









































COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   45   44  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

Formal childcare has been in crisis since its inception. Attempts 
at regulation and uniformity have been inadequate and culturally 
insensitive. Seen as a women’s issue, it is rarely at the forefront of  
policy. The topic has recently gripped the national stage due to the 
ramifications of  the COVID-19 pandemic on the childcare industry 
and its effect on the middle class. While white families who struggle 
for childcare are currently receiving more attention, Black women 
and other women of  color have been unsupported by the industry. 
The inadequacy of  childcare in the United States upholds racism 
and sexism. The intersectionality of  gender, race, and socioeconomic 
status plays a large part in the inequitable experiences for Black and 
Brown children and childcare workers in the United States. The lack 
of  progress in this arena has stifled generations of  children, given that 
research shows quality early childhood education is an optimal  
vehicle for upward mobility and is correlated with more stable and 
prosperous adulthoods.

Mind the Gap:  
Addressing Childcare Inequalities 

for Children and Caregivers

JULIANA PINTO MCKEEN
SHE/HER

MIND THE GAP: ADDRESSING CHILDCARE INEQUALITIES 
FOR CHILDREN AND CAREGIVERS

Formal childcare in the United States has been in crisis since its 
inception. Maternal employment is heavily moralized, affecting the 
way that childcare is prioritized. Policies delineate clear lines between 
groups regarding which mothers should and should not work, with Black 
mothers and other mothers of  color being denied the same benefits 
and protections as white mothers. Black mothers have been working 
in the United States since they were enslaved (Dow, 2014). After Black 
Americans were freed, Black mothers continued to work outside the 
home, often raising white children. Because they were working and 
could not rear their own children, they leaned on community care for 
their children. Examples of  such community care providers include 
Black caregivers, housekeepers, wet nurses, and caretakers across history. 
While widow’s pensions, a product of  the Progressive Era, were instated 
to enable white mothers to stay home and care for their children, Black 
mothers were denied access to these funds and this policy with the 
justification that they had been working and therefore “should not be 
encouraged to stay at home to rear their children” (Michel, 2011). 

Black women had to work because Black people in America made 
less money for their labor than white people, a disparity that continues 
today. While white families could generally live off of  the income from 
one adult, Black families were forced to make ends meet with multiple 
employed adults. As bell hooks writes, “[B]lack women in the U.S. have 
always worked outside the home … That work gave meager financial 
compensation and often interfered with or prevented effective parenting” 
(hooks, 2015, p. 133). Additionally, Black families were denied the 
generational wealth owed to them because of  slavery and institutional 
racism. This racism is clear in instances where Black mothers were 
widowed and not afforded the same benefits under federal policy as white 
women. 

For generations, Black families relied on community care, or fictive 
kin care, for their children. Examples of  such care include older and 
younger generations within the same family taking care of  children, as 

JULIANA PINTO MCKEEN



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   47   46  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

well as neighbors and friends,  or mothers taking children to work, while 
workers take turns watching the children or everyone keeps an eye on 
them while labor continues. Fictive kin care was a form of  mutual aid 
and a “normative response to limited economic opportunity” (Miller-
Cribbs & Farber, 2008, p. 45). Prior to childcare becoming regulated, and 
continuing to the present day, fictive kin care  was often the only available 
option for Black families, families of  color, and other low-income groups 
who relied on the financial support of  maternal employment. 

Since middle- and low-income white women joined the formal 
workforce, the discussion around the state’s role in childcare has 
grown. The industry has been in crisis because the United States has 
not definitively decided whether or not white mothers should work 
outside the home. A long debate regarding the employment of  white 
mothers, who are often portrayed as selfish if  they do work (Michel, 
2011), continues today and reflects the undervaluing of  childcare in our 
society. Black mothers and other mothers of  color continue to experience 
financial and familial ramifications of  generations of  racist policies as 
politicians and the court of  public opinion deliberate. 

While all parents and guardians are affected by the current state of  
childcare, this paper centers the experiences of  mothers, especially Black 
mothers and other mothers of  color, who are most impacted by lack of  
access to childcare. The compounding forms of  inequality experienced 
by women of  color are pivotal to consider and mitigate. By centering the 
needs and experiences of  Black women and their children, the United 
States has an opportunity to create impactful childcare policies that 
benefit all. 

