discussion: The second shift

A Policy Analysis of Child Care Subsidies: Increasing Quality, Access, and Affordability

Amber Moodie-Dyer

Changing family dynamics over the past four decades, including rises in the numbers of working mothers and single-parent families, have created an increased need for affordable child care. Government response to this need has involved a number of stop-and-start policy approaches, which have led to a fractured child care system that makes it difficult for families to find quality, accessible, affordable care. Supporting child care for working families is important to both helping parents obtain and maintain employment and contributing to quality early childhood development, which in turn better prepares children to succeed in school.This policy analysis focuses on the child care subsidy program of the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Suggestions are made for improving the subsidy system to increase the number of eligible children served and the number of parents able to maintain employment. In addition, both affordability and quality of programs are addressed in terms of how the subsidy program can be a part of a comprehensive early childhood education system.The suggested proposal involves a three-phase approach to increase funding to serve more families who need child care, build capacity and quality of the child care market, and provide a universal system of child care.

K E Y W O R D S : child care; Child Care and Development Block Grant;

early childhood policy; school readiness; stibsidies

I n the past few years, discourse around the importance of early childhood education for a competitive workforce, both now and

in the future, has been reinvigorated. Creation of a competitive workforce involves support- ing parents in pursuing employment and, more important, in preparing the next generation to compete in a global environment by equip- ping them with a high-quality early education (Leach, 2009; Lynch, 2004; Polakow, 2007). In response to the economic crisis. President Barack Obama and Congress have enacted the Ameri- can Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) (ARRA) to invest in education, workforce development, and safety net programs (Center for Law and Social Policy [CLASP], 2009b). Among the provisions of the A R R A is a significant investment in early childhood education programs, including $2 billion toward the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), which provides child care subsidies for low-income families; $2.1 billion toward Early Head Start and Head Start; and additional funding for special education and the school system (National Association for the Education

of Young Children, 2009). The goals of these provisions and child care policies in general are to help parents obtain quality child care and enter or maintain involvement in the workforce and to help children succeed in school (National Women's Law Center [NWLC], 2009).

HISTORY OF CHILD CARE POLICY Government involvement in the provision of child care has evolved over time. Often, federal funding for child care comes in response to crises (for example, creation of the emergency nursery school program under the New Deal, establish- ment of the Community Facilities Act of 1941 (better known at that time as the"LanhamAct") in response to women flooding the workforce during WorldWar II, establishment of Head Start as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson s War on Poverty) (Clark-Stewart & Allhusen, 2005; Cohen, 1996) .The development of the child care market dates back further, to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when two separate goals stimulated the growth of out-of-home child care arrangements. For poor families, the goal was to care for children so that parents could seek and

CCC Code: 1532-8759/11 $3.00 ©2011 National Association of Social Workers 37

maintain employment, whereas for middle- and upper-income families, the goal was optimizing a child's early development. This dichotomy continues into today's discourse, which frames the importance of child care for poor parents as employment support but for those in higher socioeconomic groups emphasizes quality early care's role in promoting school success (Clark- Stewart & Allhusen, 2005; Cohen, 1996).

The issue of child care became most salient, however, when changing gender roles and family structure, along with the economic demands of a globalizing economy, pushed more women into the workforce than ever before in the 1960s and 1970s (Clark-Stewart & Allhusen, 2005). Since then, the numbers of working mothers and the need for child care have steadily increased. For example, the biggest increase among women in the labor force from 1950 to 1998 was among those in the age group of 25 to 34 years, whose participation rate more than doubled from 34.0 percent in 1950 to 76.3 percent in 1998 (U.S. Department of Labor, 2000). Current statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor (2006) have revealed a slight decrease to 70.8 percent, perhaps affected by rising unemployment due to the economic recession. However, due to this age group's likehhood to need early childhood care, because of the presence of young children in the family and an employment rate over 70 percent, affordable, quality care is still a salient issue. In addition, the percentage of mothers in the labor force with children under six rose from about 40 percent in 1975 to about 63 percent in 2003 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, 2004). For mothers with chil- dren ages six to 17 in that same time period, the change was from about 55 percent to 78 percent. Because of divergent goals and stop- and-start policy approaches to address these growing needs throughout the past century, the child care system today is a hodgepodge of programs. The resulting system leaves families in the difficult position of searching out qual- ity, accessible, affordable care for children. The child care system simply has not grown quickly enough to meet the growing need for services

(Clark-Stewart & Allhusen, 2005; Durfee & Meyers, 2006; Leach, 2009).

