SECTION 9. CHILD CARE CONTENTS Introduction Employment and Marital Status of Mothers Child Care Arrangements Used by Working Mothers Child Care Costs Supply and Characteristics of Child Care Providers Supply of Providers Wages of Child Care Center Staff Staff Turnover Employing Welfare Recipients as Child Care Workers Child Care Standards and Quality Regulation and Licensing Research on Child Care Quality The Federal Role Background and Overview Major Day Care Programs Child Care and Development Block Grant Child Care Tables Child Care and Development Fund Families and Children Served, Type of Care, and Payment Type State Income Eligibility Limits Trends in Child Care Expenditures State CCDF Allocations References INTRODUCTION Child care is an issue of significant public interest for several reasons. The dramatic increase in the labor force participation of mothers is the most important factor affecting the demand for child care in the last quarter century. Currently, in a majority of American families with children-- even those with very young children--the mother is in the paid labor force. Similarly, an increasingly significant trend affecting the demand for child care is the proportion of mothers who are the sole or primary financial supporters of their children, either because of divorce or because they never married. In addition, child care has been a significant issue in recent debates over how to move welfare recipients toward employment and self-sufficiency; mothers on welfare may have difficulty entering the labor force because of child care problems. Finally, the impact of child care on the children themselves is an issue of considerable interest, with ongoing discussion of whether low-income children benefit from participation in programs with an early childhood development focus. Concerns that child care may be in short supply, not of good enough quality, or too expensive for many families escalated during the late 1980s into a national debate over the nature and extent of the Nation's child care problems and what, if any, Federal interventions would be appropriate. The debate culminated in the enactment of legislation in 1990 that expanded Federal support for child care by establishing two new State child care grant programs. The programs--the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) and the At-Risk Child Care Program--were enacted as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508). These programs were preceded by enactment of a major welfare reform initiative, the Family Support Act of 1988 (Public Law 100- 485), which authorized expanded child care assistance for welfare families and families leaving welfare. In 1996, as part of welfare reform legislation (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, Public Law 104-193), these programs were consolidated into an expanded Child Care and Development Block Grant (sometimes referred to as the Child Care and Development Fund), which provides increased Federal funding and serves both low-income working families and families attempting to transition off welfare through work. This chapter provides background information on the major indicators of the demand for and supply of child care, the role of standards and quality in child care, a summary description of the major Federal programs that fund child care services, and reported data from the largest of those sources of funding, the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). EMPLOYMENT AND MARITAL STATUS OF MOTHERS The dramatic increase in the labor force participation of mothers is commonly regarded as the most significant factor fueling the increased demand for child care services. A person is defined as participating in the labor force if she is working or seeking work. As shown in table 9-1, in 1947, just following World War II, slightly over one-fourth of all mothers with children between the ages of 6 and 17 were in the labor force. By contrast, in 1999 over three-quarters of such mothers were labor force participants. The increased labor force participation of mothers with younger children has also been dramatic. In 1947, it was unusual to find mothers with a preschool-age child in the labor force--only about 12 percent of mothers with children under the age of 6 were in the labor force. But in 1999, over 64 percent of mothers with preschool- age children were in the labor force, a rate more than 5 times higher than in 1947. Women with infant children have become increasingly engaged in the labor market as well. Today, 60 percent of all mothers whose youngest child is under age 2 are in the labor market, while in 1975 less than one-third of all such mothers were labor force participants. The rise in the number of female-headed families has also contributed to increased demand for child care services. Single mothers maintain a greater share of all families with children today than in the past. Census data show that in 1970, 11 percent of families with children were headed by a single mother, compared with 26 percent of families with children in 1998. While the number of two-parent families with children did not fluctuate much between 1970 and 1998 (25.8 and 25.7 million respectively), the number of female-headed families with children almost tripled, increasing from 3.4 million families in 1970 to 9.8 million in 1998. These families headed by mothers were a major source of growth in the demand for child care. TABLE 9-1.--LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES OF WOMEN, BY PRESENCE AND AGE OF YOUNGEST CHILD, SELECTED YEARS, 1947-99 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- With children under age 18 No -------------------------------------------- children Age 6- Under age 6 under 18 Total 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 1986............................................... 50.5 62.8 70.4 54.4 50.8 49.2 March 1987............................................... 50.5 64.7 72.0 56.7 52.9 51.9 March 1988............................................... 51.2 65.0 73.3 56.1 52.5 50.8 March 1989............................................... 51.9 65.7 74.2 56.7 52.4 51.7 March 1990............................................... 52.3 66.7 74.7 58.2 53.6 52.1 March 1991............................................... 52.0 66.6 74.4 58.4 54.5 53.8 March 1992............................................... 52.3 67.2 75.9 58.0 54.5 54.3 March 1993............................................... 52.1 66.9 75.4 57.9 53.9 54.2 March 1994............................................... 53.1 68.4 76.0 60.3 57.1 \1\ 56. 7 March 1995............................................... 52.9 69.7 76.4 62.3 58.7 \1\ 57. 9 March 1996............................................... 53.0 70.2 77.2 62.3 59.0 57.9 March 1997............................................... 53.6 72.1 78.1 65.0 61.8 59.9 March 1998............................................... 54.1 72.3 78.4 65.2 62.2 62.1 March 1999............................................... 54.3 72.1 78.5 64.4 60.7 60.6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Includes mothers in the Armed Forces. NA--Not available. Note.--Data for 1994 and beyond are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and earlier years because of introduction of a major redesign in the Current Population Survey (household survey) questionnaire and collection methodology and the introduction of 1990 census-based population controls, adjusted for the estimated undercount (Polivka & Rothgeb, 1993). Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Mothers' attachment to the labor force differs depending on the age of their youngest child and marital status, as tables 9-2 and 9-3 show. Table 9-2 exhibits the labor force participation rates of various demographic groups of mothers with youngest child over or under age 6. The table provides graphic evidence of the exploding rate of working mothers, especially working mothers with preschool children. TABLE 9-2.--LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES OF WOMEN WITH CHILDREN, BY MARITAL STATUS AND AGE OF YOUNGEST CHILD, SELECTED YEARS, 1970-99 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent 1970 1980 1987 1988 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 increase, 1980-99 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Married women: Youngest under 6............................ 30.3 45.0 56.8 57.1 58.9 59.9 59.6 61.7 63.5 62.7 63.3 63.7 61.8 37.3 Youngest 6 or older......................... 49.2 61.8 70.6 72.5 73.6 75.4 74.9 76.0 76.2 76.7 77.6 76.8 77.1 24.8 Separated women: Youngest under 6............................ 45.4 52.2 55.1 53.0 59.3 55.7 52.1 59.2 59.3 63.1 70.2 70.7 75.7 45.0 Youngest 6 or older......................... 60.6 66.6 72.6 69.3 75.0 71.6 71.6 70.7 71.5 73.3 76.1 79.6 78.5 17.9 Divorced women: Youngest under 6............................ 63.3 68.3 70.5 70.1 69.8 65.9 68.1 67.5 73.3 76.5 78.7 74.7 80.5 17.9 Youngest 6 or older......................... 82.4 82.3 84.5 83.9 85.9 85.9 83.6 84.9 85.2 85.5 85.1 85.5 85.0 3.3 Never-married women: Youngest under 6............................ NA 44.1 49.9 44.7 48.7 45.8 47.4 52.2 53.0 55.1 65.1 66.3 68.1 54.4 Youngest 6 or older......................... NA 67.6 64.1 67.1 69.7 67.2 70.2 67.5 67.0 71.8 74.0 81.2 82.7 22.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All women............................... \1\ 52 56.6 64.7 65.0 66.7 67.2 66.9 68.4 69.7 70.2 72.1 72.3 72.1 27.4 .9 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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 controls, adjusted for the estimated undercount (Polivka & Rothgeb, 1993). Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. TABLE 9-3.--LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES OF WOMEN WITH CHILDREN UNDER 18, BY MARITAL STATUS AND AGE OF YOUNGEST CHILD, MARCH 1999 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Age of youngest child ------------------------------------------------ Marital status Under Under Under 3 6 18 3-5 6-13 6-17 14-17 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Married, spouse present........................................ 59.2 61.8 70.1 63.5 76.4 77.1 78.7 Divorced....................................................... 81.5 80.5 84.0 80.5 86.3 85.0 82.2 Separated...................................................... 69.3 75.7 77.3 80.4 77.8 78.5 80.6 Widowed........................................................ 48.1 50.4 63.1 51.8 67.2 65.5 62.5 Never married.................................................. 62.3 68.1 73.4 77.5 84.0 82.7 76.0 ------------------------------------------------ All women with children under 18........................... 60.7 64.4 72.1 69.5 78.3 78.5 78.9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note.--Labor force participation rates include nonworking mothers who are actively looking for work. Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Table 9-3 provides a detailed breakdown of the labor force participation of women for March 1999 by marital status and the age of the youngest child. Among those with children under 18, divorced women have the highest labor force participation rate (84.0 percent), followed by separated women (77.3 percent). The labor force participation rate for never-married mothers with children under 18 grew to over 73 percent in 1999, a 21 percent increase over the 1996 rate. In 1996, never-married mothers trailed all other marital status groups (with children under 18) in labor force participation, but by 1999, the participation rate for never-married mothers surpassed married women (70 percent) and widowed mothers (63 percent). As table 9-3 illustrates, labor force participation rates tend to increase regardless of the marital status of the mother as the age of the youngest child increases. Among all women with children under 18, 61 percent of those with a child under 3 participate, 70 percent of those whose youngest child is between 3 and 5 participate, and 79 percent of those whose youngest child is between 14 and 17 participate. While there has been a substantial increase in the proportion of mothers in the labor force, the data can be misleading without examining employment status. Although 72 percent of mothers participated in the labor force in 1999, table 9-4 shows 50 percent worked full time and 18 percent worked part time (less than 35 hours per week). Therefore, in 1999, about 30 percent of mothers were actively looking for work, but not employed. Forty-one percent of mothers with children under age 6 worked full time, and 19 percent worked part time. Table 9-4 reveals that how much mothers' work differs according to their marital status and the age of their children. It also indicates that changes have occurred between 1996 and 1999. The 1996 welfare reform law's new emphasis on work is likely to have affected the employment status of the never-married mother subgroup most significantly, and that is reflected in the table. Overall, the percent of all mothers (with children under 18) employed full time grew from slightly over 47 percent in 1996 to just over 50 percent in 1999. Within the subgroup of never-married mothers, the 3 year period was accompanied by a larger increase in full-time employment. In 1996, about 35 percent of never-married mothers with children under 18 were employed full time. By 1999, the figure had increased to over 48 percent. The percent of never-married mothers working full time with children under age 6 had grown comparably, increasing from almost 29 percent in 1996 to over 41 percent in 1999. Within the divorced mothers subgroup, there were increases between the years, but the differences are not nearly as large as within the never-married subgroup. In 1999, the percent of all divorced mothers employed full time with children under 18 had reached almost 69 percent, a 2 percentage point increase since 1996. For those with children under 6, over 60 percent worked full time in 1999. The employment status of married mothers is shown to have changed little or not at all since 1996, depending on full- or part-time status, and age of children. TABLE 9-4.--PERCENT OF MOTHERS BY FULL- OR PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT STATUS, MARCH 1996 \1\ and 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ With children With children under 18 under 6 Marital status --------------------------------------- 1996 1999 1996 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Married, spouse present: Employed full time.......... 46.3 48.0 39.4 39.4 Employed part time.......... 21.3 20.0 20.9 20.2 Divorced: Employed full time.......... 66.2 68.5 56.5 60.6 Employed part time.......... 12.6 11.9 12.9 13.3 Never married: Employed full time.......... 35.5 48.6 28.8 41.4 Employed part time.......... 13.8 16.1 15.1 17.5 --------------------------------------- All mothers: Employed full time...... 47.5 50.4 39.0 41.1 Employed part time...... 19.0 18.4 19.1 19.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Full-time workers work 35 hours or more per week. Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS USED BY WORKING MOTHERS Data are collected periodically by the U.S. Census Bureau on the types of child care arrangements used by families with working mothers. The most recent U.S. Census Bureau statistics available on child care arrangements are based on data collected by the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) for the fall of 1995 (although the Census Bureau has not published a report with these data, the data are available on their Website at www.census.gov/DES/www/welcome.htm). Because the interview questions obtain information about both paid and unpaid substitute care used while the mother works, it provides information on categories of care that generally are not considered child care, such as care provided by the father, or care by a sibling. The 1995 data indicate that the types of child care arrangements used by families while the mother works vary depending on the age of the child, as well as the mother's work schedule (full- or 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 work schedule. In the 1995 SIPP survey, parents were asked to estimate the number of hours a child spends in any of several care arrangements during a week, rather than to identify the child's ``primary'' care arrangement while the mother worked. In tables 9-5 and 9-6, the primary child care arrangement is based on the arrangement in which a child spends the most hours in a typical week. In the case of a child who spends equal time between arrangements, the child would have more than one primary arrangement. TABLE 9-5.--PRIMARY CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS OF CHILDREN UNDER 5 WITH AN EMPLOYED MOTHER, BY MARITAL AND EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF THE MOTHER, FALL 1995 [In percent] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mothers with children under 5 years -------------------------------------- Type of arrangement Employed Employed Total full time part time ------------------------------------------------------------------------ All marital statuses -------------------------------------- Care in child's home: By grandparent............... 5.9 5.4 6.5 By sibling age 15 or older... 0.7 0.5 1.1 By sibling under age 15...... 0.3 0.3 0.3 By other relative............ 1.5 2.3 3.1 By nonrelative............... 5.0 4.6 5.4 -------------------------------------- Total.................... 13.5 13.1 16.4 ====================================== Care in another home: By grandparent............... 10.0 9.1 11.1 By other relative............ 2.9 3.0 2.4 By family day care provider 15.7 18.9 9.6 \1\......................... By nonrelative............... 7.9 9.0 5.8 -------------------------------------- Total.................... 36.5 40.1 29.0 ====================================== Organized child care facility: Day/group care center........ 17.8 20.2 13.1 Nursery school/preschool..... 5.9 6.3 5.2 Kindergarten/grade school.... 0.7 0.6 0.7 Head Start Program........... 1.5 1.4 1.6 -------------------------------------- Total.................... 25.8 28.5 20.8 ====================================== Parental care: By father.................... 16.6 12.8 22.7 By mother at work \2\........ 5.4 3.6 8.3 Child cares for self......... 0.1 0.1 0.0 -------------------------------------- Total.................... 22.1 16.6 31.0 ====================================== Total children of 10,022 6,336 3,601 employed mothers (in thousands).............. -------------------------------------- Married, husband present -------------------------------------- Care in child's home: By grandparent............... 5.0 5.1 4.6 By sibling age 15 or older... 0.7 0.6 0.9 By sibling under age 15...... 0.3 0.3 0.4 By other relative............ 1.0 0.8 1.4 By nonrelative............... 5.9 5.3 6.9 -------------------------------------- Total.................... 13.0 12.1 14.2 ====================================== Care in another home: By grandparent............... 9.3 8.5 10.6 By other relative............ 2.8 2.8 2.6 By family day care provider.. 16.3 20.6 9.3 By nonrelative \1\........... 7.2 8.1 5.7 -------------------------------------- Total.................... 35.6 40.1 28.2 ====================================== Organized child care facility: Day/group care center........ 16.7 19.6 11.9 Nursery school/preschool..... 5.9 6.4 5.1 Kindergarten/grade school.... 0.5 0.4 0.6 Head Start Program........... 0.7 0.5 1.0 -------------------------------------- Total.................... 23.7 26.9 18.7 ====================================== Parental care: By father.................... 18.8 14.7 25.5 By mother at work \2\........ 6.3 4.2 9.9 Child cares for self......... 0.1 0.1 0.0 -------------------------------------- Total.................... 25.2 19.0 35.4 ====================================== Total children of 7,582 4,702 2,809 employed mothers (in thousands).............. -------------------------------------- All other marital statuses \3\ -------------------------------------- Care in child's home: By grandparent............... 8.4 6.2 12.9 By sibling age 15 or older... 0.8 0.3 1.8 By sibling under age 15...... 0.3 0.5 0.0 By other relative............ 3.0 3.1 2.9 By nonrelative............... 2.2 2.8 1.1 -------------------------------------- Total.................... 14.8 12.9 18.7 ====================================== Care in another home: By grandparent............... 12.0 11.1 13.3 By other relative............ 3.1 3.6 2.1 By family day care provider 14.0 15.0 11.4 \1\......................... By nonrelative............... 9.9 11.7 6.5 -------------------------------------- Total.................... 39.0 41.5 33.2 ====================================== Organized child care facility: Day/group care center........ 20.9 22.5 17.9 Nursery school/preschool..... 6.1 6.2 5.9 Kindergarten/grade school.... 1.2 1.1 1.3 Head Start Program........... 3.9 4.0 3.7 -------------------------------------- Total.................... 32.0 33.9 28.8 ====================================== Parental care: By father.................... 