HISTORY OF CHILDCARE IN THE UNITED STATES 
As Michel (2011) explains, childcare in the United States has seen 

several iterations since the Progressive Era, 1897-1920. As womens’ 
reforms gained traction, the nation began to discuss childcare. The 
first nurseries in the country were created by philanthropists and were 
privately funded through donations. The United States Children’s Bureau 
was created in 1912 and advocated for mothers’ pensions, which kept 
single mothers at home, solidifying the gender roles of  the time. The 

MIND THE GAP: ADDRESSING CHILDCARE INEQUALITIES FOR CHILDREN AND CAREGIVERS

purpose of  these pensions was to enable widows and divorced mothers 
to “raise their children properly by staying at home” (Abramovitz, 2017, 
p. 140). The concept of  traditional motherhood was seen as patriotic, 
sometimes compared to the sacrifice of  soldiers. 

Black mothers were denied access to these pensions due to 
institutional racism and continued to work outside the home. As 
Dow (2014) states, “[a]lthough these policies generally only reduced, 
rather than eliminated, a poor woman’s need to work, these pensions 
underscored that, under ideal circumstances, white mothers should focus 
on their domestic duties” (p. 38). The concept of  pensions was far more 
popular than the idea of  creating childcare programs. 

Ward (2005) states, “Political support and motivation for mothers’ 
pensions was grounded not only on the sexist division of  labor but 
on racial discrimination” (p. 50). The birth rate for native-born white 
children decreased from the nineteenth to twentieth century, coinciding 
with a large influx of  immigrants to the United States. Pensions served 
the ulterior motive of  safeguarding the white middle- and upper-class by 
ensuring that mothers could focus on mothering, thereby increasing the 
number of  native-born white children.

In the 1920s, the lack of  childcare created hazards for children 
and families, as parents were forced to take children to unsafe work 
environments or leave them unattended in order to work. Despite 
documented cases and the rising national problem, the Children’s 
Bureau continued to advocate for pensions over childcare because of  
the patriarchal notion that women needed to be in the home in order to 
raise healthy children (Abramovitz, 2017). Experts argued that working 
mothers were bad for children’s development, but they continued to have 
no issues with Black mothers working outside the home (Michel, 2011). 
The intersectionality (Krenshaw, 2015) of  being mothers and Black 
women disqualified them from advances in policy. 

World War II saw an increase in childcare programs as 6.5 million 
women entered the workforce (Hartmann, 1998). In 1934, The New 
Deal established Emergency Nursery Schools, which were partial 
day programs that operated free of  cost to parents. Educators began 

JULIANA PINTO MCKEEN



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   49   48  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

to consider early childhood pedagogy. While programs operated as 
childcare, they were designed as schools. By focusing on the benefits of  
pedagogy for childhood development, creators of  these programs were 
able to sidestep the conversation around women’s right to work (Michel, 
1999). Much like today, these programs were underfunded and had 
high staff turnaround, as educators became frustrated with the lack of  
resources and low wages (Michel, 2011). 

The Lanham Act of  1943 approved federal funds for childcare—
to this day the only federal law establishing a national childcare 
program (Ertman, 2019). The investment was insufficient: by federal 
standards, there should have been one childcare slot for every ten 
female defense workers. However, as Michel explains, “when the female 
labor force peaked at 19 million in 1944, only 3,000 child care centers 
were operating, with a capacity for 130,000 children—far short of  
the 2 million places that were theoretically needed” (Michel, 2011). 
Additionally, many programs failed to meet quality and safety standards. 
Working mothers continued to be viewed as selfish by both society and 
the government, even as they supplied vital support to the war effort. 
After the war, the Truman administration cut funding for childcare 
established under the Lanham Act, as this funding was explicitly tied to 
wartime needs. Childcare programs were forced to close (Ertman, 2019). 
The Lanham Act benefitted white mothers and their children, but failed 
to provide services for Black mothers and families. 

The federal government introduced the childcare tax reduction 
in 1954, offering working families in the formal work force financial 
relief  of  childcare costs via a maximum $600 deduction in federal taxes 
(Buehler, 1998). Adults not in the formal work force did not receive this 
deduction: domestic workers, handy persons, and those performing forms 
of  employment considered on-call or at-will were excluded. Additionally, 
the act did nothing about “the supply, distribution, affordability, and 
quality of  child care” (Michel, 2011). The late 1950s saw the emergence 
of  advocacy groups that continued to push for the creation of  childcare 
programs. The Inter-City Committee for Day Care of  Children believed 
that childcare should be provided by the government instead of  private 

MIND THE GAP: ADDRESSING CHILDCARE INEQUALITIES FOR CHILDREN AND CAREGIVERS

charity. They worked with government agencies to make this a reality by 
gaining federal support for publicly funded childcare (Michel, 2011). 

