Abstract
Child care closures have become pervasive in the U.S. due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, parents and caregivers’ jobs have been affected as they have needed to care for children at home. This study estimated the burden of disrupted child care due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the pandemic’s impact on employment among U.S. households between April and July 2021. Data came from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, Phase 3.1. The study sample included 55,312 households with any children in a child care arrangement. We estimated the prevalence of disrupted child care overall and by select sociodemographic and household characteristics as well as employment impacts among households that experienced disrupted child care. Overall, 20.4% (95% confidence interval: 19.1, 21.7) of U.S. households experienced disrupted child care; percentages varied by state from a low of 7.7% in Utah to a high of 29.4% in the District of Columbia. The prevalence of disrupted child care was highest among non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic Black, low-income, and households that experienced material hardship. Adults were most likely to report supervising children while working, cutting work hours, and taking unpaid leave due to disruptions in child care. Continued support to the child care industry and to families with children may reduce the impacts of disrupted child care.
Keywords: Child care, Daycare, COVID-19 pandemic, Employment
1. Introduction
With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, child care closures became pervasive across the United States (U.S.). At that time, only 11 % of child care providers reported they could stay in business without financial support after a closure of indeterminate length (NAEYC, 2020). Unlike the Kindergarten through 12th grade public education system, the majority of the early childhood education and child care industry is private. Like other private industries, many child care providers without income during the pandemic were forced out of business, with estimates ranging from 40 % to 56 % of child care centers closing for some period of time or indefinitely (Kitchener, 2021, NAEYC, 2020, NAEYC, 2021, NAEYC, 2022, Rexrode, 2020). Further, child care centers had increased costs for cleaning supplies, had decreased revenue from lower enrollment, and, in some states, were required to operate with reduced occupancy limits to lower the risk of COVID-19 infection (NAEYC, 2020, NAEYC, 2021, NAEYC, 2022). Consequently, many families were left without access to essential child care services. The loss of child care was a barrier for caregivers expected to work at or near pre-pandemic levels and for caregivers seeking re-employment who needed affordable child care. Almost 18 months after the pandemic’s onset, the child care industry had not fully recovered (NAEYC, 2021).
1.1. The U.S. child care industry
The U.S. child care industry is a largely private industry with targeted government subsidies for qualifying families. At the federal level, the majority of child care subsidies are administered through two initiatives: The Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) and the Head Start Program. CCDF provides funding from the federal government to state governments to subsidize child care for low-income children up to age 13 (age 19 for children with special needs), and includes some funding for training and operations of child care providers. The Head Start Program is a child care program for low-income children and foster children before Kindergarten, which is operated through federal grants to child care providers. Unfortunately, federally subsidized child care has struggled to reach communities in need. The Head Start Program has historically been funded to provide child care to only roughly 1 million children per year (Office of Head Start, 2020, Office of Early Child Development., 2020). Similarly, the CCDF has struggled to reach families that qualify, with only 1.9 million of 13.5 million qualifying children receiving subsidies (Chien, 2020, Office of Child Care, Administration for Children and Families, 2021).
The private child care industry in the U.S. can be primarily broken into two branches: center-based child care and home-based child care. Center-based child care, or child care centers, are child care provided in a center or school setting whereas home-based child care is provided in a home setting. During the COVID-19 pandemic, long lockdowns and lost income had a devastating impact on the child care industry. A survey conducted across 37 states found that 8,899 licensed child care centers closed and 6,957 licensed home-based child care programs closed (Child Care Aware, 2022). This estimate is likely an undercount of the actual number of closed child care programs during the COVID-19 pandemic because of the high number of unlicensed home-based child care programs. In 2019, the U.S. had 5.2 million child care programs operating in a home-based setting. Of these 5.2 million child care programs, only 91,200 were registered with their state (Datta et al., 2021).
1.2. Historic inequalities in child care access
Unlike many high-income nations, the U.S. does not fund broad access to child care and education services prior to Kindergarten. As a result, the financial burden of child care is passed on to families and child care providers, and access to child care is limited for low-income and rural communities.
