AN ACT Relating to modernizing reimbursement rates to more accurately reflect the cost of providing high quality child care for the working connections child care program;
SB 5500 updates Washington law governing the state’s biennial “cost of quality child care” survey. The bill requires the Department of Children, Youth, and Families to publish a current cost of quality child care study by June 1 of every even-numbered year and submit the study information to the relevant legislative committees. It also defines what counts as a cost of quality child care study and distinguishes between a broader “cost of quality child care study” and a narrower “current cost of quality child care study.”
Under the bill, the study must be based on a cost estimation model developed in consultation with and recommended by the Early Educator Design Team. The model must include, at a minimum, fixed costs tied to staff salaries, benefits, family engagement activities, planning and release time, educational materials and curriculum, and professional development supports. The bill specifies that staff salaries should be based on a living wage scale identified by the Early Educator Design Team, and that benefits include items such as paid leave, retirement contributions, and employer-paid discretionary benefits like health and life insurance. The current study uses the same categories but focuses on current costs rather than the broader set of fixed costs described for the full study.
The bill’s practical effect is to formalize and standardize how Washington measures the cost of providing high-quality child care, which can influence state policy, reimbursement rates, subsidy discussions, and broader early learning funding decisions. It amends RCW provisions related to child care cost surveys and reporting, creating a clearer statutory framework for recurring legislative review of child care affordability and provider cost structures.
Overall sentiment appears favorable. The bill advanced through the Senate committee, passed the Senate on final passage, and later received a do-pass recommendation in House Appropriations, suggesting broad legislative support for improving child care cost data and transparency. The recorded votes show some opposition at each stage, indicating that while the bill was generally supported, it was not unanimous.
The main point of contention is likely the policy and fiscal implications of using a living wage-based cost model and including a wide range of staffing and benefit costs in the state’s official survey. Supporters likely view these provisions as necessary to accurately reflect the true cost of quality child care and inform adequate funding, while critics may be concerned about the potential budget impact, the use of a prescribed model, or the downstream effect on state child care subsidy and reimbursement obligations.
SB 5500 amends Washington statutes governing the biennial child care cost survey by requiring the Department of Children, Youth, and Families to publish and submit a current cost of quality child care study on a fixed schedule and by defining the methodology and cost categories that must be included. It affects state reporting obligations, the statutory framework for early learning cost analysis, and may indirectly influence appropriations, subsidy policy, and child care reimbursement decisions.
The bill appears to have generally positive legislative support. It passed the Senate committee stage, cleared Senate final passage, and received a do-pass recommendation in House Appropriations. The vote margins show some dissent, but the overall pattern suggests lawmakers broadly agreed on the need for more detailed and regular child care cost data.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s use of a living wage standard, the inclusion of benefits and other staffing-related costs in the model, and the potential fiscal consequences of officially recognizing higher costs of quality care. Supporters, including early learning advocates, would likely favor the bill for improving accuracy and transparency, while opponents may worry about increased state spending or the policy implications of setting a more expansive cost benchmark.