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
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, Stephen Yu, Daphna Bassok","doi":"10.1016/j.ecresq.2024.12.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":48348,"journal":{"name":"Early Childhood Research Quarterly","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"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://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2024.12.001","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.
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
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 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信