Indiana's new child care laws take small bites out of the larger issue
For the more than 850,000 Indiana children who are infants through 9 years old, only 763 licensed child care centers exist to take care of them when their parents cannot. Because of this, a CNBC study ranked Indiana almost at the bottom for quality of life, with the worst access to child care in the country.
At the beginning of the 2025 legislative session, Indiana Senate Democrats prioritized child care in their agenda, writing that they hoped to fully fund the Child Care Development Fund (CCDF), a child care subsidy for low-income families. But with the session ending April 24, their goal did not come to fruition in the supermajority Republican General Assembly.
A 2024 study by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce found that over half of Hoosier parents miss work or class because they cannot find child care. Absenteeism and employee turnover caused by this struggle creates an estimated $3.05 billion in losses for Hoosier employers each year.
Vanessa Green Sinders, president and CEO of the Indiana Chamber, told TheStatehouseFile.com in January that child care desserts like Indiana deter potential workers from coming to the state.
'We are such a great state to do business in, and we have so much economic development going on, … but that enthusiasm and that economic development is going to take more workforce,' Sinders said.
The Indiana General Assembly did not allot funding in the state budget to give Hoosiers universal, affordable child care through the CCDF, On My Way Pre-K or any other program. Instead, lawmakers wrote piecemeal legislation that addressed small parts of the larger problem.
— House Bill 1253 was signed into law by Gov. Mike Braun on May 1.
During a House meeting late in the legislative session, which ended April 24, bill author Rep. Dave Heine, R-Fort Wayne, said the Senate amended the bill to no longer require children who receive child care at a school to be a child of an employee. The Senate also changed the bill to allow multi-site child care centers, like a YMCA, to be able to operate under one license.
'It really will make it easier for them to expand but also, importantly, maintain the ability of the state to, you know, inspect and hold accountable those individual sites without jeopardizing the functioning of the entire enterprise,' Sam Snideman, vice president of government relations for United Way of Central Indiana, told TheStatehouseFile.com.
The most important Senate amendment, in Heine's opinion, was the addition of language that allows in-home child care centers to continue operation as class two structures as long as they are licensed in that category before July 1.
'This is very important language that was added because right now, we have 43 child care facilities providing child care to approximately 800 children that could be at risk of closing down if we did not add this language,' Heine said in the House meeting.
— Senate Bill 463, also signed by Braun May 1, would give a tax credit to employers who offer near or onsite child care to their employees.
Snideman said adding this option would make employers who opt into the tax credit more competitive in Indiana's job market because employees with kids might choose to work there for child care.
The new law will also expand the Micro-Facility Pilot Program, a project that allows existing child care centers to open small, non-residential ones that serve three to 30 children.
Sinders said the Indiana Chamber supported SB 463 and HB 1253 because they attempt to make child care more affordable and accessible in Indiana.
— House Bill 1248, signed into law April 10, sets aside CCDF funds for foster families who receive last-minute placements.
'We don't want to disadvantage those folks who are doing, you know, really important work or, you know, quite honestly disrupt the care for kids who are already facing tremendous challenges.' Snideman said.
— House Bill 1102, another child care bill that reached the governor's desk, receiving his signature April 3, will allow schools to enter contracts with religiously affiliated, nonprofit pre-K sites that offer child care. Snideman said this will create more potential providers for Hoosier families.
Snideman believes the reason Indiana has not invested fully in CDDF and other government-funded child care initiatives is because the issue is so broad. But both he and Sinders believe there's room for optimism.
'I think about it from a positive perspective,' Sinders said. 'The legislature is willing to continue to work on this issue and continue to try to make progress. … Every bite at the apple helps get you to the solution.'
Snideman is even more confident about the possibility of universal child care in Indiana's future.
'We are committed to expanding opportunities for Hoosiers in this space,' he said, 'which means we will be committed to this long, incremental process of us getting to a place where eventually, you know, every family in our state who wants and needs to send their kids to pre-K or to child care will have that opportunity.
