Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that … › fulltext › ED458966.pdfcenter-based care,...

ED 458 966

AUTHOR

TITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

REPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPEEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

PS 029 926

Tout, Kathryn; Zaslow, Martha; Papillo, Angela Romano;Vandivere, SharonEarly Care and Education: Work Support for Families andDevelopmental Opportunity for Young Children. OccasionalPaper. Assessing the New Federalism: An Urban InstituteProgram To Assess Changing Social Policies.Urban Inst., Washington, DC.; Child Trends, Inc.,Washington, DC.Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, MD.; KelloggFoundation, Battle Creek, MI.; Robert Wood JohnsonFoundation, Princeton, NJ.; Henry J. Kaiser FamilyFoundation, Menlo Park, CA.; Ford Foundation, New York, NY.;David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Los Altos, CA.; John D.and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Chicago, IL.; Mott(C.S.) Foundation, Flint, MI.; McKnight Foundation,Minneapolis, MN.; Commonwealth Fund, New York, NY.; WeingartFoundation, Los Angeles, CA.; Lynde and Harry BradleyFoundation, Milwaukee, WI.; Joyce Foundation, Chicago, IL.;Rockefeller Foundation, New York, NY.; Fund for New Jersey,East Orange.OP-512001-09-0041p.; Also funded by the Stuart Foundation.The Urban Institute, 2100 M Street, NW, Washington, DC20037. Tel: 202-833-7200; Fax: 202-429-0687; e-mail:[email protected]. For full text: http://www.urban.org.Reports Research (143)MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.Age Differences; Comparative Analysis; *Day Care; *EarlyChildhood Education; Employed Parents; Family Day Care;Family Income; *Family Work Relationship; National Surveys;*Young ChildrenNational Survey of Americas Families

This paper uses the 1997 National Survey of America'sFamilies to examine child care patterns for young children in the UnitedStates. The paper examines three general features of children's early careand education participation: (1) primary care arrangements, classified ascenter-based care, family child care, relative care, nanny or babysitter, andparent-only; (2) number of hours in nonparental care; and (3) number ofnonparental arrangements children participate in on a regular basis eachweek, and the percentage of children using two or more such arrangements.Major findings indicate that more than two-thirds of children who are underage 5 and not in school experience nonparental care. Primary care providersshift from parents and relatives to center-based care as children get older.The time spent in nonparental care increases with child's age. Children aremore likely to be in two or more nonparental arrangements as they near schoolentry. Income and parental employment are interrelated factors associatedwith patterns of early care and education. Tables with basic demographicinformation about the children and responding parents in the national surveysample are appended. (Contains 12 references.) (KB)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the ori inal document.

NA

111

I /

e

ANi

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND0.

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HASIIP CENTER (ERIC) BEEN GRANTED BY

This document has been reproduced aseceived from the person or organization

originating it j. v0 Wv\. Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI positior or policy

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

_ BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Early Care andEducation: WorkSupport forFamilies andDevelopmentalOpportunity forYoung Children

Kathryn ToutMartha ZaslowAngela Romano PapilloSharon VandivereChild Trends

I V

"=Assessingthe NewFederalism

III

An Urban InstituteProgram to AssessChanging Social Policies

3

The Urban Institute2100 M Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20037Phone: 202.833.7200Fax: 202.429.0687E-Mail: [email protected]://www.urban.org

Copyright © September 2001. The Urban Institutc. All rights reserved. Exccpt for short quotes, no part of thisbook may be rcproduccd in any form or utilizcd in any form by any means, cicctronic or mechanical, includingphotocopying, recording, or by information storage or rctricval system, without written permission from theUrban Institutc.

This paper is part of thc Urban Institutc's Assessing the New Federalism projcct, a multiyear projcct to monitorand assess the devolution of social programs from thc fcdcral to thc statc and local levels. Alan Wcil is thc pro-jcct director. Thc project analyzcs changes in income support, social scrviccs, and health programs. In collabo-ration with Child Trcnds, thc projcct studics child and family well-being.

Thc paper has received funding from Thc Annic E. Cascy Foundation, thc W. K. Kellogg Foundation, TheRobert Wood Johnson Foundation, The Hcnry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Thc Ford Foundation, Thc Davidand Lucilc Packard Foundation, Thc John D. and Cathcrinc T. MacArthur Foundation, the Charles StcwartMott Foundation, Thc McKnight Foundation, Thc Commonwealth Fund, thc Stuart Foundation, the WcingartFoundation, Thc Fund for New Jersey, The Lyn& and Harry Bradley Foundation, thc Joyce Foundation, andThc Rockefeller Foundation.

Thc nonpartisan Urban Institutc publishes studies, reports, and books on timcly topics worthy of public consid-cration. Thc vicws cxprcsscd arc thosc of the authors and should not bc attributed to thc Urban Institutc, itstrustees, or its hinders.

Thc authors would like to thank Gina Adams, Jeffrey Capizzano, Jennifer Ehrlc, Sandy Hofferth, Alctha Hus-ton, Nancy Gcyclin Margie, Kristin Moorc, Stcfanic Schmidt, Kristin Smith, Frcya Sonenstein, and Matt Stag-ner for rcvicwing carlicr drafts of this paper and providing helpful commcnts.

4

About the Series

Assessing the New Federalism is a multiyear Urban Institute projectdesigned to analyze the devolution of responsibility for social programsfrom the federal government to the states, focusing primarily on healthcare, income security, employment and training programs, and social ser-

vices. Researchers monitor program changes and fiscal developments. In collaborationwith Child Trends, the project studies changes in family well-being. The project aimsto provide timely, nonpartisan information to inform public debate and to help stateand local decisionmakers carry out their new responsibilities more effectively.

Key components of the project include a household survey, studies of policies in 13states, and a database with information on all states and the District of Columbia,available at the Urban Institute's Web site (http://www.urban.org). This paper isone in a series of occasional papers analyzing information from these and othersources.

5

Contents

Executive Summary vii

Introduction 1

Paper Organization 2

Early Care and Education for All Children Age Five and Under and Not in School 3

Patterns of Early Care and Education for Children of Different Ages 5

Primary Arrangements 5

Hours in Nonparental Care 7Number of Nonparental Arrangements 8Summary of Age Changes in Nonparental Care 9

Patterns of Early Care and Education by Employment and Income 9Employment, Income, and Primary Arrangements for Infants and Toddlers 10Employment, Income, and Primary Arrangements for Three- to Five-

Year Olds 11Employment, Income, and the Hours of Nonparental Care 12Employment, Income, and the Number of Nonparental Arrangements 13Special Focus: Work Related Activities of Nonemployed Responding Parents 15Summary of Employment and Income Patterns 16

Conclusion 16

AppendixTables 19

Notes 24

References 26

About the Authors 27

Executive Summary

By the time they enter kindergarten, most children have already had experiences witha variety of nonparental caregivers in either home-based or center-based child caresettings (Hofferth et al. 1998). Children's use of and experiences in early care andeducation are influenced by a variety of interrelated family and community factors,including the quality and availability of care. Certainly, income and aspects ofparental employment play key roles in child care patterns. In addition to serving as asupport for parental employment, however, parents, even when they are notemployed, may enroll children in nonparental care arrangements. For example, par-ents may use such arrangements to pursue education or search for work (activitiesthat still may be seen as supports for parental employment), but they may also usesuch arrangements in an effort to enhance children's positive development andschool readiness. Indeed, research confirms that participation in early care and edu-cation settings is associated with enhanced cognitive and language development, andemerging literacy (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 2000; Zill et al.1995).

The results presented in this paper show that children are more likely to partici-pate in nonparental care settings when their responding parent (the person whoresponded to the survey as the adult most knowledgeable about the child) isemployed. However, even when their responding parent is not employed, between44 and 57 percent of young children (and even higher percentages when three- tofive-year olds are examined separately) participate in nonparental care settings,depending on family income. These results highlight the dual role that early care andeducation serves in the lives of children and familiesboth as a support for parentalemployment and, especially for children age three and older, as an opportunity toparticipate in settings with social and educational resources that can prepare them forschool. The results also underscore patterns of child care use that differ according tofamily resources, with children from higher-income familiesregardless of theirresponding parent's employment statusmore likely to use center-based care.

Data and Methods

This report uses data from the 1997 National Survey of America's Families (NSAF)to investigate how young children's experiences in early care and education differacross age groups and across families with different needs for nonparental care andresources to pay for care. The work described here extends previous child carereports in the Assessing the New Federalism series by examining patterns of early careand education for all children age five and under and not yet in school, irrespectiveof their parents' employment status.

IITHE URBANINSTITUTE

EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION: WORK SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

7

This paper describes three aspects of early care and education: the type of careused, the hours spent in care, and the number of nonparental arrangements used.Five types of care are examined: center-based care, relative care, family child care(care by a nonrelative in the provider's home), nannies/babysitters, and parent-onlycare. In general, this paper focuses on the primary arrangementthe arrangementwhere a child spends the most hours per weekbut also explores whether a child isin any arrangement (regardless of how many hours are spent there per week). Toexamine the extent of nonparental care, the paper gives a breakdown of both theaverage hours spent in nonparental care and the percentages of children in full-timenonparental care (35 or more hours per week). Finally, to explore the complexity ofchildren's nonparental care arrangements, the paper describes the percentages ofchildren using two or more arrangements. This paper also explores how these char-acteristics of early care and education vary by children's ages and by patterns of fam-ily income and parental employment.

