School-Age Children in Regulated Family Child Care Settings
September 2007

The Afterschool Investments Project

The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) provides federal resources for child care that support both direct services and quality enhancements. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Child Care Bureau awards CCDF grants to states, territories, and tribes. With nearly half of the children receiving services being of school or kindergarten age, CCDF provides significant funding for afterschool care in a variety of settings. The majority of CCDF dollars are used to provide subsidies to eligible low-income children under age 13. A portion of CCDF funding is also used for quality improvement initiatives, such as professional development and technical assistance, with the goal of building the capacity of states to deliver quality services including programs before and afterschool, during summers, and on school holidays.

To support state efforts to provide quality afterschool opportunities, the Child Care Bureau awarded a technical assistance contract on out-of-school time to The Finance Project and its partner, The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. The Afterschool Investments project provides technical assistance to Child Care and Development Fund grantees and other state and local leaders who support afterschool efforts. The goals of the project include:

• Identifying ways that states and communities are using Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) subsidy and quality dollars to support out-of-school time programs, and sharing these practices and approaches with other states;
  


• Identifying administrative and implementation issues related to CCDF investments in out-of-school time programs, and providing information and context (about barriers, problems, opportunities) as well as practical tools that will help CCDF administrators make decisions; and
  


• Identifying other major programs and sectors that are potential partners for CCDF in supporting out-of-school time programs, and providing models, strategies, and tools for coordination with other programs and sectors.

To meet these goals, the Afterschool Investments project is:

• Regularly updating and maintaining State profiles of afterschool resources, policies and issues;


• Creating tools and materials to support the development and sustainability of afterschool efforts; and


• Providing targeted technical assistance to state child care administrators and other state leaders around building partnerships and developing state policies that promote investments in highquality afterschool programs.

For more information about the project or to submit a request for technical assistance or information, contact The Finance Project at (202) 587-1000 or by email at afterschool@financeproject.org, or visit http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov/afterschool

Table of Contents

Introduction

What Do the National Data Reveal?

Why Do Families Choose Family Child Care?

What Are the Challenges Associated with Providing School-Age Family Child Care?

How Can Family Care Providers Who Serve School-Age Children Be Supported?

What Are the Information Gaps, Unanswered Questions, and Next Steps?

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Resources

Organizations

Appendix A: Definitions of Licensed Family Child Care Homes by State

Appendix B: Licensed Family Child Care Homes and Licensed Family Child Care Capacity by State, 2005

Appendix C: School-Age Children Who Are Receiving Federal Child Care
Subsidies and Being Served in Family Child Care Settings by State, Fiscal 2004

Endnotes

Introduction

Demand for school-age child care has risen during the past several decades, as more parents are working outside the home and need safe and supervised settings for their children to spend their nonschool hours.¹ In recent years, attention has focused on how children's activities during out of- school time can contribute to other positive outcomes, such as improved academic performance and avoidance of risky behaviors. Common school-age child care settings include school-based programs, extracurricular sports programs, and relative care. Less frequently discussed as an out-of-school time setting is family child care.

Family child care is generally defined as care by a paid provider who cares for a small number of children in his or her home.² Regulated family child care providers are licensed or registered with the state in which they operate. These providers fall into two categories: small family child care homes, defined as having one provider and a small number of children cared for in that provider's home; and large family child care homes (or group homes), defined as having a provider and an assistant and a larger number of children cared for in the provider's home.³ For more information on state regulatory requirements for family child care providers, see Appendix A.

Individuals who provide care in their homes are sometimes exempt from state regulation. Although state laws vary widely in this regard, the three major factors separating legally exempt home-based care from home-based care that is subject to being regulated by the state are: (1) the number of children in care; (2) the number of families that rely on the caregiver; and (3) the amount of time children spend with the caregiver. Wide variation exists among the states in the threshold for the number of children allowed in license-exempt home-based care. However, the most common threshold for licensing is three children who are unrelated to the provider.⁴

License-exempt home-based care is commonly referred to as family, friend, and neighbor care; it also is called "informal child care" and "kith-and-kin care." Family, friend, and neighbor care can be distinguished from other types of care by the self-perception of the caregiver, who may not be interested in a child care career, and by the relationship between the caregiver and the parent of the child in care (see "Understanding and Supporting Family, Friend, and Neighbor Care for School-Age Children" below). As the name implies, family, friend, and neighbor caregivers are usually relatives or close friends of the parents and may not be providers of child care were it not for these relationships.⁵

To understand better the benefits and challenges of providing quality family child care for school-age children, Afterschool Investments project staff interviewed several experienced family child care providers who serve or have served school-age children as well as national experts on family child care and school-age care. Staff also reviewed the literature to summarize what is known and where further research or data collection may be needed. In addition to reporting these findings, this issue brief examines the unique characteristics of family child care with respect to school-age children and suggests ways that states and communities can better support family child care providers in order to improve quality within this setting. The brief focuses on regulated family child care, though many of the issues and strategies discussed may also apply to license-exempt family, friend, and neighbor providers.

