Officials Sound Alarm Over Delayed Federal Child Care Payments to States
The Child Care Development Block Grants (CCDBG), which states mostly use to provide subsidies to low-income families, were anticipated to arrive around April 1, the start of the federal fiscal year's third quarter.
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
'The money hasn't gone out, and that is extremely unusual,' said Ruth Friedman, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation who served as director of the Office of Child Care at the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) under the Biden administration.
Emily Adams, policy associate for child care & early childhood programs at the American Public Human Services Association, concurs. Adams works directly with state child care agency directors across the country, and one told her they were notified by their regional child care office that ACF's Office of Grants Management said the funding has not yet been approved for awards and there was no timeframe for when the grants might be approved.
In response to a request for comment, a spokesperson at the Department of Health & Human Services, said, 'ACF is working to award third quarter discretionary CCDF funding as soon as possible.'
The CCDBG is part of a complex system of federal child care funding. The largest source comes from the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), which has two components: mandatory payments made through the Child Care Entitlement to States, which states have already received, and the much larger pot of discretionary CCDBG money, which they haven't. Congress determines the level of CCDBG spending annually and has allotted $8.75 billion to states for the 2025 fiscal year that ends in September.
It usually takes two weeks for these block grants to flow to states after Congress passes a continuing resolution funding the government, which it did on March 14. Officials in the Biden administration sent out the first and second quarter funding to state child care agencies on a normal schedule. But the third quarter installment hasn't gone out under the Trump administration, Friedman, Adams and other sources confirmed.
Unlike Head Start programs, which face immediate consequences if their funding is delayed, states typically have more cushion for child care, so they may not yet have to make hard choices. That's in part due to the fact that they have a longer time to spend the money, so some may have past funding to keep using. Also, some states put more of their own money into the mix than is required by federal rules, creating even more runway in those places.
Related
'Most states have about a month of funds that they can use before they're in big trouble,' Adams notes.
But if the money doesn't arrive soon, 'It is eventually going to cause a problem for states,' Friedman explains. The vast majority of the funding covers subsidies that help low-income families pay for child care; if that money dries up, states will have to stop paying for those subsidies.
If that happens across all states, the parents of the 1.4 million children who receive them could be left to either cover the full cost themselves or pull their children out of child care. Providers, in turn, could face a wave of unpaid bills and disenrollments. 'It would be extraordinarily destabilizing,' Friedman said.
It's unclear if the funding is delayed due to personnel challenges or is being held back for more substantive reasons. By April, the Trump administration had fired nearly half the workforce at ACF. Trump has threatened to eliminate Head Start (although officials recently walked that back) and the so-called 'skinny' budget he released on May 2 would eliminate preschool development grants that help states improve early childhood education and the Child Care Access Means Parents in School program, which helps low-income parents afford child care while going to college.
The Trump administration has withheld other federal funding that Congress appropriated and he legally has to disburse. In April, Congressional Democrats released a tracker that found at least $430 billion had yet to go out the door to a wide variety of programs, from Head Start to USAID. But the CCDBG funding wasn't included in that sum.
On top of the delayed block grants, state child care agencies have also been subjected to Elon Musk's DOGE effort dubbed 'Defend the Spend' without any warning and little explanation. Now, when an agency wants to draw down federal funds from the payment system — normally a 'routine and regular process,' Friedman said, and one in which they're typically reimbursed for dollars they already spent — they receive an email directing them to take a new step in which they have to justify why they need the money.
In an email received by a state agency director on April 17 and shared with Adams, the sender wrote, 'We are requesting additional clarification regarding this payment. An ideal payment justification includes a description of the award and what you plan to do with the funds.' It then directs the recipient to click on a long URL to do so. The email ends with simply, 'God Bless America.' Adams noted that agency directors told her the emails 'looked spammy and they don't come from a known email address.'
Some states have had to justify their spending as many as three times before getting it. The process has now led to delays. 'What they typically would get in two to four business days is taking five to 10 business days,' Adams said.
An ACF spokesperson said in a response to a request for comment, 'While some states have been asked for additional clarification prior to their CCDF drawdowns being approved, no states have been denied the ability to draw down CCDF funds as the result of the Defend the Spend review. In addition, the CCDF program is being phased out of the Defend the Spend review, so CCDF grant recipients will no longer be asked for a justification to draw down CCDF funds.'
In Ohio, the delay caused a scary hiccup in April, said Tamara Lunan, director of care economy organizing at the Ohio Organizing Collaborative. The week of April 14, providers who typically receive subsidy payments from the state on Tuesdays didn't receive anything. Then those with Saturday payments didn't get them either. Although the state technically has a 10-day window to send payments out, 'usually the only thing that throws it off is if there was some type of error in the billing or a holiday,' Lunan explained.
When Lunan, who was hearing directly from providers about the missing payments, asked the Ohio Department of Children and Youth (DCY) what happened, she said she was told 'that they got DOGE'd,' and were made to give an extra explanation for the money. But in a later meeting, the state changed its tune slightly: According to meeting notes, the department said it was due to a 'system glitch at the federal level.'
