HB 1350
In CommitteeHouse
Child care reimburse. rates
Modernizing reimbursement rates for the working connections child care program.
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 updates how Washington sets reimbursement rates for child care providers in the Working Connections Child Care program to better reflect the actual cost of delivering high-quality care. It shifts from a market-based benchmark to a detailed cost model that includes wages, benefits, and operational expenses, aiming to stabilize the child care workforce and improve access for families.
- Requires the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) to use a new 'cost of quality child care rate model' to set subsidy reimbursement rates, starting with base rates that must meet or exceed the current 85th percentile of market rates.
- The cost model must include fixed costs such as staff salaries based on a living wage, employer-paid benefits (e.g., health insurance, retirement, paid leave), family engagement, planning time, educational materials, and professional development.
- Mandates that subsidy base rates cannot be lower than the existing 85th percentile market rate benchmark.
- Requires DCYF to review and recommend rate enhancements for special populations (e.g., infants, care during nonstandard hours, children with special needs) every three years.
- Preserves the right of family child care providers to collectively bargain over rate implementation with the state.
Who is affected
- Child care providers — Child care providers (including family child care providers and center-based providers) who receive state subsidies to care for low-income families; they would see more accurate reimbursement rates that better cover the true cost of providing quality care, including wages and benefits.
- Families using Working Connections Child Care — Low- and middle-income Washington families who rely on subsidized child care; they may benefit from more stable, available, and higher-quality care as providers are better compensated and retained.
- Early childhood educators — Child care workers (early educators), especially those in subsidized programs; they are more likely to receive living wages and benefits, reducing turnover and improving care quality.
- Employers — Employers who rely on stable, affordable child care for their workers; improved access and reliability of care supports workforce stability and productivity.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Mandating employer-paid health benefits and paid leave for child care staff significantly improves access to affordable health coverage for low-wage workers—many of whom are women of color and lack employer-sponsored insurance—reducing financial strain and improving long-term health outcomes.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(a)(i)(A)-(F)Reimbursing based on a living wage for staff directly increases earnings for early educators—many of whom earn below $15/hour—reducing turnover, improving workforce stability, and enabling career retention in a critical sector.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(a)(i)(A)By stabilizing child care supply and improving provider viability, the bill helps low- and middle-income families avoid costly informal care or reduce dual-earner income loss—effectively increasing disposable income and reducing housing cost burden for families in high-cost areas like Seattle or Spokane.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)Regular triennial review of rate enhancements for infants, nonstandard hours, and children with special needs ensures that vulnerable populations receive targeted support—improving early learning access and reducing disparities in school readiness.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(b)Reimbursing for family engagement, planning time, materials, and professional development raises quality benchmarks—leading to measurable improvements in early learning outcomes, particularly for children from low-income or historically underserved communities.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(a)(i)(C)-(F)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill mandates inclusion of employer-paid benefits (health insurance, retirement, paid leave) in reimbursement calculations, which increases state costs and may pressure state budgets to divert funds from other critical services like K–12 education or transportation infrastructure.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(a)(i)(A)-(F)While the bill does not directly impose unfunded mandates on local governments, increased state spending on child care subsidies may lead to reduced state funding for local education, public health, or social services as budget priorities shift—particularly if revenue growth lags behind mandated rate increases.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)The requirement that subsidy base rates “must not be lower” than the current 85th percentile market rate may lock in higher baseline payments, limiting future flexibility to adjust rates downward during economic downturns or fiscal stress—potentially reducing state fiscal resilience.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(a)(ii)By focusing reimbursement on fixed operational costs (e.g., planning time, materials, professional development), the bill does not directly address structural issues contributing to child safety or quality assurance—risking misallocation of funds if providers prioritize compliance over outcomes.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(b)The living wage requirement for staff salaries may exceed what many family child care providers can sustain without additional subsidies—potentially forcing some small providers (especially in rural areas) to reduce capacity or close, decreasing local supply.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(a)(i)(A)
Who Is Most Affected
Child care providers—especially those in family settings—will see more reliable reimbursement covering true costs, including benefits and wages. This improves financial sustainability and reduces turnover, though some may still struggle if rates fail to keep pace with local rent and wage inflation.
Low- and middle-income families using Working Connections Child Care benefit from more stable, available, and higher-quality care. The improved provider environment reduces waitlists and care disruptions—directly supporting parental workforce participation.
Early educators in subsidized programs gain living wages and benefits, improving retention and morale. However, those in non-subsidized or unlicensed settings may not see direct gains, and wage compression with K–12 teachers remains unaddressed.
Employers benefit from more reliable, affordable child care for workers—reducing absenteeism and turnover. However, the bill does not require or incentivize employer contributions to the cost of care, so benefits accrue primarily through downstream labor market effects.
State and local governments face higher long-term spending obligations, which could strain budgets if revenue growth does not match mandated rate increases—potentially affecting other public services unless offset by new revenue or efficiency gains.