HB 4057
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
The enrolled bill legally requires the Early Learning Council to expand ERDC subsidy eligibility to include families at risk of or using protective, homelessness, teen parent, or domestic violence services; mandates provider payments based on enrollment rather than attendance with a late-fee penalty; caps family copayments at 7% of income; guarantees a minimum 12-month eligibility period regardless of status changes; and compels state agencies to provide standardized information on all publicly funded early learning programs to ERDC applicants and waitlisted families before any referral.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
The measure addresses the ERDC waitlist opened in November 2023 due to increased demand and limited funding, aiming to ensure families applying or waitlisted are informed of other publicly funded early learning and care programs they may qualify for.
Basis: Official analysis · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The expansion of independent eligibility criteria combined with a mandatory pre-referral information requirement suggests an effort to reduce administrative barriers and prevent eligible families from falling through safety net gaps while awaiting subsidy slots.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Gain expanded eligibility pathways, a guaranteed minimum 12-month benefit period regardless of status changes, capped copayments, and mandatory pre-referral information on alternative public programs.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Must receive payment based on enrollment rather than attendance, comply with strict background registry requirements for all personnel with unsupervised contact, and may qualify for higher reimbursement rates for specialized or quality-recognized care.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Bear rulemaking obligations to implement diversity mandates, copay caps, eligibility criteria, and standardized information protocols, requiring formal interagency coordination.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Families face reduced financial burden and increased benefit stability but must navigate expanded eligibility verification. Providers experience improved cash flow predictability from enrollment-based payments but bear administrative costs for background registry compliance and quality incentive tracking. State agencies must allocate resources to rulemaking, interagency agreements, and federal alignment while managing the ERDC waitlist.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Enrolled; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Family experiencing domestic violence or homelessness
Qualifies immediately under the new independent eligibility criteria, receives 12 months of uninterrupted care despite sudden income changes, and is automatically placed in a quality-recognized facility with a higher reimbursement rate, preventing child welfare system involvement.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Small home-based child care provider
Faces severe cash flow disruption if enrollment-based payments are delayed or miscalculated, while simultaneously bearing the full cost of background registry checks for all volunteers or family members living on-site who have unsupervised contact with children, potentially forcing closure despite high demand.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
The text legally permits incentive structures and broad eligibility pathways, but weak administrative oversight could transform these lawful mechanisms into avenues for payment inflation or unauthorized benefit access.
Sources · Enrolled
The measure prioritizes family stability and expanded access to subsidized care by mandating minimum benefit durations and capping costs, but shifts financial and administrative burdens onto providers through enrollment-based payments and strict background registry compliance. Upsides include reduced child care instability for vulnerable families and clearer program navigation; downsides include potential provider cash flow strain, increased regulatory overhead, and risks of eligibility or payment verification gaps.
The enrolled version replaces the previous House Committee amendment's focus on reviewing background check requirements with comprehensive rulemaking mandates for the ERDC subsidy program. Key changes include removing the background check review mandate, adding explicit interagency delegation authority between DELC and ODHS, codifying independent eligibility bases including protective services and homelessness risk, establishing enrollment-based payment structure with late-fee penalties, mandating a 7% copayment cap and 12-month minimum eligibility period, and requiring pre-referral standardized information on all publicly funded early learning programs.
Added independent eligibility criteria for protective services, homelessness, teen parent, and domestic violence risk.
Expands subsidy access to families previously excluded by narrow employment or income thresholds.
Sources · Enrolled
Removed background check review provisions present in the House Amendments to Introduced version.
Eliminates legislative mandate for policy review, deferring oversight to existing registry statutes and agency rules.
Sources · Enrolled; Staff Measure Summary A
Codified enrollment-based provider payments with a 9% late-fee penalty and capped family copayments at 7% of income.
Shifts financial risk from providers to the state, improves cash flow stability, and reduces out-of-pocket costs for families.
