Implementation of the Child Care and Development Block Grant: A research synthesis

References 

1. Cohen SS . Championing child care . New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 2001;
2. Gish M. Child Care: Funding and spending under federal block grants. [monograph on the Internet]. Washington: Congressional Research Service Report for Congress; 2002. Available from http://www.nccic.org/pubs/crsreport/crsreport.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2005.
3. Mezey J , Richie B . Welfare dollars no longer an increasing source of child care funding . Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy; 2003;
4. Cohen SS , Misuraca BL . PNPs as catalysts in child care policymaking . J Ped Health Care . 2001;15:49–57
5. Alkon A , Sokal-Guttierrez K , Wolff M . Practice applications of research. Child care health consultation improves health knowledge and compliance . Pediatr Nurs . 2002;28: 61–52
6. Crowley AA . Child care health consultation (an ecological model) . J Society Pediatr Nurs . 2001;6:170–181
7. Cohen S . Child care (a crucial legislative issue) . J Pediatr Health Care . 2004;18:312–314
   • Full Text
   • Full-Text PDF (84 KB)
   • CrossRef
8. Ewen D, Greenberg M. (Center for Law and Social Policy). Comments regarding changes to the matching requirements in the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Washing-ton, DC: Jan 11, 2005. Available at: http://www.clasp.org/publications/ccdbg_comments.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2005.
9. Cooper H . Synthesizing research (A guide for literature reviews) . 3rd ed.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998;
10. Garrard J . Health sciences literature review made easy (The matrix method) . Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc; 1999;
11. Mezey J , Schumacher R , Greenberg M , Lombardi J , Hutchins J . Unfinished agenda (Child care for low-income families since 1996—Implications for federal and state policy) . Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy; 2002;
12. General Accounting Office (GAO). Child Care: States increased spending on low income families. Report No.: 01-293, Washington, DC: GAO.
13. Greenberg M , Savner S . The final TANF regulations (a preliminary analysis) . Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy; 1999;
14. Schumacher R , Greenberg M , Duffy J . The impact of TANF funding on state child care subsidy programs . Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy; 2001;
15. US Department of Health and Human Services [homepage on the Internet]. Washington, DC: Child Care Bureau. Access to child care for low-income working families. Available at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb/research/ccreport/ccreport.htm. Accessed September 15, 2005.
16. US Department of Health and Human Services. Child Care and Development Fund Report to Congress. Final Report. Washington, DC: Administration for Children and Families; 2003. Available at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/congressreport/CCDBGreport.pdf. Accessed Sep-tember 15, 2005.
17. Burkhardt S , Goldon O , Karokik E , Stoney L . Child Care and Development Fund. Report of state plans FY . Final report . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families; 2002-2003;
18. Karolak, E (National Child Care Information Center, Washington, DC). Trends in state eligibility policies: A CCDBG issue brief. Washington, DC, Collins Management Consulting, Inc. Contract No.: 233-01-0011. Sponsored by the US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Child Care Bureau.
19. Collins AM , Layzer JI , Kreader JL , Werner A , Glantz FB . National study of child care for low-income families. State and community substudy interim report . Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates; 2000; Report No 11-02. Sponsored by the Administration for Children and Families
20. Meyers MK, Peck LR, Davis EE, Collins A, Weber R, Schexnayder DT, Schroeder DG, et al. (National Center for Children in Poverty, NY). The dynamics of child care subsidy use: A collaborative study of five states. Washington, DC: Child Care Bureau.
21. General Accounting Office (GAO) . Child Care (States have undertaken a variety of quality improvement initiatives, but more evaluations of effectiveness are needed) . Washington, DC: GAO; 2002; Report No.: 02-897
22. Frame L , Berrick JD . The effects of welfare reform on families involved with public child welfare services (results from a qualitative study) . Children and Youth Ser Rev . 2003;25:113–138
23. Stoney L, Stanton N. Child Care and Development Fund: report of state plans for the period of 10/1/99-9/30/01. Final report. Washington, DC: United States Department of Health and Human Services.
24. US Department of Health and Human Services. Child Care and Development Block Grant: report of state plans for the period 10/1/97-9/30/99. Final report. Washington, DC.
25. Schumacher R , Greenberg M . Child care after leaving welfare (early evidence from state studies) . Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy; 2001;
26. Wilkins A. Child care experiences of former TANF recipients. Washington, DC: Welfare Reform Project. Sponsored by National Conference of State Legislatures. Available at: http://www.ncsl.org/statefed/welfare/ccbrief.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2005.
27. Loprest P . Use of government benefits increases among families leaving welfare . Snapshots of America’s Families III series, No. 6 . Washington DC: Urban Institute; 2003; Available at: http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=310838. Accessed September 15, 2005
28. General Accounting Office (GAO) . Washington, DC: Child Care: states exercise flexibility in setting reimbursement rates and providing access for low-income children; 2002; Report No.: 02-894
29. Ewen D , Hart K . State developments in child care, early education and school-age care 2002 . Washington, DC: Children’s Defense Fund; 2002;
30. Greenberg M , Mezey J , Schumacher R . Child care funding (the story since 1996, the challenges in reauthorization) . Washington, DC: Paper at National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies Conference; 2003;
31. Helburn SW , Bergmann BR . America’s child care problem (the way out) . New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan; 2002;
32. General Accountability Office (GAO) . Washington, DC: Child Care: state efforts to enforce safety and health requirements; 2004; Report No.: 04-786
33. Fuller B , Kagan SL , Loeb S , Chang Y-W . Child care quality (centers and home settings that serve poor families) . Early Childhood Research Quarterly . 2004;19:505–527
34. Schumacher R , Irish K , Greenberg M . Untapped potential? How states contract directly with providers to shore up child care choices for low-income families . Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy; 2003;
35. Schumacher R , Greenberg M , Lombardi J . State initiatives to promote early learning (Next steps in coordinating subsidized child care, Head Start and State Prekindergarten) . Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy; 2001;
36. Schumacher R, Irish K, Lombardi J. Meeting great expectations: integrating early education program standards in child care. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy; 2003. Available at http://www.clasp.org/publicationmeeting_rpt.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2005.
37. Shlay AB, Weinraub M, Harmon M, Tran H. (Temple University, Center for Public Policy, Philadelphia, PA). Barriers to subsidies: reasons why low-income families do not use child care subsidies. Washington, DC: Funded by Administration of Children, Youth and Families. Grant No.: 90YE0019102.
38. Vandell DL, Wolfe B. Child care quality: does it matter and does it need to be improved? Washington, DC: US Depart-ment of Health and Human Services; 2000 May. Available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/ccquality00/index.htm. Accessed September 15, 2005.
39. The most comprehensive study on the linkages among child care structure, processes and outcomes is the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Care and Youth Development. Available at http://secc.rti.org/. Accessed September 15, 2005.
40. Coley RL , Chase-Landsdale PL . Child Care in the era of welfare reform (Quality, choices and preferences) . Policy Brief 01-4 . Baltimore (MD): Welfare, Children & Families: a three city study, Johns Hopkins University; 2001;
41. Lav I, Johnson N. State budget deficits for fiscal year 2004 are huge and growing. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; 2003.
42. Mezey J . Five reasons why the Senate should adopt the Snowe-Dodd amendment to increase child care funding . Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy; 2004; Available at: http://www.clasp.org/publications/snowe.pdf
43. Kaplan J . Child care funding and policy issues . Reauthorization Notes . 2002; [serial on the Internet]. Available at: http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/Publication/childcarefundingpolicyissues_trn.htm. Accessed September 15, 2005