CHILD CARE SUBSIDIES
WHAT ARE CHILD CARE SUBSIDIES AND WHY ARE THEY IMPORTANT?
Child care subsidy programs provide financial assistance to help make child care more affordable for families with low incomes in which parents are working or enrolled in education or training programs.1 Subsidy programs are also intended to promote parental choice of care arrangements, support the supply and enrollment of children in high-quality care, and enhance child development.
Subsidy programs are funded through a combination of federal and state dollars, but are administered by states. States have flexibility in setting rules on program policies and administration (e.g., eligibility requirements, family copayment levels, and provider policies), resulting in substantial variation in state subsidy policies. States also determine the name of their programs, which can include terms such as assistance, scholarships, or subsidies. For consistency, we refer to all programs across states as child care subsidies.
Child Care Is Not Affordable for Many Families, Especially Families with Lower Incomes
Families with low incomes, who are disproportionately Black, Native American, and Hispanic, face barriers to accessing affordable, reliable, and high-quality child care, especially for the youngest children.
The average annual cost of center-based care in 2024 was $15,965 for infants, compared to $12,416 for 4-year-olds.2 The cost of center-based infant care ranges from 23.1% to 62.2% of median income for single parents and from 7.5% to 17.9% of median income for married couples, depending on the state.
Although family child care is typically less expensive than center-based care, cost figures remain high relative to income for families with infants and toddlers.3
Child Care Subsidies Can Increase Access to Child Care and Help Parents Work
By providing access to child care, subsidy programs allow more parents to work or complete education and training programs.4 Subsidies can also support healthy child development when care settings are high quality and stimulate children’s early brain development.5,6
Increased Parent Employment and Access to High-Quality Child Care Should Result in Improved Long-Term Child Outcomes
Child care subsidies may impact children’s social-emotional and cognitive development through two main pathways: (1) directly, through access to high-quality child care that may provide enriching and safe environments for children that support positive early development; and (2) indirectly, through higher family income from increased employment, which may reduce family stress, boost access to resources, and limit adverse childhood experiences.7,8,9,10
Search the Prenatal-to-3 Policy Clearinghouse for an ongoing inventory of rigorous evidence reviews, including more information on child care subsidies.
WHAT IMPACT DO CHILD CARE SUBSIDIES HAVE AND FOR WHOM?
Research on child care subsidies has focused mostly on subsidy receipt and higher state subsidy expenditures, which are linked to improved access to needed services (e.g., use of single, formal care arrangements), the ability of parents to work (e.g., higher maternal employment), and to increased earnings, promoting sufficient household resources.
Although the current evidence base does not provide clear guidance to states on the most effective way to implement these programs, research does suggest that expanding income eligibility, lengthening recertification periods, increasing provider reimbursement rates, and reducing family copayments can help promote families’ access to child care subsidies.
More Research Is Needed to Determine the Potential of Child Care Subsidies to Reduce Disparities
No strong causal studies directly assess the effectiveness of child care subsidies at reducing disparities in outcomes for parents and children by race or ethnicity. However, a legacy of discriminatory policy choices to limit aid to families of color makes equal access to child care subsidies a continuing concern.
Because of the administrative burden associated with applying for child care subsidies, eligible families are sometimes unable to access them. A research series examined state policies and practices related to the administration of child care subsidies in multiple states, each with more than 80% of Hispanic and Latino children in the state living in low-income communities.11 The series indicated that about half of the states studied have policies and practices (e.g., documentation requirements for immigration status, requirements for minimum weekly work hours) that might impose additional burdens for Hispanic and Latino families to access services.12 The series also revealed that many local subsidy caseworkers and administrators engage in more restrictive practices than exist in official state policy.13
These restrictive practices have a disparate impact on access to child care subsidies for different groups. For example, according to an analysis on federal data, Black children account for 20% of all eligible children, but only 13% of the population served with child care subsidies; and Hispanic and Latino children account for 33% of all eligible children, but only 26% of the population served with child care subsidies.14
More research is needed to establish whether child care subsidies contribute to reducing disparities in outcomes for parents and children by race and ethnicity, and the most effective approaches states can adopt to ensure equitable access to child care.
