# Presentation: 028975

## Child Care Providers & the Subsidy System: A Study of 5 Counties

***Gina Adams & Monica Rohacek***
***	******The Urban Institute     ***
***Welfare Research and Evaluation Conference***
***	******June 5, 2007******	******	******	******	******	******	******	******	******	******	******	***

## Acknowledgements

***Funders***

**Ellen Kisker, Matthew Stagner, Deborah Phillips **
**Kathleen Snyder, Debra Mekos, Sara Bernstein**
**Regan Main, Joanna Parnes, Laura Wherry, Bonnie Gordic**
**Mathematica Policy Research**

***Research team***

**Child Care Bureau, DHHS and The David & Lucile Packard, **
**John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur, and Peppercorn Foundations**

***Local collaborators***

**Resource & referral agencies, state and local subsidy administrators & staff, center directors & teachers, **
**family child care providers**

## Why focus on providers & subsidies?

**Key role in supporting subsidy goals**

**Helping low-income parents work**
**Supporting children’s development**

**Relatively little is known about... **

**Who cares for children receiving subsidies**
**Relationship between providers and the subsidy system**

## Research goals

**Explore...**

**Characteristics of providers**
**Voucher policies and implementation practices that may affect providers**
**Interaction between provider and voucher system characteristics**

## Study sites

**Jefferson County, AL *****(Birmingham)***
**Hudson County, NJ *****(Jersey City)***
**King County, WA *****(Seattle)***
**Monterey County, CA**
**San Diego County, CA**

## Project status

**Now available at **_[www.urban.org](http://www.urban.org/)__:_
**Child Care Centers, Child Care Subsidies, and Faith-Based Organizations: Preliminary Findings on Five Counties in 2003 **
**Remaining reports to be released later this year**
**Findings preliminary until final reports released**

## Part I. Meeting the need?  A description of child care providers supported by the Child Care & Development Fund 

- Monica Rohacek
*The Urban Institute*

## Presentation overview

**Survey methodology**
**Rates of “participation” in the subsidy system**
**Characteristics of providers**

**Care during nontraditional days/hours *****(homes)***
**Provider education & training**
**Wages & benefits**
**Ratio/group size & proxies for process quality **

**Conclusions**

## Survey methodology

**Instruments**

**Computer assisted telephone interview (CATI)**
**Spanish translation for FCC**
**Item development**

**Stratified random sample of centers and family child care homes**

**Children under age 5**
**40 hours per week**
**Fee-paying or voucher-subsidized clients***

## Survey methodology

**Sample size (response rate)**

**Weighting & finite population correction factor**
**Exploratory study ******** 90% confidence level**
**Low power ******** only relatively large differences detectable**

**Analysis**

**407 center directors (≈82%)**
**534 family child care providers (≈87%)**
**385 teachers (≈77%) **

## Rates of voucher receipt in centers and homes

**Any children whose fees are paid through vouchers?**
**How many?**
**If not, were there in the past?**

## Percent of centers that currently or recently cared for at least one child with a voucher

**Jefferson**
**(AL)**

**Hudson**
**(NJ)**

**King**
**(WA)**

**Monterey**
**(CA)**

**SanDiego**
**(CA)**

## Percent of centers and family child care homes that currently or recently cared for at least one child with a voucher

**C    H**
**Jefferson**
**(AL)**

**C    H**
**Hudson**
**(NJ)**

**C    H**
**King**
**(WA)**

**C    H**
**Monterey**
**(CA)**

**C    H**
**SanDiego**
**(CA)**

## Percent of centers in which <1/3, 1/3-2/3, or >2/3 of children have a voucher (among centers with current/recent voucher children)

**Jefferson**
**(AL) **

**Hudson**
**(NJ)**

**King**
**(WA)**

**Monterey**
**(CA)**

**SanDiego**
**(CA)**

**Share of enrollment **_**with vouchers**_

## Characteristics - Comparisons are by level of voucher involvement

**No current or recent children with vouchers**

**Not involved (Unsubsidized)**

**Either current or recent children w/vouchers**
**Centers - <20% enrollment w/vouchers**
**Homes - <50% enrollment w/vouchers**

