The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-08-29; Child Care Commission Ad Hoc; MinutesMINUTES Meeting of: Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: CHILD CARE COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. August 29, 1991 City Council Chambers COMMISSIONERS CALL TO ORDER; Commissioner Schwei called the Meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. ROLL CALL; Present - Commissioners Gilk, Isenhart, Mead, and Schwei Absent - Chairman Baker, Commissioners Cutler and L'Esperance Staff Members Present: Jim Hagaman, Research Manager Joni Wiltgen, Management Analyst Lori Lieberman, Assistant to the City Manager Also Present: Ken Jaffe, International Child Resource Institute Jim Hagaman, Research Manager, reported that Chairman Baker was ill and Vice-chairman Cutler was out of town, and neither would be attending the meeting. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to appoint Commissioner Schwei as Chairman of the meeting. MINUTES; The Child Care Commission approved the minutes of July 27, 1991 as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD; There were no comments from the audience. NEW AND OLD BUSINESS; 1) Update on Expansion of Current Child Care Programs Ken Jaffe, ICRI, reported that ten responses had been received from the twelve inquiries which were sent out to existing child care providers regarding possible expansion to accommodate mildly ill and infant care. Only one respondent indicated an interest in providing a possible slot for infant care. Most respondents were not interested in providing care for mildly ill children due to the communicability of various illnesses; however, several providers stated that they do not turn away their regular customers if a child arrives with a mild case of the sniffles. Further, most respondents were not interested in taking the State-mandated first aid course which is required by providers who offer care for mildly ill children. Mr. Jaffe reported that an RFI (Request for Information) is in preparation which will be sent out to all child care providers in Southern California in an attempt to interest providers to locate in Carlsbad. Gilk Isenhart Mead Schwei Gilk Isenhart Mead Schwei MINUTES August 29, 1991 CHILD CARE COMMISSION Page 2 COMMISSIONERS 2) Review of Revised Flow Chart, Glossary, and Scenarios Mr. Jaffe reported that during the final review of the flow chart by the Planning Department, it was discovered that a $110 fee for Preliminary Review had been inadvertently omitted. Although this fee is optional, Planning staff felt it should be listed because the Preliminary Review is an excellent planning tool to avoid pitfalls in the approval process. 3) Schedule of Child Care Fund Committee Meeting Mr. Jaffe reported that a meeting date has not yet been decided and that the initial meeting may be done by conference call. Commissioner Gilk would like to be on the subcommittee. Commissioner Isenhart stated that she is only available on Fridays. Jim Hagaman will contact Chairman Baker to see if she will be able to participate. 4) State Child Care Legislation Update Jim Hagaman, Research Manager, reported that San Diego's share of the Block Grant funds is $3,650,000 which is the third largest in the State. The target group is children under 13 years of age with working poor parents with a family income of less than 75% of the State median income. The San Diego Child Care Planning Council has recommended the criteria to determine how the funds will be distributed. ADJOURNMENT; By proper motion, the meeting of August 29, 1991 was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, T-y^*«***«*- ZS C. ^MAGAAN Research Manager BETTY Minut Gilk Isenhart Mead Schwei ITEM 1 August 29, 1991 TO: CHILD CARE COMMISSION FROM: CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE UPDATE ON EXPANSION OF CURRENT CHILD CARE PROGRAMS A. Letter to family day care providers: In July, ICRI sent letters to twelve family day care providers who had indicated previously they were interested in expanding their family day care homes. ICRI wanted to ascertain if they would be interested in converting any of their existing slots to those for infants or mildly ill children. To date, ICRI has received eight responses. Of those, one provider indicated an interest in converting one slot for an infant, and one provider needed more information. ICRI will contact both of these providers and report the results to the Commission. There was little information given from respondents regarding why they were not interested in converting slots. However, one provider explained she would need to hire a helper which would not be financially feasible. Therefore, she is not willing to convert slots. This may in fact be a hinderance for other family day care providers as well. Another provider only cares for the children of friends and neighbors, thus she is not willing to convert slots either. B. The Request for Information to potential providers in Southern California is in final editing and will be mailed as soon as possible. C. ICRI contacted the two child care center owners whom they had met with in the Spring to determine their status on expanding their programs. Carlsbad Village Children's Center: Sylvia Grisham is in the process of buying the land at 3070 Madison Street, where the center is located. She anticipates owning the property by January, 1992. At that time she is interested in adding another 15 spaces, depending on City zoning restrictions and fees. Carlsbad Country Day School: Pam Crisman is still looking for financing. When she obtains the financing, she is interested in building a center for over 100 children near the industrial area of Carlsbad. ITEM 2 August 29, 1991 TO: CHILD CARE COMMISSION FROM: CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE REVIEW OF REVISED FLOW CHART, GLOSSARY AND SCENARIOS ICRI has revised the flow chart to include 1) the Commission's suggestion on indicating which fees are due when, and 2) the final comments from the Planning, Engineering and Building Departments. Attached is the final copy of the three scenarios which have been revised to include the most current fee charges. After this final review with the Commission, staff would like to have the guide (including fee table, flow chart, scenarios, glossary, and addendum) printed and included in the information folder sold by the Planning Department to interested child care providers. This guide will also be made available at both public libraries in Carlsbad. AGENDA ITEM 2 GUIDE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHILD CARE CENTERS Presented by International Child Resource Institute August, 1991 AGENDA ITEM 2 GUIDE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF fHTT.D TARE CENTERS On the following pages is a guide to assist you with understanding factors involved in developing a child care center. The Flow Chart is designed to clarify all steps in the planning and implementation process of a child care center. The Fee Table outlines the potential City Fees one may incur during the development of a child care facility. There are three categories of fees: Processing, Engineering, and Building. Depending on the particular circumstances, a few or many of these fees may apply. Complementing the Fee Table is an Addendum providing more extensive information on Engineering Fees and reference information for Building Fees. Furthermore, there are three sample scenarios illustrating the City Planning Fees one may incur while developing a child care center. In order to help you compare one scenario to the others, the size of the center and the number of children remain constant. The City Planning Department is available to answer specific questions you have regarding these fees. They will be better able to assist you if you provide them with specific details, including location and size, of your proposed child care center. You may reach them at (619) 438-1161. The Guide includes the following: Item Page Flow Chart 2 Fee Table 3 Addendum 4 Scenario 1: Refurbishment of Existing Building 7 Scenario 2: Developing a Child Care Center on Building-Ready Land 8 Scenario 3: Developing a Child Care Center on Bare Land 9 Glossary 10 D) c 4>O •2 *- Q «J jS Tl .W O 'E a5 O O .2 < .E c "c <DQ. O ii o "8<0 *••£2— «»5 S !HI!!in*&!s SfT> <*git8 ^•u- H ««S £££ s «s 8 g .so£ a& £ 8~^ I* a. i ?;ffl UI*i-BJ* u. I I o>u o O 15c. 0> t; Q.(U si^ 3| H<Q WK S ? I II °i .•<* a ? Illg i.5•|s*£ -3 °•? S ? IUI o •D § I£ U £ iI I u uI i a»H B" I wb O o«—IV3- * 3 H W Cflwwb O § I »^s •§ ip 3 eS eo «> -S -O I 8 s 0-2 s u- I ! I Soz AGENDA ITEM 2 ADDENDUM Below is a reference list to complement the Development Impact Fees of the Fee Table. School Districts: San Marcos School District $.26/sq. ft. 270 San Marcos Blvd. San Marcos, CA 92069 (619) 744-4776 San Dieguito Union High School District 625 N. Vulcan Avenue Leucadia, CA 92024 (619) 753-6491 Encinitas Union Elementary School District 189 Union Street Encinitas, CA 92024 (619) 944-4300 $.142/sq. ft. $.118/sq. ft. Traffic La Costa Water Service Districts: Vallecitos 788 San Marcos Boulevard San Marcos, CA 92069 (619) 744-0460 Olivenhain 1966 Olivenhain Road Encinitas, CA 92024 (619) 753-6466 Sewer Districts: Leucadia P.O. Box 2397 Leucadia, CA 92024 (619) 753-0155 Vallecitos 788 San Marcos Boulevard San Marcos, CA 92069 (619) 744-0460 $27/ADT $4,750 for 1" meter This includes $1,594 County Capacity Water Fee. Normal: $8,184 for 1" meter Full (those on bare land): $9,124 for 1" meter Both include $1,594 County Capacity Water Fee. $2,800/EDU EDU = 60 children $2,400/EDU plus $1,200 each additional EDU EDU = 25 children ADDENDUM The following fees are referred to in the Fee Table and are used to calculate Engineering Fees of Scenario 3. IMPROVEMENT & LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK PLAN CHECK FEES ARE BASED ON THE CURRENT CITY OF SAN DIEGO UNIT PRICES. THIS INCLUDES THE COST OF CURBS. GUTTERS. SIDEWALKS. ASPHALT OR CONCRETE PAVING. STORM DRAINS. ETC. ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS FEE ssss s s -0- 20,000 50,000 100.000 250,000 500.000 to to to to to to S Sssss 20,000 50,000 100,000 250,000 500,000 1,000,000 Over Si.000,000 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.5% 175% 2.25% 1.50% (S 200 minimum) (S 1,200 minimum) (S 2,500 minimum) (S 4,000 minimum) (S 8,750 minimum) (S 13,750 minimum) (S 22,500 minimum) IMPROVEMENT & LANDSCAPE INSPECTION FEE ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS •0- to S 250,001 to $ 750,001 to $ 2,000,001 to $ 250.000 750,000 2,000,000 5,000,000 S 5.000,001 and over 5.0% 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% FEE (S 250 minimum) (J 12,500 minimum) (S 33,750 minimum) (S 80,000 minimum) (S 175,000 minimum) WATTS 70 100 150 200 STREET LIGHT ENERGIZING FEE LUMENS 5.800 9,500 16,000 22,000 FEE S 85.00 S 115.00 S 160.00 S 175.00 ABOVE FEES ARE THE COST FOR ENERGIZING EACH STREET LIGHT FOR EIGHTEEN MONTHS. ENGR:FEES 02/91 ADDENDUM The following fees are referred to in the Fee Table and are used to calculate Engineering Fees of Scenario 3. GRADING PLAN CHECK FEES AMOUNT FEE 100 Cubic Yards or less— 101 to 1.000 Cubic Yards- 1.001 to 10.000 Cubic Yards S 100.00 $ 500.00 for the first 100 cubic yards plus S80.00 for each additional 100 cubic yards or Traction thereof. SI,300.00 for the first 1000 cubic yards plus $80.00 for each additional 1000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 10.001 to 100.000 Cubic Yards $2,100.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards plus $80.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 100.001 to 200.000 Cubic Yards $2,900.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards plus $80.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 200,001 Cubic Yards or more $3,700.00 for the first 200,000 cubic yards plus $80.00 for each additional 100,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. GRADING PERMIT FEES AMOUNT FEE 100 Cubic Yards or less $ 25.00 101 to 1.000 Cubic Yards $ 75.00 for the first 100 cubic yards plus $10.00 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 1.001 to 10,000 Cubic Yards $ 175.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards plus $52.50 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 10.001 to 100,00 Cubic Yards- 100.001 to 200,000 Cubic Yards 200,001 Cubic Yards or More $ 700.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards plus $60.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. $1300.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards plus $180.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. $3,100.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards plus $300.00 for each additional 100,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. ENGRrFEES 02/91 AGENDA ITEM 2: SCENARIO 1 REFURBISHMENT OF EXISTING BUILDING Understanding the need for additional child care in the Northeast Quadrant, you have found a furniture store which you want to redevelop as a child care center. This site is located in a Master Plan Area north of Canon Road, in a designated commercial zone. You have a 1/2 acre lot, and the building itself is approximately 4,500 square feet of that lot. You plan to develop a non profit center for 80 children. The following represents the City Fees you would incur. PROCESSING FEES 1. Preliminary Review (optional) $110 2. Conditional Use Permit (non-profit) 110 3. Environmental Impact Fee 210 4. Master Plan Area Amendment 1580 5. Public Facility Fee Agreement 40 Total Processing Fees $2050 ENGINEERING FEES You would not be charged for any engineering fees because the land is building-ready, meaning that all necessary drains, gutters, etc. are already in place. Total Engineering Fees $0 BUILDING FEES 1. Building Permit Fee $608 2. Building Plan Check Fee 395 3. Strong Motion Fee 14 4. Development Impact Fees: a. Drain (Drainage Plan Area 6) 200 b. School 1,170 c. Traffic 2,400 d. Bridge and Thoroughfare (northern third of city) 0 e. Facility Management (not in Zone 5, 6, 11 or 12) 0 f. Public Facilities 3,229 g. Sewer Connection (1.33 EDU) 2,147 h. Sewer Benefit Area (Area D) 1,570 i. Sewer Lateral Connection 850 j. Water Connection (1.33 EDU) 2,933 k. County Water Capacity Charge (1" meter) 1,744 Total Building Fees $17,260 TOTAL FEES $19,310 AGENDA ITEM 2: SCENARIO 2 DEVELOPING A CHILD CARE CENTER ON BUILDING-READY LAND You have found a site on which you would like to develop a child care center. It is located in a shopping district in a Master Plan Area in the Southeast quadrant. You have a 1/2 acre lot, and the building itself will be approximately 4,500 square feet of that lot. You plan to develop a non-profit center for 80 children. ICRI estimates the building will cost approximately $622,800 broken down into interior, $450,000, at $100 per square foot, and exterior, $172,800, at $10 per square foot. The following are the City Fees for this scenario. PROCESSING FEES 1. Preliminary Review (optional) $110 2. Conditional Use Permit (non-profit) 110 3. Environmental Impact Fee 210 4. Master Plan Area Amendment 1580 5. Public Facility Fee Agreement 40 Total Processing Fees $2050 ENGINEERING FEES You would not be charged for any engineering fees because the land is building ready, meaning that all necessary drains, gutters, etc. are already in place. Total Engineering Fee $0 BUILDING FEES 1. Building Permit Fee $ 1,140 2. Building Plan Check Fee 741 3. Strong Motion Fee 36 4. Development Impact Fees: a. Drainage 0 b. School 1,170 c. Traffic 2,400 d. Bridge and Thoroughfare 5,280 e. Facility Management (Zone 6) 620 f. Public Facilities 8,505 g. Sewer Connection (1.33 EDU in Leucadia District) 3,733 h. Sewer Benefit Area (N/A) 0 i. Sewer Lateral Connection 850 j. Water Connection (1.33 EDU in Olivehain District) 4,971 k. County Water Capacity Charge 1,744 Total Building Fees $31,190 TOTAL FEES $33,240 8 AGENDA ITEM 2: SCENARIOS DEVELOPING A CHILD CARE CENTER ON BARE LAND You have found a 1/2 acre of bare land in the Southwest Quadrant on which you want to build a center. It is in a Specific Plan Area and is a designated commercial zone. Since the land is bare, you will have to contract and pay for all necessary land improvements. ICRI estimates that the cost of these improvements (e.g. drains and gutters) will cost approximately $83,750. The corresponding Engineering Fees are listed below. You want to build a 4,500 square foot center for approximately 80 children. We estimate the cost of constructing the building itself will be approximately $622,800 broken down into interior, $450,000, at $100 per square foot, and exterior, $172,000, at $10 per square foot. The following are the City Fees for this scenario. PROCESSING FEES 1. Preliminary Review (optional) $110 2. Conditional Use Permit (non-profit) 110 3. Environmental Impact Fee 210 4. Master Plan Area Amendment 1580 5. Public Facility Fee Agreement 40 Total Processing Fees $2050 ENGINEERING FEES 1. Improvement and Landscape Plan Check Fee $3,350 2. Improvement and Landscape Inspection Fee 4,188 Total Engineering Fees $7,538 BUIDLINGFEES 1. Building Permit Fee $1,140 2. Building Plan Check Fee 741 3. Strong Motion Fee 36 4. Development Impact Fees: a. Drain 0 b. School 1,170 c. Traffic 2,400 d. Bridge and Thoroughfare 5,280 e. Facility Management (not in Zone 5, 6, 11, or 12) 0 f. Public Facilities 8,505 g. Sewer Connection (1.33 EDU) 3,733 h. Sewer Benefit Area (Area M) 228 i. Sewer Lateral Connection 850 j. Water Connection (1.33 EDU) 2,933 k. County Water Capacity Charge (1" meter) 1,744 Total Building Fees $28,760 TOTAL FEES $38,348 AGENDA ITEM 2 GLOSSARY The following glossary of terms will help to clarify the fee analysis: 1. ADT: The number of average daily trips (ADT) assessed by San Diego Association of Government (SANDAG) that this building will generate in the City. 2. Discretionary Project Review: An applicant submits a site plan and required supplemental materials to the City. An approving body such as the City Engineer, Planning Director, or Planning Commission reviews the project. Project approval or denial is based on the approving body's discretion based upon their interpretation of codes, policies and standards of the City. 3. EDU: Equivalent dwelling unit; a dwelling unit contains living facilities for no more than one family. One family equals 2.67 people. 4. General Plan: A comprehensive long range policy document which establishes the physical, social, and economic goals of the community and serves as a guide for the future development of the City. 5. Land Use Approvals: Approval of the concept of a building plan by the City based on the plans and applications submitted. 6. Master Plan: A plan which establishes the development regulations for large planned communities in the City, specifically over 100 acres and held under one ownership or control. 7. Planning Commission: A commission appointed by the City Council. The Planning Commission advises the Council on matters related to the General Plan, zoning and land development; in some cases the Commission is empowered to act for the Council. 8. Preliminary Review: Staff from the Planning and Engineering Departments perform reviews of projects and proposals to provide some direction to the proposal, its overall feasibility on a conceptual basis, and identify some of the major issues. 9. Redevelopment Area: The older part of town known as "The Village" or "Downtown," which is being guided by development standards, design standards, and use allocation that are specified in the Village Design Manual. 10. Sewer Benefit Area: These areas are designed to create revenues to construct adequate sewer facilities for the growth of the City. 10 11. Site Development Plan Area: Plan showing all existing and proposed building and structures, grading and drainage, and streets and utilities. 12. Sewer Lateral: The sewer line connecting an individual property line to the main sewer line; this is usually needed for development on vacant lots. 13. Specific Plan: Similar to a master plan. It contains the locations and standards for land use and development regulations, streets, and other public facilities in detail. 14. State Regulated Value: This refers to the value the state places on a building based on the location and size of property. 15. Tentative Parcel Map: A proposal requiring the preparation of a map to subdivide one larger piece of land into five or more lots or units. A final map which conforms to the tentative map completes the subdivision process. For example, if you want to develop one acre of a five acre parcel, a fee for a tentative map subdivision may apply. 16. Zone Change: A formal request to change the City's zoning map designation for a specific area. A proposed zone change is reviewed and acted upon by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Note: Several of these definitions, or parts of them, are cited in "A Citizen's Guide To City Planning" available through the Planning Department, located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, (619)438-1161. 