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
24822618
label
Child Care Studies/Research [Folder 1] [3]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
24822618
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Child Care Studies/Research [Folder 1] [3]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Nicole Rabner's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
24822618
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7763278-20121035S-027-008-2015
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
60e35e2d4c882c12
ocrText
CENTER FOR THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN THE DAVID and LUCILE PACKARD FOUNDATION
The Future
of Children
VOLUME 6
NUMBER 2 - SUMMER/FALL 1996
FINANCING
CHILD
CARE
41
Child Care in the
United States Today
Sandra L. Hofferth
Abstract
This article describes the consumers and providers of child care in the United States.
It uses data from nationally representative surveys and research studies conducted
Sandra L. Hofferth,
from the late 1960s through 1995 to examine the child care arrangements parents
PhD., is a research sci-
select for their young children, comparing today's arrangements with those made by
entist and adjunct pro-
parents decades ago. It then discusses the availability of child care, examining both
fessor of sociology at
the number of child care spaces available and whether quality programs are available
the Institute for Social
to suit the needs and resources of parents. The article concludes with speculation
Research, at the Uni-
about how proposed new policies and continuing trends may lead to future changes
versity of Michigan.
in child care.
I
he number of children being cared for in a child care or early edu-
cation program has soared over past decades, driven by increases in
the number of women in the work force, changes in family structure,
and parents' desire to provide children with educational experiences to pre-
pare them for school. (See also the article by Cohen in this journal issue.)
In 1995, for example, 60% of children from birth to five years of age who
had not yet enrolled in school-13 million children-participated in a non-
parental child care or early education program.² Child care is no longer an
expérience for a few children; it is rapidly becoming the norm.
Just as child care is becoming the norm for children, struggling to secure
a child care arrangement is becoming the norm for parents. Parents face an
almost bewildering array of choices: friends and relatives, child care pro-
grams operated either publicly or privately, as either independent business-
es or as part of a chain, either regulated by state agencies or not, and staffed
by individuals with widely varying training and experience. Parents must
weigh considerations of quality and convenience, of availability and afford-
ability as they choose care, all the while worrying about whether they have
made the right decision.
The results of parents' struggles can be seen by examining who pro-
vides care for the young children in America. This article reviews the results
of several representative national surveys and additional research studies to
The Future of Children FINANCING CHILD CARE Vol. 6
No. 2 - Summer/Fall 1996
42.
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN - SUMMER/FALL 1996
compare child care arrangements today with those of two and three
decades ago.³⁹ The data indicate that some shortages may exist and that,
over the past decades, parents have been paying more to place their chil-
dren in settings of declining quality. Such placements have negative
implications for parents' ability to enter and remain in the work force and,
as discussed in the article by Helburn and Howes in this journal issue, for
children's development.
Definitions of Types of Care
family child care refers to a program in
Families are remarkably flexible and inven-
which a provider takes care of unrelated chil-
tive in finding ways to care for their children.
dren in her own home. The family child care
Some working mothers can care for their
provider may be a neighbor, a friend, the
own children at home because they work at
woman down the street who cares for other
home. Others take them to work with them.
people's children while raising her own,
Some share child care with their husbands or
and/or someone who has chosen this as a
partners. Relatives such as grandmothers or
career and business.
aunts may provide care in the child's or their
own home. Other mothers rely instead upon
Regulation of Family Child Care Homes
neighbors, friends, and professionals to care
Regulation of child care is a responsibility of
the states, and states vary widely in how they
exercise that responsibility. States generally
Licensing means that family child care
regulate family child care homes via
homes and centers must meet certain
licensing and/or registration approaches.
Licensing means that family child care
minimum health, safety, and (sometimes)
homes must meet certain minimum health,
programmatic standards before they can
safety, and (sometimes) programmatic stan-
dards before they can serve a specific num-
serve a specific number of children.
ber of children. Registration is a simpler,
more limited approach in which providers
are either required or encouraged to identi-
for their children. Some parents hire an in-
fy themselves to state authorities to certify
home provider (a "sitter" in this article), a
that they comply with state standards and
nonrelative, to care for the child in their own
requirements. 10 Under registration, no ini-
home while they work. If the sitter lives with
tial inspection is required before programs
the child's family, she is often called a
can begin operation.
"nanny." In this article, "relative care" refers
to care by relatives and by husbands or part-
States often use registration with family
ners, and "informal care" refers to all arrange-
child care homes that serve a relatively small
ments (that is, care by relatives, husbands, sit-
number of children and licensing with larg-
ters, and so on) in which care is not typically
er programs. Or they may exempt family
regulated by state or federal agencies.
child care providers serving small numbers
of children from all requirements. In 1993,
Other mothers may rely upon more
only eight states and the District of
formal settings, either family child care
Columbia required that all family child care
homes or, especially as children emerge
providers be registered or licensed.¹¹
from toddlerhood, center-based pro-
grams. These arrangements are dubbed
The aspects of operation that are regu-
"formal" because, depending upon the
lated vary across states but usually cover one
states in which they occur, they are likely to
or more of the following: minimum num-
be regulated and therefore required to
ber of square feet for indoor and outdoor
meet particular standards for health, safety,
activities, minimum age of caregiver, maxi-
and general operation.
mum number of children permitted per
caregiver (staff-child ratio), preservice train-
Family Child Care
ing requirements or criminal background
Although the precise definition of family
check for the caregiver, immunization for
child care differs across states, in most cases,
children before enrollment, prohibition of
Child Care in the United States Today
43
corporal punishment, or parental right to
served, and often in the income level of
visit the home during hours of opera-
their clientele.
tion. 12.13 In 1995, licensing officials were
sometimes not required to routinely visit
Child care centers are generally open all
family child care homes and sometimes
day, five days per week, all year. They provide
required to do so up to four times per year.
care for infants (children up to one year of
In 27 states and Washington, DC, routine
age), toddlers (one- to two-year-olds), and
visits were required less than once per year
preschool children (three- to five-year-olds)
or not at all.¹³
as well as after-school care for school-age
children. Because of their hours of opera-
Few states regulate all of these aspects of
tion, they are well-suited to serve children of
operation. Indeed, because many states
employed mothers who work the traditional
exempt large numbers of family child care
9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.
homes from any regulation, there are many
more unregulated family child care homes
In contrast, nursery school, Head Start,
than regulated ones. In 1990, between 10%
and state prekindergarten programs com-
and 18% of all family child care homes were
prise primarily part-day, part-year pro-
thought to be regulated.¹⁴ This results in a
grams for three- and four-year-olds. They
vast number of family child care homes that
may be part-week as well, offering enroll-
are hard to identify and hard to count.
ment two or three mornings per week, for
example. Among those families that opt
Enrollment in Family Child Care Homes
for a part-day program, middle-income
In 1990, the average regulated family child
families largely have enrolled their chil-
care home served 6 children, and the aver-
dren in nursery school programs, and low-
age nonregulated home served 3. In some
states, providers may serve up to 12 children
in a large family child care home. In 1995,
As children approach entry into kinder-
approximately 9% of regulated family child
care homes were large homes that served 7
garten, most parents choose a center-based
to 12 children. 13
program for their children.
Administrative Auspices of Family
Child Care Homes
income families primarily have taken
Although most family child care providers
advantage of Head Start, the foremost
operate independently as small businesses
early childhood program for low-income
with a sole proprietor, some do operate
children and their families. 15 The latter is
under the sponsorship of an outside organi-
free to eligible families and provides a
zation such as a neighborhood child care
wider range of services than do most other
center or family service agency. In such
early childhood programs, including edu-
arrangements, programs are members of a
cation, structured opportunities for par-
family child care home network where the
ent involvement, and social and health
sponsoring agency takes responsibility for
services.
16
training (and sometimes paying) the family
child care provider and for referring poten-
Regulation of Centers
tial clients to the family child care home. In
Although some states exempt from their
1990. some 23% of regulated and 2% of
licensing regulations church-sponsored cen-
nonregulated providers were sponsored by
ters, part-day preschools, or state prekinder-
an outside organization.14
garten programs that are part of the public
school system, almost all centers are regulat-
Center-Based Care
ed or licensed in some way.¹⁷ Centers are
As children approach entry into kinder-
generally regulated on the same aspects of
garten, most parents choose a center-based
operation as are family child care homes,
program for their children, either (1) a
plus others such as the maximum number
child care program or (2) a preschool,
of children per group. They are also subject
nursery, or Head Start program. These two
to more stringent inspection cycles by licens-
basic types of center-based care vary in
ing officials. In some states, they are visited
their schedules, in the ages of children
up to four times per year. 12 Inspection visits
44
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN - SUMMER/FALL 1996
Figure 1
Administrative Auspices of Child Care Centers
in the United States, 1990
Independent nonprofit
Independent
25%
for-profit
29%
Other-sponsored
For-profit chain
nonprofit
6%
8%
Head Start
9%
Religious-sponsored
/
nonprofit
Public school
15%
8%
Source Willer. B., Hofferth. S., Kisker. E. E., et al. The demand and supply of child care in 1990. Washington, DC: National
Association for the Education of Young Children, 1991. p. 21.
are also required before they can begin
ter-based programs. (The implications of
operations.
auspices for the cost and quality of child care
are discussed in the article by Helburn and
Enrollment in Centers
Howes in this journal issue.)
The number of children enrolled varies sub-
stantially across programs. In 1990, the aver-
Child Care Arrangements
age enrollment in a center-based program
In 1995, there were nearly 21 million chil-
was 67, but it ranged from a low of 50 in the
dren five years of age or younger who had
average Head Start program to a high of
not yet enrolled in school in the United
91 in the average center operated by a for-
States.² About 40% were cared for by their
profit chain.
parents, 21% by relatives, 31% in center-
based programs, 14% in family child care
Administrative Auspices of Centers
homes, and 4% by sitters.² These numbers
In 1990, 65% of early education and care
add up to more than 100% because about
centers operated as nonprofit agencies
9% of parents use multiple child care
(meaning that they were exempt from fed-
arrangements (for example, children
eral and state taxes because they were
might spend three mornings per week in a
judged to be providing a charitable or edu-
center-based nursery school program, but
cational service), and the remaining 35%
two mornings per week and all afternoons
operated as for-profit businesses.¹⁴ As illus-
with a relative). To avoid confusion, this
trated in Figure 1, most nonprofit child care
article focuses on the child's primary
programs operated under the sponsorship
arrangement, defined as the arrangement in
of another organization, usually a religious
which the child spent the most hours each
group, public school, or Head Start.
week. This results in smaller estimates of
Independent for-profit programs constitut-
overall enrollments in center-based pro-
ed 29% and for-profit chains 6% of all cen-
grams; however, it makes the data compa-
Child Care in the United States Today
45
rable to previous studies and uniquely
trast, the use of relatives, sitters, and parents
describes each child.
all declined.
In any case, this picture of current child
The increase in enrollment in center-
care arrangements is a static snapshot. It
based programs has occurred across all age
does not capture the dynamic trends over
ranges. Figure 3 illustrates that, since the
the past 30 years that have led an increasing
early 1980s, the percentage of three- to
percentage of all children to be enrolled in
four-year-olds of employed mothers in
child care and an increasing percentage
center-based programs has increased by
of those children to be enrolled in formal,
almost half, the percentage of toddlers
center-based arrangements.
has doubled, and the percentage of
infants has tripled. In other words, as more
Despite these overall trends, the current
women have entered the work force, more
numbers illustrate persistent differences in
and more of their children have entered
the arrangements parents choose, depend-
center-based programs at younger and
ing upon their employment status, the ages
younger ages.
of their children, and their family income:
(1) employed parents are more likely than
In fact, there has been a large increase in
nonemployed parents to choose center-
center-based enrollments of all preschool
based child care, (2) preschoolers are more
children, whether their mothers are
likely than infants and toddlers to be
employed or not Over half (53%) of all
enrolled in centers, and (3) children from
four-year-old children were enrolled in a
higher-income families are more likely than
preprimary program (including kinder-
children from lower-income families to be
garten) in 1991, compared with just 28% in
enrolled in centers.
1965.19 By 1995, about 40% of three-year-
olds, 65% of four-year-olds, and 75% of five-
Maternal Employment and
year-olds not yet enrolled in school were
Child's Age
enrolled in center-based programs.²
In 1994. 62% of married mothers with a
child under age six were in the work force,
The increase among older preschoolers
compared with 30% in 1970. 18 Because 8 of
in enrollment in center-based programs is so
10 employed mothers are likely to use some
broad-based that the enrollment rates of
form of nonparental child care arrange-
three- to five-year-old children of employed
ment.2 the increased employment of moth-
and nonemployed mothers have begun to
ers outside the home has led to a sharp
converge. In 1991, 50% of three- to five-year-
increase in the use of nonparental child care
over the past several decades.
As more women have entered the work force,
In fall 1993, about 10 million children
more and more of their children have
under five years of age had mothers (mar-
ried or not) in the work force. Of those chil-
entered center-based programs at younger
dren, 47% were cared for by parents or rela-
and younger ages.
tives, 30% in a center-based program, 17%
in a family child care home, and 5% by an in-
home sitter.2 (These arrangements are illus-
old children of mothers not in the work
trated in Figure 2.)
force were enrolled in a nursery school at
some time, compared to 60% of three- to
Over the past three decades, employed
five-year-old children of mothers in the
mothers gradually shifted their care
labor force.¹⁹
arrangements from parents or relatives to
centers or family child care homes (also
The story is different for infants and tod-
depicted in Figure 2). In 1965, only 22% of
dlers, however. Children under three years
young children were in family child care
of age are much less likely to be enrolled in
and center-based arrangements. By 1993,
center-based programs than are three- and
the use of center care increased fivefold,
four-year-olds. Only 7% of all infants and
from 6% to 30%, while the use of family
about 15% of all toddlers were enrolled in a
child care remained at about 17%. In con-
center-based program in 1990.2
Figure 2
Primary Care for Youngest Preschool Child, Employed Mothers, 1965-1993
35
30
25
Percentage
20
15
10
5
0
Parent
Relative
Sitter
Family Child Care
Center
Child Care Arrangement
1965
1977
1982
1985
1990
1993
Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Trends in child care arrangements of working mothers. Current Population Reports. P-23. no. 117. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982; U.S. Bureau of the Census. Child care
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN - SUMMER/FALL 1996
arrangements of working mothers. Current Population Reports, P-23. no. 129 Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. June 1982: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Who's minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Winter
1984-85. Current Population Reports, P-70, no. 9. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1987; U.S. Bureau of the Census. What does If cost to mind our preschoolers? Current Population Reports, P-70. no. 52. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1995: Hofferth, S., Brayfleld, A., Deich, S., and Holcomb. P. National Child Care Survey. 1990 Washington DC: The Urban Institute. 1991.
Child Care in the United States Today
47
Figure 3
Percentage of Preschool Childrenwin Employed Mothers
and In Child Care Centers by Age of Child 1965 1993
40
35
30
25
Percentage
20
15
10
5
0
1965
1977
1982
1984-85
1987
1990
1993
Year
Less than 1 year old
1 to 2 years old
3 to 4 years old
Sources US Bureau of the Census. Trends in child care arrangements of working mothers. Current Population Reports. P-23.
no 117. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Child care arrangements of work-
ng mothers Current Population Reports. P-23, no. 129. Washington. DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. June 1982: U.S.
Bureau of the Census Who's minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Winter 1984-85. Current Population Reports, P-70, no.
Q Washington DC: U.S Government Printing Office, 1987: U.S. Bureau of the Census. What does It cost to mind our preschool-
ers? Current Population Reports, P-70. no. 52. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. September 1995: Hofferth, S.,
Brayfleld. A. Deich. S., and Holcomb. P. National Child Care Survey, 1990. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1991.
In addition, the differential between
utable to the increasing number of women
employed and nonemployed mothers in
in the labor force. (2) The shift from rela-
enrollment for their very young children is
tives and the other parent as caregiver to
still quite substantial: in 1990, the rate of
center-based programs may be due in part to
enrollment in centers for infants of
the increasing proportion of single parents.
employed mothers was almost 5 times high-
Between 1940 and 1960, only about 6% to
er than the rate for infants of nonemployed
8% of children lived in mother-only families;
mothers. The rate of enrollment for tod-
in 1988, 21% of children did.2⁰ As that per-
dlers was about 2.5 times as high. (See
centage has increased, mothers may have
Figure 4.)
fewer relatives and in-laws to rely on, and
those relatives may have to work themselves,
The changes in child care arrangements
leaving fewer available for child care respon-
over time are probably due to three main
sibilities.²¹ (3) The increased enrollment
trends. (1) The increasing percentage of
rates in centers by all three- and four-year-
children who are being cared for by some-
olds is most likely due to parental convic-
one other than their parents is largely attrib-
tions, based on substantial research, 22
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN - SUMMER/FALL 1996
Figure 4
Child Care Arrangements by Age of Child and
Maternal Employ men Status 1990
Other
5%
Center
14%
Family child care
20%
In-home provider
-
5%
Parent
37%
Relative (other home)
11%
Relative (child's home)
8%
Employed mother, children under 1 year of age
Other
3%
Center
Family child care
21%
20%
In-home provider-
4%
Relative (other home)
13%
Parent
32%
Relative (child's home)
7%
Employed mother, children 1 to 2 years of age
Other
4%
Family child care
17%
Center
37%
In-home provider -
3%
Relative (other home)
10%
Relative (child's home)
4%
Parent
25%
Employed mother, children 3 to 4 years of age
Child Care in the United States Today
49
Figure 4 (continued)
Child Care,Arrangements by Age of Child and
MaternalEmploymentStatus, 1990
Family child care
3%
Other
In-home provider,
3%
Center
3%
2%
Relative (other home)
5%
Relative (child's home)
7%
Parent
77%
Nonemployed mother, children under 1 year of age
Family child care
Other
3%
4%
Center
In-home provider
8%
3%
Relative (other home)
7%
Relative (child's home)
6%
Parent
69%
Nonemployed mother, children 1 to 2 years of age
Family child care
2%
Other
In-home provider
6%
1%
Relative (other home)
Center
5%
29%
Relative (child's home)
3%
Parent
TM,
54%
Nonemployed mother, children 3 to 4 years of age
Source: Hofferth, S., Brayfleld. A., Deich, S., and Holcomb. P. National Child Care Survey. 1990. Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute, 1991.
50
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN - SUMMER/FALL 1996
endorsed by public policy,2 and subsidized
their more well-to-do age-mates will probably
by increased dollars for Head Start and state
widen as they move through school.
prekindergarten programs, that preschool
programs can help prepare children for suc-
Summary of Child Care Choices
cess in school.
Mothers' participation in the labor force
leveled off in the late 1980s at about 60% of
Family Income
mothers with children under age five, but
Child care arrangements are also affected by
the use of early care and education pro-
family income. In the past 15 years, the pro-
grams for children continues to grow. In
portion of preschool children of low-income
addition, there continues to be substitution
families who are enrolled in center-based
of formal center-based programs for both
programs has risen.²⁴ But a gap remains
informal care by relatives, sitters, and the
other parent, as well as for family child care.
This is due to the increased use of center-
Only about half of centers in 1990 accepted
based programs by both employed and
infants. Thus, parents have fewer choices for
nonemployed mothers. Both working and
nonworking parents appear to have
arrangements for their infants than for their
become convinced of the value of these
older preschoolers.
programs in preparing their children for
school.
between the enrollment rates of children of
Some of the more frequent use of cen-
lower- and higher-income families. 25 For
ter-based programs is probably associated
example, only about 45% of three- to five-
with increased public funding for center-
year-olds whose family incomes were below
based preschool programs such as state
the poverty level attended center-based pro-
prekindergarten and Head Start. These
grams in 1991, in contrast with about 75% of
programs serve primarily the very poorest
children from high-income families (family
of low-income families, and this may help
income of more than $50,000).25
explain the continued difference across
income levels in the rates of three- to four-
In addition, among the poor, primarily
year-olds' enrollment in center-based
the children from the very poorest families
programs.
where parents are not working seem to be
the ones enrolling in these center-based pro-
These numbers reveal the child care
grams. 26 Children from families where a par-
choices that parents have made, but they do
ent worked but incomes were below $25,000
not reveal if the choices reflect parental pref-
per year were less likely than either children
erences or lack of alternatives.
of nonworking poor or middle-class families
to participate in center-based programs.²
There are probably two reasons: (1) many
Assessing the Need for
publicly subsidized center-based programs
Child Care
are part-day and part-year programs that
Is there a child care shortage? There are
may not meet the needs of working parents
many ways to answer that question. The
and (2) many such programs are open only
most straightforward approach is to estimate
to the very poorest families. Once parents
the number of child care spaces that exist in
begin to work, they may exceed income eli-
the nation, estimate the number of children
gibility for them. (For a review of these sub-
who need child care, and compare the two
sidy programs, see the article by Stoney and
numbers. If the supply exceeds the number
Greenberg in this journal issue.)
of children, then, in this approach, one
would conclude that there is no child care
The differential enrollment rates are
shortage.
important because early childhood pro-
grams are associated with short- and long-
In 1990, for example, there were approx-
term benefits for the children who enroll in
imately 80,000 early care and education cen-
them.22 To the extent that children from
ters with the capacity to serve four to five
low-income families are not enrolled in such
million children (about 20% to 25% of all
programs, the distance between them and
children under age five) 5,14 In 1990, there
Child Care in the United States Today
51
were estimated to be between 668,000 and
1.2 million family child care providers.¹
Regulated family child care providers cared
for about 700,000 children.
In 1990, therefore, there were spaces for
between 50% and 60% of the preschool
children of employed mothers in centers
(including Head Start and state prekinder-
garten programs) or in licensed family
child care homes. The remaining 40% to
50% of preschool children were not left
without care; most were cared for by rela-
tives, friends, neighbors, or others in set-
tings that were not regulated or licensed by
states.
