pushing the methodological envelope an interdisciplinary approach to research on subsidized child...
TRANSCRIPT
Pushing the Methodological Envelope
An Interdisciplinary Approach to Research on Subsidized Child Care:
Econometric Models that Draw on Qualitative and Quantitative
ApproachesBy Deanna Schexnayder and Laura Lein, PIs
Julie Beausoleil, Daniel Schroeder and Ying Tang
University of Texas at Austin A presentation from the
“Devolution of Subsidized Child Care in Texas”,
a field initiated research project funded by the Child Care Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001-2005
Econometric Analysis that Builds on Four Data Sources• Research Questions
• Overview of Texas Policy Environment
• Four Data Streams1. Policy Analysis2. Interviews with Board Staff3. Administrative Data4. Market Rate Survey Data
• Econometric Analysis
• Conclusions
Research Questions
1. How do local child care policies in Texas vary following the devolution of responsibilities for child care policies to the local workforce boards?
2. What is the process by which local policy changes governing the provision of publicly subsidized child care are decided upon and implemented?
This presentation addresses the following questions: 3. Which changes in local child care markets are statistically
associated with local policy variations?
4. Which changes in the patterns of child care use and family outcomes are statistically associated with local policy variations?
Overview: The Research Context
In the late 1990s Texas devolved the management of its child care subsidy system and responsibility for child care policies to 28 workforce boards.
1. Panhandle
2. South Plains
3. North Texas
4. North Central
5. Tarrant County
6. Dallas County
7. North East Texas
8. East Texas
9. West Central Texas
10. Upper Rio Grande
11. Permian Basin
12. Concho Valley
13. Heart of Texas
14. Capital Area
15. Rural Capital
16. Brazos Valley
17. Deep East Texas
18. South East Texas
19. Golden Crescent
20. Alamo Area
21. South Texas
22. Rural Coastal Bend
23. Hildalgo
24. Cameron County
25. Texoma
26. Central Texas
27. Middle Rio Grande
28. Gulf Coast
Four Streams of Data:1. Policy Analysis : Policy Change over Time at Three Levels
Federal Change
(Effective Date)
State Legislative Change (Effective Date)
TWC Rules Change
(Date of Issuance)
August, 1996, states gain the flexibility to manage and target child care assistance; allows states to transfer up to 30% of TANF funds to CCDF, of which 10% may be for SSBG. Allows direct spending of TANF on child care.
1995, HB 1863, Consolidation of workforce programs and creation of 28 Local Workforce Development Boards. Priority
to Choices participants. September 1997, SB 459: All LWDBs
should include a child care representative.
September 1997 (ACT Waiver interaction): Exemption from mandatory employment services is changed for parents with youngest child of age 5 to age 4.
Fall 1999. State authorized local workforce development board to begin setting some
subsidy policy
2003, TWC freezes reimbursement rates for child care providers
Example of work sheet
Local Policy Changes: The Fourth LevelExample: Changes in Income Eligibility Policies
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003
Nu
mb
er o
f L
WD
Bs
wit
h in
com
e el
igib
ility
gu
idel
ines
in e
ach
ran
ge
50% SMI 51-65% SMI 66-80% SMI 81-85% SMI
2. Interviews with Board Staff: Changes over Time
FIRST INTERVIEW QUESTIONS• Program Variables
– Eligibility– Access to services– Co-payments– Reimbursement rates– Types of care used
• Program Administration and Operation– Policy-making process– Financial flow– Board oversight process– Interagency collaboration– Special needs of Hispanic
community
CODING CATEGORIES• TOPIC #1 - Board, board
structure, board dynamics and child care contractors– Board’s basic facts/history– Board’s experience of
devolution (general)– Board size and membership
– Child Care Program Manager (CCPM)
– Child care committee (CCC)– Child care advisory committee
(AC)– Child care contractors (CO
• Topic #2 - Quality• Topic #3 - Funding• Topic # 4 - Policy Making
3. A. Administrative Data: Workforce Development Board Progress
Matching - Combined Federal Matching Funds and State
Funding Appropriated as Match ($)
Matching - Federal Funds Contingent on Meeting Local
Match Target7 (S)
Deobligation/Reobligation of
Federal Funds Contingent on
meeting target ($)
New Combined Federal Matching Funds and State
Funding Appropriated as
Match ($)
2,442,947 241,707 (95,708) 7,442,595
2,226,216 488,760 181,280 7,846,338
1,216,405 205,774 37,767 3,780,416
10,326,207 1,426,234 - 23,400,451
9,149,896 1,792,500 528,735 23,923,576
14,065,532 2,342,702 400,000 40,642,706
1,506,922 208,133 - 4,763,630
4,079,308 112,826 (450,599) 12,647,748
1,746,104 591,644 350,476 5,920,777
4,996,467 690,102 - 22,160,451
Example of data: Financial Allocations to Local Boards
3. B. Administrative Data: Understanding Changes in the Characteristics of Subsidy Recipients over Time
Characteristics of Subsidy RecipientsFY 1998 & 1999 FY 2000 & 2001 FY 2002 & 2003
ChildrenTotal children receiving care 4,904 4,842 5,270Age of child
