Transcript Highlights:

• children's oral health, more well-child visits, and increased wages for parents who participate in child
• care, the universal child care?
• care, the universal child care?
• It's called the child...
• of child.

Summary: The committee heard first from LFC staff on a brief about New Mexico’s universal child care expansion. Staff said child care assistance has clear benefits for parents and families, but LFC has not found evidence in New Mexico that it improves children’s educational outcomes; they argued pre-K is the better tool for that goal. The brief highlighted four concerns with universal access: an estimated annual cost of about $849.7 million, a sharp decline in registered homes, possible crowding out of lower-income families, and reduced access for children under age two. Staff also suggested possible mitigations such as prioritizing slots for low-income and at-risk families, reinstating sliding-scale co-pays, and tying quality improvements to workforce wages. Members raised questions about the cost estimate, funding sources, provider quality, and whether the data showed actual crowding out. Several lawmakers expressed support for child care generally but concern about the fiscal impact and whether universal access would divert resources from the families most in need. Others emphasized the importance of child care for workforce participation, rural communities, and family stability, and questioned how registered homes are counted and regulated. LFC staff clarified that the cost estimate was for child care assistance only, not the entire ECECD budget, and that the data showed declines in the share of lowest-income children and infants/toddlers served, though not causation. The ECECD secretary then presented the department’s response, saying universal child care is intended to complete a cradle-to-career system and that the department has already seen strong uptake, increased capacity, and rising workforce participation. She said 6,206 families were found eligible in the first month, the share of infants and toddlers served rose, and new provider applications and licensed slots increased after the November rollout. The department also emphasized wage increases, quality improvements, and a new wage scale/career lattice, while projecting a lower near-term cost than LFC’s estimate and requesting additional funding for child care, early pre-K, home visiting, workforce systems, and capacity-building. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided; the discussion was informational and focused on questions and testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• neglected or abused child.
• If an individual has a suspicion that a child is an abused child or a neglected child, they are required
• child.
• I promise you, they don't want your child; they want you to raise your child.
• And this child could have been a care child. We will. Thank you. Thank you.

Transcript Highlights:

• family child care provider.
• Child care helps my family by giving me child care service so my mom could go to work.
• Child care helps my family by giving me child care service so my mom could go to work.
• Child care helps my family by giving me child care service so my mom could go to work.
• I don't have child care.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to be covering three items today: child care, child welfare, and immigration services.
• in expanding access to child care in providing 44,000 new child care slots.
• one child.
• the child from the family child care, their slot was lost.
• The challenges child care providers face: child care providers begin to incur costs the moment a child

Summary: The committee heard a lengthy budget hearing focused on child care, child welfare, and immigration-related services, with most of the discussion centered on child care funding, slot utilization, and rate reform. Department of Social Services officials said the Governor’s budget would provide $6.8 billion for child care programs in 2026-27, including $11.5 million in Prop. 64 funds for mini-grants to licensed facilities affected by 2025 disasters. They also described federal CCDF and Prop. 64 revenue reductions that would reduce general child care funding by about 4,176 slots, while emphasizing that the cuts should not affect currently enrolled children. The LAO supported aligning spending with lower revenues and asked for more detail on the disaster grant program. Members questioned why so many awarded slots remain uncontracted or unfilled, and DSS said delays are largely due to providers building new infrastructure, licensing, staffing, and enrollment work. One senator criticized the repeated explanation, argued unspent funds revert to the General Fund instead of being redirected to child care, and urged shifting more funding from contract slots to vouchers and increasing flexibility for infrastructure and expansion costs. DSS said it is exploring more flexibility, better readiness screening, and quicker redistribution of relinquished slots. The committee also discussed the Emergency Child Care Bridge program, with DSS saying it can redistribute funds among counties to avoid disenrolling children. A second panel addressed the state’s broader commitment to expand child care and move toward a single rate structure. DSS reported that since 2021-22 nearly 125,000 new slots have been awarded across CCTR, CAPP, CMAP, and the Emergency Child Care Bridge program, bringing monthly service levels to more than 366,700 children. The department and CDE described progress on rate reform, including completion of the alternative methodology and joint recommendations from the labor-management committee on a single-rate framework. County and provider testimony emphasized persistent unmet need, especially for infant and toddler care, and argued that current reimbursement disparities between CDSS-funded programs and state preschool create inequities and discourage expansion. Stanislaus County Office of Education said rate differences can materially affect local program revenue and staffing, while Parent Voices California described the child care system as difficult to navigate and inequitable, especially for Black families and survivors of domestic violence. The California Budget and Policy Center argued that only a small share of eligible children are served, that Universal TK has concentrated investment in school-based settings, and that providers are still paid far below the cost of care. Members pressed the administration for deadlines on automation and implementation of the single-rate structure, and DSS said some work can proceed before collective bargaining concludes, though policy decisions are still needed. The committee also reviewed several trailer bill proposals. For the COLA, DSS proposed applying the 2026-27 increase through cost-of-care-plus payments, but acknowledged it had inadvertently excluded CalWORKs Child Care and the Emergency Child Care Bridge from the initial calculation; the LAO recommended making the COLA increase uniform across child care and state preschool programs. On the alternative methodology survey, DSS proposed replacing the market rate survey with the federally approved alternative methodology and aligning the timing with the federal CCDF state plan cycle. On licensed family child care homes, DSS proposed limiting temporary absences to 20% of monthly care hours and allowing more flexibility for medical appointments, jury duty, training, and union activities. On excessive unexplained absences, DSS proposed a statutory definition to align state policy with federal rules allowing disenrollment after 30 days of unexplained absences. The committee also discussed a proposal to require contractors to collect family fees directly so the full voucher value reaches providers, with DSS saying it is working with Riverside County on implementation and CDE asking that the same policy apply to state preschool. Finally, the committee reviewed an Early Childhood Policy Council reappropriation and reporting proposal, with DSS explaining that prior funds were underused because participation costs are hard to estimate and that additional staffing and contractor support would be needed for the expanded annual report requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• the care, what is the structure of the different child care programs: family child care, registered
• The early child care workforce is the infrastructure behind universal child care.
• child care facilities.
• , $2,200 per child?
• care tax credit, $2,200 per child?

Summary: The committee met late in the evening and announced that Senate Bill 132 would be rolled until the next day. The only bill heard was Senate Finance Committee substitute for Senate Bill 241, which would codify New Mexico’s Child Care Assistance Program in statute, establish eligibility, payment, wait-list, and co-payment rules, require reporting and transparency, and tie reimbursement rates to a cost-estimation model and wage scale/career lattice. The sponsor and administration described the bill as creating a durable framework for universal child care, with protections for program integrity, inclusion of children with developmental needs, and requirements to maximize state and federal child care tax benefits. Public testimony was largely supportive of the bill’s child care expansion goals, with endorsements from State Police, firefighters, early childhood advocates, and women’s policy groups, but many providers and educators said they could not support it without stronger wage and career-ladder protections and clearer guarantees that funding would reach staff salaries rather than owners or institutions. The committee adopted Vice Chair Dixon’s amendment, which lowered the proposed transfer from the Early Childhood Education and Care Trust Fund from $1 billion to $700 million and added reporting requirements on the wait list, consultation requirements for rate-setting, additional facility reporting, a prohibition on supplanting certain public education funds, tribal facility participation, and food program reporting. A separate amendment from Representative Duncan to require first-come, first-served enrollment was debated at length but was tabled by a 9-7 vote after the sponsor and secretary said it conflicted with federal prioritization rules and the bill’s targeted access goals. Members also questioned how the bill would affect public entities, nontraditional-hour providers, co-pay triggers, and whether the wage scale would adequately compensate educators. After debate, the committee voted 10-7 to give the amended bill a do-pass recommendation. Supporters said the bill would strengthen workforce stability, improve access for working families, and help sustain New Mexico’s universal child care system; opponents warned about the long-term fiscal impact, the potential growth of the program, and whether the bill sufficiently protected early childhood educators’ wages and other state priorities. The meeting adjourned with notice that the committee would reconvene at 8 a.m. the next day to hear the Senate’s actions on House Bill 2.

Transcript Highlights:

• So they got child care, my two girls, now ages seven and five. They got child care.
• Child interactions, which research says is the most predictive of child outcomes.
• Child care helps my family by giving me child care service so my mom could go to work.
• Child care helps my family by giving me child care service so my mom could go to work.
• I don't have child care.