Sources · Enrolled
Mandated a minimum 12-month eligibility period and standardized information provision to applicants/waitlisted families.
Increases benefit continuity, reduces administrative churn, and prevents eligible families from missing alternative public programs during waitlist periods.
Sources · Enrolled
Tradeoff: The shift from background check review to expanded eligibility and payment mandates prioritizes immediate family access and provider cash flow over legislative oversight of screening protocols, requiring agencies to manage increased rulemaking complexity while relying on existing registry enforcement mechanisms.
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the enrolled bill text and official committee/fiscal summaries. Inferences are explicitly labeled and bounded by statutory language.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
Analyzing the source text. Existing briefs remain unchanged.
If adopted, the amendment would eliminate the statutory requirement for the Departments of Early Learning and Care, Education, and the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission to review, streamline, and report on background check requirements for publicly funded child care staff, while preserving the bill’s mandate to provide standardized early learning program information to families applying for or waitlisted for the Employment Related Day Care subsidy.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment may aim to reduce administrative burden and legislative delay by removing a complex interagency study requirement, allowing the immediate family information mandate to proceed without waiting for background check reform recommendations. This inference is drawn from the removal of the multi-agency review provision alongside an emergency effective date clause designed for rapid implementation.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A; Introduced
No longer required to conduct a cross-agency review, develop streamlining recommendations, estimate implementation costs, or draft a legislative report on background check consolidation.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Will not receive the potential benefits of streamlined or consolidated checks that the deleted study might have produced, though existing legal requirements remain unchanged.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Continue to receive standardized information about publicly funded early learning programs before hotline referral; this informational mandate is unaffected by the amendment.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Agencies avoid the time and costs associated with interagency coordination, data collection, and report drafting for the background check study.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Families retain immediate access to the informational mandate, potentially improving awareness of alternative funding or programs while on the ERDC waitlist.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Legislative oversight of background check standardization is deferred indefinitely unless separate legislation is introduced.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Child care workers/providers
A worker previously subjected to three separate, costly background checks across agencies could theoretically face a unified system if future legislation adopts similar streamlining; the amendment avoids delaying immediate family support services while that future work proceeds separately.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Child care workers/providers and state agencies
Overlapping or conflicting background check requirements persist indefinitely for child care staff, increasing administrative costs and turnover risks without legislative guidance to consolidate them.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Introduced
The distinction rests on whether agencies act within existing statutory authority versus creating new de facto requirements without legislative approval.
Sources · Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Introduced
The amendment trades potential long-term administrative efficiency from background check consolidation for immediate implementation of family information services and reduced legislative delay. Upsides include faster service delivery and lower upfront agency costs; downsides include lost opportunities to identify and resolve systemic background check redundancies.
Faster deployment of standardized early learning resource information to families on the ERDC waitlist.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Reduced administrative burden and immediate cost savings for DELC, ODE, and TSPC by eliminating the study mandate.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Missed opportunity to identify and resolve overlapping or inefficient background check requirements across early learning, education, and teacher licensing agencies.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Deferral of legislative oversight on background check standardization, potentially prolonging administrative friction for child care workers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
high confidence. The amendment's text explicitly deletes Section 3, and staff summaries confirm the removal of background check provisions. The remaining bill text clearly preserves the family information mandate. No official source expressly states the amendment's purpose, so rationale fields are marked null or cautiously inferred.
