United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Congress

September 1995 WELFARE TO WORK

Child Care Assistance

Limited; Welfare

Reform May Expand

Needs

GAO/HEHS-95-220

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-258798 

September 21, 1995

The President of the Senate and the

Speaker of the House of Representatives

From 1991 through 1993, federal and state spending on child care

subsidies to help current and former welfare recipients work or go to

school grew from just over $600 million to over $1 billion. As the Congress

and the states consider and test various approaches to restricting the

length of time that mothers stay on welfare and to begin working more

quickly, questions have arisen about child care needs created by more

welfare mothers participating in training activities, part-time work, and,

finally, full-time work. In particular, concerns have been expressed about

the capacity of the states’ child care resources to handle the increase in

the number of children needing care under such proposals.

Given rising interest in this issue, we examined (1) the extent to which

child care needs of welfare recipients in an education and training

program (the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program)

are currently being met, (2) whether any barriers exist to meeting the child

care needs of JOBS participants, (3) the effects of child care subsidies on

former welfare recipients’ move toward self-sufficiency, and (4) the

potential implications of welfare reform for child care availability and

continuity.

To accomplish our work, we conducted a nationally representative,

computer-assisted telephone survey of approximately 400 local JOBS

programs. The child care-related questions on this survey provided general

information about child care services available to JOBS participants. We

also visited 12 counties in 7 states1

 to obtain in-depth information on how

the JOBS child care program was implemented, governmental child care

expenditures, participants’ ability to identify and secure child care while

they go to work or school, the effects of child care subsidies on former

welfare recipients’ move toward self-sufficiency, and implications of

welfare reform on child care. We conducted our work between June 1994

and August 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government

auditing standards. (See app. I for a detailed description of our objectives,

scope, and methodology.)

1

We visited counties in Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Texas, and Washington.

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
B-258798 

Background In 1988, the Congress enacted sweeping changes to the nation’s welfare

system by passing the Family Support Act (FSA). A central purpose of FSA

was to transform Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) into a

transitional program by strengthening existing work requirements and

guaranteeing child care subsidies to welfare recipients while they

participate in education and training activities. To accomplish this, FSA

created the JOBS program, which was designed to help AFDC families to

obtain the education, training, and work experience to become

independent from welfare. Under the JOBS program, states may make

available to participants a broad range of services and activities. States are

required to provide certain components, including high school or

equivalent education, basic and remedial education, education for those

with limited English proficiency, job skills training, job readiness training,

and job development and placement. States must also offer two of the

following four optional components: job search, on-the-job training,

community work experience, and work supplementation.2 FSA also

required states to guarantee child care for JOBS participants and employed

AFDC recipients.

Under FSA, states are accorded substantial flexibility in the design and

implementation of their JOBS programs. Although about $1 billion in federal

funds has been made available for JOBS each year, states must commit their

own resources by providing matching funds to acquire the federal dollars

allocated to them. Recognizing the state financial role in JOBS, FSA generally

allows states to operate their programs to the extent that “State resources

. . . permit.” Moreover, although FSA mandates participation in JOBS for AFDC

recipients between 16 and 59 years of age, it allows exemptions for certain

individuals, such as those caring for children under age 3. FSA also allows

states to limit participation by those with child care needs by deferring

participation, granting “good cause,”3

 creating waiting lists, reassigning

priorities, and taking other measures. Finally, FSA defines minimum

participation standards for states to meet. To meet these requirements,

states only have to serve a portion of their nonexempt AFDC recipients.

As welfare recipients move into the workforce, they often must pay for the

child care that enables them to work, and the cost of child care remains an

employment barrier to many of them. Recognizing the importance of child

care to helping welfare recipients obtain training and employment, leave

2

This is a form of subsidized employment also known as grant diversion, in which the AFDC grants are

used to pay for a portion of the training and supervision provided to the participant by the employer.

3

FSA regulations allow states to find “good cause” for failure to participate in JOBS if, among other

things, necessary child care is not available and the state fails to provide such care.

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
B-258798 

welfare, and stay employed, the Congress has created four child care

programs since 1988:

• Guaranteed child care4 for employed recipients of AFDC, JOBS participants

(discussed above), and recipients in other approved education activities;

• Guaranteed child care for 1 year after leaving the welfare rolls for

employment (known as Transitional Child Care);

• Child care subsidies for working poor families who are not currently

receiving AFDC but who would be at risk of becoming eligible for AFDC

without such subsidies (known as at-risk child care); and

• Monetary support, provided under the Child Care and Development Block

Grant, to working, low-income families with incomes up to 75 percent of a

state’s median income.

The first three of these programs require states to commit their own

resources to obtain the federal dollars allocated to them; the fourth

requires no state matching funds. In fiscal year 1994, federal and state

governments spent over $2.5 billion on these four programs. Taken

together, these subsidy programs have made an important contribution to

states’ efforts to move some mothers off welfare to have them begin work,

as well as to keep some working poor families off welfare.