The data presented provide important information about how nonparental careis used by young children in the years before they enter school. The data do not,however, reveal the preferences families have about early care and education or theconstraints that families face when they choose particular types of arrangements, norare data available on the quality of the settings described here.

Findings

More than two-thirds of all children age five and under and not yet in school experiencenonparental care.

For young children not yet in school, center-based care is the most common pri-mary nonparental arrangement (used by 30 percent of children), followed by rel-ative care (22 percent), family child care (11 percent), and nannies/babysitters(6 percent).

On average, children who participate in a nonparental arrangement spend 28hours per week across all nonparental arrangements.

Less than one-third of all children not yet in school (28 percent) are in non-parental care full-time (35 or more hours per week).

Almost 40 percent of children in nonparental care use two or more child carearrangements.

In the years before they enter school, children's primary care providers shift fromparents and relatives to center-based care.

Children under age three are less likely than older preschool-age children to bein nonparental care and, when they are, relatives are most often chosen as the pri-mary caretakers. Relatives care for 29 percent of children age one and under, and21 percent of two-year-olds.

"--=Assessingthe NewFederalism

...VIII

/EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION: WORK SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

V

By age three and continuing through age five, children experience a significantincrease in their use of nonparental care and, in particular, their reliance on cen-ter-based care as a primary arrangement. Nearly one-third of three-year-olds (30percent) are in center-based care as a primary arrangement compared with 21percent of two-year-olds. By the time children reach age five (and are not yet inschool), the percentage in center-based care doubles from the percentage at agethree (61 percent).

Family child care providers, nannies, and babysitters are an important source ofnonparental care for young children in the years before they enter school, thoughthey are used less frequently as a primary arrangement than relatives and center-based care. Through age three, approximately one-fifth of children are cared forby family child care providers, nannies, and babysitters (15 percent of childrenunder age one, 23 percent of one-year-olds, 20 percent of two-year-olds, and 20percent of three-year-olds). This proportion decreases to approximately one-tenth of children for four- (11 percent) and five-year-olds (9 percent) not yet inschool.

Young children spend more time in nonparental care as they get older.

The average hours children spend in nonparental care, calculated across all ofchildren's arrangements (except for those in parent-only care) increases graduallyacross the years before children enter school. For example, among children usingnonparental care, children under age one spend 25 hours per week in care com-pared with 30 hours per week for five-year-olds not yet in school.

The proportion of children using regular full-time care (35 hours or more perweek) also increases gradually across the years before children enter school, withthe most substantial increase seen from children under age one (18 percent) tochildren age one (29 percent). Over one-third (36 percent) of five-year-olds notyet in school are in full-time care.

Children are more likely to be in two or more nonparental arrangements as they nearschool entry.

Slightly more than one of four children under age one (26 percent) in non-parental care use two or more arrangements. The percentage rises to over a thirdof children at age three (37 percent) and rises again to almost half of the childrenat age five (49 percent).

Income and parental employment are interrelated factors associated with patterns ofearly care and education. Even when a parent is not employed, however, many childrenparticipate in a variety of nonparental care arrangements.

Infants and toddlers (children age two and under) are more than twice as likelyto be in nonparental care if their responding parent is employed, regardless ofhousehold income.

I.THE URBANINSTITUTE

EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION: WORK SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG CHILDREN \viil

9

More than one in three infants and toddlers with a responding parent who is notemployed regularly spend time in nonparental care. Relative care is the mostcommonly used nonparental arrangement for these children.

Among three- to five-year-olds not yet in school, participation in nonparentalcare is extensive, even when the child's responding parent is not employed. Threeof four children (74 percent) from higher-income families (defined as income ator above 200 percent of the federal poverty level) with nonemployed respondingparents and 55 percent of children from low-income families (defined as incomebelow 200 percent of the federal poverty level) with nonemployed respondingparents are in regular nonparental care.

Three- to five-year-olds not yet in school from higher-income families are morelikely than children from low-income families to use center-based care as a pri-mary arrangement, regardless of whether the responding parent is employed.

Three- to five-year-old children with employed responding parents are likely tospend more hours per week in nonparental arrangements than children with non-employed responding parents. Nevertheless, children with nonemployedresponding parents and who use nonparental care spend as much as 15 hours (forchildren from higher-income families) and 20 hours (for children from low-income families) per week in nonparental arrangements.

Among children age five and under (and not yet in school) with nonemployedresponding parents, those in low-income families are more likely to haveresponding parents report that they are "looking for work or in school" whiletheir child is in any center-based care and any relative care than are children fromhigher-income families.

'=Assessingthe NewFederalism

\XI/ EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION: WORK SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

1 0

Early Care and Education:Work Support for Families and

Developmental Opportunityfor Young Children

Introduction

By the time they enter kindergarten, most children have already had experiences witha variety of nonparental care in either home-based or center-based child care settings(Hofferth et al. 1998; Smith 2000; West, Denton, and Germino-Hausken 2000).The choice of these caregivers and settings as well as the timing, extent, and purposeof nonparental care experiences reflect complex family circumstances and character-istics. Employment patterns, household income, family composition, children's agesand special needs, and local child care supply conditions and cost are just a few of theinterrelated factors influencing the use of nonparental care. Certainly, income andaspects of parental employment such as job type, schedule, location, wages, and jobstability are key determinants of early care and education patterns for young children.Previous reports in the Assessing the New Federalism (ANF) series have documentedwide family-level and state-level variations in the types and numbers of arrangementsused and the number of hours spent in nonparental care among young children withan employed parent (Capizzano, Adams, and Sonnenstein 2000; Capizzano andAdams 2000 a,b; Ehrle, Adams, and Tout 2000).

In addition to serving as a support for parental employment and employment-related activities, however, parents may enroll children in early care and education inan effort to enhance their children's development and school readiness. Conse-quently, understanding patterns of nonparental care that reflect a broad range offamily needs and choices requires an examination of early care and education for chil-dren from all families, irrespective of parents' employment status.

This paper extends previous ANF child care work to examine patterns of earlycare and education for all children age five and under who have not yet enteredschool. Nationally representative data are used to look broadly across age groups andacross families with different employment patterns (including those with a parentwho is not employed) and levels of household income to examine how child care uti-lization patternsthe types and numbers of nonparental arrangements used and thenumber of hours children spend in nonparental carevary for younger and olderchildren from families with different needs for nonparental care and resources to payfor care. Because of the important role that participation in center-based care canplay in enhancing children's cognitive school readiness (NICHD Child CareResearch Network 2000; Zill et al. 1995), this paper focuses especially on how cen-ter-based care use varies across families with different characteristics. II

MNTHE URBANINSTITUTE


11

Consistent with previous research, the results highlight the prominence of earlycare and education in the lives of young children and families, beginning at birth andbecoming increasingly prevalent as children near school entry (Hofferth et al. 1991).However, the findings also underscore the low rate of center-based care use amongchildren from low-income families, particularly those with a parent who is not work-ing, when compared with rates for children from higher-income families (regardlessof their parents' employment status).

Paper Organization

This paper uses the 1997 National Survey of America's Families (NSAF) to examinechild care patterns for young children in the United States.' According to the NSAF,in 1997 there were approximately 21.7 million children age five and under who hadnot yet entered school.' Information on the children in the NSAF was obtained fromthe parent or adult in the household most knowledgeable about the child's educa-tion and health care. Since this respondent was a parent for 97 percent of the chil-dren, the term "responding parent" is used to refer to this respondent.' Appendixtable 1 contains basic demographic information about the children and respondingparents in this sample.

This paper examines three general features of children's early care and educationparticipation. First, children's primary arrangementthe type of care arrangementwhere they regularly spend the most hours per week4is described.5 Five types ofarrangements are considered:

center-based care, which includes child care centers, Head Start, preschool, andbefore- and after-school programs;6

family child care, which refers to care by a nonrelative in the provider's home;

relative care, which is care by a relative in the relative's or in the child's home;

nanny or babysitter, which refers to care by a nonrelative in the child's home; and

parent-only care, which is assigned when the parent does not report using anynonparental arrangements for the child.'

The second characteristic considered is the hours children spend in care. In par-ticular, for children spending time in nonparental care, the average weekly hoursspent across all care arrangements, including the primary arrangement, are described.The percentages of children who are in full-time care, that is, care for 35 hours perweek or more, are also examined. Both the full-time care and average hours in caremeasures provide an estimate of duration of exposure to nonparental care settings.'

Finally, this paper examines the complexity of nonparental care by focusing onthe number of nonparental arrangements that children participate in on a regularbasis each week and, specifically, on the percentage of children using two or moresuch arrangements.'

A1:21

't.r.Assessingthe NewFederalism

\3/ EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION: WORK SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

12

Findings are presented in three sections.1° The first section examines each of theearly care and education features described above for all children under age five whohave not yet entered school. Next, the findings- are broken down by the age of thechild to provide a picture of how nonparental care patterns change as children getolder and closer to school entry. Finally, to examine how patterns are differentiallyrelated to work and economic resources, patterns of care are described for fourgroups of families (classified by family income and parent's employment status). Theresponding parent's participation in employment-related activities is also examined,particularly among those responding parents who are not employed.

