Almanac of Policy Issues Home : Search : Archive |
Exerpted from the 2000 House Ways and Means Green Book, "Child Care"
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 has been a significant
issue in recent debates over how to move welfare recipients toward
employment and self-sufficiency; mothers on welfare may 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 low-income
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 State child care
grant programs. 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 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. 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 1999 over
three-quarters of such mothers were labor force participants. The
increased labor force participation of mothers with younger children has
also been dramatic. In 1947, it was unusual to find mothers with a
preschool-age child in the labor force--only about 12 percent of mothers
with children under the age of 6 were in the labor force. But in 1999,
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 less than one-third of all such mothers
were labor force participants. The
rise in the number of female-headed families has also 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 26 percent of families with children in
1998. While the number of two-parent families with children did not
fluctuate much between 1970 and 1998 (25.8 and 25.7 million respectively),
the number of female-headed families with children almost tripled,
increasing from 3.4 million families in 1970 to 9.8 million in 1998. 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. Among those with children under 18,
divorced women have the highest labor force participation rate (84.0
percent), followed by separated women (77.3 percent). The labor force
participation rate for never-married mothers with children under 18 grew
to over 73 percent in 1999, a 21 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). Labor
force participation rates tend to increase regardless of the marital
status of the mother as the age of the youngest child increases. Among all
women with children under 18, 61 percent of those with a child under 3
participate, 70 percent of those whose youngest child is between 3 and 5
participate, and 79 percent of those whose youngest child is between 14
and 17 participate. While
there has been a substantial increase in the proportion of mothers in the
labor force, the data can be misleading without examining employment
status. Although 72 percent of mothers participated in the labor force in
1999, 50 percent worked full time and 18 percent worked part time (less
than 35 hours per week). Therefore, in 1999, about 30 percent of mothers
were actively looking for work, but not employed. Forty-one percent of
mothers with children under age 6 worked full time, and 19 percent worked
part time. 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. Overall, the percent of all mothers (with children under
18) employed full time grew from slightly over 47 percent in 1996 to just
over 50 percent in 1999. Within the subgroup of never-married mothers, the
3 year period was accompanied by a larger increase in full-time
employment. In 1996, about 35 percent of never-married mothers with
children under 18 were employed full time. By 1999, the figure had
increased to over 48 percent. The percent of never-married mothers working
full time with children under age 6 had grown comparably, increasing from
almost 29 percent in 1996 to over 41 percent in 1999. 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 1999, the percent of all divorced mothers employed full time with
children under 18 had reached almost 69 percent, a 2 percentage point
increase since 1996. For those with children under 6, over 60 percent
worked full time in 1999. The employment status of married mothers is
shown to have changed little or not at all since 1996, depending on full-
or part-time status, and age of children. CHILD
CARE ARRANGEMENTS USED BY WORKING MOTHERS Data
are collected periodically by the U.S. Census Bureau on the types of child
care arrangements used by families with working mothers. 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 the fall of 1995 (although the Census Bureau has not published
a report with these data, the data are available on their Website at
www.census.gov/DES/www/welcome.htm). 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
1995 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. In the 1995 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. 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. Over
36 percent of families of preschoolers with working mothers in 1995
primarily relied on care in another home by a relative, family day care
provider, or other nonrelative, compared to almost 26 percent of families
whose primary arrangement was an organized child care facility. These data
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 reflect 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 21 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 (22 percent), especially care by
fathers (almost 17 percent). Only 5 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 (31 percent), than by an organized child care facility (21
percent), and also more likely to be cared for by a relative, family
provider, or nonrelative in another home (29 percent). Mothers employed
full time were more likely to use family day care providers (19 percent)
and organized day care centers (20 percent) than any other form of care.
