SB2862 updates the Child Care Access Means Parents In School (CCAMPIS) program in the Higher Education Act. It continues federal grantmaking to colleges and universities to help student parents access child care while tightening program expectations for quality, reporting, and institutional commitment.
The bill matters to campus administrators, financial aid and student services teams, and state and local child-care systems because it conditions federal support on measurable plans — including linking campus programs to existing early childhood quality standards — and prioritizes projects that leverage local resources and protect access for low-income student parents.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes competitive grants to eligible institutions to provide or contract for child care services that support student parents, while establishing application, reporting, and quality-improvement requirements. It creates grant award rules, continuation criteria, and technical-assistance authority for the Department of Education.
Who It Affects
Public and private colleges with sizable low-income student populations, campus child-care operators and contracted providers, student services and financial-aid offices that will administer programs, and the student parents who rely on subsidized campus or nearby care.
Why It Matters
By reauthorizing CCAMPIS with explicit quality and data requirements, the bill pushes institutions to convert short-term subsidies into sustained, higher-quality campus child-care capacity and produces the standardized data policymakers need to measure retention and completion outcomes for student parents.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB2862 revises the statutory CCAMPIS program so the Department of Education awards multi‑year grants to institutions to ensure student parents can access affordable child care tied to their enrollment. Eligible institutions must apply with a needs assessment, a plan for delivering services (on campus or by contract), assurances about licensing and coordination with early childhood programs, and information about how they will avoid shifting grant costs into tuition.
Grant funds may be used for establishing or supporting campus-based child care, subsidizing child-care fees using sliding scales, and offering before‑ and after‑school services; institutions may also use funds for support services or to raise program quality. The statute explicitly bars use of funds for new construction, except limited renovation or repair to meet health and safety requirements, and forbids institutions from imposing additional eligibility hurdles (for example, work or academic‑progress conditions) beyond the student-parent definition in the law.Applications must describe student demographics, local child-care capacity and waitlists, plans for temporary supports while campus programs are stood up, staffing supported by the grant, and how the institution will help student parents enroll in federal, state, tribal, or local means‑tested benefit programs.
The bill requires each funded program to adopt a quality improvement plan that, within three years, reaches either Head Start–level performance, the State’s top tier in its QRIS, or national early childhood accreditation.The statute builds accountability into funding: the Department has technical‑assistance authority, the Secretary must prioritize proposals that leverage nonfederal resources and serve single parents, and continuation awards depend on annual reporting that captures student‑level outcomes (enrollment, persistence, graduation, transfers, withdrawals) and program quality indicators. The Secretary must publish an annual summary of those reports.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill sets a minimum annual grant award and a maximum annual grant cap for each funded institution.
Grants are awarded for five-year periods and the statute authorizes institutions to apply for supplemental funds within that period if additional need is demonstrated.
The law bars use of CCAMPIS funds for new construction, permitting only renovation or repair to meet state or local health and safety requirements.
Institutions may not add extra eligibility conditions (such as work or enrollment-intensity requirements) for student parents beyond the statutory definition tied to Pell eligibility or Pell-like financial need.
The bill authorizes $500 million per year to carry out the program for each fiscal year 2026 through 2031.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the legislation the 'Child Care Access Means Parents In Schools Reauthorization Act' (CCAMPIS Reauthorization Act). This is a standard placement but signals Congress's intent to treat the measure as a reauthorization and revision of an existing higher education program.
Grants authority, award duration, and payment mechanics
This subsection gives the Secretary explicit authority to award competitive grants to eligible institutions and sets programmatic guardrails: awards run for five years; the Secretary will generally make annual payments; and institutions can request supplemental funds within the five‑year period if additional documented need exists. The statute also conditions continuation awards on the Secretary’s determination — based on required reporting — that the institution is making a 'good faith effort' to ensure access to affordable, quality care. Administrators should expect grant management rules and performance benchmarks tied to those continuation decisions.
Permitted spending, permissible enhancements, and explicit limits
Grant money must primarily expand access for eligible student parents through campus-based programs, sliding-fee subsidies, and before/after‑school services; funds may also pay for support services and quality improvements. Importantly, the statute forbids using funds for new construction (other than safety- or code-driven renovation/repair) and forbids institutions from imposing additional eligibility requirements on student parents. Compliance officers and finance teams will need to segregate allowable operating expenses from capital projects and document that fee subsidies do not inflate tuition.