President Kennedy’s President’s Commission on the Status of  
Women (PCSW), created in 1961, signaled the federal government’s 
willingness to discuss maternal employment and considered the 
developmental attributes of  childcare, as well as its opportunity to 
advance integration. As opposed to previous policies that left out Black 
and Brown1 Americans, the PCSW introduced the possibility of  serving 
a representative “cross section” of  the population for the benefit of  
“democratic social development” (Front Matter, 1963).

Subsequent administrations, such as Nixon’s, only supported 
childcare efforts for low-income families, curtailing advocacy efforts while 
continuing to provide tax incentives to employers and middle- and upper-
class families. The Reagan era saw far reaching cuts to welfare for low-
income families, while expenditures for middle- and high-income families 
nearly doubled. These economic policies forced the childcare system to 
shift to for-profit models. 

The 1990s brought large investments in childcare via the Child Care 
and Development Fund (CCDF), but as before, these funds lacked supply 
and quality. This fund continues to be the main source of  government 
investment in childcare, practically applied by allowing states “significant 
freedom to coordinate the child care support for low-income families in 
their state” (Vesely & Anderson, 2009, p. 41). Childcare costs continued 
to rise, while tax credits did not. The CCDF was created in part as 
a response to the racialized idea of  the “welfare queen” perpetuated 
by the Reagan administration and exacerbated by Clinton. These 
administrations were responsible for upholding this myth and exploiting 
“popular welfare racist attitudes that were well documented by polling 
and other data” (Doran & Roberts, 2002, p. 402). New policies required 
proof  of  work in order to receive benefits, but did not take into account 
the impact of  systemic racism in families’ ability to enter the formal 

1 This paper recognizes that labels and organizations of  race and ethnicity cannot fully capture the 
myriad of  racial and ethnic identities and lived experiences. The paper uses the following labels: 
Black, Brown, and white. The term "Brown" is used to refer to non-Black people of  color.

JULIANA PINTO MCKEEN



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   51   50  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

labor market. Politicians did not foresee that the childcare industry would 
become highly represented by Black and Brown women who are unable 
to afford the same care for their children that they provide for others. 

WAGES AND LACK OF PAY PARITY BETWEEN TEACHERS 
AND CHILDCARE WORKERS

Although childcare costs are rising for programs and consequently 
for families, workers’ wages are not. Operating costs have a direct impact 
on the price point for enrolled families. While regulations and costs vary 
by state, costs largely include liability insurances, supplies, venue, food 
costs, and payroll. Programs are required to hire the appropriate number 
of  staff based upon the ages of  the children served and state-mandated 
ratios of  children to staff. Costs also vary depending on geography. 
Programs in urban areas cost more to operate than those in rural areas. 
On average, childcare workers nationwide make $24,600 per year less 
than K-12 teachers per year (Interlandi, 2018). 

The issue of  pay parity is at the forefront of  advocacy in New 
York State, as childcare workers in Department of  Education funded 
programs need to meet the same requirements as K-12 teachers but 
make a fraction of  the income. The majority of  grade school teachers are 
white women, while approximately 45% of  childcare workers are Black, 
Latinx, or Asian and are grossly underpaid for their labor (Mueller, 
2020). Activist groups continuously demand more funding for subsidies 
and pay parity between childcare educators and childcare providers. 
These two professions are often compared and presented as antagonists, 
with childcare providers seen as inferior and paid as such. For example, 
in New York City, both early childhood educators working in programs 
licensed under Article 47 of  the health code and grade school teachers 
require a master’s degree and a state teaching certification. However, 
early childhood educators in New York City earn on average $20,000 
less per year (Krien & Mason, 2019). This could be in large part because 
grade school relies on sizable government investment, while early 
childhood relies upon families to foot the bill. 

Lack of  wage theft regulation further compounds the problem. 

MIND THE GAP: ADDRESSING CHILDCARE INEQUALITIES FOR CHILDREN AND CAREGIVERS

Childcare is not a profession that you can truly clock out from when 
your workday is over. If  there are children left to watch, you cannot leave 
them alone. However, a lot of  programs do not have overtime pay. While 
workplace protections do cover childcare workers, nonpayment for labor 
is commonplace. Some programs are so small, serving less than twenty 
families, that they operate under the radar of  regulators. Childcare 
operators find themselves in a difficult position, wanting to pay their 
employees for their work, but knowing this would increase operating 
costs, which might cause a decrease in enrollment due to families  
seeking cheaper alternatives. If  a program does not take private pay  
and only uses subsidies and vouchers, it is not their prerogative to  
offer overtime pay. 

