Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
34428584
label
CC [Child Care] State Regulation
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
34428584
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
CC [Child Care] State Regulation
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Jennifer Klein's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
34428584
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7422560-20140536S-010-013-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
67ec65d25596c0ce
ocrText
ONE EAST 75TH STREET
R & make copias 3
THE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021.2692
COMMONWEALTH
TEL 212.535.0400 FAX 212.606.3875
ENHANCING THE COMMON GOOD SINCE 1918
FUND
E-MAIL [email protected]
http://www.cmwf.org
September 17, 1997
den Zigler's study
Nicole Rabner
Associate Director for Domestic Policy
state -by clase
The White House
2
West Wing, 2ⁿᵈ floor
Washington, DC 20502
Dear Nicole:
Deborah Phillips suggested I send you our recent study of infant and toddler child care
regulations that I conducted with Ed Zigler and Kate Marsland. I believe Deborah had
mentioned the study to you in a previous conversation. I know the First Lady is very interested
in young children and child care, and the findings may be useful for her October conference on
child care. The study is being published by the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, hopefully
in the October, but if not then, January 1998 issue.
I met the First Lady at the 1994 Starting Points conference where she spoke so eloquently
on the needs of young children. I had the honor of being the Director of Studies for the Carnegie
Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children and was the principal author of the Starting
Points report. One of the report's four goals was to guarantee quality child care choices. To date
our country is doing a fairly dismal job in this area.
Best regards,
Pooher Traffe Yay
Kathryn Taaffe Young, Ph.D.
Assistant Vice President
KTY:tt
enclosures
LETTERS
U.S.News
Founder: David Lawrence 1888-1973
Day-care dilemma
of inadequate child care, your article
Chairman and Editor-in-Chief
made a compelling case for health and
Mortimer B. Zuckerman
Editor
YOU SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT THE AN-
safety standards. However, we are con-
James Fallows
swer to day care's dangers lies in greater
cerned that readers, especially parents of
Managing Editor Harrison Rainie
Editor, Special Projects Lincoln Caplan
government regulation: "In most states,
young children, may have been left with
Design Director Rob Covey
Director of Photography MaryAnne Golon
the course of study for a driver's license is
the mistaken impression that safety and
Editor at Large David Gergen
longer than for certification as a day-care
health factors alone constitute minimally
Assistant Managing Editors
Outlook, Amy Bernstein; U.S. News, Steven Waldman;
worker" ["Dangerous Day Care," Cover,
acceptable care. Though these factors are
World Report, Stephen Budiansky: Business & Technology. Jim Impoco;
Culture & Ideas, Erica Goode; News You Can Use, Damon Darlin;
August 4]. The real question, which you
critically important, care that addresses
Investigative Projects, Peter Cary: Special Projects, Alvin P. Sanoff;
Special Reports, Anne McGrath, Marc Silver; New Media, William F. Allman;
totally avoided, is what are the require-
only the physical aspects of children's de-
Mary Lord, Betsy Streisand
Senior Writers: Susan Brink, Betsy Carpenter, Avery Comarow, William J.
ments for parenting? Teaching in a build-
velopment is merely custodial. In con-
Cook, Gregg Easterbrook, Jerelyn Eddings, Joseph L Galloway, Paul Glas-
Ins. Wray Herbert, William J. Holstein, Kent Jenkins Jr., Steven D. Kaye,
ing shared by a school-site
trast, care that is consid-
Lewis Lord, Marci McDonald, Matthew Miller, Russ Mitchell, Timothy Noah,
Gerald Parshall, Lynn Rosellini, Michael Satchell, Joseph P. Shapiro, Jeffery
day-care facility with very
caring workers, I have
U.S.News
ered minimally acceptable
L. Sheler, Thomas Toch, Kenneth T. Walsh, David Whitman
Chief of Correspondents: Carey W. English National News Editor: Ted Gest
by early-childhood profes-
Director of Research: Elizabeth Mueller Gross Director of Operations: Karen S.
Chevalier Director of Information Services: Kathleen Trimble Editorial
watched 3-to-10-year-olds
sionals adequately pro-
Business Manager: Lane Simpkins Director of Editorial Projects: Mary Beth Dale
Senior Editors: Bruce B. Auster, Beth Brophy, Shannon Browniee, Charles
be dropped off at 6 a.m.
motes children's social,
Fenyvesi, Richard Folkers, Susan Headden, Stephen J. Hedges, Minam
Horn, David E. Kaplan, Marianne Lavelle, Susan V. Lawrence, Louise Liel,
and picked up at 6 p.m. I've
emotional, and cognitive,
Penny Loeb. Phillip J. Longman, Maria Mallory. Margaret Mannix, Peter Mer-
edith, Robert J. Morse, Thomas Omestad, Christopher Orr, Victoria Pope.
listened to their swearing
EXCLUSIVE
as well as physical, devel-
Rita Rubin, Amy Saltzman, Joannie M. Schrof, Pamela Sherrid, Nancy Shute,
Dangerous
Anne Kates Smith, Douglas Stanglin, Fred Vogelstein, Leonard Wiener, Gor-
and fighting and screaming
opment. This means that
don Witkin
Associate Editors: Elise Ackerman, Julian E. Barnes, Katherine T. Bedding-
for an hour and a half be-
Day Care
parents must be informed
field. Gary Cohen, Linda L. Creighton, Norie Quintos Danyliw, Dorian Fried-
man, Thom Geier, Kerry Hannon, Dana Hawkins, Katia Hetter, Dan McGraw.
fore school and three hours
Some parents have
and assertive consumers,
Richard J. Newman, Douglas Pasternak, James M. Pethokoukis, Christine
Incred the
Preziosi, Joshua Woll Shenk, John Simons, Laura Tangley, Susan Gregory
after. I've watched parents
hardest may that
selecting only caregivers
Thomas, J.J Thompson, Jeannye Thornton, Jo Ann Tooley, Jason Vest.