Throughout this paper, it is important to keep in mind that the NSAF data onlyreveal how nonparental care is used. The survey did not ask parents about their pref-erences for care or the constraints they encountered when deciding how to arrangecare for their children. In addition, no data are available on the quality of the settingsdescribed in this report." Thus, the types of experiences children have within theirearly care and education settings cannot be fully understood through these data.Also, the results presented here provide a descriptive profile of the patterns of earlycare and education for young children. Further research incorporating multivariateanalyses is needed to better understand the various factors that are associated withchild care utilization patterns.

Early Care and Education for All Children Age Five andUnder and Not in School

Across all children age five and under and not yet in school, more than two of threechildren (69 percent) use some type of regular nonparental care (appendix table A2).Considering the primary arrangement, that is, the arrangement used for the mosthours each week, center-based care is the most commonly used nonparental arrange-ment (used by 30 percent of all children in this age range and not yet in school), fol-lowed by relative care (22 percent), family child care (11 percent), andnannies/babysitters (6 percent) (figure 1). The percentages in each nonparental carearrangement are slightly different from estimates computed from the 1995 NationalHousehold Education Survey (NHES) (Hofferth et al. 1998), but the rank orderingof primary arrangements is the same.'

Children spend more hours in center-based care and family child care (26 and 28hours, respectively) as primary arrangements than they do in relative care or withnannies/babysitters (20 and 17 hours, respectively). On average, children who havea nonparental arrangement spend 28 hours per week across all nonparental arrange-ments. Less than a third of all children (28 percent) are in nonparental care full-time(35 or more hours per week) (figure 2). Almost 40 percent of children in non-parental care use two or more child care arrangements.

PITHE URBANINSTITUTE

EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION: WORK SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG CHILDREN \.4/

13

Figure 1. Primary Child Care Arrangements of Children Age Five and Younger and Not inSchool (1997)

Nanny/babysitter 6%

Family child care 11%Parent only 31%

Center-based care 30%

Relative 22%

Source: Child Trends calculations from the 1997 National Survey of America's Families.

Figure 2. Hours Spent in Nonparental Care for Children Age Five and Younger and Not inSchool (1997)

35 or more hours 28% No hours in nonparental care 31%

15-34 hours 20%1-14 hours 22%

Source: Child Trends calculations from the 1997 National Survey of America's Families.L=N Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 as a result of rounding.

'..'7Assessingthe NewFederalism


Patterns of Early Care and Education for Children ofDifferent Ages

Children's needs and abilities change dramatically throughout the years before theyenter school. Findings from other national surveys demonstrate that children's par-ticipation in early care and education reflects these developmental changes (Hofferthet al. 1991, 1998). For example, younger children are more likely than older chil-dren to be placed in nonparental care settings involving smaller groups in a home set-tingcare by relatives, family child care providers, and nannies or babysitterswhichmight offer opportunities for frequent and sustained adult-child interactions. Olderchildren more frequently participate in nonparental care settings that are more likelyto provide access to peers and structured activitiespreschool and center-based care.A growing body of research suggests that experiences in such center-based care caninfluence children's development. This research highlights the positive contributionthat participation in preschool and center-based programs can make to children'scognitive and language development (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network2000) and emerging literacy (Zill et al. 1995).

Here, we examine patterns of nonparental care by children's ages to betterunderstand the characteristics of care for younger and older children.'3 In general,the 1997 NSAF findings are consistent with previous research showing substantialincreases in the use of nonparental care as children get older. Across the early years,the use of any regular nonparental care increases from 54 percent for children underage one to 69 percent for three-year-olds to 84 percent for five-year-olds not yet inschool (appendix table A2).

Primary Arrangements

Looking across care arrangements for young children, it is clear that the primarytypes of nonparental care shift substantially as children get older (figure 3). In thevery early years, a substantial percentage of children are cared for only by their par-ents. When they are cared for by others, relatives are the most frequently used pri-mary nonparental arrangement. Just under 30 percent of children age one and underare cared for regularly by relatives. By age two, however, the percentage in relativecare decreases to 21 percent and remains fairly steady, though declining slightly,throughout the years before children enter school. By age five, 14 percent of youngchildren are being cared for regularly by relatives.

In contrast, center care plays a relatively small role in the lives of very young chil-dren, with only 10 percent of children under age one being cared for primarily inthese settings. By age one, the percentage increases substantially to 18 percent, thenremains about the same for children at age two (21 percent). By age three, however,a dramatic shift begins in the use of center-based care as a primary arrangement. Thepercentage using primarily center care jumps to 30 percent of three-year olds, thenincreases again to over half of all four-year-olds (53 percent). By the time childrenare five (and not yet in school), 61 percent are using center-based care as a primary

PINM

THE URBANINSTITUTE

EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION: WORK SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG CHILDREN \../

15

Figure 3. Primary Child Care Arrangements of Children Age Five and Younger andNot in School, by Child's Age (1997)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

6

14 1414

10

1821

3053

61

19

17

46 14

3830 31

19 16

Under Age 1 Age 1 Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 Age 5*

o Nanny/babysitter

OFamily child care (a, d)

Center-based care (a, c, d)

Relative (b)

o Parent only (a, b, c, d)

Source: Child Trends calculations from the 1997 National Survey of America's Families.Note: Based on t-tests, statistically significant differences at p<.05 are noted in the legend (above, right) for the followingcomparisons of estimates: a = children under age 1 and age 1, b = children age 1 and age 2, c = children age 2and age 3,d = children age 3 and age 4, e = children age 4 and age 5.*Children who are age 5 and in school are not included in these estimates.

e.=>

"tr-Assessingthe NewFederalism

arrangement (not a significant increase from age four but a significant increase fromage three).'4

Other nonparental arrangements play a smaller yet significant role in the earlycare and education of young children. Nine percent of children under age one arecared for by family child care providers, while 6 percent are cared for by nannies orbabysitters in the child's home. The percentage of children using family child careproviders increases to 14 percent by age one and remains steady through ages twoand three. By age four, the percentage declines significantly to 7 percent. The per-centage using family child care providers declines again at age five to 5 percent (nota significant difference from the percentage seen at age four but significantly lowerthan the percentage seen at age three). The use of nannies or babysitters does notchange significantly throughout the years before children enter school, with fewerthan one of ten young children using nannies or babysitters as a primary arrangementfor each of the ages examined.

Thus, over the early years, children experience a pronounced shift in their likeli-hood of being in nonparental care and in the primary type of nonparental carearrangements used. Children younger than age three are less likely than older chil-dren to be in nonparental arrangements and, when they are, relatives are most oftenchosen as the primary caretakers. By age three and continuing through age five, how-

\97 EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION: WORK SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

16

ever, children experience a significant increase in their use of nonparental care and,in particular, in the use of center-based arrangements. Children use family child careproviders, nannies, and babysitters as primary nonparental arrangements at a stablebut lower rate than center-based, relative, and parent-only care.

Hours in Nonparental Care

The average number of hours young children spend across all their regular non-parental arrangementsthat is, the primary arrangement plus any other arrange-ments used for fewer hours each weekincreases as children get older (figure 4),particularly when comparing the very youngest to the oldest children in the agerange.15 For example, children under age one spend 25 hours per week in non-parental care compared with 30 hours per week for five-year-olds. This increase inhours, however, is seen very gradually across the age range, such that the differencesbetween each age (for example, hours at age one versus hours at age two, hours atage two versus hours at age three) are not statistically significant (although a furthercomparison of hours reveals that the youngest childrenunder age onespendfewer hours in care than three-, four-, and five-year-olds).

Examining the changes across ages in the percentage of all children in full-timeregular care (35 hours or more per week, again combining across the hours spent in

Figure 4. Average Hours Spent Each Week in Nonparental Arrangements for Children Fiveand Younger and Not in School, by Child's Age (1997)

40

35

30

8 25

20-

15-

10-

5

0

2527

2829*

28 *30*

Under Age 1 Age 1 Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 Age 5**

Source: Child Trends calculations from the 1997 National Survey of America's Families.*Based on t-tests and statistically significant at p<.05, the average hours differ from the average hours for childrenunder age I.**Children who are age 5 and in school are not included in this estimate. I.

THE URBANINSTITUTE


17

7

the primary and all other arrangements) reveals that fewer than one of five childrenunder age one (18 percent) are in full-time care (appendix table A2). By age one,there is a significant increase in the percentage of children in full-time care (29 per-cent). This proportion does not increase significantly across subsequent years. How-ever, comparing the very youngest (under age one) to the oldest in the age range, anincrease in full-time care is seen, as more than one of three (36 percent) five-year-olds not yet in school are in full-time care.

Thus, children spend more time in nonparental care as they get older, both interms of the average hours in nonparental care and in the percentage of children infull-time care. However, the increase is gradual across the years, with the differencesignificant only when contrasting the very youngest children (under age one) withthe oldest (five-year-olds not yet in school) rather than across incremental years.

