Lawmakers Hear Urgent Appeals to Clear Care for Kids Wait List; Debate Limits on Endowment Funding for Private‑Equity Centers
Loading...
Summary
Providers, parents and advocates urged the Committee on Children to fund $70 million to eliminate the Care for Kids waiting list and to direct $5 million to Eastern Connecticut providers, while sponsors of SB266 and opponents debated guardrails that would deprioritize private‑equity‑owned centers for endowment dollars.
Lawmakers heard more than four hours of testimony on Wednesday about a long-running child‑care crisis in Connecticut and competing proposals to both shore up an emergency subsidy program and prevent public funds from flowing to investors.
Supporters of SB 265 told the Committee on Children the state should appropriate $65–70 million to clear a managed wait list that currently leaves thousands of families waiting months for a Care for Kids subsidy. “When Care for Kids has a wait list, it is not an abstract policy issue,” said Alex Givony, CEO of Friends Center for Children. “It means a parent delaying a return to work. It means a child missing out on consistent high quality early learning.”
Providers described empty classrooms they cannot fill because eligible families remain on the wait list, and detailed shortfalls in monthly revenue. Tracy Madden Hennessy, CEO of YWCA New Britain, said her program would have about $500,000 more in revenue if families were promptly taken off the wait list. Franchesca Velasquez, a licensed provider in Stamford, told the committee she is keeping classrooms closed because she cannot sustain staff costs while holding slots for families who may wait months for certification.
Advocates urged targeted funding for regions and small providers. “Rates in Eastern Connecticut are significantly lower than in other regions, and providers there are operating at a severe disadvantage,” said Adrian Rodriguez of CSEA SEIU Local 2001, presenting comparative weekly-care rates and enrollment data.
At the same time, SB 266 would limit the Office of Early Childhood’s use of the Early Childhood Education Endowment Fund for programs owned or controlled by private‑equity firms until other programs have been served. Supporters of the measure argued public dollars should prioritize community‑based, nonprofit and locally owned providers rather than investors. “Public money should be used for the public good, not to enrich already‑rich investors,” testified Elliot Haspel, a national child‑care policy expert.
Opponents, including representatives of large national chains, warned the restriction could deprioritize centers that already serve subsidized children and provide workforce supports. Jenna Borkoski of Learning Care (Tutor Time) said SB 266 ‘‘targets providers by ownership structure rather than focusing on the families they serve’’ and could cut families’ access to wage supplements and professional development.
Committee members and witnesses proposed compromises and clarifications: carve‑outs for franchisees, caps on how much one chain could receive from a single funding round, and exceptions for centers that serve a high percentage of subsidized children. Several witnesses pointed to guardrails adopted in other states — including Massachusetts and New Jersey — as practical models.
No formal action was taken; committee members will weigh testimony as they consider substitute language and potential targeted appropriations. Supporters asked for quick action to prevent more provider closures and to restore predictable revenue for programs that care for low‑ and moderate‑income families.