Calls to action on childcare exist, but have lacked pivotal investments. 
In 2019, the Child Care for Working Families Act was introduced, 
which would provide funds for the Child Care and Development 
Block Grant and revise it to “create a tiered and transparent system… 
[and] assure that copayments are based on a sliding scale,” among 
other improvements (Child Care For Working Families Act, 2019). 
Childcare champions do exist, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren 
and Representative Rosa DeLauro, among others. This past July, the 
Childcare Is Essential Act passed in the House but has not made it to 
the Senate floor. The bill called for $50 billion in federal funding for 
childcare (Childcare Is Essential Act, 2020). The Biden administration 
released a plan for childcare as part of  their coronavirus rescue 
package. In this plan, the administration proposes creating a $25 billion 
stabilization fund to support programs in danger of  closing permanently, 
invest an additional $15 billion in the Child Care and Development 
Block Grant program, and increase tax credits to cover the costs of  
childcare (Fox, 2021). These efforts do not address the pay disparity 
in the industry, but they work to create stability and financial aid for 
families. The issue of  low wages and lack of  pay parity coincides with 
the representation of  workers in these industries. The racial makeup of  
these workers is historically commensurate with the pay they receive, 
continuing to uphold systems of  inequity and oppression.

JULIANA PINTO MCKEEN



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   53   52  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

CHILDCARE AND SOCIAL ISSUES 
Childcare continues to be a pain point for families across the nation, 

even as an estimated 51% of  women were in the workforce in 2016 
according to the Department of  Labor (US Department of  Labor, n.d.). 
Large parts of  the childcare system are operated as businesses because 
government funding is finite, leaving families to pay out of  pocket and 
childcare programs to compete for clientele. A report by the Economic 
Policy Institute found that in 2019, public spending on childcare and 
early childhood education totaled about $34 billion, while household 
spending totaled about $42 billion (Gould & Blair, 2020). The expense 
creates a push and pull between families and programs; programs 
constantly attempt to keep costs low for families and are thus unable to 
pay educators a fair wage. Childcare costs vary from state to state and 
have been rising in recent years. For example, the cost of  childcare for 
an infant in Mississippi is $453 per month, versus $1,412 in California 
(Economic Policy Institute, 2020). Across the board, childcare workers are 
underpaid, with an average annual income of  $28,000 per year, and only 
15% have access to healthcare through their employers (Interlandi, 2018). 

The issue of  fair pay overwhelmingly affects Black and Brown 
women, who make up 45% of  childcare workers. Much like in previous 
generations, disadvantaged women take care of  other people’s children, 
while their own children are denied this level of  care. Many childcare 
workers cannot afford to send their children to the same programs 
that employ them. Generations of  inequitable policies have forced 
two divergent options: upper- and middle class families can send their 
children to early childhood programs designed to kickstart education 
using a myriad of  different pedagogies and modalities, while lower-class 
families must rely on a social welfare system to help take care of  their kids 
at sometimes questionable standards. This dynamic introduces another 
point of  intersectionality: socioeconomic status. These options for care 
of  very young children often fall along racial lines, with Black and Brown 
families most often being forced to utilize the second option. These two 
modes of  care falsely separate care and education, while the two are 
inextricably linked. Early education teachers indisputably care for their 

MIND THE GAP: ADDRESSING CHILDCARE INEQUALITIES FOR CHILDREN AND CAREGIVERS

students, and childcare providers undoubtedly educate the children for 
whom they provide care. This separation serves to drive a wedge between 
the professions and upholds pay discrepancies. 

A solution to disparities in care and education between racial 
groups and economic classes requires deep investments and culturally 
relevant pedagogies. The childcare industry is an afterthought in policy 
and financial decisions. This causes adverse consequences to children, 
families, and childcare providers. Our society has not eradicated this 
problem because it is perceived as a women’s problem and a problem of  
low socioeconomic status, thus low priority. At its core, the trivializing of  
childcare in the United States is a sexist and racist societal policy. History 
and policies have shown that the nation has decided white mothers 
should remain at home and Black and Brown mothers should work 
(Miller, 2019). Quality early childhood education affords children great 
benefits long into adulthood and is a vehicle for upward mobility, but 
because many white families can afford childcare, policy makers have not 
been pushed to find a solution. Early childhood education allows adults 
in the family to work outside the home if  willing and able. It is a venue to 
help children develop their social skills, growing bodies, and to begin to 
acclimate to academic environments. The childcare system was unjustly 
created with white families in mind and continues to suit only their needs. 

