Subsidized Child Care Timeline: Federal Policy Choices through an Equity Lens

Over the last 125 years, the American approach to child care has significantly altered, with the goals and values of child care policies shifting according to the perceived identity—particularly the racial identity—of mothers receiving aid. As such, the availability and generosity of financial support for care have been consistently set according to subjective judgments of “deservingness;” this judgment in turn serves to justify the inadequate subsidy system families with low incomes, particularly families of color, still experience today.

Our historical analysis illustrates the throughlines from our country’s earliest child care policies to today’s subsidy systems, with a particular focus on the racial equity of policy design and implementation over time. In doing so, we identified two key themes that have contributed to the current inequities in subsidized care:

  1. Despite the ever-changing and often disjointed policy landscape, reforms have continuously built on preceding policies, thereby perpetuating harmful assumptions about the character and needs of recipients.
  2. The attempts to exclude non-White recipients and, if included, limit the generosity of aid, creates unique, inequitable barriers for families of color while also undermining the foundation of the subsidized care system for all families with low incomes.

The timeline presented below summarizes key child care policy actions from the colonial era to modern day. Scroll through the timeline to view an overview of child care policy history. The full historical analysis is available at the link below.

  1.  
Read the full historical analysis

1600s – 1800s

Colonial Settlement through Reconstruction

The colonization and subsequent development of the United States was fraught with inequities, including in caregiving dynamics. Enslaved, and later free, Black women often cared for White children, and many Native American children were forcibly enrolled in boarding schools.

1600s – 1800s

1900s – 1920s

The Progressive Era

At the turn of the 20th century, state-funded mothers’ pensions were popularized to allow mothers to stay home and care for their children; yet, mother’s pensions were inequitably implemented, restricting eligibility to the “deserving poor.”

1900s – 1920s

1930s

The Great Depression

The economic collapse in the 1930s spurred the federal government to provide financial assistance, via the Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program, for mothers with low incomes to stay at home and care for their children. States had significant control in the implementation of ADC, and as the population served became less White, support for the program weakened.

1930s

1940s – 1950s

World War II and Postwar Period

Mothers’ participation in defense work during World War II prompted additional, time-limited federal supports for child care. In the postwar period, increased financial prosperity was largely limited to White families, and the proportion of Black families accessing ADC grew. Despite ADC program goals remaining centered on in-home childrearing, discriminatory state policies and inadequate financial support forced mothers with low incomes, particularly Black mothers, into the workforce.

1940s – 1950s

1960s – 1970s

The Civil Rights Movement

Welfare reform in the 1960s led to the introduction of work incentives and child care subsidies for out-of-home care. The shift away from cash assistance to allow mothers to stay home to care for their children was largely in response to a perceived increase in Black individuals receiving aid under expanded eligibility requirements.

1960s – 1970s

1980s

The Reagan Revolution

Reducing welfare rolls continued to be a central policy goal in the 1980s, largely informed by racist narratives that Black families were taking advantage of the welfare system. For the first time, the Family Support Act made work a requirement and guaranteed child care for AFDC recipients; states were given significant control in implementing both measures.

1980s

1990s – 2010s

Welfare Reform

Welfare reform under President Clinton separated child care subsidies from cash welfare benefits. Existing child care subsidy programs were combined into a single block grant, the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), which increased states’ control over program implementation; greater control allowed states to set more or less equitable policies concerning eligibility, copayments, etc., without federal interference.

1990s – 2010s

2020 - Present

The COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic raised public awareness of long-standing challenges in the child care sector, resulting in significant allocations of relief funding and the 2024 CCDF rule changes to support a more sustainable and equitable child care system. Even so, states continue to struggle to address access and affordability for families.

2020 - Present

Citations

Report prepared by Rebecca Hanlin Lustick, MA, and Cynthia Osborne, Ph.D.

Suggested citation: Prenatal-to-3 Policy Impact Center (2025). Subsidized Child Care Timeline: Federal Policy Choices through an Equity Lens. https://pn3policy.org

Colonial Settlement through Reconstruction

Slavery

The Western colonization of America established a series of inequitable yet widely accepted beliefs and practices. Foremost among these was the practice of slavery, which denied the humanity of Black people and the validity of Black family units while allowing White slave holders to exploit Black labor and amass wealth. Specifically, many enslaved women were tasked with raising the slave master’s children while their own children were forced to labor, creating the “mammy” stereotype.

Even following emancipation, Black women had little choice in work and were consistently underpaid, with one of the most commonly held occupations being domestic workers. Black women that did work often relied on community care, also known as fictive kin, for child care.

Boarding Schools

Native American families were consistently pressured, at times violently, to assimilate into White culture; this included Native American children, with children as young as age 3 voluntarily or forcibly enrolled in boarding schools. Government-funded and often church-run, boarding schools were implemented with the explicit goal of cultural genocide and often used violent means to make the children in their care comply.
Back to full timeline

The Progressive Era

Mother’s Pensions

Mother’s pensions provided financial assistance to mothers with low incomes who faced circumstances outside their control (i.e., widowed, deserted, divorced) to stay home and care for their children. Yet, biased interpretations of “deservingness” caused immigrant, working-class, and especially Black women to be more frequently judged as less capable of fulfilling their mothering responsibilities and therefore not eligible for pensions.
Back to full timeline

The Great Depression

Emergency Nursery Schools

During the Great Depression, the Works Progress Administration established the first federally funded early learning program, Emergency Nursery Schools (ENS) for parents who were unemployed and seeking work. ENS programs were established in most states, but access was variable; only half of states offered segregated programming for children of color and all programs had a limited number of slots.

