1. Using Early Care and Education Administrative Data
Naneida Lazarte-Alcala, Ph.D.
Oklahoma Department of Human Services

2. Overview 1. Addressing policy-relevant research questions
2. Developing internal partnerships
3. Leveraging resources to support linking administrative data
4. Collaborating with external researchers and community partners
Highlight two specific projects:
Child Care Administrative Data Analysis grant and
CCDBG Implementation Research and Evaluation Planning grant

3. Addressing policy-relevant questions
Goal :
To assess the efficacy of early care and education programs and services in increasing access by low-income families to high-quality programs and promoting learning and school readiness outcomes
Information needs:
Identify gaps in the availability of quality early childhood education and family services across the state
Determine the effect of CCDF subsidized child care on school readiness
Investigate changes in profile of families who receive CCDF subsidies

4. Addressing policy-relevant questions
Child Care Administrative Data Analysis grant: Objective #3: Investigate changes in profile of families who receive CCDF subsidies

5. Addressing policy-relevant questions
Child Care Administrative Data Analysis grant: Objective #3: Investigate changes in profile of families who receive CCDF subsidies
a) Preparation:
Identify data contacts and coordination
Understand the process for accessing and using the data from each data system
Data security and human subjects protection
Prepare specific data needs, criteria to extract sample, and methods of calculation

6. Addressing policy-relevant questions
Child Care Administrative Data Analysis grant: Objective #3: Investigate changes in profile of families who receive CCDF subsidies
a) Preparation (Cont.):
Determine data usability:
Source(s)
Data elements and definitions
Quality
Appropriateness

7. Addressing policy-relevant questions
Child Care Administrative Data Analysis grant: Objective #3: Investigate changes in profile of families who receive CCDF subsidies
b) Implementation:
Data from four data systems were matched: CCDF subsidy benefits, provider licensing and STAR rating, family and child demographic characteristics, and child welfare status
It included detailed information on relevant school readiness risk factors

8. Addressing policy-relevant questions
Child Care Administrative Data Analysis grant: Objective #3: Investigate changes in profile of families who receive CCDF subsidies
b) Implementation (Cont.):
Total of 30 variables: child factors, child welfare status, provider factors, subsidy information, head of household characteristics, and family factors
Demographic profile of families that received CCDF subsidies in 2010 was developed
Implemented trend analysis to compare profiles across years :

9. c) Results highlights:
The ratio of eligible children with CCDF subsidy benefits had a steady decline from 17.7 percent to 12.5 percent
The profile of families receiving CCDF subsidy benefits has significantly changed over the last seven years

10. Addressing policy-relevant questions
c) Results highlights(Cont.):
The participation of older children; those identifying themselves as ‘Black’, ‘AI/AN’, or Hispanic; living in a foster home or relative’s home; with a substantiated finding of abuse or neglect; in foster care has increased (‘White’, own residence, without a substantiated finding of CA&N, not in FC are still the characteristics of the majority)
The setting is increasingly becoming a center, larger in capacity, and certified with a 3 Stars level (2 Stars are still the more frequent program among children receiving)

11. Addressing policy-relevant questions
c) Results highlights(Cont.):
The monthly subsidy, family copayments, and caretaker employment as the qualifying event for accessing subsidy have increased (subsidy of $ and $400.00, copayment of $50.00 or less, and caretaker employment as the qualifying event for accessing subsidy are still the characteristics of the majority)
Subsidy recipients tend to live to a greater extent in households where the head is younger and single, family income has slightly increase, are less likely to receive SNAP or TANF

12. Developing internal partnerships
Involving key staff members
Fostering an effective collaboration:
Common goal
Trust and mutually beneficial relationship
Equal access to information and knowledge
Relationship management:
Understanding and addressing the needs of the partners
Learn how to communicate with partners
Permanent, relevant communication

13. Leveraging resources Finding relevant funding opportunities:
Address policy-relevant questions and/or requirements
Low or no-cost sharing
Peer learning community
Involving key collaborators
Leading internal grant application approval
Leading and coordinating grant application production, support and submission

14. Collaborating with external partners
CCDBG Implementation Research and Evaluation grant (Phase I):
Assessing the Impact of Child Care Subsidy on Program Access and Quality
Objective #2: To examine how parents use information about subsidized programs to select care
Objective #3: To explore alternatives for supporting providers as they self-assess program quality to promote continued quality improvement; and

15. Collaborating with external partners
CCDBG Implementation Research and Evaluation grant (Phase I):
Assessing the Impact of Child Care Subsidy on Program Access and Quality
Combine primary and secondary data:
Data collection specifically for the project objective
Data from four data systems were matched: CCDF subsidy benefits, provider licensing and STAR rating, family and child demographic characteristics, and child welfare status

16. THANK YOU
Contact Information:
Naneida Lazarte Alcala
Office of Performance Outcomes and Accountability
Oklahoma Department of Human Services