Childcare subsidies have come under heavy scrutiny since a YouTuber exposed potential fraud in Minnesota that could total billions of dollars when all is said and done. Now the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare (DHW) admits the state’s own program may not even be lawful.
Read these previous articles for background on this program:
- August 20, 2024: The Cost of Government Childcare
- September 6, 2024: What Should We Do About Child Care?
- December 29, 2025: Raising Questions About Childcare Subsidies in Idaho
- January 1, 2026: What Next for Child Care Subsidies?
The Idaho Child Care Program (ICCP) began with a 1990 federal omnibus budget that created block grants to subsidize childcare for low-income families. It was not the Legislature that directly opted into the program, however. DHW used its rulemaking authority to enroll in the block grant program at some point in the 1990s, which meant the Legislature’s only oversight was ensuring that federal ICCP grants were funded.
Also recall that former DHW Director Alex Adams found several structural fiscal problems with ICCP, including rules raising the eligibility threshold, reducing copays, and allowing subsidies to be directed to more expensive childcare facilities. Adams pledged to fix the structural issues rather than simply requesting more money from the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee (JFAC).
This week, Director Charron sent a letter to JFAC indicating that the rulemaking authority DHW has been using since the 1990s is not sufficient to continue operating ICCP:
To date, the Idaho Child Care Program (ICCP) has been administered via administrative rules and budget intent language. A program of this size and magnitude without a clearly defined intent statute is untenable. Further, rulemaking is insufficient to sustain the authority of any code rules. For years DHW has relied on general rulemaking authority vested in the Director at I.C. § 56-202, which states in relevant part that “[t]he director of the state department of health and welfare shall…[p]romulgate, adopt and enforce such rules and such methods of administration…” As the child care subsidy program is not to carry out the provisions of title 56, nor any title in Idaho Code, there is no authority to promulgate rules under this section. We can find no alternative rulemaking authority in law to sustain these rules.
To address this issue, Charron has been working with legislators on a bill to codify ICCP and place it under clearer legislative oversight.
But in her letter she warned that if the bill fails, the program will end:
DHW will have no choice but to eliminate substantially the rules and wind down ICCP at the close of the fiscal year, potentially earlier, if this legislation or something similar is not enacted this session. This program cannot continue based on authority via budget intent language alone and as discussed above, we do not have the appropriate authority to promulgate rules.
The real question for lawmakers is whether ICCP should continue at all. Sen. Brian Lenney wrote a lengthy post on Substack this week answering that question with an emphatic no:
Wait… you want us to give you $30 million to expand a program you’ve been running “illegally?” You want minimal restrictions on who can get that money? And you’re threatening to shut the whole thing down if we don’t pass your vendor-written bill?
How about… NO.
Instead, what if families raise their own children? Or how about private childcare businesses operate in a competitive market with minimal regulation and zero subsidies?
I’ve been informed that the bill Sen. Lenney mentioned has been withdrawn for additional work. Whatever comes next will likely try to do the same thing: codify ICCP while placing it under clearer legislative oversight.
What do you think? Is this the right step for accountability? Or would it be better to let ICCP sunset and move toward a society that does not subsidize childcare at all?
If the Legislature does move forward with a bill to codify ICCP, should there be certain restrictions—for American citizens only, for example? What about additional safeguards against fraud, beyond what Lenney flagged in his post?
My position hasn’t changed since I first wrote about the issue nearly two years ago:
Ultimately, we must return to a society that allows and incentivizes mothers to stay home with their young children. Call me a misogynist if you want, but every possible metric shows that children do best when raised by their mothers and fathers rather than by teachers or child care staff, no matter how caring and competent those strangers may be. The entire child care industry exists as a symptom of a broken society. While we can and should work to improve it in the short term, we must keep in mind the long-term survival of our civilization.
Whatever the Legislature decides, the goal should be to make government welfare unnecessary—not to expand it.
Feature image by CBS2.
Gem State Chronicle is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber
About Brian Almon
Brian Almon is the Editor of the Gem State Chronicle. He also serves as Chairman of the District 14 Republican Party and is a trustee of the Eagle Public Library Board. He lives with his wife and five children in Eagle.
