Search

Background: Policy advocates play a key role linking the separate worlds of research and policymaking - often serving as research brokers who increase the use of research and promoting more informed decision making. Yet this group is often overlooked in studies of research utilisation. Methods: We undertook two surveys of state-level advocates in the United States in order to better understand the views of these 'research brokers' on the utility of research and the characteristics of research most needed in the policymaking process. Findings: The advocates we surveyed report that research plays an important, if limited, role in shaping the policy outcomes in their state. They value objective and unbiased research, as evidenced by the credibility of the source, and relevance to their state context. At the same time, advocates were not particularly interested in novel research on unfamiliar outcomes in other policy domains, instead preferring studies that stick to the familiar framing of the issue dominant in the policy community in which they work. Advocates use research findings primarily as justification for their policy positions. Discussion and conclusion: Perceived impartiality and objectivity are a major asset of academic researchers seeking to influence the policy process. Advocates value this credibility and other sources of information that they can use to justify their policy positions. At the same time, their preference for familiar rather than novel findings may limit the degree to which policy advocates can serve as intermediary for such results, hampering the ability of research to reframe policy debate.

In 2008, the federal government allotted $7 billion in child care subsidies to low-income families through the state-administered Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), now the government's largest child care program (US DHHS, 2008). Although subsidies reduce costs for families and facilitate parental employment, it is unclear how they impact the quality of care families purchase. This study investigates the impact of government subsidization on parents' selection of child care quality using multivariate regression and propensity score matching approaches to account for differential selection into subsidy receipt and care arrangements. Data were drawn from the Child Care Supplement to the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (CCS-FFCWS), conducted in 2002 and 2003 in 14 of the 20 FFCWS cities when focal children were 3 years old (N = 456). Our results indicate that families who used subsidies chose higher quality care than comparable mothers who did not use subsidies, but only because subsidy recipients were more likely to use center-based care. Subgroup analyses revealed that families using subsidies purchased "higher"-quality home-based care but "lower"-quality center-based care than comparable non-recipients. Findings suggest that child care subsidies may serve as more than a work support for low-income families by enhancing the quality of nonmaternal care children experience but that this effect is largely attributable to recipients' using formal child care arrangements (versus kith and kin care) more often than non-recipients.

Using data from the Child Care Supplement to the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, we test associations between the quality of child care and state child care policies. These data, which include observations of child care and interviews with care providers and mothers for 777 children across 14 states, allow for comparisons across a broader range of policy regimes and care settings than earlier research on this topic. Using multilevel linear and logistic models, we found that more generous subsidy policies (that is, greater investment, higher income eligibility) were positively associated with the quality of care in nonprofit child care centers, as well as with the use of center care. The stringency of regulations (that is, teacher education requirements, teacher-child ratios/thresholds) was also associated with both quality and type of care, but in more complex ways. Higher teacher training requirements were positively associated with the quality of both family child care and nonprofit centers, while more stringent regulations decreased the number of children attending center care. No links were found between state policies and the quality of for-profit center care. The implications for policy makers, advocates, and policy analysts are discussed. (Contains 10 footnotes and 5 tables.)

Policy makers and advocates have a variety of tools from which to choose when designing childcare policy. Policy design choices, such as whether to provide childcare assistance through a new government program or via a voucher for use in the private market, are in fact social, political, moral, and value-laden choices that shape the nature of young children's experiences in care settings. Although rarely discussed, these choices also privilege particular social constructions of childcare by defining our understanding of the policy problem and the characteristics of the target populations. In addition, policy designs institutionalize and legitimize particular forms of governmental involvement in children's lives--as well as give power and voice to some interests over others--resulting in a new political context for future policy debates. To better illustrate these socio-political effects, this article documents and compares these consequences of five common childcare policy designs. (Contains 4 notes and 1 table.)