10.3 8.1 14.9 By mother at work \2\........ 2.8 2.3 3.7 Child cares for self......... 0.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------- Total.................... 13.1 10.4 18.6 ====================================== Total children of 2,368 1,627 741 employed mothers (in thousands).............. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Family day care providers provide care outside the home for more than one child. \2\ Includes women working at home or away from home. \3\ Includes married, husband absent (including separated), widowed, divorced, and never-married women. Source: Survey of Income and Program Participation, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Table 9-5 shows that over 36 percent of families of preschoolers with working mothers in 1995 primarily relied on care in another home by a relative, family day care provider, or other nonrelative, compared to almost 26 percent of families whose primary arrangement was an organized child care facility. These data mark a change from the fall 1994 survey results, which revealed that over 30 percent of families used organized child care as their primary arrangement. However, some of the decline in the use of organized child care facilities and increase in care out of another's home may reflect a change in the 1995 survey, which more clearly defined care types, by asking specifically about family day care providers (providers caring for more than one child outside the child's home), as distinct from organized group day care. Relative care, either in the child's home or the relative's home, was used by 21 percent of families of preschool children with employed mothers. Over 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 (22 percent), especially care by fathers (almost 17 percent). Only 5 percent of families relied on care provided in the child's home by a nonrelative. Preschool children of part-time employed mothers were much more likely to be cared for by a parent (31 percent), than by an organized child care facility (21 percent), and also more likely to be cared for by a relative, family provider, or nonrelative in another home (29 percent). Mothers employed full time were more likely to use family day care providers (19 percent) and organized day care centers (20 percent) than any other form of care. Care by grandparents, either in or out of the child's home, was the next most utilized category for full- time (14 percent), and part-time employed mothers (18 percent). Table 9-6 shows the types of afterschool arrangements used in 1995 for school-age children by working mothers, as well as cases in which there were no arrangements used at all. The 1995 survey asked more questions about arrangements than in earlier years (for instance, it specifically asked about care by a sibling), and this may account for some of the increase in the ``care in child's home'' category. In 1993, 11 percent of children age 5-14 were being cared for afterschool in the child's home, whereas in 1995 this figure had increased to almost 20 percent. Of those children age 5-14 with employed mothers in 1995, over 10 percent were cared for by a sibling (over 3 percent by a sibling under age 15). Afterschool care by fathers also increased substantially from 1993 to 1995. In 1993, just over 11 percent of children were primarily cared for by fathers during afterschool time, compared to 21 percent in 1995. A total of 2.5 million school-age children (11.6 percent of children age 5-14) were reported to be in self-care or to be unsupervised by an adult for some time while their mothers were working. It is not known if the children in the ``no care mentioned'' category were unsupervised, or if other factors may account for their not being reported in a child care arrangement, such as travel time from school. Regardless, the 1995 survey instrument appears to have been more effective in identifying types of child care arrangements, since only 1.6 percent of children reportedly fall in the ``no care mentioned'' category, a sharp decline from 46 percent in the 1993 survey. Table 9-7 shows the types of child care arrangements used in 1995 for children under 5 by the economic well-being of the family. The 9.2 percent of poor children being cared for in the child's home by a relative or nonrelative in 1995 represents a marked decrease from over 18 percent reported in 1994. The percent of nonpoor children in this category remained unchanged at 14 percent. Nonpoor children in 1995 were more likely than poor children to be cared for in another home by either a relative, family day care provider, or other nonrelative. Poor families were more likely than nonpoor families to not mention any regular arrangement (10 percent versus 1 percent). TABLE 9-6.--AFTERSCHOOL CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS USED BY EMPLOYED MOTHERS FOR CHILDREN 5-14, FALL 1995 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Number (in Type of arrangement thousands) Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Care in child's home: By grandparent............................... 795 3.7 By sibling age 15 or older................... 1,452 6.8 By sibling under age 15...................... 750 3.5 By other relative............................ 426 2.0 By nonrelative............................... 733 3.4 ---------------------- Total.................................... 4,157 19.4 ====================== Care in another home: By grandparent............................... 1,469 6.8 By other relative............................ 515 2.4 By family day care provider \1\.............. 1,239 5.8 By nonrelative............................... 890 4.1 ---------------------- Total.................................... 4,113 19.2 ====================== Organized child care facility: Day/group care center........................ 405 1.9 Nursery school/preschool..................... 200 0.9 After/before school program.................. 1,065 5.0 ---------------------- Total.................................... 1,669 7.8 ====================== Parental care: By father.................................... 4,515 21.0 By mother at work \2\........................ 981 4.6 Child cares for self......................... 2,496 11.6 ---------------------- Total.................................... 7,992 37.2 ====================== No care mentioned................................ 349 1.6 ---------------------- Total children........................... 19,506 100.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Family day care providers provide care outside the child's home for more than one child. \2\ Includes women working at home or away from home. Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Table 9-8 shows the primary arrangements used by working mothers for their preschool-aged children from June 1977 through TABLE 9-7.--PRIMARY CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS USED BY EMPLOYED MOTHERS FOR CHILDREN UNDER 5, BY POVERTY STATUS OF THE MOTHER, FALL 1995 [In percent] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Type of arrangement Total \1\ Poor \2\ Not poor ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Care in child's home: By grandparent..................... 5.9 4.7 6.1 By sibling age 15 or older......... 0.7 2.4 0.5 By sibling under age 15............ 0.3 0.0 0.4 By other relative.................. 1.5 0.8 1.6 By nonrelative..................... 5.0 1.3 5.4 -------------------------------- Total.......................... 13.5 9.2 14.0 ================================ Care in another home: By grandparent..................... 10.0 11.5 9.7 By other relative.................. 2.9 2.6 2.9 By family day care provider \3\.... 15.7 10.0 16.3 By nonrelative..................... 7.9 5.3 8.2 -------------------------------- Total.......................... 36.5 29.4 37.2 ================================ Organized child care facility: Day/group care center.............. 17.8 16.5 18.0 Nursery school/preschool........... 5.9 6.8 5.8 Kindergarten/grade school.......... 0.7 2.1 0.5 Head Start Program................. 1.5 2.8 1.3 -------------------------------- Total.......................... 25.8 28.2 25.6 ================================ Parental care: By father.......................... 16.6 17.9 16.5 By mother at work \4\.............. 5.4 5.0 5.4 Child cares for self............... 0.1 0.0 0.1 -------------------------------- Total.......................... 22.1 22.9 22.0 ================================ No regular arrangement mentioned....... 2.2 10.3 1.2 -------------------------------- Total children of employed 10,022 988 9,034 mothers (in thousands)........ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Includes children for which no poverty estimates were available. \2\ Below the poverty threshold, which was $15,569 annually or $1,297 monthly in 1995 for a family of four. \3\ Family day care providers provide care outside the child's home for more than one child. \4\ Includes women working at home or away from home. Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. TABLE 9-8.--PERCENT OF CHILDREN UNDER 5 IN SELECTED CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS, SELECTED YEARS 1977-95 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent of children cared for by ---------------------------------------------------------------- Day care Family status and date of survey Family day center/nursery Father Mother \1\ Grandparent care \2\ school ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All families: Fall 1995.................................. 16.6 5.4 15.9 \3\ 23.6 23.7 Fall 1994.................................. 18.4 5.5 16.3 15.4 29.4 Fall 1993.................................. 15.9 6.2 16.5 16.6 29.9 Fall 1991.................................. 20.0 8.7 15.8 17.9 23.0 Fall 1990.................................. 16.5 6.4 14.3 20.1 27.5 Fall 1988.................................. 15.1 7.6 13.9 23.6 25.8 Fall 1987.................................. 15.3 8.9 13.8 22.3 24.4 Fall 1986.................................. 14.5 7.4 15.7 24.0 22.4 Winter 1985................................ 15.7 8.1 15.9 22.3 23.1 June 1977.................................. 14.4 11.4 NA 22.4 13.0 Married couples: Fall 1995.................................. 18.8 6.3 14.3 23.5 22.6 Fall 1994.................................. 22.3 6.3 13.5 15.7 29.0 Fall 1993.................................. 19.3 6.9 14.4 16.4 30.0 Fall 1991.................................. 22.9 9.8 13.7 17.1 22.7 Fall 1990.................................. 19.8 7.8 13.0 19.7 26.8 Fall 1988.................................. 17.9 8.7 11.8 23.7 25.4 Fall 1987.................................. 18.2 10.1 12.2 22.2 23.4 Fall 1986.................................. 17.9 8.3 14.1 24.4 20.3 Winter 1985................................ 18.8 9.2 13.9 21.8 22.3 June 1977.................................. 17.1 12.9 NA 22.6 11.6 Single mothers: Fall 1995.................................. 10.3 2.8 20.4 23.9 27.0 Fall 1994.................................. 5.4 2.5 25.4 14.6 30.5 Fall 1993.................................. 3.4 3.5 24.6 17.3 29.5 Fall 1991.................................. 7.0 3.7 24.8 21.3 24.5 Fall 1990.................................. 3.2 0.7 20.0 27.8 30.4 Fall 1988.................................. 1.5 2.4 23.9 22.8 27.8 Fall 1987.................................. 2.3 3.4 20.8 22.3 28.3 Fall 1986.................................. 1.4 3.8 20.3 22.4 30.2 Winter 1985................................ 2.2 3.5 24.5 24.4 26.7 June 1977.................................. 0.8 4.4 NA 21.8 19.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Includes mothers working at home or away from home. \2\ Children cared for in another home by nonrelatives. \3\ The 1995 survey asked specifically about ``family day care providers,'' caring for more than one child. This figure includes these providers as well as nonrelatives caring for one child outside the child's home. NA--Not available. Note.--Data are the principal arrangement used by mothers during most of their hours at work. Single mothers include women never married, widowed, divorced, and separated. Source: Survey of Income and Program Participation and the June 1977 Current Population Survey and Casper et al. (1994). the fall of 1995. In general, the table does not show dramatic changes in the arrangements used during this time period, except with regard to day care centers and nursery schools. As mentioned above, the increase in family day care in 1995 (to 23.6 percent) may be due in part to a change in the survey instrument, clarifying use of the term ``family day care.'' The U.S. Census Bureau data discussed above reflect child care arrangements in the fall of 1995. More recently, data from the 1997 National Survey of America's Families (NSAF), collected by the Urban Institute, can be used to examine primary child care arrangements used by children under 5 with employed mothers nationally, and across 12 individual States. Table 9-9 shows that nationwide, 41 percent of preschool children with employed mothers are in care for 35 or more hours per week (Capizzano & Adams, 2000a). One-quarter are in care for 15-34 hours per week, 16 percent for 1-14 hours per week, and 18 percent spend no hours in nonparental child care. For preschool children with mothers employed full time, the number of children in full-time care (35 or more hours) increases to 52 percent. Children that are 3 and 4 years old are slightly more likely to be in full-time care than younger preschoolers (44 percent versus 39 percent). Children in high-income families are almost equally as likely to spend 35 or more hours a week in child care as low-income children (42 percent versus 40 percent), although high-income children are more likely than low-income children to be in part-time care (42 percent versus 37 percent). Twenty-three percent of low-income children are reported to spend no hours in nonparental care, compared to 16 percent of high-income children. TABLE 9-9.--PERCENT OF CHILDREN UNDER FIVE WITH EMPLOYED MOTHERS IN DIFFERENT HOURS OF NONPARENTAL CARE, BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hours in care ----------------------------------- None 1-14 15-34 35+ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ All children........................ 18 16 25 41 Mothers working full time........... 17 12 18 52 Child's age: Under 3 years.................. 21 17 23 39 3-4 years...................... 13 14 28 44 Family income: 200 percent of poverty and 23 16 21 40 below.......................... Above 200 percent of poverty... 16 15 27 42 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: Urban Institute calculations from the 1997 National Survey of America's Families. According to the 1997 NSAF (table 9-10), 32 percent of preschool children use center-based child care as their primary arrangement, while about half that number (16 percent) are in family child care (Capizzano, Adams, & Sonenstein, 2000). About 6 percent are primarily cared for in the child's home by a babysitter or nanny. Twenty-three percent of children under 5 are cared for primarily by a relative, either inside or outside the child's home, while almost a quarter (24 percent) of children are in the care of a parent. The analysis of individual States revealed that there is considerable State variation in the use of specific primary child care arrangements. TABLE 9-10.--PRIMARY CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS FOR CHILDREN UNDER FIVE WITH EMPLOYED MOTHERS, BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS [In percent] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Center- Family based child Relative Parent Nanny/ care care care care \1\ babysitter ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All children................................................... 32 16 23 24 6 Child's age: Under 3 years.............................................. 22 17 27 27 7 3-4 years.................................................. 45 14 17 18 6 Family income: 200 percent of poverty and below........................... 26 14 28 28 4 Above 200 percent of poverty............................... 35 17 20 21 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The NSAF's questions focused on nonparental arrangements and did not include questions about care provided by another parent, care for the child while the parent was at work, or care for the child at home by a self- employed parent. Those respondents not reporting a child care arrangement are assumed to be in one of these forms of care and are coded into the parent care category. Source: Urban Institute calculations from the 1997 National Survey of America's Families. The Urban Institute's analysis also examined how child care arrangements vary according to both age of child and family income. The survey data indicate that nationally, infants and toddlers are more likely to be cared for by relatives (27 percent) and parents (27 percent) than to be in center-based care (22 percent) or family child care (17 percent). As preschoolers grow older (age 3 and 4), use of relative and parent care decreases (17 and 18 percent respectively), and center-based care becomes the most commonly used primary arrangement (45 percent). Use of family child care remains relatively steady at 14 percent for 3- and 4-year-olds. At the national level, children under age 5 in families below 200 percent of poverty are less likely than high-income children to use center-based care as a primary arrangement (26 percent versus 35 percent). Relative care and parent care are used equally by low-income families (28 percent each), and more often than by high-income families, of which 20 percent use relative care and 21 percent parent care. Low- and high-income children are almost equally likely to use family child care as their primary arrangement (14 and 17 percent respectively). In addition to looking at the primary child care arrangements for children under 5, Urban Institute researchers used the 1997 NSAF to examine the number of arrangements used to care for a child, and the hours that are spent in each type of arrangement. As shown in table 9-11, nationally, 38 percent of children under 5 combine more than one child care arrangement each week (Capizzano & Adams, 2000b). Of those, 8 percent combine three or more arrangements. The remaining 62 percent have only one child care arrangement. Children under age 3 are less likely to have multiple child care arrangements than 3- and 4-year-olds (34 percent versus 44 percent). Children aged 3 and 4 are three times as likely to be in three or more care arrangements. Of the children in multiple arrangements, most use a combination of formal and informal care, regardless of age or income. Children from low- and high- income families are almost equally likely to be in multiple child care arrangements (37 and 40 percent respectively). As seen with primary arrangements, there is considerable State variation in the use of multiple arrangements. TABLE 9-11.--NUMBER OF NONPARENTAL CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS USED BY CHILDREN UNDER FIVE WITH EMPLOYED MOTHERS, BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS [In percent] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Three or One Two more arrangement arrangements arrangements ------------------------------------------------------------------------ All children................... 62 30 8 Child's age: Under 3 years............. 65 30 4 3-4 years................. 56 31 13 Family income: 200 percent of poverty and 63 30 7 below..................... Above 200 percent of 60 31 9 poverty................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: Urban Institute calculations from the 1997 National Survey of America's Families. CHILD CARE COSTS Research studies have found that the majority of families with working mothers and preschool children purchase child care services. The tendency to purchase care and the amount spent on care, both in absolute terms and as a percent of family income, generally varies by the type of child care used, family type (married or single mothers), and the family's economic status. The most recent data on child care expenditures by families are from the Survey of Income and Program Participation for the fall of 1995. These data show that 64 percent of families with employed mothers paid for child care for their preschool-aged children. Nonpaid child care was most typically provided by relatives. Families with mothers employed full time were more likely to purchase care for their young children than those with mothers working part time. Among families with full-time working mothers, 73 percent paid for child care, compared to 50 percent of families with mothers employed part time. Likewise, as shown in table 9-12, families with higher incomes were more likely to purchase care than families with lower incomes, with the exception of families with monthly incomes between $1,200 and $3,000. For example, 71 percent of families with monthly incomes of $4,500 or more purchased child care in the fall of 1995, while only 60 percent of families with monthly incomes of less than $1,200 purchased care. Average weekly costs per family for all preschool-aged children were $83 in 1995 for those families that purchased care (table 9-12). Married-couple families devoted a smaller percentage of their TABLE 9-12.