Council of the District of Columbia s1

COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES DRAFT COMMITTEE REPORT

1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004

TO: All Councilmembers

FROM: Councilmember Jim Graham Chairman, Committee on Human Services

DATE: April 9, 2014

SUBJECT: DRAFT Report on Bill 20-0607, the “Child Development Home License Amendment Act of 2013”

The Committee on Human Services, to which Bill 20-0607, the “Child Development Home License Amendment Act of 2013,” was referred, reports favorably on the same and recommends its adoption by the Council of the District of Columbia.

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS PAGE

I. Purpose and Effect 1 II. Legislative Chronology 3 III. Position of the Executive 4 IV. Comments of the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions 5 V. Summary of Testimony 5 VI. Impact on Existing Law 9 VII. Fiscal Impact 9 VIII. Section-by-Section Analysis 9 IX. Committee Action 10 X. Attachments 10

I. PURPOSE AND EFFECT

Councilmember Jim Graham introduced Bill 20-0607 on December 3, 2013. The bill amends the Day Care Policy Act of 19791. As introduced, the bill would allow a licensed child development home to serve more than 2 children under the age of 2 years old with the requirement that the provider must maintain a staff ratio of 1 adult caregiver for every 2 children under the age of 2 years old. The purpose of this legislation is to expand the number of licensed child development home spaces available to serve children under 2 years old, beyond the current limit of 2 children under 2 years old in a child development home. The legislation will expand capacity while ensuring appropriate adult- caregiver-to-child ratios and appropriate credentials for caregivers of young children under 2 years. Currently, child development home operators indicate that they have many unfilled spaces available in their programs because there is a lack of demand for spaces for children older than 2 years. At the same time they report that they have waiting lists of families seeking care for children under 2

1 Effective September 19, 1979 (DC Law 3-16; DC Official Code 4-401(3)). Page 1 of 10 years old. This bill aligns child development home operators’ legal capacity to serve children under 2 years with the needs of families in the District of Columbia.

a.i.A. Background

Pursuant to D.C. Official Code 4-401 a “Child Development Home”, is a “private residence which provides a child development program for up to a total of 6 children with no more than 2 children younger than 2 years of age in the group.” Testimony from OSSE indicated that there are currently 146 Child Development Homes licensed in the District of Columbia. According to existing limits set in current law, no more than 292 children under the age of 2 years can be served in those homes.

Bill 20-0607 was introduced after hearing from a Ward 1 constituent whose child development home provider informed the family that she would no longer be able to serve their child because of the limit of no more than 2 children under 2 years old. The provider had been notified that she was not permitted to serve more than 2 children under 2 years old, despite the fact that she employed an additional adult caregiver to care for 3 children under 2 years old. The family was compelled to take their child out of a situation that was good for the child and make alternative arrangements on very short notice. The child development home operator was left with a vacancy in her program because she didn’t have any family waiting for care for a child over 2 years old. After reaching out to the child development home operator and the Mary’s Center Child Care Licensing Program, the Committee learned that this is a widespread problem. These situations create hardship for families of young children and financial hardship for many child development home operators.

The Pre-K Expansion in 2008 created opportunities for children ages 2 years and 9 months and older to attend public Pre-K programs. This has diminished the demand for private childcare spaces reserved for children over 2 years in child development homes2. According to testimony citing the US Census, there has been a 20 % increase in the number of children under the age of 5 in the District of Columbia in the past 3 years. This represents an increase from 33,000 children to 39,000 children under 5. It is estimated that 20,000 of these children are under age 3.3

The testimony describing the experience of licensed child development home operators reflects these changes. They report wait lists for children 0-2, and difficulty filling vacancies for children 2 and older.

Parents, child development home providers and OSSE all agreed that in child development homes serving more than 2 children under 2 years old, the appropriate ratio of adult caregivers to children under 2 is 1-to-2. This ratio is reflected in B20-0607. The ratio is slightly better than recommended best practice for care of very young children.4 Safety in exiting a home in an emergency is the rationale for a 1-adult caregiver-to-2-children-younger- than-2 years old ratio. Finally, OSSE indicated that with respect to the care of very young children (under 2 years) OSSE seeks to add standards requiring training/credentials for caregivers, which they report, is in keeping with national best practice. The Committee Print reflects all language suggested by OSSE.

