Before
conducting an economic analysis of the child care sector, it is important to consider
the target audiences and the primary objectives of the study. Meeting with stakeholders
to clarify the goals and purpose of the study helps focus the work, and builds support
for the analysis itself and subsequent policy innovations. Establishing advisory
committees is the best way to get stakeholders involved.
We have found study teams benefit from two advisory committees: 1) a technical advisory committee that has expertise in different data sources to ensure the data and methods are robust to criticism, and 2) a policy advisory committee to bring non-traditional partners (business, economic developers) into the planning and decision making process. Typically, projects will engage an economic consultant to help conduct the analysis.
| Possible Members of Advisory Committees: Business and Economic Development
Child Care
Government Agencies
Academic & Foundation Representatives |
The advisory committees, in addition to the lead agency staff, help orient the consultant to the goals of the project and ensure the foci, data and messages reflect project goals.
Experts in state data systems, CCR&R data and Census data can help teams understand collection methods and determine why estimates differ across sources. Academics can help advise on data interpretation and on survey design strategies, should the study team elect to conduct surveys. Economic development and policy professionals help teams keep focused on overall goals which sometimes can get lost when the teams are enmeshed in detailed data discussions. Public relations experts and foundation representatives help teams think about the audience and the importance of balancing thoroughness and credibility with simplicity and ease of understanding.
The first decision to be made before conducting a regional economic analysis is to decide on what types of care to include as part of the sector and which data sources to use. The child care field is comprised of many types of care – public and private, center and family based, licensed, license-exempt, and informal. Most study teams have decided to count both the child care and early education (Head Start and pre-kindergarten) portions of the sector. This is a critical political choice that leads to a more inclusive vision of the child care sector and helps to break down the barriers between the education and care portions of the sector. Most studies chose to include only licensed care, both public and private, and center and family providers. Some studies also counted informal providers who are registered with CCR&Rs and license-exempt providers that are approved to provide child care to children receiving government subsidies.1 These choices should be based on local realities, available data, and goals of the regional economic analysis. For example, if strengthening the economic performance of the informal portion of the sector is a priority, then efforts to estimate it should be a focus of the study team.
A regional economic analysis is just that – regional. The next critical question for each study team is, “What is the region of interest?” State studies will naturally want an analysis of the state as a whole. But each state may have several important sub-regions. In Kansas, for example, we conducted separate analyses for the Kansas City metropolitan region and Wichita. Because Kansas is also a rural state, we worked with the advisory committee to identify “rural market towns” and “deep rural” counties and conducted separate analyses for a sample of each locality type. In New York, the study team did analyses for the state as a whole, New York City, the Long Island and northern NYC suburbs, and each of the large upstate metro regions. The remaining counties were divided into three income classes, by the Office of Children and Family Services, to determine market rates. The study team sampled counties from each of these categories and ran county models on these. The purpose of these sub-state analyses was to get a sense of the differences among locality types.
When choosing a geography of interest, care must be given to 1) the realities of how an economic region operates, 2) the political realities of what stakeholders consider to be relevant regional boundaries, and 3) the availability of data at a regional scale. There will be problems with data suppression due to confidentiality at the local level, but if state administrative data or Resource and Referral (CCR&R) agency data has good coverage at the local level then addressing sub-state differences may be possible. Where an economic region crosses state boundaries, as in Kansas City and New York City, study teams may decide to focus only on that portion of the region inside their state – because that would be most relevant for policy purposes. Whatever geographies are chosen, care must be taken to ensure data match the relevant geography.
The steps of collecting data and comparing it across multiple sources are a critical, but time consuming, part of the process. Credibility of the analysis rests on careful review and selection of data. We find study teams need to establish a technical advisory committee to help resolve data discrepancies and capture the full diversity of the sector. The Technical Advisory Committee should have expertise on the following sources: Child Care Resource and Referral data, state licensing data, government finance and tax data, education data, and economic and demographic data. Selection of data sources should not be left to an economic consultant, as reconciling the differences in child care sector data requires a collective review process because these data sources will differ based on methodology of collection and definition of elements being measured. Study teams often have to triangulate between different data sources. 2
Choosing which data to include from conflicting sources is also a challenge and
requires teams to confront the current frameworks of child care data. Caring for
young children is the product of the child care sector, yet no one source measures
exactly how many children receive care. Data are available on children that receive
public subsidies from within the welfare policy framework. Within the framework
of education, data are available for public programs such as, Head Start and pre-kindergarten.
However, the majority of
child care businesses are private care establishments, and we do not have comprehensive
data on the majority of children served. A regional economic analysis requires a
comprehensive view, including all providers—public and private—and children served.
