Committee debates amendment to let DCF reserve small share of child-care funds to prevent center closures

Representative Merwicki (Windham-4 District) introduced an amendment during the House Appropriations Committee meeting that would insert language allowing the commissioner for children and families to "reserve up to one half of one percent of the Child Care Financial Assistance Program funds for extraordinary financial relief" to "assist childcare programs that are at risk of closing or not opening."

Deputy Commissioner Janet McLaughlin of the Department for Children and Families, who oversees the Child Development Division, told the committee the department "is not supportive of the proposed amendments" and called the change "a pretty significant design change to pre K." McLaughlin said the amendment is premature given ongoing budget work for fiscal 2026 and uncertainty around federal funding for childcare and described operational and policy hurdles the division would face if it took on payments for a wider set of pre‑K enrollments.

McLaughlin said expanding the division’s payment role would require new enrollment and payment processing for many children currently not served by the Child Care Financial Assistance Program (CCFAP). "There are families who are not eligible," she said, citing income and service‑need eligibility rules; she added the department would need additional staff to enroll families, answer questions and process those payments. She also cautioned that routing some pre‑K payments through DCF while others remained under school districts could weaken partnerships between districts and community‑based providers and reduce districts’ ability to track who is entering kindergarten and who needs early childhood special education services.

Supporters of the amendment framed it as a narrowly targeted tool to provide cash‑flow relief to programs that face immediate closure or that cannot open because of extraordinary events. Representative Merwicki said the wording was intended to clarify that the funds could be used either to help a center open or to prevent a closure.

Committee members raised policy and timing concerns. Several members said the amendment touches on larger questions about pre‑K design and financing and should be considered as part of the ongoing work on universal pre‑K and the implementation of Act 76. Representative Weier and other members said they supported revisiting the idea later but not immediately. Representative Steggi asked whether DCF would need additional staff; McLaughlin said yes, and that the change might be largely a cost shift but would require funding and planning.

The committee conducted a show‑of‑hands straw poll on the amendment. Counts reported in the meeting record included the figures "10 0 1" and later "10, 1," and the chair said the amendment will now move to the Education Committee for further review; members noted it will also pass through Ways and Means and then return to Appropriations as part of the bill process.

No formal, recorded vote on final adoption of the amendment was taken in committee during this session. The committee discussion made clear the department’s opposition, the potential operational impacts if DCF processed additional pre‑K payments, and the preference of several members to examine the change within broader pre‑K financing and implementation work now underway.

Next steps: committee staff and members said the amendment and the testimony will be reviewed by the Education Committee and by Ways and Means; further hearings and analysis were anticipated before any final decision.