Ohio budget must include support for child care access and workers, advocates say
Children in child care. (Photo by Rebecca Rivas/Missouri Independent)
Child care must be a priority in the next Ohio state operating budget, advocates told a legislative committee considering the state's spending on child wellbeing, saying that a proper system would bring benefits not only for the kids, but for the state as a whole.
'Child care is the industry that allows all other work to happen,' said Chris Angellatta, CEO of the Child Care Resource and Referral Association.
Leaders of coalitions and organizations across the state pushed the Ohio House Children & Human Services Committee to keep parts of Gov. Mike DeWine's executive budget proposal related to child care, and some even brought their own ideas on how the budget could work better for children, and the parents who could reenter the workforce if they had affordable, accessible quality child care.
'We've heard a range of challenges,' said Stephanie Keinath, executive vice president of the Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce.
The chamber collaborated with the Montgomery County kindergarten readiness advocacy group Preschool Promise, holding meetings with local employers about their child care needs. The challenges it heard ranged from a lack of backup child care, confusion on how employees can navigate eligibility for benefits and 'the bigger challenge of how to increase capacity in parts of our community that lack the infrastructure,' Keinath said.
The chamber of commerce also partnered with child advocacy group Groundwork Ohio and Wright State University for a summit on the impact of child care on the workforce, and interacted with more than 300 business leaders as part of the summit.
'What has become clear, through all our conversations with employers, is that there is no single solution that will work for all businesses,' Keinath told the committee. 'What may be feasible for some of our large employers will likely not be feasible for the over 48% of small businesses who cite lack of child care as a major obstacle for staffing.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Keinath was among the many advocates who urged the committee to continue the Child Care Choice Voucher Program, which is maintained in the newest House budget proposal, and would allow subsidies for households whose annual income is up to 200% of the federal poverty level. That's $62,400 for a family of four.
'This expansion of eligibility … is a key factor in ensuring that an important part of our workforce can return to work or remain working,' Keinath said.
Among the other budget items the child care supporters pushed for was an expansion to the state's Publicly Funded Child Care program eligibility, which could rise to 160% of the federal poverty line if legislators move it forward.
'We know that this is a step in the right direction, but increasing eligibility to 300% could make an even greater impact on Ohio's children and families,' said Brianna Booker, policy associate with the Children's Defense Fund Ohio. That would be $93,600 for a family of four.
The County Commissioners Association of Ohio joined advocates in supporting the child care changes that could make it into the budget. Montgomery County Commissioner and CCAO member Carolyn Rice said the counties, which administer public assistance programs like the publicly funded child care system, are 'uniquely positioned to recognize both the current challenges many families have accessing child care and the positive impact that child care can have on a family's journey toward economic prosperity.'
But more could be done, particularly to help those who take care of children in those quality child care facilities, Angellatta said. He pitched a pilot program to the House committee that would create 'categorical eligibility,' to give early childhood educators full-time child care for their own children. The pilot program Angellatta proposed would start with a voucher for 1,000 children of child care workers in Ohio.
The program would not only help a sector of the workforce that is 'driven by low wages and high turnover rates,' – with 43% of early childhood educators earning $11.60 per hour or less, according to Angellatta – but provide a strategy to bolster the workforce that faces a 'critical shortage.'
'This is also a recruitment activity, in which, regardless of someone's income, we want them to be able to come to the child care workforce,' Angellatta told the committee.
Kentucky passed a similar categorical eligibility law in 2022, and other states are already supporting child care workers in similar ways, the association leader said.
'Ohio's economic competitiveness really depends on our ability to outperform our neighbors, and child care is an important part of that infrastructure,' Angellatta said.
Outside of budgetary changes, the state has also looked into a cost-sharing model that would split child care into thirds, with the state, employers and employees all paying an equal share. A Republican-led effort to implement the measure is currently being considered in both the House and Senate.
