Before- and AfterSchool Care, Programs, 

and Activities of 

Children in 

Kindergarten Through 

Eighth Grade: 2001 

U.S. Department of Education 

Institute of Education Sciences 

NCES 2004-008 Statistical Analysis Report 

April 2004

Brian Kleiner

Mary Jo Nolin 

Westat 

Chris Chapman 

National Center for 

Education Statistics 
U.S. Department of Education 

Rod Paige 

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences 

Grover J. Whitehurst 

Director

National Center for Education Statistics 

Robert Lerner

Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, 

and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional 

mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in 

the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance 

of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and 

review and report on education activities in foreign countries. 

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, 

complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high 

quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, 

practitioners, data users, and the general public. 

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a 

variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating 

information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product 

or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to: 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Institute of Education Sciences 

U.S. Department of Education 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

April 2004 

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is: http://nces.ed.gov

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

Suggested Citation 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Before- and After-School Care, 

Programs, and Activities of Children in Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade: 2001, NCES 2004-008, by 

Brian Kleiner, Mary Jo Nolin, and Chris Chapman. Project Officer: Chris Chapman. Washington, DC: 

2004. 

Content Contact: 

Chris Chapman 

(202) 502–7414 

ChrisChapman@ed.gov
iii 

Executive Summary 

Background 

Many children in the nation are cared for by 

parents before and after school each day. Other 

children spend time in various nonparental 

arrangements before and after school, either 

because their parents choose or are obliged to 

work during these hours or because the children 

are participating in programs or activities geared 

toward their enrichment or enjoyment. Some 

children stay with one relative before and after 

school, or different relatives on different days, 

while others are cared for by people not related to 

them, such as neighbors, regular sitters, or family 

day care providers. Many children participate in 

center- or school-based programs before and after 

school, while other children participate in beforeor after-school activities such as sports, clubs, or 

community service. Still other children are 

responsible for themselves before and after school, 

some for a few minutes at a time, others for 

several hours. 

Surveys conducted in the 1990s found that 

while most children in kindergarten through eighth 

grade are in school during most of the hours when 

their mothers work (Smith 2000; Casper, Hawkins, 

and O’Connell 1994), many types of nonparental 

arrangements are utilized by parents of school-age 

children during time before and after school. 

Approximately 39 percent of all children in 

kindergarten through third grade in 1995 received 

some form of nonparental care before and after 

school, spending an average of 14 hours per week 

in such care, and most received care in a private 

home from a relative (Brimhall, Reaney, and West 

1999). Employed parents often depended on 

multiple arrangements to provide supervision for 

their children (Hofferth et al. 1991), possibly 

including self-care. In 1991, 8 percent of 5- to 14-

year olds with working mothers were in self-care 

(Casper, Hawkins, and O’Connell 1994). There is 

evidence that factors such as a child’s age, 

race/ethnicity, family income, and parent 

education level have all been found to be related to 

children’s participation in various types of beforeand after-school arrangements. 

This report presents findings from a national 

survey of families with children in kindergarten 

through eighth grade, the 2001 Before- and AfterSchool Programs and Activities Survey of the 

National Household Education Surveys Program 

(ASPA-NHES:2001). This nationally representative study was conducted for the National Center 

for Education Statistics (NCES) of the U.S. 

Department of Education. Households were 

sampled using random-digit-dialing (RDD) 

methods. Interviews were completed with parents 

of 9,583 children attending kindergarten through 

eighth grade. Computer-assisted telephone 

interviewing (CATI) technology was used to 

conduct the interviews. 

The survey asked parents about nonparental 

arrangements in which children participated before 

and after school during the school year, including 

care by relatives and people not related to the 

child; center- or school-based programs; scouting, 

sports, and other extracurricular activities; and 

self-care. These arrangements may be used 

primarily for the purposes of providing adult 

supervision for children or primarily for children’s 

enrichment. Information was also collected about 

the characteristics of arrangements, parents’ 

preferred types of after-school arrangements, and 

parents’ ratings of aspects of their children’s 

arrangements. An extensive array of household 

and family characteristic data was also collected. 

This report provides various types of 

analyses based on data from the NHES:2001 

Before- and After-School Programs and Activities 

Survey, including the extent of children’s 

participation in nonparental arrangements during 

out-of-school hours and details the characteristics 

of participants and nonparticipants in these 

arrangements. All of the estimates presented in 

this report are based on data that were weighted to 

produce unbiased and consistent estimates of the 
iv 

national totals. To test the differences between 

estimates, Student’s t statistic was employed. All 

differences cited in the report are statistically 

significant at the 0.05 level of significance. 

Key Findings 

Overall, 20 percent of children in 

kindergarten through eighth grade had regularly 

scheduled nonparental arrangements before school 

in 2001 (table A), and 50 percent had nonparental 

arrangements after school. The three most 

common after-school arrangements for children 

were center- or school-based programs 

(19 percent), relative care (17 percent), and selfcare (13 percent). Fewer kindergarten through 

eighth-grade children were in the care of a 

nonrelative (6 percent) or in extracurricular 

activities used for supervision (7 percent) after 

school. Survey findings indicate that 

• Overall, children who had regular 

weekly scheduled arrangements (before 

and/or after school) spent on average 

10.4 hours per week in them, or about 2 

hours per day (not shown in tables). 

Children with regular weekly scheduled 

before-school arrangements spent on 

average 4.7 hours per week in them, and 

children with after-school arrangements 

spent on average 9.0 hours per week in 

them (table B). 

Table A. Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children participating in various before- and/or 

after-school arrangements (scheduled at least monthly): 2001 

Before-school After-school Characteristic 

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. 

Any arrangements.......................................................................................... 20 0.5 50 0.6 

 

Relative care................................................................................................ 7 0.4 17 0.5 

 

Nonrelative care .......................................................................................... 3 0.3 6 0.3 

 

Center- or school-based program ................................................................ 4 0.3 19 0.5 

 

Activities used for supervision .................................................................... 1 0.1 7 0.4 

 

Self-care ...................................................................................................... 6 0.3 13 0.4 

 

Parental care only .......................................................................................... 80 0.5 50 0.6 

NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Home-schooled children are excluded. Includes arrangements regularly scheduled at least once per

month. Detail does not sum to totals due to multiple response—children who had more than one type of arrangement are 

reported under each type. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Before- and After-School Programs and 

Activities Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2001. 
v 

Table B. Mean number of hours per week kindergarten through eighth-grade children spent in beforeand/or after-school arrangements (scheduled at least weekly): 2001 

Types of arrangements 

All arrangements 

Relative care Nonrelative care 

Center- or 

school-based 

programs 

Activities used 

for supervision 

Characteristic Self-care 

Estimate s.e. Estimate s.e. Estimate s.e. Estimate s.e. Estimate s.e. Estimate s.e. 

Total number of children in 

before-school 

arrangements (thousands) .... 7,086 184 2,566 129 1,133 95 1,324 93 267 38 2,246 103 

Mean before-school hours .... 4.7 0.1 5.0 0.2 5.5 0.3 4.5 0.2 2.2 0.2 3.5 0.1 

 

Total number of children in 

after-school arrangements 

(thousands)........................... 17,650 207 5,882 178 2,243 106 6,433 180 2,615 148 4,591 125 

Mean after-school hours ....... 9.0 0.2 9.7 0.3 9.5 0.3 7.5 0.1 4.2 0.1 4.8 0.1 

 

NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Home-schooled children are excluded. May include hours after 6:00 p.m. Includes arrangements regularly scheduled at 

least once each week. Due to multiple response, children who had more than one type of arrangement are reported under each type. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Before- and After-School Programs and Activities Survey of the 

National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2001. 

• Of those children who had at least some 

nonparental arrangements before and/or 

after school, almost one-third were in 

more than one regularly scheduled 

arrangement (figure 1 and table 3). 

• Generally, younger children (in 

kindergarten through fifth grade) were 

more likely than older children (in sixth 

through eighth grade) to be in the care 

of a relative, in the care of a 

nonrelative, or in a center- or schoolbased program before and after school, 

and were less likely than older children 

to care for themselves during out-ofschool time (tables 1 and 2). 

• Differences existed across racial/ethnic 

groups: Black, non-Hispanic children 

were more likely than White, nonHispanic and Hispanic children to be 

cared for by a relative and to be in selfcare both before and after school. They 

were also more likely to participate in 

center- or school-based programs after 

school (tables 1 and 2). 

• Two characteristics that were 

consistently related to nonparental 

arrangements were family type and 

mother’s employment status. 

Generally, single-parent households and 

households where mothers worked full 

time were more likely to have 

nonparental arrangements for their 

children before and after school (tables 

1 and 2). 

The survey also provided data on the 

characteristics of the nonparental arrangements of 

kindergarten through eighth graders in 2001, 

including children’s activities within their 

arrangements, the location and cost of 

arrangements, characteristics of relative and 

nonrelative care providers, and the number of 

children and adults present in different 

arrangement types. Survey findings indicate that 
vi

• In general, according to parents’

reports, many children were engaged in 

education-related activities (such as

homework) in all types of after-school 

arrangements (table 5). Many were also 

spending time in activities such as

watching television, playing video

games, and listening to music within

their relative care, nonrelative care, and 

self-care arrangements after school.

• Children in relative care were more

likely to be cared for in their own

homes than children in nonrelative care 

(figure 2), and children in self-care after 

school were very likely to spend at least 

some of this time in their own homes 

rather than other places, such as other 

homes, public places, community

centers, schools, or outdoors (figure 4). 

The majority of center- or school-based 

arrangements in which children

participated were located in public

schools (figure A). 

Figure A. Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children attending before- and/or after-school 

center- or school-based programs (scheduled at least monthly) in various locations: 2001

Community center

10%

Church or 

place of 

worship

6%

Other

7%

Its own 

building

11%

Private 

school

11%

Public 

school

55%

NOTE: Standard errors are as follows: public school, 1.4; private school, 0.8; its own building, 1.0; community center, 0.9; 

church or place of worship, 0.7; other, 0.8. If more than one center- or school-based program was reported, only the one with the 

most hours is represented. Includes arrangements regularly scheduled at least once each month. Home-schooled children are 

excluded. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Before- and After-School Programs and 

Activities Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2001.
vii 

• Many relative care providers were 

grandmothers of the children (52 

percent) (figure 6), but 21 percent of 

relative care providers were siblings. 

Most children who had sibling care 

providers were cared for by brothers or 

sisters in their teens or older (86 

percent); however, 14 percent were 

cared for by siblings between the ages 

of 10 and 12 (figure 7). Overall, 0.5 

percent of all children were cared for by 

siblings between the ages of 10 and 12 

(not shown in tables). 

• With respect to cost, parents of 19 

percent of children in relative care 

reported a fee (paid either by them or 

some other person or agency) for their 

children’s relative care arrangements, 

while parents of 72 percent of children 

in nonrelative care reported a fee for 

their nonrelative care (table 7). Parents 

of 58 percent of children in a center- or 

school-based program reported a fee. 

On average, for those children whose 

arrangements required a fee, parents 

paid $5.60 per hour for relative care, 

$7.90 per hour for nonrelative care, and 

$5.60 per hour for center- or schoolbased programs. 

This report presents a broad view of the outof-school time of kindergarten through eighthgrade children in the nation in 2001. Results 

suggest that children’s experiences before and 

after school were quite varied. Many children 

simply were in the care of their parents, while 

others were in one or more nonparental 

arrangements during at least some of their out-ofschool time on school days. The variability in 

children’s experiences in nonparental 

arrangements reflects how parents from different 

backgrounds managed the demands and 

contingencies of work, the availability of different 

types of arrangements, the cost and location of 

arrangements, and other factors. 
viii 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
ix 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The authors would like to thank Karen O’Conner, Kerry Gruber, Marilyn Seastrom, Val Plisko, 

Jerry West, and Patrick Rooney from the National Center for Education Statistics, and Stacey Bielick 

from the Education Statistics Services Institute for their helpful reviews of the report. We would like to 

thank Beth Miller of Miller-Midzik Research Associates for her thoughtful review and recommendations 

on the final report. We would also like to acknowledge the important contributions of Mary Hagedorn, 

past and current director of the NHES Program at Westat. Finally, we would like to thank the parents 

who provided the data upon which the report is based. 
x 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
xi 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Chapter Page 

 Executive Summary................................................................................................. iii 

 Background................................................................................................. iii 

 Key Findings............................................................................................... iv 

 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................... ix 

1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1 

1.1 Previous Research....................................................................................... 2 

1.1.1 Demographic Variation in Participation ..................................... 3 

1.1.2 Characteristics of Before- and After-School 

Arrangements .............................................................................. 4 

1.2 Data Source and Indicators ......................................................................... 5 

1.3 Overview of the Report............................................................................... 6 

2 Participation in Before- and After-School Care, Programs, and Activities ............. 7 

2.1 Participation in Before-School Arrangements ............................................ 8 

2.1.1 Before-School Arrangements by Child Characteristics .............. 10 

2.1.2 Before-School Arrangements by Family 

Characteristics............................................................................. 10 

2.2 Participation in After-School Arrangements .............................................. 12 

2.2.1 After-School Arrangements by Child Characteristics................. 12 

2.2.2 After-School Arrangements by Family Characteristics .............. 14 

2.3 Patterns of Arrangements............................................................................ 15 

2.3.1 Patterns by Child Characteristics ................................................ 18 

2.3.2 Patterns by Family Characteristics.............................................. 18 

2.4 Amount of Time Spent in Before- and After- School 

Arrangements.............................................................................................. 19 

2.4.1 Before-School Hours................................................................... 20 

2.4.2 After-School Hours ..................................................................... 21 

2.4.3 Number of Arrangements by Number of Hours........................... 21 
xii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued 

Chapter Page

3 Characteristics of Before- and After-School Arrangements .................................... 23 

3.1 Characteristics of Before- and After-School Arrangements....................... 23 

3.1.1 Activities of Children in After-School Arrangements ................ 23

3.1.2 Locations of Before- and After-School Arrangements 

and Time in Transit ..................................................................... 26 

3.1.3 Center- or School-Based Before- and After-School 

Programs: Sign Up or Drop In .................................................... 28 

3.1.4 Child-to-Adult Ratios in Before- and After-School 

Arrangements ............................................................................ 29 

3.1.5 Characteristics of Before- and After-School Relative 

and Nonrelative Care Providers .................................................. 30 

3.1.6 Cost of Before- and After-School Arrangements to 

Parents......................................................................................... 32 

3.2 Before- and After-School Activities ........................................................... 33 

3.2.1 Kinds of Before- and After-School Activities.............................. 34 

3.2.2 Activities Sponsored by Schools ................................................. 36 

3.2.3 Activities that Help Provide Adult Supervision.......................... 37 

4 Summary and Conclusions ...................................................................................... 39 

References ............................................................................................................... 43 

 Appendix: Survey Methodology.............................................................................. A-1

Response Rates ........................................................................................................ A-4 

Data Reliability........................................................................................................ A-5 

Nonsampling Errors.................................................................................... A-6 

Sampling Errors .......................................................................................... A-7 

Statistical Tests ........................................................................................... A-8 

Measuring Participation in Arrangements Scheduled at Least Once Per 

Month.......................................................................................................... A-9 

Measuring Urbanicity .............................................................................................. A-10 
xiii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued

 LIST OF TABLES 

Tables Page

 