2 Testimony of Julia Ruiz, Director of Julia’s Home Daycare 3 Testimony of Cory Mengual, Mary’s Center 4 Zero to Three, Caring for Infants and Toddlers in Small Groups http://www.zerotothree.org/early-care- education/child-care/caring-for-infants-and-toddlers-in-groups.html Page 2 of 10 There is increasing recognition in the field of early childhood education that credentialing is extremely important for caregivers in early childhood care settings. The Child Development Associate credential was developed in the 1970s by what was then called the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (ACYF). In 1985, ACYF entered into a cooperative agreement with the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) for the purpose of creating a separate nonprofit organization to administer the CDA Credential. That organization, the Council for Professional Recognition, began administering the CDA on September 1, 1985. At this time over 300,000 Child Development Associate Credentials have been awarded with about 18,000 early childhood professionals being awarded the credential every year.

a.i.B. Committee Recommendation

The Committee recommends approval of the Committee Print B20-0607. The Committee Print reflects each of the recommendations provided by OSSE subsequent to the hearing. These recommendations and the language in the Committee Print differ from the approach OSSE suggested in hearing testimony. The approach which OSSE ultimately suggested and which is adopted in the Committee Print is simply a requirement that caregivers in settings with 2 or more children under 2 have, or must be in the process of obtaining, certain early childhood training credentials which are set out below. The Committee Print includes the following requirements, which were added to the introduced version of the bill:

(1) a definition of a “Child Development Associate credential”, and (2) a requirement that in licensed child development homes serving 2 or more children under 2, all adult caregivers serving children under 2, need to possess; (a) either a post-secondary degree in early childhood education, or a related field as determined by the Office of the State Superintendent of Education; or (b) a current Child Development Associate (“CDA”) credential; or (c) be enrolled in a CDA training program; or (d) provide evidence of enrollment in a CDA training program that will begin within 6 months of the first day of the adult caregiver’s work with children at the child development home.

II. LEGISLATIVE CHRONOLOGY

December 3, 2013 Bill 20-0607 is introduced by Councilmember Graham.

December 3, 2013 Bill 20-0607 is referred to the Committee on Human Services.

December 6, 2013 Public Notice of Intent to Act on Bill 20-0607 is published in the D.C. Register.

January 10, 2014 Notice of public hearing for Bill 20-0607 is published in the D.C. Register.

of 10 January 31, 2014 Notice of public hearing for Bill 20-0607 is published in the D.C. Register.

March 20, 2014 Public hearing on Bill 20-0607.

April____, 2014 The Committee on Human Services holds a mark-up of Bill 20-0607.

III. POSITION OF THE EXECUTIVE

The Committee received testimony at the Public Hearing on Bill 20-0607 on March 20, 2014 from Jesus Aguirre, State Superintendent of Schools. Superintendent Aguirre testified in support of B20-0607. The Superintendent testified about the city-wide consensus on the importance of early childhood education as the basis for the passage of 2008 legislation establishing universal pre-K for all 3 and 4 year old children in the District of Columbia.

Superintendent Aguirre testified that there are currently 146 licensed child development homes of which 72 participate in OSSE’s subsidy program and are rated through OSSE’s Quality Rating Improvement System (QRIS). He stated that the proposed change in law would support OSSE’s early childhood expansion efforts while still ensuring safety through OSSE monitoring of the bill’s mandated ratio.

The expansion of spaces for care for children under 2 is important because this is the age range with the greatest unmet demand for care in the District of Columbia. He cited the 2011 Risk and Reach Study which identified fewer than 5,000 infant and toddler slots in the District—but states there are over 22,000 infants and toddlers living in the District. Although parents are not seeking childcare for all 17,000 infants and toddlers for whom there are not appropriate childcare slots available, there are other indicators of significant unmet need. The 2012 District of Columbia Child Care Market Rates and Capacity Utilization Study reflected 9,714 children on provider waiting lists. The largest population, or 77% of those on waiting lists for care are children ages 0-3. This is not a perfect measure because some children are waitlisted in several programs, but it does give a rough indication of the extent of unmet need. For several years OSSE has encouraged prospective providers to open additional child care programs in areas of high need and for the ages of children for whom there is still a lack of available care.