Kevin Whitelaw
hurrying them there and
who are knowledgeable
Domestic Correspondents: New York. John Marks: Chicago, Warren Cohen:
Los Angeles, Mike Tharp
bustling them home, when
about child development,
Foreign Correspondents: At Large, Richard Z. Chesnoff, Senior Correspondent;
Middle East, Alan Cooperman: Moscow. Christian Caryl; Johannesburg, Don
they were half awake for
maintain a safe and
L. Boroughs: Tokyo, Steven Butler: Beijing, Brian Palmer: Latin America,
Linda Robinson
both trips. Factor in di-
healthy environment, are
Reporters: Shaheena Ahmad, lan Baldwin, Robin M. Bennefield, David Brind-
ley, Timothy M. Ito. Brendan Koerner, Linda Kulman, Margaret Loftus. Mary
vorce with joint custody and you've got an
sensitive and responsive to children's in-
Brophy Marcus, Philippe B. Moulier, Anna Mulrine, Barbra Murray. Research-
ers: Justin Dillon, Dorothy Gannon
enormous number of parents who see
dividual needs, and are nurturing and af-
New Media: Susannah Fox, Amy E. Harrison, Yeatts Jones, Kenan Pollack,
Pamela C. Street
their kids far less than either their teach-
fectionate. Consistent with the thrust of
Contributing Editors: Fouad Ajami, Gloria Borger, Chandler Burr, Susan
Dentzer, Debra Dickerson, Jack Egan, Garrett Epps. Harold Evans. James K.
ers or day-care providers. I've wondered
your article, parents should also demand
Glassman, Lawrence Otis Graham, Nicholas Horrock, Harry Hurt III, John
Leo, Art Levine, Peter Maass, Emily MacFarquhar, Charles McCarry, Merrill
why in a world so overpopulated that we
better monitoring of child-care settings
McLoughlin. Richard Rodriguez. Jonathan Rowe, Michael Ruby, Emily Yoffe.
Tim Zimmermann: Tom Toles, Editorial Cartoonist
are destroying the very planet we live on
by appropriate state agencies.
Special Correspondents: Southern US., Jill Jordan Sieder; Mexico, Lucy Con-
ger: Israel, David Makovsky; India, Brahma Chellaney: U.N. Linda Fasulo
these people bother to have kids in the
KATHRYN TAAFFE YOUNG
NEWS DESK
Chief: Robert O. Grover Senior News Editor: Elizabeth B. Brooke News Editors:
first place?
Commonwealth Fund
James K Bock Lori Buckner, Judy Burke, Kenneth Campbell, Judith A.
Shapleigh, Susan Burlant Vavrick. Assistant News Editor: Erika Pontarelli
CAREN BLACK
EDWARD ZIGLER, KATHERINE MARSLAND
Research: John T. Sellers, Chief, Myke Freeman. Deputy: John K. Englund,
Marissa Melton. Proof Desk: Jim Sweeney. Chief; Sharon S. Kessler, Deputy:
Aptos, Calif.
Yale University
Virginia Lee, Cindy Leitner, Deborah Wallis
OPERATIONS
New Haven, Conn.
Technology Manager: Janie S. Price. Production Manager: Diane Snow Javaid.
Makeup Editor: Harriet Westfall. Makeup Assistant: Daniel G. Callahan. Composi-
WHILE THERE ARE HORROR STORIES
tion Specialists: Alan Weinstein, Chief; Tim Byers, Donald B. Gatling, Cynthia
A. Phelps; Cherilynn Temoney. Assistant. News Assistants: Joyce Simmons
that keep working parents up at night, I
THE DEATH OF 76 CHILDREN LAST YEAR
Chief; Shomari S. Artis, Lakisha M. Kelly, Howard R. Sewell Jr.
ART STAFF
don't know that your article offers a suffi-
while in day care is a tragedy but, as your
Senior Art Directors: Michele Chu, Gerard Sealy. Graphics Director: Robert
Kemp Section Designers: Socarro Q. Gonzalez. Kristine L. Mehuron. Datores
cient solution. What is suggested is more
article noted, there were 4.6 million chil-
Motichka Rebecca Pajak. Sarah Shaw: Enka Christiansen. New Media.
Graphics: Richard Gage, Rod Little, Stephen Rountree. Doug Stern. Art Pro-
government intervention. Yet the author
dren who survived being in a day-care fa-
duction Coordinator: Tara M. Blessinger. Production Specialist: Rob Cady.
