Biden's American Families Plan Prioritizes Elites, May Not Support Faith-Based Child Care

Religion Unplugged believes in a diversity of well-reasoned and well-researched opinions. This piece reflects the views of the author and does not necessarily represent those of Religion Unplugged, its staff and contributors.

(OPINION) According to the White House, the American Families Plan is an investment in our children and families to help parents cover basic expenses and continue historic reductions in child poverty. The legislative proposal includes universal pre-K and preschool for all 3- and 4-year-olds, average child care investments of nearly $15,000 per year per child, a national comprehensive paid family and medical leave program, expansion of the Child Tax Credit, a monthly child allowance of $300 and more.

But the American Families Plan is biased towards child care and pre-K education outside the home, which isn’t the preference of many families, especially low-income, minority and religious families. And in the current proposal it isn’t at all clear that federal support for child care and pre-K education will allow full inclusion of faith-based options that many families prefer their children attend over secular options. In short, the plan prioritizes the desires of two-parent, higher educated and financially well-off families with two full-time working adults who are the most likely to prefer institutional child care that is not faith-based.

Religious Freedom for Caregiving within Families and Faith-Based Child Care

It’s clear the administration wants to help families where both parents are in the workforce. This plan does that by making affordable quality child care available, on top of which there's universal pre-K.

But there are other parents who, based on their animating beliefs and values about child rearing, believe that one parent should stay home to provide care. The American Families Plan lacks consideration of parental pluralism and spiritual freedom for many families whose beliefs about caregiving for young children are deeply shaped by faith or culture. This plan shows a paternalistic, elitist preference toward supporting only out-of-home, rather than parental caregiving or informal, kinship care.

In addition, this plan raises serious questions about whether the Biden administration is taking fully into account the diversity of philosophies or religious commitments held by those parents who want or need to utilize out-of-home child care and early education for their children.

My colleague Dr. Stanley Carlson-Thies elaborated on this:

“Actually, both child care and pre-K, and any kind of education, are very much values-oriented kinds of processes. And there is in our society great diversity in the deep convictions of the various families. If caregiving for children is only supported if it is done in one of those ways, for example, a way that excludes religious stories and faith-based virtues, then many families may find that this way doesn't serve them very well.”

To adequately address equity concerns, the government needs to take into account all of these differences and not simply steer families toward secular child care and pre-K options outside the home. It has to provide extra help to families that are economically at a disadvantage and find it very difficult to provide adequate care and early education for their children. Any effective and pluralistic public policy proposal ought to support the diversity of choices of diverse families with different economic, cultural and religious situations.

How can the government uphold this idea of parental pluralism while addressing the important equity issues? And choice with equity? Rather than funnel all of the new government spending into center- and school-based options, the government needs to devise a way also to help families committed to providing care at home (through parental caregivers, kinship care of other means). And then, for families that do want or need options outside the home, it ought to carefully design its funding so that it supports a plurality of high-quality options for families, including faith-based and secular, philosophically-based programs that are distinct from government-run education. It isn’t clear that this is what the Biden administration has in mind.

But if the Biden administration does not ensure parental pluralism and religious freedom in its plan - for families and faith-based child care centers - then, while trying to address real problems of equity, the proposed American Families Plan will itself perpetuate inequality.

I have long supported more access to quality early childhood programs, while also firmly believing we should respect and honor parental/kinship caregiving from families with that structure. How can public policy honor both?

A recent Wall Street Journal article by J.D. Vance and Jenet Erickson poses some helpful insights into the ways in which we could do "both/and," offering low and middle income parents subsidies and letting them decide whether to spend it on child care or to offset their income so they can work less and be with their children more.

A recent survey showed that most families want to spend more time (not less) with their children. And, according to Vance and Erickson:

“Those preferences aren’t misguided. In fact, the highest quality standards for child care promote exactly what happens in the average home—one adult in an active, stable and encouraging relationship with two to three children. This standard is difficult to duplicate in institutional settings, especially on a large scale. Public policy should reflect what most parents want instead of doubling down on the model preferred by American elites.”

