STATS IN BRIEF

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MARCH 2017 NCES 2017–096

Statistics in Brief publications describe key findings from statistical 

tables to provide useful information to a broad audience, including 

members of the general public. They address simple and topical issues 

and questions. They do not investigate more complex hypotheses, 

account for inter-relationships among variables, or support causal 

inferences. We encourage readers who are interested in more complex 

questions and in-depth analysis to explore other NCES resources, 

including publications, online data tools, and public- and restricteduse datasets. See nces.ed.gov and references noted in the body of this 

document for more information.

This publication was prepared for NCES 

under Contract No. ED-IES-12-D-0002 with 

American Institutes for Research. Mention 

of trade names, commercial products, or 

organizations does not imply endorsement 

by the U.S. Government.

The Years Before 

School: Children’s 

Nonparental Care 

Arrangements From 

2001 to 2012

AUTHORS

Jeremy Redford

Donna Desrochers

American Institutes for Research

Kathleen Mulvaney Hoyer

Activate Research, Inc.

PROJECT OFFICER

John Ralph

National Center for Education Statistics

Nearly 24 million children 

age 5 and under resided in the United 

States in 2014 (Federal Interagency Forum 

on Child and Family Statistics 2015). 

Previous research has shown that about 

60 percent of these children have some 

type of nonparental care arrangement 

before entering kindergarten (Mamedova 

and Redford 2013; Mulligan, Brimhall, and 

West 2005). 

Studies of nonparental care arrangements 

are important because it is through such 

arrangements that many children receive 

basic care while their parents are at work, 

school, or otherwise not able to care for 

them. They are also where children may 

learn early literacy and numeracy skills 

that are important for kindergarten entry 

(Flanagan and McPhee 2009).

Policymakers have focused on establishing 

broader access to quality preschool and 

kindergarten programs. Four in five 

states now have public prekindergarten 

programs, and enrollment has expanded 

rapidly over the past decade (Barnett, 

Carolan, Fitzgerald, and Squires 2012). 

In 2010, over 50 percent of children 

entering kindergarten had attended a 

center care arrangement in the previous 

year (Federal Interagency Forum on Child 

and Family Statistics 2013). This Statistics 

in Brief examines the nonparental care 
2

arrangements of children in the United 

States, from birth through age 5, who 

are not yet enrolled in kindergarten. 

The report draws on data from the 

National Household Education Surveys 

Program (NHES) Early Childhood 

Program Participation (ECPP) Surveys 

of 2001, 2005, and 2012.

Previous reports have shown 

that children’s nonparental care 

arrangements vary by age, with 

higher percentages of older 

children participating in center care 

arrangements (Mamedova and Redford 

2013; Mulligan, Brimhall, and West 

2005). The evidence suggests that 

this may be because as children get 

older, their parents begin to focus 

more on their academic skills. Younger 

children’s parents, in contrast, may 

be more concerned about practical 

factors such as cost and arrangement 

reliability as well as factors related to 

caregivers’ trustworthiness and ability 

to form caring, home- or family-like 

relationships with children (Chaudry et 

al. 2011; Kim and Fram 2009). 

Given the emphasis in recent years 

on young children’s early learning 

and nonparental care arrangements, 

it is important to better understand 

where children are spending their 

time during the years before school 

entry. This report presents findings 

on nonparental care over time, 

specifically on the arrangements 

children participate in, the time they 

spend in these arrangements, and 

the out-of-pocket expense for these 

arrangements. 

Types of Nonparental Care Arrangements

RELATIVE CARE is care provided by a relative (e.g., grandparent, aunt/uncle, brother/sister, or another relative) in 

either the child’s home or another home. Relative care does not include the child’s parents or guardians (e.g., a father 

or mother caring for the child).

NONRELATIVE CARE is care provided by a nonrelative, either in the child’s home or another home. It includes care 

provided by home child care providers or neighbors, but not day care centers or preschools.

CENTER-BASED CARE is care provided by day care centers, preschools, prekindergarten programs, Head Start 

programs, and other early childhood programs.
3

Considerations for Readers

When reviewing this report, readers should keep in mind several considerations. For more information, see the 

Technical Notes at the end of the report.

Children with more than one type of nonparental care arrangement

The ECPP survey collected detailed information on children’s participation in relative care, nonrelative care, and 

center-based care arrangements, including hours spent in care and out-of-pocket expenses. Children may participate 

in more than one type of care arrangement (e.g., center-based care and relative care) and may have more than one 

care provider within a particular type of care (e.g., two relative care arrangements). Children with multiple care 

arrangements are counted in each type of arrangement in which they participate. 

Children with multiple sources of a single type of arrangement (e.g., two different relatives caring for them)—

discussed in more detail below—are counted only once in that arrangement. In this brief, children are considered to 

be participants in a particular care arrangement if the arrangement is regularly scheduled at least once each week.

Children with more than one care provider within a particular type of nonparental care arrangement 

In some cases, children have more than one care provider within a particular type of care arrangement. For instance, 

a child who has more than one relative care arrangement may spend most of his or her nonparental care time with 

a grandparent but may also, at times, receive care from another relative, such as an aunt. The manner in which the 

ECPP survey collected information about children with multiple providers within one category of care arrangement 

differed across time. In 2001 and 2005, the ECPP survey was administered using a telephone survey. Over the phone, 

interviewers collected information on every care provider within a given type of care arrangement (e.g., two relative 

care arrangements). In 2012, the ECPP survey was administered using a paper questionnaire that respondents 

received in the mail. To reduce the burden on respondents, the paper questionnaire did not collect detailed 

information about secondary care providers within the larger categories of relative, nonrelative, and center-based care 

arrangements. 

In order to present comparable estimates for 2001, 2005, and 2012, the estimates on hours and expenses in this report 

relate only to the hours and expenses for the primary care provider within each type of care arrangement (i.e., relative, 

nonrelative, and center-based care). For example, if a child has two relative care arrangements (as in the example 

above), hours and expenses are reported for the primary relative care arrangement (in this example, the grandparent 

only). Accordingly, the estimates presented for study question 2 may underestimate the number of hours that 

children spend in a particular type of care arrangement. Likewise, the estimates presented for study question 3 may 

underestimate the out-of-pocket expenses that households pay for a particular type of care arrangement. Despite this 

potential shortcoming, the choice to limit the analysis to the primary care provider within each larger category allows 

for comparisons over time of important aspects of the use of nonparental care and illuminates important patterns 

related to changes in these characteristics over time. To review estimates related to the percentages of children who 

participated in two or more care arrangements within a particular type of arrangement, please see the Technical 

Notes at the end of this report.
4

Considerations for Readers—Continued

Since this report presents estimates on hours and expenses only for the primary care provider within each type of care 

arrangement, and because some families have more than one care arrangement within a given type, the estimates in 

this report should not be considered as a total number of hours or expenses.

Estimates related to hours in care and expenses for care

This report presents the average number of hours that children spend in their care arrangements and the average 

out-of-pocket hourly expenses that households pay for the primary source of each type of care arrangement. 

The advantages of presenting averages for these estimates are that (a) averages are straightforward and easy to 

understand; and (b) averages are consistent with previous ECPP reports (see Mamedova and Redford 2013; Mulligan, 

Brimhall, and West 2005; and Iruka and Carver 2006). 

Still, other types of estimates (e.g., the median) may provide readers with different types of information about the 

characteristics of the nonparental care arrangements highlighted in the report. This can be particularly true for 

expenses, since some households may report paying more extreme amounts for care arrangements relative to other 

households. Accordingly, readers should keep in mind that this report presents averages rather than other types of 

estimates. 

In some cases, children’s parents reported out-of-pocket hourly expenses for more than one child. In these cases, 

the reported out-of-pocket expenses for each arrangement were divided by the number of children for whom care 

was paid in order to obtain the amount paid for the sampled child. To the extent that different children in the same 

household are charged a different hourly rate for care (e.g., due to different charges for children of different ages), the 

estimates in this report may over- or under-estimate average hourly out-of-pocket expenses. For specific estimates on 

the percentages of families to whom this applies, please see the Technical Notes at the end of the brief.

