社区黑料

Join our zero2eight Substack community for more discussion about the latest news in early care and education.

Family preferences on childcare arrangements vary, sometimes wildly, but many parents consistently report a desire to be able to care for their young children themselves and for trusted family, friends and neighbors to be able to do so. Childcare policy, though, has historically been designed without fully accounting for what families actually say they want. That鈥檚 beginning to change: A number of recent childcare policy proposals have shown real movement toward incorporating family perspectives and preferences.

The mismatch between the childcare arrangements parents say they prefer and those that public policy tends to emphasize 鈥� which I call the childcare preference gap 鈥� was reinforced by two recent surveys. 

A administered to 1,000 parents with children ages 5 and under in December 2025 by GBAO on behalf of Third Way 鈥� a center-left think tank 鈥� found that around half of parent participants preferred having a parent stay home to provide care, with another 15% preferring a family, friend or neighbor caregiver. While families were generally satisfied with the care their children were receiving, only around half of those using home- or center-based care said it was their preferred childcare arrangement, compared to 80% of those with a parent staying home and nearly 70% of those using FFN care.

The largest U.S. of parents with children under the age of 6, released in May by New America鈥檚 New Practice Lab, echoes these findings. When asked about their ideal childcare arrangement, 49% of nearly 5,500 parent participants said they鈥檇 prefer to care for their child themselves or for the child’s other parent to provide the care. Meanwhile, 11% preferred an FFN caregiver, and just 15% listed their ideal as a formal setting.

Surveys conducted earlier in the 2020s by and reported similar results. Importantly, these preferences are dynamic: As children age, there is more interest in formal programs, such as licensed childcare centers.

It鈥檚 important to consider that most of the polls described above asked parents to envision their ideal childcare scenario, setting aside costs and the financial impact of having a parent stay home. But families don鈥檛 live in hypotheticals. There are real financial implications for decisions about childcare, and when opportunities to access free or low-cost licensed early care and education arise 鈥� like universal pre-K or childcare 鈥� . What鈥檚 more, the strong preference for parental care in the first year of life seems to implicate a need for better paid leave policy as much as childcare policy, particularly since .

There鈥檚 also the reality that what people say they want to do in a survey can differ from what they actually do when making choices. However, the data can still be meaningful and should be considered when designing family and childcare policies. It is no more justified to ignore the desires of parents who prefer their children in licensed programs than those who prefer to provide the care themselves. 

Doing so can give policymakers a false impression that all parents need is access to any childcare slot, regardless of its characteristics. However, from the nonprofit Child Trends found that among the 622 families surveyed, 64% of those that used any form of nonparental childcare said there was moderate or high 鈥渕isalignment鈥� between their current care setup and their preferences and needs. That misalignment reflected parents using programs that didn鈥檛 fit their budget, align with their quality standards, reflect their beliefs or match their ideal setting. This discrepancy can actually cause material harm: Studies have found that when parents feel uncomfortable about their childcare arrangement, it may lead to . 

Yet current federal childcare policy, as well as most reform proposals over the past 20 years, do a rather poor job of reflecting parents鈥� stated preferences. While public policy does not always match public opinion (if it did, the U.S. would have, for example, and ), there is clearly room for improvement here. 

When it comes to childcare, for example, receive most of the funding from the Child Care and Development Fund, a federal program that sends grant money to states and is a key source of funding for childcare subsidies. Families with stay-at-home parents are categorically ineligible for childcare subsidies, and the most recent reauthorization of the law governing the program, the , made it harder for FFN providers . The Build Back Better Act that passed the House during the Biden Administration did not make any fundamental changes to that orientation.

To understand the persistent preference gap, one must understand the origins of modern U.S. childcare policy. Because childcare became , the conceptual underpinnings of the CCDBG Act are grounded in the premise that childcare assistance can increase employment and earnings, ultimately (the reasoning goes) enabling families to move out of poverty.

The appeal of such an approach is understandable: It鈥檚 far easier for policymakers to wrap their hands around licensed programs caring for children during parents鈥� reported work hours than to engage with the messy complexity of actually ensuring that parents have the care they prefer in order to bond with and healthily raise their very young children. Closing the preference gap, then, requires politicians on both sides of the aisle to reframe the goals of childcare policy 鈥� and to get more comfortable with trusting parents.

America鈥檚 current approach to childcare policy isn鈥檛 the only pathway. In the past, the U.S. actually did experiment with that allowed eligible low-income parents to use subsidy dollars to pay themselves, though such efforts never caught fire. Other countries have also built examples to look to. A recent from the People鈥檚 Policy Project highlighted how Nordic nations have built a childcare system that couples affordable licensed options with support for informal care. While the financial support available in the Nordic countries is unlikely to be high enough to enable a parent to stop working entirely, it could be the key to unlocking greater flexibility in balancing work and family responsibilities.

A shift does seem to be underway in America. Some policies are becoming more inclusive. New Mexico鈥檚 universal childcare system, for example, allows and receive $750 a month per child, though it does still exclude stay-at-home parents. Politicians are changing their tune, too: Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna that would create new structures to compensate FFN and stay-at-home parents alongside licensed programs, while the Democratically-aligned Project 2029 recently that would guarantee parents the right to choose the childcare that works best for them by offering access to either free licensed programs or a monthly stipend of $1,000 to compensate stay-at-home parents or FFN caregivers.

More and philanthropic leaders are also speaking up about the need to meet parents where they are at. For instance, the WeVision EarlyEd initiative, led by the Bainum Family Foundation, reimagining childcare policy to support two pathways for families: high-quality licensed ECE, and 鈥渢rusted caregivers鈥� which include parents and FFN caregivers.

This evolution can鈥檛 come fast enough: All families deserve the freedom to get as close as possible to their ideal childcare arrangement. That would benefit kids, parents and society writ large. The more that public policy can align with family childcare preferences, the better off the country will be.

Disclosure: The Bainum Foundation provides financial support to 社区黑料.

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 社区黑料鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.