Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management

One challenge facing the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) is the high rate of discontinuity in subsidy receipt resulting in instability of care.  High levels of instability inhibit both the efficiency and effectiveness of the CCDF in meeting its program goals.  Instability in subsidy receipt can result from a number of reasons, but one factor is cumbersome administrative processes.  The Office of Child Care has increasingly emphasized the importance of reducing administrative barriers for families and recently issued new regulations that direct CCDF lead agencies to implement family-friendly practices. 

Unfortunately, there is not a significant amount of research on administrative practices that states can draw from to change administrative practices. To fill this gap, Brandeis University and Boston University received funding from the Administration for Children and Families’ Office of Planning and Evaluation to establish a research partnership with the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care (EEC). The goal is to study the effects of state-specific CCDF- related administrative changes that have immediate relevance to local stakeholders and to child care researchers and policymakers. Specifically, the research team is conducting an evaluation of Massachusetts’ recent administrative changes that shifted the location/responsibilities for voucher reassessment from regional Child Care Resource and Referral (CCR&R) agencies to contracted child care providers.  The research includes an impact study that uses administrative data to assess the effect of the change on subsidy stability and a qualitative study that documents the implementation of the change through in-depth interviews with state staff, CCR&Rs, providers and families.  Findings from this research will assist the state in understanding how the administrative change has impacted multiple stakeholders (e.g. CCR&Rs, providers and families) and specifically, whether the change is an effective family-friendly approach to subsidy management.    

In addition to providing EEC with rigorous evidence about this administrative change, the partnership resulted in other research and data capacity advancements that mutually benefit the state and the academe:

Data Enhancements:  The team cleaned/merged data from disparate administrative systems using innovative matching techniques and the creation of unique identifiers.  EEC can use this cleaned data in other longitudinal analyses, which will assist the state in evaluating new CCDF policies.

Data Mapping:  The team mapped the dispersion of subsidy-participating providers compared to subsidy-eligible children highlighting potential capacity issues in serving these children and identifying areas to target recruitment of providers into the subsidy system. 

Documentation of Practices:  The team documented the voucher reassessment process at the CCR&Rs and contracted providers and the variation across these organizations.   This information could be used by the state to identify practices and innovations in reassessment processes that could be consistently implemented.  

Recommendations:  In interviews with all stakeholder groups, the team asked questions about recommendations for improving the subsidy system which can help EEC with future policy changes.    

This presentation will provide examples of how strategic partnerships can advance research and policy, but also a discussion of how the partnership has been managed in order to achieve mutually beneficial results.