barriers to subsidies: reasons why low income families do not
TRANSCRIPT
Barriers to Subsidies: Reasons Why Low Income Families
Do Not Use Child Care Subsidies
March, 2002
CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
Anne B. Shlay, Ph.D. Marsha Weinraub, Ph.D.
Michelle Harmon Henry Tran
2
ABSTRACT
Child care subsidies are available to enable low-income parents to work, to increase options for
different child care arrangements, and to provide their children with quality child care experiences.
Subsidies cannot accomplish these goals if they go unused. The purpose of this study is to examine the
reasons why eligible families do use the subsidies available to them. This research used focus groups and a
telephone survey to determine the reasons why families do not use subsidies and the barriers they face
trying to use them. A randomly selected sample of 196 subsidy eligible African American parents living in
Philadelphia participated in the survey. Parents using a subsidy were asked about their experiences with
the subsidy system, including how they learned about subsidies. In particular we focused on eligible
parents not receiving a subsidy who they said that they needed help to pay for child care, believed they
were eligible for a subsidy, but did not use them. We asked these eligible, needy non-subsidy users about
the range of factors that went into their decision not to use subsidies. The reasons not to use subsidies
included hassles associated with the application process, beliefs of long waiting lists, misunderstandings
and concerns over the type of child care that would accept a subsidized child, and prior unpleasant
experiences with other public assistance programs. Reported hassles included requirements to take time off
from work to go to the subsidy office for appointments, the work of re-determining subsidy eligibility every
six months, and the need to provide supporting documentation with the application (e.g. pay stubs, birth
certificates, etc.). In addition families reported concerns over the requirements for court involvement in
obtaining child support payments. Importantly, our findings revealed that half of non-subsidy recipients
believed they were ineligible for a subsidy when they actually were eligible for this benefit.
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Toscha Blalock, Deborah Sitrin, Marci Lane, Kristin Henderson and Mariela Gonzalez
for their assistance in the administration of the focus groups and Professor Elizabeth Jaeger for her superb
efforts in designing the subsidy utilization survey. We are grateful for the dedicated work of the Temple
University Institute for Survey Research that fielded the survey under the direction of Dr. Louise Hanson.
Nancy Nunez participated in the computer production of this report with her usual grace and good humor.
This research is funded by a grant from the Department of Health and Human Services 90YE0019.
4
BARRIERS TO SUBSIDIES:
REASONS WHY LOW INCOME FAMILIES DO NOT USE CHILD CARE SUBSIDIES
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 6
REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR APPLYING FOR A CHILD CARE SUBSIDY Eligibility Requirements for CCIS Subsidies Application & Maintenance Process Changes in Regulations over the Past Three Years
6 7 7 9
THE SUBSIDY UTILIZATION STUDY FOCUS GROUP REPORT Study Design Methods Findings from the SUS Focus Groups Conclusions from the SUS Focus Groups
10 10 11 12 21
SUBSIDY UTILIZATION STUDY PARENT SURVEY Survey Design Sampling Design Fielding the Survey The Participants
22 22 24 25 27
FINDINGS FROM THE SUBSIDY UTILIZATION STUDY PARENT SURVEY Reasons Why Subsidy Eligible Families Do Not Receive Them Eligible Families Who Know They are Eligible and Say They Need Help
31 33 33
CONCLUSION 43
5
BARRIERS TO SUBSIDIES: REASONS WHY LOW INCOME FAMILIES
DO NOT USE CHILD CARE SUBSIDIES
List of Figures and Tables
TABLE 1 Reasons for Not Using a Subsidy by Eligible Parents Who Say They Need Financial Help and Believe They Are Eligible
13
FIGURE 1 Subsidy Utilization Study Parent Survey Flow Chart
23
TABLE 2 Breakdown of Phone Calls Made for the Subsidy Utilization Study Parent Survey
26
TABLE 3 Demographics and Background Characteristics of Child Care Subsidy Recipients and Non-Recipients participating in the Subsidy Utilization Study
28
FIGURE 2 Subsidy Utilization Study Parent Survey Flow Chart with Numbered Blocks
32
TABLE 4 Reasons for Not Using a Subsidy by Eligible Parents Who Say They Need Financial Help and Believe They Are Eligible
34
TABLE 5 Knowledge of Highest Amount a Household Can Earn and Still be Eligible by Eligible Subsidy Recipients and Non-Subsidy Recipients
37
TABLE 6 Knowledge of Child Care Subsidy Requirements Regarding Welfare Affiliation by Eligible Subsidy Recipients and Non-Subsidy Recipients
38
TABLE 7 Knowledge of Child Care Arrangements that Are Acceptable for Subsidy Usage by Parents Receiving and Not Receiving a Child Care Subsidy
40
TABLE 8 Parent’s Beliefs about Other Subsidy Applicant’s Priority Status by Eligible Subsidy Recipients and Non-Subsidy Recipients
41
TABLE 9 Correct Responses to Knowledge of Child Care Subsidy Requirements by Eligible Subsidy Recipients and Non-Subsidy Recipients
42
6
INTRODUCTION
Child care subsidies are an important income supplement for low-income working parents. Child
care affordability is a serious problem for low-income families, potentially putting families at risk in
placing their children in poor quality settings and making steady employment problematic. In theory, child
care subsidies should make it possible for families to access predictable, quality child care while adults
maintain a permanent commitment to the labor force. Yet in practice, child care subsidies appear to be
severely underused, although this varies by state and over time.
While people share anecdotes about the reasons for low subsidy utilization, no systematic
evidence exists on why such a presumably important supplement goes untapped. Do people perceive the
subsidy system negatively? Are families having bad experiences with the subsidy application process? Do
subsidy regulations operate as barriers? Is there a cultural dimension to how people view child care
subsidies? Do families differ in how they perceive the subsidy system? What is the influence of family
characteristics, such as race, on subsidies?
To address these questions, this research is investigating barriers to child care subsidies. This first
year report describes the regulations and guidelines for applying for a child care subsidy through Child
Care Information Services – the agency that distributes subsidies for working parents and the activities
undertaken during the first year of investigation. This report discusses two research activities. The first
part presents the procedures and findings from the focus groups conducted to assist in the creation of a
survey that was conducted with low-income working parents. The second part presents the procedures
associated with creating the survey, fielding the survey, and the initial findings.
REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR APPLYING FOR A CHILD CARE SUBSIDY
The subsidy system is designed to help low-income working families pay for child care. The
money comes from state and federal dollars and is available to the public through the Department of Public
Welfare. Child Care Information Services (CCIS)1, located throughout Pennsylvania, provide subsidies to
1 The agency that distributes child care subsidies has held a few different names over the past years. In 1996 they were known as the Localized management Agency (LMA) or Daycare for [area; i.e. North, Northwest, etc.] Philadelphia. This dual name system confused many as they were known as the LMA to child care advocates, policy makers, and area child care providers and Daycare for [area] Philadelphia to parents. This name further confused parents as they often called the offices thinking they were calling day care facility, not a referral and subsidy distributor. In 1998, the name was changed to Philadelphia Child Care Resources (PCCR), and most recently, in 2001, they are simply referred to as Child Care Information Services.
7
working families not receiving TANF2 cash assistance. Each Child Care Information Service office in the
Philadelphia area serves selected neighborhoods identified by zip codes.
The County Assistance Office (CAO) also provides child care subsidies to families receiving
TANF cash assistance who are working or are in approved training/education programs. This subsidy is a
secondary, not primary, purpose of the local CAO, which is also part of the State Department of Public
Welfare. There are similar, but not identical, eligibility requirements for child care subsidies offered
through the CAO (i.e. CAO requires the parent to work a minimum of 20 hours per week, CCIS requires 25
hours per week). The Department of Public Welfare allows for a six-month transitional period between
using CAO child care subsidies and CCIS subsidies.
Applications for childcare subsidy can be obtained through any of the five CCIS offices either by
mail or in person. Along with the CCIS subsidy application, parents are given an assortment of brochures
ranging from how to find a child care provider to information on and application for the Children’s Health
Insurance Program (CHIP).
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR CCIS SUBSIDIES
To be eligible for a childcare subsidy, both parents living in the household3 must adhere to the
following eligibility requirements. Each applicant must have a child under the age of 13 who needs care
during the hours the parent is at work, work a minimum of 25 hours per week, earn at least minimum wage
($5.15/hour), may not be receiving cash assistance from the County Assistance Office, and have a
household income at or below 200% of the Federal Poverty Income Guideline (FPIG). Household income
is determined by the gross income of the parent and spouse or live in partner in relation to the number of
people living in the household.4 For example, a family of four could earn up to $35,300 annually.
Applicants must be willing to seek all available sources of income, including court-ordered child support,
SSI and/or disability, if applicable.
APPLICATION & MAINTENANCE PROCESS
To apply for a child care subsidy, a parent must submit a completed application along with
supporting household documentation and income verification. Currently, applicants are only required to
2 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 3 A parent residing in the household includes either a spouse or a live-in partner regardless of the relationship of the spouse or live-in partner to the focus child.
