Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
Chapter Four: Non-Parental Child Care Among Low-Income Households
In this chapter we describe the non-parental child care arrangements used by low-income families in the study. In the sections that follow, we describe child care arrangements for individual children; the economic aspects of non-parental care; the process by which parents choose non-parental arrangements; and the role of child care subsidies.
Summary of Findings
-
Care by a relative in the relative’s home was the most common non-parental care arrangement for children in low-income families. Almost a third (31%) of children were cared for in this arrangement.
-
Hispanic children were much less likely than White or Black children (14% versus 31% and 27%) to receive care in a center-based program.
-
Most children (88%) were in a single non-parental care arrangement. Multiple arrangements were almost twice as common for infants as they were for other age groups.
-
More than half of children under age 5 (55%-59%) in non-parental care were in care for more than 30 hours a week.
-
Almost half of all families paid nothing for the primary mode of child care. For those who did pay for care, the average per hour cost of care ranged from $1.95 an hour for relative care in the child’s own home to $2.89 an hour for care in the child’s home by an unrelated adult. On average, families paid $2.11 an hour for child care.
-
Families that paid for care spent an average of 17 percent of monthly income on child care. This varied greatly by income level; families living at or below the Federal poverty level who paid for child care spent 22 percent of their income on child care compared with families with incomes between 185 percent and 200 percent of poverty, who spent 10 percent of their income on child care.
-
The most frequently cited factors in parents’ choice of care arrangement were: the safety of the child; the convenience of the arrangement; and the family’s relationship with the provider. The cost of care was cited more frequently by White mothers than by mothers in other ethnic groups, while Hispanic mothers were more likely to cite the safety of the child as a prime consideration for them.
-
Almost half of the families that used family child care or in-home care by an unrelated adult knew the caregiver as a friend or neighbor before they made the care arrangement. A friend or neighbor was the most frequent referral source for users of center care (37%), and was almost as common among users of family child care and in-home care.
-
Of all low-income families using non-parental child care, 16 percent were receiving a child care subsidy at the time of the interview. The proportion varied by income level; 20 percent of families with incomes below 100 percent of poverty received subsidies, compared with 11 percent of families with incomes between 185 percent and 200 percent of poverty. The majority (61 percent) had never applied for a subsidy.
-
Families with children in center care were much more likely to receive subsidies than families that used relative care (31% versus 9%). Care in the child’s own home, whether by a relative or an unrelated adult, was least likely to be subsidized.
-
Of those families that received a child care subsidy, one-third had no out-of-pocket costs for child care; most of the remaining paid the established copayment or more than the copayment.
Non-Parental Child Care Arrangements
Modes of care can be classified in several ways: by location (child’s own home, another person’s home, a child care center); by caregiver (relative or non-relative); and by financial arrangement (paid or unpaid). For the purpose of this study, we used a five-way categorization as shown below:
| Mode of Care | Location | Caregiver |
|---|---|---|
| Center care | Child care center, preschool, afterschool program, etc. | Unrelated adult |
| In-home relative care | Child's own home | Relative |
| Out-of-home relative care | Other home | Relative |
| Family child care | Other home | Unrelated adult |
| In-home non-relative care | Child's own home | Unrelated adult |
Of these five modes, the most common primary mode of non-parental care–that is, the mode in which the child spent the most time when not in school–was out-of home care by a relative, which accounted for 31 percent of children (Exhibit 4.1). The next most common mode was center care (25%). Family child care and care by a relative in the child’s own home accounted for 20 percent and 18 percent of children respectively, leaving 6 percent of children cared for in their own homes.
