NPRM on CCDF Regulations: What’s Proposed and Why Tribal Voices Are Important

On January 5, 2026, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), through the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Restoring Flexibility in the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF).” This NPRM proposes changes to CCDF regulations (45 CFR Part 98) that would roll back certain requirements added by the 2024 CCDF Final Rule—a regulation intended to improve access, affordability, provider stability, and family choice in child care.

This post breaks down what the NPRM would change, what those changes mean for the child care field as a whole, and why Tribal Leaders and Tribal CCDF administrators should still engage in the public comment process, even though the current proposal does not directly impose new Tribal requirements.

What the NPRM Would Change

The NPRM proposes to rescind or loosen four key provisions that were added in the 2024 CCDF Final Rule:

1. Family Co‑Payment Cap

   The 2024 rule set a requirement that family co‑payments for child care subsidies could not exceed 7 percent of household income. The NPRM proposes to remove this requirement and allow lead agencies (states, territories, or Tribal CCDF programs) to determine co‑payment policies without a federal cap.

   
   

2. Grants/Contracts for Specific Services Previously, CCDF regulations asked lead agencies to use grants or contracts to support child care for specific populations (e.g., infants/toddlers, children with disabilities, underserved areas). The NPRM would remove the requirement and let lead agencies use vouchers/certificates as they choose.

   
   

3. Prospective Provider Payments Under the 2024 rule, lead agencies were required to offer prospective payment (paying providers before services are delivered, based on enrollment), aimed at supporting provider financial stability. The NPRM would remove this requirement, allowing payment after service delivery.

   
   

4. Enrollment‑Based Payments The Final Rule previously required payment to be based on enrollment rather than attendance, helping providers manage fixed costs and promoting stability. The NPRM proposes rescinding this requirement and returning flexibility to historical billing options.

Collectively, these revisions signal a shift toward greater administrative discretion for lead agencies and away from some of the protections meant to stabilize access and support providers.

What This Means for Child Care Systems

These proposed changes would affect the child care subsidy system nationwide:

For families:

• Removing the 7 percent co‑payment cap could mean higher out‑of‑pocket costs in some jurisdictions if lead agencies choose higher co‑payments.

• More local discretion may offer flexibility for unique contexts, but could also lessen consistent affordability protections across jurisdictions.

For providers:

• Returning to attendance‑based billing and eliminating prospective payments may increase financial uncertainty for providers, especially smaller centers and home‑based businesses that operate on thin margins.

• Local discretion allows tailoring, but may also reintroduce past instability that the 2024 rule sought to reduce.

For subsidy administration:

• Lead agencies would have broader policy flexibility, potentially reducing federal procedural requirements.

• Without these federal requirements, lead agencies may create diverse approaches, but families moving across jurisdictions could experience uneven access standards.

Public comments from states, providers, parents, and advocates warn that rescinding these provisions could undermine affordability, provider participation, and stability—and that the provisions were designed to address long‑standing challenges in the child care market.

How It Relates to Tribal CCDF Programs

Crucially, while this NPRM does propose changes to CCDF requirements broadly, it does not propose new federal mandates specific to Tribal CCDF programs or modify Tribal lead agency requirements within the CCDF regulatory text. Tribal programs are included among Lead Agencies and generally have discretion in how they implement CCDF. The proposed rule rescinds requirements that apply to all CCDF Lead Agencies (including Tribal), but does not add restrictions targeting Tribal sovereignty.

That said, there are still reasons Tribal leaders and administrators should carefully review and comment:

• Impacts through flexibilities: Tribal CCDF programs might welcome increased flexibility in design and administration. However, without consistent baseline standards—for example, co‑payment protections—some families could face higher costs if Tribal policy decisions don’t intentionally protect affordability.

  
  

• Precedent for policy direction: Rules that loosen affordability or provider stability provisions at the federal level can influence future CCDF guidance, quality initiatives, or funding expectations that intersect with Tribal systems.

  
  

• Administrative burden variation: Greater lead agency discretion may result in less uniform guidance and increased complexity when Tribal programs interact with state partners or leverage blended funding streams.

  
  

• Tribal sovereignty & self‑determination: Even when a rule doesn’t explicitly change Tribal requirements, the broader program direction matters. Tribes may choose to maintain strong protections (e.g., co‑payment caps, prospective payments) but must do so deliberately and potentially articulate those choices through CCDF plans and documentation.

  
  

Why Public Comment Still Matters

The public comment period on an NPRM is the moment when stakeholders can shape the final rule. Federal agencies are required to consider comments before issuing a final regulation. For the CCDF NPRM:

• Written comments are due by February 4, 2026.

• Anyone may submit comments via Regulations.gov under the docket number associated with the NPRM.

Even though the proposal doesn’t create new Tribal requirements, Tribal perspectives are important: they help ensure that the final rule doesn’t inadvertently erase protections or create gaps in access for families in Indian Country. Clean regulatory language that preserves affordability, provider participation, and stability can make an important difference for Tribal communities.

Take Action: Share Your Views

Tribes, Tribal CCDF administrators, providers, and families with first‑hand experience in subsidy systems can make a strong case for how these changes will play out in community settings. Federal regulators benefit from clear real‑world examples.

Submit your comments and share your story.

Personal and programmatic insights help agencies understand the lived impact of regulatory choices—especially in rural, frontier, and Tribal contexts.

👉 Find and contact your Members of Congress: https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member

👉 Submit your comment on the NPRM: Search for the CCDF proposal on Regulations.gov under Docket ACF‑2025-24272.

Your perspective helps ensure federal policy protects access, stability, and affordability for children and families, including Tribal communities.