Report - 2020 Child Care Collaborative Task Force Industry Assessment Report 235Cbab
- Issuer
- Congressional materials
- Document type
- Report
- Case
- 2020 Child Care Collaborative Task Force Industry Assessment Report 235Cbab
Summary
The Washington State Child Care Industry Assessment, a report to the Legislature by the Child Care Collaborative Task Force dated July 1, 2020, transmitted by the Washington State Department of Commerce in a letter dated August 13, 2020. The letter quotes RCW 43.330.529 and states the report satisfies Section 2 of Second Substitute House Bill 1344. Letters from the task force tri-chairs and the Commerce Director report that the state has licensed child care capacity for only 41% of young children and 5% of school-age children, and that 18.3% of surveyed parents turned down a job offer or promotion due to child care issues. Attachments are the ICF Child Care Industry Assessment Volume I: Report and Volume II: Appendices. The appendices close with tables including Table F.9 and Table F.10 on declines in child care capacity since the COVID-19 emergency declaration.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Report - 2020 Child Care Collaborative Task Force Industry Assessment Report 235Cbab.”
Original at app.leg.wa.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2020-child-care-collaborative-task-force-industry-assessment-report-235cbab/
, SHA-256 27865dd4901ace0d1f6cb5799799b7c595e313209a652ce68552179206e2c2fd.Full text
Full text shows the first 300 of 333 pages; the complete document is the PDF above.
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
1011 Plum Street SE PO Box 42525 Olympia, Washington 98504-2525 360-725-4000
www.commerce.wa.gov
August 13, 2020
Mr. Brad Hendrickson, Secretary of the Senate
Legislative Building 312
PO Box 40600
Olympia, WA 98504-0600
Mr. Bernard Dean, Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives
Legislative Building 338B
PO Box 40600
Olympia, WA 98504-0600
Re: Child Care Collaborative Task Force Report
Dear Mr. Hendrickson and Mr. Dean:
The Child Care Collaborative Task Force report is submitted to satisfy the language in Section 2
of Second Substitute House Bill 1344 (Chapter 368, Laws of 2019), codified as RCW
43.330.529:
“(1)(a) The department shall enter into one or more contracts for the development of
a regional assessment of the child care industry in Washington in order to better
understand issues affecting child care access and affordability for families. The
department shall collaborate with the office of innovation, alignment, and accountability
within the department of children, youth, and families to ensure efficient use of available
data and rigorous research methods and to assist with interpretation of data and report
preparation.
(b) The department shall conduct one or more competitive solicitations in
accordance with chapter 39.26 RCW to select a third-party entity or entities to conduct
the industry assessment in partnership with a statewide organization representing parents.
The third-party entity or entities selected by the department through the competitive
process must have experience in national industry assessment and expertise in conducting
facilities' needs assessments. The statewide organization representing parents must have
experience conducting parent listening tours.
(c) The department may use a combination of private and public resources to support
activities related to the child care industry assessment conducted under this section.
Mr. Brad Hendrickson and Mr. Bernard Dean
August 13, 2020
Page 2
(2) The industry assessment must be submitted to the appropriate policy and fiscal
committees of the legislature, the governor, and the members of the child care
collaborative task force established in chapter 91, Laws of 2018 by July 1, 2020. The
assessment may be developed using existing reports, studies, models, and analysis related
to child care affordability and access. The assessment must, at a minimum:
(a) Incorporate current data on the number of children age twelve and under who are
receiving care from child care and early learning providers. The data must differentiate,
to the extent possible: Children served by licensed and certified child care centers and
family homes; public schools providing preschool and child care programs; private
schools providing child care programs; state agencies and other public municipalities
providing child care programs; license-exempt providers who care for children for four
hours or less per day; family, friend, and neighbor caregivers; nannies and au pairs;
religious organizations providing care; entities providing before-and-after school care;
employer-supported child care; and other formal and informal networks of care. The data
must, to the extent possible, include a breakdown by provider type of the:
(i) Number of children receiving state subsidized care;
(ii) Number of children receiving exclusively private pay care;
(iii) Number of providers who are accepting state subsidy and, for providers who are
not accepting subsidy, reasons why not;
(iv) Demographics of children served, including age, race, rates of developmental
delays or disability, family income, home language, and population group trends.
Demographic information must include military, homeless, and tribal families; and
(v) Demographics of providers, including age, race, family income, home language,
number of years providing care, education levels, utilization rates of state assistance, and
the number of times a provider has changed locations;
(b) Define and describe the characteristics of the informal child care market,
including estimates of the children served in this market by age group;
(c) Identify family child care choices by family income bracket;
(d) Include a visual representation of child care supply and demand by region that
identifies areas with the highest need related to child care accessibility and affordability;
(e) Identify trends in the relationship between private pay rates and subsidy rates for
child care providers;
(f) Include, to the extent possible, an analysis of the industry's quantitative or
qualitative contribution to the state's economy, including:
(i) Employment and wage information for self-employed licensed child care
providers and the employees of licensed child care providers, including information about
providers accessing public assistance;
(ii) Workforce pipeline data for early learning professions;
(iii) The estimated costs to the state economy of child care inaccessibility, including
lost economic activity and reduced tax revenue; and
(iv) Direct and indirect effects on labor participation, workplace productivity, and
household earnings of working parents who use child care. The analysis must include
information related to the workplace productivity of workers using employer-supported
child care; and
Mr. Brad Hendrickson and Mr. Bernard Dean
August 13, 2020
Page 3
(g) Include a facilities needs assessment to determine the type and number of child
care facilities necessary to address unmet capacity needs for high quality child care
programs such as the early childhood education and assistance program, headstart,
working connections child care, and early head start. The needs assessment must include
zip code level analysis to identify geographic areas with concentrated barriers to access.”
Please contact Jill Bushnell by phone at (360) 725-2818 or email at
jill.bushnell@commerce.wa.gov or myself by phone at (360) 725-2808 or email at
cheryl.smith@commerce.wa.gov if you have any questions regarding this report.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Smith
Director of Community Engagement and Outreach
Washington State Child Care
Industry Assessment
Report to the Legislature by the Child Care Collaborative Task Force
under 2SHB 1344, Laws of 2019
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT July 1, 2020
AND OUTREACH,
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE
Lisa Brown, Director
2.0
Acknowledgments
The child care industry assessment was made possible by ICF, the Child Care Collaborative Task Force and
staff of the Department of Commerce and Department of Children, Youth and Families.
Child Care Collaborative Task Force
2019-20 Role First Name Last Name Organization Appointed
Tri-Chair, Voting Amy Anderson Association of Washington Business 2018
Tri-Chair, Voting Luc Jasmin Washington Childcare Centers Association and Parkview 2018
Early Learning Center
Tri-Chair, Voting Ryan Pricco Child Care Aware of Washington 2018
Voting Erin Haick SEIU 925 2018
Voting Bob McCaslin 4th District (R), WA House of Representatives 2018
Voting Darlene Peters Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe 2020
Voting Tana Senn 41st District (D), WA House of Representatives 2020
Voting Neil Strege Washington Roundtable 2018
Voting Claire Wilson 30th District (D), WA Senate 2019
Voting Liv Woodstrom The Ounce 2020
Non-Voting David Beard School's Out Washington 2018
Non-Voting Sarah Clark Children's Alliance 2019
Non-Voting Mary Curry Pathways Enrichment Academy 2018
Non-Voting Sydney Forrester Office of the Governor 2019
Non-Voting Dru Garson Greater Grays Harbor Inc. 2018
Non-Voting Christie Glassy Family, Friend and Neighbor Caregiver 2019
Non-Voting Jennifer Jennings- Zero to Three 2019
Shaffer
Non-Voting Ruth Kagi Early Learning Ambassador 2018
Non-Voting Bethany Larsen Child Haven / Puget Sound Educational Service District 2018
Non-Voting Lois Martin Community Day Center for Children, Inc. 2018
Non-Voting ZamZam Mohamed Voices of Tomorrow 2019
Non-Voting Mary Ellen O’Keeffe Thrive Washington 2018
Non-Voting Jason Ramynke Department of Children, Youth and Families 2019
Non-Voting Cheryl Smith Department of Commerce 2018
Non-Voting Nicole Sohn Greater Spokane Inc. and Journey Discovery Center 2019
Non-Voting Ginger Still Kid's World Childcare 2018
Non-Voting Faith Trimble Capitol Campus Child Care Center 2018
Non-Voting Jodi Wall Educational Service District 112 2019
Washington State Department of Commerce
Cheryl Smith, Director of Community Engagement and Outreach, cheryl.smith@commerce.wa.gov
Jill Bushnell, Policy Advisor, 360.725.2818 or jill.bushnell@commerce.wa.gov
Mary Baldwin, Program Coordinator, 360.725.2815 or mary.baldwin@commerce.wa.gov
1011 Plum St. SE
P.O. Box 42525
Olympia, WA 98504-2525
www.commerce.wa.gov
To request this report in other formats, please call 360.725.4000 (TTY 360.586.0772).
CHILD CARE INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT - CHILD CARE COLLABORATIVE TASK FORCE
Table of Contents
Letter from the Task Force Tri-Chairs .......................................................................................................... 2
Letter from Commerce Director Dr. Lisa Brown............................................................................................. 3
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 4
Industry Assessment Overview .................................................................................................................... 8
Impacts of COVID-19 ................................................................................................................................. 12
Response to Legislative Requirements ....................................................................................................... 16
Attachments:
ICF Child Care Industry Assessment Volume I: Report (169 pages)
ICF Child Care Industry Assessment Volume II: Appendices (142 pages)
CHILD CARE INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT - CHILD CARE COLLABORATIVE TASK FORCE 1
Letter from the Task Force Tri-Chairs
July 1, 2020
The Child Care Collaborative Task Force provides this assessment of Washington’s child care industry during a
time of great health and socio-economic challenges in the United States. The child care industry has been
tremendously impacted by these challenges. This assessment shares data solidifying the need for intentional
supports to ensure that care is accessible and affordable in a landscape where too many families are having a
hard time accessing services. Before the pandemic, over half a million children in Washington did not have
access to licensed child care.
Child care is a necessity for thousands of Washington families. In late June of this year, about one in five child
care providers temporarily closed according to Child Care Aware of Washington. Providers are working hard to
stay open despite rapidly changing enrollments and operating requirements. Without access to quality,
affordable care, working adults with children who need care throughout the day are unable to return to the
workforce, and essential workers may find it difficult to continue to report to their places of employment. This
assessment includes an important analysis of the current state during the pandemic, and how the industry has
changed since the beginning of 2020.
The task force is uniquely positioned to witness, record and help respond to this rapidly changing uncertain
landscape. Members hail from all facets of the child care system, including key stakeholders, business and
government representatives. This broad diversity of perspectives allowed the group to digest and robustly
discuss the pre-pandemic and current mid-pandemic state of the industry. The task force reached an
understanding that demand outstrips supply, paying for child care is difficult for most parents, many providers
struggle to balance revenue and expenses due to high program operation costs, and navigating child care
issues affects work performance and the ability to find work. The industry assessment backed up what we
observed anecdotally: Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) communities have less access to resources
and investments. To remove these disparate outcomes, the task force will apply an anti-racist framework to
policy recommendations.
The task force is set to continue the work of developing a child care cost estimation model, along with
workforce compensation and subsidy policy recommendations, this December. This work culminates with a
comprehensive strategy and implementation plan in approximately June 2021.
While the environment may have changed since the legislature directed the task force to explore how the child
care industry impacts our state, one overarching theme has remained the same: there is a need to ensure that
affordable, accessible, quality child care is available for Washington families. The task force is navigating
these real-time challenges, while balancing the unpredictability of the coming months, to craft a set of
balanced, informed and thoughtful recommendations to meet this goal.
With gratitude,
Amy Anderson Luc Jasmin Ryan Pricco
Association of Washington Washington Childcare Centers Association & Child Care Aware of Washington
Business Parkview Early Learning Center
“If we don't stand up for children, then we don't stand for much.” Marian Wright Edelman
CHILD CARE INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT - CHILD CARE COLLABORATIVE TASK FORCE 2
Letter from Commerce Director Dr. Lisa Brown
July 1, 2020
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to the forefront issues the Child Care Collaborative
Task Force was created to address: primarily, that our state lacks a sufficient supply of
accessible, affordable, high-quality child care to allow parents to participate in the workforce
and children to thrive. Historic numbers of people in Washington are out of work, working
less or working from home. Parents face new challenges of balancing job responsibilities
and caring for children with many child care programs closed, grandparents and other high-
risk caregivers off-limits and schools focused on remote learning. Lack of safe child care
options will push many parents, especially women, out of the labor force. This will in turn
reduce the labor pool for businesses and employers ready to resume and expand, harming
the economic recovery. Without child care, we can have no economic recovery.
The industry assessment revealed that although 61% of young children live in households where all parents
work, our state has sufficient licensed child care capacity for only 41% of young children and 5% of school-age
children. Lack of accessible, affordable child care affects parents’ job prospects, productivity and career
decisions—with different impacts reported across incomes, races/ethnicities, genders and areas of the state.
Nearly one in five (18.3%) of parents surveyed turned down a job offer or promotion due to child care issues,
more often among Black and Native American parents. Nearly half (47%) of unemployed parents found child
care issues a barrier to seeking employment—51% among female job-seekers compared to 41% among male
job-seekers. Clearly, a dramatic investment in child care is needed for robust, equitable economic recovery in
Washington State.
Last year, the task force submitted to the legislature and governor a vision and initial recommendations to
improve our child care system, calling for a unified approach to increasing access to child care. This industry
assessment report is a continuation of that work. The data and analysis put a finer point on our understanding
of disparities in child care access and service delivery. The task force will apply this learning to model costs
associated with operating a high-quality child care program, identify compensation strategies to sustain a
trained, culturally responsive, compassionate child care workforce, calibrate our state's subsidy program so
child care is affordable for more working families, and develop a comprehensive child care access strategy.
Commerce is committed to supporting the task force and the child care system. Commerce's Early Learning
Facility Fund has invested in child care infrastructure around the state. We recently partnered with Child Care
Aware of Washington to procure and distribute essential health and cleaning supplies for child care providers.
We are preparing to invest in community planning that will build momentum to implement long-term solutions
to local child care capacity challenges, focusing on underserved and historically marginalized families and
communities. We are honored to be a partner in this important work.
I would like to thank the Child Care Collaborative Task Force chairs, members and staff for their dedication and
efforts to address the critical, timely issue of child care access—many, while dealing with their own child care
challenges. I look forward to the task force's policy conversations and strategy development, and hope readers
find this report informative.
Lisa J. Brown, Ph.D.
Director
CHILD CARE INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT - CHILD CARE COLLABORATIVE TASK FORCE 3
Introduction
The Washington State Child Care Collaborative Task Force (task force) presents to the legislature and to
Governor Inslee this assessment of Washington's child care industry. The task force was established in 2018
to make policy recommendations about the child care system to better meet the needs of families, employers
and child care providers. This child care industry assessment report is the second in a series of four task force
reports to the legislature. All four reports are summarized in Figure 1. The task force will continue to review
and integrate knowledge obtained from the child care industry assessment and related analyses. This
document review is vital to support the task force in preparing upcoming reports slated to be submitted to the
legislature and governor in December 2020 and June 2021. The December 2020 report includes three parts: (1)
a tool for modeling the costs associated with providing licensed child care at varying levels of quality based on
Early Achievers, the state's quality improvement system; (2) workforce compensation policy
recommendations; and (3) policy recommendations and an implementation plan to improve child care
subsidies offered via the state’s program, Working Connections Child Care (WCCC). The June 2021 report will
consist of a four-year child care access strategy and implementation plan.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) contracted with ICF, a global consulting firm, to assess
Washington state's child care industry to fulfill RCW 43.330.529 and RCW 43.41.800. ICF, with research
partners MomsRising, Fran Kipnis, and Capito Associates, completed the industry assessment in collaboration
with Commerce, the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) and the task force between December
2019 and June 2020. ICF's full industry assessment report is attached and available online.
The child care industry assessment highlights systemic capacity issues that existed prior to the COVID-19
pandemic, which appeared as the research and data collection was underway. The assessment shows a
comprehensive view of the child care system up to March of this year. The findings demonstrate the need for
and reasons why even before the pandemic, the child care system, with ever increasing costs, struggled to
meet the capacity needs of families seeking care. Now, the child care system is strained even more.
To better understand the deep changes that have occurred, ICF carried out an initial examination of COVID-19
impacts on child care supply. More analysis is needed to fully understand the pandemic's temporary and
lasting effects on the child care industry.
The task force will use the industry assessment, the interactive child care industry insights dashboard
developed by ICF, and the growing body of knowledge within the child care community to fulfill its charge to
develop appropriate strategies, plans and recommendations to expand child care access throughout
Washington state.
Figure 1: Child Care Collaborative Task Force Milestones
CHILD CARE INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT - CHILD CARE COLLABORATIVE TASK FORCE 4
Background
In its initial report, the task force developed a broad vision for child care in Washington. This vision is displayed
in Figure 2 below. The initial report's findings and recommendations revealed that the child care industry is one
in which providers receive low levels of public investment and lack civic support to stay in business while
meeting regulatory standards. Most see the child care market as valued for the public good and welfare of
children. But even with this knowledge, little has been done to buttress these businesses that are an integral
part of our state's economy.
Figure 2: Child Care Collaborative Task Force Vision
The task force envisions Washington state as the nation's most equitable,
affordable and accessible child care system that benefits all our children, parents,
child care staff and providers, employees and communities:
Increased workforce
Quality, affordable, An economically
productivity when New strategies and
accessible licensed healthy and diverse
employers support the investments from the
child care that gives child care industry with
child care needs of their public and private
parents diverse choices a supported, well-
employees through the sectors that engage
to meet their family and compensated workforce
availability of a scalable employers in supporting
employment needs, that meets the supply
set of tools and all working families'
regardless of their and choice requirements
incentives that increase access to high-quality,
income, race or where of families and
access and affordability affordable child care.
they live. employers.
of high-quality child care.
The initial report provided ample information about the complexities of child care access but did not delve into
the status of child care supply and demand in our state. The industry assessment quantified and clarified
much of what the task force had found anecdotally to be true. For example, working families that are relatively
low income, but not low income enough to benefit from public assistance, struggle to access child care;
families pay high proportions of their income on child care; race/ethnicity and social-economic disparities
affect child care access and service delivery.
Quality
The pandemic has reinvigorated discussions about child care quality: What is quality? Is quality defined the
same way across cultures and communities? To what extent do our quality standards, such as the state’s
quality rating and improvement system, Early Achievers, allow for differing and culturally influenced definitions
of quality?
During the child care industry assessment, the task force discussed definitions of, and challenges related to
defining, quality. Much of the discussion centered on topics that the task force will address in the December
2020 report to the legislature and governor, including the cost of quality and what quality levels imply for the
child care workforce in terms of education, credentials and equivalencies.
The task force discussed what "high quality" means in Washington when providing feedback to ICF on the child
care industry insights dashboard and related supply-and-demand analysis. Different quality standards exist for
licensed child care centers and family homes, and programs licensed as school-age only programs. Licensed
child care centers and family homes may opt in to be rated through Washington's quality rating and
CHILD CARE INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT - CHILD CARE COLLABORATIVE TASK FORCE 5
improvement system, Early Achievers. Participation in Early Achievers is required by providers that accept
Working Connections Child Care subsidies or offer state-funded preschool1. Early Achievers has five levels:
Level 1 is defined as "licensed child care - the foundation for high quality." Level 2 includes providers
participating in quality improvement and working toward meeting Early Achievers quality standards. Levels 3-5
reflect programs that have been rated and demonstrated quality.
ICF initially assessed the supply of high-quality child care and parents' drive time to access high-quality care
using Early Achievers Levels 4 and 5 as the measures of "high quality." This sparked a discussion among task
force members on what it means to provide quality child care. Many task force members noted that a lot of
effort goes into rating at higher levels of Early Achievers (Level 3 and above), which can be challenging without
funding to support achieving quality standards. Some members of the task force felt strongly that ICF's
analysis related to "high-quality" child care programs should be expanded to include providers rated at Early
Achievers Level 3 or above. It was also noted that just because a program does not participate in Early
Achievers, that does not mean the program is not high quality. Because of the concern expressed around
access to high quality sites, ICF updated the dashboard and added analyses of drive time and proximity of
families to high-quality child care programs, based on the Early Achievers criteria.
School-age child care programs are not rated through Early Achievers. At this time, there is not a state-adopted
standard equivalent to Early Achievers for school-age child care programs. However, many providers have
participated in the Youth Program Quality Initiative and the Expanded Learning Opportunities Quality Initiative
pilot, guided by the Washington State Afterschool and Youth Development Quality Standards, which provide a
quality framework for the school-age field. Quality standards for school-age child care programs were
discussed in relation to the school-age child care supply-and-demand analysis, as well as the child care cost
estimate model the task force will provide in the December 2020 report. The task force will address in future
reports quality as it relates to school-age child care.
Achieving Equitable Racial Outcomes
The research underpinning this report depicts an alarming trend where more Black, Indigenous, People of Color
(BIPOC) communities have less access to quality child care, using the definition of quality outlined in this
report. Many BIPOC educators, along with their white peers, receive wages that are low in relation to the life-
changing work they do each day. Others continue to provide socially engaging, nurturing children’s
environments, often without access to health/dental care, benefits and other employment incentives.
To have a well-rounded analysis on how BIPOC and underserved families are specifically impacted by lack of
child care, parent engagement sessions were conducted to discover insights about their experiences. See
Table 2 below for more details about these findings.
As the work of the task force continues, there is an increased urgency to address the history of systemic and
structural racism that has impacted children and families. Systemic/institutional racism not only affects the
capacity of BIPOC communities to obtain affordable housing, food security and employment opportunities, but
also a parent’s ability to place one’s offspring in a child care setting that meets family needs. To achieve
equitable learning, health, social-emotional development, and school readiness outcomes, the task force
understands the need to remove institutional barriers that keep families, and the child care industry, from
achieving equitable outcomes for all children.
1 Washington's state-funded preschool program is Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program (ECEAP).
CHILD CARE INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT - CHILD CARE COLLABORATIVE TASK FORCE 6
At the inception of this work, several task force members pushed to have a lens of racial equity theory of
change applied to all future policy recommendations. This discussion will continue and will likely result in
identification of a specific framework and tools to use as the task force abides by its commitment to racial
equity and anti-racist policies and practices. This tool is expected to be in place prior to the distribution of the
December 2020 and June 2021 recommendation reports.
CHILD CARE INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT - CHILD CARE COLLABORATIVE TASK FORCE 7
Industry Assessment Overview
ICF's industry assessment report contains a description of the supply and demand for child care; a geospatial
analysis of the drive time distance to available child care; summaries of three approaches to understanding
Washington families’ needs and preferences for care, from their own perspectives; a literature review of
previous findings on child care; and an economic impact analysis that measured and projected the economic
and fiscal impacts of limited access to child care in Washington state over a 10-year period (2019-2028).
Tables 1-4 summarize statistics and findings.
Key Findings
Access is a challenge
The industry assessment findings revealed child care access barriers that are more pronounced depending on
race/ethnicity, income and geography. ICF's parent survey identified differences in challenges perceived by
parents, such as agreeing with the statement that child care has caused their family financial hardship. Some
parents reported in the last year turning down a promotion or job offer due to child care issues.
ICF's supply-and-demand analysis compared locations and demographics of "simulated" families
approximated by using U.S. Census data with locations and attributes of nearby licensed child care per drive-
time and proximity. The supply-and-demand analysis revealed themes in the availability of child care capacity
that varied by family demographics and attributes of child care business models. Table 2 lists some of these
differences. Additional analysis is available in Sections V and VI of the attached industry assessment report.
Figure 3 below shows the estimated child care capacity gap of 549,345 spaces that results from subtracting
the licensed child care supply from child care demand.2 ICF estimated that 96,390 children through age four
have non-licensed, home-based caregivers (family, friends, neighbors, nannies, etc.) but ICF did not produce
similar estimates for non-licensed, home-based care of school-age children.
Figure 3: Estimated Licensed Child Care Gap for Children Birth through Age 12
DEMAND
FORMAL GAP
SUPPLY
736,880 549,345
187,535 children ages
children ages spaces in
0-12 need 0-12 without
licensed 0-12 access to
non-parental child care
child care licensed child
programs care
Affordability is a challenge
ICF’s survey used three methods (two surveys and a series of interviews) to assess parent needs and
preferences for child care. Parents indicated that affording tuition costs was the greatest barrier or challenge
to accessing child care. The industry assessment showed that middle-income families were less likely to
receive public or employer-based financial assistance than low- or high-income families. The U.S.
Administration for Children and Family Services has recommended that state-administered child care subsidy
programs, such as Working Connections Child Care, limit a family's copayments to no more than 7% of a
family's income to ensure these copayments are not a cost barrier for families receiving assistance.3 The
industry assessment found median-income families across Washington seeking full-time child care would
2 The U.S. Census Bureau found in the 2018 American Community Survey that 61% of Washington children under age six have all
available adults in the labor force. The demand in Figure 3 applies this percentage (61%) to Washington children birth through age 12.
3 "Family Copayment Contribution." U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families. https://ccdf-
fundamentals.icfcloud.com/family-copayment-contribution.
CHILD CARE INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT - CHILD CARE COLLABORATIVE TASK FORCE 8
need to pay a much greater proportion of household income than 7% to cover median child care tuition. Tables
2 and 4 summarize affordability challenges and financial burdens faced by parents seeking child care.
Data Tables
Table 1 below contains statistics and estimates from ICF's child care industry assessment and DCYF's Office
of Innovation, Alignment, and Accountability that begin to tell the story of Washington's child care industry. In
March 2020, there were 187,535 licensed child care spaces for approximately 1.2 million children through age
12. ICF's supply-and-demand analysis in Section VI of Volume I of the industry assessment report found that
approximately 118,000 families with young children (birth through age 4) live in areas with inadequate child
care supply, or child care deserts. Parents surveyed by ICF who used non-parental child care reported use of
multiple child care arrangements. See ICF's industry assessment report for additional analysis and findings.
Table 1: Washington State Child Care Industry Estimates
Population of children birth through age 12 in Washington state 1,208,000 children
Child Care Demand
Percentage of households with children under age 6 where all parents work 61% of households
Population of working parents with children birth through age 12 983,183 parents
Percentage of children birth through age 12 in two or more child care arrangements* 40% of children
Average time a child spends in child care per week as reported by parents* <20 hours per week
Percentage of parents who need child care outside traditional hours* 25% of parents
Number of licensed child care providers (centers, homes, school-age-only)** 5,432 providers
Child Care Supply
Capacity of licensed child care (centers, homes, school-age-only)** 187,535 children
Number of young children (birth through age 4) in informal child care 96,390 children
Number of families with young children (birth through age 4) living in a child care 117,884 families
desert
Number of counties where over half (50%) of families with young children (birth 15 counties
through age 4) live in a child care desert
Number of active early childhood educators in the child care workforce 35,782 educators
Percentage of early childhood educators with race/ethnicity other than white 50% of educators
Child Care Workforce
Percentage of early childhood educators who are bilingual (30%, n=10,735) or who 33% of educators
have limited English proficiency (3%, n=1,073)
Percentage of early childhood educators with (any) verified higher education 34% of educators
Characteristics
attainment (n=12,125)
Percentage of educators with verified higher education who direct or manage a child 56% of center
care center (n=2,501) and have a bachelor’s degree or higher (n=1,401) directors/managers
Percentage of educators with verified higher education who are family home child care 10% of family child
owners/teachers (n=2,474) and have bachelor’s degrees or higher (n=247) care owners/teachers
Estimated average foregone state revenue due to child care inaccessibility $1.03 billion per year
Estimated
Estimated average foregone personal income due to child care inaccessibility $16.9 billion per year
Percentage of parents not working but seeking employment (n=106) who consider 47% of parents
Economic Impact
lack of child care a barrier to obtaining employment (n=49) seeking employment
Percentage of parents who reported they had experienced financial hardship as result 34% of parents
of child care issues
Sources: *ICF May 2020 survey of Washington parents with children birth through age 12, n=1,536, in ICF Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Report Volume I, 2020; **DCYF, March 9, 2020
CHILD CARE INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT - CHILD CARE COLLABORATIVE TASK FORCE 9
Table 2 below lists parent subgroups with higher frequencies of self-reported or observed child care barriers or
challenges. Parents of all income levels, higher education attainment, race/ethnicity, and ages of children,
reported challenges. Parents with higher education and income more often reported job-related challenges.
Parents with lower levels of educational attainment and low to moderate income more often reported financial
hardships. ICF's supply-and-demand analysis found that families of middle income (200% to 500% of the
federal poverty level, or household income of $52,400 to $131,000 for a family of four) were more likely to live
in an area with low capacity of nearby child care relative to demand, also known as a child care desert. Parents
with incomes between $50,000 and $99,000 were less likely to report receiving financial assistance for child
care, including public subsidies and employer-based supports.
Table 2: Frequency of Child Care Barriers or Challenges Reported or Observed by
Washington Parent Subgroups in ICF Child Care Industry Assessment
More likely to… Parent Subgroup
Agree that child care issues Non-Hispanic Black parents
negatively impact the parent’s Single working parents, two working parents
job High level of education (graduate degree)
High income ($200,000 or more annually)
Have both young (birth through age 4) and school-age children (age 5 through 12)
Report having taken time off Households where all parents work
work due to child care issues in Asian/Pacific Islander parents
the last 12 months Live in urban area
Higher education, higher income
Agree finding child care that fits Households where all parents work
the parents’ work schedule is a High income ($200,000 or more annually)
challenge Have young children (birth through age 4)
Report having turned down a job Black or American Indian/Alaska Native parents
offer or promotion due to child Have at least one young child (birth through age 4)
care issues in the last 12 months Less than a college degree or have a graduate degree
Live in rural area
Agree that child care issues have Non-Hispanic Black or American Indian/Alaska Native parents
caused financial hardship Moderately low income ($40,000 to $59,999 annually)
Single working parents
Live in urban area
Have only young children (birth through age 4)
Agree finding affordable child Have young children (birth through age 4)
care is a challenge Lower income (concern increases as income decreases)
Report receiving no public, Non-Hispanic white parents
employer-based or other Mid-level income ($40,000 to $99,999 annually)
financial assistance for child Have only school-age and older children
care Live in rural area
Have insufficient nearby child Mid-level income (200% to 500% of federal poverty level, or $52,400 to $131,000
care capacity annually for a family of four)
CHILD CARE INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT - CHILD CARE COLLABORATIVE TASK FORCE 10
Source: ICF Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Report Volume I, 2020
Table 3 below summarizes differences in child care usage reported by respondents to ICF's parent survey.
Some parent subgroups, based on race/ethnicity, income and urban or rural area, indicated more frequent use
of center-based licensed child care or family caregivers. Usage of licensed family home child care is not
reflected in the table and will require further analysis of the survey data to assess. The table also lists parent
subgroups that reported their children spent relatively more time in non-parental child care.
Table 3: Child Care Usage Reported by Washington Parent Subgroups in ICF Child
Care Industry Assessment
More likely to report… Parent Subgroup
Black parents
Using a licensed child care center
Higher income
as a primary child care arrangement
Live in urban area
Using care with a non-parental
Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native or Hispanic parents
family member (informal care) as a
Live in rural area
primary child care arrangement
Non-Hispanic white parents
Children spend longer periods of Low income ($20,000 to $39,999 annually)
time in non-parental care Live in rural areas
Have young children (birth through age 4)
Source: ICF Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Report Volume I, 2020
The industry assessment provided a detailed analysis of the portion of income required by median-income
families across the state to pay full-time licensed child care tuition. See Section VI, Supply and Demand for
Child Care in Washington, in Volume I of ICF's industry assessment report for details and maps.
Table 4: Percentage of Income Required for Median-Income Families Seeking Full-
Time Child Care at Median Price, Range of Percentages by County
Example Two Parents Single Mom
One preschooler in a licensed child care center 9% to 15% of income 13% to 63% of income
One infant in a licensed family child care home 10% to 15% of income 15% to 65% of income
One infant, one preschooler in a licensed center up to 35% of income more than 150% of income
One school-age child in school-age child care program,
2% to 4% of income 2% to 15% of income
licensed center or licensed family child care home
Source: ICF Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Report Volume I, 2020; analysis was specific to single mothers
CHILD CARE INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT - CHILD CARE COLLABORATIVE TASK FORCE 11
Impacts of COVID-19
Our nation is experiencing a pandemic more severe than most of us have ever encountered. The COVID-19
outbreak prompted the State of Washington to issue a state of emergency in February, followed by school
closures, stay-at-home orders, public health mandates and restrictions on non-essential business activities and
large gatherings. The industry assessment was underway during this unprecedented public health crisis. Child
care was impacted as widespread layoffs, increased telework, remote learning, physical distancing and other
factors created a lack of demand for child care services. With many child care providers forced to close, some
permanently, child care may be harder to find than ever before. And now, with many school districts providing
only remote learning options, school-age care is even more vitally important for working families, particularly
families farthest away from educational justice. Child Care Aware of Washington, a child care advocacy and
support organization, has monitored and supported child care providers throughout the pandemic, and
reported the following statistics in July 20204:
20% of child care providers are temporarily closed
44% of child care early educators have been laid off or furloughed
64% of child care businesses surveyed reported a 50% or greater decrease in income due to the pandemic
There is no information available on how the pandemic may have disproportionately affected BIPOC child care
providers. The task force will seek to understand these effects and address them in future policy
recommendations and child care access plans.
Providers have noted that operating costs are significantly higher than usual (DCYF has estimated 30%
higher5) due to increased sanitation and hygiene, smaller child-to-staff ratios, increased need for substitute
staff and limited capacity (note that although maximum group size has increased from 10 to 22 in a room,
some rooms still have limited capacity due to physical distancing requirements). Further, many providers and
staff are reluctant to return to work and risk exposure to the virus. This is particularly true now as child care
staff question how it's safe for child care teachers to work with children while it is not safe for public school
teachers. Providers that have remained open have noted an increase in child behavioral issues and needs for
mental health support. The task force found, through an informal poll of 21 center and family home providers,
the following themes expressed when asked to describe how the pandemic has impacted their program:
Providers are experiencing an incredible loss of income due to reduced enrollment, parents unable to
afford care anymore, and parents fearful of taking their children to group settings.
Operating a child care program during this pandemic is expensive and confusing. Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) guidance has increased costs, supplies have been expensive and difficult to obtain at times,
programs have lost staff due to COVID-19 concerns and unstable revenue. Guidance from several entities
(CDC, DCYF, Department of Health, governor, president, etc.) is confusing and contradictory, and costly
regulations remain in place. This is problematic when child care centers are trying to determine the safest
course of action when there is a COVID-19 exposure or positive test result within the center.
Ongoing effects of the pandemic on child care supply and demand are hard to predict. The
unpredictability of temporary closures (up to 14 days at a time) due to symptoms of COVID-19 that may
present in children or staff, exposure to individuals with COVID-19 while outside of the program, and actual
cases of COVID-19, are also costly to programs. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act requirement
4 Child Care Aware of Washington. "COVID-19 Coronavirus Employer Resources Webinar Series." Tacoma: CCA of WA, 2020.
5 DCYF. "COVID-19 Impacts." Presentation at Association for Washington Business COVID-19 Employer Resources Webinar Series:
Child Care Update, Olympia, WA, July 8, 2020. Olympia: DCYF, 2020. https://vimeo.com/showcase/6919365/video/436596561
CHILD CARE INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT - CHILD CARE COLLABORATIVE TASK FORCE 12
to pay staff for up to 80 hours if a COVID-19 related closure occurs6, coupled with refunding family's tuition
during the closure, is unsustainable. The unpredictability of demand for care is exacerbated when enrolled
families choose to withdraw from programs when a COVID-19 related temporary closure occurs. During the
pandemic, this scenario could happen several times, increasing the likelihood of permanent closure.
Supports that have been essential to the ability of child care programs to remain open have either run out
or will soon, such as Payroll Protection Program (PPP) grants or loans, CARES Act grants, subsidy income
continuity and continued tuition payments from parents seeking to hold their child's spot.
The K-12 situation continues to be in flux, which will put more pressure on both providers and parents as
they may be expected to help with, coordinate and monitor learning for school-age children. Challenges
with remote learning for school-aged children, technology issues and physical distancing compound the
uncertainty felt by parents and providers. Many districts have announced that school will start online only,
which puts even greater stress on an already fragile child care system.
There are concerns that the responsibility to fill the gap for school-age families will fall into the laps of
child care providers without financial or supplies support. School districts will need to work with
community-based organizations, make space available in schools, provide daily custodial cleaning support,
coordinate remote learning (i.e., schedule Zoom classes by grade band at the same time across schools),
etc., so that school-age care programs are able to support remote learning and provide full-day child care
for working families. School-age care that is accessible and affordable is a necessity, particularly for
children farthest away from educational justice.
Providers are reporting an increase in behavioral challenges in their programs as children cope with
disrupted routines, families experience hardships and providers adjust child care programs to meet public
health guidelines and accommodate remote learning.
Operating child care programs during the pandemic offers great risk with few public supports or
recognition. Child care educators, many of whom do not have health insurance, provide a service that
enables parents in health care and all other essential jobs to continue working. Child care educators
understand the importance of their role for the families they serve. Nonetheless, child care providers did
not initially benefit from publicly procured personal protective equipment, financial supports and other
resources to protect workforce health and safety and business viability. This has contributed to a
sentiment among providers that more should be done to recognize and support child care as essential to
economic recovery.
These themes are consistent with a broader survey by Child Care Aware of Washington, summarized in Table 5
below. The limited grants, loans, and resources available to providers have been insufficient to offset the
intense strain the pandemic has placed on them. Child Care Aware of Washington found about half of child
care centers and over a third of school-age and family home child care providers consider their programs at
risk of permanent closure.7 Child Care Aware of America has published a child care supply dashboard that
shows providers who are open or temporarily closed by zip code, and the estimated number of open
vacancies. As of June 2020, this resource estimated 1,117 of 5,359 providers were temporarily closed, and
open child care providers had an estimated 23,042 vacancies.8
Meanwhile, the pandemic has pressed families to find safe places for their children as expanded
unemployment benefits have expired, workplaces resume on-site activity and schools begin fully remote or
hybrid on-site and remote learning. Even if parents can return to work, many are not making the same choices
6 "Families First Coronavirus Response Act: Employee Paid Leave Rights." U.S. Department of Labor.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/pandemic/ffcra-employee-paid-leave.
7 Child Care Aware of Washington. "COVID-19 Coronavirus Employer Resources Webinar Series." Tacoma: CCA of WA, 2020.
8 "Washington Child Care Supply: COVID-19." Child Care Aware of America. https://arcg.is/05uLGi0.
CHILD CARE INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT - CHILD CARE COLLABORATIVE TASK FORCE 13
they did before the pandemic. Some parents are choosing home-based or informal care settings to limit the
risk of virus exposure, to minimize changes in children's routines, and to help children participate in remote
learning. Parents who have relied on child care subsidies may find fewer providers that accept subsidies, as
providers face increased costs. Additionally, some parents need to seek alternative care because their child's
caregiver is at high risk of COVID-19.
Table 5: Impacts of COVID-19 on Child Care Providers Observed by Child Care Aware
of Washington9
Theme Description Provider Quote
Enrollment has decreased by about 54%
statewide per a survey completed by over 1,000 “Since childcare is my main source of
Financial child care providers. For most providers that income, I don't have a way to pay my bills
hardship means a dramatic loss of revenue. Some family without it. I'm not sure what to do about
home child care providers report being the this.”
primary or sole income for their household.
“My doctor has told me (twice) not to return
to work as I am high-risk. I also do not meet
Family home child care providers in a high-risk any of the health and safety guidelines of the
category due to age and/or health status must CDC, WHO, HEALTH DEPARTMENT or
make a choice to follow health recommendations Governor Inslee’s proclamations for
or preserve their income. reopening…Where do I go for specific
assistance for the loss of my total
It’s a dilemma business?”
Following recommendations to reduce group
sizes and enrollments leads to dramatically
“Enrollment is the only thing that will save my
reduced revenues. Most child care programs
program”
must be fully enrolled to break even or generate
profit.
Child care has largely stayed open when K-12
schools have closed. This has caused many early
“We need help with school age children and
learning providers to adapt to meeting an even
keeping up on the home school
wider range of developmental needs. (In many
requirements…It is overwhelming.”
cases, child care providers are helping children
Filling the gap left and families get remote schoolwork done.)
by K-12
Families with children in the K-12 system
“School age families weren't prepared to pay
suddenly have additional child care
for full time care. I can't afford to waive their
considerations and cost. There is limited
tuition. There should be assistance for these
capacity to accept children given closures and
families.”
recommendations to reduce enrollment.
Source: Child Care Aware of Washington, 2020
9 Child Care Aware of Washington. "Themes we have been seeing around impact of COVID-19 on child care." Tacoma: CCA of WA,
2020.
CHILD CARE INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT - CHILD CARE COLLABORATIVE TASK FORCE 14
COVID-19 and School-Age Child Care
The pandemic has significantly impacted school-age child care. When schools were mandated to close in mid-
March 2020, many school-age (and early learning) programs in school buildings were immediately displaced.
There will be a greater demand for school-age child care options until schools return to a full-time, in-person
schedule. The task force finds it imperative that Washington state policymakers ensure children farthest from
educational justice have access to high-quality, school-age care. How school-age child care capacity may grow
to meet this demand is unknown. Some school districts and jurisdictions are working to coordinate an
approach to child care, including providing space, funding, and technological support for child care providers to
support learning as appropriate. A few districts are also developing opportunities to have district staff (such as
paraprofessionals) housed in child care programs to support learning platforms and challenges. Partnerships
between school districts, child care and community-based organizations have always been important, but now
are critical.
CHILD CARE INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT - CHILD CARE COLLABORATIVE TASK FORCE 15
Response to Legislative Requirements
Table 6 below summarizes how the industry assessment addresses requirements in RCW 43.330.529 and
RCW 43.41.800 and where to find related analysis in ICF's industry assessment report.
Table 6: Crosswalk from Legislation to ICF Industry Assessment Report
Requirement Description of How Requirement was Addressed ICF Page #
ICF used DCYF data on licensed child care and public preschool
capacity, as well as findings about parent preferences and usage of
Section V,
child care types from the parent survey (Section V), to analyze child
Parent/Family
care demand (Section VI). ICF estimated there are 47,277 children
Children Receiving Voices,
served by family, friend and neighbor (FFN) caregivers and 42,687
Child Care by page 36-103
children served by nannies or au pairs. DCYF data showed in March
Provider Type and 2020, the state had 187,535 licensed child care spaces. At that time,
Payment Section VI, Supply
54,863 children were authorized for state-subsidized child care
and Demand for
(35,022 in licensed centers, 13,596 in licensed family homes and
RCW 43.330.529(2)(a)(i)-(ii) Child Care in
6,245 receiving care from FFN caregivers). As of July 2020, providers
Washington,
had received payment for the 48,499 children authorized for subsidy
page 104-141
who accessed subsidized care (30,224 in licensed centers, 12,748 in
licensed homes and 5,527 with FFN caregivers).
Demographics of Demographics of children served were not available for this industry
Children Served by assessment. Statistics about children who receive subsidies are
Provider Type available in DCYF reports. See parent and family demographic
information in ICF Industry Assessment Report Section V. Section V,
RCW 43.330.529 (2)(a)(iv)
Parent/Family
Voices,
Family Child Care page 36-103
Choices by Family ICF parent perspectives analysis identified family child care choices
Income Bracket by family income bracket, including within parent survey results and
parent engagement summaries.
RCW 43.330.529 (2)(c)
Demographics of
Child Care Providers ICF's industry assessment includes workforce characteristics in the
supply-and-demand analysis. The task force will include additional
RCW 43.330.529 (2)(a)(v) workforce employment, wage, public assistance, and workforce Section VI.6, Child
pipeline information in the next report. ICF completed a separate Care Industry
Workforce workforce compensation policy analysis that the task force will Workforce,
Employment, Wages consider with other extant sources when developing workforce page 134-135
and Pipeline compensation policy recommendations for the December 2020
legislative report.
RCW 43.330.529 (2)(f)(i)-(ii)
Characteristics of the Section VI, Supply
Informal Child Care ICF's analysis of child care supply and demand describes the
and Demand for
Market characteristics of the informal child care market, including estimates
Child Care in
of the children served in this market by age group.
RCW 43.330.529 (2)(b)
Washington,
CHILD CARE INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT - CHILD CARE COLLABORATIVE TASK FORCE 16
Requirement Description of How Requirement was Addressed ICF Page #
Visual Representation ICF's child care industry insights dashboard and supply-and-demand page 104-141
of Child Care Supply analysis provide a visual representation of child care supply and
and Demand demand by region that identifies areas with the highest need related See child care
to child care accessibility and affordability. industry insights
RCW 43.330.529 (2)(d) dashboard on
Commerce website
The task force found a facility needs assessment tool more valuable
than a one-time snapshot of facility needs. ICF's child care industry
Child Care Facilities insights dashboard is an interactive, updatable tool that stakeholders
Needs Assessment may use to determine the type and number of facilities necessary to
RCW 43.330.529 (2)(b)
address unmet child care capacity needs. The dashboard allows zip
code-level analysis to identify geographic areas with concentrated
barriers to access.
Providers Accepting
Subsidy The task force will recommend subsidy policy changes and an
implementation plan in the December 2020 legislative report. The
RCW 43.330.529 (2)(a)(iii)
December report will include additional information about the Will be included in
subsidy program, including the estimated number of children who the December 2020
Relationship between receive subsidized care by provider type, reasons why providers do report
Private Pay Rates and not accept subsidy and the relationship between private pay rates
Subsidy Rates and subsidy rates.
RCW 43.330.529 (2)(e)
ICF estimated economic and fiscal impacts by identifying and
extrapolating parent and employer impacts of three scenarios that
Estimated Costs to arise when parents lack affordable, reliable child care: lost time at
Section VII,
the State Economy of work, turnover and reduction in labor force participation. ICF used the
Economic and
Child Care REMI P+ economic model of Washington state to estimate economic
Fiscal Impact
Inaccessibility and fiscal impacts, including sales and Business and Occupation
Analysis,
(B&O) tax impacts. Section VII describes the methodology and
page 142-161
RCW 43.330.529 (2)(b) results, including lost economic activity, lost tax revenue and direct
and indirect effects on labor participation, workplace productivity,
and household earnings of working parents who use child care.
ICF summarized results of the Office of Financial Management's
state executive branch employee child care survey in Section V.3,
including analysis of the relationship between family child care
choices and household income bracket, and a narrative summary of
State Employee Child the challenges that state employees face in accessing or paying for Section V.3, State
Care Survey Results child care. The survey was made available to all executive branch Employee Child
employees, asking employees to respond only if they had at least one Care Survey,
RCW 43.41.800 child ages birth through 12. The total population of state employees page 84-101
with children in this age range was unknown. Estimates reflect
survey responses and not necessarily state executive branch totals.
The survey provided information about 10,704 children of 6,348
employees.
CHILD CARE INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT - CHILD CARE COLLABORATIVE TASK FORCE 17
Washington Child
Care Industry
Assessment
Volume I: Report
June 30, 2020
Submitted to:
Child Care Collaborative Task Force
Washington Department of
Commerce
Submitted by:
ICF
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 6
1. Economics of Child Care Markets ................................................................................................ 6
2. Previous Research on Parents’ Child Care Needs and Challenges ............................................ 7
3. Parent Voices: Surveys and Interviews ........................................................................................ 9
4. Supply and Demand for Child Care in Washington State .......................................................... 13
4.1 Overview of Supply and Demand ..................................................................................... 14
4.2 Child Care Deserts ............................................................................................................ 14
4.3 Child Care Affordability Challenges .................................................................................. 15
4.4 Child Care Quality Challenges.......................................................................................... 15
4.5 Impact of Pandemic Disruption on Supply and Demand.................................................. 16
4.6 Child Care Workforce........................................................................................................ 16
5. Economic Impact of Child Care in Washington State ................................................................ 17
II. Overview/About This Report ........................................................................................................ 19
III. Overview of the Economics of Child Care Markets ................................................................... 21
1. Evolution of Child Care Industry in United States ...................................................................... 21
2. Role of Competition in Child Care Industry ................................................................................ 22
3. Costs and Barriers to Entry for Child Care Providers ................................................................ 22
4. Overview of Public Investments for Child Care .......................................................................... 23
IV. Review of Research on Parent Choices in Child Care Decision-Making ................................ 25
1. Looking Back: Previous Research ............................................................................................. 25
1.1 Parents’ Child Care Decision-Making Process ................................................................. 25
1.2 Parents’ Preferences and Priorities in Selecting Care ..................................................... 25
1.3 Constraints to Selecting Preferred Care Arrangements ................................................... 26
1.4 Facilitators to Selecting Preferred Care Arrangements .................................................... 26
2. Highlights from Studies Since 2013 ........................................................................................... 27
2.1 Parents’ Child Care Decision-Making Process ................................................................. 27
2.2 Parents’ Preferences and Priorities in Selecting Care ..................................................... 28
2.3 Constraints to Selecting Preferred Care Arrangements ................................................... 31
2.4 Facilitators to Selecting Preferred Care Arrangements .................................................... 32
3. Implications for Policy and Practice............................................................................................ 33
V. Parent/Family Voices .................................................................................................................... 36
1. Statewide Parent Survey ............................................................................................................ 37
1.1 Survey Overview and Methods ......................................................................................... 37
1.1.1 Questionnaire ............................................................................................................... 37
1.1.2 Fielding ......................................................................................................................... 37
1.2 Parent and Family Demographics .................................................................................... 39
1.3 Employment and Occupational Information...................................................................... 43
1.4 Child Care Arrangements ................................................................................................. 46
1.4.1 Child Care Arrangements Used ................................................................................... 46
1.4.2 Hours and Costs of Care .............................................................................................. 54
1.4.3 Receiving Child Care Assistance ................................................................................. 55
2
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
1.5 Child Care Needs and Preferences .................................................................................. 57
1.6 Employment Challenges and Barriers Related to Child Care .......................................... 62
1.7 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 66
2. Parent Engagement Sessions .................................................................................................... 69
2.1 Parent Engagement Overview/Methods ........................................................................... 69
2.2 Participants and Communities .......................................................................................... 69
2.3 Child Care Needs and Preferences .................................................................................. 72
2.4 Barriers Related to Child Care .......................................................................................... 74
2.4.1 Barriers related to cost and subsidy ............................................................................. 74
2.4.2 Other Barriers ............................................................................................................... 77
2.5 Employment Challenges/Impact ....................................................................................... 79
2.5.1 Use of Family Caregivers, Informal and Home-Based Care........................................ 80
2.5.2 Use of Formal Care ...................................................................................................... 81
2.6 Greatest Challenges ......................................................................................................... 82
2.7 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 83
3. State Employee Child Care Survey ............................................................................................ 84
3.1 Survey Overview/Methods ................................................................................................ 84
3.2 Respondent Demographics .............................................................................................. 84
3.3 Children and Child Care Arrangements............................................................................ 87
3.4 Child Care Needs and Preferences .................................................................................. 91
3.5 Employment Challenges/Impact and Barriers Related to Child Care .............................. 92
3.6 Summary of State Employee Survey Findings ............................................................... 101
4. Implications of Parents’ Perspectives....................................................................................... 102
VI. Supply and Demand for Child Care in Washington................................................................. 104
1. Overview of Supply and Demand Analysis .............................................................................. 104
2. Summary of Methodology......................................................................................................... 105
3. Supply and Demand for Child Care for Young Children .......................................................... 106
3.1 Overview of Supply of Programs Serving Young Children............................................. 106
3.2 Demographic Characteristics of Families with Young Children ..................................... 106
3.3 Supply and Demand for Child Care for Families with Young Children .......................... 108
3.4 Informal Child Care Market for Young Children ............................................................. 125
4. Supply and Demand for School-Age Child Care ...................................................................... 127
4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Washington Families with School-Age Children ......... 127
4.2 Supply and Demand for Child Care for School-Age Children ........................................ 128
5. Child Care Industry Workforce ................................................................................................. 134
6. Impact of Pandemic on Supply and Demand ........................................................................... 136
6.1 Overview of Pandemic Impact on Child Care ................................................................. 136
6.2 Impact of Pandemic on the Supply of Child Care in Washington................................... 137
7. Policy Implications .................................................................................................................... 139
VII. Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis ................................................................................. 142
1. Previous Research on Economic Impacts of Child Care ......................................................... 142
2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 145
2.1 Data Collection ................................................................................................................ 147
3
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
2.2 REMI Model .................................................................................................................... 152
2.3 COVID-19 Updated Adjustments to Model ..................................................................... 152
3. Results ...................................................................................................................................... 153
3.1 Economic Impact ............................................................................................................ 153
3.2 Fiscal Impact ................................................................................................................... 158
4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 160
Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 162
References ........................................................................................................................................ 165
4
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Acknowledgments
ICF wishes to thank the Department of Commerce and the Department of Children, Youth, and
Families, as well as the members of the Child Care Collaborative Task Force, for assistance,
guidance and insights throughout the process of developing these reports:
Child Care Collaborative Task Force
Amy Anderson, Association of Washington Business, Tri-Chair
Luc Jasmin, Washington Childcare Centers Association and Parkview Early Learning Center,
Tri-Chair
Ryan Pricco, Child Care Aware of Washington, Tri-Chair
Erin Haick, SEIU 925
Bob McCaslin, 4th District (R), WA House of Representatives
Darlene Peters, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
Tana Senn, 41st District (D), WA House of Representatives
Neil Strege, Washington Roundtable
Claire Wilson, 30th District (D), WA Senate
Liv Woodstrom, The Ounce
David Beard, School’s Out Washington
Sarah Clark, Children’s Alliance
Mary Curry, Pathways Enrichment Academy
Sydney Forrester, Office of the Governor
Dru Garson, Greater Grays Harbor, Inc.
Christie Glassy, Caregiver
Jennifer Jennings-Shaffer, Zero to Three
Ruth Kagi, Early Learning Ambassador
Bethany Larsen, Child Haven/Puget Sound Educational Service District
Lois Martin, Community Day Center for Children
ZamZam Mohamed, Voices of Tomorrow
Mary Ellen O’Keeffe, Thrive Washington
Jason Ramynke, Department of Children, Youth, and Families
Cheryl Smith, Department of Commerce
Nicole Sohn, Greater Spokane, Inc. Journey Discovery Center
Ginger Still, Kid’s World Childcare
Faith Trimble, Capitol Campus Child Care Center
Jodi Wall, Educational Service District 112
5
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
I. Executive Summary
In support of the goals of Washington state legislation HB 1344, the Department of Commerce
and the Child Care Collaborative Task Force solicited a study of child care issues in the state,
including an assessment of the child care industry and workforce, economics of child care,
parents’ needs and preferences for care, the economic
impact of child care on the state economy, and the In This Report:
unmet need for child care. Commerce contracted with
Overview of the Economics
ICF to complete this work, which has been carried out in
of Child Care Markets
consultation and collaboration with the Department of
Children, Youth, and Families. The ICF project team Previous Research on
also includes partnerships with Capito Associates, Fran Parents’ Child Care Needs
Kipnis, and MomsRising of Washington. and Challenges
It is important to keep in mind that this research was Parent Voices: Parent
undertaken just as the COVID-19 public health crisis Survey, Parent Interviews,
was beginning to take hold in Washington State, the State Employee Survey
United States, and around the world. An initial update
Supply and Demand for
on child care supply was also captured from June 2020,
Child Care in Washington
and incorporated into the summary of child care
State
supply/demand. The sudden and wide-ranging impacts
of the pandemic have had an unprecedented effect on Economic Impact of Child
the child care industry and the economy as a whole that Care in Washington State
is still barely understood. Inevitably, these changing
conditions place these research findings in a different
perspective than originally envisioned, and raise new questions that must be addressed as we
begin to grapple with a new normal. However, the findings paint a baseline picture of the
importance of child care as an essential support to working families in Washington and to the
state economy overall, reflecting a “pre-COVID” world. Ideally, the insights gleaned from this
work can help inform discussions and decisions to be made as Washington continues to grapple
with the unfolding public health situation and drafts policies and plans for recovery and beyond.
Additional background and key findings are summarized below.
1. Economics of Child Care Markets
The current early care and education system in the United States places most of the burden of
paying for care on individual families. Many families are left without access to affordable, high-
quality early childhood programs, which both creates and perpetuates inequality (National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2018).
Government support for early childhood programs was historically extremely limited with small
exceptions in the wake of the Great Depression and World War II. Federal support began to
increase in an on-going fashion in the 1960s, which included the establishment of Head Start in
1964. Families increasingly came to rely upon early childhood programs, particularly center-
based care, with the portion of children cared for in those settings rising from 13% in 1977 to
30% in 1993 (Child Trends, 2016). Other developments since the 1990s include programmatic
6
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
investments in the funding of child care, such as the passage of the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act, the Personal Responsibility and Work Acts, and expansion of
funding for the Child Care and Development Fund, Head Start, the Race to the Top-Early
Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC), and Preschool Development Grants. In Washington State,
receipt of a four-year Phase 1 RTT-ELC grant in 2012 allowed the state to scale up the Early
Achievers quality rating program and set the stage for investments in early learning for
vulnerable children through the Early Start Act.
Including these government programs, funding of the early care and education market remains
fragmented, coming from a variety of revenue streams including families’ private payments,
public sector funds and private sources such as philanthropy and employers. The patchwork
financing structure is reflected in various programs with different funding streams,
constituencies, eligibility requirements and program quality standards (National Academies of
Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2018).
In response to these diverse funding streams and the different needs of families, the child care
industry is diverse and has many small, independent operators. Competition among operators is
typically based on the price of services to families (which is influenced by factors such as the
funding source for nonprofit operators, and the scale of operations for larger private operators).
Additional cost impacts include: branding/marketing expenses; location; the convenience of the
operators’ services; and operator reputation. However, there are various barriers to entry for
new child care providers described in this report, particularly in staffing costs and level of
regulation in the industry.
With minimal public investments in child care programs, providers can only charge prices that
the parents in their service areas can afford and are willing to pay. Yet, the prices charged may
not produce the revenues required to fully cover the costs associated with stable, high-quality
care, most importantly the cost of hiring and retaining staff with the education and experience
needed.
Current public investments for early childhood programs include Early Head Start and Head
Start, Child Care and Development Funds funneled through state subsidy programs, state-
funded prekindergarten, and tax-based subsidies. The recent report from the National
Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine (2018) on Transforming the Financing of
Early Care and Education offers several recommendations to develop an effective financing
structure for a high-quality early childhood system. These recommendations may be useful for
the Child Care Collaborative Task Force in developing policy recommendations for Washington
State.
2. Previous Research on Parents’ Child Care Needs and
Challenges
A review of recent research on parents’ choice in child care selection identified a complex range
of factors that influence parents’ decision-making. Parents’ selection of child care settings may
be influenced by a variety of factors, such as their access to information about the choices
available, cultural factors affecting their trust in formal settings, parents’ own values regarding
the educational environment or other program characteristics, parents’ expectations for their
children’s future education, parents’ employment constraints such as location and hours,
7
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
availability of resources such as financial assistance. Policymakers supporting parents in their
child care decisions should consider all the characteristics of families, the community, and
parental preferences and constraints, not just one or two factors.
Providing more information in a system like a Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS)
that consolidates information across program types may help parents consider all their options.
Expanding the range of program choice for parents may be improved if Head Start and public
preschool programs are able to expand their number of slots and expand the practical services
needed by parents such as extended hours and year-round programs (Bassok et al., 2017).
Publicly funded pre-kindergarten programs offer additional options for families with 4-year-olds
and can lead to a substantial expansion of the available care. However, careful resource
planning should anticipate system-level impacts when designing this type of large public
preschool initiative, in order to protect against reducing the amount of care available for children
of other ages (Bassok et al., 2016).
More research is needed that gathers information first-hand from families about how they select
preschools and they constraints navigate, both those they know and those undetected barriers
they do not (e.g. not having detailed safety information about the programs, or the quality of the
teacher-child interactions in classrooms). Parents’ definitions of quality include elements that go
beyond those that are supported by research. Encouraging families to enroll their children in
early childhood education programs must address more than explaining the benefits.
Understanding families’ expectations for their children’s future can help in designing outreach
programs, particularly for specific racial and ethnic groups (Ressler et al., 2019).
Measuring the availability and affordability of care in the public, private, and informal child care
markets can help reveal maternal employment. Research shows that maternal employment is
supported by longer school days and universal preschool (Ruppanner et al., 2019).
In order to create appropriate policy and respond to the unique needs of families in rural areas,
more research about the child care requirements of families in rural areas. The research needs
to be conducted into the characteristics of the resources available to support them. To increase
the supply of center-based care, measures such as use of schools, employer sites, churches
and public capital financing for construction and expansion could be considered. Additional
supports could be developed to help home-based and family child care improve quality of care.
Different methods of communication about child care, its benefits, and its availability and
accessibility may be needed to reach rural families (Anderson & Mikesell, 2019).
Supporting farmworkers and migrant and seasonal farmworkers in their needs for child care
offers special opportunities. There are various strategies for employers to support child care
options. In addition, technical assistance to child care providers can help them meet the unique
needs of farmworker families.
Addressing access to quality early education for children of color, particularly boys of color, can
include solutions such as expanding the supply of child care with universal pre-kindergarten or
expanded funding for child care subsidies through grants and matches. However, more targeted
solutions are needed to address the barriers to access faced by families of color (Dobbins,
2016; Moran, 2019).
Preschools are a significant intervention in bringing about greater equity for children as they
prepare for school (Ansari, 2017, p. 3). Cultural factors play a role: There are significant
8
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
differences in preschool use between African American, non-Latino white and Latino families. A
study of Latina women found those differences in the preschool use by immigrant Latino
families versus by native-born Latino families (Satkowski et al., 2016).
Immigrant families can benefit from using formal child care, although they are less likely than
nonimmigrant families to use formal child care. This is especially true for Latino families.
Understanding the social and internal factors that influence Latina women’s preferences and
decision-making can help center-based providers market their programs’ accessibility and
attractive features to immigrant families. Making programs reflect the preferences of immigrant
families could include, for example, the hiring of Latina women (Satkowski et al., 2016).
Supporting immigrant families’ access to center-based child care can be improved by creating
more early childhood programs in neighborhoods with lower affluence, thereby reducing
structural barriers. Programs that work to build collaborations within neighborhoods, and create
neighborhood-based friendship networks, will have the best impact on supporting immigrant
families’ use of center-based care (Shuey & Leventhal, 2018).
Employer-provided child care grant programs can help employees with the highest need, as well
as employees of higher ranks. Employees are more likely to use such programs if they are
introduced to the employees in person, particularly by a colleague, and if they are universal,
flexible and easy to access (Hipp et al., 2017). State early care and education lead agencies
may expand the accessibility and affordability of child care by working with employers in
designing such programs.
3. Parent Voices: Surveys and Interviews
Three recent sources of parents’ own reports of child care needs, challenges and impacts of
child care were included in this report: a statewide online parent survey; parent engagement
sessions by team partner MomsRising of Washington, which worked with communities of
families typically underrepresented in survey research; and the findings of the recent state
employee child care survey.
Parent Survey
A statewide online parent survey was conducted with over 1,500 parents of children ages 0
(infants) through 12 years old responding; see Appendix A. The survey was conducted in mid-
April 2020, shortly after the start of a statewide mandatory stay-home order. However, the
survey asked respondents to reflect on experiences in the year leading up to the survey.
Therefore, the findings can cautiously be considered to reflect pre-pandemic conditions.
Families reported demographic information, multiple child care arrangements for each child,
hours and costs paid for care, preferences and features of care needed (such as nontraditional
hours of care), and challenges (including negative impacts of child care access issues on their
employment and work participation).
The analysis of care arrangements examined all types of care used for each child, the number
of arrangements used per child, and whether there was a primary non-parental care
arrangement, as determined by the number of hours in care. Among children ages 0 through 4,
the most common non-parental primary care arrangement was staying with another family
member (50% of children), followed by enrolling in a licensed child care center (18%). For
9
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
children age 5 through 9, the most common non-parental primary arrangement was another
family member (34%) followed by a licensed child care center (22%), and then other preschool
program (16%). For older children ages 10 through 12, staying with another family member was
most common (42%) followed by another type of program or activity (13%) and before- or after-
school program (13%). Overall, 29% of children were not using any care other than that of a
parent/step-parent or guardian, and another 31% were in only one non-parental care
arrangement. Another 20% experienced two non-parental arrangements, and 20% of children
were in three or more arrangements. Children age 0 through 4 were far more likely to be in no
(zero) non-parental care arrangements than were older children. Older children (age 10 through
12) were more likely to be in three or more arrangements than were younger children.
Over a third of respondents (39%) reported that their family receives some kind of financial
assistance paying for child care from one or more sources. The most common type of
assistance received was using a “free program offered through a public school” (14%), followed
by assistance from a public benefit program such as Head Start, ECEAP, Working Connections,
or city-funded program (10%), or an employer flexible spending account for child care (8%).
That is, families with a younger child, or both younger and older children, are more likely to
receive assistance than those with only an older child. Nonwhite respondents were far more
likely than white respondents to receive some form of assistance for child care costs.
Respondents with mid-level incomes were least likely to be receiving some form of financial
assistance, compared with those at both lower and higher levels. While this pattern does not
clearly track with increase in income, it is likely due to receiving different types of assistance in
different circumstances (e.g. public benefit, employer-based).
When asked about their preferences for care, while 40% of respondents preferred care in their
own home, another 23% combined preferred care in a family member or friends’ home, or
another person’s home. About 20% combined preferred care in a formal setting (e.g. licensed
child care program, child care center, or program at a public school), and 8% had no
preference.
About a quarter of respondents reported needing child care outside of regular/traditional
daytime hours (6:00 am – 6:00 pm Monday thru Friday), most commonly in the evenings or
weekend days.
Survey respondents also reported their challenges due to child care issues. A little less than half
of respondents reported that they or their spouse/partner had to take time off due to child care
issues in the past 12 months. A little more than a third reported they had reduced the number of
hours or days worked due to child care issues. In addition, about 18% of respondents reported
that in the past 12 months they have turned down a job offer or promotion due to child care
issues.