Graphics Editor: Jennifer Seter. Graphics Coordinator: Patti McCracken. Graphics
almost seems to blame parents for being
cility. We certainly need regulation and
Lab: Tony Brown
PHOTOGRAPHY STAFF
"cheap" when it comes to choosing child
the highest standards for day-care work-
Senior Editors: James Fiedler Jr: Alice Gabriner: Stanley B. Kayne, Opera-
tions: Lauren Stockbower. Editors Kimberlee Acquaro, Kathering Bouchard
care. The obvious solution is a melding of
ers. I worked in a day-care facility as a
(Paris). Alex Bowers, Carol McKay, Vanessa Vick (New York). Researcher:
Amanda Mac Evitt. Photographers: Chick Harrity, Senior Photographer/Admin-
the two ideas. Why is it that our govern-
volunteer and was impressed with the
istration; Chris Anderson, Charlie Archambault, Torin Boyd, David Butow,
Scott Goldsmith, Kevin Horan, Kenneth Jarecke, Jim Lo Scalzo, Jeffrey Mac-
ment can regulate our day care without
good personal hygiene, focus on healthy
Millan, Alex Quesada Digital Imaging: Beth A. Rogers, Manager: Elizabeth
Urquizu Bosco. Photography Lab: Bill Auth, Chief: Charles Moroney, Charlene
contributing one dime to the cost? The
diet, and absence of the influence of tele-
M. Spicer. Photography/Art Administration: Leslie Current, Manager; Cornelia
Carter, Monica C. Corcoran
public-education system is paid for with
vision. The children thrived with loving
LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES
Assistant Director: Kate V. Forsyth. Reference: Nancy L Bentrup, Anne Brad-
tax dollars and is heavily regulated by the
care, which I feel certain is typical of most
ley, Monica M. Ekman, Carol Hook, Amy B. Kost, Mark E. Madden. Sheila
Thathimer. Databass/Index: Lisa Costello, Administrator; Noreen Badua. JO-
government. Why doesn't this carry over
child-care programs. Your report con-
lene Blozis. Photographs: XI Van Fleet, Supervisor: Richard Hare, Michael
Owens. Technical Services: Judith A Katzung. Collection Manager; Lee Ne-
into preschool education? Why aren't
veyed the idea that there is a crisis in the
ville. Government Information; Elizabeth Aviles, Daureen Burton, Elaine Co-
vard. Peggy Everheart, Benita Myers Garnett, Nora Keating
day-care facilities government subsidized
programs, but that is not supported by
NEWS SERVICES
Managers, Administration: Cathy Roberts Sweeney Lynne Edwards. Adminis-
and regulated? When nearly every parent
the numbers you cited. Parents shouldn't
trative Editors: Mary Jean Hopkins. Elizabeth Smith Administrative Assistants:
Emily Adcock, Sara Hammel (New York), Marietta Miller. News Bureau Manag-
works, child care is such an obvious na-
be frightened unnecessarily.
er: Jennifer Howard Editorial Business Assistant: Michael H. Tucker. Interviews
Administrator: Ronald Wilson. Editorial and Reader Services: Susan J. LeClair,
tional need. Even people without children
GERRIE RYAN
Director, Erin Torpey Haight, Bea Jones, Tony Lunger, Paula E. Ross,
Yvonne Samuels, Pauline Washington-Diggs. Communications: Michele Bat-
could benefit from having their tax dol-
Escondido, Calif.
taline, Colleen A. Connors. Celeste A. James, David Nahigian, Amber Rice.
New Media: Elizabeth Fairhead, Kristen K. Gunn, Rennie Sloan
lars invested in our children.
Chief Executive Officer
VIRGINIA D. WYETH
Fred Drasner
Prozac and children
President and Publisher
Benton, Ark.
Thomas R. Evans
Executive Vice President-Eric J. Gertler
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON'S "PEPPERMINT
Senior Vica President-Consumer Marketing, Hilleary C. Hoskinson
Vice President-Manutacturing, Michael J. Armstrong
AS THREE OF THE EXPERTS CITED IN
Prozac" column is a masterpiece of irony
Vice President-National Ad Sales Director, Patrick K Hagerty
Vice Presidents-Ad Sales. Boston, Neal Silverman, Chicago, Gregory P. Billie:
your story, we would like to offer a few
[On Culture, August 18-25]. She is able to
Detroit. Barbara Doyle: New York, Elizabeth G. Murphy, Director,
Donaldson Ross, Manager; San Francisco, Dudley F, Wing
points of clarification. By vividly docu-
determine the appropriate medical evalu-
Managers-Ad Sales, Dallas, Amy Van Court; Los Angeles, George H. Burns:
Washington, D.C Anthony Janowski
menting the life-and-death consequences
Vice President-Marketing Director, Deborah B. Farnham
ation of mood disorders, the correct FDA
Vice President-Consumer Marketing, Catherine J. Hagney
Vice President-Specialty Publishing, Susan C. Riker
Director of Corporate Communications, Bruce J. Zanca
Director of Retail Sales, John M Kalinowski
General Counsel, Gail A Lione
4
U.S.NEWS & WORLD REPORT. SEPTEMBER 15, 1997
President- News New Vision, Michelle Faurot
Publisher Emeritus. Richard C. Thompson
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
1
Running Head: INFANT & TODDLER CHILD CARE REGULATIONS
The Regulatory Status of Center-based
Infant & Toddler Child Care
Kathryn Taaffe Young
The Commonwealth Fund
Katherine W. Marsland and Edward Zigler
Yale University
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
2
Abstract
A decade ago Young & Zigler (1986) reviewed the status of state and federal regulation
of center-based infant and toddler child care. Results of that analysis indicated that state
regulations fell far short of the recommended quality standards set forth in the Federal
Interagency Day Care Requirements (FIDCR). In fact, not one state met these standards
across all three of the assessed quality dimensions: group composition, staff training and
program of care. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which minimum
quality standards are reflected in current state regulations for center-based child care and to
assess changes in these regulations over the last decade. Toward that end, a five point
rating scale was developed to rate nine quality indices, grouped into three dimensions: (1)
Grouping (staff:child ratios and group size); (2) Caregiver Qualifications (general level of
education, specialized training, and inservice training); and (3) Program (program of care,
orientation, equipment, and facilitates). Results indicate that very little progress has been
made toward strengthening state infant and toddler child care regulations. The majority of
states do not require child care centers to meet acceptable standards for infant and toddler
care. Moreover, while most states had language that would require centers to follow most or
all guidelines for appropriate practice, almost all of the states had staff training ratings of
either unacceptable or very poor on their requirements for staff training. Analysis of
regulatory changes between 1982 and 1990 revealed minimal and uneven improvement.
These findings are discussed in terms of both the interrelation of quality dimensions and the
ongoing importance of improved state-level infant and toddler child care regulation.
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
3
The Regulatory Status of Center-based
Infant and Toddler Child Care
Within a relatively short period of time, the use of out of home child care has become a
necessary reality for the majority of families with children in the United States (US Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1990; Hofferth, 1992; Willer, Hofferth, Kisker, Divine-Hawkins, Farquhur, &
Glantz, 1990). This change in the care and rearing of very young children has prompted a
significant amount of analysis and debate within both the scientific and policy arenas.
