Skip to content
Issue Brief

Two California Families, Two Futures: The Real Cost of Federal Budget Cuts

Republican-Proposed Budget Cuts Would Hurt California Families, Reward the Top 1%

April 2025 | By Laura Pryor, Hannah Orbach-Mandel, and Kristin Schumacher

A preschool student shares how she feels during a morning greeting song.

key takeaway

Republican federal budget proposals threaten critical programs for California families — like Head Start and afterschool care — while offering tax breaks to the wealthiest 1%, putting children’s well-being and working parents’ economic security at risk.

The federal government funds critical programs and services for California’s families that benefit children across the state, such as early care and education, food assistance, after school programs, and much more. Republican federal budget proposals have threatened to cut or alter many of these programs, putting the well-being of California’s children and their parents/guardians at risk. At the same time, Republican leaders are proposing a series of tax cuts that will benefit the highest earners.

In order to fund these tax cuts for the wealthy, Republican proposals intend to cut critical programs that are lifelines for millions of Californians, putting funding for early care and education and afterschool programs at risk. If proposed cuts become a reality, California’s children and families may fall even deeper into poverty while the richest accumulate even more wealth.

A Tale of Two Families

Imagine two families living in San Bernardino County. The first is a single mother raising two young children — a three-year-old and a six-year-old. She works part-time at an Amazon warehouse and is also a part-time student, working toward an associate degree in Radiologic Technology to become an X-ray technician. The second family includes a Senior Vice President for Tesla and her spouse who works remotely as a managing director at an investment firm. This couple also has a three-year-old and a six-year-old.

The single mother is paid about $18,000 per year for her part-time work, which is below the poverty line. In contrast, the couple earns about $1.2 million annually — placing them in the top 1% of income earners in the U.S.

Each morning, the single mother drops off her three-year-old at a local Head Start program and her six-year-old at the neighborhood elementary school. After school, her six year-old child attends a 21st Century Community Learning Center program, allowing the mother to complete her shift and attend her classes. The Head Start and afterschool program let her pick both her children up between 5 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., allowing her to work and go to school to later boost her income.

In a different part of San Bernardino County, the wealthy couple have breakfast with their children each morning, then move on to their work day without having to consider drop-off, pick-up, or after care into their schedules because they employ a nanny to manage these and other household tasks. They also pay thousands of dollars to enroll their three-year-old in a part-day preschool for two days per week and the six-year-old in a private kindergarten.

“
This single mom may lose funds for nearly one month of rent, while the 1% family pays the mortgage on their vacation home for almost the entire year.
”

Programs like Head Start and 21st Century Community Learning Centers play no meaningful role in the wealthy family’s lives — they can afford private solutions for every need, from early education to afterschool care. But for families who are barely making ends meet, like our single mother, these programs aren’t luxuries — they are lifelines that allow working parents to stay employed and continue their education.

Under the proposed federal Republican budget cuts, these critical supports — Head Start and afterschool programs — are at risk. Without child care and afterschool programs, this mom would need to pay an average of $1,640 per month — or $19,680 per year — for care, which exceeds her annual income. Without these federal programs, she would be forced to make impossible decisions — choosing between groceries, rent, transportation, and the child care she needs to keep her job and finish school.

Meanwhile, this wealthy family would receive an average tax break of $72,800 per year, funding additional luxuries: a vacation home, a personal chef, or health and wellness regimens. This would allow them even more flexibility and comfort without any additional work or sacrifice.

The following table quantifies the trade-offs that this single mom may have to make, juxtaposed with the additional luxuries the richest 1% can acquire.

California’s families with low incomes should not have their economic security threatened and their children’s enrichment and positive development endangered in order to help the nation’s richest households accumulate more wealth. Federal legislators representing California and state policymakers should push back against policies that put corporate profits and tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of the needs of California families and children. Republican-proposed cuts are not inevitable; state leaders can fight to prevent or mitigate harmful cuts to protect vital early care and education and afterschool programs for California’s children.

What are the benefits of Head Start and 21st Century Community Learning Centers?

The federal Head Start, Early Head Start, Migrant/Seasonal Head Start, and American Indian/Alaska Native Head Start (collectively, Head Start) programs provide critical early care and education for more than 73,000 children ages zero to 5 for families living in poverty in California, plus homeless, foster, and children with disabilities. Head Start has operated for six decades and has numerous benefits for California families and their children. Specifically, children participating in Head Start programs are:

  • More likely to complete high school;
  • More likely to enroll in and complete college;
  • Less likely to enter foster care; and
  • Less likely to experience poor health.

Overall, Head Start’s multi-generational benefits support families’ economic mobility and children’s well-being.

The federal government has been funding 21st Century Community Learning Centers for over 25 years. These programs provide after school and summer enrichment programs for more than 100,000 students in California and over a million more across the nation. Similar to Head Start, these afterschool programs have proven benefits for children, including:

  • Improved motivation in school;
  • Improved school-day attendance;
  • Improved scores on reading and math assessments; and
  • Gains in skills and competencies valued by employers.

Furthermore, parents and guardians of children in afterschool programs report having an increased ability to maintain their employment and increase hours at work. 

Head Start and 21st Century Community Learning Centers are vital federal programs that improve the lives of California’s families and children.

Kristin Schumacher, a former analyst at the California Budget & Policy Center, now contributes to the organization as a consultant on various research projects.

Child Care & Preschool
Federal Policy

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

key takeaway

Federal funding cuts to the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) threaten essential services for survivors of domestic violence, creating instability for service providers who rely on these funds. To ensure survivors receive the support they need, state and federal policymakers must prioritize stable, ongoing funding and prevent further cuts to VOCA.

Every Californian deserves to live in a world free from violence. However, this is not the reality for millions of Californians — especially women, people of color, transgender, and non-binary Californians — who experience domestic and sexual violence every year. Programs that provide essential services to survivors are critical tools in protecting survivors’ safety and helping them heal and recover. However, federal cuts have resulted in large funding gaps for these programs, and ongoing threats by Congressional Republicans and the Trump administration, including a federal funding freeze or additional budget cuts, would harm the ability of service providers to support survivors. Ongoing funding at the state and federal level is needed to ensure that survivors are provided with the crucial services they need.

How are Programs Supporting Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence Funded?

California receives federal dollars through the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) that help fund programs that provide survivors with services like emergency shelter, counseling, and financial assistance. However, anticipated cuts, a priority of Congressional Republicans, to VOCA at the federal level would result in a roughly 45% cut to state grants for organizations that support survivors of crime, decimating the funding of many of these organizations who rely entirely on VOCA dollars to provide these critical services. Additionally, the Trump administration has already proposed actions that would threaten the ability of VOCA and other related funding to reach service providers.