[D] |
Primary mode of care varied by age of child (Exhibit 4.2). Family child care was an equally common choice for all age groups (19 to 21 percent). Use of center care, however, was much more common for preschoolers (39 percent) than for the other age groups. Care in the child’s home, either by a relative or by an unrelated adult, was substantially more common for infants and school-age children than for the intermediate age groups.22 23 24
| Mode of Care | Age of Child | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Under one year (%) | Age 1-2 (%) | Age 3-4 (%) | Age 5-12(%) | All ages | |
| Center | 18.9 | 27.6 | 38.7 | 20.1 | 24.7 |
| Care by a relative in the child's home | 23.2 | 15.6 | 13.1 | 20.0 | 18.2 |
| Care by a relative in the relative's home | 27.5 | 31.9 | 25.8 | 33.8 | 31.4 |
| Family child care | 21.0 | 20.6 | 20.1 | 19.3 | 19.8 |
| Care by an unrelated adult in the child's own home | 9.4 | 4.4 | 2.3 | 6.9 | 5.9 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Families in different ethnic groups differed markedly in their choice of non-parental child care arrangement. While 27 to 31 percent of non-Hispanic children were in center care 14 percent of Hispanic children were in this care arrangement (Exhibit 4.3). Conversely, Hispanic children were more likely to be in family child care (24%) than children in the other two groups (17% and 19%).25
| Mode of Care | Family Ethnicity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| White (%) | Black (%) | Hispanic (%) | All (%) | |
| Center | 30.7 | 27.0 | 13.5 | 24.7 |
| Care by a relative in the child's home | 15.5 | 18.9 | 21.2 | 18.2 |
| Care by a relative in the relative's home | 27.5 | 32.5 | 35.8 | 31.4 |
| Family child care | 18.8 | 17.0 | 24.1 | 19.8 |
| Care by an unrelated adult in the child's own home | 17.4 | 4.7 | 5.4 | 5.0 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
The great majority of children (88 percent) were in a single non-parental care arrangement, and virtually all of the rest were in two arrangements (Exhibit 4.4).26 Multiple non-parental arrangements were more likely for infants than for other age groups (19%).
The additional arrangements beyond the first did not markedly change the distribution of children among modes of non-parental care. For example, 19 percent of infants and 25 percent of all children under 13 who were in non-parental care were in a center or after-school program as their primary arrangement (Exhibit 4.2). When all arrangements are considered, the proportions using these types of care increased to 21 percent and 27 percent (Exhibit 4.4, bottom panel).
| Age of Child | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Under One Year (%) | Age 1 to 2 (%) | Age 3 to 4 (%) | Age 5 to 12 (%) | Total (%) | ||
| Number of arrangements | 1 | 80.6 | 90.1 | 85.2 | 89.9 | 88.2 |
| 2 | 18.7 | 9.9 | 14.2 | 9.5 | 11.3 | |
| 3 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.5 | |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
| Any of child's arrangements is: | Center care | 20.7 | 28.5 | 41.4 | 22.4 | 26.8 |
| Care by a relative in the child's home | 26.3 | 18.6 | 15.7 | 21.8 | 20.5 | |
| Care by a relative in the relative's home | 34.7 | 34.0 | 31.1 | 35.4 | 34.3 | |
| Family Child care | 24.5 | 22.5 | 21.6 | 21.2 | 21.8 | |
| Care by an unrelated adult in the child's own home | 10.3 | 4.5 | 3.7 | 7.9 | 6.7 | |
| Note: Column totals sum to greater than 100 percent because children are in multiple modes of care. |
Only 43 percent of children under age 13 in non-parental care were in care for more than 30 hours a week (Exhibit 4.5). The percentage was influenced by school-age children, most of whom were in school for most of the time that their mothers were working. Over a quarter (26%) of school-age children were in non-parental care for 10 hours a week or less. Among children under age 5, however, more than half (55% of infants and toddlers and 59% of preschoolers) were in care over 30 hours a week, and only 10 to 13 percent were in care for 10 hours a week or less. (For preschool children in low-income families in the 1997 NSAF data, the comparable percentages were 40 percent in care over 35 hours a week and 15 percent in care for 1-14 hours a week (Capizzano et al., 2000).27)
| Age of Child | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Under One (%) | 1 to 2 (%) | 3 to 4 (%) | 5 to 12 (%) | Total (%) | |
| Less than 10 | 10.3 | 10.0 | 12.7 | 25.9 | 19.1 |
| 10 to 20 | 13.0 | 14.4 | 12.9 | 30.0 | 22.5 |
| 21 to 30 | 21.4 | 19.5 | 15.1 | 12.4 | 15.0 |
| Over 30 | 55.6 | 56.0 | 59.3 | 31.7 | 43.4 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
The Cost of Care
The cost of child care can be looked at from three perspectives: on an hourly basis, on a weekly basis, and as a percentage of household income. We consider each of these perspectives below. In all cases, the costs represent what was actually paid by the family, net of any subsidy. It must be kept in mind that a substantial portion of low-income families paid nothing for non-parental care—either because they were fully subsidized, or because their relatives provided the care gratis. Other families paid only small amounts. For about a fifth of the low-income population using non-parental child care, however, the cost of care comprised a considerable portion of their income.
