Child Care and

Early Education

Arrangements of

Infants, Toddlers, and

Preschoolers: 2001

Statistical Analysis Report

U.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

NCES 2006-039

U.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

NCES 2006-039

Child Care and

Early Education

Arrangements of

Infants, Toddlers, and

Preschoolers: 2001

Statistical Analysis Report

November 2005

Gail M. Mulligan

National Center for

Education Statistics

DeeAnn Brimhall

Education Statistics

Services Institute

Jerry West*

National Center for

Education Statistics

Christopher Chapman

Project Officer

National Center for

Education Statistics

*with NCES at the time he coauthored this report. He is

currently with Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences

Grover J. Whitehurst

Director

National Center for Education Statistics

Mark Schneider

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

practitioners, data users, and the general public. Unless specifically noted, all information contained herein

is in the public domain.

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 20006-5651

November 2005

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

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

Suggested Citation

Mulligan, G.M., 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, National Center for

Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

For ordering information on this report, write to

U.S. Department of Education

ED Pubs

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

or call toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubs or order online at http://www.edpubs.org.

Content Contact

Gail Mulligan

(202) 502-7491

gail.mulligan@ed.gov
iii 

Executive Summary 

 Information pertaining to children’s early childhood experiences has been gathered as 

part of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES) for over a decade. A 

primary purpose of NHES’s early childhood surveys is to obtain information about the time 

young children spend outside the care of their parents. NHES’s Early Childhood Program 

Participation Survey (ECPP) asks parents and guardians about any nonparental care and 

education arrangements their children may have. Information is collected on various 

characteristics of these arrangements, including who provides the care, the location of the care, 

and how much families pay for it. 

Parents are asked about the care and education their children receive in a variety of 

settings. Home-based arrangements include care that takes place in a child’s own home or in the 

home of someone else. This care may be provided by a relative (other than the child’s parents) 

or a nonrelative. Nonrelative care includes care provided by babysitters, nannies, and family day 

care providers. In the NHES survey, as well as this report, such care arrangements in homebased settings are referred to as relative care and nonrelative care. Center-based care is that 

which provides children with care and education in a nonresidential setting. These arrangements 

include day care centers, nursery schools, prekindergartens, and other types of early childhood 

education programs such as Head Start. 

Each of these settings includes elements of care and education, although the reasons 

children are in care and the educational nature of the care can vary within and across 

arrangement types. The NHES does not distinguish between participation for educational 

enrichment and participation resulting from parents’ need for child care. Also, in the NHES, 

center-based arrangements that occur in more strictly educational settings (i.e., prekindergartens) 

and those that occur in day care centers are not distinguished from one another. For ease of 

presentation, the report often refers to these arrangements as nonparental care rather than 

nonparental care and education. However, the reader should keep in mind that the degree to 

which education is a central feature of the arrangement, as well as the reasons why children 

participate in such arrangements, can vary. 

This report is the latest in a series of NCES reports on young children’s nonparental care 

and education arrangements. It presents the most recent data available for children under the age 

of 6, taken from the 2001 administration of the ECPP. Interviews were conducted with parents 

or guardians of 6,741 children under age 6 who were not yet enrolled in kindergarten.1

 The overall 

 

1

 Interviews were also conducted with parents of eight 6-year-olds who were not yet enrolled in kindergarten. Due 

to their small number, these 6-year-olds are excluded from these analyses. 
iv 

response rate for the ECPP parent interview was 59.9 percent.2

 When weighted to reflect national 

totals, these data represent the child care and early educational experiences of approximately 20.3 

million children under the age of 6 who are not yet enrolled in kindergarten or higher grades. 

As in previous NHES reports on this topic, variations in participation rates by 

characteristics of children (age and race/ethnicity) and their families (household income and 

mother’s education and employment status) are examined. Unique to this report is its 

consideration of variations in participation rates by poverty status and geographic region. In 

addition, it provides a more in-depth examination of differences among children of different age 

groups than previous reports. 

All differences cited in this report are significant at the .05 level using Student’s t statistic. 

Trend tests, or bivariate regressions, are used to examine the general relationships between the 

various characteristics of child care and both household income and mother’s education level. 

Additionally, the discussion is limited to differences of at least 5 percentage points when 

percentage estimates are compared. When mean estimates are compared, the discussion is 

limited to differences where the effect size, as calculated using Cohen’s d statistic (Cohen 1988), 

is .2 or larger. 

During the spring of 2001, 60 percent of children under the age of 6 who had yet to enter 

kindergarten were receiving some type of care or education, or both, on a weekly basis from 

persons other than their parents (table 1). This translates to about 12.2 million infants (children 

under the age of 1), toddlers (1- and 2-year-olds), and preschoolers (3- to 5-year-olds) who had at 

least one weekly nonparental care arrangement. 

Overall, children’s participation in nonparental care and education increases with child’s 

age and mother’s education (table 2). There is a relationship between income and participation, 

such that children living in households with incomes over $50,000 are more likely to receive 

nonparental care than children in homes with lower incomes (65-72 percent compared to 53-57 

percent). With a participation rate of 72 percent, children in homes with incomes greater than 

$75,000 are most likely to receive this care, compared to children in lower-income households. 

Also, children whose mothers work outside the home, either part time or full time, are more 

likely than children whose mothers are not in the labor force to receive nonparental care (70 and 

85 percent vs. 31 percent). Among Black, White, and Hispanic children, Black children are most 

likely to be cared for by someone other than their parents on a weekly basis and Hispanic 

children are least likely (73, 60, and 48 percent for Black, White, and Hispanic children, 

respectively). This report expands on previous NHES studies to show that children living below 

2

 This overall response rate for the ECPP parent interview is the product of a Screener response rate and the ECPP unit 

response rate. The NHES includes a Screener survey in which information about household composition is collected 

and then used to sample children within households. In 2001, the response rate for the Screener was 69.2 percent. 

The unit response rate for the ECPP Survey, based on the percentage of children who were sampled and had parents 

who completed the survey, was 86.6 percent. Analysis of nonresponse bias conducted for the 1999 NHES, which is 

similar to the 2001 NHES in terms of its target populations and contact procedures, showed no evidence of bias in 

estimates produced from the 1999 NHES data. Also, weights assigned to each case and used in analyses are designed 

to reduce potential bias due to nonresponse. Additional information regarding nonresponse bias and weighting 

procedures in the NHES can be found in the technical notes section of this report. 
v 

the poverty threshold and children living in the West are less likely than their counterparts to be 

cared for by someone other than their parents on a weekly basis. 

Many of the same characteristics associated with participation in nonparental care and 

education arrangements for the overall population of children under the age of 6 and not yet 

enrolled in kindergarten are also associated with participation rates for infants, toddlers, and 

preschoolers when examined as separate age groups (tables 2-A, 2-B, and 2-C). For example, 

Black infants, toddlers, and preschoolers are all more likely than their White and Hispanic 

counterparts to receive nonparental care. Also, the general trend for children in each age group 

is for participation rates in nonparental care to increase as mothers’ education level increases. 

However, while income and poverty status are related to participation for toddlers and 

preschoolers, such relationships are not detected among infants. 

This report also looks at the characteristics associated with participation in the three 

specific types of nonparental care described above: relative, nonrelative, and center-based care 

(table 2). A larger percentage of children overall receive nonparental care in centers than from 

relatives or nonrelatives (33 percent compared to 22 and 16 percent, respectively). However, 

some children are more likely than others to receive certain types of care. For example, older 

children are more likely than younger children to be in center-based care; 73 percent of 5-yearolds have center-based arrangements, compared to 8 percent of infants. Children living at or 

above the poverty threshold are more likely than those living below the poverty threshold to 

receive nonrelative (17 vs. 9 percent) or center-based care (35 vs. 27 percent), while they are less 

likely to receive care from relatives (21 vs. 26 percent). Also, patterns of participation related to 

income and mothers’ education for relative care arrangements differ from the patterns of 

participation related to these characteristics for nonrelative and center-based arrangements. 

Some variations in the overall relationships between the examined characteristics and 

type of care emerge when children within particular age groups are compared to one another. 

Twenty one percent of infants are cared for by a relative on a weekly basis, compared to 14 

percent who are cared for by a nonrelative and 8 percent who are cared for in a center. There are 

no detectable differences in the participation rates of toddlers, as a group, in the different types of 

care. Preschoolers are more likely to receive care in center-based arrangements than in either 

relative or nonrelative arrangements (56 percent vs. 21 and 13 percent, respectively). 

 When infants, toddlers, and preschoolers are considered separately, participation rates in 

different types of care vary by geographic region as well. For example, 4 percent of infants 

living in the West participate in center-based care arrangements, compared to 10 percent of 

infants living in the South and 9 percent of infants living in Midwest. Preschoolers living in the 

West are less likely than preschoolers living in any other area of the country to receive centerbased care (47 percent vs. 55-63 percent). Among toddlers, participation in center-based care is 

highest for those living in the South (26 percent vs. 17-20 percent). 

Focusing on the location of care, the NHES data show that children receiving nonparental 

care in a home-based setting are more likely to be cared for in someone else’s home than in their 

own, regardless of whether the care is provided by a relative or a nonrelative (figure 4). Those 

children who are cared for in a center-based setting are most likely to receive that care in a center 
vi 

located in its own building,3

 compared to other locations, such as a school, community center, or 

library (table 4). Among children in center-based care, care provided in public or private schools 

is more common when children come from homes with lower incomes, when they are poor, 

when they belong to a racial or ethnic minority group, and when their mothers have lower levels 

of education. Also among children in center-based care, the participation rate in care located in a 

church, synagogue, or other place of worship is highest for White children, and increases with 

household income and mothers’ education. 

Children receiving nonparental care on a weekly basis spend 31 hours, on average, in the 

care of someone other than their parents (table 5). Additionally, children with nonrelative care 

arrangements spend more time in them than children in center-based care do (about 28 hours per 

week compared to about 25 hours per week). The children who spend the most time in 

nonparental care arrangements tend to be Black, come from families with lower household 

incomes, have mothers with lower levels of education or who work, and live in the South. A 

consistent relationship between child age and time spent in nonparental care emerged only for 

center-based arrangements; younger children spend more time than older children being cared 

for in a center (ranging from a high of about 32 hours per week for infants and 1-year-olds 

compared to a low of about 21 hours per week for 5-year-olds). A somewhat similar, though not 

as consistent, pattern was found for nonrelative care arrangements; toddlers spend more time in 

nonrelative care arrangements than 4- and 5-year-olds (about 30 hours per week compared to 25 

and 24 hours per week, respectively). 

The report also examines the out-of-pocket expenses for nonparental care paid by 

families of children who had care arrangements and whose parents reported that they paid 

something for care.4

 These out-of-pocket expenses vary by type of care arrangement, as well as 

by child, family, and community characteristics. On average, families spend $69 a week and $3 

an hour for care for their children (tables 6-A and 6-B).5 Relative care is the least costly, both 

weekly (about $48 per week) and hourly ($1.93 per hour), for families of children under the age 

of 6. Among those who do report having out-of-pocket expenses for care: families with younger 

children pay more on a weekly basis than do families with older children; higher-income families 

pay more than do lower-income families (and families who do not live in poverty pay more than 

do families living in poverty); families in which mothers are better-educated pay more on a 

weekly basis than do families with less educated mothers; families in which mothers work full3

 The survey question specifically asked parents whether the center their children attended was located in “its own 

building.” This category excludes private homes, place of worships, schools, colleges, universities, community 

centers, libraries, etc. Location refers strictly to the place where the care was provided and not the type of care 

provider or sponsorship. For example, if a religious group provided care in a building that was not a place of 

worship, the care would be considered as having been provided in a center located its own building, rather than in a 

place of worship. Alternatively, care located in a place of worship was not necessarily provided by the religious 

group to whom the place of worship belonged. 

4

 The NHES only ascertains the amount families pay for care themselves, apart from any financial assistance they 

may receive from others. Therefore, the data presented here may not represent the total cost of care. 

5

 There are different ways in which child care costs can be measured, including cost per week and cost per hour. 

The former measure may be largely a function of time spent in care. Therefore, the latter measure may be a more 

accurate indicator of which type of care is more costly and for whom, independent of care hours. Both cost 

estimates for the sample of children whose families pay for child care are discussed in this report. 
vii 

time pay more than do families in which mothers do not work full-time; and families living in 

the Northeast and West pay more on a weekly basis than do families living in the Midwest and 

South. 

In sum, findings from this report using the most recent data available from the NHES 

support previous research showing that children’s participation in nonparental care and education 

arrangements is related to a variety of factors. Children of different ages and racial or ethnic 

backgrounds, in different economic situations, with mothers of varying educational levels and 

employment statuses, and who live in different areas of the country exhibit differences with 

respect to whether or not they have any weekly child care arrangements. Their families also 

report differences in the location and providers of child care. Additionally, the time children 

spend in nonparental care, and the amount their families pay for it, are related to many of the 

same factors associated with participation in nonparental care and education, including those 

which are unique to this report, poverty status and geographic region. 
viii 

Acknowledgments 

The authors would like to acknowledge the many people who contributed to the 

production of this report. Westat, Inc. has collected the data upon which this report is based 

since 1991. Many people have provided invaluable comments and suggestions that improved the 

quality of this report. They include: Bill Hussar, Edie McArthur, Carol Chelemer, Val Plisko, 

and Marilyn Seastrom at the National Center for Education Statistics; Mike Planty, Young Chun, 

Margaret Noonan, Ramani Kotaru, and Zack McLain at the Education Statistics Services 

Institute; and Lisa Bridges and the anonymous reviewers from the Institute of Education 

Sciences. Any remaining errors or problems in this report are the sole responsibility of the 

authors. 
ix 

Contents

Page 

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

Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................viii 

List of Tables................................................................................................................................. x 

List of Figures............................................................................................................................... xi 

Background ................................................................................................................................... 1 

Participation in Nonparental Care and Education Arrangements.......................................... 3 

Total Participation.................................................................................................................... 3 

Overall Participation Among Children of Different Ages ....................................................... 8 

Participation in Different Types of Care and Education Arrangements .............................. 16 

Participation in Various Types of Arrangements Among All Children................................. 16 

Participation in Various Types of Arrangements Among Children of Different Ages.......... 18 

Infants . .............................................................................................................................. 18 

Toddlers . ........................................................................................................................... 20 

Preschoolers . ..................................................................................................................... 21 

Location of Nonparental Care Arrangements ......................................................................... 22 

Home-based Arrangements.................................................................................................... 22 

Center-based Arrangements ................................................................................................... 27 

Average Time Spent in Nonparental Care Arrangements...................................................... 32 

Average Out-of-Pocket Expenses for Nonparental Care ........................................................ 37 

Summary...................................................................................................................................... 45 

Methodology and Technical Notes ............................................................................................ 47 

References.................................................................................................................................... 51 
x 

 List of Tables 

Table Page 

Table 1. Percent of children under 6 years old with weekly nonparental care 

arrangements, by type of arrangement: 1995, 1999, 2001 .......................................... 1 

Table 2. Percent of children under 6 years old with weekly nonparental care 

arrangements, by type of arrangement and child and family characteristics: 2001 .... 6 

Table 2-A. Percent of infants with weekly nonparental care arrangements, by type of 

arrangement and child and family characteristics: 2001 ........................................... 10 

Table 2-B. Percent of toddlers with weekly nonparental care arrangements, by type of 

arrangement and child and family characteristics: 2001 ........................................... 12 

Table 2-C. Percent of preschoolers with weekly nonparental care arrangements, by type of 

arrangement and child and family characteristics: 2001 ........................................... 14 

Table 3. Percent of children under 6 years old with weekly relative or nonrelative care 

arrangements, by location and child and family characteristics: 2001...................... 25 

Table 4. Percent of children under 6 years old with weekly center-based care 

arrangements, by location and child and family characteristics: 2001...................... 30 

Table 5. Average number of hours per week children under 6 years old with at least one 

weekly nonparental care arrangement spend in those arrangements, by type of 

arrangement and child and family characteristics: 2001 ........................................... 35 

Table 6-A. Average amount households of children under 6 years old spend for 

nonparental care arrangements per week, by type of arrangement and child and 

family characteristics: 2001....................................................................................... 41 

Table 6-B. Average amount households of children under 6 years old spend for 

nonparental care arrangements per hour, by type of arrangement and child and 

family characteristics: 2001....................................................................................... 43 
xi 

List of Figures 

Figure Page 

Figure 1. Percent of children under 6 years old and not yet in kindergarten with 

 weekly nonparental care arrangements, by age: 2001........................................8 

Figure 2. Percent of children under 6 years old and not yet in kindergarten with 

 weekly nonparental care arrangements, by type of arrangement: 2001..................16 

 

Figure 3. Percent of children under 6 years old and not yet in kindergarten with 

 weekly nonparental care arrangements, by type of arrangement and age: 2001........19 

Figure 4. Percent of children under 6 years old and not yet in kindergarten with weekly

 relative or nonrelative care arrangements, by location of arrangement: 2001............23 

Figure 5. Percent of children under 6 years old and not yet in kindergarten with weekly 

 center-based care arrangements, by location of arrangement: 2001 ......................27 

Figure 6. Average number of hours per week children under 6 years old and not yet in 

 kindergarten spend in nonparental care arrangements, by mother’s employment 

 status: 2001....................................... ................................................34 

Figure 7. Average amount households of children under 6 years old and not yet in 

 kindergarten spend for nonparental care arrangements per week, by age: 2001........38 
1 

Background 

 Between 1995 and 2001, the percentage of children under age 6 who were not yet 

enrolled in kindergarten and were being cared for on a regular basis by individuals other than 

their parents fluctuated slightly, between 59 percent and 61 percent (table 1). In 1995, 1999, and 

2001, these children were more likely to be cared for in a center than by either a relative or 

nonrelative. Additionally, outside of center-based care, more children were cared for by a 

relative than by a nonrelative in 1999 and 2001. 

