providing prekindergarten education, where medical care or
delinquency correction is not a major component. Not included in this
definition are babysitting services or Head Start Programs that are
coordinated with elementary schools. Based on the Census of Service
Industries data, the number of incorporated child care centers grew
from 51,000 in 1992 to 62,054 in 1997.
WAGES OF CHILD CARE CENTER STAFF
No single data source provides comprehensive information on
wages of child care workers. However, occupational data collected by
the Department of Labor, when complemented by survey information
gathered by organizations interested in child care issues, begin to
paint a picture of the status of child care wages in the United
States.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) collects wage data for
764 occupations, as surveyed by the Occupational Employment
Statistics (OES) Program. However, readers should be aware that the
occupational categories create a misleading division in the child
care work force. Center-based child care staff are described by the
OES survey as either "preschool teacher" or "child care worker,"
distinguishing the former as an individual who instructs children up
to age 5 in developmental activities within a day care center, child
development facility, or preschool, and the latter as a person who
performs tasks such as dressing, feeding, bathing, and overseeing play
of children. This division of tasks does not necessarily occur in
actual child care settings, and therefore the survey's occupational
group assignments, and wage distinctions made between those groups,
should be interpreted with some caution. Nevertheless, the OES survey
provides a general sense of wages within the child care field. Based
on BLS data and OES survey results from 2000, the median hourly wage
of a center-based "child care worker" was $7.43, and for a "preschool
teacher," $8.56. The average, or mean wages, for center-based "child
care workers" and "preschool teachers" in 2000 were slightly higher,
at $7.86 and $9.66 respectively.
Table 9-13 shows the average wages for childcare workers and
preschool teachers by State in 2000, based on State Occupational
Employment and Wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
TABLE 9-13--AVERAGE WAGES FOR CHILD CARE WORKERS AND PRESCHOOL
TEACHERS, 2000
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STAFF TURNOVER
Like many low-wage industries, turnover among the child care
work force has been historically high. The National Child Care
Staffing Study (NCCSS), most recently updated in 1997, has tracked
worker turnover and stability beginning with its initial study in
1988. In 1988, center directors in the sample reported a 41 percent
average rate of annual turnover of teaching staff. In 1992, they
reported average annual turnover of 26 percent for the year prior to
the survey interview. By 1997, the rate had risen to 31 percent for
all teaching staff, and one-fifth of centers reported losing half or
more of their teaching staff in the previous year. The 10 percentage
point decrease in turnover rates between 1988 and 1997 should be
analyzed with caution, however, as the sample size of the NCCSS study
dropped from 227 to 158. According to the study directors, a
disproportionate number of the centers reporting the highest turnover
in 1988 had closed by the time of the 1997 survey, leaving a sample
of centers with potentially lower than average turnover rates for
their areas. The issue of stability among centers themselves is not
specifically addressed in the NCCSS study, however its authors do
mention increasing reports of centers closing due to an insufficient
supply of trained teachers. Better job opportunities and higher wages
in other fields have been identified as recent major causes of
turnover. Ninety-three percent of directors reported taking more than
2 weeks to find replacements for departing teaching staff and over
one-third (37 percent) reported taking over a month to do so. The
effect of staff turnover on children is one of several topics that
continue to receive attention during discussions of how to measure
child care quality.
CHILD CARE STANDARDS AND QUALITY
REGULATION AND LICENSING
Regulation and licensing of child care providers is conducted
primarily at the State and local levels, although the extent to which
the Federal Government should play a role in this area has been a
topic of debate for many years (see below). Licensing and regulation
serves as a means of defining and enforcing minimum requirements for
the legal operation of child care environments in which children will
be safe from harm. There is no uniform way in which States and/or
territories regulate child care centers, preschools, nursery schools,
prekindergartens, and/or religiously affiliated child care centers.
All States and territories do, however, require these center-based
types of care (as opposed to family child care providers) to be
regulated through licensing or registration. In the case of family
day care providers, most States exempt certain providers--typically
those serving smaller numbers of children from licensing or
regulation. As mentioned in the earlier discussion of child care
supply, the Children's Foundation survey found that there were 304,958
regulated family child care providers in the States and territories
in 2000. If estimates from the 1990 child care settings study are
applied, this number may represent only 10-18 percent of all family
child care providers, with the remaining facilities being unregulated.
The count of centers that are regulated (meaning licensed or
certified) totals 113,298 according to the Children's Foundation
2002 study.
Table 9-14 presents information on State licensing standards
for child care centers, as collected by the Children's Foundation
(2002). The table shows the number of States for which a select
requirement or standard for child care centers applies, and in turn,
how licensing standards vary across States. Note that all State
variations in policy are not reflected in the table, and therefore
totals by category will vary. Licensing standards are just one area
that researchers continue to focus on when examining child care
quality to determine whether higher licensing standards are associated
with higher quality child care and better child outcomes.