The informal care market-the unregu-
lated sector of the child care market-is
remarkably elastic. It can expand rapidly in
response to demand, in part because it,
unlike licensed center-based programs,
requires little or no initial capital investment
and little administrative complexity. If one
counts only the number of child care spaces
available, the existence of the informal care
market helps to assure that there is no child
care shortage.
© Eric Futran
Of course, this approach of counting
spaces to determine if a child care shortage
exists is overly simplistic: it ignores the need
Variation by Age of Child
for a fit between a space in a child care pro-
Even though there may be enough openings
gram and a child. For example, a space in a
for families needing child care across all
child care program in Beverly Hills is proba-
child care settings, available spaces in cen-
blv not of much use to a family that lives and
ters may not necessarily match consumer
works in south central Los Angeles. Spaces
needs for care for children of particular
in a preschool program are no help to a fam-
ages. Only about half of centers in 1990, for
ilv seeking care for an infant. Spaces in pro-
example, accepted infants, compared with
grams that cost families more than they can
almost all family child care homes. 14 As a
afford to pay are not of use to those families.
consequence, infants and toddlers constitut-
Spaces in a low-quality program are not of
ed fewer than 10% of the children in centers
interest to parents seeking the highest-quali-
but about a quarter of those in family child
tv setting for their child. To assess if there is
care. 14 Thus, parents have fewer choices for
a shortage of child care, in other words, one
arrangements for their infants than for their
must consider the availability of child care
older preschoolers.
programs that fit the needs and the financial
resources of parents.
Variation by Mother's Work Schedule
In 1990, 7.2 million mothers with 11.7 mil-
Availability of Child Care for
lion children under age 15 worked full or
Specific Groups
part time during nonstandard hours. 27
Research has indicated that the number of
These different schedules create varying
child care spaces available in a community
needs for child care. About 8% to 9% of
depends upon several factors, including the
mothers worked evenings or nights in 1990,
income level of the community. In addition,
but few centers (only 3%) offered evening
care for particular age groups or during par-
or night care, compared to 13% of regulated
ticular hours may be limited.
and 20% of nonregulated family child care
5?
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN - SUMMER/FALL 1996
providers. 14 It has been estimated that no
high-and low-income counties than in more
more than about a dozen centers across
moderate income communities.
the country offer 24-hour child care.2⁷
Consequently, children under age five are
Affordability of Child Care
more likely to be cared for by their mothers
Although there may be geographic area dif-
who work nonday hours or to be cared for at
ferences in the supply of center-based pro-
home than are children of women who work
grams and regulated family child care
during the day (49% versus 29%, respective-
homes in some communities or for some
ly, in 1993).4
groups of children, the supply of informal
arrangements is quite flexible and can
The likelihood of nontraditional work
expand to meet most child care needs. On
hours varies by family income. Lower-
those two measures, therefore, there does
income parents are more likely than higher-
not appear to be a significant child care
income parents to work during nonday
shortage, although some parents undoubt-
hours, on a rotating or changing schedule,
edly face constrained choices when they con-
or on weekends. For example, almost half of
sider their child care options. However, just
working poor parents (income less than the
because programs exist does not mean that
poverty line) worked on a rotating or chang-
parents can afford them. The cost of care is,
ing schedule, compared to one-quarter of
therefore, another important way to gauge if
working-class and middle-class mothers
there is a shortage of child care.
(working-class families have incomes above
the poverty level but less than $25,000 per
Fees and Parental Expenditures
Between 1975 and 1990, as illustrated in
Figure 5, the amount paid by parents per
Almost half of working poor parents
hour of center-based and family child care
worked on a rotating or changing schedule,
changed relatively little after adjusting for
inflation. In 1990, employed mothers who
compared to one-quarter of working-class
paid for care paid, on average, amounts
and middle-class mothers.
ranging from $1.23 per hour for relative
care to $2.54 per hour for sitter care of a
child under age five (in 1993 dollars).
year; middle-class families have incomes
These figures reflect increases of about 1.2%
$25,000 per year or higher) and one-third of
per year in real dollars for centers and less
working-class and middle-class fathers in
than 0.5% a year for family child care
1990.2 One-third of the working poor and
homes. In contrast, the per-hour cost of
one-quarter of working-class mothers sur-
care in the child's own home increased by
veyed in the National Child Care Survey
88% between 1975 and 1990 in real dollars
1990 worked weekends. In contrast, only
(6% per year) and was the most expensive of
10% of centers and 6% of family child care
all forms.
homes reported providing care on week-
ends. Rotating shifts present an even greater
Since 1990, however, steeper annual
obstacle to finding stable care.
price increases have occurred (also illustrat-
ed in Figure 5). In 1993, parents who paid
Variation by Community Income Level
for care paid amounts ranging from $1.49
Many services and businesses are more
per hour for relative care to $2.85 per hour
scarce in low-income communities, and
for sitter care (in 1993 dollars).³ This repre-
studies demonstrate that child care is no dif-
sents an increase of about 20% over about
ferent. 28,29 In general, there are fewer regu-
three and one-half years (about 5.7% annu-
lated child care programs or spaces available
ally) for center-based care, family child care,
in lower-income communities, based on a
and relative care and about a 12% increase
national sample of counties. However, not
for sitter care.
surprisingly, subsidies for child care for low-
income families can increase the supply of
The burden these child care expendi-
child care. In Massachusetts, for example, a
tures place on families can be substantial.
state with a relatively large number of subsi-
In 1993, the average family with an
dies for child care for low-income families,
employed mother and a child under age
there was more child care available in both
five spent about $79 per week for child care
Child Care in the United States Today
53
Figure 5
Mean Hourly Payment for Youngest Child Under Age Five,
Employed Mothers aying for Child Care, 1975-1993
$3.00
Payment (in 1993 dollars)
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
Relative
In-home
FCC*
Center
Type of Arrangement
1975
1985
1990
1993
Sources UNCO. Inc. National Child Core Consumer Study: 1975. vois. 1-4. Washington DC: UNCO. 1975: Hofferth, S.,
Bravfleld. A. Deich. S., and Holcomb, P. National Child Care Survey, 1990. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1991; U.S.
Bureau of the Census. What does If cost to mind our preschoolers? Current Population Reports. P-70. no. 52. Washington. DC:
U.S Government Printing Office, September 1995: Hofferth, S. Child care in the United States. in American families in tomor-
row's economy. Proceedings of hearings before the House of Representatives Select Committee on Children, Youth and
Families, July 1. 1985. pp. 166-87. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1988. °FCC Family Child Care
for all children in the family (that is, both
there was little evidence of excess demand
for the preschooler and for any siblings), an
for child care up until that time. However,
increase of about 10% over the $72 that
recent price increases suggest that might be
families spent in fall 1990 (all in 1993 dol-
changing. During the 1980s, as demand for
lars).³ On average, families with a child
child care expanded, there was a parallel
under age five spent about 8% of their
expansion in supply, and prices remained
incomes on child care, but, obviously, that
relatively constant. The price increases in
percentage varied with family income.³
the 1990s suggest that more pressure is
Families with annual incomes under
being put on the supply of child care in this
$14,400 that paid for care spent 25% of
decade without a concomitant expansion of
their income on child care, compared to
supply, and, as a result, parental expendi-
6% or less for families with incomes of
tures for it are rising faster than the cost of
$54,000 or more.
living.
Standard economic theory states that
The analyses of the percentage of family
shortages of a commodity or service push
income devoted to child care by families
its price upward, encouraging suppliers to
with different incomes suggest that, for low-
provide more of it. Because the price of
income families, the cost of child care can be
child care remained stable until 1990,
quite an obstacle to obtaining care. These
54
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN - SUMMER/FALL 1996
studies do not demonstrate what percentage
poverty line and at least one parent work-
of monthly income is appropriately spent
ing) that were the least likely to receive
on child care; that determination is a con-
assistance in paying for child care. In other
clusion based on policies and values, not
words, although middle-class families do
data. Families normally spend 20% of
not see the tax credit as a subsidy, they in
their incomes on housing and 10% on
fact receive more assistance with child care
food. Families that have to spend close to
than do the working poor.
20% or more of their incomes on child
care will have much less to spend on other
Quality of Child Care
necessities.
Parents try to select child care settings that
will keep their children safe and healthy and
Child Care Subsidies to Expand
that will nurture them and prepare them
Options
for later life. But are such programs readily
Child care subsidies and tax credits do exist
available?
to help make child care more affordable for
families and thereby to expand their choices
There are many ways to assess child care
for care. (See the article by Stoney and
quality (see the article by Helburn and
Greenberg in this journal issue for a descrip-
Howes in this journal issue for an in-depth
tion of these forms of assistance.) Because
discussion). Although quality is best mea-
the cost of child care programs varies from
sured by observing the warmth and nature
one setting to another, one would expect
of the interactions between child and
provider and the day-to-day experiences of
children in the program, these sorts of
When tax credits are combined with other
observational assessments are difficult, time-
forms of direct assistance for child care, it was
consuming, and expensive. Therefore, state
regulators and researchers typically measure
the working poor that were the least likely to
a few specific structural features of the child
receive assistance in paying for child care.
care programs that have been associated
with quality interactions and good child
development. These include staff-child
that these subsidy programs would increase
ratios, group size, and training and educa-
the ability of families to enroll their children
tion of staff/providers. In addition, a num-
in more expensive forms of care (for exam-
ber of studies have linked stability of care
ple, center-based care and family child care
(that is, little change in the number of child
homes as opposed to relatives, and licensed
care arrangements and low rates of staff
care as opposed to nonlicensed care).
turnover) with overall quality measures in a
child care program. 7.12 Higher staff salaries,
The National Child Care Survey 1990, a
in turn, have been associated with lower
nationally representative survey, indicated
rates of staff turnover.⁷ Programs with these
that (1) the percentage of families that
characteristics (that is, programs with higher
reported receiving assistance in paying for
staff-child ratios, smaller group sizes, a well-
child care was directly related to income
compensated staff educated in child devel-
level (poorer families were more likely to
opment, and low turnover) are programs
report receiving assistance); (2) families
that demonstrate warmer, more responsive,
using center-based care were more likely to
and more appropriate interactions between
report receiving child care assistance than
staff and children, better experiences for
were families using some other type of care;
children, and, ultimately, better develop-
(3) higher- rather than lower-class families
ment for the children.
were much more likely to report using the
Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
This section reviews the characteristics of
(although the families that reported
programs and providers in 1990, the most
receiving it did not necessarily also report
recent year for which comprehensive nation-
receiving assistance for child care costs);
al data are available, on these measures of
and (4) when those tax credits are com-
quality. Then, using data from two large
bined with other forms of direct assistance
1976-77 studies of child care, it describes
for child care, it was, in fact, the working
trends in child care quality over time. 30-33
poor (families with incomes less than the
(See the article by Helburn and Howes in
Child Care in the United States Today
55
this journal issue for additional details on
teachers rather than all child care staff, qual-
quality, including data from other studies
ity of care improved between the mid-1970s
and a review of findings concerning process
and 1990.
measures of quality.)
Child Care Stability
Group Sizes and Staff-Child Ratios
Instability in child care can occur either
In 1990, group sizes and staff-child ratios in
when the child is moved from placement to
centers serving three- and four-year-olds
placement or when the caregivers within a
were in the upper ranges of those recom-
particular program leave the program.
mended by the National Association for the
Education of Young Children (NAEYC), the
Changing Settings. Changing child care
preeminent professional association for
arrangements is all too common an experi-
child care directors and staff in the United
ence for children in child care. In 1990,
States. Ratios far exceeded recommended
the median length of children's current
levels for centers serving one- and two-year-
child care arrangements was 12 months.⁵
olds, suggesting that programs and parents
Informal arrangements made with relatives
may be accepting lower-quality care because
and friends tend to be much less stable than
care for infants and toddlers is in short sup-
formal arrangements with regulated centers
ply.⁶ For example, the average group size
or family child care homes.6 Half of infants
reported for one-year-olds was 10, and the
under age one entered a nonparental child
NAEYC recommends 6 to 12. The average
care arrangement during their first year,
staff-child ratio was 1:6 to 7, and the NAEYC
and, of these, 10% changed arrangements
recommends 1:3 to 4.¹² All told, the average
during the year.5
number of children per group in centers
increased by 16%. and staff-child ratios wors-
Teacher Turnover. Considering child care
ened by 25% between the mid-1970s and
teachers, not assistant teachers or aides,
1990.1 (See the article by Helburn and
teacher turnover increased between the
Howes in this journal issue for additional
mid-1970s and 1990, from 15% to 19% per
explanation of NAEYC standards.)
year for comparable full-day centers. 14 Over
all types of programs, teacher turnover aver-
Enrollments in family child care have
expanded, and group sizes have risen
between 1976 and 1990. In 1990, the aver-
Half of infants under age one entered a
age group size was six in regulated care. 14
nonparental child care arrangement during
The average was four in 1976-77. In family
child care homes, therefore, although quali-
their first year, and, of these, 10% changed
tv levels declined, they still fell within accept-
arrangements during the year.
able limits for those measures.
Staff Education and Training
aged 25% in 1990¹⁴ and has hovered at that
In 1990. providers were better educated
level through 1992.34 In 1990, approximate-
than the population as a whole; more than 9
ly half of all centers reported some teacher
out of 10 teachers in centers had received
turnover in the prior year, and, among those
training related to young children (this does
programs experiencing turnover, the rate
not include assistants). On average, nearly
was very high (50%). 14
half of all teachers had a four-year college
degree or better, and an additional 13% had
Turnover varies considerably by auspice.
a two-vear college degree. In addition, the
In 1990, turnover was 20% in Head Start,
levels of education and training of staff in
14% in public school programs, and 39% in
both centers and family child care homes
for-profit chains. Head Start turnover rates
increased between the mid-1970s and 1990
in 1994 were 12.5% for teachers and 21%
when only 29% of teachers in centers had 16
for assistants.³⁵
or more years of education 14 The average
schooling of family child care providers also
These rates appear to suggest that chil-
rose from high school in 1976 to one year of
dren in child care are regularly exposed to
college in 1990.14 According to at least this
multiple settings and multiple providers
measure, therefore, and considering only
within a setting and that the percentage of
56
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN - SUMMER/FALL 1996
children who suffer that sort of instability
Although quality in family child care did
has increased over time.
not decline in the 1980s, the revenues of
providers did.¹⁴ The larger increases in
Provider Salaries
expenditures during the early 1990s suggest
One of the reasons that staff turnover within
that providers are now raising fees, another
child care programs may have increased
indication of some pressure on the supply of
could be that teacher salaries have declined
care.
by 25% since the 1970s.¹⁴ The annual earn-
ings of a teacher in a child care center aver-
Quality of Care for Low-Income
aged $12,390 in 1990, compared with
Children
$14,180 in 1976 (as expressed in 1990 dol-
Do low-income parents have access to the
lars) 14 Because turnover is directly related to
same quality of care as middle-income par-
the quality of the experience of children in
ents? Evidence suggests that when struc-
child care, provider salaries are also an
tural features such as group size and staff-
important consideration in determining the
child ratios are considered, the lowest- and
quality of care.⁷
highest-income families have the highest-
quality center-based care, with working-
In 1990, teachers in center-based pro-
and middle-class children in somewhat
grams across the United States earned $7.49
lower-quality care.⁷,25,36 When child-adult
per hour and averaged an annual income of
interactions in centers (other than Head
about $11,500'4 (excluding assistant teach-
Start) are measured, children from high-
ers and aides, who earn perhaps 10% to 20%
income families are better off than children
less) 34 Regulated family child care providers
from all other income groups.
earned about $4 per hour, and nonregulat-
Summary of Child Care Costs
and Quality
Centers kept fees constant in a time of
Although parental expenditures on child
declining direct subsidies by increasing
care rose slowly during the 1980s, only about
a percentage point above inflation, expendi-
group sizes, decreasing staff-child ratios,
tures rose almost 6% annually in the early
and cutting staff salaries.
1990s. This suggests increasing pressure on
the overall supply of early education and
care arrangements. In addition, there
ed provider wages amounted to $1.25 per
appears to be a more limited set of child care
hour (all in 1990 dollars). In 1990, the annu-
options for some families, such as those that
al income of regulated family child care
live in low-income communities, seek care
providers was $10,944 and that of nonregu-
for infants and toddlers, and work odd
lated family child care providers was $4,275
hours.
per year.
The picture derived by assessing all mea-
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, public
sures of quality is mixed, but not encourag-
funding for center-based programs shifted
ing. Between the mid-1970s and 1990, the
from supply side (to providers) to demand
education of center staff increased; however,
side (to parents). As described in the article
the ratio of children to staff and staff
by Stoney and Greenberg in this journal
turnover also rose over the past decade, a
issue, more federal funding goes directly to
consequence of increased competition,
parents through vouchers and tax credits
lower staff salaries, and declining direct fed-
than to providers via contracts. The propor-
eral support.¹⁴
tion of revenues coming to centers from the
government has declined since the mid-
Today, the overall quality in centers and
1970s, increasing the dependence of centers
family child care homes appears low, based
on parent fees. 14 Yet, as shown earlier, parent
on the most recent studies that have
fees essentially stayed the same over the peri-
observed the quality of teacher-child interac-
od. Apparently, centers kept fees constant in
tions in child care programs. As reported in
a time of declining direct subsidies by
the article by Helburn and Howes in this
increasing group sizes, decreasing staff-child
journal issue (and not reviewed here), such
ratios, and cutting staff salaries.
studies indicate that only 12% to 14% of chil-
Child Care in the United States Today
57
dren are in high-quality center or family
or Head Start programs, the greater the like-
child care arrangements. Between 12% and
lihood that a mother in the community
21% are in low-quality child care that is
would be employed. Of course, this associa-
unsafe and/or harmful to their develop-
tion does not prove that it was the presence
ment. Among center-based programs, quali-
of child care programs that caused mothers
ty appears to be lowest in those serving
to go to work (as opposed to the other way
infants and toddlers.
around), but it does suggest that actual avail-
ability of programs is closely linked with
Because parental expenditures for child
parental employment.
care have increased during the past decade,
these findings suggest that parents are
Effects of High Costs
receiving less rather than more for their
The cost of care is an important factor in
money and that there may be some short-
mothers' choices of child care arrange-
ages of high-quality, affordable care and of
ments. Several studies have documented
care for infants and toddlers.
that, controlling for indicators of quality and
other factors, the higher the price for a spe-
Although government subsidies do help
cific type of child care, the less likely families
the lowest-income families gain access to
are to use it.37
child care, upper-income families actually
benefit the most from federal support in the
Researchers have also documented that
form of income tax credits for child care
mothers are less likely to work when child
expenses. Consequently, the largest burden
care is more expensive.38.39 Among mothers
may be borne by the families least likely to
receive subsidies: those with at least one
working parent and total incomes less than
Upper-income families actually benefit the
$25,000. It is their children who wind up in
programs of the lowest quality. For them, the
most from federal support in the form of
child care burden is very real.
income tax credits for child care expenses.
The Importance of
Affordable, High-Quality
of all income levels, higher-cost child care is
associated with both a lower probability of
Child Care
starting and a higher probability of exiting
The preceding sections document that child
employment.40
care is hard to obtain for at least some fami-
lies in some communities, that the costs to
The effects of the cost of care on
families are increasing, with a larger burden
women's work decisions are more pro-
for low-income families, and that the quality
nounced among low-income mothers, who
of care is declining. The effects of not being
are likely to be raising children alone, than
able to obtain high-quality, affordable child
among high-income mothers. 28.42 The
care can be profound for both children
effects can be substantial. A recent report by
and parents. The effects on children are
the General Accounting Office, for exam-
discussed in the article by Helburn and
ple, indicated that subsidizing child care
Howes in this journal issue, but the effects
costs completely would lead to a 15%
on parents are only now becoming a topic of
increase in the employment of poor moth-
investigation.
ers, from 29% to 44%.42
Effects of Availability
Effects of Quality
At least one study has demonstrated that the
Quality of child care, at least as measured by
number of centers and family child care
stability and reliability, can also affect moth-
homes per capita in a community is linked
ers' work decisions. A study of the Illinois
to the employment of mothers in higher-
Aid to Families with Dependent Children
income areas.28 In the same study, the
(AFDC) population estimated that prob-
number of Head Start programs was also
lems with child care had caused 20% of
associated with parental employment in low-
AFDC mothers to quit school or a training
income areas. Specifically, the greater the
program in the previous 12 months; another
number of centers, family child care homes,
20% were estimated to have returned to
58
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN - SUMMER/FALL 1996
public assistance because of child care prob-
that sort of care that has the most negative
lems.⁴³ Parents on AFDC with poor-quality
implications for both children and parents.
care are more likely to leave their jobs than
parents with good-quality care.44
As of early 1996, it is hard to predict the
precise details of what legislation concern-
Parents report a greater incidence of los-
ing welfare reform or child care for low-
ing time from work because the provider was
income families will be implemented, but
not available in in-home rather than formal
there clearly is a general policy push
out-of-home arrangements.543 Parents on
toward increasing the ability of states to
AFDC who had to give up their child care
mandate work for mothers receiving public
arrangements when they changed activi-
assistance. Two key questions therefore are
ties in California's Greater Avenues for
likely to remain. (1) Will mothers indeed
Independence program (California's pre-
move into the work force in greater num-
cursor to the federal JOBS program) were
bers, thus increasing further the pressure
more likely to drop out of the program
on child care? (2) Will parents continue to
than those who maintained continuity in
utilize center-based programs as they have in
child care.45
the past?
