9-1 

 

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 

Child Care Standards and Quality 

 Regulation and Licensing 

 Research on Child Care Quality 

The Federal Role 

 Background and Overview 

 Major Child 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 continues to be a significant issue in debates over how to move 

welfare recipients toward employment and self-sufficiency; mothers on welfare 

can 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 children benefit from 

participation in programs with an early childhood development focus. 
9-2 

 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 child care grant programs to 

States. 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 dedicated 

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 2002 over three-quarters 

of such mothers were labor force participants. The increased labor force 

participation of mothers with younger children also has been dramatic. In 1947, 

it was unusual to find mothers with a preschool-age child in the labor force--

only 12 percent of mothers with children under the age of 6 were in the labor 

force. But in 2002, 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 approximately one-third of all such mothers were 

labor force participants. 

 The rise in the number of female-headed families also has 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 
9-3 

in 1970, 11 percent of families with children were headed by a single mother, 

compared with 24 percent of families with children in 2003. While the number 

of two-parent families with children increased only slightly between 1970 and 

2003 (25.8 and 27.1 million, respectively), the number of female-headed 

families with children almost tripled, increasing from 3.4 million families in 

1970 to 9.9 million in 2003. These families headed by mothers were a major 

source of growth in the demand for child care. 

 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 a youngest child over or under age 6. The table provides evidence 

of the increasing rate of working mothers, especially working mothers with 

preschool children. 

TABLE 9-1--LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES OF WOMEN, 

BY PRESENCE AND AGE OF YOUNGEST CHILD, 

SELECTED YEARS, 1947-2002 

 With Children Under Age 18 

Under Age 6 

 

No Children 

Under 18 Total Age 6-17 

Only 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 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 56.71

March 1995 52.9 69.7 76.4 62.3 58.7 57.91

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 

March 2000 54.8 72.9 79.0 65.3 61.0 NA 

March 2001 54.4 72.7 79.4 64.4 60.7 NA 

March 2002 54.0 72.2 78.6 64.1 60.5 NA 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. 
TABLE 9-2--LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES OF WOMEN WITH CHILDREN, BY MARITAL STAT

AND AGE OF YOUNGEST CHILD, SELECTED YEARS, 1970-2002 

 1970 1980 1990 1992 1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Percent Increa

1980-2002 

Married women: 

Youngest Under 6 30.3 45.0 58.9 59.9 61.7 62.7 63.3 63.7 61.8 62.8 61.9 60.8 35.1 

Youngest 6 or Older 49.2 61.8 73.6 75.4 76.0 76.7 77.6 76.8 77.1 75.2 77.5 76.8 24.3 

Separated Women: 

Youngest Under 6 45.4 52.2 59.3 55.7 59.2 63.1 70.2 70.7 75.7 75.0 72.9 77.3 48.1 Youngest 6 or Older 60.6 66.6 75.0 71.6 70.7 73.3 76.1 79.6 78.5 82.2 82.4 81.0 21.6 

Divorced Women: 

Youngest Under 6 63.3 68.3 69.8 65.9 67.5 76.5 78.7 74.7 80.5 80.3 79.7 80.2 17.4 Youngest 6 or Older 82.4 82.3 85.9 85.9 84.9 85.5 85.1 85.5 85.0 87.9 89.0 87.5 6.3 

Never-Married Women: 

Youngest Under 6 NA 44.1 48.7 45.8 52.2 55.1 65.1 66.3 68.1 70.5 69.2 71.0 61.0 Youngest 6 or Older NA 67.6 69.7 67.2 67.5 71.8 74.0 81.2 82.7 79.7 80.8 81.7 20.9 

All Women 52.91 56.6 66.7 67.2 68.4 70.2 72.1 72.3 72.1 69.8 72.7 72.2 27.6 

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 Population Survey (household survey) questionnaire and collection methodology and the introduction of 1990 census-based population cont

adjusted for the estimated undercount (Polivka & Rothgeb, 1993). Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 
9-5 

 Table 9-3 provides a detailed breakdown of the labor force participation 

of women for March 2002 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 (86 percent), followed by separated women 

(80 percent). The labor force participation rate for never-married mothers with 

children under 18 grew to over 75 percent in 2002, a 24 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). In 2002, the rates for all three 

groups remained relatively stable. 

TABLE 9-3--LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES OF WOMEN 

WITH CHILDREN UNDER 18, BY MARITAL STATUS AND AGE OF 

YOUNGEST CHILD, MARCH 2002 

Age of Youngest Child 

Marital Status Under 

3 

Under 

6 

Under 

18 3-5 6-13 6-17 14-17 

Married, Spouse Present 58.0 60.8 69.6 65.0 75.3 76.8 80.5 

Divorced 75.8 80.2 85.8 82.8 87.3 87.5 87.7 

Separated 72.5 77.3 79.6 81.8 82.2 81.0 77.9 

Widowed 67.1 61.5 62.5 56.0 65.0 62.8 59.7 

Never Married 66.4 71.0 75.3 78.1 82.4 81.7 78.9 

All Women with 

Children Under 18 60.5 64.1 72.2 69.1 77.7 78.6 80.8 

Note-Labor force participation rates include nonworking mothers who are actively looking for 

work. 

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

 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, at least up to the child’s teenage years. Among all women with 

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

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

81 percent of those whose youngest child is between 14 and 17 participate. 

 In 2002, 72 percent of mothers participated in the labor force. Among 

these mothers, Table 9-4 shows 50 percent worked full time and 18 percent 

worked part time (less than 35 hours per week). Forty-one percent of mothers 

with children under age 6 worked full time, and 18 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 2002. 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 time grew 

from 48 percent in 1996 to 50 percent in 2002. Within the subgroup of nevermarried mothers, the 3 year period was accompanied by a much larger increase 
9-6 

in full-time employment. In 1996, 36 percent of never-married mothers with 

children under 18 were employed full time. By 2002, the figure had increased to 

51 percent. The percent of never-married mothers working full time with 

children under age 6 had grown comparably, increasing from 29 percent in 1996 

to 45 percent in 2002. 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 2002, the percent of all divorced mothers 

employed full time with children under 18 remained almost 69 percent, steady 

since 1999, and a 2 percentage point increase since 1996; for those with children 

under 6, 61 percent worked full time in 2002. The employment status of married 

mothers remained generally stable or declined slightly since 1996, depending on 

full- or part-time status, and age of children. 

TABLE 9-4--PERCENT OF MOTHERS BY FULL1

- OR PART-TIME 

EMPLOYMENT STATUS, MARCH 1996 AND 2002 

With Children Under 18 With Children Under 6 Marital and Employment Status 1996 2002 1996 2002 

Married, Spouse Present: 

Employed Full Time 46.3 47.2 39.4 38.6 

Employed Part Time 21.3 19.6 20.9 19.1 

Divorced: 

Employed Full Time 66.2 68.5 56.5 61.3 

Employed Part Time 12.6 11.9 12.9 12.2 

Never Married: 

Employed Full Time 35.5 51.3 28.8 45.0 

Employed Part Time 13.8 14.5 15.1 16.2 

All Mothers: 

Employed Full Time 47.5 50.2 39.0 41.3 

Employed Part Time 19.0 17.8 19.1 18.1 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 on the types of child care arrangements used by families with 

working mothers are collected periodically by the U.S. Census Bureau. 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 April-July 1999. 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 generally are not considered 

child care, such as care provided by the father, or care by a sibling. 

 The 1999 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 part-time), 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 
9-7 

work schedule. In the 1999 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 shows that about one third (34 percent) of families of 

preschoolers with working mothers in 1999 primarily relied on care in another 

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

almost one quarter (24 percent) of families whose primary arrangement was an 

organized child care facility. These data resemble the 1995 survey results, but 

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 have reflected 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 almost 30 percent of 

families of preschool children with employed mothers. Over one-fifth 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 (21 

percent), especially care by fathers (almost 18 percent). Less than 4 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 (32 percent), than by an organized child care 

facility (18 percent), and also more likely to be cared for by a relative, family 

provider, or nonrelative in another home (28 percent). Mothers employed full 

time were most likely to use organized day care centers (21 percent), a 

grandparent (13 percent), or family day care provider (13 percent) than any 

other form of care. 

 Table 9-6 shows the types of afterschool arrangements used in 1999 for 

school-age children by working mothers, as well as cases in which there were no 

arrangements specified. In 1999, 27 percent of children age 5-14 were being 

cared for after school in the child's home, whereas in 1995 this figure was 

almost 20 percent. Of those children age 5-14 with employed mothers in 1999, 

13 percent were cared for by a sibling (4 percent by a sibling under age 15). 

Afterschool care by fathers continues to increase. In 1999, 23 percent of children 

were primarily cared for by fathers during afterschool time, compared to 

21 percent in 1995, and 11 percent in 1993. Children reported to be in selfcare or to be unsupervised by an adult for some time while their mothers
TABLE 9-5--PRIMARY CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS OF CHILDREN UNDER 5, 1999 

[In Percent Unless Otherwise Noted]

Mothers with Children Under 5 Years 

Type of Arrangement All Marital Statuses Married, Husband Present All Other Marital Statuses 

Total Employed Full Time Employed Part Time Total Employed Full Time Employed Part Time Total Employed Full Time Empl

Part T

Care in Child's Home: 

By Grandparent 8.0 8.2 7.7 6.3 6.2 6.3 12.7 12.9 12By Sibling Age 15 or Older 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 2.9 2.7 3By Sibling Under Age 15 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.8 1.0 0

By Other Relative 2.5 2.7 1.9 2.0 2.4 1.2 3.7 3.6 4By Nonrelative 3.4 3.1 3.8 3.5 3.4 3.6 2.9 2.4 4

Total 15.8 16.1 15.2 13.1 13.5 12.5 23.1 22.5 24

Care in Another Home: 

By Grandparent 13.2 13.1 13.4 11.7 12.0 11.0 17.3 15.7 21By Other Relative 3.8 4.1 3.1 3.4 3.8 2.6 4.9 4.9 5By Family Day Care Provider1 10.9 13.0 6.6 11.6 13.9 7.3 9.0 10.7 4

By Nonrelative 6.1 6.8 4.8 6.2 6.9 4.8 6.1 6.7 4

Total 34.0 37.0 27.9 32.8 36.5 25.7 37.4 38.0 35

Organized Child Care Facility: 

Day/Group Care Center 17.5 20.5 11.3 17.3 20.8 10.6 18.0 19.5 13Nursery School/Preschool 3.9 4.2 3.3 4.2 4.5 3.5 3.1 3.4 2

Kindergarten/Grade School 2.8 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.3 3.7 3.8 3
Head Start Program 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.2 0

Total 24.4 27.8 17.5 24.1 28.2 16.6 25.2 26.9 20

Parental Care: 

By Father 17.9 13.9 26.2 21.0 16.0 30.4 9.5 8.8 11

By Mother at Work 2 3.3 2.0 6.0 3.7 2.2 6.3 2.4 1.6 4

Total 21.3 16.0 32.2 24.7 18.3 36.7 11.9 10.3 16

Other: 

Child Cares for Self 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Other, no specified arrangements 1.7 1.2 2.5 1.8 1.3 2.6 1.4 1.1 2

No arrangement specified 2.7 1.6 4.8 3.3 1.9 6.0 1.0 1.1 0

Total 4.5 3.1 7.3 5.3 3.5 8.6 2.4 2.2 2

Total (all arrangements) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100Number of arrangements (in 

thousands) 11,200 7,531 3,669 8,185 5,332 2,854 3,015 2,200 81

Number of children (in thousands) 10,347 6,962 3,385 7,602 4,960 2,642 2,745 2,002 74

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data from the Survey of Income and PrograParticipation, 1999, panel, wave 10. 
9-10 

were working represented 18 percent of the children. It is not known if the 

children in the “no arrangement specified ” 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. 

