[ Main Page of Report | Contents of Report ]
This chapter examines the impacts of seven of the NEWWS programs on child care use and, for a subgroup of school-age children ("focal" children), on activities during after-school hours from two perspectives: (1) as supporting mothers' employment and transition from welfare and (2) as providing a context for children's development.
A primary goal of the NEWWS Evaluation was to consider the extent to which mothers assigned to a welfare-to-work program moved from welfare to employment and to understand the supports that were important in bringing about such a transition. Child care was assumed to be of importance as a support for the transition to employment in that it provides for the supervision of children so that mothers can participate in work-related activities. Child care benefits were provided to both program and control group mothers who were participating in appropriate activities and were available while mothers were receiving welfare and for a year after they left welfare because of earnings.(1) Thus, a key question addressed in the first section of this chapter is whether there were program impacts on use of child care for purposes of employment and whether program group mothers made greater use of child care benefits than control group mothers.
National survey data indicate that child care arrangements are reported by low-income mothers who are not employed as well as by mothers who are employed (albeit at a lower rate).(2) Nonemployed mothers appear to use child care in order to expose their children to stimulating early childhood education environments and to support their own participation in education and training activities.(3) Within the context of the JOBS welfare-to-work programs studied here, the possibility exists that children's exposure to child care in the program groups might increase not only because of employment, but also as mothers increase their participation in education or training activities and perhaps come to value exposure to educational experiences and want these experiences for their children as well as for themselves.
The second section of this chapter explores the extent and nature of children's exposure to nonmaternal care for any purpose, not only as a support for employment. The underlying question is whether mothers' assignment to one of the welfare-to-work programs results in changes in the amount and type of nonmaternal care that children experience. The section that explores child care as a support for employment takes into account child care for all the children in the family under age 13 while the section that explores child care for any purpose focuses on the focal children in the Child Outcomes Study, who were aged 8 to 10 years at the five-year follow-up. This section presents impacts on both what mothers describe as regular child care arrangements for this school-age child and on supervision and activities during the after-school hours.
[Go To Contents]
[Go to Contents]
The child care questions asked of the client survey sample (families in four research sites) provide the basis for the discussion below of child care use as a support for employment. For the full follow-up period, respondents were asked about the use of child care after leaving welfare because of earnings, and about receipt of transitional child care benefits.(5) Unlike the survey information that was collected at the two-year follow-up point, the five-year survey did not ask about receipt of child care subsidies other than transitional child care benefits. For the more limited time period of the "most recent spell of employment," respondents were asked about use of, and out-of-pocket expenses for, child care while employed.(6)
Children of client survey sample members were between ages 1 and 18 at random assignment and between ages 6 and 23 at the time of the five-year follow-up. The questions about child care as a support for employment generally were asked about all children in the family who were under age 13 at the time when the care was used. This could have included child care for children who joined the family after random assignment. (7) These analyses were performed with the family as the unit of analysis, because the child care information could not be linked to specific children in each family. Although it is possible to conduct analyses by the age of the youngest child in the household to capture roughly the different needs and circumstances for children across the age range, especially for those with toddlers and preschoolers rather than only school-age children, this type of analysis was beyond the scope of the chapter.
It is critical to emphasize that child care benefits were available to both program and control group mothers based on their engagement in work-related activities or their employment following an exit from welfare. That is, there was no distinctive child care treatment specific to the program groups within the NEWWS Evaluation (such as provision of more extensive subsidies, special help when there were problems with child care arrangements, or access to particular high-quality child care). Accordingly, any impacts on child care participation and use of child care benefits for purposes of employment are related to program impacts on mothers' work-related activities or to other program features, such as the programs' mandatory nature, that might have led directly to increased employment. Thus, it is important to ask whether and to what extent families made greater use of child care and of child care benefits for purposes of employment when they had been assigned to a JOBS welfare-to-work program.
Findings presented in Chapter 4 of this report regarding program impacts on employment underscore the importance of distinguishing between measures for the full follow-up period and measures for a recent and more limited time period. While impacts on average number of quarters employed and on total earnings were widespread across the full follow-up period, impacts were more circumscribed for measures of employment and earnings at the time of the five-year follow-up, and in a number of sites differences were no longer statistically significant at this point. As noted in Chapter 4, the narrowing of differences by the five-year point between the program and control groups on employment outcomes reflects, in part, the fact that control group mothers increasingly sought employment on their own over the follow-up period and the fact that some program group members left employment over time. In addition, in Atlanta and Grand Rapids some or all control group families became subject to new state welfare-to-work initiatives in the final years of the evaluation, following passage of the 1996 welfare law.(8) Thus, in looking at program impacts on child care as a support for employment and the transition from welfare, it seems reasonable to predict more widespread impacts on measures looking across the full follow-up period than on measures pertaining to the recent spell of employment.
It will also be important to keep in mind the ages of the children in the evaluation sample. While some mothers bore children over the course of the five-year follow-up, children who had already been born at the start of the follow-up period increasingly moved into the school-age and adolescent age groups as the follow-up period proceeded. Findings from recent national surveys indicate that while child care use increases with child age during the preschool years (that is, for children aged 5 or under but not yet in kindergarten),(9) child care use begins to decline once children enter school, though substantial numbers of school-age children continue to be in regular child care arrangements.(10) Thus, by the time of the final follow-up, a higher proportion of the children in the NEWWS Evaluation might be in an age range for which employed mothers no longer report regular child care arrangements for their children. Against this backdrop of diminished overall child care use, program impacts might also be less likely to occur.