 A Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children participating in various 

before- and/or after-school arrangements (scheduled at least monthly): 2001 ........ iv 

 B Mean number of hours per week kindergarten through eighth-grade children 

spent in before- and/or after-school arrangements (scheduled at least weekly): 

2001 ......................................................................................................................... v 

 1 Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children participating in various 

before-school arrangements (scheduled at least monthly), by child, family, and 

community characteristics: 2001 ............................................................................. 9 

 2 Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children participating in various 

after-school arrangements (scheduled at least monthly), by child, family, and 

community characteristics: 2001................................................................................. 13 

 3 Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children with at least one 

nonparental arrangement, whose parents reported various combinations of 

before- and after-school arrangements, by child and family characteristics: 2001 . 17 

 4 Mean number of hours per week kindergarten through eighth-grade children 

spent in before- and/or after-school arrangements (scheduled at least weekly): 

2001............................................................................................................................... 20 

 5 Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children in after-school 

arrangements (scheduled at least monthly) participating in various types of 

activities: 2001......................................................................................................... 24 

 6 Mean number of adults and children in kindergarten through eighth-grade for 

children in before- and/or after-school relative, nonrelative, and center- or 

school-based program arrangements (scheduled at least monthly), and mean child 

to adult ratio: 2001 ..................................................................................................... 29 

 7 Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children in before- and/or afterschool relative, nonrelative, and center- or school-based program arrangements 

(scheduled at least monthly) that required a fee, and average cost per hour paid 

by households: 2001 ................................................................................................ 33 

 
xiv 

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figures Page 

 

 A Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children attending before- and/or 

after-school center- or school-based programs (scheduled at least monthly) in 

various locations: 2001 ............................................................................................ vi 

 1 Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children with before- and/or afterschool arrangements who had a single arrangement only or more than one 

arrangement: 2001........................................................................................................ 16 

 2 Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children in before- and/or afterschool relative and nonrelative care whose arrangements (scheduled at least 

monthly) were located in their own homes, another person’s home, or both: 2001 26 

 3 Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children attending before- and/or 

after-school center- or school-based programs (scheduled at least monthly) in 

various locations: 2001 ................................................................................................ 27 

 4 Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children in self-care (scheduled at 

least monthly) who spent at least some of their time after school in various 

locations: 2001 ............................................................................................................ 28

 5 Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children in before- and/or afterschool relative care (scheduled at least monthly), by age of care providers: 2001.. 30 

 6 Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children in before- and/or afterschool relative care (scheduled at least monthly), by relationship of care 

providers: 2001............................................................................................................. 31

 7 Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children with before- and/or afterschool sibling care providers (scheduled at least monthly), by age of sibling: 

2001 ............................................................................................................................ 32

 8 Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children who participated in various 

before- and/or after-school activities (scheduled at least monthly) since the 

beginning of the school year, by grade: 2001 ............................................................ 35 

 9 Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children whose schools sponsored 

at least some of the before- and/or after-school activities (scheduled at least 

monthly) in which they participated: 2001................................................................. 36 

 10 Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children who participated in beforeand/or after-school activities (scheduled at least weekly) used for enrichment only 

or for enrichment and adult supervision: 2001 ............................................................ 37 
1

1. INTRODUCTION 

Many children in the nation are cared for by parents before and after school each day. Other 

children spend time in various nonparental arrangements before and after school, either because their 

parents choose or are obliged to work during these hours, or because the children are participating in 

programs or activities geared toward their enrichment or enjoyment. Some children stay with one relative 

before and after school, or different relatives on different days, while others are cared for by people not 

related to them, such as neighbors, regular sitters, or family day care providers. Many children participate 

in center- or school-based programs, while other children participate in before- and after-school activities 

such as sports, clubs, or community service. Still other children are responsible for themselves, some for 

a few minutes at a time, others for several hours. 

As outlined by Seppanen et al. (1993), two decades of societal trends have influenced the need for 

increased before- and after-school nonparental care. Two of these trends are the increased number of 

women in the labor force and the increase in single-parent families (see also Hofferth et al. 1991). In 

2000, both parents were employed in 64 percent of two-parent families with children under age 18. 

Among families with children ages 6 to 17, 75 percent of the mothers were employed. In addition, 79 

percent of single mothers were employed—a figure that has increased about 11 percentage points since 

1994 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2001). 

This report presents findings from a national survey of families with school-age children: the 2001 

Before- and After-School Programs and Activities Survey of the National Household Education Surveys 

Program (ASPA-NHES:2001). It provides data on the extent of children’s participation in nonparental 

arrangements during out-of-school hours. Before- and after-school arrangements consist of a broad array 

of alternatives that vary tremendously in scope, purpose, structure, and quality of programming—both 

between and within arrangement types. In the ASPA-NHES:2001, five arrangement types were studied: 

relative care, nonrelative care, center- or school-based programs, before- and after-school activities, and 

self-care. These five arrangement types cover most, if not all, of the kinds of nonparental arrangements in 

which school-age children usually participate before and after school. 

Relative care includes grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, and other relatives as caregivers. 

Relative care takes place in the child’s home or another home. Nonrelative care includes care by family 

child care providers, neighbors, regular sitters, and other people not related to the child. This care too 
2

may be provided in the child’s home or another home. Center- or school-based programs encompass 

supervised and organized activities in a nonresidential setting, such as the child’s school or a community 

center. Programs may be used by parents for the care and/or enrichment of their children. Before- and 

after-school activities are defined as activities within organized settings that children attend on weekdays 

outside of school hours that are not part of a before- or after-school program. As with programs, these 

activities may be used by parents to cover hours when they need adult supervision for their children, or 

they may represent opportunities for enrichment or physical exercise. Activities include organized sports, 

music lessons, scouts, and religious education. Finally, self-care comprises times when a child is 

responsible for himself or herself, without a parent or other adult available for supervision. 

Many school-age children participate in more than one arrangement over the course of a week or 

even in a day. This report describes the extent to which parents have pieced together multiple 

arrangements so that their children may be cared for during the before- and after-school hours. Finally, 

the report includes details about child and family characteristics associated with participation, as well as 

characteristics of the care arrangements, programs, and activities in which children participate. 

1.1 Previous Research 

Surveys conducted in the 1990s found that while most children in kindergarten through eighth 

grade are in school during most of the hours when their mothers work (Smith 2000; Casper, Hawkins, and 

O’Connell 1994), many types of nonparental arrangements are utilized by parents of school-age children 

during the out-of-school hours.1

 Approximately 39 percent of all children in kindergarten through third 

grade in 1995 received some form of nonparental care before and after school, spending an average of 14 

hours per week in such care, and most received care in a private home from a relative (Brimhall, Reaney, 

and West 1999). Employed parents often depended on multiple arrangements to provide supervision for 

their children (Hofferth et al. 1991), possibly including self-care. In 1991, 8 percent of 5- to 14-year olds 

with working mothers were in self-care (Casper, Hawkins, and O’Connell 1994). However, estimates of 

self-care can vary depending on the age- or grade-range considered and the time frame under 

consideration (Brimhall, Reaney, and West 1999). A continuing concern of researchers has been the 

potential underreporting by parents of the use of self-care, especially for younger children. 

 

1

 In this report, before- and after-school time will also be referred to as “out-of-school time.” 
3

 1.1.1 Demographic Variation in Participation 

There is evidence that participation in before- and after-school arrangements varies as a function of 

child and family characteristics. Specifically, factors such as a child’s age, race/ethnicity, family income, 

and parent education level have all been found to be related to children’s participation in various types of 

out-of-school arrangements. For example, race/ethnicity is a factor in the utilization of nonparental outof-school arrangements. Black, non-Hispanic children in kindergarten through third grade were found to 

be more likely to receive nonparental after-school care than children of any other race or ethnicity. Black, 

non-Hispanic and Hispanic children were more likely than White, non-Hispanic children to be in relative 

care and were less likely to be in nonrelative care (Brimhall, Reaney, and West 1999).2

 Children’s 

participation in center- or school-based programs after school increased with household income and 

mother’s education. Also, those children living in single-parent homes or who had mothers who were 

employed full time were more likely to participate in after-school arrangements than children who lived 

with two parents or whose mothers were not in the labor force (Brimhall, Reaney, and West 1999). 

The amount of time spent in after-school arrangements was also related to child and family 

characteristics. Specifically, children who were members of a racial/ethnic minority subgroup, who lived 

with a single parent, or who had mothers who were employed full time were more likely to spend a 

greater number of hours in nonparental care than children who lived with two parents, who were White, 

or whose mothers worked part time or were not employed (Brimhall, Reaney, and West 1999). 

Other studies have addressed the characteristics of families and children that depend upon a selfcare arrangement, although the findings are varied and somewhat inconsistent. Some research has 

indicated that self-care arrangements were more prevalent in higher income families (Posner and Vandell 

1994; Todd, Albrecht, and Coleman 1990; Vandell and Ramanan 1991), White families (Brandon 1999; 

Posner and Vandell 1994; Todd, Albrecht, and Coleman 1990), and families that included more highly 

educated parents (Todd, Albrecht, and Coleman 1990). However, other evidence (Pettit et al. 1997) 

found that lower socioeconomic status children were more likely than their more economically 

advantaged peers to be in self-care. Children’s likelihood of being in self-care also increased as mothers’ 

hours of employment increased (Brandon 1999; Casper, Hawkins, and O’Connell 1994; Todd, Albrecht, 

and Coleman 1990). Other family characteristics associated with higher levels of self-care included 

 

2

 For ease of presentation, in the remainder of the report, race/ethnicity backgrounds will be referred to as White, Black, or Hispanic. 
4

having a single parent (Todd, Albrecht, and Coleman 1990) and living in the suburbs (Casper, Hawkins 

and O’Connell 1994). The likelihood of being in self-care also increased with children’s age (Smith 

2000; Casper, Hawkins, and O’Connell 1994; Todd, Albrecht, and Coleman 1990). 

The 1994 Survey of Income and Program Participation showed that participation in extracurricular 

activities (both weekday and weekend) was associated with several child and family characteristics, 

including children’s age, sex, and race, and parents’ marital status, income, and employment status. 

Specifically, older children were more likely to participate in sports activities than younger children, 

while younger children were more likely to participate in lessons than older children. Girls were more 

likely than boys to participate in clubs and lessons, while boys were more likely to be involved in sports 

activities than girls (Fields et al. 2001). Activity rates for sports, clubs, and lessons were higher among 

White children than either Black or Hispanic children. Children living in more economically advantaged 

households were more likely to participate in extracurricular activities (Hofferth et al. 1991; Fields et al. 

2001). In addition, participation was consistently higher across all three types of activities for children in 

married-couple families. Finally, children’s participation was higher when their parents were employed 

than when one or more parents did not work. 

 1.1.2 Characteristics of Before- and After-School Arrangements 

Just as there are numerous types of before- and after-school programs and activities, the 

characteristics of such programs vary widely in their content and quality, both within and between 

program types. Different programs are designed to provide such diverse services or functions as 

academic work, cultural enrichment, safe places for children to stay, and adult supervision for children. 

Findings from the National Study of Before- and After-School Programs conducted in 1991 provide some 

insight into the variability of such programs. About 75 percent of programs responded that providing 

adult supervision and a safe environment was their primary purpose (Seppanen et al. 1993). Children’s 

activities included socializing, free time, board/card games, reading, homework, physically active play, 

block building, and arts and crafts. About half (51 percent) of the programs reported providing more 

different activities for children in the fourth grade and above than for children in earlier grades. Programs 

also reported that the child-to-staff ratio ranged from 4 to 25 children for every staff member. In addition, 

program location varied in 1991: about 35 percent of after-school programs were housed in child care 

centers, 28 percent were in public schools, 19 percent were in religious institutions or schools, and 18 

percent were in other locations. 
5

More recently, in a study of federally supported 21st Century Learning Centers, Dynarski et al. 

(2003) found that 69 percent of the middle school programs reported improving academic performance as 

a major objective.3

 Fifty-six percent indicated that a major objective was to provide recreational 

opportunities, and 56 percent said that a major objective was providing a safe environment for children 

after school. The top three major objectives reported by the elementary school 21st Century Learning 

Centers were improving academic performance (83 percent), providing a safe environment for children 

after school (44 percent), and helping children to develop socially (39 percent). 

 

Research has also provided insight into the costs of before- and after-school arrangements to 

families. According to data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), in 1995, of the 

41 percent of employed mothers (married or unmarried) of school-age children who paid for child care, 7 

percent of their family’s income went toward such care. In addition, child care costs consumed a larger 

share of the budgets of poor women who paid for care (Smith 2000). Other data showed that families pay 

less for relative care than for center- or school-based care. Families with higher incomes or with mothers 

employed full time also had higher care costs, but no differences were detected in the cost of care by 

race/ethnicity or family type (Brimhall, Reaney, and West 1999). 

1.2 Data Source and Indicators 

This report is based on data from the 2001 administration of the National Household Education 

Surveys Program (NHES). The NHES:2001 was conducted by Westat for the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) of the U.S. Department of Education. The NHES periodically gathers 

descriptive data to learn about the educational activities of families and their children in the United States 

that cannot be studied through school or other institution-based studies. Households were sampled using 

random-digit-dialing (RDD) methods and interviews were conducted using computer-assisted telephone 

interviewing (CATI) technology. For the NHES:2001 Before- and After-School Programs and Activities 

Survey, data were collected from January through mid-April of 2001 on a nationally representative 

sample of 9,583 children attending kindergarten through grade 8. 

 

3

 The middle school programs in the Dynarski study were only those receiving 21st Century Learning Center funding and may not reflect the 

objectives of most middle school programs. 
6

The survey asked parents about nonparental arrangements in which their children participated 

during before- and after-school hours. This includes any care they received from relatives and people not 

related to the child; center- or school-based programs; scouting, sports, and other extracurricular 

activities, and self-care. Arrangements could have been used primarily for the purposes of having adult 

supervision for children or primarily for children’s enrichment. Information was also collected about 

children’s enrichment activities, their activities within care arrangements and programs, parents’ preferred 

types of after-school arrangements, and parents’ ratings of different aspects of their children’s 

arrangements. For each arrangement reported, parents were asked whether it was regularly scheduled at 

least once each week or, if not, at least once each month. An extensive array of household and family 

characteristic data was also collected. 

1.3 Overview of the Report 

The remainder of this report presents details of children’s participation in various before- and afterschool arrangements. It begins with the types of arrangements and the amount of time children spent in 

their arrangements. This is followed by a description of the characteristics of the before- and after-school 

arrangements in which children participated. Chapter 2 presents findings on overall participation rates in 

various types of before- and after-school arrangements, as well as the child, family, and community 

characteristics associated with participation. The average number of hours children spent in before- and 

after-school arrangements is presented, as is the extent to which families relied upon multiple 

arrangements to meet their children’s needs for care and/or enrichment. 

Chapter 3 addresses the features of various arrangements in which children spent their time before 

and after school, including the activities, locations of arrangements, child-to-adult ratios, characteristics of 

relative and nonrelative care providers, and the costs of arrangements to parents. A summary of the 

findings and conclusions are presented in Chapter 4. The appendix describes the survey methodology, 

including response rates, weighting, and sampling and nonsampling errors. 
7 

2. PARTICIPATION IN BEFORE- AND AFTER-SCHOOL CARE, 

PROGRAMS, AND ACTIVITIES 

The state of children’s before- and after-school time in the nation is complex and varied. Although 

many parents rely on a single arrangement for their children during out-of-school time, many others piece 

together patchworks of arrangements that meet the contingencies of time, convenience, availability, cost, 

and other factors. For example, a child may spend several days each week with a grandmother before 

school and participate several days each week in a center- or school-based program after school. 