 Table 9-7 shows the types of child care arrangements used in 1999 for 

children under 5 by the economic well-being of the family. The 19 percent of 

poor children being cared for in the child's home by a relative or nonrelative in 

1999 represents a marked increase from 9 percent reported in 1995. The percent 

of nonpoor children in this category remained unchanged at roughly 15 percent. 

Nonpoor children in 1999 were slightly more likely than poor children to be 

cared for in another home. Poor families were slightly more likely than nonpoor 

families to not specify any regular arrangement. 

TABLE 9-6-- CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS USED BY EMPLOYED 

MOTHERS FOR CHILDREN 5-14, SPRING 1999 

Type of Arrangement Percent 

Care in Child's Home: 

By Grandparent 7.6 

By Sibling Age 15 or Older 9.5 

By Sibling Under Age 15 3.5 

By Other Relative 2.6 

By Nonrelative 3.6 

Total 26.8 

Care In Another Home: 

By Grandparent 10.7 

By Other Relative 3.9 

By Family Day Care Provider 1

 4.0 

By Nonrelative 5.4 

Total 24.0 

Organized Child Care Facility: 

Day/Group Care Center 6.9 

Nursery School/Preschool 1.3 

After/Before School Program 13.7 

Total 21.9 

Parental care: 

By Father 22.8 

By Mother at Work 2

 4.4 

 Total 27.2 

Child Cares for Self: 

Age 5-8 3.0 

Age 9-11 14.1 

Age 12-14 39.4 

Total 17.6 

No arrangement specified 3.3 

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. 

Note: Total of 24,394,000 children in 49,186 arrangements. Totals add to over 100 percent due to 

some children participating in more than one type of arrangement. 

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. 
9-11 

TABLE 9-7--PRIMARY CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS USED BY 

EMPLOYED MOTHERS FOR CHILDREN UNDER 5, BY POVERTY 

STATUS OF THE MOTHER, SPRING 1999 

[In percent unless otherwise noted]

Type of Arrangement Total 1 Poor 2 Not Poor 

Care in Child's Home: 

By Grandparent 8.0 9.4 7.8 

By Sibling Age 15 or Older 1.6 3.2 1.4 

By Sibling Under Age 15 0.4 0.0 0.5 

By Other Relative 2.5 2.6 2.4 

By Nonrelative 3.4 3.7 3.3 

Total 15.8 18.9 15.4 

Care in Another Home: 

By Grandparent 13.2 14.0 13.1 

By Other Relative 3.8 4.7 3.7 

By Family Day Care Provider 3

 10.9 6.2 11.5 

By Nonrelative 6.1 6.3 6.1 

Total 34.0 31.2 34.4 

Organized Child Care Facility: 

Day/Group Care Center 17.5 15.1 17.8 

Nursery School/Preschool 3.9 1.9 4.1 

Kindergarten/Grade School 2.8 3.7 2.7 

Head Start Program 0.3 0.3 0.3 

Total 24.4 21.0 24.9 

Parental care: 

By Father 17.9 16.8 18.1 

By Mother at Work 4

 3.3 4.9 3.1 

Child Cares for Self 0.2 0.0 0.2 

Other, non-specified arrangement 1.7 2.8 1.5 

No arrangement specified 2.7 4.3 2.5 

Total Children of Employed Mothers (in thousands) 10,347 1,174 9,172 

Number of arrangements 11,200 1,263 9,937 

1

 Includes children for whom no poverty estimates were available. 

2

 Below the poverty threshold, which was $17,029 annually or $1,419 monthly in 1999 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. 

 

 Table 9-8 shows the primary arrangements used by working mothers for 

their preschool-aged children from for selected years from 1977 through 1999. 

In general, the table does not show dramatic changes in the arrangements used 

during this time period. However, there is a noteworthy rise in the share of 

children of single mothers who were cared for by fathers, from 1 percent in 1977 

to more than 10 percent in 1999. 
9-12 

TABLE 9-8--PERCENT OF CHILDREN UNDER 5 IN SELECTED 

CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS, SELECTED YEARS 1977-99 

Percent of Children Cared For By 

Family Status and 

Date of Survey Father Mother 1

 Grandparent Family 

Day Care 2

Day Care 

Center/Nursery 

School 

All Families: 

Spring 1999 18.5 3.1 20.8 16.9 21.7 

Spring 1997 19.0 3.3 18.3 18.5 20.7 

Fall 1995 16.6 5.4 15.9 23.63

 23.6 

Fall 1993 15.9 6.2 16.5 16.6 29.9 

Fall 1991 20.0 8.7 15.8 17.9 23.0 

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: 

Spring 1999 21.5 3.5 17.3 17.8 21.7 

Spring 1997 22.2 3.8 15.5 19.4 20.3 

Fall 1995 18.5 6.2 14.4 23.6 22.8 

Fall 1993 19.3 6.9 14.4 16.4 30.0 

Fall 1991 22.9 9.8 13.7 17.1 22.7 

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: 

Spring 1999 10.3 1.9 29.8 14.9 21.8 

Spring 1997 9.2 1.7 26.9 15.5 21.8 

Fall 1995 11.0 2.7 20.6 23.6 26.3 

Fall 1993 3.4 3.5 24.6 17.3 29.5 

Fall 1991 7.0 3.7 24.8 21.3 24.5 

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). 

 

 In addition to data available from the U.S. Census Bureau, data from the 

1999 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, 39 percent of preschool children with 

employed mothers in 1999 were in care for 35 or more hours per week (Urban 

Institute, 2002). Almost one-quarter were in care for 15-34 hours per week, 15 

percent for 1-14 hours per week, and 22 percent spent no hours in nonparental 

child care. 
9-13 

 For preschool children with mothers employed full time, the number of 

children in full-time care (35 or more hours) increases to 48 percent. Children 

ages 3 and 4 were slightly more likely to be in full-time care than younger 

preschoolers (45 percent versus 36 percent). Children in higher-income families 

were almost equally as likely to spend 35 or more hours a week in child care as 

lower-income children (40 percent versus 38 percent), although higher-income 

children are more likely than lower-income children to be in part-time care 

(41 percent versus 34 percent). Twenty-seven percent of low-income children 

are reported to spend no hours in nonparental care, compared to 19 percent of 

higher-income children. 

 

TABLE 9-9--PERCENT OF CHILDREN UNDER FIVE WITH 

EMPLOYED MOTHERS IN DIFFERENT HOURS OF NONPARENTAL 

CARE, BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS, 1999 

 Hours in Care 

 None 1-14 15-34 35+ 

All Children 22 15 24 39 

Mothers Working Full Time 21 12 18 48 

Child's Age: 

Under 3 Years 27 15 23 36 

3-4 Years 14 16 26 45 

Family Income: 

200 Percent of Poverty and Below 27 15 19 38 

Above 200 Percent of Poverty 19 15 26 40 

Source: Urban Institute calculations from the 1999 National Survey of America's Families. 

 According to the 1999 NSAF (Table 9-10), 28 percent of preschool 

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

that number (14 percent) are in family child care (Urban Institute, 2002). About 

4 percent are primarily cared for in the child's home by a babysitter or nanny. 

More than a quarter (27 percent) of children under 5 are cared for primarily by a 

relative, either inside or outside the child's home, which is the same share of 

children in the care of a parent. The analysis of individual States revealed that 

there is considerable State variation in the use of specific primary child care 

arrangements. 

 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 (30 percent) and parents (33 percent) than to be in center-based care 

(18 percent) or family child care (15 percent). As preschoolers grow older (age 3 

and 4), use of relative and parent care decreases (23 and 19 percent 

respectively), and center-based care becomes the most commonly used primary 

arrangement (42 percent). Use of family child care remains relatively steady at 

12 percent for 3- and 4-year-olds. 
9-14 

TABLE 9-10--PRIMARY CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS FOR 

CHILDREN UNDER FIVE WITH EMPLOYED MOTHERS, 

BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS, 1999 

[In Percent]

 

CenterBased Care Family Child 

Care 

Relative 

Care 

Parent 

Care 1

Nanny/ 

Babysitter 

All Children 28 14 27 27 4 

Child's Age: 

Under 3 Years 18 15 30 33 5 

3-4 Years 42 12 23 19 3 

Family Income: 

200 Percent of Poverty and 

Below 23 12 29 33 3 

Above 200 Percent of Poverty 30 15 26 24 5 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 1999 National Survey of America's Families. 

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

of poverty are less likely than higher-income children to use center-based care as 

a primary arrangement (23 percent versus 30 percent). Relative care and parent 

care are used most frequently by lower-income families (29 and 33 percent 

respectively), and more often than by higher-income families, of which 

26 percent use relative care and 24 percent parent care. Lower- and higherincome families are almost equally likely to use family child care as their 

primary arrangement (12 and 15 percent respectively). 

 In addition to looking at the primary child care arrangements for children 

under 5, Urban Institute researchers used the 1999 NSAF to examine the number 

of nonparental 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, 40 percent of 

such children under 5 combine more than one child care arrangement each week 

(Urban Institute, 2002). Of those, 9 percent combine three or more 

arrangements. The remaining 60 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 percent versus 47 percent). Children aged 3 and 4 

are more than twice 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 lower- and higherincome families are almost equally likely to be in multiple child care 

arrangements (41 and 39 percent respectively). As seen with primary 

arrangements, there is considerable State variation in the use of multiple 

arrangements. 
9-15 

 TABLE 9-11--NUMBER OF NONPARENTAL CHILD CARE 

ARRANGEMENTS USED BY CHILDREN UNDER FIVE WITH 

EMPLOYED MOTHERS, BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS, 1999 

[In Percent]

 One 

Arrangement 

Two 

Arrangements 

Three or More 

Arrangements 

All Children 60 31 9 

Child's Age: 

Under 3 Years 66 29 5 

3-4 Years 53 34 13 

Family Income: 

200 Percent of Poverty and Below 58 33 8 

Above 200 Percent of Poverty 61 30 9 

Source: Urban Institute calculations from the 1999 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 spring of 1999. These data 

show that 54 percent of families with employed mothers paid for child care for 

their preschool-aged children. And, as shown in Table 9-12, families with higher 

incomes were more likely to purchase care than families with lower incomes. 

For example, 63 percent of families with monthly incomes of $4,500 or more 

purchased child care in the spring of 1999, while only 42 percent of families 

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

 The median weekly cost per family for all preschool-aged children was 

$69 in 1999 for those families that purchased care (Table 9-12). Married-couple 

families in which a husband is present devoted a smaller percentage of their 

income to child care (6 percent) than single-parent families (including married, 

without a present spouse) (12 percent), but their child care expenditures were 

nonetheless greater ($75 per week) than those of single-parent families (about 

$60 per week). 

