Appropriations Committee discusses H.248 to expand emergency childcare grants and change CCFAP payment rules

At its April 20, 2025 meeting, the Appropriations Committee reviewed H.248, a House bill that would allow the commissioner to reserve up to one-half of 1% (0.5%) of Child Care Financial Assistance Program (CCFAP) funds to provide expedited financial relief to childcare programs ‘‘at risk of closing or not opening’’ and would revise CCFAP rules to reflect new federal requirements for contracted spots and upfront payments to providers.

The bill’s sponsors and witnesses said the changes are aimed at reducing disruptions when a program closes or when an otherwise-ready program needs emergency help to open. "This is H-two 48, and it deals with various topics pertaining to childcare," said Katie McGlenn, Office of Legislative Counsel, introducing the measure. She said the draft clarifies that the commissioner "may provide extraordinary financial relief" to licensed, registered or programs in the process of becoming licensed, and that committees wanted language to allow money to follow children to minimize disruption.

Rep. Esme Cole of the House Committee on Human Services, who participated in the earlier committee discussion, described two distinct uses of the supplemental grant language: supporting existing programs at immediate risk of closure and helping newly forming programs in areas that lose capacity. "The intention here so there is in fact funding to support startups," said Sarah Kenny of Musgrove Kids, describing a case in which a program that had received start‑up funds was hit by flooding the week before children were to arrive and needed emergency assistance to open.

Committee members pressed for clearer wording. Several questioned the phrase "extraordinary financial relief," asking whether it was meant to cover ordinary startup grants, emergency bridge funding for cash‑flow needs (for example, first and last month’s rent or staff payroll before tuition arrives), or only truly rare circumstances such as natural disasters. One member said the churn rate for programs in some areas had been "50% per year," and asked whether investments to improve sites were being lost when programs failed.

Discussion centered on two technical changes in the bill: (1) a rewrite to allow the commissioner discretion to provide assistance to an existing or a new program "in order to transition children who are currently served by a childcare program that is closing to a new childcare program in an orderly fashion," and (2) language to implement federal rules that require the division to offer both family‑applied subsidies and program‑contracted slots and that providers be paid in advance rather than by reimbursement. McGlenn summarized the payment change: "The payment schedule shall ensure timely payment to childcare providers by requiring a payment in advance of or at the beginning of the delivery of childcare services."

Members and witnesses suggested specific edits to resolve ambiguity. Suggestions included replacing or augmenting "extraordinary" with wording such as "expedited assistance" or explicitly adding "not opening" to the eligibility language so that funds could cover emergency startup needs without converting the grant program into routine startup financing. Committee participants agreed to draft a shorter committee amendment clarifying the two circumstances and to list the amendment under the committee's name.

The committee also discussed administrative controls: the draft would authorize the commissioner to request tax returns and other financial documents to verify hardship and require an application form and department guidelines that prioritize assistance to areas with high poverty and low access to high‑quality childcare.

No formal vote on H.248 is recorded in the transcript excerpt. Committee members said they would have the bill presented, offer a committee amendment to clarify language, and proceed to a vote after the presentation. The transcript shows the committee planned to go "off live" for the measure presentation and then return to vote.

Why it matters: the draft aims to reduce service disruption for families when a provider closes and to adapt state rules to recent federal regulations on CCFAP contracting and provider payment timing. The debate reflected tension between preserving emergency flexibility for rare events and avoiding reclassifying the supplemental grant as routine startup support.