Journal of Women & Aging, 25:242–259, 2013

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0895-2841 print/1540-7322 online
DOI: 10.1080/08952841.2013.791599

Subsidized Child Care by Grandparents:

Profiles of Caregivers in an Emerging
Public Service Context

STEVEN G. ANDERSON
School of Social Work, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ

MEIRONG LIU
School of Social Work, Howard University, Washington, DC

MINLI LIAO
School of Social Work, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL

Grandparents have become an important source of subsidized

noncustodial child care provision as states have developed child
care subsidy programs for working families. Based on a sample of
140 grandparents providing care in one state subsidy program, this
article examines grandparent characteristics, caregiving patterns,
experiences with care provision, and training and resource needs
in this emerging public service context. Our findings indicate that
grandparents provide care largely for altruistic reasons. They offer
vital care during nontraditional work hours and are more recep-
tive to training provision than often is understood. Based on study
findings, several strategies are presented for supporting subsidized
grandparent caregivers.

KEYWORDS grandparent caregiving, child care subsidies, child

care, unlicensed child care, welfare reform

INTRODUCTION

The important roles that grandparents play in caring for their grandchil-
dren have received considerable research attention. Studies on custodial
caregiving by grandparents when children are removed from parental homes

Address correspondence to Steven G. Anderson, Arizona State University, School of Social

Work, 411 N. Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85004. E-mail: steven.anderson.2@asu.edu

242
 Subsidized Child Care by Grandparents 243

probably have been most prominent (see, for example, Hayslip & Kaminski,
2008; G. C. Smith & Hancock, 2010). However, other studies have focused
on grandparents who provide noncustodial child care, including those who
are the primary caregivers for working parents (Fuller-Thomson & Minkler,
2001; Guzmán, 2004; Thiele & Whelan, 2006; Yoon, 2005).
Grandparents who receive public payments to assist with noncustodial
child care are one important caregiving subgroup that has received little
research attention. With the establishment of the federal Child Care and
Development Fund (CCDF) in 1996, all states created subsidy programs to
assist working families with child care. Federal funding for such programs
totaled $9.3 billion in FY2005, and many states provide additional funds
(Child Care Bureau, 2006); nearly 1.8 million children per month receive
subsidized care through this funding. States have flexibility in defining rules
for eligible providers, but most have allowed provision by loosely regulated
grandparent caregivers. It is estimated that 150,000–200,000 families nation-
ally were using grandparents as subsidized caregivers in FY2006 (Child Care
Bureau, 2008).
Subsidized grandparent providers are of particular interest within the
broader caregiving population for several reasons. First, there has been con-
siderable debate concerning whether grandparents and other relatives should
be allowable providers, due to quality-of-care concerns and issues related
to public supplantation of informal family caregiving efforts (Anderson,
Ramsburg, & Scott, 2005). Second, because subsidized grandparents gener-
ally serve low-income parents, they are likely to be working with more at-risk
children. Finally, some have questioned whether grandparent caregivers may
be vulnerable as they provide care (Fuller-Thomson & Minkler, 2001; Minkler
& Fuller-Thomson, 2005).
Despite their importance from a public policy and programming per-
spective, little is known about grandparents who receive child care subsidies.
This article begins to develop such information by profiling the character-
istics, caregiving patterns, motivations, and needs of these providers. Our
analysis is based on a survey of 140 subsidized providers in one large state
program, which constitutes the largest and most systematic sample of this
caregiving group yet reported upon in the literature.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview of Grandparent Child Care Provision
Grandparents play widely varying roles in caring for their grandchildren.
The most intense care occurs when grandparents assume custody of grand-
children, and the number of children living in such households has been
increasing rapidly (Fields, 2003; Whitley & Kelley, 2007). Although noncus-
todial child care provision by grandparents remains more common, it has
244 S. G. Anderson et al.

been much less widely studied (Thiele & Whelan, 2006). Using data from
the National Survey of Families and Households, Guzmán (2004) found that
47% of grandparents living within 50 miles of their children provided at least
some care for their grandchildren. Fergusson, Maughan, and Golding (2008)
reported that 45% of grandparents in their sample had regularly cared for
their grandchild when the children were aged 8, 15, and 24 months. The
mean time of grandparent involvement at all three time points was about
10 hours per week.
Most grandparents provide child care without receiving financial com-
pensation. For example, Guzmán (2004) reported that only 19% of the
families using grandparents as caregivers for children aged 6 and under paid
anything for the care. Previous research also has shown that pay rates are
low and that flexible payment arrangements are common (Anderson et al.,
2005; Chase, Arnold, Schauben, & Shardlow, 2006; Mulligan, Brimhall, West,
& Chapman, 2005).