When asked if various child care issues had an effect on their family over the last year, the three
most common issues were finding affordable care (37% of respondents), finding high quality
care (30%), and finding child care that fits their schedule (27%). In reporting how often their job
was negatively affected by child care issues, nearly a third (32%) reported that their job is
negatively affected by their child care arrangements sometimes, often or always. This figure
was slightly higher (37%) for households where all parents were working.
10
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
For parents not working, child care may be a barrier to returning to employment. Nearly half
(47%) of those who were jobseekers reported that child care is an issue preventing them from
obtaining full-time or part-time employment.
Finally, over a third (36%) of respondents reported their household had experienced financial
hardship or had made financial changes as a result of the cost of child care.
Parent Engagement Sessions
In partnership with MomsRising of Washington, a series of listening sessions were conducted
with 28 families in communities often underrepresented in traditional survey research.
Researchers recruited participants that represented a wide range of diversity:
Geography: Families living in various rural and urban locations including Outlook,
Shelton, LaConner, Lake Stevens, Kent, Tacoma, Seattle, Oak Harbor, Vancouver,
Issaquah, Centralia, Spokane and South King County.
Race and Ethnicity: White or Caucasian, Hispanic or Latino/a, Black or African
American, Asian or Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native
Primary Language Spoken by Household: English, Spanish, Somali, Chinese
Caregiver professions: Paralegal, Seasonal farm worker, family support worker, Human
Resources professional, city employee, part-time worker, municipal government worker,
family support worker, paramedic, social worker, ECEAP staff, store manager,
unemployed, and stay-at-home parent.
Family structure: Two-parent families, single-parent households, foster families
Parents provided important stories and detail especially about the unaffordability of care and
how the exorbitant cost had impacted their choices in employment and child care. For example:
“I’m not able to afford the child care places that would be a good fit for me, therefore I
had to use one that was within my budget.” – Parent of one school age child and one
adult child
“I didn’t like that what I earned, I would end up with little left over. I had to leave my kids
for long hours so about half my paycheck would go to the caretaker… I didn’t see the
point to working at this part-time [job] anymore. I did the math and the money that was
going to my commute and the caretaker was not worth it, when I could just take care of
them myself and not overpay or pay the caretaker.” – Parent of three children ages 7 to
19, Hispanic/Latino
“I didn't work for 9 years because I would have been working just to pay for child care.
They were in ECEAP as 4-year-olds, but it is only a half day which isn't enough to seek
employment. Now that they are both school age I work. Two kids' care costs more than
rent! ... So to me, it’s not worth it to work if you’re just paying for child care alone—it
leads to a circle of poverty… If care was affordable, I definitely would have worked
through my kids’ younger years.” – Parent of two children ages 7 and 11;
white/Caucasian; military family
They also described their predominantly informal/unregulated child care arrangements, and
some spoke explicitly about having inconsistent child care situations as a challenge.
11
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
“It affects me a lot when my mom can’t take care of my children and I have to stay home
from work. It affects my earnings since I am the head of the family and the breadwinner.”
– Parent of four children ages 2 to 13, Hispanic/Latino
“I started looking for child care when I started going to college... I looked for my family’s
support. When my mom started going back to work, I had to miss class because I
couldn't leave [my child] with my mom or sister.” – Parent of one child age 5 mo.,
Hispanic/Latino
“Since my sister watches my kids, I’m able to work full time. But I know she would want a
job if she could have time to work, too.” – Parent of three children ages 5 to 10 years,
Asian/Pacific Islander
Some families described challenges in getting subsidy, and others described their experience of
not quite qualifying for support:
“Most child care providers are working with vouchers. But people who can’t get vouchers
don’t have access to ANY affordable care. If you can’t apply for a voucher, your whole
salary has to go to child care.” – Parent of color raising two children, using family, friend,
or neighbor (FFN) care
“We can't afford child care, and it doesn't seem fair. Some families qualify for low-income
programs and we do not. But child care still isn't affordable for us.” – Parent of three
children, using informal relative care (not receiving subsidy)
Many of the parents we interviewed described disruptions due to child care issues in their work
schedules or attendance, and many discussed their decisions to cut back on their work or leave
the employment market at least temporarily due to unmanageable child care costs.
State Employee Survey
In a related effort, this report includes key findings of the Washington State Office of Financial
Management’s 2019 survey of over 6,300 state employees with children ages 0 through 12,
describing their child care arrangements, needs and preferences, and challenges. Details are
available in Appendix D.
Almost 60% of respondents said they found it difficult or very difficult to find and keep child care.
In addition, the majority (80%) of respondents said they had missed work at least once in the
last six months due to child care issues. Almost half (46%) of the employees reported missing or
arriving to work late three or more days in the last six months. In addition, 77% were late at least
once in the six months prior to the survey due to child care issues, and nearly half (49%) were
late because of child care issues at least 3 or more days in that time period.
Employees were asked how their job had been affected due to issues accessing child care.
Three-fourths (75%) of respondents have used a flexible work schedule (e.g., compressed
workweek, nonstandard hours) due to issues accessing child care, and 40% have been able to
telework). Less commonly, employees reported other more potentially negative impacts,
including turning down a job or promotion (reported by 34%), leaving a job (17%), and reducing
their work hours from full time to part time (13%).
When describing their challenges finding care, most respondents (83%) said that available care
was too expensive. Other top challenges were a lack of open slots in programs near their home
12
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
or work (44% of respondents), and a lack of available care that fits their work hours (also 44%).
Respondents’ open-ended comments echoed these findings: 72% of comments concerned the
unaffordability of child care. Some typical comments included:
“It is very hard to find quality child care with availability, particularly for infants, and many
options are prohibitively expensive.”
“It is extremely difficult to obtain a safe, educational environment (let alone the cost) - the
wait lists for all child care centers in our area are one or more years in advance.”
“Most facilities in my area are too expensive and do not have enough space, so my
options are limited.”
The three robust sources about parental reports of child care choices, needs and challenges
engaged with different populations (e.g. state executive branch employees, state general
population, targeted underrepresented communities), using different methods (e.g. online
surveys, interviews). However, several crosscutting themes appear when considering these
parent perspectives on child care accessibility.
The majority of the surveyed and interviewed parents show a strong preference for family
caregivers and home-based care. State employee parents choosing non-parental care were
equally likely to use a center-based arrangement as they were to choose a friend/family
member or other home-based setting. Parents in all three studies reported relying on multiple
care arrangements, and parents in engagement sessions spoke in particular detail about how
they have put together these various arrangements in response to the need for flexible care that
is affordable and accommodates non-traditional working hours. The parent interviews,
combined with our partner MomsRising’s perspective on the voices of vulnerable communities,
reiterate the importance of trust and cultural fit for parents selecting the family environment of
home care.
In all three efforts, parents reported cost and availability of care as major concerns. Parents in
interviews provided testimonies of the need for family supports and publicly funded child care
subsidy or programs to help them remain in the workforce. Many spoke of having left their jobs
at least temporarily because the cost of child care would eat up their earnings.
Likewise, parents reported from multiple angles the negative impacts on their jobs, whether on a
day-to-day basis, or for their employment choices, from experiencing disruptions to child care. In
both the statewide parent survey and the state employee survey, a substantial portion of
respondents reported missing days of work, being late to work, turning down a job or promotion,
or feeling that child care was a barrier to returning to employment. Parents in engagement
sessions likewise provided their own stories of these impacts on their work and their
employment choices. In a later section of this report, the economic impact analysis leverages
the statewide parent survey data on employment impacts to develop a model to measure the
fiscal impact of inaccessibility of care.
4. Supply and Demand for Child Care in Washington State
This assessment included an extensive analysis of the supply and demand for child care
services for children from birth through age 12, detailed in Appendices E and F. The analysis
primarily focused on the supply of care in the formal, regulated child care market in Washington,
13
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
including licensed child care centers, licensed family child care homes and licensed school-age-
only child care providers. The analysis also included Head Start, Early Head Start, Migrant and
Seasonal Head Start, American Indian and Alaska Native Head Start and Early Childhood
Education and Assistance Program (ECEAP) sites. Further, the analysis estimated the demand
for and supply of informal care that is provided outside of the regulated market for child care.
4.1 Overview of Supply and Demand
Across the state, in the regulated child care market, there are 5,611 providers that have the
capacity to serve 185,867 children from birth to age five. Approximately 83% of the capacity to
serve these children is in child care centers and 17% is in family child care homes. For older
children, DCYF data showed approximately 559 licensed school-based programs operating in
the state, with an overall capacity to serve about 32,000 children from age 5 through 12.
According to recent census data, there are approximately 459,000 children in Washington from
birth to age five. The number of children aged 5 through 12 is approximately 658,000. (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2018). By simply dividing the capacity of licensed programs by the population
they are designed and licensed to serve, child care access challenges are clear:
Licensed child care capacity for center- and home-based child care providers is 41% of
the population under the age of five.
Licensed school-age care capacity is about 5% of the population of children aged 5
through 12.
In addition to the formal regulated market, families also use informal types of care that exist
outside of the regulated market, including friends, neighbors, nannies and au pairs. The analysis
estimates that there are 34,608 friend and neighbor providers who are caring for 47,277
children. Additionally, it produced an estimate of 31,248 nannies and au pairs who are caring for
42,687 children.
To examine the level of access that families with children birth to age five have to child care, the
analysis used a distance-based methodology to determine the percentage of potential demand
for child care that nearby providers, within a 20-minute drive time, could meet. For school age
children, from the age of 5 through 12, the analysis used an area-based methodology to
determine the percentage of potential demand that providers within a school district could meet.
The analysis used a Child Care Industry Insights Dashboard, based in Tableau, to prepare the
maps and other data visualizations that are contained in the report. The dashboard can be used
and updated on an ongoing basis to inform state, regional and community-level efforts to
identify access challenges and resource gaps.
4.2 Child Care Deserts
Across the state, the capacity of providers located within a 20-minute drive time can only meet
37% of the potential demand of nearby families. The level of access varies from a low of 18% in
Garfield County to a high of 86% in San Juan County. In total, an estimated 118,000 families
with 161,000 children birth through age five live in areas considered child care deserts. Based
on the child care preferences that parents identified through the parent survey, the analysis
estimates that the child care industry would need the capacity to serve 38,640 additional
14
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
children from birth to age five in child care centers and the capacity to serve 9,680 additional
children in family child care homes to eliminate the child care deserts and meet the child care
provider preferences of parents.
4.3 Child Care Affordability Challenges
In addition to facing access barriers that are related to capacity, families may also face barriers
related to affordability, which can alter the child care decisions that they make. Examining the
proportion of income that families would have to expend for various types of care can provide
insights into the challenges of finding affordable care options that fit within their family budgets.
When formal child care costs exceed affordability, parents may be left to consider alternative
arrangements in the informal child care market. Affordability varies by the age of the child,
region and type of care.
Families that have an infant and a child of preschool age in the least affordable counties could
spend as much as 35% of their income for full-time care in center-based settings and as much
as 29% in family child care settings. Affordability is likely a challenge for single parents
earning at the median income level in all counties for all types of care. Single mothers that
have an infant and a child of preschool age in the least affordable counties, for example,
would have to spend more than 150% of their income for full-time care in center-based
settings and more than 120% in family child care settings.
For families that have school-age children, affordability is similar across counties for center-
based and for family child care for two-parent families for school-age care, where families
would need to spend between 2% and 4% of their income to purchase school-age care for
days that school is not in session during the school holidays and the summer. Affordability is
likely a greater challenge for single parents earning at the median income level in all counties
for all types of care. For those seeking center-based care and family child care for school-age
children, the percent of income required to purchase care at the median market price ranges
from about 6% to 15% of income across counties.
4.4 Child Care Quality Challenges
As highlighted in the literature review on child care decision-making in and further detailed in the
parent and employee surveys conducted as part of this study, detailed in report chapters IV and
V, parents across the nation and in Washington consider program quality an important factor in
selecting a care option for their child. With this in mind, the analysis examined the extent to
which families have access to programs at the highest levels of Early Achievers. The report also
provides an additional analysis of access to Head Start and ECEAP, programs, which also
require providers to meet higher quality standards.
Statewide, based on data from DCYF, providers at Early Achievers levels three and higher that
have the capacity to serve approximately 90,000 children (41% of total capacity of regulated
supply). Providers at lower levels of Early Achievers or not participating in Early Achievers have
the capacity to serve approximately 127,000 children (59% of total capacity of regulated supply).
The highest percentage of child care capacity at these levels of quality is 70% in San Juan and
Wahkiakum counties. All counties had at least 25% of capacity at this level of quality, except for
15
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Island (21%), Columbia (13%) and Skamania (9%). There were no providers at this level of
quality in Ferry, Garfield and Lincoln counties.
The analysis also examined the proximity of families to providers that are at higher levels of
quality. Within a 10-minute drive, 70% of families can access at least one provider at Early
Achievers levels four and five. When extended to a 20-minute drive time, the percent of families
that can access at least one provider at these quality levels increases to 93%.
4.5 Impact of Pandemic Disruption on Supply and Demand
When reviewing the findings in this report, one must recognize that the snapshot data of the
child care supply, and the assumptions about the demand for services pre-date the full impacts
of the COVID-19 pandemic in Washington. This unprecedented event has, and will continue to
have, significant impacts on both the supply and demand for child care. As parents are
furloughed, laid off, or otherwise ceasing work due to the COVID-19 pandemic, an analysis by
the Minneapolis Federal Reserve found that overall demand for child care services has dropped
by 25% to 40% compared to pre-pandemic levels (Grunewald, 2020). In Washington, the supply
of licensed child care dropped by 27% between February and June of 2020. This does not
account for additional reductions in capacity due to lower group sizes, or closures of Head Start
or ECEAP programs.
An already challenging situation for child care providers worsened due the pandemic, even
though their services are typically in high demand. Child care businesses generally have a slim
profit margin, and owners or directors rarely have formal education in business practices. The
Minneapolis Federal Reserve found that child care providers do not often work with traditional
lenders, and consequently have limited access to cash reserves or credit lines. As a result,
many child care businesses are unable to withstand a sharp decline in revenue. Additionally,
providers also face significant cost increases that stem from implementing and maintaining the
smaller child-to-staff ratios necessary to limit potential virus exposure for children and staff
members. Providers now must also clean and sanitize more frequently. Following potential
exposure to the virus by staff or children, providers may also need to close for days to disinfect.
What was already a challenging business model is more difficult to manage with these added
costs (Grunewald, 2020).
While there has been a significant decrease in demand for child care services overall, there has
been an increase in the demand for child care for essential workers. Across Washington, there
are an estimated 236,000 of these essential, frontline workers, including nurses, physicians,
other medical professionals, firefighters, police officers, pharmacists, and laboratory technicians.
An estimated 50,000 (21%) of essential workers need child care (Federal Reserve Bank of
Atlanta, 2020).
4.6 Child Care Workforce
The skills, knowledge, and well-being of early educators are inextricably linked to the quality of
children’s early learning and development. The Child Care Workforce Compensation Policy
Analyses, which is part of the series of reports produced as a companion to the Child Care
Industry Assessment, included an extensive analysis of data from the MERIT data system,
16
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Washington’s early childhood workforce registry. The analysis was based on a review of records
for approximately 36,000 early childhood educators, as detailed in Appendix I, and examined
demographic characteristics of the workforce, including job titles, race and ethnicity, languages
spoken, age, educational attainment and certificate attainment. The analysis also examined
variations in these characteristics by geographic regions, including Child Care Aware Region,
county and zip code.
Key highlights from the analysis include:
Compared to other language groups, a much larger percentage of English/Somali and
Spanish speakers (almost all), and a larger percentage of English/Spanish speakers (61
percent) have attained less than an associate degree.
Compared to other racial/ethnic groups, a greater percentage of Hispanic/Latinos (64
percent) and Black/African Americans (63%) have attained less than an associate
degree.
Compared to other job categories, a larger percentage of family home assistant/aides
(63 percent) and family home teachers/owners (77 percent) have attained less than an
associate degree.
Compared to other regions of the state, the Central Washington Region has the greatest
percentage (68 percent) of educators who have attained less than an associate degree.
When compared to other regions of the state, the Central Washington Region also has
the greatest percentage of Hispanic/Latino educators (60 percent) and educators who
speak English/Spanish or Spanish only.
The workforce is generally representative of the population of children in the surrounding
community in which early educators work, but each racial and ethnic category is
underrepresented in at least some counties and zip codes, with those identifying as
“Pacific Islander or other race” the most likely to be underrepresented.
The portion of the workforce that has attained a bachelor’s degree or higher tends to
increase as the income in the surrounding zip code increases. Likewise, the portion of
the workforce that has attained less than an associate degree is much higher in zip
codes with lower incomes than those with higher incomes. This presents possible
inequities, given the important link between quality and educational attainment.
5. Economic Impact of Child Care in Washington State
Economic impact of limited access to child care was assessed using a complex model taking
into account multiple factors affecting parents’ ability to work their labor force participation and
lost time at work. Inaccessibility, or lack of access to child care, has a direct effect on reduced
wages due to lost time at work and remaining out of the workforce. Additional impacts include
reduced productivity from both lost time at work and greater employee turnover, and - in the
case of state budgets - reduced tax revenue due to those lost wages and productivity declines.
Examining impact by employment sector, this effect is estimated to have the greatest impact on
a few sectors:
State and local government sector
Health care and social assistance
17
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Administrative and support services
Accommodation and food services
Professional services, and
Retail trade
Inaccessibility of child care leads to lower rates of labor force participation, as household
members decide to not work, or work less, due to child care issues. The reduced labor force
participation represents roughly 53% of the total economic impact, while lost time at work
represents 32%, and employee turnover represents 15% of the total economic impact. The
foregone earnings have a greater impact on families and the state than the cost of employee
turnover and lost time at work.
The total amount of tax revenue not realized by Washington State due to the economic impacts
of child care inaccessibility, ranges from roughly $1.2 billion in 2019 to $935 million in 2028,
and an annual average of $1.03 billion, largely due to impact on revenue reducing the
business and occupation tax.
This information was gathered as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was beginning to
cause a shutdown of workplaces, public gathering places, schools and child care facilities. The
long-term impact of these changes, both for availability of care and for parents’ employment
prospects, is not yet known. Future analysis will need to understand not only the new normal in
child care supply, but parents’ own comfort level and ability to find care that supports their
employment and family’s needs.
18
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
II. Overview/About This Report
In support of the goals of Washington state legislation HB 1344, the Department of Commerce
and the Child Care Collaborative Task Force solicited a study of child care issues in the state,
including an assessment of the child care industry and workforce, economics of child care,
parents’ needs and preferences for care, the economic impact of child care on the state
economy, and the unmet need for child care. Commerce contracted with ICF to complete this
work, which has been carried out in consultation and collaboration with the Department of
Children, Youth and Families. The ICF project team also includes partnerships with Capito
Associates, Fran Kipnis, and MomsRising of Washington.
To address the Task Force’s research needs, this report includes data and analysis from a
variety of sources and perspectives on Washington’s child care industry and its value or impact
on the state economy.
A literature review of previous findings on child care highlights the most recent
national research on what is known about parents’ needs, preferences and selection
process for child care arrangements.
A description of the supply and demand for child care, and a geospatial analysis of
the drive-time distance as it relates to availability of care for working families in
Washington, provides an illustration of the child care industry, particularly availability of
high-quality care, inequities in access to care and the extent to which child care “deserts”
result in critically underserved communities.
The chapter highlighting parent voices summarizes three approaches to understanding
Washington families’ needs and preferences for care, from their own perspectives.
o The online parent survey provides a quantitative analysis of needs and
preferences for care, current arrangements, unmet needs or challenges
accessing care, and career/economic impacts of limited or unreliable access to
care.
o The parent engagement sessions provide insights through rich stories gleaned
from personal interviews with families often under-represented in traditional
survey research.
o The state employee survey provides key findings of results from a survey
reflecting the child care needs and choices, and the impact of child care
challenges, on the state government workforce: working parents employed in
Washington state executive branch agencies.
The economic impact analysis measures and projects the economic and fiscal impacts
of limited access to child care in Washington state over a ten year period (2019-2028).
The analysis relies on both public data and selected results from the online parent
survey data carried out in this research effort, to estimate parents’ own lost income as
well as employers’ lost productivity and additional costs due to the lack of adequate child
care solutions over these years. These effects are then modeled to understand the
economic impacts of these effects in terms of employment, earnings, gross domestic
product (GDP), output, and state tax revenue. Note that due to timing of this research
effort, the current analysis could only incorporate limited updated assumptions reflecting
economic projections after the COVID-19 pandemic. Recovery and lasting effects of
19
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
child care access, employment and the state economy as a result of the pandemic are
not yet fully known.
Finally, the conclusion section draws together key takeaways from these multiple
sources of information and highlights important considerations for the Child Care
Collaborative Task Force’s use in its report to the legislature.
In addition, as part of this overall effort to assess key questions for the Child Care Collaborative
Task Force, separate efforts are underway for additional analyses in the following areas:
Child care providers’ costs of providing care in the state
Policies and supports for parity and equity in child care workforce compensation, as
required by Washington state legislation E2HSB 1391
Policies and recommendations for state-supported child care programs including the
Early Childhood Education Assistance Program (ECEAP), Washington’s public pre-
kindergarten program for vulnerable/high-risk children, and Working Connections,
Washington’s child care subsidy program for low-income working families (also per
E2SHB 1391).
These efforts are reported in companion reports slated for June 2020.
A note for readers: This research was undertaken just as the COVID-19 public health crisis was
beginning to take hold in Washington State, the U.S. and around the world. The sudden and
wide-ranging impacts of the pandemic have had an unprecedented effect - on the child care
industry and the economy as a whole - that is still barely understood. Inevitably, these changing
conditions place these research findings in a different perspective than originally envisioned,
and raise new questions that must be addressed as we begin to grapple with a new normal.
However, the findings paint a baseline picture of the importance of child care as an essential
support to working families in Washington and to the state economy overall, reflecting a “pre-
COVID” world. Ideally, the insights gleaned from this work can help inform discussions and
decisions to be made as Washington continues to grapple with the unfolding public health
situation and drafts policies and plans for recovery and beyond.
20
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
III. Overview of the Economics of Child Care Markets
Despite earlier public investments in early care and education, the current financing structure
only allows it to serve a fraction of the families who need high-quality care, and hampers the
development of a stable, highly qualified, and high-quality workforce, making the financing
structure neither sustainable nor adequate to provide the quality of care and learning children
and families need. The consequences of this long-standing approach to financing have left
many families without access to affordable, high-quality early childhood programs, thereby
perpetuating and driving inequality (National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine,
2018). This section provides an overview of the economics of child care. It describes the
evolution of child care markets and policy in the United States, describes the role of competition
in the market, highlights costs and barriers for new providers to enter the industry, highlights the
primary public investments into child care in Washington and describes proposed policy
interventions to improve the quality, access and affordability of child care.
1. Evolution of Child Care Industry in United States
The government’s historical relationship to child care arose during an era in which relatively few
children received care outside the home and family. For much of the twentieth century, the
provision of child care outside of the home remained the exception rather than the rule, and
nonintervention norms were consistent with this reality (Clarke-Stewart et al., 2005). State
intervention in and support for child care tended to be modest and typically came about in
response to perceptions that either particular families, or the country more broadly, were in
crisis. In response to these crises, public support ebbed and flowed rather than rising steadily
(Cohen, 1996). Up until the 1930s, the federal government had largely stayed out of funding
early childhood programs, but two national emergencies spurred the federal government to
begin funding them: the Great Depression and World War II.
The 1960s brought early childhood programs into the spotlight as result of multiple trends,
including emerging research that focused on the importance of early childhood development
and a continued increase in the number of women in the workforce. This research and the War
on Poverty resulted in the establishment of Head Start in 1964 (National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2018). Families increasingly came to rely upon early
childhood programs, particularly center-based care, with the portion of children cared for in
those settings increasing from 13% in 1977 to 30% in 1993 (Child Trends, 2016). In 1990
Congress passed the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act, which marked the first time
that the federal government provided funding for child care for low-income families who had
never been on welfare (Lombardi, 2003). In 1996, Congress also passed the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which significantly increased funding for child care
assistance for low-income families. The past decade has seen additional investments into early
childhood programs, including expansion of funding for the Child Care and Development Fund,
Head Start, Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) and Preschool
Development Grants. Washington was a recipient of a four-year Phase 1 RTT-ELC grant in
2012, which allowed the state to take Early Achievers to scale, and set the stage for significant
state investments in quality early learning for the most vulnerable children through the Early
Start Act.
21
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Early childhood programs have served multiple purposes in the United States, including to
promote child development, support parental employment and to invest in the future workforce.
Each purpose has been reflected in the evolution of early childhood policy over the past century
and has been prioritized differently in various policies over time. Furthermore, funding for early
childhood services comes from a multitude of revenue streams, including families’ payments,
public sector expenditures, and other private sources such as philanthropy and employers. As a
result, the financing for early care and education in the United States is fragmented and a
patchwork of separate programs, with different funding streams, constituencies, eligibility
requirements, and quality standards (National Academies of Sciences Engineering and
Medicine, 2018).
2. Role of Competition in Child Care Industry
The child care industry has a relatively low level of market share concentration and is largely
characterized by large numbers of small, independent organizations. However, increasing
mergers and acquisitions among larger companies has led to a shift toward larger
establishments. An industry report from IBISWorld identifies critical success factors for
organizations in the child care industry (IBISWorld, 2019). The success factors include:
Ability to take advantage of government subsidies and grants
Ability to vary services to suit different parent needs
Ability to alter business model and staffing to respond to enrollment changes
Accreditations from authoritative sources
Ability to comply with government regulations
Larger center-based child care providers in the regulated market differentiate themselves based
on qualifications of staff, education programs, staff-to-child ratios, the level and quality of
facilities, and aesthetic surroundings. Competition in the industry is high and the basis of
competition is typically focused in four areas. Price of service is one of the main competitive
factors. Nonprofit child care centers may have low or no rental costs and may receive donations
or in-kind services to cover operating expenses. These lower costs may be passed on as lower
prices to families. Larger for-profit child care centers may compete on price by using economies
of scale. The standardization of service and numerous locations can enable a large child care
provider to lower prices for families. Child care providers may also compete through branding
and marketing to attract enrollment and to advertise their ability to adapt to a family’s work
schedules. They may also compete based on location and convenience for parents commuting
back and forth to work. Finally, the reputation of the child care provider is another basis of
competition (IBISWorld, 2019).
3. Costs and Barriers to Entry for Child Care Providers
Barriers to entry in the child care industry differ based on the type of child care providers in the
industry. Providers operating outside of the regulated market (friend, family, or neighbor
providers, nannies and au pairs) face fewer barriers to entry, given that there are no significant
costs or government regulations that would deter a would-be caretaker. However, for friend,
family and neighbor providers who are serving children through Working Connections, there are
22
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
state requirements related to background checks, attendance and other requirements mandated
by CCDF.
For larger child care providers operating in the regulated market, such as child care centers,
there are medium barriers to entry. Labor is a potential barrier to entry, especially for child care
centers, as they are mandated to maintain a specific child-to-staff ratio and group size. Staff
costs are the largest expense for child care centers and a large portion of a new entrant’s
expenses. Therefore, these costs may deter new center-based child care providers from
entering the industry. Another significant barrier for new entrants is the level of regulation in the
child care industry. Newly established firms in the regulated market, whether a family child care
provider or a child care center, must be approved by the state and staff must meet specific
credential requirements and pass a background check. Finally, the cost of purchasing or
building a center for accommodation, together with the cost of facilities and equipment, can be
prohibitive to a new entrant. However, child care centers may be able mitigate these costs if
they are able to lease a space (IBISWorld, 2019). The Early Learning Facilities Fund provides
state-funded grants and loans to assist child care providers in meeting the challenge of facility
finance.
4. Overview of Public Investments for Child Care
The essential argument for public action and investment in early childhood programs asserts
that stable, high-quality care produces both private benefits to participating children and their
families and benefits to other members of society, as taxpayers and as private citizens (Council
of Economic Advisors, 2014). As a result of improved education outcomes, children who
experience high-quality early childhood programs gain from higher lifetime earnings. Parents
benefit directly from early childhood subsidies, and because of the options available to them,
they may also be able to work more or increase their professional education or training,
resulting in increased earnings over time as job experience rises and they augment their own
human capital. Finally, other members of society as taxpayers realize lower public-sector costs
and higher tax revenue from the improved life outcomes of children enrolled in high-quality
programs (e.g., education system savings from reduced use of special education, criminal
justice system savings from lower crime, and increased taxes paid on higher lifetime earnings).
They also gain as private citizens from reductions in crime and crime victimization, beyond the
savings to the public sector (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2018).
The benefits to taxpayers and private citizens are positive spillovers (called externalities by
economists) that families do not take into account when making their decisions about how much
high-quality early childhood services to consume. In the classic economic framework, this leads
to an underinvestment in early childhood programs (relative to the investment that would
produce the greatest net benefit for the economy) if families must pay the full cost, especially for
lower-income families who cannot afford to pay the cost of high-quality early childhood
programs and who cannot borrow against the private gains they and their children would
experience in the future (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2018). As
a result, providers are only able to charge prices that the parents in their area are able and
willing to pay for child care. The prices charged may not produce the revenues required to fully
23
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
cover the costs associated with stable, high-quality care, most importantly the cost of hiring and
retaining staff with the education and experience needed.
The primary public investments for early childhood programs include multiple programs that
subsidize the cost of providing care:
Early Head Start and Head Start – Serves children from birth to age five in families with
incomes at or below the federal poverty level. Funds go directly to providers.
Child Care and Development Fund – Serves qualifying low-income families with
children from birth to age 12. Funds go to states, which fund providers through vouchers
or contracts.
State-Funded Prekindergarten – May be targeted or universal for children ages three
to five. Funds distributed through vouchers, scholarships, contracts, grants or school
funding formulas
Additional public investments in the form of tax-based subsidies include:
Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit – Available to working families with tax liability
and children from birth to age 12. Funded through personal income tax credit.
Dependent Care Assistance Program – Available to working families with tax liability
and children from birth to age 12. Funded through employer-administered account to pay
for eligible expenses with pretax dollars.
Employer-Provided Child Care Credit – Available to working families with qualifying
employer and with children from birth to age 12. Funded through an employer tax credit.
The final chapter in Transforming the Financing of Early Care and Education (National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2018) offers a number of recommendations
to develop an effective financing structure for a high-quality early childhood system for all
children from birth to kindergarten entry. Several central concepts underlying these
recommendations have the potential to transform the current state and provide affordable
access to high-quality early childhood options for all children and families. These
recommendations may be useful to consider, as the Child Care Collaborative Task Force
develops policy recommendations for Washington State.
24
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
IV. Review of Research on Parent Choices in Child
Care Decision-Making
This review recaps a previous summary of research on parents’ child care decision-making
(Forry et al., 2013) and updates that review with the most recent research completed since then.
Such a literature review can be helpful in informing the development of policy and operational
plans, as well as informing the collection of information from parents who will be impacted by
that policy and operational procedures. Note: The methodology of the studies reviewed and the
sources of data are not routinely included in the summary that follows. If the findings are of
interest, the readers are encouraged to review the source study for additional information on the
limitations of the studies, the data used, and the procedure for analyzing and interpreting the
data.
1. Looking Back: Previous Research
In 2013, a “Child Care Decision-Making Literature Review,” was funded by the Office of
Planning, Research and Evaluation as part of the Child Care and Early Education Policy and
Research Analysis and Technical Expertise Project. The review was designed to provide expert
consultation, assessment, and analysis of the policy and research completed throughout the
United States on this topic (Forry et al., 2013). The focus was on the child care decisions of
parents of young children (ages 0–5). To frame the review, a child care decision-making model
developed by Weber (2011) was used. Discussions with state administrators identified the
relevant issues (Forry et al., 2013). The key findings described in this section, reproduced below
from Forry et al. (2013, pp.5–7), provide foundational information for the sections that follow in
this literature review.
1.1 Parents’ Child Care Decision-Making Process
Most low-income parents perceive having limited child care options and consider few
options.
No negative associations have been found between the amount of time spent searching for
care or number of options considered and parental satisfaction with care.
Most low-income parents learn about their child’s provider from friends, family members,
and neighbors.
On average, low-income parents make child care decisions quickly; 41% of parents from
one study made choices within one day.
1.2 Parents’ Preferences and Priorities in Selecting Care
When asked for their child care preferences, the majority of low-income parents place a high
value on the quality of arrangements. These preferences are not always reflected in parents’
choices when selecting a child care arrangement.
Parents’ definitions of quality vary across studies, but tend to include both structural and
process-oriented features identified by early care and education professionals as being
25
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
indicators of quality. Structural features included in parents’ definitions of child care quality
include provider education, provider experience and training, and a low child-adult ratio.
Process-oriented features included in parents’ definitions of child care quality include
provider warmth, activities to support children’s development (including cognitive/academic
skills and social skills, and open communication within the family-provider relationship). In
addition to these specific factors, parents placed a strong emphasis on their children’s
health and safety and their trust of the provider.
Child care preferences differ by a number of child, parent, family, and community
characteristics. For example, whereas parents of infants and toddlers tend to prefer
parental/relative care, parents of preschoolers tend to prefer center-based care. Studies
have found that parents with less than a college degree place more emphasis on safety and
practical features, such as cost and location, while parents with a college degree are more
likely to focus on quality features. Studies have also found parents who are working, and
particularly those working full-time, are more likely to cite practical considerations such as
cost and location than parents who are not working or who are working part-time. Likewise,
family income has been positively associated with parents’ endorsement of quality as
compared to practical features as top priorities.
Child care preferences and choices among immigrants vary by country of origin and reflect
experiences from their country of origin and values of their culture.
In addition to having many of the same preferences and concerns of other parents, parents
of children with special needs are also concerned about specific program features that are
critical to the care of their child’s special needs. Availability of care that meets children’s
special needs is limited. Limited availability of child care options that can meet children’s
special needs have resulted in a high use of care from family members, friends, and
neighbors as well as employment disruptions for parents.
1.3 Constraints to Selecting Preferred Care Arrangements
Contextual factors related to the child care market include the availability, quality,
accessibility, affordability, and parental awareness of supply.
Child care options for infants and school-age children tend to be more limited than options
for preschool-age children.
Rural areas tend to have fewer regulated child care providers than metropolitan areas, and
more unmet child care needs have been documented in low-income communities than
higher income communities.
Employment factors (for example shifting and unpredictable work schedules, nonstandard
hours, and inflexible work policies) limit families’ child care options.
Among families reliant on public transportation, accessibility to care options is limited by the
schedule and routes of public transit.
Families’ child care choices reflect the options they perceive to be affordable.
Parents, particularly immigrants or refugees, may have limited awareness of their eligibility
for free/subsidized early care and education arrangements, such as Head Start.
1.4 Facilitators to Selecting Preferred Care Arrangements
The majority of low-income parents know about resources and referral services, but did not
26
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
use this service to find their child’s care.
Most parents have reported that they would be interested in the type of information that
Quality Rating and Improvement Systems provide, and would use this information in making
child care choices.
Most parents are not aware of state/local Quality Rating and Improvement Systems, though
the percentage of parents who are aware of these systems is growing.
The use of child care subsidies has been associated with parents using their preferred type
of care. Scholarships, designed to facilitate parents’ access to high quality care, have been
associated with changes from unlicensed to regulated (primarily center-based) care.
2. Highlights from Studies Since 2013
Our review of more recent studies frequently corroborated the findings from the earlier studies.
While many of the findings in the latest studies are similar to or the same as those of the earlier
studies, some nuances exist that may be helpful in understanding how to tailor policy responses
to particular populations.
2.1 Parents’ Child Care Decision-Making Process
Program type made a difference in the search process as found in a study of low income
parents of 4-year-old children enrolled in publicly-funded programs. In general, personal
networks (family/friends, 39%) and local public schools (44%) were the primary sources of
information in parents’ search for an early childhood education program. Few used
advertisement (6%) or referral agencies (11%) (Bassok et al., 2017, p. 49). This result may be
affected by the study being limited to low-income families searching for care for 4-year-old
children in Head Start, state-funded preschool, or subsidized private child care Bassok et al.,
2017, p. 43). Head Start parents used personal networks (67%) more often than parents using
child care centers (42%) or parents using state preschools (26%) (Bassok et al., 2017, p. 49-
50). Parents with children in child care centers used a more varied set of sources in their search
than Head Start or preschool parents and did more comparison shopping. Parents with children
in child care centers had a more difficult search process and were not as likely to be able to
enroll their child in their first choice of program (Bassok et al., 2017, p. 50).
Child care factors are associated with maternal employment: Specifically, the likelihood of
maternal employment is affected by factors such as cost of child care and the length of the
school day.
In states where child care is relatively inexpensive and the school days are longer, mothers
are more likely to seek employment.
There is a correlation between length of school day and cost of child care (e.g., states with
longer school days also have less expensive child care).
The cost of child care has the greatest impact on employment for single mothers with lower
skill levels, lower income, and preschool-aged children (Ruppanner et al., 2019).
A combination of human capital considerations (e.g., parental resources and especially
mothers’ educational attainment, perception of their children’s potential, and their expectations
27
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
for their children’s educational attainment) increases the chances that children will be enrolled in
early childhood programs. The interaction of these elements of human capital has a greater
impact for racial/ethnic minority families, particularly for Mexican-origin families, by increasing
the chances that their children will be enrolled in early childhood education programs.
Overall, Mexican-origin children are 20% less likely to be enrolled in an early education
program than Black/African American or white children (Ressler et al., 2020, p. 6).
Maternal education levels seem to be more related to white and Mexican-origin families
choosing to enroll their children in early education program than African American families
(Ressler et al., 2020, p. 9)
Among a sample of families that did not expect their children to graduate college there were
differences between children’s pre-academic skill levels and enrollment for parents of
various race and ethnicities:
o Children from African American families were more likely to be enrolled in early
childhood education programs if they had more developed pre-academic skills
o Children from white families were more likely to be enrolled in early childhood
education programs if they had less developed pre-academic skills
o There was little connection between enrollment and children’s pre-academic
skills for Mexican-origin families (Ressler et al., 2020, p. 8).
For a small-sized sample of African American caregivers in low-income urban settings, one
study showed that caregivers used trusted sources to locate child care and then visited to
assess the setting themselves. They did not use the state’s Quality Rating and Improvement
System (QRIS) rating, or if they did, considered it secondary to their assessment (Moran, 2019).
2.2 Parents’ Preferences and Priorities in Selecting Care
Type of care chosen is affected by some combination of the characteristics of families and
communities rather than one factor: parent’s age, education, and income; household structure;
ethnicity; child with special needs; age of youngest child; number of children under the age of
13; social support; supply of care; unemployment rate in county; nonmetropolitan area; parent
priorities for care (e.g., trust, health and safety, convenient location, flexible hours, shared
values, supports learning); and parent constraints (e.g., employment, hours employed, access
to a car, use of financial assistance) (Weber et al., 2018).
Center care was more likely to be chosen by parents with greater than a high school
education who are non-white, and who report that learning is a primary reason for selecting
a provider. The second reason parents mentioned in selecting a center was convenience
(e.g., the center is dependable or provides transportation). Parents with employment
constraints, who live in a county with high unemployment, or have trust as their primary
reason for selecting a provider were 22% less likely to use center care (Weber et al., 2018,
p. 534).
Relative care was chosen more often by parents with more children under age 13, who had
greater social support, and who prioritized trust or needed a flexible schedule. Relative care
was not chosen by parents with higher incomes, parents who received subsidies, or those
who wanted a provider who supported learning (Weber, et al., 2018, p. 535-536).
28
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Family child care was chosen by older parents, parents with higher income, parents who
lived in a county with higher unemployment, and by parents who reported that trust,
convenient location, flexible hours, and cost were important. Parents with a subsidy were
20% more likely to choose family child care than parents without a subsidy. Concerns about
quality of care were frequently mentioned by parents using family child care. Family child
care was less likely to be used by parents with a child with special needs, whose youngest
child is older or who have more children under age 13 (Weber et al., 2018, p. 536).
Informal care was chosen when parents had one or more employment constraints and trust
and flexible hours were the primary reasons for selecting care. Access to a car reduced the
likelihood of using informal care (Weber et al., 2018, p. 536-537).
Race and ethnicity made a difference in the type of care arrangement. For children age birth to
four years, the following key facts were found (Child Trends, 2016).
Parental care – African American children are least likely to be in parental care (17%) and
Hispanic children most likely (29%).
Center-based care – African American children are most likely to be in this care (31%) and
Hispanic children least likely (14%).
In home care – when in-home care is used, African American (35%) and Hispanic (36%)
children are more likely to be cared for by a relative in the home, while white (24%) and
Asian (25%) children are more likely to be cared for in the home by a nonrelative.
For children enrolled in preschool and kindergarten programs, the following key trends
were recently noted (Child Trends Databank, 2019):
The percentage of 3- to 5-year old children who are enrolled in full-day prekindergarten and
preschool programs increased from 21% in 1994 to 30% in 2017.
Non-Hispanic African American children are more likely to be enrolled in a full-day preschool
(42%) than non-Hispanic white (29%) or Hispanic children (23%).
Non-Hispanic white children are more likely to be enrolled in a part-day program (27%) than
Hispanic (23%) or non-Hispanic African American children (14%).
Children from families with higher levels of parental education are more likely to be enrolled
in a preschool program (34% of children with parents with a bachelor’s degree; 18% of
children with parents with less than a high school degree.
Personal assessment of the child care environment was shown to be important for African
American caregivers in low-income urban settings, in one study. Caregivers said they chose
programs based on the child care environment (e.g., safety, center staff’s warmth, receptivity,
and teachers’ background) and how children spend their time in care. Some valued teachers’
education and degrees more, and others valued experience more. The caregivers were
concerned that children spend their time in learning and education activities, although their
descriptions of those were subjective. The study participants tended to look at any activities as
positive, particularly school-like activities, since they had past experiences where the children
watched TV or “did nothing” all day (Moran, 2019, p. 1, 8, 11).
29
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Program features also guided preferences of low-income parents in a Louisiana study with 4-
year-old children enrolled in Head Start, state-funded preschool, or subsidized private child
care. These parents indicated that program features related to the care environment and
learning opportunities such as academic skills (88%), a clean/safe environment (87%), and
warm teachers (81%) were more important than practical features of care such as affordability
(48%), transportation (32%), location (58%) or hours of operation (41%) (Bassok et al., 2017, p.
48-49).
Immigrant parents also affects parent preferences and choices. More than half of the foreign-
born immigrants living in the United States (40 million, 12.9% of the total U.S. population) were
born in Latin America (Grieco et al., 2012, p. 2). By 2020, nearly 30% of all children in the
United States will have one foreign-born parent (Satkowski et al., 2016, p. 2). In a study of
Latina women, some of whom were immigrants (i.e., born outside the United States) and some
of whom were nonimmigrants, social and internal factors such as acculturation and trust were
significant in the child care decision-making process. This study did not look at external factors
in decision-making (e.g., English proficiency, availability, transportation, and affordability). It
sought to answer the question of whether immigrant parents and social and internal factors
influence child care preference and arrangements of Latina women, and whether those social
and internal factors influence Latina women differently by immigrant/nonimmigrant. The study
found significant differences between Latina immigrant and nonimmigrant women in the factors
influencing preference and arrangements.
Both groups of Latina immigrant and nonimmigrant women rated trust in caregivers as
highly important.
Both immigrant and nonimmigrant Latina women prefer relative child care and acculturation
is not a factor in choosing that type of care.
They differed in that immigrant participants thought that relative child care was significantly
lower in quality than nonimmigrants did.
Predictors of the use of center-based care were nonimmigrant parent, education level of
parent, having older children, perceptions of quality, higher levels of social support, higher
levels of acculturation, and fewer perceived costs of maternal employment for children
(Satkowski et al., 2016).
A combination of issues creating inequity for Latino families (e.g., socioeconomic factors,
parents limited English fluency, and difficulty in finding preschool options that meet their needs),
rather than just cultural differences, create the barriers to placing their children in preschool.
Families’ choices are made within the context of their needs, resources, opportunities, and
constraints.
Having more need and more resources were factors in choosing between parental care and
preschool.
When choosing between preschool and informal care, the characteristics of the parents’
community and the parents’ beliefs and expectations were key to decision making.
U.S.-born Latino families view preschool as a means of preparing children academically,
while immigrant Latino families see preschool as a compensatory measure.
30
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Immigrant Latino families in communities with use of both Spanish and English are likely to
select a preschool rather than another type of care.
U.S.-born Latino families are less likely to enroll their children in preschool and instead use
informal arrangements, perhaps to hold on to their ancestry and cultural values (Ansari,
2017).
Caregivers of children with and without disabilities placed the highest priority on teacher-
child interactions in choosing a program for their children; their second-highest priority was
safety. Experts are in agreement on the value of both of these characteristics. Caregivers also
considered practical features such as cost, location, program hours, and transportation.
Caregivers of children with disabilities placed a priority on structural features that would support
their children, such as accessible facility space or access to special therapists (Glenn-Applegate
et al., 2016).
2.3 Constraints to Selecting Preferred Care Arrangements
Limitation in information is a constraint for caregivers (families) of children with and without
disabilities in choosing child care. Caregivers value safety, but may not know that the licensing
standards and oversight of the program may not be adequate. They agree with experts that
positive teacher-child interactions are vital, but they may lack the time and tools to assess those
interactions. The factors caregivers of children with disabilities used in selecting a quality
program did not predict the actual quality of the program (Glenn-Applegate et al., 2016).
Rural areas of the United States account for 72% of the landmass with a low density of
population, representing 14% of the total population (Anderson & Mikesell, 2019, p. 1812).
These areas have, more constrained labor markets and distinct cultural differences. Twelve
million children live in these areas. Many of those children live in rural communities that
cannot provide the opportunities that prepare them for school (Anderson & Mikesell,
2019). Most rural families choose home-based or family child care providers, but not enough is
known about whether those choices are driven by the constraints on options (Anderson &
Mikesell, 2019).
More than half of the 1.8–2.5 million migrant and seasonal farmworkers in the United States
have minor children. More farmworkers are traveling with their families and more of the
farmworkers are women. With agricultural operations creating sizeable risks, off-farm child care
is critical to safeguarding children while their parents work (Liebman et al., 2017). In a survey of
132 farmworker parents, most of them (97.5%) reported that someone cares for their children
while they work, and they pay for that service. The majority of that care is informal and
unlicensed. Those parents have difficulty in getting child care because of eligibility criteria,
documentation required, lack of slots, language barriers to completing the application, and lack
of internet access to apply. They report that the availability of child care determines which work
locations they choose (Liebman et al., 2017).
Families of color are less likely to access quality early childhood education, primarily for
financial, cultural, and geographic reasons. Lack of access is further complicated by programs
not being able to accommodate parents’ irregular or nontraditional work schedules and the often
31
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
complicated requirements to receive public child care funding. Boys of color are especially likely
to experience unequal access to early education programs, however, as one study points out,
the size of this problem is not known since federal data sets do not uniformly include information
on race and ethnicity and much of the research on unequal access to high-quality early
childhood education for children of color does not break down the data by gender (Dobbins,
2016, p. 9). Another study of African American caregivers in low-income urban settings showed
that they faced similar barriers to access, e.g., availability of care within their neighborhood,
particularly quality care, and the affordability of that care (Moran, 2019).
For parents of young children working in the service sector and subject to on-call work or
last-minute shift changes, it is common for them to use multiple care arrangements, rely on
informal care arrangements, rely on children to care for themselves, or rely on their older
children to take care of their younger siblings (Harknett et al., 2019).
2.4 Facilitators to Selecting Preferred Care Arrangements
While other aspects of the child care decision-making process has received more attention in
the research during the past few years, there is little new research on the facilitators for
selecting preferred care arrangements.
Being part of a network connected to a specific type of program supports the selection of a
formal early childhood education program. For example, Head Start parents got their
information about these programs from family/friends. Parents of children in public
preschools got their information from the local public schools. Parents of children in child
care used a diverse set of sources to find a program for their four-year-old child (Bassok, et
al., 2017, p. 49-50)
Neighborhoods’ structural and social process features are a key context in families making
a choice to use center-based child care. One study examined this association, as well as the
influence of immigrant status on that choice. In neighborhoods of concentrated affluence (higher
incomes, well-educated professionals) which improved the quality of resources available, there
was a higher use of center-based care. In neighborhoods of child-centered collective efficacy
(more social cohesion and control, common beliefs around childrearing), there was a lower use
of center-based care, perhaps because there was more trust that neighbors shared the same
childrearing beliefs and could be trusted. It was hypothesized but not tested by this study, that
this type of neighborhood may support more use of informal child care. The use of center-based
care depends on the size of the neighborhood friend/kin network and the age of the child for
immigrant families.
Specifically, the greater the size of the network and age of the child, the more likely
immigrant families were to use center-based care. (Shuey & Leventhal, 2018).
Flexible child care assistance provided by employers increases the ability of
employees to access the child care of their choice (Hipp et al., 2017).
32
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
3. Implications for Policy and Practice
Policy-makers supporting parents in their child care decisions should consider all the
characteristics of families, the community, and parental preferences and constraints, not
just one or two factors.
Addressing employment constraints may improve the chances of parents choosing care that
supports their child’s developmental needs.
The selection of center care in particular may be increased by addressing the role of trust in
parents’ decisions.
Access to financial supports helps parents choose more formal care (Weber et al., 2018).
Providing more information in a system like QRIS that consolidates information across
program types may help parents consider all their options. Search barriers may differ by the
type of program being sought, particularly for 4-year-olds. Parents with 4-year-olds in child care
may have missed the eligibility for Head Start or public preschool programs, the supply may
have been limited, or they may have lacked the information needed or networks to connect with
Head Start or a public preschool (Bassok et al., 2017).
Expanding the range of choice of programs for parents may be improved if Head Start and
public preschool programs are able to expand number of slots and expand the practical
services needed by parents such as extended hours and year-round programs (Bassok et al.,
2017). Publicly funded pre-kindergarten programs offer additional options for families with 4-
year-olds and can lead to a substantial expansion of the available care. However, care should
be taken to anticipate system-level impacts when designing this type of large public preschool
initiative to protect against reducing the amount of care available for children of other ages
(Bassok et al., 2016).
More research is needed that gathers information firsthand from families on how they select
preschools and what the constraints are, both those they are aware of and those they are
not aware of, e.g., not having definitive information on the safety in the programs or the quality
of the classrooms, specifically the teacher-child interactions. Parents’ definitions of quality
include elements that go beyond those that are supported by research. Talking directly to
parents can help policy makers and programs to have a more inclusive approach to quality. This
is especially important for parents of children with disabilities who often face greater constraints
on their being able to select a preschool that meets their desire for a quality program that can
support their child’s particular needs as well as their practical considerations, e.g., location, cost,
and hours. Preschool programs can also improve parent communication and support by having
open-door policies that allow parents to observe the teacher-child relationships (Glenn-
Applegate et al., 2016).
Encouraging families to enroll their children in early childhood education programs must
address more than explaining the benefits. The Ressler study suggests that understanding
families’ expectations for their children’s future educational attainment and the impact of
maternal education attainment on families’ choice to enroll their children in early childhood
education programs can help in designing outreach programs, particularly for specific
33
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
racial/ethnic groups (Ressler et al., 2019).
Maternal employment patterns and the connection to child care can be better understood if
the availability and affordability of the care is measured in the public, private, and informal
market. Most research has focused on publicly supported child care rather than all three (Flynn,
2017; Morrissey, 2017). Maternal employment is supported by longer school days and universal
preschool. After Washington, D.C. offered two years of universal preschool, maternal
employment increased 12 percentage points, and 10 of the 12 were directly attributable to the
child care expansion (Ruppanner et al., 2019, p. 3).
More research is needed on the child care requirements of families in rural areas versus
urban areas to be able to create policies that are more focused on the unique needs of those
families and the characteristics of the resources available to support them.
If there is demand, use of schools, employer sites, churches and public capital financing for
construction and expansion could be considered to develop more center-based care.
Additional supports could be developed to help home-based and family child care improve
quality of care. Different methods of communication about child care, its benefits, and its
availability and accessibility may be needed to reach these families (Anderson & Mikesell,
2019).
Supporting farmworkers and migrant and seasonal farmworkers in their needs for child care
offers special opportunities.
Grower employers can facilitate connecting their workers with child care providers through
hosting recruitment events and providing transportation services or financial support.
Agribusiness leaders can provide training and technical assistance to growers on providing
and supporting child care options.
Technical assistance can help child care providers to use practices that support good
communication and a positive relationship with growers and farmworker families, such as
accommodating irregular work schedules, convenient parent workshop and conference
times, and transportation.
Funders of child care subsidies or scholarships can review eligibility criteria and application
processes with farmworker parents to identify barriers to use of these supports (Liebman et
al., 2017).
Addressing access for children of color, particularly boys of color, to quality early
education can include solutions such as expanding the supply of child care with universal pre-
kindergarten or expanded funding for child care subsidies through grants and matches.
However, more targeted solutions are needed to address the needs of families of color.
Provide technical assistance to programs that provide the type of care that minority families
choose to help them be more receptive to and supportive of minority families.
Include families of color in the design of initiatives to better inform access solutions.
Collect data that includes information specific to minority families and gender to help clarify
34
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
what and where the needs are (Dobbins et al., 2016).
Preschools are a significant intervention in bringing about greater equity for children as
they prepare for school, with 54% of all children attending preschool by age 4 (Ansari, 2017, p.
3) It was noted above (in Parents Preferences section), that there are significant differences in
use of preschool between African American, non-Latino white and Latino families. Those
differences are also found in the use of preschool by immigrant Latino families versus by native-
born Latino families. This should be taken into consideration when making policy to support the
use of preschool by Latino families (Ansari, 2017).
Supporting immigrant families’ access to center-based child care can be improved by
creating more early childhood programs in neighborhoods with lower affluence, reducing
structural barriers. Programs that work to build collaborations within the neighborhood and
create neighborhood-based friendship networks will have the best chance in supporting
immigrant families’ use of center-based care (Shuey & Leventhal, 2018).
Immigrant families can benefit from the use of formal child care, although they are less
likely than nonimmigrant families to use formal child care, especially Latino families.
Understanding the social and internal factors that influence Latina women’s preference and
decision making can help center-based providers in marketing to immigrant families to make
these programs more accessible and attractive. Making programs reflect the preferences of
immigrant families would help, for example, by hiring Latina women (Satkowski et al., 2016).
Employer-provided child care grant programs can help employees with the highest need as
well as employees of higher ranks.
Employees are more likely to use the program if they are introduced to it in person and
particularly if it is introduced by a colleague.
There is more participation in the program if it is universal, an invisible form of assistance
(e.g., part of the benefits package), easy to access, and flexible in use with any type of care
(Hipp et al., 2017).
State early care and education lead agencies may expand the accessibility and affordability of
child care by working with employers in designing such programs. This review of research
sheds light on common dynamics of the preferences and challenges of families seeking to
access child care across the U.S. The following chapter summarizes new research that was
conducted with families of young children in Washington State in 2019 and 2020, and sheds
light on their concerns.
35
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
V. Parent/Family Voices
To capture concerns and challenges experienced by Washington’s families addressing their
child care needs, two research studies were carried out directly capturing parent/family
experiences: A statewide, online Parent Survey and a
series of Parent Engagement Sessions, both intended to Parent Voices
capture families’ direct feedback on the following high-level Parent Survey online survey
Research Questions: administered to over 1,500
respondents statewide
What are the child care preferences and needs of Parent Engagement Sessions,
families in Washington? phone interviews and focus
groups with 28 families from
What are the barriers that families face in accessing
traditionally underrepresented
child care?
communities
How do the barriers that families face in accessing State Employee Child Care
child care affect their participation in the workforce? Survey, online survey
administered to over 6,000 state
How do contextual factors (including income, employees
education, occupation and geographic location)
influence the child care decisions that parents make?
How many children in Washington receive care provided by friends, family, or
neighbors?
The questions posed in each research effort were broadly organized along these Research
Questions, and are summarized below.
In addition, key findings from the State Employee Child Care Survey, which was administered
in November 2019, are reported at the end of this chapter. A full detail analysis on this survey is
in preparation by separate report.
As a caution, findings for each of these three efforts should be considered on their own. Each
was carried out with different populations, approaches, data gathering instruments and
analyses. The parent engagement sessions are particularly useful for illustrating parent
perspectives and shedding light on parents’ stories of challenges and barriers. However,
differences in findings among these research approaches do not invalidate any one of these
efforts but should be considered in complement to one another.
A note about timing of this research: the Parent Survey and Parent Engagement Sessions were
carried out in late March and April, while a statewide shutdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic
had just been put in place. However, the questions asked parents to reflect on their recent care
arrangements and experience in a typical or recent time window (e.g., in the previous year) –
they were not explicitly asked about how the pandemic had impacted their employment and
child care arrangements. Findings can be assumed as a whole to reflect typical arrangements
pre-COVID, but it is possible that families’ concerns may have been influenced by recent
events.
36
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
1. Statewide Parent Survey
1.1 Survey Overview and Methods
The statewide parent survey collected data from 1,536 adults residing in Washington State, with
at least one child aged 0 through 12 years of age.
The survey was fielded in April 2020, and asked participants to respond based on child care
arrangements and family situation within the past year, meaning that answers reflect largely
conditions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The survey utilized a non-probability sample design, with respondents drawn from online
panels. The use of online panels provides researchers with the opportunity to more precisely
target specific respondents using sample data collected from panelists when they join the panel.
Utilizing this method, the survey targeted parents of children aged 0 through 12 years of age.
Non-probability sample designs are limited because there is not an equal chance of selection for
residents of the state. .Only state residents who are members of the respective panels have the
opportunity to complete the survey. The survey results were weighted by state demographics –
specifically age, race/ethnicity and education – to provide better representation of the state
population. In addition, selected results were used to develop the Washington State economic
impact model, described in Chapter VII (Economic Impact Analysis).
Panelists were provided by MFour Mobile Research, Inc. (MFour) and EMI Research Solutions
(EMI). The MFour panel is strictly mobile-based, with panel members accessing surveys via a
smartphone application “Surveys on the go”. Panel members in Washington State were
recruited based on their smartphone’s geolocation tool. EMI is an online sample provider that
utilizes a network of actively managed online research panels to blend desired sample
characteristics.
1.1.1 Questionnaire
ICF and the Washington Department of Commerce collaborated to develop the content of the
questionnaire. The survey instrument included 35 questions covering family demographics, child
care arrangements including hours and costs, needs and preferences for child care, specific
features/services desired and commute time, and employment and economic challenges faced
in accessing care and/or encountering disruptions or concerns about child care. Respondent
residential status in Washington State was verified by zip code.
The survey was available only in English. The survey instrument is provided in Appendix A.
1.1.2 Fielding
The survey was open for two weeks from April 8 to 22, 2020, and yielded a total of 1,536
responses. A total of 8,101 panelists were invited to participate in the survey. Panelists were
invited to participate in the survey through their respective panel organization’s platform. MFour
panelists were invited via push notification on their smartphone or through a listing on the
smartphone application’s main page upon accessing the application. Upon selecting the link, the
respondent was routed to the intro page of the survey. Panelists invited to the survey via EMI’s
panel networks received notification of the survey through a variety of mediums, such as email,
37
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
and text message. Upon selecting the survey link, they were also routed to the survey
instrument.
Weighting
The main limitation of nonprobability designs is that there is not an equal chance of selection for
residents of the state, as only residents of the state who are members of the respective panels
have the opportunity to complete the survey. The survey results were weighted by state
demographics – specifically age, race/ethnicity and education – to provide better representation
of the state population.
As Table 1 shows, the survey response was fairly well-matched to state population on education
and race/ethnicity but with some differences. The survey permitted multiple selection of
race/ethnicity categories whereas Census data is based on single selection; the survey yielded
somewhat higher percentage of those who identified as white or Caucasian. The survey
education categories were slightly different than those in the Census; the survey response
group were skewed toward more college graduates. Weighting of survey results accounted for
these factors.
Table 1: Demographic Comparison of State Population to Survey Response
State Survey
Population Respondents
Gender
Male 46% 46.2%
Female 54% 53.5%
Non-binary/X --- 0.1%
Education
Middle school / some high school 11% 4.4%
High school graduate 22% 22.2%
Other post high school vocational training --- 5.7%
Some college or university 27% 17.4%
College graduate with a 2 year degree/ 22% 33.40%
College graduate with a 4 year degree
Completed some postgraduate / 18% 17.30%
Master's degree /
Doctorate
Race/Ethnicity
Black or African American 5% 6.3%
Asian or Pacific Islander 15% 16.6%
White or Caucasian 58% 63.0%
American Indian or Alaska Native -- 3.2%
Hispanic or Latino/a 17% 17.2%
Other 6%
The survey weighting did not include household income as a weighting factor due to variances
in how national surveys and this survey ask this question (e.g., types and sources of income
included). A comparison of national data and this survey’s response set on income is below in
Table 2.
38
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Table 2. Comparison of Household Income, National Data and Survey Response
WA Survey
Household Income National Respondents
Less than $20,000 4.1% 10.3%
$20-40,000 10.0% 15.9%
$40-60,000 13.0% 16.7%
$60-80,000 12.9% 14.8%
$80-100,000 14.5% 12.2%
$100,000+ 45.5% 30.1%
*National data source: 2018 and 2019 Community Population Survey
1.2 Parent and Family Demographics
The survey asked for the respondent’s age and validated that they were at least 18 years of age
in order to complete the survey. Demographics of respondents including age, marital status,
gender, children in household, education completed, and household income are shown in
Figures 1-7.
As noted above, weighting by race/ethnicity, age and education were used for all remaining
questions to closely match the demographics of state population. All percentages reported in
graphics and tables below are weighted. Additional detail is provided in Appendix B.
For demographics and other responses reported below, all responses of “prefer not to answer”
were recoded to treat as missing and are not reported. (That is, all percentages reported below
are based on those who gave a response.)
As Figure 1 shows, the majority (79.4%) of parent survey respondents were married or in a
domestic partnership.
Figure 1. Parent Survey: Respondent Marital Status
39
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Just over half of respondents were from age 35 through 49, and nearly a third were age 25
through 34.
Figure 2. Parent Survey: Respondent Age
Just over half (53.5%) of respondents were female.
Figure 3. Parent Survey: Respondent Gender
40
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Survey participants were asked how many dependent children they had age 12 or younger,
living with them for at least 3 months out of the year, including stepchildren or children for whom
they were a legal guardian. (Age was asked by whole years; no increments were asked or
reported). Almost half (48.9%) of respondents had one child age 0 through 12 in the household,
and another 37.1% had two children.
Figure 4. Parent Survey: Children Age 0 through 12 in Household
Respondents were asked to select race/ethnicity to describe themselves; they were permitted to
select more than one group. Nearly two-thirds (63.0%) of respondents described themselves as
white or Caucasian, as were 67% of spouses. The next two largest racial/ethnic identifiers
chosen were Hispanic or Latino/a (17% of respondents and 13% of spouses) and Asian or
Pacific Islander (17% of respondents and 16% of spouses).
Figure 5. Parent Survey: Respondent and Spouse/Partner Race/Ethnicity
41
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
As Figure 6 shows, respondents’ and spouses’ highest education completed most commonly
clustered around Bachelor’s degree (23% of respondents, 24% of spouses), high school
graduate (22% of respondents, 21% of spouses), or some college but no degree (17% of
respondents and 16% of spouses).
Figure 6. Parent Survey: Respondent and Spouse/Partner Highest Education Completed
42
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
As Figure 7 shows, respondents’ family/household income before taxes was clustered around
the $40,000-$59,999 bracket, with another “peak” group at $100,000-$149,999. (Note that the
range of the highest two categories is larger than the rest, most likely causing this bimodal
distribution. Also note that the survey question asked for “estimated annual income before
taxes” but did not provide a specific time window such as “last year” or “the previous 12
months”.)
Figure 7. Parent Survey: Annual Family/Household Income Before Taxes
Respondents also provided their residential ZIP code, which was then classified as rural or
urban/urbanized area1. About two-thirds (66.7%) of parent survey respondents lived in an
urban/urbanized area, 29.7% in a rural area, and the remaining 3.6% in a ZIP that was not
classified.
1.3 Employment and Occupational Information
To understand employment and occupational characteristics of working parents, and to inform
the economic impact analysis, respondents were asked to provide information on their
employment, occupation and industry. Readers should keep in mind that the survey was fielded
in April 2020, while the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic were just beginning to be felt, and
employment circumstances are likely to have changed since the fielding window2.
1
Urban-rural classification: The analysis of survey data examined survey responses by urbanicity groupings,
including urban areas, urbanized areas and rural areas. Washington State Highway Urban and Urbanized Areas
(2013) are derived from Census Bureau boundaries and identify urban areas (population 5,000-49,999) and
urbanized areas (population ≥ 50,000). Areas that were outside of an urban area or urbanized area were classified as
living within a rural area. The analysis assigned survey respondents to an urbanicity grouping based on the
respondent’s zip code. Zip codes that could have more than one type of urbanicity grouping were assigned to the
grouping that covered the largest land area within the zip code.
2
Related to the sudden shutdowns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, employment conditions changed rapidly just
before and during the fielding of the survey. For example, during April 2020 the state unemployment rate increased
from 5.1% to 15.4% - while this survey was in the field. Source: https://esd.wa.gov/newsroom/april-2020-monthly-
employment-report-payroll-employment-plummets-unemployment-rate-soars
43
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Survey respondents were asked to report their employment status and the employment status
of their spouse or partner when applicable (asked only of those who said they were married/in a
domestic partnership)—“today” --at the time of the survey. The majority of respondents, and the
majority of spouses/partners, were working full-time at the time of the survey.
Figure 8. Parent Survey: Respondent and Spouse/Partner Employment Status at Time of Survey
A combined status was calculated to describe employment status at the time of the survey at
the household level, shown in Figure 9 following. This status was also used as a breakout factor
in later analyses. As shown in Figure 9, 60% of respondent households had all parents working
at the time of the survey: About 42% of households had two working parents, and another 18%
had a single parent, who was working.
