Home | Publications | MAPPING VULNERABILITY: CHILDCARE FACILITIES, CLIMATE RISKS, AND ECONOMIC CHALLENGES IN EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA?

ABSTRACT

This report assesses the vulnerability to climate change impacts and economic challenges of childcare providers in Eastern North Carolina. Focusing on counties east of Interstate 95, we use heat maps to visualize the geographic distribution of childcare centers in relation to socioeconomic status and areas heavily impacted by climate change. This research comes at a critical time, as the childcare sector faces increasing environmental and financial threats in the wake of pandemic funding expiring. By analyzing the intersection of geographic, environmental, and socioeconomic factors, we identify areas of high vulnerability and potential areas for resilience within Eastern North Carolina’s childcare infrastructure. Our findings provide insights for policymakers, community leaders, and stakeholders, offering a foundation for targeted interventions and enhancing the broader understanding of how climate change and economic factors impact essential services such as childcare in Eastern North Carolina.

Background and Context

Childcare is a critical component of the modern economy, playing a vital role in supporting labor force participation and economic efficiency across the United States. However, the United States faces significant challenges in this sector, spending far less on childcare compared to other developed nations — an average of $500 per child versus $14,000 in other nations (Cain Miller, 2021). Over the past three decades, the cost of childcare in the U.S. has skyrocketed, increasing by nearly 220%, and outpacing inflation in other sectors (Allen, 2023). This has caused widespread financial strain, with 89% of parents reporting that child care consumes 10% or more of their income (Zumbrum, 2023).

The childcare industry itself struggles with persistent issues, including low wages for workers, staffing shortages, and in some cases, facility closures (Dukes, 2024). While recent federal funding provided temporary relief during the COVID-19 pandemic, its expiration has increased concerns about a looming childcare crisis (Zumbrum, 2023). Additionally, the growing impacts of climate change present obstacles for childcare facilities, necessitating adaptive measures.

These national trends are felt more severely in certain regions, notably in areas facing compounded challenges due to their geographical and socioeconomic characteristics. Eastern North Carolina — a region covering the counties east of Interstate 95 — is a prime example of an area where childcare challenges and environmental vulnerabilities intersect, creating a complex landscape. This region, which includes a mix of rural and urban areas, faces its own set of childcare needs and challenges. The rural nature of much of Eastern North Carolina can lead to “childcare deserts,” where demand for childcare significantly outpaces available supply (“U.S. Childcare,” n.d.). Moreover, the region’s coastal proximity and river system make it particularly vulnerable to climate-related risks such as flooding and extreme heat events (“What Climate Change,” 2016).

Compounding these issues, many counties in Eastern North Carolina face higher rates of poverty compared to state and national averages (Scharer, 2001). This economic situation exacerbates the challenges of providing affordable and accessible childcare, placing additional strain on families and childcare providers alike.

As the nation struggles with childcare challenges, regions like Eastern North
Carolina highlight the need for nuanced, localized approaches that consider not only economic factors but also environmental vulnerabilities and geographical constraints. Addressing these intersecting issues is crucial to ensuring the well-being of families and the economic success of communities across the region and the nation.

Methodology

This study examined the Eastern North Carolina region, specifically focusing on counties east of Interstate 95. The analysis encompassed 42 counties, including:

Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Currituck, Dare, Duplin, Edgecombe, Gates, Greene, Halifax, Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lenoir, Martin, Nash, New Hanover, Northampton, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Robeson, Sampson, Scotland, Tyrrell, Vance, Warren, Washington, Wayne, and Wilson counties.

