What parts of Virginia are most in favor of increasing access to child care? Rural areas.

Most of the time we see all the ways that opinions differ across Virginia. Election results are split both red and blue but also rural and urban. Many issues in the legislature break that way, too, regardless of which party represents where. 

We live in such polarizing times that it’s unusual to find something that unites us, but there is such an issue: the need for more and better child care.

The Virginia Early Childhood Foundation recently commissioned a poll to gauge voters’ views on the subject. 

I’m often skeptical of industry-based polls — I have yet to see someone release a poll that’s unfavorable to that industry’s point of view: “Toxic Waste Industry Association hails poll that shows 99% don’t want a toxic waste dump next door; 1% said they like idea of glow-in-the-dark rats running wild. ‘We’re making progress,’ industry chief says.”

With that in mind, I’m not surprised that most people responding to the poll like the idea of child care. There may be people out there who don’t like puppies, either, but I don’t ever recall a politician willing to run on an anti-puppy platform.

What catches my eye, though, is a detail within the poll — the regional breakdowns. This is typically where we see predictable variations. Except this time we don’t. The poll offered breakdowns by TV markets, an important geography for political candidates buying TV time. Virtually the same percentage of people in each one expressed “strong support” for increased access to “quality, affordable options” for child care and early education. The specific numbers ranged from 52% in the Richmond and Norfolk TV markets to 58% in the non-metro parts of the Washington TV market (meaning parts of the Shenandoah Valley and Piedmont). The Roanoke TV market came in at 55%.

In my experience looking at polls, it’s unusual, perhaps even rare, to find the Roanoke TV market (which brings in vast swaths of conservative-voting Southwest and Southside) agreeing with anything in the more liberal-voting urban crescent.

When you add in those who “somewhat support” greater access to child care, we see something interesting happen: Now we do get some separation between TV markets, but not in the way you might expect. The most conservative market (that Roanoke one) shows the highest support — 95%. The Richmond TV market (which is also going to bring in a lot of conservative areas but starts with a much bigger liberal, urban core in Richmond and its suburbs) comes in at 57%. That number is still approaching landslide territory in political terms, but it’s fascinating to me that the Roanoke market ranks so high, distinctly higher than the 82% in the non-metro parts of the Washington TV market, although that 82% figure is still very high. And while we’re talking politics, let me just remind folks that those non-metro parts of the Washington TV market are almost exclusively Republican-voting rural areas.

Now, admittedly, I’m reading a lot into a little, but what I see here are two things: One is broad support for child care, but perhaps more interestingly, the other is stronger support in some Republican-leaning areas than in some Democratic-leaning or more politically split markets. That is exactly the opposite of what we’d expect with an issue like this, where support for better child care might ultimately require more government spending. Granted, that’s not exactly the way the question was framed, but I’m trusting that adults understand that nothing comes for free. 

This support in the most conservative part of the state is so strong that I can only conclude there are two options: Either this is a mistake or there’s something deeper going on here. Based on my experience of living west of the Blue Ridge for virtually my whole life, I think it’s the latter and I have a theory: Child care is a lot harder to find in rural areas.

I’m sure it’s hard to find everywhere — Terry Clower, who runs a think tank at George Mason University that studies the Northern Virginia economy, recently told me he’d heard of people there paying $70,000 a year for child care. I understand things cost more in Northern Virginia, but that’s more than the median household income of most rural counties. And not just rural counties. The median household income in Roanoke is $52,671, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. 

To the extent that child care is expensive (although maybe not always that expensive), it makes sense that the least affluent part of the state would be more sensitized to those prices than elsewhere. 

Child care is one of those “soft” issues that’s easy to ignore — except for those who actually need it, then it becomes an overwhelming concern. As a father of two children (both now grown), I speak with some experience on this, even if mine is a bit dated. However, in recent years, we’ve seen a shift: Child care has become an economic development issue, at least in rural Virginia. (I can’t speak for elsewhere.)

In 2021, the General Assembly directed the Virginia Department of Energy to produce a report on the economy of the state’s coal-producing counties — this is what those counties got in return for the coal tax credit going away. That 22-page report said all the things you might expect: The coal counties needed more money for site development to attract other industries. They needed to find a way to benefit from the transition from fossil fuels to renewables and not just be victims of that changeover. They needed more higher education. They needed lots of things. However, one of the things the Energy Department said the region needed was … more child care: “Specifically, in this area, child care, housing and transportation are now as much a part of workforce development considerations as training, upskilling, career exploration, recruitment and job search.” 

The report then went on to document how few licensed child care providers there were in the region (at the time, just four in all of Dickenson County; today there are five). When has an energy agency, offering an economic development plan, devoted so much space to making the case for more child care? 

That report is just one of several that draw the connection between child care and workforce issues. A 2023 report by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, the General Assembly’s research arm, did the same thing. “The cost of child care can lead parents to drop out of the labor force,” JLARC reported. “The cost of child care has also led some parents who receive subsidized child care to abstain from promotions or higher-paying jobs because their new income would be too high for them to remain eligible for the subsidy, and without the subsidy the cost of child care would be unaffordable.”

That’s where these family issues become economic development issues. As a nation, we face a problem that not many politicians are willing to talk about: The baby boom generation is retiring. Because of declining birth rates for the generations that followed, we are now facing worker shortages. For rural communities, this is especially challenging: Companies looking to expand (or sometimes just stay where they are) want to make sure there’s a sufficient labor pool. If some adults are dropping out of the workforce for any reason, that’s a problem — and rural areas with declining populations may feel that pinch more acutely than metro areas with growing populations. 

For all those reasons, it makes sense to me that the TV market reaching the most conservative part of the state a) shows the same level of “strong support” for child care as more liberal ones and b) greater support for the general concept of child care.

The poll asked other questions where the answers might be telling: All other things being equal, others were more inclined to vote for a candidate for governor who expressed support for child care and early childhood education than one who did not. Foundation officials were excited about that response; I’m more taken by the geographical trends. 

Here’s another potential curiosity: The poll was conducted by Global Strategy Group and GS Strategies. One of the company’s other clients is former Rep. Abigail Spanberger, the likely Democratic candidate for governor. Some on the right side of the political ledger may now look askance at these findings, but I’d suggest a different interpretation: Yes, the numbers, if Spanberger acts on them, might give her a way to speak to rural voters. However, these numbers can also work the other way: They also give the Republican candidate, likely Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, the opportunity to make the same case to suburban voters who might otherwise be out of reach — without fear of losing the rural voters that Republicans need. Indeed, such a message about child care might help her boost rural turnout, a dynamic that helped the current Republican governor win four years ago. If we look at things that way, then a pollster working for the Democratic candidate (as well as non-political clients) may have uncovered something that would help the Republican.

Politics is funny sometimes, but for families searching for child care — and communities looking to boost their workforce — these are quite serious questions.