11 ITEM 3 August 29, 1991 TO: CHILD CARE COMMISSION FROM: CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE SCHEDULE OF CHILD CARE FUND TASK FORCE MEETING The Child Care Fund Task Force did not meet this month. Staff will attempt to schedule a conference call for early September to continue work on developing a Child Care Fund in Carlsbad. Task Force members include Julie Baker, Mary-Alice Isenhart, Barbara Mead, Ken Jaffe and Susan Stark. ITEM 4 August 29, 1991 TO: CHILD CARE COMMISSION FROM: CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE STATE CHILD CARE LEGISLATION UPDATE Staff will review the State Budget for Children, the Child Care Planning Council of San Diego County, and State legislative action. The attachment On the Capitol Doorstep contains a complete summary for both the 1991 State Budget and the State Block Grant Plan. The block grant money comes from what was known as the ABC Bill (Act for Better Child Care). San Diego County will be eligible for a total of $3,650,000 from block grant funds (see Exhibit 1). The County of San Diego's Child Care Planning Council Report established the local child care priorities as recommendations to the State for the allocation of federal child care funds for the region. The attachment Federal Block Grant: Local Priorities for Direct Services contains the County priorities for funding (see Exhibit 2). In State legislative action, staff will discuss AB 1110 (Campbell), which was signed by the Governor, and a Department of Social Services public meeting on proposed regulations for the care of mildly ill children in a day care setting (see Exhibit 3). Exhibit 1 July/August 1991 Volume 21 Number 7 ^ rri ^ON THE CAPITOL DOORSTEP The 1991 State Budget for Children L On July 16, after months of intense negotia- tions over an unprecendented $14.3 billion deficit, Governor Wilson signed a $55.7 billion state budget with a $1.2 billion emergency reserve. Although most of the Governor's preventive initiatives for chil- dren were funded, vast budget reforms and deep cuts could undermine the overall integrity of children's services. .e deficit was rectified by realigning $2.2 billion in health and welfare funding from the state to the county level, raising $7.4 billion in tax revenue (including revenue to fund realignment), and cutting $5.1 billion from state programs. Major program re- ductions included: • Elimination of all cost-of-living adjust- ments. • A 4% "trigger" reduction in base fund- ing for all state programs not under Proposition 98 or realignment. • Additional cutbacks in Aid to Children with Dependent Children (AFDC), higher education, and other programs. • Up to a 25% reduction in state opera- tions, including across-the-board cuts in all state department budgets. Inside: Special Report on Federal Child Care On July 24, Governor Wilson submitted the State Plan for the Child Care and De- velopment Block Grant to the U.S. Secre- tary of Health and Human Services, ena- bling California to receive its allotted $75.4 million by September 30 when the 1991 federal fiscal year ends. Participation in the Block Grant program will require that California establish a registration and certificate system to al- low parents to use public funds to pur- chase child care from relatives, neighbors, and sectarian child care programs. It will also permit major expansion of the cur- rent child care and development delivery system. The Block Grant Plan was prepared by the California Department of Education (CDE), designated by the Governor as the state lead agency in June. The plan was initially drafted on the basis of recom- mendations developed by the Federal Block Grant Advisory Committee (a di- verse work group consisting of state agency personnel and representatives of thechild care field) and suggestions made at two public forums held this spring. On July 17, a public hearing was held on the proposed Block Grant Plan. It was then revised to address concerns over the redirection of state funds for quality im- provements, limitations on administra- tive and support services for alternative payment programs, the stabilization of the child care workforce, and other issues. These revisions are reflected in the over- view of the Block Grant Plan on pages 2-4. The Block Grant Plan is required to meet federal regulations, which were issued as an interim final rule in June. These regu- lations are binding until final regulations are issued. States will be given time to amend their plan to accommodate any changes made due to public comment. An overview of the Block Grant regula- tions appears on pages 4,5 and 7. California must also submit a plan to re- ceive $36.6 million in new federal funds availableundertheTitlelVAAt-Risk Child Care Program. At presstime, the Califor- nia Department of Social Services (DSS) was still in the process of preparing the At-Risk Plan, which is due August 1. DSS is expected to subcontract with CDE to provide the Title IVA child care services. An overview of the At-Risk regulations, which were issued as a proposed rule in late June, appears on pages 6-7. Governor's Children's Initiatives The following initiatives were funded either through a direct appropriation in the state budget or a setaside for legislation: • $10 million to expand family planning services to unmarried teenagersand sub- stance-involved women. • $15 million for teen pregnancy preven- tion programs, including education and counseling, a Norplant contraception option, and expansion of the Adolescent Family Life Program. • $25 million to expand treatment services related to perinatal substance abuse. • $50 million to expand the State Preschool Program (AB1670*Hansen). • $20 million for school-based coordina- tion of health and social services forchil- dren (SB 620 * Presley). • $10 million for early mental health coun- sel ing for elementary school children and their families (AB1650 * Hansen). • $10 million for a new pupil assessment program. • $5 million for an academic mentor and volunteer corps (SB 1114 * Leonard). • $4 million to provide prenatal substance abuse education to teenagers. • $1 million to expand the Early Interven- tion for School Success Program. Another $2 million was provided under AB 1017 (Bates) to fund the Office of the Secre- tary of Child Development and Education. AFDC Grant Reductions Beginning Sep- tember 1, AFDC monthly grants will be reduced by 4.4% (from $694 to $663 for a mother with two children) and then frozen continued on back page IN THIS ISSUE 1991 State Budget for Children 1,8 State Block Grant Plan 1,2,3,4 Block Grant Regulations 4,5,7 At-Risk Regulations 6; 7 County Guidelines & Allocations insert The Revised State Plan for the Child Care and Development Block Grant Submission The State Plan for the Child Careand Devel- opment BlockGrant was submitted onjuly 24. The U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services has 45 days to approve the plan. Duration Federal law requires the initial Block Grant Plan to cover a three-year period and subse- quent plans to cover two-year periods. Funding applications must be submitted annually. Federal Allotment California'sallotmentfor Fiscal Year 1991 is $75.4 million. Increasing amounts will be available over the next four years. Redirected State Funds The Block Grant Plan proposes to redirect $12.0 million in existing state funds for child development programs to augment Block Grant funds for quality improvement proj- ects and specified direct services. The serv- ices that would have been available through these state funds would instead be pro- vided through Block Grant direct service money. Redirected funds would come from child development services provided to families who are Block Grant-eligible and would not be limited to a single program type, such as alternative payment. Distribution of Funds Federal requirements specify the propor- tion of funds which may be spent for vari- ous child care purposes (see Block Grant Regulations, page 4). Within these limita- tions, Cali fornia proposes to expend its $75.4 million allotment, plus an additional $12 million in redirected state child develop- ment funds, as follows: Federal 75% Portion * Direct Services: Certificates & Contracts $48.1 million Administration $8.5 million Federal 25% Portion ** Early Childhood Education & Latchkey Contracts $14.1 million Quality Improvements $4.7 million State Redirected Funds Specified Direct Services $6.7 million Quality Improvements $5.3 million * Reflectsstateoption to spend 15%, rather than 10%, of this funding portion for administering the Block Grant during the first two years. ** Reflects state decision to apply the discretion- ary 5% of this funding portion towards quality improvements. Direct Services Certificates and Contracts A total of $48.1 million would be expended for direct serv- ices to families whose income is at or below 75% of the state median. Services could be provided through certificates to parents or contracts to providers. The certificate sys- tem would be administered largely by al- ternative payment contractors, although other agencies could operate certificate programs as well. Direct service contracts could go to any of the existing child devel- opment program types, except the state preschool program. Funds would be dis- tributed based on geographic need and resources and contracts would be awarded in accordance with local priorities. For an overview of the process for establishing local priorities and estimated county allo- cation levels, see insert. Contracts for Early Childhood Develop- ment and Before- and After-School Pro- | grams A total of $13.3 million would be 1 expended forearly childhood development i and before- and after-school programs, i Funds could go to any of the existing child ;devclopment program types, except alter- native payment programs and resourceand referral services. State preschool programs could also be funded with this money. Funds would be distributed based on geo- graphic need and contracts would be awarded, to the extent possible, in accor- dance with local priorities. Federal law requires first priority to be given to areas with a large number of students eligible to receive Chapter 1 compensatory education funds, followed by other areas with high concentrations of poverty or high/low population densities. The Block Grant Plan uses public housing projects as a second indicator of concentrated poverty. Specified Direct Services A total of $5.7 million in redirected state child develop- ment funds would be expended as follows: • $2.1 million to provide state-funded migrant child care to replace federally funded services under Chapter 1 Mi- grant Education. The federal funds would be redirected to provide preschool education to migrant children instead. • $1.6 million to operate newly constructed child care centers in low-income hous- ing projects under the federal Family Housing Demonstration Program. • $3 million to help provide "seamless services" for families who would other- wise lose their child care services due to differences in program eligibility. Quality Improvements A total of $10 million is proposed for quality