Superintendent Aguirre concluded that this bill compliments OSSE’s efforts to continue to expand available childcare. He also indicated that there were three recommended changes to the bill; (1) the proposed legislation should require that when a child care provider’s own children under the age of 6 are enrolled, they must be included in the capacity count; (2) the bill should require that service to 2 or more children under 2 be permitted only in homes with the Gold rating under OSSE’s quality rating system; and (3) all providers of care to 2 or more children under 2 should have some kind of child development associate credential.

Superintendent Aguirre agreed to work with the Committee to provide proposed language to implement OSSE’s recommendations. Subsequent to the hearing, OSSE recommended a different approach so the above recommendations are not reflected in the Committee Print.

of 10 IV. COMMENTS OF ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSIONS

The Committee received no testimony or comments from any Advisory Neighborhood Commission on Bill 20-0607.

V. SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY

1. Ms. Isabel Friedenzohn, Public Witness/ Ward 1 Parent, testified in support of B20- 0607, citing the ability of Child Development Home providers to expand quality services to children two years and under without compromising safety. Child Development Home providers are constrained by the current law, which prohibits a Child Development Home from enrolling more than two children under 2 years of age, regardless of the adult-to- child ratio at the Child Development Home. She testified that her three-year-old son received excellent childcare and educational services from a provider that declined to enroll her seven-month-old daughter because of the restrictions in the current law.

2. Ms. Julia Ruiz, Owner and Operator of Julia’s Home Daycare Child Development Home, Ward 1, testified in support of B20-0607, citing a demand for slots for children two years old and under that she is unable to accommodate because of the restriction in the current law. Alternatively, the demand for slots for children over 2 years and nine months has declined dramatically since the passing of Pre-K Expansion Legislation, which allows parents to enroll children over 2 years and nine months old in the District’s Public and Charter Schools at no cost.

Faced with increased demand for services to an age group which cannot be accommodated legally, and shrinking demand for the age group that can be accommodated legally, Ms. Ruiz is no longer able to sustain at-capacity enrollment levels. As a result, she was forced to terminate a competent assistant whose wages could no longer be supported.

According to the US census, the population of children under five has increased by 20% in the last three years. At minimum, 20,000 of these children are under three years of age. Ms. Ruiz testified that if the Council passes B20-0607, as many as 500 new infant and toddler slots will be created, which will better address the increase in demand.

3. Erin Scheick, Public Witness/ Parent, Ward 1 (no written testimony) testified in support of B20-0607. Ms. Scheick has two children, ages 3 1/2 and 8 months. She testified that her son was at a wonderful in-home daycare for 2 years, from the age of 1 until the age of 3. Just before she was ready to start her 8-month old daughter at the same at-home day care, they were notified by their caretaker that the caretaker could not have more than 2 children under age 2, despite having 3 full-time caretakers for 6 children. She was unhappy that the woman they trusted and had built a relationship with, for many years, was unable to care for her daughter because of the existing law. She supports this change in law for Child Development Home providers which she says afford working parents a childcare option within their neighborhood, an opportunity to patronize small community-driven businesses, and class sizes that foster nurturance of small children.

4. Cory Mengual, Program coordinator, Mary’s Center Child Care Licensing Program, based in Wards 1 & 4, testified in support of B20-0607. Mary’s Center Child licensing program works in partnership with OSSE to provide technical assistance to individuals

of 10 navigating the start-up of the child care licensing process, as well as the ongoing relationship with OSSE related to maintaining a license. The program’s particular focus is on individuals for whom English is not the first language. The program supports 72 childcare providers in every ward.

Mr. Mengual also cited the Pre-K expansion as a change in law that has changed the business opportunities for licensed child development home providers. He stated that financial survival of these small businesses depends on enrollment of children under 3 and that the existing law inhibits the ability of providers to fill the spaces they have other than those 2 spaces reserved for children under 2. He also indicated that the lack of licensed capacity for children under 2 means that many families are turning to care in unlicensed settings.

Mr. Mengual stated that passage of B20-0607 would correct the situation for providers while ensuring safe adult-child ratios. Mr. Mengual indicated that the proposed expansion beyond the current limit of 2 children under 2 in a child development home is reflected in the current law in Maryland and in many other jurisdictions. He said that in jurisdictions where this is permitted there are also appropriate staffing requirements and that in turn the providers have directed more attention to professional credentialing, strengthening program quality. He summarized the many important requirements that child development home providers have met in order to gain licensure and that these requirements lead to much higher quality in staffing and in knowledge of important aspects of child care including nutrition and fire safety. He states that 2 out of 3 infants and toddlers do not have access to a licensed program. As a result families then rely on friend, family, or neighbor care and these options have the potential to be unsafe for infants and toddlers because they do not provide for background checks, drug tests, credentials, certifications, or training.

