Abstract
Administrative data are data regularly collected by organizations for monitoring and documentation purposes. They usually represent entire populations; they are timely; and have direct influence on their sources which are mostly governmental agencies. We argue in this paper that administrative data can and should be used as indicators of children’s well-being as they constitute an existing body of knowledge that has the potential to form and influence policy. Such use of administrative data as of child well-being indicators is demonstrated by the South Carolina Data Bridge Project, initiated with a child care research capacity grant awarded in 2007 by the Office of Planning, Research and Families (OPRE) to study the impact of Child Care and Development Fund on the quality of care available to and utilized by low-income working parents and at-risk families. The project’s goal was achieved by linking different sources of child care administrative data to create analytic data cubes that allow the examination of quality of care provided to children and factors contributing to it. This project indicates the importance of administrative data and their potential impact on well-informed decision making and policy change to improve children and families’ well-being.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
At Level A, the Environment Rating Scales (ITERS, ECERS, and SACERS), internationally known assessment tools (Warash et al. 2005), are used as the classroom assessment with wrap-around mandatory standards. The ERS tools are electronic and the data system is maintained by Branagh Information Group. At the intermediate level, Level B, a state-developed tool with mandatory standards and classroom assessments for 0–2, 3–5, and 6–12 year old children is used (U.S. Department of Social Services 2010).
At Level A, the Environment Rating Scales (ITERS, ECERS, and SACERS), internationally known assessment tools (Warash et al. 2005), are used as the classroom assessment with wrap-around mandatory standards. The ERS tools are electronic and the data system is maintained by Branagh Information Group. At the intermediate level, Level B, a state-developed tool with mandatory standards and classroom assessments for 0–2, 3–5, and 6–12 year old children is used (U.S. Department of Social Services 2010).
References
Ben-Arieh, A. (2008). Indicators and indices of children’s well-being: towards a more policy-oriented perspective. European Journal of Education, 43, 37–50.
Camfield, L., Streuli, N., & Woodhead, M. (2009). What’s the use of “well-being” in contexts of child poverty? Approaches to research, monitoring and children’s participation. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 17, 65–109.
Coulton, C. J., & Korbin, J. E. (2007). Indicators of child well-being through a neighborhood lens. Social Indicator Research, 84, 349–361.
Courtney, M. E., & Collins, R. C. (1994). New challenges and opportunities in child welfare outcomes and information technologies. Child Welfare, 73, 359–378.
English, D. J., Brandford, C. C., & Coghlan, L. (2000). Data-based organizational change: the use of administrative data to improve child welfare program and policy. Child Welfare, 79, 499–515.
Fattore, T., Mason, J., & Watson, E. (2007). Children’s conceptualization(s) of their well-being. Social Indicators Research, 80, 5–29.
Fluke, J. D., Eduards, M., Kutzler, P., Knna, J., & Tooman, G. (2000). Safety permanency and in-home services: applying administrative data. Child Welfare, 79, 573–595.
Fronse, I. (2007). Theorizing indicators: on indicators, signs and trends. Social Indicators Research, 83, 5–23.
Goerge, R., & Lee, B. J. (in press). Use of administrative data in childhood research. In A. Ben-Arieh, J. Cashmore, G. Goodman, & G. B. Melton (Eds.), Children in childhood: A research handbook (pp. 12–13). London: Sage.
Glasson, E. J., & Hussain, R. (2008). Linked data: opportunities and challenges in disability research. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 33, 285–291.
Gross, K. S., & McDermott, P. A. (2008). Use of city-archival data to inform dimensional structure of neighborhoods. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 86, 161–182.
Harala, R., & Reinikainen, A. L. (1996). Confidentiality in the use of administrative data sources. Statistical Journal of the UN Economic Commission for Europe, 13, 361–369.
Keith, K. D., & Schalock, R. L. (1994). The measurement of quality of life in adolescence: the Quality of Student Life Questionnaire. American Journal of Family Therapy, 22, 83–87.
Lippman, L. H. (2007). Indicators and indices of child well-being: a brief American history. Social Indicators Research, 83, 39–53.
Martinez, R. O., & Dukes, R. L. (1997). The effects of ethnic identity, ethnicity, and gender on adolescent well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 503–516.
McNabb, J., Timmons, D., Song, J., & Puckett, C. (2009). Uses of administrative data at the social security administration. Social Security Bulletin, 69, 75–84.
Miller, J. A., & Bogatova, T. (2009). Quality improvements in the early care and education workforce: Outcomes and impact of the T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood Project. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32, 257–277.
Moore, K. A., Vandivere, S., Lippman, L., McPhee, C., & Bloch, M. (2007). An index of the condition of children: the ideal and the less-than-ideal U.S. example. Social Indicators Research, 84, 291–331.
Pollard, E., & Lee, P. (2002). Children well-being: a systematic review of the literature. Social Indicators Research, 61, 59–78.
Ranstam, J. (2008). Data handling, statistical computing and archiving. Acta Radiologica, 10, 1137–1139.
Schor, E. L. (1995). Developing communality: family-centered programs to improve children’s health and well-being. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 72, 413–442.
Soloff, C., Sanson, A., Wake, M., & Harrison, L. (2007). Enhancing longitudinal studies by linkage to national databases: growing up in Australia, the longitudinal study of Australian children. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 10, 349–363.
U.S. Department of Social Services. (2010). ABC voucher program. Retrieved from http://childcare.sc.gov/main/general/programs/abc/voucher.aspx, July 12.
Van der Broeck, J., Cunningham, S. A., Eeckels, R., & Herbst, K. (2005). Data cleaning: detecting, diagnosing, and editing data abnormalities. PLoS Medicine, 2, 966–970.
Warash, B. G., Markstorm, C. A., & Lucci, B. (2005). The early childhood environment rating scale-revised as a tool to improve child care centers. Education, 126, 240–250.
Yampolskaya, S., Paulson, R. I., Armstrong, M., Jordan, N., & Vargo, A. C. (2004). Child welfare privatization: quantitative indicators and policy issues. Evaluation Review, 28, 87–103.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lavenda, O., Hunter, B., Noelle, M. et al. Administrative Data as Children’s Well-Being Indicators: The South Carolina Data Bridge Project. Child Ind Res 4, 439–451 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-010-9096-9
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-010-9096-9