On an hourly basis, the most expensive modes of care were non-relative home-based care, either in the child’s home or in the caregiver’s home (Exhibit 4.6). The average cost per hour ranged across modes, from $0.76 and $0.94 for care by a relative in the child’s own home and in the relative’s home, respectively, to $1.69 and $1.71 for care by an unrelated adult, either in that adults’s home (family child care) or in the child’s own home.28 However, 43 percent of all families and 58 to 64 percent of families that used relative care paid nothing for the primary child care arrangement (Exhibit 4.7).29 When families that paid nothing for care were excluded from the analysis, the average cost per hour ranged from $1.95 and $2.06 for care by a relative in the child’s own home and in the relative’s home respectively to $2.06 and $2.89 for home-based care by an unrelated adult.
| Mode of Care | Mean hourly fee including those who paid nothing | Mean hourly fee excluding those who paid nothing |
|---|---|---|
| Center | $1.61 | $2.12 |
| Care by a relative in the child's home | $0.76 | $1.95 |
| Care by a relative in the relative's home | $0.94 | $2.06 |
| Family child care | $1.71 | $2.06 |
| Care by an unrelated adult in the child's own home | $1.69 | $2.89 |
| All modes | $1.27 | $2.11 |
[D] |
Costs per child-hour reflect the price of child care. Also of interest is the weekly cost of care, which naturally varied between full-time and part-time users. Full-time care cost roughly twice as much as part-time care on average, though the pattern varied somewhat across modes (Exhibit 4.8). It is notable that full-time care on a weekly basis was substantially more expensive for non-relative child care than for non-relative care in the child’s own home. The latter mode was evidently used for fewer hours per week on average, even for children in full-time care. The weekly cost as well as the hourly price of relative care was lower than that of non-relative care.
As a final measure of the cost of care, we examined the amount that families pay for all child care arrangements for all children in a month. Comparing this with reported household income gave us a measure of the burden of child care costs.
| Full-time | Part-time | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean weekly fee including those who paid nothing | Mean weekly fee excluding those who paid nothing | Mean weekly fee including those who paid nothing | Mean weekly fee excluding those who paid nothing | |
| Center | $44.30 | $57.78 | $29.83 | $36.70 |
| Care by a relative in the child's home | $26.91 | 50.85 | 11.72 | 39.05 |
| Care by a relative in the relative's home | $33.18 | $55.04 | $14.21 | $35.83 |
| Family child care | 59.55 | 63.84 | 26.85 | 35.95 |
| Care by an unrelated adult in the child's own home | 34.69 | 62.81 | 24.39 | 40.95 |
| All modes | 41.27 | 58.19 | 20.10 | 37.74 |
Overall, 35 percent of families paid nothing for any of their child care arrangements and, of the remaining 65 percent, roughly equal proportions paid one to 10 percent of their income, 11 to 20 percent, and more than 20 percent (Exhibit 4.9). On average, these families spent 13 percent of their monthly income on child care. Once again, these proportions were strongly influenced by the large proportion of families that paid nothing for child care. When those families were excluded from the analysis, the average proportion of monthly income spent on child care was 17 percent.
These proportions and averages varied surprisingly little by the number of children in the household under the age of 13. Although one-child families were somewhat more likely (40 percent) to pay nothing than larger families (32 to 33 percent), the patterns were otherwise quite similar. For example, the fractions of households paying more than 20 percent of their income for child care among those having two, three, and four or more children, were 23 percent, 23 percent, and 18 percent, respectively (decreasing rather than increasing with the number of children); and the mean proportion of income spent on child care for all three of these groups of households was 12 percent. A probable explanation is that families with more children were more likely to use relative care.
| Proportion of Income | Number of Children | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (% of families) | 2 (% of families) | 3 (% of families) | >3 (% of families) | All (% of families) | |
| 0 | 39.7 | 31.6 | 33.4 | 31.8 | 35.3 |
| 0 to 10 percent | 23.8 | 22.2 | 25.1 | 28.6 | 23.8 |
| 10 to 20 percent | 19.8 | 22.3 | 18.6 | 21.7 | 20.9 |
| Over 20 percent | 16.7 | 23.0 | 22.9 | 17.9 | 20.0 |
| Mean burden | 9.6 | 12.5 | 12.1 | 11.4 | 11.1 |
| Mean burden excluding families with zero payment | 15.9 | 18.3 | 18.2 | 16.7 | 17.2 |
The proportion of income spent on child care varied strongly by income level. Although households living in poverty were quite likely to spend nothing on child care (38 percent), on average they still spent 13 percent of their income on child care. Families with incomes between 185 percent and 200 percent of poverty, by contrast, were less likely to spend nothing (31 percent), but still spent, on average, less than 7 percent of their income on child care.30 When we excluded families that paid nothing for child care, these proportions changed, most strikingly for families living in poverty. Families with incomes at or below the Federal poverty level who paid for care spent, on average, 22 percent of their monthly income on child care. Smaller increases in the proportion of family income spent on child care were seen for families with incomes between 101% and 185% of the FPL (from 10% to 15%) and for families with incomes between 185 percent and 200 percent of FPL (from 7% to 10%); (Exhibit 4.10).