What Do the National Data Reveal?

In 2005, nearly 214,000 child care facilities were licensed in the United States, generating the capacity to serve more than 1.9 million children each year.⁶ Of these licensed facilities, 64 percent were family child care providers, 5 percent child care centers, and 5 percent other settings (see "214,000 Licensed Child Care Facilities by Setting Type, 2005" below). Of the 1.9 million children these facilities had the capacity to serve, 74 percent of that capacity came from child care centers, 21 percent from family child care, and 5 percent from other settings (see "1.9 Million Licensed Child Care Capacity by Setting Type, 2005" below). Although family child care homes comprised 64 percent of licensed child care facilities, they represented just 21 percent of licensed capacity. For state-by-state information on the number of licensed family child care homes and the licensed capacity in those homes, see Appendix B.

Data about how many family child care providers serve school-age children, however, are harder to find. One recent study of child care for low-income families found that a school-age child was cared for in 74 percent of the family child care homes included in the study. In 45 percent of the homes in the study, the provider cared for children of all ages—infants and toddlers, preschool-age, and school-age. In 12 percent of these homes, infants and toddlers and schoolage children were cared for together. In approximately 9 percent of the homes, the provider cared exclusively for school-age children. In approximately 8 percent of the homes, preschoolage and school-age children were cared for together.⁷ (See "Three Family Child Care Providers Who Serve School-Age Children" on page 10 for likely scenarios of this care setting.)

Several national data sources describe the settings in which school-age children spend their nonschool time. However, painting an accurate picture of family child care for school-age children is difficult. This is because definitions—for example, for "school-age" and "family" child care—vary widely among these sources.⁸

How Many School-Age Children Are in Family Child Care?

A recent review of the literature on family child care estimates that approximately 25 percent of all children at some point spend time (averaging about 30 hours per week) in family child care homes.⁹ In general, between 6 percent and 8 percent of all school-age children use family child care or other nonrelative care as a regular afterschool arrangement, with families that receive federal child care subsidies more likely to use family child care. Several reports provide further insight on school-age family child care.

• The National Center for Education Statistics analyzed data from the 2005 National Household Education Surveys. Six percent of children in kindergarten through grade 8 had at least one weekly afterschool arrangement with nonrelative, home-based providers ( e.g., family child care, babysitters, or nannies).¹⁰


• The Urban Institute examined the primary child care arrangements of employed parents using data from the 1999 National Survey of America's Families. Of the school-age children (ages 6–12) with any regular child care arrangement, 7 percent used family child care as a primary child care arrangement.¹¹


• An analysis of data from the 2002 Survey on Income and Program Participation found that approximately 5 percent of grade-schoolers (ages 5–14) were cared for in family child care settings, defined as non-relative care in the provider's home, while nearly 3 percent were in the care of a "non-relative in child's home."¹²


• Forty-five percent of children who receive federal child care subsidies are of school age (ages 5–12). Among families that receive child care subsidies, the percentage of school-age children in family child care settings appears to be higher than among the general population.

According to data collected by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for fiscal 2004, just under 35 percent of children between the ages of 5 and 12 who receive subsidies spend their out-of-school time in family child care settings (see "Settings for School-Age Children Receiving Child Care Subsidies, Fiscal 2004" below).¹³ However, considerable variation exists among states, from a low of 2 percent of school-age children in Oklahoma in family child care to a high of 85 percent of schoolage children in Oregon in family child care (see Appendix C for state-by-state information).

What Constitutes Quality in Family Child Care?

As is true for child care provided in all settings, the quality of family child care can vary widely among providers. Improving the overall quality of care requires an understanding of the factors associated with highquality care. National family child care standards and national and local studies provide insight on these factors. Note, however, that these quality indicators apply to family child care broadly; specific quality indicators for school-age family child care have not been studied.

The National Association for Family Child Care (NAFCC) has developed standards of quality care that inform its national accreditation process. To develop these standards, NAFCC analyzed what quality family child care looks like and sought input from diverse voices in the field. NAFCC accreditation stresses age-appropriate activities and is applicable to school-age or mixed-age providers as well as those serving only younger children. According to NAFCC standards, the most important aspect of a high-quality family child care program is warm, responsive human relationships with children and with parents and families. Other key aspects of quality include¹⁴:

• a welcoming and comfortable environment with materials and equipment to support children's activities and domains of development;


• developmentally appropriate learning activities that build different competencies;


• adherence to safety and health standards; and


• professional and business practices that are both ethical and legal and demonstrate continual efforts to improve quality.

