mapping child care demand and the supply of care for ......mapping child care demand ... us...

RE S E AR C H RE P O R T

Mapping Child Care Demand

and the Supply of Care

for Subsidized Families Illinois–New York Child Care Research Partnership

Heather Sandstrom Amy Claessens Marcia Stoll URBAN INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO ILLINOIS ACTION FOR CHILDREN

Erica Greenberg David Alexander Charmaine Runes URBAN INSTITUTE ILLINOIS ACTION FOR CHILDREN URBAN INSTITUTE

Julia R. Henly UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

March 2018

C H I L D R E N

AB O U T T H E U R BA N I N S T I T U TE

The nonprofit Urban Institute is a leading research organization dedicated to developing evidence-based insights

that improve people’s lives and strengthen communities. For 50 years, Urban has been the trusted source for

rigorous analysis of complex social and economic issues; strategic advice to policymakers, philanthropists, and

practitioners; and new, promising ideas that expand opportunities for all. Our work inspires effective decisions that

advance fairness and enhance the well-being of people and places.

AB O U T T H E U N I VE R S I T Y OF C H IC A G O

One of the world's premier academic and research institutions, the University of Chicago has driven new ways of

thinking since its 1890 founding. Today, UChicago draws scholars to its Hyde Park and international campuses,

keeping UChicago at the nexus of ideas that challenge and change the world. The UChicago community includes

students in the undergraduate College and in graduate programs across four divisions, six professional schools

including the School of Social Service Administration and the Harris School of Public Policy Studies, and the

Graham School of Continuing Liberal Arts and Professional Studies. With a commitment to free and open inquiry,

UChicago scholars take an interdisciplinary approach to research and teaching. Their work generates new

knowledge for the benefit of present and future generations and transforms the way we understand the world,

advancing fields of study, and often creating new ones.

AB O U T IL LI N OIS AC T I O N F O R C H I LD RE N

As a state and national leader in the early care and education community, Illinois Action for Children stands

distinguished by its “Strong Families, Powerful Communities” approach to child development, Pre-K and Head Start

education, and other family and community supports. We believe that these supports work best to ensure school

and life success when administered as part of a comprehensive system that includes parents and communities. This

broad approach to supporting children by supporting families is a proven and effective means to address

overarching issues of endemic poverty, which is the root cause of the educational failure of America’s poorest

children.

Copyright © March 2018. Urban Institute. Permission is granted for reproduction of this file, with attribution to the

Urban Institute.

Contents Acknowledgments v

Executive Summary vii

Glossary ix

Introduction 1

Methods 5

Estimating Counts of Subsidy-Eligible Children 5

Census Tract-Level Data from Public Use Data Tables 5

Public-Use Microdata for Individual-Level Analyses 6

Estimating the Times of Day when Subsidy-Eligible Children Need Care 6

Measuring and Mapping Child Care Supply 7

Estimates of Child Care Demand 9

Share of Child Population Potentially Needing Subsidized Care 9

Geographic Distribution of Demand by Study Site 9

Understanding Demand: Low-Income Parents’ Work Schedules and Related Child Care Needs

by Study Site 15

Characteristics of Local Child Care Markets 20

Total Numbers of Providers by Care Type 24

Subsidy Participation 25

Provider Quality 26

Providers’ Schedules by Care Type 27

Geographic Distribution of Full-Time Providers 31

A Closer Look at Full-Time, Subsidized Care Options: Provider Characteristics

and Geographic Distribution 36

Characteristics of Full-Time Providers that Participate in the Subsidy Program 36

Geographic Distribution of Full-Time Providers that Accept Subsidies 40

Locating Subsidized Infant Care 46

Locating High-Quality Subsidized Care 51

Role of Legally Exempt Home-Based Providers 56

Assessment of Unmet Need 58

Summary of Findings 67

Appendix A. Supplemental Maps and Figures 69

Appendix B. Supplemental Tables 81

Notes 87

References 88

About the Authors 89

Statement of Independence 91

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S V

Acknowledgments This report is based on the Illinois–New York Child Care Research Partnership Study made possible by

Grant No. 90YE0151 from the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) in the

Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services. We are

grateful to them and to all our funders, who make it possible for Urban to advance its mission.

The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute,

its trustees, its funders, or to the University of Chicago or our partnering organizations. Funders do not

determine research findings or the insights and recommendations of Urban experts. Further

information on the Urban Institute’s funding principles is available at urban.org/fundingprinciples.

The principal investigator for the Illinois–New York Child Care Research Partnership Study is Julia

Henly from the University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration. Coprincipal investigators

are Amy Claessens from the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy and Heather

Sandstrom from the Urban Institute. David Alexander and Marcia Stoll are researchers at our local

partner organization, Illinois Action for Children.

The project was supported by an excellent team of analysts and research assistants. We thank Lina

Breslav, Molly Michie, and Teresa Derrick-Mills from the Urban Institute for their contributions to the

study.

The study would not have been possible without the endless support of our state and local partners,

including the Children’s Home + Aid Society Southern Region, Illinois Action for Children, the Illinois

Department of Human Services, New York State Office of Children and Family Services, the

Westchester County Department of Social Services and Nassau County Department of Social Services,

the Child Care Council of Westchester, and the Child Care Council of Nassau. We are especially grateful

for the data we received from the Illinois Network of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies and

the support of Joellyn Whitehead.

We also thank Erin Hardy for her review of this paper and excellent feedback and our external

research advisors, Elizabeth Davis and Roberta Weber, for their review of preliminary findings and

ongoing support of the project.

http://www.urban.org/fundingprinciples

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y V I I

Executive Summary As part of the Illinois–New York Child Care Research Partnership, this report explores the local child

care markets in two areas in each state: in New York, Nassau and Westchester counties, and in Illinois,

Cook County and a seven-county region in the southwest part of the state. Our analyses address the

following descriptive research questions:

1. How are child care programs with distinct characteristics distributed in each of the four study

sites?

2. How does the supply of child care match the heterogeneous needs of subsidy-eligible families?

3. Are there patterns of alignment or misalignment that suggest both needs and opportunities for

program development or policy intervention?

We examine the potential demand for subsidized care in these areas using data from the US Census

Bureau’s American Community Survey, giving particular attention to low-income parents working

nonstandard schedules. We also identify neighborhoods with large shares of households with limited

English proficiency (LEP) because these families may have additional care needs and preferences. We

then use data from child care resource and referral agencies and state child care subsidy records to

examine the supply of care available to families in different communities, paying particular attention to

the type of care, subsidy program participation, hours of operation, child age requirements, national

accreditation, and participation in the state quality rating and improvement system.

A series of maps show the supply of licensed and registered providers across sectors in the study

communities and how local supply meets the potential need for subsidized child care. We describe the

overall child care market in our study areas and then position providers who accept child care subsidies

within the broader child care market.

The maps show that many, but not all, of the greatest gaps in coverage are in areas with a high

density of subsidy-eligible families. We identify these areas as child care deserts—areas or communities

with limited or no access to quality child care. The local choice set for the typical subsidy-eligible child

does not include centers that are full time, accept subsidies, or are quality rated or accredited.

Before accounting for competition with children from higher-income families, it appears that

families with a subsidy might be able to find a slot in a full-time program that accepts a subsidy.

However, when factoring in thousands of higher-income children and the diverse care needs of parents

and children, the supply of care likely does not match the need in many local communities.

V I I I E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

There are very few accredited or quality-rated providers in these communities, and the few present

are dispersed throughout each county. Some are in areas with high numbers of subsidy-eligible children,

and others operate in areas with lower need. Some high-need communities appear to have less access

to accredited and quality-rated programs. A high-quality center in a low-need neighborhood leads to

increased competition with higher-income children for those slots, further constraining access.

In both New York counties in this study, very few slots in full-time centers are available for infant

care (5 and 6 percent for Nassau and Westchester, respectively), compared with about 20 percent of

slots in family child care. In both Illinois sites, 6 percent of slots in centers and less than 10 percent of

slots in family child care are available for full-time infant care. However, this may be an underestimate

because not all child care programs in Illinois report their slots by age.

Our analyses also show that a large proportion of subsidy-eligible children have single parents who

work nonstandard hours and that early morning care is especially in demand. Center-based providers,

who hold the largest share of child care market capacity, are far less likely to operate during early

morning, evening, or weekend hours despite a high level of need for care during these hours among the

subsidy-eligible population. Family child care providers appear to be better equipped to meet some of

this need but also have limited capacity to do so given their smaller size. Home-based settings are also

less likely to be quality rated. Although our data cannot show what times of day legally exempt home-

based providers provide care, legally exempt providers might be offering coverage during nonstandard

hours when centers and family child care providers are unavailable.

Our findings suggest that a large share of subsidy-eligible families in the four study sites live in child

care deserts and might have difficulty finding care that fits their work and family needs. Further, even in

areas where families might have access to child care centers or homes, many of these are not of high

quality, are not open during nonstandard hours, or are not licensed to accept infants. Thus, families

might still struggle to access care for their children while maintaining employment.

G L O S S A R Y I X

Glossary In this section, we define key terms used throughout the report.

Child care providers: This analysis looks at providers that are open year-round or during the school

year and serve children under age 6. Provider types include licensed child care centers, center-based

Head Start programs, family child care (FCC) homes, and group family child care (GFCC) homes. We

exclude summer camps and programs for school-age children only. Illinois data also include a small

number of license-exempt centers, preschools, and Head Start programs, but we exclude school-based

Head Start and state preschool programs from our analyses. New York distinguishes between family

child care homes and group family child care homes, and we report on these care types separately.1 The

New York counties had a few license-exempt group providers that received subsidies (two in Nassau

and four in Westchester), and these were mostly private schools and faith-based nursery school

programs. NACCRRAware files did not include data on these license-exempt providers, so we do not

include them. NACCRRAware is a database developed by Child Care Aware of America and used by our

state partners to house child care program data used to generate child care referrals and maintain

statistics on local child care providers.

Full-time provider: A provider is considered full time if the total hours per week of at least one program

session equals at least 35 hours. In Illinois, where home-based providers report continuous but separate

daytime, evening, or overnight shifts (e.g., a daytime shift of 6:00 a.m. to 5:59 p.m. and an evening shift

of 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.), we add across continuous shifts to determine total hours.

Infant care: We determine whether a provider is licensed to serve infants using the “minimum age

served” field in NACCRRAware. The age range for infant care varies by state: six weeks to 14 months in

Illinois, six weeks to 18 months in licensed child care centers in New York, and six weeks to 24 months in

registered family child care and licensed group family child care homes in New York.

Licensed care: These are center- or home-based programs that are licensed and monitored in Illinois by

the Department of Children and Family Services and in New York by the Office of Children and Family

Services (OCFS). In Illinois, all family child care homes serving more than three children must be

licensed. In New York, family child care homes serving three to six children and up to two school-age

children must be registered, whereas group family child care homes serving seven or more children

must be licensed. Licensed programs in New York have more monitoring requirements than registered

programs.

X G L O S S A R Y

Legally exempt or license-exempt care: Child care providers who are legally exempt from being

licensed are referred to as legally exempt in New York and license exempt in Illinois. This includes relative

caregivers as well as people who care for a limited number of nonrelative children in the child’s home or

their own home. Group settings run by schools, government programs, or religious institutions (e.g., a

church nursery school) are also exempt from child care licensing requirements.

Nonstandard care hours: Child care offered in the early morning (before 7:00 a.m.) and evening (at 7:00

p.m. or later) on weekdays or at any hour on Saturday or Sundays. We base this on parents’ standard

work hours being Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and consider travel time to and from

work and their child care settings.

Quality indicators: Indicators of child care quality vary by state and data availability. In Illinois, we

identified providers enrolled in the Quality Counts Quality Rating System, which was replaced in 2015

with ExceleRate Illinois, a statewide quality rating and improvement system implemented through the

Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge Grant. Before 2015, participation in the Quality Counts

Quality Rating System was voluntary. All providers are rated in ExceleRate Illinois; however, actively

changing one’s quality rating is voluntary. Data were provided by the Illinois Network of Child Care

Resource and Referral Agencies. We also identified providers with voluntary national accreditation, as

reported in NACCRRAware, through organizations such as the National Association for the Education

of Young Children, National Association for Family Child Care, National Accreditation Commission for

Early Care and Education Programs, and National Early Childhood Program Accreditation.

In New York, we used program lists on the QUALITYstarsNY website and updated lists from local

child care resource and referral agencies to identify programs participating in this new quality rating

and improvement system first field tested in Nassau and Westchester in 2010. Participation in

QUALITYstarsNY is voluntary. Because of funding constraints, only a limited number of providers are

accepted to QUALITYstarsNY and receive its range of supports, though the program is slowly

expanding statewide. We also identified providers with national accreditation from the National

Association for the Education of Young Children, National Association for Family Child Care, or

National Early Childhood Program Accreditation, as reported in NACCRRAware and verified through

accreditation websites. Other quality indicators obtained from NACCRRAware data included

participation in the Child and Adult Care Food Program, medication administration training

certification, Breastfeeding Friendly certification, and three indicators tied to the highest education

level represented across program staff as self-reported by the provider (i.e., a bachelor’s degree or

higher, a degree in early childhood education, and a state teaching certification).

G L O S S A R Y X I

Slots by age: The total number of children that a provider can legally care for at one time based on the

age groups defined in each state. Definitions for infant and toddler groups differ between states and, in

New York, between centers and home-based providers. Slot by age data is missing for some providers;

in these cases, only the total licensed capacity and minimum and maximum ages served are known.

Subsidy program participation: We define providers participating in the subsidy program as those who

(1) received a subsidy payment for providing care to at least one child, according to the Illinois

Department of Human Services’ fiscal year 2014 records or OCFS’s calendar year 2014 records, (2)

reported that they are willing to accept a child with a subsidy, as recorded in the NACCRRAware

financial assistance field, or (3) in the case of New York, were legally exempt and enrolled with the

subsidy system to provide subsidized care as of December 2014, per OCFS records, regardless of

whether care was provided or paid for.

Weekly child care rates: The weekly amount that child care providers charge families for care, as

reported in NACCRRAware. We converted all rate data into full-time weekly rates by dividing monthly

rates by 4.33 and multiplying daily rates by 5.0.

Introduction Working parents want to secure high-quality child care for their young children. Yet parents often

struggle to find high-quality care that fits their work schedules and is convenient and affordable, among

other factors (Forry et al. 2013). Parents do not always know what their options are and where child

care is available. In addition, limited child care slots in some communities can result in long wait lists and

cause families to turn to lower-quality or unlicensed arrangements. This struggle to find care can lead

families, particularly those with low incomes and limited resources, to make do with a “good enough”

arrangement in the short term and can create instability in children’s care arrangements over time

(Adams and Rohacek 2010; Henly et al. 2017; Sandstrom and Chaudry 2012).

