Ohio House Children and Human Services Committee - 3-11-2026

Hi everybody. I would like to immediately give everyone permission to take off any jackets. It's going to be real warm, and so we're just going to have a good day together. I would like to call this meeting of the House Children and Human Services Committee to order. Clerk, please call the roll.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here. Representative Bryant-Bailey's excused.

Present and accounted for.

Here.

Representative Miller.

Representative Odioso.

Representative Ray.

Present. Okay, we do have a quorum, so we're going to proceed as a full committee to check out your auditives for the minutes. And anyone has any objections to those minutes? Seeing none, they are approved. approved. As a reminder, if you're going to take pictures today, we ask that you fill out the forms that are right there by that. If you need to take pictures, please fill out one of those forms that are right there by that hand gel sitting up there. So today we're going to switch up the order just a little bit. The first thing we're going to do is take our vote. I would like to call up House Bill 464 for its fourth hearing. And what is the pleasure of the committee? I recognize Representative Richardson.

Chair White. Yes. Vice Chair Salvo. Yes. Ranking Member Lett. Yes. Representative Brewer. Yes. Representative Brownlee. Yes. Representative Bryant Bailey. Representative Click. Yes. Representative Dieter. Yes. Representative Fowler-Arthur. Representative Miller. Yes. Representative Odioso. Yes.

Yes.

who is going to talk to us about a sub bill. Madam Chairwoman I move to amend House Bill 649 with I-136-2560-9.

Thank you. Sure, thank you. This sub-bill comes from the sponsors who worked with interested parties to make a variety of changes, including limiting videos and photos to specific areas and moving the requirements for investigations from the Auditor of State to the Inspector General.

Thank you Chairman So given the feedback that I received from the committee during sponsored testimony and numerous interested party meetings we made substantial changes from the original as introduced version to the sub bill. And I'll outline some of those with detail and take any questions in regards to it. So we removed the requirement of the installation of cameras into the daycare centers. That's removed from the bill. Instead, we're using the actual tablets that are already provided from the Department of of children and youth where they currently use a system where they take a photo of the adult that's pinning in the child as a form of attendance verification. What we do instead is we change that to a photo or video of the minor child. That will only be kept short enough to confirm attendance. The DCY will be forced to delete it. We even had conversations with DCY today about the use of facial recognition software where no photo would even need to be taken. So there will be further amendments to the bill. but we alleviated some of the concerns of additional costs to daycare providers by removing the camera system, the ability of real time audits using the camera system, the storage of those videos. We listened to the concern of the committee of interested parties and removed that section. We also listened to some of the concerns of the interested parties as it relates to the current programs that are in place. So in addition, we made it where the absentee days could be split in half. If you have a school-aged child, and they normally will come after school hours for daycare services, but they are not coming for something that is academically or athletically related to their school, that the daycare center could then use a half day of attendance to cover that so they don't bear the burden of the cost, because currently they can't get paid for that time. That's in there. We also removed the requirement of a physical sign-in sheet, of making it perfectly clear that the daycare centers can use digital software in order to maintain attendance compliance. Now when DCY does their inspections, typically they ask the daycare providers to print out those attendance records so they can review them, but we make it perfectly clear that you don't have to have a physical sign in sheet that can be lost and then you're found to be non in compliance. And then I did want to update in regards to our meeting with DCY where we've done some public information requests, we don't believe DCY is intentionally delaying or not turning over those records. But I mean they have turned over records to us of 24 centers that we shut down in the state of Ohio. We do have a list of how much of an overpayment some of these people received. And these were isolated to mostly eight week windows of review, some of them were longer. But like we have a daycare center right here in Franklin County that was overpaid $204,000 in a very short window. And when they were finally reviewed they were able to be found in non-compliance and were shut down. But we also eliminated the back dating, which was a huge deal for DCY. This is where a lot of the potential for fraud is there, where you can back date and there's no way to audit to disprove it. So we removed the back dating, except for the initial application window. So when a parent applies and their application is pending, there's typically a 30 day window where they can get approved. most of our providers allow them to enroll in the daycare center hoping that they get approved, but maybe they don't and the daycare center just has to eat the loss. We're allowing them to backdate for that window only. Okay, and in the future if there's anything that happens, they can backdate with the approval of DCY specifically. So if there was something like the technology went down, the tablet broker was stolen, and there a specific reason why you couldn do the daily verification using photo video or facial recognition using the tablet provided by DCY then you could ask for permission to backdate and that very specific instance in DCY would have that authority. So that's most of the changes that we made to the bill and there's some other small changes that you'll see in the form of amendments since we just met with DCY today. They wanted to clarify some language and make sure that the intent of the bill matches the actual language that's there. So I appreciate the opportunity to explain the sub bill and it's up to the chair, but I would take any questions.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you, Rep, for bringing this forward again. My one question is the eliminating backdating, have you had any conversations with child care providers? Is that going to be problematic to them as well?

