BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 260|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 260
Author: Gordon (D), et al.
Amended: 9/4/13 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 9-0, 6/19/13
AYES: Liu, Wyland, Block, Correa, Hancock, Hueso, Huff,
Monning, Torres
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 8/30/13
AYES: De Le�n, Walters, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 78-0, 5/28/13 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : San Francisco and San Mateo county child care
subsidy plans
SOURCE : County of San Mateo
City and County of San Francisco
DIGEST : This bill allows, until July 1, 2012, the San Mateo
County individualized child care subsidy plan to continue, as
specified, and extends until July 1, 2016, the City and County
of San Francisco's individualized child care subsidy plan.
ANALYSIS : The state subsidizes child care and development
through two categories of providers, one of which is providers
with a direct service contract with the California Department of
Education (licensed Title 5 programs). These child care
providers must meet education and training standards that exceed
CONTINUED
AB 260
Page
2
those of Title 22 child care providers (licensed and
license-exempt), as well as provide an educational component.
Title 5 providers are reimbursed at the Standard Reimbursement
Rate, which is currently $34.38 per child per day.
Existing law authorizes a pilot project in San Mateo County
(since 2004) and San Francisco City and County (since 2006) that
allows the counties to develop and implement an individualized
county child care subsidy plan in recognition of the high-cost
of living in those counties. The plans allow Title 5 child care
providers in the county to supersede state requirements in only
the following factors:
1.Eligibility criteria including age, family size, time limits,
income level, inclusion of former and current CalWORKs
participants, and special needs considerations.
2.Fees, including family fees, sliding scale fees, and
co-payments for those families that are not income eligible.
3.Reimbursement rates.
4.Methods of maximizing the efficient use of subsidy funds
including multi-year contracting with CDE for center-based
child care, and interagency agreements that allow for flexible
and temporary transfer of funds among agencies.
Individualized child care subsidy plans must be implemented
within existing funds. No additional state funding is provided
to either San Francisco or San Mateo counties for individualized
child care subsidy plans.
Both counties have been required to submit period reports to the
Legislature, and are required to terminate and phase out the
individualized county child care subsidy plans as follows:
San Mateo is to terminate the plan on January 1, 2014, and
phase out until January 1, 2016, at which time the county is
to implement the state's requirements for child care
subsidies.
San Francisco is to terminate the plan on July 1, 2014, and
phase out until July 1, 2016, at which time the city and
county is to implement the state's requirements for child care
CONTINUED
AB 260
Page
3
subsidies.
The individualized child care subsidy plan is phased out by not
enrolling additional children under the alternative criteria
once the plan is terminated. As children age-out or disenroll
for other reasons, fewer and fewer children meet the criteria of
the individualized plan.
This bill:
1.Requires the City and County of San Francisco to terminate the
individualized City and County of San Francisco child care
subsidy plan on July 1, 2016, and requires the City and County
of San Francisco from July 1, 2016, to July 1, 2018,
inclusive, to phase out the plan, and, beginning July 1, 2018,
implement the state's requirements for child care subsidies.
2.Requires the City and County of San Francisco to submit a
specified report on the pilot project's operation between the
2011-12 and 2013-14 fiscal years to the Legislature, the
Department of Social Services, and the CDE on or before
December 31, 2014. Makes those provisions relating to the
City and County of San Francisco's individualized county child
care subsidy plan inoperative on July 1, 2018, and repeals
those provisions on January 1, 2019.
3.Makes those provisions relating to the County of San Mateo
inoperative on July 1, 2014, and as of that date, authorizes
the County of San Mateo's individualized county child care
subsidy plan to continue in accordance with specified
requirements until July 1, 2018.
4.Requires the Child Development Division of CDE to review and
approve or disapprove modifications to the plan.
5.Requires the County of San Mateo to annually prepare and
submit to the Legislature, the Department of Social Services,
and CDE a report that contains specified information relating
to the success of the county's plan.
Comments
According to the author, "The original pilot project was created
because state subsidized child care policies did not reflect the
CONTINUED
AB 260
Page
4
fiscal reality of high-cost counties, where the cost of living
and doing business is well beyond the state median. State
reimbursement rates for center-based child care providers under
Title 5 are insufficient to cover a reasonable amount of the
actual cost of care in high-cost counties. Prior to the
creation of the pilot projects, some contractors were forced to
close programs or relinquish contracts, and families faced a
greater shortage of providers while the center-based funds were
being underutilitized."
According to the Senate Education Committee analysis, AB 86
(Assembly Budget Committee), approved by the Legislature on June
14, 2013, extends both the San Francisco and San Mateo
individualized child care subsidy plans for an additional year.
The Budget Act took a more moderate approach to avoid making
larger policy decisions outside of the policy committee process.
The prior two extensions where implemented through the Budget
Act. This bill exceeds the authority granted by the Budget Act
and would chapter out those provisions if enacted.
Prior legislation
SB 1410 (Corbett, 2008) would have allowed Title 5 child care
programs that are reimbursed at a lower rate than license-exempt
providers in that county to be reimbursed at a higher rate. SB
1410 was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee's suspense
file.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
San Mateo subsidy plan: Potentially substantial loss of state
savings beginning in 2014-15; likely in excess of $1 million
dollars annually.
San Francisco subsidy: Substantial loss of state savings in
2015-16; likely in the low millions of dollars.
Oversight: Minor workload savings to the CDE; CDE would no
longer have administrative workload associated with the
requirements of the pilot itself.
CONTINUED
AB 260
Page
5
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/5/13)
County of San Mateo (co-source)
City and County of San Francisco (co-source)
Alameda County Child Care Planning Council
California Alternative Payment Program Association
California Association for the Education of Young Children
California Child Care Coordinators Association
California State Association of Counties
County Welfare Directors Association of California
Local Early Education Planning Council of Santa Clara County
Nihonmachi Little Friends
San Francisco Child Care Planning and Advisory Council
San Mateo County Child Care Partnership Council
San Mateo County Office of Education
Silicon Valley Community Foundation
The Mimi and Peter Haas Fund
Urban Counties Caucus
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 78-0, 5/28/13
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,
Blumenfield, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown,
Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Conway,
Cooley, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox,
Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon,
Gorell, Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hern�ndez,
Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal,
Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina, Melendez, Mitchell, Morrell,
Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson,
Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas,
Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski,
Wilk, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Holden, Vacancy
PQ:nl 9/5/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
AB 260
Page
6
CONTINUED