BILL ANALYSIS
AB 529
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2003
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
Lois Wolk, Chair
AB 529 (Mullin) - As Amended: March 27, 2003
SUBJECT : Family Day Care Homes
SUMMARY : Treats children enrolled in kindergarten the same as
children aged six or older for purposes of allowing additional
children to be cared for by family day care homes.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Allows a small family day care home to provide care for up to
eight children instead of six if at least two children are
enrolled in kindergarten or are six years or older.
2)Allows a large family day care home to provide care for up to
14 children instead of 12 if at least two children are
enrolled in kindergarten or are six years or older.
3)Makes findings that cities and counties should work with
businesses to identify and develop potential child day care
sites and create a task force to develop high amenity areas
with child day care facilities.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides for the licensure of family day care homes, and
limits the number of children for whom family day care
providers can provide care.
2)Limits to six the number of children for whom small family day
care homes can provide care, and to 12 the number of children
for whom large family day care homes can provide care.
3)Allows two additional children beyond the limit of six or 12
children to be cared for by family day care homes if at least
two children are aged six or older.
4)Limits to two the number of infants which can be cared for by
small family day care providers, and to three the number of
infants which can be cared for by large family day providers.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
AB 529
Page 2
COMMENTS : The author states in support, "There is a critical
shortage of child care for school-age children in California."
This bill is designed to address the shortage by adding to the
number of children for whom family day care homes can provide
care. It will allow these providers to care for an additional
two children who are in kindergarten but not yet six years old,
increasing the total allowable to eight for small family day
care homes and 14 for large family day care homes.
Kindergartners under age six are treated for purposes of the
numerical limitation as if they required full-time care, even
though they may demand less time and attention. However, these
kindergartners may on average spend less time in school than
first graders, and the issue here is whether their situation is
more comparable to 6-year old school age children than it is to
preschool children who require full-day care. Some children
enter kindergarten at four years, nine months.
The author contends that "[i]n-home day care providers cannot
afford to serve part-day kindergarten age children under the
current statutory scheme until the child turns six because he or
she would be counted towards the maximum number of children that
a licensed home can serve." Since kindergartners are included
in the maximum of six or twelve which can normally be served, a
provider who cares for them may receive less compensation than
if she served children for whom full-time rates are charged. To
avoid this, some providers charge full-time rates for
kindergartners even though they require less than full-time
care.
The Family ChildCare Public Policy Advisory Committee observes
that under current law, "a family child care provider would need
to forego the fees from a full-time child in order to receive a
part-day fee for the barriers to kindergarten-age children being
enrolled in licensed family child care homes before turning age
six. This can be especially disruptive for children who spent
their pre-school-age years in that very family child care home."
The author also notes that many kindergartners turn six while
they are in kindergarten, at which time they could be counted
toward the additional two slots even though there is no
difference in the time required to care for them.
Arguments of opponents. The Child Care Law Center argues in
AB 529
Page 3
opposition that "it is very important to keep licensing
requirements that protect children and promote quality by
requiring a reasonable provider-child ratio. ? [L]owering the
age for the two additional school age children is a significant
change in licensing protection. Six year old children have a
higher level of maturity and spend many more hours in school
each day than kindergarten children." Since state law allows
one provider to care for a total of eight children, the CCLC
contends that "it is important to make certain that at least two
of those children have the level of independence found in
children six years or older."
The California Child Care Resource and Referral Network asserts
that "this bill will compromise the quality of child care
services in family child care while not truly addressing the
existing barriers that make the provision of child care for this
age group so challenging. ? [R]educing the age of children that
can be included in the school age option allows providers to
care for two additional children that could be as young as 4
years, 9 months of age."
The Network further contends that "[i]f this bill is passed, a
family child care provider could care for two infants under the
age of 2, 4 preschool age children and two kindergarten children
who could be as young as 4 years, 9 months old. ?
Developmentally, kindergarten age children are more like
preschool age children than they are like school age children.
They continue to need more supervision and support."
SUGGESTED AMENDMENT
Page 3, lines 1-25: Section 3, containing the legislative
findings on task forces to develop high amenity areas, is
unrelated to the principal purpose of the bill, and should be
deleted.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Child Care Coordinating Council of San Mateo (Sponsor)
California Federation of Teachers
Family ChildCare Public Policy Advisory Committee
Family Child Care Provider Association of San Francisco
AB 529
Page 4
Opposition
Child Care Law Center
California Child Care Resource & Referral Network
Analysis Prepared by : Casey McKeever / HUM. S. / (916)
319-2089