In sum, across the full five-year follow-up as well as at the end of the follow-up, it is important to consider the extent to which child care played a role in supporting mothers' employment and departure from welfare receipt. Yet because the child care treatment did not differ for program and control groups, because the pattern of employment impacts narrowed in a number of sites over the course of the follow-up, and because of the increasing ages of children in the evaluation sample, the possibility exists that impacts will not be strong or widespread, particularly when focusing on child care use during mothers' most recent spell of employment.
The child care questions included in the more extensive interview for the Child Outcomes Study sample (families in three of the sites) provide the basis for the discussion below of children's recent experiences in child care whether used as a support for employment or not. These questions focus specifically on the focal child rather than on all children in the family, and they focus exclusively on the time period of the final follow-up. Focal children were between about ages 8 and 10 at the time of the five-year follow-up. Regarding child care "in the past week," respondents were asked about use of any self-care, whether there was a regular child care arrangement for the focal child, type of regular arrangement used, whether multiple arrangements were used, hours in child care across all regular arrangements, and reliance on a caregiver aged 17 or under. To address the possibility that mothers may not describe the supervision they use for their school-age children as child care, mothers were also asked about whom the focal child was with in half-hour time periods from 3 P.M. to midnight "on a recent weekday." To address the possibility of program impacts on participation in activities or lessons, mothers' reports of participation in such activities on the recent weekday afternoon and evening was also analyzed. Self care was a category in the questions both about child care in the past week and about supervision on the recent weekday afternoon and evening. While measures about a recent afternoon and evening provide useful information, such measures likely underestimate activities that occur more sporadically.
A substantial body of research indicates that children's experiences in child care are related to their development.(11) Much of this research has focused on variations in child care quality and in children's development and confirms that across both formal and informal types of child care, higher-quality care is associated with more advanced cognitive development and more positive social behavior.(12) In addition, however, there is also emerging evidence that type of child care is related to development. While quality varies widely within both formal and informal types of child care, recent findings suggest that beyond variation in quality, participation in more formal, center-based programs is related to children's cognitive school-readiness.(13) This may be, for example, because of the greater likelihood that a formal curriculum is used in center-based programs or that there is a greater availability of books and other cognitively stimulating materials in such settings.
In keeping with this finding from the larger research literature, earlier analyses of children's development in the NEWWS Child Outcomes Study have linked participation in formal child care settings with better concurrent developmental outcomes (higher scores on assessments of cognitive school-readiness).(14) Accordingly, in the analyses presented here, a key issue will be not only whether mothers' assignment to a JOBS welfare-to-work program affected the overall extent of children's exposure to nonmaternal care, but also whether there were shifts in type of care, especially between formal and informal types.(15),(16)
Some concern has been expressed that mandatory participation in a welfare-to-work program might push some mothers to leave school-age children to care for themselves while the mothers engage in work or work-preparation activities or that children might be left in the care of young caregivers (for example, older siblings). National data indicate that self-care as a primary child care arrangement increases during the early school years, from about 5 percent for children aged 6 to 9 to about 24 percent for those aged 10 to 12 with employed mothers.(17) While findings linking self-care with children's development appear to differ by age and characteristics of the child, there is some evidence that regularly spending time in unstructured and unsupervised settings is deleterious for children's development.(18) Given these concerns, this chapter also examines whether there were program impacts on families' use of self-care and care by a young caregiver.
At the time of the five-year follow-up, the focal children studied were aged 8 to 10. As noted above, in this age range a decreasing proportion of mothers report child care use. The possibility exists, however, that mothers are nevertheless making arrangements for the supervision of their school-age children, but not describing these arrangements as child care. To capture a range of possible supervisory situations that school-age children might be in, outcomes examined include not only child care arrangements that the focal children participated in "in the past week," but also a broader description of supervision of the children "on a recent weekday" (specifically whether they were with the mother, with another adult, with only a young peer or sibling, or in self-care).
After-school activities (such as participation in clubs, sports, or lessons) might also be providing supervision in the mother's absence and yet not be labeled child care. Accordingly, this section also includes after-school activities during a recent weekday afternoon. Indeed, in a recent evaluation of a New Hope work incentive and support program, program impacts on use of after-school child care and participation in activities were found, especially for boys. This program also had favorable impacts on the social and academic outcomes of school-age boys. The researchers hypothesize that participation in after-school care and activities might have protected the school-age boys in the study from exposure to street activity in dangerous neighborhoods and exposed them instead to positive, sometimes academically oriented, supervised activities.(19)
[Go To Contents]
This section describes findings on the use of child care as a support for employment and on the use of transitional child care benefits. Findings on control group levels are presented first, followed by findings on program impacts.
Across the full follow-up period, the use of child care arrangements after leaving welfare because of earnings varied considerably for control group members in the client survey sample across the sites. As Table 10.1 shows, control group members in Atlanta and Riverside reported the lowest levels of child care use (17 to 24 percent), whereas control group members in Portland reported the highest level (44 percent). Receipt of transitional child care benefits also varied considerably among control group members across the sites, ranging from approximately 5 percent in Riverside to 31 percent in Portland. Among those control group members who used child care after leaving welfare because of earnings, receipt of transitional child care benefits ranged from 20 percent in Riverside to 70 percent in Portland.
