The Respect Parents’ Childcare Choices Act (H.R. 2282) reauthorizes the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) with a substantive policy reset: it boosts annual authorizations to $14 billion for FY2026–2031 and requires States to deliver direct services primarily through parent-issued child care certificates (vouchers). The bill adds new definitions and guardrails to expand access to relative caregivers and in‑home providers, sets a minimum payment floor for relatives, and instructs States to review regulations that limit family members from serving as caregivers.
The bill also strengthens protections for religious child-care providers, creates two small federal pilot programs ($50 million each) — one to prevent fraud and one to increase relative caregiving — and eliminates the federal dependent-care tax credit (section 21 of the IRC) with various conforming tax-code edits. For compliance officers and program managers, HB2282 replaces a center‑focused federal model with a voucher-first approach that shifts discretion (and operational burden) to States and parents, while raising immediate questions about oversight, program integrity, and fiscal trade-offs between direct subsidies and tax benefits.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires States to offer parents child care certificates (checks or disbursements payable by parents to providers) and to deliver direct CCDBG services primarily via those certificates; defines relative and in‑home caregivers and sets a minimum relative-payment rate; and authorizes $14 billion per year for FY2026–2031. It also creates two 2‑year, $50 million pilot grant programs: one to strengthen fraud prevention and one to expand relative caregiving.
Who It Affects
State lead agencies that administer CCDBG, parents and families who receive subsidized care, relative and in‑home caregivers (grandparents, adult siblings, aunts/uncles), licensed child-care centers and family child-care providers, religious child-care providers, and federal taxfilers affected by repeal of the dependent‑care tax credit.
Why It Matters
HB2282 shifts federal policy from supplying services through state contracts/grants toward a voucher model that prioritizes parental choice and family caregiving. That change affects program design, monitoring responsibilities, and the distribution of benefits across providers and households — and it replaces a longstanding tax incentive with direct subsidy expansion.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB2282 rewrites how CCDBG money moves. Instead of a model where States often use grants and contracts to provide child care slots, the bill makes parent-issued child care certificates the default delivery mechanism for direct services.
A certificate can be a check or other disbursement the State gives to a parent to pay a provider, to place a deposit, or (in specific married-parent situations where a parent acts as the caregiver) to disburse funds directly to the parents. The bill explicitly says certificates are not grants or contracts and allows parents to spend them with religious providers and for religious activities that are part of the care.
The bill expands and clarifies who may be paid with CCDBG funds: it defines “relative caregiver” (grandparent, great‑grandparent, adult sibling, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or other court‑decreed relatives) and an “in‑home child care provider” (someone who provides care in the child’s home). States must certify that payment to relative caregivers will be at least 75 percent of the rate paid to family child‑care providers for comparable children and locations.
The State plan changes also require States to post and notify parents that certificates may be used to pay relatives and describe how funds may be disbursed to married parents acting as caregivers.On oversight and program integrity, HB2282 instructs States to review, at least every five years, licensing, regulatory, and local requirements that may be burdensome to relatives — aiming to remove unnecessary barriers to family caregiving. To address fraud risks created by broader certificate use, the bill creates a 2‑year pilot (with $50 million) to help States verify eligibility, relationships, and recover improper payments.
A separate $50 million pilot funds innovative State programs to promote relative caregiving. The bill also reduces the percentage of CCDBG set aside for State quality activities to no more than 9 percent (plus a separate 3 percent for infant/toddler activities), and requires most direct service funding to flow via certificates.Finally, HB2282 strengthens religious‑provider protections: it replaces the word “sectarian” with “religious,” clarifies that States cannot impose requirements on religious organizations that they do not impose on nonreligious providers, preserves statutory religious exemptions in federal civil‑rights and religious‑liberty laws, and creates a private right of action for religious organizations to enforce those protections.
Separately, the bill repeals the federal credit for household and dependent care expenses in the Internal Revenue Code, and makes multiple conforming tax‑code edits; the repeal applies to taxable years beginning after enactment.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Authorization: The bill authorizes $14,000,000,000 per year for CCDBG for fiscal years 2026 through 2031.
Vouchers as default: States must offer parents child care certificates and use direct-service funding principally via certificates (States must allocate 90% of direct-service funds to certificates).
Relative-pay floor: States must certify that payment rates to relative caregivers are at least 75% of the family child-care provider rate for the same child age and area.
Pilots and funding: The bill authorizes two 2‑year pilot programs — $50 million for fraud‑prevention grants and $50 million for programs to increase relative caregiving.
Tax change: The bill repeals section 21 (the federal dependent‑care/household services credit) and makes multiple conforming amendments to the Internal Revenue Code effective for taxable years after enactment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Funding authorization increased to $14B per year
This amendment replaces the prior open‑ended or lower authorization level with a fixed annual authorization of $14 billion for FY2026–2031. Practically, that sets a funding ceiling for CCDBG over six fiscal years and signals Congressional intent about program scale; it does not itself appropriate money but changes the authorized level that future appropriations can follow.
State plans must offer parent-issued child care certificates and change delivery model
The bill amends the State plan requirements to require that parents of eligible children be given the option to receive a child care certificate and that all direct services be provided via certificates. It also narrows the application of certain state requirements (licensing, facility rules, training expectations) so they do not apply to in‑home providers and relative caregivers in the same way they do to center‑based providers. The plan must also notify parents that certificates may be used to pay relatives or be disbursed to married parents acting as caregivers (subject to income/work rules). States must demonstrate they will set payment rates and post program coverage on their websites.