This figure is sometimes used to approximate potential need for care, although it is not a perfect
estimate due to possible variations in family circumstance, reasons for using child care, or
accommodations made to work schedule. As a way to narrow focus to households most likely
requiring child care for work, this subset is used as a breakout for some later analyses in this
report.
44
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 9. Household Employment Status at Time of Survey
The next tables show the respondents’ and spouse/partners’ industry in the past 12 months, for
those who were working or seeking employment, followed by occupations (same timeframe). As
shown in Table 3 following, the most common industries of respondents’ employment in the past
year were Other Services, Education and Health Services, Information Technology,
Manufacturing, and Construction. Most common industries of spouses were similarly Other
Services, Education and Health Services, Information Technology, as well as Construction and
Professional and Business Services. This information was used to inform the economic impact
analysis.
Table 3. Parent Survey: Respondent and Spouse/Partner Employment Industry (Past 12 Months)
Employment Industry Percent Respondent Percent Spouse
Other services 24.0% 20.3%
Education and health services 14.9% 13.1%
Information technology 11.4% 12.7%
Manufacturing 8.4% 6.6%
Construction 8.0% 10.3%
Professional and business services 6.2% 8.8%
Government 6.2% 6.9%
Trade, transportation, and utilities 6.0% 6.9%
Financial activities 5.8% 5.6%
Leisure and hospitality 5.2% 4.4%
Natural resources and mining 1.0% 1.0%
As shown in Table 4 following, of those respondents working or seeking employment and
choosing one of the 23 primary occupation responses, the most common occupations of the
respondents were: Sales and Related (9.8%), Office and Administrative Support (9.4%),
Computer and Mathematical (8.8%), Management (7.2%), Business and Financial Operations
(6.2%), Healthcare Practitioners and Technical (6.1%). An additional 24% worked in Other
Services.
45
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Of those with a spouse working or seeking employment and choosing one of the 23 primary
occupation responses, the most common occupations of the spouse/partner were: Computer
and Mathematical (9%), Management (8.8%), Construction and Extraction (8.5%), Business and
Financial Operations (7.6%), Sales and Related (6.7%).
Table 4. Parent Survey: Respondent and Spouse/Partner Employment Occupation (Past 12
Months)
Percent Percent
Primary Occupation
Respondent Spouse
Sales and Related Occupations 9.8% 6.7%
Office and Administrative Support Occupations 9.4% 6.4%
Computer and Mathematical Occupations 8.8% 9.0%
Management Occupations 7.2% 8.8%
Business and Financial Operations Occupations 6.2% 7.6%
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 6.1% 5.2%
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 5.4% 3.5%
Construction and Extraction Occupations 5.0% 8.5%
Education, Training, and Library Occupations 4.9% 5.1%
Transportation and Materials Moving Occupations 4.3% 5.1%
Healthcare Support Occupations 4.2% 6.0%
Production Occupations 3.5% 1.8%
Personal Care and Service Occupations 3.5% 2.3%
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 3.0% 4.1%
Architecture and Engineering Occupations 2.5% 2.7%
Community and Social Service Occupations 1.7% 1.6%
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations 1.7% 1.6%
Protective Service Occupations 1.6% 1.0%
Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 1.5% 1.1%
Legal Occupations 1.3% 0.8%
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance
1.3% 0.6%
Occupations
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations 0.8% 1.4%
1.4 Child Care Arrangements
1.4.1 Child Care Arrangements Used
Respondents were asked to report for up to their four youngest children, on any child care
arrangements used consistently in the last year, and could choose multiple child care
arrangements for the child. Options were not mutually exclusive. In other words, they indicated
all care arrangements used, not just their primary arrangement or the arrangement used most of
the time. For example, children could be cared for at some point by a parent AND in a center
AND by another family member. In these cases, the child was counted in each setting where
they were cared for. This is an important aspect of the survey design to keep in mind when
46
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
reviewing the results following– children were reported as being cared for in multiple settings,
and by design totals add to far greater than 100%.
Wording of care setting options was as shown in the Figure following. (No additional definition
was provided for “other preschool program” which would likely have been understood as
including private preschool or pre-K, or for “stay with a neighbor or friend,” which is often
referred to by the field as FFN care.)
To improve accuracy, additional corrections were applied in data cleaning to the responses
based on hours of care in each setting – if a setting was selected but the respondent said they
used “0” hours of care each week for that setting for that child, the response was re-coded to be
treated as not used by that child. In addition, age-inappropriate care arrangements were
excluded, e.g., selections of Head Start or other preschool options for children older than 6
years at time of survey.
The following analyses summarize several approaches to these data: All types of care used per
child (multiple types possible), total number of care arrangements per child, and primary non-
parental care arrangement per child.
All care arrangements used
Summary of multiple care arrangements was based on responses reflecting all children reported
by respondents, in all settings used consistently in the last year. For all age groups, the most
common or frequent arrangement was staying at home with parent/step-parent/guardian. As
noted earlier, this does not mean that this is the primary care arrangement for most children, but
only that this arrangement was the one most frequently named for the highest percentage of
children at least some of the time in the past year, among all the multiple settings potentially
being used.
Figure 10, following, shows patterns of non-parental child care arrangement by age of child,
reported in whole years. As noted above, children could have been reported as being cared for
in multiple settings, so totals add to far more than 100%.
Focusing on non-parental care arrangements, the most common arrangement for all age groups
was staying with another family member, as shown in Figure 10.
For children ages 0 through 4 years of age, the next most common non-parental
arrangements were licensed child care center, staying with a neighbor or friend, or other
program/activity.
For children ages 5 through 9 years, the next most common non-parental arrangements
were licensed child care center, other preschool program, or other program/activity.
For children ages 10 through 12 years, the next most common non-parental
arrangements were other program/activity, before- or after-school program, or staying
with neighbor or friend.
Respondents reported that “stay home alone” was used by 15% of the 10- through 12-year-olds.
(As noted, the responses have been “cleaned” to remove responses for those who selected the
option but said they used it for zero hours. Note that “stay at home alone” was excluded from
responses for children age 0 through 4 as it would most likely have been chosen in error or
misunderstanding. It is also possible that some respondents interpreted this option as staying
home alone with a parent while the other parent is working.)
47
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 10. Parent Survey: Multiple Non-parental Child Care Arrangements by Age of Child
Additional breakouts by race/ethnicity, family incomes, and other factors are shown in Appendix
B3. Key differences are shown below.
Examining differences by racial/ethnic groups, the most common non-parental care
arrangement across racial/ethnic groups was another family member, followed by another
program or activity such as a library, sports/athletic program or club. Some racial/ethnic group
differences were seen in less commonly used arrangements.
Respondents reporting as Hispanic or Latino/a most frequently selected another family
member (48.6% of respondents), another type of program or activity, such as a library,
sports/athletic program or club (25.1%), or a neighbor or friend (14%) for their child care
arrangement when their child(ren) are cared for by someone other than the parent, step-
parent, or guardian.
3
Appendix B provide breakouts by various demographics. Note that multi-layered breakouts are not provided as they
result in many small subgroups of less than 50 responses each, which is not recommended for reporting.
Statistical significance tests are not provided here. Survey methodologists advised that significance tests would not
be meaningful due to the non-probability survey sampling approach. This is distinct from the approach used for the
state employee survey which was directed to all eligible participants (a “census” approach) and is more appropriate
for significance testing.
48
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Non-Hispanic white respondents reported using another family member (39.4%),
another type of program or activity, such as a library, sports/athletic program or club
(25.9%), and a before- or after-school program (19.3%) most frequently.
Non-Hispanic Black respondents reported using another family member (36.3%),
another type of program or activity, (25.1%), or a licensed child care center (23.3%)
most frequently.
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander respondents reported using another family member
(39.8%), another type of program or activity, such as a library, sports/athletic program or
club (23.8%), and a licensed child care center (13.7%).
Other non-Hispanic respondents reported using another family member (56.1%),
another type of program or activity, such as a library, sports/athletic program or club
(24.2%), or a friend or neighbor (21.4%) most frequently.
Non-Hispanic Black respondents were more likely than respondents of different
race/ethnic backgrounds to select nanny or au-pairs, licensed child care centers,
preschool programs (not Head Start/ECEAP), and before- or after-school programs.
The child staying at home alone all or part of the time was also most likely to be selected
by white respondents.
Licensed family child care was more likely to be selected by white or Asian/Pacific
Islander respondents than was the case for other groups. Head Start/ECEAP was most
likely to be selected by other non-Hispanic respondents.
While program/activity is among the most common non-parental care arrangements regardless
of income, there were some differences by income.
Families in the lowest income bracket (respondents reporting an annual family income
after taxes of less than $20,000), were more likely to select a program or activity, such
as a library, sports/athletic program or club (14%), a neighbor or friend (13%), or a
licensed child care center (10.2%) for their child care arrangement when their children
are cared for by someone not related to the child.
Respondents reporting an annual family income between $20,000 and $39,999 most
frequently selected a program or activity, such as a library, sports/athletic program or
club (19.4%), before- or after-school program (16.7%), or neighbor or friend (16.8%) as
their child care arrangement.
Respondents reporting an annual family income between $40,000 and $59,999 selected
a program or activity, such as a library, sports/athletic program or club (24.1%), before-
or after-school program (16.5%), or a neighbor or friend (12.6%) for their child care
arrangement.
Respondents reporting an annual family income between $60,000 and $79,999 most
frequently selected a program or activity, such as a library, sports/athletic program or
club (20.8%), a licensed child care center (12.9%), or a preschool program (9.8%).
Respondents reporting an annual family income between $80,000 and $99,999 were
most likely to select a program or activity, such as a library, sports/athletic program or
club (19.5%), a before- or after-school program (17.1%), or a licensed child care center
(13.3%) for their child care arrangement.
Respondents reporting an annual family income between $100,000 and $149,000 most
frequently selected a program or activity, such as a library, sports/athletic program or
49
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
club (34.1%), a licensed child care center (18.5%), or a before- or after-school program
(18.4%).
Respondents reporting an annual family income between $150,000 and $199,999 most
frequently selected a program or activity, such as a library, sports/athletic program or
club (39.8%), a licensed child care center (28.8%), or a before- or after-school program
(27.9%) for their child care arrangement.
And respondents reporting an annual family income of $200,000 or more most frequently
selected a program or activity, such as a library, sports/athletic program or club (51.8%),
a licensed child care center (45.6%), or a before or after-school program (42.2%)for their
child care arrangement.
Care arrangements did not differ noticeably by respondent education.
Household structure and employment were associated with some differences in care
arrangements. For example, single parents’ care arrangements differed somewhat depending
on whether they were employed.
Unemployed single parents most frequently selected a program or activity, such as a
library, sports/athletic program or club (17.3%), a licensed child care center (12.5%), or a
before- or after-school program (10.7%) for their child care arrangement.
Employed single parents most frequently selected a licensed child care center (23.6%),
a program or activity, such as a library, sports/athletic program or club (22.4%), or a
neighbor or friend (22.5%) as their child care arrangement.
Likewise, among two-parent households, care arrangements differed for employed and
unemployed respondents:
Respondents reporting as a two parent household where neither parent was working
most frequently selected a program or activity, such as a library, sports/athletic program
or club (19%), a neighbor or friend (11.5%), or a before- or after-school program (10.9%)
as their child care arrangement.
Respondents reporting as a two parent household where one parent was working
likewise most frequently selected a program or activity, such as a library, sports/athletic
program or club (21.3%), but their next most common arrangements were a preschool
program (other than Head Start/ECEAP) (12.5%), or a before- or after-school program
(8.6%) as their child care arrangement.
And respondents reporting as a two parent household where both parents are working
most frequently selected a program or activity, such as a library, sports/athletic program
or club (30.8%), but their next most common arrangements were a before- or after-
school program (23.5%) or a licensed child care center (23.2%) as their child care
arrangement.
Respondents living in urban/urbanized areas most frequently selected a program or activity,
such as a library, sports/athletic program or club (26.5%), a before- or after-school program
(19.6%), or a licensed child care center (19.1%). Respondents living in rural areas most
frequently selected a program or activity, such as a library, sports/athletic program or club
(21.8%), a neighbor or friend (14.8%), or a before- or after-school program (11.5%) for their
child care arrangement.
50
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Number of Non-parental Care Arrangements
For each child, the total number of non-parental care arrangements used was calculated,
including only those for which the hours used was greater than zero. Figure 11 below shows the
frequencies of children by number of non-parental care arrangements.
Overall, 29% of children were in zero (0) non-parental care arrangements, – that is, not using
any care other than that of a parent/step-parent or guardian, and another 31% were in only one
non-parental care arrangement. Another 20% experienced two non-parental arrangements, and
20% of children were in three or more arrangements.
However, there were important differences by age group, shown in Figure 11. Children age 0
through 4 were far more likely to be in no (zero) non-parental care arrangements than were
older children. Older children (age 10 through 12) were more likely to be in three or more
arrangements than were younger children.
Figure 11. Number of Non-parental Care Arrangements per Child, by Age Group
Additional breakouts are provided in Table B.12 in Appendix B.
Use of higher number of arrangements is clearly associated with household employment status.
Breakouts in Table B.12 in Appendix B show that in households in which all parents are
working, about 20% of children are in zero non-parental care, compared with 39.5% of children
in households where there is a non-employed parent. On the other hand, in households with all
parents working, 26.6% of children are in three or more arrangements, compared with 11.6% of
children in households where there is one non-employed parent.
In addition, use of three or more arrangements is more likely among children of white and
American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) parents compared with Hispanic, Black or Asian/Pacific-
Islander parents.
51
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Primary Care Arrangement
Additional analysis was conducted to calculate a primary non-parental care arrangement using
the hours in each arrangement, not including parent/step-parent/guardian care. For each child
with at least one non-parental care arrangement, the arrangement that was identified as having
the most hours in care was identified as the “primary” non-parental care arrangement. For a
portion of children (approximately 15% of the total), no single primary arrangement could be
determined by hours used as there were two or more arrangements used for the largest number
of hours for that child, resulting in a somewhat smaller subset of children for this analysis.
Figure 12 below shows the frequency of children in each primary non-parental care
arrangement. Among children ages 0 through 4, the most common non-parental primary care
arrangement was staying with another family member (50% of children), followed by licensed
child care center (19%). For children age 5 through 9, the most common non-parental primary
arrangement was another family member (34%) followed by licensed child care center (22%)
and then other preschool program (16%). For older children ages 10 through 12, stay with
another family member was most common (42%) followed by another type of program or activity
(13%) and before- or after-school program (13%).
Figure 12. Primary Non-parental Care Arrangement by Age Group
A few other trends are apparent in additional breakouts provided in Table B.13 in Appendix B.
52
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
While care with another family member was the most common primary non-parental
arrangement for all ethnic groups, it was less likely among children of white and Black
parents (37.8% and 36.5%, respectively) compared with children of Asian/Pacific
Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) and Hispanic parents (45% to 54%).
Care with another family member as primary non-parental arrangement was somewhat
more common in rural areas (48%) than in urbanized areas (41%).
Use of a child care center as primary arrangement also varied by race/ethnicity, being
most likely among children of Black parents (19.5%) and least likely among Hispanic
parents (6%).
It was also notable that there is a clear association between use of a licensed child care
center (consistently identified as the most expensive type of regulated care) and
household income: those with lower income are least likely to use this type of care as a
primary arrangement, and those with higher income most likely (ranging from 6% to
26%).
Use of licensed child care center as primary arrangement is also more common among
those in an urbanized area (12.6%) vs. those in rural areas (8.7%).
Respondents were also asked if they used a different child care arrangement for their child in
the previous summer.
Of those reporting a different summer child care arrangement, most commonly children
stayed at home with a parent, stepparent, or guardian (78% of children 0 through 4, 79%
of children 5 through 9, and 68% of children 10 through 12).
Most common non-parental care arrangements for children being cared for in a different
setting in summer were:
o For 0 through 4 year olds, stay with another family member, go to licensed child
care center, or stay with nanny/au-pair.
o For 5 through 9 year olds, stay with another family member, go to licensed child
care center, or other program/activity
o For 10 through 12 year olds, full-day school-age or day camp, stay with another
family member, or other program/activity.
Additional breakouts are shown in Table B.38 in Appendix B. Breakout findings on
summer-only child care arrangements should be interpreted with great caution, as they
are based on a very small subset of children (332 total children, which is 12.8% of the
total base of approximately 2,600 children for whom care arrangements are reported).
Note that these summer-only arrangements were not explored further for hours used
and therefore could not be corrected to exclude responses where the option was
selected but hours were reported as zero.
Estimating children by care arrangement statewide
The reported child care arrangements could potentially be used to estimate children in the state
using various care arrangements, by applying the percentage using each arrangement for
children by age group to population estimates from the American Community Survey. The
analysis provided here can address two major possibilities: Multiple care arrangements data can
describe the total number of all children ever served in various settings. Primary care
53
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
arrangements data can address where most children are most often served, or where children
are most often cared for on a typical day.
1.4.2 Hours and Costs of Care
Hours of care and costs paid for care, including breakouts, are shown in Appendix B.
Hours in Care
Respondents were asked for the average time children spend in child care each week, for each
child in each setting they selected. The analysis shows the average total time is a little over 78
hours per week, however this includes time reported being spent with a parent, step-parent, or
guardian. Additional analysis may be of interest; for example, future analysis could remove
parental care from totals to capture total time in non-parental care.
Based on preliminary results, some trends appear:
Non-Hispanic white families reported longer periods of time that their children are in
care, and Non-Hispanic Black families reported the least amount of time.
Families earning $20,000 – 39,999 annually reported a higher number of hours their
child(ren) are in care each week, while families with the highest annual incomes (over
$150,000) report the least time for their child(ren) to be in a care arrangement.
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander families reported more time spent with a parent,
step-parent or guardian than other family types do. Respondents reported substantially
less time spent with another family member, friend, or neighbor regardless of the
respondent or family demographics, which may indicate that these care arrangements
are used perhaps informally to fill in gaps (i.e., before school, between parent work
shifts).
Of interest, the average time spent in all other care arrangements is part-time (less than
20 hours per week). Since full-time working parents are represented in the survey, it
seems that many may possibly be using a combination of child care arrangements to
meet their child care needs each week.
Also noted, respondents with annual household incomes between $20,000-$39,999,
those living in rural areas, and children between the ages of birth to 4 years are more
likely to spend more hours each week in any of the child care arrangement options.
Hours of care tables show only results for greater than zero, that is, responses of “0” hours per
week are not included. Findings should be considered preliminary and further analysis may be
needed for full understanding.
Costs of Care
The average amount paid for child care of any form in Washington on a weekly basis by families
responding to the survey is about $150. Some respondents report paying nothing for their
child’s care while others report paying 10 times the average each week. Additional analysis may
be needed to understand the wide variance in reported costs for care.
Non-Hispanic Black families pay the most for their child’s care each week, and Hispanic
respondents pay the least.
When comparing the annual household income levels with the cost of child care, the
levels are consistent. In other words, lower income families pay the least amount each
54
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
week for their child’s care and higher income families pay the most. The highest level of
education reported for the respondent is also reflective of the amounts paid: those with a
high school or less education, who are presumably those with lower paying jobs, pay the
least while those with graduate level degrees pay the most.
Working single parents and families with two working parents pay more than families
where at least one parent is not working. Additional analysis may be needed to
understand what two parent families with only one parent working use as their child care
arrangement.
Interestingly, respondents reported paying more for their child(ren) ages 5-9 years than
they do for younger children (birth to 4).
The average cost of care paid by respondents for child care at a licensed child care
center, a family child care home, or a preschool program (not Head Start or ECEAP) are
higher than other care arrangements -- with the amounts paid for the 5-9 year age group
again being higher than the younger and older age groups.
Costs paid for care should be interpreted with great caution and the data should be considered
preliminary at this time as further review and exclusion of outliers may be needed. Note that
many families responded that they used a care setting but paid $0 for the care - this is a
legitimate scenario as some family or friends may provide free care, or families using
subsidized, ECEAP or Head Start care may pay $0. Therefore, these responses are included in
tables as noted in the Appendix. Subsidy receipt was not asked for each setting used for each
child, so we are not able to report on this detail. (Financial assistance for child care received by
the household is reported later in this section). Finally, some respondents also reported that
they pay a cost for care provided by a parent, stepparent or guardian. This is hard to interpret.
Detailed analysis of cost paid, as well as costs per hour per child could be explored in later
follow-up.
Another perspective on costs paid for care can be considered in the child market rate survey,
which is summarized briefly in the supply/demand section of this report. The market rate survey
reflects “full-fare” costs charged by a provider for care at full-time levels. This is distinct from
out-of-pocket costs paid by an individual family for their own care arrangements, which is often
less than full market rate and may be adapted to families’ own circumstances, such as use of
part-time care, receipt of subsidy, sibling discounts or other individual factors.
1.4.3 Receiving Child Care Assistance
Over a third of respondents (38.5%) reported that their family receives some kind of financial
assistance paying for child care from one or more sources. This was reported at the family level,
rather than per each individual child. In other words, we did not capture whether costs paid per
child account for subsidy.
The most common type of assistance received was using a “free program offered through a
public school” (14.2%), followed by assistance from a public benefit program such as Head
Start, ECEAP, Working Connections, or city-funded program (9.9%), or an employer flexible
spending account for child care (7.5%). Additional detail is shown in Figure 13 following.
55
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 13. Parent Survey: Respondents Receiving Financial Assistance for Child Care, by Type
Some group differences were seen in receiving financial assistance (see Appendix B for
breakouts).
By age group: About 26% of respondents who only have children under the age of 5
years, 48% with children only between the ages of 6 and 12 years, and 23% having
children in both age groups reported receiving child care assistance. That is, families
with a younger child, or both younger and older children, are more likely to receive
assistance than those with only an older child.
By racial/ethnic groups: Nonwhite respondents were far more likely than white
respondents to receive some form of assistance for child care costs. Almost half of
Hispanic respondents (45.7%) reported receiving child care assistance. For non-
Hispanic respondents, 33.7% of white, 47.4% of Black, 40.2% of Asian/Pacific Islander,
and 52.3% American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) respondents reported receiving child
care assistance.
By income: Respondents with mid-level incomes were least likely to be receiving some
form of financial assistance, compared with those at both lower and higher levels. While
this pattern does not clearly track with increase in income, it is likely due to receiving
different types of assistance in different circumstances (public benefit, employer-based);
see Appendix B.
56
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 14. Households Receiving Any Form of Financial Child Care Assistance, by Income
Those with graduate education were more likely to receive some form of assistance: 38.6% of
respondents with a high school diploma or less, 34.6% with some college, 36.7% with a college
degree, and 45.8% with an advanced degree reported receiving child care assistance.
Of the single parent respondents, 55.2% of those who were unemployed and 44.4% of those
working full- or part-time reported receiving child care assistance. 40.4% of the respondents in
two parent households where neither parent is working, 24.9% of respondents where one
parent is working, and 38.6% where both parents are working reported receiving child care
assistance. (Those who were unemployed at the time of the survey may have received
assistance in the recent past when working, or they may have been referring to a subsidized
early learning program such as Head Start or ECEAP.)
A small difference was seen in urban-rural comparison. The respondents in an urban/urbanized
area were somewhat more likely to report receiving child care assistance (39.9%) compared
with 33.4% of respondents in rural zip codes.
Additional breakouts by assistance type are in Table B.47 in Appendix B. As might be expected,
type of financial assistance received varies by income level.
1.5 Child Care Needs and Preferences
Respondents were asked about their preference in a child care setting. Unlike with care
arrangements actually used for each child, this question was asked as a single preference
(select one option from a list) and was asked only once for the respondent parent, not
separately for each child in care.
57
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
In addition, the list was somewhat simplified from the list of recent child care arrangements
presented for each child. The two questions (current/recent arrangement and preferred child
care arrangement) are not identically structured and are therefore difficult to compare directly.
Over a third (39.4%) of respondents prefer child care provided in their own home, and another
21.6% prefer child care provided in a family member or friend’s home. Just 13.4% prefer child
care provided in a licensed child care program, 10.2% prefer child care provided in a child care
center, 6.4% prefer child care provided in a program at a public school, and 1.4% prefer child
care provided in another person’s home. 7.6% had no preference for the setting of their child
care.
Overall, over half (61% combined) prefer child care to be provided in their own home or the
home of a family member or friend. Only a small group (16.8% combined) said they preferred a
center- or school-based program. However, these preferences differ slightly by age of child.
Respondents with a child or children under the age of 5 preferred formal care arrangements
(i.e., child care centers and licensed child care programs) while those with school-age children
(6-12 years) reported preference for more informal arrangements (i.e., family and friend’s home
or their own home). Just over half of the respondents with a child or children under age 5
(55.2%) prefer care provided in the home of a family member or friend or in their own home.
This was higher with respondents with children between 6 and 12 years of age (65%). However,
respondents with younger children preferred a center- or school-based program more often
(20.6%) than those with older children (14.4%).
The wording of the options does not mirror the options for care setting in current/recent care
arrangements, and may have caused some confusion for respondents. In particular, the list did
not include the “licensed family child care home” category. In hindsight, this may be a design
weakness for this question.
One possible way to look at these responses for clearer understanding is to combine several
responses to look at preference for informal home-based arrangements vs. formal
arrangements. While 39.4% prefer care in their own home, another 23.0% combined prefer care
in a family member or friends’ home, or another person’s home. About 20.0% combined prefer
care in a formal setting (licensed child care program, child care center, or program at a public
school), and 7.6% have no preference. Future analysis might explore these roll-up categories.
58
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 15. Parent Survey: Preferred Child Care Setting
Regardless of child age, most parents preferred care in their own home, or in a family member
or friends’ home; however, some variation by age group arose among other non-home-based
options.
Preferences were examined by age group for families with a child only in the 0 through 4 age
group, those with children ages 0 through 4 and children ages 5 through12, and for those with
children only in the 5 through 12 age group.
Table 6. Parent Survey: Preferred Child Care Setting by Age of Children in Household
A family A A
member licensed program
A child or Another My child at a
Age of care friend's person's own care public No
Children N center home home home program school preference
Total 1,500 10.2% 21.6% 1.4% 39.4% 13.4% 6.4% 7.6%
0 through 4
only 381 16.4% 18.3% 1.7% 35.2% 18.9% 4.2% 5.3%
0 through
12 (both
age groups) 352 10.1% 20.5% 0.9% 42.8% 10.9% 7.2% 7.6%
5 through
12 only 722 6.9% 23.9% 1.2% 40.9% 11.1% 7.4% 8.5%
Parents clearly prefer a home-based setting (their own or a family member or friends’ home)
over all other options regardless of age of child, but for young children (age 0-5) this is closely
followed by licensed child care program or center.
For those with school-age children only, there is a steeper “drop-off” after home-based settings,
in preference for licensed program or center or no preference, followed by a program at a public
school.
59
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
While some similarity was seen in patterns of child care setting across racial/ethnic groups,
there were some slight variations, shown in Figure 16 following. For example, white families
seem to have a much stronger preference for care in their own homes than do other groups,
particularly when compared to Black families. Latino/a families and Black families seems to
have a stronger preference for care in a family member or friends’ home, and for care in a
licensed child care program, than do other groups.
Additional breakouts for preferred setting are in Table B.48 of Appendix B.
Figure 16. Parent Survey: Preferred Child Care Setting by Race/Ethnicity of Respondent
60
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
About a quarter (24.7%) of respondents reported needing child care outside of
regular/traditional daytime hours (6:00 am – 6:00 pm Monday thru Friday).
Figure 17 following shows that within this subset who need care in nontraditional hours, most
commonly the need is in the evenings (51%) or weekend days (49%).
Figure 17. Parent Survey: Child Care Needed Outside Traditional Hours
Respondents were asked to approximate total daily transportation time - how many minutes it
takes to transport their child(ren) to and from child care round trip each day. Over a third (36%)
reported it takes them less than 5 minutes to transport their child(ren) to and from child care
each day, 60% reported it takes between 5 and 60 minutes, and just 4% reported it takes them
more than 60 minutes to transport their child(ren) to and from child care each day.
Respondents also reported the mode of transportation their family uses to transport their
child(ren) to and from child care, shown in Figure 18. Multiple modes could be selected.
Figure 18. Parent Survey: Mode and Drive Time of Transportation to Child Care
61
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
1.6 Employment Challenges and Barriers Related to Child Care
Parents were asked a series of questions to describe challenges and barriers, and how child
care issues had impacted their work productivity and employment choices.
A little less than half (46%) of respondents reported that they or their spouse/partner had to take
time off due to child care issues in the past 12 months (n=1,504). A little more than a third (39%)
reported they had reduced the number of hours or days worked due to child care issues
(n=1,510).
Figure 19. Parent Survey: Respondents' Employment Challenges Related to Child Care
Breakouts are shown in Appendix B. A few patterns are of interest: Respondents more likely to
need to take time off were:
Those with all parents in household working (53.2%)
Asian/Pacific Islander respondents (and least likely among Hispanic respondents)
Those in urban areas
Those with higher education and income levels
For parents not working, child care may be a barrier to returning to employment. The subset of
parents who were unemployed as of the time of survey and seeking employment, were asked
about whether child care issues were preventing them from obtaining employment. Note that
this was a small group of respondents (n = 106). About half of these job-seekers (53%) reported
that child care is not an issue preventing them from obtaining employment. However, another
31% of this group reported that they would like part-time employment but child care is an issue,
and another 16% reported that they would like full-time employment but child care is an issue. In
other words, combining these two groups, child care access is a barrier preventing about 47%
of job-seekers from re-entering the workforce.
62
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 20. Parent Survey: Child Care Issues as a Barrier for Unemployed Respondents Seeking
Employment
This was one of the few questions that could be examined by gender as it was not worded to
household/family level. Just over half of women (51.4%) in this job-seeker group, compared with
41.4% of male job-seekers, reported child care as an issue for returning to part-time or full-time
work. Other breakouts are shown in Appendix B, but all should be interpreted with caution due
to the small size of this group.
Another potential negative impact was passing up a job offer or promotion due to child care
issues. About 18.3% of respondents reported that in the past 12 months they have turned down
a job offer or promotion due to child care issues. A few patterns were seen (Appendix B); this
impact was:
More likely among Black and American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) respondents
Slightly more likely for rural respondents than those in urban areas
Less likely for college vs. those with lower or higher education levels
More likely for those with children age 0 through 4 (or mixed age group) vs those with
only children ages 5-12
No clear difference by gender of respondents
63
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Respondents were asked if various child care issues had an effect on their family over the last
year. Figure 21 shows that the three most common issues they reported as affecting their
families were finding affordable care (36.9% of respondents) finding high quality care (30.4%),
and finding child care that fits their schedule (26.9% of respondents).
Figure 21. Parent Survey: Child Care Issues Affecting Family
Breakouts are shown in Appendix B. For respondents in households where all parents are
working, top three concerns were similar to those for all respondents. A few other trends of note:
Finding affordable care is a higher-rated concern for those with children age 0 through 4
vs. those with children of mixed ages or those with school-age children.
Similarly, finding child care that fits the parents’ working schedule is of greater concern
for parents with younger children (ages 0 through 4).
Finding affordable care has a clear association with household income (it is a greater
concern for those with lower income).
Finding care that fits parents’ work schedule is of greater concern for those with higher
incomes.
Additional breakouts show other trends of interest.
64
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Respondents were asked how often their job is negatively affected by their child care
arrangements. Nearly a third reported that their job is negatively affected by their child care
arrangements. Just 31% of respondents reported their child care arrangements never negatively
affect their job, and another 35% reported it to occur rarely. However, about a third (33.5%)
reported that their job is negatively affected by their child care arrangements sometimes, often
or always.
Figure 22. Parent Survey: Frequency of Child Care Issues Negatively Affecting Job
This question was asked of all respondents. However, looking at household employment status,
negative job effects (sometimes, often or always) were reported at a higher rate (37%) of
households where all parents are working.
In addition, shown in Appendix B, negative job impacts were more often reported:
By Non-Hispanic Black parents, (and least often by white parents),
By single working parents and 2-working parent households,
By those with a graduate education vs. lower educational levels,
By those with a high income level ($200,000 or greater); least often by those making
$40,000 to 59,999, and
By those with children in the age 0 through 4 or the 0 through 4 plus 5 through12 age
groups vs. those with children age 5 through 2 only.
65
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Over a third (36%) of respondents reported their household had experienced financial hardship
or had made financial changes as a result of the cost of child care.
Figure 23. Parent Survey: Financial Hardship Due to Child Care Costs
Breakouts are shown in Appendix B. A few trends are apparent:
In comparing group differences by race/ethnicity, Hispanic respondents were least likely
to experience financial hardship due to child care costs, while Non-Hispanic Black and
Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) respondents were most likely.
By income, the group with $40,000 to 59,999 income were most likely to experience
financial hardship compared with other income groups (both lower and higher income).
Single working parents were more likely to report financial hardship vs. other working
parent groups (2 parents with both working, 2 parents with 1 working).
Those in an urban area were more likely than those in a rural area to experience
financial hardship.
By age group, those with children only in the 0 through 4 age group were more likely to
experience financial hardship than were those with children of both age groups, and
those with only children age 5 through 12.
1.7 Summary
To summarize a few key findings on the needs, impacts or challenges in child care:
Child Care Arrangements
For all child age groups, among multiple possible care arrangements, the most common
non-parental care arrangement for all age groups was staying with another family
member.
For children ages 0 through 4, the next most common non-parental arrangements
among all used were licensed child care center, other program/activity, or other
preschool program.
For children ages 5-9, the next most common non-parental arrangements were licensed
child care center, other preschool program, or other program/activity.
66
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
For children ages 10 through12, the next most common non-parental arrangements among all
used were program/activity, before- or after-school program, staying home alone, or staying with
another family member. The most common primary non-parental care arrangement varied by
age group of child:
Among children ages 0 through 4, the most common non-parental primary care
arrangement was staying with another family member (50% of children), followed by
licensed child care center (18%).
For children age 5 through 9, the most common non-parental primary arrangement was
another family member (34%) followed by licensed child care center (22% and then
other preschool program (16%).
For older children ages 10 through 12, stay with another family member was most
common (42%) followed by another type of program or activity (13%) and before- or
after-school program (13%).
When reviewing how many arrangements were used, overall, 29% of children were not using
any care other than that of a parent/step-parent or guardian, and another 31% were in only one
non-parental care arrangement. However, it is common for children to be in multiple care
arrangements.
A fifth of children (20%) experienced two non-parental arrangements, and 20% of
children were in three or more arrangements.
Children age 0 through 4 were far more likely to be in no (zero) non-parental care
arrangements than were older children.
Older children (age 10 through 12) were more likely to be in three or more arrangements
than were younger children.
Parents’ concerns and unmet needs in accessing care
Of various potential child care-related concerns affecting their families, the three most
common issues reported were finding affordable care (36.9% of respondents), finding
high quality care (30.4%), and finding child care that fits their schedule (26.9% of
respondents).
About a quarter of parents said they need child care outside traditional working hours,
most commonly weekend evening and weekdays.
Over a third of respondents (38.5%) reported receiving some kind of financial assistance
paying for child care from one or more sources.
Just over a third (36%) of respondents reported their household had experienced
financial hardship or had made financial changes as a result of the cost of child care.
Groups most likely to experience financial hardship are Non-Hispanic Black and
American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) parents, those with moderately low income, those
in single working parent households, and those with children age 0 through 4.
Effects on employment
About a third of respondents said their job is sometimes, often or always negatively
affected by issues with their child care arrangement.
A little less than half (46%) of respondents reported that they or their spouse/partner had
to take time off due to child care issues in the past 12 months. A little more than a third
67
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
(39%) reported they had reduced the number of hours or days worked due to child care
issues.
Nearly one in five respondents reported that in the past year they have turned down a
job offer or promotion due to child care issues.
Looking at the impact on the small subset of unemployed respondents who were
seeking employment, about 31% of this group reported that they would like part-time
employment but child care is an issue, and another 16% reported that they would like
full-time employment but child care is an issue. In other words, when combining these
two groups it appears that child care access is a barrier possibly preventing about 47%
of job-seekers from re-entering the workforce.
Some of the findings of the Parent Survey were incorporated as assumptions into the Economic
Impact Model described in Section VII of this report; detail is provided in that section.
68
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
2. Parent Engagement Sessions
2.1 Parent Engagement Overview/Methods
The parent engagement sessions were designed to elicit rich stories and personal reflections
from individual parents and families living in vulnerable communities and those who are often
underrepresented in traditional survey research: Families of color, low-income families,
undocumented families experiencing additional barriers to accessing child care such as
language access, children with special needs, children in foster care system, swing shift hours
at work, living in rural areas, and families experiencing homelessness. For this effort, ICF
partnered with MomsRising of Washington State to conduct a series of in-person and telephone
interviews between March 17 and April 3, 2020.
All sessions followed a semi-structured question guide (see Appendix B); sessions were
conducted by teams of two (one facilitator and one note-taker). Session facilitators were
members of the MomsRising outreach staff and statewide MomsRising Policy Fellows). Twenty-
four sessions were conducted solely in English, three sessions were in Spanish, and one was
bilingual (participant used Spanish and English interchangeably responding to questions). All
facilitators were trained on data protection procedures and confidentiality. Participants received
a $50 gift card per household for their participation. All comments were kept anonymous and
confidential. Transcribed comments were reviewed and summarized by theme. A summary and
illustrative quotes are provided below.
It is very important to keep in mind when reviewing the findings below that the approach and
populations for the survey and engagement sessions were very different by design. The intent
of the engagement sessions was to draw out rich detail of parents’ experiences rather than to
directly compare to the quantitative findings of the survey. Findings described below in use of
care and preferences should not be compared to the survey findings, and any differences
between the two efforts should not be considered evidence of greater or less validity of one set
of findings over another.
2.2 Participants and Communities
A total of 28 families/households participated in discussions to provide their stories of child care
related concerns and challenges. The MomsRising team gathered the perspectives of a diverse
cross-section of Washington state families for this effort. The following family characteristics are
represented among the session participants:
Geography: Families living in various Washington rural and urban locations including
Outlook, Shelton, LaConner, Lake Stevens, Kent, Tacoma, Seattle, Oak Harbor, Vancouver,
Issaquah, Centralia, Spokane and South King County.
Race and Ethnicity: White or Caucasian, Hispanic or Latino/a, Black or African American,
Asian or Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native
Primary Language Spoken by Household: English, Spanish, Somali, Chinese
Caregiver professions: Paralegal, Seasonal farm worker, family support worker, Human
Resources professional, city employee, part-time worker, municipal government worker,
family support worker, paramedic, social worker, ECEAP staff, store manager, unemployed,
and stay-at-home parent.
69
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Family structure: Two-parent families, single-parent households, foster families
Other significant family/household characteristics: Kinship caregivers, LGBTQ families,
veteran families, parents of children with special needs, families experiencing
homelessness, low-income and middle-class families, student parents.
Demographic details are shown in following tables.
Table 5. Parent Engagement Sessions: Primary Language of Households
Language (n=29)
English 58.6%
Spanish 13.8%
Somali 10.3%
Cantonese 6.9%
Other 10.3%
The majority of households (58.6%) identified English as their primary language, followed by
Spanish at 13.8%, Somali at 10.8%, Cantonese 6.9% and the remaining 10.3% as other
languages. The race/ethnicity of respondents was varied, with largest single group of
respondents identifying as white/Caucasian (36%), followed by Black or African American
(24%), Hispanic/Latino (24%) and Asian or Pacific Islander (24%).
Table 6. Parent Engagement Sessions: Household Demographics
Race/Ethnicity (n=25)
White or Caucasian 36%
Black or African American 24%
Hispanic/Latino 24%
Asian or Pacific Islander 12%
Other 4%
The participating households reported on various family configurations based on household
occupants, the number of children within the household, and the age of the children.
Respondents ranged from households of zero children (respondent was an expectant mother
who discussed her future child care plans) to households with four children. Overall, most
participating households reported having two children, with a mean of 2.3 children per
household. Respondents also reported the ages of the children within their household. Many of
the households interviewed (45.2%) reported having at least one child between 6–12 years old,
followed by 33.4% of households who reported having at least one preschool-aged child.
70
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Table 7. Parent Engagement Sessions: Child Ages
Age of Children (n=42)
Infant/Toddler (0–2 years old) 21.4%
Preschooler (3–5 years old) 33.4%
School-Age (6–12 years old) 45.2%
Families also reported on the hours which they require child care based on their work or school
schedules. Of the families that were working at the time of the interview, a little less than half
(46.4%) of the households reported needing full-time child care, categorized by at least 40
hours per week. The remaining families described varying needs for child care ranging from 16
– 36 hours per week.
Respondents described their current child care by indicating who cares for the children within
the household during the day and who cares for them in the evening/weekend. It is important to
note that descriptions of types of care used are reported here for understanding the experiences
and choices of the parents interviewed. These findings were not used to estimate the frequency
of care used in the general state population, and should not be compared directly to the results
of the statewide parent survey as they were not gathered by the same methods.
Overall, respondents’ child care arrangements varied from a single type of child care to a
collection of various types of care used concurrently. Most frequently, respondents described
that at least one of the types of child care they were using was a form of Friends, Family &
Neighbor (FFN) care. The most common type of FFN care described was the use of another
family member to provide care. Participants noted grandparents, aunts, and older siblings (over
the age of 12) as caregivers for their children while the primary caregiver was working. For most
of these households, this was the only type of care used. Another form of FFN care that
households reported using was an unregulated caregiver outside of the house, such as a
neighbor or friend. Unlike the use of family members for care, many households noted that the
unregulated caregiver was used in conjunction with other types of care. Note that the
participants did not specify whether their family member caregiver or other home-based
caregiver was licensed, so the category “other home-based caregiver outside child’s home
could include both informal and licensed family home.
71
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Table 8. Parent Engagement Sessions: Type(s) of Care Currently Used
Types of Care (n=43)
In-Home and Home-based Care
Stay home with parent, step-parent or guardian 18.6%
Stay with another family member 27.9%
Other home-based caregiver outside child’s home (including neighbor, friend or 18.6%
licensed family home)*
Regulated Care
Go to a licensed child care center 9.3%
Go to a Head Start, ECEAP, or Seattle public preschool program 14.0%
Go to another preschool program 2.3%
Go to a before or after-school program 7.0%
Go to another type of program or activity, such as a library, sports/athletic 2.3%
program or club
*Respondents using a home-based arrangement generally did not specify whether their home-based caregiver was a
licensed family home or not, therefore they were all reported in a single category as other home-based caregiver.
Generally, the interviewed households tended to use center-or school-based settings care less
frequently than home based settings care. Note that those interviewed did not generally specify
whether their home-based caregiver was licensed, and this was not captured in session notes.
The most common type of formal child care households reported using at the time was Head
Start, ECEAP, or a Seattle public preschool. Other common types of care mentioned by
households were the use of a licensed child care center and a before- or after-school program.
Similar to FFN care, many of the households who reported using these types of formal care
used them jointly with other types of care. To summarize, when respondents were relying on
grandparents, aunts, and older siblings for child care, these tended to be the sole non-parental
care arrangement; however, families relying on non-relative providers, or regulated care
(centers or preschools) tended to make use of multiple child care arrangements.
As mentioned earlier, these findings should not be compared to the findings of the parent survey
– they are only applicable to the select group recruited for the parent engagement sessions.
These findings do not contradict the statewide parent survey, which is more representative of
the state population as a whole.
2.3 Child Care Needs and Preferences
When asked how they began their search for information about child care, participants
described a variety of processes. While some participants found information via word of mouth
(e.g., asking friends, people at work, etc.), others contacted resource organizations (e.g., Child
Care Aware, Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), YWCA, Refugee Women’s
Alliance (ReWA), or searched online. Some participants used a combination of all three
methods. Others did not conduct searches because they already decided on a certain type of
care, typically FFN care. Participants typically searched for information related to openings,
72
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
availability, and cost, as well as for child care programs that were close by their homes or
conveniently located.
Participants who found information via word of mouth through friends, work, or other known
contacts. Using the information provided to them, some participants continued their search
online or over the phone. Typically, these participants found the information they were looking
for and felt they could trust the information others provided them. One participant who was a
person of color, however, explained that searching for child care information through friends had
limitations since their friends were only aware of care that primarily served their cultural
community.
Participants who contacted organizations to find child care information generally said they had
found what they needed. One participant contacted Child Care Aware (CCA) who provided them
with a list of child care centers and their ratings. Another participant used CCA but found the
process frustrating. One participant contacted the YWCA and was satisfied with the information
they received. Lastly, one participant referenced using STARS (State Training and Registry
System) and MERIT (Managed Education and Registry Information Tool) to verify licensure
status of child care programs.
Regarding challenges finding information, some participants reported that finding programs with
openings was difficult or availability was not made clear upfront. One participant toured a child
care center only to find out that there was no current opening. Another participant described the
challenge of not knowing where they were on a waiting list for at-home/neighborhood centers,
which did not have the resources to have a website or ways to report their availability. Other
participants reported that it was difficult to find programs they could afford or that finding the
cost of a program was difficult. Other participants stated that the online information they could
access was not detailed enough (e.g., missing information about meals offered, how many
children are served) or was not up to date.
In addition, respondents described challenges finding specific services in child care. One
participant was looking for information on mental health services but could not find it. This
participant described:
“I would look for a place that would take my son that has mental health issues that would
show up in his behavior. The child care would say yes, we can handle him, only to have
them say in about 2 weeks to a month that this isn’t a good fit. Then I would have to find
another place that would take my child.” –Parent of two children with one child in child
care
Another participant had significant difficulty finding child care centers that could attend to their
son’s developmental delays, but eventually found care. In discussing the ability to access
translated information/materials, some participants expressed that they did not need translated
materials while others could not find information in their primary language (e.g., Spanish), which
affected their ability to access information.
For participants who ultimately chose FFN care, several stated that they felt safe knowing that
their child was being cared for by someone that they knew, trusted, and whose values aligned
with their own. Participants also reported that FFN care was more cost effective. One participant
whose oldest son looks after the younger children, reported that she and her children rely on
each other. Another participant mentioned that their only option was to find child care with
friends due to their legal status:
73
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
“The only option I had was to find child care with friends. I couldn’t find information in
Spanish. The legal status challenge makes it harder to look for and find information. I
knew I didn’t automatically qualify for programs... If I had legal residency I would have
loved to find a child care center for my kids.” –Parent of three children with one child in
care
When asked what great child care looks like for them and their family, many participants cited
the importance of flexible hours, affordability, and licensed care. Programs that taught
developmental and school readiness skills (e.g., alphabet, shapes, and numbers) and
encouraged creativity and social skills were important as well. Participants also described the
importance of a safe environment and staff who are highly qualified and trained, diverse,
nurturing, attentive, and genuinely enjoy being with children.
When asked what they liked the most about their current child care situation, participants who
used a form of FFN care cited being able to save money, that it is reliable and trustworthy, and
that their children are taught the way they want them to be (e.g., cultural values). Participants
who are the primary caregivers during the day and/or weekends enjoyed being able to have a
lot of quality time with their children and knowing that they are safe in their own care.
Lastly, participants who used some form of formal care described what they liked about their
child care arrangement. They mentioned factors such as ease of access, inexpensive fees
(noted by those receiving subsidy through Working Connections Child Care), integration of
different cultures and backgrounds into the program, parent-teacher communication, and
adequate teacher:child ratios.
One participant, whose son has significant development delays, appreciated that the
staff are patient with him and communicate with her, asking what more they can do for
him.
One participant, who is herself a teacher for infants to 3-year-olds at an Early Head Start
and whose own child attends an ECEAP program, stated that she has known the
ECEAP staff for years and trusts them.
Another participant, who uses an ECEAP program, said that its location and hours are
convenient in relation to her work.
Overall, participants expressed a wish for child care that is affordable, trustworthy, and flexible.
While many participants were able to find the child care information they needed, some
struggled with finding programs that had availability or catered to their child’s specialized needs.
Participants value child care that is safe, helps their child grow developmentally and socially,
and respects their cultural values and backgrounds.
2.4 Barriers Related to Child Care
2.4.1 Barriers related to cost and subsidy
The most commonly mentioned barrier or challenge in finding child care was cost. Across racial
and ethnic groups, only a handful of parents said that cost did not have a significant bearing on
their child care decision-making, while several respondents indicated that it was the deciding
factor. Some parents found that cost limited their options, but did not prevent them from finding
care —for example, they were only able to choose among providers that accept state funding,
do not charge over a certain rate, or have subsidized transportation. One parent stated that the
voucher system for which she qualifies doesn’t cover the cost for center-based care, so she
74
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
must rely on family and friends for care. On the other hand, several participants chose to stop
working because they found that the cost of child care during their working hours was so high
that it was not worthwhile or feasible.
“I’m not able to afford the child care places that would be a good fit for me, therefore I
had to use one that was within my budget.” – Parent of one school age child and one
adult child
“I didn’t like that what I earned; I would end up with little left over. I had to leave my kids
for long hours so about half my paycheck would go to the caretaker… I didn’t see the
point to working at this part-time [job] anymore. I did the math and the money that was
going to my commute and the caretaker was not worth it, when I could just take care of
them myself and not overpay or pay the caretaker.” – Parent of three children ages 7 to
19, Hispanic/Latino
“We’ve gotta find some kind of happy medium here, to where we’re not paying
everything we make in child care. Basically, we would be paying for child care and rent,
and we’d be lucky to have anything else, and people can’t live that way!” – Parent of
one, white
“It gives me anxiety because I am uncertain if I will be able to pay month by month.” –
Parent of two who stopped working because she could not afford child care.
“I take care of my sister’s children and she takes care of mine…This has a big impact on
my finances. I can’t afford child care and this is why I have made the choices I have” –
Parent of four children ages 7 through 18. Her relatives or her oldest children care for
her younger children while she is working.
Several participants noted the particular expense/difficulty of finding affordable infant care, as
compared with care for preschool-age children.
“After a certain age when you adopt a child the “Working Connections” stopped. They
send a maintenance check when adoption goes through. After adoption you’re on our
own and it was shocking to learn what I had to pay. Infant stage was the hardest with the
cost of diapers and formula. Right now, I’m paying $200 for before and after school care.
In the summer for full-time it is about $600.” – Single Parent of two, Black/African
American
“Affordability, flexibility. I would like to have the option to not pay over breaks. I’m a
teacher and I’d like to be able to take him out in the summer and not have to pay. As an
infant they make you go the whole year.” – Parent of one infant, white
Some parents did express satisfaction with the cost of their care: typically, parents who were
receiving free or subsidized care (or in one case, had already decided to use primarily FFN
care). In general, most participants enrolled in preschool, ECEAP, or Head Start were satisfied
with the cost.
“I think it’s great—because the state pays for it. I’m in a situation where the state pays
for it. I’ve heard from co-workers that when they’re paying for themselves, it’s
outrageous.” – Black/African American parent with two biological children in high school
and two grade-school age Native American foster children
75
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
“We actually don’t pay for ECEAP, it’s a government funded program, so that I love, and
that’s the only way we’d be able to have her in preschool. We can’t afford it otherwise.” –
Parent of one, white
Two parents who were paying out of pocket seemed mostly comfortable with the price, yet even
those parents expressed reservations.
“It seems expensive. But then you compare what you would pay if you paid someone to
come to your house, and it seems like a good deal. Wish there was flexibility with
payment plans.” – Parent of two children ages 4 and 9, white
Respondents were also asked about their experiences and challenges with subsidies and
subsidized care. Several parents responded that they do not qualify for assistance or that they
receive assistance but have not encountered any issues. Two respondents were unsure if they
were qualified to receive subsidies, in one case because they and their partner were DACA
recipients. Some of the parents who do not receive subsidies had no further comment about
these programs, while others said they wished more subsidies or scholarships were available. A
few parents noted that they have qualified for subsidy but not consistently, highlighting how
challenging it can be for those who are close to the income threshold:
“I don’t get any [subsidy]. I did when I was on maternity leave, but [now] I make about
$150 too much. Even though it’s just me; I don’t get child care support. Even when I
was receiving assistance, I was still paying a $550 copay each month.” – Parent of two
children, ages 4 and 6, white
“Before, like I said, my fiancé made something like $50 too much. Now we probably
could [receive assistance], since he lost his job (related to COVID), but we’re still kind of
figuring things out.” – Parent of one 5-year-old child, white
“Yes, I’ve used these benefits; it was complicated because as a seasonal worker they
would only help me a certain time and then they would take away all benefits, food
stamps and child care. I stopped because it was not enough to pay the person that was
watching my kids when I was using the program. It would be easier if they checked
people’s hours and not decide if they are eligible one month and the next month they are
not. They need to look at every person's situation and child care systems need to be fair
with their income. For example, parents that are still going to school.” – Parent of two
children ages 6 and 8, Hispanic/Latino; currently not working because the cost of care
Other parents related challenges with using subsidized child care vouchers. In particular,
parents expressed frustration that you must currently be working to get a voucher, the vouchers
may not be sufficient to cover certain programs and providers may prefer clients who can pay
out of pocket. One participant noted that in the past, she had experienced difficulty or delays
related to voucher paperwork and had not received the subsidy on time.
“Yes, some child care providers do not want to take the vouchers because they don’t
pay very much. It was even harder to get someone to take your voucher if you had a
child that needed additional care, or one on one with the teacher.” – parent of a 10-year-
old
“Filling out the paperwork on time every year is stressful. [My] mom had to have training
and get a tablet for reporting. The state helps you, but it’s limited. If I didn't have my
76
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
mom, I'd worry about finding an opening at a center that accepts state funding” – Parent
of two children ages 7 and 11; white/Caucasian
“I could qualify for vouchers, but this system of assistance is stupid. You have to get a
job first before you can get assistance. And when you get a voucher, there are waiting
lists everywhere.” – Parent of two children ages 4 and 9; Asian/Pacific Islander
2.4.2 Other Barriers
Outside of cost, participants mentioned several challenges related to center-based care and
care in child care homes. These challenges included difficulty finding an open slot, finding a
center close to home, scheduling, and finding specialized types of care. Parents who used
informal care often reported that a combination of cost and these other factors prohibited them
from utilizing care. In addition, parents who rely primarily on informal (family-friend-neighbor)
care were sometimes left without a back-up option when their normal caregiver was busy.
These cases are examined further in a later section (2.5 Employment Challenges/Impact).
A number of parents mentioned that they had difficulty finding a formal child care arrangement
(center or licensed family home) that could accommodate the hours they needed for work or
school. In particular, parents found it hard to find care that was open in the evening or on
weekends. Some parents remarked that they needed a back-up option for when their normal
center or school was closed and they still needed to work (i.e., hourly as-needed care). These
types of challenges were voiced by parents across multiple racial/ethnic groups. In conjunction
with opening hours, a few parents indicated that they would prefer a care center to be located
closer to their home. Some parents felt they had to plan their work schedule around getting to
child care on time or had to rush to get from work to the center before close. For other parents,
the mismatch between their working hours and the available care was more than a frustration,
and prohibited them from finding child care. Besides cost, scheduling was one of the most
commonly cited reasons that parents were not able to find care.
“Days when schools are closed and child cares are closed and I have to work, I have to
call in. I also can’t go back to school to finish—I don’t have child care on the weekends,
so I couldn’t take like a weekend class to finish my degree. And trying to do online is
awful when you have a 4 year old and a 6 year old. I tried it 6 months ago and I barely
scraped by—I’m not doing that again to myself or my kids.” – Parent of two children,
ages 4 and 6, white
“I work nights and weekends, and there really is no option for me.” – Mother of four
children ages 7 to 17, whose children mostly stay home alone.
Parents of children with disabilities had unique difficulty finding formal care. All respondents who
have children with special needs had experienced difficulty finding someone who could care for
their child. Some switched to informal care because they were unable to find a formal care
provider who could handle their children’s medical complexities. One parent said she had
already had to switch care centers multiple times because of her child’s behavioral issues:
“The child care would say yes, we can handle him, only to have them say in about 2
weeks to a month that this isn’t a good fit. Then I would have to find another place that
would take my child.” – Parent of a 10-year-old
“There are not a lot of … child care settings that can care for a child with special needs. I
have a child with special needs, and it was very hard to find a program that would take
77
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
him” – Black/African American parent of three children 2 through 10 years old, who
cares for her children with FFN help
Even for those parents who were able to identify a child care setting that would meet their
needs, several referenced difficulties finding open slots in formal child care settings. Some
participants said that they were lucky to secure a spot early due to selection priority (e.g.
students who had been to Early Head Start were prioritized for Head Start; former foster
children also received priority registration at some centers). A few respondents mentioned
waiting on a waitlist for several months without being notified, or said that the number of open
slots in licensed care centers and care homes seemed too limited. One parent reported that in
order to sign her children up for after-school programs, she needed to wait in line for a long time
and she had never been able to get there early enough to get her children a slot.
“Outside of the military families, there are almost no infant slots available in my
community. Not enough child care facilities for younger kids.” – Mother of two children,
ages 7 and 11, white
“The waitlists are challenging. With neighborhood or at-home centers, they're small
businesses, so they don't have fancy websites or administrators to track things. So, we
weren't sure what was happening or where we were on the list. It requires a lot of trust.
Having relationships with people is important because everyone is on multiple waitlists
and parents aren't going to follow up with each one. We feel anxious, though, like we
need a backup option.... It seems like overall there’s a shortage of child care. I don’t
know if that’s true or not, but based on everyone having a long waitlist. … also, because
of this scarcity that exists, it creates a lot of pressure both on families and child care
providers, with the creation of these kind of artificial waitlists. I think it’s also an
uncertainty for their businesses, of how many spots do I have filled, really.” – Expecting
parent, white
Some respondents said they had difficulty finding care because they just didn’t know where to
look or had trouble identifying child care options. While these barriers were less commonly
mentioned, they were present across all racial/ethnic groups. A few parents mentioned that they
had additional trouble finding centers because they were new to town and didn’t have the
connections:
“I think also just finding what child care providers are available in our area is challenging.
Having a central source of information—there are a few that have come up that are more
helpful, there’s like an app as well, but I think in-home care has a lot of barriers to
making themselves more advertised, it’s really still more word of mouth.” – Expecting
parent, white
“First of all, we were new to town and didn’t know of any resources. I applied for my kid
to be in programs at school, but it took a long time. I could not qualify for state programs
because of my legal status. …The only option I had was to find child care with friends. I
couldn’t find information in Spanish. The legal status challenge makes it harder to look
for and find information. I knew I didn’t automatically qualify for programs….Not having
documents (legal status) is the main obstacle, [but also] not being able to find a certified
[child] care, being new to the town and not knowing anyone at first.” – Parent of three
children ages 7 to 19, Hispanic/Latino
78
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Two parents mentioned that they would prefer to have their child enrolled in dual-language
immersion but were not able to find an affordable center with an opening. However, other
parents who listed dual-language or cultural fit as important to them said that they were able to
find a center that fit their linguistic and cultural preferences.
Finally, a handful of parents reported that they wished they could have found or afforded a
higher quality care center or a care center with more enrichment opportunities. Examples of
desired activities included field trips, more outdoor play, and more educational content.
No parents reported being aware of any services that they qualify for but prefer not to participate
in.
2.5 Employment Challenges/Impact
Many participants reported that finding sufficient child care presented a challenge, and that lack
of care had interfered with their work or education arrangements. Several parents reported that
they had chosen to stay home with their children, but they would have preferred to have a job or
to work more hours. Some parents shared that they were not able to work at all while their
children were young for preschool, but once their children reached school age they were able to
go back to work:
“I didn't work for 9 years because I would have been working just to pay for child care.
They were in ECEAP as 4-year-olds, but it is only a half day which isn't enough to seek
employment. Now that they are both school age I work. Two kids' care costs more than
rent! ... So, to me, it’s not worth it to work if you’re just paying for child care alone—it
leads to a circle of poverty… If care was affordable, I definitely would have worked
through my kids’ younger years.” – Parent of two children ages 7 and 11;
white/Caucasian; military family
One woman receiving subsidy for child care reported, “I couldn’t do it. If I had to pay for it
myself, I think that I probably wouldn’t be able to swing it—I would just be working to pay
for child care, I wouldn’t be able to work.” – Black/African American parent with two
biological children in high school and two grade-school age Native American foster
children
One parent reported that she and her spouse had attempted to open a business, but were
forced to close because of insufficient child care:
“When my second one was 2, we tried to open a business. We wanted to find a [child
care]. We went to [a bilingual early learning center]. I asked them. But they didn’t give
me information at all. They just told me “it’s full. Leave your phone number, and I’ll call
you.” I said OK, but I never heard from them again. They said they have a very long
waiting list, almost 6 months to a year. If I really wanted child care right away, I can’t find
anything. Turns out, when I opened my restaurant I had to bring my kid with me 24 hours
because nobody is going to take care of my baby. After a few months, I still couldn’t find
a [child] care, 9-9 for restaurant hours, no one has hours like that. So, I brought my baby
to San Francisco where my family is, I sent my little one to San Francisco for 6 months.
After that, we just couldn’t stand it anymore, we felt like we were losing our daughter, so
we lost a lot of money, but we gave up our business and I gave up working.” – Parent of
two children ages 4 and 9; Asian/Pacific Islander
79
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Several parents indicated that the hours of operation at most centers are not sufficient to cover
all of their working time, or that they have had to switch jobs or leave the paid workforce
because their work schedule was not compatible with center hours. One expectant mother
discussed how she expects the limited hours at child care centers to affect her career.
“We both work nine-hour shifts, generally, and have commutes. The child care hours,
especially in in-home centers, are more limited. So figuring out how we both need to
adjust our work schedules has definitely been a stressor, and especially for me, thinking
what my job function looks like now, and what it will need to look like when I go back to
work. Like I can’t have the 6 am meetings that I’m used to having now. It really impacts
our commute, for sure, our commute options and whether we can be part of a vanpool or
not. And definitely what my career progression looks like.” – Expectant mother;
white/Caucasian
“But for child care centers, have hours for parents that work different hours or work
shifts! I don’t have that problem right now but if I did that would be what I’d change
because I know other families face this problem.” – Parent of two children ages 7 and
11; white/Caucasian, currently using FFN care
“When I was working, my schedule changed every week. It was difficult to find a
program with the flexibility I needed.” – Stay at home parent of three children ages 5 mo.
to 8 years, Black/African American
“I didn’t like that what I earned I would end up with little left over. I had to leave my kids
for long hours so about half my paycheck would go to the caretaker. So, I spoke to my
husband about changing this situation. I didn’t see the point to working at this part-time
anymore. I did the math and the money that was going to my commute and the
caretaker was not worth it when I could just take care of them myself and not overpay or
pay the caretaker.” – Stay at home parent of three children age 7 to 19 years, who
occasionally sells prepared foods; Hispanic/Latino
2.5.1 Use of Family Caregivers, Informal and Home-Based Care
Parents who said their current care was sufficient to support their work schedule were typically
those who relied on a family member who could watch their child whenever needed. (The
exceptions were two parents who had flexible work schedules; one parent, who remarked that
she was always on time for child care pick-up and drop-off, also noted that working from home
made it easier to balance work and parenting.) As noted earlier, parents receiving care from a
home-based caregiver other than a family member did not typically specify in sessions whether
they were using a licensed family home or other home-based care setting. This is a limitation in
trying to compare these stories to prevalence in using the categories of care as defined in the
survey.
Several participants relied on a relative (typically the child’s grandparent or aunt) as their
primary source of care. These parents generally expressed gratitude that they had not had to
search for formal care, but also apprehension about how they would cope if that caregiver
stopped being available. For some, that was more than just a hypothetical possibility: some
participants had already missed work or school on multiple occasions because their primary
FFN caretaker was unavailable, and they had no back-up care.
80
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
“It affects me a lot when my mom can’t take care of my children and I have to stay home
from work. It affects my earnings since I am the head of the family and the breadwinner.”
– Parent of four children ages 2 to 13, Hispanic/Latino
“I was able to plan my work schedule ahead of time and communicate it with my sister
who is flexible in caring for my children” – Parent of three children ages 1 week to 4
years, Black/African American
“I started looking for child care when I started going to college... I looked for my family’s
support. When my mom started going back to work, I had to miss class because I
couldn't leave [my child] with my mom or sister.” – Parent of one child age 5 mo.,
Hispanic/Latino
“Since my sister watches my kids, I’m able to work full time. But I know she would want a
job if she could have time to work, too.” – Parent of three children ages 5 to 10 years,
Asian/Pacific Islander
2.5.2 Use of Formal Care
Parents who primarily used formal licensed care such as a preschool or licensed care home
faced difficulties when their children were sick. Some parents found that their child care center
had a strict policy regarding when students must be sent home due to illness. Parents had also
faced career consequences from needing to pick up their child for medical reasons, ranging
from the intangible (perceived reputational harm), to concrete loss of wages.
“It affected me a lot because my daughter was a premature baby and child care
providers would call for any little thing that my daughter did. I missed a lot of days of
work when my kids would get sick. They call you to pick up your kids and still receive full
pay of the day.” – Parent of two children ages 6 and 8, Hispanic/Latino; currently not
working because the cost of care
“On the one hand [child care has] made it so I can work, but anything that goes wrong
I’m the person that’s leaving to go deal with it. The policies are hard – this place is more
lenient with coughs, etc. In other situations, the rules with runny noses and coughs have
wasted all my sick time. I couldn’t do my job without child care.” – Parent of two children
ages 3 and 7, white/Caucasian
“Work has been understanding using sick leave to take my son to appointments. But I
feel like they still look at me weird, I’ve been using a lot of sick leave for my son. My job
has a way of making me feel guilty for taking this time off. I only have these notes just in
case they ask me for them. Comments that have been made makes me want to have
proof to take precaution” – Parent of one child age 9, Black/African American; one child
has developmental delays and ADHD
“It definitely disrupts the efficiency of my work. But because my current position is very
flexible, I am able to take my son to his appointments during the day. If I didn't have work
flexibility, child care would be very difficult.” – Parent of two children ages 4 and 9,
white/Caucasian; one child has developmental delays and ADHD
While children getting sick causes stress for most parents, the challenge is even greater for
those whose children have disabilities or on-going medical issues. One parent who has four
children, two with disabilities, said she is unable to work at all given the difficulty of finding care
that is both affordable and able to handle her children’s medical complexities.