CCDBG This analysis focuses on the child care assistance subsidy program funded by CCDBG and ad- ministered by each state individually, because it is the largest financial provider of child care for working poor families. In addition, the effects of recent economic conditions on the child care subsidy system are discussed. With passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193), receipt of cash welfare became contingent on participation in the workforce underTemporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).This act also combined four separate child care subsidy programs into the single CCDBG, which was delivered to the states with minimal guidelines, to be administered on the basis of distinct regional child care needs (Blau &Tekin, 2007). Because of the greater emphasis on work, funding for child care subsidies was increased to meet the growing demand of poor single working mothers who were required to find employment to continue receiving TANF benefits. However, funding for child care leveled off due to a freeze in funding implemented during former President GeorgeW Bush's administration, while market prices for child care continued to rise (Ewen & Matthews, 2007).The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), which took effect in 2006, reauthorized TANF and made changes that require states to increase the percentage of famihes entering the workforce. These forces combined to exacerbate the difficult situation many poor families face. Despite inadequate federal funding and state budget deficits, there is an increased need for child care assistance, which causes families to make difficult choices (Matthews & Ewen, 2006).

Child care is unaffordable for many work- ing families. Most wages provided through our service-dominated workforce are not adequate to pay for aU the expenses working families incur (Magnuson, Meyers, & Waldfogel, 2007). The cost of child care for some families is greater than costs for housing or car payments and can

38 Children & Schools VOLUME 33, NUMBER i JANUARY 2011

exceed the cost of sending a child through col- lege. According to the recent report from the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (2008), the average price of full-time center-based care for an infant was $14,591 a year, and for a four-year-old, families paid up to $10,787. Unfortunately, families do not have the benefit of savings across time at this point in their lives and are often at their lowest earning potential when children are young. As a result, the subsidy program available to aid families with this enormous expense is over- burdened. According to several recent studies, only 15 percent to 30 percent of those eligible for subsidies receive help (as cited in Herbst, 2008). In addition, because of insufficient fund- ing to the CCDBG, there are long waiting lists, and child care providers are often reimbursed at levels below what is needed to provide care, causing families receiving subsidies to make up the difference (Ewen & Matthews, 2007).

Improving an outmoded child care subsidy system first requires an understanding of the specific stipulations of the CCDBG that states must follow. Some major provisions of the CCDBG are these:

• States can provide assistance to families whose income is not greater than 85 per- cent of the state median income (SMI);

• parents must be involved in work, educa- tion, or training;

• subsidies are provided to children ages birth to 13, or up to 19 for children with special needs;

• parents must have a choice in type of child care (that is, a family child care provider, center-based care, or an unlicensed pro- vider);

• a sliding fee scale for copayments must be established on the basis of income (federal guidelines define 10 percent of income as a benchmark for affordability); and

• states must ensure equal access to child care for eligible children, with Federal guidance that states set reimbursement rates so that care can be purchased with 75 percent of available providers in the market (CLASP, 2009a).