Results in Brief Although 73 percent of the state JOBS programs in our nationwide survey

reported providing child care subsidies or help arranging child care5

 to all

or almost all participants who needed assistance, their ability to do so

stemmed from two key FSA provisions that serve to limit the number of

AFDC recipients who participate. JOBS serves only a small portion of adult

welfare recipients—approximately 13 percent in any given month—in part

because many meet the statutory exemption provisions. In addition,

because states implement JOBS and its child care provision to the extent

that their resources permit, the amount of funds that states provide for

child care for the JOBS program as a match for federal dollars also limits

the number of welfare recipients with child care needs who can

participate. When child care funding is unavailable, states either exempt

welfare recipients or limit participation to those with school-aged children

4

States may use a variety of methods to guarantee the availability of child care, such as arranging the

care through providers using vouchers, providing cash or vouchers to caretaker relatives, and

arranging with other agencies for nonreimbursed care.

5

The JOBS child care guarantee requires states to provide or pay for needed services, not simply help

in finding services.

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
B-258798 

or those who can find free child care. Five of the seven states we visited

reported insufficient funds for child care.

Regardless of their ability to provide child care assistance,6

 state and

county officials told us a number of difficulties hinder finding child care

for the small number of recipients who participate in JOBS. Shortages of

certain kinds of child care common to the population in general—such as

infant, special-needs, and sick child care; before- and after-school care;

and part-time and nonstandard hours7

 care—as well as a lack of reliable

transportation, can delay when some JOBS participants begin training or

work and affect their continued participation. In fact, every state we

visited reported a shortage of care for infants and during nonstandard

hours, and six states reported a shortage of care for special-needs and sick

children. In our nationwide survey, 77 percent of the JOBS programs unable

to provide child care assistance to all participants cited transportation

difficulties as a problem in getting child care.

Once a welfare recipient secures work, her ability to continue working and

become self-sufficient enough to support her family can be impaired if her

child care subsidy is cut off because of insufficient state resources. Some

states attempt to provide JOBS participants with continued child care

help—beyond that guaranteed in the JOBS program—through several

federal/state child care programs. These states give former JOBS

participants priority for continuing child care funds set aside to help the

working poor. However, some states have long waiting lists of eligible

working poor families—with as many as 36,000 families in one state—for

which no child care funds exist. As a result, clients may quit working when

their child care subsidies end.

Providing funding and finding care for additional children as more

mothers are required to work or limit their stay on AFDC under welfare

reform may be difficult. JOBS-related child care funding and the supply of

certain kinds of child care are already inadequate in some states. Different

approaches currently under discussion by the Congress and being tested

in many states are intended to increase the number of welfare recipients in

job skills training and employment, thus increasing the need for child care

for AFDC recipients with young children. Even if changes are not made to

AFDC at the national level, these difficulties could affect reform measures

6

We visited counties that had a wide range of abilities to provide child care assistance to JOBS

participants. See appendix I for more information on our methodology.

7

Nonstandard hours include early mornings, evenings, nights, and weekends, as well as all shifts longer

than 8 hours.

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
B-258798 

that continue to be implemented in the states. As states move to expand

work requirements, they may have to reconsider funding priorities and

push to develop new sources of child care to meet the needs of welfare

recipients and the working poor alike.

Most JOBS Programs

Report Providing

Child Care Assistance,

but Participation Is

Limited

Most state JOBS programs in our nationwide survey reported providing

child care subsidies or help arranging child care to all or almost all

participants who needed assistance (see table 1).8

 However, to a great

degree, their ability to do so stemmed from two key FSA provisions that

serve to limit participation in JOBS by AFDC recipients who might need child

care.

Table 1: Proportion of Jobs

Participants Receiving Needed Child

Care Assistance During May 1994

JOBS programs’ response Percentage

All or almost all 73

Most 13

About half 5

Some 4

Few or none 2

No participants needed child care

4

Note: Numbers do not add to 100 because of rounding. See table II.11 in appendix II for

sampling errors.

One provision exempts large numbers of AFDC recipients, many of whom

would potentially need child care assistance if they took part in JOBS.

These FSA exemptions provide one way of managing the influx of clients

who may need child care to participate. The most recent Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS) data show, for example, that nationally

in 1993 75 percent of the female AFDC recipients exempted from

participation in JOBS were exempt because they were caring for children

under the age of 3. A state may also limit JOBS participation on a

case-by-case basis if child care is not available. Our analysis of HHS data

showed that 50 percent of nonparticipants have a child under age 3, while

only 20 percent of participants have a child under age 3.9

8

We reported at length on the survey results in their entirety in Welfare to Work: Participants’

Characteristics and Services Provided in JOBS (GAO/HEHS-95-93, May 2, 1995). See appendix II for

detailed results from the survey’s child care-related questions.

9

We used the National Integrated Quality Control System data for 1993. (See app. I for more

information.)

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
B-258798 

To determine what portion of adult AFDC recipients JOBS is serving, we

obtained the most recent HHS average monthly data available.10 These data

showed that the seven states we visited were serving 169,891 welfare

recipients in their JOBS programs, only 15 percent of their total adult AFDC

caseload. Table 2 shows JOBS participants as a percentage of the total AFDC

population for each of these states. Nationwide, HHS data showed that

541,995 welfare recipients were participating in JOBS programs, about

13 percent of total adult AFDC recipients in any given month.