What institutions must include in grant applications
Applications must demonstrate eligibility and need with student demographics, campus and local child-care capacity assessments, waitlist information, and geographic or poverty-related barriers. They must explain whether the grant will support new or existing programs, provide timelines and interim measures for start-ups, list staff positions to be funded, and pledge to meet licensing requirements. The statute also requires plans to connect campus programs with early childhood education curricula and to assist student parents in enrolling in other means‑tested programs — which obliges institutions to coordinate across campus offices (financial aid, student affairs, workforce services) and with local social‑service agencies.
Grant competition priorities and restrictions
The Secretary must prioritize applications that leverage local or institutional resources, use sliding-fee scales to maximize student reach, and serve single parents. The statute bars the Secretary from prioritizing applications that rely solely on off‑campus providers or propose projects designed to support multiple external providers, nudging federal dollars toward campus-based capacity or single-provider partnerships rather than broad subsidy pools for many small off-campus sites.
Annual reporting obligations and public reporting
Funded institutions must submit annual, disaggregated data on the student parents served (including persistence, graduation, transfers, and withdrawals), fee structures, the percentage of grant used to subsidize fees, leveraged resources, and program quality indicators (accreditation or QRIS tier). The Secretary will publish a public summary annually and must consult stakeholders on data collection methods, meaning institutions should expect standardized templates and possible technical-assistance support from ED for data submission and verification.
Civil rights compliance and authorized funding
The statute reiterates nondiscrimination obligations across race, sex, disability, and related categories for programs funded under CCAMPIS and authorizes substantial annual appropriations for the program across multiple fiscal years. Campus compliance offices must ensure program rules, recruitment, and service delivery meet federal civil rights standards; budget officers should plan for grant administration assuming the authorized funding will support a significant expansion of awards if appropriations match the authorization.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education 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
- Pell-eligible student parents who gain subsidized, campus-linked child care and support services that reduce barriers to course attendance and persistence.
- Single parents, because the statute prioritizes programs that provide additional resources or supports to this group, increasing their chance of receiving targeted subsidies or wraparound services.
- Institutions with existing early childhood programs that can scale up: they can convert pedagogical programs into service capacity and capture federal support to sustain staff and improve quality.
- Campus child-care staff and accredited providers who can access federal funds for quality upgrades, staffing, and training tied to meeting Head Start‑equivalent or QRIS top-tier standards.
- State and local agencies that administer QRIS, licensing, or other early-childhood systems, because the bill channels federal grants toward programs that must align with those state systems and may expand high-quality slots.
Who Bears the Cost
- Institutions of higher education, which must develop applications, collect and report disaggregated student data, manage grant compliance, and potentially reallocate institutional resources to meet matching or leveraged-resource priorities.
- Campus finance offices and student-services teams that will absorb administrative burden for sliding‑fee implementation, benefit enrollment assistance, and ongoing program oversight.
- Local child-care providers who contract with campuses and may be required to elevate quality (accreditation, QRIS tier) to remain eligible for partnership contracts, potentially incurring training and credentialing costs.
- State agencies that must verify licensing and QRIS status if institutions rely on state tiering for quality compliance; the bill increases demand for timely state evaluations and ratings.
- The Department of Education, which will absorb the management, technical-assistance, and data‑publishing workload tied to expanded grantmaking and standardized reporting.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between expanding immediate access and ensuring sustainable, high-quality child-care capacity: federal dollars buy operating subsidies and quality improvements but, by prohibiting construction, the bill limits federal ability to create more physical slots — forcing institutions to choose between offering more shallow subsidies to more families or investing in a smaller number of higher‑quality, sustainable slots that may not meet total demand.
The bill strengthens accountability and quality expectations but leaves several hard implementation choices unresolved. The prohibition on new construction preserves the federal operating‑subsidy focus but constrains institutions that need capital investment to expand physical capacity; without separate capital funding pathways, schools may struggle to convert demand into actual seats.
The three‑year timeline for reaching Head Start‑equivalent standards, a State’s top QRIS tier, or national accreditation raises practical questions about where small campus programs will find the staff and coaching to meet those thresholds quickly and who bears the upfront cost.
The reporting regime will generate richer, standardized data on student‑parent outcomes, but it also creates administrative overhead and privacy considerations. The statute lists many disaggregations (race/ethnicity, single‑parent status, veteran status, disability) and outcome markers; institutions without robust student-data infrastructure will need technical assistance.
Finally, the law nudges funding toward campus-based solutions by limiting priority for off‑campus-only proposals, which could leave underserved rural or highly fragmented markets without viable campus providers if local provider capacity is thin.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.