8
provide photo identification for themselves. However prior to August 2001, applicants were also required
to provide household documentation including copies of birth certificates and social security cards for
everyone that was listed on the application.
If the applicant and the other biological parent of the child are not living together, documentation
of a court ordered child support arrangement is required. Child support documentation is required not only
for the child for whom the applicant is applying, but for each child in the household that is under age 18
years. The child support requirement may be waived if the applicant can prove to the eligibility counselor
that s/he honestly does not know who or where the other biological parent is or if it is believed that the
applicant is in danger of emotional or physical harm from the other parent.
In addition to the household information, the parent is required to provide proof of employment by
supplying one month’s worth of current consecutive pay stubs. If a parent has employment procured or has
just begun working, they may apply for a subsidy using a letter from their prospective employer on
company letterhead stating that they will indeed be employed along with written verification of their
anticipated earnings. Once the parent has been employed for six weeks, they are required to provide the
pay stubs for verification. Finally, a face to face meeting with an eligibility counselor is required prior to
authorizing the subsidy for the first child in the family to receive subsidy. It is at this meeting the
application is signed by the applicant.
CCIS is required to respond within 30 days of receipt of a completed and signed application. If
the applicant is not accepted, the applicant has the right to appeal the decision. If they are accepted, they
must maintain their good standing every six months by submitting a new application with supporting
income verification (i.e. pay stubs and child support receipts). The subsidy recipient’s household income
may increase, but not exceed, 235% ($41,477 for a family of four) of the FPIG to maintain eligibility.
An additional service CCIS provides is assistance finding child care that is best for the family.
Subsidies can be used to pay for child care by a licensed center, registered family day care home, group day
care home, legally unregulated family day care home, friend, or relative. Subsidy money is paid from
CCIS directly to the provider. In addition, the parent is required to pay the co-pay to the provider directly
4 The number of people in the household includes only the parent applying for the subsidy, the spouse or live-in partner, and the children under 18 years of age for whom the parent is legally responsible.
9
on the first of the month. The income eligibility of the applicant and the number of children attending
determine co-pay amounts, however the minimum co-pay is $5.00 per week. While co-pay amounts are
established through the CCIS office, it is the responsibility of the provider to collect the co-pay from the
parent. If co-pays are missed, the provider may request CCIS to enforce the co-pay rule by terminating a
parent’s subsidy.
CHANGES IN REGULATIONS OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS
Pennsylvania’s DPW regulations have been continuously changing over the past three years
making it difficult to for parents to keep up with and maintain their eligibility status. Prior to April 2000,
applicants were encouraged, but not required, to supply proof of US citizenship (i.e. birth certificates,
social security cards) for every member of the household listed on the application. However, it was made
an official requirement in April 2000. As of August 2001, the applicant is only required to show photo
identification. Birth certificates may be asked for to verify family relations, but is not required.
Household income guidelines for initial determination of eligibility have fluctuated between 185%
and 235%. The minimum number of work hours required by DPW have been raised from 20 to 25 hours
per week in 1999, 5 hours more than what is currently required for a CAO subsidy recipient. Co-payments
increased dramatically from 50% to 200% in March 1999 and were reduced again in April 2000. Prior to
March 1999, child support cooperation was encouraged, but not a strict regulation. Applicants are now
required to pursue legal action to receive child support from the other biological parent, thus ensuring that
they are able to access all possible forms of income. An initial response to this regulation change was
many subsidy recipients who, upon re-determination of their eligibility, voluntarily withdrew or were
dropped from the subsidy program either due to fear or no interest in pursuing a court ordered child support
action.
Additional changes have occurred in re-determination of eligibility. The frequency of eligibility
re-determinations was increased in 1999 from every 12 months to every 6 months. This translates into
more trips into the CCIS office for in-person appointments. Prior to August 2001, parents needed to go
through the whole process of supplying all the supporting documentation (birth certificates, social security
cards, etc.). Since August 2001, the parent only needs to verify any reported changes to income,
10
household composition, and place of employment. They are still required to provide verification of income
including employment and child support.
THE SUBSIDY UTILIZATION STUDY FOCUS GROUP
This research employed the use of focus groups to initially determine the potential reasons why
many families do not use subsidies and the barriers they face in trying to use them. The major goal of the
focus groups was to collect information that could be used to construct a standardized survey of subsidy
utilization. The information collected in the focus groups aided us in anticipating the world of reasons for
subsidy non-use. The focus groups were designed to determine the range of reasons why many people
might not use the subsidy system - qualitative information that would help specify the quantitative
indicators to be measured in the later survey.
STUDY DESIGN
Designing the focus groups had two major steps. These were 1) talking with community experts
who know the population using and not using the subsidy system and 2) talking with mothers
recommended as knowledgeable by community experts. Our focus group protocol was designed based on
these conversations.
The community experts included directors of leading child advocacy programs in Philadelphia, a
director of a child care center that accepts subsidized children, an attorney from Philadelphia Community
Legal Services, and three directors of Child Care Information Services - the agencies responsible for
distributing the subsidies. We relied on these people as key informants because they work closely with the
population of people we invited to be part of the focus groups and to whom we planned to administer the
survey. For step one, in October 2000 two meetings were held with consultants from the community to
discuss their perspectives on why some eligible parents may not be utilizing available childcare subsidies.
This discussion was used as a springboard to understanding some of the challenges that low-income parent
face when considering using a subsidy to help with child care expenses.
The second step involved interviewing three low-income mothers (2 white, 1 African American)
to further discuss some of the topics covered in the consultant forums. Two of the parents were employees
of a Philadelphia program that offers resources to area parents and child care providers. All had some
11
knowledge of the subsidy system, but were not active recipients. The information obtained during these
interviews was also used to assist in the development of the focus group interview questions.
The focus group discussion guide was organized into four sections including current childcare
usage (and ways to pay for it), assistance in paying for childcare (i.e. past experiences with the subsidy
system), attitudes about subsidy use, and money and choice of childcare. Once constructed, the discussion
guide was shared with the parent informants and questions were adjusted according to their feedback. A
questionnaire was also created to obtain basic demographic information and background characteristics of
the participants.
METHODS
Participants were recruited using advertisements placed in local community newspapers and flyers
distributed in identified low-income neighborhoods. To provide an incentive for participating in our study,
we invited parents to take part in raffle for a $100 gift certificate to a national toy store and to participate in
a paid discussion group with other working parents. If interested in either opportunity, mothers were asked
to call our office at Temple University to complete a short screening interview to determine if they were
eligible to participate in the discussion group.
To qualify for the group discussion, the mother had to be loosely eligible to receive a childcare
subsidy, but was not using one at that time. In order to keep the screening interview brief, subsidy
eligibility was based on the minimum requirements set forth by CCIS. This included the mother working at
least 25 hours per week, earning at least minimum wage ($5.15 per hour), not receiving TANF cash
assistance, and with a household income not exceeding the allotted amount for her family size5. Calling in
for the raffle did not obligate them to participate in the focus groups.
Ninety-one people responded to the advertisements. Of the 91, 30 were eligible and interested in
participating in the focus groups (13 African American and 17 white). Sixteen working mothers
participated in the groups (7 African American and 9 white). A copy of the screening interview used for
the Subsidy Utilization Study focus groups is in Appendix A.
Four two-hour focus groups with mothers of young children who were eligible for child care
subsidies, but did not use them, were conducted in December 2000 and January 2001. Two groups were
12
held with all African American mothers and two were held with all white mothers. The moderators and the
recorders of the groups were of the same ethnicity as the participants.
Table 1 (Page 13) shows the social and demographic characteristics of the focus group
participants. The participant’s ages ranged from 21 to 39 years old (M = 28, SD = 7). Education levels of
the participants ranged from some high school (13%) to a Bachelor’s degree (12%), with a typical
education level of a high school diploma or GED. Just over half of the participants were single mothers
(56%). They cared for one to four children, worked anywhere from 25 to 40 hours a week (M = 36, SD 6)
and, on average, earned just over $1,600 per month. Most participants (44%) used a relative to care for
their child, either in their home or the child’s home, while they were at work. Thirty-one percent used a
center or preschool and 25% used a non-relative to care for their child while they were at work. Nearly
everyone (81%) paid for their child care arrangements, with the cost ranging from $30.00 to $200 (M =
$97, SD = $39) a week.
At the beginning of each focus group session, participants were asked to complete a brief
questionnaire containing basic demographic and background information. Then a discussion was initiated
requesting each participant to say something about themselves and their family. Once everyone appeared
to be comfortable in the group the discussion about child care and child care subsidies began.