Characteristics of Grandparent Caregivers

Many previous studies have examined grandparent caregiver characteristics
in the general population. The resulting profiles vary substantially, with fac-
tors such as the intensity of care provided important in understanding these
differences. For example, those who provide routine child care for their
grandchildren have been found to be younger, healthier, more educated, and
to have more children than other grandparents (Fuller-Thomson & Minkler,
2001, 2007; Wang & Marcotte, 2007). In contrast, grandparents who pro-
vide more extensive child care are more likely to be African American,
less educated, and to be living in poverty or on public assistance (Fuller-
Thomson & Minkler, 2001; Minkler & Fuller-Thomson, 2005; Smith-Ruiz,
2008).
Grandparent child care is especially prominent for younger children
(Guzmán, 2004; Hank & Buber, 2009; K. Smith, 2002). For example, using
national survey data, K. Smith (2002) found that grandparents were the most
common nonparental caregivers for children under the age of 5. Fergusson
et al. (2008) similarly found that grandparents provided the highest level of
care for mothers who returned to work before the child was 6 months old.
Hank and Buber (2009) found grandparents provided the highest levels of
child care to children ages 1 or 2, with care then decreasing with age.
National survey data show that grandmothers provide about 65%
of all grandparent child care (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). Some stud-
ies have reported racial differences in grandparent caregiving prevalence,
with caregiving higher for African American and Hispanic grandparents
than for non-Hispanic Whites (Fields, 2003; Wang & Marcotte, 2007).
However, other studies have reported that race or ethnicity does not pre-
dict grandparent caregiving prevalence when sociodemographic factors are
 Subsidized Child Care by Grandparents 245

controlled (Baydar & Brooks-Gunn, 1998; Vandell, McCartney, Owen, Booth,

& Clarke-Stewart, 2003).
One might expect unemployed or retired grandparents to be more
active child care providers. However, Guzmán (2004) found that employed
grandparents living near their children actually were more likely to provide
care. Wang and Marcotte (2007) also found that grandparents caring for
grandchildren were more likely to participate in the labor force and to
work longer hours after controlling for work experience and net wealth.
This finding may reflect age or health differences between employed
and nonemployed grandparents, but nonetheless suggests that it is not
uncommon for grandparents to juggle work and child care responsibilities.
In addition, Uttral (1999) found that providing child care to relatives allowed
older or less-skilled relatives to earn money while avoiding physically
demanding and menial labor outside the home.

Motivations and Problems Facing Grandparent Caregivers

Findings from the few studies that have examined the motives and experi-
ences of grandparent child care providers suggest both positive and negative
caregiving aspects. In a positive sense, it also has been reported that caring
for grandchildren results in grandparents feeling more active (McGowen,
Ladd, & Strom, 2006; Waldrop & Weber, 2001). McGowen et al. (2006) also
found that grandparents felt caring for their grandchild enriched their life and
increased happiness. Grandparent caregivers emphasized a renewed sense of
purpose and indicated that caregiving rewards and satisfaction outweighed
sacrifices such as exhausting work or loss of freedom (McGowan et al.,
2006). Grandparents also have reported feeling that their caregiving would
benefit the child and that caregiving was convenient for them (Fergusson
et al., 2008). Similarly, a majority of the grandparents in Hank and Buber’s
(2009) study expressed a sense of duty in helping their children care for
young grandchildren.
Nonetheless, providing child care can be both physically and men-
tally demanding. Grandparent caregivers have been found to be at higher
risk of depression than either noncaregiving peers or caregivers in other
roles (Goodman & Silverstein, 2006; Kolomer & McCallion, 2005). This
may be partially due to the high levels of stress that accompany many
caregiving situations. For example, Musil and Standing (2005) found that
many grandparents reported caregiving-related stress, both generally and
due to specific aspects such as disputes with children about caregiving
practices. In addition, some studies have examined the potential physi-
cal health implications of child caregiving by grandparents, and selected
health problems have been found (Grinstead, Leder, Jensen, & Bond,
2003; Lee, Coldiz, Berkman, & Kawachi, 2003). Robinson-Dooley and Kropf
(2006) found 89% of their sample of grandparent caregivers reported
246 S. G. Anderson et al.

health problems. A quarter of them rated their health as poor, and

approximately a quarter indicated their health as fair. Only a handful
(6%) reported their health as excellent (Robinson-Dooley & Kropf, 2006).
However, one recent study has questioned the extent to which such health
problems actually derive from caregiving as opposed to other attributes
prevalent among grandparent caregivers (Hughes, Waite, LaPierre, & Luo,
2007).
None of these previous grandparent studies has focused specifically on
grandparents who receive public child care subsidies for their work. While
one may expect such caregivers to have similar characteristics, motivations,
and problems as grandparent caregivers more generally, they also may dif-
fer in important ways. In particular, the low-income characteristics of most
families who receive subsidies, as well as the possible effects of paid ver-
sus informal caregiving, suggest the possibility of important variations both
in caregiver characteristics and in the caregiving context. The purpose of
the current study was to begin to develop information about this important
subsidized child care work force.

