The Congressional Budget Office states that when measuring economic productivity, childcare systems, particularly those designed for toddlers and preschoolers, have one of the highest returns on investment, and wonder of wonders, it is remarkably consistent, too. Defining “high-quality” daycare unquestionably gives a broad payoff margin model, selecting anywhere from $4 to $9 when estimating ROI for each dollar spent.
As stated, confined systematic approaches and structures are in place to enhance efficiency; child-care gets the modernized approach. Dismissing the dated strategies while throwing copious funding at the problem won’t yield long-term benefits. Policymakers have easy access to the provided data and technologies without entry-level barriers.
Updates as of April 2025
As of April 1, all Head Start and Child-Care Offices employees in the Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle areas received Reduction in Force letters, terminating all five administrative offices. The office lost around one-third of its full-time employees due to the DOGE-led government employee layoffs.
May 1 grant renewals are sneaking up, and instability across various fronts is starting to show, as noted by Kathleen Havey, National Head Start Association Senior Director of Policy. The Associated Press has highlighted how Headstart centers have received about $1 billion less in federal funding, which is driving the closure of more classrooms.
It’s shocking, but the Washington Post reported that leaked budget drafts detailing the administration’s plans include a proposal to eliminate funding for Head Start. Although it may sound surprising, this aligns perfectly with the plans of Project 2025 and the agendas followed by this administration ever since taking office.
To be straightforward, we should not be getting rid of programs like Head Start, and we certainly do not have any “good” reasons to do so. There are more than a million (children) reasons not to eliminate it. The budget blueprint, which was leaked to the Washington Post, included a line “justifying” these cuts by claiming, “the federal government should not be in the business of mandating curriculum, locations, and performance standards for any form of education.” This statement illustrates a disturbing ignorance regarding Head Start and its operational structure.
Although there have been a few questions regarding Head Start’s effectiveness, primarily due to the two controversial HHS studies depicting what has come to be known as a “fade out” effect concerning outcomes for Head Start students in early elementary school, the overwhelming body of research shows significant and enduring social, emotional, health, academic, and economic benefits for Head Start participants. Does it have flaws? Yes. But has it undeniably transformed the lives of millions of Americans for the better? Yes.
I attended a policy and advocacy session at NAEYC’s annual conference on the day after the presidential election. When nervous NAEYC conference participants inquired about Project 2025 and intentions regarding Head Start, NAEYC’s internal policy specialists peremptorily characterized the possibilities as virtually impossible, citing the enduring and broad bipartisan support for the program.
Sadly, as with so many things that “support” has failed to keep the money flowing, those that seemed unlikely to come to fruition six months ago, we find ourselves one step away from checking off yet another box in the Project 2025 game plan. That “support” seems to be dwindling, which was thought impossible six months ago.
Decades of precedent will be tested when Congress takes up the administration’s budget proposals. So far, the Republican majority has shown no inclination to restrain the President’s desires. Given their recent electoral dominance, this will have dire consequences in almost every community, but especially in rural areas.
Just last year, 33 House Republicans signed a letter to Appropriators supporting Head Start, urging its funding at “the highest level the Subcommittee deems possible.” Now is the time to claim those beliefs.
We have aimed to raise attention to the factors affecting the development of care and education services across the political spectrum in the country. However, this case does not have “two sides.”
Removing Head Start would eliminate a fundamental part of the education infrastructure and viable child-care options available to hundreds of thousands of families, driving more people into poverty, pushing parents out of employment, and guaranteeing that an entire generation will be poorly equipped for kindergarten. We encourage our readers to step up and defend Head Start at any cost.
The Initiatives on Proxy Voting for New Parents in Congress were not Viable.
The Proxy voting impasse between Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna of Florida and House Speaker Mike Johnson ended when a deal was reached by the two sides on April 6 to swap proxy voting for a suggestion to formalize the “pairing” system that has long been in practice in Congress allowing absent members of Congress to pair with a member from the opposing bench.
The problem primarily centers on the new parents in Congress who need or wish to take time off and attend to their infants, an issue that is a reality for millions of families across America, which these legislators represent. Some states have taken the initiative to provide procedural assistance to mothers and fathers at the state level, including remote participation options.
Critics of proxy voting claim that absent lawmakers are missing vital information and conversations that would allow them to work meaningfully from their constituencies. For much of the COVID-19 pandemic, proxy voting was practiced across a large part of the country, and it has mostly been rescinded since then. Supporters advocate for a system of governance that ignores a structural design not intended to accommodate women’s needs. Only about a third of all state lawmakers are women, a little less than that at the federal level.
Child-Care ATV Budget Bills Pass Texas and Ohio Houses
Ohio’s House of Representatives passed a two-year budget in April, including $213 in new spending for child-care programs. Most of that funding ($200 million) is earmarked for vouchers for families with children between 146%-200% of the federal poverty level. The voucher program currently awaiting funding serves around 8,000 children, and its supporting federal funds are set to expire. Under the new budget, $100 million per year from TANF block grants will be allocated to sustain the program.
