Testimony before the Senate Finance Committee: The Federal Role in Childcare
By Katharine B. Stevens
BLOG
July 15, 2024
Federal policymakers on both sides of the aisle have become increasingly focused on early childhood as an expanding body of brain science underscores the great importance of children’s earliest years. And while many young children spend their first few years at home with family, millions more spend much of this critical period in early care and education, especially childcare.
Childcare is often crucial to the self-sufficiency and well-being of lower-income parents. And exceptionally high-quality childcare can have significant benefits for their young children, especially those living in single-parent households.
Yet these are the very families for whom good programs are often farthest from reach. As I testified last week at the U.S Senate Committee on Finance’s hearing on “Examining the State of Child Care: How Federal Policy Solutions Can Support Families, Close Existing Gaps, and Strengthen Economic Growth,” the federal government has a key role to play in addressing this problem.
The following is my testimony:
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and distinguished members of this committee, thank you for inviting me to testify at today’s hearing on federal childcare policy.
My name is Katharine Stevens, and I’m the founder and president of the Center on Child and Family Policy. We focus on the science of early development, and its implications for how policy can advance the well-being of young children, especially children from low-income families. It’s an honor to testify on this crucial topic.
Both the public and policymakers are increasingly focused on childcare because we now know that young children are continuously and rapidly learning, wherever they are and from whomever they’re with — including in childcare. And childcare’s role in both economic productivity and gender equality has also been moving to the forefront of policy debates.
Yet even as policy emphasis grows, the current childcare landscape is not working well for many families. In particular, children of lower-income working parents too often lack access to high-quality care — while research is clear that it matters for those children the most. This is damaging to young children and it’s also greatly disempowering for lower-income parents, who care about their children’s well-being as much as any parents do.
The aim of the Child Care Development Fund is to help exactly these families. But it’s currently failing to accomplish that goal. Many families who need childcare subsidies aren’t getting them. Among those who do, subsidy amounts in many states fall short of what low-income families need to access the high-quality care that wealthier families are already using for their children.
“The aim of the Child Care Development Fund is to help exactly these lower-income working families. But it’s currently failing to accomplish that goal.”
Low subsidies also lead to very low pay for childcare staff which only hurts the children they’re caring for. Low wages cause high staff turnover, which means the consistent, trusted relationships young children need for healthy development are not possible. Low wages also mean that the field struggles to attract and keep the kind of staff parents are comfortable leaving their children with.
Finally, parent choice has been greatly reduced because the number of providers that accept CCDF subsidies has declined steeply, including the family childcare and faith-based providers that many low-income families prefer.
These are real problems. But the way the childcare issue is increasingly framed is leading us farther and farther down the wrong policy road.
The fact that some families need more help paying for high-quality childcare does not mean the federal government should be playing the leading role in funding and running it. Nor does it mean that our aim should be maximizing the number of young children in non-parental, group care.
“The fact that some families need more help paying for high-quality childcare does not mean the federal government should be playing the leading role in funding and running it. Nor does it mean that our aim should be maximizing the number of young children in non-parental, group care.”
The federal government has a key role to play. But federal funds must be directed to increasing access to high-quality childcare for lower-income families — so their young children have the same opportunity for healthy development that more affluent children already have. These are the families who really need help, and these are the children for whom that help will make the greatest difference.
As I explain in detail in my written testimony, federal policy can best advance this aim in three ways:
First and foremost, policy must protect and advance parental choice. We must elevate, not diminish, parents' power and primary role in their children's well-being and development — helping them access the care they actually want for their own children.
Second, policymakers must reduce bureaucratic inefficiency and ensure better use of existing funds, by integrating and streamlining CCDF, Head Start, and TANF funding and by more effectively leveraging a broader range of federal funds, including childcare facilities funding and the Child Tax Credit.
Third, federal policy must promote and facilitate a much-increased state role in funding childcare. Children's education is a state — not federal — responsibility. States and localities fund around 90 percent of expenditures on K–12 public schools, while the federal government funds about 10 percent. It’s just not clear why the federal role for children under age five should be so much larger than its role for children from age five onwards.
“It’s just not clear why the federal role for children under age five should be so much larger than its role for children from age five onwards.”
Expenditures on the public schools are now over $900 billion annually, spent almost entirely on the 74 percent of children who are aged five through 17. State spending on the additional 26 percent of children who are under age five is a tiny fraction of this amount.
But we know that children’s care and education from birth through age four is as significant to their development as is schooling from age five to 18. States must re-think their allocation of funds across the birth-to-18 continuum of children’s development.
In closing, I’m grateful for the opportunity to provide testimony before this committee on such an important topic. Nothing is more important to parents and to our society than ensuring the healthy development of young children — shaping new human beings and laying the foundation for our nation's future.
I look forward to your questions.
See Also
Report - April 8, 2021
Op-Ed ~ February 1, 2021
Policy Brief ~ June 4, 2018