Where Do the Victims of Crime Act Funds Come From?

The Victims of Crime Act was a bipartisan effort passed in 1984 with the purpose to help survivors of crime with the associated costs like medical bills and lost wages. The passage of VOCA established the Crime Victims’ Fund, which is what holds the dollars to support survivors. The money in the fund is collected by the federal government and comes from criminal fines, penalties, forfeited bail bonds, and special assessments paid by people or corporations convicted of federal crimes.

Those dollars do not directly go to states. Congress authorizes the release of a set amount of money, or cap, each year from the fund. As shown in the following diagram, the process of distributing the funds involves multiple steps and allocates funds to several purposes, before ultimately reaching the states to support crime victim services.

Once the funds have gone through every step in the above chart, the very last step is awarding 47.5% of the remaining balance in grants to states. This is not the only way these dollars can go to states to support victim services — shelters also get funding through other federal agencies and grants — but the dollars awarded through the victim assistance formula grants are the most direct and most flexible. In California, the money goes to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, who administers the funding to eligible organizations that provide direct services to survivors.

Federal Funding Levels are Inconsistent, Causing Challenges for Survivor Service Providers

Unfortunately, while this funding is necessary to provide crucial support to survivors, it is currently insufficient due to federal funding cuts. Since 2019, funding has fallen far short of levels needed to maintain the services local organizations provide to more than 816,000 victims of crime in California. While the state stepped in and provided $103 million in one-time funding to backfill federal VOCA funding gaps in 2024, no funding was provided in the governor’s 2025-26 proposed budget even though cuts are expected at the federal level again. At the current funding level, programs will have experienced a 67% cut in funding since 2019.

Due to changes in the amount Congress decides to allocate each year to be released from the fund and large fluctuations in the amount collected in federal fines and fees, funding for survivors is precarious. As shown in the chart below, there have been large swings in the amount in the Crime Victims Fund, such as in 2017 when there was a $4.3 billion settlement from Volkswagen that led to a massive increase in the amount of funding sent to California the following year. These swings in funding levels have largely been due to unexpectedly large criminal fines and settlements, which can change drastically from year to year and create instability so programs cannot count on consistent funding to provide the critical services necessary for survivors.

What Are the Current Threats to This Funding?

While the dollars in the Crime Victims Fund come from criminal fines and fees, they are unfortunately still under threat by the proposed unconstitutional federal funding freeze by President Trump. The funding freeze is currently on pause and facing legal challenges, but if it were to go forward, the administration could pursue several potential actions that would harm survivors and service providers by:

  • Putting new grant conditions on the funds programs receive to limit who can be served or what services are prioritized;
  • Working with Congress to reduce or zero out how much is released from the fund each year; or
  • Using VOCA funding release to fund programs that do not support survivors or victims of crime.

How can state and federal policymakers better support survivors?

Programs that support survivors can be better resourced in two ways:

  1. State-Level: The state can help fill the gaps left by the federal government cutting VOCA funding to ensure that every Californian can feel safe. Ongoing, stable funding is crucial for service providers to be able to best support survivors.
  2. Federal-Level: Ensure that the funding freeze does not resume and do not continue to make cuts to VOCA funding. Proposed and planned federal budget cuts threaten the ability of domestic and sexual violence service providers to care for survivors, which puts the health and well-being of millions of Californians at risk in favor of tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Instead, Congress should appropriate adequate funding to be released each year from the fund in order for service providers to maintain and grow their critical programs.

Child Care & Preschool
Federal Policy

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

key takeaway

Republican-proposed federal cuts to CalFresh would put millions of Californians at risk of hunger by shifting billions in food assistance costs to the state. These cost-shift proposals could force California to reduce already too-low CalFresh benefits or take assistance away from over a million participants, disproportionately harming children, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities.

Over 5 million Californians rely on food assistance programs to ensure they can consistently put a meal on the table for themselves and their families. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — CalFresh in California — is a key tool for fighting hunger in the state. However, the Trump administration and congressional Republicans are pushing for severe cuts to CalFresh and other essential food assistance programs in order to fund huge tax giveaways for the wealthy.

Federal cuts to CalFresh would be especially devastating for California families with low incomes because benefits are completely funded by the federal government, with states covering a portion of the administrative and outreach costs.

House Republicans have proposed requiring the Agriculture Committee, which oversees SNAP, to cut at least $230 billion in federal spending over the next ten years. For comparison, the California General Fund is estimated to be $229 billion for the 2025-26 fiscal year. To make cuts of this magnitude possible, programs like CalFresh are likely to undergo major restructuring. CalFresh could face cuts to benefits and participation as a result of major cost-shifts to states, harsher time limits, and reversals of other key investments. Notably, significantly altering SNAP’s funding structure by offloading costs to states would have the greatest consequences for participants who rely on CalFresh for daily nutrition.

Cost-Shift Proposals Would Greatly Reduce Funding for CalFresh and Impose Massive Costs on California

If the federal government did decide to restructure how SNAP — and therefore CalFresh — is funded, this could shift major costs onto California. A cost-shift proposal would require the state to pay for a portion of CalFresh benefits for the first time in the program’s history, breaking a foundational agreement that food benefits are a federal responsibility as CalFresh is a federal entitlement program.

If California was required to cover 10% of the estimated cost of benefits issued in 2026, the state would be responsible for paying $1.23 billion to maintain CalFresh benefits. If California is required to fund $1.23 billion for CalFresh through this year’s budget or any future budget, but the state is only able to partially cover this cost, over a million people could lose benefits or receive significantly less assistance to buy groceries.

If California could only cover 75% of the $1.23 billion mandated by a hypothetical cost-shift proposal, the federal government’s contribution to CalFresh would decrease accordingly. Under this scenario, total CalFresh benefits would decrease from $12.3 billion to just $9.2 billion. In order to absorb this cut:

  • California would have to reduce daily CalFresh benefits, which are already too low, by 25% from $6.34 to $4.76, thereby increasing the daily food gap from $5.10 to $6.68.
  • Or, the state would have to take away benefits from 1 in 4 CalFresh recipients, or over 1.3 million participants.

Finding over $1 billion in California’s already strained budget fast enough to prevent families and individuals from losing benefits would be extremely difficult. Even if there weren’t any federal budget cuts, California is projected to face large budget shortfalls beginning in 2026-27 because state revenues are expected to fall far short of covering the cost of current services. Moreover, shifting a share of the cost of CalFresh benefits to California would likely make it impossible for the state to cover benefit costs during recessions when the need for food assistance rises, but state revenues decline.

Regardless of the magnitude of the cost-sharing proposal, Californians who rely on CalFresh to afford basic food needs are at risk of facing reduced benefits or exclusion from the program entirely, which could lead to increased food insecurity and poverty at a time when so many Californians are already struggling with the high costs of living.