Care by grandparents, either in or out of the child's home, was the next
most utilized category for full-time (14 percent), and part-time employed
mothers (18 percent). The
types of afterschool arrangements used in 1995 for school-age children by
working mothers, as well as cases in which there were no arrangements used
at all. The 1995 survey asked more questions about arrangements than in
earlier years (for instance, it specifically asked about care by a
sibling), and this may account for some of the increase in the ``care in
child's home'' category. In 1993, 11 percent of children age 5-14 were
being cared for afterschool in the child's home, whereas in 1995 this
figure had increased to almost 20 percent. Of those children age 5-14 with
employed mothers in 1995, over 10 percent were cared for by a sibling
(over 3 percent by a sibling under age 15). Afterschool care by fathers
also increased substantially from 1993 to 1995. In 1993, just over 11
percent of children were primarily cared for by fathers during afterschool
time, compared to 21 percent in 1995. A total of 2.5 million school-age
children (11.6 percent of children age 5-14) were reported to be in
self-care or to be unsupervised by an adult for some time while their
mothers were working. It is not known if the children in the ``no care
mentioned'' 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. Regardless, the 1995 survey instrument appears to have
been more effective in identifying types of child care arrangements, since
only 1.6 percent of children reportedly fall in the ``no care mentioned''
category, a sharp decline from 46 percent in the 1993 survey. The
9.2 percent of poor children being cared for in the child's home by a
relative or nonrelative in 1995 represents a marked decrease from over 18
percent reported in 1994. The percent of nonpoor children in this category
remained unchanged at 14 percent. Nonpoor children in 1995 were more
likely than poor children to be cared for in another home by either a
relative, family day care provider, or other nonrelative. Poor families
were more likely than nonpoor families to not mention any regular
arrangement (10 percent versus 1 percent). The
U.S. Census Bureau data discussed above reflect child care arrangements in
the fall of 1995. More recently, data from the 1997 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. Nationwide,
41 percent of preschool children with employed mothers are in care for 35
or more hours per week (Capizzano ; Adams, 2000a). One-quarter are in care
for 15-34 hours per week, 16 percent for 1-14 hours per week, and 18
percent spend 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 52 percent. Children that are 3 and 4
years old are slightly more likely to be in full-time care than younger
preschoolers (44 percent versus 39 percent). Children in high-income
families are almost equally as likely to spend 35 or more hours a week in
child care as low-income children (42 percent versus 40 percent), although
high-income children are more likely than low-income children to be in
part-time care (42 percent versus 37 percent). Twenty-three percent of
low-income children are reported to spend no hours in nonparental care,
compared to 16 percent of high-income children. According
to the 1997 NSAF, 32 percent of preschool children use center-based child
care as their primary arrangement, while about half that number (16
percent) are in family child care (Capizzano, Adams, ; Sonenstein, 2000).
About 6 percent are primarily cared for in the child's home by a
babysitter or nanny. Twenty-three percent of children under 5 are cared
for primarily by a relative, either inside or outside the child's home,
while almost a quarter (24 percent) of children are 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 (27 percent) and parents (27 percent) than to be in center-based
care (22 percent) or family child care (17 percent). As preschoolers grow
older (age 3 and 4), use of relative and parent care decreases (17 and 18
percent respectively), and center-based care becomes the most commonly
used primary arrangement (45 percent). Use of family child care remains
relatively steady at 14 percent for 3- and 4-year-olds. At
the national level, children under age 5 in families below 200 percent of
poverty are less likely than high-income children to use center-based care
as a primary arrangement (26 percent versus 35 percent). Relative care and
parent care are used equally by low-income families (28 percent each), and
more often than by high-income families, of which 20 percent use relative
care and 21 percent parent care. Low- and high-income children are almost
equally likely to use family child care as their primary arrangement (14
and 17 percent respectively). In
addition to looking at the primary child care arrangements for children
under 5, Urban Institute researchers used the 1997 NSAF to examine the
number of arrangements used to care for a child, and the hours that are
spent in each type of arrangement. Nationally, 38 percent of children
under 5 combine more than one child care arrangement each week (Capizzano
; Adams, 2000b). Of those, 8 percent combine three or more arrangements.
The remaining 62 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 44 percent). Children aged 3 and 4
are three times 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 low- and
high-income families are almost equally likely to be in multiple child
care arrangements (37 and 40 percent respectively). As seen with primary
arrangements, there is considerable State variation in the use of multiple
arrangements. 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 fall of 1995. These
data show that 64 percent of families with employed mothers paid for child
care for their preschool-aged children. Nonpaid child care was most
typically provided by relatives. Families with mothers employed full time
were more likely to purchase care for their young children than those with
mothers working part time. Among families with full-time working mothers,
73 percent paid for child care, compared to 50 percent of families with
mothers employed part time. Likewise, families with higher incomes were
more likely to purchase care than families with lower incomes, with the
exception of families with monthly incomes between $1,200 and $3,000. For
example, 71 percent of families with monthly incomes of $4,500 or more
purchased child care in the fall of 1995, while only 60 percent of
families with monthly incomes of less than $1,200 purchased care. Average
weekly costs per family for all preschool-aged children were $83 in 1995
for those families that purchased care. Married-couple families devoted a
smaller percentage of their income to child care (9 percent) than
single-parent families (22 percent), but their child care expenditures
were nonetheless greater ($87 per week) than those of single-parent
families (about $70 per week). 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 $60 per week, but this amount
represented 36 percent of their income. By contrast, nonpoor families
spent $85 per week on care, but this amount was only 10 percent of their
income. A December 1997 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 (Adams ; Schulman, 1998) found that in every
State, the average child care tuition exceeds $3,000 per child, and is
over $5,000 per child in 17 States. 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 January 2000.