METHODS

The analysis presented here is drawn from public use records for the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services fund Illinois Study of License
Exempt Care (ILSEC; Anderson et al, 2005). The ILSEC was conducted to
learn about the characteristics and caregiving experiences of relative and
friend providers in one large state child care program. Each state establishes
its own rules that are important in interpreting caregiving findings. We begin
by describing the subsidized context for the study and then turn to more
specific study methods.

The Subsidized Caregiving Context

Federal regulations require that all parents be working, in job training, or in
school in order to qualify for subsidies. Care only is subsidized for children
under age 13, except for children with special needs. In the Illinois Child Care
Assistance Program (CCAP) from which the sample was drawn, parents with
incomes up to one-half of the state median level are eligible to receive sub-
sidies. Once they are determined eligible, parents are responsible for finding
their own child care provider. They can select a licensed center, licensed
home, or unlicensed relative or other provider. The selected providers are
paid directly by the CCAP, and parents are assigned a copayment amount
that varies by income. The selection of providers is cost neutral in the sense
that parents are assigned the same copayment amount regardless of the type
of provider they select. The CCAP payments, however, vary by child care
 Subsidized Child Care by Grandparents 247

provider type; the payment rate for relative caregivers was only $9.48 per
child per day at the time of the study.
Under this open choice system, 35.6% of all children receiving sub-
sidized care at the time of the study were cared for by relatives, and
approximately 60% of these relative caregivers were grandparents. This rep-
resented a work force of nearly 37,000 subsidized grandparent child care
providers in Illinois (derived from Anderson et al., 2005).

Sampling
Our analyses examine survey responses of a subsample of 140 grandpar-
ents included in a sample of 301 unlicensed providers surveyed through the
ISLEC; these are known as “license-exempt” providers in Illinois. The study
was conducted in three geographic areas—selected neighborhoods in a large
central city, a mid-sized urban county, and seven rural counties.
The provider survey was a companion to a survey of parents who
used license-exempt providers. All cases in which a CCAP subsidized family
was using 15 or more hours per week of license-exempt care in the three
areas were identified from the CCAP Child Care Tracking System. A ran-
dom sample then was drawn from this pool of eligible parents, and the
child care providers in turn were identified by the parents when they were
interviewed. The resulting sample cannot be generalized to the entire state,
and the grandparent subsample is not a strictly random sample of all sub-
sidized grandparent caregivers. Nonetheless, provider selection across the
three areas was random.

Survey Development and Administration

The survey instrument was developed by ISLEC researchers in consulta-
tion with program officials from the Illinois CCAP. Open-ended questions
explored provider perspectives concerning care motivations, experiences,
relationships with parents, and problems with caregiving. Closed questions
focused on provider characteristics, caregiving patterns, training background
and interests, and resource needs. Because some providers offered care to
more than one family, providers were asked to consider the family to which
they provided the most care when answering family-specific questions; this
was referred to as the “focal family.” In addition, most families receiving
care had multiple children, and issues related to caregiving may differ with
the age of children. Consequently, respondents were asked to consider a
randomly selected “focal child” in responding to questions that were child
specific in nature.
Mixed-mode survey techniques were used in the provider interviews.
Attempts first were made to interview all providers by telephone, using
computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). If telephone numbers
were not working, or when telephone contact attempts otherwise were
248 S. G. Anderson et al.

unsuccessful, in-person home visits were attempted. All interviews were

completed between August 2003 and July 2004, with a response rate of 77.5%
among the caregivers. Subjects were paid $20 for completing the interviews,
which averaged about one-half hour.

Analysis
The resulting SPSS public use file from the study was used for analyses.
Closed-question analyses directly accessed variables in the file to develop
profiles of the grandparent caregivers, with the use of basic descriptive statis-
tics. Given that not even basic descriptions of this subsidized caregiving
population have previously been available, we focused analysis on devel-
oping a broad descriptive portrait of this entire group, as opposed to
engaging in more nuanced subgroup analyses intended to discern caregiving
differences.
Open-ended responses in the file included verbatim respondent com-
ments on issues such as caregiving problems and motivations; these were
systematically reviewed to provide a more in-depth understanding of per-
tinent caregiving issues. The authors thematically coded these open-ended
responses and cross-checked such coding for consistency. The resulting
coded responses then were analyzed using multiple response procedures,
which allowed for analysis of the full range of comments offered by
respondents.