Change in mode of data collection across time 

As noted above and in the Technical Notes, the ECPP survey used a phone survey in 2001 and 2005 but a paper 

questionnaire mailed to respondents in 2012. The differences reported in this brief, therefore, may be due to 

actual changes in nonparental care arrangements over time, the change in the mode of data collection, or a 

combination of both.
5

This report focuses on changes from 

2001 to 2012 and differences within 

2012, in nonparental care arrangements 

for children overall, as well as in three 

age groups: under 1 year old, 1 to 2 

years old, and 3 to 5 years old (this 

report only includes children who are 

not yet enrolled in kindergarten).1

Presenting within-year differences for 

2012 (i.e., examining overall differences 

and differences by age for 2012 only) 

provides the most recent snapshot of 

nonparental care arrangements and 

highlights important differences 

between groups’ participation in 

nonparental care. For example, older 

children participate in different 

nonparental care arrangements than 

do younger children. 

1

 This brief focuses on differences from 2001 to 2012. Estimates 

from 2005 are provided as a reference, but not discussed.

Results are provided for children’s 

participation in any type of 

nonparental care arrangement, as 

well as for the three specific types for 

which information is collected in the 

ECPP survey—relative, nonrelative, 

and center-based care. For each 

study question, the brief provides a

discussion of overall trends in 

nonparental care arrangements 

followed by a discussion of how 

children’s participation in care 

arrangements varies by age. 

The comparisons highlighted in the 

text are statistically significant at the 

p < .05 level. No adjustments were made 

for multiple comparisons. For additional 

information about the data or methods 

used in this study, see the Technical 

Notes at the end of the report.
6

STUDY QUESTIONS

1 How did participation 

in nonparental care 

arrangements change 

from 2001 to 2012, 

overall and by children’s 

age? 

2 How did the number of 

hours spent in nonparental 

care arrangements change 

from 2001 to 2012, overall 

and by children’s age? 

3 How did out-ofpocket expenses for 

nonparental care 

arrangements change 

from 2001 to 2012, 

overall and by children’s 

age?

KEY FINDINGS

• Children’s overall participation in 

nonparental care arrangements 

was statistically unchanged from 

2001 to 2012, with 60 percent of 

children from birth to age 5 who are 

not yet in kindergarten receiving 

nonparental care (figure 1). 

• Twenty-six percent of children 

in 2012 had a relative care 

arrangement, compared with 

22 percent in 2001 (figure 1). 

• In 2012, the greatest percentage of 

children were enrolled in centerbased care (34 percent), which was 

not measurably different from the 

33 percent in 2001 (figure 1).

• From 2001 to 2012, the percentage 

of children who participated only 

in relative care increased from 14 

to 16 percent, and the percentage 

of children who participated only 

in nonrelative care decreased 

from 11 to 8 percent (figure 2). 

Meanwhile, 12 percent of children 

participated in more than one type 

of care arrangement in 2012 (an 

increase from 10 percent in 2001) 

(figure 2). 

• From 2001 to 2012, the number of 

hours that children spent per week 

in their primary care arrangement 

declined by 3 hours for relative care, 

2 hours for nonrelative care, and 

2 hours for center-based care 

(figure 5). 

• In 2012, 3- to 5-year-olds spent 

fewer hours in center-based care 

(21 hours) than children less than a 

year old (28 hours) and children 1 

to 2 years old (26 hours) (figure 6).

• After adjusting for inflation, 

out-of-pocket hourly expenses for 

care were higher in 2012 than they 

were in 2001 for children in relative 

($4.18 vs. $2.66), nonrelative ($5.28 

vs. $4.23), and center-based ($6.70 

vs. $4.23) care arrangements in 

2012 dollars (figure 7).

• In 2012, the families of children in 

nonrelative care and center-based 

care arrangements generally paid 

more for care for younger children 

than for older children (figure 8).
7

1 How did participation in nonparental care arrangements change 

from 2001 to 2012, overall and by children’s age?

This section presents findings 

regarding children’s participation 

in types of nonparental care 

arrangements, overall and by 

children’s age. The findings show 

that the total percentage of children 

who participated in any nonparental 

care arrangement did not change 

measurably across survey years, but 

participation varied during this time by 

arrangement type and children’s ages. 

Under each heading, the discussion 

first describes changes in participation 

from 2001 to 2012, then differences 

within 2012.

Overall Differences in Participation 

The percentage of children participating in at least one weekly nonparental 

care arrangement has remained steady 

for more than a decade. In 2012, three 

in five children (60 percent) had some 

type of weekly care arrangement provided by someone other than a parent, 

a percentage that was not measurably 

different from 2001 (figure 1). 

However, children’s participation in 

various types of care arrangements—

relative care, nonrelative care, and 

center-based care—has shifted from 

2001 to 2012. There was an increase in 

the percentage of children receiving 

care from relatives: 26 percent 

of children in 2012 had a relative 

care arrangement, compared with 

22 percent in 2001. On the other 

hand, there was a decrease in the 

percentage of children receiving 

care from nonrelatives: 14 percent of 

children received nonrelative care in 

2012, compared to 16 percent in 2001. 

Nevertheless, the greatest percentage 

of children in 2012 (34 percent) were 

enrolled in center-based care, which 

was not measurably different from the 

33 percent in 2001. 

FIGURE 1.

Percentage of children from birth to age 5 who are not yet in kindergarten, by type 

of nonparental care arrangement: 2001, 2005, and 2012

Nonrelative1 At least one weekly

nonparental care

arrangement

Relative Center-based2

100

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

2001 2005 2012

60 60 60

Type of nonparental care arrangement

22 21

26

16 13 14

33 36 34

1

 Nonrelative arrangements include any care the child receives from a nonrelative, either in the child’s home or another 

home. It includes care provided by home child care providers or neighbors, but not day care centers or preschools. 

2

 Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early 

childhood programs.

NOTE: Children with multiple care arrangements are counted in each type of arrangement in which they participate. 

Children with multiple sources of a single arrangement (e.g., two different relatives caring for them) are counted only once 

in that arrangement.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Surveys 

Program (NHES), Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) Survey, 2001, 2005, and 2012.
8

Twelve percent of children participated in more than one type of care 

arrangement in 2012 (an increase 

from 10 percent in 2001) (figure 2). 

Twenty-four percent of children 

participated only in center-based care 

in 2012, which was not measurably 

different from the percentage in 2001. 

However, the percentage of children 

who participated only in nonrelative 

care decreased from 11 to 8 percent 

from 2001 to 2012, and the percentage 

of children who participated only 

in relative care increased from 14 to 

16 percent. 

FIGURE 2.

Percentage distribution of children with none, one type, and multiple types of 

weekly nonparental care arrangements: 2001 and 2012

2001

Nonrelative

only1

 (11%)

Center-based

only2

 (25%)

Relative

only (14%)

Multiple types of

arrangements (10%)

None (40%)

None (40%)

2012

Nonrelative

only1

 (8%)

Center-based

only2

 (24%)

Relative

only (16%)

Multiple types of

arrangements (12%)

1

 Nonrelative arrangements include any care the child receives from a nonrelative, either in the child’s home or another 

home. It includes care provided by home child care providers or neighbors, but not day care centers or preschools.

2

 Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early 

childhood programs.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Surveys 

Program (NHES), Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) Survey, 2001 and 2012.
9

Differences in Participation by 

Child’s Age 

Participation in at least one type 

of nonparental care arrangement 

increased from 2001 to 2012 among 

children less than 1 year old (from 40 

to 46 percent) and children 3 to 5 years 

old (from 73 to 76 percent) (figure 

3). In 2012, a higher percentage of 

children 3 to 5 years old had at least 

one nonparental care arrangement 

than did children 1 to 2 years old and 

children less than 1 year old. 

FIGURE 3.

Percentage of children from birth to age 5 who are not yet in kindergarten and who 

have at least one weekly nonparental care arrangement, by child’s age: 2001, 2005, 

and 2012

100

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

2001 2005 2012

Less than 1 year 1−2 years old 3−5 years old

40 42

46

56 53 54

73 73 76

NOTE: Children with multiple care arrangements are counted in each type of arrangement in which they participate. 