 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 $55 per week, 

but this amount represented almost 29 percent of their income. By contrast, half 

of nonpoor families spent at least $70 per week on care, but this amount was 

only about 7 percent of their income. A Spring 2000 survey of the cost of child 

care for a 4-year-old in urban child care centers across the country, conducted by 

the Children's Defense Fund (Schulman, 2000) found that in every State, the 
9-16 

average child care tuition exceeds $3,300 per child, and is over $5,000 per child 

in 20 States (with 11 States over $6,000). 

TABLE 9-12--USE OF PAID CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS FOR 

CHILDREN UNDER AGE 5 AMONG FAMILIES WITH WORKING 

MOTHERS, MEDIAN WEEKLY CHILD CARE EXPENDITURES, AND 

PERCENT OF FAMILY INCOME SPENT ON CARE, BY POVERTY 

STATUS AND FAMILY INCOME, SPRING 1999 

 

Percent 

Paying 

for Care 

Median 

Weekly 

Cost of Care 

Percent of 

Family Income 

Spent on Care 

All Families: 

Poverty Status: 

Below Poverty 38 $55 28.5 

Above Poverty 56 70 6.6 

Monthly Family Income: 

Less Than $1,200 42 50 25.2 

$1,200-$2,999 44 60 11.5 

$3,000-$4,499 54 60 7.4 

$4,500 and Over 63 81 5.2 

Total 54 69 7.0 

Married, husband present 

Poverty Status: 

Below Poverty 33 NA NA 

Above Poverty 57 75 6.2 

Monthly Family Income: 

Less Than $1,200 NA NA NA 

$1,200-$2,999 40 60 10.8 

$3,000-$4,499 54 60 7.2 

$4,500 and Over 64 84 5.3 

Total 56 75 6.3 

All other marital statuses 

Poverty Status: 

Below Poverty 40 55 29.1 

Above Poverty 51 60 10.2 

Monthly Family Income: 

Less Than $1,200 42 50 23.7 

$1,200-$2,999 49 60 12.1 

$3,000-$4,499 56 NA NA 

$4,500 and Over 53 NA NA 

Total 48 60 11.6 

NA- Base less than 200,000 is too small to show derived statistic. 

Note-Data are for all child care arrangements used by working mothers. 

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, 1996 panel, wave 10. 

 
9-17 

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, center-based 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 February 2002. 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 113,298 

(Children's Foundation, 2002). This is a 2 percent increase from the 

Foundation's 2001 study total, and nearly a 24 percent increase from the total 

published by the Children's Foundation's first study of centers in 1991. The 2002 

study notes that the definition of regulated child care center varies by State or 

territory. In 29 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 2000 report indicates that there are 

304,958 regulated family child care homes, of which 266,798 are family day 

care homes (caring for up to 6 children) and 38,160 are 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 family 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 
9-18 

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 grew from 51,000 in 1992 to 62,054 in 1997. 

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 “preschool teacher” 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 2000, the median hourly wage of a 

center-based “child care worker” was $7.43, and for a “preschool teacher,” 

$8.56. The average, or mean wages, for center-based “child care workers” and 

“preschool teachers” in 2000 were slightly higher, at $7.86 and $9.66 

respectively. 

 Table 9-13 shows the average wages for childcare workers and preschool 

teachers by State in 2000, based on State Occupational Employment and Wage 

data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

TABLE 9-13--AVERAGE WAGES FOR CHILD CARE WORKERS AND 

PRESCHOOL TEACHERS, 2000 

State Child Care Workers Preschool Teachers 

Alabama $7.10 $7.01 

Alaska 8.51 11.20 

Arizona 7.12 9.34 

Arkansas 6.35 8.31 

California 9.06 11.19 

Colorado 7.76 9.47 

Connecticut 9.59 11.10 

Delaware 7.84 8.66 
9-19 

TABLE 9-13--AVERAGE WAGES FOR CHILD CARE WORKERS AND 

PRESCHOOL TEACHERS, 2000-continued

State Child Care Workers Preschool Teachers 

District of Columbia 9.17 12.61 

Florida 7.07 9.33 

Georgia 6.69 8.42 

Hawaii 7.18 9.99 

Idaho 7.56 7.06 

Illinois 8.19 9.69 

Indiana 7.34 8.19 

Iowa 6.68 7.93 

Kansas 7.22 9.40 

Kentucky 7.27 8.84 

Louisiana 6.25 8.99 

Maine 7.47 9.77 

Maryland 8.51 11.00 

Massachusetts 10.12 10.49 

Michigan 8.29 10.65 

Minnesota 7.89 11.09 

Mississippi 6.79 8.60 

Missouri 7.58 9.22 

Montana 6.74 8.20 

Nebraska 7.12 9.10 

Nevada 7.62 8.26 

New Hampshire 8.29 8.93 

New Jersey 7.90 11.60 

New Mexico 6.46 7.87 

New York 8.99 11.30 

North Carolina 7.27 8.25 

North Dakota 7.26 7.82 

Ohio 7.90 8.94 

Oklahoma 6.52 8.55 

Oregon 7.94 10.03 

Pennsylvania 7.76 9.32 

Rhode Island 8.54 10.21 

South Carolina 6.76 8.88 

South Dakota 7.11 9.60 

Tennessee 7.07 7.36 

Texas 6.89 9.25 

Utah 7.85 8.95 

Vermont 8.00 11.37 

Virginia 7.78 9.57 

Washington 8.41 10.00 

West Virginia 6.88 8.72 

Wisconsin 7.45 9.20 

Wyoming 7.01 7.57 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2000 State Occupational Employment and Wage Data. 
9-20 

STAFF TURNOVER 

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

force has been historically high. The National Child Care Staffing Study 

(NCCSS), most recently updated in 1997, 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 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 continue to receive attention during discussions of how 

to measure child care quality. 

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 304,958 regulated family child care 
9-21 

providers in the States and territories in 2000. If estimates from the 1990 child 

care settings study are applied, this number may represent only 10-18 percent of 

all family child care providers, with the remaining facilities being unregulated. 

The count of centers that are regulated (meaning licensed or certified) totals 

113,298 according to the Children's Foundation 2002 study. 

 Table 9-14 presents information on State licensing standards for child 

care centers, as collected by the Children's Foundation (2002). 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 variations 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, 2002

Item Number of States 

Fee for Licensing: 

No Fee 23 

Fixed Fee 9 

Assessed Fee Based on Number of Children Cared for by Provider 20 

Frequency of Required License Renewal: 

Annually 22 

Every 2 Years 18 

Every 3 Years or Nonexpiring 13 

Required Testing for Asbestos, Lead, Radon, or Other Material: 

Yes 21 

No 29 

Inspection Visits: 

All Unannounced 9 

Unannounced, Annually (At Minimum), and Upon Complaint 20 

Unannounced, 2-6 Per Year 10 

Unannounced Upon Complaint; Other Visits Announced 5 

Unannounced; Policy Varies 8 

All Announced 1 

Staff/Child Ratios: 

Infants, Birth to 1 Year: 

1:3 1 4 

1:4 33 

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 
9-22 

TABLE 9-14--NUMBER OF STATES WITH SELECTED CHILD CARE 

LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR REGULATED CHILD CARE CENTERS, 

2002-continued

Item Number of States 

Group Size Definitions: 

Yes 34 

No 19 

Regulation of “Drop-In”' Child care 37 

“Evening or Overnight” child care centers 46 

Smoking Policy: 

Prohibited 40 

Permitted in Designated Areas and with Restrictions 12 

Permitted 1 

Required Preservice Training: 

CPR/First Aid 23 

Combined Education and Experience Required: 

Head/Lead Teacher 42 

Other Teaching Staff 30 

None: 

Head/Lead Teacher 10 

Other Teaching Staff 21 

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, 2002 Child Care Center Licensing Study, Washington, DC, February, 

2002. 

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 longterm. 

 One comprehensive longitudinal 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 and 2002), of the National Institutes of 

Health. The broad goal of the NICHD study, started in 1991, is to collect data on 
9-23 

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 completely disentangling 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 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. 

 In general, family characteristics and the quality of the mother's 

relationship with her child were shown to be stronger predictors of the child's 

development than were the characteristics of child care in the NICHD study. 

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 – 41⁄2 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 to varying degrees the more 

structural elements of child care in centers--elements that are generally regulated 

to varying degrees by the States (see Table 9-14), 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. 
9-24 

 The researchers have continued to follow the children in the sample, 

assessing the children at 54 months (41⁄2 years) of age, with further plans to do 

so 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. According to the NICHD 

study, results from a 2002 analysis indicate that “early child care is associated 

with both developmental risks and developmental benefits for children’s 

functioning prior to school entry, even after controlling for a host of factors 

including gender, ethnicity, family socioeconomic status, maternal 

psychological adjustment, and parenting quality. The risk is that more hours in 

child care across the first 4 1⁄2 years of life is related to elevated levels of 

problem behavior at 4 1⁄2 years. The developmental benefit is that higher-quality 

child care, quality that improves over time, and more experience in centers 

predicts better performance on measures of cognitive and linguistic 

functioning.”(NICHD, 2002) 

 A 2003 article on the NICHD study findings indicates that the more time 

children spent in child care between birth and age 4 1⁄2, the more adults had a 

tendency to rate them (both at age 4 1⁄2 and at kindergarten) as less likely to get 

along with others, as more assertive, as disobedient, and as aggressive. 

However, the researchers noted that for the vast majority of children, the levels 

of the behaviors reported were well within the normal range. The researchers 

also did not find a threshold of child care hours above which the aforementioned 

problem behaviors were more likely to occur. (NICHD, 2003) 

 The NICHD study has not focused specifically on distinctions between 

the quality of care offered by family child care providers or relatives and that of 

center-based care. The most recent indepth observational study of quality 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 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, 56 percent were rated as adequate, 

and 35 percent rated as 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 
9-25 

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 three-quarters 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 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 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 lowincome 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., 
9-26 

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 low-income children. 

 Early findings of the project in the 1970s 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. 

 More 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 

also were 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 either had 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. 

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 
9-27 

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 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 1998 GAO report 

(1998a) 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 (Public Law 104-193), including a consolidation of major 

Federal child care programs (child care for recipients of Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children, Transitional Child Care Assistance, and the At-Risk Child 
9-28 

Care Program) into an expanded Child Care and Development Block Grant 

(CCDBG). The child care provisions in the 1996 welfare reform law were 

developed to achieve several purposes. As a component of welfare reform, the 

child care provisions were intended to support the overall goal of promoting 

self-sufficiency through work. However, separate from the context of welfare 

reform, the legislation aimed 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 were intended to streamline the Federal role, 

reduce the number of Federal programs and conflicting rules, and increase the 

flexibility provided to States. 

 The expanded CCDBG became the primary child care subsidy grant 

program operated by the Federal Government. The welfare reform law of 1996 

made available to States almost $20 billion over a 6-year period (1997-2002) in 

a combination of entitlement and discretionary funding specifically dedicated 

for child care, which was approximately $4 billion above the level that would 

have been available under the previous programs. The expectation was that the 

work requirements for welfare recipients (many being single mothers) would 

create a greater demand for child care services. Since passage of that law, States 

have spent increasing amounts of both Federal and State money on child care. 

Fiscal year 2003 funding for child care (and welfare) was extended at the 2002 

level, without a reauthorization bill being approved by Congress. 

(Reauthorization bills passed the House, but not in the Senate in 2002 and 

2003.)

