Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
This bill reauthorizes and updates the Child Care Access Means Parents In School (CCAMPIS) program in the Higher Education Act. It authorizes grants from the Department of Education to eligible institutions (those with at least 150 Pell-eligible students or consortia) to provide campus-based or subsidized child care and related supports for student parents, sets minimum ($75,000) and maximum ($2,000,000) annual grant amounts, establishes 5-year grant terms with annual payments, and requires annual reporting and quality standards.
Scale and federal role: liberals view $500M/year as needed investment; conservatives view it as excessive federal spending.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-constructed substantive policy reauthorization that specifies program authority, funding levels, grant parameters, permitted uses, application requirements, priorities, and reporting obligations.
This bill reauthorizes and updates the Child Care Access Means Parents In School (CCAMPIS) program in the Higher Education Act.
It authorizes grants from the Department of Education to eligible institutions (those with at least 150 Pell-eligible students or consortia) to provide campus-based or subsidized child care and related supports for student parents, sets minimum ($75,000) and maximum ($2,000,000) annual grant amounts, establishes 5-year grant terms with annual payments, and requires annual reporting and quality standards.
The bill specifies permitted and prohibited uses of funds (e.g., no new construction except health/safety renovation), defines eligible student parents (including Pell-eligible or those meeting Pell financial criteria), prioritizes institutions that leverage local/institutional resources and support single parents, includes nondiscrimination protections, and authorizes $500,000,000 per year for fiscal years 2026–2031.
The bill is a programmatic reauthorization that addresses a discrete policy area (student parent child care) with concrete administrative fixes and quality standards, which tends to make legislation more passable than sweeping or highly ideological measures. However, the relatively large annual authorization and specific programmatic constraints (e.g., priorities, prohibitions, nondiscrimination language) could trigger fiscal and ideological objections that reduce its odds. Passage would likely depend on whether the authorization is accepted as a funding priority and whether contentious technical provisions prompt amendments.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-constructed substantive policy reauthorization that specifies program authority, funding levels, grant parameters, permitted uses, application requirements, priorities, and reporting obligations. It balances statutory prescription with administrative discretion to the Secretary.
Scale and federal role: liberals view $500M/year as needed investment; conservatives view it as excessive federal spending.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Scale and federal role: liberals view $500M/year as needed investment; conservatives view it as excessive federal spending.
A liberal/left-leaning observer would likely view the bill positively because it expands and stabilizes federal support for child care access for student parents, targets resources to low-income students, and includes nondiscrimination protections.
The authorization level and explicit priorities for sliding-fee models and supports for single parents align with goals to reduce barriers to higher education and child care deserts.
They would welcome the quality standards and reporting requirements as ways to ensure services are effective.
A centrist/moderate observer would generally see the bill as a targeted federal program intended to remove a clear barrier (child care) to degree completion for low-income student parents, and would appreciate the application, reporting, and quality provisions.
They would weigh the program’s likely benefits against its price tag and administrative complexity, and want assurances about outcome measurement and fiscal responsibility.
The centrist would be open to the reauthorization if appropriation discipline, measurable performance metrics, and safeguards against unintended tuition increases or inefficient use of funds are included.
A mainstream conservative observer would likely be skeptical of expanding or reauthorizing a large federal child care grant program, expressing concerns about federal spending, administrative expansion, federal involvement in local child care markets, and prescriptive rules.
They may also object to nondiscrimination language that includes sexual orientation and gender identity as an area where federal funding conditions apply.
A conservative reviewer would prefer more state and private-sector solutions, tighter targeting, and fewer federal mandates on institutions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
The bill is a programmatic reauthorization that addresses a discrete policy area (student parent child care) with concrete administrative fixes and quality standards, which tends to make legislation more passable than sweeping or highly ideological measures. However, the relatively large annual authorization and specific programmatic constraints (e.g., priorities, prohibitions, nondiscrimination language) could trigger fiscal and ideological objections that reduce its odds. Passage would likely depend on whether the authorization is accepted as a funding priority and whether contentious technical provisions prompt amendments.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scale and federal role: liberals view $500M/year as needed investment; conservatives view it as excessive federal spending.
The bill is a programmatic reauthorization that addresses a discrete policy area (student parent child care) with concrete administrative f…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-constructed substantive policy reauthorization that specifies program authority, funding levels, grant parameters, permitted uses, application requirements,…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.