Opinion: Too Often, Childcare Regulations are a Matter of Interpretation

Childcare providers in Illinois are technically required to carry coins with them when they take children on an outing, like a walk or a field trip. Why would a childcare provider need to bring pocket change along? According to the state’s licensing standards, the regulation is necessary so they can use a pay phone. 

Now, Illinois providers aren’t getting written up by the state for failing to carry quarters, but the fact that they could be because this outdated regulation has remained in the state’s licensing manual is problematic.

Childcare regulation is an active topic across many state legislatures and now, with the newly proposed Head Start rule, at the federal level as well. Every state has its own childcare licensing rules, and stakeholders increasingly see streamlining regulations — while preserving health and safety standards — as one key to a healthier childcare system. As policymakers take steps to reform childcare regulation, they need to not only get rid of outdated rules, but also consider that interpretation and implementation drive how a regulation plays out in practice. 

Take fire code regulations, for example, which are set at the state and local level, and are core to child safety. To become licensed in any state, a childcare program must be compliant with these regulations, but that can be a complicated process, or even a barrier to entry. A 2025 report about California’s childcare sector published by the Goldman School of Public Policy at University of California, Berkeley found that inconsistency in messaging and interpretation were widespread. 

Madeline Bradshaw, the report’s author, noted that “Providers participating in this research consistently reported receiving conflicting information from fire officials and licensing agencies about what fire safety requirements apply to their specific childcare settings” and that many “referenced receiving inconsistent messaging or inconsistent information, whether between fire officials at the state and local levels or even among fire officials within the same department.” California also ran into issues in 2023, when a lack of communication about a statewide building code update created confusion between what fire marshals and state licensors required. That caused disruptions for childcare providers and left some on the hook for costly renovations in order to become compliant.

This is not a problem endemic to one specific state, though. This year, Colorado childcare owner RB Fast has documented her Kafka-esque experience trying to expand her program by opening a new center. Confusion and conflicting directions from the city’s planning, zoning and fire departments have led to significant delays, financial hardship for her and her staff, and has prevented her from serving more families, she shared. 

In April, a report published by Opportunities Exchange, a nonprofit consulting group focused on early care and education, recounted the story of a Massachusetts provider who “identified a classroom space that met the 35 square foot of usable space per child required by their childcare licensing authority.” The report went on to explain that the provider “ later learned that the local building occupancy code required 35 square feet per person, including adults. The discrepancy was not identified until renovations were well underway, ultimately forcing the provider to reduce enrollment capacity and absorb lost time and income.” 

Beyond fire and building codes, which apply to many industries, there are unique regulatory interpretations that come into play specifically for childcare programs — and perhaps none have been in the news this year more than one about bananas. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Democrat from Washington state, raised the issue when she introduced the Cutting Red Tape on Child Care Providers Act. Colloquially known as the “banana bill,” the measure would prohibit states from creating barriers to preparing fresh fruit and vegetables, including washing, peeling and cutting produce. On April 30, the U.S. House passed a large agricultural “farm bill” that incorporated provisions of the banana bill.

The banana kerfuffle stemmed from a Washington state regulation requiring childcare programs to have multiple sinks if providers prepare and serve food and to have at least eight feet between that food preparation area and the sink used for handwashing after diaper changes. The rule was intended to avoid cross-contamination, but it’s been under fire by some providers for being interpreted by certain state inspectors as requiring the equivalent of a commercial kitchen in order to peel and slice bananas. Even though a spokesperson from the state’s Department of Children, Youth, and Families said the Department “has never penalized a childcare provider for incorrectly serving fruit,” the example has become an avatar of out-of-touch, overzealous regulation.

Even when the scope of a regulation is clear, the capacity of a given governing agency to play their part can create bottlenecks. Consider the fingerprint background check requirement for new childcare employees, a step that is not particularly open to interpretation. A new Georgia law that requires background checks be processed through two state agencies — Georgia’s Department of Early Care and Learning and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation — is in some cases causing weeks-long delays in getting new hires through the process. One provider reported having four new hires stuck waiting for their background check forms to be processed. 

However, this kind of regulation isn’t always harmful to providers: A recent study of new background check requirements in Minnesota that went into effect in 2017 found that those requirements were not associated with increased closures among licensed family childcare providers and in fact appear correlated with fewer closures, suggesting that the implementation of those regulations has gone far smoother.

The disparate experiences of providers — often shaped by their geographic location or which inspector shows up — points to the need for local, state, and federal leaders to focus not only on the content of the regulation book, but how regulations are playing out in practice. If the goal of childcare regulation is to shape a system that promotes health, safety and quality with abundant supply, then policymakers must think beyond the words on the page and consider how rules and regulations are being implemented in everyday programs. 

Ensuring that relevant departments have consistent guidance, are adequately staffed, communicate with one another, and have updated technology in order to process forms in a timely manner is core to effective rollout. State policies should also be reviewed regularly, with an eye toward outdated or out-of-touch requirements that may hinder providers’ ability to best serve children and families. And when a new regulation is put into play, clarity and coordination should be the watchwords.