Will we incur a cost for that facial recognition? Do we know that yet as far as fiscal impact?

Any other questions? Ranking Member Lutt.

Through the chair to the ranking member, yes, it says they can only hold it long enough to do attendance verification and payment, which now is up to 30 days. So it's up to the daycare provider currently how often they want to be paid by DCY. Some of them choose every week, some of them choose biweekly, some of them choose monthly. So the longest they need to hold that image is 30 days to do verification. But we also say that if, on the back end, if they use facial recognition software or just a Attendance verification software that just confirms that a photo was taken and that there's an individual in the photo. That type of software is instantaneous as well. What we don't want to do is open the door for, we have to understand what we're trying to prevent here. It's not that the daycare provider is committing fraud without the knowledge of the parent, because that's not typically what we see. What we're seeing is where the parent and the provider are working in concert in order to commit fraud. So the parent can go take their photo, pick up, drop off, and the kid never was present. And we're paying out for kids that are not getting the services that they need, the daycare that they need. We're just trying to cut down on that. So we're trying to minimize as much as possible. And we talked to DCY earlier about amendment language that will clearly indicate that DCY should choose the software operation that would be minimally invasive. So if you don't need to take a photo, don't take it. If you can just use facial recognition software, but eventually it may take time. The tablets may need to be upgraded. The software that the tablets use may need to be upgraded. The clarity of the images that can be taken. So maybe that's the cameras that are in the tablets that are older that only have a certain megapixel. They need to be upgraded. All of that costs a little bit of money. So we're giving DCY time to be able to come back to us and say, because of what we did in the legislature, we need an increase of our budget, a one-time fund to do these upgrades, and we can do that in next year's operating budget.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for, like I said, the work that you did in this. Again, one of the concerns that we are having, or I'm having, is the facial recognition piece, and also the storage of the photos. You know, we can, I think my voting data is very sensitive, but that was given over to another agency. I think my photograph of my students or my children are sensitive. What safeguards to know that the picture of my child won't be used or given away to someone if they ask? Yeah. Because I truly believe my voting data is also sacred. So how do we make sure that this doesn't happen to a photograph of the children? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Did you have a follow-up? Okay, Rep. Richardson.

Through the chair, Mr. Member, we could. We could require DCY to update the system very quickly. A lot of it is, you know, parents will become eligible for this child care, and then let's say parents move on and get a better-paying job. They're not technically eligible anymore, but the child stays on the roll. And that's where essentially it's the local job and family services that are not updating the roles. Quick, DCY is taking the recommendation from the local JFS to say the kid's eligible. And then what happens when the kid's ineligible? There's no requirement that the parent report new income to tell them that they're ineligible until there's like a six-month review, a year-long review. So then we have the potential of where the parent's getting publicly funded child care, technically the income shouldn't be there. Are they committing a violation of a felony offense of getting services they shouldn't have got? That's kind of a different conversation. But unless we're going to require the county departments to renew applications quicker, that's something if you guys want to consider that. We could, you know, there could be an age verification, or we could change the process for publicly funded child care, saying that individuals need to record their weekly or biweekly income. We did that with Medicaid under the work requirement is that you must provide proof of your income. You must provide proof that you work 20 hours a week or you do schooling 20 hours a week. If we wanted to make that type of requirement for publicly funded child care, I'm not going to bat an eye at it. I mean, these are dollars that are being given by our taxpayers to provide for kids that are not theirs, essentially. But because of the programs we want, the workforce development that we want, it's a great program. But we want to make sure the money's not going where it shouldn't be going.