Conclusions: What Does the
Increases in maternal employment have
leveled off since the late 1980s at about three
Near Future Hold?
out of five mothers of young children in the
In sum, recent studies and national surveys
work force. With the exception of never-
indicate that children are more and more
married mothers with young children, the
being cared for by someone other than
majority of women are already employed at
their parents and that they are being placed
high levels. (About 60% of married or ever-
increasingly in more formal arrangements
married women versus 46% of never-married
(that is, center-based programs) at younger
women with children under age six were in
ages. Nevertheless, some groups of chil-
the labor force in 1992.)* Of course, it is pre-
dren are less likely to be enrolled in center-
cisely this group of never-married women
based programs: infants and toddlers,
that is frequently identified as the group that
children from low-income and perhaps
should be employed at higher rates.
Both the 25-year trend toward decreased
Parents on AFDC with poor-quality care are
use of relatives and sitters and increased use
more likely to leave their jobs than parents
of centers suggest that the trend toward
greater use of formal early childhood pro-
with good-quality care.
grams will continue. However, if states are
unable or unwilling to continue subsidizing
the costs of early education and care pro-
especially from working poor families, and
grams for low-income families, some reversal
children whose parents work nontradition-
of the long-term trend toward increased use
al hours. Parents of children in these
of center-based programs could occur, at
groups appear to face a more limited num-
least for low-income families. That would
ber of choices for child care. For all chil-
mean that the gap that already exists
dren in care, the overall quality of their pro-
between enrollment of low- and high-
grams is minimal on some measures and
income families in such programs would
adequate on others, but shows signs of
continue.
decline over the past few decades. Given
that parents have been paying more for
Family child care enrollment is likely to
care in recent years, they seem today to be
remain at about the same level as it is now.
getting less for their money.
The percentage of children of employed
mothers who are enrolled in family child
The informal child care market assures
care is at the same level today as it was in
that most parents will be able to find some-
1965 (see Figure 2). Two approaches to
one to care for their children, but not that
enlarge the use of family child care would be
they will be able to find stable, affordable,
to make it more attractive, by increasing
high-quality child care. It is the absence of
either its quality or subsidies for care; but
Child Care in the United States Today
59
neither of these approaches appears likely to
in the care of a parent, either because of
lead to great growth in the use of family
parental preference or because only a small
child care. Recent studies show that further
proportion of centers accepts infants and
reducing the price of child care to parents
toddlers. To increase their enrollment of
increases the use of center-based programs,
infants and toddlers, centers would have to
rather than the use of other types of pro-
expand their programs for infants in order
grams," and quality improvements in family
to meet increased demand. However, center-
child care have small impacts at best in pro-
based infant care is very expensive (see the
moting its use. Families may simply prefer
article by Helburn and Howes in this journal
center-based programs. In one study of low-
issue). Thus, a major move toward enroll-
income parents in New Jersey, for example,
ment of infants and toddlers in centers
the parents preferred center-based pro-
seems unlikely without a concomitant
grams because they trusted the staff and its
increase in assistance to pay for care.
child development expertise and believed
Therefore, parents will likely continue to use
that their children would be safer in child
informal arrangements for their youngest
care centers than in private homes.48
children. Because recent research suggests
Although this may or may not be an accurate
that the quality of informal care is not as
view, the finding suggests that the movement
high as that of formal care, this is cause for
toward center-based programs will not be
concern.
slowed easily.
While policymakers contemplate the
The exception for this preference for
most significant change in social policy for
center-based care appears to occur when
low-income families since the beginning of
parents choose arrangements for infants
the war on poverty, families continue to
and toddlers. If low-income mothers of chil-
make decisions daily regarding how best to
dren from birth to two years of age are
provide care and education for their chil-
required to engage in employment-related
dren. For many, the options are limited.
activities, then major growth in the use of
Federal involvement has increased their
child care for very young children is possi-
choices of child care over the years, but con-
ble. At present, most of these children are in
cerns remain that withdrawal of this support
family child care and relative care when not
will jeopardize these gains.
1. Hernandez, D.J. Changing demographics: Past and future demands for early childhood
programs. The Future of Children (Winter 1995) 5,3:145-60.
2. West, J., Wright, D., and Hausken, E.G. Child care and early education program participation of
infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1995.
3. Casper, L.M. What does it cost to mind our preschoolers? U.S. Bureau of the Census. Current
Population Reports, P-70, no. 52. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995.
4. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Child care costs and arrangements: Fall 1993. Unpublished tables.
Current Population Reports, P-70, no. 52. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1995.
5. Hofferth, S., Brayfield, A., Deich, S., and Holcomb, P. National Child Care Survey, 1990.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1991.
6. Kisker, E., Hofferth, S., Phillips, D., and Farquhar, E. A profile of child care settings: Early edu-
cation and care in 1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1991.
7. Whitebook, M., Howes, C., and Phillips, D. Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality of
care in America. Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project, 1989.
8. Helburn, S., Culkin, M., Morris, J., et al. Cost, quality, and child outcomes in child care centers:
Public report. Denver, CO: Department of Economics, University of Colorado, 1995.
9. Key resources that were used were (1) the U.S. Department of Education's 1995 National
Household Education Survey (see note no. 2, West, Wright, and Hausken); (2) the U.S.
Bureau of the Census' 1993 supplement to the Survey of Income and Program
Participation (see note no. 3, Casper, and note no. 4, U.S. Bureau of the Census); (3) the
National Child Care Survey, 1990 (NCCS), a nationally representative survey of 4,400 fami-
lies with children under age 13 conducted in late 1989 and early 1990 (see note no. 5,
Hofferth, Brayfield, Deich, and Holcomb); (4) A Profile of Child Care Settings (PCS), a
60
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN - SUMMER/FALL 1996
nationally representative survey of center directors and family day care home providers
(see note no. 6, Kisker, Hofferth, Phillips, and Farquhar); (5) the 1988 Child Care Staffing
Study (see note no. 7, Whitebook, Howes, and Phillips): and (6) the 1994 Cost, Quality
and Child Outcomes Study (see note no. 8, Helburn, Culkin, Howes, et al).
10. Larner, M. In the neighborhood: Programs that strengthen family day care for low-income families.
New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, 1994.
11. Blank, H. Protecting our children: State and federal policies for exempt child care settings.
Washington, DC: Children's Defense Fund, 1994. The eight states were Alabama,
Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Washington.
12. Hayes, C., Palmer, J., and Zaslow, M., eds. Who cares for America's children? Child care policy for
the 1990s. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990.
13. The Children's Foundation. 1995 Family Child Care Licensing Study. Washington, DC: The
Children's Foundation, 1995.
14. Willer, B., Hofferth, S., Kisker, E.E., et al. The demand and supply of child care in 1990.
Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1991.
15. Hofferth, S. Who enrolls in Head Start? A demographic analysis of Head Start-eligible chil-
dren. Early Childhood Research Quarterly (1994) 9:243-68.
16. Hofferth, S., and Kisker, E.E. Comprehensive services in child-care settings: Prevalence
and correlates. Pediatrics (December 1994) 94, 6, Suppl. 1088-91.
17. Phillips, D., Lande, J. and Goldberg, M. The state of child care regulation: A comparative
analysis. Early Childhood Research Quarterly (1990) 5:151-79.
18. U.S. Department of Labor. Marital and family characteristics of the labor force from the March
1994 Current Population Survey. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1995.
19. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical abstract of the United States 1993. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1993.
20. Hernandez, D.J. America's children: Resources from family, government, and the economy. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1993, p. 66.
21. Bruno, R. After school care of school age children. December 1984. U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Current Population Reports, P-23, no. 149, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1987. As cited in note no. 12, Hayes, Palmer, and Zaslow, eds.
22. Gomby, D.S., and Larner, M.B., eds. Long-term outcomes of early childhood programs.
The Future of Children (Winter 1995) 5,3:1-224.
23. See, for example, National Governors' Association. Every child ready for school: Report of the
Action Team on School Readiness. Washington, DC: National Governors' Association, 1992.
The federal Goals 2000 program is another example.
24. Kaufman, P. Report on preschool enrollment to 1991. Berkeley, CA: MPR Associates, Inc., 1993.
25. Hofferth, S., West, J., Henke, R., and Kaufman, P. Access to early childhood programs for chil-
dren at risk Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1994.
26. Hofferth, S. Caring for children at the poverty line. Children and Youth Services Review
(1995) 17.1-3:61-90.
27. U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau. Care around the clock: Developing child care
resources before 9 and after 5. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1995.
28. Fronstin, P., and Wissoker, D. The effects of the availability of low-cost child care on the
labor supply of low-income women. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Population Association of America. Miami, FL. May 1994.
29. Fuller, B., and Liang, X. Can poor families find child care? Persisting inequality nationwide and
in Massachusetts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Child Care and Family Policy Project, 1995.
30. Coelen, C., Glantz, F., and Calore, D. Day care centers in the U.S.: A national profile
1976-1977. Cambridge, MA: Abt Books, 1979.
31. Ruopp, R., Travers, J., Glantz, F., and Coelen, C. Children at the center: Summary findings and
their implications. Cambridge, MA: Abt Books, 1979.
32. Fosburg, S. Family day care in the United States: National Day Care Home Study. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1981.
33. To examine trends for center-based programs, a subsample of the PCS data was selected
and compared with results from the 1976-77 National Day Care Survey (see note no. 30,
Child Care in the United States Today
61
Coelen, Glantz, and Calore, and note no. 31, Ruopp, Travers, Glantz, and Coelen). To be
comparable to the earlier study, the PCS subsample was restricted to programs operating
at least 25 hours per week for 9 months a year, with a licensed capacity of 13 or more chil-
dren and enrollments including 50% or fewer handicapped children. To make compar-
isons of family child care over time with the 1976-77 National Day Care Home Study (see
note no. 32, Fosburg), regulated family child care homes in the PCS were selected that
enrolled at least one child between 12 and 60 months of age for pay and for at least 20
hours per week and were located in metropolitan areas.
34. Whitebook, M., Phillips, D., and Howes, C. National Child Care Staffing Study revisited: Four
years in the life of center-based child care. Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project, 1993.
Results indicated an annual turnover rate across all staff and participating centers of 26%
between 1991 and 1992.
35. Whitebook, M. Salary improvements in Head Start: Lessons for the earty care and education field.
Washington, DC: National Center for the Early Childhood Work Force, 1995.
36. Phillips, D., Voran, M., Kisker, E., et al. Child care for children in poverty: Opportunity or
inequity. Child Development (1994) 65:472-92.
37. Hofferth, S., and Wissoker, D. Price, quality, and income in child care choice. Journal of
Human Resources (1992) 27,1:70-111.
38. Connelly, R. The effect of child care costs on married women's labor force participation.
Review of Economics and Statistics (1992) 74,1:83-90.
39. Kimmel, J. Child care and the employment behavior of single and married mothers.
Working Paper 92-14. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute, 1992.
40. Blau, D.M., and Robins, P.K. Fertility, employment, and child care costs. Demography (1989)
26:287-99.
41. Chilman, C. Working poor families: Trends, causes, effects, and suggested policies. Family
Relations (1991) 40:191-98.
42. Cackley, A. Child care subsidies increase likelihood that low-income mothers will work Washington,
DC: General Accounting Office, 1994.
43. Siegel, G., and Loman, L.A. Child care and AFDC recipients in Illinois: Patterns, problems, and
needs. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research, 1991.
44. Meyers. M. Child care in JOBS employment and training programs: What difference does
quality make? Journal of Marriage and the Family (1993) 56:767-83.
45 Mevers. M. Cracks in the seams: Durability of child care in JOBS welfare to work programs.
Unpublished manuscript. 1994.
46 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Current Population Survey, March
1992. as cited in U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau. 1993 Handbook on women
workers: Trends and issues. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994.
47. Hofferth, S., and Chaplin, D. Child care quality versus availability: Do we have to trade one for
the other? Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1994.
48. Porter, T. Just like any parent: The child care choices of welfare mothers in New Jersey. New York:
Bank Street College of Education, 1991.
49. Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S., and Shinn, M. The study of children in family child care
and relative care. New York: Families and Work Institute, 1994.
Cost, Quality,
and Child Outcomes
in Child Care Centers
Executive Summary
January, 1995
We would like to give our thanks to the directors,
administrators, teachers and parents who graciously
gave their time to this study; to the teachers who let
us into their classrooms; to the parents who agreed
to have their children participate; and, of course, to
the children themselves. Without all of their help
this study would not have been possible.
The opinions in this report are those of the Cost,
Quality & Outcomes Team and do not necessarily
reflect the views of any of the funding foundations,
advisors. or consultants.
Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes
in Child Care Centers
Executive Summary
January, 1995
The Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study
was conducted by:
University of Colorado at Denver
Suzanne Helburn, Principal Investigator
Mary L. Culkin, Principal Investigator
John Morris, Economist
Naci Mocan, Economist
University of California at Los Angeles
Carollee Howes, Principal Investigator
Leslie Phillipsen, Site Coordinator
University of North Carolina
Donna Bryant, Principal Investigator
Richard Clifford, Principal Investigator
Debby Crver, Principal Investigator
Ellen Peisner-Feinberg, Principal Investigator
Margaret Burchinal, Biostatistician
Yale University
Sharon Lynn Kagan, Principal Investigator
Jean Rustici, Site Coordinator
The study received support from the following foundations:
The Carnegie Corporation of New York
William T. Grant Foundation
The JFM Foundation
A. L. Mailman Family Foundation
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
The Pew Charitable Trusts
Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes
in Child Care Centers
Executive Summary
Conducted at a time when increasing numbers of the nation's young children are in child care and
when the American public is duly concerned about the readiness of young children for school, the Cost,
Quality, and Child Outcomes Study provides the first comprehensive econometric and psychometric analysis
of child care and children's outcomes. Uniquely designed to examine the relationships among the costs of
child care, the nature of children's child care experiences, and their effects on children, this study provides
fresh provocative information for practitioners, policymakers, and the public.
In brief the study found that while child care varies widely within and between states and sectors of
this industry, most child care is mediocre in quality, sufficiently poor to interfere with children's emotional
and intellectual development. Market forces constrain the cost of child care and at the same time depress the
quality of care provided to children.
Results indicate similar fees. low profit margins, and minimization of costs-all characteristics asso-
ciated with strong price competition. Good-quality care costs somewhat more to produce than poor-quality
care, but generally higher costs are not obviously reflected in parent fees, which are relatively similar in cen-
ters of different quality. Consumers thus show little differential effective demand for higher quality, in part
because they have difficulty observing the quality of care the children actually receive. This means that there
are few economic incentives for centers to improve quality:
The research team collected cost and quality data during the spring of 1993 through visits to 50 non-
profit and 50 for-profit randomly chosen centers in each of four states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, and
North Carolina. Trained data collectors conducted interviews and distributed questionnaires to center direc-
tors, teachers, and parents and observed two randomiv chosen classrooms in each center. That summer, the
team collected data on 826 children from preschool classrooms visited earlier, which allowed an examination
of the concurrent developmental outcomes related to their child care experience.
This report summarizes findings in four major areas 1) quality, 2) costs, revenue, and support, 3) sec-
tor comparisons, and 4) the child care economic envionment. It discusses implications of these findings and
makes recommendations for change. Study methodology IS summarized in Appendix 1.
Major Findings
QUALITY:
Based on criteria established by the early care and education (ECE) professional communities, we
define "quality" child care as that which is most likely to support children's positive development. To ascer-
tain classroom quality, trained observers used instruments that permitted evaluation of the quality of the total
child care environment as well as more specific aspects of the relationship between teacher and child (see
Appendix 1 for detail). An overall index of center quality was constructed, from 1 to 7, interpreted as follows:
1 Unless otherwise stated. all handings reported here are statestically significant at least at the 5% level
Executive Summary
January, 1995
1
1 - Inadequate: Children's needs for health and safety not met; no warmth or support from adults observed,
no learning encouraged.
3 - Minimal: Children's basic health and safety needs met; a little warmth and support provided by adults; few
learning experiences.
5 - Good: Health and safety needs fully met; warmth and support for all children; learning in many ways
through interesting, fun activities.
7 - Excellent: Everything in "good," plus children encouraged to become independent; teacher plans for chil-
dren's individual learning needs; adults have close, personal relationships with each child.
The range of quality between these scores is also important. In particular, we call services that are rated below
minimal (less than 3) "poor" or "less than minimal"; those that are between minimal and good (3 to less than 5)
"mediocre"; and those that are between good and excellent (5 and over) "developmentally appropriate."
FINDING 1: Child care at most centers in the United States is poor to mediocre, with almost half of the
infants and toddlers in rooms having less than minimal quality.
The level of quality at most U.S. child care centers, especially in infant/toddler rooms, does not meet
children's needs for health, safety, warm relationships, and learning. While there is a great deal of variation in
the sample, the mean score for all centers in the study was 4.0, a full point below the good-quality level (5).
Figures 1 through 3 show the distribution of quality scores. Only one in seven centers (14".) received a rating
of developmentally appropriate (5 or above), and one in eight (12%) were less than minimal (less than 3).
Child care for infants or toddlers is of particular concern. Of the 225 infant or toddler rooms observed,
only 1 in 12 (8%) met the good-quality level, while 2 in 5 (40%) rated less than minimal. Babies in poor-quali-
ty rooms are vulnerable to more illness because basic sanitary conditions are not met for diapering and feed-
ing; are endangered because of safety problems that exist in the room; miss warm, supportive relationships
with adults; and lose out on learning because they lack the books and toys required for physical and intellectual growth.
FIGURE 1:
Process Quality in Child Care Centers
(N=398)
25%
22.1
20.9%
20%
16.1%
14.6°
15%
10.8%
10%
8.5%
5%
3.0%
3%
8%
0%
0.3%
0%
0%
1.0<1.5
1.5<20
2.0<25
25<3.0
3.0<3.5
3.5<4.0
4.0<4.5
4.5<5.0
5.0<5.5
5.5<6.0
6.0<6.5
6.5<7.0
Scaled Quality Index
2
Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers
FIGURE 2:
Process Quality in Child Care Centers
Infant/Toddler Classrooms
(N=225)
20.0%
20.0%
18.0%
16.0%
16.0%
16.0%
13.8%
14.2%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
7.1%
6.0%
4.0%
4.0%
3.1".
3.1%
1.3".
2.00
0.9%
0.4%
0.0"
1.0<1.5
1.5<20
2.0<2.5
2.5<3.0
3.0<3.5
3.5<4.0
1.0<4.5
4.5<5.0
5.0<5.5
5.5<6.0
6.0<6.5
6.5<7.0
ITERS Scores
FIGURE 3:
Process Quality in Child Care Centers
Preschool Classrooms
(N=511)
17.6"..
18.0°
18.0%
17.4%
16.0%
14.0°
131%
12.0%
11.4%
10.0"
8.8%
8.0%
5.9%
6.0%
35%
4.0%
3.3%
20%
0.0'..
0.6"
0.4%
0.00
1.0<1.5
1.5<2.0
2.0<2.5
25<30
3.1k3.5
3.5<4.0
4.0<4.5
4.5<5.0
5.0<5.5
5.5<6.0
6.0<6.5
6.5<7.0
ECERS Scores
Executive Summary
January, 1995
3
FINDING 2: Across all levels of maternal education and child gender and ethnicity, children's cognitive and
social development are positively related to the quality of their child care experience.
Children in higher quality preschool classrooms display greater receptive language ability and pre-
mathematics skills, and have more advanced social skills than those in lower quality classrooms. Children in
higher quality centers have more positive self-perceptions and attitudes toward their child care, and their
teachers are more likely to have warm, open relationships with them. All of these factors are considered
important to a child's capacity to enter school ready to learn. Further, these relations were obtained in analy-
ses that controlled for child and parent characteristics known to be related to both child care selection and
developmental outcomes, including maternal education and child gender and ethnicity.
While many previous research projects have studied the impact of child care on the development of
at-risk children, this study focuses on the broad range of children in center care. For these children, develop-
mental outcomes on a wide variety of measures improve with the quality of the center across all levels of
maternal education and child characteristics. In some instances. however, quality had even more impact on
children typically at risk (specifically on receptive language ability of minority children and on the self-per-
ceptions of children of less-educated mothers).
FINDING 3: The quality of child care is primarily related to higher staff-to-child ratios, staff education, and
administrators' prior experience. In addition, certain characteristics distinguish poor,
mediocre, and good-quality centers, the most important of which are teacher wages, educa-
tion, and specialized training.
This study affirms how important the ratio of adults to children is to quality of services. In the statis-
tical analysis to predict the determinants of quality, the staff-to-child ratio is the most significant determinant
of quality, even when controlling for other factors affecting quality: Center quality also increases as the per-
centage of center staff with a high level of education increases. An increase in a center administrator's prior
experience generates higher quality, all else being constant. Finally, there is some evidence that staff tenure at
the center also increases quality.
A different analysis identified classroom and center characteristics that distinguished among centers of poor,
mediocre, and good quality. This analysis was particularly successful in identifying poor-quality centers, and only
moderately helpful in discriminating between mediocre care and good-quality care. The most important discrimi-
nators were average teacher wage rates, and teaching staff education and specialized training.
FINDING 4: States with more demanding licensing standards have fewer poor-quality centers. Centers that com-
ply with additional standards beyond those required for licensing provide higher quality services.
More poor-quality centers were found in North Carolina than in the other three states. Of the four
states included in the study, North Carolina is the state with the least stringent child care standards. For exam-
ple, at the time of data collection, North Carolina allowed 1 adult to every 6 infants or 15 three-year-olds, while
the other states required 1 adult to every 4 or 5 infants or 10 or 12 three-year-olds. Similarly, North Carolina
required far less early childhood education of its center staff than did the other three states.
