Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
Chapter Five: Determinants of Child Care Modal Choice
For families that have decided to use non-parental care while the mother works, a further decision must be made about the kind of care arrangement they will use. While there are many dimensions to child care arrangements, it is reasonable to think about the choice among modes in terms of three sequential decisions (Exhibit 5.1):
-
Will care be provided by someone who is related to the child?33
-
If the caregiver is not related, will care be in the child’s own home?
-
If the caregiver is not related, and care is not in the child’s own home, will care be in a home-based setting (non-relative family child care)—or alternatively, in a child care center?
A large literature exists on the process by which parents choose among child care options (see review by Burstein and Hiller, 1999). A stylized view of the process is shown in Exhibit 5.2, in which the chosen mode of care is determined on the one hand by parental attitudes and values about child care, and on the other hand by constraints such as whether there are any relatives living in the same household or nearby, family income, and an irregular or nonstandard work schedule.34 Furthermore, parental attitudes and values can be thought of as influenced by such exogenous family characteristics as mother’s education, age of child, and ethnicity, while the likelihood of relatives living in the home or nearby is also affected by ethnicity. Though not shown on the diagram, maternal education could also affect whether relatives live nearby, through its effects on mobility.
Nineteen studies of the determinants of child care modal choice were critically reviewed in an earlier report on this project (Burstein and Hiller, 1999). These previous studies specified modal choice in a wide variety of ways, including formal versus informal, paid versus unpaid, relative versus non-relative, single versus multiple settings, center versus all other, care at home versus care at another home versus center-based care, and so on. Among the substantive findings of that review were that:
[D] |
[D] |
-
Higher levels of maternal education were generally found to be associated with choice of center-based care or paid care, even after controlling for income and/or mother’s employment.
-
Age of the child was associated with choice of center-based care or paid care. Usually these options were found to be chosen more frequently for older children, but one study noted that children aged 3 to 5 were more likely to be in center care than either older or younger children (Lehrer and Kawaski 1985).
-
The presence of husbands, older siblings, or other relatives in the household consistently and positively predicted choice of unpaid care, non-center based care, or care by relatives.
-
A negative relationship was found between the number of children in the family and the likelihood of choosing center-based care or paid care.
-
Blacks were more likely than Whites or Hispanics to use center care or paid care. Hispanics were more likely to choose relative care or family child care.
-
Several studies found that higher income predicted greater use of center-based care. One study (Fuller et al., 1996) found that for Blacks and Hispanics, increasing income caused first a decrease and then an increase in the likelihood of using center care(perhaps reflecting the effect of subsidies for very low-income Blacks and Hispanics.
-
As prices increased, the likelihood of each child care mode being chosen decreased.
We anticipated, and generally found, similar relationships.
Subsidy Receipt and Child Care Modal Choice
Child care subsidies lower the price of care for families that receive them. Subsidized parents pay co-payments plus any additional charges from providers. Since subsidies lower the price of care for recipients, some researchers have estimated the effects of subsidies by modeling how lowering or raising the price of care will affect the type of care a family selects. These studies found that subsidies that reduce the effective price of formal care (centers and family child care homes) will lead to an increase in the use of these forms of care and a decrease in the use of care by relatives. Similarly, subsidies that lower the price of center-based care will increase the use of centers and decrease the use of family child care by families receiving such subsidies. The problem with this line of research is that the models assume everyone receives a subsidy; they do not take into consideration the low take-up rate for child care subsidies and all the factors that affect parents’ decisions to apply for child care subsidies. Subsidies can only affect the choice of care arrangements for those families that actually receive a subsidy. In addition, while this research may show the potential relationships between subsidies and types of care selected, it does not illuminate the direction of the relationship: i.e., does the use of subsidies result in the use of center-based care, or does formal care use result in subsidy use?
To address this gap in the literature, the study directly examined the effects of subsidy receipt on the type of care chosen, using a subset of data on families that were receiving subsidies at the time of the interview. The initial analyses showed that both subsidy application and receipt were strongly correlated with the type of care used. However, the observed relationship could occur for one of two reasons: either subsidies caused families to select a mode of care or the selection of a particular mode of care caused families to use subsidies. In the first scenario, families choose a more formal and more expensive form of care and then apply for a subsidy to help pay for it. They may apply for the subsidies because they hear about them from their providers, who may be more likely to know about subsidies than would relatives and neighbors. They also may be more willing to apply for subsidies than families who use less expensive care; co-payments often are the same regardless of the price of care, so the size of the co-payments for some families may be much more than the cost of relative care and other informal care. In the other scenario, a family applies for subsidies without a specific arrangement in mind, and then shops for care. The family finds that, with the additional purchasing power of the subsidy, center care is affordable so it is selected. If the family had not received a subsidy, it might have selected less expensive, and therefore less formal care. Exhibit 5.3 shows the alternative logic models.