Through the chair, it's the representative. Absolutely, because I talked to DCY about this today. We are the most lenient states when it comes to the number of absentee days allowed in a calendar year. We allow 40. We're one of the most lenient states. That's 40 days that you get paid for a child that was not in your center. They do it to preserve the financial integrity of the daycare centers. I understand it. But that also means when a kid should come off of your rolls, you may be incentivized to keep them because you've got 30 more attendance days that you get to use, absentee days, you get to use before the end of the calendar year. And you get the right, that's 30 days you're getting paid. So that is a concern, and DCY did bring that up about the absentee because I was splitting it in half days. We did talk about that. And DCY also brought up an interesting topic that we are unique as a state. most verifications, eligibility verifications for publicly funded child care happen at the state level. We are a very outlier that we do it at the county level. And what we're seeing from the federal government when they're putting in requirements of verification on the states, they don't care that the error rate is caused by our counties. They care what the error rate is for the state. So DCY does want to have a broader conversation about maybe aligning us with other states where the state is the one providing for eligibility, not the local job and family services. But I didn't address that in this bill.

If I can, I am, but if I can reply very quickly. By using half days, we do not increase the overall number of days. And it's very narrow to school-age kids that are engaged in after-school activities that are associated with their academics. So it's a very small number of kids. Now, DCY actually was talking about they wanted to expand their criteria to allow half days or full days for kids that go home sick because they don't want the sick kids to stay in a daycare center and things of that nature. We're trying to literally create a very tiny carve-out of the kid that on Tuesdays and Thursdays is going to soccer practice. and they check it in the morning, they check out when they go to school, they don't check back in, so you can't use the absentee day. Well, I understand that.

Representative Fowler-Arthur. Thank you Madam Chair and I try to make it a quick question Last week or two weeks ago when the director testified on the prosecutor authority to prosecute the cases it seemed like maybe there's not as many cases as first appeared that are not being prosecuted by the prosecutors. I know I'm getting a fair amount of pushback from my prosecutors that they want to retain that authority to prosecute. Have you considered any amendment that would allow for certain triggers to be met where the prosecutor is just ignoring the case for a specific period of time before the provision for the AG would kick in?

A follow-up?

