HB 1363
In CommitteeHouse
Child care licensing
Modifying licensing requirements for child care and early learning 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 updates Washington’s child care licensing rules to create a single, consistent set of standards across all early learning programs—including centers, family homes, and nature-based care—while clarifying group sizes, space requirements, and staff qualifications. It also streamlines background checks between state agencies and removes one professional development pathway.
- Establishes single licensing standards for all child care and early learning programs, with separate requirements for family homes, nature-based care, and centers.
- Sets maximum group sizes and staff-to-child ratios: 21 children with 1:11 ratio for preschoolers (30 months–6 years), and 31 children with 1:16 ratio for school-age children.
- Requires minimum indoor space of 34 square feet per child, plus compliance with other safety rules.
- Exempts before- and after-school programs for school-age children in school buildings from certain facility requirements (e.g., playgrounds), as long as they only serve school-age kids.
- Mandates interagency background check sharing between DCYF and DSHS for staff with unsupervised access to children or vulnerable adults—no sharing with other agencies allowed.
- Repeals the community-based training pathway (RCW 43.216.755), ending one professional development support method, while expanding others (e.g., trauma-informed care, inclusion, dual language).
Who is affected
- Child care providers — Child care providers (including centers, family homes, and outdoor nature-based programs) will face updated licensing standards, including clearer group size and space requirements, and continued access to professional development support—though some training pathways will be eliminated.
- Families with young children — Families using child care services benefit from more consistent safety and quality standards across programs, especially in school-linked before- and after-school programs.
- Private and public schools — School districts and private schools offering early learning programs (especially those not receiving state subsidies) will operate under clarified health and safety rules, without mandated curriculum or program restrictions.
- State agencies (DCYF and DSHS) — State agencies (DCYF and DSHS) must coordinate background checks more efficiently, improving oversight of staff with unsupervised access to children or vulnerable adults.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Single licensing standards with separate requirements for family homes, nature-based care, and centers improve consistency and clarity in health and safety expectations, reducing confusion and increasing accountability across diverse program types.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a), Sec. 2(1)(c), Sec. 2(2)(c)Mandating interagency background check sharing between DCYF and DSHS for staff with unsupervised access to children or vulnerable adults improves oversight and reduces gaps in screening—particularly important for multi-agency staff (e.g., home visitors who also serve vulnerable adults).
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5), Sec. 2(4)Expanding professional development to include trauma-informed care, inclusion, dual language, and small business management supports strengthens provider capacity—especially for family home providers who often lack access to structured training networks.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(d), Sec. 3(1)(e)Establishing clear group size and staff-to-child ratios for preschoolers (21 children, 1:11) and school-age children (31 children, 1:16) aligns with research linking lower ratios to improved child outcomes, especially for younger and more vulnerable populations.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(b), Sec. 2(2)(b)(ii)Exempting school-based before- and after-school programs from certain facility requirements (e.g., playgrounds) reduces regulatory burden on schools while maintaining core safety standards—helping expand access to affordable school-linked care.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(b), Sec. 2(2)(b)(i)
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandating a minimum of 34 square feet per child indoors may force many existing family home and small center providers—especially those in urban areas or older buildings—to reduce capacity, relocate, or close, increasing compliance costs without offsetting financial support.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(c), Sec. 2(1)(c)Repealing the community-based training pathway (RCW 43.216.755) eliminates a low-barrier, peer-supported professional development route used primarily by family, friend, and neighbor (FFN) caregivers—many of whom are low-income women of color—reducing access to training without clear replacement.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3 (repeal of RCW 43.216.755)Prohibiting requirements for early childhood education certification may limit quality improvements for staff in programs serving vulnerable children, especially in centers and nature-based settings where staff qualifications directly affect developmental outcomes.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)Allowing school-age group sizes up to 31 with a 1:16 ratio may strain supervision capacity in after-school programs, especially in programs lacking adequate staffing or in high-risk environments (e.g., programs serving children with behavioral needs).
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(b)(ii)Exempting before- and after-school programs in school buildings from certain facility requirements (e.g., playgrounds) may reduce local school district compliance costs, but also removes a layer of oversight that could improve safety equity across programs.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(2)(b), Sec. 2(2)(b)(ii)
Who Is Most Affected
Family, friend, and neighbor (FFN) providers—often low-income, women of color, and operating from home—face the highest compliance burden under the 34 sq ft requirement and lose access to the repealed community-based training pathway. While expanded training topics may help, the loss of low-barrier support disproportionately impacts this vulnerable group.
Small for-profit and nonprofit child care centers (especially those in older or urban buildings) may need to reduce capacity or invest in facility upgrades to meet 34 sq ft per child, increasing operating costs. However, clearer standards may improve operational consistency and parent trust.
Nature-based and outdoor programs gain formal recognition and tailored standards, improving legitimacy and access to professional development. However, they must still meet indoor space requirements, which may be difficult for purely outdoor programs.
Families—especially low- and middle-income—benefit from more consistent quality and safety standards across providers, and potentially more stable care options as providers receive expanded training support. However, if provider closures occur, access may decrease in underserved areas.
School districts benefit from reduced regulatory burden on school-linked before/after-school programs, potentially expanding participation. However, districts must ensure compliance with health and safety standards without overregulating non-subsidized programs.