improvements with $4.7 million from the Block Grant and $5.3 million from redi- rected state funds. The following projects would be funded: / $1 million for Grants to Help Meet State and Local Standards. These funds would be available each year to child care contrac- tors for minor renovation of facilities and for the purchase of equipment necessary to meet fire, health, and safety requirements. / $200,000forProgramlmprovementand Peer Review Acti vi ties. This project would expand CDE's consortia of field colleagues who are trained to conduct program re- views of local contractors. The consortia also networks with local programs and coordinates technical assistance and staff devclopmentactivities. These funds would enable themajority of communities to oper- ate consortia by providing modest stipends to participants. / $4.5 million for Training of Staff. The following package of training activities is proposed: • $1.3 million for the Child Development Training Consortium. This expansion of the existing Child Development Train- ing Consortium would enable a total of 5,500 center-based and family day care providers to obtain 6 college units through a network of 45 community colleges. Classes may be held on or off campus. • SI .75 million for Special Needs Training Projects. A variety of projects would be funded to improve services to children with special needs. These children may be limited-English speaking, physically impaired, learning disabled, substance- exposed, or abused or neglected. Grants would bcawardedonacompetitivebasis to fund proposals to train trainers as well as to train child care providers. • $300.000 for Health and Safety Training Projects. A variety of training opportu- nities would be offered to, but not man- dated for, child care staff. Training proj- ects would focus on practices essential for ensuring the health and safety of children of different ages. Quality mate- rials, including a video, would also be included. Projects would bo funded on a competitive basis and may focus on train- ing trainers or providers. • $140.000 for Nutrition Education. A training package would be developed in the first year to train entry-level child > On The Capitol Doorstao Julv/Aunuet iae»i care providers. Oversight would be provided by the Child Nutrition and Food Distribution Division. In follow- ing years, training would be expanded to providers throughout the state. • $200.000 forTraining for Infant/Toddler Caregivers. This project would expand the Program for Infant Toddler Car- egivers developed by CDE and Far West Laboratory. Funds would be used to provide annual scholarships and train- ing materials to 65 child care trainers or program directors to participate in four training institutes. Upon completion, each endorsed trainer would conduct three training sessions in their area per year. • $600.000 for School Readiness Projects. These projects would be based on the School Readiness Report. Funds would be used for (1) resource materials on developmentally appropriate practices, (2) incentive grants to local child care providers to support transition from preschool to the early primary grades and to examine curriculum and assess- ment practices in preschool, and (3) staff development activities to support articu- lation between schools and child care programs. AB 398 (O'Connell) would implement this project. • $200.000 for High/Scope Trainer Fol- low-Up. These funds would expand on the state's cadre of 200 endorsed trainers in the High/Scope curriculum by estab- lishing regional networks to support trainers. SB 1001 (Rosenthal) would implement this project. / $1.2 million for Recruitment and Re- tention of Staff. These activities are de- signed to address the high staff turnover in child care programs and to recruit new staff needed to implement the Block Grant. • $189,000 for a Teacher Loan Assumption Program. These funds would be used to recruit and retain quality teachers and supervisors by assuming college loans if recipients agree to work in a child care and development program that is re- ceiving the majority of its funding through a CDE contract. SB 965 (Mor- gan) would implement this program. • $800.000 for the Mentor Teacher Project. This current pilot program is a public- private partnership which offers experi- enced early childhood teachers an inten- sive advanced supervision class in order to become mentors. Community col- leges place students with mentors to fulfill their supervised teaching experi- ence requirements. This expansion would enable 325 teachers to receive advanced training each year. • $50.000 for a Health Benefit Actuarial Study. These funds would be used to conduct a actuarial and feasibility study for creating a health benefits pool for child care workers in California. • $150.000 for a Stipend for Permit Pro- gram. These funds would be used to reimburse the $60 fee for the issuance or renewal of emergency permits for 2,500 teachers. • $10.000 for a Staffing Issues Review. These funds would enable the Child Development Programs Advisory Com- mittee (CDPAC), in collaboration with CDE and the Secretary of Child Devel- opmentand Education, todevelopa long- range plan to address the need to build a skilled and stable workforce. CDPAC would convene a work group represent- ing various types of child care to review existing data and examine it within the context of thechild care delivery system. Recommendations could be funded in future years with quality improvement money. S $775,000 for Monitoring of Cpmpliance with Licensing and Regulatory Require- ments. • $500.000 for Providers' Cost of Compli- ance. These funds would be used to provide subsidies to child care provid- ers to achieve, maintain, or upgrade compliance with state and local stan- dards. This could include grants to off- set fees for fingerprint clearance or fire, safety, and health inspections. • $250.000 for Data Collection/Evaluation. These funds would be used to imple- ment a standardized automated data collection process with the goal of coor- dinating the delivery of child care serv- ices in California. Another $250,000 would be provided through Title IVA funds. • $25.000 fora Fiscal Reform Task Force on Child Development Programs. These funds would be used to establish a task force to develop recommendations to streamline thechild care reimbursement system and create a seamless delivery system in California. / $1.8 million for Resource and Referral Services. • S1.5 million for Increased Demand for Services. These funds would assist re- source and referral agencies with new duties required under the Block Grant, including: • Registration activities. • Maintenance of a data base of all providers in their local area, includ- ing providers registered under the Block Grant. • Inclusion in the data base of substan- tiated parental complaints. • Recruitment and training of new providers. • Maintenance of a clearinghouse on training activities and materials. • $310.000 for Resource Materials. These funds would be used to obtain new or reprinted materials regarding the provi- sion of quality services for local resource and referral libraries. S $500,000 for Consumer Education. These funds will be used to develop, pur- chase, or reprint materials to be distributed to consumers about available services and choosing appropriate care. Administration A total of $8.5 million would be allocated for administrative costs. Of this amount, $2.4 million would fund CDE lead agency responsibilities and interagency agreements with DSS and $6.1 million would fund the cost of administering certificate programs by local contractors. Although CDE ex- pects the cost of administering certificate programs to exceed $6 million, it is pre- vented from allocating a higher amount due to the 10% federal limit on administra- tive costs. CDE will seek legislation to allow the use of state funds to provide administrative and support services up to 20% of the contract amount for alternative payment programs. Certificate Payment System Phase In Many alternative payment con- tractors have policies precluding the use of payments to in-home and other exempt providers due to previous difficulties en- countered with various state and federal agencies relating to issues of minimum wage, workers compensation, unemploy- ment insurance, and income tax withhold- ings. To give alternative payment pro- grams time to reevaluate their current methods of operation, contractors would be given until federal deadlineof October 1, 1992 to certify full compliance with paren- tal choice and other certificate program requirements. Form of Certificate Local alternative pay- ment programs would be permitted to de- termine the exact form of the certificate provided it meets federal requirements (see Block Grant Regulations, page 5). continued on page 4 BLOCK GRANT REGULATIONS funds within the federal fiscal year (Octo- ber 1-September 30) in which they are allot- ted, or in the succeeding fiscal year. Obli- gated funds may be carried over for one more year. Use of Block Grant Funds The law requires states to divide their allo- cations into two separate funding pots: Early Childhood Development/Latchkey and Quality (25%) The law requires this funding portion to be reserved as follows: 75% (18.75% of the total allotment) for con- tracts to establish or expand early child- hood development and before- and after- school programs. 