Additional Federal Threats to SNAP Would Compound Harm

In addition to a severely damaging cost shift, other proposals to weaken SNAP could take aid away from children, veterans, seniors, working families, people struggling to find work, and people with disabilities. These proposals include:

  • Rolling back expansions to the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), which sets the amounts for CalFresh benefits. The TFP had not been updated since the 1970s to reflect current science-based dietary recommendations or the economic realities of buying and preparing food prior to a 2021 expansion. The proposal to roll back this and future revisions would decrease already limited benefits and make it significantly harder for families to afford groceries.
  • Imposing time limits on exempted populations like veterans, people experiencing homelessness, youth who have aged out of foster care, and parents of school-aged children. SNAP has strict time limits on assistance for many able-bodied participants without dependents unless they meet certain work requirements, despite the extensive research that shows work requirements have no long-term impacts on employment and only result in people losing assistance. The overwhelming majority of CalFresh/SNAP recipients who can work already do. Therefore, imposing harsher time limits would cut benefits and increase hardship for people who face disproportionate challenges in the labor force, live in areas where there are insufficient jobs, and contribute significantly through their unpaid labor of caregiving.
  • Ending Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE), which would impose significant administrative burdens and take food away from children receiving school meals. BBCE is an important tool to connect families who have difficulty affording basic expenses to different programs they are eligible for. One of the most important uses is to allow all children who receive CalFresh to automatically receive free school meals without additional paperwork. The proposal would also make it more difficult for children to access free school meals during the school year and over the summer, undermining efforts around School Meals for All in California. Overall, ending BBCE would further complicate the administrative process for agencies and families and reduce students’ access to free meals at school, putting additional pressure on family budgets.

Proposed Changes to Food Assistance Programs Will Harm Californians

Federal threats to food assistance programs will cause harm to already struggling families. Black, Latinx, and multiracial households disproportionately rely on these services, meaning any cuts would further exacerbate inequalities already present within these communities.

California’s leaders should take bold action to protect communities from the proposed devastating federal cuts. This starts with urging their federal counterparts to reject harmful budget cuts to food assistance programs like CalFresh in order to justify huge tax breaks for high-income households and corporations. At the same time, the state should prepare to mitigate the impact of potential cuts by exploring equitable revenue solutions to safeguard essential services.

Programs like CalFresh help families purchase food, aid the state in fighting poverty, and help stabilize the economy during recessions by supporting local businesses. Protecting and strengthening food assistance is necessary to ensure that no children, seniors, veterans, or Californians with disabilities go hungry in our state.

Child Care & Preschool
Federal Policy

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

key takeaway

Higher wages for early care and education workers in California are essential to expanding affordable child care, supporting families’ economic security, and addressing long-standing workforce inequities rooted in racial and gender disparities.

Access to affordable, nurturing early care and education (ECE) is critical for families’ economic security and positive child development. California’s ECE system helps families with low incomes find and pay for vital programs during a child’s early years. As part of this programming, the state also pays ECE providers who participate in subsidized ECE programs. State investments in ECE are critical for ensuring that families have adequate access to affordable early care options and that ECE providers are reimbursed at a fair rate. While the state has increased funding for subsidized ECE programs since the Great Recession, this funding has not gone far enough. Namely, the demand for subsidized ECE programs far exceeds the number of spaces. As of 2023, only 14% of children eligible for subsidized ECE programs were actually enrolled.1The ECE programs referenced in this statistic include the child care and development programs administered by the California Department of Social Services.

The need to expand access to affordable early learning options also means that California requires a workforce to meet that demand. The ECE profession has experienced high turnover due to low pay, a lack of benefits, and pandemic-related risks that drove many out of the field. In order to effectively address the unmet need for affordable care, the workforce must also expand. This remains a challenge under the current subsidized system’s payment rate structure. The ECE system will remain inequitable and affordable child care will remain scarce without higher wages for the workforce.

How are ECE providers paid and why are these professionals paid such low wages?

Currently, subsidized child care and preschool providers are paid in two ways:

  • Those that accept state vouchers are paid based on the Regional Market Rate (RMR) survey; and
  • ECE professionals that have a direct contract with the state are paid using the Standard Reimbursement Rate (SRR). The current rates are frozen through the 2024-25 fiscal year as the state works to create an alternative methodology reflecting the true cost of care.

However, the 2023-24 budget established “cost of care” stipends to temporarily increase reimbursement rates above the RMR and SRR through the 2024-25 fiscal year.

Early care and education professionals working in these organizations — primarily women and disproportionately women of color — deserve fair and just wages for essential work that helps children learn and grow while parents are working or going to school to support their families. However, families are often unable to afford the true cost of care, including adequate wages for these professionals. The subsidy from the state could fill this gap, but the rate-setting methodologies that have been in place in California for decades assume and perpetuate a low-paid workforce. Paying this essential workforce low wages is a direct result of racist and sexist stereotypes that devalue caregiving work and exacerbate the gender wage gap. State leaders should instead prioritize treating these jobs as high-skill, high-value jobs. The current workforce of talented and dedicated providers who help care for and develop California’s children is misaligned with the low wages they receive.

How much has the reimbursement rate increased for ECE providers?

Over the past decade, ECE providers have experienced an increase in their reimbursement rates. Yet, these increases have been insufficient to keep pace with the rising costs of goods and services and the state’s minimum wage, which has been steadily increasing since 2016. The following chart highlights key points regarding increases to ECE providers’ rates:

  • Despite the cost of care supplement to the RMR, increases in rates remain far below the increase in the minimum wage. In 21 counties, home-based ECE providers participating in a voucher program had rates for infant care increase at less than half the rate of the minimum wage. In almost every county in the state, licensed family child care home providers and center-based providers struggled with low rate increases relative to the minimum wage (see table). 
  • Aside from the cost of care supplement, state leaders have only updated voucher-based payment rates for child care providers three times in the past nine fiscal years. Specifically, rates were increased to the 75th percentile of the updated market surveys as part of the 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2021-22 spending plans. Without the cost of care supplement, rates in 2024 would still be at the 75th percentile of the 2018 market rate survey. 
  • ECE payment rates have not kept pace with the increasing minimum wage. The state law requiring annual increases to the statewide minimum wage went into effect in 2016-17, raising the wage by 65% from 2016-17 to 2024-25. Because ECE  professionals are paid very low wages, increases in the minimum wage increase costs for providers. State leaders have failed to increase payment rates to keep pace with the state minimum wage (see chart). This cuts into providers’ bottom line making it even harder to provide care to children and families.