[D] |
To identify the more likely of the two scenarios, the study considered the role played by parental considerations in choosing child care. The survey in Child Care for Low-Income Families included a set of variables that indicated parents’ priorities in choosing a child care arrangement for their child: relationship with the provider, child’s cognitive development, safety, and so on. Research shows that these variables are powerful predictors of the type of care that a family chooses. If subsidy receipt determines the type of care selected, then the path of causation would be closer to Model 2 — parents would first apply for a subsidy, the value of the subsidy would be part of the mix of their considerations about the type of child care preferred, and then they would choose and use a mode of care. On the other hand, parental considerations might lead a parent to choose a specific form of care. For example, parents of a preschool child might prefer a center-based arrangement because they were concerned that the child be prepared for school. The selection of an arrangement might then lead them to apply for and receive a subsidy (Logic Model 1).
Multiple regression analyses that included subsidy and parent preferences found both to be significant. Both scenarios were then tested through analyses that included and then excluded parent preferences. The analyses supported the logic of Model 1, and provide evidence that subsidy receipt does not significantly affect the type of care chosen by families that receive subsidies. Instead, it is more likely that parents first decide on the mode of care, and are not influenced in this choice by whether or not they receive a subsidy.
In the sections that follow, we summarize the findings, and then present the results of descriptive and multivariate analyses of child care modal choice. For each of the three decisions (relative versus non-relative care, in-home versus out-of-home non-relative care, and non-relative family child care versus center care), we first show the proportions of families making the decision within various complementary subgroups (by age of focus child, ethnicity, mother’s education, and so on). This enables us to make simple descriptive statements, such as “the prevalence of relative care is no different for children whose mothers were born in the United States than for children whose mothers were born abroad.” We then present effects from a multivariate logistic model of child care choice. The impacts estimated in these models correspond to the full effects of each variable, both direct and through their influence on parental attitudes. This analysis supports a different kind of statement, for example that low-income immigrant families are substantially less likely to use relative care, when we hold maternal education and other things constant.
Sample sizes did not permit estimation of separate models by age or ethnicity of focus child. Interaction terms were included to allow exploration of the hypothesis that ethnic differences in child care choices varied by age of child. It was deemed that effects of other determinants could reasonably be treated as simply additive with those of child’s age and ethnicity.
Additional details, including issues of estimation and the estimated coefficients of the logistic models, are found in Appendix B.
Summary of Findings
Among the most interesting findings regarding the determinants of child care modal choice are the differences between the bivariate and multivariate analyses. The multivariate analyses do not supersede the descriptive comparisons so much as illuminate them. We therefore describe both sets below, highlighting the distinctions.
The existence of local and regional differences in the types of child care that parents choose has been documented, although not explained, in many studies. Availability of child care options may depend on social, geographic, and other factors. For example, absence of relatives or social networks may increase the likelihood of choosing more expensive forms of care. Center-based care is less likely to be available in rural areas. There may be localized shortages or surpluses of some kinds of care in a given neighborhood. Almost all earlier studies included as predictors of modal choice demographic variables that reflected the availability of relatives and/or social networks; several studies also used predictors to capture regional variation or the urban/rural distinction (Blau & Robins, 1991; Folk & Beller, 1993; Hofferth & Wissoker, 1992; Johansen et al., 1996; Michaelopoulos et al., 1992; Ribar, 1992).
Our analyses also show that families in urban and rural communities make different choices about child care, as do families in different regions of the country. In some cases these differences are apparently due to the geographic setting itself, but in other cases the differences are due to the types of families living in each setting.
For example, relative care was chosen more often by families living in rural communities and in the West than by families living in urban communities and other parts of the country. When family characteristics are taken into account, however, the regional differences shrink to a few percentage points and the rural/urban difference is only marginally significant. On the other hand, the high concentration of in-home nonrelative care in the Northeast still holds in a multivariate analysis. Similarly, we find that the choice of center care over family child care is prevalent in urban communities and the South, in both bivariate and multivariate analyses.
Below, we summarize findings about other factors that are related to parental child care decisions.
Use of Relative versus Non-Relative Care by Low-Income Families
-
Care by a relative was more likely to be chosen for infants, toddlers, and school-aged children than for preschoolers. Black and Hispanic families tended to choose relative care more often than White families. Relative care was more prevalent among families with adult relatives in the household or living nearby, and less prevalent among families whose households include unrelated adults. Mothers with less formal education and who did not have regular work schedules were also more likely to choose relative care.
