U.S. Census Bureau 1

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Issued October 2000

P70-70

Who’s Minding the Kids?

Child Care Arrangements

Household Economic Studies

By Kristin Smith

U S C E N S U S B U R E A U

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

Current

Population

Reports

Demographic Programs

Fall

1995

INTRODUCTION

Interest in child care intensified as more

women entered the labor force and sought

to balance both family and work. The need

for child care may increase further as welfare reform encourages recipients, who often have young children, to seek work.

This report shows the number and characteristics of children in different child care

arrangements (including those in more than

one type of arrangement) and the characteristics of their families. The data come

from the fall 1995 Survey of Income and

Program Participation (SIPP) and continue a

series that dates back to 1985.

Past reports presented only the primary child

care arrangements of employed mothers.

New information in this report shows child

care arrangements while the designated parent (see box for definition) is not at work nor

in school.1 Additional new information

shows specific types of arrangements such

as Head Start, enrichment activities, and self

care. The child care module in SIPP was redesigned for the fall 1995 survey to collect this

new information.

The report contrasts child care arrangements for preschool- and grade-school-age

children. These two age groups differ in

their needs and activities in that the primary focus of child care for infants and preschoolers is on meeting their basic needs.

For older children, more attention is on

structured activities, educational programs,

and socialization.

What’s in this Report?

INTRODUCTION

HIGHLIGHTS

CHILDREN UNDER

5 YEARS OLD

Multiple Arrangements

Types of Child Care

Arrangements

Primary and Supplemental

Arrangements

Family Characteristics

Historical Trends In the

Primary Child Care Arrangements of Employed Mothers

Head Start Programs

CHILDREN 5 TO 14

YEARS OLD

Multiple Arrangements

Types of Child Care

Arrangements

Primary and Supplemental

Arrangements

Family Characteristics

Enrichment Activities

Self Care

FAMILY EXPENDITURES

ON CHILD CARE FOR ALL

CHILDREN UNDER 15

YEARS OLD

Family Payments for Child Care

Income Spent on Child Care 1 The child care questions in this survey capture the arrangements that families use in a typical week and not necessarily those used consistently on a regular basis in the

past month. For this reason, usage rates for particular

child care arrangements may be higher than expected.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

2 The survey does not ask whether the parents or siblings care for the child during the

designated parent’s nonwork hours. 3 The parent’s characteristics refer to the

characteristics of the designated parent who

responded to the child care questions. See the

box on page 2 for the definition of the designated parent.

HIGHLIGHTS

• Multiple child care arrangements are common. In 1995,

about 44 percent of children

under 5 years old (or preschoolers) and 75 percent of

children 5 to 14 years old (or

grade-school-age children) regularly spent time in more than

one arrangement per week.

• Fifty percent of preschoolers

were cared for by a relative, with

grandparents being the single

most frequently mentioned care

provider (30 percent).

• Forty-nine percent of children

under 5 were cared for by

nonrelatives, with 30 percent in

an organized facility, which includes day care centers, nursery

or preschools, Head Start programs, and kindergarten.

• Preschoolers spent an average of

28 hours per week in child care;

however, more time was spent in

child care when the parent

worked or was in school (on average, 35 hours per week).

• On average, children ages 5 to

14 of parents who were employed or in school were cared

for in 3.4 arrangements per

week. Children whose parents

were neither employed nor in

school were cared for in 1.6 arrangements.

• Thirty-nine percent of gradeschool-age children participated

in enrichment activities, including sports, lessons, clubs, and

before- or after-school programs.

• Approximately 6.9 million children 5 to 14 years old (18 percent of children in this age

group) cared for themselves on a

regular basis.

• Average child care costs per

family (in 1995 dollars) rose

from $59 in 1985 to $85 in

1995. In 1995, poor families

during a typical week (see Table 1).

About 8.5 million children (44 percent) were cared for in multiple arrangements (two or more per

week). Overall, children using a

regular arrangement averaged

2.0 arrangements.2

About one-quarter (4.9 million children) of preschoolers had no regular child care arrangement. The

vast majority of them (96 percent)

had a designated parent who was

neither employed nor in school and

presumably available during the

day to care for the children.

Virtually any preschool-age child

whose parent3 was either employed

Definitions

The universe of respondents in the SIPP child care module consists of

adults who are the parents of children under 15 years old. To avoid

asking each parent the same questions, a designated parent is selected

in households where both parents are present. In married-couple families, the mother is the designated parent. If the mother is not available

for an interview, proxy responses are accepted from the father or husband. In single-parent families, the resident parent is the designated

parent. If neither parent is in the household, the guardian is the designated parent. Designated parents include biological, step- and adoptive parents, or other relatives/nonrelatives acting as a guardian in the

absence of parents. In this report, unless otherwise noted, the term

parent is used to refer to the designated parent.

Relatives include mothers, fathers, siblings, grandparents, and other

relatives such as aunts, uncles, and cousins. An organized child

care facility is a day care center, nursery school, or preschool. A

family day care provider is a nonrelative who cares for one or more

unrelated children in the provider’s home. Nonrelatives include inhome babysitters, family day care providers, and other nonrelatives

providing care in the provider’s home. To present a comprehensive

view of the regular weekly experiences of children under 15 years

old, this report defines child care broadly to include school, enrichment activities (such as sports, lessons, clubs, and before- and afterschool programs), and time with parents.

who paid for child care spent

35 percent of their income on

child care, compared with 7 percent spent by nonpoor families.

CHILDREN UNDER

5 YEARS OLD

After describing the multiple arrangements families use for child

care, this section turns to more detail on the patterns of use and then

turns to how the arrangements

vary with other characteristics of

the family. The section concludes

by summarizing some historical

trends and by giving detailed information about the role of Head

Start.

Multiple Arrangements

In 1995, 14.4 million (75 percent)

of the 19.3 million children under

5 years of age were in some form

of regular child care arrangement
U.S. Census Bureau 3

Table 1.

Number of Child Care Arrangements for Preschoolers During Their Parent’s Work,

School, and Nonwork/School Hours: Fall 1995

(Numbers in thousands)

Activity status of parent Number

of

children

With a regular

arrangement Number of arrangements per child Total arrangements

Number Percent One Two Three

Four or

more Number

Average

per child1

Children under 5 years . . . . . . . . . . 19,281 14,428 74.8 5,943 4,875 1,959 1,651 29,093 2.0

Parent Employed

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,309 10,129 98.3 3,266 3,696 1,640 1,527 22,547 2.2

During work hours . . . . . . . . . . 10,309 10,072 97.7 5,466 3,186 1,104 316 16,512 1.6

During nonwork hours . . . . . . . 10,309 4,496 43.6 3,176 1,128 166 26 6,035 1.3

Parent in School

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859 846 98.5 218 405 124 98 1,842 2.2

During school hours. . . . . . . . . 859 846 98.5 546 224 67 9 1,231 1.5

During nonschool hours . . . . . 859 487 56.7 403 52 28 5 611 1.3

Parent not Employed nor in

School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,112 3,452 42.6 2,458 775 194 26 4,696 1.4

1

Averages are based on those who reported having child care arrangements for specified periods of parental activity. Some parents do not

report any regular child care arrangement for their child.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1993 Panel Wave 9.

or in school was in some type of

regular child care arrangement during their parent’s work or school

hours (98 percent),4 compared with

fewer than half of preschoolers

with a parent who was neither employed nor in school (43 percent).

The high prevalence of child care

use among preschoolers with a parent who was neither employed nor

in school may be due to these parents using child care arrangements

for enrichment purposes or educational development.

Use of multiple child care arrangements is also more common

among children whose parents

were employed or in school than

among other children. Preschoolers of employed parents who were

in child care arrangements had an

average of 2.2 arrangements per

week: 73 percent of these 22.5 million arrangements were used during the parent’s work hours (see

Table 1). Preschoolers of parents

who were in school also averaged

2.2 arrangements per week, suggesting that parents who have

structured schedules that take

them out of the house for set periods of time face similar complexities in arranging for child care providers. Preschoolers of parents

who were not employed nor in

school, on the other hand, used an

average of only 1.4 arrangements

per week.

Parents use child care similarly during their nonwork/school hours, regardless of their employment or

enrollment status (see Figure 1).

More than half of both groups of

children did not have a regular

nonparental arrangement during

nonwork/school hours, and presumably were being cared for by

their parents. Fewer than 35 percent were in one regular arrangement, roughly 10 percent were in

two arrangements, and only

around 2 percent were in three or

more arrangements during their

parent’s nonwork/school hours.

Types of Child Care

Arrangements

Table 2 presents the use of different

types of child care arrangements for

preschoolers. Since many children

are in more than one type of arrangement, these percentages total

more than 100 percent.5 Of the

19.3 million preschoolers, 50 percent were regularly cared for by a

relative. Grandparents were the

single most frequently mentioned

care provider, with 5.8 million preschoolers, or 30 percent, in this type

of arrangement. Parents relied on

the child’s other parent (18 percent,

usually the father) more than other

relatives (15 percent). Some

preschoolers were cared for by the

4 Not having any regular child care arrangement during work/school hours may indicate

instability in child care arrangements or difficulty in identifying what is regularly used. It

may not mean that no one looked after the

child.

5 If no regular arrangement was mentioned,

then the child is not represented in the distribution as using an arrangement.
4 U.S. Census Bureau

designated parent while working

(5 percent) or by siblings (2 percent).

Nonrelatives also played a prominent

role in the care of preschoolers. In

1995, 49 percent of children under 5

were cared for by a nonrelative on a

regular basis. Similar proportions of

preschoolers were cared for in either

an organized facility6 (30 percent) or

by some other nonrelative either in

the child’s home or in the provider’s

home (29 percent). In addition, comparable proportions of preschoolers

were in a day care center or in a

nursery or preschool (15 percent and

14 percent, respectively). Children

under 5 years old were also cared

for by family day care providers

(13 percent), and similar proportions

were cared for by other nonrelatives

in the child’s home or the provider’s

home (9 percent each). This last

category probably consisted of

friends or neighbors of the family

who were not officially licensed as

family day care providers.

Arrangements used during

the parent’s work and

nonwork hours

Of the 19.3 million preschool-age

children in 1995, 11.2 million had

a designated parent who was either

employed or in school. Similar proportions were cared for by either

relatives or nonrelatives as child

care providers (about 61 percent of

children) while the parent was at

work or in school (these percentages exceed 100 percent because

some children were in both types

of arrangements).

Use of regular child care arrangements tends to be less common

during the parent’s nonwork/school

hours. For example, only 26 percent of children under 5 were cared

for by relatives as regular care providers during their parent’s

nonwork/school hours, compared

with 62 percent of children under 5

during their parent’s work/school

hours. This relationship holds true

for most of the arrangement types.

Some similar patterns of child care

emerge regardless of the time period examined. In particular, care

by grandparents was prevalent regardless of when the arrangement

was used.

Number of hours spent

in child care

The proportion of children cared

for by a particular provider shows

only one dimension of child care.

Examining the number of hours

spent in the arrangement can shed

light on how and with whom children may be spending significant

periods of the day. Table 2 shows

the average number of hours per

week children were in different arrangements among those parents

reporting use of a specified arrangement. The table distinguishes between time in particular

arrangements during their parent’s

work/school hours and the time

spent, if any, in arrangements during the other periods of the day.

Time spent with either a parent or

sibling was not collected during the

nonwork/school hours as we attempted to separate “family time”

from child care arrangements used

by the family during the designated

parent’s work hours.

On average, children under 5 spent

28 hours per week in child care. If

cared for by nonrelatives, preschoolers spent an average of

39 hours per week in nonrelative

care, but those cared for by relatives spent only 23 hours per week

in relative care. Preschoolers spent

the most time in day care centers

and with family day care providers

(both an average of 33 hours per

week), and they spent the least

amount of time in sibling care

Figure 1.

Number of Arrangements for Preschoolers 

During Their Parent's Work/School and 

Nonwork/School Hours: Fall 1995

Parent refers to designated parent.

1

Includes designated parents who are looking for work or out of the labor force.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1993 Panel Wave 9.

(Percent distribution)

None One Two Three or More

Parent not employed

nor in school1

Parent employed or

in school

Parent employed

or in school

During work/school hours

During nonwork/school hours

2 54 31 13

55 32 11 2

57 30 10 3

6 Organized facilities include day care centers, nursery or preschools, or federal Head

Start programs. For these younger children,

the small proportion of children enrolled in kindergarten and grade school are also included in

this overall category.
U.S. Census Bureau 5

(11 hours per week). Preschoolers

received care from a grandparent

and their other parent for similar

amounts of time each week

(18 hours per week and 17 hours

per week, respectively) among children who were in these arrangements.