Child care costs in the U.S. are significantly above the average as a percentage of income among high-income countries (OECD, 2021). The U.S. also stands alone among high-income countries with no federally mandated paid parental leave after the birth of a child. Thus, many families, particularly those in lower-income and hourly wage jobs, are faced with exorbitant child care expenses when they are least able to afford it. In rural communities, the low density of families leaves a lack of critical mass of children needing child care. As a result, home-based child care is more prevalent in rural communities because of the typically smaller class sizes and more manageable administrative costs (Schochet, 2019). In communities that are both low-income and rural, access to child care becomes even more challenging as the location of child care can render even affordable or subsidized child care out of reach.
1.3. COVID-19 and the child care industry in the U.S.
During the pandemic, efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19 in child care facilities were driven by state governments. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Administration for Children and Families issued guidance on operating child care facilities during the pandemic but did not issue mandates. This left each of the 50 U.S. states and 14 U.S. territories to regulate child care within their jurisdiction, resulting in a patchwork of divergent child care regulations (Education Weekly, 2020).
Nearly every U.S. state issued mandates to close all child care for some period of time early in the pandemic, while maintaining some level of child care for those deemed to be “essential workers”. Child care for essential workers was typically provided by a specified child care facility and provided only to families with caregivers working in industries such as health care or law enforcement. After child care providers were permitted to re-open more broadly, many remained subject to limits on enrollment and increased cleaning protocols (Child Care Aware of America, 2022a, Child Care Aware of America, 2022b). This left child care providers with higher costs and lower revenue and resulted in thousands of temporary and permanent closures.
1.4. Stability and child development
Safe, stable relationships are an important component of an environment that promotes healthy child development. Child care providers, inside and outside the home, are a major source of primary caregiver relationships for children (Odgers & Jaffee, 2014; O’Connor & McCartney, 2007). Instability in child care arrangements can be detrimental to child wellbeing. Changes in child care arrangements are not always harmful for children, such as planned changes in child care that may occur when a child stays home with a family member for the first few years of life then enters a child care center for a year or two prior to starting Kindergarten (Morrissey, 2010). However, unexpected and abrupt child care instability is generally more harmful (Sandstrom & Huerta, 2013), such as the abrupt closures of child care seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. More frequent changes in child care arrangements, particularly in early childhood, have been demonstrated to have a negative impact on later childhood (Morrissey, 2009).
Debate exists around the duration, severity, and timing of adverse experiences, such as disrupted relationships in childhood, and the impact of those experiences. Animal studies have suggested that short-term episodes of mild adversity may have an inoculation effect later in life and promote resilience (Parker et al, 2007). Other research has suggested increasing experiences with adversity have a greater detrimental effect on child development and wellbeing (Lipscomb et al., 2021, Liming and Grube, 2018). Despite the ongoing debate, instability in caregiver relationships and family finances can reasonably be considered risk factors in childhood. The extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic introduced or increased child care instability and household financial instability has not been fully explored at a national level in the U.S. Thus, the purpose of this study was to estimate the burden and impact of disrupted child care due to the COVID-19 pandemic among U.S. households with children. Specifically, we estimated the prevalence of U.S. households who experienced child care closures or unavailable child care between April and July 2021, examined associations between child care disruptions and various demographic and household characteristics, and described the employment impacts on affected households.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study population
We examined data from a subpopulation of households with children from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey (HPS). Initially launched in April 2020, the HPS was designed to assess the pandemic’s impact on U.S. households by conducting surveys on a rolling basis and publicly releasing data every-two weeks. Each survey cycle, over 1 million adult respondents selected from the Census Bureau’s Master Address File are invited by text and/or email to participate in a web-based survey, and between 66,000 and 79,000 adults respond. Respondents report whether any children younger than 18 years reside in their household. Detailed technical documentation on the HPS is available elsewhere (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021). For the current study, we analyzed data from Phase 3.1 of the HPS, which began on April 14, 2021 and ended on July 5, 2021. Households with children who indicated that child care was not applicable were excluded, resulting in a total study population of 55,312 households over the study period (average 9,219 households per survey cycle).
2.2. Study variables
Households with children under 18 years were coded as experiencing “disrupted child care” if a respondent indicated that “any children in the household were unable to attend daycare or another childcare arrangement because of the coronavirus pandemic” in the four weeks prior to the survey date. Employment impacts were estimated among households that experienced disrupted child care. An employment impact included if the respondent or another adult in the household experienced any of the following in the last four weeks as a result of disrupted childcare: supervised one or more children while working; took unpaid leave; used vacation, sick days, or other paid leave; cut work hours; left a job; lost a job; or did not look for a job in order to care for the children.