State Rep. Andrea White, R-Kettering, chair of the Children & Human Services Committee, said members will go into next week discussing recommendations for the budget document, as the House prepares to pass its version of the spending bill. The Ohio Senate has also begun budget discussions, on its way to a draft document of its own. The state budget is due to be finalized and ready for the governor's signature by July 1.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Yahoo
Rudi 'splains it: How Kansas City stadium funding clears state constitutional hurdles
GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium, home of the Kansas City Chiefs, is pictured on Feb. 8, 2025 (Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent). If Missouri lawmakers would provide the proper incentives, the promoters said, their project would vastly strengthen the economy of the state and enhance its national image as a place to do business. Without the incentives, they would go to another state. Those arguments persuaded the General Assembly to authorize $23.7 million of state-backed bonds to build railroads in the 1850s. Local governments also issued bonds to lure railroads to their counties. The railroads didn't keep their promise to repay the bonds and interest ballooned the debt to $32.3 million by the end of the Civil War. And at the State Convention of 1875, delegates voted to stop lawmakers from ever promising the state treasury as security for private debt. Over the last two weeks, history didn't repeat, but it did echo. The Missouri General Assembly listened to a modern group of promoters who convinced lawmakers to promise almost $1.5 billion over 30 years for bonds that will finance new or improved stadiums for the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals. The local government that wants to host the teams must also offer financial support. Professional sports are big business, and supporters warned the state would suffer economically if either or both teams move to Kansas. And, they said, the state's image would suffer. Welcome to the latest installment of Rudi 'splains it for a look at Missouri's history with economic development incentives. The 19th century aid to railroads is connected to the 21st century aid to sports stadiums because both times, lawmakers promised borrowers would be paid from tax revenues. The bill passed this week is a promise that future taxes will pay the bonds. That wasn't the case for the railroads, which were supposed to repay the debt from business profits but never did. When a State Convention met at the end of the Civil War, it put a question before voters: 'Shall the Railroad bonds be paid?' The ballot measure imposed a gross receipts tax on railroads and a statewide property tax. Voters approved it. The railroads never paid, but property owners did. The bond payments exceeded all other state government expenses. That's why the next State Convention voted to prevent a repeat of the financial fiasco. Missouri had learned its lesson. 'It was while listening to this delusive talk, to this cuckoo song, that the country was plunged into the enormous railroad debt which has been created for the state, the cities and counties and for individuals all through the land,' said delegate Thomas Gantt of St. Louis. 'People imagined that the benefit that was to come to the state, the city, county and the farm by the construction of those improvements was going to enrich all who were within hearing of the whistle of the locomotive.' The prohibition on lending state or local credit, or giving state or local public money, to private interests remains a part of the state Constitution. During debate on the stadium bill, opponents questioned whether the prohibition was being violated. 'The reason why the Constitution forbids that is because the drafters of that language knew that eventually the legislature would appropriate money to the people who we consider our friends, at the expense of everybody else in the state, instead of appropriate money or spend money for the good of all the general welfare of our state,' said state Rep. Bill Hardwick, a Republican from Dixon. Despite the prohibition, Missouri provides hundreds of millions annually in economic development incentives. In fiscal 2024, the state authorized $403 million in tax credits including $114 million for projects to rehabilitate old buildings, $84 million to build low-income housing and $101 million for new or expanding businesses through the Missouri Works program. Tax credit holders redeemed $904 million during the fiscal year, cashing in credits issued in past years. You may ask yourself, what makes one form of incentive legal and another illegal? The answer comes from the Missouri Supreme Court. When I was just a sprout of a reporter, still in journalism school, St. Louis had two daily newspapers, the Post-Dispatch and the Globe-Democrat. My professor, Phill Brooks, will tell you my reporting in the fall of 1986 is the reason there is only one today. The Globe-Democrat was a conservative newspaper and backed Republican Gov. John Ashcroft editorially. It was also failing, and businessmen John B. Prentis and William E. Franke, the owners, won approval of a $15 million state-backed loan to purchase a printing plant. I found, unsurprisingly, that both Prentis and Franke were contributors to Ashcroft's campaign. What was surprising is that only the five Republican members of the Missouri Industrial Development Board, also contributors to Ashcroft, attended the meeting that approved the Globe-Democrat loan. The loans were backed by a promise that, in the case of default, bondholders would receive tax credits equal to 50% of their loss. Ashcroft became concerned about the optics of the deal, didn't issue the loan and the newspaper folded. In a test case, involving a loan to a Joplin company, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled the program violated the Constitution. 