IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wop/jopovw/213.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Determinants and Consequences of Child Care Subsidy Receipt by Low-Income Families

Author

Listed:
  • David Blau
  • Erdal Tekin

Abstract

This paper provides an early analysis of child care subsidies under welfare reform. We review the literature on child care subsidies and discuss the potential for such subsidies to be an effective part of the effort to make low-income families economically self-sufficient. Previous studies of child care subsidies use data from the pre-welfare-reform period, and we discuss the potential difficulties in drawing inferences from those studies that can be applied to the very different post-reform environment. We use new household survey data from the early post-reform period to analyze the determinants of subsidy receipt and the effects of subsidy receipt on employment and welfare participation. The analysis uses data from the National Survey of America?s Families (NSAF), conducted by the Urban Institute in 1997. This is the only available national household survey from the post-welfare-reform period that includes information about child care subsidies. The NSAF includes a large number of current and former welfare recipients and other low-income families. State of residence is identified in the NSAF, so we are able merge information on the characteristics and rules of state welfare and child care subsidy programs with the household data. We use the data to address two issues. First, how do household characteristics and state subsidy rules and expenditure affect the likelihood of receiving a subsidy? Key household characteristics include family size and structure, and past participation in welfare. Second, how does subsidy receipt affect employment and welfare participation? Child care subsidies were received by about 10 percent of the sample. Subsidy recipients were about 2.5 percentage points more likely to be employed than nonrecipients, and about 5 percentage points more likely to be employed after controlling for family characteristics. Subsidy recipients were also about eight percentage points more likely to be enrolled in school, no more likely to be unemployed, and about 15 percentage points more likely to be on welfare than nonrecipients. The welfare participation difference falls to 10 percentage points after controlling for family characteristics. We cannot determine whether these are causal effects, since there is no source of plausibly exogenous variation in subsidy receipt in our data. Taken at face value, the results suggest that child care subsidies encourage employment and school enrollment among welfare recipients, but not among nonrecipients. The child care subsidy program created as part of the welfare reform of 1996 - the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) - is intended to facilitate participation in employment and employment-related activities such as education and training. Thus it is not surprising that a mother is more likely to be employed or in school if she receives a child care subsidy. The guidelines for implementing the CCDF state explicitly that current and former welfare recipients and families at risk of reliance on welfare should have priority for child care subsidies. This may explain why subsidy recipients are more likely to be on welfare than nonrecipients. This paper appears as Chapter 10 in the edited volume The Incentives of Government Programs and the Well-Beings of Families. To view the contents of the entire volume, please click here.