FINDINGS
Grandparent Caregiver Characteristics
Table 1 summarizes demographic, social, and economic characteristics for
grandparents in the sample. Nearly all of the respondents were grandmoth-
ers, and the average age was 53. Over 70% of the sample was African
American, with all but one of the remaining caregivers being Caucasian
(27.9%). Only 35.7% were married or living with a partner, and 28.6% were
living with the parent(s) of the grandchildren for whom they were providing
care.
The economic circumstances of these caregivers were very limited.
Nearly three fourths (72.0%) reported annual incomes of less than $20,000,
and 71.2 % indicated that they previously or currently received public cash
assistance. Subsidized child care earnings were an important income source,
with 24.3% stating that these earnings were their primary household income
source. Mean monthly earnings from care provided to the focal family were
$404.62.
The grandparents provided paid care for an average of 2.9 children in
the month prior to being surveyed, and over one fourth (27.2%) cared for at
least four children (Table 2). This typically approximated full-time work, with
 Subsidized Child Care by Grandparents 249

TABLE 1 Demographic, Social, and Economic Characteristics of Grandparent Caregivers

Percentage
Number (N = 140) Distribution

Gender
Female 134 95.7
Male 6 4.3
Race
Caucasian 39 27.9
African American 100 71.4
Hispanic/Other 1 0.7
Age
18–29 1 0.7
30–54 87 62.6
55 and over 51 36.7
Mean 53
Marital Status
Never married 38 27.1
Married or living with partner 50 35.7
Divorced, widowed/separated 52 37.1
Lives with focal family
Yes 40 28.6
No 100 71.4
Household income in 2002
Less than $10,000 47 37.6
10,000–19,999 43 34.4
20,000–29,999 12 9.6
30,000 and over 23 18.4
Mean income received in typical month from child care $404.62
Child care earnings main source of household income
Yes 34 24.3
No 106 75.7
TANF/Public assistance receipt
Have ever received 99 71.2
Never received 40 28.8

a reported weekly mean of 36.0 hours. In addition to paid care, 32.1% said
they provided some unpaid child care for the focal family. The large majority
(85.7%) of the child care was provided in the home of the grandparents.
Caregiving during nontraditional hours, which include evening, week-
end, and overnight periods, is among the most notable features of this care.
Over four-fifths (81.4%) had provided some such care in the past three
months. These are time periods when many low-income persons work
swing shifts or irregular hours and during which child care centers typically
are not open.

Education, Training, and Resource Needs of Grandparent Caregivers

As a group, the grandparent caregivers had only limited educations and
formal child care training (Table 3). They most commonly had only a high
250 S. G. Anderson et al.

TABLE 2 Caregiving Characteristics of Grandparent Caregivers

Percentage
Number (N = 140) Distribution

Number of children provided paid care for in

previous month
1 37 27.2
2–3 62 45.6
4 or more 37 27.2
Mean 2.9
Mean care hours provided during last week 36
Types of care provided in last 3 months
Traditional hours only (weekdays) 26 18.6
Nontraditional (Some evening, overnight, or 114 81.4
weekend care)
Usual place where child care is provided
Provider’s home 120 85.7
Child’s home 19 13.6
Other 1 0.7

TABLE 3 Education, Experience, and Training Interests of Grandparent Caregivers

Percentage
Number (N = 140) Distribution

Highest grade completed

Less than high school 41 29.3
High school diploma or GED 56 40.0
Some college 43 30.7
Mean experience providing paid care 9.8
Received any training in past year 28 30.4
Mean hours of child care training received in
the last 12 months:
All respondents 3.0
Respondents with some training 14.7
Training Interests
CPR 76 54.3
First Aid 74 52.9
Child development 63 45.0
Activity for children 69 49.3
Health & nutrition 55 39.3
Discipline children 52 37.1
Preferred ways of receiving training
Videotapes 74 62.7
Books 75 63.6
Newsletters 70 59.3
Workshop or conferences 39 33.1
Support groups with other providers 41 34.7
Home visit 50 42.4
E-mail or Internet 29 24.6
 Subsidized Child Care by Grandparents 251

school diploma or its equivalent, and 29.3% had not finished high school.
Only 30.4% had received any formal child care training in the past 12 months.
However, the mean of 9.8 years providing paid child care suggests high levels
of practical child care experience among these caregivers.
Grandparents typically expressed interest in receiving child care training
in a number of substantively important areas. Over 70% expressed interest
in at least one of the six types of training shown in Table 3, while 30% were
not interested in receiving any training. Responses regarding interests were
fairly equally distributed across the six types.
Those grandparents interested in training reported that the three most-
preferred training modes were books (63.6%), videotapes (62.7%), and
newsletters (59.3%). Over two fifths (42.4%) selected home visits as a pre-
ferred training mode, and 75.7% expressed a willingness to have training and
resource materials brought to their homes. In contrast, only 33.1% preferred
workshops or conferences, which are commonly used in the training of child
care center staff. Online sources such as e-mail or the Internet also received
relatively little interest (24.6%).
Grandparents were asked to identify their two most important child
care resource needs, from a list of 14 resources previously mentioned in
child care literature. Several observations from the results in Table 4 appear
most pertinent. First, grandparents were especially interested in resources
to enhance the developmental quality of care. For example, resources to

