Child Care and Development Fund, Report to Congress for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003
EMERGING FINDINGS FROM CCB AND OTHER FUNDED RESEARCH
Parent Choice and Patterns of Child Care Use
Research about what American parents want and need for their children in care indicates that parents balance many considerations, including the hours of care they need, whether there is another adult in the household, the experiences they want for their child, convenience, and child care affordability. Parents appear to make employment and child care decisions simultaneously, taking into account a variety of considerations including values and constraints such as income and work schedules. When parents have care they trust, and that allows them the flexibility to balance the demands of parenting and work, they express satisfaction with the quality of their child care.
Over the past 20 years, there has been considerable research on the determinants of child care choice. One body of research has developed econometric models using data from a variety of household surveys to estimate the effects of household demographic characteristics, maternal employment, and the price of care on the type of care selected. These studies have found that income, education, race and ethnicity, family composition, and the availability of social supports (e.g., availability of nearby relatives) are significant factors in the selection of child care arrangements. As income and level of education rise, families are more likely to choose market care over relative care for their children. However, if social supports are accessible, families are more likely to use informal care provided by family members, friends, and neighbors. Families with more children are more likely to use informal care as compared to families with fewer children. These studies have also found that the choice of child care arrangement is sensitive to the price of care. As the price of a given type of care increases, the likelihood of a family using that type of care decreases.
Another body of research uses focus groups, in-depth interviews, and surveys to capture parental attitudes and considerations. This research suggests that regardless of the type of child care used, most parents care about the quality of their child care arrangement. However, users of different modes of care have different views about what constitutes quality care. Families that use regulated care (and especially center-based care) place greater emphasis on opportunities for cognitive and social development and tend to stress the importance of professional standards. Users of informal care are more likely to emphasize familiarity with their providers.
According to an analysis conducted by the Urban Institute on its 2002 National Survey of American Families (NSAF), nearly 19.1 million children under age 13 were in nonparental care arrangements while their parents worked. This number includes 73 percent of children under age 5 (8.0 million), 75 percent of 5-year-olds (1.8 million), and 47 percent of school-age children aged 6-12 (9.3 million).
The 2002 NSAF data also revealed that the most common primary care arrangements for children aged 5 and younger with employed parents or guardians were center-based care (29 percent), parent or other care (27 percent), relative care (26 percent), family child care (13 percent), and nanny or baby-sitter (5 percent). The parent and other care category includes children whose mothers did not report the use of any regular care while they worked.
Low-income children under age 5 were less likely to be in center care in 2002 than their higher-income counterparts (NSAF). In large part, this was due to the decreased use of nonparental care for children from birth through age four 4 in low-income two-parent families. Forty-three percent of preschool children in low-income two-parent families were in the care of a parent while their other parent worked.
In another study based on the 1999 National Survey of American Families (NSAF), Getting Help With Child Care Expenses, the Urban Institute finds that while fewer low-income working families paid for child care as compared to their higher-income counterparts, 38 percent of families with incomes under 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Level had child care expenses. These families paid an average of $227 per month or 18 percent of their earnings on care (after any assistance they received from Government, relatives, or other sources). However, for purposes of the survey, "earnings" do not include other supports that may have been available to low-income families, such as food stamps, medical assistance, and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) benefits.
As part of the National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families (National Study), 2,500 low-income families (under 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level) with children under age 13 were surveyed regarding their child care arrangements. The results of this survey are described in the National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families: Patterns of Child Care Use Among Low-Income Families (Burstein et al., under review). This study found that the most frequently mentioned influences on parental choice are safety (51 percent), convenience (40 percent), and the family's relationship with the provider (35 percent). Very low income families (under 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Level) were less likely to note the importance of developmental aspects of care than families with more income. Overall, only about 20 percent of families mentioned an issue related to development such as "prepare child for school," "staff is trained, professional," or "program/activities/structure" as a reason for choosing their primary child care arrangement. Twelve percent of mothers who were using family child care and 10 percent of those using relative care and in-home nonrelative care said they would prefer center care.
