School-Age Children in Regulated 

Family Child Care Settings

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children and Families

Child Care Bureau

1

SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN IN REGULATED

FAMILY CHILD CARE SETTINGS

September 2007

The Afterschool Investments Project

The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) provides federal resources for child care that

support both direct services and quality enhancements. The U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services’ Child Care Bureau awards CCDF grants to states, territories, and tribes. With 

nearly half of the children receiving services being of school or kindergarten age, CCDF provides 

significant funding for afterschool care in a variety of settings. The majority of CCDF dollars are used to

provide subsidies to eligible low-income children under age 13. A portion of CCDF funding is also used

for quality improvement initiatives, such as professional development and technical assistance, with 

the goal of building the capacity of states to deliver quality services including programs before and afterschool, during summers, and on school holidays.

To support state efforts to provide quality afterschool opportunities, the Child Care Bureau awarded 

a technical assistance contract on out-of-school time to The Finance Project and its partner, The National

Governors Association Center for Best Practices. The Afterschool Investments project provides technical

assistance to Child Care and Development Fund grantees and other state and local leaders who support

afterschool efforts. The goals of the project include:

■ Identifying ways that states and communities are using Child Care and Development Fund 

(CCDF) subsidy and quality dollars to support out-of-school time programs, and sharing 

these practices and approaches with other states;

■ Identifying administrative and implementation issues related to CCDF investments in out-of-school

time programs, and providing information and context (about barriers, problems, opportunities) 

as well as practical tools that will help CCDF administrators make decisions; and

■ Identifying other major programs and sectors that are potential partners for CCDF in supporting

out-of-school time programs, and providing models, strategies, and tools for coordination with

other programs and sectors. 

To meet these goals, the Afterschool Investments project is:

■ Regularly updating and maintaining State profiles of afterschool resources, policies and issues;

■ Creating tools and materials to support the development and sustainability of afterschool efforts;

and

■ Providing targeted technical assistance to state child care administrators and other state leaders

around building partnerships and developing state policies that promote investments in highquality afterschool programs.

For more information about the project or to submit a request for technical assistance or information, 

contact The Finance Project at (202) 587-1000 or by email at afterschool@financeproject.org. All project

tools and resources can be found online on the Afterschool Investments Project website:

http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov/afterschool/.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children and Families

Child Care Bureau
4

Introduction

Demand for school-age child care has risen during the past several decades, as more parents are

working outside the home and need safe and supervised settings for their children to spend their

nonschool hours.1 In recent years, attention has focused on how children’s activities during outof-school time can contribute to other positive outcomes, such as improved academic 

performance and avoidance of risky behaviors. Common school-age child care settings include

school-based programs, extracurricular sports programs, and relative care. Less frequently 

discussed as an out-of-school time setting is family child care.

Family child care is generally defined as care by a paid provider who cares for a small number of

children in his or her home.2 Regulated family child care providers are licensed or registered with

the state in which they operate. These providers fall into two categories: small family child care

homes, defined as having one provider and a small number of children cared for in that provider’s

home; and large family child care homes (or group homes), defined as having a provider and an

assistant and a larger number of children cared for in the provider’s home.3 For more information

on state regulatory requirements for family child care providers, see Appendix A. 

Individuals who provide care in their homes are sometimes exempt from state regulation.

Although state laws vary widely in this regard, the three major factors separating legally exempt

home-based care from home-based care that is subject to being regulated by the state are: 

(1) the number of children in care; (2) the number of families that rely on the caregiver; and 

(3) the amount of time children spend with the caregiver. Wide variation exists among the states in

the threshold for the number of children allowed in license-exempt home-based care. However,

the most common threshold for licensing is three children who are unrelated to the provider.4

1 In 2001, for example, nearly 70 percent of children had one or both resident parents in the workforce, 

compared with fewer than 60 percent of children in 1985. See Office of Planning and Evaluation, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, Trends in the Wellbeing of Children and Youth (Washington,

D.C., 2003).

2 Katie Hamm and Avis Jones-DeWeever, Family Child Care: Recent Trends and New Directions (Washington,

D.C.: Institute for Women’s Policy Research, October 2004).

3 National Child Care Information Center, Definition of Licensed Family Child Care Homes (Fairfax, Va.:

National Child Care Information Center, April 2006).

4 Toni Porter and Shannon M Kearns, Supporting Family, Friend and Neighbor Caregivers: Findings from a

Survey of State Policies (New York, N.Y.: Institute for a Child Care Continuum, Division of Continuing

Education, Bank Street College of Education, January 2005). 
5

License-exempt home-based care is commonly referred to as family, friend, and neighbor

care; it also is called "informal child care” and “kith-and-kin care.” Family, friend, and neighbor

care can be distinguished from other types of care by the self-perception of the caregiver, who

may not be interested in a child care career, and by the relationship between the caregiver and

the parent of the child in care (see “Understanding and Supporting Family, Friend, and Neighbor

Care for School-Age Children” below). As the name implies, family, friend, and neighbor caregivers

are usually relatives or close friends of the parents and may not be providers of child care were it

not for these relationships.5

To understand better the benefits and challenges of providing quality family child care for school-age

children, Afterschool Investments project staff interviewed several experienced family child care

providers who serve or have served school-age children as well as national experts on family child

care and school-age care. Staff also reviewed the literature to summarize what is known and where

further research or data collection may be needed. In addition to reporting these findings, this

issue brief examines the unique characteristics of family child care with respect to school-age 

children and suggests ways that states and communities can better support family child care

providers in order to improve quality within this setting. The brief focuses on regulated family child

care, though many of the issues and strategies discussed may also apply to license-exempt family,

friend, and neighbor providers.

5 Bank Street College of Education, Frequently Asked Questions about Kith and Kin Child Care (New York,

N.Y.: Bank Street College of Education, n.d.).

Understanding and Supporting Family, Friend, and

Neighbor Care for School-Age Children

For many of the same reasons that families choose regulated family child care, many families

rely on license-exempt providers, such as family, friends, and neighbors, to care for their children.

Federal and state policymakers want to identify strategies to support the quality of care in these

settings.* In addition, the Sparking Connections initiative, a national learning consortium, is now

demonstrating and evaluating strategies to support family, friend, and neighbor providers. For

more information, see www.familiesandwork.org/sparking/home.htm. 

Note: *For more information, see Toni Rice et al., Doting on Kids: Understanding Quality in Kith and Kin Care (New York, N.Y.:

Institute for a Child Care Continuum, Division of Continuing Education, Bank Street College of Education, December 2003); and

Toni Porter and Shannon Kearns, Supporting Family, Friend and Neighbor Caregivers: Findings from a Survey of State Policies

(New York, N.Y.: Institute for a Child Care Continuum, Division of Continuing Education, Bank Street College of Education, January 2005). 
What Do the National Data Reveal?

In 2005, nearly 214,000 child care facilities were licensed in the United States, generating

the capacity to serve more than 1.9 million children each year.6 Of these licensed facilities,

64 percent were family child care providers, 5 percent child care centers, and 5 percent other

settings (see “214,000 Licensed Child Care Facilities by Setting Type, 2005” below). Of the

1.9 million children these facilities had the capacity to serve, 74 percent of that capacity came

from child care centers, 21 percent from family child care, and 5 percent from other 

settings (see “1.9 Million Licensed Child Care Capacity by Setting Type, 2005” below). Although

family child care homes comprised 64 percent of licensed child care facilities, they represented

just 21 percent of licensed capacity. For state-by-state information on the number of licensed

family child care homes and the licensed capacity in those homes, see Appendix B.

Data about how many family child care providers serve school-age children, however, are harder

to find. One recent study of child care for low-income families found that a school-age child was

cared for in 74 percent of the family child care homes included in the study. In 45 percent of

the homes in the study, the provider cared for children of all ages—infants and toddlers, 

preschool-age, and school-age. In 12 percent of these homes, infants and toddlers and schoolage children were cared for together. In approximately 9 percent of the homes, the provider

cared exclusively for school-age children. In approximately 8 percent of the homes, preschoolage and school-age children were cared for together.7 (See “Three Family Child Care Providers

Who Serve School-Age Children” on page 10 for likely scenarios of this care setting.)

6

6 National Association for Regulatory Administration and National Child Care Information Center, 2005 Child

Care Licensing Study (Conyers, Ga.: National Association for Regulatory Administration and Fairfax, Va.:

National Child Care Information Center, December 2006).