In addition to the work done by NAFCC, several studies have looked at characteristics that are correlated with higher quality care and that lead to a measurable difference in quality, including provider training and education and access to professional support networks.¹⁵ Similarly, a 1994 study of family child care providers found that "intentionality," or a commitment to caring for children, is associated with high-quality care. Some examples of intentionality include pursuing training and professional development opportunities, planning activities and learning experiences for children, and seeking the support of other providers. Providers who exhibit intentionality are more likely to view their work as a career and to seek out professional development opportunities.¹⁶

A more recent study of child care for low-income families found that, across all age groups served, family child care homes demonstrated good health and safety practices. However, learning activities and opportunities were scarce in most of the homes observed. Homes in which school-age children were cared for were more likely to provide learning activities; these homes were also more likely to have television watching than other homes. Fewer homes were found to have developmentally appropriate materials for indoor and outdoor play for school-age children than for pre-school-age and younger children. Furthermore, school-age children were observed to engage in little high-level object play, which the study's authors deemed consistent with more television watching.¹⁷

Why Do Families Choose Family Child Care?

Maximizing parental choice is a hallmark of federal child care subsidy policy. The factors that influence parents' choice of care for their children are varied and complex, including the location, cost, and setting of the care; the hours during which care is available; a relationship or connection with a particular provider; and the activities or curriculum used. In the recent study of child care for low-income families, parents' reasons for choosing family child care included the perceived safety and accessibility of the arrangement; hours that matched parents' (often nontraditional) work schedules; and the parents' relationship with and trust in the provider.¹⁸ These findings did not vary by age of the child and echo the comments of providers and experts in the field of family child care as to why parents choose to place their children, including school-age children, with family child care providers.

• Home-Like Setting. Quite simply, parents may choose family child care for their children because it "feels like home." Some parents of school-age children believe their children's out-of-school time is best spent in a noninstitutional environment—more like what they would experience were they to return to their own homes after the school day ends. Parents may also select family child care providers in their own neighborhoods, so their children, particularly those who are older, can walk or travel by bus to the provider's home.


• Mixed-Age Groupings. For parents who desire one setting where their older and younger children can be cared for together, family child care can be the solution. In addition to the logistical advantage ( i.e., one drop-off and pick-up location) and ability to keep siblings together, providers note that children in mixed-age settings frequently have opportunities to learn from and teach one another across age groups, whether they are engaged in academic or recreational activities.


• Trust in Caregivers. A major concern guiding parents' child care choices is trust in caregivers. Minority and low-income mothers, in particular, are more likely to trust relatives, friends, or home-based providers.¹⁹ Similarly, some mothers prefer family child care providers, who are likely to share their cultural values and ideas about childrearing over center-based child care, where children are exposed to multiple caregivers who may or may not share their values.²⁰

A review of the family child care literature finds that most parents generally are satisfied with their family child care arrangement.²¹

What Are the Challenges Associated with Providing School-Age Family Child Care?

Family child care providers who serve school-age children may face several challenges in providing high-quality child care services for this age group, according to family child care experts and providers.

• Financial Considerations. Family child care providers serving exclusively school-age children may not be able to make sufficient income because of the part-time nature of the care. Providing care for mixed age-groups is a strategy to address this problem, but caregivers must be mindful of their maximum capacity during school holidays and summer vacations when school-age children require full-time care. To some extent, states that allow family child care providers to participate in prekindergarten initiatives may create an incentive for these providers to serve three- and four-year-olds rather than school-age children.²²


• Transportation. Some family child care providers report difficulties in transporting schoolage children between their schools and the provider's home. Many school districts will not allow school buses to pick up or drop off children anywhere but their own neighborhood or their own home, so providers may be responsible for arranging transportation to and from school. Transporting school-age children can be particularly challenging for providers who care for mixed-age groups, because they cannot leave the younger children unsupervised. Bringing younger children along to pick up and drop off the older children can raise safety concerns and disrupt the younger children's schedules and activities. Finally, in some states, laws designed to protect children's safety require that certain individuals picking up children from school drive specific types of vehicles, which, in some cases, require commercial car insurance and/or a special driver's license. Furthermore, providers may need supplemental coverage to be adequately insured in case of an accident while they are transporting the children in their care. For many providers operating small home-based child care programs, meeting these regulations and requirements may not be feasible.


• Programming. Notwithstanding the many potential benefits of mixed-age care, providers may face challenges when developing materials and an environment for a wide range of ages. Providers who care for mixed-age groups need to think strategically about developing programming that is stimulating for every age group. They also need to maintain a multipurpose space appropriate for the safety and programming needs of all children served. Challenges may arise, for example, when older children are engaged in an activity using materials that might be hazardous to toddlers, such as glue or clay. Providers also note that finding age-appropriate activities for a mixed-age group is more difficult during summers or holidays when children of all ages are in care throughout the day. All providers serving school-age children need to find the right balance of programming, including helping with homework, providing unstructured play time, and offering enriching activities. Providers also need to consider how to make connections with the school-day curriculum.


• Ability to Attract a School-Age Clientele. Some family child care providers find it difficult to attract school-age clients. In some communities, they must compete with multiple school-based or other afterschool programs that provide free or low-cost school-age care. In addition, some family child care providers report that it is challenging to market their services to families of school-age children, because many families have a negative perception of family child care for school-age children. Parents who seek a learning environment for children outside the school day may not consider family child care as academically enriching as school- or community-based afterschool programs.


