(571)

SECTION 9. CHILD CARE

CONTENTS

Introduction

Employment and Marital Status of Mothers

Child Care Arrangements Used by Working Mothers

Child Care Costs

Supply and Characteristics of Child Care Providers

Supply of Providers

Wages of Child Care Center Staff

Staff Turnover

Employing Welfare Recipients as Child Care Workers

Child Care Standards and Quality

Regulation and Licensing

Research on Child Care Quality

The Federal Role

Background and Overview

Major Day Care Programs

Child Care and Development Block Grant

Child Care Tables

Child Care and Development Fund

Families and Children Served, Type of Care, and Payment

Type

State Income Eligibility Limits

Trends in Child Care Expenditures

State CCDF Allocations

References

INTRODUCTION

Child care is an issue of significant public interest for several

reasons. The dramatic increase in the labor force participation of

mothers is the most important factor affecting the demand for child

care in the last quarter century. Currently, in a majority of American families with children—even those with very young children—

the mother is in the paid labor force. Similarly, an increasingly significant trend affecting the demand for child care is the proportion

of mothers who are the sole or primary financial supporters of their

children, either because of divorce or because they never married.

In addition, child care has been a significant issue in recent debates over how to move welfare recipients toward employment and

self-sufficiency; mothers on welfare may have difficulty entering

the labor force because of child care problems. Finally, the impact

of child care on the children themselves is an issue of considerable

interest, with ongoing discussion of whether low-income children

benefit from participation in programs with an early childhood development focus.

572

Concerns that child care may be in short supply, not of good

enough quality, or too expensive for many families escalated during

the late 1980s into a national debate over the nature and extent

of the Nation’s child care problems and what, if any, Federal interventions would be appropriate. The debate culminated in the enactment of legislation in 1990 that expanded Federal support for child

care by establishing two new State child care grant programs. The

programs—the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG)

and the At-Risk Child Care Program—were enacted as part of the

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–508).

These programs were preceded by enactment of a major welfare reform initiative, the Family Support Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–

485), which authorized expanded child care assistance for welfare

families and families leaving welfare. In 1996, as part of welfare

reform legislation (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, Public Law 104–193), these programs

were consolidated into an expanded Child Care and Development

Block Grant (sometimes referred to as the Child Care and Development Fund), which provides increased Federal funding and serves

both low-income working families and families attempting to transition off welfare through work.

This chapter provides background information on the major indicators of the demand for and supply of child care, the role of standards and quality in child care, a summary description of the major

Federal programs that fund child care services, and reported data

from the largest of those sources of funding, the Child Care and

Development Fund (CCDF).

EMPLOYMENT AND MARITAL STATUS OF MOTHERS

The dramatic increase in the labor force participation of mothers

is commonly regarded as the most significant factor fueling the increased demand for child care services. A person is defined as participating in the labor force if she is working or seeking work. As

shown in table 9–1, in 1947, just following World War II, slightly

over one-fourth of all mothers with children between the ages of 6

and 17 were in the labor force. By contrast, in 1999 over threequarters of such mothers were labor force participants. The increased labor force participation of mothers with younger children

has also been dramatic. In 1947, it was unusual to find mothers

with a preschool-age child in the labor force—only about 12 percent

of mothers with children under the age of 6 were in the labor force.

But in 1999, over 64 percent of mothers with preschool-age children were in the labor force, a rate more than 5 times higher than

in 1947. Women with infant children have become increasingly engaged in the labor market as well. Today, 60 percent of all mothers

whose youngest child is under age 2 are in the labor market, while

in 1975 less than one-third of all such mothers were labor force

participants.

The rise in the number of female-headed families has also contributed to increased demand for child care services. Single mothers maintain a greater share of all families with children today

than in the past. Census data show that in 1970, 11 percent of

families with children were headed by a single mother, compared

with 26 percent of families with children in 1998. While the numVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00572 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.009 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
573

ber of two-parent families with children did not fluctuate much between 1970 and 1998 (25.8 and 25.7 million respectively), the number of female-headed families with children almost tripled, increasing from 3.4 million families in 1970 to 9.8 million in 1998. These

families headed by mothers were a major source of growth in the

demand for child care.

TABLE 9–1.—LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES OF WOMEN, BY PRESENCE AND AGE

OF YOUNGEST CHILD, SELECTED YEARS, 1947–99

No children

under 18

With children under age 18

Total Age 6–

17 only

Under age 6

Total Under 3 Under 2

April 1947 ........................ 29.8 18.6 27.3 12.0 NA NA

April 1950 ........................ 31.4 21.6 32.8 13.6 NA NA

April 1955 ........................ 33.9 27.0 38.4 18.2 NA NA

March 1960 ..................... 35.0 30.4 42.5 20.2 NA NA

March 1965 ..................... 36.5 35.0 45.7 25.3 21.4 NA

March 1970 ..................... 42.8 42.4 51.6 32.2 27.3 NA

March 1975 ..................... 45.1 47.3 54.8 38.8 34.1 31.5

March 1980 ..................... 48.1 56.6 64.3 46.8 41.9 39.2

March 1985 ..................... 50.4 62.1 69.9 53.5 49.5 48.0

March 1986 ..................... 50.5 62.8 70.4 54.4 50.8 49.2

March 1987 ..................... 50.5 64.7 72.0 56.7 52.9 51.9

March 1988 ..................... 51.2 65.0 73.3 56.1 52.5 50.8

March 1989 ..................... 51.9 65.7 74.2 56.7 52.4 51.7

March 1990 ..................... 52.3 66.7 74.7 58.2 53.6 52.1

March 1991 ..................... 52.0 66.6 74.4 58.4 54.5 53.8

March 1992 ..................... 52.3 67.2 75.9 58.0 54.5 54.3

March 1993 ..................... 52.1 66.9 75.4 57.9 53.9 54.2

March 1994 ..................... 53.1 68.4 76.0 60.3 57.1 1 56.7

March 1995 ..................... 52.9 69.7 76.4 62.3 58.7 1 57.9

March 1996 ..................... 53.0 70.2 77.2 62.3 59.0 57.9

March 1997 ..................... 53.6 72.1 78.1 65.0 61.8 59.9

March 1998 ..................... 54.1 72.3 78.4 65.2 62.2 62.1

March 1999 ..................... 54.3 72.1 78.5 64.4 60.7 60.6

1 Includes mothers in the Armed Forces.

NA—Not available.

Note.—Data for 1994 and beyond are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and earlier years

because of introduction of a major redesign in the Current Population Survey (household survey) questionnaire and collection methodology and the introduction of 1990 census-based population controls, adjusted

for the estimated undercount (Polivka & Rothgeb, 1993).

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Mothers’ attachment to the labor force differs depending on the

age of their youngest child and marital status, as tables 9–2 and

9–3 show. Table 9–2 exhibits the labor force participation rates of

various demographic groups of mothers with youngest child over or

under age 6. The table provides graphic evidence of the exploding

rate of working mothers, especially working mothers with preschool

children.

TABLE 9–2.—LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES OF WOMEN WITH CHILDREN, BY MARITAL STATUS AND AGE OF YOUNGEST CHILD, SELEC

YEARS, 1970–99

1970 1980 1987 1988 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Married women:

Youngest under 6 ............... 30.3 45.0 56.8 57.1 58.9 59.9 59.6 61.7 63.5 62.7 63.3 63.7 61.8 Youngest 6 or older ............ 49.2 61.8 70.6 72.5 73.6 75.4 74.9 76.0 76.2 76.7 77.6 76.8 77.1 

Separated women:

Youngest under 6 ............... 45.4 52.2 55.1 53.0 59.3 55.7 52.1 59.2 59.3 63.1 70.2 70.7 75.7 Youngest 6 or older ............ 60.6 66.6 72.6 69.3 75.0 71.6 71.6 70.7 71.5 73.3 76.1 79.6 78.5 

Divorced women:

Youngest under 6 ............... 63.3 68.3 70.5 70.1 69.8 65.9 68.1 67.5 73.3 76.5 78.7 74.7 80.5 Youngest 6 or older ............ 82.4 82.3 84.5 83.9 85.9 85.9 83.6 84.9 85.2 85.5 85.1 85.5 85.0 

Never-married women:

Youngest under 6 ............... NA 44.1 49.9 44.7 48.7 45.8 47.4 52.2 53.0 55.1 65.1 66.3 68.1 Youngest 6 or older ............ NA 67.6 64.1 67.1 69.7 67.2 70.2 67.5 67.0 71.8 74.0 81.2 82.7 

All women .................. 1 52.9 56.6 64.7 65.0 66.7 67.2 66.9 68.4 69.7 70.2 72.1 72.3 72.1 

1 Excludes never-married women.

NA—Not available.Note.—Data for 1994 and beyond are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and earlier years because of introduction of a major redesign in the Current Populat

(household survey) questionnaire and collection methodology and the introduction of 1990 census-based population controls, adjusted for the estimated undercount (Rothgeb, 1993).

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

575

TABLE 9–3.—LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES OF WOMEN WITH CHILDREN UNDER

18, BY MARITAL STATUS AND AGE OF YOUNGEST CHILD, MARCH 1999

Marital status

Age of youngest child

Under

3

Under

6

Under

18 3–5 6–13 6–17 14–17

Married, spouse present ............. 59.2 61.8 70.1 63.5 76.4 77.1 78.7

Divorced ...................................... 81.5 80.5 84.0 80.5 86.3 85.0 82.2

Separated .................................... 69.3 75.7 77.3 80.4 77.8 78.5 80.6

Widowed ...................................... 48.1 50.4 63.1 51.8 67.2 65.5 62.5

Never married ............................. 62.3 68.1 73.4 77.5 84.0 82.7 76.0

All women with children

under 18 ........................ 60.7 64.4 72.1 69.5 78.3 78.5 78.9

Note.—Labor force participation rates include nonworking mothers who are actively looking for work.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Table 9–3 provides a detailed breakdown of the labor force participation of women for March 1999 by marital status and the age

of the youngest child. Among those with children under 18, divorced women have the highest labor force participation rate (84.0

percent), followed by separated women (77.3 percent). The labor

force participation rate for never-married mothers with children

under 18 grew to over 73 percent in 1999, a 21 percent increase

over the 1996 rate. In 1996, never-married mothers trailed all

other marital status groups (with children under 18) in labor force

participation, but by 1999, the participation rate for never-married

mothers surpassed married women (70 percent) and widowed

mothers (63 percent).

As table 9–3 illustrates, labor force participation rates tend to increase regardless of the marital status of the mother as the age of

the youngest child increases. Among all women with children

under 18, 61 percent of those with a child under 3 participate, 70

percent of those whose youngest child is between 3 and 5 participate, and 79 percent of those whose youngest child is between 14

and 17 participate.

While there has been a substantial increase in the proportion of

mothers in the labor force, the data can be misleading without examining employment status. Although 72 percent of mothers participated in the labor force in 1999, table 9–4 shows 50 percent

worked full time and 18 percent worked part time (less than 35

hours per week). Therefore, in 1999, about 30 percent of mothers

were actively looking for work, but not employed. Forty-one percent

of mothers with children under age 6 worked full time, and 19 percent worked part time.

Table 9–4 reveals that how much mothers’ work differs according

to their marital status and the age of their children. It also indicates that changes have occurred between 1996 and 1999. The 1996

welfare reform law’s new emphasis on work is likely to have affected the employment status of the never-married mother subgroup most significantly, and that is reflected in the table. Overall,

the percent of all mothers (with children under 18) employed full

576

time grew from slightly over 47 percent in 1996 to just over 50 percent in 1999. Within the subgroup of never-married mothers, the

3 year period was accompanied by a larger increase in full-time

employment. In 1996, about 35 percent of never-married mothers

with children under 18 were employed full time. By 1999, the figure had increased to over 48 percent. The percent of never-married

mothers working full time with children under age 6 had grown

comparably, increasing from almost 29 percent in 1996 to over 41

percent in 1999. Within the divorced mothers subgroup, there were

increases between the years, but the differences are not nearly as

large as within the never-married subgroup. In 1999, the percent

of all divorced mothers employed full time with children under 18

had reached almost 69 percent, a 2 percentage point increase since

1996. For those with children under 6, over 60 percent worked full

time in 1999. The employment status of married mothers is shown

to have changed little or not at all since 1996, depending on fullor part-time status, and age of children.

TABLE 9–4.—PERCENT OF MOTHERS BY FULL- OR PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT STATUS,

MARCH 1996 1 and 1999

Marital status

With children under 18 With children under 6

1996 1999 1996 1999

Married, spouse present:

Employed full time ........................... 46.3 48.0 39.4 39.4

Employed part time .......................... 21.3 20.0 20.9 20.2

Divorced:

Employed full time ........................... 66.2 68.5 56.5 60.6

Employed part time .......................... 12.6 11.9 12.9 13.3

Never married:

Employed full time ........................... 35.5 48.6 28.8 41.4

Employed part time .......................... 13.8 16.1 15.1 17.5

All mothers:

Employed full time .................. 47.5 50.4 39.0 41.1

Employed part time ................. 19.0 18.4 19.1 19.3

1 Full-time workers work 35 hours or more per week.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS USED BY WORKING

MOTHERS

Data are collected periodically by the U.S. Census Bureau on the

types of child care arrangements used by families with working

mothers. The most recent U.S. Census Bureau statistics available

on child care arrangements are based on data collected by the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) for the fall of 1995

(although the Census Bureau has not published a report with these

data, the data are available on their Website at www.census.gov/

DES/www/welcome.htm). Because the interview questions obtain

information about both paid and unpaid substitute care used while

the mother works, it provides information on categories of care that

577

generally are not considered child care, such as care provided by

the father, or care by a sibling.

The 1995 data indicate that the types of child care arrangements

used by families while the mother works vary depending on the age

of the child, as well as the mother’s work schedule (full- or parttime), marital status, and family income. Table 9–5 shows the distribution of primary child care arrangements provided for preschoolers (children under age 5), by marital status and mother’s

work schedule. In the 1995 SIPP survey, parents were asked to estimate the number of hours a child spends in any of several care

arrangements during a week, rather than to identify the child’s

‘‘primary’’ care arrangement while the mother worked. In tables 9–

5 and 9–6, the primary child care arrangement is based on the arrangement in which a child spends the most hours in a typical

week. In the case of a child who spends equal time between arrangements, the child would have more than one primary arrangement.

TABLE 9–5.—PRIMARY CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS OF CHILDREN UNDER 5 WITH AN

EMPLOYED MOTHER, BY MARITAL AND EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF THE MOTHER, FALL

1995

[In percent]

Type of arrangement

Mothers with children under 5 years

Total Employed full

time

Employed part

time

All marital statuses

Care in child’s home:

By grandparent ................................. 5.9 5.4 6.5

By sibling age 15 or older ............... 0.7 0.5 1.1

By sibling under age 15 ................... 0.3 0.3 0.3

By other relative ............................... 1.5 2.3 3.1

By nonrelative ................................... 5.0 4.6 5.4

Total ......................................... 13.5 13.1 16.4

Care in another home:

By grandparent ................................. 10.0 9.1 11.1

By other relative ............................... 2.9 3.0 2.4

By family day care provider 1 ........... 15.7 18.9 9.6

By nonrelative ................................... 7.9 9.0 5.8

Total ......................................... 36.5 40.1 29.0

Organized child care facility:

Day/group care center ...................... 17.8 20.2 13.1

Nursery school/preschool .................. 5.9 6.3 5.2

Kindergarten/grade school ................ 0.7 0.6 0.7

Head Start Program .......................... 1.5 1.4 1.6

Total ......................................... 25.8 28.5 20.8

Parental care:

By father ........................................... 16.6 12.8 22.7

578

TABLE 9–5.—PRIMARY CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS OF CHILDREN UNDER 5 WITH AN

EMPLOYED MOTHER, BY MARITAL AND EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF THE MOTHER, FALL

1995—Continued

[In percent]

Type of arrangement

Mothers with children under 5 years

Total Employed full

time

Employed part

time

By mother at work 2 .......................... 5.4 3.6 8.3

Child cares for self ........................... 0.1 0.1 0.0

Total ......................................... 22.1 16.6 31.0

Total children of employed

mothers (in thousands) ....... 10,022 6,336 3,601

Married, husband present

Care in child’s home:

By grandparent ................................. 5.0 5.1 4.6

By sibling age 15 or older ............... 0.7 0.6 0.9

By sibling under age 15 ................... 0.3 0.3 0.4

By other relative ............................... 1.0 0.8 1.4

By nonrelative ................................... 5.9 5.3 6.9

Total ......................................... 13.0 12.1 14.2

Care in another home:

By grandparent ................................. 9.3 8.5 10.6

By other relative ............................... 2.8 2.8 2.6

By family day care provider ............. 16.3 20.6 9.3

By nonrelative 1 ................................. 7.2 8.1 5.7

Total ......................................... 35.6 40.1 28.2

Organized child care facility:

Day/group care center ...................... 16.7 19.6 11.9

Nursery school/preschool .................. 5.9 6.4 5.1

Kindergarten/grade school ................ 0.5 0.4 0.6

Head Start Program .......................... 0.7 0.5 1.0

Total ......................................... 23.7 26.9 18.7

Parental care:

By father ........................................... 18.8 14.7 25.5

By mother at work 2 .......................... 6.3 4.2 9.9

Child cares for self ........................... 0.1 0.1 0.0

Total ......................................... 25.2 19.0 35.4

Total children of employed

mothers (in thousands) ....... 7,582 4,702 2,809

All other marital statuses 3

Care in child’s home:

By grandparent ................................. 8.4 6.2 12.9

579

TABLE 9–5.—PRIMARY CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS OF CHILDREN UNDER 5 WITH AN

EMPLOYED MOTHER, BY MARITAL AND EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF THE MOTHER, FALL

1995—Continued

[In percent]

Type of arrangement

Mothers with children under 5 years

Total Employed full

time

Employed part

time

By sibling age 15 or older ............... 0.8 0.3 1.8

By sibling under age 15 ................... 0.3 0.5 0.0

By other relative ............................... 3.0 3.1 2.9

By nonrelative ................................... 2.2 2.8 1.1

Total ......................................... 14.8 12.9 18.7

Care in another home:

By grandparent ................................. 12.0 11.1 13.3

By other relative ............................... 3.1 3.6 2.1

By family day care provider 1 ........... 14.0 15.0 11.4

By nonrelative ................................... 9.9 11.7 6.5

Total ......................................... 39.0 41.5 33.2

Organized child care facility:

Day/group care center ...................... 20.9 22.5 17.9

Nursery school/preschool .................. 6.1 6.2 5.9

Kindergarten/grade school ................ 1.2 1.1 1.3

Head Start Program .......................... 3.9 4.0 3.7

Total ......................................... 32.0 33.9 28.8

Parental care:

By father ........................................... 10.3 8.1 14.9

By mother at work 2 .......................... 2.8 2.3 3.7

Child cares for self ........................... 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ......................................... 13.1 10.4 18.6

Total children of employed

mothers (in thousands) ....... 2,368 1,627 741

1 Family day care providers provide care outside the home for more than one child.

2 Includes women working at home or away from home.

3 Includes married, husband absent (including separated), widowed, divorced, and never-married

women.

