State may limit child care copayments to $1 a month

Copayment is traditionally linked to income and family size

State may limit child care copayments to $1 a month
Photo courtesy
Rep. La Shawn Ford, D-Chicago, virtually presents House Bill 141 before the Illinois House Committee on Child Care Accessibility and Early Childhood Education. The legislation would be an extension of pandemic-related relief for child care services in the state.

After an executive order from Gov. JB Pritzker that set monthly copayments for child care services to $1 for all families expired last month, a House Committee on Friday, March 5, agreed to continue working on legislation to create a law to make the benefit permanent for low-income families.

House Bill 141, sponsored by Rep. La Shawn Ford, D-Chicago, would permanently offer the $1 monthly copayment for child care services to families whose income is at or below 185 percent of the most recent federal poverty guidelines based on family size.

The bill advanced to the floor on a 9-2 vote with Ford noting his intent to return to committee with an amendment.

When the pandemic hit, the Pritzker administration provided $270 million in funding to child care providers as part of the state's federally funded Business Interruption Grant Program, along with additional funding from federal coronavirus relief packages.

This additional funding allowed for child care providers in the state to continue to operate, while families benefited from the executive order's $1 monthly copayment fee amid economic instability brought on by the pandemic.

The copayment for the state's Child Care Assistance Program is traditionally determined by income and family size. The Illinois Department of Human Services requires that the copayment be no more than 9 percent of an individual's income, according to Beata Skorusa, a child care advocate and owner and director of a Montessori school in Chicago.

For example, Skorusa said, a single mom with two children in her program would pay a $196 copayment per month for child care services, but the rate varies for each family. Skorusa was one of two witnesses to testify in Friday's committee hearing.

With the expiration of the executive order, the monthly copayment for child care services returned to regular rates based on income at the end of February.

The committee said the Pritzker administration could possibly extend the program by executive order, depending on whether the state receives more federal coronavirus relief funding that is awaiting congressional action. But committee members said they preferred legislative policy to executive orders in addressing the ongoing concerns of child care accessibility in the state.

"This bill is actually a jobs bill because a mother or a father that receives child care assistance has to be in school, or they have to be in work," Ford said. "And so we hope that we respect the frontline workers that have carried this state during the pandemic and realize how important it is to make sure that every child has access to high quality child care."

Rep. Joe Sosnowski, R-Rockford, said he is concerned about how the state will pay for this.

"If we are going to supplement those funds...we want a good idea, a good handle on what those costs will actually be," Sosnowski said. "I know it's not an ultra-lucrative business model in the child care industry and so when you do have to waive those funds, or they're not supplemented by the CARES Act or the state, if you lose 5 percent of income, it can be detrimental to those facilities, they operate on a very thin margin."

There is no cost estimate yet because the numbers would be based on pre-COVID rates, Ford said. He added that the number of individuals still reliant on unemployment benefits and welfare because the pandemic also impacts the accuracy of data.

Ford said he plans to work with IDHS to confirm the cost before bringing the bill back to the committee with an amendment. Ford said he wants the committee to be in agreement before the bill goes to a full vote, but there was still some pushback.

Rep. Deanne Mazzochi, R-Elmhurst, also raised concerns about the possible impact the bill could have on child care providers in the state.

"It seems like we're really putting the day care providers in a lurch because they're not getting the copay, but there's no guaranteed funding source from the state once the CARES Act money goes away, and that money is set to expire," said Mazzochi. "So I would feel very uncomfortable about eliminating the copay, unless the state will step in, when we don't actually have a similar put-in-statute funding source for making up that difference."

Skorusa said she believes the state already has at least some money to support this because of a dramatic decline in participation in the Child Care Assistance Program.

"The last time CCAP participation was down this much was after the 2015 budget crisis, and it didn't recover until just pre-pandemic in 2019," Skorusa said. "It took four years to recover and the numbers weren't even this bad after that crisis."

She said the participation is down 45 percent for infants and toddlers and 35 percent for preschool-aged children, attributing this data to IDHS and the governor's office.

"Permanently reducing the copay to the dollar will help families come back to providers. It will also put community-based organizations on a level playing field with district schools," Skorusa said. "It will be one of the Band-Aids that helps to ensure that the child care industry survives this pandemic."

Contact Grace Barbic at

Illinois Times has provided readers with independent journalism for more than 40 years, from news and politics to arts and culture.

Now more than ever, we’re asking for your support to continue providing our community with real news that everyone can access, free of charge.

We’re also offering a home delivery option as an added convenience for friends of the paper.

Click here to subscribe, or simply show your support for Illinois Times.

Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!

Comments (0)

Add a comment

Add a Comment