The Senate Health and Welfare Committee narrowly approved House Bill 243 Wednesday. Among other cuts in state regulations, the bill would allow child care centers to set their own staff-to-child ratios — the most divisive of the legislation’s proposed changes. (Getty Images)
This story was originally posted on IdahoEdNews.org on March 5, 2025.
A controversial child care deregulation bill is heading to the Idaho Senate.
The Senate Health and Welfare Committee narrowly approved House Bill 243 Wednesday. Among other cuts in state regulations, the bill would allow child care centers to set their own staff-to-child ratios — the most divisive of the legislation’s proposed changes.
Currently, the state requires one staff member for a certain number of children, determined by a formula based on the age of children under a provider’s care. House Bill 243 would eliminate the current statute and allow providers to set their own ratios, which must be “appropriate to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all children in attendance.”
Bill sponsor Rep. Rod Furniss said the proposal is aimed at easing Idaho’s child care shortage by eliminating “onerous regulations.”
“We’re not leaving the day cares out there to run themselves,” said Furniss, R-Rigby.
Opponents of deregulation bill say it could lead to more neglect, abuse
During an emotional public comment period Wednesday, opponents said flexible ratios could lead to increased rates of neglect and abuse.
“Stripping these key safety standards from law opens the door to operators and bad actors who cut corners to save costs,” said Christine Tiddens, executive director of Idaho Voices for Children. “In a child care setting, cutting corners results in babies being put into harm’s way.”
Sen. Camille Blaylock made an unsuccessful motion to send the bill to the Senate’s amending order, to reinsert the ratio standard. Blaylock, R-Caldwell, said the state sets minimum safety requirements for private businesses in other contexts, like foster care.
“We’re just setting the standard, which is a good thing,” she said. “I think there’s a precedent for it.”
After rejecting Blaylock’s motion by one vote, the committee approved Sen. Brian Lenney’s bid to advance the bill. Lenney, R-Nampa, said fears about the regulatory changes were based on “false dichotomies” — the bill wouldn’t eliminate child-to-staff ratios, he said — and he chided city “bureaucrats” for their opposition.
“I’ve heard cities and bureaucrats saying that they know how to run a day care better than a day care owner,” Lenney said. “It’d be like a bureaucrat telling a farmer the best way to milk a cow.”
Kathy Griesmyer, director of government and policy affairs for the city of Boise, touted the city’s efforts to incentivize child care providers by offering a property tax rebate to in-home providers, among other strategies.
“There are a number of creative and innovative ways that government can help incentivize business creation without restricting or removing safety,” Griesmyer said.
Most who testified were opposed to House Bill 243
A police chief and chamber of commerce president also opposed the bill, along with a handful of current and retired child care providers.
Overall, nearly 40 people signed up to testify, according to Senate Health and Welfare Committee chairwoman Sen. Julie VanOrden, R-Pingree.
All but two people — representatives from the Idaho Freedom Foundation and Mountain States Policy Center — opposed the legislation.
Kate Haas, a lobbyist for Kestrel West, presented the bill alongside Furniss. Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise, who opposed the bill, asked Haas who she was representing, but Haas declined to answer.
According to lobbyist disclosures filed with the secretary of state, Haas has lobbied on House Bill 243 for Wonderschool, an online platform that connects parents to child care providers and offers startup resources for providers.
In an online post Tuesday, Wonderschool CEO Chris Bennett wrote that he’s a “proponent of policies that detail age-specific ratios for different types of programs.”
“Although we never have and never will recommend or advocate for the elimination of child-to-staff ratios, we know that — regardless of our view — states will pursue different approaches grounded in both their unique geographic, demographic and political realities, and the broader set of policies and tools at their disposal.”
The House previously approved House Bill 243 by a 54-15 vote.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.