The payments went out on April 22, which falls within the 10-day window, but some providers had to wait a week longer than usual to get paid. It took a quick toll: Some had to lay off staff because they couldn't make payroll, while others paid staff late, Lunan said.
Jodi Norton, DCY's chief communications officer, noted that the department hasn't strayed outside the allotted time frame, including the week of April 14. 'DCY continues to work with federal partners when additional justification is needed and thus far has been successful in maintaining the 10-day window for payments,' she said.
Lunan said the payments have now resumed as normal, but if more delays crop up in the future it could leave some providers to not just lose staff but go out of business entirely. 'Providers are really scared about this,' she added.
States already go through a rigorous process to justify their spending long before they draw down money. Every three years they have to submit a lengthy state plan to the federal government, as required by law, that describes their child care programs and how they will follow relevant rules. Those plans, which are publicly available, are then carefully reviewed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; it's only after they're approved that states can get any money.
After that, states are monitored to make sure they are following federal rules, and they must track their spending and report it back to the agency to make sure they follow all the requirements. They also undergo annual financial audits. 'There are many pieces put in place by Congress to ensure that federal funds are being spent as intended and as required,' Friedman said. It is 'already quite extensive.'
The new 'Defend the Spend' approach 'is not an efficient process for ensuring good stewardship of federal funds,' she added. 'This new process does not create new information, but it does create burden and uncertainty for state agencies.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
Mexico, under pressure from Trump, sends 26 cartel members to US
MEXICO CITY, Aug 12 (Reuters) - Mexico sent more than two dozen suspected cartel members to the U.S. on Tuesday, amid rising pressure from President Donald Trump on Mexico to dismantle the country's powerful drug organizations. Authorities shipped 26 prisoners wanted in the U.S. for ties to drug-trafficking groups, Mexico's attorney general's office and security ministry said in a joint statement. Mexico said the U.S. Department of Justice had requested their extradition and that it would not seek the death penalty for the accused cartel members. The transfer is the second of its kind this year. In February, Mexican authorities sent 29 alleged cartel leaders to the U.S., sparking a debate about the political and legal grounds for such a move. More: State Department updates Mexico travel advisory for Americans That Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum permitted yet another large-scale extradition of Mexican nationals underscores the balancing act she faces as she seeks to appease Trump while also avoiding unilateral U.S. military action in Mexico. In a statement, the U.S. Embassy said among those extradited were key figures in the Jalisco New Generation Cartel and the Sinaloa Cartel, which are Mexico's two dominant organized crime groups. 'This transfer is yet another example of what is possible when two governments unite against violence and impunity," U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ronald Johnson said in a statement. "These fugitives will now face justice in American courts, and the citizens of both our nations will be safer.' More: Mexican President rules out Trump's reported military plan against Mexico's drug cartels Trump has tied tariffs on Mexico to the deadly fentanyl trade, claiming the country hasn't tackled drug cartels aggressively enough. Last week, he directed the Pentagon to prepare operations against Mexican drug gangs that have been designated global terrorist organizations. Sheinbaum has said the U.S. and Mexico are nearing a security agreement to expand cooperation in the fight against cartels. But she has flatly rejected suggestions by the Trump administration that it could carry out unilateral military operations in Mexico. (Additional reporting by Mrinmay Dey in Bengaluru; Editing by Chris Reese, Cassandra Garrison and Lincoln Feast.)

USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
The key to success at Trump-Putin Alaska summit on Ukraine? Low expectations.