We examined the prevalence of disrupted child care by various demographic and household characteristics. Demographic covariates were included to assess whether certain subpopulations of interest were disproportionately affected by child care closures. In addition, household characteristics were included to describe the financial stability of the household as low-income households have historically struggled to access reliable child care. Demographic factors included adult race and Hispanic ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic multi-race/other), education (high school degree/GED or less, some college or associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree or higher), marital status, and service in the Armed Forces or National Guard. Demographic characteristics of children in the household, such as child age or race/Hispanic ethnicity, were not collected in the HPS. Household characteristics included Federal Poverty Level (FPL), housing arrangement, being caught up on rent/mortgage, risk of eviction/foreclosure in next two months, difficulty paying usual household expenses in last seven days, and children not eating enough because the household could not afford food in last seven days.
2.3. Analyses
We first examined trends over time by estimating the proportion of U.S. households that experienced disrupted child care from April 14 to July 5, 2021. In addition, we conducted stratified analyses to examine trends over time by race/Hispanic ethnicity and FPL. We then examined associations between disrupted child care and various demographic and household characteristics; for this analysis we used data from a one-month period, from June 7 to July 5, 2021, to reflect the latest data collected during the study period. Using the same one-month period (June 7-July 5, 2021), we also reported state-level estimates, and we estimated the prevalence of employment-related impacts due to disrupted child care. Chi-square tests were conducted to assess statistical significance in descriptive analyses. Likelihood ratio tests using logistic regression were conducted to assess statistical significance of trends (Ingram et al, 2018). All analyses used a significance level of 0.05. We report frequencies, proportions, 95 % confidence intervals (CI), and p-values where appropriate. Data were weighted for nonresponse, adults per household, and coverage to match the U.S. population by age, sex, race, ethnicity, and education level. Analyses were conducted in SAS version 9.4 (Cary, NC). Survey procedures incorporating 80 replicate weights with a Fay’s adjustment accounted for complex survey design.
3. Results
Between April 14 and May 10, 2021, 20.4 % (95 %CI: 19.1, 21.7) of U.S. households with a child care arrangement reported experiencing disrupted child care in the past 4 weeks; the prevalence of reported disruptions in child care dropped to 17.8 % (95 %CI: 16.7, 18.8) between June 7 and July 5, 2021 (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2 ). This decrease was primarily driven by decreases in disrupted child care among non-Hispanic White respondents and higher income respondents; in contrast, higher prevalence of child care disruptions persisted for other racial/Hispanic ethnicity respondents and low-income respondents (at or below 138 % FPL).
Fig. 1.
Rolling Average Trends in Disrupted Child Care by Race/Hispanic Ethnicity, HPS April 14-July 5, 2021.
Fig. 2.
Rolling Average Trends in Disrupted Child Care by Percent Federal Poverty Level, HPS April 14-July 5, 2021.
From June 7 to July 5, 2021, the prevalence of households reporting disrupted child care was highest among non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic Black, non-married, and armed forces/National Guard respondents compared to non-Hispanic White, married, and civilian respondents, respectively (Table 1 ). Experiencing disrupted child care was inversely associated with percent FPL; households at or below 138 % FPL reported the highest prevalence of disrupted child care (22.0 %, 95 %CI: 19.1, 24.9) while households above 400 % FPL reported the lowest prevalence (14.5 %, 95 %CI: 13.4, 15.6). Further, the prevalence of disrupted child care differed by housing arrangement and was higher among households experiencing some form of hardship compared with those not experiencing those hardships, specifically, households not caught up on rent/mortgage (29.5 % vs 16.0 %); very/somewhat likely to experience eviction/foreclosure in next two months (40.9 % vs 16.7 %); very/somewhat difficult to pay usual household expenses (26.7 % vs 13.0 %); and children not eating enough because the household could not afford food (32.2 % vs 15.4 %). Differences in prevalence of disrupted child care were also seen across states from a low of 7.7 % in Utah to a high of 29.4 % in Washington, DC (Table 2 ).