Source: Survey of Income and Program Participation, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Table 9–5 shows that over 36 percent of families of preschoolers

with working mothers in 1995 primarily relied on care in another

home by a relative, family day care provider, or other nonrelative,

compared to almost 26 percent of families whose primary arrangement was an organized child care facility. These data mark a

change from the fall 1994 survey results, which revealed that over

30 percent of families used organized child care as their primary

arrangement. However, some of the decline in the use of organized

child care facilities and increase in care out of another’s home may

580

reflect a change in the 1995 survey, which more clearly defined

care types, by asking specifically about family day care providers

(providers caring for more than one child outside the child’s home),

as distinct from organized group day care. Relative care, either in

the child’s home or the relative’s home, was used by 21 percent of

families of preschool children with employed mothers. Over onefifth of families with young children did not rely on others for help

with child care arrangements while the mother worked, but instead

used parental care (22 percent), especially care by fathers (almost

17 percent). Only 5 percent of families relied on care provided in

the child’s home by a nonrelative.

Preschool children of part-time employed mothers were much

more likely to be cared for by a parent (31 percent), than by an organized child care facility (21 percent), and also more likely to be

cared for by a relative, family provider, or nonrelative in another

home (29 percent). Mothers employed full time were more likely to

use family day care providers (19 percent) and organized day care

centers (20 percent) than any other form of care. Care by grandparents, either in or out of the child’s home, was the next most utilized category for full-time (14 percent), and part-time employed

mothers (18 percent).

Table 9–6 shows the types of afterschool arrangements used in

1995 for school-age children by working mothers, as well as cases

in which there were no arrangements used at all. The 1995 survey

asked more questions about arrangements than in earlier years (for

instance, it specifically asked about care by a sibling), and this may

account for some of the increase in the ‘‘care in child’s home’’ category. In 1993, 11 percent of children age 5–14 were being cared

for afterschool in the child’s home, whereas in 1995 this figure had

increased to almost 20 percent. Of those children age 5–14 with

employed mothers in 1995, over 10 percent were cared for by a sibling (over 3 percent by a sibling under age 15). Afterschool care by

fathers also increased substantially from 1993 to 1995. In 1993,

just over 11 percent of children were primarily cared for by fathers

during afterschool time, compared to 21 percent in 1995. A total of

2.5 million school-age children (11.6 percent of children age 5–14)

were reported to be in self-care or to be unsupervised by an adult

for some time while their mothers were working. It is not known

if the children in the ‘‘no care mentioned’’ category were unsupervised, or if other factors may account for their not being reported

in a child care arrangement, such as travel time from school. Regardless, the 1995 survey instrument appears to have been more

effective in identifying types of child care arrangements, since only

1.6 percent of children reportedly fall in the ‘‘no care mentioned’’

category, a sharp decline from 46 percent in the 1993 survey.

Table 9–7 shows the types of child care arrangements used in

1995 for children under 5 by the economic well-being of the family.

The 9.2 percent of poor children being cared for in the child’s home

by a relative or nonrelative in 1995 represents a marked decrease

from over 18 percent reported in 1994. The percent of nonpoor children in this category remained unchanged at 14 percent. Nonpoor

children in 1995 were more likely than poor children to be cared

for in another home by either a relative, family day care provider,

or other nonrelative. Poor families were more likely than nonpoor

581

families to not mention any regular arrangement (10 percent versus 1 percent).

TABLE 9–6.—AFTERSCHOOL CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS USED BY EMPLOYED

MOTHERS FOR CHILDREN 5–14, FALL 1995

Type of arrangement Number (in

thousands) Percent

Care in child’s home:

By grandparent .................................................................. 795 3.7

By sibling age 15 or older ................................................ 1,452 6.8

By sibling under age 15 ................................................... 750 3.5

By other relative ................................................................ 426 2.0

By nonrelative .................................................................... 733 3.4

Total .......................................................................... 4,157 19.4

Care in another home:

By grandparent .................................................................. 1,469 6.8

By other relative ................................................................ 515 2.4

By family day care provider 1 ............................................ 1,239 5.8

By nonrelative .................................................................... 890 4.1

Total .......................................................................... 4,113 19.2

Organized child care facility:

Day/group care center ....................................................... 405 1.9

Nursery school/preschool ................................................... 200 0.9

After/before school program .............................................. 1,065 5.0

Total .......................................................................... 1,669 7.8

Parental care:

By father ............................................................................ 4,515 21.0

By mother at work 2 .......................................................... 981 4.6

Child cares for self ........................................................... 2,496 11.6

Total .......................................................................... 7,992 37.2

No care mentioned ..................................................................... 349 1.6

Total children ............................................................ 19,506 100.0

1 Family day care providers provide care outside the child’s home for more than one child.

2 Includes women working at home or away from home.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Table 9–8 shows the primary arrangements used by working

mothers for their preschool-aged children from June 1977 through

582

TABLE 9–7.—PRIMARY CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS USED BY EMPLOYED MOTHERS

FOR CHILDREN UNDER 5, BY POVERTY STATUS OF THE MOTHER, FALL 1995

[In percent]

Type of arrangement Total 1 Poor 2 Not poor

Care in child’s home:

By grandparent ............................................. 5.9 4.7 6.1

By sibling age 15 or older ........................... 0.7 2.4 0.5

By sibling under age 15 ............................... 0.3 0.0 0.4

By other relative ........................................... 1.5 0.8 1.6

By nonrelative ............................................... 5.0 1.3 5.4

Total ..................................................... 13.5 9.2 14.0

Care in another home:

By grandparent ............................................. 10.0 11.5 9.7

By other relative ........................................... 2.9 2.6 2.9

By family day care provider 3 ....................... 15.7 10.0 16.3

By nonrelative ............................................... 7.9 5.3 8.2

Total ..................................................... 36.5 29.4 37.2

Organized child care facility:

Day/group care center .................................. 17.8 16.5 18.0

Nursery school/preschool .............................. 5.9 6.8 5.8

Kindergarten/grade school ............................ 0.7 2.1 0.5

Head Start Program ...................................... 1.5 2.8 1.3

Total ..................................................... 25.8 28.2 25.6

Parental care:

By father ....................................................... 16.6 17.9 16.5

By mother at work 4 ...................................... 5.4 5.0 5.4

Child cares for self ....................................... 0.1 0.0 0.1

Total ..................................................... 22.1 22.9 22.0

No regular arrangement mentioned ...................... 2.2 10.3 1.2

Total children of employed mothers (in

thousands) ....................................... 10,022 988 9,034

1 Includes children for which no poverty estimates were available.

2 Below the poverty threshold, which was $15,569 annually or $1,297 monthly in 1995 for a family of

four. 3 Family day care providers provide care outside the child’s home for more than one child.

4 Includes women working at home or away from home.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce.

583

TABLE 9–8.—PERCENT OF CHILDREN UNDER 5 IN SELECTED CHILD CARE

ARRANGEMENTS, SELECTED YEARS 1977–95

Family status and date

of survey

Percent of children cared for by

Father Mother 1 Grandparent Family day

care 2

Day care

center/nursery

school

All families:

Fall 1995 ....... 16.6 5.4 15.9 3 23.6 23.7

Fall 1994 ....... 18.4 5.5 16.3 15.4 29.4

Fall 1993 ....... 15.9 6.2 16.5 16.6 29.9

Fall 1991 ....... 20.0 8.7 15.8 17.9 23.0

Fall 1990 ....... 16.5 6.4 14.3 20.1 27.5

Fall 1988 ....... 15.1 7.6 13.9 23.6 25.8

Fall 1987 ....... 15.3 8.9 13.8 22.3 24.4

Fall 1986 ....... 14.5 7.4 15.7 24.0 22.4

Winter 1985 ... 15.7 8.1 15.9 22.3 23.1

June 1977 ...... 14.4 11.4 NA 22.4 13.0

Married couples:

Fall 1995 ....... 18.8 6.3 14.3 23.5 22.6

Fall 1994 ....... 22.3 6.3 13.5 15.7 29.0

Fall 1993 ....... 19.3 6.9 14.4 16.4 30.0

Fall 1991 ....... 22.9 9.8 13.7 17.1 22.7

Fall 1990 ....... 19.8 7.8 13.0 19.7 26.8

Fall 1988 ....... 17.9 8.7 11.8 23.7 25.4

Fall 1987 ....... 18.2 10.1 12.2 22.2 23.4

Fall 1986 ....... 17.9 8.3 14.1 24.4 20.3

Winter 1985 ... 18.8 9.2 13.9 21.8 22.3

June 1977 ...... 17.1 12.9 NA 22.6 11.6

Single mothers:

Fall 1995 ....... 10.3 2.8 20.4 23.9 27.0

Fall 1994 ....... 5.4 2.5 25.4 14.6 30.5

Fall 1993 ....... 3.4 3.5 24.6 17.3 29.5

Fall 1991 ....... 7.0 3.7 24.8 21.3 24.5

Fall 1990 ....... 3.2 0.7 20.0 27.8 30.4

Fall 1988 ....... 1.5 2.4 23.9 22.8 27.8

Fall 1987 ....... 2.3 3.4 20.8 22.3 28.3

Fall 1986 ....... 1.4 3.8 20.3 22.4 30.2

Winter 1985 ... 2.2 3.5 24.5 24.4 26.7

June 1977 ...... 0.8 4.4 NA 21.8 19.1

1 Includes mothers working at home or away from home.

2 Children cared for in another home by nonrelatives.

3 The 1995 survey asked specifically about ‘‘family day care providers,’’ caring for more than one

child. This figure includes these providers as well as nonrelatives caring for one child outside the child’s

home.

NA—Not available.

Note.—Data are the principal arrangement used by mothers during most of their hours at work. Single

mothers include women never married, widowed, divorced, and separated.

Source: Survey of Income and Program Participation and the June 1977 Current Population Survey and

Casper et al. (1994).

584

the fall of 1995. In general, the table does not show dramatic

changes in the arrangements used during this time period, except

with regard to day care centers and nursery schools. As mentioned

above, the increase in family day care in 1995 (to 23.6 percent) may

be due in part to a change in the survey instrument, clarifying use

of the term ‘‘family day care.’’

The U.S. Census Bureau data discussed above reflect child care

arrangements in the fall of 1995. More recently, data from the 1997

National Survey of America’s Families (NSAF), collected by the

Urban Institute, can be used to examine primary child care arrangements used by children under 5 with employed mothers nationally, and across 12 individual States. Table 9–9 shows that nationwide, 41 percent of preschool children with employed mothers

are in care for 35 or more hours per week (Capizzano & Adams,

2000a). One-quarter are in care for 15–34 hours per week, 16 percent for 1–14 hours per week, and 18 percent spend no hours in

nonparental child care. For preschool children with mothers employed full time, the number of children in full-time care (35 or

more hours) increases to 52 percent. Children that are 3 and 4

years old are slightly more likely to be in full-time care than

younger preschoolers (44 percent versus 39 percent). Children in

high-income families are almost equally as likely to spend 35 or

more hours a week in child care as low-income children (42 percent

versus 40 percent), although high-income children are more likely

than low-income children to be in part-time care (42 percent versus

37 percent). Twenty-three percent of low-income children are reported to spend no hours in nonparental care, compared to 16 percent of high-income children.

TABLE 9–9.—PERCENT OF CHILDREN UNDER FIVE WITH EMPLOYED MOTHERS IN

DIFFERENT HOURS OF NONPARENTAL CARE, BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS

Hours in care

None 1–14 15–34 35+

All children ........................................................ 18 16 25 41

Mothers working full time ................................. 17 12 18 52

Child’s age:

Under 3 years ......................................... 21 17 23 39

3–4 years ................................................ 13 14 28 44

Family income:

200 percent of poverty and below ......... 23 16 21 40

Above 200 percent of poverty ................ 16 15 27 42

Source: Urban Institute calculations from the 1997 National Survey of America’s Families.

According to the 1997 NSAF (table 9–10), 32 percent of preschool

children use center-based child care as their primary arrangement,

while about half that number (16 percent) are in family child care

(Capizzano, Adams, & Sonenstein, 2000). About 6 percent are primarily cared for in the child’s home by a babysitter or nanny.

Twenty-three percent of children under 5 are cared for primarily by

a relative, either inside or outside the child’s home, while almost

a quarter (24 percent) of children are in the care of a parent. The

585

analysis of individual States revealed that there is considerable

State variation in the use of specific primary child care arrangements.

TABLE 9–10.—PRIMARY CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS FOR CHILDREN UNDER FIVE WITH

EMPLOYED MOTHERS, BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS

[In percent]

Centerbased

care

Family

child

care

Relative

care

Parent

care 1

Nanny/

babysitter

All children ................................................. 32 16 23 24 6

Child’s age:

Under 3 years .................................... 22 17 27 27 7

3–4 years .......................................... 45 14 17 18 6

Family income:

200 percent of poverty and below .... 26 14 28 28 4

Above 200 percent of poverty ........... 35 17 20 21 7

1 The NSAF’s questions focused on nonparental arrangements and did not include questions about care

provided by another parent, care for the child while the parent was at work, or care for the child at

home by a self-employed parent. Those respondents not reporting a child care arrangement are assumed

to be in one of these forms of care and are coded into the parent care category.

Source: Urban Institute calculations from the 1997 National Survey of America’s Families.

The Urban Institute’s analysis also examined how child care arrangements vary according to both age of child and family income.

The survey data indicate that nationally, infants and toddlers are

more likely to be cared for by relatives (27 percent) and parents (27

percent) than to be in center-based care (22 percent) or family child

care (17 percent). As preschoolers grow older (age 3 and 4), use of

relative and parent care decreases (17 and 18 percent respectively),

and center-based care becomes the most commonly used primary

arrangement (45 percent). Use of family child care remains relatively steady at 14 percent for 3- and 4-year-olds.

At the national level, children under age 5 in families below 200

percent of poverty are less likely than high-income children to use

center-based care as a primary arrangement (26 percent versus 35

percent). Relative care and parent care are used equally by low-income families (28 percent each), and more often than by high-income families, of which 20 percent use relative care and 21 percent

parent care. Low- and high-income children are almost equally

likely to use family child care as their primary arrangement (14

and 17 percent respectively).

In addition to looking at the primary child care arrangements for

children under 5, Urban Institute researchers used the 1997 NSAF

to examine the number of arrangements used to care for a child,

and the hours that are spent in each type of arrangement. As

shown in table 9–11, nationally, 38 percent of children under 5

combine more than one child care arrangement each week

(Capizzano & Adams, 2000b). Of those, 8 percent combine three or

more arrangements. The remaining 62 percent have only one child

care arrangement. Children under age 3 are less likely to have

multiple child care arrangements than 3- and 4-year-olds (34 perVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00585 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.009 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
586

cent versus 44 percent). Children aged 3 and 4 are three times as

likely to be in three or more care arrangements. Of the children in

multiple arrangements, most use a combination of formal and informal care, regardless of age or income. Children from low- and

high-income families are almost equally likely to be in multiple

child care arrangements (37 and 40 percent respectively). As seen

with primary arrangements, there is considerable State variation

in the use of multiple arrangements.

TABLE 9–11.—NUMBER OF NONPARENTAL CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS USED BY

CHILDREN UNDER FIVE WITH EMPLOYED MOTHERS, BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS

[In percent]

One arrangementTwo arrangements

Three or

more arrangements

All children ......................................................................... 62 30 8

Child’s age:

Under 3 years .......................................................... 65 30 4

3–4 years ................................................................ 56 31 13

Family income:

200 percent of poverty and below .......................... 63 30 7

Above 200 percent of poverty ................................. 60 31 9

Source: Urban Institute calculations from the 1997 National Survey of America’s Families.

