As policymakers debate budgets that include child care funding, this fact sheet provides new estimates of child care affordability, a challenge that affects most families and disproportionately affects lower income, Black and Hispanic working parents. We use the federal affordability benchmark, which defines child care as affordable when it costs no more than 7% of family income.
About 75% of parents with children under the age of 14 work full time and year round, fueling a need for child care. Yet, child care prices are rising faster than family income. Absent large policy changes, families must make trade-offs that can affect their employment, finances and children’s wellbeing.
National estimates
On average, parents working full time and year round would need to spend 11% of their income on full-time center-based care and 10% on home-based care. These figures are well above the federal benchmark of 7%. The financial strain is even greater for low-income parents: center-based child care would consume 34% of their income; home-based care, which is less expensive on average, still would take up 30% of their income—more than four times the affordability threshold. Nearly all (99%) of these working parents face costs above the 7% federal benchmark. Many Black and Hispanic working parents face unaffordable care, too: 77% of Black and 83% of Hispanic parents working full time and year round face center-based care costs above the 7% benchmark.
State estimates
Center-based child care prices as a share of income vary for parents across states, but nearly all exceed the 7% benchmark. In the five states with the highest center-based child care burdens—Vermont, Minnesota, Nevada, Wisconsin and Montana—working parents would need to devote at least 14% of their income to pay for care. For low-income working parents, the burden is much higher. In Vermont, New Hampshire and Wisconsin, the child care burden for low-income parents is more than 50%, and in 33 states, it is more than 30%.
Home-based child care is overall less expensive, although the price as a share of income still exceeds the 7% benchmark in 45 states. In six states, the price of care as a share of income is 12%. For low-income working parents, burdens are again much larger, with Wisconsin, Vermont, Washington and Massachusetts exceeding 40%. State-level estimates by race and ethnicity will be included in a forthcoming brief; preliminary data are available upon request.
Discussion
The cost of child care remains a major concern for working families with young children, especially among lower income, Black and Hispanic families. Yet, child care subsidy programs are not funded to serve all children from families who meet the eligibility requirements. Following historic pandemic-era investments in the child care sector, temporary relief funds are expiring—leaving families and providers under renewed financial pressure. Now more than ever, sustained federal and state investments in comprehensive, meaningful child care assistance are urgently needed. Targeting funding to working families who cannot afford even the median price of care is essential to expanding equitable access and ensuring that all children can benefit from high-quality programs.