Table 2: AFDC Population Participating

in JOBS in Seven States, FY 1993

States

Adult AFDC

recipients

Active JOBS

participants

JOBS participants

as a percentage of

state’s AFDC

population

Florida 224,657 19,082 9

Michigan 237,387 47,460 20

Minnesota 65,510 5,418 8

Nevada 11,101 928 8

Ohio 247,310 54,037 22

Texas 236,627 23,953 10

Washington 102,366 19,013 19

Total 1,124,958 169,891 15

The number of AFDC recipients who participate in JOBS is also constrained

by state funding. Although spending for child care assistance has been

growing and states must guarantee child care for participants, FSA allows

states to operate the JOBS program as state resources permit. The amount

of funding that states provide for child care to match federal funding

competes with other state budget requirements, such as providing funds

for building highways and prisons. Providing fewer state matching dollars

limits the total dollars available for child care services, which in turn,

limits the number of JOBS participants who can be given child care

subsidies. Five of the seven states we visited reported insufficient funds

for child care. Some officials explained that because of the level of

matching funds, they must limit those who can participate in their JOBS

programs to women with minimal child care needs or those who have

made child care arrangements that are free. In Florida, JOBS participants

have third priority for child care funds, after children at risk of abuse or

neglect and children of parents who have left the welfare rolls for

employment or who still receive AFDC because of low earnings. Florida,

therefore, simply exempts AFDC recipients with child care needs from

10Information Memorandum, “Final Tables Based on Form ACF-108 Data for Fiscal Year 1993” HHS,

JOBS-ACF-IM-94-8 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 1994).

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
B-258798 

participating in JOBS when funding is not available. Texas officials stated

they have very meager funds for child care and therefore attempt to enroll

participants who can find free child care or who have school-aged children

and can participate during school hours.

Five of the seven states we visited were able to provide information on the

number of JOBS participants’ children currently receiving child care. For

fiscal year 1994, these five states reported providing child care to 207,104

children of JOBS participants.11 These children, however, represent only a

small portion of the states’ total number of children on AFDC. For example,

during April, May, and June of fiscal year 1994, Michigan provided child

care to an average of 13,999 children of JOBS participants each month.12

During this same quarter, Michigan had an average of 323,823 children

under age 13 on its AFDC rolls.13 (See app. III for additional data on the

number of children served and the associated cost.)

Child Care-Related

Barriers Can Delay

Welfare-To-Work

Efforts

Although FSA guarantees child care to welfare recipients while they are

participating in JOBS, and our survey showed that most JOBS programs are

providing some child care assistance to current participants, a number of

barriers hinder finding child care for participants. Some of these barriers

are common to the general population of individuals searching for

appropriate child care, while others are related to how the JOBS program

may be structured in a state. These barriers can delay AFDC recipients’

participation in the JOBS program.

Some JOBS Participants

Face Child Care Barriers

Common to General

Population

Nationally, we found in our survey that, irrespective of funding issues, a

general lack of child care in the community—as well as a lack of child care

that is affordable for participants—contributes to some JOBS programs’

inability to provide child care assistance. Like the general population, JOBS

participants seek child care from a variety of sources, such as centers,

family child care homes, and relatives, and encounter similar problems in

finding appropriate child care. In our visits, we found that some JOBS

participants have difficulty finding care for infants, special-needs

11Except for Washington and Minnesota, states could not provide unduplicated numbers of children

served (that is, states could not tell us when a child’s care was being funded by two programs).

Because of this, the number of children reported served is most likely overstated.

12For the reason noted above, the number served during this quarter may also be overstated.

13If necessary for JOBS participation, child care is guaranteed for dependent children who are under 13

years old and for those children who are physically or mentally incapable of caring for themselves or

under court supervision.

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
B-258798 

children,14 children before and after school, and sick children. In addition,

some JOBS participants have difficulty finding child care that is accessible,

given a lack of reliable public or private transportation, and available

during nonstandard hours of work. (See app. IV for additional information

on barriers.)

Officials in every state we visited reported a shortage of care for infants,

six states reported a shortage of care for special-needs children, and three

states reported a shortage of before- and after-school care. In Texas,

where a shortage of infant care already exists, officials believe recent

quality improvements to state licensing regulations will cause some

providers to discontinue their infant programs rather than comply with the

new regulations. Michigan officials said the state has a shortage of infant

and special needs-related child care in the inner cities and a shortage of all

types of child care in rural areas. Moreover, a suburban county child care

specialist in Michigan said the current supply of child care providers

cannot handle the expected influx of the 3,000 new clients in that county

required to participate in the state’s welfare reform program begun in

October 1994. The specialist stated the supply shortage may push

participants to use care not regulated by the state.15 In addition,

caseworkers told us that an urban school district in Michigan has only one

location that offers before- and after-school care. Even when before- and

after-school care is available, county officials told us that children may not

have transportation between their homes and the care facility during these

nonschool hours.

Washington State officials noted that some children of JOBS participants

have multiple special needs, which increase providers’ reluctance to care

for them. Minnesota officials stated they find it hard to locate providers

who are qualified to provide care to special-needs children or those who

will provide care on days that children are sick. One JOBS participant we

spoke with noted that some JOBS training classes have strict attendance

requirements and having a provider who will care for a sick child can

make the difference between passing and failing such a class.

