Tri-Share Child Care: A Practical Workforce Fix?

Child care isn’t just a family issue. It’s a labor market issue.

Michigan’s Tri-Share program recently passed a headline-worthy marker: it’s now serving 1,000+ children by splitting child care costs three ways—one-third paid by the employee, one-third by the employer, and one-third by the state. That’s real relief for families facing what’s often their largest monthly bill.

But the more interesting story for an Education, Skills, and Workforce Development series is this: states are copying Tri-Share even while critics say it’s the wrong tool. That tension tells you something important about where workforce policy is headed in 2026—toward targeted, public-private benefits that keep parents working, even if they don’t solve the whole child care crisis.

Tri-Share, explained like a workforce program (because it is)

Tri-Share is designed to remove a work barrier, not “fix child care.” That framing matters. When a parent can’t find or afford care, they don’t just miss shifts—they drop training programs, turn down promotions, or leave the workforce entirely.

Tri-Share treats child care the way many employers treat tuition assistance: as a retention and participation tool. It’s a way to keep skilled employees attached to the labor force and to reduce absenteeism and turnover—two costs businesses feel immediately.

Why states like the model

Tri-Share is politically feasible in places where broad child care expansion isn’t. Conservative and purple states often struggle to pass major tax-funded early childhood packages. Tri-Share offers a different story:

• Employees still contribute (so it’s not framed as “free care”)
• Employers have “skin in the game” (appealing to business-first coalitions)
• State dollars are capped and targeted (easier budgeting)

That’s a big reason versions of Tri-Share have spread beyond Michigan into places like Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Connecticut, North Dakota, Missouri, New York, and North Carolina through pilots and replica programs.

The scaling problem: why “1,000 kids served” can still feel small

The main knock on Tri-Share is scale. Michigan’s pilot launched nearly five years ago and has set a goal that can sound far away: 7,500 children across 5,000 households by 2028.

This isn’t just about administrative speed. It’s structural.

Challenge #1: Tri-Share doesn’t create more child care slots

Tri-Share improves affordability, not availability. Critics argue that if you can’t find an open seat with hours that match your shift, a subsidy isn’t enough.

Workforce leaders in Tri-Share states often respond the same way: correct—and that’s why you need a parallel supply strategy. They’re not wrong. If a region has a staffing shortage in early childhood education (ECE) programs, there are only so many children it can serve, even if families can pay.

If your goal is workforce participation, supply constraints become the hidden bottleneck. Affordability gets parents to say “yes.” Supply determines whether “yes” is possible.

Challenge #2: Uptake is naturally limited

Tri-Share is narrow by design—income thresholds, limited state funds, and an employer opt-in model. Even among eligible families, participation can lag because awareness is low or enrollment feels complicated.

Here’s the hard truth: benefits that rely on employer participation will always be uneven. They can work beautifully in a large health system or manufacturing employer. They can miss entirely in small-business economies.

Challenge #3: Opportunity cost—what else could states do with the money?

Michigan invests about $3.4 million annually in Tri-Share. Kentucky invests about $2 million annually. Ohio has set aside $10 million for a pilot.

A Century Foundation critique argues those dollars might go further if placed into broader child care funds or direct investments that improve supply and educator pay.

I’m sympathetic to that argument—and I still think Tri-Share has a role. The right question isn’t “Tri-Share or real reform?” It’s “What problem are we solving first, and what do we pair with it?”

The biggest debate: should child care benefits be tied to employment?

Tying child care support to employment is both the appeal and the risk.

Supporters like the model because it mobilizes employers, strengthens retention, and fits a workforce-development narrative. Critics worry it recreates the U.S. health insurance trap: lose your job, lose your benefit.

Both can be true.

A practical way to think about this is to separate two goals:

1. Economic stability for families (needs continuity)
2. Workforce attachment for employers (needs incentives)

Tri-Share mostly optimizes for goal #2. If a state wants goal #1 too, it needs guardrails—like transition coverage during unemployment, broader subsidy eligibility, or a universal base benefit.

Snippet-worthy reality: If child care is essential infrastructure for work, benefits can’t be designed like perks.

What replication states are doing differently (and why it matters)

Replication isn’t copy-paste. States are modifying Tri-Share to fit their labor markets, politics, and existing subsidy systems.