| Proportion of Income | Under 100% of FPL (% of families) | 101 - 185% of FPL (% of families) | 185-200% of FPL (% of families) | All (% of families) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 38.3 | 33.0 | 31.0 | 35.3 |
| 0 to 10 percent | 17.5 | 26.3 | 42.3 | 23.8 |
| 10 to 20 percent | 16.5 | 26.0 | 20.4 | 20.9 |
| Over 20 percent | 27.7 | 14.7 | 6.2 | 20.0 |
| Mean burden | 13.4 | 9.7 | 6.6 | 11.1 |
| Mean burden excluding families with zero payment | 21.7 | 14.5 | 9.6 | 17.2 |
Choice of Child Care Arrangement
Respondents were asked to say in their own words why they chose their child’s primary care arrangement. Their responses were grouped in six broad categories:
-
Cost
-
Practical considerations
-
Safety
-
Provider qualities
-
Child’s development
-
Relationship with provider
The most significant factors affecting parental choice were safety, convenience, and the family’s relationship with the provider. Each of these broad categories was cited by 17 to 20 percent of respondents as the single most important consideration, and was mentioned as an important factor by 35 to 51 percent of respondents. (Exhibit 4.11).
Reasons varied little across income groups. Families under 100 percent of poverty were 8 to 10 percentage points less likely to mention cost, and 5 to 7 percentage points less likely to mention developmental aspects, than either of the other two income groups. Ethnic variations, however, were striking. White mothers were 13 percentage points more likely than either Black or Hispanic mothers to mention cost as an important factor, while Hispanic mothers were 12 to 13 percentage points more likely than either of the other two groups to mention safety (Exhibit 4.12). Hispanic mothers were also markedly more likely to mention their relationship with the provider as an important factor, and less likely to mention child development considerations.
Mothers who were not using relative care were asked how they first learned about the child’s provider. For family child care and in-home non-relative care, nearly half of mothers (46 to 49 percent) already knew the provider as a friend or neighbor, and most of the rest (34 to 37 percent) were referred by relatives, friends, or neighbors. Advertising and agency referrals each comprised only 4 to 6 percent of information sources.
| Reasons | Most Important Reason (% of families) | Any Mention (% of families) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost | 11.6 | 28.4 | |
| Cost | 11.4 | 28.2 | |
| Accepts subsidy | 0.2 | 0.6 | |
| Practical Considerations | 16.8 | 40.3 | |
| Availability | 2.4 | 7.9 | |
| Hours | 4.2 | 12.7 | |
| Location | 9.7 | 27.9 | |
| Transportation | . | 0.4 | |
| Will care for siblings | 0.5 | 1.9 | |
| Safety | 19.3 | 51.4 | |
| Centers are monitored more closely | 0.4 | 1.6 | |
| Provider is trustworthy | 11.2 | 30.1 | |
| Recommended by someone I trust | 1.2 | 3.5 | |
| Safety/health/cleanliness | 6.5 | 26.9 | |
| Provider Qualities | 6.7 | 30.7 | |
| Attention/warmth towards children | 2.4 | 14.4 | |
| Child was comfortable | 1.2 | 7.7 | |
| Experience in caring for children | 2.3 | 10.8 | |
| Home-like atmosphere | 0.7 | 5.0 | |
| Child Development | 5.4 | 19.7 | |
| Children of different ages | 0.2 | 1.9 | |
| Children of same age | . | 0.2 | |
| Prepare child for school | 2.0 | 6.4 | |
| Size of group | 0.8 | 4.0 | |
| Staff is trained, professional | 2.4 | 9.7 | |
| Program/activities/structure | . | 1.0 | |
| Relationship with provider | 19.6 | 34.7 | |
| Has same values | 0.4 | 4.6 | |
| Like a family member/close relative | 1.8 | 4.8 | |
| Relationship to parents | 17.3 | 28.0 | |
| Same language/ethnicity | 0.0 | 0.6 | |
| No reason given | 20.6 | 20.6 | |
| Reasons | White (% of families) | Black (% of families) | Hispanic (% of families) | All Respondents* (% of families) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cost | 36.7 | 23.8 | 24.0 | 28.4 |
| Convenience | 42.5 | 40.3 | 37.3 | 40.3 |
| Safety | 48.3 | 46.9 | 59.2 | 51.3 |
| Provider Qualities | 31.9 | 26.9 | 34.5 | 30.8 |
| Development | 24.0 | 20.2 | 13.5 | 19.6 |
| Relationship | 30.4 | 34.2 | 42.5 | 34.8 |
| No Reason Given | 23.1 | 22.3 | 15.0 | 20.6 |