The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) provides federal funding to states to help eligible

low-income families pay for child care and to improve the quality of care for all children. Eligibility

criteria vary by state, but according to federal law, eligibility is targeted to low-income parents who are

employed or participate in a qualifying education or training program. The program aims to increase

parental employment and support children’s development by improving low-income families’ access to

affordable and high-quality child care arrangements. Updates to CCDF regulations described in the

2016 CCDF Final Rule set new requirements for states to support more equitable access to stable, high-

quality child care for low-income children, to protect the health and safety of children in child care, to

enhance the quality of child care for all children, and to help parents make informed consumer choices.2

The new regulations encourage states to build the supply and quality of care in vulnerable communities

and for priority populations, such as families with infants and parents with nonstandard work schedules,

and to set provider subsidy payment rates that account for the cost of delivering high-quality services.

The new CCDF regulations have the potential to increase access to affordable, quality care, but

resource constraints may prevent many state child care systems from fully achieving the objectives of

the CCDF and reaching all families and providers of care. The realities of local child care markets can

also impede the capacity of initiatives to connect low-income children and families to high-quality

providers. One key challenge is that child care providers are not equally distributed geographically,

resulting in areas with better or worse access to care. As one example, there is a mismatch between the

high cost of living near a major city and both low income-eligibility thresholds for CCDF subsidies and

low provider reimbursement rates. A high cost of living can leave families with little money to pay for

child care, which is often more expensive in these areas. Even families receiving some assistance to pay

for child care may not have the resources to cover their share of the costs. The difference between

2 M A P P I N G C H I L D C A R E D E M A N D A N D T H E S U P P L Y O F C A R E F O R S U B S I D I Z E D F A M I L I E S

market rates and the value of subsidy payments can make subsidies an unreliable or unrealistic source

of revenue for child care providers.

The work presented in this report was motivated by the need to capture the current landscape of

child care supply available to subsidized families to inform state and local efforts. As part of the Illinois–

New York Child Care Research Partnership, we explore the local child care markets in two areas in each

state. We focus on addressing the following descriptive research questions:

1. How are child care programs with distinct characteristics distributed in each of the four study

sites?

2. How does the supply of child care match the heterogeneous needs of subsidy-eligible families?

3. Are there patterns of alignment or misalignment that suggest both needs and opportunities for

program development or policy intervention?

To address these questions, we use innovative methodological approaches and combine multiple

data sources. We examine the potential need for subsidized care in these areas using data from the US

Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, giving particular attention to low-income parents

working nonstandard schedules. We also identify neighborhoods with large shares of households with

limited English proficiency (LEP) because these families may have additional care needs and

preferences. We then use data from child care resource and referral agencies and state child care

subsidy records to examine the supply of care available to families in different communities, paying

particular attention to the type of care, hours of operation, child age requirements, rates/cost of care,

subsidy program participation, national accreditation, and participation in the state quality rating and

improvement system.

A series of maps shows the supply of licensed and registered providers across sectors in the study

communities and how local supply meets the potential need for subsidized child care.3 We describe the

overall child care market in our study areas and then position providers who accept child care subsidies

within the broader child care market. We also identify areas with high numbers of legally exempt home-

based providers caring for subsidized children and discuss the role of legally exempt care in supporting

families. The findings from this descriptive geographical analysis have implications for program

development and policy change and highlight what additional information is needed to inform future

efforts.

In this report, we first describe our methods for estimating the potential demand for child care

subsidies and for measuring and mapping the supply of care in the study sites. We then provide

M A P P I N G C H I L D C A R E D E M A N D A N D T H E S U P P L Y O F C A R E F O R S U B S I D I Z E D F A M I L I E S 3

estimates of the population of subsidy-eligible children under age 6 in each site and map where they

live. We also examine data on parents’ work schedules and show the number of subsidy-eligible children

who have parents working nonstandard hours.

Next, we turn to characteristics of the local child care markets. We describe the types of providers

available (center-based and home-based), how many there are, and their observed characteristics. We

present a series of maps to illustrate how providers of different care types are distributed across each

study site and where these providers are located relative to the homes of subsidy-eligible children.

Additional maps show the location of accredited care options and infant care options for families

needing full-time subsidized care. Finally, we assess unmet need through an examination of the number

of slots available in localities relative to the number of subsidy-eligible children.

BOX 1

Overview of the Illinois–New York Child Care Research Partnership Study

The Illinois–New York Child Care Research Partnership, funded through two consecutive grants from

the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation in the Administration for Children and Families, US

Department of Health and Human Services, joins researchers from the University of Chicago and the

Urban Institute with state and local child care administrators in Illinois and New York. Phase 1 of the

partnership (2010–14) explored factors contributing to child care subsidy instability from the

perspective of subsidy program participants. Using longitudinal state administrative data from child

care payment records in combination with new data from a telephone survey and qualitative interviews

with subsidy clients, the Illinois–New York Child Care Research Partnership team analyzed the subsidy

and child care experiences of a new cohort of subsidy clients residing in four diverse sites. (For more

information, see Henly et al. 2015.)

Phase 2 (2013–17) explores the factors that can support or impede low-income families’ access to

high-quality, stable subsidized care arrangements from the perspective of program stakeholders and

child care providers. It also investigates strategies that can encourage providers accepting subsidies to

participate in quality improvement efforts. The research activities of this phase include (1) case studies

of local sites, including interviews with local policy stakeholders, (2) a mapping study that involved

examining the supply of care in each study site against the estimated number of subsidy-eligible

children, (3) an analysis of how provider characteristics are associated with families’ subsidy stability,

and (4) a qualitative study of child care providers’ experiences with the subsidy program and their

perspectives on and experiences with quality improvement efforts.

The study sites for both phases were Westchester and Nassau counties in New York State and two

regions in Illinois: Service Delivery Area 6 in Cook County and Service Delivery Area 14, a collection of

seven counties in the southwest part of the state. Illinois and New York were initially selected because

of their distinct state subsidy policies. Important differences include level of administration (Illinois is


state administered and New York is county administered), length of eligibility periods (6 months in

Illinois and 12 months in both New York counties), job search time limits, work requirements, and other

policies that offer a unique opportunity for comparison.

Westchester and Nassau counties are suburbs of New York City, with Westchester to the north of

the Bronx and Nassau on Long Island. Both are largely affluent counties with median household income

well above the national average and below-average child poverty rates (see table 1). But being near the

city results in high cost of living. This is especially concerning because both counties include

neighborhoods with large numbers of low-income households. Both New York counties are

predominantly white but include large foreign-born populations and above-average limited English

proficiency (LEP) among people age 5 and older. Cook County in Illinois includes Chicago and is diverse

in race, ethnicity, and language. The median household income is slightly above the national average, yet

the child poverty rate is also higher than average. Southwest Illinois includes both rural areas that are

predominantly white and urban areas that are racially diverse. The southwest Illinois site has a small

foreign-born and LEP population. Its median household income and child poverty rate are similar to

national averages.

TABLE 1

Demographic Characteristics of Local Population in Study Sites

Nassau Westchester Cook Southwest Illinois United States

Population size 1,350,601 962,319 5,227,827 672,866 314,107,084 Median household income $98,401 $83,422 $54,828 $48,120–$69,592a $53,482 Child poverty rate (age 5 and under) (%)

9.4 14.3 25.6 25.4 24.9

White (%) 70.9 66.5 56.9 80.2 73.8 Black (%) 11.2 14.3 24.2 16.1 12.6 Asian (%) 8.2 5.6 6.6 1.0 5.0 Two or more races (%) 3.0 3.1 2.1 2.1 2.9 Hispanic or Latino (%) 15.4 22.8 24.5 3.1 16.9 Foreign-born (%) 21.5 25.2 21.1 2.3 13.1 Limited English proficiency (%) 11.5 12.3 15.0 1.1 8.6

Sources: Authors estimates using 2010–14 American Community Survey data and “American FactFinder,” US Census Bureau,

accessed December 14, 2017, https://factfinder.census.gov.

Notes: Southwest Illinois includes seven counties: Bond, Clinton, Madison, Monroe, Randolph, St. Clair, and Washington. a We include a range for the median household income in the seven counties in the southwest Illinois study site.

https://factfinder.census.gov/


Methods

Estimating Counts of Subsidy-Eligible Children

To estimate potential demand for subsidized child care, we use the American Community Survey (ACS)

five-year estimates covering 2010–14. The ACS is an ongoing nationwide survey designed to provide

data on demographic, housing, social, and economic issues.

Census Tract-Level Data from Public Use Data Tables

Using public-use data available from the Census Bureau’s American FactFinder website, we estimate

the number of children under age 6 eligible for child care subsidies in each census tract in each of the

four study sites.4 First, we determine the number of children under age 6 in each census tract with a

family income below 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold (American FactFinder data table

B17024). We multiply this number by each census tract’s estimated percentage of children under age 6

with all parents in the household in the labor force (i.e., both parents in two-parent households or one

parent in single-parent households) (American FactFinder data table B23008). Together, this results in

an estimate of how many children in each tract are under age 6, have family income under 200 percent

of the federal poverty threshold, and have all parents in the household working. We exclude children

ages 6–12 who may be eligible for subsidized school-age care because of our specific interest in child

care for young children. (However, our count might include some 5-year-olds in kindergarten.)

We use this estimate as a proxy for the number of children who may qualify for child care subsidies

and need nonparental child care from a provider that accepts subsidy payments. Although our estimate

accounts for low family income, parental work, and child age, we acknowledge that several other factors

determine subsidy eligibility. Moreover, the current eligibility guidelines for income in Illinois are much

lower than 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold and, since 2014, have fluctuated from 185

percent to 50 percent back up to 162 percent. For a consistent definition across study sites, we

nevertheless use a 200 percent threshold. Also, we recognize that the term “demand” assumes parents

need child care while they work and want a subsidy to help pay for it, which may not be a valid

assumption for all low-income working families. Our estimates are indicative of the extent of the

potential demand for subsidized child care in each of the four study sites.

Additionally, we use data from American FactFinder data table B16002 to identify counts of

households with limited English proficiency (i.e., people who do not speak English as their primary


language and have a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English) in each census tract. We

layer this community characteristic on top of estimates of subsidy demand in our maps to provide

additional information about the local population.

Public-Use Microdata for Individual-Level Analyses

For additional estimates, we rely on the 2014 ACS five-year file covering 2010–14, accessed through

the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS), the world’s largest individual-level population

database. IPUMS grants access to ACS microdata, where each record represents a person. We used the

IPUMS data to calculate a more refined estimate of subsidy-eligible children for each study site because

we could analyze data at the individual level. However, IPUMS data are not available at the census tract

level, so we estimate counts at the two smallest available geographic levels in the IPUMS: county and

Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA).5 In sum, we use the census-level estimates from American

FactFinder in our maps for geographic specificity but supplement this with estimates from IPUMS,

which offer a more accurate total count.

Estimating the Times of Day when Subsidy-Eligible Children Need Care

We also use IPUMS data to analyze parents’ work hours and estimate how many children need care

during certain hours of the day. These estimates could not be derived from public-use tables, so we rely

on IPUMS. Again, we define the potential beneficiaries of child care subsidies as children under age 6 in

households with family income below 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold where all parents

are working (i.e., one parent in a single-parent household or both parents in a two-parent household).

We exclude children in households where no parent was present because we cannot examine a parent’s

work hours.6

The ACS asks respondents to indicate the time they and other adults in the household leave for

work and their commute time. The data provide calculations of arrival time at work as well as the total

hours each adult worked in the past week (or in a typical week if the past week was not typical). The

data are limited in that we do not know the days of the week household members worked, only their

hours. However, the data do illustrate the times of day parents work and may need child care. In our

calculations, we assume parents split their work hours evenly across five days and add the average time

spent at work to their time of arrival.


We identify counts of children with both parents (or a single parent) working early mornings (any

time between 4:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.), daytime hours (between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.), evenings

(between 6:00 p.m. and midnight), or overnight (between midnight and 6:00 a.m.). All data are weighted

using person weights, which indicate how many people in the US population are represented by a given

person in an IPUMS sample, and then also by cluster and strata. Because of small population sizes in the

southwest Illinois counties (Service Delivery Area 14), we are unable to estimate counts for the entire

area, but we examine the two most populated counties with available data: Madison and St. Clair.

For all thematic maps presented in this report, we use the natural breaks (Jenks) classification to

determine class/category ranges because it reflects the natural groupings in the data rather than

forcing data into specific categories, such as quartiles. Natural breaks work well to highlight similarities

and differences among geographic regions by minimizing variance within groups and maximizing

variance across groups. Census tracts were used as the geographic unit of analysis in all maps except

those displaying estimates of child care demand during nonstandard work hours, in which case the

PUMA is the smallest geographic unit available.

Measuring and Mapping Child Care Supply

The main data files for the child care supply analysis draw on site-specific extracts from

NACCRRAware, the database developed by Child Care Aware of America (formerly NACCRRA, the

National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies). Our state partners use

NACCRRAware to house child care program data used to generate child care referrals and maintain

statistics on local child care providers. Both the New York and Illinois data sets include comprehensive

lists of licensed child care centers and family child care homes. We exclude programs for school-age

children only, school-based state pre-K programs, and summer-only programs to focus on full-time,

year-round care for children under 6.

The Illinois data also include a limited number of license-exempt center-based programs, mostly

faith-based child care centers, which we included in our analysis. Unlicensed (or legally exempt) group

settings, including faith-based programs, school-based programs, and nursery school programs operating

three or fewer hours per day, are not regulated by the New York State Office of Children and Family

Services (OCFS), so we do not include them in our analyses.7 According to OCFS, “With only a few

exceptions, every program that cares for more than two children three hours or more per day must have a

license or registration certificate. Every licensed child care program must be inspected at least once

before each license renewal. At least 50 percent of all registered providers are inspected annually.”8


The Nassau and Westchester county child care councils provided the NACCRRAware data for their

respective counties. These data capture programs operating as of December 2014. The Illinois Network

of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies provided NACCRRAware data for Illinois programs

operating as of June 2014. Although the data sets have many common fields, some state and county

differences exist in the data records. Our analyses largely focus on common measures. For New York

providers, we verified accreditation status and participation in quality rating and improvement systems

with lists found on accrediting bodies’ websites. In Illinois, local resource and referral agencies verify

accreditation annually, so we did not reverify these data elements.

We link NACCRRAware records to state child care subsidy payment records, obtained from the

Illinois Department of Human Services and New York’s OCFS, to identify local providers who received a

subsidy payment for care provided in fiscal year 2014. Subsidy payments can be infrequent or unstable

because of turnover among children in the care setting and changes in families’ subsidy eligibility status,

among other reasons, so we examine any payments made for care services across the full year of 2014

rather than in a single month. The linking resulted in the identification of providers that participate in

the subsidy system, which supplemented self-reported data from NACCRRAware.

In Illinois, subsidy payment records also identified license-exempt home-based providers who were

paid for providing care to subsidized children. New York did not have comparable subsidy payment data

available, but OCFS supplied records of legally exempt providers enrolled in the subsidy system in 2014

(i.e., providers who may not have actually provided care or been paid for care but were enrolled as an

approved provider for a subsidized family that year). These providers do not appear in NACCRRAware

files, so the only available information is the provider’s home address and whether they were approved

to provide care in their own home or the child’s home. In box 2, we define the key measures used in this

study and their related technical details.

We used Esri ArcGIS mapping software to map the address of every provider and visualize the

distribution of providers across each study site. ArcGIS Online World Geocoding Service and

StreetMap USA were the address locators used to geocode provider addresses. Not all providers could

be mapped, as some used a post office box address and others could not be matched against the locator.


Estimates of Child Care Demand In this section, we present our estimates of demand for subsidized child care and discuss the geographic

distribution of demand by study site. We also show the variation in demand for care at different hours

of the day based on parents’ work hours.

Share of Child Population

Potentially Needing Subsidized Care

Based on our analysis of ACS data, we find a relatively large share of the child population in each study

site, even the two New York counties with high median incomes, meets our definition of subsidy

eligibility.9 In Nassau County, approximately 11,500 children under age 6 are in low-income families

with working parents—about 13 percent of all children under 6 in the county. In Westchester, 12,400

children, or 17 percent of all children under 6, meet our definition. Approximately 105,000 children, or

26 percent of all children under 6, are potentially subsidy eligible in Cook County. In the two largest

counties in southwest Illinois, Madison and St. Clair, we find a total of 8,743 subsidy-eligible children

under 6, or 37 percent of all children under 6 in the two counties combined.

Geographic Distribution of Demand by Study Site

Figures 1 through 4 visualize how subsidy-eligible children are geographically distributed across a given

region. More darkly shaded census tracts indicate areas with a higher concentration of children who

may be eligible for a subsidy.10 Hatching indicates areas in which more than 20 percent of households are

limited English proficient (LEP), meaning all household members age 14 and older have some difficulty

with English (i.e., do not speak English as their primary language and have a limited ability to read, speak,

write, or understand English). Our intention is to identify overlap in areas with high counts of subsidy-

eligible children and high LEP rates, as this can tell us something about the needs of the local population.

In Nassau County (figure 1), roughly half of all census tracts have very few, if any, subsidy-eligible

children. In other tracts, counts range from a few dozen children to nearly 400 in scattered pockets

across the county. The highest counts are found in parts of Hempstead, where we also see a high LEP

rate. The tracts with high LEP rates cluster together in two main areas in close proximity to one another

in the south-central region of the county.

1 0 M A P P I N G C H I L D C A R E D E M A N D A N D T H E S U P P L Y O F C A R E F O R S U B S I D I Z E D F A M I L I E S

In Westchester County (figure 2), a greater share of census tracts have no or very few subsidy-

eligible children, but we find small scattered pockets with a high density—up to roughly 400 children per

tract. These pockets include parts of Yonkers, Mount Vernon, and New Rochelle to the south, White

Plains in the central region of the county (where Westchester’s department of social services is

located), and parts of Ossining and Mount Kisco further north. Tracts with high LEP rates are generally

scattered, but several cluster together in the southern part of the county.

Cook County (figure 3), which includes Chicago, has a larger and denser population than either of

the two New York counties. The neighborhoods outside of downtown Chicago, particularly those on the

south and west sides of the city, have the highest rates of subsidy-eligible children and, in many of the

same areas, high LEP rates. Several suburban neighborhoods in the northern and southernmost regions

of the county also have high counts, roughly 300 to 600 children per tract, showing both suburban and

urban poverty.

The southwest Illinois study site (figure 4) is much more rural and includes fewer LEP households

than Cook County; however, it does include the urban area of East St. Louis, which has a high

concentration of subsidy-eligible children. A few small areas in Madison, Bond, and Randolph counties

had somewhat lower counts, roughly 200 to 400 children per tract. Only one census tract just outside

East St. Louis has an LEP rate greater than 20 percent.

M A P P I N G C H I L D C A R E D E M A N D A N D T H E S U P P L Y O F C A R E F O R S U B S I D I Z E D F A M I L I E S 1 1

FIGURE 1

Counts of Subsidy-Eligible Children in Nassau County, New York, by Census Tract

Source: Authors’ estimates using 2010–14 American Community Survey data.

Notes: Census tracts are shaded by number of children under age 6 with household income under 200 percent of the federal

poverty level and all parents working. Hatching indicates census tracts with rates of limited English proficient households over 20

percent.


FIGURE 2

Counts of Subsidy-Eligible Children in Westchester County, New York, by Census Tract




percent.


FIGURE 3

Counts of Subsidy-Eligible Children in Cook County, Illinois, by Census Tract




percent.


FIGURE 4

Counts of Subsidy-Eligible Children in Southwest Illinois, by Census Tract




percent.


Understanding Demand: Low-Income Parents’ Work

Schedules and Related Child Care Needs by Study Site

In this section, we examine parental work schedules and potential child care needs in each study site,

focusing on the distribution of parental work throughout the day. First, we present the number of

subsidy-eligible children with parents working different schedules. We then focus on the distribution of

work schedules by one- and two-parent households and describe the proportion of children living in

households with all parents working nonstandard schedules.

Table 2 shows the number of potentially subsidy-eligible children under 6 in each study site,

disaggregated by their parents’ work hours. For southwest Illinois, small numbers of cases require us to

limit our analysis to two of the seven counties: Madison and St. Clair. The estimates in table 2 reflect the

counts of low-income young children (household income under 200 percent of the federal poverty level)

who have at least one parent working between the indicated hours. (If there is another parent, that parent

may or may not be working at the same time.) The parent may arrive before the shift start time and may

leave before the end time but must be at work at some point during those hours to be counted.

The table shows that across each site, parents of young children most commonly work standard

daytime hours; however, a substantial number work early morning hours, and many work evenings and

overnight as well. The rows are not mutually exclusive, so children could have a parent working both

daytime hours and evening hours or other combinations of two or more shifts.

TABLE 2

Subsidy-Eligible Children in Each Study Site, by Parents’ Work Hours

Children with household income under 200 percent of the federal poverty level and all parents

in the household in the labor force

New York Illinois

Nassau (N=11,538)

Westchester (N=12,433)

Cook (N=105,042)

Madison (N=4,111)

St. Clair (N=4,632)

Overnight (midnight to 6:00 a.m.) 1,186 10% 792 6% 13,106 12% 688 17% 157 3%

Early morning (4:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.) 4,367 38% 4,035 32% 35,829 34% 1,476 36% 1,556 34%

Daytime (8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) 8,564 74% 8,464 68% 65,117 62% 2,208 54% 2,603 56%

Evening (6:00 p.m. to midnight) 1,969 17% 1,398 11% 16,721 16% 517 13% 570 12%

Sources: Authors’ calculations based on the American Community Survey 2010–14 five-year data file. Data obtained from the

Integrated Public Use Microdata Series. Steven Ruggles, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Josiah Grover, and Matthew Sobek,

Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 6.0 [dataset] (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2015).

Note: Counts represent children with at least one residential parent working this shift.


Note that overnight and early morning hours overlap, and a parent working between 4:00 a.m. and

5:59 a.m. is counted in both groups. We set these cutoffs based on patterns we saw in the data related

to when parents arrived at and left work and based on our conceptual understanding of parents’ child

care needs. We assume parents whose work hours mostly fall in the overnight range need to arrange

care while children sleep. Meanwhile, parents who report to work at 5:00 a.m. might wake children up

early to travel to a caregiving arrangement.

As a next step, we disaggregate these counts to look separately at single-parent households and

two-parent households. For the latter, we look at cases where both parents are working at the same

time (or within the same range of hours). The vast majority of children we identify as subsidy eligible live

in single-parent households, but roughly one-quarter live in two-parent households. Figures 5 through 7

show this information for Nassau, Westchester, and Cook counties. (Figures for Madison and St. Clair

counties in southwest Illinois available upon request).

FIGURE 5

Share of Subsidy-Eligible Children under 6 with All Parents Working, Nassau County, New York

By household type and caregiver’s work hours

Source: Authors’ calculations based on the American Community Survey 2010–14 five-year data file. Data obtained from the



Across all sites, most low-income children with working parents, regardless of household type, have

parents who work some daytime hours. However, as with the above analysis, we find that many parents


work early morning hours (typically between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.) and that it is more common for

parents to work early mornings than late evenings or overnight.

Among single-parent households, 40–45 percent have a single parent working early morning hours.

Among two-parent households, it is more common for only one parent to work early mornings (or

evenings or overnight) than for both parents to work the same hours. Parents in these households are

likely to stagger their work hours so one parent is available to care for the child. Nevertheless, a

significant share of subsidy-eligible children, particularly in Westchester (17 percent) and Cook (25

percent) counties, have two parents that work early morning hours. In other words, both parents are at

work at some point between the hours of 4:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., suggesting that child care from a

nonparental caregiver is needed.

The average commute time ranges from 32 minutes in Cook County to 34 minutes in Westchester

County. We assume a family needs child care to begin well before the parent arrives at work. Parents

who arrive at work at 7:00 a.m., for example, potentially need child care to start by 6:30 a.m., or even

earlier if they face a longer commute.

FIGURE 6

Share of Subsidy-Eligible Children under 6 with All Parents Working, Westchester County, New York






FIGURE 7

Share of Subsidy-Eligible Children under 6 with All Parents Working, Cook County, Illinois





Given the prevalence of nonstandard work hours, we use mapping techniques to explore whether

the potential need for subsidized care during nonstandard hours varies geographically within each site.

To estimate need, we combine the number of children in single-parent households in which the parent

worked a given shift (i.e., early morning, evening, or overnight hours) with the number of children in

two-parent households in which both parents worked a given shift. We do not include children in two-

parent households in which only one parent worked a given shift because we assumed that the other

parent would likely be available to provide care. We created three maps for each study site based on

early morning, evening, and overnight hours. See appendix A for figures A.1 through A.12.

We find that low-income children in need of care during nonstandard work hours are heavily

concentrated in certain regions. In Nassau County, the areas of Hempstead and Long Beach appear to

have the greatest demand for care in the early mornings and evenings, while overnight care is needed

more in the central portion of the county bordering Suffolk County (Hicksville) and the southwest

portion bordering Queens (Valley Stream).


In Westchester, the need for care in the evening and overnight is greatest in the Yonkers area to the

south, and the greatest need for early morning care is shared among families in the western and

southern regions of the county.

In Cook County, the need for early morning and evening care is most concentrated in neighborhoods

directly west of downtown Chicago (Berwyn and Oak Park), and need for overnight care is greater in the

southern parts of the county (Chicago Heights, Dolton, and Calumet City). In southwest Illinois, the need

for evening care is largely concentrated in East St. Louis and in the southern boundary of the region, and

need for morning and overnight care is highest in the northwest near Granite City and Alton.

Interestingly, our findings point to a consistency in the need for nonstandard care hours across the

study sites. Specifically, our findings show a large proportion of low-income working families need early

morning care. The consistency is noteworthy when thinking about different ways to increase the supply

of care during nonstandard hours, given that very similar proportions of subsidy-eligible children in

each area need nonstandard care.


Characteristics

of Local Child Care Markets In this section, we describe the characteristics of the local child care market in each study site. We first

present descriptive information about the number and types of child care providers, then examine

measures of subsidy program participation, child care quality, and provider schedules. Lastly, we

present a series of maps to show how providers are geographically distributed in relation to where

subsidy-eligible children live. These analyses provide a unique opportunity to examine features of local

child care markets and the choices available to subsidized families.

Key characteristics of providers in the four study sites are shown in tables 3 through 6, one table for

each study site. Characteristics include age groups served, subsidy program participation, indicators of

quality, and provider schedules. Additional provider data are available in appendix B, tables B.1 through

B.4, including data on rates by child age, additional funding sources, and, for New York, the highest level

of education among program staff.

The provider characteristics shown reflect information included in licensing databases. Note that

actual circumstances may be different. For example, providers may be licensed for a longer work

schedule than they desire and actually implement. They might be licensed to serve eight children,

including two infants, but prefer to keep the group smaller or to have only one infant at a time.


TABLE 3

Descriptive Characteristics of Child Care Providers in Nassau County, New York

Licensed Child Care Centers

Licensed Group Family Child Care Programs

Registered Family Child Care Programs

N %/M N %/M N %/M

Total number of providers and share of all providers in county 204 23.5% 545 62.6% 121 13.9%

Age groups served Infants (6 weeks to 18/24 months) 120 58.8% 516 94.7% 115 95.0%

Toddlers (19/24–35 months) 169 82.8% 538 98.7% 121 100.0%

Preschoolers (3–5 years) 199 97.6% 543 99.6% 121 100.0%

School age (5–12 years) 72 35.3% 515 94.5% 113 93.4%

Subsidy program participationa Has county contract (self-reported) 81 49.1% 408 93.8% 84 89.4%

Accepts subsidy vouchers (self-reported) 5 3.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Received child care subsidy payments in 2014 71 34.8% 408 74.9% 55 45.5%

Indicators of quality Participates in QUALITYstarsNY 7 3.4% 25 4.6% 2 1.7%

Accredited 12 5.9% 5 0.9% 0 0.0%

Schedules Full-time care (35+ hours/week) 156 78.4% 511 98.7% 119 100.0%

Earliest start time (weekdays)

Before 6:00 a.m. 1 0.5% 15 3.0% 4 3.4%

6:00 a.m. to 6:29 a.m. 3 1.5% 137 27.2% 26 21.9%

6:30 a.m. to 6:59 a.m. 26 13.1% 79 15.7% 12 10.1%

7:00 a.m. to 7:59 a.m. 99 49.8% 241 47.9% 67 56.3%

8:00 a.m. or later 70 35.2% 31 6.2% 10 8.4%

Latest closing time (weekdays)

Before 6:00 p.m. 80 40.2% 66 13.1% 20 16.8%

6:00 p.m. to 6:59 p.m. 100 50.3% 286 56.9% 77 64.7%

7:00 p.m. or later 19 9.6% 151 30.0% 22 18.5%

Offers Saturday care 3 1.5% 115 21.1% 13 10.7%

Offers Sunday care 2 1.0% 60 11.0% 6 5.0%

Source: Authors’ calculations based on NACCRRAware data obtained from a local child care resource and referral agency. a Data from county child care councils were used to identify providers who self-reported having a contract with the local county

department of social services, accepting subsidy vouchers, or both. Data are missing for some providers, so the estimates

provided reflect the share of providers with a contract out of those that have data for this variable. Additionally, child care subsidy

payment records were obtained from the New York State Office of Children and Family Services and used to identify all providers

who received at least one subsidy payment for care services provided in 2014.