Each participant was paid an honorarium of $25.00 for her participation. In addition, we offered
the choice of our providing child care for their children during the focus group discussion or reimbursement
for their babysitting expenses incurred while they attended the group discussion.6
FINDINGS FROM THE SUS FOCUS GROUPS
The findings are presented in four parts. First, we present information concerning parents
knowledge of the child care subsidy system. Second, we examine parents’ beliefs and perceptions of the
eligibility requirements. Third, we present the experiences of parents who have applied for or have tried to
apply for subsidies in the past. Finally, we discuss the parents’ feelings regarding child care available in
their neighborhoods.
5 Household income needed to be at or below 200% of the Federal Poverty Income Guideline. For example, a family of three could earn up to $2,358 per month to be eligible for a child care subsidy. 6 A copy of the discussion guide and questionnaire used for the Subsidy Utilization Study focus groups in Appendix A is available at http://www.temple.edu/cpp/cpp_reports.htm.
13
TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHICS AND BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE
SUBSIDY UTILIZATION STUDY FOCUS GROUPS Ethnicity African American White All % or M (SD) % or M (SD) % or M (SD) N = 7 N = 9 N = 16 Average Age 27 (7) 29 (7) 28 (7) Education Level % 9th to 11th grade --- 22 13 % High School Diploma / GED 29 56 44 % 1-2 years college 29 --- 12 % Associate’s degree --- 11 6 % 3-4 years of college 29 --- 12 % Bachelor’s degree 14 11 12 Marital Status % Married 14 44 31 % Separated 14 --- 6 % Divorced 14 --- 6 % Single, never been married 57 56 56 Number of children in care % One 57 44 50 % Two 43 33 38 % Three --- 11 6 % Four --- 11 6 Average number of hours worked per week 34 (7) 37 (6) 36 (6) Average monthly household income $1,588 ($653) $1,622 ($990) $1,607 ($833) Type of care used % center / preschool 57 11 31 % Relative, in own home --- 33 19 % Relative, in their home 29 22 25 % Non-relative, in own home 14 22 19 % Non-relative, in their home --- 11 6 Average cost of child care for one week $104 ($44) $90 ($37) $97 ($39)
14
Parents Knowledge of the Subsidy System
Most of the parents were able to speak at length about their knowledge of and experiences with
various public assistance programs (i.e. Welfare, WIC, CHIP). Yet there was some question as to whether
parents knew about the availability of child care subsidies through the CCIS office. Parents confusion over
what agency is responsible for distributing the child care subsidies in Philadelphia may be the result of the
agency’s name changes over the past few years. Participants were asked specifically if they were familiar
with subsidies offered by Philadelphia Child Care Resources (PCCR; the name used by the subsidy
distribution office at the time the focus groups were held) or those offered by any of the names used in the
past7. Participants’ responses ranged from no familiarity to being somewhat familiar with the names.
Unless the participant said she actually used the service in the past, they did not know specific pieces of
information about the program or the services offered.
Knowledge of the availability of subsidies for working parents was more common in the African
American groups than the white groups. All of the African American mothers had heard of PCCR and had
attempted to apply for a subsidy, although only four had actually received a subsidy. In contrast, out of the
nine white mothers participating in the groups, only four had heard of PCCR. Only one parent applied and
received the subsidy, albeit for a short period of time before she voluntarily withdrew from the program.
Reasons for non-use varied between the two groups as well. The reasons reported by the African
American group centered on the regulations, specifically the court-ordered child support requirement. For
the white mothers, the hassles associated with the application process were reported to be much more of a
hindrance. Particularly, the inconvenience associated with collecting the supporting documentation and in-
person appointments.
Of the 11 parents who knew child care subsidies for working parents were available, there was
uncertainty as to whether they knew that CCIS subsidies were separate from subsidies offered through the
County Assistance Office (for TANF recipients) and/or how they may differ. This confusion may be the
result of mother’s experiences with the welfare system in the past. Many of the parents who had received
welfare cash assistance in the past also received, at some point, child care assistance. However, much of
15
the discussion regarding who provides the child care assistance to working moms seemed to revolve
primarily around CAO child care subsidies.
The experiences with other public assistance organizations (i.e. CHIP, Welfare, and WIC) were
also referenced during each of the focus group sessions. Grievances about the program included
complicated application processes, needing a lot of supporting paperwork, and the requirement for in
person appointments (no supporting documentation can be faxed or sent via mail). Parents commented that
appointments were often scheduled on very short notice, making it difficult for families to take time off
from work. Half of the mother’s complained that when they took time off from work to bring in
paperwork, they were asked for more, requiring another in person appointment, and consequently, another
day of work missed. In-person visits to the offices were hassles that were mentioned on a regular basis.
Overall, the whole process was said to be a hassle not worth the end result. Two participants expressed it
this way:
I did fill out the one monthly reporting form, but I had to go in, in person, to hand in the form. When I went for public assistance, you have to go down and take a number and sit there for hours. If you are down there at lunchtime, forget it. (December 2000) First of all I have to go to WIC every two months. That’s a day off from work. Now I have to go to court once a month so they’ll get money from him so they don’t have to give me as much money. And then I have to go to the welfare office. I was there every day. And I was like what is this? They want me to come in every day. (January 2001) To complicate matters more, parents reported that each public assistance service used required
trips to different offices because there is no central location managing all public services they need. It was
pointed out that the problem of taking time off from work to satisfy the in-person appointment requirement
has the potential to be multiplied three or four times over, depending on the number of services the mother
needs.
Another grievance concerned varying eligibility requirements for different types of assistance.
Each program had different eligibility requirements, which sometimes made parents eligible for one service
and ineligible for another. It also confused all the mothers to the point that they did not know what
program they were eligible for at any given time.
…it’s a catch. It is a fine line between oh you make too much, oh you don’t make enough. (December 2000)
7 In the past, the agency that distributes child care subsidies to working parents used the following names; Localized Management Agency (LMA), Daycare for [area] Philadelphia, and Child Care Information Services (CCIS).
16
Taking advantage of the services that were designed specifically to help low-income families
became a constant struggle for most mothers in the group. As a result, they said that they gave up using
the services all together, and were disheartened from learning about and pursuing others.
Parents Beliefs and Perceptions about the CCIS Eligibility Requirements
Due to the experiences of parents using other public assistance programs, many parents had
perceptions (some erroneous) of the eligibility requirements for child care subsidies through CCIS. Some
of the deterrents brought up by the participants included the low household income limits, the child support
requirement, and the restriction of higher education not being included in the child care coverage time.
Similar to other public assistance programs, the most prominent obstacle to a CCIS subsidy was
the difficulty of falling within the household income limits for eligibility. Most thought the income limits
were too low and individual cases were not treated as personally as deserved. Three of the mother in the
group expressed their thoughts of the restrictive income limits this way,
Their standards of what is too much money are unrealistic. Because they don’t factor in the bills you got to pay. If you looked at the person and looked at the bills that they pay - its not enough. When they ask for pay stubs, they should also ask for copies of all of your bills and your mortgage. They should ask for everything. Because if they would factor it in, they would see realistically oh this person doesn’t make that much money. Gross pay is a big difference than the net. (December, 2000)
…they’re not helping really because you can only make so much money to get the help, and then they have a standard of if you make so much, you have to have so many kids, well if you have three kids and they say the cut off is $20,000 that’s really nothing because you don’t receive $20,000, by the time you receive anything you’re only receiving about 12,000. And I mean they make the income so low, that their not even middle class people anymore, it’s the people between $25,000 and the $40,000 and if you have two or three kids, you’re not really bringing in $40,000 your only bringing in maybe $30,000 and you got a mortgage, childcare, if you have two or three kids, you have food your utilities, and then they’re saying that you make too much? You’re not making nothing! (January 2001)
… They said I was making too much money. I was bringing home $150 a week. But that was too much money. They count the gross because they know you will claim it at the end of the year and they don’t mess with you on the income tax. (December 2000)
Even more of a stumbling block, reported by one participant and agreed upon by all in the group,
was the effects of paid overtime on the pay verification requirement. Becoming and maintaining eligibility
is a tricky balancing act for many mothers, especially for those who work swing shifts or inconsistent
hours.
You have to bring in your most recent pay stub, I think, two if you’re [paid] biweekly four if you’re [paid] weekly. If you have five hours overtime in one of those pay stubs they count that
17
towards your gross - not as your regular income, not as – ok she did overtime. You know, there’s no telling when she’s gonna do it again. They just count [overtime pay] as part of your total gross income. (December, 2000) Another obstacle half (50%) of the parents talked about was the requirement for a court ordered
child support payment to be included when determining the household income. Restrictions that made
complying with this requirement problematic included not being able to find the father, fear of retribution
from the father, no desire to have the father be a part of the child’s life, or they have an informal
arrangement set up with the father. There seemed to be little knowledge of the loopholes available to this
regulation. Those that heard of the court ordered requirement did not know about the possibility of having
the requisite waived if there was good cause (i.e. fear of father’s retribution). As one participant said,
I know a lot of people, you know, they don’t want their children’s father around either because of abuse or just the trouble. Whatever the case is [a court ordered child support] is not always feasible. You know my child’s father could be Ike, but now Ike’s gonna beat my behind because ya’ll made me go through…you know what I’m saying? (December 2000) Sometimes voluntary informal arrangements are set up between the parents where the father offers
financial support to the child either on a regular or as needed basis. In these cases, the mothers expressed
concerns as to what legal action would do to such an arrangement.