CHILD CARE COSTS

Research studies have found that the majority of families with

working mothers and preschool children purchase child care services. The tendency to purchase care and the amount spent on care,

both in absolute terms and as a percent of family income, generally

varies by the type of child care used, family type (married or single

mothers), and the family’s economic status.

The most recent data on child care expenditures by families are

from the Survey of Income and Program Participation for the fall

of 1995. These data show that 64 percent of families with employed

mothers paid for child care for their preschool-aged children.

Nonpaid child care was most typically provided by relatives. Families with mothers employed full time were more likely to purchase

care for their young children than those with mothers working part

time. Among families with full-time working mothers, 73 percent

paid for child care, compared to 50 percent of families with mothers

employed part time. Likewise, as shown in table 9–12, families

with higher incomes were more likely to purchase care than families with lower incomes, with the exception of families with monthly incomes between $1,200 and $3,000. For example, 71 percent of

families with monthly incomes of $4,500 or more purchased child

care in the fall of 1995, while only 60 percent of families with

monthly incomes of less than $1,200 purchased care.

Average weekly costs per family for all preschool-aged children

were $83 in 1995 for those families that purchased care (table 9–

12). Married-couple families devoted a smaller percentage of their

587

TABLE 9–12.—AVERAGE WEEKLY CHILD CARE EXPENDITURES FOR PRESCHOOLERS AND

PERCENTAGE OF INCOME SPENT ON CARE, BY POVERTY STATUS AND FAMILY INCOME, FALL 1995

Percent

paying

for care

Average

weekly cost of

care

Percent

of family

income

spent on

care

All families:

Poverty status:

Below poverty ...................................................... 54 $59.22 35.7

Above poverty .................................................... 66 84.75 10.3

Monthly family income:

Less than $1,200 .............................................. 60 60.32 36.7

$1,200–$2,999 .................................................. 57 69.25 15.2

$3,000–$4,499 .................................................. 65 75.95 9.4

$4,500 and over ................................................ 71 101.09 6.8

Total ................................................................ 64 82.74 12.3

Married-couple families:

Poverty status:

Below poverty .................................................... 32 72.72 26.9

Above poverty .................................................... 66 87.08 8.8

Monthly family income:

Less than $1,200 .............................................. 31 54.72 23.7

$1,200–$2,999 .................................................. 53 66.02 13.1

$3,000–$4,499 .................................................. 66 76.06 9.4

$4,500 and over ................................................. 72 103.04 6.9

Total ................................................................ 65 86.84 9.1

Families with an absent father:

Poverty status:

Below poverty .................................................... 62 56.59 37.5

Above poverty .................................................... 65 75.35 16.3

Monthly family income:

Less than $1,200 .............................................. 66 60.91 38.1

$1,200–$2,999 .................................................. 64 73.59 18.0

$3,000–$4,499 .................................................. 55 75.00 9.0

$4,500 and over ................................................ 68 78.78 5.9

Total ................................................................ 64 70.41 21.7

Note.—Data are for all child care arrangements used by working mothers. Estimates are not consistent with prior year’s Green Book data, which represented the principal arrangement used by mothers during most of their hours at work.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on an analysis of U.S. Census

Bureau data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 panel, wave 9.

income to child care (9 percent) than single-parent families (22 percent), but their child care expenditures were nonetheless greater

($87 per week) than those of single-parent families (about $70 per

week).

588

Table 9–12 also shows that, while poor families spend fewer dollars for child care than higher income families, they spend a much

greater percentage of their family income for child care. Thus, poor

families spent only $60 per week, but this amount represented 36

percent of their income. By contrast, nonpoor families spent $85

per week on care, but this amount was only 10 percent of their income. A December 1997 survey of the cost of child care for a 4-yearold in urban child care centers across the country, conducted by the

Children’s Defense Fund (Adams & Schulman, 1998) found that in

every State, the average child care tuition exceeds $3,000 per child,

and is over $5,000 per child in 17 States.

SUPPLY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILD CARE

PROVIDERS

SUPPLY OF PROVIDERS

The variety of child care arrangements used by families has been

discussed above, however, the studies of arrangements do not include estimates of the number of available providers. A comprehensive study of licensed centers, early education programs, centerbased programs exempt from State or local licensing (such as programs sponsored by religious organizations or schools), and licensed family day care providers has not been conducted since the

U.S. Department of Education’s Profile of Child Care Settings

Study was released in 1991. That study reported that approximately 80,000 center-based early education and care programs

were providing services in the United States at the beginning of

1990 (Kisker, Hofferth, Phillips, & Farquhar, 1991).

A less extensive, but more recent study, focusing only on regulated child care centers, was released by the Children’s Foundation

in January 2000. The study reported that the number of regulated

child care centers in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto

Rico, and the Virgin Islands totals 106,246 (Children’s Foundation,

2000). This is a 3.5 percent increase from the Foundation’s 1999

study’s total, and nearly a 19 percent increase from the total published by the Children’s Foundation’s first study of centers in 1991.

The 2000 study notes that the definition of regulated child care

center varies by State or territory. In 28 States, the number of regulated child care centers includes nursery schools, preschools,

prekindergartens and religiously affiliated centers. In the remaining States and territories, the definition is less inclusive. For example, some States exclude nursery schools or religiously affiliated

centers in their count.

The Children’s Foundation also conducts studies on family child

care providers (as opposed to centers). Their 1999 report indicates

that there are 290,667 regulated family child care homes, of which

249,622 are family day care homes (caring for up to 6 children) and

41,045 large group child care homes (in which providers generally

care for 7–12 children). It is assumed by child care researchers that

the number of unregulated family day care providers far exceeds

the number of regulated family providers, though it is difficult to

determine by how much. At the time of the aforementioned Profile

of Child Care Settings Study of 1991, the number of regulated famVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00588 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.009 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
589

ily day care homes represented an estimated 10–18 percent of the

total number of family day care providers.

The U.S. Census Bureau also collects data on the number of

child care businesses in the United States. For a historical look at

child care businesses in the early 1990s, a 1998 report used Census

of Service Industries (CSI) data to provide information on the number and characteristics of child care businesses in 1992 (Casper &

O’Connell, 1998). ‘‘Child care businesses’’ are defined as organized

establishments engaged primarily in the care of infants or children,

or providing prekindergarten education, where medical care or delinquency correction is not a major component. Not included in this

definition are babysitting services or Head Start Programs that are

coordinated with elementary schools. Based on the Census of Service Industries data, the number of incorporated child care centers

doubled from 25,000 in 1977 to 51,000 in 1992.

WAGES OF CHILD CARE CENTER STAFF

No single data source provides comprehensive information on

wages of child care workers. However, occupational data collected

by the Department of Labor, when complemented by survey information gathered by organizations interested in child care issues,

begin to paint a picture of the status of child care wages in the

United States.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) collects wage data for 764

occupations, as surveyed by the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Program. However, readers should be aware that the occupational categories create a misleading division in the child care

work force. Center-based child care staff are described by the OES

survey as either ‘‘preschoolteacher’’ or ‘‘child care worker,’’ distinguishing the former as an individual who instructs children up to

age 5 in developmental activities within a day care center, child development facility, or preschool, and the latter as a person who performs tasks such as dressing, feeding, bathing, and overseeing play

of children. This division of tasks does not necessarily occur in actual child care settings, and therefore the survey’s occupational

group assignments, and wage distinctions made between those

groups, should be interpreted with some caution. Nevertheless, the

OES survey provides a general sense of wages within the child care

field. Based on BLS data and OES survey results from 1997, the

median hourly wage of a center-based ‘‘child care worker’’ was

$7.03, and a ‘‘preschoolteacher,’’ $9.09. Both these wages are considerably higher than the median hourly wage for family child providers, who, based on 1997 Current Population Survey data, earn

an estimated median wage of $4.69 per hour [based on a 55-hour

week, which the Center for Child Care Workforce (1999) reports is

the typical work week for U.S. family child care providers].

The National Child Care Staffing Study (NCCSS), originally

launched in 1988, and most recently updated in 1997, provides additional information on child care center staff (Whitebook, Howes,

& Phillips, 1998). Information on wages and characteristics of center staff was collected from 158 full-day, full-year, State licensed

child care centers in five metropolitan areas around the country.

Table 9–13 shows the study’s findings on trends in hourly wages

for center-based child care staff. Over the 10 year period of the

590

study, wages of child care center workers have remained relatively

stagnant.

TABLE 9–13.—TRENDS IN HOURLY WAGES FOR CENTER-BASED CHILD CARE STAFF

Staff position 1988

Wage

1992

Wage

1997

Wage

Real change

between

1992 and

1997

Real change between

1988 and 1997

Lowest-paid assistant ........................ $5.99 $5.91 $6.00 +1.5 +0.17

(+$0.01 per hour)

Highest-paid assistant ........................ 6.96 7.03 7.00 –0.4 +0.57

(+$0.04 per hour)

Lowest-paid teacher 7.38 7.55 7.50 –0.7 +1.6

(+$0.12 per hour)

Highest-paid teacher 9.53 10.33 10.85 +5.0 +13.9

(+$1.32 per hour)

Note.—All wages, and the 1988–97 trends, are in 1997 dollars. Each category reflects average wages

for the position.

Source: Whitebook et al., 1998.

STAFF TURNOVER

Like many low-wage industries, turnover among the child care

work force has been historically high. The NCCSS has tracked

worker turnover and stability beginning with its initial study in

1988. In 1988, center directors in the sample reported a 41 percent

average rate of annual turnover of teaching staff. In 1992, they reported average annual turnover of 26 percent for the year prior to

the survey interview. By 1997, the rate had risen to 31 percent for

all teaching staff, and one-fifth of centers reported losing half or

more of their teaching staff in the previous year. The 10 percentage

point decrease in turnover rates between 1988 and 1997 should be

analyzed with caution, however, as the sample size of the NCCSS

study dropped from 227 to 158. According to the study directors,

a disproportionate number of the centers reporting the highest

turnover in 1988 had closed by the time of the 1997 survey, leaving

a sample of centers with potentially lower than average turnover

rates for their areas. The issue of stability among centers themselves is not specifically addressed in the NCCSS study, however

its authors do mention increasing reports of centers closing due to

an insufficient supply of trained teachers. Better job opportunities

and higher wages in other fields, due to a strong economy, have

been identified as recent major causes of turnover. Ninety-three

percent of directors reported taking more than 2 weeks to find replacements for departing teaching staff and over one-third (37 percent) reported taking over a month to do so. The effect of staff turnover on children is one of several topics that continues to receive

attention during ever-growing discussions of how to measure child

care quality.

591

EMPLOYING WELFARE RECIPIENTS AS CHILD CARE WORKERS

Passage of welfare reform legislation in 1996, and its emphasis

on moving recipients into work, created expectations of an increase

in demand for child care, and recipients themselves were identified

by some as a potential new source of child care workers. The 1997

NCCSS therefore gathered information from child care directors regarding the employment of welfare recipients (recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) as center staff. The study

found that approximately one-third (35 percent) of the child care

centers in the sample employ Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF) recipients, that those centers employing TANF recipients are more likely to pay lower wages across all positions, and

that those centers experience higher teaching staff turnover. While

the median wage reported for TANF workers is $5.50 per hour (in

1997) compared to the $6 per hour for all entry-level teaching assistants, 60 percent of centers pay TANF workers the same as their

lowest-paid assistants, 23 percent pay them more, and 18 percent

pay them less. Almost half (48 percent) of the centers employing

TANF recipients report providing on-site training for TANF employees, 18 percent use community-based training programs, and

16 percent of the programs offer college credit-bearing training.

CHILD CARE STANDARDS AND QUALITY

REGULATION AND LICENSING

Regulation and licensing of child care providers is conducted primarily at the State and local levels, although the extent to which

the Federal Government should play a role in this area has been

a topic of debate for many years (see below). Licensing and regulation serves as a means of defining and enforcing minimum requirements for the legal operation of child care environments in which

children will be safe from harm. There is no uniform way in which

States and/or territories regulate child care centers, preschools,

nursery schools, prekindergartens, and/or religiously affiliated child

care centers. All States and territories do, however, require these

center-based types of care (as opposed to family child care providers) to be regulated through licensing or registration. In the case

of family day care providers, most States exempt certain providers—typically those serving smaller numbers of children from licensing or regulation. As mentioned in the earlier discussion of

child care supply, the Children’s Foundation survey found that

there were 290,667 regulated family child care providers in the

States and territories in 1999. If estimates from the 1990 child care

settings study are applied, this number may represent only 10–18

percent of family child care, with the remaining facilities being unregulated. The count of centers that are regulated (meaning licensed or certified) totals 106,246 according to the Children’s Foundation 2000 study.

Table 9–14 presents information on State licensing standards for

child care centers, as collected by the Children’s Foundation (2000).

The table shows the number of States for which a select requirement or standard for child care centers applies, and in turn, how

licensing standards vary across States. Note that all State variVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00591 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.009 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
592

ations in policy are not reflected in the table, and therefore totals

by category will vary. Licensing standards are just one area that

researchers continue to focus on when examining child care quality

to determine whether higher licensing standards are associated

with higher quality child care and better child outcomes.

TABLE 9–14.—NUMBER OF STATES WITH SELECTED CHILD CARE LICENSING

REQUIREMENTS FOR REGULATED CHILD CARE CENTERS

Item Number of

States

Fee for licensing:

No fee ..................................................................................................... 23

Fixed fee ................................................................................................. 21

Assessed fee based on number of children cared for by provider ....... 9

Frequency of required license renewal:

Annually .................................................................................................. 23

Every 2 years .......................................................................................... 18

Every 3 years or nonexpiring .................................................................. 12

Required testing for asbestos, lead, radon, or other material:

Yes .......................................................................................................... 20

No ........................................................................................................... 30

Inspection visits:

All unannounced ..................................................................................... 9

Unannounced, annually (at minimum), and upon complaint ............... 19

Unannounced, 2–4 per year ................................................................... 9

Unannounced upon complaint; other visits announced ........................ 7

All announced ......................................................................................... 1

Staff/child ratios:

Infants, birth to 1 year:

1:3 1 ............................................................................................. 4

1 : 4 ................................................................................................ 31

Young toddlers, age 1–2:

1:3 1 ............................................................................................. 1

1 : 4 ................................................................................................ 15

Older toddlers, age 2–3:

1 : 4–5 1 ......................................................................................... 7

Preschoolers, age 3–5:

1 : 6–7 1 ......................................................................................... 1

Group size definitions:

Yes .......................................................................................................... 34

No ........................................................................................................... 19

Regulation of ‘‘drop-in’’ child care ................................................................ 36

Smoking policy:

Prohibited ............................................................................................... 35

Permitted in designated areas and with restrictions ........................... 17

Permitted ................................................................................................ 1

Required preservice training:

CPR/first aid ........................................................................................... 23

Combined education and experience required:

Head/lead teacher ......................................................................... 41

Other teaching staff ..................................................................... 29

None:

Head/lead teacher ......................................................................... 12

593

TABLE 9–14.—NUMBER OF STATES WITH SELECTED CHILD CARE LICENSING

REQUIREMENTS FOR REGULATED CHILD CARE CENTERS—Continued

Item Number of

States

Other teaching staff ..................................................................... 22

Inservice training requirements for all teaching staff:

4–6 hours (annually) ............................................................................. 6

7–13 hours (annually) ........................................................................... 19

15–30 hours (annually) ......................................................................... 16

None ........................................................................................................ 5

1 National Health and Safety Standard recommended ratios, developed by American Public Health Association and American Academy of Pediatrics.

Note.—All State variations in policy are not reflected in the table, and therefore totals by category will

vary.

Source: The Children’s Foundation, 2000 Child Care Center Licensing Study, Washington, DC, February,

2000.

RESEARCH ON CHILD CARE QUALITY

As women’s labor force participation has grown over the past several decades, concerns about child care quality have increased.

Highly publicized research on early brain development in infants

and young children (under age 3) has drawn attention to what role

child care may play in children’s cognitive and social development.

The relationship between quality of child care and outcomes for

children is of increasing interest to parents, researchers, and policymakers. A growing body of research examines questions such as

how to define the elements that correspond to quality child care,

how to measure those elements, and ultimately, their effects on

children both in the short- and long-term.

One comprehensive study of connections between child care and

early childhood development is part of an ongoing project conducted

by a team of researchers supported by the National Institute of

Child Health and Human Development (NICHD, 1999), of the National Institutes of Health. The broad goal of the NICHD study,

started in 1991, is to collect data on an ongoing basis from a sample of children and their families (located in 10 areas across the

United States) to answer a range of questions about the relationship between child care characteristics and experiences, and children’s developmental outcomes. The children and families in the

study’s sample vary in socioeconomic background, race, family

structure, and type of child care used. The study design takes into

account characteristics of the family and its environment to gain a

more complete picture of the contribution that child care characteristics and experiences themselves make to children’s development,

above and beyond the contribution of the family environment. Even

so, not all characteristics are observed, and the ability to completely disentangle all of the characteristics (both of the parents

and the child) is difficult, if not impossible, in such a study. Children in the study are not randomly assigned to child care settings

of varying degrees of quality, but are instead placed in settings of

their parents’ selection. The selection of care in and of itself may

594

reflect contributing variables—characteristics of the parents, children, and environment—that are not fully observed in the study.

Likewise, a child’s developmental outcomes in a particular setting

may reflect the child’s characteristics as much as the setting’s quality. Although the NICHD study attempts to distinguish among

some of these factors, the ability to interpret the results is somewhat constrained by selection bias.