Policymakers have not consistently updated the Standard Reimbursement Rate (SRR), either.  From 2016-17 to 2024-25 the SRR increased by just 37%, falling far short of the 65% increase in the state minimum wage.

Policymakers’ failure to consistently update the payment rates for subsidized child care and preschool providers undermines their ability to offer care to children and families while covering the rising cost of business in California.

How Do ECE Professionals’ Wages Compare with the Broader Workforce?

The relatively small percent increase in ECE professionals’ wages is further compounded by the low wages they face, as compared with other professions. This is particularly the case when compared to elementary and middle school teachers, an occupation with similar work and professional qualifications. The chart below compares median wages for ECE professionals, all workers, and K-8 teachers.2The methodology to define “Early Care and Education professionals” is based on the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment’s Early Childhood Workforce. These professionals include: 1) child care workers in the child day care services, private households, religious organizations, or elementary and secondary school industries; 2) education and child care administrators in the child day care services industry; 3) preschool and kindergarten teachers in the child day care services industry; and 4) other teachers and teaching assistants in the child day care services industry.

Overall, this chart shows that median ECE professionals’ wages fall behind the median for all workers and even further as compared with K-8 teachers. Other key points from this chart include the following:

  • Between 2008 and 2023, ECE professionals’ wages increased by only a few dollars. After adjusting for inflation, ECE professionals’ wages increased by $2.81 between 2008 and 2023. This small increase has meant that ECE professionals’ wages have remained alarmingly low over time, exacerbating issues such as high turnover and fewer workers willing to enter and stay in the field.
  • If trends continue, it will take nearly 60 years for ECE professionals’ wages to catch up to the median wage of all workers. Specifically, using the 10-year average rate of change for ECE professionals and all workers’ wages, ECE professionals will finally surpass the median wage of all workers in the year 2083.3The rate used to project median wages is the 10-year annual average of the change in median hourly  earnings from 2012-2023. Therefore, the number of years before the wage gap closes reflects an estimate based on projected median hourly earnings. The data include the employed population age 16 and over working more than 10 hours a week and 27 weeks per year. Data for 2020 was unreliable and therefore omitted from the analysis. Source: Budget Center analysis of US Census Bureau, American Community Survey data. 
  • ECE professionals make only 39% of the K-8 median hourly wage. ECE professionals’ hourly wage is less than half the median hourly wage of a middle school or elementary school teacher. ECE professionals often have the same qualifications and work with the same age groups as elementary and middle school teachers; yet, median wages are far from parity.

In addition to K-8 teachers, comparing ECE professionals’ hourly wages with other professions underscores that ECE professionals work in one of the  lowest paid occupations despite the critical value of their work. The table below outlines ECE professionals’ median hourly earnings in the context of other low wage occupations. Thus, ECE professionals’ wages have not only grown at a slow rate, but they also started near the floor. ECE professionals have been stuck in low wage work, despite increases in state funding for ECE.

What is the consequence of low wages for ECE professionals?

Poverty is on the rise for children and families across California. Thus, many of the families ECE professionals serve are struggling more now than in prior years to make ends meet; however, many professionals themselves are also in poverty. Specifically, compared with all workers and elementary and middle school teachers, a disproportionate percentage of ECE professionals are also in poverty. The chart below shows that while poverty rates have decreased for ECE professionals over time, they are still over twice that of all workers and nearly four times that of elementary and middle school teachers. These relatively high poverty rates are a consequence of ECE professionals’ historically low wages.

How can state leaders support ECE professionals?

Overall, California has undoubtedly seen an increased investment in its ECE system. However, the system is still falling short in several ways. While the number of slots has increased, thousands of families still do not have access to affordable ECE options. Increasing access to ECE programs also requires supporting ECE professionals, and wages are still too low to ensure ECE professionals have the resources they need to expand and thrive.

Inequities in the ECE system reflect centuries of historical racism and sexism. The ECE system and its workforce deserve better, and state leaders have the tools to ensure that ECE professionals are paid a living and just wage. Specifically, state leaders can advance the alternative methodology to develop payment rates and implement an improved rate structure. For far too long, ECE professionals have worked low wages and endured a system that undervalues their integral role in California. California has been a leader in many other policy areas, and is well-poised to continue leading by paying ECE professionals the true cost of care.

Kristin Schumacher, a former analyst at the California Budget & Policy Center, now contributes to the organization as a consultant on various research projects.

Child Care & Preschool
Federal Policy
  • 1
    The ECE programs referenced in this statistic include the child care and development programs administered by the California Department of Social Services.
  • 2
    The methodology to define “Early Care and Education professionals” is based on the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment’s Early Childhood Workforce. These professionals include: 1) child care workers in the child day care services, private households, religious organizations, or elementary and secondary school industries; 2) education and child care administrators in the child day care services industry; 3) preschool and kindergarten teachers in the child day care services industry; and 4) other teachers and teaching assistants in the child day care services industry.
  • 3
    The rate used to project median wages is the 10-year annual average of the change in median hourly  earnings from 2012-2023. Therefore, the number of years before the wage gap closes reflects an estimate based on projected median hourly earnings. The data include the employed population age 16 and over working more than 10 hours a week and 27 weeks per year. Data for 2020 was unreliable and therefore omitted from the analysis. Source: Budget Center analysis of US Census Bureau, American Community Survey data. 

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

key takeaway

California’s uninsured rate reached an all-time low in 2022, but the state must now work to maintain this progress. State leaders must ensure equitable access to health coverage as they process Medi-Cal renewals, which were temporarily suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Consistent access to health care is necessary for everyone to be healthy and thrive. During the pandemic, millions of Californians with low incomes were able to stay continuously enrolled in Medi-Cal (California’s state Medicaid program) due to a federal pandemic-era policy.1A provision in the federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act passed in March 2020 required states to provide continuous coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries in exchange for enhanced federal funding during the federally declared Public Health Emergency (PHE). The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, which federal policymakers passed in December 2022, delinked the continuous coverage provision from the PHE, thereby ending this provision on March 31, 2023. Partly as a result of this federal policy, Medi-Cal enrollment in California reached an all-time high — with over 15 million people enrolled — while the uninsured rate dropped to a historic low (6.5%).

Earlier this year, California began processing Medi-Cal renewals for the first time since the start of the pandemic. Recent data reveal an alarming trend: More than 500,000 Californians have lost Medi-Cal coverage during recent months. Although not everyone who loses Medi-Cal coverage becomes uninsured, the majority of people who lost coverage did so because of paperwork challenges. Certain groups, including immigrants, older adults, and people with disabilities, are at greater risk of losing Medi-Cal coverage during this continuous coverage “unwinding” period.

