Child Care and Development Fund, Report to Congress for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003
SERVICE PATTERNS
The following patterns of services, including the scope, type, and methods of child care delivery, as well as the cost and level of child care services, are derived from the FY 2002 and FY 2003 aggregate and case-level data. Differences are noted where data varied in interesting or substantial ways. In some instances, similarities across years are noted as well.
Given the flexibility States have in the implementation of CCDF (as well as variations in demographics, employment, economic circumstances, and population density that influence the availability of child care and the choices that parents make within the local context), national statistics about CCDF mask significant variation among States. For this reason, the narrative below notes variations among States.
Average Monthly Number of Children and Families Served
In an average month in FY 2002, 1.74 million children (1.03 million families) received child care services with CCDF funds, including TANF transfers and State Matching and MOE Funds. This number slightly increased to 1.75 million children (1.02 million families) in FY 2003. (Refer to Tables 1a and 1b in the appendices.) HHS estimates that an additional 700,000 children were served in FY 2002 and 610,000 in FY 2003 through SSBG, direct TANF, and excess TANF MOE Funds. Hence, on average, 2.4 million children per month were served in both FY 2002 and FY 2003 after accounting for all Federal and related State funding sources. The number of children served reflects both a slight increase in total State expenditures on child care in FY 2003 (including use of prior year funds) and the flexibility given to States in setting child care policies, including income eligibility requirements and parent co-payments.
Family Income
States have the flexibility to serve families with income up to 85 percent of the State Median Income. However, States generally target eligibility to families most in need. Assuming a family size of three, in FY 2002 the median monthly income was $1,235, or $14,820 when annualized. In FY 2003, the median monthly income was $1,255, or $15,060 when annualized.
Prior to January 2002, case-level administrative data reported by States did not indicate the size of the family receiving services. Some of the analysis included in this report, such as the use of Federal poverty levels, requires data on the size of the family. For these purposes, CCB has assumed a family size of three, which available data indicate is reasonable for a typical family receiving CCDF services. |
Of the families served, approximately half were below 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, or $15,020 in FY 2002 and $15,260 in FY 2003 for a family of three. Another 29 percent had incomes between 100 percent and 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), and 17 percent had incomes above 150 percent of FPL. The remaining families had invalid or unreported data. (Refer to Figure 2.1.)
1Assumes a family size of three
Nationally, TANF was reported as a source of income for approximately 17 percent of families receiving services through CCDF in FY 2002 and 18 percent in FY 2003. At the State and Territory level, however, there was considerable variation. Thirteen States had fewer than 10 percent of their families reporting TANF as a source of income in FY 2002 vs. 11 States in FY 2003. Ten States reported that TANF was a source of income for one in four families (25 percent), and 13 States reported this in FY 2003. (Refer to Tables 14a and 14b in the appendices.)
Family Composition
The CCDF statute requires States and Territories to report whether or not families served are headed by a single parent. Nonsingle-parent households include two or more parents or adults living with a child who are legally or financially responsible for the child in that eligible family unit. In FY 2002, approximately 84 percent of families receiving services through CCDF were single-parent households as compared to 87 percent in FY 2003. In FY 2002, 14 States and Territories reported that fewer than 80 percent of the families served were headed by a single parent, compared to 11 States in FY 2003. (Refer to Figure 2.2.)
In FY 2002 and FY 2003, the proportion of single-parent families varied by income level. Assuming a family size of three, almost 90 percent of families with an income under 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Level were single-parent households. However, among families with incomes above 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, slightly fewer than 75 percent were single-parent households.
Ages of Children
Of children served through CCDF in FY 2002 and FY 2003, school-aged children (6 years and older) made up slightly more than a third of the caseload (35 percent). For the same period, children under 3 years of age were the next highest group served at 29 percent, followed by preschoolers (aged 3-4) at 26 percent. Kindergarten-aged children (aged 5 years) were 10 percent of those served. Fewer than 1 percent of children were aged 13-18. (Refer to Figure 2.3.)
During FY 2002 in six States, 40 percent or more of the children served were 6 years and older. Those States included California, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania. This was true for six States in FY 2003: Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. In both FY 2002 and FY 2003, children under the age of 7 made up over half of those served in every State. Guam and American Samoa had the highest percentage of children served under the age of 6 for both years. (Refer to Tables 2a and 2b in the appendices.)
