HB 1033
In CommitteeHouse
Child care local licensing
Authorizing local licensing and regulation of child care providers.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill allows Washington counties to take over licensing and regulation of child care centers and family home providers, instead of the state, beginning in 2026—provided they adopt ordinances meeting specific minimum standards. It shifts responsibility and liability from the state to counties that opt in, while ensuring continued access to state subsidy programs.
- Allows counties to adopt and enforce local licensing and regulation of child care centers and family home providers, starting no earlier than July 1, 2026, if they meet minimum state-defined standards.
- Requires counties to adopt ordinances covering key areas such as facility safety, provider qualifications, supervision, child well-being, education, and recordkeeping before taking over licensing.
- Mandates that counties notify the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) 60 days before implementing local licensing, after which DCYF no longer regulates or bears liability for those providers.
- Requires counties to report quarterly to DCYF on active ordinances and licensed providers, and requires DCYF to maintain a public list of participating counties on its website.
- Requires DCYF to adopt rules allowing locally licensed providers to participate in the Working Connections Child Care and Early Achievers programs—specifically requiring participation in Early Achievers but not mandating a specific quality rating level.
- Repeals the existing pilot project law (RCW 43.216.695) effective July 1, 2026, replacing it with a permanent local licensing option.
Who is affected
- County governments — Counties that choose to adopt local licensing ordinances will gain authority to regulate child care centers and family home providers within their jurisdiction, including setting local standards and issuing licenses, while also assuming responsibility for enforcement and compliance monitoring.
- Child care providers — Child care providers (centers and family homes) in counties that adopt local licensing will be subject to locally set rules instead of state licensing, but must still meet minimum state-defined standards and may need to join the Early Achievers program to receive state subsidies.
- Families with young children — Families seeking child care may benefit from more localized oversight and potentially more responsive regulation, but could face variability in standards and availability of subsidized care depending on whether their county participates in local licensing.
- Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) — The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) will shift licensing and enforcement responsibilities to counties that opt in, and will no longer be liable for issues involving locally licensed providers, though it must still provide technical assistance and ensure participation in state subsidy programs.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
Counties can tailor licensing rules to local needs—e.g., rural areas may prioritize flexibility for shared provider networks, while urban counties may emphasize stricter facility standards—potentially increasing responsiveness and compliance.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)Mandating participation in the Early Achievers quality improvement program (without requiring a specific rating level) helps maintain baseline quality standards across locally licensed providers, supporting child development outcomes and continuity of care.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)Local oversight may reduce bureaucratic delays for providers seeking licenses or renewals, especially in counties with streamlined processes, potentially increasing provider retention and reducing administrative overhead for small businesses.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)Quarterly reporting and DCYF’s public list of participating counties increase transparency and accountability, enabling families and advocates to compare local programs and hold counties to minimum standards.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)Local control may allow counties to integrate early learning standards with K–12 systems (e.g., aligning with local school district goals), fostering smoother transitions to kindergarten and better school readiness.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)
Potential Concerns (5)
Variability in local licensing standards may reduce consistency in child care safety oversight, potentially increasing risk of substandard care in counties with weaker enforcement capacity or political pressure to relax standards.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)Counties that opt in must absorb full costs of licensing, inspections, enforcement, and legal liability—costs previously borne by the state—which may strain county budgets, especially in rural or fiscally constrained jurisdictions, potentially leading to reduced service quality or delayed implementation.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)Child care providers in counties that adopt local licensing must still participate in the Early Achievers program to receive state subsidies, but local agencies may lack the staffing or expertise to provide timely technical support or quality improvement assistance, increasing administrative burden and potentially reducing provider participation in quality initiatives.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)Families in non-participating counties may face reduced access to high-quality child care if providers in those counties choose not to pursue local licensing or if local ordinances are not adopted, creating a patchwork system that disproportionately affects low-income and rural families.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)The third-party evaluation due in 2030 is too late to inform early implementation decisions—by then, counties will have already invested resources and potentially adopted suboptimal models—limiting the bill’s capacity to correct course in real time.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 2
Who Is Most Affected
Counties that opt in gain regulatory authority but must absorb new costs and liability; rural counties with limited staff may struggle, while urban counties may implement more robust systems—mixed outcomes depending on capacity.
Providers in participating counties face potential administrative simplification but also added pressure to join Early Achievers; those in non-participating counties retain state oversight but may face longer wait times—mixed outcomes, with small providers most vulnerable to local inconsistency.
Families in counties with strong local programs may see improved responsiveness and quality; those in counties with weak enforcement or no participation may face reduced access or variability in standards—negative impact for low-income and rural families most likely to rely on subsidized care.
DCYF avoids liability and enforcement costs in participating counties but must still fund technical assistance, rulemaking, and data reporting—reduced state capacity to monitor quality uniformly could increase systemic risk over time.