For more information on what we know and what we still need to learn about child care subsidies, see the evidence review on child care subsidies.
WHAT ARE THE KEY POLICY LEVERS TO INCREASE ACCESS TO CHILD CARE SUBSIDIES?
The current evidence base does not identify a specific policy lever that states should adopt and fully implement to ensure families have equitable access to affordable, high-quality care.
We identified three key policy levers that states can use to increase access to their child care subsidy program and provide families with the support they need. These policy levers align with federal guidance and requirements. The three key state policy levers include:
- Set income eligibility limits at or above 85% of the state median income (SMI),
- Limit copayments to 7% of family income or less, and
- Set reimbursement rates at or above the 75th percentile of the most recent state market rate survey (MRS) or based on a cost estimation model.
Key Policy Lever: Set Income Eligibility Limits at or Above 85% of the State Median Income
The income eligibility limit at which families initially qualify for a child care subsidy varies considerably across the country. States set subsidy eligibility at a specific dollar amount of family income, relative to the family size and/or structure. Federal eligibility requirements restrict states from setting income eligibility limits for subsidies above 85% of the state median income (SMI) unless the state fully funds the program for families above this limit.
Expanding income eligibility limits would allow more families to access care. However, without additional funding, broader eligibility may place added pressure on the subsidy system. In the last year, some states have experienced higher demand for subsidies than available funding could support. State responses to this increased demand have varied from adjusting eligibility requirements, to pausing new applications, to limiting renewals. As state leaders consider expanding eligibility, they must also consider the availability and stability of funding.
Most states (36) set their initial income eligibility limits below 85% of the SMI, which means that fewer families are eligible for subsidies than federal law permits and 15 of those states set their initial income eligibility limits even lower, at or below 50% of the SMI.
In contrast, 15 states set their initial income eligibility at or above 85% of the SMI. Ten of those states set their initial income eligibility limit at 85% of the SMI, and five states (California, Maine, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont) set it to an even higher limit, which makes more families eligible for a subsidy and requires state funds to fully cover these families. As of June 2025, New Mexico has the highest initial income eligibility limit at 155% of the SMI, with plans to remove the limit altogether to allow all families to qualify, and Georgia’s limit is the lowest at 30% of the SMI.
The income eligibility limits set by states can also be understood as a percentage of the federal poverty level (FPL). Though the use of SMI to set eligibility provides for a more targeted and nuanced approach to determining income limits within a state, translating these figures to the FPL allows for a more direct and accurate comparison across states.
Initial eligibility varies considerably based on where a family lives, with 18 states setting limits above 250% of the FPL, and seven states setting limits below 150% of the FPL. As of June 2025, families in Vermont with incomes up to 575% of the FPL are eligible for child care subsidies, which is the highest income limit in the country. In contrast, families in Georgia must earn 100% or less of the FPL to be eligible for child care subsidies.
Key Policy Lever: Limit Copayments to 7% or Less of a Family’s Income
Families receiving subsidies may be required to pay a portion of the cost of child care, typically through copayments, which vary considerably across states.15 States can set copayment rates at a dollar value or as a percentage of a family’s income based on various factors, including family size, structure, and number of children in care.
The federal government considers child care affordable for families if costs are 7% or less of a family’s income. In 2024, the federal government made this guidance official by requiring states to limit copayments to 7% of a family’s income. The rule went into effect in April 2024, with the option for states to request a waiver to extend their implementation period by 2 years.
Currently, families in 34 states pay 7% or less of their income in child care copayments. Among these states, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Kentucky, Louisiana, and West Virginia reduced their copayments below that threshold in the last year. Of the states not meeting the 7% threshold, at least 15 states have requested a waiver to delay their compliance with the federal rule.
The maximum possible family copayment in states—calculated as a percentage of income for families of all incomes and sizes—ranges from 0% in New Mexico to 27% in Ohio. In 21 states, copayments are determined by the number of children in care, which increases the total amount families pay in nearly all of these states.