-
Many, but not all, of these findings hold up in a multivariate context. The differences in care arrangements for infants and toddlers versus preschoolers are evidently explained by differing parental attitudes about desirable characteristics of child care arrangements depending on the child’s age. Similarly, the differences between mothers with more or less formal education disappear in a multivariate context when parental attitudes towards child care are taken into account. Conversely, differences emerge between mothers born in the United States and abroad, with immigrant status strongly predicting use of nonrelative care.
-
The preference of minority parents for the use of relative care was concentrated entirely among parents of children who are not preschoolers.
-
An interesting sidelight emerging from the multivariate analysis is that parents of a preschooler were more likely to put their other children in non-relative care, presumably to keep the children together in the setting that is preferred for the preschooler.
-
Parental considerations that strongly predict use of relative care are cost and commonalities with provider. Considerations that equally strongly predict use of non-relative care are practical ones such as location, transportation, hours when care is needed, etc., provider qualities, and child’s cognitive development.
In-Home versus Out-of-Home Care by a Non-Relative
-
The characteristics that distinguish families that select in-home care by a non-relative from families that use more formal types of care are similar to those that distinguish users of relative care from users of non-relative care. Like children in relative care, children cared for in their own homes by a non-relative were more likely to be infants and school-aged children and similarly, their mothers had less formal education and tended not to be working regular hours. This mode was especially likely to be chosen by families with many children and with an unrelated adult in the household possibly the caregiver.
-
The multivariate analysis confirms that infants and school-aged children were more likely to be cared for in their own home by a non-relative than toddlers or preschoolers, and that families with more children were especially likely to use this mode of care. The effect of mother’s work schedule remains, but the effect of maternal education vanishes when other characteristics are taken into account.
-
Parental considerations that increase the likelihood of choosing in-home non-relative care included cost and commonalities with provider. Parents who placed a high value on the child’s cognitive development were less likely to choose in-home non-relative care.
Family Child Care versus Center Care
-
For children in care outside the home by a non-relative, preschoolers were substantially more likely to be in center care than children of other ages. Families that chose family child care over center care were more likely to be Hispanic, to have many children, and to be headed by two parents. Mothers who chose family child care tended to have less formal education. Immigrants were very likely to choose family child care.
-
The multivariate results are quite similar to the bivariate comparisons. In particular, the effect of mother’s education remains, even when taking other characteristics into account. Parental considerations that encourage the use of family child care include cost, safety, provider qualities, and commonalities with provider. Center care was more often chosen by parents who emphasized the child’s cognitive development as an important consideration.
Relative versus Non-Relative Child Care
We began the analysis by examining the use of relative versus non-relative care in various sectors of the low-income population that use non-parental care (Exhibit 5.4). Overall, there is nearly a 50-50 split in the sample. Marked divergences can be seen, however, for many subgroups.
| Non-Relative Care (percent) | Relative Care (percent) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| All families | 50.4 | 49.6 | |
| By age of focus child | Infant | 49.3 | 50.7 |
| Toddler | 52.6 | 47.4 | |
| Preschooler | 61.2 | 38.8 | |
| School-aged | 46.2 | 53.8 | |
| By ethnicity | White | 56.9 | 43.1 |
| Black | 48.7 | 51.3 | |
| Hispanic | 43.0 | 57.0 | |
| By mother’s education | Not a high school graduate | 44.9 | 55.1 |
| High school graduate | 48.4 | 51.6 | |
| Some college | 55.9 | 44.1 | |
| By mother’s country of birth | United States | 50.0 | 50.0 |
| Other | 51.6 | 48.4 | |
| By number of children in household | 1 | 50.6 | 49.4 |
| 2 | 52.2 | 47.8 | |
| 3 | 46.7 | 53.3 | |
| 4 or more | 48.8 | 51.2 | |
| By presence of mother’s spouse/partner in household | Absent | 49.3 | 50.7 |
| Present | 52.0 | 48.0 | |
| By presence of other adult relatives in household | Absent | 54.3 | 45.7 |
| Present | 33.8 | 66.2 | |
| By presence of unrelated adults in household | Absent | 49.9 | 50.1 |
| Present | 58.8 | 41.2 | |
| By presence of relatives living nearby | Absent | 61.9 | 38.1 |
| Present | 41.6 | 58.4 | |
| By mother’s work schedule | Working irregular hours | 49.7 | 50.3 |
| Working regular hours | 56.9 | 43.1 | |
| In school or training | 43.6 | 56.5 | |
| By household income | Under FPL | 48.4 | 51.6 |
| 100% FPL to 185% FPL | 52.2 | 47.8 | |
| Between 185% and 200% FPL | 53.6 | 46.4 | |
| By recent TANF receipt | Some | 50.1 | 49.9 |
| None | 50.4 | 49.6 | |
| By urban/rural | Urban | 53.4 | 46.6 |
| Rural | 46.3 | 53.7 | |
| By region | Northeast | 58.5 | 41.5 |
| South | 51.6 | 48.4 | |
| Midwest | 56.3 | 43.7 | |
| West | 42.5 | 57.5 | |
By family demographics: Preschoolers were much less likely to be in relative care than other age groups. Black families were somewhat more likely and Hispanic families substantially more likely to choose relative care than White families. Families whose mothers had less formal education were also more likely to choose relative care. Virtually no difference was seen with regard to whether the mother was born outside the United States.
