Report prepared for the Governor’s Task Force on Early Childhood Education
September 2002
Written by
and the
Universities Children’s Policy Collaborative is dedicated to contributing to the health and welfare of children, youth, and families by providing nonpartisan information on public policy issues .
Pennsylvania State University Temple University University of Pittsburgh
Prevention Research Center Center for Public Policy Office of Child Development
College of Health and
Human Development
College of Liberal Arts University Center for
Anne B. Shlay, Director Social and Urban Research
Mark T. Greenberg, Director Christina J. Groark and
Robert B. McCall, Co-Directors

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary
Report prepared for the Governor’s Task Force On Early Childhood Care and Education a
September 2002
Marsha Weinraub, Anita Kochanoff & Anne Shlay
Temple University and the
Universities Children’s Policy Collaborative (UCPC)
2
INTRODUCTION
The first five years of a child’s life is a period of incredible cognitive, emotional and social growth. Experiences during these early years can set children on pathways that have lifelong emotional, social and academic consequences.
How can we invest in our children’s early development to ensure subsequent academic, social and emotional success? This question has attracted widespread attention from
Pennsylvania policy makers. Their goal: to develop a system of early care and education that will meet family’s needs today and help prepare a sophisticated, educated workforce of the future.
Toward this goal, Pennsylvania’s Governor Mark Schweiker signed Executive Order
2002-2 on April 17, 2002 to create the Early Childhood Care and Education Task Force. As part of the work accompanying the task force, the Governor commissioned a series of primary a
The authors wish to acknowledge the support and advice from members of the Governor's Task Force on Early Care and
Education, the Governor's Policy Office, and at Temple University, the Institute for Survey Research, The Center for Public
Policy, and the Personality and Social Development Research Laboratory in the Psychology Department. Michelle Harmon gave advice and helped edit the survey instrument; Louise Hanson refined the survey questions and directed the survey data collection.
Irene Kan performed portions of the data analysis and created the tables and figures. Nancy Nunez typed numerous drafts of the report. This survey could not have been done without the cooperation and input from more than 1000 Pennsylvania families. To these many people, the authors are very grateful.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary research efforts to be carried out by three major Pennsylvania Universities (Penn State
University, University of Pittsburgh, and Temple University) that have joined together to form
3 the Universities Children’s Policy Collaborative (UCPC).
As part of this collaborative effort and under commission from the Governor’s Office, the
Temple University Center for Public Policy initiated the 2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey, one designed to collect information from families about their experiences and concerns regarding child care and early education. This executive summary summarizes the findings from the larger report on the survey and highlights the policy recommendations that stem from these findings.
This executive summary is one of a series that summarizes reports from UCPC. The other reports include A Baseline Report of Early Care and Education in Pennsylvania: The 2002
Early Care and Education Provider Survey, The State of Early Care and Education in
Pennsylvania: The 2002 Higher Education Survey , and From Science To Policy: Research on Issues, Programs and Policies in Early Care and Education.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS GUIDING THE 2002 PENNSYLVANIA FAMILY SURVEY
The 2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey was designed to provide answers to a number of important questions:
!
What is the extent of usage of child care and early education in Pennsylvania?
!
Does use of child care and educational programs differ geographically across the state?
!
What is the quality and what are the costs of these services, according to parents and children’s full-time caregivers?
!
Are low-income and middle-income families using similar types of child care and early education programs?
!
What problems do families face in accessing child care and early education?
!
What services and supports do parents think would enable them to better prepare their children for school?

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary
!
Are families with special needs young children and children with behavior problems being adequately served?
DESIGN AND METHODS
4
The design of this study was a baseline survey of 1005 Pennsylvania families. This survey was administered by telephone to adult respondents living in the home with responsibility for decision-making for children under 6 years of age. Most of the respondents were mothers
(73%); there were also fathers (17%), grandmothers (6%) and other legal guardians (4%).
Households were selected using a list-assisted Random Digit Dialing (RDD) sampling procedure. The response rate was 78%. Trained, reliable interviewers using computer-assisted telephone interviewing techniques (CATI) conducted the interviews from May through July
2002. The interview lasted about 25 minutes and was conducted in either English or Spanish.
The survey included detailed questions about child care and early education experiences for a randomly selected target child less than six years of age living in the home. For families whose summer experiences differed from those in the academic year, child care and educational services during the month of April were examined. All other families were asked about the child’s current experiences. For children in more than one type of care or education arrangement, detailed questions were asked about the arrangement in which the child spent the most time.
b
The survey sample was varied, mirroring the rich diversity of Pennsylvania families.
About three-fourths of the sample was two-parent (or two-partner) households, with an average b
Terms used to describe early childhood settings: 1) No Non-parental Care - child not regularly cared for by anyone other than the parents; 2) In-Home Care - someone regularly comes into the home to care for the child; 3) Family Care - child is cared for in another home with or without other children: 4) Program/Center Care - children attend a facility with a group of other children
(Child care centers, preschool, Head Start, Early Head Start, pre-kindergarten, and kindergarten); and 5) Parent as Family Care
Provider - child is cared for by parent in the home while the parent also cares for other non-related children. These terms were selected for the survey because they are terms that were meaningful to parents in describing their child’s daily nonparental care and educational arrangements.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary family size of four. With 40% of the sample earning dual incomes, the average yearly salary of
5 the sample was about $59,000. The highest level of education achieved by most respondents was a high school degree (31%); 26% of respondents had some college, and 23% had a 4-year college degree. Ten percent of the respondents did not have a high school degree or equivalent.
Thirteen percent of the sample reported incomes lower than the federal poverty level, while 7% reported incomes over 100,000. The distribution of families across geographic location, child’s age, family size, poverty, and ethnicity appeared very similar to the distribution in the State.
FINDINGS
USE OF EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR
ALL CHILDREN UNDER 6 YEARS OF AGE
!
The majority of Pennsylvania children under the age of six years were in some type of regular child care or educational program.
Sixty-four percent of the families surveyed used some type of child care or educational program in which the parent was not present on a regular weekly basis. Even for children younger than three years of age, the majority (61%) experienced regular weekly nonparental care. (See Figure A.)
!
Some children were in more than one type of child care arrangement or educational setting on a weekly basis.
Twenty-four percent of the children in the sample were in more than one type of child care or educational arrangement on a weekly basis. This is a slight increase from the 20% of PA families who reported supplemental arrangements in a similar survey conducted in 1989.
!
Many children were in care or education arrangements at least half-time.
Forty three percent of all Pennsylvania children were in a nonparental arrangement or educational program at least part half time (20 hours/week), and 26% of the sample were in an arrangement fulltime (35 hours or more each week). The average amount of time per week these

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary
6 children spent in their arrangement was 27 hours. There were no age differences in the hours per week children spent in their nonparental care arrangements.
!
Most care arrangements had been relatively stable over the last year.
Few changes in children’s education arrangements had occurred over the last year. Only
7% of families using nonparental arrangements reported making any changes.
!
A quarter of all children were cared for by a relative who was not their parent.
Twenty four percent of children were cared for regularly at least four hours per week by a relative when their parent was not available. Care by a relative was most frequent in small cities
(29%) and least frequent in metropolitan areas (21%). Relative care was more commonly used by families with lower incomes (31% vs. 19%), fewer children (36% vs. 20%), and lower levels of education (35% vs. 15%). Latino families had relatives caring for their children more than any other ethnic group in the sample (48% vs. 22-28%). Children up to the age of three were equally likely to be cared for by a relative as a non-relative caregiver. Older children, however, were much less likely to be in relative care.
!
Families varied in the types of care and educational arrangements in which they enrolled their children.
Child Age. Fewer than half (46%) of the children under one year of age were cared for at home with their parents exclusively. Center-based care as the primary form of nonparental care increased with children’s age: 9% of children younger than one year of age spent the majority of time away from their parents in Programs/Centers; 17% of 2-year-olds were in
Programs/Centers; 37% of 3- and 4-year-olds were in Programs/Centers; and at age five, 51% of children were in a Program or Center for the majority of time they spent away from their parents.
As children got older, families were increasingly likely to use some kind of group or center care,

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary and more likely to have their children in some type of educational program, even for part of the
7 time they spent away from their families.
Geographic Location. Families in small towns and rural areas were more likely to use
Family Care settings (29% and 31%) over center based care or educational programs (18%).
Families using care in metropolitan areas were more likely to have their children in center-based care or educational programs (34%) than families in small cities (23%) or rural areas (23%).
Income Level. Poor families were less likely to have their children in Programs/Centers than families who were not poor (23% for poor families and 30% for families who were not poor). This is despite the fact that families in this income range (200% of federal poverty level) are often eligible for child care subsidies if they meet other family requirements.
The wealthiest families (over $100,000 annual salary) were more likely to use
Program/Center Care than other families (45% vs. 20-37%). Thirteen percent of the wealthiest families used In-Home Care (“nanny care”); these families were least likely to use out-of-home
Family Care (15% vs. 23-27%) compared to families of lower annual income levels.
Partner and Employment Status. Two-parent, single-earner families were most likely
(54%) to have their child at home with a parent, using no nonparental care or educational arrangements. Dual-earner families were more likely to use center-based care or educational programs (33%) than were two-parent, one-earner families (20%). Single-parent earners were most likely to use center-based care arrangements or educational programs (40%) for their children than were two-parent dual-earner families (20%) and two-parent single-earner families
(33%). Non-employed parents were most likely to have their children at home with them on a full-time basis.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary
8
Respondent Education Level.
Parents with higher levels of education were most likely to have their children in centers or educational programs outside the home (36-38%) than less educated parents (18-22%), who were more likely to have their children staying at home with them full-time (36-38% vs. 18-22%).
!
Child care centers were used far more often than preschools, Head Start programs, prekindergarten and kindergarten.
Child care centers were used by a greater percentage of families than other types of
Programs/Centers for children of all ages, in all geographic locations, from families of all income levels, education levels, and ethnicities, and by both single- and two-parent families. Only in the case of two-parent, single-earner families were preschools used more than child care centers
(48% vs. 5-11%).
PRESCHOOL CHILDREN IN EDUCATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
!
Fewer than half (44%) of PA preschool children were enrolled in an educational preschool program.
Although 75% of 3 and 4 year-old children were in some type of regular non-parental arrangement, fewer than half (44%) spent regular time each week in a program with educational curricular programming. (See Figure B.) Twelve percent of children between 3 and 4 years of age were enrolled in child care centers, 19% were in preschools, 5% were in Head Start programs, and 8% were in pre-kindergarten or kindergarten programs. Twenty- five percent of 3 and 4 year-olds were in the exclusive care of their parents. –Forty-two percent were in a neighbor’s home, a relative’s home, or in a family day care arrangement when their parent was not available.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary
!
Poor and minority 3- and 4-year-olds were less likely to be in center-based or educational settings than other children.
Attendance in educational programs for 3-and 4-year-olds was lower for children from
9 lower income families than children from upper income families (32-56% for the three groups of lower income families and 73% for the most upper income families), for two parent families
(42%) than single-parent families (49%) , and for less educated families (21% and 27% for the two lowest educated groups of families) than more educated families (45% and 63% for the two highest educated groups of families).
!
Many five-year-old children are not enrolled in educational programming outside the home.
Although 81% of 5 year-old children were in some type of regular non-parental arrangement, only 51% spent regular time each week in a child care program, a Head Start program, a preschool, a prekindergarten, or a kindergarten. Twelve percent of 5 year-old children were enrolled in child care centers, 23% were in preschools , 5% were in Head Start programs, and 21% were in pre-kindergarten or kindergarten programs.
Because many of the 5-year-old children in the survey were not yet eligible for kindergarten in their districts, according to their birth dates, it is difficult to compute what percent of eligible children were enrolled in kindergarten. Full day public kindergarten is not available in all school districts in Pennsylvania, and kindergarten attendance is not required.
c c
Because of the difficulty in establishing who is eligible for kindergarten and because of the discrepancy across school districts, further analyses of the kindergarten data is not included in this report. More information about kindergarten attendance in
Pennsylvania can be obtained from the From Building Blocks to Books report released by the Pennsylvania Partnerships for
Children in June 2002 (www.papartnerships.org). According to the Pa Partnerships for Children Report, only 121,000 children in
PA are enrolled in kindergarten in the state’s 500 public school districts, and only 29% of these are enrolled in full-day programs.
There are 156,000 children who are 5 years old and a similar number who are 6 years old in PA.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary
QUALITY OF EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION
!
Parents are not aware of whether or not their programs are licensed or accredited.
Nearly half of the parents believed that their child’s Program/Center was accredited.
Although all Centers and Programs and many family day care programs are required to
10 be licensed by law, parents’ perception was such that only 79% of respondents using child care programs said their child’s arrangement was licensed. Forty-three percent of parents reported that the Programs/Centers they used were accredited. Yet, as of 2002, only 6% of centers in
Pennsylvania were accredited, suggesting that parents may have difficulty understanding the meaning of the terms “licensed” and “accredited”.
!
A majority of parents rated their child’s care/education provider as “excellent” in enhancing social and cognitive development. Few rated their child’s provider “not very good” or as “very bad”.
More than two-thirds of families (62-89%) rated their provider or educational setting as excellent, and few PA parents rated their child’s arrangement as “not very good” (1-6%) or
“very bad” (1-5%). While this may be remarkable and a very encouraging sign, many researchers have reported that most parents overestimate the quality of their child care or early educational setting. When observers from the National Institute of Health and Human
Development Study of Early Child Care Study (NICHD SECC) sent trained observers into nearly 1000 child care settings around the U.S.
d
, they found that the majority of settings (53%) were only “fair” in quality according to a number of quality indicators; no more than 39% were rated as either “good” or “excellent”. The NICHD SECC researchers also reported that fewer than 80% of settings conformed to experts’ recommendations regarding the training of child care educators, and only 56% conformed with recommended child–staff ratios. d
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2000). Characteristics and Quality of Child Care for Toddlers and Preschoolers.
Journal of Applied Developmental Science, 4, 116-135.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary
Thus, it appears that PA parents may be greatly overestimating the quality of their children’s care in their absence. This overestimation may reflect parent’s lack of knowledge
11 about what represents quality care; it may also reflect parents’ difficulties acknowledging to themselves or others the imperfections in the daily care they choose for their children during the parents’ absence.
At the same time, a third of PA parents rated their child’s care arrangement or educational program as “reasonably good” as opposed to “excellent”. Given the tendency of parents to overestimate their child’s care, these results suggest that nearly a third or PA parents may have some doubts about the quality of their child’s care.
!
Parents with children in kindergarten and other types of programs/centers gave higher quality ratings to their children’s cognitive and social programming than did parents with children in other types of programs.
Parents with children in all types of Programs/Centers were more likely to rate their child’s program high in the quality of cognitive programming than parents with children in In-
Home Care and Family-based Care (65-89% for all types of Programs/Centers vs. 52 for In-
Home and 69% for Family-based Care). Parents of children in kindergarten or prekindergarten were most likely to rate their program high in cognitive development (89%). The parents of children in preschools and prekindergarten/kindergarten were most likely to rate these arrangements high in social development (73%).
The striking difference reported for kindergarten programs compared to the others suggests an important line of future research. Since parents perceive kindergarten programs to have the best quality when it comes to enhancing both social and cognitive development, future research should investigate how kindergarten programs are operated (i.e., privately, publicly, or

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary
12 otherwise) and how elements of quality are implemented so that these techniques may be shared with other early care and education providers.
These findings also suggest that making kindergarten more widely available to children would provide higher quality care, at least as seen through the eyes of parents.
!
Parents with children in Programs/Centers were most likely to strongly recommend their arrangement to a friend than parents in the other care/education arrangement types.
When parents were asked whether they would recommend their current arrangement to a friend, 63% said they would strongly recommend their current arrangement; 12% said they had doubts or would not. Almost three-fourths of parents of children in Programs/Centers strongly recommended their type of arrangement. Parents using In-Home Care and parents using Familybased Care were least likely to recommend their type of arrangement to other parents.
!
Parents thought child care should have more curricular activities, especially in the area of cognitive development.
Parents using Programs/Centers were more satisfied with the educational activities occurring in their child’s arrangements (58-67% for all types of Programs/Centers) than were parents using In-Home (31%) or Family-based settings (42%). About two-thirds of parents using
Programs/Centers thought children’s activities such as looking at or reading picture books, singing songs or playing games, reading books in groups, playing games with letters of the alphabets, and encouraging toy sharing and getting along with others were occurring at an appropriate level. In contrast, two-thirds of parents whose children were in settings other than
Program/Center types of arrangements thought these kinds of activities should happen more often. These findings match that of a comparable question in the 1989 Survey, to which parents of children in center-based arrangements were the most satisfied with how often these types of educational activities were occurring. These data suggest that, while many parents would like to

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary see more educational curricula - both cognitive and social - in their children’s early years, parents using In-Home and Family-based Care wanted these activities more often.
!
Providers and teachers administered medicine and provided health information.
According to parent reports, most child care providers and teachers were trained in
13 administering medication, and they administered this medicine relatively infrequently.
Programs/Centers had more trained personnel (88% for Programs/Centers vs. 59% for Family
Care providers), but Family Care providers administered medications more often (24% vs. 14%).
Parents reported that fewer than a quarter of providers offered health care information (23% for
Program/Center care providers and 15% for Family Care providers) or health insurance information (19% for Program/Center Care providers and 11% for Family Care providers). As these parental reports indicate, Program/Center providers were more likely to provide health information than Family Care providers.
COST AND AFFORDABILITY OF EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION
!
Of those who paid for child care or educational programs, the mean fee paid per month was $336; however there was great variability.
For those who paid for care, the average monthly expenditure for the child’s main arrangement (i.e., only the one in which the child spent the most time) was $336 ($84/week and
$3.11/hour at the average of 27 hours/week). Considering the cost per hour across different types of care, In-Home Care by a relative appeared to be the least costly type of arrangement
($2.46/hour). In-Home Care by an unrelated person (generally “nanny care”) was most costly
($5.79 per hour), and Program/Center Care the next most costly $3.40/hour).

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary
14
!
Families in metropolitan areas pay more per month for child care and educational services than families in small cities and rural areas.
Across all types of services, families in metropolitan areas are paying twice as much for child care and educational services as families in rural areas ($404 vs. $221). However, children in metropolitan areas spent more time in all types of arrangements than children in other geographic areas. Families in metropolitan areas or small cities used Program/Center Care more than those in rural areas (28 hours for metropolitan families, 24 hours for small city families, and
17 hours for rural families, on average per week). When looked at on a cost per hour basis, families in metropolitan areas paid more per hour ($3.61) than families in rural areas ($2.30).
Families in small cities paid $2.54 per hour, midway between families in metropolitan and rural areas.
!
Families with higher incomes paid more for their arrangements.
Those families with incomes higher than $50,000 paid more per hour and more per week for all types of care except for In-Home Care . Interestingly, the greatest disparity between families was in the area of non-parental In-Home care by relatives and non-relatives. Families earning less than $25,000 paid more for relative care ($2.35/hour) and less for non-relative care
($1.09), while families earning between $25,000 and $50,000 (and those at all higher levels of income) paid more for non-relative In-Home care than relative In-Home care.
!
Families with lower incomes devoted a larger proportion of their annual household income to child care costs.
Across all types of families, parents who paid for care or educational arrangements devoted, on average depending on the type of care, between 7% and 10% of their annual income to these expenses. The average proportion of a family’s annual income did not differ by geographic location. However, low-income families (below $25,000) devoted between 5% and

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary
18% of their incomes to child care and education related expenses. High-income families
(higher than $100,000) devoted between 1% and 5% of their annual income.
SUBSIDIES FOR EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
!
Only 14% of families reported receiving some form of assistance in paying for early care and education costs.
Of the 14% of families receiving assistance in paying child care/education costs
15
(including those with a child in Head Start), 45% of these parents received assistance from governmental programs. Relatives and friends helped 17% of these families pay for services.
Sixteen percent of unspecified types of assistance were also used, suggesting further study is warranted of how families find help paying for the care and early education of their children.
•
About half of the families who were eligible for subsidies were receiving them.
Eligibility for early childhood services subsidies is based on several criteria e
; we estimate that about half of those families eligible for subsidies and with children in Family Care or
Program/Center Care were receiving a subsidy. Eligible single-parent families were more likely to be receiving a subsidy (59%) than eligible two-parent families (38%).
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
!
Transportation was not a problem for most families.
Only a small percentage of those asked whether transportation was a problem said that it was either somewhat of a problem (8%) or a very big problem (2%). Distance and hassles were the leading reasons for those who reported problems. Transportation problems did not appear to be related to geographical area.
Almost half of PA families said that it took them up to five minutes to get their children to their child care or educational arrangement. Twenty-three percent of families reported e
Only families at 200% of the Federal Poverty Income Guideline with parents who were working 25 hours or more and whose children were in either Family Care or Program/Center Care were considered eligible in this sample.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary commuting between 6 and 10 minutes. Eighty percent of families drove their car to take their
16 children to their care or education facility. The next most utilized methods of transportation were the bus (7%), and walking (6%).
For families who spent more time traveling, transportation was more of a problem ( r
=.34
). Also, the more troublesome transportation was, the less likely that the parent was to recommend their arrangement to a friend (r = .11).
f
SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES TO PREPARE THEIR CHILDREN FOR SCHOOL
!
Parents wanted help with issues concerning their child’s development.
Parents were asked how often they found themselves needing help with knowing what is age appropriate behavior, knowing how to set limits or discipline their child, wanting information about how to help their child be ready to learn to read when he/she gets to first grade, and worrying about their child not learning enough in their care or education arrangement.
Over a third of respondents reported being concerned about these five issues either often or all of the time (Range of 24-72%; See Figure C.)
!
Low-income and less educated parents reported needing more help than other families.
Although the amount of concern about child development issues did not differ based on geographical distribution or child’s age, it did vary by family income, ethnicity and parental education. Especially for low-income families, concern about age-appropriate behavior (74% vs.
51-62% for families from the other three income groups), setting limits/discipline (61% vs. 45-
54%), health care (50% vs. 16-41%), and reading readiness (77% vs. 64-69%) occurred frequently. The respondents in the highest income level group (over $100,000) were those least f
Given the relatively high parent ratings for quality, the short traveling time on average, and the relationships between time traveling to care and the likelihood of recommending the arrangement to a friend, it is likely that parental selection of arrangements is constrained by distance. Thus, it will be important to examine the distribution of the quality of child care throughout the State of Pennsylvania in the study that is being completed this November for the Governor’s Task Force.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary often concerned with whether their children were learning enough in their care or education
17 settings (8% vs. 22-37% for all other groups).
Parents with lower levels of education were concerned about child development issues more often than parents with higher levels of education. For example, while 40% of the parents with the lowest educational level reported being concerned about their children not learning enough in their child care or educational program, only 7% of parents with the highest educational level were concerned about their children learning enough in their child care or educational program. These data suggest that low-income and less educated parents are most in need of better child care programs and child development information.
!
Latino parents were most interested in getting help around parenting and child development issues.
Latino families, compared to other ethnic groups, were the most concerned about all issues. They were particular concerned about helping their child to be reading ready (85% vs.
64-78%) and about setting limits/disciplining their child (73% vs. 52-62%). Caucasian families were the group least often concerned with health issues (32% for Caucasian families vs. 49-52% for all other groups) or whether or not their child was learning enough in his or her care/education arrangement (22% vs. 29-57%). These findings suggest that different groups of parents might want different types of services.
!
Parents sought support from a variety of sources.
Parents looking for support in their parenting were most likely to use books or magazines, family members, health care professionals, and their care or educational program provider. Least likely to be used were parent support groups. When asked if the respondent would go to a place where parents can meet with other parents and can find training, resources or services at a minimal cost, 60% of parents said they would.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary
!
Many parents are receptive to parenting education.
Forty percent of parents said they would be interested in a home visit from someone
18 trained to talk about parenting and help them understand their child’s development. More lower- income (53% and 41%) than upper-income families (37% and 32%) said they would welcome such a home visit. Dual-earner and two-parent single-earner families were least likely to welcome such a home visit (36% and 38% respectively), while employed single-parent families and unemployed parent families were more frequently interested in such a home visit (47% and
54% respectively).
!
Low income parents were less likely than other parents to engage in activities likely to prepare their children for school on a daily basis.
Most parents reported reading to their child, telling stories with the child, and singing songs or playing music nearly once a day. Low-income parents and less educated parents tended to engage in such activities less frequently than higher income parents .
At least once a month, most families engaged in community educational activities such as visiting a library, going to a play, concert or other live show; visiting a zoo, aquarium, or children’s museum; or talking about family history or ethnic heritage. Parents with higher education levels and households with higher incomes participated in these activities more than other types of families (1.8 vs. 1.4 times on average per month).
!
Most parents thought government should have at least some responsibility in helping children become reading ready.
A majority (56%) of the sample said government should have some responsibility; and
16% said that government should take a lot of responsibility in helping children become reading ready. (See Figure D.) This opinion did not vary by geographic location, family income, or respondents’ levels of education.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary
19
Eighty-eight percent of the sample supported the spending of tax dollars on early care and education facilities and programs. Ranging from 83% to 95%, there were no differences in the support of tax dollars by geographic location or family characteristics.
CHILD CARE, EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION, AND THE LABOR MARKET
!
Families differed in the types and amount of care they used based on their earning status.
Two-parent families with dual earners used Family Care (32% vs. 3-12%) and
Program/Center Care (33% vs. 3-17%) more than other types of families and arrangements.
Two-parent families with one earner were least likely to use any kind of nonparental care.
Presumably one parent is available to care for the young child. Families with a single employed parent were most likely to use Program/Center Care (40% vs. 3-30%) and used Center-based care for longer amounts of time than other types of families (40% vs. 20% and 33%).
Children of two employed parents (29%) and children of an employed single parent
(43%) spent the most time in a child care or educational arrangement. Children of single working parents were most often in more than a traditional full-time amount (over 50 hours a week) of care or educational programming (16% vs. 3-10% for all other groups).
The amount of time children spent in non-parental care did not seem to differ by family income levels, except for the highest income category. More children from families making over
$100,000 spent between 35 to 49 hours in some type of care arrangement (28% vs. 4-17% for all other groups). It may be that families with high incomes were frequently also dual-earner families, creating the need for more hours of care in their absence.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary
20
!
Nearly a quarter of parents lost time from work for reasons linked to child care usage.
Losing between 1 and 4 days of work because of care issues occurred for 24% of the working respondents during the past year. Thirteen percent of employed respondents had lost between 5 and 10 working days in the past year.
!
Employers offered benefits to parents. Most parents who had access to benefits used them.
Respondents were asked about three benefits that might have been provided by their employer. Employers offered flexible work hours to over half (57%) of the respondents. The ability to take one’s child to work was offered less frequently, to 20% of respondents; and referral services for care and education were offered to about 15% of the respondents. Upperincome workers were more likely to be offered each of these benefits than lower-income workers.
Ninety percent of respondents whose employers offered flexible hours used this benefit.
All respondents who had the benefit of taking their child to work had done so. Less than 5% used the referral services offered by their employer.
SERVICES TO SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES
!
Nearly a fifth of Pennsylvania parents reported that their children had some kind of special need.
Eighteen percent of PA families reported that their children had some kind of special need relating to a health or physical disability. The most common special needs were asthma
(8%), visual problems (8%), and allergies (5%).
!
Fewer than 3% of parents of children under 6 years of age reported that their children had behavioral problems.
The 3% rate that parents reported is about half that which would be expected in a sample of this nature using professional observation and diagnosis. Parents may be underreporting