TABLE 9-14--NUMBER OF STATES WITH SELECTED CHILD CARE LICENSING
REQUIREMENTS FOR REGULATED CHILD CARE CENTERS, 2002
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RESEARCH ON CHILD CARE QUALITY
As women's labor force participation has grown over the past
several decades, concerns about child care quality have increased.
Highly publicized research on early brain development in infants and
young children (under age 3) has drawn attention to what role child
care may play in children's cognitive and social development. The
relationship between quality of child care and outcomes for children
is of increasing interest to parents, researchers, and policymakers.
A growing body of research examines questions such as how to define
the elements that correspond to quality child care, how to measure
those elements, and ultimately, their effects on children both in the
short- and long-term.
One comprehensive longitudinal study of connections between
child care and early childhood development is part of an ongoing
project conducted by a team of researchers supported by the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD, 1999 and
2002), of the National Institutes of Health. The broad goal of the
NICHD study, started in 1991, is to collect data on an ongoing basis
from a sample of children and their families (located in 10 areas
across the United States) to answer a range of questions about the
relationship between child care characteristics and experiences,
and children's developmental outcomes. The children and families in
the study's sample vary in socioeconomic background, race, family
structure, and type of child care used. The study design takes into
account characteristics of the family and its environment to gain a
more complete picture of the contribution that child care
characteristics and experiences themselves make to children's
development, above and beyond the contribution of the family
environment. Even so, not all characteristics are observed, and
completely disentangling all of the characteristics (both of the
parents and the child) is difficult, if not impossible, in such a
study. Children in the study are not randomly assigned to child care
settings of varying degrees of quality, but are instead placed in
settings of their parents' selection. The selection of care in and
of itself may reflect contributing variables--characteristics of the
parents, children, and environment--that are not fully observed in
the study. Likewise, a child's developmental outcomes in a particular
setting may reflect the child's characteristics as much as the
setting's quality. Although the NICHD study attempts to distinguish
among some of these factors, the ability to interpret the results is
somewhat constrained by selection bias.
In general, family characteristics and the quality of the
mother's relationship with her child were shown to be stronger
predictors of the child's development than were the characteristics
of child care in the NICHD study. Family characteristics such as
income and mother's education were strong predictors of children's
outcomes, for both children cared for solely by their mothers and
children in extensive nonparental child care. The study did find a
modest but consistent association between quality of nonparental
child care over the first 3 - 4� years of life and children's
cognitive and language development, regardless of family background.
In this case, quality child care was defined as positive care giving
and language stimulation; i.e., how often providers spoke to
children, asked questions, and responded to children's questions.
The NICHD researchers also analyzed to varying degrees the
more structural elements of child care in centers--elements that are
generally regulated to varying degrees by the States (see Table 9-14),
such as child-staff ratio, group size, and teacher training and
education. The researchers used recommended guidelines developed
jointly by the American Public Health Association and the American
Academy of Pediatrics to evaluate the degree to which standards were
being met by centers used by families in the study. Twelve percent of
the study's children were enrolled in child care centers at 6 months,
and 38 percent at age 3. Findings indicate that the children in the
centers that met some or all of the guidelines had better language
comprehension and school readiness than the children who were in
centers that did not meet the guidelines. There were also fewer
behavioral problems for children age 2 and 3 in the centers that met
the guidelines.
The researchers have continued to follow the children in the
sample, assessing the children at 54 months (4� years) of age, with
further plans to do so again in first grade. Like other studies that
examine the relationship between child care and developmental
outcomes, the NICHD research aims to determine not just whether there
are concurrent and short-term effects of child care on children's
development, but long-term effects as well. According to the NICHD
study, results from a 2002 analysis indicate that "early child care
is associated with both developmental risks and developmental
benefits for children's functioning prior to school entry, even after
controlling for a host of factors including gender, ethnicity, family
socioeconomic status, maternal psychological adjustment, and parenting
quality. The risk is that more hours in child care across the first
4 � years of life is related to elevated levels of problem behavior at
4 � years. The developmental benefit is that higher-quality child
care, quality that improves over time, and more experience in centers
predicts better performance on measures of cognitive and linguistic
functioning."(NICHD, 2002)
A 2003 article on the NICHD study findings indicates that the
more time children spent in child care between birth and age 4 �, the
more adults had a tendency to rate them (both at age 4 � and at
kindergarten) as less likely to get along with others, as more
assertive, as disobedient, and as aggressive. However, the
researchers noted that for the vast majority of children, the levels
of the behaviors reported were well within the normal range. The
researchers also did not find a threshold of child care hours above
which the aforementioned problem behaviors were more likely to occur.