By household composition: Families with more children tended to be more likely to choose relative care. While little difference was seen with regard to single mothers versus couples, the presence of other adult relatives in the home or living nearby strongly increased the likelihood of families using relative care. Presence of an unrelated adult substantially reduced the likelihood of using relative care.
By employment and income: Mothers who worked irregular hours, and especially mothers who were in school or training, were more likely to use relative care than mothers who were working regular hours. Little difference was seen with regard to household income; there was a slight tendency, however, to decrease use of relative care as income rose in this range. (Recall that all households in the sample had annual income under 200 percent of poverty. The income measure shown here is total household income for the preceding month, which may exceed that cutoff.) TANF receipt does not differentiate families with regard to use of relative care.
By geographic setting: Relative care was more common in rural than in urban areas. Among regions, relative care was most prevalent in the West, and least prevalent in the Northeast and Midwest.
All of these differences represent simple contrasts between complementary subgroups of the population without controlling for any differences between them. By and large the results conform to expectations and previous research. That is, relative care was more likely to be chosen by nonwhite families, by mothers with less formal education, by mothers of infants and school-aged children, by larger families, by families with adult relatives in the household or living nearby, and by mothers working irregular hours.
The results from the logistic model were largely similar (Exhibit 5.5; see Exhibit B.1 for the regression equations). When other family characteristics were taken into account, the choice between relative and non-relative care was still significantly determined by the age of the focal child, household composition, and race and ethnicity, in the same direction. In particular:
-
Other things being equal, school-aged children were substantially more likely to be in relative care than preschoolers, the reference category (+11 percentage points).
-
The presence of a preschooler sibling tended to pull the focal child out of relative care.
Infants, toddlers, and school-aged children with preschool-age siblings were significantly less likely to be in relative care than other non-preschoolers (–12 percentage points). -
Black and Hispanic preschoolers were no more likely to be cared for by relatives than White preschoolers; but Black and Hispanic infants, toddlers, and school-aged children were significantly more likely to be cared for by relatives than their White counterparts (+7 to +9 percentage points).
-
The presence in the household of the child’s grandparents or great-grandparents, or aunts or uncles, or having relatives living nearby, increased the likelihood of using relative care markedly (+23 percentage points, +13 percentage points, +19 percentage points, respectively).
-
Conversely, the presence of unrelated adults in the household substantially reduced the likelihood of using relative care (–17 percentage points).
