CHILD CARE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDRESSING DISPARITIES AND NEED UP206A: Final GIS Project Stephanie Benson March 15, 2011.

CHILD CARE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDRESSING DISPARITIES AND NEED

UP206A: Final GIS ProjectStephanie BensonMarch 15, 2011

Significance of Child Care

Lack of child care is one of the greatest perceived barriers to women entering educational programs, job training, or the labor market

Child care remains underfunded, representing only 0.005% of the total 2011 Department of Heath and Human Services budget; waitlists all too common

High quality (center-based) child care can serve as a powerful moderating mechanism to help buffer against some of the many negative consequences of living in poverty1-4

Disadvantaged children do not thrive as well in poor-quality child care5-8

Recent research indicates that quality child care and early interventions decrease rates of child maltreatment; proximity to providers is a moderating tool.

Within the context of welfare reform, child care has become a social justice imperative, as it’s unconscionable to mandate that mothers return to work without providing their children a safe, enriching environment in which to thrive.

Project Goals

Goals: Assess whether or not capacity of quality of

child care at a zip code level meets need for child care

Identify areas and zip codes in greatest need

Locate specific addresses that are ideal for quality child care expansion

Provide policy recommendations to Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). Four percent of CCDF budget must be spent on improving the quality of child care

Midterm Review: Disparities in Child Care

Child Care Providers with capacity of 12 or below are the least regulated type of formal child care and are generally observed to be of poorest, or most variable, quality

(Per Zip Code)

(Per

Zip

C

ode)

STATA Scatterplot of Child Care Capacity Against Total Percent of Children Under 5 Per Zip Code

Four Factor Hotspot Analysis:

Poverty, Child Maltreatment, %

Without HS Degree, % of Zip

Code With Children Under 5

Four Factor Hotspot Analysis:

Poverty, Child Maltreatment, %

Without HS Degree, % of Zip

Code With Children Under 5

Model Used for Hotspot Analysis & Metadata

Reality Check

Zip Code 90058 is a highly industrial location, likely not well suited to placement of child care facility….

Zip codes 90040 and 90280 are likely better candidates!

Policy Recommendations

Identified zip codes in greatest need that can benefit most from quality child care; these areas should be targeted for child care expansion

Create synergy between CCDF and schools to provide child care

CCDF should use 4% quality improvement budget to better assess quality of non-center-based child care

Subsidies for informal and unlicensed care are supporting low quality child care provision. Dollars are better spent developing infrastructure for universal pre-school.

GIS Skills

Inset Map: California & LA County Geocoding: Child Care Providers Aggregating Attribute Fields: Children under 5 created by

aggregating census data Graduated Point Symbols: Number of children served Attribute sub-sets Selections: Zip codes aggregated and

clipped for hotspot analysis results Geoprossessing: Clipping zip codes from both larger California

shapefile and census tracts Geocoding: Child Care Providers & Schools) Modeling: Index for hotspot analysis Metadata Measurement/Analysis: School Buffer of .5 mile Original Data: Child Maltreatment, Education, Children Under

5, Child Care Providers Charts & Graphs Hotspot Analysis

Sources Cited

1. Caughy, M., DiPietro, J., & Strobino, D. (1994). Day-Care Participation as a Protective Factor in the Cognitive Development of Low-Income Children. Child Development, 65(2): 457-471.

2. Hofferth, S. (1999). Child Care, Maternal Employment and Public Policy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 563: 20-38.

3. Vandell, D. & Wolfe, B. (2000). Child Care Quality: Does it Matter and Does it Need to be Improved? Institute for Research on Poverty, No. 79: 1-110.

4. Danziger, S., & Danziger, S. (1993). Child poverty and public policy: Toward a comprehensive antipoverty agenda. Daedalus: America's Childhood, 122, 57-84.

5. Fuller, B., Kagan, S., Caspary, G. & Gauthier, C. (2002). Welfare Reform and Child Care Options for Low-Income Families, The Future of Children, 12(1)97-119.

6. Fuller, B., Kagan, S., Loeb, S, & Chang, Y. (2004). Child Care Quality: Centers and home settings that serve poor families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19: 505-527.

7. Votruba-Drzal, E., Levine Coley, R. & Chase-Lansdale, L. (2004). Child Care and Low-Income Children’s Development: Direct and Moderated Effects. Child Development, 75(1): 296 – 312.

8. Zazlow, M., Halle, T., Martin, L., Cabrera, N., Calkins, J., Pitzer, L., & Geyelin Margie, N. (2006). Child Outcome Measures in the Study of Child Care Quality. Evaluation Review, 30(5): 577-610.