BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 443
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 6, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 443 (Walters) - As Amended: August 4, 2014
Policy Committee: Human
ServicesVote:5 - 1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill revises the definitions and regulatory requirements
relating to organized camps. Specifically, this bill :
1)Distinguishes between organized resident camps and organized
day camps and defines those terms in statute.
2)Provides that an organized camp does not include programs
offered by cities, counties, or special districts as long as
they do not employ or accept volunteers who have not had a
fingerprint-based criminal background check through the
Department of Justice (DOJ).
3)Restricts the exemption from the California Child Day Care Act
for recreation programs conducted for children to only
organized camps as defined in this bill.
4)Requires an organized camp to register annually with the local
public health officer and to file its written operating plan
with the local public health officer, and requires a local
public health officer to review and acknowledge receipt of the
operating plan within 45 days.
5)Requires a local public health officer to conduct an
investigation of a complaint concerning health and safety
violations within 30 days, unless the officer determines the
complaint is willfully intended to harass a camp or is without
any reasonable basis, and to provide a summary and explanation
of violations to the camp within 30 days of conducting a
complaint investigation.
SB 443
Page 2
6)Provides if a camp is cited for a violation, the camp has a
right to appeal and requires a local health department to
respond to the appeal within 30 days.
7)Specifies the local public health officer may charge a fee to
review an operating plan, conduct a complaint investigation
and respond to a complaint appeal.
8)Prohibits an organized camp from employing or accepting as a
volunteer an individual unless he or she had a
fingerprint-based criminal background check through DOJ.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)One-time costs of approximately $150,000 for the adoption of
regulations by the Department of Public Health (GF).
2)Unknown, but potentially significant costs to the Department
of Social Services to license previously exempt recreation
programs statewide that do not fit the new definition of an
organized camp as day care programs. The number of recreation
programs is unknown, but believed to be extensive.
3)Special fund costs (Fingerprint Fees Account) to the
Department of Justice of $425,000 in 2014-15, $624,000 in
2015-16 and $290,000 in 2016-17 and ongoing, to process the
anticipated increase in fingerprint submissions. DOJ
anticipates these costs will be fully offset by fees.
Based on the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 39,710 recreation workers were employed in
California in May 2012. Estimating an annual employee turnover
rate of 30%, the California Justice Information Services
(CJIS) Division anticipates that it would receive 19,855
requests in fiscal year (FY) 2014-15, 25,811 in FY 2015-16,
and 11,913 in FY 2016-17 and each subsequent fiscal year.
These figures do not include requests from volunteers.
4)Unknown, but non-reimbursable costs to local health
departments for reviewing camp operating plans. Local health
departments have broad authority to charge fees to
organizations requesting reviews of operating plans, and
currently charge organized camps for similar activities.
5)Unknown, but non-reimbursable costs to local health
departments for complaint investigations, documentation, and
SB 443
Page 3
citation appeals. This bill gives local health departments'
fee authority to charge for these activities.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . The definition in current law of "organized camps"
was 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 not in session. According to the author, this now-outdated
definition has resulted in confusion for licensing purposes
regarding the differences between overnight camps, day camps,
and daycare centers where workers are required to be licensed
childcare providers. This bill modernizes the definition of an
organized camp by separately defining "organized resident
camp" and "organized day camp" and specifying the requirements
for each.
2)Background . Current law defines an organized camp as a site
with programs and facilities established for the purpose of
providing outdoor experiences for five days or more. Current
law requires the Department of Public Health to adopt
regulations necessary to protect the health and safety of
campers. These regulations are enforced by local health
officers.
3)Recreation Programs . Current law provides that the California
Child Day Care Act does not apply to recreation programs
conducted for children by the YMCA, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts,
Boys and Girls Clubs, Camp Fire USA, organized camps, or
similar organizations. However, child day care programs
conducted by these organizations are subject to the Act.
This bill, as written, allows this exemption to continue only
if these programs meet the new definition of an organized
camp. Otherwise, existing recreation programs are potentially
subject to much stricter licensing requirements as day care
programs. Further, the bill exempts local agency programs from
the definition of organized camps as long as they abide by the
employee background check requirements, but does not exempt
them from the day care requirements, which they may now be
inappropriately subject to under this bill.
4)Criminal Background Checks . Under current regulations,
organized camp staff are prohibited from having direct
SB 443
Page 4
unsupervised contact with campers without first obtaining a
satisfactory criminal history record check from either the
California Department of Justice, the Bureau of Criminal
Identification, or the U.S. Department of Justice National Sex
Offender Public Registry. This bill imposes a stricter
background check requirement similar to the requirement of
staff employed by state licensed child care agencies.
5)Related Legislation .
a) This bill is a reintroduction of portions of the
introduced version of SB 1087 (Walters, Chapter 652,
Statutes of 2012), which was later amended to delete all
references to organized camps.
b) This bill is similar to SB 737 (Walters, 2011) which was
vetoed by the Governor, who stated, "I agree with the
author's intent to clarify and simplify the regulation of
organized camps, but this measure does not achieve this
goal. I am directing the Department of Public Health and
Department of Social Services to work with the author and
interested advocates to resolve this issue in the coming
year."
While this bill takes a different approach to reorganizing
the statutes affecting organized camps, it is not clear
that the bill adequately addresses the Governor's concerns.
As mentioned above, the bill, in trying to bring day camps
under the regulatory purview of DPH, subjects recreation
programs that may not be appropriately defined as organized
camps, to potential licensing, inappropriately, as day care
programs. Adding to the confusion, the bill exempts
otherwise similar programs offered by local agencies from
the definition of an organized camp, but removes their
exemption from day care licensing and uniquely requires
them to comply with the background check requirements of
organized camps.
1)Technical and Clarifying Amendments Needed .
a) In order to maintain that recreation programs not
operating as day care programs need not be licensed as day
care providers, Section 1596.793 of the bill should either
be clarified or maintained as existing law.
SB 443
Page 5
b) Currently, the language in subdivision (b) of Section
18897.1 authorizing local public health officers to charge
a fee to investigate complaints is in paragraph (1) dealing
with operating plans. The language should be moved to
paragraph (2) regarding complaints.
c) In subdivision (b) of Section 18897.1 the language
regarding the receipt, review and determination of
operating plans is inconsistent and confused. The language
should be clarified to achieve its intended goal.
Analysis Prepared by : Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916)
319-2081