No Funds for Repeat Child Care Violations Act
Term Dictionary
If you come across any unfamiliar words while reading, these resources can help make everything clearer. Pick whichever one works best for you!
- Congress.gov Legislative Glossary - Comprehensive congressional terms
- NVFC Congressional Terms Glossary - Concise, easy-to-understand definitions
The gist
The bill makes it mandatory — not optional — for the federal government to withhold child care funds from states that break Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) rules.
Who wins, who loses
- Wins: taxpayers wanting stricter fraud enforcement; families in compliant states.
- Loses: state agencies running flawed programs; low-income families relying on subsidized child care in penalized states.
What it does
- Amends Section 658I(b)(2)(B) of the 1990 CCDBG Act.
- Changes 'Secretary may' withhold funds to 'Secretary shall' withhold funds.
- Removes federal discretion when states violate program rules.
- Applies to repeat noncompliance and fraud findings.
Why should I care?
Supporters say mandatory penalties stop wasteful spending and force states to clean up fraud in programs serving kids. Critics argue automatic cuts punish low-income families who depend on subsidized child care, including teen parents finishing school. An alternative being debated: tie penalties to corrective action plans instead of automatic cuts. Where do you land? Vote below and use "Tell Your Rep" to make sure your voice reaches Congress.