If adopted, this amendment would replace the Department of Early Learning and Care’s mandate to study child-care staff background checks with a new directive for the Department of Education to analyze how the Central Background Registry could automatically satisfy screening requirements for educators and early learning staff under its jurisdiction, requiring a legislative report by November 15, 2026.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely aims to reduce redundant screening for professionals who work across education and early learning sectors by testing whether the existing Central Background Registry can serve as a unified verification tool.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Would face a potential reduction in duplicate background checks if the Department of Education’s recommendations are adopted, though no immediate change to screening obligations occurs under this amendment alone.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Would assume primary responsibility for analyzing registry integration, requiring new interagency coordination with the Department of Early Learning and Care and the Department of State Police to evaluate legal, operational, technological, privacy, and financial considerations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Indirectly affected; changes to educator screening could alter hiring timelines or compliance costs if recommendations are later enacted into law.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Agencies must conduct legal, operational, technological, privacy, and financial analyses before making recommendations, shifting interagency workload from early learning to education leadership.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Compliance obligations remain unchanged for current staff; the measure only mandates a study and report, with no immediate alteration to screening procedures or eligibility requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Educators and early learning staff working across multiple jurisdictions
A teacher working in both a public school and a licensed child care center could satisfy all background checks through a single registry enrollment, eliminating months of redundant processing and thousands in fees.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Child care facilities and subsidy applicants
If the analysis concludes federal law or privacy statutes prevent automatic satisfaction, agencies may face compliance gaps or litigation if they attempt to force registry data into incompatible systems without statutory authority.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
The amendment is an Oregon statutory change that references federal CCDBG constraints for analysis purposes; it does not adopt federal definitions or override state jurisdiction over background check enforcement.
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Streamlining background checks could reduce administrative burdens and accelerate hiring, but it may also create compliance risks if registry data does not meet the specific legal standards or update frequencies required for child safety.
Reduced administrative friction for professionals working across education and early learning sectors.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential cost savings from consolidating distinct background check functions into a centralized system.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Privacy or legal constraints may prevent automatic satisfaction, leaving agencies with incomplete recommendations and delayed policy action.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Interagency coordination demands could strain Department of Education resources without guaranteed legislative follow-through.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text and official fiscal/revenue notices. No legislative intent or enacted status is assumed.
If adopted, the amendment would delete the statutory mandate requiring DELC, ODE, and TSPC to review, streamline, and consolidate background check requirements for publicly funded child-care staff, leaving only the requirement for DELC (or ODHS) to provide standardized information on publicly funded early learning programs to ERDC applicants and waitlisted families. Material consequences include the elimination of a cross-agency regulatory audit and September 2026 reporting deadline, while preserving immediate access to alternative publicly funded care resources for subsidy applicants.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely narrows the measure’s scope to address legislative or administrative concerns regarding the feasibility, cost, or complexity of consolidating cross-agency background checks, allowing the information-sharing mandate to advance independently.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A
Will receive standardized information on alternative publicly funded early learning programs before hotline referral, but will not benefit from any future streamlined background check processes that might have resulted from the removed study.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A
Are relieved of the mandate to review, estimate costs for, and report on consolidating background check systems by September 15, 2026.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Will continue operating under existing, unconsolidated background check requirements with no immediate change to enrollment or compliance procedures.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
DELC and ODHS must establish interagency agreements and distribute standardized program information to ERDC applicants and waitlisted families prior to hotline referral. Agencies avoid the administrative burden of a cross-agency audit and report.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A
LRO and fiscal staff confirm minimal to no revenue impact for the remaining provisions; removing the background check study eliminates potential future costs associated with system development or reporting.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: IS_Impact HB 4057 2; IS_Impact HB 4057 2; Fiscal Impact Statement A; Revenue Impact Statement A
Families on the ERDC waitlist gain earlier visibility into alternative publicly funded programs, potentially reducing unmet needs, while systemic inefficiencies in background checks remain unaddressed.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A
ERDC applicants and waitlisted families
A family facing a prolonged ERDC waitlist immediately accesses Preschool Promise or Head Start slots through the mandated standardized information, securing stable care and enabling parental employment without delay.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A
Child-care providers and facility operators
A child-care facility operator faces conflicting or redundant background check requirements across DELC, ODE, and TSPC jurisdictions indefinitely, increasing compliance costs and administrative delays for hiring staff, with no legislative mandate to resolve the fragmentation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
The amendment authorizes delegation but lacks explicit statutory guardrails for data handling, creating reliance on agency discretion rather than codified privacy standards.
Sources · Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Introduced
The amendment trades a comprehensive, cross-agency review of child-care staff background checks for faster legislative passage focused solely on immediate family access to publicly funded early learning resources. Upsides include reduced administrative burden and expedited information sharing; downsides include leaving systemic background check fragmentation unaddressed.
Reduced administrative burden and elimination of a costly cross-agency audit and reporting deadline.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Revenue Impact Statement A
Expedited distribution of standardized early learning program information to subsidy applicants and waitlisted families.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A
Systemic background check fragmentation across DELC, ODE, and TSPC remains unaddressed, potentially prolonging compliance delays for providers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Loss of a statutory deadline to identify overlapping background check requirements and estimate consolidation costs.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
high confidence. The amendment text explicitly deletes Section 3 and renumbers subsequent sections. Official fiscal, revenue, and staff summaries confirm the removal of the background check mandate and preserve the information-sharing requirement. No documented legislative rationale for the amendment is provided in the source documents.
If adopted, the amendment would delete the statutory mandate requiring the Department of Early Learning and Care, in consultation with the Department of Education and the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission, to review, streamline, consolidate, and report on background check requirements for publicly funded child care staff. The measure would otherwise remain unchanged, continuing to require the Department of Early Learning and Care to provide standardized information on all publicly funded early learning programs to Employment Related Day Care subsidy applicants and waitlisted families before referring them to a resource hotline, while authorizing interagency delegation of this duty to the Department of Human Services.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Introduced; Staff Measure Summary A
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The committee likely narrowed the bill’s scope to prioritize immediate family navigation and subsidy eligibility rules over long-term administrative reform. This inference is drawn from the amendment’s explicit removal of the background check review mandate while preserving provisions focused on ERDC applicant information dissemination and program rules, suggesting a legislative strategy to address urgent waitlist navigation without delaying passage for systemic agency coordination.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Will receive standardized information on alternative publicly funded early learning programs prior to hotline referral, but will not benefit from a legislatively mandated review that could streamline future background check requirements for care providers.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A
Remain subject to the current fragmented background check system across multiple agencies, with no legislative timeline or mandate for consolidation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Are relieved of the statutory obligation to conduct a cross-agency review, develop recommendations, estimate implementation resources, and submit a report by September 15, 2026.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Behavior and Obligations: DELC must establish or delegate standardized information dissemination for ERDC applicants and waitlisted families. ODHS may assume this duty via interagency agreement. Agencies retain existing background check protocols without a mandated consolidation timeline.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Introduced; Staff Measure Summary A
Costs and Fiscal Impact: The Legislative Revenue Office and Fiscal Office indicate no revenue impact and minimal fiscal impact, respectively. Removing the review mandate eliminates anticipated administrative costs associated with data collection, cross-agency coordination, and report drafting.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: IS_Impact HB 4057 2; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Access and Risk: Families gain clearer visibility into alternative publicly funded programs during subsidy waitlists, potentially reducing unmet care needs. Conversely, unresolved background check fragmentation may perpetuate staffing bottlenecks in subsidized facilities, indirectly limiting care capacity for eligible families.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Child care workers and staff in publicly funded programs
A worker currently navigating redundant, costly background checks across three separate agencies avoids future legislative delays and bureaucratic friction, allowing them to secure employment faster while agencies independently pursue voluntary coordination or federal compliance pathways.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Families applying for or waitlisted for the Employment Related Day Care subsidy program
Chronic staffing shortages in subsidized care facilities persist because fragmented background check requirements remain unaddressed, leading to prolonged ERDC waitlists, reduced subsidy utilization, and increased financial strain on low-income families unable to afford unsubsidized care.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
The text legally permits interagency delegation but does not mandate execution timelines or compliance monitoring, creating reliance on voluntary agency cooperation.