(NICHD, 2003)
The NICHD study has not focused specifically on distinctions
between the quality of care offered by family child care providers or
relatives and that of center-based care. The most recent indepth
observational study of quality of family child care and relative care
was published in 1994 by the Families and Work Institute. The study
examined the care offered by 226 providers in 3 different communities
in California, Texas, and North Carolina (Galinsky et al., 1994).
Nonregulated family care providers may be nonregulated because
they care for few enough children to be exempt from State regulation
requirements, or, as the 1994 study found in their sample, 81 percent
of the 54 nonregulated providers were illegally nonregulated, due to
the fact that they were actually providing care for a number of
children over their State's limit. The quality of all types of family
and relative care was determined according to measurements such as
the setting's safety and the sensitivity and responsiveness of
providers to the children. The study found that only 9 percent of the
homes in the study sample were rated as good quality, 56 percent were
rated as adequate, and 35 percent rated as inadequate. The researchers
found that quality appeared to be higher when providers were trained
and when they were caring for three to six children rather than one
or two. As important, if not more so, in determining quality was
whether the provider was committed to taking care of children, and
had a sense that their work was important; participated in family
child care training; thought ahead about the children's activities;
was regulated; and followed standard business and safety practices.
In the case of relative care, an important factor in the quality of
the child's experience was whether the relative caring for the
children did so out of desire, necessity, or both.
The Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes (1995, 1999) in Child
Care Centers study conducted by researchers from four universities
beginning in 1993, analyzes the influence of "typical" center-based
child care on children's development during their preschool years and
into elementary school. The ``typical'' centers were represented by a
random sample of 401 full-day child care centers, half of them for-
profit, half nonprofit, in regions of 4 States: California, Colorado,
Connecticut, and North Carolina. Data on the quality and cost of
services were collected, as well as data on the developmental
progress of a sample of children in the selected centers.
Findings from the first phase of the study were released in
1995, and indicated that the quality of child care offered in over
three-quarters of these "typical" centers in the United States did
not meet "high standards" according to the Early Childhood Environment
Rating Scale, which ranges from 1 ("low quality") to 7 ("high
quality"). Eleven percent of centers in the sample scored below 3
("minimally acceptable"). The researchers found that the quality of
child care is primarily related to higher staff-to-child ratios,
staff education, and administrators' previous experience. Teacher
wages and education were also generally higher in higher quality
centers. Like the NICHD study, the study also found that centers
meeting higher licensing standards provided higher quality care.
In addition to examining the status of quality in the centers,
the researchers wanted to determine what effects, if any, the quality
of care had on children's development. The study's initial findings
in 1995 indicated that children's cognitive and social development
are positively related to the quality of their child care experience.
This proved to be the case even after taking into account factors
related to family background and associated with children's
development (such as maternal education); the children in the low-
quality care still scored lower on measures of cognitive and social
development.
The findings from the second phase of the study, released
in 1999, indicate that there are long-term effects of child care
quality on children's development. Similar to the NICHD results, this
study indicated that the impact of child care quality on children's
development was modest, but consistent, and applied even after taking
into account child and family characteristics. The extent to which
the effects of quality child care and other early childhood program
experiences "fade out" over time has long been an area of interest
for researchers studying the connection between child care programs
and children's development. One of the longest-running research
studies in this area is known as the Abecedarian Project, which began
in the early 1970s. The project design consisted of a controlled study
in which 57 infants, all from low-income families in North Carolina,
were randomly assigned to an experimental group that would receive
year-round, all-day educational child care/preschool emphasizing
cognitive, language, and adaptive behavior skills (Burchinal et al.,
1997; Campbell & Ramey, 1995). The control group of 54 infants
received nutritional supplements and supportive social services (as
did the experimental group), but did not receive the educational
intervention emphasizing language, cognitive, and social development.
The Abecedarian Project began in early infancy, and the children
received the educational "treatment" for 5 years, a longer period than
other programs. This study also differs from those discussed earlier
in that it focuses solely on low-income children.
Early findings of the project in the 1970s showed that from
the age of 18 months through age 5 (the end of the program),
children in the treatment group had higher scores on mental tests
than children in the control group. In the primary grades through
middle adolescence, children from the treatment group scored
significantly higher on reading and math tests. Through age 15, the
treatment group continued to score higher on mental tests, although
the gap between the two groups had narrowed.
More recently, the project's researchers completed a
followup study of the project's participants (104 of the original
111) at age 21 (Campbell, 1999). Results showed that the 21-year-
olds who had been in the treatment group had significantly higher
mental test scores than those from the control group. Likewise,
reading and math scores were higher for the treatment group, as had
been the case since toddlerhood. Due to the longevity of the
project, researchers also were able to look for differences in areas
such as college enrollment and employment rates. The followup
interviews revealed that about 35 percent of the young adults in the
treatment group either had graduated from or were attending a 4-year
college or university at the time of the assessment, compared to
14 percent of the control group.