Child Care Use Among Minority Families
Cultural traditions and child rearing values appear to exert a powerful influence on the choices parents make. The National Study found that Hispanic children were much less likely to receive care in a center-based program than either White or African-American children (14 percent as compared to 31 percent and 27 percent, respectively). Hispanic mothers were more likely to mention safety and their relationship with the provider and less likely to note child development issues. However, the reasons why some minority families are more likely to use home-based child care arrangements are unclear. Some researchers argue that minorities place a high value on care by relatives and people in their communities who are more likely to share their child-rearing beliefs than center-based providers (Fuller et al., 2001). Others suggest that home-based care is more flexible and more likely to be available during the nontraditional work schedules required by the low-wage retail and services industries (Bromer, 2003; Fuller et al., 2001; Henley & Bromer, 2002; Henley & Lambert, 2003; Whitebook, 2004).
Child Care Usage Among Children With Special Needs
Numerous studies indicate that families that include a child with special needs experience heightened challenges in finding and maintaining child care. The CCB-supported Midwest Child Care Research Partnership completed a study in 2003 that includes a sample of parents who reported having a child with a disability. Parents of children with disabilities reported significantly higher levels of stress related to their child care, even after controlling for family income. These parents rated a number of factors including center accreditation, provider's credentials, and acceptance of subsidies as significantly more important than did parents of typically developing children. Overall, children with disabilities began participating in child care at later ages. Despite this, they had experienced a higher number of child-care arrangements across a variety of types of care.
The University of Southern Maine (Ward & Morris, 2004) found that parents of children with more severe disabilities expressed particular concern over whether any child care provider could adequately meet the needs of their children. Parents of children in programs caring specifically for children with special needs or those with significant experience caring for children with disabilities seemed more satisfied than parents whose children attended regular child care programs.
State Implementation of CCDF and Related Child Care Programs
Research confirms what we know from State case-level and financial reports: public investment in child care subsidies increased rapidly in recent years, and State flexibility under CCDF (and TANF) results in patterns of subsidy use that vary greatly among States. CCDF helps low-income working families access a range of child care options. However, the choices families have are influenced by State decisions about how much income a family can have and still be eligible for services, whether all eligible families that apply are served, which families are given priority for services (when waiting lists exist), the amount of cost-sharing required of families (co-payment), what constitutes an eligible provider, and how much providers are paid.
Increased Child Care Spending
Since 1996, welfare caseloads have dropped by almost 60 percent, from 12,644,915 recipients to 4,995,719, thereby reducing the proportion of TANF block grant funds that States must use for cash assistance. According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study Supports for Low-Income Families: States Serve a Broad Range of Families Through a Complex and Changing System, States spent only 33 percent of their welfare dollars on cash assistance in FY 2002 compared to 58 percent in FY 1998. Over the same period, the proportion of TANF dollars used for child care increased from 9 to 19 percent. In FY 2002, States invested a total of $3.7 billion in TANF funds on child care through transfers to CCDF or direct expenditures.
Proportion of Families and Children Served
In FY 2003, 1.75 million children received child care services with CCDF-related funds including TANF transfers and State matching and MOE Funds. Expenditure data suggest that an estimated 610,000 additional children received subsidized care through SSBG, direct TANF funding, and excess TANF MOE, resulting in a total of 2.36 million children receiving services in an average month in FY 2003.
While earlier studies suggest that a small proportion of children potentially eligible for child care subsidies received child care subsidies, recent studies provide a more nuanced view of utilization. In Take-Up Rates and Trade Offs After the Age of Entitlement: Some Thoughts and Empirical Evidence for Child Care Subsidies (2002), Witte and Queralt estimate that the family take-up rate for States serving all applicants eligible under State rules was approximately 40 percent in early 2000. For those States that had waiting lists and were unable to serve all eligible applicants, approximately 14-50 percent of families were served. Another recent study Child Care Subsidy Use and Employment Outcomes of TANF Mothers During the Early Years of Welfare Reform: A Three-State Study (Lee et al., 2004) found that the proportion of TANF families receiving child care subsidies within a few months of employment ranged from 24 percent in Maryland to 34 percent in Illinois and Massachusetts.