Sources · Introduced
The amendment trades a mandated cross-agency review of background check requirements for immediate, focused improvements in family navigation and subsidy eligibility rules. Upsides include reduced agency workload, faster legislative passage, and clearer focus on direct family support during subsidy waitlists. Downsides include forfeiting a structured opportunity to address systemic administrative fragmentation that may contribute to provider staffing shortages and delayed care access.
Eliminates agency burden associated with data collection, cross-agency coordination, and report drafting for the background check review mandate.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Accelerates legislative passage by narrowing scope to immediate family navigation and subsidy eligibility rules.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Forfeits a structured legislative opportunity to address systemic background check fragmentation that may contribute to provider staffing shortages.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Relies entirely on voluntary interagency coordination for information dissemination, which may fail without statutory enforcement mechanisms.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
high confidence. The amendment text explicitly deletes Section 3 and adjusts section numbering. Official staff summaries confirm the effect removes background check review provisions while preserving family navigation mandates. Fiscal and revenue impacts are officially documented as minimal or none.
The amendment replaces Section 3 of HB 4057 to shift lead responsibility for a background check streamlining study from the Department of Early Learning and Care to the Department of Education, adds consultation with the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission and the Department of State Police, mandates analysis of leveraging the Central Background Registry (ORS 329A.030) to satisfy education and certification requirements, requires evaluation of legal, operational, technological, privacy, and financial factors alongside federal CCDBG constraints, and extends the legislative report deadline to November 15, 2026.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The shift to the Department of Education and explicit focus on the Central Background Registry suggests an intent to align teacher certification background checks with existing early learning registries, potentially reducing redundant screening for professionals working across both education and childcare sectors.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Would be subject to a study evaluating whether their background checks can be consolidated through the Central Background Registry, potentially reducing duplicate screening requirements if recommendations are adopted.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Shift from consultative to lead agency roles for the study; must analyze registry interoperability, legal constraints, and federal compliance before submitting recommendations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Transition from primary study leads to supporting or consultative roles in analyzing background check requirements across agencies.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
The amendment mandates interagency analysis of legal, operational, technological, privacy, and financial considerations for registry-based verification. Agencies must ensure all recommendations comply with ORS 192.311–192.478 and federal CCDBG regulations. The Legislative Fiscal Office and Revenue Office note minimal fiscal impact and no revenue impact, indicating the study itself carries low immediate costs, though implementation of any resulting legislation would require separate funding. Access to standardized information for Employment Related Day Care applicants remains unchanged by this amendment.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A; Revenue Impact Statement A
Education and early learning workers and applicants
A certified teacher transitioning to a licensed childcare center automatically satisfies both education and early learning background check requirements through Central Background Registry cross-verification, eliminating hiring delays and duplicate fees.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Education and early learning workers and applicants
Strict interpretation of federal CCDBG constraints or state privacy statutes prevents any cross-agency recognition, leaving the study with only theoretical recommendations that agencies cannot legally implement, resulting in wasted legislative time and continued applicant burden.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
The text legally permits interagency data sharing for employment verification under existing privacy frameworks. A potentially unlawful outcome could arise if weak enforcement of ORS 192.311–192.478 or federal privacy rules allows background registry data to be used for non-employment purposes, or if duty creep occurs where agencies retain or share criminal history data beyond what is strictly necessary for screening without statutory authority.
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Streamlining background checks reduces administrative burden and hiring delays for workers but requires complex interagency data sharing that may be constrained by strict privacy laws and federal funding rules. Upsides include workforce efficiency, reduced costs, and faster placement; downsides include implementation complexity, potential privacy risks, and limited flexibility due to federal constraints.
Reduced administrative burden and hiring delays for workers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Lower long-term costs through consolidated screening systems.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Implementation complexity and interagency coordination costs.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Limited flexibility due to federal CCDBG constraints and state privacy statutes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
medium confidence. The amendment text is clear on procedural shifts and deadlines, but fiscal impacts are marked minimal, and federal constraints remain unquantified. Outcomes depend heavily on subsequent agency rulemaking and federal compliance interpretations.