In reality, however, most states set maximum ehgibility far below 85 percent of SMI, with an average of approximately 59 percent of SMI across states in fiscal year (FY) 2004—05, a drop from the previous FY (U.S. Child Care Bureau, 2005). In addition, income eligibility levels declined as a percentage of poverty in over half of states between 2001 and 2004 (Schulman & Blank, 2004). Schulman and Blank also reported that long waiting lists were the norm for half of states, with Florida, Georgia,Texas, andTennes- see all maintaining waiting lists of over 20,000 children. Also, low-income families pay more than 10 percent of their income toward child care, and reimbursement rates do not meet the 75 percent benchmark (Adams, Snyder, & Banghart, 2008). For example, Durfee and Meyers (2006) pointed out that famihes making under $18,000 a year spend almost a quarter of their wages on child care. Many families are forced to make decisions on the basis of affordability, not quality, and it is precisely the children in these families to whom quality child care is most critical for the enhancement of cognitive development and social skills (Leach, 2009).To reinforce quality through the child care subsidy program, fed- eral guidelines require states to spend at least 4 percent of their allotted CCDBG monies on quality activities, including parental education (CLASP, 2009a). However, attempts to improve quahty must be paired with efforts to increase access and affordability as well.

CHILD CARE SUBSIDY POLICY ALTERNATIVES The $2 billion allotment of funds to CCDBG through the ARRA has reinvigorated the discus- sion about how the child care subsidy system can be improved to meet the needs of working poor families. In addition, quality child care is receiv- ing increased emphasis, because approximately 13 percent of the total allotment is reserved for quality improvement (NWLC, 2009).This emphasis on quality is paramount in shifting the child care debate from one of promoting self-sufficiency of parents to one of promot- ing early learning to better prepare children for school and success in the job market. Both the NWLC and CLASP have issued numerous

M O O D I E - D Y E R / A Policy Analysis of Child Care Subsidies: Increasing Quality, Access, and Affordability 39

policy briefs in response to the increased funding. Suggestions offered to states for spending the additional funding include the following: raising income eligibility limits, eliminating waiting lists, reducing parent copayments, increasing reimbursement rates for providers, developing a quality rating system, providing scholarships to providers to improve facilities and attend trainings, providing grants for start-up costs in communities where child care is in short sup- ply, and hiring licensors to conduct inspections of child care facilities once a year (CLASP & NWLC, 2009).

Considering rising unemployment and the recent economic recession, recovery funds would also be well spent on policies such as allowing continued child care coverage when parents are unemployed and conducting job searches. In addition, parents could be sup- ported with child care subsidies when they return to school to further their education and improve their marketability in an increasingly competitive job market. These stipulations would allow children to receive continuity of early care despite a parent's employment status (Schulman & Blank, 2004), which in turn would better prepare them to succeed in a kindergarten through grade 12 (K—12) setting (Leach, 2009; Lynch, 2004; Polakow, 2007).Another recent development attributed to the economic recession, which is also reflec- tive of the shift of workforce demographics in general, is the fact that rising unemployment has affected male workers more than female workers. According to Boushey (2009), about three-quarters of total jobs lost had been held by men. This amplifies the child care burden for families in that women are increasingly becoming the primary breadwinner, yet their wages are significantly less than those of their male counterparts (Boushey, 2009).

Although these suggestions are all potentially beneficial to low-income families, it is important to remember that the A R R A money is one-time funding, and to establish an integrated quality, affordable, and accessible child care network, long-term system improvements must be the focus of policy implementation. In addition, system integration should also be a concern

so that all stakeholder needs are incorporated, including those of parents, children, child care providers, K—12 education, administrative agen- cies, employers, and state and federal agencies. Ultimately, child care subsidies are just one piece of the puzzle and must play a complementary role to other early childhood policies, includ- ing quality improvements. Head Start and Early Head Start, prekindergarten, parent outreach and education, and many others.

EVALUATIVE CRITERIA Criteria for measuring successful policy changes at state and federal levels should include the following:

• an increase in quality options available for parents and increased use of those quality slots by subsidy families;

• an improvement on measures of school readiness for low-income children;

• increased safety for young children in nonparental care;

• an increase in the number of eligible children served by the child care subsidy program;

• a higher percentage of subsidy-eligible parents who are able to maintain employ- ment; and

• affordability of care, as defined by a de- crease in the percentage of income families spend on child care.