7 Jean Layzer and Barbara D. Goodson, Care in the Home: A Description of Family Child Care and the

Experiences of Families and Children Who Use It (Wave 1 Report) (Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates,

Inc., April 2006). This study is a component of the National Study of Child Care for Low-Income

Families—a seven year research effort being conducted in 25 communities in 17 States. The family child

care report focused on five of these communities. Available online at:

www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/cc/nsc_low_income/reports/care_in_home/care_in_home.pdf_in_home.p

214,000 Licensed Child Care

Facilities by Setting Type, 2005

5%

31%

64%

5%

21%

74%

1.9 Million Licensed Child Care

Capacity by Setting Type, 2005

Child Care Centers

Family Child Care Homes

Other Settings

Source: National Association for Regulatory Administration and National Child Care Information Center, 2005

Child Care Licensing Study (Conyers, Ga.: National Association for Regulatory Administration and Fairfax, Va.:

National Child Care Information Center, December 2006).
7

Several national data sources describe the settings in which school-age children spend their

nonschool time. However, painting an accurate picture of family child care for school-age 

children is difficult. This is because definitions—for example, for “school-age” and “family”

child care—vary widely among these sources.8

How Many School-Age Children Are in Family Child Care?

A recent review of the literature on family child care estimates that approximately 25 percent of

all children at some point spend time (averaging about 30 hours per week) in family child care

homes.9 In general, between 6 percent and 8 percent of all school-age children use family child

care or other nonrelative care as a regular afterschool arrangement, with families that receive federal child care subsidies more likely to use family child care. Several reports provide further insight

on school-age family child care.

■ The National Center for Education Statistics analyzed data from the 2005 National

Household Education Surveys. Six percent of children in kindergarten through grade 8 had

at least one weekly afterschool arrangement with nonrelative, home-based providers (e.g.,

family child care, babysitters, or nannies).10

■ The Urban Institute examined the primary child care arrangements of employed parents

using data from the 1999 National Survey of America’s Families. Of the school-age children

(ages 6–12) with any regular child care arrangement, 7 percent used family child care as a 

primary child care arrangement.11

■ An analysis of data from the 2002 Survey on Income and

Program Participation found that approximately 5 percent

of grade-schoolers (ages 5–14) were cared for in family

child care settings, defined as non-relative care in the

provider’s home, while nearly 3 percent were in the care

of a “non-relative in child’s home.”12

■ Forty-five percent of children who receive federal child

care subsidies are of school age (ages 5–12). Among

families that receive child care subsidies, the percentage

of school-age children in family child care settings

appears to be higher than among the general population.

8 For example, family child care is neither defined nor referred to in a consistent way. Fully understanding

the role that family child care plays during children’s out-of-school time is difficult, because some studies

look at children’s primary care arrangement but they may spend time in multiple care settings. Family child

care may be one of the care arrangements used by a school-age child who, for example, also spends time

after school in a school-based afterschool program, engages in extra-curricular activities, etc.

9 Taryn Morrissey, Family Child Care in the United States (New York, N.Y.: Child Care and Early Education

Research Connections, March 2007).

10National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, National Household Education

Surveys of 2005: Afterschool Programs and Activities, 2005 (Washington, D.C., May 2006).

11 Sonenstein et al., Primary Child Care Arrangements of Employed Parents: Findings from the 1999 National

Survey of America's Families (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2002).

12 Julia Overturf Johnson, Who’s Minding the Kids?—Child Care Arrangements: Winter 2002 (Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, October 2005).
8

According to data collected by the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services for fiscal 2004, just under 35 percent of children between the ages of 5 and

12 who receive subsidies spend their out-of-school time in family child care settings

(see “Settings for School-Age Children Receiving Child Care Subsidies, Fiscal 2004”

below).13 However, considerable variation exists among states, from a low of 2 percent

of school-age children in Oklahoma in family child care to a high of 85 percent of schoolage children in Oregon in family child care (see Appendix C for state-by-state information).

What Constitutes Quality in Family Child Care?

As is true for child care provided in all settings, the

quality of family child care can vary widely among

providers. Improving the overall quality of care requires

an understanding of the factors associated with highquality care. National family child care standards and

national and local studies provide insight on these

factors. Note, however, that these quality indicators

apply to family child care broadly; specific quality

indicators for school-age family child care have not

been studied.

Settings for School-Age Children Receiving Child Care Subsidies, Fiscal 2004

10.7%

54.5%

34.8%

Child Care Centers

Family Child Care Homes

In-Home Settings

Source: Child Care Bureau, Office of Family Assistance, Administration for Children and Families, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, as reported by states and the District of Columbia for fiscal 2004. 

13This statistic reflects the national average (for the 50 states and District of Columbia) of school-age children

served in “family homes” and “group homes” and includes regulated and nonregulated settings.

Regulations define a family child care home provider as “one individual who provides child care services

for fewer than 24 hours per day per child, as the sole caregiver, in a private residence other than the child’s

residence, unless care in excess of 24 hours is due to the nature of the parent(s)’ work.” A group child care

home provider is defined as “two or more individuals who provide child care services for fewer than 24

hours per day per child, in a private residence other than the child’s residence, unless care in excess of 24

hours is due to the nature of the parent(s)’ work.” 
The National Association for Family Child Care (NAFCC) has developed standards of quality

care that inform its national accreditation process. To develop these standards, NAFCC 

analyzed what quality family child care looks like and sought input from diverse voices in the

field. NAFCC accreditation stresses age-appropriate activities and is applicable to school-age

or mixed-age providers as well as those serving only younger children. According to NAFCC

standards, the most important aspect of a high-quality family child care program is warm, 

responsive human relationships with children and with parents and families. Other key aspects of

quality include14:

■ a welcoming and comfortable environment with materials and equipment to support 

children’s activities and domains of development;

■ developmentally appropriate learning activities that build different competencies;

■ adherence to safety and health standards; and

■ professional and business practices that are both ethical and legal and demonstrate 

continual efforts to improve quality. 

In addition to the work done by NAFCC, several studies have looked at characteristics that are 

correlated with higher quality care and that lead to a measurable difference in quality, including

provider training and education and access to professional support networks.15 Similarly, a 1994

study of family child care providers found that “intentionality,” or a commitment to caring for children,

is associated with high-quality care. Some examples of intentionality include pursuing training and

professional development opportunities, planning activities and learning experiences for children,

and seeking the support of other providers. Providers who exhibit intentionality are more likely to

view their work as a career and to seek out professional development opportunities.16

A more recent study of child care for low-income families found that, across all age groups served,

family child care homes demonstrated good health and safety practices. However, learning activities and opportunities were scarce in most of the homes observed. Homes in which school-age

children were cared for were more likely to provide learning activities; these homes were also

more likely to have television watching than other homes. Fewer homes were found to have

developmentally appropriate materials for indoor and outdoor play for school-age children than

for pre-school-age and younger children. Furthermore, school-age children were observed to

engage in little high-level object play, which the study’s authors deemed consistent with more

television watching.17

9

14National Association for Family Child Care, Quality Standards for NAFCC Accreditation, 4th ed. (Salt Lake

City, Utah: National Association for Family Child Care, 2005).

15Morrissey. Also see, for example, Jan L. Fischer and Brenda K. Eheart, “Family Day Care: A Theoretical

Basis for Improving Quality,” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 6 (1991); and Karen Debord and Janet

Sawyers,“The Effects of Training on the Quality of Child Care for Those Associated with and Not

Associated with Professional Child Care Organizations,” Child and Youth Care Forum, vol. 25, no. 1 (1996).

16Ellen Galinksy et al., The Study of Children in Family Child Care and Relative Care: Highlights of Findings

(New York, N.Y.: Families and Work Institute, 1994).

17 Layzer and Goodson.
10

Three Family Child Care Providers Who Serve 

School-Age Children

Family child care providers may choose to serve school-age children for different reasons. For

example, these providers may choose to serve the peers of their own school-age children, or

they may respond to a need for school-age care in their community. Often, providers who 

initially cared exclusively for younger children will subsequently serve their older siblings or

continue to serve the same group of children as they enter school. These experiences of three

high-quality family child care providers caring for school-age children are illustrative.

Nikki Darling-Kuria became a family child care provider in her Maryland community nine years

ago, serving children approximately the same ages as her young children. She continues to

serve the same group of children, even as they have entered school and now require part-time

care. Although Ms. Darling-Kuria recognizes that a shift to part-time care may be a financial

hardship for other providers, she explains that she has earned the respect of the families that

she serves and did not need to lower her fees significantly. She is committed to professionalizing

the field of family child care and, as a result, has become an accredited family child care

provider. By furthering her own professional development, she hopes to counter the perception

in her community that family child care is simply babysitting. 