**Less (Subsidized)**

**Current children w/vouchers**
**Centers – 20%+ enrollment w/vouchers**
**Homes – 50%+ enrollment w/vouchers**

**More (Subsidized)**

## Characteristics - Comparisons are by level of voucher involvement

**	****Jeff.****	****Huds. ****	****King****	****Mont.****	****SanD.**
_***Centers***__**	**__**AL**__**	**__**NJ**__**	**__**WA**__**	**__**CA**__**	**__**CA**__**	**_
***Teacher wages (highest paid)****	****▼****	****▼****	****▼****	****▼****	****▬**
***Assistant wages (lowest paid)****	****▼****	****▬****	****▼** **	****▼** **	****▬**
***Teacher raise last 12 months****	****▼****	****▼****	****▼****	****(▼) ****	****(▲)**
**+****Offers paid health insurance****	****▼****	****▼** **	**** ****▬** **	****M**     **	****▬**** **
**+****Teacher has any health insurance****	****▼** **	****▼** **	**** ****(▲)** **	****▲** **	****M**
**+****Teacher has 2+ weeks leave****	****▼** **	****▬****	** **▼** **	****▲****	****▬**
***Teacher turnover****	****▬** **	****▲ ****	**** ▲** 	**▲** 	**▬** **	**
**+****Assistant teacher turnover****	****▬** **	****(▼)** **	**** ****▬** **	****▼** **	****▲**

**Characteristics - Comparisons are ****by level of voucher involvement**

## Characteristics - Comparisons are by level of voucher involvement

**▬  ****No significant differences across the 3 groups**
**▲ “****Subsidized” significantly *****higher***** than unsubsidized**
**▼ “****Subsidized” significantly *****lower***** than unsubsidized **
**(▲) “Less involved” significantly *****higher***** than “not inv.”**
**(▼) “Less involved” significantly *****lower***** than “not inv.” **
**M  Results mixed**

## Offer care outside of traditional days/hours (homes)

**	****Jeff.****	****Huds. ****	****King****	****Mont.****	****SanD.**
_**Homes**__**	**__**AL**__**	**__**NJ**__**	**__**WA**__**	**__**CA**__**	**__**CA**__**	**_
***Offer evening care****	**** **
***Open Sat. and/or Sun.****	**** **
**	**

**Offer care outside of traditional days/hours *****(homes)***

**	**** ****▲** **	**** ****▬** **	**** ****▲ ****	**** ▲ ****	**** ▲**
**	**** ▬****	**** ****▲ ****	**** ****▬****	**** ▲****	**** ▲**

## Percent of family child care homes that offer evening care, by level of voucher involvement

**Jefferson**
**(AL)**

**Hudson**
**(NJ)**

**King**
**(WA)**

**Monterey**
**(CA)**

**SanDiego**
**(CA)**

**Level of voucher **_**involvement**_

## Education & training characteristics

**	****Jeff.****	****Huds. ****	****King****	****Mont.****	****SanD.**
_***Centers***__**	**__**AL**__**	**__**NJ**__**	**__**WA**__**	**__**CA**__**	**__**CA**__**	**_
***Directors w/Bachelor+ degree****	**** ****▼ ****	**** ****▬**** ****	****▼ ****	****▼ ****	****▼**
***Teachers w/Bachelor+ degree****	**** ****▼ ****	**** ****▬**** ****	****▼ ****	****▼ ****	****▼**
**Teachers w/no college or CDA****	**** ****▬ ****	**** ▬ ****	****▬ ****	****(▲)**** ****	****▬**** **
**50% of teachers had 10+ hrs training****	**** ****▬ ****	**** ▬ ****	****▬ ****	****▼**** ****	****▬**
**Early literacy training****	**** ****▬ ****	**** ▬ ****	****▬ ****	****(▼)**** ****	****▬**** **
**Offer paid time off for training (TS)****	**** ****▬****	**** ▬****	****▬ ****	****M****	****▬**
**Training cost covered (TS)****	**** ****▼**** ****	**** ▬****	****▬ ****	****▲**** ****	**** ****▼**