Importantly, research on the developmental effects of child care has demonstrated that child
care is a heterogeneous phenomenon with both identifiable and regulatable features that
are strongly associated with quality and that ultimately influence children's psychological
development (Cost, Quality, & Child Outcomes Study Team, 1995; Phillips & Howes,
1987).
One area that has received considerable empirical attention concerns the relation
between early child care and and infants' socio-emotional development as indicated by
attachment style. Some (e.g., Belsky & Rovine, 1988) have argued that nonmaternal infant
care is strongly associated with insecure and avoidant attachment styles, particularly when
such care is initiated during the first year. However, others (e.g., Howes, Phillips, &
Whitebrook, 1992; Lamb, Sternberg, & Prodromidis, 1992; National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network, 1996) have concluded that
child care itself neither promotes nor comprimises infants' security of attachment; rather
attachment is influenced by a combination of factors including the over-all quality of child
care, the number and stability of care arrangments during the first 15 months, maternal
sensitivity, and the number of hours in child care per week.
Other studies have investigated child care's effects on both language and cognitive
development (e.g., McCartney, 1984; Studer, 1992). For example, investigators have
found that twelve month old infants' cognitive development was positively related to the
quality of their child care center while poor communication skills were related to inadequate
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
4
infant:adult ratios. Most recently, a longitudinal study of the effect of child care on children's
cognitive and language development found that better outcomes in both domains were
associated with better quality care (NICHD, 1997).
While the effects of child care remains the topic of some debate (e.g., Scarr, 1996), there
is general consensus regarding one point: the better the quality of care, the better the
outcomes for young children (Love, Schochet & Mechstroth, 1996). There is also
considerable agreement about which features of child care are most important to overall
quality, particularly with respect to the care of infants and toddlers. These features include:
staff:child ratio and group size, appropriateness of care provided (i.e. the extent to which
care meets infants' social, cognitive, physical, and emotional needs) and staff training and
education (Hayes, Palmer, & Zaslow, 1990). Despite this evidence, however, the actual
quality of infant and toddler child care varies tremendously.
In addition to underscoring the relation between child care quality and children's
developmental outcomes, these findings emphasize the importance of regulatory
standards in determining the quality of child care. This position is far from new; numerous
reports have made the case for improved regulatory practices-that the quality of care
improves when standards are more stringent (e.g., CQ&O, 1995; Howes, Smith, & Galinsky,
1995; Morgan, 1980; Phillips & Zigler, 1987; Whitebrook, Howes, & Phillips, 1989; Zigler &
Ennis, 1989; Zigler & Gilman, 1992).
In fact, a decade ago Young and Zigler (Young & Zigler, 1986) reviewed the status of
infant and toddler day care regulations at both the federal and state levels. This paper
analyzed the extent to which state infant and toddler regulations reflected the quality
standards set forth in the Federal Interagency Day Care Requirements (FIDCR: Federal
Register, 1980). Regulations were assessed across three domains: grouping (staff:child
ratio and group sizes); staff qualifications and training; and whether the regulations called
for developomentally appropriate care. The data for these analyses were drawn from the
Comparative Licensing Study, Profiles of State Day Care Licensing Requirements for Day
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
5
Care Centers, Family Day Care Homes, and Group Day Care Homes (Administration for
Children, Youth and Families, 1982).
Analysis of these data indicated that state regulations did not consistently reflect FIDCR
recommended quality standards. In fact, not one state met the recommended standards
across all three dimensions of quality. Specifically, no state met the infant and the toddler
FIDCR guidelines for both staff:child ratios and group sizes. Only one state met the
staff:child ratio guidelines for both infant and toddlers, and 32 states (62%) failed to meet
FIDCR group size recommendations. Further, only eight states (16%) required that
caregivers in centers serving infants and toddlers have training in child care or child
development; 26 states (52%) allowed a person with no previous training in child care or
development to be director of a day care center. Finally, only 21 states (42%) met or
exceeded FIDCR guidelines for program.
The study reported here builds on this earlier report in two respects. First, a rating system
derived from an array of established quality standards, including the FIDCR, afforded a
more fine-grained analysis of state regulations. Importantly, this system produced ratings of
individual quality domains (e.g. grouping, staff qualifications, and programming) as well as an
overall quality rating for each state. This represents a significant improvement over previous
analyses of state child care regulations in that it enables both within- and across-state
analysis of the extent to which states' regulations reflect an appreciation of the
interrelatedness of the individual features that affect quality. Moreover, while prior ratings of
child care regulations have been largely dichotomous (e.g., regulations did or did not meet
the specified standards), this rating system quantified the extent to which regulations meet
or exceed minimal quality thresholds Secondly, we also assessed the extent to which the
status of state infant and toddler child care regulations has changed over the intervening
years.
In sum, by quantifying established indices of child care quality, the current study sought
to determine: (1) whether states are currently assuring that programs are expected to be
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
6
guided by basic standards of acceptable, developmentally appropriate practice; (2) whether
states are currently assuring that infants and toddlers are protected from poor and possibly
neglectful situations; and (3) whether states' regulation of center-based infant and toddler
child care improved between 1982 and 1990.
Method
Data were drawn directly from state child care regulations as of July, 1990, for all fifty
states and the District of Columbia. The definition for infants and toddlers was based on
age. Infants were defined as children from birth to 18 months of age, and toddlers were
defined as children from 18 to 36 months of age.
The development of the coding system was guided by existing developmental research.
Because their work represents a consensus of leading researchers, we relied heavily on the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Panel on Child Care Policy's quality criteria, which
delineated both the structural (e.g., group size, staff:child ratios, and staff characteristics)
and programmatic (e.g., space, equipment, and activities) dimensions of good quality child
care (Hayes et al., 1990). Additionally, we drew from both the FIDCR (Federal Register,
1980) and the guidelines for infant and toddler care set forth by the National Association for
the Education of Young Children (NAEYC: Bredekemp, 1987).
