Department of Children, Youth, and Families staff and four local implementing agencies presented early experiences and concerns after Washington moved some home‑visiting programs to rates‑based payments.

Context and timing: Laura (DCYF staff) said the department transitioned several models to a rates approach starting in state fiscal year 2025 and that eight programs were implementing rates in the most recent year. "We moved to implementation with rates, for some of our models, in state fiscal year '25," she said. DCYF staff told the committee the mean revenue change for programs moving to rates was roughly a one‑third increase in the award amount in year one (about a 33% mean increase across participating programs), though the increases varied and did not fully close gaps for all programs.

What providers said: Panelists — leaders from ParentChild+ and other community providers — described practical benefits and persistent pain points.

- Transparency and staff compensation: Fromsa, early learning program manager at Horn of Africa Services, said a bright spot was clarity in setting staff pay: "it gives us the structured and transparent way to calculate the pay rate for staff." She added that greater pay parity improved staff retention.

- Mileage and direct billable costs: Wei Ling Chen, program director at the Chinese Information Service Center (MAU services), said the new approach allowed certain mileage costs to be counted in direct billable allocations, which reduced program deficits: "the program was not in red. I think that's the the the thing that we'll, we get from this, rates, based, payment."

- Small programs and turnover: Allison, Family Haven program manager and an HVAC member, described acute stress when a small program lost a home visitor during the rate period and the resulting training and ramp‑up costs that pushed her program into a deficit: "I don't have $24,000 to pull from something else," she said, describing the difficulty of covering the shortfall when a small team must absorb vacancy costs.

- Model limitations and salary classification: Dila of Open Arms pointed to structural challenges: many home‑visitor roles (for example, birth doulas who also serve as home visitors) have no precise Bureau of Labor or national salary category, complicating how rates account for experience and compensation. "There's no salary qualification in the Department of Labor Statistics for a birth doula who's also a home visitor," she said, noting that some doulas hold advanced degrees even when the position does not formally require them.

Administrative and contract issues: Several panelists said the rate‑setting and contracting process was lengthy, required substantial provider time and left some providers with little flexibility in how funds could be used. One panelist called direct‑billing categories a “fake carrot” when they are too narrow to cover actual costs. DCYF staff and grantees agreed that contract timing was a concern; late invoicing and late contract execution limited the ability of some grantees to spend awarded funds in the fiscal year.

DCYF fiscal context: DCYF staff described funding pressures statewide — limited state revenue in the current budget climate, prior expansions that increased slots and subsequent rebalancing of slots and dollars. The Home Visiting Services Account (a dedicated state account) held an available balance the department reports managing to avoid future risk; DCYF reported an account balance near $1.9–2.2 million while noting that year‑end invoices were still being reconciled. DCYF also said approval from federal authorities will be required to convert federal‑funded subawards to fixed rate subawards, a process that will involve federal review of methodology and documentation.

Committee reaction and next steps: Committee members acknowledged that rates increased visibility on true costs but urged the department to account for program size, rural service differences, model variation (summer/academic schedules for school‑year models such as ParentChild+) and the unequal capacity of smaller organizations to absorb transitions. Several members asked for clearer timelines, more frequent touchpoints with implementing providers and options for flexibility or exemptions where rates were a poor fit.

Ending: DCYF staff said they are continuing internal and federal consultations about full implementation, will collate provider feedback and provide updates to the advisory committee. Providers urged DCYF to maintain opportunities for rapid feedback and to consider implementation changes that recognize program diversity and administrative capacity.