The picture is further complicated by the fact that the amount of time children spend in nonparental 

arrangements during out-of-school time varies widely. Depending on parents’ work schedules and other 

factors, children may spend from several minutes to many hours each week in various before- and afterschool arrangements. 

In the ASPA-NHES:2001, parents were asked questions about the extent of their children’s 

participation in a variety of arrangements. This chapter presents findings on participation rates during 

2001 in relative care, nonrelative care, center- or school-based programs, before- and after-school 

activities used to cover hours when parents needed adult supervision for their children, and self-care. A 

note of explanation about the latter two arrangement types is in order. Parents were asked about the 

before- and after-school activities of their children, defined in the survey as “...activities that (CHILD’S 

NAME) might do on weekdays outside of school hours that are not part of a before- or after-school 

program.” Activities included arts, sports, clubs, academic activities, community service, religious 

activities, and scouts. To ascertain whether such activities were serving as type of nonparental 

arrangement, parents of children who participated in any before- or after-school activities were asked in 

the survey whether that participation helped to cover the hours when the parent needed adult supervision 

for the child. For this report, only activities that were reported by parents as helping to cover hours when 

they needed adult supervision for their children were counted as nonparental arrangements. 

Although not in the care of an adult, self-care children are also in a nonparental arrangement. 

Qualitative research conducted during the design of the survey revealed that parents thought of self-care 

as a kind of arrangement (Nolin et al. 2002); typically they allowed children of a certain age or maturity 

to leave other kinds of care arrangements and be responsible for themselves while parents were at work or 

school. Thus, the survey also regarded self-care as an arrangement. It should also be kept in mind that 

due to social desirability issues, some parents may have underreported their use of self-care, especially for 
8 

younger children. To reduce the potential of underreporting of self-care, rather than asking parents if their 

children cared for themselves, parents were asked whether they allowed their children to “be responsible 

for themselves” before or after school. 

This chapter also includes discussion of the prevalence of multiple arrangements, as well as 

participation viewed with respect to the average number of hours spent per week in the various 

arrangements. Findings are examined by child, family, and community characteristics, including 

children’s grade, sex,4

 race/ethnicity, number of parents in the household, parents’ language spoken most 

at home, parents’ highest level of education, mother’s employment status, household income, and 

urbanicity (community type).5

2.1 Participation in Before-School Arrangements 

Although there is a growing body of research concerning children’s after-school arrangements, less 

is known about how children spend their time before school. Some parents who work make arrangements 

with others to care for their children or leave their children by themselves in the morning. Findings from 

the NHES indicate that 80 percent of children did not have (or need) before-school arrangements and 

presumably were in the care of a parent before leaving for school (table 1). A smaller percentage of 

children in kindergarten through eighth grade (20 percent) participated in some form of regularly 

scheduled nonparental arrangements (either weekly or monthly) before school in 2001. Seven percent of 

children were cared for by a relative before school, 3 percent were cared for by a nonrelative, and 4 

percent participated in a center- or school-based program. One percent participated in before-school 

activities, and 6 percent of children were in self-care before school.6

 

 

4

 While results by children’s sex are included in the tables, they are not treated in the chapter, because no significant differences were detected for 

any measures according to the sex of children. 

5 Urbanicity is a derived variable that categorizes the subject's ZIP Code as urban inside urbanized area, urban outside urbanized area, or rural. 

The definitions for these categories were taken directly from the 1990 Census of Population (U.S. Department of Commerce 1992). An 

urbanized area (UA) comprises a place and the adjacent densely settled surrounding territory that together have a minimum population of 

50,000 people. The second category, urban, outside urbanized area, includes incorporated or unincorporated places outside of a UA with a 

minimum population of 2,500 people. Places not classified as urban are rural. 

6

 Children could have been in more than one arrangement type and are reported under each type. Before-school activities were only included in 

the percentages given in table 1 if respondents said that the activities were used to cover hours when they needed adult supervision for their 

children. 
9 

Table 1. Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children participating in various before-school arrangements (sc

child, family, and community characteristics: 2001 

Types of arrangements 

Characteristic 

Number of 

children 

(thousands)

Parental care only 

before school 

Any arrangement 

before school Relative care Nonrelative care Center- or school- based programs A

 Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e 

Total ............................................................................ 35,743 80 0.5 20 0.5 7 0.4 3 0.3 4 0.3 

Child’s grade  K–2 ........................................................................... 11,778 80 0.9 20 0.9 9 0.8 5 0.6 6 0.5  3–5 ............................................................................ 12,343 81 0.9 19 0.9 7 0.6 4 0.5 4 0.5  6–8 ............................................................................ 11,622 78 0.7 22 0.7 5 0.4 1 0.2 2 0.2 Child’s sex  Male .......................................................................... 18,342 80 0.8 20 0.8 8 0.6 3 0.3 4 0.4  Female ...................................................................... 17,401 79 0.8 21 0.8 7 0.5 3 0.4 4 0.4 Child’s race/ethnicity  White, non-Hispanic................................................. 22,144 82 0.7 18 0.7 6 0.5 3 0.4 4 0.3  Black, non-Hispanic ................................................. 5,822 70 1.7 30 1.7 12 1.2 3 0.6 4 0.5  Hispanic .................................................................... 5,686 80 1.2 20 1.2 8 0.8 3 0.6 3 0.6  Other ......................................................................... 2,091 79 2.2 21 2.2 8 1.4 2 0.7 5 1.3 Family type  Two parents.............................................................. 24,809 84 0.6 16 0.6 5 0.3 3 0.3 4 0.3  One parent ................................................................ 9,924 70 1.3 30 1.3 13 0.9 4 0.5 4 0.6  Nonparent guardian(s).............................................. 1,010 67 2.8 33 2.8 17 2.6 2 1.0 1 0.7 Parents’ language spoken most at home  Both/only parent(s) speaks English.......................... 32,606 79 0.5 21 0.5 7 0.4 3 0.3 4 0.3  One of two parents speaks non-English language... 636 77 4.3 23 4.3 7 2.1 3 1.5 7 3.2  Both/only parent(s) speaks non-English language .. 2,502 86 1.7 14 1.7 6 0.9 2 0.6 1 0.4 Parents’ highest level of education  Less than high school ............................................... 3,193 80 1.9 20 1.9 9 1.4 2 0.5 1 0.6  High school diploma or equivalent .......................... 10,353 75 1.0 25 1.0 10 0.8 3 0.4 3 0.4 

 Vocational education or some college ..................... 10,492 79 1.0 21 1.0 8 0.7 4 0.6 4 0.5 

 College graduate....................................................... 6,392 84 1.2 16 1.2 4 0.6 3 0.6 5 0.7  Graduate or professional school............................... 5,312 85 1.1 15 1.1 3 0.6 3 0.6 5 0.8 Mother’s employment status1  Works 35 or more hours per week ........................... 16,067 69 1.0 31 1.0 12 0.7 5 0.5 6 0.5  Works less than 35 hours per week.......................... 7,459 88 0.9 12 0.9 3 0.5 2 0.4 2 0.4  Not employed ........................................................... 10,952 91 0.8 9 0.8 3 0.4 1 0.2 1 0.2 Household income  $25,000 or less.......................................................... 10,671 76 1.1 24 1.1 10 0.9 3 0.5 3 0.4  $25,001–$50,000 ...................................................... 9,542 80 0.9 20 0.9 8 0.6 3 0.5 3 0.4  $50,001–$75,000 ...................................................... 7,608 83 1.0 17 1.0 6 0.6 3 0.5 5 0.5  More than $75,000 ................................................... 7,922 82 1.0 18 1.0 5 0.5 4 0.6 6 0.7 Urbanicity  Urban, inside urbanized area.................................... 22,673 80 0.6 20 0.6 7 0.4 3 0.3 4 0.3  Urban, outside urbanized area.................................. 4,465 78 1.7 22 1.7 9 1.0 3 0.7 3 0.7  Rural ......................................................................... 8,605 80 1.2 20 1.2 8 0.9 4 0.6 3 0.5 

1 Only includes children who had a mother in the household. “Not employed” includes both mothers who were seeking work but unemployed and mothers not in the labo

† Not applicable. Estimates of standard error is not derived because it is based on a statistic estimated at 0 percent. # Rounds to zero.

NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Home-schooled children are excluded. Types of arrangements include those regularly scheduled at least once a month, except for “ac

included if they occurred at least once each week. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding and multiple response—children who had more than one type of arra

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Before- and After-School Programs and Activities Survey of the National Household Edu
10

In general, before-school participation in nonrelative care, center- or school-based programs, and 

activities used for supervision varied little by the child, family, and community characteristics presented 

in this report. However, there was variation by these characteristics with respect to overall use of 

nonparental arrangements, relative care, and self-care before school. 

 2.1.1 Before-School Arrangements by Child Characteristics 

Before-school arrangements by grade. With the exception of self-care, sixth through eighth 

graders were less likely than kindergarten through second graders and third through fifth graders to 

participate in nonparental arrangements before school; sixth through eighth graders were less likely than 

kindergarten through second graders and third through fifth graders to be cared for by a relative (5 percent 

vs. 9 and 7 percent), a nonrelative (1 percent vs. 5 and 4 percent), and to participate in a center- or schoolbased program before school (2 percent vs. 6 and 4 percent). Sixth through eighth graders were more 

likely than kindergarten through second and third through fifth graders to be in self-care before school 

(14 percent vs. 1 and 4 percent). (Further, kindergarten through second graders were less likely than third 

through fifth graders to be in self-care before school.) 

Before-school arrangements by race/ethnicity. There were few differences detected in 

children’s before-school arrangements by race/ethnicity. Overall, Black children were more likely than 

White children, Hispanic children, and children of other racial/ethnic backgrounds to have nonparental 

arrangements before school (30 percent vs. 18, 20, and 21 percent, respectively). Black children were 

more likely than White and Hispanic children to be cared for by a relative before school (12 percent vs. 6 

and 8 percent). Black children were also more likely than White children, Hispanic children, and children 

of other racial/ethnic backgrounds to be in self-care before school (13 percent vs. 5 to 7 percent). 

 2.1.2 Before-School Arrangements by Family Characteristics 

Before-school arrangements by family type. Children in households with two parents were less 

likely than those in households with one parent or with nonparent guardians7

 to have before-school 

arrangements. Indeed, 16 percent of children in two-parent households had nonparental arrangements 

 

7

 Children living with persons other than birth, adoptive, step, or foster mothers and fathers, such as grandparents, aunts, or uncles, were classified 

as living with nonparent guardians. 
11

before school, compared with 30 percent for one-parent households and 33 percent for nonparent 

guardian households. Children in two-parent households were less likely than children in one-parent 

households and nonparent guardian households to be in relative care (5 percent vs. 13 and 17 percent) and 

self-care (5 percent vs. 10 and 13 percent) before school. Children in one- and two-parent households 

were more likely than those in nonparent guardian households to participate in a center- or school-based 

program before school (4 percent and 4 percent vs. 1 percent). 

Before-school arrangements by parents’ language spoken most at home. Children whose 

parents spoke mainly English at home were more likely than children whose parents spoke mainly a nonEnglish language at home to have before-school arrangements (21 percent vs. 14 percent), and to 

participate in a center- or school-based program (4 percent vs. 1 percent). 

Before-school arrangements by parents’ highest level of education. Children whose parents had 

only a high school credential, or vocational education or some college education but not a degree were 

more likely than children whose parents had a college degree or graduate education to have any beforeschool arrangements. Children whose parents had at least some graduate education were less likely than 

children whose parents had a high school credential or less to be in the care of a relative and to be in selfcare. Children whose parents had less than a high school education were less likely than those whose 

parents had a vocational education, a college degree, or graduate education to be in a center- or schoolbased program before school. 

Before-school arrangements by mother’s employment status. Children of mothers who worked 

full time (35 or more hours per week) were more likely to have before-school arrangements than children 

of mothers who worked part time (less than 35 hours) or who were not employed8

 (31 percent vs. 12 and 

9 percent). Children of full-time working mothers were more likely than children of part-time and 

unemployed mothers to be in the care of a relative (12 percent vs. 3 and 3 percent), a nonrelative (5 

percent vs. 2 and 1 percent), in a center- or school-based program (6 percent vs. 2 and 1 percent), and in 

self-care (9 percent vs. 4 and 4 percent) before school. 

Before-school arrangements by household income. Overall, children from households with an 

annual income of $25,000 or less were more likely than all other children to have arrangements before 

school (24 percent vs. 20, 17, and 18 percent). Further, low-to-moderate household income was 

 

8

 “Not employed” includes mothers who were seeking work but were unemployed, as well as mothers who were not in the labor force.
12

associated with greater use of relative care and self-care, whereas higher income was associated with 

greater use of center- or school-based programs. Specifically, children from households with incomes of 

$25,000 or less and between $25,001 and $50,000 were more likely than children from households with 

incomes between $50,001 and $75,000 and over $75,000 to be in relative care (10 percent and 8 percent 

vs. 6 and 5 percent), and self-care (9 and 7 percent vs. 4 and 4 percent) before school. The opposite was 

true with respect to center- or school-based programs: children from lower income households were less 

likely than children from higher income households to be in a center- or school-based program before 

school (3 and 3 percent vs. 5 and 6 percent). 

2.2 Participation in After-School Arrangements 

Respondents were asked whether they had arrangements regularly scheduled either weekly or 

monthly for their children after school. Overall, more children had arrangements after-school than 

before-school: 50 percent of children in kindergarten through eighth grade were reported to be in afterschool arrangements in 2001 (tables 1 and 2). Specifically, 17 percent of children were cared for by a 

relative, 6 percent were in the care of a nonrelative, and 19 percent participated in a center- or schoolbased program after school. Seven percent of children participated in after-school activities used to cover 

time when parents needed adult supervision for them, and 13 percent of children were in self-care after 

school. 

 2.2.1 After-School Arrangements by Child Characteristics 

Use of the various types of after-school arrangements was more varied by child and family 

characteristics than for before-school arrangements, although patterns were similar in many instances. 

After-school arrangements by grade. Sixth through eighth graders were less likely than 

kindergarten through second and third through fifth graders to be in the care of a relative (13 percent vs. 