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary behavioral problems, either because they do not observe them until their child enters situations
21 with other children or because parents have difficulty recognizing their child’s behavioral problems. These data suggest that parents may benefit from early screening efforts and early intervention problems. When parents did report a behavioral problem, they were most likely to seek help from a physician (36%), religious counselor (32%), or a psychologist/psychotherapist
(24%). Just over a third of the children with behavioral problems received early intervention from the State, and 20% of the children with behavioral problems had an Individual Family
Service Plan (IFSP) or Individual Education Program (IEP). Care for children with behavioral problems was most often provided in the child care or educational setting by the child’s provider or teacher (48%, or by someone brought into the care or educational setting (36%). Half of parents reporting that their children had behavioral problems also reported that their children had made some or a lot of improvements.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
!
Child care and early childhood education are important issues to a majority of
Pennsylvania families.
More than two-thirds of Pennsylvania families had their young children in a child care arrangement or educational program on a regular basis. Forty-three percent of children under the age of 6 years were in a care or educational program at least 20 hours a week, and a quarter of children were in care or an educational program at least 35 hours per week. The similarities across metropolitan, small cities, and rural areas suggest that child care and educational concerns are pervasive across the state.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary
22
!
State leadership on child care and early childhood education would be beneficial to parents.
A majority of parents believed that state government should be active in helping prepare children for formal schooling. Eighty-eight percent of parents supported the spending of tax dollars on early care and education programs.
!
Mechanisms are needed to enable parents to assess the quality of child care and educational settings.
Parents across the nation, not just in Pennsylvania, tend to overestimate the quality of child care and educational programs that they use. Parents may need more help in identifying the features of high quality care and educational programs.
!
Increased information about preschool and kindergarten opportunities for
Pennsylvania children is needed.
More than half of Pennsylvania’s 3- and 4-year-old children receive no regular educational programming outside the home that would prepare them for school entry. In addition, low-income families and less educated parents were less likely to use such programs than other families. Further study is needed on whether the lack of participation in kindergarten seen in the study is due to the lack of availability, affected by state mandated school-age cutoffs, parental choice, or some combination of these factors.
At the same time, parents across the state, especially those in low-income families and those with lower levels of education, are concerned about preparing their children to become reading ready. Since parents with children in kindergarten appear most satisfied with their children’s opportunities for cognitive and social development, increasing kindergarten opportunities might address many of these parents’ concerns.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary
!
The availability of full-day kindergarten should be increased.
Families may find it difficult to use part-day kindergarten because they have to make
23 supplemental child care arrangements to provide child care during the time the parents are employed out of the home. Increasing the availability of full-time kindergarten programs may ensure that more children are in kindergarten.
!
The quality of educational content (social and cognitive) in children’s early education programming should be made more consistent across the continuum of providers.
Approximately a third of families reported that there was room for improvement in their child’s care or educational arrangement, and low-income families and families with less educated parents were concerned about whether their children were learning enough in their education settings. By developing and funding training opportunities for child care providers and early education teachers, the educational content (social and cognitive) of children’s programs should increase.
!
The costs of child care and education are high and often unaffordable for
Pennsylvania’s lowest-income families.
Low-income families paid at least twice as much of their annual incomes for child care and education as did upper-income families, suggesting that child care is more of a burden to these families than to other families.
!
Families need more help in learning about and accessing child care subsidies.
We estimate that only about half of Pennsylvania families with children in Family Care or Program/Center Care were receiving the subsidies for which they were eligible. Two-parent eligible families were less likely to receive subsidies than single-parent eligible families.
Heightened awareness of subsidy eligibility and efforts to eliminate regulatory barriers to subsidy use may result in more families receiving the subsidies they need.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary
24
!
Transportation for early childhood programming may not be as much of a problem in
Pennsylvania as has been thought.
Only 10% of Pennsylvania parents, regardless of where they lived, said transportation was a problem; most parents traveled less than 10 minutes to take their children to their care or educational arrangement. Nevertheless, the State should seek to monitor transportation issues, identify problems where they exist, and offer solutions to ensure access to kindergarten and quality educational programming.
!
Increased parenting supports are needed for parents and families, especially for low- income, less educated parents.
About a third of parents throughout the State were concerned about child development issues nearly all the time. Low-income parents, less educated parents, and Latino parents were most concerned about raising their children well, and said they could use more help in the form of more resources, increased parent training programs, and home visits.
!
Child care is an important employment issue, and the State can encourage employers to invest in child care and education for children and offer child care benefits to parents at all income levels.
Investing in child care and education is likely to improve worker productivity. Nearly a quarter of parents lost time from work for child care-related reasons, such as illness and the high cost of child care. Employers can be encouraged to extend benefits to low-income as well as upper-income working parents. Further investigation of the effectiveness of employer benefits for helping employed parents meet their children’s needs is warranted.
!
Adequate caregiver training for special needs children needs to be assured.
Special needs children and children with behavioral problems are most often treated within the context of the child care or educational setting. Child care providers and early

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary childhood educators need to be appropriately trained to deliver care for children with special
25 needs and behavioral problems.
!
Behavioral screening and intervention tools and benchmark services should be made available for all parents.
Survey parents may be under-reporting behavioral problems. Since early intervention services are available and effective, the State needs to play a role in ensuring that behavioral problems are detected as early as possible. Providing parents more information about age appropriate behavior and easily accessible evaluation programs may be help ensure that parents seek help when they need it.
FUTURE RESEARCH ISSUES
The Governor’s Task Force examination of care and educational programming for young children highlights the steps Pennsylvania can take to put in place a quality care and educational system for young children. With this report comes the recognition that this will take time, requiring that educational investments be accompanied by research that monitors Pennsylvania’s progress as it goes down this path. This research has identified a number of important issues that will require continual investigation. We recommend that research on Pennsylvania families continue along the following lines.
Periodic survey updates. Using the data in this report as benchmarks, periodic surveys of
Pennsylvania families can review changes in the needs of Pennsylvania families and review the
State’s progress as it seeks to provide increasingly valuable services to families. We need to continually monitor what families are doing to manage work and family with the goal of ensuring that children are in appropriate facilities that will benefit them over the short- and longterm. While programs will be evaluated to see whether state expenditures are meeting their goals, periodic family surveys will establish whether the goals are still valid. Cooperative survey

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary planning among researchers, applied specialists and policymakers will ensure that researchers
26 ask timely and relevant questions of families.
Are families with special needs children being adequately served? More information is needed from parents of special needs children to see what kinds of child programming they are using and whether it is meeting the needs of the entire family.
Effects of geographic area and family characteristics. The findings of this report suggest that geographic, income and ethnic differences exist in child care and educational usage patterns, parental needs, parental concerns, child care usage, and subsidy uptake rates. Educational programming is more frequently used by wealthier, more educated parents. To see whether the
State’s increased early care and education efforts are meeting the needs of all Pennsylvania families, both focus groups and large surveys of families from a variety of backgrounds and ethnic groups are necessary. Are there differences among families of different backgrounds in the kinds of early childhood services that they require? Why are not more families using kindergarten services provided by their school districts? As kindergarten and parenting support services become increasingly available to families, are all families equally benefiting? Are increased parental support systems meeting the greater need among low-income and less educated families? Why are Pennsylvania’s low-income families not accessing the subsidies to which they are entitled? Are there transportation, structural and informational barriers that can be reduced to ensure that all Pennsylvania children have access to high quality educational services? These questions, and many others, can be addressed with high quality research so that programs may be developed that can most efficiently and fairly service families with young children.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary
50
39%
40
31%
30
20
18%
12%
10
4%
0
No Non-
Parental Care
In Home
Care
Family Care Child Care
Centers
Educational
Programming
1
Note:
1
Educational Programming includes preschool/nursery school, pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, Head Start or Early Head Start
27

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary
60
44%
40
25% 25%
Center Care (12%)
Head Start & Early HS (5%)
Pre-kindergarten
& Kindergarten (8%)
20
17%
0
No Non-
Parental Care
In-
Home
Care
Family Care
Preschool/Nurser y school (19%)
Educational
Programming
28

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary
29
Figure C. Percent of Parents Who Are Concerned about Issues Related to their Child’s Development “often” or “all the time”
100
Families Below 200% of FPIG
Families Above 200% of FPIG
80
60
40
20
0
Age Appropriate
Behavior
Discipline/
Limit Setting
Child’s Health Being
Reading Ready
Learning Enough in
Care or Education
Setting

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Executive Summary
30
A lot of responsibility
(16%)
Some responsibility
(56%)
Don't know
(3%)
Refused
(0.1%)
No role/ responsibility
(22%)
A little responsibility
(2%)

Report prepared for the Governor’s Task Force on Early Childhood Education
September 2002
Written by
and the
Universities Children’s Policy Collaborative is dedicated to contributing to the health and welfare of children, youth, and families by providing nonpartisan information on public policy issues .
Pennsylvania State University Temple University University of Pittsburgh
Prevention Research Center Center for Public Policy Office of Child Development
College of Health and
Human Development
College of Liberal Arts University Center for
Anne B. Shlay, Director Social and Urban Research
Mark T. Greenberg, Director Christina J. Groark and
Robert B. McCall, Co-Directors

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Report prepared for the Governor’s Task Force On Early Childhood Care and Education
September 2002 by
Marsha Weinraub, Anita Kochanoff & Anne Shlay
Temple University and the
Universities Children’s Policy Collaborative (UCPC)
The authors wish to acknowledge the support and advice from members of The Governor's Task
Force on Early Care and Education, the Governor’s Policy Office, and at Temple University, the
Institute for Survey Research, the Center for Public Policy, and the Personality and Social
Development Research Laboratory in the Psychology Department. Michelle Harmon gave advice and helped edit the survey instrument; Louise Hanson refined the survey questions and directed the survey data collection. Irene Kan performed portions of the data analysis and created the tables and figures. Nancy Nunez typed numerous drafts of the report. This survey could not have been done without the cooperation and input from more than 1000 Pennsylvania families. To these many people, the authors are very grateful.
2

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Benchmarking Early Care and Education in Pennsylvania:
The 2002 Family Survey
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Research Questions Guiding the 2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Changes in parental use of early education and care
DESIGN AND METHOD
Sampling Procedure
7
8
8
11
11
12
12
14
15
17
Sample
FINDINGS
Use of Early Childhood Care and Education Arrangements for
All Children Under 6 Years of Age
The majority of Pennsylvania children under the age of six were
in some type of regular child care or education program
Some children were in more than one type of child care
arrangement or educational setting on a weekly basis
Many children were in care or education arrangements at least
half-time
Most care arrangements had been relatively stable over the last
year
Seventy percent of families who were not using any care
arrangement said they did not need one
A quarter of all children were cared for by a relative who was
not their parent
Families varied in the types of care and educational
arrangements in which they enrolled their children
Child care centers were used far more often than preschools,
Head Start programs, pre-kindergarten and kindergarten
PRESCHOOL CHILDREN IN EDUCATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
Quality of Early Care and Education
Parents are not aware of whether or not their programs are
licensed or accredited. Nearly half of the parents believed
that their child’s Program/Center was accredited
A majority of parents rated their child’s care/education
provider as “excellent” “in enhancing social and cognitive
development. Few rated their child’s provider “not very
good” or as “very bad.”
25
25
19
19
21
23
23
25
17
17
17
18
19
3

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Parents with children in kindergarten and other types of
programs/centers gave higher quality ratings to their
children’s cognitive and social programming
Parents with children in Programs/Centers were most likely to
strongly recommend their arrangement to a friend than
parents in the other care/education arrangement types
Parents thought child care should have more curricular
activities, especially in the area of cognitive development
Providers and teachers administered medicine and provided
health information
Cost and Affordability of Early Care and Education
Of those who paid for child care or educational programs, the
mean fee per month was $336; however there was great
variability
Families in metropolitan areas pay more per month for child
care and educational services cost more in metropolitan areas
than in small cities and rural areas
Families with higher incomes paid more for their arrangements
Families with lower incomes devoted a larger proportion of
their annual household income to child care costs
Subsidies for Early Care and Education for Low-Income Families
Only 14% of families reported receiving some form of
assistance in paying for early care and education costs
Single –parent families received more financial assistance for
the cost of care and education
About half of the families who were eligible for subsidies were
receiving them
Transportation Issues
Transportation was not a problem for most families
Most families lived within five minutes of their child care or
education facility
Support for Families Helping to Prepare their Children for School
Parents wanted help with issues concerning their child’s
development most of the time
Low-income and less educated parents reported needing more
help than other families
Latino parents were most interested in getting help around
parenting and child development issues
Parents sought support from a variety of sources
Many parents are receptive to parenting education
Parents engaged in activities likely to prepare their children for
school on a daily basis
Most parents thought government should have at least some
responsibility in helping children become reading ready
Child Care, Early Childhood Education, and the Labor Market
Families differed in the types and amount of care they used
based on their earning status
26
26
28
28
29
29
31
31
32
32
32
33
33
33
29
30
30
31
31
34
34
34
35
35
36
36
4

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Respondents with more than one job were more likely to use
out-of-home Family Care or Programs/Centers
The number of hours parents were employed did not affect the
type of care or education arrangements they used
More formal educational or center-based settings served very
few children during non-traditional business hours
Nearly a quarter of parents lost time from work for reasons
linked to child care usage
Employers offered benefits to parents. Most parents who had
access to benefits used them
Services to Special Needs Children and Their Families
Nearly a fifth of Pennsylvania parents reported that their
children had special needs relating to a health or physical
disability
Fewer than 3% of parents of children under 6 years of age
reported that their children than behavioral problems
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Child care and early childhood education are important issues to a
majority of Pennsylvania families
State leadership on child care and early childhood education would
be beneficial to parents
Mechanisms are needed to enable parents to assess the quality of
child care and educational settings
Increased information about kindergarten opportunities for
Pennsylvania children is needed
The availability of full-day kindergarten should be increased
The quality of educational content (social and cognitive) in children’s
early education programming needs to be increased
The costs of child care and education for families, especially low-
income families, needs to be reduced
Families need more help in learning about and accessing child care
subsidies
Transportation for early childhood programming may not be as
much of a problem in Pennsylvania as has been thought
Increased parenting supports are needed for parents and families,
especially for low-income, less educated parents
Child care is an important employment issue, and the State can
encourage employers to invest in child care and education for
children
Employers should be encouraged to offer child care benefits to
parents at all income levels
Adequate caregiver training for special needs children should be
assured
Behavioral screening and intervention services need to be made
available for all parents
38
39
39
39
40
40
40
41
41
41
41
42
42
36
37
37
37
37
38
42
42
43
43
5

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
FUTURE RESEARCH ISSUES
REFERENCES CITED
TABLES
FIGURES
APPENDICES
43
46
47
76
91
6

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 7
INTRODUCTION
The first five years of a child’s life is a period of incredible cognitive, emotional and social growth. A child’s experiences during these early years have tremendous implications for later development and success
1
. Sensitive, responsive care and quality education can establish an important foundation upon which later academic achievement and success develops. The ability of early stimulating contexts to alter subsequent developmental outcomes suggests that tremendous opportunities to influence children’s development exist during the first few years of life. Experiences during these early years can set children on pathways that have lifelong emotional, social and academic consequences.
How can we invest in our children’s early development to ensure subsequent academic, social and emotional success? This question has attracted widespread attention from Pennsylvania policy makers. Their goal: to develop a system of early child care and education that will meet families needs today and help prepare a sophisticated, educated work force of the future. This workforce of the future will attract high paying jobs from industry, thus ensuring the continuing economic viability of our State.
Toward this goal, Pennsylvania’s Governor Mark Schweiker signed Executive Order 2002-2 on April 17, 2002 to create the Early Childhood Care and Education Task Force. The task force will prepare a comprehensive menu of evidence-based, cost effective strategies that will lay the foundation for the future of Pennsylvania’s early care and education delivery system. A report prepared by the task force will be passed to the incoming gubernatorial administration so that planning for Pennsylvania’s children and families can begin immediately in the new administration.
No report on Pennsylvania’s children could be complete without information collected from parents and families, and so a critical piece of that report will contain information from families with regards to their experiences and concern regarding child care and early education. What issues are

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 8 families concerned about, what are they doing, and what do they need? In this report, we describe the survey of Pennsylvania families in 2002 that was commissioned to provide this information to
Governor Schweiker’s Early Childhood Care and Education Task Force for inclusion in the Task
Force report. The other reports include A Baseline Report of Early Care and Education in
Pennsylvania: The 2002 Early Care and Education Provider Survey, The State of Early Care and Education in Pennsylvania: The 2002 Higher Education Survey , and From Science To
Policy: Research on Issues, Programs and Policies in Early Care and Education.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS GUIDING THE 2002 PENNSYLVANIA FAMILY SURVEY
The 2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey was designed to provide answers to a number of important questions:
!
What is the extent of usage of child care and early education programs in PA?
!
Does use of child care and educational programs differ geographically across the state?
!
What is the quality and what are the costs of these services, according to parents and children’s full-time caregivers?
!
Are low-income and middle-income families using similar types of child care and early education programs?
!
What problems do families face in accessing child care and early education?
!
What services and supports do parents think would enable them to better prepare their children for school?
!
Are families with special needs young children and children with behavior problems being adequately served?
Changes in Parental Use of Early Education and Care
National trends
During the past 25 years, important changes have taken place in the ways children are cared for and educated between the period of birth and the entry to formal school. Many of these changes result from mothers’ increasing workforce participation. In 1975, 39% of mothers with children

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 9 under six years of age were in the labor force. By 1999, this percentage had increased to 61%.
During that time, the percentage of mothers working full-time and year-round nearly tripled, from 11 to 30%. The most dramatic changes in the employment of mothers occurred for mothers with children under one year of age. In 1977, 24% of mothers with children under one year of age were active in the labor force. By 1999, the percentage had doubled, with 54% of mothers actively employed outside the home.
These numbers tell the story of what has become one of the most important issues facing families today. Changes in maternal employment, family structure 2 , economic conditions, and new federal welfare regulations have required dramatic increases in the use of nonmaternal child care on a regular and frequent basis.
In the last decades of the 20th century, more than half of all children under the age of six regularly spent some time each week in nonmaternal child care 3 . According to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care 4 , in 1991, 81% of infants under one year of age were cared for by someone other than their mother on a regular basis.
Most of these infants started regular care before the age of four months; they were enrolled for close to 30 hours per week. Fewer than one in five infants spent the entire first year at home with no supplemental care. In addition, infants in child care experienced, on average, more than two nonparental arrangements during the first year. These statistics reveal high reliance on infant care, very rapid entry into care post-birth, and substantial instability in care over the first year of life by the close of the 1990’s.
As children move through infancy into toddler hood and the preschool years, families’ reliance on nonmaternal care and the early education increases. Statistics from the most recent U.S.
Census 5 show that in 1997, 63% of all children under the age of five were in regular nonmaternal care. Unrelated adults cared almost half of these children for, and about 39% of them were enrolled

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 10 in some kind of organized facility. Many children were enrolled in multiple types of care for different times of the week 5 . Similarly, the NICHD Study 6 showed that by 4 and half years of age,
50% of children were enrolled in some regular form of child care or early educational experience for at least 30 hours per week.
These statistics describe child care and early education experiences for children across the nation. What about children in Pennsylvania?
Pennsylvania’s children
The last report specific to children in Pennsylvania was prepared in 1989 by the Office of
Child Development at the University of Pittsburgh 7 . In their report to the Board of Education of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Robert McCall and his colleagues described child care and early education experiences for 989 children from birth through eight years of age. They reported that 53% of children birth though five years of age used some form of nonparental early childhood service. Of those children, half were in unmonitored settings, and more than one in five children attended more than one type of service each week because the hours, cost, or convenience of their main service was inadequate for their needs. Nearly 5% of the families volunteered that the main reasons they did not use early childhood services was because they could not find or afford them. The authors estimated that between 20% and 75% of low-income unemployed mothers would seek employment, education or job training if quality early childhood services were available and affordable.
What is the situation in Pennsylvania today? How many families are relying on nonparental care for their children on a regular basis? What kinds of care and they using and what problems are they experiencing? In this report, we report answers to these questions and others concerning early childhood services in Pennsylvania in 2002.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 11
DESIGN AND METHOD
SURVEY DESIGN
The design of this study involved a baseline survey of 1000 Pennsylvania families. This survey was administered by telephone to adult respondents living in the home with responsibility for decision-making for children under 6 years of age. Most of the respondents were the children’s parents, but sometimes respondents were grandparents, step-parents, regular full-time caregivers, or legal guardians. (See findings, below.) These respondents will be referred to as the child’s parents/caregivers. Copies of the survey and the screening questions used to ascertain eligible survey participants are included as Appendices A and B.
Survey questions covered a wide variety of topics. Interviewers asked the parents/caregivers whether they used early childhood services for a target child under the age of six years living in their home. If more than one child younger than six years old lived in the household, one was randomly selected to be the target child for the survey. If the child was in any type of nonparental care arrangement on a regular weekly basis, we asked more detailed questions about these child care services, such as the number of hours of care, the type of care arrangement, the hourly cost, and the mode of transportation to the arrangement. If the child was in more than one type of nonparental care arrangement, the survey questions were focused on the main arrangement, which was defined as the one in which the child spent the most time. We asked parents/caregivers about the child’s health and whether the child had any special needs or behavior problems. Last, parents were asked about the child’s home activities, the kinds of problems they were having with their children at home, what activities they think should be included in child care programs, and what role they thought government should play in providing early education services to children.
Questions were selected from a number of well-respected parent surveys used by other researchers. These included the Office of Child Development 1989 Survey developed by Robert

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 12
McCall and his colleagues 7 , the NICHD Study of Early Child Care 6 , United Way Web Survey developed by Drexel University for Philadelphia and United Way 8 , and the Panel Study of Income
Dynamics 9 . Some questions new to this survey were also included. Early Childhood Task Force members were asked to comment on early drafts of the survey, and they suggested questions on specific topics of interest.
Sampling Procedure
One thousand five adults from English or Spanish-speaking households with children under the age of six were surveyed. Households were selected using a list-assisted Random Digit Dialing
(RDD) sampling procedure. Through a commercial database maintenance/retrieval system, 23,500 randomly selected telephone numbers throughout Pennsylvania were obtained. Slightly less than
16,000 households were identified; 68% completed an eligibility screener (n = 10,760); and 12% of these individuals contacted were eligible for the survey (n=1,292) because they had decision-making responsibility for a child under 6 years of age living in their household. Seventy-eight percent of those agreed to be interviewed, resulting in 1,005 completed interviews. See Appendix B for a copy of the interview screener.
Survey Procedures
The Interview
The interview lasted 25 minutes and included questions relating to the family’s use of child care or educational services during the school year for a randomly selected target child less than 6 years of age. Trained, reliable interviewers who were contracted by the Institute for Survey Research at Temple University used computer-assisted telephone interviewing techniques (CATI) to conduct the interviews from May through July 2002. If the respondent’s primary language was Spanish, the person was then interviewed by telephone using the PAPI (Paper and Pen Interviewing) mode.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 13
Hardcopy interviews obtained from the PAPI sample were later data-entered into the CATI program in order to take advantage of the skip and range checks available in CATI.
Families were offered $20 for participating in the interview. If families wanted to receive payment, they gave us their mailing address, and they were sent a money order in the mail. In the subsequent interview validation survey, most respondents reported that they felt the survey addressed important topics and they were glad that they had participated. See Appendix C for a copy of the validation survey and Appendix D for respondents’ remarks about the interview.
Definition of terms
Several terms were used to describe early childhood settings. These terms were selected for the survey because they are terms that were meaningful to parents in describing their child’s daily nonparental care and educational arrangements. The settings were broken into five groups: 1) No
Nonparental Care in which children were not cared for by anyone other than their parents; 2) In-
Home Care in which someone regularly comes into the home to care for the child; 3) Family Care in which the child is cared for in another home with or without other children (Group Care is a term used for child care in someone else’s home in which more than 7 children are present. However, since groups of 7 or more children were so rarely observed in this sample, these cases were combined with the Family Care group); 4) Program/Center Care in which children attend a facility with a group of other children (This group included child care centers, preschool, Head Start, Early Head Start, pre-kindergarten, and kindergarten); and 5) Parent as Family Care Provider in which the child is cared for by his or her parent in the home while the parent also cares for other non-related children.
Analyses of these types of Programs/Centers were conducted separately such that these types were combined to create four groups: Center (child care centers and preschool attended more than 5 hours per day), Preschool (5 hours or less), Head Start (including Early Head Start), and Kindergarten
(including pre-kindergarten).