TABLE 4

Descriptive Characteristics of Child Care Providers in Westchester County, New York




N %/M N %/M N %/M



Toddlers (19/24–35 months) 169 89.0% 278 98.9% 147 99.3%


School age (5–12 years) 65 34.2% 266 94.7% 137 92.6%

Subsidy program participationa Has county contract (self-reported) 70 41.2% 73 31.9% —b 0.0%

Accepts subsidy vouchers (self-reported) 114 67.1% 202 88.2% 107 89.2%


Indicators of quality Participates in QUALITYstarsNY 16 8.4% 4 1.4% 0 0.0%

Accredited 27 14.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Schedules Full-time care (35+ hours/week) 150 81.5% 226 99.6% 117 100.0%

Earliest start time (weekdays)

Before 6:00 a.m. 0 0.0% 4 1.9% 4 3.5%

6:00 a.m. to 6:29 a.m. 1 0.5% 30 13.9% 21 18.6%

6:30 a.m. to 6:59 a.m. 20 10.9% 18 8.3% 13 11.5%

7:00 a.m. to 7:59 a.m. 100 54.4% 150 69.4% 67 59.3%

8:00 a.m. or later 63 34.2% 14 6.5% 8 7.1%


Before 6:00 p.m. 74 40.2% 32 14.8% 22 19.5%

6:00 p.m. to 6:59 p.m. 91 49.5% 136 63.0% 62 54.9%

7:00 p.m. or later 19 10.3% 48 22.2% 29 25.7%



Source: Authors’ calculations based on NACCRRAware data obtained from a local child care resource and referral agency. a Data from county child care councils were used to identify providers who self-reported having a contract with the local county


provided reflect the share of providers with a contract out of those that have data for this variable. Additionally, child care subsidy

payment records were obtained from the New York State Office of Children and Family Services and used to identify all providers

who received at least one subsidy payment for care services provided in 2014. b Contracts are not open to registered family child care providers in Westchester County.


TABLE 5

Descriptive Characteristics of Child Care Providers in Cook County, Illinois

Child Care Centers Licensed Family Child Care

N %/M N %/M

Total number of providers and share of all providers in region 1,379 28.1% 3,534 71.9%

Age groups served Infants (6 weeks to 14 months) 740 53.7% 3,472 98.2%

Toddlers (15–23 months) 738 53.5% 3,472 98.2%

Age two (24–35 months) 1,121 81.3% 3,526 99.8%

Preschoolers (3–5 years) 1,353 98.1% 3,533 100.0%

School age (5–12 years) 586 42.5% 3,473 98.3%

Subsidy program participationa Accepts children with subsidy (self-reported) 867 62.9% 2,259 63.9%

Received child care subsidy payments 1,022 74.1% 2,788 78.9%

Indicators of quality Participates in Quality Counts 250 18.1% 204 5.8%

Accredited 244 17.7% 117 3.3%

Schedules Full-time care (35+ hours/week) 1,209 87.7% 3,525 99.7%

Earliest start time (weekdays)b

Before 6:00 a.m. 9 0.7% 147 4.2%

6:00 a.m. to 6:29 a.m. 463 33.6% 2,882 81.6%

6:30 a.m. to 6:59 a.m. 281 20.4% 103 2.9%

7:00 a.m. to 7:59 a.m. 411 29.8% 346 9.8%

8:00 a.m. or later 215 15.6% 56 1.6%


Before 6:00 p.m. 288 20.9% 208 5.9%

6:00 p.m. to 6:59 p.m. 963 69.8% 907 25.7%

7:00 p.m. or later 128 9.3% 2,419 68.4%

Offers Saturday care 23 1.7% 471 13.3%

Offers Sunday care 11 0.8% 309 8.7%

Source: Authors’ calculations based on NACCRRAware data obtained from a local child care resource and referral agency. a Data from the Illinois Network of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies were used to identify providers who self-reported

accepting subsidy children. Because of data constraints, we cannot distinguish missing values from zeroes. Our estimates are

likely lower than the actual percentages. Data on child care subsidy receipt were obtained from the Illinois Department of Human

Services. Payment records were used to identify all providers who received at least one subsidy payment for care services

provided in fiscal year 2014. b Start and closing times are based on the hours for which a program is licensed to operate rather than actual operating hours.


TABLE 6

Descriptive Characteristics of Child Care Providers in Southwest Illinois


N %/M N %/M

Total number of providers and share of all providers in region 199 31.4% 435 68.6%

Age groups served Infants (6 weeks to 14 months) 120 60.3% 426 97.9%

Toddlers (15–23 months) 120 60.3% 426 97.9%

Age two (24–35 months) 135 67.8% 434 99.8%

Preschoolers (3–5 years) 199 100.0% 434 99.8%

School age (5–12 years) 119 59.8% 414 95.2%

Subsidy program participationa

Accepts children with subsidy (self-reported) 155 77.9% 349 80.2%

Received child care subsidy payments 160 80.4% 268 61.6%


Accredited 23 11.6% 7 1.6%

Schedules Full-time care (35+ hours/week) 160 80.4% 434 99.8%

Earliest start time (weekdays)b

Before 6:00 a.m. 4 2.0% 27 6.2%

6:00 a.m. to 6:29 a.m. 70 35.2% 292 67.1%

6:30 a.m. to 6:59 a.m. 64 32.2% 26 6.0%

7:00 a.m. to 7:59 a.m. 18 9.0% 67 15.4%

8:00 a.m. or later 43 21.6% 23 5.3%


Before 6:00 p.m. 65 32.7% 111 25.5%

6:00 p.m. to 6:59 p.m. 120 60.3% 94 21.6%

7:00 p.m. or later 14 7.0% 230 52.9%



Source: Authors’ calculations based on NACCRRAware data obtained from a local child care resource and referral agency. a Data from the Illinois Network of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies were used to identify providers who self-reported

accepting subsidy children. Because of data constraints, we cannot distinguish missing values from zeroes. Our estimates are

likely lower than the actual percentages. Data on child care subsidy receipt were obtained from the Illinois Department of Human

Services. Payment records were used to identify all providers who received at least one subsidy payment for care services

provided in fiscal year 2014. b Start and closing times are based on the hours for which a program is licensed to operate rather than actual operating hours.

Total Numbers of Providers by Care Type

In the two New York counties, child care providers included in our analysis fall into three categories: (1)

licensed child care centers, (2) licensed group family child care homes (GFCC) that provide care for 7–

12 children at a time plus 1–2 school-age children, depending on how many infants are in care, and (3)


registered family child care homes (FCC) that provide care for 3–6 children at a time plus 1–2 school-

age children, depending on how many infants are in care.11

In Illinois, providers fall into two categories: centers and licensed family child care providers. Larger

(group) family child care homes are generally not distinguished from family child care in Illinois. All are

recognized as licensed, home-based providers in our data, but some are licensed for more children than

others.

Across provider types, we find 870 regulated providers operating in Nassau and 619 regulated

providers in Westchester. In Nassau, nearly two-thirds of regulated providers are licensed GFCC

providers. Licensed centers account for 23 percent of regulated providers, and registered FCC

providers account for 14 percent. In Westchester, licensed GFCC providers are also the most common

care type, followed by licensed centers and registered FCC providers. Overall, licensed centers and

registered FCC providers have a greater presence in Westchester than in Nassau.

GFCC providers, who essentially convert part of their homes into a designated space for children,

are common in suburban neighborhoods in these two counties. Providers must follow health and safety

standards to ensure adequate and safe spaces for play and care routines and employ multiple staff

members to maintain required adult-to-child ratios.

Cook County, a much more populated urban area than the two New York counties, has many more

providers: 1,379 child care centers and 3,534 licensed FCC providers. FCC providers are more

concentrated in Chicago and its close suburbs than in the rest of the county. The more rural southwest

Illinois counties have fewer providers but, similar to the other sites, have more licensed FCC providers

than centers (435 and 199, respectively).

However, note that home-based programs have less capacity than center-based programs. The

count of providers displayed in tables 3 through 6 does not account for the number of children providers

can legally serve. Later in the report, we examine child care capacity (i.e., number of slots) more closely.

Subsidy Participation

In Nassau County, as shown in table 3, about half of the county’s licensed centers have a contract with

the county department of social services (DSS) to deliver subsidized care services. About 35 percent of

licensed centers received a subsidy payment in 2014. This suggests that although most contracted

centers are serving subsidized children, almost one-third of centers with a contract do not have any


subsidized children enrolled. Those centers may be located in neighborhoods with fewer subsidy-

eligible children where demand for subsidized care is low, may have waiting lists that discourage

subsidy-eligible families from applying, or may not match subsidized families’ needs in other ways.

Relative to licensed centers, a greater proportion of licensed GFCC and registered FCC providers in

Nassau County have a contract with the county DSS (94 and 89 percent, respectively), although data is

missing for some providers on this variable, so our estimates may overrepresent providers with a

contract. Approximately 75 percent of GFCC and 46 percent of FCC providers in Nassau received a

subsidy payment in 2014.

Contracts are less common in Westchester County: only 41 percent of licensed centers and 32

percent of licensed GFCC have contracts. Registered FCC providers are not eligible to receive contracts

in the county. However, nearly 90 percent of licensed GFCC and registered FCC providers, and about

two-thirds of licensed centers, report accepting subsidy vouchers. When we look at subsidy payment

records, between 41 and 53 percent of providers in Westchester served at least one subsidized child in

2014. The other half went the whole year without serving any subsidized children.

In Cook County, a similar share of centers and FCC providers (63 and 64 percent, respectively)

report accepting subsidies, and only 5 percent more FCC providers actually received a subsidy payment

(79 percent versus 74 percent for centers). In southwest Illinois, most providers report accepting

subsidies (78 percent of centers and 80 percent of FCC providers), although a larger share of centers

actually received a subsidy payment (80 percent compared to 62 percent).

Looking specifically at centers, rates of subsidy receipt were higher in Cook County and southwest

Illinois than in either New York county, likely because of differences in local demographics. In the New

York counties, more licensed GFCC and registered FCC providers were paid for providing care to

subsidized children than centers, which suggests that subsidized children may be enrolling in centers at

a lower rate than home-based settings. Yet these estimates do not account for how many subsidized

children were served; a single center could have served 100 subsidized children, whereas an FCC

provider could have served only 1. At the provider level, though, we see home-based providers are

more likely than centers to participate in the subsidy program in three of the four study sites.

Provider Quality

In the two New York counties, few providers are accredited (6 percent of centers and 1 percent of

GFCC providers in Nassau and 14 percent of centers and no GFCC or FCC providers in Westchester;


see tables 3 and 4). Similarly, very few providers participated in the QUALITYstarsNY program as of

2015, when data were collected (34 in Nassau and 20 in Westchester). Because of limited funding and

the high cost of program implementation, QUALITYstarsNY can only accept a restricted number of

applications, with priority given to providers serving low-income children.

The majority of center providers in both Nassau and Westchester have a staff member with at least

a bachelor’s degree, with smaller shares of GFCC providers (31 percent in Nassau and 46 percent in

Westchester) and FCC providers (about 30 percent in both counties) employing staff members with

these degrees (see appendix A for additional data tables with these provider characteristics). Most

center providers in the New York sites have at least one teacher with a degree in early childhood

education, but this is less common among GFCC and FCC providers. For example, an FCC provider

could have a bachelor’s degree in business administration or another field. Few providers across care

types and counties have Breastfeeding Friendly certification (36 providers in Nassau and 3 providers in

Westchester) because this is a fairly new offering. Counter to expectations, less than 8 percent of GFCC

and FCC providers in Nassau and Westchester are certified to administer medication of any kind to

children. Although this certification is more common among centers (56 percent and 68 percent in

Nassau and Westchester, respectively), many center-based providers remain uncertified.

Accreditation is somewhat more common in the Illinois sites (18 percent of centers and 3 percent of

FCC providers in Cook County, and 12 percent of centers and 2 percent of FCC providers in southwest

Illinois). We observed similar patterns for participation in the state’s quality rating system. About 20

percent of centers and a small fraction of FCC providers participated in the Quality Counts Quality

Rating System, which was replaced in 2015 with ExceleRate Illinois, a statewide quality rating and

improvement system implemented through the Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge Grant.

Providers’ Schedules by Care Type

Tables 3 through 6 also show when providers offer care. In Nassau and Westchester, most centers open

after 7:00 a.m., with fewer than 15 percent opening earlier. About 40 percent of centers close before

6:00 p.m. (most commonly at 5:30 p.m.). In contrast, centers in Illinois have longer hours on average,

with 55 percent in Cook County and 69 percent in southwest Illinois opening before 7:00 a.m. and only

21 percent in Cook County and 33 percent in southwest Illinois closing before 6:00 p.m.

A greater share of licensed or registered family child care providers across the four sites (and

licensed GFCC providers in New York) are licensed to provide care during nonstandard hours, including


early mornings, evenings, and weekends. Very few, if any, centers across the four sites are open on

weekends or overnight.

We also examine the length of providers’ longest weekday session. We distinguish care sessions—

the period of time during which a child can be enrolled—from business hours because providers may

have multiple sessions covering a longer period of time than a single child could be enrolled. Data

indicate how many sessions a provider has each week and the start and end times for each day within

each session. After summing hours for each day, we determine the cumulative weekly length of each

session and the length of the longest session. If the longest weekday session is 55 hours and the

program is open five weekdays, the average daily length equals 11 hours. (We calculate weekend shifts

separately from weekday shifts.)

Figures 8 through 11 show the distribution of providers by the length of their longest care session.

The x-axis can be interpreted as the maximum number of hours a given child could potentially be enrolled,

and the y-axis shows the share of providers offering sessions of that length. Licensed centers and

registered family child care providers in Nassau most commonly offer 11 hours of care per day, compared

with 12 hours for group family child care providers. In Westchester County, 11 hours of care per day is

most common across all three care types. In the Illinois sites, most centers and family child care providers

offer care 12 hours per day, with a small number operating much shorter or longer daily sessions.