In addition, centers that meet higher standards than required of all centers in their state in order to
receive public funding pay higher wages, provide better benefits and working conditions and have higher
overall quality. Finally, accredited centers, those that voluntarily meet a higher set of standards specified by
an outside organization, have higher quality than do nonaccredited centers.
FINDING 5: Three specific types of centers provide higher than average overall quality. The financial characteristic
these centers share is that they have access to extra resources that they use to improve quality.
The 24 centers operated by a variety of public agencies (in public schools, state colleges, and univer-
sities, or operated by municipal agencies), the 16 worksite centers, and the 30 centers with public funding tied
4
Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers
to higher standards (the same group cited in Finding #4) provide higher quality care than other centers. With
few exceptions they share the following characteristics: they have higher expended costs and total revenue per
child hour, have more donated resources, and are less dependent on parent fees than other centers; they pay
higher wages and provide more staff benefits; they have higher staff-to-child ratios; and teachers have more
education, more specialized training, and longer tenure in the centers.
The econometric analysis shows that centers operated by public agencies (and nonprofit centers in
general) use resources as efficiently as other centers. That is, for a particular level of quality, wage rates, full-
time-equivalent (FTE) children, and size of facility, the cost per child hour is the same as at other centers.
These results suggest that quality is higher in centers that have in-kind donations or outside funding
that they use to increase quality. While parent fees may represent a major source of revenue (for instance, in
the worksite centers and centers operated by state colleges or universities), these centers do not have to
depend solely on parent fees to finance the provision of quality services.
COSTS, REVENUE, AND SUPPORT:
Before discussing costs and revenue, several terms must be defined. First, we use the term expended
costs to refer to cash costs that are actually incurred to run centers. Second, we use the term donations to refer
to the goods and services that are donated by individuals and agencies to support child care. Those dona-
tions-facilities, volunteer services, or other kinds of goods or services-must be included to report accurate-
Iv all of the costs of providing care. Third, we use the term foregone wages to refer to the difference between
the wage a staff person could earn in another occupation (based on the person's education, sex, age, race, and
marital status) and the person's wage as a child care worker.2 Fourth, we use the term full cost to refer to the
amount it would take to operate centers if all costs were included. That is, the full cost of care equals expend-
ed costs plus donations plus foregone wages. Finally, we use the term total revenue to refer to the total amount
of income received by a center, including fees paid by parents, publicly reimbursed fees, USDA food grants,
other public funds. sponsor and other private contributions, and other revenue.
FINDING 6: Center child care, cucn mediocre-quality care, is costly to provide. Even so, donations and fore-
gonc wages are large, accounting for more than one-fourth of the full cost of care.
The average expended cost (or cash cost) is 595 per week per child, or $2.11 per child hour, to provide
mediocre care. (See Figure 4 on the following page for costs by state.) In this labor-intensive industry, labor
costs account for 70% of total expended costs. Facilities costs represent 15%, and all other cash expenses make
up only 15% of the total. That expended costs are as low as they are is due to the use of primarily female
employees (97% were women in this sample) who earn even less in child care than they could in other female-
dominated occupations. In this study, the mean foregone wages given up by teachers was $5,238 per year;
assistant teachers gave up $3,582 per year.
Our estimate of the mean full cost of producing center child care services is $2.83 per child hour ($127
per week), or S.72 per child hour more than expended costs. Figure 5 (on the following page) shows that this
additional S.72 per hour of costs comes from: 1) workers who contribute 19% of full costs ($.54 per child hour)
in the form of foregone wages and benefits, 2) occupancy donations, which average about 5% of full cost ($.14
per child hour). and 3) volunteer services and donated goods, which represent 2% of full costs ($.06 per child
hour).¹
The amounts of foregone wages and in-kind donations vary by state. When foregone wages are
adjusted for regional differences in the cost of living, they are smaller in states where overall quality is higher,
: Foregone wases represent another kind of can hild can - . Labor intervive industry dependent on female employees who work for wages below those they could earn. even in
other temale dominated occupations all of which N 1 than comparable make occupations. Regardless of the reason that child care employees accept jobs in the held. centers are
using Labor - which embody human educational estments and work experience that do not show up in center cash outlays As the industry expands or improves quality.
or if the national Labor market tighten. it may be name temper mon and more women to continue to work for these lower wages
3 These do not add up in exactly 572 because of munding min
Executive Summary
January, 1995
5
FIGURE 4:
Expended Cost per Child Care Hour
by State
$3.00
$2.88
$2.50
$2.11
$2.04
$2.02
$2.00
$1.50
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
Calif. Colo. Conn. N. Car. Total
FIGURE 5:
Full Cost of Child Care per Child Hour
(N=398)
Full cost=$2.83 Hidden costs=$.72
Foregone Wage: 5.54
Donated Goods: $.02
Volunteer Time: $.04
Average Expended Cost $2.11
Occupancy: $.14
6
Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers
and larger where overall quality is lower. This suggests that child care staff are being paid closer to the mar-
ket value of their human capital attributes in the states with higher quality.
A comparison of the expended cost of child care with a typical family's income indicates the high cost
of producing even mediocre-quality care. The average annual expended cost paid by a center to provide ser-
vices for one child is $4940 per year. This represents 8% of the 1993 median U.S. family before-tax income of
about $60,000 for a dual-earner family when both were employed full time, and 23% of the 1993 median
before-tax earnings of just over $21,000 for families headed by a single parent employed full time (Statistical
Abstract of the U.S. 1994, pages 429 and 474).
FINDING 7: Good-quality services cost more than mediocre quality, but not a lot more.
The cost of providing care is modestly and positively related to the level of quality of services.⁴ The
additional cost to produce good-quality services compared to mediocre-quality care was about 10%. The cost
of increasing quality increases, however, at higher levels of quality.
This 10% estimate is based on cross-sectional data and cannot, therefore, be used to project the quali-
ty change from increasing industry-wide expenditures. For a 10% increase in cost to significantly improve
quality, the money would have to be spent wisely and not cause any increase in the prices of resources used.
FINDING 8: Center enrollment affects costs.
The effect of enrollment on costs shows up in two ways. First, the larger the number of children served
(up to the legal capacity of the center) and/or the longer the hours of service, the lower the cost per child hour
for a particular level of quality: That is, using the same facility space, serving more children or serving them
more hours brings about a proportionately smaller increase in cost per child hour. Second, larger centers, those
serving a larger number of FTE children, also have lower average total expended costs per child hour than
centers serving a smaller number of children. even holding quality constant.
FINDING 9: Cash payment from government and philanthropies are sources of center revenue that demon-
strate a social commitment to sharing the expense of child care. On average, these cash pay-
ments represent 25°c of center revenue.
As a society we consider center child care an important service that some children need regardless of
their family's income. Economists call such things merit goods. because all who need the service merit having
it. Cash philanthropic contributions. public funding of centers, and child care tax credits all help reduce the
fees paid by parents and other purchasers of child care as do donations and foregone wages.
For the whole sample, including families whose child care is subsidized, parent payments to centers
represent the equivalent of $1.55 per child hour or 570 per week. This represents 71% of center revenue (and
55% of full cost). For families that pay full tuition. tuition for preschool-aged children averages $1.92 per child
hour or S86 per week. If the typical tamily elects to ishi. the tederal child care tax credit available to them, this
represents another government contribution. reducing parent expense by an estimated average of $.21 per
child hour (20% of $200 per month/193 hours per month).
SECTOR COMPARISONS:
Child care centers operate in a mixed market made up of private nonprofit centers, nonprofit publicly
operated centers, and centers owned and operated for profit. The existence of nonprofit centers reflects long-
standing public and philanthropic willingness to support provision of child care as a merit good. However,
the fact that different kinds of financial structures co-exist and compete in local markets can affect the cost and
quality of services.
+ The cast referred w in Findings ; and " New on the definition uned in the analyso where. for consistency with economic theory. cost was measured as vanable cost
(excluding facilities cow and including mikind donations and the imputed value administration signes for owner-operated centers)
Executive Summary
January, 1995
7
FINDING 10: There are differences between for-profit and nonprofit sectors. Overall quality of services, how-
ever, is not significantly different between the two sectors except in the one state with very
lax licensing standards.
Quality is not significantly different between for-profit and nonprofit centers except in North
Carolina, where for-profit centers provide much lower quality care. In addition, our econometric analysis indi-
cates that there is no significant difference in variable costs per child hour (see footnote 4 for definition)
between the two sectors, holding constant the number of hours of service, quality, wage rates paid, and size
of facility. This means that the nonprofit sector is about as efficient in the use of resources as the for-profit sector.
Despite overall similarities, there are also differences. In nonprofit centers staff-to-child ratios in
preschool rooms are higher than those in for-profit centers: teachers and teacher-directors have more special-
ized training and formal education; assistant teachers and teacher directors have more prior experience; staff
have worked more months at the center; and annual turnover rates are lower. Nonprofit centers pay higher
wages, and foregone wages of their staff are lower than those in for-profit centers. While these findings repli-
cate those of earlier studies (Phillips & Howes, 1987; and Whitebook, Howes & Phillips, 1989) that nonprofit
centers have higher structural quality measures and higher wages than for-profit centers, it is the first to find
such limited differences between sectors with respect to process quality.
FINDING 11: Within each sector, particularly the nonprofit sector, there is variation by subsectors in center
characteristics and quality.
To examine differences within each sector we divided the nonprofits into three subsectors: 1) inde-
pendent nonprofit, 2) church-affiliated nonprofit, and 3) publicly operated nonprofit. We divided the for-prof-
its into three subsectors: 1) independent for-profits, 2) local chains, and 3) national svstems.
Within the for-profit sector, there is considerable homogeneity among the three subsectors with regard
to staffing ratios and staff quality. In addition, the different subsectors do not significantly differ in their costs,
revenues, and overall quality of services. National systems do, however, offer more staff benefits such as
health insurance, maternity leave, and staff child care discounts, and they pay lower wages in California and
Connecticut.
Nonprofits are less homogeneous; indeed, there are important differences among subsectors. Centers
operated by public agencies have higher costs, revenues, and quality than other nonprofit centers. Church-
affiliated centers have lower staff-to-child ratios, lower levels of trained and educated staff, lower wages,
lower cost and revenues per child hour, and most importantly, lower overall quality than other nonprofits.
These centers seem to resemble for-profit centers more closely than centers in the nonprofit sector. Indeed, the
lower quality of church centers, which are proportionately represented in this study, but not in previous stud-
ies, accounts for our finding that for-profit, nonprofit sectors do not differ significantly in quality.
These findings dispel the notion that quality (or lack thereof) is crisply aligned with a particular sec-
tor. To the contrary, these findings suggest that it is difficult to associate any given level of quality with a sec-
tor overall; rather, levels of quality may be more clearly aligned with subsectors.
THE ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT:
A unique focus of this study was to learn more about the effects of market conditions on the cost and
quality of care. Differences in demand and supply conditions faced by different kinds of centers (that is, for-
profit and nonprofit sectors or subsectors) may affect the quality of care provided in the market.⁵
5 It should be noted that this study was not designed to make a thorough companson of the long-run advantages and disadvantages of a particular profit status. We did not collect
data on capital invested in centers: nor did we investigate us advantages and disadvantages of profit status.
8
Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers
FINDING 12: Characteristics of the market setting for child care-notably, market competition and subside.
dependence-affect center finances. For-profit and nonprofit centers face different competi-
tive conditions that can affect their performance.
This study provides evidence of strong competition in local markets. First, centers in for-profit and
nonprofit sectors charge similar fees per child hour. Second, both sectors seem to minimize costs. Third, both
sectors receive similar low rates of profit (surplus) on sales (3.7%).
Despite evidence of a high degree of competition between sectors, the composition of costs and the
ability to take advantage of scale economies is different. For-profit centers spend a higher percentage of total
costs on facilities and a smaller percent on labor, which could lower quality. These centers, however, typical-
ly serve a larger number of children and/or provide more hours of service than do nonprofit centers. That
allows for-profit centers to operate at lower average cost per child and enables them to compete successfully
with their nonprofit counterparts at a given level of quality. Nonprofit centers, many of which depend on
donated facilities, may not have the option of increasing their size (enrollment).
FINDING 13: There is evidence of inadequate consumer knowledge, which creates market imperfections and
reduces incentives for some centers to provide good-quality care.
This study suggests some reasons for the prevalence of low-quality child care, particularly for centers
dependent on parent fees. In our parent survey, while parents say they value the characteristics of good-qual-
ity child care, they substantially overestimate the quality of services their children are receiving. Ninety per-
cent of parents rate programs as very good, while the ratings of trained observers indicate that most of these
same programs are providing care that ranges from poor to mediocre.
There are numerous possible explanations for this discrepancy between parent and observer ratings,
some of which we investigated. For instance, there is evidence that parents are hindered in assessing care by
the inherent difficulty of monitoring service. The disparity between scores given by parents and observers
assessing quality is higher for aspects of care that are difficult for parents to observe. Also, parents' priorities
seem to affect their assessments. The more they value an aspect of care, the greater the disparity between their
evaluation and that of the trained observer. There may be other reasons why parents rate their child care
arrangement highly. For instance they may not feel that they have a choice of care, or they may never have
seen good-quality care, giving them no basis of comparison. The inability of parents to recognize good-quali-
ty care implies that they do not demand it. There is little difference in fees between poor-quality and high-
quality centers, which lends credence to this hypothesis. Given both a competitive market that equalizes fees
across centers and parents' difficulty in identifying center quality, centers dependent on parent revenues have
no incentive to provide a higher level of quality at higher cost.
The findings do suggest that centers are providing the services parents demand so they can go to
work. Preschool classrooms meet health and safety needs. Centers in the sample are open long hours, 10 to 12
hours per day: They provide part-time care. before-school and after-school programs, and summer camps.
Parents, however, while they value good-quality services, apparently are not demanding quality. To the extent
that government agencies involved in purchasing care for low-income children impose low payments for ser-
vices or fail to provide higher reimbursement for higher quality, they too contribute to lowering the demand
for good-quality child care.
Executive Summary
January, 1995
Summary and Implications
We found that only 1 in 7 centers provides a level of child care quality that promotes healthy devel-
opment and learning, and that quality of child care affects children across all levels of maternal education.
These findings confirm earlier reports about the quality of child care available to the average family in the
United States, presented in the National Child Care Staffing Study (Whitebook, Howes & Phillips, 1989) and
the Study of Children in Family and Relative Care (Galinsky, Howes, Kontos & Shinn, 1994). Our results indi-
cate that care for infants and toddlers may be even lower quality than previously thought.
This does not mean that good-quality care does not exist or that the early childhood profession does
not know how to provide it. We know that high staff-to-child ratios, more highly educated staff, administra-
tors with more experience, and staff stability together do much to create good-quality services.
This study provides evidence of market competitive characteristics and imperfections that we have
reason to believe affect the cost and provision of quality. Efficient markets require that buvers have full infor-
mation. Until parents and other purchasers of care can easily distinguish good from mediocre and poor-qual-
ity centers, and demand higher quality, centers cannot increase their fees to cover the increased costs of pro-
viding better care. Since most centers have limited budgets, they cannot afford to provide better quality. given
the existing fee structure.
Other conditions affect quality of services. First, weak licensing standards seem to induce some for-
profit centers and church-affiliated centers to provide lower quality services. Second, accredited centers have
higher quality. Third, publicly operated centers, worksite centers, and centers that conform to higher stan-
dards in order to receive public funding have higher quality: those centers seem to have sizeable donations or
cash contributions, which they use to raise quality: Fourth, larger centers, or centers that maintain full capac-
ity, can reduce costs and increase revenue, thus permitting an increase in quality:
Lower quality centers pay lower wages. We also found that wages of women working in child care
are low, even compared to women's wages that already are lower than men's wages. Foregone wages are
lower in Connecticut and California, the states where quality is higher. They are also lower in publicly oper-
ated and worksite centers where quality is higher. There is every reason to believe that higher foregone wages
reduce staff job satisfaction and increase turnover. in the nonprofit centers studied, longer staff tenure is relat-
ed to higher quality.
10
Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers
Recommendations
In this nation, there is a strong commitment to meeting the first of our national education goals-that
by the year 2000, children will enter school ready to learn. Yet despite this knowledge and intent, the reality
of child care in the United States today makes it highly unlikely that we will reach that goal. Unless poor-qual-
ity child care is curtailed, the development and well-being of large numbers of our nation's children may be
jeopardized. To that end, we make one critical recommendation:
The nation must commit to improving the quality of child care services
and to ensuring that all children and their families have access to good pro-
grams. That is, GOOD-QUALITY child care must become a merit good in
the United States.
We predicate this recommendation on several assumptions:
Child care participation will remain totally voluntary; that is, parents will have the right
and responsibility to choose whether or not they use child care;
Parents' right to choose child care will be preserved; that is, parents will have the right and
responsibility to select the type of child care they wish;
Child care will remain a mixed sector industry; that is, centers will continue to operate in
the profit, nonprofit, and public sectors;
As a merit good, a service we as a society want to provide for all children, the financing of
quality child care will continue to be shared by responsible parties; that is, to the
extent feasible, families will help pay for child care, as will responsible employers,
philanthropic organizations, and the government.
To achieve this goal, we recommend four action steps.
ACTION STEP 1: Launch consumer and education efforts in the public and private sectors to help parents
identify high-quality child care programs and to inform the American public of the liability
of poor-quality programs.
Give parents clear information regarding the observable ingredients of good-quality child care.
Give parents and others information that clearly identifies good-quality programs.
Initiate a long-term public media campaign analogous to the one addressing the impact of
smoking on health, to raise public awareness of the nature and importance of good-
quality child care.
In collaboration with other private and public agencies, initiate a federally supported pro-
gram of research to increase understanding of the child care market and to provide
an ongoing data base on the status of child care and the effects on children in the
United States.
ACTION STEP 2: Implement higher standards for child care at the state level, as a major approach to elimi-
nating poor-quality child care.
Create higher standards at the state level and improve monitoring of child care as a part of
consumer protection. Standards must do more than protect the basic health and safe-
ty of children-thev must also take into account children's developmental needs.
Eliminate all exemptions from state licensing standards.
Executive Summary
January, 1995
11
Encourage centers to seek and maintain voluntary professional center accreditation based
on high standards.
Give state and federal financial incentives for centers to provide care that meets higher stan-
dards, eliminating federal regulations that restrict the ability of states to pay higher
prices for higher quality care.
ACTION STEP 3: Increase investments in child care staff to assure a skilled and stable workforce.
Invest more federal, state, and local government funds and private sector funds in the edu-
cation and training of child care teaching staff and administrators.
Provide all child care staff compensation appropriate to their training, experience, and
responsibility.
ACTION STEP 4: Assure adequate financing and support of child care.
Increase investment in child care by federal, state, and local government as well as the pri-
vate sector, to help families pay the cost of good-quality care.
Tie all federal and state child care funding to standards that demonstrably produce high-
quality care.
Provide financial incentives that enable centers to hire experienced administrators and
skilled staff and to learn how to keep them.
Tailor employee benefits to provide significant help to employees with young children, as
part of the private sector's support of child care.
12
Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers
Executive Summary January, 1995
13
References:
Arnett, J. (1989). Caregivers in day-care centers: Does training matter? Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 10, 541-552.
Culkin, M. (1993) Teachers' Assessment of Administrators of Early Childhood Education Programs, unpublished rating scale.
Culkin, M. (1993) Early Childhood Administrator's Self Assessment, unpublished rating scale.
Dunn, L M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American
Guidance Service.
Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S. & Shinn, M. (1994) The study of children in family child care and relative care:
Highlights of findings. New York: Families and Work Institute.
Harms, T., & Clifford, R. M. (1980). The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale. New York: Teachers College Press.
Harms, T., Cryer, D. & Clifford, R. M. (1990) Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Howes, C., & Stewart ,P. (1987). Child's play with adults, toys, and peers: An examination of family and child
care influences. Developmental Psychology, 23, 423-430.
Phillips, D. A. & Howes, C. (1987) Indicators of Quality in Child Care: Review of Research, in D. A. Phillips
(ed) Predictors of Quality Child Care. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young
Children.
Pianta, R. C. (1991). The Student-Teacher Relationship Scale. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Pianta, R. C.& Steinberg, M. (1992). Teacher-child relationships and the process of adjusting to school. New
Directions for Child Development. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Schaefer, E. S., & Edgerton, M. (1976). Classroom Behavior Inventory. Unpublished rating scale.
Stipek, D. (1993). Attitudes/Perceptions of Competence. Unpublished rating scale.
U.S. Department of Commerce (1994). Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1994. Washington DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Whitebook, M., Howes, C. & Phillips, D. (1989) Who Cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in America:
Final report, National Child Care Staffing Study. Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project.
Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. Allen, TX:
DLM Teaching Resources.
Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1990). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. Allen, TX:
DLM Teaching Resources.
14
Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers
Appendix 1: Study Methodology
This study examines the relationship between cost and quality of child care in centers, and the devel-
opmental outcomes of children enrolled in a subsample of the centers studied. The centers were located in four
states-California, Colorado, Connecticut, and North Carolina-selected for their regional, demographic, and
ECE program diversity.
Data were collected during the first half of 1993 on a stratified random sample of approximately 100
programs in each participating state, approximately evenly split between for-profit and nonprofit programs.
The study included only state-licensed child care centers serving infants/toddlers and/or preschoolers that
offered services at least 30 hours per week, 11 months per year. To be used in the sample, a program had to
have been in operation at least one full fiscal year, and the majority of children had to attend at least 30 hours
and five days per week. A total of 228 infant/toddler classrooms and 521 preschool classrooms were included.
The part of the study which addressed children's developmental outcomes included a subsample of
observed preschool classes enrolling children eligible to enter kindergarten in fall 1994. A total of 826 children
(approximately 200 per state) from 181 centers were included in this phase of the study. During the summer
of 1993 individual assessments of the children were conducted at the centers by trained observers, and teach-
ers and parents completed surveys.