Summary: The hearing was a joint budget discussion focused first on California preschool and child care, then on universal transitional kindergarten (TK), with later movement toward a reading-difficulties screener item. Members emphasized the need for a coordinated early childhood system that better serves families’ real schedules and needs, rather than forcing families to fit existing program structures. The preschool panel reviewed access, quality, workforce, facilities, and information systems, with repeated concern about whether current funding and program design are sufficient for infants, toddlers, three-year-olds, and full-day/full-year care. Witnesses from the Learning Policy Institute, CDSS, CDE, and community providers described major growth in preschool and child care enrollment, especially for two- and three-year-olds, but also noted persistent gaps, waitlists, workforce shortages, low reimbursement rates, and the need for more stable funding. Several witnesses urged expansion or permanence of two-year-old eligibility in CSPP, more support for mixed-delivery systems, facility conversion and renovation grants, better statewide enrollment and referral systems, and continued funding for one-time grants such as UPK coordinators and planning/implementation supports. Provider and parent testimony stressed that rate reform, enrollment-based reimbursement, and continued hold-harmless protections are needed to keep programs open and accessible. The TK panel reviewed the Governor’s budget proposal for full implementation of universal TK, including Proposition 98 funding for expansion and lower adult-to-child ratios, plus a multilingual learner screening implementation budget change proposal. LPI and CDE reported that TK enrollment has grown rapidly but uptake is now a little over half of eligible four-year-olds, with families citing lack of awareness, preference for other care, and logistical barriers such as location and hours. CDE and providers said the UPK planning and implementation grant, mixed-delivery planning grants, and UPK coordinators have been critical, but these one-time funds are set to sunset. Members pressed for more information on eligible population projections, full-day/full-year demand, teacher credential data, and how administrative credential programs are preparing leaders for early childhood settings. The committee held the issues open and requested follow-up data from the departments.

Transcript Highlights:

• to the Child Support Statute.
• Of the cost of raising a child, $25,210. Cost of raising a child, and...
• Of the cost of raising a child, $25,210. Cost to raising a child, and...
• So do you see our child support guidelines taking into—how is it take just those Do you see our child
• of minimum wage, then child support for that child is 222.50 for that child.

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Summary: The Senate Judiciary Committee met to conduct the statutorily required four-year review of Oklahoma’s child support guidelines, which DHS said had not been reviewed on schedule in recent years. Deputy Director Don Zellner of DHS Child Support Services presented data on the number of children served, child poverty, rising costs of raising a child, wage trends, and the volume of child support orders handled by DHS. He also explained how the current guidelines work, including income withholding, shared overnight deductions, daycare, medical, transportation, and self-employment adjustments, and noted that the guidelines are based on gross combined income and currently cap at $15,000 combined income. Committee members, especially Senator Boren, questioned whether the current model fairly reflects modern family economics, including the cost of housing, the impact of shared overnights, and whether visitation issues should be addressed alongside child support. DHS said the guidelines are over 25 years old, that other states generally use similar gross-income models with shared-overnight deductions, and that Oklahoma’s administrative courts have been more receptive than district courts to DHS’s lower-income deviation approach. Zellner said DHS has also updated its practices to better account for low-income obligors, including allowing zero orders in some cases and reducing imputed minimum-wage assumptions, which DHS said has improved collections. Members also asked about transparency and public access to the calculations. DHS said the formula and income chart are in statute, the calculator is available on the DHS website, and the Excel-based tool applies the statutory chart and deductions. A public commenter asked where parents could see how amounts are calculated, and DHS explained that the statutory chart and calculator are the main sources. The committee discussed possible future reforms, including higher income caps, possible changes to shared overnight rules, and whether extracurricular or special child-related expenses could be considered through judicial deviation. No vote was taken; the meeting ended with the chair noting it was the last Judiciary meeting of the 60th Legislature and adjourning the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to be covering three items today: child care, child welfare, and immigration services.
• in expanding access to child care in providing 44,000 new child care slots.
• one child.
• I have been a child care provider for 28-plus years, during 24-hour child care.
• The challenges child care providers face: child care providers begin to incur costs the moment a child