Table 1.
Frequency and proportion of U.S. households with a child care arrangement and the prevalence of disrupted child care due to the COVID-19 pandemic, overall and by sociodemographic and household characteristics, Census Household Pulse Survey Phase 3.1 (Jun 7 – Jul 5, 2021).
| Study Sample (N = 16,804) |
Disrupted Child Care1 (N = 2,667) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | % (95 % CI)2 | No. | % (95 % CI)2 | p | |
| National Estimate | 16,104 | 100.0 | 2,667 | 17.8 (16.7, 18.8) | |
| DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS | |||||
| Race/Hispanic Ethnicity of Adult Respondent | <0.01 | ||||
| Asian/Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic | 1,070 | 5.5 (5.0, 5.9) | 219 | 23.4 (19.6, 27.2) | |
| Black, non-Hispanic | 1,516 | 15.7 (14.6, 16.7) | 354 | 23.8 (20.3, 27.2) | |
| Hispanic | 1,893 | 17.8 (16.7, 18.9) | 399 | 21.8 (17.8, 25.7) | |
| White, non-Hispanic | 11,626 | 57.1 (55.9, 58.2) | 1,557 | 14.0 (13.1, 14.9) | |
| Multi-race/Other, non-Hispanic | 699 | 4.0 (3.6, 4.5) | 148 | 22.1 (16.3, 27.9) | |
| Education of Adult Respondent | 0.10 | ||||
| ≤High school degree/GED | 1,946 | 33.3 (31.8, 34.9) | 315 | 18.1 (15.6, 20.7) | |
| Some college/Associate’s degree | 4,601 | 29.1 (27.9, 30.3) | 798 | 19.1 (17.4, 20.7) | |
| Bachelor’s degree or higher | 10,257 | 37.6 (36.4, 38.8) | 1,564 | 16.4 (15.4, 17.4) | |
| Marital Status of Adult Respondent | <0.01 | ||||
| Married | 12,295 | 65.6 (64.4, 66.9) | 1,814 | 15.9 (14.7, 17.1) | |
| Not Married | 4,432 | 34.4 (33.1, 35.6) | 852 | 21.3 (19.4, 23.3) | |
| Respondent/Spouse Serving in US Armed Forces or National Guard | <0.01 | ||||
| Yes | 382 | 2.3 (1.9, 2.7) | 84 | 30.1 (20.0, 40.1) | |
| No | 16,365 | 97.7 (97.3, 98.1) | 2,585 | 17.5 (16.4, 18.6) | |
| HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS | |||||
| Federal Poverty Level | <0.01 | ||||
| ≤138 % | 2,262 | 23.6 (22.2, 24.9) | 490 | 22.0 (19.1, 24.9) | |
| >138 % − 200 % | 1,794 | 15.0 (13.8, 16.1) | 334 | 18.5 (15.6, 21.3) | |
| >200 % − 400 % | 3,949 | 24.2 (22.9, 25.4) | 601 | 16.5 (14.4, 18.7) | |
| >400 % | 8,293 | 37.3 (36.2, 38.3) | 1,150 | 14.5 (13.4, 15.6) | |
| Housing Arrangement | <0.01 | ||||
| Own | 12,849 | 66.5 (65.1, 67.9) | 1,802 | 15.0 (13.9, 16.1) | |
| Rent | 3,705 | 32.0 (30.7, 33.4) | 820 | 23.3 (20.9, 25.6) | |
| Occupied without payment of rent | 191 | 1.5 (1.1, 1.8) | 48 | 26.1 (15.9, 36.4) | |
| Caught Up on Rent/Mortgage | <0.01 | ||||
| No | 1,566 | 13.4 (12.3, 14.4) | 428 | 29.5 (26.0, 33.1) | |
| Yes | 15,179 | 86.6 (85.6, 87.7) | 2,242 | 16.0 (14.9, 17.1) | |
|
Risk of Eviction/Foreclosure in Next 2 months |
<0.01 | ||||
| Somewhat/very likely at risk | 453 | 4.7 (4.1, 5.3) | 177 | 40.9 (34.3, 47.5) | |
| Not very/not at all likely | 16,292 | 95.3 (94.7, 95.9) | 2,493 | 16.7 (15.6, 17.7) | |
| Difficulty Paying Usual Household Expenses (last 7 days) | <0.01 | ||||
| Very/Somewhat difficult | 4,223 | 34.8 (33.4, 36.1) | 1,088 | 26.7 (24.1, 29.3) | |
| Not at all/a little difficult | 12,572 | 65.2 (63.9, 66.6) | 1,588 | 13.0 (12.1, 13.9) | |
| Children Not Eating Enough Because Could Not Afford Food (last 7 days) | <0.01 | ||||
| Often/Sometimes true | 1,409 | 14.0 (12.8, 15.2) | 439 | 32.2 (27.8, 36.6) | |
| Never true | 15,331 | 86.0 (84.8, 87.2) | 2,224 | 15.4 (14.5, 16.3) | |
Disrupted child care = one or more children in the household were unable to attend daycare or another childcare arrangement in the last 4 weeks.