Table 1. Percent of children under 6 years old with weekly nonparental care arrangements, by 

 type of arrangement: 1995, 1999, 2001 

Type of weekly nonparental care arrangement At least one 

weekly 

nonparental care 

arrangement 

Relative Nonrelative Center1

No weekly 

nonparental 

care 

arrangement Survey year 

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

1995 

1999 

2001 

59 

61 

60 

0.9 

0.7 

0.6 

20 

22 

22

0.5 

0.6 

0.6

18 

16 

16

0.6 

0.6 

0.5

30 

34 

33

0.6 

0.5 

0.5 

41 

39 

40

0.9 

0.7 

0.6 1 Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early 

childhood programs. 

NOTE: Estimates pertain to children under 6 years old who had not yet entered kindergarten at the time of the survey. The 

percentages of children in specific types of care do not sum to the percentage of children with at least one weekly nonparental

care arrangement, because some children had more than one type of arrangement. s.e. is standard error. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation 

Survey, National Household Education Surveys Program, 1995, 1999, and 2001. 

 This information comes from the National Household Education Surveys Program 

(NHES), which the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has been conducting for 

over a decade in an effort to collect and disseminate information pertaining to children’s early 

childhood experiences. A primary purpose of NHES’s early childhood surveys is to gather 

information about the time young children spend outside the care of their parents. Specifically, 

the surveys ask parents and guardians about any nonparental care and education arrangements 

their children may have. Information is collected on various characteristics of these 

arrangements, including who provides the care, the location of the care, and how much families 

pay for it. 

Parents are asked about the care and education their children receive in a variety of 

settings. Home-based arrangements include care that takes place in a child’s own home or in the 

home of someone else. This care may be provided by a relative (other than the child’s parents) 

or a nonrelative. Nonrelative care includes care provided by babysitters, nannies, and family day 

care providers. In the NHES survey, as well as this report, such care arrangements in homebased settings are referred to as relative care and nonrelative care. Center-based care is that 
2 

which provides children with care and education in a nonresidential setting. These arrangements 

include day care centers, nursery schools, prekindergartens, and other types of early childhood 

education programs such as Head Start. 

Each of these settings includes elements of care and education, although the reasons 

children are in care and the educational nature of the care can vary within and across 

arrangement types. The NHES does not distinguish between participation for educational 

enrichment and participation resulting from parents’ need for child care. Also, in the NHES, 

center-based arrangements that occur in more strictly educational settings (e.g., 

prekindergartens) and those that occur in day care centers are not distinguished from one 

another. For ease of presentation, the report often refers to these arrangements as nonparental 

care rather than nonparental care and education. However, the reader should keep in mind that 

the degree to which education is a central feature of the arrangement, as well as the reasons why 

children participate in such arrangements, can vary. 

 Data from the first administration of NHES’s early childhood survey in 1991 were used 

to present a national picture of participation in nonparental care and education arrangements 

prior to kindergarten among first and second graders (West et al. 1992). Subsequent reports have 

used NHES data to examine the child care and early educational program participation of 

children under 6 years of age (West, Germino Hausken, and Collins 1993; West, Wright, and 

Germino Hausken 1995), as well as the before- and after-school activities of children in their 

first few years of formal schooling (Brimhall, Reaney, and West 1999). Research using 

NHES:1995 data provided detailed information on the characteristics of child care arrangements 

in the United States (Hofferth et al. 1998). NHES data also serve as a source of early childhood 

indicators for several major Federal reports, including America’s Children, The Condition of 

Education, and Statistical Abstract of the United States. In addition, researchers have taken 

advantage of the NHES data to investigate various issues related to nonparental child care and 

education, including patterns of preschool and day care usage by families of different racial and 

ethnic backgrounds (Early and Burchinal 2001; Fuller et al. 1996) and families of disabled 

children (Huang and Van Horn 1995). 

This report is the latest in a series of NCES reports on young children’s nonparental care 

and education arrangements. It presents the most recent data available for children under the age 

of 6, taken from the Early Childhood Program Participation Survey (ECPP) of the 2001 NHES. 

Information in this report was obtained through interviews with 6,741 parents or guardians of 

children under age 6 who were not yet enrolled in kindergarten.1

 When weighted to reflect 

national totals, these data represent the child care and early educational experiences of 

approximately 20.3 million children under the age of 6 who are not yet enrolled in kindergarten or 

higher grades. The unit response rate of the ECPP Survey, based on the percentage of children 

who were sampled and had parents who completed the survey, was 86.6 percent. The NHES also 

contains a Screener survey in which information about household composition is collected and 

then used to sample children within households. The response rate for the Screener was 69.2 

 

1

 Interviews were also conducted with parents of eight 6-year-olds who were not yet enrolled in kindergarten. Due 

to their small number, these 6-year-olds are excluded from these analyses. 
3 

percent. The overall response rate for the ECPP parent interview, which is the product of the 

Screener response rate and the ECPP unit response rate, was 59.9 percent.2 

As in previous NHES reports on this topic, variations in participation rates in nonparental 

care arrangements by characteristics of children (age and race/ethnicity) and their families 

(household income and mother’s education and employment status) are examined. Unique to this 

report is its consideration of variations in participation rates by poverty status and geographic 

region. In addition, it provides a more in-depth examination of differences among children of 

different age groups than previous reports. 

The report begins with a description of overall participation in nonparental child care and 

education arrangements, with consideration given to how participation rates vary by selected 

child, family, and community characteristics. This description is followed by an examination of 

participation among children in three different age groups: infants (children under the age of 1), 

toddlers (1- and 2-year-olds), and preschoolers (3- to 5-year-olds). Then, participation rates in 

the three different types of care (relative, nonrelative, and center-based care) are described 

individually. The report concludes with a look at how the child, family, and community 

characteristics described above are related to the time children spend in nonparental care each 

week and to the amount families pay for care. The methodology and technical notes section at 

the end of the report provides detail about the NHES survey methodology, response rates, survey 

error, and the statistical tests used to analyze the NHES data. 

All differences cited in this report are significant at the .05 level using Student’s t statistic. 

Trend tests, or bivariate regressions, are used to examine the general relationships between the 

various characteristics of child care and both household income and mother’s education level. 

Additionally, the discussion is limited to differences of at least 5 percentage points when 

percentage estimates are compared. When mean estimates are compared, the discussion is 

limited to differences where the effect size, as calculated using Cohen’s d statistic (Cohen 1988), 

is .2 or larger. 

Participation in Nonparental Care and Education Arrangements 

Total Participation 

This section presents overall estimates of the percentage of children who have various 

child care and early education arrangements, as well as differences in participation related to the 

child, family, and community characteristics described above. There are many ways of 

calculating children’s participation rates in child care and early education arrangements. This 

report uses a prevalence rate, which represents the percent of children receiving nonparental care 

in each type of arrangement on a weekly basis. In calculating this rate, no consideration is given 

to either the number of hours a child spends in one setting as compared to another or to a 

2

 Analysis of nonresponse bias conducted for the 1999 NHES, which is similar to the 2001 NHES in terms of its target 

populations and contact procedures, showed no evidence of bias in estimates produced from the 1999 NHES data. 

Also, weights assigned to each case and used in analyses are designed to reduce potential bias due to nonresponse. 

Additional information regarding nonresponse bias and weighting procedures in the NHES can be found in the 

technical notes section of this report. 
4 

parent’s activities (e.g., whether or not a child’s mother works) while the child is in nonparental 

care. Moreover, a child may be counted under several arrangements if he or she spends time in 

more than one setting. Thus, the rates reported here will differ from rates based on children’s 

primary care arrangement (i.e., the arrangement where the child spends the greatest number of 

hours). The results discussed below show that the majority of children have weekly nonparental 

care arrangements, and the patterns of participation vary by all of the child, family, and 

community characteristics included in this report. 

During the spring of 2001, 60 percent of children under the age of 6 who had yet to enter 

kindergarten were receiving some type of care or education, or both, on a weekly basis from 

persons other than their parents (table 2). This translates to about 12.2 million infants, toddlers, 

and preschool children who had at least one weekly nonparental care arrangement. 

Patterns of participation by race/ethnicity are consistent with the findings from previous 

studies (West, Germino Hausken, and Collins 1993; West, Wright, and Germino Hausken 1995) 

showing that Hispanic children3

 are less likely to receive nonparental care than either White or 

Black children (table 2).4 About 48 percent of Hispanic children, compared with 60 percent of 

White children and 73 percent of Black children, receive care on a weekly basis from persons 

other than their parents. White children also are less likely than Black children to receive such 

care. 

There is a relationship between income and participation, such that children living in 

households with incomes over $50,000 are more likely to receive nonparental care than children 

in homes with lower incomes (65-72 percent compared to 53-57 percent). With a participation 

rate of 72 percent, children in homes with incomes greater than $75,000 are most likely to 

receive this care. 

Previous studies using NHES data have found a similar relationship between income and 

participation but did not consider how living in poverty may be related to receipt of nonparental 

care (e.g., West, Germino Hausken, and Collins 1993; West, Wright, and Germino Hausken 

1995). Examination of participation rates by poverty status increases understanding of the use of 

nonparental care by the families of those children who are most economically disadvantaged. 

The federal government uses a set of poverty thresholds that indicate the annual incomes 

households must receive to meet their needs. This official measure of poverty is updated 

annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index and takes both household size and 

composition into account. Households with incomes below the poverty threshold corresponding 

to their size and composition are considered poor. For example, in 2001 a family of four with 

two dependent children under age 18 earning less than $17,960 was considered poor (Proctor and 

Dalaker 2002). The 2001 NHES data show that children living below the poverty threshold are 

less likely to have nonparental care arrangements than children living at or above the poverty 

threshold (53 percent vs. 62 percent). 

 

3

 Hispanic children may be of any racial background. The terms “White” and “Black” are used to describe “White, 

non-Hispanic” and “Black, non-Hispanic” children. 

4

 Although estimates for children of other, non-Hispanic racial/ethnic backgrounds are included in the tables, 

comparisons between these children and White, Black, and Hispanic children are not discussed. This is a diverse 

group, and child care characteristics are likely to vary among the children of different races/ethnicities within it. 
5 

Studies consistently show that children are more likely to have nonparental care and 

education arrangements when their mothers have higher levels of education and when they work 

(e.g., Brimhall, Reaney, and West 1999; Singer et al. 1998; Smith 2002). These relationships are 

also found in analyses of the 2001 NHES data. Children whose mothers did not complete high 

school or earn a GED are least likely to receive nonparental care (43 percent), while children 

whose mothers have a graduate or professional degree are most likely (74 percent). Eighty-five 

percent of children whose mothers work full time (35 hours or more per week) and 70 percent of 

children whose mothers work part time (less than 35 hours per week) receive care on a weekly 

basis from a nonparent caregiver. This contrasts with 31 percent of children whose mothers are 

not in the labor force.5

A smaller percentage of children who live in the western part of the United States (54 

percent) receive nonparental care on a weekly basis than do children who live in the Northeast, 

South, or Midwest (63 percent, 62 percent, and 62 percent, respectively).6

 

5

 Although children whose mothers are currently looking for work are included in the tables, comparisons between 

these children and children whose mothers have other employment statuses are not discussed. 

6

 These geographic regions correspond to those used by the Census Bureau. States and the District of Columbia are 

categorized by the Census Bureau into regions in the following manner: Northeast: CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, 

RI, VT; South: AL, AR, DC, DE, FL, GA, KY, LA, MD, MS, NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV; Midwest: IA, IL, 

IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, ND, NE, OH, SD, WI; West: AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, MT, NV, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY. 
6 

Table 2. Percent of children under 6 years old with weekly nonparental care arrangements, by type of arrangement and child a

At least one weekly Type of weekly nonparental care arrangement 

nonparental care 

arrangement Relative Nonrelative Cen

Characteristic Number of 

children 

(in thousands) Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent 

 Total Age2 Less than one  One year old  Two years old  Three years old  Four years old  Five years old Race/ethnicity  White, non-Hispanic  Black, non-Hispanic  Hispanic  Other Household income  $10,000 or less  $10,001 to $20,000  $20,001 to $30,000  $30,001 to $40,000  $40,001 to $50,000  $50,001 to $75,000  More than $75,000 Poverty status3

 At or above poverty threshold  Below poverty threshold Mother’s level of education4

 Less than high school  High school / GED  Vocational/technical or some college  Bachelor’s degree  Graduate or professional degree 

20,252 

3,868 3,902 3,931 3,795 3,861 

896 

12,353 

2,987 3,693 1,219 2,279 2,717 2,716 2,322 2,029 4,120 4,069 

15,996 

4,255 2,385 5,986 5,882 3,940 1,689 

60 40 53 59 65 79 82 60 73 48 64 53 55 53 57 55 65 72 62 53 43 56 63 65 74 

0.6 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.1 2.5 0.9 2.4 1.6 3.0 3.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.6 

1.5 1.5 0.7 2.0 2.7 1.6 1.3 1.5 2.4 

22 21 22 23 22 21 20 19 33 23 22 30 21 24 25 21 21 15 21 26 20 25 24 17 14 

0.6 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 2.7 0.7 2.3 1.3 2.5 2.9 1.7 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.2 1.0 0.6 1.9 2.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.7 

16 14 20 18 14 13 13 18 12 11 15 

9 

12 12 14 17 20 21 17 

9 8 

13 15 20 31 

0.5 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.0 2.1 0.7 1.2 1.0 2.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.2 1.2 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.2 2.3 

33 

8 

16 25 43 65 73 35 40 21 37 24 30 26 29 25 36 48 35 27 21 27 35 41 44 

See notes at end of table.

