A lower child-care bill can make a real difference to a family. But it doesn’t help much if there’s no place available for your child or if you earn too much to qualify for assistance and still can’t afford the options around you.
California has reduced the formal fees many families pay for subsidized child care. Los Angeles County data, however, points to a different part of the problem: many young children estimated to qualify for assistance are not counted as enrolled in subsidized programs.
That doesn’t mean all those children are without care. Some families pay privately or rely on relatives. Others may have trouble finding a provider, a suitable schedule or a place for a baby.
Lowering the price of child care and making sure families can actually get it are two different challenges.
On October 12, Gov. Gavin Newsom highlighted new research from the Public Policy Institute of California showing how much formal family fees for subsidized child care have fallen.
Under California’s 2019 fee schedule, families earning between 40% and 85% of state median income could be charged family fees capped at 10% of their income. Those fees were suspended during the pandemic.
When fees returned in October 2023, the rules were much more generous to families. Formal fees applied only to families earning between 75% and 85% of state median income, and they were capped at 1% of family income. Most families receiving subsidized care now owe no formal family fee.
PPIC illustrates the difference with a hypothetical family of three earning $60,000. Its estimated annual fees for full-time subsidized care fell from roughly $7,000 under the 2019–20 schedule to zero under the 2025–26 schedule, after adjusting for inflation.
That’s meaningful savings for a family receiving that assistance.
But the comparison answers a specific question: How much did the formal fee schedule change for families using subsidized care? It doesn’t tell us what every family pays, whether a family can find an opening, or how much care costs for parents who don’t receive a subsidy.
Los Angeles County’s FY 2025–26 Local Funding Priorities report compares the estimated number of children eligible for subsidized early care and education with the number enrolled in subsidized programs.
The report breaks the figures down by ZIP code and age group. For infants and toddlers from birth through 35 months, the estimates show sizable gaps in several communities.
In ZIP code 90011, the county estimated that 3,471 infants and toddlers were eligible for subsidized care, while 255 were counted in subsidized spaces. In ZIP code 90044, the estimates were 2,781 eligible children and 364 enrolled.
These figures need context. They don’t tell us how many children are on waiting lists, how many have no child care, or how many families have found other arrangements.
A family might pay a private provider, leave a child with a relative or combine several arrangements to cover the week. Another family might be unable to find care that fits its budget or work schedule. The county’s enrollment figures don’t tell us how many families fall into each situation.
There’s also a geographic limitation. The county assigns enrollment to the ZIP code where the provider is located, while it estimates eligible children based on their home ZIP code. A family may live in one ZIP code and take a child to care in another.
Even with those limitations, the county’s data gives us a useful starting point. It shows where estimated eligibility and enrollment in subsidized programs differ—and where local planners may need to look more closely.
Explore Los Angeles County’s child-care enrollment estimates and methodology.
Why the youngest children deserve a closer look
An earlier county needs assessment, summarized in a brief published in May 2025, reported that 43% of eligible preschool-age children were enrolled in subsidized programs, compared with 8% of eligible infants and toddlers.
Those percentages come from the earlier assessment, not current 2026 enrollment figures. They shouldn’t be presented as today’s countywide rates. The newer ZIP-code report provides a more recent starting point for examining how enrollment compares with estimated eligibility.
Still, the difference raises an important question: Are families with babies facing a different set of barriers from families seeking preschool?
Infant care has different staffing and operating needs from care for older children. Families may have fewer suitable options depending on where they live, what hours they work and whether a provider has room for a baby.
Free transitional kindergarten can help families with eligible four-year-olds. But it doesn’t cover the child-care needs of infants and toddlers, and it doesn’t automatically solve the need for care before or after school.
We have reported on the broader problem of child-care access, including differences by income and the challenges Latino families face. That earlier reporting provides useful context, but the newer county data should be judged on its own definitions and limitations.
More money for child care doesn’t automatically mean more open places
The governor’s office says California has added approximately 149,000 subsidized child-care slots since 2019.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office offers a separate measure in its 2026–27 budget analysis. Its budget table lists 423,371 projected subsidized slots for 2026–27, compared with 386,974 in the revised 2025–26 budget.
Those figures describe budgeted or projected program capacity. They aren’t a count of children actually receiving care, and they don’t establish how many places are available right now.
The LAO also describes a net increase of 18,440 slots in the budget package. That number differs from the simple subtraction of the two annual totals. The measures reflect different budget adjustments and program considerations, so they shouldn’t be treated as interchangeable.
The budget includes 20,700 new California Alternative Payment Program slots scheduled to begin October 1, 2026, and 2,070 new General Child Care slots scheduled to begin April 1, 2027.
As of October 13, the first start date has arrived. But the published figures don’t establish how many of those new places are already available to families or how many children have enrolled.
Think of the difference this way: Funding a place is one step. A provider offering it is another. A family finding that place, qualifying for assistance and enrolling a child is another still.
The state figures help explain how much capacity California plans to fund. County enrollment estimates help show how many eligible children are participating in subsidized programs. Neither measure alone tells us whether every family that needs affordable care can get it.
Read the Legislative Analyst’s Office analysis of California’s 2026–27 child-care budget.
PPIC’s research identifies another part of the problem: the financial pressure on child-care providers.
Providers told researchers that reimbursement payments can be insufficient to cover the cost of caring for children in subsidized programs. Providers may also be permitted to charge additional copayments to help cover the difference between public payments, family fees and the prices charged for private enrollment.
That doesn’t mean every provider charges extra or every family receiving a subsidy faces the same costs. It does mean the formal family fee may not tell the whole story.
For parents, affordability depends on what they actually have to pay. For providers, the question is whether the money they receive covers the cost of keeping a program running.
Those issues can affect one another. If a provider cannot make the numbers work, the number of places available to families could be affected. But the current evidence does not establish that reimbursement rates alone explain the enrollment gaps in Los Angeles County.
That requires more specific local evidence.
What families still need to know
California has made a documented change to its child-care fee schedule. The state has also budgeted for subsidized capacity, and Los Angeles County has identified gaps between estimated eligibility and enrollment.
But the figures answer different questions.
Lower fees tell us what many families owe under the subsidy system. Budget tables show planned or funded capacity. Enrollment estimates show how many eligible children are counted as participating in subsidized programs.
None of those measures tells us, by itself, how many families cannot afford any suitable child care.
The county data also doesn’t tell us how long families wait, how many rely on relatives, what parents pay for private care or how often a lack of suitable care forces a parent to change work arrangements.
Those are important questions, but they require evidence beyond the figures currently available.
For now, the evidence supports a narrower conclusion: California has reduced formal fees for many families receiving subsidized care, but lower fees don’t guarantee that families can find a suitable place for their children.
For parents, the difference is practical. They need care they can afford, trust and use when they need it not just a lower fee schedule or a larger state budget.
