State Policy

Our childcare system has been in crisis for years. Families can't afford to pay, and costs keep climbing. Childcare providers struggle to make a living, with only their passion for kids to keep them going.

So, what is the state government going to do about it? Maybe nothing, it turns out. 

In early 2024, the Utah legislature passed a law inspired by a clever model from Kentucky to bring more childcare professionals back into the field. The "Kentucky Model" supports childcare workers by covering their childcare costs even if their income is above typical thresholds. Multiple states have followed Kentucky's lead and implemented this approach. 

HB461 "Child Care Grant Amendments," sponsored by Rep. Ashlee Matthews (D-Kearns), was the only proactive, positive step Utah’s legislature took this year to address the child care crisis. The law went into effect on May 1, technically. 

However, the state's Office of Child Care (OCC) has no plan or timeline for implementing Utah's "Kentucky Model" policy. Leaders within OCC and the Department of Workforce Services (DWS) say that the legislation's language —"subject to available federal funds"— allows them to decide whether the “Kentucky Model” will ever be put into practice. In a story about the policy aired on June 27, DWS Deputy Director Rebecca Banner told Ben Winslow of FOX13 News that the Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) money Utah receives from the federal government is "already spoken for." "[HB461 implementation] was contingent on being allowed by our federal rules and regulations and also by funding availability. We spent time over the last couple of months looking to see if we could implement this program, and we did not receive any additional funding."

The new program was not included in the Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25) Budget that OCC presented to the Office of Child Care Advisory Committee on May 8, one week after the law was meant to go into effect. The policy was also not included in Utah’s draft CCDF State Plan, which sets plans for child care subsidies in the years ahead. These omissions suggest that OCC does not intend to implement the program, regardless of the statutory direction to do so.

When HB461 went before the House Business and Labor Committee, legislators balked at spending any state funds on the program, though the estimated cost of a fully implemented Kentucky Model policy was only $2.5 million. That's less than 2% of OCC's projected $130.5 million subsidy budget for FY25. 

After confirming that federal guidelines permit such use of subsidy funding, Rep. Norm Thurston (R-Provo) added language indicating the program should be implemented with federal dollars if that funding is available and the program is approved by federal administrators. With this understanding that federal, not state, funding would be used to implement Utah's "Kentucky Model," the bill passed through the committee and legislature with overwhelming support and was signed by Governor Cox in March. 

Despite strong legislation support and an increase in federal subsidy funding of over $9 million for FY25, Utah’s OCC told advocates in May that they may choose not to follow the state law at all, prioritizing other expenses instead of workforce recruitment and retention.

This workforce-oriented, high-return strategy was conceived in another "red" state, making it a solid choice for state government in addressing Utah's childcare crisis. For every childcare worker who is able to work in the field due to this policy, between four and eight childcare spots become available to other Utah families. There is a clear and substantial return on investment when states use the "Kentucky Model.". 

Many childcare programs in Utah are operating below capacity due to staffing issues. A center licensed for 80 children may be able to care for only 50 due to vacant staff positions. A paid childcare benefit to attract new workers could help that center reach full capacity, supporting more Utah families. 

In Kentucky, where this innovative "child care support for child care workers" approach was initially born, it was the state's Office of Child Care that conceived and initiated the idea. In Utah, though, elected officials and childcare advocates will need to do a lot of extra work to get our own Office of Child Care to follow the law. 

As the November elections approach, one crucial issue on the ballot is the proposed amendment to end the constitutional mandate Utah voters passed decades ago, directing the legislature to use state income tax to fund public education. This proposal will show up on your ballot as Amendment A, and it is based on SJR10, Proposal to Amend the Utah Constitution - Income Tax [1], which passed during the 2023 legislative session.  

Voices for Utah Children is opposed to this change to Utah’s constitution. Here’s why. 