 Although the CCDBG is considered the primary source of Federal 

funding for child care subsidies for low-income working and welfare families, 

two other Federal block grants have been contributing significantly to overall 

child care funding since passage of the 1996 welfare law: the Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, and the Social Services 

Block Grant (SSBG). Despite the increase in Federal resources for child care 

since 1996, concerns persist about the adequacy and quality of child care in the 

era of welfare reform. The number of eligible children receiving CCDBG 

subsidies was estimated by HHS to be as low as 15 percent in 1999. However, 

the saliency of that figure is diminished somewhat due its lack of currency, and 

the fact that it does not encompass child care subsidies provided directly in 

TANF or SSBG. Moreover, estimates of the number of eligible children served 

do not contend to reflect consumer demand for child care, leaving the issue of 

whether adequate child care funding exists open to debate. 

 Not at issue, however, is the fact that TANF contributions to child care, 

both in direct spending and in the form of transfers to the CCDBG, grew 

steadily from 1997 to 2000, and have remained significant but level in the years 

since ($3.7 billion in FY2002). Child care spending from the Child Care and 

Development Fund (the term used for both the mandatory and discretionary 
9-29 

funding that supports the CCDBG) has been increasing every year (as shown in 

detail in Tables 9-26 through 9-29). 

 Throughout reauthorization discussions in 2002 and 2003, the funding 

level for child care has been one of the major points of debate. Welfare 

caseloads have declined since 1996, thus “freeing up” funds previously used for 

cash assistance for other services such as child care. However, advocates for 

increased child care funding contend that the decline in the welfare caseload has 

not translated into a decline in the low-income population that the Child Care 

and Development Block Grant was created to serve, regardless of welfare status. 

 With respect to the welfare population, the reauthorization debates of 

2002 and 2003 also have focused on the effect that proposed increases in 

required hours of work and other activities by welfare recipients would have on 

the need for child care. If, as is being debated as part of reauthorization, the 

hours of work and other entities required of welfare recipients are to be 

increased, child care funding will remain a key issue, as many argue that 

increased child care funding will be necessary to compensate. This issue is 

compounded by the aforementioned argument that former welfare recipients in 

low-wage jobs have not necessarily lost their need for child care subsidies. 

MAJOR CHILD 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 SSBG under title XX of the Social Security Act, the TANF 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, also can 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 fulltime working parents. Table 9-15 shows the most recent available funding or 

spending data for each of these programs. In some cases, the available data are 

not for comparable years. Moreover, it should be noted that programs such as 

the Child Care and Development Block Grant, Head Start, and the Child and 

Adult Care Food Program provide funding specifically dedicated for child care 

and/or development, whereas TANF and SSBG funding are used for child care 

at each State’s option. In recent years, States have chosen to use a significant 

portion of their flexible funds for the purpose of supporting child care services. 

In fiscal year 2002, $3.7 billion in Federal TANF funding was spent either 

directly on child care or transferred to the CCDBG for use under that program. 

In fiscal year 2001, over $200 million in SSBG spending supported child day 

care. 
9-30 

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 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 have surpassed the authorized 

level beginning in fiscal year 1999. Most recently, $2.1 billion was appropriated 

for fiscal year 2003. 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. 

Further legislative action was taken (in lieu of a reauthorization bill) to extend 

fiscal year 2003 funding at the same level as provided 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, which totals approximately 

$1.2 billion each year, is sometimes referred to as “mandatory” funds. No State
TABLE 9-15-OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS THAT SUPPORT CHILD CARE 

Dependent Care 

Credit 

Child Care and 

Development Block 

Grant 

Child and Adult Care 

Food Program 

Title XX Social 

Services Block Grant Head Start TANF 

Budgetary classification 

Nonrefundable tax credit 

Discretionary authorization and authorized entitlement 

Authorized entitlement Authorized 

entitlement 

Discretionary authorization 

Preappropriation 

Statutory authority 

Internal Revenue Code 

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 

Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act 

Social Security Act Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act of 1981 

Personal Responsibility aWork OpportunReconciliation A1996 

Federal administration 

USDOT, IRS DHHS, ACF USDA, FNS DHHS, ACF DHHS, ACF 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 Federal funding 

TANF block gra100 percent Fedfunding (with SMOE requireme

Fiscal year 2003 funding (in millions)1

$2,8002 $1,183 - Discretionary, 

$2,717 - Mandatory 

$1,9253 Total is $1,7704 $6,6685 Total is $16,500
TABLE 9-15-OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS THAT SUPPORT CHILD CARE-continued

Dependent Care 

Credit 

Child Care and 

Development Block 

Grant 

Child and Adult Care Food 

Program 

Title XX Social 

Services Block 

Grant 

Head Start TANF 

Target population 

Taxpayers who need dependent care in order to accept or maintain employment 

Families with incomes at or below 85 percent of State median income, with parents engaged in work or education/training 

Children, particularly children from low-income families, in child care centers, day care homes, and afterschool programs 

State discretion Low-income 

children and families 

Needy families minor children; pregnant women 

Eligible children Children under 

age 13 

Children under age 13 (unless 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 the age of compulsory school attendance 

Needy children determined by thState 

Provider requirements 

Centers only must meet applicable State and local standards 

Must meet applicable State and local standards (including relatives); with exception of relatives, must also meet certain health and safety standards 

Must meet Federal nutrition standards; must meet applicable State/local licensing approval standards (or, certain alternate approval standards if licensing/approval not required) 

Must meet applicable State and local standards 

Must meet Federally established standards with respect to health, education, parental involvement, nutrition, and social services 

NA (However, atransferred fundsubject to CCDBrules) 
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 receive limited administrative payments for administrative costs 

No limit No limit NA (However, a

transferred fundsubject to CCDBrules) 

1 Amounts reflect appropriation levels except where noted otherwise. 2 Revenue loss for calendar year 2001. Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income Bulletin, Spring 2003. 3 Estimated obligations. 4 In 2001, States spent approximately $200 million of SSBG funds on child day care services. 5 Of the $6.668 billion, $5.268 billion is available for fiscal year 2003, and $1.4 billion is available for fiscal year 2004. 

6 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 

maximum of 30 percent of TANF funds to the CCDBG for use under the CCDBG's program rules. In fiscal year 2002 alone, States expended $1.6 b

on child care from Federal TANF funds. The fiscal year 2002 transfer from the fiscal year 2002 TANF allotment to the CCDBG totaled $2.1 billion (representing 12 percent of the FY2002 TANF allotment). 

NA-Not applicable. USDOT, IRS - U.S. Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. DHHS, ACF - U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. USDA, FNS - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service. 
9-34 

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 75 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-of-effort 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 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 State’ 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 SSBG 

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. 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 trying to become independent of TANF through work 

activities and families 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. 
9-35 

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; 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 2001. Certificates were overwhelmingly the form of 

payment most used, serving over 84 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 
9-36 

(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 2001. 

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 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 2001 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, 

FISCAL YEAR 2001 

State/Territory Average Number of Families Average Number of Children 

Alabama 19,400 34,000 

Alaska 3,800 6,300 

American Samoa - - 

Arizona 16,400 28,100 

Arkansas 5,500 9,300 

California 132,100 202,000 
9-37 

TABLE 9-16-- CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--AVERAGE 

MONTHLY NUMBER OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN SERVED, 

FISCAL YEAR 2001-continued

State/Territory Average Number of Families Average Number of Children 

Colorado 13,800 24,500 

Connecticut 7,800 13,700 

Delaware 4,500 7,500 

District of Columbia 6,100 13,500 

Florida 45,900 80,500 

Georgia 32,800 57,800 

Guam 700 1,200 

Hawaii 5,600 8,900 

Idaho 5,600 9,700 

Illinois 51,700 103,000 

Indiana 20,600 38,100 

Iowa 9,300 15,300 

Kansas 8,200 14,900 

Kentucky 22,000 37,700 

Louisiana 22,900 38,700 

Maine 1,400 2,100 

Maryland 12,500 21,200 

Massachusetts 22,700 32,700 

Michigan 25,800 50,100 

Minnesota 14,800 26,400 

Mississippi 7,000 8,400 

Missouri 22,700 35,900 

Montana 4,200 7,200 

Nebraska 7,500 12,800 

Nevada 4,100 7,000 

New Hampshire 4,500 6,600 

New Jersey 29,800 44,200 

New Mexico 13,200 22,800 

New York 112,900 180,800 

North Carolina 52,400 81,700 

North Dakota 3,000 4,700 

Northern Marianas 100 200 

Ohio 49,000 84,000 

Oklahoma 23,800 38,700 

Oregon 13,800 25,600 

Pennsylvania 36,700 65,100 

Puerto Rico - - 

Rhode Island 2,700 4,300 

South Carolina 11,900 20,300 

South Dakota 2,100 3,400 

Tennessee 31,000 59,600 

Texas 56,200 105,500 

Utah 5,200 9,900 

Vermont 2,300 3,500 

Virgin Islands - - 

Virginia 9,800 15,900 

Washington 30,500 51,200 
9-38 

TABLE 9-16-- CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--AVERAGE 

MONTHLY NUMBER OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN SERVED, 

FISCAL YEAR 2001-continued

State/Territory Average Number of Families Average Number of Children 

West Virginia 4,700 7,800 

Wisconsin 14,700 26,300 

Wyoming 1,900 3,200 

Total 1,069,600 1,813,800 

Note - This table reflects FFY 2001 monthly averages rounded to the nearest hundred. The 

number of families and children served is the average number reported by each State on the 

monthly ACF-801 submission, adjusted in those States that report on all families and children 

(across multiple funding sources) to show an estimate of the number of families and children 

served only by CCDF. The adjustment is based on the "polling factor" reported on the ACF800 form except for six States (District of Columbia, Kansas, Nebraska, New Jersey, North 

Carolina, and Tennessee) that provided a separate pooling for the ACF-801 data. States provide 

an actual count of families served. However, the number of children served is not a direct 

count based on the fact that some Sates elect to submit sample data versus full population data. 

For all States, the ratio of children-to-families is determined and then multiplied by the number 

of families served to obtain an estimate of the number of children served. American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands were unable to report ACF-801 case-level data in FFY 2001 

at the time of report preparation. 