Children with multiple sources of a single arrangement (e.g., two different relatives caring for them) are counted only once 

in that arrangement.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Surveys 

Program (NHES), Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) Survey, 2001, 2005, and 2012.
10

Looking at the different types of care 

arrangements, the percentage of 

children who participated in relative 

care increased from 2001 to 2012 

among children less than 1 year old 

(from 21 to 27 percent) and among 

1- to 2-year-olds (from 22 to 26 

percent) (figure 4). The percentage 

of 3- to 5-year-olds who participated 

in center-based care also increased 

(from 56 to 60 percent). 

In 2012, a higher percentage of 

children less than 1 year old (27 

percent) and 1 to 2 years old (26 

percent) participated in relative care 

than did children 3 to 5 years old 

(24 percent). The opposite pattern 

was found for center-based care, 

where a higher percentage of 3- to 

5-year-olds (60 percent) participated 

than did children less than 1 year 

old (11 percent) or 1 to 2 years old 

(22 percent). 

FIGURE 4.

Percentage of children from birth to age 5 who are not yet in kindergarten, by type of weekly nonparental care arrangement and 

child’s age: 2001, 2005, and 2012

100

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

Less than 1 year 1–2 years old 3–5 years old

2001 2005 2012 2001 2005 2012 2001 2005 2012

Relative Nonrelative1 Center-based2

21

27

14 14 8

11

22 26 19 17

21 22

21

24

13 12

56

60

1

 Nonrelative arrangements include any care the child receives from a nonrelative, either in the child’s home or another home. It includes care provided by home child care providers or neighbors, but not day care centers or preschools.

2

 Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood programs.

NOTE: Children with multiple care arrangements are counted in each type of arrangement in which they participate. Children with multiple sources of a single arrangement (e.g., two different 

relatives caring for them) are counted only once in that arrangement.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) Survey, 

2001, 2005, and 2012.
11

2 How did the number of hours spent in nonparental care arrangements 

change from 2001 to 2012, overall and by children’s age?

This section reports on the number 

of hours that children spend in their 

nonparental care arrangements each 

week. The findings show that while 

there have been changes in the types 

of care that children received from 

2001 to 2012 (see study question 

1), there has been an overall decline 

in the number of hours each week 

that children spend in these care 

arrangements.

Overall Differences in Hours Spent in 

Nonparental Care

From 2001 to 2012, the number of 

hours that children spent per week 

in their primary care arrangement 

declined by 3 hours for relative care, 

2 hours for nonrelative care, and 

2 hours for center-based care (figure 

5). Although only 14 percent of 

children participated in a nonrelative 

care arrangement in 2012—making 

it the least common type of care 

arrangement—children spent more 

hours per week in a nonrelative care 

arrangement (26 hours) than in relative 

care (21 hours) or center-based care 

(23 hours). 

FIGURE 5.

Average number of hours spent per week in primary weekly nonparental child care 

arrangements for children from birth through age 5 and not yet in kindergarten, by 

type of arrangement: 2001, 2005, and 2012

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Hours

Relative Nonrelative1 Center-based2

2001 2005 2012 2001 2005 2012 2001 2005 2012

24

22 21

28

26 26 25 24 23

1

 Nonrelative arrangements include any care the child receives from a nonrelative, either in the child’s home or another 

home. It includes care provided by home child care providers or neighbors, but not day care centers or preschools.

2

 Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early 

childhood programs.

NOTE: Children with multiple care arrangements are counted in each type of arrangement in which they participate. 

Children with multiple sources of a single arrangement (e.g., two different relatives caring for them) are counted only 

once in that arrangement. Hours of care are reported only for the primary care arrangement in each category (i.e., relative, 

nonrelative, and center-based). While hours of care for children using multiple types of arrangements are captured for 

each type of arrangement, additional hours associated with a secondary provider for the same type of care (e.g., a secondary relative care arrangement) are not included. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Surveys 

Program (NHES), Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) Survey, 2001, 2005, and 2012.
12

Differences in Hours Spent in 

Nonparental Care by Child’s Age

Generally, differences by age for hours 

spent in relative care and center-based 

care arrangements mirrored the 

overall trend toward fewer hours in 

nonparental child care (figure 6). The 

number of hours spent per week in 

relative care arrangements declined 

from 2001 to 2012 for children in each 

age group. For center-based care 

arrangements, the number of hours 

spent per week in care declined from 

2001 to 2012 for 1- to 2-year-olds and 

3- to 5-year-olds (from 30 to 26 hours 

and from 22 to 21 hours, respectively). 

No measureable change was found 

for children under 1. For children in 

nonrelative care arrangements, there 

were no measurable changes by child’s 

age from 2001 to 2012 in the number 

of hours spent in care each week. 

In 2012, 3- to 5-year-olds spent fewer 

hours in center-based care (21 hours) 

than children less than a year old 

(28 hours) and children 1 to 2 years 

old (26 hours). Similarly, 3- to 5-yearolds spent fewer hours in nonrelative 

care (24 hours) than 1- to 2-year-olds 

(28 hours). There was no measurable 

difference in the average number of 

hours that children less than a year old, 

1 to 2 years old, and 3 to 5 years old 

spent in relative care.

FIGURE 6.

Average number of hours spent per week in primary weekly nonparental child care arrangements for children from birth through 

age 5 and not yet in kindergarten, by type of arrangement and child’s age: 2001, 2005, and 2012

40

Hours

2001 2005 2012 2001 2005 2012 2001 2005 2012

Relative Nonrelative1 Center-based2

25

22

28

26

32

28

24

21

29 28 30

26

23

20

26

24 22 21

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Less than 1 year 1–2 years old 3–5 years old

1

 Nonrelative arrangements include any care the child receives from a nonrelative, either in the child’s home or another home. It includes care provided by home child care providers or neighbors, but not day care centers or preschools. 

2

 Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood programs.

NOTE: Children with multiple care arrangements are counted in each type of arrangement in which they participate. Children with multiple sources of a single arrangement (e.g., two different 

relatives caring for them) are counted only once in that arrangement. Hours of care are reported only for the primary care arrangement in each category (i.e., relative, nonrelative, and centerbased). While hours of care for children using multiple types of arrangements are captured for each type of arrangement, additional hours associated with a secondary provider for the same 

type of care (e.g., a secondary relative care arrangement) are not included. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) Survey, 

2001, 2005, and 2012.
13

3 How did out-of-pocket expenses for nonparental care arrangements 

change from 2001 to 2012, overall and by children’s age?

The final section of this report 

highlights the rising average outof-pocket hourly expenses that 

households bear when caring for 

their young children.2

 After adjusting 

for inflation, out-of-pocket hourly 

expenses increased from 2001 to 2012 

for each type of care arrangement. In 

2012, center-based programs were the 

most expensive for families.

2

 Parents reported household expenses related to the sampled child’s participation in a given care arrangement. In each year, parents answered a follow-up question confirming the number of children 

for whose care those expenses covered. For children living in households in which parents paid for care for more than one child, the reported out-of-pocket expenses for each arrangement were divided 

by the number of children for whom care was paid to obtain a dollar amount paid for care for the sampled child. Average per child-out-of-pocket hourly expenses assume the same hourly rate per child. 

See Technical Notes for more information regarding the calculation of average per child-out-of-pocket hourly expenses.

Overall Differences in Expenses for 

Nonparental Care

There were higher out-of-pocket hourly 

expenses for care in 2012 than in 2001 

for children in relative, nonrelative, 

and center-based care arrangements. 

The expense for center-based care 

increased by 58 percent and that of 

relative care by 57 percent, while the 

expense for nonrelative care increased 

by 25 percent (figure 7). 

In 2012, out-of-pocket hourly expenses 

for children in center-based programs 

were the most expensive for families, 

averaging $6.70 per hour—60 percent 

higher than relative care ($4.18 per 

hour) and 27 percent higher than 

nonrelative care ($5.28 per hour). 

FIGURE 7.

Average per child out-of-pocket hourly expense for primary weekly nonparental 

child care arrangements for children from birth through age 5 and not yet in 

kindergarten: 2001, 2005, and 2012 (in 2012 dollars)

Relative Nonrelative1 Center-based2

2001 2005 2012 2001 2005 2012 2001 2005 2012

$10.00

In 2012 Dollars

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

2.66 2.72

4.18 4.23 4.40

5.28

4.23

4.67

6.70

1

 Nonrelative arrangements include any care the child receives from a nonrelative, either in the child’s home or another 

home. It includes care provided by home child care providers or neighbors, but not day care centers or preschools. 