Preschoolers spent more time in

various child care arrangements

during their parent’s work/school

hours (35 hours per week) than

during their parent’s nonwork/

school hours (8 hours per week).

This difference is to be expected as

employed parents are likely to need

child care for reasonably longer

stretches of time.

In addition, preschoolers spent

more time in the care of a nonrelative than in the care of a relative

during their parent’s work/school

hours (33 hours and 24 hours per

week, respectively) and also during

their parent’s nonwork/school

hours (20 hours and 12 hours per

week, respectively). The fact that

relatives provided fewer hours of

care than nonrelatives suggests

that parents use relatives as

supplemental care providers.

Primary and Supplemental

Arrangements

This section explores primary and

supplemental arrangements used

by parents, the amount of time

children spend in these arrangements per week, and some of the

most common child care combinations.

Table 2.

Preschoolers In Different Types of Arrangements by Activity Schedule of

Designated Parent: Fall 1995

(Numbers in thousands)

Arrangement type

Activity schedule of designated parent

Total1 During work/school hours3 During nonwork/school hours

Receiving care

Average

hours2

Receiving care

Average

hours2

Receiving care

Average

hours2 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Children under 5 years4 . . . . . . . . . 19,281 (NA) 27.9 11,168 (NA) 34.8 19,281 (NA) 7.8

NUMBER USING:

Relative Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,656 50.1 23.4 6,908 61.9 24.1 5,020 26.0 11.9

Designated parent . . . . . . . . . . . . 945 4.9 18.9 945 8.5 18.9 (X) (X) (X)

Other parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,516 18.2 17.3 3,512 31.4 17.4 (X) (X) (X)

Sibling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369 1.9 10.5 369 3.3 10.5 (X) (X) (X)

Grandparent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,781 30.0 18.2 3,241 29.0 19.8 3,809 19.8 10.7

Other relative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,788 14.5 13.7 1,078 9.7 18.3 1,948 10.1 9.6

Nonrelative Care 9,342 48.5 39.0 6,798 60.9 32.6 4,436 23.0 19.5

Organized facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,758 29.9 32.6 3,936 35.2 26.8 2,967 15.4 19.7

Day care center . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,848 14.8 32.5 2,535 22.7 27.4 796 4.1 28.7

Nursery or preschool . . . . . . . . 2,598 13.5 19.2 1,371 12.3 19.7 1,734 9.0 13.1

Head Start . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582 3.0 25.8 224 2.0 (B) 453 2.4 21.1

School5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 1.5 24.9 143 1.3 (B) 168 0.9 (B)

Other nonrelative care. . . . . . . . . 5,559 28.8 27.1 4,215 37.7 27.6 2,357 12.2 14.3

In child’s home . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,749 9.1 18.4 894 8.0 23.6 1,112 5.8 9.3

In provider’s home . . . . . . . . . . 4,043 21.0 25.2 3,369 30.2 27.0 1,293 6.7 11.1

Family day care . . . . . . . . . . 2,426 12.6 32.6 2,196 19.7 28.8 594 3.1 27.0

Other care arrangement . . . 1,735 9.0 23.7 1,221 10.9 26.3 706 3.7 11.2

Other

Self care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 0.1 (B) 13 0.1 (B) 14 0.1 (B)

B Base too small to show derived statistic. NA Not applicable. X Category not asked for nonwork/school hours.

1

If a child uses the same type of arrangement during different parental activity schedules, the arrangement type is counted only once in

this column. 2

Average hours based on those reporting using this type of arrangement.

3

Limited to children whose designated parent was either employed or enrolled in school.

4

Number of children includes those children for whom no regular arrangement was used.

5

Includes kindergarten or grade school.

Note: Because of multiple arrangements, children may appear in more than one arrangement type; thus, the numbers and percentages

may exceed the total number of children.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1993 Panel Wave 9.
6 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 3.

Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Child Care Arrangements for Preschoolers: Fall 1995

(Numbers in thousands. Limited to children with one or more arrangements)

Arrangement type

Primary Secondary Tertiary

Receiving care

Average

hours1

Receiving care

Average

hours1

Receiving care

Average

hours1 Number Percent Number Percent Percent Number

Children in care arrangements

during work/school hours . . . . . . 10,917 (NA) 28.9 4,905 (NA) 10.2 1,498 (NA) 5.6

NUMBER USING:

Relative Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,192 47.6 25.8 2,741 55.9 9.1 672 44.9 5.2

Designated parent . . . . . . . . . . . . 649 5.9 24.4 195 4.0 (B) 73 4.9 (B)

Other parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,010 18.4 24.1 1,215 24.8 9.3 222 14.8 (B)

Sibling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 1.3 (B) 133 2.7 (B) 64 4.2 (B)

Grandparent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,048 18.8 26.3 1,013 20.6 9.1 153 10.2 (B)

Other relative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546 5.0 29.1 352 7.2 8.0 160 10.7 (B)

Nonrelative Care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,998 54.9 31.2 1,512 30.8 12.0 351 23.5 6.2

Organized facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,066 28.1 29.6 836 17.0 12.3 232 15.5 (B)

Other nonrelative care. . . . . . . . . 3,456 31.7 31.1 712 14.5 11.7 119 8.0 (B)

Self Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 0.1 (B) - - - 6 0.4 (B)

Children in care arrangements

during nonwork/school hours . . . . 8,436 (NA) 15.3 2,400 (NA) 6.2 445 (NA) 3.4

NUMBER USING:

Relative Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,248 50.4 12.4 1,095 45.7 4.8 164 36.9 (B)

Designated parent . . . . . . . . . . . . (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Other parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Sibling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Grandparent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,085 36.6 12.1 601 25.0 5.1 124 27.8 (B)

Other relative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,340 15.9 12.0 543 22.6 4.3 59 13.3 (B)

Nonrelative Care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,384 52.0 17.9 823 34.3 7.8 97 21.7 (B)

Organized facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,524 29.9 19.7 362 15.1 9.7 39 8.8 (B)

Other nonrelative care. . . . . . . . . 1,893 22.4 16.2 457 19.1 6.2 57 12.9 (B)

Self Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 0.1 (B) 6 0.3 (B) - - -

- Represents zero or less than zero. B Base too small to show derived statistic. NA Not applicable. X Category not asked for

nonwork/school hours.

1

Average hours based on those reporting using this type of arrangement.

Note: Because of multiple arrangements, children may appear in more than one arrangement type; thus, the numbers and percentages

may exceed the total number of children.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1993 Panel Wave 9.

7 Ties in arrangements for primary, secondary, and tertiary arrangements are counted

once for each arrangement in the tie, so the

sum of the individual arrangements may exceed the total number of children. Children

with no regular arrangements are not included

in this total.

Child care patterns

Table 3 presents the primary, secondary, and tertiary child care arrangements for preschoolers in 1995

during both the parent’s work/school

hours and the nonwork/school

hours so that they may be compared. Primary, secondary, and tertiary arrangements are defined in

terms of hours per week.7

During the parent’s work/school

hours, nonrelatives were more likely

than relatives to be the primary providers of child care for preschoolers.

In 1995, 55 percent of preschoolers

were cared for by nonrelatives as the

primary provider during the parent’s

work/school hours, while 48 percent

were cared for by relatives. A large

proportion (28 percent) were primarily cared for in an organized facility.

An interesting pattern emerges

when looking at the secondary and

tertiary arrangements used to care

for preschoolers during the parent’s

work/school hours. More than half

(56 percent) of preschoolers using

a secondary care arrangement were

cared for by a relative and only

31 percent were cared for by a

nonrelative. A similar pattern exists for the tertiary care arrangement during the parent’s work/

school hours and also when the

designated parent was not at work

or in school. In particular, large

proportions of children are cared

for by their grandparents while parents are not working or in school, a

time when parents presumably
U.S. Census Bureau 7

could care for their children.

Parents may welcome or even

encourage involvement of their

own parents in the everyday lives

of their children on a regular basis.

Regular contact with other family

members may also provide another

type of social interaction for children. This greater reliance on relatives for supplementary care arrangements is understandable as

families seeking additional care

provision will attempt to secure

providers at little or no financial

cost, and relatives often meet this

criterion.

Hours spent in primary and

supplemental arrangements

Table 3 shows also that preschoolers

spent an average of 29 hours per

week in their primary arrangement

during the parent’s work/school

hours. Among preschoolers who

had multiple child care arrangements, an average of 10 hours per

week was spent in their secondary

arrangement, and 6 hours per week

was spent in their tertiary arrangement.

Children under 5 spent nearly twice

as much time in their primary arrangement during their parent’s

work/school hours as in their

parent’s nonwork/school hours

(29 hours per week compared with

15 hours per week). In secondary

arrangements, children also spent

more time in care during their

parent’s work/school hours than

outside such hours.

While relatives may be more likely

to pitch in and help out as a

supplemental arrangement, they

generally are used for fewer hours

per week than nonrelatives regardless of whether the care is during

the parent’s work/school hours or

during the parent’s nonwork/school

hours. For example, preschoolers

secondarily using a relative during

the parent’s work/school hours

spent only 9 hours per week in that

arrangement compared with

12 hours per week for preschoolers

secondarily cared for by a

nonrelative.

Common child care combinations

When parents require a combination of child care arrangements to

cover their work schedule, they

must choose among professional

providers, relatives, neighbors, and

friends. Figure 2 shows frequently

used combinations of arrangements for preschoolers cared for

by two or more providers during

the parent’s work/school hours.

The most frequently used combination was an organized facility (such

as a day care center) and a nonrelative, which would include friends

and family day care providers

(28 percent). About one quarter

were cared for by the child’s other

parent and a nonrelative.

The child’s other parent and grandparents are key child care providers. In 1995, 20 percent of preschoolers were cared for by the

other parent and the grandparent

combination during the parent’s

work/school hours. Similar proportions of preschoolers were cared

for either by the other parent and

by an organized facility or a grandparent and an organized facility

(18 percent and 16 percent, respectively). Smaller proportions of preschoolers combined other relatives

with either the other parent or a

grandparent. Examining the multiple arrangements of preschoolers

shows that relatives, especially

grandparents, pitch in as supplemental care providers.

Family Characteristics

This section shows variations in

child care use by family characteristics such as marital status, race

and ethnicity, educational level,

family income, and child’s age.

Figure 2.

Common Child Care Combinations Used for 

Preschoolers During Their Parent's 

Work/School Hours: Fall 1995

Note: Data are for preschoolers in two or more arrangements. Children may be in other arrangement 

types as well as these combinations.

*Includes care in the child's home or the provider's home.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1993 Panel Wave 9.

(Percent in specified combination)

Other parent and

other relative

Grandparent and

other relative

Grandparent and

other nonrelative*

Grandparent and

organized facility

Other parent and

organized facility

Other parent and

grandparent

Other parent and

other nonrelative*

Organized facility and

other nonrelative* 28

23

20

18

16

11

9

7
8 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 4.

