BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 443
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 17, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
Mark Stone, Chair
SB 443 (Walters) - As Amended: August 7, 2013
SENATE VOTE : 38-0
SUBJECT : Organized Camps
SUMMARY : This measure revises the definition of an organized
camp to include organized resident camps and organized day
camps, and makes correlating changes to their operation.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Revises the definition of an Organized Camp (OC) to include an
Organized Day Camp (ODC), as specified, and an Organized
Resident Camp (ORC), as specified.
2)Exempts certain city and county operated public recreation
programs from compliance, as specified.
3)Requires an OC to provide its respective local public health
officer with its written operating plan 30 days prior to
operation of the camp.
4)Requires an OC's operating plan to be considered approved by a
local county public health officer if the officer fails to
acknowledge receipt of the submitted plan within 30 days.
5)Requires an OC to include in its operating plan to include
assurances that its educational facilities and programs that
include ropes courses, challenge courses, climbing walls,
repelling towers, zip lines, canopy tours, or other similar
adventure challenges comply with California Department of
Public Health (DPH) adopted standards.
6)By implication, requires DPH to adopt standards governing the
construction and maintenance of "ropes courses, challenge
courses, climbing walls, repelling towers, zip lines, canopy
tours, or other similar adventure challenges."
7)Provides a complaints process that includes requirements on a
local public health officer to respond to filed complaints but
also provides that no "charges" may be filed if a complaint
SB 443
Page 2
investigation is not conducted by the local public health
officer.
8)Requires DPH to seek public input when amending the ORC and
ODC rules and regulations.
EXISTING LAW
1)Defines an "organized camp" as a site with program and
facilities established for the primary purposes of providing
an outdoor living experience for five days or more. (H&S Code
18897)
2)Requires the Director of DPH to establish minimum standards
for organized camps and directs local health officers to
enforce these standards. (H&S Codes 18897.2 and 18897.4)
3)Exempts from child care licensure recreation programs operated
by the Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Boys Club, Girls Club, or Camp
Fire, or similar organizations as determined by regulations of
the Department of Social Services (DSS). (H&S Codes 18897(b))
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee:
1)One-time costs of about $130,000 for the adoption of
regulations by DPH (General Fund).
2)Unknown ongoing costs for enforcement by local public health
officers (local funds). Because local health officers have
the statutory authority to levy fees, this bill does not
impose a reimbursable state mandate.
COMMENTS : This bill is a reintroduction of portions of the
introduced version of SB 1087, Chapter 652, Statutes of 2012,
and SB 737 (Walters) from 2011. SB 1087 was substantially
amended to remove all amendments relating to organized camps and
was signed by the Governor. SB 737 was vetoed by the Governor.
Here is the Governor's veto message:
I am returning Senate Bill 737 without my signature.
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
SB 443
Page 3
Health and Department of Social Services to work with the
author and interested advocates to resolve this issue in
the coming year.
Organized Camps : Organized camps are currently defined as
programs and facilities that operate recreational programs;
typically summer camp or related programs associated with the
Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and the Boys and Girls Club, which are
exempt from the licensure under the California Child Day Care
Facilities Act. This bill does "modernize" the definition of
organized camps, by splitting it into two definitions to refer
to those organized camps that operate by day and those that
provide residentially based camps.
Differences between an ORC and ODC : As proposed, the measure
establishes separate definitions for an ORC and ODC, however, an
ORC is not required to have children stay overnight and an ODC
is allowed to have children stay overnight for up to three
nights. This is problematic, as it blurs the line between the
two. According to the author, the allowance for children to
stay over three nights is to allow ODCs to take campers on
extended fields trips, such as a trip to Disneyland. To ensure
that there is no ambiguity as to whether a camp is an ORC or
ODC, it should be clarified that the three-night overnight stays
are for field trips.
Criminal Background Checks : Under current regulations, all
organized camp staff cannot have direct unsupervised contact
with campers without first obtaining a satisfactory criminal
history record check from the California Department of Justice,
the Bureau of Criminal Identification, or the U.S. Department of
Justice National Sex Offender Public Registry. Under this
requirement, a staff person only has to have a background check
conducted under one of the three entities listed, which does not
provide a comprehensive assessment of whether the person is
allowed to have unsupervised contact with children. The bill
should be amended to provide stricter background check
requirements similar to those required of staff employed by
state licensed child care agencies.
Need for the bill : Currently, there is only one definition in
law that pertains to "organized camps." This definition was
largely created with residential camps in mind and contains many
provisions, regulations, and standards that are not applicable
to seasonal camp programs offered during the day when school is
SB 443
Page 4
not in session. Due to the lack of clarification in the law,
licensing officials have confused day camps with daycare centers
assuming that day camp counselors (many of whom are high school
and college students) are licensed childcare providers. This is
unrealistic and impractical, as high school students cannot be
licensed childcare providers and most college students, who make
up the majority of day camp counselors, also are not. This bill
makes the clarifying distinction by clearly defining "organized
resident camp" and an "organized day camp."
Writing in support of the bill, the California Collaboration for
Youth writes:
This measure will help clarify the difference between
resident camps and day camps, put the term "day camp" in
appropriate statute, and specify the requirements under
which day camps operate. It will also specify that all
camps are operated under the jurisdiction of the Health
Department.
This measure will also require challenge, rope courses and
other high adventure sites to notify their local health
officers of construction of such facilities, and to
annually include maintenance reports on them. This bill
will protect children by making sure that "day users" of
facilities will be kept separate from registered campers.
