Search

Each month, the child care subsidy program helps nearly a million low-income families pay for child care. The financial support of a child care subsidy might be expected to increase stability and quality of care, which are characteristics of care that support child development. However, there are concerns that short durations of subsidy receipt may increase child care instability. Further, there is debate about whether subsidy receipt leads to the use of higher or lower quality care. In this study we use longitudinal survey data on low-income families and linked administrative data on subsidy receipt to investigate the stability and reported quality of child care arrangements. Because we observe the same children repeatedly over time, both when they are and are not receiving child care subsidies, we use child fixed-effects models to address the selection problems that otherwise would bias the relationships among subsidy, stability, and quality. We find that when children received child care subsidies they experienced higher quality care as reported by parents. Yet there was no difference in the stability of care arrangements while receiving subsidy compared to when not receiving subsidy. Additionally, children often had multiple providers concurrently, regardless of subsidy receipt. These results suggest that child care subsidy receipt may promote positive child outcomes due to increased access to higher quality care without worsening the stability of care.

Researchers frequently rely on survey responses to determine whether families receive government assistance and to study the effects of government programs, but these responses are often inaccurate. This study investigates misreporting in the child-care subsidy program by comparing survey responses on child-care subsidy receipt with program administrative data in two states. While we find a lower rate of misreporting than is typical for other government assistance programs, overreporting of benefit receipt is surprisingly common and generates overestimates of program participation. Analyses further suggest that the frequency and systematic nature of misreporting bias estimates of the predictors of program receipt and the effects of the program. These findings illustrate the necessity of assessing the frequency of response errors and understanding their implications in generating valid research results on the effects of government programs.

The relations between social behavior and daily patterns of a stress-sensitive hormone production were examined in preschool children (N = 75) attending center-based child care. Three behavioral dimensions, shy/anxious/internalizing, angry/aggressive/externalizing, and social competence, were assessed by teacher report and classroom observation, and their relations with 2 measures of cortisol activity, median (or typical) levels and reactivity (quartile range score between second and third quartile values) were explored. Cortisol-behavior relations differed by gender: significant associations were found for boys but not for girls. Specifically, for boys externalizing behavior was positively associated with cortisol reactivity, while internalizing behavior was negatively associated with median cortisol. Time of day of cortisol measurement affected the results. Surprisingly, median cortisol levels rose from morning to afternoon, a pattern opposite to that of the typical circadian rhythm of cortisol. This rise in cortisol over the day was positively correlated with internalizing behavior for boys. The methodological and theoretical implications of these findings for the study of the development of hormone-behavior relations are discussed.

In this report we use results from evaluations of welfare-to-work programs and findings of basic research on children and families to anticipate the implications for children of the 1996 federal welfare legislation, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA; P.L. 104-193). The new law replaces the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) entitlement program with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant to states. Much of the concern about the possible implications of the legislation has focused on adult recipients, especially whether adults will be able to make a transition to stable employment (McMurrer, Sawhill, & Lerman, 1997; Nightingale, 1997). Yet children comprise the majority of those receiving public assistance. In 1995, approximately two-thirds (9.3 of 13.6 million) of those receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children each month were children (U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). Further, provisions of the new legislation, particularly the work requirements, have clear implications for children’s child care situations and experiences within the family. Thus, there is also growing concern about how children may be affected by the new policy (see Blank & Blum, 1997; Collins, 1997; Collins & Aber, 1997; Kisker & Ross, 1997; Knitzer & Bernard, 1997; Larner, Terman, & Behrman, 1997; Moffitt & Slade, 1997; Parcel & Menaghan, 1997). The policy change is too recent for us to have a body of research results focusing specifically on PRWORA and children. Yet research findings from two other sources can aid us in anticipating the implications of the new legislation for children. First, some research in the past decade has extended the use of random assignment evaluation studies of welfare-to-work programs to consider effects on both adults and

This toolkit is an informational resource for state administrators, child care and early education practitioners, and other stakeholders on how QRISs work, how to plan and design QRIS evaluations, and why such evaluations are important.

This report presents findings from an exploratory analysis of administrative data from three QRISs. The analyses examine the prevalence of quality components across centers and how they combine to result in an overall rating level and to predict observed quality.

This report focuses on whether pilot welfare reform programs launched in Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, and Minnesota affected children's developmental outcomes. In general, the five state programs achieved their policy goals for adults and increased parental employment, earnings, and in some cases, household income. Overall, there were few impacts on young school-age children, although the programs with the most positive impacts also increased family income. Impacts on adolescents were more frequent and primarily negative.

Even prior to passage of federal welfare reform, many demonstration programs anticipated key features of the 1996 law, such as "work-first" strategies, time limits on welfare receipt, and financial incentives to work. Over the past decade, 10 experimental evaluations of these programs have extended their studies to examine the impacts on children. This article provides a synthesis of findings from the first seven of these studies to release results concerning child impacts. Key observations include the following: Across the different types of welfare-to-work programs examined, researchers found neither widespread harm nor widespread benefit to young children, but some significant impacts did occur. Favorable impacts tended to occur in programs that improved family economic status or maternal education, but these programs still did not bring children to the level of national norms for positive child development. Unfavorable impacts tended to occur when families did not show economic progress or when their economic situation worsened, when the children were adolescents, and--unexpectedly--when the families were believed to be at lower risk for long-term welfare receipt. Thus, although impacts were not widespread, these programs did have the potential to affect children for both better and worse across a range of developmental outcomes. The authors conclude that these findings underscore the importance of strengthening program approaches to enhance developmental outcomes for children in families being served by the welfare system.

This report focuses on whether pilot welfare reform programs launched in Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, and Minnesota affected children's developmental outcomes.