20% (5% of the total allotment) for quality improvements, including: • resource and referral services • grants or loans to assist providers in meeting state or local standards • monitoringcompliancc with state or local standards • training and technical assistance • improving salaries and compensation 5% (1.25% of the total allotment) for cither contracts or quality improvements. The regulations specify that contract funds may be used for startup or remodeling costs as well as the provision of add itional spaces. The definition of early childhood develop- ment and before- and after-school programs is left to the states. Direct Services (75%) After reserving the above 25%, the law requires a "preponder- ance" of remaining funds to be spent on direct child care services. These services must include certificates and may include contracts. The regulations interpret "pre- ponderance" to mean at least 90% of these funds. No more than 10% is permitted for nonservice activities, including both state and local administrative costs, additional quality improvements, and activities to increase the supply of child care. During the first two years, the regulations permit states to request 85% to be spent on direct services and 15% spent on other activities. The regulations prohibit the use of block grant funds to subsidize rates for child care provided under Title IV-A programs. Parental Choice Although the law allows broad state discre- tion in the implementation of the program, the regulations specify that this authority may not be exercised at the expense of parental choice. Parents must be permitted to choose from a broad range of child care providers, including child care centers, family child care providers, sectarian or- ganizations, relatives, friends, and neigh- bors. States may not adopt regulatory re- quirements, healthand safety requirements, payment rates, or registration requirements that effectively restrict parental choice by: • Excluding or limiting any category of care or type of provider. • Excluding a significant number of pro- viders in any category or type of care. Certificates Pa rents m ust be offered a choice of either enrolling their child with provider under contract with the state or receiving a child care certificate. This choice must be available at anytime. The certificate must be: • Issued directly to the parent. • Be of a value commensurate with the subsidy value of the child care services provided. • Permitted to be used for child care serv- ices provided by a sectarian organiza- tion or agency, including those services that in religious activities, if those serv- ices are chosen by the parent. • Permitted to be expended by providers for sectarian purposes or activities, in- cluding religious instruction or worship. • Considered assistance to the parent rather than a assistance to the provider. The regulations do not require any particu- lar certificate form or process. Examples given of possible forms include a two-party check, coupon, or debit card. Certificate programs should include measures to pre- vent fraud and abuse. Child care certificate programs must be operative by October 1,1992. Sectarian Providers Although the law prohibits states from using blockgrant funds to contract with sectarian child care pro- grams that include religious instruction or worship, parents arc permitted to use cer- tificates to purchase such care. However, sectarian child care programs which re- ceive 80% of their funding from public sources may not include religious activities as part of their program or discriminate in hiring or enrollment on the basis of religion. The regulations define "sectarian organiza- tion" or "sectarian child care provider" to mean religious organizations and provid- ers generally, not merely those of a specific religious or that affiliated with a church or synagogue. There is no requirement that a sectarian organization or provider be man- aged by clergy or have any particular de- gree of religious management control or content. State constitutions or laws which preclude the expenditure of public funds in or by sectarian institutions do not apply since no state fundsarc required to operate theblock grant program. Relatives. Neighbors, and Other In-Home Carogivcrs The law permits parents to use certificates to purchase care from relatives, neighbors, and other in-home carcgivers who are age 18 or over and are registered with the state. Relatives are defined as grand parents, aunts, and uncles. Although the law requires relatives to be registered, the regulations do not require them to meet health and safety requirements (see below). Registration The law requires all child care providers who are exempt from licensure to be regis- tered with the state. The regulations state that registration must be a simple, timely process and maybe limited to the provider's name and mailing address. ACF specifies that state should only collect information needed to facilitate appropriate payment and permit the state to furnish the provider with information on training, technical assistance, and any relevant information concerning health and safety requirements. The carcgiver must be allowed to register after selection by a parent but before pay- ment is made. The preamble to the regula- tions states that registered providers should beallowed to begin caring for a child pend- ing completion of compliance procedures with health and safety requirements. Health and Safety Standards The law requires states to provide assur- ances that providers receiving funding meet minimum health and safety standards in the following areas: • The prevention and control of infectious diseases, including immunizations. • Building and physical premises safety. • Minimum health and safety training appropriate to the provider setting. The regulations specifically exempt rela- tives, but not otherin-home providers, from all health and safety requirements. The preamble to the regulations indicates that minimum health and safety training appropriate to home care settings could mean supplying information on health and safety codes to all registered providers. No minimum standards are specified, however. Although the law permits states to impose morestringent licensing standardson block grant providers than on other child care providers, ACF states that it will carefully review theeffectsof requirements and stan- dards applicable only to providers receiv- ing block grant funds to ensure that they do not limit parental choice. continued on page 7 BLOCK GRANT REGULATIONS Child Care & Development Block Grant Interm Final Regulations Published in thejune6,1991 Federal Register as an interim final rule. Binding until final regulations are adopted. The public may submit written comments to the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) on or before August 5,1991. Call (202) 401-9326 for more information. Purpose The purpose of the Block Grant Program is to increase the availability, affordability, and quality of child care. Legislative History for Drafting Regulations The preamble to the regulations states that the two child care bills which individually passed the House and the Senate, H.R. 3 and S. 5, were not the basis for the final legislation "as the Congressional leader- ship and Administration agreed to start anew in crafting this legislation." There- fore, ACF met with Congressional and Administration representatives to discuss the development of the compromise and examined Congressional debate on the fi- nal passage of the bill. Balancing Outcomes Specified In the Legislation The preamble reminds readers of the many compromises and competing policies cm- bodied in the legislation. The regulations attempt to achieve a balance between pro- viding state broad flexibility in program administration and ensuring that a balance among thenumerousoutcomes specified in the legislation arc achieved. These include: —Maximizing parental choice through the use of certificates and contracted services and which includes care provided by rela- tives and sectarian organizations. —Providing quality child care that meets state and local standards. —Coordinating planning and delivery of services at federal, state and local levels. —Providing flexibility of program design to assure that recipients needs are met. —Ensuring the preponderance of funds is used to provide child care services, there- fore minimizing non-service expenditures. —Increasing the availability of'child care services, including early childhood educa- tion and before- and after-school care. —Assuring responsible program admini- stration. —Assuring that funding supplements, not supplants, funding for existing services. In addition, ACF believes that programs should strive to provide "seamless serv- ices" to the families and providers who will participate. This means, to the extent pos- sible, a family should be able to retain the same provider regardless of the source of funding, and providers should be able to provide services to children regardless of the basis for the family's eligibility or the source of payment. Lead Agency The lead agency must maintain overall responsibility for the program. Any shared responsibilities with other state, local, or private agencies must be in writing. State Allotments California's allotment for Fiscal Year 1991 is $75.4 million. The law requires block grant funds to supplement, not supplant, other federal, state, and local funds for child care and related services. No state funding match is required to receive funds. The regulationsallow payments to be made in installments, in advance, or through re- imbursement. The state must obligate its from page 3 State Plan for the Child Care and Development Block Grant Parental Choice Local resource and re- ferral programs would maintain infor- mation on child development programs under contract with the state. Parents could either seek care from one of these programs or contact their local alterna- tive payment program to apply for a certificate. If a parent has not already selected a child care provider at the time of enrollment in an alternative payment program, the parent would be inter- viewed to determine their preference regarding type of provider and location. The parent would then be given a list of potential providers from the resource and referral program's file. The resource and referral program would provide in- formation and materials to the parent on indicators of quality in various types of child care settings and suggest the par- ent to interview several providers before deciding which best meets the family's needs. Process forlssuingCertificatesand Proc- essing Payments Beginning October 1, 1992, certificates would be issued imme- diately after the parent has selected a pro- vider. The parent's selection of a provider must occur first in order to determine the value of the certificate. The certificate would be redeemable upon evidence that the pro- vider is either licensed or registered. Pay- ment would be issued upon submission of documentation that service was rendered. Registration System Registration Process The registration proc- ess would be initiated by the local resource and referral agency, which would obtain a signed application from the provider. The applications must include: • Caregiver name, address and phone. • Address where care is provided. • Hours which care is provided. • Charge for care. • Two character references • Statement of the caregiver's health edu- cation, experience, orother qualifications. • Names of other persons in the home or providing care. • Provider certification that the facility meets minimum health and safety stan- dards as shown on a standardized checklist (if care is provided by a rela- tive, the parent would sign the facility certification statement). The resource and referral agency would then collect a set of fingerprints for the purpose of conducting searches of the California Criminal History System and the California Child Abuse Central Reg- istry Index. Unless federal regulations are amended, payment could not be denied if a criminal or child abuse his- tory is found. However, a toll-free number would allow parents, employ- ment agencies, resource and referral programs and others tochccka provider's clearance level. Brochureson health and safety standards would be madeavailable to all providers registered with the state. Substantiated Parental Complaints The Department of Social Services would be responsible for maintaining a listing of substantiated parcntalcomplaints, which must be made public upon request. 