FIGURE 8

Share of Providers by Average Length of the Longest Weekday Session, Nassau County, New York

Source: Authors’ calculations based on NACCRRAware data obtained from a local child care resource and referral agency.

FIGURE 9

Share of Providers by Average Length of the Longest Weekday Session, Westchester County,

New York


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Share of providers

Average number of daily care hours for longest weekday session

Licensed child care centers

Licensed group family child careprograms

Registered family child careprograms

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Share of providers



Licensed group family child careprograms

Registered family child careprograms


FIGURE 10

Share of Providers by Average Length of the Longest Weekday Session, Cook County, Illinois


FIGURE 11

Share of Providers 0by Average Length of the Longest Weekday Session, Southwest Illinois


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24

Child care centers andpreschools

Licensed family child careprograms


Share of providers

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24

Child care centers andpreschools

Licensed family child careprograms


Share of providers


For subsequent analyses, we define full-time providers as those who care for children at least 35

hours each week. For example, a program operating five days a week from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., similar

to a school day, would have a program session of 32.5 hours a week and would not meet our definition

of full time. A program operating 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. would have a program session of 35 hours, our

minimum threshold for full-time care. We selected 35 hours based on the assumption that parents

working full time would need care for at least 35 hours a week, the conventional threshold for a job to

be considered full time. We find that nearly all FCC and GFCC providers across the four sites meet this

definition, compared with about 80 percent of centers in the New York counties and southwest Illinois

and 88 percent of centers in Cook County (see tables 3 through 6).

The data show that provider schedules vary, with most centers open only during weekdays and

about 80 percent offering full-time care. Other centers run part-time programs or follow a school-day

schedule with limited hours that might not match up with parents’ work hours. Family child care

providers are generally licensed for more care hours than centers.

Geographic Distribution of Full-Time Providers

Next, we explore where full-time providers are located in relation to where subsidy-eligible children

live. Figures 12 through 15 show the location of all full-time providers in each study site by care type as

well as the number of subsidy-eligible children in each census tract. The maps do not account for

program capacity or the availability of program slots, which is the focus of later maps in this report, but

give a sense of provider distribution across each region.

As shown in figure 12, full-time providers in Nassau are heavily concentrated in the central part of

the county, where we also see the highest number of subsidy-eligible children. Whereas GFCC and FCC

providers have a greater presence in the central area around Hempstead, centers are more dispersed

across the county and in areas with very few low-income children with working parents.


FIGURE 12

Full-Time Providers by Care Type, Nassau County, New York

Source: Authors’ estimates using NACCRRAware data and 2010–14 American Community Survey data.

Note: Census tracts are shaded by number of children under age 6 with household income under 200 percent of the federal

poverty level and all parents working.

In Westchester (figure 13), providers are concentrated in the southern region of the county close to

the Bronx, where the population density is greater. Families in the northeast part of the county have

fewer full-time care options. North Salem, for example, has more subsidy-eligible children than more

affluent neighboring communities but only one full-time provider, a center.


FIGURE 13

Full-Time Providers by Care Type, Westchester County, New York




As shown in figure 14, full-time providers in Cook County are heavily concentrated in Chicago and

its close suburbs. The geographic distribution of centers and FCC providers are fairly similar (in contrast

to the patterns found in New York counties, where centers are more dispersed and FCC providers are

more clustered). FCC providers outnumber centers in most of the county, with the exception of the


northern and southwest suburbs of Chicago and along Lake Michigan downtown and the affluent region

to the north. In the north, northwest, and southwest suburbs, there is a lower concentration of

providers generally.

FIGURE 14

Full-Time Providers by Care Type, Cook County, Illinois





In southwest Illinois (figure 15), full-time providers are concentrated in the more densely populated

areas of Madison and St. Clair counties, including Alton, East St. Louis, Granite City, and Belleville,

where counts of subsidy-eligible children are higher. A few small areas in Randolph County to the south

and Bond County to the northeast are also darkly shaded, signaling a high number of subsidy-eligible

children, yet have fewer full-time care options. Generally, FCC providers outnumber centers, with a few

local exceptions, such as Edwardsville in Madison County and Waterloo in Monroe County.

FIGURE 15

Full-Time Providers by Care Type, Southwest Illinois





These maps show that full-time providers are typically located near communities with greater need,

but there are many exceptions. Each study site has areas of high need with limited full-time care options.

Examining local access is important, as we find some differences across sites. In the two New York sites,

centers and family child care providers have more distinct geographic footprints, whereas the locational

patterns of centers and family child care in the Illinois sites track one another more closely.

A Closer Look at Full-Time, Subsidized Care Options:

Provider Characteristics and Geographic Distribution

Characteristics of Full-Time Providers that Participate in the Subsidy Program

To better understand the child care options for subsidized families and issues of access, we compare the

characteristics of full-time providers that participate in the subsidy system and those that do not (see

tables 7A and 7B). We consider whether the provider is accredited, participates in the state quality

rating system (QUALITYstarsNY or Quality Counts), and is licensed for infant care, early morning care

before 6:00 a.m., evening care after 7:00 p.m., or any weekend care. These select measures relate to

issues of access: whether a subsidized family has equal access to high-quality care, infant care, and care

during nonstandard hours.

In Nassau, only 10 full-time licensed centers (6 percent) are accredited, but nearly all participate in

the subsidy program. In Westchester, 23 full-time licensed centers (15 percent) are accredited, and of

those, 14 centers (60 percent) accept subsidies.

Under New York State licensing requirements, infant care covers ages 6 weeks to 18 months for

centers and ages 6 weeks to 24 months for GFCC and FCC providers. As shown in table 7A, only about

40 percent of full-time centers in Nassau and 49 percent in Westchester accept subsidies and are

licensed for infant care, suggesting the challenge subsidized families with infants may face finding

licensed center care. Meanwhile, nearly all GFCC and FCC providers in the two counties are licensed for

infant care (with some variation on the minimum age accepted) and most, but not all, also participate in

the subsidy system.

In Illinois, a large majority of full-time centers and FCC providers accept subsidies. In Cook County,

89 percent of full-time centers and FCC providers participate in the subsidy program. In southwest

Illinois, participation rates are also high among both centers and FCC providers (93 percent and 88


percent, respectively). About 16 percent of full-time centers in Cook County and 14 percent in

southwest Illinois are accredited and nearly all accept subsidies.

In Illinois, infant care is defined as 6 weeks to 14 months. Among full-time centers in Cook County,

less than half are licensed for infant care and accept subsidies, compared with 87 percent of FCC

providers. More full-time centers in southwest Illinois accept subsidies and are licensed for infant care

(68 percent), along with a similar share of full-time FCC providers (85 percent).

We see some regional difference in the share of full-time providers, especially centers, that

participate in the subsidy system. Most, but not all, accredited and quality-rated providers accept

subsidies, with the largest disparity in Westchester. Similarly, most providers with nonstandard hours

accept subsidies, but many infant care providers, especially in New York, do not.


TABLE 7A

Characteristics of Full-Time Providers by Care Type and Subsidy Program Participation, New York Sites

Nassau County Westchester County

Centers (N=156)

Group Family Child Care Providers

(N=511)

Registered Family Child Care Providers

(N=119) Centers (N=150)

Group Family Child Care Providers

(N=226)

Registered Family Child Care Providers

(N=117)

Accept Subsidiesa

Do Not Accept

Subsidies Accept

Subsidies

Do Not Accept

Subsidies Accept

Subsidies

Do Not Accept

Subsidies Accept

Subsidies

Do Not Accept

Subsidies Accept

Subsidies

Do Not Accept

Subsidies Accept

Subsidies

Do Not Accept

Subsidies

n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Total providers 82 53% 74 47% 447 87% 64 13% 91 76% 28 24% 105 70% 45 30% 197 87% 29 13% 105 90% 12 10%

Accredited 9 11% 1 1% 5 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 14 13% 9 20% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

QRIS-rated 4 5% 2 3% 25 6% 0 0% 2 2% 0 0% 11 10% 1 2% 4 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Licensed for infant careb 62 76% 43 58% 426 95% 60 94% 85 93% 28 100% 74 70% 27 60% 189 96% 24 83% 102 97% 11 92%

Licensed for nonstandard care hoursc 16 20% 4 5% 165 37% 7 11% 23 25% 3 11% 14 13% 5 11% 45 23% 5 17% 31 30% 2 17%

Licensed for weekend care 3 4% 0 0% 114 26% 1 2% 13 14% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 26 13% 1 3% 17 16% 0 0%

Source: Authors’ tabulations of NACCRRAware data from study sites. a Data in all columns labeled “Accept subsidies” combine providers who self-report accepting subsidy vouchers or having a contract and observed subsidy receipt in state payment

records.

b Defined as licensed to care for children under 18 months in New York centers and under 24 months in New York family child care and group family child care programs. c Defined as licensed to operate before 6:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m.


TABLE 7B

Characteristics of Full-Time Providers by Care Type and Subsidy Program Participation, Illinois Sites

Cook County Southwest Illinois

Centers (N=1,209) Licensed Family Child Care

Providers (N=3,525) Centers (N=160) Licensed Family Child Care

Providers (N=434)

Accept Subsidiesa

Do Not Accept

Subsidies Accept

Subsidies

Do Not Accept

Subsidies Accept

Subsidies

Do Not Accept

Subsidies Accept

Subsidies

Do Not Accept

Subsidies

n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Total providers 1,073 89% 136 11% 3,147 89% 378 11% 148 93% 12 8% 384 88% 50 12%

Accredited 183 17% 16 12% 117 4% 0 0% 22 15% 0 0% 7 2% 0 0%

QRIS-rated 246 23% 3 2% 203 6% 1 0% 37 25% 0 0% 9 2% 0 0%

Licensed for infant careb 576 54% 62 46% 3,067 97% 356 94% 109 74% 4 33% 371 97% 49 98%

Licensed for nonstandard care hoursc 120 11% 8 6% 2,299 73% 158 42% 14 9% 1 8% 229 60% 13 26%

Licensed for weekend care 21 2% 2 1% 472 15% 1 0% 6 4% 0 0% 196 51% 9 18%

Source: Authors’ tabulations of NACCRRAware data from study sites. a Data in all columns labeled “Accept subsidies” combine providers who self-report accepting subsidy vouchers or having a contract and observed subsidy receipt in state payment

records.

b Defined as licensed to care for children under 65 weeks old. c Defined as licensed to operate before 6:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m.


Geographic Distribution of Full-Time Providers that Accept Subsidies

The previous section examined the locations of full-time providers relative to subsidy-eligible children,

but our maps thus far have not indicated which providers accept subsidies. To better understand issues

of care access among subsidized families, we map the locations of full-time, center-based providers and

distinguish those that serve subsidized children and those that do not. We do the same for full-time

family child care providers, distinguishing between FCC and GFCC providers in New York. We use a

combination of providers who self-reported accepting subsidy vouchers, providers who self-reported

having a subsidy contract, and state subsidy payment records to determine which providers participate

in the subsidy program.

In subsequent sections, additional maps compare the locations of providers licensed for infant care

or not and providers that are accredited or not.

As shown in figure 16A, full-time, center-based providers in Nassau County are dispersed across

the central part of the county. This is true regardless of whether they accept subsidies. We see a cluster

of centers in the middle of the county, where we also find the largest share of subsidy-eligible children.

Family child care providers are also clustered in the central part of the county, with another

concentration near Queens (see figure 16B). There are very few GFCC and FCC providers in the north

and northeastern regions of the county, and correspondingly, very few GFCC and FCC providers in

those areas that accept subsidies.

In Westchester, we see a clustering of centers that accept subsidies in the southern portion of the

county near the Bronx, with other small clusters near Ossining, Mount Kisco, and Peekskill, where we

also see high numbers of subsidy-eligible children (see figure 17A). We find similar patterns for family

child care: most GFCC and FCC providers accepting subsidies are located along the southern county

border and in a cluster in the northwest town of Peekskill, with very few in several areas of high

population density such as Ossining and Mount Kisco (see figure 17B). Family child care providers that

do not accept subsidies are scattered throughout the central corridor of the county in towns such as

Scarsdale and Mount Pleasant, where we see fewer subsidy-eligible children.

In Cook County, areas with more subsidy-eligible children appear to have good geographic access

to centers that accept subsidies in Chicago, though some high-density pockets of these children

throughout the city are underserved (see figure 20). Centers in downtown Chicago appear less likely to

accept subsidies. The suburban portions of Cook County to the northwest and south appear to have

high numbers of low-income children and fewer centers accepting subsidies.


In figure 18B, we show FCC providers in Cook County and whether they accept subsidies. This map

shows a similar pattern of suburban areas with high numbers of subsidy-eligible children, notably

Wheeling and Des Plaines to the north, Oak Lawn in the southwest, and Chicago Heights to the far

south, having few FCC providers accepting subsidies. The northern suburbs have few FCC providers to

begin with and even fewer that accept subsidies.

In figures 19A and 19B, we show the same data for southwest Illinois centers and family child care,

respectively. Center-based providers accepting subsides are clustered in the more populated areas of

Madison and St. Clair Counties, including East St. Louis, which has the highest concentrations of low-

income children with working parents. Center care is less abundant in the more rural counties, but

almost all centers accept subsidies. We find similar patterns among family child care providers, with a

cluster of providers in the East St. Louis and Belleville areas, and other pockets near Granite City and

Alton. Family child care providers accepting subsidies are scattered throughout some rural areas that

lack center care, such as parts of Madison and Bond counties.

Across our study sites, we find that centers that do not accept subsidies are more likely to be

located in low-need areas, and FCC and GFCC providers that do not accept subsidies are geographically

dispersed across both high- and low-need areas.


FIGURE 16A AND 16B

Full-Time Centers and Family Child Care Providers by Subsidy Program Participation, Nassau County, New York

Full-time centers (left), family child care providers (right)


Note: Census tracts are shaded by number of children under age 6 with household income under 200 percent of the federal poverty level and all parents working.


FIGURE 17A AND 17B

Full-Time Centers and Family Child Care Providers by Subsidy Program Participation, Westchester, New York





FIGURE 18A AND 18B

Full-Time Centers and Family Child Care Providers by Subsidy Program Participation, Cook County, Illinois





FIGURE 19A AND 19B

Full-Time Centers and Family Child Care Providers by Subsidy Program Participation, Southwest Illinois





Locating Subsidized Infant Care

Next, we more closely examine the geographic distribution of infant care in each study site to identify

communities that offer limited options to families with infants. Because most FCC and GFCC providers

are licensed for infant care, we focus only on center-based care. Figures 20 through 23 show full-time

centers that accept subsidies and distinguish those licensed for infant care. These maps also show

where subsidy-eligible children live.