Preschoolers Receiving Care by Selected Arrangements and Family

Characteristics: Fall 1995

(Number in thousands)

Characteristic of parent/family

Number

of

children

Percent in selected arrangement

Percent

in multiple

care

Relative care Nonrelative care

Total1

Designated

parent

Other

Parent

Grandparent Total

Organized

facility

Other

nonrelative

Children under 5 years . . . . . . . . . . 19,281 50.1 4.9 18.2 30.0 48.5 29.9 28.8 44.0

Marital Status

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,722 48.7 5.3 20.7 27.6 49.1 29.3 29.9 42.4

Separated, divorced, widowed. . 1,956 50.7 3.5 11.2 29.3 58.7 39.1 34.0 54.9

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,554 54.9 4.0 12.6 39.5 40.4 26.9 21.7 44.1

Race and Hispanic Origin

Non-Hispanic White . . . . . . . . . . 12,998 51.9 5.6 20.7 32.2 51.5 30.2 32.1 46.1

Non-Hispanic Black . . . . . . . . . . 2,632 47.9 3.0 11.5 27.9 49.9 34.9 27.6 49.2

Non-Hispanic other races . . . . . 835 52.9 8.1 19.6 31.8 45.6 30.8 25.6 48.0

Hispanic (of any race) . . . . . . . . 2,816 43.0 2.6 12.7 21.1 33.9 23.3 15.7 28.4

Educational Level

High school or less . . . . . . . . . . . 9,752 48.0 4.0 13.3 30.0 37.9 25.2 20.9 36.3

College, 1 or more years . . . . . . 9,529 52.3 5.8 23.3 30.0 59.3 34.6 37.0 51.9

Poverty Status2

In poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,332 40.8 2.8 9.4 25.0 32.4 23.4 15.2 31.2

Not in poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,748 52.9 5.5 21.0 31.3 53.5 32.1 32.9 48.0

During Work/School Hours . . . . . 11,168 61.9 8.5 31.4 29.0 60.9 35.2 37.7 43.9

Marital Status

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,972 62.4 9.2 35.7 26.9 61.2 33.8 38.8 44.1

Separated, divorced, widowed. . 1,300 50.2 5.2 16.8 23.8 74.1 48.3 42.5 45.5

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,897 67.7 7.5 23.5 41.3 50.6 32.4 30.1 42.2

Race and Hispanic Origin

Non-Hispanic White . . . . . . . . . . . 7,872 61.8 9.2 34.1 29.4 62.6 34.8 39.1 45.6

Non-Hispanic Black . . . . . . . . . . . 1,603 58.5 4.9 18.9 27.9 60.0 41.1 37.1 40.0

Non-Hispanic other races . . . . . . 513 71.7 6.2 31.9 35.7 55.8 34.0 36.3 52.2

Hispanic (of any race) . . . . . . . . . 1,180 62.8 13.2 30.3 25.3 52.9 30.7 30.3 34.5

Educational Level

High school or less . . . . . . . . . . . 4,621 65.2 8.5 28.0 32.7 52.7 33.4 31.6 43.3

College, 1 or more years . . . . . . 6,547 59.5 8.4 33.9 26.4 66.6 36.5 42.1 44.3

Poverty Status2

In poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,405 67.9 8.6 29.0 33.7 52.5 35.9 31.2 43.5

Not in poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,709 61.0 8.4 31.9 28.2 62.1 35.3 38.6 44.0

During Nonwork/School Hours . 19,281 26.0 (X) (X) 19.8 23.0 15.4 12.2 12.4

Marital Status

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,772 24.2 (X) (X) 18.0 23.3 15.4 12.4 11.4

Separated, divorced, widowed. . 1,956 28.4 (X) (X) 21.4 24.0 18.3 14.5 16.8

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,554 31.8 (X) (X) 25.7 21.2 13.9 10.3 13.9

Race and Hispanic Origin

Non-Hispanic White . . . . . . . . . . 12,998 26.4 (X) (X) 21.0 23.4 14.8 13.7 13.6

Non-Hispanic Black . . . . . . . . . . 2,632 24.3 (X) (X) 17.5 26.8 19.3 13.6 13.0

Non-Hispanic other races . . . . . . 835 27.0 (X) (X) 21.3 22.1 16.3 6.8 9.4

Hispanic (of any race) . . . . . . . . 2,816 25.7 (X) (X) 15.7 18.1 14.3 5.7 7.5

Educational Level

High school or less . . . . . . . . . . . 9,752 26.9 (X) (X) 20.3 20.2 14.5 9.6 12.0

College, 1 or more years . . . . . . 9,529 25.1 (X) (X) 19.2 25.9 16.3 14.9 12.9

Poverty Status2

In poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,332 25.3 (X) (X) 17.9 21.9 17.1 9.3 12.6

Not in poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,748 26.1 (X) (X) 20.1 23.5 15.0 13.1 12.2

X Category not asked for nonwork/school hours.

1

Total includes care by siblings and other relatives not shown separately in this table.

2

Excludes those with missing income data.

Note: Because of multiple arrangements, the total numbers and percentages may exceed the total number of children.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1993 Panel Wave 9.
U.S. Census Bureau 9

Marital status

Interesting relationships emerge

when the marital status of the

parent is considered. Preschoolers

of never-married parents were

more likely to be cared for by a

relative (55 percent) than by a

nonrelative (40 percent), with

grandparents playing a large role in

the care of these children (see

Table 4).8 While 40 percent of children of never-married parents were

usually cared for by a grandparent

during the week, this arrangement

applied to 29 percent of children of

previously-married9 or married parents.

Children living with both married

parents were much more likely to

be cared for by their other parent

(21 percent), usually the father,

than children living with a single

parent (12 percent), demonstrating

the importance of living arrangements in determining the father’s

involvement in the care of their

children. However, the sex of the

single parent seems to make a difference with regard to whether the

child is cared for by the nonresident parent on a regular basis. Preschoolers living with a single father

were about three times as likely

(32 percent) to be cared for by

their nonresident parent as preschoolers living with a single

mother (11 percent). This difference suggests that mothers are

more regularly involved in the care

of their children even when they do

not live with them.

How are children in different living

arrangements cared for during their

parent’s work/school hours?

Children living with married parents were cared for by similar proportions of relatives and nonrelatives during the work/school hours

(62 percent and 61 percent, respectively). However, children of previously-married parents relied more

heavily on nonrelatives (74 percent) than on relatives (50 percent)

during the parent’s work/school

hours. Half of children under 5 living with a previously-married parent were cared for by organized

care facilities.

Race and Hispanic origin

Table 4 shows that preschoolers of

non-Hispanic White parents regularly used child care by relatives

and nonrelatives similarly (52 percent for both). About 32 percent

were cared for by a grandparent,

and similar proportions were cared

for by other nonrelatives. While

similar proportions of preschoolers

of non-Hispanic Black parents were

in relative and nonrelative care,

these children were often cared for

in an organized facility (35 percent). However, preschoolers of

Hispanic10 parents were more likely

to be cared for by a relative

(43 percent) than a nonrelative

(34 percent). Common to all

groups is the heavy reliance on

grandparents as care providers

among relatives providing child

care.

Hispanics have lower levels of multiple child care use than the other

racial and ethnic groups (28 percent). All three of the other racial

and ethnic groups have similar levels of multiple care arrangements

(about 47 percent).

Educational level

Parental educational level appears

to be a factor in the decisions parents make regarding care for their

preschoolers. Parents with at most

a high school diploma relied more

often on relatives than nonrelatives. Conversely, parents with a

higher educational level — at least

some college — relied more often

on nonrelatives than relatives. In

addition, Table 4 shows that preschoolers of parents with some college education were cared for by

two or more child care arrangements — 52 percent compared

with 36 percent of preschoolers of

parents with a high school degree

or less. Similar patterns exist during the parent’s work/school hours,

except the variation in use of multiple arrangements disappears.

Use of a nonrelative’s care during

the parent’s nonwork/school hours

is also related to the parent’s educational level. Children under 5 of

parents with at least some college

were more likely to use care by a

nonrelative during the parent’s

nonwork/school hours (26 percent), than children of parents with

less than a high school education

(20 percent). However, the use of

organized child care facilities

shows little difference by the

parent’s educational level, regardless of their work or school status.

Family income

Families in poverty rely more on

relatives than nonrelatives to provide child care. About 41 percent

of preschoolers in families below

the poverty level were cared for by

relatives and 32 percent were cared

for by nonrelatives. In families not

in poverty, children were about

equally likely to be cared for by

relatives as by nonrelatives – about

53 percent in each (these percentages exceed 100 percent because

8 Because parents and grandparents are important adult role models for young children,

this table highlights these categories of care by

relatives. More detailed child care arrangements by family characteristics can be found in

PPL-138 or on the Census Bureau’s Web site

(see the “More Information” section at the end

of this report). 9 Previously married includes those who are

separated, divorced, or widowed. 10 Hispanics may be of any race.
10 U.S. Census Bureau

some children were in both types

of arrangements).

About 23 percent of poor preschoolers and 32 percent of

nonpoor preschoolers were in an

organized facility. This difference

derives from whether a child has a

parent who is employed or in

school.11 For children with a parent

at work or in school, about 35 percent of both poor and nonpoor preschoolers were in an organized facility while their parent was at work

or at school. In addition, about

68 percent of poor preschoolers received care by relatives, compared

with 61 percent of nonpoor children, while the parent was working

or in school.

Outside of a parent’s hours at work

or at school, the poor and nonpoor

were about equally likely to rely on

relatives for care – about 26 percent of both groups of preschoolers.

Child’s age

Use of nonrelatives as child care

providers varies widely by age. For

example, use of organized facility

care increases dramatically by age:

only 19 percent of children less

than one year old during their

parent’s work/school hours but

50 percent of children 3 to 4 years

old did so (see Figure 3). Care by

two other arrangement types —

other nonrelatives and grandparents — appears to work in reverse

of organized facilities, as the proportion decreases with age of the

child. The percent of children who

were cared for by an “other

nonrelative” falls from 44 percent

of children under 1 year old to

Figure 3.

Arrangement Usage During the Parent's Work/School 

Hours by Child's Age: Fall 1995

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1993 Panel Wave 9.

(Percent in specified arrangement)

3 to 4 years

1 to 2 years

Less than 1 year

In multiple

arrangements

Other

nonrelative

Organized

facility

Other parent Grandparent

31 32 31

33

29

27

19

27

50

44

37 36

39 40

50

Specified type of arrangement

11 Although similar proportions of poor and

nonpoor children use organized facilities during the hours their parents are at work or in

school, nonpoor children are more likely to

have employed or enrolled designated parents

(66 percent) than nonpoor children (32 percent).

12 Before 1995, data are shown only for the

primary arrangements. Data for 1995 distribute the “tied” responses proportionally for the

primary arrangement to make the distributions

comparable to prior survey years.

36 percent for children 3 to 4 years

old. Children cared for by a grandparent falls from 33 percent for

children under 1 year old to 27 percent for children ages 3 and 4.

Care by the other parent does not

differ by the age of the child.

Taken all together, the SIPP data

suggest that parents of preschool

children face different constraints

securing child care during their

work/school hours depending on

the child’s age. Parents may have

difficulty securing infant care at organized facilities because infant

care is not provided, or they may

prefer their very young children to

be cared for in a home environment. As children age, however,

school readiness may weigh in as

an important factor in the choice of

child care, thus explaining the high

proportion of children 3 to 4 years

old in organized facilities. Multiple

child care arrangements also appears to be more common when a

child is 3 or more years old than

among younger children.

Historical Trends in

the Primary Child Care

Arrangements of

Employed Mothers

Child care data were first collected

in the SIPP in 1985, which now provides the opportunity to examine

10 years of child care trends for

preschoolers with employed mothers.12 The distribution of arrangements shown in this table is

slightly different from previous

tables to provide comparable data

with previously published reports.
U.S. Census Bureau 11

Table 5.

Primary Child Care Arrangements Used by Employed Mothers of Preschoolers

While Working: Selected Years

(In percent)

Type of arrangement Winter

1985

Fall

1988

Fall

1990

Fall

1991

Fall

1993

Fall

19951

Number of children (in thousands). . . . . . . . . . . 8,168 9,483 9,629 9,854 9,937 10,047

Percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.8 22.7 22.9 28.7 22.1 22.0

Mother while working . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 7.6 6.4 8.7 6.2 5.4

Father . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.7 15.1 16.5 20.0 15.9 16.6

Relatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.1 21.1 23.1 23.5 26.0 21.4

Grandparent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.9 13.9 14.3 15.8 17.0 15.9

Sibling and other relative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 7.2 8.8 7.7 9.0 5.5

Organized facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.1 25.8 27.5 23.1 29.9 25.1

Day care center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0 16.6 20.6 15.8 18.3 17.7

Nursery/preschool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 9.2 6.9 7.3 11.6 5.9

Federal Head Start program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) 1.5

Other nonrelative care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.2 28.9 25.1 23.3 21.6 28.4

In child’s home. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 5.3 5.0 5.4 5.0 4.9

In provider’s home. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.3 23.6 20.1 17.9 16.6 23.5

Family day care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) 15.7

Other nonrelative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) 7.8

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 1.6 1.3 1.6 1.1 2.9

Self care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1

Other arrangement2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 1.5 1.2 1.6 1.1 0.6

No regular arrangement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) 2.2

- Represents zero or less than zero. NA Not available.

1

To make the 1995 data consistent with prior surveys, the 1995 distribution was proportionately redistributed to account for tied responses for the primary arrangement (including responses of no regular arrangement) to make the percentages total to 100 percent. 2

Includes children in kindergarten/grade school-based activity.

