|CITATION||STUDY DESIGN||ISSUE ADDRESSED||N||AGE||QUALITY MEASURE||POSSIBLE CONTROL||FINDINGS|
|Does Employment Matter?|
|Blau, D. and P. Robbins, 1988. “C hild Care Costs, and Family Labor Supply.”||1980 Employment Opportunity Pilot Project (EOPP)||Mother does not work versus four combination of mother working with purchased care or not, other relatives working or not.||Married and single mothers||< 7||Average child care expenditures among families in the community who purchased care||The study averages child care expenditures across families within a given geographical location.||Uses multinomial logit estimation procedure.
-0.38 (average price elasticity of employment over a range of examined child care costs) Significance cannot be determined from available information.
|Blau, D and P. Robins, 1989. “Fertility, Employment, and Child- Care Costs.”||Employment Opportunity Pilot Projects (EOPP)||An examination of employment, child care costs, births rates and potential behavior effects of child-care subsidies||6170 employed women and 8940 unemployed women||child care costs, wage rates, education, work experience, age||Child care costs are estimated to have significant effects on both birth and employment transition. Higher child-care costs are estimated to lower birth rates for unemployed women, but not for employed women. Higher child-care costs also increase the rate of leaving employment and reduce the rate of entering employment.|
|Brooks-Gunn, et al, 1994. In Ross, C and D. Paulsell, 1998. “Sustaining Employment Among Low-Income Parents: the Role of Quality in Child Care: A Research Review.”||Infant Health and Development Program||Employment of Mothers||Mothers of low-weight pre-mature infants offered home visits||random assignment intervention||The provision of high-quality center-based care to low-income mothers of very young children can increase employment rates and improve the stability of employment over time. Cumulative months of employment for less-educated black mothers were 14.2 for the intervention group and 12.0 for the control group.|
|Connelly, R. and J. Kimmel, (2000)||1992 and 1993 SIPP||Examination of difference in the effect of child care prices on employment and child care mode choice by marital status.||Married and unmarried mothers (employed, full & part- time employed)||tax credits, subsidies, price of care, employment status||Using a single predicted price of child care married women working full or part-time were no different in their mode of child care choice. Single mothers working full-time were more likely to use center-based care. Estimating separate prices of care for each mode of care, married and single mothers working full-time were both more likely to use center care rather than relative care. Implications include a move towards increased center based care as more women increase full-time work as they reach welfare reform time limits.|
|Fuller, et al., 1999. “Variation in Poor Children’s Home and Child-Care Settings: Does Maternal Employment Matter?”||2 waves 1997, 1998||Does maternal employment affect choice of child care and child development||948 single motherers entering new welfare programs in CA, CN, FL.||Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS), Family Day Care Rating Scale (FDCRS), Arnett scale, Child Observation System||maternal education, age, ethnicity, child age, high and low-income groups||Children of high and low-employment mothers spend just under 40 hrs/wk in child care. High employment group has established more stable child-care providers averaging 6.8 months in duration compared to 4.9 moths for low employment group (p<.01, n=272). Children of low-employment group were attending centers who scored higher on the ECERS compared to children of high- employment mothers (p<.01, n=133). Women with more work experience select center- based programs more frequently than low- employment mothers.|
|GAO, 1995||Urban Institute’s 1990 National Child Care Survey and Low-Income Sub-study||Mother is employed or not.||(see above)||(see above)||Examined mothers employed or not. Selectivitiy corrected predicted hourly costs from employed who purchase care||Probit estimation. -0.5 for poor mothers, -0.34 for near-poor mothers, and -0.19 for non-poor mothers (calculated at means).|
|Leibowitz et al, 1992||NLSY||Whether mother is employed when child is 3 mo. old and whether mother is employed when child is 24 mo. old||first time mothers||children at 3 months and 24 months||Subsidy available through state and federal income tax credits; assumes the woman works full-time at her predicted wage.||Variation among states and over time in state and federal income tax credits for child care||Greater tax credits increased early return to work (within 3 mo.) But had little effect on employment of women with older children.|
|Maume, D. 1991. “Child-care Expenditures and Women’s Employment Turnover.”||Longitudinal SIPP, Wave 5, 1985.||Looking at employed women from 1985 and the effects of child care payments on employment.||1814 women 15-45 years old||at least one child < 13 yrs.||Employment status, child care costs, education & work history, income||Child care payments force women to choose between employment and exiting the work force. The level of child care payments has s significant effect on rates of quitting for mothers of pre-schoolers, but not school-age children. The effects of child care expenses on quitting does not vary by mother’s wage. Low and middle-income women will reduce work force attachment as child care expenditures increase.|
|Meyers,M, 1 Ross, C and D. Paulsell, 1998. “Sustaining Employment Among Low-Income Parents: the Role of Quality in Child Care: A Research Review.” 1993. In||Longitudinal CA GAIN program||Child care arrangements and mothers employment||Mothers participating in the GAIN program||A mother’s assessment of the safety of the child care arrangements and the trustworthiness of the provider were important predictors of whether she was active in job preparation activities or employment 1 yr later.
Parent’s assessment of the learning and social opportunities in child care were not significantly associated with the parent’s job related progress.
