The Early Childhood Investment Corporation (ECIC) and the Think Babies Michigan coalition are gathering information from candidates seeking public office in Michigan about their perspectives on early childhood policy. Our goal is education, not endorsement. ECIC does not endorse, oppose, or rate candidates for public office.
We are collecting responses so that families, early childhood service providers, and community members across Michigan can better understand how candidates think about the needs of children from birth through age five and the families and professionals who care for them. Responses from candidates are published as received, without editing or commentary. Candidates have agreed that their responses may be reproduced and attributed to them in ECIC and Think Babies Michigan communications, including newsletters, social media, websites, and materials shared with coalition partners.
The following responses are from Hassan Nehme, Republican candidate for Michigan House District 15.
What do you see as the most pressing early childhood challenge facing the district or communities you seek to represent?
The biggest challenge I see is simply access and affordability. A parent can do everything right, work hard and plan ahead, and still struggle to find quality child care they can afford, especially for an infant or toddler. That affects much more than child care. It affects whether a parent can go back to work, stay employed, finish school or keep their household financially stable. I think we have to look at early childhood policy as both a family issue and an economic issue.
Michigan families in many parts of the state live in areas with far fewer licensed child care slots than there are children who need them, and the shortage is most severe for infants and toddlers. What is your view of this issue, and what approaches would you consider if elected?
We need more child care options, especially for infants and toddlers. If the demand is there but providers cannot afford to open, expand or stay in business, then we need to understand what is standing in their way. I would look at incentives for new and expanding providers, help with startup and facility costs, reasonable reimbursement rates for families receiving child care assistance, and removing unnecessary regulatory barriers without weakening health and safety standards. I also think home based and smaller providers need to be part of the conversation. Not every solution needs to be a large child care center. Families should have choices.
What is your perspective on the cost of child care for Michigan families, and on the tools available to state or federal policymakers to address affordability?
Child care has become one of the largest expenses many young families face. At the same time, providers are operating on extremely thin margins. That tells me we cannot solve the problem by simply telling providers to charge less. I would look at a combination of child care scholarships, targeted tax relief, better reimbursement rates, incentives for employers that help employees with child care, and policies that help increase the number of providers. The long term answer has to include increasing supply because assistance only goes so far if families still cannot find an available spot. Any program we fund also needs to be easy for families to actually use. Sometimes government creates assistance and then makes the application process so complicated that the families it was meant for never receive it.
Early childhood educators are among the lowest paid workers in Michigan, and turnover in the field is high. How do you think about compensation, benefits, and working conditions in this profession?
We cannot talk seriously about expanding child care without talking about the people doing the work. If providers cannot recruit and retain good employees, classrooms close and available slots disappear. I support finding ways to improve compensation and retention, but I would be cautious about simply putting another mandate on small child care businesses that are already struggling financially. We should look at reimbursement rates, workforce incentives, training support and other ways to help providers pay and retain good employees without making child care even more expensive for parents.
Michigan has dedicated funding for many critical services, but nothing specifically focused on the needs of families with young children. Advocates have proposed a dedicated, sustainable state revenue stream for early childhood, separate from the annual general fund appropriations process. What is your perspective on that idea?
I am open to the idea of creating more predictable funding for early childhood, but I would want to know where the revenue is coming from and exactly how the money is being used before supporting a new dedicated revenue stream. Stable funding can help programs plan long term instead of wondering every year what will happen in the budget, but dedicated funding should not mean less accountability. I would want clear goals, transparency and regular review to make sure the money is reaching families and providers rather than being absorbed by administration.
My approach would be to make existing government work better. Michigan families need affordable childcare and strong early childhood services, but they also need a state government that respects taxpayers and ensures every dollar is being used effectively.
If you were setting priorities within a constrained early childhood budget, what would you prioritize first, and why?
I would put direct services first. My priorities would be keeping child care slots available, helping families who genuinely cannot afford care, supporting the workforce necessary to keep those providers open, maternal and infant health, and early intervention for children with developmental delays or disabilities. When resources are limited, I would rather put another dollar directly into helping a child, parent or provider than into creating another administrative program.
Michigan has made significant strides to promote maternal and infant health, though federal policy changes put many of these programs at risk. How would you work to preserve and expand access to important programs that promote maternal and infant health including Medicaid?
Pregnancy and the first year of a child’s life are not areas where we should be creating gaps in access to basic medical care. I would work to protect effective maternal and infant health programs and make sure Michigan is taking full advantage of available federal resources. Medicaid plays an important role for eligible pregnant women, infants and families, and any changes need to be handled responsibly so that people are not suddenly losing necessary prenatal, postpartum or infant care. At the same time, I want us measuring outcomes. If a program is improving healthy pregnancies, healthy births and infant health, those are investments worth protecting.
Think Babies supports more funding for programs that support nurturing relationships and well-being for babies and caregivers — like home visiting, consultation, and intervention services —to help address and prevent stress and trauma before they become a crisis. How familiar are you with these kinds of programs, and would you support increased funding for them if elected?
I am familiar with the general purpose of these programs and I support the concept of intervening early rather than waiting until a family or child reaches a crisis. Home visiting and early intervention can connect families with health care, developmental services, education and other resources at a time when those services can have the greatest impact. I would be open to increased funding where programs are demonstrating results and reaching families that need them. I would also want coordination between programs so we are not spending money on multiple agencies doing essentially the same thing.
The Early On Coalition — which is part of Think Babies — has advocated for increased funding to support families with infants and toddlers who have disabilities and developmental delays to make sure they get the individualized early intervention services they are entitled to. What is your perspective on increasing funding for Early On?
I support Early On and would be open to continuing to increase its funding based on need and results. When a child has a developmental delay or disability, identifying it and providing services early can make a major difference for that child and their family. It can also reduce the need for more intensive and expensive services later. Michigan’s Early On program has been showing strong results, so this is an area where I think continued investment can make sense. I would want funding focused on shortening wait times, reaching eligible families and making sure the individualized services promised to children are actually available.
If elected, how would you gather input from parents, caregivers, and early childhood professionals in your district when making decisions that affect them?
I would approach this the same way I believe every major issue should be approached. Go directly to the people dealing with it every day. I would meet with parents, child care owners, educators, Early On professionals, health care providers and organizations working with families. I also want to visit programs in the district instead of only hearing about them in Lansing. The people working inside these systems usually know exactly what is working, what is broken and where government is making their job harder. Legislators need to listen to them before writing the solution.
Is there anything else you would like Michigan families, early childhood professionals, and advocates to know about your approach to young children and their families?
My approach is pretty simple. I want families to have choices, children to be safe and healthy, and parents to be able to raise a family without feeling like every basic necessity is becoming financially impossible. I also do not think every family needs the exact same thing. Some parents want center based child care. Some prefer smaller home based care. Others make arrangements within their families. Government should support families and make good options available without assuming there is only one correct way to raise a child. When we do spend public money, I want as much of it as possible reaching children, families and the professionals actually providing the service.
Are there early childhood issues you believe are being overlooked in the current policy conversation in Michigan?
I think we sometimes focus so heavily on creating programs that we overlook whether families can actually navigate them. A parent should not need to understand five different agencies and fill out stacks of paperwork just to figure out what help their child qualifies for. Better coordination between child care, health care, developmental services and family assistance could make the programs we already have much more effective. I also think infant and toddler care, child care during nontraditional work hours, smaller home based providers and the shortage of qualified workers deserve more attention. These are practical problems families are dealing with every day, and solving them would make a real difference.