Sociodemographic Disparities in Market Change and Programmatic Mission under Preschool for All

As policymakers consider universal preschool proposals, this study uses sociological theory to understand implications of expanding universal preschool for the existing market. I examine how Illinois’ state-funded preschool program -- Preschool for All -- has reached eligible children located in different areas of the state; how it affects the supply of preschool and child care in sociodemographically different Illinois ZIP codes; and what factors explain why Chicago area center directors serving families of different sociodemographic backgrounds differ in their opinions about whether Preschool for All should remain a targeted program or expand to universal levels. Descriptive, quantitative analyses indicate that, as a targeted program, Preschool for All sites are most often found in lower income areas, as expected. However, there are much fewer PFA slots per child in low income areas than in higher income areas. Further, disruptions to PFA funding are more likely to occur in low income areas. Results from propensity score weighted regression analyses test whether ZIPs with increases versus decreases in school-based PFA saw a significant change in other types of care between 2008 and 2013. Results from propensity score analyses find evidence of crowd out only of centers and licensed homes in low income ZIPs and among Early Head Start in majority non White ZIPs. Further, contrary to expectations, there is some evidence that an increase in PFA may be creating demand for other services, such as Early Head Start in low income and in English speaking ZIPs, and home based care in majority White areas. However, there are significant challenges in estimating effects given the quality of available data. I offer several data system recommendations for improving the ability and capacity of systems to produce data that would allow policymakers to evaluate effects of PFA on the system. Analysis of survey data in logistic regression models finds that, among a sample of Chicago area center directors, the sociodemographic characteristics of the ZIP Code is the only factor found to be related to opinions about whether PFA should remain targeted or expand to universal levels; directors who serve in majority White, middle income, English speaking populations are approximately 20% less likely to support universal preschool than their counterparts serving in non-White and lower income areas. Interview data with a subsample of directors indicate that those who support a universal program assume they will be able to remain in the market under a universal system due to their unique value or competitive advantage to a school-based PFA. However, their perceived value differs by sociodemographics of the population served. Those serving in White, higher income, English speaking areas emphasize the value of providing choice and variety for parents. By contrast, their counterparts serving non White, lower income populations suggested their non-school services were valuable not only for education and parental employment support, but also to provide other services that schools could not offer, including social services. Together, the three studies in this dissertation provide a sociological perspective on the implications of Preschool for All for the existing preschool market and, ultimately, for families and providers of varying sociodemographic characteristics. Successful expansion of PFA to universal levels will require attention to improving the reach and stability of services. Policymakers may need to consider ways to develop skill and will among potential PFA providers to apply for, win, and maintain grants. Additionally, given that PFA is one program among others in the larger field of early care and education, data system improvements and coordination at the state level will be critical if policymakers wish to understand the larger implications for the market if and when a universal plan comes to fruition. Finally, a successful expansion of Preschool for All services to universal levels will require buy-in and support from existing providers who serve a diversity of families with varying needs and preferences. Beyond mitigating against “crowd out,” policymakers should ensure a place for multiple providers and recognize, support, and leverage the complementary services and strengths that these providers bring to the market.