• Professional Development. Professional development can be another challenge for family child care providers. Many of these providers work alone, which can make it difficult to dedicate time for professional development. Another barrier to professional development is that not all providers think of themselves as "professionals." For example, a provider may only care for neighborhood children temporarily in order to stay home with his or her own child and may not be interested in receiving training or certification. Furthermore, very few professional development opportunities are available for child care providers who serve school-age or mixed-age children. For information on resources that have been developed in Oregon to support mixed-age family child care providers, see "Practices and Tips to Support Mixed-Age Family Care Providers" on page 19.

How Can Family Care Providers Who Serve School-Age Children Be Supported?

Some family child care providers who care for children of any age express frustration with the lack of professional supports they are able to access. A recent study by the Institute for Women's Policy Research identified low wages, job isolation, and a lack of professional development and training opportunities as the main problems associated with providing quality care in family child care homes.²³ The report also suggests ways to promote better care in family child care homes (see "State and Local Strategies to Improve the Quality of Family Child Care" below).

Besides the limited availability of professional supports for family child care providers generally, even fewer resources are targeted to the unique needs of providers serving school-age children or mixed-age groups. States and communities can pursue several strategies to support this subset of family child care providers, including:

• licensing;


• accreditation;


• program standards;


• professional development; and


• coordination.

Licensing

Licensing aims to promote children's health and safety by setting baseline requirements that programs must meet. Licensing requirements in many states calculate maximum group sizes and provider-to-child ratios based on the ages of the children being served. (For specific information on state licensing regulations for family child care providers, see Appendix A.) Program monitoring, associated with licensing, can enable states to help providers identify areas they may need to improve and help states better understand providers' training needs. In addition, many licensed providers enjoy a natural network for information sharing. Licensed child care providers are often supported and introduced to families through child care resource and referral agencies in states and communities. These agencies help link families with child care options, sometimes help administer child care subsidies, and often provide training and technical assistance to child care providers that are licensed or seeking licensure. They can also help providers share resources, experiences, and lessons learned.

Accreditation

Family child care accreditation, through the National Association for Family Child Care, recognizes a higher level of program quality. A separate accreditation for providers serving school-age children does not exist, because many providers serve mixed-age groups. The NAFCC accreditation process takes into account whether activities and materials are appropriate for age groups served and focuses on building strong relationships between children and adults. NAFCC accreditation was implemented nationally in 1999, and nearly 2,500 providers are now accredited. (For more information on the National Association for Family Child Care, visit www.nafcc.org/.)

In addition, the National AfterSchool Association (NAA), formerly the National School-Age Care Alliance, awards national accreditation to school-age programs that work with children ages 5 to 14. Accreditation is based on the NAA standards for school-age quality, which address indicators such as "meeting the developmentally different needs of youth, involving children and youth in program planning, providing positive interactions between children and youth and adults, and ensuring a safe and challenging environment for children and youth in out of school time."²⁴ Although NAA does not have separate accreditation for family child care, the NAA standards provide all caregivers of school-age children, including family child care providers, with guidance on how best to serve this age group. Many state agencies that have developed tiered reimbursement for quality programs have used the NAA standards for school-age quality to develop standards for school-age care programs.

Program Standards

Developing clear guidelines or standards by which to measure quality in family child care settings that serve school-age children is one way to promote and recognize good practices. Currently, the family child care field lacks models of best practices specifically in school-age or mixed-age family child care. Developing best practices or case studies that illustrate what a quality program looks like could help trainers and technical assistance providers who work directly with providers. Several models of quality care are likely, including those that complement the children's activities during the school day. While some students may benefit from academic enrichment, others may need relaxing environments in which to unwind from school. Best practices models should also respect children's cultural backgrounds.

Professional Development

Training programs focused on supporting school-age or mixed-age children in family child care settings are another means to improve the quality of care. States and communities may consider targeting training opportunities for family child care providers who operate exclusively school-age programs and mixed-age group programs.

Training programs for family child care providers should consider the attendance barriers that family child care providers face. For example, individuals may not be able to attend training during the hours they are caring for children and may benefit from training materials available by video or via the Internet. Distance learning opportunities may also meet the needs of providers who may otherwise need to travel long distances to attend training. Furthermore, given the low wages associated with family child care, providers may require scholarships to take part in training activities.

Coordination

Operating out of their own homes, family child care providers who serve school-age children are likely to feel disconnected from other providers as well as other community institutions, including the schools attended by the children they serve.²⁵ In addition, family child care providers serving school-age children may not be a part of state or local system-building efforts related to school-age care. By incorporating family child care providers into larger conversations about the well-being of school-age children, it may be possible to learn more about these providers and to improve outcomes for all children. Several types of coordination can support these providers.