State leaders have implemented measures to reduce barriers to accessing and maintaining Medi-Cal coverage. Still, policymakers can take additional steps to prevent Californians who remain eligible for Medi-Cal from losing coverage. This includes pausing procedural terminations and investing in health navigators. By taking additional action, state leaders can strive to ensure that all Californians, regardless of race, age, disability, or immigration status, can access and maintain the critical health coverage they need to be healthy and thrive.

What is health equity?

When everyone has the opportunity to be as healthy as possible and no one is disadvantaged from achieving this because of their race, gender identity, sexual orientation, the neighborhood they live in, or any other socially defined circumstance.

California’s Health Coverage Landscape: Progress, Disparities, and the Path to Equitable Coverage

California has made significant strides in expanding access to health coverage. This progress is primarily due to the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) and, more recently, the state’s efforts to expand comprehensive Medi-Cal coverage to income-eligible undocumented Californians. The percentage of Californians without health coverage decreased to 6.5% in 2022, down from the previous record low of 7% in 2021. These recent improvements in health coverage highlight the significant progress that California has made over the last decade when the uninsured rate was over 17%.

While access to health coverage has improved for all racial/ethnic groups in California over the last decade, racial disparities in coverage persist. Notably, gains in health coverage were significantly lower for Californians who identified as American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN), who had the highest uninsured rate. The uninsured rate of AI/AN Californians was nearly double that of the overall Californian population. Racial disparities were also evident for Latinx Californians, who had the second-highest uninsured rate. This is particularly concerning given that people identifying as Latinx account for over 40% of the state’s population.

The racial disparities in health coverage highlight the profound and enduring impact of racism, which blocks Californians of color from equal access to health care. For example, some people of color may hesitate to seek coverage because they distrust the government and health care systems that are responsible for past and ongoing mistreatment against them, their families, and their communities. Another instance of a racist policy is the exclusion of undocumented immigrants, driven by racial and xenophobic biases, from enrolling in federally funded Medicaid coverage or purchasing coverage through the ACA marketplaces.2Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to enroll in federally funded Medicaid coverage or purchase coverage through the ACA Marketplaces. In recent years, California has allocated state funding to expand eligibility for full-scope Medi-Cal to undocumented immigrants.

While California has made significant progress in increasing health coverage, there is much more work to be done to ensure equitable access to health coverage for all Californians. Addressing the racial disparities in health coverage requires targeted outreach and education efforts along with other antiracist policy actions to improve health and well-being for Californians of color.

Many Californians Are Losing Medi-Cal Coverage Due to Paperwork Challenges

On April 1, 2023, California began the process of redetermining eligibility for Medi-Cal enrollees for the first time since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) publishes data showing the number of Californians who become disenrolled as a result of the redetermination process (i.e., undergo a procedural termination).3The California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) publishes interactive Medi-Cal dashboards detailing statewide and county-level demographic data on Medi-Cal application processing, enrollments, redeterminations, and renewal outcomes. DHCS also provides valuable insight into the circumstances leading to the disenrollment of Medi-Cal beneficiaries, which are categorized as follows:

  • Procedural: an individual loses coverage due to issues with their renewal paperwork.4In this issue brief, the term "paperwork" is used in place of the term "procedural." This may be a result of a Medi-Cal enrollee not receiving or returning requested forms on time, or other issues with the application system.
  • Over Income: an individual's income exceeds the Medi-Cal eligibility threshold, potentially making them eligible for coverage through Covered California — the state’s health insurance marketplace. 
  • Other Reasons: an individual moves out of the state, voluntarily disenrolls, or passes away.

Nearly 9 in 10 Californians (89.2%) who lost Medi-Cal coverage in August 2023 did so because they did not complete the renewal paperwork or had incorrect or missing information in their forms. Although not everyone who loses Medi-Cal coverage becomes uninsured, the data reveal a troubling trend.5Medi-Cal members have 90 days after their disenrollment to provide the necessary outstanding information to their local Medi-Cal office to restore their coverage. After the 90 days, people can submit a new application. Historically, California has seen a reinstatement rate of about 4% over the 90-day period.

Completing the renewal process often involves complex paperwork and documentation requirements, which can be difficult to navigate. Additionally, some Californians have experienced extended call wait times when attempting to contact county Medi-Cal workers regarding their application.

Certain groups, including older adults and people with disabilities, are at greater risk of losing Medi-Cal coverage during the unwinding period.6Jennifer Tolbert and Meghana Ammula, 10 Things to Know About the Unwinding of the Medicaid Continuous Enrollment Provision (Kaiser Family Foundation, June 2023). Immigrants and their family members face unique obstacles to remaining covered, such as language barriers, privacy concerns, and fear of immigration consequences. As such, many Californians who are losing Medi-Cal coverage due to paperwork challenges may still meet the eligibility criteria.7Of the redeterminations that were received and processed in August 2023, about 20% were ineligible. See California Department of Health Care Services, Medi-Cal Continuous Coverage Unwinding Dashboard (August 2023), 14.

The high disenrollment rate due to paperwork challenges underscores the need to further streamline the renewal process and alleviate the paperwork burden on beneficiaries during the unwinding period and beyond. Addressing these challenges is essential to ensure that those who are eligible for Medi-Cal continue to receive vital health coverage.

Policy Recommendations to Support Equitable Access to Health Coverage Amidst the Unwinding Period

State leaders have taken steps to mitigate the impact of the continuous coverage unwinding period and better support access to health coverage. Earlier this year, the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) set forth a detailed plan with a guiding principle to maximize the continuity of coverage for Medi-Cal beneficiaries. These actions include: 

  • Providing one-time funding support to local county offices, which are responsible for determining the initial and continuing Medi-Cal eligibility for an individual or a family.
  • Authorizing Covered California to enroll individuals in a qualified health plan when they lose Medi-Cal coverage.
  • Engaging community partners to serve as “Coverage Ambassadors” to share information with Medi-Cal beneficiaries about how to maintain Medi-Cal coverage.

State leaders can build on previous policy changes by taking action on the following recommendations:

By taking these steps, state leaders can work towards ensuring that all eligible individuals, regardless of age, disability, or immigration status, can access and maintain the critical health coverage they need in order to be healthy and thrive.