Based on an analysis completed by the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), 28 percent of the 8.33 million children aged birth through 12 who are potentially eligible for child care services under State CCDF eligibility rules were served through CCDF, TANF, and SSBG and related funds in FY 2003 (see Table 6.2). For children in families with income below the Federal Poverty Level for a family of three, the proportion of children served increases to 37 percent for children birth through 12, and 56 percent for children aged 3-5. (See Table 6.3.)
The ASPE eligibility estimates for FY 2003 are based on State rules effective October 1, 2003, and Current Population Survey data for calendar year 2003. The eligibility estimates exclude children aged 4-12 with parents who work part-time. Part-time is defined as working less than the specified minimum hour requirements in the 12 States that explicitly reported such requirements (ranging from 15 to 40 hours) as a condition of eligibility for child care subsidies. In all other States, part-time is defined as less than 20 hours for parents of children aged 4 and older.
These estimates take into account State CCDF eligibility limits and a range of programs, including public schools, which may help meet the child care needs of low-income working families. However, they do not provide a true estimate of take-up rates among families who are eligible and have expressed a need for child care. Instead, they show the extent to which CCDF, TANF, and SSBG funds serve the broad pool of children and families whose age, income, and parental work status indicate a possible need for child care. In fact, research indicates that many parents prefer unpaid care provided by relatives and friends, especially for very young children.
| Table 6.2 Percent of Eligible Children Under State Eligibility Rules Receiving Subsidies FY 2003 (Average monthly estimates in millions) |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ages 0–2 | Ages 3–5 | Ages 6–9 | Ages 10–12* | Total Children 0–12* |
|
| Enrollment in CCDF, TANF, and SSBGFunded Care (FY2003) | 0.66 | 0.86 | 0.61 | 0.24 | 2.36 |
| Potentially Eligible Children (based on State eligibility rules as of October 2003) | 1.84 | 1.99 | 2.46 | 2.04 | 8.33 |
| Percentage Served | 36% | 43% | 25% | 12% | 28% |
*Includes a few children 13 and older who are eligible for subsidies because of special needs. Numbers may not add to total due to rounding.
| Table 6.3 Percent of Eligible Children Below Poverty Receiving Child Care Subsidies FY 2003 (Average monthly estimates inmillions) |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ages 0–2 | Ages 3–5 | Ages 6–9 | Ages 10–12* | Total Children 0–12* |
|
| Enrollment of Poor Childrenin CCDF, TANF, and SSBG Funded Care (FY 2003) | 0.41 | 0.47 | 0.34 | 0.14 | 1.37 |
| Potentially Eligible Children Below Poverty Level for A Family of Three (2003) | 0.96 | 0.85 | 1.04 | 0.81 | 3.66 |
| Percentage Served | 43% | 56% | 33% | 17% | 37% |
*Includes a few children 13 and older who are eligible for subsidies because of special needs. Numbers may not add to total due to rounding.
Characteristics of Families That Use Subsidies
Researchers find that some families have a greater likelihood of using child care subsidies. These include families with a preschool child as well as those that are headed by a single parent, have a history of using TANF and child care subsidies, are African American, and have a mother who has at least a high school degree (Burstein et al., in progress; Lee et al., 2004).
An analysis conducted by the Urban Institute (unpublished, 2004) finds that compared with families and children who are potentially eligible for child care subsidies under State policies, families actually receiving services are likely to be poorer and headed by a single parent. In addition, relatively few infants (aged 0-1) and older children (aged 7-12) are served.
