Tag: Families

  • She offers free child care after disasters. It’s a lifeline as families rebuild their lives.

    She offers free child care after disasters. It’s a lifeline as families rebuild their lives.

    This story was produced by The 19th and reprinted with permission.

    When Hurricane Helene swept through Kelsey Crabtree’s small hometown of Black Mountain, North Carolina, two years ago, its fierce winds uprooted a large tree that landed on the roof of her house, jolting her and her husband awake. She went into the living room and noticed a huge crack where water had started to pour in. The couple grabbed their two sons, dragged a spare mattress to their laundry room and sheltered there overnight. 

    Eventually, Crabtree and her family made their way to her mother-in-law’s home in Chattanooga, Tennessee. They later moved into an Airbnb, where they stayed for nearly a year. The months after the storm were a blur, she said — lots of phone calls with insurance and hands-on work to fix their home, and all of that while scrambling to care for the boys, who were two and five at the time. 

    “We needed time to be childfree so we could work. We needed to be bringing money in so we could have our house back in order,” said Crabtree, who works as a therapist. “The limited child care was really making it challenging. It was limiting my ability to see clients.”

    So she got in contact with Silke Knebel.

     A single mom, Knebel founded the National Emergency Child Care Network a few months earlier to help other mothers who might need child care in an emergency. What constitutes an emergency is broadly defined in Knebel’s mind: It could be a disaster like Helene, It could be snowstorms, like the one that brought massive damage to a big slice of the northeast, or just the need for a few hours to recharge after a particularly stressful day.

    Related: Young children have unique needs and providing the right care can be a challenge. Our free early childhood education newsletter tracks the issues. 

    In the last decade, weather and climate-related disasters have caused damages worth over $200 billion and affected the availability of child care in the long and short term. Hurricane Harvey in 2017 damaged over 650 child care centers, permanently closing 52 facilities. The Maui wildfire in 2023 destroyed four of the nine child care programs that were available in the city of Lahaina. Last year, the Los Angeles wildfires affected over 500 child care providers, with Altadena losing 60 percent of its child care centers in the tragedy. 

    Knebel’s desire to help others when a disaster strikes comes from her own experience as a single mom. In kindergarten, her eldest son was diagnosed with a mental health condition known as “conduct disorder,” which manifests as aggressive and behavioral issues. It soaked up a lot of Knebel’s emotional and physical energy. “I feel for other moms, because I had weekends where I cried all day and I needed that five or six hours of [care] from just somebody showing up at my door,” she said.  

    Her nonprofit is designed to do exactly that — deploy to families in a crisis. The organization is staffed by volunteers who have undergone extensive background checks and are trained in trauma-informed care: “We don’t bring on 16-year-old Care.com babysitters,” Knebel said. The volunteers are typically deployed in pairs to families in need, at no cost.  Many of them are retired teachers, pediatricians, social workers, and mothers and grandmothers who simply want to help.

    For Crabtree, they were a godsend. “The kids loved the people who came out and played with them,” she said. They would show up and have different games and toys and animal crackers and the kids were just so excited.” 

    Related: When a hurricane washes away a region’s child care system

    In the weeks and months after Hurricane Helene, Knebel connected over 50 families like Crabtree’s with child care volunteers. One mother had a sick and disabled husband at home  and when the storm hit, she was left to figure out how to do basic things like find water while taking care of her children and partner. Another, a mother of four, was worried that if she didn’t return to work soon, she wouldn’t be able to pay rent, but her child care center had been closed due to the storm. Then there was the family whose nanny’s house was destroyed in the hurricane. Sometimes, the mothers who called — the callers were almost always moms — were just exhausted or in desperate need of a few hours away from their kids to sort through the piles of paperwork, to call insurance adjustors, to figure out how to rebuild. 

    The first person to call Knebel’s child care emergency hotline was, however, the manager of a local bank. One of his employees was struggling to find child care weeks after the storm. Employers “try to be accommodating and compassionate,” she said. “But after a while, they’re like, ‘Okay, you need to come to work.’ And that’s when the real burden and stress hits families, because the child care is still not open.” 

    And it wasn’t the only employer she helped out. United Way of Asheville, an organization that provides disaster relief, requested volunteers to staff a pop-up child care for their employees. Also, an area school requested help for 40 teachers who all needed care for their own kids.

    At the same time that parents were struggling to find care, some 148 child care centers and home-based providers had been damaged by Helene — and no one knew how or when they would reopen.

    The barriers to getting child care back up and running after a disaster are immense, says Susan Butler-Staub, a senior vice president at Child Care Aware of America, an advocacy organization. “One of the biggest issues is finding a suitable environment,” she said. “If you’re a home-based provider and your home has been flooded or your home is gone, then can you find a temporary place that meets regulation?”

    If a provider is able to stay in their location, there’s usually a long list of issues they have to deal with first. “With a flood, you’re going to be dealing with mold in the walls,” she said. In western North Carolina, where Helene hit, “they are still dealing with water quality issues, so you have to filter the water before you can give it to children.”

    But even when facilities recover, paying for child care can become too much for families. Crabtree, who utilized child care volunteers mostly to assist while she rebuilt her house, said she could only afford to pay for child care when her extended family helped cover the cost. 

    Related: Child care crisis deepens as funding slashed for poor families

    A few months after Hurricane Helene, Knebel was faced with another call to action: Catastrophic wildfires were sweeping through Los Angeles and families would need help in the aftermath.

    Knebel’s organization promptly recruited and trained around 70 volunteers and connected with mothers like Briana Pozner, who had a 2-year-old and went into early labor with twins after the fires. While Pozner’s house wasn’t destroyed by the fire, it was contaminated with lead and other heavy metals, forcing the family to move out for a few months. 

    Kids’ lunch boxes sit in a locker at an elementary school that was destroyed by the Palisades Fire on January 14, 2025 in Pacific Palisades, California.
    Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

    Pozner and her family had already been preparing for how life would change with twins before the fires struck. She had recently enrolled her son in preschool — but then the preschool burned down. “It was like, OK, we’ve got to figure out how to get stability and figure out our son’s school.” 

    In Los Angeles, the impact of the wildfires on child care was devastating. Cindy Esquivel, program manager at the Low Income Investment Fund, a nonprofit that provided small grants to child care providers recovering from the wildfires, said that many home-based providers were still struggling to reopen. In some cases, they lost their homes and their businesses in one fell swoop.

    Finding the money for them to rebuild has been difficult. Of the 136 grantees that Esquivel surveyed after the disaster, 40 percent did not have insurance. Many home-based providers also rent their homes and in the aftermath, rents skyrocketed in the region, making it difficult to find a suitable and affordable location. 

    Related: 1 in 5 child care workers is an immigrant. Trump’s deportations and raids have many terrified

    Private child care providers do not qualify for FEMA funding. They can apply to the Small Business Administration for low-interest loans, but the process for approval is long and bureaucratic. Instead, a lot of funding comes from foundations and grant-making organizations. States have also chipped in, but the amount available varies by state and is usually a drop in the bucket compared to need, say experts. It’s an industry that, in the best of times, is already underfunded and operating at capacity. 

    A friend who had been volunteering with Knebel’s organization suggested that Pozner reach out and ask for assistance. Once the family was able to return home, “We had to get the whole house back in order with these little babies that I was breastfeeding,” she said. The volunteers watched her newborns while Pozner and her husband unpacked and organized. 

    Her son’s preschool eventually reopened, but it is now in its third location. Similar to North Carolina, it has been challenging for child care facilities and schools to find new homes.

    Knebel is only set up to offer help in California and North Carolina because that’s where she has volunteers. She plans to expand to other disaster prone states like Florida and Texas but needs to raise more funding to make that a reality. In the meantime, however, she gets calls from all over the country, for women experiencing all sorts of challenges. A few weeks ago, she heard from a woman in a domestic violence shelter who needed someone to watch her two children for a few hours. She has also fielded several calls from women at hospitals who need someone to watch their kids while they undergo surgery. Once, a grandmother whose daughter had just been incarcerated called, in need of someone to help watch her grandkids. 