39 records currently loaded
Records available in the current snapshot.
Earliest loaded signal
Introduced bill text posted
Posted Jan 28, 2026, 3:25 PM PST
Follow the official text for HB 4057 and every amendment branch. Connections come from each amendment's stated base. Horizontal position shows when each document was first posted, when available.
Click a card to isolate its connected lines; use View summary to jump to its details. Horizontal position shows first posting time in Pacific Time. Drag or use the arrow keys to pan. Pinch with two fingers on mobile, or zoom with the controls, +/− keys, or Control/Command + scroll; press 0 to reset. Dashed branches remained proposals.
Selected document summary
Substantial replacement
What the document says to change
delete lines 3 through 29 and insert:
Oregon records no individual sponsors.
Presession filing record
Introduced and printed pursuant to House Rule 12.00. Presession filed.
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
House carrier
Representative Lamar Wise
Third Reading Of House Bills · Version A
Senate carrier
Senator Dick Anderson
Third Reading Of House Measures · Version A
A carrier presents the measure or report but is not necessarily its sponsor or author.
Records already listed in Activity are not repeated here.
Official origin records are incomplete; missing facts are not inferred.
39 events
Full timeline
39 entries shown.
Chapter 110, (2026 Laws): Effective date April 7, 2026.
Governor signed.
President signed.
Speaker signed.
Starr declared potential conflict of interest by unanimous consent.
Third reading. Carried by Anderson. Passed.
Ayes, 28; Nays, 1--Robinson; Excused, 1--Linthicum.
Second reading.
Recommendation: Do pass the A-Eng. bill.
Public Hearing and Work Session held.
Public Hearing and Work Session
Heard and Reported Out · Agenda item 1 · Room HR E · Directs the Department of Early Learning and Care to provide standardized information on all publicly funded early learning and care programs and resources available in this state to people who apply for or are placed on the waitlist for the Employment Related Day Care subsidy program.
Referred to Early Childhood and Behavioral Health.
First reading. Referred to President's desk.
Third reading. Carried by Wise. Passed.
Ayes, 44; Nays, 2--Boice, Yunker; Excused, 4--Hartman, Lewis, Sosa, Valderrama; Excused for Business of the House, 10--Boshart Davis, Bunch, Diehl, Elmer, Gomberg, McIntire, Nguyen D, Skarlatos, Watanabe, Speaker Fahey.
Second reading.
House Amendments to Introduced bill text posted
Subsequent referral to Ways and Means rescinded by order of the Speaker.
Recommendation: Do pass with amendments, be printed A-Engrossed, and subsequent referral to Ways and Means be rescinded.
Work Session held.
Work Session
Heard and Reported Out with Amendments · Agenda item 2 · Room HR F · Directs the Department of Early Learning and Care to provide standardized information on all publicly funded early learning and care programs and resources available in this state to people who apply for or are placed on the waitlist for the Employment Related Day Care subsidy program.
Amendment -1 proposed
Amendment -2 adopted
IS_Impact HB 4057 2
Revenue Impact Statement
Work Session
Not Heard · Agenda item 3 · Room HR F · Directs the Department of Early Learning and Care to provide standardized information on all publicly funded early learning and care programs and resources available in this state to people who apply for or are placed on the waitlist for the Employment Related Day Care subsidy program.
IS_Impact HB 4057 2
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -1 proposed
Amendment -2 proposed
Public Hearing held.
Public Hearing
Heard · Agenda item 5 · Room HR F · Directs the Department of Early Learning and Care to provide standardized information on all publicly funded early learning and care programs and resources available in this state to people who apply for or are placed on the waitlist for the Employment Related Day Care subsidy program.
Amendment -2 proposed
Amendment -1 proposed
Referred to Early Childhood and Human Services with subsequent referral to Ways and Means.
First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
“Chapter 110, (2026 Laws): Effective date April 7, 2026.”
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.