The findings showed that in general, family characteristics and

the quality of the mother’s relationship with her child were stronger predictors of the child’s development than were the characteristics of child care. The family characteristics such as income and

mother’s education were strong predictors of children’s outcomes,

for both children cared for solely by their mothers and children in

extensive nonparental child care. The study did find a modest but

consistent association between quality of nonparental child care

over the first 3 years of life and children’s cognitive and language

development, regardless of family background. In this case, quality

child care was defined as positive care giving and language stimulation; i.e., how often providers spoke to children, asked questions,

and responded to children’s questions.

The NICHD researchers also analyzed the more structural elements of child care in centers—elements that are generally regulated by the States (see table 9–14), but to varying degrees, such

as child-staff ratio, group size, and teacher training and education.

The researchers used recommended guidelines developed jointly by

the American Public Health Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics to evaluate the degree to which standards were

being met by centers used by families in the study. Twelve percent

of the study’s children were enrolled in child care centers at 6

months, and 38 percent at age 3. Findings indicate that the children in the centers that met some or all of the guidelines had better language comprehension and school readiness than the children

who were in centers that did not meet the guidelines. There were

also fewer behavioral problems for children age 2 and 3 in the centers that met the guidelines.

The researchers have continued to follow the children in the

sample, and will release findings from the assessment of the children at 54 months of age, and again in first grade. Like other studies that examine the relationship between child care and developmental outcomes, the NICHD research aims to determine not just

whether there are concurrent and short-term effects of child care

on children’s development, but long-term effects as well.

The study did not attempt to measure the quality of care offered

by family child care providers or relatives according to the same set

of guidelines used for center-based care. The most recent indepth

observational study of family child care and relative care was published in 1994 by the Families and Work Institute. The study examined the care offered by 226 providers in 3 different communities in California, Texas, and North Carolina (Galinsky et al.,

1994). Nonregulated family care providers may be nonregulated because they care for few enough children to be exempt from State

regulation requirements, or, as the 1994 study found in their sample, 81 percent of the 54 nonregulated providers were illegally nonregulated, due to the fact that they were actually providing care for

595

a number of children over their State’s limit. The quality of all

types of family and relative care was determined according to

measurements such as the setting’s safety and the sensitivity and

responsiveness of providers to the children. The study found that

only 9 percent of the homes in the study sample were rated as good

quality, while 56 percent were rated as adequate, and 35 percent

inadequate. The researchers found that quality appeared to be

higher when providers were trained and when they were caring for

three to six children rather than one or two. As important, if not

more so, in determining quality was whether the provider was committed to taking care of children, and had a sense that their work

was important; participated in family child care training; thought

ahead about the children’s activities; was regulated; and followed

standard business and safety practices. In the case of relative care,

an important factor in the quality of the child’s experience was

whether the relative caring for the children did so out of desire, necessity, or both.

The Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes (1995, 1999) in Child

Care Centers study conducted by researchers from four universities

beginning in 1993, analyzes the influence of ‘‘typical’’ center-based

child care on children’s development during their preschool years

and into elementary school. The ‘‘typical’’ centers were represented

by a random sample of 401 full-day child care centers, half of them

for-profit, half nonprofit, in regions of 4 States: California, Colorado, Connecticut, and North Carolina. Data on the quality and

cost of services were collected, as well as data on the developmental

progress of a sample of children in the selected centers.

Findings from the first phase of the study were released in 1995,

and indicated that the quality of child care offered in over threequarters of these ‘‘typical’’ centers in the United States did not

meet ‘‘high standards’’ according to the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale, which ranges from 1 (‘‘low quality’’) to 7 (‘‘high

quality’’). Eleven percent of centers in the sample scored below 3

(‘‘minimally acceptable’’). The researchers found that the quality of

child care is primarily related to higher staff-to-child ratios, staff

education, and administrators’ previous experience. Teacher wages

and education were also generally higher in higher quality centers.

Like the NICHD study, the 1995 Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study also found that centers meeting higher licensing

standards provided higher quality care.

In addition to examining the status of quality in the centers, the

researchers wanted to determine what effects, if any, the quality

of care had on children’s development. The study’s initial findings

in 1995 indicated that children’s cognitive and social development

are positively related to the quality of their child care experience.

This proved to be the case even after taking into account factors

related to family background and associated with children’s development (such as maternal education); the children in the low-quality care still scored lower on measures of cognitive and social development.

The findings from the second phase of the study, released in

1999, indicate that there are long-term effects of child care quality

on children’s development. Similar to the NICHD results, this

study indicated that the impact of child care quality on children’s

596

development was modest, but consistent, and applied even after

taking into account child and family characteristics.

The extent to which the effects of quality child care and other

early childhood program experiences ‘‘fade out’’ over time has long

been an area of interest for researchers studying the connection between child care programs and children’s development. One of the

longest-running research studies in this area is known as the Abecedarian Project, which began in the early 1970s. The project design consisted of a controlled study in which 57 infants, all from

low-income families in North Carolina, were randomly assigned to

an experimental group that would receive year-round, all-day educational child care/preschool emphasizing cognitive, language, and

adaptive behavior skills (Burchinal et al., 1997; Campbell &

Ramey, 1995). The control group of 54 infants received nutritional

supplements and supportive social services (as did the experimental group), but did not receive the educational intervention emphasizing language, cognitive, and social development. The Abecedarian Project began in early infancy, and the children received

the educational ‘‘treatment’’ for 5 years, a longer period than other

programs. This study also differs from those discussed earlier in

that it focuses solely on disadvantaged, low-income children.

Early findings of the project showed that from the age of 18

months through age 5 (the end of the program), children in the

treatment group had higher scores on mental tests than children

in the control group. In the primary grades through middle adolescence, children from the treatment group scored significantly higher on reading and math tests. Through age 15, the treatment group

continued to score higher on mental tests, although the gap between the two groups had narrowed.

Most recently, the project’s researchers completed a followup

study of the project’s participants (104 of the original 111) at age

21 (Campbell, 1999). Results showed that the 21-year-olds who had

been in the treatment group had significantly higher mental test

scores than those from the control group. Likewise, reading and

math scores were higher for the treatment group, as had been the

case since toddlerhood. Due to the longevity of the project, researchers were also able to look for differences in areas such as college enrollment and employment rates. The followup interviews revealed that about 35 percent of the young adults in the treatment

group had either graduated from or were attending a 4 year college

or university at the time of the assessment, compared to 14 percent

of the control group.

A team of researchers from RAND evaluated the results of nine

early childhood intervention programs, including the Abecedarian

Project (Karoly et al., 1998). The RAND team determined that the

nine early intervention programs evaluated in their study provided

benefits for the participating disadvantaged children and their families. However, the Rand team pointed out that expanding model,

resource-intensive programs like the Abecedarian Project to a larger scale may not necessarily result in the same developmental benefits.

597

THE FEDERAL ROLE

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

The Federal Government entered the child care business during

the New Deal of the 1930s when federally funded nursery schools

were established for poor children. The motivation for creating

these nursery schools was not specifically to provide child care for

working families. Rather, the schools were designed primarily to

create jobs for unemployed teachers, nurses, and others, and also

to provide a wholesome environment for children in poverty. However, when mothers began to enter the work force in large numbers

during World War II, many of these nursery schools were continued and expanded. Federal funding for child care, and other community facilities, was available during the war years under the

Lanham Act, which financed child care for an estimated 550,000–

600,000 children before it was terminated in 1946.

The end of the war brought the expectation that mothers would

return home to care for their children. However, many women

chose to remain at work and the labor force participation of women

has increased steadily ever since. The appropriate Federal role in

supporting child care, including the extent to which the Federal

Government should establish standards for federally funded child

care, has been an ongoing topic of debate. In 1988 and 1990, four

Federal child care programs were enacted providing child care for

families receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children

(AFDC), families that formerly received AFDC, low-income working

families at risk of becoming dependent on AFDC, and low-income

working families generally.

The establishment of these programs was the culmination of a

lengthy, and often contentious debate, about what role the Federal

Government should play in child care. Lasting nearly 4 years, the

debate centered on questions about the type of Federal subsidies

that should be made available and for whom, whether the Federal

Government should set national child care standards, conditions

under which religious child care providers could receive Federal

funds, and how best to assure optimal choice for parents in selecting child care arrangements for their children, including options

that would allow a mother to stay home. Differences stemming

from philosophical and partisan views, as well as jurisdictional concerns, were reflected throughout the debate.

Though the programs created in 1988 and 1990 represented a

significant expansion of Federal support for child care, they joined

a large number of existing Federal programs providing early childhood services, administered by numerous Federal agencies and

overseen by several congressional committees. The U.S. General

Accounting Office (GAO; 1994) estimated that in fiscal year 1992

and fiscal year 1993, more than 90 early childhood programs were

funded by the Federal Government, administered through 11 Federal agencies and 20 offices. Of these programs, GAO identified 34

as having education or child care as key to their mission. The Congressional Research Service (CRS), in a memo to the House Committee on Ways and Means (Forman, 1994), identified 46 Federal

programs related to child care operating in fiscal year 1994, administered by 10 different Federal agencies. However, CRS noted that

598

some of these programs were not primarily child care programs;

rather, they were designed for some other major purpose but included some type of child care or related assistance. Moreover, a

majority of the programs were small, with 32 of the 46 providing

less than $50 million in annual funding. A more recent GAO

(1998a) report identified 22 key child care programs, of which 5 accounted for more than 80 percent of total child care spending in fiscal year 1997.

In 1996, the 104th Congress passed a major restructuring of Federal welfare programs, including a consolidation of major Federal

child care programs into an expanded Child Care and Development

Block Grant (CCDBG) (Public Law 104–103). The child care provisions in the new law were developed to achieve several purposes.

As a component of welfare reform, the child care provisions are intended to support the overall goal of promoting self-sufficiency

through work. However, separate from the context of welfare reform, the legislation attempts to address concerns about the effectiveness and efficiency of child care programs. The four separate

child care programs that were enacted in 1988 and 1990 had different rules regarding eligibility, time limits on the receipt of assistance, and work requirements. Consistent with other block grant

proposals considered in the 104th Congress, the child care provisions in Public Law 104–193 are intended to streamline the Federal role, reduce the number of Federal programs and conflicting

rules, and increase the flexibility provided to States.

Under the new amendments, the CCDBG is now the primary

child care subsidy program operated by the Federal Government,

and replaces previous child care programs for welfare and working

families (i.e., child care for recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Transitional Child Care Assistance, and the AtRisk Child Care Program). The new law makes available to States

almost $20 billion over a 6-year period (1997–2002) in a combination of entitlement and discretionary funding for child care, which

is approximately $4 billion above the level that would have been

available under the previous programs.

Despite this increase in Federal resources, concerns persist about

the adequacy and quality of child care in the era of welfare reform.

Although welfare caseloads have declined, freeing up potential

funds from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block

Grant for use for child care, the Administration for Children and

Families (ACF) estimates that in an average month in 1998 only

15 percent of children eligible for Child Care and Development

Fund (CCDF) subsidies received them, raising questions of whether

total child care funding is adequate (CCDF or otherwise). It should

be noted, however, that eligibility figures do not necessarily reflect

consumer demand for child care, leaving the issue of whether adequate child care funding exists open to debate. Nonetheless, child

care spending has unarguably been increasing every year (as

shown in detail in tables 9–26 through 9–29). In 1998, States drew

down all available Federal mandatory CCDF funding and transferred $652 million in Federal TANF dollars in that year to CCDF

Programs. If, as many suspect, demand for child care increases

alongside dropping welfare rolls and heightened work requirements

599

for welfare recipients, proposals for additional child care funding

are likely to be made in the years ahead.

Increased demand and Federal resources for child care could

cause growth in the supply of child care providers. In May 1997,

the U.S. General Accounting Office reported that gaps existed between the demand for child care and the ‘‘known’’ supply (i.e., providers that are regulated by or otherwise known to the States),

based on research at four sites. These gaps were larger in poor

areas and for certain types of care, such as infant and school-aged

care. However, since many parents rely on informal care givers,

such as relatives and neighbors, who may not be known to State

agencies, linking supply and demand for child care can be difficult.

A later GAO study reviewed efforts in seven States to expand child

care programs (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1998b). The seven

States did not know whether their efforts to expand the supply of

providers would be sufficient to meet the increased demand expected to result from welfare reform. States’ efforts included new

provider recruitment; fiscal incentives for providers and businesses

to establish or expand child care facilities; and initiatives to increase the use of early childhood development and education programs, such as Head Start and prekindergarten programs.

MAJOR DAY CARE PROGRAMS

Table 9–15 provides a brief description of the major Federal programs that currently support child care and related activities. One

of the largest Federal sources of child care assistance is provided

indirectly through the Tax Code, in the form of a nonrefundable tax

credit for taxpayers who work or are seeking work. Other major

sources of Federal child care assistance include the CCDBG, the

Social Services Block Grant under title XX of the Social Security

Act, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant,

and the Child Care Food Program, which subsidizes meals for children in child care. Head Start, the early childhood development

program targeted to poor preschool children, can also be characterized as a child care program. Although Head Start primarily operates on a part-day, part-year basis, programs increasingly are

being linked to other all-day child care providers to better meet the

needs of full-time working parents. Assuming that about $1.9 billion will be spent from TANF either directly or by transfer to the

CCDBG Block Grant, assuming that 13 percent of the title XX

block grant is spent on child care, and counting the tax loss from

the dependent care credit as spending, we can estimate that the

Federal Government will spend over $15 billion on child care and

Head Start in 2000.

CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT

The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) was

originally authorized as an amendment to the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1990, and in 1996 was reauthorized (through

2002) and amended by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (Public Law 104–193). The program

provides funding for child care services for low-income families, as

TABLE 9–15.—OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS THAT SUPPORT CHILD CARE

Program

Dependent Care

Credit

Child Care and Development

Block Grant

Child and Adult Care Food Program Title XX Social Services Block Grant Head Start TAN

Budgetary

classification.

Nonrefundable tax

credit.

Discretionary authorization

and authorized entitlement.

Authorized entitlement .......... Authorized entitlement. Discretionary author- ization. Preappropri

(through 

Statutory authority. Internal Revenue Code. Omnibus Budget Reconcili- ation Act of 1990 and

Personal Responsibilityand Work OpportunityReconciliation Act of 1996.

Richard B. Russell National

School Lunch Act.

Social Security

Act.

Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Actof 1981.

Personal Re

sibility aOpportunonciliatio1996

Federal administration. U.S. Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue

Service.

DHHS, ACF 1 .......................... U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. DHHS, ACF 1 ... DHHS, ACF 1 ............. DHHS, ACF 

Federal funding support. NA ........................ Funding ceiling, 100 percent Federal funding for discretionary and part of entitlement funding; balance

at Medicaid match rate.

Open-ended, 100 percent

Federal funding.

Funding ceiling, 100

percent Federal funding.

Funding ceiling, 80

percent Federalfunding.

TANF Block 

100 perceral fund(with Starequirem

Fiscal year

2000 funding (in millions) 2.

$2,200 3 ............... $1,183—discretionary,

$2,367—mandatory.

$1,690 4 ................................ Total is

$1,775 5.

$5,267 6 .................... Total is $16

Target population. Taxpayers who need dependent

care in order toaccept ormaintain employment.

Families with incomes at or

below 85 percent of Statemedian income, with parents engaged in work oreducation/training.

Children, particularly children from low-income

families, in child carecenters, day care homes,and afterschool programs.

State discretion. Low-income children and families. Needy fami

minor chneedy prwomen.

Eligible children. Children under age 13 6. Children under age 13 (un- less incapable of selfcare or under court supervision). Children younger than 13 (through age 18 in the afterschool programs); migrant children younger

than 16; disabled children.

State discretion. Children from poor families who have

not reached theage of compulsoryschool attendance.

Needy child

determinthe State

Provider requirements. Centers only must meet applicable State and

local standards.

Must meet applicable State

and local standards (including relatives). Withexception of relatives,must also meet certainhealth and safety standards.

Must meet Federal nutrition

standards; must meet applicable State/local licensing approval standards (or, certain alternateapproval standards if licensing/approval not required).

Must meet applicable

State andlocal standards.

Must meet federally

established standards with respectto health, education, parentalinvolvement, nutrition, and socialservices.

NA (howeve

transferrare subjeCCDBG r

Reimbursement rates

to providers.

NA ........................ No limit ................................. Providers receive inflationindexed per meal subsidies that are fixed by

law and varied by children’s family income; provider sponsors receivelimited administrativepayments for administrative costs.

No limit .......... No limit .................... NA (howeve

transferrare subjeCCDBG r

1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Administration for Children and Families.2 Amounts reflect appropriation levels except where noted otherwise.3 Estimated revenue loss, Joint Committee on Taxation.4 Estimated obligations.5 States used almost 13 percent of Social Services Block Grant funds for child day care in fiscal year 1997.6 Of the $5.267 billion, $3.867 billion is available for fiscal year 2000, and $1.4 billion is available for fiscal year 2001.7 The 1996 welfare reform law allows States to use TANF funds for child care associated with the TANF Program, and also allows States to transfer a maximum of 30 p

TANF funds to the CCDBG for use under the CCDBG’s program rules. In fiscal year 1999 alone, States expended $1.14 billion on child care from Federal TANF funds acountable toward the TANF maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement (excluding State expenditures that are made under CCDF). Through the first 3 years of Federal TANF grcal years 1997–99), States transferred $3.6 billion (representing 8 percent of total TANF grants) to the CCDBG.

NA—Not applicable.Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service.

602

well as for activities intended to improve the overall quality and

supply of child care for families in general.