Provider Associations and Networks. State family child care associations and networks provide support systems for family child care providers, potentially easing provider isolation and expanding access to professional development opportunities. Resource and referral agencies, communitybased organizations, or local employers often coordinate such networks. According to the Child Welfare League of America, three types of these entities exist: (1) membership associations that work together to enhance professionalism and impact policy; (2) community-support networks, open to all providers, that offer peer support and resources to providers; and (3) family child care networks and systems that help a group of parents (e.g., employees of the same company) access child care. Providers involved in these networks may have expanded opportunities for peer support.²⁶

Some provider networks also administer the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Child and Adult Care Food Program, which offers subsidies to cover the cost of snacks and meals for incomeeligible children. In fiscal 2006, family child care homes served nearly 240 million meals under the program; this number accounts for approximately 35 percent of the total meals served.²⁷

Sponsoring organizations enroll providers and manage this program while also, in many cases, offering additional support services.²⁸ These various networks and associations may also play a role in assessing and meeting the unique needs of providers serving school-age children as well as in advocating for policy changes that positively influence providers' ability to serve school-age children.

Connections with Schools. When children spend their days in school and their afternoons in a family child care home, communication between the teacher and family child care provider can help both teacher and provider to better meet the child's needs. Particularly in cases where a child has an individual education plan to meet his or her special needs, it is beneficial for child care providers to understand and support those unique learning needs. Building connections with schools often requires effort on the part of the provider as well as on the part of parents, who may need to facilitate these connections. Schools can also reach out to family child care providers by inviting providers to in-service training programs and offering their space for family child care training. Finally, local resource and referral agencies and family child care networks may play a role in facilitating providers' communication with schools.

State and Local Afterschool System-Building. In recent years, states and localities have developed state and local afterschool networks. These networks bring together diverse public, private, and community stakeholders to improve the quality and availability of afterschool programs and afterschool program supports. They offer a means for planning jointly; sharing resources and best practices; building bridges to and among federal, state, and local initiatives; and forging partnerships to develop comprehensive afterschool policies.²⁹ Family child care providers who care for school-age children may not always be involved in these state and local system-building efforts; as a result, these initiatives miss an important perspective. Family child care associations may be able to represent family child care providers in broader state or local policy discussions.

What Are the Information Gaps, Unanswered Questions, and Next Steps?

This review revealed several areas where information on family child care providers is limited and further research is needed. Additional research could inform state and local efforts to better support family child care providers.

• Family Child Care Providers Serving School-Age Children. Basic descriptive information on family child care for school-age children is needed. Researchers could determine how many family child care providers are providing school-age care, compared with care for children in other age groups. In addition, further research can shed light on whether providers who serve school-age children more commonly serve mixed-age groups or exclusively serve school-age children.


• Families That Choose Family Child Care for School-Age Children. Research could also shed light on what selection factors influence families to choose family child care for their school-age children. A better understanding of why families receiving child care subsidies are more likely than nonsubsidy families to use family child care settings for school-age care would help improve policies targeted to this group.


• The Strengths of Family Child Care. More information on the strengths of family child care, as well as on the fit between family child care and school-age groups, mixed-age groups, and low-income children and families, is needed. Although no one setting is best for all school-age children, family child care may provide a valuable alternative for some families.


• Promising Practices. Research on promising practices of family child care providers effectively serving school-age care could inform both professional development and program assessment. For example, information is needed on what constitutes high-quality school-age care in a family child care setting and what types of program activities in this setting best complement student experiences during the school day. (See, for example, "Lessons Learned from the U.S. Military on Promoting Quality Family Child Care" on page 21.)


• Family, Friend, and Neighbor Care. Relatively little is known about these licenseexempt providers. Although there is a growing body of state-level research in this area, a better understanding of the scope of school-age children served in these settings and of how to promote quality in these settings for school-age children is necessary.

Conclusion

Family child care homes are part of the diverse landscape of out-of-school time settings. Although this type of child care is often overlooked in the national dialogue about out-of-school time programs and activities, a significant number of children, including more than one third of school-age children receiving federal child care subsidies, are cared for during out-of-school time in a family child care home.

This issue brief examined what is known about why parents choose family child care settings for their school-age children, the challenges that family child care providers often face, and the strategies that states and communities can use to support these providers. More research is needed in the field to understand better how different types of policies can most effectively affect the quality of this care.

Acknowledgements

This issue brief was prepared by Amanda Szekely and Michelle Ganow Jones of The Finance Project for the Afterschool Investments project, a multiyear technical assistance effort funded by the Child Care Bureau of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Family Assistance. Sharon Deich and Vidhya Ananthakrishnan of The Finance Project also provided valuable input and guidance.