Nine quality indices were identified and were grouped into three domains: (1) Grouping
(staff:child ratios and group size); (2) Caregiver Qualifications (general education,
specialized training, and inservice); and (3) Program (physical facilities, equipment and toys;
orientation; and developmentally appropriate program). In order to further refine the
components of quality care as they would appear on a scale, we boistered the relatively
broad statements made by the NAS Panel on Child Care Policy with our reading of current
research. We were, however, obliged to omit some dimensions of quality that are not part of
state regulation, such as regulatory enforcement, staff compensation, and staff turnover.
A five-point quality scale was developed, and regulations were coded by the first author
and a second rater who had assisted with the development of the scale and was thus
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
7
knowledgable about the criteria. Interrater reliability of .90 was found with a subsample of 15
randomly selected states, and disagreements were resolved through discussion.
The general criteria were as follows:
5 Points: Optimal. Meets high quality standards for infant and toddler care as identified
through research and practice; and articulates the direct links between practice and its goals
for fostering child development.
4 Points: Good. Meets most or all perameters for appropriate practices for high quality
care for infants and toddlers as developed through research and practice, but does not
articulate the purposes of such practices.
3 Points: Minimally Acceptable. Articulates broad guidelines calling for appropriate
practice but do not define what appropriate practice means.
2 Points: Poor, Incorporates some minimal guidelines calling for appropriate practice.
1 Point: Very Poor or No Regulations. Incorporates guidelines that are poor practice or
fails to set certain basic minimal guidelines.
Criteria for the five points were specified for each quality index. The criteria for
Minimmally Acceptable standards for each index were as follows:
Grouping
Ratios: Infants 1:4; Toddlers 1:5
Group Sizes: Infants 8 or 9; Toddlers 10 or 11
Caregiver Qualifications
Education: High School/GED
Specialized Training in Development/Care/Education of Young Children:
At least three college-level courses (9-12 credits)
Annual Inservicing in Care/Development/Education of Young Children:
5 - 14 clock hours per year
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
8
Program
Environment: Guidelines specify that environment should enhance the
quality of the program as well as meet basic safety standards
Equipment: Guidelines specify that equipment should enhance the
quality of the program as well as meet basic safety standards
Orientation: General orientation related to child development theory and
practice/early childhood education as well as orientation regarding
health, sanitation, and safety guidelines
Program for Infants and Toddlers: Regulations contain broad language
requiring developmentally appropriate practices for infants and toddlers
or describing some developmentally appropriate activities
The number of points awarded for each quality indice were then summed within each
domain, yielding a raw score for each state for each domain. Because the number of
indices varied across dimensions, the maximum number of possible points was different for
each of the domains. However, given no empirical or theoretical reason to weigh one
dimension more or less heavily than another, the scores for each domain were adjusted to
afford each domain equal weight.
This process generated four weighted scores for each state: three domain scores
(Grouping, Caregiver Qualifications, and Program) and an overall score reflecting the sum of
the weighted domain scores. These weighted scores were then translated into ratings
(Optimal, Good, Minimally Acceptable, Poor and Very Poor) based on the range of possible
weighted scores for each domain. A rating of Optimal reflected the fact that a state received
the maximum number of points possible for a given domain. The remaining range of points
was divided equally among the ratings Good, Minimally Acceptable, Poor and Very Poor.
In sum, the coding system entailed a two part process. States were first awarded points
based on the extent to which regulations met the criteria specified for the indices within
each of three quality domains. These points were then totaled within each domain and were
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
9
transformed into weighted scores in order to afford each domain equal weight. Thus, the
first part generated weighted scores for each of three domains as well as an overall score
reflecting the sum of the weighted domain scores. Second, these scores were translated
into quality ratings, yielding an overall rating and three domain ratings for each state.
Results
Status of Current Regulations
As the charts in Figure 1 illustrate, not a single state met the criteria for Optimal or Good
standards, and only 17 states (33%) had regulations rated as Minimally Acceptable for
infants and toddlers. Thirty states (59%) had regulations that received overall ratings of
Poor, and four states (8%) had no infant and toddler child care regulations at all or had
regulations rated as Very Poor. The overall and dimension specific quality ratings of all
states are summarized in Table 1.
Grouping. Twenty-seven states (72%) received ratings of either Poor (N= 18) or
Very Poor (N=19) for this domain, indicating that they failed to adequately regulate
staff:child ratios and group size. Only 14 states (28%) had Good (N=6) or Minimally
Acceptable (N=8) ratings for Grouping. Not one state received an Optimal rating for this
domain. This means that 18 states permit staff:child ratios of between 1:5 and 1:7 for
infants and between 1:6 and 1:8 for toddlers, and 19 states allow ratios of 1:8 or less for
infants and 1:9 or greater for toddlers. Moreover, 23 of these states failed to regulate group
size for either infants or toddlers.
Caregiver Qualifications. Almost all of the states (98%) had Poor (N=25) or Very
Poor (N=25) ratings for caregiver education, training, and inservicing. In fact, most states
permit infants and toddlers to be cared for by staff who, on average, have not completed
high school, have only had some general training in child development or early-childhood
education, and receive fewer than 5 hours of inservice training annually. Only one state,
Minnesota, received a rating of Minimally Acceptable in this domain. No states received
ratings of either Good Or Optimal.
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
10
The very low ratings for staff preparation led us to look more closely at how each
qualifications for three staff positions (directors, unsupervised caregivers, and supervised
caregivers) influenced the aggregate quality ratings. Only 14 states (27.5%) met Minimally
Acceptable standards for the education and training of directors of child care centers. This
means that only a minority of the states require a program director to have, at minimum, a
high school degree, three college-level courses in child development or early childhood
education, and to participate in five to 14 hours of inservice training per year.