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 14
Comparisons to the “1989 Survey of Pennsylvania Parents”
The 1989 Survey defined terms somewhat differently than this 2002 Survey and calculated figures such that in some cases they were based on different criteria than this 2002 Survey.
Therefore, comparisons with the 1989 Survey have been made only in cases where parallel methods for determining findings existed. For example, the 1989 definition for Center Care required a group of at least 12 children, and the 1989 Survey did not limit the definition of Preschool to that of only five hours per day or less.
Study Limitations
There were three limitations of the design used to collect these data. The first limitation – the reliance on retrospective data for some families, stemmed from the short lead time available to conduct this survey and the consequent need to conduct the surveys during the months of May, June and July. Not all families used child care services or educational programs during the summer, and many educational programs close for the summer. To address this timing problem, we asked all families whose summer arrangements were different from their academic year arrangements to describe their child care and educational programming arrangements for children during the previous month of April. Such retrospective data has inherent problems of recall; the short period between
April and the date of the telephone interview may have partially mitigated any inherent problems of retrospective recall.
The second limitation stems from problems inherent in telephone surveys. Not all families were reachable by telephone. However, the number of families with accessible telephone numbers was quite large (close to 98% of all families in Pennsylvania according to Census figures) and did not appear to vary by variables likely to affect these findings. We contacted 220 non-English-speaking families, and these families were contacted a second time by a Spanish-speaking interviewer. During that second attempt, the Spanish-speaking interviewers were able to identify households where no

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 15
English and no Spanish were spoken. Families who did not speak either English or Spanish were not able to be interviewed. The number of these families was less than 1% of the sub-sample contacted.
Of these Spanish-speaking families, 22 were eligible to be included in the sample, and 13 of those were interviewed in Spanish.
Finally, having surveyed only families with children under six years of age limited our ability to describe the use of kindergarten throughout the state. That is to say, these data cannot speak to the entire eligible population of kindergarteners, many of which are six or older.
Furthermore, each school district dictates the age at which children are eligible to enter kindergarten; thus, it was impossible for us to estimate the number of five year olds in this sample who were eligible for kindergarten.
Sample Description
!
The sample was varied, mirroring the rich diversity of Pennsylvania families.
As illustrated in Table 1, the sample included about an equal number of children at each age up to 5.9 years, ranging from 15% to 18% in each year of age. Survey respondents were individuals responsible for decision-making regarding the care of the children in the household: 73% were mothers, 17% were fathers, and 6% were grandmothers. Although all of the respondents were not the biological parents of the young child on which the survey focused, the word “parent” will be used to refer to respondents making care arrangement decisions for the child.
About three-fourths of the sample was composed of two-parent (or two-partner) households
(73%), with an average family size of four. With 40% of the sample earning dual incomes, the average yearly salary (before taxes) of the sample was about $59,000. Non-earning families made up
9% of the sample, meaning that single parents or both parents were unemployed. The sample was made up of 13% families at 100% of the Federal Poverty Income Guideline. After this table and in subsequent analyses, we define family poverty as 200% of the Federal Poverty Income Guideline,

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 16 since that is the income level at which families are eligible for child care subsidies. The highest level of education achieved by most respondents was a high school degree (31%), with nearly the same amount of respondents having some years of college (26%), and a 4-year college degree (23%). Ten percent had less than a high school education.
Families in the sample were a good mirror of families in the State. (See Table 2.) The distribution of families across geographic location, child’s age, family size, poverty and ethnicity was similar to the distribution in the State. Caucasian families were 73% of the sample; African-
American families were 15% of the sample; Latino families made up 6%; and there were 6% of people of other ethnicities. The 13% of families at the Federal Poverty Income level was similar but somewhat lower than the 16% reported in Pennsylvania’s census. Determined by zip code, 52% of the sample lived in densely populated metropolitan areas, 36% in small cities, and 12% in rural areas.
!
Geographic differences existed, but there was also great variability within geographic areas.
Table 3 presents the sample characteristics within the three geographic areas represented in the Commonwealth. The metropolitan areas included Philadelphia and Allegheny counties, as well as 10 other of the most populated counties. Smaller cities were comprised of 27 counties; the rural areas included 28 counties. Caucasians made up most of the populations of each of the three demographic areas, somewhat less so in the metropolitan areas. Latino families seem to be mostly located in the metropolitan areas and smaller cities; and most African-American families resided in metropolitan areas. With regard to partner status, there were more single-parent families living in metropolitan areas. Dual earner families were distributed throughout the state, with a tendency for rural areas to have a higher percentage of dual earner families than metropolitan areas or small cities.
Two-parent families with one earner were more frequently located in small towns.
People living in more populated areas reported higher levels of education than people in small towns and rural areas. (For example, there was a higher percent of respondents with college

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 17 and post-college degrees in metropolitan areas and the highest number of high school only graduates in rural areas.). As would be expected, respondents’ highest level of education was correlated with annual household income. That is, more educated people tended to earn higher salaries. Thus, we found that similar to that of education level, families living in more populated areas also tended to report higher incomes. Families living in metropolitan areas were more likely to report the highest incomes, and families living in small cities were more likely to report moderate incomes. Families reporting the lowest salary range were distributed in each geographic region, with somewhat more families in rural areas reporting the lowest incomes.
!
Family income, respondent education, ethnicity, and family employment status were often related to each other. However, within each group, there was wide variation.
Many of the demographic variables were correlated with each other, but not to a large degree. Ethnicity, family size and respondent level of education were not significantly correlated with each other. (See Appendix E.)
FINDINGS
USE OF EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR ALL
CHILDREN UNDER 6 YEARS OF AGE
!
The majority of Pennsylvania children under the age of six were in some type of regular child care or education program.
Sixty-four percent of the families surveyed had their child under the age of six in some type of care or education program where a parent was not present. (See Table 4a.) This is an increase from the 1989 Survey, which reported 52% of respondents with children under six in some type of nonparental care. Even a majority of the children younger than 3 years of age (61%) were in a nonparental child care arrangement on a regular basis. (See Figure 1.)

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 18
!
Some children were in more than one type of child care arrangement or educational setting on a weekly basis.
Twenty-four percent of the sample was in more than one type of arrangement at the same time. This was only a slight increase compared to the 1989 Survey, which reported 21% of children spent time in more than one type of care. More specifically, 16% of the children in the sample (or
23% of children in care) were in two simultaneous arrangements, 6% of the sample was in three simultaneous arrangements, 1% of the sample was in four simultaneous arrangements, and less than
1% of families had 5 and 6 simultaneous arrangements. Six was the highest number reported of arrangements which the child attended regularly.
Of the 283 children who were in a Program or Center, 57% of them were in child care centers, 19% were in preschools, 7% were in Head Start or Early Head Start, and 16% were in prekindergarten or kindergarten. (See Table 4b.) a
!
Many children were in care or education arrangements at least half-time.
More than 40% of children were in a nonparental arrangement at least half-time, defined as
20 hours per week. (See Figure 2.) A quarter of the children were in full-time care, defined as 35 hours or more. The average time spent in nonparental care or educational arrangements was 27 hours per week, slightly more than the 25 hours per week reported in the 1989 Survey. The average amount of time spent in care across all types of arrangements did not vary as a function of the child’s age.
The time children spent in care or education programs varied by the type of arrangement they were in. In-Home Care, defined as having nonparental care in the child’s own home, was more often used for shorter amounts of time (less than 10 hours per week), whereas Family Care (family a.
In order to differentiate preschools from child care centers for the analysis of types of Programs/Centers, preschool was defined as program care of five or fewer hours/day. Care that the respondent labeled nursery school/preschool, but occurred for more than 5 hours/day, was redefined as child care.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 19 child care homes and group family homes) and Program/Center Care were more frequently used for longer hours per week. (See Table 15.)
!
Most care arrangements had been relatively stable over the last year.
Very few changes in children’s care and education arrangements had occurred over the last year. Stability of children’s early environments and caregivers is an important developmental principle. Only 7% of those using a care or education service had any change at all in their child’s setting (including going from some type of arrangement to no arrangement). Less than 1% made over two or three changes. This is surprisingly less than the 13% of children who experienced at least one change reported in the 1989 Survey. It seems as though the use of early care and education arrangements have become more stable in the last decade.
Not changing early childhood services can also be an indicator of a family’s satisfaction with that setting. Dissatisfaction was the leading reason given for why a change occurred, just as it had been in the 1989 Survey.
!
Seventy percent of families who were not using any care arrangement said they did not need one.
As in the 1989 Survey, the main reason that families gave for not using any type of care or educational program was that they did not need it. Among a variety of possible reasons, two other reasons given included not wanting nonparental care (10% of those not using nonparental care or educational programs) and not being able to afford it (5% of those not using nonparental care or education). Non-parental care was no more frequent in metropolitan areas, small cities or rural areas.
(See Table 5.)
!
A quarter of all children were cared for by a relative who was not their parent.
Twenty-four percent of the children were spending time on a regular basis each week with a relative who was not their parent (Table 5). This care occurred either in In-Home Care (in the child’s own home) or in Family Care, defined as care in another family’s home with up to 12 children. Of

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 20 the children cared for in their own homes on a regular basis for some portion of the day, 76% of them were with relatives who were not their parents, and 24% of them were with unrelated caregivers. Of the children cared for in someone else’s home, 68% of them were with relatives.
The extent to which relative care was used (compared to all types of non-relative care arrangements including Programs/Centers) differed by geographic area. Care by a relative was most frequent in small cities and least frequent in metropolitan areas. Families with lower incomes, fewer children, fewer earners, and lower levels of education were more likely to use relative care. Families in the highest income level category almost never used relative care. These relationships between relative care and family characteristics are probably best explained by the fact that relative care is the most inexpensive type of care available to families.
Table 5 shows that non-earning families used relative care and non-relative care to the same extent. Not surprisingly, half of the children of non-earning families were cared for by their own parents.
The use of relative care was somewhat related to ethnicity. Latino families had relatives caring for their children more than any other ethnic group in the sample. The situation for African-
American families as compared to Caucasian families was more complicated. African-American children were cared for equally often by parents and relatives, while Caucasian families were more likely to use parental care than relative care. However, the frequency with which both groups used non-relative care was not too dissimilar (43% for African-American families and 39% for Caucasian families).
Finally, a child’s age was related to the likelihood of being cared for by a relative. Children up to the age of three were equally likely to be cared for by a relative as a non-relative caregiver
(although most of the youngest children were in parental care). Older children, however, were much

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 21 less likely to be in relative care (Table 5). The findings reported in the next bullet suggest that these older children were most likely in Programs or Centers, in which relatives are not usually present.
!
Families varied in the types of care and educational arrangements in which they enrolled their children.
Factors that affected the use of child care and educational programming were the child’s age, geographic location, family income, parental employment, and parental education.
Child Age
The age of the child influenced the choices parents made about types of care and education arrangements. These data are presented in Figure 3. (See also Table 6a.) Fewer than half (46%) of the children under one year of age were cared for at home with their parents exclusively. Families were more likely to use Program or Center Care for older children. Nine percent of children younger than one year of age were in Programs/Centers; 17% of children between 2 and 3 years old were in
Programs/Centers; 37% of 3- to 5-year-olds were in Programs/Centers; and at age five, 51% of children were in a Program or Center.
Geographic Location
Across all geographic locations, about two-thirds of families had their children in a child care arrangement or educational program outside the home on a regular basis. One-third had no additional child care or education program outside the home. These data are shown in Figure 4. When they did use nonparental care or educational arrangements outside the home, families in metropolitan areas were more likely to have their children in Programs/Centers than families in small cities or rural areas. Families in small towns and rural areas were more likely to use Family Care settings.
Whether this difference is due to geographical differences in preferences for different types of child care or differences in accessibility of different types of child care in different geographic areas is not clear.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 22
Income Level
Poor families were more likely to have their children at home full time, using no additional nonparental care or educational arrangements than were families who were not poor. More significantly, poor families were less likely to have their children in Program/Center Care arrangements than families who were not poor (23% for poor families and 30% for families who were not poor). (See table 6a.) This is despite the fact that families in this income range (200% of federal poverty level) are often eligible for child care subsidies if they meet other family requirements.
There were important differences, however, in use of different educational and care arrangements in the different income groups. Lower-middle-income families (those earning between
$25,001 and $50,000) were most likely to have their children at home with them full time, using no additional child care or educational arrangements, while upper-middle-income families (those earning between $50,001 and $100,000) were most likely to use some kind of nonparental care or educational arrangement. The wealthiest families were more likely to use Programs/Centers than other families.
The wealthiest families were also least likely to use out-of-home Family Care. These data are all presented in Figure 5. Most of the parents who were Family Care providers in their own homes had household incomes less than $50,000. (See Table 6a.)
Partner and Employment Status
Two-parent families with just one-earner were most likely to have their child at home with them, using no nonparental care or educational arrangements. Dual-earner families were more likely to use all types of arrangements than were one earner, two-parent families. Single-parent earners were most likely to use Program/Center arrangements for their children than other arrangements and did so more than two-parent families (regardless of the number of earners). These data are shown in
Figure 6.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 23
Respondent Education Level
More educated parents were most likely to have their children in Program/Center Care than less educated parents, who were more likely to have their children staying at home with them fulltime. These data are shown in Figure 7.
!
Child care centers were used far more often than preschools, Head Start programs, prekindergarten and kindergarten.
Child care centers were found to be used by a greater percentage of families than other types of Programs/Centers for children of all ages, in all geographic locations, from families of all income levels, education levels, and ethnicities, and by both single- and two-parent families. (See Table 6b.) b c
Only in the case of two-parent families in which one parent was not employed were preschools used more than child care centers. Perhaps in these two-parent, one-earner families, the non-earning parent takes the child to an educational program for short periods of time several days a week, something that working parents may find less convenient to do.
PRESCHOOL CHILDREN IN EDUCATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
!
Fewer than half (44%) of PA preschool children were enrolled in an educational preschool program.
Although 75% of 3 and 4 year-old children were in some type of regular non-parental arrangement, fewer than half (44%) spent regular time each week in a program with educational curricular programming. (See Figure 8.) Twelve percent of children between 3 and 4 years of age were enrolled in child care centers, 19% were in preschools, 5% were in Head Start programs, and
8% were in pre-kindergarten or kindergarten programs. Twenty-five percent of 3 and 4 year-olds b.
Type of care was determined based on parental report. Parents were first asked if their child was in a center or program arrangement. If they answered yes, they were then asked to specifically identify which type of program this was: child care center, nursery school/preschool, Head Start, Early Head Start, pre-kindergarten, or kindergarten. c.
In order to differentiate preschools from child care centers for the analysis of types of Programs/Centers, preschool was defined as program care of five or fewer hours/day and labeled as nursery school/preschool by the respondent. Care that the respondent labeled nursery school/preschool, but occurred for more than 5 hours/day, was redefined as child care.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 24 were in the exclusive care of their parents. Forty-two percent were in a neighbor’s home, a relative’s home, or in a family day care arrangement when their parent was not available.
!
Three- and 4-year old children’s attendance in educational programs varied by geographic area.
Preschool-aged children living in metropolitan areas attended educational programs (centers, preschools, Head Start, or Kindergartens) slightly more (47%) than preschool aged children in small cities (39%) or rural areas (41%). There was an exception for children living in rural areas and attending Head Start. Head Start attendance was higher in rural areas (11% vs. 3-4%) for 3- and 4year-olds.
!
Poor and minority 3- and 4-year-olds were less likely to be in center-based or educational settings than other children.
Attendance in educational programs for 3-and 4-year-olds was lower for children from lower income families than lower income families than children from upper income families(32-56% for the three groups of lower income families and 73% for the most upper income families), for twoparent families (42%) than single-parent families (49%), and for less educated families (21% and
27%) than more educated (45% and 63% for the two highest educated groups of families).
!
Many five-year-old children are not enrolled in educational programming outside the home.
Although 81% of 5 year-old children were in some type of regular non-parental arrangement, only 61% spent regular time each week in a child care program, a Head Start program, a preschool, a prekindergarten, or a kindergarten. Twelve percent of 5 year-old children were enrolled in child care centers, 23% were in preschools , 5% were in Head Start programs, and 21% were in pre-kindergarten or kindergarten programs.
Because many of the 5-year-old children in the survey were not yet eligible for kindergarten in their districts, according to their birth dates, it is difficult to compute what percent of eligible children were enrolled in kindergarten. Full day public kindergarten is not available in all school

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 25 districts in Pennsylvania, and kindergarten attendance is not required. Because of the difficulty in establishing who is eligible for kindergarten and because of the discrepancy across school districts, further analyses of the kindergarten data is not included in this report. More information about kindergarten attendance in Pennsylvania can be obtained from the From Building Blocks to Books report released by the Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children in June 2002
( www.papartnerships.org
). According to the PA Partnerships for Children Report, only 121,000 children in PA are enrolled in kindergarten in the state’s 500 public school districts, and only 29% of these are enrolled in full-day programs. There are 155,000 children who are 5 years old and a similar number who are 6 years old in Pennsylvania.
QUALITY OF EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION
!
Parents are not aware of whether or not their programs are licensed or accredited. Nearly half of the parents believed that their child’s Program/Center was accredited.
Although all Programs/Centers are required to be licensed by law, parents’ perception was such that only 79% of respondents said their child’s arrangement was licensed. Only 48% of parents reported that the Programs/Centers they used were registered, and a similar amount of people (43%) believed that their child’s Program/Center was accredited. In actuality, only 6% of centers in
Pennsylvania are currently accredited according to the National Association for the Education of
Young Children (NAEYC). This suggests that parents may have difficulty understanding the meaning of the terms “registered”, “licensed”, and “accredited”.
!
A majority of parents rated their child’s care/education provider as “excellent” ” in enhancing social and cognitive development. Few rated their child’s provider “not very good” or as “very bad”.
More than two-thirds of families (62-89%) rated their provider or educational setting as excellent, and few PA parents rated their child’s arrangement as “not very good” (1-6%) or “very bad” (1-5%). While this may be remarkable, many studies have reported that most parents rate their child’s care/educational setting as unduly high in quality. Researchers have speculated that this may

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 26 reflect parent’s lack of knowledge about what represents quality care, or parents’ difficulties acknowledging to themselves or others imperfections in the daily care they choose for their children during the parents’ absence.
When observers from the National Institute of Health and Human Development Study of
Early Child Care Study (NICHD SECC) sent trained observers into nearly 1000 child care settings around the U.S.
11 , they found that the majority of settings (53%) were only “fair” in quality according to a number of quality indicators; no more than 39% were rated as either “good” or “excellent”. The
NICHD SECC researchers also reported that fewer than 80% of settings conformed to experts’ recommendations regarding the training of child care educators, and only 56% conformed with recommended child–staff ratios.
A third of parents rated their child’s care arrangement or educational program as “reasonably good” as opposed to “excellent”. We think that this suggests that nearly a third may have had some doubts about the quality of their child’s care. Figures 9a and 9b show the percentage of parents rating their child’s care or education program as “excellent”, “reasonably good”, “not very good” or “very bad”. Few parents rated their child’s arrangement as “very bad” or even “not very good”.
Thus, it appears that PA parents may be greatly overestimating the quality of their children’s care in their absence. This overestimation may reflect parents’ lack of knowledge about what represents quality care; it may also reflect parents’ difficulties acknowledging to themselves or others the imperfections in the daily care they choose for their children during the parents’ absence.
!
Parents with children in kindergarten and other types of programs/centers gave higher quality ratings to their children’s cognitive and social programming.
All types of Programs/Centers were rated higher in quality compared to both In-Home Care and Family Care, for both social and cognitive development; and ratings for cognitive development were slightly higher than ratings for social development. (See Table 7.) Those parents of children in kindergarten or pre-kindergarten gave the highest ratings for cognitive development (89%). The

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 27 parents of children in preschools and pre-kindergarten/kindergarten rated these arrangements highest in social development (73%).
The striking difference reported for kindergarten programs compared to the others suggests an important line of future research. Since kindergarten programs seem to have the best quality when it comes to enhancing both social and cognitive development, future research should investigate how kindergarten programs are operated (i.e., privately, publicly, or otherwise) and how elements of quality are implemented so that these techniques may be shared with other early care and education providers.
These findings also suggest that making kindergarten more widely available to children, particularly those in the younger ages, would provide higher quality care, at least as seen through the eyes of parents.
!
Parents with children in Programs/Centers were most likely to strongly recommend their arrangement to a friend than parents in the other care/education arrangement types.
When parents were asked whether they would recommend their current arrangement to a friend, 63% said they would strongly recommend their current arrangement; 12% said they had doubts or would not. Almost three-fourths of parents of children in Programs/Centers strongly recommended their type of arrangement. Parents using In-Home Care, and parents using Family
Care were least likely to recommend their type of arrangement. (See Table 8.)
When parents were asked what they would change if they could about their care or education arrangement, 56% said they wouldn’t change anything. It may be that families are not informed as to how good early childhood programs can be, such that they are not able to suggest changes that could be made in their current arrangements. When probed further, the most common aspect that parents reported wanting to change was the quality of the program.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 28
!
Parents thought child care should have more curricular activities, especially in the area of cognitive development.
Parents using Centers or Programs were more satisfied with the educational activities occurring in their child’s arrangements than were parents using In-Home Care or Family Care. (See
Table 8.) About two-thirds of parents using Programs/Centers thought children’s activities were occurring at an appropriate level; one-third of parents with children in Programs or Centers wanted to see activities such as looking at or reading picture books, singing songs or playing games, reading books in groups, playing games with letters of the alphabets, and encouraging toy sharing and getting along with others occurring more often in their child’s arrangement. In contrast, two-thirds of the parents whose children were in In-Home Care or Family Care thought these kinds of activities should happen more often. These findings match that of a comparable question in the 1989 Survey, to which parents of children in center-based care compared to those using other types were the most satisfied with how often these types of educational activities were occurring.
These data suggest that while many parents would like to see more educational curricula – both cognitive and social – in their children’s early years, parents using In-Home and Family Care wanted these activities more often.
!
Providers and teachers administered medicine and provided health information.
According to parent reports, most child care and education providers were trained in administering medication and administered this medicine relatively infrequently. (See Table 9.)
Programs/Centers had more trained personnel, but Family Care providers administered medications more often. Parents reported that less than a quarter of providers offered health care or health insurance information. However, according to parental report, Programs/Centers were more likely to provide health information than Family Care providers.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 29
COST AND AFFORDABILITY OF EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION
!
Of those who paid for child care or educational programs, the mean fee per month was
$336; however there was great variability.
For those who paid for care, the average monthly expenditure for the child’s main arrangement (i.e., only the one in which the child spent the most time) was $336 ($84/week and
$3.11/hour at the average of 27 hours/week). This was greater than the 1989 Survey, which reported
$200 for those paying for care. (See Table 10.) There were also a greater number of families not paying for care (33%) compared to that of 1989 (18%). However, comparing costs across studies is difficult, since assumptions about what is included in care, subsidies for care, and sliding costs for some families differ across families. For a fair comparison, estimates would have to be compared in dollar amounts adjusted for inflation and cost of living in different years.
There was no remarkable difference in the cost of different types of arrangements except for that of In-Home Care by a relative, which was the least costly type of arrangement. In contrast, In-
Home Care by an unrelated person (generally “nanny care”) was most expensive, and
Program/Center Care the next most expensive. This remained the case when examining costs by hours spent in care (Table 10). Considering the cost per hour across different types of care, In-Home
Care by a relative appeared to be the least costly type of arrangement ($2.46/hour). In-Home Care by an unrelated person (generally “nanny care”) was most costly ($5.79 per hour), and Program/Center
Care the next most costly $3.40/hour).
!
Families in metropolitan areas pay more per month for child care and educational services cost more in metropolitan areas than in small cities and rural areas.
Across all types of services, families in metropolitan areas paid twice as much for child care and educational services as families in rural areas ($404 vs. $221). However, children in metropolitan areas spent more time in all types of arrangements than children in other geographic areas. Families in metropolitan areas or small cities used Program/Center Care less than those in

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 30 rural areas (28 hours for metropolitan families, 24 hours for small city families and 17 hours for rural families on average per week). When looked at on a cost per hour basis, families in metropolitan areas paid more per hour ($3.61) than families in rural areas ($2.30). Families in small cities paid
$2.54 per hour, midway between families in metropolitan and rural areas.
(See Table 10.)
!
Families with higher incomes paid more for their arrangements.
Those families with incomes higher than $50,000 paid more for all types of care, except for
In-Home Care. The lower amount for In-Home Care in the wealthiest families in our sample may be related to the greater frequency with which wealthier families provided “in-kind” services for live-in caregivers who served as “nannies”.
Interestingly, the greatest disparity between families was in the area of non-parental In-Home
Care by relatives and non-relatives. Families earning less than $25,000 paid more for relative care
($2.35/hour) and less for non-relative care ($1.09), while families earning between $25,000 and
$50,000 (and those at all higher levels of income) paid more for non-relative In-Home Care than relative In-Home Care. This suggests that the poorest families are paying relatives for In-Home Care and hiring in-expensive, non-related babysitters for In-Home Care, while more advantaged families are less likely to pay relatives for In-Home Care, and more likely to pay unrelated babysitters more.
!
Families with lower incomes devoted a larger proportion of their annual household income to child care costs.
Across all types of families, parents who paid for care or educational arrangements devoted, on average depending on the type of care, between 7% and 10% of their annual income to these expenses. (See Table 11.) The average proportion of a family’s annual income did not differ by geographic location. However, low-income families (below $25,000) devoted between 5% and 18% of their incomes to child care and education related expenses. High-income families ($100,000 or above) devoted between 1% and 5% of their annual income. Low-income and lower-middle-income families appeared to spend more of their annual income on child care and early education costs,

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 31 suggesting that child care is more of a burden to these families than to other families, even those who spend more absolutely on care.
SUBSIDIES FOR EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
!
Only 14% of families reported receiving some form of assistance in paying for early care and education costs.
Of the 14% of families receiving assistance in paying child care/education costs (including those with a child in Head Start), 45% of these parents received assistance from governmental programs. Relatives and friends helped 17% of these families pay for services. Sixteen percent of unspecified types of assistance were also used, suggesting further study is warranted of how families find help paying for the care and early education of their children.
!
Single-parent families received more financial assistance for the cost of care and education.
Single-parent families were 62% of those receiving financial assistance. Unexpectedly, poor families were slightly less than half (43%) of those receiving financial assistance.
!
About half of the families who were eligible for subsidies were receiving them.
Fifty-four percent of families eligible for early childhood services subsidies and with children using either Family Care or Program/Center Care as their main arrangement were receiving a subsidy. (See Table 12.) Eligible two-parent families were less likely to be receiving a subsidy than eligible single-parent families. Also, it seems that subsidies were used less in metropolitan areas compared to small cities and rural areas. However, these findings and the percentages presented in
Table 12 should be interpreted with caution for several reasons. First, the sub sample of eligible families (35 families) is too small to be representative of eligible families across that state. Also, eligibility for subsidies is established by several criteria, only some of which this survey was able to capture. The U.S. Administration of Children and Families has estimated that an average of 12-15% of eligible children receive subsidies 10 . More targeted research on subsidy use in the state of

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 32
Pennsylvania, both the uptake rates and an examination of possible barriers to subsidy usage, is warranted.
The sub sample of eligible families was made up or dual-earner families in which both adults work 25 hours/week or more and single-parent earner families in which the parent was working 25 hours/week or more. These families’ annual household income was at or below 200% of the Federal
Poverty Income Guideline (FPIG). For this survey, only families with a child in Family Care or
Program/Center Care were asked about the use of subsidies.
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
!
Transportation was not a problem for most families.
Only 10% of those asked whether transportation was a problem said that it was either somewhat of a problem (8%) or a very big problem (2%). Distance and hassles were the leading reasons for those who reported problems. Transportation problems did not seem to be related to geographical area. Transportation problems were reported slightly more frequently than in the 1989
Survey (6%), where parents reported similar reasons of “taking too much time” and being “too complicated”.
!
Most families lived within five minutes of their child care or education facility.
Almost half of PA families said that it took them up to five minutes to get their children to their child care or educational arrangement. Twenty-three percent of families reported commuting between 6 and 10 minutes. Eighty percent of families drove their car to take their children to their care or education facility. The next most utilized methods of transportation were the bus (7%), and walking (6%).
Families who spent more time traveling, reported that transportation was more of a problem ( r
=.34, p < .05) ). Also, the more troublesome transportation was, the less likely that the parent was to recommend their arrangement to a friend (r = .11, p < .05) . Given the relatively high parent ratings

