The Tri-Share Child Care Pilot Act of 2025 creates a three-year federal pilot (added as section 418(e) to the Social Security Act) that tests a cost-sharing model in which eligible child care costs are paid one-third by the parent, one-third by the parent’s participating employer, and one-third by the lead State agency. The pilot runs through competitive grants to State lead agencies, funds technology-enabled administration, requires providers to meet state health and safety standards, and excludes children already receiving CCDBG-funded care.
The bill matters because it shifts the design question from purely public subsidies to a shared-responsibility model that explicitly brings employers into the payment stream. The statute sets program architecture (eligibility bands, payment mechanics, FMAP-based federal reimbursement, grant caps, and an OPRE evaluation) that will shape whether employer involvement can expand affordable access without creating undue administrative and equity costs for families and businesses.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a competitive grant pilot to State lead agencies that finances one-third of eligible child care costs directly, while requiring participating employers and parents to jointly cover the remaining two-thirds through reimbursements to the lead agency. Grants use each State’s FMAP to determine the federal reimbursement and include a $20 million cap per State and a 10% cap on reimbursable administrative expenses.
Who It Affects
State lead agencies that administer CCDBG-related programs, employers who volunteer to participate, parents with incomes between their State’s CCDBG threshold and 300% of that threshold, and licensed/eligible child care providers that meet state health and safety standards. HHS (OPRE/ACF) will run the evaluation and provide technical assistance.
Why It Matters
The pilot tests whether employer buy-in can expand access and affordability while generating data on hiring and retention effects. It also probes a politically sensitive distribution of responsibility — federal subsidy, employer contribution, and employee payment — that could inform future national policy choices about how to finance child care.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new subsection into section 418 of the Social Security Act to stand up a time-limited, federally funded pilot that routes money through State lead agencies. States apply competitively, describing unmet child care demand, capacity, and concrete employer partners or recruitment plans.
Approved States receive quarterly payments equal to the State’s FMAP (as defined in section 1905(b) as of Sept. 30, 1995) for amounts the lead agency pays to providers or spends on program administration, subject to a $20 million cap per State and a 10% cap on reimbursable administrative costs.
Participating employers apply to State lead agencies and may submit consolidated applications across States. Parents employed by participating employers submit family-level applications that must include a joint attestation from the employer and parent agreeing to the 1/3–1/3–1/3 split, verification of employment and family income each pay period, and identification of the chosen eligible provider.
Eligible children are under the State’s compulsory-school age, not receiving CCDBG-funded care, and in families with incomes between the State’s CCDBG threshold and 300% of that threshold.Operationally, the lead agency pays the provider the full charge for eligible care during the approved period; the parent and employer then jointly reimburse the lead agency an amount equal to two-thirds of that charge. The statute allows the parent to consent to an employer withholding up to one-third from wages so the employer can deliver the joint payment; providers may choose among multiple payment schedules offered by the lead agency.
Lead agencies may use technology platforms and third-party administrators to connect employers, parents, providers, and the agency to manage enrollment, verifications, and payments.The bill earmarks $250 million per fiscal year for the pilot, designates 5% of annual funds for evaluation and 5% for technical assistance, requires an OPRE-led evaluation of cost-effectiveness and labor market and access outcomes, and mandates a report to House Ways and Means within one year after the program period ends. It also tasks HHS with studying the feasibility of making the family cost-sharing obligation income‑based (a sliding scale) and directs unobligated balances at fiscal year end to transfer to the Preschool Development Grants program for the following year.
The pilot terminates at the end of the three-year program period.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Appropriation: The bill authorizes $250 million per fiscal year for each year of the three-year program period, with 5% reserved for evaluation and 5% for technical assistance.
Program length and cap: The pilot runs for a 3-year program period beginning on the statute’s effective quarter, and federal grants to any single State are capped at $20 million total under the FMAP-based reimbursement formula.
Eligibility income band: Eligible children must be in families with income at or above the State’s CCDBG assistance threshold and at or below 300% of that threshold; children already receiving CCDBG-funded care are excluded.
Payment mechanics: The lead agency pays the child care provider in full, then requires the parent and participating employer to jointly reimburse two-thirds of the charge; a parent may authorize an employer to withhold up to one-third of charges from wages to satisfy the employer’s payment obligation.
Administration limits: No more than 10% of a State’s reimbursed grant may be used for administrative expenses, and States may use technology platforms or third parties to run the program.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the measure as the "Tri-Share Child Care Pilot Act of 2025." This is declarative only, but it sets the program’s brand and clarifies that the statute is a pilot rather than a permanent entitlement — an important framing point for how agencies and States will approach scope and evaluation.
Creates the pilot framework and competitive grants
Adds subsection 418(e) to the Social Security Act. The new subsection establishes a competitive grant process for State lead agencies, requiring applications to document employer participation plans, certify provider compliance with state health and safety standards, and commit to the 1/3–1/3–1/3 payment rule. HHS (the Secretary) evaluates applications by unmet demand, capacity, employer commitments, recruitment plans, and statewide equitable access.
