Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Childcare Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would let local workforce boards top‑up reimbursements for high‑quality child care in low‑income areas, supporters say
Summary
House Bill 22,94 would let local workforce boards reimburse Texas Rising Star providers at the higher TRS maximum rate for their quality rating even if local market rates are low, allowing boards to pair local funds to close the gap for high‑quality providers in low‑income areas.
Get email alerts on the Childcare Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dean Zaffirini laid out House Bill 22,94, a bill by Representative Sophronia Thompson, which would allow local workforce development boards to reimburse Texas Rising Star (TRS) certified providers at the maximum rate for their quality level regardless of that provider’s published local market rate — provided the workforce board can do so without reducing the average number of children served under the subsidy program.
Kim Coughran, senior director of education for Children at Risk, testified in favor of the bill and told the committee her organization has tracked childcare deserts across Texas since 2017. “Today, we’ve identified over 850 childcare deserts for low‑income working families,” she said, adding that subsidies are tied to local market rates that can be much lower in poorer ZIP codes even when high‑quality providers operate there. Coughran said HB 22,94 would give local boards flexibility to pair local funds with state reimbursements to close that gap and stabilize high‑quality providers in areas that most need them.
The committee did not hear opposition testimony. After the invited witness spoke the committee closed public testimony and left the bill pending for committee consideration and potential rulemaking guidance to ensure boards can implement the change without reducing slots for subsidized children.
Committee members asked for implementation details and assurances the measure would not reduce statewide subsidy access; supporters emphasized the bill is permissive and intended to be used locally where boards have the resources to do so.