Renee Wehrend came to operate a family child care home in Oregon after several years’ 

experience caring for children in a child care center. She has been a certified family child care

provider in Oregon for 16 years and serves mixed-age groups that include school-age children.

Typically, she begins caring for children when they are infants or toddlers and continues to

care for them when they enter school. Ms. Wehrend has faced several barriers serving school-age

children, but she finds that time spent in mixed-age groups affords children of all ages several

benefits. The challenges she has faced include arranging transportation from school, having

sufficient space for older children to play, and managing varied schedules and activities for

children of different ages. She finds, however, that the younger children enjoy the presence of

school-age children and that school-age children have a unique opportunity to serve as mentors

to younger children and to take a leadership role in planning activities for younger children.

Sandy Governor, a former physical education teacher in Tennessee, began operating a family

child care business while staying at home with her own school-age children. Ms. Governor

chose to serve school-age children exclusively, particularly after hearing news reports about

“latch-key children” in her community. After years of experience and with a master’s degree

in school-age care, Ms. Governor has developed afterschool activities that meet the unique

needs of this age group. Her afterschool program of “eating snacks, taking naps, and running

laps” gives children the chance to unwind after spending the day in school. (Although school-age

children do not take naps, some time is allotted to help them rest and relax.) Ms. Governor

educates other family child care providers on best practices to promote professionalism in the

field and improve the public perception of school-age care. She urges family child care providers

to join parent-teacher associations and otherwise forge connections with local schools.
11

18 Layzer and Goodson.

19 See, for example, James Mensing et al., “Child Care Selection Under Welfare Reform: How Mothers

Balance Work Requirements and Parenting,” Early Education & Development, vol. 11, no. 5 (2000); and

Bruce Fuller et al., “Welfare Reform and Child Care Options for Low-Income Families,” Children and

Welfare Reform, vol. 12, no. 1 (2002).

20Kontos et al., Quality in Family Child Care and Relative Care (New York, N.Y.: Teachers College Press, 1995). 

21Morrissey.

Why Do Families Choose Family Child Care?

Maximizing parental choice is a hallmark of federal child care subsidy policy. The factors that

influence parents’ choice of care for their children are varied and complex, including the location,

cost, and setting of the care; the hours during which care is available; a relationship or connection

with a particular provider; and the activities or curriculum used. In the recent study of child care

for low-income families, parents’ reasons for choosing family child care included the perceived

safety and accessibility of the arrangement; hours that matched parents’ (often nontraditional)

work schedules; and the parents’ relationship with and trust in the provider.18 These findings did

not vary by age of the child and echo the comments of providers and experts in the field of family

child care as to why parents choose to place their children, including school-age children, with 

family child care providers. 

■ Home-Like Setting. Quite simply, parents may choose family child care for their children

because it “feels like home.” Some parents of school-age children believe their children’s

out-of-school time is best spent in a noninstitutional environment—more like what they

would experience were they to return to their own homes after the school day ends. Parents

may also select family child care providers in their own neighborhoods, so their children, 

particularly those who are older, can walk or travel by bus to the provider’s home.

■ Mixed-Age Groupings. For parents who desire one setting where their older and younger

children can be cared for together, family child care can be the solution. In addition to the

logistical advantage (i.e., one drop-off and pick-up location) and ability to keep siblings

together, providers note that children in mixed-age settings frequently have opportunities to

learn from and teach one another across age groups, whether they are engaged in academic

or recreational activities. 

■ Trust in Caregivers. A major concern guiding parents’ child care choices is trust in caregivers.

Minority and low-income mothers, in particular, are more likely to trust relatives, friends, or

home-based providers.19 Similarly, some mothers prefer family child care providers, who are

likely to share their cultural values and ideas about childrearing over center-based child care,

where children are exposed to multiple caregivers who may or may not share their values.20

A review of the family child care literature finds that most parents generally are satisfied with their

family child care arrangement.21
What Are the Challenges Associated with

Providing School-Age Family Child Care?

Family child care providers who serve school-age children may face several challenges in

providing high-quality child care services for this age group, according to family child care

experts and providers.

■ Financial Considerations. Family child care providers serving exclusively school-age 

children may not be able to make sufficient income because of the part-time nature of

the care. Providing care for mixed age-groups is a strategy to address this problem, but

caregivers must be mindful of their maximum capacity during school holidays and 

summer vacations when school-age children require full-time care. To some extent, states

that allow family child care providers to participate in prekindergarten initiatives may 

create an incentive for these providers to serve three- and four-year-olds rather than

school-age children.22

■ Transportation. Some family child care providers report difficulties in transporting schoolage children between their schools and the provider’s home. Many school districts will 

not allow school buses to pick up or drop off children anywhere but their own neighborhood or their own home, so providers may be responsible for arranging transportation to

and from school. Transporting school-age children can be particularly challenging for

providers who care for mixed-age groups, because they cannot leave the younger children

unsupervised. Bringing younger children along to pick up and drop off the older children

can raise safety concerns and disrupt the younger children’s schedules and activities.

Finally, in some states, laws designed to protect children’s safety require that certain 

individuals picking up children from school drive specific types of vehicles, which, in some

cases, require commercial car insurance and/or a special driver’s license. Furthermore,

providers may need supplemental coverage to be adequately insured in case of an 

accident while they are transporting the children in their care. For many providers operating

small home-based child care programs, meeting these regulations and requirements may

not be feasible.

■ Programming. Notwithstanding the many potential benefits of mixed-age care, 

providers may face challenges when developing materials and an environment for a

wide range of ages. Providers who care for mixed-age groups need to think strategically

about developing programming that is stimulating for every age group. They also

need to maintain a multipurpose space appropriate for the safety and programming

needs of all children served. Challenges may arise, for example, when older children

are engaged in an activity using materials that might be hazardous to toddlers,

12

22Thirteen states—Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon,

Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin—include family child care providers as eligible

providers of pre-kindergarten services, though such providers generally are not participating in 

pre-kindergarten programs in large numbers. See Schumacher et al., All Together Now: State Experiences

in Using Community-Based Child Care to Provide Pre-Kindergarten, rev. (Washington, D.C.: Center for

Law and Social Policy and The Children’s Project, February 2005).
such as glue or clay. Providers also note that finding age-appropriate activities for a

mixed-age group is more difficult during summers or holidays when children of all ages

are in care throughout the day. All providers serving school-age children need to find

the right balance of programming, including helping with homework, providing unstructured play time, and offering enriching activities. Providers also need to consider how to

make connections with the school-day curriculum. 

■ Ability to Attract a School-Age Clientele. Some family child care providers find it difficult

to attract school-age clients. In some communities, they must compete with multiple

school-based or other afterschool programs that provide free or low-cost school-age care.

In addition, some family child care providers report that it is challenging to market their

services to families of school-age children, because many families have a negative perception of family child care for school-age children. Parents who seek a learning environment for

children outside the school day may not consider family child care as academically enriching

as school- or community-based afterschool programs. 

■ Professional Development. Professional development can be another challenge for family

child care providers. Many of these providers work alone, which can make it difficult to 

dedicate time for professional development. Another barrier to professional development is

that not all providers think of themselves as “professionals.” For example, a provider may

only care for neighborhood children temporarily in order to stay home with his or her own

child and may not be interested in receiving training or certification. Furthermore, very few

professional development opportunities are available for child care providers who serve

school-age or mixed-age children. For information on resources that have been developed

in Oregon to support mixed-age family child care providers, see “Practices and Tips to

Support Mixed-Age Family Care Providers” on page 19.

13
23 For more information, see Katie Hamm, Barbara Gault, and Avis Jones-DeWeever, In Our Own Backyards:

Reviewing Local and State Strategies to Increase the Quality of Family Child Care (Washington, D.C.:

Institute for Women’s Policy Research, June 2005), available at: www.iwpr.org/pdf/G717.pdf.

14

How Can Family Care Providers Who Serve

School-Age Children Be Supported?

Some family child care providers who care for children of any age express frustration with

the lack of professional supports they are able to access. A recent study by the Institute 

for Women’s Policy Research identified low wages, job isolation, and a lack of professional

development and training opportunities as the main problems associated with providing 

quality care in family child care homes.23 The report also suggests ways to promote better care

in family child care homes (see “State and Local Strategies to Improve the Quality of Family

Child Care” below).

