A Democratic bill with 5 Republican cosponsors · See all 12 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Child Care Workforce Act seeks to establish a pilot program to increase the supply of quality child care services. It does this by providing competitive grants to States, Indian Tribes, and Tribal organizations. These funds are intended to supplement the wages of eligible child care workers. The goal is to attract and retain workers, improve their well-being, and improve the quality of services. Additionally, the program aims to increase the availability of affordable child care.
Yes· 3 of 16
- Scored +5
Would children be better off under this?
The bill aims to improve the quality and availability of child care services.
- Scored +5
Does this make child care cost less?
The bill explicitly aims to increase the availability of affordable child care services.
- Scored +4
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
The bill prioritizes services for low-income families and provides wage supplements to low-wage workers.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Income for Workers: The bill provides funding to supplement the wages of eligible child care workers (Section 2; Section 4). This is intended to help attract and retain workers while improving their well-being (Section 2).
-
Improved Child Care Quality and Availability: By increasing wages, the program aims to improve the quality of child care services and increase the availability of affordable services (Section 2).
-
Targeted Support for Underserved Areas: Grant recipients must create plans to prioritize areas with specific needs, such as those with staffing challenges, shortages of programs for low-income families, or shortages of programs serving infants, toddlers, or children with disabilities (Section 4).
-
Support for Various Settings: The benefits apply to workers in both center-based and home-based settings (Section 3).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Potential Financial Destabilization: The bill requires grant recipients to create a plan to address and minimize any destabilization that might occur after the grant funds are used up (Section 4).
-
Tax and Benefit Implications: Workers may experience changes to their tax situations or eligibility for other public benefits due to the wage supplements (Section 5).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would children be better off under this? — The bill aims to improve the quality and availability of child care services. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill prioritizes services for low-income families and provides wage supplements to low-wage workers. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill explicitly includes Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations as eligible grant recipients. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The bill prioritizes programs that serve children with disabilities. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Increased child care availability can reduce the burden on middle-income families. Would women be better off under this? — Increased child care availability often disproportionately benefits women's workforce participation. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill's focus on affordable child care may benefit diverse demographic groups including Hispanic families. Would people in cities be better off under this? — The bill addresses staffing challenges which can affect various geographic areas including urban ones. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — The bill may benefit young adults working in the child care workforce through wage supplements.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make child care cost less? — The bill explicitly aims to increase the availability of affordable child care services. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Supplementing wages for low-wage workers can help lift families out of poverty.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill aims to attract and retain child care workers to increase service availability. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Increasing child care availability and worker retention can support broader economic participation.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Increased child care availability can indirectly support family health and well-schedules.
- Education And Technology
- Does this make it easier to use public money at a school other than the local one? — The bill targets early childhood education and care quality.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires an evaluation and a report to Congress on the pilot program's results.
- 7/16/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/30/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/21/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/18/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/16/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/26/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/7/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/1/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/18/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/4/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Robert BresnahanRepublican · Pennsylvania
Juan CiscomaniRepublican · Arizona
Sharice DavidsDemocrat · Kansas
Brian FitzpatrickRepublican · Pennsylvania
Josh HarderDemocrat · California
Michael LawlerRepublican · New York
Greg LandsmanDemocrat · Ohio
Joseph MorelleDemocrat · New York
Thomas SuozziDemocrat · New York
Greg StantonDemocrat · Arizona
Suhas SubramanyamDemocrat · Virginia
Robert WittmanRepublican · Virginia