CHILDCARE POLICIES
Even well-intended broad policy attempts to regulate childcare, 

an industry that has community-dependent cultural implications, have 
had negative consequences. Generally, the federal government provides 
minimal funds, via the Child Care and Development Block Grant, to 
states to regulate how they see fit. States enact sweeping regulations that 
dictate which programs and families receive funding. Within states, there 
are vast differences between communities and jurisdictions. Broad rules 
do not have equal effects on all participants of  the system, in the same 
way that one curriculum does not suit the needs of  all children. The 
childcare system today is a result of  disjointed funding and regulations 
that do not put children, families, and caregivers at the center. Policies 

JULIANA PINTO MCKEEN



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   55   54  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

have failed because they fragment the system and allocate insufficient 
funds. 

On a micro level, there is a significant impact on children and 
families. Supply issues in parts of  the country render quality programs 
hard to come by. Regulations meant to assure a standard of  care often 
increase red tape and create barriers to entry for prospective childcare 
providers. Calls for reform and for early education programs that also 
serve as childcare, like Pre-K for All, are good starts. However, because 
the system is fragmented, they often complicate operations for providers 
and continuously leave some behind. 

For example, since New York City implemented the Universal Pre-K 
program in 2014 many more children entered early childhood programs. 
This is beneficial to both the children and their families. Pitfalls include 
the oversight by an additional agency, the Department of  Education, 
to regulate programs previously only regulated by the Department 
of  Health. Sometimes these agencies have different regulations and 
both expect providers to meet their regulations, even at the cost of  a 
citation from the other. In practice, this labyrinthine structure means 
that depending on which agency arrives for an inspection, providers can 
receive citations and fees for being out of  compliance with one agency 
while abiding by the rules of  another. 

For New York City children younger than four, families can receive 
subsidies they can use to pay for childcare. Effectiveness of  subsidies 
is reliant on state and local regulations. Often, programs who accept 
subsidies are forced to accept less financial recompense for their service 
and/or be paid much later than the service was provided. Programs 
that accept subsidies may choose to do so to serve their communities, if  
families require this aid. When the system works at its best, providers can 
depend on consistent payment from subsidies. Subsidy payments require 
maneuvering bureaucracy and paperwork that not all programs have the 
bandwidth or knowledge to do. Often, subsidies are more beneficial to 
families than providers (Adams & Snyder, 2003). 

On a macro level, there are severe consequences to the wellbeing 
and social mobility of  large swaths of  children in our nation. The 

MIND THE GAP: ADDRESSING CHILDCARE INEQUALITIES FOR CHILDREN AND CAREGIVERS

lack of  access to quality early childhood education and childcare for 
all has economic repercussions for children long into adulthood, for 
parents–most often mothers--and for childcare providers. Access to early 
childhood education affords children wellbeing and economic gains 
long after they have graduated from these programs. Working mothers 
are good for our country and for mothers themselves. Longitudinal 
studies have found that mothers’ continuous and full time employment 
is correlated with significantly better mental and physical health at age 
40 than mothers who were unemployed, non-continuously employed, 
or not employed full time (Frech & Damaske, 2012). As discussed above, 
childcare workers are underpaid and as such, unable to experience social 
mobility themselves, continuing the cycle of  inequality within their 
families and communities. 

Additionally, communities often try to create other venues to provide 
childcare to those in need, such as legally exempt providers or unlicensed 
childcare groups. These types of  programs mimic community care of  
past generations. Low-income communities attempt to circumvent the 
regulations because compliance is often cost prohibitive to families and 
providers alike. Licensing a program can take months of  navigating 
ever-changing regulations. Barriers to entry include the lack of  capital 
funds, mandated education, and social capital. A lack of  research exists 
on this demographic, perhaps in part due to the potential repercussions 
of  operating an unlicensed program. Childcare policies aimed at 
regulating funding and formalizing care impede some caregivers from 
providing care in legal ways. Childcare policies should suit the needs of  
communities, as opposed to forcing communities to conform to policies 
that prevent adequate care.