A team of researchers from RAND evaluated the results of
nine early childhood intervention programs, including the Abecedarian
Project (Karoly et al., 1998). The RAND team determined that the nine
early intervention programs evaluated in their study provided benefits
for the participating disadvantaged children and their families.
However, the Rand team pointed out that expanding model, resource-
intensive programs like the Abecedarian Project to a larger scale may
not necessarily result in the same developmental benefits.
THE FEDERAL ROLE
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
The Federal Government entered the child care business during
the New Deal of the 1930s when federally funded nursery schools were
established for poor children. The motivation for creating these
nursery schools was not specifically to provide child care for working
families. Rather, the schools were designed primarily to create jobs
for unemployed teachers, nurses, and others, and also to provide a
wholesome environment for children in poverty. However, when mothers
began to enter the work force in large numbers during World War II,
many of these nursery schools were continued and expanded. Federal
funding for child care and other community facilities was available
during the war years under the Lanham Act, which financed child care
for an estimated 550,000-600,000 children before it was terminated in
1946.
The end of the war brought the expectation that mothers would
return home to care for their children. However, many women chose to
remain at work and the labor force participation of women has
increased steadily ever since. The appropriate Federal role in
supporting child care, including the extent to which the Federal
Government should establish standards for federally funded child care,
has been an ongoing topic of debate. In 1988 and 1990, four Federal
child care programs were enacted providing child care for families
receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), families
that formerly received AFDC, low-income working families at risk of
becoming dependent on AFDC, and low-income working families generally.
The establishment of these programs was the culmination of a
lengthy and often contentious debate about what role the Federal
Government should play in child care. Lasting nearly 4 years, the
debate centered on questions about the type of Federal subsidies that
should be made available and for whom, whether the Federal Government
should set national child care standards, conditions under which
religious child care providers could receive Federal funds, and how
best to assure optimal choice for parents in selecting child care
arrangements for their children, including options that would allow a
mother to stay home. Differences stemming from philosophical and
partisan views, as well as jurisdictional concerns, were reflected
throughout the debate.
Though the programs created in 1988 and 1990 represented a
significant expansion of Federal support for child care, they joined
a large number of existing Federal programs providing early childhood
services, administered by numerous Federal agencies and overseen by
several congressional committees. The U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO; 1994) estimated that in fiscal year 1992 and fiscal year 1993
more than 90 early childhood programs were funded by the Federal
Government, administered through 11 Federal agencies and 20 offices.
Of these programs, GAO identified 34 as having education or child care
as key to their mission. The Congressional Research Service (CRS), in
a memo to the House Committee on Ways and Means (Forman, 1994),
identified 46 Federal programs related to child care operating in
fiscal year 1994, administered by 10 different Federal agencies.
However, CRS noted that some of these programs were not primarily
child care programs; rather, they were designed for some other major
purpose but included some type of child care or related assistance.
Moreover, a majority of the programs were small, with 32 of the 46
providing less than $50 million in annual funding. A 1998 GAO report
(1998a) identified 22 key child care programs, of which 5 accounted
for more than 80 percent of total child care spending in fiscal
year 1997.
In 1996, the 104th Congress passed a major restructuring of
Federal welfare programs (Public Law 104-193), including a
consolidation of major Federal child care programs (child care for
recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Transitional
Child Care Assistance, and the At-Risk Child Care Program) into an
expanded Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG). The child
care provisions in the 1996 welfare reform law were developed to
achieve several purposes. As a component of welfare reform, the
child care provisions were intended to support the overall goal of
promoting self-sufficiency through work. However, separate from the
context of welfare reform, the legislation aimed to address concerns
about the effectiveness and efficiency of child care programs. The
four separate child care programs that were enacted in 1988 and 1990
had different rules regarding eligibility, time limits on the receipt
of assistance, and work requirements. Consistent with other block
grant proposals considered in the 104th Congress, the child care
provisions in Public Law 104-193 were intended to streamline the
Federal role, reduce the number of Federal programs and conflicting
rules, and increase the flexibility provided to States.
The expanded CCDBG became the primary child care subsidy
grant program operated by the Federal Government. The welfare reform
law of 1996 made available to States almost $20 billion over a 6-year
period (1997-2002) in a combination of entitlement and discretionary
funding specifically dedicated for child care, which was approximately
$4 billion above the level that would have been available under the
previous programs. The expectation was that the work requirements for
welfare recipients (many being single mothers) would create a greater
demand for child care services. Since passage of that law, States
have spent increasing amounts of both Federal and State money on child
care. Fiscal year 2003 funding for child care (and welfare) was
extended at the 2002 level, without a reauthorization bill being
approved by Congress. (Reauthorization bills passed the House, but not
in the Senate in 2002 and 2003.)