TABLE 4 Grandparent Perceptions About Most Important Child Care Resource Needs (One
of Two Most Important Reasons Selected)

Percentage
Number (N = 140) Distribution∗

Resources to help children learn 46 32.9

Safety equipment resources 41 29.3
Access to recreational or community activities 21 15.0
for children
Information on caring for children 22 15.7
A short-term backup when not able to caring 20 14.3
for the child
Information or resources on caring for children 16 11.4
with special needs
Someone to call when you have a problem 18 12.9
while caring for child
Nutrition resources 14 10.0
Health screening & immunizations 10 7.1
Information about communication for parents 8 5.7
Outdoor recreational equipment 10 7.1
Equipment for your home 5 3.6
Information on business management 5 3.6
Opportunities to meet with other caregivers 3 2.1
∗
Percentages add to more than 100%, due to multiple responses.
252 S. G. Anderson et al.

help children learn were most commonly noted, being mentioned by one
third of respondents. In addition, 15.7% cited information on caring for
children, and 11.4% selected information on caring for children with special
needs. Second, resource needs related to basic safety and health issues were
commonly mentioned. In particular, 29.3% of respondents selected safety
equipment as one of their most important resource needs. In addition,
nutrition resources and information on health screening and immunizations
were cited by 10.0% and 7.1% respectively. Third, there was substantial
interest in resources that would provide recreational or other activities
for children. Finally, the relative isolation in which grandparents provide
care was evident in their expressed need for support. For example, 14.3%
mentioned the need for a short-term backup when they were not able to
care for the child, and 12.9% pointed to the need to have someone to call
whey they had a problem caring for a child.

Caregiving Motivations, and Most Positive and Negative Aspects of

Caregiving
Grandparents were asked about motivations that were most important in
caring for their grandchild. Despite the fact that they were receiving subsi-
dies, the reported motivations were heavily altruistic and child and family
centered (Table 5). Most prominent were motivations specifically related to
caring for the focal child. For example, 25.4% indicated that they wanted the
focal child cared for by a family member, and motivations related to teach-
ing, caring for, or being a role model for the child likewise were common.
In total, nearly three quarters (74.6%) mentioned one of these child-centered
motivations as their primary motivation for caregiving. A desire to help out

TABLE 5 Primary Motivations for Caregiving by Grandparents (Most Important Reason)

Percentage
Number (N = 140) Distribution

Want to help out 25 19.2

Want focal child (fc) cared for by a family 33 25.4
member
Enjoy helping fc 19 14.6
Want to provide care for fc 15 11.5
Enjoy caring for fc 13 10.0
Role model 9 6.9
Need money 3 2.3
Want fc raised your way 8 6.2
Allow to stay with own children 2 1.5
Pressure from focal family 1 0.8
Want to explore new career 1 0.8
Already caring for other children 1 0.8
 Subsidized Child Care by Grandparents 253

the family was also commonly cited, with about one fifth mentioning this
reason. In contrast, motivations related to career or income needs rarely
were mentioned.
Respondents also were asked two open-ended questions designed to
elicit perspectives about positive and negative aspects of caregiving, and
results are summarized in Table 6. When asked what they thought was most
positive about caring for the focal child, responses again centered on child-
centered aspects. Nearly two-fifths mentioned a general liking of children
or enjoyment of caring for children, and one third specifically referenced
developing relationships with their grandchildren or being able to spend
time with them. In addition, 22.9% commented positively on a more specific
aspect of caregiving, such as teaching or nurturing children.
Provider psychological benefits were mentioned next most often
(15.7%). For example, providers indicated that caregiving offered something
meaningful to do or allowed them to make a positive contribution. A sub-
stantial minority (13.6%) cited satisfaction with being able to help out their
adult children as they worked or attended school. It is noteworthy that the
study occurred in a welfare reform context in which poor mothers increas-
ingly were required to work or attend school to receive benefits. Practical
benefits, such as making money or being able to provide care at home, were
mentioned as a most positive feature by only 6.4% of respondents.

TABLE 6 Grandparent Perceptions of Most Positive and Most Difficult Aspects of Caregiving:
Coded Open-Ended Question Responses

Percentage
Number Distribution∗

Most Positive
General liking of children 55 39.3
Relationship to grandchild 47 33.6
Specific aspects of child caring 32 22.9
Provider psychological benefits 22 15.7
Help out their children 19 13.6
Provider practical benefits 9 6.4
Other 4 2.9
Most Difficult
Nothing 58 41.4
Problems educating or getting along with 36 25.7
child
Other specific child caring related 15 10.7
Provider personal limitations 10 7.1
Practical provider problems with caregiving 6 4.3
Separation issues 6 4.3
Financial issues 3 2.1
Problems with parents 2 1.4
Other/refuse 4 2.9
∗
Percentages in the “most positive” section add to more than 100 %, due to multiple responses.
254 S. G. Anderson et al.