In Nassau County, few full-time centers provide infant care accept subsidies. Those that do are

scattered across the county, with a small cluster in the central region and very few operating in the

northwest (figure 20). Most full-time, center-based providers in Westchester that accept subsidies and

are licensed for infant care are located in the southern portion of the county (figure 21).

As shown in figure 22, most centers in Chicago that accept subsidies do not serve infants. In

particular, the northwest region of Chicago and the city’s Little Village neighborhood just east of

Berwyn lack center-based infant care for subsidized families. In the Cook County suburbs, however, a

greater proportion of subsidized centers serve infants.

The center-based providers in southwest Illinois serving infants and accepting subsidies are located

near Alton, Edwardsville, and the East St. Louis area (figure 23). Granite City, however, has few centers

that accept subsidies. And in Randolph and Washington counties, where center-based care is scarce to

begin with, even fewer centers accept infants.


FIGURE 20

Full-Time Centers Accepting Subsidies and Licensed for Infant Care, Nassau County, New York





FIGURE 21

Full-Time Centers Accepting Subsidies and Licensed for Infant Care, Westchester County, New York





FIGURE 22

Full-Time Centers Accepting Subsidies and Licensed for Infant Care, Cook County, Illinois





FIGURE 23

Full-Time Centers that Accept Subsidies and Licensed for Infant Care, Southwest Illinois





Locating High-Quality Subsidized Care

In addition to examining the availability of subsidized infant care, we examine the availability of quality-

rated providers in neighborhoods with high numbers of subsidy-eligible children. In Illinois, we used two

main measures to define quality based on the data available: (1) national accreditation (e.g.,

accreditation through the National Association for the Education of Young Children, National

Association for Family Child Care, etc.) and (2) provider participation in the Quality Counts Quality

Rating System. In New York, we focused only on national accreditation because QUALITYstarsNY was

still in its early implementation phase at the time of data analysis and few providers had been selected

to participate. This measure serves as a proxy for quality. We recognize that some high-quality

programs are not accredited, so we may be underestimating access to quality.

Figures 24 and 25 show the locations of full-time centers in Nassau and Westchester that accept

subsidies and identify which are accredited. As described earlier, few full-time centers in these sites are

accredited, and those that are accredited are scattered across areas with high numbers of subsidy-

eligible children and areas with lower need.

In the two Illinois maps (figures 26 and 27), we indicate which full-time centers are accredited or

quality rated and which are not. We find that accredited and quality-rated centers are dispersed

throughout Cook County, but some communities with high numbers of subsidy-eligible children appear

to have less access. These include the western suburbs of Maywood and Melrose Park, Chicago’s Austin

neighborhood east of Oak Park, and southern suburbs around Harvey and Chicago Heights. In

southwest Illinois, accredited or quality-rated centers are located in the more populated regions of

Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair counties, with the notable exception of Granite City. The four more rural

counties share a single quality-rated center.

The overarching pattern we observe is that there are few accredited or quality-rated providers to

begin with, and the few present in these communities are dispersed across high- and low-need areas

rather than clustered together. The modal local choice set for the typical subsidy-eligible child does not

include centers that are full time, accept subsides, and demonstrate high quality. When a high-quality

center is in a lower-need neighborhood, this means increased competition with higher-income children

for those providers, further constraining access. We must keep in mind that accredited providers are in

high demand, given their limited numbers, and subsidized families may not be able to access them even

if a provider participates in the subsidy program. Specifically, a slot in an accredited center may not be

available at the time a subsidized family applies, and they are likely to turn to alternative providers with

openings if they need to select a provider to enroll in the subsidy program.


FIGURE 24

Full-Time Centers Accepting Subsidies by Accreditation, Nassau County, New York





FIGURE 25

Full-Time Centers Accepting Subsidies by Accreditation, Westchester County, New York





FIGURE 26

Full-Time Centers Accepting Subsidies by Quality Rating or Accreditation, Cook County, Illinois





FIGURE 27

Full-Time Centers Accepting Subsidies by Quality Rating or Accreditation, Southwest Illinois





Role of Legally Exempt Home-Based Providers

A key sector of the subsidized child care market is legally exempt (or license-exempt) home-based

providers. This includes relatives and nonrelatives caring for a small number of children in a home

setting. (Some centers or school-based programs may be legally exempt, but our discussion refers to

care provided in a home setting.) According to analyses of child care subsidy payment records from

Phase 1 of the Illinois–New York Child Care Research Partnership, about one-fifth of families in both

Westchester and Cook counties use legally exempt care for their first subsidized care arrangement for a

child not yet in kindergarten, compared with 28 percent of families in southwest Illinois (see Henly et al.

2015). Because of the greater emphasis on contracted child care in Nassau County, nearly all subsidized

families select either a contracted center, a licensed group family child care provider, or a registered

family child care provider as their first provider for young children.

Given the high use of legally exempt care in several study sites, we explore patterns in provider

locations, such as whether legally exempt subsidized providers cluster together or are dispersed

throughout the region and how their locations match up against estimates of demand for subsidized

care in general and at certain times of the day (e.g., early mornings, evenings, and overnight).

We obtained lists of legally exempt home-based providers from state child care records and

narrowed the list to providers active in the month of December 2014 in New York and June 2014 in

Illinois. This matched the data we obtained from NACCRRAware for licensed and registered providers.

For New York, the lists capture enrolled providers (those approved for subsidy payments), whereas the

Illinois list captures all legally exempt providers paid for care they provided during that month.

Therefore, provider counts in New York may be higher than the number of providers actually used.

These data also do not indicate the age of children in care, so our estimates represent the broader

population of legally exempt providers and include those who care only for school-age children.

The data we had available across all sites indicated whether care was provided in the child’s home

(“in-home care”) or in the provider’s home (“legally exempt family child care”). In Nassau County, we

identified 274 in-home providers and 97 legally exempt family child care providers enrolled in the

subsidy system. In Westchester, counts were much higher: 498 in-home providers and 282 legally

exempt family child care providers. Cook County had the most legally exempt home-based providers,

with 6,415 in-home providers and 9,046 legally exempt family child care providers. Southwest Illinois

had smaller yet still substantial numbers, with 507 in-home providers and 950 legally exempt family

child care providers.


The data we had available across sites included the provider’s address on record but not the specific

address where care was provided (i.e., the child’s address for in-home care). This is a limitation of the

data. For our analysis, we assume care was provided at or near the provider’s address and map all

addresses to identify the geographic distribution of legally exempt home-based providers in each study

site. The resulting maps pinpoint the locations of legally exempt providers layered on top of census

tract-level estimates of subsidy-eligible children needing care during early morning hours (appendix

figures A.1, A.4, A.7, and A.10), in the evening (appendix figures A.2, A.5, A.8, and A.11), or overnight

(appendix figures A.3, A.6, A.9, and A.12). (See the earlier section on parents’ work hours on pages 6 and

7 for a definition of these shifts).

As shown in appendix figures A.1 through A.12, legally exempt home-based providers are generally

clustered in areas with high counts of subsidy-eligible children with parents who work nonstandard

hours. In Nassau, providers are clustered in the center of the county, with few operating in the northern

half. In Westchester, providers are clustered along the county’s southern region near Yonkers, Mount

Vernon, and New Rochelle, as well as in pockets near White Plains in the central region and Peekskill to

the northwest. Cook County is a much more populated area than Nassau and Westchester and has

many more legally exempt providers. Nearly every part of the county has some legally exempt providers

that have received payment through the subsidy system, but most providers are clustered on Chicago’s

west and south sides and in its western and southern suburbs. In southwest Illinois, providers are

clustered in the more populated regions to the west in Alton, East St. Louis, Granite City, and Belleville.

Although we cannot tell the times of day when legally exempt providers actually provide care, these

patterns suggest they might be offering coverage for families needing care during nonstandard hours

when centers and family child care providers are unavailable. However, we lack the required data to

systematically examine this issue.


Assessment of Unmet Need Our findings so far have focused on the location and characteristics of child care providers. To take the

analysis a step further, we used data on licensed capacity to determine the number of slots available

across providers. Specifically, we were interested in identifying communities with a high potential need

for subsidized child care and a low available supply—what experts in the field have referred to as “child

care deserts” (Dobbins et al. 2016, 2).12 In this analysis, we compare counts of potentially subsidy-

eligible children to full-time program slots in regulated care settings that accept subsidies.

First, we tabulate the number of slots across all providers of a certain care type in each study site

and the number of those slots that are in full-time programs. (Again, we exclude providers that only

offer school-age care.) Next, we examine the share of full-time slots meeting certain criteria, such as

slots that accept subsidies or infants. Table 8 provides information about child care slots in Nassau and

Westchester counties, and table 9 provides information for Cook County and southwest Illinois. We

then create maps to visualize demand (the number of potentially subsidy-eligible children) against

supply (the number of slots in subsidized programs).

The total number of slots across all full- and part-time providers in Nassau is 29,697. Sixty-nine

percent of Nassau slots are in centers, 28 percent in GFCC providers, and 3 percent in FCC providers.

Westchester has 22,428 slots, with 75 percent in centers, 19 percent in GFCC providers, and 5 percent

in FCC providers. Across care types, we find 16,505 slots in full-time programs in Nassau that accept

subsidies. We estimate from ACS data that there are approximately 11,500 potentially subsidy-eligible

children in Nassau County; without accounting for competition with higher-income children, families

with a subsidy might be able to find a slot in a full-time program that accepts subsidies. However, when

accounting for the thousands of higher-income children as well as parents’ and children’s specific care

needs, the supply of care likely does not match the need. Unmet need appears to be greater in

Westchester, where we find 13,162 slots in full-time programs that accept subsidies, compared with an

estimated 12,400 subsidy-eligible children.

Almost half the slots in licensed center care are in full-time centers that accept subsidies (44

percent in Nassau County and 55 percent in Westchester County). In both counties, very few of these

slots are available for full-time infant care (5 and 6 percent, respectively). However, in Westchester

County, nearly 20 percent of slots among GFCC and FCC providers are for infants. (In our data for

Nassau, age groups are not defined for most GFCC and FCC providers, so we cannot determine the

share for infants.) In both counties, very few slots are available before 6:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. More


slots are available between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., including 20 percent of center slots in Nassau and

11 percent of center slots in Westchester.

In Cook County, we find 139,572 total slots, about three-fourths of which are in centers and one-

fourth in FCC providers. The southwest Illinois region has 19,978 slots, 81 percent of which are in

centers. About 90 percent of center slots in both Illinois sites are with full-time providers. In contrast to

the two New York counties, nearly 90 percent of slots in both licensed centers and FCC providers

accept subsidies. The number of slots in programs that accept subsidies exceeds the number of subsidy-

eligible children (105,000 subsidy-eligible children in Cook County and 15,800 in southwest Illinois, as

discussed earlier in the report). However, as in the New York counties, competition from higher-income

children might limit parents’ choices.

In both Illinois sites, less than 10 percent of slots are available for full-time infant care, but this may

be an undercount because not all Illinois child care programs report their slots by age. Most slots in

centers and FCC providers are in programs licensed to provide care before 7:00 a.m., and many of the

slots in FCC providers are in programs licensed to provide care after 7:00 p.m. Almost half of all FCC

providers in southwest Illinois are licensed for weekend care, more than in any other study site.

Figures 28 through 31 show the difference between the estimated number of subsidy-eligible

children and the number of slots in full-time programs that reported accepting subsidies or that

received a subsidy payment in 2014. If supply meets or exceeds demand (i.e., there are more slots than

children or an equal number), we label this as zero.

The analysis does not account for the many low-income working parents using Head Start, public

prekindergarten, or other early learning programs that do not meet our definition of full-time child care

providers. Low-income children enrolled in these programs may not need a full-time child care slot. We

assume that all low-income working parents need and want to enroll their children in a program that

will care for that child at least 35 hours a week.

The key takeaway from these maps is that many, but not all, of the greatest gaps in coverage are in

areas with a high density of subsidy-eligible families and, once we compare with other maps, the highest

share of limited English proficient households. We identify these areas as child care deserts.

These estimates should be interpreted with caution because we know that actual demand for care

extends beyond our estimates of subsidized children, and competition for these slots may include

children not eligible for subsidies. If this is the case, we are likely underestimating the number of slots

needed to meet demand. In addition, these estimates do not account for families willing and able to seek


care outside their own census tract and in a tract with greater supply. In that case, we might be

overestimating the slots needed in a given tract. These cautions aside, the maps illustrate areas where

subsidized families may have difficulty locating full-time child care options.


TABLE 8

Slots in Full-Time Programs with Different Characteristics, as a Share of All Slots of that Care Type, New York

Nassau County Westchester County


Licensed group family child care

programs

Registered family child care

programs Licensed child

care centers

Licensed group family child care

programs

Registered family child care

programs

Total slots and share of slots in region 20,346 69% 8,399 28% 952 3% 16,915 75% 4,352 19% 1,161 5%

Full-time slots and share of total slots 16,225 80% 7,738 92% 936 98% 13,228 78% 3,482 80% 914 79%

In programs accepting subsidies 9,005 44.3% 6,787 80.8% 713 74.9% 9,301 55.0% 3,040 69.9% 821 70.7%

For infants 1,025 5.0% 16 0.2% 12 1.3% 1,056 6.2% 904 20.8% 234 20.2%

For toddlers 2,404 11.8% 10 0.1% 0 0.0% 2,362 14.0% 670 15.4% 219 18.9%

For preschoolers (3–5 years) 8,032 39.9% 8 0.1% 0 0.0% 7,932 46.9% 1,104 25.4% 231 19.9%

For school age (5–12 years) 1,773 8.7% 8 0.1% 0 0.0% 1,878 11.1% 808 18.6% 230 19.8%

For unspecified age 2,991 14.7% 7,696 91.63% 924 97.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

In programs participating in QRIS 763 3.8% 384 4.6% 15 1.6% 1,503 8.9% 62 1.42% 0 0.0%

In accredited programs 1,613 7.9% 78 0.9% 0 0.0% 2,559 15.1% 0 0.00% 0 0.0%

In programs licensed before 6:00 a.m. 71 0.4% 226 2.7% 32 3.4% 0 0.0% 60 1.38% 30 2.6%

In programs licensed before 7:00 a.m. 4,090 20.1% 3,507 41.8% 326 34.2% 1,878 11.1% 816 18.75% 297 25.6%

In programs closing at 7:00 p.m. or later 2,773 13.6% 2,287 27.2% 169 17.8% 1,880 11.1% 732 16.82% 223 19.2%

In programs licensed for any weekend care 288 1.4% 1,769 21.1% 101 10.6% 0 0.0% 414 9.51% 129 11.1%

In programs open 24 hours 0 0.0% 234 2.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 170 3.91% 31 2.7%

Source: Authors’ tabulations of NACCRRAware data.