Number of Nonparental Arrangements

The percentage of children using two or more regular nonparental arrangementsrises steadily with age (see figure 5), with the increase seen most clearly, as above,when contrasting the very youngest and oldest children. Slightly more than one of

Figure 5. Percentage of Children Age Five and Younger and Not in School Using Two orMore Nonparental Arrangements, by Child's Age (1997)

100

90

80

70

7- 6 0

'6 50a>(3)

t 40a)

't.:Assessingthe NewFederalism

30

20

10

0

32

26

38* 37*

45*49**

Under Age 1 Age 1 Age 2 Age 3 Age 4

Source: Child Trends calculations from the 1997 National Survey of America's Families.*Based on t-tests and statistically significant at p<.05, the percentage differs from the percentage for childrenunder age I.**Based on t-tests and statistically significant at p<.05, the percentage differs from the percentages for childrenunder age 1 and children age 3.***Children who are age 5 and in school are not included in this estimate.

Age 5***


18

four children under age one (26 percent) use two or more arrangements; this pro-portion rises to over a third of the children at ages two (38 percent) and three (37percent), and rises again to almost half of the children at age five (49 percent).

Summary of Age Changes in Nonparental Care

Children under age three are cared for primarily by their parents and relativesalthough a smaller but notable percentage use primarily center-based care and fam-ily child care. As children get older, they are more likely to be cared for in center-based care settings than any other type of nonparental care. By age five, among chil-dren not yet in school, a minority are cared for only by parents. Children graduallyspend more hours in nonparental care and, by the time they are ready to enterschool, almost half of five-year-olds spend time in two or more nonparental arrange-ments. These developmental trends are likely a function of many factors, includingparents' concern that children have experiences that will prepare them for school.Other influences may be the accessibility, affordability, and quality of care options forchildren of different ages, as well as the employment status of the responding parentsand the availability of resources to pay for nonparental care. In the next section, wetake a closer look at two related factorsemployment and incomethat may influ-ence children's exposure to and time spent in nonparental arrangements.

Patterns of Early Care and Education by Employmentand Income

Parental employment and household income are two interrelated factors that influ-ence a family's need for and access to nonparental care. Income, in part, affects therange of nonparental care settings and quality that families can afford, and it deter-mines a family's eligibility for child care subsidies. Employment of the respondingparent is associated with the hours and schedule of care used and also directly influ-ences family income. Nevertheless, as will be shown in the following section, manychildren use nonparental care even when their responding parent is not employed,especially from age three to age five. Thus, early care and education has a role in chil-dren's lives beyond its support for parental employment. As will be shown, this roleis shaped, in part, by family income.

In this final set of analyses, employment of the responding parent and householdincome are jointly examined as they relate to children's participation in early care andeducation. The analyses focus on four types of families grouped by their householdincome and the employment status of the responding parent: (I) families with lowincomes (under 200 percent of the federal poverty level [FPL])'6 and a respondingparent who is not employed; (2) families with higher incomes (at or above 200 per-cent of FPL) and a responding parent who is not employed; (3) families with low



19

incomes and a responding parent who is employed; and (4) families with higherincomes and a responding parent who is employed. As shown earlier in this paper, achild's age is related to patterns of early care and education. Thus, separate analyseswill be conducted for infants and toddlers (age two and younger) and older children(age three to age five and not yet in school).17

To preview the findings, the following sections show that nonparental care isused extensively, especially for older children, even when children's responding par-ents are not employed. Among children with nonemployed responding parents,income is strongly related to participation in nonparental care. Higher family incomeis related to a greater likelihood of using any nonparental care, and a greater likeli-hood of being in center-based care. Additionally, when children from low-incomefamilies with a nonernployed responding parent use nonparental care, their respond-ing parent is likely to be looking for work or in school (i.e., engaging in work-relatedactivities). This is much less likely to be the case for children using nonparental carefrom higher-income families with a nonemployed responding parent. The mainpoints in this section are highlighted to assist the reader in following the multiplecomparisons presented.

Employment, Income, and Primary Arrangements for Infants andToddlers(Figure 6, appendix table 3)

Parental employment is strongly related to the likelihood that infants and toddlers willuse nonparental care.

Infants and toddlers from families in which the responding parent is employed aremore than twice as likely to use nonparental care as those from families in which theresponding parent is not employed, regardless of household income.

While fewer infants and toddlers in families with a nonemployed responding parentuse nonparental care, the percentages in care are still substantial.

More than one in three infants and toddlers with nonemployed responding par-ents regularly spend time in nonparental care.

Income is related to the likelihood that infants and toddlers in families with a respond-ing parent who is not employed will use nonparental care.

Infants and toddlers in higher-income families with a nonemployed respondingparent are more likely (46 percent) to use nonparental care than children in low-income families with a nonemployed responding parent (34 percent).

Relative care is the most commonly used primary arrangement for infants and tod-dlers with a responding parent who is not employed.

Both groups of infants and toddlers with a nonemployed responding parent, irre-spective of household income, use relative care (21 percent for both groups) morethan other primary arrangements.

..enN

'"-=Assessingthe NewFederalism

\,101 EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION: WORK SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

Figure 6. Primary Child Care Arrangements of Children Age Two and Younger, byIncome and Responding Parent Employment Status (1997)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

2--11

494

167

195

921

17

21

26

38

66 26

54

2520

Below 200% of FPL and At or Above 200% of FPL Below 200% of FPL At or Above 200% ofNot Employed and Not Employed and Employed FPL and Employed

Source: Child Trends calculations from the 1997 National Survey of America's Families.Note: Statistical comparisons of these estimates are presented in table A3.

FPL = federal poverty level.

0 Nanny/babysitterO Family child care

0 Center-based care

Relative

O Parent only

Employment, Income, and Primary Arrangements for Three- to Five-Yea r-Olds(Figure 7, appendix table A3)

Among three- to five-year-olds, participation in nonparental care is extensive, evenwhen the child's responding parent is not employed.

Three of four children (74 percent) from higher-income families with a respond-ing parent who is not employed regularly use nonparental care. The proportion usingnonparental care is smaller (55 percent) for children from low-income families witha responding parent who is not employed. Both of these percentages for three- to five-year-old children in nonparental care are significantly higher than those seen forinfants and toddlers.

Three- to five-year-old children from higher-income families are more likely than chil-dren from low-income families to use center-based care, regardless of whether thechild's responding parent is employed.

More than half of children from higher-income families use center-based care astheir primary arrangement (55 percent, both for children with a nonemployed and forchildren with an employed responding parent).

111THE URBANINSTITUTE


21

Figure 7. Primary Child Care Arrangements of Children Ages Three to Five andNot in School, by Income and Responding Parent Employment Status(1997)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

.3 5 65

12 13

34

55 43

15 55

2110

4517

2619

9

Below 200% of FPL and At or Above 200 /0 of FPL Below 200% of FPL At o Above 200% ofNot Employed and Not Employed and Employed FPL and Employed

Source: Child Trends calculations from the 1997 National Survey of America's Families.Note: Statistical comparisons of these estimates are presented in table A3.FPL = federal poverty level.Percentages do not sum to 100 as a result of rounding.

erN"."7Assessing

the NewFederalism

Nanny/babysitter

O Family child care

El Center-based care

Relative

O Parent only

Three- to five-year-old children from low-income families with a responding parentwho is not employed are the least likely group of three- to five-year-olds to usecenter-based care as their primary arrangement.

About one in three children (34 percent) from low-income families with a non-employed responding parent use center-based care as a primary care arrangement. Asomewhat higher percentage (43 percent) of children from lower-income familieswith an employed responding parent use center-based care.

Employment, Income, and the Hours of Nonparental Care(Figure 8, appendix table A3)

Employment status of the responding parent is, not surprisingly, strongly associatedwith the average hours children spend in nonparental care.

Infants and toddlers with an employed responding parent spend over twice asmany hours in nonparental care (30 hours for children from low-income families and32 hours for children from higher-income families) as young children with a nonem-ployed responding parent (13 hours for children from low-income families and 13hours for children from higher-income families).

\v12/ EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION: WORK SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

22

A similar pattern exists for three- to five-year-olds. Among three- to five-year-olds with a nonemployed responding parent, however, income is also associated withthe average hours spent in nonparental care. Three- to five-year-olds from a low-income family with a nonemployed responding parent spend 20 hours per week innonparental care, compared with 15 hours per week for children from a higher-income family with a nonemployed responding parent.

Children with an employed responding parent are more likely than other children touse full-time care.

Infants and toddlers with an employed responding parent are much more likelythan children with a nonemployed responding parent to spend 35 or more hours perweek in nonparental care (4 and 5 percent for children from low- and higher-incomefamilies with a nonemployed responding parent versus 36 and 41 percent for childrenfrom low- and higher-income families with an employed responding parent).

Similarly, three- to five-year-old children with an employed responding parent aremore likely to spend 35 or more hours per week in nonparental care (11 and 9 per-cent for children from low- and higher-income families with a nonemployed respond-ing parent vs. 43 and 46 percent for children from low- and higher-income familieswith an employed responding parent).

Employment, Income, and the Number of Nonparental Arrangements(Figure 9, appendix table A3)

Income and employment status are not strongly related to the likelihood that youngchildren will be in two or more nonparental arrangements.

Among infants and toddlers, children from higher-income families are similarlylikely (about one in three) to use two or more arrangements, regardless of theemployment status of their responding parent. About one-quarter of infants and tod-dlers from low-income families with a nonemployed responding parent and 30 per-cent with an employed responding parent (not a statistically significant difference)use two or.more nonparental arrangements.