State and Local Strategies to Improve the Quality of

Family Child Care

A recent study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research highlights promising state and

local programs that promote quality in family child care homes. Although focused largely on

child care homes that serve younger children, this publication highlights strategies that can be

adapted to support family child care homes serving school-age children. 

■ Home visits. A mentor or consultant visits the family child care provider in the

home to provide one-on-one training, information, model teaching, and moral

support. 

■ Accreditation programs. National accreditation through the National Association

for Family Child Care requires providers to meet standards beyond licensing

requirements.

■ Family child care networks. Networks may provide opportunities for training,

supply equipment and materials, or administer scholarship programs. Networks

also offer providers opportunities for peer-to-peer learning.

■ Links to community resources. Connecting providers to community resources,

such as parks, libraries, and community colleges, can promote ongoing support

for providers. 

■ Tiered reimbursement systems. State and local tiered reimbursement systems 

provide higher reimbursement rates to programs or providers that meet quality

standards, including accreditation.

■ Training scholarships. Scholarships for training and degree credentials enable

providers to pursue higher education and may offer cash bonuses upon completion.
15

Besides the limited availability of professional supports for family child care providers generally,

even fewer resources are targeted to the unique needs of providers serving school-age children or

mixed-age groups. States and communities can pursue several strategies to support this subset of

family child care providers, including:

■ licensing;

■ accreditation;

■ program standards;

■ professional development; and

■ coordination.

Licensing

Licensing aims to promote children’s health and safety by

setting baseline requirements that programs must meet.

Licensing requirements in many states calculate maximum

group sizes and provider-to-child ratios based on the

ages of the children being served. (For specific information

on state licensing regulations for family child care

providers, see Appendix A.) Program monitoring, associated with licensing, can enable states to help providers

identify areas they may need to improve and help states

better understand providers’ training needs. In addition,

many licensed providers enjoy a natural network for information sharing. Licensed child care

providers are often supported and introduced to families through child care resource and referral

agencies in states and communities. These agencies help link families with child care options,

sometimes help administer child care subsidies, and often provide training and technical 

assistance to child care providers that are licensed or seeking licensure. They can also help

providers share resources, experiences, and lessons learned. 

■ Career ladders. Career ladders provide a professional development “map” for

providers and typically link levels of training and accreditation with increases in 

compensation.

For more information and examples of promising programs, see Katie Hamm, Barbara Gault,

and Avis Jones-Deweever, In Our Own Backyards: Reviewing Local and State Strategies to

Increase the Quality of Family Child Care (Washington, D.C.: Institute for Women’s Policy

Research, June 2005), available at: www.iwpr.org/pdf/G717.pdf.
Accreditation

Family child care accreditation, through the National Association for Family Child Care,

recognizes a higher level of program quality. A separate accreditation for providers serving school-age children does not exist, because many providers serve mixed-age groups.

The NAFCC accreditation process takes into account whether activities and materials are

appropriate for age groups served and focuses on building strong relationships between 

children and adults. NAFCC accreditation was implemented nationally in 1999, and nearly

2,500 providers are now accredited. (For more information on the National Association for

Family Child Care, visit www.nafcc.org/.) 

In addition, the National AfterSchool Association (NAA), formerly the National School-Age Care

Alliance, awards national accreditation to school-age programs that work with children ages 5 to 14.

Accreditation is based on the NAA standards for school-age quality, which address indicators

such as “meeting the developmentally different needs of youth, involving children and youth in

program planning, providing positive interactions between children and youth and adults, and

ensuring a safe and challenging environment for children and youth in out of school time.”24

Although NAA does not have separate accreditation for family child care, the NAA standards provide

all caregivers of school-age children, including family child care providers, with guidance on how

best to serve this age group. Many state agencies that have developed tiered reimbursement for

quality programs have used the NAA standards for school-age quality to develop standards for

school-age care programs. 

Program Standards 

Developing clear guidelines or standards by which to measure quality in family child care settings

that serve school-age children is one way to promote and recognize good practices. Currently,

the family child care field lacks models of best

practices specifically in school-age or mixed-age

family child care. Developing best practices or

case studies that illustrate what a quality program

looks like could help trainers and technical 

assistance providers who work directly with

providers. Several models of quality care are

likely, including those that complement the 

children’s activities during the school day. While

some students may benefit from academic

enrichment, others may need relaxing environments in which to unwind from school.

Best practices models should also respect

children’s cultural backgrounds. 

16

24 National AfterSchool Association, The Benefits of NAA Accreditation (Charlestown, Mass.: National 

AfterSchool Association, 2006).
Professional Development 

Training programs focused on supporting school-age or mixed-age children in family child

care settings are another means to improve the quality of care. States and communities may

consider targeting training opportunities for family child care providers who operate exclusively

school-age programs and mixed-age group programs.

Training programs for family child care providers should consider the attendance barriers that

family child care providers face. For example, individuals may not be able to attend training during

the hours they are caring for children and may benefit from training materials available by video

or via the Internet. Distance learning opportunities may also meet the needs of providers who may

otherwise need to travel long distances to attend training. Furthermore, given the low wages associated

with family child care, providers may require scholarships to take part in training activities. 

Coordination

Operating out of their own homes, family child care providers who serve school-age children are

likely to feel disconnected from other providers as well as other community institutions, including

the schools attended by the children they serve.25 In addition, family child care providers serving

school-age children may not be a part of state or local system-building efforts related to school-age

care. By incorporating family child care providers into larger conversations about the well-being 

of school-age children, it may be possible to learn more about these providers and to improve 

outcomes for all children. Several types of coordination can support these providers.

Provider Associations and Networks. State family child care associations and networks provide 

support systems for family child care providers, potentially easing provider isolation and expanding

access to professional development opportunities. Resource and referral agencies, communitybased organizations, or local employers often coordinate such networks. According to the Child

Welfare League of America, three types of these entities exist: (1) membership associations that

work together to enhance professionalism and impact policy; (2) community-support networks, open

to all providers, that offer peer support and resources to providers; and (3) family child care networks

and systems that help a group of parents (e.g., employees of the same company) access child

care. Providers involved in these networks may have expanded opportunities for peer support.26

Some provider networks also administer the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Child and Adult

Care Food Program, which offers subsidies to cover the cost of snacks and meals for incomeeligible children. In fiscal 2006, family child care homes served nearly 240 million meals under

the program; this number accounts for approximately 35 percent of the total meals served.27

17

25Hamm et al. June 2005; and Kontos et al.

26Bruce Hershfield et al., Family Child Care Networks/Systems: A Model for Expanding Community

Resources (Washington, D.C.: Child Welfare League of America, 2005). 

27 Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Level Annual Summary Tables: Child

and Adult Care Food Program (Participation, Meals Served, and Costs) (Washington, D.C., data as of

December 22, 2006). 
Sponsoring organizations enroll providers and manage this program while also, in many

cases, offering additional support services.28 These various networks and associations

may also play a role in assessing and meeting the unique needs of providers serving

school-age children as well as in advocating for policy changes that positively influence

providers’ ability to serve school-age children. 

Connections with Schools. When children spend their days in school and their afternoons in a

family child care home, communication between the teacher and family child care provider can

help both teacher and provider to better meet the child’s needs. Particularly in cases where a

child has an individual education plan to meet his or her special needs, it is beneficial for child

care providers to understand and support those unique learning needs. Building connections

with schools often requires effort on the part of the provider as well as on the part of parents,

who may need to facilitate these connections. Schools can also reach out to family child care

providers by inviting providers to in-service training programs and offering their space for family

child care training. Finally, local resource and referral agencies and family child care networks may

play a role in facilitating providers’ communication with schools. 

State and Local Afterschool System-Building. In recent years, states and localities have developed

state and local afterschool networks. These networks bring together diverse public, private, and

community stakeholders to improve the quality and availability of afterschool programs and afterschool program supports. They offer a means for planning jointly; sharing resources and best

practices; building bridges to and among federal, state, and local initiatives; and forging 

partnerships to develop comprehensive afterschool policies.29 Family child care providers who

care for school-age children may not always be involved in these state and local system-building

efforts; as a result, these initiatives miss an important perspective. Family child care associations

may be able to represent family child care providers in broader state or local policy discussions. 

18

28Mary Larner, In the Neighborhood: Programs that Strengthen Family Day Care for Low-Income Families

(New York, N.Y.: National Center for Children in Poverty, 1994).