Financing

Under the original CCDBG Act, discretionary funds were authorized, subject to the annual appropriations process. As amended by

the 1996 welfare reform law, the program is funded by a combination of discretionary and entitlement amounts. The combined total

of funds is sometimes referred to as the Child Care and Development Fund. The discretionary funds are authorized at $1 billion

annually. However, appropriations surpassed the authorized level

in both fiscal years 1999 and 2000, at $1.183 billion. These funds

are allocated among States according to the same formula contained in the original CCDBG Act, which is based on each State’s

share of children under age 5, the State’s share of children receiving free or reduced-price lunches, and State per capita income. Half

of 1 percent of appropriated funds is reserved for the territories,

and between 1 and 2 percent is reserved for payments to Indian

tribes and tribal organizations. States are not required to match

these discretionary funds. Funds must be obligated in the year they

are received or in the subsequent fiscal year, and the law authorizes the Secretary to reallocate unused funds.

The welfare reform law also provided entitlement funding to

States for child care under the CCDBG. The annual amounts of entitlement funding were $1.967 billion in fiscal year 1997; $2.067

billion in fiscal year 1998; $2.167 billion in fiscal year 1999; $2.367

billion in fiscal year 2000; $2.567 billion in fiscal year 2001; and

$2.717 billion in fiscal year 2002.

The Secretary must reserve between 1 and 2 percent of entitlement funds for payments to Indian tribes and tribal organizations.

After this amount is reserved, remaining entitlement funds are allocated to States in two components. First, each State receives a

fixed amount each year, equal to the funding received by the State

under the three child care programs previously authorized under

AFDC in fiscal year 1994 or fiscal year 1995, or the average of fiscal years 1992–94, whichever is greater. This amount, totals approximately $1.2 billion each year, is sometimes referred to as

‘‘mandatory’’ funds. No State match is required for these funds,

which may remain available for expenditure by States with no fiscal year limitation. Although no State match is required, to receive

their full TANF allotment, States must maintain at least 80 percent of their previous welfare expenditures (referred to as their

‘‘maintenance-of-effort’’ requirements), including previous expenditures for welfare-related child care, in fiscal year 1994.

After the guaranteed amount is distributed, remaining entitlement funds are distributed to States according to each State’s

share of children under age 13. States must meet maintenance-ofeffort and matching requirements to receive these funds. Specifically, States must spend all of their ‘‘guaranteed’’ Federal entitlement funds for child care, plus 100 percent of the amount they

spent of their own funds in fiscal year 1994 or fiscal year 1995,

whichever is higher, under the previous AFDC-related child care

programs. Further, States must provide matching funds at the fiscal year 1995 Medicaid matching rate to receive these additional

603

entitlement funds for child care. If the Secretary determines that

a State will not spend its entire allotment for a given fiscal year,

then the unused amounts may be redistributed among other States

according to those States’ share of children under age 13.

In addition to amounts provided to States for child care, States

may transfer up to 30 percent of their TANF Block Grant into their

CCDBG or Social Services Block Grant Programs. Funds transferred into child care must be spent according to the CCDBG rules.

However, States also may use TANF funds for child care without

formally transferring them to the CCDBG.

Eligibility and target population groups

Children eligible for services under the revised CCDBG are those

whose family income does not exceed 85 percent of the State median. States may adopt income eligibility limits below those in Federal law. Because child care funding is not an entitlement for individuals, States are not required to aid families even if their incomes fall below the State-determined eligibility threshold. Federal

law does require States to give priority to families defined in their

plans as ‘‘very low income.’’ Table 9–25 provides the CCDF income

eligibility limits across the States and territories for families of

three and four. To be eligible for CCDBG funds, children must be

less than 13 years old and be living with parents who are working

or enrolled in school or training, or be in need of protective services. States must use at least 70 percent of their total entitlement

funds for child care services for families that are trying to become

independent of TANF through work activities and families that are

at risk of becoming dependent on public assistance. In their State

plans, States must explain how they will meet the specific child

care needs of these families. Of remaining child care funds (including discretionary amounts), States must ensure that a substantial

portion is used for child care services to eligible families other than

welfare recipients or families at risk of welfare dependency.

Use of funds

CCDBG funds may be used for child care services provided on a

sliding fee scale basis; however, Federal regulations allow States to

waive child care fees for families with incomes at or below the poverty line. Funds also may be used for activities to improve the

quality or availability of child care. States are required to spend no

less than 4 percent of their child care allotments (discretionary and

entitlement) for activities to provide comprehensive consumer education to parents and the public, activities that increase parental

choice, and activities designed to improve the quality and availability of child care (such as resource and referral services).

Child care providers receiving Federal assistance must meet all

licensing or regulatory requirements applicable under State or local

law. States must have in effect licensing requirements applicable

to child care; however, Federal law does not dictate what these licensing requirements should be or what types of providers they

should cover. States must establish minimum health and safety

standards that cover prevention and control of infectious diseases

(including immunizations); building and physical premises safety;

604

and health and safety training; and that apply to child care providers receiving block grant assistance (except relative providers).

Parents of children eligible to receive subsidized child care must

be given maximum choice in selecting a child care provider. Parents must be offered the option to enroll their child with a provider

that has a grant or contract with the State to provide such services, or parents may receive a certificate (also sometimes referred

to as a voucher) that can be used to purchase child care from a provider of the parents’ choice. Child care certificates can be used only

to pay for child care services from eligible providers, which can include sectarian child care providers. Eligible providers also can include individuals, age 18 or older, who provide child care for their

grandchildren, great grandchildren, nieces or nephews, or siblings

(if the provider lives in a separate residence). Table 9–24 shows the

percent of CCDF recipient children served by each form of payment

type, by State, in fiscal year 1998. Certificates were overwhelmingly the form of payment most used, serving over 83 percent of

CCDF children nationally. States must establish payment rates for

child care services that are sufficient to ensure equal access for eligible children to comparable services provided to children whose

parents are not eligible for subsidies.

The CCDBG contains specific requirements with regard to the

use of funds for religious activities. Under the program, a provider

that receives operating assistance through a direct grant or contract with a government agency may not use these funds for any

sectarian purpose or activity, including religious worship and instruction. However, a sectarian provider that receives a child care

certificate from an eligible parent is not so restricted in the use of

funds.

Administration and data collection

At the Federal level, the CCDBG is administered by the Administration for Children and Families of the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services (DHHS). The Secretary is required to

coordinate all child care activities within the agency and with similar activities in other Federal agencies. States are required to designate a lead agency to administer the CCDBG, and may use no

more than 5 percent of their Federal child care allotment for administrative costs. States must submit disaggregated data on children and families receiving subsidized child care to DHHS every

quarter, and aggregate data twice a year. The Secretary is required

to submit a report to Congress once every 2 years. The most recent

available data from DHHS as submitted by the States is from fiscal

year 1998.

CHILD CARE TABLES

CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND

Tables 9–16 through 9–30 provide extensive information about

the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) as reported by

States to DHHS. Because the tables reflect funding from both the

discretionary and mandatory portions of the child care funding

pool, the term CCDF is used in the titles of the tables. The reader

should note, however, that as mentioned in earlier parts of this

605

chapter, all discretionary and mandatory child care funding referenced here is subject to the rules of the CCDBG.

FAMILIES AND CHILDREN SERVED, TYPE OF CARE, AND PAYMENT

TYPE

The average monthly number of families and children served by

the CCDF in the last half of fiscal year 1998 is shown, by State,

in table 9–16. Tables 9–17 and 9–18 reveal the percentage of children served nationwide by reason for care and by age of child respectively. The number of providers, by State and type, are displayed in table 9–19. The percentage of CCDF children served by

each type of care, by State, follows in table 9–20. Tables 9–21

through 9–23 reveal State-by-State information on the breakdowns

between type of care used by CCDF recipients, regulated and nonregulated care used, and relative and nonrelative care used. Table

9–24 shows the percentage of CCDF children served by each form

of payment type.

TABLE 9–16.—CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND—AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER

OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN SERVED, APRIL–SEPTEMBER 1998

State/territory Number of families Number of children

Alabama .......................................................... 11,914 20,526

Alaska 1 ........................................................... 2,862 5,083

American Samoa ............................................. 82 234

Arizona ............................................................ 19,586 33,095

Arkansas ......................................................... 5,464 9,244

California 1 ...................................................... 70,673 99,922

Colorado .......................................................... 11,035 20,172

Connecticut ..................................................... 6,646 11,912

Delaware ......................................................... 3,527 6,138

District of Columbia 1 2 .................................. 2,707 4,245

Florida ............................................................. 26,825 44,867

Georgia ............................................................ 26,488 47,205

Guam .............................................................. 189 374

Hawaii 1 .......................................................... 4,292 6,673

Idaho ............................................................... 3,811 6,546

Illinois ............................................................. 46,186 88,333

Indiana 3 4 ....................................................... 7,153 12,673

Iowa 1 .............................................................. 7,367 11,805

Kansas ............................................................ 5,553 10,238

Kentucky .......................................................... 14,237 25,002

Louisiana 1 ...................................................... 19,986 35,194

Maine .............................................................. (5) (5)

Maryland ......................................................... 13,720 21,383

Massachusetts 1 ............................................. 30,813 46,009

Michigan ......................................................... 49,502 92,062

Minnesota 1 ..................................................... 15,168 25,525

Mississippi 234 ............................................... 5,510 8,471

Missouri .......................................................... 35,174 43,445

Montana .......................................................... 3,135 5,528

Nebraska ......................................................... 5,349 9,348

Nevada 2 ......................................................... 2,986 5,084

606

TABLE 9–16.—CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND—AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER

OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN SERVED, APRIL–SEPTEMBER 1998—Continued

State/territory Number of families Number of children

New Hampshire ............................................... 4,238 6,394

New Jersey ...................................................... 22,132 32,496

New Mexico ..................................................... 8,782 14,983

New York 1 ...................................................... 98,667 158,605

North Carolina 1 .............................................. 41,221 74,245

North Dakota ................................................... 2,641 4,160

Northern Marianas .......................................... (5) (5)

Ohio 2 .............................................................. 33,165 59,357

Oklahoma 2 ..................................................... 21,882 36,029

Oregon ............................................................. 7,965 15,043

Pennsylvania 1 ................................................ 39,985 72,683

Puerto Rico 4 ................................................... 200 256

Rhode Island ................................................... 3,998 6,326

South Carolina ................................................ 12,779 21,733

South Dakota .................................................. 2,042 3,529

Tennessee ....................................................... 29,765 55,419

Texas ............................................................... 46,017 78,955

Utah ................................................................ 6,703 12,552

Vermont ........................................................... 3,121 4,736

Virginia 1 ......................................................... 15,377 23,876

Virgin Islands ................................................. 214 360

Washington 1 4 ................................................ 25,243 36,883

West Virginia 1 ................................................ 8,033 13,186

Wisconsin ........................................................ 13,361 23,867

Wyoming .......................................................... 1,870 3,088

Total .................................................. 907,351 1,515,107

1 Average monthly number of children served is extrapolated from sample data provided by the State

based on the ratio of children to families in the sample. 2 Number of children and families reported are based on less than 6 months of data.

3 The reliability of the data provided is highly questionable due to serious information system problems

during the reporting period. 4 Reporting problems caused an underestimate of average children served monthly during fiscal year

1998. 5 Unable to report any ACF–801 case-level data.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Child Care Information System.

TABLE 9–17.—CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND—PERCENT OF CHILDREN SERVED

BY REASON FOR CARE, APRIL–SEPTEMBER, 1998

Reason for care Percent of children served

Employment ............................................................................................. 73

Training/education ................................................................................... 12

Both employment and training/education .............................................. 6

Protective services ................................................................................... 2

Other ........................................................................................................ 7

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

607

TABLE 9–18.—CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND—PERCENT OF CHILDREN SERVED

BY AGE GROUP, APRIL–SEPTEMBER, 1998

Age group Percent of children served

0–11 months ........................................................................................... 6

12–23 months ......................................................................................... 10

24–35 months ......................................................................................... 12

36–47 months ......................................................................................... 13

48–59 months ......................................................................................... 13

60–71 months ......................................................................................... 11

6–12 years .............................................................................................. 35

13+ years ................................................................................................ 0.4

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 9–19.—CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND—NUMBER OF CHILD CARE

PROVIDERS RECEIVING CCDF FUNDS, FISCAL YEAR 1998

State/territory Child’s home Family home Group home Center

Alabama ...................................... 32 3,247 287 1,601

Alaska .......................................... 362 3,317 43 379

American Samoa ......................... (1) 1(1) 14

Arizona ......................................... 538 4,976 326 1,910

Arkansas ...................................... (1) 538 (1) 856

California ..................................... 4,538 13,911 3,455 7,689

Colorado ...................................... 2,444 6,219 (1) 1,213

Connecticut ................................. 20,331 1,645 58 1,107

Delaware ...................................... 384 1,360 22 278

District of Columbia .................... 1 1 (1) 10

Florida ......................................... 704 9,840 (1) 19,155

Georgia ........................................ 1,683 8,102 314 4,643

Guam ........................................... 73 164 30 45

Hawaii ......................................... 208 5,462 (1) 774

Idaho ........................................... 89 2,461 358 431

Illinois .......................................... 46,723 40,852 465 4,767

Indiana ........................................ 2,343 13,940 (1) 1,929

Iowa ............................................. 422 9,296 826 905

Kansas ......................................... 768 1,298 1,910 666

Kentucky ...................................... 283 7,894 67 1,376

Louisiana ..................................... 13,890 4,560 (1) 1,081

Maine ........................................... 33 1,746 (1) 332

Maryland ...................................... 7,091 8,237 (1) 1,371

Massachusetts ............................ 7,392 4,206 58 1,151

Michigan ...................................... 33,824 39,293 2,647 2,304

Minnesota .................................... 1,584 15,258 (1) 6,294

Mississippi .................................. 1,951 2,388 21 1,138

Missouri ....................................... 42 22,218 161 1,750

Montana ...................................... 12 1,638 469 237

Nebraska ..................................... (1) 1,305 209 452

Nevada ........................................ 131 436 10 400

New Hampshire ........................... (2) (2) (2) (2)

New Jersey ................................... 640 7,474 (1) 2,061

608

TABLE 9–19.—CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND—NUMBER OF CHILD CARE

PROVIDERS RECEIVING CCDF FUNDS, FISCAL YEAR 1998—Continued

State/territory Child’s home Family home Group home Center

New Mexico .................................. 49 7,204 153 448

New York ..................................... 6,357 24,180 1,459 3,399

North Carolina ............................. 594 8,195 240 5,394

North Dakota ............................... 115 1,775 660 122

Northern Marianas ...................... 98 38 (1) 8

Ohio ............................................. 8 9,059 71 2,594

Oklahoma .................................... 116 3,147 (1) 3,317

Oregon ......................................... 3,145 14,361 98 760

Pennsylvania ............................... 19 3,196 502 3,633

Puerto Rico .................................. 79 747 898 486

Rhode Island ............................... 860 1,462 7 254

South Carolina ............................ 486 2,680 167 1,426

South Dakota ............................... 315 1,496 43 107

Tennessee .................................... 7,540 500 1,633 (1)

Texas ........................................... 6,929 8,928 835 5,424

Utah ............................................. 743 4,503 183 282

Vermont ....................................... 355 1,110 (1) 333

Virginia ........................................ (2) (2) (2) (2)

Virgin Islands .............................. 16 150 21 87

Washington .................................. 17,855 11,588 (1) 1,382

West Virginia ............................... 61 5,511 (1) 323

Wisconsin .................................... 80 5,247 (1) 1,490

Wyoming ...................................... 157 679 (1) 88

Total providers ............... 194,493 359,039 18,706 99,676

1 Reported figure is 0 or not reported.

2 New Hampshire and Virginia did not report the number of providers by setting type.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Child Care Information System.

