Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Early Learning Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State officials overview sharp growth, near‑term shortfalls in early‑learning budgets
Summary
Staff and agency officials told the Senate Ways & Means Committee that spending on Washington’s early‑learning programs has risen sharply in recent years and is forecast to continue rising, driven by caseload growth and statutory rate increases; officials flagged current funding shortfalls for transitional kindergarten.
State Ways & Means staff and early‑learning agencies on Jan. 21 told the Senate Ways & Means Committee that budgets for major early‑learning programs have grown substantially since fiscal 2021 and are projected to keep rising through fiscal 2027.
Committee staff member Kayla Hammer and budget analyst Josh Hemmings walked members through charts showing three major caseload‑driven programs: Early Support for Infants and Toddlers (ESIT), the Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program (ECAP) and the Working Connections Child Care (WCC) subsidy. Agency presenters from the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) provided program and policy context.
Why it matters: Lawmakers said the scale and pace of growth will shape budget choices this session. Hemmings said ESIT spending rose from $96 million in fiscal 2021 to $144 million in fiscal 2024 and is projected to reach $174 million by fiscal 2027, driven primarily by caseload growth (from about 8,890 to 12,010 cases) and by a reimbursement rate formula tied to the OSPI special education basic education allocation (BEA) rate.
ECAP funding also increased, the presenters said, from about $142 million in fiscal 2021 to $237 million in fiscal 2025, reflecting slot and rate increases and expansions tied to the program’s scheduled entitlement status in fiscal 2027. Hemmings noted ECAP is financed partly from the Education Legacy Trust and Opportunity Pathways accounts and mostly from general funds; per‑slot annual reimbursement rates presented were roughly $9,800 for part‑day slots, $15,600 for school‑day slots and $23,400 for working‑day slots.
WCC—the state childcare subsidy—grew from an enacted budget of roughly $351 million in fiscal 2021 to $868 million in fiscal 2025 and is projected by staff to reach about $1.4 billion by fiscal 2027. Hemmings attributed that growth to rising caseloads, a July 2025 expansion of income eligibility to 75% of state median income, and scheduled subsidy rate increases intended to reach the market’s 85th percentile under the Fair Start for Kids Act of 2021. He also noted additional, provider‑targeted rate enhancements that are not shown in the primary chart (for example, infant rate enhancements and nonstandard‑hours bonuses).
Presenters stressed that some published charts can show an apparent rate decline in fiscal 2027 for ECAP; Hemmings explained that projection assumes additional entitlement slots will be funded as part‑day slots, which lowers the weighted average per‑slot rate but does not represent an across‑the‑board rate cut.
Officials acknowledged data and accounting nuances. OSPI’s presenters said that Transition to Kindergarten (TK) was counted within kindergarten before being codified by House Bill 1550 (2023), so historical funding and enrollment must be approximated using student reporting system data mapped to full‑time‑equivalent measures. OSPI said TK caseloads are running higher than the current appropriation and that a decision package last summer estimated a roughly $21 million shortfall; OSPI expected to provide an updated apportionment estimate within weeks after January caseload adjustments.
Budget drivers and funding sources were summarized repeatedly: WCC uses a mix of federal CCDF and TANF funds, state Education Legacy Trust funds and general funds; ECAP uses a mix of the Education Legacy Trust, Opportunity Pathways account and general funds; ESIT blends federal IDEA Part C funds, state dollars and other sources.
Agencies also flagged administrative and policy work that will affect costs and implementation, including the move from a market‑rate survey to a “true cost of quality” model for setting subsidy rates and the ongoing implementation of the Fair Start for Kids Act. DCYF staff said they have built a state comparative cost‑of‑quality model and are following a small number of other U.S. jurisdictions that have obtained federal approval to move from market‑rate to cost‑of‑quality rate setting.
The session ended with committee members asking for follow‑up details: per‑hour cost comparisons across programs, updated caseload‑to‑appropriation reconciliations, and more granular district‑level data on special‑education headcounts and TK deficits. Staff and agencies agreed to provide follow‑up materials and to supply tables or spreadsheets on request.