See the impact of out-of-pocket child care costs on families’ resources in your state in our Policy Impact Calculator.
Key Policy Lever: Set Reimbursement Rates for Providers at or above the 75th Percentile of the Most Recent Market Rate Survey or Set Rates Based on a Cost Estimation Model
The federal government considers state reimbursement rates at the 75th percentile or above—covering three-fourths of slots in the state based on an MRS—as providing low-income families with equal access to the child care market. However, market prices (i.e., what families are charged in the private market) may not fully represent the true cost of providing high-quality care, which includes fair wages and benefits for child care workers.
The persistent failure to adequately compensate providers, rooted in longstanding racist and sexist perceptions that devalue caregiving responsibilities, may lead to unintended consequences, such as providers being unwilling to accept subsidies or lower quality care for subsidized slots.16,17
Federal rules require states to update their MRS about every 3 years. These regular updates highlight the importance of adjusting reimbursement rates to reflect current market conditions and ensure providers are incentivized to take a subsidy. Of the 15 states reimbursing providers at the 75th percentile of the MRS, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Texas increased their reimbursement rates in the last year to meet that threshold.
States also continue to explore the use of an alternative methodology (typically a cost estimation model) to set reimbursement rates, rather than an MRS. Using cost estimation models can be a pathway toward setting reimbursement rates that are more representative of the costs that providers actually incur to provide high-quality care, rather than merely the price charged by providers, which represents what families are willing and able to pay. In the last year, Massachusetts joined Colorado, the District of Columbia, New Mexico, and Virginia in using cost models to set reimbursement rates.
Comparing states’ base reimbursement rates to cost estimation models can illuminate whether and how rates derived from the MRS align with the true cost of providing child care. Although not every state has developed its own cost model, Prenatal-to-Five Fiscal Strategies created a state-by-state model for the cost of high-quality care. This model shows that no state has base reimbursement rates for infants and toddlers in either center-based or family child care that fully cover the cost of high-quality care.18
The graphic below illustrates the difference between the reimbursement rate and the estimated true cost of center-based infant care across the country. On average, states reimburse less than half of the estimated true cost of care.
In addition to setting rates based on market rates or cost estimation models, states can choose to set reimbursement rates based on tiered quality ratings, usually meaning higher rates for higher quality levels. These tiered reimbursement rates may incentivize providers to pursue higher quality ratings but may also result in disparities in the level of resources providers have to improve facilities, staff compensation, and overall program quality. As a result, providers in different quality tiers may experience varying levels of financial stability and capacity to enhance their services.
For more information on the state policy levers to increase access and affordability of child care subsidies see our State Policy Lever Checklists.
HOW DOES CHILD CARE SUBSIDY POLICY VARY ACROSS STATES?
In addition to variation within the key policy levers above, states vary in the distribution of the cost of child care, the total cost of care for families, and the number of families served.
The Cost of Child Care is Distributed Differently Across States Because of Variation in States’ Policy Choices
In the graphic below, the price of child care is based on either the price associated with the equal access target (75th percentile of the MRS) or the state’s base reimbursement rate, if higher. The total cost is distributed between the state, families, and, in some cases, providers. The state’s cost is the subsidy amount. The family’s cost includes the required copayment and any additional fees, if allowed (for a family of 3 with an income at 150% of the FPL). The provider’s cost covers any unreimbursed portion when the reimbursement rate is lower than the equal access target and the state does not permit collecting additional fees.
A family’s additional fee covers the difference between the reimbursement rate providers receive and the price providers typically charge to non-subsidized families (the private pay rate). In 11 states, providers are not allowed to charge families additional fees to cover the full market price of care. Although this approach decreases the cost burden on families, if additional costs remain, providers must absorb those losses, which may disincentivize them from accepting subsidized slots. Families’ total share of the cost of care includes these fees in addition to copayment contributions, also known as the out-of-pocket cost.
The variation across states on each of these elements is substantial, which leads to significant differences in the distribution of the cost of child care. In three states (Arkansas, Mississippi, and West Virginia), the price of care amounts to approximately $850 per month or less for an infant in center-based care, whereas the price is more than $2,000 in eight states (the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington).
