Parent Perceptions of Support and Barriers In Oregon’s Employment-Related Day Care (ERDC) Subsidy Program

Background: Access to affordable, high-quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) supports parental employment, child development, and family economic stability. Child care subsidies such as Oregon’s Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) Employment-Related Day Care (ERDC) program aim to reduce financial barriers to accessing care through federal and state policies. Despite this, many eligible families face barriers that limit participation, including waitlists, due to limited funding application complexity, stigma, and provider scarcity. Most evidence is quantitative and does not capture how families experience the program. In this study, we ask: (a) How does Oregon’s ERDC subsidy meet, or fail to meet, family needs? and (b) What factors shape access to and experiences with ERDC?

Method: In 2020, as a part of a state-legislated Task Force study, our research team conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 Oregon parents recruited via Oregon Department of Human Services mailings, social media, and community organizations. Participants included current ERDC users (n=6), former users (n=4), and eligible non-users (n=2), representing rural and urban Oregon. Interviews explored program awareness, application experiences, need for child care, and perceptions of program strengths and limitations. This study is a secondary data analysis that addressed new questions. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis, with an iteratively developed codebook and cross-case comparison.

Findings: Parents reported that subsidies reduced child care costs, supporting continued workforce participation. In urban locations, provider choice allowed families to select care aligned with their needs. Three key barriers also emerged. First, program design penalized upward mobility: modest income gains triggered sharp copay increases, discouraging earnings growth. Second, navigating the system imposed significant cognitive and emotional burdens; even well-informed participants reported confusion and fear of administrative errors leading to program dismissal. Third, families depended heavily on informal networks (e.g. providers, relatives, and community contacts) to address eligibility constraints such as inaccessible copays, hour restrictions, and opaque paperwork, but participants characterized these supports as inequitable and unreliable. Provider scarcity, especially in rural and coastal areas, limited child care choice. Among former and never-users, low awareness, administrative complexity, and stigma further deterred participation, particularly among working parents who did not want to identify as welfare recipients.

Conclusion and Implications: While Oregon’s subsidy program provides critical support, it also includes features that can disadvantage the families it aims to serve. Participants identified potential reforms, including graduated copay structures, transparent benefit calculators, more supportive caseworkers, provider referral, and incentives to expand provider supply. Since these interviews in 2020, Oregon has made substantial policy changes, such as lower co-pays and a new statewide eligibility system.

By centering parent perspectives, findings contribute evidence to ECEC policy debates and highlights strategies to increase access, such as reducing administrative burden, improving outreach, and expanding access. Strengthening subsidy systems is essential for promoting economic stability and advancing equity in early childhood policy.