Utahns Approved the Constitutional Education Funding Mandate Nearly 80 Years Ago

Utah implemented its state income tax in 1932. In 1946, voters approved a Constitutional amendment that created the education funding mandate, allocating all income tax revenue exclusively for K-12 public education. This changed in 1996 when another amendment allowed higher education to dip into the income tax pot. And again, in 2020, Amendment G passed, which expanded the use of income tax revenue for social services supporting children and individuals with disabilities [2].

Think of Utah’s constitutional mandate (sometimes referred to as an “earmark”) as setting aside a portion of your paycheck specifically for your child’s school supplies, textbooks, and educational needs. The mandate ensures that a certain amount of public funding is always dedicated to supporting schools and students, helping to maintain academic quality, and providing necessary resources. 

Amendment A would remove this mandate, allowing state legislators to redirect this designated funding elsewhere, as they see fit.

This Change to Our Constitution Poses a Threat to Utah Schools  

Utahns feel a strong commitment to public education. According to Utah Foundation polling, public education consistently ranks as a top issue for Utah voters[3]. With over 90% of Utah's school-aged children attending public schools, many Utahns express positive views about their own schools. The proposal to change Utah’s constitutional education funding mandate does not reflect the priorities of the majority of Utahns in support of public education. 

Utah’s constitutional mandate for public education funding ensures a dedicated source of funding for public education for Utah children. If Amendment A passes and the constitutional mandate is removed, it could undermine the quality of Utah's public education. Our state's children need consistent and dedicated funding to maintain high educational standards and to ensure equitable access across different regions and demographics​. 

Our commitment to funding public education is enshrined in our state constitution. The legislature’s desire to change this is a significant issue that should not be taken lightly. Amendment A creates uncertainty around your child’s school funding. For example, for fiscal year 2025, individual income tax revenue is projected to be around $7.3 billion [4]. Without the clarity of Utah’s constitutional mandate, these funds can be easily diverted away from public education, leaving Utah’s children and teachers without essential support [5]. Already, state leaders have cut the income tax year after year, reducing funding that could be invested in our children's futures.

The Likely Impacts of Changing Our Constitution 

Funding Instability: Without the constitutional mandate directing the legislature to spend our income taxes on public education, state education funding could become subject to political whims. 

Increased Property Taxes: If the constitutional mandate is removed and the legislature reduces school funding, school districts will need to compensate for the lost revenue by increasing property taxes. This challenge would be even greater for rural districts, where the property tax base is limited. These less prosperous school districts may be unable to cover the shortfall. 

Equity Concerns: Utah’s current method of funding public education helps to balance educational opportunities across our varied communities. Some school districts are able to raise a lot of money, through wealthy residents with high-end property. Other school districts do not have access to that level of wealth, and rely on state funding to ensure equitable opportunities for their students. Removing the constitutional mandate could exacerbate inequalities.

Uncertain Future Funding Plans: If the constitutional mandate is removed, legislators must provide clear answers on how education will be funded. Without specific, transparent plans, there is a significant risk that public education funding would be deprioritized.

The Connection Between Amendment A and School Vouchers

Utah’s new school voucher program is also part of this equation. The school voucher program will allow thousands of Utah families to use taxpayer dollars to send their children to private school. The legislature has diverted over $80 million to this school privatization effort since its inception in 2023 - doubling the initial investment before even a single voucher had been awarded to any Utah families. It's important to note that lawmakers initially requested $150 million, signaling their intention to continue diverting public funds away from public education [6].

Lawmakers have made it clear that they plan to continue to increase funding for vouchers, regardless of program outcomes. If the constitutional amendment to fund public education is removed, the flow of resources away from neighborhood public schools and toward private schools could intensify. This will likely reduce the quality and equity of public education that 90% of Utah's children rely on [7]. 

What Lies Ahead? 