| Marginal Impact (percentage points) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Age of focus child (reference category: preschooler) | Infant | +4.6 |
| Toddler | +1.6 | |
| School-aged | +11.1* | |
| Age of siblings | Preschooler with infant, toddler, school-aged sibling | +3.4 |
| Infant, toddler, school-aged with preschooler sibling | -12.0*** | |
| Ethnicity and age of focus child | Black preschooler | -3.9 |
| Black infant, toddler, school-aged | +7.2* | |
| Hispanic preschooler | +3.4 | |
| Hispanic infant, toddler, school-aged | +8.8** | |
| Mother’s education (reference category: high school graduate) | Not a high school graduate | +1.0 |
| Some college | -3.6 | |
| Mother born outside United States | -11.1*** | |
| Other adult relatives in household | Mother's spouse/partner | +4.4 |
| Child's grandparent(s)/great-grandparent(s) | +23.0*** | |
| Child's aunt(s)/uncle(s) | +13.0*** | |
| Other relatives | +5.8 | |
| Relatives living nearby | +19.4*** | |
| Unrelated adults in household | -16.6*** | |
| Mother’s work schedule (reference category: regular hours) | Irregular hours | +9.6*** |
| In school or training | +11.9*** | |
| Household income as percent of FPL | -1.5 | |
| Recent TANF receipt | +4.0 | |
| Parent’s considerations in choosing child care | Cost | +17.4*** |
| Convenience | -11.4*** | |
| Safety | +1.1 | |
| Provider qualities | -11.2*** | |
| Child's cognitive development | -37.0*** | |
| Commonalities with provider | +36.3*** | |
| Geographic setting (reference categories: urban, Northeast) | Rural | +5.2* |
| South | -2.2 | |
| Midwest | -2.5 | |
| West | +2.9 | |
| Note: *** statistically significant at the 1 percent level. ** statistically significant at the 5 percent level. * statistically significant at the 10 percent level. |
The logistic model also indicates that mothers who worked irregular hours or who were in school or training were more likely to choose relative care than those who work regular hours. Even though the magnitude of the impacts is similar (+10 and +12 percentage points, respectively) the reasons for doing so might differ between the two categories. Mothers working irregular hours might be on shiftwork, for which non-relative care might not be available. Mothers who are in school or training might not be able to afford to pay for care. They are also even less likely to need regular hours of child are and to avail themselves of the formal market.
The model also includes six indicators for considerations that mothers felt were important in choosing their current child care arrangement. This set of variables had a powerful effect on the likelihood of choosing relative care.
-
Mothers for whom the child’s cognitive development and school readiness were important considerations were substantially less likely to choose relative care than those who do not ((37 percentage points).
-
Mothers who stressed practical considerations or provider qualities were also less likely to choose relative care than their counterparts ((11 percentage points for each).
-
Mothers for whom commonalities with the provider were important on the other hand, were much more likely to choose relative care (+36 percentage points), and those who cited cost as a primary consideration were also more likely to choose relative care than those who do not (+17 percentage points).
The inclusion of these variables explains away several marked effects seen in the bivariate comparisons, and helps bring a hidden effect to light. Most interestingly, in the multivariate context the age of the focus child is not nearly as strongly associated with use of relative care. The mechanical reason for this result is that parental considerations are very highly correlated with the child’s age. For example, developmental considerations were mentioned as important by the mothers of 32 percent of preschoolers, but only 12 to 21 percent of infants, toddlers, and school-aged children (Exhibit 5.6). Conversely, the importance of commonalities with provider was mentioned by only 29 percent of preschoolers’ mothers, compared with 34 to 40 percent of mothers of infants, toddlers, and school-aged children. We infer that preschoolers are more likely to be placed in non-relative care because mothers of preschoolers are more concerned about cognitive development, while mothers of infants, toddlers, and school-aged children are more concerned about safety and commonalities with the provider.
| Considerations | Age of focus child | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1-2 | 3-4 | 5-12 | |
| Cost | 26% | 25% | 28% | 30% |
| Practical, logistical concerns | 37% | 41% | 39% | 42% |
| Safety | 62% | 58% | 45% | 49% |
| Provider qualities | 33% | 29% | 36% | 29% |
| Cognitive development | 12% | 21% | 32% | 16% |
| Commonalities with provider | 40% | 34% | 29% | 36% |
Another difference between the descriptive and multivariate analyses is that mother’s education was no longer a significant determinant of choice of relative versus nonrelative care. Formal education evidently influences this choice through its association with parental attitudes towards child care.
A third interesting divergence between Exhibits 5.4 and 5.5 pertains to women who have immigrated to the United States. In the multivariate context, such women were significantly less likely to choose relative care after controlling for ethnicity, education, and child care preferences—all of which are correlated with immigrant status. The multivariate analysis appears to disentangle the positive impact on the use of relative care associated with being Hispanic, having lower levels of education, and putting a greater value on commonalities with the provider, from the negative impact associated with being born outside the United States. These mothers’ use of non-relative care can be attributed in part to their immigrant status per se –that is, that the adult relatives they have in this country are more likely to be recent immigrants themselves, and employed outside the home rather than available to provide child care.
Determinants of Use of In-home versus Out-of-home Non-Relative Child Care
The use of in-home, non-relative care among the low-income population may be a cost-effective alternative to other forms of non-relative care (family child care or center care), especially if there are multiple children in the household. For low-income families, this form of child care is typically provided by a neighbor who comes to the mother’s home (a “baby sitter”), by contrast with higher income families, whose in-home caregiver is likely to be from a different community (a “nanny”). This type of care has the advantage of great flexibility: the family can arrange and pay for only the hours that are needed.