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 33 for quality, the short traveling time on average, and the relationships between time traveling to care and the likelihood of recommending the arrangement to a friend, it is likely that parental selection of arrangements is constrained by distance. Thus, it will be important to examine the distribution of the quality of child care throughout the State of Pennsylvania in the study that is being completed this
November for the Governor’s Task Force.
SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES TO PREPARE THEIR CHILDREN FOR SCHOOL
!
Parents wanted help with issues concerning their child’s development most of the time.
Parents were asked how often they found themselves needing help with knowing what is age appropriate behavior, knowing how to set limits or discipline their child, wanting information about how to help their child be ready to learn to read when he/she gets to first grade, and worrying about their child not learning enough in their care or education arrangement. About a third of respondents reported being concerned about these five issues all of the time. Not learning enough in early care or educational settings concerned respondents the least.
!
Low-income and less educated parents reported needing more help with issues of child development than other families.
The extent to which parents were concerned about child development did not differ based on geographical distribution around the State or child’s age, but they did vary by family income, ethnicity and parental education. (See Tables 14a though d.) Families with less income were more often concerned than families with higher incomes about all child development issues, but were especially concerned about age-appropriate behavior, setting discipline limits health care and reading readiness. The respondents in the highest income level group were the least often concerned with whether their children were learning enough in their care or education settings, compared to other parents or their concerns in other areas. Figure 10 shows that although families below the 200% poverty line are more likely to be concerned about all of these issues, all parents had concerns regardless of income level.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 34
Parents with lower levels of education were concerned about child development far more often than parents with higher levels of education. While one-third of low education parents reported being concerned about their children not learning enough in their child care or educational program, parents with the most education were rarely concerned about their children learning enough in their child care or educational program.
These data suggest that low-income and less educated parents are most in need of better child care programs and child development information.
!
Latino parents were most interested in getting help around parenting and child development issues.
Latino respondents expressed the most concern across all issues. In particular, Latino families, compared to other ethnic groups, were most often concerned about helping their child to be reading ready and about setting limits and disciplining their child. Caucasian families were the group least often concerned with health issues or whether or not their child was learning enough in his or her care/education arrangement. African-American respondents reported being the most worried about knowing what is age appropriate behavior. These findings suggest that different groups of parents might want different types of services.
!
Parents sought support from a variety of sources.
Parents sought help and support in their childrearing activities from a variety of sources.
These data are shown in Figure 11. Parents were most likely to use books or magazines, family members, health care professionals, and their care or educational program provider. Least likely to be used were parent support groups.
!
Many parents are receptive to parenting education.
When asked if the respondent would go to a place where parents can meet with other parents and can find training, resources or services at a minimal cost, 60% of parents said they would.
Slightly more low-income (under $25,000) and upper-income (over $100,000) families, compared to

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 35 middle-income groups, said they would find it helpful to have a place to go to for training and resources on child development. Dual-earner and two-parent single-earner families were somewhat less interested in having a place to turn to for additional parenting resources and training (66% and
54% respectively); employed single-parent families and unemployed parent families were more frequently interested in having such a resource opportunity (both groups, 64%). Perhaps parents who are employed full-time feel they have less time for activities such as these that are out of the home.
Forty percent of parents said they would be interested in a home visit from someone trained to talk about parenting and help them understand their child’s development. More lower- income (53% and 41%) than upper-income families (37% and 32%) said they would welcome such a home visits.
Dual-earner and two-parent single-earner families were least likely to welcome such a home visit
(36% and 38% respectively), while single-parent single-earner families and unemployed parent families were more frequently interested in such a home visit (47% and 54% respectively). Again, working parents may not be at home enough to potentially receive these kinds of services.
!
Parents engaged in activities likely to prepare their children for school on a daily basis.
Most parents reported reading to their child, telling stories with the child, and singing songs or playing music nearly once a day. Low-income parents and less educated parents tended to engage in such activities less frequently than higher-income parents. (See Table 13.) At least once a month, most families engaged in community educational activities such as visiting a library, going to a play, concert or other live show; visiting a zoo, aquarium, or children’s museum; or talking about family history or ethnic heritage. Parents with higher education levels and households with higher incomes participated in these activities more than other types of families.
!
Most parents thought government should have at least some responsibility in helping children become reading ready.
A majority (56%) of the sample said government should have some responsibility; and 16% said that government should take a lot of responsibility in helping children become reading ready.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 36
These data are shown in Figure 12. This opinion did not vary by geographic location, family income, or respondents’ levels of education.
Eighty-eight percent of the sample supported the spending of tax dollars on early care and education facilities and programs. Ranging from 83% to 95%, there was virtually no difference in the support of tax dollars by geographic location or family characteristics.
CHILD CARE, EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION, AND THE LABOR MARKET
!
Families differed in the types and amount of care they used based on their earning status.
Two-parent families with dual earners used Family Care (32% vs. 3-12%) and
Program/Center Care (33% vs. 3-17%) more than other types of families and arrangements. Twoparent families with one earner were least likely to use any kind of nonparental care. Presumably one parent is available to care for the young child. Families with a single employed parent were most likely to use Program/Center Care (40% vs. 3-3-%) and for the longest amounts of time compared to other types of families (40% vs. 20% and 33%). (See Table 15.)
Children with two employed parents (29%) and children with a single employed parent (43%) spent the most time in a care or educational arrangement. Children of single working parents were most often in more than a traditional full-time amount (over 50 hours a week) of care or educational programming (16% vs. 3-10%).
The amount of time children spent in care/educational settings did not seem to differ by family income levels, except for in the highest income category. More children from families making over $100,000 spent between 35 to 49 hours in some type of care arrangement (28% vs. 4-117%).
(See Table 15). It may be that families with high incomes were frequently also dual-earner families, creating the need for more hours of child care in their absence.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 37
!
Respondents with more than one job were more likely to use out-of-home Family Care or
Programs/Centers.
Of respondents employed at more than one job, 44% used Family Care and 27% used
Program/Center Care. (See Table 16.)
!
The number of hours parents were employed did not affect the type of care or education arrangements they used.
Regardless of how many hours they were employed, parents were equally likely to use Family
Care or Program/Center Care. (See Table 16.)
!
More formal educational or center-based settings served very few children during nontraditional business hours.
Those families that used care/education in the evenings used either In-Home Care or Family
Care. Of the children who were in a care arrangement between 7pm and 11pm only 7% were in
Programs/Centers. Those who used care at night used Family Care (72%). Hardly anyone used
Programs/Centers during non-traditional hours. (See Table 17.)
!
Nearly a quarter of parents lost time from work for reasons linked to child care usage.
Losing between 1 and 4 days of work because of care issues occurred for 24% of the working respondents during the past year. Thirteen percent of employed respondents had lost between 5 and
10 working days in the past year. Fewer families lost between 11 and 15 days of work (3%). Of those who reported lost workdays because of needing to be with their child, the two most common reasons given for losing workdays were a problem in the family (e.g., child ill, family couldn’t pay) and a problem with the care/education provider (e.g., unavailable, no show, ill).
!
Employers offered benefits to parents. Most parents who had access to benefits used them.
Respondents were asked about three benefits that might have been provided by their employer. Employers offered flexible work hours to over half of the respondents. The ability to take one’s child to work was offered less frequently, to 20% of respondents; and referral services for care

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 38 and education were offered to about 15% of the respondents. Upper-income workers were more likely to be offered each of these benefits than lower-income workers.
Ninety percent of respondents whose employers offered flexible hours used this benefit. All respondents who had the benefit of taking their child to work had done so. Less than 5% used the referral services offered by their employer. These data are shown in Figure 13.
The 1989 Survey reported 32% of respondents had employers that offered flexible work hours, of which 77% used this benefit. Thus, employers appear to have become more accommodating to the needs of families by offering flexible work hours. Employees are, more so than in decades past, responding. They almost always use this benefit.
In 1989, 7% of respondents were offered locator and placement services (referral services) by the employer. Compared to the 20% and 13% (respectively) who used these services in 1989, fewer families were using referral services in this 2002 Survey. It appears that with greater use of child care and educational services for early childhood, families are more likely to use flexible work hours and more likely to bring their children to work, but less likely to use referral services. More than likely, locating child care and educational services for young children is becoming easier for families.
SERVICES TO SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES
!
Nearly a fifth of Pennsylvania parents reported that their children had special needs relating to a health or physical disability.
Although this was about the same rate of occurrence reported in the 1989 Survey, it seems that the rate of special needs children may have risen since 1989. That is, all thing being equal, one would expect the 1989 Survey to have had a higher rate for three reasons. First, the sampling procedure used in 1989 prioritized families with special needs children (surveyed them specifically over a typically developing child in the household). The 1989 Survey included children up to age 8, and it included behavioral problems as one of the subgroups.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 39
As indicated in Table 18, the most common special needs reported in this 2002 sample were asthma (8%), visual problems (8%), and allergies (5%). Behavioral problems were surveyed separately. Either special needs are becoming more prevalent, or they are being diagnosed earlier than a decade ago.
!
Fewer than 3% of parents of children under 6 years of age reported that their children had behavioral problems.
Few parents reported that their young children had a behavioral problem. The 3% rate that parents reported is about half that which would be expected in a sample of this nature using professional observation and diagnosis. It is likely that parents are underreporting behavioral problems, either because they do not observe them until their child enters situations with other children or because parents have difficulty recognizing their child’s behavioral problems until professionals point these problems out to them.
When parents did report a behavioral problem, they were most likely to seek help from a physician (36%), religious counselor (32%), or a psychologist/psychotherapist (24%). Just over a third of the children with behavioral problems received early intervention from the State, and 20% of the children with behavioral problems had an IFSP or IEP (Individual Family Service Plan and
Individual Education Program). Care for children with behavioral problems was most often provided in the child care or educational setting by the child’s provider or teacher, or by someone brought into the care or educational setting. Half of parents reporting that their children had behavioral problems also reported that their children had made some or a lot of improvements (Table 19).
These data suggest that parents may benefit from early screening efforts and early intervention problems.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 40
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
!
Child care and early childhood education are important issues to a majority of
Pennsylvania families.
More than two-thirds of Pennsylvania families have their children in a child care arrangement or educational program on a regular basis. The majority of children under the age of one year were being cared for by someone other than their parent for at least part-time. Forty-three percent children under the age of 6 years were in a care or educational program at least 20 hours a week, and a quarter of children were in care or educational program at least 35 hours per week. The many similarities across metropolitan, small cities, and rural areas suggest that child care and educational concerns are pervasive across the State.
!
State leadership on child care and early childhood education would be beneficial to parents.
Most parents believe that state government should be active in helping prepare children for formal schooling. Eighty-eight percent of parents support the spending of tax dollars on early care and educations programs.
!
Mechanisms are needed to enable parents to assess the quality of child care and educational settings.
Parents across the nation, not just in Pennsylvania, tend to overestimate the quality of child care and educational programs that they use. Parents may need more help in identifying the features of high quality care and educational programs.
!
Increased pre-school and kindergarten opportunities for Pennsylvania children is needed.
More than half of Pennsylvania’s 3- and 4- year old children receive no regular educational programming outside the home that would prepare them for school entry. In addition, low-income families and less educated parents were less likely to use such programs than other families. African-
American families and families living in small cities used kindergarten programs somewhat less than other families. Further study is needed on whether the lack of participation in kindergarten seen in

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 41 the study is due to the lack of availability, affected by state mandated school-age cutoffs, parental choice, or some combination of these factors.
At the same time, parents across the State, especially those in low-income families and those with lower levels of education, are concerned about preparing their children to become reading ready.
Since parents with children in kindergarten appear most satisfied with their children’s opportunities for cognitive and social development, increasing kindergarten opportunities might address many of these parents’ concerns.
!
The availability of full-day kindergarten should be increased.
Families may find it difficult to use part day kindergarten because they have to make supplemental child care arrangements to provide child care during the time the parents are employed out of the home. Increasing the availability of full-time kindergarten programs may ensure that more children are in kindergarten.
!
The quality of educational content (social and cognitive) in children’s early education programming should be made more consistent across the continuum of providers.
Approximately a third of families reported that there was room for improvement in their child’s care or educational arrangement, and low-income families and families with less educated parents were concerned about whether their children were learning enough in their education settings.
By developing and funding training opportunities for child care providers and early education teachers, the educational content (social and cognitive) of children’s programs should increase.
!
The costs of child care and education are high and often unaffordable for Pennsylvania’s lowest-income families.
Addressing child care affordability issues is important. Low-income families pay at least twice as much of their annual incomes for child care and education as did upper-income families, suggesting that child care is more of a burden to these families than to other families.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 42
!
Families need more help in learning about and accessing child care subsidies.
We estimate that only about half of Pennsylvania families with a child in Family Care or
Program/Center Care were receiving the subsidies for which they were eligible. Two-parent eligible families were less likely to receive them than single-parent eligible families. Heightened awareness of subsidy eligibility and efforts to eliminate regulatory barriers to subsidy use may result in more families receiving the subsidies they need.
!
Transportation for early childhood programming may not be as much of a problem in
Pennsylvania as has been thought.
Only 10% of Pennsylvania parents said transportation was a problem; most parents traveled less than 10 minutes to take their children to their care or educational arrangement. Parents in rural areas, parents in metropolitan areas, and parents in small cities all reported few problems with transportation to child care or educational programs. Nevertheless, the State should seek to monitor transportation issues, identify problems where they exist, and offer solutions to ensure equal access to kindergarten and quality educational programming across the State.
!
Increased parenting supports are needed for parents and families, especially for low- income, less educated parents.
Parents of children at all ages under six years were concerned about their child’s development. About a third of parents throughout the state were concerned about child development issues nearly all the time. Low-income parents, less educated parents and also Latino parents were most concerned about raising their children well, and said they could use more help in the form of more resources, increased parent training programs, and home visits. Increased supports and opportunities for parents, particularly for Latino families, low-income parents, and less educated families are needed.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 43
!
Child care is an important employment issue, and the State can encourage employers to invest in child care and education for children and offer child care benefits to parents at all income levels.
Investing in child care and education will improve worker productivity. Nearly a quarter of parents lost time from work for child care-related reasons, such as illness and the high cost of child care.
!
Employers should be encouraged to offer child care benefits to parents at all income levels.
Employers may be an effective means of delivering child care benefits and parenting support.
Employers can be encouraged to extend benefits to low-income as well as upper-income working parents. Further investigation of the effectiveness of employer benefits for helping employed parents meet their children’s needs is warranted.
!
Adequate caregiver training for special needs children needs to be assured .
Special needs children and children with behavioral problems are most often treated within the context of the child care or educational setting. Child care providers and early childhood educators need to be appropriately trained to deliver care for children with special needs and behavioral problems.
!
Behavioral screening and intervention services need to be made available for all parents.
Survey parents were under-reporting behavioral problems. Since early intervention services are available and effective, the State needs to play a role in ensuring that behavioral problems are detected as early as possible. Providing parents more information about age appropriate behavior and easily accessible evaluation programs may help ensure that parents seek help when they need it.
FUTURE RESEARCH ISSUES
The Governor’s Task Force examination of care and educational programming for young children highlights the steps Pennsylvania can take to put in place a quality care and educational system for young children. With this report comes the recognition that this will take time, requiring

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 44 that educational investments be accompanied by research that monitors Pennsylvania’s progress as it goes down this path. This research has identified a number of important issues that will require continual investigation. We recommend that research on Pennsylvania families continue along the following lines.
Periodic survey updates. Using the data in this report as benchmarks, periodic surveys of
Pennsylvania families can review changes in the needs of Pennsylvania families and review the
State’s progress as it seeks to provide increasingly valuable services to families. We need to continually monitor what families are doing to manage work and family with the goal of ensuring that children are in appropriate facilities that will benefit them over the short- and long-term. While programs will be evaluated to see whether state expenditures are meeting their goals, periodic family surveys will establish whether the goals are still valid. Cooperative survey planning among researchers, applied specialists and policy makers will ensure that researchers ask timely and relevant questions of families.
Are families with special needs children being adequately served? More information is needed from parents of special needs children to see what kinds of child programming they are using and whether it is meeting the needs of the entire family.
Effects of geographic area and family characteristics. The findings of this report suggest that geographic, income and ethnic differences exist in child care and educational usage patterns, parental needs, parental concerns, child care usage, and subsidy uptake rates. Educational programming is more frequently used by wealthier, more educated parents. To see whether the State’s increased early care and education efforts are meeting the needs of all Pennsylvania families, both focus groups and large surveys of families from a variety of backgrounds and ethnic groups are necessary. Are there differences among families of different backgrounds in the kinds of early childhood services that they require? Why are not more families using kindergarten services provided by their school districts?

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 45
As kindergarten and parenting support services become increasingly available to families, are all families equally benefiting? Are increased parental support systems meeting the greater need among low-income and less educated families? Why are Pennsylvania’s low-income families not accessing the subsidies to which they are entitled? Is there transportation, structural and informational barriers that can be reduced to ensure that all Pennsylvania children have access to high quality educational services? What are the long-term effects of participation in early pre-school and part-time or full day kindergarten on children’s academic and social success? These questions, and many others, can be addressed with high quality research so that programs may be developed that can most efficiently and fairly service families with young children.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 46
REFERENCES CITED
1.
National Research Council & Institute of Medicine. (2001). From Neurons to Neighborhoods:
The Science of Early Child Development. Committee on Integrating the Science of Early
Childhood Development (J.P. Shonkoff and D.A. Phillips, Eds.). Board on Children, Youth, and
Families, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington DC:
National Academy Press.
2.
Weinraub, M., Horvath, D., & Gringlas, M.B. (2002). Single Parenthood. In: Bornstein, Marc H.
(Ed); Handbook of Parenting: Vol. 3: Being and Becoming a Parent (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ, US:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3.
Weinraub, M., Hill, C., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2001). Child Care: Options and Outcomes. In J.
Worell, (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Women and Gender: Sex Similarities and Differences and the
Impact of Society on Gender, Volume One. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
4.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1997). Child Care in the First Year of Life.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43 (3), 340-360.
5.
U.S. Census Bureau & Smith, K. (August, 2002). Who’s Minding the Kids? Child Care
Arrangements: Spring 1997. Current Population Reports, P70-86. U.S. Census Bureau,
Washington DC.
6.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1999). Contexts of Development and
Developmental Outcomes Over the First Seven Years of Life. In J. Brooks-Gunn and L.J. Berlin,
(Eds.) Young Children’s Education, Health, and Development: Profile and Synthesis Project
Report. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.
7.
McCall, R.B., Groark, C., Isler, M., Manners, S.D., Shair, E., Smith, B.J., & Tittnich, E.
(December, 1989). The State of Early Childhood Services in Pennsylvania: A Report to the State
Board of Education of The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. University of Pittsburgh Office of
Child Development.
8.
United Way of SE Pennsylvania, City of Philadelphia, & School District of Philadelphia.
(November, 2001). Early to Rise: Improving the School Readiness of Philadelphia’s Young
Children. A Report of the Improving School Readiness Project. http://home.uwsepa.org/media/pub_resources_pubs.asp
9.
Hofferth, S.L. (2001). Women's Employment and Care of Children in the United States. In L. van
Dijk and T. van der Lippe (Eds.) Women's Employment in Comparative Perspective. New York:
Aldine De Gruyter.
10.
Blau, D.M. & Tekin, E. (Forthcoming). The Determinants and Consequences of Child Care
Subsidy Receipt by Low-income Families. In B. Meyer and G. Duncan (Eds.) The Incentives of
Government Programs and the Well-Being of Families.
11.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2000). Characteristics and Quality of Child Care for
Toddlers and Preschoolers. Journal of Applied Developmental Science, 4, 116-135.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
TABLES
Table 1: Sample Characteristics of 2002 Pennsylvania Families
Table 2: Comparing the Family Sample Population with Pennsylvania Census Data
Table 3: Characteristics of the Sample Population by Geographic Area
Table 4a: Number of Children in Each Major Type of Arrangement
Table 4b: Percent of Children in Each Type of Program/Center Care Arrangement
Table 5: Characteristics of Relative Care Usage
Table 6a: Family Characteristics and Type of Care and Education Arrangements
Table 6b: Family Characteristics and the Use of Different Types of Programs/Centers
Table 7: Parents’ Report of Early Childhood Arrangement Quality
Table 8: Opinions Regarding Early Childhood Activities
Table 9: Medication and Health Information
Table 10: Average Cost of Care/Education Arrangement per Month for Families who Pay
Table 11: Average Proportion of Annual Income Spent on Care/Education Arrangement
Table 12: Subsidy Eligibility and Utilization
Table 13: Family Educational Activities
Table 14a: Parents’ Concerns about Child Development by Geographic Location
Table 14b: Parents’ Concerns about Child Development by Household Income
Table 14c: Parents’ Concerns about Child Development by Ethnicity
Table 14d: Parents’ Concerns about Child Development by Respondent’s Education
Table 15: Time Spent in Arrangement and Arrangement Type by Household Employment Status
Table 16: Parents’ Work Hours and Children’s Care/Education Arrangements
Table 17: Non-Traditional Hours in Different Care/Education Arrangements
Table 18: Percentage of Parents Reporting Special Needs and Behavior Problems
Table 19: Services Used by Parents Who Report Their Children Have Behavior Problems
47

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 48
Table 1: Sample Characteristics of 2002 Pennsylvania Families
Characteristics Number of Respondents Percent of Respondents
Total Sample 1005 100%
Child’s Gender
Male
Female
Child’s Age
Under 1 year
1 to 2 year
2 to 3 year
3 to 5 year a
5 to 6 year
509
496
183
175
173
324
150
51%
49%
18%
17%
17%
32%
15%
Child’s Ethnicity
African-American
Caucasian
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaskan Indian
Bi-racial/Multi-racial
Latino/Hispanic
Other
Refused
Respondent’s Relationship with Child
Mother
Father
Step-mother
Step-father
Grandmother
Grandfather
Other
149
736
7
4
45
42
17
5
731
175
1
5
55
6
32
15%
73%
< 1%
< 1%
5%
4%
2%
< 1%
73%
17%
< 1%
< 1%
6%
< 1%
3%
Geographic Location
Metropolitan Area
Small Cities
Rural
520
360
118
52%
36%
12%
Notes: a: As preschool-aged children, the 3- and 4-year-olds were combined in what is called the “3 to 5 year” age group. An increase in percentages for this group only indicates that this age category has double the amount of children than that of the other age groups.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Table 1 (cont’d)
Characteristics Number of Respondents Percent of Respondents
Household Income
Under 25,000
25,001 to 50,000
50,001 to 100,000
100,001+
Refused to answer
Don’t know
Low Income Indices b
Poor
Not Poor
184
285
256
69
81
123
102
692
18%
28%
26%
7%
8%
12%
13%
87%
Partner Status
Two-parent
(married or living with partner)
One-parent
(single, separated, divorced, or widowed)
Family Employment Status
Dual earner
One earner, two-parent family
One earner, one-parent family
Non-earner, two parent
Non-earner, one parent
Family Size
Average
(range)
782
223
397
360
146
73
21
4.0
(2 to 12)
78%
22%
40%
36%
15%
7%
2% n/a
Respondent’s Education
Some high school
High school graduate/GED
Some college/vocational/2-year degree
College graduate
Post graduate/2 years
Post graduate/doctoral/ professional
Other
Refused
57
311
257
232
112
24
7
5
6%
31%
26%
23%
11%
2%
< 1%
< 1%
Notes: b: “Poor” is defined as a family whose annual household income is less than 100% of the Federal Poverty Income
Guideline (FPIG).
49

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Table 2: Comparing the Family Sample Population with Pennsylvania Census Data
Characteristics
Survey
(Percent/number of respondents)
Pennsylvania
(Percent of individuals in PA)
Total Sample
Geographic Location
Metropolitan Area
Small Cities
Rural
Child’s Age
Under 1 year
1 to 2 year
2 to 3 year
3 to 5 year a
5 to 6 year
Family Size
1005
53%
36%
12%
18%
17%
17%
32%
15%
884,030
52%
38%
10%
16% (141,431)
16% (143,368)
16% (143,475)
34% (299,530)
18% (156,226)
50
Child’s Ethnicity
African-American
Caucasian
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaskan Indian
Bi-racial/Multi-racial
Latino/Hispanic
Other
15%
73%
< 1%
< 1%
5%
4%
2%
13% (116,304)
79% (695,223)
2% (18,836)
< 1% (1,473)
3% (26,892)
6% (51,685)
3% (25,018)
Note: a: As preschool-aged children, the 3- and 4-year-olds were combined in what is called the “3 to 5 year” age group. An increase in percentages for this group only indicates that this age category has double the amount of children than that of the other age groups.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 51
Table 3: Characteristics of the Sample Population by Geographic Area
Percent of Total Sample
Household Income (n=792) under 25,000
25,001 to 50,000
50,001 to 100,000
100,001+
Partner Status (n=998)
Two-parent
(married or living with partner)
One-parent
(single, separated, divorced, or widowed)
Family Employment Status (n=992)
Dual earner
One earner, two-parent family
One earner, one-parent family
Non-earner
Family Size (n=1005)
Rural
52% (520) 36% (360) 12% (118) n=403 n=289 n=100
23% (93)
31% (124)
35% (140)
11% (46)
20% (59)
43% (124)
30% (88)
6% (18)
32% (32)
37% (37)
26% (26)
5% (5) n=520 n=360 n=118
74% (384)
26% (136)
84% (99)
16% (19)
82% (294)
18% (66) n=517 n=357 n=118
38% (197)
34% (174)
16% (85)
12% (61)
41% (145)
40% (142)
13% (45)
7% (25)
45% (53)
36% (43)
13% (15)
6% (7)
Child’s Ethnicity (n=998)
African-American
Caucasian
Latino/Hispanic
Other
Respondent’s Education (n=990)
Some high school
High school graduate/GED
Some college/vocational/2-year degree
College graduate
Post graduate n=520 n=360 n=118
24% (123)
63% (327)
5% (26)
9% (44)
6% (22)
83% (298)
4% (14)
7% (26)
2% (2)
91% (107)
1% (1)
7% (8) n=517 n=355 n=118
5% (26)
28% (143)
27% (137)
24% (126)
16% (85)
7% (25)
34% (120)
26% (91)
23% (82)
10% (37)
5% (6)
39% (46)
25% (29)
20% (24)
11% (13)

