BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 476
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 19, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
SB 476
(Mendoza) - As Amended July 16, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Health |Vote:|15 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
This bill includes "day camps" in the definition of "organized
camps," thereby subjecting day camps to regulation by the
California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and enforcement
SB 476
Page 2
by local health jurisdictions (LHJs). Specifically, this bill:
1)Regulates organized day camps, which are defined as programs
established for the primary purpose of providing group
experiences for children under 18 years of age during the day,
and that operate seasonally to provide group-based recreation
and expanded learning opportunities with social, spiritual,
educational, or recreational activities that promote
environmental awareness and education.
2)Specifies requirements day camps must comply with, in order to
qualify for a locally issued permit.
3)Requires the local public health officer or his or her
designee to conduct an initial inspection of the premises to
verify compliance with the appropriate health and sanitation
standards, prior to issuing a permit.
4)Allows the local public health officer to inspect the camp and
charge a fee for that purpose, not to exceed the reasonable
cost of the inspection. Allows the local public health officer
to charge a fee to recover any necessary costs incurred in
administering provisions relating to organized camp oversight,
not to exceed the actual cost of organized camp oversight and
related activities.
5)Allows a local public health officer, for the purposes of
complying with the specified section of law, delegate
responsibility to the Office of the State Architect or any
other public agency or private organization for the review of
design and performance of inspection of construction of camp
buildings and structures, as specified in DPH regulations.
SB 476
Page 3
6)Limits local public health officer enforcement to health and
sanitation standards.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Minor costs to the Department of Public Health and the
Department of Social Services (DSS) for updates to policy,
process, and potential regulatory changes (GF).
2)Potential costs of several hundred thousand dollars GF
annually for Division of the State Architect (DSA) within
Department of General Services, if building standards approval
is delegated to DSA as allowed under this bill. Actual costs
are unknown, and would depend on the number and scope of
potential activities.
3)Costs for inspecting and overseeing day camps will be incurred
by LHJs. The bill gives LHJs broad authority to charge fees
to cover regulatory costs.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. The author states that because there is no reference
to day camps in current law or regulation, there has been
confusion related to who has jurisdiction over their
operation. The author explains day camps typically operate
during the summer and other vacation periods when school is
not in session, and that they provide group-based recreation
and expanded learning opportunities for children less than 18
years of age. The author further states that this
clarification will assure the public that day camps operate
under the oversight of local health officials, and that they
are not regulated as childcare programs. The author concludes
SB 476
Page 4
that with so many kids participating in these camps, it is
essential that the camps adhere to health and safety
standards.
The author indicates there have been concerns that some
organizations have been operating as day camps in an effort to
circumvent strict licensing requirements of day care centers
and that some counties, in an attempt to regulate day camps,
have classified them as day care centers.
2)Current Regulation. The current definition of an organized
camp applies only to sites that are established to provide an
outdoor group living experience for five or more days a year.
Day camps often do not have a fixed site, and instead operate
in parks, beaches, churches, schools, Boys and Girls Clubs, or
YMCA facilities, and are therefore not subject to the laws
that currently regulate organized camps, as currently defined.
This bill brings day camps, as defined, under the definition
of organized camps.
DSS currently regulates child care in the state. To
distinguish child care from other programs or activities, DSS
states that generally, in a child care setting, parents have
an expectation that their children are being provided care and
supervision. That is, children are in need of "personal
services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining
activities of daily living for their protection" (Health and
Safety Code 1596.750). Some programs called "day camps" in
common speech appear to fit this description, while others are
more focused on providing a certain experience or specialized
education, rather than care and supervision. Organized camps
SB 476
Page 5
regulated under current law are generally in rural or
wilderness settings, with attendant environmental health and
safety concerns, such as pests, clean water, and activities in
and around bodies of water. These camps are currently subject
to CDPH regulation and local health officer enforcement and
local health officers indicate they are relatively few in
number.
Outside of child care and resident camps, childrens' programs
and activities do not appear to be state-regulated, although a
variety of accreditation or other standards apply to programs
that provide care for children, such as after-school care.