…I did receive [a CCIS subsidy] but then they went through this thing where you have to take the father to court and I didn’t think it was worth it because he does come through and I just couldn’t see myself doing that to him. I think I would be doing more harm than good… (January 2001) …they wanted me to take the father to court and we’re fine, you know, he does give me money so I said why am I going to do that, and I did have problems with the court system with my first child, and we actually went out of the court system for child support because I got it quicker from him each week instead of waiting it would be like I wouldn’t get a check form the courts- it would be like a month because they were so backed up, it was a holiday, or the computers went down. (January 2001) Unlike child care subsidies offered through the County Assistance Office, pursuit of a higher
education at a college or university is not considered applicable towards child care funding time. Only
work time is counted as acceptable for coverage of child care costs. A few of the women attending college
could not afford child care on their own and depending on family members was not an option for them.
While in transition from Welfare to CCIS child care assistance, one woman’s assistance was cut off.
I had [Welfare] for a while and at that time I only had to pay $5 for child care services so I was like ‘ok this is great I can definitely afford this.’ Then all of a sudden I go into the daycare and they’re like oh they cut you off. When was this? Oh, last week. Ok first of all, I thought just state mandated that you have to give a letter at least two weeks or, you know that there was a period of time that you have to give the notice prior to. But she told me that they had just cut me off and I had to go see them about this and that. And they told me I wasn’t working enough hours to
18
qualify. I said well wait a minute now, under welfare, the hours that you’re at school count towards, you know, like any kind of working credit, any kind of credit for stuff like that. But for them it would have to be a GED program or like a job training or if I were in like a nursing school, but to for me to be in school to get my degree it didn’t count as working… (December 2000) Misconceptions of the eligibility were prevalent in the discussion. One mother spoke about how
she believed her husband’s medical condition would not be taken into consideration when determining her
eligibility. Another thought they could only get assistance if the County Assistance Office referred them.
A few mentioned that they would have to lie about the status of their relationship with the child’s father or
their incomes to get any kind of help.
Parents Past Experiences with the Subsidy System
The application process was reported to be a difficult one for many whom had attempted it. The
most common complaint was the hassles associated with the initial application process and the
overwhelming amount of supporting documentation needed for household and income verification. The
application form was said to be long and the instructions too complex to navigate. The amount of
supporting documentation needed was a constant burden to families who had to take time to get the
paperwork together and then take time off from work to supply the documentation in person. The
combination of in-person appointments and supporting documentation stopped many from continuing
through the process to get the support they needed.
They asked me to bring in all this paper work. They made me like three appointments. I kept coming in, and first I had to bring in these pay stubs and birth certificates. Every time I came in with paper work, they’d ask for more paper work. It was just driving me crazy. I still didn’t get it. This started in August and I went back last week and they were just giving me the run around. And I have been doing this for three months, coming in and getting the run around. So I was just like forget it, keep it. My baby’s father and I will split the tuition and I’ll pay for it. (December, 2000)
Another mother described how she was making ends meet, but just barely. She received some
money from the child’s father, but the money needed to be applied to child care expenses, not toward the
child’s food and clothing. She said she would like to get help from the government and acknowledges that
it would give her the security she needs to be able to pay her bills on time. When asked why she did not
apply for a child care subsidy to help alleviate some of the financial burden, she described her experience
when she tried to apply. She dropped the process in frustration.
I tried. And they just kept asking me for paper work and scheduling more appointments. The last time I went in she checked off that I didn’t bring in paperwork. I said I brought this to you the
19
first time and she said that every couple of months they have to get new forms. I just thought I’m not going through this any more. I did walk out frustrated. (December 2000)
The process seemed to be perceived as a very long waiting game to most. Nearly everyone was
convinced that if they even got as far in the process of getting an appointment, they would have to wait
months before actually receiving any help. In the meantime, they needed to keep their child in some form
of child care, which was very costly, while they maintained employment so as to stay eligible. Of those
who had experienced applying for a subsidy through CCIS, most believed it would take up to five months
or longer to complete the application process and receive child care assistance. The certainty that they
would be put on a waiting list (even though waiting lists no longer in existed at the time of the focus
groups) was prevalent.
Once receiving a child care subsidy, parents talked about the re-determination process that ensured
maintaining eligibility. Specifically, they talked yet again about the in-person appointments that meant
time off from work and the paperwork that was already on file and needed to be presented once again.
… I got a letter from [CCIS] yesterday, asking me to come in Monday, so they could review [my case] again. Why? I was just there, you started paying for it, I don’t care if it’s a new year, nothing has changed except for his age. I’m still working at the same place. I’m out of school for the winter and I go back in two weeks, why do I have to go through this? I have to bring in all my grandmother’s paperwork, her social security card, and everything just so they can…it’s not going to change, the woman is 83 years old, it’s not going to change. (January, 2001)
…to re-evaluate you. That’s how they do it, a year later. And I said I can’t do it – I have a fax right next to me – can’t I do that over the fax? And they said no, we need you down here. (December 2000) …it was just so much back and forth…I mean the time I have to take to go down there and try to make the appointments - the people never kept the appointments they never kept up with their commitment. They say well, let me get back to you, let me send this letter off. You have to call them after the deadline to whatever it was and everything is time sensitive with the state, so it’s like every time I turn around the deadline would pass by no fault to mine. And I understand the caseloads at both places are high and I try to take that into consideration, but we really shouldn’t. So it just got to a point where I just said to heck with it. (December, 2000)
Availability of Neighborhood Child Care
The availability of child care in the participant’s neighborhoods seemed to vary greatly between
the African American and white mothers. Most African American mothers were able to talk about the
assortment of child care facilities available to them in their neighborhoods they were comfortable using.
The White mothers, on the other hand, reported being wary of most facilities in their neighborhoods and
feared traveling with their child. They first spoke of the lack of available care in their neighborhoods, but
20
when asked to elaborate, their concerns seemed to center around fears associated with using formal care
arrangements in general. A few of the mothers expressed their apprehension this way.
…and if you’re going to put your kid in day care be careful. There’s too many day cares where kids are getting killed. I heard that a lot of people who are working in day cares are not experienced with children. They’re just hiring because they are so desperate for help. (December 2000) I live in [name of town] and I wouldn’t dare send him to any of the centers in my neighborhood. For example, there is one place on [street name]. They make the kids nap from 12 to 3. What kids naps for three hours? And by the time you go pick them up they are wired. You’re lucky if you get them to bed by 8 o’clock. I’ve heard bad things. (January 2001) …they love [child’s name] because he’s only there one day a week and he’s an infant, but they are constantly yelling at the children – that’s bad for the kids. …it was a last minute decision, I had to find a daycare so I could go to school, I couldn’t just keep taking him to class with me…when he gets older he’s going to have to go more often…I just don’t like the fact that they are yelling at the kids…and then there’s other little things that they do there that I don’t like either. They’ve lost a couple of his blankets, one of the first times I went there. They gave him somebody else’s milk, it was a big container of milk - it has the child’s name on it – why are you messing up people’s things like that? So I have to find a different arrangement. (January 2001) Sometimes, I know you don’t want to do it, but you’re going to have to go out of your neighborhood. (January 2001) The racial composition of the children in the class also seemed to be more of a concern for the
white mothers than the African American mothers. A few agreed that they didn’t want their child to be the
‘only white child’ in the class and that putting their child in a center in their neighborhood was out of the
question for this very reason.
I am not a prejudiced person, but where we live, all the day cares around, it is all Spanish and Black. They have a dialect that is different than us. I don’t want my 3-year-old coming home and talking like that. I really don’t. (January 2001) All mothers agreed that child care is a very expensive commodity that absorbs a large portion of
their household income. Some mothers reported paying out more than half their take home pay to child
care expenses and not being able to pay other bills, such as utilities. One mother said she had to make a
decision between paying her child care bill or buying food and clothing for her and her child. Another
reported that she would have lost her house, due to not being able to pay her mortgage, if her mother had
not moved in with her to share expenses and help care for her children. Especially difficult for parents
were the exorbitant expenses associated with working temporary or shift work.
My catering job pays $40. One time I paid [public transportation], that’s $5 each way, and then the $15 for the sitter. So I made $15. And you have to make sure you pay the sitter right so they take care of your kids. (January 2001)
21
All mothers also agreed that finding a child care provider or facility they trusted was paramount.
Their first reported concern was for the safety of their kids. Most reported being especially concerned
about leaving their infants or toddlers with someone they didn’t know well because their child would not be
able to tell them what happened during the day. Center or formal home day care was viewed as something
only for older children, children who could verbalize the day’s events to the parents. Parents expressed
worry over finding someone who shared their same values and beliefs about how children should be raised.