6 
7 

Table 2. Percent of children under 6 years old with weekly nonparental care arrangements, by type of arrangement and child a

 Continued 

At least one weekly Type of weekly nonparental care arrangement 

nonparental care 

arrangement Relative Nonrelative Cen

Characteristic Number of children 

(in thousands) Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent 

Mother’s employment status4

 35 hours or more per week  Less than 35 hours per week  Looking for work  Not in the labor force Geographic region  Northeast  South  Midwest  West 

7,573 4,064

989 

7,257 3,717 6,802 4,845 4,888 

85 70 41 31 63 62 62 54 

0.9 1.6 3.6 1.11.8 1.3 1.3 1.6 

33 30 16 

6 

25 21 21 20 

1.0 1.5 2.9 0.6 

1.5 1.1 1.2 1.4 

26 19 

8 4 

16 13 21 15 

0.9 1.3 1.7 0.5 1.3 0.8 1.2 0.9 

42 35 

23 24 35 36 33 27 

1 Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood programs. 2 Age is calculated as of December 31, 2000. 3 Children are considered poor if living in households with incomes below the poverty threshold, which is a dollar amount determined by the federal gneeds, given its size and composition.

4 Children without mothers living in the household are not included in estimates related to mother's education or mother's employment status. 

NOTE: Estimates pertain to children under 6 years old who had not yet entered kindergarten at the time of the survey. Detail may not sum to totals b

of children in specific types of care do not sum to the percentage of children with at least one weekly nonparental care arrangement, because some chi

arrangement. s.e. is standard error. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey, National Househo

7 
8 

Overall Participation Among Children of Different Ages 

As shown in figure 1, the percentage of children receiving nonparental care consistently 

increases with the age of the child, up to age four. Children under the age of one are the least 

likely to receive nonparental care on a weekly basis (40 percent), while 4- and 5-year-olds are 

the most likely (79 and 82 percent, respectively). The following section describes similarities 

and differences in the relationships between participation and child, family, and community 

characteristics for infants (under age one), toddlers (ages 1 and 2), and preschoolers (ages 3-5). 

Findings are presented for each of these groups separately in tables 2-A (infants), 2-B (toddlers), 

and 2-C (preschoolers).7

 These findings show that, within each age group, participation is 

related to most, if not all, of the characteristics examined in this report, but the specific patterns 

of relationships sometimes vary across age groups. 

 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure 1. Percent of children under 6 years old and not yet in kindergarten with weekly 

nonparental care arrangements, by age: 2001

NOTE: Age is calculated as of December 31, 2000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program 

Participation Survey, National Household Education Surveys Program, 2001.

Less than

one

One Two Three Four Five

Age in years

Percent

40

53

59

65

79 82

 

7

 Results in these tables pertain to subsamples of the total population. In these smaller samples, it is more difficult to 

obtain statistical significance when making comparisons between groups. For this reason, differences that appear 

large or similar to differences found within the total population may not be found to be statistically significant. 
9 

Consistent with the relationship between race/ethnicity and nonparental care found in the 

total population of children under the age of 6 and not yet enrolled in kindergarten, Black infants, 

toddlers, and preschoolers are all more likely than their White and Hispanic counterparts to 

receive nonparental care. Additionally, White toddlers and preschoolers are more likely than 

their Hispanic peers to receive care from someone other than their parents (56 and 74 percent for 

Whites, compared to 41 and 60 percent for Hispanics). 

The relationship between income and participation is more consistent for toddlers and 

preschoolers than it is for infants. Between 47 and 52 percent of toddlers in homes with incomes 

of $30,000 or less receive nonparental care, compared to between 61 and 67 percent of toddlers 

in homes with incomes over $50,000. The participation rates for preschoolers living in 

households with incomes of $50,000 or less are lower than the rates for preschoolers in 

households with incomes greater than $50,000 (63-67 percent compared to 79-87 percent). In 

addition, preschoolers from homes with incomes greater than $75,000 are the most likely to 

receive nonparental care (87 percent), compared to other preschoolers. 

Toddlers and preschoolers living below the poverty threshold are less likely to have 

nonparental care arrangements (47 and 65 percent, respectively) than their peers living at or 

above the poverty threshold (58 and 75 percent, respectively). A relationship between poverty 

status and participation was not detected among infants. 

Similar to the pattern found in the overall population of children included in this study, 

the general trend for children in each age group is for participation rates in nonparental care to 

increase as mother’s education level increases, with those children whose mothers do not have a 

high school diploma or GED being less likely to receive nonparental care than children whose 

mothers have a bachelor’s or advanced degree (28 percent compared to 43 and 49 percent, 

respectively, for infants; 35 percent compared to 61 and 76 percent, respectively, for toddlers; 

and 57 percent compared to 80 and 88 percent, respectively, for preschoolers). 

Children in each age group whose mothers work are more likely to be cared for by 

someone other than their parents than are children whose mothers are not in the labor force. In 

addition, toddlers and preschoolers whose mothers work full time participate at higher rates (87 

and 90 percent, respectively) than toddlers and preschoolers whose mothers work part time (63 

and 80 percent, respectively). 

 

Within each age group, children who live in the West generally have lower participation 

rates than children living in other areas of the country. Specifically, infants in the West are less 

likely than infants in the Northeast and Midwest to receive nonparental care (33 percent 

compared to 46 and 45 percent). Toddlers who live in the West and Northeast are less likely 

than toddlers who live in the South to receive such care (51 and 53 percent compared to 62 

percent). Preschoolers who live in the western part of the United States are less likely than their 

peers in every other geographic region to receive nonparental care on a weekly basis (66 percent 

compared to 74-79 percent for other regions). 
10 

Table 2-A. Percent of infants with weekly nonparental care arrangements, by type of arrangement and child and family charac

At least one weekly Type of weekly nonparental care arrangement 

nonparental care 

arrangement Relative Nonrelative Cen

Characteristic Number of children 

(in thousands) Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent 

 Total Race/ethnicity  White, non-Hispanic  Black, non-Hispanic  Hispanic  Other Household income  $10,000 or less  $10,001 to $20,000  $20,001 to $30,000  $30,001 to $40,000  $40,001 to $50,000  $50,001 to $75,000  More than $75,000 Poverty status2

 At or above poverty threshold  Below poverty threshold Mother’s level of education3

 Less than high school  High school / GED  Vocational/technical or some college  Bachelor’s degree  Graduate or professional degree 

3,868 2,382 

569 694 223 430 496 524 451 425 790 753 

3,093 

775 476 

1,046 1,143 

768 409 

40 39 50 33 44 36 33 38 40 40 40 46 41 36 28 40 39 43 49 

1.5 2.0 4.7 3.5 8.6 6.6 4.3 5.0 5.0 5.3 3.8 3.8 1.7 4.3 5.0 3.6 3.0 3.2 5.2 

21 18 31 24 23 25 

20 28 22 23 19 17 21 24 14 27 25 15 15 

1.2 1.6 3.9 3.0 6.0 5.1 3.5 4.3 4.2 3.9 2.6 2.8 1.4 3.4 3.6 3.3 2.5 2.3 3.8 

14 17 11 

7 

10 10 

8 9 

16 13 17 20 15 

9 7 

10 10 22 26 

1.1 1.6 3.1 1.8 4.4 3.5 2.3 3.0 4.3 3.3 2.7 3.1 1.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.7 3.2 4.4 

8 7 

11 

4 

14 

4 6 4 9 5 7 

15 

8 5 8 6 6 

11 11 

See notes at end of table. 

10 
11 

Table 2-A. Percent of infants with weekly nonparental care arrangements, by type of arrangement and child and family charac

At least one weekly Type of weekly nonparental care arrangement 

nonparental care 

arrangement Relative Nonrelative Ce

Characteristic 

Number of 

children 

(in thousands) Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Perce

Mother’s employment status3

 35 hours or more per week  Less than 35 hours per week  Looking for work  Not in the labor force Geographic region  Northeast  South  Midwest  West 

1,287 

748 219 

1,588 

684 

1,429 

896 859 

67 63 13 10 46 37 45 33 

2.8 3.5 4.6 1.9 4.2 2.7 3.2 3.3 

32 42 

8 5 

28 19 21 19 

2.6 4.3 4.0 1.1 3.6 2.1 3.0 2.5 

25 23 

2 2 

14 11 20 12 

2.4 3.3 1.3 0.8 2.8 1.6 2.9 2.5 

1

1

1 Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood programs. 2 Children are considered poor if living in households with incomes below the poverty threshold, which is a dollar amount determined by the federal gneeds, given its size and composition.

3 Children without mothers living in the household are not included in estimates related to mother's education or mother's employment status. 

NOTE: Estimates pertain to children less than one year old as of December 31, 2000. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. The percentado not sum to the percentage of children with at least one weekly nonparental care arrangement, because some children had more than one type of arraSOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey, National Househo

11 
12 

Table 2-B. Percent of toddlers with weekly nonparental care arrangements, by type of arrangement and child and family chara

At least one weekly Type of weekly nonparental care arrangement 

nonparental care 

arrangement Relative Nonrelative Cent

Characteristic 

Number of 

children 

(in thousands) Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent 

Total 

Age  One year old  Two years old Race/ethnicity  White, non-Hispanic  Black, non-Hispanic  Hispanic  Other Household income  $10,000 or less  $10,001 to $20,000  $20,001 to $30,000  $30,001 to $40,000  $40,001 to $50,000  $50,001 to $75,000  More than $75,000 Poverty status2

 At or above poverty threshold  Below poverty threshold Mother’s level of education3

 Less than high school  High school / GED  Vocational/technical or some college  Bachelor’s degree  Graduate or professional degree 

7,833 3,902 3,931 4,658 1,167 1,493 

514 898 

1,066 1,057 

894 783 

1,607 1,529 6,174 1,658 

913 

2,227 2,333 1,619 

596 

56 53 59 56 72 41 63 47 52 47 55 53 61 67 58 47 35 51 60 61 76 

1.2 1.7 1.7 1.5 4.2 2.3 4.5 5.0 3.5 3.2 3.4 3.4 2.4 2.4 1.2 3.5 3.5 2.6 2.0 2.5 

3.5 

23 22 23 20 31 22 24 27 21 22 28 22 24 17 22 25 18 25 24 20 17 

0.9 1.3 1.4 1.2 3.3 1.9 3.4 4.3 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.2 1.7 1.0 2.9 2.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 3.2 

19 20 18 21 18 14 21 13 16 16 13 20 23 27 21 13 11 16 19 21 39 

0.9 

1.2 1.4 1.2 2.6 1.5 3.6 2.6 2.7 2.1 2.1 2.9 2.1 2.1 1.0 2.0 2.2 1.8 1.7 2.0 3.5 

21 16 25 21 30 

9 

23 13 19 14 18 18 22 32 22 15 

9 

15 22 29 33 

See notes at end of table. 

12 
13 

Table 2-B. Percent of toddlers with weekly nonparental care arrangements, by type of arrangement and child and family chara

At least one weekly Type of weekly nonparental care arrangement 

nonparental care 

arrangement Relative Nonrelative Cent

Characteristic 

Number of 

children 

(in thousands) Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent 

Mother’s employment status3

 35 hours or more per week  Less than 35 hours per week  Looking for work  Not in the labor force Geographic region  Northeast  South  Midwest  West 

2,902 1,552 

374 

2,860 1,412 2,605 1,803 2,013 

87 63 41 22 53 62 56 51 

1.1 2.7 5.5 1.8 2.9 1.9 2.9 2.8 

36 30 17 

5 

24 22 21 23 

1.6 2.5 4.5 0.8 2.1 1.8 1.7 2.1 

31 23 14 

6 

19 18 23 18 

1.6 2.2 3.7 0.9 2.1 1.5 2.0 1.9 

30 20 14 13 

17 26 20 17 

1 Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood programs. 2 Children are considered poor if living in households with incomes below the poverty threshold, which is a dollar amount determined by the federal gneeds, given its size and composition.

3 Children without mothers living in the household are not included in estimates related to mother's education or mother's employment status. 

NOTE: Estimates pertain to children ages one and two as of December 31, 2000. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. The percentages 

not sum to the percentage of children with at least one weekly nonparental care arrangement, because some children had more than one type of arrang

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey, National Househo

13 
14 

Table 2-C. Percent of preschoolers with weekly nonparental care arrangements, by type of arrangement and child and family c

At least one weekly Type of weekly nonparental care arrangement 

nonparental care 

arrangement Relative Nonrelative Ce

Characteristic 

Number of 

children 

(in thousands) 

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

Total 

Age  Three years old  Four years old  Five years old Race/ethnicity  White, non-Hispanic  Black, non-Hispanic  Hispanic  Other Household income  $10,000 or less  $10,001 to $20,000  $20,001 to $30,000  $30,001 to $40,000  $40,001 to $50,000  $50,001 to $75,000  More than $75,000 Poverty status2

 At or above poverty threshold  Below poverty threshold Mother’s level of education3

 Less than high school  High school / GED  Vocational/technical or some college  Bachelor’s degree  Graduate or professional degree 

8,551 3,795 3,861 

896 

5,313 1,251 1,506 

482 951 

1,156 1,134 

978 822 

1,724 1,788 6,729 1,822 

996 

2,712 2,406 1,553 

685 

73 65 79 82 74 84 60 75 67 67 66 67 63 79 87 75 65 57 68 77 80 88 

0.7 1.3 1.1 2.5 1.0 2.2 2.0 3.9 3.8 2.4 3.0 3.0 3.6 1.7 1.5 0.8 2.4 3.6 

1.7 1.5 1.9 2.5 

21 22 21 20 18 35 22 20 35 22 22 23 20 20 14 20 28 24 24 23 15 10 

0.9 1.3 1.3 2.7 0.9 3.4 1.9 3.4 4.6 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 1.5 1.4 0.9 2.6 3.1 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 

13 14 13 13 16 

8 

11 11 

6 

10 10 12 15 18 17 15 

7 5 

11 13 

17 26 

0.7 1.1 1.0 2.1 1.0 1.6 1.4 2.7 1.8 1.5 1.6 2.2 1.9 1.8 1.5 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.7 3.1 

56 43 65 73 59 62 40 62 44 50 49 48 43 62 75 59 46 38 46 62 68 75 

See notes at end of table. 

14 
15 

Table 2-C. Percent of preschoolers with weekly nonparental care arrangements, by type of arrangement and child and family c

At least one weekly Type of weekly nonparental care arrangement 

nonparental care 

arrangement Relative Nonrelative Ce

Characteristic 

Number of 

children 

(in thousands) 

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

Mother’s employment status3

 35 hours or more per week  Less than 35 hours per week  Looking for work  Not in the labor force Geographic region  Northeast  South  Midwest  West 

3,384 1,764 

396 

2,809 1,620 2,768 2,146 2,017 

90 80 55 51 79 74 75 66 

0.9 1.7 5.5 1.7 2.2 1.6 1.7 2.1 

30 26 19 

7 

25 21 21 18 

1.5 2.0 5.0 1.0 2.5 1.6 1.8 1.7 

22 15 

5 4 

13 10 20 12 

1.3 1.5 1.8 0.7 1.7 1.1 1.7 1.3 

63 61 

43 47 63 59 55 47 

1 Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood programs. 2 Children are considered poor if living in households with incomes below the poverty threshold, which is a dollar amount determined by the federal gneeds, given its size and composition.

3 Children without mothers living in the household are not included in estimates related to mother's education or mother's employment status. 

NOTE: Estimates pertain to children ages three through five, as of December 31, 2000, who had not yet entered kindergarten at the time of the survey

specific types of care do not sum to the percentage of children with at least one weekly nonparental care arrangement, because some children had mors.e. is standard error. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey, National Househo

15 
16 

Participation in Different Types of Care and Education Arrangements 

Participation in Various Types of Arrangements Among All Children 

As noted above, children can receive care from a variety of people and organizations in a 

variety of locations. Figure 2 shows the percentages of children under the age of 6 who receive 

home-based care from relatives and nonrelatives, as well as the percentage of children who have 

center-based arrangements. For this group of children as a whole, the participation rate is 

highest for center-based arrangements (33 percent). Additionally, a larger percentage of children 

are cared for by a relative than by a nonrelative (22 vs. 16 percent). 