Although the CCDBG is considered the primary source of Federal
funding for child care subsidies for low-income working and welfare
families, two other Federal block grants have been contributing
significantly to overall child care funding since passage of the 1996
welfare law: the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block
grant, and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Despite the
increase in Federal resources for child care since 1996, concerns
persist about the adequacy and quality of child care in the era of
welfare reform. The number of eligible children receiving CCDBG
subsidies was estimated by HHS to be as low as 15 percent in 1999.
However, the saliency of that figure is diminished somewhat due its
lack of currency, and the fact that it does not encompass child care
subsidies provided directly in TANF or SSBG. Moreover, estimates of
the number of eligible children served do not contend to reflect
consumer demand for child care, leaving the issue of whether adequate
child care funding exists open to debate.
Not at issue, however, is the fact that TANF contributions to
child care, both in direct spending and in the form of transfers to
the CCDBG, grew steadily from 1997 to 2000, and have remained
significant but level in the years since ($3.7 billion in FY2002).
Child care spending from the Child Care and Development Fund (the term
used for both the mandatory and discretionary funding that supports
the CCDBG) has been increasing every year (as shown in detail in
Tables 9-26 through 9-29).
Throughout reauthorization discussions in 2002 and 2003, the
funding level for child care has been one of the major points of
debate. Welfare caseloads have declined since 1996, thus "freeing up"
funds previously used for cash assistance for other services such as
child care. However, advocates for increased child care funding
contend that the decline in the welfare caseload has not translated
into a decline in the low-income population that the Child Care and
Development Block Grant was created to serve, regardless of welfare
status.
With respect to the welfare population, the reauthorization
debates of 2002 and 2003 also have focused on the effect that proposed
increases in required hours of work and other activities by welfare
recipients would have on the need for child care. If, as is being
debated as part of reauthorization, the hours of work and other
entities required of welfare recipients are to be increased, child
care funding will remain a key issue, as many argue that increased
child care funding will be necessary to compensate. This issue is
compounded by the aforementioned argument that former welfare
recipients in low-wage jobs have not necessarily lost their need for
child care subsidies.
MAJOR CHILD CARE PROGRAMS
Table 9-15 provides a brief description of the major Federal
programs that currently support child care and related activities. One
of the largest Federal sources of child care assistance is provided
indirectly through the Tax Code, in the form of a nonrefundable tax
credit for taxpayers who work or are seeking work. Other major sources
of Federal child care assistance include the CCDBG, the SSBG under
title XX of the Social Security Act, the TANF Block Grant, and the
Child Care Food Program, which subsidizes meals for children in child
care. Head Start, the early childhood development program targeted to
poor preschool children, also can be characterized as a child care
program. Although Head Start primarily operates on a part-day, part-
year basis, programs increasingly are being linked to other all-day
child care providers to better meet the needs of full-time working
parents. Table 9-15 shows the most recent available funding or
spending data for each of these programs. In some cases, the
available data are not for comparable years. Moreover, it should be
noted that programs such as the Child Care and Development Block
Grant, Head Start, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program provide
funding specifically dedicated for child care and/or development,
whereas TANF and SSBG funding are used for child care at each State's
option. In recent years, States have chosen to use a significant
portion of their flexible funds for the purpose of supporting child
care services. In fiscal year 2002, $3.7 billion in Federal TANF
funding was spent either directly on child care or transferred to
the CCDBG for use under that program. In fiscal year 2001, over
$200 million in SSBG spending supported child day care.
CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) was
originally authorized as an amendment to the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990, and in 1996 was reauthorized (through
2002) and amended by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (Public Law 104-193). The program provides funding
for child care services for low-income families, as well as for
activities intended to improve the overall quality and supply of
child care for families in general.
Financing
Under the original CCDBG Act, discretionary funds were authorized,
subject to the annual appropriations process. As amended by the 1996
welfare reform law, the program is funded by a combination of
discretionary and entitlement amounts. The combined total of funds is
sometimes referred to as the Child Care and Development Fund. The
discretionary funds are authorized at $1 billion annually. However,
appropriations have surpassed the authorized level beginning in
fiscal year 1999. Most recently, $2.1 billion was appropriated
for fiscal year 2003. These funds are allocated among States
according to the same formula contained in the original CCDBG Act,
which is based on each State's share of children under age 5, the
State's share of children receiving free or reduced-price lunches, and
State per capita income. Half of 1 percent of appropriated funds is
reserved for the territories, and between 1 and 2 percent is reserved
for payments to Indian tribes and tribal organizations. States are
not required to match these discretionary funds. Funds must be
obligated in the year they are received or in the subsequent fiscal
year, and the law authorizes the Secretary to reallocate unused funds.