| Note: Columns total more than 100% because multiple responses were permitted. |
For center care users, by contrast, only 15 percent of mothers already knew the provider (e.g., through working at the center, having another child there, seeing it in the neighborhood). The bulk of mothers (37 percent) responded that they were referred to the center by a relative, friend, or neighbor. Social service agency, employer, and child care provider referrals accounted for another 18 percent, and advertisements for 15 percent.
Difficulty in finding satisfactory child care varied by mode of care. Satisfactory relative care was the easiest to arrange: only 28 to 32 percent of mothers using relative care in their own home or the relative’s home reported that it was difficult to arrange. Finding satisfactory non-relative care was more problematic: 44 to 47 percent of mothers who used family child care or in-home care by a non-relative reported difficulties. For those using center care, 37 percent judged it difficult. (For each mode of care, 6 to 7 percent of mothers judged it “neither difficult nor easy to find satisfactory care”).
The amount of time it took mothers to reach closure on the arrangements after they started looking reflects two factors: mother’s difficulty in finding a satisfactory arrangement, and the flexibility of the provider. Thus, for half of the mothers who used relative care, it took no time at all to make final arrangements, and for only one-third did it take as much as a week (Exhibit 4.13). Two-thirds of users of center care, by contrast, took a week or more to make final arrangements, and one-third took over a month. Elapsed time for users of non-relative in-home care or family child care fell between the two, with about 40 percent of arrangements settled in less than a week.
[D] |
Special needs were reportedly a consideration for 9 percent of families. This proportion varied little by mode of care, ranging from 8 or 9 percent for children in family child care and relative care, to 11 or 12 percent for children in in-home, non-relative or center care. It also varied little by age of child, ranging from 7 percent for toddlers to 9 or 10 percent for the other three age groups. White mothers were a little more likely to report a special need (11 percent) than Black or Hispanic mothers (7 to 8 percent). The most frequently mentioned special needs were health care issues (3 percent of all children), and physical disabilities, learning disabilities, and behavioral problems (each mentioned for 1 to 2 percent of all children).
Fewer than a quarter of respondents (23 percent) would have preferred an alternative care arrangement for their children. This percentage ranged from 20 to 21 percent for mothers using center care and relative care, to 26 to 29 percent for mothers using family child care and unrelated caregivers in the child’s home. Overall, 45 percent of mothers had visited some other arrangement, and 31 percent found at least one satisfactory alternative.
To the extent that parents would have liked a different arrangement at the time they made their choice of arrangement, it appears that they would rather have had their child in “more structured” arrangements. Some mothers whose children were not in center care would have preferred that their child be in a center: 12 percent who were using family child care, and 9 to 10 percent of those using relative care and in-home non-relative care. It seems likely that these were not able to use center care because of considerations of cost, space availability, and the mothers’ work schedules. Smaller proportions, 6 and 7 percent of those using relative care and in-home non-relative care, would have preferred to use a family child care arrangement.
On the other hand, 8 percent of mothers who used center care would rather have stayed home with their children. This alternative was preferred by only 4 percent or less of mothers using home-based care of some kind.
The Role of Subsidies
Overall, 16 percent of respondents were receiving a child care subsidy or voucher. This proportion varied as expected with household income, ranging from 11 percent for those between 185 and 200 percent of the FPL up to 20 percent for those with incomes below the FPL.