4 • On Thf Capitol Doorstep July/August 1991 Summary of Child Development Block Grant Distribution DRAFT * TO BE REVISED County MARIPOSA SAN BERNARDINO LAKE MADERA SISIOYOU SANJOAQUIN TEHAMA FRESNO AMADOR SANBENITO TULARE RIVERSIDE YUBA MERCED ORANGE KERN LASSEN STANISLAUS SUTTER MONO BUTTE IMPERIAL KINGS SHASTA DELNORTE VENTURA SAN DIEGO SOLANO LOS ANGELES ELDORADO V/"\l f\YULU PLACER SACRAMENTO TKTYT\IN IU MENDOCINO GLENN TRINITY MONTEREY TUOLUMNE . NEVADA SANTA BARBARA SAN LUIS OBISPO SIERRA CONTRA COSTA HUMBOLT SONOMA MODOC SANTA CLARA SANTA CRUZ COLUSA kjf A D TXTMAK1N MA PAr*i/\r/\ CALAVERAS ALAMEDA SAN MATED AT PTWR/\LJ inc. PLUMAS SAN FRANCISCO Average of Need Factor Percentages (Percent) 0.0412 5.8493 0.2547 0.4621 0.1896 2.4251 0.2289 4.4665 0.0430 0.1171 2.1298 3.7871 0.4273 1.2040 4.4878 2,6457 0.1096 1.7336 0.2807 0.0138 0.7400 0.7388 0.5031 0.6842 0.1175 1.3319 7.3130 0.8523 33.8501 0.2527 . 0.4923 0.3229 4.8026 0.0554 0.3362 0.1184 0.0583 1.1439 0.1303 0.1316 0.8629 03855 0.0105 1.7835 0.4844 0.7395 0.0509 3.3791 0.5394 0.0741 0.2979 0.2292 0.0904 3.6885 0.8437 0.0063 0.0602 1.6027 Allocation of ECE & Latchkey $5.000 760,000 33.000 60.000 25.000 315.000 30.000 581.000 6,000 15.000 277.000 492.000 56.000 157.000 583.000 344,000 14,000 225,000 36,000 2,000 96,000 96.000 65,000 89.000 15.000 173,000 951.000 111,000 4.401,000 33,000 64.000 42.000 624,000 7,000 44.000 15.000 8.000 149,000 17.000 17.000 112,000 50.000 1,000 232.000 63,000 96,000 7.000 439.000 70,000 10,000 39.000 30,000 12.000 479,000 110.000 1.000 8.000 208,000 Adjusted Allocation Percentage 0.0593 8.4157 03664 0.6649 0.2727 3.4891 03293 53551 0.0516 0.1404 2J535 4.5406 0.5123 1.4435 4.7349 2.7914 0.1157 1.8290 0.2961 0.0145 0.7808 0.7795 0.5308 0.7219 0.1240 1.4052 7.0144 0.8175 3X4676 0.2424 0.4722 0.3097 4.6065 0.0531 0.3224 0.1022 0.0503 0.9875 0.1125 0.1136 0.7449 0.3328 0.0091 1.5396 0.4182 0.6384 0.0366 2.4309 0.3880 0.0533 0.2143 0.1649 . 0.0650 1.7689 0.4046 0.0030 0.0289 0.7686 Allocation of the 75% Block Grant $50.000 3,239,000 141,000 256.000 105,000 1.343.000 127.000 2.061,000 50.000 54,000 983,000 1.747,000 197,000 555,000 1.822,000 1,074,000 50,000 704,000 114,000 50,000 300.000 300.000 204,000 278,000 50,000 541.000 2.699,000 315,000 12,494,000 93,000 182.000 119.000 1.773.000 50,000 124.000 50,000 50.000 380.000 50.000 50,000 287,000 128.000 50.000 592.000 161.000 246.000 50,000 935,000 149,000 50,000 82.000 63.000 50.000 681.000 156.000 50,000 50.000 296.000 Total Block Grant $55.000 3.999,000 174.000 316,000 130.000 1.658.000 157.000 2,642.000 56,000 69.000 1,260,000 2,239.000 253.000 712.000 2.405.000 1.418,000 64,000 929,000 150,000 52,000 396,000 396,000 269,000 367,000 65.000 714,000 3,650,000 426,000 16,895.000 126.000 246.000 161,000 2,397,000 57.000 168,000 65.000 58,000 529,000 67.000 67,000 399,000 178,000 51,000 824,000 224,000 342,000 57.000 1,374,000 219.000 60.000 121.000 93.000 62.000 1.160.000 266.000 51.000 58.000 504.000 Total 100.00 $13.000,000 100.00 538.900,000 $51,900.000 AT-RISK REGULATIONS Title IVA At-Risk Child Care Program Proposed Regulations Published in the June 25, 1991 Federal Register as a proposed rule. Not binding until the final rule is issued. The public may submit written comments to the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) on or before August 25. Call (202) 401-9294 for more information. Purpose The purpose of the At-Risk Program is to provide child care assistance to low-income working families who need care in order to work and thereby avoid Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Lead Agency The "single state agency" responsible for administering the state's Title IVA Plan is also responsible for administering the At- Risk Child Care Program. In California, this agency is the Department of Social Services (DSS). The Title IV-A agency must maintain over- all responsibility for design, including the following functions: • Prepare and submit the state plan. • Establish eligibility criteria. • Set local market rates and fee scale. • Issue policies, rules, and regulations. ACF proposes to allow the Title IVA agency to enter into agreements with other agen- cies to perform administrative functions, including the determination of individual eligibility and the provision of child care services. State Allotment California's allotment for fiscal year 1991 is $36.6 million, which must be matched by state or local funds. DSS is expected to match the federal funds with California Department of Education (CDE) child de- velopment funds and to contract with CDE to provide child care services under the At- Risk Program. The proposed regulations would permit any unused funds to be car- ried over for one year. Availability of Funds Funds will be available upon approval of the state's application. In FY1991, applica- tions will be approved on an interim basis until final regulations are issued and a separate state plan is submitted. Although the state will be entitled to its maximum grant for the year, it may not use funds for any expenditures prior to the quarter in which the application was submitted. Use of At-Risk Funds The regulations propose to restrict the use of funds to direct services and administra- tive costs only. No cap is proposed on the amount of funds which may be used for program administration. Funding would not be permitted for recruitment and train- ing, resource development, or licensure activities. At-Risk Plan ACF proposes that states submit an At-Risk Child Care Plan as an amendment to the State Supportive Services Plan, which cov- ers other Title IVA child care services such as GAIN Child Care and Transitional Child Care. The State Supportive Services Plan is updated biennially and will coincide with theBlockGrantPlanboginninginl995.The At-Risk Plan must be submitted by August 1 to receive funding in FY 1991. The At-Risk Plan must include'the follow- ing assurances required under the law: • The Title IVA agency will administer the program. • Child care meets state and local stan- dards. • All child care providers, except relatives, are licensed, regulated, or registered. • Parental access is permitted. • Amountsexpendodsupplemen^anddo not supplant, existing public funds. • Child care provided is reasonably re- lated to hours of employment. • Individualsare not discriminated against on the basis of race, sex, national origin, religion, or handicapping condition. The proposed regulations also require the At-Risk Plan to include: • Definitions of "at-risk of being eligible for AFDC" and "low income." • Any other state eligibility criteria. • A description of the state's priorities. • Methods the state will use to provide child care. • A description of the registration process and a timeframe for payments. • Local market rates. • The state limit on payment rates. • Sliding fee scale. • A description of the state's policy on providing child care during gaps in employment. • A description of coordination with other public child care programs. Parental Choice As with other Title IVA child care pro- grams, the regulations would permit the Title IVA agency to provide care through any of the following methods: • Provide care directly. • Arrange care through public or private providers. • Provide cash or vouchers in advance. • Provide reimbursement for child care expenses. • Adopt other arrangements as deemed appropriate. To ensure parental choice, the regulations propose to require that the state have at least one method of payment by which self- arranged child care can be paid, such as providing parents with cash or vouchers in advance or reimbursing parents for child care expenses incurred. Registration The regulations propose to require child care providers who are exempt from licen- sure to be registered with the state. How- ever, registration would not be required for relativesorindividualsproviding care solely to members of the individual's family. The regulations would require registration procedures to collect only information that is necessary to make payment and provide information to the provider. Registration could not require that licensure-exempt providers meet any particular standards. Health and Safety Standards The regulations would specifically prohibit states from requiring providers to meet higher standards of care than is generally required under state and local law. Fur- thermore, the regulations would require the state to pay for child care services for which there are no state or local standards (and therefore are legal) if chosen by the parent. Eligibility The regulations state that a family is eligible for child care provided that the family: Is low income, as defined by the state. Is not receiving AFDC. Is at risk of becoming eligible for AFDC. Needs child care in order to work. Meets other such conditions as the state may describe in its plan. According to the preamble, low-income, of itself, is not sufficient to qualify a family as "at-risk of becoming eligible for AFDC." Additional criteria is required, such as that the family is no longer eligible for Transi- tional Child Care or has elected not to re- AT-RISK REGULATIONS ceive AFDC due to minimum payment. Parents in education or training programs would not be eligible. The proposed regulations define an eligible child as: • Under age 13. • Under age 19, and physically or men- tally incapable of caring for himself or herself or under court supervision. The regulations would permit states to provide assistance for up to two weeks prior to the start of employment if child care arrangements would otherwise be lost, or up to one month during a break in employ- ment if another job is scheduled to begin. Sliding Fee Scale As with other Title IVA child care pro- grams, the regulations would require each family to contribute a minimum co- payment. No waivers would be permitted. Payment Rates The regulations propose to limit federal financial participation in provider payments to the 75th percentile of the local market rate for the type of care. Seamless Services? A major goal of Congress and the Admini- stration in implementing new federal child care legislation was the provision of "seam- less services" to families. This means, to the extent possible, a family should be able to