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Table 4a: Number of Children in Each Major Type of Arrangement
Type of Arrangement
No nonparental care
Nonparental in-home care
Out-of-home family child care
Program/Center care
Parent as family care provider
Frequency
315
131
234
283
42
Percent of Total
Sample
32%
13%
23%
28%
4%
Note: These figures represent only the arrangement in which the child spent the most time (i.e.,
“Major Arrangement”). Supplemental types of arrangements are not represented and are excluded from this count.
Table 4b: Percent of Children in Each Type of Program/Center Care Arrangement
Type of Arrangement
Child care center
Preschool
Head Start b c
Kindergarten d a
Number of Children
162
54
21
46
Percent
57%
19%
7%
16%
Percent of Total
Sample
16%
5%
2%
5%
Notes: a: includes Centers and Preschool for over 5 hours b: includes Preschool for 5 hours or less c: includes Early Head Start and Head Start d: includes Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten
52

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Table 5: Characteristics of Relative Care Usage
Characteristics No nonparental care Relative care Non-relative care
Percent of Total Sample 36% (353) 24% (240) 40% (401)
Geographic Location
Metropolitan Area
Small Cities
Rural
Household Income under 25,000
25,001 to 50,000
50,001 to 100,000
100,001+
Low Income Indices
Poor
Not Poor
Child’s Age under 1 year
1 to 2 year
2 to 3 year
3 to 5 year
5 to 6 year
Partner Status
Two-parent
(married or living with partner)
One-parent
(single, separated, divorced, or widowed)
Family Employment Status
Dual earner
One earner, two-parent family
One earner, one-parent family
Non-earner
Family Size
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven or more
35% (181)
36% (130)
36% (42)
37% (68)
38% (108)
29% (75)
28% (19)
42% (108)
34% (249)
53% (97)
41% (71)
33% (57)
30% (97)
23% (35)
40% (308)
22% (49)
20% (78)
59% (213)
10% (15)
51% (47)
20% (19)
33% (91)
34% (121)
43% (74)
51% (30)
55% (22)
21% (108)
29% (103)
25% (29)
31% (57)
30% (86)
19% (49)
6% (4)
29% (74)
23% (168)
27% (49)
25% (44)
32% (55)
22% (70)
16% (24)
22% (169)
33% (73)
27% (108)
16% (56)
37% (53)
26% (24)
36% (34)
26% (72)
23% (84)
20% (34)
17% (10)
20% (8)
44% (229)
35% (125)
40% (47)
31% (57)
32% (92)
52% (131)
67% (46)
30% (76)
44% (326)
20% (37)
34% (59)
35% (61)
48% (154)
61% (91)
39% (303)
45% (99)
53% (209)
25% (91)
53% (77)
24% (22)
44% (42)
41% (111)
43% (155)
38% (65)
32% (19)
25% (10)
Ethnicity
African-American
Caucasian
Latino/Hispanic
Other
29% (43)
38% (281)
24% (10)
30% (23)
28% (42)
22% (163)
48% (20)
22% (17)
43% (63)
39% (289)
29% (12)
49% (38)
Respondent’s Education
Some high school
High school graduate/GED
Some college/vocational/2-year degree
College graduate
42% (24)
38% (119)
32% (83)
35% (81)
35% (20)
31% (97)
27% (70)
15% (35)
23% (13)
30% (94)
40% (103)
50% (114)
Post graduate 34% (46) 12% (16) 54% (74)
Note: “Poor” is defined as a family whose annual household income is less than 200% of the Federal Poverty Income
Guideline (FPIG), which is used to determine child care subsidy eligibility.
53

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Table 6a: Family Characteristics and Type of Care and Education Arrangements
Type of Arrangement
Characteristics
Percent of Total Sample
Child’s Age under 1 year
1 to 2 year
2 to 3 year
3 to 5 year
5 to 6 year
Geographic Location
Metropolitan Area
Small Cities
Rural
Household Income under 25,000
25,001 to 50,000
50,001 to 100,000
100,000+
Low Income Indices
No nonparental care
31% (315)
46% (85)
38% (66)
31% (54)
25% (82)
19% (28)
31% (162)
31% (112)
31% (37)
28% (53)
33% (93)
27% (70)
26% (18)
Nonparental in-home care
13% (131)
17% (31)
14% (24)
12% (21)
13% (42)
9% (13)
14% (74)
13% (45)
10% (12)
15% (27)
15% (44)
9% (24)
13% (9)
Out-of-home family child care
23% (234)
21% (38)
29% (50)
31% (54)
21% (67)
17% (25)
18% (91)
29% (104)
31% (37)
23% (44)
27% (76)
25% (63)
15% (10)
Program/Center care
28% (283)
9% (17)
17% (30)
24% (41)
36% (118)
51% (77)
34% (174)
23% (81)
23% (27)
25% (45)
20% (57)
37% (94)
45% (31)
Parent as family care provider
4% (42)
7% (12)
3% (5)
2% (3)
5% (15)
5% (7)
4% (19)
5% (18)
4% (5)
8% (15)
5% (15)
2% (5)
1% (1)
Poor
Not Poor
Partner Status
Two-parent
(married or living with partner)
One-parent
(single, separated, divorced, or widowed)
34% (87)
31% (228)
36% (277)
17% (38)
14% (37)
13% (94)
12% (93)
17% (38)
22% (56)
24% (178)
22% (173)
27% (61)
23% (59)
30% (224)
27% (208)
34% (75)
8% (21)
3% (21)
4% (31)
5% (11)
Note: “Poor” is defined as a family whose annual household income is less than 200% of the Federal Poverty Income Guideline (FPIG), which is
used to determine child care subsidy eligibility.
54

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Table 6a (cont’d)
Characteristics
Percent of Total Sample
Family Employment Status
Dual earner
One earner, two-parent family
One earner, one-parent family
Non-earner
Family Size
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven or more
Child’s Ethnicity
African-American
Caucasian
Latino/Hispanic
Other
Respondent’s Education
Some high school
High school graduate/GED
Some college/vocational/2-year degree
College graduate
Post graduate
No nonparental care
31% (315)
17% (68)
54% (195)
7% (10)
42% (39)
17% (16)
30% (83)
29% (106)
36% (62)
51% (30)
45% (18)
23% (34)
35% (255)
24% (10)
21% (16)
39% (22)
34% (107)
26% (66)
31% (72)
32% (44)
15% (23)
13% (92)
29% (12)
5% (4)
23% (13)
13% (41)
13% (33)
12% (28)
11% (15)
Nonparental in-home care
13% (131)
15% (61)
8% (29)
20% (29)
13% (12)
Type of Arrangement
Out-of-home family child care
23% (234)
32% (126)
13% (45)
30% (44)
18% (17)
Program/Center care
28% (283)
33% (132)
20% (73)
40% (58)
19% (18)
Parent as family care provider
4% (42)
3% (10)
5% (18)
3% (5)
9% (8)
17% (16)
11% (30)
15% (53)
12% (20)
12% (7)
13% (5)
34% (33)
27% (73)
23% (82)
18% (31)
15% (9)
15% (6)
29% (28)
30% (81)
29% (105)
28% (49)
22% (13)
18% (7)
3% (3)
3% (8)
4% (15)
7% (12)
0% (0)
10% (4)
20% (30)
23% (172)
26% (11)
27% (21)
18% (10)
27% (84)
29% (74)
17% (39)
17% (23)
36% (53)
26% (191)
21% (9)
39% (30)
18% (10)
22% (67)
26% (67)
36% (84)
38% (52)
6% (9)
4% (26)
0% (0)
9% (7)
4% (2)
4% (12)
7% (17)
4% (9)
2% (2)
55

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Table 6b: Family Characteristics and the Use of Different Types of Programs/Centers
57
Characteristics Child care center
Type of Program/Center Arrangement
Preschool Head Start Kindergarten
Percent of Total Sample
Child’s Age
Geographic Location under 1 year
1 to 2 year
2 to 3 year
3 to 5 year
5 to 6 year
Metropolitan Area
Small Cities
Rural
Household Income under 25,000
25,001 to 50,000
50,001 to 100,000
100,000+
57% (162) 19% (54) 7% (21) 16% (46) n=162 n=54 n=21 n=46
71% (12)
90% (27)
83% (34)
53% (63)
34% (26)
18% (3)
0% (0)
10% (4)
23% (27)
26% (20)
6% (1)
7% (2)
5% (2)
9% (10)
8% (6)
6% (1)
3% (1)
2% (1)
15% (18)
33% (25) n=162 n=54 n=20 n=46
62% (107)
54% (44)
41% (11)
15% (26)
25% (20)
30% (8)
5% (8)
11% (9)
11% (3)
19% (33)
10% (8)
19% (5) n=130 n=43 n=14 n=40
69% (31)
54% (31)
52% (49)
61% (19)
4% (2)
19% (11)
26% (24)
19% (6)
11% (4)
5% (3)
6% (6)
0% (0)
16% (7)
21% (12)
16% (15)
19% (6)
Low Income Indices
Poor
Not Poor n=162 n=54 n=21 n=46
59% (35)
57% (127)
12% (7)
21% (47)
12% (7)
6% (14)
17% (10)
16% (36)
Partner Status n=162 n=54 n=21 n=46
Two-parent
(married or living with partner)
One-parent
(single, separated, divorced, or
53% (110)
69% (52)
24% (50)
5% (4)
6% (12)
12% (9)
17% (36)
13% (10) widowed)
Note: “Poor” is defined as a family whose annual household income is less than 200% of the Federal Poverty Income
Guideline (FPIG), which is used to determine child care subsidy eligibility.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 59
Table 6b (cont’d)
Type of Program/Center Arrangement
Characteristics
Percent of Sub-Sample
Family Employment Status
Dual earner
One earner, two-parent family
One earner, one-parent family
Non-earner
Family Size
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven or more
Child’s Ethnicity
African-American
Caucasian
Latino/Hispanic
Other
Respondent’s Education
Some high school
High school graduate/GED
Some college/vocational/2-year degree
College graduate
Post graduate
Child care center Preschool Head Start Kindergarten
57% (162) 19% (54) 7% (21) 16% (46) n=161 n=54 n=20 n=46
69% (91)
26% (19)
76% (44)
39% (7)
11% (15)
48% (35)
5% (3)
6% (1)
4% (5)
8% (6)
3% (2)
39% (7)
16% (21)
18% (13)
16% (9)
17% (3) n=162 n=54 n=21 n=46
79% (22)
72% (58)
51% (54)
43% (21)
39% (5)
29% (2)
4% (1)
7% (6)
23% (24)
31% (15)
31% (4)
57% (4)
7% (2)
6% (5)
10% (10)
4% (2)
8% (1)
14% (1)
11% (3)
15% (12)
16% (17)
22% (11)
23% (3)
0% (0) n=162 n=54 n=21 n=46
70% (37)
54% (103)
56% (5)
57% (17)
8% (4)
24% (46)
0% (0)
13% (4)
9% (5)
5% (9)
22% (2)
17% (5)
13% (7)
17% (33)
22% (2)
13% (4) n=160 n=54 n=20 n=46
50% (5)
61% (41)
58% (39)
45% (38)
71% (37)
10% (1)
8% (5)
19% (13)
32% (27)
15% (8)
10% (1)
13% (9)
10% (7)
2% (2)
2% (1)
30% (3)
18% (12)
12% (8)
20% (17)
12% (6)

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Table 7: Parents’ Report of Early Childhood Arrangement Quality
Enhancing Child’s Development
Nonparental in-home care
Out-of-home family child care
Type of Arrangement
Child care center
Percent of Total Sample
Social Development
Excellent
Reasonably good
Not very good
Very bad
Cognitive Development
Excellent
Reasonably good
Not very good
Very bad
63%
36%
1%
0%
52%
42%
6%
0%
69% (135)
29% (57)
< 1% (1)
1% (2)
62% (120)
34% (65)
3% (6)
1% (2)
68% (107)
29% (45)
4% (6)
0% (0)
73% (114)
26% (41)
< 1% (1)
<1% (1)
73% (38)
27% (14)
0% (0)
0% (0)
71% (37)
27% (14)
2% (1)
0% (0)
55% (11)
35% (7)
5% (1)
5% (1)
65% (13)
30% (6)
5% (1)
0% (0)
73% (33)
24% (11)
2% (1)
0% (0)
89% (40)
11% (5)
0% (0)
0% (0)
60

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Opinions
Current Arrangement
Would recommend it
Strongly recommended
Recommended
Have some doubts
Don’t recommend
General Opinions
Look at or read picture books
More often than is happening now
About the same amount
Less often than is happening now
Sing songs or play games
More often than is happening now
About the same amount
Less often than is happening now
Story-time, reading books in group
More often than is happening now
About the same amount
Less often than is happening now
Games with letters of the alphabet
More often than is happening now
About the same amount
Less often than is happening now
Encourage toy sharing/getting along
More often than is happening now
About the same amount
Less often than is happening now
Table 8: Parents’ Opinions Regarding Early Childhood Activities
Type of Arrangement
No nonparental care
Nonparental in-home care
Out-of-home family child care
Program/Center care
Parent as family care provider n=52 n=126 n=229 n=277 n=39
52% (27)
37% (19)
2% (1)
10% (5)
67% (35)
33% (17)
0% (0)
61% (31)
39% (20)
0% (0)
57% (27)
43% (20)
0% (0)
65% (31)
33% (16)
2% (1)
54% (26)
46% (22)
0% (0)
52% (65)
33% (41)
5% (6)
11% (14)
68% (88)
32% (42)
0% (0)
64% (83)
33% (43)
2% (3)
63% (65)
35% (36)
3% (3)
68% (71)
31% (32)
2% (2)
61% (63)
39% (41)
0% (0)
60% (138)
26% (59)
4% (10)
10% (22)
58% (133)
40% (93)
2% (5)
57% (131)
44% (101)
0% (0)
60% (119)
39% (78)
1% (2)
58% (116)
42% (84)
< 1% (1)
58% (117)
42% (84)
0% (0)
72% (198)
21% (58)
4% (12)
3% (9)
41% (115)
59% (166)
< 1% (2)
33% (93)
67% (189)
< 1% (1)
39% (107)
60% (165)
1% (2)
41% (112)
58% (160)
1% (2)
39% (107)
61% (166)
< 1% (1)
64% (25)
26% (10)
0% (0)
10% (4)
69% (29)
31% (13)
0% (0)
67% (28)
33% (14)
0% (0)
65% (20)
36% (11)
0 (0)
72% (23)
28% (9)
0% (0)
56% (18)
44% (14)
0% (0)
61
Note: Parents of children younger than 12 months of age were not asked the General Opinion questions.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Table 9: Medication and Health Information
Survey Questions
Administer medicine?
Provider trained in administrating medicine?
(of those that administer medicine)
Provide health care information?
Provide health insurance information?
Type of Arrangement
Out-of-home family child care
24% (56)
59% (31)
15% (34)
11% (25)
Program/Center care
14% (46)
88% (37)
23% (71)
19% (59)
Note: These questions were only asked of those families in these two types of arrangements.
62

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Table 10: Average Cost of Care/Education Arrangement per Month for Families who Pay
Type of Arrangement
Non-parental in-home care
(relative)
Non-parental in-home care
(non-relative)
Out-of-home family child care
(relative)
Out-of-home family child care
(non-relative)
Program/Center care
Average Cost Per Month
Geographic Location
Metropolitan Area (n=220)
Small Cities (n=140)
Rural (n=43)
Household Income
Under 25,000 (n=65)
25,001 to 50,000 (n=101)
50,001 to 100,000 (n=127)
100,000+ (n=43)
$246
$312
$195
$139
$273
$238
$188
$200
$463
$546
$364
$265
$70
$352
$352
$755
$317
$331
$228
$381 n/a
$405
$221
$286
$306
$231
$276
$347
$349
$378
$260
$255
$353
$259
$331
$374
$455
$409
$287
$193
Total
$336
$ 404
$ 264
$ 221
$275
$289
$361
$457
63

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Table 11: Average Proportion of Annual Income Spent on Care/Education Arrangement
Type of Arrangement
Non-parental in-home care
(relative)
Non-parental in-home care
(non-relative)
Out-of-home family child care
(relative)
Out-of-home family child care
(non-relative)
Program/Center care
Average Percent of Income
Geographic Location
Metropolitan Area (n=173)
Small Cities (n=118)
Rural (n=38)
Household Income
Under 25,000 (n=114)
25,001 to 50,000 (n=117)
50,001 to 100,000 (n=180)
100,000+ (n=50)
18%
7%
6%
3%
8%
7%
9%
12%
9%
7%
4%
9%
8%
5%
16%
10%
6%
4%
Total
9% 7% 10% 8% 8% 8%
11%
9%
6%
17%
7%
3%
1%
8%
8%
4%
5%
11%
5%
5%
10%
11%
12%
16%
9%
6%
4%
9%
8%
7%
65

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Table 12: Subsidy Eligibility and Utilization
Characteristics Eligible and Receiving Eligible but not Receiving
Total for Subsample
Geographic Location
Metropolitan Area
Small Cities
Rural
Household Income under 25,000
25,001 to 50,000
50,001 to 100,000
100,001+
Partner Status
Two-parent
(married or living with partner)
One-parent
(single, separated, divorced, or widowed)
Child’s Ethnicity
African-American
Caucasian
Latino/Hispanic
Other
Mother’s Education
Some high school
High school graduate/GED
Some college/vocational degree
College graduate
Post graduate
54% (19)
47% (9)
60% (6)
67% (4)
55% (17)
67% (2) n/a n/a
38% (3)
59% (16)
36% (4)
69% (9)
33% (1)
63% (5)
100% (1)
57% (10)
50% (7)
50% (1)
0% (0)
46% (16)
53% (10)
40% (4)
33% (2)
45% (14)
33% (1) n/a n/a
62% (5)
41% (11)
64% (7)
31% (4)
67% (2)
37% (3)
0% (0)
44% (8)
50% (7)
50% (1)
0% (0)
66
Note: Eligibility for subsidies is established by several criteria, only some of which this survey was able to capture. For this reason and because of the small size of the subsample, these data should be interpreted with caution. The subsample represented in this table was made up or dual-earner families in which both adults work 25 hours/week or more and singleparent earner families in which the parent was working 25 hours/week or more. These families’ annual household income was at or below 200% of the Federal Poverty Income
Guideline (FPIG). Finally, only families with a child in Family Care or Program/Center
Care were asked about the use of subsidies.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Table 13: Family Educational Activities
Characteristics
Reading readiness activities in past 7 days a
(mean, (SD))
Community educational activities in last 30 days b
(mean, (SD))
Type of Arrangement
No nonparental care
Nonparental in-home care
Out-of-home family child care
Program/Center care
Parent as family care provider
Household Income under 25,000
25,001 to 50,000
50,001 to 100,000
100,001+
Child’s Ethnicity
African-American
Caucasian
Latino/Hispanic
Other
Respondent’s Education
Some high school
High school graduate/GED
Some college/vocational/2-year degree
College graduate
Post graduate
2.7 (0.8)
2.7 (0.8)
2.7 (0.8)
2.7 (0.8)
2.9 (0.9) n=798 n=793
2.7 (0.8)
2.6 (0.9)
2.7 (0.8)
2.8 (0.8)
1.4 (1.2)
1.4 (1.2)
1.5 (1.1)
1.8 (1.2) n=999 n=995
2.6 (0.8)
2.8 (0.8)
2.5 (0.8)
2.5 (0.9)
2.6 (0.8)
2.6 (0.8)
2.7 (0.8)
2.7 (0.8)
2.8 (0.9)
1.2 (1.1)
1.5 (1.2)
1.2 (1.1)
1.8 (1.2)
1.5 (1.2)
1.6 (1.3)
1.4 (1.1)
1.2 (1.0)
1.5 (1.2)
1.1 (1.2)
1.2 (1.1)
1.4 (1.2)
1.6 (1.1)
1.8 (1.3)
67 n=999 n=995 n=988 n=983
Notes: a: Values indicate average relative frequency the child engaged in reading readiness activities at home in last 7 days.
Activities include: read a book; tell child a story; sing songs or play music with child. “0” - “not at all”, “1” - “once a week”, “2” - “two to six times a week”, “3” - “once a day”, “4” - “more often than once a day”. b: Values indicate average number of times the child participated in different community education activities within the last 30 days. Activities include: visited a library; gone to a play, concert, or other live show; visited a zoo, aquarium, or children’s museum; talked with child about his/her family history or ethnic heritage.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Table 14a: Parents’ Concerns about Child Development by Geographic Location
Geographic Location
Types of Concerns
Age appropriate behavior
All the time
Often
Once in a while
Not at all
Setting limits or discipline
All the time
Often
Once in a while
Not at all
Child’s health care
All the time
Often
Once in a while
Not at all
Want more information to help child be reading ready
All the time
Often
Once in a while
Not at all
Concerned about child not learning enough in child care
All the time
Often
Once in a while
Not at all
Metropolitan
Area
Small Cities Rural
19% (99)
43% (221)
41% (211)
29% (149)
16% (82)
14% (74)
14% (50)
12% (44)
21% (76)
53% (191)
39% (203)
24% (125)
22% (111)
15% (76)
31% (159)
24% (123)
24% (124)
22% (111)
26% (136)
12% (64) n=515 n=360 n=117
33% (117)
26% (92)
22% (79)
20% (72)
30% (107)
24% (87)
25% (88)
21% (77)
24% (85)
16% (56)
22% (80)
38% (138)
34% (40)
27% (32)
21% (24)
18% (21)
31% (37)
24% (28)
25% (30)
20% (23)
24% (28)
9% (10)
24% (28)
44% (52)
34% (121)
30% (106)
21% (73)
15% (54)
14% (35)
14% (36)
17% (42)
56% (142)
42% (50)
30% (35)
11% (13)
17% (20)
10% (8)
13% (11)
23% (19)
54% (45)
68

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Table 14b: Parents’ Concerns about Child Development by Household Income
Household Income
Types of Concerns
Age appropriate behavior
All the time
Often
Once in a while
Not at all
Setting limits or discipline
All the time
Often
Once in a while
Not at all
Child’s health care
All the time
Often
Once in a while
Not at all
Want more information to help child be reading ready
All the time
Often
Once in a while
Not at all
Concerned about child not learning enough in child care
All the time
Often
Once in a while
Not at all up to
25,000
25,001 –
50,000
50,001 –
100,000
100,001+ n=189 n=285 n=254 n=68
37% (71)
13% (25)
17% (32)
33% (63)
49% (93)
28% (53)
12% (23)
11% (20)
17% (23)
20% (27)
18% (25)
45% (61)
47% (88)
27% (51)
15% (28)
12% (22)
44% (83)
17% (33)
20% (38)
19% (37)
35% (100)
27% (76)
22% (63)
16% (46)
28% (80)
26% (73)
27% (76)
19% (55)
26% (73)
15% (42)
23% (65)
37% (104)
40% (112)
29% (82)
17% (49)
14% (38)
18% (35)
12% (23)
17% (33)
54% (107)
31% (78)
24% (62)
26% (65)
19% (49)
47% (120)
31% (80)
32% (81)
20% (51)
17% (44)
11% (20)
11% (20)
25% (47)
54% (100)
27% (68)
27% (69)
25% (65)
21% (54)
21% (53)
13% (32)
20% (51)
10% (7)
6% (4)
28% (19)
57% (39)
32% (22)
32% (22)
25% (17)
10% (7)
2% (1)
6% (3)
25% (13)
68% (36)
35% (24)
16% (11)
34% (23)
15% (10)
22% (15)
23% (16)
38% (26)
17% (12)
69

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Table 14c: Parents’ Concerns about Child Development by Ethnicity
Child’s Ethnicity
Types of Concerns
Age appropriate behavior
All the time
Often
Once in a while
Not at all
Setting limits or discipline
All the time
Often
Once in a while
Not at all
Child’s health care
All the time
Often
Once in a while
Not at all
Want more information to help child be reading ready
All the time
Often
Once in a while
Not at all
Concerned about child not learning enough in child care
All the time
Often
Once in a while
Not at all
African-
American
Caucasian
Latino/
Hispanic
Other n=146 n=733 n=42 n=77
53% (78)
17% (25)
16% (24)
13% (19)
55% (80)
24% (35)
10% (15)
11% (16)
25% (29)
13% (15)
15% (17)
47% (53)
39% (57)
23% (34)
16% (24)
22% (32)
36% (53)
16% (23)
16% (24)
32% (48)
33% (238)
26% (187)
24% (176)
18% (132)
27% (197)
25% (180)
27% (199)
22% (158)
20% (150)
12% (90)
22% (163)
45% (332)
33% (241)
31% (225)
19% (140)
17% (123)
10% (47)
12% (57)
21 (103)
58% (284)
41% (17)
31% (13)
10% (4)
19% (8)
52% (22)
21% (9)
10% (4)
17% (7)
45% (19)
21% (9)
10% (4)
24% (10)
64% (27)
21% (9)
7% (3)
7% (3)
30% (10)
27% (9)
15% (5)
27% (9)
38% (29)
33% (25)
16% (12)
14% (11)
38% (29)
22% (17)
20% (15)
21% (16)
37% (29)
12% (9)
22% (17)
30% (23)
47% (36)
31% (24)
13% (10)
9% (7)
13% (8)
16% (10)
19% (12)
52% (33)
70

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Table 14d: Parents’ Concerns about Child Development by Respondent’s Education
Respondent’s Education
Some
High School
High
School
Some
College
College Graduate
Post
Graduate
Types of Concerns
Age appropriate behavior
All the time
Often
Once in a while
Not at all
Setting limits or discipline
All the time
Often
Once in a while
Not at all
Child’s health care
All the time
Often
Once in a while
Not at all
Want more information to help child be reading ready
All the time
Often
Once in a while
Not at all
Concerned about child not learning enough in child care
All the time
Often
Once in a while
Not at all n=57 n=309 n=256 n=230 n=135
26% (15)
52% (29)
21% (12)
11% (6)
16% (9)
29% (10)
12% (4)
18% (6)
41% (14)
46% (26)
21% (12)
11% (6)
23% (13)
44% (25)
21% (12)
14% (8)
21% (12)
37% (21)
18% (10)
19% (11)
40% (122)
30% (92)
15% (45)
16% (50)
34% (104)
26% (79)
18% (55)
23% (70)
31% (97)
13% (41)
19% (58)
37% (114)
46% (142)
30% (92)
13% (39)
11% (34)
21% (43)
18% (38)
14% (30)
47% (97)
40% (102)
24% (61)
22% (56)
15% (37)
34% (88)
23% (59)
24% (61)
19% (49)
28% (73)
12% (30)
21% (53)
39% (101)
42% (108)
29% (75)
17% (43)
12% (30)
14% (27)
12% (24)
21% (41)
53% (103)
29% (66)
24% (56)
31% (71)
16% (37)
23% (53)
22% (51)
34%(78)
21% (49)
17% (39)
14% (33)
22% (52)
47% (108)
31% (71)
29% (67)
21% (48)
18% (42)
6% (10)
11% (18)
22% (37)
61% (100)
14% (19)
10% (14)
23% (31)
53% (72)
22% (30)
33% (45)
22% (30)
23% (31)
2% (2)
5% (5)
25% (23)
67% (62)
31% (42)
20% (27)
26% (35)
23% (31)
22% (30)
26% (35)
28% (38)
24% (33)
71

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Table 15: Time Spent in Arrangement and Arrangement Type by Household Employment Status
72
Employment Status
Percent of Total Sample
Type of Arrangement (n=903)
No nonparental care
Nonparental in-home care
Out-of-home family child care
Program/Center care
Parent as family care provider
Two-parent dual earner
40% (397)
17% (68)
15% (61)
32% (126)
33% (132)
3% (10)
Two-parent one earner
36% (360)
54% (195)
8% (29)
13% (45)
20% (73)
5% (18)
One-parent one earner
15% (146)
7% (10)
20% (29)
30% (44)
40% (58)
3% (5)
Time in Care
No time in care up to 9 hours
10 to 19 hours
20 to 34 hours
35 to 49 hours
50+ hours
Percent of Total Sample
Type of Arrangement
Nonparental in-home care
Out-of-home family child care
Program/Center care
Parent as family care provider
Employment Status
Two-parent, dual earner
Two-parent, one earner
One-parent, one earner
Two-parent, non-earner
One parent, non-earner
Household Income under 25,000
25,001 to 50,000
50,001 to 100,000
100,001+
31% (315) 15% (148) 11% (107) 17% (175) 21% (206) 5% (54) n/a n/a n/a n/a
33% (43)
15% (36)
22% (63)
14% (6)
21% (27)
15% (36)
13% (36)
19% (8)
16% (21)
31% (73)
25% (71)
24% (10)
24% (31)
29% (68)
35% (99)
19% (8)
6% (9)
10% (21)
5% (14)
24% (10)
17% (68)
54% (195)
7% (10)
57% (12)
37% (27)
14% (56)
20% (74)
6% (8)
10% (2)
10% (7)
13% (52)
10% (36)
8% (12)
0% (0)
10% (7)
24% (94)
9% (31)
20% (31)
5% (1)
24% (18)
29% (114)
4% (13)
43% (62)
20% (4)
12% (9)
3% (13)
3% (11)
16% (23)
10% (2)
7% (5)
29% (53)
33% (93)
27% (70)
26% (18)
9% (17)
17% (47)
16% (41)
17% (12)
10% (18)
9% (29)
15% (37)
10% (7)
20% (36)
19% (53)
18% (47)
15% (10)
24% (44)
17% (49)
20% (51)
28% (19)
8% (16)
5% (14)
4% (10)
4% (3)
Note: Time in Arrangement did not vary as a function of child’s age.

