Child care subsidies reform sets rate bands

Summary#

SB 6353, “Modifying the working connections child care program,” would amend Washington’s child-care law, add rules for subsidy payments and rates, and repeal an existing section on prospective payments. Its stated goal is to expand access to affordable, high-quality child care and support the workforce; that is a goal, not a guaranteed result. The bill is not law yet.

• It removes scheduled expansions of income eligibility to families with incomes above 60% of state median income: the deleted provisions would have started in 2029 and 2031. The 60% limit and other eligibility conditions remain, with exceptions for households eligible under two other program provisions.
• The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) must make rules allowing licensed or certified providers that accept subsidies to claim payments for up to 15 days in a month if a child attends at least one day that month. Payments for additional days may be claimed only for days the child attends.
• Subsidy base rates must meet the 85th percentile of the specified market survey starting July 1, 2026, and the 75th percentile starting July 1, 2027. The state and the family child-care providers’ exclusive representative must bargain over how to implement the 2027 change.
• Starting July 1, 2026, a provider may not receive a subsidy rate different from the rate for the subsidy region where it is located.
• DCYF must use a completed child-care cost methodology to recommend rates that cover the full cost of high-quality care, and must evaluate options for affordable health insurance for providers.

What it means for you#

• Families: The bill would not add the planned future income bands above 60% of state median income. Families at or below 60% may still qualify if they meet the child-age and other program rules. The bill retains the rule that certain families receiving food assistance meet the income test, and that a child’s citizenship status is not considered.
• Child-care providers: The payment rules would allow a claim for as many as 15 days in a month even if the child attends only one day, subject to the authorization period and authorized units. Claims for days beyond 15 would require attendance on those additional days.
• Family child-care providers: The bill preserves their right to bargain collectively with the state. The state and their exclusive representative must bargain over implementation of the 2027 rate provision.
• General public: The bill changes program rules and duties for DCYF. It does not create a new independent agency or guarantee that every provider’s costs will be covered; DCYF must recommend rates using the cost methodology.
• The bill repeals the existing section titled “Prospective payments,” but the supplied material does not include that section’s current text.

Money#

No publicly available information.

• The bill sets subsidy-rate requirements that could affect state spending, but the supplied material gives no cost estimate.
• DCYF must make rules and evaluate health-insurance options; no staffing or administrative cost is stated.
• The bill does not specify a new tax, fee, or fine.

What is unclear#

• The current text of the repealed prospective-payments section was not supplied, so its practical effect cannot be verified.
• The bill does not explain how the 85th-percentile rate requirement for 2026 relates to the 75th-percentile requirement for 2027, or what the resulting rates would be.
• The bill does not set out how DCYF will apply the cost methodology, or when its rate recommendations must be made.
• The bill leaves the details of the required payment rules to DCYF. In particular, it does not explain how providers should claim the first 15 days or how authorized units affect those claims.
• The bill requires an income phase-out rule but does not specify the phase-out details.
• The bill does not explain how the rate changes interact with existing program rules beyond the provisions shown.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to make subsidy payments more workable for providers when a child attends only part of a month.
• Using a completed cost methodology to recommend rates could give DCYF a basis for considering the full cost of high-quality care.
• A rate tied to the provider’s subsidy region could make rates more consistent within each region.
• Requiring bargaining over implementation recognizes the collective bargaining role of family child-care providers.

Case against#

• Removing the future eligibility expansions could leave some families above 60% of state median income without access through those planned income bands.
• Allowing up to 15 daily payments after just one day of attendance could mean payments for days the child was absent; the bill does not explain how that approach will be checked or what it may cost.
• The shift from an 85th-percentile requirement in 2026 to a 75th-percentile requirement in 2027 could make the rate path difficult to understand, and the bill provides no estimate of the rates or spending.
• The bill repeals the prospective-payments section without including its current requirements in the supplied material, so the effect of that repeal cannot be assessed here.