Where Subsidy Recipients Work
Using administrative data from State subsidy systems and unemployment insurance, a number of States have examined the question of where parents receiving child care subsidies work. Across States, the major employers of parents receiving child care subsidies are the retail trade and service industries. Almost three quarters of subsidy-receiving workers in Alabama, Florida, Oregon, and the District of Columbia are employed in these two industries (Glantz & Collins, unpublished). The most recent such study was completed in Minnesota. This study Working in Minnesota: Parents' Employment and Earnings in the Child Care Assistance Program (Jeffreys & Davis, 2004) finds that 62 percent of Minnesota subsidy recipients work in four sectors: health care and social assistance; retail trade; accommodations and food services; and administrative and support services. These sectors respond to local needs and are characterized by high job vacancy and low wages. This study concludes that child care subsidies play an important role in supporting working families, businesses, and local economies.
Patterns of Care Used by Subsidized Families
Several studies indicate that families who use center-based care are more likely to apply for or use subsidies than families using other types of arrangements (Shlay et al., 2002; Burstein et al., in progress). Families who use relative care in the child's own home were less likely to apply for subsidies. Lee et al. (2004) found that greater than average use of relative and in-home care among subsidized families in Illinois was largely explained by the use of these types of care by African American and Hispanic families. Mothers who were on TANF at the time of subsidy take-up and mothers in urban settings were more likely to use relative and in-home care in Illinois. Urban families in Massachusetts were more likely to use center or family child care settings.
Family Co-Payments
While most States base child care subsidy co-payments on family income, some tie co-payments to the cost of care and number of children in care. State co-payments vary greatly, and differences in assessed co-payments are greatest for eligible families at the higher end of the income scale. Based on data from the National Study, the Review and Analysis of the Literature on Child Care Subsidies (Glantz et al., unpublished) indicates that among those families that paid for child care, the average monthly payment for child care for families with subsidies was $164 per month, compared to $249 dollars per month for families without subsidies. Among families using family child care and relative care, subsidized families paid $118 per month as compared with $210 per month for eligible nonrecipients. The National Study also found that 80 percent of the surveyed families who were receiving subsidies paid a monthly fee equal to the required co-payment, and 10 percent had no co-payments. However, of the remaining 9 percent, half of the families paid more out-of-pocket than the assessed co-payment.
In Changing Policies Changing Impacts: Employment and Earnings of Child-Care Subsidy Recipients in the Era of Welfare Reform (Queralt et al., 2000), using econometric research methods, the researchers found that for current and former welfare recipients receiving child care subsidies in Miami-Dade County, Florida, co-payments of up to about 10 percent of earnings had no detrimental effects on earnings. Over that amount, family earnings declined.
Provider Reimbursement Rates
The maximum reimbursement rates that States pay providers for caring for subsidized children may also affect the types of care available to low-income families. GAO surveyed States and visited nine communities in three States to understand State child care reimbursement rates and to calculate child care access based on families' subsidies and co-payments. As described in Child Care: States Exercise Flexibility in Setting Reimbursement Rates and Providing Access for Low-Income Children (GAO, 2002), States reported that market rate survey results and budget and policy goals were determining factors for reimbursement rates. Ten States reported that while they were in compliance with the CCDF Biennial State Plan market rate survey requirement, provider reimbursement rates were actually based on an older survey. GAO found that reimbursement rates were lower than the price charged by providers in many communities. However, according to State and local officials, reimbursement rates did not necessarily limit the choices families had since some families were able to find providers who would accept the State's reimbursement rate as full payment. Witte et al. (2001) similarly found that some families were able to reach financial agreements with providers who accepted the State's reimbursement rate (including the assessed family co-payment) as full payment.
Waiting Lists
As of September 2003, according to State reports, 22 States had families on waiting lists. However, while the existence of a waiting list indicates that the need for child care subsidies is not fully met, it does not provide a true estimate of the demand due to differences in how States and communities maintain their waiting lists. Some States purge their waiting lists on a regular basis; others add to the lists indefinitely. Waiting lists are also affected by the amount of information about subsidies that is available and the length of time families must wait to receive subsidies. (See CCDF State Information Chart in the appendices.)