This piece is from TheStatehouseFile.com as part of the Statehouse Reporting Project, a collaborative effort by collegiate journalism programs operating in statehouses across the country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Alabama congressman seeks Senate seat
MOBILE, Ala. (WKRG) — Alabama Congressman Barry Moore announced he is running for a U.S. Senate position. UPDATE: Mobile police identify 2 men killed in industrial incident Moore currently serves as the United States representative for Alabama's District 1 after when the state redrew its congressional districts. In his announcement Tuesday morning, Moore promised to stand with President Donald Trump. Moore previously served in the Alabama State House for eight years as the District 91 representative. During his time in the state house, Moore served as chairman of the Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, as well as the vice-chair of the Small Business and Commerce Committee. If Moore were to win the election, he would be taking Tommy Tuberville's seat, as Tuberville previously announced . Atmore arrests: 6 held for immigration crimes, FBI says The Senate election will be held on Nov. 3, 2025. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Engineered Confusion: The $100 Million Threat To Business Integrity
Climate misinformation is no longer confined to the margins of public discourse. It has matured into a systemic force, a strategic instrument capable of shaping regulation, market dynamics, and public trust. A 2024 joint report from the U.S. Senate Budget Committee and House Oversight Committee revealed fossil fuel–aligned actors are spending more than $100 million annually to promote misleading narratives and block climate action, even as those same actors receive $600 billion in subsidies. The strategy has evolved: from outright denial of climate science to emotionally engineered scepticism, designed to create doubt, delay, and division. How Misinformation Is Rewriting Climate Policy The disinformation ecosystem now actively shapes regulatory outcomes. In 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced plans to roll back its authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and to repeal the 2009 endangerment finding, a basis legal and scientific ruling that underpins all U.S. federal climate regulation. Many consider this a direct result of coordinated lobbying and strategic messaging around political positions. Climate regulation was reframed as an attack on economic freedom and consumer choice, despite scientific consensus and broad public support. As Dr. Frederic Bertley, president and chief executive officer of the Center of Science & Industry (COSI), said in an interview, 'Policies are written by elected officials, usually attorneys or political scientists, not scientists. And most don't have a basic science literacy background. Sometimes, they base their decisions on information from lobbyists not experts, and the lobbyists frequently preserve legislation that allows the status quo.' Parallel efforts have targeted foundational data infrastructure. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), long trusted for climate modelling, has suffered funding cuts and the closure of key data centers. Without access to granular risk data, companies are left navigating climate volatility with impaired visibility – especially in terms of increasingly extreme weather. As Sean Buchan, intelligence c-ordinator at the Climate Action Against Disinformation coalition observes, 'The goal isn't to win a debate. It's to erode trust in institutions and paralyze decision-making. That paralysis directly harms business continuity.' Drilled Media has been instrumental in documenting the evolution of fossil fuel communication strategy. Today's misinformation doesn't deny climate science outright, it reframes the stakes. This new genre of messaging, dubbed petroganda, recasts fossil fuels as protectors of personal freedom, national sovereignty, and economic stability, while painting clean energy and climate policy as elite, costly, and controlling. But, as Buchan points out, 'There's actually new studies showing that almost all far-right parties in Europe have been using arguments, false arguments, against solar energy.' These narratives aren't grassroots; they're crafted through market research and deployed strategically to trigger emotion, deepen polarization, and block consensus on climate action. Buchan explains, 'You talk about facts, and they are seeking not emotionless truth, but emotional triggers. And then people believe the actors.' The effects are tangible as petroganda fuels local opposition to clean energy projects, inflates perceived risks in ESG investing, and enables deregulation by undermining climate governance, weakening the very institutions businesses depend on for forecasting, planning, and insurance. It also weaponizes identity, framing fossil fuels as aligned with the working class and masculinity, while painting renewables as urban and elite. This cultural divide silences companies and delays progress, while all the while AI is amplifying the threat. Generative tools produce expert-sounding disinformation