'This tax credit is as much a grant of public money or property and is as much a drain on the state's coffers as would be an outright payment by the state to the bondholder upon default,' the court ruled in January 1987. 'There is no difference between the state granting a tax credit and foregoing the collection of the tax and the state making an outright payment to the bondholder from revenues already collected.' More recently, in 2023, lawmakers put $8.5 million into the budget for a no-interest loan to help Magnitude 7 Metals keep its New Madrid smelter open. Then-Gov. Mike Parson vetoed the money, citing the constitutional prohibition. The reason the current tax credit programs are legal and the one the Globe-Democrat tried to use was not is, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in 2011, that the U.S. Supreme Court had decided that tax credits are not the same thing as a direct expenditure of public funds. But the stadium bill does promise a direct appropriation from the treasury. Neither the Chiefs nor the Royals, however, will issue the stadium bonds or be directly responsible for paying the debt. That will be the job of either the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority, a public entity that owns the stadiums, or a new public entity created for the location where a new stadium is built. That means the direct payments for the stadium probably don't violate the constitution. But don't rely on me. I am not a lawyer or a judge. I just play one in the newspaper.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Yahoo
Child care programs take hits in Ohio Senate budget, even a Republican-supported one
Ohio Senate President Rob McColley, R-Napoleon, speaks at the Ohio Senate Republican Budget Press Conference. Sen. Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland, the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, stands in the background. (Photo by Morgan Trau, WEWS.) The Ohio Senate-approved budget keeps eligibility for state-supported child care at levels that state leaders and advocates say is one of the worst in the country, and eliminates a cost-sharing model for child care that was supported by Republicans in both chambers. Eligibility for Publicly Funded Child Care wasn't increased in the Ohio Senate proposal as advocates had urged, maintaining the state eligibility of 145% of the federal poverty level. That level leaves Ohio at what Ohio Department of Children and Youth Director Kara Wente, along with advocates like Policy Matters Ohio, said was one of the lowest eligibility levels in the country. To even get to the middle of rankings on child care eligibility, Heather Smith, a researcher with Policy Matters Ohio, said the state would need to jump their eligibility level to 225%, far above what advocates requested, which was an increase to 160%. One thing that made it to the Senate proposal at the urging of advocates was a provision that calculates payments for Publicly Funded Child Care based on enrollment numbers rather than attendance. Child care workers and leaders said the method would create more consistency in payments and would be 'critical' for parents and providers. The budget eliminates a Republican-supported measure added in the House version called the Child Care Cred Program, which would create a cost-sharing model for child care, in which employers, eligible employees, and the state all pay a portion of the cost of child care. In the most recent discussions on the model, the state would pay 20%, and employers and employees would put in 40% each. The measure came from bills in both chambers of the Ohio legislature, the GOP sponsors of which pushed the model as a way to address a state child care sector that has long been considered inaccessible, unaffordable, and without the adequate (and adequately paid) workforce to stand up to the demand. Policy Matters actually supported taking the model out of the budget, citing 'lackluster results' from comparable programs in other states. Smith said the funding 'would have a greater impact' if it was directed toward Ohio Senate Bill 177, a GOP-led bill that would create a pilot program to allow child care staff members to have Publicly Funded Child Care for free. 'This program would stabilize the sector while creating an additional 6,000 to 18,000 spots in child care facilities,' according to Smith. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The Child Care Choice Voucher program, which Republican Gov. Mike DeWine praised as an important part of the state's support for parents and the child care sector, stayed in the Senate-passed budget with eligibility at 200% of the federal poverty line to receive subsidies for child care services. But the budget took out language regarding Step Up to Quality, a set of state standards for licensed child care providers, and Smith said the payment rates for the voucher program 'are not sufficient for providers.' The voucher program would receive $25 million less over the next two years than was proposed in DeWine's executive budget. While he asked for $75 million in 2026 and $150 million in 2027, the Senate kept the House's amounts, at $100 million in each fiscal year. Early childhood education advocacy group Groundwork Ohio said the Senate proposal 'fails to meet the moment.' 