Figure 2. Percent of children under 6 years old and not yet in kindergarten with weekly 

nonparental care arrangements, by type of arrangement: 2001

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

early childhood programs.

NOTE: Age is calculated as of December 31, 2000. Percentages by type of care sum to more than 100 percent,

because some children participated in more than one type of nonparental arrangement on a weekly basis. 

Type of nonparental care arrangement

0

20

40

60

80

100

Relative Nonrelative Center 1 No nonparental

care arrangement

22

16

33

40

h h h h h

Percent

 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation 

 Survey, National Household Education Surveys Program, 2001.
17 

Rates of participation in these three types of care differ in some cases among children 

with different demographic characteristics. As will be discussed in this section, such differences 

are sometimes evident when comparing groups of children differing in household income, 

mothers’ education, race/ethnicity, and geographic region in which they reside. 

Similar to findings from the 1995 NHES (West, Wright, and Germino Hausken 1995), 

these data show that the setting in which children receive nonparental care is related to child’s 

age. Older children are more likely than younger children to be in center-based care (table 2). 

One-year-olds are more likely to be cared for by a nonrelative than are infants, 3-, 4-, or 5-yearolds (20 percent compared to 13 to 14 percent). Two-year-olds also are more likely than 4- or 5-

year-olds to receive nonrelative care (18 vs. 13 percent). 

Black children under the age of 6 are more likely than White or Hispanic children to 

participate in relative or center-based care (33 and 40 percent for relative and center based care 

for Black children, compared to 19 and 35 percent and 23 and 21 percent for White and Hispanic 

children, respectively). White children are more likely than Black or Hispanic children to 

receive care from a nonrelative (18 percent vs. 12 and 11 percent, respectively). Hispanic 

children have the lowest rate of participation in center-based care (21 percent), compared to 

Black and White children (40 and 35 percent, respectively). Consistent with the overall pattern 

for all children under the age of 6 who have not yet entered kindergarten, White and Black 

children are more likely to receive center-based care than relative or nonrelative care. This is not 

true for Hispanic children. While they are less likely to have nonrelative care arrangements (11 

percent), compared to relative or center-based arrangements (23 and 21 percent, respectively), 

there are no measurable differences in the percentage of Hispanic children who are cared for by 

relatives and the percentage who are cared for in centers. 

Participation in nonrelative care is higher for children in households with incomes greater 

than $50,000 than it is for children in households with incomes of $30,000 or less (20-21 percent 

compared with 9-12 percent, respectively); similar differences are evident for center-based care 

arrangements (36-48 percent compared with 24-30 percent, respectively). In contrast, children in 

households with incomes greater than $75,000 are less likely than children living in lowerincome households to be cared for by a relative (15 percent compared to 21 to 30 percent). 

The participation rates for each type of care by poverty status follow the same general 

patterns. Children living at or above the poverty threshold are more likely than those living 

below the poverty threshold to receive nonrelative (17 vs. 9 percent) or center-based care (35 vs. 

27 percent), while they are less likely to receive care from relatives (21 vs. 26 percent). 

Additionally, consistent with the overall pattern for all children, those living at or above the 

poverty threshold are more likely to receive center-based care than relative or nonrelative care 

(35 percent vs. 21 and 17 percent, respectively). Children living below the poverty threshold are 

less likely to have nonrelative care arrangements, compared to relative or center-based 

arrangements (9 percent vs. 26 and 27 percent, respectively), but there are no measurable 

differences in the percentage of poor children who are cared for by relatives and the percentage 

who are cared for in centers. 
18 

Children’s participation in nonrelative and center-based arrangements increases with 

mother’s education. The relationship of mother’s education to children’s participation is less 

clear for relative care arrangements, but participation in relative care tends to decrease as 

mother’s education increases. Children whose mothers have a high school diploma, GED, 

vocational/technical diploma or some college are more likely than children whose mothers have 

a bachelor’s degree or higher to be cared for by relatives (24 to 25 percent compared to 14 to 17 

percent). Additionally, children whose mothers did not complete high school are more likely 

than children whose mothers have an advanced degree to receive relative care (20 vs. 14 

percent). In contrast, children whose mothers did not complete high school are less likely than 

children whose mothers have a high school diploma or GED to receive relative care (20 vs. 25 

percent). 

Children whose mothers work are more likely to receive care of any type than children 

whose mothers are not in the labor force. Children whose mothers work full time also are more 

likely to receive nonrelative or center-based care (26 and 42 percent) than those whose mothers 

work part time (19 and 35 percent). 

Comparisons of participation rates in different types of care across regions show that 

children living in the Northeast are the most likely to receive care from a relative (25 percent), 

children living in the Midwest are the most likely to receive care from a nonrelative (21 percent), 

and children living in the West are the least likely to receive care in a center-based setting (27 

percent). 

To summarize these findings, participation rates for the three types of care examined in 

this report vary among children with different demographic characteristics. Generally, 

nonrelative and center-based care are most common for children in higher-income homes, 

including those living at or above the poverty threshold, and for children with better-educated 

mothers. Nonrelative care is also most common for White children and children living in the 

Midwest, while center-based care is most common for Black children and least common for 

children who live in the Western region of the United States, compared to other children. 

Relative care is more common among Black children, children living below the poverty 

threshold, children with less-educated mothers, and children who live in the Northeastern region 

of the United States, compared to other children. 

Participation in Various Types of Arrangements Among Children of Different Ages 

Variations in the overall relationships between the examined characteristics and type of 

care emerge when children within particular age groups are compared to one another. Below, 

participation rates in different types of care among children with different characteristics are 

examined separately for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. 

Infants Twenty one percent of children under the age of one are cared for by a relative on a 

weekly basis, compared to 14 percent who are cared for by a nonrelative and 8 percent who are 

cared for in a center (figure 3 and table 2-A). These participation rates also indicate that 

nonrelative care arrangements are more common for this group of children than are center-based 

arrangements. 
19 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure 3. Percent of children under 6 years old and not yet in kindergarten with weekly 

nonparental care arrangements, by type of arrangement and age: 2001

Less than one One to Two Three to Five

Age in years

NOTE: Age is calculated as of December 31, 2000. Percentages by type of care sum to more than 100 percent, because 

some children participated in more than one type of nonparental arrangement on a weekly basis. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program 

Participation Survey, National Household Education Surveys Program, 2001.

Percent

21 23 21

14

19

13

8

56

21

60

44

27

Relative arrangement

Center-based arrangement

Nonrelative arrangement

No nonparental arrangement

Among infants, there are differences within the types of care by race/ethnicity. Black 

infants are more likely than White infants to receive care from a relative (31 vs. 18 percent), 

while White infants are more likely than Hispanic infants to receive care from a nonrelative (17 

vs. 7 percent). With a participation rate of 4 percent, Hispanic infants are less likely than Black 

infants (11 percent) to be cared for in a center. 

There are no distinctive patterns in infant participation rates by household income for 

relative care. With the exception of infants in households with incomes between $30,001 and 

$40,000, infants in households with incomes greater than $75,000 are more likely than other 

infants to receive center-based care (15 percent compared to 4-9 percent). In addition, infants in 

households with incomes above $75,000 have higher rates of participation in nonrelative care 

than do infants in households with incomes of $30,000 or less (20 percent compared to 8-10 

percent). Looking at poverty status, infants who reside in households living at or above the 

poverty threshold are more likely to be cared for by a nonrelative than infants living below the 

poverty threshold (15 vs. 9 percent). 
20 

Participation in relative care arrangements is more common for infants whose mothers 

have a high school diploma or equivalent, a vocational/technical diploma or some college (25-27 

percent) than it is for infants whose mothers have less than a high school education (14 percent) 

or a bachelor’s degree or higher (15 percent). Participation in nonrelative arrangements is 

greater for infants whose mothers have a bachelor’s degree or higher (22-26 percent) compared 

to infants whose mothers have lower levels of education (7-10 percent). There is no clear pattern 

by mother’s education for infants’ participation in center-based care arrangements. 

Infants whose mothers are not in the labor force are less likely to have relative or 

nonrelative care arrangements than infants who have mothers in the labor force. Infants whose 

mothers work full time are the most likely to be cared for in a center (15 percent) compared to 

infants whose mothers are not in the labor force or are working part time (4 and 6 percent, 

respectively). 

Infant participation rates for care in different settings vary by geographic region. Infants 

who live in the Northeast are more likely to be cared for by relatives than infants living in the 

South or the West (28 percent vs. 19 percent each). Infants in the Midwest are more likely than 

infants living in the South and West to have nonrelative care arrangements (20 percent vs. 11 and 

12 percent). Also, infants living in the South and Midwest are more likely than infants living in 

the West to participate in center-based care arrangements (10 and 9 percent compared to 4 

percent). 

Toddlers On average, between 19 and 23 percent of toddlers participate in each type of care 

(figure 3 and table 2-B). However, as table 2-B indicates, 1-year-olds are less likely to be cared 

for in a center than by a relative (16 vs. 22 percent). Two-year-olds are less likely to receive care 

from a nonrelative than in a center (18 vs. 25 percent).

When looking at participation rates by race/ethnicity (table 2-B), Black toddlers are more 

likely than White or Hispanic toddlers to be cared for by a relative (31 percent vs. 20 and 22 

percent, respectively) or to receive center-based care (30 percent vs. 21 and 9 percent, 

respectively). Hispanic toddlers are less likely than White toddlers to be cared for by a 

nonrelative (14 vs. 21 percent) or in a center-based setting (9 vs. 21 percent). 

Care from nonrelatives or in center-based settings is more common for toddlers in 

households with incomes over $75,000 compared to toddlers in homes with incomes of $40,000 

or less. In addition, toddlers in households with incomes over $75,000 are more likely to receive 

center-based care than toddlers in households with lower incomes (32 percent compared to 13-22 

percent). Similarly, toddlers living at or above the poverty threshold are more likely than 

toddlers living below the poverty threshold to have nonrelative or center-based care 

arrangements (21 and 22 percent compared to 13 and 15 percent). 

As mother’s education increases, toddlers’ participation in nonrelative and center-based 

care arrangements increases. Toddlers whose mothers work full time are more likely to be cared 

for by a relative, by a nonrelative, or in a center on a weekly basis than toddlers with mothers of 

any other employment status. Toddlers whose mothers work part time also are more likely to 

receive care in each of these three settings than toddlers whose mothers are not in the labor force. 
21 

Some differences were found in toddler participation rates across geographic regions for 

center-based care. Toddlers living in the South are more likely to be cared for in a center than 

toddlers living in any other area of the country (26 percent compared to 17-20 percent). 

Preschoolers Three- to five-year-olds are more likely to receive care in center-based 

arrangements than in either relative or nonrelative arrangements (56 percent vs. 21 and 13 

percent, respectively) (figure 3 and table 2-C). They are also more likely to have relative care 

arrangements than nonrelative care arrangements. 

For relative care, the participation rate is highest for Black preschoolers (35 percent) and 

lowest for White preschoolers (18 percent). In contrast, White preschoolers are more likely than 

Black or Hispanic preschoolers to be cared for by a nonrelative (16 percent vs. 8 and 11 percent). 

For center-based care arrangements, the participation rate for Hispanic preschoolers (40 percent) 

is lower than the participation rates for White and Black preschoolers (59 and 62 percent, 

respectively). 

Preschoolers in households with incomes of $10,000 or less are more likely than other 

preschoolers to receive care from a relative (35 percent compared to 14-23 percent), while 

preschoolers in households with incomes over $75,000 are more likely than other preschoolers to 

receive care in centers (75 percent compared to 43-62 percent). Preschoolers in households with 

incomes over $75,000 are less likely to be cared for by a relative than are preschoolers in 

households with incomes of $30,000 or less (14 percent compared with 22-35 percent), but are 

more likely to be cared for by a nonrelative (17 percent compared with 6-10 percent). 

With respect to poverty status, preschoolers living at or above the poverty threshold are 

less likely than preschoolers living below the poverty threshold to be cared for by a relative (20 

vs. 28 percent). Conversely, they are more likely than preschoolers living below the poverty 

threshold to be cared for by a nonrelative or in a center-based setting (15 vs. 7 percent for 

nonrelative care and 59 vs. 46 percent for center-based care). 

Preschoolers whose mothers have a bachelor’s or advanced degree are less likely to be 

cared for by relatives (15 and 10 percent, respectively) than preschoolers whose mothers have 

lower levels of education (between 23 and 24 percent). In contrast, as mother’s level of 

education increases, preschoolers are more likely to be cared for by a nonrelative or in a center. 

While 51 percent of preschoolers whose mothers are not in the labor force have a weekly 

nonparental care arrangement, they are less likely than preschoolers whose mothers work to 

participate in each of the three types of arrangements (7 percent compared with 26-30 percent for 

relative care, 4 percent compared with 15-22 percent for nonrelative care, and 47 percent 

compared with 61-63 percent for center-based care). Preschoolers whose mothers work part time 

are less likely to be cared for by a nonrelative (15 percent) than preschoolers whose mothers 

work full time (22 percent). 

Preschoolers living in the Midwest are more likely to be cared for by a nonrelative (20 

percent) than children living in other geographic regions (10-13 percent). Care from relatives is 

more common for preschoolers in the Northeast (25 percent) than it is for their counterparts in 

the West (18 percent). With a participation rate of 47 percent, preschoolers living in the West 
22 

are less likely to receive center-based care than preschoolers living in the Northeast, South, or 

Midwest (63, 59, and 55 percent, respectively). Additionally, the participation rate for centerbased care for preschoolers living in the Northeast is higher than the rate for preschoolers living 

in the Midwest. 

Location of Nonparental Care Arrangements 

As previously mentioned, children may receive nonparental care and education in either 

home-based or center-based settings. In the discussion that follows, this report first looks at how 

participation rates differ among children receiving care in different types of home-based settings, 

i.e., in relative and nonrelative care arrangements. Specifically, focus is placed on the receipt of 

care in a child’s own home versus receipt of care in a home other than the child’s. The second 

part of this section examines participation in center-based arrangements with a focus on the 

different locations in which center-based care can be provided. Some of the more common 

locations are places of worship (e.g., churches and synagogues), schools, and centers located in 

their own building.8 

Home-based Arrangements 

Table 3, which pertains only to children under 6 years old receiving relative or 

nonrelative care in a home-based setting, presents estimates of the percent of these children that 

are cared for in their own home or in someone else’s home. Consistent with previous research 

(West et al. 1992; West, Wright, and Germino Hausken 1995), these NHES data show that 

nonparental care is more likely to be provided in a home other than the child’s regardless of 

whether the care is provided by a relative or a nonrelative (figure 4). Approximately 81 percent 

of children under the age of 6 who receive nonrelative care receive it in a home other than their 

own, compared with 21 percent who receive it in their own home. For children with relative care 

arrangements, the comparable percentages are 66 percent (other home) and 44 percent (own 

home). 

There is one group of children for whom this general pattern does not hold. Children 

whose mothers are not in the labor force and have nonrelative care arrangements are more likely 

to receive that care in their own home than in the home of someone else (67 vs. 35 percent). 

Some groups of children are more likely than others to receive care in their own home. 

Analyses of differences by race/ethnicity show that among children who receive care from 

relatives, Hispanic children, compared to White children, are more likely to receive that care in 

their own home (50 vs. 40 percent) and less likely to receive it in someone else’s home (57 vs. 

71 percent). Among children who receive care from nonrelatives, White and Hispanic children 

are more likely than Black children to receive such care in their own home (23 and 21 percent vs. 

