Families are willingly relinquishing their employment and bypassing pay increases, for the purpose of becoming eligible for child care provision.
In the heart of New York City, Amy Lee Funes, a child and family nonprofit employee, found herself struggling to balance her low salary of $35,000 per year with the cost of child care for her young son, Leo, who had been diagnosed with autism.
In 2019, Funes was denied a government-funded child care subsidy despite her low income, as she made more than the state's income limit for eligibility. If the state had followed federal guidelines, she would have been well below the maximum income of about $60,000 for a family of two.
The issue of underfunding and strict eligibility requirements for child care subsidies in the United States is a complex one, with several contributing factors.
Firstly, there is a chronic lack of robust federal investment in child care assistance. This limited funding restricts the availability and scope of subsidies, leading to insufficient support for families in need. Policy and budget decisions, such as the expiration of temporary federal COVID-related funding, have further exacerbated the issue.
Secondly, states often impose strict eligibility criteria, often tied to income and specific family circumstances. These criteria are influenced by limited funding that requires prioritizing certain families, further narrowing access.
Thirdly, the fragmented and market-based nature of the child care system historically views early care and education as a private market issue rather than a universal public service. This results in piecemeal programs with uneven funding and limited coverage.
Fourthly, concerns from small childcare providers and communities about large-scale system changes can influence how funding and eligibility rules evolve, sometimes maintaining the status quo that results in restrictive access.
Lastly, political and administrative delays or uncertainties, as seen in the withholding or delay of childcare grants, disrupt funding flows for critical support programs.
In 2020, New York received a waiver for the phase-out requirement of the 2014 federal rule regarding child care assistance. This was a step in the right direction, but the stringent eligibility cutoffs chosen by many states can have the unintended consequence of stymieing upward mobility, as some parents have to choose between a job and a voucher.
During the pandemic, when child care subsidy programs received a temporary influx of federal funds, many states eased income eligibility and other program rules. However, post-pandemic, it's been a mixed bag, with some states becoming more generous and others walking back pandemic-era changes that made it easier for families to get and keep subsidies.
In early 2020, Funes learned that she qualified for a subsidy. This time, things seemed to fall into place. Funes was granted a voucher and found a center she loved close to home. But her joy was short-lived. Not long after her work hours at the department store ramped up to 30 a week, in late 2021, Funes received a letter stating her food assistance would be cut off. Soon after, she said, she was notified that her child care assistance would soon end as well.
Funes was told that the only way she could get a voucher was if her income dropped even lower or if she went on public assistance. Frustrated and desperate, Funes hunkered down in a studio apartment with her son, living off unemployment and pandemic-era assistance.
However, Funes didn't give up. She is now part of a nonprofit parent advocacy group and regularly speaks to legislators and on panels about family support policies. Her story serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by families seeking child care subsidies in the United States.
References:
[1] National Women's Law Center. (2023). Child Care and the Economy. Retrieved from https://nwlc.org/issues/child-care-and-the-economy/
[2] Center for American Progress. (2021). The Child Care Crisis in America. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/reports/2021/03/16/497249/child-care-crisis-america/
[3] National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies. (2023). Federal Funding for Child Care. Retrieved from https://www.naccrra.org/policy-advocacy/federal-funding-for-child-care/
[4] National Governors Association. (2023). Child Care and Early Learning. Retrieved from https://www.nga.org/cms/topics/economy/child-care-and-early-learning/
[5] Brookings Institution. (2021). Fixing the Child Care System. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/fixing-the-child-care-system/
- Amy Lee Funes' struggle with child care costs and income inequality highlights the need for innovation in personal-finance and education-and-self-development policies within the United States.
- The inequitable distribution of child care subsidies in the U.S., exacerbated by strict eligibility criteria and limited federal investment, deserves attention in both general-news and political discussions.
- Advocates for education, lifestyle, and family support argue that a shift from viewing child care as a market-based issue to a universal public service can address the fragmentation and insufficient coverage in the current system.
- The open access to finance and education resources is vital for upward mobility and should be prioritized by policymakers to reduce the unintended consequences of restrictive eligibility cutoffs.
- As Funes' experiences demonstrate, it is crucial for policymakers to be mindful of potential disruptions in funding flows and administrative delays, which can adversely affect critical support programs and families in need.