19 and 18 percent), a nonrelative (3 percent vs. 10 and 6 percent), and in a center- or school-based 

program (14 percent vs. 21 and 20 percent) on a regularly scheduled basis after school. Conversely, 

kindergarten through second graders were less likely than third through fifth and sixth through eighth 

graders to be in after-school activities (e.g., sports, arts, scouts, or clubs) that were used to cover hours 

when adult supervision was needed (5 percent vs. 8 and 9 percent) and were less likely to be in self-care 

(2 percent vs. 8 and 30 percent). 
Table 2. Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children participating in various after-school arrangements (sch

child, family, and community characteristics: 2001 

Types of arrangem

Characteristic 

Number of 

children 

(thousands)

Parental care only 

after school 

Any arrangement 

after school Relative care Nonrelative care Center- or sch

based progra

 Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s. Total.......................................................................... 35,743 50 0.6 50 0.6 17 0.5 6 0.3 19 0.5 Child’s grade  K–2 ........................................................................... 11,778 52 1.3 48 1.3 19 1.1 10 0.6 21 1.0  3–5 ............................................................................ 12,343 51 1.0 49 1.0 18 0.9 6 0.6 20 0.9  6–8 ............................................................................ 11,622 46 0.8 54 0.8 13 0.6 3 0.2 14 0.6 Child’s sex  Male .......................................................................... 18,342 50 0.8 50 0.8 17 0.7 6 0.5 18 0.8  Female....................................................................... 17,401 49 0.9 51 0.9 17 0.7 7 0.5 19 0.8 Child’s race/ethnicity  White, non-Hispanic................................................. 22,144 54 0.8 46 0.8 15 0.6 7 0.4 15 0.6  Black, non-Hispanic ................................................. 5,822 34 1.6 66 1.6 25 1.6 6 0.8 29 1.8  Hispanic .................................................................... 5,686 50 1.5 50 1.5 17 1.2 7 0.8 20 1.2  Other ......................................................................... 2,091 48 2.7 52 2.7 14 1.8 4 0.9 23 2.1 Family type  Two parents .............................................................. 24,809 56 0.7 44 0.7 13 0.5 6 0.4 16 0.5  One parent................................................................. 9,924 33 1.2 67 1.2 26 1.1 9 0.7 25 1.2  Nonparent guardian(s).............................................. 1,010 43 3.0 57 3.0 22 2.5 4 1.3 23 3.1 Parents’ language spoken most at home  Both/only parent(s) speaks English.......................... 32,606 49 0.6 51 0.6 17 0.5 7 0.3 19 0.5  One of two parents speaks non-English language ... 636 54 4.8 46 4.8 12 2.9 7 2.9 22 4.0  Both/only parent(s) speaks non-English language... 2,502 59 2.0 41 2.0 12 1.3 4 0.8 19 1.9 Parents’ highest level of education  Less than high school ............................................... 3,193 54 2.6 46 2.6 16 2.1 4 0.9 17 1.8  High school diploma or equivalent .......................... 10,353 49 1.1 51 1.1 20 0.9 6 0.5 17 1.0 

 Vocational education or some college...................... 10,492 47 1.2 53 1.2 19 1.1 7 0.6 20 0.9 

 College graduate....................................................... 6,392 52 1.5 48 1.5 14 1.0 7 0.8 19 1.1  Graduate or professional school............................... 5,312 52 1.6 48 1.6 10 0.9 8 0.9 19 1.3 Mother’s employment status1 Works 35 or more hours per week ........................... 16,067 32 0.9 68 0.9 26 0.8 10 0.5 23 0.7  Works less than 35 hours per week.......................... 7,459 57 1.4 43 1.4 12 1.0 6 0.7 14 1.0  Not employed ........................................................... 10,952 72 1.0 28 1.0 6 0.5 2 0.3 14 0.9 Household income  $25,000 or less.......................................................... 10,671 48 1.3 52 1.3 19 1.2 6 0.6 21 1.2  $25,001–$50,000 ...................................................... 9,542 49 1.1 51 1.1 20 1.0 6 0.6 17 1.0  $50,001–$75,000 ...................................................... 7,608 52 1.4 48 1.4 16 1.0 6 0.6 17 0.9  More than $75,000.................................................... 7,922 51 1.3 49 1.3 12 0.8 8 0.7 19 1.1 Urbanicity  Urban, inside urbanized area.................................... 22,673 48 0.8 52 0.8 17 0.6 6 0.4 21 0.7  Urban, outside urbanized area.................................. 4,465 53 1.9 47 1.9 17 1.5 6 0.9 14 1.4  Rural ......................................................................... 8,605 52 1.4 48 1.4 18 1.0 7 0.8 15 1.0 

1 Only includes children who had a mother in the household. “Not employed” includes both mothers who were seeking work but unemployed and mothers not in the labo

NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Home-schooled children are excluded. Types of arrangements include those regularly scheduled at least once a month, except for “ac

included if they occurred at least once each week. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding and multiple response

—children who had more than one type of arr

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Before- and After-School Programs and Activities Survey of the National Househo

2001. 

13
14

After-school arrangements by race/ethnicity. Black children were more likely than White 

children, Hispanic children, and children of other racial/ethnic groups to have nonparental arrangements 

after school (66 percent vs. 46, 50, and 52 percent). Black children were also more likely than White 

children, Hispanic children, and children of other racial/ethnic groups to be cared for by a relative after 

school (25 percent vs. 15, 17, and 14 percent). They were also more likely than White and Hispanic 

children to participate in center- or school-based programs (29 percent vs. 15 and 20 percent) and to be in 

self-care after school (18 percent vs. 13 and 11 percent). White children were less likely than Black and 

Hispanic children and children of other racial/ethnic groups to participate in center- or school-based 

programs after school (15 percent vs. 29, 20, and 23 percent). 

 2.2.2 After-School Arrangements by Family Characteristics 

After-school arrangements by family type. Children from two-parent households were less 

likely than children from one-parent households or children living with nonparent guardians to have 

nonparental arrangements after school (44 percent vs. 67 and 57 percent). Children from two-parent 

households were also less likely than children from one-parent and nonparent-guardian households to be 

in regularly scheduled relative care after school (13 percent vs. 26 and 22 percent), and were less likely 

than children from one-parent households to be in nonrelative care (6 percent vs. 9 percent), a center- or 

school-based program (16 percent vs. 25 percent), and in self-care (12 percent vs. 17 percent). 

After-school arrangements by parents’ language spoken most at home. Children whose 

parents spoke mainly English at home were more likely than children whose parents spoke mainly a nonEnglish language at home to have after-school arrangements (51 percent vs. 41 percent), to be in the care 

of a relative (17 percent vs. 12 percent), and to be in self-care (14 percent vs. 7 percent). 

After-school arrangements by parents’ highest level of education. Few differences were 

detected with respect to participation by parents’ highest level of education. One exception was that 

children with at least one parent who had a high school diploma or its equivalent or vocational education 

or some college were more likely than children whose parents were college graduates or had been in 

graduate or professional school to be in the care of a relative after school (20 and 19 percent vs. 14 and 10 

percent). 
15

After-school arrangements by mother’s employment status. There were differences in 

children’s after-school arrangements depending on their mothers’ employment status. Mothers who 

worked full time (defined as 35 or more hours per week) were more likely than those who worked part 

time (less than 35 hours) and those not employed to have children in regularly scheduled arrangements 

after school (68 percent vs. 43 and 28 percent). Full-time working mothers were more likely to have 

children in each type of arrangement, including the care of a relative (26 percent vs. 12 and 6 percent), 

nonrelative (10 percent vs. 6 and 2 percent), in a center- or school-based program (23 percent vs. 14 and 

14 percent), in after-school activities used for supervision (9 percent vs. 6 and 6 percent), and in self-care 

(18 percent vs. 12 and 6 percent). 

Children with mothers who worked part time were more likely to be in some kind of nonparental 

care than children with nonworking mothers (43 percent vs. 28 percent). Further, mothers who worked 

part time were more likely than mothers not employed to have children in regularly scheduled relative 

care (12 percent vs. 6 percent), nonrelative care (6 percent vs. 2 percent), and self-care (12 percent vs. 6 

percent) after school. 

After-school arrangements by household income. With respect to after-school arrangements, 

differences by household income were fewer than they were with before-school arrangements. An 

exception was that households with incomes of more than $75,000 were less likely than households at all 

other income levels to have children in the regular care of a relative after school (12 percent vs. 19, 20, 

and 16 percent). 

2.3 Patterns of Arrangements 

Not all parents rely on a single arrangement for their children during out-of-school time. Many 

piece together different arrangements to cover the hours when they cannot provide supervision. This may 

include more than one arrangement type (including self-care and before- or after-school activities used for 

adult supervision), for instance, care by a grandmother before school and self-care after school. This may 

also include more than one of a single type of arrangement before and/or after school, for example, care 

by a grandmother before school and care by another grandmother after school.9

 

 

9

 Care by the same person or program both before and after school would have been reported as a single arrangement that took place both before 

and after school because of the design of the questionnaire. 
16

Figure 1 shows that about one-third of children (32 percent) in before- or after-school 

arrangements in 2001 had more than one arrangement. Thus, two-thirds of children (68 percent) 

participated in only one arrangement on a regular basis. 

Figure 1. Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children with before- and/or after-school 

arrangements who had a single arrangement only or more than one arrangement: 2001 

Single arrangement

68%

More than one 

arrangement

32%

NOTE: Standard error is 0.8. Home-schooled children are excluded. Includes all arrangements reported. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Before- and After-School Programs and 

Activities Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2001. 

Table 3 shows that of all children who had at least some regularly scheduled arrangements before 

or after school, 18 percent had only one relative care arrangement, 8 percent had only one nonrelative 

care arrangement, and 20 percent participated in only one center- or school-based program. Five percent 

of children had only before- or after-school activities used to cover hours when parents needed 

supervision for them, and 17 percent of children had no arrangements involving supervision by another 

person, but took care of themselves before or after school on a regular basis. 

Eight percent of children had more than one arrangement within a type (e.g., more than one relative 

care arrangement or more than one center- or school-based program). Thirteen percent had more than one 

type of arrangement, not including self-care (e.g., one center- or school-based program and one 

nonrelative care arrangement), and 11 percent were in self-care plus some other arrangement.10 

 

10 The categories included in table 3 are mutually exclusive. Readers interested in the percent of children with a single arrangement versus 

multiple arrangements by child and family characteristics may sum across the components within the respective categories. 
17

Table 3. Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children with at least one nonparental arrangement, whose parents repo

before- and after-school arrangements, by child and family characteristics: 2001 

One relative 

arrangement 

only 

One nonrelative 

arrangement 

only 

One center- or 

school-based 

program only 

One arrangement

only: activities 

used for 

supervision 

Self-care only 

More than 

arrangeme

a single ty

Characteristic 

Number of 

children 

(thousands) 

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e Percent s.e. Percent 

 Total.................................................................................. 19,231 18 0.7 8 0.5 20 0.8 5 0.4 17 0.6 8 0Child’s grade 

K–2 .................................................................................. 6,051 22 1.4 14 1.2 29 1.7 5 0.7 1 0.4 9 03–5 ................................................................................... 6,471 20 1.3 8 0.9 21 1.4 6 0.9 11 1.1 11 06–8 ................................................................................... 6,708 12 0.8 3 0.3 9 0.6 5 0.5 37 1.1 5 0

Child’s sex 

Male ................................................................................. 9,756 18 1.0 8 0.8 20 1.1 5 0.6 17 0.7 8 0Female.............................................................................. 9,474 18 0.9 8 0.7 19 1.0 5 0.6 17 0.9 8 0

Child’s race/ethnicity 

White, non-Hispanic........................................................ 11,089 17 0.9 9 0.7 19 0.9 6 0.5 19 0.8 9 0Black, non-Hispanic ........................................................ 3,981 20 1.6 5 0.9 19 1.6 4 0.8 14 1.5 6 0Hispanic ........................................................................... 2,989 19 1.4 11 1.2 22 1.5 4 1.0 14 1.3 7 0Other ................................................................................ 1,172 14 2.3 3 1.1 26 3.0 9 2.1 15 2.4 8 2

Family type 

Two parents ..................................................................... 11,613 16 0.8 8 0.7 21 1.0 6 0.5 18 0.8 8 0One parent........................................................................ 7,026 20 1.2 7 0.7 17 1.3 4 0.6 15 0.8 8 0Nonparent guardian(s) ..................................................... 593 22 4.2 4 1.9 17 3.5 8 3.3 14 3.4 7 2

Parents’ language spoken most at home  Both/only parent(s) speaks English................................. 17,851 18 0.7 8 0.5 19 0.8 5 0.4 17 0.6 8 0 One of two parents speaks non-English language........... 300 13 4.3 12 5.5 19 5.9 4 2.0 11 4.7 8 2 Both/only parent(s) speaks non-English language.......... 1,079 20 2.4 8 1.6 30 3.2 6 1.8 12 2.2 6 Parents’ highest level of education 

Less than high school ...................................................... 1,535 20 3.3 6 1.3 20 2.8 6 2.3 18 2.4 5 High school diploma or equivalent ................................. 5,729 22 1.3 8 0.9 16 1.1 4 0.7 18 1.2 7 0Vocational education or some college ............................ 5,984 19 1.3 8 1.0 20 1.5 4 0.5 16 0.8 9 0College graduate .............................................................. 3,266 14 1.5 8 1.2 23 1.6 7 1.0 16 1.1 9 Graduate or professional school...................................... 2,717 11 1.3 9 1.3 22 1.9 9 1.4 16 1.3 8 

Mother’s employment status4 

Works 35 or more hours per week .................................. 11,610 20 0.9 9 0.6 17 0.8 3 0.4 17 0.7 7 0Works less than 35 hours per week................................. 3,428 17 1.8 9 1.3 19 1.9 7 1.2 20 1.6 10 Not employed................................................................... 3,296 11 1.6 4 1.0 30 2.6 12 1.6 15 1.5 9 

Household income 

$25,000 or less................................................................. 5,953 19 1.6 8 1.0 20 1.5 4 0.8 16 1.3 7 0$25,001–$50,000 ............................................................. 5,186 22 1.4 7 0.9 16 1.2 5 0.7 18 1.1 8 0$50,001–$75,000 ............................................................. 3,964 17 1.3 9 1.1 20 1.4 6 1.0 17 1.1 8 0More than $75,000........................................................... 4,129 12 1.1 9 1.1 23 1.6 6 0.9 17 1.3 8 

Urbanicity  Urban, inside urbanized area ........................................... 12,426 17 0.8 8 0.6 22 0.9 5 0.4 16 0.7 8 0 Urban, outside urbanized area ......................................... 2,303 19 1.7 9 1.4 14 2.0 4 1.0 21 1.5 9  Rural................................................................................. 4,502 20 1.6 9 1.2 16 1.6 7 1.1 16 1.2 9 

1Includes more than one arrangement of a given type (e.g., two relative arrangements). 2Includes any combination of relative care, nonrelative care, center-based programs, and activities used for supervision but only one arrangement of a given type (e.g, one 

school-based program, and activities used for supervision). Does not include self-care. 3Includes self-care in combination with one or more arrangements including relative care, nonrelative care, center- or school-based programs, or activities used for supervision. 

4 Only includes children who had a mother in the household. “Not employed” includes both mothers who were seeking work but unemployed and mothers not in the labor force

NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Home-schooled children are excluded. Includes all reported arrangements, with the exception of activities used for supervision, which were lim

week. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Before- and After-School Programs and Activities Survey of the National Household Educa
18

Table 3 gives a picture of the variety of arrangements of children in kindergarten through eighth 

grade, a somewhat different picture than in tables 1 and 2. One way to view these arrangements is to 

focus on the single arrangement versus multiple arrangements. Another way is to focus on adult 

supervision versus self-care. For 17 percent of children in grades K–8 who were in some kind of 

arrangement, their only arrangement was self-care (this translates into over 3 million children). Another 

11 percent took care of themselves on a regular basis in addition to being in other kinds of nonparental 

arrangements (an additional 2 million children). 

 2.3.1 Patterns by Child Characteristics 

Patterns by grade. Sixth through eighth graders were less likely than kindergarten through second 

and third through fifth graders to have more than one arrangement of a single type (5 percent vs. 9 and 11 

percent) and more than one arrangement across arrangement types, not including self-care (7 percent vs. 