Site and Program |
Sample Size | Program Group | Control Group | Difference (Impact) | Percentage Change (%) | p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Used child care after leaving AFDC because of earnings (%) |
||||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 1,054 | 35.8 | 24.3 | 11.5*** | 47.4 | 0.00 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 1,123 | 29.9 | 24.3 | 5.7** | 23.4 | 0.02 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 1,084 | 46.0 | 38.1 | 7.9*** | 20.7 | 0.00 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 1,098 | 41.7 | 38.1 | 3.7 | 9.6 | 0.19 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 1,188 | 31.3 | 24.5 | 6.7*** | 27.5 | 0.01 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 635 | 23.0 | 16.8 | 6.2** | 37.1 | 0.05 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 750 | 24.1 | 16.8 | 7.3** | 43.4 | 0.02 |
| Portland | 494 | 47.7 | 44.2 | 3.5 | 7.8 | 0.45 |
Received transitional child care benefits (%) |
||||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 1,053 | 19.2 | 9.2 | 10.0*** | 109.0 | 0.00 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 1,120 | 13.0 | 9.2 | 3.9* | 42.1 | 0.05 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 1,078 | 15.0 | 11.7 | 3.3 | 27.8 | 0.11 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 1,089 | 14.7 | 11.7 | 3.0 | 25.2 | 0.15 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 1,182 | 7.8 | 4.9 | 3.0** | 60.3 | 0.03 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 632 | 6.5 | 3.0 | 3.4** | 112.7 | 0.03 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 748 | 3.4 | 3.0 | 0.3 | 11.0 | 0.84 |
| Portland | 492 | 34.8 | 31.0 | 3.8 | 12.2 | 0.39 |
Used transitional child care benefits among those who used child care after leaving welfare because of earnings (%) |
||||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 53.6 | 37.8 | 15.8 | 41.8 | ||
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 43.6 | 37.8 | 5.8 | 15.2 | ||
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 32.6 | 30.7 | 1.8 | 5.9 | ||
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 35.1 | 30.7 | 4.4 | 14.3 | ||
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 25.1 | 20.0 | 5.1 | 25.8 | ||
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 28.1 | 18.1 | 10.0 | 55.1 | ||
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 14.0 | 18.1 | -4.1 | -22.6 | ||
| Portland | 72.9 | 70.0 | 2.9 | 4.1 | ||
Used child care while employed (%) |
||||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 1,066 | 33.2 | 33.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.97 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 1,140 | 32.1 | 33.2 | -1.1 | -3.3 | 0.67 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 1,093 | 49.2 | 45.3 | 4.0 | 8.8 | 0.12 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 1,097 | 43.8 | 45.3 | -1.5 | -3.3 | 0.57 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 1,212 | 42.9 | 42.4 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 0.84 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 653 | 43.9 | 39.3 | 4.6 | 11.8 | 0.19 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 774 | 40.6 | 39.3 | 1.3 | 3.3 | 0.72 |
| Portland | 498 | 50.7 | 43.8 | 6.9* | 15.8 | 0.09 |
Paid for child care out-of-pocket (%) |
||||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 1,061 | 18.5 | 19.4 | -0.9 | -4.6 | 0.69 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 1,140 | 20.2 | 19.4 | 0.8 | 4.1 | 0.72 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 1,087 | 29.9 | 29.5 | 0.4 | 1.2 | 0.89 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 1,093 | 28.5 | 29.5 | -1.0 | -3.4 | 0.70 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 1,210 | 26.4 | 26.8 | -0.4 | -1.6 | 0.86 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 653 | 26.7 | 22.2 | 4.5 | 20.4 | 0.16 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 774 | 24.1 | 22.2 | 1.9 | 8.7 | 0.55 |
| Portland | 496 | 32.3 | 28.1 | 4.3 | 15.2 | 0.32 |
Total monthly out-of-pocket cost of child care ($) |
||||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 1,061 | 29.5 | 32.1 | -2.6 | -8.2 | 0.59 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 1,140 | 34.6 | 32.1 | 2.4 | 7.5 | 0.62 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 1,087 | 70.3 | 68.7 | 1.5 | 2.2 | 0.85 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 1,093 | 65.5 | 68.7 | -3.2 | -4.7 | 0.68 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 1,210 | 62.0 | 61.8 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.97 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 653 | 59.1 | 48.6 | 10.5 | 21.5 | 0.28 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 774 | 61.5 | 48.6 | 12.9 | 26.4 | 0.19 |
| Portland | 496 | 113.5 | 62.1 | 51.4** | 82.8 | 0.02 |
| SOURCE: Child Trends calculations from
the Five-Year Client Survey. NOTES: See Appendix A.2. |
||||||
Approximately one-third to one-half of control group members in the client survey sample reported using child care while employed, and one-fifth to one-third of control group members in this sample reported paying for child care out-of-pocket. Thus, of those control group members who used child care while employed, approximately 60 percent paid out-of-pocket for at least some of this child care (the proportion of those who paid out-of-pocket for care divided by the proportion of those who reported using child care while employed).
The wide cross-site variation in take-up of transitional child care benefits may be related to a number of things including whether, or to what extent, families were informed of these benefits and/or encouraged to use them, bureaucratic hurdles in applying for and maintaining benefits, variation in preferences or need for child care, and/or variation in coverage of certain types of care.(20) Yet a majority of control group families who were using child care for purposes of employment had out-of- pocket expenses for care. These findings point to the potential importance of active outreach in informing families of the child care benefits for which they are eligible and suggest that child care expenses may play a role in overall family income for many families, counteracting some of the benefits of earnings.