    Knebel wishes she could help everyone. “It isn’t really just disasters. It’s school shootings, divorces, it’s a medical crisis, just experiencing a car accident,” she said. 

    Lately, she’s wondered how she can tap into the network of volunteers her organization trained in Los Angeles to help families who are afraid to send their kids to school because of ICE raids. In the last few days, she’s been emailing volunteers about the potential need for deployments if child care and schools closed in North Carolina, one of the states hit hard by the weekend’s winter storm. 

    “We just want to be there when children and parents need us,” she said. “Especially now, when things are getting so doom and gloom.”

    Since you made it to the bottom of this article, we have a small favor to ask. 

    If you believe stories like the one you just finished matter, please consider pitching in what you can. This effort helps ensure our reporting and resources stay free and accessible to everyone—teachers, parents, policymakers—invested in the future of education.

    Thank you. 
    Liz Willen
    Editor in chief

    Source link

  • Proposed Changes to Provider Pay Could Lead to Child Care Rate Hikes, Closures – The 74

    Proposed Changes to Provider Pay Could Lead to Child Care Rate Hikes, Closures – The 74


    Join our zero2eight Substack community for more discussion about the latest news in early care and education. Sign up now.

    For months now, Shannon Hampson has had August 1 etched in her mind. 

    That day marks an important shift for her and other early care and education providers in Nebraska who serve low-income families. On that date, the state intended to begin paying providers a consistent rate for families who use government subsidies to pay for child care. 

    Instead of reimbursing providers based on children’s attendance — which can vary wildly, especially this time of year, based on factors like illness and family travel — Nebraska would pay providers the same amount each month based on enrollment. 

    Last year, because of the change expected to come in summer 2026, Hampson, who owns a home-based child care program in Lincoln, Nebraska, felt comfortable filling more of her program slots with children whose families pay with subsidies. Today, she does not have one private-paying family. She made the shift assuming the enrollment-based pay would insulate her from the instability that often accompanies subsidy slots. 

    “I was super excited to know more of these families were going to get that quality, consistent care,” Hampson said, adding that reaching more low-income families is important in the field. “It’s not that providers don’t want to.”

    Now, though, that could all be about to change. 

    Nebraska’s transition to enrollment-based pay was part of an effort to get in compliance with a rule established by the Biden administration in 2024. Enrollment-based payments, that administration believed, would create greater predictability for providers, allowing them to serve more low-income families who need child care and, eventually, could entice more providers to participate in the subsidy program. 

    The rule was one of a handful of changes made by the prior administration related to the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), the primary federal program that states use to provide financial assistance to low-income families in need of child care. Other shifts include paying providers up front for child care, rather than reimbursing them the following month, and encouraging the use of grants and contracts with providers. State timelines for implementing these changes have varied. As of September 2025, 24 states were paying based on enrollment, according to an analysis by New America. For the others, the latest deadline granted was Aug. 1, 2026. 

    Just this week, however, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), announced that it would seek to rescind many of the 2024 rules, returning these issues to states. 

    The proposed changes cannot be enforced right away. Under federal law, the agency is required to take public comments, review them, and use that input to make final decisions, noted Alex Adams, who leads ACF. He declined to give a timeline for any changes to take effect.

    If approved, the changes would not “make any net new policy decisions,” he added. “It simply goes back to where we were prior to 2024 regulations.”

    The administration wants to rescind the 2024 rules, he said, because all 50 states had requested waivers related to some or all of these rules due to budget constraints and other implementation challenges. 

    “Any time 50 states are asking for a waiver from something,” Adams said, “it suggests to me that maybe the rule isn’t working as intended.”

    He also noted that “attendance-verified payment,” rather than enrollment-based, “is more of a deterrent to fraud.” Leaders in the Trump administration are concerned about programs with “phantom attendance” — suggesting they receive government payments but don’t actually serve the children they say they do — Adams said, but he declined to share specifics of ongoing investigations. 

    Many early care and education advocates and policy experts have expressed skepticism that rampant fraud and abuse is going unchecked. 

    Casey Peeks, senior director of early childhood policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, called the allegations “unfounded” and worried that they would undo real progress made in the field in recent years. 

    “It is very unhelpful and destabilizing to the sector, in the immediate- and long-term, to take some of these most foundational levers we have to stabilize the sector and claim that they result in fraud,” Peeks said.

    Upon hearing the news this week, Hampson said she’s had to remind herself to “just breathe.” She knew she was taking a risk by enrolling 100% of families on subsidies.

    Now, she said, she will have to rearrange her budget to continue to serve all of those families. Under an attendance-based pay structure, her income is just that much more volatile.

    In December, for example, between holidays, vacation time and children’s absences, Hampson was only able to bill the state for 18 child care days. If the children in her program were from private-paying families, she would have been paid for 23 days, she said. 

    But Hampson’s operational costs didn’t see a material decrease in December. 

    “Without a provider being at fault at all, they could be at 50% attendance one day just because the flu is going around. That shouldn’t harm their bottom line,” Peeks said. 

    “It’s really unpredictable and unfair for the provider,” she added. “Just because attendance is down doesn’t mean operation costs go down.”

    In West Virginia, where providers have been paid based on enrollment since 2020, Katelyn Vandal emphasized how critical the change has been to keeping her rural, center-based program open. 

    “Our mortgage payment doesn’t cost less because two kids in the classroom have the flu,” noted Vandal, director of A Place to Grow, a child care center in Oak Hill, West Virginia. Nor does her electricity bill and a host of other overhead costs. 

    If her state returns to attendance-based pay, she’s not sure A Place to Grow would be able to continue operating. The center serves about 100 kids, with 60% from families that pay with subsidies. 

    “We run such a fine budget line anyway that if, six months from now, we were going back to attendance, we would be looking at closing,” she said. “We would not survive transitioning back to that.”

    Sheryl Hutzenbiler, owner of Munchkin Land Daycare in Billings, Montana, said she suspects that, under attendance-based pay, providers will either raise tuition rates on families — many of whom are already paying the maximum they can afford without one parent leaving the workforce — or, like Vandal, be forced to close their doors. 

    But that is not a decision Hutzenbiler will have to face, should the Trump administration successfully restore attendance-based pay. Since she lives in Montana, where enrollment-based pay became law in 2023, she and other providers in the state are protected from policy fluctuations at the federal level. 

    That’s true for a handful of states, which have either passed laws protecting enrollment-based pay or have continued paying based on enrollment, on a temporary basis, since the pandemic. (West Virginia is in the latter category.)

    Enrollment-based pay has been pivotal for Hutzenbiler, whose home-based program consists of about 60% of families who pay with subsidies. Back when she was paid based on attendance, she said her first sacrifice during low-attendance months would be her own wages. She would pay her full-time teacher first and make sure program costs were covered, often leaving nothing for herself and relying on her husband’s income instead. With the consistent subsidy income each month, though, she’s not only been able to avoid missed paychecks for herself, she’s been able to add two part-time workers to the payroll. 

    Hampson, in Nebraska, said she was part of a group last year advocating for the state to pass legislation around enrollment-based pay. It was ultimately unsuccessful.

    “We wanted to know our state had already said yes, so we wouldn’t go backwards,” she said. “And here we are going backwards.”

    In an industry where profit margins are estimated at less than 1%, these changes will inevitably leave providers who participate in the subsidy program with less revenue to survive on. The shifts will likely also deter providers who participate in the subsidy program, or who might have considered participating, from doing so in the future, said Peeks. This will likely, in effect, leave low-income families with fewer choices about where to go for child care. 