MEASURES AND PROCEDURES:
Through on-site interviews with center directors, data collectors obtained in-depth financial informa-
tion such as center costs. revenue sources. and donation amounts. They also collected data on aspects of pro-
gram characteristics, such as total attendance: enrollment and capacity; number of infants, toddlers,
preschoolers, and school-aged children; number of publicly subsidized children; operating hours; ownership
status; fee schedules: and source of payment. Finally, directors provided information on the education, train-
ing. demographic characteristics, and wages of each staff person working directly with children.
Staff persons in the sampled rooms completed questionnaires regarding their family and work expe-
rience. Center directors and lead teachers in each sampled room completed questionnaires on administrative
leadership in the center. Parents in the sampled rooms were asked to complete a questionnaire of how they
valued aspects of child care that professionals associate with child care quality, and of their assessment of
quality in their children's classrooms.
Two well-established global measures were used to assess comprehensively the day-to-day quality of
care provided for children: The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (Harms & Clifford, 1980) and its
infant/toddler version, The Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale (Harms, Cryer & Clifford, 1990). In addi-
tion, two instruments designed specifically to measure teacher involvement and style were used, The Caregiver
Interaction Scale (Arnett, 1989) and The Teacher Involvement Scale (Howes & Stewart, 1987). For each center,
results of these observations for the two classrooms were combined into an overall quality index number for
each center. The center quality index is a weighted average of the scores of the two rooms in the center, weight-
ed by the percent of children in the center who were in the given age-group. Five times during the day, class-
room observations of staff-to-child ratios and group size were made.
Data collected for the developmental outcomes component included individual child assessments,
teacher ratings, and parent surveys. Each child was seen individually at the center for about 30 minutes to
administer the following assessment instruments. Receptive language ability was measured using the Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (Dunn & Dunn, 1981). The Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-Revised
(Woodcock & Johnson, 1989; 1990) were used to examine pre-reading skills and pre-math skills. Children's
attitudes toward child care and perceptions of competence were measured using the Attitudes/Perceptions of
h Three children SRAIN during the spring of 194. and will N st the md of their kindergarten year in May 1995 in the longitudinal continuation of this study
Executive Summary
January, 1995
15
Competence Scale (Stipek, 1993). The children's teachers completed ratings of children's social skills using the
Classroom Behavior Inventory (Schaefer & Edgerton, 1976). They rated the teacher-child relationship using the
Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta, 1992; Pianta & Steinberg. 1992). Finally, parents completed demo-
graphic surveys.
All measures were studied descriptively to determine whether there were reliable differences related
to region, auspice, or three measures of program scope: the proportion of center full-time-equivalent children
who were subsidized, the proportion who were infants/toddlers. and whether the center offered a before-
school and after-school program.
The econometric analysis involved estimating short-run total cost functions and quality production
functions. We employed multiproduct transing cost functions when the services provided for infants-toddlers,
preschoolers, and school-aged children are distinguished. Quality of the child care is controlled by the quali-
ty index described above. A vector of dummy variables. representing center attributes, is included to capture
efficiency differentials due to center characteristics.
The quality production function is estimated using ordinary least squares, where the center quality
index is explained by standard structural inputs (e.g., staff-child ratio, staff education, and experience) and the
composition of programs offered by the center, as well as variables capturing center-specific idiosvncracies,
such as an administrator's involvement in the center's organization and curriculum. The model also includes
controls for the financial, regulatory, and institutional constraints surrounding the center's operation.
A psychometric analysis of correlates of quality was also performed using hierarchical regressions in
which process quality was regressed onto 7 sets or "chunks" of structural variables. Seven sets of regression
models were fit to the data. The first included the first set of variables, state and profit status. The second
included the first two sets of variables-state, profit, and the teacher's background variables. Each successive
regression involved adding another chunk of variables to the model.
A third analysis was performed, a discriminant analysis to identify the factors that are most able to
classify centers offering poor, mediocre, or developmentally appropriate care.
Hierarchical linear regression models were used to test the concurrent relationship between children's
developmental outcomes and the quality of their child care. The initial model for each outcomes variable
included all main effects and two-way interactions to determine whether child and family functions, center
auspice, or geographic location mitigated the association between developmental outcomes and quality: Non-
significant interaction terms were omitted one at a time until the model included all main effects, the state by
auspice interaction (which constituted the sampling frame) and all other significant two-way interactions.
16
Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers
Appendix 2: Cost & Quality Findings for All Centers by Profit Status
Mean Values
Variable
Non-Profit
For Profit
All
N=200
N=201
N=401
Center Structure:
Spring 1993
Total FTE Children Enrolled
60
76
68
Percent of Centers Accredited
8
11
9
Percent of Infants & Toddlers
18
25
22
Percent of Centers with Before and After Care for School-Age
47
72
59
Annual Percent Center Turnover for Teachers
35
50
43
Annual Percent Center Turnover for Administrative Directors
22
40
28
Percent of Subsidized Children
34
13
23
Center Quality:
Spring 1993
Weighted Process Index. Scaled to ECERS
4.16
3.87
4.02
ECERS Total Quality Score
4.39
4.05
4.22
ITERS Total Quality Score
3.55
3.35
3.42
Midmorning Teacher to Child Ratios for Infants and Toddlers
0.31
0.26
0.28
Mid-Morning Teacher to Child Ratios for Preschoolers
0.19
0.14
0.16
Percent of Teachers with College Education or More
39
33
36
Months of Tenure for Teachers by Hour
53
36
43
Cost:
Fiscal Year 1992
Hourly Wage for Teachers
$
7.83
$ 6.62
$ 7.22
Hourly Wage for Assistant Teachers
5.97
5.43
5.70
Hourly Wage for Administrative Directors
12.22
9.89
11.33
Labor Cost per Child Hour
1.75
1.24
1.49
Facilities Cost per Child Hour
0.16
0.40
0.28
Total Cost per Child Hour
2.22
2.00
2.11
Foregone Wages per Child Hour
0.53
0.55
0.54
Total In-Kind Gifts per Child Hour
0.31
0.09
0.20
Full Cost (Total Cost + In-Kind Gifts + Foregone Wages)
3.03
2.63
2.83
Revenue & Fees:
Fiscal Year 1992
Revenue from Parent Fees per Child Hour
$ 1.27
$ 1.85
$ 1.56
Revenue from Public Fee Payments per Child Hour
0.48
0.20
0.34
Total Revenue per Child Hour
2.28
2.10
2.19
Surplus or Deficit per Child Hour
0.06
0.09
0.08
Hourly Cost to Parents Net of Tax Credit*
1.10
1.62
1.36
Full-time Monthly Infant Fee Charged by Centers
434.78
461.53
450.80
Full-time Monthly Preschool Fee Charged by Centers
358.18
384.29
371.50
Preschool Hourly Fee (Monthly Fee 'Hours of Care)
2.01
2.05
2.03
Note: Elements may not add to totals due to rounding.
.
Equals full turtion discounted by subsidized children and federal income tax credit.
Executive Summary
January, 1995
17
Technical Advisory Committee:
David Blau, University of North Carolina
Jerlean Daniel, University of Pittsburg
Heidi Hartmann, Institute for Women's Policy Research
Anna Jo Haynes, Mile High Child Care, Denver CO
Ellen Magenheim, Swarthmore College
Kim Moore, Children's World Learning Centers
Roger Neugebauer, Child Care Exchange
Barbara Reisman, Child Care Action Campaign
Bea Romer, First Lady, State of Colorado
Shelly Smith, National Conference of State Legislatures
w. James Smith, University of Colorado at Denver
Claudia Wayne, National Center for the Early Childhood Work Force
Marcy Whitebook, National Center for the Early Childhood Work Force
Barbara Willer, National Association for the Education of Young Children
Consultants:
David Blau, University of North Carolina
Patricia Hnatiuk, Wheelock College
Barbara Robles, University of Colorado at Boulder
lettrev S. Zar, University of Colorado at Boulder
Additional thanks to:
ADMINISTRATION: Evelyn Atkins. Lynn Ferguson, Jane Murray, Peter Neville, Cathy Riley, Carol Tagstrom.
DATA COLLECTORS:
University of Colorado at Denver: Roberta Counihan. Ann Heiman, Tobin Follenweider, Sarah (Price) Follenweider,
Carla Spence. Bradley Venner. Regina Sheehan Vigil. Regina Wieder, and Marie Wilwerding.
University of California at Los Angeles: Tanva Akel. Lisa Clarke, Ken Elkind, Diane Hembacher, Joan Herberg, Ellen
Mark. Suzanna Morrell. Erin Oldham. Terry Tvor. and Lindsev Yeager.
University of North Carolina: Catherine Adams. Paige Bebee, Kathleen Bernier, Debby Cryer, K.K. Lam, Adam
Levinson, Jolie Long Paula Malek. Carmelle Minton. Pam Rolandelli, Lauren Trine, Beril Ulku, and Bridget Wagoner.
Yale University: Carvn Blitz. Mary Ann Bonenberger. Teri Elniski, Barbara Hamlin, Harriet Kroop, Janet Lynne, Susan
Nolan. Christine Roberts. lean Rustick and Carolyn Zittel.
PRODUCTION: Carolyn Stollman of Boulder Writing & Editing Service.
Rajan Kose of Standing Stone Productions, Boulder, Colorado.
PUBLIC RELATIONS: Phil Sparks of Communications Consortium, Washington, D.C.
RESEARCH ASSISTANTS: Kathleen Bernier. Teri Elniski, Sarah (Price) Follenweider, Adam Levinson, Jolie Long,
Tim Martin, Carla Spence. Danny 1 Rees. Cuong "Ken" Thicu Tran, Peter Neville, Bridget Wagoner, Joseph
Ronald "LeRoy" White. Noreen Yazepan. and Carolvn Zittel.
VOLUNTEERS: Martha Daley. Carla Horwitz. Carolyn Lester, Karen Maggio, Carol MacElwee, Nancy Moriarity,
Frankie Scott-Bvrd. Kathleen Shindler. Claudia Shuster, Eileen Ward, Gail Wilson, Anne Witwer, and Andrea Wickes.
A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO: The National Association for the Education of Young Children for supporting
this research from its inception.
Ad ditional copies of the
Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study
Executive Summary
as well as two larger, more complete reports, are available.
Executive Summary copies are $ 8.00 each.
Public Report (approx. 100 pages) are $15.00 each
Technical Report (approx. 500 pages) are $40.00 each
Send your name and address, along with a check
or money order payable to "Cost & Quality Study", to:
Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study
Economics Department
Campus Box 159
P.O. Box 173364
University of Colorado at Denver
Denver CO 80217-3364
Phone: (303) 556-4934
Fax: (303) 556-3547
U.S. DOL WB Care Around the Clock
http://www.dol.gov/dol/wb/public/media/teports/carc.htm#PARTont
Women's Bureau Special Reports
CARE AROUND THE CLOCK:
DEVELOPING CHILD CARE RESOURCES BEFORE NINE AND AFTER FIVE
U.S. Department of Labor
Robert B. Reich, Secretary
Women's Bureau
Karen Nussbaum, Director
1995
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
Part One - Child Care Before Nine and After Five: An Emerging Issue
A Case Study from Western Idaho
Part Two - Making It Work: Promising Practices in Developing Non-Standard Hours Child Care
Single Employer Model
Toyota Motor Manufacturing
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Employer Consortium Model
Close to Home
Central Atlanta Hospitality Childcare, Inc.
Community Partnership Model
Palcare
1 of 32
09/16/97 09:14:33
U.S. DOL - WB Care Around the Clock
http://www.dol.gov/dol/wb/public/media/reports/care.htm#PARTon-
Tri-County Child Care Task Force
Conclusion
Appendix A
Contact Information on Profiled Companies and Organizations
Appendix B
Other Companies Addressing Non-Standard Hours Child Care Needs
Appendix C
Other Sources of Information
Endnotes
Acknowledgements
CARE AROUND THE CLOCK -- Executive Summary
In the fall of 1993, a Western Idaho child care resource and referral agency received reports that workers
at a round-the-clock food processing plant were using their cars as the "child care" of last resort. Young
children were put to sleep and left in unattended cars in the plant's parking lot.
Child Care Around the Clock
While it is difficult for many working parents to find affordable and high-quality child care, the problem is
magnified when they work non-standard hours.
"Child Care Around the Clock" is a resource guide for parents, child care providers, employers, and
community organizations facing this child care challenge. It profiles a range of practical approaches to
making child care more available and affordable for parents who work non-standard hours.
An Emerging Issue
The issue of child care during non-standard hours is growing in importance due to several major trends:
Nearly one in five full-time workers - 14.3 million - worked non-standard hours in 1991.
It has been estimated that more than 1,000 different work schedules are in use in the U.S. today.
The problem is likely to become increasingly serious as more employers operate around the clock and as
more women with children work non-standard hours.
Our economy is fast becoming a 24-hour operation:
2 of 32
09/16/97 09:14:37
U.S. DOL - WB Care Around the Clock
http://www.dol.gov/dol/wb/public
The long-term trend toward a service-based economy has led to the operation of
during early mornings, evenings, nights, and weekends.
Employers in all sectors are changing their schedules for reasons ranging from ir
to enhanced customer satisfaction to reduced air pollution.
A significant percentage of the employees working non-standard hours are women - and
Sixty percent of women with children under age six, and 76% of women with school age children
are in the workforce.
In 1991, 5 million of the full-time workers with non-standard hours - more than one in three - we
women.
In 1990, 7.2 million mothers with 11.7 million children under 15, worked full- or part-time during
non-standard hours.
Service jobs overall, which have the highest and fastest growing percentage of shift workers
(42%), include many jobs held traditionally by women. For example, jobs for medical assistants,
nurses aides, and psychiatric aides are expected to increase by 47% between 1995 and 2005, and
jobs for home health aides are expected to increase by 136%.
Parents with a variety of jobs, work schedules and family situations report that it is hard, and sometime
impossible, to find child care:
A single father who works the regular day shift but travels 50 miles to work couldn't find a child
care facility with the right hours. He reluctantly hired a provider without experience or training to
care for his children at her home.
A woman with pre-school children was forced to drop out of college because she couldn't find
affordable care during her morning and night classes. She found providers who would take her
children, but only if she paid the full-time, full- week fee for many fewer hours of care.
One respondent to the Women's Bureau's "Working Women Count!" survey wrote that she and I
husband had worked different shifts for the past eight years so that one of them could be at home
with the children. "I feel like a single parent, and so does my husband," she says. "But it's the onl
way. Before we did this we had five different sitters for our kids in one year."
Promising Practices
The Western Idaho Community Action Program conducted phone surveys of providers, met with parer
and raised the awareness of the employer community to deal with that region's non-standard hours chil
care problem; but there is no one-size-fits-all solution. The report identifies and provides examples of
three general models for developing comprehensive, non-standard hours child care:
Single Employer Model A single employer designs a child care program to fit the company's work
schedule.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing of Georgetown, KY, has opened an "on site" 24-hour-a-day child
care center licensed for 230 children ages 6 weeks to 13 years.
The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) contracts with 32 licensed child care
centers to meet employees' diverse child care needs, and offers tuition subsidies on a sliding scale
Employer Consortium Model A group of employers come together on an industry or geographic basis
share knowledge and may, over time, pool resources and conduct joint child care projects.
3 of 32
09/
U.S. DOL - WB Care Around the Clock
http://www.dol.gov/dol/wb/public/media/reports/care.htn#PARTon/
Close to Home, a consortium of employers from Phoenix, recruited and trained child care
providers who would accommodate non-standard schedules. Some of their members recently
funded a provider resource lending library.
A group of employers from the hotel industry in Atlanta, Georgia, formed Central Atlanta
Hospitality Childcare, Inc., to address the child care difficulties of hospitality industry employees.
They are developing the Children's Inn, which will provide family services and an early learning
center for the families of low-income hotel workers.
Community Partnership Model A variety of stakeholders (e.g. employers, parents, providers, unions,
resource organizations, local government)join together to identify community child care needs and
solutions, pool resources and share skills and expertise.
Palcare is a non-profit organization that worked with unions, employers, local governments, and
community groups to establish a 24-hour-day, seven-day-a-week, child care center for employees
at the San Francisco International Airport and in surrounding communities.
The Tri-County Child Care Task Force in upstate New York includes local employers, the school
district, referral
agencies, United Way, and other non-profits. It is assessing the supply and demand of non-traditional
child care and compiling possible solutions.
Conclusions
Communities, employers, and providers are coming together to address the lack of non-traditional hour
child care. However, much remains to be done. For more information or copies of this report, call the
Women's Bureau Clearinghouse at 1-800-827-5335.
INTRODUCTION
Working Women Speak Out
The Women's Bureau of the U.S. Department of Labor, created by Congress in 1920 to "promote the
welfare of wage-earning women," is a voice for working women in the public policy process. For 75
years, the Women's Bureau has pioneered policies and legislation to set fair wages and hours, ensure
health and safety standards, expand training opportunities, and increase dependent care options.
In 1994, the Women's Bureau conducted a historic survey, "Working Women Count!," asking America's
working women to identify what they like and do not like about their jobs and what they think needs to
be changed. More than 250,000 women responded, demonstrating the depth of their concern about
workplace issues.
One survey question asked women, "If you could tell President Clinton one thing about what it's like to
be a working woman today, what would it be?" The number one issue women wanted to bring to the
President's attention was how hard it is to hold together a family while holding down a job.
Through "Working Women Count!," respondents told us that child care is key to their ability to balance
work and family. In fact, 56% of mothers with children age five and under identified "finding affordable
child care" as a serious problem, and 53% said that "information about and support for dependent care" is
a high priority for change.
4 of 32
09/16/97 09:14:38
U.S. DOL - WB Care Around the Clock
http://www.dol.gov/dol/wb/public/media/reports/care.htm#PARTonc
What is in this Report
Finding affordable, quality child care in the United States is a challenge for all working parents. "Care
Around the Clock" looks at one piece of the child care challenge: the mismatch between workers'
changing schedules and available child care services. This report is for parents, child care providers,
employers, and community organizations that want to address the growing need for child care during
non-standard hours.
Part One describes why the issue of non-standard hours child care is becoming more important as we
move toward the 21 st century and an economy that is increasingly a 24-hour operation. It draws on a
Western Idaho case study to illustrate how the mismatch between work schedules and available child care
services is affecting the families and employers in one community.
Part Two profiles a variety of models for expanding the supply of non-standard hours child care, some
based in the workplace and others based in the community.
Additional resources, including contact information for individual programs, are listed in Appendices A,
B and C.
+1
PART ONE - CHILD CARE BEFORE NINE AND AFTER FIVE: AN EMERGING ISSUE
Changing Child Care Needs and the Changing Workplace
The American economy is changing, and so is the American workplace. To remain competitive,
businesses are experimenting with how and when work gets done. As work schedules are adapted to the
needs of specific product lines and services and more businesses run around the clock, both employers
and employees face a variety of new challenges. One of the most significant is the need for child care
services during parents' working hours, whenever they may be.
The issue of child care during non-standard hours is growing in importance due to five major trends:
Structural change toward a service-based economy - which has been occurring over several
decades - means that more businesses are operating during early mornings, evenings, nights, and
weekends. Service occupations with a high proportion of shift workers are projected to produce
more new jobs than any other sector over the next decade. <1>
Employers in many sectors, not just the service sector, are increasingly implementing schedules
other than eight-hour days and five-day weeks -- from compressed work weeks to rotating shifts.
Their reasons range from increasing flexibility to enhancing customer satisfaction to reducing air
pollution.
In recent years, starting in the early 1980s, the work week of many Americans has gotten longer.
This includes workers across occupations, from top-level professionals to factory workers. <2>
For some workers, particularly production workers in manufacturing, the use of overtime is higher
than at any time since World War II. This is due to a combination of factors such as downsizing
and economic expansion.
More women with children are working for wages than ever before: 60% of women with children
under six are in the workforce, and 76% of women with school age children are working. Finding
safe and affordable child care is critical to the economic well-being of both dual earner and single
parent families.
5 of 32
09/16/97 09:14:31
U.S. DOL - WB Care Around the Clock
http://www.dol.gov/dol/wb/public/media/reports/carc.htm/PARTon.
Who Works Non-Standard Hours?
Non-standard hours include early mornings, evenings, nights, and weekends, as well as all shifts longer
than eight hours. It has been estimated that more than 1,000 different work schedules are in use in the
U.S. today. <4> Nearly one in every five full-time workers, or 14.3 million, worked non-standard hours in
the U.S. in 1991 - 5 million of them were women. <5>
Service jobs overall, which include many jobs traditionally held by women, have the highest percentage of
shift workers (42%). [See Chart 1] Occupations with high proportions of shift workers are expected to
grow significantly in the coming years. For example, jobs for medical assistants, nurses aides, and
psychiatric aides are expected to increase by 47% between 1995 and 2005, and jobs for home health aides
are expected to increase by 136%. [See Table 1]
Many mothers are working non-standard hours. In 1991, 7.2 million mothers worked non-standard hours
on a full-time or part-time basis. These mothers had 11.7 million children under the age of 15 who needed
some type of non-standard hours child care. In addition, 71% of these mothers indicated that they work
non-standard hours because it is a job requirement, while only 14% chose non-standard work hours to
seek better child care arrangements. <6>
Who is Caring for our Children Before Nine and After Five?
As women continue to enter and remain in the paid workforce, the need for sufficient, safe and affordable
child care services during all hours will continue to rise. Neighbors and grandmothers, the traditional
sources of informal child care when the parent is not available, are also less likely to be found at home.
They too are increasingly in the labor force.