29The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation supports states interested in establishing strong statewide 

afterschool networks, recognizing the value of this model in promoting partnerships and policies that

encourage the development, sustainability, and replication of quality afterschool programs. Currently, 

32 states receive funding from the Mott Foundation to build the capacity of their networks. Several

other states and localities are developing similar networks. 
19

Practices and Tips to Support Mixed-Age 

Family Care Providers

The Oregon Center for Career Development in Childhood Care and Education (OCCD) has

developed suggested quality practices and provider tips to better support family child care

providers who care for school-age children in settings that include younger children. Family

child care providers frequently care for children of various ages, including older children, once

the school day ends. Yet discussions of mixed-age groups and practices for such groups are

often focused on caring for preschool-age children alongside younger infants and toddlers. 

With support from the Oregon Child Care Division, OCCD staff interviewed experts in the field

experienced with working with school-age children in family child care settings that include

younger children. Best practices emerged and were informed by quality standards from the

National Association for Family Child Care, the National AfterSchool Association, and the

Thelma Harms Environmental Rating Scales for both family day care and school-age care. The

suggested quality practices and provider tips are organized by these categories: relationships,

the environment, developmental learning activities, safety and health, and professional and

business practices. For example:

Developmental Learning Activities Quality Practice:

Planning times for separate activities that are appropriate for each age group. 

School-age children are developmentally capable of—and need opportunities to 

practice—skills that are unsafe for small children.

Provider Tips:

■ Schedule more challenging activities for older children when the younger 

ones are napping.

■ Provide time, space, and safety assurances for the large motor activities that 

school-age children need.

For the complete set of quality practices and provider tips, see Oregon Center for Career

Development in Childhood Care and Education, In The Mix: Including Schoolagers with

Younger Children in Your Family Child Care: Suggested Quality Practices & Provider Tips

(Portland, Ore.: Oregon Center for Career Development in Childhood Care and Education,

October 2006), available at: www.centerline.pdx.edu/forms/3%20School%20Age/SA-In The Mix.pdf. 
What Are the Information Gaps, Unanswered

Questions, and Next Steps?

This review revealed several areas where information on family child care providers is limited

and further research is needed. Additional research could inform state and local efforts to

better support family child care providers. 

■ Family Child Care Providers Serving School-Age Children. Basic descriptive information

on family child care for school-age children is needed. Researchers could determine how

many family child care providers are providing school-age care, compared with care for

children in other age groups. In addition, further research can shed light on whether

providers who serve school-age children more commonly serve mixed-age groups or

exclusively serve school-age children. 

■ Families That Choose Family Child Care for School-Age Children. Research could also

shed light on what selection factors influence families to choose family child care for their

school-age children. A better understanding of why families receiving child care subsidies

are more likely than nonsubsidy families to use family child care settings for school-age

care would help improve policies targeted to this group. 

■ The Strengths of Family Child Care. More information on the strengths of family child

care, as well as on the fit between family child care and school-age groups, mixed-age

groups, and low-income children and families, is needed. Although no one setting is 

best for all school-age children, family child care may provide a valuable alternative 

for some families.

■ Promising Practices. Research on promising practices of family child care providers 

effectively serving school-age care could inform both professional development and 

program assessment. For example, information is needed on what constitutes high-quality

school-age care in a family child care setting and what types of program activities in this

setting best complement student experiences during the school day. (See, for example,

“Lessons Learned from the U.S. Military on Promoting Quality Family Child Care” 

on page 21.)

■ Family, Friend, and Neighbor Care. Relatively little is known about these licenseexempt providers. Although there is a growing body of state-level research in this area,

a better understanding of the scope of school-age children served in these settings

and of how to promote quality in these settings for school-age children is necessary.

20
21

Lessons Learned from the U.S. Military on Promoting

Quality Family Child Care 

In response to reports of poor, unregulated child care for military families, Congress passed the

Military Child Care Act in 1989. Since this act’s passage, the Military Child Development

Program has been cited as a model for systematic quality improvement efforts nationwide. The

military’s model for quality improvement, which includes pay increases, mandatory training, and

standards enforced with unannounced site visits, applies to both child care centers and family

child care homes; one third of children in the military child care system are served in family child

care settings.

Family child care providers certified by the military system participate in local family child care

networks and benefit from pay increases and training opportunities. Training addresses the

unique skill set of family child care providers, including managing a business and creating a child

development environment. While the military family child care system serves children from birth

to age 12, the Army has developed a separate handbook and training course on how to serve

school-age children in family child care settings. A RAND study of the military system found that

quality improvement efforts have been effective and have also helped professionalize the family

child care field and boost the reputation of family child care providers among military families. 

Source: Gail L. Zellman and Anne S. Johansen, Examining the Implementation and Outcomes of the Military Child

Care Act of 1989 (Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, 1998).
22

Conclusion

Family child care homes are part of the diverse landscape of out-of-school time settings.

Although this type of child care is often overlooked in the national dialogue about out-of-school

time programs and activities, a significant number of children, including more than one third of

school-age children receiving federal child care subsidies, are cared for during out-of-school time

in a family child care home. 

This issue brief examined what is known about why parents choose family child care settings for

their school-age children, the challenges that family child care providers often face, and the

strategies that states and communities can use to support these providers. More research is

needed in the field to understand better how different types of policies can most effectively affect

the quality of this care. 
23

Acknowledgements

This issue brief was prepared by Amanda Szekely and Michelle Ganow Jones of The Finance Project

for the Afterschool Investments project, a multiyear technical assistance effort funded by the Child

Care Bureau of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Family Assistance.

Sharon Deich and Vidhya Ananthakrishnan of The Finance Project also provided valuable input 

and guidance.

The authors are especially grateful to the many experts in the field who shared their insights, 

wisdom, and experiences; reviewed drafts of the publication; and helped steer the research in the

right direction. Special thanks are extended to Chris Cross, National Association for Family Child

Care; Nikki Darling-Kuria, family child care provider; Colleen Dyrud, formerly of the Oregon Center

for Career Development in Childhood Care and Education; Sandy Gellert, formerly of the National

Child Care Information Center; Sandy Governor, family child care provider; Katie Hamm, Institute

for Women’s Policy Research; Lee Kreader, National Center for Children in Poverty; Sarah LeMoine,

National Child Care Information Center; Bruce Hirschfield, Child Welfare League of America;

Debbie Moore, National Association for Family Child Care; Kathy Modigliani, Family Child Care

Project; Taryn Morrissey, Department of Human Development, Cornell University; Joe Perreault,

U.S. Army Child and Youth Services; Susan Rohrbaugh, National Child Care Information Center;

Nina Sazer O’Donnell, Families and Work Institute; Linda Smith, National Association of Child

Care Resource and Referral Agencies; and Renee Wehrend, family child care provider. 
24

Resources

Bank Street College of Education. Frequently Asked Questions about Kith and Kin Child

Care. New York, N.Y.: Bank Street College of Education, n.d.

Debord, Karen, and Janet Sawyers. “The Effects of Training on the Quality of Child Care for

Those Associated with and Not Associated with Professional Child Care Organizations.” Child

and Youth Care Forum. Vol. 25, no. 1 (1996).

Fischer, Jan L., and Brenda K. Eheart. “Family Day Care: A Theoretical Basis for Improving

Quality.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 6 (1991).

Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Level Annual Summary

Tables: Child and Adult Care Food Program (Participation, Meals Served, and Costs). Washington,

D.C., data as December 22, 2006.

Fuller, Bruce, et al. “Welfare Reform and Child Care Options for Low-Income Families.” Children

and Welfare Reform. Vol. 12, no. 1 (2002).

Hamm, Katie, and Avis Jones-DeWeever. Family Child Care: Recent Trends and New Directions.

Washington, D.C.: Institute for Women’s Policy Research, October 2004.

Hamm, Katie, Barbara Gault, and Avis Jones-Deweever. In Our Own Backyards: Reviewing Local

and State Strategies to Increase the Quality of Family Child Care. Washington, D.C.: Institute for

Women’s Policy Research, June 2005.

Galinksy, Ellen, et al. The Study of Children in Family Child Care and Relative Care: Highlights of

Findings. New York, N.Y.: Families and Work Institute, 1994. 

Hershfield, Bruce, et al. Family Child Care Networks/Systems: A Model for Expanding Community

Resources. Washington, D.C.: Child Welfare League of America, 2005.

Kontos, Susan, Carrollee Howes, Marybeth Shinn, and Ellen Galinsky. Quality in Family Child

Care and Relative Care. New York, N.Y.: Teachers College Press, 1995.