2

 Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early 

childhood programs.

NOTE: Children with multiple care arrangements are counted in each type of arrangement in which they participate. 

Children with multiple sources of a single arrangement (e.g., two different relatives caring for them) are counted only 

once in that arrangement. Data converted to 2012 dollars using Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers. Parents’ 

expenses for care are reported only for the primary arrangement in each category (i.e., relative, nonrelative, and centerbased). While expenses for children using multiple types of arrangements are captured for each type of arrangement, 

additional expenses associated with a secondary provider for the same type of care (e.g., a secondary relative care 

arrangement) are not included. Parents indicated whether there was a charge or fee related to the nonparental care 

arrangement. If parents reported a charge, they were asked to report the household’s out-of-pocket expenses for each 

nonparental care arrangement the child participated in. Children for whom no fee was charged, for whom another 

source paid the entire fee, or for whom the period of time covered by the amount indicated (e.g., per hour) could not be 

determined, are excluded from the estimates.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Surveys 

Program (NHES), Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) Survey, 2001, 2005, and 2012.
14

Differences in Expenses for 

Nonparental Care by Child’s Age

From 2001 to 2012, expenses increased 

for relative care and center-based care 

for households with children in any age 

group (figure 8). For nonrelative care, 

expenses increased for households 

with children less than a year old (from 

$4.32 per hour to $6.84 per hour). 

In 2012, the families of children in 

nonrelative care and center-based care 

arrangements generally paid more for 

care for younger children than for older 

children. For example, nonrelative care 

for children less than a year old cost 

households more per hour than did 

nonrelative care for 1- to 2-year-olds 

and 3- to 5-year-olds ($6.84 vs. $4.82 

and $4.96, respectively). Centerbased care for children less than a 

year old cost households more per 

hour than center-based care for 1- to 

2-year-olds ($8.08 vs. $6.08). There 

were no measurable differences in 

household expenditures by age for 

relative care. 

FIGURE 8.

Average per child out-of-pocket hourly expense for primary weekly nonparental child care arrangements for children from birth 

through age 5 and not yet in kindergarten, by type of arrangement and child’s age: 2001, 2005, and 2012 (in 2012 dollars)

In 2012 dollars

2.84

5.05

4.32

6.84

4.41

8.08

2.52

3.83

4.24 4.82

4.61

6.08

2.70

4.06 4.17

4.96

4.06

6.82

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

$10.00

Less than 1 year 1–2 years old 3–5 years old

2001 2005 2012 2001 2005 2012 2001 2005 2012

Relative Nonrelative1 Center-based2

1

 Nonrelative arrangements include any care the child receives from a nonrelative, either in the child’s home or another home. It includes care provided by home child care providers or 

neighbors, but not day care centers or preschools. 

2

 Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood programs.

NOTE: Children with multiple care arrangements are counted in each type of arrangement in which they participate. Children with multiple sources of a single arrangement (e.g., two different 

relatives caring for them) are counted only once in that arrangement. Data converted to 2012 dollars using Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers. Parents’ expenses for care are reported 

only for the primary arrangement in each category (i.e., relative, nonrelative, and center-based). While expenses for children using multiple types of arrangements are captured for each type 

of arrangement, additional expenses associated with a secondary provider for the same type of care (e.g., a secondary relative care arrangement) are not included. Parents indicated whether 

there was a charge or fee related to the nonparental care arrangement. If parents reported a charge, they were asked to report the household’s out-of-pocket expenses for each nonparental care 

arrangement the child participated in. Children for whom no fee was charged, for whom another source paid the entire fee, or for whom the period of time covered by the amount indicated 

(e.g., per hour) could not be determined, are excluded from the estimates.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) Survey, 

2001, 2005, and 2012.
15

FIND OUT MORE

For questions about content, to download this Statistics in Brief, or to view this 

report online, go to:

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017096

More detailed information on children’s early care and education can be found in the following publications 

produced by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): 

Iruka, I.U., and Carver, P.R. (2006). Initial Results From the 

2005 NHES Early Childhood Program Participation 

Survey (NCES 2006-075). http://nces.ed.gov/

pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006075.

Mamedova, S., and Redford, J. (2013). Early Childhood 

Program Participation, From the National 

Household Education Surveys Program of 2012 

(NCES 2013-029.REV). http://nces.ed.gov/

pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2013029. 

Mulligan, G., Brimhall, D., and West, J. (2005). Child 

Care and Early Education Arrangements of Infants, 

Toddlers, and Preschoolers: 2001 (NCES 2006-

039). http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.

asp?pubid=2006039.

Mulligan, G.M., Hastedt, S., and McCarroll, J. C. (2012). 

First-Time Kindergartners in 2010–11: First 

Findings From the Kindergarten Rounds of the 

Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten 

Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011) (NCES 2012-

049). http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.

asp?pubid=2012049.

Mulligan, G.M., McCarroll, J.C., Flanagan, K.D., and 

Potter, D. (2015). Findings From the Second-Grade 

Rounds of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, 

Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011) 

(NCES 2015-077). http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/

pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2015077.

O’Donnell, K. (2008). Parents’ Reports of the School 

Readiness of Young Children From the National 

Household Education Surveys Program of 2007 

(NCES 2008-051). http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/

pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008051.

Rathbun, A., and Zhang, A. (2016). Primary Early Care 

and Education Arrangements and Achievement 

at Kindergarten Entry (NCES 2016-070). 

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.

asp?pubid=2016070.
16

TECHNICAL NOTES

The National Household Education 

Surveys Program (NHES) is a set of 

household surveys sponsored by 

the U.S. Department of Education’s 

National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES). By collecting data directly from 

households, the NHES has allowed 

NCES to gather data on a wide range 

of issues, such as early childhood care 

and education, children’s readiness 

for school, before- and afterschool 

activities of school-age children, 

adult education, parents’ involvement 

in education, school choice, and 

homeschooling. These topics are 

addressed through a series of topical 

survey modules. 

The Early Childhood Program 

Participation (ECPP) survey, one of 

the NHES’s topical surveys, is used 

to collect information on children 

from birth through age 6 who are 

not yet enrolled in kindergarten. 

(Typically, 6-year-old preschoolers 

are too few in number to support 

separate estimates and, therefore, 

they have been excluded from this 

report.) The respondent to the ECPP 

questionnaire is a parent or guardian in 

the household who knows about the 

sampled child. 

The ECPP asks detailed questions about 

children’s participation in relative care, 

nonrelative care, and center-based care 

arrangements. 

In 2012, the NHES was conducted using 

an address-based sample covering the 

50 states and the District of Columbia. 

Earlier administrations of the NHES 

used a random-digit-dial (RDD) sample 

of landlines and computer-assisted 

telephone interviewing (CATI) to 

conduct interviews. However, due 

to declining response rates for all 

telephone surveys, and the increase 

in households that only or mostly use 

a cell phone instead of a landline, the 

data collection method was changed 

to a self-administered paper-and-pencil 

mail survey. Data users should take the 

potential impact of the change in data 

collection mode into consideration 

when comparing estimates from 

NHES:2012 to estimates from prior 

years. Measurable differences in 

estimates between 2012 and prior 

years could reflect actual changes in 

the population, or the changes could 

be due to the mode change from 

telephone to mail. This Statistics in Brief 

presents child care data released from 

the ECPP survey of the 2001, 2005, 

and 2012 NHES. When weighted, the 

ECPP data in this report are nationally 

representative of children between 

birth and the age of 5 not yet enrolled 

in kindergarten. 

Below is an overview of information 

regarding NHES data reliability, 

data collection and response rates, 

nonresponse bias analyses, and 

imputation for 2001, 2005, and 2012. 

Readers interested in learning more 

about these topics may consult the 

NHES data file user’s manuals for the 

applicable years of interest (Hagedorn 

et al. 2003; Hagedorn et al. 2006; 

McPhee et al. 2015).

Variables Used in This Report

The derived variables for child’s age 

that are available in each wave of the 

ECPP data file were used in this report. 

Other NHES variables used in this 

report are described below. 

