The Child Care Modernization Act of 2025 updates the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act by expanding definitions of eligible activities and eligible children, requiring states to adopt a statistically valid cost estimation model for provider payment rates, and authorizing a new federal grant program to expand child care supply and improve facilities. It also raises the minimum set‑aside for quality activities focused on workforce recruitment and retention and revises waiver and reporting obligations for states.
This matters to state lead agencies, subsidy administrators, child care providers, and employers because the bill codifies a cost‑based approach to subsidy payment rates (with a statutory deadline for sufficiency), creates a new funding stream for start‑ups, expansions, and facility work, and tightens planning and reporting requirements that will drive how states prioritize eligibility, copayments, and provider reimbursement going forward.
At a Glance
What It Does
Reauthorizes and restructures CCDBG: expands who and what counts as eligible for child care assistance, requires states to develop and use a cost estimation model to set provider payment rates that cover fixed and operating costs, establishes a Child Care Supply and Facilities grant program, and increases required funding for workforce and quality activities.
Who It Affects
State lead agencies and subsidy programs (which must redesign plans and rate systems), center‑based and family child care providers (eligibility, payment and grant opportunities), low‑ and moderate‑income families (new income and asset thresholds and sliding fee mandates), Tribal entities, and rural communities that seek USDA loan access changes.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts CCDBG from market‑driven reimbursement to a statutory cost‑based standard, adding a federal lever for payment adequacy and facility financing while preserving state flexibility on model design; that combination is likely to change subsidy rates, provider finances, and capital investment decisions in the child care sector.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill reauthorizes CCDBG but brings substantive programmatic changes. It expands the list of eligible activities for parents (job search, education, health treatment, SNAP E&T and WIOA activities, and certain leaves) and revises the definition of an eligible child to an income cap tied to 85 percent of state median income (or higher with an approved waiver) plus a novel family asset ceiling of $1,000,000.
The bill keeps parental choice and a mixed delivery system concept front and center while explicitly allowing licensed providers who are parents to receive assistance when they care for eligible children.
A central operational change requires each state to develop and use — or commit to develop and use within a fixed timetable — a statistically valid cost estimation model to set direct payment rates to providers. The model must reflect fixed and operating costs, staff salaries and benefits, market‑level variation (submarkets, ages served, hours, and quality tiers), and be reviewed at least every two years.
States must certify that, by the later of five years after plan submission or September 30, 2031, payment rates will be sufficient to cover the cost of providing subsidized care as measured by that model; the Secretary may provide guidance but may not force a particular model.The Act increases the mandatory quality spending floor so states must devote at least 9 percent of certain funds to workforce‑related activities, emphasizing recruitment, training, and retention. It also creates a separate Child Care Supply and Facilities grant program that funds startup and expansion subgrants, facility renovation and construction, and community family child care network development.
Those subgrants prioritize providers serving specified priority populations (underserved areas, children experiencing homelessness, foster or kinship care, rural communities, children with special needs) and require subgrantees to commit to become or remain eligible CCDBG providers.Finally, the bill tightens application and reporting requirements (benchmarks, an annual state report on eligibility/enrollment/affordability, and feasibility studies on family child care affordability), revises state waiver processes for income thresholds (including renewal rules), and instructs USDA to revise its regulations to avoid excluding licensed child care businesses from certain loan programs. Together these changes push states to make transparent, data‑driven decisions about rates, copayments, eligibility, and investments in supply and facilities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires each State to use a statistically valid cost estimation model for provider payment rates that accounts for fixed and operating costs, staff salaries and benefits, submarket and age variations, and quality tiers, and to review that model at least every two years.
States must certify that, by the later of five years after their plan submission or September 30, 2031, subsidy payment rates will be sufficient to meet the cost of providing child care services (including fixed and operational costs).
The new Child Care Supply and Facilities grant program authorizes federal subgrants for startup/expansion and for renovation or construction, gives priority to providers serving designated priority populations, and forbids Federal interest retention on family child care home projects.
The bill sets a new eligibility floor: an 'eligible child' can be from a family with income up to 85% of state median (higher with an approved waiver) and establishes a family asset cap of $1,000,000 for eligibility certification.
States must dedicate at least 9% of certain CCDBG quality funds to activities that support recruiting, training, and retaining the child care workforce, and must establish a sliding fee scale designed not to be a barrier to families accessing care.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Updated policy goals and explicit workforce focus
The bill replaces the Act’s prior purposes with an expanded list that explicitly includes supporting workforce recruitment, training, and retention and increasing the number of low‑income children in high‑quality settings. That language concretely shifts program priorities away from a sole focus on parental choice to an equal emphasis on building supply and professional capacity, which will inform how states sequence investments and interpret quality set‑asides.
Broadening eligibility and clarifying the mixed delivery system
The definitions section expands 'eligible activity' to include specific education, job‑training, health treatment, SNAP E&T and WIOA activities, and certain leaves, reducing discretion in what activities count for subsidy eligibility. 'Eligible child' now ties income to a percent of state median income (85% by default), adds an explicit $1,000,000 family asset cap, and creates special status for children in homelessness, kinship care, foster care, protective services, or whose parent is over 65. The bill also clarifies the mixed delivery system to include faith‑and community‑based providers and public/private settings, which preserves choice while standardizing the terms used throughout state plans.
Technical placement and open appropriation language
The Act authorizes 'such sums as may be necessary' for FY2026–2030 to carry out the program (except one identified section), rather than setting a fixed authorization level. That gives appropriators flexibility but signals Congressional intent that additional resources could be required to meet the statute’s rate sufficiency and grant program goals.