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Table 16: Parents’ Work Hours and Children’s Care/Education Arrangements
Work Characteristics
No nonparental care
Type of Arrangement
Nonparental in-home care
Out-of-home family child care
Program/Center care
Percent of Total Sample
Respondent (n=607)
10% (105) 10% (97) 18% (183) 21% (206)
73
Parent as family care provider
16% (16)
Works more than one job
Average number of hours per week
0 to 9 hours
10 to 29 hours
30 to 35 hours
36 to 49 hours
50+ hours
11% (7)
42% (10)
16% (16)
18% (12)
14% (43)
22% (21)
14% (9)
4% (1)
24% (24)
19% (13)
14% (44)
15% (14)
44% (29)
33% (8)
27% (27)
29% (19)
33% (102)
28% (27)
27% (18)
21% (5)
31% (31)
31% (21)
37% (114)
31% (29)
5% (3)
0% (0)
3% (3)
3% (2)
2% (7)
4% (4)
Table 17: Non-Traditional Hours in Different Care/Education Arrangements
Time of Day in Care
Type of Arrangement
Nonparental in-home care
Out-of-home family child care
Program/Center care
Evenings
(7 p.m. to 11 p.m.)
Nights
(after 11 p.m.) n=75 n=25
40% (30)
53% (40)
7% (5)
24% (6)
72% (18)
4% (1)

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Table 18:
Percentage of Parents Reporting Special Needs and Behavior Problems
Special Needs Percent
Physical Problems (n=178, 18% of total sample)
Asthma
Allergy
Physical disability
Hearing
Visual
Other
8% (75)
5% (51)
2% (17)
<1% (3)
<1% (8)
5% (49)
Behavior Problems (n=25, 3% of total sample)
Developmental problems
-language delay
-learning problems
-mental retardation
Externalizing problems
-temper tantrums
-hyperactivity
-harming others
Internalizing problems
-severe anxiety or fear
-excessively shy
-hurts self
1% (11)
1% (12)
< 1% (1)
< 1% (3) Other
Note: Values in above categories are not mutually exclusive.
74

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Table 19: Services Used by Parents Who Report Behavior Problems
75
Percent
Percent of Total Sample
Behavior Problems
Received medical diagnosis
Been offered or received early intervention services from county or state
3% (25)
36% (9)
36% (9)
Have an ISFP or IEP
Sought help from
-Physician
-Religious counselor or leader
-Psychologist/Psychotherapist
-Classroom teacher
-Special education teacher
-Friend or family member
-County mental health/mental retardation
office
-Nurse/Nurse practitioner
-Other
Amount of improvement
-A lot
-Somewhat
-Not too much
-Not at all
Pay out of pocket for service (last 12 months)
Number of sessions (last 12 months)
Average cost for out of pocket service (last
12 months)
Type of care provided
-Care providers themselves
-Someone brought in
-Child taken elsewhere
-Nothing is provided
-Refused
-Don’t know
20% (5)
36% (9)
32% (8)
24% (6)
8% (2)
4% (1)
4% (1)
3% (7)
0% (0)
0% (0)
36% (9)
20% (5)
12% (3)
20% (5)
4% (1)
0
$150
48% (12)
36% (9)
4% (1)
0% (0)
0% (0)
12% (3)

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 76
FIGURES
Figure 1: Primary Arrangements for Children under 3 Years of Age
Figure 2: Hours per Week that Children Spend in their Care/Education Arrangement
Figure 3: Age Differences in the Use of Different Care/Education Arrangements
Figure 4: Type of Care/Education Arrangement by Geographic Location
Figure 5: Type of Care/Education Arrangement by Family Income
Figure 6: Type of Care/Education Arrangement by Parental Employment Status
Figure 7: Type of Care/Education Arrangement by Respondent’s Education
Figure 8: Percent of 3 and 4 Year Olds in Different Educational Programs
Figure 9: Parent Ratings of their Child’s Care/Education Arrangement
Figure 10: Percent of Parents Who Are Concerned about Issues Related to their Child’s
Development “often” or “all the time”
Figure 11: Sources of Support Parents Have Used in Past 12 Months
Figure 12: How Much of a Role Should Government Play in Helping Children to Become Reading
Ready?
Figure 13: Benefits Offered by Respondents’ Employers and their Utilization of Benefits

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
50
40
30
20
39%
18%
31%
12%
10
4%
0
No Non-
Parental Care
In Home
Care
Family Care Child Care
Centers
Educational
Programming
1
Note:
1
Educational Programming includes preschool/nursery school, pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, Head Start or Early Head Start
77

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Figure 2: Hours per Week that Children Spend in their Care/Education Arrangement
10 - 19 hours
(11%)
20 - 34 hours
(17%)
1 - 9 hours
(15%)
78
35 - 49 hours
(21%)
Not in care
(31%)
50+ hours
(5%)

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Figure 3:
Age Differences in the Use of Different Care/Education Arrangements
Child’s age under 1
1 to 2 yrs
2 to 3 yrs
3 to 5 yrs
5 to 6 years
60
Percent of
Total
Sample
50
40
30
20
10
0
No Nonparental
In-Home Care
Nonparental
In-Home Care
Type of
Arrangement
Out-of-Home
Family Child Care
Program/Center
Care
79

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Figure 4: Type of Care/Education Arrangement by Geographic Location
Metropolitan Area Small Cities Rural
14%
18%
34%
31%
4%
13%
29%
23%
31%
5%
10%
31%
23%
31%
4%
No Nonparental Care
Nonparental In-Home Care
Out-of-Home Family Child Care
Program/Center Care
Parent as Family Care Provider
80

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Figure 5:
Type of Care/Education Arrangement by Family Income
15% under $25,000
25%
25%
28%
8%
No Nonparental Care
Nonparental In-Home Care
Out-of-Home Family Child Care
Program/Center
Care
Parent as Family Care Provider
9%
$50,001 to $100,000
25%
37%
27%
2%
$25,001 to $50,000
15%
27%
33%
5%
20%
13%
$100,001+
15%
45%
26%
1%
81

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Figure 6: Type of Care/Education Arrangement by Parental Employment Status
One-earner, One-parent
8%
13%
30%
32%
15%
17%
33%
54%
20%
5%
20%
7%
40%
3%
3%
No Nonparental Care
Nonparental In-Home Care
Out-of-Home Family Child Care
Program/Center Care
Parent as Family Care Provider
82

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Figure 7: Type of Care/Education Arrangement by Respondent’s Education
Some High School/
High School Graduate Some College
College Graduate/
Post-Graduate
22% 29%
18%
12%
17%
20%
13%
26%
37%
37%
26% 7%
32%
4%
3%
No Nonparental Care
Nonparental In-Home Care
Out-of-Home Family Child Care
Program/Center Care
Parent as Family Care Provider
83

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
60
44%
40
Center Care (12%)
25% 25%
Head Start & Early HS (5%)
Pre-kindergarten
& Kindergarten (8%)
20 17%
Preschool/Nursery school (19%)
0
No Non-
Parental Care
In-Home
Care
Family Care Educational
Programming
84

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Figure 9a: Parent Ratings of their Child’s Care/Education Arrangement - Social Development
Nonparental
In-Home Care
Out-of-Home
Family Child Care
Child Care Center
36%
29%
63%
1%
69%
<1%
1%
68%
29%
4%
85
73%
27%
35%
5%
5%
55% excellent reasonably good not very good very bad
73%
24%
2%

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Figure 9b: Parent Ratings of their Child’s Care/Education Arrangement - Cognitive Development
Nonparental
In-Home Care
Out-of-Home
Family Child Care
Child Care Center
26%
42%
34%
6%
3%
1%
73%
52%
62%
<1%
<1%
86
71%
27%
2%
65%
30%
5% excellent reasonably good not very good very bad
89%
11%

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey 87
Figure 10: Percent of Parents Who Are Concerned about Issues Related to their Child’s Development “often” or “all the time”
100
Families Below 200% of FPIG
Families Above 200% of FPIG
80
60
40
20
0
Age Appropriate
Behavior
Discipline/
Limit Setting
Child’s Health Being
Reading Ready
Learning Enough in
Care or Education
Setting

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
80
Figure 11: Sources of Support Parents Have Used in Past 12 Months
60
Percentages
(%)
40
20
0
Books/
Magazines
Family
Member s
Health
Provider
Childcare
Provider
Internet Religiou s
Groups
Parenting
Support
Group
Other
Type of
Support
88

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Figure 12: How Much of a Role Should Government Play in Helping Children to Become Reading Ready?
A lot of responsibility
(16%)
Some responsibility
(56%)
Don't know
(3%)
Refused
(0.1%)
89
No role/ responsibility
(22%)
A little responsibility
(2%)

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Figure 13: Benefits Offered by Respondents’ Employers and their Utilization of Benefits
60
Benefits offered
Ever used service?
50
Percent of
Respondents
40
30
20
10
0
Referral service
Flexible work hours
Taken child to work in last 30 days
Types of Services
90

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
APPENDICES
A. Main Survey
B. Screener Survey
C. Validation Survey
D. Respondents’ comments about the interview from Question 6 of the Validation Survey
E. Correlations Between Demographic Characteristics

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
1
2002 – PA P
S
M
Q
S
A C
R
A1.
Let’s begin with a few questions about the children living in your home.
How many children currently live in this household who are seventeen years old or younger?
__________
A2.
[IF ONLY ONE CHILD, SAY:]
Is that child five years old or younger and currently living in this household for at least three and a half days a week? [IF YES, ENTER ‘1’. OTHERWISE, ENTER ‘0’]
[IF MORE THAN ONE CHILD, SAY:]
How many of those [NUMBER FROM A1] children are five years old or younger and currently living in this household for at least three and a half days a week?
[IF A1 IS DK OR REF, SAY:]
How many children are five years old or younger and currently live in this household for at least three and a half days a week?
NUMBER OF CHILDREN 5 OR YOUNGER IN HH
A2a.
We are only interviewing households with children age 5 and under. Thank you very much for your time. Goodbye.
[END - RESULT CODE WILL BE 84]
BOX A2a: ASK A3 THROUGH A6 FOR EACH CHILD COUNTED IN A2.
BEGIN WITH: I want to ask a couple of questions about (each/the) child who is under six years old.

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
2
A3. Please give me the first name of the (youngest/ next youngest) child.
CHILD #1
____________
CHILD #2 CHILD #3 CHILD #4
____________ ____________ ____________
A4. How old is [CHILD]?
MOS _______
YRS _______
MOS _______
YRS _______
MOS _______
YRS _______
MOS _______
YRS _______
A5.
A6.
Is [CHILD] a boy or a girl?
What is your relationship to
[CHILD]?
[SPECIFY IF OTHER.]
1 BOY
5 GIRL
1 MOTHER
2 FATHER
3 STEP-MOM
4 STEP-DAD
5 GRANDMA
6 GRANDPA
7 OTHER
A3. Please give me the first name of the (youngest/ next youngest) child.
CHILD #5
____________
A4. How old is [CHILD]?
MOS _______
YRS _______
1 BOY
5 GIRL
1 MOTHER
2 FATHER
3 STEP-MOM
4 STEP-DAD
5 GRANDMA
6 GRANDPA
7 OTHER
CHILD #6
1 BOY
5 GIRL
1 MOTHER
2 FATHER
3 STEP-MOM
4 STEP-DAD
5 GRANDMA
6 GRANDPA
7 OTHER
CHILD #7
1 BOY
5 GIRL
1 MOTHER
2 FATHER
3 STEP-MOM
4 STEP-DAD
5 GRANDMA
6 GRANDPA
7 OTHER
CHILD #8
____________ ____________ ____________
MOS _______
YRS _______
MOS _______
YRS _______
MOS _______
YRS _______
A5. Is [CHILD] a boy or a girl?
A6. What is your relationship to
[CHILD]?
[SPECIFY IF OTHER.]
1 BOY
5 GIRL
1 MOTHER
2 FATHER
3 STEP-MOM
4 STEP-DAD
5 GRANDMA
6 GRANDPA
7 OTHER
1 BOY
5 GIRL
1 MOTHER
2 FATHER
3 STEP-MOM
4 STEP-DAD
5 GRANDMA
6 GRANDPA
7 OTHER
1 BOY
5 GIRL
1 MOTHER
2 FATHER
3 STEP-MOM
4 STEP-DAD
5 GRANDMA
6 GRANDPA
7 OTHER
1 BOY
5 GIRL
1 MOTHER
2 FATHER
3 STEP-MOM
4 STEP-DAD
5 GRANDMA
6 GRANDPA
7 OTHER
BOX A6: IF MORE THAN EIGHT CHILDREN IN A2, USE CONTINUATION SHEET A.
NOTE: CATI LIMIT IS 12 CHILDREN UNDER AGE 6.

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
3
S
B F
C
[THE COMPUTER RANDOMLY SELECTS ONE OF THE CHILDREN
UNDER THE AGE OF 6 AS THE FOCAL CHILD.]
B1.
[IF ONLY ONE CHILD AGE 5 OR YOUNGER, SAY:]
For most of the rest of the interview I will be asking about child care and education arrangements for [CHILD].
[IF MORE THAN ONE CHILD AGE 5 OR YOUNGER, SAY:]
The computer has randomly selected [NAME OF CHILD SELECTED AS FOCAL CHILD] to be the child that I will ask about regarding child care and education arrangements.
First, I want to ask just a few more questions about [CHILD]. What is [CHILD]'s date of birth?
__________ MONTH (1-12)
97 REFUSED
98 DON’T KNOW
__________ DAY (1-31)
97 REFUSED
98 DON’T KNOW
__________ YEAR (1997-2002)
9997 REFUSED
9998 DON'T KNOW
B1a.
What race or ethnicity is [CHILD]?
1
2
AFRICAN-AMERICAN/BLACK
CAUCASIAN/WHITE
3
4
ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER
AMERICAN INDIAN/ALASKAN INDIAN
5 BI-RACIAL/MULTI-RACIAL
6 LATINO/HISPANIC
7 OTHER
B2.
Does [CHILD] have any special physical or health problems, such as allergy, asthma, hearing or visual problems, or other kinds of health problems that might require special care or attention?
B2a.
What special physical or health problems does [CHILD] have?
[CODE ALL THAT APPLY]
1 ALLERGY
3 HEARING
_________________________________________

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
4
B3.
Does [CHILD] have any behavior problems that require special care or attention that is different than what a typical child that age requires?
B3a.
What behavior problems does [CHILD] have?
[CODE ALL THAT APPLY]
LEARNING PROBLEMS, OR MENTAL RETARDATION
ACTING OUT, HYPERACTIVITY, OR HARMING ANIMALS,
OTHER CHILDREN, OR ADULTS
FEARS, EXCESSIVELY SHY, OR HURTS SELF
_________________________________________
B3b. Was there a medical diagnosis for [CHILD]’s behavior problem?
B3c.
What was the medical diagnosis?
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
97 REFUSED
98 DON’T

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
5
B3d. Have you been offered or have you received early intervention services from the county or the state?
B3e. Does [CHILD] have an ISFP or an IEP?
[IF NEEDED, SAY: An IFSP is an Individual Service Family Plan and an IEP is an
Individual Education Program that targets learning or behavior problems.]
5
6
NO
DON’T KNOW WHAT AN ISFP OR AN IEP IS
B3f. Have you sought help for [CHILD]’s special needs or behavioral problems?
B3g.
From whom did you seek help?
[CODE ALL THAT APPLY]
4
7
8
COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION OFFICE
FRIEND OR FAMILY MEMBER
RELIGIOUS COUNSELOR OR RELIGIOUS LEADER (PRIEST, RABBI,
PASTOR)

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL
B3h.
Did you pay out of pocket for this service?
Page
6
B3i.
Over the past 12 months, what would you estimate that you have paid out of pocket for this help?
__________ 99997 REFUSED
BOX B3i:
CHECK B3i.
IF THE CATEGORY IS ‘ONE HOUR’, ‘ONE WEEK’, OR ‘ONE SESSION’,
GO TO B3j.
OTHERWISE, GO TO B3k.
B3j.
During the last 12 months, how many sessions has [CHILD] had?
__________ 97 REFUSED
NUMBER OF SESSIONS 98 DON’T KNOW
B3k. say:
Since you received this help, how much has [CHILD]’s behavior improved? Would you
2 somewhat,

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
7
B4.
your current marital status? Are you currently:
1
2
Married and living with your spouse, . .
Separated, or married but not living with your spouse,
.
.
[SECTION C]
[B4a]
3 Divorced, . . . . . . [B4a]
5 Single, . . . . . [B4a]
B4a.
Are you currently living with a partner?

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
8
S
C C
C
A
Some parents have their children taken care of by someone else when they are not with them. Some parents arrange for their children to get educational or learning opportunities. Some parents do both, and some parents do neither.
In this next set of questions I’m going to ask you about the different child care and learning arrangements that you use regularly for [CHILD] when you’re not with (him/her).
C1.
Some child care schedules are different during the summer than they are during the school year.
Is your child care schedule for [CHILD] the same now as it was in April?
C1a.
Why did [CHILD]’s child care schedule change? [DO NOT READ LIST]
WORK, ARRANGEMENT NOT AVAILABLE DURING
SUMMER, THINGS HAVE CHANGED TO ACCOMMODATE
OTHER CHILDREN WHO ARE NOT IN SCHOOL )
MOVED, FAMILY MOVED, COULDN’T AFFORD IT ANY
.)
BOX C1a:
IF C1 = 1, 7, OR 8, THEN SAY: Since your schedule hasn’t changed, I’d like for you to think about the child care or educational arrangements that you used for [CHILD] this month.
Note: Survey questions will be in the present tense.
IF C1a = 1, THEN SAY: Since your schedule is different during the summer, I’d like for you to think back to April, and tell me about the child care or educational arrangements that you used for [CHILD] during the month of April. Note:
Survey questions will be in the past tense.
OTHERWISE SAY: I’d like for you to think about the child care or educational arrangements that you used for [CHILD] this month.
Note: Survey questions will be in the present tense.

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
9
Now I’m going to ask you about the different child care and learning arrangements that you use regularly for [CHILD]. By regularly, I mean at least four hours a week for several weeks in a row.
CHILD CARE IN CHILD’S HOME
C2.
Does someone come to your home on a regular basis to be with [CHILD] when you (or your spouse/partner) need child care? This could be either a relative or someone who is not related to you. Also include any live-in care you may regularly use (other than your spouse/partner) such as another one of your children or perhaps [CHILD]’s grandparent.
C2a.
How many separate arrangements do you have where someone cares for [CHILD] on a regular basis in your home?
[IF NEEDED, SAY: For example, if Person A comes two days a week, and Person B comes three days a week, that would be 2 separate arrangements.]
98 DON’T 1-15 ARRANGEMENTS
BOX C2a:
IF C2a = 1, GO DIRECTLY TO C2b1.
OTHERWISE SAY: I'd like to ask about each of these arrangements separately.
Let's start with the person or persons who spend the (most/ next most) time caring for [CHILD] in your home.
C2b1.
For this child care arrangement, how many people on a regular basis care for [CHILD] in your home?
NUMBER OF PEOPLE 98 DON’T
C2c1.
[IF MORE THAN ONE PERSON IN C2b1, SAY: For the next question please just answer for the main caregiver.] Is this caregiver:
2
3
4 another family member or relative, an unrelated adult, or someone under the age of 18 who is not a relative?

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL
C2d1.
Is this caregiver:
1 younger than 12 years old,
2
3
12 to 15 years old,
16 to 17 years old, or
Page
C2e1.
How often are you (or your spouse/partner) present when this person is caring for
[CHILD] in your home? Would you say:
1 Almost all of the time,
2 some of the time, or
C2f1.
For this child care arrangement, how many days a week does this person care for
[CHILD]?
NUMBER OF DAYS 98 DON’T
C2g1.
And how many hours a day does this person usually take care of [CHILD]?
NUMBER OF HOURS 98 DON’T
[THE COMPUTER CALCULATES THE NUMBER OF HOURS PER WEEK FOR THIS
ARRANGEMENT. THAT NUMBER IS THEN DISPLAYED IN THE NEXT QUESTION.]
C2h1.
That adds up to around [HOURS] total hours for a usual week. Does that sound:
2 too high, or
10
[IF THE ANSWER IS TOO HIGH OR TOO LOW, GO BACK AND RE-ASK C2f1 AND C2g1.]
BOX C2h1:
IF IN C2a THERE IS MORE THAN ONE IN-HOME ARRANGEMENT,
USE CONTINUATION SHEET C2 TO COLLECT THE INFORMATION
FOR THE OTHERS [CATI: MAX IS 6].

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
11
CHILD CARE IN SOMEONE ELSE'S HOME
C3.
Does [CHILD] go to someone else's home for at least four hours per week when you (or your spouse/partner) need child care?
C3a.
How many separate arrangements do you have where [CHILD] goes to someone else's home on a regular basis for child care?
[IF NEEDED, SAY: For example, if [CHILD] goes to Person A's home two days a week, and to Person B's home three days a week, that would be 2 separate arrangements.]
98 DON’T 1-15 ARRANGEMENTS
BOX C3a:
IF C3a = 1, GO DIRECTLY TO C3b1.
OTHERWISE FIRST SAY: I'd like to ask about each of these arrangements separately. Let's start with the person's home where [CHILD] spends the
(most/next most) time for child care.
C3b1.
Is this the home of a relative or a non-relative?
C3c1.
Is the person who does the child care at least 18 years old or older?
5 NO

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL
C3d1.
How many days a week does [CHILD] spend in this child care arrangement?
NUMBER OF DAYS 98 DON’T
Page
12
C3e1.
And how many hours a day does [CHILD] usually spend in this arrangement?
NUMBER OF HOURS 98 DON’T
[THE COMPUTER CALCULATES THE NUMBER OF HOURS PER WEEK FOR THIS
ARRANGEMENT. THAT NUMBER IS THEN DISPLAYED IN THE NEXT QUESTION.]
C3f1.
That adds up to around [HOURS] total hours for a usual week. Does that sound:
2 too high, or
[IF THE ANSWER IS TOO HIGH OR TOO LOW, GO BACK AND RE-ASK C3d1 AND C3e1.]
BOX C3f1:
IF IN C3a THERE IS MORE THAN ONE OTHER-HOME ARRANGEMENT,
USE CONTINUATION SHEET C3 TO COLLECT THE INFORMATION
FOR THE OTHERS [CATI: MAX IS 6].

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
13
CHILD CARE IN A PROGRAM
C4.
I am going to read to you a list of programs. When I am done reading the list, I will ask you whether [CHILD] attends any of these types of programs at least four hours per week.
A child care center, a nursery school or preschool, a Head Start program, an Early Head Start program, a pre-kindergarten program, [ONLY READ IF CHILD IS AGE 4 OR 5: kindergarten ] , or some other type of program.
Does [CHILD] attend any of these types of programs on a regular basis?
C4a.
Which of these programs does [CHILD] attend on a regular basis?
[CODE ALL THAT APPLY]
1
2
3
4
A CHILD CARE CENTER
A NURSERY SCHOOL OR PRESCHOOL
A HEAD START PROGRAM
AN EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM
6 [ONLY ALLOWED IF CHILD IS AGE 4 OR 5] KINDERGARTEN
7 OTHER
97 REFUSED
98 DON’T
C4b.
How many separate programs does [CHILD] attend on a regular basis?
[IF NEEDED, SAY: For example, if [CHILD] attended 2 different nursery schools each week, that would be 2 separate programs.]
98 DON’T 1-15 ARRANGEMENTS
BOX C4b:
IF C4b = 1, GO DIRECTLY TO C4c1.
OTHERWISE SAY: I'd like to ask about each of these programs separately. Let's start with the program where [CHILD] spends the (most/ next most) time.