Enrollment in nonparental care by 

arrangement, hours in care, and 

expense. Children were identified as 

enrolled in at least one nonparental 

care arrangement through the derived 

variables ANYCARE2 (for 2001 and 

2005) and ANYCARE2X (for 2012). 

For table A-2, parents reported 

directly whether the sampled child 

participated in a regularly scheduled 

relative, nonrelative, or center-based 

care arrangement. For tables A-4 and 

A-5, the estimates for average number 

of hours and average out-of-pocket 

expenses, respectively, include the first 

relative, nonrelative, and center care 

arrangement reported by the parent. 

In 2001 and 2005, for relative care 

arrangements, telephone interviewers 

asked parents, “How many hours each 

week does (Child) receive care from 

(his/her) (Relative)?” For nonrelative 

care arrangements, parents were asked, 

“How many hours each week does 

(Child) receive care from that person?” 

For center-based care arrangements, 

parents were asked, “How many hours 

each week does (Child) go to that 

program?” 

In 2012, for relative care arrangements, 

parents responded to a questionnaire 

item that asked, “How many hours 

each week does this child receive care 

from this relative?” For nonrelative care 

arrangements, parents were asked, 

“How many hours each week does this 

child receive care from this person?” 

For center-based care arrangements, 

parents were asked, “How many hours 
17

each week does this child go to this 

program?” 

In 2001 and 2005, the NHES 

collected information on every care 

arrangement that the parent reported. 

For example, if a child had two 

relative care arrangements, detailed 

questions about the hours spent and 

the expense would be asked about 

both arrangements. In both years, 

the questionnaire asked the parent 

to first report on the arrangement 

that provided the most care (i.e., the 

primary care arrangement). In 2012, 

the self-administered questionnaire 

collected information only about 

one relative care arrangement, one 

nonrelative care arrangement, and one 

center-based care arrangement—

in each case, the primary care 

arrangement. For 2012 estimates to be 

comparable to those from 2001 and 

2005, only the data for primary care 

arrangements from all 3 years were 

used in this report to estimate average 

numbers of hours and expenses.

The estimates in table A-4 reflect 

the average number of hours that 

parents reported for each primary 

care arrangement. Hours of care are 

reported only for the primary care 

arrangement in each category (i.e., 

relative, nonrelative, and center-based). 

While hours of care for children using 

multiple types of arrangements are 

captured for each type of arrangement, 

additional hours associated with a 

secondary provider for the same type 

of care (e.g., a secondary relative care 

arrangement) are not included.

In 2001, 17 percent of children received 

care on a weekly basis from two or 

more relatives; the corresponding 

percentages for nonrelative and centerbased care were 4 and 3 percent, 

respectively.3

 In 2005, 13 percent of 

children received care on a weekly 

basis from two or more relatives; 

the corresponding percentages for 

nonrelative and center-based care 

were 6 and 4 percent, respectively.4

 In 

2012, 15 percent of children received 

care from two or more relatives; 

the corresponding percentages for 

nonrelative and center-based care 

were 8 and 9 percent, respectively.5

In keeping with the remainder of this 

report, the estimates in this paragraph 

illustrate weekly care arrangements for 

2001 and 2005. The 2012 questionnaire 

did not distinguish whether the 

additional care arrangements occurred 

on a weekly basis.

3

 The standard errors for these estimates are 1.37, 0.76, and 

0.48, respectively.

4

 The standard errors for these estimates are 1.24, 0.87, and 

0.44, respectively.

5

 The standard errors for these estimates are 1.00, 0.99, and 

0.73, respectively.

For table A-5, parents indicated 

whether there was a charge or a fee 

for each primary care arrangement. 

Parents’ expenses for care are reported 

only for the primary arrangement in 

each category (i.e., relative, nonrelative, 

and center-based). While expenses 

for children using multiple types of 

arrangements are included for each 

type of arrangement, additional 

expenses associated with a secondary 

provider for the same type of care (e.g., 

a secondary relative care arrangement) 

are not included. 

If parents indicated that there was a 

charge or fee for a care arrangement, 

they were asked about how much the 

household pays for that arrangement. 

Specifically, in 2001, when interviewers 

conducted the ECPP over the 

telephone, parents were asked, “How 

much does your household pay for 

(CHILD’S) (RELATIVE) to care for (him/

her)? [IF NOTHING, ENTER ZERO.]” For 

nonrelative care arrangements, parents 

were asked, “How much does your 

household pay this person to care for 

(CHILD)?[IF NOTHING, ENTER ZERO.]” 

For center-based care arrangements, 

parents were asked, “How much does 

your household pay for (CHILD) to go 

to that program? [IF NOTHING, ENTER 

ZERO.]”

ECPP interviews were also conducted 

over the telephone in 2005. However, 

questions about payment for care 

were modified from 2001. In 2005, 

for relative care arrangements, 

parents were asked, “How much does 

your household pay for (CHILD’S) 

(RELATIVE) to care for (him/her), not 

counting any money that you may 

receive from others to help pay for 

care? [IF NOTHING, ENTER ZERO.]” 

For nonrelative care arrangements, 

parents were asked, “How much does 

your household pay this person to care 

for (CHILD), not counting any money 

that you may receive from others 

to help pay for care? [IF NOTHING, 

ENTER ZERO.]” For center-based care 

arrangements, parents were asked, 

“How much does your household pay 

for (CHILD) to go to that program, not 

counting any money that you may 

receive from others to help pay for 

care? [IF NOTHING, ENTER ZERO.]”
18

In 2012, as noted above, the ECPP 

survey was administered using a 

paper questionnaire that respondents 

received in the mail. For relative care 

arrangements, parents were asked, 

“How much does your household pay 

for this relative to care for this child, 

not counting any money that may 

be received from others to help pay 

for care? Write ‘0’ if your household 

does not pay this relative for care.” For 

nonrelative care, parents were asked, 

“How much does your household pay 

for this person to care for this child, 

not counting any money that may 

be received from others to help pay 

for care? Write ‘0’ if your household 

does not pay this nonrelative for care.” 

For center-based care arrangements, 

parents were asked, “How much does 

your household pay for this child to 

go to this program, not counting any 

money that you may receive from 

others to help pay for care? Write ‘0’ if 

your household does not pay for this 

program.” 

In addition, parents were asked to 

indicate how many children from the 

household participated in the care 

arrangement. In all three years, parents 

were asked to confirm whether the 

out-of-pocket expenses were for the 

sampled child only, or if the expenses 

included another child as well. For 

children living in households in which 

parents paid for care for more than 

one child, the reported out-of-pocket 

expenses for each arrangement were 

divided by the number of children for 

whom care was paid to obtain a dollar 

amount paid for care for the sampled 

child. All expenses were converted to 

an hourly unit per child for table A-5 

by first creating an hourly expense 

and then dividing it by the number of 

children in the care arrangement. 

Please note that, to the extent that 

families are charged different rates 

for different children, this calculation 

may over- or underestimate average 

hourly out-of-pocket expenses, and 

the strategy of dividing expenses 

evenly across children results in 

an unknown amount of error in 

the average estimates. In 2001, 34 

percent of children in relative care 

had parents whose reported expenses 

were for more than one child; the 

corresponding percentages for 

nonrelative and center-based care 

were 23 and 4 percent, respectively.6

 In 

2005, 27 percent of children in relative 

care had parents whose reported 

expenses were for more than one 

child; the corresponding percentages 

for nonrelative and center-based care 

were 21 and 6 percent, respectively.7

 In 

2012, 36 percent of children in relative 

care had parents whose reported 

expenses were for more than one 

child; the corresponding percentages 

for nonrelative and center-based care 

were 28 and 9 percent, respectively.8

6

 The standard errors for these estimates are 3.45, 1.76, and 

0.54, respectively.

7

 The standard errors for these estimates are 4.11, 1.88, and 

0.96, respectively.

8

 The standard errors for these estimates are 2.85, 1.81, and 

0.87, respectively.

Data Reliability

Estimates produced using data from 

the NHES are subject to two types 

of errors: nonsampling errors and 

sampling errors. 

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 such as unit and item 

nonresponse, the differences in 

respondents’ interpretations of the 

meaning of survey questions, response 

differences related to the particular 

month or time of the year when the 

survey was conducted, the tendency 

for respondents to give socially 

desirable responses, and mistakes in 

data preparation.