Mr. Mengual also cited to the 20% increase in children under the age of 5 in DC in the past 3 years and that at least 20,000 of these children are under the age of 3. This data further underscores the need for expanded opportunities for care. Finally, Mr. Mengual commented on the fact that B20-0607 will further encourage what is a viable business opportunity for women and minorities.

5. Alba Turcios, Owner and Operator of Day Care Albina, (no written testimony) testified in support of B20-0607. She currently cares for four children. Two of them are under two 2 years of age, and 2 are older. She stated that passage of B20-0607, would allow her to enroll more children under the age of 2, and grow her business.

6. Marilyn Medrano, Owner and Director of Little Star Development Home, Ward 4, testified in support of B20-0607, citing her own Child Development Associate credential and other training, as well as 10 years of experience—as evidence of the quality of care she is able to provide. She also discussed the importance of a continuity of care for infants and toddlers. By running a small business in her home, she is able to provide that continuity over several years of a child’s life. She cited the dramatic increase in demand at her program, for care for children under 2 years and her inability to help meet that demand because of the restrictions of the current law. She also indicated that passage of this measure is crucial in order for her business to remain viable.

of 10 7. Damaris Mejia-Vasquez, Owner and Operator of Rainbow Home Day Care, testified in support of B20-0607. Children between the ages of 0 to 5 are in critical need of attention, love, commitment, and exposure to various learning exercises and languages. She currently has six families with children under 2 years old on a waiting list. She has spaces available to serve more children. If B20-0607 is passed by the Council, she will be able to accommodate some of the families on the waiting list.

8. Elizabeth Palomino, Owner and Operator of a Child Development Home, Ward 3, testified in support of B20-0607. Ms. Palomino has 12 years of experience, her CDA credential, and is close to obtaining an Associate degree in Child Development. She cited the demand for more care for infants and the decrease in older children for whom care is being sought. She indicated that she currently has an assistant. She will be able to utilize her assistant immediately if she is permitted to expand the number of children under 2 in her program and will continue to afford to provide her assistant with employment.

9. Heather Harrison, Public Witness/ Parent, Ward 1, testified in support of B20-0607. She spoke about the dramatic increase in infants and toddlers in her neighborhood since she moved to Ward 1 thirteen years ago. She spoke of her personal knowledge of parents who are desperate quality, licensed childcare in her neighborhood and the importance of in-home childcare for children under 2 years. She emphasized the importance of the ratio required in B20-0607 and urged passage of the bill.

10. Tim Hampton, Public Witness/ Parent, Ward 1, testified in support of B20-0607, citing the current higher costs and reduction in daycare options as negative results of the current law. Mr. Hampton has a 3 year old child and a 5 month old child. His 3 year old child attends Arco Iris ABCD child development home and loves and trusts the care his older child gets there. However, because of the restrictions on serving children under age 2 in the current law, he and his wife have had to send his younger child to a different provider, despite the fact that there is space available at Arco Iris ABCD. This is not a good situation for the parents nor for the siblings who would do well to be in the same program together. He stated that the existing DC law is driving parents of young children out of the District and into the suburbs in part because the restrictions in DC are not consistent restrictions in nearby jurisdictions. He urged passage of B20-0607, which, if passed, would immediately and tangibly improve the lives of DC families.

11. Giin Levy, Owner and Operator of Magic Beans Child Care, testified in support of B20- 0607. In addition to addressing a critical shortage in slots for children under 2, B20-0607 will align the child development home laws with the more recent Pre-K Expansion Legislation. She described the critical role that child development home providers play in ensuring continuity of care, safety, nurturance, and close relationships with the families. She cited the increased population of young children in the District and the decreased need for private care for children starting at 2 years and 9 months because of the availability of Pre-K programs. She also indicated that she has a waiting list for children under 2, but has had longer vacancies in the remaining slots and urged this change in law.