One of the most pressing problems limiting access to child care was

transportation difficulties. In our nationwide survey, 77 percent of those

JOBS programs unable to provide subsidies or help arranging child care to

14Examples of children with special needs include those with physical, emotional, or mental handicaps;

those born with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome; and those with chronic asthma.

15Nonregulated providers may be those providers caring for fewer children than their states require for

regulation as well as providers illegally caring for children.

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
B-258798 

all participants who needed assistance indicated that participants had

problems getting to their child care provider. Officials in the seven states

we visited also said transportation was a problem in accessing child care.

We were told that many JOBS participants do not have reliable private

transportation to get their children to child care providers and then to get

themselves to work or school. Moreover, some communities lack the

necessary public transportation to get participants where they need to go.

A child care specialist in a rural Ohio county noted that participants in

rural areas are “all going in different directions” to find work. When

participants do not all commute in the same direction, carpooling and

drop-offs at child care centers are very difficult to arrange.

Officials of all seven states we visited indicated that finding care during

nonstandard hours of work, such as on nights and weekends, is a problem

for participants. Many participants find jobs in the service industry,

working at hotels, restaurants, hospitals, and discount department stores

where nonstandard hours are common. In fact, service occupations with a

high proportion of shift workers are projected to produce more new jobs

than any other sector over the next decade, and the trend of service

businesses operating during nonstandard hours is expected to continue,

according to a recent Department of Labor report.16 However, few child

care providers operate during nonstandard hours, according to a

nationally representative sample of child care centers and regulated family

child care homes.17

When welfare recipients encounter these types of difficulties in finding

child care to participate in the JOBS program, caseworkers told us they

exempt them or assign them a “not job-ready” status. Their participation in

the JOBS program is then delayed until they can—sometimes with the help

of caseworkers—make suitable child care arrangements.

JOBS Program-Related

Barriers to Child Care

In addition to the barriers to finding child care faced by the general

population, JOBS participants may encounter other difficulties. The JOBS

program in their states may not have enough child care program staff to

help them locate care. And child care providers in their communities may

16The report also estimates that 60 percent of women with children under age 6 are in the workforce

and that, in 1991, 5 million of the full-time workers with nonstandard hours—more than one in

three—were women. Care Around the Clock: Developing Child Care Resources Before 9 and After 5,

U.S. Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1995).

17The Demand and Supply of Child Care in 1990, National Association for the Education of Young

Children (Washington, D.C.: 1991).

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
B-258798 

not offer care that is flexible enough to meet JOBS participants’ part-time

program hours.

In Washington State, for example, caseworkers said their high caseloads

prevent them from taking the time to discuss child care in-depth. Similarly,

Nevada does not serve all mandatory JOBS participants because of limited

staffing. At one point, Michigan stopped serving the child care needs of

JOBS participants in school because the volume of cases was too high for

the available staff to handle.

Participants have difficulty finding care flexible enough to support their

part-time JOBS participation hours and have problems coordinating school

hours, study hours, and provider availability hours, officials in four states

told us. HHS fiscal year 1993 data show that most JOBS participants are in

education/training or work activities for 20 hours or less per week and

thus need only part-time child care. Yet state officials told us many child

care centers require clients to pay for full-time care regardless of the

number of hours the child is present. And in other cases, providers are less

willing to accept part-time clients when they can get full-time clients. In an

urban Washington State county, for instance, more and more providers are

willing to take only full-time clients, caseworkers said.

Inadequate

Postwelfare Child

Care Subsidies

Challenge JOBS

Participants’

Self-Sufficiency

Insufficient child care subsidies for the working poor affects JOBS

participants’ and other welfare recipients’ ability to achieve

self-sufficiency. We reported in December 1994 that our analysis predicts

that child care subsidies will make a substantial difference in the

probability of poor and near-poor mothers working.18 Officials in five of

the seven states we visited also said they believe that clients have quit

working because they could not afford child care (once subsidies

terminated) and that child care plays a major role in clients’ returning to

welfare rather than moving toward self-sufficiency.19 Moreover, a recent

study by the Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association found that almost

one-quarter of the families waiting for child care subsidies left jobs or

job-related training and turned to AFDC for economic survival.20 A recent

18Child Care: Child Care Subsidies Increase Likelihood That Low-Income Mothers Will Work

(GAO/HEHS-95-20, Dec. 30, 1994).

19We reported at length on child care subsidy gaps and their link to becoming self-sufficient in Child

Care: Working Poor and Welfare Recipients Face Service Gaps (GAO/HEHS-94-87, May 13, 1994).

20Valuing Families: The High Cost of Waiting for Child Care Sliding Fee Assistance, The Greater

Minneapolis Day Care Association (Minneapolis: 1995).

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
B-258798 

report by the National Research Council also noted that a lack of subsidies

may create major barriers to families’ work efforts.21

After welfare recipients enter the workforce, Transitional Child Care (TCC)

is guaranteed for a maximum of 12 months after AFDC payments end. If a

state does not have other funds to continue the subsidies beyond the

12-month period, the former welfare recipients must bear the full costs of

child care even if their earnings have not increased during the 12 months.