Larner, Mary. In the Neighborhood: Programs that Strengthen Family Day Care for Low-Income

Families. New York, N.Y.: National Center for Children in Poverty, 1994. 

Layzer, Jean, and Barbara D. Goodson. Care in the Home: A Description of Family Child Care

and the Experiences of the Families and Children Who Use It (Wave 1 Report). Cambridge,

Mass.: Abt Associates, Inc, August 2006.
25

Mensing, James, et al. “Child Care Selection Under Welfare Reform: How Mothers Balance

Work Requirements and Parenting.” Early Education & Development. Vol. 11, 

no. 5 (2000).

Morrissey, Taryn W. Family Child Care in the United States. New York, N.Y.: Child Care and Early

Education Research Connections, March 2007.

National AfterSchool Association. The Benefits of NAA Accreditation. Charlestown, Mass.: National

AfterSchool Association, 2006.

National Association for Family Child Care. Quality Standards for NAFCC Accreditation. 4th ed. Salt

Lake City, Utah: National Association for Family Child Care, 2005.

National Association for Regulatory Administration and National Child Care Information Center. 2005

Child Care Licensing Study. Conyers, Ga.: National Association for Regulatory Administration and

Fairfax, Va.: National Child Care Information Center, December 2006. 

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

Education Surveys of 2005: Afterschool Programs and Activities, 2005. Washington, D.C., 

May 2006.

National Child Care Information Center. Definition of Licensed Family Child Care Homes. Fairfax, Va.:

National Child Care Information Center, April 2006. 

Office of Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Trends in the

Wellbeing of Children and Youth. Washington, D.C., 2003.

Oregon Center for Career Development in Childhood Care and Education. In The Mix: Including

Schoolagers with Younger Children in Your Family Child Care: Suggested Quality Practices and

Provider Tips. Portland, Ore.: Oregon Center for Career Development in Childhood Care and

Education, October 2006.

Overturf Johnson, Julia. Who’s Minding the Kids?—Child Care Arrangements: Winter 2002.

Washington, D.C., U.S. Census Bureau, October 2005.

Porter, Toni, and Shannon M. Kearns. Supporting Family, Friend and Neighbor Caregivers:

Findings from a Survey of State Policies. New York, N.Y.: Institute for a Child Care Continuum,

Division of Continuing Education, Bank Street College of Education, January 2005.
26

Rice, Toni, et al. Doting on Kids: Understanding Quality in Kith and Kin Care. New York,

N.Y.: Institute for a Child Care Continuum, Division of Continuing Education, Bank Street

College of Education, December 2003.

Schumacher, Rachel, Danielle Ewen, Katherine Hart, and Joan Lombardi. All Together Now:

State Experiences in Using Community-Based Child Care to Provide Pre-Kindergarten. Rev.

Washington, D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy and The Children’s Project, February 2005.

Sonenstein, Freya L., Gary Gates, Stefanie R. Schmidt, and Natalya Bolshun. Primary Child Care

Arrangements of Employed Parents: Findings from the 1999 National Survey of America's

Families. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2002. 

Zellman, Gail L., and Anne S. Johansen. Examining the Implementation and Outcomes of the

Military Child Care Act of 1989. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, 1998.

Organizations

Child Welfare League of America, Family Child Care Clearinghouse Project

www.cwla.org/programs/daycare/clearinghouse.htm

Families and Work Institute

www.familiesandwork.org

Institute for Women’s Policy Research

www.iwpr.org

National Association for Family Child Care

www.nafcc.org

National Child Care Information Center

http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov/
Alabama 1–6 Yes, if below age 12 6 7–12 Y 6:1, with no more es, if below age 12

than 2 below age 1

Alaska* 5–8 Yes 8 9–12 Yes 12:1

Arizona* NL (Voluntary Certification) 6–10 (unrelated) No (total not to

exceed 15)

5:1

Arkansas* 6–16 Yes, if preschool-age

or younger

10:1, if none below

age 3; 9:1, if none

below age 2 and

no more than 3

between age 2

and age 3; 8:1, if

no more than 1

below age 2; 

7:1, if no more

than 2 below age 2;

6:1, if no more than

3 below age 2

NC

California* 2–6 (plus 2 SAC) Y 8 Up to 12 (plus 2 SAC) Y es, if below age 10 8:1 es, if below age 10

Colorado* 2–6 (plus 2 SAC) Y 8 7–12 NA es, if below age 12 7:1

Connecticut 1–6 (plus 3 SAC) Y 9 7–12 NA es, if below age 12 4:1 for below age

3; 10:1 for age 3

or older

Delaware* 1–4 (plus 2 SAC) Yes, if preschool-age

or younger

6 7–12 (plus 2 SAC

during school 

closings)

Yes, if preschool-age

or younger

6:1, with max 4

below age 2, with

max 2 below age 1

District of

Columbia 

1–5 Yes, if below age 6 5 NC

Florida 2–10 Y 10, if no more es, if below age 13

than 5 are 

preschool-age,

with no more than

2 below age 1; 

6 preschool-age if

none below age 1;

6, with 3 below

age 1; 4, if all

below age 1

Up to 12 Yes, if below age 13 8:2, if all are birth

to 24 mos.; 12:2, if

no more than 4

are below 24 mos.

Georgia* 3–6 (up to 12

below age 13,

with 6 related to

provider, residents,

or children for whom

no compensation

is received)

3 below age 1; Yes

6 below age 3; 

8 below age 5

7–18 NA 6:1 for below age

1 and below age

18 mos. and not

walking; 8:1 for 

1-yr.-olds who

walk; 10:1 for 

2-yr.-olds; 15:1 for

3-yr.-olds; 18:1 for

ages 4 or older

Appendix A:

Definitions of Licensed Family Child Care Homes by State

State Large Family Child Care Homes Small Family Child Care Homes

Number of

Children Allowed

Provider’s Own

Children Counted

Maximum Number

of Children to One

Provider

Number of

Children Allowed

Provider’s Own

Children Counted

Maximum Number

of Children to One

Provider
Hawaii 3–6 Yes, if below age 6 6 Up to 12 NA 8:1 for ages 2–3;

12:1 for ages 3–5

or older

Idaho * NL (Voluntary license) NL (Voluntary license)

Illinois* 4–8 (plus 4 SAC) Y 8 4–16 Y es, if below age 12 8:1; 12:1, if SAC es, if below age 12

Indiana 6–12 (plus 3 SAC

during vacations)

12 13–16 Yes, if below age 8 Yes, if below age 8 4:1 for infants; 

6:1 for birth to

age 2, with 2 or

more 16 mos. or

older and walking;

10:1 for birth to

age 6, with no

more than 3

below 16 mos.;

12:1 for age 3

Iowa* 6 (plus 2 SAC) Yes, if below

school-age

6 6–12 (plus 2 SAC

and 2 part time)

Yes, if below

school-age

3:1 for below 18

mos.; 8:1, with no

more than 4

below age 2 and

no more than 3

below 18 mos.

Kansas* 1–6 (must be 

registered)

6 7–12 (plus 4 SAC) Y Yes, if below age 12 See notes es, if below age 11

7–10 (6 preschool

4 SAC)

See notes Yes, if below age 11

Kentucky 4–6 (plus 4 children

related to provider)

6 7–12 Yes, if care is Yes, if below age 6

provided to them

5:1 for below age 1;

6:1 for ages 1–2-;

10:1 for ages 2–3;

12:1 for ages 3–4;

14:1 for ages 4–5;

15:1 for ages 5–7

Louisiana NL (Voluntary registration) NL

Maine 3–12 (up to 8 

preschool-age 

and 2 SAC, unless

all SAC)

4 below 30 mos.; No

8 above age 2.5

plus 2 SAC; 

6, with no more

than 3 below age

2.5 plus 2 SAC; 

12 SAC

NC

Maryland 1–8 Yes, if below age 6 8 NC

Massachusetts* 1–6 Yes, if below age

10 and present

more than 3 hrs

6 7–10 Yes, if below age

10 and present

more than 3 hrs

6:1, with no more

than 3 below age

2, no more than 2

below 15 mos.