The removal of Utah’s constitutional mandate and years of income tax rate cutting have long-term implications for public education. Utah schools still have large class sizes and lack an adequate number of paraeducators, counselors, and nurses. Ending the constitutional mandate could potentially affect everything from teacher salaries and school infrastructure to student performance and community well-being. 

Is Amendment A good for kids? These serious and potential impacts lead us to believe that it is not. Voices for Utah Children is opposed to changing Utah’s constitution in a way that puts our state on the path toward defunding public education. We hope that you will oppose it, as well. 

Endnotes 

[1] Utah Legislature. "S.J.R. 10 Proposal to Amend the Utah Constitution - Income Tax." Accessed June 21, 2024. https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/SJR010.html.

[2] Romboy, Dennis. "Utah's Constitutional Amendment to Change How State Funds Education." Deseret News, October 5, 2020. Accessed June 21, 2024. https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/10/5/21502931/amendment-g-constitutional-amendment-education-child-advocates-say-doesnt-add-up/.

[3]  "Utah Priorities Project Report: 2024," Utah Foundation, April 2024, https://www.utahfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/rr819.pdf.

[4]  Utah Legislature. "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2023." Accessed June 21, 2024. https://cobi.utah.gov/2024/1/overview.

[5]  Voices for Utah Children. "What Does Eliminating Utah's Income Tax Mean for Kids?" Accessed June 21, 2024. https://utahchildren.org/newsroom/speaking-of-kids-blog/item/1249-income-tax-elimination-kids-impact.

[6] Utah Legislature. "House Bill 215 - Utah Fits All Scholarship Program." Accessed June 21, 2024. https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/HB0215.html

[7] Utah News Dispatch. "Teacher union files lawsuit against Utah FITS All School Choice Voucher Program." Accessed July 3, 2024. https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/05/29/teacher-union-files-lawsuit-against-utah-fits-all-school-choice-voucher-program/.

Our team at Voices for Utah Children is proud to support juvenile justice reforms in Utah that are more effective and efficient for all involved. Recently, we’ve actively engaged in advocacy for reform since 2016, when state leadership embarked on a full-scale evaluation of Utah’s juvenile justice system at that time. 

As the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government convened a wide-ranging group of experienced professionals and system experts, Voices joined with multiple other community-based non-profit organizations to articulate “Guiding Principles for Juvenile Justice Reform in Utah.”

Our number one guiding principle for reform was to “promote the critical role of early, non-criminal-justice intervention in the lives of young people, for the purpose of avoiding future justice involvement.”

This principle leads us to approach juvenile justice policy analysis and advocacy not by asking, “What is wrong with these kids?” but by asking, “What is going on with these kids?”

The vast majority of young people engaged in misconduct are acting out due to underlying issues that have not been addressed, such as:

• Serious childhood trauma such as sexual, physical and emotional abuse, including harms caused by another child;
• Undiagnosed and unsupported learning disabilities or mental health issues;
• Homelessness and housing insecurity;
• Family disruptions resulting in lack of support and supervision, such as substance abuse by primary guardians or absence of caring adults due to refugee or immigration status;
• Food insecurity and other poverty-related challenges; and more. 

Why Early Intervention?

Ensuring early intervention is the most cost-effective and productive way to ensure that children never engage in criminal activity to begin with. This is the best path not only for a young person who might have otherwise harmed other people and their own community, but for those who might have been harmed.

(From Utah Juvenile Justice & Youth Services FY2022 Presentation)

Our communities are safest when children don’t act out in the first place. That is one reason that our organization advocates so strenuously for all Utah children to have access to food, shelter, health care and early education opportunities. These are preventative factors.

We also advocate for public policies that engender greater stability in the homes of young people, so they have fewer risk factors for antisocial behavior. Such policies include cash assistance for struggling families with children, access to health care for adults in the household, and help finding and paying for quality childcare so parents can work.

Harshly punishing young people with hundreds of hours of community service, fines they can’t pay, or isolation in a locked detention facility with other troubled children does not cultivate a sense of accountability and remorse.