Writing as "opposed unless amended," the City of Roseville
states:
While codification of the best health and safety practices
can protect the public from below-standard operations the
process proposed by this bill is not reasonable. The
accreditation standards are not specifically tailored to
fit organized day camps. The definitions contained in the
bill are vague and confusing and there is no funding
provided for local agencies to meet the new requirements.
We are very concerned that our recreational day camps will
be lumped into resident-type camps and become subject to
onerous regulations which will result in higher fees and
fewer options for the families in our community.
Staff comments : This is the third measure introduced to modify
and modernize the definition of an "organized camp." In
discussions with the author and sponsor, they have expressed
SB 443
Page 5
that this bill achieves four goals:
1) Revises and modernizes the definition of organized camps
so that it reflects and differentiates the differences
between a day camp and a resident (overnight) camp.
2) Provides a clearer and timelier process for the
certification of operation of organized camps by local
public health officers.
3) Clarifies that all staff should undergo a criminal
background check.
4) Requires that "challenge courses" be included as part of
the facilities inspected by local public health officers in
order to ensure they are included in the overall
certification of the camp for operation.
As stated by the sponsor, the organized camps statute has not
been amended to reflect the growing sophistication of many
camps. In many cases, organized camps are beginning to offer
more challenging and creative programs and experiences in order
to attract a wider array of children and their families. In
some cases this can include challenge courses, which can include
ropes courses, climbing over and repelling down obstacle courses
that can be elevated thirty or more feet off the ground. Some
camps also include climbing walls, ropes courses, zip lines, and
other similar adventure-based experiences. This has challenged
many local public health agencies, which have the responsibility
of certifying organized camps for operation under the law.
Commonly responsible for ensuring that camps meet basic health
and safety standards in regards to the safety of housing, water
and sewer services, and operational and clean cooking
facilities, local public health officers have struggled to
properly inspect and ascertain whether "challenge courses" are
safe and have questioned whether they are the appropriate entity
to inspect such structures.
In fact, such structures are currently unregulated. Some
operate without compliance to any generally understood standards
and others are constructed and maintained in alignment with
standards developed by private national membership-based
associations, such as the Association of Challenge Course
Technology, the Professional Ropes Courses Association, or the
Climbing Wall Association.
SB 443
Page 6
Although it is a laudable goal to seek regulation of "challenge
courses" in order to provide for the health and safety of
campers, this bill is not the appropriate vehicle for the
governance of such structures. Rather, because many other
organizations and businesses operate challenge courses, it is
more prudent to seek out an individual legislative measure that
seeks to identify the appropriate public agency, such as the
Division of Occupational Safety and Health, otherwise referred
to as CalOSHA, under the California Department of Industrial
Relations, which currently governs amusement parks and zip
lines. Additionally, including language in this bill directing
CalOSHA to govern "challenger courses" could be determined not
to be germane to the current language in this bill. Lastly, the
Assembly Human Services Committee is not the appropriate policy
committee to hear and develop new policy governing challenge
courses, rather that determination is best left to be made by
the Assembly Rules Committee, which assigns bills to their
appropriate policy and fiscal committees for analysis and
evaluation.
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS:
In order to more clearly define and reflect the policy goals of
the bill, committee staff recommends the following amendments.
1)Clarify the definition of an organized camp, which includes an
organized resident camp and an organized day camp.
2)Provide an exemption for locally operated public organized
camps as long as their staff obtain criminal background
clearance.
3)Remove language allowing organized camps to have a person with
first aid and CPR in lieu of a health supervisor. Current
regulations are clear on how health and safety issues are
handled.
4)Remove language governing the certification of challenge
courses.
5)Remove references to various types of camps, i.e. Boy Scouts,
YMCA, Christian Camps, etc. This is not necessary, as the
revised definition is sufficient for inclusion of
organizations operating organized camps.
SB 443
Page 7
6)Modify the bill's complaints process, which mirrors existing
complaints language for community care facilities in the
Health and Safety Code.
7)Add in a criminal background check process, which mirrors
existing Section 1522 of the Health and Safety Code regarding
criminal background checks for community care facilities.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Camp Association
Cali Camp at Big Rock Ranch
California Collaboration for Youth (CCFY)
California State Alliance of YMCAs
Camp Valley Tennis Camp
Camp Doodles
Camp Fire
Camp Funtime
Camp Kinneret Summer Day Camp
Camp Ronald McDonald at Eagle Lake
Camp Ronald McDonald for Good Times
Carmel Valley Tennis Camp
Catalina Island Camps, Inc.
Dreamcatcher Rance
Fairmont Summer Programs
Gold Arrow Camp
Irvine Ranch Outdoor Education Center
Jefunira Camp
Kennolyn Camps
Mount Hermon Christian Camp and Conference Center
Mountain Camp
Mountain Camp Woodside
Nature Watch
Outpost Recreation and Education, Inc.
Plantation Farm Camp
Rawhide Ranch
Redwood Glen Camp and Conference Center
River Way Ranch Camp
Shaffer's High Sierra Camp
Tacoloma Summer Day Camp
The Harker Summer Programs
The Western Association of Independent Camps (WAIC)
SB 443
Page 8
Tom Sawyer Camps, Inc.
Yosemite Sierra Summer Camp
Opposition
City of Torrance
City of Lafayette Parks and Recreation Department
Analysis Prepared by : Chris Reefe / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089