Child Care & Preschool
Federal Policy
  • 1
    A provision in the federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act passed in March 2020 required states to provide continuous coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries in exchange for enhanced federal funding during the federally declared Public Health Emergency (PHE). The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, which federal policymakers passed in December 2022, delinked the continuous coverage provision from the PHE, thereby ending this provision on March 31, 2023.
  • 2
    Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to enroll in federally funded Medicaid coverage or purchase coverage through the ACA Marketplaces. In recent years, California has allocated state funding to expand eligibility for full-scope Medi-Cal to undocumented immigrants.
  • 3
    The California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) publishes interactive Medi-Cal dashboards detailing statewide and county-level demographic data on Medi-Cal application processing, enrollments, redeterminations, and renewal outcomes.
  • 4
    In this issue brief, the term "paperwork" is used in place of the term "procedural."
  • 5
    Medi-Cal members have 90 days after their disenrollment to provide the necessary outstanding information to their local Medi-Cal office to restore their coverage. After the 90 days, people can submit a new application. Historically, California has seen a reinstatement rate of about 4% over the 90-day period.
  • 6
    Jennifer Tolbert and Meghana Ammula, 10 Things to Know About the Unwinding of the Medicaid Continuous Enrollment Provision (Kaiser Family Foundation, June 2023).
  • 7
    Of the redeterminations that were received and processed in August 2023, about 20% were ineligible. See California Department of Health Care Services, Medi-Cal Continuous Coverage Unwinding Dashboard (August 2023), 14.

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Read this publication in English.

El cuidado infantil asequible y enriquecedor es esencial para apoyar a las familias de California. Aunque la ayuda del gobierno federal proporcionó fondos para apoyar el sistema de cuidado infantil de California durante el COVID-19, estos fondos son temporales y muchas familias pronto enfrentarán la realidad de costos más altos para el cuidado infantil. Esto es particularmente importante para las mujeres de color que tenían muchas más probabilidades de sufrir los efectos económicos de la recesión del COVID-19.

Según datos recolectados en el año 2020, las mujeres latinas, afroamericanas y la mayoría de las demás mujeres de color tenían muchas más probabilidades de vivir en hogares atrasados ​​con el pago de la renta o la hipoteca y en hogares con dificultad para poner suficientes alimentos en sus mesas. Durante este periodo de tiempo, el estado de California suspendió el requisito de que las familias que participan en el programa estatal de subsidios para el cuidado infantil paguen tarifas asociadas con el cuidado infantil, también conocidas como “tarifas familiares”. Esta suspensión vence el 30 de septiembre de 2023.

Sin embargo, con el liderazgo de Voces de Padres en movilización y defesa (como se detalla más abajo), a partir del 1 de octubre de 2023, las familias tendrán un programa de tarifas más equitativo que minimiza la necesidad de tener que escoger entre pagar por cuidado de niños y pagar otras necesidades básicas. Los líderes estatales ahora tienen la oportunidad de adoptar un programa de tarifas que realmente minimice los desafíos económicos que ya enfrentan muchas familias de California.

Acerca de esta publicación

Esta publicación fue escrita en colaboración con Voces de Padres. A través de la organización de base y el desarrollo de liderazgo, Voces de Padres activa y centra la sabiduría de los padres para transformar el cuidado infantil y garantizar que todos los sistemas que impactan a nuestras familias sean justos, equitativos e inclusivos.

Un agradecimiento especial a Marisol Rosales, una madre líder de Voces de Padres, por traducir este informe al español.

Acerca de las tarifas familiares para el cuidado infantil

Las tarifas familiares varían según los ingresos de la familia. Una familia que gana hasta el 85% del ingreso medio estatal califica para el programa de cuidado infantil subsidiado por el estado.1Las familias con ingresos hasta el 100% del ingreso medio estatal califican para el Programa Preescolar del Estado de California. El monto de una tarifa para el cuidado infantil de tiempo completo y de tiempo parcial está asociado con niveles de ingresos de hasta el 85 % del ingreso medio estatal. Estas familias deben pagar una tarifa basada en sus ingresos para acceder al cuidado infantil de tiempo completo o tiempo parcial subsidiado por el estado.

Cada año fiscal, el Departamento de Servicios Sociales de California establece los montos de tarifas para cada nivel de ingresos en un “programa de tarifas familiares”. Estas tarifas han sido inasequibles para las familias de California con ingresos bajos a moderados, lo que las ha obligado a muchas familias a decidir entre pagar el cuidado de niños y otras necesidades básicas, como alimentos y vivienda.

Sin embargo, la ley de presupuesto estatal de 2023-24 modificó permanentemente el programa de tarifas para que estos pagos sean más asequibles. Específicamente, a partir del 1 de octubre de 2023, las familias con ingresos por debajo del 75% del ingreso medio estatal ya no pagarán una tarifa, y las tarifas tendrán un límite del 1% de sus ingresos para aquellas familias al 75% o más del ingreso medio estatal. La siguiente tabla muestra los ingresos anuales de una familia al 75% del ingreso medio estatal.2Las estimaciones de ingreso medio estatal se basan en la encuesta American Community Survey del año 2021.

Ingresos al 75% del ingreso medio estatal

Número de miembros en la familiaIngresos anuales
1-2$64,884
3$73,382
4$84,969

Además, familias no tendrán que pagar tarifas pendientes de antes del 1 de octubre de 2023. La ley de presupuesto estatal de 2023-24 refleja los principales puntos de reforma de las tarifas familiares de Voces de Padres (como se detalla a continuación), pero el programa específico de tarifas que refleja estos puntos aún no se ha confirmado.

Hacia un programa de tarifas más equitativo

Desde 2019, padres líderes de Voces de Padres han expresado sus frustraciones y preocupaciones sobre el alto costo de las tarifas familiares. Señalaron el confuso formato del programa y cómo las altas tarifas limitan las posibilidades para sus familias. Los padres líderes se enteraron de que otros estados tienen programas de tarifas más asequibles y fáciles de entender.

Concretamente, los padres líderes se inspiraron en el programa de tarifas de Dakota del Sur, el cual limita los pagos al 1% de los ingresos de una familia, y también en el programa del estado de Washington que tiene un formato fácil de entender. Lo que surgió de esta investigación y conversaciones fue una visión clara para mejorar el programa de tarifas familiares en California, que incluye:

  • Eliminación de tarifas para todas las familias con ingresos hasta el 75% del ingreso medio estatal.
  • Tarifas en una escala móvil de pago equitativa con un límite del 1% de ingresos para familias al 75% o más del ingreso medio estatal. 
  • Simplificar el programa de tarifas para que los principales niveles de ingresos se agrupen.
  • Suspender el cobro de tarifas atrasadas.3Muchas familias tenían planes de pago antes de la pandemia. Esos planes de pago han estado suspendidos, y sin medidas por parte de lideres estatales, los pagos reiniciarían el 1 de octubre de 2023.

Voces de Padres, con el apoyo del Child Care Resource Center y Every Child California, creó este sueño en un programa de tarifas familiares concreto que permitiría a las familias minimizar la necesidad de tener que escoger entre pagar por el cuidado infantil y pagar otras necesidades básicas. El programa de tarifas propuesto por Voces de Padres cuenta con el respaldo de sus padres líderes y refleja ahorros sustanciales comparado con el programa de tarifas original del Departamento de Servicios Sociales de California de 2023-24.