Among all low-income mothers who use non-relative care, we find that only a small proportion, 12 percent, chose in-home care by a non-relative. We also find that the percentage of mothers who used this form of care varied within many of the subgroups shown in Exhibit 5.7, as described below.
| In-Home Care (percent) | Out-of-Home Care (percent) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| All families using non-relative care | 11.6 | 88.4 | |
| By age of focus child | Infant | 19.1 | 80.9 |
| Toddler | 8.4 | 91.6 | |
| Preschooler | 3.8 | 96.2 | |
| School-aged | 14.9 | 85.1 | |
| By ethnicity | White | 13.0 | 87.1 |
| Black | 9.7 | 90.4 | |
| Hispanic | 12.5 | 87.5 | |
| By mother’s education | Not a high school graduate | 17.7 | 82.3 |
| High school graduate | 11.9 | 88.1 | |
| Some college | 8.2 | 91.8 | |
| By mother’s country of birth | United States | 11.1 | 88.9 |
| Other | 13.6 | 86.4 | |
| By number of children in household | 1 | 10.6 | 89.5 |
| 2 | 10.4 | 89.6 | |
| 3 | 12.2 | 87.8 | |
| 4 or more | 23.3 | 76.7 | |
| By presence of mother’s spouse/partner in household | Absent | 11.7 | 88.3 |
| Present | 11.5 | 88.6 | |
| By presence of unrelated adults in household | Absent | 11.3 | 88.7 |
| Present | 16.9 | 83.1 | |
| By mother’s work schedule | Working irregular hours | 12.7 | 87.3 |
| Working regular hours | 6.3 | 93.7 | |
| In school or training | 16.8 | 83.2 | |
| By household income | Under FPL | 12.2 | 87.8 |
| 100% FPL to 185% FPL | 11.0 | 89.0 | |
| Over 185% FPL | 9.5 | 90.5 | |
| By recent TANF receipt | Some | 11.2 | 88.8 |
| None | 11.7 | 88.3 | |
| By urban/rural | Urban | 10.6 | 89.4 |
| Rural | 13.1 | 86.9 | |
| By region | Northeast | 22.0 | 78.0 |
| South | 9.9 | 90.1 | |
| Midwest | 14.0 | 86.0 | |
| West | 9.6 | 90.4 | |
By family demographics: Among families that use non-relative care, use of in-home care was much more prevalent for infants and school-aged children than for toddlers and preschoolers. Furthermore, mothers lacking a high school diploma were more than twice as likely to use this form of care as mothers with some college education. There do not appear to be substantial differences among families of different ethnicities, although Blacks were somewhat less likely than Whites and Hispanics to use in-home care. Mothers who were born outside the United States were similar to those born in the United States with respect to use of this mode, conditional on using non-relative care.
By household composition: Families with four or more children were about twice as likely as other families to use in-home non-relative care. And while there was practically no difference in the use of in-home non-relative care between mothers with and without a spouse or partner present, the presence of another unrelated adult (possibly the caregiver) was associated with a greater likelihood that a mother will choose in-home relative care.
By employment and income: Mothers who worked regular hours were less than half as likely to choose in-home versus out-of-home non-relative care as mothers who worked irregular hours or who were in school or training. Mothers with incomes below the Federal Poverty Level were more likely to choose in-home non-relative care compared with other low-income mothers, but the difference was slight. Recent TANF recipients were as likely to use in-home non-relative child care as other groups.
By geographic setting: Among users of non-relative care, in-home care was about as frequent in urban as in rural settings. Mothers living in the southern and western regions of the country were similar to each other in their use of in-home non-relative care, and were less likely than mothers living in the Northeast or Midwest to use in-home non-relative care.
These differences resemble those seen between families choosing between relative and non-relative care. The more informal type of care (in this case, in-home) was preferred by mothers with less formal education and those not working regular hours. In-home care was especially attractive to families with more children and with an unrelated adult living in the household—a potential caregiver.35
As mentioned in the previous section, the percentages shown in Exhibit 5.7 do not control for confounding factors that might determine the use of in-home non-relative care. In order to determine the marginal effects of family characteristics, we estimated a multivariate logistic regression model similar to the one presented in the previous section, restricting the sample to households using non-relative care. We exclude the indicators for the presence of relatives in the household or living nearby, since these are not expected to be relevant in choosing between types of non-relative care. The model appears in full in Exhibit B.2.
For the most part, the regression results (Exhibit 5.8) confirm the relationships shown in Exhibit 5.7.
-
Infants and school-aged children were significantly more likely to receive in-home non-relative care than preschoolers, the reference groups (+7 to +8 percentage points).