In fact, over-punishment can actually make children more likely to reoffend, which is terrible for public safety.

Providing early access to interventions for young people who are struggling produces much better results. Harsher penalties also do not actually help those harmed by a youth’s antisocial behavior. A better approach is to ensure that as many young people as possible have their basic needs met, so their reasons for acting out are greatly diminished.

Children Are Not Adults

The juvenile justice system is structured differently than the adult criminal justice system, because children are not the same as adults. Research from the past several decades shows that the brains of most young people do not stop growing and developing until they are in their mid-20s. For this reason, our legal system has chosen to approach juvenile justice differently, with a greater emphasis on intervention and rehabilitation. 

Most teenagers get into trouble for something during their formative years. Shoplifting, sexting, experimenting with drugs, getting in physical fights and skipping school are common mistakes made by young people finding their way into adulthood. Penalties for children should take into account that almost every human being does “dumb stuff” while growing up. Over-criminalization of these behaviors do not prevent young people from getting lured into them. Teenagers rarely know the legal penalties for their misconduct, and they lack the judgment to fully weigh how their future will be impacted by their behavior. 

Disparities in the System  

One serious issue that juvenile justice reform in Utah still has not been able to address, are the dramatic racial disparities that occur at each step of our juvenile justice system.

Research shows that children of color are much more likely to receive harsh penalties for misconduct than their white peers. What is understood as “age appropriate acting out” when a white child does it, is more often interpreted as “evidence of criminal character” when that very same behavior is exhibited by a child or color.

(From Striving for Racial Equity in Utah's Juvenile Justice System, 2020)

We object to policy proposals structured around harsh penalties, because we know those penalties are much more likely to hurt children and families of color, due to persistent racial injustice in our society. We believe that moving forward in a different way offers the best chance to address these disparities. 

A Better Way Forward

Not all misconduct can be addressed by low-level interventions. Some children cause serious harm to others. There are children who leave families mourning and in pain. Taking a life, or perpetrating sexual abuse, are serious crimes for which our most serious interventions, including detention and secure care, should be reserved. Those who are hurt by serious offenses deserve real support, such as counseling and financial support, not just dramatic penalties that risk creating public safety issues for others in the future. 

We try to advocate for policies that are shaped by the most up-to-date research, expert recommendations and actual data. Sometimes, this information changes, and we must reshape the ways in which we pursue the most positive outcomes for children.

(From 2023 Juvenile Reform Report, System Trends 2023 Juvenile Reform Report, System Trends)

Our state’s own research shows that the “old way” of doing things is unnecessarily expensive, is ineffective at reducing reoffending, and is more likely to engender resentment than remorse. Going backward will not help Utah children. We have to keep moving forward, with new knowledge and best practices, in order to best serve our kids. 

If you have questions about this blog post, please contact  or anna@utahchildren. Annual Juvenile Reform Reports can be accessed through our state's Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice website here. 

The 2024 Utah Legislative Session ended at midnight on Friday, March 1. For the Voices for Utah Children team, this session included supporting a lot of community engagement, working hard to protect the programs that protect Utah kids, and trying not to get distracted by outlandish efforts to "solve" problems that don't actually exist in Utah.

As usual, there were many, many missed opportunities for state leaders to improve the lives of Utah kids. Nonetheless, we managed to pull off some great victories - as always, in partnership with many supportive community members, our great partner organizations and supportive public servants.

We hosted six different public engagement events at the Capitol over seven weeks. Working closely with our community partners, we stopped some truly terrible legislation that literally threatened the lives of Utah kids who rely on Medicaid and CHIP. Thanks to many supportive child care professionals and working parents, we kept Utah's child care crisis in the media spotlight throughout the session. 

For a deeper dive into our efforts in various policy areas, as well as a recap of what happened to the many different bills we were tracking, check out the virtual booklet below! 