ANTI-RACIST APPROACH TO CHILDCARE: RETHINKING 
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

Quality early childhood care and education are great vehicles of  
upward mobility. Longitudinal studies show that children who attended 
early childhood education programs were less likely to become teenage 
parents, more likely to graduate high school, and more likely to enroll in 
higher education. In some instances, adults who attended one of  these 

JULIANA PINTO MCKEEN



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   57   56  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

programs had higher median incomes, were less likely to be on welfare, 
and were less likely to have been arrested (Interlandi, 2018). Investments 
in children’s education, health, and wellbeing are generational 
investments; the government tends to receive a return on investment 
with additional capital gains (Hendren & Sprung-Keyser, 2020). As the 
authors of  these studies explain, investments in children have historically 
yielded the largest Marginal Value of  Public Funds, meaning that the 
policies pay for themselves over time and actually produce money. 
Equitable access to childcare would be a wise, anti-racist policy that 
would greatly impact the nation. 

An anti-racist approach to solving the issues documented here 
would be to craft a new system that places the child at the center, values 
childcare providers and educators, listens to them in the creation of  a 
system, and places a hefty investment in such a system. By redressing past 
injustices, such as inequalities in access to care and financial aid to Black 
and Brown mothers, meeting the needs of  children and families of  color, 
supporting the whole family, and serving all children and families in need 
(Minoff et al, 2020), policymakers and advocates can implement anti-
racist policies. All families and children should have access to childcare 
and early childhood education and to the myriad of  pedagogies to best 
suit the child. By creating a system that does center children, families 
would have options. This is important because the solution is a not a 
cookie cutter curriculum for all childcare programs and looks different 
depending on the child, the family, and the community. 

There are beautiful models of  what this could look like: Afrocentric 
Montessori programs, bilingual Reggio Emilia programs, and a Lakota 
Waldorf  school. Children have individual needs and learn better using 
different modalities. Programs that make whole families feel welcome 
are better suited to meet these needs. The system currently in place was 
created solely with white families in mind. New policies should support 
efforts to create culturally relevant early childhood programs that are 
reflective of  the communities they serve. With significant and continuous 
investment, we can pay childcare providers the wages they deserve. 
Childcare should be accessible to everyone and should be seen as the 

MIND THE GAP: ADDRESSING CHILDCARE INEQUALITIES FOR CHILDREN AND CAREGIVERS

public good it really is (University of  California, Berkeley, 2018). After 
all, childcare allows parents to stimulate our economy and safeguards our 
future: children. 

CHILDCARE AND THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC 
The pandemic has gravely exacerbated the pitfalls of  the childcare 

system. In July 2020, the National Association for the Education of  
Young Children (NAEYC) (2020) completed a survey and estimated 
that 40% of  all early childhood education programs would close their 
doors before the end of  the year without government help (Beer, 2020). 
The CARES Act earmarked a pittance for the struggling industry and 
made the disbursement at each state’s discretion. Although it has never 
been fully funded by the public, the childcare industry costs around 
$10 billion per month. The CARES Act earmarked $3.5 billion total 
for childcare (Bedrick & Daily, 2020). The pandemic has decimated 
the childcare industry, with programs closing daily. A December 2020 
survey by NAEYC found that approximately 42% of  programs that have 
permanently closed due to the pandemic were minority-owned (NAEYC, 
2020). In New York State, providers continue to wait for the remaining 
CARES Act funding that has yet to be disbursed while programs suffer. 

This existential crisis has pushed industry, legislators, and activists 
alike to action. The Child Care is Essential Act was a good start. This 
bill would have created a Child Care Stabilization Fund with $50 billion 
to offset the repercussions of  the COVID-19 pandemic on the industry 
(Child Care is Essential Act, 2020). Seeing a bill of  that magnitude 
pass in the House was a momentous event. Senator Elizabeth Warren 
advocated for childcare on the campaign trail during her bid for the 
presidency and again during the 2020 Democratic National Convention. 
Childcare has entered the national conversation. In response to the effects 
of  the COVID-19 pandemic, an exponential number of  articles have 
been written by journalists, economists, pedagogues, and sociologists. 
Topics include the effects of  isolation on children, the effects of  a lack 
of  childcare on women in the workforce, and the disproportionate harm 
to an entire sector of  the economy. Folks have seen and felt what is to be 

JULIANA PINTO MCKEEN



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   59   58  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

without childcare. As families sheltered in their homes for a year, there 
was a refreshed awareness of  the importance of  childcare. Now, we must 
use the catalyst that was 2020 to create lasting changes for childcare. 