Statutory requirement for cost models and rate sufficiency
States must certify that payment rates will be sufficient to cover provider costs and must either demonstrate they use a cost estimation model or commit to develop one within a specified timeframe. The statute prescribes what the model must capture (fixed vs. operating costs, staff pay and benefits, submarket and age differences, hours of operation, provider quality) and requires biennial reviews with cost‑of‑living adjustments. While the Secretary can issue guidance, the statute forbids imposing a specific model, preserving state control over mechanics but creating a binding outcome obligation (payment sufficiency by the 2031 deadline).
Minimum 9% workforce funding requirement
The bill raises the formulaic emphasis on workforce development by mandating that at least 9% of certain funds be used to support activities to recruit, train, and retain qualified child care workers. That elevates workforce investments as a statutory priority and constrains state budgetary tradeoffs between other quality strategies and direct provider payments.
New waiver mechanics and renewal protections
States can request waivers to adjust the income standard but must provide a detailed application demonstrating they already meet the eligibility and prioritization requirements and that payment rates are set via the required cost model. The bill allows multi‑year renewals for income waivers (up to three years) with a specific 30‑day notice rule for renewals, and it forbids using an approved waiver as a justification to deny access or raise copayments for families under the state’s maximum income standard and asset limit.
New federal grant program for startups, expansions, and facilities
This newly created Part II authorizes a federal competitive grant program for states, territories, Tribes, and Tribal organizations to make subgrants for startup/supply expansion and for renovation, major repair, or new construction. Lead agencies may reserve up to 10% for administration/technical assistance; subgrants must prioritize providers serving designated priority populations. As a practical matter, states must publish notices of funding availability, define subgrant formulas, require subgrantee commitments to provide CCDBG‑eligible care, and report granular slot and provider data to the Department and Congress. Notably, federal interest protections for real property are limited: family child care homes are excluded from a Federal interest requirement, and any retained federal interest in facilities cannot exceed 10 years.
Regulatory adjustment to USDA loan exclusions
The bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to revise the Code of Federal Regulations to prevent licensed, regulated, or registered child care providers from being categorically excluded from certain Department of Agriculture business loan programs. That change aims to improve access to capital for rural child care businesses that otherwise might be ineligible under existing rules.
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
- Low‑ and moderate‑income families: Expanded eligible activities, an income threshold tied to state median income (85% by default), sliding fee protections, and state feasibility studies are designed to improve access and affordability for families who qualify for CCDBG subsidies.
- Child care providers (centers and family homes): The cost estimation model and the bill’s certification of payment sufficiency create a pathway for higher, more predictable subsidy reimbursement; the Supply and Facilities grants provide capital and startup funding to expand capacity.
- Family child care networks and providers in underserved communities: The statute funds development of family child care networks, prioritizes underserved areas and rural communities, and exempts family homes from a federal real property interest requirement, lowering barriers to receiving capital for small providers.
- State lead agencies and subsidy administrators: The bill clarifies expectations for planning, reporting, and rate setting, and supplies a discrete federal grant program for supply/facility work that states can target strategically.
- Employers and local economies: By authorizing investments that increase supply and expand hours (including nontraditional hours), the bill helps reduce child care‑related workforce instability that affects employers’ ability to recruit and retain employees.
Who Bears the Cost
- State governments and lead agencies: States must develop, implement, and maintain cost estimation models, adjust payment systems to meet the sufficiency deadline, and absorb administrative costs for new planning and reporting duties — all without guaranteed federal funding levels.
- Federal budget/appropriations: The authorization uses 'such sums as may be necessary' for multiple fiscal years and adds a new grant program, creating upward pressure on discretionary outlays for child care.
- Providers receiving grants: Subgrantees must comply with ongoing service commitments and program eligibility rules; meeting licensing, safety, and quality benchmarks to receive funds can require upfront investment and bureaucratic work.
- Small providers and community organizations: While eligible for grants, these entities will face application, reporting, and compliance burdens when accessing startup, expansion, and facilities funding, and may need technical assistance.
- Program integrity and eligibility verification systems: The asset cap ($1,000,000) and expanded eligibility rules create new verification and monitoring responsibilities that states must fund and administer.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is breadth versus depth: the Act tries to both expand access (broaden eligibility, authorize startup and facility grants, and allow waiver flexibility) and deepen quality (require cost‑based rate sufficiency and invest in workforce pay and retention). Achieving both depends on significant new funding and robust state capacity; absent that, states face a genuine trade‑off between serving more families or paying providers enough to sustain a qualified workforce and high‑quality care.
The bill embeds an ambitious, outcome‑oriented requirement — payment rate sufficiency tied to a cost estimation model — but leaves critical knobs to the states. That preserves state flexibility in model design while creating a legal obligation to reach a federally referenced outcome by a statutory date (2031).
States with tight budgets may struggle to meet that obligation without substantial federal appropriations, producing a mismatch between statutory expectations and fiscal realities.
Several implementation questions could complicate rollout. The $1,000,000 family asset cap for eligibility is novel in a federal subsidy program and raises administrative issues: how will states verify assets consistently, how often, and with what privacy safeguards?
The expansion of allowed 'eligible activities' (including leave and certain health treatments) broadens eligibility in meaningful ways but also increases program costs and complexity in verifying activity participation. The waiver regime allows states to raise income standards, yet the bill attempts to protect lower‑income families from being displaced — enforcement will hinge on rigorous monitoring and clear prioritization rules.
Finally, the Family Child Care federal interest carve‑out simplifies small providers’ access to funds but reduces a long‑standing federal leverage point designed to ensure use and longevity of federally funded improvements.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.