Colorado Childcare Costs: Build Capacity, Not Dependency

The Colorado Sun opens a very well-written article on childcare with a scene that should make every policymaker in the “DHS World” stop scrolling and actually feel something.

A bright, canary-yellow infant room. Empty cribs. Quiet. Not because families do not want care. Because they cannot afford it, and the provider cannot afford to offer it under the ratios the state requires. That tension is the whole story in one picture: parents priced out, providers squeezed, and government subsidies sitting in the middle like a wobbly Jenga piece everyone pretends is “stable” until it isn’t.

The article follows Mero and Ranada Kaya, who run multiple Front Range centers. They say that unused infant room costs them about $4,000 a month, but they cannot fill it because infant care requires more staffing than older classrooms. That’s the part the public rarely understands: childcare is not priced like a normal consumer service because it is fundamentally labor-heavy and ratio-driven. You cannot
”innovate or automate” your way out of needing actual adults in the room. State Sen. Scott Bright, who lives this business every day, says up to 75% of revenue goes right back into staff compensation, and he’s often sitting on less than 10 days cash to cover payroll and bills.

Then the Sun drops the other shoe: the uncertainty around Colorado’s Child Care Assistance Program (CCCAP). The article describes county enrollment freezes and a federal funding disruption tied to new federal rules that reduce family copays and change how providers are paid (from attendance to enrollment), which increases costs for the state. The article frames this as the system “barely staying afloat” even before the latest upheaval. That is not hyperbole. It is an industry with thin margins, trying to serve families who are already tapped out.

And yes, the article leans into a familiar conclusion: some advocates see childcare as a “public good,” and the answer, in their worldview, is more government spending. Gov. Polis is quoted as acknowledging affordability problems and pointing to things like employer tax credits for on-site childcare, while also saying childcare costs money whether parents pay or taxes pay. Surprising, but on this, the Gov and I agree.

Here
is where I want to be very fair to the Sun while also being very blunt.

They are right about the pain.

They are right that families are making rational decisions that look “lazy” only to people who have never done the math. They profile a middle-income couple doing everything “right,” still staring at childcare eating half their take-home pay, and asking whether one parent has to step out of the workforce. That is not a character flaw. That is arithmetic.

They are also right that the provider side is not some monopoly-printing-money machine. Bright’s numbers show how close these centers run to the edge, and how fast “new requirements” translate into price increases, because providers do not have magic margins to absorb them.

But where I part ways with the undertone of the article is the assumption that “more government money” is the primary lever. It’s not. It’s just the easy lever to pull.

I live in this DHS (Department of Human Services) World. Weld County DHS, Colorado DHS, and four statewide committees on which I serve. I sit in the meetings. I work with commissioners and legislators who see the same human problems I do, and I respect them for it. There are many places where compassion is nonpartisan. The difference is that I am the guy who keeps asking the annoying question: why is dependence on government increasing, and why do we keep responding by building bigger programs instead of building more independence?

Safety net, not safety hammock.

Childcare is a perfect example of how government creep can turn a real need into a permanent dependency structure. Colorado Childcare Assistance Program (CCCAP) exists for a reason. I am not anti-safety-net. I am pro-TEMPORARY help that helps a family stabilize, reskill, and re-enter the workforce. But the minute we design policy that requires ongoing subsidy as the normal operating model, we quietly admit the market is broken, and then we start treating families like permanent clients of the state. Neither is true.

That is not dignity. That is management.

The Sun quotes a line that should make every conservative sit up straight: “rising costs and stringent state safety regulations” leave providers asking how long they can keep their doors open. If you want one policy word that matters here, it is capacity.

Capacity is not a slogan. It is supply. And supply is where Colorado routinely faceplants because we regulate like we are building a NASA launch facility instead of caring for four toddlers and a baby in a safe, sane environment.

So let’s talk solutions that are compassionate and conservative.

1. Stop treating “licensed center” as the only moral form of care. The article itself notes families already rely on a variety of settings: centers, in-home programs, churches, family members, neighbors. If the state is serious, then we should remove barriers that prevent safe alternatives from scaling. That includes micro-centers, neighborhood co-ops, and shared-care models among parents.

2. Unclog church-based and community-based care. Many churches sit empty six days a week. Many would step up. But Colorado’s facility modification requirements can be cost-prohibitive. If a church wants to serve families, we should not make them rebuild their building like it’s a surgical ward. Keep the kids safe. Keep the standards meaningful. Cut the performative bureaucratic nonsense that drives costs without improving outcomes.

3. Simplify ratios and rules without getting stupid. Infant ratios matter. Kids are not widgets. But the current approach often stacks regulation upon regulation, then acts shocked when providers pass costs onto parents. Senator Bright points directly at ratios and staffing as the main driver of cost, and that tracks with reality. If we want affordability, we have to be willing to examine the rulebook like grown-ups.

4. Use targeted incentives, not sprawling entitlements. Employer-based onsite care credits are one example the governor mentions, and those are at least aimed at expanding supply through the private sector rather than expanding a permanent subsidy class. Add provider-side tax relief, faster licensing timelines, and startup support that gets out of the way once the business is operating.

5. If the feds cut, do not do it like a guillotine. The Sun describes how fragile the subsidy side is, and other reporting notes federal rules and funding shifts have put CCCAP under real strain. If Washington is going to shrink, fine. I get the motivation, and I agree with it! Federal spending is NOT SUSTAINABLE! But do a wind-down that gives states and counties time to build replacement capacity and policies, not a sudden drop that punishes kids and collapses providers overnight.

Now, about the “experts” and the economic-loss argument. The article cites a Common Sense Institute estimate that Colorado loses about $3.8 billion a year when mothers stay out of the workforce due to childcare barriers. That might be directionally true, and it might be useful as a framing device. But here’s the deeper question that nobody wants to touch because it threatens the whole modern operating system:

What if it is actually good for society if a parent can stay home? Because it is.

Not because women “should” stay home – I am not saying that it must be mom that stays home, it could be dad. Not because the state should mandate a lifestyle. But because children matter more than quarterly GDP graphs. If we are worried about birthrates, if we are worried about social stability, if we are worried about the next generation being raised by an exhausted economy that treats parenting like a hobby you squeeze in between meetings, then yes, it is legitimate to aim for a world where one income can cover a modest life.

That is not misogyny. That is priorities.

So, here’s my “what now,” and it is going to sound unfashionable in Denver. I can live with that.

We should not accept a future where the default answer to childcare is “more government money.” That path turns parents into clients, providers into contractors, and childhood into a line item. The better path is building capacity through deregulation, diversified models of care, lower tax burdens, and targeted incentives that let supply rise and prices stabilize. Keep the safety net for families who genuinely need it, and design it to be temporary and mobility-focused.

My long-term vision: Can we focus the weight and resources of this grand government to make it a priority to develop an economy where a family can support itself on just one income, freeing the other parent to stay home and perform what should be a society’s most important job: rearing children.

Give credit where it is due: Senator Scott Bright is a clear-eyed voice because he has actually done the work. The Sun shows his numbers, his margins, his stress, and his honesty about the weird cross-subsidy where private-pay families end up covering gaps in government rates. I respect that. I would also challenge my friend, the Senator, with my opinion: it is not “government’s responsibility” to raise our kids. It is our responsibility. Government should protect kids from harm, enforce basic safety, and then get out of the way so families, churches, providers, and employers can solve what government has helped tangle up for decades.

Different clowns, same circus is funny until it’s your kid and your paycheck on the line.

This issue is not funny. But it is solvable if we stop pretending the only tool we have is another check from a government that is already bloated, already indebted, and already way outside its lane.