The importance of the first criterion, increas- ing quality child care slots and use of those slots by subsidy parents, is closely related to the second criterion of improving school-readiness scores. Long-term benefits of quality early care encompass not only improved school readiness, but also higher student achievement through- out primary and secondary education, better health outcomes, and increased productivity in adulthood (Polakow, 2007). A study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute found several cost—benefit savings associated with investment in early childhood education (Lynch, 2004). Overall, investments in high-quality early child- hood programs generate a cost—benefit ratio in excess of three-to-one, which, according to

40 Children & Schools VOLUME 33, NUMBER I JANUARY 2011

Lynch, far exceeds the one-to-one ratio justi- fying increased investments. The savings occur in several areas, including fewer dollars spent dealing with future criminal activity; higher adult earnings, leading to both decreased future welfare spending and increased tax revenues; and decreased costs for special education (Lynch, 2004; Polakow, 2007).

The third criterion, improving safety for chil- dren in nonparental care, is also related to quality of care. If mothers cannot afford licensed child care, they are likely to choose a care provider who is convenient, such as a friend or live-in partner. Schnitzer and Ewigman (2005) found that children under five who lived with an un- related adult in the household were about 50 times more likely to be killed by inflicted injury than were those in homes with two parents present. The vast majority of unrelated adults in these settings were the mother's live-in male partner. The choice of informal care is also a concern because unlicensed care settings are not monitored for basic safety requirements, such as adult-to-child ratio and fire safety compliance. In many respects, children in such settings are simply off the radar in terms of monitoring the quality and safety of early care.

The value of addressing the fourth criterion— increasing the number of ehgible children served by child care subsidies—is tied to its effects on the fifth and sixth criteria of increased parental employment and affordability of care. When parents receive child care subsidies, they are more likely to obtain and maintain employment (Joo, 2008). In addition, when state subsidy policies are more generous in terms of eligibility levels and copayment rates, this has an effect on low- income mothers'working patterns. For example, a study conducted by Joo found that mothers living in states with more generous eligibility levels worked more hours per year than did those in more stringent states. Also, the odds of mothers in more generous states working full- time are more than one and a half times higher than those of mothers in more stringent states. This relationship could occur because a higher use of subsidies by eligible families may equate to more parents with children in stable child care situations and less interference in work

schedules. Increasing the percentage of subsidy- eligible parents who are employed is important, because there is the potential to combat poverty by increasing parental self-sufficiency. A higher employment rate also means less government spending on cash assistance, higher tax revenues, and increased parental consumerism, all of which stimulate the economy (Leach, 2009). More use of the child care subsidy program will hot only increase the number of parents able to obtain and maintain employment, it will stimulate the child care market and create more jobs through the development of more child care facilities (Polakow, 2007). According to a report produced by the National Child Care Association in 2002 (as cited in Polakow, 2007), investing in child care is a sound economic development strategy. For example, this report states that the child care sector generates about $9 billion in tax revenues a year and that more people are employed in the child care sector than are employed as secondary public school teachers. In addition to stimulat- ing jobs, the child care sector also accounts for more than $100 billion in earnings for parents who are able to work because they have their children enrolled in stable child care. Increasing subsidy use affects the sixth criterion, decreasing the percentage of a family's income dedicated to child care, because it either partially or fuUy reimburses parents or providers for the cost of care (Polakow, 2007).

ANALYSIS OF POLICY ALTERNATIVES ACCORDING TO CRITERIA Addressing the first and third criteria of increas- ing quality and safe options available to parents through subsidy policy is a complex undertaking. There are several policy alternatives for improv- ing quality in child care; however, this discussion focuses specifically on the role of the CCDBG and subsidy policy as opposed to other quality improvement avenues. One policy to increase the use of quality programs—and therefore also ensure the safety of programs—through the child care subsidy is simply to increase uptake. House- holds receiving a subsidy are more likely to send children to formal caregivers,such as center- and family-based providers. Herbst (2008) found that almost 60 percent of recipient households used

M O O D I E - D Y E R / A Policy Analysis of Child Care Subsidies: Increasing Quality, Access, and Affordability 41

formal care, whereas only 37 percent of eligible nonrecipients used family- and center-based care. Another study found that increased public funding for child care has a significant positive relationship with the enrollment of low-income children in formal care (Magnuson et al., 2007). Formal care settings are also much more likely to be licensed and monitored by the state and, therefore, checked for quality and safety.