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 106,246 (Children's Foundation, 2000). This is a 3.5 percent
increase from the Foundation's 1999 study's total, and nearly a 19 percent
increase from the total published by the Children's Foundation's first
study of centers in 1991. The 2000 study notes that the definition of
regulated child care center varies by State or territory. In 28 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 1999 report indicates that there are
290,667 regulated family child care homes, of which 249,622 are family day
care homes (caring for up to 6 children) and 41,045 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 doubled from 25,000 in 1977 to 51,000 in
1992. 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 ``preschoolteacher'' 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 1997, the median hourly wage
of a center-based ``child care worker'' was $7.03, and a ``preschoolteacher,''
$9.09. Both these wages are considerably higher than the median hourly
wage for family child providers, who, based on 1997 Current Population
Survey data, earn an estimated median wage of $4.69 per hour [based on a
55-hour week, which the Center for Child Care Workforce (1999) reports is
the typical work week for U.S. family child care providers]. The
National Child Care Staffing Study (NCCSS), originally launched in 1988,
and most recently updated in 1997, provides additional information on
child care center staff (Whitebook, Howes, ; Phillips, 1998). Information
on wages and characteristics of center staff was collected from 158
full-day, full-year, State licensed child care centers in five
metropolitan areas around the country. In the study's findings on trends
in hourly wages for center-based child care staff, over the 10 year period
of the study, wages of child care center workers have remained relatively
stagnant. Staff
Turnover Like
many low-wage industries, turnover among the child care work force has
been historically high. The NCCSS 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, due to a strong economy, 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 continues to
receive attention during ever-growing discussions of how to measure child
care quality. Employing
Welfare Recipients as Child Care Workers Passage
of welfare reform legislation in 1996, and its emphasis on moving
recipients into work, created expectations of an increase in demand for
child care, and recipients themselves were identified by some as a
potential new source of child care workers. The 1997 NCCSS therefore
gathered information from child care directors regarding the employment of
welfare recipients (recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families)
as center staff. The study found that approximately one-third (35 percent)
of the child care centers in the sample employ Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) recipients, that those centers employing TANF
recipients are more likely to pay lower wages across all positions, and
that those centers experience higher teaching staff turnover. While the
median wage reported for TANF workers is $5.50 per hour (in 1997) compared
to the $6 per hour for all entry-level teaching assistants, 60 percent of
centers pay TANF workers the same as their lowest-paid assistants, 23
percent pay them more, and 18 percent pay them less. Almost half (48
percent) of the centers employing TANF recipients report providing on-site
training for TANF employees, 18 percent use community-based training
programs, and 16 percent of the programs offer college credit-bearing
training. 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
290,667 regulated family child care providers in the States and
territories in 1999. If estimates from the 1990 child care settings study
are applied, this number may represent only 10-18 percent of family child
care, with the remaining facilities being unregulated. The count of
centers that are regulated (meaning licensed or certified) totals 106,246
according to the Children's Foundation 2000 study. 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 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), 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 the ability to completely disentangle
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. The
findings showed that in general, family characteristics and the quality of
the mother's relationship with her child were stronger predictors of the
child's development than were the characteristics of child care. The
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 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 the more structural elements of child care
in centers--elements that are generally regulated by the States, but to
varying degrees, 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, and will
release findings from the assessment of the children at 54 months of age,
and 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. The
study did not attempt to measure the quality of care offered by family
child care providers or relatives according to the same set of guidelines
used for center-based care. The most recent indepth observational study 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, while 56 percent were rated as
adequate, and 35 percent 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 1995 Cost,
Quality, and Child Outcomes 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 disadvantaged, low-income
children. Early
findings of the project 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. Most
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 were also 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 had either 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 more recent GAO
(1998a) report 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, including a consolidation of major Federal child care programs
into an expanded Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) (Public
Law 104-103). The child care provisions in the new law were developed to
achieve several purposes. As a component of welfare reform, the child care
provisions are intended to support the overall goal of promoting
self-sufficiency through work. However, separate from the context of
