Child Care Choice Voucher Program helps thousands of children and families access child care in Ohio

For two years, Ohio has been trying something new in its effort to make child care more affordable for working families — vouchers. 

The Child Care Choice Voucher Program provides funding for up to 20,000 young learners from 12,500 households that earn between 146% and 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL). 

Initiated by the governor and adopted by the legislature, the program was serving about 8,900 children and 6,000 families in February 2026, according to Ohio’s Department of Children & Youth. 

“It has this double duty of both being able to provide quality early education for more young children, but also being able to support their parents being able to work,” said Shannon Jones, a retired Republican state legislator and founder of Groundwork Ohio. 

How Ohio did it

In North Carolina, households with children age 5 and under that earn up to 200% FPL are eligible for child care subsidies. But in Ohio, that eligibility was 145% FPL. To make child care more affordable and accessible for working families, Gov. Mike DeWine launched the Child Care Choice Voucher Program (CCVP) in April 2024. 

“I really feel like Gov. DeWine had a really good understanding of how to roll this thing out and then build support over time,” said Jones. 

Jones explained that DeWine started the pilot program using existing funding before including the initiative in his 2026-27 executive budget. 

The Republican-led legislature allocated $200 million in federal funds to the program in Ohio’s 2026-27 operating budget.

Rather than expand the eligibility for child care subsidies from 145% to 200% FPL, which would leave the state on the hook for funding the program indefinitely, Ohio’s political leaders limited their commitment by capping the number of children and families who would receive funding, regardless of eligibility. 

“They feel much more comfortable with having control over essentially how many dollars are going, and once the dollars are out, they’re done, that’s how many kids are being served, versus having this more open-ended policy around uptake,” said Lynanne Gutierrez, president and CEO of Groundwork Ohio. 

“I think that’s what Ohio did really, really well, is that they didn’t try to boil the ocean,” Jones said. “We picked out a finite period of time with finite resources and didn’t obligate the state to an endless, ongoing appropriation need.”

Though North Carolina’s subsidy eligibility is already 200% FPL, research shows there still exists a significant gap between what high-quality child care costs and what working parents can afford to pay.  

What other states should consider

EdNC asked Jones, Gutierrez, and child care expert Elliot Haspel what other states should be thinking about if they’re considering a similar approach to expanding access to child care for children and families. Here’s what they said.

Availability of child care

In his book, “Crawling Behind,” Haspel wrote about a form of vouchers that he called Child Care Credits as one potential policy strategy for supporting child and family well-being. But he says it’s important to take a holistic, systemwide approach to any voucher policy. 

“The downside risk of a voucher-heavy system in child care is you end up giving people a voucher to nowhere,” Haspel said.

To ensure that there are enough active child care programs to match the demand of children and families, “vouchers need to be complemented with some operational grant funding for programs,” Haspel said.  

Gutierrez said that because Ohio doesn’t operate waitlists for its subsidy program or CCVP, it’s hard to know what the demand is and how far the programs are from meeting it — or whether the demand can be met based with the existing number of programs and educators. 

Capping tuition increases

One critique of vouchers — both in K-12 systems and in early care and learning — is that providers can simply increase tuition proportionally to the amount of the voucher as a way to increase profits. This can result in the state subsidizing the educational entity, without saving families money. 

According to Ohio’s Department of Children and Youth: “If the voucher does not cover everything, the program should charge you no more than 9% of your monthly income for tuition that’s left. The total cost (state help plus your part) can’t be more than what private-paying families would pay.” 

But Gutierrez said the state doesn’t collect tuition data from providers participating in the voucher program, so it’s impossible to know the extent to which programs are adhering to this guidance. She recommended other states include data collection in any voucher program. 

Minimizing administrative burden

Ohio’s Department of Children and Youth integrated the voucher application process into its existing subsidy application process. 

Families apply for financial assistance through Ohio’s Department of Children and Youth. Based on income eligibility requirements, they may qualify for the state’s Publicly Funded Child Care program — similar to North Carolina’s child care subsidy program. If the household is over the 145% FPL limit, the application will automatically be evaluated for eligibility for CCVP. 

This streamlined system reduces burdens on families, but Gutierrez says it does somewhat increase administrative burden on the state and local side of the application process, which she says other states should keep in mind if they’re considering a similar program. 

What we can learn from red states’ approaches to child care challenges

Market rate vs. true cost of care

In Ohio, both subsidies and the Child Care Choice Vouchers reimburse providers at the 50th percentile of the market rate for child care tuition. In North Carolina, the reimbursement rate is set at the 75th percentile of the market rate, which varies widely based on factors such as location, star rating, and student age.

Haspel said one key for funding an effective voucher program is that it “has to be at a level that is high enough to actually support the true cost of care at these programs, otherwise you’re just rearranging deck chairs (on the Titanic).”

Researchers working on behalf of the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Child Development and Early Education have assessed the true cost of care: what it actually costs providers to serve children and families, rather than the tuition they charge. Providers often charge less than the true cost of care to keep tuition affordable, essentially subsidizing child care themselves when public child care funding comes up short.

Attendance- vs. enrollment-based reimbursement

Both Ohio and North Carolina provide subsidy reimbursement based on verified attendance numbers rather than the number of students enrolled in a program. 

According to the First Five Years Fund:

States have the flexibility to pay child care providers participating in subsidy programs based on either enrollment or attendance. With enrollment-based payment, providers receive a set amount for holding a slot for a registered child, ensuring stable and predictable revenue. With attendance-based payment, the amount providers receive depends on the number of days a child is physically present, which can result in fluctuating funding when children are absent.

Gutierrez encouraged states considering Ohio’s voucher model to consider enrollment-based payment. 

While Jones acknowledged the value of these considerations for a more holistic approach, she urges other states to follow Ohio’s lead and “not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” 

“Every state’s different in what their politics are, but you just have to embrace where the opportunity is,” Jones said.