A few states we visited give TCC clients priority placement on their waiting

lists for direct income-based subsidies for the working poor provided by

the Child Care and Development Block Grant (block grant), so that when

the 12 months of TCC terminate, the children’s subsidy can be replaced

smoothly by block grant funding. For example, Ohio officials stated they

provide continuous child care services by automatically moving JOBS

participants from TCC benefits to subsidies for the working poor. Similarly,

Florida gives transitional clients priority for block grant child care funds

for the working poor in an effort keep these clients from returning to

welfare. In one state, however, officials said they were concerned that

favoring former welfare clients over other working poor families that have

never been on the welfare rolls sends the wrong message about the need

to cycle through the welfare system to obtain child care subsidies.

Because block grant child care funds for the working poor are capped and

require no state matching dollars, only a limited number of applicants can

be served unless the state provides additional funds. Five of the states we

visited maintain long waiting lists of eligible working poor families for

which they have no child care funding. Florida has 19,000 people on its

working poor waiting list; Washington, 3,000; Minnesota, 7,000; Texas,

36,000; and Nevada, 7,000. Texas officials in one regional office said that

their waiting list would be much longer if they did not regularly purge

names from it. Clients must call every 60 days to renew their position on

the list. Michigan and Ohio do not keep waiting lists in part because of the

difficulty of locating the families should funding become available.

Implications of Child

Care for Welfare

Reform

The child care needs of AFDC recipients—whether or not they are

participating in a JOBS-like program—and of newly working former welfare

recipients are expected to grow, given welfare reform proposals and state

initiatives that increase work requirements for more mothers of children

receiving AFDC and that limit the length of time families can remain on

21Child Care for Low-Income Families: Summary of Two Workshops, National Research Council,

Board on Children and Families (Washington, D.C.: 1995.)

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
B-258798 

AFDC. If the Congress or states expand their welfare-to-work requirements

and also reduce or eliminate the allowable exemptions from working,

more AFDC recipients will have to find child care to work or enroll in

school, training, or work programs. Meeting greater demand for child care

may be difficult for states across the nation, especially since JOBS-related

child care funding and the supply of certain kinds of child care are already

limited in some states. Infant care, part-time care, and care during

nonstandard work hours will be particularly needed if a large influx of

welfare recipients must move quickly from the welfare rolls into the

workforce.

Finally, locating appropriate child care at a price former welfare recipients

may be able to afford will continue to be a problem once they enter the

workforce. Although postwelfare subsidies can play a critical role in

keeping former recipients from returning to welfare, the subsidies for

child care are either time-limited or unavailable to many because of the

long waiting lists for receiving assistance. Even if changes are not made to

AFDC at the national level, these difficulties could affect the reform

initiatives that continue to be implemented in the states. As states move to

expand work requirements, they may have to reconsider funding priorities

and push to develop new sources of child care to meet the needs of

welfare recipients and the working poor alike.

Agency Comments In commenting on a draft of this report, HHS stated that our survey results

showing that 73 percent of state JOBS programs are providing all or almost

all participants with child care assistance should be viewed in the context

of the programs’ ability to limit how many participants with child care

needs they will accept. HHS also commented that because participant pools

are partly determined on the basis of child care availability, it may not be

appropriate to look at the experience of JOBS programs to draw

conclusions about the child care needs of recipients who are not JOBS

participants. We agree with HHS that the child care needs of current JOBS

participants may not be representative of welfare recipients not

participating. Our work shows that the success of JOBS programs in

providing child care assistance to current participants stems from the

states’ ability to limit participation to a small portion of welfare recipients

and their ability to determine the amount of funding they will provide for

child care.

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
B-258798 

HHS raised other points that they believed should be clarified (see app. V)

and provided technical comments that we addressed in the report as

appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report interested Members of Congress and

to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Copies will be available to

others on request. If you have any questions concerning this report or need

additional information, please call me on (202) 512-7215. Other GAO

contacts and contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Jane L. Ross

Director, Income Security Issues

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

16

Data Analyzed on JOBS Participants 16

Nationwide Survey on Child Care Services for JOBS Participants 16

Visits to States on Utilization of Child Care by JOBS Participants 18

Appendix II 

Child Care-Related

Nationwide Survey

Results

20

Appendix III 

Child Care

Expenditures for 1994

and the Number of

Children Served

24

Appendix IV 

Child Care-Related

Barriers Encountered

by Some JOBS

Participants

25

Appendix V 

Comments From the

Department of Health

and Human Services

26

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
Contents

Appendix VI 

GAO Contacts and

Staff

Acknowledgments

28

Related GAO Products 29

Tables Table 1: Proportion of Jobs Participants Receiving Needed Child

Care Assistance During May 1994

5

Table 2: AFDC Population Participating in JOBS in Seven States,

FY 1993

6

Table I.1: Universe, Sample Size, and Response Rates 18

Table II.1: Question 1 20

Table II.2: Question 2 20

Table II.3: Question 3 21

Table II.4: Question 4 21

Table II.5: Question 5 21

Table II.6: Question 6 21

Table II.7: Question 7 21

Table II.8: Question 8 22

Table II.9: Question 9 22

Table II.10: Question 10 22

Table II.11: Maximum Sampling Errors for Data in Tables II.1

Through II.10

23

Abbreviations

AFDC Aid to Families With Dependent Children program

CCDBG Child Care and Development Block Grant

FSA Family Support Act of 1988

FY fiscal year

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

JOBS Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training program

TCC Transitional Child Care program

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

To assist the Congress in its deliberations on welfare reform and child

care, we examined (1) the extent to which child care needs of welfare

recipients in JOBS are are currently being met, (2) whether any barriers

exist to meeting the child care needs of JOBS participants, (3) the effect of

child care subsidies on former welfare recipients’ move toward

self-sufficiency, and (4) the potential implications of welfare reform for

child care availability and continuity.