1935, Social Security Act

Title IV of the Social Security Act established the Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program to provide financial assistance to mothers with low incomes to stay home and care for their children. Modeled on mother’s pensions, ADC became the foundation for all federal welfare and child care policies that followed; embedded in this foundation were many inequitable practices, including subjective judgements of “deservingness” of aid and, when aid was granted, inadequate financial assistance.
Back to full timeline

World War II and Postwar Period

1940, Lanham Act

With many mothers of young children recruited to work in the defense industry during the war, the Lanham Act, which provided funding to create community facilities in war-impacted areas, was used to fund child care centers for working mothers. Local communities administered child care programs but faced significant challenges in implementation, including an inadequate number of slots and high staff turnover because of a lack of resources and low wages. Furthermore, Black and Hispanic families regularly experienced racial discrimination in child care admissions policies.

State ADC Policies

As the total number of ADC recipients grew (and more Black mothers accessed aid), states used their authority to institute additional punitive policies that disproportionately affected Black families. Policies included man-in-the-house rules, which denied aid to mothers who engaged in activities deemed morally or sexually deviant, and farm policies, which restricted access to benefits during planting and harvest seasons to force Black recipients to engage in agricultural labor.
Back to full timeline

The Civil Rights Movement

1962, Public Welfare Amendments

The Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 introduced the most comprehensive overhaul of welfare and child care since its creation. Addressing long-standing concerns that ADC encouraged single-parent homes, the Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 retitled ADC as the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and extended benefits to married, two-parent families with one unemployed parent to emphasize the traditional family unit and promote marriage. In response to increased eligibility, particularly Black families’ eligibility, the Amendments also established the first welfare-to-work program, the Community Work and Training (CWT) program; this marked a distinct shift in AFDC priorities from in-home caregiving support (with recipients imagined as White) to out-of-home child care provisions to support workforce participation (with recipients imagined as Black).

1967, Social Security Amendments

When AFDC costs and rolls were not reduced by previous reforms, new requirements were introduced through the Social Security Amendments of 1967. Specifically, the CWT program was replaced by the Work Incentives program (WIN), with participation required for all recipients except mothers with children under age 6; states were required to assure child care for those in WIN, further solidifying the political conception of child care as a means to work. Nonetheless, welfare-to-work policies failed to address the systemic racism that limited economic opportunities for Black workers.
Back to full timeline

The Reagan Revolution

1988, Family Support Act

The Family Support Act (FSA) of 1988 aimed to reduce welfare dependency and transition recipients into the workforce. A new work program, the Job Opportunity and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program, was required for all AFDC recipients except mothers with children under age 3. To support parents’ workforce participation, child care was guaranteed, making it the first open-ended entitlement for child care in American history. Specifically, FSA included two subsidized child care programs: AFDC Child Care (AFDC-CC) program for parents currently receiving welfare and Transitional Child Care (TCC) for parents in their first year after unenrolling in AFDC.

1990, Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act

Shortly after the FSA was passed, two additional child care programs were implemented through the Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1990. The first additional child care program, the At-Risk Child Care (ARCC) program, targeted families who would be “at risk” of qualifying for AFDC without access to child care subsidies. The second program enacted, the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act of 1990, is still in effect today and provides federal funding for child care subsidies and quality improvements.

With four distinct child care programs targeting four separate populations by the early 1990s, families with low incomes struggled to navigate the fragmented system and often failed to receive the necessary support in a timely manner.
Back to full timeline

Welfare Reform

1996, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

PRWORA separated child care from welfare and established the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants, respectively. Concerning child care subsidies, the three child care programs associated with welfare (ADFC-CC, TCC, and ARCC) were repealed and consolidated under the Social Security Act, known as the Child Care Entitlement to States (CCES). Funding from CCES and CCDBG are maintained together as a single block grant program, the CCDF. Ultimately, the shift in fiscal policy to eliminate child care entitlements in favor of a block grant places the CCDF (and TANF) program and those it serves in a more vulnerable position because of fixed funding and increased state authority.
Back to full timeline

The COVID-19 Pandemic

Pandemic Relief Funding

In response to the ongoing crisis, Congress passed multiple relief bills (i.e., CARES Act, the CRRSA Act, and the ARPA), which included financial support to both child care providers and families in need of child care. The significant influx of funding from the relief bills into the child care sector created a unique moment for state leaders to focus on the equity of child care systems; changes to create more accessible and equitable child care systems, however, were time-limited in many states without sustainable funding.

2024 CCDF Rule Change

In 2024, the federal Department of Health and Human Services released significant rule changes to CCDF, which encouraged or mandated states to adopt more equitable practices within 2 years. The rule changes will benefit both families and providers, although without additional funding to meet new requirements, it may divert funds from other improvements; as such, at this time it is unclear what systemwide impacts the rule changes will have.
Back to full timeline

Vanderbilt University
Peabody College of Education & Human Development

Who We Are

What We Do

Newsletter Sign-up
© Prenatal-to-3 Policy Impact Center 2023 | Site Policies

Follow us:

Twitter Facebook Linkedin Youtube
Newsletter Sign-up