The main objective of conducting a regional economic analysis of child care is to engage non-traditional partners — business leaders and experts in economic and community development, banking, housing, workforce development — in forging new strategic alliances aimed at increasing investments in the sector. Study teams should establish a Policy Advisory Committee that brings together these non-traditional partners. This committee is responsible for specifying the objectives and goals of the research project. Getting the stakeholders involved early in the process will help ensure the analysis is focused on data needed for subsequent policy recommendations. However, these economic development leaders may not want to be involved in the detailed data discussions of the Technical Advisory Committee. While some members may sit on both committees, study teams must be careful not to burden business leaders with detailed data discussions. This is why we recommend having two advisory committees.
The Cornell Project is tracking the policy innovations stimulated by an economic development framework. The report, Framing Child Care as Economic Development: Lessons From Early Studies (Stoney, 2004b), highlights the partnership work of advisory committees. The following are some examples of how study teams engaged policy advisory committees and how this influenced the goals and foci of their analyses.
In Tompkins County, NY, the economic study of the child care sector was initiated by the Early Education Partnership (EEP), a project of the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce, the Day Care and Child Development Council and Cornell University. Funding was provided by Cornell and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. The Partnership, which works to create local solutions for child care finance, brings together leaders from the economic development, business, higher education, philanthropic, social services and government sectors (Warner et al., 2003). Each of these policy leaders brought a different perspective to the table and contributed to the enrichment of the debate and the design of the project. For instance, in Tompkins County, the economic analysis was part of a larger plan to raise new public and private child care funding to build a community scholarship fund for all working families. This fund also will promote administrative efficiency within the child care sector (Early Education Partnership, 2002a).
The Kansas State team worked in partnership with the economic development community for this study. The project was funded by the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) and conducted by the Mid-America Regional Council—the regional planning organization for the Kansas City metro region—which worked closely with Cornell University, SRS and the Kansas Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies to conduct the research and analysis. This project was part of a larger multi-sectoral effort by the Metropolitan Council on Child Care to strengthen early education in the Kansas City region. In addition to determining the size of the child care sector in the state, the Kansas report gave attention to the importance of public funding. The State was in fiscal crisis and the regional economic analysis was used to frame public funds for child care subsidies as a strategy to support workers and their employers, and to draw new, federal funds into the state. The study team used the economic development frame to demonstrate that child care subsidies are more than welfare, they are an important economic investment for the state of Kansas (Stoney, et al., 2003).
| “Investing in child care makes economic sense for the state of Kansas. It is an investment that will pay off in many ways: by supporting jobs and families, fueling local economies, drawing additional federal funds into Kansas, and providing crucial child care for the next generation of workers.” (Stoney et al., 2003) |
The goals of the Vermont study were to educate policymakers, business leaders, economic developers, and planners. The economic impact study was jointly sponsored by the Windham Child Care Association, a resource and referral agency, and the Peace and Justice Center, a non-profit organization working for livable wages and workers' rights. Academics served on the advisory committee and a policy analyst, who had previously worked on the State’s livable wage campaign, conducted the analysis. Vermont’s study was funded by the Autumn Harp Foundation and the Child Care Services Division of Vermont’s Agency of Human Services and the agency was actively involved in the project from the beginning. Vermont’s final report not only illustrates the child care industry’s impact on the larger economy, but also the percentage of family expenditures on child care, the growing demand for child care subsidies, and the wages of child care staff (Windham Child Care Association & Peace and Justice Center, 2002). Results of the study are being shared with business groups (e.g. Chambers of Commerce) and planning organizations across the state. As a result the legislature included a section on child care in Governor Douglas’ 2002 Jobs Bill (Pratt, 2004).
In California, the Local Investment in Child Care Project (LINCC)
was initiated by the National Economic Development and Law
Center (NEDLC) and funded by the David and Lucille Packard Foundation. NEDLC worked
closely with the California Child Care Resource and Referral Network in the collection
and analysis of data. The shortage of licensed child care slots to meet the growing
demand for child care was a key reason for this project. The economic development
frame was used to promote policies aimed at expanding the number of child care facilities
that provide quality licensed care in that state. NEDLC conducted a statewide study
and several county studies using similar methods and messages in each. Many counties
have since developed planning tools to facilitate the creation of new child care
supply (Hildebrand, 2001a).
Framing child care as economic development can help communities articulate its value as an infrastructure for economic development and identify alternative policies to increase public and private support for the sector. Alliances between the child care and business communities may lead to greater understanding of the importance of child care, new business practices which could be used to improve the efficiency of the sector, and new policy tools not traditionally applied in human services. This is the promise of an economic development frame.
1 Licensed care describes child care programs
in a center or provider’s home that follow state regulations for staff-to-child
ratios, educational, health and safety standards. Regulated, license-exempt providers
are subject to fire and sanitation regulations but are not subject to other requirements
of licensure. Informal providers are composed of family, friend, and neighbor care
that are not licensed or regulated.
2 Triangulation is a qualitative technique used
to hone in on an estimated data point using multiple data methods and data sources.