Childcare Subsidy Program Rules Meet Job Realities: Program-Work Conflict and Possibilities for Reform

Background/Purpose.  Since the 1990s, childcare subsidies funded through a combination of federal and state dollars have become the primary government work support serving low-income families in the US. Subsidized families have better employment outcomes than nonsubsidized families, including more work hours and longer employment duration (Shaefer et al., 2006). Nevertheless, subsidy program requirements may complicate employment retention and job characteristics may interfere with subsidy eligibility (Adams & Compton, 2011; Henly & Lambert, 2005). To further understand this interplay, this paper addresses the following research question: In what ways do subsidy program rules operate in concert with or against participants’ jobs to shape employment outcomes?  In keeping with this symposium’s focus, the author considers the implications of the findings for childcare subsidy reform using two distinct frames: first, from the conventional perspective of meeting the program’s work goals and second, from a transformative perspective that considers goals that would avoid privileging work over caregiving and other life domains.

Methods.  The research question is addressed through an analysis of in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 85 subsidy clients in New York and Illinois (Childcare Research Partnership Study, funded by the Administration for Children and Families). Audio-recorded and transcribed interviews include information about participants’ jobs, experiences with subsidies, and interactions between employment, childcare, and the subsidy program. Using a modified grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2006), coding and analysis included the identification of a priori and emergent themes related to the primary research question, with the assistance of NVIVO software. Every fifth interview was double-coded with reliability above 92 percent.

Results.  Study participants universally report that childcare assistance is a necessary work support, but the majority identifies program rules or implementation challenges that collide with employment as these four examples demonstrate. First, participants worked fluctuating and nonstandard hours that conflicted with program rules which require a match between work and child care schedules. Second, a brief period of higher-than-average hours producing a temporary spike in earnings sometimes resulted in subsidy loss. Third, mandatory employer verification of work hours posed challenges for participants whose employers either refused to sign verification forms or were slow to complete the necessary paperwork. Finally, limited job flexibility made it difficult to respond to program implementation challenges such as paperwork problems that required resolution at the subsidy office.

Conclusion.  Exploring the intersection of work and childcare policy demonstrates how the well-intentioned goal of supporting work can be thwarted by program requirements that conflict with work realities. By loosening the tight link between program eligibility and employment, families might have an easier time maintaining subsidy benefits while working in today’s precarious labor market. Such a reform has serious merit as an incremental policy response. From a transformative perspective, however, a policy alternative would need to confront restricted opportunities for economic mobility within the current labor market and unequal opportunities to invest in caregiving and other life domains. Childcare assistance policies within this transformative approach would not just be accepting of but also in the service of advancing a caregiving society.