17 and 16 percent). Conversely, sixth through eighth graders were more likely than kindergarten through 

second and third through fifth graders to be in self-care plus some other type of arrangement (22 percent 

vs. 2 and 8 percent). 

Patterns by race/ethnicity. Black children were more likely than White and Hispanic children to 

be in self-care plus some other arrangement on a regular basis before and/or after school (17 percent vs. 9 

and 10 percent). It is interesting to note that whereas Black children were more likely than White children 

to have self-care as an arrangement in combination with other arrangements before school and after 

school (tables 1 and 2), White children were more likely to have only self-care and no other arrangements 

(19 percent vs. 14 percent). Finally, White and Hispanic children were more likely than Black children 

and children of other racial/ethnic groups to have only nonrelative care (9 percent vs. 5 and 3 percent, and 

11 percent vs. 5 and 3 percent). 

 2.3.2 Patterns by Family Characteristics 

Patterns by family type. No difference was detected between children from two-parent 

households and children from one-parent and nonparent guardian households with respect to a single kind 

of arrangement (8 percent vs. 8 and 7 percent) or more than one arrangement of a single type, not 

including self-care (12 percent vs. 15 and 12 percent). However, children from two-parent households 
19

were more likely than those from one-parent households to attend only one center- or school-based 

program (21 percent vs. 17 percent) and only to be in self-care (18 percent vs. 15 percent). 

Patterns by parents’ highest level of education. Few notable differences were detected with 

respect to parents’ level of education. An exception was that children whose parents had less than a high 

school education were more likely than those for whom at least one parent had been to graduate or 

professional school to be in self-care plus some other arrangement(s) (16 percent and 9 percent). 

Patterns by mother’s employment status. Children of full-time working mothers were more 

likely than children of part-time working mothers to have a combination of arrangements that did not 

include self-care (15 percent vs. 10 percent), and were more likely to be in self-care plus some other 

arrangement(s) (12 percent vs. 9 percent). Children of mothers not employed were less likely than 

children whose mothers worked full time and part time to be in relative care only (11 percent vs. 20 and 

17 percent) and nonrelative care only (4 percent vs. 9 and 9 percent), but they were more likely to 

participate in a center- or school-based program only (30 percent vs. 17 and 19 percent) and only 

activities used for supervision (12 percent vs. 3 and 7 percent). 

2.4 Amount of Time Spent in Before- and After-School Arrangements 

Depending on such factors as parents’ work schedules, availability of care, and cost, children can 

spend varying amounts of time in nonparental arrangements. Overall, children who had regular weekly 

scheduled arrangements (before and/or after school) spent on average 10.4 hours per week in them, or 

about 2 hours per day (not shown in tables).11 Table 4 shows the mean number of hours each week that 

children spent before and after school in regular weekly scheduled arrangements.12 

 

11 Standard error: 0.2. 

12 Hours for arrangements that were not regularly scheduled at least once each week were not included, since these might misrepresent the 

average number of hours that children spent in care each week. For example, a child who has relative care 28 hours during only one week in a 

month would be represented as participating 28 hours per week, which is not the case. Similarly, if those 28 hours were divided by four (to get 

a weekly estimate), it would appear that that child had relative care 7 hours per week, which again is not the case. Since regularly scheduled 

monthly arrangements constituted a small percentage of cases overall (less than 5 percent), excluding them from the analysis did not 

substantially affect the means reported in table 4. 
20

Table 4. Mean number of hours per week kindergarten through eighth-grade children spent in before- and/or 

after-school arrangements (scheduled at least weekly): 2001 

Types of arrangements 

All arrangements 

Relative care Nonrelative care 

Center- or 

school-based 

programs 

Activities used 

for supervision 

Characteristic Self-care 

Estimate s.e. Estimate s.e. Estimate s.e. Estimate s.e. Estimate s.e. Estimate s.e. 

Total number of children 

in before-school 

arrangements (thousands)... 7,086 184 2,566 129 1,133 95 1,324 93 267 38 2,246 103 

Mean before-school hours..... 4.7 0.1 5.0 0.2 5.5 0.3 4.5 0.2 2.2 0.2 3.5 0.1 

 

Total number of children 

in after-school 

arrangements (thousands) ... 17,650 207 5,882 178 2,243 106 6,433 180 2,615 148 4,591 125 

Mean after-school hours........ 9.0 0.2 9.7 0.3 9.5 0.3 7.5 0.1 4.2 0.1 4.8 0.1 

 

NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Home-schooled children are excluded. May include hours after 6:00 p.m. Includes arrangements regularly scheduled at 

least once each week. Due to multiple response, children who had more than one type of arrangement before school, after school, or both, are 

reported under each type. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Before- and After-School Programs and Activities Survey of the 

National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2001. 

 2.4.1 Before-School Hours 

Overall, children who were in before-school arrangements spent an average of 4.7 hours per week 

before school in their regular weekly arrangements. This translates into a little less than 1 hour per day. 

Children with regularly scheduled weekly relative care arrangements spent on average 5 hours per week 

before school in this type of arrangement. Children who had nonrelative care at least once each week 

spent an average of 5.5 hours per week in that type of arrangement, and those attending center-based 

programs at least once each week before school spent on average 4.5 hours per week. The average 

number of hours spent per week in before-school activities used for supervision was 2.2, and the average 

number of hours spent in self-care before school was 3.5 per week. Children spent more hours on average 

in nonrelative care before school each week than in center- or school-based programs, before-school 

activities, and in self-care. They also spent more hours per week before school in center- or school-based 

programs and relative care compared with before-school activities and self-care. 
21

 2.4.2 After-School Hours 

On average, children spent more time in after-school arrangements than they did in before-school 

arrangements. Children with regularly scheduled after-school arrangements at least once each week spent 

on average 9.0 hours per week in them, or less than 2 hours per day. Children with relative care at least 

once each week spent on average 9.7 hours per week after school in this type of arrangement. Those with 

nonrelative care spent on average 9.5 hours per week after school, and those with center- or school-based 

programs spent 7.5 hours per week in these arrangements. Children with weekly scheduled after-school 

activities used for adult supervision spent 4.2 hours per week on average in such activities, and those in 

self-care after school spent a mean of 4.8 hours per week responsible for themselves. More hours were 

spent on average each week in relative care and nonrelative care than in center- or school-based 

programs, after-school activities, and in self-care. Also, children spent more time on average in centeror school-based programs each week than in after-school activities and self-care. 

 2.4.3 Number of Arrangements by Number of Hours 

Children who participated in more than one arrangement spent more total time in them than 

children who had a single arrangement; children in more than one arrangement spent a mean of 13.7 

hours per week in them, compared with 7.9 hours per week for children with single arrangements (not 

shown in tables).13 Children who had only after-school arrangement spent about one hour longer each 

week in a center- or school-based program than children who had more than one arrangement after school 

(8.1 hours versus 6.8 hours). 

 

13 Standard errors: mean hours for children not in multiple arrangements, 0.2; mean hours for children in multiple arrangements, 0.2. 
22

This page is intentionally left blank. 
23

3. CHARACTERISTICS OF BEFORE- AND AFTER-SCHOOL ARRANGEMENTS 

While there is a growing body of information about the types and amount of care children receive 

during the out-of-school hours, far less is known at the national level about the characteristics of various 

kinds of arrangements for school-age children. For instance, little is known about the kinds of activities 

that take place within arrangements or about other important characteristics relating to location, numbers 

of children and adults present in arrangements, relationships of care providers to children, costs, and so 

on. Such information is vital to understanding the details of the settings in which children spend their 

out-of-school time. 

The survey asked parents about their children’s activities in their arrangements, the location of 

arrangements, numbers of children and adults present, the characteristics of relative and nonrelative care 

providers, and the cost of arrangements. Parents were also asked about their children’s before- and afterschool activities, such as sports, music lessons, and community service (whether for supervision or 

enrichment), including whether these were sponsored by their children’s schools, and whether they were 

used to cover hours when parents needed adult supervision for their children. This section contains 

findings that portray these features of the various arrangements in which children spent their time before 

and after school in 2001. 

3.1 Characteristics of Before- and After-School Arrangements 

 3.1.1 Activities of Children in After-School Arrangements 

One means of distinguishing among arrangements is the kinds of activities that children engage in 

within them. Do children in different kinds of arrangements engage in different kinds of activities? Are 

children engaging in academic work, cultural enrichment, play activities, etc.? Parents were asked to 

report up to three of their children’s activities within each of their children’s arrangements for 

arrangements that were after school or both before and after school.14 Survey interviewers coded each of 

 

14 Tests conducted before the survey was fielded indicated that there was little variation in the kinds of activities engaged in before school, and 

these tended to be associated with getting ready to go to school. As a result, detailed questions about activities children engaged in during 

before-school arrangements were not included in the final questionnaire and are not discussed in this report. 
24

the reported activities into the 11 categories shown in table 5.15 Before discussing results, however, it 

should be noted that although parents are usually the best respondents when it comes to their children, 

some parents might not know exactly what activities their children are engaged in on a daily basis when 

they are not there to observe them. 

Table 5. Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children in after-school arrangements (scheduled 

at least monthly) participating in various types of activities: 2001 

Relative care Nonrelative care Center- or schoolbased programs Self-care 

Type of activity 

Estimate s.e. Estimate s.e. Estimate s.e. Estimate s.e. 

Total (thousands) .............................. 6,041 188 2,304 110 6,680 179 4,765 128 

Homework/schoolrelated/educational............................ 69% 1.4 56% 2.7 56% 1.6 65% 1.5 

Television/videos/video games/ 

listening to music ............................. 59 1.6 48 2.5 10 0.9 58 1.5 

Outdoor play/activities/sports............. 36 1.4 49 3.0 49 1.6 24 1.4 

Indoor play ......................................... 27 1.4 46 2.9 35 1.5 11 1.2 

Reading/writing.................................. 19 1.4 15 1.9 19 1.2 13 1.1 

Eating/snacks...................................... 15 1.1 19 2.2 6 0.7 10 0.7 

Computers .......................................... 13 1.3 10 1.7 12 1.1 24 1.4 

Arts..................................................... 12 1.0 18 2.1 37 1.4 8 0.9 

Chores/work ....................................... 11 1.0 5 0.9 2 0.5 16 1.1 

Telephone........................................... 4 0.6 2 0.7 # 0.1 9 0.9 

Talking to parent/care provider .......... 3 0.5 5 1.0 2 0.4 1 0.3 

# Rounds to zero. 

NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Home-schooled children are excluded. Due to multiple response, children who had more than one 

type of arrangement are reported under each type. Parents were asked what their children spent most of their time doing, and 

could have named up to three activities for each reported arrangement. All reported activities are included. Includes arrangements 

regularly scheduled at least once each month. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Before- and After-School Programs and 

Activities Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2001. 

Findings suggest that children were engaged in a variety of activities in their arrangements, ranging 

from more structured, academic and cultural activities to less structured, free play and relaxing activities. 

However, differences in reported activities across arrangement types were not pronounced. In fact, 

children were doing remarkably similar things in relative care, nonrelative care, center- or school-based 

programs, and self-care, with a few notable exceptions. 

 

15 Categories were developed following a field test that elicited open-ended responses to the question of children’s activities within arrangements. 

An “other” category was included in the interview, but those results are not presented here. Between 3 and 5 percent of households with 

children in relative care, nonrelative care, center- or school-based programs, and self-care reported “other” activities. Table 5 includes 

arrangements regularly scheduled at least once each month. 
25

Overall, homework, school-related, or other educational activities were more commonly cited by 

parents than all other activities for children in relative care and self-care, although it should be kept in 

mind that these results represent what parents believe their children are doing in their absence. For 

nonrelative care, homework, school-related, or other educational activities (56 percent), television, 

videos, video games, or listening to music (48 percent), outdoor play, activities, or sports (49 percent), 

and indoor play (46 percent) were cited most often compared with other activities. Homework, schoolrelated, or other educational activities were more commonly cited for relative care arrangements (69 

percent) than for nonrelative care (56 percent) and center- or school-based program arrangements (56 

percent). 

The next most commonly cited activity for relative care and self-care was watching television or 

videos, playing computer games, and/or listening to music. This was also high on the list of activities in 

nonrelative care. These activities were cited by parents of 59 percent of children who were in the regular 

care of a relative, 48 percent of those whose children who were in nonrelative care, and 58 percent of 

those with children in regular self-care. Parents of only 10 percent of children cited these activities as 

being part of center- or school-based programs. 

Children also appear to be spending some of their time playing in their after-school arrangements 

(not including playing computer games). For example, outdoor play, activities, or sports were activities 

of 36 percent of children in relative care, 49 percent of children in nonrelative care, 49 percent of children 

in center- or school-based programs, and 24 percent of children in self-care. Similarly, indoor play was 

an activity of 27 percent of children in relative care, 46 percent of children in nonrelative care, 35 percent 

of children in center- or school-based programs, and 11 percent of children in self-care. The relatively 

lower percentages of children engaged in play in self-care may reflect the fact that most children in selfcare are older, and play is an activity that parents generally ascribe to younger children. In addition, play 

is not necessarily an activity that parents want their children to do while taking care of themselves. 

Finally, it should be noted that children were more likely to take part in activities related to the arts within 

center- or school-based programs compared with relative care, nonrelative care, and self-care. 
26

 3.1.2 Locations of Before- and After-School Arrangements and Time in Transit 

Figure 2 shows that 52 percent of children in before- and/or after-school relative care arrangements 

were cared for in the child’s home, 45 percent in another home, and 3 percent in both locations. Twentyeight percent of children in nonrelative care arrangements were cared for in the child’s home, compared 

with 69 percent in another home, and 3 percent in both locations. Children in center- or school-based 

programs were most likely to be cared for in a public school (55 percent) (figure 3). However, children 

also attended programs located in private schools (11 percent), their own buildings (11 percent), 

community centers (10 percent), churches or other places of worship (6 percent), and in other locations 

(7 percent). 

Figure 2. Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children in before- and/or after-school relative 

and nonrelative care whose arrangements (scheduled at least monthly) were located in their 

own homes, another person’s home, or both: 2001 

52

45

3

28

69

3

0

20

40

60

80

100

Own home Other home Both/varies

Percent

Relative care

Nonrelative care

NOTE: Standard errors are as follows: relative care own home, 1.6; relative care other home, 1.7; relative care both/varies, 0.6; 

nonrelative care own home, 2.4; nonrelative care other home, 2.5; nonrelative care both/varies, 0.6. If more than one relative or 

nonrelative care arrangement was reported, only the one with the most hours is represented. Children who had more than one 

type of arrangement are reported under each type. Includes arrangements regularly scheduled at least once each month. Homeschooled children are excluded. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Before- and After-School Programs and 

Activities Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2001. 
27

Figure 3. Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children attending before- and/or after-school 

center- or school-based programs (scheduled at least monthly) in various locations: 2001

Community center

10%

Church or 

place of 

worship

6%

Other

7%

Its own 

building

11%

Private 

school

11%

Public 

school

55%

NOTE: Standard errors are as follows: public school, 1.4; private school, 0.8; its own building, 1.0; community center, 0.9; 

church or place of worship, 0.7; other, 0.8. If more than one center- or school-based program was reported, only the one with the 

most hours is represented. Includes arrangements regularly scheduled at least once each month. Home-schooled children are 

excluded.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Before- and After-School Programs and 

Activities Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2001.