One method that researchers have developed to evaluate the benefits of a quality early child care experience is school-readiness measures, the second evaluative criterion specified in this policy analysis. For example, Hansen and Hawkes (2009) measured children at age 3 on the Bracken School Readiness scale and found that increased scores on measures of school readiness are associated with enrollment in formal child care in a child's first nine months of life. Improved cognitive development and speech and social skills have also been shown to be a consequence of children being enrolled in quality early child care settings (Leach, 2009). Gains achieved from quality care are even more significant for low-income children (Hansen & Hawkes, 2009; Leach, 2009; Magnuson et al., 2007). With the accumulation of evidence showing the benefits of quality care for disad- vantaged children, a second policy alternative for increasing quality in the subsidy program is to limit parents' choice to quality providers, as measured by a rating system or through cur- rent licensure laws. However, a key element of CCDBG funding is that subsidy parents should have the same amount of choice as private-pay families. Therefore, another alternative could be to increase reimbursement rates for quality care providers (Helburn & Bergmann, 2002). This alternative would support both parents, for choosing quality care, and child care set- tings, for providing quality care, without limit- ing choice.

To address the fourth criterion, increasing the number of eligible families receiving subsidies, perhaps the most evident policy alternative is to increase funding of the CCDBG, with stipula- tions that states use the increased funding to expand subsidies to those eligible but on waiting lists or not receiving a subsidy. Currently, there is

a ceiling of 85 percent of SMI; however, federal guidelines could also specify a minimum below which states must provide a subsidy, therefore creating an entitlement.This guideline, however, should not simply be an unfunded mandate to states—guaranteed federal monies should be provided for all those deemed eligible.

Other policy approaches to increase enroll- ment of eligible families could be carried out at the local level and would involve streamlin- ing application procedures for multiple benefit programs so that low-income families applying for assistance for food, health care, or employ- ment also would be automatically registered in the child care subsidy program if they qualified (Parrott, Ross, & Schott, 2005). In addition, Herbst (2008) found, when examining welfare leavers, that those sanctioned off because of noncompliance had much lower take-up rates in the child care subsidy program than did those who left welfare by choice (that is, due to ob- taining a job or increased income), suggesting that stigmatization or lack of knowledge about eligibility for a child care subsidy is a factor in low uptake rates. For example, sanctioned wel- fare leavers may feel stigmatized and punished by the cash welfare system and apprehensive about becoming involved in any other kind of government assistance.Also, welfare leavers may not be informed that they are still eligible for the child care subsidy if they meet the income requirements in their state. Therefore, it is im- portant to ensure that welfare leavers, despite their condition of exit, remain enrolled in child care assistance if eligible. Addressing the welfare leaver population is also critical in terms of the fifth criteria, increasing the percentage of subsidy-eligible parents who are able to maintain employment. Parents who are transitioning off welfare to obtain and maintain employment must have support through child care assistance subsidies because wages earned will not pay for the full cost of care (Siegel & Abbott, 2007).

Affordability of care is affected not only by whether eligible families receive a subsidy, but also by whether that subsidy is adequate to purchase child care at the current market rate. This issue speaks to the sixth criteria of decreas- ing the percentage of income parents spend on

42 Children &Schools VOLUME 33, NUMBER I JANUARY 2011

child care.The federal government stipulates that provider payment rates be set at 75 percent of the local market rate for child care so that low- income parents have as much choice as other parents in selecting and paying for higher quality care. Although some states are able to provide reimbursement rates at the 75th percentile, most do not (Greenberg, 2007). In addition, many states have not updated their market rates since before 2001; therefore, current reimbursement levels do not reflect the increased cost of child care over the past decade.The result, according to Magnuson et al. (2007), is that inadequate provider reimbursement rates limit low-income parents' abihty to purchase quahty formal care because fewer programs will accept subsidies. Even if child care programs accept subsidies, they will often charge parents the difference between what the state reimburses and the actual cost of care. In many instances, parents already pay a shding-scale co-pay based on income. Being burdened with this additional cost may cause them to choose lower quality and more inexpensive care. One policy alternative to ad- dress this afFordability issue would be a federal mandate for states to carry out local market rate surveys annually so that the 75 percent reim- bursement rate would be based on more recent data. An additional policy alternative would be to make the 75 percent benchmark a require- ment as opposed to a recommendation. Again, this would require increased federal investment in the CCDBG so that states were not left with an unfunded mandate.

