Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02061996 - C48 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS `>�....... Contra FROM: CHILD CARE TASK FORCE s Costa County "J � DATE: Janus 30 1996 err LEGISLATION: OPPOSE SB-265 (O'Connell & Leslie) WHIC WOULD SUBJECT: ALLOW A FAMILY DAY CARE HOME TO CARE FOR TWO ADDITIONAL CHILDREN WITHOUT ADDITIONAL ADULT SUPERVISION SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT a position IN OPPOSITION TO SB-265 by Senators O'Connell and Leslie, which would allow a family day care home to care for two additional children without additional adult supervision. BACKGROUND: Existing law provides for the licensure of family day care homes and defines a large family day care home as one which provides day care for 7 to 12 children, and a small family day care home as one which provides day care for 6 or fewer children. Specifically, as amended June 20, 1995, SB 265 would do all of the following: 0 Adopt a legislative finding that there is a severe shortage of child care for schoolage children throughout California, with many schoolage children going home to an empty, unsupervised setting after school. 0 Note that for nearly five years several counties have participated in a pilot program that allows for a family day care home to care for two additional children above the current number allowed pursuant to licensing regulations. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE =APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON F=ohn wary R 1 QQR APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERKOF THE BOA D OF CC: SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR See Page 3 BY ` ,DEPUTY 0 Indicate that as a part of the pilot program, a study was conducted by the Assembly Office of Research, the results of which demonstrated that the quality of care was not negatively affected by increasing the number of children being cared for. 0 Redefine a "large family day care home" as one that provides day care for 7 to 14 children. 0 Redefine a "small family day care home" as one that provides day care to 8 or fewer children. 0 Repeal a section of the Code which allows a small family day care home to provide care to only six infants and provides that if more than four infants are being cared for at the same time, one additional adult must be present. 0 Add a section to the Code which provides that a small family day care home may provide care for more than six and up to eight children without an additional adult attendant if all of the following conditions are met: • At least two of the children are at least six years of age. • No more than two infants are cared for during any time when more than six children are cared for. • The parents of each child are notified that the facility may be caring for seven or eight children in the home at one time. 0 Add a section to the Code which provides that a large family day care home may provide care for more than 12 and up to 14 children with only two adults present if all of the following conditions are met: • At least two of the children are at least six years of age. • No more than three infants are cared for during any time when more than 12 children are cared for. • The parent of a child are notified that the facility may be caring for 13 or 14 children in the home at one time. While the Child Care Task Force understands the motivation of the authors in trying to hold down the cost of child care and make more child care slots available, the Child Care Task Force believes that primary concern should be shown to the quality of care and the ability of the adult to adequate provide loving care and attention to the children. SB 265 would allow one adult to care for up to eight children. This could include, for example, two infants, plus six additional children who could be anywhere from age 2 on up, as long as two of them are six years old. This would be a challenging assignment for any individual! The Child Development Policy Institute opposes SB 265 because it would permit all family child care providers - even those who have minimal training and no formal education in child development - to enroll extra children. The Child Care Task Force, at its regular meeting on January 24, 1996, voted unanimously to ask the Board of Supervisors to oppose SB 265 and advise this County's legislative delegation of its opposition. SB 265 is not the solution to the need for additional child care slots. -2- cc: County Administrator Social Service Director Community Services Director Child Care Task Force (Via CAO) The Honorable Jack O'Connell Senator, 18th District Room 2187, State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Tim Leslie Senator, 1 st District Room 4081, State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Daniel E. Boatwright Senator, 7th District Room 3086, State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Nicholas C. Petris Senator, 9th District Room 5080, State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Tom Bates Assemblyman, 14th District Room 3120, State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Robert J. Campbell Assemblyman, 11th District Room 2163, State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Richard K. Rainey Assemblyman, 15th District Room 4139, State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Les Spahnn Heim, Noack, Kelly & Spahnn 1121 L Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95814 -3- AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 20, 1995 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 2, 1995 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 25, 1995 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 17, 1995 SENATE BILL No. 265 Introduced by Senators O'Connell and Leslie February 8, 1995 An act to amend Seetiefts 1596.78 and 159-7. 