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

TABLE 9-17 --CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT 

OF CHILDREN SERVED BY REASON FOR CARE, 

FISCAL YEAR 2001 

Reason for care Percent of children served 

Employment 80 

Training/education 9 

Both employment and training/education 4 

Protective services 3 

Other 4

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

TABLE 9-18--CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT 

OF CHILDREN SERVED BY AGE GROUP, FISCAL YEAR 2001 

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 10 

6-12 years 36 

13+ years 1 

Note - Total may not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 
9-39 

TABLE 9-19-- CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--NUMBER 

OF CHILD CARE PROVIDERS RECEIVING CCDF FUNDS, 

FISCAL YEAR 2001 

State Child's Home Family Home Group Home Center 

Alabama 55 2,695 381 1,717 

Alaska 404 2,230 50 286 

American Samoa 0 0 0 19 

Arizona 860 4,560 239 1,200 

Arkansas 33 484 0 703 

California 10,310 56,058 9,280 16,334 

Colorado 2,305 7,231 0 1,378 

Connecticut 16,677 1,481 63 1,447 

Delaware 380 1,459 32 342 

District of Columbia 9 130 0 354 

Florida 367 6,382 0 7,209 

Georgia 1,306 6,270 288 5,702 

Guam 74 569 3 64 

Hawaii 64 8,344 0 1,401 

Idaho 157 4,133 440 462 

Illinois 52,358 42,788 335 3,177 

Indiana 1,670 17,530 0 1,962 

Iowa 274 7,205 873 677 

Kansas 802 1,734 2,065 705 

Kentucky 545 7,395 109 1,637 

Louisiana 3,996 3,149 0 1,791 

Maine 180 2,368 0 380 

Maryland 3,787 7,360 0 1,547 

Massachusetts 4,338 3,046 1,666 1,180 

Michigan 37,341 45,274 2,641 2,501 

Minnesota 4,069 18,708 0 13,014 

Mississippi 2,261 2,579 74 1,268 

Missouri 498 12,933 193 1,784 

Montana 88 1,609 507 257 

Nebraska 495 4,573 349 486 

Nevada 171 728 8 491 

New Hampshire 1 1 1 1

New Jersey 1,173 10,606 0 2,471 

New Mexico 14 8,835 193 457 

New York 11,601 36,162 1,628 4,161 

North Carolina 410 6,624 102 4,126 

North Dakota 0 2,034 853 89 

Northern Mariana Islands 0 101 0 8 

Ohio 17 14,984 88 3,325 

Oklahoma 56 3,261 0 4,034 

Oregon 44 15,958 121 940 

Pennsylvania 4,812 21,984 556 3,515 

Puerto Rico 310 6,797 0 1,086 

Rhode Island 574 1,655 8 272 

South Carolina 305 3,067 219 1,421 

South Dakota 118 1,376 66 158 

Tennessee 228 3,192 438 1,629 
9-40 

TABLE 9-19-- CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--

NUMBER OF CHILD CARE PROVIDERS RECEIVING CCDF 

FUNDS, FISCAL YEAR 2001- continued 

State Child's Home Family Home Group Home Center 

Texas 8,757 14,505 951 5,691 

Utah 535 9,795 572 1,962 

Vermont 400 2,155 0 361 

Virgin Islands 0 37 21 103 

Virginia 1 1 1 1

Washington 20,083 16,411 0 1,957 

West Virginia 44 5,146 58 394 

Wisconsin 64 6,313 0 1,804 

Wyoming 502 1,375 222 131 

Total 195,913 473,369 25,649 111,547 1

 New Hampshire and Virginia did not report the number of providers by setting type. 

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

TABLE 9-20-- CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT 

OF CHILDREN SERVED, BY TYPES OF CARE, FISCAL YEAR 2001 

State Child's Home Family Home Group Home Center Total 

Alabama 0 14 6 81 59,968 

Alaska 7 45 3 44 13,924 

American Samoa 0 0 0 100 912 

Arizona 3 20 5 72 53,028 

Arkansas 1 23 0 76 17,641 

California 5 33 7 54 302,212 

Colorado 8 34 0 58 51,639 

Connecticut 46 6 0 47 28,731 

Delaware 4 38 2 56 13,146 

District of 

Columbia 0 2 0 98 4,046 

Florida 0 12 0 87 136,005 

Georgia 2 14 2 82 121,035 

Guam 7 51 1 40 2,636 

Hawaii 5 45 0 50 30,464 

Idaho 1 43 13 42 18,862 

Illinois 29 35 1 35 188,213 

Indiana 4 58 0 38 66,373 

Iowa 1 50 14 35 29,711 

Kansas 7 17 40 36 29,494 

Kentucky 2 27 1 69 75,756 

Louisiana 15 16 0 69 77,429 

Maine 7 47 0 46 6,282 

Maryland 15 45 0 40 48,436 

Massachusetts 7 9 17 67 72,213 

Michigan 32 44 8 16 81,582 

Minnesota 11 52 0 36 50,304 

Mississippi 9 11 2 78 52,330 

Missouri 2 48 3 48 67,507 

Montana 1 29 34 35 12,589 
9-41 

TABLE 9-20-- CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT 

OF CHILDREN SERVED, BY TYPES OF CARE, FISCAL YEAR 2001-

continued 

State Child's Home Family Home Group Home Center Total 

Nebraska 2 49 9 40 25,577 

Nevada 1 13 0 86 17,583 

New Hampshire 1 1 1 1

 11,948 

New Jersey 3 28 0 69 83,312 

New Mexico 0 52 6 42 35,363 

New York 16 46 5 33 186,481 

North Carolina 1 16 1 83 118,947 

North Dakota 0 43 29 28 9,535 

Northern Mariana 

Islands 0 75 0 25 383 

Ohio 0 39 1 61 130,387 

Oklahoma 0 18 0 82 77,295 

Oregon 0 76 2 21 52,596 

Pennsylvania 8 36 3 53 110,931 

Puerto Rico 2 49 0 49 19,712 

Rhode Island 6 30 0 64 6,611 

South Carolina 3 16 4 77 40,828 

South Dakota 2 53 10 35 6,968 

Tennessee 1 18 5 76 87,131 

Texas 7 14 3 76 208,706 

Utah 3 57 5 35 19,667 

Vermont 6 50 0 43 7,249 

Virgin Islands 0 6 6 88 1,278 

Virginia 1 38 0 61 48,258 

Washington 20 39 0 41 96,697 

West Virginia 0 49 2 48 14,461 

Wisconsin 0 38 0 61 43,331 

Wyoming 13 39 18 30 6,299 

Total 8 31 4 58 3,180,003 

1 New Hampshire did not submit data for setting type. 

Note-A “0” indication often means the value is less than 0.5 percent rather than actually zero. 

In a few instances, the sum of the categories may not appear to add up to exactly 100 percent 

because of rounding. 

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

TABLE 9-21--CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT 

OF CHILDREN SERVED IN REGULATED SETTINGS AND SETTINGS 

LEGALLY OPERATING WITHOUT REGULATION, FISCAL YEAR 

2001 

State Licensed/ Regulated Legally Operating 

Without Regulation Total 

Alabama 77 23 59,968 

Alaska 56 44 13,924 

American Samoa 100 0 912 

Arizona 87 13 53,028 
9-42 

TABLE 9-21--CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT 

OF CHILDREN SERVED IN REGULATED SETTINGS AND SETTINGS 

LEGALLY OPERATING WITHOUT REGULATION, FISCAL YEAR 

2001-continued

State Licensed/ Regulated Legally Operating 

Without Regulation Total 

Arkansas 100 0 17,641 

California 73 27 302,212 

Colorado 78 22 51,639 

Connecticut 53 47 28,731 

Delaware 79 21 13,146 

District of Columbia 48 52 4,046 

Florida 90 10 136,005 

Georgia 93 7 121,035 

Guam 36 64 2,636 

Hawaii 15 85 30,464 

Idaho 55 45 18,862 

Illinois 47 53 188,213 

Indiana 44 56 66,373 

Iowa 76 24 29,711 

Kansas 84 16 29,494 

Kentucky 77 23 75,756 

Louisiana 69 31 77,429 

Maine 78 22 6,282 

Maryland 75 25 48,436 

Massachusetts 90 10 72,213 

Michigan 34 66 81,582 

Minnesota 63 37 50,304 

Mississippi 80 20 52,330 

Missouri 59 41 67,507 

Montana 88 12 12,589 

Nebraska 72 28 25,577 

Nevada 76 24 17,583 

New Hampshire 1 1 11,948 

New Jersey 83 17 83,312 

New Mexico 49 51 35,363 

New York 51 49 186,481 

North Carolina 97 3 118,947 

North Dakota 94 6 9,535 

Northern Mariana Islands 100 0 383 

Ohio 100 0 130,387 

Oklahoma 100 0 77,295 

Oregon 45 55 52,596 

Puerto Rico 50 50 19,712 

Rhode Island 84 16 6,611 

South Carolina 85 15 40,828 

South Dakota 85 15 6,968 

Tennessee 88 12 87,131 

Texas 82 18 208,706 

Utah 52 48 19,667 

Vermont 77 23 7,249 
9-43 

TABLE 9-21--CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT 

OF CHILDREN SERVED IN REGULATED SETTINGS AND SETTINGS 

LEGALLY OPERATING WITHOUT REGULATION, FISCAL YEAR 

2001-continued

State Licensed/ Regulated Legally Operating 

Without Regulation Total 

Virgin Islands 95 5 1,278 

Virginia 87 13 48,258 

Washington 68 32 96,697 

West Virginia 92 8 14,461 

Wisconsin 100 0 43,331 

Wyoming 61 39 6,299 

Total 73 27 3,180,003 

1 New Hampshire did not report the number of children by setting type. 

Note - A “0” indication often means the value is less than 0.5 percent rather than actually zero. 

In a few instances, the sum of the categories may not appear to add up to exactly 100 percent 

because of rounding. 

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

TABLE 9-22--CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT 

OF CHILDREN SERVED IN SETTINGS LEGALLY OPERATING 

WITHOUT REGULATION, BY RELATIVES AND NONRELATIVES, 

FISCAL YEAR 2001 

State Relative Non-Relative Total 

Alabama 28 72 14,008 

Alaska 32 68 6,144 

American Samoa 1 1

 0 

Arizona 100 0 6,825 

Arkansas 1 1

 0 

California 67 33 82,127 

Colorado 46 54 11,334 

Connecticut 74 26 13,613 

Delaware 47 53 2,707 

District of Columbia 1 99 2,114 

Florida 11 89 13,167 

Georgia 60 40 9,005 

Guam 91 9 1,674 

Hawaii 46 54 25,940 

Idaho 52 48 8,454 

Illinois 56 44 99,491 

Indiana 35 65 37,436 

Iowa 28 72 7,084 

Kansas 81 19 4,653 

Kentucky 68 32 17,732 

Louisiana 27 73 23,793 

Maine 34 66 1,354 

Maryland 81 19 12,088 

Massachusetts 62 38 6,878 

Michigan 75 25 54,244 

Minnesota 33 67 18,850 
9-44 

TABLE 9-22--CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT 

OF CHILDREN SERVED IN SETTINGS LEGALLY OPERATING 

WITHOUT REGULATION, BY RELATIVES AND NONRELATIVES, 

FISCAL YEAR 2001-continued

States Relative Non-Relative Total 

Mississippi 62 38 10,634 

Missouri 17 83 27,467 

Montana 13 87 1,524 

Nebraska 0 100 7,267 

Nevada 9 91 4,236 

New Hampshire 2 2 2

New Jersey 26 74 14,523 

New Mexico 69 31 18,090 

New York 42 58 90,915 

North Carolina 80 20 4,082 

North Dakota 100 0 610 

Northern Mariana Islands 1 1

 0 

Ohio 1 1

 0 

Oklahoma 1 1

 0 

Oregon 22 78 29,099 

Pennsylvania 19 81 41,116 

Puerto Rico 29 71 9,840 

Rhode Island 75 25 1,090 

South Carolina 1 99 5,954 

South Dakota 72 28 1,063 

Tennessee 20 80 10,688 

Texas 100 0 37,731 

Utah 72 28 9,516 

Vermont 5 95 1,698 

Virgin Islands 79 21 66 

Virginia 66 34 6,376 

Washington 70 30 30,821 

West Virginia 74 26 1,088 

Wisconsin 1 1

 0 

Wyoming 62 38 2,468 

Total 50 50 848,674 

1

 American Samoa, Arkansas, Northern Marianas, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin did not 

report having children served in settings legally operating without regulation. 