Findings that pertain to the full five-year follow-up show that most of the programs (five of the seven in the client survey sample) increased the likelihood of mothers' child care use after leaving welfare because of earnings. All of the programs except Grand Rapids HCD and Portland increased child care use in this way.(21)
A smaller number of programs significantly increased receipt of transitional child care benefits. Impacts were significant for both Atlanta programs and for the Riverside LFA program for both the full and in-need sample.(22) Atlanta LFA program group members were 11.5 percentage points more likely to have used child care after leaving welfare and were 10 percentage points more likely to have received transitional child care benefits than control group members. In addition, HCD program group members in Atlanta were 5.7 percentage points more likely to have used child care after leaving welfare and 3.9 percentage points more likely to have received transitional child care benefits than control group members. These impacts suggest that much of the increased child care use after leaving welfare because of Atlanta's welfare-to-work program was covered by transitional child care benefits. In contrast, though Riverside HCD program group members were 7.3 percentage points more likely than control group members to use child care after leaving welfare because of earnings, there were no significant differences in receipt of transitional child care benefits.
Across the full follow-up period, then, most programs increased reliance on child care after leaving welfare because of earnings, but fewer than half increased receipt of transitional child care benefits. It has been noted that there was substantial cross-site variation in control group families' receipt of transitional child care benefits. In general, the findings suggest the need for expanding information about subsidies, altering eligibility or increasing funding, and simplifying the administration of subsidies to encourage families to use transitional child care benefits.
Impact findings on child care use in connection with mothers' recent spell of employment are yet more limited. None of the LFA or HCD programs increased child care use while employed in a recent spell (but see the findings presented below for the COS sample on sustained employment for mothers and focal children's time use in both programs in Riverside). Portland program group members, on the other hand, were 6.9 percentage points, or 16 percent, more likely than control group members to use child care while employed in a recent spell. While none of the LFA or HCD programs significantly increased the proportion of families with any out-of-pocket expenses for child care, program group members in Portland had significantly higher total monthly out-of-pocket child care costs than control group members. Portland program group members who used child care while employed paid approximately $82 more in total monthly out-of-pocket costs than control group members who used child care while employed.(23)
In general, the findings for child care as a support for employment are in keeping with the prediction of more extensive impacts for the full follow-up period — for which employment impacts were more widespread — than for a recent spell of employment — when employment impacts were more limited. While there is a fairly widespread pattern of impacts on child care use while transitioning from welfare across the full follow-up, there is very little evidence of impacts on child care use for a recent spell of employment. The impacts that did occur were concentrated in Portland (and in Riverside, as discussed below), where there were impacts on sustained or recent employment. In Portland, there were impacts on full-time employment and employment in the last quarter of year 5 for families with young children.(24)
[Go To Contents]
This section describes the extent and type of child care experienced by young school-age children in the Child Outcomes Study sample, whether used as a support for employment or not. It focuses on child care arrangements for the focal children, on how they spend time and their participation in activities. It should be kept in mind that all of the focal children were aged 8 to 10 and that all measures pertain to a very recent time period, either the past week or a recent weekday.
Table 10.2 shows that between about 34 and 43 percent of focal children in the Child Outcomes Study control groups were reported by mothers to be in a regular child care arrangement "in the past week," that is, in the week prior to the five-year follow-up. The main arrangement was much more likely to be informal, such as care by a relative or neighbor in the child's home or another home (used by 24 to 36 percent of control group families, depending on site), than formal, such as care provided by a day care center or provided after school by the school (used by 8 to 19 percent). Children who were in a regular arrangement spent 20 to 26 hours per week on average in child care (that is, about 4 to 5 hours per day if care occurred five days a week). Only 6 to 10 percent of families reported relying on multiple arrangements. Only a small proportion of families reported relying on a provider aged 17 or under in the main arrangement for the focal child (about 3 to 5 percent). Use of self-care in the past week was reported for about 9 to 12 percent of control group families, which falls within the range reported for national samples.(25)
Site and Program |
Sample size | Program Group | Control Group | Difference (Impact) | Percentage Change (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Used a regular child care arrangement in the past week (%) |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 580 | 41.5 | 39.7 | 1.8 | 4.6 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 650 | 37.8 | 39.4 | -1.6 | -4.1 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 394 | 41.9 | 43.4 | -1.5 | -3.4 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 380 | 36.9 | 41.8 | -4.9 | -11.6 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 493 | 33.9 | 33.5 | 0.4 | 1.3 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 313 | 27.1 | 29.5 | -2.4 | -8.0 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 406 | 28.3 | 29.7 | -1.4 | -4.8 |
Used a nonregular or sporadic child care arrangement in the past week (%) |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 580 | 4.4 | 3.6 | 0.8 | 23.3 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 650 | 3.3 | 3.6 | -0.3 | -7.5 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 394 | 4.1 | 5.4 | -1.3 | -23.9 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 380 | 7.4 | 4.3 | 3.0 | 69.6 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 493 | 5.6 | 9.4 | -3.8 | -40.2 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 313 | 5.9 | 10.4 | -4.5 | -43.4 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 406 | 8.9 | 10.2 | -1.3 | -13.1 |
