BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1819
Page A
Date of Hearing: March 25, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
Mark Stone, Chair
AB 1819 (Hall) - As Introduced: February 18, 2014
SUBJECT : Child Day Care Homes
SUMMARY : Bans smoking in child day care homes. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Expands the existing prohibition against smoking in a family
day care home from only during the hours of operation to
anytime.
EXISTING LAW
1)Establishes the California Child Day Care Facilities Act
(CDCFA) to provide a comprehensive, quality system for
licensing child day care facilities and family day care homes
to ensure that working families have access to healthy and
safe child care providers and that child care programs
contribute positively to a child's emotional, cognitive, and
educational development, and are able to respond to and
provide for the unique characteristics and needs of children.
(H&S Code 1596.70 and 1596.72)
2)Defines a "family day care home" as a home that regularly
provides nonmedical care, protection, and supervision for 14
or fewer children, in the provider's own home, for less than
24 hours per day. (H&S Code 1596.78)
3)Defines a "large family day care home" as a home that provides
family day care for seven to 14 children, including children
under 10 years of age who reside in the home. (H&S Code
1596.78(b))
4)Defines a "small family day care home" as a home that provides
family day care for eight or fewer children, including
children under 10 years of age who reside in the home. (H&S
Code 1596.78(c))
5)Prohibits the smoking of tobacco in a family day care home
during its hours of operation. (H&S Code 1596.795)
AB 1819
Page B
6)Permits a city or county to enact or enforce an ordinance
relating to smoking in a family day care home if it is more
stringent than the state prohibition. (H&S Code 1596.795)
7)Requires the Department of Social Services' (DSS) Community
Care Licensing Division (CCLD) to conduct an unannounced
investigation in response to a complaint filed against a
licensed child care home or facility within ten days of the
complaint being filed. (H&S Code 1596.853(b))
8)Prohibits the CCLD from informing the licensee of the nature
of the complaint prior to the inspection. (H&S Code
1596.863(b))
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to increase the safety of family day
care program settings by extending the current ban on smoking
while children are present to a complete ban on smoking in
family day care homes, even during hours of nonoperation.
The dangers of secondhand smoke : It is clear, based on numerous
reports and studies, that smoking and the exposure to secondhand
smoke is detrimental to a person's health, especially the health
of young children. This year the Surgeon General of the United
States released its 32nd report on the dangers of smoking to
honor the 50th anniversary its first-ever report on the health
risks associated with smoking entitled "Smoking Health Report of
the Advisory Committee of the Surgeon General of the Public
Health Service" in 1964. In 50th Anniversary report, the
Surgeon General states that:
"?smoking is now causally associated with age-related
macular degeneration, diabetes, colorectal cancer, liver
cancer, adverse health outcomes in cancer patients and
survivors, tuberculosis, erectile dysfunction, orofacial
clefts in infants, ectopic pregnancy, rheumatoid arthritis,
inflammation, and impaired immune function."<1>
He goes on to further state that "exposure to secondhand smoke
has now been causally associated with an increased risk for
---------------------------
<1> "The Health Consequences of Smoking - 50 Years of Progress."
A Report of the Surgeon General. United States Public Health
Service; United States Department of Health and Human Services.
2014
AB 1819
Page C
stroke."
Additionally, in a previous report issued by the Surgeon General
in 2006, entitled "The Health Consequences of Involuntary
Exposure to Tobacco Smoke," which focused on the negative health
impacts of secondhand smoke exposure, it was found that
secondhand smoke:
is harmful and hazardous to the health of the general
public and particularly dangerous to children;
increases the risk of serious respiratory problems in
children, such as a greater number and severity of asthma
attacks and lower respiratory tract infections, and
increases the risk for middle ear infections;
is a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent); and
causes lung cancer and coronary heart disease in
nonsmoking adults.
It specifically went on to demonstrate that efforts to
accommodate for smoking and smoke-free areas are ineffective in
combating the consequences of exposure to secondhand smoke:
Research reviewed in this report indicates that smoke-free
policies are the most economic and effective approach for
providing protection from exposure to secondhand smoke.