Program. The data reveal that a total of 45 states (88%) had at least broad language
requiring centers to provide developmentally appropriate programs of care for infants and
toddlers. Twenty-eight states (55%) were rated as either Good (N=27) or Optimal (N=1),
indicating that they required centers to operationalize a developmentally appropriate
program of care in the areas of social, intellectual, emotional, or physical development. In
contrast, six states (12%) had regulations that failed to meet minimally acceptable standards
for program guidelines; eight percent (N=4) were rated as Poor, and two (4%) were rated as
Very Poor.
A closer look at these data reveals an important pattern. While many states required
developmentally appropriate programs of care, few mandated minimally acceptable
Grouping or Staff Qualification standards. In fact, there was no significant correlation among
the scores for the three domains. Although the mean Program score was 21 (Minimally
Acceptable), the mean Grouping and Caregiver Qualification scores were 13 (Poor) and 11
(Poor) respectively. Consequently, although 17 states received overall ratings of Minimally
Acceptable, this rating does not indicate that the states established Minimally Acceptable
standards for each of the three domains. Rather, high Program scores tended to
compensate for low Grouping and Caregiver Qualification scores. In fact, five of the 17
states that received Overall ratings of Minimally Acceptable were rated as either Poor or Very
Poor in both the Grouping and Caregiver Qualification domains but Good in the Program
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
11
domain. Only one state (Minnesota) received ratings of Minimally Acceptable for each of the
three domains.
Follow-up Analyses
Zigler & Young's (1986) analyses employed a dichotomous rating system: regulations
either did or did not meet quality standards as articulated in the FIDCR. Therefore, to
compare the current findings with those of this earlier study, the more recent data were
transformed into categorical form based on whether or not they met the current criteria for
minimum acceptable quality . It is important to note that although the two studies employed
quality criteria based on different sources, the two sets of criteria are comparable in that both
*
the FIDCR and NAS criteria articulate a comon core of minimum acceptable standards.
Grouping. Regulations governing ratio/group size showed some improvement. Of the
13 states (27%) that altered their regulations concerning this domain, all evidenced
improvement. While it is heartening to note that no states relaxed their ratio/group standards
and approximately one quarter strengthened their requirements in this area, the regulations
of 37 states (74%) continued to fall short of minimum grouping guidelines when reassessed
in 1990.
Caregiver Qualifications. In contrast to Grouping standards, regulations regarding
Caregiver Qualifications actually worsened. The only state to improve regulations in this
domain was Minnesota. Perhaps most distressingly, 41 states (82%) failed to improve their
regulations regarding caregivers' education, training, and inservicing. Moreover, all 41 of
these states failed to meet minimum guidelines for this domain in both 1982 and 1990.
Further, of the nine states whose regulations did change, eight (88%) relaxed, rather than
strengthened, their regulations. The potential importance of this to the actual overall quality
of care provided will be discussed below.
A state by state summary of this comparison across all three domains is available upon
request.
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
12
Program. With respect to regulation of program of care, 21 states (51%) showed no
improvement; 18 states (44%) improved sufficiently to meet or exceed minimum quality
criteria; and two states Colorado and Indiana, relaxed their regulations to such an extent
that they no longer meet minimum quality thresholds. Of the states whose ratings did not
change, 18 (56%) met minimum quality criteria in both 1982 and 1990.
Finally, despite the continued call for more stringent regulations, the overall thresholds of
quality set forth in virtually all state regulations continue to fall short of minimum acceptable
levels for infants and toddlers. Notably, none of the states met the quality criteria for every
domain in 1982 and only one state, Minnesota, did so in 1990.
Discussion
The results of this study quantitatively document that state child care regulations
continue to allow infants and toddlers to be cared for in environments that do not meet basic
standards of appropriate practice that assures the safe and healthy development of very
young children. Specifically, 67% of the states received overall ratings of Poor or Very Poor,
indicating that they failed to require even minimally acceptable care. Not one state received
an overall rating of Good or Optimal. These findings are in keeping with previous studies
that have examined state level child care regulations and are particularly distressing in light
of previous findings documenting the relation between state regulatory standards, the
provision of high quality care, and child outcomes (CQ&O, 1995; Howes, Smith & Galinsky,
1995).
To establish healthy bonds with their caregivers, very young children need warm,
stimulating and individualized nurturance from an adult who is knowledgable about
children's growth and development and who stays in the job long enough to establish a
consistent relationship. Thus, in interpreting these results the interrelation among the three
quality dimensions must be considered. Structural features such as ratios, group sizes and
caregiver training largely determine how effectively a specified program of care can be
implemented (Hayes et al., 1990). It is hard to imagine that one adult can possibly ensure
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
13
the safety, let alone provide an appropriately nurturing and stimulating environment for nine
(or more) infants. This scenario, however, meets the regulatory guidelines set forth in the
37 states that endorse such ratios and group sizes.
Similarly, the likelihood that a developmentally appropriate program of care will be
implemented is reduced if care givers do not receive appropriate training and are
responsible for caring for more than a few infants or toddlers. Nevertheless 36 states
currently allow less than acceptable practice in both the Grouping and Caregiver
Qualifications domains. Thus, although state policy makers' awareness of the importance of
both small staff:child ratios and developmentally appropriate practice in defining program
goals and activities seems to have improved somewhat, regulations still do not reflect a
sufficient appreciation of the need to keep infant group sizes small and the importance of an
educated and trained staff to care for and nurture children during their most formative early
years.
This disconnect is reflected most distressingly in the results of the follow-up analysis.