TABLE 9–20.—CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND—PERCENT OF CHILDREN SERVED

BY TYPES OF CARE, FISCAL YEAR 1998

State/territory Child’s home Family home Group home Center

Alabama ...................................... 0.1 20.2 5.6 74.1

Alaska .......................................... 5.2 57.1 3.2 34.5

American Samoa ......................... (1) 0.9 (1) 99.1

Arizona ......................................... 2.0 20.4 4.5 73.0

Arkansas ...................................... (1) 17.5 (1) 82.5

California ..................................... 6.2 17.8 5.6 70.5

Colorado ...................................... 9.4 33.3 (1) 57.3

Connecticut ................................. 56.6 6.4 0.4 36.6

Delaware ...................................... 4.1 39.5 1.5 54.9

District of Columbia .................... 0.5 5.3 (1) 94.1

Florida ......................................... 1.0 14.2 (1) 84.8

Georgia ........................................ 3.5 19.1 1.5 75.9

Guam ........................................... 17.7 39.4 2.7 40.1

Hawaii ......................................... 6.8 65.2 0.4 27.7

609

TABLE 9–20.—CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND—PERCENT OF CHILDREN SERVED

BY TYPES OF CARE, FISCAL YEAR 1998—Continued

State/territory Child’s home Family home Group home Center

Idaho ........................................... 1.4 39.7 14.5 44.5

Illinois .......................................... 31.6 36.9 0.6 30.9

Indiana ........................................ 10.4 53.9 (1) 35.7

Iowa ............................................. 1.6 54.7 10.4 33.4

Kansas ......................................... 7.1 15.2 41.3 36.4

Kentucky ...................................... 1.4 36.8 0.9 61.0

Louisiana ..................................... 36.0 15.1 (1) 49.0

Maine ........................................... 0.8 34.7 (1) 29.0

Maryland ...................................... 22.7 42.4 (1) 34.9

Massachusetts ............................ 17.2 9.3 17.3 56.2

Michigan ...................................... 30.7 41.8 8.8 18.7

Minnesota .................................... 6.8 66.0 (1) 27.2

Mississippi .................................. 12.0 17.7 1.2 69.0

Missouri ....................................... 0.0 58.0 1.7 40.2

Montana ...................................... 0.2 36.3 33.6 30.0

Nebraska ..................................... (1) 32.3 9.2 58.5

Nevada ........................................ 3.9 12.3 2.2 81.6

New Hampshire ........................... (1) (1) (1) (1)

New Jersey ................................... 1.1 24.8 (1) 74.1

New Mexico .................................. 4.4 47.9 4.4 43.3

New York ..................................... 10.1 42.3 7.0 40.6

North Carolina ............................. 0.8 17.0 1.4 80.8

North Dakota ............................... 3.0 44.2 26.6 26.3

Northern Marianas ...................... 58.2 30.8 (1) 11.0

Ohio ............................................. 0.0 34.6 0.8 64.6

Oklahoma .................................... 0.3 18.9 (1) 80.9

Oregon ......................................... 13.7 64.8 0.8 20.6

Pennsylvania ............................... 21.1 15.7 4.4 58.9

Puerto Rico .................................. 1.4 20.1 13.9 64.7

Rhode Island ............................... 9.9 25.4 0.2 64.5

South Carolina ............................ 3.5 18.2 2.9 75.5

South Dakota ............................... 6.0 61.0 6.2 26.9

Tennessee .................................... 0.8 21.8 4.8 72.6

Texas ........................................... 7.4 10.3 3.3 79.0

Utah ............................................. 4.4 26.1 5.0 64.6

Vermont ....................................... 5.6 50.1 (1) 44.4

Virginia ........................................ 1.9 44.1 (1) 54.0

Virgin Islands .............................. 3.0 23.6 6.1 67.3

Washington .................................. 24.7 34.0 (1) 41.2

West Virginia ............................... 0.4 59.9 (1) 39.8

Wisconsin .................................... 0.4 39.4 (1) 60.2

Wyoming ...................................... 13.4 55.4 (1) 31.2

National average percent 10.8 29.7 3.6 55.4

1 Reported figure is 0 or not reported.

Note.—Row total(s) and column total(s) do not add up for the following reason(s): Adjusted figures

are rounded. Errors in reports submitted by Maine and New Hampshire.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Child Care Information System.

610

TABLE 9–21.—CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND—PERCENT OF CHILDREN SERVED

IN REGULATED SETTINGS AND SETTINGS LEGALLY OPERATING WITHOUT REGULATION

State/territory Licensed/regulated

Legally operating without

regulation

Alabama .................................................................................. 74 26

Alaska ..................................................................................... 54 46

American Samoa ..................................................................... 100 (1)

Arizona .................................................................................... 88 12

Arkansas ................................................................................. 100 (1)

California ................................................................................ 82 18

Colorado .................................................................................. 76 24

Connecticut ............................................................................. 43 57

Delaware ................................................................................. 83 17

District of Columbia ............................................................... 98 2

Florida ..................................................................................... 87 13

Georgia .................................................................................... 85 15

Guam ...................................................................................... 39 61

Hawaii ..................................................................................... 31 69

Idaho ....................................................................................... 59 41

Illinois ..................................................................................... 41 59

Indiana .................................................................................... 46 54

Iowa ........................................................................................ 67 33

Kansas .................................................................................... 86 14

Kentucky .................................................................................. 67 33

Louisiana ................................................................................ 49 51

Maine ...................................................................................... 57 7

Maryland ................................................................................. 65 35

Massachusetts ........................................................................ 80 20

Michigan ................................................................................. 39 61

Minnesota ............................................................................... 66 34

Mississippi .............................................................................. 70 30

Missouri .................................................................................. 54 46

Montana .................................................................................. 85 15

Nebraska ................................................................................. 100 (1)

Nevada .................................................................................... 76 24

New Hampshire ....................................................................... (1) (1)

New Jersey .............................................................................. 85 15

New Mexico ............................................................................. 52 48

New York ................................................................................. 59 41

North Carolina ........................................................................ 94 6

North Dakota ........................................................................... 97 3

Northern Marianas .................................................................. 100 (1)

Ohio ......................................................................................... 100 (1)

Oklahoma ................................................................................ 100 (1)

Oregon ..................................................................................... 38 62

Pennsylvania ........................................................................... 71 29

Puerto Rico ............................................................................. 65 35

Rhode Island ........................................................................... 72 28

South Carolina ........................................................................ 83 17

South Dakota .......................................................................... 77 23

Tennessee ............................................................................... 84 16

Texas ....................................................................................... 85 15

611

TABLE 9–21.—CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND—PERCENT OF CHILDREN SERVED

IN REGULATED SETTINGS AND SETTINGS LEGALLY OPERATING WITHOUT

REGULATION—Continued

State/territory Licensed/regulated

Legally operating without

regulation

Utah ........................................................................................ 79 21

Vermont ................................................................................... 94 6

Virginia ................................................................................... 80 20

Virgin Islands ......................................................................... 68 32

Washington ............................................................................. 64 36

West Virginia .......................................................................... 89 11

Wisconsin ................................................................................ 100 (1)

Wyoming .................................................................................. 55 45

National average percent .......................................... 72 28

1 Reported figure is 0 or not reported.

Note.—Row total(s) and column total(s) do not add up for the following reason(s): Errors in reports

submitted by Maine and New Hampshire. Adjusted figures are rounded.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Child Care Information System.

TABLE 9–22.—CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND—PERCENT OF CHILDREN SERVED

IN SETTINGS LEGALLY OPERATING WITHOUT REGULATION, BY RELATIVES AND NONRELATIVES, FISCAL YEAR 1998

State/territory Relative Nonrelative

Alabama ...................................................................................... 39 61

Alaska ......................................................................................... 27 73

American Samoa ......................................................................... (1) (1)

Arizona ........................................................................................ 100 (1)

Arkansas ..................................................................................... (1) (1)

California .................................................................................... 62 38

Colorado ...................................................................................... 44 56

Connecticut ................................................................................. 71 29

Delaware ..................................................................................... 54 46

District of Columbia ................................................................... 70 30

Florida ......................................................................................... 23 77

Georgia ........................................................................................ 29 71

Guam .......................................................................................... 91 9

Hawaii ......................................................................................... 69 31

Idaho ........................................................................................... 44 56

Illinois ......................................................................................... 56 44

Indiana ........................................................................................ 39 61

Iowa ............................................................................................ 31 69

Kansas ........................................................................................ 71 29

Kentucky ...................................................................................... 29 71

Louisiana .................................................................................... 48 52

Maine .......................................................................................... 32 68

Maryland ..................................................................................... 78 22

Massachusetts ............................................................................ 42 58

612

TABLE 9–22.—CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND—PERCENT OF CHILDREN SERVED

IN SETTINGS LEGALLY OPERATING WITHOUT REGULATION, BY RELATIVES AND NONRELATIVES, FISCAL YEAR 1998—Continued

State/territory Relative Nonrelative

Michigan ..................................................................................... 72 28

Minnesota ................................................................................... 42 58

Mississippi .................................................................................. 64 36

Missouri ...................................................................................... 46 54

Montana ...................................................................................... 10 90

Nebraska ..................................................................................... (1) (1)

Nevada ........................................................................................ 16 84

New Hampshire ........................................................................... (1) (1)

New Jersey .................................................................................. 31 69

New Mexico ................................................................................. 57 43

New York ..................................................................................... 40 60

North Carolina ............................................................................ 81 19

North Dakota ............................................................................... 100 (1)

Northern Marianas ...................................................................... (1) (1)

Ohio ............................................................................................. (1) (1)

Oklahoma .................................................................................... (1) (1)

Oregon ......................................................................................... 29 71

Pennsylvania ............................................................................... 22 78

Puerto Rico ................................................................................. 54 46

Rhode Island ............................................................................... 78 22

South Carolina ............................................................................ (1) 100

South Dakota .............................................................................. 79 21

Tennessee ................................................................................... 12 88

Texas ........................................................................................... 100 (1)

Utah ............................................................................................ 37 63

Vermont ....................................................................................... 1 99

Virginia ....................................................................................... 83 17

Virgin Islands ............................................................................. 58 42

Washington ................................................................................. 65 35

West Virginia .............................................................................. 91 9

Wisconsin .................................................................................... (1) (1)

Wyoming ...................................................................................... 52 48

National average percent .............................................. 53 47

1 Reported figure is 0 or not reported.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Child Care Information System.

TABLE 9–23.—CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND—PERCENT OF CHILDREN SERVED IN ALL TYPES OF CARE, FISCAL YEAR 1998

State/territory

Licensed regulated providers Providers legally operating without regulation

Child’s

home

Family

home

Group

home Center

Child’s home Family home Group home

Relative Nonrel- ative Relative Nonrel- ative Relative Nonrel- ative

Alabama ........................................... (1) 10 6 59 0.1 0.1 10 0.1 (1) (1) 

Alaska .............................................. 0.01 16 3 35 2 3 11 30 (1) (1) 

American Samoa .............................. (1) 1(1) 99 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 

Arizona ............................................. 0.5 10 4 73 2 (1) 10 (1) (1) (1) 

Arkansas .......................................... (1) 18 (1) 82 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 

California ......................................... (1) 7 6 70 5 2 6 4 (1) (1) 

Colorado ........................................... (1) 19 (1) 57 2 7 8 6 (1) (1) 

Connecticut ...................................... (1) 6(1) 36 41 16 (1) (1) (1) (1) 

Delaware .......................................... (1) 34 1 48 4 (1) 5(1) (1) (1) 

District of Columbia ........................ (1) 4(1) 94 (1) 1 1(1) (1) (1) Florida .............................................. (1) 8(1) 80 1 (1) 2 4(1) (1) Georgia ............................................. (1) 7 2 76 1 3 4 8 (1) (1) Guam ................................................ (1) (1) (1) 39 18 (1) 37 2 1 2 

Hawaii .............................................. (1) 8(1) 22 3 3 45 12 (1) (1) Idaho ................................................ (1) (1) 14 44 (1) 1 17 22 (1) (1) 

Illinois .............................................. (1) 11 1 29 11 21 22 4 (1) (1) 

Indiana ............................................. 2.2 14 (1) 30 5 3 16 23 (1) (1) Iowa .................................................. (1) 23 10 33 1 1 10 22 (1) (1) 

Kansas ............................................. (1) 9 41 36 3 4 6 (1) (1) (1) Kentucky ........................................... (1) 5 1 61 1 1 9 23 (1) (1) 

Louisiana .......................................... (1) (1) (1) 49 22 14 2 13 (1) (1) 

Maine ............................................... (1) 28 (1) 29 (1) (1) 2 5(1) (1) 

TABLE 9–23.—CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND—PERCENT OF CHILDREN SERVED IN ALL TYPES OF CARE, FISCAL YEAR 1998—Cont

State/territory

Licensed regulated providers Providers legally operating without regulation

Child’s

home

Family

home

Group

home Center

Child’s home Family home Group home

Relative Nonrel- ative Relative Nonrel- ative Relative Nonrel- ative

Maryland .......................................... (1) 31 (1) 34 16 7 12 (1) (1) (1) 

Massachusetts ................................. (1) 6 17 56 5 12 3 (1) (1) (1) Michigan .......................................... (1) 11 9 19 14 17 30 (1) (1) (1) 

Minnesota ......................................... (1) 42 (1) 24 4 3 10 14 (1) (1) Mississippi ....................................... (1) (1) 1 69 9 3 10 8 (1) (1) 

Missouri ............................................ (1) 15 2 37 (1) (1) 21 22 (1) 3Montana ........................................... 0.02 21 34 30 (1) (1) 1 14 (1) (1) 

Nebraska .......................................... (1) 32 9 58 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Nevada ............................................. (1) 3 2 70 2 2 2 7 (1) (1) 

New Hampshire ................................ (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 

New Jersey ........................................ (1) 10 (1) 74 1 (1) 4 10 (1) (1) New Mexico ...................................... (1) 5 4 43 2 2 25 18 (1) (1) 

New York .......................................... (1) 11 7 41 5 5 11 19 (1) (1) 

North Carolina .................................. (1) 11 1 81 1 (1) 5 1(1) (1) 

North Dakota .................................... (1) 44 27 26 3 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 

Northern Marianas ........................... 58.2 31 (1) 11 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Ohio .................................................. 0.01 35 1 65 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Oklahoma ......................................... 0.26 19 (1) 81 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 

Oregon .............................................. 0.22 21 1 16 5 9 14 30 (1) 0.1 

Pennsylvania .................................... (1) 7 4 59 5 16 1 7 (1) (1) 

Puerto Rico ....................................... (1) (1) (1) 65 1 (1) 12 8 6 8 

Rhode Island .................................... (1) 8(1) 64 4 6 18 (1) (1) (1) 

South Carolina ................................. (1) 5 3 76 (1) 3(1) 13 (1) (1) 

South Dakota ................................... (1) 44 6 27 4 2 14 3 (1) (1) 

Tennessee ......................................... (1) 7 5 73 1 (1) 1 14 (1) (1) 

Texas ................................................ (1) 3 3 79 7 (1) 7(1) (1) (1) Utah ................................................. (1) 9 5 65 2 2 6 11 (1) (1) Vermont ............................................ (1) 50 (1) 44 0 6 (1) (1) (1) (1) Virginia ............................................. 0.20 26 (1) 54 2 (1) 15 3 (1) (1) 

Virgin Islands ................................... (1) (1) 6 62 3 (1) 16 8 (1) (1) 

Washington ...................................... (1) 23 (1) 41 12 12 11 (1) (1) (1) 

West Virginia .................................... (1) 50 (1) 39 (1) (1) 10 (1) (1) (1) 

Wisconsin ......................................... 0.38 39 (1) 60 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 

Wyoming ........................................... (1) 24 (1) 31 8 6 16 16 (1) (1) 

National average percent ... 0.1 13 3 556696 0.02 0.03 

1 Reported figure is 0 or not reported.

Note.—Select row total(s) and column total(s) do not add up for the following reason: Errors in reports submitted by Maine and New Hampshire.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Child Care Information System.

616

TABLE 9–24.—CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND—PERCENT OF CHILDREN

SERVED, BY PAYMENT METHOD, FISCAL YEAR 1998

State/territory Grants/

contracts

CertificatesCash to

parents

Alabama ....................................................................... 45.4 53.7 0.9

Alaska .......................................................................... (1) 99.3 0.7

American Samoa .......................................................... (1) 100.0 (1)

Arizona ......................................................................... (1) 100.0 (1)

Arkansas ...................................................................... (1) 100.0 (1)

California ..................................................................... 58.3 33.8 7.9

Colorado ....................................................................... 0.4 99.5 0.1

Connecticut .................................................................. 24.0 76.0 (1)

Delaware ...................................................................... (1) 100.0 (1)

District of Columbia .................................................... 59.6 40.4 (1)

Florida .......................................................................... 72.6 20.1 7.3

Georgia ......................................................................... 4.6 95.4 (1)

Guam ............................................................................ (1) 100.0 (1)

Hawaii .......................................................................... (1) (1) 100.0

Idaho ............................................................................ (1) 100.0 (1)

Illinois .......................................................................... 14.1 85.9 (1)

Indiana ......................................................................... 1.0 99.0 (1)

Iowa .............................................................................. (1) 100.0 (1)

Kansas ......................................................................... (1) 92.9 7.1

Kentucky ....................................................................... (1) 100.0 (1)

Louisiana ...................................................................... (1) 65.3 34.7

Maine ........................................................................... 23.5 75.9 0.6

Maryland ...................................................................... (1) 100.0 (1)

Massachusetts ............................................................. 27.6 72.4 (1)

Michigan ...................................................................... (1) 100.0 (1)

Minnesota ..................................................................... (1) 100.0 (1)

Mississippi ................................................................... 27.1 72.9 (1)

Missouri ........................................................................ (1) 100.0 (1)

Montana ....................................................................... (1) 96.4 3.6

Nebraska ...................................................................... (1) 100.0 (1)

Nevada ......................................................................... 6.1 93.9 (1)

New Hampshire ............................................................ (1) 100.0 (1)

New Jersey .................................................................... 26.7 73.3 (1)

New Mexico .................................................................. 1.3 98.7 (1)

New York ...................................................................... 23.1 76.9 (1)

North Carolina .............................................................. (1) 100.0 (1)

North Dakota ................................................................ 4.0 96.0 (1)

Northern Marianas ....................................................... (1) (1) 100.0

Ohio .............................................................................. (1) 100.0 (1)

Oklahoma ..................................................................... (1) 100.0 (1)

Oregon .......................................................................... 11.0 89.0 (1)

Pennsylvania ................................................................ (1) 56.4 43.6

Puerto Rico ................................................................... 57.5 42.5 (1)

Rhode Island ................................................................ (1) 100.0 (1)

South Carolina ............................................................. 12.0 88.0 (1)

South Dakota ............................................................... (1) 100.0 (1)

Tennessee ..................................................................... (1) 100.0 (1)

Texas ............................................................................ (1) 83.1 16.9

Utah ............................................................................. (1) (1) 100.0

617

TABLE 9–24.—CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND—PERCENT OF CHILDREN

SERVED, BY PAYMENT METHOD, FISCAL YEAR 1998—Continued

State/territory Grants/

contracts

CertificatesCash to

parents

Vermont ........................................................................ 0.4 99.6 (1)

Virginia ......................................................................... 1.1 100.0 (1)

Virgin Islands ............................................................... 2.4 97.6 (1)

Washington .................................................................. (1) 64.4 35.6

West Virginia ................................................................ (1) 100.0 (1)

Wisconsin ..................................................................... (1) 100.0 (1)

Wyoming ....................................................................... (1) 100.0 (1)

National average percent ............................... 9.8 83.5 6.6

1 Reported figure is 0 or not reported.

Note.—Row total(s) and column total(s) do not add up for the following reason(s): Errors in report

submitted by Virginia. Adjusted figures are rounded.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Child Care Information System.