Race and Ethnicity
In collecting and reporting race and ethnicity for purposes of CCDF, ACF uses "Standards for the Classification of Federal Data and Ethnicity" as prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Of the children served in FY 2002, 41 percent were African American, 35 percent White, 3 percent multiracial, 1 percent Asian, and 1 percent Native American or Native Alaskan. Fewer than 1 percent of the children served were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. For the balance, race was not reported by States and Territories. In FY 2003, the race distribution was comparable. (Refer to Tables 3a and 3b in the appendices.)
In both FY 2002 and FY 2003, 16 percent of families reported Latino ethnicity. The States with the highest concentrations of Latino children were Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. (Refer to Tables 4a and 4b in the appendices.)
Children Served by Type of Care
In FY 2002 and FY 2003, center care was the most prevalent type of care used by CCDF-subsidized families although there were significant variations among States. Nationally, 60 percent of children were in center care, 30 percent were in family child care homes, 7 percent in the child's own home, and 4 percent in group homes. In over half of the States and Territories, 50 percent or more of the children received center-based care. However, in four States and one Territory (Michigan, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Wyoming), 33 percent or fewer of the children were in centers. This was true for FY 2003 with the addition of Hawaii and Kansas. In 43 States and Territories, no more than 10 percent of children received care in their own homes during FY 2002 vs. 41 States during FY 2003. (Refer to Tables 10a and 10b in the appendices.)
In FY 2002 and FY 2003, children between the ages of 3 and 6 (preschoolers and kindergarten-aged children) were more likely to be served in child care centers than children who were younger or older. (Refer to Figure 2.4 and Tables 5a and 5b.)
Average Monthly Provider Payment
In FY 2002, the average monthly provider payment was highest for group homes ($397) and center-based care ($365), followed by family child care homes ($316) and care provided in the child's home ($253). Provider payments were higher for younger children than older children because younger children tend to be in child care for longer periods. FY 2003 data were comparable. (Refer to Tables 7a and 7b in the appendices.)
Family Co-Payment Amounts
Of those families with reported income in FY 2002 and FY 2003, approximately 75 percent paid a co-payment. Figure 2.5 shows the mean family co-payments according to poverty level, assuming a family size of three.
Figure 2.5 Mean Family Co-Payments by Federal Poverty Level (FPL) |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Families Below 100% of FPL | Families Between 100% and 150% of FPL | Families Above 150% FPL | |
| FY 2002 | $23.59 | $76.23 | $122.38 |
| FY 2003 | $26.46 | $80.49 | $128.98 |
Source: ACF-801 Administrative Data
Of those families with co-payments, child care payments represented on average 6 percent of family income in FY 2002 and FY 2003. Including families who did not have a co-payment, families paid on average slightly more than 4 percent of family income toward child care. Including those families with $0 copayments, a majority of States and Territories (32) served families where the assessed family co-payment was 5 percent or less of family income. (Refer to Figure 2.6 and Table 15.) In 11 States, families paid less than 3 percent of their income for child care co-payments.
Average Monthly Hours of Child Care by Child's Age and Type of Care
In FY 2003, children were in care on average 148 hours per month. Average hours of care by setting type did not vary significantly. However, hours in care by age did vary. Children under age 5 averaged significantly more hours in child care than children aged 5 and older. For instance, toddlers (aged 1-2) averaged 168 hours of care per month, compared with 122 hours for children aged 6-13. This reflects the fact that older children attend school part of the day during the school year. FY 2002 data were comparable. (Refer to Figure 2.7 and Tables 6a and 6b in the appendices.)
Reasons for Care
In FY 2003, over 90 percent of families cited either employment or education and training as the reason for needing child care. Specifically, 78 percent of families cited employment. Another 12 percent cited training and education. An additional 4 percent cited employment as well as training and education. The remaining families cited protective services and other needs as reasons for care. FY 2002 data were comparable. (See Figure 2.8 and Tables 8a and 8b in the appendices.)
Numbers and Types of Child Care Providers
Providers Serving CCDF Children in FY 2002
Providers Serving CCDF Children in FY 2003
|
Of those providers receiving CCDF funds in FY 2002 and FY 2003, approximately 60 percent were family child care homes. Slightly fewer than 25 percent served children in their own home, and 13 percent were child care centers. The remaining providers were group homes. (Refer to Tables 9a and 9b in the appendices.)