The authors are especially grateful to the many experts in the field who shared their insights, wisdom, and experiences; reviewed drafts of the publication; and helped steer the research in the right direction. Special thanks are extended to Chris Cross, National Association for Family Child Care; Nikki Darling-Kuria, family child care provider; Colleen Dyrud, formerly of the Oregon Center for Career Development in Childhood Care and Education; Sandy Gellert, formerly of the National Child Care Information Center; Sandy Governor, family child care provider; Katie Hamm, Institute for Women’s Policy Research; Lee Kreader, National Center for Children in Poverty; Sarah LeMoine, National Child Care Information Center; Bruce Hirschfield, Child Welfare League of America; Debbie Moore, National Association for Family Child Care; Kathy Modigliani, Family Child Care Project; Taryn Morrissey, Department of Human Development, Cornell University; Joe Perreault, U.S. Army Child and Youth Services; Susan Rohrbaugh, National Child Care Information Center; Nina Sazer O’Donnell, Families and Work Institute; Linda Smith, National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies; and Renee Wehrend, family child care provider.

Relevant Resources

Bank Street College of Education. Frequently Asked Questions about Kith and Kin Child Care. New York, N.Y.: Bank Street College of Education, n.d.

Debord, Karen, and Janet Sawyers. "The Effects of Training on the Quality of Child Care for Those Associated with and Not Associated with Professional Child Care Organizations." Child and Youth Care Forum. Vol. 25, no. 1 (1996).

Fischer, Jan L., and Brenda K. Eheart. "Family Day Care: A Theoretical Basis for Improving Quality." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 6 (1991).

Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Level Annual Summary Tables: Child and Adult Care Food Program (Participation, Meals Served, and Costs). Washington, D.C., data as December 22, 2006.

Fuller, Bruce, et al. "Welfare Reform and Child Care Options for Low-Income Families." Children and Welfare Reform. Vol. 12, no. 1 (2002).

Hamm, Katie, and Avis Jones-DeWeever. Family Child Care: Recent Trends and New Directions. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Women’s Policy Research, October 2004.

Hamm, Katie, Barbara Gault, and Avis Jones-Deweever. In Our Own Backyards: Reviewing Local and State Strategies to Increase the Quality of Family Child Care. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Women’s Policy Research, June 2005.

Galinksy, Ellen, et al. The Study of Children in Family Child Care and Relative Care: Highlights of Findings. New York, N.Y.: Families and Work Institute, 1994.

Hershfield, Bruce, et al. Family Child Care Networks/Systems: A Model for Expanding Community Resources. Washington, D.C.: Child Welfare League of America, 2005.

Kontos, Susan, Carrollee Howes, Marybeth Shinn, and Ellen Galinsky. Quality in Family Child Care and Relative Care. New York, N.Y.: Teachers College Press, 1995.

Larner, Mary. In the Neighborhood: Programs that Strengthen Family Day Care for Low-Income Families. New York, N.Y.: National Center for Children in Poverty, 1994.

Layzer, Jean, and Barbara D. Goodson. Care in the Home: A Description of Family Child Care and the Experiences of the Families and Children Who Use It (Wave 1 Report). Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates, Inc, August 2006.

Mensing, James, et al. "Child Care Selection Under Welfare Reform: How Mothers Balance Work Requirements and Parenting." Early Education & Development. Vol. 11, no. 5 (2000).

Morrissey, Taryn W. Family Child Care in the United States. New York, N.Y.: Child Care and Early Education Research Connections, March 2007.

National AfterSchool Association. The Benefits of NAA Accreditation. Charlestown, Mass.: National AfterSchool Association, 2006.

National Association for Family Child Care. Quality Standards for NAFCC Accreditation. 4th ed. Salt Lake City, Utah: National Association for Family Child Care, 2005.

National Association for Regulatory Administration and National Child Care Information Center. 2005 Child Care Licensing Study. Conyers, Ga.: National Association for Regulatory Administration and Fairfax, Va.: National Child Care Information Center, December 2006.

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. National Household Education Surveys of 2005: Afterschool Programs and Activities, 2005. Washington, D.C., May 2006.

National Child Care Information Center. Definition of Licensed Family Child Care Homes. Fairfax, Va.: National Child Care Information Center, April 2006.

Office of Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Trends in the Wellbeing of Children and Youth. Washington, D.C., 2003.

Oregon Center for Career Development in Childhood Care and Education. In The Mix: Including Schoolagers with Younger Children in Your Family Child Care: Suggested Quality Practices and Provider Tips. Portland, Ore.: Oregon Center for Career Development in Childhood Care and Education, October 2006.

Overturf Johnson, Julia. Who’s Minding the Kids?—Child Care Arrangements: Winter 2002. Washington, D.C., U.S. Census Bureau, October 2005.

Porter, Toni, and Shannon M. Kearns. Supporting Family, Friend and Neighbor Caregivers: Findings from a Survey of State Policies. New York, N.Y.: Institute for a Child Care Continuum, Division of Continuing Education, Bank Street College of Education, January 2005.

Rice, Toni, et al. Doting on Kids: Understanding Quality in Kith and Kin Care. New York, N.Y.: Institute for a Child Care Continuum, Division of Continuing Education, Bank Street College of Education, December 2003.

Schumacher, Rachel, Danielle Ewen, Katherine Hart, and Joan Lombardi. All Together Now: State Experiences in Using Community-Based Child Care to Provide Pre-Kindergarten. Rev. Washington, D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy and The Children’s Project, February 2005.