In general, it is difficult to identify 

and estimate either the amount 

of nonsampling error or the bias 

caused by this error. For each NHES 

survey, efforts were made to prevent 

such errors from occurring and to 

compensate for them, where possible. 

For instance, during the survey design 

phase, cognitive interviews were 

conducted to assess respondents’ 

knowledge of the survey topics, their 

comprehension of questions and 

terms, and the sensitivity of items.

Sampling Errors

For NHES:2001 and NHES:2005, 

the sample of households selected 

based on landline telephone 

numbers—and for NHES:2012, the 

sample of households selected based 

on addresses—is just one of many 

possible samples that could have 

been selected from all households. 

Therefore, estimates produced from 
19

these surveys 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 

rather than all households.

The standard error is a measure of the 

variability that results from sampling 

when estimating a statistic; standard 

errors for estimates presented in 

this report were computed using a 

jackknife replication method. Standard 

errors can be used as a measure 

of the precision expected from a 

particular sample. The probability 

that 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 is about 95 percent.

Standard errors for all of the estimates 

are presented in the standard errors 

tables in appendix B and can be used 

to produce confidence intervals. For 

example, an estimated 27 percent 

of children less than a year old 

had a relative care arrangement in 

2012 (table A-2). This estimate has 

an estimated standard error of 1.6. 

Therefore, the estimated 95 percent 

confidence interval for this statistic is 

approximately 24 to 30 (27 percent +/– 

[1.96 * 1.6]). If repeated samples were 

drawn from the same population and 

confidence intervals were constructed 

for the percentage of children less 

than a year old in a weekly relative care 

arrangement, these intervals would 

contain the true population parameter 

95 percent of the time.

Weighting

To produce unbiased and consistent 

estimates of national totals, all 

the responses in this report were 

weighted using the probabilities of 

selection of the respondents and 

other adjustments to account for 

nonresponse and coverage bias. The 

weight used in this Statistics in Brief 

is FEWT, which is the weight variable 

available in the ECPP data file for 

each year that is used to estimate the 

characteristics of children between 

birth and the age of 5 not yet enrolled 

in kindergarten. In addition to 

weighting the responses properly, 

special procedures for estimating 

the standard errors of the estimates 

were employed because the NHES 

data were collected using a complex 

sample design. Complex sample 

designs result in data that violate some 

of the assumptions that are normally 

made when assessing the statistical 

significance of results from a simple 

random sample. For example, the 

standard errors of the estimates from 

these surveys may vary from those 

that would be expected if the sample 

were a simple random sample and 

the observations were independent 

and identically distributed random 

variables. The estimates and standard 

errors presented in this report were 

produced using SAS 9.2 software 

and the jackknife 1 (JK1) option as a 

replication procedure.

Data Collection and Response Rates

The NHES:2001 sample was drawn 

from the civilian, noninstitutionalized 

population in households with 

telephones in the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia. It was selected 

using a multiple-stage sampling 

framework. The first stage of selection 

in NHES:2001 involved the selection 

of a list-assisted RDD sample of 

telephone numbers. Households 

from this list were contacted, and 

a screener interview was used to 

enumerate household members and to 

collect demographic and educational 

information that determined eligibility 

for the ECPP survey. For this survey, 

children age 6 and younger who 

were not yet enrolled in kindergarten 

or above were sampled from the 

households contacted by telephone, 

and their parents or guardians 

provided information about their 

early childhood care and education 

arrangements. The 2001 NHES 

completed screening interviews with 

48,385 households. The response rate 

for the screener was 69.2 percent. 

For the ECPP survey in 2001, 6,749 

interviews were completed for a unit 

response rate of 86.6 percent. Thus, the 

overall response rate for the interview 

was 59.9 percent (the product of the 

screener response rate and the ECPP 

unit response rate). Data collection 

occurred from January through April 

of 2001.

Similar to the procedure for the 2001 

sample, the NHES:2005 sample was 

selected using RDD procedures, and 

the data were collected using CATI 

technology. The first stage of sampling 

in NHES:2005 was the selection of 

a sample of telephone numbers. 

Telephone numbers in areas with high 

percentages of Black and Hispanic 

residents were sampled at a higher 

rate than those in areas with low 
20

percentages of Black and Hispanic 

residents. Telephone numbers that 

could be matched to mailing addresses 

were sampled at a higher rate than 

those that could not be matched 

to addresses. ECPP interviews were 

completed for 7,209 children, for a 

weighted unit response rate of 84.4 

percent and an overall estimated 

unit response rate (the product of 

the screener unit response rate and 

the ECPP unit response rate) of 56.4 

percent. Data collection occurred from 

January through April of 2005.

The NHES:2012 was an address-based 

sample covering the 50 states and 

the District of Columbia. Because 

of declining response rates for all 

telephone surveys and the increase 

in households that only or mostly 

use a cell phone instead of a landline 

phone, the data collection method 

was changed to a mail survey. Data 

collection activities for the NHES:2012 

were conducted between January 

and August of 2012, with the last 

completed questionnaires accepted 

in July.

The NHES:2012 sample is a two-stage 

probability sample selected using an 

address-based sampling frame. The 

first sampling stage selected residential 

addresses, and the second sampling 

stage selected an eligible child from 

information provided in the household 

mail screener. To increase the number 

of Black and Hispanic children in the 

sample, Black and Hispanic households 

were sampled at a higher rate than 

other households by identifying 

census tracts with higher percentages 

of these residents. After the sample 

was selected, the data were collected 

using printed questionnaires that were 

mailed to the sampled respondents. 

In the NHES:2012 data collection, the 

household mail screener questionnaire 

was sent to all sampled households 

to determine whether any eligible 

children resided in the household. 

Screener questionnaires were 

completed by 99,426 households, for a 

weighted screener unit response rate 

of 73.5 percent. The ECPP survey had 

a weighted unit response rate of 78.7 

percent and an overall response rate of 

57.8 percent.

Nonresponse Bias Analysis

The NHES:2001, NHES:2005, and 

NHES:2012 included a bias analysis to 

evaluate whether nonresponse at the 

unit and item levels had an impact 

on the estimates. The term “bias” has 

a specific technical definition in this 

context: the expected difference 

between the estimate from the survey 

and the actual population value. 

For example, if all households were 

included in the survey (i.e., if a census 

had been conducted rather than a 

sample survey), the difference between 

the estimate from the survey and 

the actual population value (which 

includes persons who did not respond 

to the survey) would be the bias that 

results from unit nonresponse. Because 

the NHES is based on a sample, the bias 

is defined as the expected or average 

value of this difference over all possible 

samples.

Unit nonresponse bias, or the bias 

that results from the failure of some 

persons or households in the sample 

to respond to the survey, can be 

substantial when two conditions 

hold. First, the differences between 

the characteristics of respondents 

and nonrespondents must be 

relatively large. 

Second, the unit nonresponse 

rate must be relatively high. If the 

nonresponse rate is very low relative 

to the magnitude of the estimates, the 

unit nonresponse bias in the estimates 

will be small, even if the differences 

in the characteristics between 

respondents and nonrespondents are 

relatively large. For example, if the unit 

nonresponse rate is only 2 percent, 

estimates of totals that compose 20 or 

30 percent of the population will not 

be greatly affected by nonresponse, 

even if the differences in these 

characteristics between respondents 

and nonrespondents are relatively 

large. However, if the estimate is for 

a small domain or subgroup (of about 

5 or 10 percent of the population), 

even a relatively low overall rate of 

nonresponse can result in important 

biases if the differences between 

respondents and nonrespondents 

are large.

Bias analyses were conducted for 

NHES:2005 and NHES:2012. In 2005, 

the analyses showed no evidence of 

bias in the estimates. The statistical 

adjustments used in weighting may 

have corrected at least partially for 

biases that might have existed due 

to differential unit nonresponse. 

