Childcare is an expensive cost for working families. This financial burden gets exacerbated when there isn’t adequate availability or options. Many families can’t find available childcare allowing them to work, especially in rural communities and low-paying areas.
Idaho’s House Bill 243 hopes to address this concern by eliminating the age-based child-to-staff ratios, prioritizing parental discretion over government mandates, and preventing local jurisdictions from adding additional unnecessary burdens. Idaho is one of only four states allowing local jurisdictions to regulate childcare.
In Idaho, childcare availability is a pressing concern, with Care.com ranking Idaho 46th nationally for availability. Although Idaho’s childcare cost (9th nationally) and quality (11th nationally) are better than the national average, Idaho is short on providers. A different, more detailed analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center shows that Idaho has a 22-33% gap in childcare depending on congressional district, which is one of the better states in the region (refer to map below).
Though some may not want to acknowledge it, childcare providers are overregulated. For example, after recently watching a friend become a certified childcare provider, I saw firsthand how the regulatory hoops are extremely excessive. This regulation reform conversation needs to happen. Current regulations work to the detriment of improving the cost and availability of childcare. Just look at the results of such tactics.
Regulatory protectionism is an absurd tactic that avoids uncomfortable conversations and ignores fact-driven research.
Research shows that increasing the ratio by one infant can reduce costs by 9 to 20%, saving families $850 to $1,890 per year, but regulators ignore this. Favoring regulatory tactics that increased dramatically at the same time as small-family child care providers (1 person) declined by 35%, large-family child care providers (2 or more care persons) declined by 8%, and child care centers by 2% (from 2011 to 2017).
An unintended consequence of group size regulations is reduced staff wages, deterring the most qualified teachers from working at child care centers and resulting in higher turnover.
Only staff education improves the quality of safety according to research. Regulations on child-staff ratios have no significant statistical effects, but repeated analysis shows more educated directors are correlated with fewer accidents.
Multiple testimonies on February 21, 2025 opposed HB 243 due to safety concerns, but the data supports easing child-staff ratios. Idaho already has one of the highest child-to-staff ratios (6 infants at a time) in the country (tying with Georgia and New Mexico), but heavy-handed regulations haven’t improved availability.
Neighboring Utah recently allowed unlicensed care providers to care for up to 8 unrelated children without a license (capped at 10 if related children are present), reducing the burdens of licensure from small in-home care providers. Utah Rep. Susan Pulsipher said, “We have two problems with childcare that we hear about a lot. One is the cost and one is the capacity. [The new rules are] a tool [that will give parents more choices].”
Safety of our children is of our utmost concern, and the associated policy choices need to be supported by facts. Idaho’s Director of Health and Human Resources Alex Adams said in a June 24, 2024 memorandum:
“While data is mixed, there does not appear to be definitive data supporting one child-staff ratio over another, though it is logical that smaller ratios can be beneficial for certain quality-related outcomes and may even be preferred by parents. What, then, is the role of state licensure versus private accreditation versus parents making prudent decisions that are in the best interest of their children? If a state ratio is set too tight, it might limit the number of available settings, reducing access and therefore denying parents opportunities that they would have sought in the absence of state intervention. Parents may judge the pros and cons of various facilities that are state licensed and make decisions in the best interest of their family judging cost and quality.”
Idaho’s HB 243 acknowledges the overregulation of childcare providers, maintains a level of oversight on facility size, prevents local authority from adding unnecessary restrictions, and empowers parents to use their own intuition. The Idaho House passed the bill on a 54-15 vote on February 27th, 2025. We’ll soon see if the Senate supports the childcare regulatory reforms proposed by HB 243.
Here is MSPC's testimony on HB 243: