BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 529|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 529
Author: Mullin (D)
Amended: 6/23/03 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. COMMITTEE : 8-2, 6/25/03
AYES: Ortiz, Aanestad, Alarcon, Ashburn, Battin, Escutia,
Kuehl, Vincent
NOES: Chesbro, Figueroa
ABSENT/ABSTAINING/NOT VOTING: Florez, Romero, Vasconcellos
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 5/8/03 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Family day care homes
SOURCE : Child Care Coordinating Council of San Mateo
DIGEST : This bill treats one child attending
kindergarten the same as a child of six years of age or
older for purposes of allowing additional children to be
cared for by licensed family day care homes.
ANALYSIS : Existing law:
1. Provides for the licensure of family day care homes --
that is, a home in which the child care provider lives
-- and limits the number of children for whom family day
care providers can provide care. (In December, 2002,
there were 46,000 licensed family child care homes in
California.)
CONTINUED
AB 529
Page
2
2. Provides for two kinds of family day care home licenses:
"small", which is limited to six children in care at
any one time, and "large", which is limited to 12
children in care at any one time.
3. Allows care for two additional children, if the children
are six years of age or older -- as long as the licensee
notifies each parent that the facility is caring for
additional children and that there may be up to eight
children (or up to 14 children) in the home at one time,
and as long as the licensee obtains the written consent
of the property owner when the family day care home is
operated on property that is leased or rented.
4. Limits to two the number of infants who can be cared for
by small family day care providers, and to three the
number of infants who can be cared for by large family
day providers, when one or two additional children six
years of age or older are in care.
This bill:
1. Permits a child attending kindergarten or elementary
school to be one of the two additional children allowed
to be in care above the licensed capacities of small and
large family day care homes.
2. Requires that the family of a child enrolled in the
family day care home as an "extra" child be given a
price break if the child is in care six or fewer hours
per day.
Background
History of previous legislation
In 1989, to address the shortage of care for school-aged
children and to reduce the number of children who might be
"latchkey" children - children caring for themselves before
and after school, the Legislature established a pilot
program in Placer and Ventura counties to test the
feasibility of increasing the maximum enrollment of
children in licensed family day care homes. The licensed
capacity of a family day care home, since the early years
AB 529
Page
3
of licensing, had been six children (or 12, if the child
care provider had an assistant present and met additional
health and safety requirements).
Under the pilot program, which operated through 1995 and
later included San Diego, San Luis Obispo, and Fresno
counties, licensed providers were allowed to add two
additional school-aged children, defined as being at least
six years of age.
Legislation required an evaluation conducted by the
Assembly Office of Research and the Department of Social
Services. The report, published in March 1995, "Findings
of the Family Day Care Evaluation Required by AB 265
(Chapter 425, Statutes of 1993)," included a study of
program quality before and after the enrollment of
additional children six-years-of-age and older.
The evaluation's conclusions included:
1. Participating providers with additional children were no
more likely to receive substantiated complaints from
licensing officials than nonparticipants.
2. One measure of provider quality - provider sensitivity
to individual children - dropped after additional older
children were added.
3. The experience of younger children was less positive,
and older children more positive, after family day care
homes increased the number of children in their care.
After the report was released, the Legislature enacted
Chapter 18, Statutes of 1996 (SB 265, O'Connell), allowing
the addition of up to two additional children, at least six
years of age, in licensed family day care homes statewide.
Rationale for the bill
Family child care providers explain that some parents
expect to pay less for before- and after-school care for a
child in kindergarten, and these parents may make other
arrangements for their child's care if the provider does
not lower the rate charged once the child spends part of
AB 529
Page
4
school days in kindergarten. However, this expectation of
parents puts providers at risk of losing income, if they
lower the rate they charge for a child attending
kindergarten, they cannot enroll an additional younger
child within their capacity limits in order to make up that
lost income.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/25/03)
Child Care Coordinating Council of San Mateo (source)
San Diego County Family Child Care Association
200 individuals
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/25/03)
California Child Care Resource and Referral Network
Child Care Law Center
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author's office states that
current law treats kindergartners under age six as if they
required full-time care, even though they attend school
part of each school day. These children may demand less
time and attention. The author's office notes that some
children turn six while they are in kindergarten, at which
time they could be counted toward the additional two
enrollees even though there is no difference in the length
of their day in care before their sixth birthday.
The author's office also points out that allowing a
kindergarten child who is not yet six years of age to
receive care from a family child care home as an "extra"
child makes it more likely that family day care providers
will take advantage of the option to enroll one or two
children attending school. Over time, this will increase
the number of school-aged children served.
Family child care providers in support of the bill observe
that, under current law, a family child care provider would
either need to charge full rates to the parents of a
kindergarten child who is four or five years of age or
forego the fees from a full-time child in order to receive
AB 529
Page
5
a part-day fee from a kindergarten pupil's parents. If the
provider charges the full cost and the parent makes other
child care arrangements, this can be disruptive for
children who spent their preschool years in that family day
care home.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Child Care Law Center
argues that current ratio and age requirements protect
children and promote quality. Children six years of age
and older have a higher level of maturity and spend more
hours in school each day than do kindergarten children. It
is important to make certain that at least two of those
eight children in care have the level of independence found
in children six years or older.
The California Child Care Resource and Referral Network
asserts that the bill compromises quality while not
addressing the existing barriers to school-age care,
including transportation. This bill would allow for the
care of additional children as young as four years, nine
months of age. A family day care provider could care for
two infants under the age of two, four preschool age
children, and two kindergarten children younger than five
years of age. Kindergarten children need more supervision
and support.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Aghazarian, Bates, Benoit, Berg, Bermudez, Bogh,
Calderon, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cogdill, Cohn, Corbett,
Correa, Cox, Daucher, Diaz, Dutra, Dutton, Dymally,
Firebaugh, Frommer, Garcia, Goldberg, Hancock, Harman,
Jerome Horton, Shirley Horton, Jackson, Keene, Kehoe,
Koretz, La Malfa, La Suer, Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber,
Liu, Longville, Lowenthal, Maldonado, Matthews, Maze,
McCarthy, Montanez, Mountjoy, Mullin, Nakanishi, Nakano,
Nation, Negrete McLeod, Nunez, Oropeza, Pacheco, Parra,
Pavley, Plescia, Reyes, Richman, Ridley-Thomas, Runner,
Salinas, Samuelian, Simitian, Spitzer, Steinberg,
Strickland, Vargas, Wiggins, Wolk, Wyland, Yee, Wesson
CP:sl 6/26/03 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
AB 529
Page
6
**** END ****