In response to the most difficult aspect of caregiving, over two fifths

of grandparents indicated that “nothing” was difficult (Table 6). For those
who did cite difficulties, problems with educating or disciplining children
were most often mentioned (25.7%). In addition, several specific difficulties
in caregiving were reported by 10.7%, such as working with young children
or children of different ages. Work issues such as long hours or the feeling of
being too old to provide needed care were described by 7.1%. Finally, small
minorities reported practical issues with caregiving such as transportation or
work schedules (4.3%), separation or boundary issues related to becoming
too attached to children (4.3%), financial or payment problems (2.1%), and
problems dealing with parents (1.4%).

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The subsidized grandparent child care providers examined in this study

largely are an altruistically motivated group that provides substantial care.
The importance of this care is elevated when considering the disadvantaged
circumstances of the families they typically serve, as well as the widespread
nontraditional hour care provided when child care centers are closed.
Although they generally are poorly trained, they commonly have exten-
sive paid child care experience and convey interest in receiving training.
Further, these grandparents emphasize caregiving resource needs consistent
with improving care quality.
When coupled with the fact that parents often prefer grandparents as
caregivers, our findings are supportive of public subsidization of grandparent
caregiving. However, some findings suggest the need for scrutiny in develop-
ing and monitoring this form of care, in order to improve both the well-being
of grandparent caregivers and the quality of care for children.
There appear to be three primary policy and program mechanisms
for pursuing these dual goals of care quality and caregiver well-being.
First, improved training for grandparents could enhance child development
while simultaneously addressing grandparent caregiving issues. Stereotypes
assuming that grandparents do not desire training abound in many pol-
icy discussions. Yet, our findings suggest that most subsidized grandparent
caregivers do express an interest in training and that these interests are con-
sonant with the increasing child developmental focus in the child care field.
Such training is vital even for those grandparents with extensive caregiving
experience because research has advanced regarding early childhood learn-
ing and because sound curricula on caregiving are increasingly available.
At a minimum, states therefore should develop and provide grandparents
and other unlicensed providers with materials that emphasize the importance
of training for child development, health, and safety. These materials like-
wise should be disseminated to parents who receive child care subsidies,
 Subsidized Child Care by Grandparents 255

because parents may be influential in encouraging grandparents to obtain

training.
Developing training for grandparents poses different challenges than
are encountered in delivering training for child care center staff. One diffi-
cult issue concerns how much training should be required as a condition
of subsidy receipt, as opposed to simply being encouraged. An option is
to require all subsidized providers to receive some basic level of training,
but this policy choice is quite costly. It also may discourage some compe-
tent grandparent caregivers from program participation, due to issues such
as difficulty getting to training or reticence about attending training sessions.
Another possibility is to provide payment incentives to those grandparents
who complete training. For example, states such as Illinois have experi-
mented with “tiered reimbursement” policies, which increase payment rates
for relatives and other nonlicensed providers who complete designated levels
of training.
Regardless of the training content provided, developing creative
approaches to training delivery requires attention. Grandparents often pro-
vide child care with little backup and generally do not view workshops or
conferences as a desirable training mode. Therefore, the in-class training ses-
sions most frequently used to train child care center staff may require some
modification for grandparent caregivers. For example, it may be necessary to
provide on-site child care during training sessions, or to otherwise arrange
back-up care when grandparents attend training. Given the often limited
educations of these grandparents, and the fact that many have not been in
classroom settings in many years, providing a nonthreatening training envi-
ronment may be particularly important. Offering training at senior citizen
centers or other service providers in the aging network may be useful for
overcoming grandparent concerns about training classes, yet it appears that
very little experimentation in this respect has occurred.
Developing approaches to training outside of classroom settings may
be more promising, as grandparents in this study emphasized receptiveness
to other training modes. For example, grandparent providers may benefit
from caregiving videotapes, books, or television programming that can be
provided in the home. Although interest in Internet training was relatively
low among study respondents, Internet training still warrants consideration,
given that computer access is increasing rapidly even among low-income
persons. In addition, some local child care subsidy agencies have experi-
mented with home visits to deliver training materials and other resources to
relative providers. All subsidy programs are provided with set-aside funding
for initiatives to improve child care quality, and these funds are a viable
mechanism to support experimentation with innovative training approaches.
A second approach for assisting grandparents is to improve caregiving
resource supports. For example, grandparents in this study emphasized the
importance of resources to help children learn and of safety resources. The
256 S. G. Anderson et al.