Sonenstein, Freya L., Gary Gates, Stefanie R. Schmidt, and Natalya Bolshun. Primary Child Care Arrangements of Employed Parents: Findings from the 1999 National Survey of America's Families. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2002.

Zellman, Gail L., and Anne S. Johansen. Examining the Implementation and Outcomes of the Military Child Care Act of 1989. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, 1998.

Organizations

Child Welfare League of America, Family Child Care Clearinghouse Project
www.cwla.org/programs/daycare/clearinghouse.htm

Families and Work Institute
www.familiesandwork.org

Institute for Women’s Policy Research
www.iwpr.org

National Association for Family Child Care
www.nafcc.org

National Child Care Information Center
http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov/

Appendix A: Definitions of Licensed Family Child Care Homes by State

Note:
^*For more information, see http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/cclicensingreq/definition-fcc.html (HTML) or http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/cclicensingreq/definition-fcc.html (PDF).
Source: National Child Care Information Center, Definition of Licensed Family Child Care Homes (Fairfax, Va.: National Child Care Information Center, April 2006), available at: http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/cclicensingreq/definition-fcc.html and at: http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/cclicensingreq/definition-fcc.pdf. The National Child Care Information Center is a service of the U.S. Child Care Bureau.

Appendix B: Licensed Family Child Care Homes and Licensed Family Child Care Capacity by State, 2005

Notes: Capacity is defined as the maximum number of children a licensed program is allowed to have in care at one time. The data reported in this table is the total capacity for all licensed facilities in each state.
^*For more information, see www.nara.affiniscape.com/associations/4734/files/Number%20of%20Licensed%20Programs%202005.pdf and www.nara.affiniscape.com/associations/4734/files/Licensed%20Capacity_2005.pdf.
Source: National Association for Regulatory Administration and National Child Care Information Center, 2005 Child Care Licensing Study (Conyers, Ga.: National Association for Regulatory Administration and Fairfax, Va.: National Child Care Information Center, December 2006), available at: www.nara.affiniscape.com/associations/4734/files/Number%20of%20Licensed%20Programs%202005.pdf and www.nara.affiniscape.com/associations/4734/files/Licensed%20Capacity_2005.pdf.

Appendix C: School-Age Children Who Are Receiving Federal Child Care Subsidies and Being Served in Family Child Care Settings by State, Fiscal 2004¹

Notes:
^*Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) regulations define a family child care home provider as "one individual who provides child care services for fewer than 24 hours per day per child, as the sole caregiver, in a private residence other than the child’s residence, unless care in excess of 24 hours is due to the nature of the parent(s)’ work."
^**CCDF regulations define a group child care home provider as "two or more individuals who provide child care services for fewer than 24 hours per day per child, in a private residence other than the child’s residence, unless care in excess of 24 hours is due to the nature of the parent(s)’ work."
¹ Children served in more than one setting were scored or counted in proportion to the number of monthly hours in each setting. Therefore, a child who received 30 hours of care in one setting and 70 hours of care in another setting was scored as 0.3-children in one setting and 0.7-children in the other setting. Results were based on the full population data where available. (The Child Care Bureau Information System database was utilized as of January 31, 2006). Percentages are based only on school-age children with valid data.
²This table reflects only the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
³Wyoming did not accurately report the setting data for a high percentage of its children served.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "ACF-801 for FFY 2004" (Washington, D.C.).