'Ohio families are doing everything right,' said Lynanne Gutierrez, president and CEO of Groundwork Ohio, in testimony to the Senate Finance Committee before the proposal was passed. 'They're working hard, raising kids and keeping our economy moving. They deserve a budget that recognizes their contribution and meets them with the support they need.' Gutierrez and Groundwork pushed for restoration of the Child Tax Credit as well, which would have provided up to $1,000 per child ages 0 to 6. The credit had the support of state organizations and individuals, along with economic experts who said the credit would boost the state's financial health. Republican legislative leaders pushed back on the tax credit, partly because the money for the credit would have come from tobacco taxes, which legislative leaders said was a fading source of revenue. A Child Care Recruitment and Mentorship Grant Program was kept from the House provision, to 'help increase the number of licensed child care providers in Ohio and to assist recited entities and individuals.' The budget proposal includes $1.75 million in fiscal year 2026 and $1 million in 2027 for the program. Another grant program that survived to the Senate budget was the Early Childhood Education Grant Program, to 'support and invest in Ohio's early learning and development programs,' including licensed child care centers, licensed family child care homes and licensed preschools. The Ohio House and Ohio Senate are now working in closed-door discussions to combine their two versions into a final budget draft, set to be sent to the governor for signature, and possible line-item vetoes, by July 1. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Yahoo
Missouri special session ends with passage of KC stadium funding, disaster aid
State Rep. Chris Brown, R-Kansas City, speaks Wednesday in favor of the bill he handled that would finance new or improved professional sports stadiums in Kansas City (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent). The Missouri House closed the special legislative session Wednesday with votes to finance professional sports stadiums in Kansas City and provide tornado relief for St. Louis. Three special session bills, already approved in the state Senate, are now in the hands of Gov. Mike Kehoe. He is expected to sign them quickly, putting the decision on whether to stay in Missouri in the hands of the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals, who are also considering an offer from Kansas to cross the state line. State Rep. Chris Brown, a Republican from Kansas City handling the stadium bill, asked his colleagues to do what they would do to retain any large employer. 'We really need to, or should, look at these franchises, not just as entertainment,' Brown said. 'They are entertaining, obviously, but it's an incredibly big business.' Opponents of the legislation said it improperly benefits wealthy team owners at the expense of other Missourians. They also contend the bill is unconstitutional. 'The middle class, everyday Missourian is expected to pay for this,' said state Rep. Richard West, a Republican from Wentzville. 'We've been promising for years for some form of tax relief or tax adjustment or something to ease the burden on what they have, and this is exactly the opposite of what we promised them to come up here to do.' The measure to finance new stadiums was the most controversial of the three bills, passing on a 90-58 vote, with 32 Democrats joining with 58 Republicans to provide the majority. There were 13 Democrats and 45 Republicans who voted against the bill. To finance the stadium construction, the bill sets aside tax revenue generated by the teams and economic activity at Arrowhead and Kauffman stadiums. Estimated at just under $1.5 billion over 30 years, the funding would pay for half the costs of improvements at Arrowhead and a new home for the Royals. The Kansas offer would cover 70% of the construction costs for new stadiums, but it expires at the end of the month. The bill passed Wednesday requires financing from local governments, either in Jackson County, where the teams currently reside, or Clay County, which is trying to lure the Royals. It is impossible to put a ballot measure before voters in the time remaining for the Kansas offer. House leaders from the Kansas City area had differing views on whether the teams should accept or reject Missouri's offer now that it is a firm commitment but without knowing what voters will approve in the Kansas City region. 'I don't know what the teams will do,' said House Speaker Jon Patterson, a Lee's Summit Republican. 'They have their own plan. I think that's very unlikely, but I'm just worried about the things I can control, and teams are on their own schedule and will act accordingly.' House Minority Leader Ashley Aune, a Democrat from Kansas City, said the teams should make a decision before June 30 'I would call on them to do so,' Aune said. 