For parents whose hours extend beyond the standard workday, locating and paying for quality child care
is particularly difficult. Despite the fact that nearly one in five married workers work non-standard hours,
most child care providers still offer only "day care" for the traditional nine to five work day. While
scientific surveys on 24-hour child care centers are non-existent, it has been estimated that there are
roughly a dozen of these centers across the country. <7>
Many workers with non-standard schedules earn low to moderate incomes and cannot afford to pay a lot
for child care. Some parents chose to work opposite shifts in order to avoid child care costs and/or
ensure that both parents have time with their children - this is often called "tag-team parenting." [Sidebar:
Patsy Cornell is a mother of three from Michigan and a Working Women Count! respondent. She has
been a "tag-team" parent for eight years because she and her husband can't afford quality child care.
Says Cornell, "I feel like a single parent, and so does my husband. But it's the only way. Before we did
this we had five different sitters for our kids in one year.' ]<8> Tag-team parenting is a delicate
balancing act and, in most cases, far from a perfect long-term solution. Assuming that parents are able to
match their shifts, they are rarely together as a couple or with their children; minor changes in either's
schedule can cause serious problems; and there is still a need for back-up child care systems during
illnesses and emergencies.
The majority of mothers who work non-standard hours, whether full- or part-time, do so because it is
required by their jobs, not because it fits their child care needs. <9> Most of these mothers use family day
care providers, while others use center based care or a provider who comes into their own home. A
surprising number care for their children at work. [See Chart 2]
Recent studies on the quality of formal and informal child care indicate that many children are in mediocre
6 of 32
09/16/97 09:14:38
U.S. DOL - WB Care Around the Clock
http://www.dol.gov/dol/wb/public/media/reports/carc.htm#PARTon/
Recent studies on the quality of formal and informal child care indicate that many children are in mediocre
or poor care arrangements. <10> While many parents have difficulty finding quality child care, the choices
are fewer and the search harder for those who work non-standard hours.
A Case Study from Western Idaho
While the trend towards non-standard work hours is evident on a national scale, the effects are most
keenly observable at the local level. Mismatches between worker schedules and available services vary
considerably from one community to another, along with demographics, major industries, and local
resources. In many communities, the need for non-standard hours child care is still a "sleeper" issue,
unknown or ignored until the problem becomes a crisis.
That is what happened in Western Idaho. In the fall of 1993, the local child care resource and referral
agency, housed in the Western Idaho Community Action Program (WICAP), received reports from
several sources that workers at a round-the-clock food processing plant were using their cars as the
"child care" of last resort. Young children were put to sleep and left unattended in cars in the plant's
parking lot. This alarming news served as the catalyst for an investigation into the availability of child
care for shift workers, such as those at the food processing plant, as well as others working non-standard
hours in six Western Idaho communities.
Although the situation in Western Idaho is in some ways particular to that region, the frustrations and
concerns of parents and community organizations in that state mirror those in many other parts of the
country where people work before nine and after five. <11>
Western Idaho: From Farming to Fast Food
Western Idaho is a largely rural region, where people are spread out and communities are small. It
includes six counties to the west and north of Boise -- Adams, Canyon, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, and
Washington. Some people work on farms or ranches, growing potatoes and raising cattle; while others
work in the expanding food processing industry, making french fries and hamburgers for fast food
restaurants.
Most food processing plants have some non-day shifts, and many have round-the-clock schedules to keep
up with the demand from national fast food chains. Several other major industries in Western Idaho also
have high levels of non-standard work hours, including retail, mobile home and RV construction, and
electronics manufacturing. The 58 largest employers in the region employ approximately 25% of the
region's workers. More than half of these employees, 7,932, work evening or night shifts. This
count, while dramatic, does not fully capture the extent of non-standard hours work in Western Idaho,
since data on weekend work and other non-standard hours, such as overtime, are not available.
In Western Idaho, a large percentage of workers with non-standard hours are women with children. In
Idaho overall, 59.2% of women work full or part time, which is slightly higher than the national average
(57.9%). Nearly one in five working women in Idaho (18.9%) has a child under age six, and almost half
(44.9%) have at least one child under 18.<13>
Taking the Lead
The Western Idaho Community Action Program, (WICAP) is a non-profit corporation established by the
1964 Economic Opportunity Act. It serves approximately 22,000 low and moderate income people and
provides comprehensive family services, including child care resource and referral information. WICAP
mobilizes and coordinates public and private resources to provide child care to working parents in the
7 of 32
09/16/97 09:14:39
U.S. DOL - WB Care Around the Clock
http://www.dol.gov/dol/wb/public/media/reports/care.htm/PARTnq
mobilizes and coordinates public and private resources to provide child care to working parents in the
region's urban and rural areas. Until WICAP learned of the problem at the food processing plant,
however, they had not focused on the need for child care during non-standard hours.
With a contract from the U.S. Department of Labor Women's Bureau, WICAP began gathering
information from parents and child care providers about the needs for, and availability of, care during
non-standard hours.
Few Providers Available
To assess the supply of non-standard hours care, WICAP conducted a telephone survey during the spring
of 1994 of the 180 providers in their service area who are either licensed by the state or registered with a
community agency. Most of these child care workers provide care in their own homes. Of the 160
providers who responded, just over 75% cared for children Monday through Friday only. Eight percent
cared for children Monday through Saturday, and 11% cared for children seven days a week.
Most of the providers were open 12 hours a day, from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm. Five facilities opened by 4:30
am, and an additional 27 opened by 5:30 am. Twenty-one facilities were still open at 7:00 pm. By 8:00
pm, 12 facilities were open, and by 11:00 pm, the number dwindled to four. No facilities were open after
11:30 pm.
Providers gave four main reasons why they did not provide evening or weekend care: 1) they need more
personal time or time with their own families; 2) they only provide non-standard hours child care as a
favor to a friend or relative; 3) there is not enough demand from parents; and 4) it is difficult to recruit
and retain staff for non-standard hours. Providers also mentioned that evenings and weekends are the
only time they have for additional training and education. Seventy-eight percent of the providers
surveyed, some of whom had offered non-standard hours care in the past, said they would not be willing
to provide it in the future.
The survey did not capture the extent to which informal and unlicensed child care was available during
non-standard hours. It did, however, clearly illustrate that parents who seek licensed care during early
mornings, evenings, nights, and weekends had very little to choose from, and that providers see
substantial obstacles to offering such care.
For Parents, Frustration and Worry
WICAP held a series of meetings with local working parents in their service area to learn more about
their dependent care needs. Parents' stories all carried the same basic message: they are frustrated by the
lack of safe, affordable, and dependable child care during non-standard hours. Given the choice, most said
they would prefer a stable child care arrangement with a relative or neighbor. But parents repeatedly
emphasized that such informal arrangements are rarely stable enough to count on. Instead, they find
themselves constantly searching for new and better options, and worrying about the lack of continuous
care in their children's lives.
Parents with a variety of jobs, work schedules and family situations spoke out about how hard, and
sometimes impossible, it is to find the child care they need:
A woman who works for a computer company from 2:00 pm to 10:00 pm cannot find a caregiver
for her preschool child during these hours. A relative has agreed to care for the child for now, but
the mother is constantly worried about having to leave her job if this arrangement falls through.
8 of 32
09/16/97 09:14:3
U.S. DOL - WB Care Around the Clock
http://www.dol.gov/dol/wb/public/media/reports/carc.htm#PARTon8
the mother is constantly worried about having to leave her job if this arrangement falls through.
A woman who works in a food processing plant from 6:00 am to 2:30 pm can not find child care
for her infant, particularly for the early hours. Since English is not her primary language, she finds it
very difficult to get information and assistance about non-standard child care options or to find a
Spanish-speaking provider.
A single father who works the regular day shift in an electronics plant travels 50 miles to work. He
has three children under the age of four and needs a child care program that opens early and closes
late. Unable to find a licensed facility with the right hours, he reluctantly hired a woman without
prior child care experience or training who cares for the children at her home.
A woman with a 13-month-old child works from 3:00 pm to 11:00 pm, and her husband works
from 6:00 am to 4:00 pm. They have tried to meet their child care needs through "tag-team"
parenting -- having one parent at home while the other is at work. The problem is the gap of one to
two hours every day when their shifts and travel times overlap. Both parents believe that their jobs
are in jeopardy because they have been unable to find regular child care for just those afternoon
hours.
A single mother with a pre-school child attended college classes, some in the morning and some at
night. She needed child care part-time during the day and part-time during the evening. Every child
care provider she talked to insisted that she pay the full-time, full-week rate for day care, even if
she did not use it all day or every day. Because she could not afford both evening and full-day care,
she was forced to drop out of college and indefinitely postpone her plans for improving her
economic future.
The problems that parents and providers in Western Idaho describe are daunting, and they raise many
important and difficult questions. What can parents do if their jobs require hours that no child care
provider will meet? What can fairly be asked of providers, many of whom are also working parents?
What is the responsibility of employers who use non-standard schedules? Who else in the community can
make a difference in expanding child care options during evenings, nights, and weekends?
WICAP has begun to look for ways to answer some of these questions.
Seeking Solutions
WICAP concluded from their provider survey and parent meetings that many working families in Western
Idaho need non-standard hours child care services, and that the supply is inadequate. Whether it is care in
the early mornings, evenings, nights, weekends, or "in between" times, parents reported that their options
were very limited. And parents revealed that problems with finding affordable, quality child care can
result in constant worry and even diminished economic and career prospects.
WICAP also learned that child care providers face a set of barriers that must be addressed if the supply of
non-standard hours care is to be expanded. They need time to spend with their own families, time and
financial support for training, and methods for recruiting and retaining staff.
Since WICAP conducted their investigations, they have begun to make progress in expanding the supply
of non-standard hours care. For example, 15 day care providers in their service area have changed hours
and now provide care to children of shift workers in the region.
WICAP has also begun to raise awareness of the problem in the employer community by building links
between employers and other stakeholders such as parents, child care providers, and community service
agencies. They recently sponsored a "Work/Family Forum" that brought together all these parties and
began the process of developing creative, local solutions. Eighteen businesses attended the forum,
including two businesses that participated on the panel and spoke to their peers about the importance of
9 of 32
09/16/97 09:14:39
U.S. DOL - WB Care Around the Clock
http://www.dol.gov/dol/wb/public/media/reports/carc.htm#PARTor/
including two businesses that participated on the panel and spoke to their peers about the importance of
non-standard hours child care. There are plans to involve other businesses from Boise in future activities.
PART TWO - MAKING IT WORK: PROMISING PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING
NON-STANDARD HOURS CHILD CARE
Introduction
Problems with the availability of non-standard hours child care are not unique to Western Idaho. In the
second part of this report, we describe a number of promising efforts to address this problem in different
places around the country. These examples provide useful information to other employers and
communities working to resolve their own non-standard hours child care needs.
Many of the non-standard hours child care programs profiled in this report require significant time and
resources, and are the product of long-term planning efforts. However, there are many less costly ways
for companies and communities to begin to address the issue.
Employers can be responsive in a variety of ways, such as:
Facilitating information sharing among employees through support groups and parenting seminars
during work hours.
Providing accessible resource information to parents, such as an "Employee Handbook" which
includes the phone numbers of local child care resource and referral agencies.
Conducting training seminars for employees, supervisors and managers on coping strategies for
easing the impact of non-standard work schedules on personal and family life.
Promoting flexible work policies and protecting the option of overtime pay after 40 hours of work
a week.
Creating a work/family committee with representation from labor and management to discuss
issues like balancing work and family, insuring quality child care, and helping individual employees
resolve work/family dilemmas that arise because of non-standard work hours.
Communities can also address the issue through a variety of activities such as:
Encouraging a local organization, such as a PTA or Chamber of Commerce, to host a public
education forum on non-standard hours child care.
Providing information to parents and employers on existing child care resources through articles in
local newspapers and public service announcements on local radio stations.
Recognizing or publicizing successful programs that meet the child care needs of parents who work
non-standard hours.
Creating a community task force involving key stakeholders to assess the supply of and demand for
quality non-standard hours child care in a particular urban or rural area.
Each of these ideas requires only a small investment in dollars and cents. But the return may be
substantial, enabling employees to meet their work and family responsibilities and employers to maintain
their competitive edge in an ever-changing economy.
Expanding Child Care Hours and the Employer's Bottom Line
Neither employers nor families benefit when the demands of work and family become mutually exclusive.
Some employers have come to acknowledge the importance of providing non-standard hours child care
10 of 32
09/16/97 09:14:39
Economic Perspectives on Child Care Quality
September 15, 1997
Summary
An important question for evaluating the uses of limited federal child care funds is the extent to
which our policies should emphasize improving child care quality. The purpose of this memo is
to provide an economic perspective on funding for child care quality improvements. We make
three central points:
Attempts to measure the effects of quality on child care are complicated because of
difficulty in measuring the important variables, and unmeasured factors correlated with
quality. As a result, it is inherently difficult to influence underlying quality with federal
policy levers, and to know what benefits accrue from quality subsidies or standards.
Mandating quality improvements through standards is not a "free" option: more stringent
standards result in higher prices and therefore decreased utilization of licensed care.
Providing greater information to parents and providers on the attributes of quality care are
likely to be the most cost-effective methods of improving quality.
How Much Does Quality Matter?
Child care can be thought of as one input where output is children's cognitive and social
development. A large body of literature has found that quality care is positively associated with
children's current cognitive and social development. But there are a number of problems in
interpreting these results:
It is difficult to measure the desired outcome, cognitive and social development, and the
marginal impact of child care on this development.
Family background is the most important influence on child development, and it is
correlated with child care: parents who invest in high quality care are also likely to
provide their children with other opportunities for development. Studies of the effect of
quality often do not properly control for family background and other characteristics that
are correlated with quality of care. As a result, they may attribute the beneficial effects of
excellent family background to higher quality care, making that care appear more
valuable that it is in reality.
It is difficult to measure the quality inputs of child care. One approach is to use
components of child care that can be measured objectively, such as the child to staff ratio
and group size (structural measures). However, there is little evidence that these factors
have any measurable effect on children's development. A second approach defines
quality in terms of children's experience in care, such as care giver empathy or behavior
(child experience measures). However, these measures are largely subjective and
2
difficult to obtain, particularly for regulatory authorities.
As a result of these problems, there is little solid basis for the claim that there are sizeable returns
to subsidizing child care quality. In addition, direct government interventions to enhance quality
are rendered difficult by the ambiguous nature of what determines quality care.
The Quality/Access Tradeoff
It is critical to recognize that there is a tradeoff between government policies to improve quality,
and those to improve access:
Most obviously, for a fixed total amount of government spending, spending on quality
improvements represents dollars that cannot be transferred to individuals to pay for child
care
As noted above, it is very difficult to define "quality" child care, and as a result
difficult to target government spending
If the problem is that parents would like to purchase higher quality care, but
cannot afford it, income transfers are the most efficient solution. Examples of
income transfers include the Earned Income Tax Credit (which is a general
transfer) and the voucher programs operated by states under the Child Care
Development Fund. It is important to recognize that parents may not make
choices over "quality" in exactly the same way that the government deems
appropriate, but this does not necessarily reflect poor choices; it may instead
reflect the difficulty to the government of measuring quality.
Another approach to the underprovision of quality, from a societal view, is standards for
child care providers, such as mandated child-to-staff ratios and educational requirements.
But standards are not costless: they raise the price of market (licensed) care, driving
more families into the unlicensed care sector
-
Economic studies indicate that higher standards result in higher costs: a recent
study found that a 10 percent decrease in the child-to-staff ratio for four-year-olds
increases the price of care by 8 percent. Similarly, requiring educational
credentials of family day care providers increases the price of family care by 19
percent.
This same study found that, as a result, increasing quality standards lowers the
demand for market care. For example, each 10 percent reduction in the child-to-
staff ratio reduces use of market care by 2 percent, and requiring educational
credentials for family day care providers lowers use of market care by 13%.
3
Subsidies to the training of day care providers may be an attractive alternative to
mandating education. Subsidizing training would increase the supply of quality
child care providers, lowering the price of quality child care and thereby
increasing access.
But one area where there may be little tradeoff is education/information A free market
may not provide information to parents on the advantages and attributes of quality child
care. Similarly, it may be difficult for parents to find out who provides day care in their
area. Providers may be unable to obtain up-to-date information on how to ensure quality
care.
This suggests that government referral agencies may be the most cost-efficient
quality intervention. Child care offices can provide lists of providers and qualities
parents should look for in selecting child care. This type of assistance is fairly
inexpensive and non-controversial, because the goal is to help parents make better
decisions, rather than interfering in parental child care choice. The same agencies
may also help providers in voluntarily improving quality by recommending child
care practices.
HHS Options: The Department of Health and Human Services offered 7 options to improve
child care quality. Some reactions, in light of the discussion above:
Options 6 (provider network) and 7 (parent network) in the HHS options look most
promising. These are relatively low cost options that can help parents select high-quality
care and give providers the necessary information to supply this care.
But options 1 (set Federal standards), 2 (mandatory provider education), 3 (expand health
and safety requirements of the CCDF program), 4 (require Federal child care programs to
adhere to Stepping Stones and challenge states to match) and 5 (promote states adoption
of Stepping Stones) should be approached with extreme caution. These efforts are likely
to increase the cost of care and reduce its use. Careful analysis of the costs and benefits
of raising standards is required before these policies should be adopted.
HHS should instead use increased funds to improve access to the child care market
through income-based subsidies; these subsidies will be used to some extent by
individuals to buy higher quality care than they now use.
Alternatively, HHS could use the funds to subsidize training of child care providers,
which will lower the market price of care and increase access.
Any program should set aside a non-trivial share of increased funding for research into
the effects of different govenrment policies on child care access and quality choices, and
the effects of these choices on subsequent child outcomes.
A Profile of the Child Care Work Force
Approximately three million child care teachers, assistants,
Only 18 percent of child care centers offer fully paid health
and family child care providers in the U.S. care for 10 million
coverage to teaching staff.
children each day.
Although they earn lower wages, child care teachers are
Who are the child care teaching staff?
better educated than the general population.
97% are female
One-third of all child care teachers leave their centers each
41% have children
year.
10% are single parents
Family child care providers who care for and educate
Child care teaching staff earn an average of $6.89 per hour
young children in their homes also have very low earnings.
or $12,058 per year (based on 35 hours per week and 50
Providers earn $9,528 annually after expenses (data from
weeks per year) (data from Cost, Quality and Child
The Economics of Family Child Care Study, a forthcoming
Outcomes in Child Care Centers, Technical Report 1995,
publication from Wheelock College, earnings in 1996 dollars).
salary data are in 1993 dollars).
Unregulated providers, who care for fewer children and are
offered fewer supports, earned just $5,132 after expenses.
Education of Child Care Teaching Staff Versus All Workers'
50
44
40
33
32
32
31
30
27
26
23
21
20
14
10
10
5
0
Less than High School
High School Diploma
Some College
BA/BS or More
Child Care Teachers*
Female Workers**
Male Workers**
*National Child Care Staffing Study **Current Population Surveys, 1995. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor
Annual Wages of Child Care Teaching Staff Versus All Workers***
$58,582
$60,000
$50,000
$31,278
$40,000
$26,820
$30,344
$26,747
$30,000
$19,168
$20,000
$14,506
$10,151
$11,617
$10,000
$0
High School Diploma
Some College
BA/BS or More
Civilian Labor Force, Men**
Civilian Labor Force, Women**
'I
TeachingStaff, 1994*
*National Child Care Staffing Study, wages in 1996 dollars **Current Population Surveys, 1996. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor
These charts only provide information on center-based teaching staff.
This fact sheet is primarily excerpted from materials developed by the National Center for the Early Childhood Work Force
(NCECW), (phone: 202-737-7700; E-mail: [email protected])
Child Care for Young Children: Demographics
According to the National Center for Education Statistics,
While use of center-based care increased from 1988 to
in 1995 there were approximately 21 million infants, toddlers,
1993, most young children are still in a home-based setting,
and preschool children under the age of six in the U.S., more
including family child care.**
than 12.9 million of these children were in child care.'
Forty-five percent of children under age one were in child
care on a regular basis.'
Primary Child Care Arrangements Used by Families
with Employed Mothers for Preschoolers: 1993
(Percent of preschoolers of working mothers in selected arrangements)
Mother*
Centers
6%
30%
Father
16%
Other
1%
Grandparents
Family Child Care (Nonrelatives)
17%
21%
Other relatives
9%
* Includes mothers working at home or away from home. Source: Casper, L.M. Who's Minding Our Preschoolers?
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P-70, no. 53, Washington, DC 1996
Changes in Selected Child Care Arrangements: 1988 to 1993
(Percent of preschoolers of working mothers in selected arrangements)
30
Centers
23
26
17
1993
Family day care
18
24
1991
1988
16
Care by fathers
20
15
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Source: Casper, L.M. Who's Minding Our Preschoolers? U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P-70, no. 53, Washington, DC 1996
This profile of child care demographics has been excerpted from information provided by the t National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department
of Education and the **U.S. Bureau of the Census.