STATE INCOME ELIGIBILITY LIMITS

States’ income eligibility limits for families of three and four receiving Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) subsidies, as

submitted in the latest available State CCDF plans, are displayed

in table 9–25.

TRENDS IN CHILD CARE EXPENDITURES

Tables 9–26 through 9–29 contain information about trends in

child care expenditures under the CCDF and its predecessor programs (i.e., AFDC child care programs). All figures reflect expenditures made in the year indicated, as opposed to expenditures made

from a given year’s appropriation. Table 9–26 provides a summary

of discretionary and mandatory expenditures on child care from fiscal years 1992 through 1998. Table 9–27 gives the mandatory fund

expenditure trends from fiscal years 1992 through 1998, and the

total expenditures (mandatory and discretionary) are shown by

State in table 9–28. A detailed breakdown of CCDF expenditures

made in fiscal year 1998 (the latest year available) by State is displayed in table 9–29.

STATE CCDF ALLOCATIONS

Table 9–30 shows actual State allotments for discretionary and

entitlement (mandatory and matching) funding for fiscal year 1999.

TABLE 9–25.—CCDF INCOME ELIGIBILITY LIMITS FOR FAMILIES OF THREE AND FOUR

[Monthly income]

State/territory

85 percent of State median income CCDF income eligibility limit Very low income limit (priority for child care) CCDF income limit as a percent of State median

income

Very low incomas a percent o

median inc

Family of

three

Family of

four

Family of

three

Family of

four

Family of

three

Family of

four Family of three Family of four Family of three 

Alabama ........................................ $2,870 $3,417 $1,504 $1,809 $1,503 $1,808 45 45 45 Alaska ........................................... 3,694 4,397 3,694 4,397 1,423 1,714 85 85 33 American Samoa 1 ........................ 474 632 474 632 237 316 85 85 43 

Arizona .......................................... 2,804 3,339 1,905 2,217 1,157 1,392 58 56 35 Arkansas ....................................... 2,172 5,586 1,533 1,825 1,022 1,217 60 28 40 California ...................................... 3,197 3,552 2,821 3,134 1,881 2,090 75 75 50 Colorado ........................................ 3,510 4,178 2,139 2,574 1,504 1,810 52 52 36 Connecticut 1 ................................. 3,698 4,403 3,264 3,885 1,088 1,295 75 75 25 

Delaware ....................................... 3,371 4,014 2,314 2,784 867 1,044 58 59 22 District of Columbia ..................... 3,169 3,772 2,326 2,576 1,585 1,886 62 58 43 Florida ........................................... 2,667 3,175 1,706 2,056 2,104 2,536 54 55 67 Georgia .......................................... 2,817 3,130 2,817 3,130 2,023 2,248 85 85 61 Guam ............................................ (2) (2) 2,463 2,963 1,331 1,601 (2) (2) (2) 

Hawaii ........................................... 3,257 3,878 2,874 3,422 1,278 1,538 75 75 33 Idaho ............................................. 2,684 2,982 1,706 2,056 1,705 2,055 54 59 54 Illinois ........................................... 3,440 4,095 1,818 2,165 1,214 1,445 45 45 30 Indiana .......................................... 3,149 3,795 2,161 2,605 1,628 1,962 58 58 44 Iowa .............................................. 3,081 3,668 1,793 2,157 1,619 1,948 49 50 45 Kansas .......................................... 3,114 3,747 3,114 3,747 1,832 2,204 85 85 50 Kentucky ........................................ 2,739 3,261 1,851 2,227 1,851 2,227 57 58 57 Louisiana ...................................... 2,742 3,265 2,420 2,880 1,157 1,392 75 75 36 Maine 1 .......................................... 2,708 3,223 2,708 3,223 1,101 1,329 85 85 35 

Maryland ....................................... 3,957 4,711 1,870 2,226 767 913 40 40 16 Massachusetts 1 ............................ 3,522 4,193 2,771 3,299 1,931 2,299 67 67 47 

Michigan ....................................... 3,342 3,979 2,172 2,586 809 940 55 55 21 Minnesota ..................................... 3,604 4,290 3,181 3,787 3,180 3,786 75 75 75 Mississippi .................................... 2,333 2,750 2,333 2,750 1,416 1,667 85 85 52 Missouri ........................................ 2,772 3,696 1,482 1,764 674 802 45 41 21 Montana ........................................ 2,592 3,085 1,735 2,088 469 564 57 58 15 Nebraska ....................................... 2,707 3,323 2,105 2,535 1,121 1,350 66 65 35 Nevada .......................................... 3,171 3,776 2,798 3,331 1,532 1,793 75 75 41 New Hampshire 1 .......................... 3,064 3,647 1,784 2,147 1,556 1,873 49 50 43 

New Jersey .................................... 3,959 4,770 1,735 2,088 2,892 3,479 37 37 62 New Mexico 1 ................................. 2,212 2,633 1,951 2,323 1,465 1,742 75 75 56 New York ....................................... 3,326 3,960 2,338 2,783 (3) (3) 60 60 (3) 

North Carolina .............................. 3,082 3,668 2,719 3,237 2,719 3,237 75 75 75 North Dakota ................................. 2,445 2,910 2,445 2,910 288 342 85 85 10 Northern Marianas ........................ 1,273 1,498 1,157 1,392 1,157 1,392 77 79 77 Ohio ............................................... 3,084 3,672 2,105 2,536 700 843 58 59 19 Oklahoma ...................................... 2,635 3,137 1,936 1,936 1,933 1,934 62 52 62 Oregon ........................................... 3,226 3,841 2,088 2,290 1,157 1,392 55 51 30 Pennsylvania ................................. 3,201 3,811 2,139 2,574 1,156 1,391 57 57 31 Puerto Rico ................................... 1,279 1,523 1,279 1,523 753 1,039 85 85 50 Rhode Island ................................. 3,067 3,407 2,602 3,131 1,278 1,438 72 78 35 South Carolina .............................. 2,954 3,518 1,446 1,740 1,157 1,392 42 42 33 South Dakota ................................ 2,786 3,317 2,140 2,575 1,157 1,392 65 66 35 Tennessee ..................................... 2,871 3,418 2,027 2,413 1,478 1,528 60 60 44 Texas ............................................. 2,856 3,400 1,735 2,088 1,157 1,392 52 52 34 Utah .............................................. 2,724 3,242 1,794 2,136 1,138 1,371 56 56 36 Vermont ......................................... 2,664 3,209 2,586 3,115 1,157 1,392 83 83 37 Virginia 1 ....................................... 2,977 3,544 2,977 3,544 1,111 1,338 85 85 32 

Virgin Islands 1 ............................. 1,364 1,557 1,364 1,557 1,111 1,338 85 85 69 

Washington ................................... 3,194 3,803 2,024 2,435 856 1,030 54 54 23 West Virginia ................................ 2,457 2,925 1,735 2,087 463 557 60 61 16 

TABLE 9–25.—CCDF INCOME ELIGIBILITY LIMITS FOR FAMILIES OF THREE AND FOUR—Continued

[Monthly income]

State/territory

85 percent of State median income CCDF income eligibility limit Very low income limit (priority for child care) CCDF income limit as a percent of State median

income

Very low incomas a percent o

median inc

Family of

three

Family of

four

Family of

three

Family of

four

Family of

three

Family of

four Family of three Family of four Family of three 

Wisconsin ...................................... (4) 3,586 1,909 2,297 NA NA NA 54 NA 

Wyoming ........................................ 2,881 3,430 1,539 1,852 1,273 1,532 45 46 38 

1 Income eligibility limits for this State reflect figures submitted in its initial 1997 State plan.2 Guam is using 185 percent of the Federal poverty income guidelines for Hawaii to limit eligibility. There is no current median income established for Guam. 3 Local social services districts define the income level, which constitutes ‘‘very low income’’ in their districts. It must be established at or below 200 percent of the 

come standard. Currently, levels at which districts have established ‘‘very low income’’ range from 100–200 percent of the State income standard. 4 In the Wisconsin State plan, 85 percent State median income figure is available only for a family of four.

NA—Not available.Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on information from CCDF State plans submitted by the States to the U.S. Department of He

Human Services.

TABLE 9–26.—SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND AND PREDECESSOR PROGRAM EXPEND

FISCAL YEARS 1992–98

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year Discretionary funds (Federal) 1

Mandatory funds 2

Total

P

ch

tota

tu

prev

Federal State

1992 ............................................................................................... $332,159 $801,289 $615,552 $1,749,000 1993 ............................................................................................... 675,229 889,592 662,184 2,227,005 1994 ............................................................................................... 835,014 1,054,893 797,745 2,687,652 1995 ............................................................................................... 832,009 1,235,233 949,821 3,017,063 1996 ............................................................................................... 850,122 1,280,212 994,275 3,124,608 1997 ............................................................................................... 1,010,068 1,518,905 1,357,515 3,886,488 1998 ............................................................................................... 1,403,230 2,078,421 1,713,933 5,195,584 

1 Discretionary funds are from appropriations and are authorized under the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) of 1990. For fiscal years 1997 and 199

tionary funds include those expenditures financed through transfers from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant. 2Mandatory funds are Federal funds provided under title IV–A of the Social Security Act and State funds required to obtain these Federal funds. For fiscal years 1992–datory child care funds were for individuals who received cash welfare (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), in transition from cash welfare, or ‘‘at risk’’ of cash wceipt. For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, mandatory funds were those provided under section 418 of the Social Security Act and transferred to the CCDF, as well as State pended either as the maintenance-of-effort (MOE) or State match for CCDF matching funds.

NA—Not applicable.Note.—All figures reflect expenditures made in the year indicated, as opposed to expenditures made only from a given year’s appropriation. The Federal share of f

1992–96 mandatory funds from the program for those ‘‘at risk’’ of welfare might be overstated, as it reflects expenditures reported by the States multiplied by the matching rate. For some States, this computed Federal share might be greater than the cap on Federal funding for the State under the ‘‘at risk’’ program.

Source: Congressional Research Service based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 9–27.—FEDERAL MANDATORY CHILD CARE EXPENDITURES, BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1992–98

[In thousands of dollars]

State 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Percentage 

1992–98 

Alabama .......................................... $12,100 $15,147 $17,480 $17,626 $17,734 $27,539 $28,847 138 Alaska .............................................. 3,242 2,740 3,096 3,983 3,599 5,063 6,468 100 Arizona ............................................. 15,730 13,876 16,591 20,998 24,993 31,034 32,258 105 Arkansas .......................................... 2,073 3,668 3,867 5,300 4,009 3,938 17,326 736 California ......................................... 98,097 47,592 111,360 90,347 97,454 101,077 212,855 117 Colorado ........................................... 8,432 10,339 9,653 10,498 10,486 11,926 23,275 176 Connecticut ...................................... 9,816 10,893 15,206 18,738 25,122 27,298 28,676 192 Delaware .......................................... 2,811 3,620 4,226 5,292 5,217 6,718 6,807 142 District of Columbia ........................ 3,730 3,769 3,730 4,721 4,455 5,703 6,823 83 Florida .............................................. 40,379 37,581 40,848 48,743 54,008 62,220 102,098 153 Georgia ............................................ 26,000 31,520 37,081 39,088 49,040 40,876 65,599 152 Hawaii .............................................. 1,097 1,309 3,211 5,221 4,562 8,406 8,924 714 Idaho ................................................ 1,768 2,857 3,136 3,062 2,357 3,809 5,689 222 Illinois .............................................. 18,689 29,156 35,860 60,275 78,690 92,635 95,625 412 Indiana ............................................ 3,903 9,604 21,298 28,640 29,777 32,515 43,371 1011 Iowa ................................................. 7,099 5,860 6,693 9,219 7,089 11,182 19,622 176 Kansas ............................................. 12,113 9,265 11,497 10,044 11,632 15,598 18,007 49 Kentucky .......................................... 13,153 16,101 17,293 17,230 17,490 22,112 32,584 148 Louisiana ......................................... 6,912 9,705 11,492 14,539 13,895 15,058 29,498 327 Maine ............................................... 980 2,725 3,137 3,036 3,456 6,015 6,897 604 Maryland .......................................... 18,326 22,126 25,141 24,367 23,575 26,356 46,759 155 

Massachusetts ................................. 29,688 34,745 39,730 46,798 52,211 60,350 62,620 111 Michigan .......................................... 15,527 29,589 23,702 32,082 30,340 38,803 65,828 324 Minnesota ........................................ 16,589 19,301 21,934 23,368 26,089 28,796 33,639 103 Mississippi ....................................... 2,909 3,800 4,689 6,682 6,787 4,892 19,032 554 Missouri ........................................... 15,491 19,764 21,560 25,390 26,805 37,505 42,753 176 Montana ........................................... 2,109 2,023 2,972 3,191 3,451 2,968 8,476 302 Nebraska .......................................... 9,863 10,402 11,653 10,072 8,786 15,878 15,822 60 Nevada ............................................. 1,823 2,975 2,489 2,873 3,122 2,897 7,375 305 New Hampshire ............................... 3,828 3,961 4,407 5,139 4,387 7,900 8,383 119 New Jersey ....................................... 25,997 26,331 31,253 40,031 49,494 51,121 39,311 51 New Mexico ...................................... 3,777 6,900 10,170 4,174 9,174 13,916 14,342 280 New York .......................................... 67,010 76,568 65,787 108,871 71,877 69,409 173,957 160 North Carolina ................................. 28,838 48,070 62,072 71,708 63,320 84,934 95,048 230 North Dakota ................................... 1,941 2,665 2,506 2,188 1,895 1,531 5,288 173 Ohio ................................................. 38,649 55,079 53,159 71,195 66,526 95,211 109,039 182 Oklahoma ......................................... 22,068 20,869 22,132 25,638 26,638 33,905 35,324 60 Oregon ............................................. 13,591 13,141 19,065 20,288 26,515 27,598 28,981 113 Pennsylvania .................................... 41,419 37,667 45,351 55,355 55,822 76,285 82,810 100 Rhode Island ................................... 4,273 4,707 5,773 6,695 6,856 8,884 9,794 129 South Carolina ................................. 6,543 8,195 5,893 9,967 12,457 16,796 22,509 244 South Dakota ................................... 1,318 1,607 1,713 1,753 1,742 3,125 4,781 263 Tennessee ........................................ 14,207 21,135 33,972 39,566 43,192 51,259 53,621 277 Texas ................................................ 50,258 62,222 59,880 63,995 72,750 64,857 121,168 141 Utah ................................................. 8,928 12,467 12,998 13,019 14,450 19,428 20,605 131 Vermont ........................................... 2,589 3,003 4,386 3,737 3,841 5,667 5,687 120 Virginia ............................................ 16,032 17,272 17,002 21,364 18,716 34,148 30,333 89 Washington ...................................... 25,180 29,219 36,459 41,948 43,218 52,091 63,917 154 

TABLE 9–27.—FEDERAL MANDATORY CHILD CARE EXPENDITURES, BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1992–98—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

State 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Percentage 

1992–98 

West Virginia ................................... 3,233 6,807 8,904 8,834 9,837 12,973 13,561 319 Wisconsin ......................................... 18,656 17,085 18,572 25,715 28,995 35,850 42,977 130 Wyoming .......................................... 2,507 2,567 2,815 2,631 2,277 2,851 3,431 37 

Total ................................... 801,289 889,592 1,054,893 1,235,233 1,280,212 1,518,905 2,078,421 159 

Note.—All figures reflect expenditures made in the year indicated, as opposed to expenditures made only from a given year’s appropriation. Mandatory funds are Fede

provided under title IV–A of the Social Security Act and State funds required to obtain these Federal funds. For fiscal years 1992–96, mandatory child care funds are fouals who received cash welfare (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), in transition from cash welfare, or ‘‘at risk’’ of cash welfare receipt. For fiscal years 1997 amandatory funds are those provided under section 418 of the Social Security Act and transferred to the CCDF. The Federal share of fiscal year 1992–96, mandatory futhe program for those ‘‘at risk’’ of welfare might be overstated, as it reflects expenditures reported by the States multiplied by the Medicaid matching rate. For some Stcomputed Federal share might be greater than the cap on Federal funding for the State under the ‘‘at risk’’ program.