retain the same provider regardless of the source of funding, and providers should be able to provide services to children regard- less of the basis of the family's eligibility or source of payment. To facilitate the coordination of children's services, the federal government consoli- dated three operating divisions within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to form the Administration for Children and Families (ACF). The merger combines the programs and resources of the Family Support Administration (which administered Title IVA), the Office of Human Development Services (which administered Head Start), and the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant. ACF prepared regulations for both the Block Grant and At-Risk Program with the intent of providing "seamless services." While the regulations for the At-Risk Program are similar to policies for other Title IVA child care services, they do not coincide with requirements under the Block Grant regu- lations in a number of critical areas. Unless changes arc adopted in the final regulations, a family whose eligibility for child care assistance shifts from the Block Grant to Title IVA could lose their child care arrangement due to lower standards and payment rates under Title IVA. Regulatory Area Registration Payment Rates Standards Block Grant Income Eligibility Fees All licensure-exempt providers must register with the state. Payment rates must enable equal access. No specified limit. State must ensure that all funded providers, except rela lives, meet minimum health and safety stan- dards. Providers may be re- quired to meet higher standards than are generally applicable. Family income must be at or below the 75th percentile of the state median (includingchildren in need of protective services). State maywaiveco-payments for poverty level families. At-Risk Relativesand providers whocare foronlythechildrenofonefamily need not register with the state. Payment limited to the 75th per- centile of the local market rate. State prohibited from requiring licensure-exempt providers to meet any standards. State may not require any type of provider to meet higher standards than are generally applicable. No specified limit on family in- come, but targeted to families at- risk of welfare dependency. Co-payment is required of all families regardless of income. For further information on the Block Grant Plan or to submit a letter of intent to apply for funding, write to the Child Development Division. California, Department of Education, 560 J Street, Room 220, Sacramento, CA 95814. To obtain a copy of the regulations, refer to the Federal Register, available at many libraries, or contact your congression member. from page 5 Block Grant Regulations ACF expects that when a parent selects a provider that does not meet applicable stan- dards, the provider will be given the oppor- tunity to come into compliance and that grants or loans will be available to assist providers in meeting standards. If the state reduces standards for any child care services provided in the state after Novembers 1990, the law requires the state to inform the Secretary of the rationale for the reduction in its annual report. Eligibility The law states that eligible children must: • Be under age 13. • Come from families with income at or below 75 percent of the state median. • Reside with parent(s) who are working or attending a job training or education program, or are receiving or in need of protective services. The regulations provide an exception to the age limit for children under age 19 who are physically or mentally incapable of caring for themselves or under court supervision. Sliding Fees The law requires states to establish a sliding fee scale. The regulations specify that this scale must be based on income and family size, and may consider other factors as well. States are permitted to waive contributions from families whose incomes are at or be- low the poverty level. Payment Rates The law requires payment rates to be suffi- cient to ensure equal access to child care services which are available to children whose parents are not eligible to receive block grant assistance. The regulations do not cap the amount providers may be paid nor specify any methodology for determin- ing rates. Parental Rights The law states that nothing shall be con- strued or applied in any manner to infringe on or usurp the moral and legal rights and responsibilities of the parents or legal guardians. The preamble to the regulations states that Congress "clearly believed" that states and other agencies "are not in a posi- tion to substitute their judgment for that of parents, especially in matters relating to child care." During a workshop on the regulations, an ACF representative indi- cated that prohibiting payment to a person who was a convicted child molester would infringe on parental choice! A STATE BUDGET FOR CHILDREN from front page AFDC Grant Reductions for five years under a mandatory suspen- sion of the statutory cost-of-living adjust- ment. By 1996, AFDC grants will have lost an estimated 29% of their value. To help parents to offset their grant reduction with additional food stamps and/or wages, the AFDC need standard will be permitted to rise at 70% of the inflation rate. AFDC benefits available to two-parent families were also terminated. Changes were im- plemented under SB 724 (Maddy). AFDC Homeless Assistance This pro- gram, which provides temporary shelter and "move-in" costs for homeless families, was reduced by one-third. The cut will reduce the time allowed for families to find housing and prohibit families from claim- ing benefits more than once in two years. Realignment Responsibility for twelve health and welfare programs was shifted to the county level along with $2.2 billion in increased sales tax and vehicle license fees. The new revenue must be deposited into separate accounts exclusively for health, mental health, and social services. Annual reports on the impact of realignment on services to children are required over the next five years. The realignment bills arc AB 948 (Bronzan) and AB1288 (Bronzan). Health "AB 8" County Health Services and Medically Indigent Services were the two major health programs shifted to the coun- ties. Numerous changes were made in Cali- fornia Children's Services, including the es- tablishment of an enrollment fee for fami- lies above 200% of the federal poverty line Child Care Licensing • No licensing fees imposed. • No statutory red uctions in licensing stan- dards or activities approved by the legis- lature. DSS may not legally reduce these standards or activities. • The Department of Social Services (DSS) operating budget reduced by up to 25%. Specific cuts left to DSS discretion. Child Development Programs • Funding maintained for all program types at 1990-91 levels, based on a 3% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). No COLA provided for 1991-92. All pro- posed cuts restored, except for $900,000 for resource and referral services vetoed by the Governor. $8.6 million provided for an enrollment growth of 2.42%, reduced from $12.8 million by the.Governor. Growth funds for 1990-91 and 1991-92 prohibited from being used for COLA. $45 million reserved for the Governor's state preschool initiative under AB 1670 (Hansen). An additional $5 million set aside for preschool enhancement grants to be funded from the $4.2 million ve- toed from growth funds and the$900,000 from resource and referral services. Temporary one-year bifurcation of child development programs along Proposi- tion 98 lines, with language included to acknowledgeand protect theintegrity of the child development system. and an increased county share of cost. Mental Health Community mental health programs and the operational costs of state hospitalsand mental institutions were trans- ferred to the counties. Counties must main- tain 1990-91 mental health service levels for children and target 50% of any expansion to children's mental health services until such time as children receive 25% of total county- mental health spending. Social Services The county share of state costs for thcadministration of AFDC, Mcdi- Cal, and Food Stamps was reduced, while the county share of costs for five social service programs was increased, as follows: Program Old New Foster Care 5% 60% Child Welfare Services 17% 30% In-Home Support Services 3.3% 35% County Services Block Grant 3.3% 30% Adoptions Assistance 0% 25% CAIN Job Services 0% 30% Child Abuse and Foster Care Child Abuse Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment (CAPIT) programs and Child Welfare Serv- ices sustained a 4% base funding cut due to thc"triggcr." SB 370 foster care rate re- forms, were suspended also for one year. Education Although Proposition 98 was not suspended, K-14 education will be en- ter the 1991-92 school year underfunded by $1.9 billion. This is due to a recalculation of the 1990-91 guarantee, the use of 'Test 3" for the 1990-91 guarantee, and elimination of the 1990-91 carryover. Test 3 permits the state to temporarily suspend the statutory cost-of-living adjustment. On The Capitol Doorstep 926 J Street, Suite 1007 Sacramento, CA 95314 (916)442-5431 Pat Dorman, Publisher Jacqueline Kramm, Editor On The Capitol Doorstep is an independent monthly report on public policy issues affecting young children. Annual subscription rates: $70 (tax included) for agencies $50 (tax included) for individuals ©COPYRIGHT Reproduction prohibited without permisssion. Time Value: Deliver Promptly "One journalist among you recently described our budget process as a 5,000-piece jigsaw puzzle assembly in pitch dark by people wearing mittens and working against a very tight deadline." (Governor Wilson's opening statement to the press upon release of the state budget) o > JZ XLU *COQ) O c CO O05 73 u%-C 03K O 0505 c CD 03CD 05T3 OO 05 T! Oo 03•o c oo 05T3 oO o o X 0>O5 Q 0 Q. 5K° CO 73 P 05C 05 0 C E C O ~ O Q ~ O3 ri=^ — E — .5 0 Q5 E?COO 03 "§ ra ^ O fi 1 1 O ~° "fiT3 <->0 05 r— Z_ 5.2 030 O f~\ O. f r& —"•' CO 73O .O 0co 0373 CO CO co _o o. CO C) OQ)en p^* c o0 0 D)03 Q C COco _c.0 0303 T3 UJ .2.0 oQ 5= 05 03i_0>TJo> o c c C73"O5CO CNJV) O 2 O ^ *«Q. 15oo ice Priorities03 CO S?inr- > 4-. C OO 0 D05 D c COco if 1 2-0 CO 03 °; T3 C-1 103 CO — P^ ..CO Q jbc\— O coQ- E ^> •K Ql 03 21 A0) 0 .C ^1 m 03 CD f- _ 5 §150 * £ . 1F_ CO!„ CO CD •^ T> «- O 05 <C03 CO 0§.d 2 -§ °"O ff Iff Q- Q> c O O? 03 "O O05C £ C=•- g o s.