Suggested Citation

  • David Blau & Erdal Tekin, 2001. "The Determinants and Consequences of Child Care Subsidy Receipt by Low-Income Families," JCPR Working Papers 213, Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:wop:jopovw:213
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rachel Connelly & Jean Kimmel, 2003. "Marital status and full-time/part-time work status in child care choices," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(7), pages 761-777.
    2. Susan L. Averett & H. Elizabeth Peters & Donald M. Waldman, 1997. "Tax Credits, Labor Supply, And Child Care," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(1), pages 125-135, February.
    3. Blau, David M & Robins, Philip K, 1988. "Child-Care Costs and Family Labor Supply," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 70(3), pages 374-381, August.
    4. Berger, Mark C & Black, Dan A, 1992. "Child Care Subsidies, Quality of Care, and the Labor Supply of Low-Income, Single Mothers," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 74(4), pages 635-642, November.
    5. David Blau & Philip Robins, 1991. "Child care demand and labor supply of young mothers over time," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 28(3), pages 333-351, August.
    6. David M. Blau & Alison P. Hagy, 1998. "The Demand for Quality in Child Care," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(1), pages 104-146, February.
    7. David Blau, 2003. "Child Care Subsidy Programs," NBER Chapters, in: Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States, pages 443-516, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Connelly, Rachel, 1992. "The Effect of Child Care Costs on Married Women's Labor Force Participation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 74(1), pages 83-90, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hardoy, Inés & Schøne, Pål, 2010. "Incentives to work? The impact of a 'Cash-for-Care' benefit for immigrant and native mothers labour market participation," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 963-974, December.
    2. Olivier Guillot, 2004. "Choix d’activité des mères vivant en couple et recours aux services de garde d’enfants," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 162(1), pages 51-69.
    3. Pierre Lefebvre & Philip Merrigan, 2008. "Child-Care Policy and the Labor Supply of Mothers with Young Children: A Natural Experiment from Canada," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(3), pages 519-548, July.
    4. Debra A. Strong & Patricia Del Grosso & Andrew Burwick & Vinita Jethwani & Michael Ponza, "undated". "Rural Research Needs and Data Sources for Selected Human Services Topics, Volume 1: Research Needs," Mathematica Policy Research Reports a194fdd8e178411cb2a5c4c40, Mathematica Policy Research.
    5. Lowe, Edward D. & Weisner, Thomas S., 2004. "`You have to push it--who's gonna raise your kids?': situating child care and child care subsidy use in the daily routines of lower income families," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 143-171, February.
    6. Evelyn Blumenberg, 2002. "On the Way to Work: Welfare Participants and Barriers to Employment," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 16(4), pages 314-325, November.
    7. repec:mpr:mprres:4589 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. David M. Blau, 2003. "Do child care regulations affect the child care and labor markets?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 443-465.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Blau, 2003. "Child Care Subsidy Programs," NBER Chapters, in: Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States, pages 443-516, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Müller, Kai-Uwe & Wrohlich, Katharina, 2020. "Does subsidized care for toddlers increase maternal labor supply? Evidence from a large-scale expansion of early childcare," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    3. Rachel Connelly & Jean Kimmel, 2003. "The Effect of Child Care Costs on the Employment and Welfare Recipiency of Single Mothers," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(3), pages 498-519, January.
    4. Erdal Tekin, 2007. "Childcare Subsidies, Wages, and Employment of Single Mothers," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 42(2).
    5. Yusuf Emre Akgunduz & Janneke Plantenga, 2018. "Child Care Prices And Maternal Employment: A Meta†Analysis," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 118-133, February.
    6. Blau, David & Currie, Janet, 2006. "Pre-School, Day Care, and After-School Care: Who's Minding the Kids?," Handbook of the Economics of Education, in: Erik Hanushek & F. Welch (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Education, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 20, pages 1163-1278, Elsevier.
    7. Y.E. Akgündüz & J. Plantenga, 2015. "Childcare Prices and Maternal Employment: a Meta-Analysis," Working Papers 15-14, Utrecht School of Economics.
    8. Chris Herbst, 2010. "The labor supply effects of child care costs and wages in the presence of subsidies and the earned income tax credit," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 199-230, June.
    9. Chris Herbst & Burt Barnow, 2008. "Close to Home: A Simultaneous Equations Model of the Relationship Between Child Care Accessibility and Female Labor Force Participation," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 128-151, March.
    10. Sean P. Sall, 2014. "Maternal Labor Supply And The Availability Of Public Pre-K: Evidence From The Introduction Of Prekindergarten Into American Public Schools," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 52(1), pages 17-34, January.
    11. Inés Hardoy & Pål Schøne, 2015. "Enticing even higher female labor supply: the impact of cheaper day care," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 815-836, December.
    12. Rachel Connelly & Jean Kimmel, 1999. "Marital Status and Full-time/Part-time Work Status in Child Care Choices: Changing the Rules of the Game," JCPR Working Papers 97, Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.
    13. Tekin, Erdal, 2005. "Child care subsidy receipt, employment, and child care choices of single mothers," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 1-6, October.
    14. Patricia M. Anderson & Phillip B. Levine, 1999. "Child Care and Mothers' Employment Decisions," JCPR Working Papers 64, Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.
    15. Jonah B. Gelbach, 2002. "Public Schooling for Young Children and Maternal Labor Supply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 307-322, March.
    16. Elizabeth E. Davis & Caroline Carlin & Caroline Krafft & Nicole D. Forry, 2018. "Do Child Care Subsidies Increase Employment Among Low-Income Parents?," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 662-682, December.
    17. Colm Harmon & Claire Finn & Arnaud Chevalier & Tarja Viitanen, 2006. "The economics of early childhood care and education : technical research paper for the National Economic and Social Forum," Open Access publications 10197/671, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    18. Edwin van Gameren, 2013. "The Role of Economic Incentives and Attitudes in Participation and Childcare Decisions," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 296-313, September.
    19. Robert Breunig & Xiaodong Gong & Anthony King, 2012. "Partnered Women's Labour Supply and Child‐Care Costs in Australia: Measurement Error and the Child‐Care Price," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 88(s1), pages 51-69, June.
    20. Tom Kornstad & Thor Thoresen, 2007. "A discrete choice model for labor supply and childcare," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 20(4), pages 781-803, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wop:jopovw:213. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/jcuchus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.