    “When you’re stabilizing providers overall, you’re often creating more options for families overall,” said Peeks. “I think it could definitely have a chilling effect.”


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • modern families, global goals, and smarter choices

    modern families, global goals, and smarter choices

    Families across urban and developing towns are going beyond conventional definition of education, facilitating change in the Indian education system. The focus has shifted from academic success to quality education, international exposure, and overall growth that prepare the future generation for a globally interconnected ‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌world.

    A few decades ago, families were typically larger; with primary focus was on basic education and job security. With a progressive mindset, today’s nuclear families are engaged investing in premium schooling, digital learning, and global opportunities that enhance their children’s competitiveness.

    This transformation signifies a profound mindset. Today’s students and parents both think beyond geographical boundaries and basic qualifications. They meticulously evaluate international opportunities that enhance academic excellence, long-term career goals, and global relevance.

    Dining table conversations revolve around questions such as:

    • Which destination offers the best return on educational investment?
    • What scholarship or post-study work opportunities are available?
    • Which academic pathway leads to sustainable and globally recognised careers?

    Studying abroad have risen because of limited domestic seats, global exposure and highly paid career prospects. However, rising costs, currency risks and stricter visa rules of some countries are shifting preferences toward value destinations – Europe and Asia. Intellectual families now prioritise financial planning, ROI and strong support systems.

    Today’s students and parents both think beyond geographical boundaries and basic qualifications

    With these rapidly growing aspirations, need for reliable, ethical, and expert guidance has become paramount. This is an area where Landmark Global Learning Limited has established a distinct reputation. With extensive experience and deep understanding of international education system, Landmark provides transparent, personalised, and result-oriented guidance tailored for every candidate. The services range from course selection and financial planning to visa support, and pre-departure orientation ensures students received quality education and long-term success.

    Simultaneously, India’s international education and recruitment landscape is also witnessing a paradigm shift. The focus has moved beyond volume-driven enrolments to meaningful outcomes and majorly student well-being. Both universities and agencies emphasise authenticity, transparency, and tailored support. Indian students are exploring the UK, Canada, and Australia to emerging hubs across Europe and Asia.

    As global connections strengthen, this shift is vital to understand. India’s growing middle class, wider digital access, and strong respect for education are transforming how international institutions connect with and respond to Indian students. In recent years, more Indian students are choosing to study overseas. As per the Ministry of External Affairs, over 1.8 million Indian students are abroad in 2025, compared to around 1.3 million just two years earlier.

    Nowadays,​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌ students are not only pursuing degrees, but they are also cultivating skills and mindsets that align with a rapidly changing borderless world. In such moments, trusted partners such as Landmark Global Learning Limited are instrumental in making a difference.

    By providing organised support, genuine mentorship, and a transparent path to quality international education, Landmark connects aspirations with guidance. For thousands of young Indians, it represents more than overseas study; it signifies assurance, opportunity, and the conviction that global education is not a privilege but an achievable ‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌goal.       

                                            

    About the author: Jasmeet Singh Bhatia is the founder and director of Landmark Immigration, with over 18 years of experience in international education and immigration consulting. A trusted study visa expert and PR strategist, he has mentored thousands of students in achieving their academic and career goals abroad. Known for his principle-based approach and strong industry partnerships, he continues to shape global futures through personalised guidance and strategic insight. 

    Source link

  • Four Tips to Help Students and Families Navigate Life After High School – The 74

    Four Tips to Help Students and Families Navigate Life After High School – The 74

    Many high school seniors are now focusing on what they will do once they graduate – or how they don’t at all know what is to come.

    Families trying to guide and support these students at the juncture of a major life transition likely also feel nervous about the open-ended possibilities, from starting at a standard four-year college to not attending college at all.

    I am a mental health counselor and psychology professor.

    Here are four tips to help make deciding what comes after high school a little easier for everyone involved:

    1. Shadow someone with a job you might want

    I have worked with many college students who are interested in a particular career path, but are not familiar with the job’s day-to-day workings.

    A parent, teacher or another adult in this student’s life could connect them with someone they shadow at work, even for a day, so the student can better understand what the job entails.

    High school students may also find that interviewing someone who works in a particular field is another helpful way to narrow down career path options, or finalize their college decisions.

    Research published in 2025 shows that high school students who complete an internship are better able to decide whether certain careers are a good fit for them.

    2. Look at the numbers

    Full-time students can pay anywhere from about US$4,000 for in-state tuition at a public state school per semester to just shy of $50,000 per semester at a private college or university. The average annual cost of tuition alone at a public college or university in 2025 is $10,340, while the average cost of a private school is $39,307.

    Tuition continues to rise, though the rate of growth has slowed in the past few years.

    About 56% of 2024 college graduates had taken out loans to pay for college.

    Concerns about affording college often come up with clients who are deciding on whether or not to get a degree. Research has shown that financial stress and debt load are leading to an increase in students dropping out of college.

    It can be helpful for some students to look at tuition costs and project what their monthly student loan payments would be like after graduation, given the expected salary range in particular careers. Financial planning could also help students consider the benefits and drawbacks of public, private, community colleges or vocational schools.

    Even with planning, there is no guarantee that students will be able to get a job in their desired field, or quickly earn what they hope to make. No matter how prepared students might be, they should recognize that there are still factors outside their control.

    3. Normalize other kinds of schools

    I have found that some students feel they should go to a four-year college right after they graduate because it is what their families expect. Some students and parents see a four-year college as more prestigious than a two-year program, and believe it is more valuable in terms of long-term career growth.

    That isn’t the right fit for everyone, though.

    Enrollment at trade-focused schools increased almost 20% from the spring of 2020 through 2025, and now comprises 19.4% of public two-year college enrollment.

    Going to a trade school or seeking a two-year associate’s degree can put students on a direct path to get a job in a technical area, such as becoming a registered nurse or electrician.

    But there are also reasons for students to think carefully about trade schools.

    In some cases, trade schools are for-profit institutions and have been subjected to federal investigation for wrongdoing. Some of these schools have been fined and forced to close.

    Still, it is important for students to consider which path is personally best for them.

    Research has shown that job satisfaction has a positive impact on mental health, and having a longer history with a career field leads to higher levels of job satisfaction.

    4. Consider a gap year before shutting down the idea

    One strategy that high school graduates have used in recent years is taking a year off between high school and college in order to better determine what is the right fit for a student. Approximately 2% to 3% of high school graduates take a gap year – typically before going on to enroll in college.

    Some young people may travel during a gap year, volunteer, or get a job in their hometown.

    Whatever the reason students take gap years, I have seen that the time off can be beneficial in certain situations. Taking a year off before starting college has also been shown to lead to better academic performance in college.

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Source link

  • Teachers Create Tool to Help NYC Families Find Childcare

    Teachers Create Tool to Help NYC Families Find Childcare

    Educators tap two tech firms to create NYC Childcare Navigator, a free platform that cuts through the chaos.

    A one-stop shop

    Frustrated by the maze of agencies, websites, and applications families face to find childcare and possible financial support, New York City teachers said, “Enough!”

    The United Federation of Teachers, the union that represents more than 200,000 educators and professionals in New York City, teamed up with two tech firms to build a better approach: NYC Childcare Navigator.

    Navigator is a platform that connects New York City families to upwards of 12,000 childcare options across the five boroughs. It offers instant eligibility checks for money-saving programs, step-by-step application support, and the most comprehensive directory of childcare providers in the city — all in one free, easy-to-use website.

    The union created the tool as a benefit for its own members, but it was so successful that the union opened it up to all New York City residents in October. 

    “We couldn’t gatekeep something that we knew so many New York City families needed,” said Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers.

    Centralizing tailored childcare

    The union partnered with Mirza, a city-based tech firm that builds platforms to connect low-wage workers with local, state, and federal benefits, including for childcare.