Used multiple regular child care arrangements in the past week (%) |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 580 | 5.2 | 6.2 | -1.0 | -16.9 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 650 | 4.1 | 6.2 | -2.1 | -33.3 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 394 | 5.3 | 7.2 | -1.8 | -25.5 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 380 | 3.8 | 6.8 | -3.1 | -44.9 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 493 | 8.0 | 9.6 | -1.6 | -17.0 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 313 | 6.6 | 7.0 | -0.4 | -5.5 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 406 | 7.9 | 7.1 | 0.8 | 11.2 |
Number of hours child spent in all regular care arrangements in the past week |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 580 | 9.1 | 10.3 | -1.2 | -11.6 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 650 | 8.7 | 10.1 | -1.3 | -13.3 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 392 | 11.3 | 10.3 | 1.1 | 10.6 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 378 | 7.5 | 10.0 | -2.6 | -25.4 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 492 | 8.4 | 6.6 | 1.7 | 26.4 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 312 | 6.7 | 5.6 | 1.1 | 19.0 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 406 | 5.5 | 6.0 | -0.5 | -8.4 |
Among those using regular care arrangements in the past week, number of hours used |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 232 | 22.1 | 25.6 | ||
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 249 | 23.2 | 25.2 | ||
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 166 | 26.9 | 24.0 | ||
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 147 | 20.1 | 24.5 | ||
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 166 | 25.3 | 19.5 | ||
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 89 | 26.4 | 18.2 | ||
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 118 | 19.8 | 20.0 | ||
Any self-care in the past week (%) |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 578 | 10.1 | 9.8 | 0.3 | 3.1 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 649 | 9.5 | 9.7 | -0.3 | -2.6 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 392 | 10.8 | 11.6 | -0.8 | -6.9 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 375 | 12.8 | 11.5 | 1.3 | 11.6 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 477 | 9.8 | 8.5 | 1.3 | 15.9 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 304 | 8.2 | 4.9 | 3.2 | 65.1 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 396 | 5.7 | 5.2 | 0.5 | 10.2 |
Used a provider aged 17 or under in the main child care arrangement in the past week (%) |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 580 | 3.9 | 3.4 | 0.6 | 16.3 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 650 | 3.9 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 5.7 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 394 | 4.1 | 5.4 | -1.3 | -24.2 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 380 | 2.9 | 5.3 | -2.4 | -45.9 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 492 | 2.9 | 4.8 | -1.9 | -39.0 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 313 | 2.0 | 4.7 | -2.7 | -57.0 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 406 | 4.1 | 4.8 | -0.7 | -14.9 |
Main arrangement used in the past week was formal (%) |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 580 | 18.6 | 19.4 | -0.7 | -3.8 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 650 | 18.2 | 18.9 | -0.6 | -3.4 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 394 | 8.2 | 10.4 | -2.3 | -21.8 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 380 | 6.1 | 10.2 | -4.1 | -40.6 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 492 | 2.6 | 8.0 | -5.4** | -67.2 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 312 | 1.4 | 3.9 | -2.5 | -64.4 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 405 | 2.3 | 4.0 | -1.7 | -42.2 |
Main arrangement used in the past week was informal (%) |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 580 | 26.5 | 23.8 | 2.7 | 11.3 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 650 | 22.2 | 23.9 | -1.8 | -7.3 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 394 | 35.2 | 36.0 | -0.9 | -2.4 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 380 | 31.0 | 34.4 | -3.4 | -9.8 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 492 | 33.1 | 28.9 | 4.2 | 14.5 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 312 | 27.0 | 27.8 | -0.8 | -3.0 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 405 | 26.9 | 28.0 | -1.1 | -3.9 |
Reported child care as a barrier to school, job training, or work (%) |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 575 | 15.4 | 16.3 | -0.9 | -5.3 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 645 | 16.2 | 16.5 | -0.3 | -1.6 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 392 | 30.0 | 30.8 | -0.8 | -2.6 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 377 | 25.2 | 29.2 | -4.1 | -13.9 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 489 | 27.4 | 21.2 | 6.2 | 29.3 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 312 | 21.6 | 18.1 | 3.5 | 19.6 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 402 | 20.8 | 18.7 | 2.0 | 10.8 |
| SOURCE: Child Trends calculations from the Five-Year
Child Outcomes Study survey (mother reports). NOTES: See Appendix A.2. |
|||||
In sum, findings for control group families indicate use of child care by a minority, but a large one, of families even when the focus is limited to school-age children. When care was used, it involved a substantial portion of the children's day. These findings suggest that attention to the nature of children's child care arrangements should not cease with low-income children's entry into school.
There is no evidence on measures of child care use for the focal child in the past week that assignment to one of the LFA or HCD programs affected extent of reliance on child care arrangements at the time of the five-year follow-up. There were no impacts on families' use of a regularly scheduled child care arrangement or on sporadic use of child care in the past week. Total hours in child care across all regular arrangements did not differ in any of the LFA or HCD programs, nor did reliance on multiple arrangements.
There was very little evidence of a shift in type of arrangements relied upon. Notably, there were no program impacts on any use of self-care or on reliance on a child care provider aged 17 or under in the primary arrangement (but see the findings below on time spent with only a young peer or sibling when mothers reported time use on a recent weekday). Thus, there is no indication of an increase in reliance on these potentially problematic arrangements by LFA or HCD program group members when considering child care arrangements in the week prior to the interview.