In most states, families and providers must contribute some portion of the total cost of care for an infant in a center-based setting, however, in four states (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Vermont), the state fully covers the cost of care. In six states (Maine, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Washington, and West Virginia) the state reimburses providers at rates below the price of care, leaving providers to absorb the remaining costs.
State Allocations and Funding Streams for Child Care Vary, Leading to Variation in the Number of Families Served
States vary in how they leverage state funds to meet or exceed federal funding match requirements which directly impacts the number of children served through the subsidy program. Although a portion of federal funds are guaranteed without a state contribution, a separate allotment requires states to provide matching funds to access the full federal allocation.
At least 36 states also invest state dollars into their subsidy programs on top of the required federal match.19 Though these funds most often come from the state general funds, many states have established dedicated funding streams to support subsidy programs. Kansas and Missouri use funds from the Tobacco Settlement Agreement; New Mexico draws on oil and gas revenue; Vermont implemented a payroll contribution; and Washington established a capital gains tax.
Alabama and Massachusetts use dedicated education funds to support child care subsidies, with Alabama’s fund drawing from 12 distinct state tax sources and Massachusetts’s drawing from a tax on high-income earners. Louisiana allocates revenue from several excise taxes to fund infant and toddler slots in localities that provide matching funds. Montana created a dedicated funding in the last year, which will be used, in part, to fund child care subsidies. This effort is discussed in detail in the following section.
WHAT PROGRESS HAVE STATES MADE IN THE LAST YEAR TO INCREASE ACCESS TO CHILD CARE SUBSIDIES?
Although most of the funding for child care subsidies comes from federal sources, states have substantial flexibility in how they implement their programs. The policy progress described below generally represents state policies as of June 2025. In the last year, several states made changes to their child care subsidy systems through legislation and/or agency action, including increased state funding, expanded income eligibility, improved affordability, and enhanced provider reimbursement rates.
One-Third of States Increased Funding for Child Care Subsidies
At least 18 states significantly increased their budget allocations for Fiscal Year 2026 to enhance child care subsidy programs. Notable examples include:
- Alabama legislators allocated an additional $17.4 million for child care and family services—which includes subsidy funding—for a total allocation of $91.5 million from the Education Trust Fund.
- Maryland raised its total state investment in child care subsidies to $414.2 million for FY2026—an $85.7 million increase from the previous year, following a major increase in 2024.
- Mississippi allocated $15 million in new state funds in addition to the required federal match.
- Texas made a notable $100 million investment using unexpended Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds.
- South Carolina increased its general fund allocation for child care—including subsidies—by nearly 24%, adding $4 million for a total of $16.8 million.
- Virginia, through a budget enacted in 2024, also made a substantial investment, allocating $266.5 million for FY2026 from the general fund—an increase of about $91.5 million from the previous fiscal year.
In recent years, a trend has emerged across the country to supplement state general fund allocations by establishing dedicated funding streams. In 2025, two states (Connecticut and Montana) enacted legislation to create new statewide funding sources for child care, and six additional states (Georgia, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, Tennessee, and Virginia) introduced similar bills that ultimately did not pass.
In Montana, legislators created the Montana Early Childhood Special Revenue account with an initial allocation of $10 million. The account will receive ongoing funding through transfers from the Growth and Opportunity Trust Fund, which receives a portion of the state’s annual surplus and accrues interest over time. Funds will support early childhood programs, services, and initiatives across the state, with a focus on increasing child care access and affordability.
Connecticut legislators created the Early Childhood Education Endowment. Funding will be used to expand the state’s Early Start CT program, a state subsidy program separate from the federally funded program, which provides direct contracts with child care providers to serve families whose incomes exceed the limits of the federally funded subsidy program. The Endowment was seeded with $300 million and will receive annual transfers from future unappropriated funds.