Despite significant advances in our understanding of how environmental factors influence
early development and repeated calls for more stringently regulated child care, states have
not significantly improved guidelines for the care of children during their most formative
years. A majority of states continue to fall short of Minimally Acceptable levels across all
three quality domains. Although a minority of states strengthened their requirements in the
Grouping and Program domains, the opposite trend was evident with respect to Caregiver
Qualifications: here states actually relaxed their requirements.
Recently there has been discussion among policy makers of relaxing staff:child ratios and
group size guidelines. Proponents of this view argue that staff:child ratios and group size
regulations unnecessarily restrict providers' ability to mix children of different ages, thereby
reducing the costs of child care (e.g., Passell, 1996; Scarr, 1996). While this argument may
be worthy of debate with respect to preschool and school-age child care, particularly in
combination with more exacting requirements for caregiver training and education, it is
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
14
inappropriate with respect to infants and toddlers who require more individualized care.
Further, the findings reported here indicate that only six states had staff:child ratio and
grouping standards that were more restrictive than those that are considered minimally
acceptable, and only eight states met the criteria for minimally acceptable standards in this
domain. The remaining 37 states were rated as poor or very poor. Thus, only six states
could relax staff:child or grouping standards without falling below the level that is considered
minimally adequate for children's safe and healthy development.
Though the debate over the exact nature of the relationship between quality of care and
child outcomes continues, there is unanimity regarding one aspect of the relationship: Poor
quality care compromises children's development. Moreover, recent findings (e.g.,
Greenough, Black, & Wallace, 1987; Jones, & Greenough, 1996; Kolb, 1989) regarding
the specific influence of experience on early brain development have important implications
regarding the relationship between the quality of early care and children's outcomes,
underscoring the importance of safe and stimulating environments. Care that does not
provide sufficient nurturance and stimulation during the first three years of life compromises
the development of the neuronal networks that provide the underpinnings for later
children's later development (Shore, 1997). In light of this, it is particularly disheartening to
note that 34 states would allow children to be cared for in environments that compromise
their development.
As noted earlier, the rating system employed in this analysis enabled us to quantify the
quality of states' regulation of the structural dimensions of center-based infant and toddler
child care. Despite the strengths of this focused analysis, however, we note that it does not
address all factors relating to the actual provision of good quality care (e.g., staff
compensation and turnover) nor does itt assess the regulation of non-center-based care
(e.g., family day care).
Additionally, while not a focus of this study, the importance of on-going oversight and
monitoring must also be considered. The specifics of quality oversight vary from state to
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
15
state, and in many cases little monitoring occurs once a center is licensed. In the best
cases, licensed facilities are subject to periodic inspections, unannounced visits and
specified procedures for licensing renewal; however even the most stringent oversight
occurs as infrequently as once every three years (Gazan, 1997)
In sum, the results of our analyses indicate that current state regulations for center based
infant and toddler child care do not consistently establish minimally acceptable thresholds of
quality. Further, minimum thresholds are just that: minimal. No states require or actively
promote the provision of optimal care as defined by experts in child development and early
childhood education. While some states have made movements in that direction over the
past decade, such improvement has been limited to individual quality dimensions and has
not translated into stronger overall standards.
In the absence of federal child care regulations, energies must be directed at
strengthening regulation at the state level. This is particularly true now, given the recent
push for greater state autonomy in areas not constitutionally designated to the federal
government. State-level efforts need to address the regulation of four interrelated
dimensions: staff:child ratios, group sizes, caregiver qualifications, and programmatic
features such as equipment, health and safety. The establishment of a national child care
conference, for instance, would facilitate the exchange of information among child care
professionals, advocates, and policymakers about what constitutes good quality care, the
relationship between quality care and children's development, and the importance of
*
regulation in establishing minimal quality thresholds.
Additionally, efforts must be made to assist parents, who are the consumers of child care
services, to be better informed and more effective consumers. The child care market is
driven largely by price, and good quality care does cost more than poor quality care (CQ&O,
1995). However, two recent studies indicate that parents would be willing to pay up to
$10 more per week for better quality care and that strengthened regulation resulted in an
*
We note that Hillary Clinton recently announced that the White House will sponsor such a
conference in the fall of 1997.
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
16
modest price ($4-5 per week) and did not deter enrollment (CQ&O, 1995; Sibley, Abbott-
Shim, & Galinsky, 1994).
As a society, it is time we recognize that the sound development of an increasing
proportion of children is compromised by inappropriate care during their most formative
years. While stricter regulation and monitoring can never guarantee improved quality, they
can clearly establish minimal quality thresholds, thereby contributing significantly to the
healthy development of all of our nation's children.
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
17
References
Administration for Children, Youth and Families (Office of Human Development
Services), 1982). Comparative licensing study: Profiles of state day care licensing
requirements for day care centers. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Washington, DC.
Belsky, J., & Rovine, M. (1988). Nonmaternal care in the first year of life and the security
of attachment. Child Development. 59, 157-167.
Bredekemp, S. (Ed). (1996). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood
programs serving children from birth through age: expanded edition. Washington, DC:
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Cost, Quality, & Child Outcomes Study Team (1995). Cost Quality, and Child Outcomes
in Child Care Centers, Public Report, second edition. Denver: Economics Department,
University of Colorado at Denver.
Deater-Deckard, K., Pinkerton, R., & Scarr, S. (1996). Child care quality and children's
behavioral adjustment: A four-year longitudinal study. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 37(8), 937-948.
Federal Register (1980). Federal interagency day care requirements. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, DC.
Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S., & Shein, M. (1994). The Study of Children in Family
and Relative Care: Highlights of Findings, New York, NY: Families and Work Institute.
Gazan, H. (1997). Emerging trends in child care regulation. St. Paul, MN: National
Association of Regulatory Administration.
Greenough, W.T., Black, J.E., & Wallace, C.S. (1987). Experience and brain
development. Child Development. 58(3), 539-559.
