A limited body of work has revealed somewhat mixed findings on the link between childcare subsidy receipt and child maltreatment (e.g., Herbst & Tekin, 2014; Maguire‐Jack et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019). Two studies have found a uniformly protective effect of childcare subsidies against child maltreatment, with one using administrative measures of both childcare subsidy receipt and child maltreatment and another relying on self-report for both measures (Maguire‐Jack et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019). These studies focused on low-income samples and used careful criteria to select families considered income-eligible for childcare subsidies. Related work using national child maltreatment data has found that states with more generous childcare subsidy policies that reduce barriers to receipt – higher income eligibility and lower work requirements – had lower rates of child maltreatment (Klika et al., 2023; Maguire-Jack et al., 2023).

On the other hand, Herbst and Tekin (2014) found that childcare subsidy receipt was associated with higher levels of self-reported physical and psychological aggression. The contradictory findings from this study may be driven by sample selection. Specifically, this study did not account for income level. Because childcare subsidy is a means-tested program, only those with lower income are eligible to receive it. The current study specifically selected the sample based on those who were income-eligible for childcare subsidies, following the procedures by Maguire-Jack and colleagues (2019).

While most studies have examined the relationships between childcare subsidies and physical abuse, physical neglect, or emotional abuse, far fewer have sought to clarify the potential impact of childcare subsidy receipt on emotional neglect. In broad terms, neglect is a complex construct that is often challenging in practice to pinpoint. Child welfare workers often look for a pattern of behaviors and circumstances to guide decision-making. Neglect refers to the failure of a caregiver to meet a child’s basic needs (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2022). Young children are at the most significant risk for neglect (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2024), as they depend on their primary caregiver to meet most of their daily needs.

State definitions surrounding neglect vary, with 49 states having a definition involving a failure to provide necessities such as food and clothing, 48 including abandonment, 48 including medical neglect, 45 including a failure to supervise the child, 39 including a failure to protect a child, 36 including exposure to drugs or chemicals, 35 including educational neglect, 21 including parental incapacities such as mental illness, disability, incarceration, and hospitalization, 17 including a harmful environment, and 15 including parental substance abuse (Casey Family Programs, 2023). Many of these subcategories are vague, such as “a failure to provide a ‘stable home environment’” constituting neglect in Idaho. While perhaps even less easily distinguished than other forms of neglect, emotional neglect constitutes a significant and unique risk to the fundamental developmental needs of children.

Emotional neglect involves the “failure to meet children’s emotional needs, and includes, for example, the failure to provide adequate nurturance and affection” (Stoltenborgh et al., 2012, p. 346). Although many state definitions of neglect include a reference to children’s emotional needs generally, they typically do not provide specific guidance around how to objectively assess this form of neglect (Casey Family Programs, 2023). Despite the difficulty in defining and identifying emotional neglect by child welfare agencies, the phenomenon has significant impacts on child victims (Strathearn et al., 2020). Emotional neglect has been linked to attachment problems (Cyr et al., 2010; Strathearn, 2011), impaired emotion recognition and regulation (Jaffee, 2017), and even accelerated biological aging (Chang et al., 2024). Children who are emotionally neglected are at a greater risk of experiencing loneliness and social isolation (Loos & Alexander, 1997), as well as depression (Hanson et al., 2015) and other psychiatric disorders (Young et al., 2011), including self-harm and suicidal ideation (Lipschitz et al., 1999).

Self-efficacy refers to individuals’ “perceptions of their capability to execute the actions necessary to achieve a desired goal” (Gallagher, 2012, p. 314). Self-efficacy theory suggests that an individual’s perception of their self-efficacy impacts their choice of activities, the effort they expend, and how long they will persist in the face of adversity (Bandura & Adams, 1977). Self-efficacy related specifically to parenting, in terms of a parent’s feelings about their ability to meet their child’s needs, has been found to have positive impacts on parenting behaviors, such as greater use of monitoring (Dumka et al., 2010), lower reported laxness and over-reactivity (Sanders & Woolley, 2005), lower levels of parenting stress (Bloomfield & Kendall, 2012), and less coercive parenting (Bor & Sanders, 2004). Parenting self-efficacy is also related to lower rates of depression (Barnett et al., 2015; Gross & Marcussen, 2017; Gross et al., 1994), anxiety (Don et al., 2014), and psychological distress (Giallo et al., 2013).