The thing I struggle with the most is that I know that no one is going to raise my kids the way I want to. That is why I don’t work day hours. I don’t want to send my kids to day care. There are only two people I trust my son with. If my husband has to work on the weekend, I have to find a babysitter so it’s either [a friend] or a babysitter. (January 2001)
CONCLUSIONS FROM THE SUS FOCUS GROUPS
The goal of conducting the Subsidy Utilization Study focus groups was to uncover the reasons
why working families do not use child care subsidies for which they are eligible. They were also used to
explore the barriers parents face in trying to use them. The information collected during the group
discussions aided in the construction of a standardized survey of subsidy utilization.
What did we learn from these parents? We learned that, from the parent’s perspective, the subsidy
system is complicated, ever changing, and confusing. While participants’ experiences with subsidy
programs ranged from having no knowledge of any subsidy programs available to working families to
knowledge of and experiences using them, all agreed financial assistance for child care was a good idea.
Those who had used a CCIS subsidy and other forms of public assistance reported that it was difficult to
navigate the application process, the paperwork was overwhelming, and the eligibility requirements were
confusing and difficult to maintain. Most believed that income eligibility was a problem for them. Either
because of variable shift work, overtime or because they felt they simply made too much money. It was
believed by many that little consideration of household and family expenses was or would be taken into
account when determining household income eligibility.
Another concern of many was the court ordered child support requirement. Parents reported
concerns about being forced to take the father of the child to court for a legal child support arrangement.
Many who had informal support arrangements in place with the father or did not want the father to be part
of the child’s life, for one reason or another, specifically made the decision to not apply or continue to
receive a child care subsidy for this very reason.
22
To further complicate the child care issue for many parents was the availability or lack of
availability of adequate child care in their neighborhoods. While there were some racial differences in
what the parents said, all had serious concerns over the safety of their children while they were in someone
else’s care. Trust of the care provider was a big issue for many.
The findings from the focus groups aided in the design of a survey to be administered to a more
broader population of low-income working families to determine why eligible families do not use child
care subsidies and what difficulties users may encounter when applying for and maintaining them.
Specifically, insights learned from the mothers in the groups assisted in the creation of reasonable closed-
ended responses to questions of why they do not use subsidies or why they stopped using subsidies in the
past.
SUBSIDY UTILIZATION STUDY PARENT SURVEY
The parent survey was specifically designed to learn about parents’ experiences with the subsidy
system and to understand the reasons that low-income parents in a metropolitan area might not use
subsidies for which they are eligible. Our methods constituted designing the survey, designing the sample,
and fielding the survey.
SURVEY DESIGN
Using the information learned from the Subsidy Utilization Study focus groups, we developed the
Subsidy Utilization Study survey to administer to parents in the Philadelphia area. Figure 1 (Page 23)
presents a flow chart of the structure of items in the standardized survey. Taking 30 minutes to administer,
the survey consists of nine main sections. The first section includes screening questions to determine
whether the respondent was eligible to participate in the survey. Eligibility depended on being the parent
or legal guardian of a child under four years of age living in the home, being at least 18 years of age, white
or African American and of non-Hispanic descent, and being employed more than 25 hours a week. If
eligible, the respondent was invited to participate in the survey. In subsequent sections of the survey,
parents were asked questions about household characteristics including their current employment status,
child care arrangements used for the youngest child in the household, and household income. Parents were
also asked about their knowledge of eligibility requirements for the public subsidy system and their
attitudes towards public assistance.
FIGURE 1 SUBSIDY UTILIZATION STUDY PARENT SURVEY FLOW CHART
Eligible for Survey
• Parent has child under age 4 years • Parent is African American, of non-Hispanic decent • Parent is over 18 years of age • Parent is employed
Family Characteristics / Parental Employment / Child care Usage
Y
Reasonot ussubsidexplor
Not receiving a child care subsidy for study child (youngest child in household)
23
Need help paying for cc?
NO YES
Why no need for help?
ES NO
Reasons for not using subsidies explored
ns for ing ies ed If out found to be
eligible, would they use?
YES NO
Knowledge of Subsidy Requirements
B
Why not eligible?
Yes, Receiving a child care subsidy for study child
Experiences with subsidy system
elieve to be eligible?
BelievedEligible for Subsidy through Child Care Information Services
Consider using subsidy if found to be eligible?
Household Income & Additional Personal Characteristics
YES NO
Why not eligible? Reasons explored
YES No
Reasons for not using subsidies explored
Attitudes towards assistance
ALL
24
Questions regarding child care were focused on the youngest child in the household, defined as the
“focus child” for purposes of the interview. Parents who were using a subsidy for the focus child were
asked about their experiences with the subsidy system, including how they learned about subsidies and
their experiences while applying for them. If no subsidy was used to help pay for the focus child’s care
arrangement, parents were asked if they needed help paying for child care expenses, whether they knew
about subsidies available for working parents, and whether they thought they would be eligible for such a
subsidy. Parents who reported that they 1) needed help paying for child care, 2) believed they were eligible
for subsidies, and 3) did not use them were asked about a range of potential factors that might be used in
their decision not to use subsidies. Parents who said they did not need help paying for child care were
asked why they didn’t need help, and parents who thought that they were ineligible were asked what
prevented them from being eligible.
Whether they reported needing help with child care costs or not, parents who responded that they
would not use a subsidy even if they were eligible were asked to tell us about the factors that would prevent
them from using subsidies.
After initial piloting, the survey was given to Temple University’s Institute for Survey Research
for programming in a Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) format in March 2001. The
CATI program allows survey items, interview instructions, and pre-programmed probes to be displayed to
the interviewers in program controlled sequences on CRT terminals. Once programmed, pre-testing of the
survey took place in April 2001. The programmers and pre-test interviewers adjusted questions in response
to the feedback, and a final survey was constructed.8
SAMPLING DESIGN
Using 1990 census data, we compiled a list of Philadelphia zip codes likely to include residents,
who were low-income and African American, non-Hispanic or White, non-Hispanic. This list was given to
the Sampling Department of Temple University’s Institute for Survey Research (ISR), and they ordered a
list of telephone numbers in these zip code areas from Genesys, a product of Marketing System’s Group.
Genesys merges data from a wide variety of sources, including state automobile registrations, drivers’
license data, birth certificates, voter registration, survey respondents, direct mail orders, coupon redemption
8 Copies of the Screener and Parent Survey can be found in Appendix B at http://www.temple.edu/cpp/cpp_reports.htm.
25
information, and proprietary data sources. On a monthly basis, Genesys compiles new directories using
updated information about respondents, purging duplicate phone numbers and remodeling record
information.
Table 2 (Page 26) presents a breakdown of the phone calls made for the SUS parent survey.
Genesys provided 12,455 listed phone numbers without names or any additional information throughout
the course of the survey being fielded. A call to each phone number was attempted at least once. Out of
these 12,455 listed phone numbers, ISR made contact with 12,436 potential respondents. From these
contacts, 616 respondents completed the screening questions9, and 542 completed the survey. Four
hundred fifty seven of these were African American, of whom 196 were eligible to receive a child care
subsidy through CCIS.
FIELDING THE SURVEY
In April and May 2001, ISR hired and trained 25 interviewers. (At any given time, there were no
more than 18 interviewers working on the project.) Each interviewer had one and a half days of training
which consisted of an overview of the study, learning the CATI system, standardized interviewing
techniques, ensuring confidentiality of the respondent’s information, and becoming familiar with the parent
survey.
Respondents were called between May and September 2001. ISR furnished weekly reports that
included the attempted number of phone contacts, completed screening calls, interviews, and a breakdown
of interviews completed by race, subsidy eligibility, and utilization of a subsidy. In order to minimize
costs, we screened only loosely for subsidy eligibility in the first minutes of the survey, collecting more
information about subsidy eligibility during the middle and end of the survey. This was because screening
for subsidy eligibility requires asking sensitive income information, and we feared that asking this
information before the interviewer established rapport with the respondent would jeopardize participation
in the survey. Because of this conservative practice, some respondents (N = 261) were not eligible for
child care subsidy, but data were collected from these families anyway.
9 Respondents were excluded if the number called was non-working, non-residential, a cell phone or pager number, if there were language problems, unavailable parents, refusals, or the respondent was found to be ineligible (N = 6,756).
26
TABLE 2 BREAKDOWN OF PHONE CALLS MADE
FOR THE SUBSIDY UTILIZATION STUDY PARENT SURVEY
Phone Numbers attempted at least once 12,455
Calls connected to a live respondent1 12,436
Completed Screening Interviews2 616
Completed SUS Parent Surveys 542
African American Respondents Only 457
African American and Eligible for Child Care Subsidy through Child Care Information Services
196
Note: 1 =This excludes phone numbers of facsimile machines, modems, answering machines, disconnected numbers, unanswered rings, and busy signals. 2 = This excludes non-working numbers, cell phones, pagers, non-residential numbers, language problems, unavailable, refusals, and ineligible respondents (N = 6,756).