Infant (1 to 17 months) 23.8% 22.3% 23.3%Toddler (18 to 35 months) 21.2% 21.7% 20.8%Pre-schooler (36 to 71 months) 31.7% 32.8% 32.1%School age (72 months andolder)
23.3% 23.3% 23.8%
Race/ethnicity of ChildWhite 52.3% 50.1% 45.5%Black 14.1% 14.5% 13.5%Hispanic 32.7% 34.7% 36.8%Other .9% .7% 4.2%
FamilyAverage number of subsidizedchildren
1.66 1.76 1.85
Families with one child 53.0% 47.6% 43.1%Families with two children 32.2% 33.6% 36.4%Families with three or morechildren
14.8% 18.8% 20.5%
ParentMarital status (if known)
Single (never married) 79.6% 83.1% 79.0%Married 13.8% 11.4% 9.0%Divorced/separated/widowed 6.6% 5.5% 12.0%
Source: ŅThe Texas Child Care subsidy Program Afer Devolution t the Local LevelÓ, Data for localworkforce development area 09 Š West Central Texas, 2004, p. B-37
Example of data
4. Market Rate Survey Data: The Market -- Rates and Supply
Example of Results from Statewide Market Rate Surveyshowing rates for a workforce board over time
Average rates charged FY 1998 &1999
FY 2000 &2001
FY 2002 &2003
Licensed center full day infant care $13.49 $16.63 $17.16Licensed center full day pre-schoolcare
$12.29 $15.15 $15.56
Registered family home full day infantcare
$10.58 $13.17 $14.45
Registered family home full day pre-school care
$10.77 $11.78 $13.06
Source: ŅThe Texas Child Care Subsidy Program After Devolution to the Local LevelÓ, Data for localworkforce development area 09 Š West Central Texas, 2004, p. B-37
Econometric Analysis:Child Care Subsidy Dynamics
Equation D-1:Exit from Subsidy
Equation D-2:Share of careprovided by TexasRising Starproviders
Equation D-3:Use of Center-based care
Level of Analysis Family Family FamilyUniverse Families on subsidy Families on subsidy Families on subsidyDependentVariable
Exit Share of subsidizedcare days in TRSfacilities
Share of subsidizedcare days in center-based care
IndependentVariables ofSpecial Interest
Personalcharacteristics, policyvariables, quality ofcare indicators (i.e.,share of TRSproviders)
Personalcharacteristics,geographic, andpolicy variables
Personalcharacteristics,policy variables,quality of careindicators (i.e.,share of TRSproviders),percentage ofproviders in areathat are centers
EquationStructure
EventHistory/Boskin-Nold
Logistic Regression Logistic Regression
Time Dimension Monthly familyobservations for allmonths on subsidy
Monthly familyobservations whileon subsidy
Monthly familyobservations whileon subsidy
Other Commentsand Notes
Econometric Analysis:Family Economic Outcomes
Equation F-1: Earnings of subsidy recipients
Equation F-2: Exit from employment among subsidy recipients
Equation F-3: Entry or re-entry to TANF
Level of Analysis Family Family Family
Universe Families with employed case heads receiving transitional or income-eligible subsidies
Subsidized families with employed case heads
Families receiving subsidized care
Dependent Variable Quarterly earnings while on subsidy
Exit from employment TANF Entry
Independent Variables Personal characteristics and benefit histories, policy variables, indicators of type and quality of care (i.e., share of TRS providers)
Personal characteristics and benefit histories, co-pay, other policy variables, indicators of type and quality of care
Personal characteristics and benefit histories, Co-pay, other policy variables, indicators of type and quality of care
Equation Structure Linear or Log-Linear Regression
Event History--Boskin-Nold
Event History--Boskin-Nold
Time Dimension One observation per subsidized and employed quarter.
Maximum follow-up period. Event history methods account for censoring.
One observation per family per month while receiving subsidy and not on TANF
Econometric Analysis:Child Care Market Outcomes
Equation M-1: Providers receiving subsidy as share of total formal market
Equation M-2: To what share of the market does a child care subsidy provide access?
Equation M-3: What predicts provider turnover?
Level of Analysis Provider Board Provider
Universe All providers, all years
All boards, certain types of care
All counties, all providers
Dependent Variable Binary indicating whether provider received a subsidy in a given month
Share of market accessible with subsidy
Provider turnover
Independent Variables of Interest
Geographic, provider, and policy variables
Size of local child care market, geographic characteristics
Geographic, provider, and policy variables
Equation Structure Logistic Regression Logistic Regression Event History--Boskin Nold
Time Dimension Monthly observations
Monthly observations
Monthly observations
Other Comments and Notes
Conclusions: Benefits of Multiple Methods
• Include range of types of variables from institutional to household, and from financial to attitudinal
• More confidence that specific issues raised in interviews and case studies represent the universe
• Ability to view the same situation from multiple view points and explore multiple outcomes at different levels
• Issues identified in interviews can be incorporated in regressions and tested for statistical significance
For More Information
Deanna Schexnayder 512-471-2193 [email protected]
Laura [email protected]
On the Web: http:\\www.utexas.edu/research/cshr/childcare/