Description & Citation--Study No. 23262 | |
Bibliographic Description | |
| ICPSR Study No.: | 23262 |
|---|---|
| Persistent URL: | http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR23262 |
| Title: | Child Care Market Rate Survey Project: Telephone Survey of Oregon Facilities, 2006 |
| Principal Investigator(s): | Deana Grobe, Oregon State University |
| Funding Agency: | Child Care Bureau |
| Grant Number: | #90YE0075 |
| Bibliographic Citation: | Grobe, Deana. Child Care Market Rate Survey Project: Telephone Survey of Oregon Facilities, 2006 [Computer file]. ICPSR23262-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2009-04-22. doi:10.3886/ICPSR23262 |
Scope of Study | |
| Summary: | Starting with the Family Support Act of 1988, requirements for federal funding stipulate that child care subsidy rates be informed by market rates. In 1990 the federal government began a major investment in child care with the passage of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990. Support of parental choice was a key component of this new block grant program that sent new money to states to support child care. Parental choice and state control of policy remained central when the program was expanded in 1996 as a part of welfare reform legislation. At that time, child care funding became known as the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). States are required by the CCDF Final Rule to ensure that families receiving child care assistance have equal access to comparable care purchased by private-paying parents. A market rate survey (MRS) is a tool States use to achieve this program objective. Some States conduct surveys to collect the child care market rate and others use administrative data, such as data collected by child care resource and referral (CCR&R) and State licensing agencies, to analyze the market rate for child care. This survey was one strategy used to collect child care market price data. Comparing findings garnered from different methods allows one to evaluate whether different data collection methods produce different price findings (convergent validity) and how well these data collection methods represent the child care market (criterion-related validity). These data can also be used to explore several validity issues of concern with market price studies. The major areas of investigation in this survey include child care prices by type of care, geographic location, and price mode (hourly, daily, weekly, monthly). Other areas of investigation include capacity by age group, additional fees facilities charge, whether they care for subsidized children, and what affects the prices that they charge parents. |
| Subject Term(s): | Child Care and Development Fund, childcare, costs, infants, market rate surveys, preschool children, toddlers |
| Geographic Coverage: | Oregon, United States |
| Time Period: | 2006, April-June |
| Date(s) of Collection: | 2006, April-June |
| Unit of Observation: | facility, child care slots (number of children by age group) |
| Universe: | Facilities that were providing care for any children other than their own, on a regular paying basis. |
| Data Type: | survey data |
| Data Collection Notes: | This dataset was produced by the Social and Economic Sciences Research Center (SESRC) at Washington State University. |
Methodology | |
| Purpose of the Study: | n/a |
| Study Design: | Telephone survey with separate branches for family and center facilities. |
| Sample: | Stratified random sample by geographic region (regions A, B, and C) and by facility type (family child care and center, including large family child care). Data was collected from three different sources: Child Care Division facilities, Department of Human Services facilities, Resource and Referral facilities. |
| Weight: | Sample and population weights are included in the data file. Please consult the Codebook for a more in-depth explanation of the weighting procedure and the specific formulas that were used for each of the weights. |
| Mode of Data Collection: | telephone interview |
| Response Rates: | 56.9 percent |
Access and Availability | |
| Note: | A list of the data formats available for this study can be found in the summary of holdings. Detailed file-level information (such as record length, case count, and variable count) is listed in the file manifest. |
| Some instruments administered as part of this study may contain contents from copyrighted instruments. Reproductions of the instruments are provided solely as documentation for the analysis of the data associated with this collection. Please contact the data producers for information on permissions to use the instruments for other purposes. | |
| Restrictions: | Users are reminded that these data are to be used solely for statistical reporting and analysis, and not for the investigation of specific facilities. To protect respondent privacy, the public-use and restricted-use versions of the data differ in the amount of geographic detail provided. The Restricted-Use Version contains the variable ZIP while the Public-Use Version does not. To obtain this file, researchers must agree to the terms and conditions of the Restricted Data Use Agreement Restricted Data Use Agreement (link). |
| Original ICPSR Release: | 2009-04-22 |
| Version History: | The last update of this study occurred on 2009-06-18. |
| 2009-06-18 - The Restricted Data Use Agreement has been added. | |
| Dataset(s): |
|
 |  |  |  |  |