welfare reform, the legislation attempts 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 are
intended to streamline the Federal role, reduce the number of Federal
programs and conflicting rules, and increase the flexibility provided to
States. Under
the new amendments, the CCDBG is now the primary child care subsidy
program operated by the Federal Government, and replaces previous child
care programs for welfare and working families (i.e., child care for
recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Transitional Child
Care Assistance, and the At-Risk Child Care Program). The new law makes
available to States almost $20 billion over a 6-year period (1997-2002) in
a combination of entitlement and discretionary funding for child care,
which is approximately $4 billion above the level that would have been
available under the previous programs. Despite
this increase in Federal resources, concerns persist about the adequacy
and quality of child care in the era of welfare reform. Although welfare
caseloads have declined, freeing up potential funds from the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant for use for child care, the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) estimates that in an
average month in 1998 only 15 percent of children eligible for Child Care
and Development Fund (CCDF) subsidies received them, raising questions of
whether total child care funding is adequate (CCDF or otherwise). It
should be noted, however, that eligibility figures do not necessarily
reflect consumer demand for child care, leaving the issue of whether
adequate child care funding exists open to debate. Nonetheless, child care
spending has unarguably been increasing every year. In 1998, States drew
down all available Federal mandatory CCDF funding and transferred $652
million in Federal TANF dollars in that year to CCDF Programs. If, as many
suspect, demand for child care increases alongside dropping welfare rolls
and heightened work requirements for welfare recipients, proposals for
additional child care funding are likely to be made in the years ahead. Increased
demand and Federal resources for child care could cause growth in the
supply of child care providers. In May 1997, the U.S. General Accounting
Office reported that gaps existed between the demand for child care and
the ``known'' supply (i.e., providers that are regulated by or otherwise
known to the States), based on research at four sites. These gaps were
larger in poor areas and for certain types of care, such as infant and
school-aged care. However, since many parents rely on informal care
givers, such as relatives and neighbors, who may not be known to State
agencies, linking supply and demand for child care can be difficult. A
later GAO study reviewed efforts in seven States to expand child care
programs (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1998b). The seven States did not
know whether their efforts to expand the supply of providers would be
sufficient to meet the increased demand expected to result from welfare
reform. States' efforts included new provider recruitment; fiscal
incentives for providers and businesses to establish or expand child care
facilities; and initiatives to increase the use of early childhood
development and education programs, such as Head Start and prekindergarten
programs. Major
Day Care Programs 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 Social Services Block Grant
under title XX of the Social Security Act, the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families 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, can
also 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. Assuming that about $1.9 billion will
be spent from TANF either directly or by transfer to the CCDBG Block
Grant, assuming that 13 percent of the title XX block grant is spent on
child care, and counting the tax loss from the dependent care credit as
spending, we can estimate that the Federal Government will spend over $15
billion on child care and Head Start in 2000. 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 surpassed the
authorized level in both fiscal years 1999 and 2000, at $1.183 billion.
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. 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,
totals approximately $1.2 billion each year, is sometimes referred to as
``mandatory'' funds. No State 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 80 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 States' 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 Social
Services Block Grant 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.'' 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 that are trying to
become independent of TANF through work activities and families that are
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). In fiscal year
1998 certificates were overwhelmingly the form of payment most used,
serving over 83 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 1998. 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. (2000a). The hours that children under five spend in child
care: Variation across States (No. B-8). Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Capizzano,
J.,; Adams, G. (2000b). The number of child care arrangements used by
children under five: Variation across States (No. B-12). Washington, DC:
Urban Institute. 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. (1999, March). Current data on child care
salaries and benefits in the United States. Washington, DC:
Author.Children's Foundation. (1999). The 1999 family child care licensing
study. Washington, DC: Author. Children's
Foundation. (2000). 2000 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. Polivka,
A.E., ; Rothgeb, J.M. (1993). Redesigning the CPS questionnaire. Monthly
Labor Review, 116(9), 10-28. 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. (1998a). Child care: Federal funding for fiscal
year 1997 (HEHS-98-70R). Washington, DC: Author. U.S.
General Accounting Office. (1998b). Welfare reform: States' efforts to
expand child care programs (HEHS-98-27). 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. |
|
Back to the Almanac of Policy Issues