FMAP-based reimbursement, caps, and administrative limits
The federal payment to a State is tied to that State’s FMAP for the fiscal year (with the 1995 statutory reference). The statute caps total federal payments to a State at $20 million and limits reimbursable administrative expenses to 10% of amounts payable under the grant. These mechanics create a hybrid match/reimbursement model that scales federal contribution by FMAP but constrains per-State exposure via the $20M ceiling.
How employers join and how family eligibility is established
Employers apply to participate at the State level and can submit a consolidated application if operating in multiple States. Parents submit applications that must include an employer-parent joint attestation committing to the tripartite split, identification of the employer and provider, and documentation enabling the lead agency to verify employment status and family income per pay period. The per-pay-period income verification requirement is operationally significant: it creates an ongoing eligibility check rather than a one‑time determination.
Lead agency pays providers; employers and parents reimburse
The lead agency pays providers the provider’s charges for eligible care; the parent and employer jointly must pay the lead agency an amount equal to two-thirds of that charge. The statute permits a parent to consent to employer wage withholding of up to one-third to satisfy the employer’s share. Lead agencies must offer multiple payment schedules so providers can select a cadence that matches cash-flow needs. This payment choreography shifts collection responsibilities to lead agencies and raises practical issues about cash flow, reconciliation, and enforcement.
Third-party administration, OPRE evaluation, reporting, and sunset
Lead agencies may use technology platforms and third parties to administer the program. HHS must commission OPRE to evaluate cost-effectiveness and labor market and access effects and report results to House Ways and Means within one year after the pilot ends. The program is explicitly time-limited and terminates at the end of the three-year program period, signaling that Congress intends to use the evaluation to decide on future policy.
Funding, technical assistance, definitions, and statutory housekeeping
The bill appropriates $250 million per fiscal year for the pilot, with 5% of funds reserved for evaluation and 5% for technical assistance. It defines core terms (eligible child, eligible costs, eligible provider, lead agency, participating employer, program period, and State threshold for CCDBG assistance) and makes conforming edits to existing subsection numbering in section 418.
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
- Middle-income working parents (income between State CCDBG threshold and 300% of that threshold): The program reduces each participating parent’s out-of-pocket child care cost to roughly one-third of provider charges during approved periods and may give access to regulated providers they otherwise could not afford.
- Participating employers (those that opt in): Employers gain a recruitment and retention tool and potentially reduced turnover; the pilot also generates data on whether employer contributions measurably affect hiring and retention metrics.
- Child care providers that meet state licensing/health-and-safety standards: Providers receive full payment from lead agencies and can select payment schedules, improving cash-flow predictability compared with ad-hoc family payments.
- State lead agencies and local administrators: States receive federal funds tied to FMAP to expand subsidized slots and to build payment and verification systems, plus technical assistance funds to stand up program infrastructure.
- Researchers and policymakers (OPRE/HHS, Congress): The mandated evaluation produces evidence on cost-effectiveness and labor-market outcomes, informing future federal or state policy decisions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Participating employers: Employers must pay one-third of enrolled employees’ eligible child care costs (or collect that obligation through payroll systems) and bear recruitment, administrative, and potential fringe-cost calculations.
- Employees/parents in the pilot: Parents still pay one-third of costs; for lower parts of the eligible income band that may remain unaffordable, and parents must provide per-pay-period income verification, increasing paperwork.
- State lead agencies and local administrators: Although federal funds cover a share, States must implement enrollment, verification, payment reconciliation, and reporting systems; up-front program delivery costs and coordination with employers could strain capacity, particularly for smaller lead agencies.
- Smaller or unlicensed child care providers: Providers that fail to meet state health and safety requirements are ineligible for pilot funds, which could reduce options for some families and concentrate demand on higher-compliance providers.
- Federal oversight and administrative entities: HHS must run competitive grants, monitor compliance, perform OPRE’s evaluation, and manage transfers to other programs — responsibilities that require staffing and management attention even if partially funded.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether securing employer buy-in through an equal cost split will produce enough additional capacity and labor-market benefits to justify shifting part of the subsidy burden onto employers and families; the pilot tests a pragmatic path to expand access but risks leaving the least-affordable families behind and imposing administrative, legal, and cash‑flow burdens on States, employers, and parents.
The bill builds a straightforward three-way cost split into law, but that simplicity masks several operational and equity complexities. First, the flat 1/3/1/3 allocation does not scale to family income; families at the low end of the eligible band (just above CCDBG thresholds) still pay a significant share and may remain cost-burdened.
The statute directs HHS to study a sliding scale, but the pilot itself proceeds with a flat split, so the evaluation must disentangle affordability effects across diverse income strata.
Second, the payment and verification mechanics create cash-flow and administrative friction. Lead agencies front provider payments and then collect reimbursements from employers and parents; this requires reliable collection and reconciliation systems and raises questions about how delayed or missing employer payments are handled.
The statute allows wage withholding with parent consent, which helps collection but raises labor-law interactions (wage deduction rules vary by State) and potential coercion or undue pressure on employees. Third, tying federal grant amounts to FMAP and capping grants at $20 million per State results in uneven purchasing power across States and may limit the number of families served — high-FMAP States get larger proportional federal reimbursement, while the $20M cap constrains scalability in large States.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.