Expandiendo oportunidades con un nuevo programa de tarifas

La siguiente tabla muestra que porcentaje de los ingresos de una familia compuesta por una madre y su hijo debe gastarse en tarifas según el programa del Departamento de Servicios Sociales de California de 2023-24 comparado con el programa propuesto por Voces de Padres.

Porcentaje de ingresos pagados en tarifas para una familia de dos

Ingreso medio estatalIngresos anualesPorcentaje de ingresos pagados en tarifas: programa del Departamento de Servicios Sociales 23-24Porcentaje de ingresos pagados en tarifas: Programa de Voces de Padres
40% a 74%$34,606 – $64,0202.5% – 9.9%0%
75%$64,8849.9%0.2%
76%$65,7519.9%0.2%
78%$67,4819.9%0.2%
80%$69,2119.9%0.2%
82%$70,9419.9%0.4%
83%$71,8079.9%0.4%
84%$72,6729.9%0.4%
85%$73,5379.9%0.4%

Con el programa de tarifas familiares de Voces de Padres, en algunos casos, las familias recuperarían casi el 10% de sus ingresos anuales. La siguiente gráfica muestra la cantidad de dinero que las familias de California de dos personas ahorrarían al usar el programa de tarifas de Voces de Padres. La tabla (después de la gráfica) muestra la cantidad de las tarifas para familias al 75% del ingreso medio estatal para varios tamaños de familias.

Cantidad anual en tarifas familiares para una familia al 75% del ingreso medio estatal

Número de miembros en la familiaPrograma del Departamento de Servicios Sociales 23-24Programa de Voces de Padres
1-2$6,418$133
3$6,418$151
4$6,418$174

Los padres líderes compartieron lo que estos ahorros podrían hacer posible para sus familias:

De acuerdo con los números de inscripción del año anterior y con el actual programa de tarifas del Departamento de Servicios Sociales de California, las familias pagarían colectivamente más de $100 millones de dólares en tarifas durante el transcurso del año. La ley de presupuesto estatal de 2023-24 reducirá significativamente el monto de las tarifas familiares, y en los próximos meses, líderes estatales consolidarán una escala actualizada de tarifas para confirmar exactamente cuánto será esta reducción.

A medida que los líderes estatales deciden sobre el nuevo programa de tarifas para 2023-24, el programa de tarifas familiares propuesto por Voces de Padres proporciona un modelo para garantizar que las familias, en particular aquellas encabezadas por mujeres de color como Elizabeth, Stevie y Karina, tengan los ingresos necesarios para pagar las necesidades básicas como la renta, servicios públicos y comida, para abrir posibilidades y lograr sus metas profesionales y educativas y también brindar una vida enriquecedora para sus hijos.

Child Care & Preschool
Federal Policy
  • 1
    Las familias con ingresos hasta el 100% del ingreso medio estatal califican para el Programa Preescolar del Estado de California.
  • 2
    Las estimaciones de ingreso medio estatal se basan en la encuesta American Community Survey del año 2021.
  • 3
    Muchas familias tenían planes de pago antes de la pandemia. Esos planes de pago han estado suspendidos, y sin medidas por parte de lideres estatales, los pagos reiniciarían el 1 de octubre de 2023.

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

key takeaway

With the leadership of Parent Voices’ efforts, families will have a more equitable family fee schedule that minimizes tradeoffs between paying for child care and other essentials. Starting October 1, 2023, families below 75% of the state median income (SMI) will no longer pay a family fee, and fees will be capped at 1% for families at 75% or over the SMI.

Lea esta publicación en español.

Affordable and nurturing child care is essential for supporting California’s families. While federal relief dollars provided one-time funding to support California’s child care system during COVID-19, this funding is not ongoing, and many families will soon face the reality of higher costs for child care. This is particularly consequential for women of color who were far more likely to experience the economic effects of the COVID-19 recession.

According to data collected in 2020, Latinx, Black, and most other women of color were far more likely to live in households that were behind on their rent or mortgage payment and in households struggling to afford enough food. During this time, the state suspended the requirement for families participating in the state child care subsidy program to pay any fees associated with child care, otherwise known as “family fees.” This suspension expires on September 30, 2023.

However, with the leadership of Parent Voices’ organizing and advocacy efforts (as further detailed below), starting October 1, 2023, families will have a more equitable family fee schedule that minimizes tradeoffs between paying for child care and other basic needs. State leaders now have the opportunity to adopt a family fee schedule that truly minimizes economic challenges already faced by many California families.

About This Report

This Issue Brief was co-authored with Parent Voices. Through grassroots organizing and leadership development, Parent Voices activates and centers the wisdom of parents to transform child care and ensure all systems that impact California families are just, fair, and inclusive.

Special thank you to Marisol Rosales, a parent leader with Parent Voices, for translating this piece into Spanish.

About Family Fees

Family fees vary depending on a family’s income. A family earning up to 85% of the state median income (SMI) qualifies for the state subsidized child care program.1Families earning up to 100% of the state median income qualify for the California State Preschool Program. A family fee amount for both full-day and part-day care is associated with income levels up to 85% SMI. These families must pay an income-based family fee to access subsidized full-day or part-day care.

The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) sets the fee amounts for each income level in a “family fee schedule” each fiscal year. These fees have been unaffordable for low to moderate income California families, forcing them to make hard choices between paying for child care and other basic needs such as food and housing.

However, the 2023-24 Budget Act permanently revised the family fee schedule to make these payments more affordable. Specifically, starting October 1, 2023, families below 75% of the SMI will no longer pay a family fee, and fees will be capped at 1% for families at 75% or over the SMI. The table below shows a family’s annual income at 75% of the SMI.2SMI estimates are based off of the 2021 American Community Survey.

Annual Income at 75% of the SMI

Family SizeAnnual Income
1-2$64,884
3$73,382
4$84,969
5$98,564

Moreover, outstanding fees prior to October 1, 2023 will be waived. While the 2023-24 Budget Act reflects Parent Voices’ main family fee reform points (as detailed below), the specific family fee schedule reflecting these points has yet to be confirmed.

Toward a More Equitable Family Fee Schedule

Since 2019, Parent Voices’ parent leaders have voiced their frustrations and concerns about the high price of family fees. They pointed to the schedule’s confusing formatting and how high family fees limited what was possible for their families. Parent leaders learned that other states have more affordable family fee schedules that are easier to understand.