Quantitative measures were used to assess the risk factors for each county, as well as for Census tracts within the defined study area. This analysis includes measures of both environmental and socioeconomic risk, and their potential impact on childcare facilities in Eastern North Carolina. To accurately capture this information, the following variables and data sources were used:

Socioeconomic

To accurately assess the socioeconomic vulnerabilities in Eastern North Carolina, the study examined several key demographic and economic indicators across Census tracts. The research focused on the following socioeconomic-related variables:

1. Early childhood population: The percentage of residents under 5 years old was analyzed because this age group often requires additional support and resources, potentially straining family and community systems.
2. Language barriers: The study quantified the number of residents with limited English proficiency, recognizing that language barriers can disturb access to essential services, education, and employment opportunities.
3. Economic status: Median household income was used as a primary indicator of economic well-being within communities.
4. Racial and ethnic composition: The research focused specifically on the number of American Indian, Hispanic, and Black residents in each Census tract. These non-white populations are more prominent in Eastern North Carolina and face greater inherent risks due to the historical disparities and unique challenges they encounter.

The inclusion of American Indian population data was especially critical given the significant presence of indigenous communities in Eastern North Carolina, with a notable concentration in and around Robeson County. This area is home to the Lumbee Tribe, one of the largest Native American groups east of the Mississippi River (“American Indian,” n.d.).

By examining these intersecting factors, the study aimed to create an understanding of the socioeconomic landscape in Eastern North Carolina. This approach allows for the identification of areas where multiple risk factors may merge, potentially exacerbating vulnerabilities and requiring targeted interventions.

Environmental

To assess the environmental vulnerabilities in Eastern North Carolina, the study examined several key environmental indicators across Census tracts. The research focused on the following environmental measures:

1. Hurricane risk: The national hurricane risk score measures the region’s susceptibility to these powerful storms that can cause widespread damage.
2. Flood risk: Given the low-lying landscape and extensive river systems in Eastern North Carolina, flood risk was a crucial factor in the analysis.
3. Heat vulnerability: The national heat index score was used to quantify the region’s exposure to extreme heat events, which can have severe health implications, particularly for vulnerable populations.
4. Agricultural impact: The density of Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) within a one-mile radius of each Census tract was assessed, recognizing the potential environmental and health impacts of these facilities.

This approach acknowledges the connection between environmental risks and their significant effects on communities. By examining these factors at the Census tract level, the study provides a geographically detailed picture of environmental vulnerabilities across the region.

The research is particularly relevant because of climate change, which is exacerbating many of these environmental risks in Eastern North Carolina. Specifically, increased hurricane frequency and intensity which leads to greater storm surge, wind damage, and inland flooding; enhanced flood risk caused by rising sea levels and more intense precipitation events; rising temperatures and more frequent extreme heat events; and changing climate patterns affecting agricultural practices, especially influencing the environmental impacts of CAFOs.

With these environmental risk measures, the study captures the key environmental challenges facing Eastern North Carolina. This approach allows for the identification of areas where multiple risk factors converge, potentially exacerbating vulnerabilities and requiring targeted mitigation strategies.

Overall Approach

The study’s methodology involved gathering raw count data on the variables listed in Table 1 at the Census tract level. This approach involved collecting the data in its most granular form, detailing the number of occurrences across individual Census tracts (e.g., dividing the Hispanic count by the total population). To ensure comparability and account for population differences across tracts, the study then normalized these raw counts. This normalization process involved dividing each variable’s count by its respective total value, resulting in measures that allowed for more meaningful comparisons across Census tracts. The research turned each normalized value into a percentile within its respective variable. These percentiles indicate how each value compares to others in the same category. This conversion to percentiles is essential for demonstrating the relative risk associated with each variable type across Census tracts. To balance the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) and environmental factors in the final risk assessment, the study applied a weighting system. The six SES factors each received a weight of 0.083, totaling 50% of the overall score. The four environmental factors were each weighted at 0.125, comprising the other 50% of the total score. This approach ensures that SES and environmental considerations contribute equally to the final risk evaluation for each Census tract. The weighted percentile scores for each variable were then summed to create an aggregate score for each Census tract. This aggregate score represents the overall risk based on both SES and environmental factors. With the aggregate scores, the study then scaled these scores to fall between 0 and 1, to better compare these numbers and associated risk level across all tracts of focus. The weighted and normalized values were combined to produce a single figure representing the overall risk for each Census tract based on SES and environmental factors. To allow for easier comparison of risk levels across all studied tracts, these combined values were then scaled to fall within a range of 0 to 1 using the following formula:

scaled value = (value – MINIMUM)/(MAXIMUM – MINIMUM)

where MINIMUM and MAXIMUM represent the lowest and highest aggregate scores across all tracts. This scaling process allows for a more straightforward assessment of relative risk among the Census tracts of focus, with values closer to 0 indicating lower risk and values closer to 1 indicating higher risk.

Results

Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of childcare facilities across the Eastern North Carolina counties of focus. Concentrations are evident in more urban areas like Wilmington in New Hanover County, Fayetteville in Cumberland County, and Rocky Mount in Nash County.

Figure 2 depicts the current environmental risk facing Eastern North Carolina. The environmental risk scores incorporate multiple factors, including flood vulnerability, extreme heat exposure, hurricane susceptibility, and proximity to CAFOs throughout the region.

The darker red (0.299-0.443) areas in Figure 2 represent zones of high environmental risk, which are widespread across the region. The high prevalence of this darker shade across the map highlights the breadth of environmental challenges in Eastern North Carolina. Areas shaded in orange (0.231-0.299) and light orange (0.159- 0.231) areas indicate moderate environmental risk levels, while white areas (0.00-0.159) reflect lower — but not zero — risk. It’s important to recognize that while these areas face relatively lower environmental threats, they are not entirely free from risk.

Figure 3 depicts the current socioeconomic risk facing Eastern North Carolina. The socioeconomic risk scores are based on multiple factors, including Hispanic, Black, and American Indian populations, children under the age of five, households with limited English-speaking capabilities, and median household income.

Dark green areas (0.257-0.385) indicate regions of high socioeconomic distress, which are prevalent throughout the region. These high-risk zones are concentrated in three key areas: central Eastern North Carolina, the southwestern part of the region, and along the coastline. The green (0.201-0.257) and lighter green (0.141-0.201) areas represent moderate risk levels, while the white areas (0.00-0.140) signify lower socioeconomic risk. Again, it is critical to note that while these areas face comparatively lower levels of socioeconomic threat, they are not entirely free from socioeconomic challenges.

Figure 4 shows the combined total risk, integrating both environmental and socioeconomic variables, as well as the locations of childcare facilities across the region. The darkest blue areas (0.65-1.00) represent the highest total risk, covering a significant portion of the region. The lighter blue areas (0.51-0.65 & 0.38-0.50) indicate moderate risk, and the white-shaded tracts (0-0.37) represent the lowest risk level, though this does not mean there is no risk present.

Urban centers like Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, and Wilmington show a higher density of childcare facilities, generally corresponding with lower-risk zones. In contrast, many high-risk Census tracts (darkest blue) have fewer childcare facilities, revealing an inverse relationship between risk level and childcare availability. This is particularly concerning, as it suggests that in high-risk areas with sparse childcare options, the few existing facilities are of increased significance. The potential closure of even a single facility in these areas could have significant repercussions for local families, potentially forcing them to travel longer distances to access alternative childcare options (Becker, 2020). The intersection of high environmental and socioeconomic risk with limited childcare availability compounds the challenges facing these communities, leaving families in these areas more vulnerable and reducing overall community resilience.

Conclusion

Eastern North Carolina’s childcare landscape has a complex relationship between environmental risks, socioeconomic challenges, and the distribution of childcare facilities. Significant disparities exist across the region: many high-risk areas face environmental vulnerabilities and socioeconomic distress, compounded by limited access to childcare facilities. Urban areas like Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, and Wilmington generally show lower risk levels and higher concentrations of childcare options, while rural and coastal areas often experience greater challenges.