--AVERAGE WEEKLY CHILD CARE EXPENDITURES FOR PRESCHOOLERS AND PERCENTAGE OF INCOME SPENT ON CARE, BY POVERTY STATUS AND FAMILY INCOME, FALL 1995 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percent Percent Average of paying weekly family for cost of income care care spent on care ------------------------------------------------------------------------ All families: Poverty status: Below poverty......................... 54 $59.22 35.7 Above poverty........................ 66 84.75 10.3 Monthly family income: Less than $1,200..................... 60 60.32 36.7 $1,200-$2,999........................ 57 69.25 15.2 $3,000-$4,499........................ 65 75.95 9.4 $4,500 and over...................... 71 101.09 6.8 ----------------------------- Total............................... 64 82.74 12.3 ============================= Married-couple families: Poverty status: Below poverty........................ 32 72.72 26.9 Above poverty........................ 66 87.08 8.8 Monthly family income: Less than $1,200..................... 31 54.72 23.7 $1,200-$2,999........................ 53 66.02 13.1 $3,000-$4,499........................ 66 76.06 9.4 $4,500 and over....................... 72 103.04 6.9 ----------------------------- Total............................... 65 86.84 9.1 ============================= Families with an absent father: Poverty status: Below poverty........................ 62 56.59 37.5 Above poverty........................ 65 75.35 16.3 Monthly family income: Less than $1,200..................... 66 60.91 38.1 $1,200-$2,999........................ 64 73.59 18.0 $3,000-$4,499........................ 55 75.00 9.0 $4,500 and over...................... 68 78.78 5.9 ----------------------------- Total............................... 64 70.41 21.7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Note.--Data are for all child care arrangements used by working mothers. Estimates are not consistent with prior year's Green Book data, which represented the principal arrangement used by mothers during most of their hours at work. Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 panel, wave 9. income to child care (9 percent) than single-parent families (22 percent), but their child care expenditures were nonetheless greater ($87 per week) than those of single-parent families (about $70 per week). Table 9-12 also shows that, while poor families spend fewer dollars for child care than higher income families, they spend a much greater percentage of their family income for child care. Thus, poor families spent only $60 per week, but this amount represented 36 percent of their income. By contrast, nonpoor families spent $85 per week on care, but this amount was only 10 percent of their income. A December 1997 survey of the cost of child care for a 4-year-old in urban child care centers across the country, conducted by the Children's Defense Fund (Adams & Schulman, 1998) found that in every State, the average child care tuition exceeds $3,000 per child, and is over $5,000 per child in 17 States. SUPPLY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILD CARE PROVIDERS Supply of Providers The variety of child care arrangements used by families has been discussed above, however, the studies of arrangements do not include estimates of the number of available providers. A comprehensive study of licensed centers, early education programs, 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 January 2000. The study reported that the number of regulated child care centers in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands totals 106,246 (Children's Foundation, 2000). This is a 3.5 percent increase from the Foundation's 1999 study's total, and nearly a 19 percent increase from the total published by the Children's Foundation's first study of centers in 1991. The 2000 study notes that the definition of regulated child care center varies by State or territory. In 28 States, the number of regulated child care centers includes nursery schools, preschools, prekindergartens and religiously affiliated centers. In the remaining States and territories, the definition is less inclusive. For example, some States exclude nursery schools or religiously affiliated centers in their count. The Children's Foundation also conducts studies on family child care providers (as opposed to centers). Their 1999 report indicates that there are 290,667 regulated family child care homes, of which 249,622 are family day care homes (caring for up to 6 children) and 41,045 large group child care homes (in which providers generally care for 7-12 children). It is assumed by child care researchers that the number of unregulated family day care providers far exceeds the number of regulated family providers, though it is difficult to determine by how much. At the time of the aforementioned Profile of Child Care Settings Study of 1991, the number of regulated 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 correction is not a major component. Not included in this definition are babysitting services or Head Start Programs that are coordinated with elementary schools. Based on the Census of Service Industries data, the number of incorporated child care centers doubled from 25,000 in 1977 to 51,000 in 1992. Wages of Child Care Center Staff No single data source provides comprehensive information on wages of child care workers. However, occupational data collected by the Department of Labor, when complemented by survey information gathered by organizations interested in child care issues, begin to paint a picture of the status of child care wages in the United States. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) collects wage data for 764 occupations, as surveyed by the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Program. However, readers should be aware that the occupational categories create a misleading division in the child care work force. Center-based child care staff are described by the OES survey as either ``preschoolteacher'' or ``child care worker,'' distinguishing the former as an individual who instructs children up to age 5 in developmental activities within a day care center, child development facility, or preschool, and the latter as a person who performs tasks such as dressing, feeding, bathing, and overseeing play of children. This division of tasks does not necessarily occur in actual child care settings, and therefore the survey's occupational group assignments, and wage distinctions made between those groups, should be interpreted with some caution. Nevertheless, the OES survey provides a general sense of wages within the child care field. Based on BLS data and OES survey results from 1997, the median hourly wage of a center-based ``child care worker'' was $7.03, and a ``preschoolteacher,'' $9.09. Both these wages are considerably higher than the median hourly wage for family child providers, who, based on 1997 Current Population Survey data, earn an estimated median wage of $4.69 per hour [based on a 55-hour week, which the Center for Child Care Workforce (1999) reports is the typical work week for U.S. family child care providers]. The National Child Care Staffing Study (NCCSS), originally launched in 1988, and most recently updated in 1997, provides additional information on child care center staff (Whitebook, Howes, & Phillips, 1998). Information on wages and characteristics of center staff was collected from 158 full- day, full-year, State licensed child care centers in five metropolitan areas around the country. Table 9-13 shows the study's findings on trends in hourly wages for center-based child care staff. Over the 10 year period of the study, wages of child care center workers have remained relatively stagnant. TABLE 9-13.--TRENDS IN HOURLY WAGES FOR CENTER-BASED CHILD CARE STAFF ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Real change Real change Staff position 1988 1992 1997 between between 1988 and Wage Wage Wage 1992 and 1997 1997 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lowest-paid assistant................................. $5.99 $5.91 $6.00 +1.5 +0.17 (+$0.01 per hour) Highest-paid assistant................................ 6.96 7.03 7.00 -0.4 +0.57 (+$0.04 per hour) Lowest-paid teacher................................... 7.38 7.55 7.50 -0.7 +1.6 (+$0.12 per hour) Highest-paid teacher.................................. 9.53 10.33 10.85 +5.0 +13.9 (+$1.32 per hour) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note.--All wages, and the 1988-97 trends, are in 1997 dollars. Each category reflects average wages for the position. Source: Whitebook et al., 1998. Staff Turnover Like many low-wage industries, turnover among the child care work force has been historically high. The NCCSS has tracked worker turnover and stability beginning with its initial study in 1988. In 1988, center directors in the sample reported a 41 percent average rate of annual turnover of teaching staff. In 1992, they reported average annual turnover of 26 percent for the year prior to the survey interview. By 1997, the rate had risen to 31 percent for all teaching staff, and one-fifth of centers reported losing half or more of their teaching staff in the previous year. The 10 percentage point decrease in turnover rates between 1988 and 1997 should be analyzed with caution, however, as the sample size of the NCCSS study dropped from 227 to 158. According to the study directors, a disproportionate number of the centers reporting the highest turnover in 1988 had closed by the time of the 1997 survey, leaving a sample of centers with potentially lower than average turnover rates for their areas. The issue of stability among centers themselves is not specifically addressed in the NCCSS study, however its authors do mention increasing reports of centers closing due to an insufficient supply of trained teachers. Better job opportunities and higher wages in other fields, due to a strong economy, have been identified as recent major causes of turnover. Ninety-three percent of directors reported taking more than 2 weeks to find replacements for departing teaching staff and over one-third (37 percent) reported taking over a month to do so. The effect of staff turnover on children is one of several topics that continues to receive attention during ever-growing discussions of how to measure child care quality. Employing Welfare Recipients as Child Care Workers Passage of welfare reform legislation in 1996, and its emphasis on moving recipients into work, created expectations of an increase in demand for child care, and recipients themselves were identified by some as a potential new source of child care workers. The 1997 NCCSS therefore gathered information from child care directors regarding the employment of welfare recipients (recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) as center staff. The study found that approximately one-third (35 percent) of the child care centers in the sample employ Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients, that those centers employing TANF recipients are more likely to pay lower wages across all positions, and that those centers experience higher teaching staff turnover. While the median wage reported for TANF workers is $5.50 per hour (in 1997) compared to the $6 per hour for all entry-level teaching assistants, 60 percent of centers pay TANF workers the same as their lowest-paid assistants, 23 percent pay them more, and 18 percent pay them less. Almost half (48 percent) of the centers employing TANF recipients report providing on-site training for TANF employees, 18 percent use community-based training programs, and 16 percent of the programs offer college credit-bearing training. CHILD CARE STANDARDS AND QUALITY Regulation and Licensing Regulation and licensing of child care providers is conducted primarily at the State and local levels, although the extent to which the Federal Government should play a role in this area has been a topic of debate for many years (see below). Licensing and regulation serves as a means of defining and enforcing minimum requirements for the legal operation of child care environments in which children will be safe from harm. There is no uniform way in which States and/or territories regulate child care centers, preschools, nursery schools, prekindergartens, and/or religiously affiliated child care centers. All States and territories do, however, require these center-based types of care (as opposed to family child care providers) to be regulated through licensing or registration. In the case of family day care providers, most States exempt certain providers--typically those serving smaller numbers of children from licensing or regulation. As mentioned in the earlier discussion of child care supply, the Children's Foundation survey found that there were 290,667 regulated family child care providers in the States and territories in 1999. If estimates from the 1990 child care settings study are applied, this number may represent only 10- 18 percent of family child care, with the remaining facilities being unregulated. The count of centers that are regulated (meaning licensed or certified) totals 106,246 according to the Children's Foundation 2000 study. Table 9-14 presents information on State licensing standards for child care centers, as collected by the Children's Foundation (2000). The table shows the number of States for which a select requirement or standard for child care centers applies, and in turn, how licensing standards vary across States. Note that all State 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Number of Item States ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fee for licensing: No fee................................................... 23 Fixed fee................................................ 21 Assessed fee based on number of children cared for by 9 provider................................................ Frequency of required license renewal: Annually................................................. 23 Every 2 years............................................ 18 Every 3 years or nonexpiring............................. 12 Required testing for asbestos, lead, radon, or other material: Yes...................................................... 20 No....................................................... 30 Inspection visits: All unannounced.......................................... 9 Unannounced, annually (at minimum), and upon complaint... 19 Unannounced, 2-4 per year................................ 9 Unannounced upon complaint; other visits announced....... 7 All announced............................................ 1 Staff/child ratios: Infants, birth to 1 year: 1 : 3 \1\............................................ 4 1 : 4................................................ 31 Young toddlers, age 1-2: 1 : 3 \1\............................................ 1 1 : 4................................................ 15 Older toddlers, age 2-3: 1 : 4-5 \1\.......................................... 7 Preschoolers, age 3-5: 1 : 6-7 \1\.......................................... 1 Group size definitions: Yes...................................................... 34 No....................................................... 19 Regulation of ``drop-in'' child care......................... 36 Smoking policy: Prohibited............................................... 35 Permitted in designated areas and with restrictions...... 17 Permitted................................................ 1 Required preservice training: CPR/first aid............................................ 23 Combined education and experience required: Head/lead teacher.................................... 41 Other teaching staff................................. 29 None: Head/lead teacher.................................... 12 Other teaching staff................................. 22 Inservice training requirements for all teaching staff: 4-6 hours (annually)..................................... 6 7-13 hours (annually).................................... 19 15-30 hours (annually)................................... 16 None..................................................... 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ National Health and Safety Standard recommended ratios, developed by American Public Health Association and American Academy of Pediatrics. Note.--All State variations in policy are not reflected in the table, and therefore totals by category will vary. Source: The Children's Foundation, 2000 Child Care Center Licensing Study, Washington, DC, February, 2000. Research on Child Care Quality As women's labor force participation has grown over the past several decades, concerns about child care quality have increased. Highly publicized research on early brain development in infants and young children (under age 3) has drawn attention to what role child care may play in children's cognitive and social development. The relationship between quality of child care and outcomes for children is of increasing interest to parents, researchers, and policymakers. A growing body of research examines questions such as how to define the elements that correspond to quality child care, how to measure those elements, and ultimately, their effects on children both in the short- and long-term. One comprehensive study of connections between child care and early childhood development is part of an ongoing project conducted by a team of researchers supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD, 1999), of the National Institutes of Health. The broad goal of the NICHD study, started in 1991, is to collect data on an ongoing basis from a sample of children and their families (located in 10 areas across the United States) to answer a range of questions about the relationship between child care characteristics and experiences, and children's developmental outcomes. The children and families in the study's sample vary in socioeconomic background, race, family structure, and type of child care used. The study design takes into account characteristics of the family and its environment to gain a more complete picture of the contribution that child care characteristics and experiences themselves make to children's development, above and beyond the contribution of the family environment. Even so, not all characteristics are observed, and the ability to completely disentangle all of the characteristics (both of the parents and the child) is difficult, if not impossible, in such a study. Children in the study are not randomly assigned to child care settings of varying degrees of quality, but are instead placed in settings of their parents' selection. The selection of care in and of itself may reflect contributing variables--characteristics of the parents, children, and environment--that are not fully observed in the study. Likewise, a child's developmental outcomes in a particular setting may reflect the child's characteristics as much as the setting's quality. Although the NICHD study attempts to distinguish among some of these factors, the ability to interpret the results is somewhat constrained by selection bias. The findings showed that in general, family characteristics and the quality of the mother's relationship with her child were stronger predictors of the child's development than were the characteristics of child care. The family characteristics such as income and mother's education were strong predictors of children's outcomes, for both children cared for solely by their mothers and children in extensive nonparental child care. The study did find a modest but consistent association between quality of nonparental child care over the first 3 years of life and children's cognitive and language development, regardless of family background. In this case, quality child care was defined as positive care giving and language stimulation; i.e., how often providers spoke to children, asked questions, and responded to children's questions. The NICHD researchers also analyzed the more structural elements of child care in centers--elements that are generally regulated by the States (see table 9-14), but to varying degrees, such as child-staff ratio, group size, and teacher training and education. The researchers used recommended guidelines developed jointly by the American Public Health Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics to evaluate the degree to which standards were being met by centers used by families in the study. Twelve percent of the study's children were enrolled in child care centers at 6 months, and 38 percent at age 3. Findings indicate that the children in the centers that met some or all of the guidelines had better language comprehension and school readiness than the children who were in centers that did not meet the