SHB 2688
In CommitteeHouse
Infants and toddlers program
Providing adjustments to the early support for infants and toddlers 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 funds its Early Support for Infants and Toddlers program, shifting from a fixed funding formula to one based on actual enrollment of eligible children (birth to age 3) receiving services. It also clarifies how funds flow to service providers and reinforces federal rules about using other insurance before tapping into public funds.
- The Department of Early Learning remains the state lead agency for the Early Support for Infants and Toddlers program, which provides early intervention services to children with disabilities from birth to age 3.
- Funding is now tied to the actual number of eligible children receiving services each month, calculated by multiplying the monthly head count by the state’s per-pupil funding formula and a 1.20 multiplier.
- States funds must be distributed to early intervention service providers and, when appropriate, to county lead agencies.
- Federal funds for this program must follow the ‘payor of last resort’ rule, meaning private insurance or other sources must be used first before federal/state funds pay for services.
- Services under this program are explicitly not part of the state’s basic education program, clarifying they fall under disability services, not K–12 schooling.
Who is affected
- Infants and toddlers with disabilities (ages 0–3) — Children from birth to age 3 who have disabilities and qualify for early intervention services will continue to receive support, with funding now tied more directly to actual service delivery.
- County governments (as lead agencies) — Counties that serve as lead agencies for early intervention will receive state funding to help coordinate and deliver services to eligible children in their area.
- Early intervention service providers — Service providers (e.g., therapists, nurses, social workers) who deliver early intervention services to eligible children will be paid through state funding tied to service delivery.
- State agencies (Department of Early Learning and Office of Financial Management) — State government (specifically the Department of Early Learning and the Office of Financial Management) will manage funding calculations and distribution for the program.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Funding now tracks *actual enrollment*, ensuring children who need services receive them — eliminating prior underfunding when headcounts were capped or estimated, and aligning resources with real demand, which directly improves access for low-income and rural families.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)Reinforcing the ‘payor of last resort’ rule ensures private insurance is used first, reducing out-of-pocket costs for families and preventing duplication of billing — directly benefiting households with private coverage and reducing administrative burden on providers.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)Explicitly clarifying that early intervention services are *not* part of basic education prevents future budget encroachment and preserves dedicated funding streams — protecting these disability services from being absorbed or underfunded in K–12 budget negotiations.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)Mandating direct funding to county lead agencies improves local coordination capacity, enabling better衔接 between health, education, and social services — especially helpful in counties with fragmented systems or high poverty rates.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)Monthly enrollment-based funding may improve data accuracy and program accountability, allowing the state to better track service gaps and target outreach — potentially increasing early identification of developmental delays and reducing long-term special education costs.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill’s funding formula ties state funding to *actual monthly enrollment*, not projected or fixed need — but it does *not* guarantee baseline funding if enrollment falls (e.g., due to eligibility gaps, provider shortages, or economic downturns), risking service disruptions for vulnerable children during critical developmental windows.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)The requirement that a child must receive services *within the same month* as the monthly count day creates administrative pressure on providers to rush assessments or discharge children prematurely to meet headcount targets — potentially compromising service quality and continuity of care.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(c)The bill uses the *K–12 per-pupil funding formula* (RCW 28A.150.260) as the base for early intervention — a mismatch, since early childhood interventions require specialized staff (e.g., developmental specialists, speech-language pathologists) whose costs exceed K–12 classroom costs per pupil, potentially underfunding high-need services.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)Counties acting as lead agencies must absorb administrative costs for coordination and service delivery without explicit additional funding — shifting unfunded mandates to local governments, which may reduce local capacity to serve children in rural or under-resourced areas.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)The 1.20 multiplier applied to the per-pupil formula may not reflect true provider costs — especially for specialized disciplines (e.g., occupational therapy, developmental psychology), potentially squeezing small private providers’ margins and discouraging participation, especially in high-cost urban markets.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)
Who Is Most Affected
Children with disabilities ages 0–3 — especially those in low-income, rural, or racially marginalized communities — benefit most from reliable, needs-based funding. However, if enrollment drops due to eligibility barriers or provider shortages, they face service disruption. The bill improves access *if* implementation is well-resourced.
Families of eligible children benefit from reduced out-of-pocket costs (due to payor-of-last-resort rules) and more consistent access to services. However, those in counties with under-resourced lead agencies may face delays or gaps in service delivery.
Counties gain clearer funding authority and direct state support, but must absorb administrative costs without additional appropriation — disproportionately burdening smaller or fiscally strained counties (e.g., Eastern WA).
Service providers (especially small private practices and nonprofit agencies) benefit from more predictable, enrollment-based payments — but may face margin pressure if the 1.20 multiplier doesn’t cover true service costs, especially for high-need populations.
The Department of Early Learning gains operational clarity and data-driven funding, but must now manage dynamic enrollment tracking — increasing administrative complexity. The Office of Financial Management retains control over the K–12 funding formula, limiting state agency autonomy.