Build Housing with Care Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 23, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to increase access to affordable housing and child care by incentivizing the development of integrated facilities through federal grants and mandates a study on related issues for public housing residents.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a competitive grant program within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to fund the design, planning, construction, conversion, retrofitting, preservation, or renovation of "co-location facilities" that combine affordable housing with child care services. It also mandates a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study on child care access for residents of public housing dwelling units, including an evaluation of existing federal programs and recommendations for improvement.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill addresses two critical and interconnected crises: the shortage of affordable housing and the lack of accessible, affordable child care. They contend that co-locating these services will reduce costs for families, improve child development outcomes, and streamline access to essential services, particularly for low-income communities and child care deserts.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while the intent is good, a new federal grant program could create additional bureaucratic layers and may not be the most efficient or scalable solution to these widespread issues. Concerns could also be raised about the potential for federal overreach into local land use and child care markets, or that the funding authorized is insufficient to make a significant impact on national crises.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 3(a)
Establishment of Co-Location Grant Program
This section directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to create a competitive grant program. The grants will be awarded to eligible entities to support projects that involve designing, planning, building, converting, renovating, or preserving facilities that combine housing and child care services in the same or nearby location.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this program directly tackles the dual challenges of housing affordability and child care access by providing targeted funding for integrated solutions, which can be more efficient and beneficial for families.
Critics contend
Some might argue that creating a new grant program adds to federal bureaucracy and that existing housing or child care programs could be better leveraged or expanded instead of creating a new, potentially overlapping initiative.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the desire for targeted, innovative solutions and the potential for administrative overhead or fragmentation of federal efforts.
Section 3(c) and 3(d)
Eligibility, Application Criteria, and Award Priorities
To receive a grant, applicants must certify that the child care provider is eligible for Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) assistance (or commit to partnering with one), ensure no resident evictions, describe resident engagement plans, and comply with environmental laws. Priority is given to projects in child care deserts, low-income communities, rural areas, those serving very-low income families or Head Start providers, and those partnering with Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs).
Section 3(e) and 3(h)
Permitted Uses of Funds and Funding Levels
Grant funds can be used for design, planning, construction, acquisition, preservation, conversion, retrofitting, long-term leasing, or renovation of co-location facilities. Up to 10% can be used for pre-development activities and another 10% for partnering with CDFIs for technical assistance. The bill authorizes $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2030, totaling $600,000,000.
Section 4
GAO Study on Child Care Access in Public Housing
This section mandates the Comptroller General of the United States (GAO) to conduct a study on the availability and affordability of child care for residents of public housing. The study will evaluate the use of existing federal funds for child care facilities, the economic effects of housing and child care costs, barriers to establishing child care in public housing, and the efficacy of various tax credits and housing assistance programs in relation to child care affordability. It also requires recommendations to improve access and awareness.
Defines a "co-location facility" as a housing facility that contains an eligible child care provider "within, on the premises of such facility or nearby such facility, where such provider serves the residents of such housing facility."
Section 3(i)(4)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to define key terms at the end of a section to ensure clarity and consistency throughout the text.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this broad definition provides necessary flexibility for projects, allowing for various configurations (e.g., child care in an adjacent building) rather than strictly requiring it to be inside the housing structure, which could be challenging in some contexts.
Case against: Critics might argue that "nearby" is vague and could lead to projects where the child care is not truly integrated or conveniently accessible to residents, potentially diluting the intended benefit of co-location.
Estimated impact: This definition significantly influences the types of projects eligible for grants, potentially expanding the pool of viable sites beyond strictly integrated mixed-use buildings.
Allows an eligible entity receiving a grant to distribute funds to other government entities, nonprofit housing developers, public housing agencies, Tribally designated housing entities, or other appropriate entities. Community development financial institutions (CDFIs) receiving grants can capitalize amounts to create financial products like loans.
Section 3(e)(2) and 3(e)(3)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to detail how funds can be managed and distributed within a grant program.
Case for: Proponents would argue this flexibility is crucial for effective implementation, allowing primary grantees to partner with specialized organizations (e.g., local housing authorities or CDFIs) that have expertise in development or financing, thereby maximizing the impact of the funds.
Case against: Some might express concern that distributing funds through multiple layers could introduce additional administrative costs or reduce direct oversight by HUD, potentially leading to less accountability.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly broadens the operational reach of the grant program, enabling a wider range of local and specialized organizations to participate in and benefit from the funding.