guidelines. There were also fewer behavioral problems for children age 2 and 3 in the centers that met the guidelines. The researchers have continued to follow the children in the sample, and will release findings from the assessment of the children at 54 months of age, and again in first grade. Like other studies that examine the relationship between child care and developmental outcomes, the NICHD research aims to determine not just whether there are concurrent and short-term effects of child care on children's development, but long-term effects as well. The study did not attempt to measure the quality of care offered by family child care providers or relatives according to the same set of guidelines used for center-based care. The most recent indepth observational study of family child care and relative care was published in 1994 by the Families and Work Institute. The study examined the care offered by 226 providers in 3 different communities in California, Texas, and North Carolina (Galinsky et al., 1994). Nonregulated family care providers may be nonregulated because they care for few enough children to be exempt from State regulation requirements, or, as the 1994 study found in their sample, 81 percent of the 54 nonregulated providers were illegally nonregulated, due to the fact that they were actually providing care for a number of children over their State's limit. The quality of all types of family and relative care was determined according to measurements such as the setting's safety and the sensitivity and responsiveness of providers to the children. The study found that only 9 percent of the homes in the study sample were rated as good quality, while 56 percent were rated as adequate, and 35 percent inadequate. The researchers found that quality appeared to be higher when providers were trained and when they were caring for three to six children rather than one or two. As important, if not more so, in determining quality was whether the provider was committed to taking care of children, and had a sense that their work was important; participated in family child care training; thought ahead about the children's activities; was regulated; and followed standard business and safety practices. In the case of relative care, an important factor in the quality of the child's experience was whether the relative caring for the children did so out of desire, necessity, or both. The Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes (1995, 1999) in Child Care Centers study conducted by researchers from four universities beginning in 1993, analyzes the influence of ``typical'' center-based child care on children's development during their preschool years and into elementary school. The ``typical'' centers were represented by a random sample of 401 full-day child care centers, half of them for-profit, half nonprofit, in regions of 4 States: California, Colorado, Connecticut, and North Carolina. Data on the quality and cost of services were collected, as well as data on the developmental progress of a sample of children in the selected centers. Findings from the first phase of the study were released in 1995, and indicated that the quality of child care offered in over 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 1995 Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study also found that centers meeting higher licensing standards provided higher quality care. In addition to examining the status of quality in the centers, the researchers wanted to determine what effects, if any, the quality of care had on children's development. The study's initial findings in 1995 indicated that children's cognitive and social development are positively related to the quality of their child care experience. This proved to be the case even after taking into account factors related to family background and associated with children's development (such as maternal education); the children in the low-quality care still scored lower on measures of cognitive and social development. The findings from the second phase of the study, released in 1999, indicate that there are long-term effects of child care quality on children's development. Similar to the NICHD results, this study indicated that the impact of child care quality on children's development was modest, but consistent, and applied even after taking into account child and family characteristics. The extent to which the effects of quality child care and other early childhood program experiences ``fade out'' over time has long been an area of interest for researchers studying the connection between child care programs and children's development. One of the longest-running research studies in this area is known as the Abecedarian Project, which began in the early 1970s. The project design consisted of a controlled study in which 57 infants, all from low-income families in North Carolina, were randomly assigned to an experimental group that would receive year-round, all-day educational child care/ preschool emphasizing cognitive, language, and adaptive behavior skills (Burchinal et al., 1997; Campbell & Ramey, 1995). The control group of 54 infants received nutritional supplements and supportive social services (as did the experimental group), but did not receive the educational intervention emphasizing language, cognitive, and social development. The Abecedarian Project began in early infancy, and the children received the educational ``treatment'' for 5 years, a longer period than other programs. This study also differs from those discussed earlier in that it focuses solely on disadvantaged, low-income children. Early findings of the project showed that from the age of 18 months through age 5 (the end of the program), children in the treatment group had higher scores on mental tests than children in the control group. In the primary grades through middle adolescence, children from the treatment group scored significantly higher on reading and math tests. Through age 15, the treatment group continued to score higher on mental tests, although the gap between the two groups had narrowed. Most recently, the project's researchers completed a followup study of the project's participants (104 of the original 111) at age 21 (Campbell, 1999). Results showed that the 21-year-olds who had been in the treatment group had significantly higher mental test scores than those from the control group. Likewise, reading and math scores were higher for the treatment group, as had been the case since toddlerhood. Due to the longevity of the project, researchers were also able to look for differences in areas such as college enrollment and employment rates. The followup interviews revealed that about 35 percent of the young adults in the treatment group had either graduated from or were attending a 4 year college or university at the time of the assessment, compared to 14 percent of the control group. A team of researchers from RAND evaluated the results of nine early childhood intervention programs, including the Abecedarian Project (Karoly et al., 1998). The RAND team determined that the nine early intervention programs evaluated in their study provided benefits for the participating disadvantaged children and their families. However, the Rand team pointed out that expanding model, resource-intensive programs like the Abecedarian Project to a larger scale may not necessarily result in the same developmental benefits. THE FEDERAL ROLE Background and Overview The Federal Government entered the child care business during the New Deal of the 1930s when federally funded nursery schools were established for poor children. The motivation for creating these nursery schools was not specifically to provide child care for working families. Rather, the schools were designed primarily to create jobs for unemployed teachers, nurses, and others, and also to provide a wholesome environment for children in poverty. However, when mothers began to enter the work force in large numbers during World War II, many of these nursery schools were continued and expanded. Federal funding for child care, and other community facilities, was available during the war years under the Lanham Act, which financed child care for an estimated 550,000-600,000 children before it was terminated in 1946. The end of the war brought the expectation that mothers would return home to care for their children. However, many women chose to remain at work and the labor force participation of women has increased steadily ever since. The appropriate Federal role in supporting child care, including the extent to which the Federal Government should establish standards for federally funded child care, has been an ongoing topic of debate. In 1988 and 1990, four Federal child care programs were enacted providing child care for families receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), families that formerly received AFDC, low-income working families at risk of becoming dependent on AFDC, and low-income working families generally. The establishment of these programs was the culmination of a lengthy, and often contentious debate, about what role the Federal Government should play in child care. Lasting nearly 4 years, the debate centered on questions about the type of Federal subsidies that should be made available and for whom, whether the Federal Government should set national child care standards, conditions under which religious child care providers could receive Federal funds, and how best to assure optimal choice for parents in selecting child care arrangements for their children, including options that would allow a mother to stay home. Differences stemming from philosophical and partisan views, as well as jurisdictional concerns, were reflected throughout the debate. Though the programs created in 1988 and 1990 represented a significant expansion of Federal support for child care, they joined a large number of existing Federal programs providing early childhood services, administered by numerous Federal agencies and overseen by several congressional committees. The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO; 1994) estimated that in fiscal year 1992 and fiscal year 1993, more than 90 early childhood programs were funded by the Federal Government, administered through 11 Federal agencies and 20 offices. Of these programs, GAO identified 34 as having education or child care as key to their mission. The Congressional Research Service (CRS), in a memo to the House Committee on Ways and Means (Forman, 1994), identified 46 Federal programs related to child care operating in fiscal year 1994, administered by 10 different Federal agencies. However, CRS noted that some of these programs were not primarily child care programs; rather, they were designed for some other major purpose but included some type of child care or related assistance. Moreover, a majority of the programs were small, with 32 of the 46 providing less than $50 million in annual funding. A more recent GAO (1998a) report identified 22 key child care programs, of which 5 accounted for more than 80 percent of total child care spending in fiscal year 1997. In 1996, the 104th Congress passed a major restructuring of Federal welfare programs, including a consolidation of major Federal child care programs into an expanded Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) (Public Law 104-103). The child care provisions in the new law were developed to achieve several purposes. As a component of welfare reform, the child care provisions are intended to support the overall goal of promoting self-sufficiency through work. However, separate from the context of welfare reform, the legislation attempts to address concerns about the effectiveness and efficiency of child care programs. The four separate child care programs that were enacted in 1988 and 1990 had different rules regarding eligibility, time limits on the receipt of assistance, and work requirements. Consistent with other block grant proposals considered in the 104th Congress, the child care provisions in Public Law 104-193 are intended to streamline the Federal role, reduce the number of Federal programs and conflicting rules, and increase the flexibility provided to States. Under the new amendments, the CCDBG is now the primary child care subsidy program operated by the Federal Government, and replaces previous child care programs for welfare and working families (i.e., child care for recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Transitional Child Care Assistance, and the At-Risk Child Care Program). The new law makes available to States almost $20 billion over a 6-year period (1997-2002) in a combination of entitlement and discretionary funding for child care, which is approximately $4 billion above the level that would have been available under the previous programs. Despite this increase in Federal resources, concerns persist about the adequacy and quality of child care in the era of welfare reform. Although welfare caseloads have declined, freeing up potential funds from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant for use for child care, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) estimates that in an average month in 1998 only 15 percent of children eligible for Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) subsidies received them, raising questions of whether total child care funding is adequate (CCDF or otherwise). It should be noted, however, that eligibility figures do not necessarily reflect consumer demand for child care, leaving the issue of whether adequate child care funding exists open to debate. Nonetheless, child care spending has unarguably been increasing every year (as shown in detail in tables 9-26 through 9-29). In 1998, States drew down all available Federal mandatory CCDF funding and transferred $652 million in Federal TANF dollars in that year to CCDF Programs. If, as many suspect, demand for child care increases alongside dropping welfare rolls and heightened work requirements for welfare recipients, proposals for additional child care funding are likely to be made in the years ahead. Increased demand and Federal resources for child care could cause growth in the supply of child care providers. In May 1997, the U.S. General Accounting Office reported that gaps existed between the demand for child care and the ``known'' supply (i.e., providers that are regulated by or otherwise known to the States), based on research at four sites. These gaps were larger in poor areas and for certain types of care, such as infant and school-aged care. However, since many parents rely on informal care givers, such as relatives and neighbors, who may not be known to State agencies, linking supply and demand for child care can be difficult. A later GAO study reviewed efforts in seven States to expand child care programs (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1998b). The seven States did not know whether their efforts to expand the supply of providers would be sufficient to meet the increased demand expected to result from welfare reform. States' efforts included new provider recruitment; fiscal incentives for providers and businesses to establish or expand child care facilities; and initiatives to increase the use of early childhood development and education programs, such as Head Start and prekindergarten programs. Major Day Care Programs Table 9-15 provides a brief description of the major Federal programs that currently support child care and related activities. One of the largest Federal sources of child care assistance is provided indirectly through the Tax Code, in the form of a nonrefundable tax credit for taxpayers who work or are seeking work. Other major sources of Federal child care assistance include the CCDBG, the Social Services Block Grant under title XX of the Social Security Act, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant, and the Child Care Food Program, which subsidizes meals for children in child care. Head Start, the early childhood development program targeted to poor preschool children, can also be characterized as a child care program. Although Head Start primarily operates on a part-day, part-year basis, programs increasingly are being linked to other all-day child care providers to better meet the needs of full-time working parents. Assuming that about $1.9 billion will be spent from TANF either directly or by transfer to the CCDBG Block Grant, assuming that 13 percent of the title XX block grant is spent on child care, and counting the tax loss from the dependent care credit as spending, we can estimate that the Federal Government will spend over $15 billion on child care and Head Start in 2000. Child Care and Development Block Grant The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) was originally authorized as an amendment to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, and in 1996 was reauthorized (through 2002) and amended by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (Public Law 104-193). The program provides funding for child care services for low-income families, as TABLE 9-15.--OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS THAT SUPPORT CHILD CARE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Program ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Child Care and Title XX Social Dependent Care Development Block Child and Adult Care Services Block Head Start TANF Credit Grant Food Program Grant -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Budgetary classification...... Nonrefundable tax Discretionary Authorized Authorized Discretionary Preappropriation credit. authorization and entitlement. entitlement. authorization. (through 2002) authorized entitlement. Statutory authority........... Internal Revenue Omnibus Budget Richard B. Russell Social Security Omnibus Budget Personal Code. Reconciliation Act National School Act. Reconciliation Responsibility of 1990 and Personal Lunch Act. Act of 1981. and Work Responsibility and Opportunity Work Opportunity Reconciliation Reconciliation Act Act of 1996 of 1996. Federal administration........ U.S. Department DHHS, ACF \1\........ U.S. Department of DHHS, ACF \1\.... DHHS, ACF \1\.... DHHS, ACF \1\ of Treasury, Agriculture, Food Internal Revenue and Nutrition Service. Service. Federal funding support....... NA............... Funding ceiling, 100 Open-ended, 100 Funding ceiling, Funding ceiling, TANF Block Grant, percent Federal percent Federal 100 percent 80 percent 100 percent funding for funding. Federal funding. Federal funding. Federal funding discretionary and (with State MOE part of entitlement requirements) funding; balance at Medicaid match rate. Fiscal year 2000 funding (in $2,200 \3\....... $1,183--discretionary $1,690 \4\........... Total is $1,775 $5,267 \6\....... Total is $16,500 millions) \2\. , $2,367--mandatory. \5\. \7\ Target population............. Taxpayers who Families with incomes Children, State discretion. Low-income Needy families need dependent at or below 85 particularly children and with minor care in order to percent of State children from low- families. children; needy accept or median income, with income families, in pregnant women. maintain parents engaged in child care centers, employment. work or education/ day care homes, and training. afterschool programs. Eligible children............. Children under Children under age 13 Children younger than State discretion. Children from Needy children as age 13 6. (unless incapable of 13 (through age 18 poor families determined by self-care or under in the afterschool who have not the State. court supervision). programs); migrant reached the age children younger of compulsory than 16; disabled school children. attendance. Provider requirements......... Centers only must Must meet applicable Must meet Federal Must meet Must meet NA (however, any meet applicable State and local nutrition standards; applicable State federally transferred State and local standards (including must meet applicable and local established funds are standards. relatives). With State/local standards. standards with subject to CCDBG exception of licensing approval respect to rules). relatives, must also standards (or, health, meet certain health certain alternate education, and safety standards. approval standards parental if licensing/ involvement, approval not nutrition, and required). social services. Reimbursement rates to NA............... No limit............. Providers receive No limit......... No limit......... NA (however, any providers. inflation-indexed transferred per meal subsidies funds are that are fixed by subject to CCDBG law and varied by rules). children's family income; provider sponsors receive limited administrative payments for administrative costs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Administration for Children and Families. \2\ Amounts reflect appropriation levels except where noted otherwise. \3\ Estimated revenue loss, Joint Committee on Taxation. \4\ Estimated obligations. \5\ States used almost 13 percent of Social Services Block Grant funds for child day care in fiscal year 1997. \6\ Of the $5.267 billion, $3.867 billion is available for fiscal year 2000, and $1.4 billion is available for fiscal year 2001. \7\ The 1996 welfare reform law allows States to use TANF funds for child care associated with the TANF Program, and also allows States to transfer a maximum of 30 percent of TANF funds to the CCDBG for use under the CCDBG's program rules. In fiscal year 1999 alone, States expended $1.14 billion on child care from Federal TANF funds and funds countable toward the TANF maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement (excluding State expenditures that are made under CCDF). Through the first 3 years of Federal TANF grants (fiscal years 1997-99), States transferred $3.6 billion (representing 8 percent of total TANF grants) to the CCDBG. NA--Not applicable. Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service. well as for activities intended to improve the overall quality and supply of child care for families in general. Financing Under the original CCDBG Act, discretionary funds were authorized, subject to the annual appropriations process. As amended by the 1996 welfare reform law, the program is funded by a combination of discretionary and entitlement amounts. The combined total of funds is sometimes referred to as the Child Care and Development Fund. The discretionary funds are authorized at $1 billion annually. However, appropriations surpassed the authorized level in both fiscal years 1999 and 2000, at $1.183 billion. These funds are allocated among States according to the same formula contained in the original CCDBG Act, which is based on each State's share of children under age 5, the State's share of children receiving free or reduced- price lunches, and State per capita income. Half of 1 percent of appropriated funds is reserved for the territories, and between 1 and 2 percent is reserved for payments to Indian tribes and tribal organizations. States are not required to match these discretionary funds. Funds must be obligated in the year they are received or in the subsequent fiscal year, and the law authorizes the Secretary to reallocate unused funds. The welfare reform law also provided entitlement funding to States for child care under the CCDBG. The annual amounts of entitlement funding were $1.967 billion in fiscal year 1997; $2.067 billion in fiscal year 1998; $2.167 billion in fiscal year 1999; $2.367 billion in fiscal year 2000; $2.567 billion in fiscal year 2001; and $2.717 billion in fiscal year 2002. The Secretary must reserve between 1 and 2 percent of entitlement funds for payments to Indian tribes and tribal organizations. After this amount is reserved, remaining entitlement funds are allocated to States in two components. First, each State receives a fixed amount each year, equal to the funding received by the State under the three child care programs previously authorized under AFDC in fiscal year 1994 or fiscal year 1995, or the average of fiscal years 1992-94, whichever is greater. This amount, totals approximately $1.2 billion each year, is sometimes referred to as ``mandatory'' funds. No State match is required for these funds, which may remain available for expenditure by States with no fiscal year limitation. Although no State match is required, to receive their full TANF allotment, States must maintain at least 80 percent of their previous welfare expenditures (referred to as their ``maintenance-of-effort'' requirements), including previous expenditures for welfare-related child care, in fiscal year 1994. After the guaranteed amount is distributed, remaining entitlement funds are distributed to States according to each State's share of children under age 13. States must meet maintenance-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 States' share of children under age 13. In addition to amounts provided to States for child care, States may transfer up to 30 percent of their TANF Block Grant into their CCDBG or Social Services Block Grant Programs. Funds transferred into child care must be spent according to the CCDBG rules. However, States also may use TANF funds for child care without formally transferring them to the CCDBG. Eligibility and target population groups Children eligible for services under the revised CCDBG are those whose family income does not exceed 85 percent of the State median. States may adopt income eligibility limits below those in Federal law. Because child care funding is not an entitlement for individuals, States are not required to aid families even if their incomes fall below the State-determined eligibility threshold. Federal law does require States to give priority to families defined in their plans as ``very low income.'' Table 9-25 provides the CCDF income eligibility limits across the States and territories for families of three and four. To be eligible for CCDBG funds, children must be less than 13 years old and be living with parents who are working or enrolled in school or training, or be in need of protective services. States must use at least 70 percent of their total entitlement funds for child care services for families that are trying to become independent of TANF through work activities and families that are at risk of becoming dependent on public assistance. In their State plans, States must explain how they will meet the specific child care needs of these families. Of remaining child care funds (including discretionary amounts), States must ensure that a substantial portion is used for child care services to eligible families other than welfare recipients or families at risk of welfare dependency. Use of funds CCDBG funds may be used for child care services provided on a sliding fee scale basis; however, Federal regulations allow States to waive child care fees for families with incomes at or below the poverty line. Funds also may be used for activities to improve the quality or availability of child care. States are required to spend no less than 4 percent of their child care allotments (discretionary and entitlement) for activities to provide comprehensive consumer education to parents and the public, activities that increase parental choice, and activities designed to improve the quality and availability of child care (such as resource and referral services). Child care providers receiving Federal assistance must meet all licensing or regulatory requirements applicable under State or local law. States must have in effect licensing requirements applicable to child care; however, Federal law does not dictate what these licensing requirements should be or what types of providers they should cover. States must establish minimum health and safety standards that cover prevention and control of infectious diseases (including immunizations); building and physical premises safety; and health and safety training; and that apply to child care providers receiving block grant assistance (except relative providers). Parents of children eligible to receive subsidized child care must be given maximum choice in selecting a child care provider. Parents must be offered the option to enroll their child with a provider that has a grant or contract with the State to provide such services, or parents may receive a certificate (also sometimes referred to as a voucher) that can be used to purchase child care from a provider of the parents' choice. Child care certificates can be used only to pay for child care services from eligible providers, which can include sectarian child care providers. Eligible providers also can include individuals, age 18 or older, who provide child care for their grandchildren, great grandchildren, nieces or nephews, or siblings (if the provider lives in a separate residence). Table 9-24 shows the percent of CCDF recipient children served by each form of payment type, by State, in fiscal year 1998. Certificates were overwhelmingly the form of payment most used, serving over 83 percent of CCDF children nationally. States must establish payment rates for child care services that are sufficient to ensure equal access for eligible children to comparable services provided to children whose parents are not eligible for subsidies. The CCDBG contains specific requirements with regard to the use of funds for religious activities. Under the program, a provider that receives operating assistance through a direct grant or contract with a government agency may not use these funds for any sectarian purpose or activity, including religious worship and instruction. However, a sectarian provider that receives a child care certificate from an eligible parent is not so restricted in the use of funds. Administration and data collection At the Federal level, the CCDBG is administered by the Administration for Children and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The Secretary is required to coordinate all child care activities within the agency and with similar activities in other Federal agencies. States are required to designate a lead agency to administer the CCDBG, and may use no more than 5 percent of their Federal child care allotment for administrative costs. States must submit disaggregated data on children and families receiving subsidized child care to DHHS every quarter, and aggregate data twice a year. The Secretary is required to submit a report to Congress once every 2 years. The most recent available data from DHHS as submitted by the States is from fiscal year 1998. CHILD CARE TABLES Child Care and Development Fund Tables 9-16 through 9-30 provide extensive information about the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) as reported by States to DHHS. Because the tables reflect funding from both the discretionary and mandatory portions of the child care funding pool, the term CCDF is used in the titles of the tables. The reader should note, however, that as mentioned in earlier parts of this chapter, all discretionary and mandatory child care funding referenced here is subject to the rules of the CCDBG. Families and Children Served, Type of Care, and Payment Type The average monthly number of families and children served by the CCDF in the last half of fiscal year 1998 is shown, by State, in table 9-16. Tables 9-17 and 9-18 reveal the percentage of children served nationwide by reason for care and by age of child respectively. The number of providers, by State and type, are displayed in table 9-19. The percentage of CCDF children served by each type of care, by State, follows in table 9-20. Tables 9-21 through 9-23 reveal State-by-State information on the breakdowns between type of care used by CCDF recipients, regulated and nonregulated care used, and relative and nonrelative care used. Table 9-24 shows the percentage of CCDF children served by each form of payment type. TABLE 9-16.--CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN SERVED, APRIL-SEPTEMBER 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Number of Number of State/territory families children ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alabama........................... 11,914 20,526 Alaska \1\........................ 2,862 5,083 American Samoa.................... 82 234 Arizona........................... 19,586 33,095 Arkansas.......................... 5,464 9,244 California \1\.................... 70,673 99,922 Colorado.......................... 11,035 20,172 Connecticut....................... 6,646 11,912 Delaware.......................... 3,527 6,138 District of Columbia \1\ \2\...... 2,707 4,245 Florida........................... 26,825 44,867 Georgia........................... 26,488 47,205 Guam.............................. 189 374 Hawaii \1\........................ 4,292 6,673 Idaho............................. 3,811 6,546 Illinois.......................... 46,186 88,333 Indiana \3\ \4\................... 7,153 12,673 Iowa \1\.......................... 7,367 11,805 Kansas............................ 5,553 10,238 Kentucky.......................... 14,237 25,002 Louisiana \1\..................... 19,986 35,194 Maine............................. (\5\) (\5\) Maryland.......................... 13,720 21,383 Massachusetts \1\................. 30,813 46,009 Michigan.......................... 49,502 92,062 Minnesota \1\..................... 15,168 25,525 Mississippi \2\ \3\ \4\........... 5,510 8,471 Missouri.......................... 35,174 43,445 Montana........................... 3,135 5,528 Nebraska.......................... 5,349 9,348 Nevada \2\........................ 2,986 5,084 New Hampshire..................... 4,238 6,394 New Jersey........................ 22,132 32,496 New Mexico........................ 8,782 14,983 New York \1\...................... 98,667 158,605 North Carolina \1\................ 41,221 74,245 North Dakota...................... 2,641 4,160 Northern Marianas................. (\5\) (\5\) Ohio \2\.......................... 33,165 59,357 Oklahoma \2\...................... 21,882 36,029 Oregon............................ 7,965 15,043 Pennsylvania \1\.................. 39,985 72,683 Puerto Rico \4\................... 200 256 Rhode Island...................... 3,998 6,326 South Carolina.................... 12,779 21,733 South Dakota...................... 2,042 3,529 Tennessee......................... 29,765 55,419 Texas............................. 46,017 78,955 Utah.............................. 6,703 12,552 Vermont........................... 3,121 4,736 Virginia \1\...................... 15,377 23,876 Virgin Islands.................... 214 360 Washington \1\ \4\................ 25,243 36,883 West Virginia \1\................. 8,033 13,186 Wisconsin......................... 13,361 23,867 Wyoming........................... 1,870 3,088 ------------------------------------- Total....................... 907,351 1,515,107 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Average monthly number of children served is extrapolated from sample data provided by the State based on the ratio of children to families in the sample. \2\ Number of children and families reported are based on less than 6 months of data. \3\ The reliability of the data provided is highly questionable due to serious information system problems during the reporting period. \4\ Reporting problems caused an underestimate of average children served monthly during fiscal year 1998. \5\ Unable to report any ACF-801 case-level data. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Child Care Information System. TABLE 9-17.--CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT OF CHILDREN SERVED BY REASON FOR CARE, APRIL-SEPTEMBER, 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percent of Reason for care children served ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Employment.............................................. 73 Training/education...................................... 12 Both employment and training/education.................. 6 Protective services..................................... 2 Other................................................... 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. TABLE 9-18.--CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT OF CHILDREN SERVED BY AGE GROUP, APRIL-SEPTEMBER, 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percent of Age group children served ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0-11 months............................................. 6 12-23 months............................................ 10 24-35 months............................................ 12 36-47 months............................................ 13 48-59 months............................................ 13 60-71 months............................................ 11 6-12 years.............................................. 35 13+ years............................................... 0.4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. TABLE 9-19.--CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--NUMBER OF CHILD CARE PROVIDERS RECEIVING CCDF FUNDS, FISCAL YEAR 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Family Group State/territory Child's home home home Center ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama.......................................................... 32 3,247 287 1,601 Alaska........................................................... 362 3,317 43 379 American Samoa................................................... (\1\) 1 (\1\) 14 Arizona.......................................................... 538 4,976 326 1,910 Arkansas......................................................... (\1\) 538 (\1\) 856 California....................................................... 4,538 13,911 3,455 7,689 Colorado......................................................... 2,444 6,219 (\1\) 1,213 Connecticut...................................................... 20,331 1,645 58 1,107 Delaware......................................................... 384 1,360 22 278 District of Columbia............................................. 1 1 (\1\) 10 Florida.......................................................... 704 9,840 (\1\) 19,155 Georgia.......................................................... 1,683 8,102 314 4,643 Guam............................................................. 73 164 30 45 Hawaii........................................................... 208 5,462 (\1\) 774 Idaho............................................................ 89 2,461 358 431 Illinois......................................................... 46,723 40,852 465 4,767 Indiana.......................................................... 2,343 13,940 (\1\) 1,929 Iowa............................................................. 422 9,296 826 905 Kansas........................................................... 768 1,298 1,910 666 Kentucky......................................................... 283 7,894 67 1,376 Louisiana........................................................ 13,890 4,560 (\1\) 1,081 Maine............................................................ 33 1,746 (\1\) 332 Maryland......................................................... 7,091 8,237 (\1\) 1,371 Massachusetts.................................................... 7,392 4,206 58 1,151 Michigan......................................................... 33,824 39,293 2,647 2,304 Minnesota........................................................ 1,584 15,258 (\1\) 6,294 Mississippi...................................................... 1,951 2,388 21 1,138 Missouri......................................................... 42 22,218 161 1,750 Montana.......................................................... 12 1,638 469 237 Nebraska......................................................... (\1\) 1,305 209 452 Nevada........................................................... 131 436 10 400 New Hampshire.................................................... (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) New Jersey....................................................... 640 7,474 (\1\) 2,061 New Mexico....................................................... 49 7,204 153 448 New York......................................................... 6,357 24,180 1,459 3,399 North Carolina................................................... 594 8,195 240 5,394 North Dakota..................................................... 115 1,775 660 122 Northern Marianas................................................ 98 38 (\1\) 8 Ohio............................................................. 8 9,059 71 2,594 Oklahoma......................................................... 116 3,147 (\1\) 3,317 Oregon........................................................... 3,145 14,361 98 760 Pennsylvania..................................................... 19 3,196 502 3,633 Puerto Rico...................................................... 79 747 898 486 Rhode Island..................................................... 860 1,462 7 254 South Carolina................................................... 486 2,680 167 1,426 South Dakota..................................................... 315 1,496 43 107 Tennessee........................................................ 7,540 500 1,633 (\1\) Texas............................................................ 6,929 8,928 835 5,424 Utah............................................................. 743 4,503 183 282 Vermont.......................................................... 355 1,110 (\1\) 333 Virginia......................................................... (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) Virgin Islands................................................... 16 150 21 87 Washington....................................................... 17,855 11,588 (\1\) 1,382 West Virginia.................................................... 61 5,511 (\1\) 323 Wisconsin........................................................ 80 5,247 (\1\) 1,490 Wyoming.......................................................... 157 679 (\1\) 88 ---------------------------------------------- Total providers............................................ 