AN ACT Relating to the working connections child care program;
HB 2689 revises Washington’s Working Connections Child Care program, which subsidizes child care for eligible low-income working families. The bill expands eligibility in stages by increasing the income threshold for families with children receiving care, first to a higher percentage of state median income and later to an even broader range, with additional provisions for families receiving basic food benefits. It also directs the Department of Children, Youth, and Families to adopt rules implementing an income phase-out and to ignore citizenship status when determining eligibility for the program.
The bill also sets a policy goal of steadily increasing child care subsidy base rates over time until they reflect the full cost of high-quality child care. It requires base rates to reach specified market-rate percentiles on a schedule, and it instructs the department to use cost-estimate modeling and market-rate survey data to recommend rates that better compensate licensed and certified providers. The bill further addresses provider payment rules by allowing daily subsidy payments to be claimed based on attendance tiers, including partial-day and half-day care, and by prohibiting providers from receiving a different base rate than the one assigned to their geographic subsidy rate region.
In addition, the bill includes provisions aimed at improving provider stability and administration. It requires rules that let providers claim daily subsidy payments in certain attendance situations, repeals existing prospective payment provisions, and preserves collective bargaining rights for family child care providers. Several sections are time-limited or phased in, with different effective dates and an emergency clause for immediate implementation of most of the act.
The bill’s impact on state law is significant because it amends the statutes governing child care subsidies, eligibility, payment methodology, and rate-setting for the Working Connections Child Care program. It would likely increase access to subsidized child care for more families, raise reimbursement levels for providers, and require new administrative rules and budgeting decisions by DCYF. It also affects licensed and certified child care centers and family child care providers by changing how they are paid and how rates are determined.
Overall sentiment appears generally supportive of the bill’s goals, as reflected by strong committee approval and passage in both chambers, though floor votes were closer than committee votes. The main points of contention appear to be the fiscal and policy implications of expanding eligibility and increasing subsidy rates, as well as the details of how provider payments and regional rate structures should work. The Senate amended the bill before final passage, suggesting some disagreement over implementation details even though the core child care expansion had broad legislative backing.
HB 2689 amends Washington’s child care subsidy statutes to expand eligibility for the Working Connections Child Care program, change income thresholds, direct rulemaking on phase-out eligibility, and remove citizenship status from eligibility determinations. It also establishes new requirements for subsidy rate growth, market-based rate setting, and daily provider payment rules, while repealing prospective payment provisions and preserving collective bargaining rights for family child care providers. The bill primarily affects low-income families, child care centers, family child care providers, and the Department of Children, Youth, and Families.
The bill appears to have been viewed favorably overall, with unanimous or near-unanimous committee support and passage in both chambers. However, the floor votes were more divided, indicating some concern about cost, implementation, and the scope of the subsidy and rate increases. The Senate’s amendment and the narrower final passage margins suggest the bill was broadly supported in principle but still controversial in its details.
The most notable areas of contention were the expansion of eligibility and the cost of increasing subsidy rates toward full market or full-cost levels. Legislators also likely debated the administrative complexity of phased eligibility changes, the treatment of families receiving food assistance, and the requirement that citizenship status not be considered. Provider payment rules, regional rate uniformity, and the repeal of prospective payments may also have been disputed by stakeholders concerned about reimbursement predictability and local market differences.