Source: Congressional Research Service based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 9–28.—TOTAL CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND AND PREDECESSOR PROGRAM EXPENDITURES, BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1992

[In thousands of dollars]

State 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Percentage c

1992–98 

Alabama .............................. $29,490 $37,892 $39,133 $45,166 $46,612 $52,411 $60,689 106 Alaska .................................. 5,161 6,851 6,624 9,183 6,525 13,123 16,660 223 Arizona ................................. 27,055 33,404 38,600 44,690 51,305 61,200 81,923 203 Arkansas .............................. 7,918 13,441 12,888 12,720 16,436 16,370 23,333 195 California ............................. 134,248 131,165 265,531 250,940 286,913 368,789 586,143 337 Colorado ............................... 13,518 22,480 29,810 29,043 23,342 32,909 45,449 236 Connecticut .......................... 19,683 24,041 26,068 46,096 55,540 58,668 71,601 264 Delaware .............................. 5,957 7,914 9,505 11,570 11,396 17,487 24,409 310 District of Columbia ............ 7,940 8,479 8,852 10,204 10,021 13,604 20,154 154 Florida .................................. 82,247 92,867 97,543 118,142 136,035 157,347 222,576 171 Georgia ................................ 53,234 70,596 82,240 88,069 101,717 131,264 162,139 205 Hawaii .................................. 1,311 5,016 7,768 11,540 10,399 20,335 30,770 2247 Idaho .................................... 3,976 6,631 11,780 5,552 5,535 9,127 16,022 303 Illinois .................................. 40,401 73,846 91,971 148,557 178,373 236,029 300,808 645 Indiana ................................ 6,071 26,100 47,329 60,247 63,782 78,288 96,576 1491 Iowa ..................................... 14,645 15,797 14,794 20,845 19,830 20,130 49,489 238 Kansas ................................. 23,632 21,006 25,763 23,022 25,370 35,108 45,693 93 Kentucky .............................. 21,417 40,950 38,150 39,877 41,912 51,609 83,939 292 Louisiana ............................. 13,035 31,726 33,840 38,756 40,111 47,367 62,341 378 Maine ................................... 2,928 8,179 6,856 4,925 11,444 15,436 10,847 270 Maryland .............................. 37,864 47,157 55,672 54,799 53,032 58,365 104,766 177 Massachusetts ..................... 63,113 74,331 85,598 87,370 110,469 243,113 216,503 243 Michigan .............................. 48,892 69,409 54,593 78,554 56,481 122,046 295,723 505 Minnesota ............................ 30,959 40,306 46,784 52,321 57,896 69,637 87,929 184 Mississippi ........................... 7,699 5,597 36,326 11,062 17,399 48,388 32,494 322 

TABLE 9–28.—TOTAL CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND AND PREDECESSOR PROGRAM EXPENDITURES, BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1992–

Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

State 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Percentage c

1992–98 

Missouri ............................... 32,786 44,233 48,520 55,428 58,917 79,879 89,283 172 Montana ............................... 4,670 5,570 6,982 6,794 7,952 8,272 14,114 202 Nebraska .............................. 17,485 15,861 27,212 20,324 18,014 27,170 40,892 134 Nevada ................................. 4,018 6,386 5,874 8,055 7,273 13,020 18,020 348 New Hampshire ................... 7,725 8,481 7,553 12,335 9,787 16,177 17,988 133 New Jersey ........................... 46,865 41,713 63,979 97,526 98,877 105,672 93,805 100 New Mexico .......................... 8,529 17,394 22,219 13,956 20,709 29,483 38,875 356 New York .............................. 117,129 174,006 167,235 236,714 180,514 236,240 393,261 236 North Carolina ..................... 40,988 88,657 137,160 132,261 95,981 169,501 224,494 448 North Dakota ....................... 4,267 5,932 5,502 5,014 3,753 5,130 9,040 112 Ohio ..................................... 72,069 108,544 115,799 132,215 136,752 191,298 198,768 176 Oklahoma ............................. 38,415 41,169 44,756 48,920 51,198 57,553 71,542 86 Oregon ................................. 18,814 32,011 37,885 39,559 49,598 53,278 56,280 199 Pennsylvania ........................ 59,809 85,238 101,849 123,618 128,740 183,408 179,692 200 Rhode Island ....................... 8,724 10,374 12,545 13,761 14,368 18,713 25,788 196 South Carolina ..................... 9,843 18,060 17,733 29,603 37,000 28,466 66,987 581 South Dakota ....................... 2,925 4,458 5,408 5,647 2,512 6,327 10,676 265 Tennessee ............................ 26,030 45,040 66,777 76,320 80,708 107,875 136,666 425 Texas .................................... 116,364 158,555 159,691 181,988 182,971 217,999 274,659 136 Utah ..................................... 17,307 16,858 29,960 24,758 28,700 28,414 39,635 129 Vermont ............................... 5,046 5,918 8,396 10,052 10,040 15,508 17,484 246 Virginia ................................ 29,825 48,681 36,430 48,874 50,583 85,645 87,823 194 Washington .......................... 49,744 61,173 76,153 89,337 94,775 116,631 172,423 247 West Virginia ....................... 7,678 14,614 17,351 17,088 15,176 24,062 35,704 365 

Wisconsin ............................. 29,996 42,683 40,341 52,990 59,441 76,883 124,609 315 Wyoming .............................. 3,874 5,067 5,178 5,853 5,627 5,735 8,102 109 

Total ....................... 1,483,319 2,021,857 2,442,504 2,792,241 2,887,844 3,886,488 5,195,584 250 

Note.—All figures reflect expenditures made in the year indicated, as opposed to expenditures made only from a given year’s appropriation. Discretionary funds are fro

priations and are authorized under the Child Care and Development Block Grant of 1990. For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, discretionary funds include those expenditures through transfers from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant. Mandatory funds are Federal funds provided under title IV–A of the Social Security Act funds required to obtain these Federal funds. For 1992–96, mandatory child care funds are for individuals who received cash welfare (Aid to Families with Dependent Chtransition from cash welfare, or ‘‘at risk’’ of cash welfare receipt. For 1997 and 1998 mandatory funds are those provided under section 418 of the Social Security Act aferred to the CCDF, as well as State funds expended either as the maintenance-of-effort or State match for CCDF matching funds. The Federal share of fiscal year 1992–datory funds from the program for those ‘‘at risk’’ of welfare might be overstated, as it reflects expenditures reported by the States multiplied by the Medicaid matching some States, this computed Federal share might be greater than the cap on Federal funding for the State under the ‘‘at risk’’ program.

Source: Congressional Research Service based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 9–29.—FISCAL YEAR 1998 CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND EXPENDITURES

[In thousands of dollars]

State Discre- tionary Mandatory block grant

Federal

share of

matching

fund

State share

of matching

fund

Maintenance

of effort

(MOE)

Alabama ....................................................................................................... $19,455 $16,442 $12,405 $5,490 $6,896 Alaska .......................................................................................................... 4,613 3,545 2,924 2,034 3,545 Arizona ......................................................................................................... 33,075 19,827 12,431 6,557 10,033 Arkansas ...................................................................................................... 0 6,091 11,234 4,077 1,931 California ..................................................................................................... 174,693 95,050 117,805 113,001 85,593 Colorado ....................................................................................................... 346 9,295 13,980 12,842 8,986 Connecticut .................................................................................................. 6,739 18,738 9,937 9,937 26,249 Delaware ...................................................................................................... 1,671 4,642 2,166 2,166 13,765 District of Columbia .................................................................................... 7,687 4,609 2,213 1,077 4,567 Florida .......................................................................................................... 40,323 43,027 59,071 46,739 33,416 Georgia ......................................................................................................... 55,988 41,765 23,835 15,341 25,210 Hawaii .......................................................................................................... 13,060 5,110 3,814 3,814 4,972 Idaho ............................................................................................................ 7,925 2,868 2,821 1,233 1,176 Illinois .......................................................................................................... 37,777 56,874 38,752 38,752 128,655 Indiana ......................................................................................................... 26,587 25,451 17,920 11,261 15,357 Iowa ............................................................................................................. 8,048 8,508 11,114 6,461 15,357 Kansas ......................................................................................................... 15,341 9,708 8,299 5,600 6,745 Kentucky ....................................................................................................... 37,613 17,370 15,214 6,467 7,275 Louisiana ..................................................................................................... 21,526 13,865 15,634 6,097 5,219 Maine ........................................................................................................... 189 3,019 3,878 2,011 1,750 Maryland ...................................................................................................... 11,248 23,301 23,457 23,457 23,301 Massachusetts ............................................................................................. 91,263 44,973 17,647 17,647 44,973 Michigan ...................................................................................................... 178,334 32,082 33,746 27,150 24,411 Minnesota .................................................................................................... 21,482 19,398 14,241 13,118 19,690 

Mississippi ................................................................................................... 8,183 7,220 11,813 3,409 1,870 Missouri ....................................................................................................... 18,230 24,669 18,084 11,751 16,549 Montana ....................................................................................................... 2,999 5,296 3,180 1,324 1,314 Nebraska ...................................................................................................... 11,045 10,595 5,227 3,318 10,707 Nevada ......................................................................................................... 3,269 2,580 4,795 4,795 2,580 New Hampshire ............................................................................................ 1,222 4,582 3,801 3,801 4,582 New Jersey ................................................................................................... 15,184 26,374 12,937 12,937 26,374 New Mexico .................................................................................................. 19,362 8,308 6,035 2,276 2,895 New York ...................................................................................................... 26,398 83,035 90,922 90,922 101,984 North Carolina ............................................................................................. 50,816 72,571 22,477 13,150 65,480 North Dakota ................................................................................................ 1,758 2,988 2,299 977 1,017 Ohio .............................................................................................................. 19,758 74,918 34,122 24,567 45,404 Oklahoma ..................................................................................................... 21,233 24,910 10,414 4,355 10,630 Oregon .......................................................................................................... 9,519 19,309 9,672 6,065 11,715 Pennsylvania ................................................................................................ 26,125 55,173 27,637 24,128 46,629 Rhode Island ................................................................................................ 2,240 6,909 2,885 2,541 11,212 South Carolina ............................................................................................. 35,063 9,867 12,641 5,331 4,085 South Dakota ............................................................................................... 3,635 1,711 3,070 1,457 803 Tennessee .................................................................................................... 54,863 37,702 15,919 9,206 18,976 Texas ............................................................................................................ 92,050 76,595 44,573 26,759 34,681 Utah ............................................................................................................. 11,527 12,592 8,014 3,027 4,475 Vermont ........................................................................................................ 8,070 3,945 1,743 1,060 2,666 Virginia ........................................................................................................ 27,433 21,329 9,004 8,728 21,329 Washington .................................................................................................. 44,768 41,883 22,034 20,248 43,490 West Virginia ............................................................................................... 17,444 8,727 4,834 1,728 2,971 Wisconsin ..................................................................................................... 53,713 26,579 16,398 11,471 16,449 Wyoming ....................................................................................................... 2,340 2,108 1,323 777 1,554 

Total ............................................................................................... 1,403,230 1,198,031 880,391 682,439 1,031,494 5,

Note.—All figures reflect expenditures made in fiscal year 1998, as opposed to expenditures made only from the fiscal year 1998 appropriation.Source: Congressional Research Service based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

630

TABLE 9–30.—CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND—STATE ALLOCATIONS, FISCAL

YEAR 1999

[In thousands of dollars]

State

Child care entitlement CCDBG discretionary Mandatory Matching

Alabama ........................................................... $16,442 $14,250 $20,585

Alaska .............................................................. 3,545 2,548 2,103

Arizona ............................................................. 19,827 17,599 20,529

Arkansas .......................................................... 5,300 8,748 12,073

California ......................................................... 85,593 125,636 121,446

Colorado ........................................................... 10,174 13,578 10,761

Connecticut ...................................................... 18,738 10,909 7,192

Delaware .......................................................... 5,179 2,415 1,960

District of Columbia ........................................ 4,567 1,552 1,888

Florida .............................................................. 43,027 47,400 51,390

Georgia ............................................................. 36,548 26,963 32,685

Hawaii .............................................................. 4,972 4,171 3,940

Idaho ................................................................ 2,868 4,548 5,263

Illinois .............................................................. 56,874 43,250 37,520

Indiana ............................................................. 26,182 19,900 18,189

Iowa .................................................................. 8,508 9,386 9,248

Kansas ............................................................. 9,812 9,042 8,916

Kentucky ........................................................... 16,702 12,630 17,830

Louisiana .......................................................... 13,865 15,605 25,619

Maine ............................................................... 3,019 3,860 3,870

Maryland .......................................................... 23,301 17,397 13,201

Massachusetts ................................................. 44,973 19,988 13,674

Michigan .......................................................... 32,082 33,425 28,187

Minnesota ......................................................... 23,368 16,446 13,348

Mississippi ....................................................... 6,293 9,888 16,954

Missouri ............................................................ 24,669 18,624 18,448

Montana ........................................................... 3,191 2,925 3,156

Nebraska .......................................................... 10,595 5,811 5,659

Nevada ............................................................. 2,580 6,136 4,741

New Hampshire ................................................ 4,582 3,962 2,478

New Jersey ........................................................ 26,374 27,404 18,739

New Mexico ...................................................... 8,308 6,647 9,410

New York .......................................................... 101,984 63,144 56,936

North Carolina .................................................. 69,639 25,539 28,290

North Dakota .................................................... 2,506 2,115 2,302

Ohio .................................................................. 70,125 37,712 33,633

Oklahoma ......................................................... 24,910 11,485 15,151

Oregon .............................................................. 19,409 10,700 10,088

Pennsylvania .................................................... 55,337 38,181 32,313

Rhode Island .................................................... 6,634 3,172 2,601

South Carolina ................................................. 9,867 12,796 17,999

South Dakota ................................................... 1,711 2,544 3,162

Tennessee ......................................................... 37,702 17,738 20,442

Texas ................................................................ 59,844 75,736 94,329

Utah ................................................................. 12,592 9,082 9,767

Vermont ............................................................ 3,945 1,902 1,684

631

TABLE 9–30.—CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND—STATE ALLOCATIONS, FISCAL

YEAR 1999—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

State

Child care entitlement CCDBG discretionary Mandatory Matching

Virginia ............................................................. 21,329 22,317 19,414

Washington ...................................................... 41,883 19,418 16,431

West Virginia .................................................... 8,727 5,264 7,618

Wisconsin ......................................................... 24,511 17,577 14,810

Wyoming ........................................................... 2,815 1,652 1,667

Subtotal ............................................. 1,177,525 940,718 949,640

Tribes ............................................................... 43,340 NA 19,995

Total States/territories/tribes ............. 1,220,865 NA 997,501

Technical assistance ....................................... 5,355 NA 2,473

Total resources ................................... 1,226,220 940,718 999,974

NA—Not applicable.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

REFERENCES

Adams, G., & Schulman, K. (1998). Child care challenges. Washington, DC: Children’s Defense Fund.

Burchinal, M.R., Campbell, F.A., Bryant, D.M., Wasik, B.H., &

Ramey, C.T. (1997). Early intervention and mediating processes in cognitive performance of children of low-income African-American families. Child Development, 68, 935–54.

Campbell, F.A. (1999, April 16). Long-term outcomes from the Abecedarian study. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the

Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.

Campbell, F.A., & Ramey, C.T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for high-risk African-American students at middle adolescence: Positive effects of early intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 743–72.

Capizzano, J., & Adams, G. (2000a). The hours that children under

five spend in child care: Variation across States (No. B–8).

Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Capizzano, J., & Adams, G. (2000b). The number of child care arrangements used by children under five: Variation across States

(No. B–12). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Capizzano, J., Adams, G., & Sonenstein, F. (2000). Child care arrangements for children under five: Variation across States (No.

B–7). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Casper, L.M., Hawkins, M., & O’Connell, M. (1994). Who’s minding

the kids? Current Population Reports (Series P70–36). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

632

Casper, L., & O’Connell, M. (1998). State estimates of organized

child care facilities (Population Division Working Paper No.

21). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Center for the Child Care Workforce. (1999, March). Current data

on child care salaries and benefits in the United States. Washington, DC: Author.

Children’s Foundation. (1999). The 1999 family child care licensing

study. Washington, DC: Author.

Children’s Foundation. (2000). 2000 Child care center licensing

study. Washington, DC: Author.

Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team. (1995). Cost, quality, and child outcomes in child care centers, Public Report. Denver: Economics Department, University of Colorado-Denver.

Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team. (1999). The children of the cost, quality, and outcomes study go to school—executive summary. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina,

Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center.

Forman, M.R. (1994, October 20). Federal funding for child care

(Memorandum to the House Committee on Ways and Means).

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S., & Shirr, M. (1994). The study

of children in family child care and relative care. New York,

NY: Families and Work Institute.

Karoly, L.A., Greenwood, P.W., Everingham, S.S., Hoube, J.,

Kilburn, M.R., Rydell, C.P., Sanders, M., & Chiesa, J. (1998).

Investing in our children: What we know and don’t know about

the costs and benefits of early childhood interventions. Washington, DC: RAND.

Kisker, E.E., Hofferth, S.L., Phillips, D.A., & Farquhar, E. (1991).

A profile of child care settings: Early education and care in

1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early

Child Care Research Network. (1999, July). Child outcomes:

When child care center classes meet recommended standards of

quality. American Journal of Public Health, 89(7), 1072–77.

Polivka, A.E., & Rothgeb, J.M. (1993). Redesigning the CPS questionnaire. Monthly Labor Review, 116(9), 10–28.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1994). Early childhood programs:

Multiple programs and overlapping target groups (HEHS–95–

4FS). Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Welfare reform: Implications of increased work participation for child care (HEHS–97–

75). Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998a). Child care: Federal funding for fiscal year 1997 (HEHS–98–70R). Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998b). Welfare reform: States’ efforts to expand child care programs (HEHS–98–27). Washington, DC: Author.

Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (1998). Worthy work,

unlivable wages: The national child care staffing study, 1988–

97. Washington, DC: Center for the Child Care Workforce.