The welfare reform law also provided entitlement funding to
States for child care under the CCDBG. The annual amounts of
entitlement funding were $1.967 billion in fiscal year 1997; $2.067
billion in fiscal year 1998; $2.167 billion in fiscal year 1999;
$2.367 billion in fiscal year 2000; $2.567 billion in fiscal year
2001; and $2.717 billion in fiscal year 2002. Further legislative
action was taken (in lieu of a reauthorization bill) to extend
fiscal year 2003 funding at the same level as provided in fiscal
year 2002.The Secretary must reserve between 1 and 2 percent of
entitlement funds for payments to Indian tribes and tribal
organizations. After this amount is reserved, remaining entitlement
funds are allocated to States in two components. First, each State
receives a fixed amount each year, equal to the funding received by
the State under the three child care programs previously authorized
under AFDC in fiscal year 1994 or fiscal year 1995, or the average of
fiscal years 1992-94, whichever is greater. This amount, which totals
approximately $1.2 billion each year, is sometimes referred to as
"mandatory" funds. No State
TABLE 9-15-OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS THAT SUPPORT CHILD CARE
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
match is required for these funds, which may remain available for
expenditure by States with no fiscal year limitation. Although no
State match is required, to receive their full TANF allotment, States
must maintain at least 75 percent of their previous welfare
expenditures (referred to as their "maintenance-of-effort"
requirements), including previous expenditures for welfare-related
child care, in fiscal year 1994.
After the guaranteed amount is distributed, remaining
entitlement funds are distributed to States according to each State's
share of children under age 13. States must meet maintenance-of-
effort and matching requirements to receive these funds. Specifically,
States must spend all of their "guaranteed" Federal entitlement funds
for child care, plus 100 percent of the amount they spent of their own
funds in fiscal year 1994 or fiscal year 1995, whichever is higher,
under the previous AFDC-related child care programs. Further, States
must provide matching funds at the fiscal year 1995 Medicaid matching
rate to receive these additional entitlement funds for child care. If
the Secretary determines that a State will not spend its entire
allotment for a given fiscal year, then the unused amounts may be
redistributed among other States according to
those State' share of children under age 13.
In addition to amounts provided to States for child care, States may
transfer up to 30 percent of their TANF Block Grant into their CCDBG
or SSBG Programs. Funds transferred into child care must be spent
according to the CCDBG rules. However, States also may use TANF funds
for child care without formally transferring them to the CCDBG.
Eligibility and Target Population Groups
Children eligible for services under the revised CCDBG are those whose
family income does not exceed 85 percent of the State median. States
may adopt income eligibility limits below those in Federal law.
Because child care funding is not an entitlement for individuals,
States are not required to aid families even if their incomes fall
below the State-determined eligibility threshold. Federal law does
require States to give priority to families defined in their plans as
"very low income." Table 9-25 provides the CCDF income eligibility
limits across the States and territories for families of three. To be
eligible for CCDBG funds, children must be less than 13 years old and
be living with parents who are working or enrolled in school or
training, or be in need of protective services. States must use at
least 70 percent of their total entitlement funds for child care
services for families trying to become independent of TANF through work
activities and families at risk of becoming dependent on public
assistance. In their State plans, States must explain how they will
meet the specific child care needs of these families. Of remaining
child care funds (including discretionary amounts), States must ensure
that a substantial portion is used for child care services to eligible
families other than welfare recipients or families at risk of welfare
dependency.
Use of Funds
CCDBG funds may be used for child care services provided on a sliding
fee scale basis; however, Federal regulations allow States to waive
child care fees for families with incomes at or below the poverty
line. Funds also may be used for activities to improve the quality or
availability of child care. States are required to spend no less than
4 percent of their child care allotments (discretionary and
entitlement) for activities to provide comprehensive consumer
education to parents and the public, activities that increase parental
choice, and activities designed to improve the quality and
availability of child care (such as resource and referral services).
Child care providers receiving Federal assistance must meet
all licensing or regulatory requirements applicable under State or
local law. States must have in effect licensing requirements
applicable to child care; however, Federal law does not dictate what
these licensing requirements should be or what types of providers they
should cover. States must establish minimum health and safety
standards that cover prevention and control of infectious diseases
(including immunizations); building and physical premises safety;
and health and safety training; and that apply to child care
providers receiving block grant assistance (except relative
providers).