Summary: The committee heard an extensive Department of Social Services presentation on child care budget issues, including the Governor’s proposed 2026-27 budget, federal CCDF changes, Prop. 64 revenue adjustments, and a one-time $11.5 million disaster-related infrastructure grant for licensed child care facilities affected by 2025 declared disasters. DSS said federal formula updates and lower Prop. 64 revenues would reduce funding and could result in about 4,176 CCTR slots being reduced, but the department said it was working to avoid impacts to currently enrolled children. The LAO supported aligning general child care funding with lower revenues and asked for more detail on the disaster grant. Members pressed DSS and Finance on why reductions were not being backfilled and why so many awarded slots remain uncontracted or unused; DSS said delays are largely due to providers building new infrastructure, licensing, staffing, and enrollment challenges, and that some unspent funds revert to the General Fund. The committee also discussed whether some contract dollars should be shifted to vouchers and whether more flexibility should be allowed for infrastructure and expansion costs. A second panel focused on the state’s commitment to expand child care and on rate reform. DSS reported that nearly 125,000 new slots have been awarded since 2021-22, but speakers from Stanislaus County Office of Education, Parent Voices California, and the California Budget and Policy Center argued that unmet need remains large and that the system still leaves many families without access. Stanislaus County described a large local shortage of infant and toddler care and said reimbursement disparities between child care programs and state preschool create disincentives for providers. Parent Voices gave testimony about the burdens and instability families face when trying to access care, especially for survivors and low-income parents, and called for a universal, publicly funded system. The Budget Center said only about 16% of eligible children were enrolled in 2024, urged expansion across the mixed delivery system rather than concentrating investment in TK, and called for faster rate reform and new revenue. LAO estimated that bringing certain CCTR adjustment factors up to CSPP levels would cost $88 million to $131 million ongoing. Members and witnesses discussed the single rate structure, automation needs, and the need for deadlines and a ramp-up plan; DSS said the goal is to eliminate disparities, but that policy decisions are still needed before automation can proceed. The committee then reviewed several trailer bill proposals. DSS outlined a 2026-27 COLA proposal that would apply a 2.41% increase through cost-of-care-plus payments, though the department said it had inadvertently excluded CalWORKs Child Care and the Emergency Child Care Bridge Program and would revise the proposal; LAO recommended making the COLA methodology uniform across programs. DSS also proposed replacing the market rate survey with the federally approved alternative methodology on a triennial schedule, limiting temporary absences in family child care homes to 20% of monthly hours, defining excessive unexplained absences as more than 30 days in a year, and aligning family fee deductions with new federal requirements so providers receive the full voucher value. Members generally supported the temporary absence change and asked about implementation timing for the family fee deduction, with DSS saying it was in contact with Riverside County. The committee also heard a brief update on the Early Childhood Policy Council reappropriation, which would extend unused funds through June 30, 2028 because prior costs came in higher than expected.

Transcript Highlights:

• Today we will be discussing child welfare, foster care, and child support issues.
• It means that nearly 90% of all reports of child abuse and neglect allegations to a child protection
• The formal child welfare system.
• the child is otherwise eligible.
• Child support is an important child poverty program, as was mentioned earlier.

Transcript Highlights:

• Community-based child care programs, family child care homes, centers, and other early educators continue
• It is about the child.
• So it's more than the whole child.
• The providers of child care— Providers of child care. Go ahead. Go ahead and translate.
• For family child care providers to be stable in our jobs and run— For family child care providers to