Human Dignity in Caregiving Policy

At a recent event with the Hamilton Project, an initiative of the Brookings Institution, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina M. Raimondo revealed an interesting difference in approach to children’s care versus the elderly. She said the current administration needs to recognize that the nursing homes and assisted living facilities are expensive and not necessarily the right place for every elderly or disabled person, and yet the system in the U.S. disproportionately prioritizes these institutions.

“So what we need to do [for aging loved ones] is to build up the infrastructure for home-based care, which will deliver better care for people at home and reduce our overall… expenses, which we need to do,” she said.

Raimondo’s remarks reflect an awareness of the affirmation of human dignity that can come from providing supportive and appropriate care for aging Americans in their own homes, which is often the preference of elders and their families. Yet, her nuanced awareness of the benefits of home-based care for the elderly – including touting Biden’s planned investment of $400 billion to expand home care for the elderly– does not seem to translate to her articulation of what is best for the very young.

In terms of caregiving for children under five, Raimondo prefers to “restore dignity” to women caregivers through paid work and helping them send their children to institutional care settings like child care centers and HeadStart.

America is a pluralistic nation. Families educate their children according to diverse religious, spiritual and cultural beliefs and practices. And yet this plan favors, and even economically incentivizes, families with two parents working full time outside of the home who outsource the caregiving of their children to others, especially to institutional care settings.

Religious Freedom and Economic Justice for Families to Live out Their Values in Caregiving

Brad Wilcox and Helen Alvare emphasize that the Biden administration’s plan favors labor force participation of parents, and especially mothers, rather than favoring and affirming the pluralistic preferences of economically vulnerable parents. Wilcox and Alvare point out that the American Families Plan would invest disproportionately more funds in the institutional care settings, even though lower and middle income families clearly prefer a family caregiving model where one parent stays predominantly home to care for young children and one parent predominantly works for an income.

“Putting more money in the pockets of parents gives moms and dads more flexibility to afford a church-based daycare or preschool, to leave the baby with a grandparent for a part-time shift or to cover basic expenses while staying home,” Wilcox and Alvare state.

Parents of all religious, spiritual and/or non-theistic belief systems live out their most sacred values in their preferences for the care, development and education of their children. Unfortunately, families with less economic means often struggle to live out their own values and preferences with respect to caregiving because their preferences are not financially feasible, or they do not have access to the preferred caregiving options for their children. According to the Center for Public Justice’s Guideline on Family:

“Government should recognize and protect the family as an essential expression of its responsibility to uphold a just society… Government’s policies should aim to uphold the integrity and social viability of families, which do not exist in a social, economic, or political vacuum. Public policy should, therefore, take carefully into account the ways that other institutions and the dynamics of society impact families positively and negatively from the earliest stages of family formation.”

So What?

Public justice views mothers not as individuals in isolation, but intimately bound up in the thriving of their children and families. For many mothers, their spiritual identities and sacred precepts animate how they navigate their family caregiving responsibilities and the social institutions they seek out for support. The sacred sector refers to the wide range of faith-based organizations that conduct community activities or provide goods and services, and are places of work for employees, contract workers, and volunteers. Mothers who are privileged enough to have access to a variety of options generally seek healthcare providers, support groups, spiritual communities, and child caregiving support that align with their own sacred animating values and identities. These central belief systems may be emblematic of a variety of explicitly religious or spiritual commitments.

Public justice offers a framework for how government and faith-based organizations can fulfill their distinct roles in supporting the vocation of motherhood. Public justice often calls us to seek innovative, both/and solutions where different institutions in society can form partnerships to promote human flourishing. Faith-based organizations often can – and do – partner with the government in the provision of a wide variety of social services that support families. Let’s advocate that the Biden administration uphold the fullness and diversity of this spectrum of caregiving models by recognizing the connection between religious freedom and family flourishing in its American Families Plan.

Chelsea Langston Bombino is a believer in sacred communities, a wife, and a mother. She serves as a program officer with the Fetzer Institute and a fellow with the Center for Public Justice.