Parents of children eligible to receive subsidized child care must be
given maximum choice in selecting a child care provider. Parents must
be offered the option to enroll their child with a provider that has a
grant or contract with the State to provide such services, or parents
may receive a certificate (also sometimes referred to as a voucher)
that can be used to purchase child care from a provider of the
parents' choice. Child care certificates can be used only to pay
for child care services from eligible providers, which can include
sectarian child care providers. Eligible providers also can include
individuals age 18 or older who provide child care for their
grandchildren, great grandchildren, nieces or nephews, or siblings
(if the provider lives in a separate residence). Table 9-24 shows the
percent of CCDF recipient children served by each form of payment
type, by State, in fiscal year 2001. Certificates were overwhelmingly
the form of payment most used, serving over 84 percent of CCDF
children nationally. States must establish payment rates for child
care services that are sufficient to ensure equal access for eligible
children to comparable services provided to children whose parents
are not eligible for subsidies.
The CCDBG contains specific requirements with regard to the use of
funds for religious activities. Under the program, a provider that
receives operating assistance through a direct grant or contract with
a government agency may not use these funds for any sectarian purpose
or activity, including religious worship and instruction. However, a
sectarian provider that receives a child care certificate from an
eligible parent is not so restricted in the use of funds.
Administration and Data Collection
At the Federal level, the CCDBG is administered by the Administration
for Children and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS). The Secretary is required to coordinate all child
care activities within the agency and with similar activities in
other Federal agencies. States are required to designate a lead agency
to administer the CCDBG, and may use no more than 5 percent of their
Federal child care allotment for administrative costs. States must
submit disaggregated data on children and families receiving
subsidized child care to DHHS every quarter, and aggregate data twice
a year. The Secretary is required to submit a report to Congress once
every 2 years. The most recent available data from DHHS as submitted
by the States is from fiscal year 2001.
CHILD CARE TABLES
CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND
Tables 9-16 through 9-30 provide extensive information about the Child
Care and Development Fund (CCDF) as reported by States to DHHS.
Because the tables reflect funding from both the discretionary and
mandatory portions of the child care funding pool, the term CCDF is
used in the titles of the tables. The reader should note, however,
that as mentioned in earlier parts of this chapter, all discretionary
and mandatory child care funding referenced here is subject to the
rules of the CCDBG.
FAMILIES AND CHILDREN SERVED, TYPE OF CARE, AND PAYMENT TYPE
The average monthly number of families and children served by the
CCDF in the last half of fiscal year 2001 is shown, by State, in
Table 9-16. Tables 9-17 and 9-18 reveal the percentage of children
served nationwide by reason for care and by age of child respectively.
The number of providers, by State and type, are displayed in Table
9-19. The percentage of CCDF children served by each type of care, by
State, follows in Table 9-20. Tables 9-21 through 9-23 reveal State-
by-State information on the breakdowns between type of care used by
CCDF recipients, regulated and nonregulated care used, and relative
and nonrelative care used. Table 9-24 shows the percentage of CCDF
children served by each form of payment type.
TABLE 9-16-- CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER
OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN SERVED, FISCAL YEAR 2001
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TABLE 9-17 --CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT OF CHILDREN
SERVED BY REASON FOR CARE, FISCAL YEAR 2001
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TABLE 9-19-- CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--NUMBER OF CHILD CARE
PROVIDERS RECEIVING CCDF FUNDS, FISCAL YEAR 2001
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TABLE 9-20-- CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT
OF CHILDREN SERVED, BY TYPES OF CARE, FISCAL YEAR 2001
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TABLE 9-21--CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT OF CHILDREN
SERVED IN REGULATED SETTINGS AND SETTINGS LEGALLY OPERATING WITHOUT
REGULATION, FISCAL YEAR 2001
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TABLE 9-22--CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT OF CHILDREN
SERVED IN SETTINGS LEGALLY OPERATING WITHOUT REGULATION, BY RELATIVES
AND NONRELATIVES, FISCAL YEAR 2001
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STATE INCOME ELIGIBILITY LIMITS
States' income eligibility limits for families of three receiving
Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) subsidies, as submitted in the
latest available State CCDF plans, are displayed in Table 9-25. Some
States use a different limit for entering and exiting the system, as
indicated in the table.
TRENDS IN CHILD CARE EXPENDITURES
Tables 9-26 through 9-29 contain information about trends in
child care expenditures under the CCDF and its predecessor programs
(i.e., AFDC child care programs). All figures reflect expenditures
made in the year indicated, as opposed to expenditures made from a
given year's appropriation. Table 9-26 provides a summary of
discretionary and mandatory expenditures on child care from fiscal
years 1995 through 2001. Table 9-27 gives the mandatory fund
expenditure trends by State from fiscal years 1995 through 2001. Total
expenditures (mandatory and discretionary) are shown by State in
Table 9-28. A detailed breakdown of CCDF expenditures made in fiscal
year 2001 (the latest year available) by State is displayed in
Table 9-29.
STATE CCDF ALLOCATIONS
Table 9-30 shows actual State allotments for discretionary and
entitlement (mandatory and matching) funding for fiscal year 2002.