The Bill also allocated $10 million to initiate a Tri-Share program in which participating employers will cover 40% of their employees’ childcare costs, and the state will cover 20%. In comparison, the employees cover the remaining 40%. The remaining $3.2 million will go towards a child-care provider recruitment and mentorship grant to address some supply gaps in states with child-care deserts.
In the case of Texas, an additional $100 million was added to the state’s childcare scholarship program, which is already associated with a backlog of 95,000 families. As anticipated, preliminary investments have been made into childcare issues during the ongoing legislative session, especially considering the state has reported an estimated surplus of $24 billion for 2026-2027.
Montana legislators are tasked with finalizing the childcare budget targets.
Keep an eye on the incoming childcare-related proposals, as the legislative session in Montana runs until May 3. Some of the notable last-minute proposals include:
House Bill 456 plans to dedicate approximately $5.4 million towards paying tuition for at least 400 children of childcare workers who do not meet the criteria to access the state’s Best Beginnings Scholarship Program. (Update: This Bill was tabled in committee on April 16)
Senate Bill 321 proposes creating an income tax credit for families, childcare employees, and businesses that provide direct childcare services to their employees. As per the proposal’s publication, the amounts stood at $600 per child for families, $1,600 per eligible childcare worker, and $5,000 per qualifying business.
In the April 17 Senate session, House Bill 220 was read for the second time and is set to provide a $1200 tax deduction for children under five.
Moreover, the most significant anticipated expenditure, the $150 million endowment fund, is earmarked for Senate Bill 565. This allocation is intended for workforce development, technical and quality assistance, affordability initiatives, and emergency aid within the state’s childcare industry.
Other Developments Throughout the Country
An alarming report titled “An Uneven Start: 2025 State Funding for Child Care & Early Learning” was published by Child Care Aware of America and details the lack of funding for childcare and early education provided by the states. The report describes the systems set up for administration and funding—overly complicated, fragmented, and constantly outsmarting.
Colorado tried amending a bill that was ultimately rejected. The focus of the law was posted fees and tuition for child-care centers owned by private equity. The law also mandated a 60-day notice period for staff enrollment changes and layoffs after purchasing a center.
The Florida Health and Human Services Committee approved House Bill 47 with no objections. The Bill revises licensing policies and compliance requirements, creates new exemptions for military-sponsored and employer-supplied care facilities, and accelerates background check processes.
Two bills aimed at improving access to care in both rural and urban areas of Illinois were proposed by the Illinois Senate Republicans. SB 2382 proposed a tax credit for companies that set up their in-office childcare centers, while SB 1120 proposed student loan forgiveness for childcare workers in child-care desert areas. It also increased the duration between license renewals from three years to four.
The Massachusetts House Committee on Ways and Means published its proposed budget for FY26, allocating more than $1.6 billion toward early education. Neighborhood Villages created a detailed proposal analysis, complete with year-over-year comparisons, which can be accessed here.
The Pennsylvania House approved a bill mandating the installation of carbon monoxide alarms in all childcare facilities. The alarms must be placed on every level of the facility and within 15 feet of any fossil fuel-burning appliance, fireplace, or garage.
Wisconsin is attempting to revive a pre-k pilot program signed into law one week before the COVID-19 pandemic. This pilot program would enable low-income families residing in designated school districts to access free pre-k schooling, funded by a $500,000 investment.
Here’s your reminder of the progress made in March 2025.
First Notice: Britt-Kaine Makes The Headlines.
In the first significant test of the new Congress’s appetite for ECE reform, Senators Katie Britt (R-AL) and Tim Kaine (D-VA) reintroduced the Child Care Availability and Affordability Act alongside an extensive list of bipartisan co-sponsors. The Bill, along with its house version sponsored by representatives Salut Carbajal (D-CA) and Mike Lawyler (R-NY), competes in both chambers on a bipartisan basis and seeks to modernize three tax policy frameworks to help more families afford child-care.
Key milestones of the Bill that was first proposed in July 2024 contain the following:
Expansion of the Child and Dependant Care Tax Credit (CDCTC), which will increase the maximum amount for the grant to $2,500 for families with one child and $4,000 for two or more children. In addition, it will supplement the grant with recovery for low-to-middle-income working families.
Strengthening Dependent Care Assistance Plans (DCAP), increasing the pre-tax contribution limit for child care assistance plans from $5,000 to $7,500. The Bill allows families to access DCAP and CDCTC when expenses exceed the DCAP threshold.
Strengthening the tax credit by increasing the maximum provided reimbursement cap from $150,000 to $500,000 per year, a small business could join funds together as a group and apply under a single application, making compliance simpler, raising the level of the incentive for small businesses and covering 50% instead of 25% of the expenses claimed.