'We bent over backwards here in the Missouri legislature to deliver them something by the end of their imposed deadline of June 30. And I would very much like for them to hold true to that deadline and let us know where they're going before that.' Chiefs owner Clark Hunt issued a statement thanking the legislature but made no commitment. 'The passing of this legislation is an important piece of the overall effort,' Hunt said. 'While there's still work to be done, this legislation enables the Chiefs to continue exploring potential options to consider remaining in Missouri.' Patterson and Aune also disagreed on whether the extra disaster aid and property tax controls Kehoe added to the special session agenda had made the difference between success and failure on the stadium bill. Patterson said each bill was considered on its own merits and that the property tax provisions may have cost votes. The stadium legislation won 103 votes in the House in May but the bill died in the state Senate. 'I'd like to think that people took a look at both those things on their own,' Patterson said. 'I don't think anybody here voted for one thing just because of the other.' The House voted down two amendments so the bill did not require another vote in the state Senate. Patterson said it would have failed the second time around. 'A second Senate vote on the (stadium bill) would have been impossible, just the political climate after that vote,' Patterson said. 'So we were very mindful of that. I thought if it goes back, it's not going to pass.' Aune said the additional disaster aid was essential to securing Democratic votes. 'If he wanted to get this stadium done, which is an economic development opportunity for the state and a priority of our governor, it was necessary to make sure that he could shore up those votes by making folks happy in other ways,' Aune said. During debate on the special session spending bill, the House fell silent as state Rep. Kimberly-Ann Collins, a St. Louis Democrat, described the devastation of her north St. Louis legislative district. Collins was home on May 16 because the General Assembly adjourned early instead of working to the final day allowed by the Missouri Constitution. She was in her car, preparing to attend a high school graduation when the tornado hit, she said. 'I watched a tornado rip through the middle of my house district,' Collins said. 'I also watched it rip off my roof, and I watched the tornado rip off my neighbor's roof. To this day, debris still sits in my front yard, and I'm a girl that has no insurance.' Four of the five Missourians who died in the tornado lived in her district, Collins said. The disaster relief provisions in the legislation address both the devastation of the May 16 tornado in St. Louis and the damages suffered by other Missourians in storms and flooding earlier in the year. They are: $100 million in the spending bill for storm recovery in the city of St. Louis; $25 million for home repairs and other housing needs through programs of the Missouri Housing Development Commission, available in any county included in a request for federal disaster aid; A tax credit worth up to $5,000 for insurance deductibles paid for residential damage in an area included in a request for federal disaster aid. The legislation would allow $90 million in claims this year and $45 million per year for future years. The provisions were demanded before the Senate vote because of uncertainty about the federal response to the tornado. Kehoe asked President Donald Trump for a federal disaster declaration for the tornado on May 25 and for April 29 storms in Scott on May 19. Trump approved both late Monday, making federal aid for emergency housing and rebuilding available to individuals and providing money to reimburse the state and local governments for recovery costs. State Rep. Raychel Proudie, a Democrat from Ferguson who is in her last term in the House, asked her colleagues to stand by St. Louis for the long-term. 'For those of us who will be termed-out next year,' Proudie said, 'we need the rest of you who will be here five years later to continue to remember this day, to remember this time, to remember these last three weeks, to continue to pour help into these communities, into these people.' The property tax cap in the stadium bill will be imposed in 97 counties. There would be 75 counties where basic tax bills would not increase more than 5% per year and 22 where no increase would be allowed. The list excludes most of the largest counties of the state and many members opposed it because the Missouri Constitution requires property taxes to be 'uniform upon the same class or subclass of subjects.' Another constitutional objection was raised that the bill improperly aids a private entity by giving state support to the Chiefs and Royals, in violation of a provision added to the Constitution in 1875. 'I haven't heard an argument yet that this bill is going to be upheld,' said state Rep. Bill Hardwick, a Republican from Dixon. 'I've only heard arguments that we should ignore the fact that it's unconstitutional.' The likelihood of the property tax provisions being blocked by the courts led at least one Democrat to vote for the bill. State Rep. Kathy Steinmetz of Columbia, speaking at a news conference after the vote, said she sees the cap as shifting the tax burden for schools to state taxpayers. 'They're ending up paying more,' she said, 'so that we can help the school districts that are not putting forth that local tax effort.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