RECOMMENDED CHILD CARE SUBSIDY POLICY IMPROVEMENTS Given the host of policy alternatives, the best course of action is to decide which policies can be implemented given funding levels and subsidy policy guidelines as they currently stand and which policies will require a change in law to be implemented. In addition, the policies chosen for improving the subsidy system must operate in coordination with other early childhood policies and programs.The following policies should be implemented immediately at the local level and would not require substantial funding increases: streamlining the application process, conduct-

ing parent and employer outreach campaigns, and conducting child care needs assessments in local markets. However, an improved child care subsidy system will inevitably require more federal funding, and in a time of economic crisis, finding additional funding for programs can be challenging. The political feasibility of increased funding is demonstrated by the Obama administration's commitment to includ- ing early childhood education in the ARRA. However, given the reluctance of the legislature to increase funding for social programs, and a hmited budget, increases in afFordability, acces- sibility, and quality should be implemented in a three-phase time-delineated strategy.The first phase would increase spending slightly, and the more expensive second and third phase imple- mentation could be delayed until more monies became available and the mood of policymakers shifted to allow the needed expansion of the child care system.

In the first phase of policy implementation, monies should be concentrated on serving a higher percentage of eligible children on the basis of current state eligibility guidelines. This approach will involve eliminating waiting lists, increasing the number of child care slots available in each state's subsidy program, improving reim- bursement rates to child care facilities providing quality care, and establishing a quality rating system so that parents and administrators can distinguish quahty providers.The importance of increasing safe and quality care in the first phase cannot be overstated. Not only is it important to ensure children's health and safety, but the goal of quality early care and school readiness should be emphasized for children in all socioeconomic groups, especially in light of the role that quality early care plays in reducing later achievement gaps in school (Hansen & Hawkes, 2009; Leach, 2009; Magnuson et al., 2007).

In addition, administrative procedures per- taining to eligibility determination should be revamped to allow more continuous care for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. This policy recommendation involves extending eligibility to parents for at least one year before eligibility redetermination as opposed to the monthly or biyearly schedule many states currently foUow.

M O O D I E - D Y E R / A Policy Analysis of Child Care Subsidies: Increasing Quality, Access, and Affordability 43

In estimating the cost of implementing the first phase of pohcy changes, Helburn and Bergmann (2002) suggested that fully funding states at their 2002 eligibility levels would cost approximately $13 biUion over current spending. With funds added to put a cap on the percentage of parents' income that could be put toward child care and to reimburse quality providers at a higher level, this cost estimate is raised to approximately $26 billion in additional spending (Helburn & Bergmann, 2002).

In the second phase of policy implementation, eligibility guidelines should be reexamined to reflect the needs of low- and moderate-income families, with a commitment from every state to achieve an eligibility level closer to the 85 percent of SMI federal recommendation. A minimum federal standard for eligibility could be established at approximately 60 percent of SMI, close to the current state average, and more federal funds should be dedicated to achiev- ing this goal. In addition, because many more families will likely be enrolling in care, policies must be put in place to invest in furthering the education of early childhood providers and to create loans for child care facility startup costs. For providers struggling to achieve high quality, grants could be made available to help them improve equipment and curriculums and obtain continuing education.