Barriers to Services
Several studies have examined how well the subsidy system works for families (Shlay et al., 2002; Adams et al., 2002). These studies find that some families lack necessary information about the availability of subsidies, encounter extensive waiting lists, or find that the barriers to using a subsidy outweigh the benefits or make it impossible to use a subsidy. While barriers vary based on how States administer their programs, common challenges include unclear rules, burdensome paperwork, and language or transportation barriers. Parents often must take time off work to maintain their eligibility for subsidies. Other barriers in some States include lack of eligibility for part-time workers, inability to find a provider for the amount the State is willing to pay, and co-payments that exceed the cost of nonsubsidized alternatives.
Child Care Supply
Availability of Care
Evidence regarding the supply of care for low-income families (subsidized or unsubsidized) is mixed. Some studies document increased availability and access while others suggest that demand is overtaking supply, that there is considerable "churning" in the marketplace, and that the distribution of care in many communities is skewed away from the needs of low-income families toward those of the middle class. Supply studies by the Child Care Policy Research Consortium, some using mapping or geo-coding techniques, document the extent to which the existing supply of child care is unevenly distributed, with shortages in many local communities (Witt et al., 2000; California Child Care Resource and Referral Network, 1999).
The National Study's State and Community Substudy: Interim Report (Collins et al., 2000) and The Supply of Regulated Child Care in 25 Study Communities (Collins, in progress) both found that the availability and array of child care services and early education programs differed considerably among their study communities. For example, Collins (2004) found that the number of child care slots for children under age 13 and center-based slots for children under age 6 varied greatly from county to county. In general, however, counties reported greater center care supply for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers than for school-age children.
Collins (2004) also found that substantial public funding, such as child care subsidies, Head Start, and publicly funded pre-kindergarten supports the supply of early childhood care and education. While care offered on the open market was largely unaffordable to low-income families, public subsidies made many otherwise unaffordable centers and regulated family child care homes accessible to low-income families.
Effects of Subsidies on the Child Care Market
In a study that examined welfare reform and subsidies in Florida and Massachusetts, The Policy Context and Infant and Toddler Care in the Welfare Reform Era, researchers found that there was a large increase (150 percent) in the number of low-income infants and toddlers in child care centers and homes after Florida required welfare recipients to participate in work activities when their youngest child was 3 months old (Witte et al., 2001). Overall, the increase in full-time enrollment of infants and toddlers was less than might have been expected given the increase in subsidized infants and toddlers. The researchers suggest that nonsubsidized children may have been displaced by those with subsidies. In Child Care Price Dynamics in California, Marrufo et al. (2003) describe how they found that between 1992 and 2001, average child care prices increased by 14 percent (constant dollars), in part due to increased child care subsidy funding. During that period, California child care subsidy expenditures increased from $125 million to $1.5 billion and now represent roughly 20 percent of gross receipts in the child care market (licensed centers and homes). The researchers suggest that child care prices would have increased more if the supply of licensed child care had not also increased.
Child Care Providers
Understanding child care supply, particularly the early care and education workforce, is critical to the development of policies that respond to the training, compensation, and other needs of providers. In turn, policies that result in improved caregiver skills and retention can positively affect families and children.
Information About the Early Care and Education Workforce
Data is available about the workforce through child care licensing agencies, market rate surveys, resource and referral agencies, certification and training registries, and other research. However, a recent report Counting the Child Care Workforce: A Catalog of State Data Sources To Quantify and Describe Child Caregivers in the Fifty States and the District of Columbia (Stahr-Breunig et al., 2003) found that approximately half of the States lack the current child care workforce data necessary to estimate the size and characteristics of the child care workforce. Using national data (NHES), the Center for the Child Care Workforce and the Human Services Policy Center at the University of Washington developed a model for estimating the child care workforce (Maher et al., 2003). This study found that approximately 2.3 million individuals are paid to care for children under the age of 6. By provider setting: 804,000 are paid relatives (other than family child care providers), 650,000 are working in family child care, 550,000 in centers, and 298,000 are other paid nonrelatives.
