Is authorized capacity a good measure of child care providers’ current capacity? New evidence from Virginia

IF 3.2 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Early Childhood Research Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-12-12 DOI:10.1016/j.ecresq.2024.12.001
Katherine Miller-Bains, Stephen Yu, Daphna Bassok
{"title":"Is authorized capacity a good measure of child care providers’ current capacity? New evidence from Virginia","authors":"Katherine Miller-Bains,&nbsp;Stephen Yu,&nbsp;Daphna Bassok","doi":"10.1016/j.ecresq.2024.12.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Research has found demand for child care in the United States outpaces supply. However, the most widely available proxy for child care supply—authorized capacity—likely overestimates care availability in many studies. Authorized capacity represents the maximum children a provider can legally serve based on safety regulations and physical characteristics of the site. However, the slots available across sites can be constrained by factors not captured by authorized capacity, including the combination of ages currently enrolled and staffing at a site. If the gap between authorized capacity and “current capacity” is large, we stand to underestimate needed investments to improve access. This study quantifies the gap between providers’ current capacity as reported in a fall 2022 survey and authorized capacity per administrative records. Using data from 1,968 home- and center-based providers in Virginia, we find three key limitations of authorized capacity as a proxy of supply. First, providers’ current capacity was 74 % of their authorized capacity on average. Authorized capacity would overestimate child care availability by &gt;30,000 slots across the providers in our sample. Second, center-based providers that accepted child care subsidies and those in neighborhoods with a greater concentration of poverty or people of color had significantly larger discrepancies between their current and authorized capacity. Finally, we find centers that reported challenges hiring and retaining staff had larger gaps between their current and authorized capacity compared to providers that did not report staffing challenges. These findings suggest the need for measures that more accurately and dynamically capture the number of children a provider can serve to better describe and address access inequities.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48348,"journal":{"name":"Early Childhood Research Quarterly","volume":"71 ","pages":"Pages 92-103"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Early Childhood Research Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200624001716","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

Research has found demand for child care in the United States outpaces supply. However, the most widely available proxy for child care supply—authorized capacity—likely overestimates care availability in many studies. Authorized capacity represents the maximum children a provider can legally serve based on safety regulations and physical characteristics of the site. However, the slots available across sites can be constrained by factors not captured by authorized capacity, including the combination of ages currently enrolled and staffing at a site. If the gap between authorized capacity and “current capacity” is large, we stand to underestimate needed investments to improve access. This study quantifies the gap between providers’ current capacity as reported in a fall 2022 survey and authorized capacity per administrative records. Using data from 1,968 home- and center-based providers in Virginia, we find three key limitations of authorized capacity as a proxy of supply. First, providers’ current capacity was 74 % of their authorized capacity on average. Authorized capacity would overestimate child care availability by >30,000 slots across the providers in our sample. Second, center-based providers that accepted child care subsidies and those in neighborhoods with a greater concentration of poverty or people of color had significantly larger discrepancies between their current and authorized capacity. Finally, we find centers that reported challenges hiring and retaining staff had larger gaps between their current and authorized capacity compared to providers that did not report staffing challenges. These findings suggest the need for measures that more accurately and dynamically capture the number of children a provider can serve to better describe and address access inequities.
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
授权容量是否能很好地衡量托儿机构当前的容量?来自弗吉尼亚州的新证据
研究发现,美国的托儿服务供不应求。然而,在许多研究中,最广泛使用的托儿服务供应——授权能力——的替代指标可能高估了托儿服务的可用性。授权服务能力是根据安全规定和场地的物理特征,提供者可以合法服务的最大儿童数量。但是,各个地点的可用名额可能受到授权能力未涵盖的因素的限制,包括目前注册的年龄和地点的人员配备。如果授权能力与“当前能力”之间的差距很大,我们就会低估改善可及性所需的投资。本研究量化了2022年秋季调查中报告的供应商当前能力与每个行政记录的授权能力之间的差距。使用来自弗吉尼亚州1968家家庭和中心供应商的数据,我们发现授权容量作为供应代理的三个关键限制。首先,供应商目前的平均容量是其授权容量的74%。在我们的样本中,授权容量会将托儿所的可用性高估30,000个插槽。其次,接受儿童保育补贴的中心提供者和贫困人口或有色人种更集中的社区的提供者,其现有能力和授权能力之间的差异明显更大。最后,我们发现,与没有报告人员配备挑战的机构相比,报告了招聘和留住员工挑战的中心,其现有能力与授权能力之间的差距更大。这些发现表明,需要采取措施,更准确、更动态地捕捉一个提供者可以服务的儿童数量,以更好地描述和解决获取不平等问题。
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
Mixed delivery prekindergarten systems: partnering practices and early care and education capacity over time and place When Ebony and Malik share stories in school: White teachers’ perceptions of children's use of African American English during oral storytelling A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of coaching and the contribution of coaching processes to learning outcomes for early childhood teachers and children Latine caregiver math talk across contexts and its relation to child math outcomes Piloting an approach to family-implemented decoding instruction for kindergarten-aged children
×
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