The final phase of subsidy policy improve- ments could be a system akin to universal cov- erage, in tangent with programs such as Early Head Start, Head Start, and prekindergarten programs provided through school districts. Again, Helburn and Bergmann (2002) provided a cost estimate for a universal system of child care at approximately $100 biUion in additional spending.The plans of European countries with similar universal models of providing early chud care could be used as templates for transition- ing from a private pay-as-you-go, market-based system to one that allows all those who need care to obtain it regardless of ability to pay. Polakow (2007) cited Denmark and Sweden as countries providing commendable quality universal child care coverage. Denmark's commitment to child care since 1919 has produced the highest rate of coverage for children under three among all

European Union countries at 50 percent, and over 80 percent of children ages three through six are covered. Through the 1970s and 1980s, Sweden increased its commitment to family policy reforms, including passage of a National Preschool Act in 1975, providing public child care for all preschool-age children. As a result of these changes, the number of children in child care grew from 12,000 to 142,000 during this time (Hwang & Broberg, 1992; Polakow, 2007). Italy experienced changes around the same time as Sweden, allowing for more government involvement in early childhood education and policies that supported parents in the workforce leading to higher participation rates of three- to five-year-olds in public child care (Corsaro & Emihani, 1992).

Entitlement and universal coverage programs have been questioned, and in some cases with- drawn from discussion among policy circles in the United States, as evidenced by recent debates around providing a public option in health care. However, according to Greenberg (2007), the question to ask when making a policy an entitlement is whether the level of benefit to society is worth the cost. In the case of early childhood education, the answer is a definitive yes. K—12 education was determined to be a justified entitlement for Americans more than a century ago. It is time to start thinking of early childhood education as a right that every child and family should be afforded. \S

REFERENCES Adams, G., Snyder, K., & Banghart, P. (2008). Designing

subsidy systems to meet the needs of families: An over- view of policy research and findings. Washington, D C : Urban Institute.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, P.L. 111-5,123 Stat. 115(2009).

Blau,D.,&Tekin,E. (2007).The determinants and con- sequences of child care subsidies for single mothers in the USA. Journal of Population Economics, 20, 719-741. doi:10.1007/s00148-005-0022-2

Boushey, H. (2009).The new breadwinners. In H. Boushey & A. O'Leary (Eds.), The Shriver report: A woman's nation changes everything (pp. 30—67). Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/ issues/2009/10/pdf/awn/chapters/economy.pdf

Center for Law and Social Policy. (2009a). CCDBC: What's in the law? Retrieved from http://www. clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/0459.pdf

Center for Law and Social Policy. (2009b). Economic recovery: Reinvesting in child care. Retrieved from http://childcareandearlyed.clasp.org/ reinvestinginchildcare.html

44 Children & Schools VOLUME 33, NUMBER I JANUARY 2011

Center for Law and Social Policy & National Women's Law Center. (2009, March 9). Making use of economic recovery funds: Child care policy options for states. Retrieved from http://www.clasp.org/ publications/ccdbg_arra_policies.pdf

Clark-Stewart, A., &Allhusen,V. D. (2005). What we know about child care. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cohen,A.J. (1996).A brief history of federal fmanc- ing for child care in the United States. Future of Children, 6(2), 26-40. Retrieved from http://www. fu tureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/ docs/06_02_01.pdf

Corsaro,W.A., & Bmiliani, E (1992). Child care, early education, and children's peer culture in Italy. In M. E. Lamb, K.J. Sternberg, C. P. Hwang, & A. G. Broberg (Eds.), Child care in context (pp. 81-115). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, P.L. 109-171,120 Stat. 4 (2006).

Durfee, A., & Meyers, M. K. (2006).Who gets what from government? Distributional consequences of child-care assistance policies.JoMrfia/ of Marriage and Family, 6S, 733-748. doi:10.1111/j.1741- 3737.2006.00286.x

Ewen, D., & Matthews, H. (2007). Families forgotten: Administrations priorities put child care low on the list. Washington, D C : Center for Law and Social Policy.