For additional information, contact the National Child Care Information Center at (800) 616-2242 or visit the Web site at
http://ericps.crc.uiuc.edu/nccic/nccichome.html
Child Care for Young Children: Quality
"Recent brain research suggests that warm, responsive child care is not only comforting for an infant;
it is critical to healthy development. "
- Rethinking the Brain: New Insights into Early Development
Families and Work Institute (1997)
Higher quality child care for very young children (0 to 3) was consistently related to high levels of cognitive and
language development. "Mother-Child Interaction and Cognitive Outcomes Associated with Early Child Care", NICHD Early Child Care Research
Network (1997)
Studies have raised concerns about the quality of care:
A four-state study of quality in child care centers found only one in seven (14%) were rated as good quality. Cost,
Quality and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers, (Executive Summary) University of Colorado at Denver (1995)
Thirteen percent of regulated and 50 percent of nonregulated family child care providers offer care that is
inadequate. The Study of Children in Family Child Care and Relative Care, Families and Work Institute (1994)
"The quality of services provided by most centers was rated as barely adequate." The National Child Care Staffing
Study (Executive Summary), National Center for the Early Childhood Workforce (1989)
"[M]any children living in poverty receive child care that, at best, does not support their optimal development and,
at worst, may compromise their health and safety." New Findings on Children, Families, and Economic Self-Sufficiency, National Research
Council, Institute of Medicine (1995)
What Works to Improve the Quality of Child Care
Children who receive warm and sensitive caregiving are more likely to trust caregivers, to enter school ready and
eager to learn, and to get along well with other children. To ensure that child care settings nurture children, protect their
health and safety, and prepare them for later school success, better qualified staff are essential." Starting Points: Meeting the Needs
of Our Youngest Children, Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children (1994)
"[S]maller group sizes, higher teacher/child ratios and higher staff wages result in quality child care. Outcomes for
children are also better when they attend programs that include a curriculum geared to young children, well prepared staff and
where parents are involved in programming." Early Childhood Care and Education: An Investment That Works, National Conference of State
Legislatures (1997)
Any child care setting will benefit from a health consultant.
to advise on potential infectious diseases, explain
symptoms and treatments to families, plan health alert procedures when infectious disease occurs, and assist with public health
reporting requirements. Caring for Infants and Toddlers in Groups, Zero to Three: National Center for Infants, Toddlers and Families (1995)
States with stronger licensing requirements had a greater number of good-quality centers according to recent
research. Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers, University of Colorado at Denver (1995)
Voluntary conformity to higher standards through professional center accreditation or through meeting another
set of quality standards also increased the likelihood of higher classroom quality. Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes in Child
Care Centers, University of Colorado at Denver (1995)
For additional information, contact the National Child Care Information Center at (800) 616-2242 or visit the Web site at
http://ericps.crc.uiuc.edu/nccic/nccichome.html
Out-of-School Time
School-Age Care
According to the Bureau of the Census, in 1997 there were 38.8 million children between the ages of 5 and 14 years living
in the U.S. There are approximately 24 million school-age children with parents in the workforce or pursuing education
(based on 1993 SIPP data from the Bureau of the Census).
Care Arrangements of School-Age Children
Experts estimate that nearly 5 million school-age
School-age children are likely to spend time in many
children spend time as latchkey kids without adult
different care arrangements. According to the National Child
supervision during a typical week.
Care Survey (1990), 76 percent of school-age children with
an employed mother spend time in at least two child care
Approximately 1.7 million children in kindergarten
arrangements during a typical week, in addition to their
through grade 8 were enrolled in 49,500 formal before-
time in school.
and/or after-school programs in 1991, according to the
National Study of Before and After School Programs.
According to the National Child Care Survey, children aged
5 to 12 with employed mothers use the following types of
In 1993-94, according to the National Center for Education
supplemental care: 7% are in family day care; 14% are in
Statistics, there were 18,111 before- or after-school programs
centers, 3% are cared for by in-home providers, 25% are
in public schools-70% of public schools did not offer extended
cared for by relatives and 44% do not use supplemental care.
learning programs.
Use of Supplemental Care,
Children 5 to 12 with Employed Mothers
Center
In-home
14%
3%
Family Day Care
Relative
7%
25%
Other
7%
None
44%
The Effects of Out-of-School Time on Children
Children under adult supervision in a formal program during after-school hours have demonstrated improved academic
achievement and better attitudes toward school than their peers in self- or sibling care. Miller and Marx, 1990 in Supplement o the
National Assessment of Chapter 1
Youth are at greatest risk of violence after the regular school day. Youth between the ages of 12 and 17 are most at-risk
of committing violent acts or being victims between 2:00 pm and 6:00 pm--a time when they are not in school. Fight Crime: Invest
in Kids, 1997
The most frequently mentioned barrier to participation is the parents' inability to pay the tuition and fees charged by
programs. Other barriers include availability, quality of activities, inadequate facilities, transportation, high staff turnover, hours
of the program and lack of resources.
Components of Successful Before- and After-School Programs include: linkages between after-school and regular school
programs, children's participation in age appropriate learning activities, hiring of qualified staff, low student-staff ratio,
involvement of parents, program evaluation and coordination with the schools and other community organizations.
For information on what states and communities are doing to meet the need for school-age care, contact the National
Institute on Out of School Time (formerly the School-Age Child Care Project), Center for Research on Women,
Wellesley College at (617) 283-2547 or visit the World Wide Web site at: http://www.wellesley.edu/WCW/CRW/SAC/
For additional information on extended learning in after-school programs in schools, contact the U.S. Department of
Education, please call (800) USA-LEARN or visit the World Wide Web site at: http://www.ed.gov/PFIE
Economics of Child Care
In 1994, 62% of married mothers with a child under age six
In 1990, 7.2 million mothers with 11.7 million children under
were in the workforce, compared with 30% in 1970.
age 15 worked full or part time during nonstandard hours.**
The increased employment of mothers outside the home has
In 1993, the average family with an employed mother and a
led to a sharp increase in the use of child care over the past
child under age five spent about $74 per week for child care for
several decades. Eight of 10 employed mothers with children
all preschoolers in the family.*
under six are likely to use some form of nonparental child care
arrangement.
Families with annual incomes under $14,400 that paid for care
for children under five spent 25% of their income on child care,
compared with 6% for families with incomes of $54,000 or
more.*
Percent of Monthly Family Income Spent on Child Care by Family Income
*
$4,500 or more
6%
$3,000 to $4,499
8%
$1,200 to $2,999
12%
Less than $1,200
25%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
* Limited to families with a preschooler, 1993 data. Source: Casper, L.M. What Does It Cost to Mind Our Preschoolers? U.S. Bureau
of the Census, Current Population Reports, P-70, no. 52. Washington, D.C., 1995
Weekly Payment for Child Care by Monthly Family Income*
$110.00
$100.00
$91.93
$90.00
$80.00
$73.10
$70.00
$60.16
$60.00
$50.00
$47.29
$40.00
$30.00
Less than $1,200
$1,200 to $2,999
$3,000 to $4,499
$4,500 or more
*Limited to families paying for child care for preschoolers, 1993 data Source: Casper, L.M. What Does It Cost to Mind
Our Preschoolers? U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P-70, no. 52. Washington, D.C., 1995
Information in this fact sheet is excerpted from f Sandra L. Hofferth, "Child Care in the United States," The Future of Children, vol. 6, no 2 Summer/Fall 1996,
with additional information from: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education: U.S. Bureau of Census; **Women's Bureau, U.S.
Department of Labor
For additional information, contact the National Child Care Information Center at (800) 616-2242 or visit the Web site at
edu/nccic/nccichome
child care and
early education
GOOD QUALITY CHILD CARE AND EARLY EDUCATION: A DRAMATIC
OPPORTUNITY TO PROMOTE LEARNING AND PREVENT DAMAGE IN OUR
YOUNGEST CHILDREN
The social, emotional, and cognitive development of as many as 12 million children
under the age of six is dependent on their access to safe, reliable child care and early
education that provides them with the opportunity to form stable relationships with
caring adults and other children and to engage in interesting and stimulating activities.
Such good quality child care and early education is strongly linked to school
achievement and the development of social skills that enable a child to grow into a
happy, productive adult. Such child care has been used successfully to prepare at-risk
children for school. It also improves educational and social development for children
from middle- and low-income families (Berrueta-Clement, Schweinhart, Barnett, Epstein, &
Weikart, 1984; Burchinal, Lee, & Ramey, 1989; Campbell & Ramey, 1994; Carnegie
Corporation of New York, 1994; Doherty, 1991; Hayes, Palmer, & Weikart, 1980; Lazar,
Darlington, Murray, Royce, & Snipper, 1982; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1980).
Poor quality child care and early education can harm children. Their intellectual and
social development can be stunted. In extreme cases, children have been harmed
physically. The Carnegie Corporation's Starting Points Task Force, citing new scientific
research on brain development in the first three years of life, found that "an adverse
environment can compromise a young child's brain function and overall development,
placing him or her at greater risk of developing a variety of cognitive, behavioral, and
physical difficulties. In some cases these effects may be irreversible. But the
opportunities are equally dramatic: a good start in life can do more to promote learning
and prevent damage than we ever imagined" (Carnegie Corporation, Starting Points,
abridged, p.4, 1994).
Most child care and early education is not of good quality
Tragically, several recent studies have documented that the quality of most child care
and early education available to working families in the United States is mediocre to
poor. Independent observers for The Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study in Child
Care Centers (Helburn, Culkin, Howes, Clifford, Cryer, Kagan et al., 1995) found that in
40 percent of the infant and toddler rooms, caregivers did not follow basic sanitary
practices. In these poor quality settings, children were rarely held, cuddled, or talked to
by their providers. The rooms lacked toys and other materials that encourage
development. The Study of Children in Family Child Care and Relative Care by the
Families & Work Institute in 1994 found that "only nine percent of the [family child care]
Child Care Action Campaign
Communications Consortium Media Center
330 Seventh Avenue
17th Floor
1200 New York Avenue N.W.
Suite 300
New York. NY 10001-5010
Washington. D.C 20005-1754
(212) 239-0138 Fax (212) 268-6515
(202) 326-8700 Fax (202) 682-2154
et al., National Child Care Staffing Study Revisited: Four Years in the Life of Center Based Child Care,
Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project, 1993).
Cost of good quality child care and early education is out of reach for most
Most working families cannot afford to pay what it costs to produce good quality child care and early
education. This is true despite the fact that the wages of child care providers, which account for 60
to 70 percent of the cost of producing child care, are below what individuals with similar education
and experience earn in other settings (Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes). Families who pay for
child care spend, on average, about $3,700 per year for one or more preschool children (U.S.
Census Bureau, "What Does it Cost to Mind Our Preschoolers?," in Current Population Reports,
September 1995). By contrast, national experts peg the cost of providing good quality care at
$6,300 to $8,500 per child per year (National Association for the Education of Young Children,
"Estimating the full cost of quality," in Reaching the full cost of quality in early childhood programs,
1990). The latter figures represent 26 to 44 percent of the gross income for a family of four earning
the median income and paying for child care for two children.
Providers struggle, too often unsuccessfully, to get by on fees that parents can afford. Whether in a
center or family child care home, revenue from parent fees alone do not allow the typical child care
provider to offer children the trained staff, small group sizes, and low child-to-adult ratios that
encourage frequent, responsive adult interactions with each child that are at the heart of good quality
child care and early education.
Parents need help paying for good quality child care and early education
Parents need help bridging the gap between what they can afford and what good quality child care
and early education cost. There are a number of ways that federal, state, and local governments can
help more parents pay for good quality child care: by expanding the Dependent Care Tax Credit,
and making it refundable; by extending child care subsidies to a broader range of working families;
by extending tax incentives to employers who provide child care subsidies or on-site child care; and
by linking child care with public school systems to improve the quality of the child care and early
education our youngest children receive.
Businesses benefit when they play a role in helping parents find and pay for good quality child care
and early education. The most important role for business is as a partner of local or state public
agencies for investment in child care and early education resources, so that all families have good
quality child care choices they can afford in their communities. Public-private partnerships of this
nature sustain child care and early education growth and improvement in communities. Businesses
also can provide employees with the Dependent Care Assistance Plan pre-tax payroll deduction, link
parents with child care resource and referral agencies in their communities, or invest directly in child
care and early education resources in or near the work site for their employees.
Choices for children and parents
More and more emphasis has been placed on consumer education: arming parents with the
knowledge that they need to make informed decisions regarding child care and early education. But,
parents often feel that they do not have a choice about the care they use. Sixty-two percent of
parents using family child care and relative care said that they had looked for alternatives to the child
care they presently use. Sixty-five percent of these same parents said they found no other
acceptable options (Galinsky et al., The Study of Children in Family Child Care and Relative Care, 1994).
3
child care and
early education
THE STATE OF THE STATES: A PATCHWORK OF COMMITMENTS
AND APPROACHES TO CHILD CARE AND EARLY EDUCATION
States set standards for child care and early education
Decision-making about child care and early education policies has long been under the
jurisdiction of states and localities. Each state sets its own standards for child care,
including which child care settings will be subject to licensing and regulation. States
determine what the ratio of child care staff to children should be, and set the minimum
health and safety standards for regulated child care settings. Regulations vary widely;
in Maryland, for example, there must be one child care provider for every three babies,
while Idaho and several other states permit one child care teacher to care for six
babies. Nearly all states set staff:child ratios for child care centers, but fewer than half
of all states regulate group size. A study by Children's Defense Fund found that 43
percent of all children in out-of-home care are in care settings that are exempt from
state regulations (Children's Defense Fund, Who Knows How Safe? 1990).
Parent fees cover 70 to 75 percent of the cost of child care and early education, with
public subsidies making up most of the balance. States and the federal government
invest in the provision of child care and early education because they recognize the
public benefits of good quality child care. Government support for child care and early
education takes the form of both expenditure-based subsidies, mostly targeted to low-
and moderate-income families, and tax-based subsidies. Expenditure-based subsidies
generally are designed to help people enter the labor force or to keep them in the labor
force and off welfare, in recognition of the fact that low-income working parents need
help paying for child care. Many states provide tax-based subsidies, including
dependent care tax credits, which benefit parents, and employer tax credits, which
allow employers to claim up to 50 percent of the cost of an employee child care benefit.
States also put up matching funds to draw down federal funds designated for child care
and early education initiatives. They invest in public pre-school programs for four-year-
olds, and some states have subsidized special programs such as child care for teen
parents and for school-age child care. States also support programs to increase the
quality and expand the supply of child care and early education, including training,
licensing, and monitoring efforts (Stoney and Greenberg, "The Financing of Child Care:
Current and Emerging Trends," The Future of Children, Summer/Fall 1996).
Study finds state commitments inadequate
While numerous studies have demonstrated that children need good quality child care
and early education to grow, thrive, and enter school ready to learn, and that parents
need accessible, affordable good quality child care programs to get and keep jobs, not
Child Care Action Campaign
Communications Consortium Media Center
330 Seventh Avenue
17th Floor
1200 New York Avenue. N.W.
Suite 300
New York. NY 10001-5010
Washington. D.C. 20005-1754
(212) 239-0138 Fax (212) 268-6515
(202) 326-8700 Fax (202) 682-2154
children's earliest years shows that the need for good quality care and early education starts
immediately; yet recent studies have found most infant care to be dangerously poor (Helburn, S. et
al., Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes, University of Colorado at Denver, 1995: Families & Work
Institute, Study of Children in Family Child Care and Relative Care, 1994). This lack of attention to
our children's earliest years is a high stakes gamble; studies show that every $1 spent on early
education saves $7 in remediation, incarceration, and special education (Barnett, W.S., "Benefit-cost
Analysis of Preschool Education: Findings from a 25-year Follow-Up," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
1993).
Examples of state initiatives
A number of states are choosing to make the well being of children their priority, and are often
undertaking bold initiatives to support child care and and early education. Some of the most
exciting and innovative state programs are going beyond the distinction between child care and
and early education, offering coordinated curricula and joint training of teachers. Below are some
of the noteworthy state efforts in child care and early education. (A state may appear more than
once if its programs fall into more than one category.)
PROGRAMS RESPONDING TO LOCAL NEEDS
North Carolina's Smart Start is designed to provide every child in North Carolina who needs it
access to affordable early childhood education and other crucial services. Smart Start is built on
the concept of empowering and supporting local communities to develop, implement, and fund a
plan for children and families. The state spends almost $57 million annually to support and
implement the work of the 42 counties that have brought together planning groups to participate in
Smart Start. When Smart Start was passed by the North Carolina legislature in 1993, it was
accompanied by other efforts to improve quality and affordability of child care and early education.
Licensing changes improved staff:child ratios for young children, and additional staff was hired to
monitor and assist the child care program. A special program, TEACH, was funded to help child
care workers obtain training at community colleges and is linked to increases in salaries and
compensation. Affordability was addressed by increasing, on a sliding scale, the amount of the
state's child care tax credit for families earning less than $40,000.
New Jersey's Governor Whitman's Bright Beginnings is an $8.5 million initiative that will create
8,600 additional child care slots in the state, which has a waiting list for subsidized care of 24,000.
The initiative will expand the capacity of Head Start and licensed child care centers by 1,650 slots,
will register an additional 1,600 family child care providers (creating openings for an additional
6,000 children), will issue planning grants to promote "full coordination and partnership" for pre-K
programs among schools, Head Start and non-profit child care providers, will fund parenting
education, and will expand training, development and accreditation for child care providers to
boost quality. Grants and loans will create 950 additional slots at licensed centers for children
from low- and middle-income families. The initiative will be funded with federal money and
"savings from administrative efficiencies."
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE:
Hawaii's After-School Plus, or A+, program is the nation's first statewide, after-school child care
program. It provides low-cost, after-school care to children in every elementary school district in
the state. It is accessible to all families: low-income families are served free; all others pay a flat
fee.
3
TAX BREAKS/CREDITS:
Arkansas doubles the state dependent care tax credit (a supplement to the existing tax credit)
from 10 to 20 percent if parents enroll their children in a child care program that has received a
good quality rating or is accredited.
Colorado parents will once again be able to claim a child care tax credit on their state income tax
return, thanks to a bill passed by the state legislature in 1996, and Colorado citizens will have the
opportunity to use a new voluntary income tax check-off that will help fund quality enhancement in
licensed child care facilities, particularly for staff training and development and accreditation. Both
the tax credit and check-off were among the recommendations of the 25-member Business
Commission on Child Care Financing, created by Governor Romer in 1995 to examine financing
structures for early care and education from a business perspective. A related bill that would have
made the tax credit refundable was defeated.
Minnesota anticipates that the demand for child care and early education will continue to be
greater than the funds available in welfare reform. The state is considering eliminating the
dependent care deduction in favor of tax credits, consolidating all funding sources, and making
child care funds equally available to all families at particular income levels. Minnesota proposes to
maximize the funds available through parent co-payments, tax credits, and child support
enforcement. State child care and earned income tax credits, combined with federal tax credits,
would create the potential for "substantial financial assistance" to many families. Minnesota also is
exploring "tax credit express," which would make funds available on a monthly basis to help
minimize the impact of higher co-payments (Child Care Action Campaign, Wisconsin and Minnesota:
Approaches to Welfare Reform and Child Care, 1996).
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILD CARE FINANCING:
Florida's legislature passed the Child Care Partnership Act in 1996 that created a state fund of
child care subsidy dollars for working families. Private employers, whose employees directly
benefit from child care subsidies, can draw on these dollars by matching them one to one. The
Act allocates $2 million for a child care purchasing pool in 10 counties, and will be administered by
child care resource and referral agencies. The act will allow an additional 1,500 children or low-
income working families now on the waiting list to receive child care, with the price of care to be
shared by the state, employers, and families. A precedent is being established for employers to
provide at least some child care subsidy support. The CEO who chairs the governor's board for
the Partnership Act has become so concerned about Florida's looming child care crisis that he
recently appeared at a press conference with Governor Chiles to call for an increase in state child
care subsidy funding. The idea for this budget increase had emerged earlier, during a series of
state and local meetings for business leaders that Child Care Action Campaign helped to plan and
carry out in partnership with the Florida Children's Forum.
Indiana has hosted two Child Care Financing Symposiums, the cornerstones in a multi-year effort
to bring together county-based teams comprised of business, early childhood professionals,
educators, and community organizations to create ways to improve the quality and expand the
supply of child care in Indiana. This collaborative effort between the Child Care Action Campaign
(CCAC) and the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA), launched the Indiana
Child Care Fund to raise and channel private funding for investments in child care provider training
and other improvements in child care quality. The fund operates under the aegis of the Indiana
Donors Alliance, representing 70 community foundations, which has agreed to become the home
of the Indiana Child Care Fund.
5
child care and
early education
CORPORATE PRODUCTIVITY, CHILD CARE, AND WORK-FAMILY
POLICIES
The changing workforce
In the past forty years, the nature of the American work force has changed dramatically,
bringing with it equally dramatic changes in family life:
Fewer than 10 percent of all households are headed by a male breadwinner
with a wife at home.
Half of all mothers with children under one year of age are working outside
their homes.
Eighty-seven percent of American workers--men and women--have some
day-to-day responsibility for family members and 47 percent have dependent
(child or elder) care responsibilities (Galinsky et al., The Changing Workforce,
1993, Families & Work Institute).
By the year 2005, more than 70 percent of women in the work force will have
children in need of child care or after-school care, based on current
population projections.
(Source: Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished data, 1993, 1995: Fullerton,
Howard J. "The 2005 Labor Force: Growing, but Slowly," Monthly Labor Review, p. 130, Table 1,
November 1995.)
A survey of 5,000 employees at five major U.S. corporations found that 82 percent of
working parents missed days at work, were tardy, had left work early, or had used work
time to deal with various child care problems. A number of national surveys have
estimated such lost work time to be between six and eight days per parent annually
(Fernandez, Child Care and Corporate Productivity, 1986). This translates into a $3
billion loss annually for American businesses, according to the Child Care Action
Campaign.
The changing workplace
The workplace, too, is changing dramatically. In the past decade, many companies
have restructured, drastically scaling back on their workforces to increase profitability
and competitiveness. Companies continue to search for ways to cut costs, improve
quality, and maintain flexibility.
Child Care Action Campaign
Communications Consortium Media Center
330 Seventh Avenue
17th Floor
1200 New York Avenue. N.W.
Suite 300
New York, NY 10001-5010
Washington. DC 20005-1754
(212) 239-0138 Fax (212) 268-6515
(202) 326-8700 Fax (202) 682-2154
creation of dependent care programs that may involve a consortium of corporations and, in some
cases, unions.