4 ef;aftdSection -` 1596.,78 of, to add Sections 1596.775 and 1597.465 to, and to repeal and add Section 1597 44 of, the Health and Safety Code, relating to day care. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 265, as amended, O'Connell. Family day care homes. Existing law provides for the licensure of family day care homes, and defines, in part, a large family day care home as r providing day care for 7 to 12 children, and a small family day care home as providing day care for 6 or fewer children. This bill would revise the definition of family day care homes to allow a large family day care home to care for no more than 14 children and a small family day care home to care for no more than 8 children, provided that certain prescribed conditions are met in the case of small homes providing care for more than 6, and large homes providing care for more than 12, children. The bill would make conforming, technical changes. 95 c4� SB 265 — 2 — Existing law prohibits small family day care homes from " pro viding care for 6 or fewer infants at one time unless certain conditions are met. This bill would repeal those provisions and would repeal certain obsolete provisions relating to a related San Diego County Pilot project. Existing law provides that the willful or repeated violation of the provisions regulating child day care facilities is subject to criminal sanction. By changing the definition of a family day care home to increase the number of children authorized to be cared for, this bill would expand the class of facilities subject to the . standards for family day care homes thereby changing the definition of a crime and imposing a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. , Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows• 1 SECTION 1. Section 1596.775 is added to the Health 2 and Safety Code,immediately following Section 1596.771, 3 to read: 4 1596.775. The Legislature finds and declares all of the i 5 following: 6 (a) There is a severe . shortage of child care for 7 schoolage children throughout California, with many 8 schoolage children going home to an empty, 9 unsupervised setting after school. ' 10 (b) For nearly five years several counties have 11 participated in a pilot program that allows for a family day 12 care home to care for two additional children above the 13 current number allowed pursuant to licensing 14 regulations. 95 - 3 — SB 265 ies from CO 1 (c) As part of the pilot program, a study was conducted s certain 2 by the Assembly Office of Research. The results of the I repeal 3 study demonstrated that the pilot program achieved all a Diego 4 of the following results: 5 (1) Increased access to care for schoolage children. ,riolation 6 (2) Participating providers encountered few subject 7 problems and strongly support expansion of the program. 8 (3) Parents of children in the pilot program family day - to 9 care homes strongly support the program. iome gyred for, 10 (4) Participating providers with additional children t to the 11 were no more likely to receive substantiated complaints ;i to the 12 from licensing officials than nonparticipants. ed local 13 (5) Local governments and planning officials saw little 14 or no impact on their licensing policies and procedures. imburse 15 (6) Overall quality of care was not adversely affected. andated 16 SEC. 2. Section 1596.78 of the Health and Safety Code 17 is amended to read: ares for 18 1596.78. (a) "Family day care home" means a home equired 19 that regularly provides care, protection, and supervision 20 for 14 or fewer children, in the provider's own home, for 21 periods of less than 24 hours per day, while the parents or e: yes. 22 guardians are away, and is either a large family day care 23 home or a small family day care home. follows24 (b) "Large family day care home" means a home that ( � 25 provides family day care for 7 to 14 children, inclusive, Health 26 including children under the age of 10 years who reside 596.771, 27 at the home, as set forth in Section 1597.465 and as defined 28. in regulations. 11 of the 29 (c) "Small family day care home" means a home that 30 provides family day care for eight or fewer children, :are for 31 including children under the age of 10 years who reside z many 32 at the home, as set forth in Section 1597.44 and as defined 33 in regulations. empty, ( � 34 SEG. 9- Seetion 1597. 4 of the Health a-ad Safety Code :s have 35 is ametided to oily day 36 1597. 4- {a} Subjeet to the eenditie itt . . ove the 37 +b�-, a small &fnily dfty ease die flifty pie earre fey 38 ee fere � si* infants a+ eee Vie- W of er e censing 39 than few infaftts awe g peed ease a+ ewe tiffie, A ( 40 of#-he eendkiei3s be fed 95 95 - - - ww woo 4.1.041wamovil" .00&: . OM - - - � - 1 : : Wr 1.a, VAM; : - : -- - % - _ = : : - - - - • • • 1102. a • � • •. 