27
In July 2001, a pre-scheduled half way review of response rates was conducted. At this point we
noticed an unexpectedly low number of white (individuals with European as opposed to African ethnic
backgrounds) respondents in our sample. We later learned that this was because we used out of date census
data to identify zip codes with likely white respondents. (The 2000 census data did not become available
until one month after we submitted the zip codes to ISR.) In order to maximize our analytical power with
the remaining sample and taking into consideration of the time restraints of data collection, we redirected
eligibility to focus only on African American respondents. We also extended the length of time ISR had to
conduct the surveys in order to allow more eligible surveys to be included in the analyses.
Unfortunately, due to an error in the programming of the survey’s skip patterns, parents who
thought they were not eligible were not asked the questions about why parents would not use subsidies
even if they found out they were. However, because this question involves asking parents counterfactually
(according to something that is not in fact true of them), and because we do have information from 66
eligible parents who do not use subsidies for their youngest child, we do not see this missing data as a
serious problem.
Of the 457 surveys conducted with African American parents, 196 respondents were eligible for
child care subsidies through CCIS. Of those of whom were eligible, 65 respondents were receiving a
subsidy for their child, and 131 were not.
THE PARTICIPANTS
Table 3 (Pages 28 to 30) displays the background and demographic characteristics of the
participants in the Subsidy Utilization Study. The participant’s were mostly female (96%) with their ages
ranging from 18 to 55 years (M = 29, SD = 7). Education levels ranged from some high school (19%) to a
Bachelor’s degree (5%), with a typical education level of a high school degree (45%). Most (81%)
participants were single. Less than one third (30%) reported having some sort of child support arrangement
with the other biological parent; 20% said they received money on a regular basis and 10% reported
receiving money on a sporadic or as needed basis. Only 16% had a formal legal arrangement in place.
Parents worked average of 39 hours a week, and earned, on average, just over $1,500 a month.
The majority of respondents reported working the same days (83%) and hours (86%) from week to week.
28
TABLE 3 DEMOGRAPHICS AND BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILD CARE SUBSIDY
RECIPIENTS AND NON-RECIPIENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE SUBSIDY UTILIZATION STUDY
Subsidy Eligible Participants Receiving a Not Receiving All Subsidy Subsidy Participants % or M (SD) % or M (SD) % or M (SD) N = 65 N = 131 N = 196 Respondent Gender % Female 100 95% 96% % Male 0 5% 4% Average Age 27 (6) 30 (7) 29 (7) Education Level % Completed 9th grade 3 2 2 % Completed 10th grade 3 8 7 % Completed 11th grade 9 11 10 % Completed 12th grade 46 45 45 % GED 2 1 1 % Some college credits 25 20 21 % Associate’s degree 5 5 5 % Bachelors degree 5 5 5 % Technical /vocational school 2 3 3 Marital Status % Married & living with spouse 2 16 11 % Separated 8 0 3 % Divorced 2 5 4 % Widowed 0 2 1 % Single, never been married 89 77 81 % Living w/ spouse/partner 9 5 7 Average Household Monthly Income $1,725($1,034) $1,530 ($690) $1,594($821)
29
TABLE 3 (CONTINUED) DEMOGRAPHICS AND BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILD CARE SUBSIDY
RECIPIENTS AND NON-RECIPIENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE SUBSIDY UTILIZATION STUDY
Subsidy Eligible Participants Receiving a Not Receiving All Subsidy Subsidy Participants % or M (SD) % or M (SD) % or M (SD) N = 65 N = 131 N = 196 Employment Average number of hours worked 38 (5) 40 (8) 39 (7) % Work same days week to week 85 83 83 % Work same hours week to week 88 86 86 % Work nights, weekends 43 55 51 Flexibility of work arrangements % Very flexible 45 40 42 % Somewhat flexible 43 37 39 % Somewhat inflexible 8 9 9 % Very inflexible 5 12 10 Child support % with some sort of child support arrangement with other biological parents 35 28 30 % with a formal legal child support arrangement 28 10 16 Informal child support arrangements1 % Child support money received on a regular basis 22 20 20 % Child support money received on a sporadic basis 9 2 4 % Child support money received on an as needed basis 5 6 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Note: 1 = Informal child support arrangements between the respondent and the other biological parent.
30
TABLE 3 (CONTINUED) DEMOGRAPHICS AND BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILD CARE SUBSIDY
RECIPIENTS AND NON-RECIPIENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE SUBSIDY UTILIZATION STUDY
Subsidy Eligible Participants Receiving a Not Receiving All Subsidy Subsidy Participants % or M (SD) % or M (SD) % or M (SD) N = 65 N = 131 N = 196 Characteristics of youngest child in household Gender % Boys 53 60 55 % Girls 47 40 45 Average age 2 (1) 2 (1) 2 (1) % Special needs child 9 11 10 Child Care % One arrangement used 72 66 68 % Two arrangements used 26 22 24 % Three arrangements used 2 4 3 Type of Care % Care in respondent’s home 14 30 24 % Care in someone else’s home 9 40 30 % Care in child care center 54 14 27 % In Head Start program 2 1 1 % In Early Intervention program 0 1 1 % In Comprehensive day care 22 7 12 % Registered or licensed program 85 29 47 % Respondents choose arrangement 97 86 89 Average cost of care per week $47 ($53) $70 ($53) $62 ($54)
31
Just over half (51%) reported working nights or weekends. Eighty-one percent said their work
arrangements were somewhat or very flexible when it came to missing work due to family responsibilities.
The average age of the ‘focus child’ was two years old. Tem percent were children with special
needs. Typically, parents reported using one child care arrangement (68%). Fifty-four percent used care
for their child that took place in a home environment and 41% used some sort of center care. Less than half
(47%) were using a registered or licensed child care program. The average cost for one week of child care
was $62. Most (89%) respondents said they were responsible for choosing the child care arrangement
currently used for their child.
FINDINGS FROM THE SUBSIDY UTILIZATION STUDY PARENT SURVEY
The results that follow are complicated by the large number of subgroups of families we are
considering in this study. The flow chart in Figure 2 (Page 32) shows these numbers of people in each of
these subgroups. These are:
• families eligible for the telephone survey (box at top of flow chart)
• families we considered eligible for subsidy based on the household information they supplied to us (box third from top of flow chart)
• families not receiving subsidies (Box 1)
• families receiving subsidies (Box 3)
• families reporting that they needed help paying for child care (Box 4)
• subsidy-eligible families who believed they were eligible (Boxes 6 and 8)
• subsidy-eligible families who believed they were not eligible (Boxes 7 and 9) for child care.
This flow chart is intended to be a heuristic device to help the reader navigate the results presented
in this part of the report.
This part of the report addresses two questions. First, why are families who are eligible for child
care subsidies not receiving them. Second, if families are aware of child care subsidies, express the need
for help in paying for child care and are eligible to receive subsidies, why are these families not receiving
them.
FIGURE 2 SUBSIDY UTILIZATION STUDY PARENT SURVEY FLOW CHART
WITH NUMBERED BLOCKS
• Has child under age 4 years• Parent is African American• Parent is over 18 years of a• Parent is employed
Family Characteristics/Parental Employment/Child Care Usage
YES (N
Eligible for Subsidy through Child Care Information Services (N=196)
3 1
4
6
Not receiving a child care subsidy for study child (youngest child in household)
(N=131)
Need help paying for cc?
NO (N=34) YES (N=97)
=54) NO (N=43)
5
7
Eligible for Survey
, of non-Hispanic descent ge
32
Why no need for help? B
YES (N8
Yes, Receiving a child care subsidy for study child (N=65)
Experiences with subsidy system
elieve to be eligible?
Believed=11) NO (N=23) 9
33
REASONS WHY SUBSIDY ELIGIBLE FAMILIES DO NOT RECEIVE THEM
Families who are eligible for subsidies may not receive them because parents do not perceive that
they need help paying for child care. Our survey found some support for this idea. About one quarter of
our eligible families not receiving subsidies reported that they did not need help paying for care (N=34,
Box 5). Yet three quarters of eligible families not receiving child care subsidies reported that they did need
help paying for child care (N=97, Box 4). While some families did not believe that they needed some kind
of financial assistance, most clearly did.
Eligible families who did not believe they needed help also did not realize that they were eligible
for subsidies. Of the people who did not think they needed help paying for child care, 68% of them (Box 9)
erroneously also believed that they were not eligible for child care subsidies.
This was also true for many of the eligible families who reported needing help paying for child
care. Of the 97 parents who reported that they needed help paying for child care, only 54 (56%) of them
believed they were eligible for child care subsidies (Box 6).
Two reasons for not using subsidies emerge from these initial results. For a good number of
people who do not use subsidies (one quarter), they do not believe that they need help paying for care. Yet
a more important reason is that families (both those who reported needing and not needing help) were
unaware that they were eligible to receive this type of financial assistance. Fully 50% of families eligible
for child care subsidies (both those reporting needing and not needing help) did not believe they were
eligible for them (Box 7, N=43 and Box 9, N =23).