Russia's progress has limited the risk of escalation and increased Moscow's willingness to continue fighting. Trump keeps trying to find a way to end the war, but time is not on Ukraine's side. The war in Ukraine is stuck, and has been stuck for years. Despite the media frenzy over the upcoming U.S.-Russia summit in Alaska, there is little reason to expect a breakthrough, barring a dramatic change in the U.S., Russian or Ukrainian positions. When President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin meet on Friday, Aug. 15, observers should keep expectations low. Any progress would be welcome. Since February 2022, the conflict has been a slow, grinding war of attrition in which Russia has gradually seized more and more Ukrainian territory. Russia's military progress dampened its incentives to escalate the conflict, an early source of U.S. concern. For example, in the fall of 2022, the high-water mark for Ukraine on the battlefield, U.S. intelligence estimated that there was a 50% chance Russia would reach for nuclear weapons if its forces in southern Ukraine were facing collapse. Were Russia losing today, the risks for Americans would be higher. Putin's will vs. Trump's way While Russia's progress has limited the risk of escalation, it has also increased Moscow's willingness to continue fighting. Since beginning his second term, Trump has tried to find a way to end the war, but the Kremlin has not shown much willingness to moderate its demands. Putin has insisted on Ukraine renouncing aspirations to join NATO or allow NATO forces on its territory; conceding Russian sovereignty over the four provinces it annexed in 2022; the demilitarization of Ukraine; and the 'denazification' of the country, by which it means dramatic reforms to how it governs itself domestically. Putin has also rejected a temporary ceasefire that doesn't engage on these issues. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. The debate over the what to do next often obscures more than it reveals. One hears reference to Ukrainian victory or Russian defeat without defining what those terms mean or what their implications would be. Does Ukrainian victory or Russian defeat mean Kyiv regaining all territory inside its internationally recognized borders? That isn't going to happen. Could Ukraine losing territory but keeping its sovereignty and military ‒ without NATO membership ‒ be portrayed as success? Many security scholars believe that such armed neutrality is the best that can be achieved for Ukraine. Opinion: I was the US ambassador to Ukraine. Here's why I resigned. Don't forget Zelenskyy's intransigence This is where Ukraine's intransigence comes in. Even though Ukrainian public support for continuing the war has cratered, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is using the Ukrainian Constitution as a firewall against concessions. As amended in 2019, it both prohibits the Ukrainian government from ceding any territory and somewhat clumsily commits it to pursue membership in NATO. In rejecting Trump's suggestion that there be land swaps as part of a settlement, Zelenskyy pointed at the constitution's provision against giving up territory, arguing that 'no one will step back from this, nor will anyone be able to.' The Ukrainian president's willingness and ability to end the war probably has less to do with high-minded constitutional principles and more to do with his own political survival. At this point, the war has produced total destruction in Ukraine, the evisceration of its territory, and all the ruinous human and economic costs of the war ‒ but without any U.S. security guarantees. Zelenskyy knows this would be a disastrous legacy, so he has a powerful incentive to obtain something he can portray as a benefit of the war. Gen. Wesley Clark: Trump needs to push Putin hard to end war in Ukraine – now | Opinion The question is whether Kyiv's position on the battlefield can sustain Zelenskyy's intransigence on the political issues, with or without more U.S. support. There are worrying signs that it cannot. Ukraine faces an array of manpower issues along the 600-mile front. Key towns seem to be in jeopardy. Time is not on Ukraine's side. As always, the Europeans are doing everything in their power to keep the United States at the center of the war in Ukraine ‒ and as the central provider of regional security. They called a virtual meeting with Zelenskyy and Trump two days before the Putin summit, and proposed a plan for Ukraine that would involve potential NATO membership in exchange for Kyiv conceding that it lost territory. After the meeting on Aug. 13, French President Emmanuel Macron and European Council President António Costa indicated Trump committed that the United States would participate in security guarantees for Ukraine. However, Trump has previously resisted European pleas for U.S. security guarantees to Ukraine, and make no mistake: That is just what NATO membership would be. With two consecutive U.S. administrations revealing that Washington does not perceive an interest in Ukraine worth fighting Russia over, such a commitment would be inherently incredible. In the coming days, avoiding any traps laid by the Europeans, the Ukrainians or congressional hawks is essential. From a U.S. perspective, patience and low expectations are the right course for talks with Russia. Above all, Trump must avoid backing into a reboot of the Biden administration's Ukraine policy, which involved an endless flow of weapons and hoping for a miracle. America's resources for and interests in the war in Ukraine are limited. Trump's policy should reflect that. Justin Logan (@justintlogan) is director of defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.


NBC News
29 minutes ago
- NBC News
The CEO in chief: How Trump is getting what he wants from big business
For years, conservative groups and corporate leaders argued that the U.S. government would be better if it were run like a business. For President Donald Trump, who has controlled his own businesses for decades, that looks like taking an increasingly active role in individual corporations' affairs, from manufacturing to media to tech firms. And corporations are meeting the demands of a president who is more freely exerting his powers than he did the last time he was in office. At Trump's urging, Coca-Cola said it would produce a version of its namesake soda with U.S.-grown cane sugar. Paramount paid millions to settle allegations Trump levied against CBS' venerated '60 Minutes.' Two major semiconductor makers agreed to give the government a cut of their sales in China. The CEO of Intel met with Trump soon after the president called on him to resign. 'It's so much different than the first term,' said a Republican lobbyist whose firm represents several Fortune 500 companies, who spoke on condition of anonymity to speak candidly. 'He's just acting like a businessman. In his first term, I think he was trying to cosplay as a politician. He's more comfortable in his own skin, too. He can explain deals better.' Trump's role represents a break with past administrations that may have been unwilling or unable, politically, to bring similar pressure to bear on businesses. In the past, small-government conservatives once accused previous Democratic administrations of attempting to 'pick winners and losers' by trying to regulate industries. Trump today stands downstream of a bolder right-wing movement that calls for enhanced state intervention in corporate affairs. Trump has said the corporate concessions are intended to boost the U.S. economy. And the White House, in a statement, reinforced the idea that Trump's involved approach to private-sector dealings is a key part of his economic agenda. 'Cooled inflation, trillions in new investments, historic trade deals, and hundreds of billions in tariff revenue prove how President Trump's hands-on leadership is paving the way towards a new Golden Age for America,' White House spokesperson Kush Desai said.