    “We wanted to get meaningful benefits to parents, but there wasn’t a single place that would allow a parent to see all the options available. That felt like a big missing piece. But it also pointed toward a solution,” said Siran Cao, CEO and Co-Founder of Mirza, who said she was inspired by how her own mother navigated a new country and the impact that a few well-timed bits of financial support had on her own family.

    The union then introduced Upfront, a software company that consolidates multiple sources of childcare providers into a single, centralized database. The result: parents using the NYC Childcare Navigator can see every licensed program in NYC (center, home, and school-based), searchable by zip code, child’s age, availability, languages spoken, special needs, and many other filters. For the first time, childcare providers can claim a dedicated page to share current information about their specific childcare services.

    “It’s everything in a single location instead of having to make dozens of calls and scour multiple, incomplete websites,” said Levin-Robinson, who said she was motivated by how challenging it was to find care for her own children.

    Source link

  • Want to Protect American Children? End the Shutdown – The 74

    Want to Protect American Children? End the Shutdown – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Politicians love to say, “We must protect our children. They are our future.” But looking at what’s happening in Congress right now, children are not being protected. Families are not being prioritized. Instead, lawmakers are locked in a standoff, waiting to see who blinks first as they fight over who gets the last word and how big of a tax break they can give the wealthiest Americans.

    Meanwhile, families — especially families of color and low-income families — are left to hold their breath and wonder what this shutdown means for them. As members of Congress keep making their rounds on television, babies still need formula, toddlers still need health screenings, children still need breakfast and lunch at school and in their child care programs, and parents still need child care so they can work. Amid extreme stress, families are left, wondering how they will be able to take care of their children.

    The demands of children and their families do not stop just because Congress is at a standstill. 

    According to Kids’ Share 2024, an annual report published by the Urban Institute about federal expenditures, children received only about 9% of all federal spending in 2023, while about 43% of federal spending went toward health and retirement benefits for adults 18 years and older. That’s a very small percentage for a nation in which politicians on both sides of the aisle have expressed interest in increased government investment in children. These numbers contradict the narrative that claims children matter because they are our future.

    That 9% starts to feel even smaller during a government shutdown. Some programs, like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, are mandatory, meaning they don’t require annual congressional approval. But others, including a number of crucial children’s programs, such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), are funded through the annual appropriations process, which Congress must approve. This means when lawmakers can’t agree on a budget, these critical programs are left in limbo.

    The fallout on the horizon from this needless dysfunction is becoming clearer.

    In September, the National WIC Association reminded the public that WIC only had enough funds to temporarily remain open during a government shutdown. Now, according to Reuters, at least two dozen state websites warn there could be an unprecedented benefit gap for more than 41 million people in America who get aid from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the nearly 7 million people who rely on WIC. 

    Georgia Machell, president and chief executive officer of the National WIC Association, delivered this sobering news last week.

    “Without additional support, State WIC Agencies face another looming crisis,” she said. “Several are set to run out of funds to pay for WIC benefits on November 1 and may need to start making contingency plans.”

    Many families in historically marginalized communities, who already face greater barriers to health care, housing and early education, will feel this impact even more sharply. For example, we know that tens of thousands of young children and families rely on vital support received through Head Start, a service that promotes early learning and development, health and well-being. The shutdown is already in its fourth week, and, according to a statement issued on Oct. 16 from the National Head Start Association, if the government shutdown doesn’t end by Nov. 1, more than 65,000 children and families will be at risk of losing critical services. 

    A missed doctor’s appointment, a delay in SNAP benefits or a gap in child care isn’t just inconvenient. It can destabilize a family and hinder a child’s development, especially in the classroom.

    A research brief published by The Food Research & Action Center highlighted the links between hunger and learning, stating that “behavioral, emotional, mental health, and academic problems are more prevalent among children and adolescents struggling with hunger” and that young people experiencing hunger have lower math scores and poorer grades. The shutdown will have real and lasting consequences on the learning, development and well-being of America’s children because these programs are being impacted.

    It’s frustrating to watch lawmakers stand at podiums and declare how much they care about children while their actions — or inaction — puts children at risk. 

    Words don’t put food on the table. Words don’t pay rent. But actions do. 

    And right now, the actions coming out of Congress are sending an unfortunate message to families: protecting children is not the priority.

    If children truly are our future, then they cannot be treated as bargaining chips. Children deserve more than 9% of America’s federal spending budget. We need federal budgets that reflect children’s needs and protection for essential services. Critical programs that protect child health and well-being should never be disrupted by a government shutdown.

    Finally, Americans deserve government accountability. Policymakers should be held responsible for their words and actions, especially when they fail to deliver on the promises they make about protecting children.

    Children cannot wait. They are growing, learning and developing right now. The choices we make as a country today will shape their tomorrow.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • Child care crisis deepens as funding slashed for poor families

    Child care crisis deepens as funding slashed for poor families

    by Jackie Mader, The Hechinger Report
    November 1, 2025

    The first hint of trouble for McKinley Hess came in August. 

    Hess, who runs an infant and toddler care program in Conway, Arkansas, heard that the teen moms she serves were having trouble getting their expected child care assistance payments. Funded by a mix of federal and state dollars, those subsidies are the only way many low-income parents nationwide can afford child care, by reimbursing providers for care and lowering the amount parents have to pay themselves.

    In Arkansas, teen parents have long been given priority to receive this aid. But now, Hess heard, they and many other families in need were sitting on a growing wait-list.

    Hess had just enrolled eight teen moms at her central Arkansas site, Conway Cradle Care, and was counting on state subsidies to pay for their children’s care. As the moms were stuck waiting for financial assistance, Hess had two options: kick them out, or care for their infants for free so their mothers wouldn’t have to drop out of school. She chose the latter. 

    Just a month later, another hit: Arkansas government officials announced they were going to cut the rates they pay providers on behalf of low-income families. Beginning Nov. 1, Hess will get $36 a day for each infant in her care and $35 a day for toddlers, down from $56 and $51 a day respectively. She’s already lost out on more than $20,000 by providing free care for 8 infants for the past two months.

    “Financially, it really is going to hurt our day care,” Hess said. But the stakes are also high for the parents who need child care assistance, she said: “For them to be able to continue school, these vouchers are essential.” 

    As states face having to cut spending while bracing for fewer federal dollars under the budget bill President Trump signed in July, some, including Arkansas, view early learning programs as a place to slash funding. They’re making these cuts even as experts and providers predict they will be disastrous for children, families and the economy if parents don’t have child care and can’t work. 

    The same families face other upheaval: The ongoing government shutdown means states may not receive their Nov. 1 shares of federal money for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, meaning families may not get that aid. Across the country, more than 100 Head Start centers, part of a federally funded preschool program that provides free child care, may have to close, at least temporarily, if the shutdown drags on as expected and they do not get expected federal cash by the start of next month. 

    Related: Young children have unique needs and providing the right care can be a challenge. Our free early childhood education newsletter tracks the issues. 

    Elsewhere, Colorado, Maryland and New Jersey recently stopped accepting new families into their child care assistance programs. In June, Oregon’s Democratic-led legislature cut $20 million from the state’s preschool program for low-income families. In September, Indiana joined Arkansas in announcing reductions in reimbursement rates for providers who care for low-income children. This summer, the governor of Alaska vetoed part of the state’s budget that would have given more money to child care and early intervention services for young children with developmental disabilities. Washington state legislators cut $60 million last month from a program that provides early learning and family support to preschoolers. Additional cuts or delays in payments have cropped up in Ohio, Nevada and the District of Columbia.

    “Almost every state is facing a very, very, very significant pullback of federal dollars,” said Daniel Hains, chief policy officer at the D.C.-based National Association for the Education of Young Children. “It does not help families when you cut provider reimbursement rates, when you cut funds going to providers, because it makes it less likely that those families are going to access the high-quality child care that they need.”