Wonder School’s Backed Extreme Deregulation Bill Alarm In Idaho.
On the one hand, there is regulation; on the other, there is supply—the case of ECE. No one wants to live in a child-care desert. However, how much security and quality are we willing to forgo for access? In the absence of increased funding, the answer is certainly not simple. However, Idaho’s House Bill 243 went too far for many ECE stakeholders with the provision, which would have removed the maximum child-to-staff ratios entirely, giving the providers unfettered control.
The Bill, instead suspiciously endorsed by Wonderschool (editor’s note: Wonder School is a BridgeCare competitor), would have been unprecedented in the scope of deregulation policies and would have allowed a free-for-all for unscrupulous caregivers to exploit families’ desperate need for accessible child-care.
As written, the House of Representatives passed a bill that was usually a cause for concern, but the Senate subsequently modified its version by cutting out the most troubling parts. Subsequently, it became a bill that softened ratios without entirely nullifying them. The new version is anticipated to undergo a second round of voting in the House, after which it will be sent to the governor.
HB 243 needs to be a lesson learned in how a for-profit entity with a stake in expanding child-care services was able to propel such a threatening piece of legislation into consideration.
Statistically, bipartisan support has emerged regarding the Refundable Child Tax Credits.
Throughout the past few months, we’ve reported on several proposed state and federal tax credits, along with Georgia’s recently enacted $250 nonrefundable credit for children under seven. There appears to be bipartisan consensus surrounding tax reforms centered on early childhood education. However, one of the more notable changes in 2025 has been the newfound acceptance of refundable tax credits among Republican congressional members.
In reports by Stateline, Indiana and Ohio are looking into plans for refundable tax credits in the amounts of $1,000 and $500, respectively, which, according to ‘would mark the first time a GOP-led state implemented a refundable child tax credit’ Here we see how refundable tax credits are less expensive than nonrefundable credits, with low-income families being the ones to benefit more due to the absence of set income levels needed for tax credits, thus increasing the deficit gap in society.
All eleven states with refundable credits are governed and legislated by Democrats. We will see if we change the custom this year.
Recent State-Level Child-Care Reforms and Legislative Developments Across the U.S.
Governor Larry Rhoden rejected Bill HB1132, which suggested altering the income limit ratio of child caregivers under the state’s child-care assistance program. Though it gained bipartisan support within the House and Senate, the Bill strived to dispossess the state’s Department of Social Services.
New Mexico Senate Bill 175 was also signed into law. The Bill changes the state’s revolving loan fund concerning child-care facilities, proposing $10 million in this year’s budget to expand child-care facilities in areas of need. Montana will consider a couple of bills (HB 456 and HB 457) related to the Bright Beginnings scholarship program, which raises income eligibility cutoffs and guarantees qualification for child-care workers. The preliminary outlook is that both bills will receive bipartisan support.
Tennessee’s governor, Bill Lee, supports the less restrictive child-care licensing exemption for other programs. The goal would be to create new daycare spaces geographically and demographically across Tennessee while trying to keep children safe.
New Jersey’s Gov. Phil Murphy initiated an interdisciplinary project designed to unify the area preschool and child-care space requirements into a single standard. This would improve the state’s mixed-delivery preschool system by allowing many child-care centers to serve as state-funded preschools.
FAQ’s:
What are the most recent changes made on a federal level that are affecting the U.S. child-care policy?
As of 2025, significant federal changes could dismantle early childhood education system portions. The Biden administration’s expanded pandemic child-care supports ceased funding in 2023.
Why is the potential removal of Head Start funding so concerning?
The consequences of getting rid of Head Start Programs would be catastrophic. Some Brookings Institute and the National Bureau of Economic Research studies support this argument.
What is Project 2025, and what is it about the child-care changes?
It is the parent of nearly all unfavorable policies for children, healthcare, education, and social services that this Policy is promoting. Project 2025 is the name of the blueprint proclaimed by “conservatives” at The Heritage Foundation, which seeks to scale down federal government intrusion ruthlessly.
What progress has been made concerning funding child-care facilities at the state level?
Despite the reduction of funding at the federal level, some states are working hard to improve the overall infrastructure of child-care facilities in Ohio. The state now has a $150 million program that increases childcare assistance for low- to middle-income families.
What changes are being made in Montana regarding childcare policy?
Montana has a unique plan for the childcare system. Their 2025 law proposal includes a $150 million childcare endowment fund, which would establish permanent funding for child-care services.
Conclusion
The child-care policies and legislation developments in 2025 provide an extraordinarily segmented picture. Some states, such as Montana, Texas, and Ohio, are allocating more resources toward developing child-care infrastructure, funding, and tax scholarships. There are severe federal cuts that are particularly alarming, like the proposed ending of funding for Head Start, which would decimate early childhood education and support systems for low-income families.
