The Evaluation of Child Care Subsidy Strategies is a multi-site, multi-year effort to determine whether and how different child care subsidy policies and procedures and quality improvement efforts help low-income parents obtain and hold onto jobs and improve outcomes for children. Funding from the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) administered by the Child Care Bureau are divided into two purposes. The vast majority are aimed at assisting children of low-income working parents whose eligibility is determined by states within broad federal guidelines, while a much smaller portion (4 percent) work with state matching funds to improve the quality of child care for all children. For this study series, four experiments were conducted, two test alternative subsidy policies for low-income families and two test approaches to the use of set-aside funds for improving child care quality for all children. The four study sites and focus of evaluation include: (1) the effectiveness of three language and literacy curricula on teaching practices and children's language and literacy outcomes (Miami Dade County, Florida); (2) the impact of alternative eligibility and re-determination child care subsidy policies on parental employment outcomes (Illinois); (3) the impact of alternative child care co-payment structures on use of child care subsidies and employment outcomes (Washington) and (4) the effectiveness of training on Learning Games curriculum in changing care-giving practices in family child care homes and children's developmental outcomes (Massachusetts).

The Washington evaluation was designed to test the impact of changing parental copayment levels on various child care and economic outcomes (such as type of care used, earnings, employment, etc.). The copayment amount refers to the amount that families who are receiving child care subsidies contribute to the cost of child care, while the copayment schedule refers to the amount or the rate at which the copayment changes as income increases or decreases. In all states, the copayment amount is larger for families with higher incomes. In Washington in 2005, a three-person family receiving child care subsidies paid 3 percent of the cost of child care if their income was 33 percent of the federal poverty threshold, but 16 percent of the cost of care if their income was 200 percent of the threshold. In the Washington child care subsidy program, families were divided into three income tiers. Families in Tier 1 had incomes at or below 82 percent of the federal poverty threshold, families in Tier 2 had incomes between 83 and 137.5 percent of the threshold, and families in Tier 3 had incomes between 137.5 and 200 percent of the threshold. Under the standard copayment schedule used by Washington in 2005, child care subsidy recipients in Tier 1 paid $15 per month, while recipients in Tier 2 paid $50 per month. Families in Tier 3 faced a sliding copayment schedule, with the copayment increasing by 44 cents for each additional dollar of income beyond 137.5 percent of the poverty threshold. In the evaluation, study participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: (1) a control group assigned to the standard copayment schedule, and (2) a program group assigned to an alternative copayment schedule, which had copayment amounts that were equal to or lower than standard copayment schedule amounts.

Design Review Equity Areas are areas of Seattle where applicants for development projects going through the City’s Design Review program are required to work with staff from the Department of Neighborhoods (DON) to customize their community outreach plan to the needs of historically underrepresented communities. Equity Areas are identified based on local demographic and socioeconomic characteristics from the US Census Bureau. Equity Areas are census tracts having a census-tract average greater than the city-as-a-whole average for at least two of the following characteristics: 1. Limited English proficiency, identified as percentage of households that are linguistically isolated households. 2. People of Color, identified as percentage of the population that is not non-Hispanic white; and 3. Income, identified as percentage of population with income below 200% of the federal poverty level. For more information please see Director’s Rule for Early Community Outreach for Design Review. Additional resources and FAQs are available on DON’s Early Community Outreach webpage. Data Source: US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2016 Five-Year Estimates. This map will be evaluated and updated every three years.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii

Analysis of ‘Design Review Equity Areas’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/089df353-bbe6-4256-ad9a-03263e375631 on 27 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

Design Review Equity Areas are areas of Seattle where applicants for development projects going through the City’s Design Review program are required to work with staff from the Department of Neighborhoods (DON) to customize their community outreach plan to the needs of historically underrepresented communities.

Equity Areas are identified based on local demographic and socioeconomic characteristics from the US Census Bureau. Equity Areas are census tracts having a census-tract average greater than the city-as-a-whole average for at least two of the following characteristics:

1. Limited English proficiency, identified as percentage of households that

are linguistically isolated households.