Download a Copy

The original version of this legislative recap misidentified the city of residence of a member of the Utah State Legislature. This has been corrected. For more information, please contact .

Our organization recognizes the importance of standing against policies that jeopardize the well-being of Utah’s children. We believe that regular community members have the right and responsibility to influence decisions about policies that affect their lives. 

The ability of everyday Utahns to influence public policy directly, through ballot initiatives, should be part of our state’s democratic process. However, the state legislature for years has passed laws that make it more difficult for members of the public to pose questions to their fellow voters statewide, by conducting ballot initiatives.  

This year, the campaign to suppress public ballot initiatives takes the form of two complementary bills, both sponsored by Rep. Jason Kyle (R-Huntsville). HJR14, “Proposal to Amend Utah Constitution - Statewide Initiatives,” would amend our state constitution so that a simple majority of Utah voters can no longer approve new or expanded funding streams for state programs. The bill increases the threshold for a winning ballot initiative from 50% to 60%, when the ballot initiative seeks to increase revenue for state programs through a new tax or by expanding an existing tax. HB284, “Initiative Amendments,”  would require a ballot initiative that increases taxes to specify where the money will come from to pay for the tax increase. 

Ballot Initiatives in Utah Are Already Nearly Impossible

Utah is already one of the most difficult states in which to conduct a public ballot initiative. Whether the ballot initiative reflects the desires of Utahns to revert to our old state flag, or to expand Medicaid coverage to more people in need, organizers face high barriers before the voting public can weigh in. 

For example. Utah law currently requires ballot initiative organizers to collect a total of 134,298 signatures, and they must meet specific signature thresholds in at least 26 out of 29 Senate districts. (between about 3,000 and 5,600 handwritten signatures per district, depending on the Senate district). 

Even when organizers manage to clear all the hurdles to get a public ballot initiative before Utah voters, the Legislature has shown that it feels no obligation to respect voters’ desires. Ballot initiatives to legalize medical cannabis, expand Medicaid coverage to more Utahsn, and to create an independent redistricting commission (to push back on legislative gerrymandering)  all successfully passed in 2018. The legislature walked back all of these efforts, either completely undoing, or mangling the implementation of, each successful initiative.  

Why Voices Opposes HJR14 & HB284

Decisions made at the state level regarding investments in education, healthcare, childcare, and other essential services have profound consequences for future generations. By adding yet more hurdles for members of the public seeking to impact state laws, HJR14 and HB284 risk undermining the public’s constitutional right to directly petition their government. 

If HJR14 is approved, the proposed amendment will appear on voter ballots this November. Utah voters will be able to decide whether to limit their own access to this incredibly important tool for democratic influence over public policies that affect us all. 

Voices for Utah Children opposes the passage of HJR14 and HB284, recognizing the importance of preserving Utahns’ right to safeguard the interests of its children through ballot initiatives. This is particularly important now, as the legislature increasingly ignores public comment, public outcry and public sentiment when introducing and passing their bills. 

Your voice matters! You can participate in the democratic process right now by weighing in on these bills, either by providing a public comment during the committee hearings or by writing your legislator to express your objections.

VIEW OUR LEGISLATIVE TRACKER TO LEARN MORE!

Representative Susan Pulsipher’s HB 153: Child Care Revisions narrowly passed the Utah State Legislature on February 28, 2024, and was signed by the Governor on March 14, 2024.

Initially proposed as a child tax credit expansion initiative, HB 153 has evolved into a more complex bill with significant implications. This FAQ aims to address questions about the passed bill and explain its key components.

 What does HB 153 do?