But do they provide the greatest health impact? Separating
smokers and nonsmokers in the same airspace is not
effective, nor is air cleaning or a greater exchange of
indoor with outdoor air. Additionally, having separately
ventilated areas for smoking may not offer a satisfactory
solution to reducing workplace exposures. Policies
prohibiting smoking in the workplace have multiple
benefits. Besides reducing exposure of nonsmokers to
secondhand smoke, these policies reduce tobacco use by
smokers and change public attitudes about tobacco use from
acceptable to unacceptable.
Emerging findings on the health impacts of third hand smoke
exposure : Over the last several years, research has begun to
reveal the health impacts of third hand smoke. Described as the
residual chemicals left on indoor surfaces as a result of
smoking, it is commonly considered to be the left over residue
AB 1819
Page D
from secondhand smoke, which includes cancer-causing chemicals
such as nicotine and benzene, toxic metals like chromium and
lead, and harmful gases like carbon monoxide and ammonia.
Particularly alarming is the presence and increased health risks
presented by third hand smoke. In many cases, third hand smoke
can remain long after smoking has stopped and become imbedded in
common household items, such as carpets, curtains, tables, etc.
In the case of children, especially infants and toddlers, third
hand smoke presents an even greater health risk. As they
explore and put their hands or toys in their mouths, they could
touch, swallow or inhale compounds from third-hand smoke. Their
age and early developmental stages make them more vulnerable
than adults to the effects of environmental hazards due to their
developing immune system, and thus, are more likely to be
exposed to third hand smoke.
In a report released in June 2013 by the University of
California's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory entitled
Thirdhand smoke causes DNA damage in human cells it was found
that "thirdhand smoke-the noxious residue that clings to
virtually all surfaces long after the secondhand smoke from a
cigarette has cleared out-cause's significant genetic damage in
human cells." Specifically, the research demonstrated that
third hand smoke has the potential to become more damaging to a
person's health than acute smoke or secondhand smoke exposure
due to the interaction of residual chemicals of third hand smoke
with existing indoor pollutants. Long after a person smokes,
the lingering nicotine and other chemicals can become more
condensed and potent, and in some cases become new pollutant
compounds that are carcinogenic, thus presenting greater
long-term health risks, such as uncontrolled cell growth and the
formation of cancerous tumors later in life.
These findings are particularly disturbing, indicating that
third hand smoke cannot be eliminated by the airing out of
indoor spaces or restricting exposure to secondhand smoke.
Rather, the safest environment is a smoke-free environment where
cigarette smoke and fumes are never present. Requiring family
child care homes to be smoke free is aligned with the state's
priority of providing a healthy and safe environment for
children in licensed and state-supported child development
programs.
Monitoring of a no smoking ban : Under current law, smoking is
not allowed in many community care facilities, including
AB 1819
Page E
licensed child care facilities and licensed children's
institutions (group homes), which provides an existing example
of how a no smoking ban on family child care homes could be
enforced.
Also available is the state's complaints process, which can
serve as an effective way to enforce a no smoking ban, as it
allows any person, for any reason to file a complaint, either
verbally or written, against a licensed facility. For example,
if a parent, when dropping of his or her child at a family child
care home, or a neighbor of a family child care home provider,
suspects or witnesses a family child care home provider smoking,
that person can file a complaint with CCLD. Once a complaint is
filed, CCLD is required to conduct an investigation into the
merits of the complaint within ten days to determine if the
complaint is legitimate and should be pursued further.
There also exists the state's requirement to conduct regular
unannounced licensing inspections once every five years.
Although many consider this schedule insufficient to adequately
monitor and assess whether community care and child care homes
and facilities are providing for the health and safety of those
under there care, it does provide another mechanism of
oversight.
Need for the bill:
Stating the need for the bill, the author writes:
AB 1819 requires licensed family day care homes to maintain
a smoke free environment for the children that are under
their care and protection. The measure is consistent with
similar requirements in nine other states and the District
of Columbia. Exposure to second and third hand smoke leads
to lifelong health issues that will require continued
medical attention and increased healthcare costs.
This measure will have a direct impact on reducing
childhood exposure to second and third hand smoke and
decrease the chance of a child developing health issues
related to smoking.
DOUBLE REFERRAL . This bill has been double-referred. Should
this bill pass out of this committee, it will be referred to the
Assembly Governmental Organization Committee.
AB 1819
Page F
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Alternative Payment Program (CAPPA)
National Association of Social Workers, CA Chapter (NASW-CA)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Chris Reefe / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089