Additionally, two states (Louisiana and New Mexico) with existing dedicated revenue sources for child care subsidies enacted legislation to modify those funding streams. Louisiana increased the online sports wagering tax rate from 15% to 21.5%; the increased revenue will be used, in part, to fund child care slots for infants and toddlers. New Mexico lawmakers increased the minimum annual distribution from the Early Childhood Trust Fund—which derives funds from oil and gas revenue—to the Early Childhood Education and Care Department from $250 million to $500 million, or 5% of the Fund—whichever amount is greater.
Limited Progress on Eligibility Expansion
Unlike in recent years, expanding eligibility for child care subsidies was not a major focus for states this year. Only three states increased their initial income eligibility limits and one enacted legislation to set a future increase. Maryland increased its initial income eligibility limit from 66% of the SMI to 75%, Rhode Island increased from 54% of the SMI to 66%, and West Virginia implemented the largest increase, raising its initial eligibility from 45% of the SMI to 85%. Alaska enacted legislation to expand the initial income eligibility to 105% of the SMI, up from 73%—effective January 2026, pending federal approval.
This legislative session, seven other states (Iowa, Kentucky, Montana, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Tennessee) introduced similar bills that did not pass. Additionally, Florida enacted legislation to set its initial income eligibility based on the SMI rather than the FPL to ensure eligibility is reflective of the state context as the state minimum wage increases.
Following a trend from previous sessions, thirteen states introduced legislation to extend eligibility for subsidies to child care workers, though only Oklahoma successfully enacted legislation. Governors in three states (Maine, Montana, and South Dakota) vetoed legislation that had passed the state’s general assembly. Oklahoma legislators enacted a bill to extend eligibility for child care subsidies to child care workers earning up to $120,000 in two-parent households or $60,000 in single-parent households, for those working at programs that accept subsidies. The bill also eliminates copayments for all child care workers.
Minimal Progress on Reducing Family Cost Burden
This year, few states made legislative or administrative changes to reduce family copayments. Five states (Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Kentucky, Louisiana, and West Virginia) reduced copayments by at least 1 percentage point and set the limit at 7% of family income, bringing the total of states meeting this threshold to 34. Alaska enacted legislation this year to limit copayments to 7% of family income and is pending implementation. Colorado enacted legislation to limit copayments to 7% of family income in 2024 and is pending implementation. Minnesota and North Carolina introduced legislation to limit copayments to 7% of family income—though none of these bills ultimately passed.
7 States Enhanced Provider Reimbursement Rates
In total, seven states (Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia) implemented increases to their base reimbursement rates for infants in center-based care since October 2024. Notably, three states (Michigan, Minnesota, and New Hampshire) raised their center-based infant rates by 15% or more. In the last year, eight states introduced legislation to increase reimbursement rates—six of which enacted changes (Georgia, Illinois, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin), primarily through state budgets, though the changes are not yet reflected in our data.
North Carolina enacted legislation to develop a plan to decouple reimbursement rates from quality ratings. Legislators in West Virginia proposed legislation to automatically adjust reimbursement rates for inflation every year, but the legislation did not pass this session. In Texas, legislation was enacted to allow providers to receive the full subsidy amount if their private rates are below the reimbursement rate, a policy choice encouraged by a 2024 federal rule.
In addition to increasing reimbursement rates, states continue to explore developing alternative methodologies to set those rates based on the true cost of providing high quality care. In the last year, Massachusetts adopted reimbursement rates based on its newly developed cost model, joining Colorado, the District of Columbia, New Mexico, and Virginia in using this approach. South Carolina published an alternative methodology in 2024 but has not updated rates since its release, and three states (California, Indiana, and Nevada) indicated in their CCDF plans that they are in the process of developing alternative methodologies. Alaska enacted legislation to allow for alternative methodologies to set their reimbursement rates. New York and West Virginia introduced similar legislation that did not pass this session.
For more information on each state’s progress on child care subsidies, find individual state summaries under Additional Resources below (and here).
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
View a summary of child care subsidy policies across states here. (Coming soon)
NOTES AND SOURCES
- Child Care and Development Fund, 45 C.F.R. § 98.20 (2019). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2019-title45-vol1/CFR-2019-title45-vol1-part98/summary
- Child Care Aware® of America. (2025). Child care in America: Price & supply. https://www.childcareaware.org/price-landscape24/ See Calculating National Prices, Methodology 3: Average of Program-Weighted Averages. Caution should be used comparing and interpreting price figures nationally; local context should be considered.