Frequencies are unweighted, percentages are weighted.
Table 2.
Frequency and prevalence of households with disrupted child care due to the COVID-19 pandemic, for U.S. and by state, Census Household Pulse Survey Phase 3.1 (Jun 7 – Jul 5, 2021).
| Disrupted Child Care1 |
||
|---|---|---|
| No. | % (95 % CI)2 | |
| U.S. | 2,667 | 17.8 (16.7, 18.8) |
| Alabama | 31 | 15.4 (8.5, 22.3) |
| Alaska | 46 | 11.9 (7.9, 16.0) |
| Arizona | 38 | 14.2 (7.7, 20.8) |
| Arkansas | 24 | 14.2 (7.6, 20.7) |
| California | 320 | 20.4 (17.0, 23.8) |
| Connecticut | 63 | 16.6 (12.1, 21.2) |
| Colorado | 39 | 14.2 (7.9, 20.5) |
| Delaware | 29 | 20.4 (11.5, 29.3) |
| District of Columbia | 52 | 29.4 (18.4, 40.3) |
| Florida | 90 | 16.7 (12.3, 21.1) |
| Georgia | 66 | 24.6 (17.8, 31.4) |
| Hawaii | 29 | 27.5 (14.6, 40.4) |
| Idaho | 26 | 10.9 (5.5, 16.3) |
| Illinois | 62 | 16.5 (10.2, 22.7) |
| Indiana | 44 | 15.3 (10.0, 20.6) |
| Iowa | 25 | 9.2 (5.4, 13.0) |
| Kansas | 38 | 11.1 (7.1, 15.1) |
| Kentucky | 25 | 15.8 (8.7, 22.8) |
| Louisiana | 28 | 12.4 (6.5, 18.2) |
| Maine | 22 | 13.4 (7.7, 19.1) |
| Maryland | 106 | 22.2 (16.1, 28.3) |
| Massachusetts | 69 | 17.1 (12.6, 21.6) |
| Michigan | 88 | 20.5 (15.0, 25.9) |
| Minnesota | 59 | 17.4 (12.7, 22.2) |
| Mississippi | 26 | 20.2 (11.5, 29.0) |
| Missouri | 49 | 20.5 (13.3, 27.7) |
| Montana | 26 | 19.6 (11.1, 28.1) |
| Nebraska | 22 | 9.7 (4.5, 15.0) |
| Nevada3 | 22 | 8.3 (3.3, 13.4) |
| New Hampshire | 40 | 20.4 (12.7, 28.1) |
| New Mexico | 46 | 14.0 (9.1, 19.0) |
| New Jersey | 58 | 27.1 (13.9, 40.4) |
| New York | 56 | 21.6 (14.4, 28.8) |
| North Carolina | 56 | 22.1 (14.8, 29.4) |
| North Dakota | 11 | 12.4 (6.7, 18.1) |
| Ohio | 33 | 15.9 (9.1, 22.7) |
| Oklahoma | 20 | 11.1 (5.9, 16.2) |
| Oregon | 94 | 24.3 (18.4, 30.1) |
| Pennsylvania | 84 | 20.8 (15.8, 25.7) |
| Rhode Island | 24 | 21.0 (11.0, 31.1) |
| South Carolina | 28 | 12.7 (6.5, 18.9) |
| South Dakota | 16 | 14.0 (6.3, 21.7) |
| Tennessee | 38 | 12.6 (7.2, 17.9) |
| Texas | 137 | 17.8 (12.3, 23.3) |
| Utah | 42 | 7.7 (4.7, 10.8) |
| Vermont | 22 | 15.1 (6.9, 23.3) |
| Virginia | 91 | 19.9 (14.4, 25.4) |
| Washington | 163 | 21.6 (17.4, 25.8) |
| West Virginia3 | 14 | 9.6 (3.7, 15.6) |
| Wisconsin | 29 | 9.8 (5.5, 14.1) |
| Wyoming3 | 11 | 10.6 (3.6, 17.7) |
Disrupted child care = one or more children in the household were unable to attend daycare or another childcare arrangement in the last 4 weeks.
