In early January, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the Department of Health and Human Services requested comments on its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) aimed at amending the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) regulations, the primary federal subsidy program that helps families afford child care. Early Futures Partnership submitted this comment. Learn more about the proposed changes in our blog post.
On behalf of Early Futures Partnership, I submit these comments in opposition to the proposed changes outlined in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). While we recognize the importance of providing administrative flexibility to states, we are deeply concerned that several of the proposed revisions represent a step backward and would undermine child care affordability, stability and access for families who rely on this critical assistance.
First, the NPRM eliminates the requirement that family copayments for child care subsidy be capped at 7% of income. Instead, states would only be required to ensure that copayments do not pose a barrier to accessing care. This change opens the door to higher copayments, placing additional financial strain on families already struggling with rising costs for housing, food and transportation. For many parents, increased out-of-pocket child care costs could force difficult choices such as reducing work hours, leaving the workforce altogether or turning to less stable or lower-quality care arrangements. These outcomes directly undermine the purpose of the child care subsidy program, which is intended to support working families’ ability to maintain employment while accessing reliable, high-quality child care.
Second, the NPRM rolls back payment practices that are essential to stabilizing child care provider revenue. Prospective payments and payments based on enrollment, rather than attendance, appropriately recognize the fixed costs of operating a child care program. Costs such as staffing and facilities maintenance do not decrease when a child is absent. Reverting to attendance-based or retrospective payment models would increase financial volatility, making it more difficult for providers—particularly small, rural and home-based programs in Nebraska—to remain open, accept subsidy or expand capacity.
Finally, rescinding the requirement that states use some grants or contracts to serve infants and toddlers, children with disabilities and communities with limited child care availability raises significant equity concerns. These populations already face substantial barriers to access, and these grants or contracts are among the few tools available to ensure child care services exist where the market alone does not meet demand. Removing this requirement risks further exacerbating disparities in access to high-quality care for children who would benefit most.
The NPRM comes at a time when the child care sector in Nebraska and across the country remains fragile due to persistent workforce shortages and chronically low wages. Rather than rolling back policies that promote stability and access, federal regulations should strengthen the child care infrastructure so it can better support families, employers and local economies. For these reasons, we urge the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to reconsider the proposed changes.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.
Elizabeth Everett
V.P., Early Futures Partnership