2

 New Hampshire did not report the number of children by setting type. 

Note- A “0” indication often means the value is less than 0.5 percent rather than actually zero. 

In a few instances, the sum of the categories may not appear to add up to exactly 100 percent 

because of rounding. 

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

STATE INCOME ELIGIBILITY LIMITS 

States’ income eligibility limits for families of three receiving Child Care 

and Development Fund (CCDF) subsidies, as submitted in the latest available 

State CCDF plans, are displayed in Table 9-25. Some States use a different limit 

for entering and exiting the system, as indicated in the table. 
9-45 

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 1995 through 2001. Table 9-27 gives the mandatory fund 

expenditure trends by State from fiscal years 1995 through 2001. Total 

expenditures (mandatory and discretionary) are shown by State in Table 9-28. A 

detailed breakdown of CCDF expenditures made in fiscal year 2001 (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 2002. 
TABLE 9-23-- CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND (AND ADDITIONAL STATE EFFORTS)-- 

PERCENT OF CHILDREN SERVED IN ALL TYPES OF CARE, FISCAL YEAR 2001 

Licensed or Regulated Providers Providers Legally Operating without Regulation 

State Child's Home Family Home Group Home Child's 

Home 

Family 

Home 

Group 

Home Center Relative Non- Relative Relative Non- Relative Relative Non- Relative Cente

Alabama 0 7 6 64 0 0 6 0 0 0 17 Alaska 0 9 3 44 3 4 11 26 0 0 0 American Samoa 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Arizona 1 10 5 72 3 0 10 0 0 0 0 Arkansas 1 23 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 California 0 12 7 53 4 2 14 6 0 0 1 Colorado 0 20 0 58 2 7 9 5 0 0 0 Connecticut 0 6 0 46 35 11 0 0 0 0 2 Delaware 0 32 2 45 4 0 5 0 0 0 11 District of Columbia 0 2 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 

Florida 0 9 0 81 0 0 1 2 0 0 6 Georgia 0 9 2 82 1 1 3 2 0 0 0 

Guam 0 0 1 35 7 1 51 0 0 0 5 Hawaii 0 4 0 11 3 2 36 4 0 0 40 Idaho 0 0 13 42 1 1 23 21 0 0 0 Illinois 0 14 1 33 11 18 19 3 0 0 3 Indiana 0 24 0 20 2 2 17 18 0 0 18 Iowa 0 28 14 35 0 1 6 16 0 0 0 

Kansas 0 8 40 36 4 3 9 0 0 0 0 

Kentucky 0 6 1 69 1 1 15 7 0 0 0 

Louisiana 0 0 0 69 5 9 3 13 0 0 0 Maine 0 33 0 46 2 5 5 9 0 0 0 

Maryland 0 35 0 40 11 4 9 0 0 0 1 

Massachusetts 0 7 17 67 3 4 3 0 0 0 0 

Michigan 0 9 8 16 15 17 35 0 0 0 0 
Minnesota 0 29 0 33 5 6 7 16 0 0 3 

Mississippi 0 0 2 78 7 2 5 6 0 0 0 Missouri 0 14 3 43 1 1 6 28 0 0 5 Montana 0 18 34 35 0 1 1 9 0 0 0 Nebraska 0 22 9 40 0 2 0 27 0 0 0 Nevada 0 4 0 71 1 0 1 8 0 0 15 New Hampshire 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

New Jersey 0 13 0 69 1 2 4 11 0 0 0 New Mexico 0 1 6 42 0 0 35 16 0 0 0 New York 0 13 5 33 7 9 13 20 0 0 0 North Carolina 0 13 1 83 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 North Dakota 0 36 29 28 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 Northern Mariana Islands 0 75 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ohio 0 39 1 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oklahoma 0 18 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oregon 0 23 1 21 0 0 12 42 0 1 1 Pennsylvania 0 7 3 53 3 6 5 24 0 0 0 Puerto Rico 0 1 0 49 2 1 13 35 0 0 0 Rhode Island 0 19 0 64 2 4 11 0 0 0 0 South Carolina 0 4 4 77 0 3 0 12 0 0 0 South Dakota 0 40 10 35 1 1 10 3 0 0 0 Tennessee 0 7 5 76 1 0 2 10 0 0 0 Texas 0 3 3 76 7 0 11 0 0 0 0 Utah 0 11 5 35 2 1 33 13 0 0 0 Vermont 0 33 0 43 0 6 1 16 0 0 0 Virgin Islands 0 1 6 88 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 Virginia 0 26 0 61 1 0 8 4 0 0 0 Washington 0 27 0 41 11 10 11 0 0 0 0 

West Virginia 0 44 2 47 0 0 6 0 0 0 1 Wisconsin 0 38 0 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
TABLE 9-23-- CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND (AND ADDITIONAL STATE EFFORTS)-- 

PERCENT OF CHILDREN SERVED IN ALL TYPES OF CARE, FISCAL YEAR 2001-continued 

Licensed or Regulated Providers Providers Legally Operating without Regulation 

Child's Home Family Home Group Home State Child's 

Home 

Family 

Home 

Group 

Home Center Relative Non- Relative Relative Non- Relative Relative Non- Relative Cente

Wyoming 0 13 18 30 9 4 15 11 0 0 0 National 0 14 4 56 4 4 9 8 0 0 2 1 New Hampshire did not report number of children by setting type. Note – A “0” indication often means the value is less than 0.5 percent rather than actually zero. In a few instances, the sum of the categories may noappear to add up to exactly 100 percent because of rounding. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 
9-49 

TABLE 9-24-- CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT 

OF CHILDREN SERVED BY PAYMENT METHOD, 

FISCAL YEAR 2001 

State Grants / 

Contracts Certificates Cash Total 

Alabama 0 100 0 59,968 

Alaska 0 100 0 13,924 

American Samoa 0 100 0 912 

Arizona 0 100 0 53,028 

Arkansas 0 100 0 17,641 

California 39 61 0 302,212 

Colorado 2 96 2 51,639 

Connecticut 29 71 0 28,731 

Delaware 0 100 0 13,146 

District of Columbia 52 48 0 4,046 

Florida 68 32 0 136,005 

Georgia 4 96 0 121,035 

Guam 0 100 0 2,636 

Hawaii 31 0 69 30,464 

Idaho 0 100 0 18,862 

Illinois 11 89 0 188,213 

Indiana 1 99 0 66,373 

Iowa 0 100 0 29,711 

Kansas 0 93 7 29,494 

Kentucky 0 100 0 75,756 

Louisiana 0 100 0 77,429 

Maine 26 74 0 6,282 

Maryland 0 100 0 48,436 

Massachusetts 48 52 0 72,213 

Michigan 0 100 0 81,582 

Minnesota 0 100 0 50,304 

Mississippi 21 79 0 52,330 

Missouri 0 100 0 67,507 

Montana 0 100 0 12,589 

Nebraska 0 100 0 25,577 

Nevada 15 85 0 17,583 

New Hampshire 0 100 0 11,948 

New Jersey 18 82 0 83,312 

New Mexico 0 100 0 35,363 

New York 17 83 0 186,481 

North Carolina 0 100 0 118,947 

North Dakota 0 100 0 9,535 

Northern Mariana Islands 0 100 0 383 

Ohio 0 100 0 130,387 

Oklahoma 0 100 0 77,295 

Oregon 7 93 0 52,596 

Pennsylvania 0 78 22 110,931 

Puerto Rico 32 68 0 19,712 

Rhode Island 0 100 0 6,611 

South Carolina 13 87 0 40,828 

South Dakota 1 99 0 6,968 
9-50 

TABLE 9-24-- CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT 

OF CHILDREN SERVED BY PAYMENT METHOD, 

FISCAL YEAR 2001-continued 

State Grants / 

Contracts Certificates Cash Total 

Tennessee 0 100 0 87,131 

Texas 0 79 21 208,706 

Utah 0 0 100 19,667 

Vermont 4 96 0 7,249 

Virgin Islands 4 96 0 1,278 

Virginia 0 100 0 48,258 

Washington 0 68 32 96,697 

West Virginia 0 100 0 14,461 

Wisconsin 0 100 0 43,331 

Wyoming 0 100 0 6,299 

Total 12 84 4 3,180,003 

Note- A “0” indication often means the value is less than 0.5 percent rather than actually zero. 

In a few instances, the sum of the categories may not appear to add up to exactly 100 percent 

because of rounding 

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

TABLE 9-25-- CCDF ELIGIBILITY LIMITS FOR FAMILY OF THREE 

[monthly income]

State/territory 

85% of State median 

income (SMI) for 

family of three 

Actual CCDF general 

income eligibility limit 

Actual CCDF Limit as a 

percent of SMI 

Alabama $3,118 $1,585 (43%) entry 

 2,438 (66%) exit 

Alaska 4,481 3,244 (62%) 

American Samoa 925 925 (85%) 

Arizona 3,156 2,013 (54%) 

Arkansas 2,777 1,960 (60%) 

California 3,315 2,925 (75%) 

Colorado1 3,774 2,743 (62%) 

Connecticut 4,495 3,966 (75%) 

Delaware 3,902 2,440 (53%) 

District of Columbia 3,706 3,470 (80%) 

Florida 3,307 2,439 (63%) 

Georgia 3,569 3,569 (85%) 

Guam 1,829 1,829 (85%) 

Hawaii2 3,479 3,069 (75%) entry 

 3,274 (80%) exit 

Idaho 2,838 1,706 (51%) 

Illinois 3,948 1,818 (39%) 

Indiana 3,289 1,743 (45%) entry 

 2,207 (57%) exit 

Iowa 3,455 1,890 (46%) 

Kansas 3,874 2,255 (49%) 

Kentucky 3,105 2,012 (55%) 

Louisiana 2,942 2,077 (60%) 
9-51 

TABLE 9-25-- CCDF ELIGIBILITY LIMITS FOR FAMILY OF THREEcontinued 

[monthly income] 

State/territory 

85% of State median 

income (SMI) for 

family of three 

Actual CCDF general 

income eligibility limit 

Actual CCDF Limit as a 

percent of SMI 

Maine 3,038 3,038 (85%) 

Maryland 4,249 2,499 (50%) 

Massachusetts3 4,104 2,414 (50%) entry 

 4,104 (85%) exit 

Michigan 3,895 2,172 (47%) 

Minnesota 3,967 3,501 (75%) 

Mississippi 2,513 2,513 (85%) 

Missouri 3,010 1,482 (42%) 

Montana 3,032 1,829 (51%) 

Nebraska 3,373 2,105 (53%) 

Nevada 3,539 3,123 (75%) 

New Hampshire 3,630 2,648 (62%) 

New Jersey4 4,224 2,438 (49%) entry 

 3,048 (61%) exit 

New Mexico 2,658 2,438 (78%) 

New York 3,400 2,438 (61%) 

North Carolina 3,232 2,852 (75%) 

North Dakota 3,035 2,463 (69%) 

Northern Mariana 

Islands 1,273 1,219 (81%) 

Ohio 3,346 2,255 (57%) 

Oklahoma 3,110 1,936 (53%) 

Oregon 3,208 2,255 (60%) 

Pennsylvania 3,543 2,438 (58%) 

Puerto Rico 1,279 1,279 (85%) 

Rhode Island 3,845 2,743 (61%) 

South Carolina 3,330 1,829 (47%) entry 

 2,134 (54%) exit 

South Dakota 3,504 1,829 (44%) 

Tennessee 3,093 2,027 (56%) 

Texas5 3,171 3,171 (85%) 

Utah 3,406 2,244 (56%) 

Vermont 2,867 2,586 (77%) 

Virginia 3,829 1,829 (41%) 

 1,950 (43%) 

 2,255 (50%) 

Virgin Islands 1,385 1,385 (85%) 

Washington 3,670 2,743 (64%) 

West Virginia 2,689 2,358 (75%) 

Wisconsin 3,774 2,255 (51%) entry 

 2,438 (55%) exit 

Wyoming 3,310 2,255 (58%) 

1

 In Colorado, eligibility limits vary by county, from a low of 137 percent of 2001 FPL to a high 

of 225 percent. 