Frequencies are unweighted, percentages are weighted.
Results may be unreliable, relative standard error is > 30 %.
As a result of disrupted child care due to the COVID-19 pandemic, adults in households with children reported several employment-related impacts: supervised one or more children while working 27.2 % (95 %CI: 23.9 %, 30.5 %); cut work hours 26.9 % (95 %CI: 23.8 %, 30.1 %); took unpaid leave 23.5 % (95 %CI: 20.6 %, 26.3 %); and used vacation, sick days, or paid leave 22.4 % (95 %CI: 19.7 %, 25.2 %) in order to care for children. Adults in these households also left a job 15.9 % (95 %CI: 13.2 %, 18.5 %) and did not look for a job 16.2 % (95 %CI: 13.7 %, 18.7 %) in order to care for children (Table 3 ).
Table 3.
Frequency and prevalence of impacts on employment as a result of disrupted child care due to the COVID-19 pandemic1 among U.S. households, Census Household Pulse Survey Phase 3.1 (Jun 7 – Jul 5, 2021; N = 2,667).
| Employment Impacts2 |
||
|---|---|---|
| No. | % (95 % CI)3 | |
| Took unpaid leave | 273 | 26.5 (22.6, 30.5) |
| Used paid leave | 332 | 23.5 (20.2, 26.8) |
| Cut hours | 341 | 26.4 (22.0, 30.8) |
| Left job | 158 | 15.9 (12.3, 19.4) |
| Lost job | 85 | 8.0 (5.9, 10.1) |
| Did not look for a job | 178 | 15.5 (11.6, 19.5) |
| Supervised a child(ren) while working | 402 | 25.5 (21.8, 29.3) |
Disrupted child care = one or more children in the household were unable to attend daycare or another childcare arrangement in the last 4 weeks.
Estimates do not sum to 100.0%. Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Frequencies are unweighted, percentages are weighted.
4. Discussion
4.1. Discussion
Over 17 months after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S., almost one in five households with children were still experiencing child care disruptions as a consequence of the pandemic. The prevalence of disrupted child care was higher among groups that historically have had lower access to resources including non-Hispanic Black households, households experiencing material hardship, and households experiencing food insufficiency. Additionally, results ranged widely across states, consistent with another study that found from 14 % (in Colorado, Delaware, and New Hampshire) to 64 % (in Hawaii) of child care centers were concerned they would close their program permanently due to ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic (NAEYC, 2021). That study also found that the percentage of potential child care center closures was higher among minority-owned centers, highlighting the inequitable distribution of the pandemic’s effects. In sum, our results indicate a need to support households with children, including targeted support to low-income households with children and communities with a higher percentage of low-income and minority households. As the child care industry continues to experience the persistent effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing efforts are needed to ensure child care is available to parents and caregivers. Recognizing these effects, the federal government authorized a number of temporary financial support programs that benefited the child care industry (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2021a). Importantly, almost half of child care centers and home-based child care providers across the U.S. who were surveyed in June/July 2021 said they would have closed without help. Further, up to 40 % of these child care providers reported using relief funds to reduce debt assumed during the pandemic, and >50 % believed they could reduce debt using anticipated relief funds (NAEYC, 2021a). More recent data from child care providers indicates many providers are relying on some level of subsidy to stay in business. Under the American Rescue Plan, the Federal Government created the Child Care Stabilization Grant (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2021b). A January 2022 survey of child care providers found that only 15 % of child care providers reported they did not receive the Child Care Stabilization Grant; and of those that did receive the Grant, 92 % reported the Grant helped their programs stay in business and 75 % reported using the Grant to pay staff. However, challenges in the child care industry remain pervasive. The same survey found that two-thirds of child care providers are struggling with staffing shortages resulting in longer waitlists for care in 37 % of providers. 75 % of providers reported that the end of the Child Care Stabilization Grant would negatively or highly negatively affect their program (NAEYC, 2022). Together, these reports from child care providers indicate that relief funds have provided critical support to stabilize the child care industry, however more support is needed to ensure that affordable, quality child care is available to all families who need it.
