The Moral Argument for Fixing Child Care: An Excerpt from ‘Raising a Nation’

In Raising a Nation: 10 Reasons Every American Has a Stake in Child Care For All, policy expert Elliot Haspel examines the broken state of America’s child care system, outlines a path to affordable care options, and shows how this issue touches all of us—no matter our income, zip code, or parental status. The following is an excerpt adapted from the book.

In a 1998 speech from the White House Rose Garden, President Bill Clinton asked a question about child care: “Do you believe that this should be an urgent priority for America?” The answer from government, and society more broadly, has been a resounding “no.”

Since then, despite modest increases in child care funding, particularly at the state level, America’s child care system largely continues to be a hellscape. Parent fees are sky-high, supply is desperately low, care providers are paid a pittance, stay-at-home parents are ignored, and quality is largely questionable at best. The pandemic shone a bright light on how important child care is, and it also took a sector that was barely treading water and dragged it into the deep.

The problem, I believe, is that we skipped a step, one so fundamental that skipping it has torpedoed the chances of winning an effective child care system despite decade after decade of pain that crosses geographic and ideological borders. We have never established that good child care belongs at the heart of American values. Because of what it means for the nation, that is exactly where child care belongs.

“We have never established that good child care belongs at the heart of American values. Because of what it means for the nation, that is exactly where child care belongs.”

The economic argument for child care focusing on its return on investment is valid—I have made it countless times myself—but far, far too narrow. It is a morally impoverished rationale that only gets the unconvinced to peek in the door. (It is also not new: Related scholarship goes back to at least the early 1970s.)

Far more compelling cases are needed in order to build the public opinion and political will to create a sustainable, affordable, and high-quality system. Together, these cases—looking at solidarity, community, family values, patriotism, parenthood and childhood, racial and gender equity, poverty reduction, security, and the American Dream—can help shift societal mindsets. They can transform child care from a private service useful only instrumentally to let parents work into an essential support for strong children, strong families, strong communities, and a strong nation. Indeed, given the amount of recurring public funding that needs to be unlocked to build a truly effective child care system—experts calculate it will take at least $180 billion a year (in 2025 dollars), and I believe that’s quite low—the economic argument does not offer a credible path to victory.

Yet major public funding is a prerequisite for a functional child-care system: As journalist Annie Lowrey writes, when it comes to child care and the free market, “The math does not work. It will never work. No other country makes it work without a major investment from government.”

So today, without that investment, where are America’s children cared for? For the roughly 20 million children below the age of six, per 2023 data—the most recent year for which reliable numbers are available—about 45 percent receive primary care from a parent and have no regular non-parental care arrangement. Among children who do receive care, around 66 percent attend a center-based program, nearly 20 percent attend a family child care program, and 34 percent receive recurring care from a relative. Those numbers combined come to over 100 percent because many families utilize multiple care arrangements during any given week.

“Child care will always be an expensive service to provide. That’s OK.”

Child care centers and family child care homes, in particular, are marked by extremely high labor costs. That is the result of early child care programs rightly requiring low (and legally mandated) adult-to-child ratios. While requirements vary by state, common ratios are 1:4 for infants, between 1:6 and 1:8 for toddlers, and between 1:10 to 1:12 for three- and four-year-olds. This means child care programs require a lot of staff. As a point of comparison, staff-to-user ratios are closer to 1:25 in an elementary school, 1:100 in a restaurant, and 1:1,000+ in the case of airport gate agents to travelers. This is why there is no real way to innovate or otherwise overhaul the basic model of group child care: Because it requires a lot of grown humans to care for small humans, child care will always be—and should always be!—labor-intensive. That also means it will always be an expensive service to provide. That’s OK.

Child care is, of course, not a panacea to ensure widespread well-being and opportunity for families. But it stands out as a unique doorway to larger social reform. The transition to parenthood is well-noted as a crucible that can spark personal and political transformation. It is a period of exceptional vulnerability and need, of re-evaluating one’s priorities and place in society. Next to pregnancy-related medical care, child care is the first major hinge point that most new parents face—and it quickly becomes a defining feature of life for years to come.

If this moment is met with a response of welcoming abundance in culture and policy, we can build an empowered society of collective care that is focused on human flourishing, with all its attendant benefits. If it’s met with a response of do-it-yourself scarcity tied mainly to economic outcomes, we continue to reinforce a low-trust society of winners and losers, with all its attendant ills—and the clear message it sends that America doesn’t truly value families. The choice is ours.

Follow The Thread! Subscribe to The Thread monthly newsletter to get the latest in policy, equity, and culture in your inbox.