With a single exception (the Riverside LFA program diminished reliance on formal child care), there were no impacts on use of formal and informal child care as the main arrangement.
Findings will now be presented for the measures of with whom the focal child spent his or her time on a recent weekday afternoon and evening. Because mothers were also asked to report whether the child was in a child care setting for this time period (child care in a center or program, child care by a babysitter, or care in either context on a drop-in basis), it is possible to directly juxtapose impacts on child care and impacts on mothers' reports of whom the child was with. For example, it will be possible to identify whether there were impacts on supervision (whom the child was with) even in the absence of impacts on measures of child care. This set of questions again addresses whether children spent time in self-care, here also asking about time spent with only a young peer or sibling (under age 13). Finally, this section reports on participation in activities or lessons (such as a sport, club, or music lesson) during after-school hours.(26) (See Table 10.3.)
| Site and Program | Sample Size | Program Group | Control Group | Difference (Impact) | Percentage Change (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of half-hour time periods spent with the mother (0-18 periods from 3 pm to midnight) |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 578 | 12.9 | 12.7 | 0.2 | 1.6 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 649 | 13.2 | 12.7 | 0.5 | 3.6 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 392 | 12.5 | 12.2 | 0.3 | 2.5 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 376 | 13.0 | 12.2 | 0.8 | 6.8 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 477 | 13.4 | 14.3 | -0.9* | -6.3 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 304 | 13.9 | 14.8 | -0.9* | -6.2 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 396 | 14.1 | 14.9 | -0.8* | -5.5 |
Number of half-hour time periods spent with an adult other than the mother (0-18 periods from 3 pm to midnight) |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 578 | 3.6 | 3.7 | -0.1 | -3.7 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 649 | 3.2 | 3.7 | -0.4 | -12.0 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 392 | 4.4 | 4.5 | -0.1 | -2.0 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 376 | 4.2 | 4.5 | -0.3 | -6.5 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 477 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 0.9** | 37.4 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 304 | 2.8 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 29.8 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 396 | 2.9 | 2.1 | 0.9* | 42.0 |
Any time spent without an adult present from 3 p.m. to midnight (%) |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 578 | 11.5 | 12.7 | -1.1 | -9.0 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 649 | 12.1 | 13.1 | -1.0 | -7.5 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 392 | 5.4 | 7.2 | -1.8 | -24.5 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 376 | 3.5 | 7.3 | -3.8 | -51.7 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 477 | 11.1 | 10.2 | 0.9 | 8.9 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 304 | 15.2 | 9.8 | 5.5 | 55.9 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 396 | 10.2 | 9.6 | 0.6 | 6.3 |
Number of half-hour time periods spent with only a young peer or sibling (under age 13, 0-18 periods from 3 pm to midnight) |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 578 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 2.9 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 649 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 7.4 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 392 | 0.8 | 0.9 | -0.2 | -17.2 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 376 | 0.5 | 0.9 | -0.4* | -39.4 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 477 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 24.0 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 304 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 30.5 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 396 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 11.7 |
Any time periods in child care (sitter, center or program, or drop-in child care) from 3 p.m. to midnight (%) |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 580 | 15.1 | 15.5 | -0.5 | -3.0 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 650 | 10.6 | 15.3 | -4.7* | -30.5 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 394 | 14.2 | 18.7 | -4.5 | -24.1 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 380 | 14.2 | 18.2 | -4.0 | -21.8 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 493 | 1.4 | 4.4 | -2.9* | -67.0 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 313 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 10.0 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 406 | 5.8 | 1.7 | 4.0** | 232.0 |
Any time periods in an activity or lesson from 3 p.m. to midnight (%) |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 580 | 8.2 | 8.4 | -0.2 | -2.3 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 650 | 7.5 | 8.5 | -1.0 | -11.2 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 394 | 3.9 | 6.1 | -2.3 | -37.0 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 380 | 5.8 | 5.5 | 0.3 | 5.3 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 493 | 2.8 | 6.0 | -3.2 | -53.2 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 313 | 1.8 | 5.5 | -3.7 | -67.8 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 406 | 2.2 | 4.9 | -2.6 | -54.1 |
| SOURCE: Child Trends calculations from the Five-Year
Child Outcomes Study survey (mother reports). NOTES: See Appendix A.2. |
|||||
There were virtually no impacts on any of these variables in the Grand Rapids and Atlanta programs. However, there was a cluster of findings for both programs in Riverside. They indicate a decrease in time with mother and an increase in time with an adult other than the mother in both programs. In the aggregate, none of the programs increased the proportion of children who spent time in after-school activities or who spent time unsupervised by an adult. For the subgroup of families in which the mother lacked basic education at baseline in Riverside, the LFA program increased the proportion of children who spent time without an adult present (though a sizable difference, this was just above the cutoff for significance). These findings are presented in greater detail below.
The LFA program: all families. For all families assigned to the LFA program in Riverside (irrespective of mothers' educational level at baseline), focal children in the program group spent significantly less time with their mothers and more time with an adult other than the mother. These impacts did not reflect large differences in amounts of time spent with the mother and another adult, however, averaging about a single half-hour less with the mother and about a single half-hour more with another adult.
This increase in time spent with another adult was reported in the absence of an impact on mothers' report of child care use during this period. The impact noted above on type of care for the Riverside LFA program can now be placed in a larger context. In this program, there was apparently a shift in type of care away from reliance on formal child care (detected in the measure of child care use in the past week) and toward reliance on another adult to supervise the child in a situation mothers did not describe as child care.
