Employers, researchers highlight public‑private models and economic losses from childcare gaps

SACRAMENTO — Employers, chambers of commerce and economic researchers told the California State Assembly Select Committee on Child Care Costs that employers can be part of the solution to childcare access — but no single employer‑led approach will substitute for state investment in subsidies and provider pay.

Ashley Hoffman, senior policy advocate for the California Chamber of Commerce, told the committee she surveyed members and found about 30 percent of responding employers offer some childcare‑related benefit, ranging from dependent care flexible spending accounts and on‑site or near‑site care to informal policies like bringing children to work or flexible schedules. Hoffman said employer benefits often improve retention but can be costly and are not one‑size‑fits‑all; she also described examples of public‑private pilots in other states, such as Michigan’s TriShare pilot and Kentucky’s employer match program.

Sarah Bone, vice president and director of the Public Policy Institute of California’s Economic Policy Center, framed the debate in labor‑market terms. “Our research suggests that poverty among families with preschoolers would be 24 percent lower if they had access to subsidized care,” Bone said, and noted that better access to care expands mothers’ workforce participation: a thought experiment presented to the committee estimated more than 80,000 additional women could be working if mothers of the youngest children worked at rates similar to mothers of older children.

Hoffman urged legislators to consider targeted public‑private partnerships — models that match employer contributions with state funds, use regional nonprofit hubs to connect employees to providers and preserve parent choice. She cited Michigan’s TriShare model, in which the employee, employer and state share costs via nonprofit hubs, and a Kentucky matching program that gives priority to smaller businesses and childcare deserts.

Panelists emphasized that employer programs face limits. Costs to build on‑site or near‑site facilities have risen, enrollment can fluctuate, and many employers — especially small businesses — cannot afford ongoing subsidies for employees. Several witnesses recommended state incentives or matching funds to amplify employer contributions rather than expecting employers to carry the entire burden.

If employers and local chambers can be organized to partner effectively, they may help fill gaps and improve retention for some workers. Hoffman pointed to local efforts, including a Santa Rosa chamber project and a San Diego YMCA program that designs employer subsidy programs and connects employees to providers.

Quotes from the hearing: "Up to 40% of parents have reported that they or someone else in their household has either left a job, declined a job, or changed jobs because of problems with childcare in the last 12 months." — Ashley Hoffman, California Chamber of Commerce (member survey cited). "Poverty among families with preschoolers would be 24% lower if they had access to subsidized care." — Sarah Bone, Public Policy Institute of California.

Committee members asked for follow‑up data on pilot outcomes and urged state staff to collect rural and regional information as well as urban examples. Several lawmakers said employer partnerships should be pursued alongside structural rate reforms and expanded subsidy slots so employer efforts complement rather than replace public childcare services.