Page 7 - Microsoft Word - Impact of Subsidized Child Care-Full Report.doc

factors that are important (i.e., child care options for licensed care, long-term employment, etc. may impact areas such as parenting and maternal depression, which in turn impact child outcomes).xlvii Additionally, the connection between status of “licensed” and observed quality is tenuous. One study compared a combined group of subsidized parents (Head Start, state subsidized care, and federal TANF subsidies) with waitlist parents. Although there was an increase in the use of licensed care, observational assessments did not show a difference in quality of child care in the subsidized and the waitlist groups.xlviii It was suggested that this may be due to the design of the child care subsidized system which allows for only 4% of child care funds to be dedicated to increasing quality and that the quality of care in low-income neighborhoods may in general be somewhat low. Additionally, the authors of this research suggested the use of a more comparable comparison group. The current study will compare two very similar groups – the Alternative Payment group and the waitlist group from which these parents are pulled.
Based on this literature, participation in some programs and the use of subsidized care is related to an increased use of formal child care, planned activities developed by the provider and increased satisfaction in child care. However, there are mixed results in terms of child outcomes and whether or not use of subsidized child care or participation in welfare-to-work programs is linked to observed quality in child care settings. This study will utilize comparison groups in a quasi- experimental study and will examine the impacts of the use of subsidized child care in working poor families rather than the welfare-to-work families.
Current Study
Subsidized child care offers low-income families partial or full assistance in paying for child care for their children ages 0-12 years old and can come from public or private sources. The Child Care Resource Center (CCRC) provides many subsidized child care options through federal, state, county, and foundation-based grants. The Alternative Payment (AP) program is federally based and the funding is provided through the California Department of Education. Parents who wish to utilize this funding source are called the “working poor” because they qualify based on income eligibility and work/educational needs. They do not qualify as the welfare-to-work population who are categorically eligible for subsidized child care due to their status as a welfare recipient. The parents who wish to utilize the Alternative Payment program must be screened for income eligibility and be placed on the waiting list called the Centralized Eligibility List (CEL) that is coordinated through Los Angeles County Office of Child Care. When funding is available, either from a contract increase or due to program attrition, parents are contacted from the CEL, which ranks families based on the lowest income-to-family ratio. Those parents screened with the lowest income and an approvable work or education activity, are enrolled into the AP program until enrollment or funding targets are met. Currently in the CCRC service area, there are 6,733 families on the CEL while only 689 families are served in our AP program.
It is hoped that subsidized child care affords low-income parents the opportunities to 1) more easily accept and retain employment, 2) begin to experience greater economic and social stability for their families, and 3) place their children in a higher quality early care and education setting. This study set out to measure how well one subsidized child care program in the North Los Angeles County helped low-income families attain these goals. CCRC surveyed families on the CEL who are within the CCRC service area as well as families in our AP program to better understand the impact of subsidized child care on the lives of these families and get a picture of life without subsidized child care. By comparing those receiving services to those on the waitlist, this provides a comparison group analysis. For a full description of the methodology, please refer to Appendix A.
4