TABLE 9-23-- CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND (AND ADDITIONAL STATE
EFFORTS)-- PERCENT OF CHILDREN SERVED IN ALL TYPES OF CARE, FISCAL
YEAR 2001
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TABLE 9-24-- CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT OF CHILDREN
SERVED BY PAYMENT METHOD, FISCAL YEAR 2001
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TABLE 9-25-- CCDF ELIGIBILITY LIMITS FOR FAMILY OF THREE
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TABLE 9-26--SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY CHILD CARE AND
DEVELOPMENT FUND EXPENDITURES, FISCAL YEARS 1995-2001
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TABLE 9-27--FEDERAL MANDATORY CHILD CARE EXPENDITURES, BY STATE,
FISCAL YEARS 1995-2001
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TABLE 9-28 --TOTAL CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND EXPENDITURES, BY
STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1995 - 2001
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TABLE 9-29 -- CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND EXPENDITURES, FISCAL
YEAR 2001
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TABLE 9-30 -- CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND STATE ALLOCATIONS -
FISCAL YEAR 2002
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
REFERENCES
Adams, G., & Schulman, K. (1998). Child care challenges.
Washington, DC: Children's Defense Fund.
Burchinal, M.R., Campbell, F.A., Bryant, D.M., Wasik, B.H., &
Ramey, C.T. (1997). Early intervention and mediating processes in
cognitive performance of children of low-income African-American
families. Child Development, 68, 935-54.
Campbell, F.A. (1999, April 16). Long-term outcomes from the
Abecedarian study. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the
Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.
Campbell, F.A., & Ramey, C.T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes
for high-risk African-American students at middle adolescence:
Positive effects of early intervention. American Educational Research
Journal, 32, 743-72.
Capizzano, J., Adams, G., & Sonenstein, F. (2000). Child care
arrangements for children under five: Variation across States
(No. B-7). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Casper, L.M., Hawkins, M., & O'Connell, M. (1994). Who's minding the
kids? Current Population Reports (Series P70-36). Washington, DC:
U.S. Census Bureau.
Casper, L., & O'Connell, M. (1998). State estimates of organized
child care facilities (Population Division Working Paper No. 21).
Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Center for the Child Care Workforce. (2002, March). Current data on
child care salaries and benefits in the United States. Washington,
DC: Author. Children's Foundation. (2000). The 2000 family child care
licensing study. Washington, DC: Author.
Children's Foundation. (2002). 2002 Child care center licensing study.
Washington, DC: Author.
Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team. (1995). Cost, quality,
and child outcomes in child care centers, Public Report. Denver:
Economics Department, University of Colorado-Denver.
Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team. (1999). The children of
the cost, quality, and outcomes study go to school-executive summary.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child
Development Center.
Forman, M.R. (1994, October 20). Federal funding for child care
(Memorandum to the House Committee on Ways and Means).
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S., & Shirr, M. (1994). The study of
children in family child care and relative care. New York, NY:
Families and Work Institute.
Karoly, L.A., Greenwood, P.W., Everingham, S.S., Hoube, J., Kilburn,
M.R., Rydell, C.P., Sanders, M., & Chiesa, J. (1998). Investing in our
children: What we know and don't know about the costs and benefits of
early childhood interventions. Washington, DC: RAND.
Kisker, E.E., Hofferth, S.L., Phillips, D.A., & Farquhar, E. (1991). A
profile of child care settings: Early education and care in 1990.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child
Care Research Network. (1999, July). Child outcomes: When child care
center classes meet recommended standards of quality. American Journal
of Public Health, 89(7), 1072-77.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2002) "Early Child Care and
Children's Development Prior to School Entry: Results from the NICHD
Study of Early Child Care." American Educational Research Journal, 39.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2003) "Does Amount of Time
Spent in Child Care Predict Socioemotional Adjustment During the
Transition to Kindergarten?" Child Development, July/August 2003,
Volume 74, Number 4, pp. 976-1005.
Polivka, A.E., & Rothgeb, J.M. (1993). Redesigning the CPS
questionnaire. Monthly Labor Review, 116(9), 10-28.
Sonenstein, F.L., Gates, G.J, et al. (2002). Primary Child Care
Arrangements of Employed Parents: Findings from the 1999 National
Survey of America's Families. Washington, D.C., Urban Institute
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1994). Early childhood programs:
Multiple programs and overlapping target groups (HEHS-95-4FS).
Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Welfare reform: Implications
of increased work participation for child care (HEHS-97-75).
Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998). Child care: Federal funding
for fiscal year 1997 (HEHS-98-70R). Washington, DC: Author.
Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (1998). Worthy work,
unlivable wages: The national child care staffing study, 1988-97.
Washington, DC: Center for the Child Care Workforce.