12. Renita Simril-Hill, Owner and Director of Angel’s Arena Childcare, Ward 8, testified in support of B20-0607, citing the need of many Ward 8 parents to quickly return to work within 6 weeks after the birth of a child, and the lack of quality childcare options that would enable them to do so. As a result of the current restrictions, Ms. Simril-Hill has a waiting list of 25, for one of the two “golden” under-2 spaces in her program. But she did

of 10 not find children to take the remaining 4 spaces reserved, under current law, for children over 2. As a result, despite great need for care for children under 2, Ms. Simril was forced to terminate the employment of two assistants. She urged passage of the bill saying that this Bill will help parents and children.

13. James Smith, Owner and Operator of BreBre’s Child Development Home, testified in support of B20-0607. Six years ago, he noticed a dramatic increase in the demand for infant and toddler care. Because of the inability to legally accommodate the increased demand, he applied for and received a license to open an Infant Center that could enroll up to 16 children. He operates both businesses currently, and attempts to integrate the different services and advantages offered by each.

Mr. Smith foresees, however, that some Child Development Home providers will be unable to afford to hire an assistant to meet the ratio requirements of B20-0607, especially those whose clients rely on childcare subsidies which pay providers at a lower rate than most private payers. If providers cannot afford to hire employees to satisfy the legislation’s ratio requirement, the goal of increasing the number of slots available for children 2 years and under, will be compromised.

14. Florence League, Owner and Operator of Diamond Day Care, expressed a concern about the affordability of hiring an assistant to meet the ratio requirements of B20-0607. She asked the Councilmember to consider ways to subsidize the salaries of assistants in businesses that serve families who receive a childcare subsidy.

15. Cynthia Davis, Owner and Director of Kings & Queens Child Development Home, Ward 4, submitted written testimony in support of B20-0607. She states that she has her CDA credential and that she is pursuing her Associate Arts degree as well as having other credentials such as CPR and First Aid certification. She has operated her business for 15 years and maintains high standards in her program as well as providing love and affection for the children in her care. She states that since the implementation of the Pre-K expansion, she has found it increasingly difficult to fill all the slots in her program. She also reports a massive demand for care for children under 2 but she cannot serve those children since her 2 allotted spaces for children under 2 are filled. She urges passage of the legislation to ensure that providers like her remain viable and to meet the needs of DC children and families.

VI. IMPACT ON EXISTING LAW

See Section-by-Section Analysis.

VII. FISCAL IMPACT

There is no adverse fiscal impact. Funds are sufficient in the FY 2014 through FY 2017 budget and financial plan to implement the bill.

VIII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1 “Child Development Home License Regulation Amendment Act of 2013” long title.

of 10 Section 2 Amends section 2 of The Day Care Policy Act of 1979 (D.C. Law 3-16; D.C. Official Code § 4-401 as follows:

Subsection (a) Amends D.C. Official Code § 4-401 a. A new paragraph (1A) is added which defines the term “Child Development Associate credential as a credential recognized by the Council for Professional Recognition and accepted by the Office of the State Superintendent of Education to demonstrate competency as a caregiver of young children. b. Strikes the existing language at paragraph (3) setting out that no more than 2 children under the age of 2 years can be part of the group in a child development home, and replaces it with language allowing for “a ratio of one adult caregiver to 2 children if there are 2 or more children younger than 2 years of age, in the group…”. The subsection also requires that each adult caregiver: (1) possess a post-secondary degree in early childhood education or a related field as determined by the Office of the State Superintendent of Education; or (2) possess a current Child Development Associate (“CDA”) credential; or (3) is currently enrolled in a CDA training program; or (4) provide evidence of enrollment in a CDA training program that will begin within 6 months of the first day of the adult caregiver’s work with children at the child development home.

Section 3 Fiscal impact.

Section 4 Effective date.

IX. COMMITTEE ACTION

On April 9, the Committee on Human Services met to consider and mark-up Bill 20- 0607, the Child Development Home License Amendment Act of 2013. The meeting was called to order at ______. After the determination of a quorum, Chairperson Graham presented the committee print and committee report. After the opportunity for discussion, Chairperson Graham moved for approval of the committee print and committee report with leave for staff to make technical and conforming amendments. The meeting was adjourned at ______.

Committee members voted as follows:

Committee members voting in favor: Committee members voting against: Committee members voting present: Committee members absent:

X. ATTACHMENTS

of 10 A. B20-0607 as introduced B. Notice of Public hearing C. Witness List D. Public Testimony E. Executive Testimony F. Fiscal Impact Statement G. Legal Sufficiency Determination H. Comparative Committee Print I. Committee Print