Source: Tabulations derived from Current Population Reports, Series P-70-9 Table 1; P-70-30 Table 1; P-70-36 Table 1; P-70-53 Table 2;

and this report P-70-70, U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1993 Panel Wave 9.

In 1995, 10 million preschoolers

lived with employed mothers, up

from 8.2 million in 1985 (see Table

5). Fewer than half (43 percent)

were cared for by either a parent

(including the mother herself) or by

some other relative in 1995, lower

than in 1985 (48 percent). Organized child care facilities and other

types of nonrelative care made up

at least one-half of all primary arrangements in 1995, a pattern

similar for every survey year since

1985, except for in 1991. In 1991

fathers reached an all-time high as

a primary care provider for preschoolers of employed mothers.

The use of nonrelatives has had an

erratic trend over the period from

1985 to 1995, with parents’ reliance on nonrelatives waxing and

waning in response to economic

and other situations. In 1985 and

1995, the proportion of preschoolers who were in nonrelative care

(either in the child’s home or in the

provider’s home) was 28 percent.

In 1993, only 22 percent were

cared for in a home-based arrangement by a nonrelative of the child.

Care by nonrelatives in the child’s

home remained steady at roughly

5 percent throughout the entire 10-

year period; thus, the significant

changes in care by nonrelatives in

informal settings can be attributed

to changes in the care of preschoolers by nonrelatives in the

provider’s home (see Table 5).

During the same 10-year period,

the use of organized facilities for

preschoolers fluctuated. From

1985 to 1990, the proportion of

preschoolers being cared for in

organized facilities rose from

23 percent to 28 percent, and it

has wavered since then.

Rates of family and relative care

also have varied during this 10-

year period. Care by fathers, while

remaining around 15 percent between 1985 and 1988, increased

sharply to 20 percent by 1991.

However, by 1995, this proportion

had dropped back down to around

17 percent. Interestingly, the overall declining trend in care by mothers while working was interrupted
12 U.S. Census Bureau

17 WIC is the supplemental nutrition program administered by the U.S. Department of

Agriculture which provides supplemental food

and nutritional education to mothers with children under 5 years of age to reduce the possibility of nutrition-related illnesses.

in 1991 as well, when it reached a

level similar to the 1985 level, and

then it decreased to 5 percent by

1995. Care by grandparents did

not change much across the late

1980s and early 1990s.

The lower levels of child care by

mothers and fathers in 1995 relative to 1991 supports prior research suggesting that the relatively higher use of father and

mother care in 1991 was in response to the economic recession

at the time.13 Apparently parental

care of preschoolers — father care

and mother care — is more responsive to changes in the economy

than care by grandparents, who

seem to be a stable component of

child care arrangements.

Head Start Programs

For many parents, reliable child

care is an integral component of

their ability to find a job and remain employed. Federal programs

such as Head Start aim to improve

school readiness among children

from low-income families by integrating child care with high quality

early education. In addition, Head

Start programs provide the participants and their families with links

to social and health services, job

training, and schooling, while encouraging parental involvement.

Head Start eligibility is determined

prior to enrollment based on income level and other special needs,

such as disability of the child.14 Because the SIPP asks questions on

current socioeconomic and demographic characteristics and not

when the child first enrolled in

Head Start, characteristics may

have changed since the child’s enrollment. Furthermore, Head Start

programs may enable parents to

further their education or gain employment which would increase

their income level over time. For

these reasons, some children currently in Head Start may have characteristics which would normally

not have qualified them for enrollment; however, they are still

enrolled because they initially

qualified. These caveats should be

kept in mind when considering current characteristics of children enrolled in Head Start.

Estimates of Head Start

participation

The fall 1995 SIPP estimates show

that 710,000 children under 6

(3 percent of children in that age

group) were enrolled in a federally

funded Head Start program.15 According to the SIPP, the majority

(74 percent) of children enrolled

in Head Start were either 3 or

4 years old; smaller proportions

were 5 years old (18 percent) or

under 3 (8 percent).16

Family characteristics of

Head Start enrollees

Because many poor families with

children are headed by single parents, it is not surprising that Head

Start serves more single-parent

households than married-parent

households (see Table 6). For example in 1995, 62 percent of Head

Start enrollees lived with a single

parent, including 25 percent who

lived with a previously-married parent and 37 percent who lived with

a never-married parent. Among

children in Head Start, equal proportions were non-Hispanic White

or Black, comparatively fewer were

Hispanic.

For children in Head Start, 42 percent had a parent who was a high

school graduate, but only 24 percent

had some college education, and

very few had completed four or

more years of college (5 percent). In

1995, 55 percent of parents of Head

Start enrollees were not employed in

the fall of 1995, 28 percent were

employed full-time, and 17 percent

were employed part-time.

About two thirds of the Head Start

enrollees lived in families that received some government assistance (62 percent): 52 percent received food stamps and 31 percent

received Women, Infants, and

Children (WIC) benefits.17 Participation in other government programs

may reflect the degree to which the

family is integrated into networks

that assist low-income populations.

Enrollment in Head Start differs by

region of residence and metropolitan status. Children enrolled in

Head Start were more likely to live

in the South (45 percent) or the

West (27 percent), than in the

Northeast or the Midwest (both

about 15 percent). More enrollees

lived in central cities (47 percent)

than in other areas. These variations may reflect differences in levels of poverty, knowledge of programs, and availability of

programs.

13 Lynne Casper and Martin O’Connell.

“Work, Income, the Economy, and Married Fathers as Child-Care Providers.” Demography,

35(1998):243-250. 14 Administration on Children, Youth, and

Families. “1995 Head Start Information Memorandum: The 1995 Family Income Guidelines.”

Washington, DC; US Department of Health and

Human Services, 1995.

15 The SIPP estimate, which represents only

current enrollment in the month preceding the

interview during the fall 1995, is lower than

the National Head Start administrative number

of funded enrollment slots (750,696). 16 Head Start Administrative records show

that 7 percent of Head Start enrollees were

5 years old and 4 percent were 3 years old in

1995 (1995 Head Start Fact Sheet, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families).
U.S. Census Bureau 13

Characteristics of Head Start

enrollees and nonenrollees

With changes in welfare reform,

federal agencies and programs, including Head Start, are looking for

ways to facilitate transitions from

welfare to work. Because child

care problems can hinder lowincome parents looking for employment, Head Start is contemplating

ways to expand its program to

reach more members of the low-income community. The following

comparison of Head Start participation among a group of children

who are potential candidates for

enrollment promotes a better

understanding of the variations

among those who participate in

Head Start and those who do not.

Official Head Start guidelines or eligibility criteria are not used here to

define potential candidates, since

each Head Start program determines eligibility based on a set of

programmatic, community, and

family considerations, which include but are not limited to poverty

and the child’s need based on disabilities. Rather, potential

candidates are defined simply as

those children ages 3 and 4 living

in families at 185 percent of the

Table 6.

Characteristics of Children in Head Start: Fall 1995

(Numbers in thousands)

Characteristic of parent/family

Children in Head Start Potential candidates for enrollment in Head Start1

Number Percent Total

Enrollees Nonenrollees

Number Percent Number Percent

Total children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 710 100.0 3,765 401 100.0 3,364 100.0

Marital Status

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 38.0 1,894 122 30.3 1,773 52.7

Separated, divorced, widowed . . . . . . . . 175 24.7 836 64 16.1 771 22.9

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 37.3 1,035 215 53.6 820 24.4

Race and Hispanic Origin

Non-Hispanic White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 38.6 1,859 158 39.4 1,701 50.6

Non-Hispanic Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 40.9 876 156 38.9 720 21.4

Non-Hispanic other races . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.2 188 10 2.4 179 5.3

Hispanic (of any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 16.3 841 77 19.3 764 22.7

Educational Level

Less than high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 29.6 1,164 129 32.2 1,035 30.8

High school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 41.9 1,452 165 41.0 1,288 38.3

College, 1 to 3 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 23.8 971 107 26.7 864 25.7

College, 4 or more years. . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.8 177 - - 177 5.3

Employment Status

Not employed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390 55.0 2,444 249 62.1 2,195 65.2

Employed full time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 27.8 766 83 20.7 683 20.3

Employed part time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 17.2 555 69 17.2 486 14.4

Receipt of Assistance

No assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 37.7 1,749 102 25.5 1,646 48.9

Any assistance2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442 62.3 2,016 299 74.5 1,718 51.1

Receipt of AFDC3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 41.9 1,156 198 49.5 957 28.5

Receipt of food stamps . . . . . . . . . . . . 366 51.6 1,642 264 65.8 1,378 41.0

Receipt of WIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 30.6 1,190 161 40.0 1,030 30.6

Region

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 15.1 783 44 11.0 739 22.0

Midwest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 12.7 847 43 10.8 804 23.9

South. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 45.2 1,194 177 44.1 1,017 30.2

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 27.0 941 137 34.2 804 23.9

Metropolitan Residence

In central city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 46.7 1,535 171 42.8 1,363 40.5

Outside central city. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 31.1 1,456 133 33.3 1,323 39.3

Nonmetropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 22.1 774 96 24.0 678 20.1

- Represents zero or less than zero.

1

Includes children 3 and 4 years old who were living at 185 percent of poverty level or lower. Those Head Start children whose families

lived above 185 percent of poverty level in 1995 were excluded from this analysis. Children age 5 are excluded from this analysis because

Head Start programs do not accept children age 5 as new enrollees. 2

Includes receipt of general assistance, AFDC, food stamps, or WIC.

3

AFDC was the government sponsored welfare program administered by the Department of Health and Human Services in 1995.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1993 Panel Wave 9.
14 U.S. Census Bureau

poverty level or lower in 1995, a

group that encompasses lowincome families who are eligible for

many government assistance programs. In this analysis, the family

income level of the potential candidates is higher than the poverty

line because poverty is episodic —

a transitory condition for many —

and low-income families are at risk

of experiencing multiple short-term

spells of living in poverty.18

The right hand panel of Table 6

compares the characteristics of

children’s families who were potential candidates for Head Start, by

the children’s current enrollment

status. Only 401,000 (11 percent)

of these 3.8 million potential candidates were enrolled in Head Start in

the fall of 1995. Head Start enrollees were more likely than nonenrollees to be living with a single

parent who had never married —

54 percent compared with 24 percent — and less likely than nonenrollees to be living in a marriedcouple family (30 percent and

53 percent, respectively). As previously noted, fathers and other relatives play an important child care

role among poor families. Children

of unmarried parents may not receive care from both parents and

these families may seek free day

care services from Head Start.

Head Start enrollees were more

likely to be non-Hispanic Black than

were nonenrollees. Head Start programs may be more accessible to

Black families because of their history of serving this minority group

since the onset of the Head Start

program in the 1960s and because

of the trust the program has

earned in Black communities.

The two groups were quite similar

when comparing the educational

and employment characteristics.

About one-quarter of the designated parents in both groups had

attended 1 to 3 years of college,

and more than half were not

employed. This similarity is expected as these children were selected into this “potential pool” because they were living in families

with low incomes.

Across the board, higher proportions of Head Start enrollees than

nonenrollees lived in families that

received government assistance.

Head Start participant families were

much more likely to receive AFDC

(50 percent) than nonenrollee families (29 percent). They were also

more likely to receive food stamps.

This finding suggests that families

with children enrolled in Head Start

programs may be better connected

into networks of assistance and are

more aware of the variety of government assistance programs available to low-income families. Some

families may not know that they

are eligible for Head Start even

though they may qualify for the

program because of their low income levels.

Lack of access to a Head Start program may also be an impediment

to enrollment. A larger proportion

of the Head Start enrollees lived in

the South (44 percent) compared

with nonenrollees (30 percent), and

many fewer enrollees lived in the

Midwest (11 percent) compared

with nonenrollees (24 percent).

This difference may reflect variations in the number of and accessibility to programs in different regions.

Child care characteristics of Head

Start enrollees

The SIPP data show that Head Start

programs, although used by a

small fraction of the overall population, were an important source of

child care or school readiness for

many poor families. Overall, children in Head Start spent about

26 hours per week in the program

(see Table 7). Head Start was the

primary care provider for 79 percent of Head Start children; for

31 percent, it was their only arrangement. Even though the Head

Start program was used by families

for a large portion of their child’s

daytime hours, many families still

found it necessary to seek out

other care providers to cover all

their child care needs.

