Evaluation of Child Care Subsidy Strategies: Illinois Site Public Use Files, 2005-2006

The Evaluation of Child Care Subsidy Strategies is a multi-site, multi-year effort to determine whether and how different child care subsidy policies and procedures and quality improvement efforts help low-income parents obtain and hold onto jobs and improve outcomes for children. Funding from the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) administered by the Child Care Bureau are divided into two purposes. The vast majority are aimed at assisting children of low-income working parents whose eligibility is determined by states within broad federal guidelines, while a much smaller portion (4 percent) work with state matching funds to improve the quality of child care for all children. For this study series, four experiments were conducted, two test alternative subsidy policies for low-income families and two test approaches to the use of set-aside funds for improving child care quality for all children. The four study sites and focus of evaluation include: (1) the effectiveness of three language and literacy curricula on teaching practices and children's language and literacy outcomes (Miami Dade County, Florida); (2) the impact of alternative eligibility and re-determination child care subsidy policies on parental employment outcomes (Illinois); (3) the impact of alternative child care co-payment structures on use of child care subsidies and employment outcomes (Washington) and (4) the effectiveness of training on Learning Games curriculum in changing care-giving practices in family child care homes and children's developmental outcomes (Massachusetts).
The Illinois site of the Evaluation of Child Care Subsidy Strategies was designed to test the impact of increased income eligibility and extended redetermination period on various child care and economic outcomes (such as type of care used, stability of child care arrangements, earnings, employment, etc.). Under the state's 2005 program rules, a family was eligible for subsidies if their income was below 50 percent of the state median income (SMI) for their family size, and this eligibility was redetermined for most families every 6 months. In the evaluation, income eligibility was extended to 50 to 65 percent of state median income, and the redetermination period was extended from 6 to 12 months. To isolate the impact of each programmatic change, families who qualified for the study were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) a control group, (2) a 6-month redetermination program group, or (3) a 12-month redetermination program group. Families in the control group received no enhanced access to subsidies; families in the 6-month program group were eligible for subsidies as long as their income remained below 65 percent of SMI and had to reapply for subsidies every 6 months; and families in the 12-month redetermination program group were eligible for subsidies with income up to 65 percent of SMI and had to reapply for subsidies every 12 months.
In the follow-up survey, respondents were asked a series of questions about the following topics:

Child Care Arrangements: These data were used to construct child-level measures of type and stability of the primary
care arrangement.
Child Care Reliability and Flexibility, Satisfaction with the Care, and Costs: These questions were used to create a summary measure of whether the respondent experienced any job-related problems due to child care arrangements. This section of the survey also contained a set of statements about the convenience of and satisfaction with child care at the time of the interview. Respondents were asked the total weekly amount they paid for all care at the time of the interview. This measure of out-of-pocket expenses was used rather than the provider-specific cost question from the section on child care arrangements because it was thought that parents would more reliably report their overall expenditures than their expenditures for each
provider for each child.
Employment: Information on jobs held at the time of the survey interview was used to create measures of employment, hours worked, and job characteristics for that job. Information on all jobs held in the year after random assignment was used to create measures of employment stability.
Major Life Events: Respondents were asked about the occurrence of nine major types of events or other
problems since the time of random assignment.
Income: Respondents were asked about total household income and sources of income in the month prior to the survey.

儿童保育补贴策略评估（The Evaluation of Child Care Subsidy Strategies）是一项多站点、多年度研究，旨在确定不同儿童保育补贴政策与程序（child care subsidy policies and procedures）及质量提升举措（quality improvement efforts）是否及如何帮助低收入父母获得并保住工作，同时改善儿童的发展成果。儿童保育局（Child Care Bureau）管理的儿童保育与发展基金（CCDF）资金分为两大用途：绝大部分用于援助低收入在职父母的子女，其资格由各州在联邦宽泛指导方针范围内确定；而极小部分（4%）与州配套资金结合，用于提升所有儿童的保育质量。本研究系列开展了四项实验：两项测试针对低收入家庭的替代补贴政策，另外两项测试预留资金用于提升所有儿童保育质量的替代方法。四个研究站点及评估重点如下：（1）三种语言与读写课程（curricula）对教学实践及儿童语言与读写成果的有效性（佛罗里达州迈阿密戴德县）；（2）替代资格认定与重新认定（redetermination）儿童保育补贴政策对父母就业成果的影响（伊利诺伊州）；（3）替代儿童保育共付结构（co-payment structures）对补贴使用及就业成果的影响（华盛顿州）；（4）学习游戏课程（Learning Games curriculum）培训对家庭保育机构照护实践及儿童发展成果的有效性（马萨诸塞州）。
儿童保育补贴策略评估的伊利诺伊州站点旨在测试收入资格提升及重新认定周期（redetermination period）延长对各类儿童保育与经济成果（如所用保育类型、保育安排稳定性、收入、就业等）的影响。根据该州2005年项目规则，家庭收入低于家庭规模对应的州中位数收入（SMI）的50%即可获得补贴资格，且大多数家庭每6个月需重新认定资格。在本评估中，收入资格扩展至州中位数收入的50%至65%，重新认定周期从6个月延长至12个月。为分离每项项目变更的影响，符合研究条件的家庭被随机分配至三组之一：（1）对照组；（2）6个月重新认定项目组；（3）12个月重新认定项目组。对照组家庭无法获得补贴的增强访问权限；6个月项目组家庭只要收入保持在SMI的65%以下即符合资格，且每6个月需重新申请补贴；12个月重新认定项目组家庭的收入资格上限为SMI的65%，且每12个月需重新申请补贴。
在随访调查中，受访者被问及一系列关于以下主题的问题：

儿童保育安排：这些数据用于构建儿童层面的主要保育安排类型及稳定性指标。
儿童保育可靠性与灵活性、保育满意度及成本：这些问题用于创建一项综合指标，以衡量受访者是否因儿童保育安排而遭遇任何与工作相关的问题。该部分调查还包含一组关于访谈时保育便利性与满意度的陈述。受访者被问及访谈时为所有保育支付的每周总金额。采用该自付费用指标而非保育安排部分中针对各提供者及各儿童的具体成本问题，是因为研究认为父母更能可靠地报告其总体支出，而非针对每个儿童的每个提供者的支出。
就业：调查访谈时所持工作的信息用于构建该工作的就业、工作时长及岗位特征指标。随机分配后一年内所有工作的信息用于构建就业稳定性指标。
重大生活事件：受访者被问及随机分配以来九类主要事件或其他问题的发生情况。
收入：受访者被问及调查前一个月的家庭总收入及收入来源。