Data Analyzed on

JOBS Participants

To find out how the ages of JOBS participants’ children differ from

nonparticipants’ children, we analyzed HHS’ 1993 National Integrated

Quality Control system data. These data include participants in the JOBS

program as well as participants in the Food Stamp Employment and

Training Program. We based our analysis on 1993 data because they were

the most current available when we did our analysis. We limited our

analysis to female parents or stepparents who receive AFDC. In 1993, these

cases accounted for about 80 percent of all AFDC cases.

Nationwide Survey on

Child Care Services

for JOBS Participants

Sample Selection and

Survey Response

To determine the extent to which JOBS programs were able to provide child

care assistance to current participants, we asked a number of child

care-related questions as part of a nationally representative

computer-assisted telephone survey of over 400 local JOBS program

officials conducted between June and August 1994. We reported complete

survey results on the characteristics of JOBS participants in May 1995.22

Because most JOBS services are provided at the county level, we selected a

random sample of counties for our survey. We derived a nationwide listing

of counties from 1990 Census data and selected an overall sample of about

450 counties. Before selecting this sample, we stratified the counties into

the following four groups:

22Welfare to Work: Participants’ Characteristics and Services Provided in JOBS (GAO/HEHS-95-93,

May 2, 1995).

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

• Large urban—Counties comprising the 10 cities with the largest

populations of children in welfare households.23

• Metropolitan with central city—Counties containing the central city for a

metropolitan statistical area.

• Metropolitan—no central city—Counties in metropolitan statistical areas

that do not contain a central city.

• Nonmetropolitan (rural)—Counties that are not part of a metropolitan

statistical area.

We selected all the counties from the large urban category and random

samples of counties from each of the other three groups. Table I.1 shows

the total number of counties and the number sampled in each stratum.

After selecting the sample, we used the Public Welfare Directory24 to

determine the name, address, and telephone number of the JOBS program

administrators responsible for programs in sampled counties. While

preparing and conducting our interviews, we found that 36 rural counties

and 1 nonrural county in our sample did not offer JOBS programs.25

Therefore, we adjusted our initial sample to exclude these counties.26 We

obtained responses from nearly all of the program administrators for the

counties in our adjusted sample (411 of 416). We used these responses to

produce national estimates for the JOBS program.

23These cities were included in the sample: Baltimore, Chicago (Cook and DuPage counties),

Cleveland, Detroit, Houston (Fort Bend, Harris, and Montgomery counties), Los Angeles, Milwaukee

(Milwaukee and Washington counties), New York (the boroughs of Brooklyn, Kings, New York,

Queens, and Richmond), Philadelphia, and San Diego.

24American Public Welfare Association (Washington, D.C.: 1993).

25HHS regulations do not require states to offer JOBS programs in every locality. Instead, states must

offer minimal or complete programs that reach most of the state’s adult welfare recipients. Minimal

JOBS programs include high school or equivalent education, one optional component (that is, job

search, on-the-job-training, community work experience, or work supplementation), and information

and referral to other available non-JOBS employment services. See 45 C.F.R. section 250.11 (Oct. 1,

1994).

26Although these 37 counties offered neither complete nor minimal JOBS programs, some offered

supportive services (principally, child care) to welfare recipients who were already attending an

institution of higher education at the time they would otherwise commence participation in the JOBS

program.

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Table I.1: Universe, Sample Size, and

Response Rates

Type of county

Number

in

universe

Counties

sampled

Adjusted

sample

Number of

counties

responding

Response

rate

(percent)

Large urban 18 18 18 18 100

Metropolitan with

central cities 422 134 134 131 98

Metropolitan—no

central city 311 120 119 118 99

Nonmetropolitan 2,390 181 145 144 99

Total 3,141 453 416 411 99

Sampling Errors for

Estimates

Because the estimates from this survey are based on a sample, each is

subject to sampling error. Table II.11 in appendix II shows the maximum

sampling error for estimates presented in each question. We computed the

sampling errors at the 95-percent confidence level. Therefore, the chances

are 95 out of 100 that the actual percentage being estimated falls within

the range defined by the estimate, plus or minus the sampling error.

Visits to States on

Utilization of Child

Care by JOBS

Participants

To obtain detailed information on (1) how the JOBS child care program was

implemented, (2) whether any barriers exist to meeting the child care

needs of JOBS participants, (3) the effects of child care subsidies on former

welfare recipients’ move toward self-sufficiency, and (4) the potential

impact that welfare reform proposals might have on child care availability

and continuity, we visited 12 counties in 7 states.27

We selected these counties using the following criteria:

• Response to key survey question—Within the seven states, we chose some

counties that answered “all or almost all,” some counties that answered

“about half,” and some that answered “few or none” to the question, “Of all

your JOBS participants who needed child care assistance in May 1994, what

proportion were receiving it?”28 We defined assistance as providing child

care funding or help with arranging child care. In this way we were able to

ensure that the counties visited would encompass a wide range of abilities

to provide child care assistance to JOBS participants.