Regulated Vs. Unregulated Settings
In FY 2002 and FY 2003, about three-fourths of the children were served in regulated child care settings vs. one-fourth served in settings legally operating without regulation. Nearly all children served in child care centers and group homes were in regulated settings. Nearly all of the children served in the child's home were in settings legally operating without regulation. Of the children served in family child care homes, about half were in regulated family child care homes. Fewer than half of the children were in regulated care in five States in FY 2002 and four States in FY 2003. (Refer to Tables 10a and 10b in the appendices.)
Relative Vs. Nonrelative Care
In FY 2002 and FY 2003, children served in legally operating settings without regulation (child's own home or family child care) were nearly as likely to be served by a nonrelative as a relative. (Refer to Tables 11a and 11b in the appendices.) In four States in FY 2002 and five States in FY 2003, over 90 percent of children served by relatives were in the child's home or family child care (not including regulated care).
Children Served by Payment Method
The most frequently used method of payment in both FY 2002 and FY 2003 was certificates (84 percent). Grants and contracts were 13 percent of payments and cash payments accounted for 3 percent of payments. In FY 2002, Alaska, American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, and Utah used certificates less than half of the time. In FY 2003, American Samoa, Florida, Puerto Rico, and Utah used certificates less than half of the time. (Refer to Figure 2.9 and Tables 12a and 12b in the appendices.)
State and Territorial Methods of Consumer Education
In FY 2002 and FY 2003, brochures, booklets, or written materials about types of care and quality of care were used by every State and Territory. Lists of legally operating child care providers were used by 52 of the 56 States and Territories. Almost all States and Territories reported providing parents and the public with information about policies regarding complaints; this was done as a form of consumer education in FY 2002 and FY 2003. (Refer to Tables 13a and 13b in the appendices.)
About the Administrative DataRequired Reports: The statute governing CCDF requires that States, Territories, and Tribes provide aggregate and case-level information about the families and children receiving direct services through CCDF. This information is collected from States and Territories through OMB-approved instruments, the Child Care Annual Aggregate Report (ACF-800), and the Child Care Quarterly Case-Level Report (ACF-801). Tribal information is collected using the Child Care Annual Aggregate Report (ACF-700). The appendices provide a summary of the reports grantees are required to submit. Since funds transferred from TANF to CCDF are subject to the rules governing the Discretionary Fund, State reports include children who were served through TANF transfers as well as State Matching and MOE Funds. Although States are encouraged to provide case-level information about services provided directly with TANF dollars, the statute does not require States to provide specific information about child care funded with TANF. Consequently, detailed data about these services are not available. (States do report expenditure data on TANF services, and these data were used to estimate aggregate children served under TANF). Annual Aggregate Report and Pooling: The annual aggregate report provides unduplicated annual counts of children and families served through the CCDF, payment methods, the number of child care providers receiving CCDF funding by type of care, consumer education methods, and information about pooling of funding sources. In support of integrated approaches to the administration of child care subsidies, States are encouraged to provide data on the families and children receiving child care services through all funding sources (e.g., Social Services Block Grant, TANF, State dollars). If States choose to report pooled information, they must indicate the percentage of CCDF funds. This allows ACF to provide information about the numbers of families and children whose child care services are provided specifically through CCDF. Quarterly Case-Level Report: The quarterly report provides case-level data on the children and families served during the month of service, including demographics, family income and co-payments, and types of settings including licensure status. States have the option of submitting data on a sample basis, or for all cases on a monthly or quarterly basis. Many States and Territories have experienced difficulty in providing case-level data about families and children served through CCDF. These difficulties are related to problems with technology, rapid program growth, workload issues, multiple subsidy programs (as opposed to integrated approaches), and devolution of child care administration to local entities. For instance, the small decline in the number of children and families served between FY 2001 and FY 2002 is partially due to changes in methodology used by two major States for developing caseload numbers. CCB devotes considerable technical assistance resources to helping States improve their capacity to provide accurate, timely reports. FY 2002 and FY 2003 statistical tables based on annual aggregate and case-level reports may be found in the appendices, along with the methodology employed to derive national estimates. Limitations of the aggregate and case-level data are described as well. |