The LFA program: families in which the mother lacked a high school diploma or GED at baseline. For families in the LFA program in which the mother lacked a high school diploma or GED at baseline, the pattern was similar to that for all LFA families in that program group children spent less time with their mothers (with the difference in time periods again just under a single half-hour) and were less likely to be in a formal child care setting on a regular basis (though the difference in formal child care use was just above the cutoff for statistical significance in this sample). However, unlike those in the full LFA sample, children of mothers in the LFA program who lacked this credential at baseline did not spend more time with another adult. Rather, they were more likely than the control group and the HCD program group to have spent time without an adult present, though this sizable difference, comparable to impacts on other measures, was just above the cutoff for statistical significance. This is the one indication of a finding pointing to a program increasing self-care, and it is of concern that it occurs in a higher-risk subgroup.
The HCD program. Children of HCD program group members spent less time with the mother and more time with another adult than their control group counterparts. These differences also involved only about a single half-hour. However, children of HCD program group members were more likely than their control group counterparts to be in what the mother described as child care (including center or program care, a babysitter, or drop-in care in either setting). Indeed, children of mothers in the HCD program were also significantly more likely than children of mothers with limited education in the LFA program to be in child care on a recent weekday.
The clustering of impacts on measures of supervision and child care in the Riverside site is in accord with impacts on employment in the Child Outcomes Study sample. The measure of mothers' employment that is most closely aligned in terms of time frame is a survey measure of full-time employment at the time of the survey. Impacts on this measure were statistically significant only in the Riverside site and were moderate to large in size.(27) For families in the Riverside LFA program (irrespective of mothers' educational level at baseline), there was a difference of 11 percentage points in reported current full-time employment (40.6 percent of program group mothers and 29.6 percent of control group mothers reported current full-time employment) and the impact for those in the LFA program who lacked a high school diploma or GED was 15.5 percentage points (39.2 of program group members compared to 23.7 of control group members reporting employment). The impact for the Riverside HCD program was 9 percentage points (32.7 percent of program group mothers and 23.7 percent of control group mothers reported current full-time employment). Thus, the child care and activities findings correspond closely to impacts on concurrent employment, specifically full-time employment as reported by the mother, in the Riverside site.
Further impacts on adult outcomes in the Child Outcomes Study sample may also be relevant. At the time of the five-year follow-up, Riverside program group members were more likely than control group members to be cohabiting (significant for the full LFA group; not shown), to have a new baby (significant for the full LFA group and also for those in the LFA group lacking a high school diploma or GED at baseline),(28) and to be living with a partner or spouse as well as children (not shown). In the Riverside LFA group, program group children spent less time with the mother and more time with another adult (though not in the context of what the mother describes as child care). One interpretation of these findings is that program group children more often than control group children were cared for in their mother's absence by the mother's spouse or cohabiting partner.
[Go To Contents]
Impact findings for child care differed according to the time period considered. Across the five-year follow-up, most programs showed impacts on mother's reliance on child care while leaving welfare because of earnings, and several programs showed impacts on use of transitional child care benefits. However, for recent child care use, there were few impacts. Fortunately, this pattern of very few impacts on concurrent measures of child care and supervision includes the measures of self-care and being only with a young peer or sibling. Unfortunately, there is no indication here of the possibly salutary influence of participation in after-school activities and lessons.(29)
For recent child care, it is primarily when going beyond traditional measures of child care that a pattern emerged. When asking about whom the child was with on a recent weekday afternoon, findings indicated a slight shift away from time with the mother and toward time with another adult in both Riverside programs. In the LFA program, this was accompanied by diminished participation in formal child care as the primary arrangement.
In sum, in most of the programs the picture that emerges is of intermittent or weak impacts, captured best by measures across time and considering more than one child in a family. Only in Portland were impacts apparent for a recent spell of employment, and only in Riverside was there evidence for the focal child of impacts occurring on type of care and nature of supervision at the time of the final follow-up.(30)
What do these findings indicate regarding child care as a support for employment in these welfare-to-work programs? The fact that child care impacts mirrored the broad pattern of employment findings, of cumulative effects rather than widespread effects at the time of the final follow-up, suggests that child care use was broadly coordinated with employment, and often functioning to enable employment. Families with an employed mother using child care tended to have out-of-pocket expenses for child care. Yet there were few impacts on the use of transitional child care benefits, and overall use of these benefits was fairly low and quite variable across sites. There are several possible interpretations of this finding, including the possibilities that restrictions on the type of care that could be subsidized with these benefits, limited outreach and information about them provided by caseworkers, or the short period (one year) in which benefits could be used after moving from welfare limited families' abilities to make use of these benefits. Also, it is important to note that across sites there were differences in the types of child care that were encouraged and facilitated. For example, staff members in Atlanta encouraged use of formal child care by reimbursing welfare recipients only for use of licensed or certified care. In contrast, staff in Riverside encouraged informal child care arrangements by emphasizing that welfare recipients should choose child care that they would be able to afford once they were no longer eligible for benefits.