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL
C4c1.
How many days a week does [CHILD] spend in [PROGRAM]?
NUMBER OF DAYS 98 DON’T
C4d1.
And how many hours a day does [CHILD] usually spend in [PROGRAM]?
NUMBER OF HOURS 98 DON’T
Page
[THE COMPUTER CALCULATES THE NUMBER OF HOURS PER WEEK FOR THIS
PROGRAM. THAT NUMBER IS THEN DISPLAYED IN THE NEXT QUESTION.]
C4e1.
That adds up to around [HOURS] total hours for a usual week. Does that sound:
2 too high, or
14
[IF THE ANSWER IS TOO HIGH OR TOO LOW, GO BACK AND RE-ASK C4c1 AND C4d1.]
BOX C4e1:
IF IN C4b THERE IS MORE THAN ONE PROGRAM,
USE CONTINUATION SHEET C4 TO COLLECT THE INFORMATION
FOR THE OTHERS [CATI: MAX IS 6].

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
15
CHILD CARE PROVIDER FOR OTHER CHILDREN IN CHILD’S HOME
C5.
Are you (or your spouse/partner) a child care provider for other children in your home at least four hours per week while you are also taking care of [CHILD]?
C5a.
How many days a week is [CHILD] usually cared for by you (or your spouse/partner) when you are also providing care for other children in your home?
NUMBER OF DAYS 98 DON’T
C5b.
And how many hours a day is [CHILD] cared for while you are also providing care for other children in your home?
NUMBER OF HOURS 98 DON’T
[THE COMPUTER CALCULATES THE NUMBER OF HOURS PER WEEK FOR THIS
ARRANGEMENT. THAT NUMBER IS THEN DISPLAYED IN THE NEXT QUESTION.]
C5c.
That adds up to around [HOURS] total hours for a usual week. Does that sound:
2 too high, or
[IF THE ANSWER IS TOO HIGH OR TOO LOW, GO BACK AND RE-ASK C5a AND C5b.]

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
16
BOX C5c:
CHECK QUESTIONS C2, C3, C4, AND C5.
IF ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS = 1, GO TO BOX C10.
OTHERWISE, GO TO C6.
C6.
Is there another type of arrangement for child care or education that you use for [CHILD] at least four hours a week on a regular basis that I have not mentioned?
C6a.
Tell me why you do not use any type of child care or educational program on a regular basis for [CHILD].
[CONTINUE PROBING UNTIL THERE ARE NO MORE REASONS.
CODE ALL THAT APPLY]
YOU OR SPOUSE/PARTNER IS ALWAYS WITH CHILD
R THINKS CHILD CARE IS DANGEROUS
R THINKS CHILD CARE IS UNHEALTHY/SPREADS ILLNESS
R WANTS TO BE HOME WITH CHILD
R THINKS ONLY FAMILY MEMBERS SHOULD CARE FOR CHILD
CHILD IS TOO YOUNG TO BE CARED FOR BY OTHERS
4
CAN'T AFFORD A GOOD PROGRAM/ARRANGEMENT
CHILD NOT APPROPRIATE FOR CHILD CARE
CHILD IS AN INFANT
CHILD HAS SPECIAL NEEDS
5 DO USE CARE, BUT NOT 4 HOURS PER WEEK OR NOT REGULARLY
6 OTHER
97 REFUSED
98 DON’T

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
17
C7.
I understand that you are not currently using any type of child care or educational program
(regularly) for [CHILD]. Has [CHILD] ever been in a child care or educational arrangement for at least four hours a week for three weeks in a row?
C7a.
Think about the most recent arrangement you used for [CHILD]. What kind of arrangement was that?
[IF MORE THAN ONE ARRANGEMENT ENDED AT THE SAME TIME, ASK FOR THE
ONE THAT [CHILD] WAS IN THE LONGEST.]
1
2
3
4
CAREGIVER CAME TO CHILD'S HOME
CHILD WENT TO CAREGIVER'S HOME
IN CENTER OR PROGRAM WITH 7 TO 12 CHILDREN
IN CENTER WITH 13 OR MORE CHILDREN
6
7
WITH R IN OWN HOME ALONG WITH OTHER CHILDREN
SOMETHING ELSE (SPECIFY)
___________________________________________________________
97 REFUSED
98 DON’T
C7b.
How many days a week was [CHILD] usually in that arrangement?
NUMBER OF DAYS 98 DON’T
C7c.
And how many hours a day was [CHILD] usually in that arrangement?
NUMBER OF HOURS 98 DON’T
[THE COMPUTER CALCULATES THE NUMBER OF HOURS PER WEEK FOR THIS
ARRANGEMENT. THAT NUMBER IS THEN DISPLAYED IN THE NEXT QUESTION.]
C7d.
That adds up to around [HOURS] total hours for a usual week. Does that sound:
2 too high, or
[IF THE ANSWER IS TOO HIGH OR TOO LOW, GO BACK AND RE-ASK C7b AND C7c.]

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL
C7e.
How long was [CHILD] in that arrangement?
NUMBER OF 2 WEEKS
3 MONTHS
C7f.
How old was [CHILD] when that arrangement ended?
AGE IN 2 WEEKS
3 MONTHS
C7g.
Why did you stop using this arrangement for [CHILD]?
[CONTINUE PROBING UNTIL THERE ARE NO MORE REASONS.
CODE ALL THAT APPLY]
1
2
CHANGE IN PARENT SCHEDULE
PARENT'S WORK OR SCHOOL SCHEDULE CHANGED
CHANGE IN HOUSING
3 COST/PAYMENT
LOST SUBSIDY/BENEFIT
UNSAFE
INCIDENT OCCURRED
INCONVENIENT HOURS/LOCATION
PROGRAM / PROVIDER TERMINATED
7 OTHER
97 REFUSED
98 DON’T
BOX C7g: ALL GO TO BOX C10.
Page
18

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
19
C8.
Are you planning to begin using any type of child care or educational program (again) for [CHILD] at any time before (he/she) turns six years old?
C8a.
What kind of arrangement do you think that will be?
[IF MORE THAN ONE ARRANGEMENT AT THE SAME TIME, ASK FOR THE ONE
THAT [CHILD] WILL BE IN THE LONGEST.]
1
2
3
4
CAREGIVER WILL COME TO CHILD'S HOME
CHILD WILL GO TO CAREGIVER'S HOME
IN CENTER OR PROGRAM WITH 7 TO 12 CHILDREN
IN CENTER WITH 13 OR MORE CHILDREN
6 WITH R IN OWN HOME ALONG WITH OTHER CHILDREN
7 SOMETHING ELSE (SPECIFY)
___________________________________________________________
97 REFUSED
98 DON’T
C8b.
How many days a week will [CHILD] usually be in that arrangement?
NUMBER OF DAYS 98 DON’T
C8c.
And how many hours a day will [CHILD] usually be in that arrangement?
NUMBER OF HOURS 98 DON’T
[THE COMPUTER CALCULATES THE NUMBER OF HOURS PER WEEK FOR THIS
ARRANGEMENT. THAT NUMBER IS THEN DISPLAYED IN THE NEXT QUESTION.]
C8d.
That adds up to around [HOURS] total hours for a usual week. Does that sound:
2 too high, or
[IF THE ANSWER IS TOO HIGH OR TOO LOW, GO BACK AND RE-ASK C8b AND C8c.]
BOX C8d: ALL GO TO BOX C10.

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
20
C9.
How would you describe the child care arrangement or educational program that you use for
[CHILD]?
[IF MORE THAN ONE ARRANGEMENT AT THE SAME TIME, ASK FOR THE ONE THAT
[CHILD] IS IN THE MOST HOURS PER WEEK.]
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
97 REFUSED
98 DON’T
C9a.
How many days a week is [CHILD] usually in that arrangement?
NUMBER OF DAYS 98 DON’T
C9b.
And how many hours a day is [CHILD] usually in that arrangement?
NUMBER OF HOURS 98 DON’T
[THE COMPUTER CALCULATES THE NUMBER OF HOURS PER WEEK FOR THIS
ARRANGEMENT. THAT NUMBER IS THEN DISPLAYED IN THE NEXT QUESTION.]
C9c.
That adds up to around [HOURS] total hours for a usual week. Does that sound:
2 too high, or
[IF THE ANSWER IS TOO HIGH OR TOO LOW, GO BACK AND RE-ASK C9a AND C9b.]

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
21
BOX C10:
CHECK QUESTIONS C2, C3, C4, C5, AND C6 (C9).
IF ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS = 1, THE COMPUTER WILL COMPARE ALL
LENGTHS FOR THOSE ARRANGEMENTS AND DETERMINE THE ONE
ARRANGEMENT IN WHICH [CHILD] SPENDS THE MOST TIME.
IF THE LONGEST ARRANGEMENT IS ‘IN HOME’ (C2), GO TO C10.
IF THE LONGEST ARRANGEMENT IS ‘OTHER HOME’ (C3), GO TO C11.
IF THE LONGEST ARRANGEMENT IS ‘PROGRAM’ (C4 OR C6), GO TO C12.
IF THE LONGEST ARRANGEMENT IS ‘R IS PROVIDER’ (C5), GO TO C13.
IF NONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS = 1, THEN CHECK C7.
IF C7 = 1 AND CARE IS ‘IN HOME’ (C7a=1), GO TO C10.
IF C7 = 1 AND CARE IS ‘OTHER HOME’ (C7a=2), GO TO C11.
IF C7 = 1 AND CARE IS ‘PROGRAM’ (C7a=3,4,5, OR 7), GO TO C12.
IF C7 = 1 AND CARE IS ‘R IS PROVIDER’ (C7A=6), GO TO C13.
IF C7 DOES NOT = 1, THEN GO TO SECTION E.
PROGRAMMER DISPLAY NOTE FOR ‘[PROVIDER]’:
IF LONGEST ARRANGEMENT IS ‘IN HOME’, THEN [PROVIDER] = ‘caregiver’.
IF LONGEST ARRANGEMENT IS ‘OTHER HOME’, THEN [PROVIDER] = ‘caregiver’.
IF LONGEST ARRANGEMENT IS ‘PROGRAM’ AND PROGRAM IS NOT SCHOOL
(C4a=1,2, OR 7 / C6=1 / C7a=3,4, OR 7 / C8a=3,4,OR 7),
[PROVIDER]
IF LONGEST ARRANGEMENT IS ‘PROGRAM’ AND PROGRAM IS SCHOOL
(C4a=3,4,5, OR 6 / C7a=5 / C8a=5), THEN [PROVIDER] = ‘teacher’.
IF LONGEST ARRANGEMENT IS ‘R IS PROVIDER’, THEN [PROVIDER] = ‘you’.

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
22
CHILD CARE IN CHILD’S HOME (CONTINUATION)
C10.
Now that I have asked about all of the types of arrangements that you use for [CHILD], I would like to ask a few more questions about the arrangement that you have mentioned where [CHILD] spends the most time. That would be [DESCRIPTION OF ARRANGEMENT].
Just thinking of that arrangement, how many other non-related children are usually in your home when the person is there to take care of [CHILD]?
NUMBER OF NON-RELATED CHILDREN 98 DON’T
C10a.
How old was [CHILD] when you started using this specific arrangement with this caregiver?
AGE IN 2 WEEKS
3 MONTHS
C10b.
What times of day is [CHILD] usually in this arrangement? [CODE ALL THAT APPLY]
3 EVENINGS (7PM TO 11PM) 7 REFUSED
BOX C10b:
CHECK AGE OF [CHILD].
IF CHILD IS LESS THAN 1 YEAR OLD, GO TO SECTION D.
OTHERWISE, GO TO C10c.

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
23
C10c.
How good is [CHILD]’s caregiver at helping children get along together, share toys and use words to express their feelings? Would you say:
3 not very good, or 7 REFUSED
C10d.
How good is [CHILD]’s caregiver at helping children begin to learn to recognize shapes and colors and letters? Would you say:
3 not very good, or 7 REFUSED
BOX C10b: ALL GO TO SECTION D.

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
24
CHILD CARE IN SOMEONE ELSE'S HOME (CONTINUATION)
C11.
Now that I have asked about all of the types of arrangements that you use for [CHILD], I would like to ask a few more questions about the longest arrangement that you have mentioned. That would be [DESCRIPTION OF ARRANGEMENT].
Just thinking of that arrangement, how many adults are usually there while [CHILD] is being cared for?
NUMBER OF ADULTS 98 DON’T
C11a.
Including [CHILD], how many children are usually present when [CHILD] is there?
NUMBER OF CHILDREN 98 DON’T
C11b.
How old was [CHILD] when you started using this specific arrangement with this caregiver?
AGE IN 2 WEEKS
3 MONTHS
C11c.
What times of day is [CHILD] usually in this arrangement?
[CODE ALL THAT APPLY]
3 EVENINGS (7PM TO 11PM)
C11d.
In the last few months, not counting any that you may have given (him/her), has [CHILD] been given any prescription medication while (he/she) was in this arrangement?

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
C11e.
Was that prescription medication given by someone who had been trained to give medications?
1 YES 7 REFUSED
25
C11f.
Has this caregiver given you information about where you can get health care for
[CHILD]?
1 YES 7 REFUSED
C11g.
Has this caregiver ever given you information about how to get health insurance for
CHILD?
1 YES 7 REFUSED
BOX C11g:
CHECK AGE OF [CHILD].
IF CHILD IS LESS THAN 1 YEAR OLD, GO TO SECTION D.
OTHERWISE, GO TO C11h.
C11h.
How good is [CHILD]’s caregiver at helping children get along together, share toys and use words to express their feelings? Would you say:
3 not very good, or 7 REFUSED
C11i.
How good is [CHILD]’s caregiver at helping children learn to recognize shapes and colors and letters? Would you say:
3 not very good, or 7 REFUSED
BOX C11i: ALL GO TO SECTION D.

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
26
CHILD CARE IN A PROGRAM (CONTINUATION)
C12.
Now that I have asked about all of the types of arrangements that you use for [CHILD], I would like to ask a few more questions about the longest arrangement that you have mentioned. That would be [DESCRIPTION OF ARRANGEMENT].
Just thinking of that arrangement, what times of day is [CHILD] usually in this classroom or group?
[CODE ALL THAT APPLY]
3 EVENINGS (7PM TO 11PM)
C12a.
How many children including [CHILD] are usually in the classroom or group?
NUMBER OF CHILDREN 98 DON’T
C12b.
How many teachers or adults are usually in the classroom or group when [CHILD] is there?
NUMBER OF ADULTS 98 DON’T
C12c.
Is there one person at this particular arrangement that knows [CHILD] well?
5 NO
C12d.
How old was [CHILD] when (he/she) started attending this specific arrangement?
AGE IN 2 WEEKS
3 MONTHS

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
27
C12e.
How good is [CHILD]’s [PROVIDER] at helping children get along together, share toys and use words to express their feelings? Would you say:
3 not very good, or 7 REFUSED
C12f.
How good is [CHILD]’s [PROVIDER] at helping children learn to recognize shapes and colors and letters? Would you say:
3 not very good, or 7 REFUSED
C12g.
In the last few months, has [CHILD] been given any prescription medication while
(he/she) was in this arrangement?
C12h.
Was that prescription medication given by someone who had been trained to give medications?
1 YES 7 REFUSED
C12i.
Has this [PROVIDER] given you information about where you can get health care for
[CHILD]?
1 YES 7 REFUSED
C12j.
Has this [PROVIDER] ever given you information about how to get health insurance for
[CHILD]?
1 YES 7 REFUSED

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL
BOX C12j:
CHECK WHAT TYPE OF PROGRAM THIS ARRANGEMENT IS.
IF ‘HEAD START’, GO TO SECTION D.
OTHERWISE, GO TO C12k.
Page
28
C12k.
I’m going to read you a list of options for who might operate this (program/school).
Is it operated by:
[CODE ALL THAT APPLY]
1 a private individual or group,
4 something other than these?
C12l.
Is this (program/school) registered, licensed, or accredited?
[CODE ALL THAT APPLY]
BOX C12l: ALL GO TO SECTION D.

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
29
CHILD CARE PROVIDER FOR OTHER CHILDREN IN CHILD’S HOME (CONTINUATION)
C13.
Now that I have asked about all of the types of arrangements that you use for [CHILD], I would like to ask a few more questions about the longest arrangement that you have mentioned. That would be [DESCRIPTION OF ARRANGEMENT].
Just thinking of that arrangement, how many children do you usually care for that are not your own children?
NUMBER OF OTHER CHILDREN 98 DON’T
C13a.
How old was [CHILD] when you started caring for (him/her) together with other children in your home?
AGE IN 2 WEEKS
3 MONTHS
C13b.
What times of day is [CHILD] usually in this arrangement?
[CODE ALL THAT APPLY]
3 EVENINGS (7PM TO 11PM)

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
30
S
D C
C
A
D
COST
D1.
Now I have some more questions about the (longest) arrangement that you have mentioned. As a reminder, that would be [DESCRIPTION OF ARRANGEMENT].
Let’s start with some questions about the cost of that arrangement for [CHILD]. How much have you (or your spouse/partner) paid for your most recent month for that care?
[THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE TRANSPORTATION COSTS OR SUBSIDIES.]
__________ OR 00000
99997 REFUSED
99998 KNOW
BOX D1:
CHECK WHAT TYPE OF PROGRAM THIS ARRANGEMENT IS.
IF ‘IN HOME’ OR ‘OTHER HOME’, GO TO D1a.
OTHERWISE, GO TO BOX D1a.
D1a.
Do you provide any additional services for this care arrangement such as room and board, or being a care provider yourself for that person’s children?
5 NO
BOX D1a:
IF D1 = 00000, GO TO D1d.
OTHERWISE, GO TO D1b.

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
31
D1b.
Was this amount for [CHILD] only or did it also cover other children in your household?
D1c.
How many other children did this cost cover?
NUMBER OF CHILDREN 98 DON’T
D1d.
What would your estimated transportation costs just for this particular arrangement be?
__________ OR 00000
99997 REFUSED
99998 KNOW
BOX D1d:
CHECK WHAT TYPE OF PROGRAM THIS ARRANGEMENT IS.
IF ‘KINDERGARTEN’, ‘PRE-KINDERGARTEN’, OR ‘HEAD START’,
GO TO BOX D1f.
OTHERWISE, GO TO D1e.
D1e.
Did help pay for [IF D1 = 00000, SAY ‘all or’] part of the costs of this arrangement for [CHILD]? By anyone I mean a state or government agency, an employer, a relative or friend (other than your spouse/partner).

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL
D1f.
Who or what agency helped pay for your arrangement?
[CODE ALL THAT APPLY]
3 GOVERNMENT – DPW OR NONSPECIFIC
Page
32
BOX D1f:
CHECK QUESTIONS C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, and C7.
IF THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE ARRANGEMENT, GO TO D1g.
IF THERE WAS ONLY ONE ARRANGEMENT, GO TO BOX D1g.
D1g.
Thinking about the total costs that you pay for [CHILD]’s early education and care, what is the total monthly cost for all arrangements that you have for [CHILD]?
__________ OR 00000
99997 REFUSED
99998 KNOW
BOX D1g:
CHECK WHAT TYPE OF PROGRAM THIS ARRANGEMENT IS.
IF ‘HOME CARE’ OR ‘R IS PROVIDER’, GO TO D3.
OTHERWISE, GO TO D2.

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
33
TRANSPORTATION
D2.
How long does it take you to travel from home to the place of [CHILD]’s care arrangement?
__________ OR 000
NUMBER TRAVEL
1 MINUTES
2 HOURS
IF D2 = 000, GO TO D3.
OTHERWISE, GO TO D2a.
BOX D2:
D2a.
What kind of transportation do you usually use?
1
2
YOUR OWN CAR OR MOTOR VEHICLE
CAR POOL/ SHARED RIDE
D2b.
How much of a problem is transportation to this care arrangement? Would you say:
3
4 not much of a problem, or not a problem at all? .
.
.
.
.
.
.
[D2c]
[D3]
D2c.
What sort of problems do you have with transportation?
[CODE ALL THAT APPLY]
2
3
4
TIME OR DISTANCE IS TOO GREAT
HASSLE, DIFFICULT TO ARRANGE, NOT DEPENDABLE
DOES NOT ACCOMMODATE CHILD'S SPECIAL NEEDS

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL
SATISFACTION WITH CARE PROVIDER
How did you find out about this arrangement for [CHILD]? Was it from: D3.
1
2
3
5
6 someone you know, such as a friend, neighbor, or family member, an advertisement, such as a flyer, on a billboard, or on the radio, driving by it or otherwise actually seeing the place itself, the Book, a child care referral service, or from something other than these?
Page
34
D3a.
If there was one thing that you could change about your [PROVIDER], what would that be?
4
6
LOCATION OR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS .
QUALITY OF PROGRAM OR CURRICULM .
[D3b]
[D3b]
D3b.
And what might be a second thing that you would want to change about your
[PROVIDER]?
1 COST
4
6
LOCATION OR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
QUALITY OF PROGRAM OR CURRICULM
10 WOULD NOT CHANGE ANYTHING ELSE

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
35
D3c.
If a friend of yours with a child similar to [CHILD] was thinking about using the same provider or center for his or her child, what would you say? Would you:
3
4 have some doubts about recommending it, or advise your friend to look for a different one?
CHANGES IN CARE
D4.
From last September to the end of this past April, have you changed from a different provider to the one we have just been talking about, or have you been using this provider for [CHILD] for that entire period?
D4a.
How many times did you change providers for [CHILD] since last September?
98 DON’T
D4b.
What were the reasons for making the change(s)?
[CODE ALL THAT APPLY]
3
4
5
COST, NOT ABLE TO PAY
DISSATISFACTION WITH PROVIDER OR CARE
PROVIDER, PROGRAM, CENTER TERMINATED

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
36
D5.
SPECIAL NEEDS
BOX D4b:
CHECK QUESTIONS B2 and B3.
IF EITHER QUESTION IS CODED '1', GO TO D5.
OTHERWISE, GO TO D6.
Earlier I recorded that {CHILD] has special health or behavior problems of some kind. How well does this care arrangement provide for these needs? Would you say:
D5a.
Who provides for [CHILD]'s special needs in this care arrangement? For example, are those needs taken care of by the care providers themselves, by someone who is brought in for that purpose, or is [CHILD] taken to a different location?
D5b.
Is there any extra cost for these services?
5 NO

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
37
OPINIONS REGARDING CHILD CARE
D6.
Researchers are looking at what happens in different kinds of child care arrangements and nursery schools. In this next set of questions, we want to know what you would like to see happening with your child and other children your child’s age. I will ask you about some activities and you can tell me if you would like to see more time and effort spent on these activities, you think the time and effort currently spent is about right, or you would like to see less time and effort spent on them.
1
2
3
How often do you think care providers with [CHILD’S AGE]-year-old children should look at picture books or read with them? Would you say: more often than is happening now, about the same amount of time, or less often than is happening now?
D6a.
How often do you think providers with children who are [CHILD]'s age should sing songs or play games that prepare children for learning?
1
2
3
MORE OFTEN THAN IS HAPPENING NOW
ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME
LESS OFTEN THAN IS HAPPENING NOW
CHECK AGE OF [CHILD].
IF CHILD IS LESS THAN 1 YEAR OLD, GO TO SECTION E.
OTHERWISE, GO TO D6b.
BOX D6a:
D6b.
How often do you think providers with children this age should have story-time, reading books aloud to them in a group?
1
2
3
MORE OFTEN THAN IS HAPPENING NOW
ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME
LESS OFTEN THAN IS HAPPENING NOW

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
38
D6c.
How often do you think providers with children this age should talk with them or play games with them about letters of the alphabet?
1
2
MORE OFTEN THAN IS HAPPENING NOW
ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME
3 LESS OFTEN THAN IS HAPPENING NOW
D6d.
How often do you think providers with children who are this age should help them share toys or learn to get along with other children?
1
2
3
MORE OFTEN THAN IS HAPPENING NOW
ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME
LESS OFTEN THAN IS HAPPENING NOW

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
39
S
E E
WAGES
E1.
Now I have some questions about your income and your employment. Are you currently working for pay?
[NOT . . . . [E1a]
2 YES EMPLOYED] . . . . [E1a]
3 YES [EMPLOYED BUT ON LEAVE] . . . [E1a]
E1a.
Do you currently have one job for pay, or do you have more than one job for pay?
5 MORE THAN ONE JOB
E1b.
How many total hours per week do you usually work for pay?
__________ 99997 REFUSED
1 DAY
2 WEEK
3 MONTH
4 YEAR
E1c.
(At the job where you work the most hours) What is your current hourly salary?
__________ 99997 REFUSED
1 HOUR
2 DAY
3 WEEK
4 MONTH
5 YEAR
E1d.
Is that before or after taxes are taken out?
5 AFTER

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
40
E1e.
(Across all jobs) Do you usually work the same days from week to week?
5 NO
E1f.
(Across all jobs) Do you usually work the same times of day from week to week?
5 NO
E1g.
(Does your job / Do any of your jobs) regularly require you to work weekends, nights or evenings after 6 pm, or early morning hours before 6 am?
5 NO
BOX E1g:
CHECK QUESTIONS B4 AND B4a.
IF R IS MARRIED OR LIVING WITH A PARTNER, GO TO E1h.
OTHERWISE, GO TO BOX E1o.
E1h.
Is your (spouse / partner) currently working for pay?
[NOT . . . . [E1i]
2 YES EMPLOYED] . . . . [E1i]
3 YES [EMPLOYED BUT ON LEAVE] . . . [E1i]
E1i.
Does your (spouse / partner) currently have one job for pay, or is there more than one job for pay?
5 MORE THAN ONE JOB

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
E1j.
How many total hours per week does your (spouse / partner) usually work for pay?
__________ 99997 REFUSED
1 DAY
2 WEEK
3 MONTH
4 YEAR
41
E1k.
At the job where your (spouse / partner) works the most hours, what is the current salary?
__________ 99997 REFUSED
1 HOUR
2 DAY
3 WEEK
4 MONTH
5 YEAR
E1l.
Is that before or after taxes are taken out?
5 AFTER
E1m.
(Across all jobs) Does your (spouse / partner) usually work the same days from week to week?
5 NO
E1n.
(Across all jobs) Does your (spouse / partner) usually work the same times of day from week to week?
5 NO

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
E1o.
(Does the job / Do any of the jobs) regularly require your (spouse / partner) to work weekends, nights or evenings after 6 pm, or early morning hours before 6 am?
5 NO
42
EMPLOYER BENEFITS
BOX E1o:
CHECK QUESTIONS E1 AND E1h.
IF R OR SPOUSE/PARTNER IS WORKING, GO TO E1p.
OTHERWISE, GO TO E2.
E1p.
I’m going to read a list of some of the ways employers can help their employees with their child care needs. Please tell me which, if any, (your / your spouse’s/partner’s / your or your spouse’s/partner’s) employer(s) offer(s).
Does the employer provide a referral service that would locate names of child care services for their employees?
E1q.
(Have you / Has your spouse/partner / Have you or your spouse/partner) ever used this service?
5 NO