-
The probability of using in-home non-relative care increased significantly with the number of children present in the household (+1 percentage point per child).
-
Mothers who were working irregular hours or in school or training were more likely to use in-home non-relative care, compared with those who were working regular hours (+5 percentage points for each).
-
Mothers living in the South, Midwest, and West were significantly less likely to use in-home versus out-of-home non-relative care compared with those living in the Northeast (–4 to –7 percentage points).
| Marginal impact (percentage points) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Age of focus child (reference category: preschooler) | Infant | +7.8** |
| Toddler | +3.7 | |
| School-aged | +7.4*** | |
| Number of children in household | +1.3** | |
| Ethnicity and age of focus child | Black toddler, preschooler | -1.2 |
| Black infant, school-aged | -2.6 | |
| Hispanic toddler, preschooler | -5.6 | |
| Hispanic infant, school-aged | -1.5 | |
| Mother’s education (reference category: high school graduate) | Not a high school graduate | +2.6 |
| Some college | -2.1 | |
| Mother born outside United States | +1.7 | |
| Household includes mother's spouse/partner | +0.5 | |
| Unrelated adults in household | +3.0 | |
| Mother’s work schedule (reference category: regular hours) | Irregular hours | +5.4*** |
| In school or training | +5.2** | |
| Household income as percent of FPL | +0.9 | |
| Recent TANF receipt | -0.4 | |
| Parent’s considerations in choosing child care | Cost | +5.3*** |
| Convenience | -1.8 | |
| Safety | -0.1 | |
| Provider qualities | -1.6 | |
| Child's cognitive development | -9.3*** | |
| Commonalities with provider | +5.0*** | |
| Geographic setting (reference categories: urban, Northeast) | Rural | +0.9 |
| South | -6.8*** | |
| Midwest | -4.2** | |
| West | -5.8*** | |
| Note: *** statistically significant at the 1 percent level. ** statistically significant at the 5 percent level. * statistically significant at the 10 percent level. |
Parental considerations also play a role in choosing the child care arrangement. It appears that:
-
Mothers who were concerned about cost or those who cited the importance of the commonalities with the provider were more likely to use in-home, non-relative care (+5 percentage points each).
-
Mothers who cited the importance of child development and school readiness were significantly less likely to use in-home, non-relative care ((9 percentage points).
The relationship between the bivariate and multivariate analyses for this choice is similar to that for the choice between relative and non-relative care. The effects of differences in children’s ages are less pronounced in the multivariate model than in the bivariate comparisons, because the parental attitudes indicators are partially responsible for the effects of children’s age in this choice. Similarly, the effect of maternal education is entirely explained by parental considerations.
Determinants of Use of Non-Relative Family Child Care versus Center Care
Among families that use out-of-home non-relative care, slightly more than half chose center care. As in the previous sections, we first examined the percentage of mothers in each mode of care, stratified by a series of demographic and economic characteristics. Then we estimated a multivariate logistic regression model (see Exhibit B.3) that included these stratifiers as controls, together with a set of six parental considerations. In this section, the sample is restricted to children in out-of-home non-relative care.
By family demographics: Among children in non-relative care, preschoolers were less likely to be in family child care, compared with infants, toddlers, and school-aged children. Hispanic families were much more likely than White and Black families to use family child care (Exhibit 5.9). Mothers with lower levels of education are more likely to use family child care, as were mothers who were not born in the United States.
By household composition: Families with four or more children were relatively more likely to use family child care versus center care. Mothers with a spouse or partner were more likely to use family child care.
