[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6652458,"mediaKeyId","2490565-29c7d5042d676d874e8842f138d8dfb4","parentId",2490565,"title","Bill would invest $100 million a year in early‑childhood fund to expand subsidies, raise educator pay and fund facilities","audioSeconds",4696,"startMs",1745241,"endMs",6441885,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2490565-29c7d5042d676d874e8842f138d8dfb4&start=1745&end=6441","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2490565-29c7d5042d676d874e8842f138d8dfb4/thumbnail_1745241.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6652458/Connecticut/Bill-would-invest-100-million-a-year-in-earlychildhood-fund-to-expand-subsidies-raise-educator-pay-and-fund-facilities","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6652458-523e97e446bca78a00d282c8e7a09a9b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198916&Signature=TunVCbVL4TIFoFT6lgObHXh4-S5UtBod-gsOEkmxJbNso3udHhmdmnVNkzldcCNdG0ZDsqxS1KFysKZ8PiyRe4FMDmsBMxE8s9y1CrHa3D2IqXyawDipvWPdSesxRJ2QjXNDns3UK0SblGfJ4WuWox0B5V5xkP6o99YQ8YBAthJ-X7TAJTajEjRF0n1K7fCJ~daAOb-hQFE~nxQZvQ0azlmBmDp79nos~E-3yyxR1bxHGvcw5MrRyL27bE3vyHc8u2Ez1H~EZJq9TzvciBFrgp9pxYA9G9Fh66eetkB5enQVIo6TZNN2455XUnURMvb23s0O1OCi9m2CZ3mlP4foMw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Connecticut State Legislature - Children","date","2025-03-04T22:56:27.707Z","article","Hartford — Lawmakers on the Children’s Committee heard hours of testimony supporting House Bill 5,003, a proposal to put $100 million a year into the state’s Early Childhood Care and Education Fund and to use the money to expand eligibility for the Care for Kids subsidy, provide wage and health‑insurance supports to early‑childhood educators and offer capital grants to expand or upgrade child‑care facilities.

Supporters said the bill tackles a workforce and affordability crisis that is limiting access to child care across Connecticut, while opponents and some witnesses urged the Legislature to guarantee long‑term revenue rather than rely on one‑time transfers.

“Becoming a parent is one of the most life‑changing events people will ever face,” Rep. Brandon Chaffee told the committee. “For many parents, child care is their largest monthly expense…this bill seeks to address those systemic issues by stabilizing wages, expanding care and funding facilities.”

Why it matters: Testimony from providers, advocacy groups and local officials stressed that inadequate pay, rising insurance costs and insufficient facilities have reduced the supply of infant‑toddler and full‑day slots across the state. Advocates and municipal providers described families who delay or leave employment because care is too expensive or unavailable.

What the bill would do: The version presented to the committee calls for transfers of $100 million in one fiscal year and $100 million in a second year into the Early Childhood Care and Education Fund. Key provisions discussed at the hearing included:
- Expanding Care for Kids income eligibility (the bill text discussed raising thresholds and presumptive eligibility so families would not wait for weeks or months while the application is processed);
- Subsidies to help employers and employees obtain health insurance through the state exchange;
- Wage‑stabilization elements and prospective payments so providers receive funds in advance rather than waiting on retroactive reimbursements; and
- A $100 million bond program to award competitive grants for construction, renovation and technical assistance for child‑care facilities.

Rep. Kate Farrar, a co‑sponsor, said the bill builds on last year’s creation of the Early Childhood Care and Education Fund and seeks to “lower costs for families, support the workforce and make more facilities available.” Farrar described proposals in the bill to expand the Care for Kids subsidy to about 85 percent of state median income and to create a temporary presumptive eligibility certificate while applications are processed.

State and independent analysts: Beth Feig, commissioner of the Office of Early Childhood, described differences between the governor’s proposal and HB 5,003. “Our plan puts 90 percent of the fund to grow and provide stable, long‑term investment,” Feig said, while HB 5,003 would dedicate a higher share of near‑term operating surplus to immediate uses. She also warned that some elements in HB 5,003 would create fiscal impacts not included in the governor’s budget and that expanding presumptive eligibility could increase Care for Kids’ wait lists unless capacity is added.

Advocates and research groups urged the committee to adopt the bill’s spending and reforms. “Investments in dependable, high‑quality early care and education are good for kids, parents, businesses, and our state economy,” Nick Teeling, advocacy director at Connecticut Voices for Children, testified.

Providers emphasized the on‑the‑ground effects of slow subsidy payments and low wages. “Programs operate on razor‑thin margins,” said Jade Thomas of All Our Kin, which supports licensed family‑home providers. Several providers described using personal credit or reduced pay to keep children enrolled while families waited for subsidy decisions.

Facilities and capital grants: Jim Horan of LISC and Bevin Parker‑Serkis, who runs LISC’s national child‑care work, described the state’s facility shortage — particularly for infant and toddler slots — and urged the committee to fund the competitive grant program in the bill. LISC’s recent ARPA‑funded grant program drew more than 730 applications requesting about $75 million; the office distributed roughly $13 million and funded 125 projects, Horan said.

Clarifying details and fiscal context: Witnesses discussed that the bill’s transfers would come from operating surplus under the current draft; that the bill requests a five‑year capital grant program; and that OEC has increased Care for Kids rates 11 percent per year for three years in prior actions. Commissioner Feig said the state currently has roughly 840 to 850 families on the Care for Kids waiting list at the time of the hearing and that moving to presumptive eligibility without expanding capacity could lengthen waits for other applicants.

