A primary goal of child care subsidies is to increase low-income, working families’ access to affordable care.  Yet research has shown that subsidy spells are often short and families commonly experience multiple spells (Pilarz, Ros, & Claessens, 2012; Ha & Meyer, 2010; Meyers et al., 2002; Weber & Davis, 2002). Little is known about why families leave the subsidy program or how subsidy exits impact continuity of care. To address these knowledge gaps, the current study examines survey (n=612) and qualitative interview (n=85) data, linked to child care payment records for participants in the Illinois/New York Child Care Research Partnership Study (IL/NY CCRP). We ask the following two research questions: 1) Why do families leave the subsidy program? 2) What happens to families’ care arrangements after leaving the program?

After providing a descriptive overview of subsidy spells and subsidized arrangements from respondents’ administrative records over approximately a 3-year period, we address Question 1 by examining reasons for leaving the program as reported by survey respondents. These reasons are subsequently examined through a thematic analysis of the qualitative data. To address Question 2, we provide descriptive information from the survey on the likelihood of leaving a child care arrangement after a subsidy exit. With the qualitative data, we then examine factors that contribute to arrangement continuity or loss following a subsidy exit. 

Most survey respondents reported leaving the program for four broad types of reasons (multiple reasons permitted): employment (33%), no longer requiring assistance for care (28%), child care provider- (21%) and subsidy- (24%) related reasons. Less common reasons included increased income (16%) and residential moves (5%). The qualitative interviews corroborated the survey findings while offering a more nuanced understanding. Several employment factors made respondents ineligible for assistance (e.g., job loss, earning too much) or created complications resulting in exits at the point of recertification (e.g., seasonal work, shifting schedule). Subsidy-related reasons were disproportionately administrative in nature (e.g., paperwork problems, delayed payments), and sometimes concerned contested eligibility (i.e., accusations of fraud related to unreported income or unreported family structure changes). Qualitative data revealed that subsidy exits were often related to a combination of work changes, subsidy practices/rules and child care provider reasons.

Regarding Question 2, 50% of survey respondents reported leaving their provider after a subsidy exit. The qualitative interviews revealed several factors related to leaving or staying with the same provider, including whether the subsidy exit was expected to be short term, whether the provider would continue serving the child until a subsidy problem was resolved, whether the participant was still working, and whether she had resources to continue paying a provider. Families who reported “earning their way off” the program especially reported difficulty maintaining their provider. Overall, these findings reveal a disconnect between job and child care realities and subsidy requirements that create challenges for both subsidy and child care continuity. The results are troubling given the importance of continuity of care for stable parental employment and positive child development.