Endnotes

¹ In 2001, for example, nearly 70 percent of children had one or both resident parents in the workforce, compared with fewer than 60 percent of children in 1985. See Office of Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Trends in the Wellbeing of Children and Youth (Washington, D.C., 2003).[Back]
² Katie Hamm and Avis Jones-DeWeever, Family Child Care: Recent Trends and New Directions (Washington, D.C.: Institute for Women's Policy Research, October 2004).[Back]
³ National Child Care Information Center, Definition of Licensed Family Child Care Homes (Fairfax, Va.: National Child Care Information Center, April 2006).[Back]
⁴ Toni Porter and Shannon M Kearns, Supporting Family, Friend and Neighbor Caregivers: Findings from a Survey of State Policies (New York, N.Y.: Institute for a Child Care Continuum, Division of Continuing Education, Bank Street College of Education, January 2005).[Back]
⁵ Bank Street College of Education, Frequently Asked Questions about Kith and Kin Child Care (New York, N.Y.: Bank Street College of Education, n.d.).[Back]
⁶ National Association for Regulatory Administration and National Child Care Information Center, 2005 Child Care Licensing Study (Conyers, Ga.: National Association for Regulatory Administration and Fairfax, Va.: National Child Care Information Center, December 2006).[Back]
⁷ Jean Layzer and Barbara D. Goodson, Care in the Home: A Description of Family Child Care and the Experiences of Families and Children Who Use It (Wave 1 Report) (Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates, Inc., April 2006). This study is a component of the National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families—a seven year research effort being conducted in 25 communities in 17 States. The family child care report focused on five of these communities. Available online at: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/cc/nsc_low_income/reports/care_in_home/care_in_home.pdf_in_home.pdf [Back]
⁸ For example, family child care is neither defined nor referred to in a consistent way. Fully understanding the role that family child care plays during children's out-of-school time is difficult, because some studies look at children's primary care arrangement but they may spend time in multiple care settings. Family child care may be one of the care arrangements used by a school-age child who, for example, also spends time after school in a school-based afterschool program, engages in extra-curricular activities, etc.[Back]
⁹ Taryn Morrissey, Family Child Care in the United States (New York, N.Y.: Child Care and Early Education Research Connections, March 2007).[Back]
¹⁰ National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, National Household Education Surveys of 2005: Afterschool Programs and Activities, 2005 (Washington, D.C., May 2006).[Back]
¹¹ Sonenstein et al., Primary Child Care Arrangements of Employed Parents: Findings from the 1999 National Survey of America's Families (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2002).[Back]
¹² Julia Overturf Johnson, Who's Minding the Kids?—Child Care Arrangements: Winter 2002 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, October 2005).[Back]
¹³ This statistic reflects the national average (for the 50 states and District of Columbia) of school-age children served in "family homes" and "group homes" and includes regulated and nonregulated settings. Regulations define a family child care home provider as "one individual who provides child care services for fewer than 24 hours per day per child, as the sole caregiver, in a private residence other than the child's residence, unless care in excess of 24 hours is due to the nature of the parent(s)' work." A group child care home provider is defined as "two or more individuals who provide child care services for fewer than 24 hours per day per child, in a private residence other than the child's residence, unless care in excess of 24 hours is due to the nature of the parent(s)' work."[Back]
¹⁴ National Association for Family Child Care, Quality Standards for NAFCC Accreditation, 4th ed. (Salt Lake City, Utah: National Association for Family Child Care, 2005).[Back]
¹⁵ Morrissey. Also see, for example, Jan L. Fischer and Brenda K. Eheart, "Family Day Care: A Theoretical Basis for Improving Quality," Early Childhood Research Quarterly 6 (1991); and Karen Debord and Janet Sawyers,"The Effects of Training on the Quality of Child Care for Those Associated with and Not Associated with Professional Child Care Organizations," Child and Youth Care Forum, vol. 25, no. 1 (1996).[Back]
¹⁶ Ellen Galinksy et al., The Study of Children in Family Child Care and Relative Care: Highlights of Findings (New York, N.Y.: Families and Work Institute, 1994).[Back]
¹⁷ Layzer and Goodson.[Back]
¹⁸ Layzer and Goodson.[Back]
¹⁹ See, for example, James Mensing et al., "Child Care Selection Under Welfare Reform: How Mothers Balance Work Requirements and Parenting," Early Education & Development, vol. 11, no. 5 (2000); and Bruce Fuller et al., "Welfare Reform and Child Care Options for Low-Income Families," Children and Welfare Reform, vol. 12, no. 1 (2002).[Back]
²⁰ Kontos et al., Quality in Family Child Care and Relative Care (New York, N.Y.: Teachers College Press, 1995).[Back]
²¹ Morrissey.[Back]
²² Thirteen states—Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin—include family child care providers as eligible providers of pre-kindergarten services, though such providers generally are not participating in pre-kindergarten programs in large numbers. See Schumacher et al., All Together Now: State Experiences in Using Community-Based Child Care to Provide Pre-Kindergarten, rev. (Washington, D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy and The Children's Project, February 2005).[Back]
²³ For more information, see Katie Hamm, Barbara Gault, and Avis Jones-DeWeever, In Our Own Backyards: Reviewing Local and State Strategies to Increase the Quality of Family Child Care (Washington, D.C.: Institute for Women's Policy Research, June 2005), available at: www.iwpr.org/pdf/G717.pdf.[Back]
²⁴ National AfterSchool Association, The Benefits of NAA Accreditation (Charlestown, Mass.: National AfterSchool Association, 2006).[Back]
²⁵ Hamm et al. June 2005; and Kontos et al.[Back]
²⁶ Bruce Hershfield et al., Family Child Care Networks/Systems: A Model for Expanding Community Resources (Washington, D.C.: Child Welfare League of America, 2005).[Back]
²⁷ Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Level Annual Summary Tables: Child and Adult Care Food Program (Participation, Meals Served, and Costs) (Washington, D.C., data as of December 22, 2006).[Back]
²⁸ Mary Larner, In the Neighborhood: Programs that Strengthen Family Day Care for Low-Income Families (New York, N.Y.: National Center for Children in Poverty, 1994).[Back]
²⁹ The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation supports states interested in establishing strong statewide afterschool networks, recognizing the value of this model in promoting partnerships and policies that encourage the development, sustainability, and replication of quality afterschool programs. Currently, 32 states receive funding from the Mott Foundation to build the capacity of their networks. Several other states and localities are developing similar networks.[Back]

Download FREE Adobe Acrobat® Reader™ to view PDF files located on this site.