4.2. Limitations and strengths
This study had several limitations. First, the HPS is a rapidly implemented web-based pulse survey with a low response rate; response rates ranged from 6.3 % to 7.4 % (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021). However, estimates were weighted for nonresponse, number of occupied housing units within a state, educational attainment, age, sex, race/Hispanic origin by age and sex to the American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021). Further, response rates were within acceptable ranges for this survey design, and weighting adjustments should account for nonresponse bias (Peterson et al., 2021). Second, survey respondents might not be the parents/caregivers of the children living in the household, and some respondents might have been unfamiliar with the status of daycare or child care in the household. Third, the survey did not include questions to determine the specific cause of child care disruptions. Finally, sample sizes in three states (Nevada, West Virginia, Wyoming) were insufficient to produce reliable estimates. These limitations are offset by several strengths, namely the ability to rapidly collect and disseminate data on the ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, to produce population-based national and state-level estimates, and to monitor trends over time.
4.3. Conclusion
U.S. households with children experienced disruptions in child care over one year after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The proportion of households experiencing disrupted child care varied widely across states and was higher among households impacted the most by the COVID-19 pandemic, including low-income households and households experiencing material hardships as well as families of color. Continued support to the child care industry and to families with children may address some of the barriers that reduce child care access. Additional research is needed to assess families’ ongoing experiences with child care disruptions as the nation continues to recover from the pandemic, as well as to ascertain whether child care disruptions among the hardest hit households are due to child care provider shortages, affordability issues, or other factors. In addition, more analyses are needed to examine issues pertaining to the early care and education workforce.
DISCLOSURE: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), nor does mention of HHS or HRSA imply endorsement by the U.S. government.
FUNDING: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Prevalence, Sociodemographic and Household Characteristics, and Impacts of Disrupted Child Care due to the COVID-19 Pandemic in the U.S., April-July 2021.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Olivia R Sappenfield: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. Anne Leong: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Lydie A Lebrun-Harris: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
- Chien N. Factsheet: Estimates of Child Care Eligibility & Receipt for Fiscal Year 2017 Overview and funding. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. 2020 https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/factsheet-estimates-child-care-eligibility-receipt-fiscal-year-2017 [Google Scholar]
- Child Care Aware of America. (2022a). DEMANDING CHANGE Repairing our Child Care System.
- Child Care Aware of America. (2022b, October 21). Table: State Group Size and Ration Policy Changes during COVID-19. Child Care Aware of America. https://www.childcareaware.org/coronavirus-hub/coronavirus-landing-page/state-policies-and-ratio-changes-during-covid-19/.
- Datta, A.R., Milesi, C., Srivastava, S., & Zapata-Gietl, C. (2021). NSECE Chartbook - Home-based Early Care and Education Providers in 2012 and 2019: Counts and Characteristics. OPRE Report No. 2021-85, Washington DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
- Education Week. 2020. “The Coronavirus Spring: The Historic Closing of U.S. Schools (A Timeline).” Retrieved October 31, 2022. https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/the-coronavirus-spring-the-historic-closing-of.html.
- Ingram, D. D., Malec, D. J., Makuc, D. M., Kruszon-Moran, D., Gindi, R. M., Albert, M., et al. (2018). National Center for Health Statistics Guidelines for Analysis of Trends. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 2(179). https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_179.pdf. [PubMed]
- Kitchener, C. (2021, Feb 22). Pandemic unleashes a dual day care crisis. The Washington Post: The Lily. Washington, DC. G.4. https://www.thelily.com/20000-day-cares-may-have-closed-in-the-pandemic-what-happens-when-parents-go-back-to-work/.