What happened next: The committee took testimony from provider groups, labor and municipal representatives but did not vote on the bill at the hearing. Supporters urged approval; several providers asked for additional, durable funding and protections for family providers (for example, relief from lien requirements on smaller capital grants).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Committee on Children Public Hearing 3/4","oneSentenceSummary","Hartford — Lawmakers on the Children’s Committee heard hours of testimony supporting House Bill 5,003, a proposal to put $100 million a year into the state’s Early Childhood Care and Education Fund and to use the money to expand eligibility for the Care for Kids subsidy, provide wage and health‑insurance supports to early‑childhood educators and offer capital grants to expand or upgrade child‑care facilities.","taxTitle","Children, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Connecticut","taxId",15139,"location","Connecticut","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6652453,"Child‑safety advocates urge licensing and background checks for municipal camps; towns warn mandates could raise prices and cut access",2392,1131404,3523715,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2490565-29c7d5042d676d874e8842f138d8dfb4&start=1131&end=3523","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2490565-29c7d5042d676d874e8842f138d8dfb4/thumbnail_1131404.jpg","/articles/6652453/Connecticut/Childsafety-advocates-urge-licensing-and-background-checks-for-municipal-camps-towns-warn-mandates-could-raise-prices-and-cut-access","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6652453-6980c03e7b0ca05efb45f67b19c24aa9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198916&Signature=hmOgdgfU81fAnXvHaNBjpdMmHU8kqA0xfZrL2yhWdck-EYiHqIIgMQnsYM8p-KnUR~0NJQGbZMPmKThAO0KT00goZkvdcXZ85el5kq5CridL7-sJYMOXJuW~JTEAcKYqLI1gMuNATIuPxYdA1-ctifTqmXIDNQ1rovx-tkF9j~JTYojVhe5wwfSPGBwnDMRc-GKoXt6wL-pbi5-vd6JeTOAFXrJjVZU-5Wv7tEfl4VDi~XBTT-7zeMebbwpXcjmQQ0PrEJgWjZlpK7zl8fF7XQK9skcqlhJd9nToDxuvfvhYrOEsm7Q3SXNWtMRGsVjykYrtZ2KcuHJOJajs2rMaiA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Hartford — Testimony before the Committee on Children sharpened a debate over whether municipal summer and youth camps should be required to obtain state licensure and submit staff to the same background‑check rules that govern licensed child‑care programs.

Christina Guillot, acting child advocate in the Office of the Child Advocate, told the panel that Senate Bill 6’s provisions addressing camps and unlicensed child‑care settings aim to reduce risk to children by requiring background checks, criminal‑history reviews and checks of the DCF child‑abuse registry and the sex‑offender registry.

“Licensure is the gold standard for ensuring the safety of children in child‑care and camp settings,” Guillot said. “If licensure cannot move forward…the most foundational aspect of safety is background checks.”

Guillot urged that statutory requirements include state and federal criminal histories, the DCF central child‑abuse registry and the sex‑offender registry, and that municipal child‑care programs — not only private camps — be brought into the statutory framework or covered by background‑check mandates.

The Office of Early Childhood’s commissioner, Beth Feig, said OEC supports licensing municipal youth camps in principle but warned of a substantial fiscal and staffing impact: licensing the currently exempt municipal programs would require OEC to hire additional staff to carry out inspections and oversight. “It would probably double our summer‑camp staff, which is about 13 people,” Feig said, and the agency does not yet know the total number of municipal camps because they are not currently registered with OEC.

Municipal leaders pushed back. Hannah Lemick of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities said towns and cities already have multiple layers of oversight — risk managers, school or municipal HR, police and fire departments — and that adding OEC licensure would impose unfunded mandates and could raise participation costs for families. “A difference in just $200 a week in program costs could force parents to make the untenable choice between going to work and caring for their children,” Lemick said.

Municipal recreation supervisors and several providers asked the committee to alter the statutory exemptions instead of imposing full licensure. Recreation directors suggested statutory language that would require background checks for all licensed‑exempt providers (amendments to Conn. Gen. Stat. 19a‑77 and 19a‑420 were discussed during testimony) and recommended streamlined, third‑party background‑check systems to reduce cost and administrative burden.

Data and privacy concerns: Scott Gaughan, the state’s chief data officer at the Office of Policy and Management, described proposed changes to the P‑20 WIN preschool‑through‑workforce data system and the disconnected‑youth reporting requirements in SB 6. He said expanding those reports and adding new ongoing requirements would increase complexity, administrative burden and privacy risks; P‑20 WIN work is largely grant‑funded, he noted, and those funds can be time‑limited.

What was said about enforcement and practice: Several municipal witnesses and providers said many town programs already require background checks, staff training and other safeguards. OEC and the child advocate said that compliance is voluntary when programs are exempt, and that statute is needed to ensure universal checks and standardized requirements across public and private providers.

What happened next: The committee took the testimony and did not vote on SB 6 at the hearing. Witnesses on both sides asked for further drafting and for technical fixes to address towns’ administrative capacity and to create streamlined background‑check mechanisms.","At a Children’s Committee hearing, the acting child advocate and the Office of Early Childhood urged licensing or, at minimum, statutory background‑check requirements for municipal youth camps; municipal and state recreation officials warned that licensure would increase costs and could force some programs to scale back or close","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill would invest $100 million a year in early‑childhood fund to expand subsidies, raise educator pay and fund facilities

Child‑safety advocates urge licensing and background checks for municipal camps; towns warn mandates could raise prices and cut access