Three- to five-year-olds from low-income families with a nonernployed respond-.ing parent (34 percent) are less likely than children with an employed respondingparent, regardless of household income (46 percent for children from low-incomefamilies and 47 percent for children from higher-income families), to use two ormore arrangements.

1111

THE URBANINSTITUTE

EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION: WORK SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG CHILDREN \in/

23

crt

Figure 8. Average Hours Spent in Nonparental Care by Children Age Fiveand Younger and Not in School, by Income and Responding Par-ent Employment Status (1997)

50

45

40

35

30

o 25

20

15

10

5

0Below 200% of FPL and At or Above 200% of

Not Employed FPL and Not EmployedBelow 200% of FPL A or Above 200% of

and Employed FPL and Employed

Source: Child Trends calculations from the 1997 National Survey of America's Families.Note: Statistical comparisons of these estimates are presented in table A3.FPL = federal poverty level.*Children who are age 5 and in school are not included in these estimates.

'TZAssessingthe NewFederalism

Figure 9. Percentage of Children Age Five and Younger and Not inSchool Using Two or More Nonparental Arrangements, byIncome and Responding Parent Employment Status (1997)

Below 200% of FPL and At or Above 200% ofNot Employed FPL and Not Employed

Below 200% of FPLand Employed

At o Above 200% ofFPL and Employed

Source: Child Trends calculations from the 1997 National Survey of America's Families.Note: Statistical comparisons of these estimates are presented in table A3.FPL = federal poverty level.*Children who are age 5 and in school are not included in these estimates.

o Child Age 0-2Child Age 3-5*

o Child Age 0-2

Child Age 3-5*


24

Special Focus: Work-Related Activities of Nonemployed Responding Parents

A number of children have rcsponding parents who arc not employed but may be cngaging in work-relatedactivities such as a job search or school.' Parcnts may nccd to find nonparental care for their children dur-ing these activities. In thc 1997 NSAF, 41 percent of thc children age five and undcr who arc not yct inschool have a rcsponding parent who is not employed. In this scction, wc examine the extent to which thcnonemploycd responding parents of these children report that thcy are participating in work-related activ-ities during thc hours their children arc in nonparental care.'

To simplify thc analyses, thc focus is narrowcd to thc two most frequently used nonparental carc arrange-mentscenter-based carc and relative carc for all children agc five and under and not yct in school." Wcexamine the extent to which children using any ccntcr-based carc and relative care (regardless of whcthcrthc carc is uscd for thc most hours cach week) have a rcsponding parcnt cngagcd in work-related activitieswhile they arc in care. Thc purpose of thcsc analyses is to better understand thc complex role that non-parental carc plays in the lives of children and families, particularly among families that arc constrained invarious ways because of thcir income or employment patterns.

Figurc 10 shows that household income is strongly related to participation in work-related activities amongnonemployed rcsponding parents while children are in nonparental carc (appendix table A4). Only 25 per-cent of children from higher-income families using any center-based care had their responding parcntrcport that thcy wcrc engaged in work-rclatcd activities while thcir children wcrc in carc, compared withnearly half (46 percent) of children from low-income families.

Thc patterns for relative carc use for thc children of nonemployed rcsponding parents are similar to thosesccn for center-based carc. Twenty-six percent of children from highcr-incomc families using any relativecare had their rcsponding parent report that thcy were engaged in work-related activities while thcir chil-dren were in care, compared with 42 percent of children from low-income families.

Thus, in somc cascs nonparental care appears to serve as a support for work-related activities, particularlyfor low-income families with a nonemployed responding parcnt." Nevertheless, it is important to highlightthat thc majority of care for children from low-income families with a nonemployed responding parent isuscd while the responding parent is not participating in work-related activities.

Figure 10.

10

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Children with a Responding Parent Reporting That She or He Was "Working,Looking for Work, or in School" While the Child Was in Any Center Care and Any RelativeCare, by Income and Responding Parent Employment Status, 1997*

91 8991

79

42

25 26IIBelow 200% of FPL and

Not EmployedAt or Above 200% of

FPL and Nth EmployedBelow 200% of FPL A or Above 200% of

and Employed FPL and Employed

Source: Child Trends calculations from the 1997 National Survey of Atnerica's Families.Note: Statistical comparisons of these estimates are presented in table A4.*All children age 5 and under and not yet in school are included in these estimates.FPL = federal poverty level.

0 Any center-based care

Any relative care


EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION: WORK SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG CHILDREN \1151

25

Summary of Employment and Income Patterns

Adding the lens of employment and income allows for a more differentiated pictureof the developmental trends in early care and education examined earlier in thispaper. Employment is clearly linked with use of nonparental care and hours spent incare, although it is not the only basis for using such care. Further, family incomemoderates the patterns. The divergences between low- and higher-income familiesare most clear for older children. Three- to five-year-olds from low-income familiesare less likely than those from higher-income families to be in nonparental care, andthey are less likely to use center-based care as a primary arrangement. When theirresponding parent is not employed, children from low-income families are the leastlikely of the four groups of children examined here (low- and higher-income childrenwith employed and nonemployed responding parents) to be in nonparental care and,in particular, center-based care." However, when they are in nonparental care, theyspend about an hour more per day in care (assuming a five-day child care week) thanchildren from higher-income families with a responding parent who is not employed.

A closer look at responding parents' work and work-related activities and theirchildren's use of nonparental care reveals distinct patterns that vary according to fam-ily income. Nonemployed responding parents in low-income families were signifi-cantly more likely than nonemployed parents in higher-income families to report thatthey were engaged in work-related activities while their children were in center-basedcare and relative care. Given that center-based care is more expensive than otherforms of care, it is possible that the greater participation in work-related activitiesamong the low-income nonemployed responding parents is related to participation inwelfare-to-work programs and/or use of child care subsidies that allow familiesgreater access to this more expensive form of nonparental care. Still, only about one-third of three- to five-year-old children of low-income nonemployed responding par-ents use center-based care as a primary arrangement, suggesting that lack of financialresources or accessible facilities make center-based care an unattainable option formany of these families (Growing Up in Poverty Project 2000). Alternatively, thesechildren may have responding parents who are not working because they prefer tocare for their children themselves.

Conclusion

The findings in this paper highlight several important aspects of early care and edu-cation in the United States. First, nonparental care settings are a part of children'sdaily lives, beginning in the first year for many and becoming even more prominentas children near school entry. Children are more likely to participate in nonparentalcare settings when their responding parent is employed. However, even when theirresponding parent is not employed, many children participate in nonparental caresettings. These results highlight the dual role of early care and education in the livesof children and familiesas both a support for parental employment and employ-ment preparation and, especially for children age three and older, as an. opportunity

"Z.:Assessingthe NewFederalism


26

to participate in settings with social and educational resources that can prepare themfor school.

Given the potential importance of nonparental care experiences for children, par-ticularly experiences in center-based care settings, it is noteworthy that participationin center-based care is highly associated with household income and employment sta-tus of the responding parent. Children from higher-income families use center-basedcare far more than children from low-income families, with this difference particu-larly marked when the responding parent is not employed. Importantly, the NationalHousehold Education Survey documents that, in addition to family income andparental employment status, race/ethnicity and maternal education are further fac-tors associated with preschoolers' participation in center-based programs (U.S.Department of Health and Human Services 2001).

The results in this paper, while not a complete picture, demonstrate potentialopportunities and constraints faced by low-income families as they arrange non-parental care for their young children. The cost of nonparental care, particularly ofcenter-based care, may be prohibitive, thus accounting for the lower use of center-based care among all children from low-income families, but particularly among low-income families with a nonemployed responding parent." Alternatively, low-incomefamilies may choose to forgo employment for one parent so that the parent can carefor children in the family (thus accounting for the higher percentage of children fromlow-income families with a nonemployed responding parent in parent-only care,compared with such children from higher-income families). Another potential issueis uneven availability of child care centers and preschools for families in differentcommunities, which limits the choice of center-based care for some families (Grow-ing Up in Poverty Project 2000). However, despite the low overall percentage ofchildren of low-income, nonemployed responding parents in center-based care, thesizable percentage of those parents reporting that they are looking for work or are inschool suggests that participation in work-related activities may offer access to sub-sidies and allow the use of this more expensive form of nonparental care. Thus, whilechild care subsidies can be used for any type of care a parent chooses (including careby relatives, neighbors, and friends), eligibility for child care assistance is a potentiallyimportant avenue for low-income families to gain access to center-based programs.While such programs have been documented to vary substantially in quality, recentfindings indicate that even with this variation taken into account, participation in aformal care setting fosters cognitive development (NICHD Early Child CareResearch Network 2000). Eligibility for state prekindergarten and Head Start pro-grams that is not dependent on parental employment status is another importantroute through which three- to five-year-old low-income children can be exposed tostructured group settings that may enhance their preparation for formal school.

The data presented here also highlight the diversity of parents using nonparentalcare for their young children. Even when family financial resources are less con-strained, parents use a variety of care settings for their children, including relativecare, family child care, and parent-only care. While conclusions cannot be drawn hereabout the reasons parents use different types of care and the extent to which choicesof care reflect preferences or constraints, our findings demonstrate the broad array ofproviders caring for young children in the United States.

ILlTHE URBANINSTITUTE

EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION: WORK SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG CHILDREN \11

27

Finally, it is important to reiterate that, while these analyses provide a rich,descriptive look at the use of nonparental care among certain groups of families, theanalyses are not sufficient for demonstrating how a variety of demographic, cultural,and contextual factors are simultaneously related to patterns of early care and educa-tion for young children. Further multivariate analyses are necessary for exploring pat-terns in greater depth.

4fM1t.

'...-7Assessingthe NewFederalism


28

Appendix Tables

PIINTHE URBANINSTITUTE

EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION: WORK SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG CHILDREN NY

29

<1

C7,

Tab

le A

l.C

hara

cter

istic

s of

Chi

ldre

n A

ge 5

and

You

nger

and

Not

in S

choo

l, by

Inco

me

and

Em

ploy

men

t Sta

tus

of th

e R

espo

ndin

g P

aren

t,199

7

All

0-5

Yea

r O

lds,

Not

in S

choo

l

Inco

me

Bel

ow 2

00%

FP

LA

t or

Abo

ve 2

00%

FP

L

Em

ploy

men

t Sta

tus

of th

eR

espo

ndin

g P

aren

t

Not

Em

ploy

edE

mpl

oyed

Chi

ld A

ge0 1 2 3 4 5 C

hild

's R

ace

Whi

te n

on-H

ispa

nic

Bla

ck n

on-H

ispa

nic

His

pani

c

Oth

er, n

on-H

ispa

nic

Fam

ily In

com

e

Bel

ow 5

0% o

f FP

L

50-9

9% o

f FP

L

100-

199%

of F

PL

At o

r ab

ove

200%

of F

PL

Fam

ily S

truc

ture

Sin

gle

pare

nt

Tw

o pa

rent

s

MK

A E

mpl

oym

ent

Non

empl

oyed

Em

ploy

ed p

art-

time

Em

ploy

ed fu

ll-tim

e

MK

A E

duca

tion

Less

than

a h

igh

scho

ol d

iplo

ma

Hig

h sc

hool

dip

lom

a

Col

lege

deg

ree

sam

ple

size

=8,

844

Est

imat

eS

tand

ard

(%)

Err

or

sam

ple

size

=4,

972

Est

imat

eS

tand

ard

(%)

Err

or

sam

ple

size

=3,

872

Est

imat

eS

tand

ard

(%)

Err

or

sam

ple

size

=3,

401

Est

imat

eS

tand

ard

(%)

Err

or

sam

ple

size

=5,

443

Est

imat

eS

tand

ard

(%)

Err

or

170.

716

0.8

210.

817

0.6

200.

810

0.6

630.

415

0.3

180.

1

40.

3

110.

612

0.6

240.

853

1.0

240.

876

0.8

411.

1

170.

843

1.1

140.

762

1.2

241.

1

170.

914

0.8

201.

318

1.0

200.

911

1.0

481.

220

0.9

280.

85

0.5

231.

3

261.

2

511.

3 -

401.

2

601.

2

531.

514

0.9

331.

3

261.

2

661.

48

0.8

181.

317

1.2

211.

215

0.9

191.

310

1.0

771.

1

100.

89

0.6

40.

5 _ --

_10

00.

0

100.

890

0.8

301.

618

1.3

521.

7

30.

558

1.7

391.

7

211.

314

1.0

221.

517

1.2

181.

1

91.

0

601.

313

1.0

231.

04

0.7

201.

317

1.2

241.

1

391.

8

251.

575

1.5

100

0.0

- --

221.

460

1.9

171.

7

150.

917

1.0

201.

016

0.8

211.

211

0.9

661.

016

0.8

140.

74

0.5

40.

59

0.6

241.

1

631.

3

231.

0

771.

0

- 281.

372

1.3

80.

563

1.3

291.

2

Sou

rce:

Chi

ld T

rend

s ca

lcul

atio

ns fr

om th

e 19

97 N

atio

nal S

urve

y of

Am

eric

a's

Fam

ilies

.F

PL

= fe

dera

l pov

erty

leve

l.M

KA

= m

ost k

now

ledg

eabl

e ad

ult.

3031

Tab

le A

2. C

hild

Car

e fo

r C

hild

ren

0 to

5 Y

ears

Old

and

Not

in S

choo

l, 19

97

All

0-5

Yea

r O

lds,

Not

inS

choo

lU

nder

1 Y

ear

Old

sA

ll 1

Yea

r O

lds

All

2 Y

ear

Old

sA

ll 3

Yea

r O

lds

All

4 Y

ear

Old

sA

ll 5

Yea

r O

lds,

Not

inS

choo

l

Prim

ary

Arr

ange

men

t and

Ave

rage

Hou

rs

Cen

ter-

base

d...°

Ave

rage

hou

rsF

amily

chi

ld c

are°

Ave

rage

hou

rsR

elat

ive

care

°A

vera

ge h

ours

Nan

ny/b

abys

itter

Ave

rage

hou

rsP

aren

t-on

ly'..

°H

ours

in N

onpa

rent

al C

are

Non

e1

to 1

415

to 3

435

or

mor

e'

sam

ple

size

= 8

,844

Est

imat

eS

tand

ard

IVO

Err

or

sam

ple

size

= 1

,373

Est

imat

eS

tand

ard

1%1

Err

or

sam

ple

size

= 1

,341

Est

imat

eS

tand

ard

(%)

Err

or

sam

ple

size

= 1

,635

Est

imat

eS

tand

ard

1%1

Err

or

sam

ple

size

= 1

,732

Est

imat

eS

tand

ard

(%)

Err

or

sam

ple

size

= 1

,855

Est

imat

eS

tand

ard

1%1

Err

or

sam

ple

size

= 9

08

Est

imat

eS

tand

ard

1%1

Err

or

301.

010

1.8

182.

521

1.8

301.

953

2.4

613.

5

260.

632

2.0

302.

328

1.5

261.

323

0.8

251.

21

110.

89

1.3

142.

114

2.0

142.

07

1.1

51.

6

281.

228

2.9

272.

930

2.7

262.

827

1.6

--

1

220.

829

2.2

292.

421

1.5

191.

517

1.6

142.

3

200.

718

1.4

211.

420

1.6

201.

721

1.9

232.

81

60.

56

1.4

91.

56

1.2

61.

04

0.8

41.

3

171.

1-

--

--

--

--

--

1

311.

1

311.

1

220.

820

0.9

281.

1

462.

1

462.

1

212.

1

151.

918

1.9

302.

4

302.

424

2.1

172.

1

292.

1

382.

7

382.

721

2.2

151.

427

-2.

3

312.

3

312.

3

212.

019

1.9

292.

4

192.

0

192.

0

221.

8

282.

531

2.3

162.

9

162.

922

3.3

272.

836

3.6

Am

ong

child

ren

in n

onpa

rent

al c

are:

Mea

n H

ours

in N

onpa

rent

alA

rran

gem

ents

'

Num

ber

of N

onpa

rent

al A

rran

gem

ents

One

Tw

o or

mor

em

28 h

ours

0.5

62%

1.3

38%

1.3

25 h

ours

1.4

74%

2.9

26%

2.9

27 h

ours

1.2

68%

2.7

32%

2.7

28 h

ours

1.4

62%

3.4

38%

3.4

29 h

ours

1.3

63%

2.7

37%

2.7

28 h

ours

1.0

55%

2.3

45%

2.3

30 h

ours

1.4

51%

3.9

49%

3.9

Sou

rce:

Chi

ld T

rend

s' c

alcu

latio

ns fr

om th

e 19

97 N

atio

nal S

urve

y of

Am

eric

a's

Fam

ilies

.

Not

es: B

ased

on

t-te

sts,

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

s at

p<

.05

are

note

d fo

r th

e fo

llow

ing

com

paris

ons

of e

stim

ates

: a =

chi

ldre

n un

der

age

1 an

d ag

e1,

b =

chi

ldre

n ag

e 1

and

age

2, c

= c

hild

ren

age

2

and

age

3, d

= c

hild

ren

age

3 an

d ag

e 4,

e =

chi

ldre

n ag

e 4

and

age

5.

*Bas

ed o

n t-

test

s an

d si

gnifi

cant

at p

<.0

5, th

e pe

rcen

tage

s of

chi

ldre

n ag

e I.

age

2, a

ge 3

, age

4, a

nd a

ge 5

in n

onpa

rent

al c

are

for

35 o

r m

ore

hour

s pe

r w

eek

diffe

r fr

om th

e pe

rcen

tage

of c

hild

ren

unde

r ag

e 1

in n

onpa

rent

al c

are

for

35 o

r m

ore

hour

s pe

r w

eek.

**B

ased

on

t-te

sts

and

sign

ifica

nt a

t p.0

5. th

e av

erag

e ho

urs

for

child

ren

age

3, a

ge 4

, and

age

5 d

iffer

from

the

aver

age

hour

s fo

rch

ildre

n U

nder

age

I.

***B

ased

on

t-te

sts

and

sign

ifica

nt a

t pc.

05, t

he p

erce

ntag

es o

f chi

ldre

n ag

e 2,

age

3, a

ge 4

, and

agc

5 w

ith tw

o or

mor

e ar

rang

emen

csdi

ffer

from

the

perc

enta

ge o

f chi

ldre

n U

nder

age

I w

ith tw

o or

mor

ear

rang

emen

ts.T

he p

erce

ntag

e of

chi

ldre

n ag

e 5

with

two

or m

ore

arra

ngem

ents

als

o di

ffers

from

the

perc

enta

ge o

f chi

ldre

n ag

e 3

with

two

or m

ore

arra

ngem

ents

.

Per

cent

ages

do

not a

lway

s su

m to

100

due

to r

ound

ing.

Ave

rage

hou

rs in

the

prim

ary

arra

ngem

ent w

ere

not c

alcu

late

d if

the

cell

size

was

less

than

100

. Tes

ts w

ere

not c

ondu

cted

to d

eter

min

e if

the a

vera

ge h

ours

in e

ach

prim

ary

arra

ngem

ent w

ere

sign

ifica

ntly

diffe

rent

acr

oss

ages

.

33

if:7N


'Bible A3. Child Care for Children Agc 5 and Younger and Not in School, by Income and Responding Parent's Employment Status, 1997

Below 200% of FPL andNot Employed

At or Above 200% of FPLand Not Employed

Below 200% of FPL andEmployed

At or Above 200% of FPLand Employed

All 0 to 5 Year Olds, Not In School

Primary Arrangement

sample size =2,375

Estimate Standard(%) Error

sample size =1.026


sample size =2,597


sample size =2,846

Estimate Standard(Vol Error

Center-based ....' 19 1.2 28 2.5 31 1.5 39 2.0

Family child care .." 3 0.6 5 1.6 14 1.3 16 1.5

Relative care ... 18 1.4 17 2.2 29 1.4 22 1.4

Nanny/babysitter ....1 2 0.6 8 1.6 5 0.8 8 0.9Parent-only ...do.' 56 1.9 43 3.2 22 1.5 15 1.6

Hours in Nonparental CareNone 56 1.9 43 3.2 22 1.5 15 1.6

1 to 14 24 1.9 40 2.7 17 1.4 15 1.2

15 to 34 13 1.2 11 1.6 21 1.6 27 1.7

35 or more " d. ' 7 1.0 7 1.2 40 1.8 43 2.1

Among children in nonparental care:Number of Nonparental Arrangements

One 70 2.7 62 4.5 61 2.0 59 2.0

Two or more i.' 30 2.7 38 4.5 39 2.0 41 2.0

Mean Hours in Nonparental Arrangements 17 hours 1.1 14 hours 0.9 32 hours 0.7 33 hours 0.8

0 to 2 Year Olds

Primary ArrangementCenter-based ".'°..' 7 1.3 9 2.2 17 1.9 26 2.7

Family child care b... d' i 4 1.0 5 1.7 16 1.8 19 2.1

Relative care ' d' 21 2.1 21 3.3 38 2.6 26 2.0

Nanny/babysitter ...' 2 0.9 11 2.7 4 1.1 9 1.2

Parent-only "4" 66 2.6 54 4.3 25 2.1 20 2.6


1 to 14 23 2.5 36 3.7 19 1.9 16 1.8

15 to 34 7 1.2 5 1.2 20 2.1 24 2.1

35 and more ...f 4 1.0 5 1.7 36 2.2 41 2.7


One 76 3.6 64 5.8 70 2.3 65 2.7

Two or more ' 24 3.6 36 5.8 30 2.3 35 2.7

Mean Hours in Nonparental Arrangements ..°.' 13 hours 1.2 13 hours 1.7 30 hours 1.0 32 hours 1.1

3 to 5 Year Olds Not In School

Primary ArrangementCenter-based . k d... f 34 2.6 55 3.9 43 2.3 55 2.6

Family child care ..' 3 0.9 5 3.1 12 1.9 13 1.9

Relative care ..° 15 2.0 10 2.4 21 1.8 17 1.8

Nanny/babysitter 3 0.8 3 1.0 5 1.1 6 1.4

Parent-only ....' 45 2.9 26 3.5 19 2.3 9 1.7


1 to 14 25 2.3 46 4.1 15 2.0 14 1.7

15 to 34 20 2.3 19 3.0 23 2.4 31 2.6

35 and more 11. ' d. ' 11 1.7 9 1.9 43 2.7 46 2.7


One 66 3.6 60 6.1 54 3.1 53 2.6

Two or more ''.' 34 3.6 40 6.1 as 3.1 47 2.6

Mean Hours in Nonparental Arrangements ....' 20 hours 1.5 15 hours 1.1 33 hours 1.1 34 hours 1.1

Sowre: Child Trends' calculations from the 1997 National Survey of America's Families.

Notes: Based on t-tests. statistically significant differences at p<.0.5 arc noted for the following comparisons of estimates:a = below 200% of FPL/not employed and at or above 200% of FPL/not employedb = below 200% of FPLAtot employed and below 200% of FPL/employcdc = at or above 200% of FPL/not employed and at or above 200% of FPL/employedd = at or above 200% of FPL/not employed and below 200% of FPL/employedc = below 200% of FPL/cmployed and at or above 200% of FPL/employedf = below 200% of FPL/not employed and at or above 200% of FPL/employed



3 4

Table A4. Percentage of Children with a Responding Parent Reporting That She or He Was Working, Looking for Work, or in SchoolWhile Child Was in Any Nonparental Care, Any Center-Based Care, and Any Relative Care, 1997

All 0 to 5 Year Olds, Not in School

Income/Employment StatusBelow 200% of FPL and

Not Employedsample size =2,375

Estimate Standard(0/0) Error

At or Above 200% of FPLand Not Employedsample size =1.026


Below 200% of FPLand Employed

sample size =2,597Estimate Standard

(%) Error

At or Above 200% ofFPL and Employedsample size =2,846


Use of Any Nonparental Care

yes a, b, e, d, a, t

No

Working While Using Any Nonparental Care

Yes 8.°,',d,fNo

44 1.9

56 1.9

44 2.556 2.5

57 3.243 3.2

26 3.574 3.5

78 1.522 1.5

95 0.85 0.8

85 1.615 1.6

93 0.97 0.9

Use of Any Center-Based Care

Yes '.',". e. 'No

Working While Using Any Center Care

Yes ",', d' i

No

22 1.2

78 1.2

46 3.054 3.0

31 2.869 2.8

25 4.675 4.6

37 1.663 1.6

91 1.59 1.5

48 1.852 1.8

91 1.99 1.9

Use of Any Relative Care

Yes b.e.d.. tNo

Working While Using Any Relative Care

Yes 'kb. c' d'. f

No

23 1.6

77 1.6

42 3.958 3.9

22 2.978 2.9

26 5.474 5.4

39 1.561 1.5

89 1.711 1.7

33 1.667 1.6

79 2.421 2.4

Source: Child Trends calculations from the 1997 National Survey of America's Families.

Notes: Based on t-tests, statistically significant differences at p<.05 are noted for the following comparisons of estimates.a = below 200% of FPL/not employed and at or above 200% of FPL/not employed.b = below 200% of FPL/not employed and below 200% of FPL/employed,c = at or above 200% of FPL/not employed and at or above 200% of FPL/employed,d =at or above 200% of FPL/not employed and below 200% of FPL/employed,e = below 200% of FPL/employed and at or above 200% of FPL/employed,f = below 200% of FPL/not employed and at or above 200% of FPL/employed.



EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION: WORK SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG CHILDREN V

35

Notes

1. The National Survey of America's Families collected data on thc economic, health, and social char-acteristics of 44,461 households, yielding a sample of morc than 100,000 people representative ofthc civilian, noninstitutionalized population undcr 65. Data wcrc obtained on one or two respon-dent adults, the respondent's spouse or partner, and up to two focal children for cach household.Representative samples of households wcrc collected in 13 focus statcs plus thc balance of the nation.The focus states arc Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,Mississippi, Ncw Jersey, Ncw York, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. Thc survey oversampleshouseholds with low incomes, defined as incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level.

2. Thc children in this sample include all children from birth through age five who have not yet enteredschool.

3. The Most Knowledgeable Adult (MKA) was a mothcr for 81 percent of thc children and a father orothcr adult (stepparent, partner parent, or foster parent) for 19 percent of the children.

4. "Regularly" refers to care that occurred at least once a week for the last month. Because child carearrangements and hours spcnt in care can vary widely from thc school ycar to thc summer, the obser-vations with data on child carc relating to thc summer months (June 12 to September 26) were notincluded in this analysis. Thc observations that arc included arc weighted to provide representativedata on child care during thc school year.

5. Notc that the definition of "primary arrangement" in this report is slightly different from that uscdin previous ANF reports on child care. In those rcports, the "primary arrangement" refers to thearrangement used for thc most hours each week if the responding parcnt reports that she or hc was"working, looking for work, or in school during any of thc hours" the arrangement was uscd. In thepresent rcport, the primary arrangement refers more broadly to thc arrangement that was used forthe most hours cach wcck, regardless of what thc rcsponding parcnt was doing while thc child wasin the arrangement. Using this broader definition of thc primary arrangement generally results inlower perccntagcs of children with parcnt-only care as thcir primary arrangcmcnt.

6. Qucstions about participation in before- and after-school programs wcrc askcd only for children whowcrc two years old or older. Before- and after-school programs typically rcfcr to arrangcmcnts thatarc used before or after a child's primary arrangement sincc nonc of thc children cxamincd in thisreport arc in formal school.

7. If the MKA did not rcport thc usc of a nonparental arrangement, thc child is assumed to be in par-ent-only care. Thc usc of parent-only carc should be viewed relative to thc nonparental care optionsdescribed in thc paper and may reflect a number of situations including parcnts who arc notemployed and can carc for a young child themselves as well as parents who care for a child while thcywork.