Namely, parent leaders drew inspiration from South Dakota’s family fee schedule which capped payments at 1% of a family’s income, as well as Washington state’s schedule which had an easy-to-understand format. What emerged from this research and conversations was a clear vision for improvements to California’s family fee schedule, including:

  • Removing family fees for all families up to 75% of the SMI. 
  • For families at 75% of the SMI or higher, paying fees on an equitable sliding scale capped at 1% of their income. 
  • Simplifying the family fee schedule so that key income levels are grouped together.
  • Stopping the collection of delinquent family fees.

Parent Voices, with the support of the Child Care Resource Center and Every Child California, translated this dream into a concrete family fee schedule that would allow families to minimize the tradeoffs they often make between child care and basic needs. The family fee schedule proposed by Parent Voices is endorsed by their parent leaders and reflects substantial savings from the original CDSS 2023-24 family fee schedule.

Expanding Opportunities with a New Family Fee Schedule

The table below shows how much of a family’s income must be spent on family fees under the CDSS 2023-24 fee schedule and under Parent Voices’ proposed schedule for a single parent with one child.

Percent of Income Spent on Family Fees for a Family of Two

State Median IncomeAnnual IncomePercent of Income Paid in Family Fees:
CDSS FY 23-24 Schedule		Percent of Income Paid in Family Fees: Parent Voices Schedule
40% to 74%$34,606 – $64,0202.5% – 9.9%0%
75%$64,8849.9%0.2%
76%$65,7519.9%0.2%
78%$67,4819.9%0.2%
80%$69,2119.9%0.2%
82%$70,9419.9%0.4%
83%$71,8079.9%0.4%
84%$72,6729.9%0.4%
85%$73,5379.9%0.4%

With the Parent Voices family fee schedule, in some cases, families would recoup over nearly 10% of their annual income. The chart below shows the amount of money California families of two would save from using the Parent Voices family fee schedule. The table that follows shows the amount owed in family fees at 75% of the SMI for various-sized households.

A line chart showing the annual fees for a family of two by the percent of state median income where a more equitable family fee schedule would help many families save thousands of dollars in child care fees.

Amount Owed Annually on Family Fees for a Family at 75% of the SMI

Family Size23-24 CDSS ScheduleParent Voices Schedule
1-2$6,418$133
3$6,418$151
4$6,418$174
5$6,418$202

Parent leaders shared what this reclaimed income could make possible for their families:

Based on prior year enrollment numbers, using the current CDSS family fee schedule, families would collectively pay over $100 million in families fees over the course of the year. The 2023-24 Budget Act will create a significant reduction in the amount of family fees, and state leaders will act in the coming months to solidify a revised family fee scale to determine exactly how much this reduction will be.

As state leaders decide on the new 2023-24 family fee schedule, Parent Voices’ proposed family fee schedule provides a model to ensure that families – particularly those headed by women of color like Elizabeth, Stevie, and Karina – have the income needed to pay for basic needs such as rent, utilities, and groceries, to open up possibilities for achieving their professional and educational goals and provide an enriching life for their children. 

Child Care & Preschool
Federal Policy
  • 1
    Families earning up to 100% of the state median income qualify for the California State Preschool Program.
  • 2
    SMI estimates are based off of the 2021 American Community Survey.

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

key takeaway

In February 2022, there were 437 unhoused Californians per 100,000 Californians statewide — the Los Angeles and South Coast region and the San Francisco Bay Area having the highest shares of unhoused individuals in California.

Having a place to call home is the most basic foundation for health and well-being no matter one’s gender, race, or zip code. But thousands of Californians in all areas of the state fall into homelessness and experience its devastating health, economic, and intrapersonal effects daily.

“Homelessness is a statewide challenge that affects Californians in every region and county.”

Homelessness in California is a statewide challenge that affects individuals in every region and county — rural, suburban, and urban alike. In February 2022, the Los Angeles and South Coast region (49.9%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (22.2%) had the highest shares of unhoused individuals, based on point-in-time data, followed by the Sacramento Region (7.2%) and the Central Valley (7.1%). Smaller but notable shares of unhoused Californians reside in the Central Coast (4.7%), Inland Empire (4.5%), Far North (4.0%), and the Sierra Nevadas (0.5%).

Higher concentrations of unhoused Californians typically reflect the denser overall populations in their respective regions. For example, Los Angeles County alone is home to more than 40% of unhoused Californians in part due to its dense population, high living costs, and insufficient affordable housing — which is the primary driver of homelessness regardless of geographical region. Regions with denser, urban populations also tend to have more robust homelessness support and delivery systems which can better track the number of unhoused residents living in sheltered and unsheltered spaces.

A map showing the share of unhoused population by state region in February 2022 where most unhoused Californians reside in Los Angles, south coast region, and the San Francisco Bay Area.

Another way to understand the magnitude of homelessness across the state is per capita — or per 100,000 Californians — by region. Homelessness per capita shows the prevalence of being unhoused at a point in time across regions with varing population sizes. For instance, per capita measures provide better insight into the magnitude of rural homelessness which can appear less notable through point-in-time counts. It also puts into perspective the number of unhoused residents in more densely populated regions where homelessness is typically more visible.

In February 2022, California had 437 unhoused people per 100,000 residents. The Far North had the highest per capita unhoused population with 647 unhoused residents per 100,000 residents in the region, followed by the Central Coast (540 per 100,000), despite these regions having among the lowest statewide shares of unhoused Californians. In contrast, the San Francisco Bay Area (503 per 100,000) and Los Angeles and the South Coast (477 per 100,000) regions rank closer to the statewide average in prevalence, despite ranking the highest by share. Homelessness was less prevalent in the Sierra Nevada, Central Valley, and the Inland Empire regions which aligned with their lower shares of unhoused Californians.

A bar chart showing unhoused Californians per 100,000 residents by region in February 2022 where California's far north region has the highest number of people experiencing homelessness per capita.

Comprehending the prevalence of homelessness, both in terms of regional share and per capita rates, is crucial to understanding how homelessness is affecting communities statewide. However, regardless of geographical region, effectively addressing homelessness requires us to continue building the capacity and resources required to meet the housing needs of Californians experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

Fundamentally this begins with deeply affordable housing, supportive services, rental assistance, and eviction prevention, all of which are evidence-based interventions the pandemic showed us state policymakers can rapidly mobilize to help people exit homelessness and stay in their housing.

Statewide planning and policy interventions need to also address the inequities among populations that disproportionately experience homelessness — within all regions of the state. These include Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, Pacific Islander, and increasingly Latinx Californians alongside adults without children, older adults, and LGBTQ+ individuals.

Above all, ending homelessness statewide is possible with persistence and sustained commitments by policymakers that represent all regions of California. By funding at-scale and permanent solutions, state leaders can ensure every Californian has a place to call home.

Child Care & Preschool
Federal Policy

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!