TY - JOUR
T1 - Who are the eligible non-recipients of child care subsidies?
AU - Herbst, Chris
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was supported by a grant (No. 90YE0083) from the Child Care Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The contents are solely the responsibility of the author and do not represent the official views of the funding agency, nor does publication in any way constitute an endorsement by the funding agency. I would like to thank the following individuals for their advice and/or technical assistance: Bill Galston, Mark Lopez, Jonah Gelbach, Burt Barnow, Randi Hjalmarsson, Peter Reuter, Sandra Hofferth, and two anonymous reviewers.
Funding Information:
The barrier to employment posed by child care costs gained increased prominence in the wake of historic welfare reform passed in 1996. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) eliminated the legal entitlement to cash welfare by imposing a 60-month lifetime time limit on benefit receipt and requiring individuals, even those with young children, to leave welfare for work after 2 years. 3 3 Due to its strong work mandates, the PRWORA restructured the federal government's role in providing child care assistance. Congress repealed three Title IV-A programs, and along with money from the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), consolidated these funding streams into a single Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). 4 4 There are three primary elements to CCDF funding. Each state receives a pre-determined share of federal mandatory funds, which remains constant over time. States also qualify for matching grants, provided they meet certain Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements (i.e., maintain or exceed pre-CCDF spending levels). Finally, the legislation authorizes nearly $1 billion in discretionary money that does not require a state match ( Long & Clark, 1997 ).
PY - 2008/9
Y1 - 2008/9
N2 - Given the highly devolved nature of the U.S. child care subsidy system, recent studies have devoted considerable attention to exploring family-level correlates of subsidy receipt. However, most studies in this literature are limited in two respects. First, by focusing exclusively on the characteristics of recipients, previous research has neglected a group with important policy implications: eligible non-recipients of child care subsidies. Second, previous work compares recipient households to a heterogeneous population of non-recipients, many of whom are ineligible for child care assistance. This paper provides the first detailed examination of eligible non-recipients of child care subsidies, and uses this group to make more appropriate comparisons to those receiving benefits. Using data from the 2002 National Survey of America's Families, I begin by simulating states' eligibility rules for 2001. Although many of the differences between recipients and non-recipients disappear when the analysis is limited to eligible households, a number of key differences persist. With eligibility status serving as a de facto control for financial need and preferences for work, I argue that many of the remaining differences between recipients and non-recipients are due to rationing by states, low parental awareness of benefits, and difficulties navigating the subsidy system.
AB - Given the highly devolved nature of the U.S. child care subsidy system, recent studies have devoted considerable attention to exploring family-level correlates of subsidy receipt. However, most studies in this literature are limited in two respects. First, by focusing exclusively on the characteristics of recipients, previous research has neglected a group with important policy implications: eligible non-recipients of child care subsidies. Second, previous work compares recipient households to a heterogeneous population of non-recipients, many of whom are ineligible for child care assistance. This paper provides the first detailed examination of eligible non-recipients of child care subsidies, and uses this group to make more appropriate comparisons to those receiving benefits. Using data from the 2002 National Survey of America's Families, I begin by simulating states' eligibility rules for 2001. Although many of the differences between recipients and non-recipients disappear when the analysis is limited to eligible households, a number of key differences persist. With eligibility status serving as a de facto control for financial need and preferences for work, I argue that many of the remaining differences between recipients and non-recipients are due to rationing by states, low parental awareness of benefits, and difficulties navigating the subsidy system.
KW - Child care subsidies
KW - Eligibility
KW - Welfare reform
KW - Work supports
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=47149107823&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=47149107823&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.01.003
DO - 10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.01.003
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:47149107823
SN - 0190-7409
VL - 30
SP - 1037
EP - 1054
JO - Children and Youth Services Review
JF - Children and Youth Services Review
IS - 9
ER -