Supporters of child care reforms are rallying as multiple state legislatures find themselves embroiled in discussions and debates over child care funding and policy. Recent developments reveal both bipartisan support and challenges as lawmakers aim to improve access to affordable child care, critically important for families and the workforce alike.
On Monday, the House Business and Labor committee approved House Bill 456, which aims to automatically include child care workers for the Best Beginnings Child Care Scholarship, allowing them access to financial assistance for their children’s care. Advocates assert this measure could mitigate significant workforce issues caused by low pay among child care providers, thereby supporting families and the economy. Amanda Frickle of the AFL-CIO explained, “What this bill does is it resolves the tension between allowing us to pay those child care workers more and not shifting the burden for the increase on the parents, who are already being priced out.”
The Best Beginnings program leverages federal funds to assist working and low-income families afford child care, with reports indicating approximately 4,500 children were beneficiaries each month last year. Meanwhile, another bill, House Bill 457, aims to expand eligibility for the scholarship to families earning up to 85% of the state median income—significantly higher than the previous threshold based on federal poverty levels. Rep. Jonathan Karlen, the bill’s sponsor, highlighted the impact of child care challenges on the workforce, noting, “66,000 Montanans don’t fully participate in the workforce because of insufficient child care.”
Economic data supports such claims; the Bureau of Business and Economic Research estimated the detrimental effect of inadequate child care on Montana businesses to be around $54.6 million, with taxpayers bearing another $32 million. Karlen emphasized the proposal’s merits, stating HB 456 is expected to cost around $5.5 million to implement but will create significant relief for families seeking employment.
Another state grappling with similar challenges is Missouri, which is making strides toward establishing child care tax credits. A bill making its way through the Missouri House seeks to create three tax credits aimed at alleviating costs for families and businesses involved with child care. State Rep. Brenda Shields, who sponsors the bill, remarked on the “child care crisis” facing Missouri, saying it hampers businesses' ability to recruit talent. “Without child care, Missouri’s economy cannot grow,” she asserted.
This Missouri bill would offer tax credits to individuals or businesses donating to child care centers, as well as employers who help their workers with childcare costs. Despite the proposed benefits, the measure has faced some opposition from lawmakers concerned about potential competition with education systems.
A similar urgency is felt within Vermont, where legislators and child care advocates are clashing over $19 million allocated for child care subsidies. The Scott administration’s proposal to reduce general fund appropriations for child care subsidies and instead rely on special fund dollars generated from recent legislation has alarmed many advocates who argue this would undermine the integrity of child care funding. An op-ed from over 50 Vermont business leaders echoed these concerns, urging lawmakers to maintain the funding aimed at addressing the state's significant child care challenges.
Further complicity arises as advocates cite analysis showing how child care funding underpins the entire workforce and economy. During legislative discussions, Rep. Theresa Wood emphasized the potential negative consequences of changing existing funding structure when she remarked, “It seems like a weird time to take general fund base out of a program still building its eventual path.”
Meanwhile, as some states attempt to bolster funding, others face the uphill battle to reframe the narrative surrounding child care assistance. An article highlighted the difference between predistribution—proactive measures aimed at investing in systems before issues become severe—and redistributive approaches, which merely aim to address problems after they have emerged. The author argues for reframing child care as an integral aspect of social infrastructure, akin to public education, rather than viewing it solely as welfare-based assistance.
States like Canada and Germany demonstrate successful models of child care support. By treating child care as a fundamental public good, these countries show the potential for truly universal programs. The challenge remains for U.S. policymakers to forge similar paths where child care is recognized as part of the social fabric, rather than merely as contingent upon individual circumstances.
The debate continues as states push forward with initiatives aimed at improving child care availability. The stakes are high; economic stability and workforce participation hang in the balance. The future of America's working families may very well depend on how these child care funding discussions resolve and how effectively states can implement lasting solutions.