Reworking, not money, best for child care policy

Rather than throw more money at a perceived problem, perhaps Louisiana should reconceptualize how it addresses child care.

Money that the country didn’t have was thrown at states, through federal government grants, during the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic to give families – read single parents mostly mothers, who comprise the vast bulk of Child Care Assistance Program recipients – more money to pay for child care. The program will subsidize at varying amounts (plus for some a small co-payment) depending on family resources for at least part-time working or training parents with children under age 13 (18 if with disability) and who are citizens or legal residents.

While the leftist agenda of growing government and hoping it sticks lasted well after the pandemic could be used as a justification for it, eventually the bonus money faded away. Regardless, Louisiana chronically has had a waiting list for participation, even as it has chipped in the range of $80 million annually over the last few years (the federal government will provide a match for state spending).

However, a focus more on the disease rather than the symptoms would serve the state better, beginning with the facts that the vast majority of CCAP utilization comes from single parents (by design because of engagement requirements) and Louisiana disproportionately has households with children headed by single adults. As well, two-parent households typically have double the median income and a significantly lower poverty rate than do single-parent households, roughly 6 to 9.5 percent compared to 27 to 31.7 percent, a widely-known relationship.

Policy that addresses this, such as discouraging premarital sex and encouraging or maintaining marriage among those who want or have children, can help to reduce some of the demand and therefore the backlog. But also, there needs to be recognition that government-approved commercial child care isn’t the only form in which that can be provided.

A variety of methods exist – family, friends, and nonprofit sources, principally churches. Further, a significant portion of parents prefer these avenues. Indeed, in a national survey of those households without government subsidy and therefore didn’t have children in commercial child care institutions, while two-fifths said inaccessibility prevented that, three-fifths said they found that mode unappealing.

Unfortunately, under recent Democrat control the federal government funding that backs CCAP became less flexible for states to pursue other modes, contrary to the original intent. Fortunately, the Republican Pres. Donald Trump Administration appears willing to move back towards increased state and client discretion in funding use (and which well may have avoided massive fraud problems that made headlines). Louisiana did previously take advantage of greater flexibility in having only vouchers distributed to clients.

The state already does a pretty good job in allowing choice even under the more stringent federal constraints, but perhaps one area that could be reviewed is the after effects of “Charlie’s Law,” passed last year in response to an incident at a child care center, that imposes asymmetrical burdens on nonpublic early learning centers, which is one choice supported by Louisiana’s CCAP, that drives up costs that could be passed on to whoever pays for it.

Generally, reducing the bias towards formal institutions in federal regulation will expand slot availability, as well as will state policy that encourages families having children only in wedlock. Throwing more money at the issue as some suggest isn’t the answer when better deployment of existing funds has yet to be tried.