When child/caregiver ratios did not meet standards, mothers were twice as likely to drop out of the program.
|Peisner-Feinberg, E.S. et al., 1999, “The Children of the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study Go To School.”||Longitudinal Cost, Quality and Outcomes Study||Education of mother, child care quality, and the effect on child development||826 children||pre- school through 2nd grade||Survey, child/ classroom assessment, teacher-child relationship quality||Analysis controlled for effects of maternal education, child gender and ethnicity||For children with less highly educated mothers, better quality child care was strongly related to better math skills and fewer problem behaviors through 2nd grade.|
|Does Income Matter?|
|Bureau of Census, U.S. Dept. of Labor. “ Work and Family” (1988)||Longitudinal (NLSY)||child care arrangements and mother’s income and family earnings||< 5||The % of children in relative, non- relative, and center care||The majority of mothers with earnings <$10,000 use relative care (47.3%)
Most mothers with earnings >$30,000 use non-relative care (46.8%)
Families with total income <$10,000 use relative care 65.0%. Most families with total earnings >$30,000 also use relative care 34.7%.
|“Child Care for Low Income Families Workshop” 1995||Longitudinal NICHD Study,||Low income families and choice of care||1,364 mothers||Data collection at ages 6-,15-, 24-,36-,42- mo. and 7 year birthday||ECERS||Higher levels of non-maternal income appear to be necessary for low-income families to puchase higher-quality care.|
|“Child Care for Low Income Families Workshop” 1995||Longitudinal National Child Care Survey, 1993
|Low income children and continuity of care||430 households with income
|pre-school||Stability (number of arrangements)||24% of low-income children < 5 and 45% of low-income preschoolers in families headed by an employed single mother were in more than one arrangement on a regular basis.|
|“Child Care for Low Income Families Workshop” 1995||Longitudinal National Child Care Survey, 1993||Low income families and choice of care||4,400 households||children < 13 years||Type of child care setting||48% low-income (<$15,000) cared for by parent. Use of non-parental care varied greatly by household type and employment status of mother. Care by a relative for low-income preschoolers with single mother (26%), employed mothers (28%), and mothers in education and training programs (23%). Children under 5 in families headed by employed single mothers rely heavily on family day care (21%) and center-based care (27%).|
|Hofferth & Wissoker, 1999 1992. In “Why and how Working Women Choose Child Care: A Review with a Focus on Infancy,” 1999||Longitudinal NLSY||Income and choice of care||< 6||Higher income, measure both as total household income and as mother’s hourly wage, are associated with a higher probability of choosing center care over sitter, father, or relative care.|
|Hofferth, S. and D. Wissoker. 1992 "Price, Quality and Income in Child Care Choice.”||Longitudinal NLSY||Income and choice of care||971 mothers who used some form of non-maternal care as the primary arrangement.||< 6||multinomial and universal logit models||Mothers who earn more per hour and families who have higher incomes (other than mother’s earning) are more likely to select center care over other mode. Subsidizing child care expenditure directly through vouchers. Reducing fees (reducing the price by 10% increases the use of center-based programs by 39% (ML) and 27% (UL). Reducing the price by 25% increases the use of center based programs by 114% (ML) and 77% (UL). Increasing tax credits increases the use of center-based programs (all else equal).|
|Hofferth, S. (1999) Child Care, Maternal Employment, and Public Policy||Longitudinal||Low-income families and choice of care||< 6
(sub-groups < 2 and 3-5 yrs.)
|Type of care||Higher proportions of children of middle- income use center care (38% of all children). There are significant differences in center care use between working poor (22%) and non- working poor (35%)|
|Kontos, et al, 1995. In “Why and how Working Women Choose Child Care: A Review with a Focus on Infancy,” 1999||Concurrent||Income and choice of care||Child care setting||Mothers with a family income greater than $40,000 were the most likely to select regulated family day care and mothers with a family income of less the $20,000 were the most likely to select relative care.|
|NICHD. “Poverty & Patterns of Child Care” (1997)||Longitudinal
|Type of care with and without income||1,281||< 15 mo||quality of care measured by: Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) Inventory; Pos. caregiving freq.; pos. caregiving rating.||ethnicity, sex, children in family, mother’s education, income -to- needs ratio||In some homelike settings, mother’s education predicted some day care quality measure, but income differences accounted for the effects of education. In both in-home care and child care homes, children living in poverty received care that scored significantly lower on most quality measures than children with incomes above poverty. The pattern in centers showed a curvilinear relation between income and quality with children from poor families receiving care that scored higher than that received by children from near-poor families.|
|NICHD, “Study of Early Child Care,” (1997)||Longitudinal||Family income and child care usage||1,364 children||Families living in poverty (income needs ration 1.0) were less likely to use center care. Children in near poverty (income to needs ration between 1.00 - 1.99) received lower quality of center care than children in poverty.
Family economics accounted for the amount, the age of entry into care and the type and quality of care infants received.
|NICHD, “Study of Early Child Care,” (1999)||Longitudinal||Income and choice of care||In-home care and family day care||Families using in-home care had the highest income levels for maternal and non-maternal income. The mean non-maternal income was $20,000 higher than the means for families using any other type of care.
Family income was a significant predictor of both the age at which infants entered care as well as the number of hours per week spent in care. 5 groups were compared based on age of entry into nonmaternal care (0-2 mo, 3-5 mo, 6-11 mo, 12-15 mo, not in care at 15 mo.) The families of infants who entered care between 3 & 5 mo. had the highest incomes. Maternal income was greatest in this group. Infants who entered care between 0-2 mo. had famlies with low nonmaternalt incomes - they were more dependent on maternal incomes. Families whose infants were not in care at 15 mo. had relatively high nonmaternal incomes.
"report.pdf" (pdf, 132.7Kb)
"table1.pdf" (pdf, 43.75Kb)
"table2.pdf" (pdf, 43.32Kb)