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 2025 was $15,728 for infants, compared to $12,470 for 4-year-olds.2 The cost of center-based infant care ranges from 23% to 57% of median income for single parents and from 6% to 18% 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
Child Care Subsidies Are One Part of a Broader System
Families enrolled in child care subsidy programs receive important support to make child care more affordable. These families, however, represent only a portion of the families who face challenges accessing and affording child care. Although subsidy policy is an important component of the child care system, states are also implementing policies to address challenges across the broader child care system. These efforts include, but are not limited to, supporting the early educator workforce, expanding access to a variety of care arrangements, engaging businesses to build capacity and improve affordability, and providing financial support to child care providers.
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
Although disparities in access to subsidies remains a concern, a recent study of Georgia’s child care subsidy program found substantial racial and ethnic equity among participating families, suggesting that equitable access to, and use of, subsidies may be feasible.15
More research is still 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. To learn more about the history of child care policy, including subsidies, see the social policy history on child care.
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. 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 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 allows more families to access care. However, without additional funding, broader eligibility may place added pressure on the subsidy system. In the last few years, some states have experienced higher demand for subsidies than available funding could support. State responses to this increased demand have varied, with some states adjusting eligibility requirements, implementing waitlists, pausing new applications, or limiting renewals. As state leaders consider expanding eligibility, they must also consider the availability of sustainable funding to serve a greater number of children.
Most states (33) 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 the last year, Massachusetts increased its income eligibility limit to 85% of the SMI, bringing the total number of states at or above 85% of the SMI to 18. In late 2025, New Mexico became the only state to remove its income limit, making all families eligible for child care subsidies regardless of income. Maine and Vermont also set their limit above 85% of the SMI at 125% and 142%, respectively. Idaho’s limit is the lowest at 39% 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 21 states setting limits above 250% of the FPL, and six setting limits below 150% of the FPL. Families in New Mexico are eligible for subsidies regardless of their income and, in Vermont, families can have incomes up to 575% of the FPL. In contrast, families in Idaho and Nevada must earn 127% 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% of a family’s income or less, although states are no longer required to limit costs to this percentage. Currently, families in 35 states pay 7% of their income or less in child care copayments. Among these states, Florida and Montana reduced their copayments below that threshold in the last year for all families.
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. Although this measure does not represent the copayments all families in a subsidy program are required to pay, it illustrates the highest percentage of income a family could be required to contribute toward the cost of care. States often use sliding fee scales for their subsidy programs, with families at lower income levels exempt from copayments or required to pay lower percentages of their incomes.
In 20 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 a market rate survey (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. Currently, 13 states reimburse providers at or above the 75th percentile of the MRS.
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 incur to provide high-quality care, rather than merely the market price, which represents what families are willing and able to pay. In the last year, Indiana joined Colorado, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Virginia in using cost models to set reimbursement rates. California, Nevada, South Carolina, and Washington have developed models, but have not yet used those 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 home-based 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. In four states (Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, and West Virginia), the price of care is less than $900 per month for an infant in center-based care, whereas the price is more than $2,000 per month in 10 states.
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 three 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.
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 three states (Louisiana, New Mexico, and Vermont), the state fully covers the cost of care.
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). 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.
In 11 states, providers are not allowed to charge families additional fees if the provider charges more than the reimbursement rate. In five of the 11 states (Maine, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Washington), 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 35 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 Master Settlement Agreement; New Mexico draws on oil and gas revenue; and Vermont implemented a payroll contribution. Washington currently leverages funds derived from capital gains tax to support child care subsidies. In 2028, the state will implement a tax on high-income earners, with a portion of the revenue dedicated to funding the subsidy program.
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 will begin drawing a portion of the state’s annual surplus in the coming years to support child care subsidies and other early childhood initiatives.
Several states also use dedicated funding sources to support other early care and learning programs and initiatives. These funding sources include unspent state funds (Connecticut), tobacco taxes (Arizona, California, and Connecticut), the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (Kentucky), and a tax on high-income earners (the District of Columbia).20
To learn more about child care funding, see our briefs, Child Care: From Market Failure to Strategic Investment and Securing the Future: Examining Dedicated Sources of Funding for Child Care Subsidy Programs.
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 2026, except for updates implemented in July in select states (see Methods and Sources for additional details). In the last year, several states made changes to their child care subsidy systems through legislation and/or agency action, including shifts in state funding, income eligibility limits, and provider reimbursement rates.
States also enacted legislation addressing broader child care system policies. Although not discussed below, these efforts are included in the child care subsidies progress summaries for all states.
20 States Increased Funding for Child Care Subsidies
In the last year, 20 states increased their budget appropriations to support child care subsidy programs. Notable examples for Fiscal Year 2027 include:
- Delaware legislators increased the state’s child care subsidies investment by nearly 28%, adding $30.4 million for a total of $107.3 million.
- Maine legislators supplemented the FY2027 appropriation with $10 million in new, ongoing state funds to help address the child care subsidy waitlist.
- Massachusetts legislators allocated $1.2 billion for child care subsidies—an increase of $133 million from the previous fiscal year.
- New Mexico legislators set aside $606 million in federal and state funds for child care subsidies, $160 million more than the previous fiscal year.
- New York’s investment in child care subsidies increased by $1.2 billion for a total investment of $3 billion.
In recent years, states have explored supplementing state general fund appropriations by establishing dedicated funding streams. In 2026, Tennessee and Washington were the only states to enact legislation to create a new statewide funding source for child care, and 10 additional states introduced similar bills that ultimately did not pass.
Tennessee legislators created the Promising Futures Fund and directed revenue from a new tax on international remittances to support it. The fund will be used for a pilot program to provide child care subsidies to child care workers, a cost-share program, and a program to provide child care subsidies for families between 85% and 150% of the SMI.