ELIGIBLE FAMILIES WHO KNOW THEY ARE ELIGIBLE AND SAY THEY NEED HELP
Of our subsidy eligible families, 54 reported that they needed help paying for child care and were
aware they were eligible. Why did they not receive a subsidy? Table 4 (Page 34) shows families’ reported
reasons for not receiving a child care subsidy.
There are several significant reasons that people said that did not apply for a needed child care subsidy:
• Expected hassles in the application process (37%).
• Heard that there were long waiting lists for subsidies (31%).
• Had bad experiences with other public assistance programs (20%).
• Thought that subsidies had to go for center-based child care, which these families didn’t want to use 17%).
34
TABLE 4 REASONS FOR NOT USING A SUBSIDY BY ELIGIBLE PARENTS WHO SAY THEY NEED
FINANCIAL HELP AND BELIEVE THEY ARE ELIGIBLE
Reasons % of Eligible Parents N=54 Hassles associated with applying for a subsidy 37 Had heard that there were long waiting lists to receive a subsidy 31 Respondent has had bad experiences with other public assistant programs 20 Does not want to use center care1 17 Would not be able to use her current provider 15 Feared child being treated differently by care providers if they are known to have subsidized care 15 Requirement for a court ordered child support arrangement with the other biological parent2 13 There would be little or no financial gain from using subsidies 7 Did not know about subsidies 7 Would not feel good about herself if she took a form of public assistance 4 Does not want to use a registered family day care program3 2 Feared being treated differently by her family, friends, and neighbors if she received help from the state to pay for child care 2 Other reasons 2 Feared child having to interact with children or adults of other racial or ethnic groups if subsidized care was used 0 Number of reasons mentioned None 22 One 30 Two 20 Three 11 Four 9
Five 7 Note: 1 = Question was not asked of 31 respondents because they were using center care. 2 = Question was not asked of 19 respondents because the respondent was married or widowed.
3 = Question was not asked of 80 respondents because they were using family day care program.
35
• Thought that they would not be allowed to use subsidies to pay their current provider (15%). • Feared that child care providers would treat their child differently if they were known to be
receiving subsidy (15%).
• The requirement for a court-ordered child support arrangement with the other biological parent was a barrier to their application (13%).
After parents identified all the reasons that they did not apply for a child care subsidy, we asked
them for their most important reason. Twenty-two said they did not apply because of the hassles associated
with subsidy application and 11% reported that they did not want to use a child care center, and they
believed that child care centers were required for subsidy payment. Three of the four parents who reported
that the most important barrier in applying for a child care subsidy was the requirement of a court ordered
child support arrangement with the other biological parent. These people said that they already had a
satisfactory informal arrangement with the child’s father. So they did not want to implicate the child’s
father in a subsidy application. One parent was afraid she would have to take the child’s father to court,
requiring lost income in doing so. No parents reported being afraid of taking the child’s father to court.
A substantial number of people did not report a reason for not applying. Fully 22% of the parents
reported that they had no reason for not applying. However, more than a third (37%) had two or more
reasons for not applying.
We explored the reasons “why 37% of the parents stated that the application process was a
hassle.” The biggest barrier (reported by 11 of the 12 parents who reported they expected hassles applying
for subsidies) appeared to be the need to take time off from work to go to the CCIS office. For parents who
sometimes are newly employed, taking a day off may jeopardize their new jobs. Parents (nine of the 12)
also reported that the need to re-determine eligibility every six months was a hassle, again requiring time
off from work. Collecting supporting documents, such as pay stubs, birth certificates and tax receipts, was
also considered a hassle by a small number (n = 7) of the parents.
Families who viewed applying as a hassle did not perceive the process as the invasive intrusion of
unhelpful staff. Fewer than half the parents who saw applying for child care subsidies as a hassle believed
that the application was an invasion of privacy or that the staff members in charge of the receiving the
subsidy applications were not helpful. Few parents thought the application form was difficult to fill out, or
that the application process took too long.
36
Two of the reasons parents reported not using a subsidy were the existence of long waiting lists
and the need to use center care. In fact, in the Philadelphia neighborhoods in which our respondents reside,
there were not long waiting lists for subsidies. At the time that this survey was conducted, there were no
waiting lists. Also, people may also use subsidies for child care by relatives and neighbors who are
providing child care for eligible families. With subsidies relatively available and not particularly restrictive
in terms of people’s choices of care, we hypothesized that people may not apply for subsidies because they
lacked information about the subsidy system and how it may be used. Therefore, we examined subsidy
eligible families’ knowledge about the subsidy system to see whether further misinformation might account
for their failure to receive the subsidies to which they are entitled.
First, we asked parents what they thought was the highest amount of money a family of their size
could earn and still be subsidy eligible. These data are presented in Table 5 (Page 37). Parents who knew
that they were subsidy eligible but who were not receiving subsidies were more likely than any other group
to underestimate the amount of money families could earn and still be income eligible for subsidies. That
is, 85% of these parents believed that in order to get subsidies, you had to be poorer than you really had to
be. Yet families receiving subsidy also underestimated subsidy income eligibility levels. Seventy-one
percent of parents receiving subsidies underestimated the amount of income a family could have and still
get subsidies.
Essentially most eligible families underestimated how much income allowed before a family was
no longer eligible for subsidies. Parents who received subsidies were less likely than the other groups to
underestimate the amount of income allowed, a finding that is not surprising. Since they were already
getting subsidies, they all knew that families with at least as much income themselves could get subsidies.
More surprising is the finding that families who believed they were eligible but who chose not to
take these subsidies thought that people had to be a lot poorer before they could get subsidies. Families
who were eligible but who did not think they were eligible were least able to estimate the income limits for
subsidies (15%).
Those families receiving subsidies, compared to those not receiving subsidies, whether they
thought they were eligible or not, had more accurate understanding of the programmatic regulations
concerning subsidy regulations. As Table 6 (Page 38) shows, 83% of parents receiving subsidies knew that
37
TABLE 5 KNOWLEDGE OF HIGHEST AMOUNT A HOUSEHOLD CAN EARN AND
STILL BE ELIGIBLE BY ELIGIBLE SUBSIDY RECIPIENTS AND NON-SUBSIDY RECIPIENTS
Subsidy Eligible
Non-Subsidy Recipient Does Not Believe to be Eligible Believes to be Eligible Subsidy Recipient % % % N = 66 N = 65 N = 65 All family sizes combined Underestimated 77 85 71 Correctly estimated 5 2 12 Overestimated 3 5 9 Don’t know 15 9 8 Note: Response was counted as correct if estimate ± 10% of actual highest amount for household size. Highest amount for household of size 2 is $1875; response was counted as underestimated if estimate was less than $1687.50; response was counted as overestimated if estimate was greater than $2062.50. Highest amount for household of size 3 is $2358; response was counted as correct if estimate was $2358 ± 10%; response was counted as underestimated if estimate was less than $2122.20; response was counted as overestimated if estimate was greater than $2593.80. Highest amount for household of size 4 is $2842; response was counted as correct if estimate was $2842 ± 10%; response was counted as underestimated if estimate was less than $2557.80; response was counted as overestimated if estimate was greater than $3126.20. Highest amount for household of size 5 is $3325; response was counted as correct if estimate was $3325 ± 10%; response was counted as underestimated if estimate was less than $2992.50; response was counted as overestimated if estimate was greater than $3657.50. Highest amount for household of size 6+ is $3808; response was counted as correct if estimate was $3808 ± 10%; response was counted as underestimated if estimate was less than $3427.20; response was counted as overestimated if estimate was greater than $4188.80.
38
TABLE 6 KNOWLEDGE OF CHILD CARE SUBSIDY REQUIREMENTS REGARDING
WELFARE AFFILIATION BY ELIGIBLE SUBSIDY RECIPIENTS AND NON-SUBSIDY RECIPIENTS
Subsidy Eligible Non-Subsidy Recipient
Does Not Believe Believes to be Eligible to be Eligible Subsidy Recipient
% % % N = 66 N = 65 N = 65 Does not need to receive cash assistance, welfare, or TANF to be eligible? 65 68 83 Use of a child care subsidy does not apply to a person’s five-year lifetime limit of receiving welfare? 56 68 75 Note: Tests for group differences between each of the non-subsidy recipient groups and the subsidy recipient group are not significant.
39
one does not need to receive cash assistance, welfare, or TANF monies to be eligible for child care
subsidies. Seventy-five percent knew that use of a child care subsidy does not apply to a person’s five-year
lifetime limit of receiving welfare. Non-subsidy recipient families were less likely to be aware of these
regulations, but these differences are not significant.
Table 7 (Page 40) presents the percentage of parents in each group who were familiar with the
types of child care that could be supported with subsidies. Nearly all parents knew that child care subsidies
could be used to pay for child care centers/preschool programs or registered family day care home care.
Yet parents receiving subsidies were more likely to know that child care subsidies could be used for a
variety of unregulated care situations, including those by relatives and friends or neighbors caring for the
child in a home setting. Interestingly, of those families who thought they were eligible but who chose not
to accept subsidies, only 25% of them knew that subsidies could be used to pay a friend or neighbor caring
for a child in the child’s home.
Many people believed that certain people receive priority over others in applying for subsidies. As
Table 8 (Page 41) indicates, most people thought welfare recipients get priority applying for subsidies.
Many people thought that ‘poor people10’ and teenage mothers get priority over others. In this low income
African American sample, between 18% and 37% believed that Hispanic, white or Asian people receive
priority in applying for child care subsidy.
With one exception, all eligible groups were very similar in their views about which parents are
given priority status in applying for subsidies. The exception was that those parents who believed they
were eligible but who were NOT receiving subsidies tended not to believe that single parents would receive
priority over other types of families.
We computed a child care subsidy knowledge score from the number of accurate reports on child
care subsidy regulations. Each correctly answered question on these questions about eligibility and
regulations regarding subsidies was given one point, with potential scores ranging from 0 to 9. Scores for
each group are presented in Table 9 (Page 42). Families receiving subsidies had slightly higher child care
knowledge scores, but the differences between the means (6.3 vs. 5.9 vs. 5.8) were not significant.
10 When asked, ‘who would get priority over someone like you when applying for a subsidy?’, ‘poor people’ was offered as one of the response options. This term was not defined for the respondent. The phrase meant what ever the respondent thought it meant.
40
TABLE 7 KNOWLEDGE OF CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE FOR
SUBSIDY USAGE BY PARENTS RECEIVING AND NOT RECEIVING A CHILD CARE SUBSIDY
Subsidy Eligible Non-Subsidy Recipient
Does not Believe Believes to be Eligible to be Eligible Subsidy Recipient % Correct % Correct % Correct N = 66 N = 65 N = 65 A relative caring for a child in the relative’s home 71 66 71 A relative caring for a child in the child’s home 59 63 69 A friend or neighbor caring for a child in the friend or neighbor’s home 58 54 68 A friend or neighbor caring for a child in the child’s home 52 25 58 A registered family day care home 89 91 89 An unregistered family day care home 38 35 26 A center or preschool program 94 91 92 Note: Tests for group differences between each of the non-subsidy recipient groups and the subsidy recipient group are not significant.
41
TABLE 8 PARENT’S BELIEFS ABOUT OTHER SUBSIDY APPLICANT’S PRIORITY STATUS
BY ELIGIBLE SUBSIDY RECIPIENTS AND NON-SUBSIDY RECIPIENTS
Subsidy Eligible Non- Subsidy Recipient Does Not Believe Believes to be Eligible to be Eligible Subsidy Recipient % % % N = 66 N = 65 N = 65 Believes certain people get priority over recipient when applying for a subsidy? 68 52 42 If yes, who? N = 45 N = 34 N = 27 Welfare Recipients? 96 91 93 Poor People? 84 74 70 Hispanic people? 18 24 30 White people? 22 26 37 Asian people? 22 26 37 Teenage moms? 78 74 78 Single parents? 69 47 74 People already in the program? 82 82 78 Sick/disabled people 0 3 4 Other People? 2 0 0
42
TABLE 9 CORRECT RESPONSES TO KNOWLEDGE OF CHILD CARE SUBSIDY REQUIREMENTS
BY ELIGIBLE SUBSIDY RECIPIENTS AND NON-SUBSIDY RECIPIENTS Subsidy Eligible Non-Subsidy Recipient
Does Not Believe Believes to be Eligible to be Eligible Subsidy Recipient
% or M (SD) % or M (SD) % or M (SD) N = 66 N = 65 N = 65
Number of correct 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 2 2 6 3 3 5 6 5 4 20 18 12 5 14 12 12 6 20 15 20 7 14 14 14 8 17 15 20 9 8 12 14 Average number of correct responses 5.8 (1.96) 5.9 (2.08) 6.3 (1.93)
43
CONCLUSION
Child care affordability is a serious problem for low-income families. Therefore, many states have
introduced subsidies for low-income families with working parents. In theory, child care subsidies should
make it possible for families to access predictable, quality child care while adults maintain a permanent
commitment to the labor force. Yet in practice, child care subsidies are severely underused. In this
research, we examined the extent of under-utilization of child care subsidies in a low-income population of
subsidy eligible families in the Philadelphia area. Do parents believe that they need help with child care?
Do parents perceive the subsidy system negatively? Are families having bad experiences with the subsidy
application process? Do subsidy regulations operate as barriers? Is there a cultural dimension to how
people view child care subsidies? What information do parents have about the subsidy system, and how
accurate is this information? This research report describes a first attempt to address these barriers to the
usage of child care subsidies.
In our telephone survey of 457 families, we identified 196 (43%) families eligible to receive child
care subsidy. However, of these nearly 200 families eligible for subsidies, only 65 of them or 33% were
receiving subsidies, and 131 families were NOT receiving subsidies for which they were eligible. Why are
so few families using the subsidies to which they are entitled?
First, not all families believe that they need help paying for child care. Of those not receiving
child care, approximately one quarter of these families did not perceive that they needed help with child
care expenses. Second, of those families believing that they needed help, nearly half the families were
unaware that they were eligible for child care subsidies. In fact, across all families, those who perceived
that they needed help paying for child care and those who did not, fully 50% of families eligible for child
care subsidies reported that they did not believe that they were eligible for them.
Thus, there are two reasons subsidy-eligible families don’t receive them. First, about one quarter
of them does not believe that they need help paying for child care. And, second, of those subsidy-eligible
families who do report needing help paying for child care, nearly half do not know that they are eligible for
subsidies. This suggests that governmental agencies need to get more information to parents about the
availability of subsidies for working-class families.
44
Our samples included families who believe that they are eligible for child care subsidies and who
also believe that they need help paying for child care. Why do these parents not use the child care subsidies
to which they are entitled? Our survey results suggests that more than a third of eligible families do not
apply for a needed subsidy because of expected hassles in the application process. Nearly a third of parents
believed that there would be waiting lists, and many parents don’t want to lose a day of work applying and
re-applying for subsidies that they thought might not allow them to continue with the childcare arrangement
they currently had in place. Also, a number of these parents already had had bad experiences with public
assistance programs, and they preferred not to bother with applying yet again for a subsidy that might not
be useful to them.
There appears to be a Catch 22 in the subsidy system. Low-income parents are not eligible for
child care subsidy until they have a job with at least 25 hours of work. Yet to acquire employment, they
must have some form of child care already in place. Once they receive a job, they are eligible for a child
care subsidy. However, they then must take at least a day off from that newly earned job to apply for child
care. Parents do not want to invest time and energy in obtaining these supports, possibly jeopardizing their
employment. Making it possible for subsidized child care to be put in place while mothers are job hunting,
and making it easier to re-determine eligibility, would increase child care subsidy uptake rates.
Inconsistent with the focus group report findings, we did not find that the regulation requiring
documentation of child care support to be a barrier to parents’ applying for child care subsidies. Only 13%
of the subsidy-eligible parents interviewed said that the requirement for a court-ordered child support
arrangement with the other biological parent was a barrier to their application. There were a number of
parents (N = 14) in our initial sample who reported that the child care support documentation was a barrier
to applying for subsidies. Yet most of these families were not eligible for subsidy. The reason they were
ineligible was that in a number of cases, the mother was living with a partner or the child’s father. Because
the father was not employed (both spouses / Live-in partners are required to be employed), the families
were not eligible for child care subsidy. In some cases where the father was employed, by combining the
two incomes, the family exceeded the income limits. While we had speculated that many mothers would
avoid applying for child care subsidy because they feared having to take the child’s father to court or feared
his response to such a proposition, this was not the case. The hassle of going to court was not a concern;
45
only one parent in our sample reported her concern that she would have to lose time and income having to
take the father to court to obtain a child support judgment before she could be eligible for child care
subsidy.
Perhaps most surprising of our findings was the level of misinformation in the subsidy eligible
population. Most people underestimated income limits, believing that families had to be earning much less
income in order to accept subsidies. Many parents thought that child care subsidies could only be used in a
child care center, preschool setting, or licensed family day care home. Of those families who thought they
were eligible but who chose not to apply for subsidies, only 25% of them knew that subsidies could be used
to pay a friend or neighbor caring for a child in the child’s home. And finally, many people erroneously
believed that welfare recipients, ‘poor people,’ and teenage mothers get priority over others in applying for
subsidies.
The requirements for child care subsidy often change, with minimal incomes and reimbursement
rates constantly in flux, at least in the Philadelphia region. Thus, it is not surprising that many of these
parents are not accurately informed about the subsidy system. Many eligible parents do not know that they
are eligible, and many parents do not know that they could receive subsidy for their current child care
arrangements. Getting accurate information to the public in a timely way is critical if families are to avail
themselves of the services to which they are entitled.