1 : WN I aw zzX411;l..1 me WL MIAMMIL • SB 265 — 6 - 1 6 -1 (b) No more than three infants are cared for during 2 any time when more than 12 children are being cared for. 3 (c) The licensee notifies eaeh a parent that the facility 4 is caring for two additional schoolage children and that 5 there may be up to 13 or 14 children in the home at one 6 time. 7 SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by, this act M_ 8 pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California 9 Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred 10 by a local agency or school district will be incurred 11 because this act creates a new crime or infraction, 12 eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty 13 for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 14 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition 15 of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 _of Article 16 XIII B of the California Constitution. 17 Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government 18 Code,unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this act 19 shall become operative on the same date that the act 20 takes effect pursuant to the California Constitution. O 95 - 5 — SB 265 p 1 The faeility meets fire safety stattdardff applieable 2 to large f-afflily df , e€rre hefes per-suaet to Seetiee 3 1597.46 aftd sobdivisioe je+ of Seetien 13143, emeept that e 4 the staa-adard f f the die of to }fIfffR#S a§ 5 pux-pOses of this seetie shall he ene to three. s- }s 6 -( } t=he State Direeter of Seeial Serviees shall 7 etutherize the Gem of Sae Diege to.eper-Ette a pilot - ' 8 prejeet, y-sttatit to stibdiysir+&),eat to extetid beyend tble 9 Janes 4-, 1991. B�- Septeffiber 39; 1989, the depar-ttft Reft 10 a report to the Legislature on the ll of the pilot prejeet. The repent shah ineittEle, bfrt eet be fer 12 limited te; data on the nttwirber of stnafl family day eare 13 heroes that pre-vide eare to rxere than faef irt€aftts &ed a hA 14 reeefftmeftdaSeft whether- to empefid subdivisi +R+ Alet 15 stat ,,_ id-e 16 , SEC. 3.5. Section 1597.44 is added to the Health and 17 Safety Code, to read. 18 1597.44. A small family day care home may provide he 19 care for more than six and up to eight children, without ,are ;�`' 20 an additional adult attendant, if all of the following kd & - 21 conditions are met: 22 {4+ 23 (a) At least two of the children are at least six years of 24 age. 9de i 25 -��- 26 (b) No more than two infants are cared for during any 27 time when more than six children are cared for. 28 29 (c) The licensee notifies each parent that the facility ,the 30 is caring for two additional schoolage children and that 31 there may be up to. seven or eight children in the home ift 32 at one time. 33 SEC. 4. Section 1597.465 is added to the Health and �{ 34 Safety Code, immediately following Section 1597.46, to 35 read: as 36 1597.465. A large family day care home may provide . is 37 care for more than 12 children and up to and including 14 38 children, if all of the following conditions are met: 39 (a) At least two of the children are at least six years of 40 age. 95 9.5 Q,,4 Ckifd Devefopment lert JANUARY 1996 ' Contact members of the Assembly Human Services Committee. ✓ Tell them to vote "no" on SB 2GS (O'Connell). BACKGROUND On January 17,the Assembly Human Services Committee will hear SB 265(O'Connell)for the DEVELOPMENTPOLICY second time.This bill would permit every licensed family child care provider in California to INSTITUTE add two school-aged children to their program.This means that a small family child care provider could serve 8 children(rather than 6)and a large family child care provider(who must have one assistant)could serve 14 children(rather than 12). CDPI opposes SB 265 because it would permit all family child care providers--even those who have minimal training and no formal education in child development—to enroll extra children. According to several recent studies,most child care in the United States is of mediocre to poor quality and"not likely to enhance the development of children."SB 265 could make this situation even worse. Last June,CDPI proposed a compromise after lengthy discussions with child development experts and family child care providers.The proposed amendment would have required those providers who enroll two extra children to complete 12 college units in early childhood educa- tion or gain equivalent education and training.These requirements would have been phased in over a two-year period to avoid disrupting the current demonstration project under way in several pilot counties. Unfortunately,Senator O'Connell rejected this compromise after it was opposed by several members of the family child care community and one family child care association.As a result, SB 265 remains a measure that would simply create more"slots"for children without regard to ;the provider's ability or capacity to care for them. :The January 17 hearing in Assembly Human Services will be the last opportunity to address the policy implications of the bill. If SB 265 passes this committee,the measure will be hard to stop. ACTION Write members of the Assembly,Human Services Committee by January 12,or call them by January 16.Tell them to oppose SB 265 because it is not in the best interests of children. CONTACT Members of the Assembly Human Services Committee (California Assembly,State Capitol,Sacramento,CA,95814)926i STREET , ('tom Bordonaro(chair)�(y)�,°x(916)445-7795 _�heila Kuehl J ;j (916)445-4956 SUITE 412' SACRAMENTO, //Tom Bates(vice-chair) (916)445-7554 Byron Sher^; •y�,' (916)445-7632 CALIFORNIA arih/n Brewer (916)445-7222 Tom Woods:-l;y 7; (916)445-7266 Call CDPI at(916)443-1096 for any potential last-minute changes in committee membership which may be made by newly elected Assembly Speaker Curt Pringle.