    This trend could further devastate America’s fragile child care industry, which has been especially slow to recover since the pandemic due to a lack of funding. Child care programs are expensive to run and, with limited public support, providers rely heavily on tuition from parents to pay their bills.

    In many parts of the country, parents already pay the equivalent of college tuition or a second mortgage on child care and have little ability to pay more. Yet child care staff generally make abysmally low wages and have high turnover rates. There’s often little wiggle room in program budgets.

    One of the only sources of federal funding for child care centers comes from the federally funded Child Care and Development Fund. Each year, Congress sets the level of block grants to states, which add matching funds. Arkansas officials said recent cuts to their subsidy program are in response to an unexpected $8 million decrease in federal CCDF funding this year after post-pandemic changes to the way state payouts are calculated.

    In September, Arkansas Secretary of Education Jacob Oliva told lawmakers that without cutting rates to providers, the state would be unlikely to be able to sustain the program. “The last thing I want to do is set up a reimbursement rate that at Christmas we have to call everybody and say we’re done, we spent all our money,” he said during a hearing.

    In addition to cutting payments to providers, the state increased family co-payments, the amount parents must pay toward child care in addition to what their subsidy covers. It’s far from a perfect solution, Oliva told lawmakers. “But we have to do something.”

    Related: How early ed is affected by federal cuts

    During the pandemic, child care programs and states received a fresh infusion of public funds from the American Rescue Plan Act and the Child Care and Development Block Grant, helping to stabilize those businesses. Many states used the influx to bolster their subsidy programs, allowing more children to use them and increasing what providers were paid.

    As that aid expired over the last two years, some states found money to sustain that expansion, but others did not. Indiana was left with a $225 million gap between the cost of its child care subsidy program and the state money dedicated to filling it. In October, officials cut reimbursement rates by 10 to 35 percent, saying in a statement that “there is only one pot of money — we could either protect providers or kids, and we chose kids.”

    Experts and child care directors say, however, that in the child care business it’s impossible to decouple kids from providers. The decision to cut reimbursement rates will ultimately hurt both, they insist, especially as providers find it hard to keep their doors open. Already, some programs have shuttered or announced plans to close by the end of the year. At others, families have left in search of more affordable care.

    Cori Kerns, a senior staff consultant at Little Duckling Early Learning Schools in Indianapolis, said that now that schools are receiving less money from the state, parents must make up the difference. Since the changes were announced in September, Little Duckling has lost 26 children — nearly 18 percent of its enrollment — because parents cannot afford that increase. 

    “That could be a tank of gas to them, that could be some groceries, that could be school supplies or medical needs. Some of them have had to literally stop and stay home with their child in order to survive and also not pay for child care,” Kerns said. “Those kids are suffering” as they stay home with stressed parents who are worrying about lost income, she added.  

    As families pulled their children, Kerns merged two buildings of her program into one, creating larger class sizes and new teacher assignments. That’s led to challenging behavioral problems for children who must adjust to new environments. Kerns anticipates losing teachers now that the work environment has become more stressful.

    Experts warn this trend in some states of scaling back early childhood investments is widening an existing nationwide disparity in the availability of affordable, high-quality child care. While states like Arkansas and Indiana pull back, a handful of others are moving the opposite direction, putting more money toward early learning. In New Mexico, for example, the nation’s first free universal child care program will launch on Nov. 1, paid for by oil and gas revenue that is routed to the state’s Early Childhood Education and Care Fund. In 2023, Vermont passed a payroll tax to increase child care funding in the state, while Connecticut established an endowment this year to route surplus state funds into early learning programs. 

    States have already been diverging in their approach to the child care industry since the pandemic. Rather than invest in more qualified workers, some states have opted to deregulate child care and bring teenagers in to care for young children. At the same time, places like the District of Columbia have increased qualifications for child care providers.

    Related: Rural Americans rely on Head Start. Federal turmoil has them worried

    “This is what happens when you don’t have public federal dollars in the system,” said NAEYC’s Hains. In states that are clawing back child care funds, “it’s going to result in lower quality care for children, or it’s going to result in families pulling back from the workforce and facing greater economic insecurity,” Hains said. “We’re going to see a real harmful impact on children and families as these investments are pulled back.”

    In Mooresville, Indiana, Jen Palmer calculated that her program, The Growing Garden Learning Center, will lose about $260,000 from its annual budget because of cuts in state contributions to care for children from low-income families. 

    “If nothing changes as of today, I can sustain for a year,” Palmer said. “Past that, I’m going to start dipping into my retirement savings.” She’s hesitant to discuss closing the program, one of highest-quality centers in the area. “I believe in this place. What we do is amazing. We just have to make it through this.”

    The lower subsidy rate is just the latest of a series of changes that Palmer has endured. Last December, Indiana stopped accepting new applicants into the care aid program and instead launched a waiting list. Palmer stopped getting calls from parents who wanted to enroll their children, as they couldn’t pay for care on their own. 

    Earlier this year, Indiana also announced cuts to reimbursement rates for its pre-K program, which is run in schools and child care programs throughout the state. Palmer now receives about $148 a week for each pre-K student she serves, down from more than $300 a week last year. Over the past three months, she’s had to lay off seven teachers and has taken over teaching in a pre-K classroom in the mornings. “We’re going to do our darndest that the kids don’t feel the impact,” she said. 

    She hasn’t been able to completely shield them. One toddler in her program recently shocked and delighted his teachers when he said his first word in English: a bold “no.” Concerned that the child had language delays, they were thrilled that he was starting to make progress. 

    Then the child’s family pulled him out of the program. His mother, who works as a delivery driver, had previously qualified for free child care paid for by state. With the state now paying less, her tuition jumped to $167 a month. 

    Instead of interacting with other children and teachers, playing and learning new skills, the toddler is now “sitting in mom’s car in a car seat driving around all over the county while she delivers for Uber,” said Palmer. “That just set that little guy years back. When he enters school, he’s no longer going to be on par with his classmates. That’s not fair. That can’t be the answer.”

    Contact staff writer Jackie Mader at 212-678-3562 or [email protected] 

    This story about child care was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/child-care-crisis-deepens-as-funding-slashed-for-poor-families/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113184&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/child-care-crisis-deepens-as-funding-slashed-for-poor-families/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • Beyond the Price Tag: How Cost Shapes Families’ College Choices

    Beyond the Price Tag: How Cost Shapes Families’ College Choices

    Mother and teenage daughter in kitchen looking at a laptop PC
    Perception of cost has a major impact on college choice.

    Choosing a college is rarely just about academics, location, or prestige. For most families, it comes down to the question of cost. The numbers on a price tag do not just suggest affordability; they shape what feels possible. Sticker shock alone can quietly close a door before a student even fills out an application, while clear, honest information can keep dreams in play. In this moment of rising costs and growing financial anxiety, understanding how families navigate affordability has never mattered more.

    Before examining what RNL’s latest research shows, it helps to step back and see where the broader conversation is heading. Recent studies highlight how affordability, family background, and perceptions of cost steer the college search. Again and again, the evidence points to a simple truth: for families, financial reality and perception are tightly linked (Stabler-Havener, 2024). This context is essential for understanding the RNL findings and considering how colleges can truly meet families where they are.

    What research tells us

    The research is clear: affordability, family income, and perceptions of cost are among the strongest forces shaping college choices. In one recent study, only three in ten students who believed college was unaffordable planned to enroll, showing how perception alone can narrow opportunities (Stabler-Havener, 2024).

    Policy leaders are responding. State priorities now center on boosting affordability and families’ sense of value (Harnisch, Burns, Heckert, Kunkle, & Weeden, 2024). As families weigh cost and worth, the call for reform grows louder.

    Family perspective lies at the heart of these decisions. Financial worries shape the choices parents and students make, often shrinking the list of options for those with fewer resources (Chuong-Nguyen, 2025). Parental guidance and support are deeply shaped by income and stress, sometimes as early as elementary school, when children first start to believe in what is possible (Keeling, 2025). For many out-of-state students, aid and affordability matter more than distance or campus life (Stansell, 2025). While the campus experience may guide the final decision, cost remains the gatekeeper. Together, these studies send a clear message: real and perceived affordability remain central to college access.

    Policy changes with big impact

    Federal policy changes are reshaping the landscape of affordability as well. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act keeps undergraduate loan limits intact but introduces two significant changes: a $65,000 lifetime cap on Parent PLUS loans, and a rule eliminating Pell Grant eligibility if scholarships already cover the full cost of attendance. While these details may sound technical, their impact is deeply personal. Middle- and low-income families, and first-generation students, are most likely to feel squeezed by these new limits (American Council on Education, 2025; National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, 2025). These changes may become the tipping point for families already sensitive to sticker price.

    What this means for colleges

    The research suggests several practical steps:

    • Make affordability unmistakably clear. Families often overestimate cost and underestimate available aid. Tools like net price calculators and plain-language award letters can help (Chuong-Nguyen, 2025; Stabler-Havener, 2024).
    • Reach parents early. Parents start shaping their child’s college expectations years before high school. Outreach in middle school can expand what families believe is possible (Keeling, 2025).
    • Highlight value as well as cost. Families want to know if college is worth the investment. Colleges can tell stories of career outcomes, alum success, and community, not just numbers (Harnisch et al., 2024; Stansell, 2025).
    • Connect finances to student experience. Students care about campus feel as much as aid. Affordability should be shown alongside housing, safety, clubs, and social life (Stansell, 2025).
    • Prioritize equity. First-generation and lower-income families face more information gaps and greater stress. Targeted advising, financial literacy programs, and direct communication can help bridge that divide (Chuong-Nguyen, 2025; Keeling, 2025).

    What RNL research tells us

    While these studies offer a broad view of how cost and perception shape college decisions, the lived experience of families comes into even sharper focus when we look at recent data from the 2025 Prospective Family Engagement Report. The findings from RNL, Ardeo, and CampusESP provide a window into what families are navigating right now: the confusion, the questions, and sometimes, the sense of being overwhelmed by the college search. Examining this data helps us move from general trends to the specific realities facing families today, and shows where institutions can make the most meaningful difference.

    The bottom line

    For families, cost is never just a number. It is tangled up with their hopes, sense of security, and vision for the future: sticker price, net cost, debt, and perception; all of these shape what feels possible. For colleges, the work goes beyond lowering costs. The real challenge is helping families understand those costs, connect them to real outcomes, and expand what each student believes is within reach.

    Families’ need for clear information

    The 2025 Prospective Family Engagement Report (RNL, Ardeo, & CampusESP, 2025) found that 99% of nearly 10,000 families surveyed believe clear cost, tuition, and academic information is essential. Yet almost one in four families cannot find it. The gap is even larger for first-generation families (37 percent) and those earning under $60,000 (43%). These gaps are not just inconvenient; they are real barriers.

    Faces behind the data

    Consider the single parent in rural Ohio, working two jobs and searching late at night for financial aid information. She finds buried calculators and confusing language and assumes the sticker price is final. The dream quietly shrinks.

    Alternatively, think of the middle-income family in suburban Atlanta. They make too much for much-needed aid but still feel stretched thin. They cross colleges off their list without ever seeing the actual net cost.

    Income-level differences in cost perception

    The study shows clear patterns (RNL, Ardeo, & CampusESP, 2025):

    • Families under $60,000 have the lowest awareness of cost tools, face the most difficulty finding aid information, and are most likely to rule out schools early due to sticker price.
    • Those earning $60,000–$149,000 have moderate awareness, but three in four have eliminated colleges based on sticker price alone.
    • Families earning $150,000 or more have the highest awareness and least trouble finding information, but even among them, almost three in four have ruled out colleges due to price.

    Financial aid and scholarships: The deciding factor

    Four out of five families list aid and scholarships among their top five decision factors; for almost two in five, it is the most important factor. The urgency is even greater for first-generation families (54%) and low-income households (68%).

    • 38% say aid and scholarships top the list.
    • 43% place them in the top five.

    Even among the highest-income families, more than a quarter cite aid as their top factor, and nearly half put it in their top five.

    Sticker shock and final cost

    • 72% of families have ruled out colleges because of sticker price. Middle-income families lead (76%), followed by high-income (74%) and low-income families (66%).
    • 65% say the final cost after aid is the biggest dealbreaker, consistent across first-generation (66%), continuing generation (65%), and especially middle-income families (73%).

    Financing difficulty and loan anxiety

    Paying for college feels “very difficult” for 28% of families, and “difficult” for another 27%. The challenge is sharpest for low-income families (47% “very difficult”) and first-generation families (40%). Even among households earning over $150,000, one in five reports that paying for college will be “very difficult.” Anxiety about borrowing is widespread; 61% of families feel uneasy about loans, regardless of income (RNL, Ardeo, & CampusESP, 2025).

    Implications for colleges

    • Clarity is currency. A trust gap grows when nearly every family values clear cost information, but the most price-sensitive families cannot find it. Make cost information unmistakable, on websites, in print, in portals, and through personal outreach.
    • Lead with your aid story. Aid and scholarships top the list for most families. Burying this information wastes a key point of connection. Use real examples and plain language.
    • Defuse sticker shock early. With nearly three-quarters of families eliminating schools based on sticker price, net price calculators should be prominent, easy to use, and personalized.
    • Do not forget middle-income families. They often miss out on need-based aid but are just as price-sensitive. They deserve targeted outreach and clear explanations of their options.
    • Address financing challenges directly. Offer flexible payment plans, start conversations about the total cost early, and provide tools for first-generation and low-income families. Even high-income families appreciate empathy and honesty.
    • Reframe borrowing. With 61 percent anxious about loans, transparency about repayment timelines, graduate earnings, and debt-to-income ratios is critical.

    The emotional weight of cost

    Cost is never just a number; it is an emotional flashpoint. Families weigh college prices as figures on a spreadsheet and as symbols of opportunity, security, and trust. Information gaps hit first-generation and low-income families hardest, but financial pressure is universal:

    • Aid matters.
    • Sticker price stings.
    • Financing feels difficult for almost everyone.
    • Borrowing brings real anxiety.

    The colleges that thrive will treat cost not only as a financial challenge but as a moment to build trust and expand possibilities for every family they serve.

    Revolutionize your financial aid offers with video

    References
    • American Council on Education. (2025, July 29). Summary: One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1). Division of Government Relations and National Engagement.
    • Chuong-Nguyen, M. Q. (2025). College application experience: Personal and institutional factors affecting high school seniors’ college-going decision-making process and college choice (Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University Irvine).
    • Harnisch, T., Burns, R., Heckert, K., Kunkle, K., & Weeden, D. (2024). State priorities for higher education in 2024. State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO).
    • Keeling, C. (2025). Perceptions of parents regarding their participation in decision-making related to the academic and technical education preparation of their children’s career pathways (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University).
    • National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. (2025, July). Frequently asked questions about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. NAICU.
    • RNL, Ardeo, & CampusESP. (2025). 2025 Prospective family engagement report. Ruffalo Noel Levitz.
    • Stabler-Havener, J. M. (2024). Interactions between quality, affordability, and income groups at private colleges and universities (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University).
    • Stansell, L. J. (2025). Driving enrollment amidst change: Exploring college choice of out-of-state students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville). TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/12424

    Source link

  • What Families Tell Us About College Visits, Belonging, and Trust

    What Families Tell Us About College Visits, Belonging, and Trust

    Every family’s college search tells a story, one built on hopes, questions, and the quiet moments when a parent whispers, “This feels right.” Over the past year, I have immersed myself in both research and real voices to understand what drives that feeling.

    This blog brings those insights together. I begin with what the research shows, how campus visits, family engagement, and equity intersect, and then layer in fresh data from the 2025 RNL, Ardeo, and CampusESP Prospective Family Engagement Report.

    Together, they reveal a simple truth that feels anything but small: families want to feel seen, informed, and included in the journey. For me, this work is not just about enrollment; it is about belonging, trust, and designing experiences that make families confident in saying, “Yes, this is our place.”

    The research story: Why families and visits matter

    Across K–12 and higher education, families and campus visits consistently emerge as pivotal mechanisms shaping students’ aspirations, access, and belonging. In A Review of the Effectiveness of College Campus Visits on Higher Education Enrollment, Case (2024) shows that campus visits not only help students assess academic and cultural fit but also allow parents and guardians to evaluate safety, hospitality, and organizational factors that directly influence trust and enrollment decisions.

    Amaro-Jiménez, Pant, Hungerford-Kresser, and den Hartog (2020) reinforce that family-centered outreach, such as Latina/o Parent Leadership Conferences that combine campus tours with financial aid and admissions workshops, increases parents’ College Preparedness Knowledge (CPK) and confidence in guiding their children. These immersive experiences turn visits into learning opportunities that demystify college processes and affirm parental agency.

    From an operational lens, Kornowa and Philopoulos (2023) emphasize that admissions and facilities management share responsibility for the campus visit, describing it as “a quintessential part of the college search process for many students and families” (p. 96). Every detail, from signage to staff warmth, shapes families’ perceptions of authenticity and belonging, making visits both emotional and informational experiences.

    In K–12 contexts, Robertson, Nguyen, and Salehi (2022) find that underserved families, particularly those with limited income, face barriers such as inflexible schedules and unwelcoming environments when attending school tours. They call for trust-based, personalized engagement, often led by parent advocates, to turn visits into equitable opportunities rather than exclusive events.

    Similarly, Byrne and Kibort-Crocker (2022) frame college planning through Family Systems Theory, viewing the college search as a shared family transition. Families’ involvement in campus visits, financial planning, and orientation sessions fosters understanding and belonging, especially when institutions provide multilingual materials and parent panels. Even when parents lack “college knowledge,” their emotional support and presence remain vital assets.

    Finally, Wilson and McGuire (2021) expose how stigma and class-based power dynamics shape family engagement in schools. Working-class parents often feel judged or dismissed in institutional spaces, leading to withdrawal rather than disinterest. The authors urge empathetic, flexible communication to dismantle these barriers and create welcoming, inclusive climates for all families.

    Taken together, these six studies show that family engagement and visits are deeply intertwined acts of trust, access, and belonging. Whether evaluating campus safety, building college knowledge, or navigating inequities, families who feel welcomed, informed, and respected become co-authors in their children’s educational journeys.

    The research paints a clear picture: families want to feel informed, included, and welcomed. Our latest data with RNL, Ardeo, and CampusESP shows exactly where those feelings take root, and which experiences most influence their decision to say, “Yes, this is the right college for my student.”

    What families told us: Insights from the 2025 Prospective Family Engagement Report

    Families are not passive bystanders; they are active partners in the college search, weighing what they see, hear, and feel. Their feedback reveals a clear pattern: human connection and real-world experiences matter far more than abstract or digital tools.

    Campus visits and human touchpoints build trust

    The most powerful influences on family support are on-campus visits (97%) and face-to-face interactions with admissions staff (93%), faculty (92%), and coaches (88%).

    For first-generation (98%) and lower-income families (96%), these experiences are even more critical. Seeing the campus, meeting people, and feeling welcomed helps them imagine their student thriving there.

    Key insight: Families decide with both heart and head. A warm, well-organized visit remains the single most persuasive factor in earning their support.

    Virtual engagement expands access

    Two-thirds of families (67%) value virtual visits, but that rises to 75% for first-generation and 80% for lower-income families, groups often limited by cost or travel. Virtual experiences can level the playing field when they feel personal and guided, not automated.

    Key insight: Virtual visits are equity tools, not extras. They must be designed with care, warmth, and a human presence.

    Counselors and college fairs still count

    About 73% of families see college fairs and high school counselors as meaningful sources, especially first-generation (81%) and lower-income (84%) families. These trusted guides help families translate options and make sense of complex processes.

    Key insight: Families lean on human interpreters, counselors, fairs, and coaches to navigate choices with confidence.

    AI tools spark curiosity, not confidence

    Fewer than half of families find AI tools, such as chatbots, program matchers, or demos, meaningful (40–43%). Interest is higher among first-generation (53–56%) and lower-income (55%) families, who may see AI as a learning aid. Still, most want human reassurance alongside it.

    Key insight: AI works best as a co-pilot, not a replacement. Pair technology with empathy and guidance.

    Communication quality matters most

    Two experiences top the list:

    • Information about the program or school (97%)
    • Quality of communication with parents and families (96%)

    For first-generation and lower-income families, both climb to 98%, showing that clear, bilingual, and affirming outreach builds trust and inclusion.

    Key insight: Families value how colleges communicate care; clarity and tone matter as much as content.

    Equity lens: More support, more belonging

    Across nearly every measure, first-generation and lower-income families report higher experiences. They seek more touchpoints, more guidance, and more invitations into the process.

    Key insight: Equity is about designing belonging, mixing in-person and virtual options, speaking their language, and centering relationships.

    This story does not end with the data; it begins there

    Every number and story in this study points to the same truth: families want to feel invited in. They want experiences that inform people who listen, and moments that confirm their student belongs. Our work is to create those moments, to build trust in the details, warmth in the welcome, and clarity in the journey. Because when families feel it, when they walk the campus, meet the people, and think, “This feels right!”, they do not just choose a college. They choose belonging.

    Ready to reach your enrollment goals? Let’s talk how

    Our enrollment experts are veteran campus enrollment managers who now work with hundreds of colleges and universities each year. Find out how we can help you pinpoint the optimal strategies for creating winning student search campaigns, building your inquiry and applicant pools, and increasing yield.

    Complimentary Consultation

    References
    • Amaro-Jiménez, C., Pant, D., Hungerford-Kresser, H., & den Hartog, S. (2020). Identifying the impact of college access efforts on parents’ college preparedness knowledge. Journal of College Access, 6(2), 7–27.
    • Byrne, R., & Kibort-Crocker, E. (2022). What evidence from research tells us: Family engagement in college pathway decisions. Washington Student Achievement Council.
    • Case, R. D. (2024). A review of the effectiveness of college campus visits on higher education enrollment. International Journal of Science and Research, 13(9), 716–718. https://doi.org/10.21275/SR24911223658
    • Kornowa, L., & Philopoulos, A. (2023). The importance of a strong campus visit: A practice brief outlining collaboration between admissions and facilities management. Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly, 11(1), 54–74.
    • Robertson, M., Nguyen, T., & Salehi, N. (2022). Not another school resource map: Meeting underserved families’ information needs requires trusting relationships and personalized care. Digital Promise Research Brief.
    • Wilson, S., & McGuire, K. (2021). ‘They had already made their minds up’: Understanding the impact of stigma on parental engagement. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 42(5–6), 775–791. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2021.1908115

    Source link

  • New Promise Programs Launch for Families Making Under $100K

    New Promise Programs Launch for Families Making Under $100K

    When Jake Winston began looking at colleges in fall 2019, he was primarily looking at public colleges in his home state of North Carolina, as he felt those would be the only institutions he could afford. He was interested in Washington & Lee University, in Virginia, due to its location—far enough for a change of scenery, but not so far he couldn’t visit home—and its rich and complex history. But he didn’t think he could afford the high price tag.