Notes: In New York, infant slots in centers serve children ages six weeks to 18 months, and infant care in homes serves children ages six weeks to 24 months. Toddler slots in centers

serve children ages 19 to 35 months, and toddler care in homes serves children ages 24 to 35 months. NACCRRAware is missing some data on slots by age for providers who

elsewhere report serving each age group: 3 percent missing for center-based infant and toddler providers, 39 percent missing for home-based infant and toddler providers, 25

percent missing for providers serving preschoolers, and 7 percent missing for providers serving school-age children.


TABLE 9

Number of Slots in Full-time Programs with Different Characteristics, as a Percent of All Slots of that Care Type, Illinois

Cook County Southwest Illinois

Child care centers Licensed family child

care programs Child care centers Licensed family child

care programs

Total slots and share of slots in region 105,958 75.9% 33,614 24.1% 16,109 80.6% 3,869 19.4%

Full-time slots and share of total slots 96,707 91.3% 33,541 99.8% 14,066 87.3% 3,857 99.7%

In programs receiving or accepting subsidies 85,970 88.9% 30,312 90.4% 12,997 92.4% 3,440 89.2%

For infants (6 weeks to 14 months) 5,633 5.8% 2,103 6.3% 1,242 8.8% 318 8.2%

For toddlers (15–23 months) 6,899 7.1% 2,312 6.9% 1,390 9.9% 282 7.3%

For twos 12,124 12.5% 2,519 7.5% 1,953 13.9% 353 9.2%

For preschoolers (3–5 years) 36,748 37.9% 5,372 16.0% 6,072 43.2% 674 17.5%

For school age (5–12 years) 8,734 9.0% 3,257 9.7% 2,616 18.5% 458 11.9%

For unspecified age 26,569 27.5% 17,978 53.6% 793 5.6% 1,772 45.9%

In programs participating in QRS 26,899 27.7% 2,461 7.3% 4,128 29.3% 85 2.2%

In accredited programs 22,763 23.5% 1,453 4.3% 2,337 16.6% 59 1.5%

In programs licensed before 6:00 a.m. 595 0.6% 1,524 4.5% 225 1.6% 244 6.3%

In programs licensed before 7:00 a.m. 60,512 62.5% 29,863 89.0% 12,209 86.8% 3,092 80.2%

In programs licensed closing at 7:00 p.m. or later 9,162 9.5% 23,572 70.3% 1,074 7.6% 1,989 51.6%

In programs licensed for any weekend care 1,572 1.6% 4,892 14.6% 576 4.1% 1,748 45.3%

In programs open 24 hours 272 0.2% 282 0.8% 74 0.5% 49 1.3%

Source: Authors’ tabulations of NACCRRAware data.

Notes: Not all providers report their slots by age. Slots with no reported age are listed as “unspecified age.” Family child care providers have greater flexibility in the ages that they

serve, and the slots by age data reflect the number of children enrolled at the time of reporting rather than their licensed capacity for that age. Start and closing times are based on

the hours for which a program is licensed to operate rather than actual operating hours.


FIGURE 28

Additional Full-Time Subsidized Child Care Slots Needed to Meet Demand, by Census Tract,

Nassau County, New York


Note: The estimate equals the difference between the number of subsidy-eligible children and the number of slots in full-time

programs that participate in the subsidy system.


FIGURE 29


Westchester County, New York


Notes: The estimate equals the difference between the number of subsidy-eligible children and the number of slots in full-time

programs that participate in the subsidy system. NACCRRAware is missing some data on slots by age for providers that elsewhere

report serving each age group: 3 percent missing for center-based infant/toddler care providers, 39 percent missing for home-

based infant/toddler care providers, 25 percent missing for providers serving preschoolers, and 7 percent missing for providers

serving school-age children.


FIGURE 30


Cook County, Illinois


Notes: The estimate equals the difference between the number of subsidy-eligible children and the number of slots for children

ages 5 and under in full-time programs that participate in the subsidy system. For family child care, slots reflect the number of

children ages 5 and under enrolled at a point in time. Slot or enrollment-by-age data were not reported by 15 percent of centers

and 29 percent of family child care providers.


FIGURE 31


Southwest Illinois


Notes: The estimate equals the difference between the number of subsidy-eligible children and the number of slots for children

ages 5 and under in full-time programs that participate in the subsidy system. For family child care, slots reflect the number of

children ages 5 and under enrolled at a point in time. Slot or enrollment-by-age data were not reported by 1 percent of centers

and 11 percent of family child care providers.


Summary of Findings Across the four study sites, we examined the overlap of child care demand and supply factors to identify

whether child care options are located near areas we estimate to have high demand among low-income

working families. We find that child care providers are distributed unevenly in each of the study sites,

with distinct “child care deserts”—neighborhoods where the estimated need for subsidized care is

greater than what the regulated child care market can support. Although most providers in the four

study sites participate in their state’s child care subsidy program, not all do, most notably centers in

Nassau, where the county DSS contracts with local providers. In both New York sites, centers are less

likely than family child care providers to accept subsidies, whereas participation rates are similar among

center and family child care providers in Illinois.

In general, we find a widespread lack of access to high-quality subsidized care. Relatively few full-

time providers have demonstrated participation in quality initiatives. A small number of providers are

accredited—6 percent in Nassau and about 15 percent in the other three sites. Not all accredited

providers accept subsidies, but most accredited providers in Illinois do. Quality rating and improvement

systems are still being rolled out in the two states we studied, so participation is low. Moreover,

participation alone does not reflect a high level of quality; providers at all levels of quality can enter the

system, and they work toward program improvement at different paces.

The supply of child care does not appear to be well-matched to the heterogeneous needs of

subsidy-eligible families. Center-based providers, who hold the largest share of child care market

capacity, are far less likely to operate during nonstandard hours despite the high level of need within

the subsidy-eligible population. Home-based settings are more likely to serve families with infants and

to be open during nonstandard hours but are less likely to have a quality rating. Our findings suggest

that a large share of subsidy-eligible families in the four study sites live in child care deserts. Further,

our findings suggest that even in areas where families might have access to child care centers or homes,

many of these are not of high quality, open during nonstandard hours, or licensed for infant care. Thus,

families might struggle to access care for their children and maintain employment.

Importantly, our descriptive work shows local differences in need for additional subsidized care

options. This is important because most policies related to child care subsidies are made at the state and

federal levels, but our study sites show need can be extremely local. Our analyses also show that a large

proportion of subsidy-eligible children have single parents who work nonstandard hours and that

families have a high level of need for early morning care in particular. Family child care providers appear


to be better equipped to meet some of this need but also have a limited capacity given their smaller size

relative to center-based care. We also show the very limited access to high-quality care and infant care.

Our analysis provides an important picture of the geography of need at the neighborhood level, and

our maps show the locations of families and their child care needs. In addition, we show local child care

slots relative to potential need. This comparison highlights geographic areas of unmet need. Examining

this intersection at the neighborhood level could help inform policy and practice decisions related to the

child care system.

Some caution should be used in interpreting our findings, as our examination is not without

limitations. First, we estimate potential demand for child care subsidies rather than actual demand

because the latter is very difficult. Families we include as potentially eligible for subsidies might not

need or want full-time child care. Many families rely on more informal systems of care or prefer to use

care other than the providers they can access through the subsidy system. Some may have access to

Head Start or state prekindergarten programs that do not meet our definition of full-time care and are

excluded from our analysis.

Second, we focus on care near where families live, but many families might choose care that is

located closer to work or on their commute to work or school. Third, in examining unmet need, our

estimates do not fully account for local competition from children not eligible for subsidies. More care

slots may be needed in certain communities than what our estimates suggest. Finally, we rely on very

limited measures of quality that we can draw from the existing data. As previously noted, states have

made substantial efforts to improve child care quality, and we might see differences as these systems

are fully implemented.

Despite these limitations, our findings point to a need for increased access to high-quality child care

providers that accept subsidies from low-income working families. We find that multiple communities in

our four study sites are child care deserts, where families do not have access to licensed full-time care.

These results suggest that efforts to improve access might need to extend beyond providers currently

in the system and include incentivizing providers through different mechanisms to establish facilities in

areas of unmet need.

A P P E N D I X A 6 9

Appendix A. Supplemental Maps

and Figures FIGURE A.1

Legally Exempt Home-based Providers Accepting Subsidies near Subsidy-Eligible Children

with Parents Working Early Mornings, Nassau County, New York

Source: Authors’ estimates using 2010–14 American Community Survey data and state subsidy program records.

7 0 A P P E N D I X A

FIGURE A.2


with Parents Working Evenings, Nassau County, New York



FIGURE A.3


with Parents Working Overnight, Nassau County, New York



FIGURE A.4


with Parents Working Early Mornings, Westchester County, New York



FIGURE A.5

Legally Exempt Home-based Providers near Subsidy-Eligible Children with Parents

Working Evenings, Westchester County, New York



FIGURE A.6

Legally Exempt Home-based Providers Accepting Subisides near Subsidy-Eligible Children

with Parents Working Overnight, Westchester County, New York



FIGURE A.7

License-Exempt Home-based Providers Accepting Subsidies near Subsidy-Eligible Children

with Parents Working Early Mornings, Cook County, Illinois



FIGURE A.8


with Parents Working Evenings, Cook County, Illinois



FIGURE A.9


with Parents Working Overnight, Cook County, Illinois



FIGURE A.10


with Parents Working Early Mornings, Southwest Illinois



FIGURE A.11


with Parents Working Evenings, Southwest Illinois



FIGURE A.12


with Parents Working Overnight, Southwest Illinois


A P P E N D I X B 8 1

Appendix B. Supplemental Tables TABLE B.1

Descriptive Characteristics of Child Care Providers in Nassau County, New York




N %/M N %/M N %/M



Toddlers (19/24–35 months) 169 82.8% 538 98.7% 121 100.0%


School age (5–12 years) 72 35.3% 515 94.5% 113 93.4%

Average full-time weekly rates ($) Infants (6 weeks to 18/24 months) 68 $307.50 338 $260.89 82 $249.49

Toddlers (19/24–35 months) 102 $268.55 346 $252.43 84 $236.12

Preschoolers (3–4 years) 102 $245.01 352 $249.24 86 $236.66


Fundinga Has county contract 81 49.1% 408 93.8% 84 89.4%

Accepts subsidy vouchers 5 3.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


Participates in CACFP 50 28.4% 286 56.0% 36 31.3%

Receives Head Start funding 9 4.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Receives Early Head Start funding 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Indicators of quality Participates in QUALITYstarsNY (2014–15) 7 3.4% 25 4.6% 2 1.7%

Accredited 12 5.9% 5 0.9% 0 0.0%

Approved to administer medication 115 56.4% 43 7.9% 9 7.4%

Have at least one staff member with a bachelor’s degree or higher 72 61.5% 127 31.0% 26 27.4%

Have at least one staff member with any degree in early childhood education 68 58.1% 66 16.1% 11 11.6%

Have at least one staff member with a state certification 67 57.3% 23 5.6% 7 7.4%

Breastfeeding Friendly certified 4 2.0% 30 5.5% 2 1.7%

Schedules Full-time status (35+ hours/week) 156 78.4% 511 98.7% 119 100.0%

Average length of longest weekday session (hours/day)b 199 9.71 518 12.52 119 11.55

Average length of longest weekend session (hours/day)b 3 8.00 115 11.23 13 8.54

Average number of days/week open 199 5.03 518 5.34 119 5.14

Earliest start time (weekdays; non-24-hour care)

8 2 A P P E N D I X B




N %/M N %/M N %/M

Before 6:00 a.m. 1 0.5% 15 3.0% 4 3.4%

6:00 a.m. to 6:29 a.m. 3 1.5% 137 27.2% 26 21.9%

6:30 a.m. to 6:59 a.m. 26 13.1% 79 15.7% 12 10.1%

7:00 a.m. to 7:59 a.m. 99 49.8% 241 47.9% 67 56.3%

8:00 a.m. or later 70 35.2% 31 6.2% 10 8.4%

Latest closing time (weekdays; non-24-hour care)

Before 6:00 p.m. 80 40.2% 66 13.1% 20 16.8%

6:00 p.m. to 6:59 p.m. 100 50.3% 286 56.9% 77 64.7%

7:00 p.m. or later 19 9.6% 151 30.0% 22 18.5%



Offers 24-hour care 0 0.0% 15 2.9% 0 0.0%

Notes: CACFP = Child and Adult Care Food Program. a We used data from county child care councils to identify providers who reported having a contract with the local county


provided reflect the share of providers with a contract out of those that have data for this variable. Additionally, we obtained child

care subsidy payment records from the New York State Office of Children and Family Services and used them to identify all

providers who received at least one subsidy payment for care services provided in 2014. b We calculated the total number of hours per session among up to four weekday sessions and up to two weekend sessions per

provider. We then identified the longest session of those offered. Finally, we divided the number of hours in the longest session by

the total number of weekdays or weekend days each provider was open.