The largest of these investors in community resources is the American Business Collaboration for
Quality Dependent Care (ABC), a coalition of 156 major U.S. corporations, government entities, and
non-profit organizations established in 1992. During the first phase of the ABC's initiative, in 1992,
members of the group invested more than $27 million in 45 communities in 25 states and the District
of Columbia. In September 1995, 21 "champion" corporations of the original group pledged to invest
a total of $100 million over the next 10 years to develop and strengthen school-age child care and
child care projects in communities across the country. This is believed to represent the largest single
investment in dependent care ever by the private sector.
Examples of corporate dependent care programs
Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, NationsBank offers resource and referral services, numerous
dependent care assistance policies, and a near-site child care facility for its headquarters, and has
provided more than $900,000 in seed money for a center for its employees in Atlanta. In addition,
Nations Bank has invested $25 million to provide child care benefits, such as income-based
subsidies.
Other corporations are addressing the child care needs of lower income workers. A division of
CONAGRA Refrigerated Foods Company, Butterball Turkey, has invested corporate funds into on-
site and near-site child care centers for low-income employees at its Arkansas and Missouri plants.
Prompted by concerns about worker loyalty and productivity and by employee surveys that found that
child care was a workers' second greatest expense, CONAGRA now provides care for all shifts (6:00
a.m. - midnight), operates after-school and summer school programs for children and infants, and
subsidizes employee expenses through pre-tax payroll deductions.
Fel-Pro Incorporated, a Skokie, Illinois-based manufacturer of automobile sealing products, employs
approximately 2,000 people in three states and overseas, and expresses its commitment to them
through the benefits it offers. Its work and family benefits package -- costing about $700 per
employee -- includes: on-site child care, an elder care resource and referral service, a sick child care
and adult emergency care service, and subsidized tutoring and college scholarships for employees'
children. A University of Chicago study of 882 Fel-Pro employees found that 92 percent of the
respondents indicated that the company's benefits make it easier to balance their work and their
personal lives. Of those with children, 72 percent agreed that Fel-Pro's benefits have helped their
children do things they would not otherwise have been able to do (Added Benefits: The Link Between
Family Responsive Policies and Job Performance, University of Chicago, 1993).
Small businesses respond too
Almost 37 million Americans work for companies with fewer than 100 employees, according to the
U.S. Small Business Bureau. However, a company's small size does not have to limit its ability to
provide child care benefits to its employees. With proper planning and strong commitment on the
part of the employer, the goal of meeting employees' child care needs can be achieved. Moreover,
the benefits to small employers are much the same as those commonly reported by large
corporations: improved employee productivity and morale, an increased ability to attract and retain
skilled workers, and a better image in the community. Child care options that work especially well for
many small businesses include:
Child care subsidies.
3
child care and
early education
KEY FACTS ON CHILD CARE AND EARLY EDUCATION
How many children need child care in the U.S.?
12 million children under age 6 and 17 million children between the ages of 6
and 13 have both parents or their only parent in the work force.
(Source: composite figure of Bureau of Labor Statistics data, National Child Care Survey, 1990,
Hofferth, et al. Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC, 1990, and Child Care Action Campaign
calculations)
How many children have received child care and early education before they
enter kindergarten?
By the age of six, 84% of children have received supplemental care and
education.
(Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National
Household Education Survey, 1995)
What kind of child care do families use?
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, of the 9.937 million preschoolers (under
age 5) with employed mothers in 1993:
29.9%, or 2,972,000, were cared for in child care facilities (i.e., child care
centers, nursery schools, preschools).
25.3%, or 2,516,000, were cared for by relatives either in the child's home or
in the relative's home.
22.2%, or 2,201,000, were cared for by their own parents (mothers while
working at home or away from home: 6.2% or 616,000; fathers caring for
children at home: 16% or 1,585,000).
16.6%, or 1,645,000, were cared for in the home of a non-relative provider.
5.0%, or 492,000, were cared for in their own homes by non-relatives.
1.0%, or 111,000, were cared for in other arrangements.
(Source: Casper, Lynn M., Current Population Reports: Who's Minding Our Preschoolers?, U.S.
Census Bureau, March 1996)
Child Care Action Campaign
Communications Consortium Media Center
330 Seventh Avenue
17th Floor
1200 New York Avenue, N W.
Suite 300
New York NY 10001-5010
Washington. D.C. 20005-1754
(212) 239-0138 Fax (212) 268-6515
(202) 326-8700 Fax (202) 682-2154
What is the average salary for child care providers?
Teachers, Assistant Teachers, and Teacher-Directors working in child care
centers earn an average of $6.89 per hour, $12,057.50 for 35 hours/week, 50
weeks/year.
(Source: Cost, Quality & Child Outcomes, University of Colorado at Denver, 1995)
What is the average turnover rate for child care providers?
The turnover rate for all providers in child care centers is 36% per year.
(Source: Cost, Quality & Child Outcomes, University of Colorado at Denver, 1995)
In contrast, average turnover in other professions is much lower. The turnover
rate for public school teachers is 5.6% per year.
(Source: National Child Care Staffing Study Revisited: Four Years in the Life of Center-Based
Child Care, 1993)
How much does American business lose each year due to child care problems?
U.S. employers lose $3 billion annually due to child care-related absences.
(Source: Reisman, Barbara, Child Care: The Bottom Line, p. 66, Child Care Action Campaign,
1988, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data, 1988)
How many U.S. businesses offer work-family benefits to their employees?
Approximately 6,000 employers nationwide offer work-family benefits to their
employees. Four percent of all employees are eligible for employer-assisted
child care benefits in the U.S.
(Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employee Benefits in the United States 1993-94, March 1995)
How many U.S. businesses provide on-site or near-site child care for employees
who pay for it?
Approximately 2,200 employers sponsor child care centers.
(Galinsky, E., The Changing Workforce, Families & Work Institute, 1993)
Public sector: The U.S. Government operates over 800 on- or near-site
centers in the U.S. and abroad. Six hundred forty-four of these are sponsored
by the U.S. Armed Forces.
(Source: Wohl, Faith, interview in "Uncle Sam Leads the Way on Worksite Child Care," Child
Care ActioNews, January-February 1996)
3
Rethinking the Brain
New Insights into Early Development
Families and Work Institute
New insights into brain development suggest that as we care for our youngest children, as
we institute policies or practices that affect their day-to-day experience, the stakes are very
high. But we can take comfort in the knowledge that there are many ways that we as
parents, as caregivers, as citizens, and as policy makers can raise healthy, happy smart
children. We can take heart in the knowledge that there are many things that we as a
nation can do, starting now, to brighten young children's future and ours.
Research shows that:
1
Human development hinges on the interplay between nature and nurture.
How humans develop and learn depends critically and continually on the interplay between nature
(an individual's genetic endowment) and nurture ( the nutrition, surroundings, care, stimulation,
and teaching that are provided or withheld).
The impact of environmental factors on the young child's brain development is dramatic and
specific, not merely influencing the general direction of development, but actually affecting how the
intricate circuitry of the human brain is "wired".
2
Early care has decisive and long-lasting effects on how people develop and learn, how
they cope with stress, and how they regulate their own emotions.
Babies thrive when they receive warm, responsive early care.
Warm and responsive care plays a vital role in healthy development.
Individuals' capacities to control their own emotional states appear to hinge on biological systems
shaped by their early experiences and attachments
A strong, secure attachment to a nurturing adult can have a protective biological function, helping a
growing child withstand the ordinary stresses of daily lives.
3
The human brain has a remarkable capacity to change, but timing is crucial.
The brain itself can be altered - or helped to compensate for problems - with appropriately timed,
intensive intervention. In the first decade of life, the brain's ability to change and compensate is
especially remarkable.
There are optimal periods of opportunity - "prime times" during which the brain is particularly
efficient at specific types of learning.
4
The brain's plasticity also means that there are times when negative experiences or the
absence of appropriate stimulation are more likely to have serious and sustained effects.
Early exposure to nicotine, alcohol, and drugs may have even more harmful and long lasting effects
on young children than was previously suspected.
Many of these risk factors are associated with or exacerbated by poverty. For children growing up
in poverty, economic deprivation affects their nutrition, access to medical care, and safety and
predictability of their physical environment, the level of family stress, and the quality and continuity
of their day-to-day care.
5
Evidence amassed by neuroscientists and child development experts over the last
decade point to the wisdom and efficacy of prevention and early intervention.
Well designed programs created to promote healthy cognitive, emotional, and social development
can improve the prospects - and the quality of life - of many children.
The efficacy of early intervention has been demonstrated and replicated in diverse communities
across the nation.
child care and
early education
NATIONAL OPINION POLL DATA ON CHILD CARE
The ability to find and afford good quality child care have been major concerns of American
families ever since mothers began to enter the permanent workforce in large numbers.
With the passage of welfare reform in 1996, the importance of child care in the public
dialogue has grown further still. Various national polls show that Americans continue to
care deeply about child care and they support child care assistance to working families and
families making the transition to work.
FINDING GOOD CARE IS CAUSE FOR CONCERN
Please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statements:
It is very difficult for parents to find child care that is both affordable and of good quality.
(Push) And would that be strongly (agree/disagree) or just somewhat (agree/disagree)?
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
DK
56%
23%
9%
5%
7%
(R/S/M, Inc., conducted for the Child Care Action Campaign, 3/95)
How concerned are you, if at all, about not having adequate child care when you go to
work?
Very concerned
Somewhat
Not too
Not at all concernedD/A
30%
15%
11%
15%
29%
(Princeton Survey Research Associates, conducted for the Times Mirror, 10/25-30/95)
GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS HAVE A ROLE
How do you feel about the following statement: the government has a responsibility to help
improve the quality of family life by providing tax incentives to corporations to encourage
them to provide parental leave and day care centers to their employees?
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree DK
41%
25%
12%
17%
5%
(Michaels Opinion Research, conducted for Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, 8/9-26/95)
Child Care Action Campaign
Communications Consortium Media Center
330 Seventh Avenue
17th Floor
1200 New York Avenue. N.W.
Suite 300
New York, NY 10001-5010
Washington. D.C. 20005-1754
(212) 239-0138 Fax (212) 268-6515
(202) 326-8700 Fax (202) 682-2154
child care and
early education
WELFARE REFORM: SHIFTING RESPONSIBILITY TO THE STATES
A huge gamble
On August 22. 1996, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act into law. This new law not only ends the 60-year old guarantee of subsistence
income for poor families and their children, it also eliminates the child care assistance that had
been guaranteed to families who were moving from welfare into the work force, education, or
training. The federal government will now provide capped block grants' to the states, which have
a great deal of discretion as to how the funds are spent. Within six years, half the parents on
welfare in every state will have to be working in private sector jobs or in some type of "workfare"
program. This will create a huge need for child care, since two-thirds of all welfare recipients are
children under 13, many of them very young. Their parents cannot get or keep a job unless they
have reliable child care.
Painful choices: Which working families deserve child care help?
Each state can now determine how it will meet the child care and early education needs of
families making the transition from welfare to work. These decisions will shape the entire system
of subsidies for all low-income working families, including the millions of low-income working
families who are not on welfare but who need help bridging the gap between what they can
afford and what safe, reliable child care costs. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia
already have waiting lists thousands of names long of working families who are eligible for help
paying for child care, but for whom there isn't enough money (Children's Defense Fund, Child
care and welfare reform: More painful choices, 1995). In fact, waiting lists understate the need
for care: they include only the parents who know about the programs and have sought places for
their children in them. Some states simply close their waiting lists to new applicants when they
get too long.
States have an opportunity in next two years
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that child care funding in the Act is $1.4 billion short
of what will be necessary for states to maintain their current efforts and meet the needs of all the
families who must move from welfare to work. But the big crunch will not come until the third
year; during the first two years, many states will have more child care money than they had
before. The states thus have a window of opportunity they can use to put systems into place and
help all low-income working families pay for child care; to invest money to expand the supply and
1
A state's block grant allocation will be based on its FY 1994 or FY 1995 expenditures, whichever is higher. or the
average of its spending for the three years from FY 1992 to FY 1994.
Child Care Action Campaign
Communications Consortium Media Center
330 Seventh Avenue
17th Floor
1200 New York Avenue N.W.
Suite 300
New York NY 10001-5010
Washington. DC. 20005-1754
(212) 239-0138 Fax (212) 268-6515
(202) 326-8700 Fax (202) 682-2154
According to The Study of Children in Family Child Care and Relative Care, care that is regulated
is usually higher quality care, and care that is provided by people who want to work with children
is more reliable and of higher quality. Parents need to have child care and early education
options so that informal care is not their only choice; that's why states must use their window of
opportunity to expand the quality and supply of child care and early education resources for all
working families.
States will have to decide whether to establish a minimum requirement for informal providers who
receive federal and state funds. Basic health and safety requirements would include having a
telephone, passing a criminal background check, having smoke detectors, and passing a health
screening. Child care resource and referral agencies are finding innovative ways to help parents
assess such care and can make information resources available to the friends, relatives, and
neighbors providing the informal care.
Welfare recipients as child care providers: A risky experiment
Many states have already tried to turn welfare recipients into child care providers. It has worked
in some places but not all, and takes a lot of time and investment in order to succeed. While
moving these parents into the work force as informal child care providers, working in their own
homes, would seem to take care of both a state's work participation requirement and the
increased demand for child care, a number of obstacles exist.
Recent reports like the Family Child Care Training Study (Families & Work Institute, 1995) have
demonstrated the critical relationship between provider training and the quality of care, and some
states and municipalities are encouraging former welfare recipients to become providers with no
training. Care by unregulated providers is usually less reliable, causing working parents to miss
work more frequently. Even child care providers who love their work still leave the field for lack of
decent wages and health benefits. In addition, states are considering cutting the reimbursement
rates for these providers, lessening their chances even more of earning a living wage as a child
care provider.
Welfare recipients who become child care providers need ongoing support in order to succeed,
as do other parents making the transition from welfare to work. Outreach, orientation, training,
and continued investment and support are the foundations of success in this risky undertaking.
Child care for infants
The new law does permit states to exempt welfare recipients with children under six from the
work requirements if they can't find affordable, available, and appropriate child care. Mothers of
infants under one year of age also may be exempted. However, the five-year lifetime limit on
welfare benefits will still apply to the mothers who are exempt. Even though they are not
required to work, the "exempt" period of months or years that parents spend taking care of their
children at home counts towards the five-year time limit.
Some states such as Michigan are requiring mothers with children as young as 12 weeks old to
go to work. Child care for infants is scarce and very often of very poor quality; 40 percent of
current infant care is of such low quality that it endangers the babies in care (Cost, Quality and
Child Outcomes, 1995). But insufficient child care and early education funding means little hope
exists for improving the quality and supply of available care.
3
Economic Surplus
Longer-term concerns show the public split on what to do with the possibility of
additional money in the budget - 48% new programs (ed/infrastructure as an
example); 51% reducing the debt and cutting taxes. One bill already suggests a
split like this, though specific programs in specific areas will probably be
sustainable if they are attractive. The polling however does illustrate the
advantages of issues such as education and health over highways as a
preference.
Due to the good economy, the government may
First
Second
have an extra $15 billion next year above what
Choice
Choice
was expected Should this extra money go
primarily to:
New programs in areas such as education and
42
22
health
Reducing the U.S. debt
35
22
Reduced taxes
16
27
Improving our infrastructure with new investments in
6
27
transportation, highways or other structures
The Child Care Conference
The original research showed that people do not believe that child care is
safe, available or affordable, and these are the three themes for expansion of
child care.
Do you think that the Child Care in this
Adequate
Inadequ
country is adequate or inadequate?
ate
Child Care
29
64
What is the biggest priority?
Total
Democrats
Republicans
Independents
Improving quality and
31
31
28
35
safety
Increasing the availability of
22
27
23
17
child care
Making it more affordable
39
39
42
16
All of the ideas tested on child care meet widespread public approval,
starting with background checks, and improving safety standards.
October 10, 1997
Page 17
The data again underscores that voters want an incentive for an employer
to provide child care at their place of work. This is the class-neutral way to
expand the availability of child care - rather than targeted just to poor families or
to taking people off of welfare. 84% want help making it available where they
work. They want work and family to go together, not be separated.
All of these add up to a major initiative to expand the safety, availability
and affordability of child care. While parts of it can begin with the Child
Conference, expanding quality child care would be a major initiative that could be
fought for, even as a priority item with any new monies from a budget surplus.
I am going to read you some proposals for improving
Strongly
Total
Total
the quality of day care nationally. For each one,
Support
Support
Oppose
please tell me if you would strongly support,
somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly
oppose this proposal
Require background checks on all child care workers
88
92
3
Requiring any states that receive funds for child care to
73
89
7
meet set safety regulations for their facilities
Provide a tax-credit for businesses that provide child care
63
84
13
for their employees
Creating a commission of business people to make
60
83
13
recommendations on how they can do a better job of
providing child care for their employees and community
members
Give funding to each state to use for expanding child care,
59
81
15
including child care for low income families and after
school programs for school-age children
Providing financial incentives, such as scholarships and
47
74
20
loan forgiveness to qualified child care workers
Using 4 billion dollars per year from the federal budget to
45
70
23
provide child care for one million children while their
parents work, and after school programs for another
million children
69% think that public schools should be kept open after hours with
programs for children so that no after school child care would be
necessary.
"Suppose President Clinton announced a $5 billion program to broaden
the availability of child care, making it available at low cost to the children
in 1 million low income families who otherwise could not afford it and also
providing funds to keep open more schools with after hours programs.
Would you support or oppose this?"
71% support; 25% oppose
61/26 more/less favorable
October 10, 1997
Page 18
But there are limits and the attack of big government is always possible if
these are structured as anything but our conventional formula which is 1)
rules to tighten safety and quality 2) helping those in need and 3) a middle
class initiative (Kohl tax credit).
47% say that child care is the responsibility of parents and the role of the
government in it should be kept very limited; 49% say that child care has become
so important as 70% of all mothers are now in the workforce, that the
government has to play a role in making quality child care much more available
or these children will lose out.
October 10, 1997
Page 19
Care for Aged - Some surprising findings
In many ways we are not looking at the Medicare reforms process in the
same way we looked at the balanced budget - the reform commission should not
just be an opportunity to trim and contain Medicare with HMOs and CPI
adjustments, but an opportunity to refocus its priorities to deal with the emerging
problems of the 21st Century. And of the original list of issues identified years
ago, increased, not decreased long-term care is so far the only one not
addressed.
And most voters, particularly older voters, an eroding base of the
Democratic party, put this at the top of their list of issues, it is even more
important than the child care problem.
In many ways addressing these two issues together - doing right for both
our children and our parents makes sense.
Do you think that the long-term care for our
Adequate
Inadequ
aged in this country is adequate or
ate
inadequate?
Long Term Care
20
69
Which is a Greater
Child Care
Care for Aged
Priority?
Total
42
45
Democrats
42
47
Republicans
42
56
Independents
44
32
Congressional Vote
Dem
45
42
GOP
39
52
Don't Know
43
36
Likelihood to Vote
Absolutely Certain
36
51
Very Likely
46
40
Possibly
56
33
18-24
76
17
25-34
41
42
35-49
50
37
50-64
23
61
65+
37
53
October 10, 1997
Page 20
And safety, availability and affordability are the same three issues that
again are part of the problem - the answer society has now is to impoverish any
senior citizen to make them qualify the long-term care or to take away virtually
everything they have built up is a hard one. And the public attitudes on this are
quite strong - and can be mobilized in an electorally potent way as part of
Medicare reform.
The numbers are astounding:
Do you think that Medicare should provide long-term care, either at
home or in a nursing home for every senior citizen who cannot take care of
him or herself?
Yes
88%
No
8%
DK
5%
If they cannot afford it? 91%
Do you think the government does that now?
Yes
26%
No
68%
Dk
6
Only 28% believes we do that now.
Suggest that this issue be reviewed as part of the reforms of Medicare and
its financial stability or is this too impractical to consider?
Consider
81%
Impractical
12%
And while child care is considered a responsibility of the family, long term
care of senior citizens is not - 16% say it is the responsibility of families,
80% say that government has a role in making the care available.
The point is that electorally we have moved over to the children, but we
are letting go of senior citizens (we lose male senior citizens) and the oldest baby
boomers.
And we have two major phenomena of the 21st Century affecting lifestyles
- the growth of both single parent families and two career couples that created
the need for child care, and the greater longevity of our population, creating the
expanded need for senior nursing and home care. We should have clear
proposals for both of those areas as part of reforms so that we continue to
reorient the priorities of our government to solve the problems of the next
century.
October 10, 1997
Page 21
Misc. Issues
84% would support requiring country of origin labels on all fruits and vegetables
sold in the United States.
82% support eliminating religious discrimination in the workplace by allowing all
employees to practice their religion as long as it does not disturb others.
But needle exchanges are on the opposite end -
70% oppose and 25% support the availability of needle exchanges where drug
addicts can receive free, sterile needles.
61% oppose and 34% support the sale of hypodermic needles at pharmacies
(one alternative would be just to make needles available over the counter - - their
cost is insignificant compared to the cost of drugs).
This is seen by the public as totally inconsistent with a tough drug policy.
October 10, 1997
Page 22
Presidential Message Schedule
Date
Event
Saturday, October 11
Radio Address (Taped)
Sunday, October 12 -
Foreign Travel
Sunday, October 19
Wednesday, October 22
Volunteer event
Thursday, October 23
WH Conference on Child Care
Friday, October 24
Foreign Policy Speech
Thursday, October 30
STARBRIGHT Foundation Event
Friday, October 31
Education Event
October 10, 1997
Page 23