2. People of Color, identified as percentage of the population that is not non-Hispanic white; and

3. Income, identified as percentage of population with income below 200% of the federal poverty level.

For more information please see 'http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/codes/dr/DR2018-4.pdf'>Director’s Rule for Early Community Outreach for Design Review. Additional resources and FAQs are available on 'https://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/outreach-and-engagement/design-review-for-early-outreach/dr_faq_don'>DON’s Early Community Outreach webpage.

Data Source: US Census Bureau’s 'https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/'>American Community Survey 2016 Five-Year Estimates.

Design Review Equity Areas are areas of Seattle where applicants for development projects going through the City’s Design Review program are required to work with staff from the Department of Neighborhoods (DON) to customize their community outreach plan to the needs of historically underrepresented communities.

Equity Areas are identified based on local demographic and socioeconomic characteristics from the US Census Bureau. Equity Areas are census tracts having a census-tract average greater than the city-as-a-whole average for at least two of the following characteristics:

1. Limited English proficiency, identified as percentage of households that

are linguistically isolated households.

2. People of Color, identified as percentage of the population that is not non-Hispanic white; and

3. Income, identified as percentage of population with income below 200% of the federal poverty level.

For more information please see Director’s Rule for Early Community Outreach for Design Review. Additional resources and FAQs are available on DON’s Early Community Outreach webpage.

Data Source: US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2016 Five-Year Estimates.

This map will be evaluated and updated every three years.This layer is used in the SDCI Web Map.

This analysis scores Census Block Groups in Washington based on their degree of equity and environmental justice need for the purpose of identifying and prioritizing investment locations for the Connecting Communities Pilot Program. Each Block Group receives a score based on several factors related to vulnerable populations and environmentally burdened communities, and these scores are added together to create the final score. See the accompanying methodology word document for a full list of factors. Original data sources are the U.S. Census 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS) and the Washington Environmental Health Disparities (EHD) Map.Individual scores are calculated for each measure, which then sum up to aggregate scores for vulnerable populations and overburdened communities as well as a combined final score. Block Group scores based on demographic measures from the ACS data are calculated relative to other Block Groups in similarly sized population centers or in tribal areas. If a Block Group’s value for a given demographic measure is at or above the 80th percentile within its population center size category, it is given 2 points for that factor. If its value is at or above the 60th percentile within its population center size category, it is given 1 point. All other Block Groups receive 0 points for that factor. Block groups that overlap with or touch multiple population centers that have different sizes are assigned the highest possible point value based on all overlapping population centers. For the health and environmental measures sourced from the EHD map, scores are applied based on the measure’s rank value. Block Groups with a rank of 9 or 10 are given 2 points, and Block Groups with a rank of 7 or 8 are given 1 point. This is applied statewide without any scaling within population center sizes, as is performed for the demographic metrics, to ensure that Block Groups with similar environmental or health burdens across the state are scored evenly. Here is a list of measures (included in attribute table), used to calculate the final score: 1. Population less than 18 years of age; 2. Population age 65 or older; 3. Housing cost-burdened households (spending over 30% of income on housing); 4. Black, Indigenous, People of color; 5. Households with 1 or more persons with a disability; 6. Ability to speak English – less than very well; 7. Household income below 200% of the federal poverty level; 8. Zero to one car households; 9. Unemployment; 10. Transportation expense (%) for moderate income families; 11. Limited access to healthy food; 12. Low birthweight (<2500 grams); 13. High rate of hospitalization, based on the maximum rank value from the following variables; (a) Death from cardiovascular disease, (b) Cancer deaths, (c) Lower life expectancy at birth, (d) Premature death; 14. Environmental exposures; 15. Environmental effects; 16. Diesel pollution burdenFinally, 1 additional point is given to Block Groups that fall within or touch a tribal area to give a slight priority to areas serving tribal populations. This score, along with the demographic measures from the ACS as well as the transportation expense, limited access to healthy food, low birthweight, and high rate of hospitalization measures from the EHD Map are summed together to create the total vulnerable population score. The three environmental measures from the EHD Map are summed together to create the total overburdened communities score. These two totals are summed to create the Block Group’s final score.