Thank you for coming in. Good afternoon, Chair White, Vice Chair Salvo, Ranking Member Lett, and members of the House Children and Human Services Committee. I'm offering interested party testimony on House Bill 649, specifically around the issues and proposal around daily photo surveillance of children, which I am familiar with that portion of the substitute bill that was offered today, but I'm not offering any other comment or responding to other parts of the substitute bill. Fraud prevention should be balanced and proportionate to the problem it seeks to address, and the burden of program integrity should fall upon adults and adults only. Among the multiple proposals to improve program integrity be considered by this committee, certain provisions of House Bill 649 substantially increase the burden put upon children and families to verify daily attendance. While families and children are the beneficiaries of the services being supported through the utilization of a child care subsidy, they are not the payee. We reached out to Ohio families willing to share their insight and concerns about this level of surveillance, and their concerns included the following that fall into five categories, and I've included some quotes that begin on the second page of my testimony. If you want to follow along, I won't have time to read all of them. The first category of concern is child safety and privacy risks, and I know many of you have brought up this conversation, so thank you, and here's a finer point on that from families. Requiring daily photographs of children receiving child care when their parents' photos are already taken creates additional and significant privacy and safety concerns. Collecting daily identifiable images of 100,000 children and storing them in state or contract or databases introduces the risk of data breaches, unauthorized access, or misuse. Adding daily images of children dramatically increases the volume of sensitive data and the potential liability if those systems are concerned. A dad from Miami County said, I think that's just too much. If we don't know where those pictures are being stored in a database, they could say one thing, but we all know that's a risk. You know what I mean? To have my son's photograph taken, I would say no to that. The second category is really this recognition that young children particularly are a vulnerable population and there are other vulnerable populations we need to keep in mind that utilize child care. These images would link a child to a specific parent and location, creating a detailed record of family routines beyond what already exists for families receiving care. Young children are among the most vulnerable populations, but for those living in families experiencing domestic violence, custody disputes, or other safety issues, this level of surveillance is concerning. Many child care programs intentionally limit photography and the storage of photos for these reasons. Additionally, there are strict rules regarding photographing of children in foster care to protect this unique population. Number three is disproportionate surveillance of young children receiving assistance. Infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and school-aged children up to the age of 13 would be subject to daily photo verification not required in other public benefit programs to support children. Most children receiving publicly funded child care attend a program alongside peers who are not receiving a subsidy. Photo surveillance of these children also risks stigmatizing these children and families. A mom from Montgomery County shared, I mean, that's too far. I mean, I work in attendance every day with schools and they don't go around taking videos and pictures of high schoolers to verify attendance. It's just too far. It really is. The fourth category of concern is administrative burden and disruption of daily routine. Even on the best of days, parenting and caring for young children can be a challenging responsibility. Requiring all children to be photographed adds additional time and process to every kid and family's daily routine. It would also require additional technology or devices to manage the pace and traffic of program drop-off procedures. Morning drop-off is a complex transition time. Providers must greet children, ensure safety, comfort those who are often upset when separating from their parents, and communicate with parents. Requiring cooperation from babies and toddlers to take a photograph during this time diverts attention from caregiving responsibilities and add stress for kids and families. A mom from Franklin County says, parents know that mornings with young kids are already a juggling act. Requiring photos of babies and toddlers at drop-off adds stress and distraction at the exact moment caregivers should be focused on children. The final area of concern was conflict with early childhood best practices. Quality early childhood programs prioritize relationships between children families and caregivers For babies and toddlers predictable routines and trusted caregiver relationships are foundational to healthy development Research from zero to three shows that consistent routines help young children to feel safe and secure and allow them to anticipate what comes next, supporting emotional regulation, learning, and healthy relationships with caregivers. Drop-off is an important transition time where teachers help children separate from parents, assess their emotional state, and establish a sense of security for the day. Morning transitions into care can already be challenging, particularly for very young children and for families navigating stress or trauma. Turning these moments into a compliance photo check shifts the interaction from relationship-based care to additional surveillance, undermining these precious relationships with our most vulnerable children and creating digital records for these children unrelated to learning and their well-being. These concerns from Ohio parents warrant further discussion as you consider this legislation. As public interest in fraud allegations has grown, the safety and well-being of children must remain the top priority, and oversight actions must be carried out in a way that maintains continuity of care for families. And finally, I've addressed this in prior testimony related to House Bill 647, but this really affirms from another family, this is a mom in Licking County, that the focus of our response to the child care crisis, while needing to evolve and improve program integrity, needs to continue to be on access and affordability. A mom from Licking County says, I think that money should be better used helping fund child care, help make sure parents have access to it, and also maybe giving our child care workers a pay increase. I think there's a better use for our money. I know we can do both. Thank you for your time and attention, and I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you for your testimony. Just a quick question. What are your thoughts on facial recognition?

Do you have a follow-up? While you're on that topic, Ms. Gutierrez, what, from a developmental standpoint, how frequently would we need to be readjusting the data points on the faces? Because kids do change and develop so frequently. Are you talking every three to six months you're having to have your child re-photographed?

Next we have Representative Brewer.

Thank you very much. Chair White, Representative Brewer, I believe it would absolutely discourage families from engaging in publicly funded child care. there's already stigma for these families, and there is recognition, particularly maybe not among infants and toddlers, but very quickly, children pick up on routines and what they're doing versus what someone else is doing. You get lots of curious questions. And so particularly for families I know that are experiencing domestic violence and otherwise any thought of having additional footprint or record, especially for those who are living in shelter this would absolutely have a chilling effect and it's just unprecedented when I think of I hate to put this idea out there but when kids receive lunch the reason why we have school lunch programs going to all the kids if there's so many of them that receive that care is to not call out the kids who are receiving need that free lunch versus kids who may not in that school building and so then to put a camera in front of them before they get their meal I'm not trying to be dramatic, but this is very unprecedented.

Through the chair, thank you, and thank you, Ms. Gutierrez, for your testimony. I particularly appreciate the quotes from parents, so we can hear directly from our constituents what they want. So thank you for bringing that to us. My question is around the feasibility of even getting photos. I actually started an infant and early childhood mental health care in daycare centers. Kids are running. They're on the move. Most kids do not like to stop for a photo. And I think, what do you even think the feasibility would be for this? I envision lots of very fuzzy photos of kids turning their heads or running in to hug the teacher or seeing their friends. do you even think it's possible to collect this kind of data on our littlest people?