81
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
No clear pattern emerged based on number or age of children or parents’ race or ethnicity.
2.6 Greatest Challenges
To conclude the interviews, participants were asked what they thought was the biggest
challenge finding child care that met their needs. Their responses generally echoed the themes
discussed above. The most frequently cited “biggest challenge” was cost and affordability (13
mentions). Four participants described their concerns as below:
“Definitely the cost and availability. I’m definitely seeing the struggle—talking with
families, and even my own ECEAP families—I’m working right now with the Island
County health department—they’re coming to talk to our families because we know
families who have horror stories with in-home care and dangerous situations (walking in
on a caretaker sleeping when they’re supposed to be caring for their children). It’s so
scary that they can’t work if they don’t have child care, so they have to take what they
can get, and sometimes that’s just terrifying.” – Parent of two children, ECEAP employee
“Most child care providers are working with vouchers. But people who can’t get vouchers
don’t have access to ANY affordable care. If you can’t apply for a voucher, your whole
salary has to go to child care.” – Parent of color raising two children, using FFN care
“We can't afford child care, and it doesn't seem fair. Some families qualify for low-income
programs and we do not. But child care still isn't affordable for us.” – Parent of three
children, using informal relative care (not receiving subsidy)
“Overall, I think the cost, honestly. It’s just so exorbitant, and it’s like, we’re not poor-
poor, but we’re also not Bill Gates, so we’ve got to find some kind of happy medium
here, to where we’re not paying everything we make in child care. Basically, we would
be paying for child care and rent, and we’d be lucky to have anything else, and people
can’t live that way! We’re working to live, not living to work. For our family, it’s really
about how do we make things work before losing everything that is our family.” – Parent
of one child, uses ECEAP
Another commonly cited challenge was availability/finding programs that have openings (4
mentions). One participant expressed:
“It seems like overall there’s a shortage of child care. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but
based on everyone having a long waitlist. […] I think also, because of this scarcity that
exists, it creates a lot of pressure both on families and child care providers, with the
creation of these kind of artificial waitlists. I think it’s also an uncertainty for their
businesses, of how many spots do I have filled, really.” - Expectant mother
In addition to cost and availability, several participants mentioned location (3), not knowing
where to look for information (3), and the need for flexible hours and scheduling (2) as other
challenges. One participant describes:
“The biggest challenge in my opinion in finding the right place is where to go to get
started… To find where to go, where to start. You’re always thinking, “Who do I have to
talk to and where do I go?” It’s always the same questions. Finding the right people to
help you. If you don’t have the knowledge of who is going to help, you will always be
going in circles. […] There’s a lot of help and support, but people don’t know they exist.
82
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
When I started the program and got information, I was so surprised at how many
resources are available that we don’t know about.” – Parent of color with four children,
uses center-based care
Lastly, a few participants spoke about challenge of finding quality care (2 participants), while
other participants cited specific factors related to quality care such as finding a place one can
trust (2), finding a program that best fits your family’s needs (2), and safety (1). One participant
who uses FFN care cited consistency as a major challenge since there is not a consistent
person in the family to take of her child.
2.7 Summary
This parent engagement effort provided insight into child care decision-making and accessibility
challenges experienced by families in communities that are often overlooked or
underrepresented in traditional survey research, particularly those who tend to use unregulated
or informal care arrangements.
Parents provided important stories and detail especially about the unaffordability of care and
how the exorbitant cost had impacted their choices in employment and child care. They also
described their predominantly informal/unregulated child care arrangements, and some spoke
explicitly about having inconsistent child care situations as a challenge. Many of the parents we
interviewed described disruptions due to child care issues in their work schedules or
attendance, and many discussed their decisions to cut back on their work or leave the
employment market at least temporarily due to unmanageable child care costs.
The MomsRising team has observed additional cultural context from their experience working
with vulnerable and immigrant communities, shedding more light on reasons why some families
often select unregulated/ FFN care.
Among Latino/a families, child care decisions are influenced by cultural issues such as
concerns their children might be discriminated against by white caretakers, or having
greater trust in family members (it is customary for grandparents to be involved in
helping to raise their grandchildren.
Undocumented families do not qualify for some government programs, and even if their
children do qualify as U.S. citizens, the parents fear not being able to apply for
citizenship in the future due to Public Charge limitations. Note that while documentation
status was not an explicit question in interview sessions, it came up spontaneously in
some parent’s discussion of challenges.
For low-income families, access to child care information for selection and decisions
may be affected by lack of access to technology (home computer, Internet connectivity)
and/or not knowing how to use technology.
Language barriers may play a role: Families may not have access to resource materials
in their own primary language, and center-based programs may be English-speaking
only and/or don’t have staff that speak their language.
83
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
3. State Employee Child Care Survey
3.1 Survey Overview/Methods
To capture concerns and challenges experienced by Washington state employees addressing
child care needs, a State Employee Child Care Survey was administered in November and
December 2019 by the Office of Financial Management (OFM), State Human Resources. The
survey fulfills a 2019 legislative requirement, codified as Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
43.41.800. Key findings are provided below.
The State Employee Child Care Survey was conducted online via SurveyMonkey. The survey
tool was developed through a collaboration between OFM, the Department of Commerce, the
Department of Children, Youth, and Families, and the Health Care Authority. Per state law, the
survey sought to identify the number of children age 12 and under of state employees who were
receiving care from child care or early learning providers in formal or informal settings,
differentiated by type of care. The survey further sought to identify the number of children of
state employees whose care was paid for in whole or in part with state subsidies, and allow
respondents to describe challenges faced in accessing or paying for child care. State law
specified that the survey must ask employees to provide their total annual household income.
The survey was distributed to over 65,000 state executive branch agency employees, and 6,348
responded (representing 9.8% of the total state employee workforce4). The survey was
advertised to employees by their employing agency; individual custom links were not provided.
Those responding were kept anonymous; no individually identifying information was collected
with the survey responses. Survey instructions included text advising that the survey was
voluntary and was intended only for employees with children age 12 or younger. Screening
questions prevented completion of the survey by individuals who indicated they were not
currently employed by a state executive branch agency or did not have children 12 or younger.
3.2 Respondent Demographics
More than half of the employees responding (55.5%) were female; just over a quarter (26.8%)
were male. The majority of respondents (58.6%) were white; additional detail of race/ethnicity is
shown in Table 1. Nearly all responding to the survey (96.3%) were employed full time.
4 The survey went out to all employees of “executive branch cabinet agencies” – 65,118 employees according to WA
OFM 6/30/19 headcount.
84
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Table 8. State Employee Survey: Respondent Demographics
Count % of Total % of Question
Survey Respondents Respondents
Household Type (n=6,348) (n=5,445)
Single parent 993 15.6 18.2
Two parent 4,336 68.3 79.6
Other 116 1.8 2.1
Unknown 903 14.2
Household Size (n=6,348) (n=5,465)
1 or smaller 31 .5 .6
2 369 5.8 6.8
3 1,806 28.4 33.0
4 2,049 32.3 37.5
5 784 12.4 14.3
6 275 4.3 5.0
7 or more 151 2.4 2.8
Unknown 883 13.9
Household Income (n=6,348) (n=5,110)
Under $30,000 81 1.3 1.6
$30,000-$39,999 257 4.0 5.0
$40,000-$49,999 397 6.3 7.8
$50,000-$59,999 523 8.2 10.2
$60,000-$79,999 1,004 15.8 19.6
$80,000-$99,999 939 14.8 18.4
Over $100,000 1,909 30.1 37.4
Decline to 355 5.6
answer
Unknown 883 13.9
Language at home (n=6,348) (n=5,436)
English 4,450 70.1 81.9
Other language 986 15.5 18.1
Unknown 912 14.4
85
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
The majority of respondents lived in households where there are two parents (68.3%). Almost
half of households reported they earned over $80,000 per year (44.9%). About 70% speak
English at home. Most households consisted of 3 or 4 persons (60.6% combined).
Table 9. State Employee Survey: Respondent Household Demographics
Count % of Total Survey % of Question
Respondents Respondents
Gender (n=6,348) (n=5,252)
Female 3,525 55.5 67.1
Male 1,699 26.8 32.3
Non-binary / X 28 .4 .5
Prefer not to say 156 2.5
Unknown 940 14.8
Race/Ethnicity (n=6,348) (n=5,059)
Asian/Pacific 263 4.1 5.2
Islander
Black 176 2.8 3.5
Hispanic 455 7.2 9.0
Native American 38 .6 .8
White 3,717 58.6 73.5
Two or more races 410 6.5 8.1
Unknown 1,289 20.3
Employment (n=6,348) (n=6,285)
Full time 6,115 96.3 97.3
Part time 170 2.7 2.7
Unknown 63 1.0
Respondents provided their county of residence, which was categorized in analysis into regions
as used by Child Care Aware of Washington:
Olympic Peninsula: Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Kitsap, Mason, Thurston
King & Pierce: King, Pierce
Eastern: Asotin, Benton, Columbia, Franklin, Garfield, Lincoln, Pend Oreille, Spokane,
Stevens, Walla Walla, Whitman
Northwest: Island, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Whatcom
Southwest: Clark, Cowlitz, Klickitat, Lewis, Pacific, Skamania, Wahkiakum
Central: Adams, Chelan, Douglas, Ferry, Grant, Kittitas, Okanogan, Yakima
A little less than half (44%) of those responding lived in the Olympic Peninsula region while 21%
lived in King and Pierce Counties, 15% in Eastern Washington, 8% in Northwest Washington,
7% in Southwest Washington, and 5% in the Central Washington region.
86
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
3.3 Children and Child Care Arrangements
The majority (87%) of respondents reported having only 1 or 2 children. Less than one-fourth
(21.9%) of the children reported were under 30 months in age, so a large majority of families
included preschool and school-age children.
Table 10. State Employee Survey: Number of Children by Age
Child Age # of # of Average Children
Respondents* Children per Employee
Under 1 year 796 825 1.1
1 year - 17 months 616 716 1.2
18 - 29 months 777 804 1.0
30 months - 5 years, not in school 1,881 2,067 1.1
5 - 12 years, in school 4,343 6,292 1.4
Total all age groups 6,294 10,704 1.7
* Fifty-four employees did not report number of children by age.
Over a fifth of respondents (21.9%) had at least one child in the infants/toddlers age group:
Under 1 year: 7.7% of respondents
12-17 months: 6.7% of respondents
18-29 months: 7.5% of respondents
Nearly a fifth (19.3% had at least one child of preschool age (30 months – 5 years, not in
school). Over half (58.8%) had at least one child who is school-age.
When asked about the child care arrangements used for their children, the top two responses
included licensed or certified child care centers (35.2%), and unpaid relative, stay-at-home
partner, friend or neighbor (34.7%). The next most frequently used arrangement (used by 28%
of families) is a combination of paid family, friend, or neighbor (20%) and other paid relative
(8%). Seventy-nine (79) respondents said they take advantage of the Infants at Work
opportunity available to State of Washington employees, which represents roughly 10% of the
respondents who reported they had a child under one year of age. Detail is shown in Figure 24.
87
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 24. State Employee Survey: Type of Child Care
When describing when they use child care, most respondents said they use child care year
round (68%). Approximately 11% of respondents selected “I do not use child care” – it is unclear
whether those children are perhaps in informal arrangements that the family does not consider
child care (e.g., unpaid friend, family or neighbor, Infants at Work, other parent/partner).
Figure 25. State Employee Survey: When Child Care Is Used
The amount paid monthly for child care is closely linked to the number of children the employee
has and their children’s ages. The survey asked for the amount paid per month for all children,
so it is unclear how much is paid for each child in a family, and for what ages the cost covers. In
addition, many families reported no payment for child care provided by a spouse/partner, unpaid
care from family members, coverage from subsidy, and others. Many employees also reported
88
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
that their monthly payments varied depending on the time of year. For example, employees
reported paying more per month for their school-aged children during summer.
Table 11. State Employee Survey: Average Monthly Child Care Payment, Including Families that
Do Not Pay for Child Care
n Mean Median SD Min. Max.
All 4,283 $764 $650 $640 $0 $5,000
Race/Ethnicity
Asian/Pacific 181 $881 $850 $636 0 $3,500
Islander
Black 127 $732 $700 $539 0 $2,500
Hispanic a 339 $681 $600 $571 0 $4,000
Native Amer. 26 $790 $500 $731 0 $3,000
White 2,821 $775 $650 $661 0 $5,000
Two or more 299 $754 $600 $669 0 $4,500
races
Region
Central 200 $581 $500 $455 0 $2,500
Eastern 571 $654 $600 $510 0 $3,000
Northwest 317 $859 $750 $689 0 $3,000
Southwest 276 $681 $600 $681 0 $5,000
King and 859 $918 $800 $744 0 $4,000
Pierce
Counties
Olympic 1,766 $757 $650 $613 0 $4,500
Peninsula
As Table 12 shows, the average payment for child care for families who pay any amount is $866
per month for one or more children. Asian and Pacific Islander families pay the most at $967 per
month, and Hispanic families pay the least at $747 per month. White families pay $876 per
month which, like Asian and Pacific Islander families, is more than the state average. Families
living in the King and Pierce Counties region have the highest monthly cost ($1,012), while
families in the Central region pay the least ($656). Families in both the King and Pierce
Counties and Northwest regions pay more than the monthly state average for child care.
89
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Table 12. State Employee Survey: Average Monthly Child Care Payment, for Families Paying for
Child Care
n Mean Median SD Min. Max.
All 3,779 $866 $764 $613 $1 $5,000
Race/Ethnicity
Asian/Pacific 165 $967 $1,000 $601 $90 $3,500
Islander a
Black 116 $801 $700 $512 $30 $2,500
Hispanic 309 $747 $600 $555 $15 $4,000
Native Amer. 24 $856 $650 $723 $100 $3,000
White 2,493 $876 $753 $625 $10 $5,000
Two or more 264 $854 $710 $650 $15 $4,500
races
Region
Central 177 $656 $520 $430 $40 $2,500
Eastern 501 $745 $650 $477 $5 $3,000
Northwest c 271 $1,005 $900 $639 $10 $3,000
Southwest 234 $803 $700 $669 $15 $5,000
King and 779 $1,012 $850 $718 $10 $4,000
Pierce
Counties b
Olympic 1584 $844 $760 $587 $15 $4,500
Peninsula d
a
The difference of the average payments between the highest (Asian/Pacific Islander) and the lowest (Hispanic)
category is statistically significant (p<.05).
b
The differences of the average payments between King/Pierce Counties and Central, Eastern, Olympic Pen.,
Southwest regions are statistically significant (p<.05).
c
The differences of the average payments between Northwest and Central, Eastern, Olympic Pen. regions are
statistically significant (p<.05).
d
The differences of the average payments between Olympic Pen. and Central, Eastern, Northwest, King/Pierce
regions are statistically significant (p<.05).
In order to understand the monthly cost of child care broken down by the number of children in
the family and the child’s age, it is important to keep in mind that the survey asked monthly cost
for child care for all of the family’s children in one lump sum. To examine this further, the
amount paid was cross-referenced during analysis with the numbers of children in the family
and the ages of those children (i.e., family having at least one child in the age group), shown in
Table 13. Therefore, while families with a toddler pay the most for child care monthly ($1,115)
that might be because the family also has an infant or older child. It does not necessarily mean
that child care costs for a toddler alone are higher than the cost of care for an infant. Without
reporting of costs separately by individual child, this information should be interpreted with
caution.
The average monthly payment increases with the number of children in the family until there are
5 or more children. It may be assumed that families with 5 or more children include at least 1
school-age child which would potentially reduce the amount they pay overall.
90
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Table 13. State Employee Survey: Average Monthly Child Care Payment by Number and Ages of
Children
Average
Monthly
Payment
Number of children in the household
1 child a $613
2 children $921
3 - 4 children $1,009
5+ children $835
Children’s Age
Under 1 $1,042
1 year - 17 months $976
18 - 29 months $1,115
30 months - 5 years, not in school $1,020
5 - 12 years, in school $673
a
Statistically significant differences are found between 1 child families and 2 children, 3-4 children families.
Almost all families (95%) pay for their child care completely out of pocket without any
assistance. Only a few state employees reported they used the various child care assistance
programs to pay for child care (subsidies, scholarships, and other financial assistance),
although as seen in the previous tables, many employees may use unpaid or free child care.
3.4 Child Care Needs and Preferences
Employees were asked to select what characteristics they look for in a child care program.
(Note, only inherent aspects of the program itself were presented in this question; this did not
include other selection factors such as cost or location). Employees were asked to select all
applicable responses, but these were not broken down by child. The number one thing families
look for in a program is one that promotes positive child and youth development (88%). This is
followed closely by programs offering educational activities (84%) and physical activity (81%).
91
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 26. State Employee Survey: Preferred Child Care Program Characteristics
*Respondents provided “Other” explanations in open-ended comments; described in separate report
Families were asked how easy it is to find and keep child care; the responses were tabulated
with the responses to the family’s preferred child care characteristics (see Table 14). Families
finding it easy or very easy in finding and keeping child care (14%) were most interested in
programs offering positive child and youth development and educational activities. Families that
found it difficult or very difficult to find and keep child care (59.6%) were also looking for positive
child care youth development and educational activities.
Table 14. State Employee Survey: Ease Finding Child Care with Preferred Characteristics
Ease finding
child care
Preferred Child Care Characteristics Easy Neither Difficult
(n=616) (n=1,168) (n=2,632)
Educational activities 82% 83% 85%
Positive child and youth development 88% 87% 89%
Learn and play 79% 78% 80%
Activities to keep child busy 62% 65% 64%
Physical activity 79% 83% 81%
Arts and crafts 69% 69% 68%
Homework help 34% 37% 38%
Other 14% 11% 16%
3.5 Employment Challenges/Impact and Barriers Related to Child Care
Employees were asked whether they have had to miss work or if they have been late to work in
the last six months due to child care issues. Only 20% of employees reported never (0 days)
missing work; in other words, 80% of respondents said they had missed work at least once in
92
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
the last six months due to child care issues. Almost half (46%) of the employees reported
missing or arriving to work late three or more days in the last six months. In addition, just 23%
were never (0 days) late due to issues with their child care, that is, 77% were late at least once
in the last six months due to child care issues, and nearly half (49%) were late because of child
care issues at least 3 or more days in that time period.
Figure 27. State Employee Survey: Work Affected by Child Care Issues
Age of children appeared to play a role in missing work or lateness due to child care issues (see
Table 15). Families with at least one school-age child were the least likely to miss more than a
week of work due to child care issues. Families with at least one older infant (12 – 17 months)
were the most likely to miss work or run late. Families with young infants and/or school-age
children were least likely to miss work or run late due to child care issues.
93
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Table 15. State Employee Survey: Work Affected by Child Care Issues, by Child Ages
Child Age
30 months to
5 years
1 year to 17 18 to 29 (not in 5 through 12
Under 1 year months months school) years
# Work Days Missed Due to Child Care Issues
n 573 472 622 1,565 3,276
0 Days 20% 13% 18% 16% 21%
1-2 Days 29% 27% 27% 31% 34%
3-5 Days 25% 32% 32% 30% 27%
5+ Days 27% 28% 23% 22% 18%
# Days Late for Work Due to Child Care Issues
n 573 475 620 1,570 3,275
0 Days 25% 19% 22% 21% 24%
1-2 Days 23% 28% 24% 27% 28%
3-5 Days 23% 27% 25% 24% 23%
5+ Days 28% 26% 30% 27% 25%
Demographic factors are associated with respondents’ reports of how easy it is to find child
care. Respondents were asked to rate how easy it is for them to find and keep child care.
Almost 60% find it difficult or very difficult to find and keep child care. Finding care is difficult for
over half of respondents in all ethnic groups. Native American respondents reported the most
difficulties finding and keeping child care. White respondents were least likely to say it was
difficult; yet, over half (58%) of white families said finding care was difficult.
Figure 28. State Employee Survey: Ease in Finding and Keeping Child Care by Race/Ethnicity
94
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
As shown in Table 16, families who don’t speak English at home have more difficulty finding and
keeping child care, as do families earning less than $50,000 per year, Native American families,
and families in the Southwest and Central regions.
Families earning over $100,000 have it easier although have still report some difficulty finding
and keeping child care. Black and Hispanic families have an easier time than families of other
races/ethnicities but over 60% of these families still have difficulty. Families in the Central region
have less difficulty finding and keeping child care than families in other regions of the state.
Table 16. State Employee Survey: Ease in Finding and Keeping Child Care by Family
Demographics and Region
Ease in finding child care n Easy Neither Difficult
Language a
Speak English at home 3,647 15% 27% 59%
Speak other language at home 790 12% 25% 63%
Income b
Under $30,000 63 10% 21% 70%
$30,000-$39,999 211 10% 21% 68%
$40,000-$49,999 308 9% 22% 68%
$50,000-$59,999 424 9% 25% 66%
$60,000-$79,999 781 12% 25% 64%
$80,000-$99,999 758 13% 25% 62%
Over $100,000 1,626 20% 29% 51%
Race/Ethnicity a
Asian/Pacific Islander 204 13% 25% 62%
Black 147 10% 28% 62%
Hispanic 376 12% 26% 61%
Native American 28 14% 18% 68%
White 3,059 15% 27% 58%
Two or more races 321 15% 22% 63%
Region b
Central 214 9% 24% 67%
Eastern 617 13% 26% 61%
Northwest 310 13% 24% 64%
Southwest 343 11% 21% 68%
King and Pierce Counties 956 13% 28% 59%
Olympic Peninsula 1,922 17% 27% 56%
a
Group differences were not statistically significant.
b
Group differences were not statistically significant, p<.01.
95
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Employees were asked how their job had been affected due to issues accessing child care.
They were able to select more than one response. Three-fourths (75%) of parents responding
have used a flexible work schedule (e.g., compressed work week, nonstandard hours) due to
issues accessing child care, and 40% have been able to telework. Less commonly, employees
reported other possibly more negative impacts, included turning down a job or promotion
(reported by 34%), having left a job (17%), and reducing their work hours from full time to part
time (13%).
Figure 29. State Employee Survey: Changes Made at Work Due to Child Care Issues
One-fourth (25%) of respondents who were single parents reported they had left a job and
nearly half (45%) reported they had turned down a job or promotion because of issues
accessing child care. Employees in two-parent households were more likely to telework and use
a flexible work schedule.
Respondents in households earning less than $50,000 were less likely than those at higher
income levels to telework or use a flexible work schedule. These parents were also more likely
to report having left a job, turned down a job or promotion, or reduced their hours to part time.
Respondents in households earning over $80,000 were the most likely to telework or use a
flexible work schedule and the least likely to report having left a job, turned down a job or
promotion, or reduced their hours to part time.
White and Asian/Pacific Islander parents were more likely than other race/ethnic groups to use
a flexible work schedule and telework, and least likely to report having left a job. Black,
Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN), and multi-racial parents were more likely than
other groups to report having left a job, turned down a job or promotion, or reduced their hours
to part time (although AIAN parents are less likely than the others to report having reduced their
hours).
Parents in the Southwest region were less likely than those in other regions to report having left
a job or turned down a job or promotion. Those in the Central region were least likely to report
having reduced their hours and most likely to telework or use a flexible schedule. Parents in the
Olympic Peninsula region were less likely to report having left a job, turned down a job or
96
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
promotion, or reduced their hours, and the most likely to telework or use a flexible work
schedule.
Table 17. State Employee Survey: Changes Made at Work Due to Child Care Issues, by Family
Demographics and Region
Reduced from Turned down Used a
Left a full time to part a job or flexible work
Count (n) Job time promotion Teleworked schedule
Family Type b a b b b
Single parent 686 25% 16% 45% 26% 71%
Two parents 2,798 15% 12% 31% 43% 77%
Income b b b b b
Under $30,000 54 41% 43% 48% 7% 54%
$30,000-$39,999 168 33% 26% 49% 11% 67%
$40,000-$49,999 233 27% 16% 55% 17% 66%
$50,000-$59,999 315 22% 13% 42% 21% 70%
$60,000-$79,999 625 19% 12% 38% 35% 72%
$80,000-$99,999 610 14% 10% 32% 37% 79%
Over $100,000 1,325 10% 11% 26% 58% 81%
Race/Ethnicity b a b b b
Asian/Pacific Islander 175 14% 17% 31% 46% 77%
Black/African 129 22% 14% 48% 26% 70%
American
Hispanic/Latino/a 300 22% 14% 36% 29% 69%
American 23 22% 4% 57% 35% 61%
Indian/Alaska Native
White/Caucasian 2,406 15% 13% 32% 42% 78%
Two or more races 272 23% 14% 40% 42% 70%
Region b a b b b
Central 165 22% 12% 36% 24% 76%
Eastern 443 20% 14% 41% 24% 70%
Northwest 267 18% 16% 42% 30% 71%
Southwest 255 15% 14% 33% 34% 77%
King and Pierce 822 19% 14% 36% 40% 74%
Counties
Olympic Peninsula 1,540 14% 12% 31% 50% 79%
a
Group differences were not statistically significant.
b
Group differences were not statistically significant, p<.05.
97
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Employees were asked to select all problems they had experienced finding child care. The
majority of families, regardless of their family type, income, race/ethnicity, or location say that
available care is too expensive.
Figure 30. State Employee Survey: Challenges Finding Child Care
Single parents, respondents in households earning under $60,000, Black and American
Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) respondents, and respondents in the Northwest region reported the
high cost of care as a problem more frequently than other family types.
Finding care that can accommodate the family’s work hours is also a problem for many families.
In particular, single parents, respondents in households earning under $60,000, multi-racial
respondents, and respondents in the Eastern and King and Pierce Counties regions report this
as a problem.
The availability of care near home or work, and facilities that accept state child care subsidies
are least likely to be reported problems for families, although single parent households and
families earning less than $40,000 find these to be problematic.
98
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Table 18. State Employee Survey: Challenges Finding Child Care by Family Demographics and
Region
There
are no
Available open The facilities
care is Available Available care slots in The child near me do
too far care is does not care that care near not accept
from my too accommodate is near me is not state child
Coun home or expensiv my work my home of good care
t (n) work e hours or work quality subsidies
Family Type a b a b a b
Single
parent 813 25% 88% 48% 42% 31% 8%
Two parents 3,183 27% 81% 43% 45% 33% 4%
Income a b b a a b
Under $30,000 61 36% 90% 66% 49% 34% 13%
$30,000-
$39,999 198 31% 91% 48% 40% 35% 17%
$40,000-
$49,999 302 23% 95% 45% 43% 30% 7%
$50,000-
$59,999 400 26% 90% 45% 40% 33% 6%
$60,000-
$79,999 746 24% 87% 42% 43% 31% 4%
$80,000-
$99,999 703 26% 85% 44% 47% 33% 3%
$100,000+ 1,417 27% 74% 43% 46% 33% 2%
Race/Ethnicity a b a b a a
Asian/Pacific
Islander 190 23% 88% 40% 30% 33% 4%
Black 133 29% 92% 41% 36% 34% 7%
Hispanic 347 21% 84% 41% 36% 27% 5%
Native
American 27 30% 93% 44% 37% 22% 4%
White 2,797 27% 82% 44% 46% 33% 4%
Two or more
races 301 24% 82% 47% 46% 34% 5%
Region a a b a a a
Central 198 25% 83% 40% 47% 30% 4%
Eastern 572 27% 83% 52% 44% 31% 4%
Northwest 326 25% 87% 45% 45% 32% 5%
Southwest 288 27% 84% 38% 47% 34% 5%
King &Pierce
Counties 885 27% 85% 48% 41% 31% 5%
Olympic
Peninsula 1737 26% 81% 41% 46% 35% 5%
a
Group differences were not statistically significant.
b
Group differences were not statistically significant, p<.05.
99
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Families were also able to enter their own responses (open text) for problems with finding and
keeping child care. These responses were then coded into categories of themes. The
responses had a similar theme: by far, the most common theme was that the affordability and
availability of quality child care is a challenge for them.
Table 19. State Employee Survey: Challenges Reported by Respondents (Coded Open Responses)
%
Count (Total n = 400)
Cost/expense 286 72%
Availability/Openings 80 20%
Hours of care 63 16%
Quality 44 11%
Type of care 37 9%
Location/Proximity to home/Work 28 7%
Backup care 24 6%
Transportation 18 5%
Flexibility 16 4%
Special needs 13 3%
Table 20. State Employee Survey: Challenges Reported by Respondents -- Examples of Open Text
Responses
Responses Related to Each Challenge
Cost/expense It is very hard to find quality child care with availability, particularly for
Availability/Openings infants, and many options are prohibitively expensive.
It is extremely difficult to obtain a safe, educational environment (let alone
the cost) - the wait lists for all child care centers in our area are one or
more year in advance.
Most facilities in my area are too expensive and do not have enough
space, so my options are limited.
The biggest challenge is finding a local provider who has openings and
also the cost associated with these providers is becoming astronomical.
The before and after school care program at our school usually has a
waitlist. My husband is a teacher, and his schedule changes every quarter,
and we don't know how much child care we will need from quarter to
quarter. At times, we have had to pay for more than we actually needed
just so we don't lose our space in the program.
I was on a waitlist for 10 months before my child was able to get into [child]
care. I have extreme difficulty paying the monthly tuition of $1,300. I
previously had grandparents watch my child, but they were often ill which
caused me to miss work frequently. We chose to enroll in full time child
care for reliability. However, this has been a huge financial burden causing
us to have to make payment arrangements and cut back on other
household spending items.
We only need child care intermittently, so it is difficult to arrange and keep
regular providers. Summer camps are expensive.
Hours of care Very hard to find part time care providers; time for preschools are difficult
to coordinate with working parents’ schedule
100
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Quality Child care is very expensive. My daughter is not in [child] care but if I were
to put her into [child] care it would cost as much as our rent. Also, my
workday with commute (12 hrs) is longer than most [child] cares are open.
Thus, we pay friends/family but do not get the same educational and social
benefits of [child] care.
Type of care Finding preschool programs that are longer than a couple of hours,
insufficient preschool curricula at [child] care and I think the teacher-child
ratio is too high at [child] cares so I use a nanny instead.
I couldn't find state-covered child care and when I had to use a private
agency, the state only reimbursed a portion of the child care costs.
Location/Proximity Child care hours are generally very close to my working hours. I have
to home/Work found a quality in-home child care that I like, but have to travel every day
to get there, 45 extra minutes. It makes it difficult to have flexibility at work
(such as staying a little longer to get something done).
Backup care I'm lucky my child is school-aged and I have relatives that work from home
for mornings. Even with that I had to change my work schedule because I
don't have morning care for him and if there is a required morning meeting;
I need at least a month notice. It is difficult with schedules, my schedules,
relative schedules and when there is holidays (weeks out of school) or
earlier release I'm scrambling. Also finding a clean, safe (no CPS referrals
or Licensing referrals) and within my affordable range is very difficult.
Transportation It was hard finding before and after school child care that would transport
my son to school in the Olympia school district.
Flexibility My spouse and I currently pay more out-of-pocket for child care than we
do for rent. Additionally, since my wife has an alternative work schedule,
we do not require full-time child care although we still have to pay for it due
to limited providers willing to accommodate a part-time schedule. I am
unable to work a flexed schedule or participate in overtime needs for my
office due to our current provider closing soon after my regular hours end.
If my wife needs to work overtime, occasionally, I will bring my child to
work with me between the hours of 0600-0700 until our child care provider
opens.
Special needs My child has special needs and it is hard to find a welcoming program that
is also equipped with knowledgeable staff
Child care is almost one entire paycheck per month, my child has medical,
developmental, and a specialized diet making it challenging to find more
affordable child care that can meet her needs
My child has ADHD and isn't always able to be cared for at these facilities
as they are not always qualified to meet the child’s needs and call parent
to pick up earlier than the time.
3.6 Summary of State Employee Survey Findings
The Washington state employees experience many of the same challenges in accessing child
care as do the rest of the state’s working parents. Over half (59%) of state employees said that
finding care was difficult, with some variations by race/ethnicity and income. Among the top
challenges cited by Washington state employee parents were that care was too expensive,
there are limited openings and that the care that is available does not accommodate working
hours. Less-frequently mentioned concerns were that the care near them was not of good
quality or was too far away from home or work.
101
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
The majority of employees responding, regardless of their family type, income, race/ethnicity, or
location say that available care is too expensive, particularly noted by single parents, lower-
income families Black and Native American families, and families in the Northwest region.
Finding care that can accommodate work hours is also a problem particularly for single parents,
lower-income families, multi-racial families, and those in the Eastern and King and Pierce
Counties regions.
State employee parents also noted changes they have made in their working arrangements or
employment due to child care issues. Three-fourths (75%) of families responding have used a
flexible work schedule (e.g., compressed work week, nonstandard hours) due to issues
accessing child care. Forty percent (40%) have been able to telework, thirty-four percent (34%)
have turned down a job or promotion, seventeen percent (17%) have left a job, and thirteen
percent (13%) have reduced their work hours from full time to part time.
Issues with disruptions to child care have a clear impact on state employees’ attendance and
productivity. A majority of these parents (80%) said they had missed work at least once in the
last six months due to child care issues. Almost half of the employees reported missing or
arriving to work late three or more days in the last six months. In addition, over three quarters
(77%) were late at least once in the last six months due to child care issues, and nearly half
(49%) were late because of child care issues at least 3 or more days in that time period. These
findings suggest that access to child care for the state employee workforce has an impact on
the Washington state workplace.
4. Implications of Parents’ Perspectives
These three sources of parents’ reports of child care choices, needs and challenges were
carried out with different populations (state executive branch employees, state general
population, targeted underrepresented communities) and by different methods (online surveys,
interviews). Even between the two survey efforts, the survey instruments were different and
therefore the two datasets are not directly comparable. It is particularly important that the
patterns of use of care were not gathered by the same methods, and the findings of any one
effort should not be used to compare or discount the findings of the other studies.
However, several cross-cutting themes appear when considering these parent perspectives on
child care accessibility.
Parents show a strong preference for family caregivers and home-based care, at least among
the statewide parent survey and the parent interview sessions. State employee parents using
non-parental care were equally likely to use a center-based arrangement as a friend/family
member or other home-based setting. Parents in all three studies reported relying on multiple
care arrangements, and parents in engagement sessions spoke in particular detail about how
they have put together these various arrangements in response to the need for flexible care that
is affordable and accommodates non-traditional working hours. The parent interviews,
combined with MomsRising’s perspective on the voices of vulnerable communities, illuminate
the importance of trust and cultural fit in selecting the family environment of home care.
In all three efforts, parents reported cost and availability of care as major concerns. Parents in
interviews provided testimonies of the need for family supports and publicly funded child care
102
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
subsidy or programs to help them remain in the workforce. Many spoke of having left their jobs
at least temporarily because the cost of child care would eat up their earnings.
Likewise, parents reported from multiple angles the negative impacts on their jobs, whether on a
day-to-day basis, or for their employment choices, from experiencing disruptions to child care. In
both the statewide parent survey and the state employee survey, a substantial portion of
respondents reported missing days of work, being late to work, turning down a job or promotion,
or feeling that child care was a barrier to returning to employment. Parents in engagement
sessions likewise provided their own stories of these impacts on their work and their
employment choices. In a later section of this report, the economic impact analysis leverages
the statewide parent survey data on employment impacts to develop a model to measure the
fiscal impact of inaccessibility of care.
Much of this information was gathered as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic had recently
caused a new shutdown of workplaces, public gathering places, schools and child care facilities.
As the state employee survey was conducted pre-pandemic, and the parent survey and
engagement sessions generally asked about typical arrangements or conditions in the previous
year, findings can cautiously be considered a “pre-pandemic” snapshot. The long-term impact of
these changes, both for availability of care and for parents’ employment prospects is not yet
known. Future analysis will be important to understand not only the new normal in supply of
care, but parents’ own comfort level and ability to find care that supports their employment and
family’s needs.
103
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
VI. Supply and Demand for Child Care in Washington
1. Overview of Supply and Demand Analysis
The assessment included an extensive analysis of the supply and demand for child care
services for children from birth through age four. The analysis primarily focused on the supply of
care in the formal, regulated child care market in Washington, including licensed child care
centers, licensed family child care homes and licensed school-age-only child care providers.
The analysis also included Head Start, Early Head Start, Migrant and Seasonal Head Start,
American Indian and Alaska Native Head Start and Early Childhood Education and Assistance
Program (ECEAP) sites. Further, the analysis estimated the demand for and supply of informal
care that is provided outside of the regulated market for child care.
Centers and family child care homes are analyzed in great depth, since they are the largest
market and primarily supply care for nearby families and are not constrained by administrative
boundaries. By contrast, much of the school age child care is provided at a child’s school and
draws from only the students residing in the local school district. For this sector, capacity is
compared to enrollment within the school district. Finally, informal market care is not studied in
the same way that center- and home-based care is analyzed, since these providers are typically
registering only so that they can provide care for a relative or close friend. That is, this capacity
is not competitive, or generally available, in the same way as the capacity of licensed child care.
Determining demand for child care can be a tricky endeavor, and one that rests on assumptions
of varying reliability. The estimated demand for child care is a function – among other factors –
of population demographics, economic mobility, macroeconomic conditions, and, in the unique
present case, public health threats. While some have used American Community Survey
estimates of the population of young children with working parents, these data come with large
margins of error, especially at smaller geographic units like census tracts or block groups. For
this reason, this study uses the population of families with at least one child under the age of
five as the potential demand. Obviously, not all families need or will choose to use licensed child
care, but this approach allows for minimal error to be introduced from census estimates.
According to recent census data, there are approximately 336,000 families in Washington with
at least one child under five. Since many families have more than one young child, the
population of children in this age group number about 459,000. The number of children aged 5
through 12 is approximately 658,000. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). By simply dividing the
capacity of licensed programs by the population they are built to serve, we get the following
information:
Licensed child care capacity for center- and home-based child care providers is 41% of
the population under the age of five.
Licensed school age care capacity is about 5% of the population of children aged 5
through 12.
104
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
2. Summary of Methodology
There are two methodologies employed for this supply and demand analysis: a distance-based
approach for the center- and home-based child care providers; and an area-based approach
school age child care programs. A more detailed version of this methodology is described in
Appendix E.
The distance-based approach was developed by economists at the University of Minnesota and
published in the peer-reviewed journal Early Childhood Research Quarterly (Davis, Lee &
Sojourner, 2019). In summary, this approach uses a two-step calculation to estimate the supply
within a 20-minute drive of a given family’s location, giving greater weight to capacity closer to
home and adjusting for the nearby density of families with young children as a proxy for
potential demand. A step-by-step discussion of the methodology can be found in Appendix E.
Of course, the location of all families with young children is not public knowledge, so this
approach requires the analyst to generate synthetic family locations, referred to herein as a
“simulated family locations.” These are place where, based on the probabilities determined by
census data, one would likely find more or fewer families with a child under five. The simulated
families are placed within census blocks and assigned a race and income category that
corresponds to the joint probability of family characteristics outlined by robust census data.
These simulated family locations are then analyzed in the context of nearby child care
providers, their capacity, and the nearby population that would compete for the licensed
capacity.
The resulting metric, sometimes referred to in the academic literature as “adjusted supply,” or
“demand-adjusted supply” is sometimes difficult to put into words, despite being an excellent
statistic for understanding relative child care supply that accounts for demand. The number is
usually between zero and one; in an example statistic of 0.35, this could be expressed as:
“The combined capacity of the licensed providers near this family is equal to
approximately 35% of the nearby population of children under five.”
The area-based approach used for school-aged child care is simply the sum of capacity of care
available within each geographic area. For school aged child care, that area is the school
district, or local education agency (LEA). The school aged care capacity is presented as a
proportion of the enrollment by children aged five through12.
The analysis may underestimate the total supply of school-age care, because it only analyzes
data on licensed school-age-only programs and does not count the portion of capacity that is
used for school-age child care in programs that are licensed to serve multiple age groups.
Conversely, the analysis of the supply of programs serving younger children may overstate the
capacity that is used for children birth to age five.
This section includes multiple tables, graphics and maps that were designed to transform data
into insights that early childhood policymakers and key stakeholders can use in multiple ways to
inform critical state and local policy decisions. In addition to these snapshots, an online Child
Care Industry Insights Dashboard provides policymakers and stakeholders with the ability to
explore the data on their own or as a team, to generate visualizations of access to child care at
different geographic levels and to see how access varies across different income levels, race
and ethnicity, and preferred type of care.
105
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
3. Supply and Demand for Child Care for Young Children
3.1 Overview of Supply of Programs Serving Young Children
This analysis focuses on the supply of care in the regulated child care market in Washington. It
includes 5,611 child care providers that have the capacity to care for 185,867 children in
settings that are either licensed by DCYF or those that are publicly funded that legally operate
without a license. This includes 2,481 center-based providers (1,759 licensed child care centers
and 722 publicly funded Head Start and ECEAP sites) with the capacity to serve 154,464
children (125,537 children in licensed child care centers and 28,927 children in publicly funded
Head Start and ECEAP sites). It also includes 3,130 licensed family child care homes with the
capacity to serve 31,403 children (Department of Children Youth and Families, 2020). Figure 31
illustrates how the capacity is divided across child care centers and family child care homes.
The supply and demand for school age child care is discussed in a subsequent section.
Figure 31. Supply of Care for Children Birth to Age Five in Formal Child Care Market
This part of the analysis does not include providers in the informal child care market, such as
care provided by friends, families or neighbors, au pairs or nannies. In the point-in-time dataset
provided by the Washington Department of Children, Youth, and Family Services, there were
more than 2,000 “family, friend, and neighbor” (FFN) child care providers who were caring for
children receiving DCYF child care subsidies, typically caring for one or two children in either
their home or the home of the child. According to the Department, in past years there have been
as many as 6,000 FFN providers over the course of a full year. An estimate of the total supply of
care in the informal market is provided in a subsequent section of this report.
3.2 Demographic Characteristics of Families with Young Children
The process for generating simulated family locations for this study is intended to assign
realistic demographic characteristics so that the overall sample is reflective of the actual
population of the 336,000 families with young children in Washington. The demographic
breakdowns at the statewide level of the simulated sample are illustrated in Figures 32, 33 and
34 below.
106
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 32. Incomes of Families with Children Birth to Age Five
Figure 33. Race and Ethnicity of Families with Children Birth to Age Five
107
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 34. Urbanicity of Families with Children Birth to Age Five
3.3 Supply and Demand for Child Care for Families with Young Children
To examine the level of access that families with children birth to age five have to child care, the
analysis used a distance-based methodology to determine the percentage of potential demand
for child care that nearby providers, within a 20-minute drive time, could meet. The areas shown
in purple in Figure 35 are able to meet a higher percentage of potential demand than the areas
shown in orange, which indicate potential child care deserts. Across the state, the capacity of
providers located within a 20-minute drive time can only meet 37% of the potential demand of
nearby families. The level of access varies for a low of 18% in Garfield County to a high of 86%
in San Juan County. The level of access for each county is detailed further in Table F.1 in
Appendix F and can also be explored in more detail in the Child Care Industry Insights
Dashboard.
108
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 35. Families Living in Child Care Deserts Statewide
109
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
For stakeholders who are interested in looking at how access varies within specific counties, the
Child Care Industry Insights Dashboard provides visualizations of access for each county. As an
example, Figure 36 illustrates that the analysis found child care deserts in pockets within the
most densely populated urban areas of King County, and to a greater extent, in areas located in
suburban areas of Seattle. For families living in King County, providers located within a 20-
minute drive time can only meet 51% of the potential demand of nearby families. Out of
approximately 100,000 families with young children in King County, as illustrated in Table 21,
about 20,000 (20%) live in child care deserts (where there more the capacity is capable of
serving only 30% of potential children) with an inadequate supply of child care.
Figure 36. Families Living in Child Care Deserts – King County
In Spokane County, as illustrated in Figure 37, the analysis found that child care deserts were
generally located in suburban and rural areas. For families living in Spokane County, providers
located within a 20-minute drive time can only meet 42% of the potential demand of nearby
families. Out of approximately 23,000 families with young children in Spokane County, as
illustrated in Table 21, about 6,900 (30%) live in child care deserts with an inadequate supply of
access.
110
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 37. Families Living in Child Care Deserts – Spokane County
The analysis also examined how access to child care varies by family income, race and
ethnicity. As illustrated in Figure 38, on average, white families have the lowest levels of child
care capacity nearby. Families at or below the federal poverty level tend to have the highest
levels of child care capacity nearby compared to families with incomes between 200% and
500% of the federal poverty level that have the lowest levels of access. The Child Care Industry
Insights Dashboard provides detailed visualizations of how access varies by family, income,
race and ethnicity for each county.
111
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 38. How Family Access Varies by Income, Race and Ethnicity Statewide
The analysis also examined the percentage of families in each county that live in child care
deserts. On average, as illustrated in Table 21, approximately 118,000 families (35%) with
young children across the state live in a child care desert where they have an inadequate supply
of child care. When examined at the county level, as illustrated in Table 21 and in Figure 39,
there are 15 counties in which 50% or more of families live in a child care desert.
112
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Table 21. Number of Families in Child Care Deserts and Estimated Capacity Needed by County
Estimated Estimated Estimated
Families with Percent with
Additional Center Family Child
County Families Inadequate Inadequate
Capacity Capacity Care Capacity
Supply Supply
Needed Needed Needed
Adams 1,364 500 37% 200 160 40
Asotin 688 48 7% 20 20 -
Benton 10,232 5,716 56% 2,340 1,870 470
Chelan 2,992 772 26% 320 250 60
Clallam 2,636 900 34% 370 300 70
Clark 21,236 7,892 37% 3,240 2,590 650
Columbia 96 92 96% 40 30 10
Cowlitz 4,608 1,568 34% 640 510 130
Douglas 2,084 584 28% 240 190 50
Ferry 232 196 84% 80 60 20
Franklin 5,096 2,788 55% 1,140 910 230
Garfield 100 100 100% 40 30 10
Grant 5,360 1,564 29% 640 510 130
Grays
2,512 732 29% 300 240 60
Harbor
Island 3,628 1,780 49% 730 580 150
Jefferson 716 520 73% 210 170 40
King 100,344 19,884 20% 8,150 6,520 1,630
Kitsap 11,884 6,180 52% 2,530 2,030 510
Kittitas 1,828 580 32% 240 190 50
Klickitat 696 380 55% 160 120 30
Lewis 3,228 1,612 50% 660 530 130
Lincoln 348 212 61% 90 70 20
Mason 2,228 1,052 47% 430 350 90
Okanogan 1,964 768 39% 310 250 60
Pacific 632 276 44% 110 90 20
Pend
440 248 56% 100 80 20
Oreille
Pierce 41,536 21,812 53% 8,940 7,150 1,790
San Juan 468 204 44% 80 70 20
Skagit 5,800 2,824 49% 1,160 930 230
Skamania 352 160 45% 70 50 10
Snohomish 36,360 14,300 39% 5,860 4,690 1,170
Spokane 23,028 6,864 30% 2,810 2,250 560
Stevens 1,528 1,148 75% 470 380 90
Thurston 13,144 4,732 36% 1,940 1,550 390
Wahkiakum 156 84 54% 30 30 10
Walla Walla 2,380 432 18% 180 140 40
Whatcom 8,460 4,648 55% 1,910 1,520 380
Whitman 1,248 352 28% 140 120 30
Yakima 14,944 3,380 23% 1,390 1,110 280
Total 336,576 117,884 35% 48,310 38,640 9,680
113
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
In order to eliminate the child care deserts in every county, Washington would need expand
capacity to serve an estimated 48,310 additional children, as illustrated in Table 21. The
117,884 families that live in areas with inadequate child care supply have an estimated 161,000
children across the state. To estimate the additional capacity needed to serve those children,
the analysis used the preferences for child care arrangements derived from the parent survey
conducted as part of this study. Approximately 30% of parents indicate that they prefer some
type of care in the regulated market, such as a licensed child care program, a child care center
or a program located in a school. After reviewing survey questions on both current child care
arrangements and child care preferences, it was assumed that 24% of parents would prefer
child care centers and 6% would prefer family child care homes. These estimates were then
used to estimate the total additional child care capacity needed for parents who may be using
other types of care, but would prefer care in the regulated market. The results of the analysis
are broken out by county in Table 21, which shows that the child care industry would need the
capacity to serve 38,640 additional children from birth to age five in child care centers and 9,680
children in family child care homes to eliminate the child care deserts and meet the child care
provider preferences of parents.
Figure 39. Percentage of Families Living in Child Care Deserts by County
The Child Care Industry Insights Dashboard can provide a tool to support Washington in
identifying areas in which additional investments may be needed in order to expand existing
child care capacity to meet family demand and reduce child care deserts. As shown in Table 21,
about 118,000 families with 161,000 children birth to age five live in areas considered child care
deserts. The counties that were found to have the largest numbers of children living in child care
deserts can be compared to the needs identified in previous capacity studies to inform target
114
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
areas and strategies for expanding access (Department of Children Youth and Families, 2019;
Washington State Department of Early Learning, 2016).
In addition to facing access barriers that are related to capacity, families may also face barriers
related to affordability that may alter the child care decisions that they make. Examining the
proportion of income that families would have to expend for various types of care can provide
insights into the challenges that they face in finding affordable care options that fit within their
family budgets. When formal child care costs exceed affordability, parents may be left to consider
alternative arrangements in the informal child care market.
According to the Census Bureau, the median family income of a married couple with children
under 18 in Washington ranges from a high of approximately $140,000 in King County to a
low of approximately $61,000 in Okanogan County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018).Based on the
2018 Child Care Market Rate Survey, the median price of full-time care in a center ranges
from a high of about $19,000 for infant care and $15,000 for preschool per year in King
County to a low of about $9,500 for infant care and $8,200 for preschool in multiple counties
that are mostly rural. The median price of full-time care in a family child care home ranges
from a high of about $14,500 for infant care and $12,000 for preschool per year in King
County to a low of about $9,200 for infant care and $7,400 for preschool in multiple counties
that are mostly rural.
To illustrate the affordability of care across different counties, Tables 22 and 23 show the
portion of income that a family at the median income level would have to pay for full-time
infant care and full-time preschool care at the median market price in center and family child
care settings. More detailed data on child care prices and family incomes are located in
Tables F.4 and F.5 in Appendix F. The maps in Figures 40 through 43 show how affordability
varies by county.
Affordability is the greatest challenge for center-based care for two-parent families in Island,
San Juan and Skagit counties, where families would need to spend 20% or more of their
income to purchase full-time care for one infant and 14% to 15% of income for full-time care
for one child of preschool age at the median market price. Family home child care is
somewhat less expensive statewide, with affordability the most challenging in Columbia,
Ferry, Island, Okanogan and San Juan counties where families at the median income level
would need to spend 15% to 17% of income to purchase full-time care for one infant at the
median market price and 11% to 14% for one child of preschool age. Families that have an
infant and a child of preschool age in the least affordable counties could spend as much as
35% of income for full-time care in center-based settings and 29% for family child care.
Affordability is likely a challenge for single parents earning at the median income level in all
counties for all types of care. For those seeking center-based care for infants, the percent of
income required at the median market price ranges from 17% of income in Columbia County
to 89% in Island County. For center-based preschool, the percent of income required ranges
from 13% to 63% in the same counties. For mothers seeking infant care in family child care
homes, the income required ranges from 15% in Columbia County to 65% in Island County.
For those seeking preschool care in family child care homes, the percent of income required
ranges from 13% to 57% in the same counties. Single mothers with an infant and a child of
preschool age in the least affordable counties would have to spend more than 150% of their
income for full-time care in center-based settings and more than 120% for family child care.
115
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Table 22. Percent of Two-Parent Family’s Income Required for Full-Time Care at Median Price
County Infant Preschool Infant Preschool
Center Center Family Home Family Home
Adams 15% 13% 14% 12%
Asotin 14% 12% 14% 11%
Benton 12% 9% 10% 9%
Chelan 12% 11% 12% 10%
Clallam 15% 12% 11% 10%
Clark 13% 10% 10% 8%
Columbia 17% 13% 15% 12%
Cowlitz 15% 11% 11% 9%
Douglas 13% 11% 13% 10%
Ferry 15% 13% 15% 12%
Franklin 14% 11% 13% 11%
Garfield 12% 10% 11% 9%
Grant 14% 12% 14% 11%
Grays Harbor 19% 14% 14% 12%
Island 21% 15% 15% 14%
Jefferson 18% 13% 13% 11%
King 14% 11% 10% 9%
Kitsap 14% 10% 11% 9%
Kittitas 13% 10% 11% 9%
Klickitat 15% 11% 11% 9%
Lewis 18% 14% 13% 11%
Lincoln 12% 10% 11% 9%
Mason 18% 14% 13% 11%
Okanogan 16% 14% 15% 12%
Pacific 17% 13% 13% 11%
Pend Oreille 12% 11% 12% 9%
Pierce 14% 11% 12% 10%
San Juan 20% 14% 15% 13%
Skagit 20% 14% 14% 13%
Skamania 15% 11% 11% 9%
Snohomish 15% 10% 11% 9%
Spokane 15% 11% 11% 9%
Stevens 12% 10% 12% 9%
Thurston 14% 11% 10% 9%
Wahkiakum 16% 12% 12% 10%
Walla Walla 12% 11% 12% 10%
Whatcom 17% 12% 13% 11%
Whitman 12% 11% 12% 10%
Yakima 15% 13% 14% 11%
116
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Table 23. Percent of Single Mother’s Income Required for Full-Time Care at Median Price
County Infant Preschool Infant Preschool
Center Center Family Home Family Home
Adams 58% 50% 56% 45%
Asotin 29% 25% 28% 23%
Benton 38% 30% 33% 28%
Chelan 29% 25% 28% 22%
Clallam 59% 44% 44% 37%
Clark 38% 29% 28% 24%
Columbia 17% 13% 15% 13%
Cowlitz 64% 48% 48% 40%
Douglas 37% 32% 36% 29%
Ferry 39% 34% 38% 30%
Franklin 42% 33% 37% 31%
Garfield 41% 35% 40% 32%
Grant 42% 37% 41% 33%
Grays Harbor 61% 46% 45% 38%
Island 89% 63% 65% 57%
Jefferson 49% 37% 36% 31%
King 47% 38% 36% 30%
Kitsap 45% 34% 36% 30%
Kittitas 28% 22% 24% 21%
Klickitat 64% 48% 47% 40%
Lewis 56% 42% 41% 35%
Lincoln 40% 35% 39% 31%
Mason 63% 47% 47% 39%
Okanogan 44% 38% 43% 35%
Pacific 63% 47% 47% 39%
Pend Oreille 31% 27% 30% 24%
Pierce 42% 31% 34% 28%
San Juan 65% 46% 47% 42%
Skagit 57% 41% 42% 37%
Skamania 68% 52% 51% 43%
Snohomish 45% 32% 33% 29%
Spokane 43% 33% 32% 27%
Stevens 48% 41% 47% 37%
Thurston 40% 30% 30% 25%
Wahkiakum 49% 37% 37% 31%
Walla Walla 36% 31% 35% 28%
Whatcom 56% 40% 41% 36%
Whitman 34% 29% 33% 26%
Yakima 43% 38% 42% 34%
117
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 40. Percent of Two-Parent Family Income Spent on Center-Based Care for Preschool
118
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 41. Percent of Single Mother’s Income Spent on Center-Based Child Care for Preschool
119
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 42. Percent of Two-Parent Family Income Spent on Center-Based Care for Infant
120
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure. 43. Percent of Single Mother’s Income Spent on Center-Based Care for Infant
Parents typically consider multiple factors and face multiple barriers when they make decisions
on how to provide care for their child, as detailed in both the literature review and parent
surveys. The analysis of the supply of child care examined the extent to which child care
providers in the formal market offer access to specific child care options that are of particular
interest to parents and policymakers, including different forms of subsidy, higher quality care,
access to infant care.
A large and growing body of research documents the importance of the first five years of
children’s lives for their cognitive, social, physical, behavioral, and emotional development, and
the importance of providing children with access to high-quality early childhood options. The
experiences early in the lifespan have important implications for their school readiness and
educational outcomes, as well as their lifelong health and well-being. (Center on the Developing
Child, 2007, 2010; Heckman, 2007; Karoly, 2019). As highlighted in the literature review on child
care decision-making and further detailed in the parent and employee surveys conducted as
part of this study, parents across the nation and in Washington consider program quality an
important factor in selecting a care option for their child. With this in mind, the analysis
examined the extent to which families have access to programs at the highest levels of Early
121
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Achievers. Additional analysis of access to Head Start and ECEAP, which also require providers
to meet higher quality standards, is presented later in the report.
Statewide, based on data from DCYF, providers at Early Achievers levels three and higher have
the capacity to serve approximately 90,000 children (41% of total capacity of regulated supply).
Providers at lower levels of Early Achievers or not participating in Early Achievers have the
capacity to serve approximately 127,000 children (59% of total capacity of regulated supply).
The highest percentage of child care capacity at these levels of quality is 70% in San Juan and
Wahkiakum counties. All counties had at least 25% of capacity at this level of quality, except for
Island (21%), Columbia (13%) and Skamania (9%).There were no providers at this level of
quality in Ferry, Garfield and Lincoln counties.
Figure. 44. Percent of Child Care Capacity at Early Achievers Level 3 or Higher by County
The analysis also examined the proximity of families to providers that are at higher levels of
quality. As shown in Figure 45, within a 10-minute drive, 70% of families can access at least one
provider at Early Achievers levels four and five. When extended to a 20-minute drive time, the
percent of families that can access at least one provider at these quality levels increases to
93%. At the county level, as shown in Table F.1 in Appendix F, the percentage of families that
can access providers that participate in these programs varies considerably and may bear
further examination. Within the 10 counties that have the largest numbers of families with young
children (King, Pierce, Snohomish, Spokane, Clark, Yakima, Thurston, Kitsap, Benton and
Whatcom), access to at least one provider at these quality levels within a 10-minute drive
ranges from 50% to 86%. Among the counties with fewer families that are typically living in more
rural environments, the percent of families able to access these providers within a 10-minute
drives tends to be much lower. When the drive time is extended to 20 minutes, 85% to 100% of
122
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
families in the 10 largest counties have access to at least one provider at these quality levels,
while families in smaller and more rural counties still tend to have significantly fewer families
with access within this drive time.
Research shows that when families have access to subsidy, they are more likely to use their
preferred type of child care and more like to select options that they perceive as higher quality.
The analysis examined three programs that provide parents with access to publicly subsidized
care options, including Working Connections, Head Start and ECEAP. Statewide, 998 center-
based providers (40%) and 1,762 family child care providers (56%) participate in Working
Connections, based on a data snapshot provided by DCYF that shows participation in February
of 2020. Additionally, 465 center-based providers (19%) and 8 family child care providers (0.3%)
participate in Head Start, and 569 center-based providers (23%) and 15 family child care
providers (0.5%) participate in ECEAP. The analysis examined the proximity of families to
providers that participate in these programs. As shown in Figure 38, within a 10-minute drive,
78% of families can access at least one provider that accepts subsidies, 71% can access at
least one provider participating in Head Start and 86 can access at least one provider
participating in ECEAP. When extended to a 20-minute drive time, the percent of families that
can access at least one participating provider increases respectively to 85% for subsidy, 84%
for Head Start and 89% for ECEAP. At the county level, as shown in Tables F.3, the percentage
of families who can access providers that participate in these programs varies considerably and
may bear further examination. Within the 10 counties that have the largest numbers of families
with young children (King, Pierce, Snohomish, Spokane, Clark, Yakima, Thurston, Kitsap,
Benton and Whatcom), access to at least one provider that accept subsidies within a 10-minute
drive ranges from 87% to 99%, and ranges from 74% to 93% for those that are looking for a
provider participating in Head Start and 57% to 95% for those that are looking a provider
participating in ECEAP. Among the counties with fewer families that are typically living in more
rural environments, the percent of families able to access these providers within a 10-minute
drives tends to be lower. When the drive time is extended to 20 minutes, families in the 10
largest counties nearly always have at least 1 provider within the drive that participates in one of
the subsidy programs, while families in smaller and more rural counties still tend to fewer
families that can access providers within this drive time.
In general, families tend to face challenges in finding care options for infants. The results of the
parent listening sessions and the parent surveys that were part of this study also show this to be
the case in Washington. The analysis examined the number of providers that are licensed
provide care for infants and examined the proximity of families to these providers. It should be
noted that not all providers that are licensed to provide infant care actually provide care for
children that age. As a result, the access estimates may be overstated.
Statewide, there are 809 center-based providers (33%) and 2,824 family child care providers
(90%) that are licensed to care for infants. As shown in Figure 44, within a 10-minute drive, 95%
of families can access at least one provider that is licensed to care for infants. When extended
to a 20-minute drive time, the percent of families that can access at least one provider that is
licensed to care for infants increases to 99%. Within the 10 counties that have the largest
numbers of families with young children (King, Pierce, Snohomish, Spokane, Clark, Yakima,
Thurston, Kitsap, Benton and Whatcom), access to at least one provider that can care for
infants within a 10-minute drive ranges from 90% to 99%. Among the counties with fewer
123
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
families that are typically living in more rural environments, the percent of families able to
access these providers within a 10-minute drives tends to be much lower. When the drive time
is extended to 20 minutes, nearly all families in the 10 largest counties have access to at least
one provider at can care for infants, while families in smaller and more rural counties still tend to
have significantly fewer families with access within this drive time.
Figure 45. Drive Time to Different Child Care Options Statewide
The analysis also examined drive times to the nearest provider and the nearest provider at Early
Achievers levels four and five. Research shows that parents prefer to select providers that are
nearby their home. As illustrated in Figure 46, most families in the state have at least one child
care provider located within a five-minute drive. However, families generally must drive much
further to find a program at levels four or five in Early Achievers. The drive times to reach
providers tend not to vary by income, except that the drive time to reach a child care center at
the highest quality levels increases slightly as family income increases. More detailed breakouts
of drive times by county can be provided by the Child Care Industry Insights Dashboard.
124
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 46. Drive Time to Nearest Provider and Nearest High-Quality Provider Statewide
3.4 Informal Child Care Market for Young Children
The analysis summarized above examined only the supply and demand for care in the
regulated child care market, which includes licensed family child care homes, licensed child
care centers, and school-based preschool programs offered through ECEAP. However, families
may also pay for care that is provided outside of the regulated market, including paying friends
or neighbors to provide care or a nannie or au pair. Obtaining data to estimate the supply of this
type of care is challenging because it is delivered outside of the regulated market and no private
or governmental entity gathers data on the providers delivering care. DCYF has provided data
that show approximately 2,000 providers of this type providing care to children who receive child
care assistance through Working Connections. However, the data do not capture the number of
125
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
families who are privately paying for care from providers who work outside of the regulated
market.
To estimate the supply of care that is available in the unregulated market, the analysis
examined data from the parent survey that was conducted as part of this study to identify what
portion of families indicated using friends, neighbors, nannies and au pairs. The estimate of the
supply assumed that families paid for the care provided in these settings. The estimate
excluded care provided by family members, based on the assumption that the care was more
likely provided at no cost.
Among the families with young children responding to the survey, 10% reported using friends or
families and an additional 9% reported using au pairs or nannies to care for their children. The
estimate of the supply of care in the unregulated market assumes that families in the broader
population in Washington will use these types of care at the same rates reported in the parent
survey. Based on census data, there are 336,000 families with 459,000 children from birth to
age five in the state (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). To determine the number of providers in the
unregulated market, the estimate multiplied the total number of families in the state by the rate
of usage for the type of care. To determine the number of children receiving care from these
providers, the estimate multiplied the total number of young children in the state by the rate of
usage for the type of care. This approach produced an estimate of 34,608 friend and neighbor
providers (336,000 families multiplied by 10%) who are caring for 47,277 children (459,000
children multiplied by 10%). Additionally, it produced an estimate of 31,248 nannies and au
pairs (336,000 families multiplied by 9%) who are caring for 42,687 children. The graph in
Figure 47 shows the supply of child care, inclusive of these estimates of the care provided in the
unregulated market.
Figure 47. Supply of Care for Children Birth to Age Five in Formal and Informal Child Care Markets
126
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
4. Supply and Demand for School-Age Child Care
4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Washington Families with School-
Age Children
There are an estimated 658,000 children ages 5 through 12 in Washington. The demographic
breakdowns by income, race and ethnicity at the statewide level are illustrated in Figures 48 and
49 below.
Figure 48. Incomes of Families with School-Age Children
Figure 49. Race and Ethnicity of Families with School-Age Children
127
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
4.2 Supply and Demand for Child Care for School-Age Children
School-age child care supply can be more difficult to analyze than the supply and demand of
child care for children under five or six years old. In some respects, these services are quite
similar, in that they provide supervision and care for children while parents are at work, getting
job training, in school, or otherwise busy. However, since school-age children are already in
school for several hours a day, usually this type of care is supplemental, either before or after
the school day. This care can be on-site at a school, in a community-based organization, or at a
private program such as a tutoring program. Some programs are not in the licensing data but
function as school-age care, such as summer camps, enrichment activities after school, or civic
or outdoor scouting organizations.
This leads to the major limitation in studying the supply of school-age care, which is that the
capacity is only known for programs that serve exclusively school-aged children. These before-
and after-care programs are included in the DCYF licensing database, hence they are the
subject of this study. But we know from the state’s 2018 Child Care Market Rate Survey Report
that child care centers and family child care homes report having capacity for school-age
children, in addition to the capacity to serve younger children (Washington Department of Early
Learning, 2018). Across the entire state, the survey found that 32% of center capacity and 26%
family child care capacity was used to provide care for school-age children across the state.
However, the survey did not disaggregate the availability of school age care in these settings at
the regional, county or school district levels. Therefore, this analysis is cautious about
estimating the capacity of school-age care at the local level using the data from the 2018 survey
and does not include the potential capacity of these programs in the estimates of the supply of
care for school-age children. Based on the Parent Survey conducted as part of this report,
approximately 22% of parents report using licensed center-based care for children from age 5
through 9, and 7% report using this type of care for children from age 10 through 12.
Additionally, 5% of parents report using family child care to provide care for children from 5
through 9, and 3% report using this type of care for children from age 10 through 12.