194,493 359,039 18,706 99,676 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Reported figure is 0 or not reported. \2\ New Hampshire and Virginia did not report the number of providers by setting type. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Child Care Information System. TABLE 9-20.--CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT OF CHILDREN SERVED BY TYPES OF CARE, FISCAL YEAR 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Family Group State/territory Child's home home home Center ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama.......................................................... 0.1 20.2 5.6 74.1 Alaska........................................................... 5.2 57.1 3.2 34.5 American Samoa................................................... (\1\) 0.9 (\1\) 99.1 Arizona.......................................................... 2.0 20.4 4.5 73.0 Arkansas......................................................... (\1\) 17.5 (\1\) 82.5 California....................................................... 6.2 17.8 5.6 70.5 Colorado......................................................... 9.4 33.3 (\1\) 57.3 Connecticut...................................................... 56.6 6.4 0.4 36.6 Delaware......................................................... 4.1 39.5 1.5 54.9 District of Columbia............................................. 0.5 5.3 (\1\) 94.1 Florida.......................................................... 1.0 14.2 (\1\) 84.8 Georgia.......................................................... 3.5 19.1 1.5 75.9 Guam............................................................. 17.7 39.4 2.7 40.1 Hawaii........................................................... 6.8 65.2 0.4 27.7 Idaho............................................................ 1.4 39.7 14.5 44.5 Illinois......................................................... 31.6 36.9 0.6 30.9 Indiana.......................................................... 10.4 53.9 (\1\) 35.7 Iowa............................................................. 1.6 54.7 10.4 33.4 Kansas........................................................... 7.1 15.2 41.3 36.4 Kentucky......................................................... 1.4 36.8 0.9 61.0 Louisiana........................................................ 36.0 15.1 (\1\) 49.0 Maine............................................................ 0.8 34.7 (\1\) 29.0 Maryland......................................................... 22.7 42.4 (\1\) 34.9 Massachusetts.................................................... 17.2 9.3 17.3 56.2 Michigan......................................................... 30.7 41.8 8.8 18.7 Minnesota........................................................ 6.8 66.0 (\1\) 27.2 Mississippi...................................................... 12.0 17.7 1.2 69.0 Missouri......................................................... 0.0 58.0 1.7 40.2 Montana.......................................................... 0.2 36.3 33.6 30.0 Nebraska......................................................... (\1\) 32.3 9.2 58.5 Nevada........................................................... 3.9 12.3 2.2 81.6 New Hampshire.................................................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) New Jersey....................................................... 1.1 24.8 (\1\) 74.1 New Mexico....................................................... 4.4 47.9 4.4 43.3 New York......................................................... 10.1 42.3 7.0 40.6 North Carolina................................................... 0.8 17.0 1.4 80.8 North Dakota..................................................... 3.0 44.2 26.6 26.3 Northern Marianas................................................ 58.2 30.8 (\1\) 11.0 Ohio............................................................. 0.0 34.6 0.8 64.6 Oklahoma......................................................... 0.3 18.9 (\1\) 80.9 Oregon........................................................... 13.7 64.8 0.8 20.6 Pennsylvania..................................................... 21.1 15.7 4.4 58.9 Puerto Rico...................................................... 1.4 20.1 13.9 64.7 Rhode Island..................................................... 9.9 25.4 0.2 64.5 South Carolina................................................... 3.5 18.2 2.9 75.5 South Dakota..................................................... 6.0 61.0 6.2 26.9 Tennessee........................................................ 0.8 21.8 4.8 72.6 Texas............................................................ 7.4 10.3 3.3 79.0 Utah............................................................. 4.4 26.1 5.0 64.6 Vermont.......................................................... 5.6 50.1 (\1\) 44.4 Virginia......................................................... 1.9 44.1 (\1\) 54.0 Virgin Islands................................................... 3.0 23.6 6.1 67.3 Washington....................................................... 24.7 34.0 (\1\) 41.2 West Virginia.................................................... 0.4 59.9 (\1\) 39.8 Wisconsin........................................................ 0.4 39.4 (\1\) 60.2 Wyoming.......................................................... 13.4 55.4 (\1\) 31.2 ---------------------------------------------- National average percent................................... 10.8 29.7 3.6 55.4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Reported figure is 0 or not reported. Note.--Row total(s) and column total(s) do not add up for the following reason(s): Adjusted figures are rounded. Errors in reports submitted by Maine and New Hampshire. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Child Care Information System. TABLE 9-21.--CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT OF CHILDREN SERVED IN REGULATED SETTINGS AND SETTINGS LEGALLY OPERATING WITHOUT REGULATION ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Legally Licensed/ operating State/territory regulated without regulation ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alabama......................................... 74 26 Alaska.......................................... 54 46 American Samoa.................................. 100 (\1\) Arizona......................................... 88 12 Arkansas........................................ 100 (\1\) California...................................... 82 18 Colorado........................................ 76 24 Connecticut..................................... 43 57 Delaware........................................ 83 17 District of Columbia............................ 98 2 Florida......................................... 87 13 Georgia......................................... 85 15 Guam............................................ 39 61 Hawaii.......................................... 31 69 Idaho........................................... 59 41 Illinois........................................ 41 59 Indiana......................................... 46 54 Iowa............................................ 67 33 Kansas.......................................... 86 14 Kentucky........................................ 67 33 Louisiana....................................... 49 51 Maine........................................... 57 7 Maryland........................................ 65 35 Massachusetts................................... 80 20 Michigan........................................ 39 61 Minnesota....................................... 66 34 Mississippi..................................... 70 30 Missouri........................................ 54 46 Montana......................................... 85 15 Nebraska........................................ 100 (\1\) Nevada.......................................... 76 24 New Hampshire................................... (\1\) (\1\) New Jersey...................................... 85 15 New Mexico...................................... 52 48 New York........................................ 59 41 North Carolina.................................. 94 6 North Dakota.................................... 97 3 Northern Marianas............................... 100 (\1\) Ohio............................................ 100 (\1\) Oklahoma........................................ 100 (\1\) Oregon.......................................... 38 62 Pennsylvania.................................... 71 29 Puerto Rico..................................... 65 35 Rhode Island.................................... 72 28 South Carolina.................................. 83 17 South Dakota.................................... 77 23 Tennessee....................................... 84 16 Texas........................................... 85 15 Utah............................................ 79 21 Vermont......................................... 94 6 Virginia........................................ 80 20 Virgin Islands.................................. 68 32 Washington...................................... 64 36 West Virginia................................... 89 11 Wisconsin....................................... 100 (\1\) Wyoming......................................... 55 45 ----------------------- National average percent.................. 72 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Reported figure is 0 or not reported. Note.--Row total(s) and column total(s) do not add up for the following reason(s): Errors in reports submitted by Maine and New Hampshire. Adjusted figures are rounded. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Child Care Information System. TABLE 9-22.--CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT OF CHILDREN SERVED IN SETTINGS LEGALLY OPERATING WITHOUT REGULATION, BY RELATIVES AND NONRELATIVES, FISCAL YEAR 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ State/territory Relative Nonrelative ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alabama......................................... 39 61 Alaska.......................................... 27 73 American Samoa.................................. (\1\) (\1\) Arizona......................................... 100 (\1\) Arkansas........................................ (\1\) (\1\) California...................................... 62 38 Colorado........................................ 44 56 Connecticut..................................... 71 29 Delaware........................................ 54 46 District of Columbia............................ 70 30 Florida......................................... 23 77 Georgia......................................... 29 71 Guam............................................ 91 9 Hawaii.......................................... 69 31 Idaho........................................... 44 56 Illinois........................................ 56 44 Indiana......................................... 39 61 Iowa............................................ 31 69 Kansas.......................................... 71 29 Kentucky........................................ 29 71 Louisiana....................................... 48 52 Maine........................................... 32 68 Maryland........................................ 78 22 Massachusetts................................... 42 58 Michigan........................................ 72 28 Minnesota....................................... 42 58 Mississippi..................................... 64 36 Missouri........................................ 46 54 Montana......................................... 10 90 Nebraska........................................ (\1\) (\1\) Nevada.......................................... 16 84 New Hampshire................................... (\1\) (\1\) New Jersey...................................... 31 69 New Mexico...................................... 57 43 New York........................................ 40 60 North Carolina.................................. 81 19 North Dakota.................................... 100 (\1\) Northern Marianas............................... (\1\) (\1\) Ohio............................................ (\1\) (\1\) Oklahoma........................................ (\1\) (\1\) Oregon.......................................... 29 71 Pennsylvania.................................... 22 78 Puerto Rico..................................... 54 46 Rhode Island.................................... 78 22 South Carolina.................................. (\1\) 100 South Dakota.................................... 79 21 Tennessee....................................... 12 88 Texas........................................... 100 (\1\) Utah............................................ 37 63 Vermont......................................... 1 99 Virginia........................................ 83 17 Virgin Islands.................................. 58 42 Washington...................................... 65 35 West Virginia................................... 91 9 Wisconsin....................................... (\1\) (\1\) Wyoming......................................... 52 48 ----------------------- National average percent.................. 53 47 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Reported figure is 0 or not reported. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Child Care Information System. TABLE 9-23.--CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT OF CHILDREN SERVED IN ALL TYPES OF CARE, FISCAL YEAR 1998 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Licensed regulated providers Providers legally operating without regulation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State/territory Child's home Family home Group home Child's Family Group Center --------------------------------------------------------------------- Center home home home Relative Nonrelative Relative Nonrelative Relative Nonrelative -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama............................... (\1\) 10 6 59 0.1 0.1 10 0.1 (\1\) (\1\) 15 Alaska................................ 0.01 16 3 35 2 3 11 30 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) American Samoa........................ (\1\) 1 (\1\) 99 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Arizona............................... 0.5 10 4 73 2 (\1\) 10 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Arkansas.............................. (\1\) 18 (\1\) 82 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) California............................ (\1\) 7 6 70 5 2 6 4 (\1\) (\1\) 1 Colorado.............................. (\1\) 19 (\1\) 57 2 7 8 6 (\1\) (\1\) 0 Connecticut........................... (\1\) 6 (\1\) 36 41 16 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) 1 Delaware.............................. (\1\) 34 1 48 4 (\1\) 5 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) 7 District of Columbia.................. (\1\) 4 (\1\) 94 (\1\) 1 1 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Florida............................... (\1\) 8 (\1\) 80 1 (\1\) 2 4 (\1\) (\1\) 5 Georgia............................... (\1\) 7 2 76 1 3 4 8 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Guam.................................. (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) 39 18 (\1\) 37 2 1 2 1 Hawaii................................ (\1\) 8 (\1\) 22 3 3 45 12 (\1\) (\1\) 5 Idaho................................. (\1\) (\1\) 14 44 (\1\) 1 17 22 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Illinois.............................. (\1\) 11 1 29 11 21 22 4 (\1\) (\1\) 2 Indiana............................... 2.2 14 (\1\) 30 5 3 16 23 (\1\) (\1\) 6 Iowa.................................. (\1\) 23 10 33 1 1 10 22 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Kansas................................ (\1\) 9 41 36 3 4 6 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Kentucky.............................. (\1\) 5 1 61 1 1 9 23 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Louisiana............................. (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) 49 22 14 2 13 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Maine................................. (\1\) 28 (\1\) 29 (\1\) (\1\) 2 5 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Maryland.............................. (\1\) 31 (\1\) 34 16 7 12 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) 0 Massachusetts......................... (\1\) 6 17 56 5 12 3 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Michigan.............................. (\1\) 11 9 19 14 17 30 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) 0 Minnesota............................. (\1\) 42 (\1\) 24 4 3 10 14 (\1\) (\1\) 3 Mississippi........................... (\1\) (\1\) 1 69 9 3 10 8 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Missouri.............................. (\1\) 15 2 37 (\1\) (\1\) 21 22 (\1\) 3 Montana............................... 0.02 21 34 30 (\1\) (\1\) 1 14 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Nebraska.............................. (\1\) 32 9 58 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Nevada................................ (\1\) 3 2 70 2 2 2 7 (\1\) (\1\) 11 New Hampshire......................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) New Jersey............................ (\1\) 10 (\1\) 74 1 (\1\) 4 10 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) New Mexico............................ (\1\) 5 4 43 2 2 25 18 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) New York.............................. (\1\) 11 7 41 5 5 11 19 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) North Carolina........................ (\1\) 11 1 81 1 (\1\) 5 1 (\1\) (\1\) 0.1 North Dakota.......................... (\1\) 44 27 26 3 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Northern Marianas..................... 58.2 31 (\1\) 11 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Ohio.................................. 0.01 35 1 65 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Oklahoma.............................. 0.26 19 (\1\) 81 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Oregon................................ 0.22 21 1 16 5 9 14 30 (\1\) 0.1 5 Pennsylvania.......................... (\1\) 7 4 59 5 16 1 7 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Puerto Rico........................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) 65 1 (\1\) 12 8 6 8 (\1\) Rhode Island.......................... (\1\) 8 (\1\) 64 4 6 18 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) 0.3 South Carolina........................ (\1\) 5 3 76 (\1\) 3 (\1\) 13 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) South Dakota.......................... (\1\) 44 6 27 4 2 14 3 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Tennessee............................. (\1\) 7 5 73 1 (\1\) 1 14 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Texas................................. (\1\) 3 3 79 7 (\1\) 7 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Utah.................................. (\1\) 9 5 65 2 2 6 11 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Vermont............................... (\1\) 50 (\1\) 44 0 6 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Virginia.............................. 0.20 26 (\1\) 54 2 (\1\) 15 3 (\1\) (\1\) 0 Virgin Islands........................ (\1\) (\1\) 6 62 3 (\1\) 16 8 (\1\) (\1\) 5 Washington............................ (\1\) 23 (\1\) 41 12 12 11 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) West Virginia......................... (\1\) 50 (\1\) 39 (\1\) (\1\) 10 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) 1 Wisconsin............................. 0.38 39 (\1\) 60 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) Wyoming............................... (\1\) 24 (\1\) 31 8 6 16 16 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- National average percent........ 0.1 13 3 55 6 6 9 6 0.02 0.03 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Reported figure is 0 or not reported. Note.--Select row total(s) and column total(s) do not add up for the following reason: Errors in reports submitted by Maine and New Hampshire. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Child Care Information System. TABLE 9-24.--CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--PERCENT OF CHILDREN SERVED, BY PAYMENT METHOD, FISCAL YEAR 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Grants/ Cash to State/territory contracts Certificates parents ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alabama.............................. 45.4 53.7 0.9 Alaska............................... (\1\) 99.3 0.7 American Samoa....................... (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) Arizona.............................. (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) Arkansas............................. (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) California........................... 58.3 33.8 7.9 Colorado............................. 0.4 99.5 0.1 Connecticut.......................... 