In 2012, the analysis of unit 

nonresponse bias showed evidence 
21

of bias based on the distributions 

of the sample characteristics for the 

survey respondents compared to 

the full eligible sample. However, 

this bias was greatly reduced 

by the nonresponse weighting 

adjustments. In the postadjusted 

screener estimates, the number of 

estimates showing measurable and 

practical differences was reduced by 

approximately half. The percentage 

of estimates with measurable survey 

and sample differences greater than 

1 percentage point was reduced 

from 22 to 6 percent for the ECPP 

survey by the nonresponse weighting 

adjustments. When key survey 

estimates generated with unadjusted 

and nonresponse-adjusted weights 

were compared, only a small number 

of measurable differences were 

observed. This suggests that none 

of these variables was a powerful 

predictor of unit response. Therefore, 

the unit nonresponse adjustment had 

limited effect on the potential bias, but 

it is also possible that there was little 

bias to be removed. Chapter 10 of the 

NHES:2012 Data File User’s Manual 

contains a detailed description of the 

nonresponse bias analysis (for more 

information, see McPhee et al. 2015).

Statistical Tests

All specific statements of comparisons 

have been tested for statistical 

significance at the .05 level using 

Student’s t statistics to ensure that 

the differences are larger than those 

that might be expected as a result of 

sampling variation. No adjustments 

were made for multiple comparisons. 

Readers are cautioned not to draw 

causal inferences on the basis of the 

results presented. Also, many of the 

variables examined in this report may 

be related to one another, but the 

complex interactions and relationships 

among them have not been explored. 

The variables examined here are 

also just a few of those that can be 

examined in these data. 

The tests of significance used in 

this report are based on Student’s 

t statistics for the comparisons of 

percentages. To test for a difference 

between the percentages of two 

subgroups in the population having a 

particular characteristic, say p1

 versus 

p2 , the test statistic is computed as

 + [s.e.(P )] 2

2

t =

 P2 – P1

√[s.e.(P )] 1

2

where p1 and p2 are the estimates being 

compared and s.e. (p1

) and s.e. (p2) are 

their corresponding standard errors. 

Thus, among children who have at least 

one nonparental care arrangement, 

if p1

 is the 46 percent of children less 

than a year old who have a weekly 

nonparental care arrangement in 2012, 

with a standard error of 1.9, and p2

is the 76 percent of 3- to 5-year-olds 

who have a weekly nonparental care 

arrangement in 2012, with a standard 

error of 1.0, the t value is equal to -14.0.

The decision rule is to reject the null 

hypothesis if there is a measurable 

difference between the two groups 

in the population in terms of the 

percentage having the characteristic, 

if | t | > t, where t 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. 

All tests in this report are based on a 

significance level of .05 (i.e., α = 0.05). 

When the degrees of freedom are 

large, greater than 120, t

0.025;df ≈ 1.96. In 

the example above, the t value is large 

enough for the null hypothesis to be 

rejected (14.0 > 1.96), so we conclude 

that there is a measurable difference 

between the percentage of children 

less than a year old and 3- to 5-yearolds who have a weekly nonparental 

care arrangement. 

Imputation

In the NHES:2001, NHES:2005, and 

NHES:2012, as in most surveys, 

responses were not obtained for 

some question items in the survey. 

There are numerous reasons for item 

nonresponse. Some respondents 

may not have known the answer to 

a question or simply did not wish to 

respond. In 2001 and 2005 (when NHES 

was administered using an interviewer 

on the telephone), some item 

nonresponse arose when an interview 

was interrupted and not continued 

later, leaving items at the end of the 

interview blank.

Item nonresponse also may have 

occurred if internal inconsistencies 

were discovered in the editing stage of 

data processing. In many cases, items 

that were not internally consistent 

were set to “missing” during the editing 

stage. Generally, item nonresponse is 

low in the NHES. However, the NHES 

items that were set to missing during 

editing, or that were missing due to 

nonresponse, were imputed. 
22

Unweighted sequential hot deck 

imputation is used for imputing most 

of the missing data in the NHES. In 

this procedure, a nonmissing value 

for an item from one respondent 

is donated to a respondent with 

similar characteristics for whom the 

value for the item is missing. Two 

sets of variables are used in hot deck 

imputation: “boundary” variables and 

“sort” variables. Boundary variables 

are used to identify respondents 

considered similar enough to group 

donors for imputation. Sort variables 

are used to identify the best match 

within groups for donation and 

imputation. All respondents are placed 

into homogeneous cells based on 

the values of the boundary variables. 

Within each cell, the respondents are 

matched by the sort variables. 

During sequential hot deck imputation, 

the last encountered respondent’s 

data from within the same cell are 

substituted for the recipient’s missing 

value when a missing response is 

encountered for a particular data item. 

Readers interested in learning more 

about the imputation methodology are 

referred to the data file user’s manuals 

for the specific year of data (Hagedorn 

et al. 2003; Hagedorn et al. 2006; 

McPhee et al. 2015).
23

REFERENCES

Barnett, W.S., Carolan, M.E., Fitzgerald, 

J., and Squires, J.H. (2012). The 

State of Preschool 2012: State 

Preschool Yearbook, Executive 

Summary. National Institute 

for Early Education Research, 

Rutgers University.

Chaudry, A., Pedroza, J. M., Sandstrom, 

H., Danziger, A., Grosz, M., Scott, 

M., and Ting, S. (2011). Child Care 

Choices of Low-Income Working 

Families. Washington, DC: The 

Urban Institute. Retrieved 

from http://www.urban.org/

sites/default/files/alfresco/

publication-pdfs/412343-ChildCare-Choices-of-Low-IncomeWorking-Families.PDF.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child 

and Family Statistics. (2013). 

America’s Children: Key National 

Indicators of Well-Being, 

2013. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child 

and Family Statistics. (2015). 

America’s Children: Key National 

Indicators of Well-Being, 

2015. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

Flanagan, K.D., and McPhee, C. (2009). 

The Children Born in 2001 at 

Kindergarten Entry: First Findings 

From the Kindergarten Data 

Collections of the Early Childhood 

Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort 

(ECLS-B) (NCES 2010-005). U.S. 

Department of Education. 

Washington, DC: Institute of 

Education Sciences, National 

Center for Education Statistics.

Hagedorn, M., Montaquila, J., Carver, 

P., O’Donell, K., and Chapman, 

C. (2006). National Household 

Education Surveys Program 

of 2005: Public-Use Data File 

User’s Manual, Volume I, Study 

Overview and Methodology (NCES 

2006-078). U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC: 

Institute of Education Sciences, 

National Center for Education 

Statistics.

Hagedorn, M., Montaquila, J., Nolin, 

M.J., Kim, K., Kleiner, B., Waits, 

T., Chapman, C., and Chandler, 

K. (2003). National Household 

Education Surveys of 2003: Data 

File User’s Manual, Volume I (NCES 

2003-079). U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC: 

Institute of Education Sciences, 

National Center for Education 

Statistics.

Iruka, I.U., and Carver, P.R. (2006). Initial 

Results From the 2005 NHES Early 

Childhood Program Participation 

Survey (NCES 2006-075). U.S. 

Department of Education. 

Washington, DC: Institute of 

Education Sciences, National 

Center for Education Statistics.

Kim, J., and Fram, M.S. (2009). Profiles 

of Choice: Parents’ Patterns of 

Priority in Child-Care Decision 

Making. Early Childhood Research 

Quarterly, 24: 77–91. 

Mamedova, S., and Redford, J. (2013). 

Early Childhood Program 

Participation, From the National 

Household Education Surveys 

Program of 2012 (NCES 2013-

029.REV). U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC: 

Institute of Education Sciences, 

National Center for Education 

Statistics.

McPhee, C., Bielick, S., Masterton, M., 

Flores, L., Parmer, R., Amchin, 

S., Stern, S., and McGowan, 

H. (2015). National Household 

Education Surveys Program 

of 2012: Data File User’s 

Manual (NCES 2015-030). U.S. 

Department of Education. 

Washington, DC: Institute of 

Education Sciences, National 

Center for Education Statistics.

Mulligan, G., Brimhall, D., and West, 

J. (2005). Child Care and Early 

Education Arrangements of 

Infants, Toddlers, and Preschoolers: 

2001 (NCES 2006-039). U.S. 

Department of Education. 