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Child Care Costs held its third hearing, focused on how transitional kindergarten (TK) fits into California’s mixed-delivery early learning system, with an emphasis on the Central Valley. Opening remarks stressed that TK and child care should complement each other, not compete, and that families need both part-day school-based options and full-day, year-round care. Committee members outlined hearing goals around aligning TK with existing programs, understanding family needs, and examining the economic impact of early learning on workforce participation and local economies. Panelists from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Every Child California, Early Edge, Children Now, and others described TK’s rapid expansion to all four-year-olds, the growth in enrollment, and related changes to state preschool and after-school programs. Witnesses generally supported TK but warned that its expansion has shifted enrollment away from community-based providers, especially centers and family child care homes, creating financial strain, vacant classrooms, and staffing challenges. They urged stronger partnerships between school districts and community providers, more flexible licensing and facilities support, higher and more uniform reimbursement rates, permanent authority for state preschool to serve two-year-olds, and better compensation and training for educators across settings. Parents and providers testified about the importance of trusted, culturally and linguistically responsive care, the need for infant-toddler and home-based options, and the difficulty of affording child care when TK is not full-day or does not fit family schedules. Several speakers emphasized that many families still face long waits for subsidies and that reimbursement and payment delays threaten provider stability. Public comment echoed these concerns, with providers calling for true cost-of-care rates, more vouchers, support for transportation and nontraditional hours, and protection from insurance and facility costs that can force programs to close. State education officials said California’s UPK system works best when TK, state preschool, Head Start, and community-based providers are treated as a shared system, and noted that planning and implementation grants and local coordination efforts have helped build mixed-delivery partnerships. The hearing ended without formal votes or actions, but committee members indicated they would continue gathering input to inform future policy and budget decisions.

Transcript Highlights:

• child.
• The school is for that child.
• I think some have heard my experiences in the past of raising a child, one child, one child, and the
• to a child care facility.
• What does that cost the child? How much money is that child going to be invested in?

Bills: SB2

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Keywords: SB 2, State Highway Project Bonds, highway funding, transportation bonds, state road fund, motor vehicle fees, vehicle registration fees, electric vehicle fee, EV surcharge, plug-in hybrid fee, weight distance tax, road construction, infrastructure financing, Department of Transportation, State Transportation Commission, bonding authority, county road funds, municipal road funds, transportation improvement program, state highways

Transcript Highlights:

• cover the cost of child care.
• </c> they can qualify um for a third child they can qualify um for a third child um<00:02:00.600><c>
• We need low adult-child ratios to drive child safety and healthy development and learning.
• </c><00:04:50.960><c> safety</c> adult child ratios to drive child safety adult child ratios to drive
• </c> have the the best child care uh or child have the the best child care uh or child tax<00:10:13.880

Summary: The committee heard House File 1384, which would create the “Great Start Child Care Tax Credit” by expanding the existing dependent care credit for families with children under age six. The bill would raise the qualifying expense limits for young children, allow more children to qualify, and phase the credit down starting at $125,000 of earned household income until it reaches zero above roughly $400,000. The author said the proposal is intended to better address the high cost of child care, especially for middle-income families who may not qualify for other assistance programs. Claire Sanford of the Minnesota Child Care Association testified in support. She said child care providers across Minnesota have unused capacity because many families cannot afford services, and argued that making care cheaper for families is important for workforce participation and child development. She also supported the bill’s focus on children under five and its expansion of help up the income scale, saying middle-class families have received little assistance with child care costs. Members asked about how the bill differs from current law, the cap for a family with one child age five, and the fiscal impact. The author explained that a family with one child under age six would have a $10,000 cap under the proposal and said a prior fiscal note estimated the bill at about $200 million per year. The author also noted the proposal had been introduced previously and said the Department of Revenue’s new ability to make advance payments could be relevant as the bill moves forward. The author renewed the motion to re-refer HF 1384 to the Committee on Taxes. The committee approved the motion by voice vote, and the bill was sent to Taxes.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to be covering three items today: child care, child welfare, and immigration services.
• access to child care and providing 44,000 new child care slots.
• one child.
• I have been a child care provider for 28-plus years, providing 24-hour child care.
• for a healthy child care system.

Transcript Highlights:

• Childs are still there. is still there? Childs are still there.
• </c><00:48:15.280><c> So</c> child they're parents of this child.
• So child they're parents of this child.
• So as soon as a child child child is<01:15:39.120><c> in</c> is in is in permanency<01:15:41.040><c>
• Even if the child was a former foster child at this time, no.

