Child Care for Working Families Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [D-VA-3]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 15, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to transform the child care and early learning landscape in the U.S. by making services universally accessible and affordable, while also professionalizing the early childhood workforce.
What it actually does
This bill establishes new federal entitlement programs and grants to significantly expand access to affordable, high-quality child care and universal preschool for children from birth through age five. It mandates wage increases for child care staff, implements quality standards, and provides substantial funding for infrastructure and operational costs for providers. The bill aims to create a comprehensive, mixed-delivery system for early childhood education and care.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill addresses a national crisis in child care affordability and accessibility, boosts economic productivity by enabling parents to work, and improves child development outcomes through high-quality early education. They emphasize the importance of fair wages for early childhood educators to stabilize the workforce and enhance quality.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that the bill represents an excessive federal intervention into state and local matters, could lead to significant federal spending increases and potential budget deficits, and might impose burdensome regulations on child care providers, potentially reducing choice or increasing costs for some families. Concerns about the role of the federal government in setting wage standards could also be raised.
The bill is substantial and requires careful reading to understand its intricate funding mechanisms and programmatic requirements. Given its length and complexity, the time required for a thorough review is considerable, especially for stakeholders and policymakers.
Sec. 101, Title I
Birth Through Five Child Care and Early Learning Entitlement Program
Establishes a federal entitlement program guaranteeing assistance for direct child care services for eligible children (under 6, not in kindergarten) whose parents are engaged in eligible activities or who are vulnerable. States receive 90% federal funding for direct services and 50% for administration, with a sliding fee scale for parent copayments capped at 7% of income for higher earners, and no copayment for families below 85% of State Median Income (SMI).
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision ensures child care is an affordable right, not a luxury, addressing a major financial burden for working families and promoting early childhood development. The wage requirements are crucial for attracting and retaining a skilled workforce.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that creating a new federal entitlement program is fiscally irresponsible and could lead to ballooning costs, while federal mandates on wages and quality standards could stifle innovation or create a one-size-fits-all system that doesn't meet diverse local needs.
Tradeoffs
Balances universal access and affordability with the need for high-quality standards and fair compensation for providers, potentially increasing federal expenditure and state regulatory burden.
Sec. 101(f)(3)(A)(ii)(IV)(cc), Title I
Mandated Living Wage and Parity for Child Care Staff
Requires states to certify that payment rates for direct child care services ensure adequate wages for staff. These wages must, at a minimum, provide a living wage for all staff and be equivalent to wages for elementary educators with similar credentials and experience in the State.
Sec. 101(f)(3)(F), Title I
Income-Based Child Care Copayment Structure
Mandates a sliding fee scale for parent copayments. Families with incomes up to 85% of the State Median Income (SMI) pay no copayment. Copayments gradually increase for higher incomes, capped at 7% of family income for those above 150% of SMI.
Sec. 101(f)(3)(L), Title I
Ban on Punitive Disciplinary Practices in Child Care
Requires participating child care providers to prohibit the use of suspension, expulsion, and aversive behavioral interventions for children. States must also provide training resources to support this prohibition.
Sec. 201-213, Title II
Building an Affordable System for Early Education Grants (BASE Grants)
Establishes a grant program to provide stable funding directly to eligible child care providers to offset operating expenses, support sustained and increased wages for staff, expand supply, and improve quality. States receive allotments based on the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act (CCDBG) formula, and providers apply for subgrants.
Sec. 210(a)(1), Title II
Mandate for Personnel Cost Allocation in BASE Grants
Requires eligible child care providers receiving BASE subgrants to use at least 70% of the funds for child care personnel costs, including wages, annual cost-of-living adjustments, and graduated pay increases based on credentials and experience.
Sec. 301-312, Title III
Universal, High-Quality, Free, and Inclusive Preschool Services
Establishes a federal program to support states in providing universal, high-quality, free, and inclusive preschool services for all 3- and 4-year-olds. States receive federal payments (decreasing from 90% to 60% over six years) for expenditures on preschool services and 50% for state activities. States must develop plans for mixed-delivery systems, ensure equitable distribution of slots, and mandate specific quality standards, including teacher qualifications and salaries equivalent to elementary school staff.
Sec. 303(e)(2)(B)(iv) & (vi), Title III
Preschool Teacher Wage Parity and Baccalaureate Degree Requirement
Requires states to ensure salaries for preschool staff are equivalent to elementary school staff with similar credentials and experience, and that lead teachers have a baccalaureate degree in early childhood education or a related field within 6 years of the state receiving funds. Exceptions apply for experienced teachers.
Sec. 401-402, Title IV
Head Start Program Expansion and Staff Wage Increases
Amends the Head Start Act to provide grants for Head Start agencies to extend services to a full school year and full school day (1,020 hours/year for Head Start, 1,380 hours/year for Early Head Start/family child care). Also appropriates $2.7 billion annually for Head Start agencies to ensure teachers and staff receive wages comparable to elementary educators or, at minimum, a living wage.
Allows child care providers already eligible under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act (CCDBG) to be deemed eligible under this new section for 3.5 years after a state first receives funding, provided they remain compliant with existing state standards.
Sec. 101(b)(6)(B), Title I
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms early, but its impact on the transition for existing providers is significant and could be overlooked.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provides a crucial transition period, preventing immediate disruption to existing child care arrangements and giving providers time to adapt to new licensing and quality standards without losing funding.
Case against: Critics might argue that a 3.5-year grace period delays the full implementation of the bill's quality and wage standards, potentially allowing lower-quality providers to continue receiving federal funds for an extended period.
Estimated impact: Affects all existing CCDBG-eligible providers, providing a temporary shield from new requirements.
Funds received under Title I must supplement and not supplant other federal, state, and local public funds expended on child care services, calculated as the average amount expended for fiscal years 2023, 2024, and 2025.
Sec. 101(j)(4), Title I
Why it matters:This is standard anti-displacement language, but crucial for ensuring new federal funds genuinely expand services rather than replacing existing funding streams.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that federal investment leads to a net increase in child care funding and services, rather than allowing states to reduce their own contributions.
Case against: Some states might find it challenging to maintain existing funding levels, especially if facing budget constraints, and could argue for more flexibility in how federal funds interact with state budgets.
Estimated impact: Ensures a baseline of state/local funding is maintained, potentially increasing overall investment in child care.
For purposes of the non-Federal share for Universal Preschool, a State may count not more than 100 percent of its current spending on prekindergarten programs (average of FY2023-2025) toward its non-Federal share.
Sec. 307(5), Title III
Why it matters:This is a critical detail for states with existing pre-K programs, as it defines how much of their current investment can be leveraged as matching funds for the new federal program.
Case for: Proponents would argue this encourages states to expand their pre-K programs beyond current levels, ensuring that federal funds lead to growth rather than simply subsidizing existing efforts.
Case against: States with robust existing pre-K programs might find this limiting, as they would need to find new, additional state funds beyond their current spending to meet the non-Federal share requirement for the expanded program.
Estimated impact: Influences how states with existing pre-K programs structure their funding and expansion plans.