Ohio committee hears broad support for bill to guarantee childcare for foster and kinship caregivers

House Children and Human Services Committee Chair Andrea White convened a second hearing on House Bill 7 on Oct. 27, 2025, where foster parents, county child-welfare officials and childcare providers testified that guaranteeing publicly funded childcare for foster and kinship caregivers regardless of the caregiver’s income or employment status would increase local placements and reduce costlier out-of-county congregate placements.

Supporters said the proposal would remove a practical barrier that prevents many families from accepting infants, sibling groups and other young children into licensed homes. Cassandra Holtzman, Director of Summit County Children’s Services, told the committee Summit County currently has 846 children in custody and that 50% of children placed from the county are sent outside the county because there are too few foster or kinship homes nearby. “Providing resources to cover the cost of childcare would help with recruitment and retention of foster homes,” Holtzman said.

The bill would change eligibility for Ohio’s publicly funded child care so that children placed with foster or kinship caregivers can receive care without the caregiver meeting current income or work/training requirements. Mary Wachtel, director of public policy at the Public Children’s Services Association of Ohio (PCSAO), supported the concept but warned the committee that expanding eligibility without a funding source may be unsustainable: “We do recognize that growth in the publicly funded child care program is likely to be unsustainable in a couple years,” she said, and urged the committee to consider targeted guardrails and alternative mechanisms.

Why it matters: county officials and providers say more family-based placements would keep children near schools, churches and support systems and reduce higher-cost placements. Summit County reported paid placement costs of more than $21 million in 2024, up from nearly $18 million in 2023, and forecast more than $23 million in 2025. County and statewide witnesses said those placement costs have risen sharply in recent years and that shifting some children from congregate care into family homes could reduce overall spending if family placements can be recruited and retained.

Testimony and examples

• Kathleen Peto, a longtime foster parent, described daily childcare bills for sibling groups. She said a recent placement of four boys cost her about $188 a day (roughly $1,000 a month) while her foster daily stipend was about $100 per day. “A great day care experience along with a great fostering experience can change the trajectory of a child's life,” Peto said, and added that child care gives foster parents “mental health rest” and helps children develop social and developmental skills she could not provide alone.

• Cynthia Swofford, a foster and adoptive parent and social worker in Montgomery County, gave county-specific figures: Montgomery County’s monthly subsidy (board) rate for a foster child is about $635; some counties reimburse up to $115 per week for childcare, while the average cost for daycare for a child under 2 is about $250 per week. Swofford said that after subtracting childcare, many foster families are left with roughly $95 per month for other expenses.

• Jerry Pegues, assistant county administrator for Montgomery County, said last week the county had 272 children ages 0–6 placed with kinship or foster caregivers and noted county systems already process thousands of childcare applications: “We know this number will increase with the passage of this legislation,” he said, but recommended the state identify a GRF funding source and review the bill’s broad kinship definition and work/education requirements.

• County and statewide officials also emphasized that federal Title IV‑E reimbursement rules limit portability and eligibility. Michelle Niedermeier, director of Job and Family Services, told the committee that income standards and federal rules established in the mid-1990s affect which children qualify for Title IV‑E foster-care reimbursement and that only about 41–48% of children are currently IV‑E eligible, down from roughly 67% pre-pandemic. That reduction in federal reimbursement, officials said, increases county costs for non‑eligible placements.

• Foster parents and childcare providers described operational and financial stress when placements arrive with little notice. Tony Baker, a foster parent in Columbus, said his family sometimes had hours’ notice for newborn placements, paid childcare deposits before receiving any stipend, and waited weeks for initial foster-agency stipend payments. Caitlin Sites, another foster parent, said her household paid $1,375 per month for childcare for one foster child — about $16,000 a year — and that the per‑diem payments covered only part of that cost.

County and program concerns

County directors and PCSAO officials told the committee they support expanding access to childcare for foster and kinship caregivers but urged lawmakers to address three issues: (1) identify funding to cover expanded eligibility, (2) refine the bill’s broad kinship definition so the program targets placements likely to reduce higher-cost congregate care, and (3) add flexibility or exemptions to work/education requirements so retired or nonworking kinship caregivers (frequently grandparents) are not excluded.

Representative T.J. Odieso (committee member) flagged fiscal sustainability and encouraged “guardrails” so the expansion can succeed through the legislative process. PCSAO Director Wachtel and county witnesses offered to work with the bill sponsors and the Legislative Service Commission (LSC) to tighten definitions and model possible offsets.

What the bill did and did not do at the hearing

The hearing was a proponent panel: the committee took sworn testimony and questions but did not vote on House Bill 7. Witnesses repeatedly asked that if eligibility is expanded, state funding should be added to avoid shifting uncompensated costs to counties. Several county officials urged that the Ohio Department of Children and Youth be given authority to grant exemptions from work/training requirements in defined circumstances (for example retirement or caregiver disability).

Outlook

Sponsors and county officials said they hoped to refine definitions and funding options before the committee’s deadline later in the week. Committee members pressed for more precise fiscal estimates from LSC and suggested targeted eligibility could achieve the bill’s goals while limiting state cost exposure. No formal action or amendment occurred at the hearing.

Note: quotations and program figures in this report are drawn from testimony at the Oct. 27, 2025 hearing before the House Children and Human Services Committee; where witnesses provided county-level figures, the article notes the county named by the witness.