Although most studies on parenting and self-efficacy use a specific measure of self-efficacy within the context of parenting, more general measures of self-efficacy (e.g., Pearlin & Schooler, 1978) are also related to child neglect across administrative data and self-report measures (Slack et al., 2011). Parents who have high levels of self-efficacy may especially be less likely to report that they are too caught up in their problems to show love and affection to their children because, by having higher levels of perceived self-efficacy, they may feel more empowered and in control of their parenting, and thus may be more likely to make efforts to engage in emotionally nurturing behaviors with their children.

Prior theoretical work has hypothesized the pathway through which childcare subsidies relate to child maltreatment, suggesting that improved parenting skills and knowledge, reductions in parenting stress, and increased income and access to basic needs may be important mediators (Maguire-Jack et al., 2022). Only one prior study has examined mediators of these relationships and found that increased working hours, household income, decreased childcare concerns, and decreased parental stress were not mediators of the relationship between childcare subsidy receipt and the likelihood of being reported for concerns of physical abuse or neglect (Yang et al., 2019). However, this study did not consider emotional neglect, and therefore, our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the potential link between childcare subsidies and reduced emotional neglect among families with low income remains limited.

Caring for young children without help may leave parents burnt out (Mikolajczak & Roskam, 2020) and unable to engage in warm, responsive parenting (Griffith, 2022; Mikolajczak et al., 2019). Without access to reliable childcare, parents may experience frequent and unplanned absences from work, necessitating extra shifts or bringing work home that further impedes their ability to tend to children’s emotional needs. Drawing from Belsky’s (1984) determinants of parenting model, the two most important factors believed to shape parenting are the personal psychological resources of the parent, and contextual stressors and supports available to the parent. In line with this view, childcare subsidies may serve to provide both greater psychological and contextual support to parents by reducing stress associated with not having help with childcare, as well as the financial burden of using childcare. In this manner, parents may have the flexibility to organize their lives in a way that aligns with their values and goals – including the ability to contribute financially, advance their careers, and gain more financial freedom in their parenting and other lifestyle decisions – thereby garnering a bolstered sense of self-efficacy.

In turn, parents with higher self-efficacy are expected to feel more in command of their capacity to demonstrate warmth and affection in interactions with their children. This may amplify and sustain parents’ ability to not only meet their children’s basic emotional needs, but to do so in a manner that promotes positive child development. Thus, the current study sought to understand whether childcare subsidies were related to reduced emotional neglect and whether parents’ self-efficacy mediated this relationship. We hypothesize that childcare subsidies might increase the amount of control a parent feels over their own life; receiving a childcare subsidy, in theory, increases access to high-quality childcare, reduces stress associated with finding a safe place for children to be while parents are working, and increases income potential. This increase in self-efficacy, in turn, is hypothesized to reduce emotional neglect by opening time and mental space for the parent to engage with their child in an emotionally nurturing manner.

Although prior research has found a protective impact of childcare subsidies on child maltreatment (Maguire‐Jack et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019), few have examined the pathways through which receipt of childcare subsidy is related to maltreatment risk, and no prior study has examined the mechanisms underlying its potential link with emotional neglect. Further, although self-efficacy is related to neglect risk (Slack et al., 2011) and acts as a mediator between macro-level neighborhood factors and child maltreatment (Guterman et al., 2009), it has not been considered a mediator between childcare subsidies and emotional neglect among families with low income. The current study sought to contribute to the growing body of literature examining childcare subsidies as an important component of the child maltreatment prevention continuum by exploring the following research questions: (1) Does receipt of a childcare subsidy decrease the risk of emotional neglect? and (2) Does parents’ self-efficacy mediate the link between childcare subsidy receipt and emotional neglect?

Descriptive statistics of all study variables are presented in Table 1. The sample was majority non-Hispanic Black (51%, followed by Hispanic [33%] and non-Hispanic White [13%]) and unmarried to the child’s father (78%). The largest share of the sample had less than a high school degree (37%), followed by some college or higher (33%), and a high school degree or equivalent (30%). Fisher’s exact chi-square tests were conducted to determine if there were any significant group differences between childcare subsidy recipients and non-subsidy recipients on demographic characteristics. Results showed that there were significant group differences in marital status, χ²(1, N = 1,871) = 11.49, p < .001, education level, χ²(2, N = 1,871) = 23.81, p < .001, employment status, χ²(1, N = 1,871) = 53.04, p < .001, and race/ethnicity, χ²(3, N = 1,871) = 40.88, p < .001. Additionally, while 43% of non-subsidy recipients utilized nonparental forms of childcare and 57% of non-subsidy recipient parents cared for children themselves, all subsidy recipients used nonparental forms of childcare.

Results from the path model can be found in Table 2. Because the model did not include any latent variables, it was fully identified, and thus model fit indices were irrelevant. The following direct and indirect path analysis results supported our hypotheses. Receipt of the childcare subsidy was directly and significantly associated with increased self-efficacy (b = .16, p = .004) and decreased emotional neglect (b = –1.24, p = .045). Self-efficacy was significantly associated with decreased emotional neglect (b = –1.27, p < .001). Regarding covariates with statistically significant associations with emotional neglect, having a male child was significantly associated with greater emotional neglect (b = .75, p = .007). In addition, both physical neglect (b = .36, p = .001) and emotional abuse (b = .03, p < .001) were significantly associated with greater emotional neglect.

The path model results showed a significant mediating effect of self-efficacy on the link between receipt of the childcare subsidy and emotional neglect (b = –.20, p = .01). Still, the total effect remained significant (b = –1.44, p = .021), indicating that self-efficacy was a partial mediator of the inverse association observed between childcare subsidy receipt and emotional neglect.

The present study investigated the relationship between childcare subsidy receipt and emotional neglect, and whether this link functioned in part through self-efficacy. It was hypothesized that receiving childcare subsidies would improve mothers’ perceptions of control over their finances and schedules, translating to mothers being more present and able to show love towards their children. Findings supported this hypothesis; childcare subsidy receipt was indeed associated with less emotional neglect of children. This link suggests that access to affordable childcare can give parents of young children respite from the heavy physical and emotional demands of caring for young children, potentially promoting maternal mental health and healthy parent-child interactions (Swit & Breen, 2023). Our findings converge with earlier research suggesting that access to affordable childcare may reduce the risk of maltreatment (Ha et al., 2015; Maguire‐Jack et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019).

Moreover, our findings extend knowledge of the mechanisms for the inverse relationship between childcare subsidy receipt and emotional neglect of children. Notably, mothers’ self-efficacy partially mediated the relationship between childcare subsidy receipt and emotional neglect. Subsidies likely allowed low-income mothers more control over their time and schedules, including opportunities to work uninterrupted in addition to getting breaks from the challenges of caring for young children (Mistry et al., 2007). In line with previous research that has examined the role of self-efficacy in supporting positive parenting practices (e.g., Dumka et al., 2010; Sanders & Woolley, 2005), our findings also suggest that an increased sense of self-efficacy appeared to alleviate parents’ sense of difficulty demonstrating warmth and affection towards their children.

Several other factors exacerbated the risk of emotional neglect. Mothers who engaged in other types of maltreatment, including physical neglect and emotional abuse, were more likely to also engage in emotional neglect. The co-occurrence of these maltreatment types may point to mothers who lack both the material and emotional bandwidth to meet young children’s needs. Indeed, prior work has suggested that children at risk for one type of maltreatment (e.g., emotional neglect) often face increased risk for another form of maltreatment (e.g., physical neglect; Jonson-Reid et al., 2003), especially in the context of the myriad challenges experienced by parents with low income. Emotional abuse may co-occur with emotional neglect (i.e., psychological maltreatment) among mothers with existing mental health problems or overwhelming work commitments that may increase the likelihood of hostile or inconsistent parent-child interactions (Glaser, 2002). Interestingly, we also found that male children were more likely to experience emotional neglect compared to female children. This may suggest that our measure of emotional neglect (i.e., unable to show love toward child), reflects differences in mothers’ expression of warmth toward male children. This possibility is supported by some studies that have found that boys report lower levels of maternal affection than girls (Murphy et al., 2010). Future research should examine if there is a relationship between child gender and alternative measures of emotional neglect (e.g., insensitivity, unresponsiveness).