TABLE B.2

Descriptive Characteristics of Child Care Providers in Westchester County, New York


Registered Group Family Child Care Programs


N %/M N %/M N %/M



Toddlers (19/24–35 months) 169 89.0% 278 98.9% 147 99.3%


School age (5–12 years) 65 34.2% 266 94.7% 137 92.6%

Average full-time weekly rates ($) Infants (6 weeks to 18/24 months) 64 $359.62 198 $278.98 103 $273.65

Toddlers (19/24–35 months) 91 $320.05 203 $263.09 106 $248.09



Fundinga Has county contract 70 41.2% 73 31.9% 0 0.0%

Accepts subsidy vouchers 114 67.1% 202 88.2% 107 89.2%


Participates in CACFP 60 32.6% 115 50.4% 32 27.1%

Receives Head Start funding 23 12.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%



Registered Group Family Child Care Programs


N %/M N %/M N %/M

Receives Early Head Start funding 6 3.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Indicators of quality Participates in QUALITYstarsNY (2014–15) 16 8.4% 4 1.4% 0 0.0%

Accredited 27 14.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Approved to administer medication 129 67.9% 21 7.6% 2 1.4%

Have at least one staff member with a bachelor’s degree or higher 180 97.8% 104 46.0% 36 31.6%

Have at least one staff member with any degree in early childhood education 172 93.5% 53 23.5% 9 7.9%

Have at least one staff member with a state certification 68 37.0% 22 9.7% 5 4.4%

Breastfeeding Friendly certified 3 1.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Schedules Full-time status (35+ hours/week) 150 81.5% 226 99.6% 117 100.0%

Average length of longest weekday session (in hours per day)b 184 10.00 227 12.26 117 12.12

Average length of longest weekend session (in hours per day)b 0 0.00 27 13.07 17 11.53

Average number of days/week open 184 5.00 227 5.19 117 5.23

Earliest start time (weekdays; non-24-hour care)

Before 6:00 a.m. 0 0.0% 4 1.9% 4 3.5%

6:00 a.m. to 6:29 a.m. 1 0.5% 30 13.9% 21 18.6%

6:30 a.m. to 6:59 a.m. 20 10.9% 18 8.3% 13 11.5%

7:00 a.m. to 7:59 a.m. 100 54.4% 150 69.4% 67 59.3%

8:00 a.m. or later 63 34.2% 14 6.5% 8 7.1%


Before 6:00 p.m. 74 40.2% 32 14.8% 22 19.5%

6:00 p.m. to 6:59 p.m. 91 49.5% 136 63.0% 62 54.9%

7:00 p.m. or later 19 10.3% 48 22.2% 29 25.7%



Offers 24-hour care 0 0.0% 11 4.9% 4 3.4%

Notes: CACFP = Child and Adult Care Food Program. a We used data from county child care councils to identify providers who reported having a contract with the local county

department of social services, accepting subsidy vouchers, or both. Additionally, we obtained child care subsidy payment records

from the New York State Office of Children and Family Services and used them to identify all providers who received at least one

subsidy payment for care services provided in 2014. Although 77 reported having a contract, one provider reported only

accepting vouchers and four reported both. b We calculated the total number of hours per session among up to four weekday sessions and up to two weekend sessions per


the total number of weekdays or weekend days each provider was open.


TABLE B.3

Descriptive Characteristics of Child Care Providers in Cook County, Illinois


N %/M N %/M

Total number of providers and share of all providers in county 1,379 28.1% 3,534 71.9%

Age groups served Infants (6 weeks to 14 months) 740 53.7% 3,472 98.2%

Toddlers (15–23 months) 738 53.5% 3,472 98.2%

Age 2 (24–35 months) 1,121 81.3% 3,526 99.8%

Preschoolers (3–5 years) 1,353 98.1% 3,533 100.0%

School age (5–12 years) 586 42.5% 3,473 98.3%

Average full-time weekly rates ($) Infants (6 weeks to 14 months) 476 $255.82 2,181 $168.26

Toddlers (15–23 months) 537 $241.71 2,188 $165.43

Age 2 (24–35 months) 728 $209.74 2,200 $160.39

Preschoolers (3–4 years) 793 $187.39 2,202 $153.24

Preschoolers (4–5 years) 750 $180.71 2,183 $150.75

Receives or accepts child care subsidy paymentsa 1,152 83.5% 3,154 89.2%

Receives child care subsidy payments 1,022 74.1% 2,788 78.9%

Accepts children with subsidy 867 62.9% 2,259 63.9%


Accredited 244 17.7% 117 3.3%

Schedules Full-time status (35+ hours/week) 1,209 87.7% 3,525 99.7%

Average length of longest weekday session (in hours per day)b 1,379 10.5 3,529 11.9

Average length of longest weekend session (in hours per day)b 23 10.6 474 11.7

Average number of days/week open 1,379 5.0 3,531 5.2

Earliest start time (weekdays; non-24-hour care)c

Before 6:00 a.m. 9 0.7% 147 4.2%

6:00 a.m. to 6:29 a.m. 463 33.6% 2,882 81.6%

6:30 a.m. to 6:59 a.m. 281 20.4% 103 2.9%

7:00 a.m. to 7:59 a.m. 411 29.8% 346 9.8%

8:00 a.m. or later 215 15.6% 56 1.6%


Before 6:00 p.m. 288 20.9% 208 5.9%

6:00 p.m. to 6:59 p.m. 963 69.8% 907 25.7%

7:00 p.m. or later 128 9.3% 2,419 68.4%



Offers 24-hour care 5 0.4% 29 0.8%

a We obtained data on child care subsidy receipt from the Illinois Department of Human Services. We used payment records to

identify all providers who received at least one subsidy payment for care services provided in fiscal year 2014. Additionally, we

used data from the Illinois Network of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies to identify providers who reported accepting

children using subsidies.


b We calculated the total number of hours per session among up to four weekday sessions and up to two weekend sessions per


the total number of weekdays or weekend days each provider was open. c Start and closing times are based on the hours for which a program is licensed to operate rather than actual operating hours.

TABLE B.4

Descriptive Characteristics of Child Care Providers in Southwest Illinois


N %/M N %/M

Total number of providers and share of all providers in region 199 31.4% 435 68.6%

Age groups served Infants (6 weeks to 14 months) 120 60.3% 426 97.9%

Toddlers (15–23 months) 120 60.3% 426 97.9%

Age 2 (24–35 months) 135 67.8% 434 99.8%

Preschoolers (3–5 years) 199 100.0% 434 99.8%

School age (5–12 years) 119 59.8% 414 95.2%

Average full-time weekly rates ($) Infants (6 weeks to 14 months) 105 $208.53 385 $139.77

Toddlers (15–23 months) 109 $199.73 387 $138.36

Age 2 (24–35 months) 122 $172.96 386 $134.04

Preschoolers (3–4 years) 138 $145.18 385 $129.81

Preschoolers (4–5 years) 122 $144.30 379 $129.10

Receives or accepts child care subsidy paymentsa 175 87.9% 384 88.3%

Receives child care subsidy payments 160 80.4% 268 61.6%

Accepts children with subsidy 155 77.9% 349 80.2%

Indicators of quality

Participates in Quality Counts 37 18.6% 9 2.1%

Accredited 23 11.6% 7 1.6%

Schedules Full-time status (35+ hours/week) 160 80.4% 434 99.8%

Average length of longest weekday session (in hours per day)b 199 10.2 435 11.4

Average length of longest weekend session (in hours per day)b 6 10.0 205 11.1

Average number of days/week open 199 4.8 435 5.9

Earliest start time (weekdays; non-24-hour care)3

Before 6:00 a.m. 4 2.0% 27 6.2%

6:00 a.m. to 6:29 a.m. 70 35.2% 292 67.1%

6:30 a.m. to 6:59 a.m. 64 32.2% 26 6.0%

7:00 a.m. to 7:59 a.m. 18 9.0% 67 15.4%

8:00 a.m. or later 43 21.6% 23 5.3%


Before 6:00 p.m. 65 32.7% 111 25.5%

6:00 p.m. to 6:59 p.m. 120 60.3% 94 21.6%

7:00 p.m. or later 14 7.0% 230 52.9%



Offers 24-hour care 1 0.5% 5 1.1%


a We obtained data on child care subsidy receipt from the Illinois Department of Human Services. We used payment records to

identify all providers who received at least one subsidy payment for care services provided in fiscal year 2014. Additionally, we

used data from the Illinois Network of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies to identify providers who reported accepting

children using subsidies. b We calculated the total number of hours per session among up to four weekday sessions and up to two weekend sessions per


the total number of weekdays or weekend days each provider was open. c Start and closing times are based on the hours for which a program is licensed to operate rather than actual operating hours.

N O T E S 8 7

Notes 1 The distinction between family child care and group family child care also exists in Illinois and is mainly a matter

of the number of children each can serve. However, it is less common in Illinois to differentiate the two for

purposes such as this study.

2 “Overview of the 2016 Child Care and Development Fund Final Rule,” US Department of Health and Human

Services, Administration for Children and Families, accessed September 1, 2017,

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/occ/ccdf_final_rule_fact_sheet.pdf.

3 A relatively small number of license-exempt centers are included in Illinois.

4 “American FactFinder,” US Census Bureau, accessed December 14, 2017, https://factfinder.census.gov.

5 Nassau County has 12 PUMAs and 75 census tracts. Westchester County has 6 PUMAs and 223 census tracts.

Cook County has 34 PUMAs and 1,319 census tracts. Our southwest Illinois study site covers 6 PUMAs, 2 of

which extend beyond the study boundary, and 152 census tracts.

6 Our estimates from IPUMS data do not include children in nonparental households (i.e., households where there

is no identified mother or father for a given child). Identification of primary caregivers whose work hours matter

for child care purposes can be complex. Therefore, our estimates are conservative: we underestimate how many

children may need care during different shifts, but the relative proportion of children needing care during

certain hours is likely similar when including children in nonparental households.

7 OCFS records show that six legally exempt group providers received subsidy payments in 2014 (four in

Westchester County and two in Nassau County), suggesting these providers make up a small share of providers

caring for subsidized children in these counties. Given the small count and the lack of other data on these

providers, who did not appear in NACCRRAware, these six providers are excluded from our provider count.

8 “Choosing Child Care Options,” New York State Office of Children and Family Services, Division of Child Care

Services, accessed December 14, 2017, http://ocfs.ny.gov/main/childcare/brochure.asp.

9 These counts are estimations based on IPUMS data. As noted in the methods section, IPUMS provides a more

accurate estimation of children under age 6 in low-income households with working parents than data tables

from American FactFinder. Yet we use the FactFinder estimates in our maps to have census tract-level

information. The IPUMS data match children to parents in the same household. These estimations exclude

children in nonparental households, such as foster children and children living with relatives, where no one is

flagged as a parent.

10 Census tracts generally have a population size between 1,200 and 8,000. The spatial size of census tracts varies

widely depending on population density, with tracts covering a smaller space being denser and tracts covering a

larger space being less dense.

11 New York uses the terms day care center and family day care; however, for consistency across study sites and in alignment with terminology in the broader child care and early education field, we use the term child care instead of day care.

12 Child Care Aware of America borrows from the term food desert, which the US Department of Agriculture

defines as “parts of the country vapid of fresh fruit, vegetables, and other healthful whole foods.” In the case of

child care, deserts are areas or communities with limited or no access to quality child care. As Child Care Aware

of America states, “In both situations, the identification of deserts is important, because it identifies an absence

of an essential commodity that results in limited access, which current child care systems do not address”

(Dobbins et al. 2016, 2).

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/occ/ccdf_final_rule_fact_sheet.pdf

https://factfinder.census.gov/

http://ocfs.ny.gov/main/childcare/brochure.asp

8 8 R E F E R E N C E S

References Adams, Gina, and Monica Rohacek. 2010. Child Care Instability: Definitions, Context and Policy Implications.

Washington DC: Urban Institute.

Dobbins, Dionne, Jessica Tercha, Michelle McCready, and Anita Liu. 2016. “Child Care Deserts: Developing

Solutions to Child Care Supply and Demand.” Arlington, VA: Child Care Aware of America.

Forry, Nicole D., Kathryn Tout, Laura Rothenberg, Heather Sandstrom, and Colleen Vesely. 2013. Child Care

Decision-Making Literature Review. OPRE Brief 2013-45. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human

Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation.

Henly, Julia R., JaeSeung Kim, Heather Sandstrom, Alejandra Ros Pilarz, and Amy Claessens. 2017. “What Explains

Short Spells on Child Care Subsidies?” Social Service Review 91 (3): 488–533.

Henly, Julia, Heather Sandstrom, Amy Claessens, Alejandra Ros Pilarz, Julia Gelatt, JaeSeung Kim, and Olivia Healy.

2015. Determinants of Subsidy Stability and Child Care Continuity. Final Report of the Illinois-New York Child Care

Research Partnership. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Sandstrom, Heather, and Ajay Chaudry. 2012. “You Have to Choose Your Childcare to Fit Your Work: Childcare

Decision-Making Among Low-Income Working Families.” Journal of Children and Poverty 18: 89–119.

A B O U T T H E A U T H O R S 8 9

About the Authors Heather Sandstrom is a senior research associate in the Center on Labor, Human Services, and

Population at the Urban Institute. Her research focuses on early childhood development and public

programs that support the well-being of low-income children and families, such as Head Start and Early

Head Start, public prekindergarten, child care subsidies, and early childhood home visiting. Her most

recent projects have included diverse populations of families who are immigrants or are limited English

proficient.

Amy Claessens is an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy. Her

work investigates how public policies and programs influence child development and how early

achievement and socio-emotional skills relate to subsequent life outcomes. Claessens uses

administrative and large-scale longitudinal data and utilizes both quantitative and qualitative techniques.

Marcia Stoll is a senior research associate at Illinois Action for Children. She investigates trends in the

supply and use of child care in Illinois, particularly Cook County, and families’ experiences accessing

child care. She regularly analyzes child care administrative data sets with spatial analysis tools.

Erica Greenberg is a research associate in the Center on Labor, Human Services, and Population. Her

research spans various early childhood programs and policies, including state prekindergarten, Head

Start, subsidized child care, and home visiting. She also examines inequality in K–12 education and the

ways in which early intervention can address it.

David Alexander is the research director at Illinois Action for Children, the organization that

administers Cook County’s child care assistance and child care referral programs for the state of Illinois.

He has led several research projects involving administrative and survey data for the Illinois

Department of Human Services and others that focus on child care providers, parents, program

operations and policy.

Charmaine Runes is a research assistant in the Center on Labor, Human Services, and Population. Her

research focuses on immigration, racial and ethnic disparities in education and employment outcomes,

and two-generation poverty interventions. She has experience with mixed-methods research, including

survey administration, spatial data analysis, and data visualization.

9 0 A B O U T T H E A U T H O R S

Julia R. Henly is an associate professor in the School of Social Service Administration at the University

of Chicago. She studies the intersection of family poverty, low-wage employment, and public policy,

especially child care and family policy, using quantitative and qualitative methods. Her work

investigates how work conditions, public policies, and social networks operate to support and

complicate parenting, poverty management and economic mobility.

ST A T E M E N T O F I N D E P E N D E N C E

The Urban Institute strives to meet the highest standards of integrity and quality in its research and analyses and in

the evidence-based policy recommendations offered by its researchers and experts. We believe that operating

consistent with the values of independence, rigor, and transparency is essential to maintaining those standards. As

an organization, the Urban Institute does not take positions on issues, but it does empower and support its experts

in sharing their own evidence-based views and policy recommendations that have been shaped by scholarship.

Funders do not determine our research findings or the insights and recommendations of our experts. Urban

scholars and experts are expected to be objective and follow the evidence wherever it may lead.

2100 M Street NW

Washington, DC 20037

www.urban.org

mapping child care demand and the supply of care for ......mapping child care demand ... us...

Documents