Transcript Highlights:

• Today we will be discussing child welfare, foster care, and child support issues.
• It means that nearly 90% of all reports of child abuse and neglect allegations to a child protection
• We have seen a profound cultural shift in the child welfare system, from one emphasizing child protection
• to reduce child poverty.
• Child support is an important child poverty program, as was mentioned earlier.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held an informational hearing on child welfare, foster care, child support, and related prevention efforts. The chair opened by emphasizing mandated reporting reform, foster care system improvements, and community-based prevention, and noted that no votes would be taken. Public testimony focused first on mandated reporting, where a lived-experience advocate and several organizations argued that the current system overreports families, especially Black, Native, and Latino families, causes trauma, and should be reformed through standardized training, clearer thresholds, and stronger community supports rather than more hotline referrals. Casey Family Programs cited data showing nearly 90% of reports are unsubstantiated, while CDSS said it is already forming a Mandated Reporting Advisory Committee, updating training, and exploring community pathways and possible changes to the list of mandated reporters. CWDA and SEIU supported training and alternative response concepts but stressed child safety, county capacity, funding, and the need for careful implementation and accountability. The committee then discussed a proposal to create a foster care multi-agency office within the California Health and Human Services Agency, led by a chief foster youth advocate with authority to coordinate across departments. Advocates said foster youth often need services from education, health, housing, and behavioral health systems that do not coordinate well, and argued that a central office with real authority could improve placement stability and access to services. CDSS responded that existing structures already provide coordination, including AB 2083 interagency teams, the Child Welfare Council, complex care steering committees, and the foster care ombudsperson, but said it was open to technical assistance. Members raised concerns about whether the new office would have enough authority and funding to avoid becoming another layer of bureaucracy, and the chair emphasized the need for real “teeth” and better interagency action. The final major topic was the continuation and expansion of Promise Neighborhoods. A community leader described strong early results from the state-funded neighborhoods, including improved kindergarten readiness, reduced chronic absenteeism, higher graduation rates, food access, housing supports, and mental health services, but warned that current funding sunsets in June 2025 and that a fiscal cliff could jeopardize staff and services. CDSS said the four funded neighborhoods have reported positive outcomes and valuable flexibility, but also noted challenges with one-time funding, student mental health, and long-term planning. Assemblymember Mia Bonta urged continued investment, saying the place-based model is difficult to rebuild once lost, and the chair asked LAO to help identify the minimum funding needed to preserve the existing infrastructure while evaluation results are still pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• Community-based child care programs, family child care homes, centers, and other early educators continue
• It is about the child.
• So it's more than the whole child.
• The providers of child care. Providers of child care. Go ahead. Go ahead and translate.
• child.

Summary: The California Assembly Select Committee on Child Care Costs held its third hearing focused on transitional kindergarten (TK) and how it fits within the state’s mixed delivery early learning system, with an emphasis on the Central Valley. Opening remarks stressed that TK and community-based child care are both needed to serve families, especially working and low-income households that need full-day, year-round care, transportation, and flexible hours. Committee members said the goal was to understand what is working, where gaps remain, and how to better coordinate TK with other programs to support children, families, and the workforce. The first panel included the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Every Child California, and Early Edge California. Testimony reviewed TK’s expansion to all four-year-olds, growth in enrollment, and changes to program requirements, while also noting related shifts in state preschool eligibility, reimbursement rates, and the option for programs to serve two-year-olds. Witnesses argued that TK should be treated as part of a broader continuum that includes state preschool, Head Start, family child care, and voucher-based care, and they called for easier local partnerships, shared facilities, aligned funding and oversight, better compensation, and permanent support for serving younger children. Committee members and witnesses discussed the strain on home-based providers and centers, the need for more vouchers and higher reimbursement, and the fact that many TK programs are part-day and do not meet full-day family needs. Public comment and the second panel reinforced concerns about affordability, access, and equity. Parents described the benefits of high-quality child care and TK for children’s development and for their own ability to work, while a parent from Oakland said TK was transformative for her child and essential to her career, but that her younger child still faced a wait for a TK spot. Children Now and Stanford researchers presented data showing that awareness of TK is uneven, especially among lower-income families, and that enrollment and access are stronger in more affluent areas. They recommended broader outreach, full-day/full-year options, and a true mixed delivery model that includes community-based providers, family child care homes, and Head Start. The California Department of Education said TK and state preschool work best as a shared opportunity and noted ongoing mixed-delivery grants and local coordination efforts, while public commenters from county offices, providers, and nonprofit organizations emphasized the need for continued funding, stable rates, and protection for community-based programs affected by TK expansion.