Child care provided by relatives

plays a more important role than

that provided by nonrelatives

among Head Start participants

(46 percent and 32 percent, respectively), with grandparents playing

the most prominent role. This pattern is to be expected because

Head Start families typically have

low incomes and tend to rely on

less expensive supplemental care

arrangements, such as family members or relatives, rather than

nonrelative care arrangements.

Patterns of child care use

by Head Start enrollees and

nonenrollees

Among potential Head Start candidates, actual Head Start enrollees

tend to use more child care arrangements than nonenrollees (an average

of 2.3 arrangements compared with

1.3 arrangements per child, respectively). They also spent twice as

much time in child care — 41 hours

per week in all of their child care arrangements combined compared

with only 23 hours.

18 Mary Naifeh. Dynamics of Economic WellBeing, Poverty 1993-94: Trap Door? Revolving

Door? Or Both? Current Population Reports,

P70-63. U.S. Census Bureau: Washington, DC,

1998; Mary Jo Bane and David Ellwood. Welfare

Realities: From Rhetoric to Reform. Harvard

University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994.
U.S. Census Bureau 15

Although enrollees and nonenrollees were cared for by relatives to a

similar extent, nonenrollees were

more likely to be cared for by

nonrelatives (excluding Head Start

and school). Among the potential

pool, 19 percent of nonenrollees

were in a nursery or preschool

compared with 3 percent of Head

Start enrollees. This difference

suggests that low-income families

may seek educational and schoolreadiness programs for their children through enrollment in child

care arrangements, such as a nursery or preschool, if Head Start slots

or programs are not available.

CHILDREN 5 TO 14

YEARS OLD

After describing multiple child care

arrangements families use for

grade-school-age children, this section examines different patterns of

use by characteristics of the family.

The section concludes by giving

detailed information about enrichment activities and self care.

Multiple Arrangements

More and more parents and

policymakers are asking what

grade-school-age children are doing when not in school? In 1995,

virtually all of the 38.2 million children 5 to 14 years old (98 percent)

were in a regular child care

arrangement, including school, during a typical week (see Table 8).

Three quarters of grade-school-age

children (28.7 million) were cared

for in multiple arrangements.

Overall, grade-school-age children

were regularly in an average of

2.8 arrangements per week.

School is counted in this report in

the tally of all arrangements and

activities because the intention is

to show children’s various activities

during the day and because school

activities figure prominently in their

daily lives.

Multiple arrangements are more

common among children whose

parents are employed/in school

than among those whose parents

Table 7.

Child Care Characteristics of Children in Head Start: Fall 1995

(Numbers in thousands)

Child care characteristics

Children in Head Start Potential candidates for enrollment in Head Start1

Number Percent Total

Enrollees Nonenrollees

Number Percent Number Percent

Total children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 710 100.0 3,765 401 100.0 3,364 100.0

Average number of arrangements . . . . . . . 2.4 (NA) 1.4 2.3 (NA) 1.3 (NA)

In multiple arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 488 68.7 1,563 253 63.0 1,310 38.9

Average hours in Head Start . . . . . . . . . . . 25.6 (NA) 2.5 23.9 (NA) (NA) (NA)

Average hours in all arrangements . . . . . . 45.6 (NA) 25.1 41.2 (NA) 23.2 (NA)

Use of Head Start:

As only arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 31.3 149 149 37.0 (NA) (NA)

As primary care provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561 79.0 327 327 81.4 (NA) (NA)

As secondary care provider . . . . . . . . . . 136 19.2 68 68 16.9 (NA) (NA)

Use of other child care providers:

Relative Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 46.1 1,728 192 47.9 1,536 45.7

Designated parent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.5 102 13 3.3 89 2.6

Other parent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 11.4 495 44 10.9 451 13.4

Sibling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.8 85 10 2.4 76 2.2

Grandparent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 30.2 1,020 126 31.3 895 26.6

Other relative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 15.7 551 78 19.4 473 14.1

Nonrelative Care2 .................... 226 31.8 1,393 110 27.4 1,283 38.1

Day care center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.6 425 26 6.5 399 11.9

Nursery or preschool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.6 665 13 3.3 652 19.4

Other nonrelative care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 17.5 694 77 19.2 617 18.4

NA Not applicable.

1

Includes children 3 and 4 years old who were living at 185 percent of poverty level or lower. Those Head Start children whose

families lived above 185 percent of poverty level in 1995 were excluded from this analysis. Children age 5 are excluded from this analysis

because Head Start programs do not accept children age 5 as new enrollees. 2

Excludes Head Start and school (some of the Head Start children are in kindergarten).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1993 Panel Wave 9.
16 U.S. Census Bureau

are not — children of employed

parents were cared for in 3.4 arrangements per week compared

with 1.6 arrangements for children

whose parents were neither employed nor in school. Most of the

79.0 million arrangements of children of employed parents were

used during their parent’s work

hours (68 percent). Among children whose parent was in school,

the majority of arrangements occurred during the parent’s school

hours (60 percent).

Types of Child Care

Arrangements

Older children experience a wider

array of daily activities than do preschoolers. They may have extended peer groups of friends at

school and participate in various

afterschool or enrichment programs that are not available to

younger children. To capture these

activities, the child care arrangements shown in the tables for

grade-school-age children differ

from those shown for younger children.

Relatives are important contributors to the overall care of gradeschool-age children — 43 percent

regularly received care from a relative (see Table 9). A slightly higher

proportion of children received care

by a grandparent (17 percent) than

by the other parent (16 percent).

Care by a sibling is not common

for grade-school-age children

(9 percent), but is more common

than among preschoolers.

Grade-school-age children are less

likely to be cared for by nonrelatives (such as organized care facilities or other nonrelative care in the

child’s home or the provider’s

home) than by relatives. Only

17 percent of children 5 to 14

years old were cared for by these

types of nonrelatives on a regular

basis. This relatively low use of

nonrelatives may be due to the

high rate of school enrollment for

these children as well as their

involvement in other structured activities. Nearly all grade-school-age

children (93 percent) were in

school and a large proportion

(39 percent) participated in enrichment activities such as sports, lessons, clubs, and before- or afterschool programs. In addition,

18 percent (6.9 million) gradeschool-age children cared for themselves on a regular basis without

any adult supervision.

Arrangements used during

the parent’s work/school and

nonwork/school hours

In general, parents are more likely to

use arrangements during their work

or school hours than during their

nonwork/school hours, primarily because many parents care for their

children themselves during this time.

In 1995, there were 24.7 million

grade-school-age children whose

designated parent was either employed or in school. Fifty-two percent were in relative care during their

parent’s work/school hours and

Table 8.

Number of Child Care Arrangements for Grade-School-Age Children During

Their Parent’s Work, School, and Nonwork/School Hours: Fall 1995

(Numbers in thousands)

Characteristic of parent Number

of

children

With a regular

arrangement Number of arrangements Total arrangements

Number Percent One Two Three

Four or

more Total

Average

per child1

Children 5 to 14 years. . . . . . . . . . . 38,228 37,465 98.0 8,751 10,035 8,221 10,458 103,751 2.8

Parent Employed

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,472 23,324 99.4 1,578 5,496 6,652 9,598 79,012 3.4

During work hours . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,472 23,114 98.5 4,692 9,496 6,309 2,617 53,923 2.3

During nonwork hours . . . . . . . . . 23,472 16,160 68.8 9,385 5,068 1,295 412 25,089 1.6

Parent in School

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,226 1,222 99.7 65 354 288 515 3,960 3.2

During school hours. . . . . . . . . . . 1,226 1,197 97.6 395 525 187 90 2,373 2.0

During nonschool hours . . . . . . . 1,226 1,055 86.1 645 317 75 18 1,586 1.5

Parent not Employed nor in

School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,531 12,921 95.5 7,109 4,186 1,281 345 20,780 1.6

1

Averages are based on those who reported having child care arrangements for specified periods of parental activity.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1993 Panel Wave 9.
U.S. Census Bureau 17

25 percent were cared for by the

child’s other parent. Only 18 percent

of children 5 to 14 years old were

cared for by a relative during the

parent’s nonwork/school hours.

Care by nonrelatives was less common than care by relatives during

the parent’s work/school hours —

18 percent compared with 52 percent. Nonrelative care during the

parent’s nonwork/school hours was

also low (7 percent).

Comparing the use of school, enrichment activities, and self care

across the two different activity

schedules of the parent reveals

some important findings. Among

children whose parent was employed or in school, 88 percent

were in school during their parent’s

work/school hours. Many parents’

work/school schedules overlap

substantially or coincide with their

children’s school hours, thus reducing the overall need for child care

arrangements.

Thirty-five percent of children of

employed/in-school parents regularly participated in at least one enrichment activity during the

Table 9.

Grade-School-Age Children In Different Types of Arrangements by Activity

Schedule of Designated Parent: Fall 1995

(Numbers in thousands)

Arrangement type

Activity schedule of designated parent

Total1 During work/school hours3 During nonwork/school hours

Receiving care

Average

hours2

Receiving care

Average

hours2

Receiving care

Average

hours2 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Children 5 to 14 years4 . . . . . . . . . . 38,228 (NA) 43.0 24,698 (NA) 38.7 38,228 (NA) 19.5

NUMBER USING:

Relative Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,270 42.6 15.7 12,709 51.5 15.0 6,897 18.0 9.5

Designated parent . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,341 3.5 14.6 1,341 5.4 14.6 (X) (X) (X)

Other parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,106 16.0 13.1 6,106 24.7 13.1 (X) (X) (X)

Sibling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,486 9.1 9.1 3,479 14.1 9.1 (X) (X) (X)

Grandparent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,634 17.4 11.7 3,840 15.6 11.3 4,396 11.5 7.8

Other relative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,362 11.4 10.7 1,407 5.7 11.0 3,334 8.7 9.4

Nonrelative Care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,414 16.8 15.1 4,549 18.4 14.1 2,672 7.0 11.2

Organized care facility. . . . . . . . . 1,344 3.5 22.7 831 3.4 19.1 772 2.0 18.9

Day care center . . . . . . . . . . . . 557 1.5 25.1 505 2.0 19.3 196 0.5 (B)

Nursery or preschool . . . . . . . . 736 1.9 18.2 344 1.4 16.6 482 1.3 15.8

Head Start . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 0.3 (B) 31 0.1 (B) 122 0.3 (B)

Other nonrelative care. . . . . . . . . 5,398 14.1 12.3 3,921 15.9 12.3 2,246 5.9 8.0

In child’s home . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,875 4.9 10.9 1,025 4.1 12.4 1,097 2.9 6.8

In provider’s home . . . . . . . . . . 3,687 9.6 10.8 2,931 11.9 10.5 1,179 3.1 7.0

Family day care . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,731 4.5 14.8 1,560 6.3 13.4 321 0.8 14.3

Other care arrangement . . . . . 1,997 5.2 10.6 1,402 5.7 10.3 862 2.3 6.9

Other

School. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,486 92.8 35.1 21,681 87.8 28.2 22,881 59.9 25.2

Enrichment activities5 . . . . . . . . . 15,020 39.3 7.9 8,556 34.6 7.0 10,411 27.2 5.7

Sports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,545 22.4 6.6 4,598 18.6 5.7 5,930 15.5 5.1

Lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,169 16.1 3.9 3,347 13.6 3.4 3,940 10.3 3.3

Clubs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,545 14.5 3.1 2,604 10.5 2.7 3,955 10.3 2.5

Before/after-school program. . 2,132 5.6 10.0 1,659 6.7 9.5 817 2.1 6.8

Self care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,880 18.0 6.1 5,018 20.3 5.7 3,257 8.5 4.1

B Base too small to show derived statistic. NA Not applicable. X Category not asked for nonwork/school hours.

1

If a child uses the same type of arrangement during different parental activity schedules, the arrangement type is counted only once in

this column. 2

Average hours based on those reporting using this type of arrangement.

3 Limited to children whose designated parent was either employed or enrolled in school. 4 Number of children includes those children for whom no regular arrangement was used. 5

This category consists of organized sports, lessons (such as music, art, dance, language, and computer), clubs, and before- or afterschool programs located either at school or other places.

