IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Linking state child care and child welfare policies and populations: Implications for children, families, and policymakers

Listed author(s):
  • Meloy, Mary Elizabeth
  • Lipscomb, Shannon T.
  • Baron, Madeline J.
Registered author(s):

    Policymakers have begun to explore new areas of service system integration, including coordination of services for vulnerable children and families. Early care and education (ECE) research has also begun to pursue more nuanced questions about the role of ECE in the development of vulnerable children, including those involved with child welfare. Yet, to date, very little is understood about the integration of ECE and child welfare service systems or policy. This study examined state variation in federal child care subsidy (CCDF) program policies including eligibility, priority, copays, and activity requirements for families involved in child-welfare. Findings showed that, overall, states made fewer accommodations in their CCDF policies for children in foster care than for those otherwise involved in child welfare, such as by waving copays and activity requirements. Three typologies of states' CCDF policies were identified using latent class analysis: an accommodating typology, a selective accommodations typology, and a not accommodating typology. The relationships between these typologies and indicators of states' child welfare placements (types and stability) were also explored. Findings have implications for state policymakers and researchers interested in the integration and improvement of services for vulnerable children and families.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Children and Youth Services Review.

    Volume (Year): 57 (2015)
    Issue (Month): C ()
    Pages: 30-39

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:57:y:2015:i:c:p:30-39
    DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.07.008
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Ehrle, Jennifer & Geen, Rob, 2002. "Kin and non-kin foster care--findings from a National Survey," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 15-35.
    2. Erdal Tekin, 2007. "Single Mothers Working At Night: Standard Work And Child Care Subsidies," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(2), pages 233-250, April.
    3. Freundlich, Madelyn & Avery, Rosemary Jane & Munson, Sara & Gerstenzang, Sarah, 2006. "The meaning of permanency in child welfare: Multiple stakeholder perspectives," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(7), pages 741-760, July.
    4. Dinehart, Laura H. & Manfra, Louis & Katz, Lynne F. & Hartman, Suzanne C., 2012. "Associations between center-based care accreditation status and the early educational outcomes of children in the child welfare system," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1072-1080.
    5. Zhai, Fuhua & Waldfogel, Jane & Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne, 2013. "Estimating the effects of Head Start on parenting and child maltreatment," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1119-1129.
    6. Nicole Forry, 2009. "The Impact of Child Care Subsidies on Low-Income Single Parents: An Examination of Child Care Expenditures and Family Finances," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 43-54, March.
    7. Barbee, Anita P. & Antle, Becky, 2011. "Cost effectiveness of an integrated service delivery model as measured by worker retention," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1624-1629, September.
    8. James J. Heckman & Dimitriy V. Masterov, 2007. "The Productivity Argument for Investing in Young Children ," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 446-493.
    9. Stott, Tonia & Gustavsson, Nora, 2010. "Balancing permanency and stability for youth in foster care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 619-625, April.
    10. Lipscomb, Shannon T. & Lewis, Kendra M. & Masyn, Katherine E. & Meloy, Mary Elizabeth, 2012. "Child care assistance for families involved in the child welfare system: Predicting child care subsidy use and stability," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(12), pages 2454-2463.
    11. Lipscomb, Shannon T. & Pears, Katherine C., 2011. "Patterns and predictors of early care and education for children in foster care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(11), pages 2303-2311.
    12. Fuller, Tamara L., 2005. "Child safety at reunification: A case-control study of maltreatment recurrence following return home from substitute care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(12), pages 1293-1306, December.
    13. Meloy, Mary Elizabeth & Phillips, Deborah A., 2012. "Rethinking the role of early care and education in foster care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 882-890.
    14. Fisher, Philip A. & Kim, Hyoun K. & Pears, Katherine C., 2009. "Effects of Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care for Preschoolers (MTFC-P) on reducing permanent placement failures among children with placement instability," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 541-546, May.
    15. Berrick, Jill Duerr & Barth, Richard P. & Needell, Barbara, 1994. "A comparison of kinship foster homes and foster family homes: Implications for kinship foster care as family preservation," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 16(1-2), pages 33-63.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:57:y:2015:i:c:p:30-39. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.