- Child Care Aware® of America. (2025). Price of care: 2024 child care affordability analysis. https://info.childcareaware.org/hubfs/Affordability_Analysis_2024.pdf See Tables IV (pp. 9-10).
- Schmit, S. (2019). CCDBG: Helping working families afford child care. CLASP. https://www.clasp.org/publications/report/brief/ccdbg-helping-working-families-afford-child-care
- American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care. (2005). Quality early education and child care from birth to kindergarten. Pediatrics, 115(1), 187–191. Gale OneFile: Health and Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-2213
- Bradley, R. H., & Vandell, D. (2007). Child care and the well-being of children. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161(7), 669-676. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.161.7.669
- Ryan, R. M., Johnson, A., Rigby, E., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2011). The impact of child care subsidy use on child care quality. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26(3),320-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.11.004. This study provides an example specific to subsidies.
- National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. (2002). Early child care and children’s development prior to school entry: Results from the NICHD study of early child care. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 133–164. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3202474. This study provides an example specific to the link between quality and child outcomes.
- National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network, & Duncan, G. J. (2003). Modeling the impacts of child care quality on children’s preschool cognitive development. Child Development, 74(5), 1454–1475. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00617. This study provides an example specific to the link between quality and child outcomes.
- Vandell, D. L., & Wolfe, B. (2000). Child care quality: Does it matter and does it need to be improved? US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. https://aspe.hhs.gov/execsum/child-care-quality-does-it-matter-and-does-it-need-be-improved. This study provides an example specific to the link between quality and child outcomes.
- National Research Center on Hispanic Children and Families. (2023, February 8). Series: “On the Ground” perspectives on social assistance programs. https://www.hispanicresearchcenter.org/research-resources/series-on-the-ground-perspectives-on-social-assistance-programs/
- Gennetian, L. A., Mendez, J., & Hill, Z. (2019). How state-level Child Care Development Fund policies may shape access and utilization among Hispanic families. National Research Center on Hispanic Children & Families. https://www.hispanicresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Hispanic-Center-CCDF-brief-FINAL1.pdf; The 13 states are: AZ, CA, CO, FL, GA, IL, NJ, NY, NM, NC, PA, TX, WA)
- Lin, Y., Crosby, D., Mendez, J., & Stephens, C. (2022). Child care subsidy staff share perspectives on administrative burden faced by Latinos applications in North Carolina. National Research Center on Hispanic Children & Families. https://www.hispanicresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/HC-NC-CCDF-brief-7.29.2022.pdf
- Hardy, A., Schmit, S., & Wilensky, R. (2024, June 27). Child care assistance landscape: Inequities in federal and state eligibility and access. Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP). https://www.clasp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024.6.27_Child-Care-Assistance-Landscape.pdf
- National Center on Subsidy Innovation and Accountability. (2018). CCDF Family Co-payments. Office of Child Care, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services. https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/public/family_co-payment_brief_0.pdf
- Lloyd, C.M., Carlson, J., Barnett, H., Shaw, S., & Logan, D. (2021). Mary Pauper: A historical exploration of early care and education compensation, policy, and solutions. Child Trends. https://earlyedcollaborative.org/assets/2022/04/Mary-Pauper-updated-4_4_2022_FINAL.pdf
- Coffey, M. (2022, July 19). Still Underpaid and Unequal [Center for American Progress]. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/still-underpaid-and-unequal/
- Workman, S. & Capito, J. (2025, July). Estimating the true cost of child care in all 50 states[Data set]. Prenatal to Five Fiscal Strategies. https://www.prenatal5fiscal.org/national_cost_models
- Child Care Aware® of America. (2025). 2025 state funding for child care & early learning. https://info.childcareaware.org/hubfs/An-Uneven-Start–2025-State-Funding-for-Child-Care-Early-Learning.pdf
