2026 State Early Childhood Legislation

As states prepare for their 2027 legislative sessions, this paper reviews a sample of the early childhood legislation enacted in 2026. In 2026, lawmakers took up child care and early learning against several converging pressures:

Expiring federal relief. The end of federal COVID-19 relief funding left several states unable to keep subsidy enrollment at prior levels. Some responded with enrollment freezes and waiting lists for child care assistance.
Shifting federal policy. In May 2026, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) finalized a Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) rule that rescinds four requirements from 2024. The changes took effect July 13, 2026. ACF also proposed changes to the Head Start Program Performance Standards that would replace the current standards with a much shorter set, change the educator qualification requirements, and defer to state licensing on ratios and group sizes.
Persistent supply shortages. Many communities lack enough licensed child care, and low wages make it hard for programs to recruit and keep qualified staff.
High costs for families. The price of child care leaves many working families piecing together care, cutting their work hours, or leaving the workforce entirely.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) early childhood legislation database, state legislatures enacted 218 early childhood related bills in 2026. We examined legislation in the NCSL database from these perspectives:

Supply: Are states engaged in efforts to increase the supply of child care?
Demand: Are states expanding families’ ability to access and pay for child care?
Systemic Capacity – Financing: Are states building the financing capacity needed for sustainability?
Systemic Capacity – Governance: Are states building the governance capacity needed for sustainability?

Illustrative Examples, by Category

Below are selected examples in each category. They are meant to be representative rather than exhaustive, and the observations under each table draw primarily on those examples.

Supply-Side

Some states seem to be reaching for regulatory and structural levers to increase supply. Tennessee’s red tape and safe harbor bills, Colorado’s licensing overhaul, and Kentucky’s new micro-center category all aim to lower the cost, time, or risk of opening and operating a program, and they cost the state relatively little. Kentucky’s HJR 50 goes a step further by asking whether regulation itself is a barrier.

Bill	Title	Why it matters
TN SB 2509	Child Care Red Tape Reduction Act	Expedites permitting, ends duplicate fire inspections, allows by-right commercial zoning.
KY HB 6	Emergency Child Care Act	Creates new provider category- micro-center, employer engagement, special needs training, requires QRIS/QIS program redesign, streamlined compliance processes for multisite operators.
KY HJR 50	Auditor study of child care regulation	Directs a state audit of whether regulation constrains providers; vetoed by the governor, then overridden by the legislature.
CO SB 20	Child Care Provider Licensing & Quality	Streamlines licensing (digital compliance files, phases out contract inspectors, provisional licensing) and creates a task force to further simplify the system.
TN SB 1683	Child Care Hosting Safe Harbor Act	Shields employers and community organizations from liability for hosting a licensed child care provider on their property.

Demand-Side

Some demand-side activity in 2026 was about protecting and stabilizing access rather than expanding it. For instance, Maryland’s two bills limit copays and keep an enrollment freeze from displacing waitlisted children. Kentucky, took a targeted route by making child care workers categorically eligible for assistance, which also doubles as a workforce (supply) retention strategy New Mexico, took a much broader demand-side approach by enacting a statewide universal child care program.

Bill	Title	Why it matters
KY HB 6	Emergency Child Care Act	Codified child care worker categorial eligibility for child care assistance program, establishes the Employee Child Care Assistance Program.
NM SB 241	Child Care Assistance Program Act	Codifies New Mexico’s Universal Child Care program into law. A legal challenge argued Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s administration overstepped their powers by eliminating income caps and co-payments for child care assistance administratively, without specific legislative authorization or appropriation for that expansion. The challenge was defeated.
MD HB 1321	Child Care Scholarship Program	Limits copays for certain subsidy recipients.
MD HB 849	Scholarship Program enrollment freeze	Bars an enrollment freeze from bumping children already on the waitlist. Protects existing access.

Systemic — Financing

The examples of 2026 enacted legislation below are from states who are drawing on dedicated or alternative sources: tobacco settlement revenue in Alabama, philanthropic gifts in Washington, shared employer contributions through Kentucky’s Tri-Share model, and a draw on an existing fund in Indiana. Other states, such as Montana and Connecticut, established endowments in 2025 legislation to sustain funding.

Bill	Title	Why it matters
AL SB 153	Children First Trust Fund	Directs continued tobacco settlement revenue into the state’s early-childhood trust fund.
KY HB 6	Emergency Child Care Act	Establishes the Employee Child Care Assistance Program (Tri-Share).
WA SB 5872	PreK Promise Account	Creates a new dedicated account to accept private philanthropic gifts (seeded by a Ballmer Group commitment) exclusively for the state’s preschool program.
IN SEA 4	FROG Fund CCDF Backfill	Authorizes the state to augment up to $300 million from the existing Financial Responsibility and Opportunity Growth (FROG) Fund to backfill CCDF, in direct response to ARPA cliff. (Note: $200M was eventually authorized on a one time basis)

Systemic — Governance

The examples of enacted legislation in this category change how early childhood programs are governed. Three of the four bills consolidate existing structures, while one expands an existing body. Illinois integrated child care licensing, home visiting, and early intervention, previously housed in separate agencies, with other early childhood programs into a single new Department of Early Childhood. Louisiana merged the state’s separate Advisory Council into the Early Childhood Care and Education Commission and transferred the council’s duties to the Commission. Colorado took a similar approach at the local level, expanding local early childhood councils to take on responsibilities that had been divided among separate entities. Kentucky HB 6 enlarges the Governor’s Child Care Advisory Council from 18 to 34 members, adding an economics expert, two Senate and two House appointees, the Kentucky Center for Statistics, two CCR&R agency staff, and other members who connect standing legislative committees to child care policy.

Bill	Title	Why it matters
IL HB 5099	Department of Early Childhood Act	Part of Illinois’s consolidation into a new Office of Early Childhood. Moves child care licensing, home visiting, and early intervention into the new department.
KY HB 6	Emergency Child Care Act	Added members (increase from 18 to 34) to Governors Child Care Advisory Council. Additions include economics expert, two Senate-side appointees, two House-side appointees, Kentucky Center for Statistics, two CCRR agency staff, and other appointments to integrate other standing legislative committee participation in child care.
CO SB 19	Early Childhood Local System Consolidation	Expands local early childhood councils to absorb responsibilities formerly split across separate entities.
LA HB 1146	Early Childhood Care and Education Commission	Consolidates Louisiana’s separate Advisory Council into the Commission, transferring its duties and simplifying a split early-childhood governance structure into one body.

Conclusion

Some states are taking innovative approaches to addressing the supply, demand, and systemic capacity of their early childhood ecosystems. To support new legislative requirements, states agencies will be faced with implementation work, such as:

Updating licensing checklists and inspection protocols.
Training providers and agency staff.
Revising eligibility and copay tables.
Creating/revising data sharing agreements.
Communicating changes and updates to stakeholders.
Updating policy manuals.
Creating new reports.
Incorporating new funding accounts to administer.

Much of this implementation work will need to include technology vendors to update system business rules, workflows, budget controls, and reports. Additionally, some new legislation, such as New Mexico’s universal child care system and Illinois’ new Office of Early Childhood, presents the opportunity to better integrate early childhood data for more informed decision making and a clearer picture of the state’s early childhood landscape.