local agencies that administer child care subsidies have lending libraries
with various types of resources, and some have mobile components to get
resources to harder-to-reach providers. Efforts should be made to assure
that grandparents have reasonable access to these libraries. Targeting special
resource delivery initiatives on grandparent caregivers also may be useful.
In addition, because so many of these caregivers are not married or liv-
ing with a partner, caregiving isolation often is magnified. More attention
therefore should be given to developing support networks for grandparent
caregivers.
Finally, in light of the limited economic circumstances of most subsi-
dized grandparent caregivers, perhaps the most basic way to enhance their
well-being is through increasing subsidy payment levels. Illinois paid grand-
parent providers only $9.48 per day per child for full-day care at the time of
this study, and other states also have low payment rates. Although payment
rates are set in very constrained state fiscal environments, improving pay-
ments merits serious consideration. In addition, research suggests that some
portion of increased payments is passed along to children in care through
purchases such as better food, books, or other resources (Anderson et al.,
2005). Allowing grandparent caregivers to receive reimbursements for the
meals they provide to children in care likewise would support these incli-
nations. Such payments, which are available to licensed child care providers
through the Child and Adult Care Food Program, are not available to relative
caregivers in many states.

LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

The current study has several limitations that future research can use-
fully address. First, subsidized grandparent providers are only a subset
of the broader grandparent child caring population. While those who are
subsidized are of obvious public policy importance, developing a more
nuanced understanding of the broader grandparent caregiving population
and important subsets within it is a useful area for further study. In particu-
lar, understanding how those grandparents who are paid for care may differ
from other grandparent caregivers merits attention, including issues such as
how pay may affect care quality and relationships with the parents of chil-
dren in care. In addition, both the needs and abilities of grandparents may
vary with age. For example, some aspects of physical care may become more
challenging for older grandparents. It therefore would be useful to further
explore the characteristics, needs, and problems of grandparent caregivers
in different age groups, and to more systematically assess factors that affect
the quality of care provided.
Second, studies on the longer-term physical and mental effects of
caregiving would be useful. Research to date has generally portrayed positive
 Subsidized Child Care by Grandparents 257

images of the motives and experiences of grandparent caregivers, usually

based on single interviews. Tracking grandparent experiences over time
would allow a better assessment of how robust these experiences are,
or alternatively how they may be strained over time by varying circum-
stances. Similarly, little is known about how caregiving experiences may
vary depending upon the age of children, the number of children in care, or
the hours and times of day in which care is provided.
Third, we have recommended both improved training and resource
provision for grandparents based on our findings, and have emphasized
how strategies beyond the traditional classroom may be needed to enhance
training effectiveness. There is little empirical literature on the relative effec-
tiveness of alternative approaches to training and resource delivery, so
research efforts in this area would be beneficial in guiding training and
resource deployment strategies.
Finally, the data set used in this study was released in 2005, and so
comparable and extended analyses with more recent data would be useful.
For example, although subsidized caregiving by grandparents has contin-
ued or grown as an issue since the current study was conducted, the strain
caused by the economic recession beginning in 2008 may have made the
caregiving context in which grandparents operate even more difficult in
recent times. Further studies with new data sets focusing on the caregiving
effects of the economic downturn therefore may be important not only in
reassessing grandparent needs but also in identifying new pressures that may
impinge on their caregiving performance. Examining the grandparent popu-
lation in other program and geographic contexts likewise could be useful in
determining how well findings on subsidized caregivers may be generalized
across settings.
These and other studies would be valuable in constructing a better
knowledge base for considering both the strengths and limitations of grand-
parent child care provision. This could guide policymakers concerning the
wisdom of subsidizing this form of care, and about the conditions under
which subsidization may be most effective. Well-conceived public decisions
in this respect not only will support the well-being of grandparent caregivers,
but enhance the quality of care received by their grandchildren.

REFERENCES

Anderson, S. G., Ramsburg, D. M., & Scott, J. (2005). Illinois study of license-
exempt child care: Final report. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved from http://www.researchconnections.org/
location/ccrca7350
Baydar, N., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1998). Profiles of grandmothers who help care for
their grandchildren in the United States. Family Relations, 47, 385–393.
258 S. G. Anderson et al.

