Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Childcare Affordability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ohio advocates urge passage of House Bill 2 to create employer-state childcare cost‑sharing program
Summary
Supporters told the House Committee on Children and Human Services that House Bill 2 would create a public‑private “tri‑share” childcare credit to lower costs for families and encourage employer investment; witnesses cited state and national data on workforce impacts and examples from Michigan and Kentucky.
Supporters of House Bill 2 told the Ohio House Committee on Children and Human Services on April 1 that the proposal to establish a childcare credit program would reduce costs for working families and strengthen the workforce by encouraging employers to share childcare costs with employees and the state.
Prince Garuba, executive director of the Ohio Association of Goodwill Industries, said the bill would form a public‑private partnership and highlighted Goodwill’s recent experience opening a childcare center in Ross County. “Eliminating barriers to employment is integral to our mission,” Garuba said, noting that the average annual cost of full‑time infant care in Ohio is roughly $13,000 and that childcare expenses can exceed 30% of income for single parents.
The bill’s proponents told the committee why they view state action as urgent. Troy Hunter, Managing Director of Policy at Groundwork Ohio, cited estimates that more than 1,000,000 working parents in Ohio have reduced work hours because of childcare barriers and said models that share costs between employers, employees and the state can increase access. “By passing House Bill 2, in addition to the investments in House Bill 96, we will enable more public private partnerships and encourage business investment,” Hunter said.
Rick Carfagna, senior vice president for government affairs at the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, described House Bill 2 as voluntary for employers and based on the “tri‑share” model used in Michigan and other states. He said Michigan’s program scaled from a three‑county pilot in 2021 to statewide enrollment that currently serves roughly 700 families with about 200 participating employers and a state contribution he estimated at about $3.4 million annually. Carfagna said Ohio should keep the program voluntary and flexible and stressed that state investment can leverage private employer contributions.
Committee members asked practical questions about administration and guardrails. Representative Piccolantonio asked what happens if an employee who participated in tri‑share leaves their job; Carfagna said he had no specific examples and recommended that program details and protections be worked out in rulemaking. Representative Brewer asked whether employers might “weaponize” the benefit (for example, by using childcare to pressure workers about hours or overtime); Carfagna said he would support guardrails and that rulemaking overseen by the Department of Children and Youth could address those concerns.
Witnesses and business advocates offered complementary data and policy notes. Garuba cited national and state economic estimates of the cost of inadequate childcare, and Carfagna and Hunter pointed to experiences in Michigan, Kentucky, New York and North Carolina — noting varying pilot sizes and state investments — to argue that piloting and scaling should be part of Ohio’s approach.
No formal vote was taken during the hearing on House Bill 2. Committee members and witnesses repeatedly emphasized that the tri‑share credit is intended as one tool among many — including broader eligibility for public assistance, workforce supports for childcare workers and program administration improvements — to address Ohio’s childcare affordability and workforce challenges.
Looking ahead, proponents urged the committee to consider program flexibility, clear administrative rules, and pilot approaches to measure employer participation and the program’s effect on workforce attachment before expanding state commitments.