Parents with children in self-care after school were asked where their children usually spent that 

time (and could report more than one place).16 Parents of 88 percent of these children said that their 

children spent at least part of their self-care time after school in the home (figure 4). Twenty-two percent 

of children were said to spend time in self-care at home but outside, and 10 percent spent time at a 

friend’s home. Smaller percentages were reported as spending time in various other locations. 

Overall, children spent about 10 minutes on average traveling (both to and from) between home 

and relative care, 8 minutes between home and nonrelative care, and 11 minutes between home and 

center- or school-based programs. On average, children spent about 15 minutes in transit (both to and 

from) between school and relative care, 13 minutes between school and nonrelative care, and 12 minutes 

 

16 Tests conducted before the survey was fielded indicated that there was little variation in the location of where children cared for themselves

before school hours. By and large, most children in before-school self-care are in their own homes. Detailed questions about location of selfcare during before-school hours were not included in the final questionnaire and are not discussed in the report. 
28

between school and center- or school-based programs (in cases where programs were not located at 

children’s schools) (not shown in tables).17 

Figure 4. Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children in self-care (scheduled at least monthly) 

who spent at least some of their time after school in various locations: 2001 

88

22

5

10

4 4 2 3 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

Home/

inside

Home/

outside

Relative's 

home

Friend's 

home

Neighbor's 

home

Public 

place

Community 

center

Outdoors A school

Percent

NOTE: Standard errors are as follows: home/inside, 1.1; home/outside, 1.4; relative’s home, 0.8; friend’s home, 1.0; neighbor’s

home, 0.5; public place, 0.6; community center, 0.6; outdoors, 0.6; a school, 0.6. Home-schooled children are excluded. Detail 

does not sum to total due to multiple response. Includes arrangements regularly scheduled at least once each month. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Before- and After-School Programs and 

Activities Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2001. 

 3.1.3 Center- or School-Based Before- and After-School Programs: Sign Up or Drop In 

Parents whose children attended center- or school-based programs in 2001 were asked whether 

their children were signed up to attend their before- and/or after-school programs on particular days and 

times. Overall, 80 percent of children were signed up in advance to attend their programs on a preset 

 

17 Standard errors: between home and relative care, 0.5; between home and nonrelative care, 0.5; between home and a center- or school-based 

program, 0.4; between school and relative care, 0.4; between school and nonrelative care, 0.6; between school and a center- or school-based 

program, 0.6. 
29

schedule (not shown in tables).18 The remainder attended their programs on a “drop in” basis, meaning 

that the children attended the programs weekly or monthly, but at varying times. 

 3.1.4 Child-to-Adult Ratios in Before- and After-School Arrangements 

Another means of distinguishing among arrangements as well as serving as an indicator of 

arrangement quality is the ratio of children to adults (National Health and Safety Performance Standards 

Guidelines for Out-of-Home Child Care Programs 1992). Parents were asked how many children and 

adults were present in their child’s relative care, nonrelative care, and center- or school-based program 

arrangements. Table 6 presents the mean number of children and adults as well as the mean number of 

children per adult in the three types of arrangements. 

Table 6. Mean number of adults and children in kindergarten through eighth-grade for children in 

before- and/or after-school relative, nonrelative, and center- or school-based program 

arrangements (scheduled at least monthly), and mean child to adult ratio: 2001 

Relative care Nonrelative care Center- or school-based 

Characteristic programs 

Estimate s.e. Estimate s.e. Estimate s.e. 

 Total children (thousands) ................................ 6,420 203 2,633 114 6,970 184 

 

Mean number of children.................................... 2.5 0.1 4.2 0.2 22.1 0.6 

Mean number of adults ....................................... 1.7 # 1.5 0.1 3.3 0.1 

Mean number of children per adult..................... 1.7 # 3.0 0.1 8.1 0.2 

# Rounds to 0.0. 

NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Home-schooled children are excluded. Includes arrangements regularly scheduled at least once per

month. Due to multiple response, children who had more than one type of arrangement are reported under each type. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Before- and After-School Programs and 

Activities Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2001. 

There were, on average, 2.5 children present in relative care arrangements, compared with 4.2 

children in nonrelative care arrangements, and 22.1 in center- or school-based programs. There was a 

mean of 1.7 adults in relative care arrangements, 1.5 in nonrelative care arrangements, and 3.3 in centeror school-based programs. The child-to-adult ratio was lower on average for children in relative care 

arrangements (1.7 children per adult) than for children in nonrelative care arrangements (3.0 children per 

adult), which was in turn lower than for children in center- or school-based programs (8.1 children per 

adult). These average ratios compare favorably to the National Health and Safety Performance Standards 

 

18 Standard error: 1.3. 
30

Guidelines for Out-of-Home Child Care Programs (1992), which recommended no more than 8 5-year 

olds, 10 6- to 8-year-olds, and 12 9- to 12-year-olds per adult. 

3.1.5 Characteristics of Before - and After-School Relative and Nonrelative Care Providers

Children in before- and/or after-school relative care tended to have care providers that were 40 

years old or more in 2001; 31 percent of their relative care providers were between the ages of 40 and 59, 

and 35 percent were 60 or older, compared to 18 percent who were 18 or younger and 16 percent who 

were between 19 and 39 years old (figure 5). Parents were also asked about the age of their children’s 

nonrelative care providers, specifically whether the nonrelative care providers were 18 or older; parents of 

only 2 percent of children reported that their children’s nonrelative care providers were under 18 (not 

shown in tables).19

Figure 5. Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children in before- and/or after-school relative

care (scheduled at least monthly),by age of care providers: 2001

18 or younger

18%

40 to 59 years old

31%

60 and older

35%

19 to 39 

years old

16%

NOTE: Standard errors are as follows: 18 or younger, 1.3; 19–39, 1.2; 40–59, 1.5; 60 and older, 1.7. If more than one relative 

care arrangement was reported, only the one with the most hours is represented. Includes arrangements regularly scheduled at 

least once each month. Home-schooled children are excluded. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Before- and After-School Programs and 

Activities Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2001.

 

19 Standard error: 0.6.
31

Children in relative care were most likely to be cared for by grandmothers (52 percent) (figure 6). 

Approximately one-fifth (21 percent) of children were cared for by siblings (9 percent were brothers, and 

12 percent were sisters).20 Focusing on those in sibling care, 14 percent were cared for by siblings 

between the ages of 10 and 12, 36 percent were cared for by siblings between 13 and 15, 32 percent were 

cared for by siblings between 16 and 18, and 18 percent were cared for by siblings who were 19 or older 

(figure 7). Overall, less than 1 percent of all children were cared for by a sibling between ages 10 and 12 

(not shown in tables).21

Figure 6. Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children in before- and/or after-school relative 

care (scheduled at least monthly), by relationship of care providers: 2001 

52

6

13

2

21

7

0

20

40

60

80

100

Grandmother Grandfather Aunt Uncle Brother or

sister

Another 

relative

Percent

NOTE: Standard errors are as follows: grandmother, 1.7; grandfather, 0.7; aunt, 1.0; uncle, 0.5; brother or sister, 1.4; another 

relative, 0.8. If more than one relative care arrangement was reported, only the one with the most hours is represented. Includes 

arrangements regularly scheduled at least once each month. Detail does not sum to total due to rounding. Home-schooled 

children are excluded. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Before- and After-School Programs and 

Activities Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2001. 

 

20 Standard errors: brothers, 0.9; sisters, 1.0. 

21 Standard error: 0.1. 
32

Figure 7. Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children with before- and/or after-school 

sibling care providers (scheduled at least monthly), by age of sibling: 2001

10 to 12 years old

14%

16 to 18 years old

32%

19 or older

18%

13 to 15 years old

36%

NOTE: Standard errors are as follows: 10–12 years old, 3.4; 13–15 years old, 3.4; 16–18 years old, 2.9; 19 and older, 2.7. 

Home-schooled children are excluded. If more than one relative care arrangement was reported, only the one with the most hours 

is represented. Includes arrangements regularly scheduled at least once each month.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Before- and After-School Programs and 

Activities Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2001.

3.1.6 Cost of Before - and After-School Arrangements to Parents 

Parents of 19 percent of children in before- and/or after-school relative care reported a fee (paid 

either by them or some other person or agency) for their children’s relative care arrangements, and 

parents of 72 percent of children in nonrelative care reported a fee for their children’s nonrelative care 

(table 7). Parents of 58 percent of children reported a fee for their children’s center- or school-based 

programs. On average, for those children whose arrangements required a fee, parents paid $5.60 per 

hour for relative care, $7.90 per hour for nonrelative care, and $5.60 per hour for center- or school-based 

programs. No statistically significant differences were detected for relative care, nonrelative care, and 

center-based programs based on whether the costs were for one child only or more than one child, and if 

the family received financial help from outside of the household (table 7). However, for nonrelative care, 

households without outside financial help paid more on average if that care was for more than one child 

than if it was for one child only ($12.20 versus $4.20). 
33

Table 7. Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children in before- and/or after-school relative, 

nonrelative, and center- or school-based program arrangements (scheduled at least monthly) 

that required a fee, and average cost per hour paid by households: 2001 

Relative care Nonrelative care Center- or school-based 

programs 

Estimate s.e. Estimate s.e. Estimate s.e. 

 

 Total children (thousands) .................................... 6,276 200 2,565 113 6,567 173 

 

Arrangement has a fee1 ........................................... 19% 1.4 72% 2.4 58% 1.6 

 

 Total children (thousands) in arrangements 

with a fee ............................................................

1,053 92 1,447 105 2,465 142 

 

Average cost per hour (in dollars) to households2 

Total ................................................................... $5.60 0.5 $7.90 0.6 $5.60 0.4 

Without financial help from outside of 

household 

 

Cost for one child only................................... 4.70 0.5 4.20 0.4 5.40 0.4 

Cost includes more than one child ................. 6.50 0.8 12.20 1.1 10.00 3.4 

With financial help from outside of 

household 

 

Cost for one child only................................... 3.20 0.9 ‡ ‡ 4.50 1.3 

Cost includes more than one child ................. 6.00 3.0 ‡ ‡ 5.10 1.8 

‡ Reporting standard not met. 

1 Children were excluded from the analysis if one arrangement of a type required a fee and a second or third did not, because 

child-level estimates required that all cases be unambiguously classified as having a fee or not having a fee. 2 Children were excluded from the analysis if one arrangement of a type involved financial help and a second or third did not, or

if one arrangement of a type involved more than one child and another did not. This is because child-level estimates required 

unambiguous classification of cases in the various categories involving cost to households. 

NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Home-schooled children are excluded. Due to multiple response, children who had more than one 

type of arrangement are reported under each type. Includes arrangements regularly scheduled at least once each month. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Before- and After-School Programs and 

Activities Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2001. 

3.2 Before- and After-School Activities 

The foregoing analyses addressed activities that take place within nonparental care and center- or 

school-based program arrangements. Many children also spend their out-of-school time in organized 

activities such as sports, arts, clubs, and community service that are not associated with such 

arrangements. In some cases, children participate in these activities not just for enjoyment or enrichment, 

but also so that their parents, who are often working, may be assured that they are supervised by adults in 

a safe setting. Many before- and after-school activities are sponsored by children’s schools, while others 

are sponsored by other agents, such as community organizations and churches. This section presents 

results regarding overall participation rates in before- and after-school activities in 2001, the specific 
34

types of activities in which children participated, whether activities were sponsored by children’s schools, 

and whether activities were used to cover hours when parents needed adult supervision for their children. 

Parents were asked whether their children currently participated in before- or after-school activities 

such as team sports, music lessons, scouts, or religious education on weekdays on a regular basis. 

Although participation is ordinarily fluid and changing (for instance, according to season), at the time of 

the survey 38 percent of children in kindergarten through eighth grade were involved in before- or afterschool activities on a regularly scheduled basis at least once each week (not shown in tables). Of these, 1 

percent had activities before school only, 93 percent participated in activities only after school, and 6 

percent had activities both before and after school (not shown in tables).22 

 3.2.1 Kinds of Before- and After-School Activities 

Next, parents of children who currently participated in activities out of school (either primarily for 

supervision or enrichment) were asked whether their children had participated in each of a series of 

specific activities since the beginning of the school year. Results shown in figure 8 reveal that sports 

were the most common before- and after-school activities for children in each grade category (63 to 

75 percent). For sixth through eighth graders, the next most reported were religious activities 

(52 percent), followed by arts, like music, dance, or painting (40 percent). For kindergarten through 

second and third through fifth graders, religious activities (40 and 47 percent) and arts (33 and 42 percent) 

were next most often cited by parents.23 

As children mature and their interests evolve, the kinds of before- and after-school activities in 

which they participate change. For example, sixth through eighth graders were more likely than 

kindergarten through second and third through fifth graders to have participated in sports (75 percent vs. 

63 and 69 percent); clubs, like yearbook, debate, or book club (16 percent vs. 5 and 10 percent); academic 

activities, such as tutoring or math lab (19 percent vs. 9 and 13 percent); and community service 

(26 percent vs. 8 and 13 percent). They were less likely than kindergarten through second and third 

through fifth graders, on the other hand, to have participated in scouts (14 percent vs. 28 and 27 percent). 

Third through fifth graders were more likely than kindergarten through second graders to have 

participated in clubs, community service, and religious activities. 

 

22 Standard errors are as follows: before school only, 0.3; after school only, 0.5; both before and after school, 0.5. 

23 However, for K–second graders, there was no significant difference between participation in arts (33 percent) and scouts (28 percent). 
35

Figure 8. Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children who participated in various beforeand/or after-school activities (scheduled at least monthly) since the beginning of the school 

year, by grade: 2001 

33

63

5

9 8

40

28

42

69

10

13 13

47

27

40

75

16

19

26

52

14

0

20

40

60

80

100

Arts Sports Clubs Academic

activities

Community

services

Religious

activities

Scouts

Percent

NOTE: Standard errors are as follows: arts: Kñ2; 1.6, 3ñ5; 1.5, 6ñ8; 1.2; sports: Kñ2; 2.0, 3ñ5; 1.7, 6ñ8; 1.0; clubs: Kñ2; 0.8, 3ñ

5; 1.1, 6ñ8; 0.8; academic activities: Kñ2; 1.1, 3ñ5; 1.0, 6ñ8; 0.9; community service: Kñ2; 0.9, 3ñ5; 1.2, 6ñ8; 1.0; religious

activities: Kñ2; 1.7, 3ñ5; 1.9, 6ñ8; 1.0; scouts: Kñ2; 1.7, 3ñ5; 1.5, 6ñ8; 0.7. Home-schooled children are excluded. Includes all 

regularly scheduled activities whether for enrichment or supervision. Includes arrangements regularly scheduled at least once 

each month. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Before- and After-School Programs and 

Activities Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2001. 

K-2nd grade 

3rd-5th grade 

6th-8th grade 
36

 3.2.2 Activities Sponsored by Schools 

Parents were asked whether any of their children’s specific before- or after-school activities were 

sponsored by their children’s schools. Not surprisingly, parents of 83 percent of children said that at least 

some of their children’s club activities were sponsored by their children’s schools, and 74 percent of 

academic activities by children were sponsored at least in part by children’s schools (figure 9). Most arts, 

sports, and community service activities for kindergarten through eighth graders were sponsored by other 

organizations. 