24.0 76.0 (\1\) Delaware............................. (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) District of Columbia................. 59.6 40.4 (\1\) Florida.............................. 72.6 20.1 7.3 Georgia.............................. 4.6 95.4 (\1\) Guam................................. (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) Hawaii............................... (\1\) (\1\) 100.0 Idaho................................ (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) Illinois............................. 14.1 85.9 (\1\) Indiana.............................. 1.0 99.0 (\1\) Iowa................................. (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) Kansas............................... (\1\) 92.9 7.1 Kentucky............................. (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) Louisiana............................ (\1\) 65.3 34.7 Maine................................ 23.5 75.9 0.6 Maryland............................. (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) Massachusetts........................ 27.6 72.4 (\1\) Michigan............................. (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) Minnesota............................ (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) Mississippi.......................... 27.1 72.9 (\1\) Missouri............................. (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) Montana.............................. (\1\) 96.4 3.6 Nebraska............................. (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) Nevada............................... 6.1 93.9 (\1\) New Hampshire........................ (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) New Jersey........................... 26.7 73.3 (\1\) New Mexico........................... 1.3 98.7 (\1\) New York............................. 23.1 76.9 (\1\) North Carolina....................... (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) North Dakota......................... 4.0 96.0 (\1\) Northern Marianas.................... (\1\) (\1\) 100.0 Ohio................................. (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) Oklahoma............................. (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) Oregon............................... 11.0 89.0 (\1\) Pennsylvania......................... (\1\) 56.4 43.6 Puerto Rico.......................... 57.5 42.5 (\1\) Rhode Island......................... (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) South Carolina....................... 12.0 88.0 (\1\) South Dakota......................... (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) Tennessee............................ (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) Texas................................ (\1\) 83.1 16.9 Utah................................. (\1\) (\1\) 100.0 Vermont.............................. 0.4 99.6 (\1\) Virginia............................. 1.1 100.0 (\1\) Virgin Islands....................... 2.4 97.6 (\1\) Washington........................... (\1\) 64.4 35.6 West Virginia........................ (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) Wisconsin............................ (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) Wyoming.............................. (\1\) 100.0 (\1\) ---------------------------------- National average percent....... 9.8 83.5 6.6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Reported figure is 0 or not reported. Note.--Row total(s) and column total(s) do not add up for the following reason(s): Errors in report submitted by Virginia. Adjusted figures are rounded. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Child Care Information System. State Income Eligibility Limits States' income eligibility limits for families of three and four receiving Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) subsidies, as submitted in the latest available State CCDF plans, are displayed in table 9-25. Trends in Child Care Expenditures Tables 9-26 through 9-29 contain information about trends in child care expenditures under the CCDF and its predecessor programs (i.e., AFDC child care programs). All figures reflect expenditures made in the year indicated, as opposed to expenditures made from a given year's appropriation. Table 9-26 provides a summary of discretionary and mandatory expenditures on child care from fiscal years 1992 through 1998. Table 9-27 gives the mandatory fund expenditure trends from fiscal years 1992 through 1998, and the total expenditures (mandatory and discretionary) are shown by State in table 9-28. A detailed breakdown of CCDF expenditures made in fiscal year 1998 (the latest year available) by State is displayed in table 9-29. State CCDF Allocations Table 9-30 shows actual State allotments for discretionary and entitlement (mandatory and matching) funding for fiscal year 1999. TABLE 9-25.--CCDF INCOME ELIGIBILITY LIMITS FOR FAMILIES OF THREE AND FOUR [Monthly income] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 85 percent of CCDF income Very low income CCDF income limit Very low income State median eligibility limit limit (priority as a percent of limit as a percent income -------------------- for child care) State median of State median State/territory -------------------- -------------------- income income Family Family --------------------------------------- Family Family of three of four Family Family Family Family Family Family of three of four of three of four of three of four of three of four -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama............................................. $2,870 $3,417 $1,504 $1,809 $1,503 $1,808 45 45 45 45 Alaska.............................................. 3,694 4,397 3,694 4,397 1,423 1,714 85 85 33 33 American Samoa \1\.................................. 474 632 474 632 237 316 85 85 43 43 Arizona............................................. 2,804 3,339 1,905 2,217 1,157 1,392 58 56 35 35 Arkansas............................................ 2,172 5,586 1,533 1,825 1,022 1,217 60 28 40 19 California.......................................... 3,197 3,552 2,821 3,134 1,881 2,090 75 75 50 50 Colorado............................................ 3,510 4,178 2,139 2,574 1,504 1,810 52 52 36 37 Connecticut \1\..................................... 3,698 4,403 3,264 3,885 1,088 1,295 75 75 25 25 Delaware............................................ 3,371 4,014 2,314 2,784 867 1,044 58 59 22 22 District of Columbia................................ 3,169 3,772 2,326 2,576 1,585 1,886 62 58 43 42 Florida............................................. 2,667 3,175 1,706 2,056 2,104 2,536 54 55 67 68 Georgia............................................. 2,817 3,130 2,817 3,130 2,023 2,248 85 85 61 61 Guam................................................ (\2\) (\2\) 2,463 2,963 1,331 1,601 (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) Hawaii.............................................. 3,257 3,878 2,874 3,422 1,278 1,538 75 75 33 34 Idaho............................................... 2,684 2,982 1,706 2,056 1,705 2,055 54 59 54 59 Illinois............................................ 3,440 4,095 1,818 2,165 1,214 1,445 45 45 30 30 Indiana............................................. 3,149 3,795 2,161 2,605 1,628 1,962 58 58 44 44 Iowa................................................ 3,081 3,668 1,793 2,157 1,619 1,948 49 50 45 45 Kansas.............................................. 3,114 3,747 3,114 3,747 1,832 2,204 85 85 50 50 Kentucky............................................ 2,739 3,261 1,851 2,227 1,851 2,227 57 58 57 58 Louisiana........................................... 2,742 3,265 2,420 2,880 1,157 1,392 75 75 36 36 Maine \1\........................................... 2,708 3,223 2,708 3,223 1,101 1,329 85 85 35 35 Maryland............................................ 3,957 4,711 1,870 2,226 767 913 40 40 16 16 Massachusetts \1\................................... 3,522 4,193 2,771 3,299 1,931 2,299 67 67 47 47 Michigan............................................ 3,342 3,979 2,172 2,586 809 940 55 55 21 20 Minnesota........................................... 3,604 4,290 3,181 3,787 3,180 3,786 75 75 75 75 Mississippi......................................... 2,333 2,750 2,333 2,750 1,416 1,667 85 85 52 52 Missouri............................................ 2,772 3,696 1,482 1,764 674 802 45 41 21 18 Montana............................................. 2,592 3,085 1,735 2,088 469 564 57 58 15 16 Nebraska............................................ 2,707 3,323 2,105 2,535 1,121 1,350 66 65 35 35 Nevada.............................................. 3,171 3,776 2,798 3,331 1,532 1,793 75 75 41 40 New Hampshire \1\................................... 3,064 3,647 1,784 2,147 1,556 1,873 49 50 43 44 New Jersey.......................................... 3,959 4,770 1,735 2,088 2,892 3,479 37 37 62 62 New Mexico \1\...................................... 2,212 2,633 1,951 2,323 1,465 1,742 75 75 56 56 New York............................................ 3,326 3,960 2,338 2,783 (\3\) (\3\) 60 60 (\3\) (\3\) North Carolina...................................... 3,082 3,668 2,719 3,237 2,719 3,237 75 75 75 75 North Dakota........................................ 2,445 2,910 2,445 2,910 288 342 85 85 10 10 Northern Marianas................................... 1,273 1,498 1,157 1,392 1,157 1,392 77 79 77 79 Ohio................................................ 3,084 3,672 2,105 2,536 700 843 58 59 19 20 Oklahoma............................................ 2,635 3,137 1,936 1,936 1,933 1,934 62 52 62 52 Oregon.............................................. 3,226 3,841 2,088 2,290 1,157 1,392 55 51 30 31 Pennsylvania........................................ 3,201 3,811 2,139 2,574 1,156 1,391 57 57 31 31 Puerto Rico......................................... 1,279 1,523 1,279 1,523 753 1,039 85 85 50 58 Rhode Island........................................ 3,067 3,407 2,602 3,131 1,278 1,438 72 78 35 36 South Carolina...................................... 2,954 3,518 1,446 1,740 1,157 1,392 42 42 33 34 South Dakota........................................ 2,786 3,317 2,140 2,575 1,157 1,392 65 66 35 36 Tennessee........................................... 2,871 3,418 2,027 2,413 1,478 1,528 60 60 44 38 Texas............................................... 2,856 3,400 1,735 2,088 1,157 1,392 52 52 34 35 Utah................................................ 2,724 3,242 1,794 2,136 1,138 1,371 56 56 36 36 Vermont............................................. 2,664 3,209 2,586 3,115 1,157 1,392 83 83 37 37 Virginia \1\........................................ 2,977 3,544 2,977 3,544 1,111 1,338 85 85 32 32 Virgin Islands \1\.................................. 1,364 1,557 1,364 1,557 1,111 1,338 85 85 69 73 Washington.......................................... 3,194 3,803 2,024 2,435 856 1,030 54 54 23 23 West Virginia....................................... 2,457 2,925 1,735 2,087 463 557 60 61 16 16 Wisconsin........................................... (\4\) 3,586 1,909 2,297 NA NA NA 54 NA NA Wyoming............................................. 2,881 3,430 1,539 1,852 1,273 1,532 45 46 38 38 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Income eligibility limits for this State reflect figures submitted in its initial 1997 State plan. \2\ Guam is using 185 percent of the Federal poverty income guidelines for Hawaii to limit eligibility. There is no current median income established for Guam. \3\ Local social services districts define the income level, which constitutes ``very low income'' in their districts. It must be established at or below 200 percent of the State income standard. Currently, levels at which districts have established ``very low income'' range from 100-200 percent of the State income standard. \4\ In the Wisconsin State plan, 85 percent State median income figure is available only for a family of four. NA--Not available. Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on information from CCDF State plans submitted by the States to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. TABLE 9-26.--SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND AND PREDECESSOR PROGRAM EXPENDITURES, FISCAL YEARS 1992-98 [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mandatory funds \2\ Percent -------------------------------- change in Discretionary total Fiscal year funds Total expenditures (Federal) \1\ Federal State from previous year ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1992.............................. $332,159 $801,289 $615,552 $1,749,000 NA 1993.............................. 675,229 889,592 662,184 2,227,005 27.3 1994.............................. 835,014 1,054,893 797,745 2,687,652 20.7 1995.............................. 832,009 1,235,233 949,821 3,017,063 12.3 1996.............................. 850,122 1,280,212 994,275 3,124,608 3.6 1997.............................. 1,010,068 1,518,905 1,357,515 3,886,488 24.4 1998.............................. 1,403,230 2,078,421 1,713,933 5,195,584 33.7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Discretionary funds are from appropriations and are authorized under the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) of 1990. For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, discretionary funds include those expenditures financed through transfers from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant. \2\ Mandatory funds are Federal funds provided under title IV-A of the Social Security Act and State funds required to obtain these Federal funds. For fiscal years 1992-96, mandatory child care funds were for individuals who received cash welfare (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), in transition from cash welfare, or ``at risk'' of cash welfare receipt. For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, mandatory funds were those provided under section 418 of the Social Security Act and transferred to the CCDF, as well as State funds expended either as the maintenance-of-effort (MOE) or State match for CCDF matching funds. NA--Not applicable. Note.--All figures reflect expenditures made in the year indicated, as opposed to expenditures made only from a given year's appropriation. The Federal share of fiscal year 1992-96 mandatory funds from the program for those ``at risk'' of welfare might be overstated, as it reflects expenditures reported by the States multiplied by the Medicaid matching rate. For some States, this computed Federal share might be greater than the cap on Federal funding for the State under the ``at risk'' program. Source: Congressional Research Service based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. TABLE 9-27.--FEDERAL MANDATORY CHILD CARE EXPENDITURES, BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1992-98 [In thousands of dollars] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percentage change State 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 ----------------- 1992-98 1996-98 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama............................................... $12,100 $15,147 $17,480 $17,626 $17,734 $27,539 $28,847 138 63 Alaska................................................ 3,242 2,740 3,096 3,983 3,599 5,063 6,468 100 80 Arizona............................................... 15,730 13,876 16,591 20,998 24,993 31,034 32,258 105 29 Arkansas.............................................. 2,073 3,668 3,867 5,300 4,009 3,938 17,326 736 332 California............................................ 98,097 47,592 111,360 90,347 97,454 101,077 212,855 117 118 Colorado.............................................. 8,432 10,339 9,653 10,498 10,486 11,926 23,275 176 122 Connecticut........................................... 9,816 10,893 15,206 18,738 25,122 27,298 28,676 192 14 Delaware.............................................. 2,811 3,620 4,226 5,292 5,217 6,718 6,807 142 30 District of Columbia.................................. 3,730 3,769 3,730 4,721 4,455 5,703 6,823 83 53 Florida............................................... 40,379 37,581 40,848 48,743 54,008 62,220 102,098 153 89 Georgia............................................... 26,000 31,520 37,081 39,088 49,040 40,876 65,599 152 34 Hawaii................................................ 1,097 1,309 3,211 5,221 4,562 8,406 8,924 714 96 Idaho................................................. 1,768 2,857 3,136 3,062 2,357 3,809 5,689 222 141 Illinois.............................................. 18,689 29,156 35,860 60,275 78,690 92,635 95,625 412 22 Indiana............................................... 3,903 9,604 21,298 28,640 29,777 32,515 43,371 1011 46 Iowa.................................................. 7,099 5,860 6,693 9,219 7,089 11,182 19,622 176 177 Kansas................................................ 12,113 9,265 11,497 10,044 11,632 15,598 18,007 49 55 Kentucky.............................................. 13,153 16,101 17,293 17,230 17,490 22,112 32,584 148 86 Louisiana............................................. 6,912 9,705 11,492 14,539 13,895 15,058 29,498 327 112 Maine................................................. 980 2,725 3,137 3,036 3,456 6,015 6,897 604 100 Maryland.............................................. 18,326 22,126 25,141 24,367 23,575 26,356 46,759 155 98 Massachusetts......................................... 29,688 34,745 39,730 46,798 52,211 60,350 62,620 111 20 Michigan.............................................. 15,527 29,589 23,702 32,082 30,340 38,803 65,828 324 117 Minnesota............................................. 16,589 19,301 21,934 23,368 26,089 28,796 33,639 103 29 Mississippi........................................... 2,909 3,800 4,689 6,682 6,787 4,892 19,032 554 180 Missouri.............................................. 15,491 19,764 21,560 25,390 26,805 37,505 42,753 176 59 Montana............................................... 2,109 2,023 2,972 3,191 3,451 2,968 8,476 302 146 Nebraska.............................................. 9,863 10,402 11,653 10,072 8,786 15,878 15,822 60 80 Nevada................................................ 1,823 2,975 2,489 2,873 3,122 2,897 7,375 305 136 New Hampshire......................................... 3,828 3,961 4,407 5,139 4,387 7,900 8,383 119 91 New Jersey............................................ 25,997 26,331 31,253 40,031 49,494 51,121 39,311 51 -21 New Mexico............................................ 3,777 6,900 10,170 4,174 9,174 13,916 14,342 280 56 New York.............................................. 67,010 76,568 65,787 108,871 71,877 69,409 173,957 160 142 North Carolina........................................ 28,838 48,070 62,072 71,708 63,320 84,934 95,048 230 50 North Dakota.......................................... 1,941 2,665 2,506 2,188 1,895 1,531 5,288 173 179 Ohio.................................................. 38,649 55,079 53,159 71,195 66,526 95,211 109,039 182 64 Oklahoma.............................................. 22,068 20,869 22,132 25,638 26,638 33,905 35,324 60 33 Oregon................................................ 13,591 13,141 19,065 20,288 26,515 27,598 28,981 113 9 Pennsylvania.......................................... 41,419 37,667 45,351 55,355 55,822 76,285 82,810 100 48 Rhode Island.......................................... 4,273 4,707 5,773 6,695 6,856 8,884 9,794 129 43 South Carolina........................................ 6,543 8,195 5,893 9,967 12,457 16,796 22,509 244 81 South Dakota.......................................... 1,318 1,607 1,713 1,753 1,742 3,125 4,781 263 174 Tennessee............................................. 14,207 21,135 33,972 39,566 43,192 51,259 53,621 277 24 Texas................................................. 50,258 62,222 59,880 63,995 72,750 64,857 121,168 141 67 Utah.................................................. 8,928 12,467 12,998 13,019 14,450 19,428 20,605 131 43 Vermont............................................... 2,589 3,003 4,386 3,737 3,841 5,667 5,687 120 48 Virginia.............................................. 16,032 17,272 17,002 21,364 18,716 34,148 30,333 89 62 Washington............................................ 25,180 29,219 36,459 41,948 43,218 52,091 63,917 154 48 West Virginia......................................... 3,233 6,807 8,904 8,834 9,837 12,973 13,561 319 38 Wisconsin............................................. 18,656 17,085 18,572 25,715 28,995 35,850 42,977 130 48 Wyoming............................................... 2,507 2,567 2,815 2,631 2,277 2,851 3,431 37 51 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total........................................... 801,289 889,592 1,054,893 1,235,233 1,280,212 1,518,905 2,078,421 159 62 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note.