Transcript Highlights:

• This allows for the modification of child support redirections when in the best interest of the child
• 12 requires that child care providers who accept CCAP submit data on child enrollment and attendance
• This allows the caregiver to exclude one child, provided that the child is at least eight years old and
• welfare or child protection cases.
• Child care environments.

Bills: HF2436

Committee: House Children and Families Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• by a child care assistance.
• That is not a uh a child care."
• </c> my two kids who are still in child care. my two kids who are still in child care.
• Child care owners are altogether.
• </c><00:10:49.080><c> care</c> Child care center, family child care center, or group family child care

Summary: The committee heard presentation on HF 495, a bill intended to help families with rising child care costs by allowing a subtraction from taxable income for licensed child care expenses. The author said the measure would provide immediate relief to families while broader child care supply and affordability problems are addressed, citing a revenue analysis estimating about 81,700 returns affected and an average tax decrease of $639. The bill was described as applying only to licensed child care centers, family child care, or group family child care under chapter 142B. A virtual testifier, Annel Velasco of St. Paul, opposed the bill. She said child care is indeed expensive but argued the proposal is only a small patch that does not address structural problems such as provider closures, low teacher pay, and lack of available slots. She also said the subtraction would disproportionately benefit higher-income families and would not help providers or teachers. Members debated whether the bill should be more targeted. Representative Smith and Representative Lee argued the proposal is uncapped, expensive, and structured as a subtraction rather than a refundable credit, meaning it would mainly help higher-income households and could divert resources from other credits such as the working family tax credit or child tax credit. Representative Swedzinski supported the bill as allowing families to keep their own money and said child care costs are high across income levels. Chair Gomez and others emphasized that the child care system has broader structural failures, including low pay and lack of slots, and said this bill would address only one part of the problem. No vote or final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Of course you're going to prioritize your child if your child care facility closed.
• "That's per child." "Per child? Yep. Okay." "What happens if I got twins?" "That's per child."
• health, and child welfare."
• health, and child welfare.
• acute in child care deserts.

Committee: House Joint Committee on Rural Economic Development

Summary: The Committee on Economic Development met with a quorum and first heard House Bill 2409 from Rep. Brenda Shields, which would create three child care-related tax credit programs to help address Missouri’s workforce and child care shortages. Shields said the bill is aimed at expanding affordable, reliable child care through community partnerships involving businesses, nonprofits, and providers, with credits for contributions to child care facilities, employer-provided child care assistance, and provider facility improvements. She and supporters cited child care deserts, high costs, and lost economic output, arguing the bill would help parents work and businesses recruit and retain employees. Witnesses in support included the Missouri Chamber, Kids Win Missouri, Associated Industries of Missouri, local chambers, economic development groups, and child care-related organizations; there was no opposition testimony. The committee then moved into executive session and approved House Committee Substitute for House Bill 2508 and House Committee Substitute for House Bill 2517, both by unanimous 12-0 roll call votes and both sent do pass on consent. The 2508 substitute dealt with series LLC language, including searchable records and stand-alone certificates of good standing. The 2517 substitute addressed wholesaling, adding a 14-day disclosure period and changing Attorney General enforcement language from “shall” to “may.” Finally, the committee heard House Bill 2654 from Rep. Knight, which would create a Missouri Works capital investment track for projects with at least $50 million in investment, offering a 2.5% tax credit without requiring new job creation. The sponsor and Department of Economic Development said the proposal is modeled on programs in other states and is intended to help Missouri compete for large investments, especially in manufacturing and automation. Many business and economic development groups testified in support, emphasizing retention, expansion, and regional competition; several members asked whether the $50 million threshold could be lowered, and the sponsor said he was open to discussion. No opposition testimony was offered, and the committee adjourned after the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Suman will go through child support, child welfare, and child welfare placement.
• child support child welfare go through child support child welfare and<00:02:10.479><c> child</c><00:
• child care support.
• </c> center-based child care our family child center-based child care our family child our<00:58:33.359
• /c><01:32:46.880><c> is</c><01:32:47.360><c> still</c> child care and child care is still child care

Committee: House Children and Families Finance and Policy