Appendix A:

Definitions of Licensed Family Child Care Homes by State (continued)

State Large Family Child Care Homes Small Family Child Care Homes

Number of

Children Allowed

Provider’s Own

Children Counted

Maximum Number

of Children to One

Provider

Number of

Children Allowed

Provider’s Own

Children Counted

Maximum Number

of Children to One

Provider
Michigan 1–6 Yes, if below age 7 6 7–12 Yes, if below age 7 6:1

Minnesota 2–6 (plus 4 SAC ) Y 10, if 6 below es, if below age 11

kindergarten-age,

with no more than

3 below 24 mos.

and no more than

2 below age 1

up to 14 Yes, if below age 11 10:1, with 8 below

kindergarten-age,

no more than 3

below 24 mos.,

and no more than

2 below age 1;

12:1, with 10

below kindergartenage, no more than

2 below 24 mos.,

and no more than

1 below age 1

Mississippi 6–12 No 4:1 for below age

1; 8:1 for age 1;

12:1 for age 2;

14:1 for age 3;

16:1 for age 4;

20:1 for ages 5–9;

25:1 for ages 10–12

NL (Voluntary registration)

Missouri 5–10 No 10, if 2 below age

2; 6, if 3 below

age 2; 4, if all

below age 2

11–20 No 4:1 for birth to 

age 2; 8:1 for age 2;

10:1 for ages 3–4;

16:1 for ages 5 

or older

10:1 for mixed

ages above age 2;

8:1, with more

than 4 2-yr.-olds

Montana* 3–6 Yes, if below age 6 6 7–12 Yes, if below age 6 6:1; 4:1 for infants

Nebraska* 4–8 (plus 2 SAC) Yes, if below age 8 10, if 2 SAC 

during non-school

hours

Up to 12 Yes, if below age 8 10:1, if no young

preschoolers;

12:1, if all SAC

Nevada 5–6 (plus 3 SAC) No, but additional

SAC includes

provider’s own

children, if below

age 10

9, if 3 SAC 7–12 (plus 3 SAC) No, but additional

SAC includes

provider’s own

children, if below

age 10

6:1, with no more

than 4 below age

2 and no more

than 2 below age 1

New Hampshire 4–6 (plus 3 SAC) Y 6 preschool-age es, if below age 10

and 3 SAC, with

no more than 4

below age 3 and

no more than 2

below 24 mos.; 

5 preschool-age

and 3 SAC, with

no more than 4

below age 3 and

no more than 2

below age 2; 

4 below age 3 

7–12 (plus 5 SAC) Y 17:2 (includes 5 es, if below age 10

SAC), with no more

than 4 below age 3

State Large Family Child Care Homes Small Family Child Care Homes

Number of

Children Allowed

Provider’s Own

Children Counted

Maximum Number

of Children to One

Provider

Number of

Children Allowed

Provider’s Own

Children Counted

Maximum Number

of Children to One

Provider
New Jersey NL (Voluntary certification) NL

New Mexico 5–6 Yes, if below age 6 6 7–12 Yes, if below age 6 6:1, with no more

than 2 below age 2

New York* 3–6 (plus 2 SAC) Yes, if not yet

enrolled in 

kindergarten or

higher grade

6, if none is below

age 2; 5, if one or

more are below

age 2

7–12 (plus 2 SAC) Yes, if not yet

enrolled in 

kindergarten or

higher grade

6:1; 2:1 below age 2

North Carolina 3–5 (plus 3 SAC) Yes, if preschoolage or younger

8, with no more

than 5 preschoolage or younger

NC

North Dakota* 4–7 (plus 2 SAC 2

hrs before and

after school and

during school

vacations)

9, if 2 are limited Yes, if below age 12

SAC; 4, if all are

below age 2

8–18 NA 4:1 for below age 2;

5:1 for ages 2–3; 

7:1 for ages 3–4;

10:1 for ages 4–5;

12:1 for ages 5–6;

18:1 for ages 6–12

Ohio NL 7–12; or 4–12, if 4

or more are below

age 2

6:1 Yes, if below age 6

Oklahoma 1–7 Yes, if below age 5 5 for any age; 6,

with no more than

3 below age 2; 7,

with no more than

2 below age 2

8–12 Yes, if below age 5 5:1 for any age; 

6:1, with no more

than 3 below age 2;

7:1, with no more

than 2 below age 2;

7:1, if all are age 2

or older; 8:1, if all

are age 3 or older;

10:1, if all are age 4

or older; 12:1, if all

are age 5 or older

Oregon 4–10 (plus 4 SAC) Y 10 7–10; or up to 12, es, if below age 13

if all are age 5 or

older

8:1, with 1 below Yes, if below age 13

24 mos.; 7:1, with 2

below 24 mos.; 

6:1, with 3 below

age 24 mos.; 

4:1, with all below

24 mos.

Pennsylvania* 4–6 Yes, if infant or

toddler

6 7–12 (plus 3 SAC) Yes See notes

Rhode Island 4–8 Yes, if below age

6, or if more than

2 are below age

12 and present

more than 3 hrs

6 below age 6,

with no child

below 18 mos.; 

4 below age 6,

with no more than

2 below 18 mos.

9–12 Yes, if below age

6, or if more than

2 are below age

12 and are present

more than 3 hrs

4:1 for below age

2; 6:1 for age 2 or

older

Appendix A:

Definitions of Licensed Family Child Care Homes by State (continued)

State Large Family Child Care Homes Small Family Child Care Homes

Number of

Children Allowed

Provider’s Own

Children Counted

Maximum Number

of Children to One

Provider

Number of

Children Allowed

Provider’s Own

Children Counted

Maximum Number

of Children to One

Provider
State Large Family Child Care Homes Small Family Child Care Homes

Number of

Children Allowed

Provider’s Own

Children Counted

Maximum Number

of Children to One

Provider

Number of

Children Allowed

Provider’s Own

Children Counted

Maximum Number

of Children to One

Provider

South Carolina 2–6 Yes, if below age 12 6 7–12 Y 8:1, with no more es, if below age 10

than 3 below age 2

South Dakota NL (Voluntary registration) 13–20 (plus 3 SAC) Yes 5:1 for birth to

age 3; 10:1 for

ages 3–6; 15:1 f

or age 6 or older

Tennessee 5–7 (plus 5 

children related to

the provider)

7 8–12 (plus 3 SAC) Yes, if below age 9 Yes, if below age 9 12:1 for age 3 or

older; 15:1 for age

3 or older, with at

least 3 SAC

Texas* 4–6 (plus 6 SAC) Y 12 Up to 12 Yes, if below age 14 es, if below age 14 See notes

Utah* 5–8 Yes, if below age 4 8 9–16 Y 8:1, with no more es, if below age 12

than 2 below age

2; 12:1 for SAC

Vermont* 3–6 (plus 4 SAC) Yes, if below age 2 10, with 4 SAC NC

3–12 Yes, if preschoolage or younger, or

if homebound

3:1 for below age 3;

6:1, with no more

than 2 below age 2

NC

Virginia* NL (Voluntary registration) 6–12 See notes Yes, if below age 8

Washington* 1–12 Y See notes NC es, if below age 12

West Virginia 4–6 Yes, if below age 6 6 7–12 Yes, if below age 6 6:1, with no more

than 2 infants

Wisconsin* 4–8 Yes, if below age 7 8 NC

Wyoming 3–10 Yes, if preschoolage or younger

10 Up to 15 Yes, if preschoolage or younger2:1 for birth to

age 1; 8:1 for age

2 or older

Note: *For more information, see http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/cclicensingreq/definition-fcc.html (HTML) or

http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/cclicensingreq/definition-fcc.pdf (PDF).

Source: National Child Care Information Center, Definition of Licensed Family Child Care Homes (Fairfax, Va.: National

Child Care Information Center, April 2006), available at: http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/cclicensingreq/definition-fcc.html

and at: http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/cclicensingreq/definition-fcc.pdf. The National Child Care Information Center is

a service of the U.S. Child Care Bureau.