In 2021, Washington enacted a capital gains tax to support child care and early learning in the state. Building on that investment, this year, legislators enacted a 9.9% tax on incomes above $1 million that will apply to income earned beginning in 2028. Of the revenue generated by the tax, 5% will be deposited in the Fair Start for Kids Account, which supports reduced copayments, grants to child care providers, and initiatives to improve access to, and quality of, child care.
States can also establish accounts to support child care without earmarking specific funding sources. In the last year, Michigan established the Early Childhood Investment Fund with a $5 million ongoing general fund appropriation. The fund will support child care subsidies and other early childhood initiatives. Massachusetts introduced a similar bill to establish a trust fund to support child care subsidies, but the bill did not pass.
Limited Progress on Eligibility Expansion
In the last year, only four states (Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, and New Mexico) increased their initial income eligibility limits for child care subsidies. New Mexico became the first state in the country to remove its income eligibility limit completely, which effectively extends subsidy eligibility to all families in the state regardless of their income. Massachusetts raised its initial income eligibility from 50% of the SMI to 85%, Georgia increased from 30% of the SMI to 50%, and Florida from 47% of the SMI to 55%.
This legislative session, three states (Delaware, Nebraska, and Rhode Island) enacted bills to increase, or maintain, subsidy eligibility. Delaware’s budget expands the initial income eligibility limit to 225% of the FPL, effective October 2026. Similarly, Rhode Island’s budget includes raising the state’s income eligibility limit from 325% of the FPL, effective January 2027. In Nebraska, eligibility was scheduled to decrease to 130% of the FPL in October 2026, but legislators enacted a bill to maintain the current limit. Six other states (Idaho, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin) introduced similar bills that did not pass.
Following a trend from previous sessions, 15 states introduced legislation to extend eligibility for subsidies to child care workers. Iowa and Kentucky made their existing programs—which were scheduled to sunset—permanent. As noted above, Tennessee allocated funds from its new dedicated funding stream to fund a pilot program.
Minimal Progress on Reducing Family Cost Burden
This year, few states made legislative or administrative changes to reduce family copayments. Only two states (Florida and Montana) reduced copayments by at least 1 percentage point to set the limit at 7% of family income, bringing the total number of states meeting this threshold to 35. Alabama and Vermont also reduced their copayments by at least 1 percentage point but remain above the 7% threshold, whereas four states (the District of Columbia, Nevada, Oregon, and Virginia) made similar reductions but were already below 7%.
Maine enacted legislation in 2026 to limit copayments to 7% of family income—this provision is pending implementation. Maryland, which had reduced copayments since the pandemic and waived them for most families, enacted legislation to reinstate copayments, but to limit them to 7% of family income or less. Colorado enacted legislation to limit copayments to 7% of family income in 2024, but a bill was enacted to postpone implementation of this limit until 2028. Wisconsin introduced legislation to limit copayments to 7% of family income, though the bill ultimately did not pass.
16 States Enhanced Provider Reimbursement Rates
Reimbursement rates received heightened attention this year. In total, 16 states implemented increases to their base reimbursement rates for infants in center-based care since June 2025. Notably, three states (Idaho, Rhode Island, and Washington) raised their center-based infant rates by 15% or more and 10 states (Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Vermont, and Wisconsin) increased their rates by between 5% and 10%. However, in four states (Alabama, Indiana, North Dakota, and Oklahoma), reimbursement rates for infants in center-based were reduced by between 1% in Indiana to 18% in Oklahoma.
In the last year, five states (Delaware, Illinois, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin) enacted bills to increase reimbursement rates, primarily through state budgets. Wisconsin increased reimbursement rates across all care settings and age groups. In contrast, Delaware focused on children under age 5 and children with special needs, Illinois on home-based providers, and Rhode Island on infants in center-based care.
North Carolina will be implementing a unique approach, coined a subsidy floor, to set its reimbursement rates. Approved through the state budget, reimbursement rates will increase to the 75th percentile of the 2023 MRS—currently rates are based on the 2021 survey. For counties in which the 75th percentile rates in the 2023 MRS are lower than the 2021 75th percentile statewide average, rates will be increased to that average. Generally, this approach establishes a floor that raises reimbursement rates in counties with lower market rates, particularly rural counties, while allowing rates to remain higher than the established floor in areas with higher market rates.
Two additional states introduced, but did not enact, bills to adjust subsidy rates. Legislators in Michigan proposed legislation to automatically adjust reimbursement rates for inflation every year. In Maine, legislation was introduced to allow providers to receive the full subsidy amount if their private rates are below the reimbursement rate.
In addition to increasing reimbursement rates, states continue to explore developing alternative methodologies to set rates based on the true cost of providing high-quality care. In the last year, Indiana adopted reimbursement rates based on its newly developed cost model. Additionally, Kentucky and West Virginia enacted legislation to allow for alternative methodologies to set their reimbursement rates. New York and Washington introduced similar legislation that did not pass this session.
Recent Federal Action
In 2026, federal action on CCDF included new federal funding requirements and changes in program rules. In January 2026, states received guidance on new steps to draw down federal CCDF funds. The process required additional justification on fund usage, which delayed the disbursement of funds in states.21 Additionally, five states (California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York) were notified they were under a restricted draw down of funds citing reports of fraud and misuse. A federal court temporarily blocked the action in January 2026 and the administration rescinded the freeze in July 2026.
The administration also published a final CCDF rule that removed requirements to limit copayments to 7% of family income, develop grants and contracts for certain populations, reimburse providers prospectively, and reimburse based on enrollment. Though states are still allowed to implement such policies, these are no longer required as of July 2026.
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. (PDF, 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