90% of direct-service funds to certificates; 75% payment floor for relatives
The bill changes the share of funds reserved for direct services so 90% of those funds are to be used via child care certificates. It adds a statutory payment-rate requirement: the State plan must certify that payments to relative caregivers equal at least 75% of the family child‑care provider rate for comparable children and localities. That creates a statutory floor to reduce large payment differentials between paid relatives and nonrelative family child‑care providers.
Reduces some quality reservations and creates infant/toddler carve‑out
The bill limits State reservations for quality improvement activities to no more than 9% of relevant funds and adds a 3% carve‑out (in addition) specifically for infant/toddler care quality activities. That reallocates the balance of resources toward certificates and away from larger quality or system‑building set‑asides.
Expands protections for religious child‑care providers and adds private right of action
HB2282 replaces 'sectarian' language with 'religious', bars States from imposing unique or heavier licensing burdens on religious organizations than on nonreligious ones, preserves statutory religious exemptions (Title VII, Title VIII, Title IX, ADA, RFRA, RLUIPA), and creates an explicit private right of action allowing religious organizations to sue for violations and recover fees. That provides stronger statutory shield for religious providers receiving CCDBG-supported business through certificates.
Defines child care certificates, relative and in‑home caregivers
The bill defines a 'child care certificate' as a parent‑held payment instrument usable to pay providers, place required deposits, or be disbursed to married parents who act as caregivers. It clarifies certificates are not grants/contracts and permits their use for religious activities when chosen by parents. The act also defines 'relative caregiver' (enumerating grandparents, adult siblings, aunts/uncles, etc.) and an 'in‑home child care provider' (care provided in the child’s home), expanding the universe of permissible paid providers.
Pilots: fraud prevention and increasing relative caregiving
The legislation adds two new statutory pilots. One requires the Secretary to run a 2‑year pilot to help States verify beneficiary eligibility, relationships, and detect and recover fraud (authorized at $50 million). The other requires a report on rules that limit relatives from serving as caregivers, plus a 2‑year pilot (also $50 million) to test innovative State programs to expand relative caregiving. These are targeted, time‑limited grants intended to address risks the bill itself raises by broadening who can be paid.
Repeals household and dependent‑care tax credit and adjusts related provisions
The bill repeals the dependent‑care (section 21) credit and makes multiple conforming amendments across the tax code (sections 23, 35, 129, 213, 6213). The repeal applies to taxable years beginning after enactment. The legislative text replaces the prior tax subsidy with expanded direct subsidy authorizations under CCDBG, shifting the federal support mechanism from a tax credit to direct spending.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Social Services across all five countries.
Explore Social Services in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Parents seeking flexible care: Parents gain formal claim to vouchers they can use to pay the caregiver they choose — including relatives and religious providers — increasing choice and flexibility for families who prefer in‑home or family care.
- Relative caregivers (grandparents, adult siblings, aunts/uncles): The bill expands eligibility and creates a statutory payment floor (75% of family child‑care rate), making it more financially viable for relatives to be paid caregivers under CCDBG.
- Religious child‑care providers: Stronger statutory protections and a private right of action reduce the risk that State licensing or contractual rules will strip religious character or impose unique burdens, allowing religious providers to participate more freely when chosen by parents.
Who Bears the Cost
- State lead agencies and local administrators: States must redesign plans, implement voucher distribution systems, update websites and notices, set payment rates, perform five‑year regulatory reviews, and ramp up eligibility and fraud verification — all of which increase administrative complexity and costs.
- Licensed child‑care centers and family providers operating under current contracts: Centers that previously received slots via State contracts may see enrollment and revenue shifts as funds move into parent‑directed certificates, increasing competition and payment uncertainty.
- Federal Treasury / broader budget: Replacing the dependent‑care tax credit with larger direct subsidies shifts the fiscal mix; higher authorized discretionary spending and new pilot grants create long‑term appropriation pressures.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central trade‑off is between maximizing parental choice and family caregiving (via vouchers, relaxed provider requirements, and religious protections) and preserving accountability, child‑safety standards, and system‑level investments that typically come from State contracting and larger quality set‑asides — a policy choice that tightens parental control at the potential cost of oversight and uniform quality.
HB2282 advances parental choice and family caregiving but does so by shifting both program design and financial flows. Moving 90% of direct‑service funds into parent‑held certificates increases consumer choice but reduces the State’s ability to use contracts or targeted grants to shape provider supply, invest in workforce compensation, or tie funding to quality metrics.
The bill trims general quality set‑asides to 9% and creates a 3% infant/toddler carve‑out, which may constrain broader system improvements while funding vouchers. The statutory 75% payment floor for relatives reduces some payment compression, but it does not eliminate regional cost disparities or the incentive for relatives to substitute unpaid care for paid slots.
The bill also weakens certain state levers: it limits the application of training, facility, and other requirements to in‑home or relative caregivers (lessening regulatory hurdles), and it erects robust religious‑provider protections, including a private right of action. Those changes protect parental choice and religious freedom but raise oversight questions — especially around background checks, health and safety standards, and consistency of protections across provider types.
The fraud‑prevention pilot acknowledges those risks but is small relative to program scale, and the statutory changes do not prescribe uniform verification standards. Finally, repealing the dependent‑care tax credit reallocates the federal approach to supporting working families but eliminates a tax tool used by middle‑income households; the net distributional and behavioral effects depend on future appropriation levels and State implementation choices.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.