at scale, embedding false narratives into dashboards, supply chains, and internal systems, making manipulation faster, cheaper, and harder to detect. What's really challenging is the level of public misunderstanding of just how many people actually do want to see climate action. A 2024 global survey revealed that 89% of people support stronger climate action, but most mistakenly believe that few others do. This misperception weakens the mandate for action, discouraging executives from pursuing bold strategies for fear of reputational backlash or political reprisal. Correcting this gap is more than a communications challenge, it's a market issue. Dr. Bertley says, 'Soundbites don't necessarily create understanding. If you meet people where they are, respect their questions, and avoid arrogance, you can move the needle. But the messaging needs to connect with what people care about.' At the same time, behavioural studies show that when people learn the majority supports action, willingness to engage, invest, and advocate increases sharply. In other words, telling the truth about public sentiment isn't just good ethics, it's smart business. When Ad Spend Fuels The Opposition Behind the scenes, the corporate advertising supply chain has become one of the most over-looked vectors for disinformation risk. Millions in programmatic ad spend are routed, often without oversight, to platforms that host climate lies, conspiracy theories, and hyper-partisan disinformation. As Harriet Kingaby, co-founder of the Conscious Advertising Network, explains, 'Advertisers are pouring money into a black box. There are so many middlemen in programmatic ad tech that brands have no idea where their ads land.' The consequences go beyond reputational risk. CAN research shows that 45% of consumers would reconsider their support for a brand funding climate misinformation, even indirectly. And while disinformation earns ad revenue through viral reach, up to 70% of legitimate climate content is demonetized due to outdated keyword blocklists, cutting off funding to credible journalism while amplifying false narratives. This is despite research showing it drives high engagement and trust. 'Brands have invested heavily in ethical supply chains for their physical goods,' Kingaby notes. 'Now they need to apply the same rigor to their digital supply chains. Otherwise, they are inadvertently underwriting the narratives that undermine their own climate strategies.' Advertising is just one high-profile example of how disinformation creates hidden liabilities. The same dynamic, where misinformation seeps into supply chains, dashboards, ESG data, or stakeholder narratives, can quietly undermine any part of a business that relies on trust, transparency, or credible information. Companies that fail to address disinformation in their supply chains, ad spend, and public messaging are increasingly going to be seen as complicit, not cautious. Buchan is blunt saying, 'Corporations need to ask not just what narratives they're using but what actors are benefiting from the lies. Follow the incentives. That's where disinformation unravels. They need to expose the actors, what financial interests are benefiting from the lie, rather than engage in a welcome-all context debate.' Effective corporate responses must go beyond fact-checking. They must integrate emotional resonance, community-centered messaging, and strategic foresight. That includes pre-emptive communications before project launches, investments in digital literacy, and public alignment with truth-based coalitions advocating for transparency and accountability in advertising and AI. Resilience today isn't just about physical assets or infrastructure, it's also about trust, credibility, and the ability to navigate an environment shaped by misinformation. In an era where misinformation actively shapes regulation, reputation, and public perception, perhaps it's time that companies start treating information integrity as infrastructure. This begins with a clear-eyed audit of digital advertising and media spend, ensuring that corporate dollars are not inadvertently funding climate disinformation. It requires demanding full transparency from ad tech partners, not just in principle, but down to the URL level. Internally, teams across communications, legal, sustainability, and marketing must be equipped to recognize and respond to manipulated narratives that could damage credibility or derail strategy. Strategic messaging must also evolve. It's no longer enough to present facts; companies need to tell stories that resonate emotionally-grounded in what matters most to people: jobs, public health, local security, and fairness. Externally, this commitment to integrity must extend to the policy environment as well. Businesses should be at the forefront of advocating for open data, algorithmic accountability, and enforceable standards around green claims. As Buchan says, 'We need to keep people who are lying accountable, and we need to create healthy incentives, rather than the current ones that promote lying.' Kingaby adds, 'It's time for the C-suite to get its hands on the steering wheel. This is a cross-functional