Additionally, the use of informal care in the unregulated market is much more common for
school-age children. Since they are more physically and emotionally mature, parents are more
comfortable using neighbors, friends, and family to watch their children before and after school,
or during the summer. Based on the Parent Survey conducted as part of this study, the use of
friends and neighbors ranges from 4% for children age 5 through 9 to 5% for children from age
10 through 12. Additionally, the use of a nanny or au pair ranges from 6% for children from age
5 through 9 to 4% for children from age 10 through 12.
The data that were available to study at a provider level were licensed school-age only child
care programs, sometimes operated by the school district and other times operated by a vendor
or non-profit community-based organization. DCYF data showed 569 such locations in the state,
with an overall capacity to serve about 32,000 children from age 5 through 12 (Department of
Children, Youth and Families, 2020). Since there are approximately 658,000 children in this age
group across the state, this means there are more than 23 school-age children for each
potentially available space among licensed school-age only child care programs (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2018).
128
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
In order to understand the population-to-capacity of school-aged care across the state, this
analysis compared the cumulative capacity of providers at the school district level. This is
because, unlike in the private regulated market for child care for younger children, school-age
care is often connected to one’s school boundary zone. The programs were coded to a school
district and then that capacity was compared against the enrollment of kindergarten through fifth
graders as of the 2019-2020 school year. This enrollment data was downloaded from the public
data portal of the Washington Office of the Superintendent for Public Instruction.
There were licensed school-age only programs in 89 of the state’s 295 school districts (30% of
districts). The map in Figure 50 shows the percentage of each school district’s elementary
school enrollment that could be served by the total capacity of the licensed school-age only
programs within that district (not including the child care centers and family child care homes
that may also have capacity to serve school-age children, since the portion of their capacity
dedicated to this group in unknown). It is important to note that the map only shows data on the
capacity and potential number of children for the districts in which there were licensed school-
based programs.
As further illustrated in Table F.6, these proportions range from 20% in Seattle Public Schools to
less than 2% of the enrollment in Bellevue and Issaquah School Districts, for example. Across
all 89 school districts, there is enough capacity to serve approximately 8% of elementary school-
age children. The availability of licensed school-age only child care does not seem to be directly
associated with the size of a district’s enrollment.
129
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 50. Percent of Children 5 through 12 Who Can Be Served Through School-Based Programs
In addition to facing access barriers that are related to capacity, families may also face barriers
related to affordability that may alter the child care decisions that they make. While school-age
care is marked less expensive on an annual basis for most families, it may still be a barrier to
access for some families. Examining the proportion of income that families would have to
expend for various types of care can provide insights into the challenges that they face in finding
affordable care options that fit within their family budgets. When formal child care costs exceed
affordability, parents may be left to consider alternative arrangements in the informal child care
market.
According to the Census Bureau, the median family income of a married couple with children
under 18 in Washington ranges from a high of approximately $140,000 in King County to a
low of approximately $61,000 in Okanogan County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). Based on
the 2018 Child Care Market Rate Survey, the median price of school-age care in a center-
based setting (if purchasing full-day care for 16 days per year when school is not in session)
ranges from about $450 to $705 per week. The median price of full-time care in a family child
care home (if purchasing full-day care for 80 days per year when school is not in session)
ranges from about $550 to $710 per week.
130
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
To illustrate the affordability of care across different counties, Tables F.7 and F.8 show the
portion of income that a family at the median income level would have to pay for full-time
school-age care for the 16 weeks per year during which school is not in session at the median
market price in center and family child care settings. Affordability is also illustrated in the maps
shown in Figures 51 and 52 for two-parent families and Figures 53 and 54 for single mothers
with school-age children.
Affordability is similar across counties for center-based and for family child care for two-parent
families for school-age care, where families would need to spend between 2% and 4% of their
income to purchase school-age care.
Affordability is likely a greater challenge for single mothers earning at the median income level
in all counties for all types of care. For those seeking center-based care and family child care
for school-age children, the percent of income required to purchase care at the median market
price ranges from about 6% to 15% of income across counties.
Figure 51. Percent of Two-Parent Family Income Spent on Center-Based Care for School Age
131
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 52. Percent of Two-Parent Family Income Spent on Family Child Care for School Age
132
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 53. Percent of Single Mother’s Income Spent on Center-Based Care for School Age
133
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 54. Percent of Single Mother’s Income Spent on Family Child Care for School Age
5. Child Care Industry Workforce
The skills, knowledge, and well-being of early educators are inextricably linked to the quality of
children’s early learning and development. Yet, in the United States our system for preparing,
supporting, and compensating early educators remains ineffective, inefficient, and inequitable.
Today, most early educators are paid less than $15 per hour, and many of them report high
levels of economic insecurity evidenced by their worry about meeting monthly family expenses
or paying for bare necessities such as food and housing. Coupled with low wages, few early
educators can expect to work in settings that provide basic professional supports including paid
planning time, which is essential to effective teaching practices (Austin, Whitebook & Dichter,
2019). As the Compensation Technical Workgroup highlighted in the 2019 Report to the
Washington State Legislature, the state’s early childhood educators rank in the third percentile
of occupational wages, 39% rely on one or more sources of public assistance and early
childhood programs in the state experience high staff turnover rates (Washington State
Department of Children, Youth and Families, 2019). Inadequate levels of public financing and a
heavy reliance on families to pay the costs of early childhood services has allowed these
conditions to persist for decades with only limited improvement, despite the growing
understanding of the impact that early educators have on the children in their charge (National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018).
134
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
The Center for the Study of Child Care Employment estimates the size of the early childhood
workforce in Washington at approximately 20,000. These estimates are based on occupational
employment statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, including child care workers,
preschool teachers (excluding special education), preschool teachers (special education), and
education administrators for preschool programs and child care centers. These data do not
include the self-employed, although home-based child care assistants, who are employees, are
likely included in the “child care worker” category (Center for the Study of Child Care
Employment, 2018).
The Child Care Workforce Compensation Policy Analyses, which is part of the series of reports
produced as a companion to the Child Care Industry Assessment, included an extensive
analysis of data from the MERIT data system, Washington’s early childhood workforce registry.
The analysis was based on a review of records for approximately 36,000 early childhood
educators, as detailed in Appendix I, and examined demographic characteristics of the
workforce, including job titles, race and ethnicity, languages spoken, age, educational
attainment and certificate attainment. The analysis also examined variations in these
characteristics by geographic regions, including Child Care Aware Region, county and zip code.
Key highlights from the analysis include:
Compared to other language groups, a much larger percentage of English/Somali and
Spanish speakers (almost all) and a larger percentage of English/Spanish speakers (61
percent) have attained less than an associate degree.
Compared to other racial/ethnic groups, a greater percentage of Hispanic/Latinos (64
percent) and Black/African Americans (63%) have attained less than an associate
degree.
Compared to other job categories, a larger percentage of family home assistant/aides
(63 percent) and family home teachers/owners (77 percent) have attained less than an
associate degree.
Compared to other regions of the state, the Central Washington Region has the greatest
percentage (68 percent) of educators who have attained less than an associate degree.
When compared to other regions of the state, the Central Washington Region also has
the greatest percentage of Hispanic/Latino educators (60 percent) and educators who
speak English/Spanish or Spanish only
The workforce is generally representative of the population of children across regions
and in the surrounding communities in which early educators work, but each racial and
ethnic category is underrepresented in at least some counties and zip codes, with those
identifying as Pacific Islander or other race the most likely to be underrepresented.
The portion of the workforce that has attained a bachelor’s degree or higher tends to
increase as the income in the surrounding zip code increases. Likewise, the portion of
the workforce that has attained less than an associate degree is much higher in zip
codes with lower incomes than those with higher incomes. This presents possible
inequities for children in communities with lower incomes, given the important link
between quality and educational attainment.
The analysis should be updated as more education data are verified and the COVID-19
pandemic eases. However, the findings suggest that continuing and strengthening programs
135
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
and policies that: 1) provide access to, and success in, early childhood education associate
degree programs, and 2) promote articulation between associate and bachelor’s degree
programs could greatly benefit Washington’s early childhood workforce. By implementing a well-
developed professional development plan concurrently with a salary initiative based on
educational levels (Washington DCYF, 2019), the state can reduce the wage inequities endemic
to those who lack access to higher education opportunities.
6. Impact of Pandemic on Supply and Demand
6.1 Overview of Pandemic Impact on Child Care
When reviewing the findings in this report, one must recognize that the snapshot data of the
child care supply, and the assumptions made about the demand for services, were developed
before the full impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. This unprecedented event has, and will
continue to have, significant impacts on both the supply and demand for child care.
As parents are furloughed, laid off, or otherwise ceasing work due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
an analysis by the Minneapolis Federal Reserve found that overall demand for child care
services has dropped by 25% to 40% compared to pre-pandemic levels (Grunewald, 2020).
While these data were not specific to Washington State, it is likely that a similar drop in the
demand for care is taking place across the state. Although child care providers in Washington
were not ordered to close during the pandemic, many have closed temporarily due to reduced
demand or out of health and safety concerns. While the overall supply and demand analysis
produced in this report does not account for the impact of the pandemic, the report does present
a snapshot of the impact on supply, later in this section.
The Minneapolis Federal Reserve explained how an already challenging situation for child care
providers worsened due the pandemic, even though their services are typically in high demand.
Child care businesses generally have a slim profit margin. It is rare for an owner or director of a
child care business to have formal education in business practices (Grunewald, 2020). While
these findings were not specific to any state, this lack of formal business training has been
observed in Washington State, where child care licensing requirements focus on training and
credentials in early childhood education rather than business administration. The Minneapolis
Federal Reserve found that child care providers do not often work with traditional lenders, and
consequently have limited access to cash reserves or credit lines. As a result, many child care
businesses are unable to withstand a sharp decline in revenue. Additionally, providers also face
significant cost increases that stem from implementing and maintaining the smaller child-to-staff
ratios necessary to limit potential virus exposure for children and staff members. Providers now
must also clean and sanitize more frequently. Following potential exposure to the virus by staff
or children, providers may also need to close for days to disinfect. What was already a
challenging business model is more difficult to manage with these added costs (Grunewald,
2020).
When the Minneapolis Federal Reserve published child care findings in late April 2020, an
increase in the demand for child care for essential workers was noted despite a significant
decrease in demand for child care services overall (Grunewald, 2020). Since then, child care
demand has shifted as restrictions on business operations, gatherings and physical distancing
136
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
increased and decreased. Even in the early months of the pandemic, the Minneapolis Federal
Reserve suggested that estimating demand for the near and longer-term future is challenging
due to the complex, interrelated factors that inform these estimates. These factors include the
number of jobs deemed essential, the number of parents in those jobs who need child care, and
parents’ child care preferences during the pandemic. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
developed a mapping tool that estimates the number of health care workers and first responders
who need child care by state and metropolitan area. Across Washington there are an estimated
236,000 of these frontline workers, including nurses, physicians, other medical professionals,
firefighters, police officers, pharmacists, and laboratory technicians. An estimated 50,000 (21%)
of these workers need child care (Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 2020). Parental preferences
for child care settings also influences demand. Parents may have greater access to care by
families, friends, and neighbors who are unable to work. However, the ability to form or maintain
these arrangements may be hampered by physical-distancing practices during stay-at-home
orders and exposure risks for older adults and other high-risk populations (Grunewald, 2020).
6.2 Impact of Pandemic on the Supply of Child Care in Washington
This analysis presents an update on the child care supply statewide reflecting the latest open
status for child care providers as of June 25, 2020, compared to pre-pandemic supply. This
summary uses data from the Department of Children Youth and Families. It presents the
findings from an analysis of the change in child care capacity by zip code and county, including
findings and key policy considerations. This comparison excludes from both time periods a
group of 779 providers that are exempt from licensing or with a COVID status was unknown at
time of the update. That is, this analysis is an “apples to apples” comparison of pre-pandemic
and mid-pandemic status.
In Washington, the supply of licensed child care dropped by 27% between March 9 and June
25, 2020, based on data obtained from DCYF on licensed child care centers, licensed family
child care homes and licensed school-age only programs. In early March, licensed child care
programs in Washington had the capacity to serve approximately 187,000 children between
from birth through age 12, but by the end of June, the capacity dropped to approximately
136,000. This does not account additional capacity that may have been lost among Head Start
and ECEAP programs that closed or for additional reductions in capacity due to lower group
sizes in programs that are still operating.
The percent change in supply by county as of June 25, 2020 ranged from 0% (no change) in
several unaffected counties (Douglas, Ferry, Garfield, Lincoln, Wahkiakum) to a 77% decrease
in supply in Klickitat, the most heavily impacted county. In particular:
In three counties (Columbia, Jefferson and Klickitat), the capacity decreased by half or
more.
In 16 counties plus these 3 listed above, the capacity decreased by 25% or more.
In King, Pierce and Thurston, three counties with particularly large population centers,
the supply decreased from 25% to 30%.
Figure 55 shows the decrease in capacity by county. (Table F.9 in Appendix F shows additional
detail on the change in capacity for each county.)
137
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 55. Decline in Child Care Capacity since COVID-19 Emergency Declaration, by County
Source: Department of Children, Youth and Families, June 25, 2020.
138
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Reviewing the decrease in child care supply at the ZIP code level, the change ranged from 0%
(no change in many areas), to some ZIP codes where the supply decreased by 100%; in other
words, there is no available licensed capacity in those ZIP codes, shown in dark red on Figure
56, with additional detail found in Appendix F, Table F.10.
Figure 56. Decline in Child Care Capacity since COVID-19 Emergency Declaration, by ZIP Code
Source: Department of Children, Youth and Families, 2020.
7. Policy Implications
The analysis of supply and demand identifies key challenges that both families and providers
face that the Child Care Collaborative Task force may wish to consider as it develops policy
recommendations. Key policy implications include:
Given that are about 118,000 families with about 161,000 young children living in child
care deserts in Washington, it will be critical to consider a range of policy strategies to
expand the supply of child care in areas with limited access. These strategies could
include increases in reimbursement rates to child care providers to the 75th percentile of
market prices, direct grants or contracts in areas where market prices may make market
entry or expansion financially risky for child care providers, grants to support providers
139
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
that reopen during the COVID-19 pandemic, and shared service collaborations that may
lower the cost of market entry or expansion.
Since each geographic area has unique supply and demand characteristics, it will be
important to leverage the data in the Child Care Industry Insights Dashboard and the
data in this report to engage local stakeholders to draft solutions that are specific to
the supply and demand characteristics of different areas. For example, areas with
no regulated capacity may require different strategies than those that have a significant
but inadequate supply of child care.
In general, access to care child care options in the regulated child care market
decreases as incomes increase and affordability is a challenge for families of most
income levels in all counties. The price of child care for all age groups and types of care
as a percentage of median family income, far exceeds the 7% level recommended by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Therefore, it is important to
consider expanding access to subsidies through Working Connections and ECEAP
to cover both low-income and middle-income families and limiting any family child
care payments to a specific percent of family income – e.g., 7% of income or some other
feasible target level.
Families across different parts of the state do not have consistent access to higher
quality child care providers, including Head Start, ECEAP and providers rated at the
highest levels of quality in Early Achievers. Given the importance of quality to positive
child development, it is important to consider strategies for expanding the supply of
providers that meet higher quality standards, especially in areas where supply is
limited, through a combination of indirect financial incentives (e.g., enhanced tiered
reimbursement levels), direct financial incentives (e.g., direct grants or contracts with
higher quality providers) and tax-based incentives.
The child care workforce in Washington is ethnically and racially diverse and is generally
representative of the population of children in the surrounding communities. It is
important to maintain the diversity of the workforce, when planning and implementing
strategies to strengthen the educational attainment levels of the workforce and expand
the supply of providers that meet higher quality standards.
The analysis estimates that there are a large number of providers operating outside
of the regulated child care market. Use of this type of care may increase due to
pandemic-related disruptions in the child care supply. Economic research and the
research on child care decision-making indicate that families may use unregulated care
due to supply limitations and affordability. Given the prevalence of using unregulated
care, policy strategies may need to be developed to engage unregulated providers,
incentivize them to meet health and safety standards, and/or become licensed or
otherwise meet higher quality standards.
This report represents only one snapshot of the underlying data. The Task Force can
use the Child Care Industry Insights Dashboard to further explore the data on
supply and demand at the county and zip code levels and to form data stories that
compel stakeholders into action.
140
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Given that the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted both the supply and demand for child
care, it will be important to develop new tools and practices to monitor the monitor
the supply and demand for child care – e.g., periodic family surveys to estimate
changes in demand, tools for reporting child care vacancies in real time, and data insight
tools that provide policymakers with data on potential gaps between supply and demand
to inform policy interventions and track progress over time.
Given that the pandemic has introduced changes to teacher-to-child ratios and new
sanitization practices, it will be important to understand the impact of these changes
on already precarious child care provider finances by expanding the preliminary
analysis produced through the Child Care Cost Model Analysis to examining funding
needed to ensure that provider remain financial viable.
The magnitude of decrease in supply is of greatest concern in not only the highest-
impact counties, but also those with highest populations. With a 25-30% decrease in
high population centers of King, Pierce and Thurston counties, this is a large
impact on the state’s workforce and constitutes a major hurdle for parents in returning to
work, whether from home in telecommuting arrangements or in traditional on-site
workplaces. In the interim, many parents may likely choose unregulated care
arrangements, which may increase health and safety risks and pose the risk of delays in
school readiness for many young children.
141
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
VII. Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
This analysis measures the economic and fiscal impacts of child care inaccessibility in
Washington State over a ten-year period (2019-2028). Specifically, public data as well as survey
responses completed by Washington parents are leveraged to estimate parents’ lost income
and employers’ lost productivity and additional costs due to a lack of adequate child care. These
impacts are modeled through the state’s economy to determine the economic impacts, including
the impacts on employment, earnings, gross domestic product (GDP), output, and state tax
revenue. The following sections detail previous studies carried out by states related to this topic
area, the methodological approach used to conduct the economic and fiscal impact analysis for
the state, the results, and concluding remarks.
1. Previous Research on Economic Impacts of Child Care
Research regarding how the child care industry plays an integral role in the U.S.’s economic
infrastructure and sustainability has gained traction in recent years. This is because there has
been a surge in advocacy and in the development of public policy initiatives that encourage
federal and state governments—along with other agencies and community stakeholders—to
help make high-quality child care more affordable and accessible for families. As the
macroeconomic, national-level impact of the child care industry has been traditionally studied,
more states are initiating their own research inquiries to understand the scope and pervasive
benefits of the child care industry in their regional economies. Specifically, state reports over the
last decade have analyzed the characteristics of their own child care industry and the workforce
it employs and quantified how the industry contributes to the economy in terms of job creation,
tax revenue generation, and increased employment. These reports, as well as results from a
2019 report from the Committee for Economic Development (CED), indicate that there is a
strong, salient relationship between child care and state and local economic growth and
development (Early Learning Policy Group, n.d.; RegionTrack, 2019). While the 2019 CED
report estimates that the child care sector supports $99.3 billion in total U.S. output and over 2
million jobs nationwide, both directly and through indirect and induced multiplier effects, it also
specifies how child care fosters regional economic growth through increased labor force
participation and added education and training. These directly benefit state and local economies
through increasing the size and quality of the labor force, respectively, which influence states’
income levels, poverty rates, and overall economic prosperity (Hoynes et al., 2006).
States have documented through economic impact analyses how the child care industry
supports regional growth predominantly through employing additional workers and generating
additional output. Yet, some states have shifted their investigative approach towards exploring
how child care inaccessibility and the prevalence of child care breakdowns are affecting parents’
ability to participate in the labor force, which can translate into significant losses to families,
employers, and states’ economies. This economic impact study follows a similar approach, by
measuring the impact of child care inaccessibility. These child care challenges—whether
stemming from a lack of affordable and reliable care to other systematic barriers to access—
have a broad influence on the job status of working and non-working parents. They can inhibit
parents, especially those with young children, from being able to secure and retain viable
employment. They also represent sources of short-term parental workforce disruptions and
142
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
hinder parents’ ability to further their careers and achieve upward economic mobility in the long-
term. For context, 2018 data from the National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH) indicated
that 8.8% of parents nationwide had to quit a job, not take a job, or significantly change their job
because of child care issues; this metric for Washington State was 9.6% (Novoa & Jessen-
Howard, 2020). The availability of high-quality and affordable child care options would help
enable parents to financially support their families, move towards economic self-sufficiency, and
not forgo educational or career advancement opportunities. It would also stimulate regional
economic growth through the increased earnings and spending by parents who either recently
gained employment or who can increase their usual hours worked.
States such as Washington, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Louisiana, and Tennessee have
recently completed studies that leveraged survey data to estimate the economic impact of child
care instability on their respective state economies (Kennedy & Jones, 2019; Goldberg et al.,
2018; Littlepage, 2018; Talbert et al., 2018; Davis et al., 2017; Belfield, 2019). These studies
(whose economic impact analysis and survey results are delineated in Tables 25 and 26,
respectively) quantify how employee absenteeism and turnovers—as a result of child care
issues—impact the state’s economy and government revenue. They focus on surveying their
state’s population of working parents with children under 6 years old and use those responses
to determine the overall lost economic activity and reduced tax revenue as a result of child care
inaccessibility. Of note, the methodologies leveraged in these reports differ in terms of the
parameters used for the survey population as well as the definition used for absenteeism and
the inclusion of employer opportunity costs. Though direct comparisons of results cannot be
made given these differences, Tables 24 and 25 list the state-level and labor force populations
for these areas as well as the costs estimated from these states’ respective economic and fiscal
impact analyses, respectively.
Table 24. Comparison of 2019 State-Level and Labor Force Populations
Labor Parents with Children Both Parents Working with Children
State Population
Force Under 6 Under 6
Washington 7,562,424 3,954,206 1,629,845 549,526
Georgia 10,439,137 5,090,808 2,161,611 714,319
Indiana 6,590,291 3,411,098 1,419,833 502,869
Maryland 6,046,284 3,384,172 1,171,166 420,403
Louisiana 4,516,020 2,071,387 923,415 271,916
Tennessee 6,694,064 3,318,880 1,324,591 439,785
Source: U.S. Census, Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) of the Current Population Survey (CPS)
143
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Table 25. Comparison of Economic Impact Analysis Results
Annual Cost to the
State Annual Cost to Employers Annual Lost Tax Revenue
Economy
Washington $2.1 billion $6.5 billion5 -
Georgia - $1.8 billion $105 million
Indiana $1.8 billion $1.1 billion $119 million
Maryland $2.4 billion $1.3 billion $117 million
Louisiana $816 million $1.1 billion $84 million
Tennessee $270 million - $220 million
With regards to employee absenteeism, these states’ studies demonstrate how working parents
with young children frequently miss entire days of work and experience instances of arriving late
to work or having to leave work early due to child care challenges. Results from the Georgia,
Maryland, and Louisiana reports indicate that surveyed working parents were absent an
average of 7, 17, and 14 days annually, respectively, which translates to lost worker and
employer productivity. To contextualize these state-level findings, several studies denote that
nationally, employees with children miss an average of 8 to 9 days of work per year due to child
care problems (Child Care Aware of America, 2019; Emlen & Koren, 1984). These results stress
child care breakdowns have a significant effect on working and non-working parents across the
nation, especially if these parents have to utilize unpaid time off to compensate for their
workplace absences. Moreover, these findings underscore that missing work due to child care
issues is pervasive across U.S. households as parents try to concurrently balance the needs of
their families with work or educational pursuits and commitments.
In addition to experiencing short-term disruptions, a sizable portion of parents from these
different studies expressed how child care breakdowns have impacted their work in more
permanent ways—having to quit their job or being fired. This employee turnover is not only
disruptive to individual families in terms of severing streams of previously reliable income, but it
affects employers’ bottom-lines by lowering productivity and increasing costs related to training,
hiring, and recruitment. Table 26 shows the different results from these state-specific studies
and a nationwide study (Belfield, 2018) which evaluated whether child care issues have caused
working parents to leave their jobs, either voluntarily or involuntarily.
5
This metric is from the 2019 report, Washington State Childcare Study: Analyzing the Costs Facing Businesses Due
to Workforce Turnover and Missed Time Associated with Inadequate Childcare Options. It represents the estimated
amount that would be contributed to the state’s GDP if employer costs associated with employee disruptions caused
by child care issues were reinvested into firms; this definition differs from that of other state studies listed.
144
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Table 26. Comparison of Turnover Results (Multiple Studies)
Parents who Quit due to Parents who were Fired due
State
Child Care Issues to Child Care Issues
Washington 18.0% 9.0%
Georgia 14.4% 4.9%
Maryland 1.7% 0.0%
Louisiana 16.1% 7.6%
Nationwide 13.0% 8.0%
While the quit and termination rates as a result of child care problems for working parents vary
by region and state, these metrics are large enough to convey that child care inaccessibility puts
parents at risk for being forced to leave stable employment, which can unexpectedly jeopardize
families’ financial security and negatively impact regional economic growth. Moreover,
anywhere from 8-39% of parents (depending on the state report) indicated that child care issues
have caused them to turndown promotions or job offers. However, these repercussions are
more difficult to quantify the economic impact of though they can represent an area of significant
loss related to forfeiting possible income gains.
Previous research related to assessing the economic impact of child care inaccessibility at the
state-level has largely fixated on monetizing the effects of state-specific employee turnover and
absenteeism. Yet, attempts to monetize the lost wages and productivity as a result of child care
issues in terms of reduced state-level labor force participation hasn’t been fully explored. This
economic and fiscal impact analysis for Washington State builds upon the methodology
leveraged by other states; however, there are two distinct differences. First, this report also
estimates the economic losses from scenarios where parents are unemployed or are working
part-time instead of full-time because of child care inaccessibility. Second, this analysis also
considers lost productivity and earnings as a result of reduced labor force participation, which
most previous studies did not consider. Thus, the approach employed for this analysis brings
new insights into the analysis of the economic impacts of the lack of access to child care.
2. Methodology
This section details the methodology used to determine the economic and fiscal impacts of child
care inaccessibility in Washington State. The approach for this economic and fiscal impact
analysis consists of three components: 1) leveraging public and survey data to estimate the lost
income, lost productivity, and additional costs associated with having inadequate child care
solutions; 2) using an economic model to simulate these impacts throughout the state economy
(using economic forecast that include COVID-19 impacts) and calculating the associated direct,
indirect, and induced effects; and 3) using the model’s outputs to estimate the impact on state
tax revenue collection. These components are briefly summarized in Figure 57.
145
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 57. Logic Model for Economic Impact Analysis of Child Care Inaccessibility
Lost Income
Child Care Economic Government
Impacts Lost Productivity
Inaccessibility Impacts Impacts
Additional Costs
To estimate the economic and fiscal impact of child care inaccessibility, this analysis calculates
the impacts of three scenarios that arise when parents lack affordable and reliable child care
options: lost time at work, employee turnover, and a reduction in labor force participation. For
each of these three scenarios, parent and employer impacts are identified and extrapolated
(when applicable). Parent impacts generally include lost income as a result of spending less
time at work, not being employed, or not being fully-employed when it’s desired. Employer
impacts include lost productivity and additional costs incurred due increased employee turnover
and employees lost time at work, and not operating at full potential capacity because of staffing
shortages.
The first scenario of lost time at work is comprised of the number of hours and days working
parents in Washington reported having to use unpaid time off to accommodate child care
challenges; this concurrently generates losses in parents’ earnings (because they aren’t getting
paid for their absences) and in employer productivity (because companies aren’t as productive
without their entire staff working). Employee turnover represents the additional turnover costs (in
terms of hiring, recruiting, and training) a company accrues due to parents in Washington
indicating that they have been fired or have had to quit their job to address child care
breakdowns. Beyond additional costs, this scenario also produces lost employer productivity for
the time it takes to replace these employees. For labor force participation, lost parent income
and lower employer productivity stem from three sub-scenarios: 1) parents who are not
employed but would be if it wasn’t for child care inaccessibility; 2) parents who currently work
part-time but would work full-time if it wasn’t for a lack of child care; and 3) parents who had
their normal working hours reduced due to child care issues. The summation of these labor
force participation impacts results in a statewide workforce that isn’t being fully-utilized and
employers who are not producing at their full, potential capacity.
In addition to the direct impacts to households with children and employers themselves, the
government also experiences losses in tax revenue due to child care inaccessibility. Before tax
revenue losses are calculated, the three above scenarios are simulated through an economic
model of Washington State (i.e. REMI PI+) to determine the economic impact these scenarios
have on the state economy. The results are then used to estimate the fiscal impact on the state.
Though Washington State does not have a personal income tax, state sales tax revenue
derived from household purchases are impacted by a reduction in earnings and revenue from
the Business and Occupation (B&O) tax is impacted from lost productivity. To calculate the
impact on the state sales tax, the state tax rate is applied to taxable consumer expenditures. To
calculate the change in B&O tax revenue, Washington state’s industry-specific B&O tax rates
146
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
(as reported by the Washington State Department of Revenue) are applied to the impact on the
value of production (gross receipts), of employers that operate in the state. Thus, the lost
earnings, productivity derived from lost time at work, employer turnover, and a reduction in labor
force participation produces foregone sales and B&O taxes that the state would have generated
otherwise. The summation of the sales and B&O taxes represents the fiscal impact of child care
inaccessibility to Washington State. A detailed logic model summarizing these impacts is in
Figure 42 and the succeeding sections provide additional insight into the data, economic model,
and economic environment used.
2.1 Data Collection
Data from public sources and the ICF Parent Survey were leveraged to estimate the parent and
employer impacts from the three aforementioned scenarios. For all these scenarios, the impacts
of child care inaccessibility were scaled up to the applicable statewide population of parents with
children from birth through 12 years old. These baseline population metrics were provided by
the Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) of the Current Population Survey (CPS)—
from the U.S. Census. As of March 2019, there were 983,188 parents in Washington state with
children in this age range who were employed (830,116 were full-time while 153,072 were part-
time) and 52,201 parents with children in this age range who were unemployed. Both the survey
results and third-party proxies were applied to these baseline population metrics to determine
the impacts of child care breakdowns on the employability and earning potential of parents as
well as the productivity of employers.
For the lost time at work scenario, the responses to the following two questions from the 2020
statewide parent survey were used to estimate out of the 983,188 employed parents in
Washington state, how many had to use unpaid time off due to having to address child care
problems and of those, how many total hours of unpaid time off were taken:
In the past 12 months, have you or your spouse or partner had to take time off due to
child care issues?
In the past 12 months, how many hours or days have you or your spouse or partner
taken unpaid time off due to child care issues?
Of note, only unpaid time off was considered for this scenario since salaried employees could
potentially use their paid time off (PTO) to deal with child care issues and by doing this, they
presumably would not lose any earnings. After totaling the hours of unpaid time off taken for this
segment of the Washington working parent population, a weighted hourly wage (based on the
occupational distribution of the survey respondents who responded to these questions) was
calculated using state-specific wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 2019). The product of these metrics was taken to represent the monetized
parent impact for this scenario. Of note, all impacts for this analysis are expressed in 2019
dollars, and inflation rates determined by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) were used where
applicable (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019). To calculate the employer impacts for lost time at
work, the unpaid hours reported by survey respondents were segmented by the industry
distribution of the respondents; these unpaid hours were then scaled up to the appropriate
statewide population metric to determine how many unpaid time off hours were used by
industry. Then a weighted multifactor productivity hourly rate (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
147
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
2020)—provided by BLS and that was based on the value of production and hours worked for
each major industry—was applied to these hours to estimate how much in production value was
lost due to parents having to take unpaid time off to address child care issues. The logic model
is illustrated in Figure 58 following.
148
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Figure 58. Logic Model for Economic Impact Analysis of Child Care Inaccessibility in Washington State
149
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
For the employee turnover scenario, the percent of Washington parents who reported having to
quit a job, not take a job, or significantly change their job because of child care issues (9.6%) in
the 2018 National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH) was used (Novoa & Jessen-Howard,
2020). Since this source only included responses from parents with children under 6 years old,
this 9.6% was only applied to the portion of the statewide working parent population with
children in that same age range. As a result, an imputed turnover rate of 2.1% was applied just
to the portion of this state’s employed parent population with children aged 6 through 12 years
old. The 2.1% imputed turnover rate was calculated based on data from the Annual Social and
Economic Supplement (ASES) of the Current Population Survey (CPS) from the U.S Census,
that specifies the use of child care for Washington state parents with children 0 through 5 years
old and 6 through 12 years old. The proportion of these two age groups that use of child care is
used to determine the 2.1% turnover rate for the 6 through 12 year old group.
Using the above turnover rates, a proxy that indicates 20.7% of an employee’s annual salary
represents a company’s turnover costs (Boushey & Glynn, 2012), and the weighted annual
salary of survey respondents (based on their occupational distribution), the additional
replacement costs to employers was calculated. This represents one of the employer impacts.
The second impact relates to lost productivity. For the number of the statewide working parent
population who quit, did not take, or significantly changed their job due to child care challenges,
employers lose productivity for the time it takes to replace them or fill staffing gaps depending
on the scenario. Using a proxy that estimated it takes an average of 30.2 days to fill a vacant
position in the U.S. West region (DHI Group, 2018), the assumption that a worker works 7 hours
a day on average, and a weighted multifactor productivity hourly rate based on the industry
distribution of survey respondents, the lost productivity as a result of employee turnover is
calculated.
For the final scenario of reduced labor force participation that stems from child care
inaccessibility, lost parent income and employer productivity were determined for each of the
three sub-scenarios and then totaled. For the first sub-scenario of unemployed Washington
parents who indicated a lack of child care is preventing them from seeking employment, the
percent of the survey population who answered the following question was calculated (where
respondents indicated whether they would pursue part-time or full-time work if child care wasn’t
an issue):
If you are currently unemployed and seeking employment, is child care an issue that is
preventing you from obtaining employment?
The resulting percentages (i.e. those who indicated they would pursue full-time versus part-time
work) were applied to the number of unemployed parents statewide (52,201), separately, and
then multiplied by the reverse of the state’s unemployment rate (95.7% from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 2019) to represent the number of unemployed parents who would pursue
employment if child care wasn’t a problem and who would actually obtain either full-time or part-
time employment are calculated. Calculating the lost income of these potential full-time and
part-time workers separately, the average weekly hours worked for each of these job statuses
150
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
(42.2 and 21.2, respectively)6 were annualized and applied appropriately. They were then
multiplied by the weighted average hourly wage for those who completed the survey (based on
the occupational distribution of the respondents and BLS state-specific wage data) to represent
these parents’ lost income. For the associated lost productivity (the employer impact), the total
full-time and part-time hours lost were distributed by the industry composition of survey
responses, multiplied by their industry-specific multifactor productivity hourly rate, and then
summed.
For the second sub-scenario (i.e. parents who are working part-time but would be full-time if
child care wasn’t an issue), the resulting lost parent income uses the number of Washington
parents who are part-time workers and indicated in the ASEC CPS that the main reason they
were part-time was due to child care issues (15,724) is calculated. The difference between the
average weekly full-time (42.2) and part-time (21.2) hours worked is annualized and then
applied to the number of these parents in this situation. This represents the additional hours lost
from Washington parents not being able to work full-time due to child care issues; in other
words, if child care breakdowns did not occur, these parents would work almost double their
current hours. The total hours lost is then multiplied by the same weighted average hourly wage
of the survey respondents to estimate lost parent income. The associated lost productivity for
this sub-scenario takes these lost hours and divides them among the major industries based on
the industry distribution of survey respondents. The appropriate multifactor productivity hourly
rates are then applied by industry and these amounts are totaled to represent the lost value of
production realized due to these Washington parents not working full-time because of child care
issues. For the last sub-scenario, the percent of survey respondents who answered the
following question was applied to the statewide population of working parents with children birth
through 12 (983,183) to estimate how pervasive a reduction of normal hours due to child care
issues is statewide:
In the past 12 months, have you or your spouse or partner reduced the number of hours
or days you work due to child care issues?
Those who did indicate their normal work schedule was altered due to child care issues also
noted by how many hours and days their work was reduced. From this, the average number of
hours reduced per parent was multiplied by the number of employed Washington parents who
reported having their hours reduced. Then the weighted average hourly wage (based on the
occupational distribution of the survey respondents) was applied to determine how much in
parent income was lost due to having to make these work schedule adjustments that stemmed
from child care breakdowns. For the associated lost productivity, these total hours were
distributed across industries based on the industry distribution of survey respondents and then
the appropriate multifactor productivity hourly rates were applied. This employer impact denotes
the value of production lost due to parents having to decrease their hours worked as a result of
child care issues.
Once the impacts associated with these three scenarios were run through the economic model,
the applicable output was taxed to estimate the fiscal impact of child care inaccessibility. The
6
These are Washington-specific values from the March 2019 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) of
the Current Population Survey (CPS) for working parents in Washington state with children aged 0 through 12 years
old (https://data.census.gov/mdat/#/).
151
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
state sales tax (6.5%) and the ratio of taxable expenditures for the U.S. West region (31.6%),
the latter provided by the Consumer Expenditures Survey, was used to calculate the impact on
state sales tax revenue. Additionally, the impact on output (sales receipts) that stemmed from
lost productivity is taxed using industry specific B&O tax rates. The summation of these
amounts represents the total loss in state tax revenue due to child care inaccessibility in
Washington State.
2.2 REMI Model
The economic impact analysis utilized the REMI PI+ model for Washington State. REMI PI+ is a
structural economic forecasting and policy analysis model. The model integrates input-output,
computable general equilibrium, econometric, and economic geography methodologies. The
model is dynamic, with forecasts and simulations generated on an annual basis and behavioral
responses to compensation, price, and other economic factors. The model is widely used
across the nation and by agencies within the Washington state government, including the
Department of Ecology, Department of Transportation, the Joint Legislative Audit & Review
Committee, and the Office of Financial Management.
The model consists of thousands of simultaneous equations with a structure that is relatively
straightforward. The overall structure of the model can be summarized in five major blocks: (1)
Output and Demand, (2) Labor and Capital Demand, (3) Population and Labor Supply, (4)
Compensation, Prices, and Costs, and (5) Market Shares. The Output and Demand block
consists of output, demand, consumption, investment, government spending, exports, and
imports, as well as feedback from output change due to the change in the productivity of
intermediate inputs. The Labor and Capital Demand block includes labor intensity and
productivity as well as demand for labor and capital. Labor force participation rate and migration
equations are in the Population and Labor Supply block. The Compensation, Prices, and Costs
block includes composite prices, determinants of production costs, the consumption price
deflator, housing prices, and the compensation equations. Lastly, the proportion of local, inter-
regional, and export markets captured by each region is included in the Market Shares block.
See Appendix G for a full description of the REMI model framework.
2.3 COVID-19 Updated Adjustments to Model
To compensate for recent economic conditions and projected trends because of the COVID-19
pandemic, the REMI model economic forecast and inputs were updated for the years 2020
through 2022. The REMI model used for this study included an economic forecast from the
University of Michigan Research Seminar in Quantitative Economics (RSQE)—released in April
2020—that incorporates updated and projected GDP by component, reflecting the economic
impacts of COVID-19. The RSQE forecast projects U.S. Real GDP to decline by 7% from the
first quarter to the second quarter of the year (or 25% on an annualized basis) and the national
unemployment rate to reach a peak of 16% in May 2020 and to an average of 14% in the
second quarter (Burton et al., University of Michigan RSQE forecast, 2020). The RSQE forecast
assumes that new COVID-19 cases will taper off quickly by late May 2020 or early June 2020,
with the economy beginning to reopen around that time. Of particular importance to this study is
the unemployment rate, as that can impact the need for child care; the RSQE forecast projects
that the U.S. unemployment rate will drop quickly from a peak of 16% in May 2020 to 7% in July
2020 and 5% by the end of 2022.
152
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
In addition to the updated economic forecast, to incorporate for the potential drop in demand for
child care as unemployment is projected to increase in 2021 and 2022 due to COVID-19, inputs
for the lost time at work, employee turnover, and reduction in labor force participation scenarios
were adjusted to reflect the projected unemployment rates for those years.
Of note, the economic model (REMI PI+) for this study is dynamic and includes in its baseline
forecast economic assumptions for Washington, such as real personal income, disposable
income, consumer prices, wages, labor force and employment levels, and GDP. In general, the
forecast in the REMI PI+ model for 2020 is consistent with the Washington Forecast Council’s
forecast. There are, however, considerable differences in 2021, particularly for employment
levels and the unemployment rate. The REMI PI+ model used for this analysis projects non-
farm employment to be 3,760,000 and an unemployment rate of 4.0% in Washington state in
2021, while the Washington Forecasting Council is projecting employment of 3,360,000 and an
unemployment rate of 16.6%. This may be because of differing forecasts for the long-term
impacts of COVID-19. As noted above, the REMI forecast assumes a sharp economic recovery
from COVID-19 in 2021, while the Washington Forecast Council may be estimating a slower
recovery. Of note (according to BLS), the Washington state seasonally adjusted preliminary
unemployment rate for May 2020 was 15.1%, dropping from 16.3% in April 2020. Forecasts for
U.S. GDP in 2021 are consistent between the REMI model and the Council, $20.9 trillion and
$20.69 trillion, respectively. The Task Force may want to consider consulting with the
Washington Forecasting Council to determine how the model's assumptions compare to the
Council's most recent forecasts, in areas like labor force and employment, and identify any
areas of difference and consider updating the model accordingly.
3. Results
The results of the economic and fiscal impact of child care inaccessibility are summarized
below. The summary uses common economic indicators, including employment, GDP, output,
and personal income. For a comprehensive set of detailed results, see Appendix H.
3.1 Economic Impact
Table 27 shows the economic impact of inaccessibility of child care in Washington State
between 2019 and 2028, for common economic indicators. The impact on employment ranges
from 161,300 jobs in 2019 to 109,100 jobs in 2028, an annual average of roughly 133,360 jobs
over the time period; this represents about 2.9% of all jobs in Washington State in 2019. The
impact on employment is largely related to lower consumer spending as a result of wages lost
from loss time at work and lower workforce participation, due to child care inaccessibility in
Washington State.
The impact on gross state product (GSP) ranges from $39.2 billion in 2019 to $31.0 billion in
2028, an annual average of $34.8 billion per year; this represents 6.6% of total gross state
product in Washington State in 2019. The large disproportional impact on gross state product as
compared to employment is a result of lost productivity and thus production by firms due to the
lower labor force participation and greater employee turnover in the state, as a result of
inaccessibility to child care. As parents decide to forgo working due to child care issues, and
remain out of the labor force, businesses lose out on the production that these workers can
contribute. This dynamic has its most impact during times of tight labor markets and low
153
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
unemployment, when businesses often cannot reach their full production potential and meet
demand due to labor shortages.
154
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Table 27. Inaccessibility of Child Care in Washington State – Economic Impact Summary
Annual Percent of
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Average State Total
2019–2028 2019
Total Employment (Thousands) -161.3 -152.0 -150.4 -145.2 -136.9 -128.9 -121.8 -116.1 -112.0 -109.1 -133.4 3.5
Gross State Product (Billions of
-39.2 -36.9 -36.8 -36.7 -35.5 -34.3 -33.3 -32.3 -31.6 -31.0 -34.8 7.4
2019 $'s)
Output (Billions of 2019 $'s) -64.2 -60.5 -60.3 -60.1 -58.1 -56.1 -54.3 -52.8 -51.5 -50.5 -56.8 7.2
Personal Income (Billions of
-16.7 -14.2 -14.8 -15.2 -14.9 -14.6 -14.3 -14.1 -14.0 -14.0 -14.7 3.8
2019 $'s)
Source: ICF utilizing the REMI PI+ economic model.
Table 28. Inaccessibility of Child Care in Washington State – Employment Impact by Industry (thousands)
Annual
Industry 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Average
2019–2028
Health care and social assistance -16.1 -13.9 -14.0 -13.9 -13.5 -13.1 -12.7 -12.4 -12.3 -12.2 -13.4
Professional, scientific, and technical
-15.8 -14.4 -13.5 -12.6 -11.6 -10.6 -9.8 -9.0 -8.5 -8.1 -11.4
services
Administrative, support, waste
-15.1 -13.8 -13.5 -13.2 -12.6 -12.0 -11.5 -11.0 -10.7 -10.4 -12.4
management, and remediation services
Retail trade -14.0 -12.1 -11.5 -11.1 -10.4 -9.8 -9.2 -8.8 -8.6 -8.4 -10.4
Construction -13.4 -14.0 -12.9 -10.6 -8.0 -5.7 -3.8 -2.4 -1.6 -1.3 -7.4
Other services (except public
-12.7 -10.5 -10.4 -10.1 -9.5 -9.1 -8.7 -8.4 -8.1 -7.9 -9.5
administration)
State and Local Government -12.4 -18.2 -20.3 -20.9 -20.9 -20.6 -20.0 -19.5 -18.9 -18.4 -19.0
Source: ICF utilizing the REMI PI+ economic model.
155
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
The impact on output is similar to GSP as GSP is a component of output. Output is most closely
related to gross sales, while GSP is the amount of those sales that remain in the state, such as
wages for state residents, business-to-business purchases between state firms, and profits for
firms based in the state. The impact on output ranges from $64.2 billion in 2019 to $50.5 in
2028, averaging $56.8 billion per year across the time period, roughly 6.4% of Washington
State’s total output.
The impact on personal income is a direct result of parents’ lost wages from time lost at work
due to child care inaccessibility and lower labor force participation, and the indirect impact on
employment from lower consumer spending. The impact on personal income ranges from $16.7
billion in 2019 to $14.0 billion in 2028, averaging roughly $14.7 billion per year across the time
period, roughly 3.4% of Washington State’s total personal income.
In summary, if child care were readily accessible (without common barriers) to all Washington
state households with children up through 12 years old, the state would be projected to have an
additional 133,360 jobs, $34.8 billion in additional gross state product, $56.8 billion in additional
output, and $14.7 billion in additional personal income, per year on average over the next 10
years.
Table 28 shows the impact of child care inaccessibility on employment by industry sector for
the sectors that are impacted the greatest over the 10-year period (for all industry sectors and
their associated sub-sectors, see Appendix H). The health care and social assistance sector is
projected to have the greatest employment impact from inaccessibility to child care in 2019
(16,100 jobs) followed by professional services (15,800 jobs), administrative and support
services (15,100 jobs), retail trade (14,000 jobs), construction (13,400 jobs), other services
(expect public administration)7 (12,700 jobs) and state and local government (12,400 jobs). The
impact that inaccessibility has on employment is a direct effect of parents’ lost wages due to
loss time at work and remaining out of the workforce, the impact on productivity from lost time at
work, greater employee turnover, and a reduction in labor force participation statewide, and in
the case of state government, the impact that parents’ lost wages and less productivity have on
tax revenue generation.
Lost wages lead to less consumer spending which will impact many sectors of the economy,
such as retail trade and accommodations and food service, resulting in less workers who are
employed in these sectors. Moreover, reduced productivity leads to less production by firms in
all sectors of the economy where workers that depend on child care are employed, leading to a
smaller workforce and less tax revenue for state government.
Table 29 shows the impact of child care inaccessibility by type of impact (i.e. looking at the
impact for each of the three aforementioned scenarios, separately) for 2019 only. The impact of
reduced labor force participation as a result of child care inaccessibility represents roughly 58%
of the total economic impact while lost time at work represents about 35% and employee
turnover represents almost 8%. Inaccessibility of child care leads to lower rates of labor force
participation, as household members decide not to work, or work less, due to child care issues.
The foregone earnings that result from less labor force participation and the foregone
7 “Other services (except public administration)” includes industries related to repair and maintenance,
personal and laundry services, private households, or religious, civic, or professional organizations.
156
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
productivity of these workers has significant impacts on the economy, and as a whole lead to a
greater impact than that of the employee turnover and lost time at work scenarios combined.
It is important to note that the economic impact by the type of scenario was simulated
separately for each impact category and will not add up the total impact combined, shown
above in Table 27. When taken as a whole, the impacts of these three scenarios will be less,
since simulating all three scenarios cumulatively factors in dynamic relationships within the
economy, such as the dynamic nature of changes in prices and factor costs. Simulating the
economic impact by scenario type separately provides a general comparison of the magnitude
of impact by type, but the true total economic impact, as a whole, is represented above in Table
27.
Table 29. Inaccessibility of Child Care in Washington State – Economic Impact Summary by
Scenario Type for 2019
Reduced Lost Time
Employee
Reduced Labor Force Lost at Work
Employee Turnover
Labor Force Participation Time at Percent of
Turnover Percent of
Participation Percent of Work Total
Total Impact
Total Impact Impact
Employment
-16.5 9% -100.8 56% -63.2 35%
(Thousands)
Gross Domestic
Product (Billions of
-2.6 6% -23.7 58% -14.3 35%
Fixed 2019
Dollars)
Output (Billions of
Fixed 2019 -4.2 6% -38.9 58% -23.4 35%
Dollars)
Personal Income
(Billions of Fixed -1.6 9% -10.2 58% -5.8 33%
2019 Dollars)
Source: ICF analysis utilizing the REMI PI+ economic model
157
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
3.2 Fiscal Impact
Table 30 shows the fiscal impact of child care inaccessibility on Washington State. Two sources
of state government tax revenue are considered for the calculation of fiscal impact: the Business
and Occupation (B&O) taxes and the state sales tax. All other state and local tax revenue
sources are not included. The findings represent the amount of tax revenue from these two
sources that are foregone or not realized by the Washington state government due to the
economic impacts of child care inaccessibility statewide. Foregone state tax revenue from these
two sources range from roughly $1.2 billion in 2019 to $935 million in 2028, and annual average
of $1.03 billion. The greatest impact is on the Business and Occupation tax, representing about
70% of the annual fiscal impact on average. This is a result of the impact on production, driven
by a combination of lower workforce participation, employee turnover, and lost time at work. The
impact on the sale tax is a direct result of less consumer spending on taxable goods, resulting
from parents’ lost wages due to lost time at work and lower workforce participation.
158
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Table 30. Inaccessibility of Child Care in Washington State – State Fiscal Impact (millions $’s)
Annual
Tax 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Average
2019–2028
Business and
-821.2 -774.2 -774.6 -772.4 -746.7 -721.3 -698.0 -677.5 -661.3 -648.0 -729.5
Occupation
Sales -343.3 -292.0 -304.4 -311.8 -306.2 -300.4 -294.9 -290.5 -288.2 -287.2 -301.9
Total -1164.5 -1066.1 -1079.0 -1084.2 -1053.0 -1021.7 -992.9 -968.0 -949.5 -935.2 -1031.4
Source: ICF utilizing the REMI PI+ economic model.
159
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
4. Conclusion
The results of the economic impact analysis show that Washington’s households, businesses,
and economy experience major economic and fiscal losses due to child care inaccessibility.
Findings indicate that the direct, indirect, and induced effects of short- and long-term disruptions
derived from child care breakdowns translate not only into parents having less disposable
income and companies being less productive, but also into lost government tax revenue, a
reduction in the state’s workforce, a decrease in statewide production, and thus a decrease in
gross state product (GSP).
If the scenarios of lost time at work, employee turnover, and a reduction in labor force
participation (which originate from child care inaccessibility) were addressed with adequate child
care options, the state’s economy as a whole would be on average $34.8 billion larger each
year over the next decade, as measured by gross state product, and have 133,360 more jobs.
These comprehensive effects can be minimized by private and public entities investing in
solutions that allow more parents to access consistent, high-quality, and affordable child care.
Additionally, creating incentives or programming that encourage family-friendly policies in the
workplace (e.g. onsite child care, flexible work schedules, child care subsidies, etc.) would also
help mitigate the impact by attracting and retaining working parents. Overall, this analysis posits
that an all-inclusive strategy is needed to more effectively support the growing needs of working
families in Washington state and how directly addressing child care issues can produce positive
returns for employers, families, and the state’s economy.
It is important to keep in mind that while updated projections estimating the impact of COVID-19
on the GSP have been included, what is not yet known is the lasting effect of the pandemic on
child care supply, and parent’s employment impacts or choices. Discussion of child care supply
among state leaders has already identified numerous temporary closures of child care
programs—as well as the potential need to reduce the number of children accommodated in
remaining programs—with long-term capacity changes still to be understood. Additional
analyses after the initial pandemic has faded may shed further light on how the pandemic will
affect the future supply of care, and how inaccessibility of child care influences the state.
Key Takeaways of Economic Impact
Inaccessibility, or lack of access to child care, has a direct effect on a state’s economy in terms
of the parental lost wages due to lost time at work and remaining out of the workforce, the lost
productivity from lost time at work, greater employee turnover, and reduced statewide labor
force participation, and in the case of state government, lost tax revenue as a result of lost
wages and less productivity combined.
Examining impact by employment sector, this effect is estimated to have the greatest impact on
a few sectors:
health care and social assistance
professional services
administrative and support services
retail trade
construction
160
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
other services (except public administration)
state and local government
Overall, child care inaccessibility leads to lower rates of labor force participation, as household
members decide to not work, or work less, due to having to address pertinent child care issues.
As shown earlier, the impact of labor force participation represents roughly 58% of the total
economic impact while lost time at work represents about 35% and employee turnover
represents almost 8%. The foregone earnings that result from less labor force participation and
the foregone productivity of these workers have significant impacts on the economy, and as a
whole lead to a greater impact than that of employee turnover and lost time at work combined.
The total amount of tax revenue, that is foregone or not realized by Washington state due to the
economic impacts of child care inaccessibility, ranges from roughly $1.2 billion in 2019 to $935
million in 2028, and an annual average of $1.03 billion, largely due to reduced output which
lessens the potential revenue on the Business and Occupation (B&O) tax.
161
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Discussion
Taken as a whole, this analysis provides a rich picture of the child care industry in Washington
State, to support the Child Care Collaborative Task Force in assessing needs and making
recommendations to the legislature for child care policies that support Washington’s working
families and promote a healthy state economy.
As described in the Economics of Child Care Markets section of this report, despite the great
promise of public investments in early childhood, the current financing structure only serves a
fraction of the families who need high-quality care and hampers the development of a stable,
highly qualified, and high-quality workforce, making the financing structure neither sustainable
nor adequate to provide the quality of care and learning children and families need. The child
care market has essentially failed and the consequences of this long-standing approach to
financing have left many families without access to affordable, high-quality early childhood
programs, perpetuating and driving inequality. This section of the report highlights the
fragmented nature of the early childhood market and early childhood policy interventions and
highlights work from the report on Transforming the Financing of Early Care and Education that
may provide insight for the Child Care Collaborative Task Force in crafting policies that will help
improve quality, access and affordability for child care in Washington.
The section on the Supply and Demand for Child Care identifies challenges that parents face
across the board in accessing child care, including challenges related to access, quality and
affordability. There are child care deserts in every county in the state, where the supply of
providers is inadequate to meet the potential needs of multiple families demanding care.
Families across different parts of the state also do not have consistent access to higher quality
child care providers, including Head Start, ECEAP and providers rated at the highest levels of
quality in Early Achievers. In addition to the challenges that families face when trying to find
care, regardless of quality, they also face significant challenges related to affordability. The price
of child care for all age groups and types of care as a percentage of median family income far
exceeds the 7% level recommended by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in
every county. These challenges may move families to choose child care options outside of the
regulated market for care, where there are limited health and safety regulations and no specific
standards for quality. These challenges have persisted across the nation for decades, despite
different multiple efforts to expand access to quality child care, and the recent COVID-19
pandemic has disrupted supply and demand and could serve to exacerbate and perpetuate
these challenges. The results contained in this report and the Child Care Industry Insights
Dashboard developed as part of this study can be used by the Task Force as part of a new suite
of tools and practices that policymakers can use to monitor the monitor the supply and demand
for child care and develop strategies for addressing gaps and inequities.
The Parent Voices section of this report sheds more light on child care from parents’
perspectives, describing families’ needs and preferences for care, their current arrangements,
and the impact of limited access to child care or child care concerns on their work lives and
employment choices. In the statewide parent survey, the state employee survey, and individual
stories told in listening sessions, parents described their preferences and frequent reliance on
family members and informal arrangements for care, and their needs for flexible care and
nontraditional hours of care, which are rarely accommodated by licensed/regulated programs.
162
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Families also described the challenge of finding affordable care, and in surveys and interviews
consistently named the cost of care as their greatest concern or challenge in finding care. As
the supply/demand analysis shows, families that have an infant and a child of preschool age in
the least affordable counties could spend as much as 35% of their income for full-time care in
center-based settings and as much as 29% in family child care settings. Single mothers that
have an infant and a child of preschool age in the least affordable counties would have to spend
more than 150% of their income for full-time care in center- based settings and more than 120%
in family child care settings. Parents in listening sessions frequently described the cost of care
as a preventive factor keeping them out of the workforce.
Parents’ perspective on the challenges experienced as a result of child care issues are
sobering. In the statewide survey, a substantial number of parents reported having missed work
due to child care issues, that child care issues had a negative impact on their work at least
some of the time, and that they had experienced financial hardship as a result of child care
concerns.
A little less than half (44.5%) of respondents reported that they or their spouse/partner
had to take time off due to child care issues in the past 12 months. A little more than a
third (37.8%) reported they had reduced the number of hours or days worked due to
child care issues.
Nearly one in five respondents reported that in the past year they have turned down a
job offer or promotion due to child care issues.
Over a third (34.1%) of parents reported that they had experienced financial hardship as
a result of child care concerns.
In the statewide survey, a substantial portion of parents (47%) who were unemployed
and job-seeking named child care issues as a concern preventing them from obtaining
employment. This concern was also addressed by some of the parents interviewed in
parent engagement sessions, with some discussing in detail having dropped out of the
workforce and feeling they could not afford to pay for child care in order to return to
work.
There were several areas in which negative effects of child care issues fall harder on certain
subgroups of families than others, especially noted in the parent survey.
Missing work: Parents surveyed who were more likely to need to take time off due to
child care issues were:
o Those with all parents in household working,
o Asian/Pacific Islander respondents (in contrast, this was least likely among Hispanic
respondents),
o Those in urban areas, and
o Those with higher education and income levels.
Negative impacts of child care issues on parents’ job were more often reported by:
o Non-Hispanic Black parents (and least often by White parents),
o Single working parents and 2-working parent households,
o Those with a graduate education vs. lower educational levels,
o Those with a high income level ($200,000 or greater); least often by those making
$40,000 to 59,999, and
163
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
o Those with children in the age 0 through 4 or both age groups, vs. those with
children age 5 through 12 only.
Cost of care was a concern for all parents surveyed, but especially so for those with
younger children (age 0 through 4 vs. those with children of mixed ages or those with
school-age children). Also, concern about finding affordable care was a greater concern
for those with lower income.
Finding child care that fits the parents’ working schedule is of greater concern for
parents with younger children (ages 0 through 4) vs. those with school-age children.
Financial hardships due to child care costs were more often reported by:
o Non-Hispanic Black and American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) parents,
o Families with moderately low income,
o Single working parent households, and
o Families with children age 0 through 4.
Financial assistance with child care costs is not universally available:
o Families at mid-levels of household income were least likely to receive some form of
assistance, likely due to what form of assistance (public vs. private/employer) is
available for low-income families as compared with high-income families.
o Families in rural areas were somewhat less likely to receive some form of financial
assistance than those in urban areas. Previous research has sometimes shown that
this is due to limited availability of regulated child care that is eligible for public
subsidy in rural areas.
These findings speak directly to the economic impact of lost time at work, lowered participation
in the workforce, and workforce turnover due to child care issues. The economic impact of
inaccessibility of child care, described in this report, is the “bottom line” of the effect of limited
child care access. The economic impact analysis demonstrates that inaccessibility, or lack of
access to child care, has a direct effect of the lost wages due to lost time at work and remaining
out of the workforce, the impact on productivity from both lost time at work and greater
employee turnover, and in the case of state government, the impact that lost wages and less
productivity have on tax revenue. While child care challenges are seen in their effect on
individual families’ lives and day-to-day choices, the resulting effect at the state economy level
in the form of reduced total amount of tax revenue realized by Washington state ranges from
roughly $1.2 billion in 2019 to $935 million in 2028, and an annual average of $1.03 billion.
The analysis incorporated recent projections of GDP adjusted due to COVID-19, but the full
impact of lasting effects of the recent disruptions caused by shutdowns due to COVID-19 are as
yet unknown. However, the sheer size of this impact demonstrates the need for public solutions
that increase support to working families and to the child care industry as a whole as a major
component of a healthy Washington state economy.
164
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
References
Anderson, S., & Mikesell, M. (2019). Child care type, access, and quality in rural areas of the
United States: A review. Early Child Development and Care, 189(11), 1812–1826.
doi:10.1080/03004430.2017.1412959
Ansari, A. (2017). The selection of preschool for immigrant and native-born Latino families in the
U.S. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 41, 149–160. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.07.002
Bassok, D., Magouirk, P., Markowitz, A. J., & Player, D. (2017). Are there differences in parents’
preferences and search processes across preschool types? Evidence from Louisiana. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 44, 43–54.
Bassok, D., Miller, L. C., & Galdo, E. (2016). The effects of universal state pre-kindergarten on
the child care sector: The case of Florida’s voluntary pre-kindergarten program. Economics of
Education Review, 53, 87–98.
Belfield, C. R. (2018, September). The Economic Impacts of Insufficient Child Care on Working
Families. Retrieved from https://strongnation.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/522/3c5cdb46-
eda2-4723-9e8e-
f20511cc9f0f.pdf?1542205790&inline;%20filename=%22The%20Economic%20Impacts%2
0of%20Insufficient%20Child%20Care%20on%20Working%20Families.pdf%22
Belfield, C. R. (2019, July). The Economic Consequences of Insufficient Child Care on Working
Families across Tennessee. Retrieved from https://www.tqee.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/09/TQEE_-Belfield-Report_FINAL.pdf
Bishop-Josef, S., Beakey, C., Watson, S., & Garrett, T. (2019). Want to Grow the Economy? Fix
the Child Care Crisis. Council for a Strong America. Retrieved from
https://strongnation.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/602/83bb2275-ce07-4d74-bcee-
ff6178daf6bd.pdf?1547054862&inline;%20filename=%22Want%20to%20Grow%20the%20Econ
omy?%20Fix%20the%20Child%20Care%20Crisis.pdf%22
Boushey, H., & Glynn, S. (2012). There Are Significant Business Costs to Replacing Employees
(Rep.). Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/11/16084443/CostofTurnover0815.pdf
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). CPI Inflation Calculator. Retrieved from
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey. Retrieved from
https://data.bls.gov/PDQWeb/jt
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Retrieved from
https://data.bls.gov/PDQWeb/la
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020, April 23). Multifactor Productivity and Related Measures.
Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/mfp/mprdload.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019, April 02). Washington - May 2018 OES State Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates. Retrieved from
https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes_wa.htm
165
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Burton, J. T., Ehrlich, G. M., Grimes, D., Manaenkov, D., McWilliams, M.R., Song, W., &
Thapar, A. (2020. Update April 9: The U.S. and Michigan Economic Outlook for 2020–2022.
University of Michigan Research Seminar in Quantitative Economics Forecast, April 2020.
Found at: https://lsa.umich.edu/content/dam/econ-
assets/Econdocs/RSQE%20PDFs/RSQE_Forecast_Update_(2020.04).pdf
Child Care Aware of America. (2019). The US and the High Price of Child Care: An Examination
of a Broken System. Retrieved from https://info.childcareaware.org/hubfs/2019 Price of Care
State Sheets/Final-TheUSandtheHighPriceofChildCare-AnExaminationofaBrokenSystem.pdf
Child Trends. (2016). Child care. Figure 3. Retrieved from https://www.childtrends.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/05/21_fig3.jpg
Child Trends. (2016). Child Care: Indicators of Child and Youth Well-Being.
Child Trends Databank. (2019). Preschool and prekindergarten. Retrieved from
https://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=preschool-and-prekindergarten
Clarke-Stewart, K., & Allhusen, V. D. (2005). What we know about childcare. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Cohen, A. J. (1996). A brief history of federal financing for child care in the United States. The
Future of Children, 6(2), 26-40.
Davis, E., Lee, W., & Sojourner, A. (2019). Family-centered measures of access to early care
and education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 47(2) 472-486.
Davis, B., Bustamente, A., Bronfin, M., & Candal Rahim, M. (2017). Losing Ground: How Child
Care Impacts Louisiana’s Workforce Productivity and the State Economy. Retrieved from
http://www.brylskicompany.com/uploads/1/7/4/0/17400267/losing_ground-1.pdf
Department of Children Youth and Families. (2018). 2018 Child Care Market Rate Survey.
Retrieved from
https://dcyf.wa.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/reports/2018_Washington_State_Market_Rate_Survey.
pdf
Department of Children Youth and Families. (2020). March 9, 2020 data extract on licensed
child care, Head Start and ECEAP providers.
Department of Revenue Washington State. (n.d.). New Business Tax Basics. Retrieved from
https://dor.wa.gov/legacy/Docs/Pubs/ExciseTax/BusinessTaxBasics.pdf
DHI Group, Inc. (2018). DHI Hiring Indicators: Data & Charts. Retrieved from
https://www.dice.com/indicators/data-charts/
Dobbins, D., McCready, M., & Rackas, L. (2016). Unequal access: Barriers to early childhood
education for boys of color (Issue Brief). Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Early Learning Policy Group, LLC. (n.d.). Shadow Effect: The Economic Impact of Child Care
within States. Retrieved from https://www.earlylearningpolicygroup.com/childcare-economic-
impact.html
Emlen, A., & Koren, B. (1984). Hard to find and difficult to manage: The effects of child care on
the workplace. Portland, OR: Portland State University.
166
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. (2020). School's Out: Childcare Needs among Essential
Health Care Workers and First Responders. Retrieved from:
https://www.frbatlanta.org/community-development/publications/partners-update/2020/covid-19-
publications/200408-schools-out-child-care-needs-among-essential-health-care-workers-and-
first-responders.aspx
Flynn, L. (2017). Child care markets and maternal employment: A typology. Journal of European
Social Policy, 27(3), 260–275.