Use of License-Exempt and Home-Based Care
Using State-specific data, the Human Services Policy Center in Understanding Family, Friend, and Neighbor Care in Washington State: Developmentally Appropriate Training and Support reported that in Washington State, license-exempt, home-based care accounted for about two thirds of nonparental care for infants, almost half for toddlers, and about three fifths for school-age children (Brandon et al., 2002). Most informal caregivers were grandparents (36 percent), other relatives (22 percent), and friends or neighbors (32 percent). About 40 percent of the family, friends, and neighbors providing care in this study were paid, often with the help of child care subsidies. Forty percent had received child-care-related training of some kind, but few had received the combination of training in child development, early childhood education, and parenting that has been shown to facilitate children's social and cognitive development. Two thirds of these caregivers said that training and support would help them do a better job.
Preliminary findings from Maxwell and Kraus describe the characteristics of legal, nonregulated family child care providers in North Carolina. This study finds that the average provider was 50 years old. Moreover, 70 percent of providers were African American, 44 percent had a high school diploma or less, and 96 percent cared for at least one child who was related to them. Eighty-one percent of the providers in this sample cared for at least one child who received a child care subsidy, 36 percent cared only for children receiving subsidies, and 4 percent received a child care subsidy for a child who lived with them. A study by Anderson et al. (2003) also found that over 60 percent of subsidized children in Illinois were cared for by license-exempt providers (including relatives).
In an in-depth study of 533 family child care home providers (including those subject to regulation) in five communities, researchers found that the average number of children enrolled with such providers was just over six. As reported in the National Study's Care in the Home: A Description of Family Child Care and the Experiences of the Families and Children That Use It (Layzer & Goodson, under review), 80 percent of homes provided care for infants, and 62 percent cared for children that included the provider's own children or other relative children. Across all homes, care was provided for an average of 67 hours per week; more than half of the homes provided care during weekend hours, and a majority (58 percent) provided off-hours care. Most (77 percent) made special arrangements for early drop-off or late pick-up at the parent's request.
Services to Children With Special Needs
Data from the National Study's in-depth research on family child care also revealed that 26 percent of the homes in that sample had at least one child with special needs. A Montana survey of child care providers found that at some point, two thirds of child care providers had made available services to a child with a disability (McGregor et al., 2003). In a 2001-2003 study of child care providers in Alameda County, California, Who Stays? Who Leaves? Whitebook et al. (2004) found that 69 percent of centers in their sample cared for children with special needs, with an average of 5.8 children with special needs enrolled per center. Fifty-seven percent of center directors felt their staff was sufficiently trained to care for children with special needs. In licensed homes, 30 percent cared for children with special needs, and one third of these providers had received specific training for working with such children. The Midwest Child Care Research Consortium found that child care providers who worked in inclusive settings that served children with disabilities were more likely to report having training specific to child development and to view their jobs as a personal calling and career.
Reasons for Providing Care
A number of recent studies suggest that finding enjoyment in working with children and the desire to support parents and children weigh heavily in the decision to work in child care (Bromer & Henley, in press; Whitebook et al., 2004; Ramsburg et al., 2003; Marshall et al., 2003). In a study of license-exempt providers in Illinois, providers stressed the desire to care for children and an enjoyment of providing care as the reasons they choose to do this type of work. Grandparents and other relatives commonly expressed love for child care (Ramsburg et al., 2003). Providers in Massachusetts reported that the most rewarding aspects of their jobs were doing work they considered important and that impacted people's lives (Marshall et al., 2003). The most stressful aspects of the work included the unpredictability of earnings and the need to juggle conflicting tasks or duties.
Provider Turnover
Child care quality and positive outcomes for children are associated with caregivers who are engaged and responsive to the needs of the children in their care; consistent and have established trusting relationships; and better educated, trained, and paid. Indications are, however, that turnover continues to be a barrier to continuity and the development of responsive relationships critical to child care quality. According to the Then and Now study (Whitebook, 2000), two thirds of the child care workforce is gone in 4 years. Most States are spending some of their CCDF quality funds to address workforce issues including initiatives that link training and compensation.