Note: Because of multiple arrangements, children may appear in more than one arrangement type; thus, the numbers and percentages

may exceed the total number of children.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1993 Panel Wave 9.
18 U.S. Census Bureau

parent’s work/school hours. Although fewer participated in enrichment activities during their

parent’s nonwork/school hours, enrichment activities were the most

frequently used arrangement, aside

from school, during this time

(27 percent). These findings suggest that enrichment activities play

a large role in what children are

doing when outside school,

regardless of their parent’s employment or enrollment status. Some

parents may use enrichment programs as a type of child care provider, especially if they occur after

school and before the parent returns home from work. However,

many activities, for example Saturday morning soccer leagues, are

scheduled outside of parents’ work

or school hours.

Among children whose parent

was either employed or in school,

20 percent regularly spent time in

self care during the parent’s work/

school hours. This figure is more

than twice the proportion for

grade-school-age children who

regularly spent time in self care

during their parent’s nonwork/

school hours (9 percent).

Number of hours spent

in child care

The amount of time a child spends

in a particular arrangement can have

a lasting effect on development.

Overall, grade-school-age children

spent 43 hours in child care per

week — the greatest number of

hours were in school (35 hours per

week). They were regularly cared for

by relatives and nonrelatives for approximately 15 hours per week each.

Children 5 to 14 years old spent

about 8 hours in enrichment activities per week and about 6 hours per

week in self-care situations.

Primary and Supplemental

Arrangements

Arrangement use patterns

Table 10 presents the primary,

secondary, and tertiary child care

arrangements for children 5 to

14 years old by their parent’s employment/enrollment status. Of

the 24.3 million grade-school-age

children with a primary arrangement during the parent’s work/

school hours, 80 percent were in

school at this time. Comparatively small proportions of gradeschool-age children had relatives

(14 percent) and nonrelatives

(5 percent) as their primary arrangement. Only 2 percent of

grade-school-age children were

either in enrichment activities or

in self care as their primary arrangement.

The role of enrichment activities

becomes more apparent when one

looks at the secondary and tertiary

arrangements. In 1995, 24 percent

of grade-school-age children participated in enrichment activities as

their secondary arrangement, and

30 percent participated as their tertiary arrangement when their parent was at work or in school. In

addition, greater proportions of

grade-school-age children cared for

themselves as their secondary or

tertiary arrangements than as their

primary arrangement (13 percent

and 17 percent compared with

2 percent).

Enrichment activities are also important supplemental arrangements when their parents are not

working or attending school.

Grade-school-age children were

nearly two times as likely to participate in enrichment activities as

their secondary arrangement during the parents nonwork/school

hours (44 percent) than during the

work/school hours (24 percent).

Hours spent in primary and

supplemental arrangements

On average, grade-school-age children spent 28 hours per week in

their primary arrangement during

the parent’s work/school hours

compared with 22 hours per week

during the parent’s nonwork/school

hours. About 25 hours per week

was spent in relative and

nonrelative care during the parent’s

work/school hours.

The number of weekly hours spent

in enrichment activities is twice as

high during the parent’s work/

school hours than during their

nonwork/school hours (14 hours

compared with 7 hours per week,

respectively). The longer hours

noted during the parent’s work/

school hours suggests that they

use enrichment activities to meet

both their child care needs and to

promote child well-being.

Family Characteristics

This section shows the variations

in child care use regarding family

characteristics such as marital status, race and ethnicity, educational

level, and family income.

Marital status

Grade-school-age children of married parents were more likely to receive care by the other parent

(20 percent) than were children of

single parents, while children of

unmarried parents were most likely

to have grandparents as their principal source of relative care (see

Table 11). Children of married parents were also more likely to participate in enrichment activities

(42 percent) compared with those

of previously- or never-married

parents (38 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Higher proportions of grade-school-age children
U.S. Census Bureau 19

of previously-married parents took

care of themselves (22 percent)

compared with children of married

parents (18 percent) or children of

never-married parents (8 percent).

Overall, 64 percent of gradeschool-age children of nevermarried parents were in multiple

arrangements, a lower proportion

than children of previously or

currently married parents (about

76 percent). However, children of

all three marital status groups experience multiple care arrangements about the same extent (all

approximately 78 percent) when

parents are at work or at school.

Race and Hispanic origin

Child care use varies by the race and

ethnicity of the parent (see Table 11).

Similar proportions of grade-schoolage children of non-Hispanic Black

and non-Hispanic White parents use

relative care (both 44 percent), but

Hispanics tend to use relative care

Table 10.

Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Child Care Arrangements for Children 5 to 14 Years

Old: Fall 1995

(Numbers in thousands. Limited to children with one or more arrangements)

Arrangement type

Primary Secondary Tertiary

Receiving care

Average

hours1

Receiving care

Average

hours1

Receiving care

Average

hours1 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Children in care arrangements

during work/school hours . . . . . . . 24,311 (NA) 28.3 19,224 (NA) 10.2 9,203 (NA) 4.8

NUMBER USING:

Relative Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,450 14.2 24.9 8,005 41.6 9.9 2,997 32.6 5.3

Designated parent . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 1.5 29.1 689 3.6 10.4 212 2.3 6.3

Other parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,827 7.5 23.4 3,066 16.0 10.1 1,012 11.0 5.7

Sibling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523 2.1 20.0 1,976 10.3 8.5 770 8.4 5.0

Grandparent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639 2.6 26.9 1,983 10.3 10.4 931 10.1 4.8

Other relative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 0.9 28.6 751 3.9 9.9 282 3.1 4.5

Nonrelative Care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,091 4.5 25.5 2,852 14.8 11.0 669 7.3 5.5

Organized facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415 1.7 24.9 363 1.9 12.8 79 0.9 (B)

Other care arrangement . . . . . . . 688 2.8 25.9 2,502 13.0 10.7 611 6.6 5.2

Other

School. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,500 80.2 29.6 1,968 10.2 16.7 194 2.1 (B)

Enrichment activities2 . . . . . . . . . 581 2.4 14.2 4,575 23.8 8.4 2,791 30.3 4.2

Self care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477 2.0 11.7 2,435 12.7 6.6 1,537 16.7 3.8

Children in care arrangements

during nonwork/school hours . . . . 30,136 (NA) 21.6 12,977 (NA) 5.9 3,397 (NA) 3.2

NUMBER USING:

Relative Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,002 10.0 13.6 3,282 25.3 5.8 1,027 30.2 3.0

Designated parent . . . . . . . . . . . . (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Other parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Sibling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Grandparent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,683 5.6 12.3 2,100 16.2 5.5 507 14.9 3.0

Other relative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,425 4.7 14.9 1,305 10.1 6.4 567 16.7 2.8

Nonrelative Care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,376 4.6 16.5 1,278 9.8 6.4 270 7.9 3.6

Organized facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . 670 2.2 19.3 109 0.8 (B) 7 0.2 (B)

Other care arrangement . . . . . . . 720 2.4 13.9 1,182 9.1 5.8 264 7.8 3.4

Other

School. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,787 72.3 25.8 976 7.5 13.8 114 3.4 (B)

Enrichment activities2 . . . . . . . . . 3,634 12.1 7.3 5,740 44.2 5.0 940 27.7 3.4

Self care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963 3.2 6.2 1,587 12.2 3.7 567 16.7 2.4

B Base too small to show derived statistic. NA Not applicable. X Category not asked for nonwork/school hours.

1

Average hours based on those reporting using this type of arrangement.

2

This category consists of organized sports, lessons (such as music, art, dance, language, computer), clubs, and before- or after-school

programs located either at school or other places.

Note: Because of multiple arrangements, children may appear in more than one arrangement type; thus, the numbers and percentages

may exceed the total number of children.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1993 Panel Wave 9.
20 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 11.

Children5 to 14 Years Olds Receiving Care by Selected Arrangementsand Family

Characteristics: Fall 1995

(Number in thousands)

Characteristic of parent/family

Number

of

children

Percent in selected arrangement

Percent

in multiple

care

Relative care

Nonrelative

care2

Other

Total1

Other

parent Sibling

Grandparent

Enrichment

activity

Self

care

Children 5 to 14 years. . . . . . . . . . . 38,228 42.6 16.0 9.1 17.4 16.8 39.3 18.0 75.1

Marital Status

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,820 42.5 20.1 8.5 15.6 15.8 41.9 17.9 76.2

Separated, divorced, widowed. . 7,914 43.2 7.7 11.8 20.3 18.6 38.3 22.4 76.4

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,495 41.4 3.0 7.5 24.2 19.9 21.8 8.4 63.8

Race and Hispanic Origin

Non-Hispanic White . . . . . . . . . . . 25,292 43.5 18.3 9.1 17.8 18.7 44.6 21.1 79.5

Non-Hispanic Black . . . . . . . . . . . 5,510 43.5 7.5 11.1 20.2 16.1 30.2 12.0 68.8

Non-Hispanic other races . . . . . . 1,497 39.9 14.6 10.2 12.8 15.0 33.8 12.4 71.3

Hispanic (of any race) . . . . . . . . . 5,929 38.4 14.1 7.2 13.7 11.9 26.6 11.8 63.1

Educational Level

High school or less . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,508 40.7 13.7 8.5 16.9 14.1 30.7 14.7 68.4

College, 1 or more years . . . . . . . 17,721 44.7 18.6 9.8 17.9 19.9 49.3 21.8 82.9

Poverty Status3

In poverty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,609 29.7 6.4 6.7 13.9 11.9 23.7 11.1 54.3

Not in poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,300 46.4 19.0 9.9 18.4 18.3 44.1 20.2 81.5

During Work/School Hours . . . . . 24,698 51.5 24.7 14.1 15.6 18.4 34.6 20.3 77.8

Marital Status

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,537 52.5 30.7 13.1 13.4 16.7 35.1 19.9 77.2

Separated, divorced, widowed. . . 5,549 48.1 11.0 16.8 19.3 20.1 36.5 24.3 79.7

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,612 51.9 6.6 15.9 26.0 30.8 23.5 11.4 78.7

Race and Hispanic Origin

Non-Hispanic White . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,494 49.6 26.5 13.1 14.3 18.9 37.1 22.6 78.3

Non-Hispanic Black . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,213 54.7 12.9 18.8 21.0 18.2 28.6 15.8 74.1

Non-Hispanic other races . . . . . . . 950 55.4 23.0 16.1 15.0 18.0 33.7 15.3 84.8

Hispanic (of any race) . . . . . . . . . . 3,041 57.7 27.6 14.1 17.3 16.1 26.9 13.4 77.1

Educational Level

High school or less . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,346 55.3 24.8 15.3 16.4 17.2 29.2 17.9 76.7

College, 1 or more years . . . . . . . 13,351 48.2 24.6 13.0 14.8 19.4 39.2 22.4 78.8

Poverty Status3

In poverty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,981 51.9 18.4 19.2 15.6 17.2 27.1 15.4 71.1

Not in poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,666 51.5 25.6 13.4 15.6 18.6 35.6 21.0 78.8

During Nonwork/School Hours . 38,228 18.0 (X) (X) 11.5 7.0 27.2 8.5 33.9

Marital Status

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,820 16.4 (X) (X) 10.3 6.9 29.9 8.6 35.3

Separated, divorced, widowed. . . 7,914 20.6 (X) (X) 13.0 6.2 23.0 10.0 29.9

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,495 24.8 (X) (X) 17.3 9.5 16.6 4.2 33.2

Race and Hispanic Origin

Non-Hispanic White . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,292 17.7 (X) (X) 12.0 7.4 31.0 10.0 37.0

Non-Hispanic Black . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,510 21.1 (X) (X) 12.9 7.7 21.0 4.3 30.9

Non-Hispanic other races . . . . . . . 1,497 15.9 (X) (X) 8.2 5.2 20.9 5.4 23.8

Hispanic (of any race) . . . . . . . . . . 5,929 17.1 (X) (X) 8.8 5.1 18.8 6.8 26.4

Educational Level

High school or less . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,508 18.3 (X) (X) 11.7 5.9 22.0 7.4 31.6

College, 1 or more years . . . . . . . 17,721 17.7 (X) (X) 11.2 8.2 33.3 9.8 36.7

Poverty Status3

In poverty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,609 16.9 (X) (X) 10.6 6.6 19.2 7.5 32.5

Not in poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,300 18.2 (X) (X) 11.8 7.1 29.8 8.9 34.4

X Category not asked for nonwork/school hours.

1

Total includes care by the designated parent and other relatives not shown separately in this table.

2

Includes care in an organized facility or by other nonrelatives.

3

Excludes those with missing income data.