A COVID-19 stimulus package signed into law in March 2021 
included a large benefit to children nationwide: a large expansion to the 
existing child tax credit, which will benefit 93% of  children nationwide 
(DeParle, 2021). This new law includes provisions that will cut the child 
poverty rate in half  and have an even bigger impact for Black children 
(Barbaro, 2021). Families will receive monthly checks of  up to $300 
per child, regardless of  the number of  children in the family without 
negating other benefits families receive. The benefit diminishes only when 
families earn over $150,000 annually. There are no specifications for 
the ways families can choose to spend these funds. This type of  welfare 
is revolutionary in the United States after the devastating effects of  the 
“welfare queen” myth and the institution of  aid contingent on parental 
employment. The child tax credit is directly tied to the child, as opposed 
to the guardian, whose actions will have no bearing on the funds. The 
stimulus package institutes this expansion for one year, after which its 
extension will require Congressional action.

CONCLUSION
Childcare is a heavily moralized but vital service in the United States, 

and the inadequacy of  childcare is intrinsically tied to race and class. 
Formal and regulated childcare began in the public realm, was created 
for white families, and was funded by the government to support war 
efforts. A lack of  necessary funding to childcare programs pushed the 
industry to privatization, which widened the inequities between white 
families and all other families. Attempts to publicly fund childcare and 
early childhood education were seen as opportunities to integrate in the 
1960s, but failed to meet this goal. In 2021, inequalities still exist in care 
between Black and Brown families and white families. The COVID-19 
pandemic has widened this gap and concurrently proven the worth of  
the industry. The March 2021 expansion of  the child tax credit is a viable 
option for combating childhood poverty and simultaneously stabilizing 
childcare. The nation has an opportunity to reimagine a system that 

MIND THE GAP: ADDRESSING CHILDCARE INEQUALITIES FOR CHILDREN AND CAREGIVERS

serves our present and our future. Failure to capitalize on this opportunity 
will further metastasize the generations-long impacts of  inequality. The 
United States can ill-afford to continue to ignore the fact that early 
childhood education and childcare should serve and be accessible to all 
families and children.

REFERENCES 
Abramovitz, M. (2017). Regulating the lives of  women: Social welfare policy from 

colonial times to the present (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi-org.ezproxy.cul.
columbia.edu/10.4324/9781315228150

Adams, G., & Snyder, K. (2003, February). Child care subsidy policies and practices: 
Implications for child care providers (Policy brief  Series A, No. A-57). The Urban 

Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/child-care-subsidy-policies-
and-practices

Barbaro, M. (Host). (2021, March 9). A safety net for American children [Audio 
podcast episode]. In The Daily. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.
com/2021/03/09/podcasts/the-daily/economic-stimulus-child-tax-credit.html

Bedrick, E., & Daily, S. (2020, June 8). States are using the CARES Act to improve child 
care access during COVID-19. Child Trends [Policy brief]. https://www.childtrends.
org/publications/states are-using-the-cares-act-to-improve-child-care-access-during-
covid-19 

Beer, T. (2020, July 15). 40% of  U.S. child care centers say they’ll close 
permanently without public assistance. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/
tommybeer/2020/07/14/40-of-us-child-care-centers-say-theyll-close-permanently-
without-public-assistance/?sh=240eef8e6ad6

Buehler, S. J. (1998). Child care tax credits, the child tax credit, and the taxpayer relief  
act of  1997: Congress’ missed opportunity to provide parents needed relief  from the 
astronomical costs of  child care. Hastings Women’s Law Journal, 9(2), 189-218.

Child Care For Working Families Act, H.R.1364, 116th Cong. (2019). (U.S.). https://
www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1364/text

Child Care Is Essential Act, H.R.7027, 116th Cong. (2020). (U.S.).  https://www.congress.
gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7027 

Deparle, J. (2021, March 07). In the stimulus bill, a policy revolution in aid for children. 
The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/07/us/politics/child-tax-
credit-stimulus.html

Doran, M., & Roberts, D. E. (2002). Welfare reform and families in the child welfare 
system. Maryland Law Review, 61(2), 386-436.

Dow, D. (2014). Negotiating “The welfare queen” and “The strong Black woman”: 
African American middle-class mothers’ work and family perspectives. Sociological 

JULIANA PINTO MCKEEN



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   61   60  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

Perspectives, 58(1), 36-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121414556546
Economic Policy Institute. (2020). Child care costs in the United States. https://www.epi.

org/child-care-costs-in-the-united-states/
Ertman, T. (2019, June 27). The Lanham Act and universal childcare during World War 

II. Friends of  the National WWII Memorial. https://www.wwiimemorialfriends.org/
blog/wwii-universal-childcare/

Fox, M. (2021, January 15). Biden pledges to help fix the child-care crisis in America. 
Here is his plan. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/15/biden-has-a-plan-to-
help-fix-the-child-care-crisis-in-america.html

Frech, A., & Damaske, S. (2012). The relationships between mothers’ work pathways and 
physical and mental health. Journal of  Health and Social Behavior, 53(4), 396-412. 
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41725228

Front Matter. (1963). In American women: Report of  the president’s commission on the 
status of  women, 1963 (pp. 1-12). District of  Columbia: United States. Government 
Printing Office. Women and Social Movements in the United States,1600-2000 
database. 

