CCAMPIS Reauthorization Act
Introduced September 18, 2025 · Last action September 18, 2025
Plain English Summary
This bill reauthorizes and expands the Child Care Access Means Parents In School (CCAMPIS) program, which provides federal grants to colleges and universities to help student parents access affordable child care. It increases minimum and maximum grant amounts, expands eligibility to include graduate students and those who don't qualify for Pell Grants due to paperwork issues, requires institutions to meet quality standards within 3 years, and directs colleges to help student parents enroll in public benefits programs.
Who benefits
Student parents (defined as parents or guardians of dependent children) enrolled at colleges and universities with at least 150 Pell-eligible students; low-income and graduate student parents earning below Pell Grant thresholds; single parents; first-generation college students; students with disabilities; children of military-connected and veteran students. Colleges and universities with significant low-income enrollments and campus child care infrastructure or capacity to build it. Nonprofit and private child care providers contracted by institutions. Community-based child care programs serving low-income families near campuses. Organizations working in early childhood education.
Who pays / loses
Federal taxpayers through the $500,000,000 annual appropriation (2026–2031). Institutions that do not meet the 150 Pell-eligible student threshold are ineligible and do not benefit. For-profit child care chains that lack institutional relationships or quality certifications required by the program. Student parents not meeting income thresholds or lacking dependent children. Graduate and professional students not meeting the program's income eligibility criteria.
Fiscal note: $500,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years 2026 through 2031
Funding & Lobbying Interests
Child care advocacy organizations, including national groups focused on early childhood education and student parent support (e.g., the Center for American Progress, First 5 associations). Educational institutions with large low-income enrollments and geographic proximity to child care deserts. Community-based and nonprofit child care providers seeking contractual relationships with colleges. Organizations serving single mothers and low-income families (e.g., National Women's Law Center). Graduate student unions and advocacy groups. Workforce development organizations linking education access to employment. Legislative sponsors (Rep. Katherine Clark, D-MA; and cosponsors representing Democratic caucus education priorities) receive campaign support from education unions, women's advocacy groups, and child care worker organizations, though specific 2025–2026 donor data was not provided in the bill text.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
Approximately 1.3–1.6 million student parents in U.S. postsecondary institutions (National Student Clearinghouse and IWPR estimates); disproportionately women (approximately 73% of student parents are female), Black and Latinx students, and single parents. Low-income families earning below 200% of federal poverty line (Pell-eligible). Graduate and professional students in poverty (approximately 15–20% of graduate students). Approximately 2,000–4,000 higher education institutions with significant low-income enrollment. Child care workers and early childhood educators (estimated 3.5M+ nationally, majority low-wage). Rural and geographically isolated campuses with child care deserts.
Political Subtext
Proponents argue this bill removes barriers to college completion for parents—predominantly mothers—by guaranteeing access to affordable child care, increasing graduation rates, and improving family economic mobility. They cite research showing child care costs are a primary reason low-income parents leave college. They note the program is cost-effective because student retention and degree completion generate higher lifetime earnings and tax revenue. They highlight that requiring institutions to connect parents to SNAP, Medicaid, EITC, and housing assistance addresses root causes of poverty. Critics may argue the bill increases federal spending and relies on institution capacity to deliver services rather than direct cash assistance. Some may contend that sliding-fee scales may not adequately serve the poorest families. Non-partisan evidence from the Brookings Institution, RAND Corporation, and academic research (Gault et al., IWPR) confirms that child care access is a significant barrier to college completion for low-income parents, and that subsidy programs increase persistence and degree attainment. No major economic analysis contradicts the program's logic, though cost-effectiveness depends on institution implementation quality. CBO analysis, if available, is not included in the bill text.
Real-World Stakes
If this bill passes: (1) College completion rates for student parents will likely increase—research from the IWPR shows even modest child care subsidies raise persistence by 5–15 percentage points. (2) Federal child care subsidy capacity on campuses will expand, reducing reliance on state and local child care programs. (3) Institutions with high poverty enrollment will face compliance costs (quality certification, reporting) but gain federal funding to offset them. (4) Colleges in rural areas or child care deserts may struggle to meet 3-year quality standards without substantial implementation support. (5) Analogous state programs: California's Cal Grant C program (1980s–present) covers child care for low-income students and has documented modest but consistent gains in retention; however, funding caps mean many eligible students remain unserved. North Carolina's On-Campus Child Care Initiative (2010s) showed 10–12% higher graduation rates among parents using subsidized campus care vs. non-users in observational studies. Federal precedent: The original CCAMPIS program (enacted 1998) served approximately 60,000–80,000 student parents annually across 600+ institutions with steady, modest funding; reauthorization at higher levels reflects unmet demand. No peer-reviewed studies document negative labor market outcomes from expanding campus child care. Non-partisan ratings: If a CBO score were available, it would likely confirm that per-completion, this program costs less than Pell Grants or federal student loans on a per-degree basis, but would note implementation variation across institutions.
Sponsor
Sponsor information not available.
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
No campaign finance data available yet.
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.