1)Previous Legislation.
a) SB 443 (Walters), of 2013, would have defined organized
camps and organized day camps and would have established
requirements regarding their operation. SB 443 was held in
the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
b) SB 1087 (Walters), Chapter 652, Statues of 2012,
increases the time in which an organization participating
in the Safe Neighborhoods Partnership program can operate
without a license. SB 1087 also exempts organized camps
from licensure required for day care centers.
c) SB 737 (Walters), of 2011, was substantially similar to
SB 443 (Walters) of 2013. SB 737 was vetoed. In his veto
message, the governor stated, "I agree with the author's
intent to clarify and simply the regulation of organized
camps, but this measure does not achieve this goal. I am
directing the Department of Public Health and Department of
SB 476
Page 6
Social Services to work with the author and interested
advocates to resolve this issue in the coming year."
The only resolution to the issue from the administration
appears to be some level of engagement on subsequent bills
introduced in the Legislature. There was no inter-agency
work group or similar effort.
2)Support. This bill is sponsored by the California
Collaborative for Youth and is supported by numerous private
and non-profit entities offering children's activities,
including a number of YMCAs.
3)Concerns. California State Association of Counties, County
Health Executive Association of California, and California
Council of Environmental Health Directors express concerns
with this bill, including concerns about additional workload
and the ability to raise adequate local revenues to fund this
new activity. They seek amendments to simplify regulation for
day camps through a registration process and align enforcement
of building code standards with current practice, among other
changes.
4)Comments.
a) Definitional issues. LHJs report very few or no
complaints related to day camps, but it seems as if there
is a public expectation that day camps should have some
regulatory oversight, such as background checks. However,
the definitions in the bill raise questions about how
SB 476
Page 7
regulatory lines are proposed to be drawn.
There are a wide variety of programs and facilities that
offer activities and care for children. A rational
regulatory approach to assessing the adequacy of
governmental oversight might consider, for the universe of
activities, programs, and facilities that offer experiences
and care for children:
Potential differences in vulnerability according to
child age, parental involvement, length of time in care,
or other factors.
Related health and safety risks, and evidence of
current harm from lack of regulation.
Public expectations for regulation.
Current regulations or standards that may apply,
both state and non-state.
The capacity and expertise of existing entities to
handle new regulatory responsibilities, if a case was
made that the status quo is inadequate.
This universe of programs, activities, and facilities is
diverse. Proponents have not provided an analysis of this
wider universe, and how this proposal fits into a rational
oversight structure.
In addition, a significant number of day camps may be left
SB 476
Page 8
unregulated according to this bill. This bill proposes to
regulate "organized day camps?that operate seasonally to
provide group-based recreation and expanded learning
opportunities with social, spiritual, educational, or
recreational activities that promote environmental
awareness and education." Presumably, a day camp that
offers biological activities outdoors would qualify. What
about a science camp that offers activities related to
chemistry, which would be conducted partially indoors-would
this be exempt? A day program offering a ropes course for
teens? Would a sports clinic qualify, or be exempt because
it does not intend to offer environmental education? Would
a three-hour gardening class qualify? The bill does not
define a minimum duration of activity that constitutes a
day camp. What is particular about promoting environmental
awareness and education, that implies camps that do so
should be regulated, while those that do not promote
environmental awareness and education should not, even if
they are similar in every other way? Some additional
parameters and adjustments appear necessary to rationally
define what is to be regulated versus left unregulated.