Some respondents received assistance from other sources in paying for their child care. Of those who were not subsidized, almost one-quarter (23 percent) were helped by the child’s other (non-resident) parent; friends, relatives, and others made contributions in a few cases. Among those who did receive subsidies, contributions from the child’s non-resident parent were received much less frequently (8 percent).
Many low-income families that were not currently receiving child care subsidies had at least some experience with them. In addition to the 17 percent receiving subsidies, an additional 9 percent had received them in the past, another 9 percent had applied but had not at the time of the interviews, received a subsidy (they may have been found ineligible, or placed on a waiting list), and 3 percent had applications pending (Exhibit 4.14). The remaining 62 percent of families had never applied.31
[D] |
Of those that had applied for subsidies but did not receive one (9.4 percent of all families), over half (5.3 percent) were found to be ineligible. About another quarter (1.8 percent) “got tired of waiting”. The remaining families did not provide an explanation.
Mode of care was strongly related to subsidy status. Families with children in centers were much more likely to receive subsidies (31 percent), and those using relative care much less likely (9 percent), than those using non-relative in-home care or family child care (15 to 17 percent; Exhibit 4.15).32 This pattern could occur because centers and family child care providers were more likely to encourage enrolled families to apply for subsidies or alternatively, because it was more difficult to get subsidy approval for in-home care. Our earlier investigation of this topic for the State and Community Substudy (Collins et al., 2000) suggests that the latter explanation has some validity. Because of concerns about their responsibilities under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the IRS code, as well as concerns about fraud and quality of care, many state policies present obstacles to parents who wish to receive a subsidy for in-home care. For example, some states require that parents who use in-home care formally agree to pay the difference between the minimum wage and the subsidy rate, making the cost of in-home care prohibitive for parents. Even in states where such care is effectively allowed, the state may impose a requirement for a criminal background check, or a home inspection.
The question naturally arises whether receipt of subsidy permits or induces families to choose more expensive modes such as child care centers, or alternatively whether preference for a more expensive mode of care induces families to apply for subsidies. We address this question in two later chapters.
Respondents were asked how they learned about child care subsidies. Of those who knew about subsidies, 42 percent had heard about them from a friend, and 37 percent from an agency. Child care providers were a source of information for an additional 8 percent of respondents, and employers for 4 percent.
We can now look at the relationship between subsidies and how much families pay for child care. Nearly a third (30 percent) of all low-income families received no subsidy, but paid nothing out-of-pocket for child care (Exhibit 4.16). Of the 16 percent that were subsidized, roughly 5 percent paid nothing, 8 percent paid the stated copayment, 1 percent paid more than the copayment, and half a percent paid less than the copayment. Most, but not all, subsidized families were required to make a copayment—state policies vary on this. The small percentage of families that paid less than the required copayment may have reached an agreement with the provider. In some states, providers may charge an additional amount, above and beyond the required copayment. The proportion of families that was subsidized and paid nothing ranged from 8 percent among those living in poverty to about 3 percent for those with incomes between 185 percent and 200 percent of poverty.
[D] |
| Subsidy and Copayment Status | Income Level | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0-100% of FPL (% of families) | 101 - 185% of FPL (% of families) | 185-200% of FPL (% of families) | Total (% of families) | |
| No subsidy, parent pays for care | 48.3 | 57.6 | 62.0 | 53.7 |
| No subsidy, parent pays nothing for care | 30.6 | 30.6 | 27.0 | 30.2 |
| Receives subsidy, no copayment | 7.7 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 5.3 |
| Receives subsidy, parent pays less than required copayment | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.5 |
| Receives subsidy, parent pays required copayment | 10.2 | 7.1 | 6.2 | 8.5 |
| Receives subsidy, pays amount in addition to copayment | 1.2 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 1.0 |
| Receives subsidy, copayment status not known | 1.4 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.9 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Center care 29%
Care by relative in child’s home 30%
Care by relative in other home 25%
Family child care 12%
Care by non-relative in child’s home 5%
Furthermore, the distribution by age of child shows patterns similar to those seen in the community survey (Exhibit C.6). In particular, the two forms of relative care are dominant for infants, while center care and relative care in the relative’s home are the favored modes for preschoolers. For school-aged children, the NSAF sample shows greater preference for relative care in the child’s home versus relative care in the relative’s home – 37 vs. 23 percent, compared with a reverse pattern in the community survey (Exhibit 4.2). Also, the NSAF sample shows half (51 percent) of the 3- to 4-year olds in center care, a somewhat more marked concentration than the 39 percent found in the community survey. (back)
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |