Hours Used-Per Capita

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 131.932 PS 008 951 AUTHOR Rodes, Thomas W. TITLE National Childcare donsumer S udy:- 1975. Volupe II: Current Patterns of Childcare Use in theUnited States. INSTITUTION Uncle, Inc., Washington, D.C. SPONS AGENCY Office of Child Development (WIEN ) ,Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 75 CONTRACT HEW-105-74-1107 NOTE 299p.; For other volumes or this s u_y, see 950-953; Some tables may reproduce poorly

EDRS PRICE ME-$0.83 HC-$15.39 Pins Postage. DESCRIPTORS Age Differences; Certification;*Child Care; Chi d Care Centers; Costs; Cultural Factors; *Day Care services; Economic Disadvantagement; Elementary School Students; Family Day Care; FamilyEnvironme_ Family Structure; Infants; Junior High School Students; Mothers; *National Demography;*National Surveysl Nursery SchooL71; Nutrition; Paent Attitudes; Preschool Children; *Questionnaires;Race; Research Design; Research Methodology;Socioeconomic Background; *Statistical Data; Transportation Working Parents IDENTIFIERS Project Head Start ABSTRACT the ' This is the second of three study reports on national4incidence of child care usage as well as consumerneeds, preferences, attitudes and opinions onchild care, based on 4609 personal interviews conducted in 1975from a national probability sample of households with children ander 14 yearsof age. The study yas sponsored by theOffice of Child Development of the U.S. Department of Health, Education andWelfare. _This volume reports the prevalence of use among various types ofchild care, describes the population subgroups who use care, andprovides an analysis of the patterns and trends of usage. Data areorqanized under the following headings: CO Sampling Methodology andDesign, (2) .Analytic Framework, CO Simple Incidence of Usage,(4) Hours Used-Per Capita: A Summary Usage index,(5) Characteristics of Substantial Users, (6) Payment Mode 4nd Formality of Care,(7) Costs- of Child Care, (8) Transportation Arrangement ,and (9) Summary Discussion and . Conclusions. (MS)

Documents acquired by ERIC include manyinformal unpublished * materials not available fromother sources. ERIC makes every effort * * to obtain the best copy available.Nevertheless, items of marginal * * reproducibility are oftenencountered and this affects the quality * * of the microfiche and hardcopyreproductions ERIC makes'available * * via the ERIC DocumentReproduction Service (BURS). EDRS is not * responsible for the quality ofthe original document. Reproductions * * supplied by EDRS are the 'bestthat can be made from the original. ********************************************************************** U DEPARTMENT OF HEALY EOUEATION & WELFARE NATIONAL .NSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT OAS!TEENNI-PlOT DUCED eXACTLy AS PFCFIVED I POM TIlE PEPSON OP aNGANIZAT iON OPICTIN. r-7-1 A TING IT POINTS OF VIEW OH OPINIONS S TA TE1) Of) NOT NECE VIM-Of Y TIEPITI- - Ca SENT WI ICIAL NATIONAI LLI EDUCATION POSI T ION Of/ POLICY

NATIONL CHILDCRE CONSUMER STUDY:

VOLUME- II URREEIT PATTERNS CHILDCARE USE IN THEUNITED STATES

prepared pnder contract#105-74-1107for: Office of Child Development 13-1 U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfa e N-N

.NATIONAL CHILDCARE CONSU ER STUD11:1975

VOLUME II Current Patterns Of Childcare Use In the United States

Thomatl W. Rodes Principal Author and Analyst John C. Moore Project Manager

Prepared under Contract # HEW-105-74-1 07 for Office of Child Development Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

jpinions eNpressed herein are those of Unco, Inc., and should not be construed o represent the opinion§ or policies ot any agency, , department, or otherirstru- nent of any federal, state, or local government. This is the second of three study reports based on 'data gathered from a national probability sample of households in the late spring and early summer of 1975 as part of a contract sponsored by tbe Offiee.of Child Development (OCD) of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare.. In all, 4,609 personal intervieWs were conducted to determine the national irrcidence of child care usage as well as consumer needs, preferences, attitudes and opinions on child care.

The objectives of this volume are, to report the prevalence of use among various types of child care, to describe the population subgroups who use care and, finally, to provide an analysis of the patterns and trends of usage. Because th anticipated readership of this publication is very broad, we have.-

,attempted to assemble a core of useful data while, at the same. time, to keep the analysis simple and understandable, avoiding the-overly technical or scientific perspectiVe wherever possible.

'About two, thirds of the data collected by the full survey fall into the domain of consumer preferences, attitudes and opinions and are reported and analyzed in Volume III. .Volume I is comprised of basic tabulations including a full accounting of all the variables and items, inolUding a specimen questionnaire, sample dispositions and marginal,distributions. The serious .reader may find this,companion report to be an aid in interpreting the data herein, although .we have designed to each of the volumes to stand alone.

ill 4 ACKNO LEDGMENTS

The National Child Care Consumer Study is the, work of many persons both within and outside of Uneo, Inc. The instrinnent was developed with the assistance of Victoria Squicr and Ehzabeth Diffendal of the Unco still,Nrith the aypert consultation of David 01-r and the thoughtful help and direction of Patricia Hawkins and William Diepenbrock of the Department of Health, EduenLion and Welfare. We are also indebted to the p v revirwors in the government and in academia who contributed suggestions and comments dur- study design phase. The data were coliected by Chilton Research Services under the direction of William Oldach., Fred Soulas, Carmelo Linsalata, Ruth Finkle, and Dale Kulp of the Chilton staff also played important roles in the field work.

Elizabeth Diffendal, Axmheres o-.Lency and Susan Jonils of the Unc- staff made vital contributions to thc analysis.S:ini Grtwato and Louis Bates if the Offie e of Child Developnleiri L vc ry helpful in providhig agency input to the analysis. Finally, We arc grateful tt Betty Heydon for excellent typing and pro- duction assistance, sometimes runnthg well into the early niornthg hours, and to William Darnell, President of tinco, for his technical support and management assistance throughout the study. TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD iii

ACIsZaDWLEDGEMENTS

SECTION I:INTRODUCTION 1-1

SECTION SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN 9-1 Summary 2-1 Discussion on the Sample Des. grn 2-4 Derivation of the Weighting 9_6 Estimations,of Sampling Error 2-13 Biases 2-18 Missing Data 2-19

SECTION III: ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK 3-1 Characteristics or the Respondents- 3-2 Race and Ethnicity 3-5 Household Si'!.(1 and Structure 3-7 Ecunomie and Employment CharactisticS -3-12 of Child Care Usage 3-19

SECTION IV: SIMPLE'INCIDENCE OF USAGE 4-1 Overview 4-1 Child Care and Mother's hinployment Status 4-4 Child.Care by Race and Ethnicity 4-7 Child Care by Household Poverty Level 4-7 Usage,Sehedules 4-11 Usage by Age of child 4-18 Supplemental Data 4-23

SECTION V: HOURS USED PER CAPITA; A SUMMARY USAGE INDEX 5-1 Overview 5-1 A National Estimate of Total Care Hours- 5-2 Levels of Usage by Age of Child_ 5-4 Levels of Usage by Race 5-10 Income Status as a Determinant of Usage 5-10 Employment of the Respondent 5-13 vii T A 13L E Ol rT E. NT S (Con inue{1)

SECTION VI: C1tA1ACTERISTICSOF S1JBSTANTIALT USERS 6-1 Discussion 0-1 Profile 0 Users 6-3 Usage Schedu1e:3 of "Substantial!'UserS 6-6

SECTION VII: PAYMENT MODEAND FORMALI1Y OF CARE 7-1 Discussion 7-1 Care by Relatives '1-7 Cre in Non-Relatives 7-12. Nursery Schools, Day Core :ent- 7-15 Other Forms of care 7-18

SECTION VIII: COSTS Oy CHILDCARE 8-1 .Discussio 8-1 Poycyty Status rnc1 Costs 8-9 Respondent Statuand Employment Stus 8-13 9-1 SECTION EK: TRANSPORTATIONARRANGEMENTS Distance From Home 9-1 Methods of,7ransportation 9-3 10-1 SECT ON X: SUMMARY DISCUSSIONAND CONCLUSIO: Who Uses Child Care? 10-1 What Socioeconomic Differences Are EviclentAmong Child Care Users? 10-8' How Much Does Child Care Cost? 10-11 Two Year Olds: A SpecialCase 10-11 Soction

1NTRODUCTION

There are approximately 25 millionhouseholds in the 48 conterminous Uilited States with at least one child under14 yea's of age. Nearly9070'of if only occasionally, when -thaehouseholds use some type of care arrangement, avail theother or other adult who has primaryresponsibility for care is not able. About 16 million engage a babysitteri nurserysChool, family home proprietor, day care center or otherexternal arrangement, 'while siXmillion rely exclusively on residentmembers of the immediate household.:By far the highest incidence of usage can be attributedto what mo t of us wouldcall baby- sittnig. There is nothing particularly startlingin the "bo om-line statisti of from this survey.Indeed, the broad picture portrayedis the very character the study, for we are concerned not justwith low-income households,with working mothers, with exceptionalchildren, with day care centers norwith an other single target group'or method of care.Rather, the study was designedto find out, from a national viewpoint, who useschild care, how child'ren,are cared or when care is used,how often chi.ld care services arepurchased and at what cost. The essential perspective is that of allhouseholds in the:United States with interviews) avail--. children under 14.Consequently, the sample space (number., of .. . alite .for analyzing such groups as day care center usersiknecessarily/ small, since . . center:users, for example,rePreserit less than 3%, of thePopiAation..

The ength of this_ study therefore lies inthe ability to make "unbiased" (e.g.representing the entire population)magnitude estimates of the actual number of households and children fallinginto various "user" subcategoriesand demographic patterns evident in the consumptionof care, The principal weak- nes'ses of the. design are (1) that only limited analysisof scarce uSer subgroups is possible given the size of thesample and (2) that very-little is !mown aboutthe actual attributes of the careactuallyreceived, since it is notoriously difficult to measure through theeye;-:, of the consumersuai things as quality of care, develop- , mental philosophy and even such "facts"-aslicdnsure of facilities. The reader should keep in mindthroughout that the survey universe consists of households with childrenunder 14. We can infer from the amountof care used by 13ear olds that 14-year-oldchildren also reeeiv some care and are arbitrarily excluded from the sample. Where distributions are labeledas "percent of all households," for example,the base is, in fact, households withchildren under 14. The study design presupposes twoparticular population subgroups of -special interestthose c,..for whom culture oreconomic circumstance may pose different hardships or Impediments.Ethnic minoritiee'and low-income house- . holds were intentionally overrepresentedinthesample to bolster the capability for analyzing such trends, but weightingtechniques have been employed to preserve a national perspective. in general, the dataportrm;' a very "traditional" portrait of the American family. Over 9p% of the respondents (i..e. , personsprimarily responsible for the

1- 2 re of'the childrcwere females; about 82% of whom were married (spouse present).Most of the households consisted of nuclear families, and only about c of the children were not sons or daughters of respondents. The overall household incom6,.distribution was decidedly ''Jniddle class," with about 15% (weighted) falling below the poverty level.Roughly a third of the "mothers" were employed.

If there is one single salient observation to be made about the nature of , child care consumption, it is the remarkable degree of diversity.Although most

occasional or casual care (e.g., "babysitting") occurs in children's homes Or relatives' homes, there are very few strong associations with given types of care 'and the characteristics of moderate or heavy users. What We will be examining is apparently a very complex "market structure" where circumstances attitudes, preferences and, perhaps pure serendipity play larger roles in the meeting of minds between provider and consumer than either costs or any inherent advantages or attributes of given methods of care.But this goes beyond the data, so we will let

+7, the reader decide.

1 -3 Section U

SAAIPLING- ME'l 1 :iN7 AN D DESIGN

Data presented in this report were collected from a stratifieddnational pro ability samPle of telephone households with children 13 years old'br youngerThe sample frame was obtained by screening some 24,900randomly-- selected households by tellephone to identify those with children, resultmg-in an available sample of 9,075 households, A total of 4,609 interviews wbre obtained from a sample spaceof 6,850, exceeding the original survey goal of 4,500. 'A specimen thstrument is supplied -in Volume I (Basle Tabulations) including marginal tabulationsand sample dispositions.

Interviews- were conducted in person at the respondents' homes by the field interviewing staff-0( Chilton Research ServicesInc. , under subcontract with Uneo. The average administration time was approximately one hour. There were three basic steps to the sample design: selection of primary sampling units (Pals), selection of central offices telephoneexchanges) and determination of sampling rates within central offices. In the first step, all PSUs were categorized'as being in-one of four ..Census-defincd regionsNortheast, North Central, South and West. Within each region, PSIJs were further strattfied according to whether or not they

ii were in Standard Mot ropo-litanStatistical Areas (SA1SAs), with an additional distinction mado within SMSA.8 ,etween.eenter-eityand outside-center-city areas. The ,seleetion ofPSIls, therefore, was a function of a 12-level plan acrosn four regions -,ndthree resideotial strata.. Within the 12 strata, central cities were oversampled, such that theresidential distribution was 50% central. SMSA-othen aisi 17;., outsideSMSAs.

The second stop in the sample design was theselection 'Of telephone exehanges, or "central offices," For eachprimal-7;7 sampling unit, four central officeswore rar.,..omly selected.However, to improve the efficiency'of screening, the sampling rates within theselected central offices emphasized blacks, Spanish, and, housoholds near or below the-povertyline.Central offtbes were pversampled in CSeS where there ,.ve re relatively highobserved proportions' of mineyity groups ex' households near orbelowAlic poverty line. This -truaranteed saticiont raw interview records amongminority and proverty households to conduct analN.eis of differences betweenracial and economic subgroups.

f 5 In the third stage, target subgroups wereoversampled accordtng to observed proportions within central offices exhibitinghigh prob,abilities of including poor and low-income respondents. Thefollowing are the proportions' applied to this study:

-WHITE 49% Below, poverty Poverty to 25' poverty -1 16 Over 200% po-, 27 31, ACK -Billow poverty 11% Poverty to 2007r poverty 11 Over 200% poverty 11 SPANDSH-AMEMCAN 11% up to 200% poverty 7% Over 200c7r poverty 4

OTIIET1

2-2

12 To develop the sample frame, central zed telephonescreening was used. Screening interviewers.worked from batches of randomly-generatedtelephone numbers usthg the area codes and prefixes of the central officesselected. _A five-minute qu2stionnaire was developed -to establish if the household waseligible to participate in the study (i.e. ,it conthined at least one child under 14), to identify the person responsible ff.r.are of the dhildren and toobtain the needed demagraphic information. Approximately 25,000 screening interviews were completed, and 9,075 identified households had children under 14. Thesehouseholwere then divided into two matched groups of roughlyequal size for use by the field interviewers in conducting the in-person interviews".That is, the households were assigned as matched pairs inwhich the interviewers attempted to obtain are interview with the first ofthe pair (up to four attempts each for setting an appointment and for actually carrying out theinterview) before replacement with the second name. This procedure wasnsed'as one of several to minimize bias in the overall methodology. Altogether, 6850 households were-used in obtaining Lhe'4,609 interviews (the remainder were eitherbackup pairs, as described, or upper-incoMe whites for which a portion ofthe-sample was not mailed to the fiejd due to the more than ample yield fromtelephone screening).

.., An overallcompletion rate of 67%,was achieved,with 953 9.0) refusals and 1,288 (18.8%) failures to locate aneligible respondent. The sample design weighting calculationsand field management pro- . cedures have each been the subject of a separatepublished report under this contract.Therefore', the rernainder of this chapter is devoted only to summary ,r. discussions of these topics.

*Included in this category are (1) moved from area,(2) younges turned 14 cmd (3) unable to contact afterfour tries.

2-3

1 3 r:.ussion on the Sample Design -In a simple random sample, all respondents have equalweight.Esti- Of total population characteristics are simply computed by working directly ro runle data to estimates for the total.For example, if we want to learn

'1!Lnit)e`,P f households having childrenunder 14 years of age, and a simple ruid-1 sample of householdsshowed that 36% of the sample had children in this age group, we would justmultiply the total number of Census households (67,469,200)by .36 to get the total number of the households (24,300,000)in the population that have children in this age group. If the sample size were, say, 1000, theprobability of any given house- . hold entering the sample would be one over 67,469.2.Thus, each household would represent 67,469.2 (including itself).This ratio of 67 469.2 to 1 is the associated with each household in the sample of 1,000.Population estimates of subgroups based on this sample can bederived by multiplying weight (67., 469.2) times the number of applicable responses, in many studies, however, especially when scarcesubpopulations are sought, simple random sampling is irwractical.Since the target rspondents would appear in the sample in the same proportion astheir occurrence in the total population, inordinately large, unwieldy and expensivesample sizes would be required to obtai,a reasonable number of cases foranalysis if simple random sampling were used.To reduce this inherent limitation, stratified samples are used, and the populations within strata aresampled disproportionately. In this survey, Interviews with parents who aremembers of minority ethnic groups as well as within the poverty, near-poverty,and'other income groups were sought.it is known through Census baseline data that the majority of these target households live in the central citiesef.metropolltan areas,. 0 overrepresent those areas in thesample Thereforethe srtip1e was Jer ii process. As a resuilt, a disproportionately larger number of initial screening contacts, and consequently of completed personal interviews, were conducted in such central city areas.

To provide a nationwide distribution of the final data, the sample is also designed to represent each of the four Census regions disproportionately. That is, the heavily-populated Northeast had relatively fewer interviews as a percentage of the total number of households than the balance of the country. Conversely, the less densely populated Western Region was sampled at a relatively higher ratio.

The basic building block of the sample desidn for this study is the pjApEiar sampling unit, or PSU. For the purposes of this study PSUs are defined as: Central cities proper, within SMSAs; All counties in SMSAs exclusive of-central cities, but including any portions of cotinties containing central cities that lie outside the central city proper; or- Non-SMSA counties.

The.total of counties each of the above 'three categories constitutes_ a separate substratum of the universe within each of the four Census regions (Northeast, South, Central and West). The Census regions constitute,the four primary strata.In all, there were 12 strata (3 PSU types within each of four Census regions)

The procedure for selecting the sample PSUs in each of the 12 strata was nimply to list all the PSUs in a contiguous geographical -sequence, together with the respective'total numbers of households in each (as given by ,the latest available Census data). The cumulative total number of households was then computed and list6d, going from the first.to the last PSU in each stratum list. If, for example, ,12 PSUs were needed to represent a given stratum, the total

1 5 2 - umber of households in the''stratum is divided by therequired munberof PSUs (12).In the Northeast, Central City stratum, there are 6,199,556 households. Dividing this number by 12, a sampling interval of 516,630 is attained.Then, by selecting a random number less than this sampling interval,we-determine a Didr"ng point for selectingthe 6ample PSUs. Suppose the starting point num- -1n, 040.The PSU corresponding to the 310,040th household in the curnu'_!-ivf'isting becomes the first of the 12 PSUs selected. The remaining PSUs are selected by adding the sampling interval to the starting point,and nmning 0 a cumulative total in increments equal to th'e samplinginterval. The PSU corresponding tc each cumulatve subtotal is selected into the sample. That is, the sample PSUs are those whoSe.cumulative subtotals of households contain the respective cumulative subtotals computed using the sampling interval. It is important to point out that the probability of a PSU coming intothe sample is directly proportional to the nuhther of huuseholds it contains.If the number of households in a PSU is larger than the sampling interval, that PSU included in the sample with eertainty. The "certainty PSUs" represent only"ithei _elves and must betreated as a separate substratum. The PSUs that come Ln withprobabilities less than- certainty represent, theoretically, other PSUs that might have entez.:d the sample, but did not.'Data from such a PSU have to be weighted up because the PSU in which_the data were collected repreaents several other PSUs in addition to itself.Thus, it is necessary to apply different weighting procedures for the certainty vs. the non-certainty PSUs.

Derivation of_the Weighting Two stages of v.4ighting were thue nece in th s study. The f rst stage involved weighting the 25,000 screening in s to the national household population total according to the inverse of the bilities of selection.

16 The second stage was based on completedperson-to-person interviews to co re t for non-reSponse and the disproportionatesampling of ethnic and lov come

TC target groups within each stratum.

'st Stage Weighting

This piocedure was subdivided accord-Mg to the two typesof PSUs (certainty versus nen-certainty). As we havenoted, PSU selection was controlled by probabilitiesderivecf in proportion to size, so that any PSU with more households than the selection interval entered with aprobability equal to one e. certainty), and those with lessentered with probability less than one.

Table 11-1 on the next page summarizes thecomputation of the yeighta for certainty PSUs. First, note that eachPSU had an assigned quota of telephon-e screening calls.The households within any given PSU wereselected by a random process whereby all telephonehouseholds in a PSU have equal probability of entering the samPle. To dothis'', all telephone central offices (COs) or exchanges 'in the PSU were listed,and a random selection of four COs was made. By appending arandomly generated four-digit number to thesix-digit CO numbei area, code plus exchange), as manyrandomized telr:phone number's aS needed were generated tto complete the assigned quotaof household screenings. Columns 1 through 3 of Table 11-1 summarizethe process of estimating how many households there were within eachCO. First, a determination had already been made of the proportion of "workingbanks" of numbers in each CO or exchange.That is, of the possible 100 banks of numbers in aCO (i.e. , 00XX thiough 99 varying proportions were actually assigned totelephone subscribers. The figures in Column I are the respectiveproportions of working banks in each of the four COs. This information wasindependently obtained in advance of the number-generating process.Hence, the computer could be programmed toreject any phone numbers innon-working banks.

2-7 1 7 TABLE II-1

1..J.ELI. Total Um rholds m500,000 (8) (7) (3) '(5) (2) (1) _ H./C. 0. rroportion Non-Working Est. b Proportion til Iti. iii .L.,12. .--1 C, 11--AJE--1a W1 .ka r I-d N ",°Iat-16°-1cci.Y181

1193.3. (0.75)(1-0020) m 6000 0.358 180 0, 20 (10,000) 1. 0.75

0.209 30 4180.0 (0.50)(1-0,30) 3500 0,50 0.30 (10 000)

0.299 30 5980.0 (10 000)(1,00)(1-0.50) 5000 1.00 0.50

446.7 (1-0,10) 2250 0.134 180 0.10 (10,000)(0.25) 4 0.25

Ni 16,750 (4)

central office in which votking,honke reprmeents the proportion.oftwo digit codes ofesch 1 (Xij); The proportion of (Theie is a total of\100 possible two'digit codes.) residential telephone numbers ereaoc:sned. ,

I in,each euhange ie eitimatedfiom the *anal final nog working and non household numbers 2) (Y j); The proportion of ;.410posit1ons of all callsAttempted ie each central office.

houueholds in each exchange Jocaldulated by the following 3) WO; The estimated,totalnumber of residential telephone office.) Nij n (10h000) (Xij)(1.0-Yij) (There are 10 000 possible numbersin every te14hone. central , formula.

for that PSU. householde in theumple central officesalected 4) (Hi); The total eitimatedresidential

_ij/Ni of householdkcontribut d by eachcentral office; rij 5) (6j); The proportion

cdplited screening In'erVItws it each centraloffice. 6) nij; The number of

each completed acre Woginterview; Wij n 500,000 7) Wij The weight assigned to nij

1 c Within a given working bank, there are varying proportions of non- woiking numbers and non-household numbers. This quantity was directly 0 measured through the screenhig process,and a record was kept of the outcome, or disposition, of each random, number dialed. Thefigures in Column 2 represent the, respective proportions of non-household and non- ork- ing numbers that were thus ascertained within each CO.

Column 3 gives_ the estimated number of households in each central offiae.The maximum possible number is 10,000. By applying the proportions _ of Columns 1 and 2 to this maximum figure, the estimated numbers in Column 3 were derived. The contribution of each CO is represented in Colunm 5 as the proportion of the sum -p. 750) of all households in the four COs., -The final weight assigned each screened hoUsehold in a CO was deterinined as a function of the number of households repreSented by each' sample,household. This vas coputed as follows: Allocate the, total number plhouseholds hi the PSU (50(1,000 in this example) among the central offices in proportion to the numbers of households per central office (500,000 Divide the result for each CO by the ritanber of screening interviews condticted,in that CO. This gives the weight, .or number of households, representedby each household screened.

500,000 rij

1.)

In the cases where the PSUs have been selected with probability of less than 1, it was necessary to apply an. additional weight to each household, since the sample PSUs represent all households within their stratum.To- illustrate this procedure, let- us examine an exemplary stratum (Table II--2).The number

2-9 of households in each PSU are.listed in Column 1, and the weights assigned to each sereening interview by central office are listed in Column 2.The-procedure for calculation of the weights in Column 2 is identical to the procedure in the previous example.

The population of households in the sample PSUs -is 505,000 but the total number of households in the stratum is 2,020,000. The magnitude of the additional weight is determined by dividing the total nurnber of-households in the stratum by the total number of households in the sample PSUH:

2-__020.000 505,000 Thus, the Initial weight for each interviev, in the stratum must be increased by a factor of four (Column 3).

TABLE

Initial Final Weight Number of _Central Weignt -Mousehol.ds Offices Wu 150,000

1 20 80 PSU 1 2 35 140 3 58 232 - 4 40 1 60 240 2 115' ,460 PSU 2 280,b00 75 300 95 380

15 .60 2 38 152 PSU 3 ,000 3 20 pc) 4 5 20

-10

2 1 Second Stage Weighting,

The first stage weight applied only screening interviews. A further weight had to be applied to all completed personal interviews_to account for completion rate and oversampling within the etlutic-Lncome strata.

Table 11-3 represents a hypothetical distribution of identified households and completed interviews with these households for one region. households identified by screening interviews n - completed personal interviews

TABLE 11-3

WHITE BLACK S PAN I SH OTHER Bel ow N =-100 .N = 150- N = 100 N = 75 Poverty = 175. n = 125 n =90 n '= 60 Level

Poverty to N ==' 325 N = 175 N = 150 N = 90 200% of n = 200 n = 150 n = 125 n = 80 Poverty Level

Over N = 475 N 175 N = 125 N = 110 200% ,of ii 200 = 1'50 n = 100 = 100 Poverty Level

The difference between the completed interviews (n) and the total identified households (N) is due to the Combined effects of completion rate.and purposef0 oversampling or underSarnpling. ,For instance, the, cell containing white households above 200% of poverty/level includes many more screened_ households than were sought in the personal intervi.ewing phase._ to illustrate the procedure, let us examine two interviews, one conucted in a household with a black head of house with an income "below Povertyleve0

2711

22 and one in a white household with an-income between "poverty and 200% of poverty level" (near poverty), as showm in Table 11-4.

TABLE -4

1 s t 2nd Ceritral Stage Stage Total Offi ces Weight Weight Weight

BLACK 150 Bel ow Poverty 212- XXX 1950 125 2340

WHITE 325, Near Poverty 215- XXX 2780 MT 4518

Column 1 identifies the CO in whiCh the initial screening interviews were conducted. Column 2 gives the first stage weight (the first stage weighting procedure as outlined in the previous section). 1The second Stage weight is calculated by dividing the total households within a cell (Table 11-4) by the number of completed personal interviews obtained.Since there is one grid for each region, this entails the calculation of 48 second stage weights (la f9r

,each of the four regions). The final weight assigned to each interview is obtained by taking the product of the first and second stage weights. As a result, each observation received a final weighting factor projecting in a rough conceptual sense the number of U.S. households represented

7- by a given interview. Unless otherwise noted, all data reported here are population estimates derived as the sum of the applicable weights. The fact that one or two observations with high weights may suggest apparent anomalies in extreme small cells should be kept in mind, particularly when interpreting numbers

2 3 -occurring in the tails of distributions. By the sametoken, the reader should bear in mind that the mean weight is about 5,300, sothat a population projection of 100,000 is probably based on only about 20 raw records from a sampleof 4,609 households. The variability of lower estimates, inparticular, is relatively high, as we shall demonstrate below.

Esti_ lations of Sampling Error

One of the distinct disadyantages of stratifiedprobability sampling is that the application of "common" statistical techniquesis significantly more complex than in simple randomdesigns.The use of raw thta s generally unsatisfactory due to thebiases of disproportionate, clustered sampling; when weighting is used, the theoreticalprobability of errors in the weights assumes dominance. To be sure, the theoretical methodology for estimatingthe variability of weighted estimates is imown_and is accordingly detailedin the Final Report on Sampling Desi& under this contract.However, two'problems preclude its direct application. First, probability theory holds that the overall sample variancefor a given.variate is calculated by using the compositeof the variances within the 7 several strata.. Compounding the stratification by region, by race,by income class and by certainty and non-certainty PSU types,there are fully 132 strata to this sample. While it is conceptually easy to derive an tmbiased estimateof variance fronia probability sample, the resources requiredwould prohibit performing caleulations separately for (in this case)approximately 500 var ables across 126 strata.Further, these variables would have to have been subdivided by categories based on other variables.Clearly, a less cumberso e "rule of thumb" was needed.

2-13 Second, where a high non-response (failure to locate or attain an interview from an identified, previously-screened household) was experienced witl,in an already undersampled centr l office, respondents within that CO were by definition, assigned extremely high weights. Toreduce the effec s of extreme variability in the weights, we designed and performed a moderate exponenti il transformation smoothing) of the vector of Weights such that all new values were within one standard deviation ofthe mean of the original vector. The net effect of this transformation was a reduction in the mean-square error at the cost ofintroducing some small bias. To minimize this bias, the smoothing was performed separately within each of the 16 sample subcategories controlling for race and income level.*

The most satisfactory solution to obtaining an approximation -of the sampling variability in this case was obtained through analyzing the variancewithin the sample by simulating the effects of taking a number of small samples.The methodology used May be' summarized as follows:

Assume that: The sample (4,60 interviews) is, in e feet, k samples of size 4,609/k, each with the same design. Given a population yarate X, k independent

estimates A X may be obtained. 2

*Whlle this bias cannot be determined heoretically because the calculation is intractable, empirical comparisons between "old" and "new" weighted projections were made using large sample proportions (i.e. , p > .35) with very stable results.

2-1 4 It is clear that their common variance

I A Xi i and-that the variance of the-pooled samPle estiate iS: / k

When a nsample is designedto providel0 equivalent independent estimates of X, it is known as a Hmkey P1," according to W. Edwards Deming, and is a documented technique in common usage.* However, 'the instant design does not really provide 10 equivalentestimates of X, since although-there are aufple second seage units, the first stage of sampling does not provide sufficient replications. But experience indicates that in such a survey, with only about 4 600 second stage units drawn from a large nurnber Of primary units (25,000)the source of most variance occurs between second stage units.Thus,, an approximation of the Tukey Plan was used to obtain estimates of the variability of the full sampld by:-

A th where- X is mindependent (subsample) estimate of X, s the inean of the X, and

\if-- is the factor roughly allowing for . the fact that the'10 subsamples are 'not truly independthit since the fiist stages were not replicated.

*See, feir example, W. Edwards Deming, Sample Designs in Bu iness Research, John Wiley and Sons, 1960.

2-15

2 6 Procedurally, observations wore first sorted in the descending order .hci r ---ights and as.-ngned cell,values fro icating Sc ries.An on-line computer package was then written to perniit generalized data selection upon \yhich the 10 estimat(.!S we I%uuide and to CnICL1IOtC the respective variance timates.

Fig-ure 2-1, on the following page, is an appioximate plottini4 of the standa,rd error of population estimates based upon 50 points calculated from the data.To alive this curve, estimates were made on the bas s of classes of variables identified according to observed proportions to .obtain a satisla tory range and density of poi As an example of interpreting this graph, where a population pro ection (X) is given .oubseouently in this report of, say, 9 million households, the approximate standard error of the estimate is about 250,000 households (Plus or minus).Since the sample is relatively large, and we may thus assume an approximately notinal distribution, the probability thatwill differ from NI by more than this amount is about one in three.There is only about a 5% chance that the estimate is off by more than 500,000 (2o ). In addition to Figure 2-1, the -innputer rountine was used throughout the analysis to estimate the standard errors on specific statistics and to test for sig-nificance of comparisons.It should be noted, however, that. percentages and other ratios computed within subgroups of the sample are lil<3y to be more reliable than the ratios of the absolute standard errors of the estimates (in relative termsince for logical (071) variables we have:

2 in X /Y ^2/A2 X 1Y

2-16

27 10 15 20 25

Population Projectic (M)

II-1,Approximate Standard Errors oftAbsolutePopulation Projections. On millions of households) in surveys based on a.universeof telephone households ,three comrn porients of bias arise from thescreening methodology. The first is !mown as the distributional component and occursbecause the incidence of telephone ownership differs among socioeconomicsubgroups. For example, telephone ownership Inthe New York City SMSA is lower among black householdsthan white households (88, 9%),Within the black households, telephone penetration varies from53. 2% among those with incomebelow the poverty level 10 7.5`,, mmong those whose income is..iigher tl_in 15O ; of the poverty 10 Ve 1.The pattern also varies, geographically,with the ruial South, for example, having lower than averagepenetrAion. Because of these variations, sampledata frotelephone screenings projected to __stirnates for the totalpopulation understate the results for groups characterizedby low telephone ownership, unlessthey are adjusted to correct for,this distributioal bias.With such data, reliable estimates canbe made of the size of selected populationsubgroups, such as those cited above, and corresponding adjustments canbe made in projections derivedfrom telephone data, provided they arebased on standard demographiccharacteristics or other data repo --Ledby the Census. The effect of any distributionalbias component Is m tigated by the present study desi nsince the sample design controls thedistribution of the demographic subgroups of interest inthe population. Because this survey was controlled for ethnicity, income andgeographic area, the weights tend to equalize the sample data with the populationdistributions. 'reliability" associatedwith A second conceptualkind of bias is the bias, the study me hods ofintorviewing. As a measureof possible reliability confirmation of key householdcharac- design provided forpersonal intendew obtained from the telephonescrecniag. 2-18

3 0 In pretesting the main survey instrument, 201 households were int( ved in person.. airing these interviews, we verified the three principal sample cell control criteria that were, used to select the respondents for the pre- test.Comparisons between telephone and personal interview data prove satisfactory.F`urthermore, in the sampling plan, three studies comparing telephone interview versus personal interview data were cited, revcalthg only trivial differences between the methods.Reliability bias through telephone interviewing is thought to be very small.

The third cQmponent of possible bias is that aris..ng out of attitudinal or lichavioral differences that may or may not exist between telephone and non- Lel le households of otherwisemilar characteristics.Available comparison SUiS have revealed no significant differences.

Missing Data

Missing data or item non-response resulting from refusals, "don't knows" a _dvery oceasiemlly, collection, coding dnd keypunclang errors always are troublesome problem in survey research. WIenever weighting is used to project actual estimates of the universe, non-response introduces not only bias in estimates of population means and proportions, but has the additional effect of lowerMg absolute projected nurnbers. Fortumtely, the observed non-response for most of the questionmaire items in this study is near trivial.Household income contitutes the most serious problem, with a non-response rate of 11.5%, most of which were refusals. A commensurate non-response rate was experienced when respondents using day care centers, nursery schools or care by non-relatives in other than the children's own homes were asked if the provider was licensed. The relatively low completion rates experienced here were generally due to lack of knowledge.

2-19

31 re are several common ways of dealing w issing data.First, tnadditional eel] C'non-response" or MiSS mg") can be added toeach class variable, We c10 not favor this approach:because, althoughmarginal totals are preserved, proportions (e. g. ,percentages) are distorted.In addition, non-

:70,91 can be artificially allocated accordingto observed proportions. II some cases, non-response has been allocatedaccording to the observed proportions and this fact is noted.In other cases, particularly tables giving percentages, no allocation has been made. LII

ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK

Before we proceed to the substantiveresults of the study, it is useful to have a clear understandingof the characteristics of thesample households s well as the definitionsand distributions of the principalindependent variables used.This chapter is devoted to these purposes. In general, this volume comprisespopulation measurement and descriptive research. In other words, we areinterested primarily in learning, how much child care is used, andby whom. A general listing ofthe goals of this report would include answers to thefollowing questions: What forms or arrangements ofchild care are in cu rent use, and at whatproportions are they used? Bow can child care be definedto satisfy the heuristically-held concept of"significant" or important usage? Who are the child care consumers? What patterns of usage can beidentified by population s ubgroups What are the cos 7 of chi d care tothe consu e What transportation arrangements areused?

Thus, we have endeavor d toinclude a core of data and analyses describing the current child caremarket from the very broadnational peri spective of all households withchildren'under 14 years of age. The"whys"

3-1 opinions, prele and reasons an( the "wherefores 'including the attitudes, beh -id consumption covered in VoNinic

Chit raeteristicofflcsondetitsthe Respondents were selectedunder an extreme sexbias.That is, the preferred respondent wasdefinedin all cases, as thefemale primarily respon- households were sible for care of the children.Married Males in two-parent interviewed in only a handfulof cas = 19). reported below in The weighted distributionof respondents by sex is proportion of females shown,together with Table Given the overwhelming subsequently in this section, the distribution of householdrelationships presented the term "respon- it can reasonablybe construed thatfor analytical purposes, interviews involved un- dent" is virtually synonymouswith "-other." Only 22 married males as heads ofhouseholds.* Furthermore,4,539 of the 4,609 house-7 2% of holds interviewed included a sonor a daughterunder 14. Appro>dmately the remaining househol&exhibited the respondents weregrandparents, and most of respondents siblings, nieces, other close relationshipstructures nephews, etc.). TABLEI il-1

SEXOF RESPONDENT

Projected Percen Sex Househol ds1 0.7 Mal e 182 99.3 Female 241196 100.0 TOTAL 24,378 1Reported in thousands

single-parent male-headedhouseholds is substantially *The observed rate of households. This can beattributed lower than that reportedby the Census for all least in part to the selectioncriterion that householdscontain younger children.

3-2

- It is important to note that households not "families") constitute the unit basis for interviews in this study.This fact, coupled with the non-standard selection of households with children under 14, tendsto hinOer comparison with most baseline population data.

A weighted distribution of the ageS ofr -pondents is given in Table The mean age of the respondentswas 33.8 years, and approximately 90% fell within Lhe customary childbearing ages of 18 to 45.The modal category, "26-35, " contained nearly half (47.4c;7). TABLE 111-2

AGE OF RESPONDENT

Projected Households Perceht

Under,18 47 -0 2

18 - 25 '3,812 15.7

26 - 35 11,530 47.4

36 - 45 6,647 27 3

46 - 55 1,973 8.1

56 - 64 222 0.9

65 & Up 78 _0.3

Total 24,308 100.0 ,

*Reported in thousands

The great majority (82, 2%) of respondentswere ma'ed (Table 11E-3). Less than 1% reported their spouses were physically absent frontthe household,

:3-3 TABLE II-3

MARITAL STATUS

. oJected Status Households* Percen

Marri ed 20,027 82.2

Never Mar ied 686 2.8

Separated 1,301 5.3

Di vorced 1,722 7.1

Widowed 633 2.6

TOTAL 24,369 100.0 *Reported inthua

That the sample is very traditional, generally, lB an important observation.The marital status of respondents, for example, is a good measure of the number of "parents" in the household.In other words, if the respondent is not currently married (i. e., spouse absent), this may be construed as a virtual, albeit imperfect, indicator of a single -parent home situation.For this reason, tabulations of a given item are usually not presented by both marital status and "single parent/two parent" to avoid duplicative excess volume.

A dichotomized marital status variable, entitled "current maritalstatu is used frequently throughout this report. The class "currently married" denotes married households with spouse present. The complement "not currently married" (or "currently unmarried") comprises those whoare either divorced, separated (spouse absent) widowed or never married.

3-4

3 6 Enor--

'As expl, in Section lEI he sampling plan was dusigned to embrace disproportionally large numbers of minority andlow-income interviewees via planned oversampling.In both cases, the goal of attaining sufficientraw interviews to support detail-d analysisof these population subgroups was achieved.

Race was recorded from observationwhere:the triterviewer was able to make certain determinations. Wherethere was doubt, the respondentwas asked to select the appropriate racialcategory.

Race and ethnic tsties were recorded orily for respondents. It is therefore an explicit analyticalassumption throughout this report that the respondent's race may be attributed to allmembers in the household, particularly where patterns of childcare usage have been expressed as distributions of children by race or ethnicity.

Both raw and projected distributionsof respondents by race are given in Table IU-4 to emphasize the import of theoversampling. The unweighted sample space for racial minorities N1,602) is demonstrably adequate for the partitioned analysis intended,

TABLE. III-4

RESPONDENT'S RACE

Raw Projected Race- Adjusted _htervieWs Households* Perbent

J4hite 3,006 , , 19,559 .80.2

Black 1,429 3,575 14.7

American Indian 52- 462 1.9

Asian American 36 337 1.4

Other 85 456 1.9

TOTAL 4,608 24,389 100.0

*Repo_ed in u ands

3-5 3 7 A second questionnaire item identified respondents who perceived then selves as Spanish.Results from this question are given in Table The questibn was not asked of American Indians or As -a-Americans.

TABLE 111-5

ETHNICITY: SPANISH BACKGROUND

Projected Spanish Background Households* Percent

Mexican-American 690 3.0

Puerto Rican 197 0.9

Of other Spanish heritage 430 1.9

Not of Spanish background 21,732_ 94.3 :

'TOTAL 23,048 100.0

*Repo_e

Fi Ally, a .iablo was constructed from both the race rind Spanish ethnicity variables, as shown in Table 111-6. The logical methodology used incombinthgthese items held that Spanish ethnicity takes prioi:ty over race th summary classification.. TABLE 11-6

RACE/ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION

Projected Category 'Households* Pertent

Whi,te 18,312 75.1

BlacX 3 507 -14.4

Spanish ,316 5.4,

5.1 Other :1265 _ .

TOTAL 24,389 100c0

*Reported 1m thow3ande

3-6 hold Size and Sti

The sample households ranged in size from two (by deli 15 (Table In-7). The modal size was four members (Mean= 4.46)tending to c "firm the image of the "typical American family." Fewer thanone in 20 (4.2%) consisted only of mother and child,a structure that may be assumed to represent a care-demanding circumstance, at least fornon-public-assistance households. TABLE III-7

TOTAL FAMILY SIZE

Number of Projected Family Members Households -Percent

2 1,025 4.2

3 5,618 23.0'

4 7,944 32.6

5 5,003 20.5

6 2,511 10.3

7 1,251 5.1

8 546 2.2

9 224 0.9

10. 112 , 0.5

11 122 0.5

12 .. 25 0.1

13 8 0.0

14 0 0.0

15 2 0:0

TOTAL 24,390 100 0 ,

n thoueam3

3-7

39 In the broadest sense, the cc t of "household" is very nearly synonymous with that of "family"8 - than I% contained unrelated me hers, The proportional distributiono tionships shown in Table merits particular clarification sinepercentages do not reflect the absolute number of persons of a given relationship.Instead, figures represent the probability of a sample household containingat least one member of a cc4ain relationship.For example, 'while an estimated 77 .67( includeat least .one son, some include more.than one son.Given that the categories are not exclusive, the percentages do not, ofcourse, add up to 100%.

TABLE 111-8 PROPORTION OF HOUSEHOLDS CONTAINING MEMBERS OF A GIVEN RELATIONSHIP

Relationship to Projected Respondent Households* Percent

Self Male) 182 0.7 Self (Female) 24,196 99.2 Husband 19.960 81.8 , Wife 100 0.4

Son 18.920 77.6

Daughter 17,655 72.4

rother 252 , 1.0

Sister 280 1.1

Father 280 ,

Mother 732 3.0

Grandson 270 1.1

Granddaughter 314 1.3

29 Grandfather 0.1 '

Grandmother 94 0.4

Nephew 103 0.4

Niece 109 0.4

Uncle 32 0.1

Aunt 64 0.3

Other Relatives 60 0.2

151 Unrelated Persons 0.6

98 Unknown relationships 0.4

24.390 100.0% TOTAL ___A *Rapor d zn t 3-8 4 0 From this probability distribution, it is clear that at least nine of 10 families are styled after traditional Models consisting of parents and children. About 80% are two-parent nuclear families.

Table 111-9-shows a second similar probability-of-relationship distribution limited to children under 14.Except for sons and daughters, only grand- children are represented at greater than a 1% probability.

lABLE 111-9

PROPORTION OF HOUSEHOLDS CONTAINING CHILDREN UNDER 14 OF A GIVEN RELATIONSHIP

Relationship to Projected

. Respondent Households* Percent.

Son 17,048 69.9

Daughter 16,061 65.9

Brother 19 0.1

Sister 31 0.1

Grandson 270 1.1

Granddaughter 307 1.3

Nephew 75 0.3

Niece 85 0.3

Other relatives ,9 0.0

/ Unrelated persons 25 0.1' / UnkhoWn relationships 69 --,--0/.3

TOTAL 24,388 100.0

(

*Reported £fl' thOUBUfldB

4 1 The number of children under 14 per household averages 1.96, with an observed maximum of nine children (Table M-10).

-TABLE I I I -10

NUMBER Or CHILDREN IN THE HOUSEHO D

Number of Projected Children Households* Percent

1 9,522 -39.0

2 8,995 36.9

3 3,970 16.3

4 1,288 5.3

5 408 1.7

116 0.5

84 0.3

4 0.0

9 4 0_._ 0

TOTAL 390 100.0

*Reported in thou ands

The dis ribution of children by age is presented in Table M-11.

4 2

3-10 , TABLE III-11

DISTRIBUTION OF CHILDREN BY AGE

Projected Age Children Percent

Under 3 (Subto al) 8 091 16.9

Under 1 3,239 6.8

1 2,657 5.5

2 3,195 6.7

3-5 (Subtotal) 10 749 22 .4

3,517 7.3

4 3,588 7.5

5 3,644 7.6

6-9 (Subto al) 13 976 29.1

6 3,517 7.3

7 3,477 7.2

8 3,403 7.1

9 3,578 7.5

10-13 Sub otal) 5 ,148 _31.6- 10 3,717 7.7

11 4,023 8.4

12 3 808 7.9

13 3,600 7.5

TOTAL 47 963 100.0

*Reported in thousan s

4 3

3-11 Economic and Erriplypent Characteristics

More than 90% (22.2 million) of households with children under 14 receive at least some economic support from one or more household member (Table III-12).Of these, approximately 87% contain male respondents or husbands contributing support, and 4157 include breadwinning female respondents or mives. No other household member, related or unrelated, contributes with .sufficient frequency to merit generalization.Three-quarters report no finan- .cial support from external sources (Table 111-13).

. A fourth, or roughly 6 million, receive additional financial support from outside the household. Among the sources tabulated are support from an estranged spouse (6.9%) and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC-6.7%), The categories "other public welfare" (4.5%) and "other government source" (6.9%) are generally undefined, including food stamps, the "adult" welfare categories (blinddisabled, old age assistance), Social Security, veterans benefitsgeneral assistance, Medicaid and myriad other assistance programs. A distribu ion of the gross annual household cash income ir shown in Table 111-14.This item. (Question 67) yielded the lowest response rate (88. 5%) of all the basic survey variables due primarily to refusals. The readei is therefore cautioned that non-response allocations are influential in interpreting income-linked statistics.

A second income variable, poverty status. (Table T. 1 1 - 1 5 ), was constructed as a function of gross income and household size using the inter-agency government poverty-level tables of April 30, 1975.Since farm households could not be identified on the basis of questionnaire data, figures for non-fa families were applied to all heuseholds.

3- 2 TABLE 111-12

PROPORTION OF HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM MEMBERS OF A GIVEN RELATIONSHIP

Relationship to Projected Respondent Households* Percent

Sel (Male) 144 0.7

Self (Female) 8,986 40.5

Husband 19,076 16.1

Wife SS 0.2

Son 205 0.9

Daughter 13.3 0.6

Brother 28 0.1

Sister 37 0.2

Father 46 0.2

Mother 109 0.5

Grandson 0.0

Granddaughter 0 0.0

Grandfather 3 0.0

Grandmother 43 0=2

Nephew 7 0.0

Niece 0 0.0

Uncle 2 0.0

Aunt 0 0.0

'Other Relatives 7 0.0

Unrelated Persons 57 0.3

Unknown relationships 21 0.1

TOTAL 22,166 100.0%

*Reported in thousa

3-13 TABLE III13

SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF CHILDREN FROM OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSEHOLD

Projected Sources Householdslr_ Percent

Spouse or ex-spouse (outside of your household) 1,686 6.9

Relative (outside of your household) -170 0.7 , Other person (outside of your household) 42 0.2

Government payments or subsidies expressly for child care 312 1.3

Income tax deductions for child care payments 250 1.0

Work Incentive P ogram (WIN) 24 0.1

,-Aid for Dependent Children 1,639 6.7

Other public welfare program 1,099 4.5

Other government source (Veterans Administra ion, 1,670 6.9 / Social Security, etc.)

Other pr vate agency or organization 0 0.0

None 18,569 76.4

fOTAL 24,304 100.0

*Reported in thousande TABLE II-14

ANNUAL INCOME OF TOTAL HOUSEHOLD

-Incoje Ciass Projected Households*.Percent ------Under $2,000 200 0.9

$2,000-2,999, 340 1.6

, 3,000-3,999 804 3.7

4,000-4 999-- 744 3.4'

5,000-5,999 937 . .4.3

6,000-6,999 1,171 5.4

7,000-7,999 893 4.1

8,000-8,999 847-- 3.9

, 9,000-9,999 900 4.2

10,000-11,999 2,713 12.-5

12,000-14,999 3,965 18.3 4 15,000-.19,999 4,416 20.4

20,000 andup 3,693 17 0

TOTAL 21-624 -100.0

*Reported in thousand

4 7

3-15 TABLE111-15

ANNUAL INCOME OF TOTAL HOUSEHOLD IN RELATION TO POVERTY LrNE

Projected Income Class

. Households* Percent

Below poverty 3,212 14.9

Poverty to 200% poverty 5 285 24.4

over 200% poverty 13 127 60.7

TOTAL 21,624 .100.0

*Reported in thousanda

Poverty level criterion as a function of familysize is as follows:

Family Size Poverty Level

2 $3,410

3 4,230 4 5,050

5 5, 870

6 6, 690

For each additional member, $820 isadded. These figures ,are used by the Department of Labor and Bureau of the Censusfor non-farm families in the continental United States and became effective April30, 1975. The three categories shown (below poverty, above povertybut less than 200% of poverty and above 200% of poverty) are particularlyrelated to federal policy research since eligibility for various programs andbenefits is determined by the poverty level.Furthermore, the three classes correspond, if only very roughly, to the vernacular notionof "poor," "margirial" (or "near poor') and "non-poor" (or middle class) households.Consequently, this construct variable is used more prominently than simple incomein our annlyses. 3-16

4 8 Because child care usage, particularly the more formal kind, is so often job related, household employment charaateristics assume a quintessential role in our description of the sample universe. With this in mindit is important to note thatsover a third of the respondents are employed at least part-time, with nearly a qu,arter holding full-time jobs (Table 111-16).lnclud- ing those who are enrolled in school or job training programs (Table 111-17), some 9.6 million estimated households contain persons with work or educational commitments who also proidde child Care. TABLE 111-16

RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYMENT STATUS

Projected Status PeiTent

Full-ti e 5,737 ,23.6

Part-time 3,196 13.1

Neither 15,375 63.

TOTAL 24,309 100.0

*Report- inthousands

TABLE 111-17

ENROLLMENT STATUS IN SCHOOL OR JOB TRAINING

Projected Status Households*- Percent'

Full-time 960 4,0

-Part-tIme 1,124 4.6

Neither 22-_192 91..4

TOTAL '', 240276 160.0

*Reported In thousands

3-17

4 9 Throughout the remainder of the report, the dichotomous employment variable "respondent's employment status" is used extensively.The category employed" refers to those employed both full-time and part-time. The second clnss, "not employed," is so labeled to distinguish it from the term "unemployed," which is often construed in labor statistics to denote members of the labor market who are seeldng work but unable to find it.

- Approximately nine out of 10 of the spouses (i.e., "husbands' were employed on a ftll-tic basis (Table B1-18). An estimated 6.4% were not employed, a figure roughly commensurate with the national unemployment rate.

TABLE 1II-18

SPOUSrS EMPLOYMENT STATUS

Projected Sta us Households* Percent

Full-time 18,168 90.8

"part-time, 567 2.8

Neither 1 283 6.4

TOTAL 20,017 100.0

*Reported in thousqnds

5 0

3-]8 Definition of Child Care Usa e The single-most elusive attribute of the data lies in arriving at a truly satisfactory definition of "child care." The following are among the possible , definitions supported by the data:

Total Methods Used:Any household which uses any form of child care, even if very occasionally, including casual care by the spouse, an older sibling or even the respondents at their place of work. This ilefinition, Obviously, is only of passing interest from an analytical viewpoint and embraces about 90% of households. Users of Methods External to the Household: Households or children using or receiving care from one or more of nine types involving caregivers or institutions not included n the immediate family nucleus. These principal types are (1) in-home care by a relative, (2) in-home care by a non-relative, (3) "other-home" care by a relative, (4) "other-home" care by a non-relative, (5) nursery and pre- schools, (6) day care centers, (7) cooperative programs, (8) before and after school care prograny and (9) Head- start.Since very little data were gathered on intra-household care, the term "user" denotes, except where otherwise noted, households or children using one or more of these arrangements. Main Method: Respondents using one or more of the nine principal types listed above were asked to select one as their most important or "main" method.This variable is useful in its own right as an indicator of importance and is, in addition, used as a key or frame of reference-in-tie structure,of the questionnaire. -- Children Avera in _One-o-fMore Hours per Week: Some respondents-report that their children receive care so infrequently as to "average" less than an hour per week. Where mean hours are given for "users," as well as in certain other tables (appropriately noted), these observations are deemed intractable and are accordingly dropped.

5 1

:3-19 Children Usina "Substantial" Level of Care: Any classifIcation of care into "substantial" versus "casual" is, of course, arbitrary. For the purposes of assess- ing_the strUcture of what we might term (very cautiously) the child care industry, a cutoff point of 10 hours is proferred, supported by argument, and used. Full-time Care: Thirty hours is used as the criterion for full-time equivalent care. Market Carer Market care is that portion of oirerall usage for which either cash is paid or government subsidies are presumed. Care received for free, or in exchange for services or favors, is not included.

The reader need not iternalize these definitions at this point, for Part 2- of this report can very nearly be described as a quest to clarify what is meant by childcare and definitional criteria are given at the beginning of the various Sections. - In Section IV, all forms °Cahn-careeven arrangements averaging less than an hour per weekare reported. These data are dominated in large part by occas_ional babysitting and other forms of very "informal" usage, and are , probably useful onlY"to those interested in the very broadest measures of incidence. Section V is a summary analysis of total child care usage by selected population subgroups as measured by mean weekly per capita hours.This section is essentially uncomplicated bY stipulative definitions. In Section VI, the usage patterns of those averaging 10 or more hours per week in one or more of the nixie forms of care exiern;1 to the household are examined and compared with the "casual" users.Selected attributes of full-time users are also given. The concept of "formal".care, particalarly market careis the focus of Section VII, which subdivides users according to whether cash or in-kindpaYments are made for care.

3-20

5 2 Section VIII analyzes the con..5umer costs of care. Obviously, those who pay cash are the population subgroup of interest. No data were available from this survey on the portion of total costs paid through public or private grants, subsidies, etc.

Section-IX is concerned with transportation arrangpments and is not limited by any one definition 61 care.

3 -:21

5 3 _ection IV

SIMPLE INCIENCE OF IISAGE pverview Nine out of 10 househo ds with children under 14 report using some form of child care, including care arrangements with.members residing within the household other than the person primarily \responsible for care (typicallythe Mother). Of those who use no care (10.3%), about-two thirds have no children under 10.Approximately the.same overall proportion (88%) of children receive s'ome fonn of care. Table IV-1, on the following pake, gives the simple probabilities of usage, based on children in both absolute (percentageof all children) and rOative (percentage of children using one or more method) terms. The reader shouldbear in mind that this table includes some arrangements that are used so infrequently aq to "rrerage" less than an hour per week. Multiple arrangements for care are'vecommon. .0f the "user" group, 36.1% use one and only one method of care. Three in 10 use two methods. The remaining third use three or more methods at least on occasion. Combined statistics on households Indicate an even greater level of multiplicity when con- strained to households with twc/or 'more children.

As we shall see throughout the data, relatives dominate the provider forge, even among substantial users: ,About 45% of households report some form of "extended-family" care arrangement involving relatives not in the immediate household. 4-1

5,1 OISIWKION Or CH1tHREN y TYPL Pi' CAPE Lab

Percen-t-

Estimated Percent of all Typr of Ca' Children' of 1Wor Children

(not sponqe or child'', I. lu own home 11 relalive 11,170 a.? 23,9 brother or sister)

11,107 76,3 23,2 In owo home by non-relative

32,5 28,6 In other home by relative 13,706

8,345 19.3 17.4 In other home by non-relative

1,981 4.7 4,1 In nursery school or pre-school

960 2.3 2.0 6. In a day care center

546 1.3 1.1 In a cooperative program orbabysitting cooperative

Before or after school activities program(not 1,676 4,0 3,5 regular school hours)

130 0.3 0,3 Headstart

21,832 51;7 45,5 10. In own home by spouse

25,8 sister 12,397 29;4 11. In own home by child's older brother or

5,144 12,2 10.7 12, Child stays by self

13, Child takes care of self and younger brother 2,799 6.6 5,8' or sister

and above 9,439 22.4 17,9 14, Public or private school - kindergarten

701 1.7 1 5 15. Cared for by parent at work

TOTAL USERS 42,220 (100.0) 55 CHILDREN 47,963 (100.0)

*Reported in thousands

3 The subject of c are with n the household structureby spouse, iJy stAings,elf-careand ancillary care through-.1 school system is only of past, ntei in this "consumer" study, these arrange m nts tire not c

eyed to he a ' hod of care" throughout the rem inder of our analysis.

flespondents who reported twing at least one type of care outside the immediate household were asked to select a "main method" from among the arrangements they used,Table IV-2 gives the distribution of main methods. Just under tw- thirds of all households with children under 14 use 80111e, external form of care.Interestingly, less than 2% of those using one of the nine external (or ',principal" for the purposes of this study ) methods named an intra-household arrangement as their math method. That is, if a household uses a care provider outside the household, that arrangement is nearly always considered to be the "main method" over care by spouse, siblings or the schools. TABLE IV-2

MAIN METHOD OF CARE USED (Users of External Arrangements Only)

Percent Type of Care Projected rrcent Of All Households* of Users Households

1. In own home by relative not spouse or child's brother or sister) 3,418 22.5 14.0 2.In own home by non-relative 3,176 20.9 13.0

. In other home by relative 4,136 27.2 17.0 4. In other home by non-relative 2,513 16.5 10.3 5. In nursery school or pre-school 874 5.8 3.6

6.In a day care center 550 3.6 2.3

7. In a cooperative program or babysitting cooperative 139 0.9 0.6 8. Before or after school activities program (not regular school hours) -308 2.0 1.3

9. Headstart 71 0.5 0.3

TOTAL USERS 15,185 100.0

HOUSEHOLDS 24,390 100.0

*Reported ih thousan

4-3 This sul»-roui rds vho US e some exic rnal

_ :n- crated in 'rable IV- '05 the applicable tot.' al ph. is( oughout this report.

havo noted, a great proportion of the overall distribut .01 v ehi Id care at very insubstantial rates. Only about 26. million .1dren (62. 5X of the gross "sometimes use" population) receive pnneipal type of care with sufficient regularity to "average" an hour or more per week. And even within this group of "regular users" (under a very liberal assumption indeed), most (53.6%) average fewer than 10 hours a week. About 21%, or an estimated 5.6 million of these children, representing just under 12% of all children under 14, use full-time-equivalent care (defined as 30 or more hours Per

Child - )ther's_ :Eraployment Status As we shall see t_. the subsequent sections, the amount of care children receive is higaly correlative with the respondent's employment status. The simple probabilities of usage, however, are less strongly influenced by whether or not the mother works-igure '4-1 and Table IV-3).But there are still clear differences. Care by relatives, whether in or outside the child's home, is more prevalent among children with parents who are not employed. Although this can be construed to indicate that much of this foini of care is casual and infrequent in natureit does not follow that arrangements with relatives are seldom used substantially in support of work.

The care types involving non-relatives outside the child's home (i. e. , other home by non-relative, nursery school, day care center and before and after school care ) are all used more frequently by employed mothers. The differences are strong for in-home by non-relative and day.eare center care.

4-4

5 8 Before or after school program

Nursery school

Other home bi

non-relative \

Other home by relative

1n-home by non-relative

_n-hom by relative

U`J tr) Lr)

= Figure 4-1. Percent of Children Receiving at Least One Hour Per Week of Selected Methods of Care by-Respondent's Empleyment Status.

I - 5 TRE

CHILDREN USING AT LEAST- *. HOUR PER "Y, OF CARE BY

Amn 13Y RESPONDENT'S EIARITAT/MLOYMENT STATUS

(Thouvrink of children including nw1Liple 11.1ethods)

flf MAW) . klidoyd Tait! irccnt Yroj, PcrclAtI 'llojakd 8orc,!h Pro;ected Projociod 'PrLent rrujec,ud

khildrPo of kw ' Childrm of ko'rO Childron of PACO COildreo di 8ase Children of Case

Own home by relative 22.3% 938 18.3% 9,420 19.74. Numhor 1,921 15.3% 5,800 21.7t 762

; 10,0% 100,0% Percent 20,4% 61.6% 4: 1%

Own home by nowelative 7 4 20,6% 465 9:1% 9,655 20 Number 2,530 20.2: 5,960 22.3t 4.8% 100.0% Percent 26.2% 61.7% 7.3%

Other hem by relative 25.1% 855 16.7% 11,318 23 6% Number 2,709 21.6% 6,893 25,8% 860 7.6% 100,0% Percent 23.9% 60,9% 1.6%

Other hoiTle by non-relative 23.0% 386 7.5% 7,058, 14.7% Number 2,907 23.2% 2,980 11.21 M6 11.1% 5.4% 100,0% Percent 41.2% 42,2: ,

Nursery or pre-school 104 5:6% 128 2,5% 1,921 4,01 Number 608 4. % 990 1.1% 10.1% 6:7% 100,0% Percent 31.7% 51.5%

Day care center 7.8% 89 1.7% 950 2,0% Number 391 3.1% 206 0.6% 265 27.8% 9,4% 100,0% Percent 41,1% 21:

Cooperative program 16 0.5; 4 0.1% 538 1,1% Number 7.3 0.5% 445, 1.7% 0.7% 100,0% Percent 13.6: 82,7% 3.0%

Oefore/after school program 185 5,4% 78 1.5% 11581 3.3% Number 455 3.6% 863 3.2: 11,7% 4,9% 100.4 Percent 28.8% 54,6%

Headstart 0.4: 42 0:8% 121 0,3% Number 7 0,1% 59 0.2% 12 10.0% 35,2: 103.0% Percent 6.1% 48.6%

ALL PETRIE 2,193 42:8 26 291 55.0% Number 7,703 61.4% 13,672 52.0: 2,522 73.8 9,6% 8.3% 100,0% percent 29,3% 52.8%

5,125' 47,780 100.0% 8ASE NO. CHILDREN IN U.S. 12,543 26,695 3:417 100.0% 25,3% 55.9% 7. % 10.7% At this point, it should be noted that the differences between nursery school and clay care center are not entirely clear.A given facility could provide full- time care and possess all the attributes of a day care center but simply be titled a "nursery school."If there is a single important categorical difference between these methods of care (other than local nomenclature), it probably lies in the respondent's perception of-the mode of usage. Under this hypothesis, two users of the same facilityone part-time in order to provide social contact for the child, the other full-time because the parents workmight identify the method of care as nursery school and day care center, respectiVely.

Child Ca -e by Itace_and Ethnicit There are also strong difleicnccs in the distribution of usage probabilities by race (Figure 4-2 and Table IV-4).White children generally, are the most likely to receive care from external providers.In particular, whites are much more likely to receive care in a home-based setting (either the child's home or other homes) than are either b acks or Spanish children. A greater proportion of Spanish children than blacks receive care by relatives and, although the difference is weaker, by non-relatives in their own homes. Only in day care center care are blacks overrepresented proportionally.

Child Care bHousehold Povcrt A strong relationship eNists between household economies and child care usage (Table IV-5). Only in day care centers are the poorrepresented at or above their respective proportion in the population.Given that center care is relatively exTensive we shall sec in Section VIII), this phenomenon is probably attributable in large part to government Mteryention tri the market in the form of grants, subsidies and monitoring activities.The same can be said of the higher observed usage of center care among blacks.

4-7

6 2 care center

Nursery school

Other home by non-relative

Other home by relative

1n-home by non-relative

n-home by :elative

Hour Per Week Figure 4-2. Perceic of Children Using at Least One of S'',Ited Methods of Care byRace/Ethnicity

4-8

6 3 TABLE IV-4

CHILDREN USING AT LEAST ONE HOUR OF CARE PER WEEK BY METHOD AND RACE/ETHNICITY (Thousands of children including multiple methods)

)1cH h e -lile-r---- sPANISH OTHER TOTAL TYr. OF CARE Projected rojected Projected Projected rojecte_ Children PircintChildrenpercent.Children Perc_entChildrenPercentCbjldren Percent

Own home by relative Number 7,289 21.2% 1 ,181 15. 559 18.5% 432 14.8% 9.460 19.7% Percent 77,0 % 12.5% 5.9% 4.6% 100.0%

n home bynon-relative Number 8,873 25.8% 404 199 6. 238 82% 9,715 20.3% Percent 91.3% 4.2% 2.0% 2.4% 100.0%

ther home by relatIve

Number B 968 26.0I 1463 19.2% 653 21 6% 244 8.4% 1131 2 .6% Percent 79.2% 12.8% 5 2.2% 100.0%

Other home by non-relative

Number 5,852 17.0% 692 185 6.1 337 116 7.065 14.7% Percent 82.8% 9.8% 2.6% 4.8% 100,

Nursery or pre-school Number 1,500 4.41 247 37 1.2% 136 4.7% 1,920 4.0% Percent 78.1% 12.8% 1.9' 7.1 100.0%

Day care center Number 555 1.6% 197 2,6% 52 1.7% 147 5.0% 950 2.0% Percent 58.4% 20.7% 5.5% 15.4% 100.0%

Cooperative progr m

Number 462 1.31 27 0.4% 13 0.4% 36 1 2 '538 1.1% Percent 85.8% 6.1% 2.4% 6.7% 100.0%

Before/after school pro ram

Number 1371 4.0% 111 1.5% 47 1 6 51 1.8% 1,581 Percept 86.7% 7.0% 3.0% _.3 2% 100.0%

Headstart

Number 60 - 0.2% 43 0.6% 10 0.3% 8 0.3% 121 0.3% Percent 49.7% 35.6% 8.0% 6,7% 100.0%

ALL'METHODS Number 20.490 59.5% 3,452 45.5% 4293 42.7% 1,119 384% 26.. 55 55.0% Percent 77.7% 13.1% 4.9% 4.2% 100.0%

BASE NI.IMBER CHILDREN IN U.S. 34,439 7,584 3,027 2 2 47,962

65 TABLE IV-

CHILDREN USING AT LEAST ONE HOUR OF CARE PER WEEK DY METHOD AND HOUSEHOLD POVERTY STATUS (Thousands ef children including multiple mGthods)

ABOVE: POVERTY MOVE POVERTY BELOW POVERTYLEVEL LESS THAN 200'. OVERNC% ALL 12ms_ TYPE OF CARE Projected Projected Pro.jected n'ro ;, c :_(i Chjldren yercent Children_ Percent Clijldrn Percenb 0111w-en Percent Nr ,c-x,v bV reTative Number 1,213 15.0% 2,40 21.5% 4,845 20.6% 8,463 19.8% Percent 14.3% 28.4% 57.3% 100.0%

Ovin nome ,by non-re1ative Numoer 449 5.5% 1,758 15.7% 6,767 28.8% 8,9/4 21.0% Percent 5.0% 19.6% 75'.4% 100,0%

. Other home by relative Number 1,240 15.3% 3,144 28.2% 6,009 25.6% 10,393 24.3% Percent 11.9% 30.2% 57.8% 100.0%

,.; Other nore by non-r- ative Number 561 6.9% 1,421 12.7% 4,579 19.5% 6,561 15.3% Percent 8.5% 21.7% 69.8% 100.0%

Nursery or pre-school - Number 149 1.8% 221 2.-3% 1,359 5.8% 1,728' '4.0% Percent 8.61 12.8% 78.6% 1O0.0%

Day care center

, Number 248 . 141 1.3% 503 2.1% 892 2.1%

' Percent 27.8% 15.9% 56.4% 100.0%

. Cooperative program Number 2 0.0% 64 0.6% 426 1.8% 492 1.2% Percent 0.31 13.0% 86.6% 100.0%

Before/after school program Number 130 1.6% 281 2.5% 986. 4.2% 1,397 3.3% Percent 9.3% 20.1% 70.6% 100.0%

Headstart

Number , 64 0.8% 37 0.3% 9 0.0% 110 0.3% Percent 58.3% 33.5% 8.2% 100.0%

AL.!. METHODS , Number 3,122 38.5%. 5,999 53.7% 14,944 63.6%, 24,064 56.2% Percent 13.0% 24.9% 62.1% 100.0%

8/2151 NUMBER CHILDREN IN U.S. 8,094 100.0% 11,165 100.0% 23,482 100.0% \42,743 --

*Figures given are underestimated by about 1)% due to high refusal rate on the variable income.

4-10 11(!1:11.1.' 1110:t sti trrangement tor tit Ciner:tble "middlc-ine n children in ltsualiolcla above pc;-(.vbut, less than :200(: of the pover

comprisLki largelv babysitting, is strongly linked to ineonw. Aswe will sec throughout the data, in-home babysitting is hirgelyi v.hite ,middle- to upper-class pheno The differences in usage by income level ftly in the respective probabilities that children use care as opposed to hewmany hours of care they receive if they use it (Figure 4-3).Children from poor households who use theinstitutional forms of care -nursery schools, day care centers and befo- and after school programs actually use morecare, on the average, than their upper-mcome counterparts (Table IV-0.But tlicy are less likely to use these forms of care purely for casual or social purposes whereusage levels are low.Furthermore, both poor and marginal inoome householdsareas we will see in subs6quent sections, more likely to use in-home care arrangements in support of employment.

Usage Schedules.

Child care usage schedules in home-hased careare very broadly distributed across times of the day, days of the week and predictability ofusage (Table IV-7).l}ay care center, nursery school and Head Start care is usually received during Weekdays according to fixed schedules: A similarbut weaker tendency toward fixed weekday usage is evident among children using,care in 4 non-relatives' homes.

Factoring out irregular usage, evening_"babyst and weekend care, it is very noteworthy that no particular-types of arrangements.dominate either the "all day" or'"fixed times" categories. This observationcoupled with

6 7 Before or a ter school program

Day _are centers

Nurserp rhools

Other home by no,-relative

Other home by'relative

r1.41ome by non-relative

n-home by. relative

Mean Hours Used by Children Using One or More Hours Figure . Per Week b Household Income Level and Type of Care.

4-12

6 8 TABLE IV.6

MEAN LEVEL OF USAGE FOR CHILDREN USINGAT LEAST ONE HOUR

PER WEEK BY TYPE OF CARE ANDHOUSEHOLD POVERTY STATUS

(Thousandvof children includingmultiple methods)*

POVERTY TF OVER 200% ALL INCOME

BELOW POVERTY 200% POVERTY POVERTY CLASSES 'E OF CARE Mean Projected Mean Projected Mean Projected ean roject Hours Children _ Hours Children Hours Children Hours Children_

Own home by elative 12.2 1,213 9.0 2,405 649 4,845 8,2 8,463

f)wn home bynon-relative 8.8 449 9.4 1,758 7.0 6,767 7.6 8,974

Other home.by relative 8.1 1,240 9.9 3,144 9.8 6,009 9,7 10,393

Other home by non-relative 9.7 561 11.7 11421 11.7 4,579 11,5 60561

Nursery or pre-school 19.1 149 16.8 221 17.9 1 359 17,9 10728

Day care center 33.2 248 25.8 26.2 141 503 27.9 892

Cooperativeprogram 33.0, 2 11.7 64 .5.1 426 6.1 - 492

Before/afte school program 8.0 130 5,2 281 5.4 986 5.6 11397

leadstart 19.3 64 25.8 37 20.2 9 21.5 110

ALL METHODS 15.3 3,122 16.1 5,999 16.0 14,944 15.9 24,064

*Figures given as 'projected Children"are underestimated

by about 11% due to a high refusal rateon the variable income.

6 9 TABLE IV-7

SCHEDULE CHILDREN USING VARIOUSTYPES OF CARE BY

Vote: In Other Nome 1 After In Own Home Cooper- atiVe fa001 Project By Nursery Day Care Dy by 5y ProgramHeadstart School Center Program RelativeNonrelative RelativeNonrelative

BY TIME OF DAY: 18.8 3,9 39.4 ALL DAY 21,9 37,0 64.5 7:3 12:8 Percent of Users 10,0 :1 .1 .1 3.8 1.5 1.3 1.7 3,6 Percent of Population 2.4

1.6 3 .5 MORNINGS oNLY 46.6 7,7 219 3:9 7.7 4.1 2,5 :1 Percent of Users 1.9 .2 , 5 1:1 1.3 Percent of Population 1.0

67.3 23.5 AFTERNOONS ONLY 10.4 14.1 13.0 5.6 16.8 7,0 6.3 :1 Percent of Users .3 ;1 2.3 2,9 .4 1,4 1,6 Percent of Population 1.7

0.0 ed 6,5 EVENINGS ONLY 10.0 43,7 16.4 Percent of Users '26:1 .1 .2 1,7 10.0 4,6 Percent of Population 6;2

OVERNIGHT ONLY 1,8 6.5 1.3 percent of users 3,5

;2 , .4 1.8 Percent of Population :9

VARYING TIMES 43.4 20,3 3,5 42.3 5.9 13.6 49.2 39.4 54.8 Percent of Users .3 .5 .7 7,4 .2 0.9 15.5 Percent of Population 11.7

8 DAYS OF WEEP 0 .0 NEEKDAYS 95.0 64.4 88.6 27,0 59:5 91,4 6,9 22.9 .3 Percent of UserS 1,9 .7 2,8 10.3 3,7 . 5.2 7.6 Percent of Population 6.4

KUDOS 3:9 1, 7.1 28.0 24.5 7.2 Percent of Users 21:2 .1 1.2 ,2 6.4 6.9 Percent of Population 5.0

BOTH 4.5 1.4- 2 .5 1 .8 48,3 47.4 32.8 Percent of Users 50.3 .3 5.7 .2 11.1 13.4 Percent Of Population 11.9

Ay REGULARITY: 97.5 FIXED TIMES 90,4 29.3 62,0 14.2 29.4 88:0 15.5 16,8 2.1 .2 Percent of Users 3.0 1,9 .3 3,8 4,0 4.9 Percent of Population 3.7

ROTATING T1MEs 1.1 4:2 2,6 2,6 3.5 2.7 1.6 Perceot Of Users .3 .4 .4 .7 Nrcont of Population .6

IRREGULAR, PRED. 1 :8 1.1 13.3 2.4 3,8 16,1 13.0 Percent Of Users 12,7 .2 .5 2.3 .1 3.7 3.7 Percent of Population 3.0

IRREGULAR, UNPRED, 40:7 10,2 .5 53.4 5.1 2,8 63.4 6E1 Percent of Users 67,0 :5 .3 9,3 ,2 .1 14.5 19.3 Percent of Population 15.9

2,1 2,1 2:0 SPLIT TIMES 2.2 .9 1,0 2.1 1.9 Percent of Users 2.0 ;1 .4 .5 Percent of Population .5

IN TOTAL (N) 1,9ti I. ON ,5M 1,6M 13,6M 8.3M 11.4M 11,0M 47.9M 47. 914 USERS 47.9M 47.9P1 47.9m 47.9M 47.9M 47i9M POPULATION 47.9M data presented below, can be interpreted to mean tlat there are no given methods of care uniquely geared to the full-time or heavy user.In ether words, when we are thinking of care arrangements for children of working mothers, for /p example, it is patently incorrect to assume that they will probably use day care centers, family day care homes or any other particular type of "market care." Indeed, relatives and even in-home sitters command substantial portions of the full-time, "regular market."

We are not suggesting that there are no clear patterns or tendencies to be found in the distributions of usage levels within the methods. Indeed, day care centers, when used, are usually used full time see Figure 4-4), whereas the great majority of home-based care users can be classified as light or casual consumers (e.g. ,fewer than 10 hours per week). But at the same time, it is "mportant to keep in mind that residual levels of full-time and substantial userp are to be found across our taxonomy of methods.

Table gives the percentage distribution of children using care by type, level of uSage and schedule. While this table contaths a wealth of information, it may need some explaining.The variable "schedule regularity"see Table IV-7) has been dichotomized into "fixed" versus all others ("not fixed") to permit a viable three;,dirnensional analysis.Distributions are tabulated across the page, and cells represent, the Tespective percentages of the totals given in the rightmost margin.Since the table is based on households, two children, each with the same method and schedule would, of course, be represented by only one houeehold.

The truly remarkable obserVation to be made from this table is that with the exception of "not fied light usage," which falls almost exclusively info the home-based categories of.eare, there are no strong patterns of dominance between the methods. Apparently, child care usage among the moderate to heavy users Is more nearly the product of circumstance and (as covered in Volume III)

4-15

7 3 PERCENT

100

lull ,010100 OWNHOME BYRE LA TIVE

.-- OWNHOW BYNONBELATIVE OTHERHOME BYRELATIVE 90 ...... -----..---.OTHERHOMEBY NONRELATIVE ------NURSERYOR PRESCHOOL IirrisinwelDAYCARECENTER 80

70 111 il 60 ;I

Percen't A of Users 1

10 .. 10

1-9 10-19 20-29 . 30-39 40-49

Hours Used Per Week

Figure 4-4. Ogive Distribution of Usage Levels of Children Averaging at Least One Hour Per by Method.

4-16

1,1 TABLE IV-8

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF CHILDREN USING CARE BY .

SCHEDULE CLASS, USAGE LEVEL AND METHOD

Full-Heavy Usage Light Usage Moderate Usage . ) 30 hours/week) (Less than 10 hours/week) (10-29 hours/week) Projected

Type of Care Children Sub- Fixed 'Not ' Sub- Fixed Not Sub- Fixed Not Fixed Total ScheduleFixed Total Schedule Fixed Total :Schedule

142112M2,0112Lia 11.2 6.0 2.3 8.3 111346,600 Percent of Users 10.9 69.7 00.6 4.3 6.9 1.6 2.6 1.4 .5 2.0 47,963,000 Pe:cent of Population 2.6 16.5 19.1 1.0

.9LELlor 347 2.0 5.6 0,992,100 Percent of Users 8.0 75.0 83.1 4.4 6.9 11.3 2,6 .8 .5 1,3 47,963,00C Percent of Population 1.8 17.2 19.0 1.0 1.6 A

Other Home by Relative 13,527,800 8.1 12.1 6,2 : 3.1 9.3 Percent of Users 12.2 66.4 78.7 4.0 3.4 1.7 .9 2,6 47,963,000 Percent of PopulatiOn 3.5 18.8 22.3 1,1 2.3

OtheHome bNonrelativ 4.5 13.6 13.0 1.2 14,2 8,328,200 Percent of Users 24.3 47.9 72.2 9,2 1.6 .8 2.4 2,3 .2 2.5 47,963,000 Percent of Population 4.2 0.3 12.5

iiurSery orjreschool 1.5 24.7 26.5 8 27.3 1,948,000 Percent of Users 44.4 3.6 48.0 23.1 .1 1.0 1.1 1.1 47,963,000 Percent of Population 1.0 .1 1.9 .9

cT Center 6.2 26.2 54.9 1.3 56.2 950,800 Percent of users 11.5 6.2 17.7 20.0 .1 .5 1.1 1.1 Percent Of Population .2 .1 .4 .4 47,963,000

CQ9191.2_22911E 546.000 9.5 .5 10.0, 5.4 5;4 Percent of Users 30.8 53.0 04.6 47,963,000 .1 .1 .4 .6 1.0 , .1 .1 ' Percent of Population

2toleLAfter $chool pp. 1,637,900 15.4 3.8 19.2 1.0 1.0 Percentof Users 56.5 23.3 79.0 47,963,000 .5 .1 , .7 Pericent of Population 1.9 .8 2.7'

Project Ueadstart 34.8 121,200 13.9 48.8 2.5 51.3 Percent of Users 13.3 , .6 47,963,000 0 .1 .1 Percent of Population .1

'76 in any given method. The of personal preference asopposed to advantages inherent "U.S. system of child care,"if the term applies at all, refersto an eclectic set of personal arrangements.

LJsge by A a aq When the nunibers of childrenusing care are distributedby age four year (Table IV-9), a verytidy curve is evident, peaking at age four e.g. , olds represent 9.9%; of all users,five year olds 9.1%). However,when the sizes of the respectivecohort groups are taken into account,the picture is clouded somewhat since two yearolds are the most likely to use carefollowed by four year olds, one yearolds and then three yearolds, etc.This phenom- factors involved enon is analyzedfurther in Section V sincethere are confounding here. The same basic patternholds for the level ofeare.used among children who use care (TableIV-10*).That is, two year olds usethe most care, who use care do so for more followed by four yearolds. But three year olds hours per week than one yearolds. The stnicture of usage levelsis illustrated by Figure4-6. W e types all users are considered, the amountsof care used in the home-based care -When' are associated onlyweakly with age. Center careand nursery school care, Before used, are used substantiallyand predominantly bypre-school children. to the older children, and after school care programs,by defirdtion, are limited and the arnount used peaksat about the fifthgrade.**

*Cell entries in this tab e havebeen suppressed where, due tosinall samples', the standard errors of the means aregreater than one third of theobserved values. **Mien mentally transforming ageto school grade, the readeris raninded that the survey was taken inmid-1975. Children arethus one half year older than calendar-baSed cohortdistributions.About.half of the six year olds are actually "pre-schoolers."

4-18 TABLE IV-9

CHILDREN USING AT LEAST ONE HOUR OF CARE PER WEEK

BY TYPE OF CARE AND AGE

(Thousands of children including:multiple methods) ,

Ayof Child in Years

TYPE OF CARE 1n.er 3

Project d Projected . 'FoTiTEEld-TtTI-FFJected NjecteThd-ThlicTer- Ch+ildren PercentChildrPn PercentChildrenPercentChildren PercentChildren PercentChildrenPercentChildren Percent

Own home by relative,

Number 767 23 7% 820 30.9: 864 27.0%. 880 25.2% 848 23.5% 739 20.3% 785 22.31

Percent 8.1% 8.7% 9.1% 9.% 9.0% 7.8% 8.3%

Own home by non-relative

Number 527 16.3% 179 992 31.0% 1,014 288% 1,045 29.1% 901 24.7 889 5.1%

Percent 5.4% 8.0% 10.2% 10.4% 10.8% 9.3% 9.1%

ather home by relative

Number 833 25.7% 921 34.71 1,055 33.0% 1,096 312% 1 157 32.2% t,O4e 2 .8% 916 25.0:

Percen . 7.4 8.] 9.3% 9.7% 10% 9.3%

Other home by non-relative

Number 357 11.1% 591 2 . 785 24 743 21.1% 712 1 . 648 17.8% 544 18.3%

Percent 5,1% 8.4% 11.1% 10.5% 10.1% 9.2% 9.1%

Nursery or pre-school

181 5.71 414 11.8% 627 17.5% 480 13.2% 72 2.0% Number 28 . 90 ,..: Percent 1.5 4,7% 9.4! 21.6% 32.6% 25,0% 3.71-

Day care center 4.6% 97 2.8% Number 10 0.3% 41 1.5% 88 2.8: 113 3.2% 227 5.4: 169

Percent 1.1% 4.3% 9.2% : 11.9% 23.9% 17.8% 10.1

Cooperative program 88 7:4% 27 8 Number 41 1,1% 64 2.4% 18 2.4% 101 2,9% 94 2,5% 16. % Perceni 7.6% 11,9% 14.3% 18.7% 17,5% 5.0%

Before/after school program

,4 49 1.3% 90 2.6% , Number 0 O. % 0 0.0% 0 0.0: 0 0.0% 14 3.1% 5.7% Percent 0.0: 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 X

Headstart 0,9% 37 1.0% 29 Number 0 0.01 0 0.0 2 0.1% 16 0,5% 31 30.5% 23.7% Percent 0.0% 0.0: 1. 12,9% 25.3%

ALL METHODS 73 0% 2,408 66.1% 2.236 83.6% Number 1,58 49,1% 1,880 70.8% 2,373 74 3 2,453 69.8% 2,521

Percent 6.0% 7,1% 9.0% 9 9 -9.1

3,644 100,0% 3,517 100.0% BASE NO. OF CHILDREN iN U,S. 3,239 100,01 2,657 100.0: 3,195 100.0% 3,517 10010% 3,588 100.0% TABLE IV-9'(cont'd)'

CHILDREN USING AT LEAST ONEHOUR OF CARE PER WEEK BY TYPE OF CARE AND1GE

-----,------i- of _:hild in

13 1 MAL -9--- 10 1 -.. II. 12 r-T----4-----T--r- Projecto( Pr671utLd Projecte P-r6-jec Leif PrOjectd r,FL").j&t6H-TP-r-oj'-e-cteti- -7 Prt5ited Children PercentChildren PrçL Children Percent Percent. Children. Percen_t Children_Percent Aildeo Percent1Chi1dren Percent Children

\ 9,460 ,19.7% 431 11.5% 357 9.9 590 16, % 545 14.7% 475. 11,m 637\ 18. 709 20,8% 3.8% 100.0 5.8% 5,0% 4.6% .6.f= 7.5% 6.2%

\' 168 4.7% 9715 0 550 14.8% 508 12.6% 263 6,9% 740 21.8% 638 17.8 705 \ 20.3 i 1 7 100.0% 5.7% 5.2:

342 9. 11318 2 520 16.7% 567 14.1% 529 13.9% 787 \22.6% 798 23.5% 649 18.1% 100,0% 5:0% 4.7% 3 7;0% 7.0% 5,7'

2. 14.7% 9,6% 349 8.7% 08 5.5% 106 7,065 -638 4.3 469 13.8% 459 12.8% 357 1,5 100.0% 4 % 2. % 6.6% 6,S 5.1% , 9.0% \

0 0.0% 0 0,0% 11921 4,0% 6 0:2% 2 0.1% 0 0.0: 14 7 0.2% 0,0% 100.0% 0.1 OA% 0,0% 0,7% 0.4% 0.3% , \

0 0,0% 0 0.0% 950 2=0% 1:0% 22 .0,6% 11 103 34 1.0% 36 0 0% 100.0% 2.3 .4.1% 0.0% 10,8% =3.6% 3.7%

.0 0.1% 0 0.0% 538 1=1% 3 0.1% 10 0.2% 12 0.3% 9 0.3% 10 0.3: 0.5% 0.0% 100,0% 1.9% 0.6: 1.9% 2, 1.6%

6.8% 241 6,7% 1,581 .3.3%. 6,3% 148 4.0% 1225 5;6% 259 lit 4.2% \ 18( 5.5% 224 15._ 100.0 9.4% 14.3% 16.4% 9. 11,7% 14.2%

0,0% 121 0.3%. 0 0,0% 0 0.0% 0 7 0. 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0,0% 0 0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.8% 0.0% OAS

965 25.8% 55.0% 1 184 31.1% 26,356 54,6% 1,772 49 1,534 41.3% 1,539 38.3% 1 14 : 9% 1,659 3,7% 100,0% 6.7% 5,8% 5 4.5%, 7.4%

100.0% 3,500 100,01 47,963. '100.0% 3,5 8 100.0% 3,717 ;. 100.0% 41023 100.0% 3,808 31477 100.0% _,403 100,0% TABLE 1V-10

MEAN WE OF USAGE iiiEllITHEN USING AI UV ONEHOUR PEP WELK 8Y TYPE NE r:APEMO AGE (Thous:owls of ctildred

. '

7 1 ,

± r !,.P=t 0:!..1 ?°,e171!1 rrt.i),?, ,,,12,1 x,.H1 Pouted 1,',0'; in ','',1.',,j(. 1 i:d ,,,,,ti i'rr; :i-', ,c ', "r7,1,, Prq!).!, :I'd ' ;1171f ir=n,,i,,t Ng i , , ` , , CO Idri.,n , !,!,t, r!=, 1,71 I ',rum. Ifrit.0) PH111L Hu". , Hir!=', 011 1,.!!1.'r1 1 'inr,,, '!,,Y, ', Ir.!=! (Al 1 d ri!!!, , I!,!!.,! ., Ii!,,,r =, id ' !ri.'h !! ,!!!'

, i I { I 637 Al!i 739 9.'", 185 6.1 ! d(.1i ! 7,C, A'4 ' 1,A ; ',.,! ,170 ', 11 I, rddt',,,, 1 1,; 161 1 1 1 .

fi !

161 1 6

1 H1, L2I 1,

227 31,4 ;69 37,6 111 I .7.11'17

101 7.. 91 1,1 P),'7,7

1, 44 19,2 2,01 17,0 2,236 115!.3 ? ,Y11 1Li 'r8CQ .Z All

I .

- - .

it;7" , I fill . .. ..---,---, ,-, . ,i '1 ---1 ---- eeolet,.4 Pro!!!!0i-i.1)1cdri erCr,:tel mean

r''',11 ! 1.13, ro: [4. tt.: : 32, .'nict,.,3 ! Praixlea 7-Yoin PYOJO,A PAW flour', N 1rer, CY 1 drOn. ! .. . ), ; H1,_1,rell 1 ii!!!!rc CPW!)r0f! d-,Jr,, f',1'11!.1rff. !,,iir,, rt, rn!1!.rfil hly-i f:hilOw !tp,,r,5

) C.43 d 4 17 I L H 1 6 1 '13 t 7 ,J. dein 0'0 Di rolP,Ise , 1.b 9716 0,8 63 16,4 241 n9 633 Ii I1,41 t-e by naArP12:1ve 7 0

1.9 142 9.7 11,31b 10.3 620 3.1 793 9,8 649 0:tOr PCJ7,P by ro;Itie 11 1,F) 1£6 1 11,8 7,8 361 8. 169 I 10.b 409 X1Tr hOrTIO by M.raIt1V8 IAA 17.9 1,921

lirsery ar ore.5crool 78.3 950

1.11] care center 6,6 538

(oerat lye prorirar,

241 5,7 1,581 6 ,0 269 6.3 , 1.0 275 5,7 274 140 9ofre/after !_,(1)(41 prOgram 1,7 )86

21.3 121

1eads',3 Pt 26,356 1,1E4 12,4 965 16.1 13,9 1,509 10.7 13,2 1,772 1 .i 1.514 ALL MEXES 15,8 1,853

83 twrININ II( )1\ aRE LA TI VE

1 Aft, OWN HoN NON1i1ILATIVE HOME NY REIATIVE urn;it HOME NONRELATIVE NURSERY Oti PRESCHOOL

02.---tom1)AYCAliE CENTER ar/0460 V,ii:FORli:/ArrEH SCHOOL

Man IlourS Per

<1 1 AGE (YEARS)

Figure 4-6 Mean Hours Per Week Used By Type and Ageof Child. 8 1 111L111Lentl_l)a

Additional t.alxihutiojis giving projected numbers ot.iildren roc lviii the VariOuS methods of care by age and selected household demographic yr a re ine hided in the Appendix at the end of this report. ;-1ect.ion

lIOUW-3 USED PER CAPITA: A SUMMARY USAGE INDEX

Overview if the reader will permit us, with appropriateapologies, to speak (_

ty-pical" child under ,bu or sho would receive about 8.7 hours of care per week from providers outside of the nuclear family. Theblack child, however, would receive about an hour more 9. 9), and the Spanish childnearly un hour less (8.0).A child whose mother works full time would receive over20 11irs per week versus about four hours for his"typicar, counterpart whose mother does not work at all. Lf it is dangerous to speak of the typical child, the conceptof por capita hours used can hour8 per week based on allchildren users and non-usersis still probably the clearest summary statistic for illustratingthe major deter- minants of consumption as well as the distribution of usageby types of care. This chapter is based in its entirety on data representingobserved usage expressed in hours per child in the population and derived as:

Whe re: 939 = index for children (observations) HRu WGT. j = index for methods of care sag?' = hours used per week WGT = probability weight assigned to theithchild WGT, 1=1

5 1

8 7 In die prec iding s it was ncid ple probab usae.o tend h sleadim Although the per capita ft- this section tli hint ineorpolialhol ii the nundte r using child care itndthe hours con, wh ih\ should not he eons .rtied to ilicatehetner a given methc- nsid wore less) hours pen ,k than others.

lem th(' wholethe breakdown of _he national child carehours (Vital ie 5-1) doinimited, as one would eypec._ e delivered in hom cs 'file modal c: can lii relatt es, comprises about a

(twirler (}1 all ca and is correlative piif that, i __mil later see, care relat isItquucflt 1 serves ; us a formal andsubstantial arrangement ,in support

Ahouta filth of all care is-ilivered institu or "pr gram- settiag, all h caveat that the nature _if beforeand after cannot I icc ontradis with crtainty from the other typesof Care.

-1 Estimate of T rs Eased on the entire sample projectionof 47. 93 million ch Wren living in estinia int he eoter -inous United Statesand the observed sample means, of the magnitude of the national child careeffort can be made by typo 9fca as sho an in Table V-1.

7 pROJECT fEL ADSTART G`) BEFORE /A FTE SC IR )(I, PROGRAM (2,1')) COOPERATIVE PROGRAM (.8%)

DAYCAI E CENMI1 ((- .4/0/ 3 OTHER HOME NURSERY B E LATIVE SCHOOL (25.57) (8.3%)

OTHER-HOME' ` BY NONRELATIVE OWN HOKE (19.8%) BY RELATIVE (19.3%). z .OWN HOME BY NON RE LA Tr VE (17.2%)

Figure 5-1.Distribution of Total Child CareHO'urs Delivered by Type of Care.

5-3

8 9 TABLE V-1

FS J IMATLD 10FAL CHILD CARE HOURS DELIVERED BY TYPE (millions of hours)

Type Annion wow: by relative 80.4 964.2 HTme by non-rel- iv- 71.8 861.6 ;-olatives' homes 106.7 1,2'78.8 non-relatives ho es 83.1 997.3 schools 34.4 412.2

j carecouter-, 26.9 323.2 programs :3.5 42.5 re after school propra 9.0 107.8 Ill2adstart _2;6 30. '7 Total, all method 418.3* 5,019.3

error Ostima _,(1at

Leye___.of _Lre:1:,21-.):iy_AgfISJIild 1;ig-ure 5-2 representS, in ogive form, percapita usage for all mWirtis ::ive by age of child. An accompanyingTable (V* gives a detailed break duw bv age and method of care. Quite obviously, child care usage is influenced stronglyby age.In crenerathe levels of usage portray a skewed curve pealdngat age two and descending monotonically, as The children age,enter school and also become %pable of caring for t17mselves.

*flgures given in this and other tables in this section areextended to four decimal places to permit examination oftails. _However, only approximately one decimal place is significant at lhe .05 level.

_ 5-4 < 4 5 7 9 10 11 12

AGE (YEA0

= Figure 5-2. Per Capita Usage of all Methods of Care by Age.of Child.

F [AUL V-2

CHILD CARE USAGL tlY METHOD AND AU a CHILD

(per capita heurs per week)

,t4,:,::24,E.,:,,,,,oi,,p,i41,$,10,A1,,,,,W,I,,10,,,0,1$1,11,0000.1#11011,4110f40#11,41410q0tfq04*4*41/44144

qrMt 0 NNikPY ' OAYCARE 000OPERAMPOIEMOWR4: P.!!)JEC1

1;.0; -uAlm W1-0"WIV lr..114ifka NoN-4WlyE* sAn CUJO 4 PRO01,4 4,SCHUO1 NA 4 11F4S1ART 441 MENUS° *(1,r,Ifo,i1A0,0441,EAoiti,t11,11,t,ommi,,010***61!,t,tos*a'0,40/**0114$#440eic#0#f**110#1,044,04*ttOdo*#6004.+04,40140#,A

11049 fuit3 1.1169 0 UN 0,0291 061521 0E0 0E0 8,8160

10!fri ?,,h(4) 2$61/1 0$4 009 0,2641 0,0730 0#0 000 946153

NP :!.,2281 3,451? !.8205 1,5141 -0,6556 002405 0.0 0.0262 1941 5

1,0518 0,2403 010 0,1214 ' 134023

lq 1,1[1.1 1,7151 .2,1165 ?, 4815 2, M97 II 9949 0,1097 0,0129 04144 131'9911

k 44=6 1.'411 2,9111 1.05t5 2,65/ 1,4061 0,0094 0,1051 0,1940 11,07164:

' WI -,202194 2,5208 2,1188 0,4191 0,9109 0,0334 0,1024 0.1990 10,6916

1,4946 20093 211702 40541 0,9379 0.0130 0,2000 0,0050 005119

LrA. 1,44 2,f-i211 1,4566 G.1029 0,1167 0,0055 0,2565 000 064242

1,40 ,5455 1,5544 1,3778 0.0082 0,1642- 0.0231 , 0,322/ 0,0 6.4259

I TA [email protected] 1./2'1 1.6176 0.7626 0.9004 '0,1112 0.0026 0.2236 040 50522 ,

t.:,1,;v1:: !,or,L ioni .,i1,6910 0,9453 0,0 010319 040079. 00900 0,0 ,,.5o 140 t , TJi:LvE (3.!3494 0.5509 1,35.14 0,5386 0,0 0,,0 0,0137 004057 0,0 3.8111

? . .

7'VTEEN 1,2503 0.6064 0,7528 r MO 010 0.0 . 010 0.4231 0e0 3,2242 ' ..). 0,0534 80214 ' TO1 AL 654 1,4970 2,2218 1.13a 0.1163 0,5616 40130 00073 , ,.-1

14,01,11400*Iii* 460666t6661*4.40606-600k466666006660640+44#,616**06*66610.+0)14~ t ttkpttt * *ufiro'fi

9 I The exception to an otherWiso smooth curve occurs 7etween the ages three and four, at which point (I,ty care center and, particularly, nursery school usage rises, often for school-readiness or social purposes. The ages five and _Lx represent entry into the school .systembeginning with kindergartens in communities which offer them. The rather strong peak at age two particularly when compared with the drop at age three an interesting one.The strongest exploration lies in the fact that two year olds haze a higher probability of hAving a working mother than do three year olds (Table V-3).At the same time, two year olds are less likely to live in two-parent households than are one year olds.

Age two is st ongly associated with the entry o_r entry of the moth

, into the IjoI) market.It is also probable that this age represents an oft-held cultural tlireShold minimum for first leavirig a child away from his mother and outside, Ofthe home. And there may be just a grain of truth to the stereope of the "terrible twos," often aOrnowledged to be the phase of development most demondr7; on parents. Three year olds, by contrast, are more likely to have infant siblings, thus tending to preclude their mothers' employment.It is alsO probably true that younger children (up to, perhaps, age eight or nine ) are more likely to live in households with younger age structures and are more likely to receive some forms of in-home care adjunctive to their siblings needs. Of final notethree year olds are slightly more likely-than two year olds to have siblings old enough tc provide some intra-household care. TABLE V-3

0 SERVEDPRbBABILITY THAT RESPONDENT WORKS OR IS CURRENTLY MARRIED (SPOUSE PRESENT) BY AGE OP CHILD

Probability th Ag- O'f Child Mother works Mother is married

Under 1 .17 ,89

1 .21 .87

2 .33 .84

.28 .82

4 .29 3

.30 32

6 .34 .83

7 .36 .79

8 .33 .79

9 .34 .80

10 .39 .81

11 .42, .80

12 .39 .92

.38 .79

9 6

5 -8 With the exception of before and after school care, which increases by age, the methods of ca e vary by age of child, each declining as the child progresses through school age.But several structural differences underlying the usage patterns are evident: Day care centers and nursery schools are strongly age dependent, erabrao_Ig primarily pre-schoolers. The fact that "day care center" use extends further into the upper ages, notably through seven year olds, is probably perceptual or semantical rather than actual.That is, regardless of the nature of the care itself, respondents were less likely to call care received by a six or seven year old "nursery school." Neither of thes:2 care methods are used subst Itially by infants. Care in the home by non-relatives, comprised largely of occasional babysitting, is the most stable (least dependent on age) throughout the dis.cribution. Care in relatives' homes is also comparatively independent of age.Moreover, in terms of total usage, it is the most prominent arrangement ,made for the care of infants.

o Carc in non-relatives'.homes most closely approximates the overall distribution of care, a fact which probably can be inter- pren d to denote versatility of usage mode. It is-interesting, although unexplained, that the two,forms of "other home" care by relatives and by non-relatives tend to be complementary. That is, for years of age in which -one gees up, the other tends to go down. The trend is a =weak one, however.

9 7

5- Levels of Us2Ee Differences in use (both overall and among the various methods) are also evidenced in the data (Table V-4) by race, with whites, blacks and those considering themselVes as Spanish each showing distinct tendenci 8.

oIn home care'by non- elatives (especially occasional babysitting) is predominantly a white phenomenon.. As will be noted below, it is also strongly linked to the household income level. Thus, in-home care by non-relatives is dominated by,tho wl-dte middle class.

o Spanish children, while using less care overall, rece ve care . more often from relatives.They are underrepresented in the nursery school and "in-home-by-non-relatiVe" forms of care. O Blacks also rr2ceive more care by relatives and aresubstantially overrepresented in day care centers, nursery schools and Head Start programsall three institutional forms of care.It is probably noteworthy thot these forms of care are also influenced Most by fea-rif funding and presence. In each case, these differences can la:: considered statistically strong.

Income Status r.s a Determinant of Usage To the extent that income and employment are relat d, one would expect child care usage to increase as income increases.Furthermore, one would expect that the availability of money woyld impact the choice of care Lsed. Both of these 'hypotheses are conlirmed by the data (Table V-5).

5-10

9 8 TABLE V-4

CHILD CARE USAGE BY RACE ANDETHNICITY

(per capita hours per week) o

7,,,,4itetqt,,i,okft,,,oliktl.,,,,,,,,,,A,.40,0twokw**R#1,.*tt#tiotA0****;*000$*# 00144fyisiottukuto,,f,,irt40,,4,44fie,4#4t4+#*of PeJal 4 TOTAL! * ,r 41!,F!10b,rflPF/AFTPc Hi i:, * ')D,Y * IN CHIiniS 044 , IN MPTHCOSI * CHILD'S * 17,iu(k4 *ScHrIPL PO 1 KAOSTART1ALL ^ SOUIrg -RACE: * :)1,411v1 %:N=,ILATIVI, l'A611- ****110*#R0#011#4q*#6*W*4$414*tg* 40#A$011i*** * . 0 *46 v, .1,14Wt#*#4A.i. fa? OF$4 40*010000(iirnittsd*4tW:4404itygigit.(4v1i,

8o4137 1.1i!L "hioTil .7 )#4.ie-2 Low wHITL 1..3419 kijIl i.121!! 9,9414 let,45 WI J4 J# bk1 COB RACK 2#7799 Ug 966) 27SIde le 06 d3 7060 C. '.25') 0.1246 01202? L0111 la hiii : 0,2320 SPANISH 169)19 0 4092P li 114s 0# NA (41.191 C#0433 0,7041 2,64q 17'10 OTHER/UK 34176 et14 0.088 0.1973 0.3514 ZaLiii 16 (328 (14 NO 0.5616 TOTAL 66754 1# 49711

u#R11411csoftNglitlisipm*Olii44V000;4110.iaillip*MICACO$0 I 001444,014410100ipit 411*******00f010044$1041..**9010u01000

. .

i00

; 99 TABLE V-5

CHILD CARE USAGE BY HOUSEHOLD POVERTy STATUS

(hours per Week per child)

*6**i#416M000.*4t004**4440*****06.06#0000666,00044,00$004006041,0**40010000000000*60000.00****0.000000011*****************0

* fkl,CJME iN CHIPS OWN HOME 0 IN ANOTHER H(ME hURSEkY 0 OAYCAKE fCJ1]PEUTIVE081FORE/AFTRIF PROJECT. t '10TALI

* LEVEL * RELATIVENON-RELATIVEit RELPT1VE WM-RELATIVE* SC1101-4 CEI,TER * PPOCPAM *SW01 PCP 0 HTAOSTART *ALLMETHODS.*

u-- BELOW PV 148133 004374 102208 00(741 0,1512 160149 00.00(,9 061274 1)61528 567981

(2001 109368 10404 8 2071Ct 10481t 003j2I; 061318 MUM 0,1314 000851 44821

)2001 16915 0200197 2,4485 2026!0 103366 45521 000q9, '002201 0a3?? lo04m-

--UNKN0M 201526 C.n55 1,7266 165173 0,6612 0.3m8 0,1065 0,2160 0,0373 701933

, , 0,1073 0,0534 I TOTAL 1.6154 1.4970 212238 1,132t 0.7163 0,5616 040738 8,12147 fr4 _

101 102

1", First, households earning at least tw'lce as much money (20 ) the poverty level use about twice as, much care as those below poverty. Only among the federally impacted institutional settings (nursery/day care centers and Head Start) do the poCri: consumeMore 'care than those_ between poverty and 200% of poverty. The, 'marginal-income", household (not poor, but within 200% o poverty) represents the biggest consumer of care by relatives, while the use \ of care by non-relatives correlates linearly with thcome. It should be pointed out that although the differences obsemed by race are intertwthed with those by inc'ome, the analyses made in this text tend to

". hold independently.

LiLit_jlo -ment of the Res 22Eint As the reader will recall, more than 80% of the respondents are married, nearly all are women and only about 6% of the spouses where pfesent) are unemployed. Hence, the employment status of the respondent (e:g., mother) is a virtual, but not perfect, measure of household "full employment" aS well as of the respondent herself.

The weekly number of hours worked by the respondent (including zero in the case of those not employed) is by far the best independentpredictor of overall usage (Figure 5-3 and Table V-6).In general, this relationship is linear. Among the various methOds, the strongest relationships occurwith the ']other home" care groups (relatives!, homes andnon-relatives' homes). The relatively high intercept (1 -35 hours per week) for those not employed and using in-home-by-relative care underscores the observation that this

5-13

103 OTHE R HOME BY OTHE R H1)ME RE LATiv NONRELATIVE' HOURS PER WEEK USED 4i OWN HOME BY RELATIVE

NURSERY SCHOOL

DAYCARE CENTER

C!,

0 NONE 1-19 20-29 30-49 50 & UP _ HOURS PER WEEK WORICD

Figure 5-3.. Child Hours of Care Per Capita by Employment Level of the Mother.

5-14 TABLE V-6

RESPONDENT CHILD CARE USAGE'OF CHILDREN BY NUMBER OF HOURS WOMO B1 (weekly hours per capita)

0#000400$ woot#00,0**0000#0001***40000,0~0000$040444,444004101010)00410m000$40004 $01 00*****$0440440000044 PRCJECT TOTAL. * )URSERY * DAYCARE *CCOPERATIVE*0EFORE/AF1R4 $. IN ANOTHER HOME METHCOS* ,*. nos * IN PILO'S' CO HOME *SCHOOL P * HEASTART *ALL SCHCCL * CENTER PROCRAM NCWELATIVE * RELATIVENOWLATIVE* 11004#04e.*** $ WORKEO * RELATIVE Ittf##t#0.0*044$4..#40,,40#000010#00.04..4t#0.$0.0.$,ww00.0.00t*$040$01**********************************14

0.0631 4.2616 _ 0.0503 0.1634 1.3501 0.4115 0.2152 041228 NONE 0.090i 0.8141 8.3515, 0.1497 0.1127 003131 1:5804 4.6062 0.511S 1:4481 .1-19 1.)E17 I.7391 0.0119, 11.1344 0.5215 0.1151 0.2031 2.7993 3.0741 0.4487 20-29 14563 1.97T7 000331 20o65f5 1.5470 0.0673 0.2601 , 4.0340 2.1274 3.3140 4.4127 30-49 . 4.0527 0:0209 25.50i3. 1.6017 0.1521 A.3333 (11 70775 1.3202 2.0654 50 UP 4.2604( , zone 0,0534 00214 0.0138 '011013 0.1163 0.5616 2.2238 1.1320 TOTAL 1061!4 1.4970

************************* ** *****************************t***** * * *********4******* .

JO5 106 ;.rrangement is used for differing purposesin a variety of usage modes.Usage -relatives' homes, however, appearsto be controlle4 almost entirely by the parent's circumstance,That is, the dominant factoris employment. Perhaps illure important, the"other-hrme" forms of r2are aceetmt for well over half of the total carereceived by children whosemOthers work SO Or more hours per week.Care _in the cl-dld's homeby relatives also continues to rise as the parents' workschedule exceeds the "normal"work, week (defined here as 30-49 hours perweek). Thus, it Lq fair to saythat these _three methods constitute themainstay arrangements usedby the "heavily emPloyed_ ' In contrast,he in4iorne (by non-relativ )babysittin, .e muchless frequently found to be asatisfactory arrangement for the "heavily employed." AlSo, this fotni of careconstituteS, if only barely, the modal form of care usedby mothers working between one and 19 hours per week. The rather irregular patternsof nurs ry school and clay carecenter usage are interestingin that they.appear to correspondto stereotypical types of schedules. That is, there arepeaks at one-19 hours and30-49 hours, representing, perhaps, some tendencyfor institutional settings tooffer regular business hours in-either the "morningsonly," "af-ternOons only" (e.g.,half day) or'full-day les.

5-16-

107 Section VI

CHARACTERI,STICS OF 'SUBSTA L' USERS

Discussion

Our analysis thus far has focused on the population as a whole. But when we think of child care, whether we are interested in the welfareof children, the impact upon f economics or stnictu're, the role of women or of system-wide policy, we tend to think notof occasional babysitting or the gsharing of responsibilities among friends or relatives.Rather, we are prob- . ably interested in children and households using some minim= amountof care enough to satisfy the popular perception of "child careuser." This section is devoted to an examination of theConsumption patterns of those who use 10 or more hours per week. As weshall-see by the data, 10 hour8 per week represents a sigtdfibant node in thedistribution of hours usrd. INTOt only were respondents likely to report hours in multiples of five (e,g. more children were rcpcarted to use 10 hoursthan the sum of those using 11, 12,, 13 and 14 hours), but the demographic eharaeteristieSof users, the reasons for use and the cIrar cteristics of usage (e.g. , timesused, schedule, etc.` each begin to shift distributional proportions at about 10 hours.11 10 hours tends to satisfy our concept of "substantial" usage, however, theselection of this as a dividing line must still be considered basically arbitrary. The reader is cavtioned that "10 hours per week" is. defined separately in this section for households and children. Where tablespresent distributions

6-1

108 ofhouseholds, the criterion for selection was that households reported 10 or more tota; child care hours (the sum of the hours of all applicable children). This statistic is meaningful in interpreting the impact of child care on household economics and in assessing the child care requirements of households.It should not, however, be construed to represent total provider hours, especially not in the case of 'home-based care. Children, on the otheir hand, were qualified if they used 10 or milre hours of any given method of care. From the standpoint of the child, this definition is reasonably indicative of the impact of cate in his or her total envirom-nent.

About three in 10 households report using a "maine d" of care at least 10 hours per week, distributed according to Table-VI-I. Entries into this table are mutually exclusive, and the absolute pro ections shown represent

only main methods (e.g.,a household using two or more methods 10 or more 'hours per week would appear only once). TABLE VI-1

_HOUSEHOLDS USING MAIN METHODS OF CARE 10 OR MORE HOURS PER WEEk Percent of Users Percent of ethod (households) PopulationProjected Households

Own home by relative 1.9.7 6.0 1,465,800 Own home-by nonrelative 15.8 4.8 14178,500 other home by relative 25.2 7.7 1,876,500 Other home by nenrelative 20.2 6.2 1,502,500 Nursery or preschool ,8.8 2.7 659,800

Day Cara Center 6.3 1.9 471,200

Cooperative program .7 .2 53,100

Before/after school' 2.4 .7 177,600

HeAdtitart .9 70,800 (100.0%) (30.5%)

1; 2 109 A Profile of.Substantial Users On the basis of demographics, these "substantial user households" are distributed quite differently from the overall sample ,population.Table VI-2 gives the proportion of households with employed mothers using their respective main methods at least 10 hours per week. As the reader may recall from Section III, just under 37% of the respondents were employed either full- or part-time.Substantial users of all of the main methods are'rnuch more likely to be employed.

TABLE VI-2

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF HQUSEHOLDS USING MAIN METHODS OF CARE 10 OR MORE HOURS BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS:

Main Method Emp oyed Not Employed To a

In own home:

By rel ati ve , 56.9% I 49.1% 100.0% By non-rel ative 56.0 44.0 100.0

In other home: By relative 58.c 41.7 100.0 Bynon-relative 86.8, 13.2 100.0

Nursery school 61.5 -38.5 100.0

Day care center 78 1 21.9 100.0

Headstart (15.8) (84.2) 100.0

Baseline percent 37 7 63.3 100.0 entire sample

6-3

110 The strongest association is found. among usersof care in non- relatives' homes. Fully 87% of these users areemployed. The weakest relationship (other than Head Start, which isinfluenced by programmatic objectives, eligibility and a small sample space) is evident for households using iu-home-by-relative,care. Significant, albeit weaker, differences can bpobserved by marital status (Table VI-3). .Married households(84 of the sample) are.approximately represented proportionally among usersof in-home-by-non-relative, in relative's home, nursery schooland before and after school categories. Day care center users and personsusing relatives in the home are much less likely to be married.

TABLE VI-3

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF:HOUSEHOLDSUSING MAIN METHODS 10 OR MORE HOURS PER WEEX By RESPONDENT'SMARITAL STATUS

Current Status Main Method Total Married Not Married

In own home: By re'lative 66.8% 33.2% 100.0% ---Bynon relatiNe --82.1--- 17.9 1-N1,0

In othe-i' home: By relative 78.9 2,1.1 100.0 By non-relative 71.1 28.9 100.0

Nursery schools 77.8 22.2 100.0

Day care_centers 62.9 37.1 100.0

, Before and after school 76.0 24.0 100.0

Headstart (40.3) 59.1) 100.0

Percent in populat,ion 82.2 17.8 100.0 (entire sample

, 6-1

1 Both the poor-and the near-poor are more likely to use in-home-by-

relativecare (Table VI-4), while the incidence of.substantial use of care in relatives' homes is highest among marginal or near7poor households. Marginal households are underrepresented-in each of the three, more formal types of care i. e.non-relatives' homes, nursery schools and center's). Presumably, these househclds can least afford to pay for careininstitutional settings and are not, at the same time, considered needy enough to get much help from subsidies. By the same token, the disproportionately high incidence of day care center usage by the poor is indicative of the federal presence.

TABLE VI-4.,

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF HOU§EHOLDS USING MAIN 'Mr::THODS 4F'CARE 10 OR MORE HOURS PER WEEK BY POVERTY LEVEL

Below Wi hin 200% Above 200% Main Method Povert of Povert of Pove Total

In own home: By relative 18.4% 30.0% 51 7% 100.0% By non-relative 4.3 22.2 7315 100.0

In o her home: By relative 10.2 30.9 :8.9 100.0 By non-relative 10.1 19.1 7-0-.-9 100.0

l'00.0 Nursery schools 8.3 10.0 81 .7

Day care centers 25 5 16.2 l' 58.2 100.0

Percent in popula ion 14.9 24.4 60.7 100.0 (entire sample

Regardless of the respective proportions in the baseline population, it is clear that most substantial child care users have incomes double the poverty levels or more. The principal exmlanation isof course, the higher probability of full household employment.

6-5-

112 Usae Schedules of "Subst= Ts ers In Section IV, the distribution forall users was presented by three schedule variables pe 4-14).Table VI-5, on the following page, presents a similar distributionwhich is limited to children using 10 or morehours in the respective methoos. With much ofthe casual usage eliminated, the "regularity" of usage of all the methods tends togravitate about the weekday fied-type schedules. so that we may now begin toget a picture of' when moderate to heavy usage, occurs. Tables VI-6 through VI-11 give distributionsof 'children using methods by level of usage and according to whetherthe schedule is fixed.In\ addition, distr butions within each of theSe cells are given by agecategory.* On th\e basis of these tables as w'ell as Table V1-5, it isclear that even among full-time- equivalent usersz in-home care and care inrelatiyest homes frequently occurs according to irregular or varying schedUles. There are two plausible ekplanations. F1rstit is likely that in households use these methods full time in support ofwork and also lor bcca- sional soirposes in the evenings_o_r_dingeekends._Sec0 II probable-that the more institutional forms of caredo not offer suffIent flex- ibiJitto meet the needs of mothers working oddshifts or irregular'schedules.

*In interpreting disibutions by age, bear in mind that the cells are not equal in size.

6-6

113 TABLE VI-5

USING CARE AT LEAST 10 HOURS PERWEEK BY SCHEDULE PERCENT OF CHILDREN

In own Nope . 3 0 het floae Nursery SChe ule Schoel

BY TIME OF DAY: ALL DAY 61,7 ; 32:6 Percent of Users .1 Pereent,of POpula

MORNINGS ONLY )5.2 'percent of Users .1 prcent of Population

AFTERNOONS ONLY 12.0 'Percent Of Users Percent of Population

EVENINGS ONLY Percent of USers Percent of Population

OVERNIGHT ONLY 44 104 Percent of Users .2 .6 Percent4f Population 16.5 VARYING TIMES 16.2, el 34.5 33.8 Percent Of:User$ ,1 1.3 2,0 4 Percent of Populntio3

BY DAYS OF WEEK: 14M-TRTS- 61..3 71.4 47:8 .5 Percent Of 140ris SO. 0 .1 2.3 1.6 Percent of POpulatiOn 6.2 .3 WEEKENDS 'Percent of Userc Percent of Population 19.0 29.3 BOTH 40.9 41.7 c Percent of Users 1.6 :Wcent of Popula

BY REGLARITY: 97.1' 93.6 ,61.3 FIXED TIMES 43.9 Percent of Usern 1,5 Percent of Popula 5.7 ROTATING TIMES 3.7 , 4,2 3.8 3,8 I 'Percut Of Users Percent of Population 20,3 IRREMAR, FRED. .1 Percent Of Berg Percent of Popultion

IRREGULAR, UNPRED. 13.1 30.1 letcent of Users .6 Poicent Of PopulatiOA

SPLIT.TIMES PerCent Of Users Percent:of PopnlitiOn 0.1M TOTAL (N) 0.811 2,4M 2.3N 47.9N 1.13t 47.9M 0.9N 47.9N USERS 47,PN 47914 47.9M POPULATION 47,9M 4

115 TABLE VI-6_

CHILDREN RECEIVING IN-HOME CARE Erti RELATIVES'BY AGE AND USAGE MODE.

. (TABLE INCLUDES-ALL CHILDRENASING METHOD.) *******.;..************************** AGE OF CHILDREN: *- USAUL.MODE TOTAL USERS: * CATEW:,RY: NUMBER*PERCENT* 0 2 * 3 5 * 6 9 * 10 -13 * t***** *** *** ************ cASUAL:USAGE (LESS THAN 10.HOUR /WEEK)

SUBTOTAL' 5 80.6% 22497 24364 26067 8487 PERCENT-. (100.%l 24.6 26.7 28.5' 20.2.

FIXED SCHEDULE F2323 10.8% 2877 3476 3838 2132' PERCENT 1100.%1 21.3 28.2 31.1 17.3

22229 . NOT FIXED _ 79092 69.8% 19620 20888 16355// PERCENT (100.%) 24.8 26.4 28.1 20.r MODERATE USAGE (10-29 HOURSAIEEKI

SUBTOTAL 12667 11.2% 2459 3021 4060 41727 PERCENT 00.Z) 19.4 23.8 .32.1 4.7

'FIXED SCHEDULE- 4867% 4.3% 563. 1239 '1571. 71494 PERCENT (00.t) 1166 2565 .3263 /30.7 i

roT FIXED 7600 6.8% 1896 ' 1782 ' 2489 1633

PERCENT. . 110_ %) 24.3 22.0 31.1 1. 20.9 , HFAVY-FULL USAGE (30 HOURS/ EEK & LP)

SUBTOTAL 9384 8.2% 2399 1893 29427 2120. PERCENT "(10 2566- 20.2 --31.'Y 22.6 I FIXED SCHEDULE 0758 5.9% 1865 A351 2147 1417- PERCENT (100.1) 27,6 20.1 31._;3 21.0 .- t NOT FIXED 2626 2. 3% 534 534 . 8/ 55. 703 PERCENT (100.2) 20.3 2063-32.6 26.8 / TOTAL, ALL CHILDRE.N US1NG. METHOD 113466 100.0; 27355 29278 41'3099 .23734 PERC'ENT (100.T) 2461 28.8 ./2902. ,20.9

*Reported .in hundreds TABLCV 7

CHILCREN RECEIVING IN-HOPE= CARE BY NONRELATIVES BY AGE AND USAGE MODE. (TABLE INCLUDES ALL CHILDRENUSING METHOD./ .44,********* ***** * AGE OR CHILDREN: -MSAGE-MODE TOTAL USERS: :CATEGORY: * NUMBER4PERCENT 0 2 * -3 5 * 6 - 9 :10 -13 ** ******* ***********

CASU USAGE (LESS 'THAN 10 HOURS/I.EEK/

, 14703 SUBTOTAL' : 112 4 21248 -27142 27601 PERCENT (1002/ 2343 313.4 30.2 16.1 -

FIXED'SCHEDULE. 8844 8 0% 3287 2240 2058, :1259 PERCENT (100.2) -37.2 25.3 ,23.3 1402 -

NOT F I XED' 82450 750% 17961 25502 ., 25543 13444 PERCENT 4100421 21.8 3049 31.0 -6.3 MODERATE USAGE 110-29!'HOURS/WEEK/

i SUBTOTAL 2435 . 1174% 5 3404.- 4633 2013 PERCENT.- 0 2/ 2 2704 3763 16 2. FIXED SCHEDULE 4882 746 1045 2309 .782 PERCENT .(100.21 21.4 47.3 16.0 NO) FIXED 7553 679% 1639 2359 23,24 1231 PERCENT (100.2) 21.7 31.2 100-8 163 HEAVY-FULL USAGE (3p HOURS/WEEK & LP)

= 1319 SUBTOTAL 6 92 5.6%- 1305 1306 2182 PERCENT (100.2) 2161 22.4. 35.2 21.3.' 0 1246 819 FIXED. SCHEDULE 4019 3.6% * 844' 1110 PERCENT (100.2) 21.0 276 3100 2064 936 500 NOT FIXED 2113 2.0% 461 276

12.7 . 43.1 .-23.0 . PERCENT (10 -2) 21.2 TOTAL, ALL CHILDREN USING METHOD' 109921 100.02 2493 32532, 34416 18035 PERCENT (loo.x, 22.7 29.6 31.3 16.4 ********************6 ************** *Reported ir na..-rc..7.5

6 .B

1 17 TABLE VI-8

CH tDREN ,RECEIVING CARE IN A RELATIVE'S. HOME8Y AGE AND OSAGEMDE. qTABLE INCLUDFS ALL:CHILDREN USING METHOD.1

* * * ************* ** ***** AGE.OF CHILDREN:, - SAGE MODE TOTAL USERS: -* CATFGoRy: NUMBEePERCENT *0 - 2 * 3 - 5 6 - 9 *-10 -13 * *** * ************

:CASUAL USAGE 1ESs THAN 10 HOURS WEEK) 30766 3 419 20701 SUBTOTAL 106777 78.6% _ PERCENT' (_po,%) 2,3.3 28.8 28.5 19.4 .1848 FIXED SCHEDULE 16610' 12.2% 3414 5222 6126 PERCENT_ (100.2.) 20.6 _31.4 36.9 11.1

NOT'FIXED 90167 66.4% 21477 25544 24243 18853 - . 23.8 28.3 26.9 20.9 PERCENT (100.X) 6 MODERATE USAGE (10-29-HOU05/WEEK) 3428 SUBTOTAL. 14310 ,12.0% 4025 4713 4204 24.6 28.8 20.9 P-OCENT 1100.%4 ,25.7 ,

FIXED SCHEDULE 5379 4.0% 871 1836 1192Y 1480 16.2 34.1 22,2 27.5 PERCRNT . (WO.%) 1948 NOT FIXED 0991 8.0% 3154 2877 3012 PERCENT 00.2) 28.7 26.2 27.4 17.7 HEAVY-FULL USAGE (30 HOURS/WEEK G,UP)- 3790 2451 -SUBTOTAL 12581: 9.2% 2873 3467 PERCENT (100.2) 22.8 27.6 30.1 19.5

FIXED SCHEDULE 8358 2327 2565 2179. 1287 26.1 PERCENT (10042) 27.8 30.7 15,04 NOT FIXED 4223 546 902 1611 1164 PERCENT (100.1). 12.9 21.4 38.1 27.6 TOTAL, ALL tHILDR USING-METHOD 135728 100. 31789 38946 38413 -26580 'PERCENT (100.2) 23.4 28.7 28.3 19.6

****************** **** ****k***** *UNCO** *Reported in hundreds

6-10

118 TABLE VI-9

CHILDREN-RECEIVING CARE IN A NON-RELATIVE'S HOME BY AGE AND USAGE MODE. (TABLE- INCLUDES ALL CHILDREN USING METHOD.) ******************* ********* AGE OF CHILDREN: USAGE MODE TOTAL_USERS: CATEGORY: NUMBER*PER:CENT 0 2 * 3 5 * 6 9 * 10 * ********************* *********** *******************4141*********

CASUAL USAGE (LESS. THAN 10 HOUR5/11EEK1

SUBTOTAL 60088 72.2% 12930 18481 18788 11889 PERCENT (100.1/ 21.5 27..4 3143 19.8

FIXED SCHEDULE- 20213 24.3% 418 6450 3148 31.9 15.6 PERCENT. 0.1) ' .25.4 27.1

-. NOT FIXED 39815 4'7.9% 7793 , 11003 12338 8741.

27.6 30.9 . ... _2169 - PERCENT '-=-( 00.2) 19.5:

MODERATE USAGE (10-29 HOURS/kEEK) 2860 3028 3971 1500 SUBTOTAL . 11359 13 6% PERCENT (100.14 ' 25.2 26.7 35.0 13.2

FIXED SCHEDULE 1625 9.2% 2129 2092 2716 728 :PERCENT (100.11 27.9 26.9 35.6 9.5

NOT FIXED. 3734 4.4% 731 976 125,5 772 PERCENT (100.1) 19.6 26.1 33.6 20.7 HEAVYrEULCUSAGE 1,30 HOURS/WEEK & VP) -3646, 3941 3135 1113 SUBTOTAL : 11 5 14.2% 33.3 26.5 9.4 PERCENT ( 00.1) '.30.8

- 982 FIXED SCHEDULE 10834 13.0% 3468 3729 2655 PERCENT 100.1) .32.0 ,34.4 24.5 9..1 131 NOT FIXED 1001 1.2% 178 212 480 21.2 48.0 13.1 . ( 000) . 17.8 PERCENT. .4 TOTAL, ALL CHILOPEN 25894 14502 USING:METHOD -83282 100.0* 19436 23450 7.4 PERCENT (100.1) 28.2 31o1

AI* 41 "sow* **UNC011 *Reported in hundreds

6-11

119 I TABLE VI-10 ,

CHILDREN RECEIVING NURSERY SCHOOL CARE BY AGE AND USAGE MODE. TABLE INCLUDES ALL CHILDREN USING METHOD. )

ACE OF CHILDREN: * (YA DE MODE TCTAL USERS: *- 3 - 5 * 6 9 0 T EGORY . NUMBER.* PERCENT * 0 - 2 ****** ** ** *********************************

CASUAL USAGE I LE SS THAN 10, FOURS / WEEK I

SUBTOTAL 9350 48.0% 1160 7735 431 16 PERC ENT (100.2) 12. 5 82.7 4.6 0.2

F IXED SCHEDULE 0644 ,44.4% 03 7450 291'- =0 PERC ENT (100.2, 10.4 86.2

NUT F I XED 706 3.6% PERC ENT I 100.2 37.5 MODERATE USAGE (10-29 HOURS/WEEK /

SUBTOTAL 4805 24.8% 660 3986 15'9'. 0 PERCENT_ 1100.X I 13.7 03,0 , 303 0.0 ,

FI XED SCHEDULE 4507 23.1% 660 3697 150 .., 0 , PERCENT I 100 .% 14.6 02.0 3.3 0.0,

NOT F I XED 298 1.5% 0 289 9 PERCENT (1000 XI, 0.0 97.0 .0 0.0. HEAVY-FULL USAGE ( 30 HOURS/WEEK C Lp;

SUBTOTAL 5325 27,.4% 1207 L3644 394 PERCENT (iOO.21 24.2 60.4 7.4 0.0 5170 1261 3515 394P 0" FIXED SCHEDULE 26.6% , PERCENT I100.Z/ 24.4 60.0 706-',1 0.0, qr NOT FIXED 15 0.8% 26 129 0 o PERCENT (100. 16.9' 83.2 :0.0 0.0 TOTAL. ALL CHILOPE USING METHOD I9400-:_00.0k 3115 , 15365 984 16 PERCENT .(100.2( 160 78,9 5.1. 0.1 ,

** * ******** ************ **** *****uNt0** *Reported in hundrede

6-12

120 TABLE V1-11

, CHILDREN RECEIVING DAYCARE CENTER CARE BY AGE_AND USAGE-MODE.. TABLE-INCLUDES ALL CHILDREN USING METHOD.)

************1 ** AGE OF CHILDREN: USAGE MODE TCTAL USERS: * CATEGORY: NuMBER*PERCENT '''511g 6 - 9 * 1 -13 * ******* ***

CASUAL ':USAGE LE SS THAN Id HOURS /hEEK )

SUBTOTAL 1681 17.6% 4 361 . 1: 2 PERC ENT (100.%) 27.8 42.e-ff 21. 5 7.9

I - F IXED SCHEDULE 1096 5% 2 504 148 132 P.ERC EN-1r 1100.%1 28.5 46.0 13.5 12.0 ,

NOT F I XED 585 6. 156 216- 213 . PERC ENT 100 26.7 36.9 36.4 060

MODERATE USAGE (10=29 HOURS/ WEEK )

SUE TOT AL 2487 26.2% 403 952 987 145 PERCENT 1,90.%) 6.2 38.3 39.7 5.8

:FXED SCHEDULE 1901 20.0% 311 865 667 58 '=RC ENT 100 s%) 1604 45.5 '35.1 3.1

NOT FIXED 506 6.2% 92 87 320 87 PERCENT 00.%) 15.7 14.8 54.6 14.8

HEAVY-FULL USAGE 130.HOURS/WEEK &LPI

SUBTOT AL 5340 56.2% 510 3443 1340 47- PERC ENT 0 9.6 64.5 2,45.1 0.9

F IXED SCHEDULE 5216 54.8% 510 3319 , 1340 47 . PERC ENT %) 9.8 63.6 25.7 0.9

NOT F XED 124 1.4% 0 % 124 0 0 PERCENT 100. %) 0.0 100.0- 0.0 0.0 TOTAL, ALL CHILDREN 'USING METHOD 9508 00.0Z 1381 511..S 2 324 PERCENT (100.%) 14.5 53.8 3.4

WW111******** *******uNcvo* 17130 ed in hundreds

6-13

121 Section VII

PAYMENFT MODE AND FORMALITY OFCARE

Discussione Just -the preceding section sought to isolateand examine liat portion of child care usage which could be consideredsubstantial or "significant" in terms _f the amount of care used, we areinterested in the concept of structural formality of care arrangements. That is, whatproportion of care is delivered through a true "market mechanism" involving"valuable consideration" by persons who might think of themselves as"providers"; and what part can be attributed merely to friends helping each other,neighbors exchanging favors, relatives sharing through an extended familyrelationship and other similar arrangements which we might thiril of as beingnonmarket, thformal care? It is tempting to classify care into formaland informal -categories by the generic types of arrangements. We might, forexample, assume that "other home by non-relative" arrangements (e.g. , familyday care), day care centers, nursery schools, Head Start programsand before and after school programs .onstitute the "formal" market, whilein-home care arrangements and all forms of care by relatives are essentially informaland outside the "market."* However, there arc twe reasons why we are hesitant to usethese definitions as a basis for distinguishingbetween modes of usage.

*Indeed, this dichotomy was contemplated bythe analysis.nlan for this study ,and has been used previously in childcare research.

.7-1

1 2 2 ther- is byidence (presented later In this secin) 1 I. ut all- care ives can be considered to fall outsidethe economic market. Nor eab it be hied that all care by relatives represe informal, "extended fan " helping relationships. The distinct_ on made here is an important one.The issues of whether r not care by reiativesshould qualify for reimbursements, subsidies and tax deductions warrant great currency in federal policy.Furthermore, although it is outside the scope of the instrmtstudy, the seminal event in the entry _f provider market may often occur between rela- _ _y day care homes into the tives. For example, it is possible that one of,the commonscenarios In a "developing" family day care home portrays a grandmother,aunt, sister, other kin outside the working mother'shousehold who takes on additional, non-related children since her or his time is alreadyencumbered in child care. Moreover, initial structured home-care experience mayfrequently derive from caring for relatives. Admittedly, we are speculat ng beyond the data.Yet we believe that is a misconception to interpret careby relatives and in-home care by non- latives being "informal" in all cases. Conversely, it has been pointed out that much of the carereceived in elatives' homes is "informal" and that we cannotclearly distinguish _amily day care home" models from casual or"underground" care.

In this sec ion, the con- pt of "formality" ofarrangements is examtned as a function of the mode of compensationi.e. , whether cash, in-kind or none z all) for services received and, inorder to integrate this definition with the receding section, as a function of the-numberof hours used. In considering whether or not cash is exchanged,there is an implicit grounding in law.Traditionally, consideration is an essential element to a

7-2

123 contract and, h nee, a business reltionship. And it is through the governmei power to regulate commerceand to administer public funds (as well asgeneral c "welfare" powers) thatlicensing and standards agenciesderive most of their powers. Figur 7- on the following page, givesthe overall distiibution of househo ds by child care compensation mode.About a third report using child care but making no cash payments.An additional one in eight uses at least one type of care for which "in-kind" compensationis rendered despite the fact that cash is paid for one or more other formsof care. But before much meaning can be ascribed to this distribution, we mustconsider several confounding problems. The foi nost difficulty is our inability, from consumerdata alone, to determthe the effects of grants andsubsidies on the market. Table WI-1 compares the percentagesof the population using the six mostsignifi,nt outside-the-family provider types against the respectivepercentages t:eporting cash and in-kind compensation.

TABLE VIM

PERCENT OF ALL HOUSEHOLDS USINGCARE COMPARED AGAINST THOSE COMPENSATING (remainder invol ves no compensation)

Type of Care seholdsii In own home: By relative 3.9% 14.5% By non-relative 23.2 18.7 2.9 In other IY(1)rne: By relative 31.8 3.9 20.7 10.2 By non-relative 21 9.2 Nursery schools 7.3 5,8 O. 3 Day care centers 9. 9 2.3 O. 3

7-3

12,1 USER, DOMPEN ATES IN DOLLARS .6%) NON-USER I (35.3%)

USER, COMPENSATES IN SERVICES, FAVORS (22.0%)

, USER,BOTH DOLLARS AND USER WITHOUT FAVORS' COMPENSATION (134%) (6.9%)

re 7-1.U.S. Rouseholds Using Child Care as Defined by Summary Compensation Mode.

1.Households reporting no care outside the nuclear family or schools. 2.Denotes cash for at least one arrangement, services only for other(s).

7-4

125 It is quite evident that households using non-relativeor institutional care arc the most likely to pay cash. The proportion of householdsreceiving "frocare in these arrangements is not substantial. Andeven these few households that do not compensate (i.e., 1.7% inano her ho ,0 by non-relative, 1.2% in nursery schools and 0.4% in claycare centers ) are probably composed primarily of fully-subsidized children and should not be construed-asusing non- market care.

On the other hand, it is obvious that care by relatives, while often free, is most likely to be provided in "exchange for servicesor favors," an observation which can only be interpreted to describe "extended family relationships," most of which are casual and, in the vernacular, "informal."

Generally, we can conclude that care by relatives is not affectedvery substuitially by fully-subsidized care arrangements; yet publicmonies probably have some irripact on the ket" in the form of reimbursements an'pass- through" subsidies.*

Households with younger children are much more likely to purchase care than are those with older children (Table VH-2). About a third of households with "pre-schoolers" (three to fiveyear olds) purchase care versus less than one in 12 where the youngest child is over 10.Furthermore, the proportion of users compensating in-kind is much higheramong the "older-cohort" households, suggesting that tniformal neighborhoodarrangements, augmented by school attendance, are prevalentamong older children.

*Respondents in this survey were asked if they receivedany "direct government subsidies expressly for childcare." Only 51 raw records, projecting 1.5% (weighted), were affirmative.This small sample was distributed broadlyacross methods and is not sufficient to support a quantitative conclusion.

7-5

126 TABLE VII-2

PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS USINGCARE BY COMPENSATION MODE AND AGE OF YOUNGEST CHILD

Non-user Use, no Use, compensation by: Age of younges t cash only in-kind only bothTOTAL child hours eek)eornpenaatio 27.6 19. 2 100% Under 3 20.2 T. 0 26.1 17.3 100% 3 to 5 26.2 6.1 31.8 18.6 41.5 7.2 21.1 20.5 9.7 100% 2.9 100% 40 to 13 69.0 7.4 7.1 20.6 22.1 13.2 100% All household 35.3 6.9 22.6

Some care received for free or inexchange for services or favors is substantial. When the "user" populati-is delimited to those receivingten or more hours of care perweek (Table V11-3), about a third reporteither "in-kind only" or no compensation.Excepting households where theoldest child is ten or older, however,the great majority (three-quartersof those with "pre- schoolers") pay cash for at least onearrangement.

TABLE VI I-3

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF COMPENSATION MODE OF HOUSEHOLDS USING 10 OR MORE HOURS OF CARE PER WEEK BY AGE OF YOUNGEST CHILD

No Compensation Age of youngest child compensationonly cashonly favors BOTH Less than 3 6. 9 39 2 25.1 28.8 3 to 5 6. 5_ .1 18.9 27.5 6 to 9 10. 0 43. 4 27.7 19.0 10 to 13 16. 8 26. 5 48.8 9.8

All houSeholds 8. 1 41. 9 25. 1 25. 0

7-6

127 byjlatives About the same proport!ons of households(3 9%) pay cash for care in theUldren's own homes by relatives as for carein _-elatives' homes Tables VII-4 and WI-5). But several structuraldifferences are evident when the respective "paid user" subgroups areexamined against selected independent variables. For one, care delivered in the child's homeby relatives is much more likely to occur casually and according to a light usageschedule.Of the 4% paying for this form of care, nearly half use fewertllian 10 hours per week.* About 2. lcic, or just over a half million households, payfor more than 10 hours per week of in-home care by relatives. Households paying for care in relatives' homes are somewhat more likely to make moderate Or heavy schedules.Approximately 3% (three 'quarters of the 3.9% who pay) use 10 or more hours perweek.This subgroup, esti- , mated at about 720,00 households, is roughlythe same size as the consumer fr-oup making substantial use ofday care centers. For the most part, these differences areexplained by the fact that employed mailers e respondents) are nearly five times more likely to pay for care in relatives' homes than those who arenot employed.In contrast, working mothers, are only about 50% more likely to payfor "in-home-by-relativa" care. Diseeinible trends are also evident by income and by raceand ethnicity. The poor and the "near poor" are morelikely to purchase in-home care by relatives than are those above 200% of the povertyline; but those above the poverty line are just slightly more likely to payfor care in relatives' homes.

the figures given in this text do not appear in thetables.

7-7

128 TABLE VII.4

RELATIVES BY COMPENSATIONMODE JSERS OF CARE INTHE CHILD'S HOME BY AND SUMMARY DEMOGRAPHICDATA

(Weighted Percents Based onAll Households)

$0604004040040004044000000$0000 00* MOD#WW*0 0002#04 64$010$0000,0**,011$ * TOTAL IN COUNTI $ -USERS. NON-USEW * G COMPENSATIOA * COMPENSATION 4 USE5 WITHOUT * 4 RAN * IN KINO $ WEIGHTP01 0 COMPENSATION 6 IN CASH $ * SUBGROUP .....4.166..****.4.44444444444e04464044***41060000*4***01000.4esii$06 11.00141**0110** 0440 444444444

BY CURRENT tyRITAL STATUS! 20021 340 314 1411 761 5. HARRIED 1171 4.6 ILO NOT MARRIED 169

DY RESPONOENTS EMPLOYMENT STATUS)

11.0 0934 1161 4 80.1 4.0 4.1 EMPLOYEDIFULL/PARTi 15319 2839 62 3.2 16.5 0 110T EMPLOYED 74.1

BY RACE/ETNICITY1

16.0 10312 2543 74.4 6.0 3.6 WHITE 1400 3.7 18.5 3501 82.7 3.2 BLACK 2571 657 4.2 5.7 9.2 SPANISH/0TH R 80.9

BY POVERTY STATUS'

11.1 3212 856 2.9 3.1 BELOW POVERTY 80.1 1511 5285 1189 75.2 5.0 4.2 WITHIN Z00% OF 2016 3.6 14 8 11121 ABOVE Z00% OF PM 75.4 6.2

ZUMO 4609 5.4 3.9 14.5 A L L RESPONDENTS 76 3 41004014090$041000.0 i#1,044 .14$40410.6010t Mils 00 044444*****4144444444444444 milimilem 13 129 L Reported In thousands; nos-responseIs not allocated TABLE VII.5

USERS OF CARE IN10THER HOME BY RELATIVES BY COMPENSATJON MODE Aq SUMMARYDEMOGRAPHIC DATA

(Weighted Percents Based on AllHouseholds)

sotiomosoi***1144s* ioi4.** siomiowlemso tik**14****40#4404#4104o441404.4.**** * TOTAL IN COUNT! * NON-USERS1 * -USERS. USES WITHOUT * COMPENSATION *COMPENSATION 0 * * IN KIND * WEIGHTED10 RAW SUBGROUP COMPENSATION 0 IN CASH

BY CURRENT MARITAL STATUS: 3.7 21.7 20021 3435 MARRIED 67.4 1 7.2 6.7 4.8 15,6 4342 1171 ,NOT MARRIED 72.9

BY RESPONDENTS EMPLOYMENT STATUS:

1761 5.6 7.8 16.3 8934 EMPLOYEDIFULL/PAPT, 70.3 1.6 23 2 15315 2835 NOT EMPLOYED 67.2 0.0

BY RACE/ETNICITY:

2543 8,1 3.1 23.2 18312 'WHITE 65.5 1408 4.1 7.3 14.1 3501 BLACK . 74.6 651 3.7 419 11,0 2511 SPANISH/OTHER 80,3

BY POVERTY STATUS:

856 5.2 3.1 13,2 3212 BELOW POVERTY 78.4 4.1 24.0 5285 1189 WITHIN 2001 CF 63.7 8.1 4.2 21.8 13121 2036 ABOVE 2001 CF PO. 66.7 1.3

71 3,9 20.7 24396 4609 A L L RESPCNDENTS 68.2 ...... moluNum

allocated 131 1, Reported inthalamic's; nonlenponee le not

132 Although w i es are more likely to use care M relatives' homes, they are least likely to nay.Blacks pay more frequently because they are more likely to use child care in support of the mother's employment; Spanish households pay more often because they are less likely to make "free" or "in-ldnd arrangements; and whites are more likely to compensate in-kind. No similarly strong patterns are evident for in-home relative care. About four and a half million households (18.7%) pay for care in their homes by non-relat ve providers (Table VII-6). While this is the most common paid arrangement, there are, as we have suggested previously, at least two very different types of users.

Two thirds of those paying average fewer than 10 hours per week. Furthermore, most unpaid care (i.e. , free or-in-kind) represents light usage. Hence, most households using this form of arrangement may be considered to be "casual babysitter users." On the other hand, one in eight users (2.2% of the population) pays an in-home sitter for 30 or more hours of care per week. Of these full-time equivalent arrangements, 90% are by households w th mothers who are employed full-time.Approximately 14% of employed mothers use at least 19 hours per week.Overall, some 1.5 million households pay for 10 or moiehours pe week. Table V1Ir6 can also be interpreted to confirm the observation made in Section V that usage of in-home-by-non-relative care is strongly dominated by whites in the mid- to upper-income classes.

7-10

133 7A8LE VII-6

USERS OF CARE IN TA1 CHILD'S HOME BY NON-RELATIVES BY

COMPENSATION MODE AND SUMMARY DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

(Weighted Percents Based on All Households)

Gom*A***otio40****oi 6.011#*4******o****omosoliAmsow****4**or000loomillosso * TOTAL (NCOUNT) * * NUN-USERS: * -USERS- COMPENSATION * A i 4 USES WITHOUT * COMPENSATION * I IN KINO * WEIGHTED $ RAW 0 6 SUBGROUP 4 COMPENSATION * IN CASH , *el** 4,44440.444*~.*swo$0****wommoisailossmoppoksii*swistotepostoww****404$000,000$0,00.

BY CURRENT MARITAL STATuS: 3435 1.7 20.2 2.9 20027 ,MARRIE0 ' 75.1 4342 1171 NOT MARRIED 85.2 0.6 41.0 313

BY RESPONDENTS EMPLOYMENT STATUS:

6534 1761' ' 1.0 17.8 203 -4 EMPLOYEDIFULL/WITI 79.0'

.1 19.0 3.4 15375 2035 w NOT EMPLOYED 75.7 1,9 14

BY RACE/ETNICITY:

lie 23 2 3. 10312 2543 wHITE 71.6 ,1 2.0 3507 1401 , 6LACK '94,0 019 .4 1.6 2571 657 SPANISH/OTMER 91.5 5

BY POVERTY STATUS:

1 2.8 3212 856 BELOW POVERTY 92.9 002 4 5265 118f 1.5 12.15 2.0 WITHIN Z00% OF , 83,2 2.0 131TI 2036 AOOVE Z00% OF PCV. 6908 1.7 25.7

2.9 24390 4609 A IL RESPONDENTS 76.8 1.5 180

A as** sssotoommsactsomocos, 10141444W44,0140,44***,$**0110010,41041*****Whi**, WWWWW,

not allocated 1.Rlorted in thouaandal non-reaponeelr

134 135 Care in Non-Relatives' Homes

Although our interpretation oIn-other-home-by-non-relative care is somewhat confounded by our inability to isolate, with certainty, true family day eare home users, it is still relatively safe to infer that a formal structure exists which can probably be considered the most important single type of arrangement for full-time employed mothers see Table VH-7). Over half of ... all those who reported using care in non-relatives' homes apparently refer to "informal" (e.g. ,in-kind tn particular ) neighborhood arrangements. But the residual 9.2% who compensate in cash constitute a solid market base.

Just over 6% of all households (or two thirds of those paying cash) pay for 10 or more hours per week. Moreover, in filie working mothers (19.1%) pays for thip form of care in.contrast to only 3.5% of mothers who are not employed.Of those -who'pay, 41%, or 766,000 households, use 30 or more hours per week. The didtribution of paid users by income favorsrespondentS not currently married (spouse absent) and those with higher incomesWhen these variable's are controlled for employment status, however, diffsre ces are weak. Furthermore, full subsidies probably account forrnore of thençicompensating poor thah their upper-income counterparts. It would be most convenient indeed to know, incontrovertibly, the Hcensure status of the providers receiving cash.Unfortun tely, however, consumers often do not know whether their providers arelicensed.Nearly 10%

, of the eligible Garnple space (raw count of users of otherrhome by non-relative care whether paid or not) did not know. This is aisartularly.clifficult non- . respi'onse incidence to rlote since it is 'extremely likely that a greater pro- , portion of thoge ;,vho did not know use licensed care than the "valid" obstirved proportions. /

7-12

136 TABLE VII-7

USERS OF bRE IN AOHER HOME BY NON-RELATIVES BY

) ,COMPENSATION MODE AND SUMMARY DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

(Weighted Percents Basedon All Households

0 NON-USERS: * -U'SER S= * TOTAL IN COUNT1 *. * USES WITHOUT * UMPENSATION * COMPENSATION * * 1 0 SUBGROUP A COMPENSATION IN CASH * IN KIND * EICHTED 0 RAW $ ****4******14400104

( BY CURRENT

MARITAL STATUS: ,4

MARRIED , MS Id 0.4 11.1 20021 1435 NOT MARRIED 79.4 1.9 12.6 5.9 4342 1111

BY RESPONDENTS

EOPLOYMENT STATUS: .

EMPLOYEDIFULLOOM 71,2 2.11 19.1 1.6 0934 1761 NOT EMPLOYED 63.3 1.5 3.5 1166 15375 2055 C.3

BY RACE/ETNICITY:

' WHITE 7663 1.9 9.7. 1200 1612 2543 ,

BLACK_ 86.3 1.1 8.1 494 3501 1400

SPANIiH/OTHEP 81.4 1,1 1.1 ' 4.4 2571 657

BY POVERTY STATUS:

BELOW POVERTY 66.2 1.3 4.4 6.1 3212, 056

WITHIN 2001 CF 81.9 0,9 0.0 902 I 5265 1189 ABOVE 2001 CF P. 74.1 2.3 110 1200 13121. 2036

A L C RESPCNOENT1 ,76.8 1.1 902 10.2 24390 4000

137 1. Reported inthounands; non-reoponse Is mit gllocited

4. 138 TABLE VI 14

MINIMUM ESTIMATES OF HOUSEHOLDS USING LICENSED FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES

Percent of -espective total users Huseholds Reportin . Minimum estimate*

Licenved care 527 400--= 10.2%**

.Licensed, paying cash 381,900 17:0%

Licensed, paying cash using ten or more hours 259,900 17.4%-

*Estimates-are extremely suspect due toIligh -non-response.

Base includes insubstantial,informal neighborhood arrangements.

Table VU-8 gives the proportions of licensedreports to the number of users, respectively, forall "other-home-by-non-relative" users,those paying cash and, finally, those paying cash andusing 10 or more hours.Frankly, this distribution is more or less inscrutable. First, the estimates of licensed usersmight be half the true national total, or they might be even less than half, if someof those rGsponding"ne were mistaken.It is Imown, if only through anecdotal reportsand state agency estimates, that easily onehalf to three quarters of care delivered inon-relative homes for money may be "underground" (i.e. ,should be licensed but isn't). The elusive problem of determining what proportionof care is licensed versus "underground" will survive this study.

Second, the relatively high incidence shownof unpaid licensed care suggests that the relatively small base offully-subsidized care is virtually always licensed, or at least reported as licensed.

7-14

13 3 Whatever the true licensing of these arrangements may be, this form of arrangement is very often 'formal' under anyone's definition, with three quarters of a million full-time employed mothers purchasing full-time equivalent eaand nearly a million purchasing ten or more hours.

Nursery Schools, DaY Care Centers and Head S art

Given the seman..ical difficulties in defining generic differences between nursery schools day care centers and, to a lesser degree, Head Start, we will make little attempt here to distinguish between them, especially since the distributions themselves may be circular artifacts.

Head Start is the least common of the three ',institutionalcare forms, at least as reported (Table vn-8). One respondent, above the poverty line, reported paying $15 per week, but all other observed HeadStart usage was free.

In assessing the importance of nursery and center care, it mu t be m mind that these forms of care tend to be more age-specific than the home-based methods. About 20% of households containing children between three and five use either center or nursery school care. Approximately 15%pay. Of the nearly 6% using nursery school care (Table 1711-9), two thirds use more than 10 hours per week. Although 5.3% of all households with respondents who are not employed pay for nursery school care, justover 1% of the poor do.Regardless of the compensation mode, only about 1.4% of the "not-employed poer" use nursery school care versus about 7% of the "not- employed upper income." The fact that about 6% of employed mothers pay for

*Atiinoted elsewhere, some "nursery school" and center usage is- probably funded, in fact, by Headstart.

7-15

140 TABLE Vlf-8

USERS OF, HEAD START ,

BY COMPENSATION MODE ANDSUMMARY DEMOGRAPHIC DATA (weighted percents based on allhouseholds)

.10,00*****siosolmos *moselimoss*44+444***414 40404440000$0 * *00** * TOTAL (N COUNT) * U S E,R S $ ,NON-USERS: COMPENSATION * ECRPENSATICNt USES WITHOUT 1 WEIGHTED- RAW IN CASH 0 IN KIND * SUOROUP 0 COMPENSATION mcoossoulo****41wwissotowoomplimpoloomposs 000000**0 4114***0- 000400*****00000**00000$

BY CURRENT

MAHAL STATUS: 0.0 20021 3435 0.2 0.0 MARRIED 99.7 013 4342 1111 0,8 0.1 NOT PARRIED 98.8

BY RESPONDENTS FPPLOYMENT STATUS:

1761 0.0 0 6934 99.6 0.2 EmP1OYEDIFULL/F011 2635 .4 0 0 Oil 15315 91.5 0.4 I NOT EMPLOYED

1..., cD RALEIETNICITY:

010 0.0 18312 2543 99,7 0.2 AHITE 1408 0.1 0.2 3507 98.9 0.6 BLACK 657 0.0 Oa 2571 99.3 0.5 SPANISH/OTHER

BY POvERTY STATUS;

0.3 3212 856 141 0.0 OFLOw POVERTY 98.4 0.0 5266 1189 99,4 0.6 0.0 , WITHIN 2001.0F 0.0 13127 2036 0.0 0.0 ABOVE 2001 EF PCi. 99.9

-4808 0.3 0.0 0.1 MU A L L REWNDENT5 99.6 meow mogis************ sio******.mmulicato6 .t.sisto.******4.00.0*.mpossm******ocoposommis

Hon* non-renponne 111 notCoated [41 1. Beradod In 142 TABLE VII-9

USERS OF NURSERY SCHOOL CARE BY COMPENSATION MODE AND SUMMARY DEMOGRAPHIC DATA (Weighted Percents Based on All Households)

NON-USERS: -USERS- * TO1AL IN CUNT/ 45E5 WITHOUT COMPENSATION * CCMPENSAT1ON 4 / 1 SUBGROUP 4, COMPENSATION * ,' IN CASH IN KINO * MOTH" * RAW 0*** ********* ************************ --

CURRENT IRITAL STAIUS: MARRIED 9 6 0.9 6.3 0.2 24027 3435 NOT MARRIE0 93.4 2.3 3.8 0.5 4342 1171'

RESPONDENTS IRLOYMENT STATUS:

EMPLOVEOIFU44/PART1 91.9 1.1 6.8 0.2 8934 1761 NOT EMPLOYED 93.2 1.2 5.3 0.3 15375. 1835

! RACE/ETNICITY:

WHITE 92.4 1.0 6.4 0.3 18312 2543 BLACK 94.0 0.9 4.8,, 0.3 3501 1408 SPANISH/OTHER 93.0 2.8 2.9 0.4 2571 657

POVERTY STATUS:

BELOW120VERTY 95.5 2.3 1.7 0.5 3212 856 WITHIN 2002 CF , 96.4 1.0 2.4 0.2 5285 1189 ABOVE 2002 CF FCV. 90.6 1.0 8.1 0,3 13127, 2036

4809 L L. RESPONDENTS 92.7 1.2 5.8 0.3 24390 4*************44**** ******* -mossUNC0** 1. Reported In thousands:. non-resp nse la not allocated 144 "nursery school" care 10 or more hours perweek is evidence that the nursery school is an important employment-linked arrangement. When respondents were asked if the r providers were licensed,86.5% of the valid response was affirmative and 13.5% negative.Once again, however, non-response blurs the picture at about9% of the eligible (raw) sample space. Centers, on'the other hand, appear to be more "formal"by definition (Table VH-10). The prevalence of center usage, as reported, is thelowest of the methods discussed thus far in this Section at 2.3% ofhouseholds (1..9% using 10 or more hours ).Of those that pay, employed mothers are represented at four times the frequency of those not employed, and blacks are proportionally overrepresented across all payment modes.

Only 3% of responding center users reported using unlicensed care; but one in 10 did not know the provider'slicensure posture. Although the sample numbers are small, the impact of federal subsidies can be seen in both nursery school and center care.Combining both methods, about one in 20 of poor households use care but do not pay cash. Interestingly, there appears to be no discrimination in favor ofei:her empleyed or non-employed respondents.

Other Forms of Care The usage incidence of before- and a schobl programs and coopers-. tive programs is too low to support any meaningful analysis. TablesVU-11 and VU-12 are therefore included below for general %formation only.

7-18

145 TABLE 3.

USERS OF DAY CARE CENTER CARE

BY COMPENSATION MODE AND SUMMARYDEMOGRAPHIC DATA

(Weighted Percents Based'on All Hbuseholds)

ttt********ttottt*************0******************0ttotttOtst****************(114** * TCTAL IN ,COUNT) * * -USER S- * NON-USERS: , COMPENSATION * COPENSATION * il * USES WITHOUT * 1 RAW IN CASH * IN KINO * WEIGHTED 4 SUBGROUP 4 COMPENSATION * ****************M1****Oilli$000$$$$*040,1****,$1100$00********10******1144****$.**404$$,S$144$1140441* II

BY CURRENT MARITAL STATUS: 2.0 0.1 20021, 3435 AARRIED 97.? 0.3 3.3 1.3 4342 1171 NOT MARRIED 94,8 0.7

BY RESPONDENTS EMPLOYMENT STATUS:

4.4 0.8 8934 1161 EMPLOYEDIFULLIPARTI 94.6 OA 2835 0,4 1.0 0.0 15375 NOT EMPLOYE0 98.6 ,

BY RACE/ETNICITY:

0.0 18312 2543, , 2.1 WHITE 97,6 0,3 303 0,6 3501 1400 BLACK 95.5 0.7 657 119 ., 1.06 4574 SPAN1SH/OTHER 9610 0,5

0 : 6 POVERTY STATUS:

, \ 1 *7 1,5 3212 056 6010w, POVERTY 9.7 1.0 0.2 5285 1189 WHIN 200t CF 98.0 002 1.6 13127: 2036 2.00 . Oa, ABOE 200% OF P. .96.8 0,3 :

0,3 2.3 24390 MO A L L RESPONCENI'S 97.1 0.4

11******tottottmittot*****6.10***,***twtottt*** $0404100$0**014010$000$000***.$0401**WWUNCaltf

1. Reported ill thounude; non-response Ii notallocated

146 147 TABLE V11-11

U5ERS OF BEFORE AND AFTER SCHOOL CARE BY

COMPENSATION MODE ANR SUMMARY DEMOGRAPHICDATA

(Weighted Perceptslasedon All Households)

* NCN-USEPS '1 -USERS- . * TOTAL (N CUNT) * 0 USES WITHOUT * COMPENSATION * COMPENSATION * i 1 * SUBGROUP *.COMPENSATION * IN CASH' * IN XIND .' WEIGHTED 4 RAW A * .00asol**0

BY CURRENT MARITAL STATUS:

MARRIED 95.7 2.4 1.3 0,6 20621 343,5 NOT MARRIED 95.1 3,4 0.9 0,7 4342.. 1111

, BY RESPONDENTS EmPLOYMENT SIMS:

EMPLOYEDIPULL/PAPTI 94.6 3.2 1,5 0,7 8934 1761 NOT EMPLOYEC 96,1 2.2 t/.1 0,6 15375 2835

BY RACEIETNICITy:

WHITE: 94.9 2fO 1.6 0.7 10312 2943 BLACK 91.8 1.6 0.3 0,3 3501' 1408 SPANISH/OTHER 97,1 21,.1 '0,2 0,5 2571 491

BY POVERTY STA,TUS:

BELOW POVERTY 98.1 0,3 0,2 321 854 WITHIN Z00% UP 96.5 0.6 0.8 , 528 1189 1 1 ABOVE 2001 OF ROV. 94.6 3140 17 0,8 13121 2036

A L L 'RESPONCENT! 95.6 21.5 1,2 0,6 24390 4000 143 , *********41010ossims soliww$444m6616!millmssmoso $4404441044$001404$44444 sotT*4644464suNcou

L fleportd In *ands; noo-rooponooInnot CD* TABLE VII-12

USbS OF COOPERATIVE CARE ARRANGEHENTS

BY COMPENISATION MODE AND SUMMARY DEMGRAPHIC DATA

(Weighted Percents Based on All Householde)

oo000000$0,00 000000 000000000000000000000e$0*** 0o00****oio************ *

* , NON-USERS: -USERS TOTAL (N COUNT) 0 * USiS WITHOUT * COmPENSATION COMPENSATION * 0

4 SUBbROUP COMPENSATION * IN CASH 0 IN KIND WEIGHTED 4 RAW $ 4 v#001#0so**firo 4o6440***104soommos*****44****00********464441 41**44414***4400$044*40,41001441

ey CURRENT MARITAL STATUS;

MARRIE0 93.'1 0.2 0.3 1.1 20021 3435 NOT MARRIED 99.6 0,0 0.2 4342 1171

BY RESPONDENTS EMPLOYMENT STAILS:

OPLoYEDIFULLMIPTI r)9.4 0.0 002 0.4 U934 1761

NOT EMPLOYEE 98.1 0.3 0.3 1.3 15375 2835

BY RACE/ETNICITY:

WHITE 98.5 0.2 0.1 1.2 18312 2543 BLACK 99.5 0.0 0.2 0.2 3507 me SPANISH/OTHER 98.4 0.2 1.0 0.4 2571 657

BY POVERTY STATUS:

BELOW POVERTY 99.9 0.1 0.0 0 0 3212 856 WITHIN 200t CF 19.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 5205 1189 AOOVC 200% OF Mi. 98.0 0.3 0.3 1.5 13127 2036

A L L RESP0NCEN1 96.6 .2 042 1,0 24390 4009

***I 1**********440004000011 0 *************01 0000****0010*000010000+

1, ne-ported in thounands; non-mponao la not allocated

150 151 CC TS OF CHILD CARE

Discus -= This section is devoted to an analysis of the dollar costs paid by child care consumers. No quantitative measure is available from this study on additional costs to the public government programs, subsidies or reimbursements o family members or relatives not residingin the immediate household. It is tempting indeed to approach the subject of child care costs y from the perspective of traditional macroeconomics.And to be sure, supply and demand" functions, economies of scale, marginalism and the like are to be found at wo -khi their usual forms. But let us also consider those attributes of child care consumption which tend to presage caution in making structurg assumptions about the nature of the child care market.

In most industries we assume that the quintessential motivation of the provider (or supplier) is economic gain.Thus, we maintain that an industry, and the decisions made therein, seel:: to maximize profits. As wehave seen, however, a substantial amount of child caredelivered, even by non- relatives, is not based on a formal economic arran _ment involving cash. Furthermore, many institutional providers (i e., nursery schools, day care centers and Head Start programs ) are organized asnon-profit corporations.

8-1

152 At Worm product or unit oi nervice cat 1. mcd fr -1 the consumer's point of view.The perceived unit of service may ri,ige from a few hours of custodial orprotective supervision in the COMO of ,itting through an integrated "alter-environment"in the ease of -Aopmental care. The reasons for using, or expectedbenefits, often icorporating both child-developmental andparent-convenience factors. The economist would, of course, argue thatthese factors, in themselves, pose no particular theoretical problem. Forexample, the concept of elasticity 3.v(_ld be important in the structure of child care costs, particularly since it can be maintained that child care usageis intluenced largely by cultural factors.That is, if a mother believes that method "A" is best for her child, but Imews that method "B"is basically similar in benefit, she still might choose A over B regardlessof price unless the price of A became prohibitive. By the same token,if the price of A were to go down, neither she nor anyone else would necessarilypurchase more care. In this example, A tends to be inelasticaprobable attribute of much child care usage. The notion of "time-price" is also important. Indefense of the classical (ff rnytlUcal) 'law of supply and demand,"the argument L.. well taken that price can bo construed to include not just actualdollars excl- anged, but transportation time, inconvenience and, generally, arelative valuation of ancillary labor and materials as well.With respect to child care, we would aintath that whether or not the consumer considersconvenience to be a major factor in the selection of an arrangement,associated time-price is implicitly part of the cost structure. Interestingly, the price structure does not seem to becontrolled by the upper threshold limit on how much householdsbelieve they can afford to spend. Although this topic is covered mo,efully in Volume ra of

b- 2

153 they would be able to spend in their present situatior_ , and the results shol. --,d very little eoncor(lanre with their reported currew expenditures.

Finally, if the child care market mechanism is essentially informal and non-systematie, as we believe it isone can speculate that "slippage may be more important than any true market equilibrium. As anillustration of what Ime mean here, let us draw an analogy to the employment market.

When we say t iat there is, for example, 10% unemployment, our general interpretation is that there arc more people looking for jobs than there are jobs available (and at a 10% level of unemployment this is probably true). But government economists will define "full-employment" at some level (and we surely do not wish to argue whai that level is) of, say, 96%.

Among ther reas(1_,full employment is not considered to be 100% because of structural or logistical "mismatches." For instance, there y be 10,000 electricians out of work but, at the same time20,000 job )periings for electricians.However, the unemployed may not live in the same areas as the jobs, or the candidates and the employers simply do not"find" each other. Another similar situation which may occur is exemplified by an economy where there are 10,000 jobs open for doctors, and 10,000unemployed engineers.It is correct to say that there is unemployment, but incorrect to say there are fewer jobs, on the whole, than persons seeking jobs. All this is obvious enough. The point is, the effects are heightened in a market mechanism controlled by undefined (but heuristically enormous in impact) cultural factors. And we must therefore be very careful in viewing the child care cost structure as one in which simple "tradeoffs" may be freely made. From the standpoint of public policy, for example, it cannot be con- cluded that a given price consumers now pay per hour for a certain

8-3

1 5 ,1 1fletllOd --f care constitutes the expeeted price vere the usage of care to be ex inded through public incentives. Nor could we really predict _ay particular change in usage patterns if price were lowered.

Y -.1. there things to be learned from this survey about In this section, we will 1.);.: examining the data from two essentially diffei-nt perspectives:(1) as measures of magnitude and 2) as tests of c ksin '03 about the econorn mc structure of care,,

On the "pure measure nt" side, we are interested in learning how large the child care market (or "industry" as some Nvould term it) is both from the standpoint of aggregate totals and as dollars distributed throughout the various care arrangements.

All of the tables presented in this chapter include estimates of the total national expenditure (in dollars per week) devoted to each method of care as subdivided by selected -independent variables of interest.In order to portray the true magnitude, non-response has been allocated according to observed proportions. Because of roundoff errors in the readjustment algorithm, the bottom line total projections may vary slightly on.some tables. In su mary, the total national costs of child care, as piid by consume)s, is estimated as shown by Table Vra-l Over half (55%) of the child care dollar is paid to non-relatives, with about 5% going to the inStitutional forms of care.As one woidd expect, relatives receive the least in remunerations in proportion to the total amount of care delivered (Table \7111-2). TABLE VIII-I TOTAL ESTIMATED NATIONAL CONSUMER COSTS OF CHILD CARE (millions of dollars)

Method Per Week Per Year Child's home: by relative 8,9 464.7 by non-relative : 2.3 1,679.4 Other home: by relative 13.0 674.1 bY non-relative 34.4 1,790.4 Nursery school 20,1 1,044.6 Day care'center 10.5 547,1 Cooperative programs .3 17.5 Before/after school 2.0 _101.8 $121.6* $6,321.6

Standard error estimated at4-4.6,m lion; Head Start dropped being insignificant.

TABLE VIII-2

PROPORTION OF TOTAL CAREDELIVERED COMPARED AGAINST SHARE OF THE CHILDCARE DOLLAR

ercent of all Percent of Method Child Care Hours Total Costs Child's home: by relative 19.3 / 7.2% by non-relative 17.2 26.6 Other home: by relative 25.5 10.7 by non-relative 19.8 28.3 Nursery school 8.3 16.5 Day care center 6.4 8.7 Cooperative program 0.8 0.3 Before/After school 2.1 1.6 (100T) (100%)

8-5

156 That r latives arc p id less is not so Important as the observation, once again, that they represent a substan d part of the market anl that they arcindeed, frequently paid.

A second topic of interest from the "pure measurementTt perspective is the cost per service hour of the various arrangements o But before presenting the results of this calculated item, it is necessary to explain a measurement difficulty imposed in part by the design of questionnaire.

The numbers of hours of care received were recorded severally for each child in the household with respect to method; costs were recorded (also with respect to method) in the aggregate for the household. Thus, there no strictly logical way to identify care units delivered in common. For example, su posc, a given household reports that child "A" receives 20 hours per week of in-home care by non-relntives, child !IV! receives 10 hours and, further, the household on the whole pays $12. We cannot ascertain how many of these hours are received in common or how many provider ("sitter") labor hours are represented by the $12.

Furthermore, although we would expect and the data eonfirm) that babysitting two children for an hour does not cost much more, if any, than caring for one child for an hour, we would not make the same asstimption for, say, day care center care, where costs are likely to be determined by number of children served or "enrollment slots."

Consequently, we have used as a comparable measure across methods the m an cost of a child care hour (household cost divided by the sum of the hours of care received by all children using), not the provider service hour. Table VIE-3 shows the impact of this definition when assessthg, particularly, the east of home-based care.

8-6

N7 TABLE V111-3

MEAN COST PER SERVICE HOUR BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN THE HOUSEHOLD*

Method Overall Number of Children Mean 1 2 3 4 & over Child's home: by relative .51 .36 .26 .22 by non-relative 53 1.06 . 57 .35 .37 Other home: by relative .39 .50 .32 .29 (.34) by non-relative .54 .69 .49 .48 .38

Nursery school .66 .65 .67 68) (45) Day care centers .57 .55 .69 .35) ( .51) All methods** : 51 .65 .51 .40 .34

*Figures shown in parenthesesare suspect due to insufficient observations. **Includes methods ofcare (Mad Start, cooperative andfore a_ er school) not itemized due to insufficientobservations.

In addition to serving as an aidto interpretation, Table VEE-3 can be construed to test the hyTothesis thatsome arrangements offer economies of scale when two or more childrenreceive care Ln common. Babysitting(e.g., in-home by non-relative) is, ofcourse, the most statistically marked; but the differences between "other home bynon-relative" and nursery/day care center are probably the most significant in substance.To be sure, the interpretation of the "other-home by non-relative"pattern is confounded by varyingusage modalities and cannot be equatedto the family day care home concept; butit is stal probably correct to concludethat "group rates" are more like 3 be manliest among formal family homeproviders than centers, even ,though "slo'av lilable" and "slots used" constitute true businessconstraints in both cases.

8-7

158 A th d "pure measuremant "bjective Is the doterminaUon of how much,on the average, households payin total when they use care.Tables esented at the end of this section Incude this statistic in 111 eqses.* Overall, hoMolds which purchase care average $14.73 perweek in costs. Mean distributions by method aregiven in Table Via-4.

TABLE

MEANCOST PER WEEK TO HOUSEHOLDS PURCHASING CARE IN GIVadmamas

_ Method Dollars per Week Child's home: by relative $10.52 . by non-relat ve 7.78 Other home: by relative 14.24 by non-relative 16.07 Nursely school 14.59 Day care center 19.56 Cooperative programs ( 5.83) Before/after school" ( 6.42) Overall mean, all paying households $14.73

**Suspeot due to small sample size.

*Tables given at the end also present the mean cost percapita in the population. While these statistics are notparticularly descriptive of any "real-life" concept, they may be used E113 an index to gaugethe distribution of the "market" among various household typescbntrollinz for number in the population.

8-8

159 Earlier in the Ste I ion, we stated that our cost would includein addition to pure n cthe testing of certain hypo_ _ses. The following arc among the m re important of these hypotheses (e.wressed as ques- ti 0 Do the poor, or do "marginally poor," households pay more or less than households overall, either in total or per service hour? o Is the cost of child care dependent upon, or can it be predicted or explained by, the household struCture as defined by the mother's marital and employment status? o To what extent de costs correlate with the "degree" of the mother's employment as measured both by hours worked and money earned? o Does the reported reason care is used bear a measurable impact on the costs of care?

The reniaini P- _f this section are devoted to brief exam ations of these questions. For the interested reader, however, a series of ailed tables portraying distributions by type of care are to be found at t end of the section.While these tables are generally rich, in additonal information, the reader is cautioned that no treatment has been given to sampling error. As a general rule of thumb, wherever the "number of paying households" shown is less than 100,000, associated means should be disregarded or at least considered suspect. For tills:reason, tables based on the methods cooperative care, before and after school care and Read Start have not been included although reported costs and hours used are incorporated/into tables on "all methods. '

Poverty Status and Costs Research in support of the antipoverty programs of the 1960s, as well as more current studies on consumerism, often demonstrated that the poor pay mere, in general, for what they purchase.Fortunately, this does not appear to be true Ln the -case of child care. 8-9

160 Table V-5, on the following page givesthe mean prices pat child care hour for '2 itch ofthe various methods by povertystatus. With the exception -f care in relatives'homes, each method isdescribed by a monotonic paid. The drop in pattern wherein the higher theimome, the higher the price price paid for other home,/relative careby the marginal income group(28(;!) is interesting and probably representsthe nature of symbioticextended family relationslAps. That those belowpoverty pay more than thosejust above may be explained by the conjecturethat the relatives of a poorfamily are more for free; or it may likely to bespoor and, hence,less able or willing to "work" be that some of the workingpoor" are, forced to make anarrangement with inability to afford relatives because of unavailabilityof other forms r,f care and mal care in family day care homes or%;enters. At this point, it is onlyfair to question whetherthese strong trends or in price actually representcheaPer purchasing by those withlaskr'isicomes distribution of whether the differences representonly artifacts of a skewed amounts of care used.Figure 8-1 tends, on thewhole, to controvert this posts"- differences in unit bility.This ogive of the distributionof costs suggests that price tend to control thetotal amount paid 2,9 opposedto differences in the distribution, accompanied byeconomies of scale or thelike, distorting the means. Four propositions, admittedlybeyond the data, might help toexplain these correlatiox. The first isobvious: people pay whatthey can afford. Second, child care costs andstandards arepreemin4tly more irifluenced by micro-communitystandards than, say, the marketfor good That is, groCerie.3 do not costless in a poor neighborhoodthan in a rich one- (indeed, they may cost more); butchild care probably does tend tocost less. Third, and verT important from -apolicy-m

8-10

161 TABLE

MEAN COST PAID PER CHILD. CARE HOUR BY METHOD

AHD HOUSEHOLD POVERTY STATUS

(dollars per hour)

Before In Own Home In Other Home Nur$ery After

q111 Income Level ri Byin- By By,Non- or Day Care School Relative Relative Relative Relative,Preschool Center ProgramMethods

.34 .29 .37 Below Poverty .31 .39 :40 .40 .'50

.:58 .40 .58 .39 Within 200% of Pnverty .31 .40 .28 :44

.67 ;73 .58 Over 200% of Poverty .40 ,56 .44 159 169

.67 .60 170 .51 Total, All Households .34 .52 .38 155

5 163 ,

a PERCENT

NI II BELOW POVERTY wmin POVERTY TO200% POVERTY >200% POVERTY

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30- 4 35-39 40+ 0 1-5

DOLLARS PER WEEK

Figure W.. Distrthutiou of Dollars PaidExpressed as Percents of the Respective Populations, do not know, for example, the extent to which staff-child ratios, the qua _ca- tiqns of prmdders, monies spent on equipment or food, etc., explain the fe ences in price. Finally, lower costs to the poor for family day care homes, nursery school and center care in particular are very likely influenced to a great extent by grants and sliding fee scales subsidized by the publicby other consumers or by private philanthropy. in examining the tables below by race and etimicity, it is instructive to note that racial differences are largely controlled by differing income distributions.Our attempt to control for income in order to analyze true racial trendsalthough useful, stretched the sample too thin and is not reported here.

Respondent's Marital and Employment Status Just as the mother's status is the most significant predictor of usage, it is by far the dominant factor in the distribution of expenclitures.In per capita terms, employed mothers spend about five times as much on child care as their counterparts who are not employed (Table V11:1-6).

TABLE VIII-6

MEAN WEEKLY COST OF CARE BY RESPONDENT'S STATUS

Mean Cost per Respondent cost to capita in those payirz population Currently married and: employed $19.96 $ 9.25 not employed 8. 06 2.19 Not currently married and: employed 22.27 12.02 not employed 12.09 2.08 All households 14.76 5.00

8-13

1 6 '") Furthermore, employed mothers who are not currently married spend about a third More per capita than those who are married. When limited only to those who pay, employed married respondents pay only slightly less see Table V111-7

TABLE V111-7

MEAN WEEKLY EXPENDITURES TO HOUSEHOLDS PAYING BY RESPONDENT'S STATUS AND TyPE OF CARE

All Paying Currently Married Not Currently Mar ied Method HouseholdsEmployedNot EmployedEmployedNot Employed Child's home: by relative $10.52 10.92 5.56 17.33 16.94 by non-relative 7.80 11.86 4.72 17.28 6.08 Other home: by relative 14.24 16.22 9.80 14.12 9.62 by non-relative 16.08 17.97 7.87 18.73 10.98 Nursery school 14.60 19.19 9.61 27.79 (17.51). Day care center 19.56 22.04 16.99 19.61 ( 8.90) All methods* $14.76 19.96 8.06 22.27 12.09

*Includes other methods with insufficient observations to warrant itemization. (Figures in parentheses are suspect due to sampling error. )

While mothers who are not en1,-ved spend about the same per capita whether or not they are married, th_:an probably be attributed to lack of income, for those who actually purchase care average about 50% more in costs per week.

167

4 As a bare maimum, 25% of the national child care expenditure is in no way work-related, since about this proportion is spent by mothers who are not employed. But the distributions of mean amounts paid by the mothers' level of employment (Table as well as the distributions of total national expenditures see tables at the end of this section), both portray very strong correlative relationships.

TABLE VIII-8

MEAN COSTS PER WEEK BY RESPONDENT'S LEVEL OF EMPLOYMENT

Method An Paying No Hours Hours Worked Per Week Households Worked 1-9 10-29 30 & Up Child's home: by relative -$10.52 5.67 (6.36) (6.72) 16.35 by non-relative 7.78 4.85 ( 5.09) (9.11) 16.24 Other Home: by relative 14.24 8.37 (4.24) 14.63 17.00 by non-relative 16.07 9.56 5.67 12.03 20.71 Nursery school 14.60 9.22 10.08 11.98 24.31 Day care center 19.56 12.07 (20.00) 12.28 22.49 All methodS* $14.73 7.82 9.91 13.93 23.29

*Includes other methods having insu ficient observations. ( Figures in parentheses are suspect due to excessive standard error.)

168 8-15 There is also distinct evidence that economies of scale are mani- fest as the number of hours of care increases. The observed mean costs per service hour for all methods of care by employment' level are shown in Table VHI-9.

TABLE VIII-9

HOURS WORKED PER WEEK BY, COST PER CHILD CARE HOUR

Level of Employment Mean Cost Per Child Care Hour No hours worked: $0.62 1-9 0. 62 10-29 0. 61 30 and up 0. 47 All households 0. 51

The tendency for price to decrease as more hours are used appears to hold across the various methods.,

8-16

169 rsTIM477 N4TrJNL WADITPFS ;FR q..L ql+COS qF CAR. BY HOUSEHOLC INCIM= LrNEL0 (AMOUNTS r'Afr BY CCNRUMFRS CNLY0

*.T1TAL'ESTIMATED 4 NUBE S7 * COST 'PER * MEAN COST * .

* WIENAL * 1-OUSEHCLES *Fi4 PAYING 4 COITA IN * KR SF.RVICE *

INCOME 1.1/7-L * r.XENDITUR,: * PAYING * HCLIS:HCLD PORULATICN * HOUR *

BELrW POVERTY LFVEL 7745317.00 599459. 12.92 2.1379 ' J.37

IIITMIN 200! 9F DOVDTY 21442416000 1627951. , 13017 305971 0,39

OVER Mt OF POVERTY 95467456000 62723440 15.22 6,4478 058

TOTAL, ALL HOUSEH3LOS 12055191'030 114997c4; 140C1 50110 0051 .

******** t*****t*****0***k*trot*****.********* 0,01**********Ri*ti*************UNCn**

NOTES: COSTS ARE GIVEN IN DOLLARS PER KEK PER CHILXARE4DP NCT PER PRDVICR FOUR.

170 171

_ ISTIMATED NATICNAL. EXP7NDITU;CS FCR

TN HC4i:. CAR ;11 LT1VC CI HOUS.F401T INC94F LFVFlo

#00400**4*******007,004***0004i000,0***************4******,4**000***0**

* TOTAL ESTIMATED * NUMPER CF * M7AN CCST *COST °ER * MEAN COST * NATIDNAL * HOUSEHOLDS *FFR PAYING CAPITA IN * PR 5=RVICE *

INCOME LEVEL * !XPENDITURE * PAYING * HOUSEHOLD * POPULATION * Hu *

BELOW POVERTY LEVEL 2677158900 1691910 15082 067390 0131

WITHIN%200% OF POVERTY 2506050°00 226377o 11,07 0,4204 01,31

OVER 200% OF POVERTY 3694896900 4738461 Leo 0;24g5 0040

TOTAL, ALL HOUSEHOLDS 8878105000 8694140 10021 CO(40 ,0034

NOTES: COST! ARE GIVEN lh CMOS PER WEEK PFP 0HILOCAPE-HOUR NOT PER PROVIDER HOUR.

172 NATICNAL EX0ENOTTUS peo .

TN HOME (7,APE BYNON-RgATIM EY HCUS411LD INCUME LEVFL0,

*1*********************i*

* MEAN COS-T-t* . * TOT L ESTIMATED * OBE: OP * Mi:AN cnsi* COST PER CAPITA IN *,PER SERVICE \Ili * ATIONAL * HusEHuns *PER PAYING * H1LSEhOLD * POPUUTICA ! 'CUR * INCOME LEVEL * EXPENUITUR; * PAYI0 **********4 *********************************** *******it*t*****************

3B39 BELOW liOVERTY LEV L 1)40747 44 122832 8447 C2673

0040 WITHIN 200% OF POVF TY 573736 00 68161 C0924

)056 OVER 'Mt OF POVERTY 26625392.CJ 3506868_ 7659 1,7982

1.36S5 52 TOTAL, AIL HOUSFHOOS 3340350440 4311313* l 15

******************************** -******** **or. **** ***$***. ***- **ONO** P

NOTES: COSTS AR GIVEN IN MARSPER WEEK PEP 010-CARE-HOUR NOTPER PROMER HOUR.

174 EXPENCITURFS. FCR FSTIMA1E0 NAIICNAL BY HOLSE9L0!Km: Fv.L. CARE INRELATIVE'S HOMES 140 **r*#g t******Ot 111*****0404****ttt MEAN COST * OSTPEF 't NUMBER OF.* 14EAN COST t 11141ESTIMATED IN *?ERSERVIC * KUS.EHOLCS *PERPAYING * C PITA NATIONAL HOUR *---"" * HOLSEHCLO *PJPULATICh * PAYING I( * EXP5NOITURC INCOME LEVEL *moo */ ***********************************66#

112343. 11C0979.03 BELCW POVERTYLEVEL

0 28' 13066 0 5 S5 3156306 0 2310026 WITHIN 2O OF PtIVRTY

0,175 597243.' 5 1 , 9143057.00 OVER 200% OFPOVERTY

O.3 8 9405d7. 14.25 13400342.00 TOTAL.ALL.HOUSEHOL ******UNC * ****14004:$1*444****** ****

DOLLARS PERWEEK COSTS.ARE 'OIVEN MTES: kUR.' CHILC-CARE7WUR NCT PER,PROVIDER PER

176

4 , EST1MATD NATICA4 EXPLNCITURESFR IN1 NON-RELATIVES' I-CKS BY HrISFIlitc CflM LFM6

k*4"**1474 *404**0401 0-444114444***41 wY**i**mittii Atth**A*****

r * TDTAL 7STI14TEO * NUMBER * MEAN CCST CS1 PER * lEAN COST 4 NATIONAL * HGUSEHULN *PER PAYING * COI% IN * PR SERVICE 0

INCGMF LEVEL EXPENt'ITURr'. * PAYING HASFErLD * PIPULATICN * HOUR i'04#w***Htsfoot tlf44,4.kkot*i4.010*!,******64w., 0143444,i,litook,,tx******* oittoti****

FiELCW POVERTY LTVEL 1541777600 144086 10670 064256 0640

WITHIN 200',4 OF Pnv[RTY 64Sg849 0 416266 14639 16)q3 )644

UVR 200t EF NIVERTY 26 176.00 1575 16 i 1A2U9 0659 '

VAL, ALL HOUSEHOLDS 35001192.00 21709400 16612 1.4151

*70044 ***A*Ir ***I** * ****** 06601#11*****6 i**

NOTES: COSTS ARE GII/ENIt\ [.CLURS PFR WLEK

; PER CHILNCI,RHOUR NOT OR PROVIDER HOLR6

178 179 ESTIM,TD NATIONAL EXPENOITURES FOR F IN NURSc_RY SCHCCLS BYI-CIJSFbCLT INCOME LEV1-10

OST * TOTAL ESTIMATIO * NUMBER CF * MEAN COST * C1ST PER * MEA * HCUSHCLDS AFER PAYING *CAPIT3 IN * PER PVICE +.kTIONAL g, HCUSEHOLD * POPOLATIM* HOUR * EXPENOITURJ * PAYING COAE LEVEL 441,Nc* *-,0*****ii0000,Y0.0x,0*****,*****4Ai4

0.50 5 1 0.?386 :El POVERTY LF_VF:1_ 864333013

).58 aN Z00% OP POVERTY 17663 9000 136480. 2.94

1.2090 ).69 Z00% OF POVERTY i79O324OOO 11625- 1E34

0.8418 0.67 ALL HOUSEHO OS 2O53O928OU 13620960 150 7

* U 0**

NOTES: COSTS ARF GIVEN IN CCU RSPER WFFK PER CHILDCARE-1-n R NOT PERPROVIDER HOUR, F.STIM =71 N4 TILN )(PEND! IOC S Fr R INCOMELEVLLO CARE I J DAYCARE CENTERS BY 1-,7USOIOL

** 4****** COST PER * MEAN COST *TOTAL ST1M4TEO * NUmbER CP MEAN CU ST PZR SERVICE * NA TI1NAL HCOSEHCLES*FEIP PAYING C AP IT A TN * POPULATI( HAN NCOME LE-AIR * xlIENci:TORt PAYING HOLSFHCLD **.***.***** * * **A******* *********** e

CW POVERTY tEVEL 57412. 8. 3 0014 6C 0.'4

CO3 0040 111 N 200 CP POVERTY 1267878.00 966 4.

22.0: 3..67 fl 200Z OF POvER TY ,93)2434. 0) 15306.

0.4545 0.60 1 ALL HOUSPHOLDS 11385 6.33 5693830 47 *4:*****4- UNCO**

NOTES : COSTS ARE GIVEN IA CCL L IRS PER14FEk PER CHI 1.0C ARFH9UR NET FER ROVI DER HOUR.

183 F0fACITLPES FrR HIPPO1\AT1CN4L SCHOOL MORAYSPY HCUSHCLO CAPE IN KFOPEAN) AFTER , IhCCME Mao

..104***hto***** * *:****0404#04014*****0**00A0****00#0100,$**'AST PER * MEAN COST A NUmWOF * MFANCOST * t OTL MIMATFP IN * PEPSFPVICE * HOUSEHOL0S #RPAYING * CAPITA * JATI11L HOUR * *!HOUSEHOLD *FIRULATION * # PAYM EXPCNPITUP ; INCCME LOH= ,'-,,,W044**rnkArnvf.,ko#0,0*00*ii*ttiO4(******040*00,****g*.)$.*A#A*0******.**

0.29 2.24 C8 24814,61 11054. BELOW POVERTYLEVFL

0.047 0.58 3767 a 5049 206638000 WITHIN 200%qF POVERTY

0073 001154 2473 7. 7015 1767702000 OVFR 200% OFPOVFRTY

0070 6.75 0.380 1q99155.0g 296083o TOTAL, ALLH1LI'VH1LO5 * .ck040400; *****UNCD** *

PER wEEK' COSTS APE GIVENIN D.OLLOS WITE'5: NCI OR['ROMER HOUR. PERCHILD-CARE-HOUR 18i

i ESTIMATTL) NATIONAL'iX2NCITMS FOR MARITAL/POLOP9JT STATUS. IN HOME CARE RYRELATIVa bY

(44******to***otoot604 $4***0 w**Am******,**4t**At*of41440,0,ttok * MEAN CCST * COST PEP MEAN COST * TOTAL ESTIMATED* NUMBER EF * PER SCRIIVE * * HrusEKLn*qR PAYING * CAPITAIN * WIONAI POPULATION * HJUR PAYING * PEUSEPOLD * * f:XPENDITURF * RESPONDENT Mirn******W04%*****A*****V***

.URRENTLY MARRIFO AND:

26321). Ic2 )0fl48 EMPLOYED 2874627,3

0046 3466620 5056 0 1470 NOT EMPLOYED 1926627000

CURRENTLY NOT PJE O

1028f6 0 I 2610513 00 150635. llon EMPLOYED 0,39 92088o 16094 0.67C7 NOT EMPLOYED 1560181000

C 3678 005 P525910 1652 TOTAL, ALL HOUSEHOLDS 897195040

CCLLORS PFR WIEK NCTES: COSTS ARE CIVEN IN NCT PER PROVICERPOUR. PER CHILD-CARE-POUR

i87 ESTIMATED N4TIONALEXP;ENCITURS FOR t,iliRiTAL/rPFLCYKNT MTUS* IN HOME C4RE BYNBULATI YES BY

44ti4o444444***rnimg***1***ww*t** * MFAN CCST * COST PEP * MEAN COST 4 *TOTAL ESTIMATED * UMW O _CS *PER PA YING *C4PITA IN* PER 5-iR VICE * * NAT IONAL f-rusE HOUR HCL SEHOLD POPULtT ICN * EXPEND! TURr. t' PA YIP4G RESPONDENT i010*****t**0147A*01m*iiii0******* t*O*0*****Y***04411(014.64)404tW;10,004q400,*41i*

CURRENTLY MAPRIED AND:

0.48 11934 34 11. E6 200432 RIFLIDYED 14159535.00

00 58 2525052e 4072 OO9Oc2 NOTPEMPLOYCO 1191516640

CURRENTLY NOT MARRIFO

0.61 327 17628 207)22 EMPLOYED 5665501.00 0 J.42 1089hl. , 6.0 0.2843 Ni3T EMPLOYE C 662595. 25

1 4155330. 7080 10 32E5 0.53 TOTAL, ALL HOUSEFICOS .32402784,00

4*404400io***kov,;*00********************401**

CMOS PER WEIK NPTES: riCSTS OF CIVEN IN PER pI1D-CtRE-HARNCT PER PROVICER HCUR6 'ESTIMATED NATICNAL EXDNIATU;S FFR . CARnM FLAWS HOMES 1-y 40ITALrPpLOKNT sTATLS9

, ffoliiooltilo*itito0411100tovo );10**1w,=,1 xo 0402qtt*******nlo010a***14640

* VITAL ESTIMAT[eD * NUMbER rIE ' MUM CtST.* ti!JST PP ' MEV,' COST *

, 1 * NAMINAL 't I-OUSEKLES *M.. RAYING * CAPITA IN t RZR Siivin * * RESRGNCENT ''.' cXP'':NflITUR Pt.Yr ',HCLSHCLD v.POPULAT1CN * RIUR -

t CURRENTLY MARRIED AND:

EMFLOYLD 36736903 1.2462 0037

NIT EMPLOYED 1817266000 18'4834 9.80 0!1387 0056

CURRENTLY NOT'MARRIED

1004gc 00 39 '.. INLOYED :. . 2130717.00, 15h?60

' f1P68 a#42 NTI EMPLOYED , 43P4L,.56 4511(1. ,

. ;

TOTAL, ALL MDUSFHCLPS 1301902.3.00 914056. 14.24 G.5538 0039

Iiii*******4***0******************40**tg*Ounintt*A.********** ktus******x** .*#,E41,1uNCOsii

NOTES: CMS ARE GIVEN If% piLLAPS PFR 4rEK PER CHILr-CARE-EqUR Ng FER RPOV1DER HOUP%

190

a, ESTIMATED NATIONAL a0CNOITUKS FrR 'I RF IN UN-RELATIVES' HOMES BY PAPI1ALPWLCY4,1T 'TANS,

wox* _***00**** ******04**t****0 * TOTAL ESTIMATED * NUMB& C * WEAN CCST * COST PER * MEAN COST * NATIONAL 4 FOUSEHCLDS *PEP PAYING * CAPITA IN * PER SrRVICE * 0 RESPONDENT, EXPENDITUR7 t PAYM t 1-1uSOLD t P1PULATION * HOUR *0 t40,44410****4*0* t**000*h****0* tb0 ****0** t 04001(*M00*****t000140*********t

CURRENTLY MAPRIFO AND:

EMPLOYED 22440256.00 1248567. 17oC7 3.2381 J 5.

NOT EMPLOYED 2874225 00 365040o / P3 0,2193 0,97

CURRENTLY NOT MARRIED

EMPLOYED 8112;26,01 433228, 18,73 3,9964 0 49

0.62 NOT EMPLOYED 1088592000 '99118, 1048 0.4680

0954 TOTAL, ALL HOUSFHOLDS 345)600340 214599, 1E403 1 4151

sot** #40*4*** *0*** ******4 ***********000******** ***004**1****** *UNCO**

NCTES: COSTS ARE GIVEN IN OCLLORS PER WEEK 193 PFR CHILD-CARE-1700 NCT PER PROVIDER .HOUP ESTIMATED NATICNALAPENCITU145 FOR CARE IN NURSERY SCHOOLS BY1011AL/FP1IN4ENT STATUSo

.00464,00c#6*# *6,0**pho )0).0m/004010440o taiimolt***tv**

* TOTAL ESTIMATFD * NUm8P 0'* NiAN CCST 4 COST REF * M'AN CCST SFR4ICE * NATIDNAL * freUSEHLLCS *FEr PAYING *CAPITA IN * * MMEI-OLD # ROPULATICN * HOUR * RESPONDENT * EXPENDITURE * POIK 40**1440* ********66**04A0h400,Y*** 01**1-1)0*$ttifo0i0t#00#0***00:41***040/'

CURRENTLY MARRIFn AND:

IS 1.2836 O. 0 EMPLOYED 8 9572860J 4636. t,

61 0055P 0.87 NOT EMPLOYED 1316365 00 161613.

CURRENTLY NOT IIARRIED

0.48 1177q10 1 79 1.6136 EMPLOYED 3274012.00

17.51 0.3047 J 91 N1T EMPLOYED 708689.75 40471.

1283'66 14 0 0,8280 0.66 TOTAL, ALL HOUSEHCLDS 20194784 0 *******04,6******00044**UNC0** 001$00 st- 0**

PFP W1EK NOTES: COSI5 APF GIVEN IN CELLARS PFR CHILE-CARE-HOLR %CIFER PROVIEER HOP.

194 195 S TIMATEP NATICNAL XENCITtiS FOR CARE. IN CAYC AR CENTERS BY AP I TAL MPLPORNT STA TLS8

* TOTAL ESTIMATE) * NUMBEP OP MEAN COST * crsr PER 0-1.A.N COST * * NATIONAL * FOLISD-OLCS *PER PAYING * CAPITA * Pr'R SRVICE SPONCENT * EXPENDITURE * PAYING a HCLSEHCLD POPULATICN HOUR *****t(*** 011A.50*44*** ri-.2f.14***

RENTIt MARRIED A I

MPLOYED 6366357800 288818 22,O4 C89186 0.62

3T EMPLOYFD 1909455.00 112374. 16.99 '1.1457 0.7J

PENTLY NOT MAR R En

LIPLOYED 1928-135000 98315 8 19 61 0.9504 0.45

3T EMPLOYPC) 361926.81 40672. 0 081556 J0 31

L. ALL MOSEHOLDS 10566075800 5401790 19056 084.332 00 57

A LI 0**

NOTES: COSTS ARE GIEN IA CCLLAPS PER WEEK . PER. CHILDCAPE-111.11JR NO1 PER pR VIDFR HCUR. r,STIMATF) NATIDAIEXPFNCITMS FOR CA1P IN 91-FORE AND AFTER SCHERPP1GR4MS 2Y HOUS7HOP INCOME LEVEL.

******* ****0**14*.iitt.t..***tortoot*toto*sto****4******4**Alio*****#* * MEAN (OST k * TOTAL ESTI1ATED * NUMBM OP OST *usT DER * 17APIT4 IN * P1 Si:RVICF * NATIONAL * 1-CUEEH(LCC *Pr; HYING * HCLSEHOLD * PgPULATICN* HOUR * RESPONDENT * FXPENCITUR * PAYING 04044*****

CURRENTLY wuro AND:

0085 6c6136.81 10233 60eo )01004 , EMPLOYED

16539 6 5004 000636 0038 NOT EMPLOYED 833315950

CURRENTLY NOT 1ARRIED

28520. 14. 0.2042 1.78 EMPLOYED 414348000

0.29 98420 2.24 0.0095 NOT EMPLOYED 22093.20

6.42 C.08C6 0059 TOTAL, ALL HOUSPHOLDS 1965893,00 306091.

tivibt*******011041*** .*******uNcps Wtt$0006**W000#4*4**t*****t**** *44******x

OCLLARS PER WEEK MOTES: COSTS ARE GIVEN IN PER CFILD-CARE4OUPNOT PFR PROVICER HOLR.

98 199 ESTIfrATIO NATInNAL EXPPKEITUREF FOP /IA PETI-rDSOP CtR,', MAPITALOPLOYMENT STATUS@ (AMOUNTS PAID PY CONSUMERS ONLY0)

s************,komioix*O*Iii140tootO*********1******#************* *

* TOTAL 'STIMATED * NUMBER OF * MEAN CCST * COST PER * MEAN CCST *

* NATIVN'AL * HOUSEKVS. 1PEP PAYING * CAPITA IN * PcR SFRV10E * l'CLSEPcLO * PIPULATID * HOUR * RESPONDENT * EXPEND7TURr_ '4' PAYING *******#** ****************4*********************0*$#W4k4****************04********

CURRENTLY MA IFD AND:

0.49 EMPLOVEt 64097,200000 '2111345(, 1C-Co go2489

0.64 NOT EMPLOYED 28700176.00 3562127, 8.06 2.1900

CURRENTLY NOT MAPPIFD

0647 EMPLOYED 24381552.00 1094919, 12.0162

N1T EMPLOYED. 4838713.00 40028; 12.09 20801

0451 TOTAL, ALL HOUEHCLDS 12201764400 8269185. 14.76 !627

NOTES: COSTS ARE GIVB lh CCLLARS PER WIEK 201 PER CHILO-CARF-HJUR NCT PER.PROVICERHOLR, 7,STIq4UD NATIONAL FXPNCITURFS F5P ALL PF,TI-CUS (ARL

11)1 W1RK SChaL0 WOUNTS PAP: BY CCNSUMERS 1NLY0)

* TOTAL FSTIMATE0 * NUMFR r1F MFAN CnST * C1ST PER *, MEAN COST *

* . NATT:NIL * I-COS EHCL .FEI; PAY IN!", * (AP 1TAfN * .PfiR SERVICE *

HOUR * WORK SCHEDU1 * _ XPEN,-'7 TO; * ';AYINr, WISD.CLO * KIPULAT ICN oz**00.(0.01,0*Als*.0*0,4o*A*,,01144,06,1000t0.4tti4*****t***********

NC WORK SCHECUIP ,-,28878496,00 36C27qr:, 7.82 1,8914

HCURS WORKEE/WEFK:

1 - 9 3188600000 3219000 9.q1 4a207 0,62

10 - 29 137207,00'40 ;848E1, 130C3 02116

30 C UP 75804688000 32547000 23029 12015.0S 0047 .

ALL KoEHaBs 121592496003 E254IF40 14073 4.985 0051

**10114m************00*#******#*$***110040**, **A*400************t************UNC0**

NCTFS: COSTS ArriEdIVFN nCLLARS PER WEEK PEP CHILD-CARE-I-0'g NCT YER PROVICER HOUR,

202 203 :STIMATF1 NATIPNAL :YPWITLRE WM( SCHE0ULE9. IN HOME CARF BYRLLATJVES BY WENT'S

************!** MaN C)ST * CF * PFAN CCS7 * COST PER * * TnTAL ESTIMATFCt KUM8FP RAYING 4 CAPITA IN * PFR SERVICP * * NATIONAL * HOUSEHCLOS *FE; * HOUR * * PAYINC 4hOUSEKLD * POPULATION WCRK SCHEOULF * EXPFNOTTURF

0048 319200. 5,67 Gel4C8 NG WORK SCHEDULe 2150300,00

HOURS WORKED/WEEK:

0.60 28C00. 36 42642 1 - 9 178230.00

0.19E4 0.51 41R200,00 65204 6.72 10 - 29 00889 3.31 3773OC. if,35 30 & UP 6165501.0

(635 849700. 10.52 ,. 006E4 ALL HOLSEHOLCS 8936200000 1141"*UNC0** ***********************************0****44********k************************ IN,CELliAS PER wur MOTES: COSTS ARE OIVEi HURI 'PER CHILD-CARE-HOONOT qR PROVIDER '21M 205

) qP:NEITuqS cCP 7:STIMATE0 NA'IN).L PARENT'S WflRK SCH7OUL0 IN HC4C CA4 BY NON-PELATIVCS EY

to*********#**11***#**4,o10000000****************04,*****,******** * clsT PR * MEAN COST * rOTAL ESTIMATFO *NUMDFR OF * tAN cosT $ CAPITA IN *.P6R SFPVICE * * HOUSEHCLCS*FE. PAYING * . * ' NATIONAL PDPULATICN * HqUR * PAYING * HUSH-IUD * WORK SCHEJULF * 7XPENOITO9F

C. 8076 2544161, tiC WORK SCH:OULF 12330803.00

HOURS WORKFO/WrrK:

1..6122 3668- 108760000 213500. ,oCc 1 9

2 1762 ,.0160 5279000 9011 10 29 4607100000

0448 8662(00 16024 202552 33 C UP 14069100.0)

0053 4151700o 478 103241 ALL HOUSEHOLCS 3204592 00

CELLOS PEP WICK NOTFS: COSTS ARE GIVEN IN PEP CHIVKAPFHOUPNCT PER PRNICERHOUR.

!ri 207 20'1 :STIMATED NATICW. 'XRcNEITUQFSFOR IN /ELATIVPS HCOS5Y PARDT'S ilCRK SCHT:OLIV0

****4*040Emi***010a****

COST PER * MEAN r,OST * TOTAL ESTIMATED *NUMBER OF * m:rAN CCST * Wj', PAYING * CAPITA IN* PFR ovICE *' * NATIONAL * 1-OUSEKACS PAYUG * HCUSEI-OLD *POPULATION * HOUP * WORK SCHEDULF * EXPENDITURE **Moos****0***********00*******040$04******$ **40044********##.t*******Wow*

0,49 2044C0. E '7 0 1120 NC WORK SCHEDULE 1710700 00

HOURS WORKED/WEEK:

0429 40000, 4624 42517 1 - 9 169803,00 0 62 999000 14.63 066588 10 29 1455200000

566303, 17000 1 5434 0,36 30 6 UP 028403,00

0039: 9102004 14 24 005315 ALL HOUSEHOLDS 12964100 00

MI WiEK NOTES. COSTS APE GIVEN IN CELLARS PEP CHILKARE4OUR NCTPER PROVIDER HOUR. 20! 20, ;STIMATED NATIONAL ZWNCIILR' FOR tARF IN NON-RRATIVES' OES PY RARr:NT'S WORK SCHRULF.

TUAL ESTIMATPO * NUMBER 1F 4 YEAN COST * CST ER * 'TAN COST *

* NATMNAL * HCUSENCLES wrEq PAYING,* CAPITA IN * PER SFRVICE *

WORK SCHEDULE * EXPENDITURE *i DAYINr, w FICUSEHan *JOPULATICN * FnUR * 314************ ***141*****w**44****0************* 014440#*****i\I OtatAbil****4********

hC WOPK SCI-HULE 3902503.00 4032(C. Of 556 0.83

HOURS WORKED/WFrK:

1 9 71260060) 12570). 5 67 1Ot6 0.53

10 - 29 4861200.00 404200. 12.03 202007 0.57

30 C UP 2495289640 11O47;L 20,71 3.9998 0

ALL HOUSEHOLDS 34429392.00 2142500 1.07 1.4 16 0.54

*********************Imoo*****************0**tro,soop.******* /wow.* ***uNC0**

NOTES: COSTS APF GIVEN IN CULARS PEP OEK PER CHILD-COE-4N NCTJER PROVIOFR HCU

210 211 iss

PSTIHATED. NATICNAL EVFNEITURFS. FCR CAPE ',IN OS C.RY SCHOOLS BY PARENT ORK SC.HOULE.

* TOTAL FS1IMATE0 * N0LIBER OF * KAN CCST *. COST PrR * IFAN C951. *

* NATIONAL ,* 1.0U5EHCLCS *P:P PAYING * Ckf FA IN * PER SERVICF * ,* * HOUR, WORK SCHGULE * EXPENDITURF * PAYING * HCLF.hOLO t POPULAT **************1**t*****************40000****41.01*10 *44±0**********top(***********3*******

NO WORK SC1-EDU[c 67C060 0 7266(0. 9.22 0.4389 ;,93

HOURS hOWD/WFFK:

9 1001600000 9940.14 10.08' 104847 ).80

H 0,4 26 0685 13 29 977703000 81600, II. S8

30 E UP 11429700000 4701000 24421 108321 0054

ALL HCUSEH3L15 2069631.0J 13777( 2. 14060 C08245 0066

***** ************************************** ***************4**1** ********'UNCO**

NCTES: COSTS AR E GIVEN IN OCLIARS PFR giK . PEP CHILGCAREFOUR NCT FFR PROCCEP, hOUR I 2 2 213 ESTATE0 NAT1CPAL FXRWITFESFr1; CtRF IN DAYCARE CENTERF NYPARENT'S iCRK SCHFOULE.

COST PFR * MEAN COST * * TMAL FSTIMATE0 *NU48ER GF * PEAN COST * PAUNG * CAPITA IN P:R,SFRVICE'* * NATIONAL * HOUSEWAS *PO HOUR * PAYING * HO,USEKLD * POPULATICN* WORK SCHEDULE k EXPENDITURE *

001 !; 963006 12.07 000762 NO WORK DEOLLE 1162700.00

HCURS WORKED/OR!

0.0208 14000.00 7006 ' 20.0C 1 9

0.3107 001 6863010j 55q43, 120 10 29

0.59 A85000, 22,49 1.3879 30 & UP 8658500.00

, 1.51 5379004 14,56 0.4314 ALL HOUSEHOLDS 10521500.00

PER= Kb( NOTES: COSTS AR.E GIVEN IN DELLAPS PER COLC-CARF-HURNOT43ER PROV1CF 141tRo.'

215 214

zi ESTIMAY0 NATICNAL EXPNNiLSFC; fN OF30 mr AFTERSChfCt FFOGRAY: BY' PARENT'S hORK SCHEME.

CCST PEP 4EAN ClT *' * TOTAL FSTIMAT D *6BER CF 4 CCST * * PER Sr_PVICE * * NATIONAL * 141USEHCLCS *PFRPOING * CAPITA IN * PAYING ,* 1-CUM-CLD *-P3PULATUN* HOUR WORK mar * ExPENNTURE *

1755000 4085 000558 0037 NO WORK SCHEDyL I' 853200000

HOURS WORKKINEFK:

00001 0050 I 4100 00 '41001 I 00

2.71 3760C. 11 50 0.1958 10 29' 432400.00

0 79 F7200. 1.66 001011 30 & UP 667900.03

0.59 30480no 642 0.0803 ALLHOUSEHOLDS' 1957600000

NOTE COSTS ARE GIVEN INCCLLARS4PER WEEK PER CHILD-CARE40UP NOT0/ER 0RIIVIDER HOUR. 217 PET EMS OF(ARr: .STI MATED NATIONAL E XF .ND II URE5 FnP ALL (AMCUNTS PAI) BY(CNSUMERS CtLV01 BY RACF ANDETHNICITY.

* '* MFAN.COST O * ON COST *UST PEP * MTAL ESTIMATED* NUMBER *PFR PAYING *CAPITA IN PFR VRVICE NATIONAL * P.OUSEKLC5 HOPI * * HUSLHCLO POPULATItt EXPENDITURE * PAYING RACE/C7FNICITY: ****************0******* ***tt*****************************440**** *******************

4,9472 55 6661472, 13,60 90596096,00 / WHI TE ,,/ /

D043 929528, tc.C5 5.28(11 EL ACK IW3356.00

4.5140 0.44 3214130 18.49 SP AN I SH 5941542o 00

0047 190 C4 501751 CT HEP 6493965.00 341014.

00 51 ' 409846 8253437o 14071 ALLRACES 121575456000 ****************4000**

CCLIJPS PER WrEK NOTES: COST APE GIVEN It PROVIDER HOW pER CHILIKAREHOUR ,NOT PER

11 2 19 ES11MATEJ NATIONALEXPENCITUI'ES FnR RFLATIOS BY RACF ANDEThNICITY0 !IN HGME CARE BY

MEAN COST * CF * WEAN CCST *COST PER * * TOTAL ESTIMATED* NUMBER * PER Sql,(ICE * *FFP PAYING *CAPITA IN NATIONAL 4 HOUSEHOLCS * HOUR * * OUSH-OLD *POPULATICN * EXPENDITURE * PAYING RACE/ETHNICITY: *

7,95 0037 WHITE 4671291;01 567624 0

J _2 16.15 j.543 BLACK 190417700 117905,

0026 10057 0'04624 SPANISH 608624088 57602;

2624 113966 0;38 OTHER 1752471000 86604o

0035 10152 C03664 ALLRACFS 8936565003 8497350

CCLLARS PER WEEK NCIFS: COSTS IRE GIVEN IN NCT PER PROVICERPCUR. PER CHELO-CARE-HOUP 2t) i5TIH4TE0 NATIENAL EXPENOITURESFCR IN OE CARF 611 NON-PELATIVFSRY ;ACE AND ETHNICITy,

*************00rnow****wwuw4m*****olo0114440****olito****

4( MEAN CrST * * MAL ESTIMATED * NUM6ER OF * NEP' COST * cnsT PFR YING * CAPITA IN * PH SERVICE * * NATIONAL V KUSEKLES VPFR HOUR * PAYING 4 HOLSEHOLD *POPULATIU * RACE/EThNICITY: EXPENDITURE *

1.53e1 3055 WHITE 28130544.00 389545S. 7422

0439 5LACK 1853975000 31040 19479 045267

0.8142 ).55 SP NI5 H 1071743.00 75003. 14.29

0,41 14013 C49879 OTHER 1239653400 e77044

1.3241 0.53 ALL RACFS 32295920600 41515694 7478

***********4***********(04************0$04*WW04/*******e0401,***1*******00***UNCO**

PER WEEK NOTES: C0515 ARE GIVEN IN DCLLARS PER CHILD-C4RE-MUR NOTPER PROVBER H0UR0

222 223

p FSTIMATED NATIONALExPENOITufirs FnR riNICITYo cARE IN REL4TIVE0Sf-C,PES BYPAQ 'ANC

MEAN COST * OF * PEAN COST *COST PER * t TOTAL ESTIMATED *NUMBER CAPITA IN * P2R SERVICP* * HOuSEHCLDS*PER PAYING * * NATIONAL * HoUSEhOLD * POPULATION* HOUR * PAY rt.G RACE/ETHNICITY: * EXPENDITURE

0.39 12692 0.38C3 WHITE 7128491.03 551923.

3.37 236410. 15.19 1.0648 BLACK 3734052.00

14. ci 161032 , 0637 SPANISH 1452059.00 97CG4

249016 26.10 08518 OTHER 650026.56

0139 910237. 14024 065315 A L L RACES 12964630.00 ***i***** ******UNC0** **************************- * *****

NOTES: row AREGIVEN IN cOLLIRSPER WEEK h(T FER PROVICERHOUR. PER CHILD-CAREHOUR

41 I ESTIMATED NAT ICN4LFXPFNCITURFS FOR ETHNICITY0 CARE IN NON=RELATIVES °HCMES Pi FACE ANC **00**64*********054**** *0**$********************i*Stat4J0$10***** * OF a MEAN COST * COST PER a MEAN COST * TOTAL FSTIMATED* NUMBER *FER PAYING * CAP ITA IN* PH SEPVICE * NAT IONAL * 1-OUS EHCL CS * HIM * * PAYING * HCLSEI-OLD POPULAT RACE/EThICf1Y ; * EXPENOI TURF ************************** *******441****0*******00005W******************4***************

1)56 '15 4 1,40 84 WHITF 25/907520 00 1681168,

1.5062 0.49 278511; 18. CLACK 1

18.28 1s 27 4 / PANI i677868O0 91804*

1.33 35 0.45 914 No 18 'I OTHER 16 73368. 03

1 4117 0 4 1A41110(1A.nn 214280e lt407 A L L RA ES WW1., V Loki ***UNCOO *OW* ************* ***********************2*******************N*************

IN rodosPER WEEK NOTES: COSTS ARE GIVEN NOT PER PROVIDERHOUR, PER ChILD-CARE-HaR

2 7 ESTNATEO NATIONALEXPMITUPIS FOR WE IN NURSFRYSCHCOLS bY PAU ANCETHNICITY0 014000***$ 10140******A***$***ox01410044 * MEAN COST 11' NUM8EP OF ig MEAN COST MT PER 144 TOTAL ESTIMATED * PAYINC, * CAPITA IN * PER SERV1C * NATICINAL * HOUSEHCLCS *FFP PORULATICN * HOOP * PAYING * HOUSEHOLD * RACEMF.NICITY: * FXPENDITURE toictoots#0*4*******k000*****00,1v0.**114140*40146010000,6*****00(f**otoW4****tOt

13.52 Co8429 J69 WHITF 15435231600 11413460

0 4 0052 BLACK 3504643000 1652070 21621

1301 0.2214 0663 SPANISH 291411688 221010

17093 006831 002 OTHER 857135.00 418020

0,66 14659 088236 ALLRACES 20088416.00 1376156. ***UNC0**.

DOLLARS PERWEEK NOTES: COSTS ARE GIVEN IN HOUR. PER CHILE-.CARF71-DURNET PER PROVIOER 229 :STIMATED NATICNAL FXPPNrITURi.SFUR CAPE IN DAYCARE CENTF4S BY RACP AfqETFNICITY.

*r***************4***044***66ioo******0000t*********111*************** **

* TOTAL FSTIMATED * NUMBER CF * MEAN CCST * COST PER * MEAN COST* *OFR PAVING * CAPITA IN* PER SPRV10E * * NATIONAL * HOUSEKLOS * I-00E1AD * POPULATICN * HOUR # RACE/ETHNICITY: * EXPENDITURE * PAYING **************************1)***twowt**4****4*******************************

004048 0661 WHITE 7413803.00 377115s 19666

0691 0644 BLACK 1995581000 111305. 17693

06621 0,56 SPANI' 5 H ,82153B'056 318016 25063

16.44 0.2319 0.80 OTHER= 291011.88 117010

064314 0657 ALLRACES 10521930.00 537922. 15 6 ...****************A0**

ECLLAFS PER WIEK NCTES: COSTS ARE GIVEk ft PaR. PER CHILD-CARE-HOURNCT FERWOVICER

3 0 231

9 t:59,470 NATIONAL EXMOITURtSFCF LL RETHOS OF (ARE. 14MOLNT5 FAID EY CONSUMERS(NLY'9) 8Y MAIN REASON FORUSING CARE.

* OF * NIAN cnsr * Cr-3T PER *MEA Cr.ST * TOTAL ESTIMATED* NUM8FR, PAYING * CPI% IN* PER S"RVICE * * NATICNtL * FOUSEHCLCS *FER POULATICN * HOUR * * PAYING * HCLSEHOLD * MAIN REASON * EXPENDITURE

0.45 1288700 ,22.06 14.3478 TO WORK OR SEEK WORK 28432992.00

REGULAR COMMUNITY 005766' 0820 7900900 7900, 1000 ACTIVITIES

OCCASIONAL COMMUNITy 0025 391009 15.02 1(.5404 ACTIVITIES 587100000

MY TO GET AWAY ERDM C.8908 0927 10400. 4900 KIDS SCMETIMES 41600000

0.57 146000 15043 1302529 SCHOOL READINESS 225300000

2.0250 0020 27000 MO cifILD'S ,INDEPENOFN,C Eva)

,4 000 000 000 0. 060 '611LO'S SOCIAL SK1LiS,' -)

1 Jo22 10.00. 003th, 28,300.0) 28CC. RESPONOENT'S SCHOnL c

,. 1/042 66000.1 2006 13,0760 10B TRAINING 1376900900 , , 1124 6.20 6.1959 91700.00 14800 ,. !!SO I CAN GO OUT"

, 401158' ' 0.54 68071014 13.34 NO REASON/ODER 90192696.01

'499853 '0.11 82541000 14073 A L L REAPS 121592496000

2 32 ****************

i 233

NOTES: COM,AR/E,GBEN IN CMOS PER WHK PER PROVIOCPHOL4 CHI)D-CARFI-OUR NCT I

If 7.5TIMA1En NATI0%.AL. EXPENPITLIEF,;OR N'ING IN HCME Ci4; SY RELATIVEi: 0 :MAINREWN.

***00#00000000000***4**4** I MEAN COST '0 0 TOTALCSTIPATEff.* qnr1 ,OF0 VAN cJ PER $ERV1OE * rOU3E401.)S *PEi PAYINC,,* cAPITAH ,- 0 NATIONAL 0 PGPULATION 0 000 0 POYIt6 0 MAIN REASON * ;-',XPENnITUR' *44********* .0 0000000.00,0000.00000000000.40000000000.0.00.0.000.101,0A*001m00000000000

14/A .u.._QA 002 TO WORK OR 5S-EK WORK 5900.)1 ?i"2700,

qEGULAR CONKINITY N/A 7W. Jr1)0 , 0133 ACTIVIT!ES . 75ViCiOr.,

lanIONAL ummuNITY N/A 0, ACTIVITIES

TO GST Ai,AY Far MY N/A 0 24 215)0. WICS MTIE 100.00 N/A 56 043 scox REACINESS 152330.00

N/A 0.64 20200. 547 CHILOIS INDEPENOENCF 1623004t1

N/A 0074 , 43-5004 9.17 C.HILD 30CIAL SKILLS 402400/0) 0.52 42200, 7.7: N/A RPSPON0ENT1S S.CHOCL . 71U00.30

N/A 651000 22.27 JoB TRAINING 1449900.0r,'

N/A 0,41 2262O0. 7. "SOI CAN GC OUT" 827500.0')

0,56 3.50 N/A 722N.,I0 21900/ " PrACON/CTHEP N/A 0.35 549700/ 13.52 L L RF_ASON5 5536200.r

********00***

NOLLS:. COT°, Or GIVENIN JOLLAg P7RIrEK NCI P7OVIOF,R HOUR. C4471-CAPE.40U; 235 234 PETINATFD NATIONALEXPENNTflr3 "I;OR VAIN R7AVA FP U.514 CA3E0 IN HOME CAE Y ON-irLAT% PY

* CCET ?CR if MEAN COST * TOTAL ESTIMAT% *NUKeEP OF * PEAN CON * CAPITA IN * PERSPIVICE 0 NOIONAL NousPans 4pN PAYING A * * HCUSEPCLO *POPULATION * HOUR EXPENDITUR7 * PAYP4 MAIN REASPN ,*4%************/************************4w**********4.444**44**411**mamo*************

,0252 11805314 ; N/A TO WORK N SEEK WORK , 181'4096410

' REGULAR COMMUNITY' N/A 046 1753006 4406 ACTIVITIES 7!12101P

OCCASIONAL COMMUNITY 0ft38 9370Oo 5627 A ACTIVITIE5 49!6CoO)

TO GET ANY FROM rY N/A 01R2 ,7q5:106/ 461S KIDS SOMETIMES 1-4162O0.3O

O164 9940 uo54 N/A SCHOOL READINESS 450600600

0017 92900. 269P N/A ,CHILDIS INDEPENDENCE 7762006OM

0246 1928006 5025 N/A . CHILD'S SOCIAL SKILLS 101280000 ,

0251 ' . 627A N/A RESPONOENTIS SCNOOL 1!25:000200 177400o

000 02 Oa ,. N/A J09 TRAINING 0. 0

35 N/A 0062 7426900200 17:159004 "SO I LAN GO OUT"

9F4002 13.37 N/A 0076 NO REAEON/OTHER 127570021,

7678 N/A. 0.0 322541592 0,51700. 236 4 L L REASONS

Agisootorniiligli0ONdliisiOtttiollut0100004100*000010144UN ***************01002* #1100101

DOLLARS PfR WqK NCTES: COSTS ARC klIVEN IN P7R CHILD-CARF.POUR,NOT PER PROVVER HORI EXPNOITuRH, FOP E51INTE0NATIONAL u00 WEI 8CMFS EY !AINPFASCN CARE IN RELATIVE'S 44444 0i#004414*4**440444444444404444444444. M0414104000 1 I0 R0I000004*** MEAN COST 4 (OST 0 NLN7R CF rFAN COST 0- I TOTALrSTIt.ATEn eCAPPA IN PER SERVICE HCOEH0LOE *PPPOING ft NATIONAL * 01 HOUR 0 HOUFHOLC* POPULATION FXPENOITURE * PAYING N ON* MAIN RFASON 00.****00t**0040000010***i.0.44*.0.04x**04*******oiw*otomoki0 *NO** IIIII4* 0 161? N/A 3.38 029001 TO WORK CR 5EEKW0QK '34'31Cin

N/A REGULAR COMP,UNI.TY .p00 40 00') ACTIVITIES

OCCASIONAL COMMLINITY N/A 0,16 SE500o'n ,165000 ACTIVITIES

, TO GET b4Y FROPMY N/A 0021 r' 5.00 3750f).00 7500. KIDS SOMETIPIES N/A 0.63 316101 14 SCHDOL READ.INM 359200.0O N/A 0 4- 15600, 3686 5282.00.0O CHILD'SINDEFENDRCE

, 19.87 N/A 224500100 113000 r CHILDIS SOCIALSKILLE :,

387001 20'168 , N/A

, 50050000 RF,SPONDEHTli, ecHou I 1F030 N/A 040 187500000 14100o

JOBTOAINI,NG , 0.41 2030 11F400., OUT" 380800.00 "Se 1C'AN GO 023 6025 N/A 17200000 27600, NOREAS'ON/OTHER 009 14024 N/k J296410001 9Ifl200.

. ALLRFASONS

IN JOLLARS PFRWFEK NOTE!: COSTS'ARF GIVEN NCI PEli RROVnEi4OUR0' PE CHIO-CARi-HCO ;

!38 : ! EsTIMATFD N-ATIMALEXPENOITURq FOP FOR OIN6 1A4, HChE 9Y MAIN RE4.50N --CAPF IN NON-R:LATIVF51

00041100404.00.10***0#011000X0N1**10**0100010***4(0$4**144WW,1"0401444' C01J 'PER MEAN COST ESTIMATED 0 NumSER OF ME0i COST 0 0 MAL VIC POIN(/ * CAPITAIN *.pq NATJOwL *HCEFHCOS HOUSEHOLO 0POPULTION 0 qOUR EiPENOITVF * PAYING * MAIN REASON *

I;(4 .0153 29677q8do,' 15!511n, TO itORK OR$E.FK wo3K

RESuLAR COmmUNITY N/A 0156 765o0dr, 3.400, 2i1:6 .ACTIVITIFS

OCCASFONAL COMmUNITy 1120 2.54100 .h,!5 N/A' 12900000 ACTIVITIES

TO GET AWAY FROMMY N/A 0101 90001 6p44 KIDS SOmETIMFS 624500,00 005 ql!o N/A 1u8o0 o ow, SCHOOL READINESS F

1,37 ., moo, 6,76 N/A cuLDIs INDEPENDENCE , 2353zoir, OW 9430% 3/8C N/A ma's SOCIALSKILLS 830000003 0,60 151F4 91910# N/A. , RESPONDENT'S SCHOOL 152011:0100 040

, Nan ,, 209C0.00 19. N/A )08 TRAININE , 0065 227100, 4,V, N/A "SO I CAN GOOro 97250D,00 0,67 ill0F, 2745004)0 212001 N A 10 REASON/OTHER

, 21428001 14007 . N/A REAFONS 7E429392in A L., L ., yoo****************aNC04* 41

U0 PER WiFil COSTS AREOVEN IN OCLLARS :NOTES.: OUR, PPCHIL)-SAREPOO NCIPP NOvIDEq, , ESTIMATED NATION4 EXPENDITURES.ru CARr IN NWSERY SCHOOLSn' AI RFASON.FC;' LISING CARE*,

;

CLET PrA * MEAN COST * $ TOTAL ESTIMATED * NLMSFR CF * MEA111 aij A *PER POING * CAPITA' IN .*PER SERVICE A, * 'NATIONAL $ HOUSEHOLDS 40U1 * * PAYINS HOUPHOO * POPULATION MAIN REA9ON * FXRENDITURE ********************************* ******************** * ********************$***0001*

N/A 0156. TO PRI( OR SEEK iORK 693370o) 41!:.9001 21.48

REGULAR COMMUNITY N/A .!4200$ i16. 0030 ACTIVITIES 4677GOIJO

OCCASIONAL COMMUNITY, 127H, 5.90 .N A 0,46 ACTIYITLES

'TO G,ETAWAY. FROh MY 9,5a ,N/A 0179 KIDS SOMETIMES 106520000 211200.

'N A . 006 SCHOOL READINESS 286920C,00 1894001 Vol!

1.16 500401 ot,? N/A CHILD'S INDEPENDENCE 28i3O0100

04 N/A 0$75 CHILOI,S SOCIAL SKILLS 31795001U 24,7900*

i9$C4 N _Mr 'RIPONDENT'S SCHOOL 11B4'200.00 -622C1 003 19001 1600 N/A JOB TRAINING 3040000

8d8 N/A "SCj CAN GO OUT" ig28q0130 2171001

19200. 4.26 4' OW NO REEON/OTHER WOCOO N/4

0166 12777000 14.4.0 N/A A LL REASONS 2010960000 -- 44*****040*************** t#1*$

NOTb: COSTS ARE GIVEN IN DOLLARSPER 'Wlipic f

EJCHILO-CAIE-HOC NCT PER-pROVIOC.RAOUR';'$,

"42 243 JESTIMATED NATIONALFXPENGITURU1 FCR AYCARF CENTFR3 PY MAIN REAGO,F44 UWIG WE0 4

. C'ARE AN

**NsIN 0444******N***NNNANNANN****NNNCINAWINN000(NANN***XNOON * CesT P MEAN COST TOTAL ESTIMATED N.ILIMSER CP * rEO COET *PfR PAYING * CAPITA 14 * PER SERVICE * N NATIONAL * HCUSEHOL1E HOUSEHOLD,* POPULATION N 'OUR N .0 PAYING MAIN REASON ' * EXPECITURE *NNNNINNNNIN***04NNONNONON**N4NN**4**0 14401001**000*,00$001.01***NfN**NNON*41011.0*00***4***4

.% \ N/A 8S23sO 2732001 :2719 / TO WORK OP SEEK ,WDRK

/ RECULAR COMMUNITY' N/A 1!100# 6'146 / ACTIVITIES 7!70010r

.00CASIONAL COMMUNITY 010 N A 010 ACTIVITIES 0.0

, . ., TO GET AWAY FROM MY , 7.71 000 1600r m,0% .. . N/A . 4152C01.:10 , KIDS. SOMETIMES

, . 0147 177001 1745 : AI A SCHOOL READINESS 310700100

, mr ,00001 4.001 DTA CHILD'S INDEPENDENCE 3600O1D1'

13106 V/A 0.57. CHILD'S SOCIAL SKILLS 484500600/ 371001

. , 1113 18,3u . 1041800600 5.U00o N/A , RESPONDENT'S- SCHOOL . .

, .

25000 00 22001 7181 N/A JOB TRIINING , 000 , 14.,1 152810100, 13100o N/A "SO I CAN GO OUT"

1.00 7i600)e, ,4600, 6100 1 N/A 1 10 REASON/OTNER

! 0151 5379001 N 245 A L L REASONS 1052t500.00 i

1 .

, **1**N*************00N****************0************0**010*0000N**NUNCONN. 1 CNN N*41NtliNN.NNN ,

241 i

1 NOTES: COSTS ARE GIVEN INDOLOOF ill PfR ChILOCARF-HOURNOT PER PRO1MER dO6R,

0 Lijolwe .NAfloNAL Y AFTER SP-i0CLPPOr)lr: CO.: IN!J4CriF 00 O. MA!'q 4A5ONFOP wING

0 000400000010040000000004011400404001104100010000NOWPOq00000101106000000 I:CAN COL:I 0 rufl. P[R OR # 0,EA,0 C1,1,1 0 ,a/w,7)ER SEOICE P 0 TOTAL ESTIMATFO CAPITA IN o PER 1-100'HOLOS 0PE)PAYM s UTIONAL 0 HOUR 0 0 HMLHOLL: 0POULPrION 14 EXPENATOE PAYING 0 [-HON 1 MAIN )iNitiitif4111110 OUPP4k04#14111o0+0041100$11t014010110401f0OPP00001PPPOPOP #4.00441044P40000M40044N 0166 .L.47 N/A 7303Ot1,0 1128,)01 TO i4RK rRcEE VRK

N/A 0072 REGULAR COMMUNITY ?Pr200 q,,?i( 2740P,' 0 ACTIVIIIrS

0053 OCCASIONALCOMMUNITY 4090 N/A 93200,0) ?ONO, ACTIVITIES

0.08 To NT AWAYFROM rY 2 R N/11 19N0i30 5003 0 COS SOMETIMFS 1043 Foi)n N/A 2000 1600000)0 W1;01, READINE 0,84 6,77 Na 11500, 7790000:) r;HILD'SINDEPENDENCE 0012 FAO, 207 N/A, SOCIAL SKILLS 9i2000)0 30N 32H, 40,n N/A 12800600 RE9PONDEN11S SCHOOL A 000 00 k,'Il N A 03 ! JOB TPAINING 0050 2072 N/A 1850JUW 690301 I CAN GCOUP . "SO 1067 2000C N/A 2100000) 10!-10, NO REASON/OTHER 6L12 N/A 195760G010 ::O4800, ALL REASM

1 st 00*00000001400004m000000000000000000000000000000000UNCO*0 stotmo40000004010(.0000

OCLLAr PER 16LIN NOTE5: 10t1 3 ARE GIVEN NOT PF PRUVDEh HOUR. P!'::HILD-CARE-HCLiR nj() 247 STIMATED WU:NALEXPENCITURES FCP SUCU PROGRAMSBY CIIRE IN BC.FOREANC OTER NUMBER OF CHI1CPFNIN 1-CUSEKLE0

************4*60** * ************* *****04********w4********* * UST PER * MEAN COST k t4F4NCrST * * UMbER u * t TnTAL ESTIMATED IN * P!:R SERVICE HOUSEHCHS *FERPAYING * CAPITA NATI1gN4 * * POPULATICN* HOUR PAYING * hOUSFPOLD EXPENDITURE * * * * NUMBER CHILDREN *********ohtoolkotopk**t****)*************g*******4***k*** ******0#00*****.****

1,61 13625 NOM 369700.00 279000 C N E

1.06 5.63 0.002' 6 1800.00 1122A T W O

0,1802 0,68 1191(a 62 CI THREE 115300000

0 17 5,28 0.1265 240 0 00 456000 F OUR OVER

0059 1.42 C00 03 19 7600000 3048000 TOTAL, ALLHOUSEHOLDS * *****UNC0** *** 0************** **********************T** ********************

IN ECLLARSPER WEEK0 NCTES: COSTS PE GIVEN FER PROVICERhCUR,S PERCHILD-CARF-HW NCI 248 fIT114170 NAT10NAL EXPFNOPXSNig AllPETHCDS OF CAPiE BY NUMAFR OF CHILDRA, (APCUNTS PtC bY CeNSUMERS ALY0)

ofiliM4,****Am....01,0g001,01**4000****4A,,t4tiklx*W4wwW*61,0# * TgrAL ESTIMATED * NUMPFR CP * KAN COST * COST PER * MEAN COST * CAPITA IN * PEP SFRVICF * NATIONAL * HMEHCLOS *Pr-J1 POING * * HflUSEI-OLO *P9PU1A1ICN * HOUR NUNRER CHILDREN t EXPFNDITURE * PAYIr5 461)*40**04***04.W***4W******#***0**1000414**st**0,M*****4****A1,0************v40#**

0.65 'ONE 47)32992003 2906600. 14.46 4.4142

6.)845 ).51 T W O 9472;888.01 35175(0. 15.56

0.40 THREE 18197230.03 1333500. 12.65 4.5840

496500. 13.36 ',4845 /.34 F 0 U RC HER 6612400.00

14673 469853 0651 TOTAL, ALL HOUSFH9LDS 12159249600) e2541CC1

4***40*******t#t

NCTES: COSTS ARF GIVEN IN COLLARS PERUPEKD PER CHILDCARPHOLR NCTPER PROVICFR MCUReS

251 -STIMATED NATICNAL FPFNPITLV'S FCP OF CHILWN. IN HO ' CARL BYRCI4T1M [V NO1Bri #0**#*Aiirne004 4*iA**00,4**044M,0,00**All*owim*a****,***11(**h40 MEAN COST t IF 4 MFAN COST * C9ST PER * * TOTAL F.STIMATID* NUNER PAYING * CAPITAIN 4 PER SFRVICF * * HIUSEHILCS '.(FER * NATInNAL POPUATICN * HOUR * * PAYING * HOUSFI-OLD * NUMEFR CHILDREN FIPENDITURF

0$51 7 6 Co2407 229 0100 2879CC C N E

0836 16 004739 4263109000 '507000 1 I W 9

0 6 12,4) 004102 THREL 1628501 (1) 13130N

0022 79800, 5.43 C --92 FOUREOVEP 752300 00

O.364 ).35 8497E0, 10152 TOTAL. ALL HOUSEHOLDS )36201.3i ********uNC0** ****44******* 7**Ak **********************4**g ******* ***************

NOM: COSTS ARE GIVEN INERLARS PER WFEK PER CHMCAEPMNCT PER PROVIDERFOUR'S 53 252 rn. :STIMATFNkTIrNAL EXPLNCITURtS NUNRF5 cr CHILCRF.N. IN H14! CARF BYNCN-RUATIVFS BY

*i0**0*A*********10*****Oft.4* * COST PER * MEAN cog * NUMBER 3F KAN CCST * * TOTAL 1STI1A1E0 *.PFR SFRVICE * OFR PAYING *CAPITA IN NATIWA 4 KiJsPHars * 4 POPULATI(N * HOUR * PAYING * HcosEFOLo 4 * WENOITURc NUMBER CHIL01FN ****n*q(*****PotwArn******0********* 44044AkAr W4tOTA*0 044444100400w*ot,400:04

55 0.31210 1006 686520%00 11543OO s O N E

0057 8.52 1.81C7 .1628710_ )1 1911CCCo T W 0

, 0035 T 26 1,57R THREE 6266400.00 863700

12 1 1.5,110 2876)0,3) 2227CJ. r 0 U P OVER

0.53 7.78 1.3241 32294592.0) 4151700e TOTAL, ALLHCUSEHnLOS

*******h****i****

NOTrS: PER OEK. COS'S ARE GIVENIN C.CLUPS NCT PPR RROVICERHOURoS PER CHILO-CARE-KUR

251 ESTIMATED WICNALEXPENOITURESFP 1H1LDPEN. CARF IN VIATIVEISFrMES fly NumBFR 9F

*to4t04***** ,o,00,4*i*40,44*47240,0 CCST PER * MEAN COST # * TqT4 1 ESTIMATED* NUMBER OF * MEAN COST * IN * PER SERVICF * * HEUSFH(LFS *PEPPAYING * CAPITA 6 NATIONAL POPULAT1CN * HOUR * * PAYI(G * HCOFFOLD * NUMBER CHILDREN * EXPENDITUPE *60$0444*iswoA4****40v***kvootItio*******7*****

1,5o 47U(10 14.69 007249 0 N E 25 0.0)

, 00 2 2787000 15,12 0046E4 T W 0 4213500.00

0029 13.85 '0 )11 THREE 1195400.C) 863(C.

8 68 003429 0034 FOUR OM 652700.03 75200,

0.39 00200, 14.24 0 5315 TOTAL, ALL HOUSEHOLDS 12964100.00

* *

PER WEEK, NOTEs: COSTS ARF IVEN IN DULARS PROVIDER HOURS PER CH.111 ARE-FOUR NOT PER ESTIMAIrD NAIPALEXPENDITURES FGA CHILDREN, CARE IN MON-RFLATIVS'ITMES PY UPf CF

*Ai**004,444402,0**0**000004,0*****404010*0**Wocao0440**tAo**W00*** COST PER- 0MEANcnst* # TgIAL ESTIMATED *NUMBER CF MFAN CEST '6 * CAPITA IN PERSFRVidE * NATEINAL '* HOUSEMELDS *FER POPULATICN * HOUR j t' * PAYING * HOUSEPOLD * NUMBER CHILDREN * EXPENDITURF.

''' 0069 910100'0 14.27 103755 C N E ., 13090300.00

147902 049 1610290040 8662000 18.59 T W 0 , 1 :

, 1

i 0.48 25300O ,15021 (4coi5 T H R E ,!' 3848500000 --s,

13.08 0.7249 0138 FOUR6 OVER 1379700000 105500.

0054 2142800o 16007 104116 TOTAlp ALL HEUSEWILDS 34429392000 ************0****440********00**410*******4***000** Oftg***10441401101101410*4114000*

COSTS ARE GIVEN IACULARS PER WEEK0 , NOTES: PER CHM-CARE-KO NCTPER PROVICER HCUR0S

259 258 EXPFNCITURES FCR !STIMATFONATICNAL NLYBER CFCHILDREN. CAlE IN NURSERYSCHCOLS BY 0****#

*********************1****** * MEAN COST * CCST * COST PER NUMBER OF 051N * TOTALESTIMATED * * PERSERVICE * IFER PAYING *CAPITA IN * PCUSENCLCS * NATICNAL HOUR * * POPULATICN* * PAYING * HgCSEKLO * EXPENDITURE NUM8ER CHILDREN *****************4***********************4*****0..#*.0.11000$0.0**)co...A.*t***********0.

J'65 16.51 0.8824 8402300000 509000. n N E

9.67 13.17 Cof '5927CC. Tw 0 7800500.00

00501 0.68 225800, 14096' THREE 3377100000 ,

0.45 10.34 0,2741 521700.01 502()06 F 0 U ReOVER

0.66 14.60 00245 20109600000 : 13777000 TOTAL. ALLHCUSEHCLDS

IN OCLLAPSPER KEK. NOTES: COSTS APE GIVEN NCT PER.PROVIDER HCUR.S 26 PER CHILn-CARE-HOLR 260 ExPENDITUR:-5 FOR r.STIMA1E0 NATIONAt (FNTEP5 By NUPBEROF CHILDREN° CkRE IN ELYCARF

*MEAN COST * OF * mFANCOST *COST PER * TOTALESTIMATED * NUMBER *FE; PoING *CAPITA IN * PER SFRVICE * * NATIONAL * HCOXLES * HJUR * * HCUSCH01 0* POPULAWN EXPENDITURE * PAYING NUMBER CHILDREN * )401004*****0**114****************ie1444,******#0,1144*$osistoostswimiot****011-004*

0655 15640 064225 4022900600 261200, C N E / i

0069 25,34 005722 5147000000, 2031006 T W 0

0.35 18.79 Op2878 THREE 1142400600 60801.

16934 0010SC FOuRCOVER 20 00600 12800.

)157 0,4314 537SCC 19'56 TOTAL, ALL HOUSEHOLDS10521501,0J

lo**************

IN 00LLAP5PER WFEK. NOTES: COSTS ARE GIVEN PROVIDER POUR,S PER CHILC-CARE-HURNCT PER

263 232 Section LX

TRANSPORTATION ARRANGEMENTS

Ho e Households using child care by providers outside the household were asked "how far from (your) home, in minutes, is the child care (you ) are now using most?" Counting both households using care away from home and those using only in-home care, nearly 80% travel 10 minutes orless's(Table IX-1).

About two thirds of those who do travel repcl rted trips less than 10 minutes. Only about 4% of users, representing 6% of iouseholds requiring travel time, use care arrangements located 30 minutes or more from home.

An apparent anomaly in the data is represented by the fact thn.t about 22% of the respondents select in-home care as their main method reported travel distances from home. Three possible explanations are offered.First, the .phraseology of the question was not congruent with the definition of main method of care. Thus it is possible that the "main" or "most important" methods of care were not always the same arrangement that respondents were "nowusing most." Second, some respondents may have interpreted the question to refer to the method of care they were using most and which required transportation.

Finally, it is probable that some in-home care users reported how far their . sitters had to travel, or how far respondents had to drive to pick up their sitters, rather than the actualsdistance of the care setting itself. A similar anomaly is evident for users ofca\rein other homes, 2% of whom reported no distance from home. 9-1

264 TABLE IX.1

DISTANCE FROM HOME OF CARE ARRANGENENT USED

MOST BY MAIN METHOD OF CARE

(percent of users)

Time From Home

er cent Alai AMethod Notime 0 minutes10-19 minut -29 minutes30=39 minutes40 min, or more Total of users (in-horno only)

,Own home relative 22.4 19 23 3,403 n 2,638 471 140 113 3.3 0.6 0.7 100.0 i 77,5 13.8 4.1

Non- relative 0 3,176 20,9 n 2,466 616 50 29 15 0.5 % 77.6 19.4 1.6 CO IM 100,0 Other home relative 4436 27.3 n 85 2,328 91 336 202 195 71,7 100.0 % 2.1 56.3 24,0 8.1 4.9

Non relative 5 20,513 16.6 n 69 2,067 292 68 : 12 100.0 % 2:7 82.3 11.6 2.7 0.5 0.2

Nursery/ Preschool 10:7.40 5.0 , : h 0 534 _228 21 2,4 % 0.0 6 1.2 26.0 9.5

Day Care Center 550 3.6 0 279 213 30 21 0 0.0 50,7 38.7 5.5 3.8 1.4 100,0

Coopera- tive 139 0.9 program n 91 0' 19 0 00 . 65.1 21.-2 13.7 0.0 0.0 100.0

B/A school program , 308 2.0 h, 54 173 70 4 8 0

1 17.5 56.0 22.9 1.2 1,4 0.0 100.0

Feemtart

0 , 71 0 n 0 31 40 0 0 0.0 43,5 56,5 0.0 0.0 0.0 10010

Total 238 150171 100.0 n 5,312 6,589 2,053 681 297 t of base 35.0 43.4 13.5 4,5 2.0 1.6 100,0

!reported in thousands Perhaps the most important observation to be made,from the data in Table 1X-1 is that of all types of arrangements care in non-relativeshomes tends to be located closest to the child's home. This wOuld suggest that family day care homes are generally to be found in or near the same neighborhoods as their clientele.In contrast, relatives' homes are likely to be located farther away. Day care centers are apparent y the least likely form of care to be located within the child's neighborhood. Only about half of day care center users reported a distance of less than 10 minutes.However, the fact that center usage is most often work-related no doubt affects the distributionsince respondents are more likely to use centers located near their jobs or on the way to work. An early analysis hypothesis, to the effect that the poor would tend to use care-closer to home, is generally refuted by the data (TableLX-2). There were no important observed differences in transportationdistance by income level.

Methods of Transportation Respondents using child care were also asked to identify all the me hods of transportation used. Once again, the association between transportation arrangements and the main method of care is unclear(Table IX-3), although it was implicit in the questionnaire thatonly information concerning the main method of care was solicited. Despite the influence of suspect cases, there,are severalmeaningful observations to be made from the data on transportation methods.Mothers (i.e., respondents) are responsible for at least some transportationin more than half of households using care.Moreover, about three quarters of the

267 TABLE IX-2

LEVEL DISTANCE OF CAREARRANGEMENT-FROM HOME BY INCOME (percent of users),

Time Froth Horne

Percent Poverty No time 0-39 ininutes40 min. or moreTotal 10 minu 10-19 minutes20-29minute of Users Status in-home only)

Below poverty 40 18 1,561 ,11.0 n 440 713 246 105 6.7 2.5 1.1 100.0 % 28 2 45.6 15.8

Poverty to 200% of poverty 23.3 70 53 3,306 n 1 1L 1,365 559 155 1 6 100.0 41 3 16.9 4.7 2.1 0 % 33. 4

1 & Greater than 200% of

poverty 9,- 5 65.7 4,163 1,127 371 162 153 n 3,359 100.0 4.0 1.7 1 6, % 36.0 44.6 12.1

Total 14,202 100.0 271 224 6/241 11932 631 1.1 4,904 100.0- 4.4 1 9 1.6 of base 34.5 43 9 13 6

269 26 *reported in thoOsands TABLE IX-3

METHODS OF TRANSPORTATION DSED FOR CHILD CARE

BY. MAIN METHOD OF CARE

(percent of users)

- Method of Transportation

Children Use Percent Main Method. Service Children Public All ot Appkioabl RespondentFamily Membe Friend of Care Takes Them Walk TransportationOtheMethodS of UserS No Travel) Takes ThemTakes Them Takes The-Pool

In Child's Home

3.8 0.4 (100.0) 23 2 5.6 0.6 by relative 71,6

0 9 4.6 (100.0) 3.7 0.7 1.0 by non7re1atiko 704 23.3

In Other Rome 27 3 0.3 0.6 1.1 (100 ) 81,2 16.3 0.6 11.2 by relative 2.0'

29.3 0,9 0.5, (100.0) 63,0 10.0 2.2 0.9 1.2 by non-re1ativ3 2,4

(100,0) 5.0 6.1 1.5 1.3, 83,4 8.4 0,9 5.4 Nursery schodls 1,7

2.6 1.2 1 (100.0) .6 15.2 0.6 8.3 Day Cate Centers 82.9 0,9 5 3.4 1.2 (190,0) Cooperative 91.6 Program( 2.0 50.0 5,2 5.2 (100,0) 25.8 14.7 5.2 5. Before/after 18.3 school program

.(100.0) 0.5 16,0. 14.0 24.3 9,9 37,0 21.9 4,0 Readstart

11.2 08 (100.0) 100,0 9,5 110 0,8 1.1 All methods 32.4 51.7

tROWs do not add to 100% due tomultiple responèes.

271 27 respondents with transportation reqUirements 8% of us provide transpor,.. tation themselves.If the category "family member takes them (thechildren)" can be construed to encompass fathers,then mothers are more than five times aslikely as fathers td provide transportation. "Interestingly, car pools were-reported by fewer than 1% of users. Transportation by "friends," publictransPortation and "child care service" were commensurately uncommon. L Where care arrangements are less than10 minutes away, about 25% 'of the children walk (Table IX-4), adistribution which can be presumed to favor motherg of older children. Married users were slightly more likely to providetransportation than , single parents, even controlling for employment sta us(Table IX-5). However, these differences must be considered weak. Spanish respondents were the most likely to providetransportation LnverselY, Sp'anish children are the leastlikely to walk to their care, ettings.'rids difference is significant but not strong.

9-6

272 TABU 1X-4

fr1.1HOT-) IkA!)PUBIAIHN BY Or.,1AN(L OF Drd,. IBOM HOMf. (pormIL of usors)

Children Uoe

T* From Hvy Not Applicdble1(espendentFamily M08.lor Frit!ild Cdr !'lvic0 childran Public All Percent

(No Tr,Ivol) Tahok T1.um Takos Take!. 'Fi'hu8 H .]T.0100 Tbeirl Walk Tr4nyor44tion.therMothodeof Unag . _

. (.1(0. applicahio 90.8 1,11 ( . ' 0, i OA 0,8 - (100,0) 35.3

Undor 10 minute: 0.5 71,0 1. 1,0 1,6 23,6 0,0 1.5 (100.0) 43.6

,'. 0 10-19 minoton 0,9 H1.1 Ih.i 1 1,6 '1,0 1,,_ 1.4 0.6 (100,0) 13,2

20-29 minnte, 0,2 04,!) 16.9 1.0 2.6 - (100,0) 4.4

W19 idnut.0 78.6 18,6 1.11 - 0,9 0,6 5.0 0.4 (100.0) 1.9

91.11 .. minutor, k op 11.8 4.7 - 1.5 - (100.0) 1.5

rmiint of usl.- 12,4 51,7 1,0 0,H 1,1 11,2 0,8 0.0 (100.0) 100.0

, _ .

Allow; dq not ddd to 100 duo 10 cultipi0 ro:Ton:Ao!;.

TABLE IX-5

NLTHODS OF TRANSPNTAiION USE0 FOR CHILD CARE BY RESPONDENT'S MARITAL/FM=0MT STATUS (Percent of users) - Children (Joe

Ruponienta . Not ApplicableRespondentFamily Member Friend Car Service Children Public All Pereent qatu5: (No Tritvel) Takes ThemTakes Them TAN; TheTPoolTakeS Them Walk TrannportationOtherMethods'of Mrs ------

mdrried:

0.6 0.9 .(100.0) 0.2 Employed 26.5 54.5 11.0 0.1 0,3 1,4 12,3

13 0.4 8.5 0.6 0.5 (100.0) 151.6 Pot employed 37.1 51.5 '9.4 1.1 1.2

, Not Married:

2.8 19.5 1.1 l,2 (100.0) 10.4 Employed 26.9 40.7 4.9 2,3 0.4

)4.8 2.3 1.1 (100.0) 7.7 Not employed 29,6 47.2 9,0 1,6 - 2.1

1.0 0.8 11.2 0.6 Ar (100.0)100.0 All Fe5poidents 32.4 51.t1' 9,) 1.1

*Rowo do not add to 100t due to miltiple responsoc

273 274 TARE IX-6

MUMS OF 14NSWATION OY UISMFIGL OF PRE FROM MUHL

(percent el user5)

. 1 Chiltirt.. Use ,i,lot ApplicAioRolTondent: Family 4.4ier Friend Ci.tr r.ervice Children Public All Percent 0o) ( r,aol) TAkoli TW Ydito ',:',1om Taktft, Thinpriol,,IkesThem Walk Transportation0 h_rMethods' UtierE

11,3 0.5 0.0 100.0) 79.5

U. 3,1 11,3 2,5 . (100,0) 125

0.1 1.1 6.1 0,1 t 1 (100,0) -4,7

Oti 24,8 64:3 'r i1,7 2, 1,5 119 1.1 (100.0) 3,0

51,7 9,5 1.0 OA 1 1.1 11,2 0.0 0.0 (100.0) 100.0

'Rows du not dd to 100% d-o t multiple r *mines.

276 HY DISC USSION AND NCI SIONS

Who Uses Child :ar No matter how we define the to hild-care user," it is evident that: Households with younger children are more likelyto use care than households with onlyolder children. _ouseholds composed of ployed parents are more likely to use more care than households with atleast one parent o is not employed. o Single parent households are morelikely than two-parent households to use care, although two-parenthouseholds use babysitting by non-relatives morefroluently.

The issue re -iainshowever, which of th-e constitute the mostimportant factors.Furthermore, we are lnterested in measuringhow strongly these deter- minants of household structure predictlevels of child care usagewithin the population; Table X-1 summarizes theprobabilities that households of various structures use types of care as defined by-eachof the five major definitions used thioughout this volume. Clearly, the probability that a household uses careis associated with: vhether or not younger children are present, whether the parent(s) is(ase)

-*-Tables X-1; and X-4 show )ercentages of the applicablepopulation subuoups. Categories of usage are notmutually exclusive and non-response has been alli cated. TABLE X-1

Percentages of Household Types Using Methods of Care According to Definition of Usage

1100 01.14 'With Niter 111.1rwed2(0), 11 1. %VIM UIII1 1 lode v 111 Mil 1100,10,4,k Twn Paren WIVMddn Angifi 111)LP,Ch1)141,1 TWO 1,a rot Moulin-n.1(11 pa ttint 110111 (Me P.I1Vnt Pft rit. 11009 thle Both Nut Parent 11011iNut Eimphiymi Pnempinyeil lrrm1uI i.y )1 2.mplynd Empley Employed Jannaddynd Vniployad rniployed 0, Empinyed mplayad

thirrv relative - 16.2 (16.7 16.0 11.6 22.4 3, 23.1 (e von (leea211..41,111y1 30,7 10. 7 9.5 10. In 2 9.5 16.11 10.0 11.3 41Ht. mit in Method 17.0 10, 0.11 3. 1 4,1 Imint lIt ImpriihnP 22.2 8.5 7.7 2.9 10.0 0.6 4.8 1. 0 0.0 'm at loaat hours/6dt 19.1 3.4 6.2 1.0 11.0 1.0 2.3 1,8 0.11 .. mid pay mMit 13.9 2.1 5.9 3.0 2.1 6.0 it- by ric.n-mLM 21.4 13.0 tale (Oven oieas0es,111y1 18.1 11.5 32.0 36.0 11. 0 4 9 21.4 7.1 2.9 ',se an mnill mcddvid 21; 7 6.6 17. a 10.5 9.0 0.7 1.4 6.0 1.7 0.0 I nil fit 10n-nt hull Ayk 10.8 4.9 15..1 13.3 0.2 2.4 0.3 0.0 140 ;a IMME 30 hours/Yak 1.4 6.9 1.0 6.6 1.8.3 4.5 10.2 0.1 4.0 Ilse and pay cash 5.1 29.1 29.4 In relative's home 20.1 15.6 22.4 22.6 13.9 i!sc (even occasionally) XI. 0 29.9 37.5 42,1 33.9 19.4 17.3 10.5 13.5 13.1 12,3 Ese a» main inethcs1 12.6 18.3 19. , 21.0 17.4 4.6 . 9.9 4.1 1.7 11).e at Itlast ;0 .dril/w1( 19,2 11.1 21.2 7.9 10.2 2.1 5.0 2.3 0.0 line nt 101.-M 110 iiimen/wk 13.9 2.6 13.2 5.12 0.0 6.0 1.0 3.5 1.2 0.5 Vie and pay, cash 2.2 12.2 1.6

tri non - relative's home 12.5 8.6 30,7 13.1 38.5 20.5 11. 5 27.8 9.7 (ise (even necasierally) 5.0 5,3 19,7 4,0 22.1 6.0 1.0 20.3 Esc as inain method 1.8 9,3 1.1 0.0 Qsa atlea4t 10 hen rs/wk 24.7 5.5 25.0 2.4 0.0 17.2 7.9 0.4 4.0 0.4 O. 0 roe at least 30 hours/wk 17.5 1.3 15.1 O. 7 0.0 1.1 17.6 1.0 9.0 1.8 0.0 0 an 21 pay cash 25.4 20.9 4.2 Narnarynehmils 0.0 16.8 10.9 0.0 0.3 0.3 O. 9 0. 1 (sc ieven occa01011011y) 22.6 4.9 0.0 9, 2 4.5 4.5 0; 3 0.3 O. 5 0. I;n0 an roam niethad 13.0 3.4 0.0 11.0 3.4 O. 0 9.3 (h3 0.7 0.1 r!te al least 10 hones/wit 20.9 2.6 0,0 O. U 0.3 O. 0. 0 at 117at 30 liours/wk 12.7 0.1 7.2 0.6 CI. 0 0.0 and pay cash 12.9 2. 14.4 9.2 5.0 0,3

...Aynare mita ris 2.2 0.5 o TM() 17.3 7.4 1.3 2.3 2.7 O. 1 evmi 0 0 2.2 0.5 0.0 an main method 15.5 6.1 0.5 2.3 1.4 0.1 2.0 0.1 0.0 at lexat 10 hduntawk 15.9 41.5 0.7 2.3 1.0 O. 8 0.1 0.0 Use at Icas.. 30 nours/wE 4.7 6,4 2.3 1.9 0.0 0.6 2.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 Use cnd P8Y e4sh 10.3 G.6 1.1

Cooperative programs 0,2 0.0 1.4 0.1 2.3 2.9 Q. 2 0.3 d'ne(even one.anionally) 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.1 1.1 1.4 0,0 0.0 0.0 r.:se as main method 0.1 0.0 0.0 !Pant 10 la ;.(1,-6/wE 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 !'sn at 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 Ion at lemt 10 hot, 04/wk 0.7 0,0 0.1 0.0 O. 0 0. 0 0.1 0.0 U se sad pay eash. O. 7 0.0 0.8 0.1 1.4 0.0 Ileforeinctor saws> pun 3.9 7.9 4.9 4.1 uma (eval onedninnaily) 4.0 1.4 9.2 3.0 2.5 2.0 4.1 Inc un maIn malind .2.2 0.3 0.5 0.0 1.1 2.8 1.8 2,6 1.4 4.1 10nouraiwk 2.0 0,5 O. 9 O. 7 0.0 (1.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.5 6.0 0.3 4.1 . tur loasa at)hours Iwk 1.2 0,0 1.5 0.0 2.2 1.4 2.7 l'aa andpay cash 0,9 0.9 1.0 11eadstarl O. 1 0.2 0.0 sc ( innally) 1.2 0.i 0.3 1. 9 0.2 O. 1 0.0 Esc in inaln incltind 0.5 3.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 0. 1 O. 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 leant 10 hOurn/wk 1.0 3.1 0.2 O.:1 0,3 0.2 O. 1 O. 0 0.0 I least 30 Win r6 /wk O. 7 0.0 0.3 0,4 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 Ian ia] 1).1y 0.1sh 0.0 0, 0 0.0 0. 0; 2 31.2 95.2 90.7 58.0 05.9 ,ti u1.41 9.12 43.7 25.0 59.5 100.01 100.07, 100. 0q. 100.0% 100.0% rota,. Nwsolvrkk 011.0i. 100.07 100.07 1270 975 3464 45110 409 .1-11..1,4 if 11,,,q01,01(is 3550 7522 i92

1102 miployed and (3). whether cii not two pa rents are present. Each of these factors can be observed ti he operating independently in the approximate order stated. That is, househol& use chil(l care withalescending probabilities according to the following structural typology .ccnts indicate proportion using sonic form of tramural care, oven if very oecasially):

0 Households with children under si : Fully employed:* single parent (93'..1%) two parent (86.8%()

(two parent only 71.4 Fully unemployed: - single parent 06.37o two parent (43.5%)

seholds without children under Fully employed:* single parent (68.8%) - two parent en. 30/0 Partially employed (two parent only 41.4%) Fully unemployed: - single parent (34.9r,7) two parent (34.2r:0

These simple probabilities of usage ac ually tend to understate the differences.Excluding very occasional usage, a pre-school child with a single, employed parent is, for example, about 30 times more likely to receive davcare center care than his or her cohort vth two parents, only one of whom is emplOyed. Perhaps more important, he or she is more than twice as likely to use center care as a child who has two employcci parents.

eludes work, school or job training.

279 -nhe differlees hiivei.ti children witiisingle C1IJT)l()VCd parents and ll,sc with two employI parents o ic :lt` .adarly noteworthy for they involve not r oily levels of usagebut the strueutof usage as well.Considering only th tiod at. T(1 hours and :30 hirs per week),iiigl c parents ore about three times morelikely Lu use irvhome-by--relative care anI are about twi ce as likely to use the institutionalforms of care (i.e., day care centers and nurs The fact that two-parent households areslightly to use home-based care bynon-rclatives is probably explained by t of more disposable income.Similari,,, ate r proportion of two-parent full-time users (30 or more hours) use F,Hy Day Care Homes while fewer use relatives in

Of thc Hpendent rariablis examined in t report, these household st7ructural char; ristics are by far the dominatingfactors in usage and tend to control other differences by such variables asrace/ethnicity and educational attainment. Even iousehold income largely subsume,d as a dominant factor except to the extent that thenumber of c,Loyed parents is highly associatedwith the amount of heusehold income.Single-parent households axe commonaMong the poor, but unemploymentis concomitantly high (Table X-2). in concluding that householdstructure determines usage, we are,of course, only-validating whatconstitutes need for.child care serv,Les.It is hardly controversial to maintain that youngerchildren, employed parerts and single parents tend to need more care. There is a paradoxiCal old saw insocial science to the effect that "no significant findiags" can constitute asignificant finding.While there are, to be sure, many significantdifferences in the ways the various methodsof care are used, it is most remarkable that no strongpatterns emerged associating types r of carewith either leyels of usage or thedemography of the respective users.

10-4

2 8 TABLE X-2

Percent Distribution ofHousehold by Income Levels and Household Structure

households with Older Childrenonly under Six Households withChildren- _ Two Parent Households households Sin9le Parent Households Ngle ParentHouseholds Two Parent One One Total Percent of Income Lvd Employed, Employed, Households Both One Not Both Not (percent) Both Not Perent Parent Paroot Both One Not Parent Employed Unemployed DeployedEmployed EmployedEmployed EmployedEmployed Employed Unemployed

3.2 100,0 14,9 11.2 10,2 20 5,6 14,2 6,3 1,5 Below Poverty 9,1 24.4 10.1 18,5 2,6 1004 3,0 6.7 3,9 3.3 11.3 34,0 Within 203 6,6

of Poverty

0:6 100.0 60.7 0.7 18,9 19,1 35.2 0,5 3,6 1,7 0:3 19.1 Above Z00%

1 of Poverty 100.0 10.4 1;7 100,0 5;2 14.2 4,6 14,6 31,2 2.Qi Ail Income Levels 4.1

282 between a strong [Llationship -n lu'r c In iiti'ler010 the. (1 isti ni-tion and a significant relation- g., one 'Nhi cI i highly exphinatory (i"edictive) There are ship 0.c., (me which wouldseldom be observe(1 by chancealone). cross-distributions of types of many significantdifferences t- be found in the care used, but not manystrong ones. proportions of households As a simplified illustration,let us consider the Jhelds using 1.rarious levels of careby age of the youngestchildren in the he notably nursery Table X-4).Let Is further assert that'certain methods of ,are, Schools and day care centers, canbe assumed a ni,Lis_al to serveprimarily -s of cost toddlers and preschoolersb. of the prograimdesign, r- before and after school programs or constcr preference.By the same token, children V.,ho are in can be assumed,by definitionto :erve primarily ,older compare\the percentages school. With these geiTrieexplanatory factors in mind, oevcarc using either 10 er 30hours per week in eachof the major methods children before and after eNclude cooperatives, HeadStart and, for younger favoring any given method school programs). Thereis simply no dominant.pattern over another amono-these using substantiallevels of care, The les on to.be learnedhere is that it is dangerousto ass,ume that given of care. A household modes of usage correspondpredictably with certain types roughly h.a three, to five yearold receiving f ull-timeCare has, for example, in a relative's home, afamily an eclual probabilityof using in-home care, care day care home, a nu seryschool or a thy care center, f there is a systemiticpattern underlying theselection of methods of well lie unexhumed in the careve have not identifiedit, although one may very dynamic which we mightthink data.v, e suspect,however, that the marketplace consists of an eclectic set ofcircumstances of the "child-care deliverydsystem" it and arrangements. To theextent that a true marketsystem may be at work, is apparently very inchoate.

1 0 6 f Youngest ChulcJ

3 5 10 - 13 RELATJE_ 1St (EVEN CCCAS1CNAL6 34.3 226C 13 LSL AS PAIN YETHCC; 20.3 11.1 LSE AT LEAST 10 FCLOS/wK 10.6 LEL AT LEA5T 30 FCLPS/1%K 7 1.7

LSE ANC PAY CASE ' 5.7 4.0

1N-HCNE EY NCN-RELATIVE LSE (EVEN CCLASICNALIY 17.7 LSFAS. PAIN PETHOC IC.6 LEE AT LEAST10 FCLPS/i,K 5.3 2.3 15E AT LEAST 30 HCUPSR0( 1.0 LSE ANC_PAY CA_SP 14. 5.0 IN REEATIvE,S FCME LS (EVEN CLCAS1CNALLY-- 42.3 1.5EAS MAIN NEThCO 22.1 LSE AT LEAST 10 FilLRS/tik 13.2 _LEE AT_ LEAST 30 HCLHSRo< 5.3 LSE ANC pAy CAsH 4.5 IN NCN-RELATIWS F.C1E LSE (EVEN CCCASICNALLY 25.7 0.7 11.3 LEE AS AIN METFCC 10.7 12. AT LEA>510FURSR%K 5.8 IC .4 = AT LEAST 30 HCL)7S/K 6.2 5. SE ANC PA'r CAsH 11.1 12.

1K5ERY-SCHCC1.S IEVN CCCASICNALLY -5E AS MAIN PETFEC 4.4 C6C AT LEAST 10 EtTURS/hK -----1]-47T- LEE AT LEAST 30 I-CUPS/id( 2.1 0.4, C C ISE ANC PAY CASH 7.7 1'26 9-

CAYCARE CENTERS_ LSE_(EVEN C(.TCAS'IC LLY L5E AS MAIN PETHCC 5.0 1.5E AT LEAST10 HI.LIRS/K .64 AT,LEAST 30 FEL5SANK 4. -a C. LSE ANC PAY CASH 4.4 1.8

CCEFE8ATIVE FPCGPAMS LSE (EVEN ACASICNATLY LEE A50PAIN .METMCC 1.2 0.7 LSE ArLEAST 10 F,CLPSPhK ,0.8 C.t LEE AT LEAST 30 FICLRS/WK- ,___ 0.3 eE ANC PAY CAsH 0.3 8EFCRE/AfTER SCHCCL PGh LSE (EVEN OCCASICNALLV 1-5E.--AS-PAPN.'FETFCC LSE AT LEA7T10 HaRS/hK 0.5 -1-SE -AT LEA_ST 30-1-CUTZST1llc- LS_E ANC PAY_CASI-

FEACSTAR7 LSE (EVEN CCCdS-1CNALO LSE' -AS MAIN METHCC 0. 2 0. 7 0.1 LSE AT LEAST10 HCLPS/1,K 0.3 C.S -C.2 LSE AT LEAST 30' HCLRSR0( 0.1 0.4 0.1 LS_E ANC FAY CASH, 0.0 C.0 C.1

LSE NC EXTRAMLRAL METFCC 22.4 2E67

ICTAL FCLSEFOLCS .0% 0% ICC66 ThCLSANCS Ci LusEl-urs 7317 455. 0-7 a 9a nic hi iierences AJO Evidciit TILic

As noted ove; the absence of strot terns in the distribution of care

; rimgent S SlioLild HIfit be ed to mean that there are no siiriiiticarit or liii portant differences ,betwoen child care cc s.Indeed, distinct statistical tendencies have been noted throughout -for whites, blacks and persons of Spanish originThe mosi salient differences 'are summarized in Table X-.1. Whites, particularly in the middle class, use the preponderance of casual, .-home babysitting, especially by non-relative caregivers. Even controlling for Income, the nonrelated s'tter is largely a white phenomenon. Of the three principal racial/ethnic groups, blacks are the mos_ likely to use a--tial ca_, whether d!nod as 10 or 30 hours a week. 'This can be explained in large paL by the fact that a higher proportion of black children live in single-parent households (Table X-5)..-Blacks are especially likely to use dav care centers and mrscry schools.

In contrast, Spanish houScholds were observed to use less child care under any definition. This tendency is not satisfactorily explained by either the higher unempleyment:rate nor theismal er proportion of wori 'lig single parents among 'Spanish house-)1(k.Mor'eover, there is a decided trend in favor of care by relatives, pal ficularly in Spanish ho seholds-using substantial levels of care. Compensation is also most taequently exchanged among Spanish relatives.It is thus reasonablP safe to conclude that cultural or, socio-environmental differen -s are operating. Ballo

Whito ni,k Smaggh Other

- T Y ,7 70'7771- (F\fEN CLLAITNALL( -25.6 17.3 20.5 17.7 14.E LSEIS PAIN frf-11-: 14.1 12.S 14.6 L'L AT LEAST 10 HCLTS/MN 0.9 S. 11.2 C.5 L'E AT LEAST _0 HCLIS/6K 4dg f..E 4.5 E.7 L't ARO PAY (ASH 3.6 3.7 4.6 t.S

N-F-CNE EY NEN-RclATIVE 6.3 SE(ES,EN UCCASICNALLY 28.4 6.0 7.8 L'E AS PAIN pETI-nr 16.1 2.4 4.4 5.1 _L AT LEAST 10 HELPS/14 8.2 L'.2 2.6- 5d _ 1.,- 2.7 LS'tAT LEAT :0 EICLPS/I.K 2.7 1.8 LSE ,N0 FAY C8SH 23.2 2.1 t.S 1.0

t IN RELATIVE"; 1-C4c I-/ SE (cVEN LCCASICNAL1Y 3.5 25.4 26.0 1-3--.-0 LcE AS PAIN PETFOr 17.4 I7.t 15.1 ').1 1,i.c L't AT LLAST IC P I 'rR.< E.0 E.S 1.5 L'.E_ IT LEAST :0 H LI-S/11K 4.2 LSE ANW PAY CAcH 3.1 7.2 i.l 2.L

NEN-riELATIVE"-, Kd" SE lE,cts LLCAS1C'ALLY 23.1 13.7 '/.9 LSE AS PAIN PrTt-Or 10.8 c.7 5.4 4.E LSE AT LEAST 10 HrLPS/10( 8.. 8.1 6.8 C.: 6.6 -ISEAT LEAST 20 HCLPSROZ- 4.0 4.1 SE ANC PAY CASH 9.7 8.1 1.0

NLRSEPY SCHCELS L'c (EVEN CLCASICNALLY 7.6 6.0 2.1 2.0 2.E l...L AS PAIN PETHrf, 3.4 5.= L5E AT-LEAST10 HLLRS/i4K 3.4 . .0------1.s SE AT LEAST 50 FILP5/6K 1.5 3. C. 2.2 OE ANC FAY CASH 0.4

CAPE CENTEFS LSE (EVEN CCCASICNALLY 2.4 4.5 2.9 5.0 LSE AS PAIN PETFCC 1.8 2.7 15E AT LEAST 10 HCLRSRoc 1.8 4.1 2.4 4.7 LSE AT LEAhr 20 HCLPSR4K 1-.2 -2.E .1 LSE ANC PAY CASH 2.1 3.3 - 2.4 1.A

CECPEPATIVE FFCCPAPS LSE (E1dEN UCCA

FEACSTIFT LSE IEVEN.ECCISIChALLY -1.71------r.-5T------C74- (F AC MAIN VETHOr. 0.7 0.3 C.3 7 . hl C.6 LSEAT LEAST 10 FCLIFS/WK 0.2 1C LSE AT LEAST 30 HCLRS/MK 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 C-0 LSE AND PA, CAS1. 0.0 0-1 C.0

, SE NC EXTFAMLRAL PETFCC- 34.2 45.1----S-0.7 14.1

i TCTAL FCLSEFELCS 100.0% 1CL.01- Ice;t2- 1(cci -ICI-SANDS CF I-CLSEfrCLCS 15313 3507 1216 12-15 10-9 9541; TAKE X-5

Percent Distribution of Race/EthnicGroups by Household Structure

Households withOlderChildren only under Six Households with Children Parent Houeholds Sigle ParentHouseholds Two Two Parent Households ; 510 Parent Households one One Total Percentof RaccNxicity biplOyed EmolOyed Households Both One Not Both Not (percent) Pdrent Parent Both One tdOt Both Not Parent Parent Employed :4oyed Unemployed EmployedEmployed EmployedEmplOyed Employed Emp;oyed Unemployed 75.0 15.5 21.1 1,5 100,0 1,7 44 2.5 2.1 13:8 34,7 Whito 2.1 14,4 0 10;9 7.9 2,5 100,0 2.0 10 9 11.3 '16.3 16.0 13.0 .4 Black 9.3 5,4 10.5 13.2 1,7 1004 2,5 5,3 6,6 9.5 142 32,7 Spanish 3:8 ,5.2 8,4 15,6 1,7 100,0 11 E 5,7 0,7 2,2 2,3 44.j 31.1 Other 9.6 1.7 100,0 100,0 5,2 4,0 14.2 18.4 4.6 14.6 31.2 2.0 All Races 4.1

2ftit How Much Does Child Care Cost?

The observed mean weeldy e03t to paying households was about $15. Of perhaps greater importwice, the me= expenditures bymothers employed full-time was just under $24. As is reported in Volume III, tis figure ow:responds to the median upper threshold cost (i. ethe mos respondents would be able to pay in their current circumstances). Only about one in 10 paying users expends $:35 or more per wee!.

course, beyond the data to speculate aboutthe nature and the attribut e of the care imrehased by respondents to this survey,But based on costs, it is reasonable to suspect that notwithstandingthe abets of n ent grants and subsidies, the "average" current price of full-time careis not sufficient to support fully-costed care in daycare centers ormeeting federal standards including the recent Title XX staffing requirements.

:o Year Olds: A Special Case Two year olds were observed to use more care than any othersingle year of age.This finding is particularly important since two year olds are :) ft en considered by planners and caregivers tofall into a kind of gray area between "infants" and "pre-schoolers." Man, centers, for e*arnple, do not accept children under two and a half.If two represents the modal of agc for entiy into the "child care system," then it is reasonable to suspectthat discontinuity-of care may be caused by traditional opinion on the need for age segregation and the optimal age limits for formal iristitutional care. APPENDLX

Supplemental Tabulations:

Estimated NumherofChildren (in Ilundrods Using Mct-hods of Care by Selected Demographic Charaeteristieana Ago

290 CHILDREN RE.CIVING CARE bY RELATIVES OY AGE ANC) HOUSEKTILD 0,=MJGRARHIC CHARACTRISTICS. (TARLC PICLDOS ALL USERS FLGAIZCLUSS OF AMOUNT LSED0) A*-4,0********--#4.********,40g-xv*** AGE OF CHILDREN: HOUSHiLD T 01-4( CATcG11-;Y: * NjMLIED P:v4.C.-NT 2 * ? 5 * 6 9 * 10 13 * *-0*0x****n**254*4.,i.****4.g****ov***m* OY P;T'S to411T4L STATLS

c5 6105T 24193 25036 26743 19790 PLAC,FLAT (11'10"g) 2503 2601 2709 2007

%C.T MAkr0Lin 18938 1605% 3371 447C 6636 4461 (100.f,) -7,8 2306 35, 3 23.6

bY 2MPLJYNT 1)TTUS:

IPLIYLI 3125) 27041', 5163 5924 1C451 c 712 (1000f.) 1605 1900 130 4 101

WIT -MFLOYF. 32951 7-2.64 2222 22764 145)7 PIT, (13304) 2608 28,2' 27.4 1705

AHIT: 91055 79044 21130 23531 27207 1181 P. (1000) 2302 2506 29.9 2101

12893 11.24 2923 3257 3696 3017

3=L JT (13301) 22.7 25.3 28.I : 23.4

SPmf4ISH/LTHER 10752 9.0; 3511 2712 2476 2053 pc_=,.LENT (100.1) 3207 25.2 23.0 19.1

BY ROv:]:iTY STATUS

BELC.1PVLJIY 14577 I4.2Z 3378 3477 4311 3411 (100,f) 23,2 23.9 29.6 2304

2((1_ (IF PLOY, 27508 26.94; 6732 731 8332 5413 (100.T) 24.5 26,1 2902 19,7

Ab1VF 201n OF POV0 66337 58094 15283 16083 16761 12210 RCENT (11-')04) 25.3. 26.7 27,8 20.2

I A L USIAG,CHILORc-N 114700 10000: 27564 : 29506 33379". 24251- P=RCT (1)3.XI 24.0 25.7 29.1 21,1

w********1.***w*w********1 *UNCO** A-1

291 CHILflRFNI rFTI/trJ 1N-HCME CARE BY NCh-RELAT1VES BY 0 DEMOGPAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS. AGili A H "1411 I TL 1jL6-0 ALL(ISLAS REGARCLESS CF ANCUNT LSED.) **4c****iff*** *A%*y.,, **Its ACE CF ChILEPEN:

C,ATE.CiUmY: NT* 0 2 2 - 5 * 6 -9 *10 -134' Atecm

PAROrros MARITAL 31.1.,ILS

. 14268 Rk1 LC 93r- 8809,'; 23813 PcFC.NT 2402 306 14.5

Nil mAi-%RIEn 271E 4565 3861 f.)ROt.- 2200 ?700 Id 3

'31/ PARTis ENFLOYMaNT STATV..z

E'IPLJYEL) 4P4I 310 5% 5916 8923 12664 7344 pLRCENI '41 17.0 25.6 36e 3 21.1

'MFLCYEC 1 64051; 15128 235O 21926 1C785 25.2 28.9 14.2

6Y 1c4C/ETFNICITy:

WHIT1'7 22987 31119 31553 161435 22.6 2J. 31.0 15.9

BLACK 725 106i 1512 1276 PEF,CENT 15.9 23.2 33.1 -27.9

1471 855 1657 664 PEkCENTAN11-/CTI-R 3106 18.4 35.6 14.4

-7-T-7-0T-y_s_TATUS

atLo4 FovER1) 500Z 727. 1118 -182-3- 1460 14.2 21.8 35.-5 28.5

VIITH1 20ig 4499 5658 7003 3154 PZPINT 1 22.1 27.9 .3405 1505

/0 18218 23572 23563 11016 4C2CV,- 20J% CF V. 76 75.J_ PEgENT 0. 1349 300S 30.9 1404

A LL USIAG cHIL0ReN 25183 33035. 34722 te-ty pkoLNT 2207 29.7 31.3 16.3

*UNC3 A-2 CHT.DPf'N RECFIV1NG CARE IN t RLLATI E°S FJMF BY AG6 ANDHOLSFWILO OF.MUGRAPHIC CHAR CTERISTICS. (TAULE INCLUD&S tIL USERS REGAROLESS CF APCUNT LSED0)

*14111,*4t **Ay e't AGE OF CHILORLN: t*JL SHut_ fi TAIT6L US AT = PL:RCLNT G 2 * 3 5 * 6 9 * *******,IJ

BY P N41, TT al_57 ATLS

.'1;0*--', --:1) 1172? 7 850 5Z 293)4 34056 32111 k 756 P C1T (1 ,4) 2560 25,1 276 4 18.6

NJT 19E.35 DT 2819 531E 6569 5131 L;.IT 14.2 2u .8 33.1 25.9 PAi--,NT'S ZIMPL:Ymi:NT .13TA7LS:

L 1Y LL) 4)1 )1 7215 c472 -32,J IC5 4 T 00%!, 1860 2409 300 7 2604

T PLUYFT, S6t-58 711. 1; 24901 29368 26328 1(.2(31 pc Ca JT (1:,) 6%) 256 7 3003 276 2 16.8

2Y r:',A TY:

IT r I 106J4 26G09 322 15 30718 2 Pt fl 2305 2901 2708

9L ;=,CK 1(.563 12.1X, 3540 4344 5409 3270 e 164 26.2 326 7 19.7

SP/. 1:_-.JH/Ori-17p 9- 12 2574 2813 2553 PLP 2600 28.4 256 '3 19.8 eYFJk1_ Ty -1-ekTUS

r3L& PJVFRTY 15 12. 14; 324 3 41E5 4986 3445 LNT 20.5 26.3 31.5 21.8

WITHIN 2WP5 ,C. PM/0 36649-, 8U93 10490 10662 740) P (IOO,fl 22. 1 28.6 296 1 20. 2

AD ,3./ POV6 72459 JR 1E687 21509 19777 12460 PERC (1.1101) 2508 2907 . 270 3 1762

A LL LGINC. CHILi)REN 1374)62 1UO.J% ,321 3 39372 3E680 26887 )6T) ,2304 28.7 28.2 1900

lir** *LAC O** A-3

293 CHILORFN q5CCIVINC, CARE IN A NCN7RfLATIVE.5 I-CME BY AGE ANg How:pan DEMOGRAPhIC CHARACTER1STICSo TtBLr INCUUOES ALL USERS REGARDLES5 CF APCUNT USE0,1 444 44 g ,( * *** 4***?.. ACE CF CHU IL Ez,L1-17iLD TOTAL USERS: tL,OkY: U18LP PLACENT 0 2 6 A44O

IL C 7 2;) 8402% 17610 2C 1 85 2(738 1 717 Pmt1Lt T (100 Z) 2501 2E07 2905 160 7

NLYI 1214) P-). 1846 2372 5137 1785 (1)D 1400 25.7 39.1 2102

P S CY:sINT ST ATUS:

65 4606 7644 105- 133 7191 PRCENT 20.2 27. 34 18.5

W=T 44577 5304% 11605 1304, 12616 7311 P _AT (100on 2000 29,3 280 3 16.4

RACn LIF TY:

70432 54041: 16209 19908 21793 12522 PLRCEAT (1 ).1) 23.0 28.3 30.9 1708

5LAGK 7475 9.0% 1568 1900 2644 133 35.Lt PFRC T 210 25.4 18.2

Ji-/CTFER 1556,2 1679 17- 1497 .617 PLRCNT (10 T.) 30.3 3106 27.0 1101 ay PA TY STATUS

5EE-Ch PLP&FITY 7161 9.3% 1362 14 6 2512 1841 PER:ENT 00%, 9,0 10 2 3501 2547

ejiTHiN 2LiaX -OP PJVG 16120 2100T, 4291 5490 24-3 4 3441 1541 PLENT ( 000fl 244Z 2646

2.-.1) JF POV. 53449 6947T, 12G71 16375 16347 7656 244.5 2046 30.6 14.3 PLFT ( 000I)

A L L Usit1G CHILDRN 83449- 100,1. 19456 23557 2594 145.)2 PLR:.,T OA) 23.3 28.2 .31,1 17.4

*4" UNC0**- CHILCR RFC IV ING NURSbR SCHCCL CARE BY AGr' AND HJIJ EHOLD DEMCGRAPHIC CHARACTER 1ST ICS0 (TABLE INCLUDES. ALL USERS PGARDLESS OF AMCLNT LSr.:D

*414154**wr:16**,!x vt,14,0****r.044,*Aq0-0********g.* AGE CF CHILDREN: 4 FILLSLIAN, T ET AL USF:RS: * * * * c CAT L:6CRY NUMBER PFRCLNT C 2 ci la 13 3t *6 4(k61,Aik**

bY 'S rAkITAL STATLS

'MNILC 1 517 83d 4t 2126 129 834 16 P -77R T '10 16.7 18.1 5.0 C. 1

MisRKIED 160 349 2796 150 PLRCNT d 1 J06 e405 4. 6

yPA N-fq S PL T STATUS

PLCYLU b3 =,,, 4202., 1618 tali 725 0 T (1( ) 1904 72.0 807 0.0

D 11491 574we 1490 SG36 25") 16 d:t ) 13. 0 b4.6 -2. 3 0.1

BY /LihNI C TY : 76.1t 2456 12416 619 lb 15* 8 'ECIO 1 4.3 0.1

bLACK 25,-77 1207Y. 457 1791 259 I 16.2 71.4 10.3

sH/OTH:IR 170, 9 00 Y- 202 1478 106 P EN T 1(..00% I 11.3 82-08 5d 9

BY PCBIETY STTLS

LLVI FOVLRPti 1521 3C 9 1172 40 Pi E (1000%) 20.3 77.1 2.6 000

iITFIN2JJZ TJ av 2236 12.8X 477 1621 186 0 PLRCLVT (13) 20.9 7009 8.2 0.0

-,FI:J1/:200-4 OFP jV. 14050 a 7t 2100 11205 729 16 PERZ ENT (10).'4) S 79.8 5.2 0.1

A L L USING CHILiREN 19 11 15697 954 16 PcPC CIT 1507 19.2 500 001

*UNCO

295 CHLOREN _kCCEI1NG CAYCARE CENTER C.AFE8 AGF AND HOUSbOLD OEMOGRAPHC CHARACTER1ST INC.LU0S ALL USEP,S C-11GARDLESS CF AP CUNT LSED 414****,'Tt **Ni,"flt AGL CF F.-1US'..hCL^ I CTAt USERS: o UNIE t4,F, Pt RCENT 0 - 2 3 f * LA y : 4k*** 444),,'*** 04**b*ri*

P41:,ENT' M.kITL i5T,=T1,S

M LL 5 620 1249 2757 1771 211 PE f)OQ4) , 2009 4600 29.6, 3.5

T 3668 37061', 148 94 953 'PLRCLNT 401 04 26.4 3.1

EY I'm IT'S 6McLSYMLNT T 'TUC EMPLOYD 6644 746 3432 2374 92 % I 1102 51.7 35. 7 104

"350 232 kOT c::'AFL6Ye0 952 3 651 1719 P E.L ENT 22.1. E8.2

kAC'E/LIHN

WHI-N 5547 570 95.8 2631 '1753 205,, NT (l0)0%1 47.4 31. 6 3.7

BLACK 2061. 2105% 10 1336 376 119 % 2 6508 18.2 5.8

1988 20.7% 229 1164 -95. 0 S' 0.1 .H/CTi-lt--8 .9- Pakc %) 11.5 58.6

3Y i'DVERTY TATUS

3LL.110 P`.3ViR TY 2548 2803% 249 1638 572 89 %) 908 64.3 e 2204 3.5

N 2G0 CF FCV. 1414 15.7% 337 87.1 198 0 ( 10 4) 23. b 62.2 14.J O.0

AiltivL 2OO OF PDV0 5348 56.0% 748 22'32 1797 211. PkC NT 1408 4504 3506 402

L LUSING CHILF.N 9556 100.0% 1397 51E1 2724 324 PFRC&4T 41 01) 1406 53o 7 28.4

11,0,10* J1441p4.* *U: 0444 * * 1111 Mtfx *4144***** A-6 296 CH I LOREN RCCiIVINGC4PE IN 4 CCOPERAT I V EPROGRAM BYACr. AND HOUSEHOLD :"EMCGHAPHIC CHARACIET4STICS6 (TALF tNCLUOES ALL USERS k1G4ROLESS OF AMOLAT LS)0)

***v(** -,AG6 OF CHILDREN: HA SEH .ILD * T CT AL US F RS : CAT L'GCikY: 6. Nip1B PERCOIT* 2= 3 -5 * 6 9 * 10 -.13 ' **or.** 4-.,wit4K4cate**wii**1.-.00******** ***00v,t0i0 *

3Y frJPiTL ST ATLS

ItLJ 940 91 1 7 5 2723 5 2 15H P E;.iT 336 8 5265 -106 7 ;33

NCT 146 64 5267 2301 c.),0

EY PV.NT'S YML:A T 14 TUS :

EMPL:,!Y 8-)4 460 1 72 177 Pc LNT 0%) 19,2 196 3

N- T 4 51.) (ci 1357 2657 439 le.kCNT 2907 '.5901 906 10

6Y psCL/TI-N TY:

e4H iT 46S 866 1 F11 24 17 444 126 96 5 267 Rt, r NJ I 000%) 3604 5 104

EL Ac.K " 272 5. 64 144 32 P- a,4T ( 1 )3 6/ ) ;305-- 526 11.3 23 0 SP A'A'S.1-1/01,HzF , 4/0 900t 383 PC (1)0040 156 1 796 2 7 '000 bYPJ4ckTY :)TATUS

L#PJVPTV 17 0 1 1 %) 000 1C0.0 000

20UT JF P;1V0 7 14.44 178 360 152 ,32 P:P ENT 246 7 496i 2161 ,464

Ab.JVL 20d. gF P 0 V0 4262 85327 1454 2299 383 126 PER=CLJT 346 1 5369 96) 30 0

7 616 153 A L L US1I'J CHI LORFN 546 0 10060% 2869 269 PEkC ( 3 52.5 _11,3

UC j*

A-7 907 CH LOP EN RCrXVING EEPPRE 4NCAFT ER SGFCCOHC RE BYAU*, ANO hOUSEHOL 6DEMOGRAPHIC CHAP AC TERI 51 C5,4 ( TAW._ a INCLOCES ALL USiRS HECAFCLESS CFAMCUNT U3ED

V*** ****3v v(31%-tgx 040. "K 1%4 CFCHILER-E.N: HDU S ch,11-0 TOTALUSERS: 1,------7 9 9 CAT E,1:L/i".Y KU49rFPERCLNT 0 2 IC 713,4, *qt*V(** A,C***M% * ***A*** 00 Itt by Pbi-,LNT'S IT.61_ 5; TA,

IEC 139 83. 0 507 61 J5 - 7293 P (1.JJ0%) J00 3 4309 t244

NUT',IARR1fl 2956 17007, 04 119 772' 1965 6808 PticC ( ) 04J 402 2700

BY PAN:cNT'S EmpL TATUS

4021; 2606 4178 PcO('INT ( 1000 0,0 37.8 60.5

a;vTLOY )838 5843T, a 5C7 4271 5C8J ,51 5 PERUNT 1 1 t on 501 4303 ey FAcL 1TY: 14433 96017. 594 6118 7721. 42.4 53.5 P .1 (

n FL ZICK 1150 609t 362 756 T 001) 000 206 3145 L507

39( 761 SPAN s UT hPY 11 r8 7.3'74 0 1,1'7 r.AT 000 000 66.,3

P 3111: TY STA TU.'S:

8F_Lura PgVER TY 1 31 470 e55 PERL ,N47 Os° 3508 k42

niTHIN20) PT/. 0 88 1197 1605 P,IKC,ENT (1 .%) 000 3.0 4006 5604 5398 AL1.)Va2U0.... IF Pflki. 1055d . 71.2 ,t; 0 538 4622 ( 1030% ) 0 501 4308 5141. P,C LAT

6877 9258 AI: L INI; CHILDREN 16761 1C1 0% 626 PaRC tAT IZje 0,0 3.7 41,3 5502,

UNCahes CHI D :C14 RECCIVING CARE IN AHEADSTART FRGGRAM BY ACF 040 HOUSEHOLD ee"CCRAPHICCHARACTERISTICS (TABLE INCLUnS ALL USE-S PEDAPOLESS CFAPELNT *** ********rv *** ** ** ACE CF1-LCREN1 I-LLS.4HOLE A TCTAL USERS: *------* t * 10 - CATEGORY: * NUM8F'P P)4(C7iNT * 0-2* 3 - 5 * 9 ** * dYPAFTIS SIATLS

737 560b% 22_ 3cit 287 35 4.7 PL,ki,LNT ( Ion %) 300 5303 38.3r)

t,oT KAAki; 0 4t2 113 coo NT .000 E108 ie.2

EY PA?4T'iS ENFL7YM:NT ST TUS:

EAPLJYCo 22-2 17014 159 2 PE 7106

ce 327 N. ;MPLCYrO a 7. 22 Pt_RCNT 2.0 4 30.3

BY P.14 A'FNICITY:

59S 0 421 178 Oa (1 01) 0.0 29.7

50, 35001 22 287 14 7- dLACK 32.2 300 P 408 2C 35 ,SPA;I3H/OTFFP 247 19.0g 147 65 (100 A) 59.5 26.3 14.2 dYPCV6'7...1Y STATUS Ii LUVt POliRTY 64d 54.14 22 2d 0. J PL°.C.NT 0%) 3.4 81,5 231 153 AiTH1N 200T (_IF PCV 389 3205 4 ?RCL;,IT ( 0' ).A) 35 200 CF "CV.) SC 2109 21.9 PLi-r.LNT 11 ) 56.3

855 35. L L' 16;6G CHIL RF.N 22 107 (50.7 2.7 PLOCJT (11/4

*UNC0**

A-9 2