Figure 9. Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children whose schools sponsored at least some 

of the before- and/or after-school activities (scheduled at least monthly) in which they 

participated: 2001 

38

34

83

74

35

0

20

40

60

80

100

Arts Sports Clubs Academic

activities

Community

services

Percent

NOTE: Standard errors are as follows: arts, 1.3; sports, 0.9; clubs, 2.2; academic activities, 2.1; community service, 1.8; religious 

activities, 4.1. Home-schooled children are excluded. Includes all regularly scheduled activities whether for enrichment or 

supervision. Includes arrangements regularly scheduled at least once each month. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Before- and After-School Programs and 

Activities Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2001. 
37

 3.2.3 Activities that Help Provide Adult Supervision 

Children may participate in before- and after-school activities out of personal interest, and such 

activities help to broaden and develop their skills and knowledge. At the same time, many working 

parents may use such activities to ensure that their children are supervised by adults during out-of-school 

time. Parents were asked whether their children’s participation in before- and after-school activities 

helped to cover hours when they needed adult supervision for their children. Overall, 7 percent of all 

children participated in before- or after-school activities used for supervision (and enrichment), compared 

with 31 percent of children who participated for enrichment only (figure 10). Of the 38 percent of 

children who currently participated in regularly scheduled weekly before- or after-school activities, 

parents of about one-fifth (19 percent) reported that their children’s activities helped to cover hours when 

they needed adult supervision for them (not shown in tables).24 This suggests that most children’s 

participation in before- and after-school activities was primarily for their own interest and enrichment and 

not simply so that they would be under the supervision of adults. 

Figure 10. Percent of kindergarten through eighth-grade children who participated in before- and/or 

after-school activities (scheduled at least weekly) used for enrichment only or for 

enrichment and adult supervision: 2001 

Activities for

enrichment and

supervision

7%

Activities for

enrichment only

31%

No activities

62%

NOTE: Standard errors are as follows: no activities, 0.6; activities used for enrichment only, 0.6; activities used for enrichment 

and supervision, 0.4. Only activities scheduled weekly were included. Home-schooled children are excluded. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Before- and After-School Programs and 

Activities Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2001.

 

24 Standard error: 1.0. 
38

This page is intentionally left blank. 
39

4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

Results of the 2001 NHES Before- and After-School Survey provide some insight into the complex 

and varied ways kindergarten through eighth graders in the nation spend their time out of school. Some 

parents place their children in the care of a relative or a nonrelative in a home setting. Others find adult 

supervision and safe settings for their children in center- or school-based programs or organized activities 

that are also aimed toward their enrichment or enjoyment. Still other parents allow their children to be 

responsible for themselves during out-of-school time. In some cases, parents must piece together a 

patchwork of arrangements in order to meet the contingencies of availability, cost, transportation, and 

other factors. Children may spend from a few minutes to many hours each week in their various 

nonparental arrangements. 

Overall, 20 percent of children were in regularly scheduled nonparental arrangements before school 

in 2001, and 50 percent were in nonparental arrangements after school. The three most common afterschool arrangements for children were relative care (17 percent), center- or school-based programs (19 

percent), and self-care (13 percent). Fewer kindergarten through eighth graders were in the care of a 

nonrelative (6 percent) or in activities used for supervision (7 percent) after school. Of those children 

who had at least some nonparental arrangements before or after school, almost one-third were in more 

than one regularly scheduled arrangement. 

Overall, kindergarten through eighth graders who had regular weekly scheduled arrangements 

(before and/or after school) spent on average 10.4 hours per week in them, or about 2 hours per day. This 

is consonant with the findings of Brimhall, Reaney, and West (1999) that children in kindergarten through 

third grade with some form of nonparental arrangements before and/or after school spent an average of 14 

hours per week in them. Children with regular weekly scheduled before-school arrangements spent an 

average of 4.7 hours per week in them, and children with after-school arrangements spent on average 9.0 

hours per week in them. On average, children spent more hours per week after school in relative care and 

nonrelative care arrangements (9.7 and 9.5 hours) than in center- or school-based programs (7.5 hours), 

activities arranged for adult supervision (4.2 hours), and self-care (4.8 hours). 

This complexity of the state of children’s out-of-school time is further compounded by variation 

across child and family characteristics. In general, Black children, children from households with one 

parent or nonparent guardians, and children with mothers who work full time were more likely than their 
40

counterparts to have any nonparental arrangements before school, and they were also more likely to have 

any nonparental arrangements after school. With respect to participation in specific arrangement types, 

younger children (kindergarten through second grade) were more likely than older ones (sixth through 

eighth grade) to be in the care of a relative, nonrelative, or in a center- or school-based program before 

and after school,25 rather than care for themselves during out-of-school time. Thirty percent of children in 

sixth through eighth grade were in regular self-care after school, compared with 8 percent of third through 

fifth graders and 2 percent of kindergarten through second graders. The finding that older children are 

more likely than younger ones to be in self-care is supported by previous research (Casper, Hawkins and 

O’Connell 1994; Todd, Albrecht, and Coleman 1990). 

There were also differences between racial/ethnic subgroups. Similar to findings from previous 

research (Brimhall, Reaney, and West 1999), Black children were more likely than White and Hispanic 

children to be cared for by a relative both before and after school. Unlike previous research, which 

indicated that White children were more likely to be in self-care than other children (Todd, Albrecht, and 

Coleman 1990), Black children were found to be in self-care at higher rates than White and Hispanic 

children. They were also more likely to participate in center- or school based programs after school. 

Variation was less pronounced for some socioeconomic indicators such as parents’ highest level of 

education and household income, particularly for after-school hours. For example, while previous 

research has provided mixed results on the relationship between socioeconomic indicators and self-care 

(Todd, Albrecht, and Coleman 1990; Vandell and Ramanan 1991; and Pettit et al. 1997), no relationship 

was detected between household income and the use of self-care for children after school. 

Two characteristics that were consistently related to nonparental arrangements were family type 

and mother’s employment status. Generally, single-parent households and ones where mothers worked 

full time were more likely to have before- and after-school arrangements for their children. This finding 

is consistent with that of Brimhall, Reaney, and West 1999, that children in kindergarten through second 

grade living in single-parent homes or who had mothers who were employed full time were more likely to 

participate in after-school arrangements than children who lived with two parents or whose mothers were 

not in the labor force. The current study also showed that children from single-parent households and 

households with full-time working mothers were more likely than their counterparts to be in self-care 

 

25 There is evidence that the number of older children in programs is increasing. In 1991, less than 1 percent of 7th and eighth graders were in 

center- or school-based programs after school (Seppanen et al. 1993). In 2001, 14 percent of 6th through eighth graders were in such programs. 
41

after school, findings supported by other research (Brandon 1999; Casper, Hawkins, and O-Connell 1994; 

Todd, Albrecht, and Coleman 1990). 

NHES:2001 also provides data on a variety of salient characteristics of the nonparental 

arrangements of kindergarten through eighth graders, including children’s activities in their arrangements, 

location and cost of arrangements, characteristics of relative and nonrelative care providers, and numbers 

of children and adults present in different arrangement types. According to parents’ reports, many 

children were engaged in education-related activities (such as homework) across arrangement types. 

Many were also spending time watching television, playing video games, and listening to music in their 

relative care, nonrelative care, and self-care arrangements. Children in school- or center-based programs 

were less likely to spend time watching television than children in other arrangements. 

As for location, children in relative care were more likely to be cared for in their own homes than 

children in nonrelative care, and children in self-care were very likely (88 percent) to spend at least some 

of their time in their homes rather than other places, such as other homes, public places, community 

centers, schools, or outdoors. The majority of children who had center- or school-based arrangements in 

2001 had them in public schools (55 percent). 

Many children in relative care (52 percent) were cared for by their grandmothers. Another large 

group of children in relative care were cared for by their siblings (21 percent). Most of the children’s 

sibling care providers were teenagers, but some were between 10 and 12 years old. With respect to cost, 

parents of 19 percent of children reported a fee (paid either by them or some other person or agency) for 

their children’s relative care arrangements, while parents of 72 percent of children reported a fee for 

nonrelative care, and parents of 58 percent reported a fee for their children’s center- or school-based 

programs. The cost of nonrelative care was higher on average than the cost of relative care and center- or 

school-based programs. Finally, the mean number of children per adult within arrangements ranged from 

1.7 for relative care, to 3.0 for nonrelative care, to 8.1 for center- or school-based programs. 

The variability in children’s experiences in nonparental arrangements in 2001 suggests how parents 

in different circumstances managed the care of their school-aged children. Future research using data 

from the ASPA-NHES:2001 could examine topics such as parental satisfaction with current 

arrangements, difficulties finding adequate arrangements, characteristics of arrangements that parents find 

important, and reasons for choosing nonparental care, among others. In addition, further analyses of the 

ASPA-NHES:2001 data set could include multivariate tests to examine the relationships between 
42

independent variables with respect to children’s participation in arrangements. For example, multivariate 

tests might shed light on whether the greater overall participation of Black children in nonparental 

arrangements was related to other factors, such as urbanicity, socioeconomic status, and mother’s 

employment status. 
43

REFERENCES 

Brandon, P.D. (1999). Determinants of self care arrangements among school-age children. Children and 

Youth Services Review, 21 (6): 497-520. 

Brick, J.M., Burke, J., and West. J. (1992). Telephone undercoverage bias of 14- to 21-year-olds and 3- 

to 5-year olds. NCES Technical Report 92-101. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 

Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Brimhall, D.W., Reaney, L.M., and West, J. (1999). Participation of kindergartners through third-graders 

in before- and after-school care. Statistics in Brief. NCES 1999-013. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Casper, L.M., Hawkins, M., and O’Connell, M. (1994). Who’s minding the kids? Childcare 

arrangements Fall 1991. Current Population Reports, P70–36. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Commerce, U.S. Bureau of the Census. 

Dynarski, M., Moore, M., Mullens, J., Gleason, P., James-Burdumy, S., Rosenberg, L., Pistorino, C., 

Silva, T., Deke, J., Mansfield, W., Heaviside, S., and Levy, D. (2003). When schools stay open 

late: The national evaluation of the 21st-century learning centers program, first year findings. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 

Fields, J., Smith, K., Bass, L.E., and Lugaila, T. (2001). A child’s day: Home, school, and play (Selected 

indicators of child well-being). Current Population Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Commerce, U.S. Bureau of the Census. 

Hagedorn, M., Montaquila, J., Nolin, M.J., Kim, K., Kleiner, B., Waits, T., Chapman, C., and Chandler, 

K. (2003). NHES:2001 data file user’s manual, volume 2, NCES 2002-140. U.S. Department of 

Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. 

Hofferth, S.L., Brayfield, A., Deich, S., and Holcomb, P. (1991). National child care survey. Urban 

Institute Report 91-5. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. 

Kalton, G., and Kasprzyk, D. (1986). The treatment of missing survey data. Survey Methodology, 12 (1): 

1-16. 

Korn, E.L., and Graubard, B.I. (1999). Analysis of health surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Miller, R. (1966). Simultaneous Statistical Inference. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 67-70. 

National Health and Safety Performance Standards Guidelines for Out-of-Home Child Care Programs. 

1992. Available online: http://nrc.uchsc.edu/welcome.htm. 

Nolin, M.J., Montaquila, J., Kim, K., Kleiner, B., Lennon, J., Chapman, C., Creighton, S., Bielick, S. 

(2000). 1999 National Household Education Survey: NHES:1999 Methodology Report. NCES 

2000-078. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics. 

Nolin, M.J., Montaquila, J., Nicchitta, P., Brock Roth, S., Hagedorn, M. and Chapman, C. (forthcoming). 

National Household Education Surveys of 2001: Methodology Report. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 
44

Pettit, G.S., Laird, R.D., Bates, J.E., and Dodge, K. (1997). Patterns of after-school care in middle 

childhood: Risk factors and developmental outcomes. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43 (3): 515-

538. 

Posner, J.K., and Vandell, D.L. (1994). Low-income children’s after-school care: Are there beneficial 

effects of after-school programs? Child Development, 65: 440-456. 

Seppanen, P.S., Love, J.M., deVries, D.K., Bernstein, L., Seligson, M., Marx, F., and Kisker, E.E. (1993). 

National study of before- and after-school programs. Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Education, Office of Policy and Planning. 

Smith, K. (2000). Who’s minding the kids? Child care arrangements: fall 1995. Current Population 

Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Bureau of the Census. 

Todd, C.M., Albrecht, K.M., and Coleman, M. (1990). School-age child care: A continuum of options. 

Journal of Home Economics, 82 (1): 46-52. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2001). Employment characteristics of families in 2000. Available online: 

http://stats.bls.gov/newsrels.htm. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1999). Current Population Survey (CPS), October. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Available online: 

http://www.census.gov/apsd/techdoc/cps/cpsoct99.pdf 

U.S. Department of Commerce. (1992). Census of Population and Housing, 1990: Summary Tape File 3 

[machine-readable data files], Technical Documentation. Washington, DC: Bureau of the 

Census. 

Vandell, D.L., and Ramanan, J. (1991). Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: Choices 

in after-school care and child development. Developmental Psychology, 27 (4): 637-643. 

Wolter, K. (1985). Introduction to Variance Estimation. New York: Springer-Verlag. 
A-1

Appendix 

Survey Methodology 
A-2

This page is intentionally left blank. 
A-3

SURVEY METHODOLOGY 

The National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES) is a data collection system of the 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the U.S. Department of Education that is designed to 

address a wide range of education-related issues. It provides descriptive data on the educational activities 

of the United States population and offers policy-makers, researchers, and educators a variety of statistics 

on the condition of education in the U.S. The NHES has been conducted in the spring of 1991, 1993, 

1995, 1996, and 1999. Survey topics have included adult education and lifelong learning (1991, 1995, 

1999, 2001), civic involvement (1996, 1999), early childhood education and school readiness (1991, 

1993, 1995, 1999, 2001), household library use (1996), parent and family involvement in education 

(1996, 1999), and school safety and discipline (1993). 

The 2001 administration of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES:2001) is 

composed of three telephone surveys developed by NCES and conducted by Westat. Data collection took 

place January 2 through April 14 of 2001. When appropriately weighted, the sample for each survey is 

nationally representative of all children or all civilian, noninstitutionalized persons in the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia. The sample of households was selected using random-digit-dial (RDD) methods, 

and the data were collected using computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) technology. This 

section provides a brief description of the study methodology; further details will appear in the National 

Household Education Surveys of 2001: Methodology Report (Nolin et al. forthcoming) and the 

NHES:2001Data File User’s Manual (Hagedorn et al. 2003). 

In the NHES:2001, a set of screening items was administered to an adult member of each 

household contacted. Household members were enumerated, age and grade information was collected on 

all children newborn through age 15 in order to determine eligibility for the study, and an appropriate 

respondent for the interview was selected. Children age 15 and younger who were enrolled in 

kindergarten through eighth grade were eligible to be sampled as subjects of the Before- and After-School 

Survey in the 2001 National Household Education Surveys Program (ASPA). The survey was 

administered to the parent or guardian living in the household who was identified by the Screener 

respondent as most knowledgeable about the care and education of the child. In 77 percent of the cases, 

this person was the mother of the sampled child. 
A-4

In the ASPA interview, information was collected about household and child characteristics, 

current school status and school characteristics, participation in several types of before- and after-school 

arrangements, including self-care, parent perceptions of quality of arrangements and factors influencing 

their choice of arrangement(s), and parent/guardian and household characteristics. Questions about 

participation in the different arrangement types were asked in a particular order (i.e., relative care, 

nonrelative care, center-based programs, before- and after-school activities, and self-care) so as to 

increase validity in reporting and minimize order effects. Results on the various arrangements were 

presented in the tables, figures, and text of this report in the same order in which they were asked about in 

the ASPA interview. 