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
43
E1r.
Does the employer or supervisor allow flexible work hours to accommodate family and child schedules?
E1s.
How often do you (or your spouse/partner) use this benefit? Would you say:
E1t.
(Have you / Has your spouse/partner / Have you or your spouse/partner) taken [CHILD] to work in the last 30 days?
E1u.
How many times was [CHILD] taken to work in the last 30 days?
98 DON’T

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
44
INCOME
In studies like this, the analysts often group households according to income. Therefore, I’d like to ask you some general questions about your financial resources.
Do you (or your spouse / partner) have any income from the following sources?
E2a TANF or Welfare?
E2b Food stamps
E2c Social security
E2d Unemployment compensation?
E2e Workers compensation?
E2f Veteran’s administration?
E2g Supplemental security income?
E2h Alimony or Child support?
E2i
E2j
Dividends, interest, trust funds or royalties?
Help from relatives or friends?
E2k Rental properties?
E2l Overtime wages?
E2m Anything else?
1 5 7 8
1 5 7 8
1 5 7 8
1 5 7 8
1 5 7 8
1 5 7 8
1 5 7 8
1 5 7 8
1 5 7 8
1 5 7 8
1 5 7 8
1 5 7 8
1 5 7 8
E2n.
Including all of the sources I have just read, plus wages, plus any other source you (or your spouse / partner) may have, what is your total yearly income before taxes?
__________ 99997 REFUSED
YEARLY INCOME 99998 DON’T KNOW
THE COMPUTER WILL COMPUTE ELIGIBILITY FOR CHILD CARE SUBSIDIES.
IF ELIGIBLE, QUESTIONS E2o THROUGH E2r WILL BE ASKED
[FOR SUBSIDY ELIGIBILITY, USE THE FOLLOWING FORMULA:
ELIGIBLE FOR CHILD CARE SUBSIDIES IF:
FAMILY SIZE OF 2, AND TOTAL YEARLY INCOME IS LESS THAN $22,500
FAMILY SIZE OF 3, AND TOTAL YEARLY INCOME IS LESS THAN $28,300
FAMILY SIZE OF 4, AND TOTAL YEARLY INCOME IS LESS THAN $34,000
FAMILY SIZE OF 5, AND TOTAL YEARLY INCOME IS LESS THAN $40,000
FAMILY SIZE OF 6, AND TOTAL YEARLY INCOME IS LESS THAN $45,700

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
45
E2o.
Do you think you are currently eligible to receive a subsidy to help pay for [CHILD]'s child care expenses?
E2p.
Are you currently receiving a subsidy to help pay for [CHILD]'s child care expenses?
E2q.
Would you take advantage of a child care subsidy if you were eligible for one?
E2r.
Why wouldn’t you take advantage of a subsidy now?
[CODE ALL THAT APPLY]
1
2
3
4
NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SUBSIDY
HASSLE ASSOCIATED WITH APPLYING OR BAD EXPERIENCE WITH
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
COULD NOT USE CURRENT PROVIDER
SOCIAL REASONS IF SUBSIDIZED CARE USED
CHILD MAY BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY
CHILD WOULD HAVE TO BE WITH OTHER RACIAL OR ETHNIC GROUPS
WOULDN'T FEEL GOOD ABOUT SELF IF TOOK PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
MAY BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY BY FAMILY, FRIENDS, NEIGHBORS
HEARD THERE ARE LONG WAITING LISTS TO RECEIVE A SUBSIDY 5
6 OTHER
7 REFUSED

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL
PARENT ACTIVITIES
E3.
Are you currently going to school or attending any job training classes?
E3a.
How many hours per week do you usually spend in class and studying?
__________ 99997 REFUSED
1 DAY
2 WEEK
3 MONTH
4 YEAR
E3b.
Do you currently do any volunteer work on a regular basis?
E3c.
How many total hours per week do you usually do volunteer work?
__________ 99997 REFUSED
1 DAY
2 WEEK
3 MONTH
4 YEAR
Page
46

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
47
LOST WORK HOURS
BOX E3c:
CHECK QUESTIONS E1 AND E1i.
IF R OR SPOUSE/PARTNER IS WORKING, GO TO E4.
OTHERWISE, GO TO SECTION F.
E4.
Please estimate how many days between last September and this April (you / your spouse/partner / you or your spouse/partner) have missed work (or school) because of a problem with your child care arrangement? This should include times when (you / your spouse/partner / you or your spouse/partner) missed just part of the day too.
From last September to the end of this past April, how many days do you think that would be?
__________ OR 000
NUMBER DAYS
1 DAYS
2 WEEKS
997 REFUSED
998 KNOW
BOX E4:
IF E4 = 000, GO TO SECTION F.
OTHERWISE, GO TO E4a.
E4a.
What was the problem the most recent time this happened?
1 PROVIDER PROBLEM (ILL, UNAVAILABLE, NO SHOW)
2
3
CENTER PROBLEM (SCHEDULED CLOSING, UNSCHEDULED CLOSING)
PARENT/FAMILY PROBLEM (CHILD ILL, COULDN’T PAY, ETC)
4 OTHER
7 REFUSED

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
48
S
F P
N
H
A
PARENTING
The next set of questions is about parenting. We'd like to know about some of the areas in which parents need help. For each of the items I mention, please tell me whether you need help all of the time, often, once in a while, or not at all.
ALL OF
THE
TIME
OFTEN
ONCE
IN A
WHILE
NOT
AT
ALL
F1a How often do you want to know what [CHILD] should be saying or doing at (his/her) age?
F1b How often do you want to know how to set limits or discipline [CHILD]?
F1c How often have you been concerned about [CHILD]’s health care?
F1d How often do you want more information about how to help
[CHILD] ready to learn to read when (he/she) gets to first grade?
F1e How often have you been concerned about [CHILD] not learning enough in child care?
Have you used any of the following sources of parent support in the last year? This would include things like obtaining helpful information from them or just getting a ‘listening ear.’ Did you get support from:
F2a other family members or friends (including a play group)?
F2b a Church, synagogue, or other place of worship?
F2c a Doctor, nurse, or other health provider?
F2d your child care provider?
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
7
7
7
7
F2e parenting support groups or classes?
F2f books or magazines?
1
1
5
5
7
7
8
8
F2g the Internet? 1 5 7 8
F2h any other source? 1 5 7 8
If it were available in your neighborhood at a minimal cost, would you use either of the following sources of support in the coming year?
8
8
8
8
F3a A home visit from someone trained to talk about how to help you with parenting and how to understand your child’s development better?
F3b A place where parents can go to meet with other parents, and can find training, resources, or services?
1 5 7 8
1 5 7 8

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
49
HOME ACTIVITIES
F4.
Now I’d like to ask you some questions about [CHILD]’s activities in your home. About how many children’s books do you have in your home?
2
3
4
5
1 TO 2 BOOKS
3 TO 9 BOOKS
10 TO 25 BOOKS
26 TO 50 BOOKS
In the last seven days, how often did you or someone in your family do any of the following things with
[CHILD]? Tell me if each activity occurred once last week, 2 to 6 times last week, once a day, more than once a day, or not at all in the last seven days.
TIMES A DAY
MORE
OFTEN
NOT
AT ALL
F5a Read a book to [CHILD]? 1 2 3 4 5
F5b Tell [CHILD] a story? 1 2 3 4 5
F5c Sing songs or play music with [CHILD]? 1 2 3 4 5
In the past 30 days, have you or anyone in your family done the following things with [CHILD]? Please do not include a school or center field trip for these categories. Only include ‘family’ trips. Let’s start with:
F6a library?
F6b Gone to a play, concert, or other live show?
F6c Visited a zoo, aquarium, or children’s museum?
F6d Talked with [CHILD] about (his/her) family history or ethnic heritage?
1 5 7 8
1
1
5
5
7
7
8
8
1 5 7 8

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
50
S
G G
S
G1.
Now I’m going to ask you a few questions about the role of state government in early childhood learning in Pennsylvania.
Should state government have a role in getting children reading-ready before they start school?
G1a.
How much responsibility should state government have in getting children reading-ready before they start school? Should state government have:
1 a lot of responsibility,
G1ba.
Many states spend state tax dollars to provide preschool education for young children so children will be ready to learn to read when they start school.
Do you support Pennsylvania investing tax dollars for preschool education?
5 NO
S
H D
H1.
I’d like to finish up by asking you a couple of general background questions about you and your family. What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed?
1 SOME SCHOOL
2
3
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE (OR GED)
SOME COLLEGE, COMMUNITY COLLEGE, VOCATIONAL/TECHNICAL,
4
5
6
OR 2 YEAR DEGREE
COLLEGE GRADUATE (4 YEARS)
POST GRADUATE (MASTERS, 2 YR. DEGREE)
POST GRADUATE (DOCTORAL/PROFESSIONAL)
7 OTHER
97 REFUSED

PA Parent Survey Main 5-21-02.doc FINAL Page
51
H1a.
What is the primary language spoken in your home?
1 ENGLISH
2 SPANISH
4 OTHER
7 REFUSED
H1b.
What is your Zip Code?
__________________________
7 REFUSED
Thank you. This concludes our survey. We appreciate your participation in this important study, and would like to reimburse you for talking with me today. In order to do that I need to ask for your mailing address.
Who should the $20 money order be made out to?
And where would you like that money order sent?
2ND STREET ADDRESS: _____________________________________
Before I go, I have some telephone numbers that may be helpful to you. One is for the Governor’s
‘Community Partnership For Safe Children’ office where you could talk to someone about this survey specifically, or about your experiences with preschool or child care. The other telephone number is a number where you could report any child care abuse problems. Would you like to have either of these telephone numbers?
[IF YES:] Mr. Clay Yeager is the State Project Director, and he can tell you more about this survey. You can contact Mr. Yeager at 717 705-0904 ext. 4105.
[IF YES:] The telephone number where you could report any child care abuse problems is for the Department of Human Services. That number is 215-683-6100, or you can call the State
Hotline at 800-932-0313.
Thank you again for your time. We appreciate your help on this important study. Goodbye.

2002 Page 1
2002 – PA P
S
S
dial . INTERVIEWER: THE CURRENT TELEPHONE NUMBER FOR
CASE [ CASE ID ] IS [ NUMBER ] IN THE EASTERN TIME ZONE.
THE STATE YOU ARE CALLING IS: PENNSYLVANIA.
TIME IS: [ TIME ].
DIAL THE PHONE NUMBER.
<5> ONE noan.
INTERVIEWER: NOBODY ANSWERED. WHAT HAPPENED?
INTERIM:
RING/NO
BUSY
<3>
<4>
ANSWERING MACHINE/ NO MESSAGE LEFT .
ANSWERING MACHINE/ LEFT MESSAGE .
<5>
<6>
MODEM/ FAX LINE/ HIGH PITCHED SOUND .
TEMPORARILY DISCONNECTED/ FAST BUSY .
<7> ALREADY SCREENED -NEW PHONE NUMBER/
OTHER
FINAL:
<9> NON-WORKING NUMBER . . .
[nfin]
[nfin]
[nfin]
[nfin]
[fin]
<13> NOT YET SCREENED - NEW PHONE NUMBER [fin]
PA Parent Survey Screener 5-13-02.doc

2002 Page 2
>scr1< Hello, my name is _______________. I'm calling from Temple University's Institute for Survey
Research. I represent three of Pennsylvania’s major universities working on Governor
Schweiker’s task force on Early Childhood Education and Care. We are conducting a survey of parents throughout Pennsylvania on the need for early childhood services in the state. We are calling random numbers throughout the state to find out about what it’s like for families with young children in the state of Pennsylvania today.
May I please speak with a member of this household who is at least 18 years old?
[HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS ARE PEOPLE WHO THINK OF THIS HOUSEHOLD AS THEIR
PRIMARY PLACE OF RESIDENCE. THAT IS, THIS IS WHERE THEY KEEP MOST OF THEIR
BELONGINGS AND RECEIVE THEIR CALLS.]
<1> YES, SPEAKING TO HH MEMBER (18+) .
<2> YES, HH MEMBER (18+) COMING TO PHONE .
<3> NO, HH MEMBER (18+) NOT AVAILABLE
<4> THERE IS NO HH MEMBER (18+) .
.
.
.
.
.
.
[int1]
[scr1a]
[resn]
[resn]
<5> THIS IS NOT A HOUSEHOLD . . . . [scr2]
>scr1a< Hello, my name is _______________. I'm calling from Temple University's Institute for
Survey Research.
Are you a member of this household who is at least 18 years old?
[HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS ARE PEOPLE WHO THINK OF THIS HOUSEHOLD AS
THEIR PRIMARY PLACE OF RESIDENCE. THAT IS, THIS IS WHERE THEY KEEP
MOST OF THEIR BELONGINGS AND RECEIVE THEIR CALLS.]
>scr1b< May I please speak with a member of this household who is at least 18 years old?
<1> YES, HH MEMBER (18+) COMING TO PHONE [scr1a]
>int1< We are conducting a telephone study throughout Pennsylvania to determine how parents make decisions regarding their children’s early education and care. I’d like to ask you a few quick questions to see if your household is eligible for our study. If you are eligible, we will send you $20 for answering our 25 to 30 minute interview. All answers you provide will be kept completely confidential.
PA Parent Survey Screener 5-13-02.doc

2002 Page 3
>scr2< I'd like to make sure that I have dialed correctly. Is this [ TELEPHONE NUMBER ]?
>scr2a< Thank you very much, but the number has been dialed incorrectly. It is possible that your number may be called again at a later time. Goodbye.
RETURN TO DIAL SCREEN . [dial. Only re-dial one time. Then finalize
as Non-Working if still wrong number.]
>scr3< Is this a residential phone number?
<6> BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS . . [scr4]
>scr3a< Is this strictly a place of business or is this a residence with a business phone line?
<1> STRICTLY A PLACE OF BUSINESS .
<5> RESIDENCE WITH BUSINESS LINE .
.
.
[scr3b]
[scr4]
>scr3b< Thank you very much. We are only interviewing in residences at this time. Goodbye.
[RESULT CODE WILL BE 74]
>scr4< Was there any time during the past 12 months when you did not have a working telephone in your household for two weeks or more?
PA Parent Survey Screener 5-13-02.doc

2002 Page 4
>x1< Are there any children five years old or younger who currently live in this household for at least three and a half days a week?
<1> YES, AT LEAST ONE CHILD . . . .
<5> NO, NO CHILD YOUNGER THAN 6 YEARS OLD IN HH .
[x2]
[x1a]
>x1a< We are only interviewing households with young children. Thank you very much for your time. Goodbye.
[RESULT CODE WILL BE 84]
PA Parent Survey Screener 5-13-02.doc

2002 Page 5
>x2< May I please speak with the person in the household who spends the most time taking care of the children?
<2> YES, CARETAKER COMING TO PHONE . .
<3> NO, CARETAKER LIVES IN HH BUT IS NOT AVAILABLE
<4> NO, CARETAKER IS NOT AT LEAST 18 YEARS OLD .
.
.
.
[x2a]
[x2b]
[x3]
>x2a< DID CARETAKER COME TO THE PHONE?
<1> YES, SPEAKING TO CARETAKER .
<5> NO, CARETAKER IS NOT AVAILABLE .
.
.
.
.
[x2b]
[x2b]
>x2b< (Hello, my name is _______________. I'm calling from Temple University's Institute for
Survey Research. We are conducting a telephone study throughout Pennsylvania to determine how parents make decisions regarding their children’s care. I’d like to ask you a few quick questions to see if your household is eligible for our study. If you are eligible, we will send you $20 for answering our 25 to 30 minute interview. All answers you provide will be kept completely confidential.)
[PROGRAMMER: IF SPEAKING TO THE CARETAKER, THEN DISPLAY THE WORDS
‘are you’. OTHERWISE DISPLAY THE WORDS ‘is he or she’.]
I’d just like to confirm, (are you / is he or she) at least 18 years old?
>x2c < What is (your / the) first name or (initials? / initials of the children’s caretaker?)
>x2d< ENTER NAME / INITIALS OF CARETAKER. CONFIRM SPELLING. ALWAYS
INCLUDE GENDER IF ENTERING INITIALS.
_____________________________________.
>x2e< [IF NECESSARY, ASK:] (Is NAME FROM x3d / Are you) male or female?
BOX 1: [IF x2=1 or x2a=1 GO TO x4. OTHERWISE GO TO resn]
PA Parent Survey Screener 5-13-02.doc

2002 Page 6
>x3< May I please speak with any household member who is at least 18 years of age?
<1> YES, SPEAKING TO HH MEMBER 18+ . .
<2> YES, HH MEMBER 18+ COMING TO PHONE .
<3> NO, HH MEMBER 18+ IS NOT AVAILABLE .
.
.
.
.
.
.
[x3b]
[x3a]
[x3b]
>x3a< DID HH MEMBER 18+ COME TO THE PHONE?
<1> YES, SPEAKING TO HH MEMBER 18+ . .
<5> NO, HH MEMBER 18+ IS NOT AVAILABLE .
.
.
[x3b]
[x3b]
>x3b< (Hello, my name is _______________. I'm calling from Temple University's Institute for
Survey Research. We are conducting a telephone study throughout Pennsylvania to determine how parents make decisions regarding their children’s care. I’d like to ask you a few quick questions to see if your household is eligible for our study. If you are eligible, we will send you $20 for answering our 25 to 30 minute interview. All answers you provide will be kept completely confidential.)
[PROGRAMMER: IF SPEAKING TO THE HH MEMBER 18+, THEN DISPLAY THE
WORDS ‘are you’. OTHERWISE DISPLAY THE WORDS ‘is he or she’.]
I’d just like to confirm, (are you / is he or she) at least 18 years old?
>x3c< What is (your / the) first name or (initials? / initials of the household member who is at least 18 years of age?)
>x3d< ENTER NAME / INITIALS OF HH MEMBER 18+. CONFIRM SPELLING. ALWAYS
INCLUDE GENDER IF ENTERING INITIALS.
_____________________________________.
>x3e< [IF NECESSARY, ASK:] (Is NAME FROM x3d / Are you) male or female?
BOX 2: [IF x3=1 or x3a=1 GO TO x4. OTHERWISE GO TO resn]
PA Parent Survey Screener 5-13-02.doc

2002 Page 7
>x4< According to your answers, you are eligible for our study. All answers you provide will be kept completely confidential. While your participation is strictly voluntary, your cooperation is greatly appreciated. The interview takes about 30 minutes. My supervisor may monitor this call for quality control purposes.
At the end of the interview I will ask you for your full name and mailing address so that we can send a money order for $20.00 to you. If you have no (further) questions, let’s begin.
THE MAIN QUESTIONNAIRE WILL BE PLACED HERE.
PA Parent Survey Screener 5-13-02.doc

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
V
S
Dear [Respondent Name]:
Thank you very much for completing our recent telephone interview about Parents and Childcare. Your participation in this study has been a valuable contribution toward the successful evaluation of current child care issues and needs.
The enclosed money order in the amount of $20 is a token of our appreciation for your help. The money order has no expiration date and there will be no fee charged to you if you cash it at any post office. Because your time is so valuable, and this study is so important, we want to be sure that every interview has been conducted correctly.
Please continue to help us by taking a few minutes to answer the questions in this letter. As soon as you have done so, please mail the letter back to us in the enclosed postage-paid envelope.
1. According to our records your interview was completed on [I Day & Date]. Is that correct?
!
YES [GO TO QUESTION 2]
!
NO [GO TO QUESTION 6]
2. About how long did that interview take, from the first question to the last one?
ENTER NUMBER: ________________ AND / OR ____________________
HOURS MINUTES
3. At the time of that interview, how many children age 17 or younger lived in your household? _____________
4. At the time of that interview, how many children age 5 or younger lived in your household? _____________
5. Which of the following best describes your marital status at the time of the interview? [CHECK ONE BOX] a.
!
Married and living with your spouse,
!
Not married but living with a partner,
!
Married but not living with your spouse,
!
Separated, divorced, or widowed, and not living with a partner, or
!
Single, never married and not living with a partner?
6. Please indicate any comments about the interview (or the interviewer) that you would like us to be aware of.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Please mail this letter to us in the enclosed envelope. No postage is necessary. Thank you again for your help.
Sincerely,
Louise Hanson
Study Director

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
R
C
F
V
S
Female, interviewed May 28th: "Exceptional loving childcare is the key to our future."
Female, interviewed May 28th: "The questions didn't include anything about providing or teaching proper nutrition to children or the importance of exercise. The number 1 concern for children today is that they are overweight."
Female, interviewed May 29th: "It didn't seem to consider stay-at-home moms."
Female, interviewed May 30th: "I think the interview was a very good idea. Thank you."
Female, interviewed June 2nd: "Some of the questions are not able to understand and interview took too much time. It's always better to send in form and have a look and have conversation."
Female, interviewed June 3rd: "I am not interested in state run or state organized pre-school. I believe it is the responsibility of the parents to choose how they will educate their children at the pre-school level."
Female, interviewed June 4th: "Grandparents and caregivers should definitely receive some type of help for watching children if needed. It's a very tough life now when both parents have to work. Those people on welfare should be made to work and not live off of us! It is a shame but our town is overrun by welfare people. They should be off these roles and looking for employment. They have too many children, we're all taking care of."
Female, interviewed June 6th: "Interview was interesting. I'll look forward to seeing improvements in early childhood education."
Female, interviewed June 7th: "I'm not sure how the questions asked will benefit future children.
I think you could get the same or better results if you just asked teachers if they felt the public schools should fund preschools. And they would have answered your questions for free and the money saved could have been spent on the children."

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Female, interviewed June 8th: "The computer randomly picked my 10 month old to be interviewed about. My 5 year old would have yielded more data as he attends pre-k."
Female, interviewed June 9th: "Good research if it is to help working class families. I know I could have used a little help for childcare."
Male, interviewed June 10th: "Thank you for the opportunity for taking this interview. I'm very passionate about the childcare topic, even though my situation is only a part time basis."
Female, interviewed June 11th: "When you mentioned the $20.00, I couldn't resist."
Female, interviewed June 14th: "Keep up the search, there are a lot of daycares out there that need improvement. It's good to see that someone cares about our children in child care. Thank you."
Female, interviewed June 14th: "I just think it should have been about the older children too, not just the smaller ones."
Female, interviewed June 14th: "We need more parents to get involved with their children's education. Such as if the child's in school. If not, then someone to do more educational activities.
We have a lot of children that can't read or write their name."
Male, interviewed June 17th: "To reiterate, our family feels very strongly that society has bypassed the youth and the elderly. We support your efforts to emphasize early childhood programs, education, and general awareness of this most critical of developmental stages. We have selected to have one parent available at all times. We believe in the home being the foundation of a stable, nurturing environment for the child supplemented by a limited, quality pre-school experience, music program and swimming sessions. This decision to dedicate so much of our time and resources to our children's early childhood experience does come with some costs emotionally, socially, and economically as parents. We believe that more efforts to provide parents more time with their children would benefit the children, the families, and society at large. Please keep up all of your efforts. If anything, we would like to see much more emphasis on providing families with more quality time together. In addition, we would like to see funds refocused from early reading programs to funding programs of a more poignant nature.
Please refer to the Alliance for childhood research (allianceforchildhood.net)."
Female, interviewed June 18th: "I felt that many of the questions asked could have been interpreted various ways. Also I felt unqualified to answer questions regarding childcare

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey arrangements towards the end of the test since I don't have any idea how much reading and interaction goes on in other schools, daycares, etc. I don't feel the results of the test can be accurate given the lack of knowledge from the general public."
Male, interviewed June 18th: "No government programs."
Female, interviewed June 20th: "The interview brought to light the need for good child care programs. I hope the survey will be helpful to our government in deciding how much money to set aside for quality child care programs."
Female, interviewed June 21st: "The $20 worked! I wouldn't have agreed to stay on the line that long otherwise! Nice gesture."
Female, interviewed June 22nd: "If we as a people bring children into the world and our home, I think it is our 1st responsibility to care for them and not feel the government is responsible. If parents are too poor it is right for the government to help out, but not to any of us should the government push us more than we feel comfortable with."
Female, interviewed June 24th: "The fact that you offered money would definitely make people willing to take the few minutes to participate – a great idea!"
Female, interviewed June 24th: "There was one survey question that was worded to likely skew the response to what the contracting organization (the Governor's office) wanted. It had to do with whether I agree that additional funding/support would be beneficial to children."
Female, interviewed June 24th: "Some of the questions were difficult to answer because they were too vague and didn't allow for shades of agreement or disagreement. Thank you for the opportunity to participate - it was very interesting."
Female, interviewed June 27th: "The interview was way too long and several questions were redundant or required further explanation. Being an elementary teacher I would be interested in hearing more about the study and it's focus and findings."
Female, interviewed June 27th: "This interview was the most purposeful phone survey I've ever participated in. Good luck in your work towards improving the education system and childcare practices. It's a good cause."

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
Male, interviewed June 29th: "Childcare that is affordable and of high quality is of great concern to my family. It has been a pleasure participating in your study."
Female, interviewed July 2nd: "Make your questions more simple to answer."
Female, interviewed July 7th: "I would like to see the results of the study and/or data obtained and would also like to see what outcomes were induced by the knowledge gained."
Female, interviewed July 14th (Spanish): "I'm very glad someone is taking the time to help children and parents get more involved in their education."
Female, interviewed July 18 th
(Spanish): "Vouchers for Private School children, a much needed thing."
Female, interviewed July 21st: "I just want to take time to thank ISR because it is a good way to help out others who doesn’t have the extra help."
Female, interviewed July 23rd: "It was very hard to do this long of a survey on the phone with 2 small children in the house."
Female, interviewed July 26th: "Will this research help provide valuable information to help women have better child care options if they need to work? How many surveys before the government does make reforms to help families?"

2002 Pennsylvania Family Survey
C
D
C
Geographic Location
Household Income
Partner Status
Family Employment
Status
Family Size
Child’s Ethnicity
Respondent’s Education
Correlations Between Demographic Characteristics
Geographic
Location
Household
Income
Partner Status
Family
Employment
Status
—
-0.10*
0.10*
—
0.46*
Family Size
Child’s
Ethnicity
—
-0.08*
0.01
.02*
-0.11*
-0.48* -0.73* —
0.16* 0.41* -0.22* —
0.18* -0.15* 0.06 — 0.07*
0.41* 0.23* -0.26* 0.04 0.06
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)