Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Childcare Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews H.248 amendments to Act 76, debates limits on emergency child‑care relief and federal compliance
Summary
A legislative committee reviewing amendments to Act 76 discussed expanding extraordinary financial relief to child‑care programs not yet open, clarified transition assistance when programs close, and considered federal rules that require grant authority and enrollment‑based payments.
At a committee markup, members reviewed H.248, a bill amending Act 76 that state staff say is needed to comply with recent federal child‑care rules and to add flexibility for extraordinary financial relief (EFR) to child‑care providers.
Committee members said the bill would (1) permit reserving up to one‑half of 1 percent of a specified fund for extraordinary relief to programs at risk of closure, (2) explicitly allow the commissioner to provide assistance both to programs that are licensed or registered and to programs in the process of becoming licensed or registered, (3) authorize assistance to support orderly transitions of children when a program closes, and (4) enable the Child Development Division to enter into grants and to make enrollment‑based payments rather than only reimbursements.
The committee’s discussion focused on two tensions: avoiding the unintended use of EFR as start‑up or general operating grants, and giving the commissioner enough discretion and documented guidance to act quickly when programs face immediate risk. Several members said the money at stake is small relative to the statewide childcare system but could be important in narrow, urgent circumstances. One member recalled a roughly $10 million pool cited during budget work and another referenced an approximate $300,000 figure for EFR; both figures were described as approximate by those speakers.
Members asked for clarity on application review and decision criteria. Committee participants noted that the Child Development Division’s publicly posted application and program guidance request written verification from financial institutions and other documentation; staff said the Division performs a financial review and may refer providers to First Children’s Finance for planning and start‑up assistance. Committee members also asked whether the Division’s current application process constrains funds to go only to a program that is closing rather than to a receiving provider; the committee agreed to clarify the statutory language so it is explicit that assistance for transition may benefit receiving programs or other actions necessary to keep children served.
The bill also implements changes the Department described as required by federal guidance: authority to award grants (rather than only subsidies on behalf of families) and to make payments based on a child’s authorized enrollment, including payment in advance with later reconciliation. Staff said the Department has already drafted an RFP and engaged modeling work to estimate costs and IT changes, and some committee members said those vendor and IT steps are already underway.
Committee members asked for written guidance and examples that explain the criteria the Division uses to decide on EFR awards (for example, what financial documents are reviewed, whether awards are tied to a defined percentage of lost revenue or fixed costs, and how high‑poverty or access criteria are weighted). The committee agreed it wants to see the application and program guidance before finalizing statutory language; staff confirmed material was available on the Child Development Division’s website under funding opportunities.
On reporting, members noted language carried over from Act 76 about an annual report on funds distributed; some department staff had indicated they believed the reporting requirement had expired, and the committee asked staff to clarify whether the statutory reporting obligation remains in force.
Next steps: committee members agreed to break the EFR language into three distinct statutory paragraphs (1) EFR reserved for programs at risk of closure, (2) assistance to support transition of children when programs close, and (3) authority for the commissioner to request documentation (tax returns, bank verification, etc.) to verify hardship and capacity to sustain or increase operations. The committee also discussed sending a letter to the Child Development Division asking it to confirm the scope of its RFP and whether currently planned IT work can include the enrollment‑based payment changes. Members said they expect to vote on the amendment at the committee’s next scheduled meeting or the following morning, contingent on receiving clarified language from staff.