Multiple attempts were made to complete interviews with the selected parent/guardian respondent 

if he or she was not available when the child was initially sampled as the subject of an interview, and 

interviews were conducted in both English and Spanish. This report is based on data from the 9,583 

completed ASPA interviews. 

Central to the mission of The National Center for Education Statistics is a commitment to 

protecting the identity of respondents to its various data collections. Surveys that make up the National 

Household Education Surveys program are designed to protect respondent identity. This design includes 

an extensive respondent disclosure risk analysis. As in past NHES collections, results from this analysis 

led to modifications to some data included on the data files. These confidentiality edits modify 

respondent data in order to prevent positive identification of individual respondents. Tests on the 

modified data were conducted to assure that the data remain accurate and useful. 

Response Rates 

In the NHES:2001, Screener Interviews were completed with 48,385 households, yielding a 

weighted Screener response rate of 69.2 percent. Of the 11,000 eligible children sampled for the ASPA 

Survey, interviews were completed with parents of 9,583 children. When weighted, this is a completion 

rate of 86.4 percent. Thus, the overall weighted response rate for the ASPA interview was 58.1 percent 

(the product of the Screener response rate and the ASPA interview completion rate). 

In order to minimize the effect of unit (interview) nonresponse on the survey estimates, 

adjustments to the weights were made at the household and child levels. These adjustments were based 
A-5

upon CHAID analyses conducted to select nonresponse adjustment cells for the Screener and the ASPA 

interview; the factors associated with response propensity were consistent with those in prior NHES 

surveys. Following the nonresponse adjustment, the final raking procedure further adjusted for residual 

nonresponse effects as well as for coverage bias. Bias analyses conducted for the Parent-NHES:1999 

survey, which included the ASPA population and used similar adjustment procedures, indicated no 

significant response bias in the estimates examined (Nolin et al. forthcoming). Estimates from the ASPA 

were compared to estimates from the Current Population Survey and prior NHES surveys where possible 

to assess the reasonableness of the estimates. 

Item nonresponse (i.e., the failure to complete some items in an otherwise completed interview) 

was low for most items in the survey. Ninety-four percent of the items had a 90 percent or higher 

response rate. Eighty-six percent had a response rate of 95 percent or above, and 63 percent attained a 

response rate of 98 percent or above. Items that had a lower than 90 percent response rate were 

household income (89 percent), items ascertaining the number of weeks per month the child had 

nonparental arrangements (including self-care) that were less than weekly (71 to 89 percent), the amount 

of time in activities (86 to 88 percent), and some items related to the cost of arrangements (50 to 88 

percent). Items with very low response rates were frequently associated with second or third rather than 

primary arrangements. Consequently, few respondents were eligible to answer the question, so a very 

small number of missing cases account for a low response rate. This holds for items with less than a 95 

percent response rate also. For instance, only 62 respondents were eligible to be asked the number of 

weeks per month that the child was in self-care (73 percent item response rate), and only 4 were eligible 

to provide the unit of time for the cost of the fourth program in which the child participated (50 percent 

item response rate). Likewise, 30 respondents were eligible to report the age of the third relative care 

provider (93 percent item response rate); and 11, to name the activities the child participated in while at 

the fourth center- or school-based program (91 percent item response.) Items with missing data (i.e., 

“don’t know,” “refused,” or “not ascertained”) were imputed using a hot-deck procedure (Kalton and 

Kasprzyk 1986). The estimates in this report are based in part on imputed data. 

Data Reliability 

Although the NHES is designed to account for sampling error and minimize nonsampling error, 

estimates produced using data from the ASPA are subject to both types of error. Sampling errors occur 
A-6

because the data are collected from a sample rather than a census of the population. Nonsampling errors 

are made in the collection and processing of data. 

 Nonsampling Errors 

Nonsampling error is the term used to describe variations in the estimates that may be caused by 

population coverage limitations and data collection, processing, and reporting procedures. The sources of 

nonsampling errors are typically problems like unit and item nonresponse, the differences in respondents' 

interpretations of the meaning of the questions, response differences related to the particular time the 

survey was conducted, and mistakes in data preparation. Another potential source of nonsampling error is 

response bias. Response bias occurs when respondents systematically misreport information in a study 

(intentionally or unintentionally). One of the best known forms of response bias is social desirability 

bias, which occurs when respondents give what they believe is the socially desirable response. Although 

response bias may affect the accuracy of some survey estimates, including totals, if there are no 

systematic differences among specific groups under study in their tendency to give socially desirable 

responses, then comparisons of the different groups will accurately reflect differences among the groups. 

In general, it is difficult to identify and estimate either the amount of nonsampling error or the bias 

caused by this error. While this is an important issue for any survey, it is particularly problematic in RDD 

surveys because so little is known about the sampled telephone numbers with which contact has not been 

made. In the NHES:2001, efforts were made to prevent nonsampling errors from occurring and to 

compensate for them where possible. For instance, during the survey design phase, cognitive interviews 

were conducted to assess respondent comprehension of the questions and the sensitivity of the items. The 

CATI instrument was extensively tested, and a multi-cycle field test was conducted during which over 

700 Screeners and 340 ASPA interviews were conducted. Also, as explained above, weighting 

procedures are used to help reduce potential bias due to nonresponse. 

An important source of nonsampling error for a telephone survey is the failure to include persons 

who do not live in households with telephones. About 94 percent of students in kindergarten through 

eighth grade live in households with telephones (U.S. Department of Commerce 1999). Estimation 

procedures were used to help reduce the bias in the estimates associated with excluding the 6 percent who 

do not live in households with telephones (Brick, Burke, and West 1992). The sample was based on wired 

household telephone lines only and did not include wireless cellular phones. 
A-7

 Sampling Errors 

The sample of telephone households selected for the NHES:2001 is just one of many possible 

samples that could have been selected. Therefore, estimates produced from the NHES:2001 sample may 

differ from estimates that would have been produced from other samples. This type of variability is 

called sampling error because it arises from using a sample of households with telephones, rather than all 

households with telephones. 

The standard error is a measure of the variability due to sampling when estimating a statistic. 

Standard errors can be used as a measure of the precision expected from a particular sample. The 

probability that a population parameter obtained from a complete census count would differ from the 

sample estimate by less than 1 standard error is about 68 percent. The chance that the difference would 

be less than 1.65 standard errors is about 90 percent; and that the difference would be less than 1.96 

standard errors, about 95 percent. 

Complex sample designs result in data that violate some of the assumptions that are normally used 

to assess the statistical significance of results from a simple random sample. Frequently, the standard 

errors of the estimates from complex sample surveys are larger than would be expected if the sample was 

a simple random sample and the observations were independent and identically distributed random 

variables. Standard errors for estimates presented in this report were computed using a jackknife 

replication method (Wolter 1985). The jackknife variance estimator, (θ )ˆ v , generally takes the form 

( ) ( ) ∑( ) =

− − =

G

g

g G

G

v

1

2 ˆ ˆ 1 ˆθ θ θ , 

where 

θ

ˆ is the full-sample estimate of the population parameter θ , 

θ ( ) g

ˆ is the estimate of θ based on the observations included in the g-th replicate, 

and G is the total number of replicates formed. 

Eighty subsets of telephone numbers, each of approximately equal size and each representing the full 

sample, were constructed from the full sample of telephone numbers. Replicates were formed by deleting 

one subset at a time and adjusting the weights of persons in the other subsets accordingly. The estimates 

of interest were calculated from the full sample weight and from each of the replicates. The variation 

among the replicate estimates was used to estimate the standard errors for the full sample estimates. 
A-8

Standard errors for all of the estimates are presented in the tables of the report. These standard 

errors can be used to produce confidence intervals. For example, an estimated 19 percent of children in 

kindergarten through eighth grade participated in center- or school-based programs after school, and this 

estimate has an estimated standard error of 0.5. Therefore, the estimated 95 percent confidence interval 

for this statistic is approximately 18 to 20 percent (19 ± 1.96 (0.5)). That is, in 95 out of 100 samples 

from the same population of children, the percentage of children who are reported participating in centeror school-based programs would be approximately 18 to 20. 

 Statistical Tests 

All of the estimates in this report are based on weighting the observations using the probabilities of 

selection of the respondents and other adjustments to partially account for nonresponse and coverage 

bias.26 Weights were developed to produce unbiased and consistent estimates of the national totals. (For 

more details on weighting procedures, see the National Household Education Surveys of 2001: 

Methodology Report, Nolin et al. forthcoming and Korn and Graubard 1999.) Special procedures for 

estimating the statistical significance of the estimates were employed because the NHES:2001 data were 

collected using a complex sample design. 

The tests of significance used in this analysis are based on Student’s t statistics for the comparison 

of individual estimates and for bivariate relationships. To test the differences between estimates, 

unbiased estimates of standard errors were used, derived by jackknife replication methods. To test for a 

difference between two subgroups in the population proportion having a particular characteristic, say P1

versus P2 , the test statistic is computed as: 

[ ] ( ) [ ] ( ) 2

2

2

1

2 1

s.e. p s.e. p

p p T

+

− = , 

where pi is the estimated proportion of subgroup i (i = 1, 2) having the particular characteristic and 

( ) pi s.e. is the standard error of that estimate. 

 

26 The full sample weight for the ASPA is FSWT. 
A-9

For the aforementioned comparison, the decision rule is to reject the null hypothesis (i.e., that there is no 

difference between the two groups in the population in terms of the proportion having the characteristic) 

if 

df

T t ;

2

> α , where 

df

t ;

2

α is the value such that the probability that a Student’s t random variable with df

degrees of freedom exceeds that value is α 2 . 

When multiple comparisons within a variable are made (e.g., comparing the percentage of children 

in arrangements across household income levels of less than $25,000, $25,001 to $50,000, $50,001 to 

$75,000, and more than $75,000), a Bonferroni adjustment is used to correct for the increased likelihood 

of error (Miller 1966). This method adjusts the significance level for the total number of comparisons 

made with a particular classification variable. All the differences cited in this report are significant at the 

0.05 level of significance after a Bonferroni adjustment. Using a 0.05 level of significance means that the 

probability of incorrectly concluding that any pair of means or percentages are different is 5 percent. 

Measuring Participation in Arrangements Scheduled at Least Once Per Month 

Parents could report up to four relative, nonrelative, and center- or school-based arrangements. 

They were also asked if their child was responsible for himself or herself on a regular basis. The number 

of arrangements was recorded for relative, nonrelative and center-based programs, and certain 

information was collected about every arrangement. For instance, parents were asked to report the type of 

relative who cared for the child (e.g., grandmother, aunt), whether the relative and nonrelative care was 

provided in the child’s home or another home, the location of the center- or school-based program, the 

amount of time it takes to go from the home to the arrangement and from the arrangement to school, and 

whether the arrangement was before school, after school, or both before and after school. Following this 

series, the parent was asked whether the arrangement was regularly scheduled at least once each week. If 

not, the parent was asked whether the arrangement was regularly scheduled at least once each month. 

More details (e.g., hours in the program, activities, cost) were gathered about each arrangement that was 

scheduled weekly or monthly. Detailed questions were not asked about arrangements that were not 

scheduled at least once per month. 

Of the 1,708 parents who reported a first relative care arrangement for their children, only 42 

indicated it was not scheduled weekly or monthly (less than 1 percent). Of the 295 parents who reported 

a second relative care arrangement for their children, 59 (20 percent) said the arrangement was not 

scheduled at least once per month. A similar pattern holds for nonrelative care arrangements. Parents of 
A-10

about 3 percent of children (18 out of 624) who reported a first arrangement and parents of 17 percent of 

children (11 out of 66) who reported a second arrangement indicated it was not scheduled at least 

monthly. Of the 1,841 parents who reported a first center- or school-based program for their children, 84 

(5 percent) said it was not regularly scheduled at least once a month. A total of 343 parents reported a 

second center- or school-based program, and 15 (4 percent) indicated it was not at least monthly. Overall, 

parents of about 5 percent of children with relative, nonrelative, or center- or school-based arrangements 

indicated that they were not scheduled at least once per month. 

With the exception of table B, table 3, table 4, and figures 1 and 10, the data presented in this 

report include arrangements scheduled at least once per month, as specified in the notes to the tables and 

figures. Table 3 and figure 1 show the patterns of all arrangements scheduled for children in kindergarten 

through eighth grade. Including arrangements that were scheduled less often than once per month added 

a relatively small percentage of cases to those scheduled weekly or monthly, as described above. Table B 

and table 4 show results based only on those arrangements that were scheduled at least once a week. In 

figure 10, the percentage of children with activities scheduled at least once per week is shown. Findings 

presented in tables 1, 2, and 3 for activities used for adult supervision of children are based upon activities 

scheduled at least weekly. Parents were only asked whether their children’s activities helped to cover 

hours when they needed adult supervision for them only if their children participated in the activities at 

least once each week. 

Measuring Urbanicity 

The definition of urbanicity used in this report is taken directly from the 1990 Census of Population 

(U.S. Department of Commerce 1992). An urbanized area (UA) comprises a place and the adjacent 

densely settled surrounding territory that together have a minimum population of 50,000 people. The term 

"place" in the UA definition includes both incorporated places, such as cities and villages, and Censusdesignated places (unincorporated population clusters for which the Census Bureau delineated boundaries 

in cooperation with state and local agencies to permit tabulation of data for Census Bureau products). The 

"densely settled surrounding territory" adjacent to the place consists of contiguous and noncontiguous 

territory of relatively high population density within short distances. The specific density and distance 

requirements are defined in the Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 204. 
A-11

The second category is urban, outside of UA. This category includes incorporated or 

unincorporated places outside of a UA with a minimum population of 2,500 people. One exception is for 

those who live in extended cities.27 Persons living in rural portions of extended cities are classified as 

rural rather than urban. Places not classified as urban are rural. 

Urbanicity was based on respondents’ ZIP Codes, which were collected in the ASPA interview.28 

Since a ZIP Code can cut across geographic areas that are classified in any of the three categories, the 

ZIPURBAN variable is classified into the category that has the largest number of persons. For example, if 

a ZIP Code has 5,000 persons in the first category (urban, inside UA), 0 persons in the second category 

(urban, outside UA), and 1,200 persons in the third category (rural), it is classified as inside UA. 

The values for ZIPURBAN are: 

1 = Urban, inside UA (urbanized area) 

2 = Urban, outside UA (urbanized area) 

3 = Rural 

 

27 An extended city is either an incorporated place of any population size inside a UA, or an incorporated place with a population of 2,500 or more 

people outside a UA that contains one or more component rural areas. Each component rural area must have a population density of less than 

100 people per square mile, consist of at least one entire Census block, and include at least 5 square miles of continuous area. An extended city 

can have both urban and rural population and land areas. 

28 The item response rate for the question asking for the respondent’s ZIP Code was 93 percent. Imputation was done using a link between the 

telephone exchange and the first three digits of the ZIP Code. 
A-12

This page is intentionally left blank.