8

 The survey question specifically asked parents whether the center their children attended was located in “its own 

building.” This category excludes private homes, places of worship, schools, colleges, universities, community 

centers, libraries, etc. Location refers strictly to the place where the care was provided and not the type of care 

provider or sponsorship. For example, if a religious group provided care in a building that was not a place of 

worship, the care would be considered as having been provided in a center located its own building, rather than in a 

place of worship. Alternatively, a care arrangement located in a place of worship was not necessarily provided by 

the religious group to whom the place of worship belonged. 
23 

7 percent) and are less likely to receive it in a home other than their own (80 and 82 percent vs. 

94 percent). 

Figure 4. Percent of children under 6 years old and not yet in kindergarten with weekly relative

or nonrelative care arrangements, by location of arrangement: 2001

0

20

40

60

80

100

NOTE: Age is calculated as of December 31, 2000. Percentages by type of care sum to more than 100 percent because 

some children are cared for by caregivers in both locations.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program 

Participation Survey, National Household Education Surveys Program, 2001.

Relative Nonrelative

Type of nonparental care arrangement

Percent 44

21

66

In own home 81

Not in own home

There are no clear patterns in home-based participation rates by location of care as 

income increases or decreases, with one exception: children with nonrelative care arrangements 

who live in households with incomes greater than $75,000 are more likely to be cared for by a 

nonrelative in their own home (40 percent) and less likely to be cared for by a nonrelative in 

someone else’s home (62 percent) than are children from every other income category except 

those in households with incomes of $10,000 or less (6-26 percent for nonrelative care in own 

home; 74-96 percent for nonrelative care in other person’s home). Fifty-five percent of children 

living below the poverty threshold who are cared for by relatives receive that care in their own 

home, compared to 40 percent of children living at or above the poverty threshold who are cared 

for by relatives. 
24 

Children with relative care arrangements whose mothers have an advanced degree are 

more likely than children whose mothers have a high school diploma, GED, or 

vocational/technical diploma to receive relative care in their own home (57 percent compared to 

37-43 percent). Nonrelative care arrangements in a child’s own home are less common for 

children whose mothers have a high school diploma, GED, vocational/technical diploma or some 

college (about 13 percent of such children have such arrangements) than they are for children 

whose mothers have levels of education that are either higher (i.e., a bachelor’s or advanced 

degree) or lower (i.e., less than high school). 

While the majority of children with nonrelative care arrangements whose mothers work 

part time receive that care in someone else’s home (77 percent), they are less likely to do so than 

children with nonrelative care arrangements whose mothers work full time (90 percent). In 

contrast, they are more likely than children whose mothers work full-time to receive that 

nonrelative care in their own home (27 vs. 12 percent). Children with nonrelative care 

arrangements whose mothers are not in the labor force are more likely to have that care provided 

in their own home (67 percent) than are children with nonrelative care arrangements whose 

mothers work part time or full time. Also, children with relative care arrangements whose 

mothers are not in the labor force are more likely to receive care from a relative in their own 

home (57 percent) than are children with relative care arrangements whose mothers work full 

time (40 percent). 

Children with relative care arrangements living in the Midwest are the least likely to 

receive such care in their own home (33 percent) and the most likely to be cared for in someone 

else’s home (75 percent), compared to children with relative care arrangements living in other 

regions (between 44 and 52 percent for care in own home; between 60 and 65 percent for care in 

someone else’s home). Among children receiving nonrelative care, children living in the 

Northeast are the most likely to have that care provided in their own home (39 percent compared 

to 12-25 percent in other regions) and the least likely to have that care provided in someone 

else’s home (64 percent compared to 81-90 percent in other regions). Additionally, children with 

nonrelative care arrangements living in the West are more likely to be cared for in their own 

home than are children with nonrelative care arrangements living in the Midwest (25 vs. 12 

percent). 
25 

Table 3. Percent of children under 6 years old with weekly relative or nonrelative care arrangements, by location and child and family chara

Relative arrangement Nonrelative arrang

Characteristic Own home Not in own home Own home Not 

Number of children 

(in thousands) 

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

Total 

Age1 Less than one  One year old  Two years old  Three years old  Four years old  Five years old Race/ethnicity  White, non-Hispanic  Black, non-Hispanic  Hispanic  Other Household income  $10,000 or less  $10,001 to $20,000  $20,001 to $30,000  $30,001 to $40,000  $40,001 to $50,000  $50,001 to $75,000  More than $75,000 Poverty status2

 At or above poverty threshold  Below poverty threshold Mother’s level of education3

 Less than high school  High school / GED  Vocational/technical or some college  Bachelor’s degree  Graduate or professional degree 

7,155 1,260 1,547 1,518 1,297 1,262 

272 

4,178 1,327 1,207 

444 853 880 909 829 722 

1,588 1,374 5,711 1,445 

643 

2,108 2,212 1,308 

684 

44 43 43 39 46 48 38 40 43 50 55 42 49 50 33 34 45 48 40 55 55 43 37 46 57 

1.7 3.8 3.2 3.5 3.5 3.7 7.8 2.2 3.8 2.8 5.5 6.5 4.3 3.9 3.8 4.6 3.1 3.8 

1.8 4.5 5.7 3.1 2.7 3.6 6.1 

66 66 70 68 63 63 69 71 65 57 56 64 59 61 75 75 68 63 70 54 51 67 73 68 48 

1.5 3.5 2.9 3.6 3.6 3.3 7.7 1.9 3.7 3.1 5.7 5.8 3.9 4.3 3.5 4.1 3.1 3.6 1.6 4.0 5.2 2.8 2.7 3.7 5.9 

21 19 22 22 20 24 22 23 

7 

21 38 26 21 

6 

11 12 14 40 21 22 30 13 13 24 42 

1.6 3.6 2.9 3.0 3.3 3.2 7.7 1.9 2.5 3.3 8.3 7.6 4.8 2.2 3.8 3.5 2.7 3.6 1.6 5.2 7.6 2.5 2.3 3.4 4.6 

See notes at end of table. 

25 
26 

Table 3. Percent of children under 6 years old with weekly relative or nonrelative care arrangements, by location and child and family chara

2001—Continued 

Relative arrangement Nonrelative arrang

Characteristic Own home Not in own home Own home Not 

Number of children (in thousands) 

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

Mother’s employment status3

 35 hours or more per week  Less than 35 hours per week  Looking for work  Not in the labor force Geographic region  Northeast  South  Midwest  West 

4,185 1,862 

227 681 

1,417 2,258 1,880 1,601 

40 46 48 57 52 44 33 47 

2.0 3.6 9.7 5.6 3.9 2.7 3.1 2.9 

69 68 56 47 60 65 75 64 

2.0 3.0 9.6 5.9 4.1 2.7 2.9 3.3 

12 27 

‡ 

67 39 18 12 25 

1.6 3.2 

‡ 

6.0 4.8 2.4 2.3 3.4 

‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 Age is calculated as of December 31, 2000. 2 Children are considered poor if living in households with incomes below the poverty threshold, which is a dollar amount determined by the federal gmeet the household’s needs, given its size and composition.3 Children without mothers living in the household are not included in estimates related to mother's education or mother's employment status. NOTE: Estimates pertain to children under 6 years old who had not yet entered kindergarten at the time of the survey and who had at least one relative 

nonrelative care arrangement. Children with only center-based care arrangements or who had no nonparental care arrangements are excluded. Detail totals because of rounding. Percentages by type of care sum to more than 100 percent, because some children are cared for by caregivers in both locat

standard error. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey, National Househo

Surveys Program, 2001. 

26 
27 

Center-based Arrangements 

As noted above, and as shown in table 4 and figure 5, which pertain only to children 

receiving center-based care on a weekly basis, overall, children in center-based care are more 

likely to receive this care in a center located in its own building than in any other location.9

Figure 5. Percent of children under 6 years old and not yet in kindergarten with weekly 

center-based care arrangements, by location of arrangement: 2001

1 Includes churches, synagogues, and other places of worship. 

2 Includes locations such as a university, a community center, and a library.

NOTE: Age is calculated as of December 31, 2000. Percentages by location of care sum to more than 100 percent because some children 

received center-based care in more than one location. 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, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey, National 

Household Education Surveys Program, 2001.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Private

home

Place of 

worship1

Public or private

K-12 school

Own

building

Other2

Location of center-based care arrangement

Percent

5

26 27

35

9

 

9

 Table 4 and figure 5 report statistics for care arrangements classified as center-based care in a private home. It is 

likely that the questionnaire structure results in some arrangements being classified this way, rather than as 

nonrelative care, which the NHES defines as care by a nonrelative in a private home. Respondents specifically are 

told not to report participation in preschool programs as a nonrelative care arrangement, regardless of whether that 

preschool is operated in a private residence or a center-based setting. Therefore, arrangements classified as centerbased in private homes most likely are preschools located in homes that may also serve as residences or in buildings 

that have both residential and commercial space. It may also be that some parents misidentified family day care as 

center-based care. A third possibility is that parents who use care arrangements in private homes for enrichment 

purposes, as opposed to a strict need for child care, may not consider this to be child care, per se, and therefore 

would be more likely to classify it as preschool (a center-based arrangement as defined in the NHES) than as care 

provided by a nonrelative in a private home. 
28 

When consideration is given to the location of center-based care for children of different 

ages, some differences from this overall pattern emerge. While children two-years-old and 

younger are more likely to receive center-based care in a center located in its own building than 

in any other location, the same is not true for older children. Among 3- and 5-year-olds, no 

differences were detected in the participation rates for center-based care provided in its own 

building and care provided in churches, synagogues, or other places of worship. The most 

common locations for center-based care among 4-year-olds are centers in their own buildings 

and schools. Five-year-olds who are not yet enrolled in kindergarten are more likely to receive 

center-based care in public or private schools than in any other location. 

Among children in center-based care, comparisons of children of different ages to one 

another show that 1- and 2-year-olds are less likely than older children to receive center-based 

care in public or private schools. One-year-olds are more likely than older children to have care 

provided in a center located in its own building (55 percent compared to 23-45 percent). In 

contrast, 5-year-olds are less likely than younger children to attend centers in their own buildings 

and more likely to attend programs in public or private schools. Three-year-olds are more likely 

than children of all other ages, except 2-year-olds, to receive center-based care in churches, 

synagogues, or other places of worship (31 percent compared to 19-25 percent). 

Black children who receive center-based care are more likely to attend centers in their 

own building than in any other location (43 percent compared to 7-30 percent for other 

locations). Among Hispanics, the most common location in which they receive center-based 

care is a public or private school (70 percent compared to 3-28 percent for other locations). 

Comparing children of different racial and ethnic backgrounds in center-based care to one 

another, the data show that White children are more likely than Black or Hispanic children to 

receive center-based care in a church, synagogue, or other place of worship (32 percent vs. 16 

percent each). They are more likely than Hispanic children and less likely than Black children to 

receive this care in a center located in its own building (34 percent compared to 28 percent for 

Hispanics and 43 percent for Blacks). Also, with a participation rate of 23 percent, White 

children in center-based care are less likely than Black or Hispanic children in center-based care 

(30 and 70 percent, respectively) to receive that care in a public or private school. Compared to 

Hispanic children in center-based care, Black children who receive center-based care are more 

likely to be cared for in a center in its own building and are less likely to attend programs in 

public or private schools. 

As household income increases, children’s participation rate in center-based care located 

in a church, synagogue, or other place of worship also increases. The opposite is true for care 

that takes place in a public or private elementary or secondary school—i.e., children’s 

participation rate decreases as household income increases. The setting in which children living 

at or above the poverty threshold are most likely to receive center-based care is a center’s own 

building (35 percent compared to 5-30 percent for other locations). Compared to children with 

center-based arrangements who live below the poverty threshold, children with center-based 

arrangements who live at or above the poverty threshold are more likely to receive center-based 

care in a place of worship (30 percent for children living above the poverty level vs. 9 percent for 

children living below the poverty level) and are less likely to receive it in a public or private 

school (24 percent for children living above the poverty level vs. 41 percent for children living 

below the poverty level). 
29 

Similar to the patterns for household income, as mother’s level of education increases, 

children’s participation rate in center-based care located in a place of worship also increases, 

with the reverse being true for care that takes place in a public or private school. 

Children with center-based arrangements whose mothers work full time are the most 

likely to receive center-based care in its own building (44 percent), compared to children with 

center-based arrangements whose mothers work part time or are not in the labor force (30 and 25 

percent, respectively). In contrast, children with center-based arrangements whose mothers work 

full time are less likely than children with center-based arrangements whose mothers work part 

time or are not in the labor force to receive center-based care in a church, synagogue, or other 

place of worship (22 vs. 30 and 33 percent, respectively). Additionally, children with centerbased arrangements whose mothers are not in the labor force are more likely than children with 

center-based arrangements whose mothers work full time to receive center-based care in a public 

or private school (31 vs. 22 percent). 

There are few differences detected with respect to geographic region. Eighteen percent 

of children with center-based arrangements who live in the West receive center-based care in 

churches, synagogues, or other place of worship. In comparison, larger percentages (between 26 

and 30 percent) of children with center-based arrangements who live in other regions of the 

country go to centers located in places of worship. 

In sum, the findings presented in this section show that, with few exceptions, among 

children with home-based arrangements, care is more commonly provided in someone else’s 

home than in a child’s own home. The groups of children who are most likely to be cared for in 

someone else’s home, compared to other children, sometimes differ depending on whether the 

care is provided by a relative or nonrelative. Rates of participation in care provided in one’s own 

home versus the home of someone else vary by race/ethnicity, poverty status, mother’s education 

and employment status, and geographic region. 

Overall, children in center-based care are more likely to receive this care in a center 

located in its own building than in any other location. There are some exceptions to this overall 

pattern when participation is examined by age and race/ethnicity. Also, comparing the 

participation of children with different characteristics to one another, there are some clear 

patterns for care provided in a church, synagogue, or other place of worship, as well as for care 

provided in a public or private school. 
30 

Table 4. Percent of children under 6 years old with weekly center-based care arrangements, by location and child and family chara

Location of center-based arrangement1

Private home Place of worship2 Public or private K-12 school 

Characteristic 

Number of 

children 

(in thousands) 

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

Total 

Age4 Less than one  One year old  Two years old  Three years old  Four years old  Five years old Race/ethnicity  White, non-Hispanic  Black, non-Hispanic  Hispanic  Other Household income 

 $10,000 or less  $10,001 to $20,000  $20,001 to $30,000  $30,001 to $40,000  $40,001 to $50,000  $50,001 to $75,000  More than $75,000 Poverty status5

 At or above poverty threshold  Below poverty threshold Mother’s level of education6

 Less than high school  High school / GED  Vocational/technical or some college  Bachelor’s degree  Graduate or professional degree 

6,695 

298 608 

1,000 1,620 2,515 

654 

4,302 1,185 

762 446 550 816 716 673 517 

1,479 1,944 5,562 1,132 

494 

1,642 2,076 1,604 

752 

5 8 9 8 5 3 2 5 7 3 3 4 5 7 4 

10 

4 5 5 5 3 7 6 4 4 

0.6 2.9 2.6 1.6 1.1 0.6 0.9 0.7 1.5 0.9 1.6 2.0 1.1 2.1 1.6 3.1 0.8 0.8 

0.6 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.4 

26 19 21 27 31 25 23 32 16 16 16 

8 

11 23 23 32 34 33 30 

9 9 

21 26 33 35 

1.1 5.2 3.0 2.9 2.3 1.6 3.1 1.5 2.0 2.2 3.3 2.5 2.1 2.6 2.7 4.2 2.3 2.2 1.3 1.7 2.3 1.9 1.9 2.5 3.4 

27 16 

8 

13 21 35 49 23 30 70 33 41 36 34 28 23 21 20 24 41 48 30 25 20 19 

1.1 5.0 2.8 2.3 1.9 1.7 3.5 1.3 2.7 2.7 4.5 5.2 2.9 3.4 3.4 3.1 2.1 2.0 1.1 2.9 3.9 2.4 1.7 2.0 2.9 

See notes at end of table. 