Given the vagueness of the definitions offers much room for
interpretation, and given enforcement will be delegated to
LHJs, it seems likely that oversight may vary widely
depending on jurisdiction.
a) Appropriateness of Organized Camp regulations for day
camps. This bill places day camps under regulations that
apply to overnight camps. These regulations may not be
entirely appropriate for day camps. Most of these
regulations address environmental health and safety
concerns, such as potable water and others noted above. In
contrast, according to this bill's definition, there is
nothing that suggests a day camp would have to be in a
natural or wilderness environment. Although technically
many programs that would fit this bill's definition of day
SB 476
Page 9
camps may not have difficulty meeting standards related to
chemical toilets, head-to-head sleeping accommodations, and
venomous snakes, it may be more rational to define day
camps in a separate section of law. On the other hand, if
day camps to be regulated are supposed to be those in
natural or wilderness areas that have very similar to
overnight camps, the definition of day camp should be
narrowed to make that more clear.
b) Impact on Access? Families' access to day camps in
spring 2016 will depend on 61 LHJs developing regulatory
programs and inspecting each camp prior to operation, just
months after this bill becomes operative. Developing a new
regulatory program for day camps may be a significant
challenge for LHJs that have limited staff. Although fee
authority is provided, on a practical basis this will
require approval by county supervisors for new fees in 61
jurisdictions-fees that may raise the cost of already
costly day camps. This bill has no timelines, but requires
a day camp to have an initial inspection in order to
operate. This would require, for example, in Los Angeles
County likely hundreds of inspections to be completed
before day camps can operate. If this bill becomes law, in
spring 2016 parents will be looking for day camp options
for their children during summer. Unless each jurisdiction
has developed policies and procedures and has conducted
inspections, these camps will be operating illegally.
c) Exemption? This bill includes an exemption from child
care licensure that states, "Notwithstanding any other law,
an organized camp program conducted for children by the
YMCA, Girl Scouts of the USA, Boy Scouts of America, Boys
and Girls Clubs, Camp Fire USA, or similar organizations
shall not be required to be licensed as a child day care
center." Given the bill does not define "organized camp
program," the meaning of this exemption is unclear. If the
intent is to ensure certain organizations (YMCA, Boy
SB 476
Page 10
Scouts, Girl Scouts) are exempt from licensure as a day
care center if they are licensed as an organized day camp
or resident camp, this exemption should presumably apply to
all camps, unless it is the intent to dually license these
entities as camps and child care. If this exemption is to
apply to "programs," this should be clarified and defined.
Though the bill appears intended to regulate day camps and
clarify regulatory oversight, there is still not a clear
distinction in this bill between what must be regulated as
day care by DSS versus as a day camp by local health
departments. If one of the named organizations is
providing day care, they should presumably be licensed by
DSS.
d) Building standards. Existing law governing resident
camps, which is being extended to day camps, requires local
health officers to enforce building standards. Local
health officers and LHJs deliver health and safety
services, and generally have no expertise in building
standards enforcement. It appears in practice that LHJs
defer to other local entities that possess this expertise,
such as city or county building inspectors. The author
should consider amending this code section to conform to
current practice and to assign duties to local entities
with appropriate expertise, instead of expanding the scope
of inappropriately assigned local health officer building
enforcement duties to day camps. Instead, this bill cites
existing state regulation that allows the LHO to delegate
responsibility to the state architect, or any other public
or private agency. The correct way to ameliorate the
situation is to amend statute to align duties correctly,
not point back to the CDPH regulation which offers a
work-around to the misalignment of duties in the existing
statute.
SB 476
Page 11
e) Fee for inspections. Staff suggests this language be
modified as follows: (c) The local public health officer
may inspect the organized day camp or organized resident
camp and charge a fee for that purpose, not to exceed the
reasonable cost of the inspection . Inspecting a camp will
be part of the authority and duty of the local health
officer. Consistent with most other fee-based regulatory
programs, similarly situated entities should be charged
fees based on overall regulatory costs, not on a
fee-for-service basis.
f) State-reimbursable mandate? This bill is tagged as a
potentially state-reimbursable mandate. However, since the
mandate tag was added the bill has been amended to broaden
local fee authority. Section 18897.1. (g) now states, "The
local public health officer may charge a fee to recover any
necessary costs incurred in administering the provisions of
this part relating to organized camp oversight, [not to
exceed] the actual cost of organized camp oversight and
related activities." Since local agencies have authority to
fully recover costs, it does not appear that any
potentially state-reimbursable costs remain.
Analysis Prepared by:Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916)
319-2081