Through the chair, thank you. Yeah, I think as a parent, I would be concerned and probably really stressed out thinking, oh, my gosh, how am I going to get my 18-month-old to take a photo today? So I can't imagine how parents would feel about that. Thank you.

Okay, any further questions for the witness? Seeing none, thank you for your, oh, I'm so sorry, Rep. Richardson. Sorry. Okay.

Chair White, Representative Richardson, I think that different programs have different access to technology, even programs who may provide a photo during the day of a child's learning or playing because they're required to report on the child development and they're building that family relationship and families want to make sure that they're getting the love and care that they need. Even if programs have access to that technology, as a parent, it's not consistent. especially if there are staffing challenges or classroom management is really challenging that day. Sometimes you don't, even for programs that have the technology, you may not be getting that feedback. I don't think that is reasonable given the incredible challenge that our providers have. I mean, including at drop-off, I often help and prepare snack and meal. So the idea that they're – and to do so in a timely way all at one time does not seem consistent with best practices for classroom management, but I'm happy to explore and perhaps some providers could respond more directly from their point of view. Thank you. No follow-up.

Chair White, I think it's far more appropriate to put the burden on the adult and stay away from additional photograph or video surveillance. So I think we'd be open to that and curious to hear about, again, I'm not the expert on the technology. What can be done, what we already existing have for parents to confirm that? It seems reasonable. I'm sure any additional click on anything allows more space for error. So I think that's an opportunity. We're already asking a lot, and parents really care about providers knowing where their kid is at, when in the room. So there's a high level of safety protocol that is already really buttressing the program integrity effort.