--All figures reflect expenditures made in the year indicated, as opposed to expenditures made only from a given year's appropriation. Mandatory funds are Federal funds provided under title IV-A of the Social Security Act and State funds required to obtain these Federal funds. For fiscal years 1992-96, mandatory child care funds are for individuals who received cash welfare (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), in transition from cash welfare, or ``at risk'' of cash welfare receipt. For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, mandatory funds are those provided under section 418 of the Social Security Act and transferred to the CCDF. The Federal share of fiscal year 1992-96, mandatory funds from the program for those ``at risk'' of welfare might be overstated, as it reflects expenditures reported by the States multiplied by the Medicaid matching rate. For some States, this computed Federal share might be greater than the cap on Federal funding for the State under the ``at risk'' program. Source: Congressional Research Service based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. TABLE 9-28.--TOTAL CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND AND PREDECESSOR PROGRAM EXPENDITURES, BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1992-98 [In thousands of dollars] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percentage change State 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 ------------------- 1992-98 1996-98 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama......................................... $29,490 $37,892 $39,133 $45,166 $46,612 $52,411 $60,689 106 30 Alaska.......................................... 5,161 6,851 6,624 9,183 6,525 13,123 16,660 223 155 Arizona......................................... 27,055 33,404 38,600 44,690 51,305 61,200 81,923 203 60 Arkansas........................................ 7,918 13,441 12,888 12,720 16,436 16,370 23,333 195 42 California...................................... 134,248 131,165 265,531 250,940 286,913 368,789 586,143 337 104 Colorado........................................ 13,518 22,480 29,810 29,043 23,342 32,909 45,449 236 95 Connecticut..................................... 19,683 24,041 26,068 46,096 55,540 58,668 71,601 264 29 Delaware........................................ 5,957 7,914 9,505 11,570 11,396 17,487 24,409 310 114 District of Columbia............................ 7,940 8,479 8,852 10,204 10,021 13,604 20,154 154 101 Florida......................................... 82,247 92,867 97,543 118,142 136,035 157,347 222,576 171 64 Georgia......................................... 53,234 70,596 82,240 88,069 101,717 131,264 162,139 205 59 Hawaii.......................................... 1,311 5,016 7,768 11,540 10,399 20,335 30,770 2247 196 Idaho........................................... 3,976 6,631 11,780 5,552 5,535 9,127 16,022 303 189 Illinois........................................ 40,401 73,846 91,971 148,557 178,373 236,029 300,808 645 69 Indiana......................................... 6,071 26,100 47,329 60,247 63,782 78,288 96,576 1491 51 Iowa............................................ 14,645 15,797 14,794 20,845 19,830 20,130 49,489 238 150 Kansas.......................................... 23,632 21,006 25,763 23,022 25,370 35,108 45,693 93 80 Kentucky........................................ 21,417 40,950 38,150 39,877 41,912 51,609 83,939 292 100 Louisiana....................................... 13,035 31,726 33,840 38,756 40,111 47,367 62,341 378 55 Maine........................................... 2,928 8,179 6,856 4,925 11,444 15,436 10,847 270 -5 Maryland........................................ 37,864 47,157 55,672 54,799 53,032 58,365 104,766 177 98 Massachusetts................................... 63,113 74,331 85,598 87,370 110,469 243,113 216,503 243 96 Michigan........................................ 48,892 69,409 54,593 78,554 56,481 122,046 295,723 505 424 Minnesota....................................... 30,959 40,306 46,784 52,321 57,896 69,637 87,929 184 52 Mississippi..................................... 7,699 5,597 36,326 11,062 17,399 48,388 32,494 322 87 Missouri........................................ 32,786 44,233 48,520 55,428 58,917 79,879 89,283 172 52 Montana......................................... 4,670 5,570 6,982 6,794 7,952 8,272 14,114 202 77 Nebraska........................................ 17,485 15,861 27,212 20,324 18,014 27,170 40,892 134 127 Nevada.......................................... 4,018 6,386 5,874 8,055 7,273 13,020 18,020 348 148 New Hampshire................................... 7,725 8,481 7,553 12,335 9,787 16,177 17,988 133 84 New Jersey...................................... 46,865 41,713 63,979 97,526 98,877 105,672 93,805 100 -5 New Mexico...................................... 8,529 17,394 22,219 13,956 20,709 29,483 38,875 356 88 New York........................................ 117,129 174,006 167,235 236,714 180,514 236,240 393,261 236 118 North Carolina.................................. 40,988 88,657 137,160 132,261 95,981 169,501 224,494 448 134 North Dakota.................................... 4,267 5,932 5,502 5,014 3,753 5,130 9,040 112 141 Ohio............................................ 72,069 108,544 115,799 132,215 136,752 191,298 198,768 176 45 Oklahoma........................................ 38,415 41,169 44,756 48,920 51,198 57,553 71,542 86 40 Oregon.......................................... 18,814 32,011 37,885 39,559 49,598 53,278 56,280 199 13 Pennsylvania.................................... 59,809 85,238 101,849 123,618 128,740 183,408 179,692 200 40 Rhode Island.................................... 8,724 10,374 12,545 13,761 14,368 18,713 25,788 196 79 South Carolina.................................. 9,843 18,060 17,733 29,603 37,000 28,466 66,987 581 81 South Dakota.................................... 2,925 4,458 5,408 5,647 2,512 6,327 10,676 265 325 Tennessee....................................... 26,030 45,040 66,777 76,320 80,708 107,875 136,666 425 69 Texas........................................... 116,364 158,555 159,691 181,988 182,971 217,999 274,659 136 50 Utah............................................ 17,307 16,858 29,960 24,758 28,700 28,414 39,635 129 38 Vermont......................................... 5,046 5,918 8,396 10,052 10,040 15,508 17,484 246 74 Virginia........................................ 29,825 48,681 36,430 48,874 50,583 85,645 87,823 194 74 Washington...................................... 49,744 61,173 76,153 89,337 94,775 116,631 172,423 247 82 West Virginia................................... 7,678 14,614 17,351 17,088 15,176 24,062 35,704 365 135 Wisconsin....................................... 29,996 42,683 40,341 52,990 59,441 76,883 124,609 315 110 Wyoming......................................... 3,874 5,067 5,178 5,853 5,627 5,735 8,102 109 44 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total..................................... 1,483,319 2,021,857 2,442,504 2,792,241 2,887,844 3,886,488 5,195,584 250 80 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note.--All figures reflect expenditures made in the year indicated, as opposed to expenditures made only from a given year's appropriation. Discretionary funds are from appropriations and are authorized under the Child Care and Development Block Grant of 1990. For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, discretionary funds include those expenditures financed through transfers from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant. Mandatory funds are Federal funds provided under title IV-A of the Social Security Act and State funds required to obtain these Federal funds. For 1992-96, mandatory child care funds are for individuals who received cash welfare (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), in transition from cash welfare, or ``at risk'' of cash welfare receipt. For 1997 and 1998 mandatory funds are those provided under section 418 of the Social Security Act and transferred to the CCDF, as well as State funds expended either as the maintenance-of-effort or State match for CCDF matching funds. The Federal share of fiscal year 1992-96 mandatory funds from the program for those ``at risk'' of welfare might be overstated, as it reflects expenditures reported by the States multiplied by the Medicaid matching rate. For some States, this computed Federal share might be greater than the cap on Federal funding for the State under the ``at risk'' program. Source: Congressional Research Service based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. TABLE 9-29.--FISCAL YEAR 1998 CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND EXPENDITURES [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal State Mandatory share of share of Maintenance State Discretionary block matching matching of effort Total grant fund fund (MOE) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama................................. $19,455 $16,442 $12,405 $5,490 $6,896 $60,689 Alaska.................................. 4,613 3,545 2,924 2,034 3,545 16,660 Arizona................................. 33,075 19,827 12,431 6,557 10,033 81,923 Arkansas................................ 0 6,091 11,234 4,077 1,931 23,333 California.............................. 174,693 95,050 117,805 113,001 85,593 586,143 Colorado................................ 346 9,295 13,980 12,842 8,986 45,449 Connecticut............................. 6,739 18,738 9,937 9,937 26,249 71,601 Delaware................................ 1,671 4,642 2,166 2,166 13,765 24,409 District of Columbia.................... 7,687 4,609 2,213 1,077 4,567 20,154 Florida................................. 40,323 43,027 59,071 46,739 33,416 222,576 Georgia................................. 55,988 41,765 23,835 15,341 25,210 162,139 Hawaii.................................. 13,060 5,110 3,814 3,814 4,972 30,770 Idaho................................... 7,925 2,868 2,821 1,233 1,176 16,022 Illinois................................ 37,777 56,874 38,752 38,752 128,655 300,808 Indiana................................. 26,587 25,451 17,920 11,261 15,357 96,576 Iowa.................................... 8,048 8,508 11,114 6,461 15,357 49,489 Kansas.................................. 15,341 9,708 8,299 5,600 6,745 45,693 Kentucky................................ 37,613 17,370 15,214 6,467 7,275 83,939 Louisiana............................... 21,526 13,865 15,634 6,097 5,219 62,341 Maine................................... 189 3,019 3,878 2,011 1,750 10,847 Maryland................................ 11,248 23,301 23,457 23,457 23,301 104,766 Massachusetts........................... 91,263 44,973 17,647 17,647 44,973 216,503 Michigan................................ 178,334 32,082 33,746 27,150 24,411 295,723 Minnesota............................... 21,482 19,398 14,241 13,118 19,690 87,929 Mississippi............................. 8,183 7,220 11,813 3,409 1,870 32,494 Missouri................................ 18,230 24,669 18,084 11,751 16,549 89,283 Montana................................. 2,999 5,296 3,180 1,324 1,314 14,114 Nebraska................................ 11,045 10,595 5,227 3,318 10,707 40,892 Nevada.................................. 3,269 2,580 4,795 4,795 2,580 18,020 New Hampshire........................... 1,222 4,582 3,801 3,801 4,582 17,988 New Jersey.............................. 15,184 26,374 12,937 12,937 26,374 93,805 New Mexico.............................. 19,362 8,308 6,035 2,276 2,895 38,875 New York................................ 26,398 83,035 90,922 90,922 101,984 393,261 North Carolina.......................... 50,816 72,571 22,477 13,150 65,480 224,494 North Dakota............................ 1,758 2,988 2,299 977 1,017 9,040 Ohio.................................... 19,758 74,918 34,122 24,567 45,404 198,768 Oklahoma................................ 21,233 24,910 10,414 4,355 10,630 71,542 Oregon.................................. 9,519 19,309 9,672 6,065 11,715 56,280 Pennsylvania............................ 26,125 55,173 27,637 24,128 46,629 179,692 Rhode Island............................ 2,240 6,909 2,885 2,541 11,212 25,788 South Carolina.......................... 35,063 9,867 12,641 5,331 4,085 66,987 South Dakota............................ 3,635 1,711 3,070 1,457 803 10,676 Tennessee............................... 54,863 37,702 15,919 9,206 18,976 136,666 Texas................................... 92,050 76,595 44,573 26,759 34,681 274,659 Utah.................................... 11,527 12,592 8,014 3,027 4,475 39,635 Vermont................................. 8,070 3,945 1,743 1,060 2,666 17,484 Virginia................................ 27,433 21,329 9,004 8,728 21,329 87,823 Washington.............................. 44,768 41,883 22,034 20,248 43,490 172,423 West Virginia........................... 17,444 8,727 4,834 1,728 2,971 35,704 Wisconsin............................... 53,713 26,579 16,398 11,471 16,449 124,609 Wyoming................................. 2,340 2,108 1,323 777 1,554 8,102 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Total............................. 1,403,230 1,198,031 880,391 682,439 1,031,494 5,195,584 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note.--All figures reflect expenditures made in fiscal year 1998, as opposed to expenditures made only from the fiscal year 1998 appropriation. Source: Congressional Research Service based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. TABLE 9-30.--CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND--STATE ALLOCATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 1999 [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Child care entitlement State ------------------------ CCDBG Mandatory Matching discretionary ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alabama.......................... $16,442 $14,250 $20,585 Alaska........................... 3,545 2,548 2,103 Arizona.......................... 19,827 17,599 20,529 Arkansas......................... 5,300 8,748 12,073 California....................... 85,593 125,636 121,446 Colorado......................... 10,174 13,578 10,761 Connecticut...................... 18,738 10,909 7,192 Delaware......................... 5,179 2,415 1,960 District of Columbia............. 4,567 1,552 1,888 Florida.......................... 43,027 47,400 51,390 Georgia.......................... 36,548 26,963 32,685 Hawaii........................... 4,972 4,171 3,940 Idaho............................ 2,868 4,548 5,263 Illinois......................... 56,874 43,250 37,520 Indiana.......................... 26,182 19,900 18,189 Iowa............................. 8,508 9,386 9,248 Kansas........................... 9,812 9,042 8,916 Kentucky......................... 16,702 12,630 17,830 Louisiana........................ 13,865 15,605 25,619 Maine............................ 3,019 3,860 3,870 Maryland......................... 23,301 17,397 13,201 Massachusetts.................... 44,973 19,988 13,674 Michigan......................... 32,082 33,425 28,187 Minnesota........................ 23,368 16,446 13,348 Mississippi...................... 6,293 9,888 16,954 Missouri......................... 24,669 18,624 18,448 Montana.......................... 3,191 2,925 3,156 Nebraska......................... 10,595 5,811 5,659 Nevada........................... 2,580 6,136 4,741 New Hampshire.................... 4,582 3,962 2,478 New Jersey....................... 26,374 27,404 18,739 New Mexico....................... 8,308 6,647 9,410 New York......................... 101,984 63,144 56,936 North Carolina................... 69,639 25,539 28,290 North Dakota..................... 2,506 2,115 2,302 Ohio............................. 70,125 37,712 33,633 Oklahoma......................... 24,910 11,485 15,151 Oregon........................... 19,409 10,700 10,088 Pennsylvania..................... 55,337 38,181 32,313 Rhode Island..................... 6,634 3,172 2,601 South Carolina................... 9,867 12,796 17,999 South Dakota..................... 1,711 2,544 3,162 Tennessee........................ 37,702 17,738 20,442 Texas............................ 59,844 75,736 94,329 Utah............................. 12,592 9,082 9,767 Vermont.......................... 3,945 1,902 1,684 Virginia......................... 21,329 22,317 19,414 Washington....................... 41,883 19,418 16,431 West Virginia.................... 8,727 5,264 7,618 Wisconsin........................ 24,511 17,577 14,810 Wyoming.......................... 2,815 1,652 1,667 -------------------------------------- Subtotal.................. 1,177,525 940,718 949,640 ====================================== Tribes........................... 43,340 NA 19,995 -------------------------------------- Total States/territories/ 1,220,865 NA 997,501 tribes.................... ====================================== Technical assistance............. 5,355 NA 2,473 -------------------------------------- Total resources............ 1,226,220 940,718 999,974 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NA--Not applicable. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. REFERENCES Adams, G., & Schulman, K. (1998). Child care challenges. Washington, DC: Children's Defense Fund. Burchinal, M.R., Campbell, F.A., Bryant, D.M., Wasik, B.H., & Ramey, C.T. (1997). Early intervention and mediating processes in cognitive performance of children of low- income African-American families. Child Development, 68, 935-54. Campbell, F.A. (1999, April 16). Long-term outcomes from the Abecedarian study. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM. Campbell, F.A., & Ramey, C.T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for high-risk African-American students at middle adolescence: Positive effects of early intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 743-72. Capizzano, J., & Adams, G. (2000a). The hours that children under five spend in child care: Variation across States (No. B-8). Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Capizzano, J., & Adams, G. (2000b). The number of child care arrangements used by children under five: Variation across States (No. B-12). Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Capizzano, J., Adams, G., & Sonenstein, F. (2000). Child care arrangements for children under five: Variation across States (No. B-7). Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Casper, L.M., Hawkins, M., & O'Connell, M. (1994). Who's minding the kids? Current Population Reports (Series P70-36). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Casper, L., & O'Connell, M. (1998). State estimates of organized child care facilities (Population Division Working Paper No. 21). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Center for the Child Care Workforce. (1999, March). Current data on child care salaries and benefits in the United States. Washington, DC: Author. Children's Foundation. (1999). The 1999 family child care licensing study. Washington, DC: Author. Children's Foundation. (2000). 2000 Child care center licensing study. Washington, DC: Author. Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team. (1995). Cost, quality, and child outcomes in child care centers, Public Report. Denver: Economics Department, University of Colorado-Denver. Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team. (1999). The children of the cost, quality, and outcomes study go to school--executive summary. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center. Forman, M.R. (1994, October 20). Federal funding for child care (Memorandum to the House Committee on Ways and Means). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S., & Shirr, M. (1994). The study of children in family child care and relative care. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute. Karoly, L.A., Greenwood, P.W., Everingham, S.S., Hoube, J., Kilburn, M.R., Rydell, C.P., Sanders, M., & Chiesa, J. (1998). Investing in our children: What we know and don't know about the costs and benefits of early childhood interventions. Washington, DC: RAND. Kisker, E.E., Hofferth, S.L., Phillips, D.A., & Farquhar, E. (1991). A profile of child care settings: Early education and care in 1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. (1999, July). Child outcomes: When child care center classes meet recommended standards of quality. American Journal of Public Health, 89(7), 1072-77. Polivka, A.E., & Rothgeb, J.M. (1993). Redesigning the CPS questionnaire. Monthly Labor Review, 116(9), 10-28. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1994). Early childhood programs: Multiple programs and overlapping target groups (HEHS-95-4FS). Washington, DC: Author. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Welfare reform: Implications of increased work participation for child care (HEHS-97-75). Washington, DC: Author. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998a). Child care: Federal funding for fiscal year 1997 (HEHS-98-70R). Washington, DC: Author. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998b). Welfare reform: States' efforts to expand child care programs (HEHS- 98-27). Washington, DC: Author. Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (1998). Worthy work, unlivable wages: The national child care staffing study, 1988-97. Washington, DC: Center for the Child Care Workforce.