Indiana’s Tri-Share+ and the “add-on” approach

In northeast Indiana, an early childhood coalition launched Tri-Share+ across 11 counties. Early results are modest (around 40 families participating), but the plan is straightforward: bring in a major regional employer (a hospital network), then scale toward 150–200 families by spring.

That scaling strategy—anchor employer first, regional expansion second—is how many workforce programs grow.

Co-Share and Care Share: broadening beyond income cutoffs

Programs also face a predictable political and human problem: families slightly above the income threshold still struggle.

Two adaptations respond to that:

• Co-Share (Indiana): employer + employee split, no state contribution
• Care Share (Michigan): for households above the Tri-Share cutoff (Tri-Share stops at 400% of the poverty level, about $128,000 for a family of four), employers can cover one-third while employees pay two-thirds

This is an important evolution. It suggests a future where Tri-Share becomes a template:

• State dollars target lower/middle incomes
• Employer-based cost sharing extends the model upward
• Workforce regions customize rules based on labor shortages

If you care about skills shortages, you should care about early childhood education

Early childhood education isn’t separate from workforce development—it’s upstream of it.

When parents can’t secure stable care, they can’t reliably:

• enroll in certificate programs
• attend apprenticeships
• complete clinical rotations
• work nonstandard schedules (healthcare, logistics, hospitality)

And when ECE programs can’t hire and retain educators, the entire system constricts—fewer seats for children, fewer working parents, fewer workers for every other sector.

Michigan’s leaders have been clear that Tri-Share is only one part of a larger package. The state has pursued additional strategies like PreK expansion and an early childhood educator wage pilot. That “many levers” approach is closer to what actually works.

Here’s the stance I’ll take: Tri-Share is a reasonable workforce tactic, but it’s a weak standalone child care strategy. Treat it like a component, not a centerpiece.

A practical playbook: how employers and states can make Tri-Share work better

Tri-Share works best when it’s treated like a workforce system, not a brochure. If you’re a policymaker, workforce board, community college partner, or employer, these moves are the difference between a promising pilot and a program people actually use.

1) Pair affordability with supply-building

If families can’t find care, the benefit becomes theoretical. Pair Tri-Share with at least one supply lever:

• wage supplements for early childhood educators
• startup grants for new providers
• support for licensing, substitutes, and shared services
• facility expansion loans (especially in child care deserts)

2) Recruit “anchor employers,” not just sympathetic ones

The fastest path to participation is a large employer that:

• hires shift workers
• struggles with turnover
• already invests in benefits

Healthcare systems, manufacturers, and logistics firms are often the best starting point.

3) Integrate Tri-Share into training and education pipelines

This is where workforce development leaders can be more ambitious.

If a region is pushing short-term credentials (CNA, EMT, welding, CDL, early childhood credentials), build Tri-Share into the enrollment conversation:

• add it to career navigator scripts
• include it in apprenticeship onboarding
• coordinate eligibility verification through workforce hubs

Best-case outcome: child care support becomes part of completing training, not a separate scavenger hunt.

4) Make enrollment feel boring (that’s a compliment)

Parents don’t have time for complex processes. Programs should aim for:

• a single intake form
• a 10-minute eligibility check
• clear employer steps
• a predictable start date

If the process is messy, uptake will stay low—no matter how generous the benefit is.

5) Add continuity rules to reduce “benefit cliff” anxiety

If child care support vanishes when a parent changes jobs or loses hours, they’ll avoid career moves. Consider:

• 60–90 day transition coverage
• portability across participating employers
• coordination with state subsidy programs to prevent sudden cost spikes

What to watch in 2026: the programs that connect child care and talent strategy

Tri-Share is spreading because it matches how many states are choosing to govern right now: targeted funding, shared responsibility, measurable workforce outcomes. The criticism is also valid: it won’t solve access, it won’t reach everyone, and it risks tying a basic need to a job.

The promising path is a blended one—Tri-Share for immediate affordability relief, plus real investment in the child care workforce and supply so families can actually find a seat.

If you work in education and workforce development, this is a moment to get specific. Where are parents dropping out of training? Which occupations can’t staff up because of child care? Which employers would fund a third of the cost tomorrow if you made it simple?

The next year will favor regions that answer those questions with programs people can use—not just policies that sound good in a press release.