- Liming K.W., Grube W.A. Wellbeing outcomes for children exposed to multiple adverse experiences in early childhood: A systematic review. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. 2018;35(4):317–335. [Google Scholar]
- Lipscomb S.T., Hatfield B., Lewis H., Goka-Dubose E., Abshire C. Adverse childhood experiences and children's development in early care and education programs. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2021;72 [Google Scholar]
- Morrissey T. Multiple Child-Care Arrangements and Young Children’s Behavioral Outcomes. Child Development. 2009;80(1):59–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01246.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Morrissey T.W. Sequence of child care type and child development: What role does peer exposure play? Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2010;25(1):33–50. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.08.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- NAEYC. (2020, Mar 17). Child Care in Crisis: Understanding the Effects of the Coronavirus Pandemic. NAEYC: Washington, DC. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/our-work/public-policy-advocacy/effects_of_coronavirus_on_child_care.final.pdf.
- NAEYC. (2021, Aug). State Survey Data: Child Care at a Time of Progress and Peril. NAEYC: Washington, DC. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/user-74/naeyc_state_survey_data_august_2021.pdf.
- NAEYC. (2022, Feb). Saved But Not Solved: America’s Economy Needs Congress to Fund Child Care. NAEYC: Washington, DC. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/user-98/naeyc_ece_field_survey_february2022.pdf.
- O’Connor E., McCartney K. Examining teacher–child relationships and achievement as part of an ecological model of development. American educational research journal. 2007;44(2):340–369. [Google Scholar]
- OECD (2021, October 21), Net childcare costs. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. https://data.oecd.org/benwage/net-childcare-costs.htm. doi: 10.1787/e328a9ee-en.
- Office of Child Care, Administration for Children and Families (2021, January 5). CCDF Expenditures Overview for FY 2019 (all appropriation years). https://www.acf.hhs.gov/occ/data/ccdf-expenditures-overview-fy-2019-all-appropriation-years#:∼:text=In%20FY%202019%2C%20states%20and,%24400%20million%20from%20GY%202017.
- Office of Early Child Development. (2020, November 4) Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ecd/early-learning/ehs-cc-partnerships.
- Office of Head Start. (2020, November 3) Head Start Programs. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ohs/about/head-start.
- Parker K.J., et al. Early life stress and novelty seeking behavior in adolescent monkeys. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2007;32(7):785–792. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2007.05.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Peterson, S., Toribio, N., Farber, J., Hornick, D. (2021, Mar 24). Nonresponse Bias Report for the 2020 Household Pulse Survey. Hillcrest, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/household-pulse-survey/technical-documentation.html.
- Rexrode, C. (2020, Oct 17). Coronavirus Threatens to Push the Child-Care Industry Over the Edge: Day-care enrollment is down sharply. Some centers have closed. More could follow. Wall Street Journal. New York, N.Y. https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-threatens-to-push-the-child-care-industry-over-the-edge-11602927001.
- Sandstrom, H., & Huerta, S. (2013). The Negative Effects of Instability on Child Development: A Research Synthesis Low-Income Working Families.
- Schochet L. 5 Facts to Know About Child Care in Rural America. Center for American Progress. 2019 https://www.americanprogress.org/article/5-facts-know-child-care-rural-america/ [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Census Bureau. (2021, Jul). Source of the Data and Accuracy of the Estimates for the Household Pulse Survey – Phase 3.1: Interagency Federal Statistical Rapid Response Survey to Measure Household Experiences during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic. Hillcrest, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/household-pulse-survey/technical-documentation.html.
- The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2021, Jun 11a). FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Child Tax Credit Awareness Day and Releases Guidance for Unprecedented American Rescue Plan Investments to Support Parents and Healthy Child Development. Washington, DC. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/11/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-child-tax-credit-awareness-day-and-releases-guidance-for-unprecedented-american-rescue-plan-investments-to-support-parents-and-healthy-child-dev/.
- The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2021, Apr 15b). FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces American Rescue Plan Funding to Rescue the Child Care Industry so the Economy Can Recover. Washington, DC. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/15/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-american-rescue-plan-funding-to-rescue-the-child-care-industry-so-the-economy-can-recover/.
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data will be made available on request.