Hayes, C.D., Palmer, J.L., & Zaslow, M.J. (Eds.). (1990). Who cares for America's
children? Child care policy for the 1990's. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
18
Howes, C., Smith, E., & Galinsky, E. (1995). The Florida child care quality improvement
study: Interim report. New York: Families and Work Institute.
Howes, C., Phillips, D.A., & Whitebrook, M. (1992). Thresholds of quality: Social
development of children in center-based child care. Child Development. 63, 449-460.
Jones, T.A., & Greengbough, W.T. (1996). Ultrastructural evidence for increased
contact between astrocytes and synapses in rats reared in a complex environment.
Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 65(1), 48-56.
Klein, A. G. (1992). The debate over child care: 1969-1990. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Kolb, B. (1989). Brain development, plasticity, and behavior. American Psychologist
44(9), 1203-1212.
Lamb, M.E., Sternberg, K.T., & Prodromidis, M. (1992). Nonmaternal care and the
security of infant-mother attachment: A reanalysis of the data. Infant Behavior and
Development, 15, 71-83.
Love, J.M., Schochet, P.Z., & Mechstroth, A.L. (1996). Are they in real danger? What
research does-and doesn't-tell us about child care quality and children's well being.
Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
McCartney, K. (1984). Effect of quality of day care environment on children's language
development. Developmental Psychology, 20(2), 244-260. 2.
Morgan, G. (1980). Federal day care requirements: One more round. Day Care and
Early Education, 8(2), 26-30.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research
Network (1996, April). Infant child care and attachment security: Results of the NICHD study
of early care, Symposium presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies,
Providence, RI.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research
Network (1997, April). Mother-child interaction and cognitive outcomes associated with
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
19
early child care: Results of the NICHD study. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of
the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, DC.
Passell, P. (1996). Three strategies to help families inthe U.S. New York Times, 25
December, page D2.
Phillips, D.A., & Howes, C. (1987). Indicators of quality in child care: Review of the
research. In D.A. Phillips (Ed.), Predictors of quality in child care. Washington, DC: National
Association for the Education of Young Children.
Phillips, D. & Zigler, E. (1987). The checkered history of federal child care regulation. In
E.Z. Routhkopf (Ed.), Review of research in education. Washington, DC: American
Educational Research Association.
Scarr, S. (1996, April). Child care research, social values, and public policy. Paper
presented at the Stated Meeting of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,
Cambridge, MA.
Shore, R. (1997). Rethinking the brain: New insights into early development. New
York: Families and Work Institute.
Sibley, A., Abbott-Shim, M., & Galinsky, E. (1994). Child care licensing: Georgia impact
study. Quality Assist, Inc.: Atlanta, GA.
Studer, M. (1992). Quality of center care and preschool cognitive outcomes:
Differences by family income. In P.A. Adler and P. Adler (Eds.), Sociological Studies of
Child Development. 5. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
US Bureau of Labor Statistics (1990). Marital and family characteristics of the labor force
from the March 1190 Current Population Survey. Unpublished raw data.
Whitebrook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (1989). The national child care staffing study:
Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in America, Oakland, CA: The child
Care Employee Project.
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
20
Whitebrook, M., Sakai, L., & Howes, C. (1997). NAEYC Accreditation as a Strategy for
Improving Child Care Quality. Washington, DC: National Center for the Early Childhood
Work Force.
Willer, B., Hofferth, S.L., Kisker, E.E., Divine-Hawkins, P., Farquhur, E., & Glantz, F.B.
(1990). The demand and supply of child care in 1990. Washington, DC: National
Association for the Education of Young Children.
Young, K.T., & Zigler, E. (1986). Infant and toddler day care: Regulation and policy
implications. American Journal of Orthospychiatry, 56(1), 43-55.
Zigler, E., & Ennis, P. (1989). Child care: Science and social policy. The child care crisis
in America. Canadian Psychology, 30(2), 116-125
Zigler, E., & Gilman, E. (1993). Day care in America: What is needed? Pediatrics, 91(1),
175-178.
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
21
Table 1
Ratings of 1990 State Infant and Toddler Center-based Child Care Regulation by Domain
and Category
OVERALL
OPTIMAL (Score = 81)
No States
GOOD (Range = 65-80)
No States
MINIMALLY ACCEPTABLE (Range = 49-64; Mean=
Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin
POOR (Range = 33-48)
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, District of
Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, lowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia
VERY POOR OR UNREGULATED (Range = 17-32)
Idaho, Mississippi, South Carolina, Wyoming
GROUPING
OPTIMAL (Score = 27)
No States
GOOD (Range = 21-26)
Connecticut, District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont
MINIMALLY ACCEPTABLE (Range = 16-20)
Alabama, California, Hawaii, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, Utah
POOR (Range = 11-15)
Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, lowa, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Washington, West Virginia
VERY POOR OR UNREGULATED (Range = 5-10)
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Wyoming
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
22
CAREGIVER QUALIFICATIONS
OPTIMAL (Score = 81)
No States
GOOD (Range = 21-26)
No States
MINIMALLY ACCEPTABLE (Range = 16-20)
Minnesota
POOR (Range = 11-15)
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,
West Virginia, Wisconsin
VERY POOR OR UNREGULATED (Range = 5-10)
Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,
lowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington,
Wyoming
PROGRAM
OPTIMAL (Score = 27)
Alaska
GOOD (Range = 22-26)
Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri,
Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin
MINIMALLY ACCEPTABLE (Range = 17-21)
Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, lowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee
POOR (Range = 12-16)
Colorado, District of Columbia, Indiana, Mississippi
VERY POOR OR UNREGULATED (Range = 7-11)
Idaho, Wyoming
Infant and Toddler Child Care Regulations
23
Figure Caption
Figure 1. Quality Ratings of State Regulations for Center-based Infant
and Toddler Child Care
Figure 1
verall
Minimally Acceptable
(33%)
Very Poor (8%)
Poor (59%)