Washington, DC: Institute of 

Education Sciences, National 

Center for Education Statistics.
24

APPENDIX A: DATA TABLES

Table A-1. Percentage of children from birth to age 5 who are not yet in kindergarten who have at least one weekly nonparental care 

arrangement, by child’s age: 2001, 2005, and 2012

Characteristic

At least one weekly nonparental care arrangement

2001 2005 2012

Total 60 60 60

Child’s age

Less than 1 year 40 42 46

1–2 years old 56 53 54

3–5 years old 73 73 76

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) Survey, 

2001, 2005, and 2012.

Table A-2. Percentage of children from birth to age 5 who are not yet in kindergarten, by type of weekly nonparental care 

arrangement and child’s age: 2001, 2005, and 2012

Characteristic

Relative Nonrelative1 Center-based2

2001 2005 2012 2001 2005 2012 2001 2005 2012

Total 22 21 26 16 13 14 33 36 34

Child’s age

Less than 1 year 21 20 27 14 14 14 8 12 11

1–2 years old 22 21 26 19 16 17 21 23 22

3–5 years old 21 21 24 13 11 12 56 57 60

1

 Nonrelative arrangements include any care the child receives from a nonrelative, either in the child’s home or another home. It includes care provided by home child care providers or neighbors, 

but not day care centers or preschools.

2

 Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood programs.

NOTE: Children with multiple care arrangements are counted in each type of arrangement in which they participate. Children with multiple sources of a single arrangement (e.g., two different 

relatives caring for them) are counted only once in that arrangement.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) Survey, 

2001, 2005, and 2012.

Table A-3. Percentage distribution of children with none, one type, and multiple types of weekly nonparental care arrangements: 

2001, 2005, and 2012

Year Relative only Nonrelative only1 Center-based only2

Multiple types of 

arrangements None

2001 14 11 25 10 40

2005 14 9 28 10 40

2012 16 8 24 12 40

1

 Nonrelative arrangements include any care the child receives from a nonrelative, either in the child’s home or another home. It includes care provided by home child care providers or neighbors, 

but not day care centers or preschools.

2

 Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood programs.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) Survey, 

2001, 2005, and 2012.
25

Table A-4. Average number of hours spent per week in primary weekly nonparental child care arrangements for children from birth 

through age 5 and not yet in kindergarten, by type of arrangement and child’s age: 2001, 2005, and 2012

Characteristic

Relative Nonrelative1 Center-based2

2001 2005 2012 2001 2005 2012 2001 2005 2012

Total 24 22 21 28 26 26 25 24 23

Child’s age

Less than 1 year 25 25 22 28 28 26 32 33 28

1–2 years old 24 22 21 29 28 28 30 29 26

3–5 years old 23 22 20 26 24 24 22 22 21

1

 Nonrelative arrangements include any care the child receives from a nonrelative, either in the child’s home or another home. It includes care provided by home child care providers or neighbors, 

but not day care centers or preschools.

2

 Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood programs.

NOTE: Children with multiple care arrangements are counted in each type of arrangement in which they participate. Children with multiple sources of a single arrangement (e.g., two different 

relatives caring for them) are counted only once in that arrangement. Hours of care are reported only for the primary care arrangement in each category (i.e., relative, nonrelative, and centerbased). While hours of care for children using multiple types of arrangements are captured for each type of arrangement, additional hours associated with a secondary provider for the same type 

of care (e.g., a secondary relative care arrangement) are not included. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) Survey, 

2001, 2005, and 2012.

Table A-5. Average per child out-of-pocket hourly expense for primary weekly nonparental child care arrangements for children 

from birth through age 5 and not yet in kindergarten, by type of arrangement and child’s age: 2001, 2005, and 2012 (in 2012 

dollars)

Characteristic

Relative Nonrelative1 Center-based2

2001 2005 2012 2001 2005 2012 2001 2005 2012

Total $2.66 $2.72 $4.18 $4.23 $4.40 $5.28 $4.23 $4.67 $6.70

Child’s age

Less than 1 year 2.84 2.40 5.05 4.32 5.35 6.84 4.41 4.30 8.08

1–2 years old 2.52 3.06 3.83 4.24 4.41 4.82 4.61 5.23 6.08

3–5 years old 2.70 2.57 4.06 4.17 3.95 4.96 4.06 4.45 6.82

1

 Nonrelative arrangements include any care the child receives from a nonrelative, either in the child’s home or another home. It includes care provided by home child care providers or neighbors, 

but not day care centers or preschools.

2

 Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood programs.

NOTE: Children with multiple care arrangements are counted in each type of arrangement in which they participate. Children with multiple sources of a single arrangement (e.g., two different 

relatives caring for them) are counted only once in that arrangement. All data shown in this table were converted to 2012 dollars using the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers. The 

expenses shown are for parents who indicated that there was a charge or fee for their child care arrangement. Children may have multiple care arrangements. Parents’ expenses for care are 

reported only for the primary arrangement in each category (i.e., relative, nonrelative, and center-based). While expenses for children using multiple types of arrangements are captured for each 

type of arrangement, additional expenses associated with a secondary provider for the same type of care (e.g., a secondary relative care arrangement) are not included. Parents indicated whether 

there was a charge or fee related to the nonparental care arrangement. If parents reported a charge, they were asked to report the household’s out-of-pocket expenses for each nonparental care 

arrangement the child participated in. Children for whom no fee was charged, for whom another source paid the entire fee, or for whom the period of time covered by the amount indicated (e.g., 

per hour) could not be determined, are excluded from the estimates.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) Survey, 

2001, 2005, and 2012.
26

APPENDIX B: STANDARD ERROR TABLES

Table B-1. Standard errors for table A-1: Percentage of children from birth to age 5 who are not yet in kindergarten and who have at 

least one weekly nonparental care arrangement, by child’s age: 2001, 2005, and 2012

Characteristic

At least one weekly nonparental care arrangement

2001 2005 2012

Total 0.6 0.8 0.8

Child’s age

Less than 1 year 1.5 1.8 1.9

1–2 years old 1.2 1.4 1.2

3–5 years old 0.7 0.9 1.0

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) Survey, 

2001, 2005, and 2012.

Table B-2. Standard errors for table A-2: Percentage of children from birth to age 5 who are not yet in kindergarten, by type of weekly 

nonparental care arrangement and child’s age: 2001, 2005, and 2012

Characteristic

Relative Nonrelative Center-based

2001 2005 2012 2001 2005 2012 2001 2005 2012

Total 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7

Child’s age

Less than 1 year 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.1 1.0 1.2 0.9 1.1 1.1

1–2 years old 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9

3–5 years old 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.9 1.0

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) Survey, 

2001, 2005, and 2012.

Table B-3. Standard errors for table A-3: Percentage distribution of children with none, one type, and multiple types of weekly 

nonparental care arrangements: 2001, 2005, and 2012

Year Relative only Nonrelative only Center-based only

Multiple types of 

arrangements None

2001 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.6

2005 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.8

2012 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.8

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) Survey, 

2001, 2005, and 2012.
27

Table B-4. Standard errors for table A-4: Average number of hours spent per week in primary weekly nonparental child care 

arrangements for children from birth through age 5 and not yet in kindergarten, by type of arrangement and child’s age: 2001, 2005, 

and 2012

Characteristic

Relative Nonrelative Center-based

2001 2005 2012 2001 2005 2012 2001 2005 2012

Total 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4

Child’s age

Less than 1 year 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.5 1.4 2.1 1.6 1.6

1–2 years old 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7

3–5 years old 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.8 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) Survey, 

2001, 2005, and 2012.

Table B-5. Standard errors for table A-5: Average per child out-of-pocket hourly expense for primary weekly nonparental child 

care arrangements for children from birth through age 5 and not yet in kindergarten, by type of arrangement and child’s age: 

2001, 2005, and 2012 (in 2012 dollars)

Characteristic

Relative Nonrelative Center

2001 2005 2012 2001 2005 2012 2001 2005 2012

Total $0.16 $0.26 $0.28 $0.27 $0.17 $0.22 $0.13 $0.15 $0.27

Child’s age

Less than 1 year 0.40 0.25 0.81 0.34 0.52 0.48 0.50 0.47 0.84

1–2 years old 0.22 0.42 0.47 0.44 0.19 0.30 0.36 0.43 0.31

3–5 years old 0.24 0.35 0.52 0.40 0.18 0.30 0.14 0.11 0.41

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) Survey, 

2001, 2005, and 2012.