27We visited Gadsen and Martin counties in Florida; Pike County, Ohio; Ingham and Washtenaw

counties in Michigan; Douglas and Washington counties in Minnesota; Carson City County in Nevada;

Harris and Hardin counties in Texas; and Spokane and Pierce counties in Washington.

28Available responses included “all or almost all,””most,””about half,””some,””few or none,””don’t

know,” and “no participants.”

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

• County type—We chose some urban, some suburban, and some rural

locations.

• Geographic distribution of states—We chose counties in states from

several areas of the United States.

During our visits, we interviewed officials responsible for the states’ child

care programs, child care licensing, JOBS program, and financial reporting.

At the county level, we also interviewed officials responsible for

implementing child care programs, child care licensing, and the JOBS

program. In addition, we interviewed representatives of child care

resource and referral agencies as well as JOBS participants.

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
Appendix II 

Child Care-Related Nationwide Survey

Results

Tables II.1 through II.10 show our results from the child care-related data

collected from our nationwide survey of over 400 county JOBS programs

(see GAO/HEHS-95-93 for results of the full survey). These tables provide data

on how child care services have been implemented and the extent child

care is utilized under the JOBS program. The numbers in each table

represent the GAO estimate of the percentage of all jurisdictions operating

JOBS programs nationwide that would have given the designated response

for that question. Table II.1 provides a snapshot of child care use during

the month of May 1994. That is, for the question involved the survey

focused only on child care services provided to current JOBS participants

during the month of May 1994. Child care use can vary throughout the

year. For example, care for school-aged children may increase during the

summer months when school is not in session.

Finally, table II.11 shows the maximum sampling errors at the 95-percent

confidence level for the results shown in tables II.1 through II.10.

Table II.1: Question 1

Of all your JOBS participants who needed child care

assistance, what proportion were receiving it?

Percentage of JOBS

programs

All or almost all 73

Most 13

About half 5

Some 4

Few or none 2

No participants needed child care 4

Note: Numbers may not add to 100 because of rounding.

Table II.2: Question 2

For those JOBS participants not receiving child care

assistance, was it because . . . Yes No

Lack of child care in community 52 48

Transportation problems 77 23

Child care not affordable 47 53

Need more JOBS staff 49 51

Program lacked funds 50 50

Other reasons 30 70

Could serve all with more money 68 32

Note: This question was asked only of JOBS programs (about 23 percent) who answered other

than “all or almost all” to question 1.

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
Appendix II 

Child Care-Related Nationwide Survey

Results

Table II.3: Question 3

Are clients with LESS NEED for child care served before

others with more child care needs?

Percentage of JOBS

programs

Yes 8

No 89

Sometimes 3

Table II.4: Question 4

Of all your JOBS participants

that are currently assisted with

child care, about how many . . .

All or

almost

all Most

About

half Some

Few or

none

None

needed

Receive financial help to pay for it? 85 9 2 1 2 1

Do you assist with making child

care arrangements? 45 12 12 14 16 1

Table II.5: Question 5

Does your program ever use a JOBS or non-JOBS

caseworker as a child care specialist in arranging child care

for participants?

Percentage of JOBS

programs

Yes 43

No 57

Table II.6: Question 6

Is this specialist a JOBS caseworker or from another

program?

Percentage of JOBS

programs

JOBS caseworker 27

From another program 65

Both 8

Notes: This question was asked only of JOBS programs (about 43 percent) who answered “yes”

to question 5.

Numbers may not add to 100 because of rounding.

Table II.7: Question 7

Does your program . . . Yes No

Have special sessions focusing only on child care needs or

other child care information for either individual JOBS

participants or groups of participants? 44 56

Refer JOBS participants to a resource and referral agency? 63 37

Serve as the designated resource and referral agency for the

county or local area? 45 55

Pay for JOBS participants to use legally exempt child care,

other than relatives?a 75 25

aStates often exempt from their licensing systems certain child care settings, such as family child

care providers serving small numbers of children, care provided in the child’s home, and care

provided by relatives.

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
Appendix II 

Child Care-Related Nationwide Survey

Results

Table II.8: Question 8

What proportion of JOBS participants enter with child care

arrangements already made?

Percentage of JOBS

programs

All or almost all 8

Most 9

About half 23

Some 30

Few or none 31

Note: Numbers may not add to 100 because of rounding.

Table II.9: Question 9

Child care available includes . . . Yes No

Head Start 93 7

State and local centers . . . 70 30

Private centers or preschools 91 9

Family day care 96 4

Relatives 99 1

Table II.10: Question 10

Type of child care used by your JOBS participants . . . Most frequently

Head Start 1

State centers 8

Other centers 27

Family child care 31

Relatives 25

Other 7

Note: Numbers may not add to 100 because of rounding.