30 
31 

Table 4. Percent of children under 6 years old with weekly center-based care arrangements, by location and child and family chara

Location of center-based arrangement1

Private home Place of worship2 Public or private K-12 school 

Characteristic 

Number of 

children 

(in thousands) 

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

Mother’s employment status6

 35 hours or more per week  Less than 35 hours per week  Looking for work  Not in the labor force Geographic region  Northeast  South  Midwest  West 

3,175 1,436 

231 

1,726 1,302 2,461 1,611 1,321 

6 7 4 2 6 3 6 8 

0.8 1.3 2.0 0.6 1.3 0.6 1.4 1.7 

22 30 14 33 26 30 27 18 

1.3 2.4 4.4 2.4 2.4 1.6 2.4 1.8 

22 27 39 31 28 24 28 28 

1.5 2.1 7.1 2.2 2.4 1.6 2.4 2.5 

1 Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood programs. 2 This includes churches, synagogues, and other places of worship. 3 The Other category includes locations such as a university, a community center, and a library. 4Age is calculated as of December 31, 2000. 5 Children are considered poor if living in households with incomes below the poverty threshold, which is a dollar amount determined by the federal govern

given its size and composition.

6 Children without mothers living in the household are not included in estimates related to mother's education or mother's employment status. 

NOTE: Estimates pertain to children under 6 years old who had not yet entered kindergarten at the time of the survey and who had at least one center-based 

relative or nonrelative care arrangements or who had no nonparental care arrangements are excluded. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Rbecause some children received center-based care in more than one location. s.e. is standard error. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey, National Household Ed

31 
32 

Average Time Spent in Nonparental Care Arrangements

The 2001 NHES collected information on the number of hours per week children spend 

in their nonparental care arrangements. This section presents this information about the time 

spent in care for children in different types of arrangements and with different background 

characteristics. It discusses time spent in care overall, i.e., for all children across all 

arrangements, as well as time spent in particular types of care for children with those types of 

care arrangements. Children who do not have at least one weekly nonparental care arrangement 

are excluded from these analyses. 

Table 5 presents estimates of the total amount of time children spend in nonparental care 

arrangements, across all types of arrangements, as well as the amount of time children spend in 

care of any given type.10 Children receiving nonparental care on a weekly basis spend 31 hours, 

on average, in the care of someone other than their parents. They spend more time in the care of 

nonrelatives than in centers (an average of 28 hours compared to 25 hours). 

Time spent in care varies by age for nonrelative and center-based care arrangements. 

While 1- and 2-year-olds spend about 30 hours each week in nonrelative care arrangements, 4- 

and 5-year-olds spend less time in such arrangements (about 25 and 24 hours per week, 

respectively). Also, infants and toddlers receive more hours of center-based care per week than 

3- to 5-year-olds (about 29-32 hours compared to about 21-23 hours). 

With an average of 38 hours per week, Black children spend more time, overall, in 

nonparental care arrangements than White or Hispanic children (28 and 31 hours each, on 

average). More specifically, Black children spend more hours per week in nonrelative care 

arrangements (34 hours) and in center-based care arrangements (34 hours) than do White or 

Hispanic children (27 hours in nonrelative care arrangements for both groups; 22 and 26 hours in 

center-based care arrangements for White and Hispanic children, respectively). These findings 

support previous research showing that Black children are not only more likely to receive care 

from someone other than their parents, but also to spend greater amounts of time in this care 

(West, Germino Hausken, and Collins 1993). With an average of 23 hours per week in relative 

care and 22 hours per week in center-based care, White children spend the fewest hours per week 

in these types of arrangements, compared to Black (30 hours for relative care; 34 hours for 

center-based care) and Hispanic children (28 hours for relative care; 26 hours for center-based 

care). 

Children living in households with incomes of $30,000 or less spend more time in care 

overall (between 32 and 33 hours per week, on average) than children living in households with 

incomes greater than $50,000 (about 29 hours per week, on average). Looking specifically at 

center-based care, children living in households with incomes of $20,000 or less spend more 

time in this care (28-29 hours per week) than children living in households with incomes greater 

than $50,000 (23-25 hours per week). Children living below the poverty threshold spend about 

28 hours per week in center-based care, which is more time than children living at or above the 

poverty threshold spend in such care (about 24 hours per week). 

10 The hours spent in care are calculated per child. For children with two or more arrangements, the hours spent in 

each arrangement are summed to calculate the total time spent in care. 
33 

 As mother’s education increases, the hours children spend in relative care arrangements 

decrease. More specifically, children whose parents have less than a bachelor’s degree spend 

more time in relative care (26-28 hours per week) than children whose parents have a bachelor’s 

or advanced degree (19-21 hours per week). These general patterns are evident when 

considering care overall and center-based care arrangements, but the differences between 

children whose parents have less than a bachelor’s degree and those whose parents have a 

bachelor’s or advanced degree do not meet the effect size criteria for reporting as specified at the 

beginning of this report. 

As shown in figure 6, children whose mothers work full time spend the greatest number 

of hours per week receiving nonparental care (about 38 hours per week, on average), while 

children whose mothers are not in the labor force spend the fewest (about 18 hours per week, on 

average). These patterns also are found for hours spent specifically in center-based care. 

Looking at relative and nonrelative care, children whose mothers work full time spend more time 

in these arrangements (30 hours in relative care and 34 hours in nonrelative care) than children 

whose mothers work part time or are not in the labor force (18-19 hours in relative care and 17-

18 hours in nonrelative care). 

Children living in the South spend more hours per week in nonparental care (about 33 

hours, on average) than children living in the Northeast, Midwest, or West (about 29-30 hours 

per week). With an average of 29 hours per week, children living in the South also spend more 

time receiving center-based care than children living in any other region (between 21 and 24 

hours). In addition, children living in the South spend more time than children living in the 

Northeast in nonrelative care arrangements (30 vs. 26 hours), and children in the West spend 

more time in center-cased care than children in the Midwest (24 vs. 21 hours). 

The results discussed above show that there is variation in the time spent in care related 

to all of the child, family, and community characteristics included in this report, although some 

of the patterns do vary according to the type of arrangement being considered. Overall, the 

children who spend the most time receiving care from someone other than their parents are 

Black, live in poverty, have less-educated mothers, have mothers who work full-time, and live in 

the South. 
34 

Figure 6. Average number of hours per week children under 6 years old and not yet in 

kindergarten spend in nonparental care arrangements, by mother’s employment 

status: 2001

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 Full-time employment is defined as 35 hours or more per week. Part-time employment is defined as less than 35 hours per week.

NOTE: For children with more than one arrangement, the hours spent in each arrangement are summed to obtain total time spent

in all arrangements. Age is calculated as of December 31, 2000. Children without mothers living in the household are not 

included in these estimates. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation 

Survey, National Household Education Surveys Program, 2001.

Mother's employment status

Full-time1 Part-time1 Looking for work Not in labor

force

Average 

number 

of hours 38

23 26

18
35 

Table 5. Average number of hours per week children under 6 years old with at least one weekly nonparental care arrangement 

 those arrangements, by type of arrangement and child and family characteristics: 2001 

Hours per week in nonparental care arrangements of 

Hours per week in all 

nonparental care 

arrangements1 Relative Nonrelative C

Characteristic Number of children 

(in thousands) Mean s.e. Mean s.e. Mean s.e. Mea

Total 

Age4 Less than one  One year old  Two years old  Three years old  Four years old  Five years old Race/ethnicity  White, non-Hispanic  Black, non-Hispanic  Hispanic  Other Household income  $10,000 or less  $10,001 to $20,000  $20,001 to $30,000  $30,001 to $40,000  $40,001 to $50,000  $50,001 to $75,000  More than $75,000 Poverty status5

 At or above poverty threshold  Below poverty threshold Mother’s level of education6

 Less than high school  High school / GED  Vocational/technical or some college  Bachelor’s degree  Graduate or professional degree 

12,176 

1,530 2,074 2,318 2,473 3,049 

731 

7,471 2,166 1,758 

780 

1,216 1,490 1,448 1,325 1,107 2,667 2,921 9,924 2,252 1,023 3,380 3,684 2,568 1,256 

30.5 30.3 31.7 32.3 29.7 29.6 29.0 28.1 37.8 30.8 33.4 32.9 32.1 32.9 30.7 30.4 29.2 28.8 30.2 32.0 30.5 31.5 30.9 28.7 28.8 

0.30 0.78 0.79 0.87 0.69 0.57 1.46 0.40 0.96 0.58 1.52 1.38 0.88 1.37 1.05 0.97 

0.54 0.57 0.32 1.02 1.13 0.65 0.55 0.64 0.81 

25.9 26.1 26.8 27.0 24.7 25.2 25.0 22.7 30.2 27.8 32.5 27.2 26.5 31.1 23.6 25.3 24.6 23.2 25.6 27.1 28.2 27.3 25.7 21.1 18.8 

0.69 1.19 1.16 1.82 1.52 1.56 2.75 0.96 1.58 0.95 2.75 2.29 1.55 2.50 1.51 1.61 1.09 1.42 0.73 1.73 1.85 1.28 0.80 1.07 2.15 

28.4 28.5 29.5 30.1 28.6 25.1 23.5 27.3 34.2 27.4 31.9 

27.1 30.4 29.0 28.8 29.8 28.2 27.2 28.4 28.3 28.0 28.6 29.4 27.9 27.0 

0.52 1.32 1.15 1.01 1.35 1.16 2.79 0.69 1.78 1.20 2.95 2.62 1.74 1.74 1.78 1.38 0.86 1.16 0.54 1.81 2.72 1.10 0.94 1.16 1.31 

24323228232221223325252827252624222324272526242323

See notes at end of table. 

35 
36 

Table 5. Average number of hours per week children under 6 years with at least one weekly nonparental care arrangement spe

 arrangements, by type of arrangement and child and family characteristics: 2001—Continued 

Hours per week in nonparental care arrangements of 

Hours per week in all 

nonparental care 

arrangements1 Relative Nonrelative C

Characteristic Number of children 

(in thousands) Mean s.e. Mean s.e. Mean s.e. Mea

Mother’s employment status6

 35 hours or more per week  Less than 35 hours per week  Looking for work  Not in the labor force Geographic region  Northeast  South  Midwest  West 

6,422 2,854 

402 

2,234 2,341 4,192 3,014 2,629 

38.1 23.1 25.5 18.1 28.7 33.0 29.4 29.6 

0.37 0.47 2.22 0.60 0.91 0.48 0.62 0.87 

30.1 18.8 22.5 18.2 25.1 27.2 24.9 25.9 

0.75 0.85 3.30 1.69 1.68 0.91 1.21 1.96 

34.2 18.4 

‡ 

17.4 25.8 30.0 28.7 28.2 

0.56 0.95 

‡ 

1.69 1.35 1.00 1.00 1.39 

3219

211622292124

‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 Indicates the hours per week spent in care, per child, across all arrangements of all types. For children with more than one arrangement, the hours sp

arrangement are summed to calculate total time spent in care. 

2 Indicates the hours per week spent in care of a given type, per child. For children with more than one arrangement of a given type, the hours spent in 

arrangement of that type are summed to calculate total time spent in that type of care. 

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

4 Age is calculated as of December 31, 2000. 5 Children are considered poor if living in households with incomes below the poverty threshold, which is a dollar amount determined by the federal gmeet the household’s needs, given its size and composition. 6 Children without mothers living in the household are not included in estimates related to mother's education or mother's employment status. NOTE: Estimates pertain to children under 6 years old who had not yet entered kindergarten at the time of the survey and who had at least one weekly 

arrangement. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. s.e. is standard error. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey, National HousehoSurveys Program, 2001. 

36 
37 

Average Out-of-Pocket Expenses for Nonparental Care 

 Families’ out-of-pocket expenses for nonparental care can vary widely. Differences in 

the amount charged for care by providers may be a major source of variation. Also, some 

families have reduced out-of-pocket expenses or pay nothing themselves, because care is paid for 

or subsidized by someone else (e.g., a local government agency or an employer). Variations in 

the amount families pay for care11 related to child, family, and community characteristics, as 

well as by type of care, are presented below. As was the case with time spent in care, the report 

discusses out-of-pocket expenses for care overall, i.e., for all children who receive nonparental 

care across all arrangements, as well as out-of-pocket expenses for particular types of care for 

children with those types of care. Children who did not spend any time with a nonparental 

caregiver on a weekly basis and children whose families paid nothing for their care are excluded 

from this discussion. Approximately 30% of the families of children who were cared for by 

someone other than a parent reported they did not pay for child care, either because there was no 

fee or because someone else paid the entire fee (not shown in tables). 

There are different ways in which child care costs can be measured, including cost per 

week and cost per hour.12 The former measure may be largely a function of time spent in care. 

Therefore, the latter measure may be a more accurate indicator of which type of care is more 

costly and for whom, independent of care hours. Both cost estimates for the sample of children 

whose families pay for child care are discussed. Table 6-A presents estimates of the average 

weekly out-of-pocket child care expenses for families who pay for this care for their children 

under the age of 6. Overall, they spend an average of $69 a week. Average expenses per hour 

are $3 overall (table 6-B). Families pay less per week ($48.06) and per hour ($1.93) for relative 

care than they do for either nonrelative ($72.21 per week; $3.25 per hour) or center-based care 

($65.50 per week; $3.24 per hour). 

Overall, families spend more money per week for child care for infants and 1-year-olds 

than they do for preschoolers ($80.27 and $74.71 respectively compared to $56.18-$65.00 per 

week) (figure 7). Also, families spend more per week for nonrelative arrangements for infants, 

toddlers, and 3-year-olds than for 5-year-olds ($67.68-$80.95 vs. $50.18 per week). Among 

families of infants and 1-year-olds, these greater weekly expenses may be a result of their higher 

hourly expenses for nonrelative care ($3.33 and $3.55 per hour, respectively), compared to the 

expenses for families of 5-year-olds ($2.38 per hour). Weekly center-based care for infants and 

toddlers is more costly than for preschoolers ($73.91-$99.11 compared to $52.38-$59.00 per 

week). These greater expenses for families of infants and toddlers may result from children in 

these age groups spending more time in center-based care, compared to preschoolers. However, 

11 The NHES only ascertains the amount families pay for care themselves, apart from any financial assistance they 

may receive from others. Therefore, the data presented here may not represent the total cost of care. 

12 Parents reported their out-of-pocket expenses for each care arrangement their child had separately. 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. If a child had more than one arrangement, the costs of each arrangement were summed 

to obtain a total weekly dollar amount. To obtain a measure of cost per hour, the total weekly cost paid was divided 

by the total number of hours children spent in all arrangements in a week. Out-of-pocket expenses have not been 

adjusted for geographic differences in the cost of living. 
38 

families of 2-year-olds do pay more per hour for center-based care than families of 4- and 5-

year-olds ($3.88 vs. $2.83-$2.92 per hour). 

Figure 7. Average amount households of children under 6 years old and not yet in kindergarten

spend for nonparental care arrangements per week, by age: 2001

0

20

40

60

80

100

NOTE: Age is calculated as of December 31, 2000. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program 

Participation Survey, National Household Education Surveys Program, 2001.

Less than

one

One Two Three Four Five

Age in years

Amount

in dollars

80

75

72

65 64

56

More money is spent on nonrelative care every week by families of White children than 

by families of Hispanic children ($74.80 vs. $58.75). They also pay more for center-based care, 

on an hourly basis, than families of Hispanic children ($3.45 vs. $2.75). In contrast, families of 

Hispanic children pay more per week and per hour for relative care ($51.68 and $2.26) than do 

families of White children ($43.22 and $1.54). Families of White children pay more per hour for 

care overall than families of Black children ($3.14 compared to $2.39 per hour). Also, families 

of Black children pay $2.29 per hour for center-based care, which is less than the amount 

families of White and Hispanic children pay for such care ($3.45 and $2.75 per hour, 

respectively). 