Forry, N. D., Tout, K., Rothenberg, L., Sandstrom, H., & Vesely, C. (2013). Child care decision-
making literature review (OPRE Brief 2013-45). Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research
and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. Retrieved from
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/child_care_decision_making_literature_review_p
df_version_v2.pdf
Glenn-Applegate, K., Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. (2016). How do caregivers select
preschools? A study of children with and without disabilities. Child Youth Care Forum, 45, 123–
153. doi:10.1007/s10566-015-9322-1
Goldberg, H., Cairl, T., & Cunningham, T. J. (2018). Opportunity Lost: How Child Care
Challenges Affect Georgia’s Workforce and Economy. Retrieved from https://geears.org/wp-
content/uploads/Opportunities-Lost-Report-FINAL.pdf
Grieco, E. M., Acosta, Y. D., de la Cruz, G. P., Gambino, C., Gryn, T., Larsen, L. J., Trevelyan,
E. N., & Walters, N. P. (2012). The foreign-born population in the United States: 2010. American
Community Survey Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Grunewald, R. (2020). COVID-19 challenges the child care market. Federal Reserve Bank of
Minneapolis. Retrieved from: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2020/covid-19-challenges-
the-child-care-market
Harknett, K., Schneider, D., & Luhr, S. (2019). Who cares if parents have unpredictable work
schedules? The association between just-in-time work schedules and child care arrangements.
Working paper series. Washington, DC: Washington Center for Equitable Growth.
Hipp, L., Morrissee, T. W., & Warner, M. E. (2017). Who participates and who benefits from
employer-provided child-care assistance? Journal of Marriage and Family, 79, 614–635.
doi:10.1111/jomf.12359
Hoynes, H. W., Page, M. E., & Stevens, A. H. (2006). Poverty in America: Trends and
Explanations. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 47–68.
doi:10.1257/089533006776526102
IBISWorld. (2019). Industry Report: Day Care in the US.
Kennedy, B., & Jones, P. (2019). Washington State Childcare Study: Analyzing the Costs
Facing Businesses Due to Workforce Turnover and Missed Time Associated with Inadequate
Childcare Options. Retrieved from http://www.commerce.wa.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2019/10/Childcare-in-Washington-EWU-Study_FINAL.pdf
Liebman, A .K., Simmons, J., Salzwedel, M., Tovar-Aguilar, A., & Lee, B.C. (2017). Caring for
167
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
children while working in agriculture—The perspective of farmworker parents. Journal of
Agromedicine, 22(4), 406–415. doi:10.1080/1059924X.2017.1358229
Littlepage, L. (2018). Lost Opportunities: The Impact of Inadequate Child Care on Indiana’s
Workforce & Economy. Retrieved from https://earlylearningin.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/economic.impact_early.learning_sep.28.2018_final.pdf
Lombardi, J. (2003). Time to care: Redesigning child care to promote education, support
families, and build communities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Moran, K. K. (2019). Perspectives on the child care search process in low income, urban
neighbourhoods in the United States. Early Child Development and Care.
doi:10.1080/03004430.2019.1641703
Morrissey, T. W. (2017). Child care and labor force participation: A review of the research
literature. Review of the Economics of the Household, 15, 1–24.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (U.S.) (2018). Transforming the
financing of early care and education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Novoa, Cristina, and Steven Jessen-Howard. “The Child Care Crisis Causes Job Disruptions for
More Than 2 Million Parents Each Year.” Center for American Progress, February 18, 2020.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/news/2020/02/18/480554/child-care-
crisis-causes-job-disruptions-2-million-parents-year/
RegionTrack, Inc. (2019). Child Care in State Economies: 2019 Update. Retrieved from
https://www.ced.org/assets/reports/childcareimpact/181104 CCSE Report Jan30.pdf
Ressler, R. W., Ackert, E., Ansari, A., & Crosnoe, R. (2020). Race/ethnicity, human capital, and
the selection of young children into early childhood education. Social Science Research, 85,
102364, 1–12.
Ruppanner, L., Moller, S., & Sayer, L. (2019). Expensive child care and short school days =
lower maternal employment and more time in child care? Evidence from the American Time Use
Survey. SOCIUS: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 5, 1–14.
Satkowski, L., Banik, R., & Roubeni, S. (2016). Latina women in the United States: Child care
preferences and arrangements. Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for
Children at Risk, 7(2).
Shuey, E.A., & Leventhal, T. (2018). Neighborhood context and center-based child care use:
Does immigration status matter? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 44, 124–135.
Talbert, E. M., Bustamante, A., Thompason, L. J., & Williams, M. E. (2018). Counting Our
Losses: The Hidden Cost to Marylanders of an Inadequate Child Care System. Retrieved from
http://www.marylandfamilynetwork.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/04/MarylandFamilyNetwork_Countingourlosses_FullReport_Hyperlinked_
Singles.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-year estimates.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study, birth cohort 9-month–kindergarten. Table 56. [Restricted-use data file and
electronic codebook].
168
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Weber, R. (2011). Understanding parents’ child care decision-making: A foundation for policy
making (OPRE Research-to-Policy, Research-to-Practice Brief OPRE 2011-12). Washington,
DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Weber, R. B., Gnobe, D., & Scott, E. K. (2018). Predictors of low-income parent child care
selections. Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 528–540.
169
Washington Child
Care Industry
Assessment
Volume II-- Appendices
June 30, 2020
Submitted to:
Washington State Department of
Commerce
Child Care Collaborative Task
Force
Submitted by:
ICF
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Appendices
Appendix A. Parent Survey ................................................................................................................. 3
Appendix B. Parent Survey Detail Tables ....................................................................................... 21
Appendix C. Parent Engagement Question Guide ......................................................................... 82
Appendix D. State Employee Child Care Survey ............................................................................ 85
Appendix E. Supply and Demand Methodology............................................................................. 89
Appendix F. Supply and Demand Detail Tables ............................................................................. 92
Appendix G. REMI Economic Model .............................................................................................. 117
Appendix H. Economic Impact Tables .......................................................................................... 122
Appendix I. Workforce Demographic Characteristics ................................................................. 132
2
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Appendix A. Parent Survey
2020 Washington Child Care Industry Assessment
Parent Survey Final
Web Panel Questionnaire
PROGRAMMING NOTES
TEXT FORMATTING KEY
[PROGRAMMING NOTES, LOGIC, AND SKIPS ARE IN SQUARE BRACKETS AND ALL CAPS]
WEB SURVEY APPEARANCE
Optimization for best viewing and ease of use on multiple devices (desktop, laptop, tablet,
smartphone)
Questions can be skipped unless otherwise noted. One warning message appears in red: “You
skipped this question and the information is very important for our research. Are you sure you want
to move forward?” Respondent may proceed to the next question if warning is ignored.
Suspend text:
Your responses have been saved. When you are ready to continue the survey, please return to the
link provided in the message you received. You will then be taken to the point where you stopped.
You may now exit this page.
Informed Consent
You are invited to take part in a child care research study, conducted by the survey
research organization ICF. Your answers will help us understand the child care needs
and preferences of families in Washington State. The results will be used by the
Washington Department of Commerce to consider future programs and policies to
improve access to affordable, quality child care for working families.
Your participation is voluntary. There is no penalty if you do not participate. You can skip
questions you don’t want to answer or end the survey at any time. The survey should
take no more than 10 minutes to complete and your responses are confidential. This
survey has been reviewed by ICF’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the Protection
of Human Subjects Subjects and the Washington State Institutional Review Board, and
involves no foreseeable risk to participants. If you have any questions about the survey
or about research subjects’ rights, please contact ICF
at WAChildCareSurvey@icfsurvey.com.
3
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
If you consent to participate, please click on the continue button below.
01 Yes, I consent
02 No
INSTRUCTIONS
Please use the NEXT button to navigate through the survey. Once you select your answer, you also
can move to the next question by pressing ENTER.
Do not use the BACK button of your browser as this may cause you to exit the survey and your
responses will be lost.
You can exit the survey at any time and re-enter later using the URL and access code you received in
your letter. Use the STOP button to exit.
Haga clic en el botón SIGUIENTE para avanzar en la encuesta. Una vez que seleccione su respuesta,
también puede pasar a la pregunta siguiente presionando ENTER (Introducir).
No use el botón “ANTERIOR” (botón de retroceso) de su navegador, pues esto podría hacerle salir
del cuestionario.
Puede salir de la encuesta en cualquier momento y volver a ingresar más tarde usando el enlace URL
y el código de acceso que recibió en su carta. Use el botón SALIR para salir
SECTION 1: Eligibility and demographics.
[RECORD ELAPSED TIME IN SECTION]
TIMER1
[ASK ALL]
INT02.
First, we’d like to ask you some questions about yourself.
[ASK ALL]
Q1.
Are you a resident of Washington State?
01 Yes
02 No
If Q1=02, terminate survey]
TERM1.
We are sorry, for this study we are only interviewing residents of Washington State.
4
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
[ask if Q1=01]
Q2.
How many DEPENDENT CHILDREN do you have who are twelve years old or
younger who live with you for at least 3 months out of the year?
Please include step-children or children for which you are a legal guardian.
01 No children
02 1 child
03 2 children
04 3 children
05 4 or more children
[if Q2 = 01; terminate survey]
TERM2.
We are sorry, for this study we are only interviewing people who live with a child aged
twelve years or younger at least 3 months out of the year.
[ASK ALL]
Q3.
Are you:
01 Male
02 Female
03 Non-binary/ X
04 Prefer not to say
[ASK ALL]
Q4.
What is your age?
_______ Years [validate between 15 & 90]
[if Q4 = < 18; terminate survey]
TERM3.
We are sorry, for this study we are only interviewing people who are at least 18 years of
age.
Calculate AGE variable from Q4 Birthday.
[ASK ALL]
Q5.
What is your current MARITAL STATUS?
01 Married or in a domestic partnership
02 Not married, and living with a partner
03 Not married, and not living with a partner
99 Prefer not to answer
5
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
[ASK ALL]
Q6.
What best describes your employment status today?
01 Employed full-time (At least 32 hours per week)
02 Employed part-time (less than 32 hours per week)
03 Unemployed and seeking employment
04 Unemployed and not seeking employment
05 A student
06 Retired
07 Unable to work due to disability
08 Homemaker or parent who stays at home
09 Other
99 Prefer not to answer
[Ask if Q6 = 01,02 or 3]
Q7.
Which of the following best describes the industry in which you work or have worked in
during the past 12 months?
01 Natural resources and mining
02 Construction
03 Manufacturing
04 Trade, transportation, and utilities
05 Information technology
06 Financial activities
07 Professional and business services
08 Education and health services
09 Leisure and Hospitality
10 Other services
11 Government
99 Prefer not to answer
[Ask if Q6 = 01,02 or 3]
Q8.
Which of the following best describes your primary occupation?
01 Computer and Mathematical Occupations
02 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations
03 Architecture and Engineering Occupations
04 Construction and Extraction Occupations
05 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations
06 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations
07 Office and Administrative Support Occupations
08 Business and Financial Operations Occupations
09 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations
10 Community and Social Service Occupations
11 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations
12 Healthcare Support Occupations
6
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
13 Legal Occupations
14 Production Occupations
15 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations
16 Education, Training, and Library Occupations
17 Personal Care and Service Occupations
18 Sales and Related Occupations
19 Management Occupations
20 Protective Service Occupations
21 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations
22 Transportation and Materials Moving Occupations
99 Prefer not to answer
[Ask All]
[MULTIPLE SELECTION]
Q9.
What is your RACE and ETHNICITY? Please select all that apply.
01 American Indian or Alaska Native
02 Asian or Pacific Islander
03 Black or African American
04 White or Caucasian
05 Hispanic or Latino/a
99 Prefer not to answer
[Ask All]
Q10.
What is the highest level of EDUCATION you have completed?
01 Less than high school
02 High school graduate/GED
03 Some college but no degree
04 Associate’s Degree (AA, AS, AAS, ATA)
05 Bachelor’s Degree (BA, BS)
06 Graduate courses, no degree
07 Graduate degree – e.g., Master’s Degree (MA, MS), Doctorate (Ph.D, Ed.D.)
08 Professional Degree (MD., DDS, JD/LLB; ETC.)
09 Trade/vocational certificate or apprenticeship program
99 Prefer not to answer
7
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
FAMILY DEMOGRAPHICS
[ASK ALL]
Q11.
Before taxes, what is your estimated ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME?
01 Less than $20,000
02 $20,000 - $39,999
03 $40,000 - $59,999
04 $60,000 - $79,999
05 $80,000 - $99,999
06 $100,000 - $149,999
07 $150,000 - $199,999
08 $200,000 or more
99 Prefer not to answer
[ASK ALL]
Q12.
What is your HOME ZIP CODE?
_____ [validate 5 digits]
99 Prefer not to answer
CHILD AND CHILD CARE INFORMATION
[ASK ALL]
CCIntr0.
Now we’d like to ask some questions about your (IF Q2 = 02, “child”, IF Q2>02,
“children”,) and child care arrangements.
[Loop over questions 13-15 for each child: “X” = Youngest, Second Youngest,
Third Youngest, or Fourth Youngest. Note programming language that provides
alternative language if respondent indicates they only have 1 child>]
[Q13 LOOP]
If Q2 = 02, Loop once through Q13_1, Q14A-H_1, Q15A-H_1, Q, Q16A-H_1, Q17_1,
Q18_1
IF Q2 > 02, loop through question series, advancing the underscored number—for
example, Q13_2 for the second youngest child in second loop.]
[text inserts: if IF Q2 = 02, “child”,
IF Q2 > 02, Loop 1 = “youngest child”, Loop 2 = “second youngest child”, Loop 3 =
“Third Youngest child, loop 4= “fourth youngest child”)
8
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
[Ask All]
Q13_1.
How old is your (IF Q2 = 02, “child”, IF Q2>02, “youngest child”,) aged 12 years or
younger? Please note if the child is an infant, write “0” in the box below.
______ year(s) [validate numeric range 0-12]
99 Prefer not to answer
[Ask All]
Allow respondent to advance without selecting options, code missing as 99
Q14_1.
Please answer the following questions for your (IF Q2 = 02, “child”, IF Q2>02,
“youngest child”,) year old child.
Q14_1 grid: Last year (i.e., 2019), did you consistently use any of the following child care
arrangements?
Q14A. Stay at home with parent, step-parent or guardian 01 Yes
02 No
Q14B. Stay with another family member 01 Yes
02 No
Q14C. Stay with a neighbor or friend 01 Yes
02 No
Q14D. Stay with nanny or au-pair 01 Yes
02 No
Q14E. Stay at home alone 01 Yes
02 No
Q14F. Go to licensed family child care home 01 Yes
02 No
Q14G. Go to licensed child care center 01 Yes
02 No
Q14H. Go to a Head Start or ECEAP program 01 Yes
02 No
Q14I. Go to another preschool program 01 Yes
02 No
Q14J. Go to a before or after-school program 01 Yes
02 No
Q14K. Go to another type of program or activity, such as a library, 01 Yes
sports/athletic program or club 02 No
[Ask if Q14A_1= 01]
Q15A_1.
How many hours per week does this child use this type of care?
Stay at home with parent, step-parent or guardian
_______ Hours (Range 0 – 280)
99 Prefer not to answer [mutually exclusive]
9
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
[Ask if Q14B_1= 01]
Q15B_1.
How many hours per week does this child use this type of care?
Stay with another family member
_______ Hours (Range 0 – 280)
99 Prefer not to answer [mutually exclusive]
[Ask if Q14C_1= 01]
Q15C_1.
How many hours per week does this child use this type of care?
Stay with a neighbor or friend
_______ Hours (Range 0 – 280)
99 Prefer not to answer [mutually exclusive]
[Ask if Q14D_1= 01]
Q15D_1.
How many hours per week does this child use this type of care?
Stay with nanny or au-pair
_______ Hours (Range 0 – 280)
99 Prefer not to answer [make mutually exclusive]
[Ask if Q14E_1= 01]
Q15E_1.
How many hours per week does this child use this type of care?
Stay at home alone
_______ Hours (Range 0 – 280)
99 Prefer not to answer [make mutually exclusive]
[Ask if Q14F_1= 01]
Q15F_1.
How many hours per week does this child use this type of care?
Go to licensed family child care home
_______ Hours (Range 0 – 280)
99 Prefer not to answer [make mutually exclusive]
[Ask if Q14G_1= 01]
Q15G_1.
How many hours per week does this child use this type of care?
Go to licensed child care center
_______ Hours (Range 0 – 280)
99 Prefer not to answer [make mutually exclusive]
[Ask if Q14H_1= 01]
Q15H_1.
How many hours per week does this child use this type of care?
Go to a Head Start or ECEAP program
_______ Hours (Range 0 – 280)
99 Prefer not to answer [make mutually exclusive]
10
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
[Ask if Q14I_1= 01]
Q15I_1.
How many hours per week does this child use this type of care?
Go to another preschool program
_______ Hours (Range 0 – 280)
99 Prefer not to answer [make mutually exclusive]
[Ask if Q14J_1= 01]
Q15J_1.
How many hours per week does this child use this type of care?
Go to a before or after-school program
_______ Hours (Range 0 – 280)
99 Prefer not to answer [make mutually exclusive]
[Ask if Q14K_1= 01]
Q15K_1.
How many hours per week does this child use this type of care?
Go to another type of program or activity, such as a library, sports/athletic program or
club
_______ Hours (Range 0 – 280)
99 Prefer not to answer [make mutually exclusive]
[Ask if Q14A_1= 01]
Q16A_1.
How much do you pay per week for child care for this child?
Stay at home with parent, step-parent or guardian
$_______ (Range 0 – 9,999)
99 Prefer not to answer [make mutually exclusive]
[Ask if Q14B_1= 01]
Q16B_1.
How much do you pay per week for child care for this child?
Stay with another family member
$_______ (Range 0 – 9,999)
99 Prefer not to answer [make mutually exclusive]
[Ask if Q14C_1= 01]
Q16C_1.
How much do you pay per week for child care for this child?
Stay with a neighbor or friend
$_______ (Range 0 – 9,999)
99 Prefer not to answer [make mutually exclusive]
11
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
[Ask if Q14D_1= 01]
Q16D_1.
How much do you pay per week for child care for this child?
Stay with nanny or au-pair
$_______ (Range 0 – 9,999)
99 Prefer not to answer [make mutually exclusive]
[Ask if Q14E_1= 01]
Q16E_1.
How much do you pay per week for child care for this child?
Stay at home alone
$_______ (Range 0 – 9,999)
99 Prefer not to answer [make mutually exclusive]
[Ask if Q14F_1= 01]
Q16F_1.
How much do you pay per week for child care for this child?
Go to licensed family child care home
$_______ (Range 0 – 9,999)
99 Prefer not to answer [make mutually exclusive]
[Ask if Q14G_1= 01]
Q16G_1.
How much do you pay per week for child care for this child?
Go to licensed child care center
$_______ (Range 0 – 9,999)
99 Prefer not to answer [make mutually exclusive]
[Ask if Q14H_1= 01]
Q16H_1.
How much do you pay per week for child care for this child?
Go to Head Start or ECEAP program
$_______ (Range 0 – 9,999)
99 Prefer not to answer [make mutually exclusive]
[Ask if Q14I_1= 01]
Q16I_1.
How much do you pay per week for child care for this child?
Go to another preschool program
$_______ (Range 0 – 9,999)
99 Prefer not to answer [make mutually exclusive]
[Ask if Q14J_1= 01]
Q16J_1.
How much do you pay per week for child care for this child?
Go to a before or after-school program
$_______ (Range 0 – 9,999)
99 Prefer not to answer [make mutually exclusive]
12
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
[Ask if Q14K_1= 01]
Q16K_1.
How much do you pay per week for child care for this child?
Go to another type of program or activity, such as a library, sports/athletic program or
club
$_______ (Range 0 – 9,999)
99 Prefer not to answer [make mutually exclusive]
[Ask All]
Q17INT
Did you use a different child care arrangement for this child last summer ?
01 Yes
02 No
99 Prefer not to answer
[Ask if Q17INT=01]
Q17_1.
Q17_1 grid: Did you use any of the following child care arrangements for this child last
summer?
Q17A. Stay at home with parent, step-parent or guardian 01 Yes
02 No
Q17B. Stay with another family member 01 Yes
02 No
Q17C. Stay with a neighbor or friend 01 Yes
02 No
Q17D. Stay with nanny or au-pair 01 Yes
02 No
Q17E. Stay at home alone 01 Yes
02 No
Q17F. Go to licensed family child care home 01 Yes
02 No
Q17G. Go to licensed child care center 01 Yes
02 No
Q17H. Go to a Head Start or ECEAP program 01 Yes
02 No
Q17I. Go to another preschool program 01 Yes
02 No
Q17J. Go to a before or after-school program l 01 Yes
02 No
Q17K. Go to another type of program or activity, such as a library, 01 Yes
sports/athletic program or club 02 No
Q17L. Go to full-day school/age or day camp 01 Yes
02 No
13
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
[IF Q2 = 02, END LOOP, IF Q2 = 03 PROCEED TO q14_2.
AFTER Q18_2, IF Q2_03, END LOOP, IF Q2=-4 PROCEED TO Q14_3 >
JOB CHALLENGES RELATED TO CHILD CARE
[Ask All]
Q19.
In the past 12 months, have you or your spouse or partner had to take time off due to
child care issues?
01 Yes
02 No
99 Prefer not to answer
[Ask All]
Q20.
In the past 12 months, have you or your spouse or partner reduced the number of hours
or days you work due to child care issues?
01 Yes
02 No
99 Prefer not to answer
[Ask IF Q19=01][No soft validation text if blank]
Q19A.
In the past 12 months, how many hours or days have you or your spouse or partner
taken paid time off due to child care issues?
Q19A 1. Respond in hours
2. Respond in days
[Ask IF Q19A=01]
Q19AH number of paid hours taken off
[Ask IF Q19A=02]
Q19AD number of paid days taken off
[Ask IF Q19=01][No soft validation text if blank]
Q19B.
In the past 12 months, how many hours or days have you or your spouse or partner
taken unpaid time off due to child care issues?
01 Respond in hours
02 Respond in days
[Ask IF Q19B=01]
Q19BH number of unpaid hours taken off
14
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
[Ask IF Q19B=02]
Q19BD number of unpaid days taken off
[Ask IF Q20=01]
[No soft validation text if blank]
Q20A.
In the past 12 months, how many work hours or days have you or your spouse or
partner reduced due to child care issues?
01 Respond in hours
02 Respond in days
[Ask IF Q20A=01]
Q20AH Total number of reduced work hours in past 12 months
[Ask IF Q20A=02]
Q20AD Total number of reduced work days in past 12 months
[Ask IF Q6=03]
Q21.
If you are currently unemployed and seeking employment, is child care an issue that is
preventing you from obtaining employment?
01 No. Child care is not an issue.
02 Yes. I would like part-time employment, but child care is an issue.
03 Yes. I would like full-time employment, but child care is an issue.
99 Prefer not to answer
[Ask IF Q6=01, 02, 03]
Q22.
In the past 12 months, have you turned down a promotion or job offer due to child care
issues?
01 Yes
02 No
99 Prefer not to answer
15
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
CHILD CARE BARRIERS/CHALLENGES
[ASK ALL]
[MUL 12]
Q23.
Which of the following child care issues has had an effect on your family over the past
year? Please select all that apply.
01 Finding child care that fits our work schedule.
02 Finding affordable care.
03 Finding high quality care.
04 Finding back up child care.
05 Finding care for a sick child.
06 Finding care for my child with special needs.
07 Finding care that is located close to my home or work.
08 Finding care when school is closed.
09 Finding transportation to and/or from child care.
10 Finding information on child care options
11 Other (Specify) ___________________
12 None of the above (MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE)
99 Prefer not to answer
[Ask All]
Q24.
How often is your ability to do your job negatively affected by your child care
arrangement(s)?
01 Never
02 Rarely
03 Sometimes
04 Often
05 Always
99 Prefer not to answer
[Ask All]
Q25.
Has your household experienced any financial hardship or made financial changes as a
result of the cost of child care?
01 Yes
02 No
99 Prefer not to answer
16
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
[ASK ALL]
[MUL: 8]
Q26.
Does your family receive assistance from any of the following?
Please select all that apply.
01 Assistance from a public benefit program (like Head Start, ECEAP, Working
Connections or city-funded program)
02 Free program offered through a public school
03 Scholarship, financial aid, sliding-fee-scale, or reduced fee offered by child care
provider
04 Employer offers flexible spending accounts that can be used for child care
05 Employer pays part or all of the cost of child care
06 Employer offers on-site child care at free or reduced cost
07 Relative or friend helps to pay for child care
08 No assistance from any source (MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE)
99 Prefer not to answer
PARENT NEEDS AND PREFERENCES
[ASK ALL]
Q27.
I prefer child care that is provided in:
01 A child care center
02 A family member or friend’s home
03 Another person’s home
04 My own home
05 A licensed child care program
06 A program at a public school
07 No preference
99 Prefer not to answer
[ASK ALL]
Q28.
Do you have a need for child care outside of regular/traditional daytime hours (6:00am
– 6:00pm Monday thru Friday)?
01 Yes
02 No
99 Prefer not to answer
17
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
[ASK if Q28=01]
Q29.
When do you have a need for child care outside of regular/traditional hours?
01 Evenings (6:00pm to 9:00pm)
02 Nights (9:00pm to 6:00am)
03 Weekend days
04 Weekend evenings or nights
05 Other (Specify)_______
99 Prefer not to answer
ASK ALL]
Q30.
Approximately how many minutes does it take to transport your child(ren) to and from
(round trip) child care each day?
01 less than 5 minutes
02 Between 5 and 60 minutes (specify)________ (Range 5 - 60)
03 More than 60 minutes
99 Prefer not to answer
[ASK ALL]
[MUL 8]
Q31.
Please select all the transportation options your family uses to transport your child(ren)
to and from child care. (Please Select all that apply.)
01 Parent or other adult drives child(ren)
02 Friend/family member or neighbor drives child(ren)
03 Carpool/Vanpool
04 Public Transportation (bus, train, ferry, etc.)
05 Bicycle
06 Walk
07 A care giver comes to our home for child care
08 Other (Specify): _______________________
99 Prefer not to answer
18
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
DEMOGRAPHIC AND OCCUPATIONAL INFORMATION (SPOUSE OR DOMESTIC PARTNER)
[Only present this page if member is married or in partnership (from Q5)]
[ASK if Q5=01]
Q32.
What best describes your spouse or partner’s employment status today?
01 Employed full-time
02 Employed part-time
03 Unemployed and seeking employment
04 Unemployed and not seeking employment
05 A student
06 Retired
07 Unable to work due to disability
08 Homemaker or parent who stays at home
09 Other
99 Prefer not to answer
[ASK if Q32=01, 02, 03]
Q33.
Which of the following best describes the industry in which your spouse or partner
works or has worked in during the past 12 months?
01 Natural resources and mining
02 Construction
03 Manufacturing
04 Trade, transportation, and utilities
05 Information technology
06 Financial activities
07 Professional and business services
08 Education and health services
09 Leisure and hospitality
10 Other services
11 Government
99 Prefer not to answer
ASK if Q32=01, 02, 03]
Q34.
Which of the following best describes your spouse or partner’s primary occupation?
01 Computer and Mathematical Occupations
02 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations
03 Architecture and Engineering Occupations
04 Construction and Extraction Occupations
05 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations
06 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations
07 Office and Administrative Support Occupations
19
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
08 Business and Financial Operations Occupations
09 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations
10 Community and Social Service Occupations
11 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations
12 Healthcare Support Occupations
13 Legal Occupations
14 Production Occupations
15 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations
16 Education, Training, and Library Occupations
17 Personal Care and Service Occupations
18 Sales and Related Occupations
19 Management Occupations
20 Protective Service Occupations
21 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations
22 Transportation and Materials Moving Occupations
99 Prefer not to answer
[ASK if Q5=01]
Q35.
What is your spouse or partner’s RACE and ETHNICITY? Please select all that
apply.
01 American Indian or Alaska Native
02 Asian or Pacific Islander
03 Black or African American
04 White or Caucasian
05 Hispanic or Latino/a
99 Prefer not to answer [MUTUTALLY EXCLUSIVE]
[ASK if Q5=01]
Q36.
What is the highest level of EDUCATION your spouse or partner has completed?
01 Less than high school
02 High school graduate/GED
03 Some college but no degree
04 Associate’s Degree (AA, AS, AAS, ATA)
05 Bachelor’s Degree (BA, BS)
06 Graduate courses, no degree
07 Graduate degree – e.g., Master’s Degree (MA, MS), Doctorate (Ph.D, Ed.D.)
08 Professional Degree (MD., DDS, JD/LLB; ETC.)
09 Trade/vocational certificate or apprenticeship program
99 Prefer not to answer
CLOSE.
Thank you for your time! That was our last question for the Washington Child Care Survey.
20
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Appendix B. Parent Survey Detail Tables
Table B.1. Comparison of State Population and Survey Respondent Demographics
State Population Survey Respondents
Gender
Male 46% 46.2%
Female 54% 53.5%
Non-binary/X 0.1%
Education
Middle School / Some High School 11% 4.4%
High school graduate 22% 22.2%
Other post high school vocational training 5.7%
Some college or university 27% 17.4%
College graduate with a 2 year degree 22% 33.40%
College graduate with a 4 year degree
Completed some postgraduate 18% 17.30%
Master's degree
Doctorate
Race/Ethnicity
African American 5% 6.3%
Asian/Asian American 15% 16.6%
Caucasian 58% 63.0%
Native American, Inuit, Aleut -- 3.2%
Hispanic or Latino/a 17% 17.2%
Other 6%
21
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.2. Number of Children Under 12 Years of Age in Family
Q2 How many DEPENDENT CHILDREN do you have who are 12 years old or
younger who live with you for at least 3 months out of the year? Include step-
children or children for which you are a legal guardian.
Count Weighted Percent
1 child 701 48.9%
2 children 590 37.1%
3 children 168 9.5%
4 or more children 77 4.4%
Table B.3. Respondent Age Range
Q4 What is your age, in years?
Count Weighted Percent
18–24 102 6.6%
25–34 574 32.4%
35–49 780 52.0%
50–64 75 8.5%
65–90 5 0.5%
Table B.4. Current Marital Status
Q5 Marital Status
Count Weighted Percent
Married or in a domestic partnership 1034 79.4%
Not married, and living with a partner 241 10.5%
Not married, and not living with a 239 10.0%
partner
22
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.5. Current Employment Status of Respondent and Spouse/Partner
Q6 What best describes your employment status today?
Respondent Spouse/Partner
Count Weighted Percent Count Weighted Percent
Employed full-time (At least 32 hours per week) 808 56.1% 750 69.5%
Employed part-time (less than 32 hours per week) 189 11.7% 93 9.7%
Unemployed and seeking employment 110 6.9% 31 4.3%
Unemployed and not seeking employment 33 1.7% 20 2.6%
A student 38 1.9% 11 1.1%
Retired 9 0.9% 12 1.3%
Unable to work due to disability 50 3.8% 17 2.2%
Homemaker or parent who stays at home 261 15.3% 76 8.4%
Other 26 1.6% 11 0.9%
Table B.6. Employment Status of Parents by Household Income
Family work status
N 1 Parent, 1 Parent, Employed 2 Parents, 0 2 Parents, 1 2 Parents, 2
unemployed (FT/PT) employed employed employed
Total Total 1478 14.68 18 6.16 18.54 42.63
Household Income Less than $20,000 168 6.09 2.23 1.49 1.01 0.54
$20,000 - $39,999 236 4.8 4.74 1.35 2.44 2.64
$40,000 - $59,999 237 1.42 4.74 1.29 3.11 5.48
$60,000 - $79,999 209 1.15 2.57 0.74 3.92 5.75
$80,000 - $99,999 182 0.61 2.17 0.27 2.57 6.7
$100,000 - $149,999 254 0.34 0.95 0.74 4.06 11.1
$150,000 - $199,999 106 0.27 0.41 0.27 0.74 5.48
$200,000 or more 86 0 0.2 0 0.68 4.94
23
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.7. Current Industry of Employment of Respondent and Spouse/Partner
Q7 Which of the following best describes the industry in which you work or have worked in during
the past 12 months?
Respondent Spouse/Partner
Count Weighted Count Weighted
Percent Percent
Natural resources and mining 10 1.0% 10 1.0%
Construction 80 8.3% 97 10.7%
Manufacturing 74 8.7% 45 6.8%
Trade, transportation, and 51 6.1% 60 7.2%
utilities
Information technology 121 11.8% 123 13.1%
Financial activities 61 5.9% 48 5.8%
Professional and business 71 6.3% 77 9.1%
services
Education and health services 195 15.4% 108 13.6%
Leisure and Hospitality 63 5.4% 32 4.6%
Other services 277 24.7% 175 21.0%
Government 64 6.4% 68 7.1%
24
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.8. Current Primary Occupation of Respondent and Spouse/Partner
Q8 Which of the following best describes your primary occupation?
Respondent Spouse/Partner
Count Weighted Percent Count Weighted Percent
Computer and Mathematical 89 9.4% 86 9.9%
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 79 6.5% 44 5.8%
Architecture and Engineering 22 2.7% 28 2.9%
Construction and Extraction 51 5.3% 78 9.3%
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 33 3.2% 37 4.5%
Life, Physical, and Social Science 18 1.6% 9 1.3%
Office and Administrative Support 105 10.1% 52 7.0%
Business and Financial Operations 73 6.6% 77 8.4%
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 5 0.8% 9 1.5%
Community and Social Service 21 1.8% 15 1.8%
Food Preparation and Serving Related 61 5.8% 26 3.8%
Healthcare Support 52 4.4% 40 6.6%
Legal 14 1.4% 11 0.8%
Production 31 3.7% 15 2.0%
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 18 1.8% 17 1.8%
Education, Training, and Library 77 5.3% 48 5.6%
Personal Care and Service 37 3.7% 18 2.6%
Sales and Related 106 10.4% 56 7.3%
Management 76 7.6% 70 9.7%
Protective Service 16 1.7% 11 1.1%
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 11 1.4% 6 0.7%
Transportation and Materials Moving 39 4.6% 42 5.6%
25
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.9. Race and Ethnicity of Respondent and Spouse/Partner
Q9 What is your RACE and ETHNICITY? Select all that apply.
Respondent Spouse/Partner
Count Weighted Percent Count Weighted Percent
American Indian or Alaska Native 58 3.2% 18 1.8%
Asian or Pacific Islander 189 16.6% 130 16.2%
Black or African American 99 6.3% 50 5.4%
White or Caucasian 1124 63.0% 768 66.9%
Hispanic or Latino/a 139 17.2% 85 12.9%
Table B.10. Highest Level of Education Completed for Respondent and Spouse/Partner
Q10 What is the highest level of EDUCATION you have completed?
Respondent Spouse/Partner
Count Weighted Percent Count Weighted Percent
Less than high school 35 4.4% 25 3.8%
High school graduate/GED 283 22.2% 177 21.4%
Some college but no degree 323 17.4% 150 15.6%
Associate's Degree (AA, AS, AAS, ATA) 177 10.1% 114 11.2%
Bachelor's Degree (BA, BS) 339 23.0% 264 23.7%
Graduate courses, no degree 28 1.2% 24 1.7%
Graduate degree - e.g., Master's Degree (MA, MS), Doctorate (Ph.D., Ed.D.) 215 12.3% 182 15.3%
Professional Degree (MD., DDS, JD/LLB; ETC.) 74 3.8% 61 4.1%
Trade/vocational certificate or apprenticeship program 52 5.7% 26 3.3%
26
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.11. Child Care Arrangements by Child
Q14 Last year (i.e., 2019), did you consistently use any of the following child care arrangements?
Go to another
Stay at Go to Go to a Go to a
Stay with Go to Go to type of
home with Stay with Stay with Stay at licensed Head before
another licensed another program or
N parent, a neighbor nanny or home family Start or or after-
family child care preschool activity, such
step-parent or friend au-pair alone child care ECEAP school
member center program as library,
or guardian home program program
sports or club
Total Total 2665 77 41.5 13.5 8 9.2 9.2 16.6 4.9 9.9 17.1 25.4
Parent Race / Hispanic 234 81.6 48.6 14 5.3 9.4 4.9 10.4 1.7 8 11.9 25.1
Ethnicity NH white 1857 77.9 39.4 15 9.5 10.9 10.9 18.5 5.1 9.7 19.3 25.9
NH Black 128 58.8 36.3 8.1 11.5 8.1 6.4 23.3 10.2 16.3 19.5 25.1
NH API 258 72.9 39.8 6.4 5.2 3.1 9 13.7 3.8 10.5 13.2 23.8
NH Other 145 80 56.1 21.4 2.4 4.8 7.5 19.5 13.7 8.6 19.9 24.2
Household Less than $20,000 267 75.5 47.7 13 0.8 7.7 3.2 10.2 7.9 5.6 7.7 14
Income $20,000 - $39,999 422 81.1 42.1 16.8 3.9 4.2 7.2 14.9 4.6 3.4 16.7 19.4
$40,000 - $59,999 420 81.9 38.9 12.6 4.1 8.3 5.6 12.2 4.2 11.3 16.5 24.1
$60,000 - $79,999 352 76.1 40.6 9.3 8.5 7.6 6.7 12.9 4.4 9.8 8.7 20.8
$80,000 - $99,999 349 75.1 42.2 11.3 8.5 10.2 8 13.3 4.8 8.3 17.1 19.5
$100,000 - $149,999 457 76.6 43.2 15.8 10.4 13 11 18.5 4 12.5 18.4 34.1
$150,000 - $199,999 176 69.4 50.2 13.2 20.6 8.5 21.4 28.8 4.6 18.9 27.9 39.8
$200,000 or more 149 68.9 33.4 19.9 18.1 20.4 28.5 45.6 11.1 16.5 42.4 51.8
Urban / Rural Rural Area 901 78.7 43.7 14.8 4.1 8.3 6.7 11 3 8.3 11.5 21.8
Urbanized Area 1679 76.4 41.2 13 9.6 9.4 10.5 19.1 5.9 10.4 19.6 26.5
Parent Highest High School or less 635 79.1 45.6 12.7 3.5 7.3 3 9.9 5.3 6.7 11.4 20.3
Education Some College 871 77.1 42.7 12.2 5.6 8.3 8.1 14.8 4.3 7.3 13.2 19.5
College Grad 598 73.8 37.7 11.8 9.3 9.2 8.2 16.6 2.9 13.2 17.2 26.4
Grad School 546 76.8 38.2 19.5 18.8 14.3 24.2 32.4 8.4 16.7 35 42.6
Parent Work All parents working
1545 71.3 47 15.8 11.6 11.7 13.7 23.3 5.2 10.2 22.8 29.3
Status (FT/PT)**
At least one parent not
1083 85.4 34.8 10.5 2.9 5.7 2.9 7.6 4.7 9.8 9.6 20
working**
1 Parent, unemployed 366 79.6 43.3 17.2 3.7 8.1 5.3 12.5 7.8 4.8 10.7 17.3
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 427 63.1 60.9 22.5 7.8 10.9 9.9 23.6 4.8 6.6 19.6 22.4
2 Parents, 0 employed 182 90.8 29 11.5 1 3.1 3 5.7 9.3 7.7 10.9 19
2 Parents, 1 employed 535 85.8 33.5 7.5 3.2 5.7 1.9 6.4 2 12.5 8.6 21.3
2 Parents, 2 employed 1118 73 43.9 14.4 12.5 11.9 14.5 23.2 5.2 11 23.5 30.8
Age Group 0-4 545 77.7 34.3 10.3 9.3 0 8.2 17.2 4.2 7.3 0 9.4
5-9 395 73.6 42.7 10.3 10.5 0 9.6 25.5 11.9 23.4 3.2 17
10-12 1589 79.4 44.9 15.9 7 15.4 10.1 14.9 3.2 7.5 27.9 33.8
27
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Q14 Last year (i.e., 2019), did you consistently use any of the following child care arrangements?
Go to another
Stay at Go to Go to a Go to a
Stay with Go to Go to type of
home with Stay with Stay with Stay at licensed Head before
another licensed another program or
N parent, a neighbor nanny or home family Start or or after-
family child care preschool activity, such
step-parent or friend au-pair alone child care ECEAP school
member center program as library,
or guardian home program program
sports or club
Region CCA of Central Washington 125 80 44.8 20.6 7.9 12.1 13.6 15.4 1.4 7.2 11.3 28.5
CCA of Eastern Washington 357 74.8 45.4 9.8 5 7 6.1 10.1 5.1 6.4 12 21.7
CCA of King and Pierce Co 1131 77.1 42.8 14.3 11.7 9.6 13.2 21.8 6.2 14 23 31.2
CCA of Northwest Washington 412 71.6 39.6 15.2 5.3 8.1 6.3 14.1 3.8 6.9 14.6 20.7
CCA of Olympic Peninsula 283 83.1 35 10.6 3.8 9.1 3.6 7.1 4.1 3.7 12.7 15.6
CCA of Southwest Washington 287 81.2 41.9 13.1 3.6 9.4 4.9 16.5 3.9 9.3 11.3 19.7
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
28
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.12. Total Number of Non-Parental Child Care Arrangements by Child
Q14 Total number of non-parental child care arrangements by child
N 0 1 2 3 or more
All Total 2671 28.9 31.0 19.9 20.2
Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 235 32.6 28.0 21.9 17.5
NH white 1861 29.3 29.4 19.0 22.3
NH Black 128 16.6 39.8 28.2 15.4
NH API 259 29.3 39.4 16.4 14.9
NH Other 145 15.7 33.8 25.9 24.6
Household Income Less than $20,000 267 34.2 32.1 22.3 11.4
$20,000 - $39,999 422 36.2 29.1 16.0 18.6
$40,000 - $59,999 422 33.2 30.5 18.7 17.7
$60,000 - $79,999 353 32.2 33.4 19.2 15.3
$80,000 - $99,999 350 28.5 35.0 20.5 16.1
$100,000 - $149,999 457 20.5 32.9 22.2 24.5
$150,000 - $199,999 176 15.1 22.8 26.8 35.3
$200,000 or more 151 12.3 27.5 15.5 44.7
Urban/Rural Rural Area 904 33.5 32.1 16.3 18.2
Urbanized Area 1683 26.8 30.9 21.3 21.1
Educational attainment High School or less 634 32.6 34.5 19.2 13.6
Some College 875 31.5 31.9 19.0 17.7
College Grad 598 27.4 29.9 23.1 19.6
Grad School 549 18.7 25.2 18.6 37.5
Household Employment Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 1550 20.2 31.3 21.9 26.6
At least one parent not working** 1084 39.5 31.5 17.4 11.6
1 Parent, unemployed 367 37.5 22.8 21.4 18.3
1 Parent, Employed (FT/PT) 431 17.0 30.9 25.3 26.8
2 Parents, 0 employed 181 42.5 31.7 17.6 8.1
2 Parents, 1 employed 536 39.2 34.7 15.7 10.3
2 Parents, 2 employed 1119 20.9 31.4 21.1 26.5
Age Group 0-4 545 45.1 32.2 13.2 9.5
5-9 396 23.2 37.1 22.7 17.0
10-12 1593 22.3 29.5 22.2 26.1
Region CCA of Central Washington 127 29.0 31.0 16.6 23.3
CCA of Eastern Washington 357 28.1 37.6 20.1 14.3
CCA of King and Pierce Co 1134 23.4 29.3 22.3 25.0
CCA of Northwest Washington 413 33.5 29.9 18.6 18.0
CCA of Olympic Peninsula 284 41.1 32.0 13.2 13.7
CCA of Southwest Washington 287 32.3 31.9 20.0 15.8
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
29
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.13. Primary Care Arrangement (Non-Parental)
Primary non-parental care arrangement
N Stay with Stay with a Stay with Stay at Go to Go to Go to a Head Go to another Go to a Go to another type
another neighbor or nanny or home licensed licensed Start or preschool before or of program or
family friend au-pair alone family child child care ECEAP program after-school activity, such as
member care center program program library, sports or
club
All Total 1614 42.2 4.3 5.4 5.0 3.9 11.5 2.4 5.5 8.2 11.5
Race/Ethnicity* Hispanic 144 54.3 5.6 3.9 3.8 2.2 6.3 . 4.1 4.3 15.4
NH white 1098 37.8 4.1 5.8 6.6 4.9 12.1 3.1 6.2 8.3 11.0
NH Black 88 36.5 . 8.7 2.7 1.7 19.5 1.1 4.1 11.5 14.2
NH API 163 45.2 4.0 5.7 1.8 2.8 12.1 1.7 5.7 10.2 10.9
NH Other 100 49.9 7.5 0.8 1.5 3.1 12.2 6.1 1.4 11.1 6.4
Household Less than 141 58.8 4.2 0.5 4.5 2.9 6.2 5.2 2.6 3.2 12.0
Income* $20,000
$20,000 - 239 52.2 6.1 0.9 2.4 4.1 13.0 5.5 1.8 7.0 7.0
$39,999
$40,000 - 247 51.3 5.7 2.9 3.5 1.9 9.1 1.0 5.4 9.3 9.9
$59,999
$60,000 - 213 38.8 2.7 8.0 6.3 5.8 9.2 2.3 7.4 3.9 15.6
$79,999
$80,000 - 213 44.8 6.0 5.5 4.3 2.4 10.1 2.6 4.4 12.3 7.6
$99,999
$100,000 - 311 34.0 3.5 6.7 7.6 3.7 11.5 1.6 7.0 8.4 16.0
$149,999
$150,000 - 125 34.3 3.2 10.0 3.6 7.6 13.9 1.3 4.9 8.4 12.7
$199,999
$200,000 or 95 20.9 0.7 9.9 7.0 6.7 26.0 . 4.9 16.1 8.0
more
Urban/Rural* Rural Area 520 47.7 4.1 2.8 6.7 4.5 8.7 2.8 6.1 4.2 12.6
Urbanized Area 1046 40.8 4.5 6.3 4.2 3.8 12.6 2.3 5.2 9.8 10.6
Educational High School or 343 55.2 3.4 1.2 4.2 1.3 8.5 4.2 3.1 5.4 13.6
attainment* less
Some College 544 46.9 5.2 4.7 4.8 6.1 11.1 2.3 4.9 5.1 8.9
College Grad 370 35.2 4.6 5.9 4.3 3.5 14.2 1.2 8.0 9.8 13.2
Grad School 355 24.4 4.1 12.6 7.1 5.6 13.4 1.3 6.7 15.5 9.3
Household All parents 1049 41.4 4.1 6.9 5.2 4.5 14.1 1.6 3.8 10.1 8.2
Employment working
Status* (FT/PT)*
At least one 557 43.8 4.6 2.6 4.5 2.8 6.7 4.0 8.6 4.6 17.8
parent not
working**
30
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Primary non-parental care arrangement
N Stay with Stay with a Stay with Stay at Go to Go to Go to a Head Go to another Go to a Go to another type
another neighbor or nanny or home licensed licensed Start or preschool before or of program or
family friend au-pair alone family child child care ECEAP program after-school activity, such as
member care center program program library, sports or
club
1 Parent, 189 50.7 4.4 1.7 4.6 5.3 9.9 6.5 1.0 5.1 10.8
unemployed
1 Parent, 304 49.3 4.0 4.4 5.4 5.0 15.1 2.8 2.8 8.3 3.0
Employed
(FT/PT)
2 Parents, 0 87 41.6 8.2 . 2.8 4.8 2.8 7.6 4.1 5.4 22.6
employed
2 Parents, 1 281 42.0 3.5 3.8 5.0 1.1 6.9 1.8 12.9 4.1 18.8
employed
2 Parents, 2 745 39.6 4.2 7.5 5.2 4.4 13.9 1.3 4.1 10.5 9.3
employed
Age Group* 0-4 264 50.4 4.3 7.7 . 6.0 18.8 2.1 3.7 . 7.0
5-9 269 34.1 3.7 6.0 . 5.0 21.6 7.2 15.8 0.2 6.4
10-12 1031 42.2 4.5 4.3 7.9 3.1 7.2 1.2 3.1 13.1 13.4
Region CCA of Central 63 42.5 7.5 10.3 8.1 1.4 6.9 2.5 4.8 0.8 15.1
Washington
CCA of Eastern 227 52.6 2.2 3.2 4.6 4.4 8.7 3.8 3.3 3.8 13.3
Washington
CCA of King 732 37.7 3.8 7.4 4.2 4.0 12.4 2.2 6.4 11.3 10.7
and Pierce Co
CCA of 244 43.6 7.6 1.3 6.6 4.0 11.9 1.0 6.8 7.4 9.7
Northwest
Washington
CCA of Olympic 156 49.7 4.3 6.3 4.2 3.3 5.7 2.8 2.1 10.1 11.4
Peninsula
CCA of 154 43.5 3.8 1.9 5.9 4.9 16.3 2.9 6.0 2.8 12.0
Southwest
Washington
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
31
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.14. Hours per Week Child Care is used by Child
Q15 How many hours per week does this child use any type of child care?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 2437 78.3 50.0 63.4 1.0 224.0
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 223 65.4 35.0 59.8 2.0 197.0
NH white 1704 84.1 55.0 64.8 1.0 224.0
NH Black 111 53.7 40.0 45.3 3.0 210.0
NH API 230 79.3 50.0 62.8 2.0 216.0
NH Other 135 73.4 42.0 60.6 1.0 200.0
Household Income Less than $20,000 229 71.6 40.0 64.4 1.0 216.0
$20,000 - $39,999 394 88.5 67.0 65.2 1.0 218.0
$40,000 - $59,999 386 83.6 60.0 64.9 3.0 216.0
$60,000 - $79,999 327 81.1 50.0 63.4 1.0 216.0
$80,000 - $99,999 312 75.3 45.0 61.7 3.0 224.0
$100,000 - $149,999 427 75.6 45.0 61.1 2.0 209.0
$150,000 - $199,999 163 63.4 40.0 58.3 2.0 194.0
$200,000 or more 136 64.8 41.0 57.2 2.0 217.0
Urban/Rural Rural Area 815 87.0 56.0 66.1 1.0 216.0
Urbanized Area 1548 75.1 48.0 62.0 1.0 224.0
Parent Highest Education High School or less 557 82.9 58.0 65.8 1.0 216.0
Some College 809 77.0 46.0 62.5 1.0 220.0
College Grad 550 78.9 50.0 61.1 2.0 210.0
Grad School 512 71.6 41.0 62.3 2.0 224.0
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 1408 66.9 42.0 58.2 1.0 224.0
At least one parent not working** 1008 94.8 83.0 66.6 1.0 218.0
1 Parent, unemployed 328 82.1 64.0 63.6 1.0 216.0
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 399 66.6 45.0 57.6 2.0 216.0
2 Parents, 0 employed 168 92.5 75.0 65.4 3.0 189.0
2 Parents, 1 employed 512 100.2 117.0 67.3 2.0 218.0
2 Parents, 2 employed 1009 66.9 42.0 58.3 1.0 224.0
Age Group 0-4 486 92.4 70.0 64.6 2.0 216.0
5-9 380 86.4 60.0 60.4 2.0 211.0
10-12 1530 72.5 43.0 62.8 1.0 224.0
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
32
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.15. Hours per Week Child Stayed at Home with Parent, Step-Parent or Guardian by Child
Q15A How many hours per week does this child stay at home with parent, step-parent or guardian?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 1955 73.2 40.0 64.9 1.0 168.0
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 177 57.8 24.0 60.1 1.0 168.0
NH white 1389 78.2 46.0 66.7 1.0 168.0
NH Black 74 45.9 30.0 45.6 2.0 168.0
NH API 177 82.8 63.0 64.4 2.0 168.0
NH Other 112 61.8 40.0 59.4 1.0 168.0
Household Income Less than $20,000 197 61.3 24.0 63.9 1.0 168.0
$20,000 - $39,999 318 87.1 72.0 66.0 1.0 168.0
$40,000 - $59,999 323 76.7 40.0 66.2 1.0 168.0
$60,000 - $79,999 255 80.8 56.0 65.5 1.0 168.0
$80,000 - $99,999 253 68.8 40.0 64.6 1.0 168.0
$100,000 - $149,999 339 68.8 40.0 61.9 2.0 168.0
$150,000 - $199,999 121 52.3 24.0 56.3 1.0 168.0
$200,000 or more 100 51.5 20.0 56.0 1.0 168.0
Urban/Rural Rural Area 669 85.4 75.0 66.9 1.0 168.0
Urbanized Area 1232 68.5 40.0 63.6 1.0 168.0
Parent Highest Education High School or less 462 76.5 40.0 65.8 1.0 168.0
Some College 641 73.8 40.0 64.6 1.0 168.0
College Grad 431 77.3 50.0 65.3 1.0 168.0
Grad School 413 60.1 30.0 61.5 1.0 168.0
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 1032 57.6 26.0 58.7 1.0 168.0
At least one parent not working** 904 92.0 100.0 67.1 1.0 168.0
1 Parent, unemployed 285 77.0 60.0 63.5 1.0 168.0
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 254 62.3 30.0 61.0 2.0 168.0
2 Parents, 0 employed 157 83.3 50.0 67.8 1.0 168.0
2 Parents, 1 employed 462 100.3 128.0 66.7 1.0 168.0
2 Parents, 2 employed 778 56.7 25.0 58.3 1.0 168.0
Age Group 0-4 411 90.0 60.0 70.1 1.0 168.0
5-9 291 80.0 48.0 64.6 1.0 168.0
10-12 1230 66.5 40.0 61.9 1.0 168.0
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
33
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.16. Hours per Week Child Stayed with another Family Member by Child
Q15B How many hours per week does this child stay with another family member?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 1096 22.4 10.0 32.5 1.0 168.0
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 117 20.1 10.0 22.8 1.0 168.0
NH white 735 22.3 10.0 34.9 1.0 168.0
NH Black 47 24.4 10.0 31.6 1.0 168.0
NH API 105 27.6 16.0 37.4 2.0 168.0
NH Other 78 17.5 12.0 22.1 1.0 168.0
Household Income Less than $20,000 127 38.0 15.0 52.8 1.0 168.0
$20,000 - $39,999 180 21.3 10.0 33.2 1.0 168.0
$40,000 - $59,999 183 23.1 15.0 28.3 1.0 168.0
$60,000 - $79,999 142 20.2 10.0 29.5 1.0 168.0
$80,000 - $99,999 135 21.2 10.0 28.0 1.0 168.0
$100,000 - $149,999 192 22.6 10.0 32.6 1.0 168.0
$150,000 - $199,999 79 15.7 10.0 17.6 1.0 120.0
$200,000 or more 45 13.8 10.0 13.0 1.0 70.0
Urban/Rural Rural Area 366 21.9 10.0 29.9 1.0 168.0
Urbanized Area 699 22.9 10.0 34.0 1.0 168.0
Parent Highest Education High School or less 284 27.3 15.0 38.0 1.0 168.0
Some College 398 19.3 10.0 25.3 1.0 168.0
College Grad 218 24.0 10.0 36.3 1.0 168.0
Grad School 195 15.2 8.0 21.2 1.0 168.0
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 712 23.6 10.0 32.9 1.0 168.0
At least one parent not working** 376 20.3 10.0 31.7 1.0 168.0
1 Parent, unemployed 162 24.9 15.0 34.1 1.0 168.0
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 240 22.7 11.0 31.9 1.0 168.0
2 Parents, 0 employed 51 19.6 10.0 18.8 1.0 68.0
2 Parents, 1 employed 163 18.2 8.0 33.4 1.0 168.0
2 Parents, 2 employed 472 23.8 10.0 33.1 1.0 168.0
Age Group 0-4 188 24.0 14.0 32.5 1.0 168.0
5-9 163 25.8 12.0 36.8 1.0 168.0
10-12 728 21.0 10.0 30.8 1.0 168.0
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
34
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.17. Hours per Week Child Stayed with a Neighbor or Friend by Child
Q15C How many hours per week does this child stay with a neighbor or friend?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 392 7.7 5.0 8.7 1.0 42.0
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 37 6.5 5.0 7.6 1.0 40.0
NH white 294 7.7 5.0 8.7 1.0 42.0
NH Black 10 7.4 8.0 5.8 2.0 20.0
NH API 17 11.0 6.0 9.5 1.0 40.0
NH Other 31 8.2 3.0 10.4 1.0 40.0
Household Income Less than $20,000 34 7.1 5.0 8.1 1.0 40.0
$20,000 - $39,999 76 6.9 5.0 7.2 1.0 40.0
$40,000 - $59,999 74 7.6 4.0 9.3 1.0 40.0
$60,000 - $79,999 45 11.4 8.0 11.6 1.0 40.0
$80,000 - $99,999 39 11.4 6.0 10.3 1.0 41.0
$100,000 - $149,999 66 6.7 4.0 7.2 1.0 42.0
$150,000 - $199,999 29 5.5 4.0 5.6 1.0 20.0
$200,000 or more 24 6.0 3.0 8.0 1.0 40.0
Urban/Rural Rural Area 142 6.8 5.0 7.0 1.0 41.0
Urbanized Area 239 8.1 5.0 9.2 1.0 42.0
Parent Highest Education High School or less 85 7.7 5.0 9.0 1.0 40.0
Some College 134 6.9 4.0 7.0 1.0 40.0
College Grad 70 9.0 5.0 9.6 1.0 40.0
Grad School 102 7.5 4.0 8.9 1.0 42.0
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 268 8.3 5.0 9.1 1.0 42.0
At least one parent not working** 121 6.3 4.0 7.6 1.0 40.0
1 Parent, unemployed 62 8.4 5.0 7.3 1.0 40.0
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 98 8.9 5.0 9.3 1.0 40.0
2 Parents, 0 employed 22 7.3 2.0 11.1 1.0 40.0
2 Parents, 1 employed 37 3.9 2.0 3.5 1.0 17.0
2 Parents, 2 employed 170 8.1 5.0 9.0 1.0 42.0
Age Group 0-4 60 7.2 4.0 7.3 1.0 30.0
5-9 54 13.5 8.0 13.2 1.0 41.0
10-12 276 6.8 5.0 7.5 1.0 42.0
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
35
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.18. Hours per Week Child Stayed with a Nanny or Au-Pair by Child
Q15D How many hours per week does this child stay with nanny or au-pair?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 223 14.2 10.0 15.7 1.0 98.0
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 15 11.9 8.0 10.2 3.0 35.0
NH white 173 14.2 9.0 16.6 1.0 98.0
NH Black 16 11.0 7.0 12.7 1.0 60.0
NH API 12 22.1 20.0 16.6 6.0 70.0
NH Other 4 4.7 4.0 2.6 2.0 9.0
Household Income Less than $20,000 2 6.2 5.0 1.5 5.0 8.0
$20,000 - $39,999 16 16.0 11.0 13.5 1.0 40.0
$40,000 - $59,999 22 16.2 10.0 16.8 2.0 60.0
$60,000 - $79,999 27 11.1 9.0 10.5 1.0 35.0
$80,000 - $99,999 34 21.0 10.0 25.5 2.0 98.0
$100,000 - $149,999 46 13.3 8.0 13.1 1.0 72.0
$150,000 - $199,999 38 13.2 8.0 13.6 2.0 70.0
$200,000 or more 33 11.1 5.0 12.6 1.0 48.0
Urban/Rural Rural Area 38 10.7 8.0 10.0 1.0 60.0
Urbanized Area 177 14.4 10.0 16.5 1.0 98.0
Parent Highest Education High School or less 22 16.8 6.0 25.9 1.0 98.0
Some College 42 15.0 10.0 14.2 1.0 60.0
College Grad 61 15.2 10.0 12.3 1.0 60.0
Grad School 98 12.3 8.0 13.3 1.0 72.0
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 188 14.6 10.0 16.4 1.0 98.0
At least one parent not working** 31 11.7 10.0 9.6 1.0 40.0
1 Parent, unemployed 12 7.3 5.0 6.5 1.0 30.0
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 35 12.7 6.0 14.1 1.0 60.0
2 Parents, 0 employed 1 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0
