A Nationwide Examination of Early Education Centers Accepting Subsidies: Center Characteristics and Children Enrolled

• In Event: Early Childcare and Schooling

Abstract

Government-issued child care subsidies from the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) are a mechanism for providing equitable access to early care and education (ECE). However, the number of ECE centers that accept subsidies is declining (U.S. DHHS, OCC, 2021) and centers limit subsidies to sustain program operations (Adams et al., 2008). Achieving CCDF’s goal to provide equitable ECE access that supports children’s development requires an understanding of subsidy density – the proportion of children receiving subsidies– in ECE centers. In the context of highly segregated settings that serve young children (Frankenberg, 2016) when they are developing perceptions on the basis of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (McArdle & Acevedo-Garcia, 2018), understanding subsidy density is also important because diverse early learning settings benefit children’s school readiness (Weiland & Yoshikawa, 2014).

Using the 2019 National Survey of Early Care and Education (NSECE; n=6,917), we address these research questions: 1) How do centers of varying subsidy density differ on a series of child demographic, center, and community characteristics?; 2) What are the features of centers and their communities that are associated with subsidy density?

To answer research question one, we present a descriptive portrait of ECE centers with varying subsidy density as it relates to futures of centers, the children enrolled, and their communities (Table 1). Results indicate centers with higher proportions of subsidies enrolled more children who were: experiencing homelessness, Hispanic, and Black, but fewer children with IEPs and who were White.

To answer our second question, we assess the relationship between subsidy density and features of centers, communities, and funding sources using OLS regression analyses (Table 2). Receiving a regulatory visit (ß=3.459, p=0.023), serving infants and toddlers (ß=9.091, p<0.001), being a for-profit program (ß=7.000, p<0.001), and operating in high poverty areas (ß=11.579, p<0.001) were all positively related to subsidy density. As the total number of children enrolled decreased, subsidy density increased (ß=-0.084, p<0.001). Finally, receipt of Head Start (ß=5.258, p<0.001) and pre-K funding (ß=3.085, p=0.035) were positively associated with subsidy density.

Considering CCDF’s goals of serving children from low-income backgrounds and other underserved populations (e.g., infants and toddlers) to support their early development, our findings that serving infants and toddlers and operating in high poverty areas were positively related to subsidy density suggest CCDF is supporting ECE access at more equitable rates for these prioritized groups of children.

Though subsidies offset ECE costs for families, they impose additional responsibilities, administrative challenges, and revenue loss for programs (Schulman, 2019). Our finding that centers relying on Head Start and pre-K funds accepted higher proportions of subsidies suggest centers were integrating multiple sources of public funds to sustain operations and better meet children and families’ needs.

ECE centers that are unwilling to accept subsidies (or limit subsidy use) threaten some children’s ECE access that can positively shape their development. Our results have implications for increasing the number of children using subsidies in a center and, consequently, socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic diversity, all of which have been linked to positive outcomes for young children.

Authors

• Gerilyn Slicker, University of Nevada Las Vegas
  Presenting Author

• Jason T Hustedt, University of Delaware