    At a presentation by admissions officials, though, he learned about the W&L Promise, which covers the full cost of tuition for all students whose families fall into a specific income bracket. Once he got his aid offers back from colleges, WLU was the obvious choice, costing him just $5,000 annually, a sum that he paid out of pocket using money he made from summer research jobs.

    “Being able to know I was going to graduate debt-free from the start allowed me to pick what I was passionate in, and that’s teaching, which is not the highest-paying role in the country,” said Winston, who now teaches seventh-grade history in Northern Virginia. “But it is what I wanted to do with my life.”

    WLU has one of the oldest tuition-guarantee programs in the country. It launched in 2014, offering free tuition to students whose families make less than $75,000 each year; now, that number has surged up to $150,000, and students whose family income is less than $75,000 also get free room and board.

    Since then, more and more colleges—especially, but not only, selective private institutions—are offering completely free tuition to students whose families fall under a certain income threshold. Nowadays, that maximum is typically $100,000 annually, an income bracket that includes about 57 percent of U.S. families as of 2024, according to an analysis by the Motley Fool. But some have expanded the offer of free tuition to those whose families make as much as $200,000, encompassing all but 16 percent of American households. (Most programs also require the families to have typical assets, and some are only open to in-state students.)

    In the past year alone, a slew of universities has announced new free tuition programs or expanded their existing programs, including Wake Forest University, Reed College, Emory University, Macalester College, Tufts University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University and Lasell University.

    Administrators at more than half a dozen institutions with promise programs told Inside Higher Ed that they hope that the move will attract low-income students who didn’t realize how financially accessible higher education, even at expensive institutions, can be. It’s also an effort to improve cost transparency—an area that has frequently come under scrutiny as the actual cost of college has become increasingly obscured by scholarships, aid, fees and books and other indirect costs.

    Breaking the Cost Barrier

    For many institutions offering tuition guarantees—also called promise programs—it’s more of a change in rhetoric than in actual financial aid policy.

    Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, for example, announced a program last November guaranteeing free tuition for students with family incomes under $75,000 and promising those with incomes under $100,000 wouldn’t have to take out any student loans to access a CMU education, beginning with the incoming class in fall 2025. But according to Brian Hill, the university’s associate vice provost for student financials and enrollment systems, that’s how the university had already been quietly operating since 2016.

    “In truth, it was to make sure that prospective students knew that CMU was an affordable option for them. That was the primary reason,” he said. “We’ve been saying that we met full demonstrated financial need for our students … [but] a barrier we don’t know if we’d gotten through or not is students that would look at the sticker price [of $67,020 per year] and just completely write CMU off before they even explored it.”

    The surge of these programs comes amid concerns about the growing cost of higher education and that the return on investment of a bachelor’s degree doesn’t warrant the seemingly exorbitant cost; a few institutions in the U.S. now have a sticker price upward of $100,000 a year.

    At the same time, experts argue that the price of higher education has actually gone down when accounting for inflation and the high rate of aid students generally receive. For several decades, higher education has followed a model in which institutions advertise a high cost of attendance but a significant number of students receive large scholarships. This approach helps to make higher education look like a luxury product while students and families feel like they’re getting a good deal. But that strategy has come to bite institutions in the butt, according to W. Joseph King, former president of Lyon College and a higher education consultant, as many low- and middle-income students now feel the high cost of college makes an education unattainable.

    “What this led to was almost like an arms race of rising stated tuition numbers and a fall in net tuition numbers. All sorts of groups, including the federal government, have been trying to get to numbers that are more reflective of the actual cost,” he said.

    Promise programs aim to change that narrative by showing low- and middle-income families that getting an education even at a seemingly pricey school can be achievable.

    Colleges have made other attempts to communicate that message to students and parents. That includes developing net price calculators, which often show that low-income students would be paying just a fraction of the sticker price, or announcing that their institution is able to meet all of a student’s demonstrated financial need—a number based on a federal student aid formula that determines how much a family is able to pay.

    But many families have no idea what demonstrated financial need means or are unaware of net price calculators, enrollment professionals say. Simply saying that an institution offers free tuition can be the ultimate tool for price transparency, according to Milyon Trulove, vice president and dean of admission and financial aid at Reed College, which announced plans to expand its regional promise program—currently available only to students in Oregon and Washington—to all students with family incomes under $100,000 in 2026.

    The institution also has a net price calculator, he said. But if presented with both that calculator and the promise of free tuition, the latter will immediately be meaningful to students, whereas the former won’t.

    “[Students] say, ‘This makes sense to me, today, right now … and now I can listen to all the other stuff about fit and anxiety about money is no longer in the way of me fully participating in the college admission process,’” he said.

    Along with institutions offering free tuition to any student who fits within a certain income bracket, even more institutions offer tuition guarantees to students based on grade point average or for transferring from a local community college system.

    ‘Rigorous Financial Planning’

    Most of the university officials who spoke with Inside Higher Ed said that their institution was in a very strong financial position and able to afford to support so many students because of large endowments and generous donations, including fundraising specifically aimed at increasing student aid.

    From 2016 to 2024, Carnegie Mellon, for example, increased its undergraduate financial aid budget 86 percent.

    “We truly made a massive commitment to making affordability a real thing at CMU,” said Hill. “I think we’re in a very positive position in terms of finances, but it took a lot of commitment from … executive leadership to make this a priority.”

    Wake Forest, which announced last week that it will offer free tuition to all North Carolina students with family incomes below $200,000, is one of the few schools that said that its promise program, called the North Carolina Gateway, would substantially increase the total amount of aid it gives out. President Susan Wente said that, similarly to CMU, the funds for the initiative come in large part from a massive fundraising effort that has raised over $150 million for financial aid since 2022.

    “This involved rigorous financial planning and analysis and knowing we could meet the commitment, should we announce it,” she said.

    But not every university with a promise program is leaning on massive donation campaigns. Radford University, a public institution in Virginia, was able to begin offering free tuition to all students from Virginia with incomes below $100,000 simply because of the ample amount of funding it gets from the state, according to Dannette Gomez Beane, vice president for enrollment management and strategic communication.

    Virginia tends to be generous toward higher education, Beane said, but the two regional public universities in southwest Virginia, which has the lowest college-going rate of higher education of any area in the state, receive the most funding. That’s what allowed Radford to begin its promise program, which the institution promoted heavily in the 60-mile radius around its campus, in 2024.

    “With all things higher ed and higher ed financial aid, not everything is sure, and we’re learning that this year more than ever,” she said. “I think that state funding, federal funding—if you have models that are dependent on those, you have to constantly be adjusting your models … there is that vulnerability, but we’re just gracious that we’ve had favor with the state.”

    Boosting Low-Income Enrollment

    Although many of these programs are new, those that have been around for multiple years have seen positive results. At Washington & Lee, Sally Richmond, vice president for admissions and financial aid, said that there have been massive jumps in enrollment of rural students, first-generation students and Pell-eligible students since she joined the university in 2016.

    It’s impossible to say whether those changes can be attributed specifically to the university’s promise program, she noted. But, she said, “our financial aid office, who is certainly on the front line of having these conversations along with our admissions team, speaks to the fact that this concept of the promise is the one that resonates most with our prospective students and families.”

    Reed College, similarly, saw a 25 percent increase in middle-income students in its program’s first year, during which it was only available to students from Oregon and Washington.

    Wente, Wake Forest’s president, said she is eager to see how the university’s newly announced tuition guarantee program will impact low- and middle-income enrollment.

    “As a scientist myself, we’re going to pilot this, look at its impact, look at how we can ensure that it’s really achieving what we hope in terms of offering students greater access,” she said. “In terms of the middle and lower income bands, those are the students who often don’t have as many options. So, how do we give them as many options as possible?”

    Source link