2

 In Hawaii, the income eligibility limit for applicants is lower than the limit for recipients and 

those within 12 months of leaving TANF. 
9-52 

TABLE 9-25-- CCDF ELIGIBILITY LIMITS FOR FAMILY OF THREEcontinued 3

 In Massachusetts, for a family currently without a contracted slot or voucher, their income 

must be at or below 50 percent of the SMI in order to access the CCDF system. Once a family 

has a subsidy, it will remain income-eligible until its income reaches 85 percent of SMI. 

4

 In New Jersey, the income eligibility limit for families entering the CCDF system is based on 

200 percent of the 2001 Federal Poverty Line (FPL) and the universal exit level for families is 

based on 250 percent of the 2001 FPL. 

5

 In Texas, local workforce development boards set their own income eligibility limits, and 

most (but not all) Boards have established limits that are below 85 percent of SMI (e.g. 55 

percent of SMI; 150 percent of FPL). For example, in Dallas the general monthly income 

eligibility limit is 150 percent of FPL (which for a family of three is $1,829 (58 percent of 

SMI)). 

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service, based on information from 

CCDF State plans submitted by the States to the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) for fiscal years 2002-2003. 

TABLE 9-26--SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY 

CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND EXPENDITURES, FISCAL 

YEARS 1995-2001 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Mandatory funds Fiscal 

Year 

Discretionary 

funds 

(Federal) Federal State 

Total 

Percent change in 

total expenditures 

from previous year 

1995 832,009 1,235,233 949,821 3,017,063 -- 

1996 850,122 1,280,212 994,275 3,124,609 3.6 

1997 1,009,498 1,537,796 1,361,481 3,908,775 24.4 

1998 1,485,514 2,035,700 1,746,834 5,268,049 33.7 

1999 2,725,319 1,999,925 1,648,282 6,373,526 22.7 

2000 2,999,135 2,268,997 1,896,933 7,165,065 12.4 

2001 3,528,427 2,343,123 2,039,858 7,911,408 10.4 

Source: Congressional Research Service and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 
TABLE 9-27--FEDERAL MANDATORY CHILD CARE EXPENDITURES, BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1995-20

[In thousands of dollars]

Percent Change State 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

1995-2001 1999-2

Alabama 17,626 17,734 27,539 28,847 30,893 27,586 25,454 44 -18Alaska 3,983 3,599 5,063 6,324 6,093 6,561 7,366 85 21 Arizona 20,998 24,993 31,034 29,663 35,360 33,434 35,009 67 -1 

Arkansas 5,300 4,009 9,360 11,904 12,423 15,693 9,371 77 -25 California 90,347 97,454 101,077 200,974 273,403 230,130 221,456 145 -19 Colorado 10,498 10,486 11,926 29,000 11,709 26,303 22,924 118 96 Connecticut 18,738 25,122 27,298 28,676 29,690 31,900 34,646 85 17 

Delaware 5,292 5,217 6,718 6,807 8,146 8,458 8,705 64 7 District of Columbia 4,721 4,455 5,703 6,255 6,043 6,491 6,278 33 4 Florida 48,743 54,008 62,220 102,098 90,427 101,587 84,993 74 -6 Georgia 39,088 49,040 40,876 65,599 60,746 76,759 80,382 106 32 Hawaii 5,221 4,562 8,545 8,786 9,143 9,957 10,587 103 16 

Idaho 3,062 2,357 3,809 5,689 8,649 8,410 9,300 204 8 

Illinois 60,275 78,690 92,635 95,625 100,124 109,663 118,004 96 18 

Indiana 28,640 29,777 32,515 43,371 35,709 37,854 52,006 82 46 

Iowa 9,219 7,089 11,182 19,622 15,976 25,647 18,872 105 18 

Kansas 10,044 11,632 15,595 18,037 20,128 20,940 22,700 126 13 Kentucky 17,230 17,490 22,112 31,916 23,497 33,236 31,764 84 35 

Louisiana 14,539 13,895 15,058 29,497 26,198 22,195 27,632 90 5 

Maine 3,036 3,456 6,015 6,801 6,879 7,809 8,247 172 20 

Maryland 24,367 23,575 26,356 46,759 32,987 48,761 37,574 54 14 

Massachussetts 46,798 52,211 60,350 62,620 60,871 57,557 73,867 58 21 

Michigan 32,082 30,340 38,803 65,828 32,082 32,082 70,189 119 119 Minnesota 23,368 26,089 28,796 14,070 42,589 31,057 52,853 126 24 Mississippi 6,682 6,787 4,892 19,032 14,429 19,499 18,577 178 29 

Missouri 25,390 26,805 37,505 42,753 43,365 47,278 50,728 100 17 

Montana 3,191 3,451 2,968 8,476 6,131 6,636 7,189 125 17 
TABLE 9-27--FEDERAL MANDATORY CHILD CARE EXPENDITURES, BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1995-20

continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Percent Change State 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

1995-2001 1999-2

Nebraska 10,072 8,786 15,975 15,822 16,406 17,656 18,753 86 14 Nevada 2,873 3,122 2,897 7,571 8,362 8,532 12,625 339 51 

New Hampshire 5,139 4,387 7,900 8,383 8,544 9,399 10,236 99 20 New Jersey 40,031 49,494 52,638 51,094 53,256 54,167 49,195 23 -8 

New Mexico 4,174 9,174 13,916 14,342 14,955 16,456 17,590 321 18 

New York 108,871 71,877 69,409 173,771 91,109 208,974 209,120 92 130 

North Carolina 71,708 63,320 84,934 95,048 95,641 101,446 107,255 50 12 

North Dakota 2,188 1,895 3,886 2,336 6,469 5,289 5,266 141 -19 

Ohio 71,195 66,526 95,211 109,039 107,900 116,009 123,301 73 14 

Oklahoma 25,638 26,638 33,905 35,324 25,943 49,199 34,468 34 33 

Oregon 20,288 26,515 27,598 28,981 30,091 32,777 34,784 71 16 

Pennyslvania 55,355 55,822 85,648 67,106 76,741 120,695 96,988 75 26 

Rhode Island 6,695 6,856 8,884 9,794 9,806 10,562 11,235 68 15 South Carolina 9,967 12,457 16,796 22,509 23,282 26,095 25,433 155 9 

South Dakota 1,753 1,742 3,125 4,781 4,255 4,861 5,317 203 25 

Tennessee 39,566 43,192 51,259 53,621 55,509 59,433 63,150 60 14 

Texas 63,995 72,750 64,857 121,168 139,699 130,685 184,361 188 32 Utah 13,019 14,450 19,428 20,605 21,674 23,807 16,727 28 -23 

Vermont 3,737 3,841 5,667 5,687 5,847 6,165 6,461 73 11 Virginia 21,364 18,716 34,148 30,333 45,585 44,965 36,483 71 -20 

Washington 41,948 43,218 52,091 63,917 61,301 65,702 69,725 66 14 

West Virginia 8,834 9,837 12,973 13,561 5,944 23,100 16,087 82 171 Wisconsin 25,715 28,995 35,850 42,447 42,541 45,846 37,097 44 -13 

Wyoming 2,631 2,277 2,851 3,431 5,375 3,694 4,793 82 -11 

Total 1,235,233 1,280,212 1,537,796 2,035,700 1,999,925 2,268,997 2,343,123 90 17

Source: Congressional Research Service and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 
TABLE 9-28 --TOTAL CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND EXPENDITURES, BY STATE, 

FISCAL YEARS 1995 - 2001 

 [In thousands of dollars]

Percent Change State 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

1995-2001 1999-200

Alabama 47,020 48,642 52,411 60,689 74,384 103,057 99,011 111 33Alaska 9,986 7,227 13,123 17,261 31,719 23,149 32,756 228 3

Arizona 47,123 53,900 61,200 81,923 108,522 104,981 101,654 116 -6

Arkansas 13,769 16,955 23,237 16,466 34,237 44,071 33,501 143 -2

California 285,079 330,793 368,789 586,143 797,734 957,808 1,037,525 264 30

Colorado 32,697 27,153 32,909 51,174 63,773 68,037 97,090 197 52

Connecticut 49,544 59,013 58,668 72,245 136,441 158,475 165,183 233 21

Delaware 12,348 12,161 17,487 24,417 25,664 34,127 32,272 161 26

District of Columbia 10,884 10,564 13,604 20,154 27,564 45,141 40,538 272 47Florida 129,073 147,388 157,347 232,715 350,009 327,531 351,148 172 0

Georgia 88,245 105,238 132,362 162,139 145,509 175,759 199,412 126 37 

Hawaii 13,122 12,799 20,474 30,632 34,608 25,239 33,152 153 -4 Idaho 6,146 5,964 9,127 16,120 24,576 25,685 32,138 423 31 Illinois 164,749 191,870 236,029 300,808 354,779 388,751 340,411 107 -4 Indiana 63,199 66,851 78,288 138,615 140,177 89,964 174,667 176 25 Iowa 23,025 21,520 20,130 49,312 53,551 79,874 70,554 206 32 Kansas 25,154 28,640 35,108 45,722 50,168 61,102 66,769 165 33 

Kentucky 41,676 43,616 51,609 60,647 80,258 111,483 125,854 202 57 

Louisiana 39,580 40,530 47,367 62,341 120,061 134,010 114,874 190 -4 Maine 5,699 12,325 15,436 19,041 22,094 25,513 20,158 254 -9 Maryland 60,361 58,627 58,365 104,766 101,270 147,894 131,978 119 30 

Massachusetts 93,595 116,757 243,113 216,503 244,269 227,866 255,489 173 5 Michigan 86,807 65,126 122,046 295,723 178,870 94,430 191,927 121 7 

Minnesota 56,836 62,427 69,624 68,884 103,552 126,957 133,781 135 29 

Mississippi 11,389 17,794 48,388 32,494 43,972 65,059 94,947 734 116 Missouri 59,382 62,821 79,879 89,283 114,763 133,161 143,197 141 25 
TABLE 9 -28 --TOTAL CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND EXPENDITURES, BY STATE, 

FISCAL YEARS 1995 – 2001-continued 

 [In thousands of dollars] 

Percent Change State 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

1995-2001 1999 - 

Montana 7,108 8,391 8,272 14,114 18,908 20,916 25,040 252 32 Nebraska 21,566 19,287 27,276 40,892 52,233 55,888 56,602 162 8 Nevada 9,397 8,707 13,020 18,411 20,731 22,126 35,860 282 73 New Hampshire 14,064 11,149 16,177 20,532 18,931 24,402 25,810 84 36 New Jersey 111,239 114,302 108,707 134,045 180,829 123,505 243,505 119 35 New Mexico 14,291 21,521 28,819 39,540 46,648 52,849 62,213 335 33 New York 261,452 201,424 236,240 393,075 445,407 658,174 785,681 201 76 North Carolina 136,303 100,133 169,501 224,494 246,731 258,213 282,738 107 15 

