Administrative Burden in the Childcare Subsidy Application Process: Perspectives and Role of Local CCDF Staff

• In Event: Licensing, Enforcement, and Administrative Burden in the Child Care Workforce

Abstract

Introduction: Federally-funded, state-administered Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) childcare subsidies represent a key policy lever for improving childcare access and providing economic support for low-income families. Currently, CCDF serves fewer than 20% of eligible children and disparities exist in uptake (U.S. GAO, 2023; Hardy et al., 2024). State policy scans identify potential sources of administrative burden and (Dwyer et al., 2023),though less is known about CCDF policy implementation as families interact with administrative staff.  Street-level bureaucracy theories suggest that frontline workers’ discretion can mitigate/exacerbate administrative burdens (Lipsky, 1980), but this research has rarely focused on childcare subsidy programs. To help address gaps and provide novel information on subsidy access, the current study examines one potential location of administrative burden—eligibility documentation—and the role of frontline workers in shaping how successfully families navigate and complete these requirements. This work complements existing subsidy research which has relied heavily on administrative data and state-level policy comparisons, with less focus on implementation practices and family-caseworker interactions.

Methods: As part of a larger study of state/local subsidy implementation, we fielded an online survey of 700+ local CCDF frontline staff serving more than 400 counties in four states. For this project, we analyze a subset of data on the eligibility documents staff collect during the application process and challenges they observe in families meeting documentation requirements. Surveyed staff were first asked to indicate the documents they typically collect from applicants (e.g., documents to verify income, work hours, current address, and household membership). Participants then indicated whether any such documents are challenging for families to provide or commonly missing from applications. Finally, as an open-ended follow-up, respondents described these challenges. These responses, coded and analyzed by the team using an inductive thematic approach, are the primary focus of this study.  While the states included in this study represent diverse demographic and policy contexts, common themes emerged across all states in terms of perceived documentation challenges and access barriers. We focus here on these shared themes rather than specifying cross-state differences. 

Results: More than two-thirds of surveyed CCDF staff across the four states described documentation requirements as challenging based on their experiences. Qualitative analysis of their descriptions of these challenges revealed six themes (Fig.1): 1) Documentation requirements not aligned with realities of parents’ employment; 2) Documentation requirements not aligned with families’ living arrangements; 3) Families incur time, effort, and financial costs obtaining/replacing documents; 4) Program information/communications inaccessible because of language, technology, or navigational barriers; 5) Immigrant households face unique, disproportionate challenges; and 6) Staff attributions, attitudes, and discretion can shape documentation challenges. 

Conclusion: Findings suggest that documentation barriers in the subsidy application process are common, multifaceted, and disproportionately impact families with complex work or living conditions, and those already marginalized because of immigrant status, low English or literacy skills, and lack of technology access. This study illustrates the key role local subsidy staff play in shaping access and their unique (and understudied) perspective on how families are being served by state CCDF programs.

Author

• Favour Atieno Omondi, University of North Carolina Greensboro
  Presenting Author