| Family Child Care | Center Care | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| All families using non-relative care | 44.6 | 55.5 | |
| By age of focus child | Infant | 52.7 | 47.3 |
| Toddler | 42.8 | 57.2 | |
| Preschooler | 34.2 | 65.8 | |
| School-aged | 49.0 | 51.0 | |
| By ethnicity | White | 38.0 | 62.0 |
| Black | 38.6 | 61.4 | |
| Hispanic | 64.1 | 35.9 | |
| By mother’s education | Not a high school graduate | 56.0 | 44.0 |
| High school graduate | 42.5 | 57.5 | |
| Some college | 40.8 | 59.2 | |
| By mother’s country of birth | United States | 39.8 | 60.2 |
| Other | 71.2 | 28.8 | |
| By number of children in household | 1 | 42.3 | 57.7 |
| 2 | 44.2 | 55.8 | |
| 3 | 45.2 | 54.9 | |
| 4 or more | 61.7 | 38.3 | |
| By presence of mother’s spouse/partner in household | Absent | 40.7 | 59.3 |
| Present | 50.5 | 49.6 | |
| By mother’s work schedule | Working irregular hours | 45.5 | 54.6 |
| Working regular hours | 40.1 | 59.9 | |
| In school or training | 49.6 | 50.4 | |
| By household income | Under FPL | 46.8 | 53.2 |
| 100% FPL to 185% FPL | 42.0 | 58.0 | |
| Over 185% FPL | 49.4 | 50.6 | |
| By recent TANF receipt | Some | 46.2 | 53.8 |
| None | 44.8 | 55.2 | |
| By urban/rural | Urban | 40.7 | 59.3 |
| Rural | 50.6 | 49.4 | |
| By region | Northeast | 52.6 | 47.5 |
| South | 31.3 | 68.7 | |
| Midwest | 53.6 | 46.4 | |
| West | 62.2 | 37.8 | |
By employment and income: Mothers who worked regular hours were more likely to choose center care over family child care compared with those working irregular hours or those in school or training. Income and TANF receipt do not appear to be significant factors in the choice between family child care and center care.
By geographic setting: Center care was substantially more common among urban families than among rural families using out-of-home non-relative care. Mothers who lived in the South were much more likely to choose center care over family child care relative to those living in other areas of the country. Family child care was most prevalent among mothers living in the Western region of the country.
The same factors seen in the previous two sections as distinguishing between families that use more versus less formal modes of care appear again. The more formal mode (center care) was more likely to be chosen by mothers with more formal education and working regular hours, and to be used for preschool-aged children.
These bivariate statistics are generally supported by the multivariate analysis (Exhibit 5.10). The results are as follows:
-
Toddlers and school-aged children was more likely to be in family child care than were preschoolers, the reference category (+15 to +16 percentage points). Infants were much more likely to be in family child care than preschoolers (+22 percentage points).
-
Hispanic families was marginally more likely to use family child care, other things equal (+10 percentage points).
-
Mothers with a college education are less likely to use family child care (–8 percentage points).
-
Immigrants were significantly more likely to use family child care (+21 percentage points).
-
Families that included the mother’s spouse or partner were marginally more likely to use family child care (+7 percentage points).
-
Mothers living in rural areas were more likely to use family child care than those living in urban areas (+11 percentage points). Mothers living in the South were less likely to use family child care than mothers living in the Northeast (-19 percentage points).
| Marginal impact (percentage points) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Age of focus child (reference category: preschooler | Infant | +22.0*** |
| Toddler | +14.6*** | |
| School-aged | +15.9*** | |
| Household contains both non-school-aged and school-aged children | +5.0 | |
| Ethnicity of focus child | Black | -0.1 |
| Hispanic | +9.5* | |
| Mother’s education (reference category: high school graduate) | Not a high school graduate | +3.1 |
| Some college | -8.1** | |
| Mother born outside United States | +20.5*** | |
| Household includes mother's spouse/partner | +6.7* | |
| Mother’s work schedule (reference category: regular hours) | Irregular hours | +4.8 |
| In school or training | +7.8 | |
| Household income as percent of FPL | +0.2 | |
| Recent TANF receipt | -3.6 | |
| Parent’s considerations in choosing child care | Cost | +15.1*** |
| Convenience | +2.8 | |
| Safety | +11.4*** | |
| Provider qualities | +11.5*** | |
| Child's cognitive development | -19.2*** | |
| Commonalities with provider | +17.6*** | |
| Geographic setting (reference categories: urban, Northeast) | Rural | +10.9** |
| South | -18.7*** | |
| Midwest | +1.6 | |
| West | -6.2 | |
| Note: *** statistically significant at the 1 percent level. ** statistically significant at the 5 percent level. * statistically significant at the 10 percent level. |
Parental considerations are also found to be important determinants of the decision to use family child care versus center care. In particular,
-
Mothers who indicated child’s cognitive development as an important reason for choosing the child care arrangement were significantly less likely to use family child care (-19 percentage points).
-
Mothers who indicated cost, safety, quality and commonalities with the provider as important reasons for choosing the child care arrangement were significantly more likely to choose family child care (+12 to +18 percentage points).
Consistent with the bivariate statistics, the multivariate models reveal that household income was not a significant determinant of the choice between center care and family child care among low-income families using out-of-home non-relative care. In addition, mothers who reported being on TANF during the previous year were not significantly different from those who did not receive it with respect to the choice between family child care and center care. It seemed plausible that family child care would be chosen more often by families that contained children of diverse ages, other things being equal, but neither this variable nor alternative measures of presence of siblings showed a significant effect.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |