Nearly 60% of US states, plus Washington, D.C., would take more than two years of welfare checks to cover just one year of childcare, according to a new analysis from SingleMothersGrants.org.
The finding builds on the organization’s broader report, The Single Mother Squeeze Index, which ranks all 50 states and D.C. on how far cash assistance falls short of childcare costs.
Diane Miller, a researcher at SingleMothersGrants.org, said the scale of the gap surprised the team: “We didn’t expect the gap to be this wide. Only one state’s welfare check actually keeps pace with what childcare really costs families.” That state is Wyoming, the only jurisdiction where 12 months of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance exceeds a year of infant care costs.
The index, built from Child Care Aware of America and National Center for Children in Poverty data, surfaces some stark contrasts. A family of three in Arkansas receives just $204 a month in TANF. That’s the equivalent of $6.80 a day — the lowest maximum benefit in the country, while Minnesota pays $1,430 a month for the same program. Nationally, a full year of the average state’s TANF checks falls $7,449 short of covering a year of infant care. In Washington, D.C., the shortfall of $18,720 is worth nearly two years of the benefit itself. New Mexico has the heaviest relative burden: families there spend 21% of median family income on infant care alone, more than any other state, which is why it tops the index as most “squeezed.” Seven states: Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina and Oklahoma set their maximum TANF payment below 15% of the federal poverty line for a family of three.
Asked why the study measures general welfare cash assistance against childcare costs rather than the federal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), which is designed specifically to subsidize childcare, SingleMothersGrants.org said the choice was deliberate: “We chose welfare cash assistance because families can use it for whatever they need most, including childcare. The childcare subsidy program was designed specifically to cover care costs, but it reaches only a small share of eligible families.” Reports suggest only around one in seven eligible families actually receives CCDF assistance, largely due to limited funding and waiting lists that can stretch for months. “Our study therefore examined whether this basic support keeps pace with the everyday cost of raising a child.”
The organization also weighed in on a Trump administration proposal, reported by The New York Times, that would let married couples with a stay-at-home parent draw on CCDF funds. This is money currently reserved for families paying for outside childcare while working. Critics have warned that expanding eligibility without new funding would intensify competition for an already limited pool of resources. About 80% of families currently receiving CCDF subsidies are single working parents, most of them mothers. SingleMothersGrants.org said its research supports that concern: “The program already serves only a limited number of eligible families, and around 80% of current recipients are single working parents, most of them are mothers. Since the proposal does not include additional funding, it would divide an already limited pool of support further. Our research suggests these families would be affected most.”
The study has drawn scrutiny on two fronts. First, it compares only one type of public welfare aid (TANF) against full childcare costs, even though families can draw on multiple support programs, potentially understating actual assistance. It also uses each state’s maximum TANF benefit and overall median family income rather than income specific to single-mother households, potentially understating the real burden.
Asked whether these two limitations might cancel each other out, the organization was direct: “We cannot say that with confidence. We do not have detailed enough data to understand exactly how they interact, and we would rather be clear about that than make assumptions. That is why both limitations were included in our published methodology.” It added that a more granular analysis “could change some rankings, but we would still expect the main finding to remain the same.”