There are three main components to this bill:

1. Child Tax Credit Expansion: HB 153 expands Utah’s child tax credit to include 4-year-olds. Currently, children aged 1-3 are eligible if their family meets certain income criteria and has a tax liability. This expansion will make the credit available to 0.4% more families, benefiting 1.1% more children, with an average annual tax savings of $456 per eligible family.
2. Unlicensed Provider Capacity Expansion: HB 153 increases the cap on the number of unrelated children an unlicensed provider can care for from 6 to 8 (current law remains at 10 children cap if also caring for related children). With this change, Utah now ranks as the second-worst state nationally in unregulated care capacity, trailing only South Dakota.
3. New Unlicensed Provider Oversight: In response to concerns from the child care community, HB 153 introduces new requirements for unlicensed providers. They must now undergo criminal background checks through the Office of Child Care Licensing. Additionally, a new stipulation limits the number of children under 3 years old being cared for to 2. Previously, unlicensed providers operated without formal oversight or state requirements.

When will this go into effect?

Each component of the bill will go into effect at a different time:

1. Child Tax Credit Expansion: Initially introduced under HB 170 in 2023, the Child Tax Credit, applicable to children aged 1-3, cannot be claimed until families file their 2024 taxes, in 2025. For families with eligible 4-year-olds, the credit won't be claimable until they file their 2025 taxes, in 2026.
2. Unlicensed Provider Capacity Expansion: Starting May 1, 2024, unlicensed providers will be permitted to care for up to 8 unrelated children.
3. New Unlicensed Provider Oversight: Background check requirements and restrictions on the number of children under the age of 3 in care will take effect on July 1, 2024.

How will this new oversight of unlicensed providers function under HB 153?

The Office of Child Care Licensing (OCCL) within the Department of Health and Human Services already oversees residential child care licenses, which are required for providers caring for 9 or more children. OCCL also oversees the Residential Certificate program which is currently required for providers caring for 7-8 children. HB 153 now makes Residential Certification optional. 

Additionally, HB 153 essentially adds a new layer of regulated care, mandating background checks for providers caring for under 8 children who do not hold a license or certificate. Current law does not require background checks for anyone caring for under 6 children. HB 153 mandates the same level of background checks as licensed child care providers, covering all staff, volunteers, and individuals older than 12 residing in the residence.

The process and enforcement mechanisms are still unclear. The bill directs the Department of Health and Human Services to establish rules for criminal background check submission. Similar requirements exist in Idaho, but enforcement is limited to instances where an unlicensed program is reported to the state.

Stay tuned for further guidance from the Office of Child Care Licensing regarding this process.

Will this increase access to child care? Will it decrease the cost of child care?

The answer is uncertain. While the state has previously expanded unlicensed child care capacity, the lack of tracking of unlicensed child care makes it impossible to gauge effectiveness.

Regulations are often blamed for high child care costs and limited availability, but studies show no direct correlation between state regulations and child care supply levels. Utah's Office of Child Care Licensing continuously strives to make licensing as easy to obtain as possible without compromising quality and safety standards.

There's no evidence to suggest this change will alleviate the child care crisis. In fact, experts predict it may decrease available child care by incentivizing programs to downsize and forego licenses.

Is this licensing change safe?

Just as there are undoubtedly reputable unlicensed providers, incidents can occur in licensed facilities as well. However, licensed providers benefit from established systems for monitoring and support, facilitating continuous improvement. The challenge with unlicensed providers lies in the lack of oversight—without clear regulations, identifying potential risks becomes difficult. 

Unfortunately, the impact of unlicensed child care expansion often goes unrecognized until horrible things happen and it's too late. Without state oversight, it’s important for parents to learn about the differences between licensed and unlicensed child care. Below is a comparison chart outlining key distinctions, but we encourage parents to leverage OCCL's resources for informed decision-making.

* Training covers CPR, First Aid, home safety, emergency prevention, shaken baby syndrome prevention, sudden infant death syndrome prevention, care for children with disabilities, infectious disease control, child development, homelessness detection, and child abuse awareness.

This FAQ will be regularly updated with new questions and any developments from the Office of Child Care Licensing. If you have additional questions, please don't hesitate to reach out to Jenna at .