As household income increases, the average amount households of children under 6 years 

old spend, overall, for child care and early education arrangements on a weekly basis increases. 

On average, families of children in households with incomes greater than $75,000 spend $94.50 
39 

a week for care overall, compared to families with household incomes of $10,000 or less, who 

spend $46.50 a week for overall care. This positive relationship between household income and 

weekly out-of-pocket expenses also is found when considering nonrelative and center-based care 

arrangements separately. Families of children in households with incomes greater than $75,000 

also pay more per hour for care overall ($3.99 per hour), and for center-based care individually 

($4.04 per hour), than do families of children in all other income categories ($1.91-$2.84 for care 

overall; $1.60-$3.10 for center-based care). 

The average out-of-pocket expenses per week for child care for children living at or 

above the poverty threshold is $72, compared to $45 for children living below the poverty 

threshold. When looking at expenses per week by type of care, families of children living at or 

above the poverty threshold pay more for nonrelative and center-based care ($75.28 and $68.04, 

respectively) than families of children living below the poverty threshold ($48.27 and $39.63, 

respectively). Nonpoor families also pay more per hour for care overall and for center-based 

care ($3.11 and $3.33 per hour, respectively) than poor families ($2.35 and $2.27 per hour, 

respectively). 

Families’ weekly out-of-pocket expenses for nonparental care overall increase with 

mother’s level of education, from a low of $43.84 per week when mothers have less than a high 

school diploma or equivalent to a high of $102.61 per week when mothers have an advanced 

degree. More specifically, weekly out-of-pocket expenses for nonrelative and center-based care 

increase with mother’s education as well. Looking at expenses per hour, mothers with a 

bachelor’s or advanced degree generally pay more per hour than mothers with less education, 

both overall ($3.40 and $4.42 per hour compared to between $2.22 and $2.74 per hour) and for 

center-based care ($3.71 and $4.19 per hour compared to $2.06-$2.93 per hour), with one 

exception: no difference was detected between children whose mothers have a 

vocational/technical diploma or some college and children whose mothers have a bachelor’s 

degree in the amount their families pay per hour for care overall. 

Families of children whose mothers work full time spend $79.07 per week for care 

overall, which is more than families of children whose mothers work part time or are not in the 

labor force spend ($58.59 and $48.76 per week, respectively). They also spend the most per 

week for center-based care ($82.57 compared to $54.64 per week when mothers work part time 

and $40.75 per week when mothers are not in the labor force). For relative and nonrelative care, 

families of children whose mothers work full time spend more on a weekly basis ($50.35 and 

$76.93, respectively) than families of children whose mothers work part time ($35.62 and 

$60.64, respectively). Also, families of children whose mothers work part time pay more every 

week for care overall, and for center-based care, than families of children whose mothers are not 

in the labor force. 

Greater weekly expenditures among working mothers appear to be related to the greater 

number of hours their children spend in care. Consideration of the average expenses per hour 

shows that, in contrast to findings for weekly expenses, families of children whose mothers are 

not in the labor force pay more per hour for care overall ($4.20 per hour), as well as for 

nonrelative and center-based care ($4.81 and $4.11 per hour, respectively), than families of 

children whose mothers are employed full time ($2.55, $2.70, and $2.76, for overall care, 
40 

nonrelative care, and center-based care, respectively). Also, families of children whose mothers 

work part time pay more per hour for care overall ($3.40 per hour), and for both nonrelative and 

center-based care individually ($4.23 and $3.39 per hour, respectively), than do families of 

children whose mothers work full time. 

Families of children living in the Northeast spend more money per week than families of 

children living in the South on nonparental care overall ($80.00 per week compared to $63.55 

per week), and for all three types of nonparental care individually ($56.48 vs. $41.95 for relative 

care; $81.16 vs. $65.67 for nonrelative care; and $74.71 vs. $63.54 for center-based care). These 

Northeastern families also pay more than families of children living in the Midwest for overall 

care ($80.00 vs. $63.75), nonrelative care ($81.16 vs. $66.86), and center-based care ($74.71 vs. 

$57.09) on a weekly basis. Families of children living in the West pay more per week than 

families of children living in the South and Midwest for care, overall ($74.50 compared to 

$63.55 and $63.75, respectively), and for nonrelative care ($80.97 compared to $65.67 and 

$66.86, respectively). With average weekly out-of-pocket expenses of $70.43, families of 

children living in the West also pay more for center-based care every week than Midwestern 

families, who pay an average of $57.09. 

Regional differences also exist when expenses per hour are considered. Families of 

children living in the Northeast pay more money per hour for both nonparental care overall 

($3.87) and center-based care ($4.07) than families of children living in any other region 

(between $2.61 and $3.06 per hour for overall care; between $2.75 and $3.37 per hour for centerbased care). They also pay more per hour for nonrelative care ($4.41) than families of children 

living in the Midwest or South ($2.91 and $2.82, respectively). Additionally, families of 

children living in the West pay more per hour for center-based care ($3.37 per hour) than 

families of children living in the South ($2.75 per hour). 

In sum, findings presented in this section show that, among children whose families 

report having out-of-pocket expenses for care: families with younger children pay more on a 

weekly basis than do families with older children; higher-income families pay more than do 

lower-income families (and families who do not live in poverty pay more than do families living 

in poverty); families in which mothers are better-educated pay more on a weekly basis than do 

families with less educated mothers; families in which mothers work full-time pay more than do 

families in which mothers do not work full-time; and families living in the Northeast and West 

pay more on a weekly basis than do families living in the Midwest and South. 
41 

Table 6-A. Average amount households of children under 6 years old spend for nonparental care arrangements per week, by ty

 arrangement and child and family characteristics: 2001 

Amount per week for nonparental care arrangement

Amount per week for all 

nonparental care 

arrangements1 Relative Nonrelative 

Characteristic Number of children 

(in thousands) Mean s.e. Mean s.e. Mean s.e. 

Total 

Age4 Less than one  One year old  Two years old  Three years old  Four years old  Five years old Race/ethnicity  White, non-Hispanic  Black, non-Hispanic  Hispanic  Other Household income  $10,000 or less  $10,001 to $20,000  $20,001 to $30,000  $30,001 to $40,000  $40,001 to $50,000  $50,001 to $75,000  More than $75,000 Poverty status5

 At or above poverty threshold  Below poverty threshold Mother’s level of education6

 Less than high school  High school / GED  Vocational/technical or some college  Bachelor’s degree  Graduate or professional degree 

8,570 1,017 1,414 1,694 1,788 2,167 

491 

5,723 1,327 1,035 

486 548 828 896 876 779 

2,109 2,533 7,486 1,084 

508 

2,120 2,629 2,091 1,090 

$68.95 

80.27 74.71 71.47 65.00 64.05 56.18 70.01 64.34 61.53 84.83 46.48 48.12 56.86 55.49 64.41 64.63 94.54 72.40 45.09 43.84 56.96 60.37 79.76 

102.61 

1.169 3.983 2.813 2.440 2.383 1.923 4.099 1.544 2.642 2.069 6.022 4.172 2.695 2.523 2.769 3.713 1.733 2.660 

1.286 2.989 3.225 1.824 1.761 2.867 3.806 

$48.06 

57.25 42.33 51.50 41.10 47.71 

‡ 

43.22 46.88 51.68 

‡ 

51.75 42.09 41.29 40.01 38.81 54.76 66.23 48.07 48.02 44.13 48.51 43.28 51.37 

‡ 

2.398 6.243 3.621 4.467 2.966 8.354 

‡ 

2.681 6.479 2.577 

‡ 

9.623 3.330 4.754 4.476 2.689 4.068 

10.582 

2.585 6.474 5.171 3.928 3.466 4.196 

‡ 

$72.21 

80.95 75.35 67.68 74.93 66.44 50.18 74.80 64.99 58.75 87.63 46.18 53.36 56.72 58.77 

69.46 68.12 98.52 75.28 48.27 51.48 54.18 66.45 74.81 

104.85 

2.007 6.136 3.412 3.887 5.782 5.344 6.985 2.404 5.508 3.270 

13.434 

6.187 5.152 3.461 4.919 6.593 2.447 5.573 2.277 4.839 5.615 2.628 3.270 3.950 7.375 

$

See notes at end of table. 

41 
42 

Table 6-A. Average amount households of children under 6 years old spend for nonparental care arrangements per week, by ty

 arrangement and child and family characteristics: 2001—Continued

Amount per week for nonparental care arrangement

Amount per week for all 

nonparental care 

arrangements1 Relative Nonrelative 

Characteristic Number of children 

(in thousands) Mean s.e. Mean s.e. Mean s.e. 

Mother’s employment status6

 35 hours or more per week  Less than 35 hours per week  Looking for work  Not in the labor force Geographic region  Northeast  South  Midwest  West 

4,944 1,916 

189 

1,390 1,614 2,910 2,289 1,757 

$79.07 

58.59 49.92 48.76 80.00 63.55 63.75 74.50 

1.593 2.618 6.549 2.556 2.983 1.726 2.058 2.790 

$50.35 

35.62 

‡ ‡ 

56.48 41.95 47.98 49.71 

2.537 3.060 

‡ ‡ 

6.400 2.188 6.033 3.420 

$76.93 

60.64 

‡ 

66.43 81.16 65.67 66.86 80.97 

2.393 4.597 

‡ 

8.270 5.553 3.330 2.933 4.727 

$

‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 Indicates out-of-pocket expenses per week, per child, across all arrangements of all types. For children with more than one arrangement, the expense

arrangement are summed to calculate the total spent on child care per week. 

2 Indicates out-of-pocket expenses per week for care of a given type, per child. For children with more than one arrangement of a given type, the expearrangement of that type are summed to calculate the total spent per week for that type of care. 3 Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood programs. 4 Age is calculated as of December 31, 2000. 5 Children are considered poor if living in households with incomes below the poverty threshold, which is a dollar amount determined by the federal gthe household’s needs, given its size and composition. 6 Children without mothers living in the household are not included in estimates related to mother's education or mother's employment status. NOTE: Estimates pertain to children under 6 years old who had not yet entered kindergarten at the time of the survey and whose households paid a fee 

nonparental care. Children for whom no fee was charged, for whom another source paid the entire fee for care, or for whom the period of time covere

the amount indicated (e.g., per hour, per week, etc.) could not be determined are excluded from the estimates. Detail may not sum to totals because of s.e. is standard error. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey, National Househo

Surveys Program, 2001. 

42 
43 

Table 6-B. Average amount households of children under 6 years old spend for nonparental care arrangements per hour, by ty

 arrangement and child and family characteristics: 2001 

Amount per hour for nonparental care arrangemen

Amount per hour for all 

nonparental care 

arrangements1 Relative Nonrelative 

Characteristic Number of children 

(in thousands) Mean s.e. Mean s.e. Mean s.e. 

Total 

Age4 Less than one  One year old  Two years old  Three years old  Four years old  Five years old Race/ethnicity  White, non-Hispanic  Black, non-Hispanic  Hispanic  Other Household income  $10,000 or less  $10,001 to $20,000  $20,001 to $30,000  $30,001 to $40,000  $40,001 to $50,000  $50,001 to $75,000  More than $75,000 Poverty status5

 At or above poverty threshold  Below poverty threshold Mother’s level of education6

 Less than high school  High school / GED  Vocational/technical or some college  Bachelor’s degree  Graduate or professional degree 

8,570 1,017 1,414 1,694 1,788 2,167 

491 

5,723 1,327 1,035 

486 548 828 896 876 779 

2,109 2,533 7,486 1,084 

508 

2,120 2,629 2,091 1,090 

$3.02 

2.94 3.07 3.16 3.26 2.79 2.62 3.14 2.39 2.58 4.21 1.91 2.51 2.49 2.74 2.57 2.84 3.99 3.11 2.35 2.22 2.45 2.74 3.40 4.42 

0.088 0.162 0.268 0.239 0.222 0.099 0.126 0.092 0.193 0.119 0.773 0.182 0.390 0.234 0.430 0.149 0.099 0.166 

0.090 0.303 0.235 0.146 0.169 0.137 0.315 

$1.93 

2.04 1.81 1.81 2.10 1.94 

‡ 

1.54 1.97 2.26 

‡ 

1.87 1.79 1.28 2.20 1.55 2.18 2.75 1.98 1.79 2.19 1.72 1.73 1.75 

‡ 

0.114 0.293 0.258 0.215 0.319 0.275 

‡ 

0.086 0.288 0.181 

‡ 

0.294 0.240 0.133 0.351 0.192 0.249 0.587 0.138 0.219 0.306 0.166 0.187 0.168 

‡ 

$3.25 

3.33 3.55 2.96 3.61 2.97 2.38 3.18 3.09 2.78 6.14 2.38 3.01 2.55 3.73 

2.67 2.65 4.37 3.27 3.09 2.44 2.71 3.01 3.21 4.74 

0.210 0.264 0.540 0.364 0.651 0.173 0.226 0.173 0.739 0.298 2.748 0.572 0.857 0.318 1.374 0.281 0.129 0.372 0.217 0.802 0.565 0.370 0.458 0.182 0.599 

See notes at end of table. 

43 
44 

Table 6-B. Average amount households of children under 6 years old spend for nonparental care arrangements per hour, by ty

 arrangement and child and family characteristics: 2001—Continued

Amount per hour for nonparental care arrangemen

Amount per hour for all 

nonparental care 

arrangements1 Relative Nonrelative 

Characteristic Number of children 

(in thousands) Mean s.e. Mean s.e. Mean s.e. 

Mother’s employment status6

 35 hours or more per week  Less than 35 hours per week  Looking for work  Not in the labor force Geographic region  Northeast  South  Midwest  West 

4,944 1,916 

189 

1,390 1,614 2,910 2,289 1,757 

$2.55 

3.40 2.60 4.20 3.87 2.61 2.90 3.06 

0.093 0.192 0.348 0.327 0.244 0.130 0.208 0.107 

$1.81 

1.72 

‡ ‡ 

2.13 1.82 1.82 2.07 

0.124 0.155 

‡ ‡ 

0.293 0.199 0.269 0.169 

$2.70 

4.23 

‡ 

4.81 4.41 2.82 2.91 3.35 

0.247 0.518 

‡ 

0.508 0.583 0.305 0.407 0.228 

‡ Reporting standards not met. 

1 Indicates out-of-pocket expenses per hour, per child, across all arrangements of all types. For children with more than one arrangement, the expense

arrangement are summed to calculate the total spent on child care per hour. 

2 Indicates out-of-pocket expenses per hour for care of a given type, per child. For children with more than one arrangement of a given type, the expen

arrangement of that type are summed to calculate the total spent per hour for that type of care. 

3 Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood programs. 4 Age is calculated as of December 31, 2000. 5 Children are considered poor if living in households with incomes below the poverty threshold, which is a dollar amount determined by the federal gthe household’s needs, given its size and composition. 6 Children without mothers living in the household are not included in estimates related to mother's education or mother's employment status. NOTE: Estimates pertain to children under 6 years old who had not yet entered kindergarten at the time of the survey and whose households paid a fee 

nonparental care. Children for whom no fee was charged, for whom another source paid the entire fee for care, or for whom the period of time covere

the amount indicated (e.g., per hour, per week, etc.) could not be determined are excluded from the estimates. Detail may not sum to totals because of s.e. is standard error. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey, National Househo

Surveys Program, 2001. 