risk, touching marketing, legal, sustainability, and finance. The opportunity is massive, but only if leaders act.' Information integrity is no longer a communications concern. It's a strategic imperative, one central to resilience, reputation, and long-term value creation. The Legal Reckoning Is Coming The legal landscape is catching up to these information risks. In July 2025, International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion that states, and by extension companies, have obligations to reduce emissions in line with human rights and climate science. These rulings, while non-binding, signal growing global alignment around legal accountability. Dr. Bertley adds, 'In general large corporations are not going to change just because of facts. It's not a science literacy issue, it's a moral and economic one. Unless there's policy and economic pressure, change is not likely to happen.' Companies in high-emitting sectors or those misaligned in word and deed may face legal scrutiny not just for what they emit, but for whether they've enabled or financed disinformation that blocks action. This dovetails with rising fiduciary awareness. Investors and regulators alike are questioning the integrity of ESG disclosures, particularly where companies claim climate leadership while unknowingly funding oppositional messaging. Information Integrity Is Competitive Advantage Disinformation is not background noise but rather a force that distorts regulation, derails projects, destabilizes markets, and weakens corporate resilience. The cost of inaction isn't just reputational: it's also legal, operational, and existential. In a volatile, high-stakes world, the ability to act on facts, rather than fight through fiction, has become a competitive advantage. In a landscape shaped by misinformation and engineered confusion, companies that invest in information integrity aren't just doing the right thing, they're protecting their future.
CNBC
2 hours ago
- CNBC
CNBC Daily Open: The U.S. inflation jump scare is not here — at least not yet
Waiting for tariff-induced price increases in the U.S. to show up can feel like watching an M. Night Shyamalan movie. July's consumer price index came in mostly benign. The headline annual rate of 2.7% was lower than the Dow Jones estimate of 2.8%. That said, the core figure was 0.1 percentage points more than expected, and the highest since February, before U.S. President Donald Trump unleashed his tariffs in April. "The tariffs are in the numbers, but they're certainly not jumping out hair on fire at this point," former White House economist Jared Bernstein, who served under Joe Biden, told CNBC. Things appear idyllic so far, but you know something's going to shock you out of your seats eventually — are the figures accurate, except that the decimal point should be shifted to the right? — which makes monitoring U.S. inflation a captivating experience. Jan Hatzius, Goldman Sachs' chief economist, in a Sunday research note estimated that the big reveal (when the U.S. consumer admits, "I see higher prices") could happen by October. (That could have placed him in Trump's crosshairs.) But markets hit record highs as investors saw the mild inflation numbers as a sign that the Federal Reserve has room to cut rates three times this year — or that tariffs might not drive prices that much higher. Maybe the original premise was wrong: As far as inflation goes, could we be in a happily-ever-after Disney flick, instead of a Shyamalan movie?U.S. prices in July rose less than expected. The consumer price index increased a seasonally adjusted 0.2% for the month, putting the annual figure at 2.7%. Economists polled by Dow Jones were expecting a 0.2% and 2.8% rise, respectively. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite close at new highs. On Tuesday, July's tame CPI report pushed the indexes up 1.13% and 1.39% respectively. Asia-Pacific markets traded higher Wednesday, with Japan's Nikkei 225 also hitting a fresh record. Trump threatens Fed chair Powell with a 'major lawsuit.' In a post on Truth Social, the U.S. president said the potential proceedings would relate to Powell's management of the Fed's headquarters renovations. Perplexity AI offers $34.5 billion to buy Google's browser. The bid for Chrome, which came unsolicited, is higher than Perplexity's $18 billion valuation in July, but the firm said investors have agreed to back the deal. [PRO] Gold prices could reach $4,000, analyst says. Wall Street foresees another rally for the bullion after Trump confirmed that "Gold will not be Tariffed!" One strategist is so bullish on gold he thinks it could jump 14% from today's prices to break the $4,000 level. Is London's financial future evolving or eroding? London's reputation as a leading global financial center is increasingly in question, as it struggles to compete with the likes of New York, Hong Kong and Frankfurt. Brexit still hamstrings the economy, particularly through trade barriers, increased border costs and reduced productivity compared with staying in the European Union. Despite the challenges and setbacks, all is not lost. Business leaders say there is still hope and opportunity for London.