Chase, R., Arnold, J. Schauben, L., & Shardlow, B. (2006). Family, friend,
and neighbor caregivers—Results of the 2004 Minnesota statewide house-
hold child care survey. St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research Center. Retrieved from
http://www.wilder.org/Wilder-Research/Publications/Studies/Child%20Care%20
Use%20in%20Minnesota%202004/Family%20Friend%20and%20Neighbor%20
Caregivers%20-%20Results%20of%20the%202004%20Minnesota%20Statewide%
20Household%20Child%20Care%20Survey.pdf
Child Care Bureau. (2006). FFY 2006 Child Care and Development Fund Data Tables.
Washington, DC: Child Care Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/data/ccdf_data/
06acf800/table4.htm.
Child Care Bureau. (2008). Child Care and Development Fund, report to Congress
for fiscal years 2004 and 2005. Washington, DC: Child Care Bureau, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.
gov/sites/default/files/occ/rtc_2004_2005.pdf
Fergusson, E., Maughan, B., & Golding, J. (2008). Which children receive grand-
parental care and what effect does it have? Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 49(2), 161–169.
Fields, J. (2003). Children’s living arrangements and characteristics: March 2002.
Current Population Reports, pp. 20–547. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Fuller-Thomson, E. & Minkler, M. (2001). American grandparents providing extensive
child care to their grandchildren: Prevalence and profile. The Gerontologist, 41,
201–209.
Fuller-Thomson, E., & Minkler, M. (2007). Central American grandparents raising
grandchildren. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 29(1), 5–18.
Goodman, C. C., & Silverstein, M. (2006). Grandmothers raising grandchildren:
Ethnic and racial differences in well-being among custodial and coparenting
families. Journal of Family Issues, 27(11), 1605–1626.
Grinstead, L. N., Leder, S., Jensen, S., & Bond, L. (2003). Review of research on
the health of caregiving grandparents. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 44(3),
318–326.
Guzmán, L. (2004). Grandma and grandpa taking care of the kids: Patterns
of involvement. Child Trends Research Brief (Publication Number 2004-17).
Washington, DC: Child Trends.
Hank, K., & Buber, I. (2009). Grandparents caring for their grandchildren: Findings
from the 2004 survey of health, ageing, and retirement in Europe. Journal of
Family Issues, 30(1), 53–73.
Hayslip, B., & Kaminski, P. (2008). Parenting the custodial grandchild: Implications
for clinical practice. New York, NY: Springer.
Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., LaPierre, T. A., & Luo, Y. (2007). All in the family:
The impact of caring for grandchildren on grandparents’ health. Journals of
Gerontology Series B: Social Sciences, 62, S108–S119.
Kolomer, S. R., & McCallion, P. (2005). Depression and caregiver mastery in grandfa-
thers caring for their grandchildren. International Journal of Aging and Human
Development, 60(4), 283–294.
Lee, S., Coldiz, G., Berkman, L., & Kawachi, I. (2003). Caregiving to children and
grandchildren and risk of coronary heart disease in women. American Journal
of Public Health, 93(11), 1939–1944.
 Subsidized Child Care by Grandparents 259

McGowen, M. R., Ladd, L., & Strom, R. D. (2006). On-line assessment of grandmother
experience in raising grandchildren. Educational Gerontology, 32, 669–684.
Minkler, M., & Fuller-Thomson, E. (2005). African American grandparents raising
grandchildren: A national study using the census 2000 American community
survey. The Journal of Gerontology, 60(2), S82–S92.
Mulligan, G. M., Brimhall, D., West, J., & Chapman, C. (2005). Child care and
early education arrangements of infants, toddlers and preschoolers: 2001.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://
nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006039.pdf
Musil, C. M., & Standing, T. (2005). Grandmothers’ diaries: A glimpse at daily lives.
International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 60(4), 317–329.
Robinson-Dooley, V., & Kropf, N. P. (2006). Second generation parenting:
Grandparents caregivers who receive TANF. Journal of Intergenerational
Relationships, 4(3), 49–62.
Smith, G. C., & Hancock, G. R. (2010). Custodial grandmother-grandfather dyads:
Pathways among marital distress, grandparent dysphoria, parenting practice,
and grandchild adjustment. Family Relations, 59(1), 45–59.
Smith, K. (2002). Who’s minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Spring 1997.
Current Population Reports, P70-86. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Smith-Ruiz, D. (2008). African American grandmothers providing extensive care
to their grandchildren: Socio-demographic and health determinants of life
satisfaction. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 35(4), 29–52.
Thiele, D. M., & Whelan, T. A. (2006). The Nature and dimensions of the grandparent
role. Marriage and Family Review, 40(1), 93–108.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). American FactFinder: Grandparents characteris-
tics. Retrieved October 29, 2010, from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/
STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_S1002&-
ds_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_&-redoLog=false.
Uttal, L. (1999). Using kin for child care: Embedment in the socioeconomic networks
of extended families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(4), 845–857.
Vandell, D. L., McCartney, K., Owen, M. T., Booth, C., & Clarke-Stewart, A. (2003).
Variations in child care by grandparents during the first three years. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 65, 375–381.
Waldrop, D. P., & Weber, J. A. (2001). From grandparent to caregiver: The stress and
satisfaction of raising grandchildren. Families in Society, 82, 461–472.
Wang, Y., & Marcotte, D. E. (2007). Golden years? The labor market effects of caring
for grandchildren. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1283–1296.
Whitley, D. M., & Kelley, S. J. (2007). Grandparents raising grandchildren: A call to
action. Washington, DC: Department of Health & Human Services. Retrieved
October 29, 2010 from http://www.statelibrary.sc.gov/docs/grandfamilies/
grc_overview_call_to_action.pdf
Yoon, S. M. (2005). The characteristics and needs of Asian-American grandparent
caregivers: A study of Chinese-American and Korean-American grandparents in
New York City. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 44(3/4), 75–94.
Copyright of Journal of Women & Aging is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.