What the index measures
The index is a 0-100 composite score that captures how well childcare works for families in a given US geography. Higher is better. A score of 100 would mean childcare is widely available, affordable, supports decent worker pay, doesn't crush family finances, and is backed by strong public investment. A score of 0 would mean none of those things are true.
The score is comparable across cities, across states, and across years (annual cadence: May 2026, May 2027, etc.).
The 5 dimensions and weights
| # | Dimension | Weight | What it captures |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Affordability | 30 pts | How much of a typical family's income childcare consumes |
| 2 | Supply | 25 pts | Whether there are enough licensed slots for the children who need them |
| 3 | Workforce Health | 15 pts | Whether childcare workers can earn a living wage |
| 4 | Family Strain | 15 pts | The downstream burden on parents (mothers' workforce participation, single-parent share) |
| 5 | Policy Support | 15 pts | State-level public investment (pre-K access, subsidy reach, paid leave) |
Weight rationale: Affordability and Supply are weighted highest because (a) they're the two pain points families and journalists cite most consistently, and (b) they're the dimensions with the cleanest, most defensible data. Workforce, Strain, and Policy are equal supporting dimensions. The 30/25/15/15/15 split is also clean enough to explain in a single sentence to a journalist.
Metric spine — what feeds each dimension
Dimension 1 — Affordability (30 pts)
| Metric | Source | Granularity available | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Center-based infant care annual price as % of median household income | DOL Women's Bureau NDCP (county) ÷ ACS B19013 (city) | County-level price → city-level income | The single most-cited childcare statistic. |
| Center-based toddler care annual price as % of median household income | Same | Same | Captures cost differential by age. |
| Childcare-to-rent ratio (annual center infant care vs. annual median gross rent) | NDCP ÷ ACS B25064 | Same | Captures the "more than rent" framing without leading on it. |
Dimension 2 — Supply (25 pts)
| Metric | Source | Granularity available | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Licensed childcare slots per 100 children under 5 with all parents working | childcaregap.org (state/county, Sept 2025 release) ÷ ACS B23008 | County-level | The "childcare gap" headline metric; the Buffett/BPC/CCAoA standard. |
| Number of licensed childcare establishments per 1,000 children under 5 | BLS QCEW (NAICS 624410) ÷ ACS B01001 | County-level | Independent supply measure. |
Dimension 3 — Workforce Health (15 pts)
| Metric | Source | Granularity available | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Childcare worker median hourly wage (BLS SOC 39-9011) as % of MIT/EPI living wage for a single adult, no children | BLS OEWS (MSA) ÷ EPI Family Budget Calculator | MSA-level → city via MSA mapping | A city scores better when local wages can actually sustain the workers. |
| Estimated share of childcare workers below the federal poverty line | ACS B24010 + occupation crosswalk | County-level | Cross-check on wage adequacy. |
Dimension 4 — Family Strain (15 pts)
| Metric | Source | Granularity available | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mothers' labor force participation rate (women 25-44 with kids under 6) | ACS B23008 | City-level | Lower LFP = childcare may be pushing mothers out. |
| Single-parent share of households with kids under 18 | ACS B11003 | City-level | Single parents bear disproportionate childcare burden. |
(Parental stress / mental health proxies are not city-granular enough — addressed in the narrative chapter, not the index.)
Dimension 5 — Policy Support (15 pts) — STATE-LEVEL, INHERITED BY CITIES
| Metric | Source | Granularity available | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| State pre-K access score (% of 4-year-olds enrolled in state pre-K) | NIEER State of Preschool Yearbook 2024 | State-level | Inherited by cities in that state. |
| CCDF subsidy reach: % of eligible children receiving subsidies | HHS/ACF | State-level | Inherited. |
| Paid family leave (weeks of paid leave for new parents) | DOL + Bipartisan Policy Center | State-level | Inherited. 0 if no state program. |
For city reports, the Policy Support score = the city's state's score, with a footnote: "Policy Support is measured at state level. [City]'s policy environment reflects [State]'s public investment in childcare."
Scoring methodology
For every metric, every geography (city or state) gets a percentile rank within its cohort: - 250 cities form one cohort → city percentile rank - 50 states + DC form one cohort → state percentile rank - National = absolute value (no rank; described in narrative)
For metrics where higher is BETTER (e.g. supply, wages, LFP): percentile_score = (rank ÷ cohort_size) × 100
For metrics where lower is BETTER (e.g. cost as % of income, single-parent share): percentile_score = ((cohort_size - rank + 1) ÷ cohort_size) × 100
So all metric scores are 0-100 with 100 = best.
Within each dimension, the metric scores are simple-averaged → dimension score (0-100).
The index = weighted average of the 5 dimension scores, using the weights above.
Dimension and scores are rounded to whole numbers (presented as "73" not "72.6") for press readability.
Tier labels for press use
| Tier | score range | Plain-English label |
|---|---|---|
| Excellent | 80-100 | "Childcare works here." |
| Strong | 65-79 | "Above-average childcare access." |
| Moderate | 50-64 | "Mixed picture — some dimensions strong, others strained." |
| Strained | 35-49 | "Families face significant childcare pressure." |
| Crisis | 0-34 | "Childcare is functionally broken for most families." |
These tiers give journalists a clean shareable phrase. Any city, state, or national rating can be expressed in one sentence: "Phoenix scored 38/100 — Strained — in the 2026 State of Childcare Index, ranking #198 of 250 US cities."
Ranking conventions
Each city report shows two ranks: - National rank — out of all 250 cities - State rank — out of all cities in this state with a score (often just 1-15 per state)
Each state report shows: - National rank — out of 51 (50 states + DC)
The national report shows aggregate score for the US plus dimension breakdowns (no rank — there's only one US).
What's deliberately NOT in the index (and why)
- Quality (QRIS, NAEYC accreditation) — too uneven across states; would penalize states with weaker reporting infrastructure rather than weaker quality. Keep as narrative color.
- Parental mental health / marital strain data — not granular below state. Use as national chapter color, not index input.
- Nanny / au pair / in-home care prices — Beverly's natural authority area, but no consistent federal source. Treat as a separate "In-Home Care Callout" chapter in every report (uses Beverly's own pricing data + UrbanSitter / Care.com city aggregations where available).
- Birth rate / fertility — outcome variable (a downstream effect of childcare conditions), not an input. Reference in narrative.
Implementation notes
- Missing metric handling: when a metric is genuinely unavailable for a geography, the score for that geography is computed from the present metrics with the dimension weights renormalized over the present dimensions. Single missing metrics within a dimension are excluded from that dimension's average rather than zeroed.
- NDCP coverage gaps (NM, IN, CO, plus partial AK, HI, MO): state Market Rate Survey or CCAoA state-level estimates are substituted, documented per geography in the source data files.
- Anchorage and Honolulu: included with documented substitute prices where NDCP coverage is partial or absent.
- Within-dimension aggregation: metrics within a dimension are simple-averaged (rather than weighted) for transparency; only the five dimensions themselves are weighted.