Karen Lampe, who is here to testify on behalf of the Ohio Alliance of YMCAs and the Ohio Association of Child Care Providers.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for having me here today to testify as an interested party. I am not Heidi Wilson. She was supposed to be here today and had a family emergency and didn't have anyone to pick up her children if she came today. So I think that's very telling. Based upon what we're speaking about, I had to get backup care to pick up my child today to be able to be here and testify. So first, a little bit about the Ohio YMCAs. They are the largest provider in the state of Ohio and a member of the Ohio Association of Child Care Providers. The Ohio Association of Child Care Providers represents over 600 licensed child care centers across the state of Ohio. We are focused on ensuring that we have quality programs that are meeting licensing requirements, exceeding licensing requirements, and we absolutely 100% believe in being good stewards of public resources. And so I appreciate your opportunity for us to testify today on House Bill 649. I do want to say that substitute House Bill 649 includes improvements from the introduced version, and I want to thank Representative Williams for listening to providers and making some of those changes. However, I also want to share that we have remaining concerns about the bill as well. The bill, as written, has potential impacts on privacy, program stability, and access to care for low-income families in the state of Ohio. While the intent of House Bill 649 is to strengthen program integrity, the substitute bill adopted today creates risks of unintended harm and implementation burden. Child care providers are often described as the workforce behind the workforce. Every day providers care and educate for Ohio children so that parents can go to work support their families and contribute to their communities Our members operate in one of the most heavily regulated sectors in the state and appropriately so given the responsibility of caring for young children At the same time, providers continue to face significant operational challenges. Across Ohio, child care programs are navigating persistent pressures that affect their ability to maintain stable services for the families that they serve. Instability in funding streams, including fluctuations in public funding levels, timing of reimbursements, and eligibility changes create uncertainty that makes long-term planning very difficult. Programs are also facing rising operation costs that remain fixed regardless of daily attendance, placing additional strain on already extremely tight budgets. Workforce shortages continue to be a major concern, driven by low wages, limited benefits, and competition from higher-paying industries. These challenges are particularly pronounced in rural areas and underserved areas in the state where the loss of even a single provider can leave families without variable care options. Ohio already maintains one of the most sophisticated fraud detection prevention systems in the country. Any statutory changes should therefore be grounded in and demonstration need and carefully designated to protect both children served and the providers who deliver these essential services. Ohio's current fraud prevention system is already highly effective. Ohio's child care attendance and verification system is regarded as one of the most robust in the country, using parent identity, verification via PIN, the photo caption, and ongoing state review. Our centers receive both surprise visits from DCY as well as on-site visits, and that has been going on previous to these challenges. Substitute House Bill 649 requires child care verification instead of the parent. This is extremely concerning. For purposes of recording and verifying child care center attendance, the bill requires DCY to provide tablets to child care centers that contain software capable of taking pictures or videos of children at the time of their care. The bill also permits centers to use the tablets to take pictures and videos of the children in their care for those purposes. pictures or videos of children in care and making them available to DCY to verify attendance raises serious privacy concerns. Parents often do not want their children captured in pictures and videos, as we just heard from Groundwork. While the bill requires that these pictures and videos to be destroyed after a certain time, creating the pictures and videos at all will cause families great unease and may deter them from seeking care for their children. These concerns are particularly significant for children in foster care, kinship placements, and those involved in custody and protection situations. Additionally, there are practical concerns in implementing these requirements. Often young children don't hold still, as any of us that are a parent know, while a picture is taken. If some pictures of children are blurry or the child's face is not facing the camera, those pictures could not be used to verify attendance as intended. In addition, I want to talk about just practical logistics. In my programs our tablet is cemented and bolted into a countertop It has to be because otherwise they walk away So how do I take a picture of a toddler and a picture of an adult at the same time with a tablet that sitting on a countertop like this would be It would cause stacking within the building because now I'm having to somehow pick up my children as I have three of them to be able to tap them in to the program. So now I have a whole line of families behind me with two or three children apiece trying to get into the building. Logistically, that would be incredibly challenging besides just the privacy issue and concerns. The current system of the parent photo identification at the time of care is sufficient to prove the child's attendance. I think representatives point of we already have a dual system of tracking attendance. That is, in my opinion, is sufficient and should be looked at as a good standard going forward as well. So we also appreciate the sponsor's amendment, removing the requirement for attendance portal to close each night at midnight. However, the revised language does not clearly establish how backdating would function in practice. there is a legitimate reason for backdating logistically again as a parent who needed somebody else to pick up her child today so i could come and testify the reason that i am here instead of uh heidi wilson is the same because she didn't have backup to pick up her children today that that is a reality of life when you are a mother of young children and so therefore back tapping is necessary. I was sick for two weeks with COVID earlier this month and could not get out of bed. If I was having to have somebody else pick up and drop off my child at the program, they can't tap them in and out necessarily for me. They might be able to, depending on if there's somebody that's been added. But believe me, as those of us that have had challenges with picking up and dropping off our children, you need a whole village to be able to make that happen sometimes. And so therefore, I wouldn't be able to go and back tap during that time that I was sick and would need somebody else to do that for me. And so there are legitimate reasons for it. It's important, especially with school-age care. It's very much a challenge because the parents aren't always there for drop-off and pick-up during those times. Ohio's child care providers are committed to being partners in maintaining program integrity and serving families with transparency and accountability. At the same time, policies governing our system must be workable in real-world program settings and protect the privacy and safety of the children that we serve. Thoughtful adjustments to House Bill 649 can ensure strong oversight while preserving the stability of providers that need to continue offering reliable care to Ohio's working families. Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

I think at a minimum, two weeks. I think logistically, as a parent and as a provider, there are times and circumstances that are very legitimate that you would need that kind of time frame in order to make those back taps happen.

I would just want to be careful that we're not creating administrative burden both for the provider as well as for DCY. While I think that those are more limited than the typical situation, I think we would be surprised at how often you have the child is out for a good week because they were sick and now mom is sick. And so trying to get that back tap kind of time frame, I think it would be important to have at least that two-week process. I think if you tried to say, okay, there's an exception for that, that would be a lot of burden both on the provider as well as DCY to have, we're requesting an opportunity to look at this one differently. You would need a lot of people looking and reviewing that to do that.

Thank you, Representative White.

Madam Chairwoman, I move to amend with AM underscore 136 underscore 1805.

Yes. This amendment specifies times when DCY is required to recognize an absent day, such as when the child could not attend a full day and when a provider cannot provide care due to an emergency or other circumstance beyond the provider's control, such as inclement weather. This amendment also prohibits DCY for paying an absent day prior to the child's initial attendance or from recognizing a full-time plus authorization.

Madam Chairwoman, I move to amend with AM underscore 136 underscore 1812-1.