Note: Because of multiple arrangements, the total numbers and percentages may exceed the total number of children.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1993 Panel Wave 9.
U.S. Census Bureau 21

less frequently (38 percent). Use of

nonrelative care (organized facility or

other nonrelatives) was also similar

among non-Hispanic White and Black

parents. In addition, children of nonHispanic White parents were more

likely than the other three racial/ethnic groups to participate in enrichment activities (45 percent), while

Hispanic children were least likely to

participate in enrichment activities

(27 percent). Non-Hispanic White

children were also more likely to be

in a self care situation at some time

during the day (21 percent) than either non-Hispanic Black children or

Hispanic children (both 12 percent).

The cumulative result is that children

of non-Hispanic White parents are

most likely to use multiple child care

arrangements (80 percent), while

children of Hispanic parents are least

likely to use multiple arrangements

(63 percent).

Do the patterns differ when

comparing the care used during

different times in the parent’s

schedule? Higher participation in

enrichment activities and self care

among grade-school-age children

of non-Hispanic White parents seen

above repeats itself regardless of

the parent’s activity schedule.

Educational level

Parents with one or more years of

college education are more likely

than parents with less education to

use nonrelative care and have their

children participate in enrichment

activities. This pattern prevails

during and outside the parent’s

work or study hours (see Table 11).

Greater use of care by nonrelatives

probably reflects higher income

and the ability to purchase such

care by parents with higher levels

of education.

Family income

Children living in households

above the poverty line experienced

a wider variety of child care arrangements. Eighty-two percent of

grade-school-age children living in

nonpoor families were cared for in

multiple arrangements, compared

with 54 percent of those living in

poverty. Compared with gradeschool-age children living in poor

Table 12.

Participation in Enrichment Activities Among Children 5 to 14 Years Old: Fall 1995

(Numbers in thousands)

Characteristic

of child/family Number

of

children

Participation in enrichment activities

Total1 Sports Lessons Clubs Before/after—

school program

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Children 5 to 14 years2 . . . . . 38,228 15,020 39.3 8,545 22.4 6,169 16.1 5,545 14.5 2,132 5.6

Child’s Age

5 to 8 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,953 4,535 28.4 2,028 12.7 1,884 11.8 1,759 11.0 1,004 6.3

9 to 11 years . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,368 5,246 46.2 2,827 24.9 2,284 20.1 1,945 17.1 725 6.4

12 to 14 years . . . . . . . . . . . 10,907 5,239 48.0 3,690 33.8 2,001 18.4 1,841 16.9 402 3.7

Child’s Gender

Female. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,669 7,461 40.0 3,662 19.6 3,719 19.9 2,916 15.6 1,006 5.4

Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,559 7,559 38.7 4,884 25.0 2,450 12.5 2,628 13.4 1,125 5.8

Family Poverty Status3

Less than 100 percent of

poverty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,609 2,040 23.7 965 11.2 859 10.0 700 8.1 228 2.6

100 to 199 percent of

poverty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,214 3,030 32.9 1,674 18.2 1,056 11.5 1,065 11.6 394 4.3

200 percent and above

poverty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,085 9,894 49.3 5,882 29.3 4,232 21.1 3,779 18.8 1,501 7.5

Monthly Family Income3

Less than $1,500. . . . . . . . . 9,374 2,246 24.0 1,039 11.1 888 9.5 736 7.9 303 3.2

$1,500 to $2,999 . . . . . . . . . 9,817 3,632 37.0 2,073 21.1 1,345 13.7 1,269 12.9 500 5.1

$3,000 to $4,499 . . . . . . . . . 7,837 3,388 43.2 1,876 23.9 1,456 18.3 1,337 17.1 391 5.0

$4,500 and over. . . . . . . . . . 10,881 5,698 52.4 3,533 32.5 2,478 22.8 2,203 20.3 928 8.5

1

This category consists of organized sports, lessons (such as music, art, dance, language, computer), clubs, and before- or after-school

programs located either at school or other places. 2

Number of children includes those children for whom no regular arrangement was used.

3

Excludes those with missing income data.

Note: Because of multiple arrangements, the total numbers and percentages may exceed the total number of children.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1993 Panel Wave 9.
22 U.S. Census Bureau

families, higher proportions of children living in nonpoor families use

nonrelative care, enrichment activities, and self care.

During the parent’s work/school

hours, grade-school-age children

were cared for by relatives and

nonrelatives similarly regardless of

the families’ poverty status; however, participation in enrichment

activities remains higher among

children living in nonpoor families

(36 percent) than in poor families

(27 percent). A similar pattern is

seen during the parent’s nonwork/

school hours.

During the parent’s work/school

hours, grade-school-age children in

nonpoor families are more likely to

care for themselves (21 percent)

than are children in poor families

(15 percent). This difference may

arise if a larger proportion of parents of children in nonpoor families

work full-time and therefore need

child care for longer amounts of

time during the day. However, a

slightly higher proportion of gradeschool-age children living in

nonpoor families compared with

poor families were in self care during their parent’s nonwork/school

hours (9 percent and 8 percent, respectively).

Enrichment Activities

Because there is interest in a comprehensive view of the regular

weekly experiences of children,

greater detail is provided on enrichment activities. For some parents,

enrichment activities may be a form

of child care. In 1995, 15 million

children between the ages of 5 and

14 (39 percent) participated in at

least one enrichment activity during

the week (see Table 12). The most

frequently mentioned enrichment activity for grade-school-age children

was sports (22 percent). Similar

proportions of grade-school-age children participated in lessons and

clubs (16 percent and 15 percent,

respectively). A smaller proportion

of grade-school-age children participated in before- or after-school programs (6 percent). Overall, 24 percent participated in one activity per

week while 15 percent participated

in two or more activities.

Hours spent in

enrichment activities

On average, grade-school-age children spent 8 hours per week in enrichment activities among those

who participated in enrichment activities (see Table 9). Although the

lowest proportion of children participated in before- or after-school

programs, these children spent

10 hours per week doing so, the

greatest average number of hours

per week in an enrichment activity.

Grade-school-age children spent

seven hours per week in sports;

they spent fewer hours per week in

lessons or clubs (four hours and

three hours per week, respectively).

Participation in sports activities is

almost three times as likely among

12- to 14-year olds (34 percent)

than among 5- to 8-year olds

(13 percent). Table 12 also shows

that 5- to 8-year olds were less

likely to participate in lessons or

clubs than older grade-school-age

children. However, children 5 to

8 years old participated in beforeand after-school programs similarly

compared with children 9 to

11 years old (both 6 percent). Children 12 to 14 years old were less

likely to be enrolled in before- or

after-school programs (4 percent).

Girls and boys were about equally

likely to participate in at least one

enrichment activity, but the type of

activity differs. While boys were

more likely than girls to participate

Figure 4.

Participation of Children 5 to 14 Years Old in 

Enrichment Activities by Family Type: Fall 1995

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1993 Panel Wave 9.

(Percent in specified activity)

Before/

after-school

program

Clubs

Lessons

Sports

Married couple Single mother Single father

24

18

16

5

17

12

11

6

27

15

13

4
U.S. Census Bureau 23

in sports, girls were more likely

than boys to participate in lessons

or clubs. Similar proportions of

both girls and boys were enrolled

in before- or after-school programs.

Child’s living arrangements

Participation in specific enrichment

activities differs by the child’s living

arrangements. Figure 4 shows that

children living with a father in the

household, for example a marriedcouple family or a single father

household (both approximately

25 percent), were more likely to

participate in sports than children

living with a single mother (17 percent). A higher proportion of children living in a married-couple family participated in lessons

(18 percent) than children living

with a single mother (12 percent).

Similarly, participation in clubs is

higher among children living in

married-couple families than

among children living in singlemother families (16 percent and

10 percent, respectively). Enrichment activities, which may involve

expenses to families, may be least

affordable by single mothers. Participation in before- or after-school

programs, which are more likely to

be of low cost or free as part of the

school curricula, did not differ significantly by the child’s living arrangements.

Enrichment activities may be costly

in terms of money and time to

transport children to and from the

site. Table 12 shows that children

living in families with a monthly income of $4,500 or more were more

than twice as likely to participate in

enrichment activities than were

children living in families with a

monthly income of under $1,500

(52 percent and 24 percent, respectively). These differences by income persist regardless of the type

of activity.

In addition, the number of enrichment activities in which a child participates differs by the income level

of the family. Half of the children

living in families at or above

200 percent of the poverty line participated in at least one enrichment

activity, while one quarter of the

children living below the poverty

line did so. In sum, children from

economically advantaged families

are more likely to be exposed to

activities that would assist their development and transition to adulthood than children in families with

fewer economic resources.

Self Care

Self care can be an important part

of the natural process of independence, allowing children structured

opportunities for successful transitions to adulthood. While some

children may encounter self care in

a safe environment, with neighbors

and parents checking in periodically, other children may experience self care in a less structured

and unsafe environment. Parents

base their decisions to allow their

children to care for themselves on

a number of factors including the

age and maturity level of the child,

the environment in which the child

will be in self care, the financial resources and parental time available

to provide alternative care arrangements, and the perceived risks associated with self care.

Estimates of self care

In 1995, 6.9 million (18 percent) of

the 38.2 million children 5 to 14

years old were reported to be in

self care on a regular basis (see

Table 13). The majority of these

children were of middle-school age,

12 to 14 years old (65 percent).

An upward trend exists in the use

of self care by the age of the child,

from 2 percent among 5 year olds

to 48 percent among 14 year olds

(see Figure 5). Grade-school-age

children are separated into two

groups depending on the generally

accepted age cut-offs for

elementary and middle school:

roughly 9 percent of children 5 to

11 and 41 percent of children 12 to

14 were in self care.

Because being in school is considered a child care arrangement, self

care is not a prevalent primary care

arrangement for grade-school-age

children — 1 percent of children 5

to 11 and 7 percent of children 12

to 14 years old (see Table 13).

However, use of self care as a secondary or tertiary arrangement is

more prevalent, especially among

older children. Among children 12

to 14 years old who have two or

more arrangements, 24 percent

were in self care as their secondary

arrangement. Among children with

three or more arrangements,

23 percent were in self care as

their tertiary arrangement. Self

care is a less prominent supplemental arrangement for children 5

to 11, with 4 percent in self care as

a secondary arrangement and

6 percent as a tertiary arrangement.

On average, children 5 to 14 years

old in self care spent six hours per

week doing so. Fifty percent spent

less than five hours per week in self

care, while only 13 percent spent

more than 10 hours per week in self

care. Children 12 to 14 years old

spent an average of 2.4 hours more

per week in self care than children 5

to 11 years old and were more than

twice as likely to spend more than

10 hours per week in self care than

those aged 5 to 11 (16 percent and

7 percent, respectively).
24 U.S. Census Bureau

19 The 1990 National Child Care Survey

(NCCS) was a national sample and the construction of the questions on self care in the

1995 SIPP and the 1990 NCCS are similar and

permit useful comparison across these surveys. 20 Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employment

Status of Women by Presence and Age of

Youngest Child, March 1975-98.” Information

provided by the Labor Force and Women

Branch, August, 1999. 21 Virginia Cain and Sandra Hofferth. “Parental Choice of Self-care for School-age Children.”

Journal of Marriage and the Family.

51(1994):65-77; Harriet Presser. “Can We Make

Time for Children? The Economy, Work Schedules, and Child Care.” Demography.

26(1989):523-543; Kristin Smith and Lynne

Casper. “Home Alone: Reasons Parents Leave

Their Children Unsupervised.” Paper presented

at the Annual Meetings of the Population Association of America. New York, NY, March 1999.

Historical trends in self care:

1990 to 1995

According to the 1990 National

Child Care Survey, 12 percent (3.4

million) of children 5 to 12 years

old were in self care. SIPP data for

1995 also indicate that 12 percent

(3.7 million) of children 5 to

12 years old were in self care.19

Similar percentages of self care in

1990 and 1995 likely reflect stable

labor force participation rates of

mothers during this time. For example, 76 percent of mothers with

their youngest child between 6 and

17 years old were in the labor force

in 1995, up only one percentage

point from 1990.20

Parental time

Research indicates that the amount

of time a child will be in self care is

associated with the amount of parental time available to care for

children, which in turn, depends on

family structure and labor force

participation.21 In 1995, gradeschool-age children living in a

single-parent household were not

significantly more likely to be in

self care than children living in a

two-parent family (18 percent

each). However, when the sex of

the single parent is considered,

large differences emerge. Figure 6

shows that grade-school-age

children living with a single father

were more likely to be in self care

than children living with a single

mother (31 percent and 17 percent,

respectively). This relationship persists for 12- to 14-year olds.

