Equitable use of subsidized child care in Georgia

IF 3.2 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Early Childhood Research Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-09-13 DOI:10.1016/j.ecresq.2024.09.001
{"title":"Equitable use of subsidized child care in Georgia","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ecresq.2024.09.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>High-quality childcare services are vital to children's development and family wellbeing but are not equitably accessed by all children. In the United States, programs supported by the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) have the potential to reduce these inequities. Economically eligible Black children use CCDF-supported services at higher rates than other children, but less is known about disparities in the characteristics of those services. This study uses weekly subsidy records from Georgia's Childcare and Parent Services (CAPS) program to examine racial, ethnic, and geographic differences in the types, modes, quality, proximity, and stability of care and in subsidy payments, co-payments, and subsidy use. The study distinguishes between unconditional differences that it observes in children's experiences and conditional disparities that it estimates after accounting for children's needs and other characteristics. It interprets the conditional disparities as evidence of inequity. The analysis uncovers many unconditional racial and ethnic differences in subsidized care outcomes and several geographic differences. However, the study finds fewer (and mostly smaller) conditional differences, including very few conditional differences between non-Hispanic Black and White children. The results suggest that there is substantial racial equity in participating children's use of CAPS services.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48348,"journal":{"name":"Early Childhood Research Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200624001169/pdfft?md5=a47422df4c86eadb416da231335b7da8&pid=1-s2.0-S0885200624001169-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Early Childhood Research Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200624001169","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

High-quality childcare services are vital to children's development and family wellbeing but are not equitably accessed by all children. In the United States, programs supported by the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) have the potential to reduce these inequities. Economically eligible Black children use CCDF-supported services at higher rates than other children, but less is known about disparities in the characteristics of those services. This study uses weekly subsidy records from Georgia's Childcare and Parent Services (CAPS) program to examine racial, ethnic, and geographic differences in the types, modes, quality, proximity, and stability of care and in subsidy payments, co-payments, and subsidy use. The study distinguishes between unconditional differences that it observes in children's experiences and conditional disparities that it estimates after accounting for children's needs and other characteristics. It interprets the conditional disparities as evidence of inequity. The analysis uncovers many unconditional racial and ethnic differences in subsidized care outcomes and several geographic differences. However, the study finds fewer (and mostly smaller) conditional differences, including very few conditional differences between non-Hispanic Black and White children. The results suggest that there is substantial racial equity in participating children's use of CAPS services.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
佐治亚州公平使用补贴托儿服务的情况
高质量的托儿服务对儿童的发展和家庭的幸福至关重要,但并非所有儿童都能公平地获得这些服务。在美国,儿童保育和发展基金(CCDF)支持的项目有可能减少这些不公平现象。与其他儿童相比,符合经济条件的黑人儿童使用 CCDF 支持的服务的比例更高,但人们对这些服务的特点方面的差异却知之甚少。本研究利用佐治亚州儿童保育和家长服务(CAPS)计划的每周补贴记录,研究了保育类型、模式、质量、邻近性和稳定性以及补贴支付、共同支付和补贴使用方面的种族、民族和地域差异。该研究区分了在儿童经历中观察到的无条件差异和在考虑儿童需求和其他特征后估算出的有条件差异。它将条件性差异解释为不公平的证据。分析发现了许多无条件的种族和民族差异,以及一些地域差异。然而,研究发现的条件性差异较少(而且大多较小),包括非西班牙裔黑人儿童和白人儿童之间的条件性差异。研究结果表明,在参与儿童使用 CAPS 服务方面存在着很大的种族公平性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
8.10%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: For over twenty years, Early Childhood Research Quarterly (ECRQ) has influenced the field of early childhood education and development through the publication of empirical research that meets the highest standards of scholarly and practical significance. ECRQ publishes predominantly empirical research (quantitative or qualitative methods) on issues of interest to early childhood development, theory, and educational practice (Birth through 8 years of age). The journal also occasionally publishes practitioner and/or policy perspectives, book reviews, and significant reviews of research. As an applied journal, we are interested in work that has social, policy, and educational relevance and implications and work that strengthens links between research and practice.
期刊最新文献
Mothers’ Perceptions of the Jewish–Arab Conflict and Social Information Processing Patterns: Relations to Their Children's Stereotypical Perceptions, Social Information Processing Patterns, and Social Adjustment in Preschool Types and contexts of child mobile screen use and associations with early childhood behavior Caregivers’ perceptions on caregiver-implemented intervention and coaching Mission FEEL! A novel emotion understanding intervention for preschoolers: A proof-of-concept study Participation in the Missouri Parents as Teachers Parent Education Program and third grade math and English language arts proficiency
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1