What of child care as a context for children's development? The findings here cannot reflect on the critical issue of child care quality, but do provide a picture of the extent of children's exposure to child care, type of care, use of self-care, and exposure to after-school activities and lessons. Findings generally do not point to elevations in potentially harmful forms of care such as self-care or care by a young caregiver, though findings may suggest the need to continue to monitor this issue. At the same time, they do not point to systematic increases in the possibly beneficial environments of after-school activities and lessons or in use of formal child care arrangements. Rather, children appear to have received an elevated "dose" of child care over time in most programs, but as indicated in the measures of recent child care, this dose does not appear to have been large or sustained in most programs. However, in Riverside (as in Portland) a few findings point to more sustained child care impacts. Some findings in the Riverside LFA program also point to a shift away from formal child care arrangements and toward informal care that the mother may not describe as a child care arrangement. Chapter 12 returns to the possibility that this pattern of child care impacts may help to explain impacts on child outcomes, with a particular focus on findings in the Riverside site, where the impacts extended to current supervision and child care, as well as type of care.
[Go To Contents]
1. Child care benefits may have changed over time, particularly after the 1996 welfare reform and consolidation of child care funding into the Child Care and Development Fund. A thorough review of these changes by site is beyond the scope of this chapter. Moreover, many sample members may not have remained eligible for child care assistance after 1996 since they were off welfare and had been off for some time.
2. Tout et al., 2001.
3. Tout et al. document differences by income level in reasons for child care use by nonemployed mothers, with employment preparation activities playing a larger role for lower-income families.
4. While some previous research suggests that participation in an organized after-school program can have favorable implications for the development of children in low-income families (Bos et al., 1999), these implications are likely to vary also by the quality of after-school care. The quality of child care arrangements has equally important implications for preschool-age children.
5. All impacts on leaving welfare because of earnings, on using child care after leaving welfare because of earnings, and on using transitional child care benefits are experimental. That is, all sample members are included in the analyses.
6. For ease of presentation, throughout this chapter child care during the most recent employment spell will simply be referred to as child care while employed.
7. There are 13,726 children in the Five-Year Client Survey sample: the sample in four sites (Atlanta, Grand Rapids, Riverside, and Portland) for whom there are interviews as well as administrative data (see Chapter 2). Of these children, 6 percent were aged 2 or under at baseline (about 5 to 7 at follow-up), 25 percent were aged 3 to 5 at baseline (about 8 to 10 at follow-up), 22 percent were aged 6 to 9 at baseline (about 11 to 14 at follow-up), and 33 percent were aged 10 to 18 at baseline (about 15 to 23 at follow-up). Approximately 11 percent were born into the families participating in the client survey sample between baseline and the five-year follow-up and another 2 percent did not have their birthdays reported. For more information about the percentage of families containing children born after random assignment, see Chapter 9 of this report. Those who did not have their birthdays reported were included in the all-child analyses but excluded from analyses focusing on age subgroups. The child care measures linking child care and employment focus on children who were under age 13 at the time that the child care was used.
8. See the discussion of control group exposure to new policies in Chapter 1.
9. Tout et al., 2001.
10. For example, findings from the 1997 National Survey of American Families indicate that 55 percent of children aged 6 to 9 and 35 percent of those aged 10 to 12 with employed mothers were in a supervised nonparental child care arrangement (Capizzano, Tout, and Adams, 2000).
11. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2000.
12. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2000; Vandell and Wolfe, 2000
13. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2000; see also U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995. The NICHD findings suggest that extensive participation in formal child care arrangements may also simultaneously increase children's externalizing behavior problems.
14. Zaslow et al., 1998; Zaslow et al., 1999b.
15. In the analyses presented here, formal care included care in a day care center, before- or after-school care sponsored by a school or church, summer camp, a boys'/girls' club, YMCA/YWCA, or a lesson/activity. Informal care included care by the mother's spouse/partner, a relative, or a neighbor.
16. Type of care is more appropriately studied through interview measures than quality of care, which is best studied through direct observation. The interview methodology of the NEWWS Evaluation thus better addresses the issue of type of care than quality of care. The lack of direct observation of child care quality is a clear limitation in this chapter.
17. Capizzano, Tout, and Adams, 2000.
18. Capizzano, Tout, and Adams, 2000.
19. Bos et al., 1999
20. See Chapter 1 for a discussion of these differences.
21. The impact in the Grand Rapids HCD program on using child care after leaving welfare for earnings was significant at the p = .19 level.
22. The impact on receipt of transitional child care benefits is significant at the p = 0.11 level for the Grand Rapids LFA program and at the p = 0.15 level for the HCD program.
23. The total monthly out-of-pocket cost of child care was $225 ($114 divided by 0.507, or the proportion of the sample who used child care while employed) for program group members and $142 for control group members. This is a nonexperimental comparison.
24. Although there were no impacts in the aggregate in Portland, there were increases in employment in the last quarter of year 5 and in full-time employment for families who had preschool-age and young school-age children at baseline.
25. See Capizzano, Tout, and Adams, 2000.
26. Results are summarized in terms of the number of half-hour periods (out of a possible 18) between 3 P.M. and midnight on the chosen weekday that a child was with someone or engaging in a particular care situation or activity. Where distributions were limited, results are summarized instead in terms of the proportion of children for whom this companion or activity was reported at all.
27. See Appendix I.
28. See Appendix I
29. As noted above, while findings of one recent evaluation suggest that participation in after-school child care can be beneficial for children from low-income families, implications for children are likely to vary with the quality of care.
30. The information collected in Atlanta, Grand Rapids, and Riverside on child care and child activities on a recent weekday was not collected in Portland.
Home Pages:
National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies
(NEWWS)
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
(ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)