_***Homes***__**	**__**	**__**	**__**	**__**	**__**	**_
**Associate+ degree****	****▬**** ****	**** ****▬**** ****	**** ****▬**** ****	**** ****(▲)**** ****	**** ****▬**
***Early literacy training****	****(▲)****	****▲****	****▲****	**** ▲****	**** ▲**
***10+ hours training previous year**** ****	****▲****	****▲****	**** ****▬**** ****	**** ▲****	**** ▲**

## Average percent of teachers in center who have a Bachelor or higher degree, by level of voucher involvement

**Jefferson**
**(AL)**

**Hudson**
**(NJ)**

**King**
**(WA)**

**Monterey**
**(CA)**

**SanDiego**
**(CA)**

**Level of voucher **_**involvement**_

## Wages & Benefits

**	****Jeff.****	****Huds. ****	****King****	****Mont.****	****SanD.**
_***Centers***__**	**__**AL**__**	**__**NJ**__**	**__**WA**__**	**__**CA**__**	**__**CA**__**	**_
***Teacher wages****	****▼****	****▼** **	****▼ ** **	****▼** **	****▬**
***Assistant wages****	****▼** **	****▼** **	****▼** **	****▼** **	****▼**
***Teacher raise last 12 months****	****▼****	****▼****	****▼****	****(▼) ****	****(▲)**
**+****Offers paid health insurance****	****▼** **	****▼** **	****▬** **	****M**     **	****▬**** **
**+****Teacher has any health insurance****	****▼** **	****▼** **	****(▲)** **	****▲** **	****M**
**+****Teacher has 2+ weeks leave****	****▼** **	****▬****	****▼** **	****▲****	****▬**
***Teacher turnover****	****▬** **	****▲ ****	****▲** 	**▲** 	**▬** **	**
**+****Assistant teacher turnover****	****▬** **	****(▼)** **	****▬** **	****▼** **	****▲**

_***Homes***__**	**__**	**__**	**__**	**__**	**__**	**_
**Has any health insurance****	****▲****	****▬****	**** ****▼**** ****	****▬****	**** ****▬**
***Days closed for holiday/vacation****	****▼**** ****	****▼****	****▬**** ****	****▼****	**** ****▬**** ****	**

## Average hourly wage for highest paid teachers, by level of voucher involvement

**Jefferson**
**(AL)**

**Hudson**
**(NJ)**

**King**
**(WA)**

**Monterey**
**(CA)**

**SanDiego**
**(CA)**

**Level of voucher **_**involvement**_

## Ratio/group size & proxies for process quality

**	****Jeff.****	****Huds. ****	****King****	****Mont.****	****SanD.**
_***Homes***__**	**__**AL**__**	**__**NJ**__**	**__**WA**__**	**__**CA**__**	**__**CA**__**	**_
***Ratio/grp size > recommended****	**** ****▲ ****	**** ▲ ****	**** (▲)**** ****	**** ****▼ ****	**** ▼**** **
**In field because...“It’s a career”****	**** ****▲**** ****	**** ****▬ ****	**** ▬ ****	**** ▬**** ****	**** ****(▲)**** **
**“****It’s a job with a paycheck”****	**** ****▬ ****	**** ▬ ****	**** ▬**** ****	**** ****▲**** ****	**** ****▬**** **
**Would choose work in other field****	**** ****▬ ****	**** ▬ ****	**** ▬ ****	**** ▬ ****	**** ▬**** **
***Traditional childrearing beliefs****	**** ****▲**** ****	**** ****▼**** ****	**** ****▲ ****	**** ▲ ****	**** ▲**** **
**Depressive symptoms****	**** ****▼**** ****	**** ****▬ ****	**** ▬ ****	**** ▬ ****	**** ▬**
**Average # literacy activities weekly****	**** ****▲**** ****	**** ****▬ ****	**** ▬ ****	**** ▬ ****	**** ▬ **
***Number of children’s books****	**** ****▼****	**** ****(▲)**** ****	**** ****▼****	**** ▼****	**** ****▬**
**+****Take children to the library****	**** ****▲**** ****	** **(▼)**** ****	** **▬**** ****	**** ****▲**** ****	**** ****▬**** **