44 
45 

Summary 

In 2001, the majority (60 percent) of children under the age of 6 who were not yet in 

kindergarten received some type of care or education, or both, on a weekly basis from persons 

other than their parents (table 1). Participation rates in nonparental care arrangements vary by all 

of the child, family, and household characteristics examined in this report. Overall, the 

percentage of children receiving nonparental care increases with the age of the child, up to age four 

(figure 1). Black children are more likely than White or Hispanic children to be cared for by 

someone other than a parent on a weekly basis (table 2). In contrast, Hispanic children are less 

likely than White or Black children to be cared for by someone other than their parents on a 

weekly basis. There is a relationship between income and participation such that children living in 

households with incomes over $50,000 are more likely to receive nonparental care than children 

in households with lower incomes. With a participation rate of 72 percent, children in homes 

with incomes greater than $75,000 are most likely to receive this care, compared to children in 

lower-income households. Also, overall, children are more likely to have nonparental care 

arrangements when their mothers have higher levels of education and when their mothers work. 

These results generally are consistent with analyses of child care participation using the National 

Household Education Survey from earlier years, the Survey of Income and Program Participation 

(Smith 2000; Smith 2002), and the National Child Care Survey (Hofferth et al. 1990). This 

study expands on previous NHES reports to show that children living below the poverty 

threshold and children living in the West are less likely than their counterparts to be cared for by 

someone other than their parents on a weekly basis. 

More children overall receive nonparental care in centers than from either relatives or 

nonrelatives (table 2). However, the type of care received is related to child’s age and 

race/ethnicity. Infants are more likely to be cared for by relatives than by nonrelatives or in 

centers. Black children are more likely to be cared for by relatives or in centers than White or 

Hispanic children. Furthermore, some patterns of participation in relative care arrangements are 

different from the patterns of participation in nonrelative and center-based arrangements. 

Participation in nonrelative and center-based arrangements is higher for children in households 

with incomes greater than $50,000 than it is for children in households with incomes of $30,000 

or less. In contrast, children in households with incomes greater than $75,000 are less likely than 

children living in lower-income households to be cared for by a relative. Also, children’s 

participation in nonrelative and center-based arrangements increases with mother’s education. 

The relationship of mother’s education to children’s participation is less clear for relative care 

arrangements, but participation in relative care tends to decrease as mother’s education increases. 

Children receiving nonparental care in a home-based setting are more likely to be cared 

for in someone else’s home than in their own, regardless of whether the care is provided by a 

relative or a nonrelative (figure 4). Those children who are cared for in a center-based setting are 

most likely to receive that care and education in a stand-alone building (table 4) compared to 

other locations, such as a community center or library. 

Children receiving nonparental care on a weekly basis spend 31 hours, on average, in the 

care of someone other than their parents (table 5). Additionally, these children spend more time 

in the care of nonrelatives than in centers. The children who spend the most time in nonparental 
46 

care arrangements tend to be Black, come from families with lower household incomes, have 

mothers with lower levels of education or who work, and live in the South. A consistent 

relationship between child age and time spent in nonparental care emerged only for center-based 

arrangements; younger children spend more time than older children being cared for in a center. 

A somewhat similar, though not as consistent, pattern was found for nonrelative care 

arrangements, whereby toddlers spend more time in nonrelative care arrangements than 4- and 5-

year-olds. 

Out-of-pocket expenses for nonparental care and education vary by type of care 

arrangement as well as by child, family, and community characteristics (tables 6-A and 6-B). 

Relative care is the least costly, both weekly and hourly, for families of children under the age of 

6. Overall, care is less costly on a weekly basis for families of older children than for families of 

younger children. 

Some differences were detected in the amount paid for care by families of children from 

different racial/ethnic backgrounds. Families of Black children pay the least per hour for centerbased care, compared to families of White or Hispanic children. They also pay less per hour for 

care overall than families of White children. More money is spent on nonrelative care per week 

by families of White children than by families of Hispanic children. In contrast, families of 

Hispanic children pay more per week and per hour for relative care than do families of White 

children. 

As household income and mother’s level of education increase, so does the amount of 

money families spend on nonparental care and education for their children. Families in which 

mothers work full time generally pay more per week but less per hour for care than do families in 

which mothers work part time or not at all, suggesting weekly out-of-pocket expenses are partly 

a function of time spent in care. Weekly expenses tend to be higher in the Northeast and West 

than in the South or Midwest, while hourly expenses are higher in the Northeast than in other 

areas of the country. 

In sum, findings from this report using the most recent data available from the National 

Household Education Survey support previous research showing that children’s participation in 

nonparental care and education arrangements is related to a variety of factors. Families of 

children of different ages and racial or ethnic backgrounds, in different economic situations, with 

mothers of varying educational levels and employment statuses, and who live in different areas 

of the country exhibit differences with respect to whether or not they have any weekly child care 

arrangements. They also report differences in the location and provider of child care. 

Additionally, the time children spend in nonparental care, and the amount their families pay for 

it, are related to many of the same factors associated with participation in nonparental care and 

education in general. 
47 

Methodology and Technical Notes 

Survey Methodology 

The National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES) is a series of telephone 

surveys sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES). It collects data on high priority topics on a rotating basis using computerassisted telephone interviewing (CATI) technology. The data in this report come from the Early 

Childhood Program Participation Survey (ECPP) of the 2001 NHES, conducted by Westat, a social 

science research firm, from January 2 through April 14, 2001. 

The 2001 NHES 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 random digit dial (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 three 

NHES:2001 topical surveys—the ECPP, the Before- and After-School Programs and Activities 

Survey (ASPA), and the Adult Education and Lifelong Learning Survey (AELL). Eligible 

household members were then selected to be the subject of one the three 2001 topical interviews. 

To reduce respondent burden, a maximum of three interviews was allowed per household. A 

preschooler (ages 3 through 6 and not enrolled in kindergarten or higher grades) and a middle 

school student (grades 6 through 8) were sampled in any household that contained them, because 

of their relative scarcity in the population and the predetermined sample sizes needed to meet 

precision requirements. In contrast, it was known that more adults, infants and toddlers (ages 0 

through 2), and elementary school students (kindergartners through fifth graders) would be found 

during screening than would be needed for precision requirements. For this reason, a maximum of 

two people in these groups (adults, infants and toddlers, and elementary school students) were 

sampled in any household. Additionally, to further reduce respondent burden, adults were sampled 

at a lower rate in households that contained eligible children. 

For the ECPP, children ages 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, educational 

activities at home, emerging literacy and numeracy, the child's personal and demographic 

characteristics, and parent and household characteristics. Multiple attempts were made to 

complete interviews with persons who were not available at the time of selection. If an 

interviewer contacted an individual who preferred to conduct the interview in Spanish, a Spanishspeaking interviewer and survey instrument were used. For more detailed information on sample 

selection and survey content in the NHES, consult the NHES:2001 Data File User’s Manual, Vol. I 

(Collins et al. 2002a). 

Response Rates 

The 2001 NHES completed screening interviews with 48,385 households. The response 

rate for the Screener was 69.2 percent. For the ECPP Survey, 6,749 interviews were completed for 
48 

a unit response rate of 86.6 percent. Thus, the overall response rate for the Parent Interview was 

59.9 percent (the product of the Screener response rate and the ECPP unit response rate). The 

number of interviews included in this analysis is 6,741—i.e., the number of completed interviews 

for children under the age of 6. 

The estimates from the 2001 NHES are subject to potential bias because of nonresponse to 

the Screener and ECPP surveys. During the conduct of the 2001 interviews, many procedures 

were employed to minimize nonresponse bias. These included extensive training of the 

interviewers, call scheduling strategies, and attempts to obtain cooperation from respondents who 

initially refused to participate. Weighting adjustments are also made to minimize any bias that 

may result from the nonresponse that does occur. 

Results from a nonresponse bias analysis conducted for the 1999 NHES suggest that the 

estimates produced from 2001 data are not biased as a result of nonresponse. The 1999 NHES is 

similar to the 2001 NHES in terms of its target populations, contact procedures, and salience. 

Response rates in 1999 were slightly higher than those in 2001 (60-67 percent for the topical 

surveys in 1999, and 53-60 percent for the topical surveys in 2001). However, similar procedures 

were used to reduce and adjust for nonresponse in 1999 and 2001. Therefore, it is likely that any 

nonresponse bias present in estimates from the 2001 NHES would be similar to nonresponse bias 

in estimates from the 1999 NHES. The nonresponse bias analysis of the 1999 NHES involved an 

examination of response rates as a whole and for various subgroups, an analysis to determine 

characteristics that are associated with Screener nonresponse, an examination of the potential 

usefulness of household-level data from an external source in reducing nonresponse bias, and a 

comparison of estimates based on adjusted and unadjusted weights. The results of these analyses 

showed no evidence of bias in estimates produced from the 1999 NHES data. In addition, 

comparisons between key estimates from the 2001 NHES and those of extant data sources further 

suggest there is no bias associated with nonresponse. Additional information regarding 

nonresponse bias and weighting procedures in the NHES can be found in the 1999 and 2001 

NHES Methodology Reports (Nolin et al. 2000 and Nolin et al. 2004). 

Item nonresponse (the failure to complete some items in an otherwise completed interview) 

was less than 2 percent for all of the items used in this report except income, which has an item 

nonresponse rate of 12 percent. Missing responses to all items were imputed using a hot-deck 

procedure. 

Data Reliability and Weighting 

Estimates produced using data from surveys are subject to two types of error, sampling and 

nonsampling errors. Nonsampling errors are errors made in the collection and processing of data. 

Sampling errors occur because the data are collected from a sample rather than a census of the 

population. In general, it is difficult to identify and estimate either the amount of nonsampling 

error or the bias caused by this error. In the 2001 NHES, efforts were made to prevent such errors 

from occurring by using focus groups and cognitive laboratory interviews when designing the 

survey instruments, extensively testing the CATI system, and conducting two pretests. One source 

of nonsampling error for a telephone survey that cannot be eliminated is the failure to include 

persons who do not live in households with telephones. About 10 percent of all children under the 
49 

age of 6 live in households without telephones. Estimation procedures were used to help reduce 

the bias in the estimates associated with children who do not live in households with telephones. 

Specifically, estimates were adjusted using control totals from the Census Bureau’s Current 

Population Survey (CPS) so that the totals were consistent with the total number of civilian, 

noninstitutionalized persons in all (telephone and nontelephone) households. 

Sampling error exists because the sample of telephone households selected for the 2001 

NHES is just one of many possible samples that could have been selected. Estimates produced 

from this sample may differ from estimates that would have been produced from other samples. 

The standard error is a measure of the variability, or sampling error, due to sampling when 

estimating a statistic. They 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 one 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. 

The standard errors found in the tables also can be used to produce confidence intervals. 

For example, an estimated 23 percent of Hispanic children receive regular care from a relative. 

This figure has an estimated standard error of 1.3. The estimated 95 percent confidence interval 

for this statistic is approximately 20.5 to 25.5 percent. For more information on sampling error in 

the NHES, consult the NHES:2001 Data File User’s Manual, Vol. I (Collins et al. 2002a). 

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. Use of the design weight produces approximately unbiased and 

consistent estimates of national totals. When weighted appropriately using the child-level weight 

available in the ECPP dataset, these data represent the child care and early education experiences 

of the population of children under age 6 and not yet enrolled in kindergarten or aboveapproximately 20.3 million children. 

In addition to properly weighting the responses, special procedures for estimating the 

statistical significance of the estimates were employed because the 2001 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. Frequently, the standard errors of the estimates from these 

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. The estimates and 

standard errors presented in this report were produced using WesVar Complex Samples software 

and a jackknife replication procedure (Wolter 1985). 

Statistical Tests 

 The tests of significance used in this report are based on Student’s t statistic. All 

differences cited in this report are significant at the .05 level of significance. Trend tests, or 

bivariate regressions, were used to examine the general relationships between the various 

characteristics of child care and both household income and mother’s education level. 
50 

Participation in child care, overall and for each type of arrangement, time spent in care, and outof-pocket expenses for care were each regressed on household income and on mother's education 

level separately. Logistic regression was used for those tests involving the dichotomous 

measures of participation, and ordinary least squares regression was used for those tests 

involving the continuous measures of hours in and out-of-pocket expenses for care. 

Additionally, the discussion was limited to differences of at least 5 percentage points when 

percentage estimates were compared. When mean estimates were compared, the discussion was 

limited to differences where the effect size, as calculated using Cohen’s d statistic, was .2 or 

larger. Cohen’s d is derived from the following formula: 

where i x is the estimated mean of subgroup i (i = 1, 2), ( )i SE x is the standard error of that 

estimate, and ni is the size of the subgroup to which the estimate pertains. For more information 

on effect size, see Cohen (1988). 

( ) ( )

1 2

2

2 2 2

2

1 1 1

1 2

( 1) ( 1)

n n

n SE n n SE n

x x d

+

− + −

− =
51 

References 

Brimhall, D., Reaney, L., and West, J. (1999). Participation of Kindergarteners Through ThirdGraders in Before- and After-School Care (NCES 1999-013). U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Academic 

Press. 

Collins, M., Montaquila, J., Nolin, M. J., Kim, K., Kleiner, B., Waits, T., Chapman, C., and 

Chandler, K. (2002a). National Household Education Surveys Program of 2001: Data File 

User’s Manual, Volume I (NCES 2002-140). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, 

DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

Early, D. and Burchinal, M. (2001). Early Childhood Care: Relations With Family 

Characteristics and Preferred Care Characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 

16(4): 475-497. 

Fuller, B., Eggers-Pierola, C., Holloway, S. D., Liang, X., and Rambaud, M. F. (1996). Rich 

Culture, Poor Markets: Why Do Latino Parents Forgo Preschooling? Teachers College 

Record 97(3): 400-418. 

Hofferth, S., Shauman, K., Henke, R., and West, J. (1998). Characteristics of Children’s Early 

Care and Education Programs: Data From the 1995 National Household Education 

Survey (NCES 98-128). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

 

Hofferth, S., Brayfield, A., Deich, S., and Holcomb, P. (1990). National Child Care Survey, 

1990. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. 

 

Huang, G. G., and Van Horn, P. (1995). Using Child Care Services: Families With Disabled 

Children. Rural Special Education Quarterly 14(4): 27-36. 

Nolin, M. J., Montaquila, J., Nicchitta, P., Kim, K., Kleiner, B., Lennon, J., Chapman, C., 

Creighton, S., and Bielick, S. (2000). National Household Education Surveys Program of 

1999: Methodology Report (NCES 2000-078). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, 

DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

Nolin, M. J., Montaquila, J., Nicchitta, P., Collins Hagedorn, M., and Chapman, C. (2004). 

National Household Education Surveys Program: 2001: Methodology Report (NCES 

2005-071). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics. 

Proctor, B.D., and Dalaker, J. (2002). Poverty in the United States: 2001. Current Population 

Reports (P60-219). U.S. Census Bureau. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office. 
52 

Singer, J. D., Fuller, B., Keiley., M. K., Wolf, A. (1998). Early Child-Care Selection: Variation 

by Geographic Location, Maternal Characteristics, and Family Structure. Developmental 

Psychology, 34(5): 1129-44. 

Smith, K. (2000). Who’s minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Fall 1995. Current 

Population Reports (P70-70). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. 

Smith, K. (2002). Who’s minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Spring 1997. Current 

Population Reports (P70-86). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. 

Smith, T., Kleiner, A., Parsad, B., Farris, E., and Greene, B. (2003). Prekindergarten in U.S. 

Public Schools: 2000-2001. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National 

Center for Education Statistics. 

West, J., Germino Hausken, E., Chandler, K., and Collins, M. (1992). Experiences in Child Care 

and Early Childhood Programs of First and Second Graders (NCES 92-005). U.S. 

Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

West, J., Germino Hausken, E., and Collins, M. (1993). Profile of Preschool Children’s Child 

Care and Early Education Program Participation (NCES 93-133). U.S. Department of 

Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

West, J., Wright, D., and Germino Hausken, E. (1995). Child Care and Early Education 

Program Participation of Infants, Toddlers, and Preschoolers (NCES 95-824). U.S. 

Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

Wolter, K. (1985). Introduction to Variance Estimation. New York: Springer-Verlag.