Providers participating in child care subsidies show distinct offerings and needs in recent provider survey

Edge Research conducted a survey of over 1,000 afterschool providers between October and December 2025, as part of a wave of surveys the Afterschool Alliance has conducted since 2020. Overall, the survey found providers worried about program sustainability and the potential of losing funding, many while struggling with significantly increased costs. 

The survey asked participants about their sources of program funding, including parent fees, 21st Century Community Learning Center (21st CCLC) grants, and funding from the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). Thirty eight percent of respondents reported receiving some funding from 21st CCLC and while 33% report being eligible to receive CCDF funding, only 13% of respondents actually reported receiving CCDF funds. 

Providers that reported using CCDF funding included those operated by public schools, YMCAs, Boys & Girls Clubs and other non-profits and community based organizations, private and for-profit child care centers, and faith-based organizations. 

The Child Care and Development Fund operates under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Legislation and supports children from ages 0 through age 12. To participate, programs must be licensed or eligible to accept CCDF funds in their state, often ensuring they have met a set of federal and state-specific requirements which include staff ratios, staff training, a series of background checks, and physical space requirements. Some requirements can be especially challenging for school-age programs to meet if a state mandates standards mainly designed for early care and education centers serving 0–5 year-olds. Space and group size requirements aligned with center-based programs can be difficult to meet for programs operating on a school site. States may also require staff to take safe sleep training or hold early education degrees, which are primarily designed for early care settings. However, in recent years, many states have been more intentional about designing school-age only regulations, which can reduce some of the regulatory challenges of accepting CCDF subsidy while ensuring safe, healthy spaces for youth to develop. 

Due to the particular requirements to participate in CCDF, we examined this subset of providers in relation to all providers surveyed. 

Similar to providers overall, CCDF providers aligned with:

• Curricular Offerings: CCDF providers offered a number of educational supports to students, including academic and homework help (83%), STEM learning (73%), access to technology (61%), reading or writing time (68%), and youth-led programming (41%). 

• Youth employment: The CCDF providers employed youth to facilitate programming (32%) at similar rates to all providers.

• Requested supports: CCDF providers mainly aligned with the full universe of providers in prioritizing a number of supports, including advice on funding streams (41%); advice on staff burnout (36%); and communications tools to help families learn more about supports and benefits of afterschool (30%)

• Waitlists: 54% of CCDF providers reported having a waitlist, which is slightly, but not significantly higher than 48% of all respondents. 

Within this subset, a number of more unique results also emerged:

• Hours of service: On average, CCDF-funded providers operate 4.8 days per week for 5.4 hours per day, closely reflecting averages of all providers surveyed. However, CCDF-funded providers were statistically more likely to operate year-round (afterschool and over the summer), than providers overall. Forty three percent of afterschool providers offer year-round programming compared to 54% of those receiving CCDF, and are more likely to be serving parents the same day the school year starts (74% vs. 47%).

• Populations served: Over the summer, 40% CCDF funded programs reported serving pre-K students versus 26% of providers overall. They are also less likely to be serving a predominately low-income population – 30% of CCDF program respondents reported that over 75% of their students qualify for Free and Reduced Lunch, compared with 51% of providers overall. In contrast to all providers reporting receiving 21st CCLC funding, despite some overlap, CCDF providers are more likely to serve students in suburban (36% vs. 27%) and urban (47% vs. 38%) settings than rural ones (23% vs. 44%). 

• Workforce challenges: Overall, providers typically operated with small teams, ranging from 1 to 4 staff members. CCDF-funded providers fell at the higher end of that range, employing a median of 4 staff, compared to 3 staff for programs overall – although this difference was not significant enough to rule out chance. They were also significantly more likely to report increased costs due to hiring and training (56% vs. 37%). Compared to programs overall, CCDF providers are significantly more likely to be operating at lower than pre-COVID capacity limits (33% vs. 21%), and are much more likely to list increased costs of running the program (49% vs. 33%) as a factor contributing to operating at lower capacity. According to providers, hiring concerns are leading to detrimental impacts on their programming including decreased staff morale (66% vs. 49%), increased staff stress (78% vs. 66%); and negative impacts on program quality (59% vs. 48%).

• Workforce supports: CCDF providers are more likely to report efforts to implement measures for staff recruitment and retention, including increasing hourly wages and salaries (62% vs. 49%); providing free child care to staff (32% vs. 22%); providing additional professional development opportunities (60% vs. 47%); and are far less likely to have tried no new methods to attract staff (9% vs. 21%). And while the percentage of staff being paid full salaries (57%) on an hourly basis aligns with other providers (70%), staff with CCDF providers are at least ten percentage points more likely to be receiving full or partial benefits (47% vs. 37%) and being provided with paid leave (42% vs. 30%). CCDF providers were also significantly more likely to want tools and resources related to helping provide benefits and supports for staff, such as childcare, bonuses, professional development, and scheduling (41% vs. 27%)

• Regulations: CCDF providers reported significantly more increased costs due to hiring and training (56% vs. 37%). They were also twenty percentage points more likely to report that regulatory requirements on staff ratios or qualifications were an issue in the hiring and training of staff (46% vs. 26% overall). They also found it more difficult to compete with wages offered by other providers (85% vs. 67%). 

• Overall costs: CCDF providers charge a significantly higher average weekly parent fee with a median fee of $89.50 per week compared to $65.00 for providers overall. Providers that rely exclusively on parent fees as their funding source reported charging a median of $75 per child per week. Similar to providers overall, CCDF providers reported this fee was still less than the average cost per child. The median cost per child among CCDF providers was $100 compared to $75 for providers overall, in each case $10 per student greater than the average parent fee. Interestingly, programs relying exclusively on parent fees reported median costs exactly equal to parent fees.

• Cost increases: CCDF providers were far more likely than all providers to say costs per child, per week for in-person services increased in the last 12 months – 64% compared to 43% overall and 46% among parent-fee-only providers. With 45% of those reporting cost increases responding that increased cost per child was over 10%. The CCDF providers are more likely to attribute the increased costs to staffing (85% vs. 76%). 

Though performing many of the same functions of afterschool programs in engaging students in well-rounded educational and enrichment experiences, Child Care program operations also reveal some significant distinctions. The CCDF programs generally serve younger children over longer hours in the day and year, with higher staff averages, and have to meet more specific regulatory standards than other providers. These are all conditions that may drive up costs, as seen in the survey data – where CCDF programs are often $20 a week above the average cost of all programs. CCDF providers also appear to be more challenged in hiring and retaining staff and are therefore more likely to use recruitment tools such as free child care, benefits, and paid leave to attract needed staff without whom they feel staff morale and program quality suffer. CCDF providers therefore offer significant benefits in meeting parent and student needs, but at a steep cost. 

Recent policy actions at the state level have been trying to help promote access, safety, and quality while working to mitigate any unnecessary regulatory burdens, increased provider costs, and staffing challenges. These include efforts in Kentucky, Virginia, Massachusetts, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Nebraska – ranging from free child care for child care employees to alternate licensing pathways for school-age youth programs.

The survey elevates the importance of continued progress on behalf of these providers. Sixty three percent of CCDF providers reported concerns over loss of funding to their program this year and CCDF-funded providers were the most likely to report operating at lower than pre-COVID capacity limits (33% vs. 21%). To help rebuild capacity, cover increased costs, and mitigate concerns for the future viability of their programs, CCDF-funded afterschool providers could benefit from increased federal funding for CCDF. At the same time, more states should consider how to stabilize the school-age child care field within the  broader child care landscape to ensure these programs continue reaching children and families who need them the most.