## Ratio/group size & proxies for process quality

**	****Jeff.****	****Huds. ****	****King****	****Mont.****	****SanD.**
_***Centers***__**	**__**AL**__**	**__**NJ**__**	**__**WA**__**	**__**CA**__**	**__**CA**__**	**_
**Ratio/grp size > recommended****	****▬****	****▼****	****▬****	****M****	**** ▬**** **
**In field because...“It’s a career”****	****▬ ****	****▬ ****	****▬ ****	****▲**** ****	****(▼)**
**“****It’s a job with a paycheck”****	****▬ ****	****▬ ****	****▬ ****	****▼**** ****	****▬ **
***Would choose work in other field****	****▲ ****	****▲**** ****	****▬**** ****	****▼**** ****	****▲**** **
**Traditional childrearing beliefs****	****▲**** ****	****▬ ****	****▬ ****	****▲**** ****	****▬**** **
**Depressive symptoms****	****▬ ****	****▬ ****	****▼**** ****	****▬ ****	****▬**
**Average # literacy activities weekly****	****▲ ****	****(▲****) ****	****▬ ****	****▬ ****	****▬**** **
**Never take children to the library****	****▼**** ****	****▬****	****▬ ****	****▲**** ****	****▬**** **

## Percent of homes that exceed recommended ratio and/or group size, by involvement with voucher system

**Jefferson**
**(AL)**

**Hudson**
**(NJ)**

**King**
**(WA)**

**Monterey**
**(CA)**

**SanDiego**
**(CA)**

**Level of voucher **_**involvement**_

## Concluding thoughts

**How much of the child care market is being reached with vouchers?**

**How do programs with vouchers compare to programs fully funded through parent fees?**
**Why do we care about this?**
**What might contribute to these patterns?**

## Part II.How Does it Work? How Child Care Providers Experience the Subsidy System

- Gina Adams
*The Urban Institute*

## Overview

**Research Approach**
**Administrative Context**
**Payment Issues**
**Working with the Agency**
**Working with Parents**
**Conclusions**

## Administrative Context

**Number of agencies and programs**
**Types of agencies**
**How allocate provider-related functions:**
**Provider registration**
**Authorizing level of payment (parent worker)**
**Payment logistics (checking attendance forms, approving payment)**
**Cutting the check**
**Problem resolution**

## Payment Issues

**Perceptions of overall payment**
**Overall**
**In comparison to private pay**
**Experiences with selected policies affecting how much they receive**
**Absent days**
**Copayment policies/collection**
**Notification around transitions in/out of the program**
**Timeliness and accuracy of payments**

## Working with Subsidies: “Hassle Factor”

**Selected issues:**
**Multiple agencies**
**Paperwork**
**Contacting agency**

## Working with Subsidies: Benefits

**Will be paid**
**Can serve families they otherwise couldn’t serve**
**Agency can help deal with “problem” parents**
**Program allows those who are “mission-driven” to serve low-income families**

## Working with Families

**Help navigate system**
**Turnover**
**Complexity / dynamic nature of client’s lives**
**Work with parents who really need service**

## Implications

**Summary view depends on perspective and what is “good enough”**
**System functioning for a good number of providers in a number of sites**
**Yet key problem areas are cause for concern:**
** ****Result in lost revenue **
** ****Result in lost time and increased effort **

## Next Steps

**Explore implications of these issues for providers and for the quality/stability of their care **
** ****Examine these issues in the context of other factors that affect providers**
** ****Identify innovative policy strategies that support providers**