This research is a valuable tool for policymakers and community leaders, highlighting areas that require targeted economic interventions, social support programs, and development initiatives. The findings emphasize the need for targeted interventions in high-risk areas, particularly focusing on increasing the availability and resilience of childcare facilities. Moving forward, policymakers should consider strategies to incentivize the establishment of new childcare facilities in underserved, high-risk areas, implement support measures to enhance the sustainability of existing facilities in vulnerable regions, and develop contingency plans to ensure continuity of childcare services in the event of facility closures or environmental disruptions. By presenting this view of the region’s challenges and opportunities, this study provides a foundation for deeper analysis and informed decision-making. It also aims to uncover the root causes of these patterns and inform strategies focused on promoting more equitable economic development and strengthening community resilience across Eastern North Carolina.

References

(n.d.). American Indian Residents of North Carolina. North Carolina Counties: American Indian Population; North Carolina Association of County Commissioners. Retrieved July 24, 2024, from https://www.ncacc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/DataRelease_AmericanIndian_11_2023.pdf

(n.d.). DWR Animal Operation Permits. DEQ; Department of Environmental Quality. Retrieved July 24, 2024, from
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=85ae6392d0e94010a305eedf06e3f288

(n.d.). National Risk Index. National Risk Index; FEMA. Retrieved July 24, 2024, from https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/map

(n.d.). North Carolina Flood Risk Information System. FRIS; NC Floodplain Mapping Program. Retrieved July 24, 2024, from
https://fris.nc.gov/fris/Home.aspx?ST=NC

(n.d.). U.S. Childcare Deserts. U.S. Childcare Deserts; Center for American Progress. Retrieved July 24, 2024, from https://www.childcaredeserts.org/
(2016, August). What Climate Change Means for North Carolina. Environmental Protection Agency.
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-nc.pdf
(2022). About the American Community Survey. United States Census Bureau.
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/about.html

Allen, G. (2023, September 30). The Childcare Cliff: $122 Billion Crisis, But Whose Problem Is It? https://www.forbes.com/sites/gemmaallen/2023/09/30/the-childcare-cliff-122-billion-dollar-crisis-but-whose-problem-is-it/

Becker, A. (2020, June 22). Middle-income and rural families disproportionately grapple with child-care deserts, new analysis shows. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/22/middle-income-rural-families-disproportionately-grapple-with-child-care-deserts-new-analysis-shows/

Cain Miller, C. (2021). How Other Nations Pay for Child Care. The U.S. Is an Outlier.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/upshot/child-care-biden.html

Dukes, K. (2024, April 6). Nearly a Third of North Carolina Child Care Providers to Close Within Months. The 74. https://www.the74million.org/article/nearly-a-third-of-north-carolina-child-care-providers-to-close-within months/#:~:text=The%20biggest%20child%20care%20issue,the%20end%20of%20June%202024.

Scharer, J. (2001). How does the East Compare to the Rest of North Carolina? North Carolina Insight, 10–41. https://nccppr.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/02/How_Does_the_East_Compare_to_the_Rest_of_NC.pdf

Zumbrum, J. (2023). Why 3.2 Million Children Probably Aren’t Headed Over a Child-Care Cliff. The Wall Street Journal, US (The Numbers). https://www.wsj.com/us-news/why-3-2-million-children-probably-arent-headed-over-a-child-care-cliff-32667376

About the Authors

Jeanne Milliken Bonds is a Professor of the Practice, Impact Investment and Sustainable Finance in the Kenan-Flagler Business School and the Department of Public Policy at UNC-Chapel Hill.

Allan M. Parnell is a Senior Research in the Kenan Institute’s Urban Investment Strategies Center and Vice President of the Mebane, NC-based Cedar Grove Institute for Sustainable Communities.

The Kenan Institute serves as a national center for scholarly research, joint exploration of issues, and course development with the principal theme of preservation, encouragement, and understanding of private enterprise.

Related Articles