•o E w-u,5 aspecial Needs:Q3 c: CL 05 CO ' 03 • _,„<—'•;=05 CD*-* T3 055 c = EW5 o °-0515 _2^: o co o>*- -> o >o 05-^ J-- tJ ^3-. *J U v^ DC < CO|JD UJ _J Q CO CO CO .CO CNJ L: ^o ^p § °- ED)J=C Oi* 2^— «-• II fiC JQCD -nco o Si •c CO 3510c\i CD Q 03 CO co .CO C\l ._. < o ^p g °- EO5J^C O 'y- CO ^ 4—*o< I*£ JDco -nco o' COC CD CO 05 «0 0CO 05 O CT O5 CO COr Q3 c c 3 03 cg 0 f i-S Sf £ O 05 05 "T CO S 3 c co E^ 2CO 05 «~ s " •S 05 £> Q. CO ~— CO 1— O Us LO Q5r- co c05E I<D Q 03 CO cv5 05 JT 03COCO Oco T3 CO "S 03 C 75'o03Q.co 03 C CO Is S'o.03 "CT3 O CD _y o Q-0 ca y E 03 « ip^- D3 ^ 05 CO O O -0 CD *woo '>1_ , , fhwjml M/ CC/)2~5£ •*£oQo,_ Qa£ 2c5 rt\ *r^U/ •f-' •D'il d> OII •—u- *_ CL 15oo _J CO Cf\\ 1—2 c<•-^» k.- . f •°. 0•S a&c2-D)f< OcjCD c (3 Qc: 2 \i vII: o 1 ° c c IT « c j: 'cc U U *• "5 C i *einCM c ccen o Sbc CO CO SpecifiedProgramCharacteristics£ COo **!^a-g = P« ^•38i i i > in - L- 6 "CD *~ £ o co "S*3 CU(0PziCO Q H 0 CL TJ CC CD S ^w ^= 1 € o^d"2^g^t? *- —iSo. 2-gaI- iJC<+-*S COM CD D) r-co .2"r5 oCD C O'*=^3 CD O CO< oJj 0 >> m-— °CT CD 0 = CD CL °< •sO0^OCM .> CDQ d> >^O ~ ••=; ~ O2 02 Q> -CCO n -r- D)_C care for parents attendschool or workingparticipation optionrespite care optioni i i CO 4-* CDi_ COCL i_Oc E oo CDT3 | CZJoO CO private/public programfull dayoff-trackextended dayi i i > ^§ £-DC CD co-ScOcoCO SofC-CDcS>,CDO 0-H -•t± o c~ '> •*-•o2§|^ &-Sl^sfelspg -1"S|I iS^g£ •Sco'^ 2 c c OCL CD CO 0 °^OcoOc E v_ CO CD 03 i:?<3>T3 CO ^SJ2o *>oS9 oCO CNJ CD CD CD •0 -D "01 I 1c c cZ) ZJ Z)o o o00 0 "D CO §5 o OWgt_ OJ«tf g.— Q.«-^gIII§!-&C m OT3CO £ O CD ccV m""^ g •0 -0 -a °? co ~ — — = CD JQ ~a a-Bcr5 -g • CL 1c«CO c Q.CD i^ac5co°-^ CD CDT3 o > 2 £?•§ 0 °®S0 o WE c O-ONw 1- g-o . c -a o « £— cu £.0 E « £ 5? 2 >,g S^g> f^ c ^ co c 5 0 ?^a 0 r-to) in CQ oi co gs g? -^m o ?xCM CM ^ co •«•' in COCD provider trainingcoordination of servicstaff compensation^ CM' S|>x <£CD -5 4- Z-0 CLC -—/"*>. °CO T3 E &C CD CD CE cO ' 0 0c ° "^ CT >» c; 'F ^Iso> 2CO0 CD •c to> u S 0 ¥f •o Sr^ CD 6s I6 CD H 2I— i; CO O)'o o§.5. Wro 0 §.**' ^w 0 « ®§ S-o CD <" CD 0 CT O)CO c 11 I.t CO CO ' PT\ •- cCD .£*n T^EC3 S 111 5 ^\Q |"|3 -^ $ CDU "^ 1—l^s gii-EEo Sf o O CD 0) T^£ ^°- 0) P CD ffl — E o •8-sJ3 0 CO TS ~25 c co £.2 CD T3 «W 0) CO CD C 0*U ^~ v_"d o> Q>O >~ 4— » *M trt•c f9 oQ (/) *ii lo 9? oe i -£— 0 *" OT — "S <"_ ° o <s?"&m CD* r^- to .0 ,-ts X3TDCO CCOL_ £ co CD I>2 z"<o *^^ * CDoc CD T3 CDaCD "D t^._o CO CD3 CCO < Lft\\ls TOCD nonths. Supplement GCM "col§ ?1"ICO c"• ^°B co-0I-g E co >2S 0~-Q0.2. t-.c CD "? a *00 "^§2 — c<S .0 O 'Is.— co±1 CCO <cc >-:ro *^•t; ci — — •" CDC KSCD .CE 5 ^> COO..Co ts Zl Sc^E * c * CO .£ § FEDERAL BLOCK GRANT LOCAL PRIORITIES FOR DIRECT SERVICES "AT RISK"* including, but not limited to, the needs of the child and/or the needs of the family. Therefore, the following are to be considered when determining "risk": o Identified substance abuse o History of chronic health problems o Monolingual, other than English o Disabling conditions o Emotionally disturbed o Imprisonment (serving sentence) o Children who have been identified as abused/neglected o Respite need o Migrant need o Learning disability o Abuse reactive children o Sibling caring for siblings o Minor parents o Severe and chronic behavior problems o Domestic violence o Older sibling who is in the juvenile system * Documented by referrals from other agencies or medical professionals considering one or more criteria in determining a child and/or family at risk. AT-B1SK.FBG FEDERAL BLOCK GRANT LOCAL PRIORITIES FOR DIRECT SERVICES UNSERVED WORKING POOR SEAMLESS FUNDING TARGET POPULATION Supplement families eligible for State Department of Education programs who are unserved, documented as being on a child care provider's waiting list for a minimum of six months. Supplement families working and/or attending school and/or job training. Supplement wrap around child care service (opportunity for full day child care) for subsidized programs offering part-time child care. LOCL-PR.FBG cCO OCO "*3 .28 §>E COC£> co *w(I)o Q> "8 O ,_ 0) a>u. 03O O COo E "5.co 5 •=t^ i; CD'o g>o*^I O coCOo 0)CO in oO OZ CO OO ODCO toQ CO ^S E-oCO COU_ -o •o" coCD t?l®« ^c^§ |^-5sss c oO .c oz coo cuXco &Q.nCO aQ oO oZ •o CO "6o oco CD42CO TJ . C COCO C £ =O CO Ss co •aco CO CO3 CO-D .COCO CU ^ ^^— O X111 ali|~ O) O Li "- 3 CO > •^Lic*:^: -i oo gP co ^cco DC < Q S ?ICO OOX 0o .c•coz COCOo CO CO •£ oQ.Q. CO £ I CO "O 3u_ CO ro55 CDOL CO "85 coZ co IIQ. 3 CO O) OO .c•coz COCOo CO CO troa.ex CO 4__l 5 CO•o "3u. J2'cCO coD_ cCOCO "5 c If Ic ^O -C- oO •coz Q "3 _a UJ ^aT Id. 3 COe* tl oO oZ coCOo CO CO coa.a. CO 53 O COCD 5 "co O) CO COI.g co Q. *— — -^-•££0 O CO Q> ca CO co ca I CD 15Q ca_o Q> CO up o CO CD CO u CO 6 CO 6 • o.22 CO CD 3 c co c .2 coc "o "-CO CO f° 5 E "'C CO CO •SS §Q. co — otoz c ° *= co ° -O.S i in cur- co COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CHILD CARE PLANNING COUNCIL County and City Government Officials Chief Administrative Officer (1) Norman W. Hickey, Chief Administrative Officer/June E. Komar, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer City Representative (1) Jerry Van Leeuwen, Director of Community Services, City of Escondido Representative of Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN), Transitional Child Care (TCC), and Children's Protective Services • Director, County Department of Social Services (1) Richard W. Jacobsen, Director of Social Services/Connie Roberts, Deputy Director of Community Relations Bureau San Diego County Office of Education and School Districts County Superintendent of Schools (1) Harry C. Weinberg, County Superintendent of Schools/ Loretta Middleton, Director of Student Well-Being School Districts Representative nominated by San Diego County Schools Boards Association (1) Patrick Judd, Member Board of Education, Chula Vista City Schools School District Contracted Child Development Programs (1) Candace L. McKay, Program Specialist/Child Development Programs, San Diego Unified School District Educational Training Institutions California Community College Early Childhood Educators (CCCECE) Representative (1) Elinore Behana, Child Development Department Coordinator, Grossmont Community College/Lorraine Martin, Instructor, Grossmont Community College Local Child Care Resource and Referral Agency Executive Director of the YMCA Child Care Resource Service (1) Jean Brunkow, Executive Director Child Care Providers and Child Development Experts Head Start Representative (1) Barbara Fielding, Director, Children, Youth and Family Services, Neighborhood House Association/Head Start County Child Care Coordinator (1) Gerlinde Topzand, County of San Diego Child Care Coordinator City Child Care Coordinators (2) Deborah K. Ferrin, City of San Diego Child Care Coordinator Marti Tucker, City of San Marcos Child Care Coordinator San Diego County Commission on Children and Youth Child Care and Development Committee Representative (1) Charlene Tressler, Chairperson, Child Care and Development Committee Child Care (Pediatric) Specialist Howard Taras, M.D., Chair of American Academy of Pediatrics, Day Care Committee Parents of Varying Income Levels Who Use Child Care and Early Education Services (3) Brenda Majado Jacqueline Siptroth Khalada Salaam-Alaji Employers and Community Organizations Regional Child Care Representatives of North, East/ South, Central and Coastal County (5) Sal Cisneros, North County Barbara Chernofsky, East County Katy Roberson, South County Pamela Moorehead, Central County Sylvia Selverston, Coastal County Community-Based Organization (1) Sherry Torok, Project Director, Interagency Collaboration Project San Diego Child Care Coalition Representative (1) Freda Lee, Hewlett Packard Ex-Officio Members State Ombudsman for Child Care for San Diego and Imperial County Paul S. Van Veen, Child Care Ombudsman, San Diego/ Imperial County County Director of Health Services J. William Cox, M.D., Director of Health Services/Steve Escoboza, Assistant Director of Health Services Exhibit 3 SIGNED Child Care. Tiny Tot Programs Exempt from Licensing. AB 1110 (Campbell). Governor Signs Measure. Finger Printing Legislation Expected. Last week the Governor signed AB 1110 (Campbell), sponsored by the League and the California Parks and Recreation Society. This measure clarifies existing law that provides that certain types of public recreation programs for children under four years and nine months (so called 'Tiny Tot" programs) are exempt from licensure. In signing the bill, the Governor wrote a "signature message" expressing his desire to require fingerprint checks for persons employed in exempt public recreation programs. In part, his message states: "Under current law, since public recreation programs are exempt from licensure, they are authorized, but not required, to obtain a fingerprint check from the Department of Justice for those who are employed by the program to care for children. I believe these programs should be required to obtain this check. This is the only way to guard against the possibility that children who are enrolled in them will not be exposed to those with a history of sexual or physical abuse. Thus, I am directing my Department of Social Services to work with the Department of Justice to sponsor such a bill in August. With that understanding, I am approving this bill." ******************************************** INFORMATION Child Care. Mildly III Children. Department of Social Services Proposes Regulations. Public Comment Invited. The Department of Social Services has drafted proposed regulations for the care of mildly ill children in a day care setting. The Department has scheduled two public forums to solicit feedback and suggestions from interested groups. These are informal meetings that should not be confused with the formal public hearings that will be held as part of the formal regulatory rulemaking process. Both forums will be held September 5 - one in Sacramento and the other in Los Angeles from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. Additional information, as well as copies of the draft regulations, may be obtained by calling William Jordan or Tony Pyara at (916) 324-4312. SUNDAY City of Carlsbad September 1991 MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY1 7:00 Pops Concert 8 15 22 29 8:00 Hsg. & Redevelopme- nt Bed Race 2 HOLIDAY 9 5:00 Historic Preservation Comm. 16 5:00 Parks & Recreation Commission 23 4:00 Hsg. & Redev. Adv. Comm. 30 3 6:00 City Council 10 6:00 City Council 17 6:00 City Council/Hsg. & Redev. Commission 24 6:00 City Council 4 2:00 CMWD 5:00 Design Review 6:00 Planning Comm. 11 5:00 Sister City 18 2:00 CMWD 3:00 Library Board 5:00 Design Review 6:00 Planning Comm. 25 5 1:15 Senior Comm. 4:00 Arts Comm. 4:30 Cable Television 12 19 7:00 Palomar Airport Adv. Comm. 26 5:00 Open Space Adv. Comm. 6:30 Child Care Comm. 6 13 20 5:00 Volunteers Dinner 27 7 14 21 9:00 Coastal Clean-Up 28 SMTWTFS SMTWTFS 123 12345 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 2728293031