Universal or targeted?
Should social programs be universal or means-tested? Public K-12 school is universal: everyone's kids can go. Medicaid is means-tested: there's an upper income limit to qualify. The advantage of means-testing is straightforward. Dollars go to those who need them most, seemingly minimizing cost and maximizing benefit. But there are two very significant downsides.
The first is administrative. Means-tested programs require eligibility verification, recertification, documentation, and appeals. Perversely, the people who are most in need of help tend to have the most difficulty navigating this bureaucratic gauntlet. Limited education and/or English skills, irregular jobs, and complicated personal situations all confound one's ability to manage paperwork.
The second relates to political economy. Programs for "us" enjoy much broader support than programs for "them." Social Security is the classic example. Some technical and actuarial concerns aside, it remains the most popular social program in American history because every working person eventually gets a check.
The drawbacks of targeted programs are increasingly recognized by both left and right. In NYC, Mayor Mamdani's administration recently opened a free child care center on the rather wealthy Upper East Side, drawing some criticism from the left. But the socialist mayor's allies recognized that universal access is what creates the political coalition strong enough to make a program durable.
Progressives tend to emphasize solidarity and coalition-building, while conservatives tend to emphasize the bureaucratic intrusion of means-testing and the libertarian-aligned giving of cash or cash-like benefits rather than highly dictated specifics. But they are converging on the same conclusion: that middle and upper-middle-class families need to be inside the tent, not outside it.
Applied to child care, this principle suggests programs that go beyond Head Start or means-tested subsidies. Employer-supported child care, incentivized substantially under recent federal legislation, is one such mechanism. It complements rather than competes with help to the poor. It draws all working families into the constituency for a strong child care policy. But it's still in a very early stage, one where very few employers, or families, appreciate the opportunity. That's what I'm trying to change.