This ethnographic case study of the Massachusetts voucher system tests the belief that demand subsidies increase choice and purchasing power for working poor families while improving the quality of care for children. Using multiple methodologies, we examined vouchers' impact on parents, child care providers, and resource and referral agencies. All participants recognized the value of the subsidy. Yet low reimbursement rates forced providers to subsidize the system; many limited or refused vouchers. Providers and families had a strong bond; each was often overwhelmed by and suspicious of voucher administration. Children experienced discontinuity of care. Underresourced, resource and referral agencies struggle to balance a dual mission of service and “policing.” Specific policy recommendations were suggested, and adopted, in Massachusetts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlauD. M., & TerkinE. (2001). The determinants and consequences of child care subsidy receipt by low-income families. In MeyerB. & DuncanG. (Eds.), The incentives of government programs and the wellbeing of families. Evanston, IL: Joint Center for Poverty Research.
2.
Committee for Economic Development. (2006). The economic promise of investing in high-quality preschool: Using early education to improve economic growth and the fiscal sustainability of the states and the nation. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved July 31, 2006, from http://www.ced.org/docs/report/report_prek_econpromise.pdf.
3.
FullerB., KaganS. L., & LoebS. (2002). New lives for poor families? Mothers and young children move through welfare reform. In Growing Up in Poverty Project 2002, Wave 2 Findings - California, Connecticut, Florida. Berkeley, CA: University of California and New Haven, CT: Yale University.
4.
LemkeR. J., WitteA. D., QueraltM., & WittR. (2001). Child care and the welfare to work transition [Online paper]. Wellesley, MA: Department of Economics, Wellesley College. Retrieved July 31, 2006, from http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/7583.html.
5.
LippittJ. (2003). Subsidies for child care and early education in Massachusetts. Cambridge, MA: Schott Center for Public and Early Education.
6.
LoweE. D., & WeisnerT. S. (2001). “You have to push it - who's gonna raise your kids?” Situating child care and child care subsidy use in the daily routines of lower-income families (The Next Generation Working Paper Series No. 7). New York: MDRC.
7.
MagnusonK., & WaldfogelJ. (2005, Spring). Early childhood care and education: Effects on ethnic and racial gaps in school readiness [Electronic version]. The Future of Children - School Readiness: Closing Racial and Ethnic Gaps, 15(1), 169-196. Retrieved July 31, 2006, from http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2826/information_show.htm?doc_id=255993.
8.
MarshallN. L., DennehyJ., Johnson-StaubC., & RobesonW. W. (2005). Massachusetts capacity study research brief: Characteristics of the current early education and care workforce serving 3-5 year-olds. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley Center on Women.
Massachusetts State Legislature. (2003-2004). An act establishing early education for all (H. 1838/S. 239).
13.
Massachusetts State Legislature. (2005-2006). An act establishing early education for all (H. 1175/S. 303).
14.
MaurierA., & RussellR (2003). Factoring child care into the welfare to work equation: Lessons from Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Boston: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and Wellesley College.
15.
National Center for Children in Poverty. Massachusetts demographics of children in poverty. New York: Author. Retrieved July 25, 2006, from http://www.nccp.org/profiles/index_MA.html.
16.
ShlayA. B., WeinraubM., HarmonM., & TranH. (2004). Barriers to subsidies: Why low-income families do not use child care subsidies. Social Science Research, 33(1), 134–157.