2 Parents, 1 employed 18 13.7 10.0 10.6 1.0 40.0
2 Parents, 2 employed 153 14.8 10.0 16.7 1.0 98.0
Age Group 0-4 48 13.8 10.0 12.1 1.0 50.0
5-9 43 17.9 10.0 21.2 1.0 98.0
10-12 128 13.2 8.0 14.7 1.0 78.0
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
36
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.19. Hours per Week Child Stayed at Home Alone by Child
Q15E How many hours per week does this child stay at home alone?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 309 17.2 6.0 30.1 1.0 168.0
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 26 14.3 8.0 11.8 1.0 45.0
NH white 236 17.5 5.0 34.1 1.0 168.0
NH Black 14 15.0 6.0 17.4 1.0 57.0
NH API 17 25.6 20.0 27.1 2.0 100.0
NH Other 10 14.6 5.0 28.8 1.0 100.0
Household Income Less than $20,000 28 14.8 10.0 12.8 1.0 40.0
$20,000 - $39,999 34 14.4 10.0 17.7 2.0 100.0
$40,000 - $59,999 41 26.6 5.0 47.8 1.0 168.0
$60,000 - $79,999 38 18.3 10.0 23.7 1.0 100.0
$80,000 - $99,999 47 23.6 7.0 41.9 1.0 168.0
$100,000 - $149,999 63 11.0 5.0 14.6 1.0 70.0
$150,000 - $199,999 24 9.9 2.0 16.7 1.0 60.0
$200,000 or more 33 17.1 4.0 29.9 1.0 120.0
Urban/Rural Rural Area 91 22.9 8.0 42.2 1.0 168.0
Urbanized Area 205 15.5 5.0 24.1 1.0 168.0
Parent Highest Education High School or less 64 23.2 8.0 38.4 1.0 168.0
Some College 96 12.1 5.0 15.0 1.0 100.0
College Grad 54 19.3 8.0 32.1 1.0 168.0
Grad School 95 15.0 5.0 29.7 1.0 168.0
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 227 17.6 7.0 30.6 1.0 168.0
At least one parent not working** 80 16.1 5.0 28.9 1.0 168.0
1 Parent, unemployed 32 14.8 7.0 20.9 1.0 100.0
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 54 12.2 8.0 11.1 1.0 45.0
2 Parents, 0 employed 9 19.7 6.0 17.7 1.0 40.0
2 Parents, 1 employed 39 15.9 5.0 33.8 1.0 168.0
2 Parents, 2 employed 173 18.7 6.0 33.0 1.0 168.0
Age Group 0-4 21 38.3 20.0 49.8 2.0 168.0
5-9 10 32.2 20.0 35.2 1.0 100.0
10-12 262 13.5 5.0 23.7 1.0 168.0
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
37
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.20. Hours per Week Child Goes to Licensed Family Child Care Home by Child
Q15F How many hours per week does this child go to licensed family child care home?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 253 14.5 8.0 15.5 1.0 70.0
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 14 9.7 8.0 8.8 1.0 36.0
NH white 194 14.0 6.0 15.1 1.0 63.0
NH Black 10 14.6 5.0 14.2 1.0 46.0
NH API 21 19.7 10.0 20.3 1.0 70.0
NH Other 11 15.2 15.0 11.1 5.0 45.0
Household Income Less than $20,000 14 16.0 12.0 13.0 3.0 50.0
$20,000 - $39,999 26 15.5 10.0 14.0 1.0 50.0
$40,000 - $59,999 26 15.1 10.0 15.4 1.0 60.0
$60,000 - $79,999 24 18.0 10.0 16.3 1.0 50.0
$80,000 - $99,999 25 16.8 10.0 17.3 1.0 63.0
$100,000 - $149,999 55 15.2 10.0 14.3 1.0 45.0
$150,000 - $199,999 41 13.0 4.0 17.0 1.0 70.0
$200,000 or more 42 9.5 4.0 13.4 1.0 56.0
Urban/Rural Rural Area 54 15.7 8.0 16.4 1.0 63.0
Urbanized Area 194 14.1 8.0 15.2 1.0 70.0
Parent Highest Education High School or less 21 14.6 8.0 15.0 1.0 57.0
Some College 66 19.2 12.0 15.7 1.0 50.0
College Grad 45 17.8 10.0 16.5 1.0 60.0
Grad School 121 10.2 5.0 13.6 1.0 70.0
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 214 14.2 8.0 15.5 1.0 70.0
At least one parent not working** 37 16.8 10.0 15.2 1.0 60.0
1 Parent, unemployed 21 20.6 20.0 17.6 1.0 60.0
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 33 17.0 10.0 15.2 1.0 50.0
2 Parents, 0 employed 5 13.1 8.0 11.9 2.0 40.0
2 Parents, 1 employed 11 14.7 10.0 13.1 4.0 40.0
2 Parents, 2 employed 181 13.7 7.0 15.5 1.0 70.0
Age Group 0-4 39 19.2 10.0 15.8 1.0 50.0
5-9 41 23.4 20.0 19.3 1.0 70.0
10-12 169 10.8 5.0 12.6 1.0 63.0
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
38
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.21. Hours per Week Child Goes to Licensed Child Care Center by Child
Q15G How many hours per week does this child go to licensed child care center?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 456 19.6 12.0 16.8 1.0 70.0
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 30 12.6 8.0 12.0 1.0 45.0
NH white 330 18.5 12.0 16.3 1.0 70.0
NH Black 31 27.6 30.0 19.2 1.0 60.0
NH API 33 25.6 20.0 18.2 1.0 66.0
NH Other 27 23.8 24.0 15.0 2.0 60.0
Household Income Less than $20,000 25 22.8 20.0 15.3 2.0 60.0
$20,000 - $39,999 71 22.2 20.0 17.3 1.0 70.0
$40,000 - $59,999 56 19.6 15.0 15.0 1.0 50.0
$60,000 - $79,999 51 19.0 15.0 13.3 2.0 50.0
$80,000 - $99,999 45 18.2 10.0 15.5 1.0 65.0
$100,000 - $149,999 87 18.8 14.0 15.4 1.0 60.0
$150,000 - $199,999 56 16.9 7.0 17.8 1.0 66.0
$200,000 or more 61 20.2 10.0 20.8 1.0 60.0
Urban/Rural Rural Area 95 17.3 10.0 14.5 1.0 60.0
Urbanized Area 348 20.1 14.0 17.3 1.0 70.0
Parent Highest Education High School or less 58 23.5 20.0 16.3 1.0 70.0
Some College 140 19.4 15.0 14.9 1.0 65.0
College Grad 93 22.7 20.0 16.7 1.0 50.0
Grad School 165 15.7 8.0 17.4 1.0 66.0
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 378 19.2 12.0 16.8 1.0 70.0
At least one parent not working** 78 21.5 15.0 16.2 2.0 60.0
1 Parent, unemployed 37 26.2 20.0 17.1 2.0 60.0
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 100 19.2 15.0 14.6 1.0 65.0
2 Parents, 0 employed 11 14.7 10.0 10.7 2.0 30.0
2 Parents, 1 employed 30 20.3 12.0 16.1 2.0 50.0
2 Parents, 2 employed 278 19.2 12.0 17.3 1.0 70.0
Age Group 0-4 99 23.7 21.0 16.6 1.0 60.0
5-9 97 28.3 32.0 17.4 1.0 70.0
10-12 257 14.1 10.0 14.2 1.0 65.0
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
39
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.22. Hours per Week Child Goes to Head Start or ECEAP Program by Child
Q15H How many hours per week does this child go to a Head Start or ECEAP program?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 239 12.7 8.0 14.4 1.0 76.0
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 14 7.7 5.0 8.2 1.0 35.0
NH white 175 12.8 7.0 14.7 1.0 76.0
NH Black 13 15.9 7.0 18.5 1.0 68.0
NH API 15 9.8 5.0 11.3 1.0 40.0
NH Other 22 17.6 12.0 15.6 2.0 75.0
Household Income Less than $20,000 25 16.7 12.0 15.9 2.0 75.0
$20,000 - $39,999 36 13.6 12.0 9.4 1.0 40.0
$40,000 - $59,999 28 14.0 10.0 13.7 2.0 68.0
$60,000 - $79,999 24 10.9 10.0 7.9 2.0 40.0
$80,000 - $99,999 24 19.7 8.0 23.1 2.0 76.0
$100,000 - $149,999 45 11.0 5.0 11.9 1.0 50.0
$150,000 - $199,999 21 16.3 7.0 19.1 2.0 60.0
$200,000 or more 36 4.5 2.0 6.4 1.0 30.0
Urban/Rural Rural Area 50 12.1 5.0 13.5 1.0 75.0
Urbanized Area 185 12.7 8.0 14.6 1.0 76.0
Parent Highest Education High School or less 39 18.4 12.0 16.8 1.0 76.0
Some College 66 12.6 10.0 13.0 2.0 75.0
College Grad 40 10.1 5.0 11.9 1.0 68.0
Grad School 94 10.3 4.0 13.8 1.0 60.0
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 175 12.0 5.0 15.1 1.0 76.0
At least one parent not working** 63 14.6 12.0 12.3 1.0 75.0
1 Parent, unemployed 34 19.8 16.0 17.3 2.0 75.0
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 38 13.5 10.0 12.9 2.0 68.0
2 Parents, 0 employed 15 11.6 12.0 6.1 1.0 20.0
2 Parents, 1 employed 14 12.1 10.0 8.2 5.0 40.0
2 Parents, 2 employed 137 11.8 5.0 15.4 1.0 76.0
Age Group 0-4 25 15.7 11.0 16.4 1.0 75.0
5-9 49 16.0 10.0 16.6 1.0 76.0
10-12 160 11.3 7.0 13.1 1.0 68.0
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
40
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.23. Hours per Week Child Goes to another Preschool Program by Child
Q15I How many hours per week does this child go to another preschool program?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 323 11.3 6.0 11.3 1.0 60.0
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 22 11.5 10.0 9.0 1.0 30.0
NH white 243 10.9 6.0 12.0 1.0 60.0
NH Black 13 16.2 10.0 15.4 2.0 60.0
NH API 30 11.7 8.0 9.8 1.0 40.0
NH Other 10 12.3 10.0 6.7 2.0 24.0
Household Income Less than $20,000 9 12.8 10.0 9.7 3.0 30.0
$20,000 - $39,999 19 10.6 5.0 9.5 2.0 30.0
$40,000 - $59,999 45 11.6 6.0 10.7 1.0 45.0
$60,000 - $79,999 41 10.6 8.0 9.2 1.0 48.0
$80,000 - $99,999 35 14.1 10.0 14.2 2.0 58.0
$100,000 - $149,999 73 13.9 10.0 12.7 1.0 60.0
$150,000 - $199,999 44 10.4 5.0 11.6 1.0 60.0
$200,000 or more 48 5.3 2.0 6.5 1.0 33.0
Urban/Rural Rural Area 83 12.1 10.0 10.6 1.0 51.0
Urbanized Area 230 10.8 6.0 11.4 1.0 60.0
Parent Highest Education High School or less 37 15.2 12.0 11.9 1.0 54.0
Some College 60 11.0 6.0 11.1 1.0 45.0
College Grad 90 11.9 10.0 8.7 1.0 42.0
Grad School 136 9.3 4.0 12.5 1.0 60.0
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 237 11.6 6.0 12.2 1.0 60.0
At least one parent not working** 86 10.7 7.0 8.9 1.0 48.0
1 Parent, unemployed 18 14.2 10.0 11.5 1.0 48.0
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 37 12.5 10.0 10.5 2.0 45.0
2 Parents, 0 employed 9 10.6 12.0 6.9 3.0 21.0
2 Parents, 1 employed 59 10.1 6.0 8.6 1.0 40.0
2 Parents, 2 employed 200 11.5 6.0 12.4 1.0 60.0
Age Group 0-4 31 9.5 5.0 8.9 1.0 30.0
5-9 89 11.9 7.0 11.3 2.0 60.0
10-12 200 11.4 8.0 11.7 1.0 60.0
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
41
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.24. Hours per Week Child Goes to a Before or After-School Program by Child
Q15J How many hours per week does this child go to a before or after-school program?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 506 8.4 6.0 8.1 1.0 48.0
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 32 7.4 6.0 5.8 1.0 25.0
NH white 376 8.4 5.0 8.6 1.0 48.0
NH Black 28 12.5 10.0 10.5 1.0 40.0
NH API 34 7.6 8.0 5.5 1.0 20.0
NH Other 31 8.6 9.0 6.8 1.0 25.0
Household Income Less than $20,000 37 7.4 5.0 6.6 1.0 36.0
$20,000 - $39,999 69 8.1 6.0 6.7 1.0 40.0
$40,000 - $59,999 69 9.1 5.0 9.3 1.0 46.0
$60,000 - $79,999 47 8.0 8.0 4.6 1.0 20.0
$80,000 - $99,999 57 9.1 6.0 8.7 1.0 40.0
$100,000 - $149,999 95 9.2 6.0 8.2 1.0 42.0
$150,000 - $199,999 55 9.5 5.0 10.2 1.0 48.0
$200,000 or more 70 5.9 3.0 6.6 1.0 36.0
Urban/Rural Rural Area 109 6.5 5.0 5.7 1.0 40.0
Urbanized Area 378 8.8 6.0 8.5 1.0 48.0
Parent Highest Education High School or less 74 9.0 6.0 8.7 1.0 40.0
Some College 139 8.2 6.0 7.1 1.0 46.0
College Grad 106 8.3 6.0 6.9 1.0 36.0
Grad School 187 8.2 5.0 8.8 1.0 48.0
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 391 8.7 6.0 8.6 1.0 48.0
At least one parent not working** 115 7.4 6.0 5.9 1.0 40.0
1 Parent, unemployed 50 7.4 5.0 6.9 1.0 40.0
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 102 8.5 8.0 7.2 1.0 36.0
2 Parents, 0 employed 21 7.2 5.0 5.2 1.0 25.0
2 Parents, 1 employed 44 7.6 6.0 5.7 1.0 24.0
2 Parents, 2 employed 289 8.7 5.0 8.8 1.0 48.0
Age Group 0-4 21 6.6 3.0 7.0 1.0 25.0
5-9 25 7.2 5.0 7.5 1.0 30.0
10-12 452 8.7 6.0 8.2 1.0 48.0
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
42
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.25. Hours per Week Child Goes to Another Type of Program or Activity (e.g., Library, Sports/Athletic Program, or Club) by Child
Q15K How many hours per week does this child go to another type of program or activity, such as a library, sports/ athletic program or club?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 642 6.5 4.0 6.9 1.0 40.0
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 47 6.2 4.0 6.1 1.0 35.0
NH white 457 6.6 4.0 7.0 1.0 40.0
NH Black 33 9.5 8.0 8.1 1.0 40.0
NH API 57 5.7 4.0 6.6 1.0 40.0
NH Other 40 7.0 4.0 7.5 1.0 40.0
Household Income Less than $20,000 40 6.3 3.0 6.8 1.0 25.0
$20,000 - $39,999 71 7.5 4.0 8.1 1.0 40.0
$40,000 - $59,999 96 6.9 4.0 7.1 1.0 35.0
$60,000 - $79,999 76 6.1 5.0 6.0 1.0 40.0
$80,000 - $99,999 72 6.3 5.0 7.2 1.0 40.0
$100,000 - $149,999 135 6.6 4.0 6.5 1.0 40.0
$150,000 - $199,999 72 8.4 4.0 8.6 1.0 40.0
$200,000 or more 76 4.0 3.0 3.1 1.0 15.0
Urban/Rural Rural Area 177 6.9 4.0 7.1 1.0 40.0
Urbanized Area 439 6.2 4.0 6.7 1.0 40.0
Parent Highest Education High School or less 102 6.6 4.0 7.1 1.0 35.0
Some College 175 7.1 5.0 7.1 1.0 40.0
College Grad 157 6.4 5.0 5.7 1.0 40.0
Grad School 205 6.2 3.0 7.3 1.0 40.0
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 434 6.5 4.0 7.1 1.0 40.0
At least one parent not working** 202 6.6 4.0 6.4 1.0 40.0
1 Parent, unemployed 68 10.0 5.0 9.7 1.0 40.0
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 98 7.2 4.0 7.6 1.0 40.0
2 Parents, 0 employed 27 6.5 4.0 5.4 1.0 20.0
2 Parents, 1 employed 107 5.6 4.0 4.9 1.0 30.0
2 Parents, 2 employed 336 6.4 4.0 7.0 1.0 40.0
Age Group 0-4 47 5.7 3.0 7.4 1.0 40.0
5-9 66 7.1 5.0 6.9 1.0 40.0
10-12 515 6.6 4.0 6.8 1.0 40.0
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
43
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.26. Amount Paid for Child Care per Week by Child
Q16 How much do you pay per week for child care for this child?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 2408 $147.66 $20.00 $264.11 $0.00 $1,550.00
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 219 $119.30 $20.00 $223.78 $0.00 $1,320.00
NH white 1702 $152.47 $20.00 $273.48 $0.00 $1,550.00
NH Black 114 $216.36 $75.00 $318.58 $0.00 $1,302.00
NH API 210 $144.96 $17.00 $254.90 $0.00 $1,500.00
NH Other 130 $135.96 $30.00 $229.54 $0.00 $1,446.00
Household Income Less than $20,000 229 $89.93 $0.00 $195.34 $0.00 $1,200.00
$20,000 - $39,999 399 $100.53 $0.00 $215.77 $0.00 $1,500.00
$40,000 - $59,999 394 $129.70 $0.00 $254.00 $0.00 $1,500.00
$60,000 - $79,999 315 $108.48 $0.00 $212.91 $0.00 $1,500.00
$80,000 - $99,999 313 $124.49 $10.00 $243.88 $0.00 $1,505.00
$100,000 - $149,999 422 $191.57 $55.00 $288.94 $0.00 $1,550.00
$150,000 - $199,999 157 $241.11 $100.00 $317.93 $0.00 $1,500.00
$200,000 or more 127 $361.59 $270.00 $371.74 $0.00 $1,515.00
Urban/Rural Rural Area 819 $106.00 $0.00 $221.30 $0.00 $1,500.00
Urbanized Area 1524 $163.98 $30.00 $275.14 $0.00 $1,550.00
Parent Highest Education High School or less 565 $107.01 $0.00 $230.21 $0.00 $1,302.00
Some College 802 $125.82 $5.00 $245.62 $0.00 $1,500.00
College Grad 547 $143.76 $41.00 $213.32 $0.00 $1,500.00
Grad School 484 $271.83 $140.00 $366.42 $0.00 $1,550.00
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 1394 $193.38 $80.00 $287.38 $0.00 $1,550.00
At least one parent not working** 993 $85.13 $0.00 $213.64 $0.00 $1,500.00
1 Parent, unemployed 328 $123.05 $0.00 $262.20 $0.00 $1,500.00
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 396 $186.81 $75.00 $272.37 $0.00 $1,430.00
2 Parents, 0 employed 165 $63.29 $0.00 $184.70 $0.00 $1,389.00
2 Parents, 1 employed 500 $78.36 $0.00 $200.46 $0.00 $1,270.00
2 Parents, 2 employed 998 $194.81 $80.00 $290.52 $0.00 $1,550.00
Age Group 0-4 477 $143.56 $0.00 $256.91 $0.00 $1,500.00
5-9 368 $204.68 $71.00 $313.65 $0.00 $1,500.00
10-12 1523 $134.61 $20.00 $252.38 $0.00 $1,550.00
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
44
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.27. Amount Paid for at Home with Parent, Step-Parent or Guardian Child Care per Week by Child
Q16A How much do you pay per week for “stay at home with parent, step-parent or guardian” child care for this child?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 1894 $33.10 $0.00 $85.59 $0.00 $500.00
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 175 $39.48 $0.00 $93.25 $0.00 $500.00
NH white 1348 $29.72 $0.00 $83.29 $0.00 $500.00
NH Black 77 $54.77 $2.00 $98.26 $0.00 $500.00
NH API 165 $35.31 $0.00 $84.73 $0.00 $500.00
NH Other 103 $27.99 $0.00 $66.13 $0.00 $400.00
Household Income Less than $20,000 185 $37.18 $0.00 $78.66 $0.00 $400.00
$20,000 - $39,999 319 $28.19 $0.00 $82.59 $0.00 $500.00
$40,000 - $59,999 316 $33.12 $0.00 $87.12 $0.00 $500.00
$60,000 - $79,999 255 $31.33 $0.00 $77.46 $0.00 $500.00
$80,000 - $99,999 243 $20.91 $0.00 $67.94 $0.00 $500.00
$100,000 - $149,999 330 $29.04 $0.00 $75.95 $0.00 $500.00
$150,000 - $199,999 115 $49.93 $2.00 $109.85 $0.00 $500.00
$200,000 or more 89 $82.37 $20.00 $135.23 $0.00 $500.00
Urban/Rural Rural Area 651 $22.01 $0.00 $76.37 $0.00 $500.00
Urbanized Area 1193 $38.20 $0.00 $89.41 $0.00 $500.00
Parent Highest Education High School or less 452 $28.21 $0.00 $75.80 $0.00 $500.00
Some College 627 $25.38 $0.00 $73.99 $0.00 $500.00
College Grad 424 $32.81 $0.00 $87.73 $0.00 $500.00
Grad School 382 $56.81 $0.00 $111.48 $0.00 $500.00
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 1001 $46.12 $0.00 $98.03 $0.00 $500.00
At least one parent not working** 875 $17.92 $0.00 $65.14 $0.00 $500.00
1 Parent, unemployed 272 $26.25 $0.00 $81.72 $0.00 $500.00
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 262 $52.85 $0.00 $111.54 $0.00 $500.00
2 Parents, 0 employed 153 $23.44 $0.00 $71.92 $0.00 $450.00
2 Parents, 1 employed 450 $13.22 $0.00 $55.23 $0.00 $500.00
2 Parents, 2 employed 739 $44.85 $0.00 $95.21 $0.00 $500.00
Age Group 0-4 402 $40.25 $0.00 $98.10 $0.00 $500.00
5-9 276 $33.57 $0.00 $88.83 $0.00 $500.00
10-12 1192 $29.62 $0.00 $78.92 $0.00 $500.00
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
45
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.28. Amount Paid for Child Care with another Family Member per Week by Child
Q16B How much do you pay per week for “stay with another family member” child care for this child?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 1086 $34.53 $0.00 $75.44 $0.00 $500.00
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 118 $33.01 $0.00 $63.80 $0.00 $500.00
NH white 737 $33.22 $0.00 $75.89 $0.00 $500.00
NH Black 44 $58.18 $2.00 $126.69 $0.00 $500.00
NH API 104 $43.32 $0.00 $80.29 $0.00 $500.00
NH Other 69 $14.16 $0.00 $33.23 $0.00 $175.00
Household Income Less than $20,000 127 $30.73 $0.00 $55.56 $0.00 $200.00
$20,000 - $39,999 184 $41.30 $0.00 $73.71 $0.00 $500.00
$40,000 - $59,999 180 $29.11 $0.00 $73.70 $0.00 $500.00
$60,000 - $79,999 143 $34.37 $0.00 $81.40 $0.00 $500.00
$80,000 - $99,999 132 $19.40 $0.00 $60.07 $0.00 $500.00
$100,000 - $149,999 191 $41.51 $0.00 $85.86 $0.00 $500.00
$150,000 - $199,999 77 $46.01 $0.00 $85.15 $0.00 $480.00
$200,000 or more 44 $37.59 $0.00 $77.70 $0.00 $500.00
Urban/Rural Rural Area 366 $31.01 $0.00 $69.32 $0.00 $500.00
Urbanized Area 690 $36.37 $0.00 $78.61 $0.00 $500.00
Parent Highest Education High School or less 281 $33.66 $0.00 $67.12 $0.00 $500.00
Some College 388 $26.86 $0.00 $60.17 $0.00 $500.00
College Grad 223 $36.34 $0.00 $87.66 $0.00 $500.00
Grad School 193 $48.57 $0.00 $95.68 $0.00 $500.00
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 695 $42.22 $0.00 $84.32 $0.00 $500.00
At least one parent not working** 384 $20.67 $0.00 $53.03 $0.00 $500.00
1 Parent, unemployed 162 $25.96 $0.00 $58.36 $0.00 $500.00
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 231 $38.61 $0.00 $78.23 $0.00 $500.00
2 Parents, 0 employed 52 $33.36 $0.00 $62.90 $0.00 $299.00
2 Parents, 1 employed 170 $14.40 $0.00 $45.73 $0.00 $500.00
2 Parents, 2 employed 464 $43.27 $0.00 $86.00 $0.00 $500.00
Age Group 0-4 191 $50.30 $0.00 $102.73 $0.00 $500.00
5-9 157 $35.84 $0.00 $62.19 $0.00 $500.00
10-12 717 $29.93 $0.00 $69.05 $0.00 $500.00
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
46
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.29. Amount Paid for Child Care with a Neighbor or Friend per Week by Child
Q16C How much do you pay per week for “stay with a neighbor or friend” child care for this child?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 407 $36.79 $5.00 $61.84 $0.00 $309.00
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 37 $47.60 $20.00 $67.38 $0.00 $200.00
NH white 300 $31.45 $2.00 $57.26 $0.00 $309.00
NH Black 14 $44.35 $25.00 $75.12 $0.00 $300.00
NH API 19 $45.42 $0.00 $60.70 $0.00 $250.00
NH Other 33 $48.46 $10.00 $75.29 $0.00 $225.00
Household Income Less than $20,000 34 $36.10 $0.00 $63.76 $0.00 $200.00
$20,000 - $39,999 83 $34.39 $20.00 $54.43 $0.00 $250.00
$40,000 - $59,999 72 $38.70 $10.00 $67.03 $0.00 $309.00
$60,000 - $79,999 51 $29.39 $0.00 $43.75 $0.00 $200.00
$80,000 - $99,999 38 $51.49 $26.00 $66.21 $0.00 $225.00
$100,000 - $149,999 68 $26.16 $0.00 $55.97 $0.00 $300.00
$150,000 - $199,999 33 $54.43 $12.00 $84.13 $0.00 $300.00
$200,000 or more 24 $52.15 $12.00 $68.52 $0.00 $200.00
Urban/Rural Rural Area 146 $29.12 $2.00 $52.25 $0.00 $309.00
Urbanized Area 248 $41.25 $10.00 $65.55 $0.00 $300.00
Parent Highest Education High School or less 89 $34.29 $10.00 $54.70 $0.00 $250.00
Some College 143 $32.52 $3.00 $58.44 $0.00 $309.00
College Grad 71 $39.59 $2.00 $65.26 $0.00 $270.00
Grad School 102 $43.34 $10.00 $70.35 $0.00 $300.00
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 271 $44.03 $10.00 $68.28 $0.00 $300.00
At least one parent not working** 133 $23.85 $0.00 $44.97 $0.00 $309.00
1 Parent, unemployed 67 $31.91 $2.00 $56.96 $0.00 $220.00
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 99 $49.02 $20.00 $65.04 $0.00 $300.00
2 Parents, 0 employed 23 $26.69 $0.00 $52.08 $0.00 $309.00
2 Parents, 1 employed 43 $16.12 $0.00 $24.79 $0.00 $100.00
2 Parents, 2 employed 172 $42.31 $10.00 $69.28 $0.00 $300.00
Age Group 0-4 68 $42.71 $20.00 $60.59 $0.00 $225.00
5-9 52 $58.59 $25.00 $78.36 $0.00 $300.00
10-12 277 $31.84 $2.00 $59.06 $0.00 $309.00
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
47
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.30. Amount Paid for Child Care with a Nanny or Au-Pair per Week by Child
Q16D How much do you pay per week for “stay with nanny or au-pair” child care for this child?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 227 $143.78 $100.00 $169.12 $0.00 $700.00
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 12 $128.36 $40.00 $176.82 $9.00 $600.00
NH white 179 $149.43 $100.00 $175.61 $0.00 $700.00
NH Black 15 $136.71 $55.00 $182.24 $0.00 $700.00
NH API 13 $154.66 $195.00 $102.30 $0.00 $400.00
NH Other 5 $12.89 $0.00 $16.90 $0.00 $50.00
Household Income Less than $20,000 3 $134.04 $0.00 $215.34 $0.00 $480.00
$20,000 - $39,999 20 $60.11 $22.00 $83.75 $0.00 $350.00
$40,000 - $59,999 21 $144.30 $200.00 $89.00 $2.00 $300.00
$60,000 - $79,999 25 $86.43 $50.00 $92.60 $0.00 $300.00
$80,000 - $99,999 33 $147.57 $100.00 $160.93 $0.00 $700.00
$100,000 - $149,999 47 $171.11 $100.00 $183.70 $0.00 $700.00
$150,000 - $199,999 41 $180.49 $100.00 $200.73 $2.00 $700.00
$200,000 or more 32 $135.70 $35.00 $201.87 $10.00 $700.00
Urban/Rural Rural Area 42 $109.00 $55.00 $126.30 $0.00 $500.00
Urbanized Area 179 $145.64 $100.00 $170.13 $0.00 $700.00
Parent Highest Education High School or less 21 $66.87 $40.00 $67.36 $0.00 $200.00
Some College 41 $102.00 $50.00 $132.11 $0.00 $500.00
College Grad 64 $160.76 $100.00 $140.33 $0.00 $700.00
Grad School 101 $177.61 $90.00 $209.26 $0.00 $700.00
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 189 $147.25 $80.00 $176.36 $0.00 $700.00
At least one parent not working** 34 $126.78 $100.00 $125.78 $0.00 $600.00
1 Parent, unemployed 14 $95.32 $100.00 $128.45 $0.00 $500.00
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 36 $122.00 $100.00 $136.93 $0.00 $700.00
2 Parents, 0 employed 1 $200.00 $200.00 $0.00 $200.00 $200.00
2 Parents, 1 employed 19 $132.31 $100.00 $127.16 $0.00 $600.00
2 Parents, 2 employed 153 $151.09 $80.00 $181.29 $0.00 $700.00
Age Group 0-4 51 $148.49 $100.00 $182.66 $0.00 $700.00
5-9 41 $144.71 $100.00 $157.45 $0.00 $700.00
10-12 131 $143.56 $80.00 $168.77 $0.00 $700.00
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
48
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.31. Amount Paid for Stay at Home Alone Child Care per Week by Child
Q16E How much do you pay per week for “stay at home alone” child care for this child?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 313 $32.94 $0.00 $80.06 $0.00 $500.00
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 26 $33.67 $0.00 $85.25 $0.00 $344.00
NH white 239 $32.62 $0.00 $78.75 $0.00 $500.00
NH Black 15 $26.78 $6.00 $49.62 $0.00 $200.00
NH API 17 $36.89 $0.00 $87.83 $0.00 $300.00
NH Other 11 $56.61 $0.00 $116.81 $0.00 $346.00
Household Income Less than $20,000 30 $5.92 $0.00 $17.60 $0.00 $100.00
$20,000 - $39,999 36 $32.47 $0.00 $101.75 $0.00 $500.00
$40,000 - $59,999 42 $67.14 $0.00 $112.21 $0.00 $344.00
$60,000 - $79,999 40 $28.53 $0.00 $77.97 $0.00 $300.00
$80,000 - $99,999 44 $0.89 $0.00 $2.51 $0.00 $10.00
$100,000 - $149,999 61 $36.87 $0.00 $91.75 $0.00 $500.00
$150,000 - $199,999 28 $35.58 $10.00 $43.80 $0.00 $150.00
$200,000 or more 30 $39.25 $20.00 $45.72 $0.00 $200.00
Urban/Rural Rural Area 86 $34.34 $0.00 $87.94 $0.00 $500.00
Urbanized Area 215 $33.89 $0.00 $78.68 $0.00 $500.00
Parent Highest Education High School or less 64 $30.47 $0.00 $86.05 $0.00 $344.00
Some College 98 $24.66 $0.00 $65.65 $0.00 $400.00
College Grad 56 $25.60 $0.00 $88.44 $0.00 $500.00
Grad School 95 $49.23 $10.00 $78.51 $0.00 $500.00
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 230 $40.77 $0.00 $88.98 $0.00 $500.00
At least one parent not working** 81 $11.71 $0.00 $41.74 $0.00 $346.00
1 Parent, unemployed 33 $22.27 $0.00 $70.51 $0.00 $346.00
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 57 $3.94 $0.00 $12.44 $0.00 $80.00
2 Parents, 0 employed 12 $6.05 $0.00 $12.05 $0.00 $40.00
2 Parents, 1 employed 36 $8.27 $0.00 $23.64 $0.00 $100.00
2 Parents, 2 employed 173 $47.80 $0.00 $95.35 $0.00 $500.00
Age Group 0-4 22 $106.90 $20.00 $146.30 $0.00 $500.00
5-9 9 $54.82 $20.00 $73.32 $0.00 $234.00
10-12 264 $25.24 $0.00 $67.69 $0.00 $500.00
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
49
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.32. Amount Paid for Child Care at a Licensed Family Child Care Home per Week by Child
Q16F How much do you pay per week for “licensed family child care home” child care for this child?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 255 $136.16 $80.00 $164.24 $0.00 $1,200.00
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 14 $137.56 $100.00 $148.75 $1.00 $500.00
NH white 199 $130.35 $55.00 $169.10 $0.00 $1,200.00
NH Black 10 $110.69 $10.00 $202.24 $0.00 $600.00
NH API 19 $174.47 $122.00 $148.46 $0.00 $600.00
NH Other 10 $102.99 $100.00 $62.06 $0.00 $200.00
Household Income Less than $20,000 17 $84.15 $25.00 $132.33 $0.00 $600.00
$20,000 - $39,999 28 $172.38 $150.00 $145.92 $0.00 $400.00
$40,000 - $59,999 26 $107.26 $80.00 $133.01 $0.00 $650.00
$60,000 - $79,999 24 $184.48 $80.00 $256.09 $0.00 $1,200.00
$80,000 - $99,999 23 $145.88 $100.00 $123.56 $0.00 $400.00
$100,000 - $149,999 54 $127.61 $100.00 $127.38 $2.00 $432.00
$150,000 - $199,999 40 $132.06 $45.00 $174.39 $0.00 $750.00
$200,000 or more 43 $119.16 $40.00 $169.56 $3.00 $1,000.00
Urban/Rural Rural Area 58 $147.28 $100.00 $167.57 $0.00 $1,000.00
Urbanized Area 192 $134.75 $75.00 $164.06 $0.00 $1,200.00
Parent Highest Education High School or less 22 $149.06 $100.00 $142.90 $0.00 $400.00
Some College 69 $152.66 $100.00 $195.77 $0.00 $1,200.00
College Grad 45 $167.23 $100.00 $156.23 $1.00 $650.00
Grad School 119 $108.25 $45.00 $145.54 $0.00 $1,000.00
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 213 $135.10 $80.00 $160.82 $0.00 $1,200.00
At least one parent not working** 40 $142.14 $90.00 $182.65 $0.00 $1,000.00
1 Parent, unemployed 22 $122.75 $100.00 $141.83 $0.00 $500.00
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 35 $159.23 $100.00 $158.69 $0.00 $650.00
2 Parents, 0 employed 5 $81.18 $50.00 $107.95 $0.00 $300.00
2 Parents, 1 employed 13 $186.04 $123.00 $224.10 $15.00 $1,000.00
2 Parents, 2 employed 178 $131.35 $80.00 $160.83 $0.00 $1,200.00
Age Group 0-4 43 $130.37 $70.00 $141.36 $0.00 $400.00
5-9 39 $184.27 $123.00 $209.30 $0.00 $1,200.00
10-12 169 $126.01 $75.00 $155.11 $0.00 $1,200.00
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
50
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.33. Amount Paid for Child Care at a Licensed Child Care Center per Week by Child
Q16G How much do you pay per week for “licensed child care center” child care for this child?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 472 $214.80 $100.00 $318.76 $0.00 $1,700.00
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 34 $164.29 $140.00 $161.75 $0.00 $700.00
NH white 340 $171.83 $100.00 $215.36 $0.00 $1,230.00
NH Black 33 $263.69 $60.00 $376.00 $0.00 $1,300.00
NH API 32 $476.91 $200.00 $622.63 $0.00 $1,700.00
NH Other 29 $206.52 $100.00 $293.68 $0.00 $1,600.00
Household Income Less than $20,000 35 $139.62 $50.00 $249.72 $0.00 $1,200.00
$20,000 - $39,999 77 $179.47 $75.00 $259.86 $0.00 $1,600.00
$40,000 - $59,999 60 $177.58 $122.00 $189.57 $0.00 $800.00
$60,000 - $79,999 52 $179.22 $147.00 $227.43 $0.00 $1,200.00
$80,000 - $99,999 43 $204.93 $75.00 $324.26 $0.00 $1,300.00
$100,000 - $149,999 84 $223.59 $200.00 $245.72 $0.00 $1,230.00
$150,000 - $199,999 58 $116.34 $75.00 $124.76 $0.00 $600.00
$200,000 or more 60 $396.59 $100.00 $564.15 $0.00 $1,700.00
Urban/Rural Rural Area 103 $193.67 $120.00 $244.35 $0.00 $1,600.00
Urbanized Area 355 $217.59 $100.00 $334.29 $0.00 $1,700.00
Parent Highest Education High School or less 67 $178.56 $100.00 $270.39 $0.00 $1,300.00
Some College 147 $189.92 $99.00 $256.14 $0.00 $1,600.00
College Grad 94 $344.23 $200.00 $464.02 $0.00 $1,700.00
Grad School 164 $161.95 $80.00 $219.97 $0.00 $1,500.00
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 376 $224.56 $100.00 $331.66 $0.00 $1,700.00
At least one parent not working** 96 $177.54 $65.00 $260.43 $0.00 $1,200.00
1 Parent, unemployed 47 $170.11 $50.00 $232.64 $0.00 $1,200.00
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 104 $197.06 $100.00 $261.90 $0.00 $1,600.00
2 Parents, 0 employed 12 $116.43 $100.00 $159.22 $0.00 $750.00
2 Parents, 1 employed 37 $198.65 $120.00 $294.28 $0.00 $1,200.00
2 Parents, 2 employed 272 $230.87 $100.00 $345.38 $0.00 $1,700.00
Age Group 0-4 108 $199.99 $150.00 $240.22 $0.00 $1,600.00
5-9 100 $330.33 $200.00 $424.78 $0.00 $1,700.00
10-12 258 $166.02 $80.00 $274.86 $0.00 $1,700.00
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
51
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.34. Amount Paid for Child Care at a Head Start or ECEAP Program per Week by Child
Q16H How much do you pay per week for “Head Start or ECEAP program” child care for this child?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 243 $77.22 $20.00 $155.28 $0.00 $1,000.00
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 16 $65.60 $11.00 $99.50 $0.00 $400.00
NH white 175 $80.83 $25.00 $168.79 $0.00 $1,000.00
NH Black 12 $79.74 $5.00 $158.87 $0.00 $500.00
NH API 17 $101.29 $50.00 $160.29 $0.00 $800.00
NH Other 23 $38.24 $0.00 $75.20 $0.00 $300.00
Household Income Less than $20,000 26 $39.17 $0.00 $95.36 $0.00 $500.00
$20,000 - $39,999 35 $28.46 $0.00 $65.43 $0.00 $260.00
$40,000 - $59,999 30 $55.50 $3.00 $89.92 $0.00 $450.00
$60,000 - $79,999 26 $84.95 $15.00 $126.78 $0.00 $400.00
$80,000 - $99,999 24 $33.14 $0.00 $71.50 $0.00 $350.00
$100,000 - $149,999 43 $154.27 $55.00 $256.93 $0.00 $1,000.00
$150,000 - $199,999 22 $137.48 $98.00 $178.72 $0.00 $800.00
$200,000 or more 37 $48.54 $30.00 $80.22 $0.00 $540.00
Urban/Rural Rural Area 54 $96.39 $0.00 $258.02 $0.00 $1,000.00
Urbanized Area 185 $73.13 $30.00 $117.04 $0.00 $800.00
Parent Highest Education High School or less 39 $26.23 $0.00 $76.53 $0.00 $500.00
Some College 67 $48.29 $4.00 $67.18 $0.00 $225.00
College Grad 41 $73.47 $30.00 $120.13 $0.00 $500.00
Grad School 96 $130.50 $40.00 $220.30 $0.00 $1,000.00
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 176 $91.79 $36.00 $170.92 $0.00 $1,000.00
At least one parent not working** 66 $41.21 $0.00 $97.68 $0.00 $500.00
1 Parent, unemployed 35 $73.88 $0.00 $144.55 $0.00 $500.00
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 41 $40.13 $0.00 $86.13 $0.00 $450.00
2 Parents, 0 employed 14 $17.96 $0.00 $48.22 $0.00 $190.00
2 Parents, 1 employed 17 $31.98 $0.00 $62.50 $0.00 $200.00
2 Parents, 2 employed 135 $101.70 $40.00 $181.07 $0.00 $1,000.00
Age Group 0-4 26 $47.67 $3.00 $89.19 $0.00 $500.00
5-9 48 $46.03 $0.00 $126.35 $0.00 $800.00
10-12 164 $92.03 $36.00 $170.14 $0.00 $1,000.00
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
52
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.35. Amount Paid for Child Care at another Preschool Program per Week by Child
Q16I How much do you pay per week for “another preschool program” child care for this child?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 333 $119.66 $50.00 $195.23 $0.00 $1,100.00
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 22 $139.62 $50.00 $211.48 $0.00 $766.00
NH white 249 $107.84 $50.00 $182.89 $0.00 $1,100.00
NH Black 18 $112.88 $40.00 $142.67 $0.00 $500.00
NH API 29 $173.00 $100.00 $252.59 $0.00 $1,100.00
NH Other 10 $52.51 $50.00 $52.37 $0.00 $200.00
Household Income Less than $20,000 12 $96.70 $0.00 $260.37 $0.00 $900.00
$20,000 - $39,999 23 $56.50 $5.00 $120.28 $0.00 $500.00
$40,000 - $59,999 49 $129.13 $50.00 $190.68 $0.00 $766.00
$60,000 - $79,999 39 $102.12 $40.00 $143.41 $0.00 $500.00
$80,000 - $99,999 36 $108.80 $63.00 $114.89 $0.00 $512.00
$100,000 - $149,999 73 $183.63 $100.00 $272.42 $0.00 $1,100.00
$150,000 - $199,999 44 $92.82 $46.00 $138.57 $0.00 $600.00
$200,000 or more 51 $79.81 $35.00 $138.60 $0.00 $1,000.00
Urban/Rural Rural Area 87 $149.24 $60.00 $276.98 $0.00 $1,100.00
Urbanized Area 238 $106.48 $50.00 $158.74 $0.00 $1,000.00
Parent Highest Education High School or less 40 $114.21 $7.00 $227.11 $0.00 $900.00
Some College 63 $127.54 $50.00 $212.76 $0.00 $1,100.00
College Grad 95 $102.33 $60.00 $146.46 $0.00 $1,100.00
Grad School 135 $132.46 $50.00 $204.04 $0.00 $1,000.00
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 243 $124.26 $50.00 $192.72 $0.00 $1,100.00
At least one parent not working** 89 $110.22 $50.00 $201.26 $0.00 $1,100.00
1 Parent, unemployed 21 $46.14 $15.00 $87.50 $0.00 $400.00
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 40 $72.36 $0.00 $120.26 $0.00 $500.00
2 Parents, 0 employed 9 $17.31 $0.00 $27.47 $0.00 $100.00
2 Parents, 1 employed 59 $140.47 $55.00 $226.07 $0.00 $1,100.00
2 Parents, 2 employed 203 $130.39 $50.00 $198.67 $0.00 $1,100.00
Age Group 0-4 33 $102.51 $30.00 $141.75 $0.00 $500.00
5-9 90 $122.35 $50.00 $192.14 $0.00 $1,100.00
10-12 207 $117.60 $50.00 $196.62 $0.00 $1,100.00
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
53
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.36. Amount Paid for Child Care at a Before or After-School Program per Week by Child
Q16J How much do you pay per week for “before or after-school program” child care for this child?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 502 $68.37 $25.00 $105.08 $0.00 $700.00
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 32 $22.47 $0.00 $41.04 $0.00 $200.00
NH white 371 $71.50 $30.00 $105.72 $0.00 $700.00
NH Black 31 $63.52 $8.00 $103.61 $0.00 $500.00
NH API 33 $99.13 $20.00 $134.56 $0.00 $425.00
NH Other 30 $75.91 $50.00 $96.93 $0.00 $500.00
Household Income Less than $20,000 37 $36.29 $0.00 $78.11 $0.00 $300.00
$20,000 - $39,999 69 $30.14 $0.00 $66.66 $0.00 $500.00
$40,000 - $59,999 73 $34.07 $0.00 $62.64 $0.00 $350.00
$60,000 - $79,999 45 $60.40 $20.00 $99.20 $0.00 $400.00
$80,000 - $99,999 56 $70.17 $50.00 $102.25 $0.00 $650.00
$100,000 - $149,999 93 $100.11 $50.00 $117.65 $0.00 $700.00
$150,000 - $199,999 58 $83.37 $30.00 $129.68 $0.00 $600.00
$200,000 or more 66 $109.89 $45.00 $122.75 $0.00 $400.00
Urban/Rural Rural Area 110 $35.66 $0.00 $79.07 $0.00 $531.00
Urbanized Area 377 $76.45 $30.00 $109.04 $0.00 $700.00
Parent Highest Education High School or less 75 $37.15 $0.00 $75.18 $0.00 $650.00
Some College 142 $38.32 $0.00 $67.92 $0.00 $500.00
College Grad 106 $63.03 $26.00 $88.23 $0.00 $425.00
Grad School 179 $112.76 $50.00 $133.56 $0.00 $700.00
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 388 $79.95 $30.00 $112.79 $0.00 $700.00
At least one parent not working** 113 $30.15 $0.00 $59.73 $0.00 $300.00
1 Parent, unemployed 47 $49.36 $3.00 $77.44 $0.00 $300.00
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 102 $61.25 $1.00 $103.41 $0.00 $650.00
2 Parents, 0 employed 21 $12.65 $0.00 $25.02 $0.00 $100.00
2 Parents, 1 employed 45 $30.97 $0.00 $61.10 $0.00 $250.00
2 Parents, 2 employed 286 $83.47 $35.00 $114.13 $0.00 $700.00
Age Group 0-4 24 $57.66 $20.00 $78.73 $0.00 $250.00
5-9 25 $85.10 $30.00 $120.02 $0.00 $531.00
10-12 444 $67.63 $25.00 $105.43 $0.00 $700.00
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
54
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.37. Amount Paid for Child Care at Another Type of Program or Activity (e.g., Library, Sports/Athletic Program, or Club) Per Week by Child
Q16K How much do you pay per week for “another type of program or activity, such as a library, sports/athletic program or club” child care for this child?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 650 $58.11 $20.00 $93.03 $0.00 $500.00
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 46 $28.08 $0.00 $44.26 $0.00 $200.00
NH white 464 $61.94 $25.00 $93.05 $0.00 $500.00
NH Black 34 $45.69 $15.00 $57.44 $0.00 $200.00
NH API 57 $85.76 $20.00 $130.34 $0.00 $500.00
NH Other 41 $56.62 $3.00 $96.09 $0.00 $500.00
Household Income Less than $20,000 43 $28.56 $0.00 $53.75 $0.00 $185.00
$20,000 - $39,999 74 $34.84 $0.00 $79.99 $0.00 $342.00
$40,000 - $59,999 104 $27.39 $1.00 $57.63 $0.00 $455.00
$60,000 - $79,999 73 $48.48 $15.00 $73.55 $0.00 $350.00
$80,000 - $99,999 72 $37.82 $15.00 $61.81 $0.00 $500.00
$100,000 - $149,999 134 $84.74 $50.00 $100.60 $0.00 $500.00
$150,000 - $199,999 73 $85.82 $50.00 $106.25 $0.00 $400.00
$200,000 or more 73 $90.88 $35.00 $135.40 $0.00 $500.00
Urban/Rural Rural Area 187 $33.35 $10.00 $56.15 $0.00 $383.00
Urbanized Area 441 $66.82 $25.00 $100.77 $0.00 $500.00
Parent Highest Education High School or less 103 $39.28 $0.00 $72.60 $0.00 $300.00
Some College 185 $33.27 $10.00 $61.02 $0.00 $455.00
College Grad 152 $61.72 $20.00 $91.96 $0.00 $500.00
Grad School 206 $94.02 $50.00 $118.28 $0.00 $500.00
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 433 $68.29 $30.00 $97.13 $0.00 $500.00
At least one parent not working** 211 $39.06 $0.00 $81.71 $0.00 $500.00
1 Parent, unemployed 72 $55.70 $0.00 $105.65 $0.00 $500.00
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 96 $43.24 $9.00 $70.48 $0.00 $350.00
2 Parents, 0 employed 25 $45.87 $15.00 $79.64 $0.00 $275.00
2 Parents, 1 employed 114 $32.46 $0.00 $72.81 $0.00 $500.00
2 Parents, 2 employed 337 $72.44 $36.00 $100.26 $0.00 $500.00
Age Group 0-4 53 $53.25 $2.00 $104.31 $0.00 $500.00
5-9 68 $65.24 $20.00 $84.72 $0.00 $300.00
10-12 513 $57.73 $20.00 $93.03 $0.00 $500.00
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
55
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.38. Summer Child Care Arrangements by Child
Q17 Did you use a different child care arrangement for this child last summer? If yes, which of the following child care arrangements did you use?
N Stay at Stay with Stay with Stay Stay Go to Go to Go to a Go to Go to a Go to another Go to
home with another a with at licensed licensed Head another before or type of program full-day
parent, family neighbor nanny home family child Start or preschool after- or activity, such school
step- member or friend or au- alone child care care ECEAP program school as a library, age or
parent or pair home center program program sports/athletic day
guardian program or club camp
Total Total 332 70.9 47.2 23.5 17.8 15.4 17.5 29.3 14.5 20.0 22.3 30.8 41.7
Parent Hispanic 18 54.0 58.0 33.6 20.2 13.0 9.4 19.0 4.0 19.0 16.3 11.4 17.7
Race/Ethnicity NH white 229 75.7 48.6 23.9 19.9 17.1 21.3 34.8 19.5 23.5 26.0 33.3 47.2
NH Black 24 77.5 55.6 31.8 22.0 29.1 23.8 31.0 16.9 10.9 21.3 23.1 18.7
NH API 35 60.9 25.9 10.8 13.4 7.8 13.5 19.9 7.8 13.6 20.4 46.8 47.7
NH Other 23 75.5 58.5 22.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 22.0 4.2 16.6 8.5 20.8 50.7
Household Less than 27 82.3 58.1 13.3 1.9 15.0 8.4 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 13.0
Income $20,000
$20,000 - 42 65.0 37.9 32.2 19.7 18.4 21.5 22.8 7.9 11.6 22.7 33.1 35.1
$39,999
$40,000 - 39 66.1 56.1 17.6 25.2 21.1 8.5 39.3 7.3 40.5 22.3 31.1 51.3
$59,999
$60,000 - 28 73.1 51.1 20.1 5.7 2.6 16.5 29.5 7.8 13.0 22.8 15.9 31.5
$79,999
$80,000 - 60 74.2 50.6 19.4 17.8 13.1 11.6 17.1 8.1 11.6 14.3 22.8 40.0
$99,999
$100,000 - 73 69.5 41.6 19.8 14.0 13.2 18.6 29.0 24.1 23.4 29.9 46.5 54.4
$149,999
$150,000 - 26 68.5 62.5 34.6 38.0 12.2 30.1 55.6 26.1 27.1 33.9 37.2 33.6
$199,999
$200,000 or 29 74.6 35.9 42.1 22.3 30.6 34.7 47.8 35.1 36.7 36.1 43.0 55.0
more
Urban/Rural Rural Area 87 71.6 53.3 21.8 13.2 13.4 9.8 22.8 14.0 13.9 15.0 23.8 36.3
Urbanized Area 235 71.0 43.1 25.0 19.9 16.9 20.5 32.5 14.9 20.8 23.1 32.0 42.3
Parent High School or 54 75.6 61.9 18.6 15.4 15.5 15.9 27.3 8.5 17.1 27.5 31.3 35.3
Highest less
Education Some College 96 60.6 38.1 24.5 13.1 15.9 14.4 23.9 7.7 15.9 12.9 17.4 33.2
College Grad 76 78.1 48.7 17.4 18.6 7.4 5.9 16.7 8.8 9.9 13.5 23.2 37.8
Grad School 105 69.5 40.5 33.2 24.1 22.4 32.7 47.6 31.7 35.6 34.4 49.7 59.4
Parent Work All parents 247 69.3 45.0 25.7 21.7 17.9 21.4 31.7 16.5 24.8 24.7 33.8 48.4
Status working
(FT/PT)*
56
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Q17 Did you use a different child care arrangement for this child last summer? If yes, which of the following child care arrangements did you use?
N Stay at Stay with Stay with Stay Stay Go to Go to Go to a Go to Go to a Go to another Go to
home with another a with at licensed licensed Head another before or type of program full-day
parent, family neighbor nanny home family child Start or preschool after- or activity, such school
step- member or friend or au- alone child care care ECEAP program school as a library, age or
parent or pair home center program program sports/athletic day
guardian program or club camp
At least one 84 78.7 50.7 18.6 7.8 9.2 7.6 23.9 9.7 7.1 17.0 23.8 24.7
parent not
working**
1 Parent, 31 54.2 45.9 29.9 11.3 11.7 1.3 23.1 2.2 8.2 7.3 24.0 26.0
unemployed
1 Parent, 59 64.4 43.2 16.7 10.8 6.6 9.5 21.2 8.4 4.1 14.6 21.1 34.0
employed
(FT/PT)
2 Parents, 0 15 100.0 41.2 27.8 5.9 21.4 14.5 20.5 10.8 13.0 21.9 21.9 24.5
employed
2 Parents, 1 38 79.5 57.9 8.5 7.2 1.7 7.1 25.9 12.6 3.6 19.1 24.8 24.3
employed
2 Parents, 2 188 70.0 45.3 27.0 23.3 19.7 23.2 33.3 17.7 27.9 26.2 35.8 50.6
employed
Age Group 0-4 44 78.0 59.2 21.4 35.1 22.3 15.2 42.4 17.6 19.4 16.1 27.6 31.1
5-9 48 79.1 55.1 22.7 12.6 13.4 13.8 32.1 16.8 21.4 25.5 31.1 20.1
10-12 231 68.0 41.3 22.4 14.7 13.1 18.7 24.9 12.6 20.4 22.8 31.3 49.1
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
57
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.39. Time Off Taken Due to Child Care Issues
Q19 In the past 12 months, have you or your spouse or partner had to take time off due to child care issues?
N Yes No
All Total 1504 45.6 54.4
Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 134 42.8 57.2
NH white 1033 44.9 55.1
NH Black 70 47.2 52.8
NH API 161 50.9 49.1
NH Other 84 47.2 52.8
Household Income* Less than $20,000 160 30.7 69.3
$20,000 - $39,999 233 50.6 49.4
$40,000 - $59,999 239 39.3 60.7
$60,000 - $79,999 206 39.4 60.6
$80,000 - $99,999 183 48.9 51.1
$100,000 - $149,999 253 51.7 48.3
$150,000 - $199,999 106 62.5 37.5
$200,000 or more 86 51.0 49.0
Urban/Rural Rural Area 497 42.1 57.9
Urbanized Area 960 47.2 52.8
Educational attainment* High School or less 355 39.0 61.0
Some College 494 43.8 56.2
College Grad 334 49.4 50.6
Grad School 315 56.2 43.8
Household Employment Status* All parents working (FT/PT)* 898 53.2 46.8
At least one parent not working** 592 35.3 64.7
1 Parent, unemployed 217 35.8 64.2
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 260 46.5 53.5
2 Parents, 0 employed 92 31.8 68.2
2 Parents, 1 employed 283 36.3 63.7
2 Parents, 2 employed 638 54.7 45.3
Child Age Group 0-4 only 382 47.7 52.3
0-4 and 5-12 (both age groups) 350 43.6 56.4
5-12 only 726 45.7 54.3
Region CCA of Central Washington 62 52.0 48.0
CCA of Eastern Washington 196 41.4 58.6
CCA of King and Pierce Co 661 53.1 46.9
CCA of Northwest Washington 229 43.0 57.0
CCA of Olympic Peninsula 164 31.3 68.7
CCA of Southwest Washington 152 34.5 65.5
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
58
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.40. Hours of Paid Time Off Taken Due to Child Care Issues
Q19 In the past 12 months, how many hours have you or your spouse or partner taken paid time off due to child care issues?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 661 17.5 9.0 28.7 0.0 241.0
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 57 19.8 7.6 38.4 0.0 226.0
NH white 448 17.1 9.0 27.2 0.0 241.0
NH Black 35 16.3 10.5 18.2 0.0 111.0
NH API 71 17.1 10.0 20.5 0.0 119.0
NH Other 39 18.4 6.0 40.5 0.0 237.0
Household Income Less than $20,000 45 22.6 11.3 35.9 0.0 161.0
$20,000 - $39,999 102 13.5 10.0 17.9 0.0 130.0
$40,000 - $59,999 103 17.6 7.0 29.2 0.0 170.0
$60,000 - $79,999 81 17.4 8.0 27.6 0.0 223.0
$80,000 - $99,999 82 12.6 6.6 17.2 0.0 145.0
$100,000 - $149,999 128 16.0 10.0 23.8 0.0 241.0
$150,000 - $199,999 64 22.7 10.0 37.6 0.0 237.0
$200,000 or more 46 31.5 12.5 51.0 0.0 226.0
Urban/Rural Rural Area 195 20.2 10.0 38.6 0.0 241.0
Urbanized Area 444 16.6 9.0 24.1 0.0 237.0
Parent Highest Education High School or less 119 15.4 8.0 27.3 0.0 241.0
Some College 208 16.0 7.0 28.6 0.0 190.0
College Grad 158 15.0 10.0 18.6 0.0 150.0
Grad School 176 24.5 12.5 37.3 0.0 237.0
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 464 18.4 10.0 28.0 0.0 237.0
At least one parent not working** 194 15.3 7.0 30.0 0.0 241.0
1 Parent, unemployed 73 19.5 8.1 35.0 0.0 170.0
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 127 14.2 5.0 22.1 0.0 145.0
2 Parents, 0 employed 27 24.7 18.0 40.3 0.0 241.0
2 Parents, 1 employed 94 10.8 5.0 22.2 0.0 206.0
2 Parents, 2 employed 337 19.2 10.0 29.0 0.0 237.0
Child Age Group 0-4 only 171 16.0 8.0 21.6 0.0 170.0
0-4 and 5-12 (both age groups) (both age groups) 152 19.5 10.0 34.1 0.0 241.0
5-12 only 319 17.0 9.0 29.7 0.0 237.0
Region CCA of Central Washington 29 36.9 11.0 57.8 0.0 226.0
CCA of Eastern Washington 78 14.0 7.0 22.0 0.0 170.0
CCA of King and Pierce Co 336 17.8 10.0 24.2 0.0 237.0
CCA of Northwest Washington 95 15.5 7.0 33.3 0.0 241.0
CCA of Olympic Peninsula 53 17.1 10.0 36.0 0.0 206.0
CCA of Southwest Washington 53 15.3 8.0 21.0 0.0 90.0
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
59
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.41. Days of Paid Time Off Taken Due to Child Care Issues
Q19 In the past 12 months, how many days have you or your spouse or partner taken paid time off due to child care issues?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 660 18.3 7.0 34.2 0.0 258.0
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 57 17.9 4.0 33.1 0.0 164.0
NH white 446 17.7 7.0 34.0 0.0 258.0
NH Black 36 31.5 10.0 56.8 0.0 249.0
NH API 72 17.3 8.9 28.0 0.0 150.0
NH Other 38 22.0 8.5 33.3 0.0 153.0
Household Income Less than $20,000 43 26.6 7.0 51.7 0.0 206.0
$20,000 - $39,999 102 21.2 9.0 37.1 0.0 258.0
$40,000 - $59,999 104 19.0 10.0 33.7 0.0 199.0
$60,000 - $79,999 81 14.1 7.0 23.9 0.0 120.0
$80,000 - $99,999 81 15.3 5.0 28.3 0.0 160.0
$100,000 - $149,999 127 17.3 5.0 36.3 0.0 249.0
$150,000 - $199,999 66 19.8 7.6 31.2 0.0 175.0
$200,000 or more 46 19.2 10.0 32.7 0.0 238.0
Urban/Rural Rural Area 192 14.7 4.5 26.8 0.0 238.0
Urbanized Area 446 19.9 7.0 36.3 0.0 258.0
Parent Highest Education High School or less 118 20.9 7.0 37.9 0.0 237.0
Some College 208 15.3 5.0 32.5 0.0 258.0
College Grad 160 14.7 4.0 29.8 0.0 249.0
Grad School 174 23.0 12.0 35.6 0.0 238.0
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 467 18.4 7.0 33.1 0.0 258.0
At least one parent not working** 191 18.1 5.0 36.8 0.0 238.0
1 Parent, unemployed 72 21.2 7.0 34.5 0.0 164.0
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 126 16.4 7.0 27.8 0.0 237.0
2 Parents, 0 employed 26 22.1 15.0 42.6 0.0 206.0
2 Parents, 1 employed 93 15.6 2.0 35.6 0.0 238.0
2 Parents, 2 employed 341 18.8 7.0 34.0 0.0 258.0
Child Age Group 0-4 only 172 18.9 6.5 37.6 0.0 258.0
0-4 and 5-12 (both age groups) 149 23.2 8.6 40.1 0.0 206.0
5-12 only 320 15.0 5.0 26.9 0.0 238.0
Region CCA of Central Washington 28 11.7 6.0 12.8 0.0 40.0
CCA of Eastern Washington 77 13.7 4.5 22.6 0.0 200.0
CCA of King and Pierce Co 338 21.3 8.0 37.7 0.0 258.0
CCA of Northwest Washington 95 12.6 5.0 19.5 0.0 121.0
CCA of Olympic Peninsula 53 20.2 4.0 45.1 0.0 238.0
CCA of Southwest Washington 52 18.4 5.0 33.0 0.0 153.0
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
60
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.42. Reduced Time Worked Due to Child Care Issues
Q20 In the past 12 months, have you or your spouse or partner reduced the number of hours or days you work due to child care issues?
N Yes No
All Total 1510 38.6 61.4
Race/Ethnicity* Hispanic 136 40.4 59.6
NH white 1035 34.7 65.3
NH Black 71 45.2 54.8
NH API 162 46.6 53.4
NH Other 84 49.1 50.9
Household Income* Less than $20,000 164 27.6 72.4
$20,000 - $39,999 233 44.5 55.5
$40,000 - $59,999 239 31.2 68.8
$60,000 - $79,999 209 40.5 59.5
$80,000 - $99,999 183 43.3 56.7
$100,000 - $149,999 253 42.0 58.0
$150,000 - $199,999 105 43.6 56.4
$200,000 or more 86 39.0 61.0
Urban/Rural Rural Area 501 36.2 63.8
Urbanized Area 961 39.7 60.3
Educational attainment* High School or less 359 32.9 67.1
Some College 494 37.5 62.5
College Grad 336 41.4 58.6
Grad School 315 47.6 52.4
Household Employment Status* All parents working (FT/PT)* 899 44.2 55.8
At least one parent not working** 597 31.0 69.0
1 Parent, unemployed 219 35.9 64.1
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 262 37.4 62.6
2 Parents, 0 employed 93 25.1 74.9
2 Parents, 1 employed 285 31.0 69.0
2 Parents, 2 employed 637 45.8 54.2
Child Age Group* 0-4 only 383 45.2 54.8
0-4 and 5-12 (both age groups) 354 37.6 62.4
5-12 only 726 35.9 64.1
Region* CCA of Central Washington 63 43.1 56.9
CCA of Eastern Washington 196 31.0 69.0
CCA of King and Pierce Co 664 44.2 55.8
CCA of Northwest Washington 231 40.3 59.7
CCA of Olympic Peninsula 164 31.2 68.8
CCA of Southwest Washington 151 27.7 72.3
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
61
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.43. Days of Work Reduced Due to Child Care Issues
Q20 In the past 12 months, how many work days have you or your spouse or partner reduced due to child care issues?
N Mean Median SD Min Max
Total Total 560 30.7 12.0 50.7 0.0 291.0
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 56 33.8 10.0 61.1 0.0 279.0
NH white 355 32.0 14.0 51.5 0.0 291.0
NH Black 34 32.6 14.0 48.7 0.0 239.0
NH API 70 24.9 9.0 40.4 0.0 251.0
NH Other 37 29.1 13.9 41.6 0.0 200.0
Household Income Less than $20,000 39 28.7 9.0 58.5 0.0 279.0
$20,000 - $39,999 92 30.5 14.0 44.1 0.0 263.0
$40,000 - $59,999 85 37.3 16.6 56.4 0.0 248.0
$60,000 - $79,999 83 24.9 10.0 38.7 0.0 267.0
$80,000 - $99,999 66 24.7 9.0 40.4 0.0 266.0
$100,000 - $149,999 104 31.0 10.0 53.3 0.0 269.0
$150,000 - $199,999 51 41.4 14.0 70.7 0.0 291.0
$200,000 or more 35 36.6 25.0 52.8 0.0 245.0
Urban/Rural Rural Area 164 36.0 10.5 61.2 0.0 267.0
Urbanized Area 377 28.9 12.5 45.9 0.0 291.0
Parent Highest Education High School or less 106 29.3 12.5 50.3 0.0 279.0
Some College 169 28.4 9.0 47.9 0.0 267.0
College Grad 130 30.9 14.0 51.1 0.0 266.0
Grad School 155 34.9 16.9 53.7 0.0 291.0
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 391 33.6 15.0 53.8 0.0 291.0
At least one parent not working** 167 24.4 9.0 42.5 0.0 279.0
1 Parent, unemployed 66 31.9 10.0 53.8 0.0 279.0
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 101 31.9 17.5 51.7 0.0 267.0
2 Parents, 0 employed 24 25.9 14.0 49.3 2.0 267.0
2 Parents, 1 employed 77 20.1 7.0 31.9 0.0 144.0
2 Parents, 2 employed 290 33.9 14.0 54.2 0.0 291.0
Child Age Group 0-4 only 166 25.1 9.3 42.2 0.0 266.0
0-4 and 5-12 (both age groups) 125 35.4 15.0 54.1 0.0 279.0
5-12 only 254 31.6 10.9 53.8 0.0 291.0
Region CCA of Central Washington 23 51.1 10.0 89.3 0.0 248.0
CCA of Eastern Washington 58 34.9 13.9 62.6 0.0 267.0
CCA of King and Pierce Co 285 29.7 15.0 45.4 0.0 291.0
CCA of Northwest Washington 87 25.0 7.5 49.8 0.0 279.0
CCA of Olympic Peninsula 44 36.8 10.0 47.9 0.0 193.0
CCA of Southwest Washington 49 25.4 20.0 31.9 0.5 153.0
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
62
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.44. Child Care an Issue to Obtaining Employment
Q21 If you are currently unemployed and seeking employment, is child care an issue that is preventing you from obtaining employment?
N No. Child care is not an issue Yes. I would like part-time employment Yes. I would like full-time employment
All Total 106 53.4 30.5 16.1
Race/Ethnicity* Hispanic 16 53.2 40.1 6.8
NH white 63 67.7 10.5 21.7
NH Black 4 43.9 29.8 26.3
NH API 11 20.4 69.9 9.8
NH Other 10 41 22.9 36.1
Household Less than $20,000 33 54 25 20.9
Income* $20,000 - $39,999 32 38.3 52.2 9.5
$40,000 - $59,999 12 70.2 8.2 21.6
$60,000 - $79,999 12 85.6 7 7.4
$80,000 - $99,999 6 21 52.8 26.2
$100,000 - $149,999 5 26.8 41.1 32
$150,000 - $199,999 3 100 . .
$200,000 or more 2 76.5 . 23.5
Urban/Rural Rural Area 34 58.5 30.7 10.9
Urbanized Area 69 52.6 31.7 15.7
Educational High School or less 45 46.7 39.7 13.6
attainment Some College 35 66.2 20.1 13.7
College Grad 17 48.6 20.7 30.6
Grad School 9 67 24.3 8.7
Household At least one parent not working* 106 53.4 30.5 16.1
Employment 1 Parent, unemployed 73 55.4 24.3 20.3
Status 2 Parents, 0 employed 11 40.4 53.7 5.9
2 Parents, 1 employed 22 58 28 14.1
Child Age Group 0-4 only 30 44.5 41.2 14.2
0-4 and 5-12 (both age groups) 26 39.4 39.3 21.3
5-12 only 46 69.4 16.3 14.3
Region CCA of Central Washington 5 60.8 22.7 16.5
CCA of Eastern Washington 20 63.1 31.8 5.1
CCA of King and Pierce Co 38 48.2 40.8 11
CCA of Northwest Washington 14 47.2 29.6 23.3
CCA of Olympic Peninsula 16 65.8 12 22.2
CCA of Southwest Washington 12 65.2 13 21.8
* At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
63
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.45. Child Care Issues a Reason to Turn Down Promotion or Job Offer
Q22 In the past 12 months, have you turned down a promotion or job offer due to child care issues?
N Yes No
All Total 1086 18.7 81.3
Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 103 16.9 83.1
NH white 736 18.0 82.0
NH Black 56 29.5 70.5
NH API 126 17.8 82.2
NH Other 53 27.8 72.2
Household Income Less than $20,000 78 20.1 79.9
$20,000 - $39,999 151 25.2 74.8
$40,000 - $59,999 174 20.1 79.9
$60,000 - $79,999 149 19.9 80.1
$80,000 - $99,999 144 13.7 86.3
$100,000 - $149,999 202 17.8 82.2
$150,000 - $199,999 94 13.3 86.7
$200,000 or more 81 18.9 81.1
Urban/Rural Rural Area 315 20.7 79.3
Urbanized Area 741 17.9 82.1
Educational attainment High School or less 220 21.7 78.3
Some College 330 18.0 82.0
College Grad 256 13.3 86.7
Grad School 280 21.9 78.1
Household Employment Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 894 19.0 81.0
At least one parent not working** 188 17.5 82.5
1 Parent, unemployed 73 27.1 72.9
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 260 16.9 83.1
2 Parents, 0 employed 11 31.3 68.7
2 Parents, 1 employed 104 12.3 87.7
2 Parents, 2 employed 634 19.4 80.6
Child Age Group* 0-4 only 264 22.9 77.1
0-4 and 5-12 (both age groups) 233 21.5 78.5
5-12 only 559 15.0 85.0
Region* CCA of Central Washington 40 38.2 61.8
CCA of Eastern Washington 138 13.9 86.1
CCA of King and Pierce Co 507 21.3 78.7
CCA of Northwest Washington 160 10.1 89.9
CCA of Olympic Peninsula 106 22.0 78.0
CCA of Southwest Washington 111 14.6 85.4
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
64
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.46. Child Care Issues Affecting Families
Q23 Which of the following child care issues has had an effect on your family over the past year?
N Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Other None
child care affordable high back up care for care for my care care transportation information of the
that fits care quality child a sick child with close to when to and or on child above
our work care care child special my home school is from child care options
schedule needs or work closed care
Total Total 1536 26.9 36.9 30.4 25.0 19.3 7.2 18.1 21.4 12.2 10.8 2.8 31.0
Parent Race Hispanic 139 26.5 38.2 25.4 27.1 16.3 4.6 17.5 15.5 8.9 12.4 0.6 28.0
/ Ethnicity NH white 1047 26.0 33.8 30.5 26.2 19.9 9.5 15.6 22.5 10.6 8.7 3.7 34.3
NH Black 73 29.0 44.1 26.7 17.9 15.5 2.5 24.8 10.5 12.0 10.4 0.0 21.5
NH API 165 28.0 41.3 33.1 20.4 20.2 3.7 22.4 24.6 17.9 16.2 2.4 28.4
NH Other 85 31.0 49.0 39.0 28.7 25.0 7.4 29.6 27.8 24.8 12.9 2.9 21.8
Household Less than $20,000 173 23.7 36.2 23.6 16.1 12.3 5.0 20.2 13.9 16.7 8.0 2.5 39.5
Income $20,000 - $39,999 238 27.0 40.1 26.3 28.1 21.2 8.4 22.6 23.9 15.2 9.9 5.7 24.1
$40,000 - $59,999 242 27.8 47.4 34.9 26.5 18.9 7.4 14.0 20.7 11.6 13.4 1.6 30.2
$60,000 - $79,999 209 23.8 33.9 24.4 25.4 20.3 5.7 13.9 17.8 10.5 9.8 1.4 35.6
$80,000 - $99,999 184 29.4 41.2 32.1 29.1 17.3 5.5 21.4 21.7 10.5 9.5 6.0 29.2
$100,000 - $149,999 255 29.6 32.1 37.6 27.2 23.8 8.5 18.9 26.7 10.6 10.6 1.5 28.6
$150,000 - $199,999 107 24.9 29.0 30.1 19.4 23.2 7.6 20.9 20.8 10.8 16.4 1.1 24.9
$200,000 or more 86 30.5 29.3 36.9 24.8 17.8 10.0 15.2 27.4 12.7 13.5 0.0 35.1
Urban / Rural Area 506 23.6 36.5 28.0 27.4 16.9 6.4 15.7 21.5 11.8 8.1 2.8 34.8
Rural Urbanized Area 977 28.3 37.6 31.0 24.2 20.3 7.2 19.3 21.7 12.7 12.0 2.7 29.2
Parent High School or less 370 23.9 36.5 23.8 23.0 18.3 8.9 17.1 18.6 12.5 9.8 3.3 35.1
Highest Some College 500 27.0 38.9 26.1 29.3 21.1 3.6 16.5 21.1 11.9 9.8 3.3 29.9
Education College Grad 339 29.8 36.9 37.7 24.6 19.1 5.3 18.5 21.4 9.2 10.2 1.8 32.5
Grad School 317 28.9 35.5 40.7 23.2 19.2 12.8 22.6 27.9 16.3 15.5 1.9 22.6
Parent Work All parents working (FT/PT)* 909 31.6 40.4 33.8 29.1 23.4 8.1 20.1 26.1 12.6 12.1 2.3 24.3
Status At least one parent not 604 20.9 33.3 26.4 20.0 14.2 6.2 16.0 15.6 12.1 9.3 3.5 40.7
working**
1 Parent, unemployed 225 27.0 39.6 29.3 24.1 17.8 3.6 20.2 22.1 19.2 8.1 4.2 38.1
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 269 31.1 41.0 31.0 35.2 26.0 5.2 24.0 24.5 17.2 10.4 0.8 25.2
2 Parents, 0 employed 94 15.6 25.2 13.0 10.2 13.9 5.1 9.2 10.1 6.0 5.2 6.6 42.5
2 Parents, 1 employed 285 20.1 33.3 29.7 21.7 12.6 7.6 16.4 14.6 11.2 11.3 2.1 41.2
2 Parents, 2 employed 640 31.7 40.2 34.5 27.6 22.7 8.8 19.2 26.4 11.5 12.6 2.6 24.1
Child Age 0-4 only 392 33.7 48.5 36.1 27.8 19.1 6.8 23.7 12.2 9.1 13.3 2.4 22.7
Group 0-4 and 5-12 (both age groups) 356 25.7 34.5 28.5 25.6 22.8 9.3 17.8 25.2 13.4 14.6 1.6 35.4
5-12 only 733 24.4 31.7 28.0 24.1 18.3 7.0 15.3 25.9 12.8 8.1 3.0 34.2
Region CCA of Central Washington 63 27.2 43.3 27.4 47.2 15.7 6.1 24.0 33.2 7.4 20.1 4.3 20.9
CCA of Eastern Washington 199 25.5 32.3 26.1 23.1 14.9 7.3 11.1 21.0 9.8 5.9 1.9 38.8
CCA of King and Pierce Co 674 30.1 36.8 34.6 25.0 22.3 7.9 21.4 25.4 13.9 13.7 2.2 27.3
65
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Q23 Which of the following child care issues has had an effect on your family over the past year?
N Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Other None
child care affordable high back up care for care for my care care transportation information of the
that fits care quality child a sick child with close to when to and or on child above
our work care care child special my home school is from child care options
schedule needs or work closed care
CCA of Northwest Washington 233 28.2 42.4 26.9 27.8 15.6 6.3 20.0 14.6 11.3 10.9 4.2 25.7
CCA of Olympic Peninsula 164 18.9 36.1 27.4 19.2 17.7 5.8 13.8 17.3 14.1 9.4 3.8 41.2
CCA of Southwest Washington 157 19.7 35.8 24.4 20.8 20.0 6.9 13.9 15.9 10.3 2.4 2.2 38.7
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
66
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.47. Child Care Issues Affecting Families Text Responses for Other
Q23: Which of the following child care issues has had an effect on your family over the past year? OTHER responses.
Single mother. Sometimes it just gets hard, especially with this virus it is really hard to try and go out there and get a job.
Making sure one of us is always available in case a child is sick or needs something at school. So sometimes one work schedule will be too tight
for the week and the other needs to free up some time. I was employed until COVID
Finding a place I can trust
There has been no new issues with the child care that we've been dealing with since
Transportation to child care
Good maintenance
No one can carry
The one we can trust
Maternity leave
I am the child care facility
Parents schedule
Schedules matching up
When they are alone and feel tensed for education.
Finding a short term or sudden babysitter.
About who is going to watch our child.
Well the cost is just too much
Being scared because my child is so young
Constant care is needed now that they are home every day because of COV 19
Finding work that allows me to take my child with me.
Finding people we trust to watch our kids
Overnight
We leave him with our older family mem
Finding child care that will take an infant
When I have unexpected working objectives.
Being able to afford a piece of mind that my kid is in good hands
Secure
Child care that can be trusted
Finding someone you can trust and we don't do daycare or anything like that
My child doesn't want to go.
Covid19
Only one parent working because it cost too much for child care
No time
Bad Relationships
I have nothing to say
Trust issues
67
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.48. Frequency of Inability to do Job Due to Child Care Arrangements
Q24 How often is your ability to do your job negatively affected by your child care arrangement(s)?
N Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
All Total 1495 31.2 35.2 26.1 5.5 1.9
Race/Ethnicity* Hispanic 134 29.0 32.2 34.0 3.8 1.0
NH white 1031 35.0 35.8 21.1 5.8 2.3
NH Black 71 17.5 34.6 37.6 3.1 7.2
NH API 157 26.6 36.9 28.0 7.8 0.7
NH Other 83 20.7 36.2 38.5 4.6 .
Household Income Less than $20,000 159 43.0 25.5 21.7 6.7 3.1
$20,000 - $39,999 232 33.9 31.4 25.5 8.5 0.7
$40,000 - $59,999 239 29.7 33.8 28.0 6.0 2.5
$60,000 - $79,999 206 34.7 38.7 20.6 4.7 1.3
$80,000 - $99,999 180 26.6 40.4 27.0 4.3 1.6
$100,000 - $149,999 254 25.8 39.7 28.1 4.1 2.3
$150,000 - $199,999 105 26.4 37.0 28.6 6.1 1.9
$200,000 or more 85 23.5 35.1 32.9 5.2 3.3
Urban/Rural Rural Area 494 33.4 35.4 24.7 5.0 1.5
Urbanized Area 955 29.9 35.4 27.0 5.9 1.9
Educational attainment* High School or less 353 40.4 28.5 24.6 5.0 1.5
Some College 489 29.7 38.1 25.1 5.4 1.8
College Grad 334 28.5 38.2 26.3 5.6 1.4
Grad School 316 20.5 39.1 30.1 6.7 3.6
Household Employment Status* All parents working (FT/PT)* 901 21.5 41.3 29.3 5.4 2.5
At least one parent not working** 584 45.9 26.1 21.1 5.8 1.1
1 Parent, unemployed 216 37.5 25.9 26.0 7.2 3.3
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 265 20.1 41.4 32.6 5.0 1.0
2 Parents, 0 employed 89 53.7 19.5 21.3 5.5 .
2 Parents, 1 employed 279 46.9 28.3 19.0 5.3 0.5
2 Parents, 2 employed 636 21.8 41.2 28.6 5.5 2.8
Child Age Group 0-4 only 380 30.4 33.4 26.1 6.8 3.4
0-4 and 5-12 (both age groups) 350 32.1 31.1 28.2 6.6 1.9
5-12 only 719 30.6 38.5 25.6 4.3 1.0
Region* CCA of Central Washington 61 20.2 38.2 35.9 2.8 2.9
CCA of Eastern Washington 195 41.7 32.1 20.4 5.3 0.6
CCA of King and Pierce Co 658 26.0 35.9 28.6 6.7 2.8
CCA of Northwest Washington 229 31.2 33.8 28.1 5.5 1.5
CCA of Olympic Peninsula 159 37.8 31.7 26.0 3.7 0.9
CCA of Southwest Washington 154 36.2 41.4 17.0 4.7 0.8
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
68
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.49. Financial Hardship or Changes as a Result of the Cost of Child Care
Q25 Has your household experienced any financial hardship or made financial changes as a result of the cost of child care?
N Yes No
All Total 1478 35.5 64.5
Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 133 28.6 71.4
Non-Hispanic white 1018 35.3 64.7
NH Black 70 49.1 50.9
NH API 155 38.8 61.2
NH Other 82 44.5 55.5
Household Income Less than $20,000 161 34.1 65.9
$20,000 - $39,999 229 36.3 63.7
$40,000 - $59,999 239 42.0 58.0
$60,000 - $79,999 202 36.0 64.0
$80,000 - $99,999 179 33.8 66.2
$100,000 - $149,999 252 32.9 67.1
$150,000 - $199,999 103 35.1 64.9
$200,000 or more 84 33.1 66.9
Urban/Rural* Rural Area 494 30.2 69.8
Urbanized Area 939 38.2 61.8
Educational attainment High School or less 350 34.2 65.8
Some College 484 34.5 65.5
College Grad 329 37.7 62.3
Grad School 310 37.0 63.0
Household Employment Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 888 37.0 63.0
At least one parent not working** 581 33.7 66.3
1 Parent, unemployed 214 36.5 63.5
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 256 42.3 57.7
2 Parents, 0 employed 89 32.1 67.9
2 Parents, 1 employed 278 33.1 66.9
2 Parents, 2 employed 632 35.8 64.2
Child Age Group 0-4 only 379 44.1 55.9
0-4 and 5-12 (both age groups) 345 38.1 61.9
5-12 only 707 29.3 70.7
Region CCA of Central Washington 62 35.4 64.6
CCA of Eastern Washington 192 31.9 68.1
CCA of King and Pierce Co 649 39.0 61.0
CCA of Northwest Washington 223 36.2 63.8
CCA of Olympic Peninsula 160 30.5 69.5
CCA of Southwest Washington 154 33.3 66.7
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
69
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.50. Financial Assistance Types Received by Families
Q26 Does your family receive assistance from any of the following?
N Assistance from a public Free Scholarship, financial Employer offers Employer Employer Relative or No
benefit program (like Head program aid, sliding-fee-scale, flexible spending pays part or offers on-site friend assistance
Start, ECEAP, Working offered or reduced fee offered accounts that can all of the cost child care at helps to from any
Connections or city-funded through a by child care provider be used for child of child care free or reduced pay for source
program) public school care cost child care
Total Total 1536 9.9 14.2 7.3 7.5 4.8 3.3 6.8 61.5
Parent Hispanic 139 7.8 21.9 8.7 3.5 2.0 5.2 6.4 54.3
Race / NH white 1047 10.5 11.8 7.4 6.9 5.1 3.2 6.3 66.3
Ethnicity NH Black 73 12.6 15.7 5.3 11.4 2.6 1.0 4.0 52.6
NH API 165 7.0 14.2 6.8 13.5 8.1 3.1 7.3 59.8
NH Other 85 20.2 16.9 7.4 8.2 4.0 2.8 15.3 47.7
Household Less than $20,000 173 12.6 18.7 7.5 4.0 1.1 0.4 5.0 51.6
Income $20,000 - $39,999 238 14.9 22.3 9.2 3.3 1.5 0.9 11.0 53.4
$40,000 - $59,999 242 10.0 16.4 7.3 2.2 5.2 4.6 7.0 67.0
$60,000 - $79,999 209 8.4 10.2 4.5 6.3 2.0 2.9 4.4 70.9
$80,000 - $99,999 184 7.0 9.8 6.7 3.9 3.5 2.2 6.0 70.7
$100,000 - 255 6.3 11.8 5.8 14.8 5.2 5.1 6.8 62.0
$149,999
$150,000 - 107 10.1 10.9 10.0 12.8 16.3 6.1 9.1 53.0
$199,999
$200,000 or more 86 15.5 10.9 15.2 27.4 12.5 8.2 5.9 48.3
Urban / Rural Area 506 8.1 13.7 6.4 4.3 2.6 2.8 6.7 66.6
Rural Urbanized Area 977 11.3 14.3 7.5 8.9 5.9 3.5 7.1 60.1
Parent High School or less 370 10.7 18.9 7.4 2.8 1.1 1.4 7.1 61.4
Highest Some College 500 9.0 13.9 6.4 3.3 2.8 2.2 7.8 65.4
Education College Grad 339 8.2 11.1 5.7 10.3 7.9 2.8 4.7 63.3
Grad School 317 12.6 10.4 10.9 19.6 10.7 9.7 7.6 54.2
Parent All parents 909 10.6 12.8 8.9 10.6 6.6 4.6 7.8 60.3
Work working (FT/PT)*
Status At least one parent 604 9.4 17.0 4.7 3.3 2.3 1.7 5.6 64.7
not working**
1 Parent, 225 20.7 23.4 6.0 2.1 3.7 0.4 9.0 44.8
unemployed
1 Parent, employed 269 20.1 15.2 8.8 4.3 1.3 1.7 11.5 55.6
(FT/PT)
2 Parents, 0 94 14.0 24.9 5.5 1.4 3.2 2.5 5.7 59.6
employed
2 Parents, 1 285 2.8 11.4 3.8 4.4 1.4 2.0 4.1 75.1
employed
70
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Q26 Does your family receive assistance from any of the following?
N Assistance from a public Free Scholarship, financial Employer offers Employer Employer Relative or No
benefit program (like Head program aid, sliding-fee-scale, flexible spending pays part or offers on-site friend assistance
Start, ECEAP, Working offered or reduced fee offered accounts that can all of the cost child care at helps to from any
Connections or city-funded through a by child care provider be used for child of child care free or reduced pay for source
program) public school care cost child care
2 Parents, 2 640 8.3 12.2 8.9 12.2 7.9 5.3 6.9 61.4
employed
Child Age 0-4 only 392 8.2 7.2 5.5 7.5 5.0 4.2 6.1 64.8
Group 0-4 and 5-12 (both 356 12.3 19.9 5.0 6.6 4.6 3.4 9.6 61.1
age groups)
5-12 only 733 10.2 16.7 9.8 8.0 5.0 2.9 6.4 60.3
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
71
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.51. Child Care Preferences
Q27 I prefer child care that is provided in:
N A child care A family member Another My own home A licensed child A program at a No
center or friend's home person's home care program public school preference
All Total 1500 10.2 21.6 1.4 39.4 13.4 6.4 7.6
Race / Ethnicity Hispanic 136 7.9 29.2 . 39.5 12.9 6.1 4.5
NH white 1031 10.2 18.7 1.5 42.5 13.5 5.6 8.1
NH Black 69 14.0 30.4 4.3 20.6 18.7 6.8 5.3
NH API 161 11.8 22.6 . 35.6 10.9 10.2 8.9
NH Other 83 12.4 18.1 8.7 29.5 18.4 3.1 9.8
Household Less than $20,000 159 10.8 25.2 3.8 30.5 9.7 5.4 14.5
Income* $20,000 - $39,999 232 8.8 28.3 1.7 37.1 12.1 5.5 6.5
$40,000 - $59,999 240 7.0 22.6 1.0 39.6 14.6 8.6 6.5
$60,000 - $79,999 208 8.8 20.3 0.7 48.1 6.8 7.7 7.6
$80,000 - $99,999 181 9.9 20.5 1.1 44.5 13.1 5.1 5.9
$100,000 - $149,999 254 10.5 19.8 1.8 35.9 13.3 7.8 10.8
$150,000 - $199,999 106 19.3 17.5 0.9 40.6 18.3 0.3 3.2
$200,000 or more 84 15.3 11.2 0.6 32.4 33.5 5.5 1.3
Urban / Rural Rural Area 498 8.1 23.8 0.8 41.2 13.1 4.4 8.6
Urbanized Area 957 11.1 20.5 1.7 39.3 13.5 7.0 6.8
Educational High School or less 353 7.0 25.2 1.7 39.5 10.2 7.4 9.0
attainment* Some College 491 9.2 27.1 1.6 36.6 11.7 5.5 8.3
College Grad 335 12.8 14.1 1.0 44.8 12.9 6.2 8.3
Grad School 316 14.3 16.9 1.2 35.6 22.8 6.2 3.0
Household All parents working (FT/PT)* 900 11.9 22.6 0.9 36.0 15.4 6.4 6.7
Employment At least one parent not working** 588 7.6 20.5 2.3 44.0 10.7 6.4 8.5
Status* 1 Parent, unemployed 215 8.9 26.6 1.1 36.6 12.9 6.0 7.8
1 Parent, Employed (FT/PT) 263 10.5 30.9 0.7 31.2 10.6 7.2 8.9
2 Parents, 0 employed 91 7.1 19.3 4.5 45.6 7.7 7.5 8.3
2 Parents, 1 employed 282 7.3 18.4 2.0 46.5 10.7 6.2 8.9
2 Parents, 2 employed 637 12.2 20.7 0.9 37.1 16.6 6.2 6.2
Child Age Group* 0-4 only 381 16.4 18.3 1.7 35.2 18.9 4.2 5.3
0-4 and 5-12 (both age groups) 352 10.1 20.5 0.9 42.8 10.9 7.2 7.6
5-12 only 722 6.9 23.9 1.2 40.9 11.1 7.4 8.5
Region CCA of Central Washington 62 6.8 26.1 0.8 35.6 23.6 6.5 0.7
CCA of Eastern Washington 197 8.4 23.0 1.3 48.0 6.8 4.5 8.0
CCA of King and Pierce Co 658 12.5 20.5 1.2 37.9 13.8 7.8 6.2
CCA of Northwest Washington 230 8.9 24.8 0.9 38.4 12.5 7.0 7.5
CCA of Olympic Peninsula 161 4.5 22.9 2.8 41.3 18.1 1.9 8.5
CCA of Southwest Washington 154 10.5 16.6 2.0 39.2 13.1 5.6 13.0
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
72
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
73
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.52. Child Care Needed Outside of Regular/Traditional Daytime Hours
Q28 Do you have a need for child care outside of regular/traditional daytime hours (6:00am - 6:00pm Monday thru Friday)?
N Yes No
All Total 1503 25.3 74.7
Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 136 32.5 67.5
NH white 1033 23.4 76.6
NH Black 69 34.8 65.2
NH API 162 21.7 78.3
NH Other 84 28.7 71.3
Household Income* Less than $20,000 162 24.5 75.5
$20,000 - $39,999 234 29.3 70.7
$40,000 - $59,999 240 23.4 76.6
$60,000 - $79,999 208 22.8 77.2
$80,000 - $99,999 181 20.6 79.4
$100,000 - $149,999 253 21.6 78.4
$150,000 - $199,999 105 35.9 64.1
$200,000 or more 85 43.2 56.8
Urban/Rural Rural Area 502 22.6 77.4
Urbanized Area 953 26.5 73.5
Educational attainment* High School or less 356 22.8 77.2
Some College 494 22.9 77.1
College Grad 335 24.9 75.1
Grad School 314 34.2 65.8
Household Employment Status* All parents working (FT/PT)* 897 30.2 69.8
At least one parent not working** 593 17.8 82.2
1 Parent, unemployed 217 29.1 70.9
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 264 28.4 71.6
2 Parents, 0 employed 92 13.0 87.0
2 Parents, 1 employed 284 14.6 85.4
2 Parents, 2 employed 633 30.7 69.3
Child Age Group 0-4 only 384 27.5 72.5
0-4 and 5-12 (both age groups) 354 22.7 77.3
5-12 only 720 25.0 75.0
Region* CCA of Central Washington 61 39.2 60.8
CCA of Eastern Washington 196 20.7 79.3
CCA of King and Pierce Co 656 28.7 71.3
CCA of Northwest Washington 231 24.0 76.0
CCA of Olympic Peninsula 164 21.4 78.6
CCA of Southwest Washington 154 16.7 83.3
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
74
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.53. Non-traditional Child Care Schedule Needs
Q29 When do you have a need for child care outside of regular/traditional hours?
N Evenings (6:00-9:00pm) Nights (9:00pm-6:00am) Weekend days Weekend evenings or nights Other
Total Total 391 50.9 28.3 48.6 26.1 6.6
Parent Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 42 50.0 24.4 40.0 19.7 11.9
NH white 256 51.3 30.1 51.4 29.0 4.7
NH Black 27 35.9 27.7 60.1 11.2 2.3
NH API 39 52.2 23.6 50.2 28.4 9.8
NH Other 24 59.7 37.2 40.0 30.4 1.5
Household Income Less than $20,000 39 35.9 27.5 51.7 24.9 12.6
$20,000 - $39,999 69 59.4 33.3 50.4 34.6 7.3
$40,000 - $59,999 62 45.6 47.6 48.6 26.8 8.6
$60,000 - $79,999 49 50.9 29.0 57.2 37.8 4.9
$80,000 - $99,999 40 57.5 28.0 29.0 25.4 16.0
$100,000 - $149,999 58 59.5 26.6 39.6 21.5 0.0
$150,000 - $199,999 33 45.4 8.8 61.4 13.0 0.0
$200,000 or more 38 43.3 11.3 54.6 15.0 3.5
Urban/Rural Rural Area 110 45.5 29.7 53.0 25.6 7.7
Urbanized Area 271 53.3 27.3 48.7 26.9 5.5
Parent Highest Education High School or less 81 45.1 39.8 47.7 26.5 8.7
Some College 118 51.8 35.8 45.8 35.6 9.4
College Grad 84 57.2 15.2 43.7 21.7 6.2
Grad School 107 50.7 19.1 57.8 19.3 1.7
Parent Work Status All parents working (FT/PT)* 279 50.3 26.5 48.5 21.9 7.7
At least one parent not working** 110 54.7 30.5 51.3 37.9 3.1
1 Parent, unemployed 63 55.4 37.1 45.1 40.4 7.9
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 82 49.8 30.7 33.0 27.0 18.0
2 Parents, 0 employed 12 56.4 38.6 73.0 25.7 0.0
2 Parents, 1 employed 35 53.6 22.6 49.8 39.6 0.0
2 Parents, 2 employed 197 50.5 25.6 51.9 20.8 5.5
Child Age Group 0-4 only 104 50.4 27.2 56.0 27.2 4.6
0-4 and 5-12 (both age groups) 91 52.7 35.2 40.8 30.0 9.8
5-12 only 185 50.9 26.7 45.0 24.0 6.5
Region CCA of Central Washington 21 44.1 27.9 30.4 32.3 13.6
CCA of Eastern Washington 42 50.0 29.8 44.8 30.5 0.0
CCA of King and Pierce Co 194 51.6 25.2 51.3 25.3 5.2
CCA of Northwest Washington 53 55.9 25.1 51.4 21.9 9.4
CCA of Olympic Peninsula 37 49.5 41.7 70.5 35.0 8.9
CCA of Southwest Washington 36 49.4 31.4 28.2 20.7 7.9
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
75
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.54. Non-traditional Child Care Schedule Needs, Text Responses for Other
Q29OE: When do you have a need for child care outside of regular/traditional hours?
Various hours
Early mornings
I don't need night child care
Need it for when I got to work and no one is here
Every other Saturday morning to mid afternoon
I am a mechanic and you never know
During the work day.
Date night
8am-3pm
Depending on husband work schedule errands that need to be dine.
6am-5pm
4am
When we are not in home
If I could find affordable and trust worthy child care during the day, that would be great
When we want time out together.
When I have some unexpected objectives to do at work or with friends.
I did not mean to select other.
Day off
I don’t need childcare outside those regular hours
Weekday morning
During the Daytime
5am to 6pm
Childcare able to cover on a whim so overtime hours can be done.
76
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.55. Average Time to Transport Children to and From Child Care Each Day
Q30 Approximately how many minutes does it take to transport your child(ren) to and from (round trip) child care each day?
N less than 5 minutes 5-60 minutes 5-15 minutes 16-30 minutes 31-60 minutes More than 60 minutes
All Total 1388 35.5 1.9 21.0 23.6 13.7 4.3
Race/Ethnicity* Hispanic 126 36.1 1.5 24.4 28.6 7.3 2.2
NH white 968 37.9 1.6 18.2 22.6 15.1 4.5
NH Black 66 23.7 6.6 28.4 19.6 15.5 6.2
NH API 134 30.4 1.9 29.5 20.2 13.6 4.5
NH Other 78 27.0 3.7 13.4 31.7 17.7 6.5
Household Income* Less than $20,000 140 37.1 4.7 15.9 22.0 13.3 7.0
$20,000 - $39,999 219 39.8 0.5 20.3 28.5 9.3 1.5
$40,000 - $59,999 226 39.6 2.7 17.0 26.2 10.5 4.1
$60,000 - $79,999 189 36.1 1.9 21.3 22.4 15.7 2.7
$80,000 - $99,999 172 43.0 1.1 21.1 19.4 10.0 5.5
$100,000 - $149,999 230 30.3 2.6 20.6 21.4 18.7 6.4
$150,000 - $199,999 103 27.0 1.0 26.6 25.3 16.0 4.1
$200,000 or more 83 14.3 0.8 36.4 22.6 20.1 5.8
Urban/Rural Rural Area 449 42.4 1.6 19.4 20.3 12.5 3.8
Urbanized Area 900 32.7 2.0 21.8 25.0 13.9 4.5
Educational attainment* High School or less 312 39.6 2.5 18.4 22.9 12.8 3.8
Some College 457 40.5 0.6 18.5 22.6 12.9 4.9
College Grad 311 35.9 1.7 23.6 25.9 10.5 2.4
Grad School 306 20.1 3.5 25.9 23.4 20.4 6.8
Household Employment Status* All parents working (FT/PT)* 867 28.6 1.9 23.7 24.7 16.2 4.9
At least one parent not working** 514 46.3 2.0 16.9 21.9 9.6 3.4
1 Parent, unemployed 193 37.8 2.5 18.0 27.2 9.2 5.3
1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) 259 28.7 3.0 21.1 27.3 15.2 4.8
2 Parents, 0 employed 86 49.1 2.6 13.7 17.9 13.6 3.1
2 Parents, 1 employed 235 49.1 1.5 17.6 21.0 8.2 2.6
2 Parents, 2 employed 608 28.6 1.6 24.3 24.1 16.5 5.0
Child Age Group 0-4 only 348 35.6 1.5 20.7 22.4 14.5 5.2
0-4 and 5-12 (both age groups) 327 33.6 1.7 21.3 23.9 15.9 3.5
5-12 only 677 36.1 1.8 21.4 24.9 12.2 3.7
Region* CCA of Central Washington 59 30.6 1.2 17.7 43.6 5.0 1.8
CCA of Eastern Washington 180 44.5 2.1 25.8 18.3 7.4 1.9
CCA of King and Pierce Co 629 28.8 2.2 22.0 25.6 16.0 5.4
CCA of Northwest Washington 211 42.7 1.6 18.4 18.0 14.7 4.6
CCA of Olympic Peninsula 137 41.6 1.6 15.8 22.6 14.0 4.4
CCA of Southwest Washington 140 41.0 1.2 21.6 21.1 11.7 3.5
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
77
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.56. Transportation Options Used To Transport Children to and From Child Care
Q31 Please select all the transportation options your family uses to transport your child(ren) to and from child care.
N Parent or other adult Friend family member or Carpool Public Transportation (bus, Bicycle Walk A caregiver comes Other
drives child(ren) neighbor drives child(ren) Vanpool train, ferry, etc.) to our home
Total Total 1536 74.8 18.5 5.1 6.9 3.4 11.1 7.6 6.5
Parent Race / Hispanic 139 75.4 18.8 3.5 2.4 1.6 7.8 5.1 8.3
Ethnicity NH white 1047 74.5 20.0 4.5 7.8 4.0 12.8 9.1 7.3
NH Black 73 60.0 11.4 15.4 10.2 4.7 4.2 5.7 4.6
NH API 165 81.3 12.4 5.3 4.7 1.6 7.9 6.1 3.1
NH Other 85 72.4 26.7 7.0 18.1 4.6 18.0 5.6 4.0
Household Less than $20,000 173 52.9 19.0 3.8 11.6 3.6 19.7 3.4 11.3
Income $20,000 - $39,999 238 79.2 19.4 2.7 5.4 2.3 11.3 8.1 5.6
$40,000 - $59,999 242 77.5 20.9 5.8 4.9 3.7 6.9 7.2 4.4
$60,000 - $79,999 209 70.9 14.1 5.4 7.2 2.9 10.6 7.9 9.5
$80,000 - $99,999 184 77.4 18.3 3.3 4.7 2.3 12.9 6.4 6.4
$100,000 - $149,999 255 77.3 19.3 6.8 5.7 3.6 12.2 6.6 7.6
$150,000 - $199,999 107 83.1 23.1 8.4 8.5 5.2 9.0 11.4 0.9
$200,000 or more 86 81.5 18.7 7.7 15.5 6.0 7.4 16.7 1.1
Urban / Rural Rural Area 506 76.5 18.6 2.9 4.6 2.3 10.0 5.5 7.9
Urbanized Area 977 75.2 18.3 6.2 8.2 3.8 11.8 8.5 5.5
Parent Highest High School or less 370 68.2 17.6 4.2 6.0 2.8 11.1 7.2 8.1
Education Some College 500 76.6 21.1 4.9 4.7 2.3 11.6 6.4 6.6
College Grad 339 81.0 15.4 4.2 3.6 3.7 10.7 6.6 5.2
Grad School 317 77.2 20.9 8.2 16.7 5.9 10.8 11.6 4.9
Parent Work All parents working 909 79.7 22.3 5.7 7.5 3.2 9.1 8.0 4.2
Status (FT/PT)*
At least one parent 604 70.1 13.1 4.4 6.3 3.7 14.5 7.3 9.6
not working**
1 Parent, unemployed 225 72.4 24.5 4.2 10.9 2.6 12.4 10.4 10.4
1 Parent, employed 269 76.1 29.8 4.8 7.3 1.0 11.5 7.6 4.3
(FT/PT)
2 Parents, 0 employed 94 65.8 9.8 6.2 4.9 6.1 20.3 7.8 5.0
2 Parents, 1 employed 285 70.5 9.4 3.8 4.8 3.4 13.3 5.8 10.9
2 Parents, 2 employed 640 80.6 20.5 5.9 7.6 3.8 8.5 8.0 4.2
Child Age Group 0-4 only 392 70.6 15.0 3.8 5.9 1.7 9.9 7.0 7.7
0-4 and 5-12 (both age 356 77.2 18.1 6.2 8.5 2.1 10.2 9.6 7.8
groups)
5-12 only 733 77.9 21.1 5.0 7.2 5.1 12.3 7.5 5.0
Region CCA of Central 63 82.5 24.4 0.0 4.4 2.7 9.2 6.3 1.4
Washington
78
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Q31 Please select all the transportation options your family uses to transport your child(ren) to and from child care.
N Parent or other adult Friend family member or Carpool Public Transportation (bus, Bicycle Walk A caregiver comes Other
drives child(ren) neighbor drives child(ren) Vanpool train, ferry, etc.) to our home
CCA of Eastern 199 73.0 18.2 3.7 7.1 4.2 13.4 8.6 4.9
Washington
CCA of King and 674 75.6 18.4 7.1 8.4 4.5 13.0 9.3 4.7
Pierce Co
CCA of Northwest 233 75.9 18.7 4.8 4.6 0.9 6.2 4.3 8.3
Washington
CCA of Olympic 164 74.5 17.1 1.9 6.7 0.5 12.3 6.6 7.9
Peninsula
CCA of Southwest 157 75.7 18.4 4.0 6.0 4.8 7.6 4.9 11.3
Washington
* All parents working (FT/PT) is subtotal of 1 Parent, employed (FT/PT) and 2 Parents, 2 employed
** At least one parent not working is subtotal of 1 Parent, unemployed, 2 Parents, 0 employed, and 2 Parents, 1 employed
79
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table B.57. Transportation Options Used to Transport Children to and From Child Care Text Responses for Other
Q31: Please select all the transportation options your family uses to transport your child(ren) to and from child care. [OTHER]
Either my husband, myself, or my older children watch my children, so there is no transportation needed.
Driving our car
Child stays home with me
Status
Wife stays home to care for child
I drive them
Stay at home
No transport
Child stays home.
My children stay home with me
Mom watches child at home
Home
I watch my son in our home, so no transportation is needed
We do not use transportation for child care
No transportation, stays home
Not applicable, child care is at my home
Child stays home with parent
I take him there daily and either my spouse or I pick him up
They don't go to child care so we don't transport
No need for transportation.
Don't transport
My children don't have a child care
At home - drive SUV from home to school, and school to home
All childcare takes place in my home so there is no need for transport.
Plane when going to grandparents.
Bus
Caregiver already present
We stay at home, so there is no transportation.
The after school program provides a bus
I drive them or the child walks
Stays home
No transport to any child care besides schooling and the bus took one and I drove the other and now I drive both
The child stays with one of us the majority of the time so there is no transportation needed.
None we stay home
Own Vehicle
School bus
Grandma
Not in child care
Children stay with parents
80
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Q31: Please select all the transportation options your family uses to transport your child(ren) to and from child care. [OTHER]
None needed
We don't use
Children stay home
We don't have child care - my husband stays at home
We don’t take our kids to child care
Children
I'm a stay at home mom.
My own car
Does not go to childcare
Boat.
My child stays home for childcare
Children stay at home for care
Stays home with mom
No after care
I don't use any of them
Myself
Child stay home. No transportation needed.
I stay home
We don't have to transport she is gone with me
We don't go anywhere
We don't use childcare. I personally care for all of my children myself in my home.
The boys stay at home with dad until they walk to school. There is no transportation to childcare
We don't transport our children to childcare, because I am the only one who cares for them as a stay (sic) at home mom.
My children stay home with me
Drive
Don’t need transportation
We do not use child care.
Uncle and Auntie and Grand-Parent's
None - stay at home parent
Not Applicable as child stays home alone or friends come to our house.
We care for our children at home
Bus
There is no transport. It is at home
81
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Appendix C. Parent Engagement Question Guide
Washington State Child Care Assessment
Discussion Guide for Families
Hello/good morning/good evening. My name is <insert name> and I’ll be leading our discussion
today. I’ll be taking notes during our conversation, but information shared in our conversation
will be captured anonymously. Before we get started, we would like to thank you for taking time
out of your day to talk with us. We know how busy you are, so we’ll do our best to make your
time worthwhile. We’ll try to keep the meeting to about one hour, no longer.
Today’s talk is part of a series of discussions that are taking place across the state of
Washington to learn more about how the state can better support families’ child care needs.
Your input is very important for the state to understand what the greatest needs are for child
care and how they can help.
As stated in the consent form, speaking with us is voluntary, and you may decide to stop at any
time. This work is being done in partnership between MomsRising and an independent
evaluation company, not a state program or agency. There are no wrong answers—this is just
an opportunity to share and learn. Your comments will not be shared with your children or
teachers and there will not be any consequences for you or your children from the feedback you
share.
We will be taking notes so we don’t miss anything. We will not record any names in our notes,
and we will not link your name with your responses in our report.
If you agree, we would like to record today’s session so we can catch all the details of our
discussion. It’s not required, and you can still participate even if you don’t want to be recorded.
Do you have any questions?
Do you consent to being recorded today? (Interview can continue with note-taking even if they
do not consent to recording.)
First, I would like to learn more about you and your family.
1. Tell us about your household. Who lives with you in your home? Who are the children
and how old are they?
2. What is your race or ethnicity? (primary participating parent/guardian) (Record for
primary participant in interview. If more than one participating, capture this info for both.
This does not necessarily define primary caregiver of child/children in household)
a. American Indian or Alaska Native
b. Asian or Pacific Islander
c. Black or African American
d. Hispanic or Latino/a
e. White or Caucasian
f. Two or more races
g. Other: __________
h. Prefer not to answer
82
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
_________________________________
4. Who cares for the children in your household in the daytime?
5. Who cares for the children in your household in the evenings and weekends?
I’d like to learn more about how you make decisions about child care for your family.
1. Do you work?
a. If yes:
i. What is the nature of your work?
ii. Approximately how many hours do you work per week? (Probe: Is this a
regular weekly schedule? Time of day/night or shift work? Also ask about
commute time/challenges)
iii. Who cares for your child while you’re working?
iv. How did you choose these child care arrangements? What mattered to
you most in your decision making?
b. If no:
i. Are you the primary caregiver for your child during the daytime? If so,
what kind of community supports do you find helpful? Why? Are there
other kinds of supports that you think would be helpful to you?
2. How did you begin your search for child care? Where did you get information?
3. Did you feel that you were able to find the information you needed? If not, what kinds of
information did you wish was available to you?
Prompt for those who decided to use FFN or other informal care: What factors led you to
choose your child care arrangement versus a child care center, preschool or child care
in a licensed home?
Prompt for those who speak a language other than English: Were you able to find the
translated materials and information you felt you needed to make an informed choice
about child care?
4. What does great child care look like to you and your family? How do you measure that
as a parent?
Alternative wording:
How do you as a parent think about a quality program or service for your child? What
aspects of the program/service tell you it’s a quality program or the right program for
your family?
Next, I’d like to ask about some challenges that families sometimes have in getting care.
1. What do you like most about your child care situation?
2. What, if anything, would you change about your child care situation if you could?
3. What barriers or challenges do you face in finding child care for your family’s needs?
4. Are there any particular types of care that your family is having challenges in finding,
(e.g., dual language, special needs, non-traditional hours, afterschool, infant care, full-
day, accessing pre-K, language- or culture-specific, etc.)?
a. Prompt if applicable, Are there any special services you are aware of but prefer
not to participate in? Why did you decide not to participate in this service?
83
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Now, I’d like to ask about the cost of child care.
5. How do you feel about the cost of the care you are using?
6. How does the cost of care affect your choices about child care?
7. Does your family receive child care assistance to help with the cost of care? What are
some of the challenges in using this voucher?
Prompt if they say they don’t want to bother, or used to receive but no longer: Why did
you decide to stop receiving child care assistance? What would make it easier for you to
take advantage of the child care assistance program?
Next, I’d like to ask about how child care affects your work.
8. How has your child care situation affected your work situation (whether or how much to
work, missing work, etc.) probe for details such as cost, location, type of program,
transportation, stability/reliability, etc. Can also include choices about completing
education or training.
Last, I have a wrap-up question.
9. What do you think is the biggest challenge for a family like yours in finding child care that
meets your needs?
We have come to the end of our discussion. Is there anything else you would like to add?
Thank you for taking the time to talk with us today and sharing your thoughts on this
important issue!
84
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Appendix D. State Employee Child Care Survey
85
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
86
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
87
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
88
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Appendix E. Supply and Demand Methodology
The distance-based approach to measuring child care supply and adjusting for nearby demand
was introduced in an article published by the academic journal Early Childhood Research
Quarterly (Family-Centered Measures of Access to Early Care and Education” by Elizabeth E.
Davis, Won Fy Lee, and Aaron J. Sojourner). The authors, economists at the University of
Minnesota, developed the methodology by adapting techniques from the field of geography in
order to study the distribution of access to child care in Minnesota. The advantage of this
approach is that it eliminates most of the limitations of the area-based measure that has
commonly been used in child care research literature. Despite the popularity of area-based
measures in the child care literature, the key limitation of these measures stems from the fact
that the unit of analysis is based on administrative or political boundaries that are arbitrarily
defined from the perspective of families deciding on child care for their children. Area-based
measures of access to ECE supply typically measure access by area using the area’s ratio of
the total number of slots divided by the total number of children or ratio of children to child care
workers. The potential for information loss and statistical bias when using area-based measures
is known as a modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP) and has been a longstanding concern in
geography.
This newer approach is referred to in the original journal article as an enhanced two-stage
floating catchment area method. In this report it is simply referred to as the distance-based
approach to measuring child care supply. The distance-based approach differs from an area-
based analysis in that it is family-centered and assumes families are interested in nearby
providers whether or not they are located in the same area. The E2SFCA method measures the
supply of slots within a family-specific catchment area and adjusts each nearby provider’s
capacity based on the number of young children nearby that provider who might compete for the
provider’s slots. The two stages refer to the two catchment areas: first one for the provider and
then another for the family.
To construct distance-based measures of families’ access to child care, the ideal dataset would
have exact residential locations of all families with young children as well as information on their
socio-economic characteristics. Of course, exact locations, income, and race of actual families
with children under age 5 are not publicly available. This approach approximates the spatial
distribution of families’ residential locations and their demographic characteristics by combining
information from the Census American Community Survey (ACS) 2014-2018 five-year estimates
(2018 ACS) and the 2010 decennial Census. The 2018 ACS provides recent estimates of the
number of families with any child under age 5 by census block group. To get more exact
geographic information about where families with young children live, the model incorporates
block-level data from the 2010 decennial census. Census blocks cover much smaller areas than
Census block groups or tracts (see Table 2). The likelihood of a synthetic family location being
in a particular Census block is proportional to the estimated likelihood that a real family with
children under age 5 lives in that block. The exact location of any synthetic family within a block
is random assuming a uniform distribution of families within the block boundaries.
Impossible residential locations are restricted for synthetic families to exclude lakes, rivers and
state parks. These locations are generated in ArcGIS using the Geospatial Modelling
89
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Environment add-on tool, ultimately producing a geocoded dataset of synthetic family points that
have race and income status assigned to them probabilistically.
The ACS estimates that 336,880 families with children under age 5 lived in Washington in 2018.
With about 6,000 ECE providers, the number of provider-family location pairs is extremely large,
approximately 2 billion pairs. For computational ease, this approach draws a set of synthetic
family locations numbering one quarter of the total number of Washington families (N=84,220
synthetic family locations), so each location represents four families. The 84,220 family
locations are randomly drawn based on the estimated number of families with young children
living in each Census block. For each family, the number of children under 5 is imputed to equal
the block group’s average number of young children per family with any young children.
Ultimately, each synthetic family location has an associated number of young children equal to
four times the block-level average and a joint probability distribution over race and income level.
Travel time between each synthetic-family location and any ECE provider is estimated using
osrmtime, a Stata command that calculates driving time between two geocoded points. When
computing travel time, the algorithm locates the nearest point on the road network and travel
times are computed from that point. This functionally excludes locations off the road network
and ensures the assignment of synthetic families to random habitable locations within a block.
For each synthetic family location, the travel time to each provider within 20 minutes driving time
is calculated.
In stage one of the two-stage calculation, a weighted capacity-to-population ratio is generated
for every licensed child care provider. For each provider, the model finds all families within the
20-minute drive-time catchment area around the provider’s location. The sum of children in
these nearby families serves as a proxy for the strength of potential demand for the provider’s
capacity. However, since children closer to a provider are more relevant to provider demand,
children that are farther away are discounted using a Gaussian distance decay function. Finally,
the capacity of each provider is divided by the sum of the distance discounted child population
to obtain a capacity-to-nearby child population ratio for every provider. Ultimately, two providers
with the same capacity will have different capacity-to-population ratios if one has more young
children close by. This measure captures the notion that a provider’s slots will be less
accessible to any nearby family if more children are closer to the provider competing for a spot.
Stage two of the methodology determines the quantity of local child care supply for each
synthetic family location, based on the total capacity of nearby providers adjusting for their
nearby young-child population. This is accomplished by identifying all providers within the 20-
minute catchment area and computing each one’s slots-to-population ratio, discounting for
travel time using the same distance-decay function as was used for the capacity-to-population
ratio. Summing these across the providers near each synthetic family yields the family’s
measure of access to child care supply. This may be referred to as nearby supply adjusted for
nearby population or simply adjusted supply. It increases if the family has more slots nearer by
and decreases if more young children are nearer by those slots. It is similar in spirit to the area-
based measure; however, it is family-centered and distance-based.
While this study provides new distance-based measures of access to Washington’s licensed
supply of child care, there are a number of limitations and directions for future research. An
important limitation is that this research does not use data on actual residential locations of
90
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
families who are seeking or using child care; therefore, there is the measurement error in the
locations and travel times. In addition, this analysis assumes travel from home to child care by
car and is not able to incorporate travel between work location and child care or by other modes
of transportation. The provider data do not have direct observational measures of quality, rather
it uses Washington State’s quality rating system as an indicator of quality. The access
measures contained in this report and the accompanying Tableau workbook are a substantial
improvement over current measures, but they cannot account for the availability of openings at
the nearest provider, nor account for family preferences with regards to care provided by
relatives, or specific language or cultural preferences. Despite these limitations, the access
measures provide new insights into the supply and demand of early care and learning
opportunities for families of different income levels and sociodemographic groups.
91
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Appendix F. Supply and Demand Detail Tables
Figure F.1. Percent of Demand Met by Nearby Supply
County Percent of Demand Met by Nearby Supply
Adams 37%
Asotin 64%
Benton 28%
Chelan 41%
Clallam 40%
Clark 34%
Columbia 27%
Cowlitz 39%
Douglas 48%
Ferry 24%
Franklin 34%
Garfield 18%
Grant 47%
Grays Harbor 41%
Island 27%
Jefferson 22%
King 51%
Kitsap 29%
Kittitas 38%
Klickitat 39%
Lewis 38%
Lincoln 25%
Mason 40%
Okanogan 55%
Pacific 46%
Pend Oreille 46%
Pierce 31%
San Juan 86%
Skagit 35%
Skamania 64%
Snohomish 35%
Spokane 42%
Stevens 34%
Thurston 38%
Wahkiakum 54%
Walla Walla 46%
Whatcom 31%
Whitman 65%
Yakima 49%
92
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table F.2. Drive Time to Different Child Care Options within 10 Minutes
Number of High Quality Accepts Offers Head Cares for
County Families Provider* Subsidy Start Offers ECEAP Infants
Adams 1,364 71% 78% 71% 86% 79%
Asotin 688 95% 97% 97% 97% 97%
Benton 10,232 59% 97% 93% 88% 98%
Chelan 2,992 63% 91% 71% 82% 91%
Clallam 2,636 46% 90% 70% 55% 88%
Clark 21,236 86% 97% 92% 93% 97%
Columbia 96 0% 79% 0% 79% 79%
Cowlitz 4,608 70% 88% 83% 79% 84%
Douglas 2,084 73% 95% 83% 85% 96%
Ferry 232 0% 40% 17% 64% 36%
Franklin 5,096 92% 88% 87% 94% 93%
Garfield 100 0% 76% 0% 0% 0%
Grant 5,360 67% 77% 77% 73% 86%
Grays Harbor 2,512 53% 84% 49% 89% 83%
Island 3,628 67% 76% 62% 72% 69%
Jefferson 716 0% 77% 28% 0% 78%
King 100,344 83% 99% 87% 88% 99%
Kitsap 11,884 58% 93% 86% 79% 97%
Kittitas 1,828 0% 71% 73% 15% 85%
Klickitat 696 46% 24% 46% 54% 27%
Lewis 3,228 0% 72% 58% 68% 77%
Lincoln 348 0% 0% 0% 45% 55%
Mason 2,228 38% 62% 37% 54% 69%
Okanogan 1,964 48% 52% 79% 62% 86%
Pacific 632 61% 72% 20% 71% 84%
Pend Oreille 440 10% 11% 35% 10% 44%
Pierce 41,536 60% 97% 76% 95% 98%
San Juan 468 30% 30% 44% 31% 21%
Skagit 5,800 68% 91% 88% 81% 92%
Skamania 352 2% 47% 44% 45% 55%
Snohomish 36,360 50% 95% 74% 89% 97%
Spokane 23,028 86% 96% 77% 91% 96%
Stevens 1,528 2% 45% 31% 31% 44%
Thurston 13,144 80% 92% 85% 57% 95%
Wahkiakum 156 46% 46% 0% 46% 0%
Walla Walla 2,380 85% 88% 84% 91% 88%
Whatcom 8,460 59% 87% 80% 64% 90%
Whitman 1,248 69% 73% 62% 81% 80%
Yakima 14,944 86% 94% 90% 91% 96%
93
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table F.3. Drive Time to Different Child Care Options within 20 Minutes
Number of High Quality Accepts Offers Head Cares for
County Families Provider* Subsidy Start Offers ECEAP Infants
Adams 1,364 85% 85% 84% 99% 87%
Asotin 688 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Benton 10,232 97% 100% 99% 99% 100%
Chelan 2,992 78% 99% 91% 96% 99%
Clallam 2,636 62% 99% 87% 71% 99%
Clark 21,236 98% 100% 100% 99% 100%
Columbia 96 0% 96% 0% 96% 100%
Cowlitz 4,608 89% 98% 97% 95% 99%
Douglas 2,084 84% 100% 87% 99% 100%
Ferry 232 0% 76% 34% 100% 71%
Franklin 5,096 98% 98% 93% 99% 99%
Garfield 100 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%
Grant 5,360 91% 99% 96% 93% 100%
Grays Harbor 2,512 65% 95% 60% 98% 97%
Island 3,628 82% 100% 73% 95% 95%
Jefferson 716 0% 93% 97% 0% 97%
King 100,344 100% 100% 98% 100% 100%
Kitsap 11,884 94% 99% 99% 98% 100%
Kittitas 1,828 0% 81% 93% 18% 99%
Klickitat 696 71% 36% 80% 91% 46%
Lewis 3,228 46% 92% 86% 89% 97%
Lincoln 348 8% 10% 0% 63% 86%
Mason 2,228 60% 100% 73% 78% 100%
Okanogan 1,964 64% 98% 96% 82% 100%
Pacific 632 87% 84% 35% 90% 99%
Pend Oreille 440 20% 34% 46% 23% 71%
Pierce 41,536 97% 99% 96% 100% 99%
San Juan 468 36% 36% 64% 42% 39%
Skagit 5,800 83% 99% 99% 96% 100%
Skamania 352 16% 95% 81% 95% 99%
Snohomish 36,360 93% 100% 99% 99% 100%
Spokane 23,028 97% 100% 93% 99% 100%
Stevens 1,528 19% 83% 59% 66% 90%
Thurston 13,144 96% 100% 97% 98% 100%
Wahkiakum 156 67% 67% 0% 67% 0%
Walla Walla 2,380 90% 94% 90% 97% 96%
Whatcom 8,460 85% 98% 96% 93% 100%
Whitman 1,248 79% 88% 70% 95% 94%
Yakima 14,944 97% 100% 99% 99% 100%
94
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table F.4. Median Child Care Prices and Median Family Incomes for Two-Parent Families
Infant: Toddler: Preschool: Two-
Infant: Toddler: Preschool: Family Family Family Parent
County Center Center Center Child Care Child Care Child Care Income
Adams $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $64,257
Asotin $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $66,667
Benton $885.00 $715.00 $700.00 $770.00 $704.00 $660.00 $77,580
Chelan $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $71,722
Clallam $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $62,893
Clark $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $82,269
Columbia $885.00 $715.00 $700.00 $770.00 $704.00 $660.00 $68,182
Cowlitz $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $81,184
Douglas $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $60,754
Ferry $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $77,821
Franklin $885.00 $715.00 $700.00 $770.00 $704.00 $660.00 $78,794
Garfield $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $76,079
Grant $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $76,591
Grays Harbor $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $64,832
Island $1,363.00 $1,138.50 $967.50 $990.00 $900.00 $880.00 $90,617
Jefferson $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $63,646
King $1,580.16 $1,388.90 $1,262.00 $1,210.00 $1,109.24 $1,000.00 $73,572
Kitsap $1,109.40 $993.30 $834.20 $900.00 $800.00 $750.00 $84,798
Kittitas $885.00 $715.00 $700.00 $770.00 $704.00 $660.00 $77,112
Klickitat $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $80,833
Lewis $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $83,306
Lincoln $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $112,307
Mason $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $93,497
Okanogan $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $139,936
Pacific $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $97,343
Pend Oreille $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $92,290
Pierce $1,109.40 $993.30 $834.20 $900.00 $800.00 $750.00 $83,908
San Juan $1,363.00 $1,138.50 $967.50 $990.00 $900.00 $880.00 $96,777
Skagit $1,363.00 $1,138.50 $967.50 $990.00 $900.00 $880.00 $87,747
Skamania $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $67,726
Snohomish $1,363.00 $1,138.50 $967.50 $990.00 $900.00 $880.00 $73,507
Spokane $1,052.00 $885.00 $815.00 $770.00 $660.00 $660.00 $85,269
Stevens $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $71,837
Thurston $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $72,099
Wahkiakum $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $75,417
Walla Walla $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $87,344
Whatcom $1,363.00 $1,138.50 $967.50 $990.00 $900.00 $880.00 $92,351
Whitman $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $78,438
Yakima $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $86,739
95
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table F.5. Median Child Care Prices and Median Family Incomes for Single Mother
Infant: Toddler: Preschool: Single
Infant: Toddler: Preschool: Family Family Family Mother
County Center Center Center Child Care Child Care Child Care Income
Adams $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $16,523
Asotin $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $32,583
Benton $885.00 $715.00 $700.00 $770.00 $704.00 $660.00 $32,875
Chelan $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $25,750
Clallam $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $24,531
Clark $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $23,333
Columbia $885.00 $715.00 $700.00 $770.00 $704.00 $660.00 $22,500
Cowlitz $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $23,750
Douglas $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $21,380
Ferry $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $30,606
Franklin $885.00 $715.00 $700.00 $770.00 $704.00 $660.00 $19,830
Garfield $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $26,379
Grant $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $28,038
Grays Harbor $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $21,879
Island $1,363.00 $1,138.50 $967.50 $990.00 $900.00 $880.00 $28,157
Jefferson $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $62,738
King $1,580.16 $1,388.90 $1,262.00 $1,210.00 $1,109.24 $1,000.00 $25,221
Kitsap $1,109.40 $993.30 $834.20 $900.00 $800.00 $750.00 $37,946
Kittitas $885.00 $715.00 $700.00 $770.00 $704.00 $660.00 $18,400
Klickitat $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $25,260
Lewis $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $28,514
Lincoln $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $36,281
Mason $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $29,023
Okanogan $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $40,200
Pacific $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $29,804
Pend Oreille $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $31,792
Pierce $1,109.40 $993.30 $834.20 $900.00 $800.00 $750.00 $21,971
San Juan $1,363.00 $1,138.50 $967.50 $990.00 $900.00 $880.00 $33,866
Skagit $1,363.00 $1,138.50 $967.50 $990.00 $900.00 $880.00 $20,094
Skamania $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $21,187
Snohomish $1,363.00 $1,138.50 $967.50 $990.00 $900.00 $880.00 $26,327
Spokane $1,052.00 $885.00 $815.00 $770.00 $660.00 $660.00 $20,250
Stevens $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $23,209
Thurston $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $20,593
Wahkiakum $1,075.00 $920.00 $812.00 $800.00 $735.00 $675.00 $20,515
Walla Walla $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $18,889
Whatcom $1,363.00 $1,138.50 $967.50 $990.00 $900.00 $880.00 $32,143
Whitman $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $26,250
Yakima $792.00 $742.50 $685.00 $770.00 $660.00 $616.00 $29,222
96
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table F.6. Percent of Children in Elementary School Compared to School-Age Capacity
School-Based Elementary Capacity as
Licensed School Percent of
District Name Providers Capacity Enrollment Enrollment
ANACORTES SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 45 1,240 3.6%
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT 6 270 7,900 3.4%
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 99 1,456 6.8%
BELLEVUE SCHOOL DISTRICT 3 109 8,972 1.2%
BELLINGHAM SCHOOL DISTRICT 20 781 5,247 14.9%
BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT 17 1,118 9,422 11.9%
BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 3 217 2,341 9.3%
BURLINGTON-EDISON SCHOOL DISTRICT 3 90 1,553 5.8%
CAMAS SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 50 3,113 1.6%
CENTRAL KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT 13 830 5,224 15.9%
CENTRAL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 90 6,646 1.4%
CHEHALIS SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 29 1,343 2.2%
CLARKSTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 60 1,109 5.4%
CLOVER PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT 6 484 6,981 6.9%
COLLEGE PLACE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 45 701 6.4%
DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 135 979 13.8%
EAST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT (SPOKANE) 3 255 1,837 13.9%
EAST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT (YAKIMA) 1 45 1,522 3.0%
EASTMONT SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 235 2,700 8.7%
EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT 25 1,432 9,496 15.1%
ELLENSBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 81 1,545 5.2%
ENUMCLAW SCHOOL DISTRICT 3 112 1,930 5.8%
EVERETT SCHOOL DISTRICT 10 500 9,862 5.1%
EVERGREEN SCHOOL DISTRICT (CLARK) 18 735 10,779 6.8%
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT 21 826 9,978 8.3%
FERNDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT 3 80 2,116 3.8%
FIFE SCHOOL DISTRICT 3 126 1,754 7.2%
FRANKLIN PIERCE SCHOOL DISTRICT 5 370 3,616 10.2%
GOLDENDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 12 403 3.0%
GRIFFIN SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 40 408 9.8%
HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT 8 531 8,574 6.2%
ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 118 9,520 1.2%
KENNEWICK SCHOOL DISTRICT 14 880 8,695 10.1%
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 10 487 12,258 4.0%
LAKE STEVENS SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 90 4,399 2.0%
LAKE WASHINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 14 481 15,359 3.1%
LAKEWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 53 1,095 4.8%
MARYSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 238 4,842 4.9%
MEAD SCHOOL DISTRICT 7 265 4,419 6.0%
MEDICAL LAKE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 160 902 17.7%
97
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
School-Based Elementary Capacity as
Licensed School Percent of
District Name Providers Capacity Enrollment Enrollment
MERCER ISLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 5 244 1,741 14.0%
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 30 891 3.4%
MONROE SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 257 2,807 9.2%
MOUNT VERNON SCHOOL DISTRICT 3 68 3,024 2.2%
MUKILTEO SCHOOL DISTRICT 6 355 7,104 5.0%
NOOKSACK VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 38 1,005 3.8%
NORTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT 8 380 2,715 14.0%
NORTH THURSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 11 532 7,213 7.4%
NORTHSHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT 22 1,245 10,849 11.5%
OAK HARBOR SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 364 2,927 12.4%
OLYMPIA SCHOOL DISTRICT 13 696 4,381 15.9%
ORTING SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 30 1,222 2.5%
PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT 7 495 8,724 5.7%
PENINSULA SCHOOL DISTRICT 7 380 4,031 9.4%
PORT ANGELES SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 105 1,672 6.3%
PORT TOWNSEND SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 75 503 14.9%
PROSSER SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 22 1,124 2.0%
PUYALLUP SCHOOL DISTRICT 22 1,572 10,669 14.7%
RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 16 1,168 7,462 15.7%
RICHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 11 675 6,175 10.9%
RIDGEFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 60 1,640 3.7%
RIVERSIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 30 628 4.8%
SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 70 5,529 27,210 20.3%
SEDRO-WOOLLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 60 2,107 2.8%
SHELTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 20 1,854 1.1%
SHORELINE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 18 4,383 0.4%
SNOHOMISH SCHOOL DISTRICT 3 192 4,037 4.8%
SNOQUALMIE VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 60 3,431 1.7%
SOUTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT 6 245 4,558 5.4%
SOUTH WHIDBEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 19 536 3.5%
SPOKANE SCHOOL DISTRICT 19 1,217 14,870 8.2%
STANWOOD-CAMANO SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 81 2,199 3.7%
STEILACOOM HIST. SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 100 1,496 6.7%
SULTAN SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 40 884 4.5%
TACOMA SCHOOL DISTRICT 17 950 13,477 7.0%
TUMWATER SCHOOL DISTRICT 6 330 2,788 11.8%
UNIVERSITY PLACE SCHOOL DISTRICT 6 434 2,512 17.3%
VANCOUVER SCHOOL DISTRICT 5 220 10,557 2.1%
VASHON ISLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 45 553 8.1%
WAHLUKE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 40 1,131 3.5%
WALLA WALLA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 6 195 2,470 7.9%
WASHOUGAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 30 1,345 2.2%
98
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
School-Based Elementary Capacity as
Licensed School Percent of
District Name Providers Capacity Enrollment Enrollment
WENATCHEE SCHOOL DISTRICT 3 160 3,362 4.8%
WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT (SPOKANE) 2 65 1,346 4.8%
WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT (YAKIMA) 6 257 2,387 10.8%
WHITE RIVER SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 30 1,894 1.6%
WOODLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 163 1,126 14.5%
YAKIMA SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 235 7,248 3.2%
YELM SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 35 2,603 1.3%
99
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table F.7. Median School-Age Prices and Median Family Incomes for Two-Parent Families
County Weekly Full- Weekly Full- Percent of Percent of Two-Parent Income
Time Price: Time Price: Income Spent Income Spent for
Center Family Child for 16 Weeks: 16 Weeks: Family
Care Center Child Care
Adams $663.30 $550.00 4% 3% $64,257
Asotin $663.30 $550.00 4% 3% $66,667
Benton $663.30 $550.00 3% 3% $77,580
Chelan $663.30 $550.00 3% 3% $71,722
Clallam $663.30 $550.00 4% 3% $62,893
Clark $663.30 $550.00 3% 2% $82,269
Columbia $663.30 $550.00 4% 3% $68,182
Cowlitz $663.30 $550.00 3% 2% $81,184
Douglas $663.30 $550.00 4% 3% $60,754
Ferry $663.30 $550.00 3% 3% $77,821
Franklin $663.30 $550.00 3% 3% $78,794
Garfield $663.30 $550.00 3% 3% $76,079
Grant $663.30 $550.00 3% 3% $76,591
Grays Harbor $663.30 $550.00 4% 3% $64,832
Island $451.00 $616.00 2% 2% $90,617
Jefferson $451.00 $616.00 3% 3% $63,646
King $451.00 $616.00 2% 3% $73,572
Kitsap $451.00 $616.00 2% 3% $84,798
Kittitas $705.00 $688.00 3% 3% $77,112
Klickitat $705.00 $688.00 3% 3% $80,833
Lewis $705.00 $688.00 3% 3% $83,306
Lincoln $705.00 $688.00 2% 2% $112,307
Mason $705.00 $688.00 3% 3% $93,497
Okanogan $645.00 $710.82 2% 2% $139,936
Pacific $500.00 $660.00 2% 2% $97,343
Pend Oreille $500.00 $660.00 2% 3% $92,290
Pierce $561.00 $605.00 2% 3% $83,908
San Juan $561.00 $605.00 2% 2% $96,777
Skagit $561.00 $605.00 2% 2% $87,747
Skamania $561.00 $605.00 3% 3% $67,726
Snohomish $561.00 $605.00 3% 3% $73,507
Spokane $561.00 $605.00 2% 3% $85,269
Stevens $561.00 $605.00 3% 3% $71,837
Thurston $561.00 $605.00 3% 3% $72,099
Wahkiakum $561.00 $605.00 3% 3% $75,417
Walla Walla $561.00 $605.00 2% 2% $87,344
Whatcom $561.00 $605.00 2% 2% $92,351
Whitman $561.00 $605.00 3% 3% $78,438
Yakima $550.00 $660.00 2% 3% $86,739
100
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table F.8. Median School-Age Prices and Median Family Incomes for Single Mother
County Weekly Full- Weekly Full- Percent of Percent of Single Mother
Time Price: Time Price: Income Spent for Income Spent for Income
Center Family Child 16 Weeks: 16 Weeks:
Care Center Family Child
Care
Adams $663.30 $550.00 14% 12% $16,523
Asotin $663.30 $550.00 7% 6% $32,583
Benton $663.30 $550.00 7% 6% $32,875
Chelan $663.30 $550.00 9% 8% $25,750
Clallam $663.30 $550.00 10% 8% $24,531
Clark $663.30 $550.00 10% 8% $23,333
Columbia $663.30 $550.00 11% 9% $22,500
Cowlitz $663.30 $550.00 10% 8% $23,750
Douglas $663.30 $550.00 11% 9% $21,380
Ferry $663.30 $550.00 8% 6% $30,606
Franklin $663.30 $550.00 12% 10% $19,830
Garfield $663.30 $550.00 9% 8% $26,379
Grant $663.30 $550.00 9% 7% $28,038
Grays Harbor $663.30 $550.00 11% 9% $21,879
Island $451.00 $616.00 6% 8% $28,157
Jefferson $451.00 $616.00 3% 4% $62,738
King $451.00 $616.00 6% 9% $25,221
Kitsap $451.00 $616.00 4% 6% $37,946
Kittitas $705.00 $688.00 14% 13% $18,400
Klickitat $705.00 $688.00 10% 10% $25,260
Lewis $705.00 $688.00 9% 9% $28,514
Lincoln $705.00 $688.00 7% 7% $36,281
Mason $705.00 $688.00 9% 9% $29,023
Okanogan $645.00 $710.82 6% 6% $40,200
Pacific $500.00 $660.00 6% 8% $29,804
Pend Oreille $500.00 $660.00 6% 7% $31,792
Pierce $561.00 $605.00 9% 10% $21,971
San Juan $561.00 $605.00 6% 6% $33,866
Skagit $561.00 $605.00 10% 11% $20,094
Skamania $561.00 $605.00 10% 10% $21,187
Snohomish $561.00 $605.00 8% 8% $26,327
Spokane $561.00 $605.00 10% 11% $20,250
Stevens $561.00 $605.00 9% 9% $23,209
Thurston $561.00 $605.00 10% 11% $20,593
Wahkiakum $561.00 $605.00 10% 11% $20,515
Walla Walla $561.00 $605.00 11% 12% $18,889
Whatcom $561.00 $605.00 6% 7% $32,143
Whitman $561.00 $605.00 8% 8% $26,250
Yakima $550.00 $660.00 7% 8% $29,222
101
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table F.9. Decline in Child Care Capacity since COVID-19 Emergency Declaration, by County
102
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
103
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
Table F.10. Decline in Child Care Capacity since COVID-19 Emergency Declaration, by ZIP Code
104
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
105
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
106
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
107
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
108
Washington Child Care Industry Assessment Appendices
109
Full text shows the first 300 of 333 pages; the complete document is the PDF above.File and source
- File
- 2020_child-care-collaborative-task-force-industry-assessment-report-235cbab.pdf
- Size
- 12,860,848 bytes
- SHA-256
- 27865dd4901ace0d1f6cb5799799b7c595e313209a652ce68552179206e2c2fd
- Original
- app.leg.wa.gov