Gould, E., & Blair, H. (2020, January 15). Who’s paying now? The explicit and implicit 
costs of  the current early care and education system. Economic Policy Institute. 
https://files.epi.org/pdf/181729.pdf

Krenshaw, K. (2015, Sept 24). Why intersectionality can’t wait. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/09/24/why-

intersectionality-cant-wait/
Krien, T., & Mason, M. (2019, July 31). Salary parity explained. The Child Center of  NY. 

https://childcenterny.org/salary-parity-explained/
Hartmann, S. M. (1998). Home front and beyond: American women in the 1940s. 

Twayne Publishing.
Hendren, N., & Sprung-Keyser, B. (2020). A unified welfare analysis of  government 

policies. The Quarterly Journal of  Economics, 135(3), 1209-1318. https://doi.
org/10.1093/qje/qjaa006

hooks, b. (2015). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Routledge.
Interlandi, J. (2018, January 9). Why are our most important teachers paid the least? The 

New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/magazine/why-are-our-
most-important-teachers-paid-the-least.html

Michel, S. (1999). Children’s interests/mothers’ Rights : The shaping of  America’s child 
care policy. Yale University Press.

Michel, S. (2011). The history of  child care in the U.S. Social Welfare History Project. 
http://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/child-care-the-american-history/ 
Miller, C. C. (2019, August 15). Why the U.S. has long resisted universal child care. The 

New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/upshot/why-americans-
resist-child-care.html

MIND THE GAP: ADDRESSING CHILDCARE INEQUALITIES FOR CHILDREN AND CAREGIVERS

Miller-Cribbs, J., & Farber, N. (2008). Kin networks and poverty among African 
Americans: Past and present. Social Work, 53(1), 43-51. http://www.jstor.org/
stable/23721188

Minoff, Elisa et al. (2020). Principles for anti-racist policymaking. Center for the Study of  
Social Policy. http://bit.ly/Anti-Racist-Policymaking

Mueller, E. (2020, July 22). ‘Crashing down’: How the child care crisis is magnifying racial 
disparities. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/22/coronavirus-child-
care-racial-disparities-377058

National Association for the Education of  the Young Child. (2020). Am I next? Sacrificing 
to stay open, child care providers face a bleak future without relief. https://www.
naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/our-work/public-
policy-advocacy/naeyc_policy_crisis_coronavirus_december_survey_data.pdf

University of  California, Berkeley. (2018). (rep.). Early childhood workforce index: About 
the early childhood workforce. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/early-childhood-workforce-
2018-index/

US Department of  Labor: Women’s Bureau. (n.d.).Women of  working age. https://www.
dol.gov/agencies/wb/data/latest-annual-data/working women. 

Vesely, C. K., & Anderson, E. A. (2009). Child care and development fund: Policy 
analysis. Journal of  Sociology and Social Welfare, 36(1), 39-60.

Ward, D. (2005). The white welfare state: The racialization of  U.S. welfare policy. Ann 
Arbor: University of  Michigan Press. doi:10.3998/mpub.22210

JULIANA PINTO MCKEEN

JULIANA PINTO MCKEEN (she/her) is a Masters of  
Science in Social Work candidate at Columbia School of  Social 
Work in Advanced Generalist Practice and Programming track 
concentrating in Contemporary Social Issues. Juliana holds 
a Bachelor of  Science in Psychology and a minor in African 
American, Puerto Rican and Latino Studies from Hunter College. 
Prior to matriculating at Columbia she co-founded and directed 
a small early childhood education program. Juliana currently 
works as a Social Work Intern at the Legal Aid Society’s New York 
Immigrant Family Unity Project. She serves on the Waldorf  Early 
Childhood Association of  North America’s Inclusion, Diversity, 
Equity, and Access committee and is a founding member and 
the administrator for the Brooklyn Coalition of  Early Childhood 
Programs. Originally from Bogotá, Colombia, Juliana now lives  
in Brooklyn, New York.