Patterns of self care use also vary

by the labor force participation of

the parent. Grade-school-age children of parents who were employed were more than twice as

likely to be in self care than those

whose parent was not employed:

25 percent of children ages 5 to 14

whose parent worked full-time and

21 percent of children whose parent worked part-time were in self

Table 13.

Prevalence of Self Care Among Grade-School-Age Children:

Fall 1995

Characteristic

Child’s age in years

5 to 14 5 to 11 12 to 14

Total number of children (in

thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,228 27,321 10,907

Number in self care (in thousands) . . . . . . . . 6,880 2,433 4,446

Percent in self care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.0 8.9 40.8

PERCENT IN SELF CARE:1

Type of Arrangement2

Percent using self care as:

Primary arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 0.8 6.9

Secondary arrangement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.8 4.0 24.0

Tertiary arrangement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.0 6.0 22.6

Employment Schedule and Marital Status

Married couple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.9 8.6 41.0

Both employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.2 12.1 50.8

One employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6 4.1 26.3

Neither employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 3.0 8.9

Single parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.1 9.7 40.2

Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.1 13.0 52.8

Not employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 5.0 17.7

Poverty Status

Less than 100 percent of poverty. . . . . . . . . . 11.1 6.4 24.5

100 to 199 percent of poverty. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.8 7.8 38.3

200 percent and above poverty . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2 10.7 48.1

Enrichment Activities

Participated in any activity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.1 13.8 49.0

Did not participate in an activity . . . . . . . . . . . 12.7 6.2 33.1

Child Care Arrangements

Received care by relatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.7 10.4 41.4

Did not receive care by relatives . . . . . . . . . . 18.2 7.7 40.4

Received care by nonrelatives . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.6 9.0 40.8

Did not receive care by nonrelatives . . . . . . . 25.2 6.4 40.8

HOURS PER WEEK:3

Average hours per week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 4.5 6.9

Number of Hours per Week (percent

distribution)

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0

Less than 2 hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.1 36.1 17.5

2 to 4.9 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.1 25.3 26.5

5 to 10 hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.8 31.5 39.7

More than 10 hours per week. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1 7.2 16.4

1

Percent of children with specified characteristic in self-care arrangements.

2

Primary includes children with one or more arrangements; secondary includes children

with two or more arrangements; tertiary includes children with three or more arrangements. 3

Average hours and distribution based only on those children in self care arrangements.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1993

Panel Wave 9.
U.S. Census Bureau 25

care compared with only 8 percent

of children of nonemployed parents

(see Figure 6). This pattern holds

true for children ages 12 to 14

years old.

It is important to simultaneously

consider the marital and employment statuses of the parents when

examining the prevalence of self

care. Table 13 shows that the

prevalence of self care was comparable among children of dual earner

married-couple families and single

working parents (24 percent and

25 percent, respectively). Use of

self care was greatly reduced

among children living in a marriedcouple family where one or neither

of the parents worked, and in

single-parent families where the

parent did not work. This suggests

that families with less time (married couples who are both employed or single parents who work)

are more likely to have children

who are in self care.

Due to the strong and significant

correlation between parent’s employment status and self care,

changes in mothers’ labor force

participation (due to welfare reform

for example) may be associated

with changes in the proportion of

children in self care, especially if affordable child care is not concurrently available.

Family income

Children in self care were more

likely to live in families with higher

average monthly family incomes

than the overall population of

children. For example, the average

monthly income of families with

children 5 to 11 years old in self

care was $4,512, whereas the average monthly family income of children not in self care was $3,664.

The same pattern exists for children 12 to 14 years old. Table 13

shows that self care is more

Figure 5.

Grade-School-Age Children in Self Care: Fall 1995

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1993 Panel Wave 9.

(Percent in self care)

18

2 3 4

8

10

14

24

33

42

48

5 to 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Child's age (years)

Figure 6.

Grade-School-Age Children in Self Care by 

Selected Family Characteristics: Fall 1995

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1993 Panel Wave 9.

(Percent in self care)

18 17

31

25

21

8

Not

employed

Single Full time Part time

father

Single

mother

Married

couple

Living arrangement Employment status of

designated parent
26 U.S. Census Bureau

22 In recent research by Smith and Casper,

“Home Alone: Reasons Parents Leave Their

Children Unsupervised” (1999) where socioeconomic, demographic, and neighborhood

variables were considered simultaneously in a

multi-variate logistic regression model, the income level of the family was not a statistically

significant predictor variable of self care.

Table 14.

Weekly Child Care Payments by Families With Employed Mothers for Selected

Periods: 1984 to 1995

(Numbers in thousands. Excludes people with no report of family income in the last 4 months)

Period Number

of

mothers

Making payments

Weekly child care payments Income spent on

child care per month Actual dollars 1995 dollars

Number Percent Average1

Standard

error Average1

Standard

error Percent2

Standard

error

Sept. to Dec. 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,907 8,065 40.5 85.0 3.3 85.0 3.3 7.4 0.2

Monthly family income

Less than $1,500 . . . . . . . . . . . 2,657 990 37.2 71.1 10.6 71.1 10.6 30.6 22.7

$1,500 to $2,999 . . . . . . . . . . . 5,181 1,866 36.0 69.5 5.7 69.5 5.7 12.8 6.9

$3,000 to $4,499 . . . . . . . . . . . 4,787 1,885 39.4 79.8 5.4 79.8 5.4 9.4 5.0

$4,500 and over . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,282 3,225 45.7 100.7 5.8 100.7 5.8 5.2 0.1

Below poverty level . . . . . . . . . 1,734 570 32.9 75.3 15.6 75.3 15.6 34.8 8.7

Above poverty level . . . . . . . . . 18,173 7,496 41.2 85.7 3.4 85.7 3.4 7.0 0.2

100 to 199 percent of

poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,278 1,459 34.1 75.0 7.8 75.0 7.8 16.9 7.4

200 percent and above

poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,894 6,037 43.4 88.3 3.7 88.3 3.7 6.2 0.1

Sept. to Dec. 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,798 6,987 35.3 70.0 1.1 73.8 1.2 7.3 0.3

Sept. to Dec. 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,180 6,616 34.5 63.3 2.4 70.6 2.7 7.1 0.3

Sept. to Dec. 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,938 7,202 38.0 59.7 1.3 68.7 1.5 6.9 0.2

Sept. to Dec. 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,843 7,520 39.9 54.0 1.2 69.0 1.5 6.8 0.2

Sept. to Dec. 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,501 6,168 33.3 48.5 1.8 64.6 2.4 6.6 0.3

Sept. to Dec. 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,305 5,742 31.4 44.3 1.4 61.6 1.9 6.3 0.3

Dec. 1984 to March 1985 . . . . . . . . 15,706 5,299 33.7 40.3 1.1 58.5 1.3 (NA) (NA)

NA Not available (not tablulated for this survey).

1

Average expenditures per week among people making child care payments.

2

Percent is a ratio of average monthly child care payments (prorated from weekly averages) to average monthly income.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1993 Panel Wave 9.

prevalent among more economically advantaged families. In 1995,

11 percent of children living in poverty, 16 percent of children living

just above the poverty line

(between 100 and 199 percent of

poverty), and 22 percent of children living at or above 200 percent

of the poverty line were in self

care. Since families with higher incomes are likely to have both parents working, some of the income

correlation with self care is likely to

be related to employment rather

than the income.22 In addition,

families with higher incomes tend

to live in safer neighborhoods and

parents may be more comfortable

with self care.

Enrichment activities

Children who participated in enrichment activities were more likely

to be in self care than those who

did not. While 49 percent of children 12 to 14 years old who participated in enrichment activities

spent some part of their day in self

care, a much smaller proportion

(33 percent) of children 12 to 14

years old who did not participate in

enrichment activities were in self

care. A similar relationship also exists for children 5 to 11 years old.

This pattern may occur because

parents see these activities as

building more confidence and responsibility in their children or

because the time that would be

spent in self care is significantly

shorter.

FAMILY EXPENDITURES

ON CHILD CARE FOR

ALL CHILDREN UNDER

15 YEARS OLD

Family Payments

for Child Care

Of the 19.9 million employed

women with children under 15

years of age in the fall of 1995,

41 percent (8.1 million) reported

they made a cash payment for

child care for at least one of their

children, the highest percentage recorded since 1985, with the possible exception of 1988 (see Table

14). In 1995, a family paid an average of $85 per week for child care.
U.S. Census Bureau 27

In constant 1995 dollars, child care

costs increased from $59 in the

winter of 1985 to $85 in the fall of

1995, an increase of 44 percent. In

addition, families are spending a

greater portion of their family income on child care per month. The

proportion of family income spent

on child care increased from 6 percent in 1986 to 7 percent in

1995.23

In 1995, relatively fewer poor than

nonpoor families paid for child care

(33 percent compared with 41 percent). Poor families paid about the

same amount per week for child

care as nonpoor families ($75 compared with $86). However, larger

variations in the cost of child care

exist when one considers the

broader income distribution. For

example, those with monthly family incomes under $1,500 (approximately $18,000 annually) paid an

average of $71 per week, while

those with monthly family incomes

of $4,500 or more (approximately

$54,000 or more annually) paid

$101 per week.

Income Spent on

Child Care

In 1995, poor families who paid for

care spent five times more of their

budget than nonpoor families on

child care (35 percent compared

with 7 percent). This large gap in

the proportion of income paid for

child care by poverty status has

persisted over the period 1987 to

1995.

SOURCE OF THE DATA

The estimates in this report come

from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), collected in

the fall of 1995 by the U.S. Census

Bureau. The data highlighted in this

report come primarily from the child

care topical module of the 1993,

Wave 9 SIPP panel. The SIPP is a

nationally representative longitudinal

survey conducted at 4-month intervals by the Census Bureau. Although

the main focus of the SIPP is information on labor force participation,

jobs, income, and participation in

federal assistance programs, information on other topics, such as child

care, is also collected in topical modules on a rotating basis.

ACCURACY OF

THE ESTIMATES

Statistics from sample surveys are subject to sampling and nonsampling error. All comparisons presented in this

report have taken sampling error into

account and meet the Census Bureau’s

standards for statistical significance.

Nonsampling errors in surveys may be

attributed to a variety of sources, such

as how the survey was designed, how

respondents interpret questions, how

able and willing respondents are to

provide correct answers, and how accurately answers are coded and classified. The Census Bureau employs

quality control procedures throughout

the production process — including

the overall design of surveys, testing

the wording of questions, review of

the work of interviewers and coders,

and statistical review of reports.

The SIPP employs ratio estimation,

whereby sample estimates are adjusted to independent estimates of the

national population by age, race, sex,

and Hispanic origin. This weighting

partially corrects for bias due to under

coverage, but how it affects different

variables in the survey is not precisely

known. Moreover, biases may also be

present when people who are missed

in the survey differ from those interviewed in ways other than the categories used in weighting (age, race, sex,

and Hispanic origin). All of these considerations affect comparisons across

different surveys or data sources.

For further information on statistical

standards and the computation and

use of standard errors, contact Reid

Rottach, Demographic Statistical Methods Division, at 301-457-4228 or on

the Internet at

reid.a.rottach@census.gov.

MORE INFORMATION

The report is available on the

Internet (www.census.gov); search

for children’s data by clicking on the

“Subjects A-Z” button and selecting

“child care” under “C.” A detailed

table package presenting more indepth child care information for both

preschool- and grade-school-age children is also on the Internet, as well

as more information on child care.

Future child care reports will focus

on the costs of child care.

CONTACTS

Child care issues—

Kristin Smith

301-457-2416

ksmith@census.gov

Statistical Information Staff

301-457-2422

pop@census.gov

USER COMMENTS

The Census Bureau welcomes the

comments and advice of users of its

data and reports. If you have any

suggestions or comments, please

write to:

Chief, Population Division

U.S. Census Bureau

Washington, DC 20233

or send an e-mail inquiry to:

pop@census.gov

SUGGESTED CITATION

Smith, Kristin. 2000. Who’s Minding

the Kids? Child Care Arrangements:

Fall 1995. Current Population Reports,

P70-70. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. 23 Family income data are not tabulated for

1985 from the SIPP.