1. Child Care Disparities in Los Angeles County Stephanie Benson UP206A February 8, 2011

2. The Policy Issue: Child Care • The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) provides approximately $5 billion in block grants to States, Territories, and Tribes to subsidize the cost of child care for low-income working parents • Between 1996 and 1998, following welfare reform, more than 1 million low-income preschool aged children moved into child care settings • 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 • 3 Main Types of Child Care: • Center-based care • Family Child Care Center • Kin & Kith

3. Assessing Availability & Disparities in Child Care in LA County • Overview of Presentation: • Children under 6 years old and child care availability in LA County: Does availability correspond to need? • Poverty rates in LA census tracts and child care: Are areas in greatest need being served? • Comparing two areas (low poverty, high poverty) and disparities in quality of child care • Capacity of child care providers as a proxy for quality • Status of child care providers (licensed, unlicensed, closed, changed ownership) as a proxy for quality • Limitations: • Lack of information about unlicensed, informal care • Lack of process (caregiver sensitivity) measures of quality

10. Future Analysis • Look at data available from the last 12 years to address issues surrounding access, availability and continuity of care within LA County. • Address data that pertain to process issues (environment ratings, caregiver sensitivity scales) to assess quality of care and disparities within LA County. • Look at state level data

11. GIS Skills Utilized • Slide 4: • Inset Map: California & LA County (Slides 4-8) • Geocoding: Child Care Providers (Slides 4-8) • Aggregating Attribute Fields: Children under 6 created by aggregating census data (Slides 4 & 7) • Graduated Point Symbols: Number of children served (Slide 8) • Attribute sub-sets Selections: Census tracts and zip codes collected to create West and South LA regions for analysis (Slide 6-8) • Geoprossessing: Clipping zip codes from both larger California shapefile and census tracts (Slides 6-8) • Geocoding (Child Care Providers) (Slides 4-8)

12. Sources Cited • 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. • Hofferth, S. (1999). Child Care, Maternal Employment and Public Policy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 563: 20-38. • 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. • Danziger, S., & Danziger, S. (1993). Child poverty and public policy: Toward a comprehensive antipoverty agenda. Daedalus: America'sChildhood, 122, 57-84. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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.