8. The average hours in care arc computed only for thosc children in nonparcntal carc. In contrast, thcpercentage of children in full-time care is based on a distribution of all children, including thosc whoare in parent-only care.

9. In measuring thc number of arrangements, a child could be cared for in two or morc different cen-ter-based arrangements or by two or more diffcrcnt individuals inside or outsidc thc child's homc.Thc NSAF, however, capturcs only one arrangemcnt in each category and therefore potentiallyundcrcounts the number of arrangements that are used for thc child.

10. Throughout this paper, statistically significant differences wcrc calculated in three ways. First, chi-square tests Vere conducted to tcst whcthcr overall category distributions on typcs of carc, hours incare, and number of arrangements varied significantly. Second, analyses of variance (ANOVA) or t-tests wcrc uscd to determine whether mean hours in carc for different groups were statistically sig-nificant. Follow-up t-tests were conducted only when overall chi-squares or ANOVAs were statisti-cally significant. Only differences that arc significant at p<.05 or less are discussed in this paper.


"241/ EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION: WORK SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG CHILDRENV

36

11. Adult-child ratio and group size for differcnt child carc arrangcmcnts arc availablc in thc NSAF butarc not examined in this rcport.

12. According to thc 1995 NHES, for childrcn agc 5 and under and not yct in kindergarten, 41 percentwcrc in parcnt only carc, 26 perccnt wcrc in center-based carc, 17 percent wcrc in relative carc, 13perccnt wcrc in family child carc, and 3 percent were in in-home carc (comparable to nanny/babysit-ter). Thc NHES is a nationally representative survey of parents of children who were agc 10 oryoungcr and in third grade or below.

13. Thcsc agc profiles of primary arrangcment typc, hours in care, and numbers of arrangements arepoint-in-time estimates dcrivcd for a cross-scctional sample. These trcnds do not represent individ-ual ycar-by-ycar changes.

14. Whcn interpreting this shift to center-based care, it is important to rcmembcr that many ccntcrs donot offer slots for infants or havc limited infant carc capabilities. Thus, the pattcrns scen may partlyreflect thc supply of carc that is availablc for parents with vcry young childrcn.

15. Thc average numbcr of hours is computed only for those children in one or morc nonparental carearrangcmcnts. Childrcn using parcnt-only care arc not included in thc calculation of the mcan.

16. The 1997 NSAF collected information about thc family's incomc in 1996. In 1996, a family withtwo parcnts and two children and income less than $31,822 was classified as living bclow 200 per-ccnt of the federal povcrty level.

17. Analyses looking at child's age ycar by ycar arc not possible duc to small sample sizcs. Therefore,children were combined into two age groups.

18. Notc that children with cmploycd rcsponding parcnts may also have a rcsponding parcnt whocngagcs in work-rclatcd activities, but thcy arc not thc focus of this analysis (scc footnotc 21 foradditional information about cmploycd rcsponding parents who report thcy were not looking forwork or in school whilc thc child was using care).

19. The NSAF asks thc rcsponding parcnt whcthcr thcy wcrc "working, looking for work, or in school,"during any of thc hours thcy uscd cach type of nonparcntal care. Because thc analyscs focus on chil-dren with rcsponding parcnts who arc not cmploycd, it is assumcd that an affirmative rcsponsc tothis question rcfcrs to the lattcr activities, "looking for work" or "in school."

20. Analyses by age group arc not prcscntcd because of small sample sizes for somc variablcs.

21. Not surprisingly, thc majority of children with an employed rcsponding parent (91 percent), irrc-spcctivc of family inconlc, havc a rcsponding parent who reports thcy were working, looking forwork, or in school whilc thcir young child was in center-based carc. Additionally, howevcr, a sub-stantial perccntagc of children havc an cmploycd rcsponding parcnt who rcports thcy wcrc not work-ing, looking for work, or in school whilc thc child was using ccntcr-bascd carc and, particularly forchildren from higher-income familics, relative care. One possible explanation for these findings isthat spcnding regular time with rclativcs is viewed as an .important dcvelopmental experience foryoung child= such that, even whcn thcy arc not working or engaged in work-related activities, fam-ilies arc schcduling rcgular timc for thcir childrcn to spcnd with rclativcs.

22. To examine thc hypothcsis that the general pattcrns sccn among low-incomc children (below 200perccnt of FPL) may mask pattcrns that differ for children undcr 100 percent of FPL and at 100-199perccnt of FPL, additional cross-tabulations (not prcscntcd here) were conductcd. Differences in thelikelihood of being ill nonparcntal carc or in thc typcs of carc uscd were not obscrvcd. Childrcnbclow thc federal povcrty level with a noncmployed rcsponding parcnt were, howcvcr, morc likclyto spcnd slightly morc hours in nonparcntal carc than childrcn at 100-199 percent of FPL with anoncnlploycd rcsponding parcnt.

23. Indeed, many low-income parcnts cite the cost of child care as a rcason for not working.


\na/EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION: WORK SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG CHILDREN 4.)

37

References

Capizzano, Jeffrey and Gina Adams. 2000a. "The Hours that Children under Five Spcnd in Child Carc:Variations across States." Washington, D.C.: Thc Urban Institute. Assessing the New Federal-ism Policy Brief B-8.

2000b. "Thc Number of Child Carc Arrangcmcnts Uscd by Children undcr Five: Variationsacross States." Washington, D.C.: Thc Urban Institute. Assessing the New Federalism PolicyBrief B-12.

Capizzano, Jeffrey, Gina Adams, and Frcya Sonnstein. 2000. "Child Carc Arrangements for Childrenundcr Five: Variation across Statcs." Washington, D.C.: Thc Urban Institute. Assessing theNew Federalism Policy Brief B-7.

Ehrlc, Jennifer, Gina Adams, and Kathryn Tout. 2000. Who's Caring for Our Youngest Children? ChildCare Patterns of Infants and Toddlers. Washington, D.C.: Thc Urban Institute. Assessing theNew Federalism Occasional Paper No. 42.

Growing Up in Poverty Project. 2000. "Remember thc Children: Mothers Balance Work and ChildCare under Welfare Reform." Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education, Univer-sity of California, Graduate School of Education.

Hoffcrth, Sandra L., April Brayfield, Sharon Dcich, and Pamela Holcomb. 1991. National Child CareSurvey, 1990. Washington D.C.: Thc Urban Institute Prcss. Report 91-5.

Hofferth, Sandra L., Kimbcrlec A. Shauman, Robin R. Hcnkc, and Jcrry West. 1998. Characteristics ofChildren's Early Care and Education Programs: Data from the 1995 National Household Edu-cation Survey. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Ccntcr for Edu-cation Statistics. NCES 98-128.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care ResearchNctwork. 2000. "Thc Relation of Child Carc to Cognitive and Languagc Development."Child Development 71(4): 960-980.

Smith, Kristin. 2000. Who's Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements: Fall 1995. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Census Bureau. Currcnt Population Reports, P70-70.

Wcst, Jerry, Kristin Denton, and Elvic Germino-Hausken. 2000. America's Kindergartners: Findingsfrom the Early Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99, Fall 1998. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. NCES 2000-070.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2001. Trends in the Well-Being of America's Childrenand Youth 2000. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of thc Assistant Sec-retary for Planning and Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Zill, Nicholas, Mary Collins, Jerry Wcst, and Elvie Gcrmino-Hauskcn. 1995. Approaching Kinder-garten: A Look at Preschoolers in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofEducation, National Center for Education Statistics. NCES 95-280.

"Assessingthe NewFederalism

\.26/ EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION: WORK SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG CHILDRENV

38

About the Authors

Kathryn Tout is a senior research associate at Child Trends where she conductsresearch on the role that early care and education play in family well-being and thedevelopment of young children. Her research focuses in particular on understandinghow early care and education policies and programs affect the decisions of familiesand child care providers.

Martha Zaslow is a senior scholar and content area director for research on wel-fare and poverty and early childhood development at Child Trends. Her researchfocuses on child care and home environments, as well as welfare policies, as theyaffect the development of children in poverty.

Angela Romano Papillo is a senior research analyst at Child Trends. Herresearch focuses on adolescent fertility and the impact of welfare policies on childwell- being.

Sharon Vandivere is a senior research analyst at Child Trends. She has coau-thored a number of briefs on child and family well-being for the Assessing the NewFederalism project and coedits The Child Indicator, a newsletter on social indicators.


EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION: WORK SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG CHILDREN V

39

The

Urb

anIn

stitu

te21

00 M

Str

eet,

N.W

.

Was

hing

ton,

D.C

. 200

37

Pho

ne: 2

02.8

33.7

200

Fax

: 202

.429

.068

7

E-M

ail:

paffa

irs@

ui.u

rban

.org

http

://w

ww

.urb

an.o

rg

Occ

asio

nal P

aper

A A

Non

prof

it O

rgU

S P

osta

geP

AID

Per

mit

No

8098

Mt A

iry, M

D

Li

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

Reproduction Basis

ERIC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (3/2000)

pi D;°19.Vto

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that … › fulltext › ED458966.pdfcenter-based care,...

Documents

Transcript of Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that … › fulltext › ED458966.pdfcenter-based care,...