Whitebook et al. (2004) looked at patterns and predictors of movement within and out of child care employment in Alameda County, California, for home-based providers (licensed and license-exempt), teaching staff, and directors in child care centers. Turnover for center-based directors and teachers and licensed home-based providers was about 20 percent, lower than in the 1990s. About 80 percent of this sample indicated they planned to stay in their child care job for at least 3 years. Retention was associated with factors that indicate a professional and personal commitment to the field and intentionality in selecting child care as a career. Among home-based providers, those who had selected child care because they had young children or because others in their community needed assistance were less likely to remain in the field over time. Subsidized license-exempt providers were less likely to remain in child care. Only 31 percent of providers receiving subsidies in December 2000 were still on the subsidy lists a year later.
A study on the cost and quality of family child care homes in Massachusetts (Marshall et al., 2003) found that one quarter of licensed providers expect to stop providing child care within the next 3 years. Most of the providers indicate that their next job will not be in early care and education.
Wages and Benefits of Child Care Workers
Some researchers report that wages and benefits commensurate with training and experience are among the key factors that help retain workers in centers and family child care homes. When teachers and caregivers have formal education and training, and therefore are able to earn higher wages, they tend to stay in the field and provide higher quality care.
In its in-depth study of family child care providers, the National Study found an average provider household income of $36,570 and a median income of $28,500. Providers who cared just for unrelated children had higher incomes than providers who cared for some or all related children. In Marshall et al. (2003), child care income was at least half of household total income for a majority of licensed providers. More than 10 percent of providers did not have any health insurance. Providers said they would be more likely to continue in child care if they received retirement savings, better pay, health benefits, and greater respect for the work they do.
Whitebook et al. (2004) showed that the 2001 median income for center directors in Alameda County, California, was $62,692 and $45,588 for center teachers; 23 percent of teachers lived in households with earnings below $25,000 per year. Eight percent of teachers reported holding a second job. Fifty-two percent of centers reported offering fully paid health insurance to teachers, with subsidized centers more likely to offer this benefit than nonsubsidized centers. An analysis conducted by the Wisconsin Child Care Research Partnership (2001) found that 56 percent of child care center teachers earned less than $8 an hour, and programs with higher teacher salaries and more experienced directors had lower staff turnover than other centers.
Child Care Quality and Outcomes for Children
New scientific discoveries underscore the importance of children's early experiences for their future healthy development. These discoveries include improved understanding about-
-
Early brain development and learning processes
-
The competencies necessary for success in school
-
The environments necessary to support children's healthy development, especially for at-risk children
-
The roles and differential impacts of diverse care environments in a continuum that spans parents, relatives, friends, family child care providers, and center-based programs
Research on the experiences of school-age children during nonschool hours and the conditions that lead to risky behaviors and school failure point to the need to better understand how programs and caregivers can provide older children with supervision and enriching and stimulating experiences. Several key findings are described below.
Higher quality care is associated with better cognitive and language outcomes for children, particularly for African American children (Burchinal et al., 2000). Such positive outcomes persist into the early elementary school years for children from various backgrounds (Peiner-Feinberg et al., 2001).
The key characteristic for higher quality in child care is the relationship between the child and the child care provider. Positive caregiver-child interactions are developmentally appropriate, language-stimulating interactions in which the caregiver is warm, engaged, and responsive. Adult-child ratios, group size, caregiver training, and caregiver education are related to caregiver-child interaction. Positive interactions are positively associated with school readiness (NICHD Study of Early Child Care; Vandell & Wolfe, 2000).
Child care may not provide children, especially those with risk factors, the experiences necessary to succeed in school. The NICHD study found that despite professional consensus and scientific evidence about the importance of group size and ratios, a large proportion of centers appear to have larger group sizes and more children per caregiver than is recommended.