North Dakota 5,349 4,075 7,485 5,358 10,064 9,102 10,430 95 4 Ohio 143,378 144,794 191,298 226,835 222,298 317,819 401,911 180 81 Oklahoma 50,518 52,804 57,553 71,542 110,494 93,690 134,491 166 22 

Oregon 41,587 51,714 53,278 56,312 60,230 64,022 69,307 67 15 Pennsylvania 134,138 139,793 192,772 170,328 281,282 297,343 263,646 97 -6 Rhode Island 14,594 15,273 18,713 25,788 33,840 52,807 48,909 235 45 

South Carolina 31,451 38,198 28,466 66,987 59,209 59,699 70,483 124 19 South Dakota 5,950 2,828 6,327 10,676 11,697 13,180 12,781 115 9 Tennessee 77,508 82,777 107,875 136,666 155,666 170,562 170,297 120 9 Texas 191,984 198,620 217,999 274,659 355,378 422,447 439,172 129 24 

Utah 25,775 29,723 28,414 39,635 46,202 44,469 40,945 59 -1

Vermont 10,641 10,563 15,508 17,484 19,075 19,832 20,048 88 5 

Virginia 56,466 55,842 85,645 79,156 136,456 134,014 132,110 134 -3 Washington 95,050 100,808 116,631 172,423 216,276 279,245 254,139 167 18 

West Virginia 17,688 15,869 24,062 41,074 17,558 43,917 38,692 119 12Wisconsin 56,875 63,293 76,883 123,709 137,302 139,399 155,593 174 13 

Wyoming 6,198 6,016 5,735 8,102 7,557 8,321 11,019 78 46 Total 3,017,063 3,124,608 3,908,775 5,268,049 6,373,526 7,165,065 7,911,408 162 24 

Source: Congressional Research Service and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 
TABLE 9-29 -- CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND EXPENDITURES, FISCAL YEAR 2001 

[In thousands of dollars]

State Discretionary Mandatory block grant Federal share of matching funds State share of matching funds Maintenance of effort (MOE) Total 

Alabama 62,975 16,847 8,607 3,686 6,896 99,011 Alaska 18,840 3,545 3,821 3,005 3,545 32,756 

Arizona 40,942 19,827 15,182 15,670 10,033 101,654 

Arkansas 19,743 2,640 6,731 2,500 1,887 33,501 California 482,698 89,928 131,528 167,030 166,341 1,037,525 Colorado 52,408 10,174 12,750 12,772 8,986 97,090 Connecticut 8,445 18,738 15,908 15,908 106,184 165,183 Delaware 3,518 5,179 3,526 3,526 16,523 32,272 

District of Columbia 27,752 4,567 1,711 1,941 4,567 40,538 

Florida 196,689 37,941 47,052 36,050 33,416 351,148 

Georgia 69,744 40,878 39,504 26,700 22,586 199,412 

Hawaii 12,781 4,972 5,615 4,812 4,972 33,152 Idaho 19,004 2,868 6,432 2,658 1,176 32,138 Illinois 104,403 56,874 61,130 61,130 56,874 340,411 

Indiana 89,684 23,209 28,797 17,620 15,357 174,667 Iowa 39,151 8,512 10,360 7,310 5,221 70,554 

Kansas 28,742 9,812 12,888 8,646 6,681 66,769 Kentucky 79,156 13,556 18,208 7,659 7,275 125,854 

Louisiana 77,746 17,490 10,142 4,277 5,219 114,874 Maine 6,553 3,019 5,228 2,679 2,679 20,158 Maryland 56,830 23,301 14,273 14,273 23,301 131,978 

Massachusetts 110,256 47,474 26,393 26,393 44,973 255,489 

Michigan 66,545 32,082 38,107 30,782 24,411 191,927 Minnesota 36,510 28,229 24,624 24,728 19,690 133,781 

Mississippi 71,116 6,851 11,726 3,539 1,715 94,947 Missouri 59,281 24,669 26,059 16,639 16,549 143,197 
TABLE 9-29 -- CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND EXPENDITURES, FISCAL YEAR 2001-continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

State Discretionary Mandatory block grant Federal share of matching funds State share of matching funds Maintenance of effort (MOE) Total 

Montana 15,061 3,191 3,998 1,476 1,314 25,040 Nebraska 20,324 10,595 8,158 5,353 12,172 56,602 

Nevada 11,458 3,378 9,247 9,197 2,580 35,860 

New Hampshire 1,690 4,582 5,654 5,654 8,230 25,810 New Jersey 146,265 27,524 21,671 21,671 26,374 243,505 New Mexico 38,433 8,308 9,282 3,295 2,895 62,213 New York 376,458 112,256 96,864 98,119 101,984 785,681 North Carolina 115,123 69,920 37,335 22,433 37,927 282,738 North Dakota 3,117 2,864 2,402 1,030 1,017 10,430 

Ohio 196,299 70,125 53,176 36,907 45,404 401,911 

Oklahoma 85,541 24,910 9,558 3,852 10,630 134,491 Oregon 12,558 19,409 15,375 10,250 11,715 69,307 

Pennsylvania 68,506 47,648 49,340 51,523 46,629 263,646 Rhode Island 3,498 6,634 4,601 3,953 30,223 48,909 

South Carolina 34,429 9,867 15,566 6,536 4,085 70,483 South Dakota 4,988 1,711 3,606 1,673 803 12,781 

Tennessee 73,726 37,702 25,448 14,445 18,976 170,297 

Texas 162,307 94,671 89,690 57,823 34,681 439,172 

Utah 18,090 12,592 4,135 1,653 4,475 40,945 Vermont 9,405 3,945 2,516 1,516 2,666 20,048 Virginia 56,089 17,016 19,467 18,209 21,329 132,110 

Washington 118,633 41,883 27,842 27,073 38,708 254,139 

West Virginia 17,225 8,727 7,360 2,409 2,971 38,692 Wisconsin 93,405 24,511 12,586 8,642 16,449 155,593 

Wyoming 4,287 4,080 713 386 1,553 11,019 

Total 3,528,427 1,221,231 1,121,892 937,011 1,102,847 7,911,408 

Source: Table prepared by the Department of Health and Human Services. 
9-59 

TABLE 9-30 -- CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND STATE 

ALLOCATIONS - FISCAL YEAR 2002 

Child care entitlement 

State Mandatory 

block grant 

Matching 

fund 

CCDBG 

Discretionary 

Alabama $16,441,707 $22,803,334 $42,929,737 

Alaska 3,544,811 4,041,917 4,077,745 

Arizona 19,827,025 29,867,432 43,481,082 

Arkansas 5,300,283 13,918,143 25,553,862 

California 85,593,217 202,345,010 243,602,191 

Colorado 10,173,800 23,346,084 23,216,949 

Connecticut 18,738,357 18,325,536 15,516,200 

Delaware 5,179,330 4,194,685 4,425,363 

District of Columbia 4,566,974 2,532,376 3,575,717 

Florida 43,026,524 74,315,596 105,495,897 

Georgia 36,548,223 46,969,407 69,949,985 

Hawaii 4,971,633 6,391,035 8,044,428 

Idaho 2,867,578 7,687,126 11,558,158 

Illinois 56,873,824 70,164,324 78,610,865 

Indiana 26,181,999 33,404,663 39,634,316 

Iowa 8,507,792 14,671,371 18,910,604 

Kansas 9,811,721 14,387,106 18,966,933 

Kentucky 16,701,653 21,286,383 37,296,800 

Louisiana 13,864,552 24,347,811 51,717,684 

Maine 3,018,598 6,220,317 7,952,708 

Maryland 23,301,407 29,279,003 27,855,834 

Massachusetts 44,973,373 32,528,105 28,623,370 

Michigan 32,081,922 53,067,749 60,683,562 

Minnesota 23,367,543 27,153,654 27,017,650 

Mississippi 6,293,116 15,814,248 34,880,544 

Missouri 24,668,568 30,244,097 38,897,572 

Montana 3,190,691 4,707,222 6,447,972 

Nebraska 10,594,637 9,431,220 11,693,011 

Nevada 2,580,422 11,345,185 10,855,892 

New Hampshire 4,581,870 6,577,515 5,342,257 

New Jersey 26,374,178 45,576,393 39,728,574 

New Mexico 8,307,587 10,636,452 19,313,705 

New York 101,983,998 101,291,573 117,149,059 

North Carolina 69,639,228 42,875,908 59,839,819 

North Dakota 2,506,022 3,295,271 4,636,540 

Ohio 70,124,656 61,571,001 69,347,042 

Oklahoma 24,909,979 11,502,467 32,478,555 

Oregon 19,408,790 17,957,396 21,693,453 

Pennsylvania 55,336,804 61,888,243 65,737,635 
9-60 

TABLE 9-30 -- CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND STATE 

ALLOCATIONS - FISCAL YEAR 2002-continued 

Child care entitlement 

State Mandatory 

block grant 

Matching 

fund 

CCDBG 

Discretionary 

Rhode Island 6,633,774 5,348,500 5,608,803 

South Carolina 9,867,439 21,613,855 38,362,704 

South Dakota 1,710,801 4,187,868 6,239,240 

Tennessee 37,702,188 29,774,488 44,213,390 

Texas 59,844,129 122,569,631 202,599,171 

Utah 12,591,564 7,800,000 21,355,203 

Vermont 3,944,887 3,047,752 3,452,257 

Virginia 21,328,766 36,888,539 40,870,368 

Washington 41,883,444 30,720,798 34,994,466 

West Virginia 8,727,005 8,412,231 15,110,217 

Wisconsin 24,511,351 28,648,757 31,004,615 

Wyoming 2,815,041 2,487,341 3,320,644 

State Total $1,177,524,781 $1,519,462,118 $1,983,870,348 

Tribes 54,340,000 0 42,999,880 

Territories 0 0 57,873,787 

Technical Assistance 3,529,600 3,257,900 5,225,985 

Research Set-Aside 0 0 9,972,000 

Total $1,235,394,381 $1,522,720,018 $2,099,942,000 

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., & Sonenstein, F. (2000). Child care arrangements for 

children under five: Variation across States (No. B-7). Washington, DC: 

Urban Institute. 
9-61 

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. 

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. (2002, March). Current data on child care 

salaries and benefits in the United States. Washington, DC: Author. 

Children's Foundation. (2000). The 2000 family child care licensing study. 

Washington, DC: Author. 

Children's Foundation. (2002). 2002 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. 

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2002) “Early Child Care and 

Children’s Development Prior to School Entry: Results from the NICHD 

Study of Early Child Care.” American Educational Research Journal, 39. 

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2003) “Does Amount of Time 

Spent in Child Care Predict Socioemotional Adjustment During the 

Transition to Kindergarten?” Child Development, July/August 2003, 

Volume 74, Number 4, pp. 976-1005. 

Polivka, A.E., & Rothgeb, J.M. (1993). Redesigning the CPS questionnaire.

Monthly Labor Review, 116(9), 10-28.