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
Appendix II 

Child Care-Related Nationwide Survey

Results

Table II.11: Maximum Sampling Errors for Data in Tables II.1 Through II.10

Maximum sampling

error (percentage

points)

Question 1 5

Question 2

Lack of child care in the community

Transportation problems

Child care not affordable

Need more JOBS staff

Program lacked funds

Other reasons

Could serve all with more money

12

10

12

12

12

11

12

Question 3 4

Question 4

Financial help

Help with child care arrangements

4

6

Question 5 6

Question 6 9

Question 7

Special sessions

Refer to resource and referral agency

Serve as resource and referral agency

Pay for legally exempt care

5

5

6

5

Question 8 6

Question 9

Head Start

State and local centers

Private centers and preschools

Family day care

Relatives

4

6

4

3

1

Question 10 6

Note: Sampling errors were computed at the 95-percent confidence level.

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
Appendix III 

Child Care Expenditures for 1994 and the

Number of Children Served

JOBS TCC At-risk CCDBG

State

Amount

(millions)

Number

served

Amount

(millions)

Number

served

Amount

(millions)

Number

served

Amount

(millions)

Number

served

Florida $17.8 UA $26.1 UA $60.5a UA $35.0 UA

Michigan 21.5 145,907 4.7 19,900 48.2b 214,397b b b

Minnesotac 16.6 7,834 7.6 3,280 26.3b 12,612b b b

Nevada 0.98 8,002 0.91 6,112 2.3d 26,652d UAe 2,163d

Ohio 58.3 UA 0.13 UA 9.3 UA 20.7 UA

Texasf 40.1g 13,203 24.6 9,626 18.2 7,540 55.6 22,730

Washington 26.9 32,158 9.8 11,290 11.1 7,486 9.9 33,493

Legend:

UA = Unavailable

Note: Expenditure data include federal and state money, provided by the federal fiscal year.

Except for Washington, data may include duplicate counts.

aIncludes some Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) and Social Services Block

Grant funds.

bData are for the CCDBG and at-risk categories combined.

cMinnesota provided data by state fiscal year, which runs from July 1993 through June 1994.

dThis figure covers the period of October 1993 through August 1994.

eDuring the period this assignment was conducted, fiscal year 1994 cost figures had not been

compiled.

f

The number of children served in each category represents the minimum number served in fiscal

year 1994.

gIncludes some CCDBG funds.

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
Appendix IV 

Child Care-Related Barriers Encountered by

Some JOBS Participants

All Day Care

JOBS Program

Insufficient

Insufficient

Child care

Affordable child care

Sick child care

Infant child care

Special-needs child care

Before- and after-school child care

Nonstandard hours care

Transportation to child care

JOBS program staff

Program funds for JOBS child care

Supply of child care that matches

part-time JOBS participation hours

Florida

Michigan

Minnesota

Nevada

Ohio

Texas

Washington

Note: This chart is based on interviews with state and county officials in the locations we visited

and responses by the same counties to our nationwide survey of JOBS programs.

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
Appendix VI 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts Diana Pietrowiak, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-6239

Lynne Fender, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7229

Acknowledgments In addition to those named above, the following individuals made

important contributions to this report: James Wright provided design

support; Shellee Soliday, Alexandra Martin-Arseneau, and Janet Mascia

conducted interviews and provided support in data analysis and in writing

the report; Nancy Crothers assisted in report design; Robert DeRoy

conducted the computer programming and provided statistical advice on

the survey analysis.

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
Related GAO Products

Welfare to Work: Participants’ Characteristics and Services Provided in

JOBS (GAO/HEHS-95-93, May 2, 1995).

Welfare to Work: Measuring Outcomes for JOBS Participation

(GAO/HEHS-95-86, Apr. 17, 1995).

Child Care: Recipients Face Service Gaps and Supply Shortages

(GAO/T-HEHS-95-96, Mar. 1, 1995).

Child Care: Narrow Subsidy Programs Create Problems for Mothers Trying

to Work (GAO/T-HEHS-95-69, Jan. 31, 1995). 

Low-Income Families: Comparison of Incomes of AFDC and Working Poor

Families (GAO/T-HEHS-95-63, Jan. 25, 1995).

Welfare to Work: AFDC Training Program Spends Billions, but Not Well

Focused on Employment (GAO/T-HEHS-95-51, Jan. 10, 1995).

Child Care: Child Care Subsidies Increase Likelihood That Low-Income

Mothers Will Work (GAO/HEHS-95-20, Dec. 30, 1994).

Welfare to Work: Current AFDC Program Not Sufficiently Focused on

Employment (GAO/HEHS-95-28, Dec. 19, 1994).

Family Child Care: Innovative Programs Promote Quality (GAO/T-HEHS-95-43,

Dec. 9, 1994).

Child Care: Promoting Quality in Family Child Care (GAO/HEHS-95-36, Dec. 7,

1994).

Child Care: Working Poor and Welfare Recipients Face Service Gaps

(GAO/HEHS-94-87, May 13, 1994).

Child Care Quality: States’ Difficulties Enforcing Standards Confront

Welfare Reform Plans (GAO/T-HEHS-94-99, Feb. 11, 1994).

Self-Sufficiency: Opportunities and Disincentives on the Road to

Economic Independence (GAO/HRD-93-23, Aug. 6, 1993).

Mother-Only Families: Low Earnings Will Keep Many Children in Poverty

(GAO/HRD-91-62, Apr. 2, 1991).

(105593) Page 29 GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/HEHS-95-220 JOBS Child Care