This amendment maintains the reason to suspect standard when withholding payment to PFCC provider when the misuse or fraud relates to children under the provider's care, but otherwise requires DCY to determine... that misuse or fraud occurred prior to taking action. This amendment establishes a knowing standard for misuse of public funds with regards to suspension of the provider agreement. Okay, are there any objections to this amendment?

In opposition to House Bill 647, my name is Aaron Boer. I own and operate Barrel of Monkeys Child Care and Preschool in Austin Town, Ohio. I appreciate that the committee has amended the bill, including removing the summary license suspension provisions in the snow days. That's definitely beneficial to the providers. But the core problems will still remain. There are still some core problems remain. Even as amended, House Bill 647 will destabilize child care providers and strip due process protections. The most damaging provision in House Bill 647 is the reversal of enrollment-based payment. Current law requires Ohio to move to paying providers based on enrollment by July 2028. This bill strikes that deadline and locks us into attendance-based payment permanently. The LSC's own fiscal note says this will save the DCY tens of millions of dollars annually. Those tens of millions will come directly out of child care facilities serving Ohio children. It's not a technical distinction. It's the difference between a business that works and one that guarantees failure. Ohio law requires me to staff fixed ratios regardless of daily attendance. If I have 20 toddlers, I must have three teachers every day. when four children stay home sick i still pay for all three teachers but i lose the day's revenue for those four children the cost is the same the revenue is not those damages go far beyond losing a single day's pay because in november 2025 ohio raised the full-time threshold from 25 to 33 hours per week a child who attends six and a half hours a day, five days a week, 32 and a half hours is now classified as part-time. The reclassification costs over $110 per preschooler per week, a 34% cut, and for infants it's over $130 per week, more than a 32% loss. That single reclassification wipes out more than the entire weekly premium we earn for maintaining gold level quality standards through Step Up to Quality. And step up the quality also makes these losses hit harder. In order to maintain our gold ratio, or our gold rating, we operate at stricter staff to child ratios, smaller group sizes than state licensing minimums. This means more teachers per classroom and fewer children to spread revenue across So when attendance payment cuts our income by a third per child there less room to absorb the loss The very program the state asks us to participate in amplifies the financial damage of the payment system this bill walks into place Since 2020, 382 facilities have closed, and 55% of providers report that revenue is not covering expenses. under the current model. More than 20 states have already moved to enrollment-based payments because they understand the basic math. Ohio's choosing to move in the opposite direction.

Thank you, Mr. Bort. Tell us a little bit about your center.

Okay, and then how many kids are on publicly funded child care out of that number?

Okay, thank you very much. Are there any questions for this witness? Representative Brownlee.