In a CCB-funded project in Massachusetts on family child care study (Marshall et al., 2003), researchers found that many homes met only minimal standards of health and safety in food preparation, diapering, and toileting. Almost half of the licensed family child care homes were judged "good" in providing a warm, caring environment, including the use of nonpunitive approaches to child discipline and support to children's differences. Only 40 percent met the "good" standard on supporting language and reasoning development, and a majority of homes did not provide the kind of stimulation that supports children's later success in school. Licensed providers who believed that children learn best through experiences and that children's curiosity should be fostered tended to provide a more stimulating, language-rich environment for children. The CCB-funded Wisconsin Child Care Research Partnership study (Roach et al., 2002) found that caregivers' child-centered beliefs were related to quality interactions with children.
Workforce Variables Affecting Quality
A number of studies have examined the relationship between quality and licensing, accreditation, and professional memberships. The Wisconsin Partnership study (Adams et al., 2002) found that 73 percent of directors in accredited centers had a bachelor's degree. Staff turnover rates were higher in nonaccredited centers (39 percent) than in accredited centers (25 percent).
The CCB-funded Midwest Research Consortium (Raikes et al., 2003) examined the roles of regulation and subsidy receipt in a sample of 117 family child care homes from four Midwestern States and found both related to child care quality in homes. Regulation and subsidy receipt appear to influence quality directly and indirectly through effects on provider characteristics. Unregulated and less regulated family child care homes were of lower quality (as assessed using global rating scales) than more highly regulated care.
Care in the Home: A Description of Family Child Care and the Experiences of Families and Children that Use It (Layzer & Goodson, 2005) describes differences between providers who cared for nonrelated children as compared to those who cared for related children only. Providers caring for nonrelated children were more likely to be licensed, to participate in the Child and Adult Care Food Program, and to belong to a family child care organization. While physical environments and interactions with children did not vary significantly between providers who cared for related vs. nonrelated children, dangerous situations were more prevalent in homes where all the children were related to the provider.
Child Care and Employment Outcomes
Research indicates that child care subsidies have a positive effect on women's labor force decisions, but the amount of effect varies significantly across studies, depending on the research approach. Because the availability of subsidies is only one factor in a complex decisionmaking process about employment, other issues such as child care quality; cost and policies related to welfare, taxes, family and medical leave; and health insurance must be taken into account. In general, research indicates that subsidies may have stronger effects on women who are single parents and less well educated.
A study funded by CCB tracking TANF families in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Illinois (Lee et al., 2004) found that among families who began receiving child care subsidies within two quarters of becoming eligible, the probability of ending employment decreased by 25 percent in all three States. In Illinois, the median employment duration was nearly 26 months for those who took up subsidies within two quarters of eligibility as compared with 9 months for those who did not.
Child Care and Employment: Evidence From Random Assignment Studies of Welfare and Work Programs (Gennetian and Michalopulos, 2003) explored the relationship among policy, employment, and child care in 21 welfare pilot programs in more than 20 States and two Canadian provinces to better understand the effects of expanded child care policies on employment among single parents. Expanded child care assistance increased child care subsidy use, lowered parents' out-of-pocket costs, and reduced the proportion of parents who reported having child care problems that interfered with finding or keeping jobs. Enhanced child care assistance resulted in increased use of formal care options.
Other CCB-funded projects looked at the impact of subsidies on parent incomes. In a Philadelphia survey of child care and work, subsidies were found to reduce the incidence of work schedule interruptions (Fagan et al., 2003). In Impacts of Eligibility Expansions and Provider Reimbursement Rate Increases on Child Care Subsidy Take-Up Rates, Welfare Use, and Work, Witte and Queralt (2003) describe how they found that income and age eligibility expansions and increases in reimbursement rates paid to formal providers in Rhode Island significantly increased the likelihood that current and former welfare families would: use child care subsidies, work 20 or more hours per week, and leave welfare for work. These researchers estimate that the reforms nearly tripled the likelihood of current and former welfare recipients working 20 or more hours per week, and reduced by one half the probability of a single mother receiving cash assistance without working or participating in some other approved activity.