Low income cut-offs (LICOs) before and after tax by community size and family size, in current dollars, annual.

This archived dataset displays disproportionately impacted communities as defined by the demographic criteria listed in the Environmental Justice Act (HB21-1266), which are census block groups where greater than 40% of households are 1) low income, 2) housing cost-burdened, or 3) include people of color. This version of the map was effective from September 2021 to January 22, 2023. The disproportionately impacted community map layer was updated on January 23, 2023 to include census block groups with an EnviroScreen score over the 80th percentile. These areas reflect another criteria listed in the Environmental Justice Act for identifying disproportionately impacted communities based on cumulative environmental impacts. The Environmental Justice Action Task Force recommended using 80th percentile EnviroScreen scores to identify areas that meet this statutory criteria in its Final Recommendations published in November 2022. The updated map layer can be viewed and accessed through Colorado EnviroScreen. NOTE: Areas under the jurisdiction of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe are not displayed on this map, pending further consultation with each sovereign tribal government.Footnotes:+ All data come from the American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2015-2019.+ Low income households are defined as households at or living below 200% of the federal poverty level.+ Percent people of color is defined as the percent of the population that is not non-Hispanic white+ Housing burden is defined as housing costs exceeding 30% of income. This measure is only available at the census tract level, so all block groups within a census tract received the census tract-level value.This is an archived map layer that CDPHE used to identify disproportionately impacted communities based on three demographic factors identified in the Environmental Justice Act (HB21-1266) from September 2021-January 22, 2023. It specifically identifies communities where more than 40% of the population is low-income, housing cost-burdened, or identifies as minority. CDPHE has added additional information on communities with cumulative impacts through the Colorado EnviroScreen project. Colorado EnviroScreen is the sole tool for identifying disproportionately impacted communities pursuant to the statutory definition after it is released. CDPHE will periodically update the tool, and the Air Quality Control Commission will undertake formal rulemakings to update the definition of Disproportionately Impacted Community at least every three years. Additionally, the Environmental Justice Action Task Force may recommend changes to the statutory definition of the Disproportionately Impacted Community to the legislature. If you have questions about these processes, please email cdphe_ej@state.co.us.

Number of people in a county with low income and living more than 1 mile from a supermarket or large grocery store if in an urban area, or more than 10 miles from a supermarket or large grocery store if in a rural area.", "availableYears": "2010/2015", "name": "Low income & low access to store (% change), 2010 - 15", "units": "% change", "shortName": "PCH_LACCESS_LOWI_10_15", "geographicLevel": "County", "dataSources": "Data are from the 2017 report, Low-Income and Low-Supermarket-Access Census Tracts, 2010-2015 and the 2012 report, Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distances to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data. In each of these reports, a directory of supermarkets and large grocery stores authorized to accept SNAP benefits was merged with Trade Dimensions' TDLinx directory of stores within the United States, including Alaska and Hawaii, for the years 2010 and 2015. Stores met the definition of a supermarket or large grocery store if they reported at least $2 million in annual sales and contained all the major food departments found in a traditional supermarket, including fresh meat and poultry, dairy, dry and packaged foods, and frozen foods. The combined list of supermarkets and large grocery stores was converted into a GIS-usable format by geocoding the street address into store-point locations. Population data are reported at the block level from the 2010 Census of Population and Housing, while data on income in 2010 are drawn at the block group-level from the 2006-10 American Community Survey, and data on income in 2015 are drawn from the 2010-14 American Community Survey. These population data were aerially allocated down to 1/2-kilometer-square grids across the United States. For each 1/2-kilometer-square grid cell, the distance was calculated from its geographic center to the center of the grid cell with the nearest supermarket. Rural or urban status is designated by the Census Bureau's Urban Area definition. Low-income is defined as annual family income of less than or equal to 200 percent of the Federal poverty threshold based on family size.