Greenberg, M. (2007). Next steps for federal child care policy Future of Children, 17(2), 73-96. Retrieved from http://vi'ww.futureofchildren.org/ futureofchildren/publications/docs/17_02_04.pdf

Hansen, K., & Hawkes, D. (2009). Early childcare and child development. Jowrna/ of Social Policy, 38, 211-239. doi:10.1017/S004727940800281X

Helburn, S.W, & Bergmann, B. R. (2002). America's child care problem. New York: Palgrave.

Herbst, C. M. (2008). Who are the eligible non- recipients of child care subsidies? Children andYouth Services Review, 30, 1037-1054. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.01.003

Hwang, C. P., & Broberg, A. G. (1992).The historical and social context of child care in Sweden. In M. E. Lamb, K.J. Sternberg, C. P. Hwang, & A. G. Broberg (Eds.), Child care in context (pp. 27-53). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Joo, M. (2008).The impact of availability and generosity of subsidized child care on low-income mothers' hours of work.Jowma/ of Policy Practice, 7, 298-313.

Leach, P. (2009). Child care today: Getting it right for every- one. NewYork: Alfred A. Knopf.

Lynch, R. G. (2004). Exceptional returns: Economic,fiscal, and social benefits of investment in early childhood development. Washington, D C : Economic Pohcy Institute.

Magnuson, K. A., Meyers, M. K., & Waldfogel, J. (2007). Public funding and enrollment in formal child

, care in the 1990s. Social Service Review, 81, 47-83. doi:10.1086/511628

Matthews, H., & Ewen, D. (2006). Child care assistance in 2005: State cuts continue. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.

National Association of Chñd Care Resource and Referral Agencies. (2008). Parents and the high price of child care: 2008 update. Retrieved from http://issuu. com/naccrra/docs/parents-and-the-high-price-of- child-care-2008?mode=embed&layout=white

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/policy/

National Women's Law Center. (2009, February 13). How the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act addresses women's needs: Child care and early educa- tion. Retrieved from http://www.nslc.org/details. cfm?id=3432&section=child%20and%20family%20 support

Parrott, S., Ross, D. C , & Schott, L. (2005). Streamlining and coordinating benefit programs' application procedures. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Recon- ciliation Act of 1996, PL. 104-193,110 Stat. 2105 (1996).

Polakow, V. (2007). Who cares for our children? The child care crisis in the other America. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Schnitzer, P G., & Ewigman, B. G. (2005). Child deaths resulting from inflicted injuries: Household risk factors and perpetrator characteristics. Pediatrics, 116, 687-693. doi:10.1542/peds.2005-0296

Schulman, K., & Blank, H. (2004). Child care assistance policies 2001-2004: Families struggling to move forward, states going backward [National Women's Law Center Issue Brief]. Washington, D C : National Women's Law Center.

Siegel, D. L, Sf Abbott, A. (2007).Welfare leavers and re- turners: Is inadequate child care a condition of pov- erty? Jowma/ of Children and Poverty, 13, 157-176. doi:10.1080/10796120601171492

U.S. Child Care Bureau. (2005). Child Care and Develop- ment Fund, report to Congress for FY 2004 and FY 2005. Retrieved from http://www.acfhhs.gov/ programs/ccb/ccdf/rtc/rtc2004/intro.htm

U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau. (2004). Child health USA 2004. Retrieved from http://mchb.hrsa.gov/ mchirc/chusa_04/pages/0310wm.htm

U.S. Department of Labor. (2000, February 16). Changes in women's labor force participation in the 20th cen- tury. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/opub/ ted/2000/Feb/wk3/art03.htm

U.S. Department of Labor. (2006). Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by age and sex, 2006 annual averages [Table]. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-table1-2007.pdf

Amber Moodie-Dyer, AfSHf « a graduate student. School of Social Work, University of Missouri, 620 Clark Halt, Co-

lumbia, MO 65211; e-mail: amm6y2@inissouri.edu.

Original manuscript received July 20. 2009 Final revision received October 20. 2009 Accepted November 9. 2009

M O O D I E - D Y E R / A Policy Analysis of Child Care Subsidies: Increasing Quality, Access, and Affordability 45

Copyright of Children & Schools is the property of National Association of Social Workers and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.