Yes. We've always focused on full-time care because of just how levels are paying or our payments. But since the change happened now almost all child care centers that I aware of now are only full care We had I think initially 16 children that were affected by the hours change We worked for two months with trying to get their cases fixed and figured out because most of them were actually working full-time hours. Some were working more, but the way that they filled out their paperwork, just due to certain circumstances, we had to work with the county to get fixed. But we ended up having to ask several families to leave. and also we're getting requests from other centers that are doing the same, from parents that are coming to us, and they're so desperate they're lying about it at initial application. So when we finally get their PFCC thing in, it says they're part-time. So it's really creating a shortfall for parents.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Chair White, Vice Chair Salvo, Ranking Member Lett, and members of the House Children and Human Services Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Justin Evans, and I own Precious Cargo. We have three child care centers in Northeast Ohio. I'm here today in opposition of House Bill 647. Let me start with something simple. If someone is truly stealing public money, they should be investigated and they should be held accountable. I do not think anyone in this room disagrees with that statement there. But that is exactly why this bill is so troubling. House Bill 647 feels like a carefully targeted response to proven problems in Ohio. and more like a, it feels less like a carefully targeted response to proven problems in Ohio and more like a knee-jerk response to what happened in Minnesota. That case was terrible, but Ohio should not write child care policy based on headlines from another state. Ohio should write policy based on concrete evidence in Ohio. That is the question I keep coming back to. Where is the evidence? where is the concrete evidence of widespread fraud in Ohio, in Ohio's publicly funded child care system that justifies stripping away appeal rights, expanding agency power, and treating providers like suspects first and partners second. I would also like to point out that this bill specifically takes money directly that was intended by the legislature for child care providers to fund DCY's administration. because when I read this bill, I do not see a narrowly crafted anti-fraud tool. I see a broad expansion of power. This bill allows the Department of Children and Youth to suspend a license without a prior hearing based on suspicion. It makes decisions about overpayments, fund recovery, and contract suspensions final and not subject to appeal, and it puts more taxpayer money into expanding these enforcement systems. And that leads me to the very basic question. Why are we giving a large government agency more money and more power for what they already are doing successfully? That screams government waste. And I say that because I have lived with what the agency power already looks like in real life As I mentioned I have three child care centers and at one of my centers DCY came out for an audit We had two children that had previously disenrolled after receiving summer care We cared for those children we served those children we had done the work, but when DCY was on site, we did not have all of the records for those two children. We had every other record for every other child in care but those two children. Because of that, we had to repay $5,000. Not because the children were not served, not because we invented attendance, not because we committed fraud, but because we did not have every document in hand at that exact moment. And we did not get a real second look. We did not get meaningful flexibility. We did not get what most people consider basic fairness. And I'm not here today to say that we should get that money back. But what I am saying is that Ohio, so when I hear that Ohio needs even more power, even less review, and even fewer checks on a government agency's decisions, I ask for what? It does not just go after fraud. It removes due process. And due process is not a gift to bad actors. due process is what protects honest people like myself when the government gets it wrong. And I don't think that DCY intends to get anything wrong, but we all make mistakes. We're all human. In child care, we already operate under intense scrutiny. Someone mentioned earlier that we are the most regulated industry. We manage state rules, licensing requirements, ratios, staffing shortages, parent needs, attendance records, billing systems, and constant paperwork, now with less money than ever. Sometimes it feels like a missing form gets treated more like I'm running a criminal enterprise out of my toddler room. I promise you, the most suspicious thing happening at my center usually is someone hiding markers in their socks. A little humor aside, this is serious. When you remove appeals, you are not just punishing bad actors, you are putting every honest provider at risk of being steamrolled by a system that does not always stop to ask whether the punishment fits the crimes. In this committee, if this committee truly wants to fight fraud, then fight fraud. I support that. But require evidence, preserve appeals, distinguish theft from clerical error, target intentional misconduct instead of casting a cloud over an entire child care sector. Child care providers are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for fair treatment. We are asking you not to make a policy out of panic, and we are asking you not to make a system that already has enforcement power to make it harsher, more expensive, and less accountable without clear proof that it is necessary. Please do not pass House Bill 647 as written. I will take any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you for your testimony. I guess my question, do you feel the systems we have in place, are they adequate for what centers need? Do you see any rooms for improvement or anything that we need to know?

Do you have a follow-up? Just a follow-up, please. Are there any other suggestions that you have, just ideas that we can...

Thank you for coming in. And I do want to clarify. My understanding is the people doing the health and safety inspections have some general basic things they look at, like the number of people that were tapped in that day compared to the head count that they get compared to the centers. So when they go back, maybe they're not doing it there. We can affirm that for sure. I also have been informed that there's a 15-day reconsideration period. Were you not given that?

Ruff Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have a question at the discretion of the chair. I just want to make a comment. I appreciate what child care providers do I appreciate what you get up every morning and you care for our kids and it really really important and I don think you get thanked enough so I just wanted to say thank you. I appreciate that thank you. Any other questions? And Justin I also wanted to ask you

So I have three centers on any given day we're serving approximately 100 to 150 kids. We were in the process of opening our fourth. That fourth center, we've had to slow way down and cut way back. We've started trimming staff. We went from on track to open a fourth center to talking about closing centers. We're already closing rooms. I've already closed one room. I've disenrolled 20 kids. That's actually 20 families, not 20 kids. But my business, we had planned on what the state had told us, and then everything changed. and from there we've had to scale back our expectations for the fourth center and we're actually talking about closing completely and repurposing our real estate. I own all of the buildings and unfortunately there's no more money in child care so we're talking about having to repurpose those buildings to something more profitable.

Approximately 60 to 70 percent. It does fluctuate over time. We are located east of Akron in Canton, the Alliance and surrounding areas.

Yeah, absolutely.