Key: 

NA = Not Addressed in Regulations NC = No Category 

NL = Not Licensed/License Not Required SAC = School-Age Children 
Appendix B:

Licensed Family Child Care Homes and Licensed Family Child Care 

Capacity by State, 2005†

State Small Family Child Care Homes

Number Number Capacity Capacity

Total Family

Child Care

Capacity

Large Family Child Care Homes Total Number of

Licensed Family

Child Care Homes

Alabama 1,272 450 7,632 5,400 13,032 1,722

Alaska* 239 85 1,818 926 2,744 324

Arizona* 15 356 73 4,726 4,799 371

Arkansas* 987 NC 11,043 NC 11,043 987

California* 37,820 6,674 302,560 93,436 395,996 44,494

Colorado* 4,072 209 30,833 2,029 32,862 4,281

Connecticut 3,023 55 26,895 648 27,543 3,078

Delaware* 1,556 58 12,201 704 12,905 1,614

District of

Columbia 

237 NC 1,139 NC 1,139 237

Florida 2,224 185 20,961 2,205 23,166 2,409

Georgia* 6,736 See notes 40,260 8,646 48,906 6,736

Hawaii 456 6 2,508 72 2,580 462

Idaho * NL NL NL NL NL NL

Illinois* 10,286 357 72,733 4,079 76,812 10,643

Indiana 2,803 308 37,344 See notes 37,344 3,111

Iowa* 2,754 3,439 22,002 156,292 178,294 6,193

Kansas* 2,735 4,581 15,932 45,288 61,220 7,316

Kentucky 1,029 NC NR NC NR 1,029

Louisiana NL NL NL NL NL NL

Maine 1,789 NC See notes NC See notes 1,789

Maryland 9,775 NC 70,789 NC 70,789 9,775

Massachusetts* 6,081 3,322 33,241 27,467 60,708 9,403

Michigan 9,979 3,736 59,247 44,606 103,853 13,715

Minnesota 3,070 10,015 30,080 118,618 148,698 13,085

Mississippi 35 91 392 2,047 2,439 126

Missouri 1,853 216 18,212 4,224 22,436 2,069

Montana* 663 478 3,795 5,571 9,366 1,141

Nebraska* 2,470 596 24,227 7,093 31,320 3,066

Nevada 500 24 NR NR NR 524

New Hampshire 230 129 1,809 1,865 3,674 359
State Small Family Child Care Homes

Number Number Capacity Capacity

Total Family

Child Care

Capacity

Large Family Child Care Homes Total Number of

Licensed Family

Child Care Homes

New Jersey NL NL NL NL NL NL

New Mexico 206 214 1,255 2,471 3,726 420

New York* 8,321 3,772 71,814 60,414 132,228 12,093

North Carolina 4,671 NC 33,348 NC 33,348 4,671

North Dakota* 480 835 3,418 11,238 14,656 1,315

Ohio NL 154 NL NR NR 154

Oklahoma 3,172 1,153 22,122 13,740 35,862 4,325

Oregon 4,425 267 44,250 3,143 47,393 4,692

Pennsylvania* 4,377 820 26,262 9,840 36,102 5,197

Rhode Island 1,303 11 8,304 127 8,431 1,314

South Carolina 19 284 114 3,377 3,491 303

South Dakota NL 92 NL 1,795 1,795 92

Tennessee 805 663 5,633 8,853 14,486 1,468

Texas* 8,422 1,732 50,532 20,667 71,199 10,154

Utah* 2,102 240 14,592 3,547 18,139 2,342

Vermont* 1,244 NC NR NR NR 1,244

Virginia* NL 1,678 NL 18,470 18,470 1,678

Washington* 6,280 NC 57,044 NC 57,044 6,280

West Virginia 2,341 86 9,364 1,032 10,396 2,427

Wisconsin* 3,192 NC 25,460 NC 25,460 3,192

Wyoming 465 81 4,620 1,125 5,745 546

TOTAL 166,514 47,452 1,225,858 695,781 1,921,639 213,966

Notes: † Capacity is defined as the maximum number of children a licensed program is allowed to have in care at

one time. The data reported in this table is the total capacity for all licensed facilities in each state.

* For more information, see

www.nara.affiniscape.com/associations/4734/files/Number%20of%20Licensed%20Programs%202005.pdf0Programs%2

02005.pdf and www.nara.affiniscape.com/associations/4734/files/Licensed%20Capacity_2005.pdf.pdf.

Source: National Association for Regulatory Administration and National Child Care Information Center, 2005 Child

Care Licensing Study (Conyers, Ga.: National Association for Regulatory Administration and Fairfax, Va.: National

Child Care Information Center, December 2006), available at:

www.nara.affiniscape.com/associations/4734/files/Number%20of%20Licensed%20Programs%202005.pdf0Programs%2

02005.pdf and at: www.nara.affiniscape.com/associations/4734/files/Licensed%20Capacity_2005.pdf.pdf.

Key: 

NC = No Category of Facility NL = Facility Not Licensed NR = No Response
Appendix C:

School-Age Children Who Are Receiving Federal Child Care Subsidies and

Being Served in Family Child Care Settings by State, Fiscal 2004

Family Child 

Care Home*

State2

Alabama 7% 12% 5% 88% 0%

Alaska 30% 35% 5% 61% 3%

Arizona 20% 27% 7% 69% 4%

Arkansas 21% 21% 0% 77% 1%

California 37% 47% 10% 46% 7%

Colorado 34% 34% 0% 59% 7%

Connecticut 31% 31% 0% 25% 44%

Delaware 36% 38% 2% 59% 4%

District of

Columbia 

3% 3% 0% 97% 0%

Florida 9% 9% 0% 88% 3%

Georgia 15% 16% 2% 83% 1%

Hawaii 64% 64% 0% 20% 15%

Idaho 39% 53% 14% 44% 2%

Illinois 42% 42% 1% 22% 36%

Indiana 45% 45% 0% 54% 1%

Iowa 59% 67% 8% 32% 1%

Kansas 21% 59% 38% 30% 12%

Kentucky 30% 32% 2% 68% 0%

Louisiana 11% 11% 0% 62% 26%

Maine 51% 51% 0% 47% 3%

Maryland 45% 45% 0% 39% 16%

Massachusetts 8% 20% 12% 73% 7%

Michigan 47% 54% 7% 11% 35%

Minnesota 56% 56% 0% 32% 12%

Mississippi 21% 23% 2% 73% 4%

Missouri 50% 52% 2% 45% 3%

Montana 26% 57% 31% 40% 3%

Nebraska 41% 49% 8% 51% 0%

Nevada 5% 6% 0% 84% 10%

New Hampshire 31% 31% 0% 60% 10%

Group Family Child

Care Home**

Total Percentage in

Family Child Care

Percentage in 

Child Care Center

Percentage in 

Care in Own Home

1
State

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

New York

North Carolina 

North Dakota

Ohio 

Oklahoma

Oregon 

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island 

South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Tennessee 

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia 

Wisconsin

Wyoming3

NATIONAL

Family Child 

Care Home*

Group Family Child

Care Home**

Total Percentage in

Family Child Care

Percentage in 

Child Care Center

Percentage in 

Care in Own Home

25% 25% 0% 71% 4%

54% 59% 5% 39% 2%

42% 48% 6% 30% 22%

19% 19% 0% 80% 0%

44% 73% 29% 27% 0%

45% 46% 1% 54% 0%

2% 2% 0% 98% 0%

83% 85% 2% 15% 0%

35% 38% 3% 44% 18%

29% 29% 0% 70% 1%

19% 21% 3% 71% 7%

14% 17% 4% 78% 5%

14% 17% 3% 73% 11%

46% 52% 6% 38% 10%

52% 53% 1% 41% 6%

36% 36% 0% 60% 4%

35% 35% 0% 44% 21%

48% 51% 3% 49% 0%

38% 38% 0% 61% 0%

50% 62% 12% 24% 14%

31% 35% 4% 55% 11%

Notes: *Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) regulations define a family child care home provider as “one

individual who provides child care services for fewer than 24 hours per day per child, as the sole caregiver, in a private

residence other than the child’s residence, unless care in excess of 24 hours is due to the nature of the parent(s)’ work.” 

**CCDF regulations define a group child care home provider as “two or more individuals who provide child care

services for fewer than 24 hours per day per child, in a private residence other than the child’s residence, unless care

in excess of 24 hours is due to the nature of the parent(s)’ work.”

1 Children served in more than one setting were scored or counted in proportion to the number of monthly hours in

each setting. Therefore, a child who received 30 hours of care in one setting and 70 hours of care in another setting

was scored as 0.3-children in one setting and 0.7-children in the other setting. Results were based on the full 

population data where available. (The Child Care Bureau Information System database was utilized as of 

January 31, 2006). Percentages are based only on school-age children with valid data. 

2 This table reflects only the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

3 Wyoming did not accurately report the setting data for a high percentage of its children served.

Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “ACF-801 for 

FFY 2004” (Washington, D.C.).


Contact us:

email afterschool@financeproject.org

web http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov/afterschool/ 

The Finance Project

1401 New York Ave., NW 

Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20005 

phone 202 628 4200 

web www.financeproject.org

National Governors Association

Center for Best Practices

444 North Capitol, NW

Washington, DC 20001-1512

phone 202 624 5300

web www.nga.org

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children and Families

Child Care Bureau